MONSANTO ~ . Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard Mail Stop LS1036 St. Louis, Missouri 63167 February 27, 2015 Mr. Dennis Matlock On-Scene Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Removal Enforcement and Oil Section (3HS32) 401 Methodist Building Wheeling, WV 26003 Dear Mr. Matlock: Re: Submission of Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report Administrative Order by Consent for Removal Response Action EPA Docket No. CERC-03-2004-0lllDC Kanawha River Site, West Virginia As requested, please find enclosed four (4) copies of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report. These copies of the EE/CA Report are being submitted in accordance with the Administrative Order by Consent for Removal Response Action for the Kanawha River Site (EPA Docket NO. CERC-03-2004-0171DC). Complete copies of the EE/CA report are being transmitted directly to the Mr. Bill Huggins (Tech law) and Mr. Charles Armstead (WV DEP). Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss any items, please do not hesitate to contact me at (314) 694-4111. SincerH YJ ~JJ Joseph G. Gabriel Environmental Remediation Manager, Project Coordinator for the Respondents cc: Randy Sturgeon, U.S. EPA, Region 3 Bill Huggins, Techlaw, Inc. Charles Armstead, WV DEP Jeff Daniel, CRA MONSANTO lll Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard Mail Stop LS1036 St. Louis, Missouri 63167 I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report for the Kanawha River Project is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including potential criminal penalties, such as fines and imprisonment, for knowingly submitting false information. Signature: µ JJJJJj Name: Joseph G. Gabriel Title: Environmental Remediation Manager, Project Coordinator for the Respondents ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA) REPORT KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 27, 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) This report is printed on recycled paper. ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA) REPORT KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA TEXT, FIGURES, TABLES – VOLUME 1 OF 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 6 2.2 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................. 8 2.3 EE/CA OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 9 3.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION ......................................................................... 10 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY ..................................... 10 3.1.2 KANAWHA RIVER BATHYMETRY AND HYDROLOGY........................ 11 3.2 LAND USE AND SITE HISTORY ................................................................... 14 3.2.1 KANAWHA RIVER .......................................................................................... 14 3.2.2 KANAWHA COUNTY..................................................................................... 15 3.2.3 PUTNAM COUNTY ......................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 CITY OF NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA ............................................................... 16 3.3 SUMMARY OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................... 20 3.3.1.1 KANAWHA RIVER .......................................................................................... 20 3.3.1.2 ARMOUR CREEK ............................................................................................. 22 3.3.1.3 MANILA CREEK/ POCATALICO RIVER ................................................... 23 3.3.1.4 HEIZER CREEK AND HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL ................................... 24 3.3.2 UPLAND INVESTIGATION ........................................................................... 26 3.3.2.1 FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY ........................................................................ 27 3.3.2.2 FIKE-ARTEL SUPERFUND SITE .................................................................... 28 3.3.2.3 NITRO SANITATION LANDFILL ................................................................. 29 3.3.2.4 NITRO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL ................................................................... 31 3.3.2.5 FORMER ACF INDUSTRIES ........................................................................... 33 3.3.2.5 GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL SITE .................................................................. 34 3.4 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION (BASED ON PRE-EOC STUDY DATA) ................................................................................ 35 3.4.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA VALIDITY ................................................... 35 3.4.2 SURFACE WATER 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA ...................................................... 35 3.4.3 SEDIMENT 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA ................................................................... 36 3.4.4 FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA ................................................................. 38 4.0 EE/CA COMPLETED INVESTIGATION AND ANALYTICAL DATA ...................... 41 4.1 DATA COMPILATION ACTIVITIES............................................................. 41 4.1.1 TASK 1 - REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION .................................... 41 4.1.2 TASK 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND BASE MAPPING................... 41 4.1.3 TASK 3 – HISTORICAL DATABASE DEVELOPMENT/GIS .................... 42 4.2 PHASE I EOC ACTIVITIES.............................................................................. 42 4.2.1 TASK 4 – BATHYMETRIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY ...................... 43 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.3.1 4.4.3.2 4.4.4 4.4.4.1 4.4.4.2 4.4.5 4.4.6 4.4.7 4.4.8 4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.4.1 4.5.4.2 4.5.4.3 4.5.4.4 4.5.5 4.5.6 5.0 031884 (51) TASK 5 – SURFACE WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS .................... 44 TASK 6 – FISH TISSUE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS ............................... 46 PHASE II EOC ACTIVITIES ............................................................................ 50 TASK 7 – SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ........ 51 SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ............................................................... 52 SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ....................................................... 53 BLACK CARBON CORE SAMPLING ........................................................... 55 ADDITIONAL FISH TISSUE SAMPLING .................................................... 56 TASK 8 – NATURAL RECOVERY EVALUATION ..................................... 58 TASK 9 – SEDIMENT STABILITY EVALUATION ...................................... 59 PHASE I/II EOC SAMPLING RESULTS ....................................................... 60 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING RESULTS ................................................... 61 FISH TISSUE SAMPLE RESULTS ................................................................... 63 SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS .................................................. 67 PHASE I EOC SURFACE SAMPLE RESULTS .............................................. 67 PHASE II EOC SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS....................... 68 SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLE RESULTS ......................................................... 70 BLACK CARBON SAMPLE RESULTS .......................................................... 75 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE RESULTS ..................................................... 76 SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS ........................ 77 SEDFLUME ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................................................. 79 HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELING ................. 80 SURFACE-WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION .......................... 82 UPDATED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL .................................................... 84 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ............................................... 85 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT PROCESSES ........................................................ 86 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING ACTIVITY .................. 88 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOADING ANALYSIS............................................................. 90 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM RECLAMATION DREDGING ...................... 90 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE........................ 92 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM POINT SOURCES (OUTFALLS) ................... 92 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM SOIL RUNOFF ................................................. 93 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ......................................................... 94 SUMMARY OF CSM......................................................................................... 95 STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATION .............................................................................. 96 5.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................... 96 5.1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 96 5.1.1.1 SPECIFIC GOALS OF THE HHRA................................................................. 96 5.1.1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE HHRA ................................................................ 97 5.1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION ........................................................................... 97 5.1.2.1 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN .................... 97 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.1.2.2 5.1.2.2.1 5.1.2.2.2 5.1.2.2.3 5.1.2.2.4 5.1.2.2.5 5.1.2.3 5.1.3 5.1.3.1 5.1.3.1.1 5.1.3.1.2 5.1.3.1.3 5.1.3.2 5.1.4 5.1.4.1 5.1.4.1.1 5.1.4.2 5.1.4.2.1 5.1.4.3 5.1.4.4 5.1.5 5.1.5.1 5.1.5.2 5.1.5.3 5.1.5.4 5.1.6 5.1.6.1 5.1.6.2 5.1.6.3 5.1.6.4 5.1.7 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.3.1 5.2.4 5.2.4.1 5.2.4.2 031884 (51) CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE SETTING ..................................... 98 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS ................ 98 POTENTIAL MIGRATION ROUTES ............................................................. 99 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE POINTS ............................................................... 100 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES .............................................................. 100 RECEPTOR CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 100 HHRA CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ......................................................... 101 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 101 SPECIFIC INTAKE EQUATIONS ................................................................. 103 FISH TISSUE INGESTION EQUATION ...................................................... 103 SURFACE WATER INGESTION INTAKE EQUATION ........................... 104 SURFACE WATER DERMAL CONTACT INTAKE EQUATION........... 105 EXPOSURE FACTORS ................................................................................... 106 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 107 NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARDS............................................................ 107 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS ........................................................................................................... 107 CARCINOGENIC RISKS................................................................................ 108 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS .............. 108 POTENTIAL RISK FROM CARCINOGENS ............................................... 110 DERMAL TOXICITY ...................................................................................... 110 RISK CHARACTERIZATION ....................................................................... 110 HAZARD QUOTIENT ESTIMATES ............................................................ 111 CANCER RISK ESTIMATES.......................................................................... 111 RISK QUANTIFICATION SUMMARY........................................................ 112 SUMMARY OF EXCEEDANCES .................................................................. 114 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 114 EXPOSURE SCENARIO FACTORS.............................................................. 114 DOSE RESPONSE............................................................................................ 115 THEORETICAL NATURE OF RISK ESTIMATES ...................................... 116 WEST VIRGINIA FISH ADVISORIES .......................................................... 116 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................. 117 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................................ 117 OVERVIEW OF THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS ... 118 STRUCTURE OF THE ERA ........................................................................... 120 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA USED IN THE ERA ......................... 121 PHASE I EOC SAMPLING ............................................................................ 121 STEP 1: SCREENING-LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS EVALUATION ................................................... 122 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................... 123 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................... 125 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 5.2.4.3 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.7.1 5.2.7.2 5.2.7.3 5.2.7.4 5.2.8 5.2.8.1 5.2.8.2 5.2.8.3 5.2.8.3.1 5.2.8.3.2 5.2.8.3.3 5.2.8.3.4 5.2.8.3.5 5.2.8.4 5.2.8.4.1 5.2.8.4.2 5.2.8.4.3 5.2.8.5 5.2.8.6 5.2.9 6.0 031884 (51) CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT ............................................. 125 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS/ PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL.......................................... 126 ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS .............................. 127 PREFERRED TOXICITY DATA .................................................................... 129 ESVS FOR SEDIMENTS ................................................................................. 129 ESVS FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN THE WATER COLUMN............................... 130 ESVS FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN FISH TISSUE .................................................. 130 TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES (TRVS) FOR FOOD-CHAIN EXPOSURE TO SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES .................................... 132 STEP 2: SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE AND RISK CALCULATION .............................................................................................. 133 SCREENING OF RISKS .................................................................................. 133 SCREENING OF BIOACCUMULATED 2,3,7,8-TCDD WITH FOOD CHAIN MODELS ............................................................................... 134 ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS ................. 136 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER............................. 136 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS .................... 136 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH TISSUE .................... 137 CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN AQUATIC VEGETATION ................................................................................................. 138 CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES AND EMERGED ADULT INSECTS ........................... 138 RESULTS OF SCREENING ............................................................................ 140 SCREENING OF WATER .............................................................................. 140 SCREENING OF FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS TO CRITICAL BODY BURDENS ........................................................................ 140 SCREENING OF RISKS VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE TO SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES ................................................................. 141 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 141 RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS ................. 144 RELEVANCE OF ERA RESULTS TO REMEDIAL STRATEGY ............... 145 IDENTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ........................................ 146 6.1 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES .............................................................. 146 6.2 APPLICABLE, RELEVANT, AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 148 6.2.1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 148 6.2.2 ACTION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ........................................................ 149 6.2.3 LOCATION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS .................................................. 150 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS ................................................... 151 LONG-TERM PRGS ........................................................................................ 151 SHORT-TERM PRGS ...................................................................................... 152 OTHER WATERSHED SOURCES ................................................................ 154 7.0 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 156 7.1 REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................... 157 7.1.1 NO ACTION .................................................................................................... 157 7.1.2 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ..................................................................... 158 7.1.3 SOURCE CONTROL – FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY ............................. 159 7.1.3.1 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITIES.............................................. 159 7.1.3.2 DIOXIN MIGRATION EVALUATION........................................................ 160 7.1.3.3 RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AND RESIDUE CLEANUP .................. 161 7.1.4 MONITORED NATURAL RECOVERY (MNR) ......................................... 162 7.1.5 IN SITU TREATMENT ................................................................................... 163 7.1.6 CAPPING ......................................................................................................... 164 7.1.7 DREDGING ...................................................................................................... 166 7.1.8 TREATMENT/DISPOSAL............................................................................. 170 7.1.9 SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES....................... 171 7.2 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES....................................................... 171 7.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO ACTION .................................................................. 171 7.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MNR ............. 172 7.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, IN SITU TREATMENT, AND MNR............................................................................. 172 7.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, AND ARMORED CAPPING OF SELECTED AREAS.......................................... 173 7.2.5 ALTERNATIVE 5A - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF ............ 175 7.2.6 ALTERNATIVE 5B - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING IN SELECTED AREAS, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL .......... 176 8.0 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES........................................ 177 8.1 RECOVERY ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 177 8.2 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO ACTION .................................................................. 179 8.2.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 1 ............................................................................................ 179 8.2.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 1 ............................................................................................ 179 8.2.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 1..... 179 8.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MNR ............. 179 8.3.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................................ 180 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.5 8.5.1 8.5.2 8.5.3 8.6 8.6.1 8.6.2 8.6.3 8.7 8.7.1 8.7.2 8.7.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 2 ............................................................................................ 181 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 2..... 182 ALTERNATIVE 3 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, IN SITU TREATMENT, AND MNR............................................................................. 183 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................ 183 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 3 ............................................................................................ 184 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 3 ......................................................................................... 186 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, AND ARMORED CAPPING OF SELECTED AREAS.......................................... 186 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 4 ............................................................................................ 188 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 4 ............................................................................................ 189 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 4..... 191 ALTERNATIVE 5A - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF ............ 191 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 5A ......................................................................................... 191 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 5A ......................................................................................... 196 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 5A ...................................................................................... 198 ALTERNATIVE 5B - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL.......... 198 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 5B .......................................................................................... 198 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 5B .......................................................................................... 199 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 5B ....................................................................................... 199 9.0 PREFERRED REMEDY SELECTION ............................................................................... 200 9.1 PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION .................................................................. 201 10.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................... 203 10.1 COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES ............................................................. 203 10.2 CURRENT RCRA CA SCHEDULE – FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY ..... 203 11.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 204 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) FIGURE 2.1 SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2.2 SITE PLAN FIGURE 2.3 SITE PLAN – STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 2.4 SITE PLAN – STUDY AREA 2 FIGURE 2.5 SITE PLAN – STUDY AREA 3 FIGURE 2.6 SITE PLAN – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 3.1 POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCES - KANAWHA RIVER – KANAWHA COUNTY FIGURE 3.2 POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCES - KANAWHA RIVER – SOUTH CHARLESTON TO DICKENSON FIGURE 3.3 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN RIVER SEDIMENT FIGURE 3.4 SEDIMENT 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS – RIGHT BANK VERSUS LEFT BANK FIGURE 3.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION VERSUS DEPTH IN SEDIMENTS FIGURE 3.6 2,3,7,8-TCDD PROFILES IN SEDIMENT CORES (U.S. EPA, 2001) FIGURE 3.7 FISH TISSUE LIPID CONTROL OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD LEVELS FIGURE 3.8 DOWNSTREAM VARIABILITY IN FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS FIGURE 3.9 DECLINE IN FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION WITH TIME FIGURE 4.1 BATHYMETRY, GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION AND ISOPACH MAP FOR STUDY AREAS 1, 2, AND 3 FIGURE 4.2 BATHYMETRY, GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION AND ISOPACH MAP FOR STUDY AREA 4 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) FIGURE 4.3 AVERAGE DAILY RIVER FLOW – CHARLESTON GAUGE 03198000 FIGURE 4.4 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS FIGURE 4.5 FISH TISSUE SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS FIGURE 4.6a SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREAS 1, 2, AND 3 FIGURE 4.6b SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 4.7 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 4.8 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREA 2 FIGURE 4.9 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREA 3 FIGURE 4.10 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12 NRC SAMPLING LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.13 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SURFACE WATER DATA FIGURE 4.14 2,3,7,8-TCDD SPATIAL TRENDS IN SURFACE WATER DATA FIGURE 4.15 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN BOTTOM FEEDER TISSUE DATA (WET WEIGHT) FIGURE 4.16 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN BOTTOM FEEDER TISSUE DATA (LIPID NORMALIZED) FIGURE 4.17 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SPORT FISH TISSUE DATA (WET WEIGHT) FIGURE 4.18 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SPORT FISH TISSUE DATA (LIPID NORMALIZED) FIGURE 4.19 BSAF SAMPLING LOCATIONS 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) FIGURE 4.20 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT DATA PROFILE – RIGHT BANK FIGURE 4.21 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT DATA PROFILE – LEFT BANK FIGURE 4.22 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILE – STUDY AREA 2 FIGURE 4.23 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES – STUDY AREA 2 AND 3 FIGURE 4.24 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 4.25 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 4.26 SWAC CALCULATION - HALF-MILE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.27 EXISTING CONDITION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE FIGURE 4.28 SHEAR VELOCITY MAPPING – STUDY AREA 1 FIGURE 4.29 SHEAR VELOCITY MAPPING – STUDY AREA 2 FIGURE 4.30 SHEAR VELOCITY MAPPING – STUDY AREA 3 FIGURE 4.31 SHEAR VELOCITY MAPPING – STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 4.32 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS OF ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS FIGURE 5.1 SITE LOCATION – ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FIGURE 5.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS – ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FIGURE 5.3 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS – ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) FIGURE 5.4 FISH TISSUE SAMPLING LOCATIONS – ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FIGURE 5.5 SPECIES SENSITIVITY CURVE – NOEC, LOEC, LC50 BODY BURDENS BY SPECIES FIGURE 6.1 RM 39-42 - 3-MILE REACH WITH HIGHEST EXISTING CONDITION SWAC FIGURE 6.2 POST-REMOVAL ACTION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE FIGURE 7.1 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 FIGURE 7.2 EXAMPLE ISOLATION CAP DESIGN FIGURE 7.3 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3 FIGURE 7.4 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4 FIGURE 7.5 CONCEPTUAL CAP CROSS-SECTION - REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4 FIGURE 7.6 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5A FIGURE 7.7 CONCEPTUAL DREDGING CROSS-SECTION – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 5A AND 5B FIGURE 7.8 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT – REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5B FIGURE 8.1 FISH TISSUE RECOVERY TRENDS FOR REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5 FIGURE 9.1 COST VERSUS FISH TISSUE RECOVERY FOR RA ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5 FIGURE 10.1 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SCHEDULE 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER WATER COLUMN 2,3,7,8-TCDD ANALYSES TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF EOC FIELD ACTIVITIES TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF FLOW MEASUREMENT DATA TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) TABLE 4.4 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE SAMPLING (PHASE I AND PHASE II EOC ACTIVITIES) TABLE 4.5A PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.5B PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.6A SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.6B SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) TABLE 4.8A SUMMARY OF SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATIONS TABLE 4.8B SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORING FIELD OBSERVATIONS TABLE 4.9A SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.9B SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.10A SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE 4.10B SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY TABLE 4.13 SUMMARY OF BSAF CALCULATIONS TABLE 4.14 SUMMARY OF SEDFLUME ANALYSIS RESULTS TABLE 4.15 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING PERMITS TABLE 5.1 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES TABLE 5.2 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - SURFACE WATER TABLE 5.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES TABLE 5.4 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER TABLE 5.5 SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCENARIOS TABLE 5.6 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES TABLE 5.7 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER TABLE 5.8 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR FISH INGESTION – RECREATIONAL ANGLER SCENARIO TABLE 5.9 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR SURFACE WATER - CURRENT RECREATIONAL SWIMMING SCENARIO 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE 5.10 NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA – ORAL/DERMAL ROUTE OF EXPOSURE TABLE 5.11 CANCER TOXICITY DATA – ORAL/DERMAL ROUTE OF EXPOSURE TABLE 5.12 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER FOR THE REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIO TABLE 5.13 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER FOR THE CENTRAL TENDENCY SCENARIO TABLE 5.14 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER FOR THE REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIO TABLE 5.15 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER FOR THE CENTRAL TENDENCY SCENARIO TABLE 5.16 FISH SPECIES FOUND IN THE KANAWHA RIVER WHILE SAMPLING TABLE 5.17 BODY BURDEN EFFECT ENDPOINTS BASED ON 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION IN FISH EGGS TABLE 5.18 BODY WEIGHTS AND INGESTION RATES FOR SLERA MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS TABLE 5.19 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS TABLE 5.20 SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER FOR IMPACTS ON WATER COLUMN SPECIES (FISH) TABLE 5.21 SCREENING OF RISKS TO FISH USING THE BODY BURDEN METHOD TABLE 5.22 SCREENING OF RISK VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE FOR SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES FORAGING STUDY AREAS 3 AND 4 TABLE 5.23 SCREENING OF RISK VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE FOR SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES FORAGING STUDY AREA 2 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS TABLE 6.2 SUMMARY OF SWAC CALCULATIONS FOR ROLLING 3-MILE REACHES TABLE 7.1 SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY TABLE 8.1 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY TABLE 8.2 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – ALTERNATIVE 2 TABLE 8.3 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – ALTERNATIVE 3 TABLE 8.4 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – ALTERNATIVE 4 TABLE 8.5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – ALTERNATIVE 5A TABLE 8.6 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE – ALTERNATIVE 5B 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF APPENDICES (Following Text) APPENDIX A CSTAG CORRESPONDENCE APPENDIX B SEDIMENT BATHYMETRY AND GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT – GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC. & KANAWHA RIVER VELOCITY PROFILING AND DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT REPORT – BLUE COAST SCIENTIFIC, INC. APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS C.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RIVER INVESTIGATIONS C.2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS C.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES IN AREA OF SITE APPENDIX D FIELD NOTES APPENDIX E PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG APPENDIX F GIS DATABASE OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ON COMPACT DISC) APPENDIX G ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS (ON COMPACT DISC) G.1 2004 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.2 2005 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.3 2007 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.4 2008 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS APPENDIX H FISH TISSUE SAMPLE PREPARATION FIELD NOTES APPENDIX I CORE LOGS APPENDIX J BLACK CARBON SAMPLES STATISTICAL ANALYSIS DATA APPENDIX K SEDFLUME ANALYSIS REPORT – SEA ENGINEERING, INC. APPENDIX L MODELING SUMMARY AND RESULTS 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF APPENDICES (Following Text) APPENDIX M APPENDIX N GROUNDWATER TMDL CALCULATIONS FOR FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY M.1 DIOXIN TMDL DEVELOMENT FOR KANAWHA RIVER, POCATALICO RIVER, AND ARMOUR CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA (LIMNO-TECH INC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) M.2 SOLUTIA GROUNDWATER LOADING CALCULATION M.3 SOLUTIA POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE LOADING CALCULATION SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES BASED ON WEST VIRGINIA FISH ADVISORY CONSUMPTION GUIDE APPENDIX O REVIEW OF RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES APPENDIX P SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES APPENDIX Q SURFACE WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,4,5-T 7Q10 ACF ACLF ADCP AES Ah Allied Chemical amsl Anchor QEA AOC ARAR ARCADIS ATSDR Axys BBL BCF Be-7 BERA bgs BHC Blue Coast BMPs BSAF C AV C sed/s CA CA CDF CERCLA 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlrodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid seven consecutive day drought flow with a ten year return frequency American Car and Foundry Industries, Inc. Armour Creek Landfill Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler Automatic Equipment Sales Aryl hydrocarbon Allied Chemical Corporation above mean sea level Anchor QEA, L.L.C. Administrative Order on Consent Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Axys Analytical Services Ltd. Blasland, Bouck, & Lee bioconcentration factor (unitless) Beryllium-7 Baseline Ecological Risk Assessment below ground surface alpha-Benzenhexachloride Blue Coast Scientific Inc. Best Management Practices Biota Sediment Accumulation Factor COC concentration in aquatic and terrestrial vegetation [(mg COC/kg (wet weight)] COC concentration in sediment or soil (mg COC/kg sediment or soil) California Corrective Action Confined Disposal Facility Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS CIC Coastal COC COPC CRA Cs-137 CSFs CSM CSTAG CST CT CWA DA event DDT DEHP DGPS dioxins/furans DNOP DO DOC DoD DuPont EE/CA EEC EFDC EFH EMS EOC EPCs ERA ERFI ERM Group ESQ ESV Exponent Falls 031884 (51) Charleston Industrial Corporation Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. Contaminant of Concern Chemical of Potential Concern Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc. Cesium-137 Cancer Slope Factors Conceptual Site Model Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group Cooperative Sewage Treatment Plant Central Tendency Clean Water Act absorbed dose per event dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate Differential Global Positioning System dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners di-n-octyl phthalate dissolved oxygen Dissolved Organic Carbon Department of Defense E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis estimated exposure concentration Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code Exposure Factors Handbook Environmental Modeling Systems, Inc. Extent of Contamination exposure point concentrations Ecological Risk Assessment Expanded Remedial Facility Investigation The Environmental Resource Management Group ecological screening quotient ecological screening value Exponent, Incorporated Kanawha Falls CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS FDA FESWMS Fike Fike/Artel Flexsys FMC FOIA FRGs FSP FST2DH GI GIS GLCC Golder HASP HEC-2 HHRA HI HQ IC J K oc K ow Kanawha Dredging LC 50 LMS LOAELs LOECs Midwest MF MLEs MNR Monsanto Company MS/MSD 031884 (51) Food and Drug Administration Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System Fike Chemicals, Inc. Fike/Artel Superfund Site Flexsys America, L.P. FMC Corporation Freedom of Information Act Final Remediation Goals Field Sampling Plan Depth Averaged Flow and Sediment Transport gastrointestinal Geographic Information System Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Golder Associates, Inc. Health and Safety Plan Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Hydraulic Package 2 Software Human Health Risk Assessment hazard index hazard quotient Institutional Controls estimated value organic carbon partitioning coefficient octanol-water partitioning coefficient Kanawha Dredging and Mineral Company concentration at which 50 percent mortality occurs linearized multistage lowest observed adverse effects levels lowest observed effects concentrations Midwest Steel Corporation modifying factor maximum likelihood estimates Monitored Natural Recovery the corporation presently known as Monsanto Company Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS NCP ND NIC NOAELs NOECs Normandeau NPDES NRC Old Monsanto National Contingency Plan not detected Nitro Industrial Corporation no observed adverse effects levels no observed effects concentrations Normandeau Associates, Inc. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System natural recovery core Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company and Monsanto Chemical Company OMMP Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan ORNL Oakridge National Laboratory ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission OSC On-Scene Coordinator OxyChem Occidental Chemical Corporation Pb-210 Lead-210 PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCDD Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins PCDF Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans Phase I EOC Results Report Phase I EOC Sampling Results and Updated Phase II EOC Sampling Work Plan PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan RA Removal Action RAGs Remedial Action Goals RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund RAOs Removal Action Objectives RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Report Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report RfDs Reference Dose Rhône-Poulenc AG Company Rhône-Poulenc RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study River Kanawha River RM River Mile 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS RME SAB SEI Site SLERA Solutia SOW SVOC SWAC SWMS TCL/TAL TEQ TestAmerica TMDL TOC TRV TS TSS U UF U.S. ACE U.S. EPA U.S. FHWA U.S. FWS UCC UCL USGS VOC Voyager Coal Work Plan WV WV DEP 031884 (51) Reasonable Maximum Exposure Science Advisory Board Sea Engineering, Inc. Consists of the normal pool of an approximate 14-mile portion of the Kanawha River from the Coal River downstream to the Winfield Locks and Dam (between RM 31.1 and RM 45.5) Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Solutia Inc. Scope of Work Semi-volatile Organic Compounds Surface Weighted Average Concentration Surface Water Modeling System Target Compound List/ Target Analyte List toxicity equivalency quotient TestAmerica Inc. Total Maximum Daily Loading Total Organic Carbon toxicity reference value Total Solids Total Suspended Solids the analyte was analyzed for but was not detected above the reporting limit uncertainty factor United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Federal Highways Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service Union Carbide Corporation upper confidence level United States Geological Survey volatile organic compound Voyager Coal Company Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Work Plan West Virginia West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS WV DHHR WV DNR WV DWR WV WQS WWI 031884 (51) West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources West Virginia Department of Natural Resources West Virginia Division of Water Resources West Virginia Water Quality Standards World War I CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES UNITS OF MEASUREMENT % ºF < > cfs cm cm/s cm/yr cy cy/day ft ft amsl ft bgs in kg kg/ m3 L m m3 m3/day m3/s mg/kg mg/kg-day mm ng/kg pci/g pg/L pg/g ppb µg/day µg/kg 031884 (51) percent degrees Fahrenheit less than greater than cubic feet per second centimeters centimeters per second centimeter per year cubic yards cubic yards per day feet or foot feet above mean sea level feet below ground surface inches kilogram kilograms per cubic meters liter meters cubic meters cubic meters per day cubic meters per second milligrams per kilogram milligrams (of chemical eaten and/or absorbed) per kilogram (of body weight) per day millimeter nanograms per kilogram picocuries per gram picogram per liter picogram per gram parts per billion micrograms per day microgram per kilogram CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report (Report) is being submitted by Monsanto Company for the Kanawha River (River) Site (Site) located in Nitro, West Virginia (WV). Project Background and Objectives In March 2004, U.S. EPA and Monsanto Company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct an EE/CA to study dioxin-contaminated sediment throughout 14-miles of the Site. As described in more detail in the AOC, the purpose of this EE/CA is to evaluate Removal Action (RA) alternatives that will be protective of the health and welfare of the public and the environment, and to provide sufficient information for U.S. EPA to determine the necessity, feasibility and efficacy of non–time critical removal actions (40 CFR 300.415[b][4][i]). The objectives of the EE/CA were to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Kanawha River Site. The EE/CA identifies and evaluates potential Removal Action Alternatives with respect to protectiveness of public health, welfare and the environment. Consistent with U.S. EPA guidance, this EE/CA also includes the evaluation of RA Alternatives with respect to effectiveness, implementability, and cost (Capital Cost and Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring). This evaluation formed the basis for selection of a preferred Removal Action alternative. Extent of Contamination (EOC) Study The EE/CA Work Plan included a phased EOC study work plan to identify historical and/or potential ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD source areas to the Site and to identify and fill data gaps to characterize the extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination at the Site. As presented in the Work Plan, data compilation activities were completed prior to the investigative activities, which were organized into Phase I and Phase II investigations. Phase I EOC Activities The Phase I EOC investigation was completed in 2005 and included the following activities: 031884 (51) • Bathymetric and geophysical surveys • Surface water sampling and analysis (including velocity profiling) 1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Fish tissue sampling and analysis • Surface sediment sampling to support the geophysical survey, and mapping of soft sediment deposits • Surface sediment sampling to support the derivation of a Site-specific biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD Phase II EOC Activities The Phase II EOC investigation was completed during the period of November 2007 through July 2009 and included the following activities: • Surface and subsurface sediment sampling to further define the EOC at the Site • Collection and analysis of age-dated sediment cores to support natural recovery evaluations • Collection of sediment cores for Sedflume testing • Collection of additional fish tissue samples for evaluation of recovery trends for the River Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling was completed to evaluate sediment stability, transport, and recovery within the Site, with particular focus on areas of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. The results of the modeling were used to develop a detailed understanding of hydrodynamics within the River to evaluate sediment stability over a range of storm and non-storm flow conditions. This information was used to evaluate sediment transport, deposition, and stability, to determine sediment natural recovery rates, and to develop preliminary designs for RA alternatives such as capping. Human Health Risk Assessment The Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) estimated cancer and non-cancer health impacts from exposure to chemicals of potential concern. The HHRA used U.S. EPA-approved or WV-approved methods, algorithms, and input values as reflected in U.S. EPA or WV guidance. The HHRA evaluated potential human health impacts associated with exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD identified in fish tissue and surface water at the Site. The potential receptors and exposure pathways evaluated at the Site considering the current and potential future use of the Site included: recreational angler 031884 (51) 2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES (child and adult) exposed to impacted fish tissue, and recreational swimmer (youth and adult) exposed to impacted surface water. Based on the information presented in the HHRA, the following conclusions are made: • The calculated Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) cancer risk and non-cancer Hazard Index (HI) for the current/future recreational angler (child and adult) exceeded the target range of 1.00 x 10-4 to 1.00 x 10-6 for cancer risk and exceeded 1.0 for HI. • The calculated Central Tendency (CT) cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the current/future recreational angler (child and adult) were below 1.00 x 10-5 for cancer risk and 1.0 for HI. • The calculated cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the current/future recreational swimmer (youth and adult) were below 1.00 x 10-5 for cancer risk and 1.0 for HI for both RME and CT exposure scenarios. Ecological Risk Assessment An ecological risk assessment (ERA) was also conducted for the Site. The ERA evaluated the potential risks to ecological receptors. The ERA was specifically intended to evaluate the protectiveness, in regard to ecological receptors, of any potential removal action. The ERA concluded that current ecological risks were likely acceptable, or at worst, slight. While there was some uncertainty for certain species, this would likely be addressed by any successful Removal Action that addresses human health risk. Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) Based on the Conceptual Site Model and risk evaluation, two RAOs were developed for the Site: • 031884 (51) RAO 1 is to reduce the contribution of sediments to Kanawha River fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. The short-term performance objective is to reduce the average surface concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Site sediments to a level that will facilitate a reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish tissue. The long-term performance objective is to reduce fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations, recognizing that watershed source controls separate and apart from a sediment response action will likely be required to effectively reduce fish tissue concentrations to levels below the most stringent U.S. EPA risk criteria. 3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • RAO 2 is to reduce the contribution of sediments to Kanawha River surface water 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. Similar to RAO 1, the short-term performance objective is to reduce the average surface concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Site sediments to a level that will facilitate surface water recovery. These RAOs were utilized to guide the development and evaluation of Removal Action Alternatives for the Site. Removal Action (RA) Alternatives A range of Removal Action alternatives were assembled from the Removal Action technologies/processes that are typical for sediment sites and were outlined in the AOC. The RA alternatives were evaluated consistent with U.S. EPA guidance based on: • Effectiveness • Implementability • Cost The following RA Alternatives were selected for evaluation based on the RA technologies screened: • Alternative 1 - No Action • Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls and MNR • Alternative 3 - Institutional Controls, In Situ Treatment, and MNR • Alternative 4 - Institutional Controls, MNR, and Limited Armored Capping • Alternative 5A - Institutional Controls, MNR, Limited Dredging, and Near-Shore CDF • Alternative 5B - Institutional Controls, MNR, Limited Dredging, and Off-Site Disposal Based on the evaluation presented in Section 8.0 for the Removal Action Alternatives, Alternative 4 – Institutional Controls, Monitored Natural Recovery, and Limited Capping has been identified as the preferred RA. Alternative 4 assumes that any 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled. Alternative 4 enhances the ongoing natural recovery trend through the implementation of source controls for the former Flexsys Facility and the 031884 (51) 4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES placement of an armored cap over the areas of sediment with elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations where modeling showed potential instability. Placement of the armored cap also provides an immediate and permanent reduction in the surface-weighted average concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, accelerating the natural recovery trend as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in the short-term increase in fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations as a result of sediment resuspension that would occur under the dredging Alternatives 5A and 5B. Thus, Alternative 4 would have a faster anticipated recovery trend than the dredging alternatives. In addition, Alternatives 5A and 5B would be expected to leave significant dredge residuals with surface 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations exceeding those currently at the Site, requiring capping of some or all of the dredged areas. No implementability issues are associated with Alternative 4. Capping materials are readily available and cap placement would not be limited by site conditions. As the majority of capping would be completed outside the navigation channel, cap thickness will not impact navigation. Dredging (Alternatives 5A and 5B) would be expected to be incomplete as rock outcrops along the banks would impede complete sediment removal. Incomplete removal and the dredge residuals resulting from normal dredging activities would be expected to result in significant portions of the areas to be dredged requiring capping. The higher capital and overall (Net Present Worth) costs for Alternative 4 as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 appear to be justified given the increased protectiveness and superior recovery trend offered by the addition of limited capping. Alternatives 5A and 5B have significantly higher capital and overall costs than Alternative 4, while resulting in lower short-term protectiveness and equivalent or lower long-term protectiveness. While Alternatives 5A and 5B do provide some contaminant mass removal, no additional protectiveness results from this removal. In summary, Alternative 4 has been identified as the preferred RA because it is the alternative best suited to furthering the RAOs for the Site (including both short-term and long-term performance objectives) in a cost-effective manner with proven sediment treatment technologies. 031884 (51) 5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 INTRODUCTION This Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report (Report) is being submitted by Monsanto Company for the Kanawha River (River) Site (Site) located in Nitro, West Virginia (WV). Monsanto Company retained a consultant team including Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Inc. (CRA), Anchor QEA, L.L.C. (Anchor QEA), and Exponent, Inc. (Exponent) to assist with this project. This Report has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the EE/CA Work Plan (Work Plan) (CRA, 2004, and as amended August 2004), which was partially approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) on September 9, 2004 for the portion of the Work Plan relating to the Phase 1 Extent of Contamination (EOC) study. Monsanto Company later received U.S. EPA approval for the Final Phase II EOC Sampling Scope of Work (SOW) on October 29, 2007. Additional fish tissue sampling was discussed with U.S. EPA in a November 12, 2008 conference call, with the scope of work transmitted to U.S. EPA via email on November 20, 2008 (email from Randy Cooper (Monsanto Company 1) to Dennis Matlock (U.S. EPA). A draft Report was submitted in October 2009. The draft Report was thereafter updated based on comments received from U.S. EPA, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE). 2.1 BACKGROUND The River, the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek have been placed on the State of West Virginia's 303(d) list of water quality impaired bodies for dioxin. The applicable WV water quality standards (WV WQS) specify the maximum allowable concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to be 0.014 picograms per liter (pg/L) in the River and 0.013 pg/L in the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek 1 031884 (51) The name "Monsanto Company" has been used for many years, but it has been used by two distinct corporations. In 1933, "Monsanto Chemical Company" was incorporated in Delaware, in 1967 it changed its name to "Monsanto Company," and on March 31, 2000 it changed its name again to Pharmacia Corporation. Pharmacia Corporation was later acquired by Pfizer, Inc. On February 9, 2000, "Monsanto Ag Company" was incorporated, and on March 31, 2000 it changed its name to Monsanto Company. Today, Pharmacia Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., and Monsanto Company is a publically traded corporation. Today's Monsanto Company has never had manufacturing operations in the Nitro, WV area. Pursuant to certain contractual obligations Monsanto Company has with Pharmacia Corporation, Monsanto Company has engaged Conestoga-Rovers & Associates to compile this EE/CA Report. For clarity, this document uses the term "Old Monsanto" to refer to Pharmacia Corporation while it was operating under the name "Monsanto Company" and/or "Monsanto Chemical Company." 6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES (http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/wqs/Documents/Rules/WVDEP_47CSR2_WQS_FinalRule p ercent206_27_2011.pdf). At a facility approximately 1.5 miles north of Nitro, WV on the east bank of the River, Old Monsanto produced the pesticide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) was a byproduct of the 2,4,5-T production process. Operation of this facility was transferred to Flexsys America LP (Flexsys), a joint venture between Old Monsanto and Akzo Nobel, in 1995. In 1997, Old Monsanto transferred its interest in the facility, including the real estate, to Solutia Inc. (Solutia). Activities began during the second quarter of 2004 to decontaminate, dismantle, and remove all surface structures. Demolition was completed in December 2005. This report refers to this facility as the Former Flexsys Facility. In March 2004, U.S. EPA and Monsanto Company and Pharmacia Corporation entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct an EE/CA to study dioxin-contaminated sediment throughout 14 miles of the Site (defined in Section 3.1). The general Site location is depicted on Figure 2.1. Figures 2.2 through 2.6 identify the Site boundaries and Study Areas established for the Site. As described in more detail in the AOC, the purpose of this EE/CA is to evaluate Removal Action (RA) alternatives that will be protective of the health and welfare of the public and the environment, and to provide sufficient information for U.S. EPA to determine the necessity, feasibility and efficacy of non–time critical removal actions (40 CFR 300.415[b][4][i]). The Kanawha River Site was included as one of the sites listed on the U.S. EPA Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) for CSTAG review and input. The CSTAG conducted a Site visit and held a meeting with the project team on April 21 and 22, 2004. CSTAG provided recommendations on May 14, 2004 regarding implementation of the EE/CA. U.S. EPA's On-Scene Coordinator for the Site provided responses to these comments on October 8, 2004. Copies of the CSTAG recommendations and OSC responses are included in Appendix A. The EE/CA Work Plan included a phased EOC study work plan to identify historical and/or potential ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD source areas to the Site and to identify and fill data gaps to characterize the extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination at the Site. As presented in the Work Plan, the investigative activities were organized into Phase I and Phase II efforts. The Phase I EOC investigation was completed in 2005. Results of the investigation were submitted to U.S. EPA on December 9, 2005 in the report entitled Interim Report, Phase I EOC Sampling Results and Updated Phase II EOC Sampling Work Plan. On March 6, 2006, Monsanto Company submitted updated sampling location maps to U.S. EPA for the Phase II EOC investigation, incorporating information obtained during the Phase I study along with U.S. EPA's comments. On January 19, 031884 (51) 7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2007, Monsanto Company submitted new sampling location maps for the Phase II EOC investigation to incorporate U.S. EPA's comments provided on November 29, 2006 in response to Monsanto Company's March 2006 submission. The Final Phase II EOC Sampling SOW was submitted to U.S. EPA on October 12, 2007 and Monsanto Company received U.S. EPA approval on October 29, 2007. The Phase II EOC investigation was completed in July 2009. Data and other historical information obtained from U.S. EPA, WV Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) are used in this Report to provide a summary of the Site history and conditions. Investigations completed prior to the submission of the EE/CA Work Plan, dated April 2004, were used to provide a preliminary screening of Site data collected from the EOC investigations, as the historical data were used to define the nature of environmental conditions at the Site prior to conducting the EOC study. Data from historical investigations also provided a basis from which data gaps were identified, and were used to assess the need for, and scope of, RA alternatives for the Site. 2.2 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION STUDY OBJECTIVES Consistent with the AOC requirements, the general objectives of the EOC investigations are summarized as follows: 031884 (51) • Collect, organize, and evaluate available historic data to determine conditions in the River and identify potential historic and ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources • Develop a preliminary Conceptual Site Model (CSM) to provide a framework for understanding the River hydraulics, sedimentation patterns, and fate and transport of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Site • Identify data gaps, scope of additional investigative activities to fill identified data gaps and further define Site conditions, implement the additional investigative activities, and incorporate the collected information into the Site database and update/revise the CSM • Collect additional sediment quality data to further define the spatial and vertical distribution of samples with 2,3,7,8-TCDD exceeding concentrations of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 parts-per-billion; micrograms per kilogram (ppb; µg/kg) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD • Utilize the framework of the CSM to predict how source controls or sediment removal actions will affect 2,3,7,8-TCDD distributions in the River 8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • 2.3 Perform data collection and analysis to support the EE/CA evaluation of a range of potentially effective RA alternatives, including no action, monitored natural recovery (MNR), in-situ containment, and dredging/off-Site disposal approaches EE/CA OBJECTIVES The overall objectives of the EE/CA are to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Site that has been released from the Former Flexsys Facility in Nitro, WV and identify and evaluate potentially applicable methods and technologies for controlling or eliminating areas exceeding specified criteria/risk levels. Following screening of potentially applicable cleanup methods and technologies, RA alternatives were assembled and evaluated in terms of effectiveness to meet the Removal Action Objectives (RAOs), implementability and relative cost. This evaluation formed the basis for selection of a preferred RA alternative. A range of RA alternatives were assembled from the RA technologies/processes, which are discussed in Section 7.0. The RA alternatives were evaluated for effectiveness in accomplishing the following: 031884 (51) • Address the suspected 2,3,7,8-TCDD source(s) • Mitigate migration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD • Minimize exposure to contaminated materials at the Site such as soils and sediments • Reduce fish tissue concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD 9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION As set forth in the AOC, the Site consists of the normal pool of an approximate 14-mile portion of the River from the Coal River downstream to the Winfield Locks and Dam. The Site is located near Nitro, WV, approximately 12 miles northwest of Charleston. The Site is located in both Kanawha and Putnam Counties. For convenience, the Site has been divided into four Study Areas as follows: • Study Area 1 is defined as the Site upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility from the Coal River (between River Mile (RM) 46 and RM 42) • Study Area 2 includes the Site adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility from RM 42 to Interstate 64 • Study Area 3 includes the portion of the Site downstream of the Interstate 64 bridge to the John E. Amos Power Plant (RM 39) • Study Area 4 includes the portion of the Site farther downstream of the Interstate 64 bridge between RM 39 and the Winfield Lock and Dam (RM 31) The locations of the Study Areas are presented on the Site Plan (Figure 2.2). Tributaries to the River in the Study Area are discussed in Section 3.1.2. The climate of Kanawha and Putnam Counties is mild. The combined average annual precipitation is 41.43 inches for the period from 1895 through 2011 for the state station for Winfield Locks, WV (469683). The same station identifies the average high and low temperature ranges between 24 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and 43°F in January; and between 63°F and 85°F in July (US HCN, 2012). Land use within the Nitro area consists of mixed residential, commercial, and industrial uses. There are several residential areas located along State Route 62, and U.S. Route 35, which follow on either side of the River. 3.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY The geology of West Virginia is composed of the following physiographic provinces: the Appalachian Plateau Province, the Valley and Ridge Province, and the Blue Ridge Province. The majority of the state is located within the dissected, westward tilting 031884 (51) 10 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Appalachian Plateau Province (WV GES, 1997). The extreme eastern part of WV contains the oldest rocks, the very late Precambrian, Catoctin Formation. Moving westward, the younger, Paleozoic rocks are exposed. There is no significant Mesozoic or Cenozoic rock in West Virginia; however Quaternary alluvium overlies most formations (Lessing, 1996). The Site lies within the Kanawha Section of the Appalachian Plateau Province. The maturely dissected Kanawha Section is characterized by a mature plateau of fine texture within moderate to strong relief. Floodplain deposits are generally silts, sands, and gravels and range in thickness from approximately 40 to 60 feet (ft). The near-surface River channel deposits are generally sand and gravel strata of up to 8 ft in thickness (U.S. ACE, 1986). The alluvial deposits of the Kanawha River Valley contain the uppermost aquifer at the Site. The aquifer is unconfined, and depth to groundwater typically varies from 15 to 20 ft below ground surface (ft bgs) on adjacent sites. Although considerable soil variability occurs in the alluvial deposits, the groundwater within the alluvial deposits is generally interconnected and represents a single aquifer. Groundwater in alluvial deposits within the Study Area flows generally toward the River (Potesta, 2001), and the aquifer surface is located at a depth of approximately 19 ft bgs (NUS Corporation, 1985) in the vicinity of the Former Flexsys Facility. 3.1.2 KANAWHA RIVER BATHYMETRY AND HYDROLOGY The River is one of the primary navigable waterways of West Virginia. It is formed by the confluence of the New and Gauley Rivers at Gauley Bridge, WV and flows in a generally northwesterly direction for approximately 97 miles to the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, WV. In the following discussion, locations along the River are delineated by River Mile. By convention, the mouth is designated as RM 0, and other River Mile locations are distances from the mouth. Thus, RM 42 is 42 miles from the confluence with the Ohio River. The total drainage area contributing to the Site is approximately 12,300 square miles, and includes areas of southern WV, southwestern Virginia, and a small portion of northwestern North Carolina (WV DNR, 1987). The watershed contains economically significant deposits of coal, natural gas, timber, and salt (Weston, 2001). The River was first used as a navigation route in the early 1800s. By 1840, most large obstacles had been cleared, which allowed flatboats to transport coal, salt, and timber. From 1875 to 1898, a series of 10 locks was completed, making the River the nation's first to have a complete 031884 (51) 11 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES navigation system. This made the River a major transportation route, and attracted a wide range of industries to the Kanawha Valley. Upon completion of these improvements in 1898, the number of coal mines using the River had increased from 3 to 70, and the amount of material shipped had increased from 165,000 tons to more than one million tons (Wells, 1998). However, by the late 1920s this system had become obsolete, and by the early 1930s additional dams were constructed to accommodate raised water depths in the Ohio River (U.S. EPA Region III START, 2003), including the Marmet, London, and Winfield Locks and Dam (Wells, 1998). The Site defined by the AOC is located between RM 31.1 (Winfield Locks and Dam) and RM 45.5 (confluence of the Coal River). The "Winfield Pool" controlled by the Winfield Dam generally refers to that portion of the River between the Winfield Dam (RM 31.1) and the Marmet Dam (RM 67.7), and includes the entire Site. Tributaries: In addition to being formed by the confluence of the New and Gauley Rivers, principal tributaries to the Kanawha River include the Elk River at Charleston, WV (RM 57.8), the Coal River at St. Albans, WV (RM 45.5), and the Pocatalico River at Poca, WV (RM 39.0). The Elk River is formed by the confluence of two short streams, Big Spring Fork, and Old Field Fork near Slatyfork, WV in Pocahontas County. The Elk River generally flows westward across several counties, entering the Kanawha River at Charleston, WV (RM 57.8). Principal tributaries to the Elk River include Birch River, Holly River, Blue Creek, Buffalo Creek, Big Sandy Creek, and Little Sandy Creek. The Elk River is located outside of the Site Study Area. The Coal River is formed by the confluence of the Big and Little Coal Rivers near Alum Creek, WV, and generally flows northward through Western Kanawha County past Tornado, WV to the Kanawha River at St. Albans, WV (RM 45.5). The principal tributaries of the Coal River are Clear Fork, Marsh Fork, and the Little Coal River. The approximately 75 mile Pocatalico River rises near Looneyville, WV and flows generally southwestwardly through southern Roane County, northern Kanawha, and southeastern Putnam Counties, past Sissonville, WV to the Kanawha River at Poca, WV (RM 39.0). The Pocatalico watershed spans 359 square miles of primarily forested land (Limno-Tech, Inc., 2000). Principal tributaries from mouth to source include Heizer Creek, Frog Creek, Pocatalico Creek, Big Lick Run, and Johnson Creek. Manila Creek is a tributary to Heizer Creek. 031884 (51) 12 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Non-principal tributaries and un-named backwaters to the main stem located within the Study Area were included in the EE/CA based on available information. This includes but is not limited to: Gallatin Branch, Scary Creek, Little Scary Creek, Steer Gut Branch, Armour Creek (also referred to as Blake Creek on 2012 US ACE Navigational Charts), Sulphur Creek, Linbarger Creek, Poca Run, Bills Creek, Farley Creek, Second Creek, Guano Creek, and Little Guano Creek (US ACE, March 2012). Kanawha River Bathymetry: Present-day physical, hydrologic, and sediment transport characteristics of the River are controlled by the operation of flood control and navigation dams, constructed throughout the basin over the last 100 years. Within the immediate vicinity of Nitro, water surface elevations are regulated by operation of the Winfield Dam and associated locks (RM 31.1), constructed in 1935 by U.S. ACE. Bathymetric characteristics of the River were surveyed by U.S. ACE in 1999 (500 ft survey transects), and have also been inputted into a Hydrologic Engineering Center-river hydraulics package (HEC-2) model used by U.S. ACE Huntington District to help manage reservoir hydraulics in the River. Based on the 1999 survey, the width of the River in the Nitro Study Area ranges from approximately 760 to 820 ft (231 to 249 meters (m)), and the average water depth is 28.6 ft (8.73 m). The normal pool elevation for the Winfield Pool is 566.0 ft above mean sea level (amsl). Based on a November 2011 meeting with representatives of the Huntington District of the USACE, Kent Browning (USACE), advised Monsanto Company that the width of the navigation channel is established based on USACE guidance documents and is centered on the sailing line identified on USACE navigation charts rather than being a federally authorized channel. The navigation channel is approximately 490 ft wide and 12 ft deep in the vicinity of the former Flexsys Facility based on USACE Guidance (USACE, 1980). The River channel's thalweg elevation (the deepest point of the flowing channel in a given cross-section) rises from about 530 ft amsl near RM 33.8 to 540 ft amsl near RM 42.9, corresponding to an average River bed gradient of roughly 0.0002. Large, longitudinal bedforms (bars and scour holes) with 2 to 6 ft of relief are present in the channel. However, features that are smaller than hundreds of feet in length cannot be resolved at the resolution of the U.S. ACE survey presented on the navigational charts. Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder), as a subcontractor to CRA, performed a detailed bathymetric study as part of the Phase I EOC activities. A summary of the bathymetric/geophysical survey is presented in Section 4.2.1 and a copy of Golder's report is included in Appendix B. River Hydrology: As discussed above, the combined average annual precipitation in Kanawha and Putnam Counties is 41.43 in (USHCN, 2012), and Charleston (the location of the nearest River flow gauging station to the Site) receives an average of 42.5 inches of 031884 (51) 13 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES precipitation per year. Precipitation is relatively uniformly distributed throughout the year, with each month receiving between 2.9 and 5.0 inches, on average (SAGE, 2009). However, due to seasonal changes in watershed evapotranspiration, the mean monthly discharge of the River at Charleston (approximately 12 miles upstream of Nitro) ranges from a seasonal high of 30,100 cubic ft per second (cfs) in March to a seasonal low of 5,630 cfs (155 m3/s) in September, based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) records collected over the period from 1939 to 2011 (USGS, 2012). The mean annual discharge ranges from 14,000 to 18,000 cfs. Based on present-day bathymetry, the average current velocity in the Study Area is approximately 43 centimeters per second (cm/s) (LTI, 2000), though significant temporal and spatial variations in velocity occur within the Study Area. For the purpose of developing allowable wastewater discharge limitations for water quality protection under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the critical 7-day, 10-year low flow condition (7Q10) for the River has been set at 1,960 cfs (55.5 m3/s) at the Charleston gage, per WV WQS [WV 46-1-7.2.d.19.2]. 3.2 LAND USE AND SITE HISTORY 3.2.1 KANAWHA RIVER As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the River is one of the primary navigable waterways of West Virginia. The bed of the River to the historical low-water mark is owned by the State of WV. Flow control and navigation through the River is regulated by WV in conjunction with the US Coast Guard and U.S. ACE. Water quality conditions within the River are also regulated by the State of WV. Based on historical detections of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in water and fish samples collected from the Study Area at concentrations exceeding state criterion levels, the River and its Pocatalico River and Armour Creek tributaries, were placed on the State of WV's 1998 303(d) list of water quality impaired water bodies for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The Nitro Industrial Area, consisting primarily of chemical production facilities, is located along the right descending bank of the River. These industries use the River as a transportation medium, and as a process and non-contact water source (U.S. EPA, Region III START, 2003). 031884 (51) 14 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.2.2 KANAWHA COUNTY Kanawha County, located in the south-central part of WV, was formed in 1788 from parts of Greenbrier and Montgomery Counties. The county consists of approximately 901 square miles, and has a total population of 193,063 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The terrain of Kanawha County is broken and hilly, and is underlain by vast resources of minerals such as salt, brine, coal, oil, and gas. The salt industry was the first major industry in the county from 1808 to 1870. Technology and equipment designed for the salt wells was eventually adapted to drill deeper for gas and oil. Large-scale coal production began after the development of rail and River transport in the 1870s. One of the major employers in the county is the chemical industry, which is centered in South Charleston. South Charleston has a population of approximately 13,471 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), and is one of the major chemical centers in the world. Other Kanawha County industries include glass and glassware, mine machinery, wholesale/retail sales, banking, and state government (North, 1998). Charleston, the capital of WV, is located on the River at the mouth of the Elk River. It has a population of approximately 50,821 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 3.2.3 PUTNAM COUNTY Putnam County, located in southwestern WV, was formed in 1848 from parts of Cabell, Kanawha, and Mason Counties (North, 1998). The county consists of approximately 346 square miles, and has a total population of 55,486 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The terrain of Putnam County consists of the River valley and ranges of high hills. There were no major towns in Putnam County until development of the coal industry in the 1880's. Prior to this, agriculture was the only significant source of income, and population growth was minimal. Coal production began to decline after 1940; however, new employment opportunities were created with the growing chemical industry. Putnam is currently one of the few counties in WV that has seen a steady population growth since 1930. Nitro is the county's largest city with a population of approximately 7,150 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). A large coal-burning power plant, the John E. Amos facility, is located on the River near Nitro (North, 1998). 031884 (51) 15 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.2.4 CITY OF NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA Shortly after entering World War I (WWI), the United States faced a severe shortage of gunpowder. On October 6, 1917, the United States Congress passed the Deficiency Appropriation Act, which provided for the construction of three explosives plants, with a combined capability of producing one and a half million pounds of propellant per day. Explosives Plant "C", commonly referred to as Nitro, was designed to produce 600,000 pounds per day of propellant (U.S. ACE, 2001). The United States Ordnance Department negotiated a contract with the DuPont Company (DuPont) to acquire the farmland on which to construct Explosives Plant "C". The contract required that DuPont sell the land to the United States government, or any party that the government named, at cost of acquisition plus a fee of four percent. The Thompson-Starrett Company was contracted to construct the plant, and the Hercules Powder Company was contracted to operate the facility. Explosives Plant "C" was constructed on the north bank of the River, approximately 12 miles west of Charleston, WV (Johnston, 1977). The facility design consisted of a completely self-contained explosives plant, and an entire town for employees, which was capable of housing 24,000 people. Ground was broken on December 23, 1917, and the plant and town were built and operating within 11 months (U.S. ACE, 2001). However, the plant only operated at full scale for a single week due to the cease-fire on November 11, 1918 (Johnston, 1977). Explosives Plant "C" produced nitrocellulose, also known as "gun cotton", in a variety of sizes. The nitrocellulose was used for loading both large and small shells (Johnston, 1977). Production required three basic steps: the nitrocellulose process, the colloiding reaction, and the drying operation. The facility was also designed to manufacture sulfuric and nitric acid, which were two of the required materials (U.S. EPA, Region III START, 2003). The Explosives Plant "C" facility was divided into four main areas that included: Area A: The Industrial Plant The Industrial Plant area was subdivided into several departments that included the following departments. 031884 (51) 16 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The Cotton Purification Department This department washed, bleached, and dried raw cotton linters and hull fibers to supply cellulose for the process (U.S. EPA, Region III START, 2003). The Nitrating Department The Nitrating Department was used from September 1918 to November 1918. Purified cellulose was digested in mixed acid, which consisted of one part nitric acid and two and a half parts sulfuric acid. The resulting nitrocellulose was then purified by boiling in water. Inputs to the Nitrating Department were mixed acids, and cellulose. Outputs included nitrocellulose, spent acid, and wastewater. Nitrocellulose was sent to the colloiding department by railcar; spent acids were filtered to remove solids and then piped to the spent acid department. Wastewater was directed to the industrial sewer that discharged directly into the River (U.S. ACE, 2001). The Colloiding Department The Colloiding Department was used from September 1918 to December 1918. Nitrocellulose delivered to this department was refined, but still contained water. Alcohol was used to dehydrate the nitrocellulose, and then was converted into a colloidal matrix using ether. Diphenylamine was added next as a stabilizer and then benzene as a water repellant. The colloid was then forced by hydraulic pressure through dies to produce propellant grains. Inputs to the Colloiding Department included nitrocellulose, alcohol, diphenylamine, benzene, and sulfuric acid. Ether was manufactured in this department by reacting alcohol with sulfuric acid. Outputs included propellant grain and the waste stream, which was directed to the industrial sewer that discharged directly into the River (U.S. ACE, 2001). The Spent Acid Department This department contained recovery units used to reclaim acids, caustic, and solvents (U.S. EPA, Region III START, 2003). 031884 (51) 17 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The Drying Department This department was in operation from approximately October 1918 to January 1919. Solvent was removed from propellant grains either by evaporation or by forcing the solvent out of the grain with water, depending on the geometry of the grain. The finished product was then packed in zinc-lined metal boxes. Inputs to this department were propellant grains from the colloiding department. Outputs included the packed finished product, which was shipped to the magazine area, and wastewater, which was directed to the industrial sewer that discharged directly into the River (U.S. ACE, 2001). The Industrial Plant area is currently the Nitro Industrial Park, and is occupied by various chemical facilities, warehouses and other businesses. Some of the original buildings remain; however the nitrating, colloiding, and drying department buildings have been torn down (U.S. ACE, 2001). Area B: Magazine Area The Magazine Area consisted of 16 magazines that were used for shipping and storing boxed gunpowder. After WWI, the magazines were removed, and the area was turned into a golf course. The area is currently the Rock Branch Industrial Park, and is comprised of industrial buildings and warehouses (U.S. ACE, 2001). Area C: Proving Ground The Proving Ground Area was used to test the finished product. Batches of propellant were subjected to a ballistic test to determine if the propellant could propel a projectile at the proper muzzle velocity from an artillery piece. Projectiles were fired into large sand-filled, reinforced concrete structures, known as the firing butts. A housing subdivision is located in the Proving Ground Area. The firing butts still remain and are located in a resident's backyard. Foundations, which may be from the original buildings, also remain (U.S. ACE, 2001). 031884 (51) 18 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Area D: Housing Area The Housing Area is now part of the City of Nitro, WV. Some of the buildings may date back to the original construction. However, most of the buildings have been replaced (U.S. ACE, 2001). Utilities Natural gas was the only utility that was originally available in the area. Other utilities such as power, water, steam, and sewers had to be designed and constructed. Electrical power was initially obtained from the Virginia Power Company by extending existing lines in Charleston to Nitro. Water was supplied by 53 drilled wells, located on the property. In April 1918, a temporary water filtering plant was built for domestic water use. Industrial water was pumped from the River. A permanent water system was completed on November 5, 1918. The system was designed so that the intake for domestic use was located on the River above Lock Seven, upstream from the plant. Sanitary and industrial sewage wastes were discharged downstream of the plant, below the locks. Twin boiler houses were constructed to provide steam for industrial uses, with a capacity of over one and a half million pounds of steam per hour. However, the boiler houses were not completed by the end of the war, and were consequently dismantled and sold. WWI Era Sewer System The sewer system for Explosives Plant "C" was designed and installed in 1918. The original installation consisted of approximately 49 miles of underground piping, with pipe diameters ranging in size from 4 to 84 inches, and with some sections placed as much as 22 ft bgs. Both sanitary and industrial outlets ran directly into the River. The original design called for treatment stations, but they were never built. The main sanitary sewer trunk line ran down the Blakes Creek and Armour Creek valleys to take advantage of existing grades. The system was designed so that the outfall discharged to the River at the mouth of Armour Creek. However, construction stopped when the war ended and the entire City of Nitro effluent was discharged through this outfall to Armour Creek (Johnston, 1977). Following closure, the plant and town were sold to the Charleston Industrial Corporation (CIC), who marketed the property. The chemical industry continued to grow in the early 1920s, and new industries that moved into the area made use of the explosives plant equipment, utilities, living quarters, and nearby raw materials. At the time, the Nitro area was served by four railroads (Chesapeake & Ohio, Baltimore & 031884 (51) 19 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Ohio, Virginian, and the New York Central), and barge traffic on the River (Johnston, 1977). In 1932, the town was incorporated as Nitro, and the name of the holding company was changed to the Nitro Industrial Corporation (NIC). 3.3 SUMMARY OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS This section provides a summary of environmental investigations completed at the Site prior to initiation of the EOC investigations. This information was used to develop the scope of the EOC study and to develop the Conceptual Site Model (CSM). The summary includes the Kanawha River, tributaries to the River (as discussed in Section 3.1.2) as well as non-River investigations, including upstream sources and other potential upland sources. Table 3.1 provides a chronological summary of previous investigations and documents relating to the River that CRA and Anchor QEA reviewed. A more detailed summary of each investigation, listed in chronological order, by location, is provided in Appendix C. Letters and memoranda have also been reviewed and have been listed according to the date of the correspondence. 3.3.1.1 KANAWHA RIVER A number of investigations have been completed by U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS), various consultants, and various State agencies at the River since 1970. These studies included: 031884 (51) • Between 1970 and 1976, approximately 180 fish tissue samples representing selected collection sites of interest were collected by U.S. FWS and analyzed for selected toxic substances. U.S. FWS, at the request of U.S. EPA, sampled fish samples to assess the risks of exposure of priority pollutants to human health and the environment. The data were summarized in a report entitled Sampling and Analysis of Fish Tissues for Toxic Substances, EPA/FWS IAG-DY-01001, Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. • As part of the National Dioxin Study, U.S. EPA collected fish and sediment samples at the River in Nitro, and at the Gauley Bridge between 1984 and 1986. The study plan, data, and associated analyses were summarized in the following reports: Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan, An Evaluation of Dioxin Contamination in 20 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Fish Tissue and Sediments in the Kanawha and Mud Rivers, WV, WV DNR, Draft – March 10, 1986; Memorandum – 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) Contamination of Fish in the River, Nitro, WV, Center for Disease Control, 1985; Draft - Assessment of Lifetime Cancer Risk from Consuming Fish Contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from the River, WV, U.S. EPA, 1986; A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments in the Kanawha River Basin, EPS-QA87-004, Final Project Report, EPA Region III, 1988; Letter from WV DNR to U.S. EPA Region III, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dioxin data from Kanawha and Ohio River fish samples; and Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, WV and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling, U.S. EPA, 1986 Dioxin Contamination in 1986 Fish Tissue Samples from the Kanawha River, Armour Creek, and the Pocatalico River, WV, 1986. • Between 1999 and 2002, U.S. EPA collected additional samples from the Site. The study plan, data, and associated analyses were summarized in the following reports: Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV, Weston, 1999; Dioxin Contamination of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, WV Citizen Research Group, 1999; Updated Kanawha River Fish Consumption Advisory, WV Bureau for Public Health, 2000; Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site (Nitro Storm Sewer/Outfall Investigation), Weston, 2000; Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Weston, 2001; Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Hi-Vol. Water Sampling, Nitro, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2000. • Site investigation in 2001 at Mile point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46 to characterize potential sources, nature of contamination, relative hazards posed by sources, and impacts to targets; Kanawha River Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Region III, START, 2003. • High and low flow sampling along the Kanawha River at the Former Flexsys Facility in 2001; and Sediment sampling immediately adjacent to the riverbed at the Former Flexsys Facility in 2002 passive vapor diffusion along the Kanawha River in 2002. Summaries of these investigations are included in Appendix C. Available data from these investigations related to surface water quality, fish tissue concentrations, sediment concentrations, or other relevant information were incorporated into the Project database to support analysis of historic conditions and temporal trends. The most recent investigation completed at the River prior to initiation of the EOC studies was completed by U.S. EPA in 2002 and included sediment sampling and passive vapor diffusion. The purpose of the 2002 investigation was to determine the 031884 (51) 21 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES volatilization of volatile organic compound (VOC) constituents in the hyporheic zones along the River. 3.3.1.2 ARMOUR CREEK Armour Creek Landfill (ACLF) is located north of the City of Nitro along State Route 25. It is comprised of approximately 45 acres of land. Armour Creek is located to the north of the landfill (Weston, 1999). Sediment sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was conducted in Armour Creek in 1986 as part of U.S. EPA sampling of the Kanawha River and its tributaries to determine the areal extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, if contamination was continuing, and to locate "hot spots" or any present sources. The U.S. EPA determined that there were two 2,3,7,8-TCDD hot spots, the Pocatalico River near Poca, and at the mouth of Armour Creek. U.S. EPA hypothesized that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was or is being released from landfills near the two 2,3,7,8-TCDD hot spots, and this contamination has spread throughout the lower River; and that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was or is being released into the River from unknown sources, and has accumulated in the backwaters of Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River. In 1987 U.S. EPA conducted an additional sampling event. To test the first hypotheses, sampling stations were located near the landfills next to Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River. To test the second hypothesis, sampling stations were located in Bills Creek and Lingbarger Creek. U.S. EPA concluded that data support the second hypothesis, which states that contamination is from unknown sources and is being deposited in slow-flowing backwaters of tributaries along the River. It was also concluded that low-level dioxin contamination is widespread in the lower River backwater areas below Nitro. The highest concentrations of dioxin were found in sediments collected from the mouths of backwater River streams (US EPA, 1988a). The sediments in Armour Creek were sampled in November 1998 in response to public concern that ACLF was contributing to dioxin contamination in Armour Creek (Pam Hayes, WVDEP Office of Environmental Remediation). Dioxin was detected in the sediment. Soil sampling completed in the Armour Creek watershed identified elevated levels of dioxin, however, the ACLF was not identified as a source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. High-volume surface water sampling for dioxin was conducted by U.S. EPA and U.S. Geological Survey in June 2000. Sampling occurred in a total of 10 locations in the Kanawha River, its tributaries, and one outfall. Samples collected from Armour Creek on June 15, 2000 reported 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 59.9 fg/L in the column and 031884 (51) 22 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 279 fg/L in the filters, and a total TEQ of 73 fg/L and 499 fg/L (rounded), respectively (U.S. EPA, Eleven Principals Memo, 2004). In 2000, in response to public comments, WV DEP placed conditions on ACLF's Solid Waste/ NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit, effective June 2, 2000, to control potential releases of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, or other dioxin congeners. The ACLF was capped by May 2000 by Solutia pursuant to WV Solid Waste Industrial Landfill regulations (WV DEP, 2000). The Solid Waste/NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit continued the routine monitoring and maintenance of the closed ACLF. A stormwater sample was collected at the outlet of the ACLF (Outlet 009) and an additional background sample was collected at a location outside the limits of ACLF. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in the runoff sample collected from Outlet 009 at the ACLF, and an estimated concentration of 6.1 pg/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the background sample (Potesta, 2001). 3.3.1.3 MANILA CREEK/ POCATALICO RIVER Manila Creek drains into Heizer Creek, which in turn drains into the Pocatalico River, which joins with the River. An inspection was conducted by WV DWR on September 14, 1962 at Manila Creek and Pocatalico River. Following the inspection, the City of Nitro, Ohio Apex, Old Monsanto, and Cadle Sanitary Service (waste material hauler) were ordered to develop waste disposal procedures (WV DWR, 1962). After notification from Old Monsanto that organic, herbicide, fungicide, and miscellaneous inorganic waste had been disposed of at a site in Amherst, Putnam County, WV from 1956 to 1957, WV DEP conducted a site inspection on May 13, 1980. Results of the site inspection led to a follow-on sampling effort. 2,4,5-T was detected at 3.3 ppb (3.3 µg/L) in the adjacent tributary but not in the off-site water samples (WV DEP, 1982). Investigations at the Manila Creek site continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s and included the following: 031884 (51) • Site inspection at the Manila Creek dumpsite area on June 29, 1981 where grab samples were collected from a tributary that runs from Washington Hollow into Manila Creek (Casdroph, 1981). • A preliminary benthic survey was conducted in Manila Creek on December 14, 1982 by WV Department of Natural Resources (WV DNR), which concluded that mine 23 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES drainage releases from the watershed overshadowed biological impacts that may be attributable to the disposal site (WV DNR, 1982). • A dioxin screening at Manila Creek was conducted on September 18, 1984 as part of the U.S. EPA Region III, Tier II, Dioxin Study. • Test borings were conducted at the Manila Creek Site in 1986, and peizometers were installed to determine water levels and groundwater flow directions. Groundwater was present in the coal deposits at the site. Waste material was present immediately overlying clay and/or fly ash layers (ERM-Midwest, 1986). • A remedial investigation of subsurface conditions at the Manila Creek site was conducted in 1986 to determine the lateral and vertical extent of fill placed at the site and the location of saturated areas contributing to seeps, so that remedial alternatives could be developed. Approximately 2,400 to 2,900 cubic yards (cy) of waste was present at the site, in addition to a total of 5,000 to 7,000 cy of fly ash fill (REMCOR, 1986). Constituents detected included a number of volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, pesticides and TCDD (ASTDR 2010). • In 1987, a sheet pile wall was installed around the Manila Creek site to re-direct ground water flow. A high-density polyethylene cap with overlying clay fill and topsoil was placed on the site. Following this, the cap was vegetated and a chain-link security fence was installed around the site. The sediments in Manila Creek and Pocatalico River were sampled in November 1998 (Pam Hayes-WVDEP Office of Environmental Remediation). A subsequent round of sampling was conducted in September 1999. The soil samples ranged from 0 to 385 picograms per gram (pg/g) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Groundwater sampling detected dioxin concentrations ranging from 197 to 1,470 pg/L in samples collected from monitoring wells installed within the waste layer of the landfill. Samples of Manila Creek sediments contained up to 38 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 3.3.1.4 HEIZER CREEK AND HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL Heizer Creek Landfill is located approximately 1 mile northeast of Poca, off Heizer Creek Road. The landfill is approximately 1 acre in size, and is bounded to the south by Heizer Creek Road, and to the north, east, and west by trail roads. The City of Nitro used this landfill from the late 1950s until the early 1960s. Old Monsanto reportedly used the landfill for approximately one year to dispose of plant trash. 031884 (51) 24 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A site inspection of Heizer Creek was performed on September 15, 1983. The inspection included the collection of aqueous and solid samples and the observation of 8 drums in various stages of decay, and a black tar-like substance. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was detected at concentrations up to approximately 21 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and one sample had a detected tetrachlorobenzene concentration of 35 percent. Both chemicals are used in the manufacture of trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T); however, 2,4,5-T was not reported in any of the samples collected from the Heizer Creek Site (NUS Corporation, 1985). A soil sampling investigation at the landfill performed in September 1984 detected 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Old Monsanto conducted soil sampling at the landfill in October 1985 to develop RA alternatives based on the findings. Soil 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranged from not detected to 3.79 ppb (3.79 µg/kg), which were below recommended levels for landfills; no further action was identified at that time as the most appropriate alternative for the Heizer Creek Landfill site (Wilson, 1986). In 1998, U.S. EPA conducted a second Preliminary Assessment and collected one composite soil sample from on site and one sediment sample from a downgradient surface runoff stream. The soil sample exhibited a 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ concentration of 21.54 ppb (21.54 µg/kg) and the sediment sample exhibited a TEQ of 0.021 ppb (0.021 µg/kg) (ARCADIS, 2000). Old Monsanto retained ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (ARCADIS) to prepare an EE/CA to further address the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Heizer Creek Landfill site, pursuant to the AOC between Old Monsanto and U.S. EPA issued on September 30, 1999. The September 2000 EE/CA presented results of a field investigation conducted in May 2000 that included soil, surface water, and sediment sampling. The EE/CA concluded that there was a potential for 2,3,7,8-TCDD to migrate from the Heizer Creek Landfill site through erosion and surface water runoff, but at concentrations below those that would pose a potential threat to human health. Implementation of a full vegetative cover with consolidation was determined to mitigate human and ecological exposure, and potential releases to surface water and sediment from the Heizer Creek Landfill site. In September and October 2001, ARCADIS collected groundwater samples for analysis for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, at the request of U.S. EPA, to further characterize the nature, concentration, and extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in residential wells, so that recommendations based on a full groundwater evaluation could be reported. Since 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the samples, the additional investigation verified that groundwater did not to pose a threat to the Pocatalico River or nearby residential groundwater wells (ARCADIS, 2001). 031884 (51) 25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Based on the EE/CA report, a remedial alternative was selected to address the dioxin impact at the Heizer Creek Landfill site, which consisted of the placement of a vegetative cover over the former waste disposal area. Construction of the vegetative cover was performed in 2008, and consisted of the following key activities: • Removal of trees and other vegetation • Re-grading of site to a slope of not greater than 3:1 • Consolidation of waste material near the toe of the slope • Construction of a retaining structure at the toe of the slope • Placement of clean cap material with a seeded topsoil layer • Installation of storm water management controls • Implementation of long-term monitoring and maintenance program Slope failures were identified in portions of the cover system in 2009. Repair of these areas was completed in 2010, and the site is being monitored to confirm the effectiveness of the repairs. 3.3.2 UPLAND INVESTIGATION In addition to the investigations conducted within the River and its tributaries, investigations have been completed for facilities upstream, within, and downstream of Nitro. The summary of investigations was used to assist in determining potential sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and/or other Contaminants of Concern (COC) to the River. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a common by-product from burning (including incineration and backyard residential burning), from the production of chlorinated organic compounds, and from the bleaching step of the papermaking process. Historical industrial activities in the River's watershed appear to have resulted in the release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River. Releases of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River in the Study Area likely was associated with the production of the herbicide 2,4,5-T and may have also been associated with the production of industrial solvents or other industrial processes. A number of upstream facilities were identified which, based on historic data and/or CRA's evaluation of processes used by the facilities, may have contributed 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River. These facilities are discussed in Appendix C.2. Other downstream sources, such as the former American Car and Foundry (ACF) Industries site near Winfield Dam, 031884 (51) 26 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES likely also released 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River. Depending on the ultimate cleanup level for the River selected by U.S. EPA, ongoing discharges from upland facilities, if not adequately controlled, may represent potential ongoing sources of potential concern (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2; see discussion in Sections 6.4 and 7.1.3). A number of potential dioxin sources were identified within the Study Area, including the following sites which were confirmed to have 2,3,7,8-TCDD present on the property: Former Flexsys Facility Fike/Artel Superfund Site (Fike/Artel) Nitro Municipal Landfill Former ACF Industries Dioxin was identified at the Great Lakes Chemical Site; however, this property is not believed to be a significant dioxin source based on the known history of manufacturing at the property. Discussions of each potential source upstream and within the Site are presented in Appendices C.2 and C.3, respectively. These potential sources are summarized in the following sub-sections. 3.3.2.1 FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY This facility is located on the east bank of the River, approximately one-half mile north of the City of Nitro in Putnam County, West Virginia, in a heavily industrialized region. The Former Flexsys Facility encompasses approximately 116 acres. Production areas, warehouse buildings, parking, or open storage had covered about 60 percent of the site. The Former Flexsys Facility is bordered to the east and northeast by commercial properties on State Route 25, to the south by an industrial property, to the west and northwest by the River, and Interstate Highway 64 divides the site (U.S. EPA, 2008a). The property occupied by the Former Flexsys Facility was used to produce a number of chemicals throughout its operation including the pesticide 2,4,5-T. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) was a byproduct of the 2,4,5-T production process. Operation of the Nitro Facility was transferred to Flexsys America LP (Flexsys) in 1995. Flexsys manufactured rubber and rubber additives for tire companies. Hazardous wastes generated include waste paint and solvents from daily operations, Sufasan and Santovar residues, lab wastes such as Acetonitrile, and seal oil 031884 (51) 27 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES contaminated with sulfuric acid (Kennedy, 1997). In 1997, Old Monsanto transferred its interest in the Facility to Solutia. The Former Flexsys Facility was demolished in June 2005. The Former Flexsys Facility has undergone a number of investigations and remedial activities. The Former Flexsys Facility is currently being closed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CA) Program. Significant source control activities have been completed and are planned to be completed as part of the RCRA Closure. These activities are discussed in additional detail in Section 7.1.3. The Former Flexsys Facility is believed to be the primary source of historic 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading to the River in Nitro. 3.3.2.2 FIKE-ARTEL SUPERFUND SITE The Fike/Artel Superfund Site is located on Viscose Road (Plant Road) in Nitro, WV, 1.1 miles south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 64 and State Route 25. The site consists of an 11.9 acre former chemical manufacturing facility and a 0.9 acre former wastewater treatment plant known as the Cooperative Sewage Treatment Plant (CST) (ICF, 1998). The former Fike/Artel facility is located in the Nitro Industrial Complex, approximately 2,200 feet east of the River. The Fike Facility was a small volume chemical manufacturing plant that specialized in the development of new chemicals, custom chemical processing, and specialty chemicals. The former CST is located approximately 500 feet west of the facility. Dana Container, Inc., a tank repair and cleaning facility, separates the former Fike Facility from the former CST (ICF, 1998). CST was formed as a joint venture between Fike Chemicals, Inc. (Fike) and Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. (Coastal) to treat industrial wastewater. In 1977, sampling was conducted at the Fike/Artel site to determine compliance with NPDES Permit limitations, among other objectives. However, U.S. EPA concluded that additional investigations were required to characterize hazardous substances that may have been discharged to the River from the CST (U.S. EPA Region III, 1978). Samples of soil and water were collected from a drainage area adjacent to the Fike facility on March 29, 1983, with reported dibenzofuran concentrations in soil ranging up to 123,600 ppb (123,600 µg/kg). The U.S. Center for Disease Control identified potential 031884 (51) 28 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES environmental and public health risks associated with off-site migration of hazardous substances from this facility (U.S. EPA Region III, 1983). U.S. EPA initiated a Removal Action at the Fike/Artel facility in June 1988. The RA included the removal of hazardous materials from numerous tanks, drums, and reactor vessels. Following completion of the RA activities, the Fike/Artel site was divided into seven Operable Units, which were all addressed by 1993. Supplemental disposal of dioxin-containing sludge occurred in 1995. The Fike/Artel site was capped with an asphalt cover system in 2003, and is currently used as a truck parking area. A separate groundwater remedy is currently underway at the Fike/Artel site. Groundwater contamination has been detected almost a mile away from the site property boundary, and is discharging toward the River. A biosparging system has been in operation since 2007. Additional groundwater treatment system components are under design. Dioxins are not a COC for the groundwater remedy. Although no complete pathway currently exists for 2,3,7,8-TCDD migration from the Fike/Artel facility to the river, it is considered to have been a potential historic source due to presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD on the property, and historic pathways such as historic sewer use. 3.3.2.3 NITRO SANITATION LANDFILL The Administrative Record for the Nitro Sanitation Landfill (EPA ID: WVD980513642) was reviewed in order to determine if this landfill was a potential historical source area (U.S. EPA, 2012). A Consent Agreement and Order dated October 15, 1987 states that the Nitro Sanitation Landfill consists of approximately 5 acres and is located on Main Street in the City of Nitro, Kanawha County (U.S. EPA, 1987b). It was owned by the City of Nitro and received waste chemicals and drums from FMC Corporation between 1965 and 1974 (U.S. EPA, 1987b). An estimated 4,700 tons of chemical wastes including phenols, carbon filter cake containing heptanes, and organic phosphates were accepted (Weston, 1990a). Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. reports additional documentation that FMC Corporation deposited arsenic trichloride and other wastes at the landfill (Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1980). The City of Nitro used the landfill for municipal disposal until 1974 when the area was covered with topsoil and converted into a playground. The playground was closed in 1986 and the area was fenced to prevent access (Weston, 1990a). 031884 (51) 29 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The Nitro Sanitation Landfill has been referred to by numerous aliases as documented in the Administrative Record. These include the following: • The Nitro Municipal Landfill (Weston, 1990a) • The Nitro Landfill • Smith Street Landfill (Weston, 1990a) It should be noted that another landfill, also referred to as the Nitro Municipal Landfill is discussed in Section 3.3.2.4. Sampling in April 1986 by the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources found phenol levels as high as 12,000 mg/kg (U.S. EPA, 1987b). Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. conducted an investigation in February 1980 and concluded that no evidence of industrial waste products present in leachate (Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1980). In a 1981 Weston investigation, sampling revealed the presence of phenols as high as 12.0 ppb (12.0 µg/kg) in an outfall along the Kanawha River. Weston also found exposed drums containing carbon filter cake and Kronitex residue (Weston, 1990a). In 1986 Weston and U.S. EPA conducted additional sampling of four seeps, seep sludge and two sediment samples (Weston, 1990). Exposed drums were found at the surface in 1986. Significant levels of phenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol and 4-methylphenol were reported (Weston, 1990b). Partially exposed drums and several seeps were observed in 1987. The drums were removed and the site was recovered with clean dirt in response to a CERCLA Section 106 Consent Order to the City of Nitro dated October 15, 1987 (Weston, 1990a). The City of Nitro conducted air and water sampling in September/October 1987, including a storm sewer entering the Kanawha River. Target compounds were not detected in any of the samples and seeps were not observed during the sampling event (Weston, 1990a). OSC Gerald Heston and Pam Hayes of the WV DNR visited the site in January 1990 and reported that no areas of contamination were observed (Weston, 1990a). Additional Weston sampling in March 1990 concluded that phenolic compound materials were present below the surface or have migrated into soils and water below and adjacent to the landfill (Weston, 1990b). In an August 1990 letter, the ATSDR concluded that "the levels of contaminants found in surface soils during the most recent assessment do not pose a significant threat the human public health. However, if private wells are in use in the area, a potential health threat exists through ingestion of site-related contaminants." The ATSDR recommended that the landfill meet Federal, State, and local closure requirements; capping or covering of the surface be considered; and future users be made aware of previous existence of the landfill to prevent disruption to the protective actions taken (ATSDR, 1990). 031884 (51) 30 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.3.2.4 NITRO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL The Administrative Record for the Nitro Municipal Landfill (EPA ID: WVD980538722) was reviewed in order to determine if this landfill was a potential historical source area. An Administrative Order By Consent dated April 20, 1990 states that the Nitro Municipal Landfill is located between Kelly Creek and Bailey Creek on WV Route 38 approximately 3 miles north the intersection of WV Routes 38 and 31 and west of the Pocatalico River in Putnam County, WV. The property consists of approximately 187.5 acres. Approximately 2.58 acres of the strip bench at the upper end of a U-shaped ravine was used for a waste disposal area (U.S. EPA, 1990). The Order states that Old Monsanto deposited general plant solid wastes from its Nitro Facility in the Nitro Municipal Landfill in the late 1950's, which were then burned. U.S. EPA and Old Monsanto conducted investigations that determined 2,3,7,8-TCDD was present in soil at the landfill at levels up to 17.8 ppb (17.8 µg/kg) (U.S. EPA, 1990). The Order states that "Monsanto Company conducted the technical equivalents of a CERCLA Remedial Investigation (R.I.) and a Feasibility Study at the Nitro Municipal Landfill Site. EPA approved the R.I. on February 24, 1989. The studies recommended that Monsanto remove all drums and drum debris from the Site and cover all areas where dioxin contamination was found. The investigation and study do not constitute an "RI/FS" as described in Section 104(a)(1) of CERCLA and therefore do not require the determinations described in that Section." (U.S. EPA, 1990). This landfill has also been referenced by several aliases, which include: • Poca Landfill (U.S. EPA, 1996; U.S. EPA, 1990 and U.S. EPA, 2012) • Poca Strip Mine Pit (U.S. EPA, 2012) The Nitro Municipal Landfill has been referred to by a number of names including Poca Strip Mine Landfill. The Landfill is a surface mine bench located one-quarter mile off Poca River Road, on an un-named tributary to the Pocatalico River. The Nitro Municipal Landfill site is approximately 3 miles east of Poca, WV, and received municipal and hazardous wastes in the late 1950s and early 1960s (WV DWR, 1984). During 1962 to 1963, the landfill was known as the Nitro City Dump, and was used by the City of Nitro, FMC, Ohio Apex, and Old Monsanto (Weston, 1999). A Hazardous Waste Survey indicates that Old Monsanto used the landfill site in 1959 and 1960 to dispose of both open drummed and contained hazardous wastes (WV DWR, 1984). This report also states that open burning occurred at the landfill site. Other 031884 (51) 31 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES documentation obtained by the WV Division of Water Resources (WV DWR) reports incidents of foam and scum on the Pocatalico River, and fish kills in the early 1960's (WV DWR, 1984). The Poca Landfill, also known as the Poca Strip Mine was used as the Nitro Municipal Landfill for several years in the late 1950's and early 1960's, accepting trash, refuse and chemical wastes from local companies. The only companies to acknowledge prior use of the site are FMC Corporation and Old Monsanto. Limited sampling in 1985 indicated the presence of hazardous substances (FMC Corporation, 1987). A February 1986 Consent Agreement and Order in the matter of the Poca Landfill (Respondent – Monsanto Company) states that "sampling conducted by EPA and Monsanto on September 7, 1984, indicated the presence of TCDD at the site" (U.S. EPA, 1986). This document also refers to the site as the "Poca Strip Mine Area". An April 10, 1987 Consent Agreement and Order in the matter of the Poca Landfill (Respondent – FMC) states that FMC disposed of waste at the site and that sampling conducted by EPA and others on May 9, 1985 indicated the presence of hazardous substances (U.S. EPA 1987a). A number of investigations were completed at the Nitro Municipal Landfill site throughout the 1980s. On December 16, 1980, soil samples were collected from the bank of the River to help determine if hazardous substances were migrating from the landfill. Two pipes were observed near the north end of the landfill that appeared to convey landfill leachate. Various drums and scrap metal belonging to Midwest Steel Corporation (Midwest) were observed in the landfill, and refuse was present at the edge of the River bank (Stone, 1980). Four monitoring wells were installed at the landfill site between June 16 and 23, 1982. Dioxins were not detected in any of the groundwater samples (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1982). Existing data for the Nitro Municipal Landfill site were reviewed by U.S. EPA in 1983. Based on this review, NUS Corporation (1983) recommended that a security fence be installed around the perimeter of the landfill, buried drums be removed and disposed appropriately, and a water and soil sampling program be performed to further characterize the landfill site (NUS Corporation, 1983). A February 1988 Consent Agreement and Order (Respondent – Old Monsanto) states that Old Monsanto deposited wastes at the site for a period in the late 1950's. Wastes 031884 (51) 32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES were then burned. The Order states that sampling by both EPA and Old Monsanto revealed the presence of TCDD. Three remedial investigations were conducted at the Poca Landfill; 1) NUS Corporation operating under EPA Contract No. 68-01-6699; 2) Old Monsanto to supplement and verify the NUS Corporation data; and 3) FMC Corporation in April 1987 in response to EPA Docket No. III-87-13-DC. All three investigations focused on 2,3,7,8-TCDD as an indicated chemical (U.S. EPA, 1988c). Remedial investigations of the landfill focused on 2,3,7,8-TCDD. NUS Corporation, under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6699, conducted the first investigation, and FMC conducted an additional investigation in April 1987 in response to U.S. EPA Docket No. III-87-12-DC (ERM-Midwest, 1988). Old Monsanto conducted a remedial investigation of the Nitro Municipal Landfill under a consent agreement in March 1986. Landfill capping and other remediation actions were completed in the late 1980s (Weston, 1999). Closure activities effectively controlled any future releases to the River Approximately 80 percent of the landfill volume has been removed and disposed in a secure off-site facility. 3.3.2.5 FORMER ACF INDUSTRIES ACF was located in Putnam County, approximately 20 miles northwest of Charleston, WV near the communities of Red House, Eleanor, and Buffalo, WV. The ACF site consisted of a 21.81 acre tract of land adjacent to the right descending bank of the River. The ACF site is located immediately upstream of the Winfield Locks and Dam and is bordered by Highway 62 to the north and the west. The ACF site was originally agricultural land that was part of the Noffsinger farm, as documented by aerial photographs taken in 1950. ACF constructed and operated a railcar service and repair facility at the ACF site from 1952 until closure in March 1996. Shop facilities required for cleaning and repairing railcars, a paint shop, and a wastewater treatment system were all located on-site. The wastewater treatment system consisted of a series of lagoons adjacent to the River. The ACF site remained idle until U.S. ACE filed a Declaration of Taking for the 21.81-acre tract in order to construct an upstream approach for the new lock and gate bay at the Winfield Locks and Dam. Concurrently, WV DNR conducted a Complaint Investigation in December 1988, and a Compliance Evaluation Inspection on February 14, 1989 to determine the status and condition of on-site drums of waste material. An environmental site investigation was conducted in May 1989 to determine 031884 (51) 33 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES the extent of soil contamination at the ACF site, and on October 27, 1989, WV DNR issued an Administrative Order that required ACF to remediate the identified contaminated areas. ACF removed approximately 9,151 cy of contaminated soil from the site in 1990. Seeps along the completed excavation sidewalls contained elevated concentrations of several hazardous substances, suggesting that residual soil contamination likely remains in adjacent soils. U.S. ACE took possession of the site on May 1, 1990 (U.S. ACE, 1992). 2,3,7,8-TCDD was identified in impacted soil at the property. 3.3.2.5 GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL SITE The Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) site, formerly FMC Corporation (FMC), was located in the Kanawha Valley in Nitro, WV. The Former Flexsys Facility is adjacent to the north of the GLCC site and the River is located directly west of the GLCC site. The former FMC plant manufactured phosphorus-based organic and inorganic chemical intermediates for commercial use. FMC operated from 1987 until 1999 when GLCC purchased the plant and continued chemical manufacturing operations. The plant discontinued operations and closed in 2001 (U.S. EPA, 2008b). In May 2005, Blasland, Bouck, & Lee (BBL) collected surface soil samples along the northern and eastern perimeter of the GLCC site. Samples were submitted for analysis of PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, chloride, percent solids, phosphate, and total phosphorus. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were measured in soil at concentrations between 0.0025 B µg/kg to 0.59 J µg/kg. The highest concentration, 0.59 J µg/kg, was observed near the northeast corner of the GLCC site, approximately 830 ft from the River (BBL, 2007). In May/June 2006, BBL collected surface soil samples in the area of the former lab and warehouse buildings located approximately 700 ft east of the samples collected in 2005. Samples were submitted for analysis of PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, chloride, percent solids, phosphate, and total phosphorus. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were observed to range from 0.0034 J µg/kg to 3.3 J µg/kg. The two highest concentrations, 1.7 µg/kg and 3.3 µg/kg, were located outside the lab and warehouse buildings approximately 40 ft and 80 ft east of the northern property boundary, respectively (BBL, 2007). 031884 (51) 34 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.4 EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION (BASED ON PRE-EOC STUDY DATA) 3.4.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA VALIDITY Data developed by U.S. EPA and WV DEP/DNR were subject to full validation with the exception of historic fish sampling data for which validation information was not available. The validated data were therefore determined to be useable and was incorporated into the database of historic Site characterization information. Where sample coordinates were available, they were utilized as location information in the database. Where location data were not available, the mapped locations of sample points were digitized and tied to the site coordinate system to provide approximate location information. 3.4.2 SURFACE WATER 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA Surface water 2,3,7,8-TCDD data (collected prior to the EOC study) are summarized in Table 3.2. WV WQS in effect at the time of the investigations were written to apply at all times when flows are equal to or greater than the minimum mean seven consecutive day drought flow with a ten year return frequency (7Q10) (WV 46-1-7.2.b), with the exception of the River, where the minimum flow is 1,960 cfs at the Charleston gauge (WV 46-1.7.2.d.19.2). U.S. EPA guidance suggests that the average flow condition represented by the harmonic mean flow is the appropriate design condition for contaminants that are regulated as potential carcinogens such as dioxins. However, WV WQS (WV 46-1-8-2.b) defer a specific decision on critical flows for carcinogens. Key findings of prior surface water investigations can be summarized as follows: 031884 (51) • Surface water samples collected in May 1999 and June 2000 at locations well upstream of Nitro contained between 0.007 to 0.009 pg/L total 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dissolved plus particulate), or approximately one-half to two-thirds of the State water quality criterion of 0.014 pg/L (1.4x10-8 ppb). • Surface water samples collected between June 1998 and June 2000 within the Nitro area and at downstream locations (RM 29.7 to 42.2) contained total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranging from 0.109 to 0.375 pg/L (1.09 x 10-7 to 3.75 x 10-7 ppb), or approximately 8 to 27 times the State water quality criterion with 6 of the 10 samples exceeding the criteria in the dissolved phase sample. 35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • On average, 2,3,7,8-TCDD associated with suspended particulate material accounts for about 90 percent of the total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration, whereas dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD only accounts for about 10 percent of the total concentration. 3.4.3 SEDIMENT 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA This section summarizes information available prior to implementation of the EOC Study regarding the nature and extent of sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations within the Study Area, based largely on the results of a recent U.S. EPA sampling investigation (U.S. EPA, 2001). The EOC screening criteria was used to evaluate the pre-EOC data to ensure consistency between evaluations of all of the data (EOC, and pre-EOC) and to allow direct comparison between the data. Spatial Distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD: The spatial distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations is identified on Figure 3.3. Figure 3.4 presents 2,3,7,8-TCDD analytical results from all depths, plotted by RM, and separated into left and right River bank samples. Elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were not identified within the navigation channel. This is consistent with U.S. ACE bathymetric information and dredge records, which indicate the navigational channel is self-scouring, with velocities too high to allow deposition of fine-grained sediments. Review of the data available prior to implementation of EOC sampling reveals that elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations have been detected in buried subsurface sediment intervals. All sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations greater than 5 µg/kg (5 ppb) have been detected in subsurface intervals. In contrast, all surface sediment samples collected from the top 15 cm of the sediment column, which typically represents the biologically active zone where the majority of benthic organisms live (Boudreau, 1997; DiToro et al., 2001), have all contained less than 0.5 µg/kg (0.5 ppb) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the highest being 0.495 µg/kg (0.495 ppb) at RM 42.5. The sediment core data reveal a general pattern of increasing 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations with greater depth within the sediments, and the highest levels are present in relatively deeply buried sediments (Figure 3.5). These patterns are consistent with a historical release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River, and subsequent natural recovery of surface sediment quality resulting from sediment deposition, burial, and/or biodegradation processes (microbial degradation). One sediment coring location exhibited an exception to the general recovery trend— Core SD-3 was collected at RM 33.9, relatively far downstream in the Winfield Pool. Core SD-3 reveals an increasing concentration trend in surface sediments (Figure 3.6). 031884 (51) 36 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Order of Magnitude Reduction in Sediment Concentrations: As discussed above, based on the sediment core profiles (excluding Core SD-3), there is evidence of improvement in the quality of surface sediments over time between RM 42.5 and 36.0. Based on the sedimentary record, there appears to have been an order of magnitude or larger reduction over time in surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations at the Site— evidenced by frequent detections of 1 to 5.2 µg/kg (5.2 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in subsurface sediments, compared with surface sediments that all contain less than 0.5 µg/kg (0.5 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This can be explained by deposited sediment with lower concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD mixing with existing sediments, and the reduction over time of source contributions to the River. Lower concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediment means less 2,3,7,8-TCDD reentering the water column due to resuspension, implying the loss due to sedimentation outweighs the gain due to resuspension, thereby decreasing the total concentration in the water column (Bansidhar et al., 2001). Point Source and Tributary Sediments: The plot of sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration versus River Mile for the right bank of the River is presented on Figure 3.4, and for comparison, outfall and tributary sediments are also plotted at their point of discharge to the River. U.S. EPA (2002a) conducted an outfall sampling program in August 2001. Sediments were collected from River sediment adjacent to the outfall pipes. Sample results were all below 0.5 µg/kg, except for two outfalls on the Former Flexsys Facility. Pipeline sediments from the Former Flexsys Facility Outfall 006 contained 2.9 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and pipeline sediments from the Former Flexsys Facility Outfall 008 contained 1.0 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Relative to a possible sediment benchmark of 0.5 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD, these outfalls are a potential concern for historic sediment loading but have since been closed as part of the RCRA CA (see Section 6.4 for further details). Sediment samples from Armour Creek contained low to moderate 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations—all samples were less than 0.5 µg/kg (0.5 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Sediment samples from Pocatalico River contained low 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations—all samples were below 0.02 µg/kg (0.02 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (U.S. EPA, 2001). Remedial measures and/or source controls have likely helped to reduce the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the tributary sediment load. Presently, neither Armour Creek nor the Pocatalico River appears to pose a risk for sediment recontamination. 031884 (51) 37 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Key findings of prior sediment investigations can be summarized as follows: • The highest sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations have historically been detected on the right bank (looking downstream) near RM 42.5 (Nitro) and near RM 38.2 (roughly one mile downstream of the Pocatalico River), reaching peak concentrations of approximately 5.0 µg/kg in subsurface sediment • The right bank (looking downstream) contains consistently higher concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD than the left bank of the River • The overall pattern of sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the River, particularly at locations downstream of RM 42.5 appears patchy and discontinuous • Surficial sediment concentrations and sediment core profiles indicate that surficial sediment concentrations are approximately 1 order of magnitude lower in concentration than sediments deposited historically 3.4.4 FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD DATA 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been measured in fish tissues by several agencies at numerous locations throughout the River, Armour Creek, and Pocatalico River since the early 1970s and prior to the EOC study. The most commonly sampled species included channel catfish and various types of bass (largemouth, smallmouth, white, striped, spotted, and hybrid). One benchmark that has been used to evaluate fish tissue data is the former West Virginia criterion of 6.4 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) (0.0064 ppb) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in edible fish tissue. Although this criterion has since been removed from WV regulations, it was considered in the development of the River TMDL (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Current West Virginia fish tissue advisory levels are based on consumption frequency (meals per year), method of preparation (skin on or skin off) and age group (adult or child). Current tissue advisory levels for 2,3,7,8-TCDD range from 0.46 to 37.54 ng/kg (0.004 to 0.038 ppb) (WV DHHR, 2007). WV Fish Consumption Advisory Levels (WV DHHR, 2007), based on carcinogenic effects for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are: 031884 (51) 38 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Advisory Level No restriction (255 meals/year) 1 meal per week 2 meals per month 1 meal per month 6 meals per year Do not eat Skin Off Filet Min. Max. (ng/kg) (ng/kg) -<0.46 0.46 1.98 >1.98 4.3 >4.3 8.6 >8.6 17.19 >17.19 -- Skin On Filet Min. Max. (ng/kg) (ng/kg) -<0.64 0.64 2.78 >2.78 6.02 >6.02 12.03 >12.03 24.07 >24.07 -- Advisory levels for non-carcinogenic effects are slightly less restrictive, ranging from 0.72 to 37.54 ng/kg: Advisory Level No restriction (255 meals/year) 1 meal per week 2 meals per month 1 meal per month 6 meals per year Do not eat Skin Off Filet Min. Max. (ng/kg) (ng/kg) -<0.72 0.72 3.09 >3.09 6.70 >6.70 13.41 >13.41 26.82 >26.82 -- Skin On Filet Min. Max. (ng/kg) (ng/kg) -<1.00 1.00 4.33 >4.33 9.39 >9.39 18.77 >18.77 37.54 >37.54 -- Lipid Content: As shown on Figure 3.7, the tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of pre-EOC investigations fish tissue data show a good linear correlation with lipid content, consistent with the expectation that this hydrophobic organic contaminant tends to concentrate in the fatty parts of the fish. The arithmetic average lipid concentration in fish tissue samples from the River and tributaries prior to the EOC study is about 3 percent based on the data presented on Figure 3.7. Spatial Distribution of Fish Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentrations: Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations versus RM are presented on Figure 3.8; these concentrations are normalized using the equation below to the regional average lipid content of 3 percent to reduce variability in the data and to better elucidate underlying trends in the database. 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 3 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = × 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑖𝑖 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 031884 (51) 39 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Tissue concentrations from pre-EOC sampling all exceed the current WV no restriction levels for fish consumption. Approximately half of historic bottom feeder tissue samples from 1992 or earlier exceeded the "do not eat" advisory level. The remainder of the historic bottom feeder data falls within the advisory range. For sport fish, one sample from a 1984 sampling event exceeded the "do not eat" advisory level, with the remainder of samples falling within the advisory range. Temporal Distribution of Fish Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentrations: Fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations versus time are presented on Figure 3.9. Although there is a significant amount of spatial and sample variability in tissue concentrations at any given time, the data indicate a generally decreasing trend in concentration over time. Based on the best-fit regression line, there has been roughly an order of magnitude reduction in tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations over the last 30 years. This reduction is commensurate with the order of magnitude reduction in sediment concentrations that are observed between subsurface core samples and present-day surface sediments. In the 1970s, exceedances of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Level were common. In the 1990's, exceedances of the FDA Advisory Level were rare. More recently, the mean value of the tissue concentrations in the River appears to be approaching the former State criterion of 6.4 ng/kg (as evidenced by the trend of the regression line on Figure 3.9). The observed reduction in fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations over time provides further indication of natural recovery processes within the River system. 031884 (51) 40 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.0 EE/CA COMPLETED INVESTIGATION AND ANALYTICAL DATA The information necessary to fill the data gaps identified in the Work Plan was collected through the completion of 9 investigative tasks. Tasks 1 through 3 were data compilation tasks; these tasks were initiated prior to the development of the Work Plan. Tasks 4 through 9 were sampling and analytical tasks. These tasks were implemented in two phases, such that the results of the Phase I EOC investigation were used to optimize and focus the scope of the Phase II EOC investigation. The Phase I EOC investigation included Tasks 4 through 6, and the Phase II EOC investigation included Tasks 7 through 9. Field activities, sample handling, and analysis were completed in accordance with the procedures identified in the Work Plan, including the Field Sampling Plan (FSP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and Health and Safety Plan (HASP), as well as the Final Phase I EOC Sampling SOW, Final Phase II EOC Sampling SOW, and Supplemental Phase II EOC Sampling SOW. Due to the specialized nature of some of the investigative activities, specialty subcontractors were employed to complete a number of activities. Project Team personnel directly supervised all activities completed by subcontractors. A CRA, Exponent, or Anchor QEA representative was on-Site during the implementation of all Phase I and II EOC activities. Appendix D presents field notes associated with the field activities completed for the Site. A photographic log is presented in Appendix E. 4.1 DATA COMPILATION ACTIVITIES 4.1.1 TASK 1 - REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION A comprehensive review of U.S. EPA, WV DEP, U.S. ACE, and other agency files was completed for the purposes of the Work Plan to obtain available relevant information on the River, its tributaries, and potential historic and ongoing sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The review also included the review of Pharmacia Corporation, Monsanto Company, and Solutia files relevant to the Site. The information obtained and reviewed as part of the file review is summarized in the discussion of Site conditions presented in Section 3.0 of this Report. 4.1.2 TASK 2 – AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND BASE MAPPING Aerial photography was completed for the Site (from upstream of the Coal River to downstream of the Winfield Dam) in April 2003. Ground truthing surveys were 031884 (51) 41 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES completed for the area photographed to allow accurate topographic base mapping to be developed for the area photographed. Base mapping was developed in the vicinity of Nitro, WV. 4.1.3 TASK 3 – HISTORICAL DATABASE DEVELOPMENT/GIS All analytical data obtained as part of Task 1 were entered into a database for the Site. The data entered were reviewed for Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) purposes and flagged with regard to the level of data validation and usability. A geographic information system (GIS) was created using the database and aerial photography and base mapping developed as part of Task 2. The available sample locations have been added to the GIS database. Validated location information could not be obtained for approximately 50 percent of the historic data points entered into the database. A copy of the current GIS database for the Site is included on the enclosed compact disk, in Appendix F. 4.2 PHASE I EOC ACTIVITIES The Phase I EOC investigation sampling and analysis program included: • Bathymetric and geophysical surveys • Surface water sampling and analysis (including velocity profiling) • Fish tissue sampling and analysis • Surface sediment sampling to support the geophysical survey, and mapping of soft sediment deposits • Surface sediment sampling to support the derivation of a Site-specific biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD A summary of the Phase I EOC field activities is provided in Table 4.1. The Phase I EOC sampling activities were completed in two mobilizations: October 4, 2004 through November 2, 2004; and April 11, 2005 through April 18, 2005. Velocity profiling, bathymetric/geophysical surveying, low flow surface sampling activities, fish tissue sampling, and sediment sampling to support the BSAF determination were completed during the first mobilization. High flow surface water sampling was completed during the second mobilization. 031884 (51) 42 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The Phase I investigation tasks and results were presented in detail in the Phase I EOC Results Report (CRA, 2005 and CRA, 2008), and included herein. 4.2.1 TASK 4 – BATHYMETRIC AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY A bathymetric and geophysical survey of the Site was completed to develop an understanding of sediment characteristics and depositional patterns to support Site evaluation and to facilitate design of subsequent sampling activities. Golder completed the bathymetric and geophysical survey as a subcontractor to CRA, in accordance with the Work Plan. A copy of the Golder Report is included in Appendix B. In general, the survey provided the following information: • Water depth in the main channel varies from approximately 25 to 45 ft. Bathymetric depressions and probable scour holes are observed at the mouths of the Pocatalico and Coal Rivers. • The side slopes of the River are steep, typically 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), descending to channel depth within 50 to 200 ft of the shoreline. The deepest part of the channel (i.e., thalweg) tends to migrate toward the outside of meander bends, locally forming steeper banks in those areas. • Bedrock outcrops appear to be exposed or covered by a thin sediment veneer on many of the side-slope areas, especially the lower portions of the side slopes. • Coarse-grained deposits up to six feet thick and intervening hardpan surfaces were mapped in the center channel. Follow-on grab sampling indicated channel sediments are comprised of fine- to coarse-grained sand and gravel. • Finer grained sediments appeared to be mainly restricted to shallower, near shore benches and bays, especially near tributary mouths. • Coal was identified in a number of the sediment grab samples. This was anticipated based on the use of the River for coal transportation and historic coal recovery dredging activities. The bathymetric contours and geophysical features are summarized on Figures 4.1 and 4.2. 031884 (51) 43 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.2.2 TASK 5 – SURFACE WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS High volume surface water sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was performed at 5 sampling stations along the River, as follows: • RM 68 – upstream of Marmet Dam (representing regional background surface water concentrations, coincident with the principal fish sampling location upstream of the Site, i.e., upstream of Study Area 1) • RM 46 – upstream Study Area boundary (representing area background surface water conditions) • RM 42 – immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility in Nitro (coincident with the downstream fish sampling location) • RM 33 – downstream Study Area boundary (in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek), upstream of Winfield Dam • RM 31 – on the upstream side of Winfield Dam Sample locations were selected based on previous sampling programs conducted by the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), USGS, and U.S. EPA. Sampling methods, as described below, are based on methods developed by USGS and identified in the document entitled Kanawha River Fish Tissue, Surface Water, and Sediment Sampling Rationale, Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Work Plan Addendum dated August 24, 2004 and approved by USEPA in a letter dated September 8, 2004. All surface water samples were collected using appropriate channel cross-section flow-weighted compositing methods based on a modification of the procedures developed by the USGS, as described in the Phase I EOC Sampling Results and Updated Phase II EOC Sampling Work Plan (Phase I EOC Results Report) as follows: 031884 (51) 1. Initial flow measurements (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) velocity profiles) were completed at each sampling station/transect to characterize flow conditions. These data were used for subsequent EE/CA hydrodynamic modeling. 2. Due to the greater potential for cross-channel variability, the River transect at RM 42 was divided into 8 equal flow sections, and sampled accordingly. 3. Using the high volume apparatus, sampling of the River was performed at the midpoint of each of the flow sections at 0.2 and 0.8 times the total depth of the water column at each location. The inlet for the high volume sampler was 44 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES deployed for equal time periods at 8 different station locations, typically requiring moving the inlet once every 3 hours (16 station locations and nominal 1.5-hour intervals at RM 42). Grab samples of the water were also collected twice a day during high volume surface water sampling and were analyzed for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) concentrations. Velocity profiling was completed on cross-sections at RM 31, 33, 42, 46, and 68 in order to divide the River at each cross section into quadrants of equal flow to determine the high-volume surface water sampling stations. Velocity profiling was completed by Blue Coast Scientific, Inc. (Blue Coast) under the supervision of CRA. An ADCP was utilized for the survey. As noted in Table 4.1, a replacement ADCP unit was sent to the Site due to a leak identified in the unit first delivered to the Site. All velocity profile information was recorded utilizing the second ADCP unit. A copy of the report provided by Blue Coast was included as part of the Phase I EOC Results Report and is included in Appendix B. Current velocity and direction flow measurements were performed every 2 seconds along each transect. This equated to measurements on approximate 2 m (approximately 6.5 ft) intervals horizontally. At each horizontal interval, discrete measurements were collected for each vertical interval. The vertical intervals utilized were approximately 25 centimeters (10-inches). Location data were recorded by a Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS). The location of each transect was also tied to physical features to ensure the same locations would be utilized for surface water sampling during high flow and low flow events. A summary of the flow measurements taken at the center of each section of equal flow is presented in Table 4.2. Two surface water sampling events (corresponding to seasonal low and high flow River conditions) were completed. The seasonal low flow condition surface water sampling occurred during October/November 2004, while the seasonal high flow event occurred during April 2005. Seasonal discharge conditions from the Charleston gage (USGS 03198000) and prior high volume 2,3,7,8-TCDD sampling events conducted by U.S. EPA and Monsanto Company are presented on Figure 4.3. The high volume sampling method was implemented in the field to obtain flow-weighted composite samples. The high water volume was required to achieve the target low detection limits specified in the EE/CA Work Plan. Large volumes of River water were pumped through a dual-media filter (approximately 1,000 liters (L) pumped 031884 (51) 45 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES at approximately 2 L per minute). The water was first passed through a glass-fiber filter to capture particulate 2,3,7,8-TCDD bound to suspended sediments, followed by an XAD resin column, which extracted dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The two filters are analyzed separately to provide particulate, dissolved, and total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. One deviation from the specified sampling protocol was made due to weather. On October 13, 2004, sampling at RM 42 was suspended due to lightning, after 7 of the 8 specified equal flow sections had been sampled. As sufficient sample volume had been filtered to achieve the desired detection limits, it was requested that sampling be considered complete for that location. This request was verbally approved by U.S. EPA, and confirmed in an October 18, 2004 e-mail from Mr. Jeff Daniel of CRA to U.S. EPA. The remaining section, which was not sampled, was adjacent to the western River bank (i.e., opposite bank from the Former Flexsys Facility). A high flow event (70,300 cubic feet per second) occurred on September 30, 2004. Although flows returned to normal level by early October 2004, the high flow event may have impacted the representativeness of the October 2004 sampling event as an indication of low flow conditions. Particulate and dissolved fractions of the surface water samples were submitted for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners, as well as Total Suspended Solids (TSS), DOC, and TOC to Axys Analytical Services Ltd. (Axys) of Sidney, British Columbia. Axys also provided the high volume sampling equipment and a field technician to assist in collecting the samples. Grab samples were collected 3 times for each transect and tested for dissolved oxygen (DO), redox, and conductivity utilizing a water quality meter. The surface water sampling locations and results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dissolved and particulate), TOC, DOC, and TSS are presented on Figure 4.4 and are summarized in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 also presents the flow data from the Charleston gage for each day of sampling. Analytical data reports for surface water samples are presented in Appendix G and the database of all analyses is included as Appendix F. Surface water sample results are further discussed in Section 4.4.1. 4.2.3 TASK 6 – FISH TISSUE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Phase I EOC fish tissue sampling activities took place in October 2004 alongside the surface water sampling activities. The fish tissue sampling and analysis plan described in the Work Plan was modified in August 2004 prior to conducting the sampling 031884 (51) 46 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES activities. The modifications to the target fish species identified in the Work Plan were as follows: • Adult channel catfish collected well upstream (approximately RM 75 to 95) and on-Site/downstream (approximately RM 33 to 45) to be representative of bottom fish species. • Adult bass (largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and spotted bass) collected at upstream (RM 68), on-Site (RM 42), and downstream (RM 33) locations to represent sport fish species. • Forage fish. These were not originally included in the Work Plan but in the modifications these fish were identified as a BSAF target species well suited for monitoring spatial trends due to its limited home range and lack of historical contaminant burden. The intent was to sample white suckers and red horse suckers less than 150 millimeters (mm) (6 in) in total length. However, because these species could not be found at the Site during the time of sampling, the forage fish was changed to gizzard shad, after consultation with U.S. EPA and U.S. ACE. Fish tissue samples were to be originally collected at the upstream boundary of the Site (RM 46.0), one in the vicinity of Nitro (RM 42.0), and the third downstream of Pocatalico River (RM 36.0). Modifications to the sample locations resulted in the following 5 sample locations: • RM 75 to 95: This location was added to ensure that the home ranges of channel catfish sampled were beyond potential influence from the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 68: This location was selected to be immediately upstream of the Marmet Dam to represent the regional background conditions unaffected by the releases from the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 42: This location was selected to be in the vicinity of Nitro downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 33 to 45: This location was not originally included in the modified Work Plan; however, sufficient numbers of channel catfish were obtained at this location to provide a sample to represent conditions downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 33: This location was selected to be in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek and upstream of the Winfield Dam The locations of the sampling stations at RM 68, RM 42, and RM 33 are consistent with areas sampled in previous investigations. 031884 (51) 47 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Fish samples were obtained by electro-fishing conducted by Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau) under the supervision of CRA. Trotlines were also utilized; however, electro-fishing was found to provide the best results in obtaining target species. Recovered fish were prepared by CRA's biologist in accordance with the Work Plan procedures. At each fish sampling location, 5 composite samples of fish were prepared by CRA's biologist in accordance with the modified EE/CA Work Plan procedures. Forage fish were sent to the lab whole, with 15 fish per composite sample. Sport (bass) and bottom feeding (channel catfish) fish tissues were filleted in the field. Fillets from a minimum of 4 to 5 similarly-sized fish were composited into samples for chemical analysis. Channel catfish were filleted with skin off, and bass and the forage fish were filleted with skin on, consistent with U.S. EPA guidance and general local practices (WV DHHR, 2002). Five duplicate and matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples were collected at RM 33 for forage fish (gizzard shad); however, only 2 duplicate samples were submitted for analysis to comply with the requirement of 1 duplicate sample for every 20 samples. Fish tissue samples were collected from the following sampling locations: • Channel catfish from two areas - RM 33 to 34 and RM 75 to 95. Sufficient numbers of channel catfish were obtained to provide the requisite samples for RM 33 to 45. Four replicate samples were obtained from RM 75 to 95. • Bass from three areas – RM 33, 42, and 68. Sufficient numbers of fish were obtained at all locations. • Forage fish (gizzard shad) from three areas - RM 33, 42, and 68. Sufficient numbers of fish were obtained at RM 33 and RM 42. At RM 68, replicate sample #4 consisted of 6 larger gizzard shad. A sufficient number of fish could not be obtained to collect a 5th replicate sample. Samples were stored on dry ice and shipped to Axys for analysis. The tissue was homogenized and analyzed for lipid content and 2,3,7,8 dioxin/furan congeners at Axys. A summary of the fish tissue samples is presented on Table 4.4. Fish sample locations and results are presented on Figure 4.5 and in Table 4.5a and are further discussed in Section 4.4.2. Complete analytical results are presented in Appendix G and fish tissue sample preparation field forms are included in Appendix H. Additional fish tissue sampling was proposed as part of the Phase II EOC SOW to provide additional data to evaluate the continuing recovery trends for the River. Phase II EOC fish tissue sampling took place in two mobilizations; December 12, 2008 031884 (51) 48 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES through December 22, 2008 and January 12, 2009 through January 20, 2009. sampling events are further discussed in Section 4.4.2. These Additional Surficial Sediment Sampling Per the original EE/CA Work Plan, sediment sampling activities were to be included in the Phase II EOC activities. However, Anchor QEA modified the Phase I EOC sampling activities in August 2004 to include surface sediment sampling locations. The modifications included the collection of surface sediment samples for BSAF determinations and sediment mapping. The Phase I EOC surface sediment sampling was completed for two purposes, as follows: • To provide physical properties data (grain size, TOC, percent solids, and field geologic descriptions) to support the interpretation of geophysical survey data • To provide 2,3,7,8-TCDD data for surface sediment in the area of forage fish sample collection. This data was utilized to support the development of a BSAF for the Site Surface sediment sampling activities took place in October 2004 and surface sediment samples (0 to 6 cm) for sediment mapping were proposed at 28 locations; however, samples were only collected at 20 locations, between RM 32 and RM 44, to provide physical properties data to support the interpretation of geophysical survey data. Sample locations are presented on Figure 4.6a and Figure 4.6b. Samples were not collected at 8 locations (GT-005, GT-010, GT-13, GT-14, GT-17, GT-20, GT-26, and GT-27) after three failed successive attempts. Samples collected were submitted for analysis of TOC, total solids (TS), and grain size. Sample results are summarized in Table 4.6a and a summary of the Phase I EOC investigation surface sediment sampling field measurements (i.e., water depth, sample depth) and field descriptions is presented in Table 4.8a. Grain size data for the 20 samples is presented in Table 4.9a. These sample results are further discussed in Section 4.4.3. Surface sediment samples (0 to 6 cm) for the BSAF calculations were collected from the following 3 locations: 031884 (51) • RM 68 – Immediately upstream of the Marmet Dam to represent regional background conditions unaffected by releases from the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 42 – In the vicinity of Nitro, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility • RM 33 – Downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility and upstream of Winfield Dam, in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek 49 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES At each station, two composite samples, with a minimum of 5 grab samples per composite, of relatively fine-grained sediment deposits were collected in the vicinity of the fish sampling locations for spatial monitoring/BSAF species. At total of 6 composite surface sediment samples were collected (KD-200 to KD-205), each comprised of 5 grab samples (KD-001 to KD-030). These samples were collected to characterize contemporaneous sediment exposure data and to assess short-term sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposures to fish for the purpose of BSAF calculations. All sediment samples were submitted for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Once the composite samples were made, the remaining samples were archived. During the collection of the surface sediment samples, oily material was observed at sample locations KD-010 and KD-118. Samples from these two locations were submitted for additional chemical analysis of expanded Target Compound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL) parameters (dioxins and furans, metals, PCBs, pesticides, SVOCs, and VOCs) and oil/grease. The results of these analyses are summarized on Table 4.7 and complete laboratory reports are presented in Appendix G. These results are further discussed in Section 4.4.3. 4.3 PHASE II EOC ACTIVITIES The Phase II EOC sampling and analysis program included the following major activities: • Surface (SSD-01 to SSD-29 and COR-01 to COR-43) and subsurface (COR-01 to COR-43) sediment sampling to further define the EOC at the Site • Collection and analysis of age-dated sediment cores (NRC-01 to NRC-08) to support natural recovery evaluations • Collection of sediment cores for Sedflume testing • Collection of additional fish tissue samples for evaluation of recovery trends for the River Phase II EOC sampling activities were completed in four mobilizations: November 26, 2007 through December 17, 2007; February 19, 2008 through February 25, 2008; December 8, 2008 through January 9, 2009, and July 27, 2009 through July 30, 2009. During the first mobilization, high flow conditions in the River caused by heavy rainfall, made core retrieval and surface and subsurface sediment sampling difficult at several locations, particularly at locations mid-channel of the River. Although sampling 031884 (51) 50 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES conditions were difficult in a number of center-channel locations due to increased flows, the only locations which were not sampled were those near the locks and dam which U.S. ACE instructed the sampling team not to collect. This was due to safety considerations and as instructed by the U.S. ACE Lock Master. The area immediately upstream of the Winfield Locks and Dam is designated as a Restricted Area due to a strong undertow created by the flow of water through the gated section of the dam. The sampling vessel was in radio contact with the Winfield Lock and Dam during all sampling activities, and was instructed to maintain a distance determined to be safe by the U.S. ACE Lock Master from the Restricted Area. The U.S. ACE and Winfield Lock and Dam were notified in advance of sampling activities through Notice to Navigation Permits. According to the USGS data (USGS, 2007) for West Virginia at Charleston, the River flow rate reached 38,100 cfs on December 15, 2007 compared to 6,150 cfs on December 8, 2007. The average total flow rate for the month of December over the past 10 years is recorded as approximately 14,000 cfs (USGS, 2007). The sampling activities completed during each mobilization are described in more detail in the following sections. A summary of the Phase II EOC Field Activities is provided in Table 4.1. 4.3.1 TASK 7 – SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING The Phase II EOC investigation included collection of both surface (0 to 6 inches) and subsurface (to a maximum depth of 10 ft) sediment samples to provide further definition of the spatial and vertical extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination. The surface sediment samples are representative of sediments that are exposed to the water column, primarily via resuspension, and that are available for exposure to fish and other aquatic life. The subsurface sediment samples provide a record of 2,3,7,8-TCDD accumulation patterns over time. All sediment samples, both surface and subsurface, were completed in accordance with the procedures presented in the EE/CA Work Plan and analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size (volume permitting). Samples from several locations (listed below) were analyzed for additional parameters to determine the presence of other significant chemicals of concern in the River. These parameters included: 031884 (51) • Dioxin and furan congeners (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins/ polychlorinated dibenzofurans [PCDD/PCDF]) • Priority Pollutant Metals 51 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) • Chlorinated Pesticides Samples proposed for additional analyses were selected following sample collection based on sample volume and location, and were proposed to, and approved by, U.S. EPA prior to analysis. To the extent possible, sample locations were selected to provide good spatial coverage of the Study Areas. Samples analyzed for additional parameters included: • Surficial sediment samples from the following locations in Study Area 4 (Downstream Area): COR-03, COR-07, COR-13, and COR-20 • Surficial sediment samples from the following locations in Study Area 3 (Downstream Area): SSD-18, SSD-20, and SSD-20 (duplicate) • Surficial sediment samples from the following locations in Study Area 2 (Adjacent Area): SSD-25 • Surficial sediment samples from the following locations in Study Area 1 (Area upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility): SSD-27 • Sediment core samples from locations COR-08 (2-4 ft) and COR-22 (2-4.1 ft) from Study Area 4 • Sediment core samples from locations COR-28 (0-2 ft) from Study Area 3 • Sediment core samples from locations COR-33 (0-1.75 ft), COR-36 (2-4 ft), COR-36 (4-6 ft), COR-39 (0-1.4 ft), and COR-39 (1.4-2.8 ft) from Study Area 2 Surface and subsurface sediment samples were submitted to TestAmerica, Inc. (TestAmerica) in North Canton, Ohio, for analysis and/or archiving in accordance with the QAPP. All analytical data reports are presented in Appendix G. 4.3.1.1 SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING Surface sediment sample locations were collected during the first and second mobilizations of the Phase II EOC sampling activities. A total of 72 surface sediment samples were proposed in the EE/CA Work Plan; however, one sample location (SSD-08) was not accessible as the location was too shallow for the sampling vessel to reach and the closest offset location was another predetermined sample location. Therefore a total of 71 surface sediment samples (SSD-01 to SSD-29 and COR-01 to 031884 (51) 52 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES COR-43) were collected from the top four inches of sediment (COR-01, COR-15, SSD-06, and SSD-20 were collected from the top six inches) and submitted to TestAmerica for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Surface sediment sample locations and 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b. Surface sediment samples were collected from the following Study Area locations: • Study Area 1 (upstream of Former Flexsys Facility) – 5 samples (SSD-26 to SSD-29 and COR-43) • Study Area 2 (vicinity of Former Flexsys Facility) – 13 samples (SSD-23 to SSD-25 and COR-33 to COR-42) • Study Area 3 (downstream of Former Flexsys Facility) – 17 samples (SSD-15 to SSD-22 and COR-24 to COR-32) • Study Area 4 (downstream of Former Flexsys Facility) – 36 samples (SSD-01 to SSD-13 and COR-01 to COR-23) The surface sediment sampling analytical and expanded analytical results are summarized in Tables 4.6a and 4.10a, respectively, and on Figures 4.7 through 4.10. The grain size data results are summarized in Table 4.9 and the sample results are discussed in Section 4.4.3. 4.3.1.2 SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING Sediment core samples were collected and analyzed to delineate the depth of contamination and provide information regarding sediment deposit thickness. Coring and subsurface sampling activities were completed in three mobilizations: November 26, 2007 through December 17, 2007; February 19, 2008 through February 25, 2008; and December 8, 2008 through January 9, 2009. A total of 24 of the 43 proposed sediment cores were successfully advanced using an electrically powered vibracore during the first mobilization. Core retrieval at locations COR-01 and COR-02, located in close proximity to the Winfield Lock and Dam, were not attempted at the request of U.S. ACE due to safety considerations. Locations COR-05, COR-06, COR-13 to COR-17, and COR-31 were not successfully sampled due to high flow conditions, which made positioning of the sampling vessel and sediment penetration difficult. Sampling was not performed at the location designated for COR-10. Refusal was encountered at 7 core locations: COR-24, COR-26, COR-27, COR-29, COR-31, COR-32, COR-34, and COR-37. The cores that were successfully 031884 (51) 53 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES retrieved were processed for analysis at TestAmerica for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Core locations that were not attempted during the first mobilization due to River conditions were attempted during the subsequent mobilization in February 2008. The locations attempted during the second mobilization included COR-01, COR-02, COR-05, COR-06, COR-13, COR-14, COR-15, COR-16, and COR-17. During the second mobilization, core advancement and retrieval were successful at two locations COR-15 and COR-16, and were submitted for analysis, both are River-bank locations. A shallow 8 inch recovery was successful at COR-05 which was profiled; however it was not submitted for analysis. Core retrieval in mid channel locations was not possible due to the coarse granular nature of the gravel present at these locations. Based on preliminary analysis of surface and subsurface data collected during the first two mobilizations of the Phase II EOC activities, along with evaluations of the Phase I EOC sediment sampling data and historically available data, U.S. EPA determined that additional sampling would be beneficial in determining the extent of several areas of comparatively higher concentration in order to support EE/CA activities. Specifically, areas of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations had been detected along the east bank of Study Area 2 near the Former Flexsys Facility, along the west bank, upstream of I-64, and downstream of the power plant in Study Area 4, and further delineation of sediment concentrations in these areas would better inform the EE/CA. Accordingly, a total of 9 additional subsurface cores were retrieved in December 2008. The locations were selected and approved by U.S. EPA as follows: 031884 (51) • COR-42 was re-sampled as limited retrieval was achieved during the first mobilization • COR-40 was re-sampled • COR-36 was re-sampled • COR-36A is located upstream of COR-36 on the west River bank in Study Area 2 across from the Former Flexsys Facility • COR-36B and COR-36C are located downstream of COR-36 on the west River bank in Study Area 2 across from the Former Flexsys Facility • COR-32A and COR-32B are on the west River bank in Study Area 3 downstream and opposite of the Former Flexsys Facility • COR-28A is located between KRSD-15 and COR-28 on the east River bank of Study Area 3 downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility 54 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Cores from all of the 9 sediment coring locations were successfully collected and sampled. All samples were split with U.S. EPA and submitted to Test America for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Core sample locations and 2,3,7,8-TCDD results for all Phase II mobilizations are presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b. Consistent with the Work Plan, all cores from all sampling events were sub-sectioned into 2 ft intervals; the top three intervals (top 6 ft) were submitted for chemical analysis and the remaining intervals were put on hold for analysis and analyzed if 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in the top 6 feet. Prior to being processed for analysis, cores were photographed and visually classified (the photolog presented in Appendix E includes sediment core photographs). At most of the core locations, core penetration was limited to four feet or less. All samples from locations that had four feet of recovery or less were submitted to TestAmerica for analysis. The top three intervals from COR-03, COR-04, COR-21, and COR-36 from the first two mobilizations, and COR-40 from the third mobilization, were submitted for analysis and the remaining intervals were archived for potential future analysis (COR-40 only had three intervals). At location COR-35 from the first two mobilizations and COR-32B and COR-36 from the third mobilization, all intervals were submitted for analysis. A summary of subsurface sediment sampling activities is presented in Table 4.1 and the analytical results and expanded analytical results are summarized in Tables 4.6b and 4.10b, respectively. Sample results are also presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b and 4.7 through 4.10. Sediment coring field measurements and field descriptions are summarized in Table 4.8b. The grain size data results are summarized in Table 4.9 and the sample results are discussed in Section 4.4.4. Corehole logs for all completed cores are presented in Appendix I. 4.3.2 BLACK CARBON CORE SAMPLING The prevalence of coal in sediment could potentially affect 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioavailability due to different adsorption characteristics; therefore eight select samples (BC-COR-10A, BC-COR-10B, BC-COR-13A, BC-COR-13B, BC-COR-37A, BC-COR-37B, BC-SSD-26A, and BC-SSD-26B) were collected for statistical (e.g., correlation) analyses in February 2008 to determine if coal particles in the River are preferred sites for 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorption. River sediments may affect chemical availability and the relationship between sediment and fish tissue concentrations. Since the adsorption properties of 031884 (51) 55 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES black carbon (including coal) vary depending on the surface area of individual particles, bioaccumulation controls are expected to vary depending on the grain size of coal within the sediments. Four samples with observable portions of coal material were selected for targeted analysis. These were collected in samples associated with core locations COR-10, COR-13, COR-37, and SSD-26. In each case, a sample with observable coal material was submitted along with a companion sample from an adjacent location with lower amounts of observable coal, for a total of 8 samples. The 8 samples included 2 surface sediment samples (BC-SSD-26A and BC-SSD-26B) that visually contained the greatest density of coal particles and 6 core samples (BC-COR-10A, BC-COR-10B, BC-COR-13A, BC-COR-13B, BC-COR-37A, and BC-COR-37B). These samples were submitted for analysis of black carbon content, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, and TS. Sampling locations where black carbon analysis was completed are presented on Figure 4.11. The samples were screened to segregate materials into three different size categories: 1) greater than 300 micron material (coarse sands and gravel); 2) between 75 and 300 microns (fine and medium sands); and 3) less than 75 microns (silts and clays). This resulted in a total of 24 samples that were submitted for analysis. A summary of the results for the 24 samples that were analyzed for black carbon content, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, and TS is presented in Table 4.11. Samples results are discussed in Section 4.4.4. The statistical analyses of this data are presented in Appendix J. 4.3.3 ADDITIONAL FISH TISSUE SAMPLING Fish tissue sampling was proposed as an addition to the Phase II EOC SOW to provide additional data to evaluate the continuing 2,3,7,8-TCDD recovery trends for the River. The additional Phase II EOC fish tissue sampling took place in December 2008/January 2009. The same scope from the Phase I EOC fish tissue sampling event was proposed during the sampling events. At each station, 4 composite fish samples (minimum 5 fish per composite) were collected. During the December 2008/January 2009 mobilization, target fish species were collected from sampling locations consistent with areas sampled during the Phase I EOC fish tissue sampling task. The target species for this sample event were the same as those sampled in 2004: a forage fish (gizzard shad), bottom feeder (channel catfish), and sport fish (bass) that could be targeted by human anglers. However, the target fish species and fish sizes were not 031884 (51) 56 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES available at all locations. Thus, for example, small gizzard shad less than 150 mm were targeted, but small gizzard shad were unavailable during December 2008/January 2009. Consequently, the shad collected were considerably larger than desired; average lengths were about 240 mm, 250 mm, and 320 mm at RM 33, RM 42, and RM 68, respectively. Similarly, insufficient channel catfish of a suitable size were available at both the upstream (RM 75-95) and downstream (RM 33-45) sampling locations due to colder than average River temperatures. Another popular common sport fish, sauger (Stizostedion canadense), was added to complete the samples. Consequently, some composites at these locations were channel catfish only, some were sauger only, and some were combinations of both species. Ultimately, sufficient fish tissue was collected for all samples except one upstream (RM75-95) bottom feeder (channel catfish) sample. In addition, forage fish (gizzard shad) collected were typically 2-3 times larger than the fish collected during the 2004 sampling event. All fish tissue samples were sent to Axys for analysis for lipid content and 2,3,7,8-TCDD congeners. Samples were sent whole and filleted and homogenized by Axys using the same procedures used in 2004. Gizzard shad were processed as whole fish, with 10 fish in each composite sample. Bass, sauger, and channel catfish were filleted at the Axys, and composites were formed from 5 fish. These species were processed similar to being processed by local anglers. That is, bass and sauger were processed as skin-on fillets, and channel catfish were processed as skin-off fillets. Generally, there were five composite samples per sample location. However, due to scarcity of both channel catfish and sauger at RM 75-95, only two complete composite samples (5 sauger per composite) and one incomplete composite sample (2 channel catfish) were sent to the lab. Due to scarcity of gizzard shad at RM 68, three of the five composite samples were composed of only 5 fish per composite. At RM 33-45, an insufficient number of channel catfish were available; therefore sauger was added to complete the samples. Two samples comprised of both channel catfish and sauger, one sample of sauger only, and two samples of only channel catfish were sent to Axys for analysis. The modifications to the SOW were discussed with U.S. EPA's field oversight personnel prior to modification of the field activities. A summary of the fish tissue samples collected is presented in Table 4.4. The Phase II EOC fish tissue sample results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are presented in Table 4.5b and on Figure 4.5. Results are further discussed in Section 4.4.2. Complete analytical reports are presented in Appendix G and fish tissue sample preparation field forms are included in Appendix H. 031884 (51) 57 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.3.4 TASK 8 – NATURAL RECOVERY EVALUATION Natural recovery analysis was performed at selected sediment sampling locations in an attempt to evaluate the rate at which sediment deposition occurs in the River and to evaluate the stability of sediment. This information would assist in predicting the anticipated rate 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations would be expected to recover in the River following implementation of effective upland source controls and/or focused in-water Removal Actions, as appropriate. Natural recovery core (NRC) sampling activities were completed during two mobilizations in December 2007 and February 2008. A summary of the NRC sampling activities is presented in Table 4.1. Eight radioisotope cores were proposed in the Work Plan; however, only 6 cores were successfully collected. NRC sampling locations are presented on Figure 4.12. At one location (NRC-05), a sample was collocated with an existing U.S. EPA core, based on an existing 2,3,7,8-TCDD profile. At two NRC locations (NRC-03 and NRC-04), samples were to be collected along the left River bank in the vicinity of COR-09 and SSD-09, respectively. The remaining 5 NRCs were to be collected with sediment cores as described under Task 7, as follows: • NRC-01 collocated with COR-02 • NRC-02 collocated with COR-04 • NRC-06 collocated with COR-31 • NRC-07 collocated with COR-36 • NRC-08 collocated with COR-40 During the December 2007 mobilization, five NRC locations (NRC-02, NRC-03, NRC-05, NRC-07, and NRC-08) were successfully advanced using a vibracore, to a maximum of 6 ft below the mudline. A core sample was not collected at NRC-01 due to its close proximity to the Winfield Dam. NRC-04 had low recovery; likely due to relatively coarse sediment grain size resulting from high velocity conditions in this area of the River. Retrieval attempts at location NRC-06 resulted in refusal after five attempts. Although NRC-05 and NRC-08 were successfully advanced, inadequate information was obtained to provide input parameters for the natural recovery analysis, consequently requiring a second attempt to obtain the necessary data. During the February 2008 mobilization, locations NRC-01, NRC-04, NRC-05, and NRC-08 were re-attempted. NRC-01 had low recovery (6 inches) while NRC-04, NRC-05, and NRC-08 were successfully advanced. NRC logs are presented in Appendix I. 031884 (51) 58 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Consistent with the procedures identified in the Work Plan, once retrieved, the cores were sectioned into intervals and processed for chemical analysis of Beryllium-7 (Be-7), Cesium-137 (Cs-137), and TS. The top 50 cm of the cores were finely sub-sectioned into 2.5 cm intervals and 10 samples from each core were submitted for radioisotope analysis (Be-7 and Cs-137) to age date the cores. From 50 cm to 185 cm, the cores were sub-sectioned into 5 cm intervals and archived, and the remaining core was discarded. This allowed conversion of the sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD depth profile to a time series of 2,3,7,8-TCDD accumulation. If the age dating profile required further definition, 5 to 10 additional subsamples were available (from the archived intervals) to be submitted for radioisotope analysis. A total of 7 NRC samples were sent to TestAmerica, but only 5 samples were submitted for analysis of Be-7, Cs-137, and TS (NRC-02, NRC-04, NRC-05 (February 2008 sample), and NRC-08 (December 2007 sample and February 2008 sample). Samples from NRC-03 and NRC-07 were put on hold and archived. As stated in the Work Plan, if subsamples of cores exhibited a relatively continuous sequence of fine-grained deposits, with no evidence of interruption, they were to be submitted for analysis of Lead-210 (Pb-210), in addition to Be-7 and Cs-137. Pb-210 is more sensitive to non-uniform sedimentation rates, and breaks in the depositional record caused by erosion and/or dredging, which may invalidate the age determination. No cores exhibited a continuous sequence of fine-grained deposits; therefore no samples were submitted for analysis of Pb-210. All NRC samples were submitted to TestAmerica, for analysis or archiving, in accordance with the QAPP. NRC sample results are summarized in Table 4.12 and results are discussed in Section 4.4.4.2. Analytical data reports are presented in Appendix G. 4.3.5 TASK 9 – SEDIMENT STABILITY EVALUATION Inverted flume testing (Sedflume testing) was proposed in the Work Plan as necessary to support determination of critical shear velocities for the River sediments and to determine the conditions under which sediments are likely to erode. In most locations, sediment characteristics were representative of silts/sands for which critical shear velocities can be determined by direct calculation. To support the additional 3-dimensional sediment transport modeling described in Section 4.4.7, Sedflume testing was performed to better characterize erosional characteristics of clay size sediment deposits. Monsanto Company proposed 20 locations for the collection of sediment cores 031884 (51) 59 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES for the purpose of Sedflume testing, and U.S. EPA verbally approved the locations in July 2009. The proposed locations were as follows: • Study Area 1 – KRSD-28, KRSD-25, and KRSD-24 • Study Area 2 – COR-42, COR-40, COR-39, KRSD-20, COR-36, and COR-35 • Study Area 3 – COR-32B, COR-30, KRSD-14, COR-25, and KRSD-48 • Study Area 4 – KRSD-10, COR-20, KRSD-05, KRSD-04, COR-07, and KRSD-01 Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) was selected to complete core collection and Sedflume testing. SEI used specialized sediment core equipment to obtain cores up to 60 cm in length, to allow for analysis at their laboratory in Santa Cruz, California (CA). Sediment core recovery was conducted from July 27 to July 30, 2009, and was successful, based on visual inspection for core length and quality, at all locations except for locations COR-32B and COR-25, due to no recovery after 5 attempts. The lack of recovery at these locations was attributable to the presence of sand overlying dense clay at COR-32B and very loose sand overlying gravel at COR-25. A summary of sediment coring activities for the July 2009 mobilization is presented in Table 4.1. Sediment coring field measurements (i.e., water depth, sample depth) and field descriptions are summarized in Table 4.8b. The retrieved cores were shipped to the SEI laboratory in Santa Cruz, CA in custom padded upright shipping containers to preserve the core structure. The erosion rates of the sediment as a function of shear stress and depth were measured at the SEI lab. The analysis also determined the critical shear stress of the sediment as a function of depth, as well as particle size and bulk density measurements. A copy of CRA's and SEI's field notes for the Sedflume mobilization is presented in Appendix D and photographs are presented in the photolog in Appendix E. The SEI report documenting testing and results is included in Appendix K. The results of the Sedflume analysis are summarized in Table 4.14 and results are discussed in Section 4.4.6. These data were utilized as an input to modeling activities described in Section 4.4.7. 4.4 PHASE I/II EOC SAMPLING RESULTS The results of Phase I and II EOC sampling events are presented in the following sections. These results are further described in Section 5.0 as they relate to the updated CSM, recovery rates, and exposure assessment. 031884 (51) 60 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.4.1 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING RESULTS As discussed above, low and high volume surface water sampling was completed at cross-sections of the River at RM 31, 33, 42, 46, and 68 in October /November 2004 and April 2005. Samples were obtained by dividing the River into 4 sections of equal flow and sampling at 2 points within each section, providing an 8-point composite sample. At RM 42 the River was divided into 8 sections of equal flow and sampled at 2 locations in each section, resulting in a 16-point composite, consistent with the Work Plan. The surface water sampling locations and results for dissolved and particulate 2,3,7,8-TCDD (composite sample), and discrete samples for TOC, DOC, and TSS are presented on Figure 4.4 and in Table 4.3. Surface water sample results were generally consistent between the upstream locations (RM 68 and RM 46). The samples collected at RM 68 had concentrations of 0.00112 J pg/L for dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD during the low flow sampling event and not detected at or above the associated value of 0.00188 pg/L (less than (<) 0.00188 pg/L) during the high flow sampling event. The particulate low flow sample concentration was <0.000753 pg/L and qualified as being below the reporting limit (U) pg/L and 0.00635 J pg/L for the high flow concentration. The DOC concentration was 2 mg/L for both the low flow and high flow sampling events. The TOC concentration was observed to be higher during the low flow sampling event with a concentration of 2 mg/L and ranged from <0.08 mg/L to 1 mg/L for the high flow event. The same observation was made for TSS concentrations with results ranging from 5 mg/L to 8 mg/L for low flow and 4 mg/L to 9 mg/L for high flow. Note that variations in DOC, TOC, and TSS concentrations can all influence partitioning of 2,3,7,8-TCDD within the water column (e.g., between dissolved and particulate phases). The water samples collected at RM 46 had dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 0.000874 J (estimated value) pg/L during the low flow sampling event and <0.00221 pg/L during the high flow sampling event. The particulate low flow sample concentration was <0.00127 U pg/L and 0.00853 J pg/L for the high flow concentration. The DOC and TOC concentrations were 2 mg/L for low flow and ranged from 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L for high flow. The TSS concentrations ranged from <2.8 mg/L to 5 J mg/L for low flow and <2.8 mg/L to 13 mg/L for high flow. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD results for RM 68 and RM 46 were lower than the downstream results for RM 42, RM 33, and RM 31 during both sampling events. In both historic and Phase I EOC sampling events, sample results increased slightly in the Nitro area (RM 42) where duplicate samples were collected at RM 42 and results for dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranged from 0.00705 J pg/L to 0.00709 J pg/L for low flow and 031884 (51) 61 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES ranged between 0.00964 J pg/L to 0.00966 J pg/L for high flow. The particulate concentrations were 0.005 J pg/L for low flow and ranged from 0.00796 J pg/L to 0.11864 pg/L for high flow. A duplicate particulate sample could not be collected during the low flow sampling event based on the equipment configuration. A pronounced difference was observed between the duplicate samples collected from RM 42 during the April 2005 (high flow) sampling event. In the particulate phase samples, more than an order of magnitude difference was observed between the two samples with the higher result being 0.11864 pg/L. While the average of these results is representative of the River conditions at the time of sampling and was utilized in evaluating the data in this EE/CA, uncertainties associated with the sample split are nevertheless apparent. No problems with the sample analysis were identified during data validation. It is possible that the separation of flow though the particulate filters was biased, or that by chance, a different fraction of suspended sediment entered one filter. The DOC concentrations were 2 mg/L for low flow and ranged from 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L for high flow. The TOC concentrations were 2 mg/L for low flow and 1 mg/L for high flow. The TSS concentration was lower during the low flow sampling events with concentrations ranging from 5 J mg/L to 8 J mg/L and ranging from 6 mg/L to 14 mg/L during the high flow sampling event. An increase in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations was observed in areas downstream of Nitro. This increase was observed in both dissolved and particulate fractions of the samples. An increase of approximately one order of magnitude in concentrations in low flow and high flow conditions was observed in the areas downstream of Nitro (RM 33 and RM 31) as compared to areas upstream of Nitro in both the high flow and low flow sampling events. The samples collected at RM 33 had concentrations of 0.0109 pg/L for dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD during the low flow sampling event and 0.0103 pg/L during the high flow sampling event. The particulate low flow sample concentration was 0.0156 pg/L and 0.0336 pg/L for the high flow concentration. The DOC concentrations were 2 mg/L for low flow and ranged from <0.08 mg/L to 1 mg/L for high flow. The TOC concentrations ranged from 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L for both low flow and high flow. TSS concentrations ranged from 7 J mg/L to 9 J mg/L during the low flow sampling event and ranged from 10 mg/L to 19 mg/L during the high flow sampling event. The samples collected at RM 31 had dissolved concentrations of 0.00596 J pg/L for the low flow sampling event and 0.014 pg/L for the high flow sampling event. The particulate low flow sample concentration was 0.0463 pg/L and 0.0489 pg/L for the high flow concentration. The DOC and TOC concentrations ranged from 2 mg/L to 3 mg/L for low flow and ranged from 1 mg/L to 2 mg/L for high flow. The TSS concentrations ranged from 6 mg/L to 11 mg/L during the low flow sampling event and ranged from 7 mg/L to 12 mg/L during the high flow sampling event. 031884 (51) 62 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES TOC and DOC concentrations were very consistent across all samples ranging from <0.08 mg/L to 3 mg/L. TOC and DOC results were generally higher at all stations during low flow events. TSS concentrations ranged from <2.8 mg/L to 19 mg/L with high flow results generally above 10 mg/L and low-flow results generally ranging from less than the detection limit to 9 mg/L. TSS results were generally higher at all stations during high flow events, as was anticipated. In comparison to the WV Water Quality Criteria (0.014 pg/L), only the high flow sample collected at River Mile 31 was equal to the criteria for the dissolved phase. The 11 other samples were below criteria for the dissolved phase samples. Six of the 10 historic samples (from the 1998 and 2000 sampling events) exceeded the criteria based on dissolved phase concentrations. Data obtained from both low-flow and high-flow sampling events exhibited lower concentrations than historic sample results. Over the period from 1998 to 2005, surface water column concentrations declined by approximately 26 percent per year at stations downstream of Nitro. As discussed in the EE/CA Work Plan, the observed decline is likely due in large part to coal recovery dredging that was implemented during the timeframe of previous sampling events. Coal recovery dredging directly resuspended and mobilized sediments containing elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations, increasing releases to the water column. A summary of dredging activities in the River are presented in Section 4.5.3. Figure 4.13 presents the temporal trends in 2,3,7,8-TCDD surface water sampling results. Figure 4.14 presents the spatial trends in surface water data. Ongoing source control activities at the Former Flexsys Facility and natural recovery processes in the River are also likely to have contributed to the observed reductions in surface water column concentrations over time. 4.4.2 FISH TISSUE SAMPLE RESULTS A summary of the fish tissue samples collected from the Phase I and Phase II EOC sampling events is presented on Table 4.4. The fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are presented in Tables 4.5a and 4.5b and on Figure 4.5. As discussed previously, the historical fish tissue data available for the Site identified a recovery trend in fish tissue in both sport fish and bottom feeders, consistent with the surface water and sediment data. Additional fish tissue sampling was completed as part of the Phase I and Phase II EOC sampling to further document this trend. 031884 (51) 63 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Gizzard shad, bass, and channel catfish samples were all collected during both the 2004 and 2008/2009 sampling events. Most of the available historical data are for bass and channel catfish with only one historical sample for gizzard shad. Sampling completed in 2004 was collocated with surface sediment samples collected at RM 68, RM 42, and RM 33 to support the determination of a Site-specific BSAF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The samples collected from RM 33 included bass and gizzard shad tissue samples. During the 2004 bass tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 1.37 pg/g to 4.46 pg/g. During the 2008 bass tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 1.22 pg/g to 2.14 pg/g for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The bass samples collected in 2008 were comparable in length and weight to the samples collected in 2004. During the 2004 gizzard shad tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 15 fish per composite (3 fish per sample) with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 3.35 pg/g to 7.53 pg/g. Duplicate and MS/MSD samples were submitted for gizzard shad at RM 33; however, only 2 of the 5 duplicate samples were analyzed. The remaining 3 samples were archived. During the 2008 gizzard shad tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 10 fish per composite (2 fish per sample) with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 7.07 pg/g to 16.1 pg/g. Only 10 fish were collected per composite instead of 15 due to difficulty collecting the required number of gizzard shad. This can be attributed to lower fish populations observed during the winter months. The gizzard shad samples collected in 2008 were greater in weight and length than the samples collected in 2004. This increased size and weight of fish is indicative of older fish with a longer period of exposure to River conditions which would be reflected in a higher body burden of 2,3,7,8-TCDD than younger fish caught in the 2004 sampling event. The samples collected between RM 33 and RM 45 were comprised of channel catfish during the 2004 sampling event and a combination of channel catfish and sauger during the 2008/2009 sampling event due to the scarcity of channel catfish during the winter months. A total of 5 channel catfish samples were collected in 2004 with 5 fish per composite and results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 1.33 pg/g to 19.5 pg/g for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. During the 2008/2009 sampling event, two composite samples comprised of only channel catfish were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) of 2.09 pg/g and 8.58 pg/g. One composite sample of sauger only was collected with 5 fish per composite with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration (not lipid normalized) of 0.975 J pg/g. Two composite samples comprised of both channel catfish and sauger with 5 fish per composite were collected with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) of 2.53 pg/g and 36.2 pg/g. The sauger samples collected 031884 (51) 64 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES in 2008 were of comparable size to the channel catfish samples collected in 2004; however, the channel catfish samples collected in 2008/2009 were generally greater in weight and length than the 2004 samples. This increased size and weight of fish is indicative of older fish with a longer period of exposure to River conditions which would be reflected in a higher body burden of 2,3,7,8-TCDD than younger fish caught in the 2004 sampling event. The samples collected from RM 42 included bass and gizzard shad tissue samples. During the 2004 bass tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results ranging from 1.79 pg/g to 4.02 pg/g. In 2008/2009, 5 composite bass samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations (not lipid normalized) ranging from 1.71 pg/g to 12.6 pg/g. The bass samples collected in 2008 were comparable in length and weight to the samples collected in 2004. During the 2004 gizzard shad tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 15 fish per composite (3 fish per sample) with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 0.877 J pg/g to 6.70 pg/g. During the 2008/2009 sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 10 fish per composite (2 fish per sample) with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 4.22 pg/g to 9.05 pg/g. The gizzard shad samples collected in 2008/2009 were greater in weight and length than the samples collected in 2004. Fewer gizzard shad were collected per composite in 2008/2009 due to difficulty collecting the required number of fish for the composite sample. This could be attributed to lower fish populations observed during the winter months. The samples collected from RM 68 included bass and gizzard shad tissue samples. During the 2004 bass tissue sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from <1.08 U pg/g to 0.469 J pg/g. In 2008, 5 composite bass samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with all 2,3,7,8-TCDD sample concentrations (not lipid normalized) of ND. The bass samples collected in 2008 were comparable in length and weight to the samples collected in 2004. In October 2004, four composite gizzard shad samples were collected with 15 fish per composite for 3 of the composite samples and 6 large gizzard shad for the remaining composite sample. A fifth composite sample could not be collected as a sufficient number of fish could not be obtained. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations (not lipid normalized) ranged from 0.222 J pg/g to 2.10 pg/g. In November 2004, two additional gizzard shad composite samples were collected with 15 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) of 0.936 J pg/g and 0.307 J pg/g. During the 2008 sampling event, 5 composite samples were collected with only 5 fish per composite due to scarcity of gizzard shad collected with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from <1.22 U pg/g to 0.387 J pg/g. 031884 (51) 65 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The gizzard shad samples collected in 2008 were greater in weight and length than the samples collected in 2004. The samples collected upstream from the Study Area between RM 75 and RM 95 were comprised of channel catfish. A total of 5 channel catfish samples were collected in 2004 with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results (not lipid normalized) ranging from 0.251 J pg/g to 0.736 J pg/g. During the 2008/2009 sampling event, only two sauger composite samples were collected with 5 fish per composite with 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations (not lipid normalized) below detection limits. The sauger samples collected in 2008/2009 were generally shorter in length and lighter in weight compared to the channel catfish samples collected in 2004. Fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were generally consistent between the 2004 and 2008/2009 sampling events for both sport fish and bottom feeders; however, in both species groups, the maximum detected concentration was higher than recorded for the November 2004 sampling event. Sport fish data from the most recent event exhibited more scatter than the November 2004 event. This may be due to the more diverse species collected as part of the sampling due to limited capture of bass during the 2008/2009 sampling event. Figures 4.15 through 4.18 present the temporal trends in fish tissue data for bottom feeders and sport fish on both a wet weight and lipid normalized basis for 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. These Figures illustrate a recovery in both bottom feeder and sport fish species over the 25-year data history by the declining trend of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations over time. Sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD and TOC, and fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD and lipid content results used in the BSAF determination are presented on Figure 4.19 and the calculated BSAF is presented in Table 4.13. Lipid normalized values were used in the development of BSAF values for gizzard shad but these values did not improve the precision of the historical time series. Therefore, at the request of U.S. EPA, historical time series were presented using a wet weight basis. The calculated BSAF using the 2004 data ranged from 0.11 to 0.13 within the Study Areas. A BSAF could not be determined for upstream areas (RM 68) as 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the sediment samples collected. Gizzard shad collected during the 2008/2009 sampling event were significantly (2 to 3 times) larger in length and weight than the gizzard shad collected in the 2004 sampling event. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in these samples were correspondingly higher on a wet weight basis. However, lipid normalized values exhibited lower concentrations than the 2004 data. BSAF calculations utilizing the 2008/2009 gizzard shad data resulted in BSAFs between 0.11 and 0.12 which are 031884 (51) 66 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES consistent with values calculated using the 2004 gizzard shad data. The BSAF is based upon the assumption that sediment, surface water, and fish tissue concentrations are in equilibrium. Therefore the relationships between contributions from surface water and sediment to fish tissue concentrations can be approximated by developing a relationship between sediment concentrations and fish tissue concentrations. The use of the BSAF does not imply that contaminant loading to fish tissue is solely, or even primarily due to contaminants in sediment. 4.4.3 SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS Surface sediment sampling was completed throughout the Study Areas to supplement existing data collected by U.S. EPA and determine current conditions. Pre-EOC Study sampling data identified a number of locations with surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in excess of the EE/CA screening levels (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 ppb). Phase I EOC surface sediment sampling activities took place in October 2004 and Phase II EOC surface sediment sampling activities took place in November/December 2007. 4.4.3.1 PHASE I EOC SURFACE SAMPLE RESULTS Surface sediment sample results from the Phase I EOC activities were collected to provide physical properties data to support the interpretation of the geophysical survey data and to provide 2,3,7,8-TCDD data for surface sediment in the Study Area for BSAF calculations. Surface sediment sample locations and 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b. Sample results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size data are summarized in Tables 4.6a and 4.9a, respectively. A total of 20 samples were collected for analysis of TOC, TS, and grain size to provide the physical properties data. Samples were collected from the following locations: • RM 33 – 2 samples • RM 34 to 42 – 14 samples • RM 42 to 44 – 4 samples The grain size data results indicated highly multimodal sediments in the River, with sand values ranging from 9 percent to 95.6 percent, silt values ranging from 1 percent to 68.1 percent, and fines (clay and sand) values ranging from 2.4 percent to 89.7 percent from RM 32 to RM 44. Surface sediment TOC concentrations in this area of the River 031884 (51) 67 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES averaged approximately 0.125 percent (dry weight basis), but also exhibited similar variability. Excluding samples with high coal concentrations, the average surface sediment TOC concentration in this area of the River is approximately 0.073 percent. These results generally confirm that the finer grained sediment deposits are located in side channel areas of the River (with correspondingly higher TOC levels), and are the preferential repositories for the sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD inventory. The coarser grained sediments located within the center of the channel generally contain lower levels of TOC and lower 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. A total of 6 composite surface sediment samples were collected for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The two samples collected upstream from RM 68 had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of <0.36 pg/g and <0.31 pg/g. The samples collected at the Site from RM 42 contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 24 pg/g to 71 pg/g. The downstream samples from RM 33 had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranging from 15 pg/g to 280 pg/g. The two surface sediment samples where oily material was observed at RM 33 (KD-010) and RM 36 (KD-118) showed results of 196,000 J µg/kg and <53,400 U µg/kg for oil and grease, respectively. 4.4.3.2 PHASE II EOC SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS Discrete (i.e., non-composited) surface sediment samples were collected from a total of 71 locations during the Phase II EOC sampling activities to characterize the extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Site sediments. Surface sediment samples were collected from the top four inches of sediment (COR-01, COR-15, SSD-06, and SSD-20 were from the top six inches) and submitted for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Sample locations and 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b. In Study Area 1, five surface samples were collected along the right bank (SSD-26 to SSD-29 and COR-43). All 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations from the surface sediment samples in Study Area 1 were non-detect except for a sample collected from SSD-26, which had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.0029 µg/kg. Thirteen surface samples were collected from Study Area 2 (adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility). Six samples were collected on the right bank, one from the center of the channel, and six on the left bank. The samples collected from the right bank starting from downstream of Study Area 1 included the following sample locations and 031884 (51) 68 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: COR-41 (<0.0006 µg/kg), COR-40 (0.059 µg/kg), COR-39 (3.4J µg/kg), COR-38 (0.25 µg/kg), COR-35 (0.055 µg/kg), and COR-34 (0.021 µg/kg). The sample collected from location COR-37 at the center of the channel had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.0031 µg/kg. The samples collected from the left bank included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: COR-42 (<0.0017 U µg/kg), SSD-25 (<0.00098 µg/kg), SSD-24 (<0.0017 U µg/kg), SSD-23 (0.074 µg/kg), COR-36 (0.0056 µg/kg), and COR-33(0.015 µg/kg). Seventeen surface sediment samples were collected from Study Area 3; nine along the right bank, two along the left bank, five along the center of the channel, and one from Rock Branch Creek. The samples collected from the right bank included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: SSD-22 (0.015 µg/kg), SSD-21 (0.01 µg/kg), COR-30 (0.013 µg/kg), COR-28 (0.0088 µg/kg), SSD-19 (0.0018 µg/kg), COR-25 (0.0011 µg/kg), SSD-18 (0.052 µg/kg), SSD-17 (0.035 µg/kg), and SSD-15 (0.012 µg/kg). The samples collected from the center of the channel included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: COR-32 (0.012 µg/kg), COR-31 (0.0039 µg/kg), COR-29 (0.0013 µg/kg), COR-27 (0.013 µg/kg), and COR-26 (0.0026 µg/kg). The samples collected from the left bank included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: SSD-16 (0.0055 µg/kg) and COR-24 (0.0043 µg/kg). The sample collected from the mouth of Armour Creek (SSD-20) had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.017 µg/kg and was also collected as a MS/MSD sample. The highest surficial sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration observed was 0.052 µg/kg from sample location SSD-18, located approximately 5,000 ft upstream from the Study Area 3 and Study Area 4 limit on the right bank. Thirty-six surface samples were collected from Study Area 4. Eighteen samples were collected from the right bank, nine from the center of the channel, six from the left bank, and three samples from inlets to the River. The samples collected from the right bank starting from downstream of Study Area 3 included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: SSD-14 (0.023 µg/kg), COR-23 (0.066 µg/kg), COR-22 (0.056 µg/kg), COR-21 (0.023 µg/kg), COR-20 (0.009 µg/kg), COR-19 (0.012 µg/kg), SSD-13 (0.038 µg/kg), SSD-12 (0.015 µg/kg), COR-18 (<0.00072 U µg/kg), COR-16 (<0.00052 U µg/kg), COR-14 (0.012 µg/kg), COR-11 (0.01 µg/kg), COR-09 (0.014 µg/kg), SSD-06 (0.038 µg/kg), COR-07 (0.048 µg/kg), SSD-04 (0.0041 µg/kg), SSD-03 (0.0046 µg/kg), and SSD-02 (0.0065 µg/kg). The samples collected from the center of the channel included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: COR-17 (<0.0028 U µg/kg), COR-13 (0.01 µg/kg), COR-10 (<0.0038 U µg/kg), SSD-07 (0.017 µg/kg), COR-06 (0.0031 µg/kg), COR-05 (0.02 µg/kg), COR-02 (0.048 µg/kg), COR-01 (0.014 µg/kg), and SSD-01 (0.0026 µg/kg). The samples 031884 (51) 69 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES collected from the left bank included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: SSD-10 (0.0038 µg/kg), COR-15 (<0.0069 U µg/kg), COR-12 (0.023 µg/kg), COR-08 (0.0041 µg/kg), COR-04 (0.0073 µg/kg), and COR-03 (0.01 µg/kg). The samples collected from the River inlets included the following sample locations and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results: SSD-11 (0.0052 µg/kg), SSD-09 (<0.025 U µg/kg), and SSD-05 (0.024 µg/kg). The highest surficial 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration observed was 0.066 µg/kg at sample location COR-23, which is located approximately 500 ft downstream from the Study Area 3 and Study Area 4 limit on the right bank. Samples from Study Area 1 were observed to have the lowest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations, while samples from Study Area 2 contained the highest concentrations. Samples from Study Areas 3 and 4, downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility, were observed to have lower 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations than those from Study Area 2, which is adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility. Samples collected as part of the Phase II EOC sampling event identified only one location, COR-39, with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 3.4J µg/kg, which exhibited a surface sediment concentration above the minimum screening level of 0.5 ppb for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Figures 4.20 and 4.21 present the profiles of sediment data from the Phase II EOC surface sediment sampling along the right bank and left bank of the River (looking downstream), respectively. The surface sediment sampling analytical and expanded analytical results are summarized in Tables 4.6a and 4.10a, respectively. The grain size data are summarized in Table 4.9a and the analytical data reports are presented in Appendix G. 4.4.4 SEDIMENT CORE SAMPLE RESULTS A total of 43 sediment core samples were collected during the Phase II EOC sampling activities to further define the vertical extent (depth) of dioxin concentrations for the screening levels of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 µg/kg and to further characterize historical trends and accumulation patterns of dioxin in the sedimentary record, and to the extent possible, correlate trends in the sedimentary record with trends from the fish tissue samples results. Sediment core samples were collected from the upper ten feet of sediment (when possible) and were submitted for analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, TS, and grain size. Additional analysis was completed on samples collected from locations COR-08 (2-4 ft) and COR-22 (2-4.1 ft) from Study Area 4, COR-28 (0-2 ft) from Study Area 3, and COR-33 (0-1.75 ft), COR-36 (2-4 ft), COR-39 (0-1.4 ft and 1.4-2.8 ft) from Study Area 2. The results of these additional analyses are discussed in Section 4.4.5. Sample locations and 2,3,7,8-TCDD results are presented on Figures 4.6a and 4.6b. Samples results are also presented by sample depth on Figures 4.7 to 4.10. It should be 031884 (51) 70 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES noted that at each of the core locations, a surficial sediment sample was collected from the upper 6 inches of sediment, as discussed in the Section 4.4.3. The surficial samples discussed in Section 4.4.3 are representative of conditions in the bioactive zone. Sediment samples collected from the first interval in the sediment cores (presented in this section) are not considered surficial samples. In Study Area 1, only one core from location COR-43 was retrieved from the right bank, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in the sample collected from the entire 22 inches of the core length. Fourteen cores were collected from Study Area 2 (adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility). Five cores were collected from the right bank and six from the left bank. The samples collected from the right bank starting from downstream of Study Area 1 included the following locations: COR-41, COR-40, COR-39, COR-38, and COR-35. At location COR-41, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 3.5 ft (recovery up to 2.1 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-1 ft (<0.0016 U µg/kg) and 1-2 ft (<0.00049 µg/kg). The location COR-40, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, was sampled in 2007 and again in 2008. In 2007, the core was advanced to a depth of 3.3 ft with 100 percent recovery and with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected from 0-2 ft (0.01 µg/kg) and 2-3.3 ft (0.0081 µg/kg). In 2008, the core was advanced to a depth of 5.5 ft with 100 percent recovery and with samples collected at 0-2 ft (0.049 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD), 2-4 ft (<0.00074 U µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD), and 2-5.5 ft (<0.003 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD). The location at COR-39, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, was sampled in 2007 and was advanced to a depth of 3.7 ft (recovery up to 2.8 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected from the 0-1.4 ft interval (22 J µg/kg), and 1.4-2.8 ft (33 J µg/kg). It was noted that a strong hydrocarbon odor was encountered throughout the entire core. At location COR-38, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, only 2.7 ft of sediment was penetrated (recovery up to 2 ft) with only one sample collected from 0-2 ft with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.0087 µg/kg. At location COR-35, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 5 ft (recovery up to 4.5 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected at 0-2 ft which was also a field duplicate sample (0.0036 µg/kg and 0.003 µg/kg), 2-4 ft (<0.00034 µg/kg), and 2-4.5 ft (<0.00038 µg/kg). The samples collected from the left bank of Study Area 2 included the following locations: COR-42, COR-36A, COR-36, COR-36B, COR-36C, and COR-33. At location COR-42, the core was sampled in 2007 and resampled in 2008. In 2007, the core was advanced to a depth of 2.4 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample was collected at 0-2.4 ft which resulted in <0.00026 µg/kg for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In 2008, the core was 031884 (51) 71 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES advanced to a depth of 1.5 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample collected at 0-1.5 ft which was also a field duplicate sample with 2,3,7,8-TCDD results of <0.0011 U µg/kg and 0.0018 µg/kg, respectively. At location COR-36A, the core was only advanced in 2008 to a depth of 0.8 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample collected from 0-0.8 ft with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD result of <0.00065 µg/kg. The longest core was advanced at location COR-36 to a depth of 10 ft (recovery up to 9.1 ft) in 2007 and a depth of 9.2 ft with 100 percent recovery in 2008. In 2007, samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) were collected from 0-2 ft (0.027 µg/kg), 2-4 ft (3.3 J µg/kg), and 4-6 ft (18 J µg/kg) and a petroleum odor was observed at 3 ft. In 2008, samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) were collected from 0-2 ft (0.15 µg/kg), 2-4 ft with a field duplicate (2.3 J µg/kg and 1.6 J µg/kg, respectively), 4-6 ft (25 J µg/kg), 6-8 ft (3.8 J µg/kg), and 8-9.2 ft (0.21 µg/kg). At COR-36B, only one sample was collected in 2008 from 0-1 ft (0.025 µg/kg) as the core was only advanced to 1.2 ft below the top of sediment, with 100 percent recovery. The location COR-36C was advanced in 2008 to 3.5 ft (recovery up to 3.3 ft) with a sample (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD result) collected at 0-2 ft (0.46 J µg/kg) and 2-3.3 ft (0.16 µg/kg). The last coring location in Study Area 2 was COR-33, which was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.7 ft (recovery up to 1.8 ft) with one sample collected at 0-1.8 ft and had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.19 µg/kg. The highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration was observed in Study Area 2 at subsurface sediment sample location COR-39, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, on the right bank. At COR-39, the sample collected from the 1.4 to 2.8 ft below top of sediment interval had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 33 J µg/kg. Approximately 1,500 ft downstream on the opposite bank, COR-36 had the second highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 25 J µg/kg in the 4-6 ft below top of sediment interval. Six cores were collected from Study Area 3, downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility. Four cores were collected from the right bank and two from the left bank. The samples collected from the right bank starting from downstream of Study Area 2 were collected from the following locations: COR-30, COR-28A, COR-28, and COR-25. At location COR-30, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.9 ft (recovery up to 2.5 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected at 0-2 ft (<0.00036 µg/kg) and 2-2.5 ft (0.0021 µg/kg). A trace of coal was observed in this core at 0.2 ft below the top of sediment. The location COR-28A was only advanced in 2008 to a depth of 0.5 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample was collected at 0-0.5 ft with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD result of <0.0004 µg/kg. COR-28 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.3 ft (recovery up to 2.0 ft) with one sample collected at 0-2 ft (<0.0004 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and a metallic odor was detected in the core from 0.9-1.1 ft below the top of sediment. The last core location in Study Area 3 along the right bank was COR-25 which was advanced to a 031884 (51) 72 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES depth of 1.2 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample collected from 0-1.2 ft (<0.00045 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD). The sample locations along the left bank of Study Area 3 included: COR-32A and COR-32B. At location COR-32A, the core was advanced in 2008 to a depth of 1.5 ft with 100 percent recovery and one sample collected from 0-1.5 ft (<0.00055 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD). COR-32B was advanced to a depth of 9 ft (recovery up to 7.8 ft) in 2008 with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-2 ft (<0.00025 µg/kg), 2-4 ft (<0.00042 µg/kg), 4-6 ft (<0.00036 µg/kg), and 6-7.8 ft (<0.00039 µg/kg). Only one sample from Study Area 3 had a detectable 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration: location COR-30 at the 2-2.5 ft below top of sediment interval with a concentration of 0.0021 µg/kg. All other samples collected in Study Area 3 were non-detect for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Fourteen cores were collected from Study Area 4. Nine cores were successfully collected from locations along the right bank of the River (two additional locations were attempted but not successfully advanced) and five of the core locations were collected along the left bank of the River. Core collection was attempted at six locations in the center of the channel; however, none were successfully advanced. The samples collected along the right bank, starting from downstream of Study Area 3, were collected from the following locations: COR-23, COR-22, COR-21, COR-20, COR-18, COR-11, COR-09, and COR-07. At location COR-23, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 3.0 ft (recovery up to 2.3 ft) with one sample (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration) collected at 0-2.3 ft (<0.00052 µg/kg). Fine grained coal was observed throughout this core. The location COR-22 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 7.9 ft (recovery up to 4.1 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-2 ft (3 J µg/kg), and 2-4.1 ft (1.1 J µg/kg). Black staining and a hydrocarbon odor were observed at 1.5 ft. COR-21 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 10 ft (recovery up to 6.5 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-2 ft with a field duplicate (2.7 J µg/kg and 2.3 J µg/kg), 2-4 ft (0.088 µg/kg), and 4-6.5 ft (0.0018 µg/kg). Coal was observed at 2.17 ft, 3.4 ft, and 5.3 ft and a hydrocarbon odor was detected at 1.5 ft. At the location of COR-20, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.6 ft with 100 percent recovery and samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected at 0-2 ft (0.014 µg/kg) and 2-2.6 ft (0.052 µg/kg). At location COR-18, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 10 ft but recovery of the core was unsuccessful; however, a sample was collected from 0-2 ft with a corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD result of <0.00047 µg/kg. COR-11 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.5 ft (recovery up to 2.0 ft) with one sample collected at 0-2 ft, with a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.015 µg/kg, and a diesel odor was detected at the surface 031884 (51) 73 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES of the core. At location COR-09, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 3.3 ft (recovery up to 2.8 ft) with samples collected at 0-2 ft (0.0086 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and 2-2.8 ft (<0.00055 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD). Finally along the right bank, COR-07 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 3 ft with 100 percent recovery and samples collected at 0-2 ft (<0.00031 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD) and 2-3 ft (<0.00027 2,3,7.8-TCDD µg/kg). Bits of coal were observed at 1.3 ft below the top of sediment at COR-07. The samples collected from the left bank starting from downstream of Study Area 3 were collected from the following locations: COR-15, COR-12, COR-08, COR-04, and COR-03. At location COR-15, the core was advanced in 2008 to a depth of 2.8 ft (recovery up to 1.6 ft) with three samples collected from the 0-1.6 ft interval, which resulted in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 0.013 µg/kg, 0.0042 µg/kg, and 0.0049 µg/kg. The core at location COR-12 was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 2.5 ft (recovery up to 2.0 ft) with one sample collected at 0-1.8 ft and 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected with a concentration of 0.15 µg/kg. At location COR-08, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 4.0 ft with 100 percent recovery with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-2 ft (0.0093 µg/kg) and 2-4 ft (1.4 J µg/kg). At location COR-04, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 10 ft (recovery up to 8.2 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) collected at 0-2 ft (0.013 µg/kg), 2-4 ft (0.0098 µg/kg), and 4-6 ft (0.0086 µg/kg). Finally, at COR-03, the core was advanced in 2007 to a depth of 10 ft (recovery up to 8.9 ft) with samples (and corresponding 2,3,7,8-TCDD results) collected at 0-2 ft (0.0083 µg/kg), 2-4 ft (0.011 µg/kg), and 4-6.8 ft (0.019 µg/kg). The highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in Study Area 4 was detected at location COR-22, along the right bank, approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Study Area 3 limit. The sample collected from the 0-2 ft interval of this core had a 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 3.0 µg/kg. The second highest concentration was detected at COR-21 in the 0-2 ft interval, which was also analyzed as a field duplicate and had 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 2.7 µg/kg and 2.3 µg/kg, respectively. At both COR-22 and COR-21, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations decreased with sediment depth. Sediment core sampling identified trends in sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations with sample depth. A number of core samples collected by U.S. EPA had identified a pattern of "cleaner" sediments at the surface underlain with sediments of increasing 2,3,7,8-concentration with increasing depth. At a number of core locations, the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration decreased as sample depth increased beyond the detected peak concentration. This pattern is typically associated with historic sources being controlled and the Site undergoing a natural recovery process. 031884 (51) 74 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Sediment core sampling completed as part of the Phase II EOC activities identified similar patterns in 8 of 18 sediment cores with multiple sample intervals adjacent to and downstream of Nitro (COR-03, COR-08, COR-20, COR-30, COR-32B, COR, COR-36 in 2007 and 2008, and COR-39). Sediment core profiles for the Phase II EOC cores are presented on Figures 4.22 through 4.25. At three core locations (COR-36, COR-39, and COR-03), the concentration profile identifies an increasing 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration with depth. This profile is indicative of recovery of the River sediments, with lower concentration sediments being deposited on top of sediments historically deposited which had higher 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. This profile was not observed at all locations. This could be due to disturbance of the sediment column by coal recovery dredging, more recent releases, or can be an indication of an unstable sediment deposit. Further evaluation of the stability of the sediment deposits was completed as part of the modeling and is discussed in Section 4.4.7. 4.4.4.1 BLACK CARBON SAMPLE RESULTS The results from the black carbon sample analysis are summarized in Table 4.11 and sample locations are presented on Figure 4.11. The 8 samples were submitted for analysis of black carbon content, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, TOC, and TS. Samples were collected to determine if coal present in the River is a preferred site for 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorption. The black carbon content was calculated using the Lloyd Kahn method. The TOC values were determined using both the Lloyd Kahn method and SW-846 Method 9060 (modified). The results for 4 samples (BC-COR-10A, BC-COR-10B, BC-COR-13A, and BC-COR-13B) in the coarsest coal fraction with the highest concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (0.042 µg/kg, 0.049 µg/kg, 0.13 µg/kg, and 0.074 µg/kg, respectively) were not calculated due to insufficient sample volume. Results were analyzed to determine if a correlation was present between 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration and black carbon content. The samples with the highest black carbon content (BC-SSD-26B (A) and (B)) resulted in non-detect values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Of the samples with non-detect values for black carbon, there was one sample with a moderately low 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 0.078 µg/kg and the remaining samples indicated very low 2,3,7,8-TCDD values, which ranged from non-detect to 0.046 µg/kg. Based on these data, there is no identified correlation between black carbon content and 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. 031884 (51) 75 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.4.4.2 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE RESULTS The results from the NRC sample analysis are presented in Table 4.12 and NRC sample locations are presented on Figure 4.12. Eight samples were collected; however, only four samples were submitted for analysis of Be-7, Cs-137, and TS. The remaining four samples (NRC-01, NRC-03, NRC-06, and NRC-07) were archived. In depositional environments, radioisotope data can provide information on sediment deposition rates and mixing rates. Due to the short half-life of Be-7 (53.3 days) the presence of Be-7 concentrations in the upper sediment layers can be used to characterize recent deposition and/or bioturbation rates. No cores were collected from Study Area 1, upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility. From Study Area 2, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, one core (NRC-08) was advanced and sampled during both the 2007 and the 2008 mobilizations. In 2007, the core was advanced to 4.5 ft (recovery up to 3.9 ft) with samples collected at 0 ft, 0.08 ft, 0.16 ft, 0.24 ft, 0.67 ft, 1.16 ft, 1.66 ft, 2.33 ft, 3 ft, and 3.66 ft. All samples were non-detect for Be-7 and Cs-137 and ranged from 36.6 percent to 64.2 percent TS. Coal was observed from 0.75-1.16 ft below the top of sediment at location NRC-08 during core advancement. In 2008, the core was advanced to 7.4 ft with 100 percent recovery with samples collected every inch from 0 to 3 inches and then every foot from 1 to 6 ft. All samples were non-detect for Be-7 and Cs-137 except for three samples for Cs-137 collected at 0 ft (0.122 J +/-0.0601 picoCuries per gram (pci/g)), 0.16 ft (0.0787 J +/-0.0436 pci/g), and 0.24 ft (0.0835 J +/-0.0422 pci/g). Values for TS ranged from 8.8 percent to 40.1 percent. No cores were collected from Study Area 3, immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility. From Study Area 4, downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility, two cores (NRC-05 and NRC-04) were advanced and sampled in 2008 and one core (NRC-02) was advanced and sampled in 2007. At NRC-05, just downstream of the Study Area 3 limit, the core was advanced to 9.0 ft (recovery up to 5.0 ft) with samples collected at 1 inch intervals at 0 ft, 0.08 ft, 0.16, 0.25 ft, 0.75 ft, and 1.58 ft and 2 inch intervals at 2.33 ft, 3.16 ft, 4 ft, and 4.83 ft. All samples were non-detect for Be-7 and Cs-137 except for two samples for Cs-137 collected at 0.08 ft (0.11 J +/-0.0405 pci/g), and 0.16 ft (0.0823 J +/-0.0436 pci/g). Values for TS ranged from 9.2 percent to 38.9 percent. Coal was observed at 1.2 ft and 2.3 ft and a subtle hydrocarbon odor was detected at 1.6 ft. At NRC-04, the core was advanced to 3.5 ft with 100 percent recovery and samples collected at 1 inch intervals at 0 ft, 0.08 ft, 0.16, 0.25 ft, 0.83 ft, and 1.33 ft and 2 inch intervals at 1.83 ft, 2.33 ft, 2.83 ft, 031884 (51) 76 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and 3.33 ft. All samples were non-detect for Be-7 and Cs-137 except for one sample for Cs-137 collected at 0.08 ft (0.136 J +/-0.0552 pci/g). Values for TS ranged from 5.3 percent to 29 percent. A strong diesel odor was detected at 0.8 ft and a trace of coal was observed at the surface of the core. Lastly, in 2007, NRC-02 was advanced to 8 ft (recovery up to 7.7 ft) and samples were collected at 0 ft, 0.08 ft, 0.16, and 0.25 ft and then at 1 foot intervals from 1 ft to 6 ft. All samples were non-detect for Be-7. Non-detect values for Cs-137 occurred at two samples collected at 0 ft and 0.16 ft below the top of sediment. The remaining samples for Cs-137 had values of 0.0702 J +/-0.0341 pci/g (0.08 ft), 0.0485 J +/-0.0204 pci/g (0.25 ft), 0.0471 J +/-0.0279 (1 ft), 0.074 +/-0.0283 pci/g (2 ft), 0.121 J +/-0.0418 pci/g (3 ft), 0.151 J +/-0.0468 (4 ft), 0.103 +/-0.0425 pci/g (5 ft), and 0.128 J +/-0.0401 pci/g (6 ft). Values for TS ranged from 53.6 percent to 74.9 percent. Very low levels of radioisotopes were detected in the natural recovery core samples, consistent with the low levels of sediment fines and TOC that are characteristic of the River. The laboratory extended count times up to 3 fold to reduce detection limits; however, in most samples, detectable levels of radioisotopes were not present. As a result, the natural recovery cores did not provide radioisotope data to reliably determine sediment age patterns. 4.4.5 SAMPLE ANALYSIS FOR ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS The results from the expanded analysis for surface and subsurface sediment samples are summarized in Tables 4.10a and 4.10b, respectively. For comparison purposes, the Mid-Atlantic Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Freshwater Screening Benchmark Levels are included on Tables 10a and 10b. Sample locations are presented on Figures 4.7 to 4.10. The eight surface samples and eight subsurface samples were submitted for analysis of dioxin and furan congeners, priority pollutant metals, SVOCs, PCBs, and chlorinated pesticides. Samples were collected to determine whether other significant COCs are present in the River. Of the eight surface sediment samples (excluding the field duplicate at SSD-20) and eight field subsurface sediment samples, several constituents other than 2,3,7,8-TCDD were detected at levels nominally exceeding screening levels utilized in other jurisdictions 2. These screening criteria are very conservative and exceedance of the 2 031884 (51) Sediment screening criteria for other jurisdictions (Ontario Ministry of the Environment) are utilized as West Virginia and U.S. EPA Region III do not have promulgated sediment quality criteria or screening criteria in place. 77 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES criteria does not necessarily indicate unacceptable risks. Exceedances of the screening criteria may warrant additional assessment to determine if unacceptable risks are associated with those parameters; however that assessment is beyond the scope of this EE/CA. Many of these results exceeded carbon-normalized screening levels as a result of the relatively low concentrations of TOC characteristic of the River, as well as elevated detection limits due to the presence of other interfering chemicals detected in the samples. Aside from the cases where a screening level was exceeded only as the result of an elevated detection limit, the constituents that appeared to exceed the carbon-normalized screening level most notably included bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP). DEHP was present at elevated concentrations at all eight of the subsurface sediment sample locations. The highest DEHP detections were at COR-39 in sample intervals 0-1.4 ft and 1.4-2.8 ft, in the range of 1,500 to 1,700 mg/kg, respectively, and at location COR-36 across the River at about one-fifth of the levels detected at COR-39. DNOP was present in only two of the eight samples; both were in COR-39 samples in the range of 24 to 36 mg/kg. These constituents were detected at only very low concentrations in the surface sediment samples, at levels that do not exceed the carbon-normalized screening level. PCBs were not detected in any of the eight surface sediment samples. Total PCBs exceeded the carbon-normalized screening level and the dry weight basis screening level in subsurface sediment samples collected from COR-39 at 0-1.4 ft and 1.4-2.8 ft. The detection of Aroclor 1248 in these samples and Aroclor 1260 in the sample collected from the 1.4 to 2.8 ft interval were elevated above screening criteria. Several constituents were present at concentrations exceeding the Ontario Lowest Effect Level for unadjusted results, including several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (acenapthylene, benzo(a) pyrene, benzo (g,h,i) perylene, fluorene, fluoranthene, phenanthrene, pyrene), methyl phenols (2-, 4-, 2,4- dimethyl) and certain pesticides such as 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, endrin, alpha-Benzenehexachloride (BHC), delta-BHC and methoxychlor, chlordane). In a number of these cases, the exceedance of the screening level was marginal and also limited to one location. It should be noted that none of these parameters exceeded the corresponding carbon normalized screening levels. Of the metals detected, the following metals exceeded the Ontario Lowest Effect Levels in six of the eight surface sample locations (COR-03, COR-20, SSD-18, SSD-20, and SSD-27): copper, mercury, nickel, silver, and, zinc. Of the subsurface samples, the screening levels were exceeded for the following metals: arsenic, cadmium, copper, 031884 (51) 78 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc. It was observed that surface sediments had lower metal concentrations than subsurface samples. The sixteen field samples submitted for additional analyses were also analyzed for the full suite of PCDD/PCDF. Very low concentrations of several congeners were detected in most of these samples. A toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ) was calculated for each sample, with results for each congener equated to the toxicity of an equivalent concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The ratio of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD results to the total TEQ for the samples ranged from 75 to 99 percent. It should be noted that the three results with ratios in the 75 percent range were surface sediment samples with very low total PCDD/PCDF results (in the range of 0.01-0.02 µg/kg TEQ). All of the remaining ratios, where calculable (three samples had no calculable TEQ), were in the 92 to 99 percent range for 2,3,7,8-TCDD as a proportion of the TEQ. 4.4.6 SEDFLUME ANALYSIS RESULTS A total of 18 sediment cores were obtained from the River and submitted to the SEI laboratory in CA to characterize the stability of the sediment within the River. Sediment bulk density, particle size distribution, critical shear stress, and erosion rates as a function of shear stress and depth were determined for each of the sediment cores. The critical shear stress determined by two interpolation techniques (power law and linear) identified the minimum shear stress at which a very small measurable rate of erosion will occur, and this rate of erosion is defined as 10-4 cm/s (McNeil et al., 1996; Roberts et al., 1998). Erosion rates were measured at different shear stresses for each depth interval for all sediment cores. A detailed description of the experimental procedures that were conducted to measure these data is presented in the Sedflume Analysis Report in Appendix K. A summary of the mean results from the Sedflume analysis are presented in Table 4.14. Complete data are presented in Appendix K. Deeper subsurface sediment required greater shear stress to erode than surface sediment, due to the greater bulk density of subsurface (versus surface) sediment. Appendix K presents Figures showing the erosion rates for each sediment core with respect to sediment depth and applied shear stress during the Sedflume analysis. These data were used in follow-on sediment stability and transport modeling evaluations, discussed in the section below. 031884 (51) 79 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.4.7 HYDROLOGIC AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELING Hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling was completed to evaluate sediment stability, transport, and recovery within the Site and with particular focus on areas of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration. The primary objectives of the modeling were to: • Develop a detailed understanding of hydrodynamics within the River to evaluate sediment stability over a range of storm and non-storm flow conditions. This aids in the evaluation of sediment transport and stability evaluations, and the resulting analyses can also be used to develop preliminary designs for RA alternatives such as capping. • Assess the stability of sediment deposits with elevated subsurface 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. • Assess sediment deposition rates based on River transport characteristics, and use this information to assess sediment natural recovery rates. Modeling was completed utilizing the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC). EFDC is a three-dimensional model that solves the vertically hydrostatic, free surface, and turbulence averaged equations of motion for a variable density fluid. Developed by Hamrick (1992) at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, EFDC is a public domain model supported by U.S. EPA. The model includes hydrodynamic, sediment, water quality and toxic modeling capabilities and has been extensively applied to rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, bays and coastal areas. EFDC can simulate the transport of multiple sizes of sediment, including both cohesive (i.e., clay) and non-cohesive (i.e., sand and gravel) material which both exist at the Site. Both bed-load (resuspended sediment) and suspended-load (sediment suspended in the water column as it enters the Site) can be modeled by the software. Multiple bed-load transport equations for non-cohesive sediment are included in the source code (such as bed-load formulations due to van Rijn, 1984a or Engelund and Hansen, 1967). The model can also simulate settling, deposition, and resuspension (entrainment) of sediments. Various settling velocity formulations for cohesive sediment are included. EFDC simulates multiple layers of bed material as well as the effect of consolidating sediment. The model includes consideration for armoring (coarsening) of the bed surface as well as a probability-based exposure and hiding relationship to account for the heterogeneity of the bed surface. Both are important components of transport of multiple grain sizes. 031884 (51) 80 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The EFDC model has been applied at over 80 sites (Craig, 2005). Applications of the model include simulation of wetting and drying processes of hydrodynamics and sediment transport, thermal discharge studies, tidal intrusion, and water quality modeling. The model is widely used by universities and government agencies and has been applied at several U.S. Superfund sites. The model was set up for the Kanawha River and its floodplains just downstream of the confluence of the Coal and Kanawha Rivers and Winfield Dam. A rectangular grid was developed for the main channel and floodplain. The grid was defined by 11,629 cells with dimensions of 98.4 ft (30 m by 30 m). In addition to the EFDC model, the Surface Water Modeling System (SWMS), developed by Aquaveo and distributed by Environmental Modeling Systems Inc. (EMS) was utilized to confirm the hydrodynamic model behavior predicted by EFDC. The U.S. Federal Highways Administration's (U.S. FHWA) Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System (FESWMS) is integrated into SWMS and was used for the modeling. FESWMS is a hydrodynamic model that supports both super and sub-critical flow analyses, including area wetting and drying. It uses the depth-averaged Flow and Sediment Transport model (FST2DH), a two-dimensional finite element surface water model that can compute the direction of flow and water surface elevation in a horizontal plane. FESWMS is a proven hydrodynamic model which was employed to verify the appropriate setup of the EFDC model. Similar to the EFDC model, the SMS model was set up for the Kanawha River and its floodplain between the confluence of the Coal and Kanawha Rivers and Winfield Dam. A curvilinear, mostly orthogonal grid was developed for the floodplain. The grid was defined by 54,787 nodes connected into 19,579 quadrilateral and triangular elements. The bathymetric surface required for the modeling was created in ArcView from a Digital Elevation Map (USGS) and a hydrographic and geophysical survey conducted by Golder in 2005 as part of the Phase I EOC study. Calibration of the models was completed using all available data compiled as part of the implementation of the EOC study for the Site, including River configuration, sediment bathymetry, sediment thickness, grain size information, erosion characteristics of sediment determined based on the Sedflume testing, stage discharge record information (1931 to present), and operational information for the Winfield Dam. Both models identified that minimal flooding beyond the top of bank of the main River channel is associated with the 100-year storm event. Where flooding occurs, it is associated with backwater effects in tributaries. The EDFC model calculated maximum flow velocities of up to 5.4 ft/s in the main channel and 3.85 ft/s in the overbank under 031884 (51) 81 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES the 100-year flood scenario near the Flexsys Facility (RM 42.38). The SMS model calculated maximum flow velocities of up to 6.2 ft/s in the main channel and 4.6 ft/s in the overbank under the 100-year flood scenario near the Flexsys Facility (RM 42.38). Center channel and near bank velocities in the SMS and EFDC models are comparable. Figures 4.28 through 4.31 present the SMS calculated shear stress mapping for Study Areas 1 through 4 for the 100-year flood event. These data are overlain on surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration data and areas with elevated shear stresses and elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations identified. In particular, the COR-39 location was determined to be erodible under larger storm events. As discussed above, subsurface sediment (1.4 to 2.8 ft below mudline) at COR-39, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, contained the highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration detected at the Site of 33 J µg/kg. Based on the Sedflume sediment stability testing (Appendix K of the EE/CA), the area in the vicinity of COR-39 is subject to erosion under conditions less than the 100-year storm events. By contrast, other areas of the Site with elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are not as subject to erosion under conditions less than the 100-year storm event. Based on the source control activities either recently completed or underway at the Former Flexsys Facility, further control of ongoing loading of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River in the Nitro area is possible. Using the EFDC model, natural recovery processes for the Study Area were evaluated to estimate sediment recovery rates following implementation of various RA Alternatives. The RA Alternatives and evaluation of recovery of the Site under each Alternative are discussed in Sections 7.0 and 8.0, respectively. 4.4.8 SURFACE-WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION Surface-Weighted Average Concentrations (SWACs) are a representation of the average sediment concentration within a given area of interest. Potential risks to human health from consuming fish caught from the Site area results from integrated bioaccumulation exposures of fish to bioavailable sediment contaminants throughout the characteristic foraging range for target fish species. Therefore, assessments of potential bioaccumulation exposures to sediments in the Site area, along with potential reductions in fish tissue concentrations resulting from sediment remediation (see Section 6.3.2), are appropriately based on SWACs calculated over a reasonably conservative home range for target fish species. 031884 (51) 82 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Several important recreational fish have been used as target species for bioaccumulation monitoring in various parts of the Kanawha River, including channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Both species feed on a range of aquatic insects, benthic organisms, planktonic organisms and other fish. Channel catfish typically reside in the deeper parts of moderate to large rivers, but they may move inshore to feed at night. Though largely sedentary, channel catfish can migrate relatively large distances (10 to 40 miles). Largemouth bass typically reside in the upper levels of the warm water of larger slow rivers. Though this species is highly territorial during spawning in the spring, and summer territories are relatively small, individuals may move up to 3 to 5 miles over the course of the entire year. Thus, largemouth bass have an overall smaller home range than channel catfish. Other sport fish (e.g., other bass species) have a similar home range as largemouth bass. As recreational fish forage throughout a range that encompasses much of the Site, the corresponding SWAC should be calculated over the reasonable minimum area of fish exposure representative of its home range. Based on the home range behavior summarized above, the SWAC was calculated for this EE/CA over a rolling 3-mile reach of the River encompassing Study Areas 1 through 4. The 1/2-mile sections of River used to make up each of the rolling 3-mile reaches are presented on Figure 4.26. For the Site, SWACs were calculated for rolling 3-mile sections of the Study Area, moving in 1/2–mile increments. Where the 3-mile reach being evaluated includes a tributary or tributaries to the river, the backwater areas at the tributary mouths were included in the SWAC calculation, including all relevant data from the backwater areas. The SWAC calculation methodology is presented in detail in Appendix Q and summarized below: 031884 (51) • For each 1/2 mile segment of the River, all 2,3,7,8-TCDD sediment data were tabulated and reviewed. Where the 3-mile reach being evaluated included a tributary or tributaries to the river, relevant data from the backwater areas at the tributary mouths were included • All data for samples which included at least some portion of sediment in the bioactive zone (upper 10 cm) were used in the SWAC calculations. Data for samples collected below the bioactive depth were excluded. Data tables for each 1/2-mile segment are provided in Appendix Q. • Where core samples and surficial sediment samples were co-located, the surficial sediment sample was selected. As part of the data review, two locations (COR-11 83 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and KRSD-03) were identified where the 0-2' interval sample from the core exhibited higher concentrations than the corresponding surfiucial sample. As discussed in Section 9.1, these areas will be subject to additional sampling during pre-design and the SWAC for these areas re-evaluated. • The maximum concentration of split samples or duplicate samples was selected to be conservative. • Non-detected results were assigned a value of 1/2 the detection limit for the sample, and duplicate and split sample results were averaged. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration contour maps were developed from the data retained as outlined above, and the average sediment concentration and sediment surface area for each 1/2-mile segment calculated utilizing Environmental Visualization Software (EVS) as described in Appendix Q. • Within each 3-mile reach, the SWAC was calculated as the area-weighted average concentration of the six included 1/2-mile segments. Figure 4.27 presents the calculated 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC for each of the rolling 3-mile reaches. The highest existing 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC for surface sediments within a 3-mile reach is approximately 0.022 µg/kg (dry wt basis) from RM 39 - 42. 4.5 UPDATED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL This section describes the various aspects of the CSM which frames the understanding of 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources, fate and transport processes, environmental receptors, and exposure mechanisms which were evaluated as part of the EE/CA. Specifically, this section discusses the following based on available historic information: • Physical and Chemical Properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD • Sediment Transport Processes • Dredging Activities in the Site • Groundwater and Local Surface Water 2,3,7,8-TCDD Loading • Potential Exposure Pathways The CSM is based on historic information and data obtained during implementation of the EOC Investigation completed for the Site. 031884 (51) 84 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.5.1 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES In its pure form, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a colorless, odorless crystalline solid with a molecular weight of 321.97. It is insoluble in water, with measured solubility of 2 x 10-7 g/L at 25oC (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). Other physical and chemical properties of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are discussed below. Chemical Partitioning: 2,3,7,8-TCDD is extremely hydrophobic, as evidenced by relatively high values of the octanol-water ( log K ow ) and organic carbon (log K oc ) partitioning coefficients. As a result, 2,3,7,8-TCDD partitions strongly to soil, sediment, and other particulate matter, and is not readily dissolved in either surface water or groundwater, unless it is subject to co-solution by other organic fluids. High volume 2,3,7,8-TCDD groundwater sampling completed in areas of the Former Flexsys Facility with elevated organic fluids have not exhibited elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. Because of these environmental characteristics, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not expected to leach significantly from soils or sediments into pore waters. Therefore, the dominant transport processes are through its adherence to particulates. The preference of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for particulate-phase transport is evidenced by the results of the high-volume water samples from the River, in which an average of 90 percent or more of the total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in the water column was associated with suspended sediments (U.S. EPA, 2000b). Because of its hydrophobicity, 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioaccumulates in the tissues of fish and other aquatic organisms; however, 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not tend to biomagnify significantly (U.S. EPA, 1993a). Environmental Degradation and Persistence: 2,3,7,8-TCDD degradation rates have been determined using biodegradation rate experiments as well as field studies of chemical persistence under controlled applications. Degradation half-lives range from one to several years for soil and sediment (SRC, 2003). These published rates are not inconsequential in terms of sedimentary and natural recovery processes, which are also measured on time scales of years and decades. Degradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD via volatilization and photolysis in the River is assumed to be negligible (e.g., see LTI, 2000). These processes are hindered by the chemical's affinity to bind with suspended sediments. 031884 (51) 85 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.5.2 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT PROCESSES Because 2,3,7,8-TCDD is hydrophobic and sediment-bound, its fate and transport is closely linked to the fate and transport of soil and sediments. Potentially important sediment transport processes in the River include the following: • Sediment Loading • Sedimentation • Resuspension • Sediment Dispersion (Bioturbation and Propwash) Sediment Loading: Several rivers and creeks are tributary to the River in the area of investigation between the Winfield Dam and the Nitro area. These include the Coal River (RM 45.5-Left, which denotes the upstream boundary of the Site), Scary Creek (RM 42.8-Left), Armour Creek (RM 40.8-Right), the Pocatalico River (RM 39.1-Right) and its subdrainages Heizer Creek and Manila Creek, and Bill's Creek (RM 38.2-Left), among others. LTI (2000) found no significant increase in TSS concentrations in the River between St. Albans (RM 46.1) and the Winfield Dam (RM 31.1) under a range of flow conditions. As a result, tributary contributions of suspended sediments to this reach of the River are probably small compared to the ambient sediment load carried in the main stem of the River. This is supported by comparing the flow in the Pocatalico River, a major tributary to the Site, with the flow in the River, although the only USGS gauging station on the Pocatalico River is about 10 miles upstream of the confluence in the town of Sissonville, WV. The flow in the Pocatalico at Sissonville is typically 1 to 4 percent of the flow in the River. Sedimentation: Sedimentation rates in the main channel of the River are relatively low, based in part on U.S. ACE observations that the navigational channel is effectively self-scouring due to velocities in the navigation channel generating shear stresses sufficient to remove accumulated sediments on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the navigational channel does not require maintenance dredging. Fine-grained sediments have been observed to accumulate in the nearshore areas along both banks and in the mouths of the tributaries where scour velocities are lower due to River geometry. This understanding of general Site conditions was confirmed by the bathymetric survey completed as part of the EOC study. Geophysical surveys, and subsequent sample collection and analysis confirmed that the majority of the River bottom is exposed bedrock. Limited center channel deposits exist which consist of coarse sand and gravel. 031884 (51) 86 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Fine-grained deposits are limited to tributary mouths and near-shore areas along both banks of the River. A bathymetric survey of the River was conducted in 1999 by U.S. ACE, as described in Section 3.1.2. A bathymetric survey was completed as part of the Phase I EOC investigation in 2004 by Golder. The only known bathymetric survey conducted prior to that time dates to 1930, and precedes the construction of the Winfield Dam in 1935. Comparing the sediment bed elevations in the River between the two surveys provides general information on sedimentation rates. On average, from 2 to 11 ft of sediment has accumulated in the Winfield Pool between the 1930 and the 2004 bathymetric survey completed as part of the Phase I EOC investigations. This corresponds to time-averaged sedimentation rates ranging from 1 to 4 centimeters per year (cm/yr). However, it is uncertain how well these time-averaged rates represent modern sedimentation rates because watershed characteristics, sedimentary processes, and waterway dynamics may have changed over the last 70 years. Sedimentation rates are further evaluated by Site sediment transport modeling (Section 4.4.7). Resuspension: Considering the volume of shipping traffic in the River, and the fact that the channel has never been dredged, relatively high rates of resuspension could be expected within the navigation channel, where coarse (sand and gravel) substrates predominate. However these materials do not act as a repository for 2,3,7,8-TCDD due to their coarse-grained nature and low TOC content. Fine-grained deposits along both banks of the River exhibit lower resuspension rates due to lower shear stresses being generated by lower velocities of flow in these areas. The variation in flow velocities is a function of River geometry. Resuspension in these nearshore areas is highly dependent on local channel geometry, which can impact shear stresses, sediment characteristics, and velocities. Sediment Dispersion (Bioturbation and Propwash): Similarly, no quantitative information is available regarding surface sediment mixing/bioturbation rates. Sediment core profile data suggest that surface and subsurface sediments within the finer-grained sedimentary deposits of the River in many areas have maintained their integrity over time (i.e., indicative of little vertical mixing of deeper sediments to the surface). Observations of habitat made during fish tissue sampling indicate that habitat quality is generally poor, with a limited bioactive zone. As a result, relatively little bioturbation would be anticipated in Site sediments. 031884 (51) 87 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.5.3 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING ACTIVITY Historical dredging activities in the Site were determined by reviewing dredging permits on file at the Huntington District of the U.S. ACE and are summarized in the Work Plan (CRA, 2004). According to the U.S. ACE, the federal navigation channel in the Winfield Pool is virtually self-scouring and therefore requires no maintenance dredging throughout most of the pool. Some localized dredging is required in the vicinity of the Winfield Locks to maintain the up-River and down-River approach lanes to the locks. Otherwise, private parties have performed dredging activities in and upstream of the Study Area for the purposes of building or improving waterfront structures, clearing water intake lines, or reclaiming spilled coal. Construction Dredging: Dredging permits were issued to various parties for one-time waterfront construction projects involving maintenance and/or improvements to docks, bulkheads, marinas, and clearing water intake lines. Construction dredging permits have been issued to FMC, Old Monsanto, Allied Chemical, Union Carbide Company (UCC), Union Boiler, Midwest, and Rhône-Poulenc AG Company (Rhône-Poulenc). These projects were authorized to remove between 30 and 5,000 cy of dredged material. A summary of Kanawha River dredging permits is presented in Table 4.15. Reclamation Dredging: By far the most significant dredging activities in the Winfield Pool (in terms of total dredged sediment volumes) have been performed by the Kanawha Dredging and Mineral Company (Kanawha Dredging) and the Voyager Coal Company (Voyager Coal). These companies held permits in several reaches of the River during the 1980's and 1990's for the purpose of reclaiming spilled coal and sand from various locations within the Riverbed. Kanawha Dredging was incorporated in July 1975 and terminated in December 1992; Voyager Coal was incorporated in May 1990 and terminated in June 2002. Voyager Coal generally succeeded Kanawha Dredging as the active permittee for U.S. ACE dredging permits. Dredged sediments were processed to remove spilled coal from the sediment bed (estimated at 38 to 85 percent of the dredged material), and the processed materials were redeposited in the River near their original location. The companies processed between 2,000 and 8,000 cy of sediments per day, year round, weather permitting, using a typical dredge cut of 12 ft. Permit conditions limited such reclamation dredging activities to bands of the River located more than 150 ft beyond the federal channel, but also more than 130 ft from the shoreline. Dredging was originally performed using a 3 cy 031884 (51) 88 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES clamshell bucket; however, the clamshell was replaced with a 10-inch hydraulic dredge in September 1988. The majority of the permitted dredging areas for coal reclamation were on the left bank of the River (looking downstream). However, one of the permitted areas was on the right bank of the River downstream of Pocatalico River, between RM 36.97 and RM 38.81. Water Quality Certification of Reclamation Dredging: As early as 1987, the WV DNR recognized that "The proposed dredge site [RM 40.45 to 41.70] lies within a reach of the Kanawha River where joint WVDNR/U.S. EPA sampling has documented dioxin contamination in sediments and fish." (WV DNR, 1987). WV DNR nevertheless granted conditional certification of the dredging activity based on the assumption that reclamation dredging would involve processing relatively coarse-grained channel sediments, whereas the majority of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination was assumed to be associated with finer grained bank sediments. However, the file review did not produce data on which WV DNR based their assumption regarding the location of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediment. In subsequent years, the WV DNR/WV DEP occasionally denied Section 401 Water Quality Certification for certain reclamation dredging applications on the grounds that "…the hydraulic dredging and redepositing of 85 percent of dredged material will impact both the river's water quality and its aquatic resources by increasing turbidity and resuspending other pollutants." (WV DNR, 1991) and "…potential adverse affects are recognized for fish spawning sites, degraded aquatic habitat, excessive sedimentation, and resuspended pollutants." (WV DEP, 1997). In some cases, the denials were successfully appealed by the applicant, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification was eventually obtained for reclamation dredging. The last known dredging occurred at the Site in 1999. In 2008, a permit application was submitted to resume coal recovery dredging in 3 areas of the River. One area was within the Site boundaries (RM 43.15 to RM 45.25). The following language has been excerpted from an October 24, 2008 letter from S. Mandirola (WV DEP) to G. Mullins (U.S. ACE – Huntington District) providing WV DEP comments on the permit application. 031884 (51) 89 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The applicant has proposed to renew authorization to continue dredging coal from the Kanawha River at three distinct reaches: Site #1 is located between RM 43.15 and 45.25 near St. Albans. The proposed dredging activities will occur at five separate sites starting a minimum distance of 130 feet from the shorelines. It is expected that 1,209,000 cubic yards of material could be removed during the life of the permit. Of that amount, approximately 1,088,000 cubic yards of the material would be returned to the river. The applicant proposes to use a cutter head suction dredge and the unsuitable material will be immediately re-deposited into the river via three flume pipes into the dredge cut. There are concerns with coal dredging in the Kanawha River. These concerns include re-suspension of contaminated sediments, the potential negative impacts of increased turbidity on aquatic life, impacts to near shore habitats and impacts to the other recreational users of the river. Despite concerns raised (as noted above) by the WV DEP, the permit has been issued by U.S. ACE. However, it does not appear, based on information provided by residents on the River, that dredging has commenced under the permit. 4.5.4 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOADING ANALYSIS 4.5.4.1 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM RECLAMATION DREDGING Resuspension of impacted sediment from reclamation dredging in the River has not been considered in previous TMDL assessments of contributions to water column concentrations. However, reclamation dredging moved relatively large volumes of sediments (thousands of cy per day) at significant depths (up to 12 ft cuts). One of the permitted reaches included potentially contaminated sediments on the right bank of the River downstream from the mouth of the Pocatalico River. Based on calculations presented in the EE/CA Work Plan and summarized below, which assume a typical release of 2 percent of the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD dredged, reclamation dredging likely represented the primary source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading to the River during the period of active dredging. Higher short-term loading rates would have been realized when the more contaminated reach was being actively worked, because the contractor rotated his dredge between several active permit sites at any given time. 031884 (51) 90 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The preliminary analysis was based on the following parameters and assumed values: • Dredge Production Rate [P] = 5,000 cy/day = 3,820 cubic meters per day (m3/day) • Fraction of Working Time [F] = 10 percent • Average Sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration [C] = based on surface weighted average concentration (SWAC3) values for each Study Area • Sediment Dry Bulk Density [p] = 1,120 kilograms per cubic meters (kg/m3) • Contaminant Loss During Dredging [L] = 2 percent (typical range: 1 percent to 10 percent) According to the following equation: Dredging 2,3,7,8-TCDD Flux = P x F x C x p x L ~10,000 µg/day Daily dredge production rates were as specified in U.S. ACE permits (see Table 4.15). The fraction of the dredge working time is assumed to be 10 percent, because: the dredge did not work on weekends or during bad weather, only one dredge was operating four different permits in the River, and only one of those permits appears to have been in an area with subsurface 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations approaching or exceeding 0.5 µg/kg (0.5 ppb). The sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration represents the average of sediment samples in the vicinity of the permitted reach on the right bank of the River (U.S. EPA, 2001), assuming roughly 25 percent of the dredge cut consisted of contaminated sediments. Dry bulk density was calculated from total solids concentrations reported by U.S. EPA (2001). Primary sources of uncertainty regarding this calculation include the lack of information regarding actual dredging durations, locations, and volumes; and the sparseness of data to describe the distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the permitted reach, both spatially and vertically within the dredge prism, at the time of dredging. Nevertheless, this preliminary calculation indicates the potential load could have been substantial in relation to other loading sources in recent years. 3 031884 (51) The SWAC is a statistically generated area-weighted average, which is useful in evaluating sediment sites as changes in tissue concentrations in receptor species can often be generally related to changes in average sediment concentrations. This is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.2. 91 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.5.4.2 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE The groundwater flux estimate completed as part of the TMDL in 2000 was on the order of 7 µg/day of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The basis of this estimate was presented in a simplified manner utilizing very limited data for the Nitro Area, and the very conservative assumption that the entire observed increase in water column concentrations between RM 45.5 and RM 41.3 was due entirely to groundwater flux. This analysis was identified within the TMDL to contain a high degree of uncertainty. Since the completion of the TMDL study, dismantling of the Former Flexsys Facility, and implementation of the EOC for the River, Solutia has completed additional groundwater sampling to determine the actual 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ loading to the River via the groundwater pathway from the Former Flexsys Facility. This work was completed as part of the ongoing RCRA closure process and reviewed as part of the EE/CA completion. This analysis was completed utilizing much more accurate and current Site-specific data. High volume groundwater sampling from wells sited specifically to support this analysis was completed to provide groundwater concentration data. Gradients measured at the Former Flexsys Facility, and hydraulic conductivity data from testing of Former Flexsys Facility soils were employed to generate water volume estimates reflective of Former Flexsys Facility conditions. To be conservative, no attenuation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations between monitoring wells and the River was assumed. The calculated loading to the River from groundwater was approximately 0.0083 μg/day 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (less than 0.1-percent of the loading calculated in the TMDL). A copy of the analysis is presented in Appendix M. This analysis was developed as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility and has been submitted to WV DEP and U.S. EPA. 4.5.4.3 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM POINT SOURCES (OUTFALLS) Source investigation results indicate that residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in the outfalls draining the area in and around the Former Flexsys Facility could have historically added a significant 2,3,7,8-TCDD load to the River. These outfalls have since been closed and no longer represent a pathway for ongoing releases. Based on the evaluation completed as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility, a maximum loading under current conditions of 2.445 μg/day 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ from surface water was calculated (the calculations are presented in Appendix M). The proposed construction of a clean permeable cover system, abandonment and replacement of the sewer system, and consolidation/capping of designated areas of impacted material will further reduce loading from surface water. 031884 (51) 92 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A copy of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ analysis completed for the Former Flexsys Facility is presented in Appendix M. This analysis was developed as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility and has been submitted to WV DEP and U.S. EPA. Additional point sources to the River which could contribute low levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River exist in the Nitro area (Nitro Wastewater Treatment Plant), and upstream in the South Charleston/Institute area from various industrial facilities. Monitoring data to quantify potential contributions are not currently available; however, based on CRA's evaluation, a number of processes in use at upstream facilities would be anticipated to produce low levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD which may have contributed to historic loading and/or contribute to ongoing loading. 4.5.4.4 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM SOIL RUNOFF 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading to the River from direct overland flow of water to the River (i.e., not through point source discharges) may have been a significant historic source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River. Potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources associated with soil runoff to the River or its tributaries include: • Historic and ongoing soil erosion from upstream industrial facilities • Landfills adjacent to the river and its tributaries • Former Flexsys Facility, including nearshore soils adjacent to the bank • ACF Facility To the extent that any of these properties were historic sources to the River, the site closure activities like those previously completed at the ACLF, Heizer Creek Landfill, Former Flexsys Facility, and ACF Facility have likely provided controls of soil runoff from these facilities. Historic loading from overland flow at the Former Flexsys Facility may have included both overland flow from the upland portions of the facility directly to the River (i.e., not through sewers), as well as erosion of bank soils into the River. The extent of potential historic loading or ongoing loading from the bank is uncertain. However, based on elevated soil concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD detected in this general area, runoff from bank soils had the potential to represent a significant ongoing source to the River. The RCRA CA undertaken by Solutia would be expected to effectively control this potential source. 031884 (51) 93 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.5.5 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS Potential exposure pathways for 2,3,7,8-TCDD to human and ecological receptors include: Human receptors: • Direct contact with water or sediment • Ingestion of water or sediment • Fish consumption Ecological receptors: • Direct contact with sediment • Ingestion of sediment or water • Consumption of prey species (bio-uptake) Numerous pathways for bio-uptake of ecological receptors may exist and a general depiction of ecological exposure pathways is shown on Figure 4.32. Exposure point concentrations to sediment and the water column are highly variable and are impacted within the Site area by many factors, including: 031884 (51) • Water column loading (dissolved and suspended solids) from sources upstream of the Study Area • Increases and/or decreases in surface sediment concentrations due to erosion and re-deposition of sediment along the banks of the River • Variability in re-suspension/settling rates due to variations in flow velocities in the River • Coal recovery dredging increasing water column and surface sediment concentrations by discharging formerly buried contaminated sediment to the water column in large quantities • Habitat quality • Water temperature impacting ecological receptor behavior patterns 94 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The relevance of exposure pathways to human and ecological receptors is discussed in detail in Section 5.0. 4.5.6 SUMMARY OF CSM Based on the evaluation of Site conditions and available investigative data, the following factors contribute to 2,3,7,8-TCDD releases to and within the River system: 031884 (51) • Upstream (i.e., upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility) contributions from upland point sources, non-point sources, and re-suspension of impacted sediment contribute to base loading of 2,3,7,8-TCDD entering the Site from upstream. Based on sampling completed as part of the EE/CA, upstream loading (0.00853 pg/L) represents approximately 66 percent of the WV surface water criterion of 0.013 pg/L. • Historic loading to the River from various current and former facilities (point sources, groundwater, and surface water runoff) in the Nitro area contributed to historic loading of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to sediments. Some ongoing loading from sources may be continuing; however, changes in facility operations and implementation of source controls have significantly reduced contributions. • Sediment re-suspension/deposition throughout the Site contribute to exchange of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the water column. This is primarily controlled by River flow and velocity; however, propwash may cause re-suspension of sediments in the navigational channel and wave action may cause resuspension of shallow sediments in near-shore areas. • Coal recovery dredging likely caused significant re-suspension of impacted sediment until late 1999. This activity likely delayed or temporarily reversed natural recovery of the system. • The stability of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the environment, its affinity for organic material, and its potential to bioaccumulate results in potential uptake throughout the food chain, and to human receptors through fish consumption. 95 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.0 STREAMLINED RISK EVALUATION 5.1 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) estimates cancer and non-cancer health impacts from exposure to chemicals of potential concern. Estimates are typically developed for each potential receptor by exposure pathway. Since this EE/CA is being submitted to U.S. EPA as required by the AOC for the Site, the HHRA uses U.S. EPA-approved or WV-approved methods, algorithms, and input values used as reflected in U.S. EPA or WV guidance. Monsanto Company does not acknowledge or admit that such methods, algorithms or input values are based on sound science or that they would be appropriate outside the EE/CA context. 5.1.1 INTRODUCTION This HHRA was conducted in accordance with the following U.S. EPA and WV DEP guidance: • U.S. EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part) A, EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989 • U.S. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August 1997 • U.S. EPA Example Exposure Scenarios, National Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2004a • U.S. EPA RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004b • WV DEP West Virginia Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Act Guidance Version 2.1, 1997 5.1.1.1 SPECIFIC GOALS OF THE HHRA The specific goals of the HHRA were to: 031884 (51) • Estimate and evaluate potential cancer and non-cancer health impacts to pertinent human receptors and identify what areas of the Site may require Removal Action • Provide a basis for determining which media and exposure pathways are contributing to the identified potential health impacts at the Site 96 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Provide a basis for determining which exposure pathways, and receptors would need to be addressed so that public health is adequately protected in the future • Provide a basis for comparing potential health impacts of various remedial alternatives 5.1.1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE HHRA The HHRA is presented in the following sections: Section 5.1.2 Problem Formulation Section 5.1.3 Exposure Assessment Section 5.1.4 Toxicity Assessment Section 5.1.5 Risk Characterization Section 5.1.6 Uncertainty Analysis Section 5.1.7 Summary and Conclusions 5.1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION The problem formulation is discussed below in the following sections: Section 5.1.2.1 Selection of Chemicals of Potential Concern Section 5.1.2.2 Characterization of the Exposure Setting Section 5.1.2.3 HHRA Conceptual Site Model 5.1.2.1 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN In March 2004, U.S. EPA, Monsanto Company, and Pharmacia Corporation entered into an AOC with U.S. EPA to conduct an EE/CA to study dioxin-contaminated sediment in the River. The intent of the EE/CA is to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the Site. The purpose of the EE/CA was to provide a basis to evaluate remedial alternatives with respect to protection of public health, welfare, and the environment. Since this HHRA is a part of this effort, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is selected as the only contaminant of potential concern (COPC) for the HHRA. 031884 (51) 97 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES As part of the EE/CA, fish tissue and surface water samples were collected and analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Table 5.1 presents a summary of 2,3,7,8-TCDD detections in fish tissue and Table 5.2 presents a summary of 2,3,7,8-TCDD detections in surface water. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 present a summary of the occurrence and distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish tissue and surface water, respectively. 5.1.2.2 CHARACTERIZATION OF EXPOSURE SETTING As part of the HHRA process, potentially exposed populations and potential exposure pathways are determined through an evaluation of the physical setting of the Site. The consideration of factors specific to the Site is important in (a) the development of realistic current and future exposure scenarios, (b) the determination of complete and incomplete exposure pathways, and (c) the quantification of potential health impacts. 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been detected in surface water, fish tissue, and sediments in the Study Area. 5.1.2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS An exposure pathway describes a mechanism by which humans may come into contact with Site-related COPCs. An exposure pathway is complete (i.e., it could result in a receptor contacting a COPC) if the following four elements are present: 1. A source or a release from a source (e.g., COPCs released to surface water or sediment due to historical releases) 2. A probable environmental migration route of a Site-related COPC (e.g., leaching or partitioning from one medium to another) 3. An exposure point where a receptor may come in contact with a Site-related COPC (e.g., surface water) 4. A route by which a Site-related COPC may enter a potential receptor's body (e.g., ingestion or dermal contact) If any of these four elements are not present, the exposure pathway is considered incomplete and does not contribute to the total exposure from the Site. 031884 (51) 98 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.2.2.2 POTENTIAL MIGRATION ROUTES Many complex factors control the partitioning of a COPC in the environment; thus, measured concentrations in the River only represent Site conditions at a discrete point in time. An understanding of the general fate and transport characteristics of the COPCs are important when predicting future exposure, linking sources with currently contaminated media, and identifying potentially complete pathways to Site media. Therefore, the fate and transport analysis conducted at this stage of the exposure assessment is not intended to provide a quantitative evaluation of media-specific COPC concentrations; it is meant to identify media that are likely to receive Site-related COPCs. The following sections provide a fate and transport evaluation to determine the relative significance of the release sources and mechanisms. The concentration and distribution of COPCs in the environment are subject to change due to several mechanisms, such as transportation by convection (wind or water) and physical (volatilization or sedimentation), chemical (photolysis or hydrolysis), and/or biological (degradation by microorganisms) alterations. In addition, hydrophilic and hydrophobic qualities will influence the bioavailability of a given COPC once released to the environment. 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a high molecular weight crystalline solid that is insoluble in water, with measured solubility in the range of 0.008 to 0.2 µg/L (8,000 to 200,000 pg/L) (SRC, 2003). 2,3,7,8-TCDD is extremely hydrophobic, with reported logK ow and logK oc partitioning coefficients as high as 6.8 and 7.4 (U.S. EPA, 2006), respectively. As a result, 2,3,7,8-TCDD partitions strongly to soil, sediment, and other particulate matter and is not readily dissolved in either surface water or groundwater. Because of these environmental characteristics, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not expected to leach significantly from soils into groundwater or from sediments into pore waters. The preference of 2,3,7,8-TCDD for particulate-phase transport is evidenced by the results of the high-volume water samples from the River, in which an average of 90 percent or more of the total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in the water column was associated with suspended sediments (U.S. EPA, 2000b). In surface water, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is primarily subject to slow rates of volatilization and photodegradation. In addition, biodegradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD also occurs, albeit slowly. However, degradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD via volatilization and photolysis in the River are assumed to be negligible (LTI, 2000). All of these processes are further slowed by the very strong tendency of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to sorb strongly to particulate matter. Consequently, burial in sediments may be the most important fate process for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the River. 031884 (51) 99 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.2.2.3 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE POINTS After contaminated or potentially contaminated media have been identified, the exposure points are determined by identifying whether a potentially exposed population can contact these media. 2,3,7,8-TCDD has been identified in fish tissue and surface water. As such, exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in these media has been evaluated further in the HHRA. 5.1.2.2.4 POTENTIAL EXPOSURE ROUTES In general, humans can be exposed to impacted environmental media, through specific routes of exposure. Since 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected in fish tissue and surface water, potential exposure routes include ingestion of impacted fish, and direct contact (ingestion, dermal contact) with impacted surface water. 5.1.2.2.5 RECEPTOR CHARACTERISTICS As noted previously, consideration of factors specific to the Site is important in identifying current and future exposure scenarios. With respect to impacted fish, exposure through ingestion of fish caught by recreational anglers is regarded as the applicable exposure scenario because consumption rates would be higher for recreational anglers than for the general population. Moreover, there were no subsistence fishing populations evident in the vicinity of the Site. The Study Area is near a metropolitan area, i.e., Nitro, WV, and no resident Native American populations or reservations were apparent. U.S. EPA (1997a) indicates that subsistence fishing populations that have been studied have been restricted to Native American populations in the West, in Alaska, and in Florida. With respect to contact with impacted surface water, recreational swimming is regarded as the applicable exposure scenario. The exposure scenarios and receptors are described below. Current/Future Recreational Angler Exposure to Fish Tissue Under current and future conditions a recreational angler may be exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which originated from River surface water or sediment, and subsequently has bioaccumulated in fish tissue. As noted previously, recreational anglers were selected as the target population because fish consumption rates for this group would be 031884 (51) 100 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES higher than general population intakes. In this regard, anglers would be exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD through the consumption of fish caught on a recreational basis. Current/Future Recreational Swimmer Exposure to Surface Water The recreational swimmer is assumed to be a youth (less than 18 years) or adult (greater than 18 years), who potentially would occasionally swim in the River during the summer. The recreational swimmer could be exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD through incidental ingestion and dermal contact of surface water during the time spent swimming. Although included as an exposure scenario in the HHRA, exposure to sediments due to recreational swimming is not considered to be a significant risk scenario for the site as the side slopes to the River are quite steep, typically 2:1 or 3:1 side slopes descending to channel depth within 50-200 feet of the shoreline. 5.1.2.3 HHRA CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL As noted previously, potential receptors and pathways by which individuals may come in contact with 2,3,7,8-TCDD must be determined in order to evaluate the significance of potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure. The combination of factors (chemical source, media of concern, release mechanisms, and potential receptors) that could produce a complete exposure pathway and lead to human uptake of chemicals is described in the CSM. The HHRA CSM is summarized in Table 5.5. The CSM assumes the following potential human receptors may be exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD impacts in the River: • Current/Future Recreational Angler • Current/Future Recreational Swimmer 5.1.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Exposure is defined as the contact of a receptor (i.e., person) with a chemical or physical agent. The exposure assessment is the estimation of the magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure. An exposure assessment provides a systematic analysis of the potential exposure mechanisms by which a receptor may be exposed to a chemical or physical agent at or originating from a study area. 031884 (51) 101 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Typically, exposure assessment includes both a qualitative assessment, in which potential receptors and exposure pathways are identified, and a quantitative assessment, in which exposure estimates for pertinent receptors and pathways are developed. Identification of potential receptors and pathways are often integral to the development of a CSM, which was described in Section 5.2.2.3. Determination of quantitative estimates of exposure is described in the following sections. To quantify exposure, potential exposure scenarios were developed using the following U.S. EPA and WV DEP guidance: (i) U.S. EPA RAGS, Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part) A, EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989 (ii) U.S. EPA Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002Fa, August 1997 (iii) U.S. EPA Example Exposure Scenarios, National Center for Environmental Assessment, April 2004a (iv) U.S. EPA RAGS Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004b (v) WV DEP West Virginia Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Act Guidance Version 2.1, 1997 Exposure factors were obtained for Central Tendency (CT) and Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) exposure scenarios. The CT scenario is based on average or mean exposure factors and approximates the most probable exposure conditions. The RME scenario is based on conservative assumptions that generally utilize the 90th to 95th percentile values and represents an upper bound on potential exposure estimates. The CT and RME EPC values for the various exposure scenarios were determined based on available analytical data using U.S. EPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 (U.S. EPA, 2009b). The arithmetic mean, maximum, and 95 percent UCL of the mean concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish tissue, and surface water are summarized in Tables 5.6 and 5.7, respectively. Quantification of exposure is discussed further below in terms of estimation of intake (Section 5.1.3.1) and exposure factors (Section 5.1.3.2). 031884 (51) 102 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.3.1 SPECIFIC INTAKE EQUATIONS The following sections provide intake equations for potential ingestion of impacted fish tissue, and ingestion and dermal contact with impacted surface water. In the HHRA, exposure estimates reflect chemical concentration, contact rate, exposure time, and body weight in a term called "intake" or "dose." 5.1.3.1.1 FISH TISSUE INGESTION EQUATION The equation for calculating chemical intake from the ingestion of fish tissue according to U.S. EPA (1989) is: CDI = Cfish × IR × Ff × CF × EF × ED BW × AT Where: CDI Cfish IR Ff CF EF ED BW AT 031884 (51) = = = = = = = = = chronic daily intake (mg/kg body weight-day) chemical concentration in fish (mg/kg) ingestion rate of fresh water fish - (g/day) fraction of ingested fish from impacted waterbody conversion factor (kg/g) exposure frequency (days/year) exposure duration (years) body weight (kg) averaging time - cancer (averaging period, days) 103 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.3.1.2 SURFACE WATER INGESTION INTAKE EQUATION The equation for calculating potential chemical intake via ingestion of surface water by the recreational swimmer (child and adult) according to U.S. EPA (1989) is as follows: CDI = CW × IR × ET × EV × EF × ED BW × AT Where: CDI CW IR ET EV EF ED BW AT = = = = = = = = = chronic daily intake (mg/kg body weight-day) chemical concentration in surface water (mg/L) ingestion rate of surface water (L/hour) exposure time per event (hour/event) event frequency (event/day) exposure frequency (days/year) exposure duration (years) body weight (kg) averaging time - cancer (averaging period, days) The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to suspended sediments was generally (70 percent of results) higher than the dissolved phase concentrations. As such, the concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to suspended sediments was used to estimate potential chemical intake via ingestion in this HHRA. 031884 (51) 104 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.3.1.3 SURFACE WATER DERMAL CONTACT INTAKE EQUATION The equation for calculating potential chemical intake via dermal contact with surface water by the recreational swimmer (child and adult) according to U.S. EPA (2004a) is as follows: CDI = DA event × SA × EF × EV × ED BW × AT Where: CDI = DAevent = SA = EV = EF = ED = BW = AT = 031884 (51) chronic daily intake (mg/kg body weight-day) absorbed dose per event (mg/cm2-event) skin surface area available for contact (cm2) event frequency (events/day) exposure frequency (days/year) exposure duration (years) body weight (kg) averaging time - cancer (averaging period, days) 105 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES To calculate the absorbed dose per event (DA event ) as a result of dermal contact with surface water, U.S. EPA (2004a) recommends the following: If t event ≤ t*, then DAevent = 2 × FA × K p × C × 6 × τ event × t event , π t  1 + 3 × B + 3 × B 2  event  + 2 × τ event ×  Ift event > t*, then DAevent = FA × K p × C ×  2   + 1 B (1 + B )    Where: CW CF FA ET PC Kp tevent τevent t* B = = = = = = = = = = chemical concentration in surface water (e.g., mg/cm3 water) conversion factor (L/cm3) fraction absorbed water (dimensionless) exposure time per event (hour/event) permeability constant (cm/hour) dermal permeability coefficient of compound in water (cm/hr) event duration (hr/event) lag time per event (hr/event) time to reach steady state (hr) = 2.4 x τevent dimensionless ratio of permeability coefficient of a compound through the stratum corneum relative to its permeability coefficient across the viable epidermis (dimensionless) Surface water concentrations used to estimate potential chemical intake via dermal contact according to U.S. EPA (2004a) are dissolved phase concentrations. However for this HHRA, concentrations absorbed to suspended sediments were used to be consistent with the surface water ingestion pathway and in order to provide a conservative assessment. 5.1.3.2 EXPOSURE FACTORS In order to develop quantitative exposure estimates, exposure factors that describe potential intake or contact rates, exposure frequency, and exposure duration are needed. These factors are specified for each exposure scenario (recreational fishing or recreational swimming), receptor (child, youth, or adult), and exposure condition (RME or CT). Exposure factors were obtained from U.S. EPA and WV DEP sources. They are 031884 (51) 106 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES presented in Table 5.8 for the recreational angler scenario, and in Table 5.9 for the recreational swimmer scenario. 5.1.4 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT The toxicity assessment evaluates the available evidence regarding the potential for a COPC to potentially cause adverse effects in exposed individuals. Numerical toxicity criteria are developed from this effort using a two-step approach: hazard identification and dose-response assessment. Hazard identification determines the potential adverse effects associated with exposure to a COPC. Two broad categories of health effects are defined: cancer and non-cancer toxicity. Following hazard identification, numerical toxicity values are determined or selected from the available toxicity data in the dose-response assessment often using mathematical modeling. Toxicity criteria used in HHRAs are generally those developed by regulatory authorities. In the selection of toxicity values, preference has been given to the most recently developed values because these would incorporate the most recent toxicological information and would provide the best basis upon which to assess potential health impacts. Consistent with U.S. EPA (2009c), toxicity values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1998) and Cal EPA Toxicity Criteria Database (CalEPA, 2008). Monsanto Company does not acknowledge or admit that such values are based on sound science or that they would be appropriate outside the EE/CA context. 5.1.4.1 NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARDS 5.1.4.1.1 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR NON-CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS For substances that cause non-carcinogenic chronic effects, toxicity criteria are usually expressed as acceptable chronic intake levels or Reference Dose (RfDs) (in units of mg/(kg-day)) below which, no adverse effects are expected. Thus, there is a level or threshold of exposure to a chemical below which no toxic effects are anticipated. Chronic RfDs are used in HHRA as to evaluate the potential for non-carcinogenic health effects. A chronic RfD is defined as an estimate (with an uncertainty spanning an order of magnitude or greater) of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive sub-populations, which poses no appreciable risk of deleterious effects over a lifetime of exposure. 031884 (51) 107 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES RfDs are most often derived from laboratory animal studies. Test results in the most sensitive species are selected, and from this "critical study," the highest dose/concentration level administered that did not cause observable adverse effects is selected. This dose level is the no observed adverse effects levels (NOAEL). The NOAEL is then divided by uncertainty (safety) and modifying factors to derive a chronic RfD. In general, an uncertainty factor (UF) of 10 is used to account for interspecies variation due to extrapolation of animal study results to humans, and another factor of 10 to account for sensitive human populations. Additional factors of 10 are used if the critical study included only a lowest observed adverse effects level (LOAEL) instead of a NOAEL, and if the duration of the critical study was less than a lifetime exposure. A modifying factor (MF) of 10 or less can also be included if the database is judged as less deficient. The combination of MF and UFs can produce an overall uncertainty factor as high as 100,000. 2,3,7,8-TCDD RfDs for oral and dermal routes of exposure are presented in Table 5.10. The oral RfD was derived from a developmental toxicity study in rhesus monkey, in which behavioral effects were noted in offspring. Because there is no RfD available for dermal exposure, the oral RfD was extrapolated to the dermal route according to U.S. EPA (2004a). 5.1.4.2 CARCINOGENIC RISKS 5.1.4.2.1 TOXICITY INFORMATION FOR CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs) are quantitative risk estimates of theoretical carcinogenic potency. Slope factors relate the lifetime probability of excess cancers to the lifetime average exposure dose/concentration of a substance. CSFs are estimated using mathematical extrapolation models, most commonly the linearized multistage (LMS) model, and are presented as risk per mg/(kg-day) (i.e., mg carcinogen per kg body weight per day) for oral and dermal CSFs. These models assume low dose-response linearity and thus may not be appropriate for some suspected carcinogens, in particular those such as dioxin that are not geno-toxic. As well, the body's natural repair processes and defense mechanisms may decrease cancer risk at low exposure levels. Thus, the risks at lower exposure levels are likely overestimated using a linear model. When adequate human epidemiological data are available, maximum likelihood estimates (MLEs) of model parameters are used to generate a CSF. When only animal data are available, the CSF is typically the upper 95 percent confidence limit on the MLE. In other words, the true risk to humans, while not identifiable, is not likely to exceed the 031884 (51) 108 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES upper-bound estimate. This is a conservative estimate, and in some cases a linear slope of zero may be as appropriate for the data (i.e., no carcinogenic risk). Known or suspect human carcinogens have been evaluated and identified by the Carcinogen Assessment Group using the U.S. EPA Weight-of-Evidence approach for carcinogenicity classification (HEAST, 1997). The U.S. EPA classification is based on an evaluation of the likelihood that the agent is a human carcinogen. The evidence is characterized separately for human and animal studies as follows: Group A - Known Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans) Group B - Probable Human Carcinogen (B1 - limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans; B2 - sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals with inadequate or lack of evidence in humans) Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or lack of human data) Group D - Not Classifiable as to Human Carcinogenicity (inadequate or no evidence) Group E Evidence of Noncarcinogenicity carcinogenicity in animal studies) - for Humans (no evidence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is classified utilizing the U.S. EPA system as a group B2 chemical. The oral and dermal CSFs used in the HHRA are presented in Table 5.11. For 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the oral CSF was derived by California EPA (OEHHA, 2009) based on the LMS model using Global79. The Agency used male mouse liver tumor data from NTP (1982). However, in its response to U.S. EPA's Dioxin Reassessment (U.S. EPA, 2000c), the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) was divided on whether a linear dose-model was appropriate because dioxin is considered primarily a cancer promoter rather than an initiator (U.S. EPA, 2001). As such, there was no consensus regarding the appropriateness of using a linear approach for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, to be consistent with methods used by the U.S. EPA for a HHRA under Superfund, this HHRA used the oral CSF derived by CalEPA, which were derived based on the LMS model. Monsanto Company does not acknowledge or admit that a linear CSF for dioxin is based on sound science or would be appropriate outside the EE/CA context; considerable scientific evidence establishes that a linear cancer slope factor for dioxin and similar substances is not appropriate as applied to small concentrations. 031884 (51) 109 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.1.4.3 POTENTIAL RISK FROM CARCINOGENS A CSF multiplied by the lifetime average daily intake provides a theoretical estimate of the increased probability of cancer during the lifetime of the exposed individual. This increased cancer risk is expressed, for example, as 1 x 10-6 or 1.0E-06 (one in one million increased cancer risk). This is an upper limit estimate of risk, based on very conservative toxicity and exposure factors, and, as noted, an assumed linear cancer-slope factor. 5.1.4.4 DERMAL TOXICITY Assessment of potential health impacts associated with dermal exposure is based on absorbed dose, i.e., the amount of COPC that is absorbed through the skin. However, oral toxicity values (RfDs and CSFs) typically used to evaluate dermal exposures are based on administered dose. Thus, to characterize risk for the dermal exposure pathway, adjustment of oral toxicity factors is needed to yield an absorbed dose rather than administered dose. This adjustment accounts for the absorption efficiency in the "critical study" which forms the basis of the RfD or CSF. For example, in the case where oral absorption in the critical study is essentially complete (i.e., 100 percent), the absorbed dose is equivalent to the administered dose, and therefore no toxicity adjustment with respect to absorption from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is necessary (U.S. EPA, 2004b). When GI absorption of a chemical in the critical study is poor (i.e., 1 percent), the absorbed dose is much smaller than the administered dose, and therefore toxicity factors based on the administered dose must be adjusted. Because of the intrinsic variability in the analysis of absorption studies, the U.S. EPA recommended a threshold of 50 percent GI absorption to ascertain the need to adjust administered doses, i.e., GI absorption of <50 percent would require adjustment. This cutoff level obviates the need to make comparatively small adjustments in the toxicity value that would otherwise impart on the process a level of accuracy that is not supported by the scientific literature (U.S. EPA, 2004b). Oral to dermal adjustment factors consistent with Exhibit 4-1 of U.S. EPA (2004a) were applied in the HHRA and are presented in Tables 5.10 and 5.11. 5.1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The objective of this risk characterization is to integrate information developed in the exposure and toxicity assessments. The methods used in this risk characterization were 031884 (51) 110 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES based on U.S. EPA and WV DEP guidance (U.S. EPA, 1989, 1997a, 2004a, 2005; WVDEP, 1997). 5.1.5.1 HAZARD QUOTIENT ESTIMATES The potential for non-cancer health effects from exposure to a COPC is evaluated by comparing a calculated intake over a specified time period to a RfD for a similar time period. This ratio, termed a hazard quotient (HQ), is calculated according to the following general equation: HQ = CDI RfD where: HQ = The Hazard Quotient (unitless) is the ratio of the chronic daily intake of a chemical to a reference dose. A hazard quotient equal to or below 1.0 is considered protective of human health. CDI = The Chronic Daily Intake is the chemical dose or concentration calculated by applying the exposure scenario factors and expressed as mg/(kg-day). The intake represents the average daily chemical dose or concentration over the expected period of exposure. RfD = The Reference Dose is a daily dose believed not to cause an adverse effect from even a lifetime exposure [mg/(kg-day)]. If more than one COPC is included in an assessment, a hazard index (HI) is calculated, which is the sum of HQs for individual COPCs for a specific exposure scenario. An HI equal to, or below 1.0, is considered protective of human health over a lifetime and indicates that the exposure scenarios are not of concern. A HI above 1.0 does not indicate that adverse health effects are imminent or likely to occur, but only that the margin of safety is reduced. The total hazard index for each exposure pathway is presented in the summary Tables shown in Section 5.1.5.3, and the HQs are presented in the Tables referenced within the summary tables. 5.1.5.2 CANCER RISK ESTIMATES Exposure scenarios may involve potential exposure to more than one carcinogen. To represent the potential carcinogenic effects posed by exposure to multiple carcinogens, it 031884 (51) 111 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES is assumed, in the absence of information on synergistic or antagonistic effects, that these risks are additive. Cancer risks are calculated utilizing the following general equation: Cancer Risk = LADD x (CSF) where: Cancer Risk = Estimated upper bound on additional risk of cancer over a lifetime in an individual exposed to the carcinogen for a specified exposure period (unitless). LADD = The Lifetime Average Daily Dose of the chemical calculated using exposure scenario factors and expressed in mg/(kg-day) for oral and dermal exposure. The intake represents the total lifetime chemical dose or concentration averaged over an individual's expected lifetime of 70 years. CSF = The Cancer Slope Factor models the potential carcinogenic response and is expressed as [mg/(kg-day)]-1. The potential cumulative risks resulting from exposure to the COPCs are compared to the target cumulative risk level, which typically is in the range of 1.0 × 10-6 to 1.0 × 10-4 or 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000. Risks are often added to address potential combined child and adult exposures. The cumulative carcinogenic risks for combined child or youth and adult exposures are presented in the summary Tables presented in Section 5.1.5.3 and the calculation of the risk assessments for the recreational angler and swimmer for both the RME and CT scenarios are presented in Tables 5.12, 5.13, 5.14, and 5.15, respectively. The individual risk estimates are presented in the referenced Tables within the summary tables. 5.1.5.3 RISK QUANTIFICATION SUMMARY The non-cancer hazard index calculations and calculated lifetime cancer risks for the Site are summarized below. 031884 (51) 112 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Current/Future Recreational Angler Route Exposure Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Table Reference Fish Recreational Tissue - All Angler (Child) Fish Ingestion RME 2.7E-05 2.4E+00 5.12 CT 2.4E-06 2.2E-01 5.13 Recreational Angler (Adult) Ingestion RME 1.2E-04 2.6E+00 5.12 CT 3.3E-06 1.9E-01 5.13 Recreational Angler (Combined) Ingestion RME 1.4E-04 2.6E+00 5.12 CT 5.7E-06 2.2E-01 5.13 Medium Receptor The cumulative RME cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the recreational angler (child and adult) were 1.4 x 10-4 and 2.6, respectively. For the CT evaluation, cumulative cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the recreational angler (child and adult) were 5.7 x 10-6 and 0.22, respectively. Current/Future Recreational Swimmer Medium Surface Water Receptor Route Recreational Ingestion Swimmer (Youth) & Dermal Recreational Ingestion Swimmer (adult) & Dermal Recreational Ingestion Swimmer & (Combined) Dermal Exposure Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Reference Table RME 3.4E-07 3.1E-02 5.14 CT RME CT 6.3E-09 1.2E-06 8.0E-09 5.7E-04 2.6E-02 4.8E-04 5.15 5.14 5.15 RME CT 1.5E-06 1.4E-08 3.1E-02 5.7E-04 5.14 5.15 The cumulative RME cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the recreational swimmer (youth and adult) were 1.5 x 10-6 and 0.031, respectively. For the CT evaluation, cumulative cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the recreational swimmer (youth and adult) were 1.4 x 10-8 and 0.00057, respectively. 031884 (51) 113 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A summary of exceedances of potential target levels for cancer risk and hazard index of 1.00 x 10-4 and 1.0 respectively is provided in Section 5.1.5.4. An uncertainty analysis is presented in Section 5.1.6. 5.1.5.4 SUMMARY OF EXCEEDANCES A summary of the exceedances of target cancer risk and hazard index levels for all exposure media, pathways, and human receptors is presented below: Medium Receptor Fish Recreational Tissue - A Angler (Child) ll Fish Recreational Angler (Adult) Recreational Angler (Combined) Route Exposure Carcinogenic Risk Non-Carcinogenic Hazard Index Table Reference Ingestion RME NA 2.4E+00 5.12 Ingestion RME 1.2E-04 2.6E+00 5.12 Ingestion RME 1.4E-04 2.6E+00 5.12 Note: NA = Not Applicable as cancer risk is within risk range of 1E-06 to 1E-04 5.1.6 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS The purpose of this section is to provide a summary and discussion regarding the uncertainties associated with the HHRA evaluation. The various uncertainties are discussed below. 5.1.6.1 EXPOSURE SCENARIO FACTORS This section evaluates the uncertainty associated with the primary exposure scenario factors such as frequency of exposure. Because on occasion the assumptions used in the scenarios are not objectively determined but rather are subjective estimates based on judgment, conservatism, experience, and U.S. EPA Superfund guidance. In these cases, the tendency is to select overly conservative values to guard against under-estimating exposure. This leads to a general over-estimation of exposure. This is regarded as the case for the RME exposure frequency for recreational swimming. A frequency of 100 days/year was recommended by U.S. EPA Region III (U.S. EPA, 2009d). This was based 031884 (51) 114 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES on assuming someone might swim daily in the River. However, the River is navigable with barges, commercial shipping, etc. and as such, routine swimming in the River is unlikely. With respect to the fraction of ingested fish that comes from the impacted waterbody, a value of 1 was used for RME risk estimates. This value assumes that 100 percent of ingested fish over the exposure duration of some 30 years come only from the impacted waterway. This assumption significantly overestimates potential risks associated with fish consumption because fish ingestion rates presented in U.S. EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) (U.S. EPA, 1997b) reflect intakes from all sources including recreationally caught fish, store bought fish, restaurant meals, etc. In this regard, EFH Table 10-49 presents the number of study respondents who reported monthly consumption of seafood that was purchased or caught by someone they knew. Only approximately 6 percent reported consuming mostly caught fish (fraction unreported) compared to approximately 94 percent who reported consuming mostly store purchased fish. Moreover, recreationally caught fish that are consumed are unlikely to come from only one source especially in areas where more than one fishable waterbody exists. For these reasons, a fraction of 1 would overestimate potential long-term fish ingestion characteristics even for RME risk estimates. Long-term exposure point concentrations are inherently uncertain because COPC concentrations are assumed to remain constant over time. This assumption could have a major effect on the exposure point concentrations of organics. The concentrations of organics will decrease over time due to degradation, sedimentation, and remediation processes. The assumptions that the measured concentrations are equivalent during sampling and exposure over the duration of exposure will overestimate the intake and resulting risk. 5.1.6.2 DOSE RESPONSE One of the major uncertainties in estimating Site-specific risk is the use of published toxicity information. Factors introducing uncertainty associated with toxicity criteria are as follows: i) 031884 (51) Applicability of animal toxicity data - chemicals may be assumed to be human carcinogens based on animal studies even when there is limited or no available evidence that the chemical is a human carcinogen. 115 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES ii) Use of maximum tolerated dose - CSFs are derived from animal studies using dose levels that are known to elicit toxicity and may overwhelm metabolic pathways, thereby inducing a response that does not occur at lower doses. iii) Dose-response modeling - CSFs are developed in a conservative manner often using default mathematical models based on low-dose linearity that are likely to overestimate potency. iv) Uncertainty factors - RfDs are also established with conservative uncertainty factors, the combination of which, likely overestimates the adjustments needed to extrapolate results to exposed populations. 5.1.6.3 THEORETICAL NATURE OF RISK ESTIMATES A HHRA assigns a numerical value to the excess probability (above background cancer rates) of a case of cancer developing in a population exposed to a specified amount of chemical that is a known or suspect carcinogen. This numerical value is presented as an upper limit excess cancer risk such as 1.00 x 10-6, or one additional cancer case in a population of one million people exposed to the chemical at a specific chemical concentration for an upper bound duration of time, for example, some 30 years. Thirty years represents the 90th percentile duration that individuals remain at one residence. Thus, most people (90 percent of the population) would be exposed for a shorter duration than assumed in the HHRA and therefore, true risks would be lower than those calculated, and may quite reasonably approach zero. 5.1.6.4 WEST VIRGINIA FISH ADVISORIES An evaluation of potential health effects from consumption of fish according to the advisory rates presented in WV Department of Health and Human Resources (WV DHHR, 2007) is provided in Appendix N. Fish advisory methodology including that used by WV DHHR was developed to provide simplified and uniform advice to local populations regarding recommended rates of consumption of locally caught fish. The methodology is based on a standardized meal size of approximately 8 oz or 227 g. Using different consumption frequencies, e.g., 1 meal/week, allowable fish tissue concentrations are calculated that are protective of human health. Analytical fish tissue test results are then compared to these allowable concentrations to determine maximum recommended rates of consumption. However, it should be noted that fish advisory intake rates were developed to provide a simplified and understandable basis to communicate with the public. These ingestion rates do not reflect those determined from actual study of anglers, and therefore the 031884 (51) 116 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES applicability of any risk estimates based on these intakes is unknown. In short, it is unknown whether the advisory intakes reflect local consumption patterns, and therefore the utility of resultant risk estimates is unclear. Details of risk estimates based on fish advisory intake rates are presented in Appendix N. Based on the fish tissue sampling completed as part of the EOC, consumption of bass and sauger at a frequency of one meal per week would be acceptable. Catfish consumption at a rate of one meal per month would be acceptable. This evaluation is not intended to indicate any change in fish consumption advisories should be made. Any reduction of fish consumption advisories would be made by the State of West Virginia based upon their evaluation of all relevant data. 5.1.7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Based on the information presented in the HHRA, the following conclusions are made: i) The HHRA evaluated potential human health impacts associated with exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD identified in fish tissue and surface water collected at the Site. ii) The potential receptors and exposure pathways evaluated at the Site considering the current and potential future use of the Site included: recreational angler (child and adult) exposed to impacted fish tissue, and recreational swimmer (youth and adult) exposed to impacted surface water. iii) The calculated RME cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the current/future recreational angler (child and adult) were outside the target range of 1.00 x 10-4 to 1.00 x 10-6 for cancer risk and exceeded 1.0 for hazard index. iv) The calculated CT cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the current/future recreational angler (child and adult) were below 1.00 x 10-5 for cancer risk and 1.0 for hazard index. v) The calculated cancer risk and non-cancer HI for the current/future recreational swimmer (youth and adult) were below 1.00 x 10-5 for cancer risk and 1.0 for hazard index for both RME and CT exposure scenarios. 5.2 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT This section presents an ecological risk assessment (ERA), which evaluates the potential risks to ecological receptors. Figure 5.1 presents the limits of the Site for which the ERA was conducted. As recommended by U.S. EPA, the ERA focuses on 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone, which greatly simplifies the calculations, analyses, and conclusions. It should be noted, 031884 (51) 117 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES however, that 2,3,7,8-TCDD at this and other sites generally occurs in a mixture with other dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners (dioxins/furans). Together 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the other 2,3,7,8-TCDD substituted dioxins and furans pose additive toxicity that is generically known as dioxin-like toxicity. The total dioxin-like toxicity from all the dioxin/furan congeners is summed and expressed in terms of TEQ relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Nonetheless, focusing on 2,3,7,8-TCDD will not meaningfully affect the results of the ERA because 2,3,7,8-TCDD at this Site is, by far, the dominant source of dioxin-like toxicity due to dioxins and furans, and the other dioxin-like chemicals occurring at the Site present risks to potential ecological receptors similar to risks posed by 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In fish, 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone contributes an average of about 97 percent of the total dioxin/furan TEQ. Therefore for the Kanawha River, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is assumed to be representative of total TEQ and the current risks and potential risk-reduction for various remedial strategies will be based on this assumption; however, the effects of other dioxin-like chemicals is qualitatively addressed below. This ERA relies on data collected from 2004 to 2009 as part of the EOC Studies. Sediment, surface water, and fish tissue data were collected as part of the requirements of the Phase I EOC sampling, completed on April 18, 2005. Phase I EOC sampling was executed according to the Work Plan (CRA, 2004). The scope of Phase I EOC sampling and analysis was approved by U.S. EPA in September 2004. Results of the Phase I EOC investigation were presented in the report entitled Interim Report, Phase I EOC Sampling Results and Updated Phase II EOC Sampling Work Plan (CRA, 2005). Additional sediment samples were collected in 2007 and 2008 during the Phase II EOC sampling activities. Additional fish tissue samples were collected again during December 2008/January 2009. Surface and subsurface sediment, surface water, and fish tissue sampling locations are presented on Figures 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4, respectively. All samples in all media were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Fish tissue and a limited subset of sediment samples were also analyzed for a wider list of constituents. 5.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS In general, this ERA follows U.S. EPA guidance, primarily U.S. EPA 1997. This ERA also follows other appropriate guidance, including: 031884 (51) • Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, U.S. EPA/530-D-99-001A, August 1999 (U.S. EPA, 1999a) • Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual, Interim Final, U.S. EPA/540/1-89/001, March 1989 118 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Framework for Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment, U.S. EPA/630/R-92/001, February 1992 • Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessment, U.S. EPA/540/R-97/006, June 1997 (U.S. EPA, 1997a) • U.S. EPA Region I Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund Program, Draft Final, U.S. EPA 901/5-89-001, June 1989 • U.S. EPA Region I Risk Updates No. 4, November 1996 • EcoUpdate Intermittent Bulletins As described in U.S. EPA guidance (1997a), the ERA process can involve up to eight steps, described as follows: Step 1 - Screening-level problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation: This first step consists of a basic description of a site and its habitats and known hazards and their likely modes of ecotoxicity. This information is then analyzed to determine whether there are complete or potentially complete exposure pathways from known sources. This information is combined into a preliminary Ecological Exposure Model. Step 2 - Screening-level exposure estimate and risk calculation: The second step of the ecological risk screening includes the exposure estimate and risk calculation. Risk is estimated based on maximum exposure concentrations compared to ecotoxicity screening values from Step 1 and screening quotients of COPCs are presented. A screening quotient less than 1 indicates the COPC alone is unlikely to cause adverse ecological effects. The ERA can produce only three outcomes: 1) Information is adequate to determine that ecological risks are negligible; 2) Information is inadequate to make a decision; or 3) Information indicates a potential adverse ecological effect exists. The risk assessment process is continued if either of the latter two conclusions is reached. Step 3 - Baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) problem formulation: The results of the screening assessment, in coordination with site-specific data, are used to assess the scope and goals of the BERA. The following should be completed at the end of this step: 031884 (51) • Refine preliminary COPCs • Further characterize ecological effects 119 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Review and refine information on contaminant transport and fate, exposure pathways, and ecosystems potentially at risk • Select assessment endpoints • Develop Ecological Exposure Model with testable hypotheses • Analyze uncertainties associated with the risk assessment Step 4 - Study design and data quality objective process: The conceptual model is completed during this step of the BERA, and measurement endpoints are developed based on the model. The Ecological Exposure Model is used to determine the study design and the data quality objectives. The products of this step include a work plan and sampling and analysis plan, detailing the data analysis methods, exposure parameters, data reduction and interpretation methods, and statistical analyses. Step 5 - Field verification of sampling design: The sampling design, testable hypotheses, exposure pathway models, and measurement endpoints are examined to ensure they are appropriate and that they can be implemented. Step 6 - Site investigation and analysis phase: This step includes all of the field sampling and surveys that are part of the BERA. The data collected during this phase are evaluated on existing and potential exposure and ecological effects outlined in Steps 1 to 5. Step 7 - Risk characterization: This step consists of risk estimation and risk description. Data on exposure and effects are used to characterize risk based on assessment endpoints. The product of this step is the identification of a threshold for effects on the assessment endpoint(s) as concentrations ranging from levels found to pose no ecological risk to levels likely to produce adverse ecological effects. Step 8 - Risk management: This phase involves balancing risk reductions associated with remediation of the Site with the potential effects of the remediation itself. 5.2.2 STRUCTURE OF THE ERA Generally, Steps 1 and 2 comprise the Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA), while Steps 3 through 8 are the BERA. As per the U.S. EPA's directive (Matlock, 2004), the following analysis will be limited to Steps 1 and 2. However, the format of the following analysis will deviate, when appropriate, from the usual SLERA practice because the intent of this ERA differs from a typical SLERA. For example, 031884 (51) 120 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES SLERAs are usually intended as the beginning of the risk assessment process, and are typically intended to focus subsequent risk assessment analyses on most important stressors (i.e., COPC selection) and most critical exposure pathways. Given their preliminary nature, SLERAs are typically very conservative. As such, they are really capable only of dismissing the potential for risk. SLERAs have very limited capacity to assess either the likelihood or magnitude of ecological risks. In contrast, this ERA for the River is not intended to identify COPCs or help identify what further risk assessment activities are necessary. Rather, this ERA is intended to evaluate potential efficacy, with respect to protection of ecological resources, "of potential response actions and the associated cleanup goals" for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Matlock, 2004). To that end, the following ERA will include elements of Steps 3 through 8 that are normally parts of a BERA. 5.2.3 SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA USED IN THE ERA Data used in the ERA were collected on two phases: Phase I EOC sampling conducted from 2004 to 2005 and Phase II EOC sampling conducted from 2007 to 2009. 5.2.3.1 PHASE I EOC SAMPLING The Phase I EOC sampling and analysis program, conducted as part of the Work Plan, included the following major activities: • Bathymetric and Geophysical Surveys • Surface Water Sampling and Analysis (including velocity profiling) • Fish Tissue Sampling and Analysis • Surface sediment sampling to support the geophysical survey, and mapping of soft sediment deposits • Surface sediment sampling to support the derivation of a site-specific BSAF for 2,3,7,8-TCDD Phase I EOC sampling activities were completed in 2 mobilizations: October 4, 2004 through November 2, 2004 and April 11, 2005 through April 18, 2005. Low flow surface water sampling, fish tissue sampling, bathymetry/geophysics, and sediment sampling activities were completed during the first mobilization. High flow surface water sampling was completed during the second mobilization. 031884 (51) 121 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The surface water, fish tissue, and sediment sampling locations identified in the Work Plan for Phase I EOC sampling were discussed in Section 4.2 and results are summarized on Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6a, and 4.6b, respectively. Rationales for the collection of these samples are as follows: River Mile RM 75-95 Location Medium Rationale for collection Upstream of Site catfish and sauger RM 68 Upstream of Site bass, forage fish, sediment, water RM 45 Upstream of Former Flexsys Facility (Study Area 1) Adjacent to Former Flexsys Facility (Study Area 2) Downstream of Former Flexsys Facility (Study Areas 3 and 4) Entire reach of Site water Sufficiently upstream to ensure that the home ranges of the channel catfish sampled here are upstream of influence of the Former Flexsys Facility Immediately upstream of the Marmet Dam to be representative of regional background conditions unaffected by releases from the Former Flexsys Facility and urban Charleston area Upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility but downstream of urban Charleston area RM 42 RM 33 RM 33-45 5.2.4 bass, forage fish, sediment, water bass, forage fish, sediment, water catfish and sauger In the vicinity of Nitro (adjacent and immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility in Nitro) In the vicinity of Little Guano Creek, upstream of Winfield Dam Upstream of Winfield Dam and in the vicinity of Nitro, to ensure that the home range of the catfish sampled are within the impacted area. STEP 1: SCREENING-LEVEL PROBLEM FORMULATION AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS EVALUATION The Site is a 14-mile reach of the River in the southwest portion of WV. The River flows north to the Ohio River. The Site is bounded at the southern upstream end by the confluence of the River and the Coal River at RM 46. The downstream, northern end of the Site is the Winfield Dam at RM 33. The Site location and Site plan are presented on Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. 031884 (51) 122 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES For the purpose of conducting the EE/CA, the Site was divided into four Study Areas: • Study Area 1 - Defined as the upstream portion of the Site. In terms of surface water and sediment samples, Study Area 1 is the portion of the Site upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility, between RM 45 and RM 42.5. However, because some fish may migrate long distances, upstream samples of fish were taken well upstream of this area at RM 68. For the purposes of the risk assessment, all upstream samples, including the fish samples from far upstream (i.e., RM 68), are considered representative of Study Area 1. • Study Area 2 - An approximately 1 mile stretch of River adjacent to and immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility. It runs from about RM 42.5 downstream (i.e., north) to Interstate 64 at RM 41.3. • Study Areas 3 and 4 - Study Area 3 is the near downstream area. It includes an approximate three mile stretch of River from Interstate 64 to the John E. Amos Power Plant (RM 38.4). Study Area 4 is considered the far downstream area. Study Area 4 is the length of the River from RM 38.4 to the Winfield Lock and Dam (RM 31). Because some fish may migrate across these artificial boundaries, catfish were sampled from a number of locations in Study Areas 3 and 4 and composited as one sample. Consequently, the risk assessment treats Study Areas 3 and 4 as one area. Tributaries to the River including the Pocatalico River and non-principal tributaries and un-named backwaters to the main stem located within the Study Area were included in the EE/CA risk evaluations and surface-weighted average concentration (SWAC) calculations. 5.2.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The upstream 5 mile portion of the River, from RM 90.6 to the Kanawha Falls (Falls) at RM 95, is not a navigational channel. Here, the River is a more natural, free flowing river. The Falls, at RM 95, is a natural rock dam that has been augmented by manmade dams. The Falls are located below the River's confluence with the Gauley River and the New River. There is a deep pool at the base of the Falls that consists of mostly boulder substrate. There are several islands in this upstream reach. The substrate here also has greater amounts of cobble and boulders when compared to the downstream stations. In general, the physical aquatic habitat here is relatively good. In contrast, the physical habitat value of the lower 90.6 miles is constrained by the modifications to flow and physical habitat associated with the commercial shipping. 031884 (51) 123 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The locks and dams have created long navigational pools that, especially during drier periods, are more lentic (i.e., pond-like or lake-like) than riverine. In addition to the ponding and slowing of current, the downstream portion of the River (adjacent to the locks) has been dredged periodically by the U.S. ACE to promote navigation. Dredging of the channel has minimized longitudinal variability in depth and eliminated typical riverine microhabitats such as pools, riffles, and runs. The depth of the channel is fairly constant, ranging from 10 to 18 feet, to approximately 20 to 24 feet during high water. Cross-channel heterogeneity has also been greatly reduced. Additional dredging has been performed periodically along the shorelines adjacent to industrial facilities to provide for barge docking. To minimize erosion due to boat wake, large portions of the banks are covered with riprap. Consequently, the Riverbanks are steep and descend quickly to the barge channel depth. There is little to no shallow water habitat along the River's edge, and no significant areas of emergent wetlands and submerged aquatic plant beds. There is some limited habitat features, such as downed trees and other woody debris along the sides. However, these habitat features are limited and temporary. In summary, the River functions primarily as a shipping channel, this limits its physical habitat quality. The lower River has minimal diversity of aquatic habitat types and little physical structure, both factors that promote productivity and diversity of fish and other aquatic species in natural rivers. Substrate in the pools is mostly sand, with some gravel and silt. Average discharge of the River at Charleston is approximately 15,000 cfs. As with any river, flow velocity varies with discharge, but variability of flow in the River is greatly attenuated by the lock and dam system. Another potential impact on aquatic biota is barge traffic, which is relatively heavy on the River. Barge traffic can resuspend bottom sediments in the navigation channel, and the resulting turbidity and deposition can impact biota in the water column and sediments. All of these factors greatly constrain the biological potential of the River. Small fish (minnows and darters) and Asiatic clam shells (Corbicula) were observed along the River banks during sampling events. The fish species captured during fish-tissue sampling are an assortment of warm water species associated with large rivers and lakes and ponds, as summarized on Table 5.16. Common species found were carp and other minnows, catfishes, black basses (e.g., smallmouth and spotted bass), and gizzard shad. 031884 (51) 124 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.2.4.2 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES State or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered species can be of particular concern in an ecological risk assessment due to their population status and sensitivity. Letters requesting information on threatened or endangered species or critical habitats were sent in January 2009 to the WV DNR and the WV Wildlife Resources Section. A response from the WV DNR was received on January 23, 2009. A copy the response letter is included in Appendix O. The letter states that several rare species occur along the Site; however, none of these species are considered threatened or endangered in West Virginia. Moreover, none of these species is likely to face significant exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The southern redbelly dace is a benthic herbivorous fish that lives in small headwater and upland creeks. Consequently, it likely does not occur in the River. The meadow jumping mouse is primarily a terrestrial species. Similarly, the six plant species that are listed may be found in the area or on the banks of the Site. However, they are terrestrial plants and, thus, would not likely be exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the River. The WV DNR Wildlife Resources Section, Wildlife Diversity Unit was contacted in November 2012 in order to determine if there was any new information on rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area. The WV DNR responded via email November 29, 2012 stating that no new information on rare, threatened, and endangered species is available for this area. A copy of the WV DNR email stating that the January 2009 letter remains accurate is presented in Appendix O. A letter requesting information on rare, threatened, or endangered species was also sent to the US FWS WV Field Office in November 2012. The US FWS responded in February 2013 providing a list of Aquatic Habitats Supporting Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species and Proposed Species in West Virginia dated August 2012. The following Endangered and Threatened Fish Species were identified as potentially being present in the Kanawha River in Kanawha and Putnam Counties: fanshell, pink mucket, pearlymussel, sheepnose, spectaclecase, and tubercled-blossum pearlymussel. A copy of this document is presented in Attachment O. The US FWS Field Office suggested that implementation of Best Management Practices and an erosion and sedimentation control plan may mitigate the need for surveys prior to work causing bank disturbance. 5.2.4.3 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT Because of its high hydrophobicity, 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioaccumulates in the tissues of fish and other aquatic organisms. Notably, however, 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the other dioxins 031884 (51) 125 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and furans do not biomagnify in food chains (EPA 1993a, Wan 2005), unlike other very hydrophobic chlorinated compounds, such as PCBs and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). Biomagnification is the process in which lipid-normalized concentrations increase as the chemical moves up the food chain. 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the other dioxin/furans are persistent in aquatic systems. In sediment, half-lives for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are estimated to be from about 1.5 to 5 years (Mackay et al., 1992), probably mostly desorption and losses from overlying water. In surface water, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is primarily subject to slow rates of volatilization and photodegradation. Biodegradation also occurs, albeit slowly. All of these processes are slowed by the very strong tendency of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxin/furans to sorb strongly to particulate matter. Therefore, degradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD via volatilization and photolysis in the River is assumed to be negligible (e.g., see LTI, 2000). Consequently, as with many other aquatic systems, burial in sediments may be the most important fate process for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the other dioxin/furans in the River. 5.2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS/ PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL The distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in aquatic systems is a function of its very low solubility in water, and its tendency to partition to sediments, organic carbon, and lipids of biota. Therefore, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is preferentially concentrated in sediment and biological tissue. Concentrations in the water column are generally extremely low, and most of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD mass in surface water is not dissolved but is adsorbed to suspended sediments and dissolved organic carbon. Because of its affinity for lipids, and its low rate of degradation, 2,3,7,8-TCDD has the potential to bioaccumulate in food chains, but it generally does not biomagnify (U.S. EPA 1993a, U.S. EPA 1995). Nonetheless, with bioaccumulation alone, 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels in lipid-rich fish can accumulate to levels that potentially pose risk to the fish themselves and to their predators. Thus, the primary exposure pathways in aquatic sediments are those from 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediments to aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological receptors. The sediments are also the primary source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure via the food chain (e.g., from sediment to crayfish to raccoon). However, biota are not generally exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD or other contaminants in sediments deeper than approximately 10-15 cm (4-6 inches). Complete exposure pathways from 2,3,7,8-TCDD in deep sediments to biota were, therefore, considered incomplete. 031884 (51) 126 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Although 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations dissolved in surface water are relatively minor, direct and indirect exposure pathways from 2,3,7,8-TCDD in water to ecological receptors also exist. Thus, fish and other aquatic life are exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the water, and the predators of the aquatic life are secondarily exposed to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioaccumulated from the water column. The Ecological Exposure Model also considers the mode of ecotoxicity. As described previously, vertebrates are sensitive to dioxin-toxicity at certain concentration levels. Fish and other semi-aquatic vertebrates are also exposed, directly and through the food chain, to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in surface sediments and surface water. Therefore, effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD on fish, birds, and mammals should be analyzed in the ERA. In contrast, the ERA will not consider 2,3,7,8-TCDD effects on benthic invertebrates, water column invertebrates, or aquatic plants. As discussed previously (in Section 5.2.4.1), these taxa lack the Ah receptor and are generally insensitive to dioxin-like toxicity. Therefore, despite its tendency to accumulate in sediments, 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not generally pose risk to benthic invertebrates (U.S. EPA 1993a, Loonen et al. 1996, Barber et al. 1998). Similarly, water column invertebrates and aquatic plants are also insensitive to dioxins even though exposure pathways are complete. 5.2.6 ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT ENDPOINTS Assessment endpoints are the specific ecological values that should be protected from 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Assessment endpoints should be selected based on several factors: economic importance, importance to society, ecological importance, and sensitivity to contaminants (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Based on the Ecological Exposure Model, as presented on Figure 4.30, the following are appropriate assessment endpoints for 2,3,7,8-TCDD effects in the Study Area: 031884 (51) • Protection of the fish community from changes in structure and function due to 2,3,7,8-TCDD • Maintenance of populations of herbivorous vertebrates foraging on aquatic plants in the River • Maintenance of populations of omnivores feeding on benthic macroinvertebrates (e.g., crayfish) and aquatic plants at the Site 127 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Maintenance of populations of aerial insectivores, wildlife foraging on aquatic insects emerging from the Site • Maintenance of populations of predators (fish eating wildlife) foraging similar to those found in similar habitats not exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD Assessment endpoints are general goals that are difficult to assess quantitatively. Consequently, assessment endpoints are translated into measurement endpoints, which are quantifiable factors that respond to the stressor and describe or measure characteristics that are essential for the maintenance of the assessment endpoint. Measurement endpoints can range from biochemical responses to changes in community structure and function. Given the assessment endpoints chosen above, the following are appropriate measurement endpoints: 031884 (51) • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the water column below those that cause ecologically significant reductions in reproduction or growth of native fish. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in River fish below those that cause ecologically significant reductions in their reproduction. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in River aquatic plants and algae below those that cause reductions in the reproduction of semi-aquatic herbivores. To estimate potential impacts, exposures and effects on muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and canvasbacks (Aythya valisenaria) will be assessed. The muskrat is a mammalian herbivore that is common in West Virginia and may be present at the Site. There is also adequate life history information for this species. The canvasback is representative of avian herbivores. Adequate life history information is available for this species, and this species may occur at the Site during winter roosting. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in adult aquatic insects below those that cause impacts on reproduction of aerial insectivores. To estimate this potential, exposure and potential effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD will be estimated for little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) and tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). The bat is an aerial insectivore, is likely present at the Site, and has adequate life history information to estimate its exposure. Similarly, the tree swallow may occur at the Site, has adequate life history information, and is often considered in ecological risks assessments of aquatic areas. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in aquatic benthos below those that cause impacts to the reproduction of their predators. Sentinel species for this measurement endpoint will be the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and the mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). These species are likely found at the Site, have well described exposure characteristics, and are commonly used to assess risks at aquatic sites. Both are 128 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES omnivores that eat a combination of animal and vegetable matter from both aquatic and adjacent terrestrial systems. • 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in River forage fish lower than those that cause reproductive failure in fish-eating wildlife. To assess risks to piscivorous mammals, mink (Mustela vison) will be used. Mink were chosen because they face relatively high exposure to bioaccumulating 2,3,7,8-TCDD and are known to be sensitive to dioxin-like toxicity. Great blue herons (Ardea herodias) are selected to represent the avian top carnivore. These birds are also exposed to bioaccumulated 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The great blue heron is also of societal importance, is present at the Site, and has ample natural history information to support its evaluation. 5.2.7 PREFERRED TOXICITY DATA In the screening analysis, observed concentrations and estimated exposures will be compared to ecological screening values (ESV) and toxicity reference values (TRV), respectively. ESVs are concentrations that are associated with minimal chances of toxicity. Two types of ESVs are typically considered in ERAs, no observed effects concentrations (NOECs), and lowest observed effects concentrations (LOECs). In general, NOECs correspond to concentrations that cause no effects at all, while LOECs are the lowest concentrations at which effects are noticeable. TRVs are doses, which are usually expressed in terms of milligrams of chemical eaten and/or absorbed per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg-day). TRVs also generally come in pairs, NOAELs and LOAELs, which are functionally equivalent to NOECs and LOECs. Consistent with their preliminary and, thus, very conservative nature, SLERA often base decisions on more conservative NOEC and NOAEL values (U.S. EPA, 1997a). However, the analysis presented here is more detailed than a typical SLERA. Moreover, comparisons to less conservative LOECs and LOAELS provide a better perspective on the likelihood and potential severity of ecological impacts. Thus, the following analyses will use both NOEC/NOAEL and LOEC/LOAEL values in assessing risks. 5.2.7.1 ESVS FOR SEDIMENTS No reliable ESVs exist for screening 2,3,7,8-TCDD risks in sediment to either macrobenthos or fish. This does not represent a significant uncertainty because 2,3,7,8-TCDD and the other 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxins and furans are not very toxic to 031884 (51) 129 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES invertebrates. Potential risks of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to fish can be assessed with water column and body burden ESVs, which are described below. 5.2.7.2 ESVS FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN THE WATER COLUMN 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the water column were compared to a conservative water quality ESV, originally from Mehrle et al. (1988). This bioassay considered potential effects, via water borne exposure, to juvenile rainbow trout. Based on review of available toxicity information, this bioassay yields the most sensitive response and lowest LOEC (U.S. EPA 1999b, Environment Canada 2001, Grimwood et al. 1999). Moreover, as described in the next section, salmonids tend to be extremely sensitive to dioxin toxicity. Based on this study, Grimwood and Dodds (1995) proposed that the toxicity threshold for fish should occur between 11 and 38 pg/L dioxin TEQ. The lower value, 11 pg/L, will be used as a NOEC to screen water quality data for direct risks to fish, and the higher value will be used as a LOEC. Because laboratory waters are generally low in suspended sediments, these ESVs are really applicable to dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations as opposed to the total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations measured in the turbid River. Nonetheless, to be conservative, these ESVs will be compared to total as well as dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations measured in the River water. 5.2.7.3 ESVS FOR 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN FISH TISSUE In addition to assessing impacts on fish by considering water column concentrations, considerable analyses have also evaluated potential risks to fish posed by their body burdens of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Compared to water column concentrations, body burdens are potentially better indicators of risk. Body-burdens reflect all modes of exposure (e.g., water, food, and sediments) and the Site-specific bioavailability of those. In addition, the potential impacts of dioxins and furans on fish health, using the body-burden methodology, have been investigated for a large number of species. For dioxin/furan effects on fish, the most sensitive ecological endpoint is mortality during development between the fertilized egg to feeding fry stages. Measured concentration at which 50 percent mortality occurs (LC 50 ) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, expressed as concentration in fish egg, are available for a large number of fish species. These include lake trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, coho salmon, northern pike, zebra fish, bullhead, channel catfish, fathead minnow, mendaka, mosquitofish, guppy, bluegill, largemouth bass, and yellow perch (U.S. EPA, 1993a; Elonen et al., 1998). The LC 50 values, as egg 031884 (51) 130 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, range from about 90 ng/kg for lake trout, 140 ng/kg to 200 ng/kg for brook trout, and about 400 ng/kg for rainbow trout. For less sensitive non-salmonids species, LC 50 values in eggs range from 539 ng/kg for fathead minnow, about 650 ng/kg for channel catfish, and up to 2,610 ng/kg for zebrafish (Elonen et al., 1998). These same analyses have also produced LOEC and NOEC values, also based on 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish eggs, as summarized in Table 5.17. In general, the available data indicate that cold-water fish tend to be more sensitive than warm water, salmonids tend to be more sensitive to dioxin effects than other taxa (U.S. EPA, 1993a; Elonen et al., 1998), and lake trout are more sensitive than other fish, salmonid species studied, as summarized in Table 5.17. However, the River in summer water is much too warm to support cold water fish in general and the highly sensitive salmonids species specifically. Thus, the fish fauna in the River are limited to warm water fish. Fish species collected when electrofishing included various sunfish species and black basses, carp and minnows, various suckers, pikes (e.g., muskie and chain pickerel), percids (walleye and sauger), and gizzard shad, as presented in Table 5.16. Based on the available data on dioxin toxicity to fish, presented in Table 5.17, the most sensitive River fish are likely the catfishes, such as the bullheads and channel and flathead catfish. The available data on critical body burdens of dioxin also pertain to a number of other species found in the River. For example, the fathead minnow is a Cyprinid species, and thus, should be representative of dioxin sensitivity of other minnows and carp. The white sucker's sensitivity is indicative of the sucker family, and the sensitivity of the River pikes is likely similar to the insensitive northern pike. There are no data on sensitivity of the eggs and fry of the Centrarchidae, the family which contains sunfish species and black basses. However, LC 50 values for single injection to juvenile bluegill and juvenile largemouth bass were 16,000 ng/kg and 11,000 ng/kg, respectively. By comparison, single injection LC 50 values were 3,000 ng/kg and 5,000 ng/kg for carp and bullhead juveniles, respectively. These experiments suggest that the Centrarchids are considerably less sensitive to dioxin toxicity than the minnows and catfishes. The crucial body burdens pertain to egg concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. By comparison, 2,3,7,8-TCDD analyses of River fish pertain to fillets, skinless fillets, and whole fish. However, uptake and deposition of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other hydrophobic substances within fish tends to follow lipid levels in those tissues (Niimi 1983, Nichols et al., 1998). Thus, lipid normalized concentrations in eggs should be comparable to lipid normalized concentrations observed in whole gizzard shad and fillets of catfish, sauger, and bass. Consequently, the NOEC, LOEC, and LC 50 values from Table 5.16 were all normalized to 1 percent lipid, and these ESVs were compared to tissue concentrations 031884 (51) 131 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES measured in River fish, also normalized to 1 percent lipid. Assuming that the catfishes are the most sensitive taxa in the River, the NOEC, LOEC, and LC 50 values for critical body burdens of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 1 percent lipid are 80 ng/kg, 104 ng/kg, and 134 ng/kg, respectively. These ESVs are applicable to the lipid-normalized concentrations observed in fillets and whole body measured in River fish. 5.2.7.4 TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES (TRVS) FOR FOOD-CHAIN EXPOSURE TO SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES Once exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD is estimated with the food chain models, which are described below, the estimated exposure is then compared to a TRV. As recommended by U.S. EPA (1997a), TRVs used in the ERA are generally NOAELs. These are doses of a chemical shown to have no ecological effects on an organism. However, LOAELs are often better indicators of actual impacts. Therefore, estimated exposures will also be compared to LOAELs to provide perspective on the potential and severity of potential ecological impacts. Except for the mink, the TRV values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD were obtained from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Sample et al., 1996). This document is widely used as a source of ecological TRVs (e.g., see U.S EPA, 1999a). The avian TRV value for 2,3,7,8-TCDD is based on a study by Nosek et al. (1992). Ring-necked pheasants were injected weekly, intraperitoneally, for 10 weeks at three dose levels: 0.14, 0.014, and 0.0014 µg/kg-day. Egg production and hatchability were significantly reduced in birds receiving the highest dose (0.14 µg/kg/day), but not in the other two dose groups. Therefore, the NOAEL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and birds was determined to be 0.014 µg/kg-day, and the LOAEL 0.14 µg/kg/day. This TRV for mammals other than mink (presented in Sample et al., 1996) is based on a three generation rat study conducted by Murray et al. (1979). Male and female rats were fed a diet of lab chow that averaged about 22, 210, and 2,200 ng/kg, dry weight, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (U.S. EPA, 1995) to give long-term exposures of 0.001, 0.01, and 0.1 µg/kg-day. No effects on survival and reproduction were noted at the lowest dose, but impacts were noted on reproduction in the second and third generation at the second-highest dose, 0.01 µg/kg-day. Consequently, this study produces NOAEL and LOAEL doses of 1 ng/kg-day and 10 ng/kg-day, respectively. In terms of wet weight food concentrations, the NOAEL and LOAEL correspond to a diet with about 6 ng/kg and 60 ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Sample et al., 1996). 031884 (51) 132 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Mink-specific TRVs for 2,3,7,8-TCDD were recently developed by Blankenship et al. (2008) based on a variety of feeding studies with dioxin-like compounds (e.g., dioxins, furans, and PCBs.) These feeding studies provide a range of NOAELs (1.9 ng/kg-day to 8.5 ng/kg-day) and LOAELs (7.6 to 36.3 ng/kg-day). The geometric means of each range, 3.9 ng/kg-day and 16.6 ng/kg-day, were used as mink-specific NOAEL and LOAEL values. These values correspond to wet weight diets which averages 26 ng/kg and 110 ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD, respectively. 5.2.8 STEP 2: SCREENING-LEVEL EXPOSURE ESTIMATE AND RISK CALCULATION In the second step of the ERA, COPCs and receptors with complete exposure pathways identified in Step 1 are screened in terms of their potential to cause ecological risk. 5.2.8.1 SCREENING OF RISKS In analyses that follow, 2,3,7,8-TCDD is screened for potential ecological risk to assessment endpoints using the quotient method. Specifically, ecological screening quotients (ESQ) are estimated as: ESQ = EEC ESV where EEC is the estimated exposure concentration and ESV is the ecological screening value, which is also a concentration. Depending on the intent of the screening analysis, the EEC can be based on the maximum concentration, the mean concentration, or some conservative estimator of the mean such as the 95 percent upper confidence level (UCL). The most conservative EEC, the maximum concentration, is used to select COPCs for further evaluations. EECs based on mean and 95 percent UCLs are generally preferable for assessing risks because ecological risk pertain to effects on populations of animals. A variant of the above equation is used in sections below which estimate risks due to 1) bioaccumulated 2,3,7,8-TCDD and subsequent risks to the organisms themselves or 2) risks to predators of these organism via food chain exposure. In the first case, the ESQ is equal to the observed body burden of the chemical divided by a critical body burden below which effects are unlikely. Both are expressed in mg/kg fresh weight. In the second case, the estimated exposure to the predator, via the food chain, is divided by a TRV. Both estimated exposure and TRV are doses (mg/kg-day). 031884 (51) 133 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES As with exposure concentrations, quotients based on body burdens can be based on maximum concentration, mean concentrations, or 95 percent UCLs. Similarly, food chain exposures can also be based on these different concentrations. Estimation of exposure via the food chain is described below. 5.2.8.2 SCREENING OF BIOACCUMULATED 2,3,7,8-TCDD WITH FOOD CHAIN MODELS Aquatic biota bioaccumulate 2,3,7,8-TCDD from water and sediments; hence, the ERA must considers potential toxicity of 2,3,7,8-TCDD through bioaccumulation pathways. The large number of potential receptor species found in any ecosystem precludes an assessment of potential risks for each species. Therefore, potential risks were assessed for a number of species representing a range of feeding guilds with varying exposure and sensitivity to 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Potential risks were assessed for mammalian and avian herbivores, omnivores, piscivores, and aerial insectivores. To be conservative, the potential food chain exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD was modeled using worst-case assumptions. That is, these receptors were assumed to eat only contaminated food from the Site for their entire lives. In addition, this ERA considers idealized consumers within an idealized food web. Thus, for example, largely herbivorous species, such as muskrats and canvasback, were assumed to be 100 percent herbivores. For omnivorous species it was assumed their diet consist of 50 percent plant matter and 50 percent animal material. Mostly carnivorous species, such as mink and heron, were assumed to consume only fish. Idealized food chains are preferable in early stages of the risk assessment because they are simpler, and they encompass a wider range of potential exposure scenarios, providing a more conservative assessment. Specifically, the following dietary assumptions were made: 031884 (51) • Muskrats and canvasbacks were assumed to eat only aquatic plant matter. • The diets of ducks and raccoons were assumed to consist of one-half plant matter and one-half aquatic invertebrates. The plant matter that raccoons consume was assumed to be from terrestrial plants rather than aquatic plants. For this reason the consumption rate for raccoons was reduced by 50 percent in the calculations, and that reduced consumption was assumed to be totally benthic invertebrates (e.g., crayfish). Ducks were assumed to consume aquatic plant matter, which was set 134 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES at 50 percent of the duck's consumption. The balance of ducks consumption was assumed to be aquatic benthos. • The insectivorous birds and mammals were assumed to consume insects which during the larval stage of their life-cycle are benthic invertebrates, after which they migrate from sediment to ambient air and are subsequently consumed. • The mink and great blue heron were assumed to eat only (100 percent) gizzard shad. In addition, the following conservative (i.e., tending to exaggerate estimated risks) assumptions were applied in the ERA to estimate the daily COC dose levels for the measurement receptors evaluated based on U.S. EPA (1997, 1999) recommendations: • COCs in food items, sediment, and water are assumed to be 100 percent bioavailable • Each of the measurement receptors' most sensitive life stage is present in the assessment area being evaluated in the risk assessment • Each individual species in a community or class-specific guild is equally exposed • The measurement receptor spends 100 percent of its time in the contaminated area, such that their diet is 100 percent contaminated, even for receptors with home ranges larger than the habitat area being evaluated • Impacts in individual organisms would cause impacts to their populations The total exposure for each species was modeled using the following equation: Total Dose = [food] * consumption rate * absorption efficiency + [sediment] * incidental sediment consumption rate * absorption efficiency +[water] * drinking rate * absorption efficiency + [air] * inhalation * absorption efficiency + [soil] * dermal absorption rate + [airborne dust] * dust inhalation * absorption efficiency All bracketed terms (e.g., [water]) refer to the concentration of the chemical in that medium; other values are self-explanatory. Sediment concentrations were based on Surface sediment samples, 0 to 10 cm in depth. Based on the conservative methodology recommended by U.S. EPA (1997a), absorption efficiency was assumed to be 100 percent for all pathways. However, the last three terms (exposure via air, dermal absorption, and airborne dust) are generally insignificant and thus, were ignored in the calculations. Consequently, the equation collapses to: Total Dose = [food] * consumption rate + [sediment] * incidental sediment consumption rate + drinking rate * [water] 031884 (51) 135 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Species-specific ingestion rates were taken from data supplied by U.S. EPA (1993b, 1999a) or other sources (e.g., Baron et al., 1999), when available. If specific ingestion rates were not available, rates were estimated from consumption-body mass (allometric) models as per U.S. EPA (1993b). Ingestion rates for each species are listed in Table 5.18. 5.2.8.3 ESTIMATION OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS The following describes the underlying data and methods of calculating for exposure point concentrations (EPCs) used in the risk assessment. 5.2.8.3.1 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN WATER Data collected in 2004 and 2005 were used to determine exposure point concentrations in water. Surface water samples were collected at the same locations as fish samples (RM 33, 42, and 68), as well as two additional locations, RM 46 and RM 31. Two samples were collected at each location, dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD and particulate (adsorbed) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. To determine the exposure point concentration for associated fish samples, water samples collected from RM 31 and 33 were considered together and applied to fish collected in Study Areas 3 and 4. Water samples collected from RM 42 were used to estimate exposure point concentrations for Study Area 2. Water samples collected from RM 46 and RM 68 were combined and used to estimate exposure point concentrations for the upstream portion of the Site, i.e., Study Area 1. For each set of data, the mean was determined for the dissolved fraction and particulate (adsorbed) fraction. The two fractions were added together and averaged to determine the average total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in each Study Area. Because only a limited number of samples were collected, no 95 percent UCL was calculated. The maximum total water concentration from each location was used instead. These values are summarized in Table 5.19. 5.2.8.3.2 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN SEDIMENTS Surface sediment samples were collected in 2004 and 2007/2008. Only grab samples were considered in the risk analyses because they were taken from the biologically active zone, about the top 10 cm. In contrast, tops of core samples were not included in estimating exposure point concentrations because they went down well below the biologically active zone, down to 2 feet below the sediment surface. Sediment samples that were not collected in the main stem of the River were also excluded (i.e., SSD-11, 031884 (51) 136 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES SSD-18, and SSD-20). EPCs for sediments in Study Area 1 were based on all sediment samples collected upstream of RM 42.5. Sediment samples collected in Study Area 2 were used to estimate EPCs for biota foraging in that area. Sediment samples from Study Areas 3 and 4 were used to estimate EPCs for the downstream area. The mean and 95 percent UCL (using ProUCL version 4.00.02) 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were calculated for each Study Area. These values are summarized in Table 5.19. 5.2.8.3.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH TISSUE Gizzard shad and bass were collected from RM 33 (Study Area 3 and 4), RM 42 (Study Area 2), and RM 68 (upstream of Study Area 1) in 2004 and 2008/2009. The average and 95 percent UCL 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations (using data from both years) were calculated for each species separately, for each associated RM/Study Area. Catfish and sauger were also collected, at RM 75-95 and RM 33-45. Catfish was collected in 2004 and in 2008/2009, while Sauger was only collected in 2008/2009. Some 2008 samples were composites of both species, while others were of only one species. Both species were considered together for the calculation of the average and 95 percent UCL 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for each RM/Study Area. In addition, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of all species at the sampling locations were normalized to 1 percent lipid. A lipid normalized average and 95 percent UCL concentration was calculated for each species for each Study Area. These values are summarized in Table 5.19. The lipid normalized concentrations of all fish species were used to assess impacts to the fish themselves. For the food chain analysis, the bass lipid normalized 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration was used to estimate 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in crayfish and other benthic prey (see section 5.2.8.3.5). The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in gizzard shad, not lipid normalized, were used in the risk assessment for great blue heron and mink. These predators were assumed to eat only whole gizzard shad. 031884 (51) 137 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.2.8.3.4 CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN AQUATIC VEGETATION Concentrations of COCs in aquatic vegetation tissue are due to root uptake from River sediments. The following equation was applied in calculating the COC concentrations in plant tissue due to root uptake: C AV = C sed/S *BCF sed/S-AV * 0.12 where: C AV = Concentration in aquatic and terrestrial vegetation (mg COC/kg wet weight) C sed/S = COC concentration in sediment or soil (mg COC/kg sediment or soil) BCF sed/S-AV = Sediment/soils-to aquatic vegetation bioconcentration factor (unitless) 0.12 = Dry weight to wet weight conversion factor This equation and the BCF values were obtained from U.S. EPA (1999a). The concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediments are based on the EPCs for sediments described in the previous section. 5.2.8.3.5 CONCENTRATIONS OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES AND EMERGED ADULT INSECTS Typically, concentrations of chemicals in benthic invertebrates are estimated with BSAF values taken from other locations. However, use of non-Site specific BSAF values is problematic for estimating benthic invertebrate concentrations in the River for two reasons. First, BSAF values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD are very variable depending on local bioavailability. Values reported in U.S. EPA's BSAF database range over about two orders of magnitude, from about 0.02 to 5.0, and those listed in Environment Canada's technical document on dioxins and furans are similarly variable. There is also great uncertainty, at the Site, about which sediment concentration to use with the BSAF to estimate benthic invertebrates since sediment concentrations are so variable. Consequently, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in benthic invertebrates were estimated with aquatic food chain models and Site-specific fish tissue data. This estimation method has several advantages. First, local fish concentrations provide Site-specific information on dioxin bioavailability. The native fish body burdens also reflect the real patchiness of 2,3,7,8-TCDD across sample locations and across sediment depths. In addition, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD found in the catfish and bass are potentially good indicators of benthos concentrations. Food chain exposure is generally a fish's 031884 (51) 138 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES dominant exposure pathway to 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and the catfish and bass species are connected, to the benthos, by the food chain. That is, both the channel catfish and the bass may consume significant amounts of benthos. Consequently, 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the benthos is likely the dominant source of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to these fish. The methodology is conservative because fish tissue concentrations reflect past exposures as well as more recent exposures. The situation is different for gizzard shad. Gizzard shad are filter-feeders that primarily consume phytoplankton and, to lesser extent, water column invertebrates. Consequently, their primary 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure is via the water column, either directly across the gills or indirectly via the water column food chain. The gizzard shad's exposure contrasts with the primary 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposure for benthic invertebrates. The latter are primarily exposed to 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediment, either via bioaccumulation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in pore water or ingestion of 2,3,7,8-TCDD associated with sediment and detritus. Thus, gizzard shad could potentially have lower lipid normalized concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD than the benthos or benthivorous fish. Given this background, the estimation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in aquatic food chains is reasonably straightforward because this chemical does not biomagnify (EPA 1993a, Environment Canada 2001, Wan et al. 2005). Therefore, the lipid-normalized concentrations in the predator fish species should be similar to lipid-normalized concentrations in their benthic prey. (Note that if 2,3,7,8-TCDD biomagnifies in the River, this will be a conservative assumption because lipid weighted concentrations in prey will be less than those in the predator fish.) Therefore, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in benthos were estimated based on lipid normalized concentrations in bass, as presented in Table 5.19. Lipid normalized concentrations in bass, instead of catfish, were chosen to estimate benthos concentration because the bass are less migratory. Hence, bass sampled at upstream (Study Area 1), adjacent (Study Area 2), and downstream (Study Areas 3 and 4) locations can be used to estimate different benthic concentrations, and different exposure regimes, at these three locations. Lipid concentrations in benthos are generally in the range of 1 percent to 3 percent (Morrison et al. 1999), and those for crayfish are determined to be 2.5 percent (Morrison et al. 1999). Crayfish lipid content was used to estimate 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for all benthic species for several reasons. Crayfish are preferred prey of the basses, so the food chain modeling based on bass concentrations is most appropriate. In addition, crayfish are a preferred prey of one of the measurement receptors, the raccoon. Lastly, 2.5 percent lipid is a relatively conservative lipid value for most benthos. 031884 (51) 139 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Thus, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in aquatic benthos were set equal to 2.5 times the 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations observed in bass fillets, after the latter were normalized to 1 percent lipid. 5.2.8.4 RESULTS OF SCREENING 5.2.8.4.1 SCREENING OF WATER Observed concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the water column downstream of Nitro averaged about 0.010 pg/L dissolved. This concentration is about 1000 times lower than the NOEC value of 11 pg/L, as presented in Table 5.20. As discussed previously, the NOEC value is really more applicable to dissolved 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. Nonetheless, to be conservative, observed concentrations of total 2,3,7,8-TCDD in water can be compared to this NOEC. The maximum concentration of total 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the water column, 0.073 pg/L (Study Area 2), is still more than 100 times lower than the NOEC. Consequently, risks to fish from water column exposure of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are well below levels that would cause risk to even the most sensitive salmonid fish species. Risks to warm water fish that are native to the River are expected to be even less. Consequently, risks to fish from water borne exposure can be dismissed with a high degree of certainty. 5.2.8.4.2 SCREENING OF FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS TO CRITICAL BODY BURDENS For fish collected from Study Areas 2, 3, and 4 in 2004 and winter 2008/2009, the gizzard shad, bass, and catfish and sauger samples averaged about 1.7 ng/kg, 7.2 ng/kg, and 6.1 ng/kg when normalized to 1 percent lipid, respectively. These values are well below the NOEC and LOEC body burdens for the most sensitive warm water species. Results for the screening or risk based on the body burden method for fish tissue are presented in Table 5.21. Observed values are also generally below the NOEC and LOEC values for highly sensitive salmonids. NOEC and LOEC values are presented on Figure 5.5 and in Table 5.17. Consequently, current body burdens in River fish pose no potential for risk to the fish's health or reproduction. (Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish collected upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility , in Study Area 1, were lower than downstream. Risks are similarly lower.) 031884 (51) 140 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.2.8.4.3 SCREENING OF RISKS VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE TO SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES The results of screening of risks to semi-aquatic vertebrates feeding on River prey are presented in Tables 5.22 (for Study Areas 3 and 5) and 5.23 (for Study Area 2). Except for bats, estimated exposures to all species were negligible (e.g., below or only nominally above the NOAEL) at the downstream location (Study Areas 3 and 4). At this location, estimated exposure to bats was about half-way between the NOAEL and LOAEL. Ecological impacts at this intermediate level of exposure cannot be dismissed with certainty but are generally assumed to be negligible. Exposures to all receptors are slightly higher at RM 42. In this case, only three species (the bat, the swallow, and the raccoon) are estimated to have exposures more than nominally above NOAEL values. Except for the bat, all of these exposures were well below the LOAELs, even when calculated with the 95 percent UCL values. Estimated exposure to the bat, based on 95 percent UCL values, was slightly below the LOAEL. 5.2.8.5 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS Evaluation of risk to ecological receptors is typically associated with several areas of uncertainty. In the absence of data, assumptions must be made regarding actual exposure concentrations and actual responses of populations of biota to chemical constituents. To avoid incorrectly dismissing the potential of risk, exposure concentrations and other assumptions are generally conservatively biased. That is, the assumption will tend to identify risk. While these overt conservative biases increase certainty that risks can be dismissed when ESQ values are low, they add uncertainty to inferences about risks when ESQs are above 1.0. In the latter case, excessive ESQ values could be due to compounded conservatism rather than real likelihood of impacts. Thus, for example, consider the effect of conservative assumptions for the vertebrate receptors that had estimated exposures greater than the NOAELs. In the analyses above, swallows and bats were conservatively assumed to eat only aquatic insects from the River and reside at the Site year round. However, swallows migrate south in late summer after breeding (U.S. EPA, 2002). Accounting for migration reduces their exposure to the River 2,3,7,8-TCDD by about half, and these more realistically estimated exposures to 2,3,7,8-TCDD are no longer significantly greater than NOAELs. Furthermore, both bats and swallows are opportunistic foragers; they will both consume a variety of insects of terrestrial and aquatic origin. Baron et al. (1999) assumed that closely related rough-winged swallows ate about only 40 percent aquatic prey. And 031884 (51) 141 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES while some accounts show that little brown bats do consume about 80 percent aquatic insects (e.g., see Belwood and Fenton 1976 and Sample et al. 1997). If the brown bats on the River consume only 50 percent aquatic insects, their estimated exposure is reduced to a value mid-way between the NOAEL and LOAEL, even when exposure is conservatively estimated with the 95 percent UCL at RM 42. The midpoint between the NOAEL and LOAEL is often considered a threshold exposure at which impacts are assumed to be de minimis. Another significant area of uncertainty pertains to the relevance of the TRV for dioxins to specific species. The TRV for mammals other than mink was based on a multigenerational-study with rats. This assumes that bats are as sensitive to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity as rats. In fact, the available, albeit limited toxicological data, suggests that bats are less sensitive than rats to dioxin-like toxicity (Reinhold et al. 1999). In addition, the rat TRV was applied to bats without modification. To account for the faster excretion of smaller animals, many authors suggest that TRVs should be scaled for differences in body weight between the lab animal and receptor species. Scaling for body weight would increase the TRV for the bat, and reduce the ESQ, by about 2.5 fold. As with the uncertainty about the proportion of aquatic insects in the diet, uncertainty about the TRV suggests that risks to bats are lower than suggested by ESQ values estimated by the ERA. To avoid the question of body-scaling, an alternate methodology considers risk in terms of NOEC and LOEC food concentrations. The estimated benthic concentrations are much closer to the NOECs from the Murray et al. rat study, about 6 ng/kg, than this study's LOEC, 60 ng/kg. Focusing on food concentrations also suggests that risks to the bats, and to raccoons as well, are low. In contrast to the usually conservative ERA assumptions, one assumption of this ERA was non-conservative. Specifically, the ERA focused on 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone, ignoring the other 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxin/furans and other dioxin-like compounds, notably PCBs. The first half of this assumption should not have a significant effect on the results. 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone made up, on average, 97 percent of the total dioxin/furan TEQ in fish samples (when less than detect concentrations of dioxins and furans were set equal to zero). Consequently, the risks of 2,3,7,8-TCDD alone are essentially equal to those total dioxin/furan TEQ. Dismissing the impact of additional dioxin-like toxicity due to PCB is more difficult. PCBs were assayed in 9 surface sediment samples. Results are presented in Table 4.10a and analytical data reports are presented in Appendix G. No PCB Aroclor was detected in any of these sediments, at detection levels ranging from about 46 µg/kg to 100 µg/kg. 031884 (51) 142 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES However, PCBs were detected in several subsurface sediment samples, generally at low concentrations. An exception was subsurface sample from location COR-39. Total PCB Aroclor concentrations in two subsurface sediments averaged approximately 47 mg/kg. Similarly, PCB concentration in food fish collected in the Winfield Pool were sometimes moderately high in larger catfish: 0.4 mg/kg in 17 inch fish and 0.95 mg/kg in 19.5 inch fish (WVDHHR, 2009b). On the other hand, the PCB concentrations were quite low, e.g., about 0.05 to less than 0.02 mg/kg, in smaller catfish and small to moderate sized smallmouth bass. The large scale differences among fish in their PCB concentrations are likely due to differences in their diets and potential food chain biomagnifications. The bass and smaller catfish are largely benthivorous, while larger channel catfish can be largely piscivorous. The latter allows more potential for food chain biomagnification of PCBs. (In contrast, 2,3,7,8-TCDD does not biomaginify, so its concentrations do not change dramatically from small to large catfish or from bass to large catfish.) Consequently, the available PCB concentrations observed in sediments and fish indicate that potential contribution of dioxin-like PCBs to total TEQ will be most significant for larger fish at the top of the food chain. Contributions to total TEQ will be much less significant for smaller fish low on the food chain and even less significant for benthic invertebrates. Since the highest risks pertain to the benthos eaters, this qualitative assessment suggests ignoring the TEQ of PCBs will not significantly affect the risk conclusions. 4 Nonetheless, the uncertainty surrounding this conclusion should be recognized. The use of conservative exposure concentrations, such as the 95 percent UCL or maximum concentrations, also tends to overestimate risks. These concentrations are considerably higher than the surface weighted average SWACs calculated for the Site. Utilizing the SWACs for 2,3,7,8-TCDD would reduce all ESQs to below 1.0, suggesting, on average, no risks to any species. Another area of uncertainty pertains to sediment stability. For this ERA, the surface sediment concentrations were effectively assumed to be stable. This assumption is 4 031884 (51) Estimation of TEQ based on total PCB concentrations is fraught with uncertainty. However, the PCBs are overwhelmingly Aroclor 1248, which has a TEQ of about 1/60,000th total PCB concentration (Beliveau, 2003). That is, a total PCB concentration of 1 mg/kg would represent a TEQ of 15 ng/kg. PCB mixtures observed in Great Lakes fish have slightly higher TEQ per total PCB, about 25 ng TEQ per mg of PCBs (Bhavsar et al., 2007). Ignoring biomagnifications and conservatively assuming that benthic invertebrates had the same PCB concentration, < 0.05 mg/kg, as their predators (smallmouth bass, smaller catfish), would suggest a TEQ due to PCBs of about 1 ng/kg or less in benthic invertebrates. This additional TEQ from PCBs would, at most, about a 5 percent increase over the2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ estimated at RM 42. 143 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES incumbent with the use of measured fish concentrations, which necessarily pertain to current and historical surface sediment concentrations and ignore other potential sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are, on average, higher in deeper sediments than those in surface sediments. Exposures to ecological receptors, and attendant risks, would increase if more contaminated deep sediments were exposed so as to increase surface sediment concentrations. Similarly, exposures and risks would decrease if exposed surface sediment is buried by cleaner sediment. Appendix P, Table P.2 presents averages for all sediment samples, including those in surface and deep sediment samples. 5.2.8.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF CURRENT CONDITIONS Toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-TCDD on fish reproduction can be dismissed with a high degree of confidence. Potential risks of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to fish were assessed in two different ways. First, observed water column concentrations were compared to a conservative water column ESVs based on salmon. Based on other evidence, salmon are likely more sensitive to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity than the warm water fish species that occur in the River. Despite this conservatism, concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD measured in the water column were 2 to 3 orders of magnitude below the conservative ESV. Risks to fish were also assessed by comparing observed 2,3,7,8-TCDD body burdens to those that have been shown to be potentially harmful to fish reproduction. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD observed in fish, when lipid normalized, were generally 10 to 50 times lower than those observed to cause reproductive failure in most-sensitive warm water fish. The risk assessment also considered indirect risks to semi-aquatic vertebrates exposed, via the food chain, of 2,3,7,8-TCDD bioaccumulated by aquatic biota. A range of semi-aquatic wildlife spanning various niches and trophic levels were considered. These included totally herbivorous species, such as canvasbacks and muskrats, aerial insectivores (e.g., swallows and bats), and fish-eating herons and mink. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in vegetation were estimated with BSAFs, recommended by U.S. EPA (1997a), and observed concentrations in surface sediments. Concentrations in benthic invertebrates were estimated based on observed concentrations in bass. To estimate exposure to piscivorous wildlife, the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD observed in gizzard shad were used. Exposures of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to semi-aquatic wildlife in the ERA were estimated conservatively. For example, the semi-aquatic wildlife were conservatively assumed to obtain all of their aquatic food from the River. This assumption ignores foraging at 031884 (51) 144 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES other locations or on non-aquatic organisms. It also ignores seasonal migration for the birds. Using more realistic assumptions could reduce calculated exposures 50 percent or more. The bioavailability of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in water, food, and sediments was also, conservatively, assumed to be as high as that observed with 2,3,7,8-TCDD in food. In addition, exposures were estimated at the 95 percent UCL. Despite this level of conservatism, 2,3,7,8-TCDD exposures for most species at all locations were generally below NOAELs. Exposures to all species at all locations were also below the LOAEL, although just barely below the LOAEL for the bat at RM 42. Thus, ecological risks from 2,3,7,8-TCDD can be dismissed with certainty for most semi-aquatic vertebrates, notably the largely herbivorous (e.g., muskrat and canvasback) and largely piscivorous wildlife (e.g., heron and mink). However, risks to predators of River benthos, especially bats and to lesser extent raccoons and swallows, are more uncertain. The weight of evidence suggests that significant ecological impacts to these species are somewhat unlikely. Moreover, these somewhat unlikely risks are limited to a small length of the River. However, the conclusion that risk to these species is acceptable is less certain than with the other semi-aquatic vertebrates and fish. 5.2.9 RELEVANCE OF ERA RESULTS TO REMEDIAL STRATEGY This ERA was specifically intended to "evaluate the protectiveness, in regard to ecological receptors, of any potential response action and the associated cleanup goals" (Matlock, 2004). The ERA concluded that current ecological risks were likely to be non-existent, or at worst, slight. While there was some uncertainty for certain species, notably bats, this uncertainty would likely be addressed by any successful "response action," protective of human receptors. 031884 (51) 145 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 6.1 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES RAOs provide a general description of what can be reasonably accomplished by a response action, and also help focus the development of specific response action alternatives (U.S. EPA, 2005). RAOs are derived from the CSM (Section 4.5.6), and address significant exposure pathways and unacceptable human health and ecological risks identified in the risk evaluation (Section 5.0). As discussed in U.S. EPA (2005), RAOs should be achievable by sediment remediation at the Site, and should be differentiated from actions such as watershed source control that are outside the control of a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) project. For example, complete biota recovery (i.e., a reduction in fish tissue concentration) may depend on the cleanup of sources that are regulated under other authorities. In the area of the Site, U.S. EPA and WV DEP are using other statutory authorities to control potential on-going 2,3,7,8-TCDD releases from the Former Flexsys Facility including but not limited to the River bank, along with other potential sources. RAOs typically consist of 3 elements, and collectively reflect response objectives that are achievable for the Site: 1. General RA objectives 2. Performance objectives 3. Measurable metrics General RA objectives are narrative statements that outline the EE/CA goals of reducing exposures to contaminated media. Specific performance objectives and measurable metrics need to be defined to evaluate whether the general response objective is being achieved, and will continue to be achieved. Both short-term and long-term conditions often need to be considered in the formulation of performance objectives, particularly at sediment sites. Measurable metrics verifying that removal actions achieve the intended objective (e.g., sediment cleanup levels) will be developed by U.S. EPA in the forthcoming Action Memorandum, building on the evaluations presented in this EE/CA. Based on the CSM and risk evaluation, RAOs for the Site are as follows: • 031884 (51) RAO 1 – The general objective of RAO 1 is to reduce the contribution of sediments to Kanawha River fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. The short-term 146 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES performance objective is to reduce the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC in each of the rolling 3-mile reaches of the Site, which do not already meet the short-term Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), to a level that will facilitate a reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish tissue. The SWAC is a statistically generated area-weighted average, which is useful in evaluating sediment sites as changes in tissue concentrations in receptor species can often be generally related to changes in average sediment concentrations. This is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.2. The long-term performance objective is to reduce fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations, recognizing that watershed source controls separate and apart from a sediment response action will likely be required to effectively reduce fish tissue concentrations. In light of the data summarized in Sections 4.5.4.2 and 4.5.4.3, it is not anticipated that any additional measures would be required at the former Flexsys Facility. PRGs associated with the short- and long-term performance objectives are discussed in Section 6.3; final measurable metrics will be developed in consultation with U.S. EPA following completion of this EE/CA, as part of the ongoing Project activities. • RAO 2 - The general objective of RAO 2 is to reduce the contribution of sediments to Kanawha River surface water 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. Similar to RAO 1, the short-term performance objective is to reduce the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC for each of the 3-mile rolling reaches within the Site to a level that will facilitate surface water recovery. The 3-mile rolling reaches are further discussed in Section 6.3.2. Measurable surface water metrics will need to be consistent with how water quality criteria are applied in comparable circumstances by U.S. EPA and WV DEP (e.g., under Sections 303[d], 305[b] and 314 of the Clean Water Act [CWA]), including considerations of spatial/temporal representativeness and averaging, also recognizing that watershed source controls separate and apart from a sediment response action will likely be required to achieve surface water Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). In light of the data summarized in Sections 4.5.4.2 and 4.5.4.3, it is not anticipated that any additional measures would be required at the former Flexsys Facility. Again, PRGs are discussed in Section 6.3; final metrics will be developed in consultation with U.S. EPA following completion of this EE/CA, as part of the ongoing Project activities. The potential effectiveness of each RA alternative is evaluated in Section 8.0 of this EE/CA relative to whether the RAOs listed above can be achieved and the time frame for providing protection of human health and the environment. Additional effectiveness, implementability and cost evaluations are also included in the Section 8.0 comparative evaluation. 031884 (51) 147 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 6.2 APPLICABLE, RELEVANT, AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS RA alternatives must comply with ARARs, including chemical-specific requirements (e.g., surface water quality standards), action-specific requirements (e.g., landfill disposal, limitations on filling in the River and raising the flood levels, prevention of harmful air emissions, etc.), and location-specific requirements (e.g., limitations on construction actions that can be performed in federal navigation channels, historic areas or floodplains), unless the ARARs are waived as infeasible. To support the evaluation of potential response action technologies and the assembly on alternatives, a listing of potential ARARs is provided in Table 6.1. Response actions performed under CERCLA must comply with the substantive elements of applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental reviews and permitting requirements. Although a response action performed under formal CERCLA authorities would be exempt from the procedural requirements of federal, state and local environmental laws, the action must nevertheless comply with the substantive requirements of such laws. 6.2.1 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS The CWA (33 USC Section 1251 et seq.) requires the establishment of guidelines and standards to control the direct or indirect discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. Section 304 of the CWA (33 USC 1314) requires U.S. EPA to publish Water Quality Criteria, which are developed for the protection of human health and aquatic life. Federal water quality criteria are used by states, including West Virginia, to set water quality standards for surface water. As discussed above, chemical-specific ARARs for this EE/CA include State of West Virginia water quality standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD of 0.014 pg/L for non-public water supplies, including the Kanawha River, and 0.013 pg/L for public water supplies, including its tributary rivers and creeks [WV 46-1-7.2]. Compliance with this ARAR is discussed in U.S. EPA's Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act, including spatial and temporal representativeness, comparison to criteria that incorporate averaging, the numbers and spacing of potential nearby sources, flow and other physical conditions of the waterbody, and statistical thresholds for determining exceedances. The guidance also states that "human health criteria for carcinogens are presumed to have a duration of a year or more", meaning that surface water 031884 (51) 148 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES concentrations should be above these criteria over this duration for the criteria to be considered exceeded. 6.2.2 ACTION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Discharges of pollutants into navigable waters are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1341 and 1344), 40 CFR Part 230 [Section 404(b)(1) guidelines], 33 CFR Parts 320 (general policies), 323 and 325 (permit requirements), and 328 (definition of waters of the United States). These requirements regulate the excavation of shoreline materials and the placement of fill material (including caps) below the ordinary high water elevation of waters of the United States. The 401/404 regulations are implemented by the U.S. ACE and U.S. EPA. Under the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, 40 CFR 230.10(b), no discharge (i.e., excavation or cap) shall be allowed if it: • Causes or contributes to violations of water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, after consideration of local dilution and dispersion • Violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or discharge prohibition under Section 307 of the CWA • Jeopardizes the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or contributes to the destruction or modification of any critical habitat for such species • Violates any requirement imposed by the Secretary of Commerce to protect sanctuary areas The guidelines in 40 CFR 230.10(c) also provide that no discharge will be authorized that contributes to significant degradation of the waters of the United States. Where there is no practicable alternative to a discharge, 40 CFR 230.10(d) requires the use of appropriate mitigation measures to minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem. The term "practicable" is defined in 40 CFR 230.3(q) to mean "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." Examples of specific steps that may be taken to minimize adverse impacts are set forth in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart H. As discussed above, Section 401 and Section 404 requirements of the CWA may be applicable to a shoreline removal action if sediment dredging and/or capping are implemented. An additional substantive requirement is 33 CFR Part 322 of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, which limits actions to excavate or fill, or in any manner alter or modify 031884 (51) 149 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES the course, location, condition, or capacity of the channel of any navigable water in the United States. The width of the navigation channel is established based on the Engineering and Design - Layout and Design of Shallow Draft Waterways (USACE 1980) and is centered on the sailing line identified on USACE navigation charts rather than being a federally authorized channel. The navigation channel is approximately 490 ft wide and 12 ft deep in the vicinity of the former Flexsys Facility based on this guidance. This requirement is applicable to the capping RA alternative. Other action specific requirements are related to water discharges, waste management, and air emissions. Depending on the RA alternative that is to be implemented at the Site, the substantive provisions of Federal and State requirements are applicable for the appropriate discharge of Site stormwater and water from dewatering sediment. Under the CWA (40 CFR 401 and 40 CFR 122), wastewater and stormwater originating from a land disturbance (from industrial activity or construction) point source discharges to surface waters must follow these substantive requirements, though actions under CERCLA do not need to follow the specific procedural requirements. Similarly, under the State Water Pollution Control Act (WV 47 CSR 2), discharges containing pollutants from known point sources, including stormwater from construction sites, are regulated. RCRA (40 CFR 260-268), State Solid Waste Management Act (WV 33 CSR 1), and State Hazardous Waste Management Act (WV 33 CSR 20) are applicable for the disposal of RCRA hazardous waste disposed off-Site or on-Site, dredged sediments in an on-Site confined disposal facility (CDF), and hazardous dredged sediments in an on-Site CDF, respectively. There are also National standards (Clean Air Act) and State regulations (Air Pollution Control) for the prevention and control of particulate matter emissions that would be applicable for the on-Site construction and operation of sediment dewatering, treatment and disposal facilities. These standards/regulations are considered in the evaluation of related RA alternatives. 6.2.3 LOCATION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS Under the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), when proponents seek a federal approval, the responsible federal agency must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to 031884 (51) 150 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES determine if the project would affect cultural or historic sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 6.3 PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS 6.3.1 LONG-TERM PRGS As discussed in the preamble to the National Contingency Plan (55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8712-13; March 8, 1990), PRGs for this EE/CA represent the desired endpoint concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that will both comply with ARARs and provide for protection of human health and the environment under a reasonable future exposure scenario. The range of risk-based PRGs in fish tissue fillets for the protection of human health under various cancer and non-cancer risk levels are summarized in the table below. For comparison, current fish tissue concentrations are also presented for the Site, based on all composite samples of sportfish and bottom feeders collected in 2004 and 2008/2009. Total risk in the table below includes recreational angler exposure as a child (for 6 years) and as an adult (for 24 years) plus recreational swimmer exposure during this 30-year period. Scenario Reasonable Maximum Exposure Fish Tissue Concentration (ng/kg) Central Tendency Fish Tissue Concentration (ng/kg) Fish Tissue Concentration1 7.25 (Calculated 95 percent 3.41 (Calculated Average) UCL) Recreational Angler and 5.09 60.2 0.05 0.60 2.8 15.8 Recreational Swimmer Total Risk 1 x 10-4 Recreational Angler and Recreational Swimmer Total Risk 1 x 10-6 Recreational Angler and Recreational Swimmer Hazard Quotient = 1 1 Based on all fish tissue samples collected from the Site in 2004 and 2008/2009 A 30 percent reduction in fish tissue concentrations (based on the 95 percent UCL) used in the RME scenario) would bring cancer risk levels into the 10-4 to 10-6 excess cancer risk 031884 (51) 151 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES range. This risk range is consistent with the desired endpoints outlined in the National Contingency Plan (C.F.R. § 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2); preamble to in 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, 8713; March 8, 1990). An approximate 60 percent reduction in fish tissue concentrations would reduce the HQ to 1 under the RME scenario. Under the CT Scenarios, all cancer and non-cancer risks are currently within U.S. EPA accepted ranges under current conditions. The surface water PRG based on the Kanawha River water quality standard for 2,3,7,8-TCDD of 0.014 pg/L [WV 46-1-7.2] is applicable to annual average concentrations throughout the water column of the River. This PRG would address RAO 2 discussed in Section 6.1. As discussed in Section 6.4, and consistent with the TMDL evaluation by LTI (2000), watershed source controls separate and apart from a sediment response action will be required to achieve this surface water PRG. 6.3.2 SHORT-TERM PRGS As discussed in Section 4.4.8, SWACs represent the average sediment concentration which can potentially bioaccumulate in fish within a given area of interest. Surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations are the appropriate metric for targeting response actions because these concentrations represent levels of potential exposure to benthic organisms (which in turn are consumed by fish; ecological receptors exposure pathways are presented on Figure 4.30) within the biologically active layer as well as 2,3,7,8-TCDD flux from sediments to the water column. More deeply buried sediment deposits are not expected to contribute to bioaccumulation based on the CSM. The short-term performance objective is to reduce the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC in each of the rolling 3-mile reaches of the Site, which do not already meet the short-term PRGs, to a level that will facilitate a reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in fish tissue. Figure 4.27 identifies 3-mile reaches where elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWACs can be correlated to locations of elevated surficial sediment concentrations as compared to other samples within the 3-mile reach. The effectiveness of a short-term PRG of 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD in meeting the general response objective of RAO 1 (to reduce the contribution of sediments to Kanawha River fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations) may be evaluated by predicting resultant fish tissue concentrations utilizing the Site-specific BSAF. Site-specific BSAFs and other data collected during the EE/CA can be used to develop preliminary estimates of anticipated fish tissue concentrations associated with reductions in SWAC values. Preliminary 031884 (51) 152 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES BSAF calculations corresponding to a post-remedial SWAC of 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD were performed using the following average values: • Post-Removal Action 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC = 0.01 µg/kg (dry wt basis; see above) • Measured sediment TOC = 0.73 percent (dry wt basis) • Measured BSAF = 0.083 (TOC/lipid basis; based on gizzard shad data) • Measured mixed bass species fillet lipid = 1.1 percent (wet wt basis) This evaluation utilizes a post-remedy SWAC of 0.01 µg/kg which represents the upper limit of the anticipated post-remedy SWAC. The actual post-remedy SWAC may be lower following the implementation of remedial activities. The BSAF-derived estimate of average bass tissue fillet concentrations is 1.32 ng/kg, based on a SWAC of 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Fish tissue concentrations estimated by this method represent equilibrium concentrations which would be approached over a period of years following remedy implementation as the existing 2,3,7,8-TCDD body burden of the fish population declines following remedy implementation. This fish tissue concentration is below the protective concentrations identified in Section 6.3.1 for both cancer and non-cancer risk (based on the RME scenario and a risk of 1x10-4). These SWAC-BSAF calculations also provide further support for setting a short-term PRG of 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD based on the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC for each rolling 3-mile reach as a means to achieve target reductions in 2,3,7,8-TCDD fish tissue concentrations. Sediment data collected in Study Area 1 also reveal that reductions in SWAC below approximately 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD are limited by upstream (i.e., upstream of Study Area 1) background conditions and thus are not practicable to achieve. A SWAC PRG of 0.01 μg/kg was therefore used in this EE/CA to develop appropriate Removal Action alternatives (Section 7.0). In order to determine the extent of remediation necessary to achieve the short-term PRG, each rolling 3-mile reach exceeding the short-term PRG of 0.01 µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD was evaluated. The area(s) within the 3-mile reach requiring remediation to reduce to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC to below the short-term PRG were determined by removing the highest concentration surface sample data from the data set and re-evaluating the SWAC until the calculated SWAC was below the short-term PRG. It was determined that areas adjacent to the former Flexsys Facility, the COR-39 area, the COR-21/22 area, and the RIV 8/9/10 area would require remediation to meet the short-term PRG. The predicted post-Removal Action SWACs achieved by addressing these areas are presented on Figure 6.2. The extent of remediation required to address these areas (e.g., through capping or dredging) was then estimated for the purpose of evaluating 031884 (51) 153 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Removal Action Alternatives. Further delineation of these prospective remediation areas would be completed as a pre-design activity for the selected Removal Action Alternative. The COR-11 and KRSD-03 areas have been identified as requiring further delineation to support SWAC determination for these areas. 6.4 OTHER WATERSHED SOURCES In considering the 0.014 pg/L WV standard as an ARAR in order to develop appropriate PRGs for surface water and other media, upstream (i.e., upstream of the Site) loading and the potential contributions from other sources within the Site need to be considered. The TMDL study (LTI 2000) identified 2,3,7,8-TCDD inputs from upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility at a concentration of 0.009 pg/L based on sampling completed by ORSANCO in May 1999. This concentration represented 64 percent of the allowable surface water concentration in the TMDL. The upstream 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration in the May 2005 sample collected at RM 46 (Upstream Limit of study Area 1), was measured at 0.00853 pg/L. This concentration represented 66 percent of the allowable WV surface water quality criterion. The upstream (i.e., upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility) contribution will limit future concentration reductions that can reasonably be achieved by sediment remediation alone because the surface water 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations upstream of the Site are a significant percentage of the allowable criteria. This needs to be considered in the development of appropriate cleanup levels for the Site. At the Former Flexsys Facility a number of source control actions associated with remediation of contaminated soil, groundwater, and stormwater have recently been or are proposed to be implemented to control various potential sources in the watershed. It appears that measures previously implemented at the Former Flexsys Facility, including bank stabilization, installation of a new storm sewer system, and installation of clean cover in upland areas have reduced dioxin loading to the River. Further information is presented in Appendix M. A detailed discussion of the previously completed and planned remedial activities at the Former Flexsys Facility is included in Section 7.1.3. A number of other potential sources within and upstream of the Former Flexsys Facility were identified as discussed in Section 3.3. Monsanto Company reviewed available information for these facilities; however, sufficient information to assess loading on an individual site basis does not exist. Loading from upstream (i.e., upstream of Study Area 2) facilities is captured in upstream surface water sampling. 031884 (51) 154 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Ongoing sources within the Site area limit future concentration reductions that can reasonably be achieved by sediment remediation alone, and again needs to be considered in the development of appropriate cleanup levels for the Site. Source control considerations at the Former Flexsys Facility are discussed further in Section 7.1.3. 031884 (51) 155 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.0 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES A range of RA technologies were evaluated and assembled to develop RA alternatives based on a review of available technologies and process options, and considering RAOs, ARARs, PRGs, and SWAC goals discussed in Section 6.0. The assembled alternatives are evaluated in Section 8.0 of this EE/CA with respect to effectiveness, implementability and cost. The potential effectiveness of each RA alternative evaluated in this EE/CA was evaluated relative to the following: 1. Whether RAOs can be achieved and the time frame for providing protection of human health and the environment 2. Potential effects to human health and the environment during the construction and implementation phase, including short-term water quality impacts and contaminated dredging residuals resulting from implementation of the remedy 3. Reliability with respect to the chemical constituents and conditions in the Site area (U.S. EPA, 1988b) Both the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing each process option were evaluated (U.S. EPA, October 1988). The technical implementability evaluation concentrated on the institutional aspects of implementability, including the ability to obtain necessary approvals, availability of any transportation, storage, and/or disposal services needed, and availability of necessary equipment and personnel. According to 40 CFR 300.400, "no federal, state, or local permits are required for on-site response actions conducted pursuant to CERCLA Sections 104, 106, 120, 121, or 122." The term "on-site" refers to the Study Areas, "and all suitable areas in very close proximity necessary for implementation of the response action." Cost evaluations described in this EE/CA include all construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring necessary for each alternative, and the necessity for additional pre-design and design information specific to that alternative, including present worth costs and analysis. Capital costs include both direct and indirect (overhead) costs associated with implementing an alternative, along with operation, maintenance, and monitoring costs as appropriate. 031884 (51) 156 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.1 REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES Potentially applicable RA technologies and process options were identified for the Site. Each technology/process that was considered a potential component of a RA for the Site was evaluated to identify its potential applicability to the Site. This evaluation was completed at a screening level based upon published information, direct experience on other projects, and third party data/information. The categories of technologies/processes evaluated for the Site were developed based on the technologies required to be evaluated by the AOC and a review of other potentially applicable technologies. The technologies/processes evaluated include: • No Action • Institutional Controls (ICs) • Source Control • Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) • In Situ Treatment • Capping • Dredging • Treatment/Disposal Identified technologies/processes within these categories were reviewed on the basis of the effectiveness, implementability, and cost of the technologies/processes relative to one another within each category. 7.1.1 NO ACTION No Action was retained as a representative process option, as required by the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Although this alternative does not include any form of active remediation, it was retained and used as a baseline to evaluate other alternatives. As discussed previously, a number of RAs already have taken place in support of improving conditions in the River including the on-Site external source control activities discussed in Section 7.1.3. 031884 (51) 157 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.1.2 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ICs are non-engineering measures, usually legal or physical means of limiting potential exposure to a site or a medium of concern. ICs prevent human exposure to the identified COCs. They can be used at any stage during the Site remedial process to help reduce exposure to contaminated sediments. Examples of ICs include fish consumption advisories, land access, resource use, and deed restrictions. Three ICs were evaluated for the Site: Fish Advisory, Waterway Use Restrictions (e.g., Prohibition on Dredging for Coal Recovery), and Controls on Property Use. As part of, or in addition to, the ICs for the River, warning signs may be posted to inform people of use restrictions in place for the River. Fish Consumption Advisories and Fish Bans are ICs used to limit the public from consuming contaminated fish. Fish consumption advisories for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, mercury, and PCBs are currently in place for the Kanawha river. Advisories usually involve informing the public not to consume fish in a certain area or limiting the number of fish that should be consumed over a certain period of time. The implementation of a Fish Advisory IC requires efforts to ensure adherence to the advisory and to address public education and communication needs. The Fish Advisory IC can be effective in protecting human health as the risk to fish consumers can be reduced. However, a Fish Advisory IC may not be relied upon to protect all consumers as some consumers may not be reached by, or may not adhere to, the recommendations in the Advisory. Any Fish Advisory IC would be issued by the State of WV. Information developed for the Site may be considered by the State in any revisions to Fish Advisory ICs. Monsanto Company does not have any direct control over such ICs. Waterway Use Restrictions are ICs that can be used to ensure the integrity of an in place RA alternative. The Prohibition on Dredging for Coal Recovery IC is effective in protecting human health and wildlife as it will prevent significant disturbance and resuspension of contaminated sediment that was formerly buried in the River. The effectiveness of the Property Use Restriction IC is dependent on the effectiveness of the source controls implemented by property owners/operators along the River. Monsanto Company does not have any direct control over such ICs. Implementation of the ICs will need to involve negotiations with U.S. ACE and property owners along the River. A Prohibition on Dredging for Coal Recovery IC will require U.S. ACE permit restrictions. The Controls on Property Use IC would require property easements and deed restrictions. The costs associated with all of the ICs will include the cost to develop and implement the ICs. The appropriateness of revising or discontinuing Fish Consumption or Prohibition on Dredging for Coal Recovery ICs would need to be reviewed following implementation of the selected RA, as monitoring data are obtained. 031884 (51) 158 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.1.3 SOURCE CONTROL – FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY The Former Flexsys Facility is undergoing a RCRA Corrective Action (RCRA CA). The RCRA CA is being completed by Solutia and addresses a number of constituents identified at the facility, including 2,3,7,8-TCDD. A number of activities have occurred at the Former Flexsys Facility as part of the RCRA CA, which have altered the facility from its historic configuration and reduced potential ongoing releases of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from the facility. 7.1.3.1 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITIES Activities completed as part of the RCRA Corrective Action for the Former Flexsys Facility include: 031884 (51) • Demolition of above ground structures with the exception of a small administrative and security building. • Placement of a permeable cover system of clean material over most of the facility. A total of approximately 80 acres of permeable cover has been placed as shown on Figure 7.1. • Physical closure of the existing storm sewer system, including sealing of all outfalls and drop inlets (approximately 135 inlets) and installation/monitoring of a new storm sewer system to drain areas where clean cover had been installed. Surface water is currently collected and discharged to the River via NPDES regulated Outfall 008. • Installation of slurry walls in designated areas. • Groundwater monitoring. A total of 22 wells (11 well pairs) installed under specific protocols developed to allow high-volume sampling of the wells for 2,3,7,8-TCDD have been monitored. Sampling events are completed on an ongoing basis. The results of these sampling events have been utilized to re-estimate groundwater loading to the River (discussed in Section 7.1.3.2). • Bank stabilization along the frontage of the facility on the River (approximately 4,800 ft of bank) – completed in 2013. Bank stabilization activities extended from the top of bank down to below the water surface. The extent of the bank stabilization under the surface varies according to the slope of the river bottom in each area of the bank stabilization, ranging from approximately 5 to 15 feet into the River (laterally) 159 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES from the waterline. Bank stabilization along the frontage of the facility on the River included: − Removal of vegetation − Re-grading of the bank to a consistent and stable slope − Placement of geotextile − Placement of armor stone (rip rap) from the top of bank to below the waterline Additional activities are planned to be completed by Solutia as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility to address remaining exposure and contaminant migration pathways. Several of these activities will further limit the potential for dioxin migration from the facility. These proposed activities relevant to the River EE/CA include: • Completion of placement of low permeability covers on the areas identified on Figure 7.1 • Implementation of long-term groundwater and point-source discharge monitoring 7.1.3.2 DIOXIN MIGRATION EVALUATION As part of the CA process, Potesta on behalf of Solutia completed an Expanded Remedial Facility Investigation (ERFI) for the Former Flexsys Facility. U.S. EPA approved the draft report on April 25, 2008. In the ERFI report (and addendums to the report), the current dioxin loading to the River from groundwater and stormwater was evaluated. Documents outlining the loading calculations are included in Appendix L. The analysis of loading was completed on the basis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ loading rather than 2,3,7,8-TCDD. However, given the profile of individual TEQ constituents typical of 2,4,5-T manufacturing processes, these results are anticipated to reasonably represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading. Monitoring of the NPDES discharge from the new stormwater system has provided documentation of relatively small 2,3,7,8-TCDD loadings from stormwater. Under current conditions approximately 2.445 µg/day of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is being discharged from the Former Flexsys Facility through storm water outfalls. Sampling of the network of 22 groundwater monitoring well pairs and analysis of the samples was conducted in two rounds in the second and third quarter of 2008. The monitoring results indicate that the 2,3,7,8-TCDD flux in ground water from the Former Flexsys Facility to the River is approximately 0.0083 µg/day. 031884 (51) 160 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.1.3.3 RIVER BANK STABILIZATION AND RESIDUE CLEANUP A slope failure on part of the bank of the River, along the Former Flexsys Facility occurred in 2002. The slope failure impacted a limited area (approximately 150 feet) of the bank, upstream of the I-64 bridge. The area was discovered by WV DEP on March 6, 2002, during a site inspection of the Former Flexsys Facility from the River. A blackish-brown residue material was observed in the soil in the limits of a surface slough along the Riverbank. The inspectors reported that the material appeared to have flowed down the bank and had entered the River in at least one location. Potesta sampled the residue on March 15, 2002 at the request of U.S. EPA and WV DEP. Residue samples revealed elevated concentrations of aniline, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, methylene chloride, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Potesta reported that the area of concern was centered on a slough or shallow slide near the toe of the existing bank at the water's edge. Solutia formally notified U.S. EPA of the potential release on April 15, 2002, and an Interim Measures work plan was submitted on August 2, 2002. Potesta reported that in the immediate vicinity of the area of concern, the River is shallow and gently sloping near the edge of the bank with water depth approximately 6 to 8 feet at 20 feet from the water's edge (based on normal pool elevation). Potesta determined that since a located area of residue had migrated into the River, sediment core samples would be retrieved from below the waterline of the River, in the area of the bank failure, in order to determine the nature and extent of the residue material. Potesta conducted core sampling near the toe of the slide/slough area on June 9, 2002. A total of 18 sediment core samples were collected with recoveries ranging from 3.75 to 19.75 inches. Samples were collected from three transects, with each transect being made up of six individual sediment sample locations. The first transect was located in the River approximately 8 ft from the water's edge, the second was advanced 15 ft from the first (23 ft from the water's edge), and the third was an additional 15 ft from the second transect (38 ft from the water's edge). Potesta reported that none of the recovered cores showed any visual signs of residual material. Following completion of the investigation, cleanup activities were conducted, consisting of removal and disposal of approximately 400 CY of material. The removed material included construction/demolition materials from the surface; tar residue and commingled soils; and additional stained soils or other residue impacted materials. Confirmation samples of the exposed native soils were collected and tested for TCL volatiles, semi-volatiles, asbestos, and the seventeen 2,3,7,8 chlorine substituted dioxin 031884 (51) 161 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and furan congeners. The results were screened against the U.S. EPA risk-based concentration Table for residential exposure limits. The final step involved stabilization of the bank in the area by placement of geotextile and covering with armor stone from the top of the bank down to, and extending below the waterline (normal pool elevation 566 ft AMSL). No data is available for the remainder of the banks on the Former Flexsys Facility. 7.1.4 MONITORED NATURAL RECOVERY (MNR) MNR involves the use of natural processes to attenuate contaminant concentrations over time in River sediment, including such processes as degradation, dissipation, and burial of contaminants. U.S. EPA identifies in its Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (U.S. EPA, 2005) that MNR should be considered at every site where it may be appropriate. The most important process of change to sediment chemistry within the bioactive zone is usually the removal or addition of sediment to the profile in areas of erosion or deposition in the waterway. In many cases, these processes are very beneficial to the protection of human health and the environment due to the addition of cleaner sediments from upstream sources (Magar et al. 2009). Where sources are controlled, the accumulation of clean sediment acts as a natural capping process, reducing the concentrations of contaminants in the biologically active zone, i.e., the surface layer of sediment, which is in contact with the aquatic community and the food web, including humans. MNR requires monitoring of one or more media to document the efficiency of this technology in meeting RAOs and to identify the need for any supplemental action. MNR is commonly a component technology of selected RA alternatives for large river remediation projects (Magar et al. 2009). The success of MNR depends on the effectiveness of source control, the stability of the sediment bed (significant disturbance by unexpected natural or human efforts can affect the natural recovery process), and the rate of reduction of exposure point concentrations over the exposure area for the Site. ICs can be used to help reduce disturbances by human interference. MNR would require monitoring to verify that recovery is occurring as projected, and may include fish or surface water monitoring, as appropriate, based on Site conditions. Detailed long-term monitoring plans would be developed during remedial design, and would be documented in an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan (OMMP). 031884 (51) 162 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Monitoring requirements typically include sampling at appropriate time intervals based on recovery modeling, to document and evaluate recovery trends. There are no permit issues associated with implementing this technology. Costs associated with this technology would include capital costs to perform baseline monitoring and ongoing costs for implementation of the OMMP during the anticipated recovery period. 7.1.5 IN SITU TREATMENT In situ treatment employs the addition of a treatment media (in this application - organic carbon) to accelerate the MNR process (U.S. EPA, 2005). The acceleration of the MNR process is achieved by the introduction of activated carbon to sequester contaminants and reduce the bioavailable concentration of contaminant concentrations within the bioactive zone (through physical and biological mixing of organic carbon with contaminated sediment). In laboratory studies, activated carbon mixed into surface sediments has demonstrated reduction of bioaccumulation in benthic organisms and reduction in release of bioaccumulative contaminants such as PCBs and dioxins into the water phase at equilibrium (because of similar partitioning characteristics, 2,3,7,8-TCDD treatment with activated carbon is anticipated to be very similar to that of PCBs). As part of an investigation of potential remedial options to reduce PCB bioavailability to fish, Alcoa Aluminum Company with support from U.S. EPA, university researchers, and contractors, implemented the Grasse River Activated Carbon Pilot Study (ACPS) beginning in 2006 (http://nepis.epa.gov/). The key objectives of the ACPS were to evaluate the ability to deliver activated carbon onto and into surface sediments in the field, and measure the resulting change in bioavailability to benthic organisms due to activated carbon amendment. Findings to date are summarized below: 031884 (51) • No water quality impacts due to construction were observed. • The project successfully applied activated carbon to surface (top 15 cm) sediments in the pilot area at concentrations at or above the target dosage. To date, applied activated carbon has remained in place. • The extent and rate of sediment PCB desorption was reduced after activated carbon application. When activated carbon doses equaled or exceeded native TOC levels, reductions in aqueous equilibrium PCB concentrations exceeded 95 percent. 163 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • PCB concentrations in benthic worms were reduced by approximately 90 percent in sediment samples with activated carbon levels that met or exceeded the target dose. • No statistically significant differences in erosion potential of activated carbon-treated sediment were observed. Results from additional monitoring of the ACPS are pending. Other activated carbon pilot and full-scale application projects at locations with characteristics similar to those of the Kanawha River are also underway to evaluate this promising in situ treatment alternative. The application of organic carbon can be through a number of direct application techniques (injection, mechanical mixing, injection of pelletized carbon) or by application of a thin layer cap material, typically sand mixed with organic carbon. Many application methods have been developed for the placement of cap materials, including proprietary and non-proprietary methods. Selection of appropriate methods is dependent on the size of the area to be treated, water depth and velocity, cap material properties, and the availability of specialized equipment/operators. The capital cost of an in situ treatment remedy would include the cost of application and the cost of any baseline and long-term monitoring. OMMP costs would be expected to be similar to an equivalent MNR remedy; however, the length of monitoring may be reduced, resulting in an overall cost savings. 7.1.6 CAPPING This method refers to the in-situ placement of a cap of clean sand and armor materials over the affected sediment to contain and isolate contaminants from exposure and flux into the water column. Cap placement methods include casting of capping material on the water surface and allowing it to settle through the water column; placement of capping material at the sediment surface using a dredge bucket to deliver the material; or pumping capping material to the sediment surface. All of these methods have been used successfully at sites. Appropriate construction quality assurance is necessary to verify the appropriate thickness and aerial extent of cap material has been placed. Caps can be constructed of various materials, but are typically constructed of sand, gravel, cobble, rip rap, or similar granular material. Geotextiles, liners, and treatment layers or amendments (organoclays, activated carbon, etc.) may also be included to improve placement and/or effectiveness, depending on site-specific conditions. Caps 031884 (51) 164 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES have been used extensively for sediment cleanup including a wide range of Superfund sites (U.S. EPA, 2005). Caps have also been selected in combination with other approaches such as removal or MNR. Cap design requirements are described in Palermo et al. (1998) and U.S. EPA (2005), and consider the following factors: • Water depth limitations and navigational requirements • Cap armor stability under the anticipated flow regime, propeller wash, vessel wakes, and wind-induced waves • Slope stability • Compressibility of sediments • Access for cap placement • Impacts to the benthic community and ecosystem • Groundwater flux • Thickness of the bioactive zone Armoring is a layer that can be placed on top of a cap to ensure cap stability under peak shear stress conditions (e.g., high water flow velocity events, propeller wash, and wakes/waves). The size and thickness of the armoring material is designed based on the hydraulic forces the cap will be exposed to. Armoring can improve the effectiveness of capping as an RA technology in waterways with high energy. Examples of various isolation cap designs are presented on Figure 7.2. Based on the hydrodynamic model, gravel-sized or larger armor stone may be necessary in some prospective capping areas to ensure that the cap remains protective under peak shear stress conditions such as the 100-year flood (see Section 4.4.7). Regionally, placement of 2 to 3 feet or relatively large rip rap has been used successfully in other sediment cap applications. In areas removed from peak shear stresses, sand alone would provide the necessary erosion protection. Any cap placed within the Site would be designed in accordance with U.S. EPA, USACE and other applicable guidance documents (e.g., Palermo et al., 1998; U.S. EPA, 2005). These documents provide technical guidance for using subaqueous, in-situ capping as a remediation technique for affected sediments, and include detailed guidance on site and sediment characterization, cap design, equipment and placement techniques, and monitoring and management considerations. USACE guidance on the design of armor layers, included as Attachment A to the U.S. EPA document Guidance for In-Situ Subaqueous Capping of Contaminated Sediments (Palermo et al., 1998) would be utilized as the basis for design of cap armoring in consultation with USACE Huntington District 031884 (51) 165 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES staff. Based on preliminary discussions with USACE Huntington District staff during development of the EE/CA Report, relatively large rip rap armor layer materials have been approved for use on other sites along the river, including the bank stabilization completed for the Former Flexsys Facility. The evaluation of Removal Action Alternatives assumed placement of approximately 2 to 3 feet of relatively large rip rap on top of approximately 1 foot of sand and/or gravel-sized filter materials. If capping is included in the selected Removal Action Alternative for the Site, the design of the cap, including armor layer, would be finalized during detailed design based on the referenced guidance documents and in consultation with USACE Huntington District staff. The costs associated with this technology would include capital costs for cap materials, placement of the armored cap, and verification of cap installation. OMMP costs for this technology typically include periodic inspection to confirm the integrity of the cap, particularly following high shear stress events. 7.1.7 DREDGING Dredging can provide mass removal of impacted sediment to facilitate treatment or disposal at an on-Site CDF or at an off-Site landfill facility. Sediments can be dredged either hydraulically or mechanically. Dredging Methods. Hydraulically dredged material can be transported over long distances and piped directly to a staging/processing area. However, a greater volume of water must be removed from the slurry and discharged and/or treated (U.S. EPA, 2005). The solids content of hydraulically dredged slurries normally averages 5 to 10 percent by weight, but it can vary considerably with the specific gravity, grain size and distribution of the sediment, and depth and thickness of the dredge cut. In general, hydraulic dredges cannot operate in rough water or remove large debris, and they may become clogged with weeds, wood, rocks, and other materials. Stoppages to clean the cutterhead, pump, or pipeline may be frequent at sites where debris and other larger materials are present (EPRI and Northeast Utilities, 1999). Mechanical dredges have been used extensively for navigation and environmental dredging and are widely available. These dredges remove sediment at about the same water content as the in-situ material, thereby minimizing the ex-situ volume and water content of the dredged material (U.S. EPA, 2005). They can also operate in areas with limited space, and are highly maneuverable. The dredges are able to remove large debris and, at the same time, reduce the amount of water contained in removed 031884 (51) 166 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES sediment. Mechanical dredges are effective where dredged sediment must be transported by barge. Mechanical dredges, however, have the potential for spillage during dredging and unloading (EPRI and Northeast Utilities, 1999). The water contained within the bucket during removal activities must be managed or allowed to leak out, which "generally leads to higher contaminant losses during dredging" (U.S. EPA, 2005). Both hydraulic and mechanical dredging are potentially viable process options at the Site, as each possesses attributes applicable to specific characteristics of the River. The actual dredging option to be used in implementation of a dredging alternative would be selected during remedial design and would depend on the specific project objectives and associated constraints for both the dredging operation itself as well as subsequent processing steps (e.g., dewatering and disposal), given the interrelationship between these operations. For purposes of evaluation in this EE/CA, mechanical dredging has been carried forward as the representative sediment removal process option for both the main channel and nearshore areas, primarily since mechanical dredging would be required to remove rocks and other debris likely to be encountered in prospective dredging areas of the Site. However, the overall effectiveness and costs of hydraulic and mechanical dredging at the Site are likely to be similar. Dredging Resuspension, Release, and Residuals. Resuspension is the processes by which a dredge and attendant operations dislodge bedded sediment particles and disperse them into the water column. Release is the process by which the dredging operation results in the transfer of contaminants from sediment porewater and sediment particles into the water column. Residuals are contaminated sediment found at the post-dredging surface of the sediment profile, either within or adjacent to the dredging footprint. Residuals can be broadly grouped into two categories: 1) undisturbed residuals are consolidated or intact contaminated sediments found at the post-dredging sediment surface that have been uncovered by dredging but not fully removed; and 2) generated residuals are contaminated post-dredging disturbed surface sediments that are dislodged or suspended by the dredging operation and are subsequently redeposited on the bottom of the water body. A number of site operational conditions influence the effectiveness of environmental dredging of contaminated sediment on aquatic systems. A wide range of environmental dredging experiences have demonstrated that resuspension of contaminated sediment and release of contaminants occur during dredging and that contaminated sediment residuals will remain following operations (Patmont and Palermo, 2007; Bridges et al., 2008). It is also understood that these processes affect the magnitude, distribution, and 031884 (51) 167 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES bioavailability of the contaminants and hence the exposure and risk to receptors of concern. A few quantitative evaluations of contaminant release have been undertaken at environmental dredging sites. For example, during a 1999-2000 pilot study on the Fox River, WI, monitoring data collected 100 to 200 feet from the dredge head, and outside of silt curtains, suggested that approximately 2 percent of the dredged contaminants (PCBs) were transported downstream of the pilot project area (Steuer, 2000). Similarly, monitoring at a pilot dredging project in the Grasse River, NY showed that approximately 3 percent of dredged PCBs were released during dredging and debris removal (Connolly et al., 2007). The latter study also showed a concomitant, short lived (1-yr) increase in fish tissue concentrations downstream of dredging operations, including a station 6 miles downstream of dredging. The release pathway is particularly important because dissolved contaminants are readily bioavailable to fish and other biota (Eggleton and Thomas, 2004). Based on comparisons with other similar environmental dredging projects, the estimated dissolved-phase 2,3,7,8-TCDD release from a dredging action in the River is anticipated to average approximately 2 percent of the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD dredged. This assumption was input into the comparative fish tissue recovery trend estimates discussed in Section 8.1, and led to a prediction of a short-term increase in fish tissue concentrations at the Site following dredging, consistent with observations at other environmental dredging sites. The inevitability of post-dredging residuals and their influence on risk has been increasingly recognized over the last decade. Since the purpose of any sediment RA is to reduce contaminated sediment exposure, dredging residuals, particularly if they are more contaminated than pre-remediation surface sediment, can be a serious concern (Bridges et al., 2008). The nature and extent of post-dredging sediment residuals are related to multiple environmental factors including sediment geotechnical and geophysical characteristics, the variability in contaminant distributions, and physical site conditions such as the presence of bedrock, hardpan, debris or other obstructions. Operational factors that likely affect residuals include dredging equipment size and type; number of dredge passes; selection of intermediate and final cutline elevations; allowable overdredging; dredge cut slopes; accuracy of positioning; operator experience; and the sequence of operations (Bridges et al., 2008; Palermo et al., 2008; Fuglevand and Webb, 2009). The presence of debris and hardpan/bedrock and sediment liquidity appear to be the most important site factors determining the potential for higher generated residuals. Sediment with low dry bulk density (e.g., water content exceeding the geotechnical 031884 (51) 168 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES liquid limit) also appears to increase the potential for dredge residuals (Patmont and Palermo, 2007). Complicating factors in the dredging process (e.g., the presence of debris in the sediment bed) can make the sediment removal process and achievement of risk-based clean-up levels difficult as well as costly. The state of practice in modeling dredging processes is not sufficient to make precise predictions of post-dredging residual contaminant concentrations. In the absence of such modeling capability, empirical approaches have been used at dredging projects. Existing data suggest that the average concentration of contaminants in generated residuals will approximate the mass-weighted average sediment concentration in the final production cut profile (the concentration present in sediments within the final production cut or clean-up pass will have been influenced by overlying sediments previously dredged) (Reible et al., 2003; Palermo et al., 2008). The relative mass of contaminants remaining following dredging has been estimated for 12 project sites on the basis of mass balance calculations (Desrosiers and Patmont, 2009). Generated residuals at these sites ranged from 1 to 11 percent of the mass of contaminants dredged during the last production cut. For environmental dredging projects in the presence of debris and/or hardpan/bedrock, generated residuals averaged approximately 6 percent of the last production cut. Given the presence of hard bottom material (hard pan clay and bedrock) immediately underlying contaminated sediments at the Site, estimated generated residuals resulting from a dredging action in the River are anticipated to average approximately 6 percent of the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD dredged in the last production cut. Fish tissue sampling data collected at sites provides quantitative measurement of the impacts of dredging. Data presented in the attached IEAM article show marked increases in fish tissue concentrations associated with dredging events. The inevitability of dredging-related releases residuals and their influence on risk has been increasingly recognized over the last decade. It is also understood that these processes affect the magnitude, distribution, and bioavailability of the contaminants, and also control exposure/risk recovery trends for receptors of concern. EPA recognizes this limitation on dredging effectiveness in its Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA-540-R-05-012, December 2005). This document states on page 29 that "A well designed and well placed cap should more quickly reduce the exposure of fish and other biota to contaminated sediment as compared to dredging, as there should be no, or very little contaminant residual on the surface of the cap." Relative Cost and Carbon Footprint of Dredging. The capital costs associated with dredging are significantly higher than those for MNR, in situ treatment, and capping. Capital costs include dredging equipment, monitoring during dredging, sediment 031884 (51) 169 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES transportation to the dewatering area, dewatering of the contaminated sediment, water treatment, transportation and treatment/disposal. Some monitoring of the long-term impacts on the recovery of the Site due to the removal of impacted sediment would be anticipated, but would be expected to be lower than the costs anticipated for MNR, in situ treatment, or capping technologies. Implementation of a dredging alternative requires the use of additional equipment over a longer period of time as compared to MNR or capping alternatives. The equipment, including dredges, booster pumps, pumping equipment as part of the water treatment system, and equipment to handle dewatered sediments would be powered by diesel engines or electricity from coal fired power plants. In addition, equipment required to construct a disposal facility on-Site, or to transport material to an off-Site disposal facility, would further increase the carbon footprint of a dredging alternative. The estimated carbon footprint of the dredging alternatives for this Site is discussed in Sections 8.6.2 and 8.7.2 7.1.8 TREATMENT/DISPOSAL There are treatment activities associated with the management of dredged materials that may be employed to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants. Stabilization of the contaminants within the sediment through the addition of polymers during the dewatering process may be effective in preparing the sediment for loading, transportation and disposal. Solidification to improve physical properties may be required to allow placement in an on-Site CDF or off-Site Landfill. Off-Site thermal treatment could potentially be required for some of the material if a land disposal alternative is not available. Off-Site disposal/treatment may be readily implemented. Disposal in an on-Site CDF may require additional time to allow siting, design, and CDF construction activities to be completed; however, it is possible these activities could be completed within the timeframe of design and implementation of other remedy components. Capital costs associated with off-Site disposal/treatment costs include transportation costs and disposal/treatment fees and taxes. No OMMP costs are associated with off-Site disposal/treatment. 031884 (51) 170 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Costs associated with an on-Site CDF include capital costs for land acquisition, siting investigation, design, construction, operation during filling, and closure. OMMP costs would be anticipated to include leachate management, monitoring and maintenance of the cover system and perimeter fencing, and groundwater monitoring. 7.1.9 SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES Table 7.1 provides a summary of the screening of RA technologies. Based on the screening, all of the remedial technologies were retained for consideration in the development of RA Alternatives. 7.2 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES The technologies that were retained from the screening step were used to develop several RA Alternatives for evaluation. These include the following: • Alternative 1 - No Action • Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls and MNR • Alternative 3 - Institutional Controls, In Situ Treatment and MNR • Alternative 4 - Institutional Controls, MNR, and Limited Capping • Alternative 5A - Institutional Controls, MNR, Limited Dredging, and On-Site CDF • Alternative 5B - Institutional Controls, MNR, Limited Dredging, and Off-Site Disposal Each of these alternatives is described in the following sub-sections. 7.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO ACTION The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is retained as a baseline alternative for comparison purposes consistent with U.S. EPA guidance. The scope of this Alternative is as described in Section 7.1.1. 031884 (51) 171 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MNR Alternative 2 involves the combination of the River's naturally occurring processes to reduce the concentration and mobility of contaminants, coupled with ICs to reduce exposure to the COCs of concern at the Site. Both alternatives are described in detail in Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.4. Based upon the stability and resistance to degradation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, degradation processes are not expected to provide significant reductions in risk levels at the Site. The evaluation of MNR will focus on natural sedimentation, i.e., natural capping of contaminated sediments with cleaner sediments. Contaminant concentrations are further dissipated by physical and biological mixing processes. The MNR option would also include modeling to predict long-term recovery and a long-term (approximately 30 years) monitoring program for measuring COC concentrations in water, sediment and fish to track progress toward achieving the RAOs. This Alternative would require that ICs remain in place until the RAOs are achieved. Due to the nature of the Site, physical access restriction would not be feasible, therefore the ICs would involve enhanced outreach activities such as public education and health advisories. Figure 7.1 presents a conceptual representation of Alternative 2 at the Site. This Alternative assumes that any 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled, along with control of other 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources that may be identified by U.S. EPA or WV DEP. The Alternative also assumes that WV DEP, WV DNR, and/or the U.S. ACE will provide effective controls on coal recovery dredging through the permitting process (see Section 4.5.3). In previous years, WV DNR and/or WV DEP have denied Section 401 Water Quality Certification for certain reclamation dredging applications based on the potential for water quality impacts. In some cases, the denials were successfully appealed by the applicant, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification was eventually obtained for reclamation dredging. 7.2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, IN SITU TREATMENT, AND MNR Alternative 3 involves the combination of the processes and measures described in Alternative 2 with additional measures to accelerate the River's naturally occurring processes to achieve the RAOs at the Site. The in situ treatment portion of this alternative is described in detail in Section 7.1.5. 031884 (51) 172 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In situ treatment such as the addition of activated carbon to surface sediments (0 to 15 cm) would be implemented in an approximate 9.4-acre area of the Site where elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were detected, including submerged embankment areas near COR-39 (adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility) and COR-36 (across the River). In situ treatment of this target area would accelerate natural recovery processes utilized in Alternative 2 by immediately reducing bioavailable surface sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, achieving a short-term SWAC reduction of approximately 50 percent (see Figure 6.2), and accelerating the reduction of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in biota. Figure 7.3 depicts the areas were in situ treatment would be implemented. MNR would be utilized for other areas of the Site. Similar to Alternative 2, this Alternative assumes that potential historic or ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled, along with control of other identified potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources in the study area. The Alternative also assumes that WVDEP, WVDNR, and/or the U.S. ACE will provide effective controls on coal recovery dredging through the permitting process. Long-term monitoring and maintenance would be required as described for Alternative 2. Institutional controls would be required until the RAOs are achieved to minimize public risk of exposure. 7.2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, AND ARMORED CAPPING OF SELECTED AREAS Alternative 4 involves the combination of the processes and measures described in Alternative 2 with additional measure to isolate areas with elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the River. The capping portion of this alternative is described in detail in Section 7.1.6. Under Alternative 4, engineered armored caps would be constructed in areas which were identified as requiring targeted remediation to achieve the short-term PRG in all of the rolling 3-mile reaches. Based on current data, four areas were identified for armored capping: 031884 (51) • Submerged embankment areas on the left bank (descending) at approximately RM 41.6 at COR-36. • Submerged embankment areas on the right bank (descending) from approximately RM 42.1 to RM 41.6, adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility). 173 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Submerged embankment areas on the right bank (descending) at approximately RM 37.9 at COR-21/COR-22. • Areas in the right half (descending) of the channel at locations RIV 8, 9, and 10 near RM 31.0. The following areas will be evaluated utilizing pre-design sampling data and SWACs for these areas re-calculated: • Submerged embankment areas on the right bank (descending) at approximately RM 33.8 at COR-11. • Submerged embankment areas on the right bank (descending) at approximately RM 33.4 at KRSD-03. These areas are identified on Figure 7.4. The extent of capping under this scenario would be finalized based on additional delineation sampling completed as part of the design process if this Removal Action Alternative is selected. The total area to be capped under this alternative is approximately 9.4-acres. Similar to Alternative 3, capping of this target area would accelerate natural recovery processes by immediately reducing bioavailable surface sediment concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, achieving a short-term SWAC reduction of approximately 85 percent (see Figure 6.2), and accelerating the reduction of 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in biota. MNR would be utilized for other areas of the Site. Armored cap designs would be developed for individual areas of the Site as appropriate based on water depth, average River current, River current under flood conditions, ice scour and boat traffic. Areas of the River with the potential for scouring and erosion will require armoring. Figure 7.2 presents several example isolation cap designs. A preliminary layout of Alternative 4 is presented on Figure 7.4. Conceptual cross-section layouts of the capping are presented on Figure 7.5. For the purpose of evaluating the Removal Action Alternative, it was assumed all capped areas will be armored utilizing a 9-inch D 50 rip rap. This material was approved for use by U.S. EPA and USACE for the bank stabilization activities at the Former Flexsys Facility. Similar to Alternative 2, this Alternative assumes that potential historic or ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled along with control of other identified potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources in the study area. The Alternative also assumes that WVDEP, WVDNR, and/or the U.S. ACE will provide effective controls on coal recovery dredging through the permitting process. 031884 (51) 174 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Engineering controls, monitoring, and best management practices would be in place during installation to minimize the resuspension of sediment and mobilization of contaminants during implementation. Monitoring and maintenance would be required as part of this Alternative to ensure integrity of the cap and isolation of the COCs. Monitoring of fish tissue and surface water concentrations to evaluate recovery trends would also form part of Alternative 4. ICs would be required until the RAOs are achieved to minimize public risk of exposure and to ensure the long-term integrity of the cap. 7.2.5 ALTERNATIVE 5A - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF Alternative 5A involves the combination of the processes and measures described in Alternative 2 plus removal of sediments with high contaminant concentrations in the River. The dredging and treatment/disposal portions of this alternative are described in detail in Section 7.1.7 and 7.1.8, respectively. Under Alternative 5A (and 5B; see below), dredging would remove approximately 83,400 cy of sediments at the Site containing elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations, from the four areas identified in Section 7.2.4 as requiring targeted remediation to achieve short-term PRGs in all of the rolling 3-mile reaches, including re-calculation of the SWACs based on pre-design data collected around COR-11 and KRSD-03. Figure 7.6 depicts the areas were dredging would be performed. To control dredging residuals anticipated in the dredge prism (due in part to difficult dredging conditions associated with the presence of hard bottom material (hard pan clay and bedrock) and debris in these areas), caps would be constructed in the dredge area to achieve the 0.01 µg/kg SWAC PRG discussed in Section 6.3. MNR would be utilized for other areas of the Site. For this alternative, the dredge prism would be refined during remedial design using additional surface and subsurface sediment sampling. Given the presence of debris and hard bottom material (hard pan clay and bedrock) in the target dredge prism, dredging would likely be achieved using mechanical equipment. However, hydraulic dredging and associated dewatering (either by gravity or mechanical means), water treatment and discharge back to the River would be anticipated to result in incomplete sediment removal. Under Alternative 5A, dredged sediments would be disposed in a secure near-shore CDF constructed on the Former Flexsys Facility. Different combinations of these techniques may be suitable in different areas of the Site and the applicability of these methods will be evaluated and compared in the next section of the EE/CA Report. Figure 7.6, presents a conceptual representation of the environmental dredging process 031884 (51) 175 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and conceptual design of an on-Site CDF for Alternative 5A at the Site. Figure 7.7 presents a conceptual dredging cross-section. The implementability of an on-Site CDF is evaluated in the following sections. A CDF would be sited at an upland location on the Former Flexsys Facility. Similar to Alternative 2, this Alternative assumes that potential historic or ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled, along with control of other identified potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources in the study area. The Alternative also assumes that WVDEP, WVDNR, and/or the U.S. ACE will provide effective controls on coal recovery dredging through the permitting process. Similar to Alternative 4, engineering controls, monitoring, and best management practices would be in place during dredging and cap installation to minimize the resuspension of sediment and mobilization of contaminants during implementation. Monitoring and maintenance would be required as part of this Alternative, if capping of residuals is required, to ensure integrity of the cap and isolation of the COCs. Based on the conditions at the Site, which will make complete removal of impacted sediment unlikely, it has been assumed that 50-percent of the dredged area will require capping to achieve the post-dredging SWAC PRG, based on post-dredging verification sampling. The cap design is assumed to be the same as required under Alternative 4. Monitoring of fish tissue and surface water concentrations to evaluate recovery trends would also form part of Alternative 5. ICs would be required until the RAOs are achieved to minimize public risk of exposure during and after dredging activities and post-dredging verification sampling has been completed. 7.2.6 ALTERNATIVE 5B - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING IN SELECTED AREAS, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL This alternative is described in detail in Sections 7.1.7 and 7.1.8 and involves the same methods for achieving the RAOs as Alternative 5A. In this alternative, the sediment would be transported off-Site by truck, rail, and/or barge. The removed sediment would be disposed at an appropriately permitted disposal site in compliance with applicable regulations. Sediment removed by hydraulic dredging would require dewatering. In addition, potential staging and loading areas would need to be evaluated. A conceptual design of Alternative 5B is presented on Figure 7.8. Figure 7.7 presents a preliminary dredging cross-section. 031884 (51) 176 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.0 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 8.1 RECOVERY ANALYSIS The comparative evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of the RA alternatives was performed by performing screening-level recovery modeling of sediment transport and fish tissue bioaccumulation in the Site area. 50-year model simulations were performed to estimate changes in fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations associated with the implementation of each alternative. A number of assumptions were required by the model to accomplish this, including remedial technology performance based on available literature data, along with relevant Site-specific information. Evaluation metrics included time series plots of projected average fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the 3-mile reach which exhibited the highest SWAC (RM 42 to RM 39). It is important to note that the screening-level recovery modeling performed for this EE/CA was performed solely to develop comparative evaluations of the long-term effectiveness of the RA alternatives under a consistent set of assumptions. Actual recovery trajectories could deviate from these predictions if a different set of assumptions were to be used (e.g., source control effectiveness). The recovery analysis is described in the section below. Recovery trends within the River will vary between RA Alternatives based on the time frames for reductions in SWACs of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other factors. Post implementation SWACs will reflect reductions in surface sediment concentrations through capping (e.g., under Alternative 4), and potential increases/decreases in surface sediment concentrations due to dredging (including potential reductions due to capping of residuals, as required) (e.g., under Alternatives 5A and 5B). While more complex water column-based contaminant exposures may occur that are distinct from sediment transfer processes, the Site-specific BSAFs and other data collected during the EE/CA can be used to develop preliminary bounding-level estimates of anticipated recovery trends in fish tissue data, providing a comparative evaluation between RA alternatives. Preliminary BSAF calculations corresponding to existing conditions at the Site were based on the following average values: 031884 (51) • Measured sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC = 0.022 µg/kg (dry wt basis; see above) • Measured sediment TOC = 0.73 percent (dry wt basis) • Measured BSAF = 0.083 (TOC/lipid basis; based on gizzard shad data) • Measured mixed bass species fillet lipid = 1.1 percent (wet wt basis) 177 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The BSAF-derived estimate of average bass tissue fillet concentrations of 2.9 ng/kg in the 3-mile reach from RM 42 to RM 39 is comparable to measured 2004 concentrations in mixed bass of approximately 3.0 ng/kg collected in this same reach and is in the same range as the overall average bass tissue fillet concentrations (6.8 ng/kg) from 2008 sampling. This supports the representativeness of these calculations for use in comparative evaluations between RA alternatives. Existing bass tissue concentrations are currently very close to the risk-based PRG for the protection of human health of 5.09 ng/kg based on a cancer risk of 10-4 for the RME scenario, with 7 of the 10 samples collected in 2004 and 2008 having results below this concentration. Similarly, existing bass tissue concentrations are currently only slightly above the non-cancer risk level of 2.80 ng/kg based on a HQ of 1 for the RME scenario. These SWAC-BSAF calculations also provide further support for setting PRGs based on the 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC for each rolling 3-mile reach as a means to achieve target reductions in 2,3,7,8-TCDD fish tissue concentrations. As discussed in Section 7.1.4, the sediment transport model discussed in Section 4.4.7 was used to develop estimates of sediment deposition/transport and projected reductions in SWAC concentrations over time assuming that effective source controls are implemented within the basin. Using the Site-specific BSAF estimates and associated parameter estimates discussed in Section 4.4.2, the SWAC trend estimates were used to develop bounding-level projections of bass tissue fish concentrations over time within the Site area. The BSAF-based fish tissue projections provide a basis for comparative evaluations of the effectiveness of the different RA Alternatives given a consistent set of source control and recovery assumptions. The fish tissue projections are presented in Figure 8.1, and suggest that with effective watershed source controls, fish tissues may continue to decline by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 to 30 years under Alternative 2 (MNR). Accelerated recovery trends are predicted for Alternatives 3 and 4, based on the short-term SWAC reductions of bioavailable concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD following remedy implementation. Fish tissue concentrations under Alternative 5 (applicable to both Alternative 5A and 5B) are predicted to increase significantly during and shortly following dredging activities. This increase is typically observed in environmental dredging projects (e.g., see Bridges et al. 2008), due to the temporary increase in water column contaminant concentrations associated with dredging-induced contaminant resuspension and release, which cannot be effectively controlled even by employing best management practices and silt curtains. The predicted short-term increase in fish tissue concentrations associated with the resuspension and release of contaminants from dredging results in a retarded recovery timeframe as compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. 031884 (51) 178 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.2 ALTERNATIVE 1- NO ACTION The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is retained as a baseline alternative for comparison purposes consistent with U.S. EPA guidance. The scope of this Alternative is as described in Section 7.1.1. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 8.2.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 1 Alternative 1 has no active implementation or monitoring components which would contribute to meeting the RAOs. 8.2.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 1 Alternative 1 involves no activity and is considered to be implementable; however, it provides no monitoring to determine its ability to meet the RAOs. 8.2.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 1 There is no capital or Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring (OMM) cost associated with Alternative 1. 8.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MNR Alternative 2 involves the combination of the River's naturally occurring processes to reduce the concentration and mobility of contaminants with institutional controls to reduce the concentration of bioavailable 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Site. This reduction in bioavailable 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations will result in reductions in fish tissue concentrations over time as generally depicted on Figure 8.1, and corresponding reductions in human health and ecological risks within the Study Area. The remedy assumes source control activities completed and planned to be completed by Solutia for the Former Flexsys Facility. The components of these source control activities are identified on Figure 7.1. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 031884 (51) 179 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Key components of the source control activities include: • Installation of a new storm drainage system and abandonment of the old system • Consolidation of material with elevated concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in an area with an impermeable cover • Installation of clean cover over the property (portions of the Former Flexsys Facility will have permeable cover, and other portions will have impermeable cover) • Bank stabilization ICs will be implemented on the Former Flexsys Facility to protect the integrity of the source control measures. In addition, an IC to prevent future coal recovery or aggregate recovery dredging in the study area is necessary to ensure the natural recovery process is not slowed or reversed by the re-introduction 2,3,7,8,-TCDD which is buried, and not bioavailable into surface sediments and the water column. Fish tissue and water sampling will be performed to monitor recovery of the River and the efficiency of MNR in reducing the concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish tissue and surface water over an approximate 30-year period. Under Alternative 2, long-term surface sediment monitoring would also be performed to verify that the 0.01 µg/kg SWAC PRG is achieved. (Note that this is the only RA Alternative requiring long-term sediment monitoring. Long-term sediment monitoring is not required for the other Alternatives that use active measures to achieve the SWAC-based PRG.). 8.3.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 2 Since MNR relies on the effective control of sources and natural burial processes of the River sediments, the effectiveness of MNR is dependent on the reliability of source control measures and the declines in surface (bioavailable) sediment concentrations over time, as cleaner sediment is deposited over, and mixed with existing surface sediments. The use of ICs increases the effectiveness of MNR by reducing disturbances to the sediment bed due to human interference and by limiting fish consumption during the recovery period through fish advisories. This Alternative would require that ICs remain in place indefinitely. Implementing MNR is not expected to reduce concentrations below risk levels immediately. The recovery rate is dependent on numerous factors including 2,3,7,8-TCDD contributions from sources upstream of the Site, the number and timing of high flow events (which could potentially scour sediments from erosional 031884 (51) 180 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES areas, potentially exposing underlying sediments with higher 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in localized areas), and the lifespan and home ranges of fish species in the River. As identified in Section 8.1, MNR is a process which occurs over a period of years. However, this process has been ongoing since the time of cessation of 2,4,5-T production and has been augmented by source control measures implemented in the past. Historic coal recovery dredging activities are believed to have significantly limited or reversed natural recovery rates temporarily by re-introducing 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the surface sediments and water column. Alternative 2 would have low short-term effectiveness but moderate long-term effectiveness. The long-term effectiveness of this alternative will be monitored through the periodic collection of fish tissue and surface water data over a period of approximately 30 years to verify the general recovery trajectory depicted on Figure 8.1. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of Alternative 2 is dependent on the effectiveness of source control activities, including activities at the Former Flexsys Facility discussed in Section 7.1.3. The implementation of these measures for the Former Flexsys Facility will be completed prior to implementation of the Kanawha River Removal Action. The risks due to human interference to the areas of MNR can be controlled through the implementation and enforcement of ICs. A limiting factor in the natural recovery process will be the 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading from upstream (i.e., upstream of RM 45) sediments and surface water. Uncertainty in the effectiveness of this Alternative is associated with the pattern of River flows. Certain areas of the Study Area become erosional under high flow events but are depositional in lower flow periods. Extended periods of low flow can allow additional deposition, accelerating the recovery of surface sediments, while large storm events can erode sediments from these areas, potentially exposing localized areas of higher concentration sediment. Monitoring and adaptive management (including potential contingency actions as appropriate) would be used to ensure that desired risk reductions occur over time. 8.3.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 2 The implementation of Alternative 2 does not require any special materials or methods which would impact the potential implementability of Alternative 2. A number of items must be considered as part of the design to ensure source control implementation is completed prior to baseline sampling and ensure the implementability of institutional 031884 (51) 181 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES controls, particularly the dredging restriction which requires the involvement of the U.S. ACE and WV DEP. There are no permits required or compliance issues expected with implementing this alternative. There will be no disruption to the River sediment and ecosystem and no construction of infrastructure is required. Fish tissue sampling will require a scientific collector's permit be issued for each event. Surface water sampling events will require coordination with U.S. ACE as the sampling boat will need to anchor at various locations within the navigation channel during sample collection. The implementation of institutional controls associated with dredging, specifically to prevent coal recovery or aggregate recovery dredging on the River is contingent on U.S. ACE and WV DEP concurrence that such controls are necessary. Should U.S. ACE and WV DEP permit such activities, the potential exists to re-mobilize buried sediment with 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the water column. Control of re-mobilization of stable sediments is critical to the natural recovery process at the Site. An inability to institute such a control restricting dredging could reduce, or reverse the natural recovery process at the Site. Implementation of Alternative 2 will not change River use or function, with the exception of the restriction on coal recovery dredging. As such, no significant issues with public acceptance or State acceptance are anticipated. The remedy will also involve the collection of data documenting fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. This data will be provided to the State and may be useful to the State in evaluating the fish consumption advisory levels for the River. 8.3.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 2 The capital cost of Alternative 2 is $686,000 associated with the implementation of ICs and baseline sampling. The 30-year net present worth including OMM is $1,692,000. Table 8.2 presents a detailed cost estimate for this alternative. Baseline and ongoing sampling include the collection of fish tissue and surface water data. The estimated cost for each monitoring event is $433,000. The baseline and ongoing sampling programs will be developed as part of the detailed design. 031884 (51) 182 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, IN SITU TREATMENT, AND MNR Alternative 3 involves the combination of the processes and ICs described in Alternative 2 with additional measures to accelerate the River's naturally occurring processes to achieve the RAOs at the Site. Specifically, the treatment of sediment in the area of elevated surface sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration with activated carbon will be completed. 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbs strongly to the activated carbon, reducing bioavailability. Figure 7.3 identifies the components of the Alternative 3. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 8.4.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 3 In situ treatment would be implemented in areas where elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were detected in surface sediments. The area of in situ treatment is approximately 5.9 acres and is shown on Figure 7.3. These areas include the area adjacent and immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility including sample location COR-39 and sediment in the vicinity of sample location COR-36 (upstream of the I-64 bridge on the bank opposite the Former Flexsys Facility). In situ treatment increases the effectiveness of MNR as described for Alternative 2 by immediately reducing bioavailable surface sediment concentrations in areas of higher concentration. Figure 7.3 depicts the areas where in situ treatment would be implemented under Alternative 3, based on results of surface sediment sampling. As identified in Section 8.1, in situ treatment under Alternative 3 would result in an increased natural recovery rate as compared to Alternative 2, particularly in the initial period of recovery. This is due to the immediate reduction in the amount of bioavailable 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Alternative 3 would have high short-term effectiveness and higher long-term effectiveness than Alternative 2. Consistent with the results of the Grasse River ACPS (see Section 7.1.5; http://nepis.epa.gov/), little sediment resuspension is anticipated during activated carbon application. Following application of the activated carbon, core sampling would be completed to confirm that application rates, uniformity, and depth of penetration meet design criteria. 031884 (51) 183 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The long-term effectiveness of this alternative will be monitored through the periodic collection of fish tissue and surface water data. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of Alternative 3 is dependent on the effectiveness of source control activities, including activities at the Former Flexsys Facility discussed in Section 7.1.3. The implementation of these measures for the Former Flexsys Facility will be completed prior to implementation of the Kanawha River Removal Action. The risks due to human interference to the areas of MNR can be controlled though the implementation and enforcement of ICs. A limiting factor in the natural recovery process will be the 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading from upstream sediments and surface water. Uncertainty in the effectiveness of this Alternative is associated with the pattern of river flows. Certain areas of the Study Area become erosional in high flow events but are depositional in lower flow periods. Extended periods of low flow can allow additional deposition, accelerating the recovery of surface sediments, while large storm events can erode sediments and activated carbon from these areas, potentially exposing localized areas of higher concentration sediment, which have not been sequestered by the addition of activated carbon. Similar to Alternative 2, monitoring and adaptive management (including potential contingency actions as appropriate) would be used to ensure that desired risk reductions occur over time. In the event recovery in fish tissue concentrations plateaus at a concentration higher than an acceptable level, additional actions may be required to augment the recovery process. These items could include: • • Additional application of activated carbon to sequester 2,3,7,8-TCDD in sediment and make it less bioavailable. Application could be within areas previously treated or in additional areas. Identification of localized areas of elevated sediment 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration for additional control by capping (with armor layers as appropriate). These actions are readily implementable in future if necessary. 8.4.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 3 The implementation of Alternative 3 requires specialized equipment to apply the activated carbon. A number of methods and technologies for the application of activated carbon exist including proprietary and non-proprietary methods. As a number of alternatives exist for the application of the activated carbon, availability of 031884 (51) 184 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES equipment and materials are not anticipated to be an issue that would significantly impact the potential implementability of Alternative 3. A number of items must be considered as part of the design to ensure source control implementation is completed prior to baseline sampling and ensure the implementability of institutional controls, particularly the coal recovery dredging restriction as that requires the involvement of the U.S. ACE and WV DEP. The implementation of Alternative 3 would require a support area with river access for the staging of material and equipment. It is anticipated this support area would be located on the Former Flexsys Facility. No issues are anticipated regarding compliance with action-specific ARARs. Several ARARs will need to be considered during design and implementation; however, none are anticipated to reduce the implementability of Alternative 4. The design of the activated carbon addition must consider all U.S. ACE requirements for filling in the floodplain and navigational requirements. Due to the very limited volume of material to be placed, no measurable impact to flood elevations are anticipated. Coordination during activated carbon placement with U.S. ACE, Winfield Dam staff would be required as temporary encroachment on the navigational channel could be required for working barges. This is not anticipated to occur, but would be considered during design. Compliance with WV water quality certification standards would be required. Monitoring of the water column to confirm that downstream migration of re-suspended sediment has been controlled would be anticipated to be required. Habitat disruption during activated carbon addition placement would be limited to the area of treatment. The extent of habitat disruption and the mixing-in effectiveness of the activated carbon varies between application methods. These factors, in addition to implementation cost would be considered during detailed design to eliminate unacceptable methods of activated carbon addition. Fish tissue sampling will require that a scientific collector's permit be issued for each event. Surface water sampling events will require coordination with U.S. ACE as the sampling boat will need to anchor at various locations within the navigation channel during sample collection. The implementation of institutional controls associated with dredging, specifically to prevent coal recovery or aggregate recovery dredging on the River is contingent on U.S. ACE and WV DEP concurrence that such controls are necessary. Should U.S. ACE and WV DEP permit such activities, the potential exists to re-mobilize buried sediment with 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the water column. Control of re-mobilization of stable sediments is critical to the natural recovery process at the Site. An inability to institute 031884 (51) 185 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES such a control restricting dredging could reduce, or reverse the natural recovery process at the Site. Implementation of Alternative 3 will not change River use or function, with the exception of the restriction on coal recovery dredging. As such, no issues with public acceptance or State acceptance are anticipated. The remedy will also involve the collection of data documenting fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. These data will be provided to the State and may be useful to the State in evaluating the fish consumption advisory levels for the River. 8.4.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 3 The capital cost of Alternative 3 is $2,029,000 associated with the implementation of institutional controls, activated carbon addition, and baseline sampling. The 30-year net present worth including OMM is $3,035,000. Table 8.3 presents a detailed cost estimate for this alternative. Baseline and ongoing sampling include the collection of fish tissue and surface water data. The estimated cost for each monitoring event is $433,000. The baseline and ongoing sampling programs will be developed as part of the detailed design. 8.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, AND ARMORED CAPPING OF SELECTED AREAS Alternative 4 involves the combination of the processes and measures described in Alternative 2 with additional measure to isolate areas of elevated concentration in the River adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility, across the River from the Former Flexsys Facility. The area of cap placement is approximately 9.39 acres and is shown on Figure 7.4. These areas include the area adjacent and immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility including sample location COR-39, sediment in the vicinity of sample location COR-36 (upstream of the I-64 bridge on the bank opposite the Former Flexsys Facility), sediment in the vicinity of COR-21/COR-22, and an area near RM 31 at historic sample locations RIV8/9/10. Cap placement is entirely outside of the navigational channel for the River being either outside the horizontal extents of the channel, or below the depth of navigation within the channel. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 031884 (51) 186 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The cap design in the area adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility will be integrated with bank stabilization activities that have been completed by Solutia for the Former Flexsys Facility, as described in Section 7.1.3. The conceptual cap profile (see Figure 7.5) includes from bottom to top, a 6-inch sand layer to provide a barrier between the impacted sediment and potential receptors, and where appropriate, an armor stone layer with a thickness of at least twice the average (D 50 ) particle size. For the purpose of the EE/CA evaluation, it was assumed that the entire cap area will be armored. The selection of armor stone gradation will be finalized in detailed design. The USACE Huntington District office has identified materials in common usage for bank armoring. Two materials have been identified, which USACE identifies as 9-inch rip rap and 15-inch rip rap. The selection of the preferred material and the depth of placement below the water line will be reviewed and finalized in consultation with USACE as part of the detailed design. Relatively large-sized armor materials may be required for areas adjacent to existing dock facilities or in shallow (less than 4-foot water depth) areas, as these areas may experience higher scour velocities and wave action. For the purposes of evaluation of the Removal Action Alternatives, all capped areas were assumed to be armored using the 9-inch rip rap identified by USACE and approved for use as part of the bank stabilization activities at the Former Flexsys Facility. Detailed design would be completed in accordance with U.S. EPA and USACE guidance documents and in consultation with USACE. The armor design will be modified as appropriate to reflect areas of higher or lower shear stress, wave action, prop wash, or risk of damage. Final extent of cap placement and rock size selection will be completed as part of detailed design. Final design will be based on water depth, average River current (shear stress), River current under flood conditions, wave action and boat traffic. Solutia completed the bank stabilization activities required by the RCRA CA Program. In addition to baseline, and periodic, fish tissue and surface water sampling to monitor recovery of the River, additional maintenance would be required as part of this Alternative to ensure integrity of the cap and isolation of the underlying material. Institutional controls including the Waterway Use Restrictions IC would be required ensure the long-term integrity of the cap. 031884 (51) 187 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.5.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 4 Capping of the area of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the area adjacent to the Former Facility would provide an immediate and permanent reduction in the mobility of underlying impacted sediments and surface weighted average concentration of sediments within the Site. An estimated reduction in SWAC concentration across the Site area of over 50 percent would be realized immediately following cap placement The reduction in SWAC would support and be expected to accelerate continued natural recovery trends in the River by reducing concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in bioavailable sediment. Recovery would be most rapid in prey fish (e.g., gizzard shad) which have a limited home range and limited life-span. The recovery in sport fish and bottom feeders would require a longer period of time to become evident due to the longer lifespan of the target fish and the existing 2,3,7,8-TCDD body burden of fish developed under pre-RA implementation conditions. The most significant human health risks are associated with fish consumption from the River. Risks under existing conditions were identified to be slightly outside of the 10-4 to 10-6 target excess cancer risk range, and above 1 for non-cancer risk under certain consumption scenarios, utilizing the risk assumptions presented in Section 5.1.5. A reduction in fish tissue concentrations of approximately 60-percent would reduce all risks to within the U.S. EPA acceptable ranges for cancer and non-cancer risks, based on the HHRA presented in Section 5.1.7. This reduction would be anticipated to occur as a result of natural recovery processes (Section 8.1) in the River, however; the immediate SWAC reduction resulting from capping would be anticipated to accelerate the process. Alternative 4 would have high short-term and long-term effectiveness. Worker contact with impacted materials would not be required as work would be completed from the bank or barges, with material being placed through the water column and tracked carefully to confirm cap placement. During implementation, short-term effectiveness will be ensured through the implementation of engineering controls and utilizing best management practices in the placement of cap materials. Engineering controls could potentially include silt curtains to minimize transport of re-suspended sediment downstream. Turbidity monitoring outside of the curtain could be completed to confirm sediment re-suspension has been minimized. Cap material placement methods would be employed to minimize sediment re-suspension. Such practices would include scheduling work to be completed during periods where low flows are typical, selecting sand cap material which has minimal fine-grained (silt/clay) particles, and lowering armor stone through the water column to minimize disturbance of underlying material. 031884 (51) 188 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A limited amount of material and equipment would need to be brought to the Site. No unusual transportation or construction methods would be required; therefore, risks to workers completing these activities should be readily defined and controlled. The remaining components associated with implementation of Alternative 4 (institutional controls and baseline monitoring for natural recovery) would not impact short-term effectiveness. The long-term effectiveness of this remedy will be monitored through the periodic collection of fish tissue and surface water data, including a baseline sampling event, and periodic inspection of the cap to confirm its integrity. The long-term effectiveness and permanence of Alternative 4 is dependent on the effectiveness of source control activities (including activities at the Former Flexsys Facility discussed in Section 7.1.3), and cap integrity continuing to isolate the impacted material from potential receptors. The implementation of these measures for the Former Flexsys Facility will be completed prior to implementation of the Kanawha River Removal Action. Cap repairs would be made if necessary based on inspections. The risks to cap integrity are minimal. Modeling of anticipated shear stresses in the River will be utilized to select appropriately sized armor stone to resist scour. Due to the Site location, ice scour is not anticipated to be a risk for damaging the cap. Wave action and prop wash will be accounted for in the design and may result in larger and/or thicker armoring in some areas. Placement of necessary armoring will not interfere with navigation as the majority of the cap placement is outside the navigation channel. The potential exists for damage to the cap from hulls of barges or boats that may enter the shoreline area. In the event this occurs, damage would be localized and easily repaired. 8.5.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 4 The implementation of Alternative 4 does not require any special materials or methods which would impact the potential implementability of Alternative 4. A number of items must be considered as part of the design to ensure coordination with source control activities, achievement of RAO, and implementability of ICs. No issues are anticipated regarding compliance with action-specific ARARs. Several ARARs will need to be considered during design and implementation; however, none are anticipated to reduce the implementability of Alternative 4. The design of the cap must consider all substantive U.S. ACE requirements for filling in the floodplain and navigational requirements. As the normal pool elevation of the River within the areas to be capped is controlled by the Winfield Dam, no impact to normal pool elevation would 031884 (51) 189 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES result. Due to cap placement below normal pool elevation, no impact to flood storage or flood elevation is anticipated; however modeling would be completed as part of detailed design to confirm that the increase in flood elevation associated with the 100-year flood is below the U.S. ACE criteria (0.1-foot). Coordination during cap placement with U.S. ACE, Winfield Dam staff would be required as temporary encroachment on the navigational channel could be required for working barges. This is not anticipated to occur, but would be considered during design. Compliance with WV water quality certification standards would be required. Monitoring of the water column to confirm that downstream migration of re-suspended sediment has been controlled would be anticipated to be required. Habitat disruption during cap placement should be limited to the area of cap placement. Fish tissue sampling will require a scientific collector's permit be issued for each event. Surface water sampling events will require coordination with U.S. ACE as the sampling boat will need to anchor at various locations within the navigation channel during sample collection. The implementation of ICs associated with dredging, specifically to prevent coal recovery or aggregate recovery dredging on the River is contingent on U.S. ACE and WV DEP concurrence that such controls are necessary. Should U.S. ACE and WV DEP permit such activities, the potential exists to re-mobilize buried sediment with 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the water column, and dredging in capped areas would damage the cap, and re-mobilize impacted sediments. Control of re-mobilization of stable sediments is critical to the natural recovery process at the Site. An inability to institute such a control restricting coal recovery dredging could reduce, or reverse the natural recovery process at the Site. Implementation of Alternative 4 provides active remediation of key sediment deposits to augment the natural recovery rates of fish in the River. No change to River use or function, with the exception of the restriction on coal recovery dredging will occur. As such, no issues with public acceptance or State acceptance are anticipated. The remedy will also involve the collection of data documenting fish tissue and surface water 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. These data will be provided to the State and may be useful to the State in evaluating the fish consumption advisory levels for the River. 031884 (51) 190 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.5.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 4 The capital cost of Alternative 4 is $7,109,000. The 30-year net present worth including OMM is $8,158,000. Table 8.4 presents a detailed cost estimate for this alternative. Fish tissue and surface water baseline, and periodic monitoring is based on implementing the monitoring program as identified in Alternatives 2 and 3. The estimated cost for each monitoring event is $433,000. The uncertainty associated with the cost of implementing this alternative is minimal as the costs for the materials necessary for cap construction are established and stable. Variation in implementation cost will vary based primarily on the aerial extent and armor stone thickness of the final cap design, and any cost savings which may be realized by coordinating cap construction with bank stabilization activities at the Former Flexsys Facility. 8.6 ALTERNATIVE 5A - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF Alternative 5A involves the combination of MNR and institutional controls described in Alternative 2 with additional removal of sediments via dredging from areas of higher concentration in the River. Specifically, the areas to be dredged under this alternative total approximately 9.39 acres. These areas include the area adjacent and immediately downstream of the Former Flexsys Facility including sample location COR-39 and sediment in the vicinity of sample location COR-36 (upstream of the I-64 bridge on the bank opposite the Former Flexsys Facility). Hydraulic or mechanical dredging would be utilized with dewatering of the sediment either by gravity or mechanically. The water would then be treated and discharged back to the River and sediments disposed of in a CDF constructed on the Former Flexsys Facility. The location of the dewatering area and CDF are presented on Figure 7.6. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 8.6.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 5A Dredging of areas of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in the area adjacent to and across from the Former Flexsys Facility would provide an immediate and permanent reduction in the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the river. However due to the physical configuration of the sideslopes of the River in the areas to be dredged, including rock 031884 (51) 191 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES outcrops and the likelihood of significant vegetative and other debris from decades of industrial use of the River, the potential effectiveness of dredging for the removal of all targeted sediment is limited. An increase in SWAC concentration across the Site area would be anticipated immediately following dredging due to resuspension of impacted sediments during dredging. The increase in SWAC would disrupt the ongoing natural recovery trends in the River by increasing concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in bioavailable sediment and the water column. This would be anticipated to result in an approximate doubling of fish tissue concentrations following dredging (Figure 8.1). A recovery period of 5 to 10 years would be required for fish tissue concentrations to approach levels anticipated under Alternative 4. Significant residuals (up to 10 percent of the contaminant mass targeted for dredging; see Patmont and Palermo 2007) are expected to remain that cannot be effectively removed, or which result from resuspension during dredging. Based on the evaluation framework presented in Patmont and Palermo (2007), the presence of sediments at depth with significantly higher concentrations than surface sediments will likely result in post-dredging surface sediment concentrations that are more than 10 times higher than current pre-dredging conditions, requiring the placement of a cap to achieve the SWAC PRG. The design of the cap would follow the same performance criteria described for Alternative 4. In addition to the potential for post-dredge SWACs to require the additional placement of a cap, resuspension of sediments during dredging will result in a short-term spike in fish tissue concentrations retarding the natural recovery trends, as discussed in Section 8.1. Sediment that has been dredged and dewatered will be placed in a containment cell constructed on the Former Flexsys Facility. If necessary based on the physical strength of the dewatered sediment, the sediment may be stabilized prior to placement to ensure stability of the disposal cell. The final location and configuration of the cell would be determined as part of the detailed design; however, the anticipated area for the CDF is identified on Figure 7.6. The CDF would be developed on a portion of the former Flexsys Facility and coordinated with and approved under the RCRA CA process at the Former Flexsys Facility. The Facility would be anticipated to be designed generally consistent with RCRA Subtitle C requirements to include a double containment liner system with leachate collection and leak detection, and a low permeability cap. Perimeter groundwater monitoring would be completed utilizing the existing 031884 (51) 192 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES groundwater monitoring network at the facility to the extent possible. Additional wells would be installed as necessary. The most significant Human Health Risks are associated with fish consumption from the River. Risks under existing conditions were identified to be slightly outside of the 10-4 to 10-6 target excess cancer risk range, and above 1 for non-cancer risk under certain consumption scenarios, utilizing the risk assumptions presented in Section 5.1.5. A reduction in fish tissue concentrations of approximately 60 percent would reduce all risks to within the U.S. EPA acceptable ranges for cancer and non-cancer risks, based on the HHRA presented in Section 5.1.7. However, the recovery of the fish tissue concentrations would be delayed by a short-term spike in fish tissue concentrations resulting from resuspension of impacted sediment during dredging (Figure 8.1). Alternative 5A would have low short-term effectiveness. Long-term effectiveness is primarily dependent on the extent of the rise in fish tissue concentrations resulting from dredge re-suspension during implementation as well as residual surface sediment concentrations. These impacts cannot be predicted definitively; however, experience gained from other projects has been utilized to evaluate recovery trends following dredging as discussed in Section 8.1. As generally depicted on Figure 8.1, fish tissue concentrations under Alternative 5 (applicable to both Alternative 5A and 5B), are predicted to increase significantly during and shortly following dredging activities. The predicted short-term increase in fish tissue concentrations associated with the resuspension and release of contaminants from dredging results in a retarded recovery timeframe as compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. Worker exposure to impacted materials is more likely during dredging, dewatering and placement activities. During implementation, short-term impacts will be controlled as practicable through the implementation of engineering controls and utilizing best management practices in dredging and the placement of cap materials (if necessary). Engineering controls would include silt curtains to minimize transport of re-suspended sediment downstream. Turbidity monitoring outside of the curtain could be completed to confirm sediment re-suspension has been minimized. Dredging best practices, such as limiting the depth of cut, temporarily ceasing work in high flow events, and using cap material placement best practices would be employed to minimize sediment re-suspension. However, as discussed in Section 8.1 fish tissue concentrations under Alternative 5 (applicable to both Alternative 5A and 5B) are predicted to increase significantly during and shortly following dredging activities. This is due to the temporary increase in water column contaminant concentrations associated with dredging-induced contaminant resuspension and release, which cannot be effectively controlled even by employing best management practices and silt curtains. The 031884 (51) 193 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES likelihood of disrupting, and temporarily reversing the ongoing recovery trends in fish tissue recovery, limit the benefit of this remedy. Dredging will require specialized equipment for dredging and dewatering to be brought to the Site. Risks to workers completing Alternative 5A work activities should be readily defined and controlled. The remaining components associated with implementation of Alternative 5A (ICs and baseline monitoring for natural recovery) would not impact short-term effectiveness. The long-term effectiveness of this remedy will be monitored through the periodic collection of fish tissue and surface water data, including a baseline sampling event, and periodic inspection of the cap (if installed) to confirm its integrity. Periodic inspection and groundwater monitoring of the CDF would be completed as well as leachate removal and off-Site disposal (as needed). The long-term effectiveness and permanence of Alternative 5A is dependent on the effectiveness of source control activities (including activities at the Former Facility discussed in Section 7.1.3), the ability to control dredge re-suspension and residual concentrations, and cap integrity continuing to isolate the impacted material from potential receptors (if capping is required). The implementation of these measures for the Former Flexsys Facility will be completed prior to implementation of the Kanawha River Removal Action. Residuals are defined as contaminated sediment that remains at the post-dredging surface either within or adjacent to the dredging footprint, and can be broadly grouped into two categories: • Undisturbed residuals: consolidated or intact contaminated sediments found at the post-dredging sediment surface that have been uncovered by dredging but not fully removed • Generated residuals: contaminated post-dredging disturbed surface sediments that are dislodged or suspended by the dredging operation and are subsequently redeposited on the bottom of the water body No dredging technology can remove every particle of contaminated sediment and all dredging operations leave some residual contaminated sediment, particularly generated residuals. The nature and extent of generated residuals are related to sediment geotechnical and geophysical characteristics, the variability in contaminant distributions, and physical site conditions such as the presence of bedrock, hardpan, 031884 (51) 194 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES debris, or other obstructions. The cross-sections illustrate the irregularities identified on the river bank and river bottom areas from detailed geophysical surveys. Due to the presence of bedrock and irregularities in the bottom immediately underlying contaminated sediments and presence of debris at the Site, and based on comparisons with literature values (Bridges et al., 2010), at least 6 percent of the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD that would be dredged in the last production cut (e.g., from COR-36 and COR-39) would be anticipated to remain at the post-dredge surface as a generated residual layer, with concentrations one to two orders of magnitude higher than current surface sediment conditions. The assumption regarding the mass of 2,3,7,8-TCDD residual is based on data from other environmental dredging projects which provide useful data regarding dredge residuals. The referenced article (Bridges et al., 2010) presents a summary of information compiled from case studies completed on 12 well documented projects. These projects represent a range of project sizes, sediment characteristics, dredging methods, slopes, and bottom materials. Generated residual masses measured on these projects varied from 1 percent to 11 percent with the presence of debris or rock/hardpan resulting in higher generated residuals. In addition to the mass of generated dredge residuals, the post-dredging surface sediment concentration is also affected by the dredging conditions, with up a 40-fold increase in post-dredge surficial sediment concentrations observed at sites, depending on site conditions. EPA's Office of Research and Development conducted a detailed study to assess dredging residuals at the Ashtabula River site in Ohio. Dredging at the site was completed by EPA under the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO). Within the study area, a 9.5-fold increase in surface concentrations were observed following dredging, even following a cleanup pass by the dredge. This information is presented in the Field Study of Environmental Dredging Residuals: Ashtabula River, Volume 1, Final Report, September 2010 (EPA/600/R-10/126). Section 3.3.2 of this report identified that "the post-dredged surface sediment PCB concentrations were higher than the pre-dredge concentrations for similar evaluations at 28 of the 30 locations." As discussed in the attached IEAM article, similar results have been reported at numerous environmental dredging sites. The inevitability of dredging-related releases residuals and their influence on risk has been increasingly recognized over the last decade. It is also understood that these processes affect the magnitude, distribution, and bioavailability of the contaminants, and also control exposure/risk recovery trends for receptors of concern. EPA recognizes this limitation on dredging effectiveness in its Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites (EPA-540-R-05-012, December 2005). This 031884 (51) 195 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES document states on page 29 that "A well designed and well placed cap should more quickly reduce the exposure of fish and other biota to contaminated sediment as compared to dredging, as there should be no, or very little contaminant residual on the surface of the cap." Cap repairs would be made if necessary based on inspections. The risks to cap integrity are minimal. Modeling of anticipated shear stresses in the River will be utilized to select appropriately sized armor stone to resist scour. Due to the Site location, ice scour is not anticipated to be a risk for damaging the cap. Wave action and prop wash will be accounted for in the design and may result in larger and/or thicker armoring in some areas. Placement of necessary armoring will not interfere with navigation as cap placement is mostly outside the navigation channel. Figures 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8 identify the navigational sailing line and navigational channel of the Site. The potential exists for damage to the cap from hulls of barges or boats utilizing the river. In the event this occurs, damage would be localized and easily repaired. 8.6.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 5A The implementation of Alternative 5A requires specialty dredging and dewatering equipment; however, this equipment should be readily available. A number of items must be considered as part of the design to ensure coordination with source control activities, achievement of RAOs, and implementability of ICs. Scheduling of dredging activities in the area adjacent to the Former Flexsys Facility should be coordinated with the ongoing RCRA CA at the Facility to ensure all necessary source control activities are completed. Implementation of Alternative 5A requires compliance with the largest number of action-specific ARARs. Several ARARs will need to be considered during design and implementation; however, none are expected to preclude the implementation of Alternative 5A. Dredging activities, and capping if necessary, will be required to comply with U.S. ACE dredging and filling requirements, navigational requirements, and WV DEP water quality certification requirements. The completion of all work outside the navigational channel should simplify the U.S. ACE review and approval process. CDF siting and design activities will need to be coordinated with the ongoing RCRCA CA at the Former Flexsys Facility, and be approved under the Removal Action Program as part of this Project. Preliminary discussions with WV DEP RCRA staff for the Former Flexsys Facility indicated that the siting of the CDF on the Former Flexsys 031884 (51) 196 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Facility is an acceptable concept. Formal approval should be obtained prior to any decision to select this Alternative 5A. Compliance with a NPDES discharge permit standards for discharge of treated water from the dewatering of sediment will be required. Air monitoring during dewatering and placement activities would be anticipated to monitor worker exposure and potential exposure to off-Site receptors. Monitoring of the water column to confirm that downstream migration of re-suspended sediment during dredging and capping has been controlled would be anticipated to be required. Habitat disruption during dredging and cap placement should be limited to the area of dredging and areas immediately downstream. Mitigation, if required, could be completed above the cap or in adjacent areas. Fish tissue sampling will require a scientific collector's permit be issued for each event. Surface water sampling events will require coordination with U.S. ACE as the sampling boat will need to anchor at various locations within the navigation channel during sample collection. The implementation of ICs associated with future dredging, specifically to prevent coal recovery or aggregate recovery dredging on the River is contingent on U.S. ACE and WV DEP concurrence that such controls are necessary. Should U.S. ACE and WV DEP permit such activities, the potential exists to re-mobilize buried sediment with 2,3,7,8-TCDD into the water column, and dredging in capped areas would damage the cap, and re-mobilize impacted sediments. Control of re-mobilization of stable sediments is critical to the natural recovery process at the Site. An inability to institute such a control restricting coal recovery dredging could reduce, or reverse the natural recovery process at the Site. Implementation of Alternative 5A provides active remediation of key sediment deposits to remove contaminant mass. No change to River use or function, with the exception of the restriction on dredging will occur. As such, no issues with public acceptance or State acceptance are anticipated. Coordination of activities between the CERCLA RA and RCRA CA programs will require additional effort in the development of a detailed design and during implementation of this Alternative 5A. The remedy will also involve the collection of data documenting fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. This data will be provided to the State and may be useful to the State in evaluating the fish consumption advisory levels for the River. 031884 (51) 197 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.6.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 5A The capital cost of Alternative 5A is $24,582,000. The 30-year net present worth including OMM is $26,020,000. Table 8.5 presents a detailed cost estimate for this alternative. Fish tissue baseline, and periodic monitoring is based on implementing the monitoring program as identified in Alternatives 2 and 3. The estimated cost for each monitoring event is $433,000. Annual monitoring and maintenance costs for the CDF are estimated to be approximately $22,000 per year. The uncertainty associated with the cost of implementing this Alternative is significant as dredging and dewatering costs are highly variable based on sediment characteristics, the physical conditions of the dredge area, and the presence of debris. 8.7 ALTERNATIVE 5B - INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL This Alternative 5B involves the same methods for achieving the RAOs as Alternative 5A; however, in this alternative sediment would be transported for off-Site disposal rather than being disposed in an on-Site CDF. The dredged sediment would be dewatered, loaded on trucks, and transported to a licensed landfill for disposal in compliance with applicable regulations. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the evaluation of Alternatives. 8.7.1 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION EFFECTIVENESS – ALTERNATIVE 5B The effectiveness of Alternative 5B is equivalent to Alternative 5A, except that no on-Site disposal facility is required. Based on available data, the sediments are not considered RCRA hazardous waste; however, some landfills are reluctant to accept dioxin containing materials. This may increase the haul distance and related cost associated with implementation of this Alternative. The transport of dewatered sediments to an off-Site facility for disposal increases the potential for traffic accidents due to significantly increased truck traffic as compared to all other Alternatives. No additional issues with the loading or transport of materials to a commercial landfill are anticipated. 031884 (51) 198 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 8.7.2 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION IMPLEMENTABILITY – ALTERNATIVE 5B The implementability of Alternative 5B is equivalent to Alternative 5A, except that the elimination of the on-Site CDF would be anticipated to eliminate a number of necessary approvals and simplify coordination between the CERCLA and RCRA projects. 8.7.3 EVALUATION OF REMOVAL ACTION COST – ALTERNATIVE 5B The capital cost of Alternative 5B is $40,051,000. The 30-year net present worth including OMM is $41,100,000. Table 8.6 presents a detailed cost estimate for this alternative. Fish tissue baseline and periodic monitoring is based on implementing the monitoring program as identified in Alternatives 2 and 3. The estimated cost for each monitoring event is $433,000. The uncertainty associated with the cost of implementing this Alternative is significant as dredging and dewatering costs are highly variable based on sediment characteristics, the physical conditions of the dredge area, and the presence of debris. Disposal costs also vary significantly with market demand which can significantly impact Project cost. 031884 (51) 199 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 9.0 PREFERRED REMEDY SELECTION Based on the evaluation presented in Section 8.0, and summarized on Table 8.1, for the Removal Action Alternatives, Alternative 4 – Institutional Controls, Monitored Natural Recovery, and Limited Armored Capping has been identified as the preferred remedy. Alternative 1 was rejected as it does not provide any reduction in 2,3,7,8-TCDD loading or bioavailability, and provides no means of monitoring its effectiveness. Alternatives 2 and 3 were both considered effective in reducing sediment and fish tissue concentration over time in a cost-effective manner. Alternative 2 provided the lowest cost acceptable remedy. Alternative 3 provides a slightly accelerated natural recovery trend without significant additional cost by reducing the bioavailability of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD in activated carbon treated sediments. However, both Alternatives 2 and 3 had higher levels of uncertainty related to the potential for localized re-exposure of elevated concentration 2,3,7,8-TCDD resulting from high flow events in the River. In particular, the area around COR-39, near the upstream limit of the Former Flexsys Facility, and COR-36 (across the River from the Facility) are subject to potential erosion during high flow events. The potential for localized higher exposure and increased risk of future additional actions makes these alternatives less desirable than Alternative 4. Alternative 4 assumes that potential historic or ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources from the former Flexsys Facility have been controlled. Alternative 4 enhances the ongoing natural recovery trend through the implementation of Interim Measures for the former Flexsys Facility and the placement of a cap over the areas of sediment with elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations where modeling showed potential instability. The cap placement also provides an immediate and permanent reduction in the surface-weighted average concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, accelerating the natural recovery trend as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not result in the short-term increase in fish tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations as a result of sediment resuspension that would occur under the dredging Alternatives 5A and 5B. Thus, Alternative 4 would have a faster anticipated recovery trend than the dredging alternatives. In addition, Alternatives 5A and 5B would be expected to leave significant dredge residuals with surface 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations exceeding those currently at the Site, requiring capping of some or all of the dredged areas. No implementability issues are associated with Alternative 4. Capping materials are readily available and cap placement would not be limited by site conditions. As the majority of capping would be completed outside the navigation channel, or within the navigation channel at depths well below the required draft, cap thickness will not 031884 (51) 200 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES impact navigation. Dredging (Alternatives 5A and 5B) would be expected to be incomplete as rock outcrops along the banks would impede complete sediment removal. Incomplete removal and the dredge residuals resulting from normal dredging activities would be expected to result in significant portions of the areas to be dredged requiring capping. The higher capital and overall (Net Present Worth) costs for Alternative 4 as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 appear to be justified given the increased protectiveness and superior recovery trend offered by the addition of limited capping. Alternatives 5A and 5B are less effective than Alternative 4 due to the spike in fish tissue concentrations which will result from dredging and the limited effectiveness dredging will have in the River setting in mass removal (Figure 8.1). Alternatives 5A and 5B have significantly higher capital and overall costs than Alternative 4, while providing lower short-term protectiveness and equivalent or lower long-term protectiveness. While Alternatives 5A and 5B do provide some contaminant mass removal, no additional protectiveness results from this removal. Figure 9.1 compares the cost of each RA alternative with the projected average fish tissue concentration achieved within the next 30 years, consistent with reasonable maximum exposure assumptions used in the human health risk assessment (Section 5.1). The Figure 9.1 plot suggests that the incremental costs of implementing Alternatives 5A and 5B are substantial and disproportionate to the degree of protection that would be achieved, particularly relative to Alternatives 3 and 4. 9.1 PRE-DESIGN INVESTIGATION Additional data will be required to support detailed design of the preferred remedy. A Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan will be developed and submitted for review and approval following U.S EPA issuance of an Action Memoarandum selecting the remedy for the Site. The components of the Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan will include: 031884 (51) • Updated sediment bathymetry for areas to be capped • Additional surficial sampling (0-6 inches) in the COR-11 and KRSD-03 areas to provide sufficient data to determine the SWACs which include these areas • Additional sediment delineation data to refine and finalize the limits of the cap in areas to be capped. 201 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Field methods for the Pre-Design Investigation will be consistent with approved methods for the EOC Study. Identification of data requirements and the resulting sample locations will be presented in the Pre-Design Investigation Work Plan. Additional sampling will be conducted utilizing composite samples collected on a grid basis. The grid size, shape, and sampling frequency will vary in different areas based on the data needs, sampling location, the extent of existing information, and the size of the cap. 031884 (51) 202 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 10.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE 10.1 COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES Implementation of the selected remedy should be coordinated with the implementation of source control activities at the Former Flexsys Facility (completed as part of the RCRA CA) to ensure recontamination of areas which are addressed by the selected remedy does not occur. Should the selected remedy for the Site incorporate removal and consolidation of sediments on the Former Flexsys Facility, additional coordination of activities between the upland work and in-River work will be required to optimize efficiency and minimize potential short-term risks and constructability issues. 10.2 CURRENT RCRA CA SCHEDULE – FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY The RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility is being completed on a schedule which will result in source control measures being put in place prior to the River EE/CA implementation. A number of Interim Measures have been completed, including the completion of site cover systems and river bank armoring. Remaining activities at the Former Flexsys Facility associated with the RCRA CA are not anticipated to interfere with activities in the River as part of the River EE/CA implementation. The River EE/CA implementation would be anticipated to enter design in 2015 following completion of a legal instrument governing the implementation of the selected remedy. Dependent on the components of the selected remedy, field implementation would be anticipated to commence in 2016. Implementation of the River EE/CA would be expected to be completed in one construction season. A conceptual project schedule is presented on Figure 10.1. 031884 (51) 203 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 11.0 REFERENCES Anchor, 2004. Kanawha River Fish Tissue, Surface Water, and Sediment Sampling Rationale, Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Work Plan Addendum dated August 24, 2004. ARCADIS, 2000. Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., September 7, 2000. ARCADIS, 2001. Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis Addendum, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV, ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Millersville, Maryland. November 26, 2001. ATSDR, 1990. Health Consultation: Nitro Sanitation Landfill, Nitro, Kanawha County, West Virginia. Letter from Lynn C. Wilder, Environmental Health Scientist, Emergency Response and Consultation Branch (ERCs), Division of Health Assessment and Consultation (DHAC), ATSDR to Charles J. Walters, Public Health Advisor, ATSDR Regional Services, U.S. EPA Region III. August 17, 1990. ATSDR, 1998. Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, February, 1998. ASTDR, 2010. Review of May 2000 Expanded Site Inspection Data for Manila Creek Landfill. Available at: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=1133&pg=1 Bansidhar et al., 2001. Modeling and Monte Carlo Simulation of TCDD Transport in a River. Water Research, Volume 35, Issue 5, April 2001. Barber, T. R., D. J. Chappie, D. J. Duda, P. C. Fuchsman, and B. L. Finley, 1998. Using a spiked sediment bioassay to establish a no-effect concentration for dioxin exposure to the amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry 17: 420-424. Baron, L. A., B. E. Sample, and G. W. Suter II, 1999. Ecological risk assessment in a large river-reservoir: 5. Aerial insectivorous wildlife. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (18): 621-627. Beliveau, A. 2003. Concentrations of dioxin-like PCB congeners in unweathered Aroclors by HRGC/HRMS using EPA Method 1668A. Organohalogen Compounds: 61. 389-392. Belwood, J. and M. Fenton, 1976. Variation in the diet of Myotis lucifugus (Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 54: 1674-1678. Blankenship, A. L., D. P. Kay, M. J. Zwiernik, R. R. Holem, J. L. Newsted, M. Hecker, and J. P. Giesy, 2008. Toxicity reference values for mink exposed to 031884 (51) 204 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2,3,7,8-p-dioxin (TCDD) equivalents (TEQs). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 69: 325-349. Blasland, Bouck, & Lee (BBL), 2007. Table 5-4 Detected Site Soil OSS Parameter Constituent Summary. RFI Report Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and FMC Corporation. Bhavsar, S.P., A. Hayton, E.J. Reiner, D. A. Jackson, 2007. Estimating dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyl toxic equivalents from total polychlorinated biphenyl measurements in fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26: 1622-1628. Boudreau, B.P., 1997. York. Diagenetic Models and their Implementation, Springer, New Bridges, T.S., Ells, S., Hayes, D., Mount, D., Nadeau, S.C., Palermo, M.R., Patmont, C. and Schroeder, P, 2008. The Four Rs of Environmental Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. January, 2008. ERDC/EL TR-08-4. Bridges, T.S., Gustavson, K.E., Schroeder, P., Ells, S., Hayes, D., Nadeau, S.C., Palermo, M.R., and Patmont, C. 2010. Dredging Processes and Remedy Effectiveness: Relationship to the 4Rs of Environmental Dredging, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 6, No. 4., pp. 619-630. CalEPA, 2008. Cal EPA Toxicity Criteria Database, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. December 17, 2008. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp Casdorph, Mark, 1981. Site Inspection, Manila Creek, WV Division of Water Resources, WV Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV. Connolly, J., J. Quadrini, and L. McShea. 2007. Overview of the 2005 Grasse River Remedial Options Pilot Study. Presentation at the 4th International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, January 22-25, 2007, Savannah, GA. CRA, 2004. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Work Plan. April 6, 2004. CRA, 2005. Interim Report Phase I Extent of Contamination (EOC) Sampling Results and Updated Phase II EOC Sampling Work Plan. December 9, 2005. CRA, 2008. Phase II Extent of Contamination (EOC) Sampling Results Report. July 28, 2008. Craig, Paul M., 2005. A Short Description of the EFDC_DS/EFDC_Explorer 3D Hydrodynamic & Water Quality Modeling System. Dynamic Solutions-International, LLC. July 12, 2005. 031884 (51) 205 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Desrosiers. R. and C. Patmont, 2009. Environmental Dredging Residuals – Case Study Summaries and Analyses. Presentation at 5th International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. February 4, 2009. DiToro D.M. et al, 2001. Sediment Flux Modeling, Wiley – Interscience, New York, New York. DoD, 2009. Technical Guide, Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites, ESTCP Project ER-0622. Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1982. Field Trip Report of nitro Sanitation TDD No. F8-8108-14A. August 20, 1982. Eggleton, J., and K. V. Thomas. 2004. A review of factors affecting the release and bioavailability of contaminants during sediment disturbance events. Environ Internat 30:973-980. Elonen, GE., R.L. Spehar, G.W. Holcombe, R.D. Johnson, J.D. Fernandez, R.J. Erickson, J.E. Tietge, and P.M. Cook, 1998. Comparative toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin to seven freshwater fish species during early life-stage development. Environ, Tox. Chem. 17: 472-483. Engelund, F., and Hansen, E., 1967. A Monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams. Technical Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark. Environment Canada, 2001. EPRI and Northeast Utilities, 1999. ERM-Midwest, Inc., 1988. Site Investigation Baseline Risk Assessment and Remedial Alternative Review, Nitro Municipal Landfill Site. ERM-Midwest, Inc., 1986. Manila Creek Site Water Level and Highwall Study. ERM-Midwest, Inc., Charleston, WV. FMC Corporation, 1987. Letter from Richard E. Gerse, FMC Corporation to Dr. Walter F. Lee, CERCLA Removal Enforcement Section, U.S. EPA Region III. April 14, 1987. Fred C. Hart Associates, 1980. Results of Site Investigation and Leachate Sampling Analysis, Nitro Municipal Landfill, West Virginia. April 25, 1980. Fuglevand PF, Webb RS. 2009. Reducing post-dredging residuals. In: Proceedings Remediation of Contaminated Sediments-2009. Jacksonville, FL. Columbus (OH): Battelle Press. Grimwood, M. J. And T. J. Dobbs, 1995. A review of the aquatic ecotoxicology of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans. Environmental Toxicology and Water Quality 10: 57-75. 031884 (51) 206 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Hamrick, J.E., 1992. Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section. January 31, 1992. HEAST, 1997. Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, July 1997. ICF, 1998. Final Work Plan for Operable Unit Four - Site-Wide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. April 15, 1998. Johnson, B.H. and Parchure, T.M., 2000, Estimating Dredging Sediment Resuspension Sources. Dredging Operations and Environmental Research (DOER) Technical Notes Collection (TN DOER-E6), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, pp. 9. Johnston, F., 1977. A Brief History of Chemistry in the Kanawha Valley, Kanawha Valley Section, American Chemical Society. Kennedy, 1997. Lessing, Peter, 1996. WV Geology, Physiographic Provinces, WV Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. Loonen, H.; C. van de Guchte, J. R. Parsons, P. de Voogt, and H. A. J. Govers, 1996. Ecological hazard assessment of dioxins: hazards to organisms at different levels of aquatic food webs (fish-eating birds and mammals, fish and invertebrates). The Science of the Total Environment 182: 93-103. LTI, 2000. Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, WV, Limno-Tech, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Mackay, D. W., W. Y. Shui, and K. L. ma, 1992. Illustrated handbook of physical chemical properties and environmental fate for organic chemicals, volume II. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dioxins, and dibenzonfurans. Lewis Publishers. Magar V.S., D.B. Chadwick, T.S. Bridges, P.C. Fuchsman, J.M. Conder, T.J. Dekker, J.A. Steevens, K.E. Gustavson, and M.A. Mills, 2009. Technical Guide: Monitored Natural Recovery at Contaminated Sediment Sites. ESTCP Project ER-0622. May 2009. Matlock, D. 2004. "Response to CSTAG Recommendations on the Kanawha River, WV, Contaminated Sediment. Memorandum from Dennis Matlock to Stephen J. Ells and John C. Meyer. October 8, 2004. McNeil, J., C. Taylor, and W. Lick, 1996. Measurements of Erosion of Undisturbed Bottom Sediments with Depth. J. Hydraulic Engineering. 122(6): 316-324. 031884 (51) 207 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Mehrle, P. M., D. R. Buckler, E. E. Little, L. M. Smith, J. D. Petty, P. H. Peterman, and D. L. Stalling, 1988. Toxicity and bioconcentration of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran in rainbow trout. Environmental toxicology and chemistry 7: 47-62. Morrison, H. A., Whittle, M., C. D. Metcalfe, and A. J. Niimi, 1999. Application of a food web bioaccumulation model for the prediction of polychlorinated biphenyl, dioxin, and furan congener concentrations in Lake Ontario aquatic biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56: 1389-1400. Murray, F. J., F. A. Smith, K. D. Nitschke, C. G. Humiston, R. J. Kociba, and B. A. Schwetz, 1979. Three-generation reproduction study of rats given 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in the diet. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 50: 241-252. Nichols, J.W., K.M. Jensen, J.E. Tietge, and R.D. Johnson, 1998. Physiologically based toxicokinetic model for maternal transfer of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12:2422-2434. Niimi, A.J., 1983. Biological and toxicological effects of environmental contaminants in fish and their eggs. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40: 306-312. North, E. Lee, 1998. The 55 West Virginias: A Guide to the State's Counties. Nosek, J. A., S. R. Craven, J. R. Sullivan, S. S. Hurley, and R. E. Peterson, 1992. Toxicology and reproductive effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in ring-necked pheasants. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 35: 187-198. Region III, START, 2003. Kanawha Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, TDD No.: SW3-02-07-0017, SW3-02-07-0018, Region III, START, Ecology and Environment, Inc. NTP, 1982 Bioassay of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin for possible carcinogenicity (gavage study). DHHS Publ No. (NIH) 82-1765. Carcinogenesis Testing Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, and National Toxicology Program, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/LT_rpts/tr209.pdf NUS Corporation, 1983. Enforcement Review of Available Data for Nitro Sanitation, West Virginia. August 23, 1983. NUS Corporation, 1984. A Field Trip Report for Manila Creek. December 26, 1984. 031884 (51) 208 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES NUS Corporation, 1985. Non-sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, Republic Steel Corporation, Nitro, WV, NUS Corporation, Wayne, Pennsylvania. OEHHA, 2009. Technical Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. Appendix B. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/tsd052909.html. Palermo, M.R., Schroeder, P.S., Estes, T.J., and Francingues, N. R. 2008. Technical Guidelines for Environmental Dredging of Contaminated Sediments. Environmental Laboratory U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. ERDC/EL TR-08-29. September 2008. Palermo et al., 1998. Patmont, C., and M. Palermo. 2007. Case studies of environmental dredging residuals and management implications. In Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, January 22-25, 2007, Savannah, GA, USA. Potesta, 2001. Response Action Plan, Cap Construction, AES Property Site, AOC Docket No. 111-2001-0004-DC, Nitro, WV, Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, WV. Potesta, 2004. Interim Measures – Final Report: Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, West Virginia, Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia. February 2004. Potesta, 2009. Email from Michael Light (Potesta) to Randy Cooper (Monsanto Company) dated October 28, 2009, Re: Updated TCDD/TEQ flux to the River. Potesta, 2010. Final Interim Measures Work Plan, Solutia In., Nitro Site, Potesta & Associates, Inc., Charleston, West Virginia. April 2, 2010. Reible et al., 2003. Reinhold, J. O., A. J. Hendriks, L. K. Slager, and M. Ohm, 1999. Transfer of microcontaminants from sediments to chironomids, and the risk for the Pond bat Myotis dasycneme (Chiroptera) preying on them. Aquatic Ecology 33: 363376. REMCOR, 1986. Subsurface Investigation, Manila Creek Site, Nitro, WV, Remedial Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Roberts, J., R. Jepsen, and W. Lick, 1998. Effects of Particle Size and Bulk Density on the Erosion of Quartz Particles. J. Hydraulic Engineering. 124(12): 1261-1267. Roux Associates, Inc., 1995. RFI Report and Stabilization/Corrective Measures Plan, Volume I of II, Monsanto Nitro Plant. May 5, 1995. SAGE, 2009. River Discharge Database, Sage Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. Available at: www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata 031884 (51) 209 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Sample, B.E., D. M. Opresko, and G. W. Suter II, 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife: 1996 Revision. ES/ER/TM-86/R3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Sample, B. E., M. S. Aplin, R. A. Efroymson, G. W. Suter II, and C. J. E. Welsh, 1997. Methods and tools for estimation of the exposure of terrestrial wildlife to contaminants. ORNL/TM-13391. SRC, 2003. Syracuse Research Corporation, www.syrres.com/esc/databases.htm Environmental Fate Database, Stone, Alton D., 1980. Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, FIT Project, Nitro Landfill, Ecology and Environment, Inc. Steuer, J. J. 2000. A mass-balance approach for assessing PCB movement during remediation of a PCB-contaminated deposit on the Fox River, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4245. December 2000. U.S. ACE, 1980. Engineering and Design - Layout and Design of Shallow Draft Waterways, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-1611, December 1980 U.S. ACE, 1986. Kanawha River Navigation Study, Winfield Lock Replacement, Interim Feasibility Report, Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume I, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington, West Virginia. U.S. ACE, 1992. EE/CA for Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Soil at the former ACF Industries, Incorporated Site, Red House, West Virginia. May 5, 1992. U.S. ACE, 2001. Archives Search Report, Findings for the Artel Chemical Facility/Fike Chemicals, Inc. (United States Explosives Plant "C"), Nitro, WV, Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Defense Sites, Ordnance and Explosives, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, Illinois. U.S. ACE, 2012. Kanawha River Navigation Charts, Point Pleasant to Alloy West Virginia, U.S. ACE Huntington District, March 2012. U.S. Census Bureau, 2013. U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Demographic Profile, Last Revision – August 6, 2013. Available at: http://www.census.gov/popfinder U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, 2011. U.S. EPA Region III, 1978. Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Characterization of Fike Chemicals, Inc., Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., and Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc., Nitro, West Virginia. February 1978. 031884 (51) 210 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES U.S. EPA Region III, 1983. Memorandum: to Kenneth E. Biglane, U.S. EPA, Washington, from Benton M. Wilmoth, OSC, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Request for Assistance of ERT for a Technical Assessment of the Current Environmental Corrective Work at Fike Chemical Company, Nitro , West Virginia. August 12, 1983. U.S. EPA, 1986. Consent Agreement and Order in the Matter of Poca Landfill, U.S. EPA Docket No. III-86-7, U.S. EPA Region III. February 8, 1986. U.S. EPA, 1987a. Consent Agreement and Order in the Matter of Poca Landfill, U.S. EPA Docket No. III-87-13-DC. U.S. EPA Region III. April 10, 1987. U.S. EPA, 1987b. Consent Agreement and Order in the Matter of Nitro Sanitation Landfill, Main Street, Nitro, West Virginia, Docket No. III-38-04-DC, U.S. EPA Region III. October 15, 1987. U.S. EPA, 1988a. A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediment in the Kanawha River Basin, EPS-QA78-004, Final Project Report, EPA Region III, 1988. U.S. EPA, 1988b. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, U.S. EPA/540/G-89/004 OSWER Directive 9355.3-01, October 1988. Available at: epa.gov/superfund/policy/remedy/pdfs/540g-89004-s.pdf U.S. EPA, 1988c. Consent Agreement and Order in the Matter of Poca Landfill, U.S. EPA Docket No. III-88-21-DC, U.S. EPA Region III. February 18, 1988. U.S. EPA, 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989. U.S. EPA, 1990. Administrative Order By Consent, In the Matter of Nitro Municipal Landfill Site, U.S. EPA Region III, Docket No. III-89-32 DC, April 20, 1990. U.S. EPA, 1993a. Interim report on data and methods for assessment of 2,3,7,8,-TCDD risks to aquatic life and associated wildlife. EPA/600-R-93-055. Office of Research and Development, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. U.S. EPA, 1993b. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I, EPA/600/R-93/187a, December 1993. U.S. EPA, 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance technical support document for procedure to determining bioaccumulation factors. EPA-820-B-95-005. U.S. EPA, 1997a. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments Interim Final, EPA/540/R/97/006. June 1997. 031884 (51) 211 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES U.S. EPA, 1997b. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I: General Factors; Volume II: Food Ingestion Factors; Volume III: Activity Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. August 1997. U.S. EPA, 1999a. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (Peer Review Draft), EPA/530-D-99-001A. August 1999. U.S. EPA, 2000a, Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Nitro Storm sewer/Outfall Investigation, Roy F. Weston, Inc. for U.S. EPA, Region III. U.S. EPA, 2000b. Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia. Limno-Tech, Inc. for U.S. EPA, Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000. U.S. EPA, 2000c. Exposure and human health reassessment of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. Part 2: Health assessment for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds. Washington, DC: National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. EPA/600/P-00/001Be. U.S. EPA, 2001. Kanawha River Site Validated Analytical Results for Site Inspection Samples collected September 2001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/super/sites/WVSFN035516/Kanawha_CSTAG _memo_Attachment_5_data_outfall_sept_2001.pdf U.S. EPA, 2001e. Dioxin Reassessment – An SAB Review of the Office of Research and Development's Reassessment of Dioxin, EPA-SAB-EC-01-006. May 2001. U.S. EPA, 2002. Species profile: Tree swallow. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ne/ge/thesite/restofriver/reports/final_era/B percent 20- percent20Focus percent20Species percent20Profiles/EcoRiskProfile_tree_swal low.pdf. U.S. EPA, Region III START, 2003. Kanawha Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, TDD No.: SW3-02-07-0017, SW3-02-07-0018, Region III, START, Ecology and Environment, Inc. U.S. EPA, 2004a. Kanawha River Site EE/CA Study – "Eleven Principle" Sediment Management Memo to the EPA Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG), April 14, 2004. U.S. EPA, 2004b. USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004. 031884 (51) 212 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES U.S. EPA, 2005. Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA-540-R-05-012 OSWER 9355.0-85 December 2005. Available at: www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/sediment/guidance.htm U.S. EPA, 2006. Technical Factsheet on: DIOXIN (2,3,7,8-TCDD). at: http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-soc/dioxin.html Available U.S. EPA, 2008a. Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility, Solutia Nitro Site (Formerly: Flexsys, Solutia, Old Monsanto. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd039990965.pdf U.S. EPA, 2008b. Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility, Great Lakes Chemicals Company (Formerly: FMC Corporation). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd005005087.pdf U.S. EPA, 2009a. Kanawha River site; Current site information. at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/npl/WVSFN035516.htm. Available U.S. EPA, 2009b. Software for Calculating Upper Confidence Limits (UCLs). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/tsc/TSC_form.htm. U.S. EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA, 2009d. Comments on Proposed Exposure Factors. Email from Mr. Randy Sturgeon (U.S. EPA Region 3) to Randall Cooper (Monsanto Company) dated May 29, 2009. U.S. EPA, 2012. West Virginia Superfund at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/wv.htm Sites. Available U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/reg3hscd/npl/ WVSFN035516.htmWest Legislative Rules, Title 47, Series 2, Appendix E, Table 2 USGS, 2007. USGS Surface-Water Data for West Virginia. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wv/nwis/sw Virginia Available at: USGS, 2012. USGS Gauging Station for the Kanawha River at Charleston, WV. Available at: waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?03198000 US HCN, 2012. Precipitation Data for West Virginia. United States Historical Climatology Network. Available at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn.html Van Rijn, L. C., 1984. Sediment Transport, Part I: Bed Load Transport. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Volume 110 No. 10, p. 1431–1456. October 1984. Wan, Y., J. Hu, M. Yang, L. Anm, W. An, X. Jin, T. Hattori, and M. Itoh, 2005. Characterization of trophic transfer for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, 031884 (51) 213 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES dibenzofurans, non-and mono-ortho polychlorinated biphenyls in the marine food web of Bohai Bay, North China. Environmental Science and Technology 39: 2417-2425. Wells, S., 1998. Locks in Combination, Kanawha Navigation System Turning 100, Sunday Gazette-Mail, Charleston, WV. October 4, 1998. Weston, 1990a. Site Assessment Survey, Nitro Sanitation Landfill, City of Nitro, Kanawha County, WV. January 31, 1990. Weston, 1990b. Results of Site Investigation and Leachate Sample Analysis, Nitro Municipal Landfill, West Virginia, FCHA Project No. A017D. April 25, 1990. Weston, 1999. Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV, Roy F. Weston, Inc. Weston, 2001. Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Roy F. Weston, Inc. Wilson, Dale K., 1986. Monsanto. Feasibility Study of Heizer Creek Site, Prepared by Old WV DEP, 1982. Site Investigation Summary Sheet, Manila Creek, Site Number WV-1. May 25, 2982. WV DEP, 1997. Letter from B.S. Taylor, Chief, WV DEP Office of Water Resources, dated January 7, 1997, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, WV WV DEP, 2000. Letter to Anthoy C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill. May 2, 2000. WV DHHR, 2002, West Virginia Sportfish Consumption Advisory Guide (Draft). Available at: www.wvdhhr.org/fish/guide.pdf. WV DHHR, 2007, West Virginia Sportfish Consumption Advisory Guide (2nd Edition). West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Revised December 2007. Available at: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/FishAdvisorySketch/guide-intro.asp. WV DHHR, 2009a. Fish Consumption Advisories Available for 2009. at: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/current.asp Available WV DHHR, 2009b. WV Sport Fish Database Information 2009 Sport Fish Advisory. Available at: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish 031884 (51) 214 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DNR, 1982. Inter-Office Memorandum - Manila Creek Benthic Survey. December 22, 1982. WV DNR, 1987 . Kanawha River Cooperative Monitoring Project: An Evaluation of Water Quality, 1986 – 1987, WV Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV, 1987. WV DNR, 1991, Letter from J.E. Hamrick, Director of WV DNR, dated January 14, 1991, WV Division of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV WV DWR, 1962. Memorandum - Nitro Refuse Dump on Poca River. WV DWR, 1984. Preliminary Assessment, Putnam County Drum Dump. July 31, 1984. WV GES, 1997, Geologic Map of West Virginia, MAP-25, 1969, West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Morgantown, WV. 031884 (51) 215 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES OHIO POINT PLEASANT OHIO RIVER 0 6000 18000ft JACKSON MASON WEST VIRGINIA KANAWHA RIVER PUTNAM WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM POCATALICO RIVER INTERSTATE 64 ARMOUR CREEK NITRO CABELL KANAWHA ELK RIVER COAL RIVER LINCOLN CHARLESTON PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND WEST VIRGINIA figure 2.1 KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = 350000' 31884-00(051)GN-WA001 FEB 20/2015 SITE LOCATION EE/CA REPORT 0 2,500 5,000 7,500 Feet Former ACF Industries, Inc. site RM 32 - - RM 33 RM 34 RM 31 - KANAWHA RIVER - RM 35 Winfield Locks and Dam Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area - na aR wh iv e r RM 36 - Ka POCATALICO RIVER - P oc at o ic al er R iv RM 38 H e ize rC re ek RM 37 John E. Amos Power Plant RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area - RM 42 - - mo ur Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Ar RM 41 Int e rs tat e6 4 ABCA Warehouse Site Cr eek RM 40 AES (HUB) Property - Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility Great Lakes Chemical Corp. RM 43 Hancock - Fike/Artel Superfund Site Brooke Study Area 1 Upstream Area Wheeling " Ohio Marshall Tyler Clarksburg Doddridge " Harrison Ritchie Barbour Lewis Parkersburg " Wood § ¦ ¨ 77 Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor Wirt § ¦ ¨ 79 Gilmer Calhoun Mason Jackson Roane Braxton Huntington Putnam "Cabell St. Albans " Wayne Lincoln Mingo Wyoming McDowell § ¦ ¨ 77 § ¦ ¨ 64 Beckley Raleigh " § ¦ ¨ 81 Pendleton RM 44 - Greenbrier Summers Monroe Mercer Bluefield WEST VIRGINIA RM 45 - Coa l R " Hardy Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Randolph Mineral Hampshire Grant Nitro Sanitary Landfill Webster Clay Charleston " Kanawha Upshur Tucker Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg iver Pleasants Wetzel NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA001 February 23, 2015 figure 2.2 SITE PLAN EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Study Area 2 Adjacent Area 0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet Fike/Artel Superfund site RM 43 - Study Area 1 Upstream Area - K HA R ANAW RM 44 IVER Nitro Sanitary Landfill RM 45 COAL RI VER Key Map - COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA002 February 23, 2015 figure 2.3 SITE PLAN - STUDY AREA 1 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 0 500 1,000 1,500 Feet Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Key Map Armour Creek Landfill RM 41 - AES (HUB) Property ABCA Warehouse site Great Lakes Chemical Corp. - KAN AWH A RIVE R RM 42 Former Flexsys Facility Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Fike/Artel Superfund site RM 43 - NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA003 February 23, 2015 Study Area 1 Upstream Area figure 2.4 SITE PLAN - STUDY AREA 2 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 1,500 R I VE 1,000 OR 500 - LIC 0 ATA PO C RM 38 Feet Key Map Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area John E. Amos Power Plant RM 39 KA NA W HA RI VE R NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. - IN TE RS TA RM 41 TE - RM 40 - ARM OUR CRE EK Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 64 Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility AES (HUB) Property ABCA Warehouse Site SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA004 February 27, 2015 figure 2.5 SITE PLAN - STUDY AREA 3 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 33 - RM 32 1,500 3,000 4,500 Feet - RM 34 - H R ER IV Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area A Winfield Locks and Dam 0 W NA KA RM 31 - Former ACF Industries, Inc. site - RM 35 RM 36 Key Map - - RM 37 RM 38 - John E. Amos Power Plant Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Armour Creek Landfill AES (HUB) Property RM 41 ABCA Warehouse Site Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Great Lakes Chemical Corp. RM 42 RM 40 SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA005 February 27, 2015 - - - Former Flexsys Facility Study Area 1 Area NOTE: Upstream (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. RM 39 RM 43 - Fike Artel figure 2.6 SITE PLAN - STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA K Study Area 4 Downstream 2 He iz e r Cre e k La ndfill Study Area 3 Downstream 1 OldMons a nto La ndfill AES( HUB)P rope rty Study Area 2 Adjacent I nte rst a te 0 0. 5 1 1. 5 Mile s Arm our Cre e k La ndfill 64 Fle xs y sAm e ric a ,LLP Gre a t La ke sCh e m c ia lCorp Fike Arte l Nitro Sa nita ryLa ndfill Study Area 1 Upstream Goff Mounta in La ndfill Form e r UCCFa c ility( DOW) Form e r UCC-P . T . O. Coa lRiv er FMC Ba y e r CropSc ie nc e Hancock Brooke Wheeling " Ohio Marshall Wetzel Monongalia" Morgan Martinsburg Marion"Fairmont Preston Tyler " Berkeley Pleasants Taylor Mineral Hampshire Jefferson Doddridge Harrison"Clarksburg " Wood Grant Ritchie Lewis Barbour Tucker Wirt Hardy Gilmer Upshur Calhoun Randolph Mason Jackson Roane Pendleton Braxton Morgantown Parkersburg § ¦ ¨ 77 Huntington Putnam "CabellSt. Albans " " Charleston Kanawha Wayne Lincoln 79 Webster Clay Raleigh"Beckley Wyoming McDowell Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Mingo § ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 77 Bluefield " § ¦ ¨ 64 Greenbrier Monroe Summers Mercer WEST VIRGINIA NOTE: ( 1)P rope rtyb ounda rie ssh own a re a pprox im a te . ( 2)Th e la te ra le xte nt of th e Site a ndStudyAre a b ounda rie sa re lim ite d to th e Riv e r with in th e wa te r s urfa ce de fine db yth e norm a lpool e le v a tion.Adja c e nt a re a sa re inc lude dfor re fe re nc e only ,a nddo not form pa rt of th e Site . fig ure 3. 1 P OTENTI ALUP STREAM SOURCES– KANAWHARI VER– KANAWHACOUNTY EE/ CAREP ORT KANAWHARI VER,WESTVI RGI NI A DATASOURCE:MAP TECH,I NC. 03188400( REP 051) GI SWA118 Fe b rua ry27,2015 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles UCC - South Charleston - Plant 514 UCC Holz Impoundment DuPont Belle Facility Occidental Chemical Hancock Brooke Whe eling " Ohio Marshall Morgantown Wetzel Monongalia" Morgan Martinsburg Marion"Fairmont Preston Tyler " Berkeley Pleasants Taylor MineralHampshire Clarksburg Parkersburg Doddridge Jefferson Harrison" " Wood Grant Ritchie Lewis Barbour Tucker Wirt Hardy Gilmer Upshur Calhoun Randolph Mason Jackson Roane Pendleton Braxton Putnam Webster Huntington Clay "Cabell St. Albans " Charleston " Pocahontas Nicholas Kanawha Lincoln Wayne Fayette Boone Greenbrier Logan Raleigh"Beckley Mingo Wyoming Monroe § ¦ ¨ 77 McDowell § ¦ ¨ 79 § ¦ ¨ 77 Bluefield " § ¦ ¨ 64 Summers Mercer WEST VIRGINIA figure 3.2 DATA SOURCE: MAPTECH, INC. 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA117 February 27, 2015 POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCES KANAWHA RIVER - SOUTH CHARLESTON TO DICKENSON EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Creek KRSD-02 Guano Lit tle - KRSD-03 ) " - RM 34 0 - 2,500 5,000 Feet ) " KRSD-04 Creek r Littl e - Manila RM 35 Kanawha River Creek ) " KRSD-05 Lic k Cre ek - KRSD-06 ) ) " " KRSD-07 Run RM 37 y ek Cre RM 36 - Areas of Coal Reclamation Dredging, 1983-1996 Heizer Creek Landfill ) " KRSD-51 KRSD-09 RM 38 ) " - er KRSD-49 ) " Cre ek Little - - KRSD-24 ) " Previous U.S EPA Samples ) " > 0.50 < 1.00 µg/kg 2,3,7,8 - TCDD ) " > 1.00 < 2.00 µg/kg 2,3,7,8 - TCDD ) " > 2.00 µg/kg 2,3,7,8 - TCDD Potential Source Areas Conceptual Area of Sediment Accumulation Rock " KRSD-18 ) " ) KRSD-20 Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility " ) KRSD-22 Armour Creek Fike/Artel Superfund Site ) KRSD-23 " KRSD-25 - Martin Study Area 1 Upstream Area Nitro Sanitary Landfill ) " Western Kanawha Landfill " KRSD-26 RM 44 ) " ) Tacket t Bra nc h KRSD-27 nc h Bra < 0.50 µg/kg 2,3,7,8 - TCDD KRSD-16 " ) Branch Cre ek Legend tin " ) KRSD-21 RM 43 a Gall - - ) " " ) " ) r RM 42 ve Ri Study Area 2 Adjacent Area co " ) KRSD-19 - " KRSD-57 ) ) KRSD-59 " KRSD-17 Cr e atali RM 41 k Great Lakes eChemical Corp ) " ) " KRSD-15 ABCA Warehouse Site Poca Strip Mine Landfill KRSD-48 Poc p ste ck Ro RM 40 KRSD-14 Run Scary ) " KRSD-13 ek Cre AES (HUB) Property " KRSD-50 ) ) " RM 39 Bills ) KRSD-55 " ) " KRSD-11 Scary ) KRSD-56 " ) " KRSD-53 KRSD-10 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area KRSD-63 KRSD-45 He iz ) " ) " Cree k Bea Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area Hurricane - RM 45" ) ) " KRSD-29 KRSD-28 Coal River RM 46 (prior to Phase I EOC investigation review) RM: river mile µg/kg = microgram per kilogram 2,3,7,8 - TCDD: 2,3,7,8 - Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA024 February 27, 2015 7,500 Far le RM 31 RM 33 Creek ) " RM 32 Guano Former ACF Industries, Inc. Site KRSD-60 - RM 50 - - figure 3.3 SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF 2,3,7,8 - TCDD IN RIVER SEDIMENT EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia Left Bank Right Bank 5 4 3 2 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg) 6 0 50 45 40 River Mile 35 30 figure 3.4 SEDIMENT 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS - RIGHT BANK VERSUS LEFT BANK EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.4 February 26, 2015 0 to 0.5 ft 0 to 2 ft 2 to 6 ft 5 4 3 2 1 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg) 6 0 48 43 38 33 River Mile figure 3.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION VERSUS DEPTH IN SEDIMENTS EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.5 February 26, 2015 SD-21-R (42.5) SD-19-L (42.1) 0 0.1000 1.0000 150 150 200 250 250 ? 0.10 1.00 10.00 150 0.1 1.0 10.0 200 200 250 250 0.01 0 50 Depth in cm 50 150 200 200 250 250 SD-3-R (33.9) 0.10 1.00 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.001 10.00 ? 100 150 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 0 50 50 100 10.00 150 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0 1.00 100 SD-5-R (36.0) Depth in cm 0.01 0 100 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.10 50 SD-9-R (38.2) 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.01 0 50 100 200 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 10.0000 0 SD-47-Poca (39.1) Depth in cm 0.0100 Depth in cm 100 150 0.0010 50 50 100 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.0001 10.00 Depth in cm 1.00 Depth in cm Depth in cm 0.10 SD-57-Armr (40.8) Depth in cm 2,3,7,8-TCDD-TEQ in µg/kg 0.01 0 SD-15-R (40.8) 100 150 200 200 250 250 figure 3.6 2,3,7,8-TCDD PROFILES IN SEDIMENT CORES (U.S. EPA, 2001) EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.6 February 26, 2015 1000 Fish Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (ng/kg) Arithmetic Average Lipid = 3% Linear (1:1) Relationship 100 10 1 0.1 0.1 1 10 100 Fish Tissue Lipid Concentration (%) figure 3.7 FISH TISSUE LIPID CONTROL OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD LEVELS EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.7 February 26, 2015 Fish Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Conc. at 3% Lipids (ng/kg) 1000 Marmet Dam Nitro Winfield Dam 100 WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) 10 1 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) 0.1 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 River Mile figure 3.8 DOWNSTREAM VARIABILITY IN FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.8 February 26, 2015 Fish Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Conc. at 3% Lipids (ng/kg) 1000 100 WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) 10 1 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) 0.1 D-73 A-76 M-79 F-82 N-84 A-87 M-90 J-93 O-95 J-98 A-01 Sampling Date figure 3.9 DECLINE IN FISH TISSUE 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION WITH TIME EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 3.9 February 26, 2015 ( ! KRSD-10 ( ( ! ! 10 ( ! KRSD-50 KRSD-50 POCA RR BR KRSD-11 15 15 5 02 10 2 10 GT-13 GT-12 40 ( ! (! ! ( KRSD-48 35 30 25 ( ! GT-14 10 10 ( ! GT-11 10 10 10 15 - 35 10 10 Feet R.M. 39 30 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 3,000 10 2,000 15 1,000 10 0 ( ! GT-10 10 10 30 10 20 10 10 30 10 10 ( ! LINBARGER CRK KRSD-13 ( ! GT-09 R.M. 40 ! GT-08 ( ( ! ( ! GT-07 30 ( ! GT-06 ( ! GT-05 ( ! ( ! 35 KRSD-57 ( ! ( ! ( ! KRSD-16 ( ! KRSD-59 k KD-012 ARM CRK KS ou ( ! ARM CRK SR35 m ( ! KD-011 - 40 ( ! 30 Ar KD-014 ARM CRK LF re e R.M. 41 ARM CRK MWS rC ( ! KRSD-15 ( ! 30 10 10 KRSD-14 - 30 15 10 10 ( ! Int e rs tat e 10 ( ! 64 KRSD-17 30 ( ! 30 KD-016 GT-04 KRSD-19 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area KD-015 15 30 30 KD-017 ( !! ( KD-013 ( ! ( KRSD-18 ! ( ! ( ! KD-020 25 ( ! 10 25 ( ! KRSD-20 30 ( ! ARM CRK I64 KD-018 25 10 - 25 R.M. 42 ( KD-019 ! ( ! ( ! Text ( ! 10 25 GT-03 KRSD-21 ( ! ( ! KRSD-22 GT-02 25 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 10 R.M. 43 - 10 ( ! ( ! ( ! 10 10 20 Study Area 1 Upstream Area 10 25 KRSD-25 25 Brooke Ohio ( ! R.M. 44 Tyler Doddridge " Wood St. Albans " " Kanawha § ¦ ¨ Jefferson Upshur Randolph ( ! Fayette Boone § ¦ ¨ 64 Beckley Logan " Raleigh Mingo McDowell Greenbrier Mercer § ¦ ¨ 77 0 Monroe Bluefield " 2 FT Estimated Sediment Thickness (Feet) Summers Wyoming 1 FT GOOD PENETRATION WITH INTERNAL REFLECTORS; SURFACE GRAB SAMPLES INDICATE MEDIUM - COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL Pocahontas Lincoln Wayne 0 6 FT KRSD-27 Webster Nicholas Estimated Sediment Thickness (Feet) 5 FT Grant Hardy VERY GOOD SUBSURFACE PENETRATION NO INTERNAL REFLECTORS; SURFACE GRAB SAMPLES INDICATE FINE - MEDIUM SAND 4 FT Martinsburg " Pendleton Clay Charleston Hampshire 81 25 Cabell 79 Tucker Lewis Braxton Putnam Huntington " Roane Mineral " § ¦ ¨ Calhoun Jackson Berkeley Taylor Barbour Gilmer Morgan Preston 20 § ¦ ¨ " Clarksburg Ritchie Wirt 77 Mason Harrison " Fairmont EPA, 2000 3 FT 10 Parkersburg Pleasants - KRSD-26 Morgantown Monongalia Marion ( ! KANAWHA RIVER Wheeling Wetzel CRA/ANCHOR, 2004 - CHEMISTRY PIPELINE Hancock Marshall ( ! BATHYMETRY (FEET) ( ! " CRA/ANCHOR, 2004 - PHYSICAL PROPERTIES KRSD-23 20 KRSD-24 GT-01 ( ! 1 FT WEST VIRGINIA ( ! KRSD-28 ( ! - R.M. 45 SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA007 February 23, 2015 iver Coal R 30 NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. 2 FT KRSD-29 3 FT 20 4 FT 25 25 5 FT 10 25 15 10 6 FT figure 4.1 BATHYMETRY, GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION AND ISOPACH MAP FOR STUDY AREA 1, 2 AND 3 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 0 ( ! 15 GT-27 10 10 10 10 ( ! 40 10 3,000 ( ! KD-002 35 40 ( ! 40 KD-004 30 10 KD-001 Feet 10 40 ( ! 2,000 KD-005 40 10 1,000 35 ( ! ( ! 25 GT-26 KD-003 R.M. 33 - 25 10 ( ! 35 35 ( ! ( ! GT-28 KD-007 KD-009 KD-008 KRSD-03 ! KD-010 ( ( ! ( KRSD-02 ( ! ! 35 40 15 40 ( ! - R.M. 32 40 35 10 KD-006 10 GT-25 30 10 10 30 35 ( ! 35 25 15 10 10 10 35 10 5 35 2 20 30 30 35 35 30 35 20 ( ! 10 25 10 R.M. 31 ( ! ( KRSD-01 ! 15 GT-22 10 10 GT-21 ( ! GT-20 ( ! GT-24 ! KRSD-04 ( ( ! 35 10 20 15 20 35 R.M. 34 20 25 35 - GT-23 35 - 30 35 25 15 30 20 10 10 30 10 35 35 35 35 10 25 20 10 40 10 35 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area - R.M. 35 10 15 40 10 10 10 40 30 10 0 15 1 35 10 SAMPLE LOCATIONS 0 15 2 CRA/ANCHOR, 2004 - PHYSICAL PROPERTIES ( ! 10 15 35 35 25 10 EPA, 2000 ( ! 35 15 CRA/ANCHOR, 2004 - CHEMISTRY ( ! KRSD-05 ! ( GT-18 ! ( GT-19 ( ! KD-118 30 30 BATHYMETRY (FEET) KANWAHA RIVER 10 Estimated Sediment Thickness (Feet) R.M. 36 - 15 VERY GOOD SUBSURFACE PENETRATION NO INTERNAL REFLECTORS; SURFACE GRAB SAMPLES INDICATE FINE - MEDIUM SAND 10 20 10 PIPELINE 15 15 15 0 10 30 15 30 1 FT 15 10 10 10 2 FT ( ! 15 10 4 FT KRSD-06 20 5 FT Estimated Sediment Thickness (Feet) Ka ( ! GT-17 10 GOOD PENETRATION WITH INTERNAL REFLECTORS; SURFACE GRAB SAMPLES INDICATE MEDIUM - COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL w na 10 6 FT ha ( ! er v i R 3 FT KRSD-07 ( ! GT-16 0 20 1 FT 15 - 2 FT 10 4 FT 10 30 3 FT 10 R.M. 37 10 5 FT 6 FT Hancock Brooke Wheeling " ( ! Ohio Marion Tyler Pleasants Wood § ¦ ¨ Roane 35 10 Berkeley Mineral Clarksburg Hampshire § ¦ ¨ 81 Martinsburg " 10 Jefferson 15 Tucker Grant - ( ! GT-15 R.M. 38 Hardy Upshur Randolph Braxton Pendleton 35 " Kanawha " Webster Clay Charleston 10 St. Albans Cabell § ¦ ¨ 79 Calhoun Putnam Huntington " Preston Lewis Gilmer Jackson Fairmont " Barbour Wirt Mason Morgan " Ritchie 77 KRSD-08 " Taylor Harrison Doddridge " ( ! 15 Monongalia Wetzel Parkersburg Morgantown 35 Marshall KRSD-09 Pocahontas Nicholas ( ! KRSD-10 Lincoln Wayne ( ! Fayette Boone Beckley Logan Raleigh " Mingo Summers Wyoming McDowell Greenbrier Mercer § ¦ ¨ 77 Monroe 15 § ¦ ¨ 64 ( ! WEST VIRGINIA Bluefield " NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA008 February 23, 2015 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area figure 4.2 BATHYMETRY, GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION AND ISOPACH MAP FOR STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Average Daily River Flow - Charleston Gauge 03198000 1,000,000 Discharge at Charleston Gauge (cfs) Kanawha River Streamflow U.S. EPA Sampling Events Monsanto Sampling Events 100,000 10,000 1,000 Date figure 4.3 AVERAGE DAILY RIVER FLOW - CHARLESTON GAUGE 03198000 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.3 February 26, 2015 RM 33 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Mean Flow (cu. ft/s) (2) 10/14/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004 4/15/2005 4/15/2005 4/15/2005 4/15/2005 Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow 0.01090 0.01033 0.01560 0.03360 2 2 2 1 ND(0.08) 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 9.0 J 8.0 J 7.0 J 10 10 19 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 15,300 15,300 15,300 15,300 0 2000 5000ft R.M. 33 R.M. 31 RM 31 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Mean Flow (cu. ft/s) (2) 10/15/2004 10/19/2004 10/19/2004 10/19/2004 4/14/2005 4/14/2005 4/14/2005 4/14/2005 Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow 0.00596 J 0.01400 0.04630 0.04890 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 11 8.0 6.0 12 7.0 9.0 18,800 14,200 14,200 14,200 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 STUDY AREA 4 DOWNSTREAM 2 AREA RM 42 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Mean Flow (cu. ft/s) (2) RM 68 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Mean Flow (cu. ft/s) (2) 10/13/2004 10/13/2004 10/13/2004 10/13/2004 10/13/2004 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow 0.00705 J 0.00709 J 0.00964 J 0.00966 J 0.00500 J (1) 0.00796 J 0.11864 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 8.0 J 5.0 J 5.0 J 14 11 9.0 6.0 6,820 6,820 6,820 6,820 6,820 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 10/18/2004 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 4/12/2005 Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow 0.00112 J ND (0.00188) ND (0.000753) U 0.00635 J 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ND(0.08) 1 1 5.0 7.0 8.0 4.0 9.0 9.0 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 15,100 15,100 15,100 15,100 STUDY AREA 3 DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA R.M. 68 R.M. 42 STUDY AREA 2 ADJACENT AREA 0 1000 2500ft RM 46 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) TSS (mg/L) Mean Flow (cu. ft/s) (2) STUDY AREA 1 UPSTREAM AREA 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 4/13/2005 4/13/2005 4/13/2005 4/13/2005 Low Flow Low Flow Low Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow High Flow 0.000874 J/ND (0.00221) ND (0.00127) U/0.00853 J -/-2 2 1 2 2 -/-2 2 1 1 2 -/-ND(2.8) 5.0 J ND(2.8) 13 11 6,840 6,840 6,840 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; ALUM CREEK, BANCROFT, BELLE, CHARLESTON EAST, GARRETTS BEND, SCOTT DEPOT, ST ALBANS, AND WINFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA DATA SOURCE : MAPTECH, INC. NOTES: (1) A DUPLICATE PARTICULATE SAMPLE COULD NOT BE COLLECTED BASED ON EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION R.M. 46 (2) MEAN FLOW AT CHARLESTON GAGE (USGS 03198000) (3) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE RM 46 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) (pg/L) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) (pg/L) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) LEGEND R.M. 31 10/12/2004 10/12/2004 Low Flow Low Flow 0.000874 J/ND (0.00127) U/-/-2 -/-2 RIVER MILE SAMPLE NAME SAMPLE DATE FLOW CONDITIONS ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE PARAMETER NOT ANALYZED CUBIC FEET PER SECOND MILLIGRAMS PER LITER PICOGRAMS PER LITER OCTOBER 2004 SAMPLING EVENT APRIL 2005 SAMPLING EVENT figure 4.4 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS EE/CA REPORT RESULT PARAMETER 31884-00(051)GN-WA002 FEB 20/2015 J U ND cu.ft/s mg/L pg/L LOW FLOW HIGH FLOW RM 33 Bass RM 33 Gizzard Shad 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 12/2008 4.46 2.83 2.72 1.37 1.74 1.44 2.14 1.7 1.22 1.28 TISS-031884-101404-DK-023 TISS-031884-101404-DK-024 TISS-031884-101404-DK-025 TISS-031884-101504-DK-026 TISS-031884-101504-DK-027 TISS031884-121708-DFK-021 TISS031884-121708-DFK-022 TISS031884-121708-DFK-023 TISS031884-121708-DFK-024 TISS031884-121708-DFK-025 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 10/2004 12/2008 4.50 3.69 7.53 3.40 3.35 5.72 5.99 15.8 7.07 13.7 16.1 16.1 TISS-031884-101404-DK-013 TISS-031884-101404-DK-014 TISS-031884-101404-DK-015 TISS-031884-101404-DK-016 TISS-031884-101404-DK-017 TISS-031884-101404-DK-019 TISS-031884-101404-DK-020 TISS031884-121708-DFK-016 TISS031884-121708-DFK-017 TISS031884-121708-DFK-018 TISS031884-121708-DFK-019 TISS031884-121708-DFK-020 R.M. 33 RM 33-45 Sauger R.M. 31 TISS031884-121708-DFK-015 0 TISS031884-121708-DFK-013 TISS031884-121708-DFK-014 RM 68 Gizzard Shad RM 33-45 Channel Catfish TISS-031884-101604-DK-036 TISS-031884-101804-DK-037 TISS-031884-101804-DK-038 TISS-031884-102104-DK-039 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-051 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-052 TISS031884-121808-DFK-031 TISS031884-121808-DFK-032 TISS031884-122208-DFK-033 TISS031884-122208-DFK-034 TISS031884-122208-DFK-035 TISS-031884-101204-DK 002 TISS-031884-101304-DK-008 TISS-031884-101304-DK-009 TISS-031884-101304-DK-010 TISS-031884-101504-DK-035 TISS031884-121708-DFK-011 TISS031884-121708-DFK-012 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 11/2004 12/2008 1/2009 1.44 2.10 0.511 J 0.222 J 0.936 J 0.307 J ND(1.22) 0.191 J 0.185 J 0.387 J 0.195 J RM 68 Bass TISS-031884-101604-DK-041 TISS-031884-101604-DK-042 TISS-031884-101604-DK-043 TISS-031884-101804-DK-044 TISS-031884-101804-DK-045 TISS031884-121808-DFK-026 TISS031884-121808-DFK-027 TISS031884-121808-DFK-028 TISS031884-121808-DFK-029 TISS031884-121808-DFK-030 R.M. 33-45 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 12/2008 ND(0.221) 0.469 J ND(0.178) 0.365 J ND(0.077) ND(0.989) ND(1.13) ND(0.970) ND(1.13) ND(1.14) STUDY AREA 3 DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA R.M. 68 STUDY AREA 2 ADJACENT AREA 1000 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2008 36.2 2.53 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 12/2008 19.5 3.34 1.33 6.07 4.02 8.58 2.09 RM 42 Bass 0 5000ft 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2008 0.975 J RM 33-45 Channel Catfish and Sauger STUDY AREA 4 DOWNSTREAM 2 AREA 2000 TISS-031884-101204-DK 001 TISS-031884-101304-DK-011 TISS-031884-101304-DK-012 TISS-031884-101504-DK-033 TISS-031884-101504-DK-034 TISS031884-121708-DFK-001 TISS031884-121708-DFK-002 TISS031884-121708-DFK-008 TISS031884-121708-DFK-009 TISS031884-121708-DFK-010 R.M. 42 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 12/2008 3.58 4.02 3.52 1.79 2.04 1.71 5.68 4.77 7.17 12.6 2500ft RM 42 Gizzard Shad RM 75-95 Sauger TISS-031884-121808-DK-036 TISS-031884-121808-DK-037 RM 95 Channel Catfish TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2008 ND(1.15) ND(1.11) STUDY AREA 1 UPSTREAM AREA 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 0.736 J 0.462 J RM 75-95 Channel Catfish TISS-031884-102104-DK-046 TISS-031884-102104-DK-047 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-050 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 11/2004 0.635 J 0.251 J 0.300 J R.M. 46 SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; ALUM CREEK, BANCROFT, BELLE, CHARLESTON EAST, GARRETTS BEND, SCOTT DEPOT, ST ALBANS, AND WINFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA DATA SOURCE : MAPTECH, INC. LEGEND R.M. 31 RM 95 Channel Catfish TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 TISS-031884-101304-DK-003 TISS-031884-101304-DK-004 TISS-031884-101304-DK-005 TISS-031884-101304-DK-006 TISS-031884-101304-DK-007 TISS031884-121608-DFK-003 TISS031884-121608-DFK-004 TISS031884-121608-DFK-005 TISS031884-121608-DFK-006 TISS031884-121608-DFK-007 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 12/2008 1.50 6.70 0.877 J 1.59 5.98 9.05 7.1 4.22 5.2 7.93 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/2004 0.736 J 0.462 J RIVER MILE RIVER MILE AND FISH SPECIES SAUGER J ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION PARAMETER SAMPLE DATE ND NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE RESULT (pg/g) pg/g PICOGRAMS PER GRAM SAMPLE NAME BASS CHANNEL CATFISH GIZZARD SHAD 31884-00(051)GN-WA004 FEB 20/2015 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin NOTES: (1) SAMPLES TISS-031884-101404-DK-018 THROUGH -022 ARE DUPLICATE SAMPLES OF GIZZARD SHAD AT RIVER MILE 33. SAMPLES -018, -021, AND -022 WERE PUT ON HOLD AND WERE NOT ANALYZED SINCE THE 1/20 DUPLICATE FREQUENCY REQUIREMENT HAD ALREADY BEEN MET (2) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE figure 4.5 FISH TISSUE SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS EE/CA REPORT COR-30 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.013 12/7/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg ND(0.00036) SSD-21 2,3,7,8-TCDD SSD-20 12/7/2007 (24-30) IN ug/kg 0.0021 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.017 COR-25 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-28 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.01 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0011/0.002 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0088 12/8/2007 (0-14) IN ug/kg ND(0.00045) COR-24 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/8/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg ND(0.0004) SSD-16 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-32B 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-36A 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/11/2008 (0-24) IN ug/kg ND(0.00025) 12/11/2008 (24-48) IN ug/kg ND(0.00042) 12/10/2008 (0-10.5) IN ug/kg ND(0.00065) COR-36B 12/11/2008 (48-72) IN ug/kg ND(0.00036) 12/10/2008 (0-12) IN ug/kg 0.025 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/11/2008 (72-92) IN ug/kg ND(0.00039) COR-27 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0043 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0055 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.013 0 2000 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.012 SSD-15 5000ft POCATALICO RIVER SSD-17 COR-31 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0039 COR-24 GT-12 GT-13 GT-14 SSD-15 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.035 GT-11 SSD-16 SSD-23 SSD-18 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.074 2,3,7,8-TCDD KD-202 (2) 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-37 SSD-24 COR-38 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-39 2,3,7,8-TCDD GT-08 COR-29 GT-06 COR-30 COR-32B KD-011 COR-31 KD-012 SSD-22 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 3.4 J 12/4/2007 (0-17) IN ug/kg 22 J 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0017) U 12/4/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.01 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/4/2007 (17-33.5) IN ug/kg 33 J SSD-25 2,3,7,8-TCDD KD-022 KD-021 KD-205 KD-023 KD-204 (4) KD-024 KD-025 KD-027 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-28A 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-29 12/9/2008 (24-48) IN ug/kg ND(0.00074) U 12/4/2007 (0-12) IN ug/kg ND(0.0016) U 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-32 SSD-26 GT-02 SSD-27 2,3,7,8-TCDD SSD-22 GT-01 2,3,7,8-TCDD STUDY AREA 1 UPSTREAM AREA 12/9/2008 (48-66) IN ug/kg ND(0.0003) COR-32A SSD-28 12/4/2007 (12-25) IN ug/kg ND(0.00049) 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-33 SSD-29 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00087) 2,3,7,8-TCDD SSD-28 2,3,7,8-TCDD 10/30/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00031) SSD-26 KD-026 1000 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0018 12/11/2008 (0-6) IN ug/kg ND(0.0004) 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0013 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.012 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.015 12/11/2008 (0-18.5) IN ug/kg ND(0.00055) 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.015 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/6/2007 (0-21) IN ug/kg 0.19 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00079) 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0029/0.0014 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.021 12/10/2008 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.46 J 12/10/2008 (24-40) IN ug/kg 0.16 COR-36C 2,3,7,8-TCDD KD-029 KD-030 0 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0026 R.M. 46 KD-028 KD-012 (5) 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.052 COR-34 10/30/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00036) (5) 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-43 12/9/2008 (0-16.5) IN ug/kg ND(0.0011) U/0.0018 12/9/2008 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.049 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0006) 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00098) 2,3,7,8-TCDD R.M. 68 SSD-21 COR-40 SSD-25 GT-03 COR-41 COR-42 SSD-27 (4) SSD-19 COR-33 KD-202 (2) KD-017 KD-013 COR-36C RM 42 KD-015 COR-36B KD-016 COR-34 COR-36 GT-04 R.M. 42 COR-35 COR-36A KD-020 SSD-23 KD-203 (3) COR-37 KD-018 KD-019 SSD-24 COR-38 COR-39 STUDY AREA 2 ADJACENT AREA 12/3/2007 (0-29) IN ug/kg ND(0.00026) 12/4/2007 (24-40) IN ug/kg 0.0081 COR-41 KD-204 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-28 GT-07 COR-28A GT-05 SSD-20 COR-32 COR-32A KD-014 12/4/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.0087 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-26 GT-09 SSD-19 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-25 COR-27 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.25 COR-42 2,3,7,8-TCDD GT-10 COR-26 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0017) U 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/28/2007 (0-0) ug/kg 0.059 SSD-17 SSD-18 STUDY AREA 3 DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0031 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-40 10/28/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.071 2500ft COR-43 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00082) 12/3/2007 (0-22) IN ug/kg ND(0.00022) KD-203 2,3,7,8-TCDD SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; ALUM CREEK, BANCROFT, BELLE, CHARLESTON EAST, GARRETTS BEND, SCOTT DEPOT, ST ALBANS, AND WINFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA SSD-29 DATA SOURCE : MAPTECH, INC. NOTES: (1) SAMPLE DEPTH REFERS TO DEPTH BELOW TOP OF SEDIMENT SURFACE (2) SAMPLE KD-202 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-011 TO KD-015 (3) SAMPLE KD-203 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-016 TO KD-020 (4) SAMPLE KD-204 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-021 TO KD-025 (5) SAMPLE KD-205 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-026 TO KD-030 (6) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE ND NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM IN INCHES ft FEET 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN J U 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-36 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0056 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.00062) 12/5/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.027 12/5/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg 3.3 J COR-35 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/5/2007 (48-72) IN ug/kg 18 J 10/28/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.024 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.055 12/10/2008 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.15 12/5/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.0036/0.003 12/10/2008 (24-48) IN ug/kg 2.3 J/1.6 J 12/5/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg ND(0.00034) 12/10/2008 (48-72) IN ug/kg 25 J 12/5/2007 (48-54) IN ug/kg ND(0.00038) 12/10/2008 (72-96) IN ug/kg 3.8 J 12/10/2008 (96-108) IN ug/kg 0.21 LEGEND R.M. 31 RIVER MILE SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DATE COR-31 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0039 figure 4.6a SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS STUDY AREAS 1, 2, AND 3 EE/CA REPORT SAMPLE DEPTH (1) RESULT UNIT RESULT PARAMETER 31884-00(051)GN-WA006 FEB 20/2015 (3) COR-04 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0073 12/12/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.013 12/12/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg 0.0098 12/12/2007 (48-72) IN ug/kg 0.0086 SSD-05 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.024 12/13/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg 0.011 12/13/2007 (48-81.6) IN ug/kg 0.019 COR-05 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.02/0.0057 COR-07 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.048 COR-06 12/14/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg ND(0.00031) 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0031 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/14/2007 (24-36) IN ug/kg ND(0.00027) SSD-06 2,3,7,8-TCDD KD-200 COR-03 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.01 12/13/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.0083 (2) 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.048 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-01 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0041 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-09 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0041 12/13/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.0093 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.017 COR-11 2,3,7,8-TCDD KD-005 COR-06 KD-200 (2) KD-002 KD-004 KD-001 SSD-7 KD-003 KD-007 COR-08 COR-09 KD-006 KD-009 KD-010 KD-008 COR-10 KD-201 (3) COR-04 COR-03 SSD-05 GT-28 COR-12 SSD-06 COR-07 RM 33 COR-05 R.M. 33 GT-26 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0046 GT-25 SSD-03 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-15 COR-01 SSD-02 SSD-01 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0065 COR-11 SSD-04 KD-201 (3) GT-23 COR-12 GT-22 GT-21 GT-24 10/28/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.28 R.M. 31 2,3,7,8-TCDD GT-20 2,3,7,8-TCDD KANAWAHA RIVER COR-16 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-16 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0026 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0038) U 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.01 12/15/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.15 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.023 12/15/2007 (0-22) IN ug/kg 0.002 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0069) U 3/31/2008 (0-19) IN ug/kg 0.013/0.0042/0.0049 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0052) U 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3/31/2008 (0-16) IN ug/kg 0.00076 J/0.00076 J/0.00077 J COR-17 SSD-09 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-13 12/15/2007 (24-34) IN ug/kg ND(0.00055) COR-13 COR-14 COR-15 SSD-01 12/15/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.0086 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-02 SSD-02 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.014 5000ft 12/13/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg 1.4 J 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.014 GT-27 SSD-03 10/28/2004 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.015 2000 COR-10 SSD-7 SSD-04 0 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-08 COR-02 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.038 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.01 COR-14 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.012 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-18 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0072) U 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.025) U KD-118 GT-18 GT-19 SSD-09 SSD-11 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0052 COR-18 2,3,7,8-TCDD STUDY AREA 4 DOWNSTREAM 2 AREA SSD-10 12/11/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg ND(0.00047) COR-17 2,3,7,8-TCDD SSD-12 GT-17 SSD-11 SSD-12 2,3,7,8-TCDD GT-16 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg ND(0.0028) U 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.015 SSD-13 SSD-10 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0038 SSD-13 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.038 COR-19 COR-19 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.012 COR-20 COR-21 COR-22 COR-23 GT-15 COR-20 2,3,7,8-TCDD COR-21 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.023 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 2.7 J/2.3 J 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.0094/0.009 12/11/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 0.014 12/10/2007 (24-48) IN ug/kg 0.088 12/10/2007 (48-78) IN ug/kg 0.0018 12/11/2007 (24-31.6) IN ug/kg 0.052 SSD-14 STUDY AREA 3 DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA COR-22 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.056 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN ug/kg 3J 12/10/2007 (24-49) IN ug/kg 1.1 J COR-23 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.066 12/8/2007 (0-27) IN ug/kg ND(0.00052) SSD-14 2,3,7,8-TCDD 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.023 NOTES: (1) SAMPLE DEPTH REFERS TO DEPTH BELOW TOP OF SEDIMENT SURFACE (2) SAMPLE KD-200 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-001 TO KD-005 R.M. 42 (3) SAMPLE KD-201 IS A COMPOSITE OF GRAB SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM KD-006 TO KD-010 STUDY AREA 2 ADJACENT AREA SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; ALUM CREEK, BANCROFT, BELLE, CHARLESTON EAST, GARRETTS BEND, SCOTT DEPOT, ST ALBANS, AND WINFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA (4) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE ND NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE MICROGRAMS PER KILOGRAM IN INCHES ft FEET 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN LEGEND J U R.M. 31 RIVER MILE SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DATE COR-14 2,3,7,8-TCDD 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN ug/kg 0.012 figure 4.6b SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT SAMPLE DEPTH (1) RESULT UNIT RESULT PARAMETER 31884-00(051)GN-WA005 FEB 20/2015 DATA SOURCE : MAPTECH, INC. ! ( ! ( " ) " / / " " ) / " KRSD-22 ! ( ! ( / " COR-43 " ) / " 0 500 1, 000 TCLP-02 SSD-26 1, 500 Fe e t / " Study Area 1 Upstream Area RM 43 SSD-27 Fike / Arte l Supe rfundsite KRSD-23 KRSD-24 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( TCLP-01 Ke yMa p P HASEI ISAMP LI NG ) " P REVI OUSSAMP LI NG ( ! SAMPLE DEPTHS / " ) SURFI CI ALSAMP LE ! ( ! ( 0-2. 0FTBGS ) 2. 0-4. 0FTBGS ) 4. 0-6. 0FTBGS . ! SURFI CI ALSAMP LE ( 0-0. 5FTBGS ( 0. 5-2. 0FTBGS ( 2. 0-4. 0FTBGS ( 4. 0-6. 0FTBGS ( KRSD-25 - KRSD-26 ! ( RM 44 / " SSD-28 Nitro Sa nita ryLa ndfill KRSD-27 ! ( ! ( / " 6. 0-8. 0FTBGS SSD-29 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ND KRSD-28 < 0.5 ! (! ( ! ( ! ( KRSD-29 RM 45 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 20.0 - 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 COALRI VER NOTE: ( 1)P rope rtyb ounda rie ssh own a re a pproxim a te . ( 2)Th e la te ra le xte nt of th e Site a ndStudyAre a b ounda rie sa re lim ite d to th e Rive r with in th e wa te r surfa c e de fine db yth e norm a lpool e le va tion.Adja ce nt a re a sa re inc lude dfor re fe re nce only,a nddo not form pa rt of th e Site . fig ure 4. 7 SEDI MENTSAMP LI NG LOCATI ONSANDRESULTS–STUDYAREA1 EE/ CAREP ORT KANAWHARI VER,WESTVI RGI NI A SOURCE:AERI ALNATI ONALAGRI CULTUREI MAGERY P ROGRAM DATED2014( WESTVI RGI NI ASOUTH SP C,NAD83) 03188400( REP 051) GI SWA010 Fe b rua ry23,2015 NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. 0 500 1,000 - "/ RM 4 Feet COR-32B COR-32A " )- / COR-31 " RM 41 " / COR-32 COR-36B KRSD-19 Great Lakes Chemical Corp. COR-36A SSD-23 / " SSD-24 / " RM 42 " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( / " COR-35 COR-39 " ) ! ( ) ! ( " COR-40 KRSD-21 SSD-25 " ) " ) ! ( . ! KRSD-20 SSD-21 . ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( . ! . ! ! ( ! ( ! ( KRSD-16 . ! Former Flexsys Facility KRSD-17 ABCA Warehouse site Former Flexsys Facility / COR-41 " " ) ! ( ! ( Study Area 2 Adjacent Area KRSD-22 / " COR-43 " ) / " SSD-26 SAMPLE DEPTHS / " RM 43 SSD-27 - ! ( ! ( ! ( SURFICIAL SAMPLE ( 0.0 - 0.5 BGS ) 2.0 - 4.0 FT BGS ( 0.5 - 2.0 BGS 2.0 - 4.0 BGS ) ( 4.0 - 6.0 FT BGS " ) ( 4.0 - 6.0 BGS 6.0 - 8.0 FT BGS " ) ( 6.0 - 8.0 BGS 8.0 - 10.0 FT BGS SURFICIAL SAMPLE ) KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . ! / " ! ( ! ( 0 - 2.0 FT BGS PHASE II SAMPLING ) " PREVIOUS SAMPLING ( ! 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ND < 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 20.0 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 figure 4.8 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS - STUDY AREA 2 EE/CA REPORT SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA022 February 23, 2015 / " / " AES (HUB) Property / COR-38 " / " / " ! ( ! ( " ) " ) KRSD-18 " ) " ) " ) / " " / / COR-42 " / " / COR-37 " . ! / COR-34 " ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) COR-36 ! ( ! ( ! ( COR-30 " ) " ) " ) " / SSD-22 / " " ) COR-29 " / Armour Creek Landfill " ) " ) ) " )" / " KRSD-14 Key Map COR-33 COR-36C " ) ! ( ! ( Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 1,500 ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) KRSD-51 KRSD-09 / " ! ( ! ( " ) " ) 1,500 Feet KRSD-10 PHASE II SAMPLING ) " PREVIOUS SAMPLING ( ! / " ! ( SSD-14 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( / " / " 2.0 - 4.0 FT BGS ) 4.0 - 6.0 FT BGS " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) 6.0 - 8.0 FT BGS " ) 8.0 - 10.0 FT BGS . ! SURFICIAL SAMPLE ( 0.0 - 0.5 BGS ( 0.5 - 2.0 BGS ( 2.0 - 4.0 BGS ( 4.0 - 6.0 BGS ( 6.0 - 8.0 BGS ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 COR-33 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 / COR-25 " " ) COR-34 / " ! ( " ) " " ) ) ! ( ! ( / " / " KRSD-19 25 / " ! ( ! ( ! ( / " " / COR-32 COR-31 ! ( ! ( ! ( " )! ( / " / " COR-40 " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( KRSD-16 / " SSD-19 " ) COR-28A KRSD-15 / " . ! / " / " SSD-20 KRSD-57 . ! . ! KRSD-59 . ! Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility COR-35 Key Map . ! SSD-21 KRSD-18 NOTE: PROPERTY BOUNDARIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. figure 4.9 SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS - STUDY AREA 3 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA023 February 23, 2015 COR-41 KRSD-22 / " KRSD-17 COR-39 KRSD-21 COR-30 " / SSD-22 / COR-38 " / " - "/ COR-27 / COR-26 " / COR-28 " ARM OUR CRE EK " )- RM 41 " ) " ) " ) COR-37 / ! " ( KRSD-20 " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( COR-29 / " SSD-18 5.0 - 20.0 ! ( ! ( 64 SSD-17 ! . / " 2.0 - 5.0 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) / " / " KRSD-13 COR-32A TE - < 0.5 KRSD-14 ST A SSD-15 / " RM 39 RM 40 ER SSD-16 ND COR-32B INT John E. Amos Power Plant 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) 0 - 2.0 FT BGS ) . ! KRSD-48 COR-24 SURFICIAL SAMPLE ) KRSD-50 KRSD-11 SAMPLE DEPTHS / " KRSD-49 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( R 1,000 COR-23 IVE 500 - / " OR 0 " ) LIC RM 38 ! ( ! ( ATA COR-22 / " KRSD-53 C PO KRSD-08 ! ( ! ( COR-21 COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. / " ( ! . ! ( ! . ! ( ! ! . ( ! . ! ( ! . ! - / COR-02 " / " COR-01 / " " COR-03 / / " ! ( ( ! ( ! . ! ( ! ! ( . ! . /! SSD-02 " / " " ) " ) -" ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( COR-04 RM 32 SSD-04 SSD-03 / " KD-200 KD-201 SSD-05 . ! / SSD-06 " " COR-07 / / " " ) " ) COR-06 " )" ) ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) KRSD-03 SSD-07 / RM 33 / " " COR-08 . ! ( ! COR-10 / " KRSD-02 ! ( ! ( COR-11 " ) " )/ " RM 31 KRSD-01 COR-09 / " ( ! . ! ( ! . ! ( ! . ! (! ! . ! ( ! . ! ( " . / SSD-01 !! ( ( ! / " COR-12 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area PREVIOUS SAMPLING ( ! 0 / " COR-15 ( 0.5 - 2.0 BGS ( 2.0 - 4.0 BGS RM 35 ( 4.0 - 6.0 BGS " / / COR-17 " KRSD-05 ( ! SSD-09 / " " ) RM 36 - / " KRSD-06 ) 4.0 - 6.0 FT BGS " ) ! ( ( (! ! ( COR-18 2.0 - 4.0 FT BGS NRC-01 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE (TO 6 FEET) 6.0 8.0 FT BGS ( (! ! " ) Î " ) PIPELINE 8.0 - 10.0 FT BGS KRSD-07 ( ! (! ( ! ( ! / " Key Map SSD-10 SSD-12 RM 37 / " / " - SSD-11 / " KRSD-09 KRSD-08 SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA021 February 27, 2015 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ND < 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 20.0 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 SSD-13 / " NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) BATHYMETRY (FEET) ( ! ( !! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! 6.0 - 8.0 BGS 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) nd fill ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ) Cree k La 0.0 - 0.5 BGS COR-16 4,500 0 - 2.0 FT BGS ) Ma nilla ( " ) " -) 3,000 SURFICIAL SAMPLE / " SURFICIAL SAMPLE / " 1,500 Feet . ! COR-13 COR-14 / " ! ( ! ( ( ! ) " SAMPLE DEPTHS RM 34 KRSD-04 PHASE II SAMPLING COR-19 KRSD-63 ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) !( " ) ! (" ! ! ( (( ! ( ) ! ( ! ( ! " ) ( ! ! ( ! (" " ) ) ! ( -" ) ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( / " KRSD-45 COR-20 ( ! ( ! / " ( ! KRSD-51 / COR-21 " COR-22 RM 38 John E. Amos Power Plant ( ! ( ! / COR-23 " ( ! KRSD-49 SSD-14 KRSD-48 ! ( / " - KRSD-55 ! ( KRSD-11 SSD-16 ( ! ! . ( ! ( ! COR-24 ( ! KRSD-56 ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! / " KRSD-10 KRSD-53 ( ! ! . / " figure 4.10 ( (! ! . ! SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND RESULTS - STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA / " RM 39 ! ( 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet RM 32 - RM 33 - RM 31 - . BC-COR-10A/B ! RM 34 - . BC-COR-13A/B ! Former ACF Industries, Inc. site Winfield Locks and Dam KANAWHA RIVER - RM 35 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area - aR wh RM 36 iv e r 0 na POCATALICO RIVER - Ka - P oc at o ic al er R iv RM 38 H e ize rC re ek RM 37 John E. Amos Power Plant RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area - - BC-COR-37A/B RM 42 Great Lakes Chemical Corp. BC-SSD-26A/B RM 43 Hancock Tyler Former Flexsys Facility . ! - Fike/Artel Superfund Site Wetzel Clarksburg Doddridge " Harrison Ritchie Barbour Lewis Parkersburg " Wood § ¦ ¨ 77 Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor Wirt § ¦ ¨ 79 Gilmer Calhoun Mason Jackson Roane Braxton Huntington Putnam "Cabell St. Albans " Wayne Lincoln Mingo Study Area 1 Upstream Area Wyoming McDowell § ¦ ¨ 77 § ¦ ¨ 64 Beckley Raleigh" § ¦ ¨ 81 RM 44 Pendleton - Greenbrier Summers Monroe Mercer Bluefield WEST VIRGINIA RM 45 - Coa l R " Hardy Nitro Sanitary Landfill Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Randolph Grant Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg Webster Clay Charleston " Kanawha Upshur Tucker Mineral Hampshire iver Pleasants ou r ABCA Warehouse Site Wheeling " Ohio Former Flexsys Facility AES (HUB) Property . ! Brooke Marshall Armour Creek Landfill Ar m - Study Area 2 Adjacent Area C reek RM 40 Int RM 41 e rs tat e6 4 - . ! BLACK CARBON SAMPLING COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA018 February 23, 2015 figure 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING LOCATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 3,000 6,000 9,000 Feet NRC-02 ) Î -" RM 33 RM 32 " ) NRC-03 Î " ) NRC-01 Î - RM 31 - RM 34 - Former ACF Industries, Inc. site Winfield Locks and Dam Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area RM 35 " ) Î - aR wh RM 36 NRC-04 iv e r 0 na POCATALICO RIVER Ka - ek RM 37 - at o ic al R er iv John E. Amos Power Plant RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area P oc RM 38 H e ize rC re " ) NRC-05 Î - - RM 40 NRC-07 " ) Î RM 42 Great Lakes Chemical Corp. C reek Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility - AES (HUB) Property " ) Î NRC-08 RM 43 Hancock ou r - NRC-06 " ) Î Ar m Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Int ers RM 41 tat e6 4 ABCA Warehouse Site Former Flexsys Facility - Fike/Artel Superfund Site Brooke Wheeling " Ohio Marshall Tyler Wetzel Clarksburg Doddridge " Harrison Ritchie Barbour Lewis Parkersburg 77 Wirt § ¦ ¨ 79 Gilmer Calhoun Mason Jackson Roane Braxton Huntington Putnam "Cabell St. Albans " Wayne Lincoln Mingo Wyoming McDowell § ¦ ¨ 77 § ¦ ¨ 64 Beckley Raleigh" § ¦ ¨ 81 RM 44 Pendleton - Greenbrier Summers Monroe Mercer Bluefield " Hardy Nitro Sanitary Landfill Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Randolph Grant Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg Webster Clay Charleston " Kanawha Upshur Tucker Mineral Hampshire WEST VIRGINIA Study Area 1 Upstream Area NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA025 February 23, 2015 - RM 45 iver " Wood § ¦ ¨ Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor Coa l R Pleasants CRA SAMPLING LOCATIONS " ) Î NRC-01 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE (TO 6 FEET) figure 4.12 NRC SAMPLING LOCATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Temporal Trends in Surface Water Data Surface Water 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (pg/L) 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Feb-98 Jul-99 Nov-00 Apr-02 Aug-03 Dec-04 Sampling Date RM 31 to 42: Total RM 46 & Upstream: Total RM 31 to 42: Dissolved West Virginia Water Quality Criterion (0.014 pg/L) RM 46 & Upstream: Dissolved figure 4.13 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SURFACE WATER DATA EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.13 February 26, 2015 Spatial Trends in Surface Water Data 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Surface Water 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (pg/L) 0.07 0.00 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 River Mile High Flow 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Total) Low Flow 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Total) High Flow 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) Low Flow 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) figure 4.14 2,3,7,8-TCDD SPATIAL TRENDS IN SURFACE WATER DATA EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.14 February 26, 2015 Trends in Bottom Feeders Concentrations vs. Current Advisory 70 Wet Weight 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (ng/kg) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan-84 Oct-86 Jul-89 Apr-92 Jan-95 Sep-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08 Sampling Date Upstream Background - RM 67 to RM 95 Historical Data - RM 33 to RM 45 EE/CA Data - RM 33 to RM 45 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) figure 4.15 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN BOTTOM FEEDER TISSUE DATA (WET WEIGHT) EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.15 February 26, 2015 Trends in Bottom Feeders Concentrations vs. Current Advisory Lipid Normalized 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD per % Lipid) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jan-84 Oct-86 Jul-89 Apr-92 Jan-95 Sep-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08 Sampling Date Upstream Background - RM 67 to RM 95 Historical Data - RM 33 to RM 45 EE/CA Data - RM 33 to RM 45 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) figure 4.16 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN BOTTOM FEEDER TISSUE DATA (LIPID NORMALIZED) EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.16 February 26, 2015 Trends in Sport Fish Concentrations vs. Current Advisory 60 Wet Weight 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (ng/kg) 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan-84 Oct-86 Jul-89 Apr-92 Jan-95 Sep-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08 Sampling Date Upstream Background - RM 67 to RM 95 Historical Data - RM 33 to RM 45 EE/CA Data - RM 33 to RM 45 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) figure 4.17 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SPORT FISH TISSUE DATA (WET WEIGHT) EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.17 February 26, 2015 Trends in Sport Fish Concentrations vs. Current Advisory Lipid Normalized 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg TCDD per % Lipid) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Jan-84 Oct-86 Jul-89 Apr-92 Jan-95 Sep-97 Jun-00 Mar-03 Dec-05 Sep-08 Sampling Date Upstream Background - RM 67 to RM 95 Historical Data - RM 33 to RM 45 EE/CA Data - RM 33 to RM 45 WV Minimum No Restriction Advisory (0.72 ng/kg) WV Minimum Do Not Eat Advisory (37.54 ng/kg) figure 4.18 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEMPORAL TRENDS IN SPORT FISH TISSUE DATA (LIPID NORMALIZED) EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.18 February 26, 2015 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 (COMPOSITE) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) 15 3.5 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 (COMPOSITE) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) 280 3.5 0 2000 5000ft R.M. 33 R.M. 31 RM 33 Gizzard Shad TISS-031884-101404-DK-013 TISS-031884-101404-DK-014 TISS-031884-101404-DK-015 TISS-031884-101404-DK-016 TISS-031884-101404-DK-017 TISS031884-121708-DFK-016 TISS031884-121708-DFK-017 TISS031884-121708-DFK-018 TISS031884-121708-DFK-019 TISS031884-121708-DFK-020 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) Lipid Content (%) 4.50 2.39 3.69 2.07 7.53 2.61 3.40 1.97 3.35 2.63 15.8 7.39 7.07 6.9 13.7 8.15 16.1 6.35 16.1 6.76 RM 68 Gizzard Shad TISS-031884-101604-DK-036 TISS-031884-101804-DK-037 TISS-031884-101804-DK-038 TISS-031884-102104-DK-039 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-051 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-052 TISS031884-121808-DFK-031 TISS031884-121808-DFK-032 TISS031884-122208-DFK-033 TISS031884-122208-DFK-034 TISS031884-122208-DFK-035 RM 42 Gizzard Shad TISS-031884-101304-DK-003 TISS-031884-101304-DK-004 TISS-031884-101304-DK-005 TISS-031884-101304-DK-006 TISS-031884-101304-DK-007 TISS031884-121608-DFK-003 TISS031884-121608-DFK-004 TISS031884-121608-DFK-005 TISS031884-121608-DFK-006 TISS031884-121608-DFK-007 STUDY AREA 4 DOWNSTREAM 2 AREA 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) Lipid Content (%) 1.50 1.80 6.70 2.15 0.877 J 2.14 1.59 1.94 5.98 2.49 9.05 6.31 7.1 6.13 4.22 6.05 5.2 6.45 7.93 5.32 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) Lipid Content (%) 1.44 3.73 2.10 3.19 0.511 J 3.13 0.222 J 4.56 0.936 J 4.60 0.307 J 5.02 ND(1.22)U 10.9 0.191 J 9.65 0.185 J 9.48 0.387 J 7.22 0.195 J 10.5 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 (COMPOSITE) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) ND(0.36) 4.0 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 (COMPOSITE) STUDY AREA 3 DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) ND(0.31) 4.0 R.M. 68 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 (COMPOSITE) R.M. 42 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) 71 3.4 STUDY AREA 2 ADJACENT AREA RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 (COMPOSITE) 0 1000 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) 24 3.4 2500ft STUDY AREA 1 UPSTREAM AREA LEGEND R.M. 39 R.M. 46 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 (COMPOSITE) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/g) TOC (%) 24 3.4 J U ND TOC 2,3,7,8-TCDD pg/g % SAMPLE LOCATION CHEMICAL NAME RESULT SAMPLE ID ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE NOT DETECTED AT OR ABOVE THE ASSOCIATED VALUE TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN PICOGRAMS PER GRAM PERCENTAGE SOURCE: USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS; ALUM CREEK, BANCROFT, BELLE, CHARLESTON EAST, GARRETTS BEND, SCOTT DEPOT, ST ALBANS, AND WINFIELD, WEST VIRGINIA DATA SOURCE : MAPTECH, INC. 31884-00(051)GN-WA016 FEB 20/2015 NOTE: (1) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE figure 4.19 BSAF SAMPLING LOCATIONS EE/CA REPORT Right Bank Sediment Sample Results 40 SA 1 - Upstream SA 2 Adjacent SA 3 - Downstream 38 SA 4 - Downstream 36 34 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 Surface Samples 10 0-2 ft 8 2-4 ft 6 4-6 ft 4 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg) 32 2 0 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 River Mile figure 4.20 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT DATA PROFILE - RIGHT BANK EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.20 February 26, 2015 Left Bank Sediment Sample Results 30 SA 1 Upstream SA 2 Adjacent SA 4 - Downstream SA 3 - Downstream 20 15 10 Surface Samples 0-2 ft 2-4 ft 4-6 ft 6-8 ft 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentration (µg/kg) 25 5 0 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 River Mile figure 4.21 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT DATA PROFILE - LEFT BANK EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.21 February 26, 2015 COR-41* - R (42.3) COR-42*,*** - L (42.3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.0001 0 1 Depth in inches Depth in inches 0.0001 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 60 80 100 120 1 40 60 80 100 COR-40*,*** - R (42.1) 0.1 1 10 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 100 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 Depth in inches Depth in inches 40 0.1 20 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 20 0.01 120 COR-39** - R (42.0) 0.01 0 0.001 20 40 60 80 100 120 Notes: * = Indicates that half of the detection limit was used as the result because the analyte was not detected above the detection limit. ** = Reported value may not be accurate or precise. Result reported with lab qualifier "J". ***= Location sampled twice figure 4.22 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILE - STUDY AREA 2 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.22 February 26, 2015 COR-36**,*** - L (41.6) COR-35* - R (41.6) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 1 10 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 100 0.0001 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.1 1 20 40 60 80 100 0.01 0.1 0.0001 0 1 80 Depth in inches 60 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 20 20 40 0.01 0.1 1 10 20 40 60 80 100 120 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.001 0.001 0 COR-30* - R (40.4) COR-32B* - L (40.7) Depth in inches 0.01 120 120 0.0001 0 0.001 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg Depth in inches 0.1 Depth in inches Depth in inches 0.01 0 COR-36C** - L (41.5) 40 Note: Notes: * = Indicates that half of the detection limit was used as the result because the analyte was not detected above the detection limit. ** = Reported value may not be accurate or precise. Result reported with lab qualifier "J". ***= Location sampled twice 60 80 100 100 120 120 figure 4.23 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES - STUDY AREA 2 AND 3 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.23 February 26, 2015 COR-22** - R (37.9) COR-21** - R (37.7) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.1 1 10 0.001 0 Depth in inches Depth in inches 0.01 0 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 20 40 60 80 100 120 40 60 80 100 120 10 60 80 100 120 COR-15 - L (34.8) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 1 0.001 0 Depth in inches Depth in inches 20 0.1 1 40 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.01 0.1 20 COR-20 - R (37.5) 0.001 0 0.01 0.01 0.1 1 20 40 60 80 100 120 Note: ** = Reported value may not be accurate or precise. Result reported with lab qualifier "J". figure 4.24 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES - STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.24 February 26, 2015 COR-09 - R (33.4) 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.01 0.1 0.001 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 COR-04 - L (32.1) 20 40 60 80 100 120 0.1 1 40 60 80 100 120 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.001 0 1 20 0.00001 0 10 COR-03 - L (32.0) Depth in inches Depth in inches 0.01 0.1 20 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 0.001 0 0.01 Depth in inches 0.001 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD in µg/kg Depth in inches Depth in inches 0.0001 0 COR-07* - R (32.6) COR-08** - L (32.9) 0.01 0.1 1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 20 40 60 80 100 120 Notes: * = Indicates that half of the detection limit was used as the result because the analyte was not detected above the detection limit. ** = Reported value may not be accurate or precise. Result reported with lab qualifier "J". Note: 40 60 80 100 120 figure 4.25 PHASE II EOC INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT CORE PROFILES - STUDY AREA 4 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.25 February 26, 2015 26 27 28 30 29 RM 31 RM 32 - 25 - RM 33 - 0 24 RM 34 - ´ 1:55,000 23 1 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area 22 - RM 35 0.5 Miles 21 20 HALF MILE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 RIVER MILE RM 45.0 to 45.5 RM 44.5 to 45.0 RM 44.0 to 44.5 RM 43.5 to 44.0 RM 43.0 to 43.5 RM 42.5 to 43.0 RM 42.0 to 42.5 RM 41.5 to 42.0 RM 41.0 to 41.5 RM 40.5 to 41.0 RM 40.0 to 40.5 RM 39.5 to 40.0 RM 39.0 to 39.5 RM 38.5 to 39.0 RM 38.0 to 38.5 RM 37.5 to 38.0 RM 37.0 to 37.5 RM 36.5 to 37.0 RM 36.0 to 36.5 RM 35.5 to 36.0 RM 35.0 to 35.5 RM 34.5 to 35.0 RM 34.0 to 34.5 RM 33.5 to 34.0 RM 33.0 to 33.5 RM 32.5 to 33.0 RM 32.0 to 32.5 RM 31.5 to 32.0 RM 31.0 to 31.5 RM 30.5 to 31.0 RM 36 - 19 RM 37 18 - 17 16 RM 38 15 - C 14 RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 13 RM 40 RM 41 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area RM 42 Tributary Half Mile Markers Study Area 1 - Upstream Study Area 2 - Adjacent Study Area 3 - Downstream 1 Study Area 4 - Downstream 2 Proposed Cap Area Armour Creek Boundary Pocatlico River/Heizer Creek/Manila Creek System Boundary Critical 3-Mile Reach - - 12 11 10 - 9 8 7 RM 43 LEGEND - - RM 44 6 Study Area 1 Upstream Area 5 4 - 3 2 RM 45 - 1 Aerial: National Agriculture Imagery Program Dated 2014 (West Virginia South SPC, NAD83); Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane West Virginia South FIPS 4702 Feet NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. (3) Proposed cap areas to be defined during the design process. 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA115 February 27, 2015 figure 4.26 SWAC CALCULATION - HALF-MILE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Note: Study Area 1 corresponds to approximately RM 45.5 to 42.5, Study Area 2 - RM 42.5 to 41.5, Study Area 3 - RM 41.5 to 38.5, and Study Area 4 - RM 38.5 to 30.5. 031884-00(REP051) - figure 4.27 February 27, 2015 figure 4.27 EXISTING CONDITION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia / / / KRSD-22 . / / 0 500 1,000 COR-43 SSD-26 1,500 Feet / RM 43 SSD-27 Fike/Artel Superfund site . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . Study Area 1 Upstream Area Key Map KRSD-25 . - KRSD-26 . RM 44 / SSD-28 Nitro Sanitary Landfill . KRSD-27 PIPELINE Channel Outline / EOC Surface Sample . Previous Surface Sample / SSD-29 Shear Velocity (ft/s) 0 - 0.1 . KRSD-29 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 KRSD-28 . - RM 45 0.4 - 0.5 0.5 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.9 0.9 - 1 COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA050 February 25, 2015 figure 4.28 SHEAR VELOCITY MAPPING - STUDY AREA 1 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Ke yMa p 0 500 1, 000 -/ RM 4 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 1, 500 / KRSD-14 . Fe e t / COR-29 / Arm our Cre e k La nd fill . / COR-30 / COR-32B / COR-31 / - COR-32A / RM 41 / COR-32 / SSD-21 . KRSD-16 . / SSD-22 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area COR-33 / COR-36C / COR-36B / KRSD-19 . COR-34 / COR-36 / SSD-24 / RM 42 . KRSD-18 O ld Mons a nt o La nd fill SSD-23 / COR-37 / KRSD-17 . / COR-35 COR-36A / . KRSD-20 AES( HUB)Prope rt y COR-38 / - COR-39 / COR-40 / SSD-25 / COR-42 / . KRSD-21 / COR-41 . KRSD-22 Fle x s ys Am e ric a ,LLP Gre a tLa ke s Che m ica lCorp / COR-43 / ECO Surfa ce Sa m ple . Pre vious Surfa c e Sa m ple PI PELI NE / SSD-26 Cha nne lO ut line LowPe rm e a ble Ca p Pe rm e a ble Ca p Shear Velocity (ft/s) / SSD-27 0-0. 1 0. 1-0. 2 0. 2-0. 3 RM 43 0. 3-0. 4 - 0. 4-0. 5 0. 5-0. 6 0. 6-0. 7 . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . NO TE: ( 1)Prope rt ybound a rie s s hown a re a pprox im a t e. ( 2)The la t e ra le xt e ntof t he Sit e a nd St ud yAre a bound a rie s a re lim it ed t ot he Rive r wit hin t he wa t e r s urfa ce d e fine d byt he norm a lpool e le va t ion.Ad ja ce nta re a s a re includ e d for re fe re nce only,a nd d o notform pa rtof t he Sit e. SO URCE:AERI ALNATI O NALAGRI CULTUREI MAGERY PRO GRAM DATED 2014( WESTVI RGI NI ASO UTH SPC,NAD83) 03188400( REP051) GI SWA051 Fe brua ry25,2015 . 0. 7-0. 8 0. 8-0. 9 0. 9-1 fig ure 4. 29 SHEARVELO CI TY MAPPI NG – STUDY AREA2 EE/ CAREPO RT KANAWHARI VER,WESTVI RGI NI A KRSD-51 .KRSD-09 / COR-21 . RI V / COR-23 ER - . O LIC 1, 000 AT A / COR-22 RM 38 500 C PO KRSD-08 . 0 KRSD-53 . 1, 500 . KRSD-49 SSD-14 / Fe e t KRSD-10 . . KRSD-50 . KRSD-11 . KRSD-48 COR-24 / / SSD-15 John E. Amos Power Plant / ECO Surfa ce Sa m ple . Pre vious Surfa c e Sa m ple SSD-16 / RM 39 - PI PELI NE Pe rm e a ble Ca p LowPe rm e a ble Ca p / SSD-17 Shear Velocity (ft/s) / SSD-18 0-0. 1 0. 1-0. 2 0. 2-0. 3 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 0. 3-0. 4 0. 4-0. 5 / COR-25 0. 5-0. 6 0. 6-0. 7 0. 7-0. 8 KRSD-13 . 0. 8-0. 9 0. 9-1 RM 40 / COR-28A COR-29 / . KRSD-15 / SSD-20 / / / 25 AT E6 4 / SSD-22 Pa s tDis pos a lAre a NO TE: ( 1 )PrCOR-38 ope rt ybound a rie s s hown a re a pprox im a t e. / ( 2)The la t e ra le xt e ntof t he Sit e a nd St ud yAre a bound a rie s a re lim it ed ubbe r Che m ic lMa nufa ct ng Are a t ot he R R ive r wit hin at he wa t e rusriu rfa ce d e fine d byt he norm a lpool COR-39 / e le va t ion.Ad ja ce nta re a s a re includ e d for re fe re nce only,a nd d o ormret rof 2, 4 , 5TS MF Are a notform Fpa t he it eG. KRSD-21 COR-40 SO URCE:AERI ALNATI O NALAGRI CULTUREI MAGERY PRO GRAM DATED 2014( WESTVI RGI NI ASO UTH SPC,NAD83) 03188400( REP051) GI SWA052 Fe brua ry25,2015 COR-41 KRSD-22 . KRSD-57 Ke yMa p . KRSD-59 Armour Creek Landfill / COR-35 COR-37 / . KRSD-20 . / ST KRSD-17 . COR-33 / / COR-36C . KRSD-18 / . COR-36B / COR-34 KRSD-19 / COR-36 / - COR-32A / UR C ER COR-31 / . KRSD-16 / COR-32 ARM O INT RM 41 REE K COR-30 / / SSD-21 / SSD-19 / COR-28 KRSD-14 . COR-32B / -/ COR-27 / COR-26 Former Flexsys Facility fig ure 4. 30 SHEARVELO CI TY MAPPI NG – STUDY AREA3 EE/ CAREPO RT KANAWHARI VER,WESTVI RGI NI A COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. COR-04 RM 32 / . / - / / COR-06 COR-08 - SSD-07 / / RM 33 COR-03 COR-10 SSD-05 . / / / COR-02 / COR-09 / COR-01 0 COR-11 - COR-12 / / SSD-01 . KRSD-03 KRSD-02 SSD-04 SSD-03 / SSD-02 / / / SSD-06 / COR-07 / RM 31 KRSD-01 KRSD-04 / RM 35 COR-16 - / / COR-17 Ma nilla . KRSD-05 La Cre e k / ECO Surfa ce Sa m ple . Pre vious Surfa ce Sa m ple Shear Velocity (ft/s) 0-0. 1 0. 1-0. 2 0. 2-0. 3 nd fill / SSD-09 PI PELI NE Cha nne lO ut line / COR-18 RM 36 - KRSD-06 SSD-10 . / . KRSD-07 0. 3-0. 4 0. 4-0. 5 0. 5-0. 6 0. 6-0. 7 0. 7-0. 8 0. 8-0. 9 SSD-12 RM 37 / / SSD-11 -/ SSD-13 / COR-19 0. 9-1 NO TE: ( 1)Prope rt ybound a rie s s hown a re a pprox im a t e. ( 2)The la t e ra le xt e ntof t he Sit e a nd St ud yAre a bound a rie s a re lim it ed t ot he Rive r wit hin t he wa t e r s urfa ce d e fine d byt he norm a lpool e le va t ion.Ad ja ce nta re a s a re includ e d for re fe re nce only,a nd d o notform pa rtof t he Sit e. SO URCE:AERI ALNATI O NALAGRI CULTUREI MAGERY PRO GRAM DATED2014( WESTVI RGI NI ASO UTH SPC,NAD83) 03188400( REP051) GI SWA053 Fe brua ry25,2015 4, 500 . /COR-13 COR-14 / COR-15 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area 3, 000 Fe e t Ke yMa p RM 34 1, 500 / KRSD-08 . KRSD-63 COR-20 . KRSD-45 . KRSD-09 / COR-21 . COR-22 - / RM 38 / . SSD-14 KRSD-11 . COR-24 . . KRSD-53 . KRSD-54 / COR-23 KRSD-10 John E. Amos Power Plant KRSD-51 . KRSD-49 . KRSD-50 / . KRSD-48 SSD-16 - / RM 39 / . KRSD-56 . KRSD-55 fig ure 4. 31 SHEARVELO CI TY MAPPI NG – STUDY AREA4 EE/ CAREPO RT KANAWHARI VER,WESTVI RGI NI A figure 4.32 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS OF ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS EE/CA REPORT 31884-00(051)GN-WA009 FEB 20/2015 OHIO POINT PLEASANT OHIO RIVER 0 6000 18000ft JACKSON MASON WEST VIRGINIA KANAWHA RIVER PUTNAM STUDY AREA 4 - DOWNSTREAM 2 AREA WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM LIMITS OF SITE POCATALICO RIVER STUDY AREA 3 - DOWNSTREAM 1 AREA INTERSTATE 64 STUDY AREA 2 - ADJACENT AREA ARMOUR CREEK NITRO CABELL KANAWHA STUDY AREA 1 - UPSTREAM AREA ELK RIVER COAL RIVER CHARLESTON LINCOLN PENNSYLVANIA MARYLAND NOTE: (1) THE LATERAL EXTENT OF THE SITE AND STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES ARE LIMITED TO THE RIVER WITHIN THE WATER SURFACE BY THE NORMAL POOL ELEVATION. ADJACENT AREAS ARE INCLUDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY, AND DO NOT FORM PART OF THE SITE LEGEND KANAWHA RIVER FLOW DIRECTION WEST VIRGINIA LIMITS OF SITE figure 5.1 KEY MAP SCALE: 1" = 350000' 31884-00(051)GN-WA008 FEB 20/2015 SITE LOCATION - ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT EE/CA REPORT 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 / SSD-06 COR-07 " /" / " COR-06 / " COR-05 Feet - / SSD-07 /" " COR-08 RM 33 COR-04 " / RM 32 " / COR-03 / COR-10 " / " SSD-05 - SSD-04 SSD-03 " / / COR-02 " / " " " / / SSD-02 COR-01 / " SSD-01 / COR-09 " / COR-11 " - COR-12 RM 31 - / " COR-13 " / Former ACF Industries, Inc. site Winfield Locks and Dam RM 34 / COR-14 " COR-15 / " - / COR-16 " / COR-17 " RM 35 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area / SSD-09 " - ha R aw iv e r RM 36 / COR-18 " SSD-10 " / POCATALICO RIVER / SSD-11 "" / - "/ SSD-13 / COR-19 " at o ic al er R iv - P oc / COR-20 " / COR-21 " / COR-22 " / COR-23 " RM 38 / SSD-14 " ek RM 37 H e ize rC re Ka n SSD-12 COR-24 " / John E. Amos Power Plant - SSD-16 " / RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area / " SSD-25 " / COR-42 / COR-41 " Wetzel Clarksburg Doddridge " Harrison Ritchie Barbour Lewis Parkersburg - Fike/Artel Superfund site 77 Wirt § ¦ ¨ 79 Gilmer Calhoun Mason Jackson Roane Braxton Huntington Putnam "Cabell St. Albans " Wayne Lincoln Mingo Wyoming McDowell § ¦ ¨ 77 Bluefield - "/ § ¦ ¨ 81 RM 44 Pendleton SSD-28 Study Area 1 Upstream Area Summers Monroe Mercer " SSD-29 / Greenbrier WEST VIRGINIA RM 45 - Coa l R " § ¦ ¨ 64 Beckley Raleigh " Hardy Nitro Sanitary Landfill Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Randolph Grant Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg Webster Clay Charleston " Kanawha Upshur Tucker Mineral Hampshire iver " Wood § ¦ ¨ Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor C reek Former Flexsys Facility Wheeling Tyler ou r ABCA Warehouse site " COR-43 / / SSD-26 " / SSD-27 " Brooke Pleasants - Ar m - RM 43 " Ohio / COR-25 " " COR-26 / / SSD-19 " - Hancock Marshall " SSD-17 / / SSD-18 " RM 40 " / COR-27 COR-28A " / COR-28 / COR-29 / " " COR-30 " / SSD-20 " / COR-32B " / " / SSD-21 RM 41 InCOR-32A / COR-31 ter /" " / " COR-32 COR-33 stat " / e6 Armour Creek Landfill SSD-22 COR-36C 4 / " COR-36B " /" " / COR-34 / COR-36 " / " / COR-35 COR-36A " Former Flexsys Facility // SSD-23 " / COR-37 " / " SSD-24 " / COR-38 AES (HUB) Property / COR-39 RM 42 " / COR-40 " Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Great Lakes Chemical Corp. / SSD-15 " COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. / " SURFACE LOCATIONS / " SURFACE AND SUB-SURFACE LOCATIONS figure 5.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS - ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA026 February 23, 2015 Hancock Brooke Wheeling " Ohio Marshall Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor Wetzel Tyler Pleasants Wood " § ¦ ¨ 77 0 3,000 6,000 Wirt § ¦ ¨ 79 Gilmer Calhoun Mason Jackson Roane Braxton 9,000 Huntington Putnam "Cabell St. Albans " Feet ! ) " R.M. 32 Wayne R.M. 33 Lincoln Mingo " Kanawha Wyoming ) " R.M. 34 64 § ¦ ¨ Former ACF Industries, Inc. site § ¦ ¨ 81 Pendleton Greenbrier Bluefield Mercer KANAWHA RIVER ! Hardy Summers Monroe 77 " R.M. 31 § ¦ ¨ Beckley Raleigh " McDowell Randolph Grant Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Logan Upshur Tucker Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg Webster Clay Charleston Mineral Hampshire Clarksburg Doddridge Harrison " Ritchie Barbour Lewis Parkersburg WEST VIRGINIA R.M. 35 Winfield Locks and Dam ! ! R.M. 36 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area R.M. 37 H e ize rC re ek ! POCATALICO RIVER R.M. 42 A rm ou r C reek R.M. 40 Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility ABCA Warehouse site Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Fike/Artel Superfund site R.M. 43 Nitro Sanitary Landfill iv ) " 64 R Study Area 2 Adjacent Area R.M. 41 ! o ic al R.M. 39 ! tat e er ! Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Int e rs at R.M. 38 John E. Amos Power Plant AES (HUB) Property P oc ! ! Study Area 1 Upstream Area R.M. 44 ! River Mile ) " Sampling Location NOTE: R.M. 46 and R.M. 68 upstream were also sampled ! R.M. 45 Coa l R iver ! COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA027 February 23, 2015 figure 5.3 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS - ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia Hancock Brooke Wheeling " Ohio Marshall Pleasants Morgantown Monongalia" Marion"Fairm ont Preston Taylor Wetzel Tyler Doddridge " Harrison Ritchie Barbour Lewis " Wood 0 3,000 6,000 Mason 9,000 Huntington § ¦ ¨ 77 Putnam R.M. 33 ! ! R.M. 32 Lincoln Wayne Mingo 79 Wyoming R.M. 34 R.M. 31 Winfield Locks and Dam Hardy § ¦ ¨ 81 Pendleton Greenbrier Summers Monroe 77 Bluefield Mercer KANAWHA RIVER ! ! Former ACF Industries, Inc. site 64 § ¦ ¨ " ! § ¦ ¨ Beckley Raleigh " McDowell Randolph Grant Pocahontas Nicholas Fayette Boone Upshur Tucker Morgan Berkeley"Martinsburg Webster Clay " Charleston Kanawha Logan ! § ¦ ¨ Gilmer Calhoun Jackson Roane Braxton "Cabell St. Albans " Feet Wirt Mineral Hampshire Clarksburg Parkersburg WEST VIRGINIA R.M. 35 ! ! R.M. 36 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area POCATALICO RIVER ! ! R.M. 37 H e ize rC re ek ! ! P oc at R.M. 38 o ic al R er John E. Amos Power Plant iv ! ! R.M. 39 ! ! Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area R.M. 40 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area tat e R.M. 41 ! ! 64 ou r Int e rs Ar m AES (HUB) Property C reek ! ! Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility R.M. 42 ! ! ABCA Warehouse Site Great Lakes Chemical Corp. Former Flexsys Facility R.M. 43 Fike/Artel Superfund Site ! ! Nitro Sanitary Landfill Study Area 1 Upstream Area ! ! R.M. 44 R.M. 45 ! ! ! River Mile ! Catfish and Sauger ! Gizzard Shad and Bass NOTE: Catfish and Sauger sampled at R.M.'s 75-95 upstream; Gizzard Shad and Bass sampled at R.M. 68 upstream COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA028 February 23, 2015 figure 5.4 FISH TISSUE SAMPLING LOCATIONS - ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 100% zebrafish 90% white sucker 80% NOEC LOEC LC50 northern pike 70% % of Species medaka 60% fathead minnow 50% channel catfish 40% lake herring 30% rainbow trout 20% brook trout 10% lake trout 0% 1.0 10.0 100.0 1,000.0 Lipid normalized LOEC, Cold Water Fish Bass, RM 33, 2004 & 2008 Bass RM 42, 2004 & 2008 Shad RM 33, 2004 & 2008 Shad RM 42, 2004 & 2008 Catfish, RM 33-45, 2004 Catfish and Sauger, RM 33-45, 2008 Lipid Normalized LOEC, Warm Water Fish 10,000.0 figure 5.5 SPECIES SENSITIVITY CURVE - NOEC, LOEC, LC50 BODY BURDENS BY SPECIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 5.5 February 26, 2015 COR-20 Heizer Creek Landfill " ) !( " ) ! (" ! ( ! (! ! ( ) ! ( ! ( ( " ) ! ( " ) ! ( ! (" " ) ! ( ) ! ( ) -" ! ( ! ( ! ( !( ! ! ( ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! ( " / KRSD-09 " / KRSD-08 KRSD-51 KRSD-53 COR-21 " / KRSD-56 COR-22 RM 38 " / COR-23 " / KRSD-10 Key Map ! ( KRSD-45 ! ( KRSD-49 SSD-14 ! . KRSD-50 KRSD-11 ! . " / COR-24 KRSD-48 " / 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 SSD-16 - " / RM 39 Feet SSD-15 SSD-17 " / SSD-18 ! . " / Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area " ) " / KRSD-13 RM 40 KRSD-14 ! (! ( " / - / COR-32 " COR-33 ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " " " ) ) ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ) - " " ) " ) " ) " ) ! ( ! ( " )!(")!( " ) KRSD-19 Study Area 2 Adjacent COR-36 " / (" "! ) ) ! ( ! ( COR-34 " / " / " / SSD-23 SSD-24 " / SSD-25 COR-42 " / " / ! . KRSD-57 ! . ! . KRSD-17 KRSD-18 COR-35 KRSD-20 " / COR-38 " / COR-39 " / " / KRSD-21 Great Lakes Chemcial Corp COR-41 COR-43 " / SSD-26 RM 43 KRSD-24 - " / SSD-27 Fike Artel ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( KRSD-23 ! ( ! ( ! ( - KRSD-25 Nitro Sanitary Landfill KRSD-26 ( RM 44 ! Study Area 1 Upstream Area KRSD-27 " / SSD-29 ! (! ( ! ( RM 45! ( PREVIOUS SAMPLING ! ( SURFICIAL SAMPLE 0 - 2.0 FT BGS ) 2.0 - 4.0 FT BGS ) 4.0 - 6.0 FT BGS ! . SURFICIAL SAMPLE ( 0 - 0.5 FT BGS ( 0.5 - 2.0 FT BGS ( 2.0 - 4.0 FT BGS ( 4.0 - 6.0 FT BGS ( 6.0 - 8.0 FT BGS 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) " / SSD-28 ! ( ! ( " ) ) AES (HUB) Property KRSD-22 " / KRSD-59 PHASE II SAMPLING " / Old Monsanto Landfill Flexsys America, LLP COR-40 CRITICAL 3-MILE REACH SAMPLE DEPTHS Armour Creek Landfill " / COR-37 " / RM 42 ! ( ! ( ! ( KRSD-16 " / SSD-22 COR-28 . " / SSD-20 " ! / ! . " / SSD-21 COR-31 " / COR-27 KRSD-15 " / COR-30 " / COR-26 " / SSD-19 ) ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( " ) " ) ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( COR-29 RM 41 -"/ ! ( COR-25 ! ( KRSD-29 KRSD-28 RM 46 COAL RIVER NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. - " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) RM 50 - ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ND < 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 20.0 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 DRAFT figure 6.1 RM 39-42 - 3-MILE REACH WITH HIGHEST EXISTING CONDITION SWAC EE/CA REPORT SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH Kanawha River, West Virginia KRSD-60 SPC, NAD83) ! ( 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA059 February 25, 2015 KRSD-61 - 0.024 Post-Removal Action SWAC 0.022 Maximum SWAC Value - 0.022 ug/kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD SWAC (ug/kg) 0.020 Existing Conditions SWAC 0.018 0.016 Proposed PRG 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.000 DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM 3-Mile Section for SWAC Calculation Note: Study Area 1 corresponds to approximately RM 45.5 to 42.5, Study Area 2 - RM 42.5 to 41.5, Study Area 3 - RM 41.5 to 38.5, and Study Area 4 - RM 38.5 to 30.5. 031884-00(REP051) - figure 6.2 February 27, 2015 figure 6.2 POST-REMOVAL ACTION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia Key Map " ) COR-32B SSD-21 / " 0 350 700 1,050 " ) KRSD-17 " ) " ) " ) . KD-203 ! COR-36C COR-36B D09 COR-34 KRSD-19 COR-36A SSD-23 " ) / " GSD-5 D74 GSD-4 GSD-3 D75 GSD-2 GSD-1 " ) GSD-6 CSD-9 CSD-7 Armour Creek Landfill ! (KRSD-18 FSD-1 / " ESD-3 Old Monsanto Landfill ESD-1 ASD-10 / " ASD-7 / " D34 D35 ! ( D08 AES (HUB) Property KRSD-20 ASD-2 DSD-5 / " COR-38 - " ) / " DSD-4 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATIONS (µg/kg) DSD-3 DSD-2 " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) " ) DSD-1 COR-39 " ) / " SDBG-2 SDBG-1 " ) / COR-40 " Flexsys America, LLP SSD-25" / COR-42 ! ( KRSD-16 FSD-4 FSD-3 / COR-35 " ESD-2 " ) COR-37 SSD-24 FSD-2 ! ( SSD-22 " / COR-32 / " BSD-3 ! ( COR-36 FSD-5 KD-202 / " CSD-2 / " COR-32A D10 D36 COR-33 COR-31 - Feet Great Lakes Chemcial Corp " ) " ) / " / " COR-41 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ND < 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 20.0 20.0 - 40.0 > 40.0 Bank Stabilization Activities ! ( KRSD-22 Low-Permeable Cap Permeable Cap SAMPLE DEPTHS COR-43 / " / " " ) ) SSD-26 / " Fike Artel SSD-27 SURFICIAL SAMPLE 0 - 2.0 FT BGS . ! SURFICIAL SAMPLE ( 0.0 - 0.5 BGS PHASE II SAMPLING ) " PREVIOUS SAMPLING ( ! DEEPER SAMPLES ARE NOT SHOWN, ONLY SURFACE SAMPLES ARE SHOWN / " NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. - SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA030 February 23, 2015 figure 7.1 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Study Adjac ~ ••••• :. : • 'k·. WATERCOLUMN : •• • • ••• : ·:· ~---- :~ •• .. ..·. ... .... SAND CAP N.T .S . .....,.~ WATERCOLUMN ~---- GEOTEXTILE (OPTIONAL IF NEEDED) . /: ". /. /: ". ·,. /: ". ·,. /: ". ·,. /: ". ·,. /: ". ·,. /: ". /. /: ". · / / · · / / · CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT, / · · / / · /: / . ". /: / . /: / . /: / . / /. / /. / / / /: ".. /. /. /. /. /. ARMORING N.T .S . .....,.~ WATERCOLUMN ~---(OPTIONAL IF NEEDED) GEOTEXTILE (OPTIONAL IF NEEDED) ACTIVE CAP (ACTIVATED CARBON MAT) ACTIVE CAP N.T .S. figure 7.2 EXAMPLE ISOLATION CAP DESIGN EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA011 FEB 20/2015 RM 32 RM 31 - RM 33 - - RM 34 0 - Former ACF Industries Site RM 36 - RM 37 - Heizer Creek Landfill RM 38 RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Construction Support Area RM 41 Old Monsanto Landfill Flexsys America, LLP - RM 42 RM 43 RM 40 - - - Armour Creek Landfill AES (HUB) Property Study Area 2 Adjacent Area - RM 44 Figure 1 Study Area 1 - Upstream Area Kanawha River, West Virginia Feet - RM 35 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area 2,000 4,000 6,000 Great Lakes Chemcial Corp Fike Artel Nitro Sanitary Landfill RM 45 RM 46 - RM 50 RM 60 - Legend Enhanced MNR Location - Bank Stabilization Activities RM 61 Low-Permeable Cap Permeable Cap NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA029 February 23, 2015 - figure 7.3 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Former ACF Industries Site RM 31 RM 32 - RM 33 - - 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet KRSD- 03 RM 34 - RM 35 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area RM 36 - RM 37 Heizer Creek Landfill RM 38 RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Construction Support Area RM 40 RM 41 Old Monsanto Landfill AES (HUB) Property Armour Creek Landfill Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Great Lakes Chemcial Corp RM 43 Study Area 1 - Upstream Area Kanawha River, West Virginia - RM 44 - - - RM 42 - Flexsys America, LLP Fike Artel RM 45 Nitro Sanitary Landfill RM 46 - RM 50 RM 60 Legend - Proposed Cap Area Bank Stabilization Activities - Low-Permeable Cap RM 61 Permeable Cap NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. (3) Proposed cap areas to be defined during the design process. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA031 February 27, 2015 figure 7.4 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA BANK STABILIZATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY SOLUTIA) SAND LAYER figure 7.5 CONCEPTUAL CAP CROSS-SECTION - REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 4 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA017 FEB 20/2015 Former ACF Industries Site RM 31 RM 32 - RM 33 - - 0 2,000 6,000 Feet RM 34 - RM 35 C Manilla Manilla Creek Landfill RM 36 ndfill reek La Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area Heizer Creek Landfill - RM 37 RM 38 RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area Construction Support Area RM 41 Old Monsanto Landfill AES (HUB) Property Figure 1 Study Area 1 - Upstream Area Kanawha River, West Virginia Armour Creek Landfill - Flexsys America, LLP - RM 44 - Study Area 2 Adjacent Area Great Lakes Chemcial Corp RM 43 RM 40 - Potential On-Site Disposal Area - RM 42 Fike Artel Nitro Sanitary Landfill RM 45 RM 46 - RM 50 - Legend Proposed Dredging MNR Area - Bank Stabilization Activities Low-Permeable Cap RM 60 Permeable Cap NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA032 February 27, 2015 4,000 figure 7.6 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5A EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA BANK STABILIZATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY SOLUTIA) NOTE: (1) APPROXIMATELY 84,400 CY OF SEDIMENT WILL BE DREDGED AND THE EXTENT OF CAPPING WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON THE EXTENT OF RESIDUALS PRESENT AFTER DREDGING. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EE/CA, CAPPING OF THE ONE HALF OF DREDGED AREA IS ASSUMED TO BE REQUIRED figure 7.7 CONCEPTUAL DREDGING CROSS-SECTION - REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES SA AND 58 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA018 FEB 20/2015 SSD -0 6 COR- 07 KD-2 00KD-2 01 - RM 32 COR- 06 COR- 05 COR- 08 COR- 04 COR- 03 -RM 33 SSD -0 7 SSD -0 5 0 COR- 09 COR- 10 KRSD- 02 Fo rm er ACF In du str ies Site Si te COR- 02 -RM 31 Fo rm er AC F In du str ies SSD -0 4 SSD -0 3 SSD -0 2 COR- 01 SSD -0 1 2,000 4,000 6,000 Feet -RM 34 COR- 11 COR- 12 COR- 13 COR- 14 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area -RM 35 COR- 15 COR- 16 COR- 17 Ma nilla KRSD- 05 Cre ek Ma nilla Cre ek La nd fill - RM 36 La nd fill SSD -0 9 COR- 18 SSD -1 0 SSD -11 - SSD -1 2 RM 37 SSD -1 3 COR- 19 Heize r Cre ek La ndf ill He ize r Cre ek La ndf ill COR- 20 KRSD- 09 RM 38 COR- 21 COR- 22 COR- 23 SSD -1 4 KRSD- 11 COR- 24 -RM 39 SSD -1 5 SSD -1 6 SSD -1 7 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area SSD -1 8 COR- 25 KRSD-14 RM 40 KRSD- 13 COR- 26 SSD -1 9 COR- 27 COR- 28 COR- 28 A COR- 29 - SSD -2 0 COR- 30 RM 41 COR- 32 B D75 SSD -2 2 D10 D36 COR- 33 COR- 36 C - CSD-9 GSD- 5 D74 GSD- 4 GSD- 3 GSD- 2 KRSD- 16 GSD- 6 Con str uctio n Su pp or t Are a GSD- 1 CSD-7 FSD- 4 FSD- 3 D09 FSD- 2 COR- 34 Ar m ou r Cre ek Lan df ill KRSD- 18 FSD- 1 Old Mo nsa nt o L an dfill BSD-3 KRSD- 19 COR- 36 ESD -3 ESD -2 COR- 36 A COR- 35 ESD -1 ASD-1 0 SSD -2 3 ASD-7 KRSD- 20 COR- 37 D34 D35 D08 AES (HUB) Pr op ert y ASD-2 DSD-5 SSD -2 4 RM 42 FSD- 5 KD-2 02 KD-2 03 COR- 36 B CSD-2 DSD-4 COR- 38 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area DSD-3 DSD-2 DSD-1 COR- 39 SD BG- 2 SD BG- 1 COR- 40 Fle xsys Ame ric a, LLP SSD -2 5 Gre at La kes Ch em cial Cor p COR- 42 SSD -2 1 COR- 31 COR- 32 COR- 32 A KRSD- 17 KRSD- 15 COR- 41 KRSD- 22 COR- 43 SSD -2 6 - Fike Ar tel RM 43 SSD -2 7 KRSD- 23 KRSD- 24 RM 44 Figure 1 Study Area 1 - Upstream Area Kanawha River, West Virginia KRSD- 26 Nitro Sa nitary Landf ill Nitro Sa nita ry La ndf ill SSD -2 8 KRSD- 27 - SSD -2 9 RM 45 KRSD- 29 KRSD- 28 -RM 46 50 -RM Legend - RM 60 Proposed Dredging MNR Area Bank Stabilization Activities Low-Permeable Cap Permeable Cap NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. SOURCE: AERIAL NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM DATED 2014 (WEST VIRGINIA SOUTH SPC, NAD83) 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA033 February 25, 2015 - RM 61 figure 7.8 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5B EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Time Trend of Predicted Bass Muscle Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentrations Under Different Kanawha River EE/CA Alternatives 8 Alternative 2 7 Alternatives 3 and 4 Fish Tissue Concentration (ng/kg - wet weight) 6 Alternative 5 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Years Note: It is important to note that the screening-level recovery modeling performed for this EE/CA was performed solely to develop comparative evaluations of the long-term effectiveness of the RA alternatives under a consistent set of assumptions. Actual recovery trajectories could deviate from these predictions if a figure 8.1 FISH TISSUE RECOVERY TRENDS FOR REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia different set of assumptions were to be used (e.g., source control effectiveness). 031884-00(REP051) - figure 8.1 February 23, 2015 Relationship Between Removal Action Costs and Predicted Bass Muscle Tissue 2,3,7,8-TCDD Concentrations Under Different Kanawha River EE/CA Alternatives Year 0 to 30 Average Fish Tissue Concentration (ng/kg - wet weight) 3.0 2.5 Alternative 2 2.0 Alternative 5A 1.5 Alternative 3 Alternative 5B Alternative 4 1.0 0.5 0.0 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 Present Worth Cost Estimate figure 9.1 COST VERSUS FISH TISSUE RECOVERY FOR RA ALTERNATIVES 2 THROUGH 5 EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 031884-00(REP051) - figure 9.1 February 27, 2015 DRAFT ID Task Name Start Finish 2015 Qtr 1 1 2 Kanawha River EE/CA Report Fri 2/27/15 Wed 8/2/17 Fri 2/27/15 Mon 3/30/15 3 Submit revised Draft EE/CA Fri 2/27/15 Fri 2/27/15 4 Agency Review/Public Comment Mon 3/2/15 Tue 3/31/15 5 Approval of EE/CA Report Tue 3/31/15 Tue 3/31/15 Wed 4/1/15 Tue 6/30/15 6 Action Memorandum/AOC 7 Development of the Action Memorandum by USEPA Mon 3/2/15 Tue 3/31/15 8 Finalize Action Memorandum Mon 4/6/15 Mon 4/6/15 9 Negotiate AOC for Selected Removal Action Tue 4/7/15 Fri 5/8/15 10 Executed AOC Fri 5/8/15 Fri 5/8/15 Wed 7/1/15 Wed 9/30/15 Fri 5/15/15 Tue 6/30/15 11 Design 12 Pre-design Investigations 13 Coordinate with USACE on Design Mon 8/17/15 Mon 10/19/15 14 Develop and submit to Agency 30% Design Thu 10/1/15 Fri 10/30/15 15 Agency Review Mon 11/2/15 Mon 11/30/15 16 Develop and submit to Agency 95% Design Mon 11/2/15 Mon 2/1/16 17 Agency Review Tue 2/2/16 Thu 3/3/16 18 Submit 100% Design Fri 4/1/16 Fri 4/1/16 Mon 2/1/16 Fri 12/30/16 19 Construction 20 Contractor Procurement Mon 3/14/16 Tue 5/3/16 21 Removal Action Implementation Wed 5/4/16 Fri 12/30/16 Mon 3/2/15 Fri 12/30/16 Mon 3/2/15 Fri 12/30/16 22 23 Former Flexsys Facility RCRA Corrective Action Interim Measures Implementation Project: 031884(RPT051) - figure 10.1 Date: Thu 2/26/15 Task Milestone Qtr 2 2016 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 2/27 3/31 5/8 10/30 2/1 4/1 Summary figure 10.1 CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SCHEDULE EE/CA REPORT Page 1 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For September 3, 1962 March 12, 1973 May 16, 1977 Bern Wright, Chief WV DNR Union Carbide Corporation WV DWR WV DNR WV DEP Yes Yes Yes U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc. UCC Robert Morris Ecology and Environment, Inc. Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. National Enforcment Investigations Center National Enforcement Investigations Center U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecology & Environmental, Inc. WV DWR Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. WV DEP Ecology Environmental Inc. US EPA Union Carbide Corporation Janice Fisher, WV DWR Bruce P. Smith, Chief Benton M. Wilmoth, OSC Union Carbide Corporation UCC The Charleston Gazette NA Department of Natural Resources U.S. EPA, Region III EPA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. EPA, Region III WV DNR Weirton Steel WV DEP EPA Region III U.S. EPA WV DWR WV DNR U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes August 23, 1983 October 17, 1983 December 29, 1983 May 11, 1984 July 31, 1984 December 26, 1984 January, 1985 Memorandum - Nitro Refuse Dump on Poca River Memorandum to WV DNR Filing, from Donald C. Thomas, WV DNR, Re: Performance of Wastewater Plant WV DNR, Division of Water Resources Application for Water Pollution Control Permit, Disposal of Industrial Waste, Union Carbide Corporation, Chemicals and Plastics, Institute Plant Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Characterization of Fike Chemicals, Inc., Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., and Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc., Nitro, West Virginia Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Disposal Holz Pond Letter to Mr. Scott MacMillin, WV DWR, from George F. Hurley, UCC EPA to Inspect Monsanto Dump at Nitro Field Investigation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, FIT Project, Nitro Landfill Results of Site Investigation and Leachate Sample Analysis Hazardous Site Inspection - Fike Chemicals, Inc. Hazardous Site Inspection - Fike Chemicals, Inc. Sampling and Analysis of Fish Tissues for Toxic Substances, EPA/FWS IAG-DY-01001, Final Report Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites - Holmes Madden Landfill Site Inspection, Manila Creek Groundwater Monitoring at the "B" Outfall Lagoon Site Investigation Summary Sheet, Manila Creek, Site Number WV-1 Field Trip Report of nitro Sanitation TDD No. F8-8108-14A Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Immediate Removal Action, Poca, West Virginia Request for Information - Union Carbide Corporation North Charleston Storage Area Past Waste Disposal Inter-Office Memorandum - Manila Creek Benthic Survey Letter to Robert L. Collings, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Bruce P. Smith, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike Chemical Memorandum: to Kenneth E. Biglane, U.S. EPA, Washington, from Benton M. Wilmoth, OSC, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Request for Assistance of ERT for a Technical Assessment of the Current Environmental Corrective Work at Fike Chemical Company, Nitro , West Virginia Enforcement Review of Available Data for Nitro Sanitation, West Virginia Preliminary Assessment - Heizer Creek DRAFT - Site Inspection of Manila Creek Dump A Preliminary Assessment of Republic Steel Corporation Container Division, Nitro, West Virginia Preliminary Assessment, Putnam County Drum Dump A Field Trip Report for Manila Creek RCRA Part B Permit Application - Institute Plant U.S. EPA - Hazardous Control Division U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA WV DNR WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III US EPA Division of Water Resources Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes March 18, 1985 April, 1985 April 4, 1985 May 9, 1985 May 14, 1985 June, 1985 Field Trip Report for Heizer Creek Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site Application for Permit to Construct Fluidize Bed Incinerator for Incineration of Hazardous Wastes Burns received by Leroy Whitt after handling scrap material from Allied Chemical Plant, Ironton, OH Non-sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, Republic Steel Corporation, Nitro, WV Feasibility Study of Monsanto Landfill Site U.S. EPA, Region III Monsanto US EPA Division of Water Resources WV DNR NUS Corporation Monsanto Polymer Products Company Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes June 28, 1985 June 28, 1985 June 28, 1985 July 26, 1985 Site Inspection for the Heizer Creek Landfill A Site Inspection for the Heizer Creek Memorandum - 2,3,7,8-TCDD Contamination of Fish in the Kanawha River, Nitro, West Virginia DRAFT - Letter Report, Nitro Municipal Dump NUS Corporation NUS Corporation NUS Corporation WV DNR WV DWR NUS Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Agricultural Products Company NUS Corporation Dale K. Wilson, Monsanto Mobay Chemical Corporation Rebecca J. Robertson NUS Corporation Monsanto Company - Corporate Engineering Department NUS Corporation NUS Corporation Georgi A. Jones NUS Corporation U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA Centers for Disease Control U.S. EPA Yes Yes Yes Yes February, 1978 August, 1978 February 2, 1979 May 25, 1979 1980 April 25, 1980 June, 1980 June, 1980 September, 1980 January 6, 1981 June 29, 1981 May, 1982 May 25, 1982 August 20, 1982 October, 1982 December 6, 1982 December 22, 1982 July 29, 1983 August 12, 1983 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Page 2 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For October 28, 1985 November 18, 1985 1986 1986 January 22, 1986 February 14, 1986 Report - Sampling and Investigation Report Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report - Clark Property Site Feasibility Study of Heizer Creek Site Subsurface Investigation, Manila Creek Site, Nitro, West Virginia DRAFT - Assessment of Lifetime Cancer Risk from Consuming Fish Contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorobenzp-pdioxin from the Kanawha River Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit Application DRAFT - Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan, An Evaluation of Dioxin Contamination in Fish Tissue and Sediments in the Kanawha and Mud Rivers, West Virginia Internal Memorandum from Roy L. Smith, U.S. EPA Region III: Sampling of Kanawha River Fish and Sediments for Dioxin Analysis Non-Sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report - Holmes and Madden Landfill Non-Sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report - Holmes and Madden Landfill Kanawha River Navigation Study, Winfield Lock Replacement, Interim Feasibility Study, Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Vol 1 Manila Creek Site Water Level and Highwall Study Site visit with Pamela Hayes as Requested by Mr. Boggess of St. Albans Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site Phase II, RCRA Facility Assessment of the Monsanto Company, Nitro, West Virginia Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site Preliminary Assessment of Shippers Car Line, Division of ACF Industries Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, West Virginia and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling Letter to BF Goodrich, Re: Correspondence of December 11, 1986, Applicability of Solid Waste Regulations, Industrial Solid Waste Registration No. 31077 Site Visit Summary Report for Raleigh Junk - Sattes Summary Report of Remedial Actions at Manila Creek, Project No. 127-06 Letter from U.S. EPA to Robert C. Lee, U.S. ACE: Final Environmental Impact Statement on Kanawha River Navigation Study for Winfield Lock Replacement Environmental Assessment - EA of the Smith Street Landfill in Nitro, WV for the Presence of Phenol and 2-4 Dimethylphenol Attachment 2: Inspection Schedule through Attachment 13: GW Monitoring Investigation Plan A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments in the Kanawha River Basin, EPS-QA87-004, Final Project Report Site Inspection of Raleigh Junk - Sattes Field Trip Report for Nitro Sanitation Landfill Union Carbide South Charleston Plant - Holz Impoundment Delisting Petition (Volume I and II) USEPA - Draft Permit for Corrective Action RCRA Part B Application, Union Carbide Corporation, Sistersville, West Virginia - Revision V - Book 1 of 4 RCRA Part B Application, Union Carbide Corporation, Sistersville, West Virginia - Revision V - Book 2 of 4 RCRA Part B Application, Union Carbide Corporation, Sistersville, West Virginia - Revision V - Book 3 of 4 RCRA Part B Application, Union Carbide Corporation, Sistersville, West Virginia - Revision V - Book 4 of 4 RCRA Tank System Variance Demonstration - Volume I Narrative Attachment A: Record of Decision Declaration, Fike (Artel) Chemicals Site, Nitro, West Virginia Investigation of Complaint at Raleigh Junk, Sattes Yard 1988 West Virginia Hazardous Waste Activity Report Memorandum: Policy for Superfund Compliance With the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Memorandum to Max Robertson, WV DNR, from Pam Hayes, WV DNR WV DNR Union Carbide Corporation U.S. EPA, Region III Dale K. Wilson, Monsanto REMCOR Roy L. Smith et al. U.S. EPA State of WV Department of Natural Resources U.S. EPA, Region III Monsanto Monsanto Company U.S. EPA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IT Corporation WV DNR Union Carbide Corporation WV DNR Yes Yes Roy L. Smith U.S. EPA Yes NUS Corporation NUS Corporation Corps U.S. EPA, Region III USEPA Corps No No Yes ERM-Midwest, Inc. Rebecca J. Robertson Monsanto Chemical Company Dale K. Wilson, Monsanto A. T. Kearney, Inc. Monsanto Chemical Company NUS Corporation Roy L. Smith et al. Monsanto Company WV DNR Monsanto Chemical Company Monsanto U.S. EPA, Region III Monsanto Chemical Company US EPA U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes February 25, 1986 March 10, 1986 April 4, 1986 April 28, 1986 April 28, 1986 June 1, 1986 July, 1986 July 17, 1986 August, 1986 August, 1986 August, 1986 August, 1986 September 26, 1986 December 1, 1986 January 9, 1987 September 9, 1987 November, 1987 November 13, 1987 December 9, 1987 1988 June, 1988 June 13, 1988 June 13, 1988 July, 1988 July 19, 1988 July 21, 1988 July 21, 1988 July 21, 1988 July 21, 1988 September, 1988 September 29, 1988 October 26, 1988 March 1, 1989 April 17, 1989 September 22, 1989 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Kelly L. Melloy, Texas Water Commission Texas Water Commission No NUS Corporation ERM-Midwest, Inc. Jeffrey M. Alper U.S. EPA Monsanto Company U.S. EPA Region III Yes Yes Yes ERT Engineering City of Nitro, WV Yes NA EPA Region III NUS Corporation NUS Corporation Union Carbide Corporation USEPA Region III Union Carbide Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Rhone-Poulenc AG Company U.S. EPA Region III Rebecca Robertson Rhone-Poulenc AG Company U.S. EPA WV DNR NA EPA Region III U.S. EPA U.S. EPA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company U.S. EPA Region III/ WV DEP U.S. EPA Region III/ WV DEP U.S. EPA Region III/ WV DEP U.S. EPA Region III/ WV DEP NUS Corporation U.S. EPA Region III WV DNR WV DNR U.S. EPA WV DNR Page 3 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For October 23, 1989 October 23, 1989 December 14, 1989 February 15, 1990 Draft - RCRA Part B Permit for Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Institute Plant, Book 1 of 2 DRAFT - RCRA Part B Permit for Rhone-Poulenc AG Company, Institute Plant, Book 1 of 2 1999 Characterization of the Residues Burned at the No.1 Powerhouse Letter to Paul de Percin, U.S. EPA, from Darius Ostrauskas, U.S. EPA, Re: Potential Treatability Studies for the Fike Chemical Site Focused Feasibility Study for Buried Drums and Containers Letter to Ms. Sadia Kissoon-Parker, CH2M Hill, from Darius Ostrauskas, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike Chemical RI/FS Public Hearing, Nitro, WV, In the Matter of Fike Chemical Site Public Meeting, Transcript of Proceedings Statement by Elmer A. Fike, August 6, 1990 Groundwater Corrective Action Program - Semi Annual Progress Report Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report Letter to Mr. Darius Ostrauskas, U.S. EPA, Region III, from J. Greg Mott, CH2M Hill Letter to Mr. Darius Ostrauskas, U.S. EPA, Region III, from J. Greg Mott, CH2M Hill Fike Chemicals Site, Phase II RI/FS Work Plan, Work Assignment No. 90-24-3L10, Contract No. 68-W8-0090 Letter to Charles E. Vandevelde, Chief, Corps, from G. Maxwell Robertson, Chief, WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources Groundwater Corrective Action Program – Goff Mountain RCRA Part B Permit, Compliance Monitoring – 4th Quarter Rhone-Poulenc Rhone-Poulenc Rhone-Poulenc AG Company U.S. EPA, Region III WV DNR WV DNR WV DNR U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes CH2M Hill U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes No Hudson Reporting NA Rhone-Poulenc AG Company Joyce Moore CH2M Hill CH2M Hill CH2M HILL G. Maxwell Robertson Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Rhone-Poulenc AG Company NA NA WV DNR WV DCLER U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources WV DNR Groundwater Corrective Action Program – 4th Quarter Sampling and Analysis (1990) Memorandum to Pam Hayes, WV DEP, from Riad Tannir, Re: Meeting with PRP's and EPA in Philadelphia Holz Dam and Dike Inspection Memorandum to Pam Hayes, WV DEP, from Riad Tannir, Re: Meeting with PRP's and EPA in Philadelphia Letter to Mr. Jackie Setliff, Dana Transport, Inc., from Dwight L. McClure, WV DEP, Re: WV/NPDES Permit No. WV0050130 DRAFT - Sections 1 and 2 of the Focused Feasibility Study for Buried Drums at Fike Chemicals Site, Nitro, West Virginia Phase 1 – Contamination Evaluation at the Former American Car & Foundry Site Pond Closure Plan (Coal Slurry Pond #1), Preliminary Test Results Summary Closure Documentation - Building 12 Remediation Project Groundwater Protection Procedure Evaluation Phase Report Rhone-Poulenc AG Company Riad Tannir TRIAD Engineering, Inc. WV DNR WV DEP WV DNR WV DNR Union Carbide Corporation WV DNR WV DEP Yes No Yes No Yes June, 1990 August 1, 1990 August 6, 1990 August 6, 1990 August 10, 1990 October 4, 1990 October 26, 1990 November 13, 1990 December, 1990 January 3, 1991 February 7, 1991 February 7, 1991 March 1, 1991 March, 1991 March 6, 1991 June 18, 1991 June 18, 1991 July, 1991 July 1, 1991 July, 1991 July 19, 1991 July 21, 1991 August 26, 1991 September 3, 1991 Decision Document, Winfield Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, Former ACF Industries Facility, Red House, WV Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report - Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. Letter to Charles E. Vandevelde, Chief, Corps, from G. Maxwell Robertson, Chief, WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources Contained Relevant Information* Yes CH2M Hill U.S. EPA, Region III Yes TCT-St. Louis. Gilbert Associates, Inc. ERM-Midwest, Inc. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. US Army Corps of Engineers US Department of Energy Rhone-Poulenc AG Company Yes Yes Yes Yes Corps State of WV, Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources G. Maxwell Robertson Corps Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co. Yes Yes WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources No Corps Union Carbide Yes Yes Corps Corps WV Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources Corps Charles E. Vandevelde James R. Van Epps Corps Corps Yes Yes Waste-Tron, Inc. John Mathes & Associates, Inc. ACF Industries, Inc. ACF Industries Yes Yes September 18, 1991 September 19, 1991 September 25, 1991 October 4, 1991 October 7, 1991 November, 1991 December 2, 1991 CRA 031884 (51) Dioxin Sampling at the Former American Car & Foundry Site, Winfield Locks and Dam Project, Red House, WV Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company Inc, North Charleston Distribution Center, WVD 98 055 4828, 1990 Hazardous Waste Report Letter to G. Maxwell Robertson, Chief, Waste Management Section, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, from Charles E. Vandevelde, Chief, Corps Letter to Dale Farley, Director, WV Air Pollution Control Commission, from Charles E. Vandevelde, Corps Letter to G. Maxwell Robertson, Chief, Waste Management Section, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, from James R. Van Epps, Corps Site Assessment Plan for Determination of Contamination at Paint Mix Shop Quality Assurance Review of Environmental Investigations Performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at the Former ACF Facility in Red House, WV Yes Page 4 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For 1992 January 24, 1992 Winfield Locks harbor $100 million mess, feds find Letter to Riad Tanner, WV DNR, from R.J. Conner, Corps, Re: Advance Copy of Action Level Letter on Winfield Site The Charleston Gazette Corps Yes Yes January 31, 1992 Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section Rick Steelhammer R. J. Conner, Chief, Engineering-Planning Division J. Edward Hamrick III Yes February 20, 1992 February 25, 1992 Letter to Ms. Judith A. White, President, Don's Disposal, from Richard P. Cooke, WV DEP Letter to Mr. Leo Arbaugh, WV DEP, from W. Kyle Stollings, City of Charleston, Re: Union Carbide Proposal for Supplying Rubble to City of Charleston Quality Control Summary Report for Winfield Locks and Dam Site EE/CA for Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Soil at the former ACF Industries, Incorporated Site, Red House, West Virginia Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Removal & Treatment of Contaminated Soil Corps Tries to Get Company To Pay Costs of Dioxin Clean Up At Site Of Ohio River Project Letter to James R. Van Epps, Corps, from William L. Finn, ACF Industries Site Assessment Plan for Contamination at Paint Mix Room Additional Activities May 1992 Memorandum: Winfield Additional Lock and Gate Bay, Meeting With WV DNR to Discuss Corps/ WV DNR Coordination During Removal Action on the Former ACF Site Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section WV DEP W. Kyle Stollings WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section WV DEP City of Charleston Law Environmental, Inc. U.S. ACE US Army Corps of Engineers U.S. ACE Yes Yes US Army Corps of Engineers Environment Reporter William L. Finn, ACF Waste-Tron, Inc. Kennard M. Waddell Environment Reporter ACF ACF Industries, Inc. Corps Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes April, 1992 May 5, 1992 May 5, 1992 May 15, 1992 June 1, 1992 June, 1992 June 5, 1992 June 8, 1992 June 18, 1992 J. Edward Hamrick III July 7, 1992 July 10, 1992 July 23, 1992 July 24, 1992 July 24, 1992 August, 1992 August 6, 1992 August 24, 1992 September 15, 1992 January 4, 1993 January 22, 1993 February 9, 1993 March 1, 1993 April 21, 1993 April 22, 1993 May 4, 1993 CRA 031884 (51) Yes Yes Yes Letter to Rolley Moore, Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, from Brian A. Farkas, WV Division of Environmental Protection Brian A. Farkas WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section WV Division of Environmental Protection Memorandum to Brad Swiger, District 1 Supervisor, Re: Wetzel County Landfill Suspected Dioxin Investigation Memorandum: Wetzel County Landfill Suspected Dioxin Investigation Review of Available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Data, Former ACF Property, Red House, WV Letter to Mr. Paul Leonard, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, de maximus, inc., Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, RDWP Comment/Response Submittal Letter to Colonel James Van Epps, Corps, from William Finn, Vice President, ACF Industries Trip Report: Site Visit of the #20 Sump Area, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc., Plant 514 Letter to Colonel Van Epps, Corps, from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, Corps, from Abraham Ferdas, Associate Division Director for the Superfund Program, U.S. EPA, Region III Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, Corps, from Abraham Ferdas, Associate Division Director for the Superfund Program, U.S. EPA, Region III Additional Site Assessment Activities Comments Upon EE/CA Document for Remediation at ACF Site, Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, Corps Letter to William L. Finn, Vice President, ACF, from Earle C. Richardson, Corps Letter to Earle C. Richardson, Corps, from William L. Finn, ACF Industries Memorandum: Corps of Engineers Response to the WV DEP Comments on EE/CA Document for Remediation at the ACF Winfield Site - Dated August 6, 1992 Dioxin Site Letter Report for the Georges Creek Site Final Dioxin Site Report Health Consultation: ACF Industries, Inc. Site (aka Winfield Lock and Dam), Red House, WV Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2, Preliminary Remedial Design Submittal Letter to Ms. Pam Hayes, WV DEP, from Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Explanation of Significance Differences, Fike/Artel Chemical Site, Operable Unit 3, Nitro, West Virginia Fike/Artel Meeting - ACOE & Smull & OU-2 Contractors Jamie Fenske Jamie Fenske, WV DNR Burlington Environmental Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator WV DNR WV DNR ACF Industries Fike/Artel Site Trust/ de maximus, inc. Yes Yes Yes William Finn, Vice President, ACF Chris Gatens Jonathan P. Deason ACF Industries WV DEP U.S. Department of the Interior Yes Yes Yes Abraham Ferdas U.S. EPA Region III Yes Abraham Ferdas U.S. EPA Region III Yes Waste-Tron, Inc. David C. Callaghan, Director Corps William L. Finn, ACF B.F. Smith, Chief, WV DEP ACF Industries, Inc. WV DEP Corps ACF WV DEP Yes No Yes Yes No Halliburton NUS Environmental Corp. Halliburton NUS Corporation Department of Health& Human Services NA Eugene P. Wingert U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Department of Health & Human Services NA U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Michael I. Stratton WV DEP Yes Yes Yes July 1, 1992 July 1, 1992 July 2, 1992 July 7, 1992 Contained Relevant Information* Page 5 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For June 23, 1993 June 30, 1993 July 9, 1993 July 26, 1993 August 4, 1993 August 19, 1993 WV DEP Mike Stratton ERM-Midwest, Inc. WV DEP WV DEP ERM-Midwest, Inc. WV DEP WV DEP OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III WV DEP WV DEP OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No ERM-Midwest, Inc. OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III No ERM-Midwest, Inc. ERM-Midwest, Inc. Warren L. Smull OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Warren L. Smull Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes OHM Remediation Services Corporation WV DEP NA Max Robertson Michael I. Stratton Corps WV DEP NA WV DEP WV DEP Yes Yes No Yes Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP Yes Yes Yes June 3, 1994 June 17, 1994 Letter to Ms. Judith A. White, President, Don's Disposal, from Richard P. Cooke, WV DEP Memorandum: to Mike Stratton, from Lew Baker, Re: Fike OU#3 Meeting at EPA Region III RCRA Facility Investigation Workplan (Revision 1.0), Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, West Virginia Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. - Holz Impoundment Letter to Ms. Judith A. White, President, Don's Disposal, from Richard P. Cooke, WV DEP OxyChem Response to U.S. EPA Region III Comments, Round 2: Description of Current Conditions and RFI Work Plan, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Community Relations Plan, RCRA Corrective Action Program, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV - Revision 1.0 RCRA Facility Investigation Program Fact Sheet, Occidental Chemical Corporation RCRA Corrective Action Program Bimonthly Progress Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3 ROD, Air Emissions Control Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3 ROD, Air Emissions Control Final Project Report for Tank Contents Removal and Disposal at the Fike/Artel Chemical Site Letter to Mrs. Judith White, President, Don's Disposal, form Richard P. Cooke, WV DEP Materials in Departments at Nitro, WV Letter to David M. Flannery, Attorney-at-Law, Robinson & McElwee, from Max Robertson, Chief, WV DEP Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-3 Review and Comments on Remedial Design Documents Dated November 23, 1993 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2 RA, Dioxin Suspect Materials Site Status Report #1 for The Chemical Leaman - Scary Creek Site, St. Albans, Putnam County, WV Site Status Report #2 for The Chemical Leaman - Scary Creek Site, St. Albans, Putnam County, WV Letter to Mr. Dick Cooke, WV DEP, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: Groundwater Sampling Inspection, Don's Disposal Landfill, SW-048-93 Letter - Groundwater Sampling Inspection (GSI) at Don's Disposal Landfill Soil Boring Program, Stormwater Collection/ Treatment System Location, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV WV DEP ERM-Midwest, Inc. WV DEP - Waste Management Occidental Chemical Corporation Yes Yes June 17, 1994 Soil Boring Program, Stormwater Collection/ Treatment System Location, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV ERM-Midwest, Inc. Occidental Chemical Corporation Yes June 30, 1994 Letter to Mr. V. G. Long, Rhone-Poulenc, from Mark A. Scott, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV/NPDES Permit No. WV0000086, Rhone-Poulenc AG Company WV/NPDES Permit for Rhone Poulenc Ag Company Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, June 1994 Monthly Progress Report, #29 Letter to Mr. Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, from Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Additional Response Actions, Portable Unit 2, Fike/Artel Superfund Site Letter to Eugene P. Wingart, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, Laboratory Audit Report Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, August 1994 Monthly Progress Report, #31 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, Supplemental Work Plan Comments/Response Submittal Compliance Monitoring Evaluation, Monsanto Chemical Company Letter to Mr. Gene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Janet K. Wolfe, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-3, Review and Comments on August 12, 1994 Remedial Design: Work Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan, and Site Health and Safety Plan September, 1993 October 8, 1993 October 12, 1993 October 25, 1993 October 26, 1993 February 25, 1994 March 24, 1994 March 24, 1994 March 31, 1994 April 1, 1994 April 12, 1994 April 27, 1994 May 11, 1994 June 3, 1994 June 30, 1994 July 8, 1994 July 26, 1994 August 31, 1994 September 8, 1994 September 9, 1994 September 23, 1994 September 26, 1994 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* WV DEP WV DEP Yes DEP - Water Resources Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Rhone Poulenc Ag Company Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Eugene P. Wingert U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust No Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust No WV DEP Janet K, Wolfe WV DEP WV DEP Yes No Page 6 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By October 7, 1994 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, September 1994 Monthly Progress Report, #32 RCRA Corrective Action Program Bimonthly Progress Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Letter to Dave Dorko, Plant Manager, Occidental Chemical Corporation, from Thomas A. Fisher, WV DEP Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes October 12, 1994 November 1, 1994 ERM-Midwest, Inc. Thomas A. Fisher Yes Yes November, 1994 November 23, 1994 Closure Documentation - Report for Boiler #10 Letter to Dave Dorko, Plant Manager, OxyChem, from Thomas A. Fisher, WV DEP Environmental Resources Management WV DEP OxyChem/ U.S. EPA Region III WV DEP, Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Occidental Chemical Corporation November 23, 1994 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report - Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle Plant, Belle, WV Thomas A. Fisher Yes December 9, 1994 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, November 1994 Monthly Progress Report, #34 RCRA Corrective Action Program Bimonthly Progress Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Sampling and Analysis Plan for Operable Unit Four Site-Wide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, December 1994 Monthly Progress Report, #35 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3 Preliminary Design Submittal Groundwater Corrective Action System - Rhone-Poulenc Wastewater Treatment Unit, Progress Report #12 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, February 1995 Monthly Progress Report #18 Interim Analytical Reports to Mr. Terry Johnson, Occidental Chemical Corporation Field Trip report for Heizer Creek Letter to Eugene P. Wingart, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: WV DEP-OWM comments on Operable Unit 2 Supplemental Remedial Action Work Plan, Fike/Artel Superfund Site Ground Water Samples Collected 2 November through 15 December 1994, In Association with the RCRA Facility Investigation, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Raleigh Junk Company Letter to Mr. Warren Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, from Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Supplemental Remedial Action Work Plan, Operable Unit 2 RFI Report and Stabilization/Corrective Measures Plan, Volume I of II, Monsanto Nitro Plant Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, April 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #20 Compliance Sampling Inspection Report - OxyChem (Occidental Chemical Corporation) Memorandum: Safe Drinking Water Act MCL and Health Advisory Update, U.S. EPA, Region III Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, May1995 Monthly Progress Report, #21 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, June 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #22 Fike/Artel Trust, Sampling Audit for the Baker Tank, Fike/Artel Superfund Site Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2 SW, Sampling Audit Contaminated Putnam Soil OK for Shipment to Utah Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, July 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #42 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, July 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #23 Letter to Mr. Mike Zeto, WV DEP, from Kevin H. Keys, Rhone-Poulenc Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, September 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #44 Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator WV DEP, Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources Fike/Artel Site Trust ERM-Midwest, Inc. ICF Kaiser Engineers, inc. Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator U.S. EPA Region III Fike Chemical Superfund Site Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes December 15, 1994 January 6, 1995 January 9, 1995 February 13, 1995 March, 1995 March 9, 1995 March 15, 1995 March 18, 1985 April 4, 1995 April 13, 1995 April 19, 1995 April 25, 1995 May 5, 1995 May 9, 1995 May 10, 1995 May 31, 1995 June 9, 1995 July 7, 1995 July 10, 1995 July 12, 1995 July 30, 1995 August 9, 1995 August 9, 1995 August 14, 1995 October 9, 1995 Prepared For Yes Yes Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Rhone-Poulenc AG Company Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Triad Engineering, Inc Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Rachel L. Kreamer, Lancaster Laboratories, Inc. NUS Corporation Michael I. Stratton Terry Johnson, Occidental Chemical Corp. USEPA WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Environmental Resources Management, Inc. U.S. EPA Region III Yes Henry Haas, WV DEP Eugene P. Wingert WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Roux Associates, Inc. Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Monsanto Company Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Henry E. Hass, Jr., WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes No Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes ERM, Inc. Warren L. Smull Fike/Artel Site Trust Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes The Associated Press Warren L. Smull The Herald-Dispatch - Huntington, WV Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Rhone-Poulenc Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Rhone-Poulenc Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Union Carbide Union Carbide Yes October 23, 1995 Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston Plant, South Charleston, WV 25303, EPA ID No. WVD 005 005 483 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Page 7 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For November 9, 1995 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, October 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #45 Draft Consent Decree - Fike Chemical Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, November 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #27 Transmittal to Pam Hayes, WV DEP, from Eugene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III Application for NPDES Permit for Dana Transport, Nitro, West Virginia Site Signed Consent Order HW-491-95 for the UCC Private Trucking Operation (PTO) Facility Renewal Application for NPDES Permit to Cover Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharge and Storm Water Run-off, Dana Transport, Nitro, WV Letter to Ms. Constance J. Stephens, City of Nitro Sanitary Board, from Robert W. Rule, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site - Discharge of Non-Domestic Wastewater Letter to Eugene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-4 RI/FS Sampling and Analysis Plan and Work Plan Letter to Eugene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-4 RI/FS Sampling and Analysis Plan and Work Plan Letter to Mr. Michael Stratton, WV DEP, from Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, CST Plant Removal Action Letter to John McGahren, Esq., Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, from Jim Heenehan, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike CST UAO Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, April 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #32 Closure Report for the Removal Action for the Former ACF Industries Site, Red House, West Virginia Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, CST Lagoon Closure Proposal Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, May 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #33 Remediation Work Plan, Scary Creek Lagoon, St. Albans, West Virginia Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, June 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #34 Letter to Mr. Anthony Meadows, US EPA, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: CSI & Biomonitoring of RhonePoulenc AG Company, WV/NPDES No. WV0000086 Groundwater Corrective Action System - Rhone-Poulenc Wastewater Treatment Unit, Progress Report #15 Dioxin Contamination in 1986 Fish Tissue Samples from the Kanawha River, Armour Creek, and the Pocatalico River, WV Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, August 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #36 Letter to Mr. B.F. "Cap" Smith, WV DEP, from Liz O'Finan, UCC, Re: Emergency Waste Pile Permit - Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston Plant Letter to Mr. Peter J. Ludzia, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel NPL Site, Operable Unit 4, Third Quarter Report, FY 1995-96: April - June 1996 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, September 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #37 Letter to Mr. Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF Kaiser, Re: Drawing and Data, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, October 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #38 Letter to Mr. Anthony Meadows, U.S. EPA, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: CSI & Biomonitoring of Dana Transport, WV/NPDES No. WV0050130 Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes U.S. EPA Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator U.S. EPA Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes U.S. EPA, Region III LRI Consulting & Technologies WV DEP LRI Consulting & Technologies U.S. EPA, Region III WV DEP - Water Resources WV DEP Dana Transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Robert W. Rule, Alternate Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust December 4, 1995 December 8, 1995 December 18, 1995 January 1996 January 17, 1996 January 30, 1996 April 1, 1996 April 10, 1996 April 10, 1996 May 1, 1996 May 3, 1996 May 9, 1996 May 17, 1996 May 28, 1996 June 7, 1996 July 1996 July 9, 1996 July 29, 1996 August, 1996 August 18, 1986 September 9, 1996 September 24, 1996 October 2, 1996 October 9, 1996 October 21, 1996 November 7, 1996 November 19, 1996 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Yes Michael I. Stratton, Site Remediation Program Mana WV DEP Yes Michael I. Stratton WV DEP Yes U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Jim Heenehan U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Philip Environmental Services Corporation Fike/Artel Site Trust ACF Industries Incorporated Fike/Artel Trust Yes Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes EnviroPower Inc Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator West Virginia Division of Environmental Protectio Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes WV DEP WV DEP Yes Rhone-Poulenc AG Company Roy L. Smith et al. Triad Engineering, Inc WV DNR Yes Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Union Carbide Corporation Union Carbide Corporation Yes Michael I. Stratton, Site Remediation Program Mana WV DEP Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes ICF Kaiser WV DEP Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes WV DEP WV DEP Yes Page 8 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For November 20, 1996 December 10, 1996 1997 January 9, 1997 Section 4 of the Phase I RFI Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Summary of Site Investigation and Remediation Activities, Raleigh Junk Company Sattes Facility Summary Report of Remedial Actions at Manila Creek Site, Project No. 127-06 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Snull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, December 1996 Monthly Progress Report #58 RCRA BIF Closure Certification Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF Kaiser, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Data Validation, ICF Kaiser Project No. 92192 Letter to Mr. Richard Hackney, WV DEP, from D. R. Fewell, Rhone-Poulenc Compliance Schedule Evaluation Inspection Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Biocell Sampling and Analysis Report, Volume II - Laboratory Reports, CLTL Terminal, Institute, WV Biocell Sampling Analysis Report - Volume 1 Transmittal to Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, from Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Comments to the Sampling and Analysis Plan for Fike Chemical OU-4 Fax to Mark Kees, WV DNR, from Homer Brumfield, ACF, Re: Analysis from Paint Mix Room Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF Kaiser, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, CST Sample Analysis, ICF Kaiser Project No. 92192-422-00 Work Plan Ex-situ Bioremediation Chemical Leaman Tank Lines Terminal, Institute, West Virginia Work Plan for Operable Unit Four - Site-Wide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Memorandum: to Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, from Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Fike Memorandum: Laboratory Analysis of Soils and Drilling Sludges ACF Soil Vapor Extraction Project Transmittal to Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, from Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III Letter to Ms. Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, from Sunil I. Shah, Union Carbide, Re: Analytical Method of Choice for Dioxins Analysis for OU-4 RI/FS Letter to Mr. H. M. Agee, UCC, from B. F. Smith, WV DEP, Re: No. 16 Boiler Closure Letter to Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF Kaiser, Re: Dioxin Analyses Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU4 RI/FS Letter to Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, from Sunil I. Shah, Union Carbide NPDES Permit for Flexsys America NPDES Permit for Flexsys America NA Quantification of Dioxin Concentrations in the Ohio River Using High Volume Water Sampling Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site OU-4 RI/FS Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan Site Summary Report - Heizer Creek Site Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report 1997 Groundwater Monitoring Report, Union Carbide Holz Impoundment Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Flexsys America, L.P. Final Work Plan for Operable Unit Four - Site-Wide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Complaint Response Report Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Letter from Homer Brumfield, ACF Industries to Mark Kees, WV DEP Memorandum to Tom Fisher, WV DEP, from Jim McCune, Weavertown Environmental Group, Re: Stolen Vehicle Situation Phase II Ecological Risk Assessment Work Plan, Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., Belle, WV Union Carbide South Charleston Plant - Holz Impoundment Delisting Petition (Volume I and II) Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston (Plant 514) Work Plan for Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater Pump and Treat Wells Letter to G. Michael Dorsey, Assistant Chief, WV DEP, from Jim Heenehan, U.S. EPA ERM-Midwest, Inc. TERRADON Corporation ERM-Midwest Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator U.S. EPA Region III Raleigh Junk Company NA Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes Yes Dixon Environmental Associates, Inc. Jerry DeMuro Flexsys America L.P. ICF Kaiser Yes Yes Rhone-Poulenc John R. Fredericks, WV DEP WEG Engineering Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Kate Lose Rhone-Poulenc WV DEP Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. WEG Engineering U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes No No Yes ACF ICF Kaiser ACF Fike/Artel Trust Yes Yes Weavertown Environmental Group ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. Kate Lose David Beam, WasteTron Kate Lose Sunil I. Shah EnviroPower, Inc. Fike Chemical Superfund Site U.S. EPA, Region III WasteTron U.S. EPA, Region III Union Carbide Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B. F. Smith, Chief Jerry DeMuro WV DEP ICF Kaiser Yes Yes Sunil I. Shah WV DEP DEP - Water Resources WV DEP ORSANCO ICF Kaiser Union Carbide WV DEP Flexsys America LP USEPA REG III ORSANCO Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Roy F. Weston, Inc. Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator U.S. EPA, Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Union Carbide WV DEP ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. WV DEP Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator WV DEP WV DEP Fike/Artel Site Trust WV DEP Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Homer Brumfield, ACF Industries Jim McCune Mark Kees, WV DEP NA Yes Yes Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Union Carbide Corporation WV DEP Roux Associates, Inc. Jim Heenehan U.S. EPA Region III NA WV DEP Solutia, Inc. U.S. EPA, Region III No Yes Yes Yes Yes February, 1997 February 10, 1997 February 13, 1997 February 18, 1997 March, 1997 March 1997 March 4, 1997 March 27, 1997 April 9, 1997 April 18, 1997 May 1, 1997 May 7, 1997 July 18, 1997 August 11, 1997 October 3, 1997 October 8, 1997 October 16, 1997 October 20, 1997 October 30, 1997 October 30, 1997 November 19, 1997 1998 January 8, 1998 January 15, 1998 January 29, 1998 February 28, 1998 March 24, 1998 April 15, 1998 May 4, 1998 May 7, 1998 May 14, 1998 May 28, 1998 June 1, 1998 July, 1998 July 31, 1998 September, 1998 September 10, 1998 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Page 9 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For September 14, 1998 September 30, 1998 Compliance Evaluation Report - Occidental Chemical Letter to J. Roger Hirl, President, Occidental Chemical Corporation: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Administrative Complaint, Compliance Order and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, Docket Number RCRA-III-285 Penny Harris John Armstead, U.S. EPA Region III WV DEP U.S. EPA Region III Yes Yes October 26, 1998 Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Results of Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater and Kerosene, Solutia Inc. Results of Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater and Kerosene, (Volume I of III), Solutia Inc., Nitro, West Virginia Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Draft Analytical Summary for Groundwater for Operable Unit Four - Site Wide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Information Summary: WWI Era Sewers Information Summary: WWI Era Sewers, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, WV Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Letter to Mr. Wendell L. Barner, IT Group, from Mark I. Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: OU-3 Analytical Data Results Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, Plant 514 Field Trip Report for AES - Monsanto Site Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Analytical Data Request Summary Investigative Report - Solutia, Inc. HUB Property, Independence Drive, Nitro, Putnam County, West Virginia Meeting Minutes: Fike/Artel Site Trust, Community Liaison Panel Meeting, Nitro Community Center Dioxin Contamination of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers Sampling Plan - Holmes and Madden Landfill EPA botched OxyChem probe, state says, Hazardous waste illegally stored, DEP official says Letter to Mr. Jon McKinney, Flexsys America, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: Water Compliance Inspection Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Roux Associates, Inc. Roux Associates Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator US EPA EPA Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. NA Yes The IT Group The IT Group Roy F. Weston, Inc. Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator NA US EPA Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes Yes Mark I. Slusarski WV DEP Roy F. Weston, Inc. Limno-Tech, Inc. Fike/Artel Site Trust Potesta & Associates Mary Lovejoy Rebhan Lewis A. Baker Roy F. Weston, Inc. Ken Ward Jr. WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III USEPA Region III U.S. EPA Solutia, Inc. Fike/Artel Site Trust WV Citizen Research Group U.S. EPA, Region III Charleston Sunday Gazette-Mail WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WV DEP WV DEP Yes Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Roy F. Weston, Inc. Science Application International Corporation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. EPA, Region III Quality Distribution, Inc. NA Yes Yes Yes Yes KEMRON Environmental Services, Inc. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Roy F. Weston, Inc. IT Group Union Carbide Corporation U.S. EPA, Region III Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. & Miller Springs Remediation Management, Inc. U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Wendell Barner Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator NA Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Roy F. Weston, Inc. WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III WV DEP Yes Yes November, 1998 November 30, 1998 January 29, 1999 February 4, 1999 April, 1999 April, 1999 April 14, 1999 April 21, 1999 May 5, 1999 May 6, 1999 May 7, 1999 May 14, 1999 May 25, 1999 July, 1999 July 12, 1999 August 29, 1999 September 16, 1999 September 26, 1999 October 21, 1999 October 21, 1999 November 12, 1999 November 18, 1999 December 23, 1999 December 30 1999 February, 2000 February 16, 2000 February 18, 2000 March 1, 2000 March 24, 2000 March 30, 2000 March 30, 2000 April 4, 2000 April 17, 2000 April 17, 2000 May 2, 2000 CRA 031884 (51) Letter to Jon McKinney, Flexsys America, LP, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: Water Compliance Inspection Report Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Trip Report - Midwest Steel Site Dioxin Assessment Groundwater Monitoring: Appendix IX Analysis Results Health Consultation - Dioxin in Soil in the Vicinity of the Heizer Creek Landfill 1999 Annual Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Report - Union Carbide Corporation, Institute, West Virginia Trip Report - Old Avtex Landfill Site Phase II Interim Status Report and Supplemental Data Collection Work Plan, RCRA Facility Investigation, Former OxyChem Facility, Belle, WV Trip Report - South Charleston Municipal Landfill Site Trip Report - DuPont Belle Site Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Wendell Barner, IT Group, Re: Schedule for OU-4 RI/FS, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Wendell Barner, The IT Group, Re: Schedule for OU-4 RI/FS, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Health Consultation - Dioxin in Soil at the Former Midwest Steel Site, Nitro, Putnam County, West Virginia Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Sampling Plan Manila Creek Site Letter to Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill Contained Relevant Information* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 10 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For May 2, 2000 May 2, 2000 May 5, 2000 Letter to Renae Bonnett, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP WV/NPDES Permit for Armour Creek Landfill Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, (Nitro Storm sewer/Outfall Investigation), Kanawha & Putnam Counties, WV WV DEP Division of Water Resources Roy F. Weston, Inc. WV DEP WV DEP US EPA Region III Yes Yes Yes May 9, 2000 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Snull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site April 2000 Monthly Progress Report #98 Letter to James J. Burke, Director, U.S. EPA Region III, from B.F. Smith, Chief, WV DEP and attached Memorandum: Impact of Wastewater Treatment Unit Exclusion on Region III's Ability to Protect Human Health and the Environment Warren L. Snull, Project Coordinator Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes B.F. Smith, Chief, WV DEP WV DEP No June 7, 2000 August, 2000 August 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 Contained Relevant Information* WV DEP WV DEP Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes Yes Yes September, 2000 September 7, 2000 September 29, 2000 November, 2000 NPDES Permit Renewal for E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company DuPont Engineering Technology NPDES Permit Renewal for Permit No. WV0002399, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Belle, WV DuPont Engineering Technology (DuET) Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Kirk Kessler, GeoSyntec Consultants, Re: Draft Groundwater Remedial GeoSyntec Consultants Investigation/Feasibility Study Report, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Human Health Risk Assessment for the Former OxyChem Belle Facility, Miller Springs Remediation Management, Inc., BelEnvironmental Resources Management, Inc. Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV ARCADIS Health Consultation - South Charleston Municipal Landfill U.S. Department of Health and Human Services RFI Work Plan Facility Lead Program, Union Carbide Corporation - Private Trucking Operations, Nitro West Virginia Remediation Technology Group U.S. EPA Region III Monsanto Company NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes November 16, 2000 December 18, 2000 January, 2001 January, 2001 January, 2001 January 3, 2001 Updated Kanawha River Fish Consumption Advisory Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Hi-Vol Water Sampling, Nitro, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV Soil Feasibility Study - Fike Chemical Superfund Site Soil Feasibility Study - Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Final Soil Remedial Investigation Report - Appendix A - Health and Ecological Risk Assessments for Soil EPA's Comments on Human Health Risk Assessment for the Former OxyChem Belle Facility - September 2000 WV BPH Ecology & Environment, Inc. GeoSyntec Consultants Geosyntec Consultants GeoSyntec Consultants U.S. EPA, Region III WV BPH US EPA Region III Fike/Artel Site Trust Fike Artel Trust Fike/Artel Site Trust Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes January 5, 2001 February 1, 2001 Final Soil Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I of III Response Action Plan, CAP Construction, AES Property Site, AOC Docket No. 111-2001-0004-DC, Nitro, West Virginia IT Corporation Potesta & Associates NA Solutia, Inc. Yes Yes February, 2001 March 5, 2001 April, 2001 April 3, 2001 2001 June 12, 2001 2000 Annual Groundwater Assessment Monitoring Report - Union Carbide Corporation, Institute, West Virginia Health Consultation - Manila Creek Landfill (a.k.a. Poca Drum Dump), Raymond, Putnam County, WV Permit Modification Request No. 2 Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. Meeting Minutes: Fike/Artel Site Trust, Community Liaison Panel Meeting, Nitro Community Center West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report ( May 2001 - November 2001) Letter to Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Mark L. Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: WVDEP Trip Report - Offsite Sewer System Investigation (May 29, 2001), Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Kanawha and Putnam County, WV Letter to Mike Chezik, DOI Custom House, from Kate, Lose RPM, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Proposed Plan for Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4 West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report ( August 2001 - November 2001 and March 2002) Letter to Mr. Patrick T. Ragan, Aventis CropScience, from WV DEP Compliance Inspection Report - Aventis CropScience Lagoon 3 Characterization Report, Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Nitro, WV Report on Phase 1A Activities – Corrective Measures Study Record of Decision - Operable Unit 4 - Fike Artel Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia State of West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of August 2001 Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Flexsys Nitro Plant Pre-RFI Site Assessment - Union Carbide Corporation South Charleston Facility Report for 3rd Quarter 2001 Groundwater Monitoring - Armour Creek Landfill Stormwater Sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD - Armour Creek Landfill Report for 3rd Quarter 2001 Groundwater Monitoring - Armour Creek Landfill State of West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Repot for the month of September 2001 KEMRON Environmental Services, Inc. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Quality Distribution, Inc. John McPherson Aventis CropScience WV DEP Union Carbide Corporation NA Science Application International Corporation Fike/Artel Site Trust Division of Water Resources WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Roy F. Weston, Inc. Kate Lose US EPA Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Aventis CropScience WV DEP WV DEP GeoSyntec Consultants Roux Associates, Inc. USEPA Region III Superfund Program Aventis WV DEP Union Carbide Corporation Potesta & Associates Potesta & Associates Potesta & Associates Aventis Division of Water Resources WV DEP Aventis CropScience Fike/Artel Trust Solutia, Inc. NA WV DEP WV DEP NA Solutia, Inc. Solutia, Inc. Solutia, Inc. WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes June 26, 2001 July 9, 2001 2001 August 3, 2001 August 3, 2001 September, 2001 September, 2001 September, 2001 September 10, 2001 September 26, 2001 September 28, 2001 October 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 October 12, 2001 CRA 031884 (51) Page 11 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For October 12, 2001 Letter to Ms. Allyn Turner, from Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, Re: 3rd Quarter, 2001 Report, Armour Creek Landfill NPDES Permit Requirements, WV 0077020 Anthony Tuk Solutia Yes October 22, 2001 Glenn Springs Holding, Inc. U.S. EPA Region III Yes Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc. Yes Gordon T. Smith ARCADIS Bayer CropScience Aventis Roux Associates, Inc. Ken Ward Jr. WV DEP Aventis CropScience Monsanto Company Division of Water Resources WV DEP U.S. EPA, Region III The Charleston Gazette WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes WV DEP WV DEP NA WV DEP Yes Yes April 11, 2002 April 15, 2002 April 18, 2002 Response to Comments, Phase II Ecological Risk Assessment Report (October 2000), Former Occidental Chemical Corporation Facility, Belle, WV Human Health Risk Assessment for Surface Water and Sediment - Fish Ingestion Evaluation, Former OxyChem Facility, Belle, WV Letter to Mr. Pravin Sangani, from Gordon T. Smith, Aventis CropScience Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis Addendum, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report ( December 2001 - April 2002) State of West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Repot for the month of November 2001 Evaluation of Environmental Indicators for Migration of Contaminated Groundwater Under Control Dioxin seep discovered at Nitro plant Letter to Mr. Jon W. McKinney, Flexsys, from David B. Wheatcraft, WV DEP, Re: Notice of Violation of the terms and conditions of WV/NPDES Permit No. WV0000868 and the West Virginia Legislative Rules Sampling Inspection Report – Solutia, Inc., Nitro West Virginia Letter to Mr. Jon W. McKinney, Flexsys, from Naresh R. Shah, WV DEP, Re: WV/NPDES Application WV0000868 Review of Information Received on March 14 & 28, 2002 State of West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of March 2002 Letter to Ms. Jennifer Shoemaker, U.S. EPA, from D.M. Light, Solutia, Re: Notification of Potential Release Memorandum: Solutia Sampling, from WV DEP Aventis D.M. Light WV DEP WV DEP Solutia WV DEP Yes Yes Yes April 24, 2002 April 29, 2002 April 29, 2002 Sampling Inspection Report - Solutia, Inc. Sampling Inspection Report - Solutia, Inc. Letter to Mike Light, Solutia, from Thomas A. Fisher, WV DEP, Re: Sampling Inspection Report dated April 24, 2002 Christopher M. Gatens WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP Yes Yes Yes May 3, 2002 Letter to Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, from Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, 1st Q. 2002 Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Building 603 Geoprobe Investigation, DOW South Charleston Facility Letter to Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, from Mark Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, 2nd Q. 2002 Waste Water Management System Analytical Report Interim Measures Work Plan - Final (Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, West Virginia) Letter to Michael Light, Solutia, from David Farley, WV DEP Summary of HUB Drainage Ditch Dye Study, Flexsys America L.P. Nitro Production Facility, Nitro, West Virginia Final Report - Multimedia Compliance Investigation, Institute Plant - Union Carbide Kanawha River Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report Quality Assurance Plan - Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and FMC Corporation Interim Remedial Measure Work Plan - Former SSS Area Dupont Plant, Belle, West Virginia Phase II RFI Investigation Report - Plant Area Dupont Belle Plant, Belle, West Virginia Letter to Jon W. McKinney, Plant Manager, Flexsys, from Belinda Beller, Permitting Section, WV DEP, Re: Permit Application No. WV0000868 Putnam County Dupont Belle, Offsite Groundwater Sampling Summary Letter to Mr. Charlie Moses, WV DEP, from REIC, Re: CM-CAM-6-23-03-1 Summary of Analytical Data Results Warehouse Area Groundwater/ Soil Investigation, WVABCA Property, Nitro, West Virginia File Review and Information Compilation Report Letter to Jon W. McKinney, Flexsys America, LP, from Charles A. Moses, WV DEP, Re: Water Compliance Inspection Report ACF - Huntington (WV D005004866) Evaporation Ponds Fike Chemical Project Draft NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit No. WV0000868, Flexsys America, LP October 22, 2001 October 25, 2001 November 26, 2001 2001 December 12, 2001 December 21, 2001 2002 January 8, 2002 April, 2002 April 5, 2002 June 11, 2002 July 24, 2002 August 1, 2002 September 10, 2002 September 26, 2002 March, 2003 March 1, 2003 April, 2003 May, 2003 May, 2003 June 12, 2003 July, 2003 July 9, 2003 August 1, 2003 August, 2003 August 5, 2003 September 19, 2003 1977 1988 2003 CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* WV DEP WV DEP Yes KEMRON WV DEP Union Carbide Corporation WV DEP Yes Yes Potesta & Associates, Inc. Solutia, Inc. Yes WV DEP Potesta & Associates National Enforcement Investigations Center Region III, START Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. Corporate Remediation Group Corporate Remediation Group WV DEP WV DEP NA U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA Great Lakes Chemical Corporation NA NA WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Corporate Remediation Group REIC Potesta & Associates, Inc. USEPA WV DEP Solutia, Inc. Yes Yes Yes TRIAD Engineering, Inc. WV DEP WV DEP WV DEP Yes Yes WV DEP NEIC Technical Testing Laboratories, Inc. WV DEP WV DEP NA NA WV DEP Yes Yes Yes Yes Page 12 of 12 TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Report Date Title of Investigation Prepared By Prepared For NA The Fike/Artel Superfund Site Remediation, Operable Unit Three - - What does it involve and who's doing the work? Fike/Artel Site Trust Fike/Artel Site Trust Yes NA Memorandum to Thomas P. Eichler, U.S. EPA, from Bruce Potoka, U.S. EPA, Re: Immediate Removal Request for the Fike Chemical Site, Nitro, West Virginia Site Information - Volume Four - Kanawha Valley Sites West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report (May 2002 - April 2003) West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report (May 2001 - November 2001) West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report (December 2001 - April 2002) Occidental Chemical Corporation (WVD005010227) State Questions Eleanor Cleanup, Water Contaminated, DEP Letter States Dioxin worries surface on buried soil in Wetzel Letter to H. William Lichtenberger, President, UCC, from Maria Parisi Vickers, Director, RCRA Programs, U.S. EPA Region III West Virginia Discharge Monitoring Report ( May 2002 - April 2003) Site Information - Volume Four Kanawha River Valley Sites U.S. EPA, Region III U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Roy F. Weston, Inc. Bayer CropScience Aventis CropScience Bayer CropScience U.S. EPA, Region III WV DEP, Division of Water Resources WV DEP, Division of Water Resources WV DEP, Division of Water Resources Rusty Marks Pat Sanders U.S. EPA, Region III NA Charleston Daily Mail U.S. EPA, Region III Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Bayer CropScience Roy F. Weston Division of Water Resources USEPA Region III Yes Yes NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: * This item contained information that was determined to be relevant for development of one or all of the following items; the Work Plan, the Site History, and/or the Site database. NA - Information was not available. CRA 031884 (51) Contained Relevant Information* Page 1 of 1 TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER WATER COLUMN 2,3,7,8-TCDD ANALYSES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sampling Date May-99 Jun-00 Jun-00 Jun-00 Jun-98 Jul-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Charleston Flow (cfs) River Mile "Upstream" 46.0 42.2 41.8 41.3 41.3 36.5 36.5 29.7 29.7 5,100 - 20,800 18,000 22,900 23,900 9,060 5,100 9,340 4,500 9,320 3,700 MEAN VALUE: Source: EPA, 2000a and 2000b. CRA 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (pg/L) Total Dioxin TEQ (pg/L) Dissolved Particulate Total Dissolved Particulate Total 0.000 0.014 0.009 0.015 0.027 0.024 0.033 0.027 0.023 0.007 0.191 0.100 0.115 0.312 0.351 0.202 0.231 0.222 0.009 0.007 0.205 0.109 0.130 0.339 0.375 0.235 0.258 0.245 0.010 0.028 0.034 0.028 0.030 0.032 0.036 0.036 0.027 0.179 0.543 0.391 0.220 0.425 0.490 0.290 0.424 0.507 0.189 0.571 0.425 0.248 0.455 0.522 0.326 0.460 0.533 0.022 0.216 0.237 0.031 0.411 0.443 Page 1 of 3 TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF EOC FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Date PHASE I EOC ACTIVITIES October 4, 2004 October 5, 2004 October 6, 2004 October 7, 2004 October 8, 2004 October 9, 2004 October 10, 2004 October 11, 2004 October 12, 2004 October 13, 2004 Mobilization - CRA Mobilization - Blue Coast Velocity Profiling - RM 68 Velocity Profiling - RM 46, 42, 33, 31 / De-Mobilization - Blue Coast De-Mobilization - CRA CRA - Mobilization No Activity Mobilization - Axys, Exponent, CRA (Don Knorr), Normandeau ( Fish sampling) SW sampling - RM 46; Fish sampling, seasonal low flow SW sampling - RM 42; Fish sampling, seasonal low flow October 14, 2004 October 15, 2004 SW sampling - RM 33; Fish sampling, seasonal low flow SW sampling - RM 31; Fish sampling, seasonal low flow October 16, 2004 October 17, 2004 Maintenance (Infiltrex Pump) / Normandeau Crew Change - Crew 1 De-mobilizes Maintenance (Infiltrex Pump) October 18, 2004 SW sampling - RM 68; Re-Mobilization -Normandeau Crew 2, seasonal low flow October 19, 2004 SW sampling - RM 31; Fish sampling, seasonal low flow October 20, 2004 October 21, 2004 October 22, 2004 October 23, 2004 Demobilization - Exponent & Axys; Fish sampling; Mobilization - Golder Geophysical/Bath Surveying Coal River to Winfield Dam; Fish sampling Geophysical/Bath Surveying Coal River to Winfield Dam; Fish sampling Geophysical/Bath Surveying Coal River to Winfield Dam; Fish sampling; De-Mobilization Normandeau Prepare Sediment Sampling Equipment Sediment sampling for physical properties Sediment sampling for physical properties Sediment sampling for physical properties Sediment sampling for TCDD Sediment sampling for TCDD/physical properties Sediment sampling for TCDD/De-Mobilization - Anchor De-Mobilization - Golder De-Mobilization - CRA De-Mobilization - CRA Re-Mobilization - CRA, Exponent, Axys SW sampling - RM 68, seasonal high flow SW sampling - RM 46, seasonal high flow SW sampling - RM 31, seasonal high flow SW sampling - RM 33, seasonal high flow SW sampling - RM 42, seasonal high flow De-mobilization - Axys, Exponent De-mobilization - CRA October 24, 2004 October 25, 2004 October 26, 2004 October 27, 2004 October 28, 2004 October 29, 2004 October 30, 2004 October 31, 2004 November 1, 2004 November 2, 2004 April 11, 2005 April 12, 2005 April 13, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 15, 2005 April 16, 2005 April 17, 2005 April 18, 2005 CRA 031884 (51) Activity Comment -ADCP flooded in inner chamber at approx. 2:30 p.m. Replacement unit shipped to Site. Heavy fog delays FedEx, ADCP does not arrive until early afternoon ------SW sampling suspended after 7 of the 8 sections completed due to lightening; fishing suspended -Heavy wind causing boat to drift, need to reposition. Lots of barge traffic interrupting sampling (must move from channel). Intake clogged with silt at approx. 4 p.m., suspends sampling as motor must be taken apart to fix. -Submersible pump was plumbed into Infiltrex system, bypassing Infiltrex pump that could not be fixed. Heavy wind causing boat to drift, need to reposition. Heavy barge traffic - requested by lockmaster to move out of channel several times (pumping suspended). Complete sampling at RM 31. Requested by lockmaster to move out of channel due to barge traffic (pumping suspended). ---------Attempted to collect samples for physical properties at locations previously unable to -------------- Page 2 of 3 TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF EOC FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Date PHASE II EOC ACTIVITIES November 26, 2007 November 27, 2007 November 28, 2007 November 29, 2007 November 30, 2007 December 1, 2007 December 2, 2007 December 3, 2007 December 4, 2007 December 5, 2007 December 6, 2007 December 7, 2007 December 8, 2007 December 9, 2007 December 10, 2007 December 11, 2007 December 12, 2007 December 13, 2007 December 14, 2007 December 15, 2007 December 16, 2007 December 17, 2007 December 18, 2007 December 19, 2007 February 18, 2008 February 19, 2008 February 20, 2008 February 21, 2008 February 22, 2008 February 23, 2008 February 24, 2008 February 25, 2008 February 26, 2008 December 8, 2008 December 9, 2008 December 10, 2008 December 11, 2008 December 12, 2008 December 13, 2008 December 14, 2008 CRA 031884 (51) Activity Mobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) Mobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) Sediment sampling - SSD-23, -24, -25, -26, -27, and -28; COR-37, -38, -39, -40, -41, -42, and -43 Sediment sampling - SSD-19, -20, -21, and -22; COR-25, -26, -27, -28, -29, -30, -31, -32, -33, -34, -35, and -36 Sediment sampling - SSD-10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, -17, and -18; COR-19, -20, -21, -22, -23, and -24 Sediment sampling - SSD-6, -7, and -9; COR-4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, -12, -13, -14, -15, -16, 17, and -18 Sediment sampling - SSD-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5; COR-1, -2, and -3 Sediment sampling - COR-42, and -43 Sediment sampling - COR-38, -39, -40, and -41 Sediment sampling - COR-35, and -36; NRC-08 Sediment Sampling - COR-33; NRC-07 Sediment Sampling - COR-30 Sediment Sampling - COR-23, -25, and -28 No Activity Sediment Sampling - COR-21, -22; NRC-05 Sediment Sampling - COR-18, -19, and -20 Sediment Sampling - COR-04; NRC-02 Sediment Sampling - COR-03, -4, and -8 Sediment Sampling - COR-07; NRC-03 Sediment Sampling - COR-09, -11, and -12 No Activity No Activity No Activity Demobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Mobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) Sediment coring - NRC-04, and -05 Sediment processing - NRC-04, and -05; attempted coring at COR-01, 02; NRC-01 sediment coring - COR-05,-06,-13,-14 No activity Sediment Sampling - COR-15, and -16 Sediment Sampling - NRC-08; Black Carbon samples BC-COR-10A, BC-COR-10B, BC-COR13A, BC-COR-13B, BC-COR-37A, BC-COR-37B, BC-SSD-26A, BC-SSD-26B ; Waste Characterization samples Demobilization: CRA, Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) Demobilization: CRA, Exponent, and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) Mobilization: CRA (Shelly Gould and Rebecca Bentley) and Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus, Helen Sharp) Sediment sampling - COR-40; COR-42 Sediment sampling - COR-36A; COR-36; COR-36B; COR-36C; and COR-32A Sediment sampling - COR-32B; COR-31; COR-28A; COR-32A Demobilization: CRA (Shelly Gould, Rebecca Bentley) and Normandeau (Helen Sharp); Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Fiscus) begins electrofishing Electrofishing; Demobilization: CRA (Shelly Gould, Rebecca Bentley) Electrofishing; Mobilization: CRA (Don Knorr, Christine Potts) Comment --------------------------Locations cored late in the day processed next day. Five attempts at each coring locations resulting in refusals. Total of five (5) attempts at each coring location resulting in refusals. Cancelled sampling activities for the day due to freezing rain. --- ---Attempted to collect sample at COR-36A, however lost tube. Refusal at COR-32A. Re-sample location COR-32A at EPA's request; refusal at COR-31. Turbid water and rain making electrofishing difficult. --- Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4.1 SUMMARY OF EOC FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Date December 15, 2008 December 16, 2008 Electrofishing Electrofishing at RM 33 December 17, 2008 Electrofishing at RM 33 for gizzard shad and bass; Electrofishing at RM 68 December 18, 2008 December 19, 2008 December 20, 2008 December 21, 2008 December 22, 2008 January 12, 2009 January 13, 2009 January 14, 2009 January 15, 2009 January 16, 2009 January 17, 2009 January 18, 2009 January 19, 2009 January 20, 2009 July 26, 2009 July 27, 2009 July 28, 2009 Electrofishing at RM 68 in the morning, completed bass sampling at RM 68 Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Demobilization: CRA (Don Knorr, Christine Potts), Normandeau (Rich Kling, Andrew Mobilization: Normandeau Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Electrofishing Demobilization: Normandeau Mobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Normandeau (Mike Mettler), Sea Engineering (Frank Sediment sampling for SedFlume testing - KRSD-24, - 25, and -28 Sediment sampling for SedFlume testing - COR-42, -40, -39, -35, -36, -32B, -30, -25, KRSD-14 and -20 Sediment sampling for SedFlume testing - KRSD-48, -10, and COR-20 Sediment sampling for SedFlume testing - KRSD-1, -4, -5 and COR-7 Demobilization: CRA (Dan Deitner), Normandeau (Mike Mettler), Sea Engineering (Frank Spada) July 29, 2009 July 30, 2009 July 31, 2009 CRA 031884 (51) Activity Comment -Weather is poor, river is high and muddy making electrofishing difficult. Have bass from RM 42, and about half the catfish sample from RM 42. Set more trot lines for catfish in the evening. Attempted to electrofish at RM 33 in the afternoon and evening, however there are less fish than observed at RM 42. Set trot lines for catfish at RM 75-95. Electrofished at RM 68 and caught a few bass and a few saugers. More productive electrofishing is in the morning. Checked trot lines at RM 75-95. ---------------Five (5) attempts each at locations COR-32B and COR-25 resulted in no recovery. Rain and lightening reduced sampling activities. --- Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4.2 SUMMARY OF FLOW MEASUREMENT DATA EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 31 RM 33 RM 42 RM 46 RM 68 Date Transect 1 10/7/2004 10/7/2004 10/7/2004 10/7/2004 10/6/2004 283.25 260.16 196.41 225.79 251.18 Total Flow (m 3 /s) Transect 2 Transect 3 265.67 208.92 159.21 235.81 249.24 244.11 212.58 Transect 4 Transect 1 205.29 10.93 12.80 12.55 17.17 14.71 Notes: 1) RM - River mile, distance upstream of the concluence of the Kanawha River with the Ohio River. 2) Velocity measurements used to calculate flow were taken using RD Instruments 1200 kHz ADCP. CRA 031884 (51) Average Velocity (cm/s) Transect 2 Transect 3 10.60 9.85 10.28 17.45 16.18 17.71 12.42 Transect 4 13.28 Page 1 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-003A/B 10/19/04 Low Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/15/04-001 10/15/2004 Low Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-001 10/19/2004 Low Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-002 10/19/2004 Low Flow ft3/s L 14,200 1,000 18,800 - 14,200 - 14,200 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L 5.96 J 0.00596 J 46.3 0.04630 - - - mg/L mg/L mg/L - 2 2 11 2 3 8.0 3 2 6.0 Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 33 SW-37884-DL-10/14/04-004A/B 10/14/04 Low Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-001 10/14/2004 Low Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-002 10/14/2004 Low Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-003 10/14/2004 Low Flow ft3/s L 10,700 1,000 10,700 - 10,700 - 10,700 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L 10.9 0.01090 15.6 0.01560 - - - mg/L mg/L mg/L - 2 2 9.0 J 2 1 8.0 J 2 2 7.0 J Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-004A/B 10/13/04 Low Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-005A 10/13/04 Low Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-001 10/13/2004 Low Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-002 10/13/2004 Low Flow ft3/s L 6,820 756 6,820 756 6,820 - 6,820 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L 5.33 J 0.00705 J 3.78 J 0.00500 J 5.36 J 0.00709 J - - - mg/L mg/L mg/L - - 2 2 8.0 J 2 2 5.0 J Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-003 10/13/2004 Low Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-001A/B 10/12/04 Low Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-002 10/12/2004 Low Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-003 10/12/2004 Low Flow ft3/s L 6,820 - 6,840 1,000 6,840 - 6,840 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - 0.874 J 0.000874 J ND (1.27) U ND (0.00127) U - - mg/L mg/L mg/L 2 2 5.0 J - 2 2 ND(2.8) 2 2 5.0 J Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 5 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-001A 10/12/2004 Low Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-004 A/B 10/18/04 Low Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-001 10/18/2004 Low Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-002 10/18/2004 Low Flow ft3/s L 6,840 - 10,400 1,000 10,400 - 10,400 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - 1.12 J 0.00112 J ND (0.753) U ND (0.000753) U - - mg/L mg/L mg/L ---- - 2 2 5.0 2 2 7.0 Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 6 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-003 10/18/2004 Low Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-4/14/05-004A/B 04/14/05 High Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-04/14/05-001 4/14/2005 High Flow RM 31 SW-31884-DL-04/14/05-002 4/14/2005 High Flow ft3/s L 10,400 - 15,400 1,000 15,400 - 15,400 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - 14.0 0.01400 48.9 0.04890 - - mg/L mg/L mg/L 2 2 8.0 - 1 1 12 2 2 7.0 Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 7 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 31 SW-31884-DL-04/14/05-003 4/14/2005 High Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-004A/B 04/15/05 High Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-001 4/15/2005 High Flow RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-002 4/15/2005 High Flow ft3/s L 15,400 - 15,300 997 15,300 - 15,300 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - 10.3 0.01033 33.5 0.03360 - - mg/L mg/L mg/L 2 1 9.0 - 1 1 10 ND(0.08) 1 10 Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 8 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-003 4/15/2005 High Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-005A/B 04/16/05 High Flow ft3/s L 15,300 - 15,400 1,003 15,400 1,003 15,400 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - 9.67 J 0.00964 J 7.98 J 0.00796 J 9.69 J 0.00966 J 119 0.11864 - mg/L mg/L mg/L 1 2 19 - - 1 1 14 Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: RM 42 RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-006A/B SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-001 04/16/05 4/16/2005 High Flow High Flow Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 9 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-002 4/16/2005 High Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-003 4/16/2005 High Flow RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-004 4/16/2005 High Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-004A/B 04/13/05 High Flow ft3/s L 15,400 - 15,400 - 15,400 - 15,600 994 pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - - - ND (2.20) ND (0.00221) 8.48 J 0.00853 J mg/L mg/L mg/L 1 1 11 2 1 9.0 2 1 6.0 - Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 10 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-001 4/13/2005 High Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-002 4/13/2005 High Flow RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-003 4/13/2005 High Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-004A/B 04/12/05 High Flow ft3/s L 15,600 - 15,600 - 15,600 - 15,100 1,008 pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - - - ND (1.90) ND (0.00188) 6.40 J 0.00635 J mg/L mg/L mg/L 1 1 ND (2.8) 2 1 13 2 2 11 - Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 11 of 11 TABLE 4.3 SURFACE WATER ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-001 4/12/2005 High Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-002 4/12/2005 High Flow RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-003 4/12/2005 High Flow ft3/s L 15,100 - 15,100 - 15,100 - pg/sample pg/L pg/sample pg/L - - - mg/L mg/L mg/L 2 ND (0.08) 4.0 2 1 9.0 2 1 9.0 Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Flow Type: Units Mean Flow at Charleston Gauge (USGS 03198000) Sample Volume Filtered Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dissolved) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Particulate) General Chemistry Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Notes: 2,3,7,8-TCDD - 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ft3/s - Cubic feet per second L - liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. pg - picogram J - Estimated Concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value "-" - Parameter not analyzed. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4.4 SUMMARY OF FISH TISSUE SAMPLING (PHASE I AND PHASE II EOC ACTIVITIES) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Mile Species Replicate 1 (No. of Fish) Sample ID Replicate 2 (No. of Fish) Sample ID Replicate 3 (No. of Fish) Replicate 4 (No. of Fish) Sample ID 75-95 Channel Catfish 5 TISS-031884-012104-DK-046 5 TISS-031884-102104-DK-047 5 TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 75-95 Sauger 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-036 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-037 2 TISS-031884-010809-DFK-038 68 Bass 5 TISS-031884-101604-DK-041 5 TISS-031884-101604-DK-042 5 68 Bass 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-026 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-027 5 Sample ID (2) (3) Sample ID TISS-031884-111704-DFK-050 (2) Duplicate (No. of Fish) Sample ID MS/MSD (No. of Fish) Sample ID 0 -- 0 -- 5 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 3 15 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-051 15 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-052 0 -- 0 -- TISS-031884-101604-DK-043 5 TISS-031884-101804-DK-044 5 TISS-031884-101804-DK-045 0 -- 0 -- TISS-031884-121808-DFK-028 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-029 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-030 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- (2) 68 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 15 TISS-031884-101604-DK-036 15 TISS-031884-101804-DK-037 15 TISS-031884-101804-DK-038 68 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-031 5 TISS-031884-121808-DFK-032 5 TISS-031884-122208-DFK-033 42 Bass 5 TISS-031884-101204-DK-001 5 TISS-031884-101304-DK-011 5 42 Bass 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-001 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-002 42 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 15 TISS-031884-101304-DK-003 15 42 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 10 TISS-031884-121608-DFK-003 33-45 Channel Catfish 5 33-45 Channel Catfish 33 6 (1) TISS-031884-101604-040 (2) TISS-031884-102104-DK-039 0 5 TISS-031884-122208-DFK-034 5 TISS-031884-122208-DFK-035 0 -- 0 -- TISS-031884-101304-DK-012 5 TISS-031884-101504-DK-033 5 TISS-031884-101504-DK-034 0 -- 0 -- 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-009 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-010 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- TISS-031884-101304-DK-004 15 TISS-031884-101304-DK-005 15 TISS-031884-101304-DK-006 15 TISS-031884-101304-DK-007 0 -- 0 -- 10 TISS-031884-121608-DFK-004 10 TISS-031884-121608-DFK-005 10 TISS-031884-121608-DFK-006 10 TISS-031884-121608-DFK-007 0 -- 0 -- TISS-031884-101204-DK-002 5 TISS-031884-101304-DK-008 5 TISS-031884-101304-DK-009 5 TISS-031884-101304-DK-010 5 TISS-031884-101504-DK-035 0 -- 0 -- 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-011 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-012 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-013 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-014 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-015 0 -- 0 -- Bass 5 TISS-031884-101404-DK-023 5 TISS-031884-101404-DK-024 5 TISS-031884-101404-DK-025 5 TISS-031884-101504-DK-026 5 TISS-031884-101504-DK-027 0 -- 0 -- 33 Bass 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-021 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-022 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-023 5 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-024 5 TISS-031884-121708-DK-025 0 -- 0 -- 33 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 15 TISS-031884-101404-DK-013 15 TISS-031884-101404-DK-014 15 TISS-031884-101404-DK-015 15 TISS-031884-101404-DK-016 15 TISS-031884-101404-DK-017 75 (5 sets of 15) TISS-031884-101404-DK--018 to TISS-031884-101504-DK-022 (3) 50 (5 sets of 10) TISS-031884-101504-DK-028 to TISS-031884-101504-DK-032 33 Forage (Gizzard Shad) 10 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-016 10 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-017 10 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-018 10 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-019 10 TISS-031884-121708-DFK-020 0 -- 0 -- Notes: (1) Replicate 5 (No. of Fish) Sample consisted of 6 large gizzard shad. An insufficient number of target species was obtained to collect the sample. Samples TISS-031884-101404-DK-018 through -022 are duplicate samples of Gizzard Shad at RM33. Samples -018, -021, and -022 were put on hold and were not analyzed since the 1/20 duplicate frequency requirement had already been met. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-013 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-014 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-015 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-016 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-017 10/14/2004 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-019 10/14/2004 Field Duplicate 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-020 10/14/2004 Field Duplicate 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 4.50 2.39 3.69 2.07 7.53 2.61 3.40 1.97 3.35 2.63 5.72 2.56 5.99 2.54 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 2 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-023 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-024 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101404-DK-025 10/14/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101504-DK-026 10/15/2004 RM 33 TISS-031884-101504-DK-027 10/15/2004 RM 33-45 TISS-031884-101204-DK 002 10/12/2004 RM 33-45 TISS-031884-101304-DK-008 10/13/2004 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 4.46 0.52 2.83 0.51 2.72 0.50 1.37 0.76 1.74 0.45 19.5 3.05 3.34 1.20 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 3 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 33-45 TISS-031884-101304-DK-009 10/13/2004 RM 33-45 TISS-031884-101304-DK-010 10/13/2004 RM 33-45 TISS-031884-101504-DK-035 10/15/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-003 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-004 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-005 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-006 10/13/2004 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 1.33 2.26 6.07 2.51 4.02 0.77 1.50 1.80 6.70 2.15 0.877 J 2.14 1.59 1.94 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 4 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-007 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101204-DK 001 10/12/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-011 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101304-DK-012 10/13/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101504-DK-033 10/15/2004 RM 42 TISS-031884-101504-DK-034 10/15/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101604-DK-036 10/16/2004 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 5.98 2.49 3.58 0.28 4.02 0.39 3.52 0.42 1.79 0.53 2.04 0.48 1.44 3.73 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 5 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 68 TISS-031884-101804-DK-037 10/18/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101804-DK-038 10/18/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-102104-DK-039 10/21/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-051 11/17/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-052 11/17/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101604-DK-041 10/16/2004 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 6 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 15 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 2.10 3.19 0.511 J 3.13 0.222 J 4.56 0.936 J 4.60 0.307 J 5.02 ND (0.221) U 0.38 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 6 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 68 TISS-031884-101604-DK-042 10/16/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101604-DK-043 10/16/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101804-DK-044 10/18/2004 RM 68 TISS-031884-101804-DK-045 10/18/2004 RM 75-95 TISS-031884-102104-DK-046 10/21/2004 RM 75-95 TISS-031884-102104-DK-047 10/21/2004 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 0.469 J 0.30 ND (0.178) U 0.26 0.365 J 0.65 ND (0.077) U 0.31 0.635 J 2.13 0.251 J 4.85 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 7 of 7 TABLE 4.5a PHASE I EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Type: Sample Species: RM 75-95 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-050 11/17/2004 RM 95 TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 10/22/2004 RM 95 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 10/22/2004 3 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 0.300 J 2.91 0.736 J 2.24 0.462 J 2.20 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram J- Estimated concentration. ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 31884 (51) pg/g % Page 1 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 TISS031884-121708-DFK-016 TISS031884-121708-DFK-017 TISS031884-121708-DFK-018 TISS031884-121708-DFK-019 TISS031884-121708-DFK-020 12/17/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/17/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/17/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/17/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/17/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) pg/g 15.8 7.07 13.7 16.1 16.1 % 7.39 6.9 8.15 6.35 6.76 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 TISS031884-121708-DFK-021 TISS031884-121708-DFK-022 TISS031884-121708-DFK-023 TISS031884-121708-DFK-024 TISS031884-121708-DFK-025 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) pg/g 1.44 2.14 1.7 1.22 1.28 % 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.3 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 TISS031884-121708-DFK-011 TISS031884-121708-DFK-012 TISS031884-121708-DFK-013 TISS031884-121708-DFK-014 TISS031884-121708-DFK-015 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish (skin off fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish & Sauger (skin off fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Channel Catfish & Sauger (skin off fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Sauger (skin off fillets) pg/g 8.58 2.09 36.2 2.53 0.975 J % 1.08 0.94 1.18 1.07 1.31 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 TISS031884-121608-DFK-003 TISS031884-121608-DFK-004 TISS031884-121608-DFK-005 TISS031884-121608-DFK-006 TISS031884-121608-DFK-007 12/16/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/16/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/16/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/16/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/16/2008 10 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) pg/g 9.05 7.1 4.22 5.2 7.93 % 6.31 6.13 6.05 6.45 5.32 Page 5 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 TISS031884-121708-DFK-001 TISS031884-121708-DFK-002 TISS031884-121708-DFK-008 TISS031884-121708-DFK-009 TISS031884-121708-DFK-010 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/17/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) pg/g 1.71 5.68 4.77 7.17 12.6 % 0.4 0.54 0.67 0.49 0.78 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 6 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 TISS031884-121808-DFK-031 TISS031884-121808-DFK-032 TISS031884-122208-DFK-033 TISS031884-122208-DFK-034 TISS031884-122208-DFK-035 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 1/8/2009 5 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 1/8/2009 5 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) 1/8/2009 5 fish per composite Gizzard Shad (whole fish) pg/g ND (1.22) U 0.191 J 0.185 J 0.387 J 0.195 J % 10.9 9.65 9.48 7.22 10.5 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 7 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 TISS031884-121808-DFK-026 TISS031884-121808-DFK-027 TISS031884-121808-DFK-028 TISS031884-121808-DFK-029 TISS031884-121808-DFK-030 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Bass (skin on fillets) pg/g ND (0.989) U ND (1.13) U ND (0.970) U ND (1.13) U ND (1.14) U % 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.81 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 8 of 8 TABLE 4.5b PHASE II EOC FISH TISSUE SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 75-95 RM 75-95 TISS031884-121808-DFK-036 TISS031884-121808-DFK-037 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Sauger (skin off fillets) 12/18/2008 5 fish per composite Sauger (skin off fillets) pg/g ND (1.15) U ND (1.11) U % 0.49 0.39 Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Species: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Lipids Notes: pg/g - picograms per gram ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 32 RM 32 RM 34.5 RM 34.5 RM 34.5 RM 34.5 RM 36 RM 36 RM 37.5 RM 38.5 RM 39 RM 39 RM 39 RM 40.5 RM 41 RM 41 RM 41 RM 42 RM 42.5 RM 42.5 Sample Identification: KR-GT-28 KR-GT-25 KR-GT-21 KR-GT-22 KR-GT-24 KR-GT-23 KR-GT-18 KR-GT-19 KR-GT-16 KR-GT-15 KR-GT-08 KR-GT-11 KR-GT-12 KR-GT-09 KR-GT-06 KR-GT-07 KR-GT-06 KR-GT-04 KR-GT-03 KR-GT-03 Sample Date: 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/29/2004 10/26/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/29/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/29/2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.59 -- 2.98 7.52 -- -- -- -- -- -- 2.58 -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 71,000 60,000 17,000 22,000 26,000 43,000 69,000 46,000 Dup 34,000 55,000 37,000 Dup 18,000 45,000 Dup 25,000 27,000 49,000 20,000 15,000 25,000 -- ND (1000) Dup 17,000 40,000 -- % 44.9 59.1 72.7 70.9 71 55.2 43.6 52.8 42 58.2 57.3 71.3 56.7 71.7 74.6 74.5 -- 71.1 60.9 -- Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 2 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 43.5 RM 43.5 Sample Identification: KR-GT-01 KR-GT-02 Sample Date: 10/25/2004 10/29/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 - - Composite (KD-001 to KD005) Composite 2 (KRM433-B-2) Composite 3 (KRM33-B-3) Composite 1 (KRM33-B-1) Composite 4 (KRM33-B-4) Composite 5 (KRM33-B-5) Composite (KD-006 to KD010) Composite 2 (KRM433-A-2) -- -- 0.015 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- Sample Depth: Sample Type: KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-001 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-002 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-003 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-004 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-005 KD-201 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-006 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- 3.87 1.75 2.83 1.27 2.01 -- 2.01 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 30,000 21,000 -- 37,000 ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) -- ND (1000) % 67.7 52.9 -- 45.1 70.9 54.7 69.5 71.2 -- 71.2 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. (1) Page 3 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-007 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-008 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-009 RM 33 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-010 KD-202 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-011 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-012 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-013 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-014 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 Composite 5 (KRM33-A-5) Composite 1 (KRM33-A-1) Composite 3 (KRM33-A-3) Composite 4 (KRM33-A-4) Composite (KD-011 to KD015) Composite 2 (KRM42-B-2) Composite 5 (KRM42-B-5) Composite 3 (KRM42-B-3) Composite 1 (KRM42-B-1) -- -- -- -- 0.071 -- -- -- -- Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % 2.21 3.14 3.24 0.95 5.94 -- 0.98 -- 4.29 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg ND (1000) ND (2000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) % 58.7 52 62.9 77 54.6 Dup 58.9 64.4 70.7 78.9 55.6 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. (1) Page 4 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-015 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: KD-203 (1) SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-016 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10282004-KD-017 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10292004-KD-018 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10292004-KD-019 RM 42 (1) SD-31884-10292004-KD-020 KD-204 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-021 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 Composite 4 (KRM42-B-4) Composite (KD-016 to KD020) Composite 5 (KRM42-A-5) Composite 2 (KRM42-A-2) Composite 1 (KRM42-A-1) Composite 4 (KRM42-A-4) Composite 3 (KRM42-A-3) Composite (KD-021 to KD025) Composite 2 (KRM68-A-2) -- 0.024 -- -- -- -- -- ND (0.00036) -- Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- 2.1 -- -- -- 14.9 -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg ND (1000) -- ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (2000) ND (1000) -- ND (2000) % 64.4 -- 64.2 65.3 61.4 45.5 79.5 -- 53.7 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. (1) Page 5 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-022 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-023 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-024 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-025 KD-205 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-026 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-027 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-028 RM 68 (1) SD-31884-10302004-KD-029 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 Composite 1 (KRM68-A-1) Composite 3 (KRM68-A-3) Composite 5 (KRM68-A-5) Composite 4 (KRM68-A-4) Composite (KD-026 to KD030) Composite 4 (KRM68-B-4) Composite 5 (KRM68-B-5) Composite 3 (KRM68-B-3) Composite 1 (KRM68-B-1) -- -- -- -- ND (0.00031) -- -- -- -- Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- 3.1 -- -- -- 5.29 -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 21,000 ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) -- ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) ND (1000) % 53.8 79.2 62.7 73.5 -- 75.6 56.4 74.4 68.1 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. (1) Page 6 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: RM 68 COR-01 COR-02 SE-031884-120207-DD-071 SE-031884-120207-DD-070 10/30/2004 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 Composite 2 (KRM68-B-2) (0-0) IN (0-0) IN -- 0.014 0.048 SD-31884-10302004-KD-030 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: (1) COR-03 COR-04 COR-05 COR-05 COR-06 SE-031884-120107-DD-067 SE-031884-120107-DD-065 SE-031884-120107-DD-066 SE-031884-120107-DD-062 12/2/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Duplicate (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.01 0.0073 0.02 0.0057 0.0031 0.048 0.0041 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 (1) COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 COR-08 (1) SE-031884-120107-DD-061 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % 3.99 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg ND (1000) 30,600,000 16,000,000 33,400,000 40,000,000 2,300,000 2,300,000 1,400,000 31,800,000 31,100,000 % 78.2 42.4 78.8 65.6 64 75.8 78 74.5 56.1 44.8 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 7 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: COR-09 COR-10 COR-11 COR-12 SE-031884-120107-DD-059 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 SE-031884-120107-DD-057 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.014 ND (0.0038)U 0.01 0.023 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-13 COR-14 COR-15 COR-16 COR-17 COR-18 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 SE-031884-120107-DD-053 SE-031884-120107-DD-052 SE-031884-120107-DD-051 SE-031884-120107-DD-049 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN MS/MSD (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.01 0.012 ND (0.0069)U ND (0.0052)U ND (0.0028)U ND (0.0072)U SE-031884-120107-DD-055 (1) Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 39,100,000 7,000,000 32,000,000 30,400,000 12,700,000 26,500,000 30,300,000 27,900,000 4,100,000 19,700,000 % 55.4 78.8 55 55.1 71.2 48 47.1 62.1 81.4 56.5 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 8 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: COR-19 Sample Identification: SE-031884-113007-DD-044 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 COR-20 (1) SE-031884-113007-DD-043 (1) COR-21 COR-22 COR-23 COR-24 COR-25 COR-25 COR-26 SE-031884-113007-DD-041 SE-031884-113007-DD-040 SE-031884-113007-DD-039 SE-031884-113007-DD-037 SE-031884-112907-DD-031 SE-031884-112907-DD-032 SE-031884-112907-DD-030 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Duplicate (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Duplicate (0-0) IN 0.012 0.009 0.0094 0.023 0.056 0.066 0.0043 0.0011 0.002 0.0026 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 29,900,000 33,500,000 31,400,000 32,800,000 19,100,000 15,900,000 3,300,000 10,800,000 9,900,000 2,100,000 % 61.2 45.7 44.5 48.6 63 56.1 71 63.2 60.6 74.2 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 9 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: COR-27 COR-28 COR-29 COR-30 COR-31 COR-32 COR-33 COR-34 COR-35 COR-36 SE-031884-112907-DD-028 SE-031884-112907-DD-027 SE-031884-112907-DD-025 SE-031884-112907-DD-024 SE-031884-112907-DD-023 SE-031884-112907-DD-021 SE-031884-112907-DD-019 SE-031884-112907-DD-018 SE-031884-112907-DD-017 SE-031884-112907-DD-016 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.013 0.0088 0.0013 0.013 0.0039 0.012 0.015 0.021 0.055 0.0056 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 3,800,000 14,400,000 9,700,000 13,900,000 7,600,000 23,900,000 24,200,000 10,800,000 27,300,000 31,900,000 % 72.8 66.3 80.5 64.8 69.7 62.2 47.4 33.1 58.9 60.5 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 10 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: COR-37 COR-38 COR-39 COR-40 COR-41 COR-42 COR-43 SSD-01 SSD-02 SSD-03 SE-031884-112807-DD-015 SE-031884-112807-DD-012 SE-031884-112807-DD-011 SE-031884-112807-DD-010 SE-031884-112807-DD-009 SE-031884-112807-DD-007 SE-031884-112807-DD-006 SE-031884-120207-DD-075 SE-031884-120207-DD-074 SE-031884-120207-DD-073 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN MS/MSD (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.0031 0.25 3.4 J 0.059 ND (0.0006) ND (0.0017)U ND (0.00082) 0.0026 0.0065 0.0046 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 101,000,000 14,200,000 16,000,000 27,000,000 2,400,000 28,000,000 9,100,000 2,100,000 32,100,000 24,700,000 % 73.1 60.4 65.5 59 78.4 58.4 69.7 71.6 52.7 55.4 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 11 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: SSD-04 SSD-05 SSD-06 SSD-07 SSD-09 SSD-10 SSD-11 SSD-12 SSD-13 SSD-14 SE-031884-120207-DD-072 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 SE-031884-120107-DD-064 SE-031884-120107-DD-060 SE-031884-120107-DD-050 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 SE-031884-113007-DD-047 SE-031884-113007-DD-046 SE-031884-113007-DD-045 SE-031884-113007-DD-038 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN MS/MSD (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.0041 0.024 0.038 0.017 ND (0.025)U 0.0038 0.0052 0.015 0.038 0.023 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 23,700,000 59,300,000 30,300,000 4,600,000 20,000,000 22,600,000 35,700,000 27,500,000 33,200,000 10,400,000 % 62.6 51.2 40.3 77.2 49.3 59.4 41.6 62.1 49.7 65.3 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 12 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: SSD-15 SSD-16 SSD-17 SE-031884-113007-DD-036 SE-031884-113007-DD-035 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.012 0.0055 0.035 0.052 0.0018 Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: SSD-18 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 SSD-19 (1) SE-031884-112907-DD-029 SSD-20 SSD-21 SSD-22 SSD-23 SSD-24 SE-031884-112907-DD-022 SE-031884-112907-DD-020 SE-031884-112807-DD-014 SE-031884-112807-DD-013 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN MS/MSD (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN 0.017 0.01 0.015 0.074 ND (0.0017)U SE-031884-112907-DD-026 (1) Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 16,500,000 31,100,000 22,000,000 23,800,000 1,300,000 21,800,000 8,250,000 12,900,000 31,500,000 3,100,000 % 60.3 55.9 55.1 39.3 79 33.1 66.2 72.7 43.4 69 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 13 of 13 TABLE 4.6a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: SSD-25 SSD-26 SSD-26 SE-031884-112807-DD-004 SE-031884-112807-DD-005 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Duplicate ND (0.00098) 0.0029 0.0014 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: (1) SSD-27 SSD-28 SSD-29 SE-031884-112807-DD-002 SE-031884-112807-DD-001 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN ND (0.00087) ND (0.00079) ND (0.00062) SE-031884-112807-DD-003 (1) Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) % -- -- -- -- -- -- Total Organic Carbon (TOC) µg/kg 27,500,000 25,600,000 21,800,000 24,700,000 29,500,000 21,000,000 % 46.8 58.8 60.7 54.1 55.4 72.2 Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10a. Page 1 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 COR-07 COR-07 COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 SE-031884-121207-DD-269 SE-031884-121207-DD-270 SE-031884-121207-DD-271 SE-031884-121407-DD-282 SE-031884-121407-DD-283 SE-031884-121307-DD-279 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/13/2007 (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-81.6) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (0-24) IN (24-36) IN (0-24) IN µg/kg 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.013 0.0098 0.0086 ND (0.00031) ND (0.00027) 0.0093 µg/kg 27,300,000 40,500,000 45,900,000 34,700,000 43,100,000 50,400,000 8,000,000 7,400,000 24,700,000 % 64.4 57 59.8 67.4 58.8 63.1 70.8 73.6 65.2 Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 2 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-08 Sample Location: SE-031884-121307-DD-280 Sample Identification: (1) COR-09 COR-09 COR-11 COR-12 COR-15 COR-15 COR-15 COR-16 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 S-031884-022308-DD-406 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (C) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (A) Sample Date: 12/13/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 Sample Depth: (24-48) IN (0-24) IN (24-34) IN (0-24) IN (0-22) IN (0-19) IN (0-19) IN (0-19) IN (0-16) IN µg/kg 1.4 J 0.0086 ND (0.00055) 0.15 0.002 0.013 0.0042 0.0049 0.00076 J µg/kg 72,200,000 36,700,000 42,900,000 31,700,000 10,800,000 33,600,000 10,600,000 14,600,000 20,800,000 % 60.6 63.9 65.9 59.6 69.2 99.2 99.6 99.7 99.8 Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 3 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-16 COR-16 COR-18 COR-20 COR-20 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 S-031884-022308-DD-407 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (C) SE-031884-121107-DD-221 SE-031884-121107-DD-218 SE-031884-121107-DD-219 SE-031884-121007-DD-213 SE-031884-121007-DD-214 SE-031884-121007-DD-215 SE-031884-121007-DD-216 Sample Date: 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 12/11/2007 12/11/2007 12/11/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 Sample Depth: (0-16) IN (0-16) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-31.6) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-78) IN Sample Location: Sample Identification: Duplicate Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg 0.00076 J 0.00077 J ND (0.00047) 0.014 0.052 2.7 J 2.3 J 0.088 0.0018 µg/kg 23,100,000 49,500,000 5,700,000 30,600,000 32,900,000 63,800,000 65,000,000 55,600,000 40,900,000 % 100 100 76.4 56.2 60.9 58.2 55.2 64.6 64.3 General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 4 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-22 Sample Location: SE-031884-121007-DD-180 Sample Identification: Sample Date: COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 (1) COR-23 COR-25 SE-031884-120807-DD-179 SE-031884-120807-DD-178 COR-28 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 (1) COR-28A COR-30 COR-30 COR-32A SE-031884-121108-SG-020 SE-031884-120707-DD-175 SE-031884-120707-DD-174 SE-031884-121108-SG-021 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/8/2007 12/8/2007 12/8/2007 12/11/2008 12/7/2007 12/7/2007 12/11/2008 (0-24) IN (24-49) IN (0-27) IN (0-14) IN (0-24) IN (0-6) IN (0-24) IN (24-30) IN (0-18.5) IN µg/kg 3J 1.1 J ND (0.00052) ND (0.00045) ND (0.0004) ND (0.0004) ND (0.00036) 0.0021 ND (0.00055) µg/kg 110,000,000 102,000,000 28,600,000 14,400,000 5,400,000 5,500,000 1,800,000 4,900,000 4,700,000 % 58.8 59.2 64.9 68.9 74.2 75.5 78.1 80.3 78 Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 5 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B SE-031884-121108-SG-016 SE-031884-121108-SG-017 SE-031884-121108-SG-018 SE-031884-121108-SG-019 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (72-92) IN Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: COR-33 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 SE-031884-120507-DD-086 SE-031884-120507-DD-087 SE-031884-120507-DD-088 SE-031884-120507-DD-089 12/6/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 (0-21) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-54) IN SE-031884-120607-DD-128 (1) Sample Type: Duplicate Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg ND (0.00025) ND (0.00042) ND (0.00036) ND (0.00039) 0.19 0.0036 0.003 ND(0.00034) ND (0.00038) µg/kg 3,000,000 2,800,000 3,200,000 3,500,000 27,900,000 31,400,000 30,900,000 12,600,000 20,800,000 % 78.7 78 78.4 80.1 68.8 67.2 66.5 70.1 69.3 General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 6 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-36 Sample Location: SE-031884-120507-DD-123 Sample Identification: COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 COR-36 (1) SE-031884-120507-DD-125 (1) COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 SE-031884-121008-SG-007 SE-031884-121008-SG-008 SE-031884-121008-SG-009 SE-031884-121008-SG-010 SE-031884-121008-SG-011 SE-031884-121008-SG-012 Sample Date: 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 Sample Depth: (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (72-96) IN (96-108) IN Sample Type: Duplicate Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg 0.027 3.3 J 18 J 0.15 2.3 J 1.6 J 25 J 3.8 J 0.21 µg/kg 42,700,000 69,500,000 80,200,000 43,000,000 78,000,000 70,000,000 82,000,000 43,000,000 27,000,000 % 65.3 60.4 58.5 64.5 63.9 63.4 61 69.6 73.1 General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 7 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-36A COR-36B COR-36C COR-36C COR-38 SE-031884-121008-SG-006 SE-031884-121008-SG-013 SE-031884-121008-SG-014 SE-031884-121008-SG-015 SE-031884-120407-DD-085 Sample Date: 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 Sample Depth: (0-10.5) IN (0-12) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN (0-24) IN (0-17) IN (17-33.5) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN µg/kg ND(0.00065) 0.025 0.46 J 0.16 0.0087 22 J 33 J 0.01 0.0081 µg/kg 5,400,000 17,000,000 22,000,000 27,000,000 8,100,000 83,900,000 79,200,000 68,700,000 84,300,000 % 76.3 68.3 70.5 71.6 73.5 49.2 61.4(49.2) 62.4 67.1 Sample Location: Sample Identification: COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 COR-39 (1) SE-031884-120407-DD-084 (1) COR-40 COR-40 SE-031884-120407-DD-079 SE-031884-120407-DD-080 Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 8 of 8 TABLE 4.6b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-41 COR-41 COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 COR-43 SE-031884-120908-SG-003 SE-031884-120908-SG-004 SE-031884-120908-SG-005 SE-031884-120407-DD-081 SE-031884-120407-DD-082 SE-031884-120307-DD-078 SE-031884-120908-SG-001 SE-031884-120908-SG-002 SE-031884-120307-DD-077 Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/3/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/3/2007 Sample Depth: (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-66) IN (0-12) IN (12-25) IN (0-29) IN (0-16.5) IN (0-16.5) IN (0-22) IN Duplicate Sample Type: Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg 0.049 ND (0.00074)U ND (0.0003) ND (0.0016)U ND (0.00049) ND (0.00026) ND (0.0011)U 0.0018 ND (0.00022) µg/kg 42,000,000 38,000,000 26,000,000 17,900,000 9,400,000 17,500,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 4,480,000 % 67 67.3 73.1 74.6 75.2 69.4 68.4 68.6 76.8 General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. (1) CRA 031884 (51) - Sample was also analyzed for additional parameters; results are presented in Table 4.10b. Page 1 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 10/28/2004 KD-201 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 10/28/2004 KD-202 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 10/28/2004 KD-203 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 10/28/2004 KD-205 SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 10/30/2004 KD-204 SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 10/30/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-001 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-002 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-003 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-004 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-005 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-006 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-007 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-008 10/28/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg 0.013 J 0.74 ND(0.0058)U 0.021 0.00021 0.00021 0.000041 0 ND(0.00041) 0.00000205 0 ND(0.002) ND(0.00039) 0.0000195 0 0.0001 0 ND(0.00067) ND(0.00072) 0.000036 0 0.0000335 0 ND(0.00035) ND(0.00071) 0.0000355 0 0.0000175 0 0.00024 0 0.00001275 0 ND(0.00051) ND(0.00048) ND(0.00038) 0.000019 0 0.000115 0 ND(0.00046) 0.015 0.015 0.000094 0.000094 0.00094 J 0.015 0.000074 0.000074 0.0000013 0.0000013 0.013 J 0.049 J ND(0.0028) ND(0.0031) ND(0.0027) ND(0.001) 0.0160511 0.0031 J 0.018 J 0.12 1.2 ND(0.014)U 0.044 0.00044 0.00044 0.00014 0.00014 ND(0.0013) 0.0000065 0 0.0053 J ND(0.00089) 0.0000445 0 0.00053 0.00053 ND(0.0017) ND(0.0017) 0.000085 0 0.000085 0 ND(0.0004) ND(0.0015) 0.000075 0 0.00002 0 0.000455 0 0.0000375 0 ND(0.0015) ND(0.00091) ND(0.00067) 0.0000335 0 0.00045 0 ND(0.0018) 0.28 0.28 0.00051 0.00051 0.0051 0.28 0.00012 0.00012 0.000012 0.000012 0.036 J 0.12 J 0.017 J 0.022 J 0.031 J ND(0.0026) 0.283044 0.05 J 0.3 J 0.043 0.65 0.026 0.044 0.00044 0.00044 0.00026 0.00026 ND(0.00091) 0.00000455 0 ND(0.0032) ND(0.00037) 0.0000185 0 0.00016 0 ND(0.0013) ND(0.0026) 0.00013 0 0.000065 0 ND(0.00045) ND(0.00085) 0.0000425 0 0.0000225 0 0.000295 0 0.00003 0 ND(0.0012) ND(0.00059) ND(0.00052) 0.000026 0 0.0001725 0 ND(0.00069) 0.071 0.071 0.000093 0.000093 0.00093 J 0.071 0.000065 0.000065 0.0000043 0.0000043 0.07 J 0.091 J 0.017 J 0.0047 J ND(0.0037) ND(0.0014) 0.07282885 0.0032 J 0.075 J 0.016 J 0.65 ND(0.0072)U 0.024 0.00024 0.00024 0.000041 0 ND(0.00043) 0.00000215 0 ND(0.002) ND(0.00043) 0.0000215 0 0.0001 0 ND(0.00086) ND(0.00076) 0.000038 0 0.000043 0 ND(0.00033) ND(0.00061) 0.0000305 0 0.0000165 0 0.000335 0 0.00001775 0 ND(0.00071) ND(0.00067) ND(0.00028) 0.000014 0 0.0001725 0 ND(0.00069) 0.024 0.024 0.00012 0.00012 0.0012 J 0.024 0.000065 0.000065 0.0000016 0.0000016 0.016 J 0.058 J ND(0.0036) ND(0.0041) ND(0.0033) ND(0.0018) 0.0252585 0.0027 J 0.027 J 0.022 0.46 0.014 0.027 0.00027 0.00027 0.00014 0.00014 ND(0.00069) 0.00000345 0 ND(0.0024) ND(0.00063) 0.0000315 0 0.00012 0 ND(0.002) ND(0.0017) 0.000085 0 0.0001 0 ND(0.00025) ND(0.0016) 0.00008 0 0.0000125 0 0.00024 0 0.00002175 0 ND(0.00087) ND(0.00048) ND(0.0028) 0.00014 0 0.0005 0 ND(0.002) 0.000155 0 0.000076 0.000076 0.00076 J ND(0.00031) 0.000046 0.000046 0.0000022 0.0000022 0.027 J 0.058 J 0.0053 J 0.027 J 0.0043 J 0.0098 J 0.0020234 0.01 J 0.0062 J 0.014 J 0.57 ND(0.0049)U 0.024 0.00024 0.00024 0.000039 0 ND(0.00026) 0.0000013 0 ND(0.0013) ND(0.0004) 0.00002 0 0.000065 0 ND(0.00034) ND(0.00067) 0.0000335 0 0.000017 0 ND(0.00023) ND(0.0007) 0.000035 0 0.0000115 0 0.0002 0 0.00000725 0 ND(0.00029) ND(0.0004) ND(0.00023) 0.0000115 0 0.0000775 0 ND(0.00031) 0.00018 0 0.000028 0 ND(0.00056) ND(0.00036) 0.000057 0.000057 0.0000014 0.0000014 0.012 J 0.06 J ND(0.0019) ND(0.0027) ND(0.0014) ND(0.00065) 0.00102495 0.0012 J 0.0012 J ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Units Dioxin and Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) OCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) OCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) Total TEQ (ND=0.5) Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Metals Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc PCBs Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Pesticides 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor Toxaphene KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 10/28/2004 KD-201 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 10/28/2004 KD-202 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 10/28/2004 KD-203 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 10/28/2004 KD-205 SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 10/30/2004 KD-204 SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 10/30/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-001 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-002 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-003 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-004 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-005 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-006 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-007 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-008 10/28/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) (bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Anthracene Atrazine Benzaldehyde Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzylphthalate Caprolactam Carbazole Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Volatile Organic Compounds 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform (Trichloromethane) Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Cyclohexane Dibromochloromethane Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) Ethylbenzene Isopropylbenzene Methyl acetate Methyl cyclohexane Methyl Tert Butyl Ether Methylene chloride Styrene Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113) Vinyl chloride Xylene (total) KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 10/28/2004 KD-201 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 10/28/2004 KD-202 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 10/28/2004 KD-203 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 10/28/2004 KD-205 SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 10/30/2004 KD-204 SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 10/30/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-001 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-002 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-003 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-004 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-005 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-006 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-007 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-008 10/28/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg % % % % % % -------39.2 -------45.1 -------35.1 -------39.2 -------33.2 -------35.5 -37000 3.87 3.7 3.71 3.75 45.1 -- -ND(1000) 1.75 1.71 1.8 1.57 70.9 -- -ND(1000) 2.83 2.69 2.92 3.1 54.7 -- -ND(1000) 1.27 1.22 1.08 1.22 69.5 -- -ND(1000) 2.01 1.91 1.96 1.86 71.2 -- -ND(1000) 2.21 2.55 2.23 2.31 58.7 -- -ND(2000) 3.14 3.23 3.09 3.21 52 -- -ND(1000) 3.24 3.42 3.21 3.12 62.9 -- General Chemistry Oil and Grease Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (2) Total Organic Carbon (3) Total Organic Carbon (4) Total Solids Percent Moisture Notes: U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. UJ - Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-009 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-010 10/28/2004 RM 36 SD-31884-10282004-KD-118 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-011 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-012 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-013 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-014 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-015 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-016 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-017 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-018 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-019 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-020 10/29/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-021 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------ 8750000 ND(420) 6300 436000 1000 510 J 1750000 20200 15600 32900 22300000 26700 2250000 435000 140 J 31400 1190000 600 J 430 J ND(128000) ND(640) 18400 161000 9110000 ND(460) 9400 456000 1200 85 J 2120000 19700 16000 34300 22500000 32800 2180000 863000 120 J 34000 1180000 590 J 300 J ND(141000) ND(910)U 19500 304000 ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg -------- ND(12) ND(18) ND(9.5) ND(18) 140 ND(7.9) 46 J ND(13) ND(20) ND(10) ND(20) ND(9.7) ND(8.6) ND(16) -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Units Dioxin and Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) OCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) OCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) Total TEQ (ND=0.5) Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Metals Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc PCBs Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) CRA 031884 (51) Page 5 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Pesticides 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor Toxaphene RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-009 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-010 10/28/2004 RM 36 SD-31884-10282004-KD-118 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-011 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-012 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-013 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-014 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-015 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-016 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-017 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-018 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-019 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-020 10/29/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-021 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ---------------------- ND(4.6) ND(3.2) ND(3.7) ND(2.7) ND(2.7) ND(3.2) 13 J ND(3.4) ND(3.1) ND(3) ND(3.8) ND(3.5) ND(3.1) ND(8.1) ND(6.4) ND(3.1) ND(2.8) ND(2.7) ND(3.8) 8.9 J ND(110) ND(1) ND(0.7) ND(0.8)UJ ND(0.6) ND(0.6) ND(0.7) 2.8 J ND(0.74) ND(0.68) ND(0.66) ND(0.84) ND(0.76) ND(0.68) ND(1.8) ND(1.4) ND(0.68) ND(0.62) ND(0.58) ND(0.84) ND(1) ND(24) ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------------------------ ND(240) ND(220) ND(310) ND(240) ND(310) ND(1900) ND(260) ND(270) ND(290) ND(160) ND(45) ND(310) ND(230) ND(160) ND(220) ND(150) ND(2200) ND(220) ND(2300) ND(240) ND(160) ND(270) ND(160) ND(3700) ND(42) ND(64) ND(250) 610 J ND(500) ND(320) 650 J ND(110) ND(110) ND(82) ND(110) 920 J ND(730) ND(190) 35000 ND(170) ND(360) ND(430) 930 J ND(69) ND(38) ND(280) ND(290) ND(230) ND(500) 1300 J 650 J ND(64) ND(110) ND(130) ND(220) ND(92) ND(160) ND(41) ND(290) ND(350) ND(190) ND(2100) 1600 J ND(260) 1500 J ND(21) ND(20) ND(27) ND(21) ND(27) ND(160)UJ ND(23) ND(23) ND(25) ND(14) ND(4) ND(27) ND(21) ND(14) ND(20) ND(13) ND(190)UJ ND(19) ND(210) ND(21) ND(14) 250 J ND(14) ND(330) ND(3.7) ND(5.6) ND(22) 83 J ND(44) ND(28) 180 J 43 J 59 J ND(7.2) 59 J 160 J ND(64) ND(16) 2700 ND(15) ND(31) ND(37) 200 J ND(6) ND(3.3) ND(25) ND(26) ND(20) ND(44) 380 J ND(5.2) ND(5.6) ND(10) ND(12) ND(20) ND(8) ND(14) ND(3.6) ND(26) ND(31) ND(16) ND(180) 340 J ND(23) 410 J ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) (bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Anthracene Atrazine Benzaldehyde Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzylphthalate Caprolactam Carbazole Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene CRA 031884 (51) Page 6 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-009 10/28/2004 RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-010 10/28/2004 RM 36 SD-31884-10282004-KD-118 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-011 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-012 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-013 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-014 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-015 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-016 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-017 10/28/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-018 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-019 10/29/2004 RM 42 SD-31884-10292004-KD-020 10/29/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-021 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------- ND(1.4) ND(0.84) ND(0.75) ND(0.59) ND(1.1) ND(0.59)UJ ND(2.6) ND(0.68) ND(0.4)UJ ND(0.88) ND(0.64) ND(0.48)UJ ND(0.62)UJ ND(5.5)U ND(1.5) ND(0.99) ND(26)UJ ND(0.42) ND(0.88) ND(1.2) ND(1.1) ND(0.37) ND(0.82) ND(0.51) ND(0.99) ND(0.73) ND(0.46) ND(0.75) ND(0.64) ND(0.9) ND(0.66) ND(0.73) ND(0.97) ND(0.38) ND(1.4) ND(0.84) ND(0.51) ND(2.4) ND(0.37) ND(1.5) 0.93 J ND(1) ND(0.64) ND(0.75) ND(0.75) ND(1.5) ND(0.81) ND(1.4) ND(1.5) ND(0.93) ND(0.82) ND(0.64) ND(1.2) ND(0.64) ND(2.8) ND(0.74) ND(0.44) ND(0.97) ND(0.7) ND(0.52) ND(0.68) 5.4 J ND(1.7) ND(1.1) 23 J ND(0.46) ND(0.97) ND(1.3) ND(1.2) ND(0.4) ND(0.91) ND(0.56) ND(1.1) ND(0.8) ND(0.5) ND(0.82) ND(0.7) ND(0.99) ND(0.72) ND(0.8) ND(1.1) ND(0.42) ND(1.5) 1J ND(0.56) ND(2.6) ND(0.4) ND(1.7) 0.96 J ND(1.1) ND(0.7) ND(0.82) ND(0.82) ND(1.6) ND(0.88) ND(1.5) ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg % % % % % % -ND(1000) 0.95 0.85 0.83 0.97 77 -- 196000 J ND(1000) 5.94 6.27 5.95 6.07 54.6 Dup 58.9 -- ND(53400)U 25000 ----49.7 Dup 49.7 -- -ND(1000) 2.86 2.86 2.98 3.06 64.4 -- -ND(1000) 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.99 70.7 -- -ND(1000) 0.9 0.85 0.75 0.79 78.9 -- -ND(1000) 4.29 3.95 3.96 3.82 55.6 -- -ND(1000) 3.06 2.95 2.95 2.77 64.4 -- -ND(1000) 2.1 2.56 2.13 2.3 64.2 -- -ND(1000) 2.92 3.1 2.99 2.87 65.3 -- -ND(1000) 3.99 3.72 3.49 3.83 61.4 -- -ND(2000) 3.81 3.78 3.85 3.77 45.5 -- -ND(1000) 14.9 16 15.8 14.9 79.5 -- -ND(2000) 4.12 4.05 4.14 3.85 53.7 -- Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Volatile Organic Compounds 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform (Trichloromethane) Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Cyclohexane Dibromochloromethane Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) Ethylbenzene Isopropylbenzene Methyl acetate Methyl cyclohexane Methyl Tert Butyl Ether Methylene chloride Styrene Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113) Vinyl chloride Xylene (total) General Chemistry Oil and Grease Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (2) Total Organic Carbon (3) Total Organic Carbon (4) Total Solids Percent Moisture Notes: U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. UJ - Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 7 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-022 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-023 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-024 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-025 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-026 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-027 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-028 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-029 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-030 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- Units Dioxin and Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HPCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,4,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8,9-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 1,2,3,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,6,7,8-HXCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,4,7,8-PECDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) 2,3,7,8-TCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) OCDD (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDD (TEQ) (ND=0) OCDF (TEQ) (ND*0.5) OCDF (TEQ) (ND=0) Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) Total TEQ (ND=0.5) Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Metals Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Vanadium Zinc PCBs Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) CRA 031884 (51) Page 8 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Pesticides 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor Toxaphene RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-022 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-023 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-024 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-025 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-026 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-027 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-028 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-029 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-030 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) (bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Anthracene Atrazine Benzaldehyde Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzylphthalate Caprolactam Carbazole Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene CRA 031884 (51) Page 9 of 9 TABLE 4.7 ADDITIONAL SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY (PHASE I EOC ACTIVITY) EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-022 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-023 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-024 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-025 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-026 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-027 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-028 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-029 10/30/2004 RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-030 10/30/2004 µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- µg/kg µg/kg % % % % % % -21000 3.66 3.72 3.66 3.72 53.8 -- -ND(1000) 34.9 31.4 32.2 37.5 79.2 -- -ND(1000) 3.1 3.09 3.29 3.11 62.7 -- -ND(1000) 2.09 2.14 1.83 2.06 73.5 -- -ND(1000) 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.17 75.6 -- -ND(1000) 5.29 4.24 4.34 4.59 56.4 -- -ND(1000) 12.8 12.1 11.1 10.4 74.4 -- -ND(1000) 4.47 4.72 4.29 4.56 68.1 -- -ND(1000) 3.99 3.74 4.1 4.47 78.2 -- Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Volatile Organic Compounds 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene Dibromide) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2-Butanone (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) 2-Hexanone 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone) Acetone Benzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane (Methyl Bromide) Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform (Trichloromethane) Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) cis-1,2-Dichloroethene cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Cyclohexane Dibromochloromethane Dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12) Ethylbenzene Isopropylbenzene Methyl acetate Methyl cyclohexane Methyl Tert Butyl Ether Methylene chloride Styrene Tetrachloroethene Toluene trans-1,2-Dichloroethene trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Trichloroethene Trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) Trifluorotrichloroethane (Freon 113) Vinyl chloride Xylene (total) General Chemistry Oil and Grease Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (2) Total Organic Carbon (3) Total Organic Carbon (4) Total Solids Percent Moisture Notes: U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. UJ - Estimated reporting limit. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 3 TABLE 4.8a SUMMARY OF SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Station ID GT-01 GT-02 GT-02 GT-03 GT-04 GT-05 GT-06 GT-07 GT-08 GT-09 GT-09 GT-10 GT-10 GT-11 GT-12 GT-13 GT-13 GT-14 GT-15 GT-15 GT-16 GT-17 GT-18 GT-18 GT-19 GT-20 GT-21 GT-22 GT-23 GT-24 GT-25 GT-26 GT-27 GT-28 KD-001 KD-002 KD-003 KD-004 KD-005 KD-006 KD-007 KD-008 KD-009 KD-010 KD-011 KD-012 KD-013 KD-014 KD-015 KD-016 KD-017 CRA 031884 (51) River Mile 43.5 43.0 43.0 42.5 42.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.0 40.5 40.5 40.0 40.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 38.5 38.5 37.5 37.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 34.5 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 42.0 42.0 Sample Date 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/29/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/25/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/29/2004 10/27/2004 10/27/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004 10/27/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/26/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 Water Depth (feet) 23.9 - 26.9 22.1 - 26.5 17.0 - 24.0 22.9 23.8 - 24.0 22.0 - 28.4 26.1 28.0 - 28.5 23.2 24.7 - 27.1 24.1 21.9 - 26.7 not measured 22.4 28.5 - 28.8 44.0 - 44.8 not measured 34.4 - 35.0 23.8 - 25.7 24 - 28.2 22.6 28.3 - 30.6 32.4 30.8 23.4 31.7 - 35.0 36.7 36.4 29.5 35.1 28.0 - 28.8 32.8 - 33.8 28.5 - 30.3 19.1 23.1 35.4 - 35.9 17.2 23.9 6.1 - 27.2 21.5 25 18.5 36.2 32.8 24.1 - 33.6 17.3 - 24.2 27.2 - 27.6 12.3 - 28.8 15.7 - 17.4 10 18.3 - 32.5 Sample Depth (inches below top of sediment) 4 not sampled, no sediment 3 6 3 not sampled, grabs were all water or clay 3 4 3 not sampled grab not sampled 1 3 3 not sediment, no sediment not sampled, no sediment not sampled, cobble not sampled, cobble and silt 3 3 not sampled, no sediment 3 5 3 not sampled, no sediment 3 3 3 3 3 not sampled, no sediment not sampled, not enough sediment 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Field Description brown GRAVEL and fine SAND (2 refusals before success) chunks of clay in sandy SILT chunks of clay in sandy SILT brown clayey SILT brown to black med SAND small amount of stiff CLAY, anthropogenic debris brown to black med-coarse SAND and GRAVEL brown to black med-coarse SAND and GRAVEL olive gray silty CLAY, slight sheen, organic matter brown silty SAND w/ GRAVEL and COBBLE brown silty SAND w/ GRAVEL and COBBLE silty CLAY w/ coarse SAND, GRAVEL, COBBLE silty CLAY w/ coarse SAND, GRAVEL, COBBLE olive-brown silty fine-coarse SAND w/ CLAY brown to olive gray gravelly CLAY w/ SILT COBBLE and GRAVEL, traces of SILT and SAND COBBLE and GRAVEL, traces of SILT and SAND COBBLE and debris, all attempts sandy SILT surf. over silty SAND with shells sandy SILT surf. over silty SAND with shells loose brown SILT over olive clayey SILT SILT, abundant leafy debris brown, olive gray to black, clayey SILT w/ sheen, petro odor brown, olive gray to black, clayey SILT w/ sheen, petro odor brown SILT surf., olive gray clayey SILT COBBLE in 2 grabs, silty CLAY in one brown to black, med-coarse SAND, organic debris brown sandy SILT w/ organic matter on surface SILT over CLAY, shallow penetration red-brown to olive-gray, clayey SILT w/ fine SAND soft SILT over hard consolidated SAND and CLAY trace silty CLAY silty GRAVEL; winnowed samples soft SILT and SAND sandy SILT, sl. sheen brown fine-med SAND w/ coal brn SILT surf., olive gray silty fine SAND, sl. sheen brn SILT surf., olive gray fine-coarse SAND/SILT, sl. sheen, leafs brn SILT surf., olive-gray fine-med SAND brn SILT surf., olive-gray v. clayey fine-med SAND, sl. sheen brn SILT surf., olive-gray clayey fine SAND brn SILT surf., olive gray silty SAND w/ coal, leaves brn SAND w/ organic matter (decomposing leaves) brn SILT surf., dk gray to black clayey fine SAND, spotty sheen brown sandy SILT, leafy debris, gravel on bottom brn SILT surf. over brown fine SAND brown fine-med SAND w/ coal clayey SILT w/ fine SAND and organic debris fine SAND w/ gravel and cobble, sheen brown silty SAND w/ sl. sheen brn SILT surf., dk gray clayey SAND w/ gravel, sl. sheen Page 2 of 3 TABLE 4.8a SUMMARY OF SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Station ID KD-018 KD-019 KD-020 KD-021 KD-022 KD-023 KD-024 KD-025 KD-026 KD-027 KD-028 KD-029 KD-030 COR-01 COR-02 COR-03 COR-04 COR-05 COR-06 COR-07 COR-08 COR-09 COR-10 COR-11 COR-12 COR-13 COR-14 COR-15 COR-16 COR-17 COR-18 COR-19 COR-20 COR-21 COR-22 COR-23 COR-24 COR-25 COR-26 COR-27 COR-28 COR-29 COR-30 COR-31 COR-32 COR-33 COR-34 COR-35 COR-36 COR-37 COR-38 CRA 031884 (51) River Mile 42.0 42.0 42.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 68.0 31.3 31.5 32.0 32.1 32.3 32.6 32.6 32.9 33.4 33.4 33.8 34.0 34.3 34.5 34.8 35.0 35.0 35.9 37.2 37.5 37.7 37.9 38.1 38.6 39.5 39.7 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.4 40.8 40.9 41.4 41.4 41.6 41.6 41.8 41.9 Sample Date 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/29/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 10/30/2004 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 Water Depth (feet) 23.6 - 26.7 14.7 24 12.6 - 20.0 23 29.8 - 31.0 25.9 - 27.0 9.5 - 23.0 5.0 - 7.0 21.0 - 30.1 31 6.0 25.5 21 33 34 34 1 44 35 26 18 20 36 24 30 32 30 26 22 38 32 18 17 6 26 24 25 21 30 25 20 28 7 28 33 28 24 17 0.67 24 16 Sample Depth (inches below top of sediment) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 4 4 2 2 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 2 6 2 3 2 4 4 2 4 2.5 4 3 3.5 3 1 3 1.5 4 4 3 4 1 4 3 3 Field Description brn SILT surf., gray silty SAND w/ clay & organics; shale on bottom olive-gray to brown sandy SILT, sulfide odor, sheen, methane bubbles brown fine SAND w/ trace GRAVEL and coal brown sandy SILT w/ organic matter, sheen, clay on bottom brown sandy SILT w/ shells, clay chunks, organic matter brown SAND w/ abundant coal brn SILT surf., clayey SAND w/ gravel and shells brown fine-med SAND w/ gravel and shells brown SAND brown sandy SILT w/ gravel and clay, sheen brown SAND w/ abundant coal brown to gray silty SAND w/ shells and organic matter brown fine-med SAND w/ gravel, sl. sheen ---Coal fragments -----Coal (small gravel size to trace amounts) --Coal (small gravel size to trace amounts) ---Trace coal -----Trace coal Trace coal ----Trace coal Some material is eroded bank soil. Trace coal Trace coal Coal fragments. Sheen visible. -Corbicula sp. Shells Organic odor 15% of sample is coal -- Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4.8a SUMMARY OF SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Station ID COR-39 COR-40 COR-41 COR-42 COR-43 SSD-01 SSD-02 SSD-03 SSD-04 SSD-05 SSD-06 SSD-07 SSD-09 SSD-10 SSD-11 SSD-12 SSD-13 SSD-14 SSD-15 SSD-16 SSD-17 SSD-18 SSD-19 SSD-20 SSD-21 SSD-22 SSD-23 SSD-24 SSD-25 SSD-26 SSD-26 SSD-27 SSD-28 SSD-29 CRA 031884 (51) River Mile 42.0 42.1 42.3 42.3 42.5 31 31 31.1 31.2 31.9 32.6 33 35.5 36.4 36.7 36.7 37.1 38.3 38.8 38.9 39.2 39.3 39.8 40.3 40.5 41 41.8 41.9 42.3 42.7 42.7 42.8 44 44.7 Sample Date 11/28/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 Water Depth (feet) 21 7 19 1 18 33 8 17 12 2 4 35 2 8 3 23 21 2 26 17 20 3 29 6 17 18 14 8 9 19 19 19 10 6.2 Sample Depth (inches below top of sediment) 3 0 2.5 3.5 3 2 3 4 4 4 6 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4 0.5 6 1 4 1 2 4 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 Field Description Sheen Unknown chemical odor ---Trace coal Dreissena polymorpha shells Shell fragments visible ---Trace coal and gravel --------Slight sheen visible -Trace coal -Trace coal ----Large coal fragments Duplicate of Sample #4 Dreissena polymorpha shells -Sheen visible Page 1 of 3 TABLE 4.8b SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORING FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Core ID River Mile Core Date Water Depth (ft) Penetrated Depth (ft) Recovered Depth (ft) % Recovery # of Attempts Comments Comparison to US EPA May 2000 Sampling Event COR-01 31.3 20-Feb-08 30.5 REFUSAL -- -- 5 Bits of coal and brown sand in fingers of core catcher. KRSD-01, approx. 1000 ft away, had a depth of 60 inches (5 ft). COR-02 31.5 20-Feb-08 33 REFUSAL -- -- 5 Bits of coal and brown sand in fingers of core catcher. KRSD-02, approx. 1500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). COR-03 32.0 12-Dec-07 0.8 10 8.9 89% 1 COR-04 32.1 12-Dec-07 0.9 10 8.2 82% 1 COR-05 32.3 21-Feb-08 43 0.7 0.7 100% 1 8" recovery on one attempt. Brown sand and coal in core catcher. Sample was profiled but not submitted for analysis. COR-06 32.6 21-Feb-08 36 REFUSAL -- -- 5 Black coal bits and brown sand in core catcher. COR-07 32.6 14-Dec-07 29 3 3 100% 1 COR-07 (Sedflume) 32.6 30-Jul-09 20 1.3 1.3 100% 6 COR-08 32.9 12-Dec-07 20.8 4 4 100% 1 KRSD-02, approx 5000 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). COR-09 33.4 14-Dec-07 19 3.3 2.8 85% 2 KRSD-04, approx 3500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-11 33.8 14-Dec-07 24.5 2.5 2 80% 2 KRSD-04, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-12 34.0 15-Dec-07 29.5 2.5 1.8 72% 3 COR-13 34.3 15-Dec-07 not measured REFUSAL -- -- 3 --- KRSD-02, approx. 1000 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). KRSD-02, approx. 1000 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). KRSD-02, approx 2000 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). KRSD-02, approx 4000 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5ft). KRSD-02, approx 4500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). Attempt 6 was at a location 5' ahead of proposed location. Silty mud. KRSD-02, approx 4500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). KRSD-04, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. 3 attempts, appears to be refusal. Sandy gravel with coal. KRSD-04, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-13 (Resampled) 34.3 21-Feb-08 31.7 REFUSAL -- -- 2 3-4cm pieces of coal and gravel in core catcher. KRSD-04, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-14 34.5 23-Feb-08 29 REFUSAL -- -- 5 First 4 attempts with 4" barrel and vibracore. 5th attempt with 3" aluminum barrel and cement vibrator. 5" penetration on 5th attempt. KRSD-04, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-15 34.8 23-Feb-08 26.9 2.8 1.6 57% 1 COR-16 35.0 17-Dec-07 19.8 REFUSAL -- -- 2 KRSD-04, approx 2000 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. 2 attempts failed due to current. KRSD-05, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. COR-16 (Resampled) 35.0 23-Feb-08 16.2 2 1.3 65% 1 KRSD-05, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. COR-17 35.0 23-Feb-08 32 REFUSAL -- -- 4 KRSD-05, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. COR-18 35.9 11-Dec-07 28.2 10 0 0% 4 COR-19 37.2 10-Dec-07 16.2 0.6 0.6 100% 5 4 attempts with poor core quality in first 2 attempts and no recovery in last 2 attempts. KRSD-05, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-09, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-20 37.5 10-Dec-07 19.1 2.6 2.6 100% 3 COR-20 (Sedflume) 37.5 29-Jul-09 1 1.7 1.7 100% 1 Silty mud. KRSD-09, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-21 37.7 10-Dec-07 3.2 10 6.5 65% 1 Low recovery likely to do material in core pushing sediment down and not compression of material in core. KRSD-08, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-22 37.9 10-Dec-07 5.7 7.9 4.1 52% 1 KRSD-08, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-23 38.1 8-Dec-07 12 3 2.3 77% 2 KRSD-08, approx 1000 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-24 38.6 8-Dec-07 not measured REFUSAL -- -- 5 COR-25 39.5 8-Dec-07 23.5 1.2 1.2 100% 1 No suitable comparison COR-25 (Sedflume) 39.5 28-Jul-09 22 1 0 0% 5 COR-26 39.7 8-Dec-07 30 REFUSAL -- -- 5 Very loose sand overlying 1" to 2" gravel; unable to recover No suitable comparison sample. Brown sand and coal in core catcher. Tried a 2' core barrel No suitable comparison on 5th attempt. COR-27 40.0 7-Dec-07 24.5 REFUSAL -- -- 5 CRA 031884 (51) KRSD-09, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. 5 failed cores. Thin layer of silt/leaves over brown sand. Brown sand, gravel, and coal in core catcher. KRSD-48, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 40" (3.3 ft). KRSD-14, approx 1250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. Page 2 of 3 TABLE 4.8b SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORING FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Core ID River Mile Core Date Water Depth (ft) Penetrated Depth (ft) Recovered Depth (ft) % Recovery # of Attempts Comments COR-28 40.1 7-Dec-07 9.5 2.3 2 87% 1 COR-28A 40.2 11-Dec-08 15.8 0.5 0.5 100% 1 COR-29 40.3 7-Dec-07 29.5 REFUSAL COR-30 40.4 7-Dec-07 5.5 2.9 2.5 86% 1 COR-30 (Sedflume) 40.4 28-Jul-09 6 1 1 100% 4 COR-31 40.8 6-Dec-07 not measured REFUSAL -- -- 5 KRSD-16, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-32 40.9 6-Dec-07 25.5 REFUSAL -- -- 5 KRSD-16, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-32A 41.1 11-Dec-08 9.6 1.5 1.5 100% 1 KRSD-16, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-32B 40.7 11-Dec-08 13.2 9 7.8 87% 1 KRSD-16, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. COR-32B (Sedflume) 40.7 28-Jul-09 8 1.7 0 0% 5 COR-33 41.4 6-Dec-07 24.5 2.7 1.75 65% 4 Several inches of sand overlying dense clay - soil type caused seal to break while retrieving core. Diesel odor 11-12" COR-34 41.4 6-Dec-07 24.6 REFUSAL -- -- 5 Station abandoned. COR-35 41.6 4-Dec-07 7 5 4.5 90% 1 COR-35 (Sedflume) 41.6 28-Jul-09 5 1.7 1.7 100% 1 COR-36 41.6 5-Dec-07 4.3 10 9.1 91% 1 COR-36 (Resampled) 41.6 10-Dec-08 15.25 9.2 9.2 100% 1 COR-36 (Sedflume) 41.6 28-Jul-09 3 1.7 1.7 100% 1 COR-36A 41.7 10-Dec-08 18 0.8 0.8 100% 1 KRSD-19, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-36B 41.5 10-Dec-08 25.2 1.2 1.2 100% 1 KRSD-19, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-36C 41.5 10-Dec-08 24.1 3.5 3.3 94% 1 COR-37 41.8 4-Dec-07 25.5 REFUSAL -- -- 5 COR-38 41.9 4-Dec-07 15 2.7 2 74% 1 COR-39 42.0 4-Dec-07 16 3.7 2.75 74% 1 COR-39 (Sedflume) 42.0 28-Jul-09 5 1.75 1.75 100% 1 5 Chironomids in surface sediment. Odd metallic/copper odor from 11" to 24". Comparison to US EPA May 2000 Sampling Event KRSD-15, approx 500 ft away had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-15, approx 500 ft away had a depth of 8 ft. Black silt with mostly sand and gravel in core catcher. KRSD-14, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-15, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. Offset location to achieve sample. Silt with mud. KRSD-15, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-16, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-19, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-18, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-18, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. Sandy silt. KRSD-18, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-18, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-19, overlaps COR-36 sample site and had a depth of 6 ft. Fine sands/silts. KRSD-19, overlaps COR-36 sample site and had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-19, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. Clean sand and gravel in core catcher. KRSD-20, less than 500 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-20, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 8 ft. Entire core has a strong hydrocarbon odor and dark staining. Possibly diesel. Offset location due to nearby piezometers. Sand with silt. KRSD-21, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-21, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 6 ft. COR-40 42.1 3-Dec-07 8 3.3 3.3 100% 1 COR-40 (Resampled) 42.1 9-Dec-08 5.75 5.5 5.5 100% 1 COR-40 (Sedflume) 42.1 28-Jul-09 2 1.5 1.5 100% 1 COR-41 42.3 4-Dec-07 13 3.5 2.1 60% 1 KRSD-22, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 2 ft. COR-42 42.3 3-Dec-07 12 2.4 2.4 100% 1 KRSD-22, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 2 ft. COR-42 (Resampled) 42.3 9-Dec-08 3.25 1.5 1.5 100% 1 COR-42 (Sedflume) 42.3 28-Jul-09 3 1.3 1.3 100% 1 COR-43 42.5 3-Dec-07 11 1.8 1.8 100% 1 NRC-01 31.5 13-Dec-07 not measured 0.3 0.3 100% 1 NRC-01 (Resampled) 31.5 20-Feb-08 33.5 0.5 0.5 100% 5 CRA 031884 (51) KRSD-21 overlaps COR-40, and had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-21 overlaps COR-40, and had a depth of 6 ft. Poor satellite reception on GPS. Muddy sand. KRSD-21 overlaps COR-40, and had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-22, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 2 ft. Location may be off due to GPS. Mud with clay. KRSD-22, approx 750 ft away, had a depth of 2 ft. Coring not attempted due to close proximity to Winfield Dam, no core or subsurface sample collected. No sample collected. Only 6" recovery on 3rd attempt. KRSD-02, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). KRSD-22, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 2 ft. KRSD-02, approx 1500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4.8b SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT CORING FIELD OBSERVATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Core ID River Mile Core Date Water Depth (ft) Penetrated Depth (ft) Recovered Depth (ft) % Recovery # of Attempts Comments Comparison to US EPA May 2000 Sampling Event NRC-02 32.1 12-Dec-07 1.2 8 7.7 96% 1 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Chunks of wood 95cm-120cm. KRSD-02, approx 500 ft away, had a depth of 115" (9.5 ft). NRC-03 33.3 14-Dec-07 not measured 10 8.2 82% 1 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Sample collected but put on hold. No sample collected. Low recovery. KRSD-03, overlaps NRC-03 and had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-05, overlaps NRC-04 and had a depth of 8 ft. NRC-04 35.4 11-Dec-07 24.4 REFUSAL -- -- 2 NRC-04 (Resampled) 35.4 19-Feb-08 23.7 3.5 3.5 100% 1 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Strong diesel odor from 1-2.5 ft. NRC-05 37.6 10-Dec-07 8.2 6 3.5 58% 1 KRSD-09, overlaps NRC-05 and had a depth of 4 ft. 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Woody chunks from 1.3-1.4 ft and black staining/hydrocarbon odor from 1.8-3.1 ft. NRC-05 (Resampled) 37.6 19-Feb-08 3.1 9 5 56% 2 NRC-06 40.8 7-Dec-07 27.2 REFUSAL -- -- 5 NRC-07 41.6 5-Dec-07 1 6 5.9 98% 1 NRC-08 42.1 4-Dec-07 8 4.5 3.9 87% 1 NRC-08 (Resampled) 42.1 23-Feb-08 1.6 7.5 7.4 99% 1 Location re-sampled. Sample "bulleted". Large chunks of coal from 0.4-2.6 ft. No sample collected. Traces of brown sand and bits of coal in core catcher. 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Diesel odor from 3-5.7 ft. Leaves at bottom of core, barely decomposed. Sample collected but put on hold. 0-50cm sampled at 2.5cm intervals. 50cm and below sampled at 5cm intervals. Plastic strip observed from 2.62.9 ft. Visible coal. Location re-sampled. KRSD-01 (Sedflume) 31 30-Jul-09 8 1.7 1.7 100% 5 KRSD-04 (Sedflume) 34.3 30-Jul-09 6 1.7 1.7 100% 1 Offset location closer to shore to achieve sample recovery. Silty mud. Silty mud. KRSD-05 (Sedflume) 35.4 30-Jul-09 10 1.7 1.7 100% 3 Silty mud/clay/sand lenses. -- KRSD-10 (Sedflume) 38.3 29-Jul-09 5 1.3 1.3 100% 5 Soft silty mud. -- KRSD-14 (Sedflume) 40.2 28-Jul-09 6 1.7 1.7 100% 1 Silty mud. -- KRSD-20 (Sedflume) 41.8 28-Jul-09 15 1.3 1.3 100% 5 Mud with organic debris. -- KRSD-24 (Sedflume) 43.2 27-Jul-09 2 1.5 1.5 100% 3 Sandy mud. -- KRSD-25 (Sedflume) 43.8 27-Jul-09 9 1.3 1.3 100% 2 Thin sand overlying silt. -- KRSD-28 (Sedflume) 45 27-Jul-09 5 1.7 1.7 100% 1 Sand overlying silt. -- KRSD-48 (Sedflume) 38.6 29-Jul-09 3 1.3 1.3 100% 1 Soft silty mud. -- Notes: Cores with multiple collection dates may not be collected from the exact same coordinates. CRA 031884 (51) KRSD-05, overlaps NRC-04 and had a depth of 8 ft. KRSD-09, overlaps NRC-05 and had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-16, approx 250 ft away, had a depth of 4 ft. KRSD-19 overlaps NRC-07 and had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-21 overlaps NRC-08 and had a depth of 6 ft. KRSD-21 overlaps NRC-08 and had a depth of 6 ft. --- Page 1 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: RM 32 KR-GT-28 10/26/2004 - RM 32 KR-GT-25 10/29/2004 - RM 34.5 KR-GT-21 10/26/2004 - RM 34.5 KR-GT-22 10/26/2004 - RM 34.5 KR-GT-24 10/26/2004 - RM 34.5 KR-GT-23 10/29/2004 - RM 36 KR-GT-18 10/26/2004 - RM 36 KR-GT-19 10/27/2004 - RM 37.5 KR-GT-16 10/27/2004 - RM 38.5 KR-GT-15 10/29/2004 - RM 39 KR-GT-08 10/27/2004 - RM 39 KR-GT-11 10/27/2004 - RM 39 KR-GT-12 10/27/2004 - RM 40.5 KR-GT-09 10/29/2004 - RM 41 KR-GT-07 10/25/2004 - RM 41 KR-GT-06 10/29/2004 - --------------20.9 --0 --------21.1 58 78.9 --------------12.5 --0 --------70.3 17.2 29.7 --------------2.2 --0 --------95.6 2.2 4.4 --------------3.4 --0 --------93.8 2.8 6.2 --------------12.4 --0 --------60.7 26.9 39.3 --------------14.1 --0 --------47.3 38.6 52.7 --------------21.6 --0 --------10.3 68.1 89.7 --------------16.7 --0 --------30.1 53.2 69.9 --------------23.8 --0.3 --------9 66.9 90.7 --------------9.3 --1.3 --------62.7 26.7 36.0 --------------15.2 --1 --------46.9 36.9 52.1 --------------10.5 --0.2 --------67.5 21.8 32.3 --------------13.5 --10.6 --------39.6 36.3 49.8 --------------6.5 --18.8 --------61.6 13.1 19.6 --------------1.3 --2.7 --------94.9 1.1 2.4 --------------1.8 --14.1 --------83.1 1 2.8 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 2 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: RM 42 KR-GT-04 10/25/2004 - RM 42.5 KR-GT-03 10/29/2004 - RM 43.5 KR-GT-01 10/25/2004 - RM 43.5 KR-GT-02 10/29/2004 - COR-01 SE-031884-120207-DD-071 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-02 SE-031884-120207-DD-070 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-04 SE-031884-120107-DD-067 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-05 SE-031884-120107-DD-065 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN --------------2.9 --0.5 --------92.8 3.8 6.7 --------------14.2 --1.2 --------44.2 40.4 54.6 --------------10.7 --10.6 --------49.9 28.8 39.5 --------------16 --10 --------32.8 41.2 57.2 99.8 71.5 99 69 100 98.1 78 71.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 23.4 0.2 29 0 56.1 46.4 34.3 28.3 23.4 16 9.7 1.8 -45.6 99.1 6.5 92.2 5.8 99.9 85 15.1 6.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.4 0.8 79.2 0.1 4.5 4 3.4 2.4 2.4 1.2 0.5 14.1 -3.4 100 87.8 99.9 35.8 100 99.8 99 93.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.2 0 64 0 12.7 10.7 8.6 6.6 5.2 3.1 2.4 0.2 -30.6 100 74.3 99.9 23.4 100 98.6 95.9 86.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.4 0 75.2 0 7 5.7 4.4 3.1 2.4 1 0.4 1.4 -21 96.1 8.5 93.5 8.3 98 70.5 12 8.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.3 1.9 62.1 2 3.5 3.5 2.9 2.3 2.3 1 0.4 25.6 -6 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 3 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-06 SE-031884-120107-DD-062 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-08 SE-031884-120107-DD-061 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-09 SE-031884-120107-DD-059 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-10 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-11 SE-031884-120107-DD-057 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-12 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 99.6 1.8 99.2 1.7 100 91.6 7.9 2 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 0.4 89.9 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 0.4 0.4 8 -0.7 98 86.9 97.7 64.7 99.1 96.7 93.8 89.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 14.3 1.1 32 0.9 34.5 29 20.8 16.2 14.3 9.7 6.9 1.4 -50.3 99.9 86 99.9 68.4 100 99.6 98.5 91.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 26.9 0.1 31.3 0 51.9 45.4 37.8 31.3 26.9 18.1 10.5 0.3 -41.5 99.7 92.7 99.4 69.8 99.8 99 98 94.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.5 0.1 29.2 0.2 40.3 35.9 28.2 23.9 19.5 12.8 8.3 0.7 -50.4 99 4.5 97.2 4.3 99.8 86.7 14.5 4.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.1 0.8 82.4 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0 0 12.3 -4.2 99.7 87.4 99.2 68.5 100 98.8 96.7 90.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 20.3 0.3 30.3 0 47.8 41.4 31.9 24.5 20.3 13.9 9.7 0.9 -48.2 99.4 73.9 99 55.7 99.5 98.2 92.4 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 10.9 0.1 42.5 0.5 32.4 28.1 17.4 14.2 10.9 7.5 4.5 1.1 -44.8 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 4 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-13 SE-031884-120107-DD-055 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-14 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-15 SE-031884-120107-DD-053 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN MS/MSD COR-16 SE-031884-120107-DD-052 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-17 SE-031884-120107-DD-051 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-18 SE-031884-120107-DD-049 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-19 SE-031884-113007-DD-044 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 99.1 3.5 96.3 3.3 99.7 88.7 14.6 3.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.1 0.6 85.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.3 -3.2 62.1 39.2 60.7 32.6 68.3 57.1 47 40.7 80.4 100 100 100 100 100 11.3 6.2 24.4 31.7 32 26.6 18.9 14.6 11.3 7.8 4.5 5.1 -21.3 99.8 75.2 99.2 69 100 98.9 96 78.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 13.2 0.2 29.9 0 44.6 36.5 22.5 15.5 13.2 8.3 6 0.9 -55.8 98.9 80.1 98.6 51.7 99.2 97.5 93.5 86.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 12.5 0.3 45.8 0.8 28.1 23.2 18.3 15 12.5 9.1 5 1.4 -39.2 97.3 5.9 96.2 5.9 98.5 81.7 10.4 6.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.8 1.2 75.8 1.5 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.1 15.6 -5.1 97.7 69 97.2 44.8 98.1 96.6 86.6 75.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 14.5 0.4 51.8 1.9 31.6 27.8 23 17.4 14.5 10.6 5.8 1.1 -30.3 99.8 83.6 99.4 57 100 98.7 96 88.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 11 0.2 41.7 0 30.1 24.4 17.7 13.9 11 7.2 4.4 1.2 -45.9 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 5 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-21 SE-031884-113007-DD-041 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-22 SE-031884-113007-DD-040 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-23 SE-031884-113007-DD-039 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-24 SE-031884-113007-DD-037 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-25 SE-031884-112907-DD-031 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-25 SE-031884-112907-DD-032 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate 99.8 87.6 99.2 75 99.9 98.7 97.5 91.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 15.6 0.1 23.7 0.1 49.1 41 29.5 20.2 15.6 9.9 6.4 1.1 -59.4 99.3 90.7 98.8 61.9 99.6 98.3 97.4 94 99.7 100 100 100 100 100 12.7 0.3 36.4 0.4 35 28 19.9 15.8 12.7 8.7 5.6 1 -49.2 99.6 83.9 99 40.9 99.9 98.1 96.2 89.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 9.6 0.3 57.2 0.1 22.9 19.6 14.6 11.3 9.6 6.3 3.8 1.5 -31.3 96.3 72.1 95.2 24.8 97.8 94 91.3 80.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.2 1.5 69.2 2.2 10.8 9.2 8.5 6.9 5.2 2.8 2 2.2 -19.6 99.5 11.8 98.6 9.6 99.9 82.5 21.8 12.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.5 0.4 72.9 0.1 7.2 6.6 6 4.7 3.5 2.2 1.6 17 -6.1 97.1 75.8 96.1 56.3 98.1 93 87.3 79.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.2 0.9 36.7 1.9 40.6 35.2 28.1 23.7 19.2 13.8 8.5 4.1 -37.1 93.6 73.4 93 53.5 94.5 90.7 85.4 77.5 97.8 100 100 100 100 100 20.2 0.9 37.2 5.5 38.9 33.3 27.7 23.9 20.2 14.6 8.9 2.9 -33.3 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 6 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-26 SE-031884-112907-DD-030 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-27 SE-031884-112907-DD-028 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-28 SE-031884-112907-DD-027 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-29 SE-031884-112907-DD-025 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-30 SE-031884-112907-DD-024 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-31 SE-031884-112907-DD-023 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-32 SE-031884-112907-DD-021 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 95.7 1.4 94.6 1.1 96.4 80.8 10.4 1.7 97.6 100 100 100 100 100 1 0.7 79.8 3.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.4 14.8 -0.1 98.7 2.8 96.1 2.4 99.5 67.4 5.9 2.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 0.7 65 0.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.7 1 0.4 0.4 31.3 -1.4 99.6 74.7 98.8 36.1 99.9 96 90.2 81 100 100 100 100 100 100 13.2 0.2 59.8 0.1 25.2 20.7 17 14.7 13.2 9.5 6.5 3.7 -22.9 99.2 5.2 98.6 4.8 99.7 82.9 10.1 5.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.8 0.5 78.1 0.3 4.6 4 3.4 2.8 2.8 1.6 1 16.3 -2 95.8 49.8 95.4 15.9 96.3 91 75.9 58.8 97.2 100 100 100 100 100 4.1 0.4 75.1 3.7 10.2 8.2 6.1 4.8 4.1 2.7 1.4 4.8 -11.8 99.7 8.5 99.5 8 99.8 90.5 19.1 9 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.1 82.6 0.2 6.9 5.6 3.7 3.1 2 0.6 0 9.2 -6 98.6 15.3 95.8 14.6 99.7 78.9 23.5 15.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.5 1.1 64.3 0.3 13.1 11.6 8.9 6.9 5.5 2.8 1.4 19.7 -9.1 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 7 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-33 SE-031884-112907-DD-019 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-34 SE-031884-112907-DD-018 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-35 SE-031884-112907-DD-017 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-36 SE-031884-112907-DD-016 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN COR-37 SE-031884-112807-DD-015 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN COR-38 SE-031884-112807-DD-012 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN COR-39 SE-031884-112807-DD-011 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN 77.9 52.5 74.3 45.5 86.9 70.5 62.6 54.8 98.7 100 100 100 100 100 12.7 9 25 13.1 31.5 26.1 18.9 15.4 12.7 8.2 4.6 7.4 -32.8 99.7 10.3 98.9 9.5 100 77.5 14.8 10.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.6 0.3 68 0 8.4 7.2 6 4.9 3.6 2.4 0.6 22.3 -5.9 95.6 56.1 94.3 33.3 96.8 92.4 85.1 65.1 98.6 100 100 100 100 100 9.1 1.2 59.2 3.2 22.8 18.7 14.6 11.4 9.1 4.9 1.8 3.2 -24.2 99.8 73 99.3 25.9 100 98.7 96 83.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 5.3 0.2 72.8 0 12.8 9.8 7.5 6 5.3 3 1.5 1.1 -20.6 85.6 2.9 76.7 2.3 96.6 53.4 6.4 3 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.6 11 51.2 3.4 1.7 1.7 1.2 0.6 0.6 0 -0.6 32.2 -1.7 99.2 38.1 99 25.9 99.6 97.8 75.5 46.6 99.8 100 100 100 100 100 8 0.4 71.9 0.4 17.2 15.1 12.2 9.4 8 5.1 2.8 1.4 -17.9 95.8 29.5 94.6 15.5 96.7 92.4 66.9 38.3 97.8 100 100 100 100 100 6.4 0.9 76.9 3.3 12 11.3 9.2 7.8 6.4 4.4 2.8 3.4 -9.1 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 8 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-40 SE-031884-112807-DD-010 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN COR-41 SE-031884-112807-DD-009 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN COR-42 SE-031884-112807-DD-007 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN MS/MSD COR-43 SE-031884-112807-DD-006 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-01 SE-031884-120207-DD-075 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-02 SE-031884-120207-DD-074 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-073 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN 99.8 73.3 99.4 54.5 100 98.7 91 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 14.5 0.2 44.2 0 41.2 35.5 26 19.3 14.5 9.7 4.8 1.2 -40 99.8 9.5 99.4 2 100 94 43.3 16.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.7 0.2 92 0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.1 -0.6 5.8 -1.2 99.8 82.4 99.6 34.4 100 99.3 98.1 91.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 6.3 0.2 65 0 16 13.3 9.8 7.2 6.3 3.7 1.8 0.5 -28.1 98.7 13.9 98.2 7.6 99.2 95.5 48.3 19.2 99.4 100 100 100 100 100 2 0.5 87.9 0.8 4.6 3.9 3.3 2 2 0.7 0 3.2 -5.5 100 7.5 100 7 100 99.7 30.5 8.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.4 0 92.7 0 3.1 3.1 3.1 2 1.4 1.3 0.1 0.3 -5.6 99.2 92.4 98.8 62.2 99.5 98.6 97.8 95.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 16 0.3 36.4 0.5 32.8 27.9 24 18.9 16 10.9 7 0.6 -46.2 98.9 88.5 98.6 61.9 99.5 98.3 96.4 92.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 19.1 0.6 36.4 0.5 37.1 33.3 26.6 21.9 19.1 13.3 8.6 0.6 -42.8 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 9 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: SSD-04 SE-031884-120207-DD-072 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-05 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN MS/MSD SSD-06 SE-031884-120107-DD-064 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-060 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-09 SE-031884-120107-DD-050 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-10 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-11 SE-031884-113007-DD-047 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 99.8 85.9 99.4 54.3 99.9 98.9 95.8 90.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 17.2 0.1 44.6 0.1 33.4 29.6 22.9 20.1 17.2 12.5 7.7 0.9 -37 99.5 94 99.3 69.7 99.8 98.8 97.3 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 17.3 0.3 29.1 0.2 40.4 32.7 26.1 19.5 17.3 10.6 6.2 0.7 -52.4 99.8 99.1 99.8 98 100 99.8 99.5 99.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 27.6 0.2 1.8 0 79.7 69.5 50.4 36.5 27.6 17.3 9.6 0.1 -70.4 95.9 5.3 93.8 4.9 97.9 85.4 15.4 5.9 99 100 100 100 100 100 1.6 2.1 80.5 2.1 3.4 3.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 0.4 0.3 10.5 -3.3 98.5 83.8 98 52.9 99.1 97.4 96.3 90.3 99.9 100 100 100 100 100 10 0.7 44.5 0.9 24.4 20.5 15.7 11.9 10 6.9 3 1 -43 99.7 84.6 99.4 43.3 100 98.8 97.2 90.8 100 100 100 100 100 100 8.5 0.3 55.5 0 23.6 20 15.6 11.2 8.5 5.8 3.1 0.9 -34.8 98.2 92.9 97.7 86.4 100 96.9 95.9 93.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 14.2 1.8 10.5 0 54.5 41.1 26.4 17.8 14.2 8 5.5 1.3 -72.2 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 10 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: SSD-12 SE-031884-113007-DD-046 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-13 SE-031884-113007-DD-045 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-14 SE-031884-113007-DD-038 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-15 SE-031884-113007-DD-036 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-16 SE-031884-113007-DD-035 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-17 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-18 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 97.3 82.1 97 63.8 97.4 96.4 93.3 85.7 98.3 100 100 100 100 100 15.5 0.1 32.6 2.6 46.5 39.5 33.5 21.5 15.5 9.6 6.6 0.9 -48.3 99.3 90.4 98.9 74.1 99.6 98.2 95.9 92.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 18.7 0.4 24.1 0.4 54.7 47.5 41.5 23.5 18.7 11.5 9.1 1 -55.4 95.2 59.7 94.1 21 96.5 89.3 82 68.9 98.9 100 100 100 100 100 3.5 1.3 68.3 3.5 8.3 7.1 5.9 4.7 3.5 2.2 1.6 5.9 -17.5 73.3 28.6 69 20.3 79.6 53.7 39.9 31.4 91.5 100 100 100 100 100 7.6 6.2 33.4 20.4 17.2 14.8 11.6 9.2 7.6 6 2.8 19.7 -12.7 99.7 63.2 98.9 51.5 99.9 96.8 82.6 69.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 17 0.3 45.3 0.1 45.4 37.8 28 22.5 17 12.6 8.2 2.8 -34.5 94.4 57.4 93.7 20.1 95.8 91.6 80.3 65.4 98.1 100 100 100 100 100 5.8 1.3 71.5 4.2 10.3 9.6 8.8 7.3 5.8 4.2 2.7 2.9 -14.3 99.8 98.3 99.6 92.1 100 99.4 99.2 98.7 100 100 100 100 100 100 21.6 0.2 7.3 0 71.5 60.4 42.4 29.9 21.6 15.9 10.4 0.4 -70.5 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 11 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: SSD-19 SE-031884-112907-DD-029 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-20 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN MS/MSD SSD-21 SE-031884-112907-DD-022 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-22 SE-031884-112907-DD-020 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-23 SE-031884-112807-DD-014 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-24 SE-031884-112807-DD-013 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-25 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN 87.4 8.3 85.7 2.5 91.3 75.2 32 12 96.5 100 100 100 100 100 0.9 3.9 72.7 8.7 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.3 12.2 -1.6 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.4 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 52.8 0 0.4 0.1 91.3 85.4 72 60.2 52.8 37.9 26.1 0.1 -46.6 95.8 32.9 94.8 10.9 98.1 87.1 63.9 40.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.8 2.3 76.2 1.9 4.3 3.6 2.4 1.8 1.8 0.6 0 8.7 -9.1 99.9 23.1 99.3 9.2 100 78.2 36.6 26 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 0.1 68.9 0 5.2 5.2 3 2.3 1.5 0.9 0 21.7 -7.8 86.3 70.6 85.3 49.5 88 84.2 81.2 74.5 92 100 100 100 100 100 11.7 1.7 34.7 12 26.2 23.5 17.1 14.4 11.7 8.1 4.5 2.1 -37.7 99.4 39.5 98.4 7.4 99.6 93.4 78.9 53.4 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.7 0.2 86 0.4 3.3 2.7 2.1 1.3 0.7 0 -0.7 6 -6.7 90.7 67 89.7 34.8 96.6 88 84.6 75 99 100 100 100 100 100 4.8 5.9 53.2 3.4 14.1 12.2 9.4 6.7 4.8 2.9 0.9 2.7 -30 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 12 of 12 TABLE 4.9a SURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: SSD-26 SE-031884-112807-DD-004 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-26 SE-031884-112807-DD-005 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate SSD-27 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-28 SE-031884-112807-DD-002 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-29 SE-031884-112807-DD-001 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN 71.7 45.1 68.1 35.3 75 64.9 57.8 48.7 84.1 100 100 100 100 100 9.4 3.3 29.7 25 24.5 20.3 15.2 11.9 9.4 6 3.5 6.7 -25.9 81.9 49.2 77.5 38.9 86.6 74.1 65.1 53.6 94.1 100 100 100 100 100 8.9 4.7 35.2 13.4 21.6 18.4 13.7 10.5 8.9 8.9 1.7 7.8 -30 97.4 59.9 97.1 17.8 98.3 95.8 88.8 71.5 98.6 100 100 100 100 100 3 0.9 78.1 1.7 6.7 5.9 5.2 3.8 3 2.3 0.7 1.5 -14.7 98.7 73.8 98.5 30.9 100 97.7 95.2 83.9 100 100 100 100 100 100 5 1.3 66.9 0 12.8 10.9 8.9 7 5 3.1 1.1 1 -25.9 99.4 41.4 99.1 11.8 100 98.1 88.7 56.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.6 0.6 86.3 0 4.5 3.8 2.3 2.3 1.6 0.9 0 1.2 -10.2 Units Geotech #10 sieve #100 sieve #20 sieve #200 sieve #4 sieve #40 sieve #60 sieve #80 sieve 0.375 inch sieve 0.75 inch sieve 1 inch sieve 1.5 inch sieve 2 inch sieve 3 inch sieve Clay Coarse Sand Fine Sand Gravel Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution Medium Sand Sand Silt Fines (Clay and Sand) CRA 031884 (051) % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 1 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 SE-031884-121207-DD-269 SE-031884-121207-DD-270 SE-031884-121207-DD-271 Sample Date: 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 Sample Depth: (0-24) In (24-48) In (48-81.6) In (0-24) In (24-48) In (48-72) In Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 100 100 100 99.9 100 100 #100 sieve % 86.9 97.1 97.9 80.5 94 95.4 #20 sieve % 99.7 99.8 99.9 98.6 99.1 99.2 #200 sieve % 48.8 75.8 85.6 41.7 70.4 77.5 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 #40 sieve % 99.6 99.7 99.8 97.4 98.7 98.9 #60 sieve % 98.6 99.3 99.4 94.8 97.7 98.2 #80 sieve % 93.4 98.1 98.5 89 96 96.4 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 16.1 25.5 33.1 6.1 16.4 23.6 Coarse Sand % 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 Fine Sand % 50.8 23.9 14.2 55.7 28.3 21.4 Gravel % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 33.1 50.8 65.3 23 41.7 49.6 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 28.4 44 57 19 33.6 41.8 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 22.7 35.2 45.5 11.1 24.5 32.7 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 19 29.4 39.3 8.1 19.4 27.5 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 16.1 25.5 33.1 6.1 16.4 23.6 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 11.3 18.5 23.8 4 11.1 15.6 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 7.5 11.7 15.5 1 7.3 9.3 Medium Sand % 0.4 0.3 0.2 2.5 1.2 1.1 Silt % 32.7 50.3 52.5 35.6 54.1 53.9 CRA 031884 (051) Page 2 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-07 COR-07 COR-08 COR-08 COR-09 COR-09 SE-031884-121407-DD-282 SE-031884-121407-DD-283 SE-031884-121307-DD-279 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 Sample Date: 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 Sample Depth: (0-24) In (24-36) In (0-24) In (24-48) In (0-24) In (24-34) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 99.8 99.8 100 99.9 100 99.8 #100 sieve % 95.4 97.4 63.4 78.4 88.9 91.4 #20 sieve % 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.7 #200 sieve % 75.1 81.4 46.3 67.2 64.6 70.5 #4 sieve % 100 99.8 100 100 100 100 #40 sieve % 99.7 99.8 99.6 99.7 99.5 99.4 #60 sieve % 99.4 99.6 96.9 98 98.2 98.4 #80 sieve % 97.4 98.5 78.8 87.3 92.7 94.4 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 28.2 31.9 16.9 29.3 23.4 27.5 Coarse Sand % 0.2 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 Fine Sand % 24.6 18.4 53.3 32.5 34.9 28.9 Gravel % 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 50.9 55.1 35.7 56.8 45.8 51.4 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 43.9 48.6 30.4 50.7 40.7 45.4 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 36.1 40.2 24.2 40.4 32.6 38.6 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 31.7 35.6 20.4 34.4 26.6 32.6 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 28.2 31.9 16.9 29.3 23.4 27.5 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 22 24.3 11.6 21.2 16.3 19.8 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 15.7 18.6 7.1 13.1 11.3 12.9 Medium Sand % 0.1 0 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 Silt % 46.9 49.5 29.4 37.9 41.2 43 CRA 031884 (051) Page 3 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-11 COR-12 COR-18 COR-20 COR-20 COR-21 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 SE-031884-121107-DD-221 SE-031884-121107-DD-218 SE-031884-121107-DD-219 SE-031884-121007-DD-213 Sample Date: 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/11/2007 12/11/2007 12/11/2007 12/10/2007 Sample Depth: (0-24) In (0-22) In (0-24) In (0-24) In (24-31.6) In (0-24) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 96.3 100 99.8 99.8 99.8 82.7 #100 sieve % 63.4 73.8 76.2 91.9 88.2 74.6 #20 sieve % 95 100 99.7 99.2 99.5 81.4 #200 sieve % 45.3 42.1 43.2 74.9 65.5 56.7 #4 sieve % 98.2 100 100 100 100 85.6 #40 sieve % 91.8 99.8 99.5 98.9 99 80.2 #60 sieve % 81.9 95.9 96.4 98 97.3 78.9 #80 sieve % 68.7 82.1 85.2 94.5 91.7 76.3 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 87.3 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 16.9 18.9 14.5 18.8 21.7 14.4 Coarse Sand % 1.9 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.9 Fine Sand % 46.5 57.7 56.3 24.1 33.5 23.5 Gravel % 1.8 0 0 0 0 14.4 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 33 36.8 28.3 51.1 44.1 37.9 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 28.7 30.8 24.9 45.6 38.3 30.7 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 23.8 25.7 20.6 32.3 31.4 22.6 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 19.4 21.5 18.1 23.4 26.5 17.2 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 16.9 18.9 14.5 18.8 21.7 14.4 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 11.7 14.6 11.1 13.3 14.8 9.9 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 7.6 10.4 7.7 8.9 9 6.3 Medium Sand % 4.5 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 2.5 Silt % 28.3 23.2 28.7 56 43.9 42.3 CRA 031884 (051) Page 4 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-21 COR-21 COR-22 COR-22 COR-23 COR-25 SE-031884-121007-DD-215 SE-031884-121007-DD-216 SE-031884-121007-DD-180 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 SE-031884-120807-DD-179 SE-031884-120807-DD-178 Sample Date: 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 12/8/2007 12/8/2007 Sample Depth: (24-48) In (48-78) In (0-24) In (24-49) In (0-27) In (0-14) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 98.1 99.2 98.9 99 92.2 99.2 #100 sieve % 85.7 93.4 86.7 88.5 88.6 90.5 #20 sieve % 97.5 99.1 98.6 98.6 91.9 99 #200 sieve % 61.6 77.7 63.8 68.1 79 69.8 #4 sieve % 99.3 99.8 100 99.6 93.3 100 #40 sieve % 96.6 98.8 98 97.6 91.6 98.3 #60 sieve % 94.6 98.1 96.1 95.7 91.1 96.9 #80 sieve % 89.5 95.3 90.3 91.2 89.6 92.8 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 93.7 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 20 26.3 24.5 27.4 31.7 19.9 Coarse Sand % 1.2 0.6 1.1 0.6 1 0.8 Fine Sand % 35 21.2 34.2 29.6 12.6 28.5 Gravel % 0.7 0.2 0 0.4 6.7 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 43.6 55.4 50 51.2 62.3 42.7 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 36.6 47.3 43.4 45.9 54.9 34.4 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 28.8 39.3 34.5 37.1 45.4 27.1 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 24.3 32.3 29 31.8 39.1 24 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 20 26.3 24.5 27.4 31.7 19.9 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 14.8 18.1 17.9 19.3 23.3 13.7 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 8.7 11 11.3 12.3 14.7 9.3 Medium Sand % 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.4 0.6 0.9 Silt % 41.6 51.4 39.2 40.7 47.3 49.9 CRA 031884 (051) Page 5 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-28 COR-28A COR-30 COR-30 COR-32A COR-32B SE-031884-120807-DD-176 SE-031884-121108-SG-020 SE-031884-120707-DD-174 SE-031884-120707-DD-175 SE-031884-121108-SG-021 SE-031884-121108-SG-016 Sample Date: 12/8/2007 12/11/2008 12/7/2007 12/7/2007 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 Sample Depth: (0-24) In (0-6) In (24-30) In (0-24) In (0-18.5) In (0-24) In 100 Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 98.1 100 97 99.7 95.8 #100 sieve % 91.3 91.9 15.8 14.6 74 58 #20 sieve % 97.8 99.1 96.7 99.4 95.5 99.6 #200 sieve % 72.7 72.6 7.8 7.3 45.6 32.5 #4 sieve % 98.9 100 97.5 100 95.8 100 #40 sieve % 97.3 98.6 84.7 86.9 95.1 99.1 #60 sieve % 96.5 97.7 36.5 49.2 90.8 88.7 #80 sieve % 93.3 95.1 18.7 19.7 81.5 69.6 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 98.6 100 95.8 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 26.6 28.1 5.1 3.1 16.2 12.7 Coarse Sand % 0.8 0 0.5 0.3 0 0 Fine Sand % 24.7 26 77 79.6 49.5 66.6 Gravel % 1.1 0 2.5 0 4.2 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 51.1 50.6 7.6 6.7 28.8 22.1 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 43.3 44.2 7 6.1 24.6 18.1 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 35.4 36.1 6.4 4.9 20.4 15.4 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 31.5 32.9 5.7 4.2 17.6 14.1 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 26.6 28.1 5.1 3.1 16.2 12.7 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 19.6 21.7 3.2 1.9 11.9 10 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 13.7 18.5 2.5 1.2 9.1 8.7 Medium Sand % 0.8 1.4 12.2 12.7 0.7 0.9 Silt % 46.1 44.5 2.6 4.2 29.4 19.8 CRA 031884 (051) Page 6 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B COR-33 COR-35 COR-35 SE-031884-121108-SG-017 SE-031884-121108-SG-018 SE-031884-121108-SG-019 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 SE-031884-120507-DD-086 SE-031884-120507-DD-088 Sample Date: 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/6/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 Sample Depth: (24-48) In (48-72) In (72-92) In (0-21) In (0-24) In (24-48) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 100 100 100 96.1 99.7 100 #100 sieve % 51.2 55.6 64.2 81.9 75.8 63.5 #20 sieve % 99.9 100 100 94.7 99.1 99.6 #200 sieve % 27.1 29.8 37.2 61.6 53.8 36.8 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 97.3 100 100 #40 sieve % 99.7 99.8 99.9 92.5 97.7 98.5 #60 sieve % 86.6 88.1 91.3 90 94.9 91.2 #80 sieve % 63.9 67.6 74.6 85 83.6 74 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 10.6 9.3 11.8 22.4 17.1 13.8 Coarse Sand % 0 0 0 1.2 0.2 0 Fine Sand % 72.6 70 62.8 30.8 43.8 61.7 Gravel % 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 17.7 16.8 22.7 45 35.9 26.9 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 16.3 15.6 19.6 37.7 30.5 22.7 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 13.4 11.8 16.5 30.5 24.3 18.7 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 12 9.3 14.9 25.6 20.7 16.3 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 10.6 9.3 11.8 22.4 17.1 13.8 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 7.8 6.8 10.2 15.9 10.7 8.9 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 7.8 4.4 8.6 10.1 7.1 5.6 Medium Sand % 0.3 0.2 0.1 3.6 2.1 1.5 Silt % 16.5 20.5 25.4 39.3 36.7 23 CRA 031884 (051) Page 7 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-35 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-089 SE-031884-120507-DD-123 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 SE-031884-121008-SG-007 SE-031884-121008-SG-008 Sample Date: 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 Sample Depth: (48-54) In (0-24) In (24-48) In (48-72) In (0-24) In (24-48) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 99.9 100 99.9 99.9 100 100 #100 sieve % 82.8 90.5 91 92.8 90.1 90.7 #20 sieve % 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.7 #200 sieve % 66.9 60.1 62.7 79.8 60.1 66.1 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 #40 sieve % 99.5 99.7 99.6 99.2 99.7 99.3 #60 sieve % 95.7 98.7 98 97.4 98.6 97.2 #80 sieve % 87.4 94.8 94.3 94.6 95 93.9 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 32.7 18.9 16.3 31.9 23.2 17 Coarse Sand % 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 Fine Sand % 32.5 39.6 36.9 19.5 39.6 33.2 Gravel % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 55.4 39.7 36.1 60.5 45.7 37.5 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 50.5 34.1 29.8 53.1 39.3 30.7 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 42.6 27.5 23.6 43.5 32.8 25.8 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 38.6 22.6 19.8 36.1 26.4 22 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 32.7 18.9 16.3 31.9 23.2 17 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 23.7 14.1 11.6 21.1 16.6 13.1 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 15.8 9.4 7.2 13.7 10.2 9.2 Medium Sand % 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 Silt % 34.2 41.2 46.5 47.9 36.9 49.1 CRA 031884 (051) Page 8 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36A COR-36B SE-031884-121008-SG-009 SE-031884-121008-SG-010 SE-031884-121008-SG-011 SE-031884-121008-SG-012 SE-031884-121008-SG-006 SE-031884-121008-SG-013 Sample Date: 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 Sample Depth: (24-48) In (48-72) In (72-96) In (96-108) In (0-10.5) In (0-12) In Sample Type: Duplicate Sample Location: Sample Identification: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 100 100 100 100 99.4 100 #100 sieve % 90.1 90.6 91 92.9 98.1 82.6 #20 sieve % 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.3 99.8 #200 sieve % 64.4 76.7 70.9 70.1 92.2 50.6 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 100 99.4 100 #40 sieve % 99.4 99 99.5 99.7 99.1 99.6 #60 sieve % 97.1 96.1 97.9 98.8 98.7 97.4 #80 sieve % 93.5 93 94.5 96.1 98.4 89.7 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 18.2 32.3 24.7 21.1 42.5 16.6 Coarse Sand % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fine Sand % 34.9 22.4 28.5 29.6 6.9 48.9 Gravel % 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 38.7 66.3 52 51.4 72.3 39.4 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 31.8 58 43.9 39.6 63.4 28.9 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 26 47.5 33.9 29.5 51.5 21.9 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 22.1 40.5 28.8 24.4 47 20.1 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 18.2 32.3 24.7 21.1 42.5 16.6 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 12.2 22.8 17.6 14.3 32 13.1 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 8.3 14.6 11.6 11 24.6 9.6 Medium Sand % 0.6 1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 Silt % 46.3 44.4 46.2 49 49.7 34 CRA 031884 (051) Page 9 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-36C COR-36C COR-38 COR-39 COR-39 COR-40 SE-031884-121008-SG-014 SE-031884-121008-SG-015 SE-031884-120407-DD-085 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 SE-031884-120407-DD-079 Sample Date: 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 Sample Depth: (0-24) In (24-40) In (0-24) In (0-17) In (17-33.5) In (0-24) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 100 100 100 94.3 99.9 99.6 #100 sieve % 83.6 94 80.1 65.6 58 69.6 #20 sieve % 98 99.9 99.8 92.9 99 99 #200 sieve % 59.9 75.3 50.6 50.5 36.6 48.4 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 96.2 99.9 99.9 #40 sieve % 96.4 99.7 99.7 90.2 96.7 95.6 #60 sieve % 93.6 98.9 96.9 83.7 85.3 87.7 #80 sieve % 88.4 96.6 87.2 70.7 65.6 75.4 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 19.4 24.8 16.8 3.7 0.9 14 Coarse Sand % 0 0 0 2 0 0.2 Fine Sand % 36.4 24.4 49 39.8 60.1 47.2 Gravel % 0 0 0 3.8 0.1 0.1 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 39.7 54.2 31.9 40.7 21.1 35.7 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 33 45 26.8 31.5 15.9 30.5 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 26.2 35.8 21.8 7.1 6.3 22.7 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 22.8 28.5 20.1 4.8 1 18.3 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 19.4 24.8 16.8 3.7 0.9 14 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 14.4 17.5 13.3 2.3 0 9.5 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 11 11.9 9.2 1.2 0 6.2 Medium Sand % 3.6 0.3 0.3 4.1 3.1 4.1 Silt % 40.5 50.5 33.9 46.8 35.8 34.3 CRA 031884 (051) Page 10 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-41 COR-41 SE-031884-120407-DD-080 SE-031884-120908-SG-003 SE-031884-120908-SG-004 SE-031884-120908-SG-005 SE-031884-120407-DD-081 SE-031884-120407-DD-082 Sample Date: 12/4/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 Sample Depth: (24-40) In (0-24) In (24-48) In (48-66) In (0-12) In (12-25) In Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 99.7 100 100 100 99.9 100 #100 sieve % 76.4 74 88.2 80.7 67.4 66.6 #20 sieve % 98.8 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.8 100 #200 sieve % 48.7 51.1 66.8 57.8 36.5 31.3 #4 sieve % 99.8 100 100 100 100 100 #40 sieve % 95.7 98.4 99.3 99.3 98.6 99.7 #60 sieve % 91.5 92.4 97.4 95.4 92.8 95.3 #80 sieve % 82 81.6 93 87 76.6 77 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 100 100 Clay % 15.4 17.8 23.4 20.3 14.2 12.2 Coarse Sand % 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 0 Fine Sand % 47 47.4 32.5 41.5 62.1 68.4 Gravel % 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 32.3 37 47.2 40.1 27.6 22.1 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 27.9 32.2 41 34.3 22.9 19.2 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 21.6 26.4 33.7 27.7 17.4 15 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 18 21.7 27.5 24.4 16.6 13.6 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 15.4 17.8 23.4 20.3 14.2 12.2 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 10.7 13 16 14.4 10.2 8.5 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 6.4 8.2 9.8 8.7 7.1 5.7 Medium Sand % 4 1.6 0.7 0.7 1.3 0.3 Silt % 33.3 33.2 43.4 37.6 22.2 19.1 CRA 031884 (051) Page 11 of 11 TABLE 4.9b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 COR-43 SE-031884-120307-DD-078 SE-031884-120908-SG-001 SE-031884-120908-SG-002 SE-031884-120307-DD-077 Sample Date: 12/3/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/3/2007 Sample Depth: (0-29) In (0-16.5) In (0-16.5) In (0-22) In Duplicate Sample Type: Units Geotech #10 sieve % 99.9 100 100 99.8 #100 sieve % 96.6 96.3 96.5 76.6 #20 sieve % 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.7 #200 sieve % 75.6 83.5 83.5 47.7 #4 sieve % 100 100 100 99.9 #40 sieve % 99.3 99.7 99.6 99.3 #60 sieve % 99 99.2 99.3 95.1 #80 sieve % 98 98 98.1 84.6 0.375 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 0.75 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 1 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 1.5 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 2 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 3 inch sieve % 100 100 100 100 Clay % 25.8 33.7 35.4 16.8 Coarse Sand % 0.1 0 0 0.1 Fine Sand % 23.8 16.2 16.1 51.6 Gravel % 0 0 0 0.1 Hydrometer 1 for Particle size Distribution % 52.2 62.7 65.9 31 Hydrometer 2 for Particle size Distribution % 44.4 54.7 57.5 27.3 Hydrometer 3 for Particle size Distribution % 36.6 44.7 46.9 22 Hydrometer 4 for Particle size Distribution % 29.7 39.7 40.6 19.8 Hydrometer 5 for Particle size Distribution % 25.8 33.7 35.4 16.8 Hydrometer 6 for Particle size Distribution % 18.8 25.6 26.8 12.1 Hydrometer 7 for Particle size Distribution % 12.9 17.5 18.4 8.4 Medium Sand % 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 Silt % 49.8 49.8 48.1 30.9 CRA 031884 (051) Page 1 of 3 TABLE 4.10a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-13 SE-031884-120107-DD-055 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate SSD-18 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-20 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-25 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-27 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN 0.013 J Units Dioxins and Furans 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF) µg/kg 0.013 J 0.042 0.016 0.041 0.05 0.092 0.12 0.018 J 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) µg/kg 0.39 1.2 0.059 1.8 2 2 2.9 J 0.51 0.44 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) µg/kg ND(0.0076)U 0.025 ND(0.0027) ND(0.018)U ND(0.019)U 0.041 0.058 ND(0.012)U ND(0.0093)U 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) µg/kg 0.018 0.032 ND(0.003) 0.064 0.069 0.082 0.15 0.027 0.018 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) µg/kg ND(0.00043) ND(0.0019) ND(0.00011) ND(0.001) ND(0.0013) ND(0.0019) ND(0.0027) ND(0.0009) ND(0.0011) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) µg/kg ND(0.0012) 0.0054 J ND(0.00031) ND(0.0016) ND(0.0017) ND(0.0039) ND(0.0065) ND(0.0044) ND(0.0015) 1,2,3,4,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) µg/kg ND(0.00023) ND(0.00053) ND(0.000098) ND(0.0011)UJ ND(0.0013)UJ ND(0.0015)UJ ND(0.0027)UJ ND(0.0011)UJ ND(0.0013)UJ 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) µg/kg ND(0.00066) ND(0.0029) ND(0.00007) ND(0.00092) ND(0.00083) ND(0.00097) ND(0.0042) ND(0.0013) ND(0.00083) 1,2,3,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) µg/kg ND(0.00066) ND(0.0014) ND(0.00027) ND(0.0019) ND(0.0028) ND(0.0035) ND(0.0066) ND(0.0016) ND(0.0014) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) µg/kg ND(0.00026) ND(0.00032) ND(0.000084) ND(0.00096) ND(0.00088) ND(0.001) ND(0.0019) ND(0.00088) ND(0.00089) 1,2,3,7,8,9-Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) µg/kg ND(0.00061) ND(0.0011) ND(0.00018) ND(0.0022) ND(0.002) ND(0.0026) ND(0.0047) ND(0.0014) ND(0.0011) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) µg/kg ND(0.001) ND(0.0026) ND(0.00013) ND(0.0016) ND(0.0012) ND(0.0019) ND(0.0017) ND(0.0012) ND(0.001) 1,2,3,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) µg/kg ND(0.00059) ND(0.00066) ND(0.00015) ND(0.0018) ND(0.0019) ND(0.002) ND(0.003) ND(0.0022) ND(0.0018) 2,3,4,6,7,8-Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) µg/kg ND(0.00059) ND(0.0011) ND(0.00013) ND(0.00096) ND(0.00088) ND(0.001) ND(0.0023) ND(0.0011) ND(0.00089) 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) µg/kg ND(0.0011) ND(0.0017) ND(0.00013) ND(0.0013) ND(0.001) ND(0.0013) ND(0.0018) ND(0.0011) ND(0.0011) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) µg/kg 0.0021 0.0033 ND(0.00025) 0.0013 J 0.0011 J ND(0.0025)U 0.0019 J ND(0.00079) ND(0.00068) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg 0.01 0.048 0.01 0.009 0.0094 0.052 0.017 ND(0.00098) ND(0.00087) Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) µg/kg 0.012 J 0.034 J ND(0.0027) 0.039 J 0.039 J 0.063 J 0.12 J 0.023 J 0.019 J Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) µg/kg 0.045 J 0.072 J ND(0.0032) 0.14 J 0.15 J 0.17 J 0.31 J 0.055 J 0.041 J Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) µg/kg ND(0.0025) 0.011 J ND(0.00058) 0.0074 J 0.0071 J ND(0.0084) 0.032 J ND(0.0053) ND(0.0032) Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) µg/kg ND(0.0022) ND(0.0044) ND(0.00072) 0.0066 J 0.013 J 0.017 J 0.027 J ND(0.0044) ND(0.0026) Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) µg/kg ND(0.0033) 0.0059 J ND(0.00062) ND(0.0048) ND(0.0046) 0.0081 J 0.011 J ND(0.0047) ND(0.0032) Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) µg/kg ND(0.00087) ND(0.00091) ND(0.00015) ND(0.0018) ND(0.0019) ND(0.0022) ND(0.0044) ND(0.0026) ND(0.0018) Total TEQ (ND=0.5) µg/kg 0.012 0.052 0.01 0.013 0.014 0.057 0.025 0.0029 0.0023 Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) µg/kg 0.022 J 0.014 J ND(0.00014) 0.0065 J 0.0085 J 0.011 J 0.012 J 0.0095 J 0.0052 J Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg 0.012 J 0.053 J 0.01 J 0.015 J 0.017 J 0.06 J 0.022 J 0.0042 J ND(0.0022) Antimony µg/kg ND(1500)UJ ND(1800)UJ ND(1400)UJ ND(2200)UJ ND(2200)UJ ND(2500)UJ ND(3000)UJ ND(2100)UJ ND(1800)UJ Arsenic µg/kg 3400 3100 3100 4300 5400 4800 5800 3600 2900 Cadmium µg/kg ND(310)U ND(360)U ND(280) ND(440)U 390 J ND(510)U ND(600)U ND(430)U 380 Copper µg/kg 10600 12000 3900 19800 23200 25600 24300 10000 10000 Lead µg/kg 11300 18000 6600 19800 22000 30600 22100 9300 16600 Mercury µg/kg 1100 ND(180)U ND(140)U ND(220)U ND(220)U ND(250)U ND(300)U ND(210) ND(180) Nickel µg/kg 16500 12400 10800 39700 28000 22100 27500 15000 16200 Silver µg/kg 1500 ND(890) ND(700) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1300) ND(1500) ND(1100) ND(920) Zinc µg/kg 67800 77000 31700 108000 126000 165000 142000 68000 91200 Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) µg/kg ND(50) ND(59) ND(46) ND(72) ND(74) ND(84) ND(100) ND(71) ND(61) Metals PCBs CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 3 TABLE 4.10a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-13 SE-031884-120107-DD-055 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate SSD-18 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-20 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-25 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-27 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN Units Dioxins and Furans Pesticides 4,4'-DDD µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ 2J ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ 2.9 J 4,4'-DDE µg/kg ND(5.2) ND(6.1) ND(4.8) ND(7.4) ND(7.6) ND(4.3) ND(10) ND(7.3) ND(6.3) 4,4'-DDT µg/kg ND(5.2) ND(6.1) 3.5 J ND(7.4) ND(7.6) ND(4.3) ND(10) ND(7.3) ND(6.3) Aldrin µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ alpha-BHC µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ 7.1 ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ alpha-Chlordane µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ beta-BHC µg/kg 5J ND(6.1)UJ 52 J 3.6 J 3.1 J ND(4.3)UJ 3.2 J ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ delta-BHC µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Dieldrin µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Endosulfan I µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Endosulfan II µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ 2.2 J ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ 2.8 J 3.9 J Endosulfan sulfate µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Endrin µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Endrin aldehyde µg/kg ND(5.2) ND(6.1) ND(4.8) ND(7.4) ND(7.6) ND(4.3) ND(10) ND(7.3) ND(6.3) Endrin ketone µg/kg 2.2 J 3.4 J 5.7 ND(7.4) ND(7.6) ND(4.3) ND(10) 6.8 J 6.1 J gamma-BHC (Lindane) µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ 3.2 J ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ gamma-Chlordane µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Heptachlor µg/kg ND(5.2) ND(6.1) ND(4.8) ND(7.4) ND(7.6) ND(4.3) ND(10) ND(7.3) ND(6.3) Heptachlor epoxide µg/kg ND(5.2)UJ ND(6.1)UJ ND(4.8) ND(7.4)UJ ND(7.6)UJ ND(4.3)UJ ND(10)UJ ND(7.3)UJ ND(6.3)UJ Methoxychlor µg/kg ND(10) ND(12) ND(9.3) ND(14) ND(15) ND(8.4) ND(20) ND(14) ND(12) Toxaphene µg/kg ND(200) ND(240) ND(190) ND(290) ND(300) ND(170) ND(400) ND(290) ND(250) 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) (bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether) µg/kg ND(150)UJ ND(180)UJ ND(140)UJ ND(220)UJ ND(1100)UJ ND(640)UJ ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180)UJ 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 2,4-Dichlorophenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 2,4-Dimethylphenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 2,4-Dinitrophenol µg/kg ND(500) ND(590) ND(460) ND(720) ND(3700) ND(2100) ND(2500)UJ ND(710) ND(610) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) 2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) 2-Chloronaphthalene µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) 2-Chlorophenol µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110)UJ ND(92) 2-Methylnaphthalene µg/kg 280 370 300 310 330 83 56 J 340 310 2-Methylphenol µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430)UJ ND(370) 2-Nitroaniline µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) 2-Nitrophenol µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine µg/kg ND(150)UJ ND(180)UJ ND(140)UJ ND(220)UJ ND(1100)UJ ND(640)UJ ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180)UJ 3-Nitroaniline µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 4-Chloroaniline µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) 4-Methylphenol µg/kg ND(310) 51 J ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430)UJ ND(370) 4-Nitroaniline µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) 4-Nitrophenol µg/kg ND(500) ND(590) ND(460) ND(720) ND(3700) ND(2100) ND(2500)UJ ND(710) ND(610) Acenaphthene µg/kg 17 47 ND(9.4) 21 ND(75) ND(42) ND(50)UJ 20 ND(12) Acenaphthylene µg/kg ND(10) 44 ND(9.4) 26 ND(75) ND(42) ND(50)UJ ND(14) ND(12) Acetophenone µg/kg ND(150) ND(180) ND(140) ND(220) ND(1100) ND(640) ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180) Anthracene µg/kg 32 130 16 53 ND(75) 25 J ND(50)UJ 23 31 Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4.10a SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: COR-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 12/2/2007 (0-0) IN COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-13 SE-031884-120107-DD-055 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate SSD-18 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-20 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-25 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN SSD-27 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 11/28/2007 (0-0) IN Units Dioxins and Furans Atrazine µg/kg ND(310) ND(360) ND(280) ND(440) ND(2200) ND(1300) ND(1500)UJ ND(430) ND(370) Benzaldehyde µg/kg ND(150) ND(180) ND(140) ND(220) ND(1100) ND(640) ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180) Benzo(a)anthracene µg/kg 100 200 30 160 200 79 170 J 96 130 Benzo(a)pyrene µg/kg 98 140 ND(9.4) 150 170 80 250 J 74 100 Benzo(b)fluoranthene µg/kg 140 220 27 240 240 140 450 J 120 170 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene µg/kg 70 98 ND(9.4) 130 170 77 270 J 66 73 Benzo(k)fluoranthene µg/kg 63 86 10 120 140 55 230 J 66 60 Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) µg/kg 45 J 320 310 51 J ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) 110 bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane µg/kg ND(150) ND(180) ND(140) ND(220) ND(1100) ND(640) ND(760)UJ ND(210) ND(180) bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether µg/kg ND(150) ND(180) ND(140) ND(220) ND(1100) ND(640) ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180) bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/kg 150 J 1200 J 73 J 230 J 660 J 240 J 390 J 200 J 560 J Butyl benzylphthalate µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Caprolactam µg/kg ND(500) ND(590) ND(460) ND(720) ND(3700) ND(2100) ND(2500)UJ ND(710) ND(610) Carbazole µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Chrysene µg/kg 150 220 63 230 250 110 300 J 150 150 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/kg ND(10) ND(12) ND(9.4) ND(15) ND(75) ND(42) ND(50)UJ ND(14) 20 Dibenzofuran µg/kg 76 87 J 73 87 J ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ 92 J 81 J Diethyl phthalate µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Dimethyl phthalate µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Di-n-butylphthalate µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Di-n-octyl phthalate µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Fluoranthene µg/kg 230 360 59 340 420 190 520 J 270 210 Fluorene µg/kg 31 120 32 40 ND(75) ND(42) ND(50)UJ 35 33 Hexachlorobenzene µg/kg ND(10) ND(12) ND(9.4) ND(15) ND(75) ND(42) ND(50)UJ ND(14) ND(12) Hexachlorobutadiene µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/kg ND(500) ND(590) ND(460) ND(720) ND(3700) ND(2100) ND(2500)UJ ND(710)UJ ND(610)UJ Hexachloroethane µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110)UJ ND(92) Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene µg/kg 62 74 ND(9.4) 100 120 54 220 J 41 55 Isophorone µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Naphthalene µg/kg 170 310 250 180 200 52 ND(50)UJ 190 330 Nitrobenzene µg/kg ND(150) ND(180) ND(140) ND(220) ND(1100) ND(640) ND(760)UJ ND(210)UJ ND(180) N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110) ND(92) Pentachlorophenol µg/kg ND(230) ND(270) ND(210) ND(330) ND(1700) ND(950) ND(1100)UJ ND(320) ND(280) Phenanthrene µg/kg 260 510 190 260 300 98 110 J 330 230 Phenol µg/kg ND(76) ND(89) ND(70) ND(110) ND(560) ND(320) ND(380)UJ ND(110)UJ ND(92) Pyrene µg/kg 170 330 50 240 310 140 350 J 170 160 µg/kg 33400000 31800000 12700000 33500000 31400000 23800000 21800000 27500000 24700000 % 65.6 56.1 71.2 45.7 44.5 39.3 33.1 46.8 54.1 General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value. U- Not present at or above the associated value. J- Estimated concentration. UJ- Estimated reporting limit. Measured levels exceed benchmark level CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 3 TABLE 4.10b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 12/13/2007 (24-48) IN COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 12/10/2007 (24-49) IN COR-28 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 12/8/2007 (0-24) IN COR-33 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 12/6/2007 (0-21) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 12/5/2007 (24-48) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 12/5/2007 (48-72) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 12/4/2007 (0-17) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 12/4/2007 (17-33.5) IN 1.1 J 0.16 J 0.39 J 0.053 J 0.086 J 0.1 J 0.0073 J 1.1 0.16 J 1.1 J ND(0.0004) ND(0.00057) 0.02 J ND(0.00044) 0.0092 J ND(0.00048) ND(0.0019) 0.00094 ND(0.00024) 0.00077 J 0.19 0.017 J 0.052 J 0.011 J 0.0037 J 0.014 J ND(0.0013) 0.19 0.024 J 0.2 J 3.3 J 0.99 J 0.65 J 0.62 J 0.27 J 0.45 J 0.11 J 3.4 0.35 J 3.3 J 18 J 6J 1.9 J 2.8 J 1.8 J 1.9 J 0.26 J 18 1.1 J 18 J 22 J 2.7 J 1.8 J 1.4 J 0.43 J 1J 0.13 J 22 0.87 J 23 J 33 J 3.3 J 24 J 1.4 J 4.4 J 1.1 J 0.13 J 33 1.5 J 35 J Benchmarks ug/Kg Dioxin and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF) Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD) Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF) Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HxCDD) Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (PeCDD) Total TEQ (ND=0.5) Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg 0.00085 1.4 J 0.95 J 0.53 J 0.38 J 0.11 J 0.24 J 0.014 J 1.4 0.17 J 1.4 J µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg 2000 9800 990 31600 35800 180 22700 1000 121000 1300 J 8700 330 61800 39500 2600 44200 2100 409000 760 J 10700 440 42700 37400 360 32000 260 J 163000 ND(1300) 3400 ND(270)U 15400 15100 21 J 19300 ND(670) 60200 ND(1500)UJ 4500 260 J 16900 36600 70 J 17600 ND(730) 137000 ND(1700)UJ 6800 470 50400 36300 170 63300 1600 195000 670 J 8500 510 62600 52200 290 57300 4600 235000 ND(2000)UJ 8100 340 J 445000 50800 1200 32600 690 J 274000 730 J 6400 610 78400 41800 230 19200 ND(810) 156000 ND(54) ND(54) ND(54) ND(54) 89 ND(54) 67 ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) 39 J ND(56) ND(56) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) 31 J ND(48) ND(55) ND(55) ND(55) 46 J ND(55) 39 J ND(55) ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) 530 ND(56) ND(56) ND(3400) ND(3400) ND(3400) ND(3400) 3000 J ND(3400) ND(3400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) 75000 ND(5400) 14000 36 J 12 J ND(56) ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(56)UJ ND(110) ND(2200) 3.7 J ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) 4.1 J ND(5.7) 8J ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(5.7) ND(11) ND(230)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3) ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3) ND(2.3) ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(2.3)UJ ND(4.4) ND(90) ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ 0.62 J ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5) ND(2.5) ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ ND(2.5)UJ 4J ND(97) ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8) ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ 2.3 J ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ 0.77 J ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8) ND(2.8) ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ ND(2.8)UJ 1.7 J ND(110) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) ND(29) 41 J ND(1100)UJ ND(1700) ND(1700)UJ ND(1700)UJ ND(1700)UJ ND(1700)UJ ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) 1100 J ND(68000) ND(1400) ND(1400)UJ ND(1400)UJ ND(1400)UJ ND(1400)UJ ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) 550 J ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) ND(1400) 2300 J ND(55000) Metals Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Silver Zinc PCBs Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg Pesticides 4,4'-DDD 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aldrin alpha-BHC alpha-Chlordane beta-BHC delta-BHC Dieldrin Endosulfan I Endosulfan II Endosulfan sulfate Endrin Endrin aldehyde Endrin ketone gamma-BHC (Lindane) gamma-Chlordane Heptachlor Heptachlor epoxide Methoxychlor Toxaphene CRA 031884 (51) µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg 4.88 3.16 4.16 2 6 3.24 5 6400 1.9 2.9 14 5.4 2.22 2.37 68 2.47 18.7 0.1 Page 2 of 3 TABLE 4.10b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Units COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 12/13/2007 (24-48) IN COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 12/10/2007 (24-49) IN COR-28 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 12/8/2007 (0-24) IN COR-33 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 12/6/2007 (0-21) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 12/5/2007 (24-48) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 12/5/2007 (48-72) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 12/4/2007 (0-17) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 12/4/2007 (17-33.5) IN ND(16000)UJ ND(25000) ND(25000) ND(25000) ND(25000) ND(54000) ND(33000) ND(33000) ND(8200) ND(8200)UJ ND(1100) ND(33000)UJ ND(33000) ND(8200) ND(16000) ND(33000) ND(25000) ND(8200) ND(25000) ND(25000) ND(8200) ND(33000)UJ ND(33000) ND(54000) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(16000)UJ ND(1100) ND(33000) ND(16000)UJ ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1100) 5800 J ND(16000) ND(16000)UJ 190000 ND(8200) ND(54000) ND(8200) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(8200) ND(8200) ND(8200) ND(8200) ND(8200) 5300 3100 ND(1100) ND(8200) ND(54000) ND(8200)UJ ND(1100) ND(8200) ND(1100) ND(16000)UJ ND(8200) ND(8200) ND(8500) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(28000) ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(4200) ND(4200) 1700 ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(4200) ND(8500) ND(17000) ND(13000) ND(4200) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(4200) ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(28000) ND(560) ND(560) ND(8500) ND(560) ND(17000) ND(8500) ND(560) 1400 1300 1000 ND(560) ND(4200) ND(8500) ND(8500) 99000 ND(4200) ND(28000) ND(4200) 590 ND(560) ND(4200) ND(4200) ND(4200) ND(4200) ND(4200) 1100 ND(560) ND(560) ND(4200) ND(28000) ND(4200) 1200 ND(4200) 1400 ND(8500) ND(4200) ND(4200) ND(130) ND(200) ND(200) ND(200) ND(200) ND(440) ND(270) ND(270) ND(67) ND(67) ND(9) ND(270) ND(270) ND(67) ND(130) ND(270) ND(200) ND(67) ND(200) ND(200) ND(67) ND(270) ND(270) ND(440) ND(9) ND(9) ND(130) ND(9) ND(270) ND(130) ND(9) ND(9) ND(9) ND(9) ND(9) ND(67) ND(130) ND(130) 81 ND(67) ND(440) ND(67) ND(9) ND(9) ND(67) ND(67) ND(67) ND(67) ND(67) ND(9) ND(9) ND(9) ND(67) ND(440) ND(67) ND(9) ND(67) ND(9) ND(130) ND(67) ND(67) ND(580) ND(870) ND(870) ND(870) ND(870) ND(1900) ND(1200) ND(1200) ND(290) ND(290) 240 ND(1200) ND(1200) ND(290) ND(580) ND(1200) ND(870) ND(290) ND(870) ND(870) ND(290) ND(1200) ND(1200) ND(1900) 58 50 ND(580) 140 ND(1200) ND(580) 180 110 150 ND(39) ND(39) 300 ND(580) ND(580) 4800 ND(290) ND(1900) ND(290) 200 ND(39) ND(290) ND(290) ND(290) ND(290) ND(290) 330 130 ND(39) ND(290) ND(1900) ND(290) ND(39) ND(290) 200 ND(580) ND(290) ND(290) ND(8300) ND(12000) ND(12000) ND(12000) ND(12000) ND(27000) ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(4100) ND(4100) 1000 ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(4100) ND(8300) ND(17000) ND(12000) ND(4100) ND(12000) ND(12000) ND(4100) ND(17000) ND(17000) ND(27000) ND(550) ND(550) ND(8300) ND(550) ND(17000) ND(8300) ND(550) ND(550) ND(550) ND(550) ND(550) 2200 J ND(8300) ND(8300) 210000 ND(4100) ND(27000) ND(4100) 710 ND(550) ND(4100) ND(4100) ND(4100) ND(4100) ND(4100) 910 ND(550) ND(550) ND(4100) ND(27000) ND(4100) ND(550) ND(4100) 870 ND(8300) ND(4100) ND(4100) ND(17000) ND(26000) ND(26000) ND(26000) ND(26000) ND(56000) ND(34000) ND(34000) ND(8600) ND(8600) 2600 ND(34000) ND(34000) ND(8600) ND(17000) ND(34000) ND(26000) ND(8600) ND(26000) ND(26000) ND(8600) ND(34000) ND(34000) ND(56000) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(17000) 1600 ND(34000) ND(17000) 1400 ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(1100) 11000 ND(17000) ND(17000) 290000 ND(8600) ND(56000) ND(8600) 1400 ND(1100) ND(8600) ND(8600) ND(8600) ND(8600) ND(8600) 2100 ND(1100) ND(1100) ND(8600) ND(56000) ND(8600) ND(1100) ND(8600) 1500 ND(17000) ND(8600) ND(8600) ND(25000)UJ ND(38000) ND(38000) ND(38000) ND(38000) ND(84000) ND(51000) ND(51000) ND(13000) ND(13000) 2700 ND(51000) ND(51000) ND(13000) ND(25000)UJ ND(51000) ND(38000) ND(13000) ND(38000) ND(38000) ND(13000) 7000 J ND(51000) ND(84000) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(25000) ND(1700) ND(51000) ND(25000) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(1700) 10000 J ND(25000) ND(25000) 1500000 J ND(13000) ND(84000) ND(13000) ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(13000) 8500 J 36000 2600 ND(1700) ND(1700) ND(13000) ND(84000) ND(13000) ND(1700) ND(13000) 4800 ND(25000) ND(13000) ND(13000) ND(81000)UJ ND(120000) ND(120000) ND(120000) ND(120000) ND(270000) ND(160000) ND(160000) ND(41000) ND(41000) ND(5400) ND(160000) ND(160000) ND(41000) ND(81000)UJ ND(160000) ND(120000) ND(41000) ND(120000) ND(120000) ND(41000) ND(160000) ND(160000) ND(270000) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(81000) ND(5400) ND(160000) ND(81000) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(41000) ND(81000) ND(81000) 1700000 J ND(41000) ND(270000) ND(41000) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(41000) ND(41000) ND(41000) ND(41000) 24000 J ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(41000) ND(270000) ND(41000) ND(5400) ND(41000) ND(5400) ND(81000) ND(41000) ND(41000) Benchmarks Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 2,2'-oxybis(1-Chloropropane) (bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dimethylphenol 2,4-Dinitrophenol 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 2-Chloronaphthalene 2-Chlorophenol 2-Methylnaphthalene 2-Methylphenol 2-Nitroaniline 2-Nitrophenol 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 3-Nitroaniline 4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 4-Chloroaniline 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 4-Methylphenol 4-Nitroaniline 4-Nitrophenol Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Acetophenone Anthracene Atrazine Benzaldehyde Benzo(a)anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthene Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Benzo(k)fluoranthene Biphenyl (1,1-Biphenyl) bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate Butyl benzylphthalate Caprolactam Carbazole Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Dibenzofuran Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Di-n-octyl phthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene Hexachlorocyclopentadiene Hexachloroethane Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Isophorone Naphthalene Nitrobenzene N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine N-Nitrosodiphenylamine CRA 031884 (51) µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg µg/kg 213 117 29 41.6 31.2 20.2 127 1230 670 6.7 5.9 57.2 6.62 108 150 27.2 170 240 1220 180 10900 166 33 415 603 6470 423 77.4 20 1027 17 176 2680 Page 3 of 3 TABLE 4.10b SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING EXPANDED ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: Sample Type: Pentachlorophenol Phenanthrene Phenol Pyrene Units Benchmarks µg/kg 504 204 µg/kg 420 µg/kg µg/kg 195 COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 12/13/2007 (24-48) IN COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 12/10/2007 (24-49) IN COR-28 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 12/8/2007 (0-24) IN COR-33 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 12/6/2007 (0-21) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 12/5/2007 (24-48) IN COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 12/5/2007 (48-72) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 12/4/2007 (0-17) IN COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 12/4/2007 (17-33.5) IN ND(25000) 5000 ND(8200)UJ 4600 ND(13000) 1900 ND(4200) 1100 ND(200) ND(9) ND(67) ND(9) ND(870) 590 ND(290) 460 ND(12000) 1800 ND(4100) 1100 ND(26000) 6600 ND(8600) 2600 ND(38000) 4100 ND(13000) 2500 ND(120000) ND(5400) ND(41000) ND(5400) 72200000 60.6 102000000 59.2 5400000 74.2 27900000 68.8 69500000 60.4 80200000 58.5 83900000 49.2 79200000 61.4(49.2) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids Notes: ND()- Not present at or above the associated value U- Not present at or above the associated value J- Estimated concentration UJ- Estimated reporting limit Measured levels exceed benchmark level CRA 031884 (51) µg/kg % Page 1 of 5 TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Depth: River Marker: BC-COR-10A S-031884-022408-DD-455 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-6) IN 33.4 BC-COR-10A S-031884-022408-DD-455 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-6) IN 33.4 BC-COR-10A S-031884-022408-DD-455 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-6) IN 33.4 BC-COR-10B S-031884-022408-DD-456 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 33.4 BC-COR-10B S-031884-022408-DD-456 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 33.4 µg/kg 0.042 0.0032 0.0036 0.049 0.0014 µg/kg % ug/kg µg/kg ----- 1300000 100 831000 648000 1200000 100 3000000 500000 U ----- 1000000 99.8 874000 500000 U Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - Method 9060 (modified) Total Solids TOC - Lloyd Kahn Method Black Carbon - Lloyd Kahn Method Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit UJ - Estimated reporting limit. BC-COR-XXA - coal sample. BC-COR-XXB - reduced coal sample. (A) - Greater than 300 micron material (coarse sand and gravel) (B) - Between 75 and 300 micron material (fine and medium sands) (C) - Less than 75 micron material (silts and clays) CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 5 TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Depth: River Marker: BC-COR-10B S-031884-022408-DD-456 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 33.4 BC-COR-13A S-031884-022408-DD-457 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 BC-COR-13A S-031884-022408-DD-457 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 BC-COR-13A S-031884-022408-DD-457 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 BC-COR-13B S-031884-022408-DD-458 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 µg/kg 0.0078 0.13 0.0046 0.013 0.074 µg/kg % ug/kg µg/kg 600000 B 100 502000 500000 U ----- 4900000 100 4070000 500000 U 2700000 99.8 1150000 1440000 ----- Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - Method 9060 (modified) Total Solids TOC - Lloyd Kahn Method Black Carbon - Lloyd Kahn Method Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit UJ - Estimated reporting limit. BC-COR-XXA - coal sample. BC-COR-XXB - reduced coal sample. (A) - Greater than 300 micron material (coarse sand and gravel) (B) - Between 75 and 300 micron material (fine and medium sands) (C) - Less than 75 micron material (silts and clays) CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 5 TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Depth: River Marker: BC-COR-13B S-031884-022408-DD-458 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 BC-COR-13B S-031884-022408-DD-458 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 34.3 BC-COR-37A S-031884-022408-DD-459 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-3) IN 41.8 BC-COR-37A S-031884-022408-DD-459 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-3) IN 41.8 BC-COR-37A S-031884-022408-DD-459 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-3) IN 41.8 µg/kg 0.0079 ND(0.0012)U ND(0.0026) ND(0.00044) ND(0.00045) µg/kg % ug/kg µg/kg 700000 B 100 1400000 1080000 900000 B 100 620,000 JA 500000 U ----- 5100000 100 7470000 500000 U 3000000 99.8 2390000 500000 U Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - Method 9060 (modified) Total Solids TOC - Lloyd Kahn Method Black Carbon - Lloyd Kahn Method Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit UJ - Estimated reporting limit. BC-COR-XXA - coal sample. BC-COR-XXB - reduced coal sample. (A) - Greater than 300 micron material (coarse sand and gravel) (B) - Between 75 and 300 micron material (fine and medium sands) (C) - Less than 75 micron material (silts and clays) CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 5 TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Depth: River Marker: BC-COR-37B S-031884-022408-DD-460 (A) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 41.8 BC-COR-37B S-031884-022408-DD-460 (B) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 41.8 BC-COR-37B S-031884-022408-DD-460 (C) 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 41.8 BC-SSD-26A S-031884-022408-DD-461 (A) 3/31/2008 (0-3) IN 39.7 BC-SSD-26A S-031884-022408-DD-461 (B) 3/31/2008 (0-3) IN 39.7 µg/kg 0.0044 0.0011 ND(0.001)U ND(0.00091) ND(0.00029) µg/kg % ug/kg µg/kg 9920000 100 8870000 1130000 2000000 99.8 2080000 500000 U 1000000 99.8 1410000 J, JA 500000 U ----- 2200000 99.8 2780000 500000 U Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - Method 9060 (modified) Total Solids TOC - Lloyd Kahn Method Black Carbon - Lloyd Kahn Method Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit UJ - Estimated reporting limit. BC-COR-XXA - coal sample. BC-COR-XXB - reduced coal sample. (A) - Greater than 300 micron material (coarse sand and gravel) (B) - Between 75 and 300 micron material (fine and medium sands) (C) - Less than 75 micron material (silts and clays) CRA 031884 (51) Page 5 of 5 TABLE 4.11 BLACK CARBON SAMPLING ANALYTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample ID: Sample Date: Sample Depth: River Marker: BC-SSD-26A S-031884-022408-DD-461 (C) 3/31/2008 (0-3) IN 39.7 BC-SSD-26B S-031884-022408-DD-462 (A) 3/31/2008 (0-2) IN 39.7 BC-SSD-26B S-031884-022408-DD-462 (B) 3/31/2008 (0-2) IN 39.7 BC-SSD-26B S-031884-022408-DD-462 (C) 3/31/2008 (0-2) IN 39.7 µg/kg ND(0.000069) ND(0.000089) ND(0.0001)UJ ND(0.000067) µg/kg % ug/kg µg/kg 1000000 99.9 1030000 500000 U 49000000 q 99.6 66300000 87200000 39300000 q 99.8 61000000 73300000 22000000 99.9 47600000 73300000 Units Dioxins and Furans 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) General Chemistry Total Organic Carbon (TOC) - Method 9060 (modified) Total Solids TOC - Lloyd Kahn Method Black Carbon - Lloyd Kahn Method Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. U - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit UJ - Estimated reporting limit. BC-COR-XXA - coal sample. BC-COR-XXB - reduced coal sample. (A) - Greater than 300 micron material (coarse sand and gravel) (B) - Between 75 and 300 micron material (fine and medium sands) (C) - Less than 75 micron material (silts and clays) CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-222 12/12/2007 (0-0) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-223 12/12/2007 (2.5-2.5) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-224 12/12/2007 (5-5) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-225 12/12/2007 (7.5-7.5) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-234 12/12/2007 (30-30) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.32) ND(0.0322) ND(0.405) 0.0702 J +/-0.0341 ND(0.373) ND(0.034) ND(0.32) 0.0485 J +/-0.0204 ND(0.386) 0.0471 J +/-0.0279 % 53.6 68.7 66.2 63.26 70.6 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-244 12/12/2007 (60-60) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-250 12/12/2007 (90-90) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-256 12/12/2007 (120-120) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-262 12/12/2007 (150-150) cm NRC-02 SE-031884-121207-DD-268 12/12/2007 (180-180) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.401) 0.074 J +/-0.0283 ND(0.476) 0.121 J +/-0.0418 ND(0.535) 0.151 J +/-0.0468 ND(0.524) 0.103 J +/-0.0425 ND(0.496) 0.128 J +/-0.0401 % 57.9 66.3 53.6 74.9 71.2 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-375 2/20/2008 (0-2.5) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-376 2/20/2008 (2.5-5) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-377 2/20/2008 (5-7.5) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-378 2/20/2008 (7.5-10) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-385 2/20/2008 (25-27.5) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.721) ND(0.0606) 1.53 +/-0.569 0.136 J +/-0.0552 ND(0.663) ND(0.0591) ND(0.597) ND(0.0592) ND(0.818) ND(0.0725) % 5.3 8.5 11.6 15.8 18.5 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-391 2/20/2008 (40-42.5) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-396 2/20/2008 (55-60) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-399 2/20/2008 (70-75) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-402 2/20/2008 (85-90) cm NRC-04 SE-031884-022008-DD-405 2/20/2008 (100-105) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.449) ND(0.0454) ND(0.712) ND(0.0585) ND(0.646) ND(0.0619) ND(0.551) ND(0.0516) ND(0.622) ND(0.052) % 14.1 26.0 25.3 29.0 25.7 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 5 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-335 2/20/2008 (0-2.5) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-336 2/20/2008 (2.5-5) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-337 2/20/2008 (5-7.5) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-338 2/20/2008 (7.5-10) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-344 2/20/2008 (22.5-25) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.762) ND(0.0707) ND(0.439) 0.11 J +/-0.0405 ND(0.511) 0.0823 J +/-0.0436 ND(0.588) ND(0.0617) ND(0.549) ND(0.0513) % 9.2 15.1 12.0 13.4 18.1 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 6 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-354 2/20/2008 (47.5-50) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-359 2/20/2008 (70-75) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-364 2/20/2008 (95-100) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-369 2/20/2008 (120-125) cm NRC-05 SE-031884-022008-DD-374 2/20/2008 (145-150) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.694) ND(0.0623) ND(0.708) ND(0.063) ND(0.515) ND(0.0428) ND(0.515) ND(0.045) ND(0.572) ND(0.0507) % 14.5 33.9 28.6 24.5 38.9 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 7 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-090 12/5/2007 (0-0) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-091 12/5/2007 (2.5-2.5) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-092 12/5/2007 (5-5) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-093 12/5/2007 (7.5-7.5) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-098 12/5/2007 (20-20) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.489) ND(0.0565) ND(0.428) ND(0.059) ND(0.511) ND(0.0636) ND(0.402) ND(0.0521) ND(0.36) ND(0.0451) % 59.9 36.6 55.6 64.2 57.0 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 8 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-104 12/5/2007 (35-35) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-110 12/5/2007 (50-50) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-114 12/5/2007 (70-70) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-118 12/5/2007 (90-90) cm NRC-08 SE-031884-120507-DD-122 12/5/2007 (110-110) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.502) ND(0.0581) ND(0.456) ND(0.0516) ND(0.484) ND(0.0537) ND(0.66) ND(0.075) ND(0.546) ND(0.064) % 45.4 46.0 48.4 52.2 54.4 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 9 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-408 2/24/2008 (0-0) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-409 2/24/2008 (2.5-2.5) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-410 2/24/2008 (5-5) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-411 2/24/2008 (7.5-7.5) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-420 2/24/2008 (30-30) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-430 2/24/2008 (60-60) cm pci/g pci/g 1.77 +/-0.554 0.112 J +/-0.0601 ND(0.631) ND(0.0588) ND(0.493) 0.0787 J +/-0.0436 ND(0.51) 0.0835 J +/-0.0422 ND(0.387) ND(0.0375) ND(0.354) ND(0.0372) % 8.8 16.7 14.1 13.0 37.3 28.7 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 10 of 10 TABLE 4.12 NATURAL RECOVERY CORE SAMPLING RADIOLOGICAL RESULTS SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Location: Sample Identification: Sample Date: Sample Depth: NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-436 2/24/2008 (90-90) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-442 2/24/2008 (120-120) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-448 2/24/2008 (150-150) cm NRC-08 S-031884-022408-DD-454 2/24/2008 (180-180) cm pci/g pci/g ND(0.588) ND(0.0593) ND(0.763) ND(0.0682) ND(0.477) ND(0.0455) ND(0.507) ND(0.0474) % 26.9 26.3 40.1 36.1 Units Radiology Beryllium-7 Cesium-137 General Chemistry Total Solids Notes: ND ( ) - Not present at or above the associated value. J - Estimated concentration. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4.13 SUMMARY OF BSAF CALCULATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Fish Tissue Round 1 Fish Tissue Samling (2004) RM-68 RM-42 RM-33 Round 2 Fish Tissue Samling (2008) RM-68 RM-42 RM-33 Range TCDD (pg/g-wet) Geomean TCDD (pg/g-wet) Average Lipids (%) Lipid-Norm TCDD (pg/g-lipid) 0.3 - 2.1 0.7 4.0 17 0.9 - 6.7 2.4 2.1 116 3.4 - 7.5 4.7 2.4 196 ND (1.22) - 0.4 N/A 9.6 N/A 4.2 - 9.1 6.5 6.1 107 7.1 - 16.1 13.2 7.1 186 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Sediment Range TCDD (pg/g-dry) Geomean TCDD (pg/g-dry) Average TOC (%) ND (0.4) N/A 4.0 24 - 71 41 3.4 15 - 280 65 3.5 ND (0.4) N/A 4.0 24 - 71 41 3.4 15 - 280 65 3.5 N/A 872 1,754 N/A 872 1,754 N/A 0.13 0.11 N/A 0.12 0.11 Carbon-Norm TCDD (pg/g-TOC) BSAF Values: CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4.14 SUMMARY OF SEDFLUME ANALYSIS RESULTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Water Depth at Mean Bulk Density, Core Location 1 Core Location Study Area (m) Mean D50 (µm) ρb (g/cm 3 ) COR-07 COR-20 COR-30 COR-35 COR-36 COR-39 COR-40 COR-42 KRSD-01 KRSD-04 KRSD-05 KRSD-10 KRSD-14 KRSD-20 KRSD-24 KRSD-25 KRSD-28 KRSD-48 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 3 6.1 6.1 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.9 2.4 1.8 3.0 1.5 1.8 4.6 0.6 2.7 1.5 0.9 31.16 23.7 201.99 69.95 51.62 64.5 110.22 55.55 51.05 35.83 41.96 85.07 47.93 69.13 69.73 62.57 288.29 33.13 (silt) (silt) (sand) (sand) (silt) (sand) (sand) (silt) (silt) (silt) (silt) (sand) (silt) (sand) (sand) (sand) (sand) (silt) Mean Power Law Critical Shear Stress, τcr (Pa) Mean Linear Interpolation Critical Shear Stress, τcr (Pa) 1.05 1.08 0.16 0.67 0.40 0.78 0.34 0.54 0.25 1.10 1.25 0.31 1.14 0.39 0.36 0.67 0.19 0.64 1.11 1.10 0.25 0.64 0.51 0.80 0.54 0.63 0.25 1.08 1.32 0.36 1.15 0.34 0.46 0.53 0.24 0.67 1.68 1.45 1.77 1.65 1.51 1.57 1.65 1.54 1.48 1.68 1.51 1.56 1.66 1.55 1.60 1.55 1.71 1.54 Notes: 1 Water depth measured from the water surface and is not corrected to a vertical datum. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 4.15 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING PERMITS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Applicant Construction Projects Union Carbide Corp. FMC Corp. FMC Corp. Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Allied Chemical Corp. Union Carbide Corp. J.W. McDavid Union Boiler Company Midwest Corp. Dravo Basic Materials Co. Rhone Poulenc Ag Co. Permit No. KRD-054318 7/14/70 3/27/72 10/11/74 11/22/74 1/29/79 5/2/79 8/8/76 5/4/78 4/23/82 7/30/90 3/7/91 11/13/70 5/17/72 7/3/75 4/29/75 2/13/79 10/27/79 9/26/80 9/18/78 7/19/82 N/P 6/17/91 Reclamation Projects Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Voyager Coal Co. KRD-11.056 KRD-11.056 KRD-11.056 7/8/80 11/1/83 5/1/85 4/1/91 Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Voyager Coal Co. KRD-11.060 KRD-11.060 KRD-11.060 4/1/91 Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Voyager Coal Co. Voyager Coal Co. KRD-11.057 KRD-11.064 KRD-055741 KRD-055741 Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Kanawha Dredging & Minerals Co. Voyager Coal Co. KRD-10.089 KRD-11.032 KRD-11.040 KRD-11.041 KRD-11.048 KRD-11.050 KRD-10.130 KRD-10.139 KRD-10.170 Assign Date Begin Date Expire Date KRD-11.055 KRD-11.062 12/31/73 12/31/75 12/31/85 12/31/85 12/31/79 12/31/89 12/31/83 12/31/81 12/31/85 River Miles Begin End Dredge Volume (CY) Project 2,000 30 5,000 250 30 60 910 2,500 1,914 Lin. Ft. 150 Dock Construction Clear Water Intake Lines Clear Water Intake Lines Clear Water Intake Lines Clear Water Intake Lines Clear Water Intake Lines Marina Construction Loading Dock Bank Stabilization (Rip Rap) Structures/Deadman Clear Water Intake Lines 12/31/94 R R R R R R L R R R R 49.41 42.7 42.7 42.3 43.27 49.0 36.95 43.43 41.1 49.0 49.0 N/P 3/23/84 9/16/85 6/6/91 12/31/87 12/31/90 12/31/96 R R R R 36.97 36.97 36.97 36.97 38.81 38.81 38.81 38.81 8,000/day 8,000/day 8,000/day Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation 3/23/84 9/16/85 6/6/91 12/31/87 12/31/90 12/31/96 L L L 34.87 34.87 34.87 36.50 36.50 36.50 8,000/day 8,000/day 8,000/day Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation 4/6/79 11/1/83 3/19/87 11/3/92 N/P 3/23/84 6/19/87 2/18/93 D/P 12/31/87 12/31/92 12/31/98 12/31/04 L L L L L 40.45 40.45 40.45 40.45 40.45 41.70 41.70 41.70 41.70 41.70 2,000/day 2,000/day 5,000/day Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation No Record of Final Authorization 5/11/82 5/1/85 1/3/83 9/16/85 N/P L L L 43.15 43.15 43.15 43.80 44.10 45.25 8,000/day 8,000/day Coal and Sand Reclamation Coal and Sand Reclamation 12/31/85 12/31/90 Notes: N/P = No Permit on file at USACE Huntington, WV, although Project Number was assigned D/P = Draft Permit on file, unsigned by USACE or applicant; presumably was never finalized CRA 031884 (51) Bank 43.57 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.1 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample ID TISS-031884-101404-DK-023 TISS-031884-101404-DK-024 TISS-031884-101404-DK-025 TISS-031884-101504-DK-026 TISS-031884-101504-DK-027 TISS031884-121708-DFK-021 TISS031884-121708-DFK-022 TISS031884-121708-DFK-023 TISS031884-121708-DFK-024 TISS031884-121708-DFK-025 TISS-031884-101204-DK 001 TISS-031884-101304-DK-011 TISS-031884-101304-DK-012 TISS-031884-101504-DK-033 TISS-031884-101504-DK-034 TISS031884-121708-DFK-001 TISS031884-121708-DFK-002 TISS031884-121708-DFK-008 TISS031884-121708-DFK-009 TISS031884-121708-DFK-010 TISS-031884-101604-DK-041 TISS-031884-101604-DK-042 TISS-031884-101604-DK-043 TISS-031884-101804-DK-044 TISS-031884-101804-DK-045 TISS031884-121808-DFK-026 TISS031884-121808-DFK-027 TISS031884-121808-DFK-028 TISS031884-121808-DFK-029 TISS031884-121808-DFK-030 TISS-031884-101204-DK 002 TISS-031884-101304-DK-008 TISS-031884-101304-DK-009 TISS-031884-101304-DK-010 TISS-031884-101504-DK-035 TISS031884-121708-DFK-011 TISS031884-121708-DFK-012 TISS-031884-102104-DK-046 TISS-031884-102104-DK-047 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-050 TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 TISS031884-121708-DFK-013 TISS031884-121708-DFK-014 TISS031884-121708-DFK-015 TISS031884-121808-DFK-036 TISS031884-121808-DFK-037 Species Sample Date Location 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg) Lipids (%) bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish catfish and sauger catfish and sauger sauger sauger sauger 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 33 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 42 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 68 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 75-95 RM 75-95 RM 75-95 RM 95 RM 95 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 33-45 RM 75-95 RM 75-95 4.46 2.83 2.72 1.37 1.74 1.44 2.14 1.7 1.22 1.28 3.58 4.02 3.52 1.79 2.04 1.71 5.68 4.77 7.17 12.6 ND (0.221) 0.469 J ND (0.178) 0.365 J ND (0.077) ND (0.989) ND (1.13) ND (0.97) ND (1.13) ND (1.14) 19.5 3.34 1.33 6.07 4.02 8.58 2.09 0.635 J 0.251 J 0.300 J 0.736 J 0.462 J 36.20 2.53 0.975 J ND (1.15) ND (1.11) 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.76 0.45 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.26 0.30 0.28 0.39 0.42 0.53 0.48 0.40 0.54 0.67 0.49 0.78 0.38 0.30 0.26 0.65 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.12 0.81 3.05 1.20 2.26 2.51 0.77 1.08 0.94 2.13 4.85 2.91 2.24 2.20 1.18 1.07 1.31 0.49 0.39 Notes: J - Estimated concentration. ND - Not detected at or above the associated value. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.2 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY - SURFACE WATER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RM Sample ID Sample Date 2,3,7,8 TCDD (1) Results (fg/L) RM 31 SW-31884-DL-4/14/05-004B 4/14/2005 48.9 RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-003B 10/19/2004 46.3 RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-004B 4/15/2005 33.5 RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-004B 10/14/2004 15.6 RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-004B 10/13/2004 3.78 J RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-005B 4/16/2005 7.96 J/118.64 RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-004B 4/13/2005 8.53 J RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-001B 10/12/2004 ND (1.27) U RM 68 RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-004B SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-004B 4/12/2005 10/18/2004 6.35 J ND (0.753) U Notes: (1) Results represent concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to suspended sediments. fg/L - femtograms per liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value J - Estimated concentration U - Not present at or above the associated value. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.3 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: All Fish CAS Chemical Number Minimum (1,2) Minimum Maximum (1,2) Maximum Concentration Qualifier Concentration Qualifier Units Concentration Screening Potential Potential Detection Used for Toxicity ARAR/TBC Limits Screening Value Value (2) (3) 0.077 - 1.15 N/A Location Detection Range of of Maximum Frequency Concentration (2) COPC Rationale for ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant Source (Y/N) Deletion or Selection Dioxins 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD 0.251 J 36.2 ng/kg RM 33-45 (12/17/08) 37/47 Definitions: Notes: N/A C N/A N/A X AD C = Carcinogenic (1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration. (2) Based on data collected from sampling locations: RM 33, RM 33-45, RM 42, RM 68, RM 75-95, RM 95. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered (3) Maximum concentration is used for screening. However, quantitative rather than screening evaluations were conducted. N/A = Not Applicable (4) Rationale Codes CRA 031884 (51) N = Non-Carcinogenic Selection Reason : Analyte Detected (AD) Deletion Reason : Analyte Not Detected and therefore not present (ND) (4) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.4 OCCURRENCE, DISTRIBUTION, AND SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Surface Water CAS Chemical Number Minimum (1,2) Minimum Maximum (1,2) Maximum Concentration Concentration Qualifier Units Qualifier Concentration Screening Potential Potential Detection Used for Toxicity ARAR/TBC Limits Screening Value Value (2) (3) 0.753 - 1.27 N/A Location Detection Range of of Maximum Frequency Concentration (2) COPC Rationale for ARAR/TBC Flag Contaminant Source (Y/N) Deletion or Selection Dioxins 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD (5) 3.78 J 118.64 fg/L RM 42 (04/16/05) 8/10 Definitions: Notes: N/A C N/A N/A X AD C = Carcinogenic (1) Minimum/maximum detected concentration. N = Non-Carcinogenic (2) Based on data collected from sampling locations: RM 31, RM 33, RM 42, RM 46, RM 68. ARAR/TBC = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement/To Be Considered (3) Maximum concentration is used for screening. However, quantitative rather than screening evaluations were conducted. N/A = Not Applicable (4) Rationale Codes J = Associated value is estimated Selection Reason : Analyte Detected (AD) Deletion Reason : Analyte Not Detected and therefore not present (ND) (5) Results represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to suspended sediments. CRA 031884 (51) (4) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.5 SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAY SCENARIOS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Exposure Exposure Receptor Receptor Exposure Type of Rationale for Selection or Exclusion Medium Medium Point Population Age Route Analysis of Exposure Pathway Current/ Future: Fish Fish Ingestion Quant Potential exposure to fish caught in the Kanawha River. Current/ Future: Surface Water Quant Potential exposure to surface water while swimming Timeframe Note: Quant = Quantitative CRA 031884 (51) Direct Recreational Child Contact Anglers & Adult Surface Direct Recreational Adolescent Ingestion Water Contact Swimmers & Adult Dermal in the Kanawha River. Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.6 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - ALL FISH TISSUE SAMPLES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: All Fish Tissue Samples Chemical Units of Arithmetic Statistic Maximum Maximum EPC Mean Rationale Detected Qualifier Units Potential Concentration Concern Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale 7.25E+00 95% UCL-NP (1), (2) 3.41E+00 Average (1), (2) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD ng/kg 3.41E+00 (1) 3.62E+01 ng/kg Notes: Data set evaluated using U.S. EPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 U.S. EPA ProUCL: User Guide EPA/600/R-07/038 February 2009; Software http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htm For data sets with multiple detection limits, ProUCL recommends use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-L); 95% UCL of Gamma distributed data (95% UCL-G); Non-parametric method used to Determine 95% UCL (95% UCL-NP). (1) ProUCL calculated or recommended value. (2) Statistic included in Exposure Factors submitted for regulatory review. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.7 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN SURFACE WATER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Surface Water Chemical Units of Arithmetic Statistic Mean Rationale Potential Maximum Maximum EPC Detected Qualifier Units Concentration Concern Reasonable Maximum Exposure Central Tendency Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale 3.67E+01 95% UCL-NP (2), (3) 2.34E+01 Average (2), (3) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD (1) fg/L 2.34E+01 (2) 1.19E+02 fg/L Notes: Data set evaluated using U.S. EPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 U.S. EPA ProUCL: User Guide EPA/600/R-07/038 February 2009; Software http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htm For data sets with multiple detection limits, ProUCL recommends use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-L); 95% UCL of Gamma distributed data (95% UCL-G); Non-parametric method used to Determine 95% UCL (95% UCL-NP). (1) Results represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD adsorbed to suspended sediments. (2) ProUCL calculated or recommended value. (3) Statistic included in Exposure Factors submitted for regulatory review. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.8 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR FISH INGESTION - RECREATIONAL ANGLER SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: All Fish Tissue Samples Receptor Population: Recreational Anglers Receptor Age: Child & Adult Exposure Route Parameter Definition Parameter Units Code Cfish Ingestion Chemical Concentration in Fish RME RME Central Central Tendency Intake Equation/ Value Rationale/ Tendency Rationale/ Model Name Reference Value Reference mg/kg (1) (1) (1) (1) IR - adult Ingestion Rate of Freshwater Fish grams/day 25 U.S. EPA, 1997 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (3) 8.0 U.S. EPA, 1997 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (3) IR - child Ingestion Rate of Freshwater Fish grams/day 5.0 U.S. EPA, 1997 (4); U.S. EPA, 2004 1.9 U.S. EPA, 1997 (4); U.S. EPA, 2004 unitless 1.0 Default 0.5 Professional Judgment (5) kg/g 0.001 -- 0.001 -- days/yr 365 WV DEP, 1997 (6) 365 WV DEP, 1997 (6) U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (3) Ff Fraction of Ingested Fish from Impacted Waterbody CF Conversion Factor EF Exposure Frequency ED - adult Exposure Duration years 24 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (3) 9 ED - child Exposure Duration years 6 WV DEP, 1997 (6) 6 WV DEP, 1997 (6) BW - adult Body Weight kg 70 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (3) 70 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (3) BW - child AT-C Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) kg 15 WV DEP, 1997 (6) 15 WV DEP, 1997 (6) days 25,550 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) 25,550 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) AT-N (adult) Averaging Time (non-cancer) days 8,760 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) 3,285 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) AT-N (child) Averaging Time (non-cancer) days 2,190 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) 2,190 U.S. EPA, 1989 (7); WV DEP, 1997 (6) Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = Cfish x IR x Ff x PRF x CF x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Notes: (1) For concentrations, refer to Table 5.6. (2) The recommended fish ingestion rate for recreational freshwater anglers (Section 10.10.3). (3) Recommended parameter value listed in Table H-1. (4) Freshwater fish intake rate represents the total fish consumption rate from Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) Table 10-1 (U.S. EPA, 1997) multiplied by the ratio of freshwater fish to total fish intake from EFH Table 10-81, i.e., 0.3 as per U.S. EPA, 2004. (5) Professional Judgment; assume half of the default. (6) Recommended parameter value listed in Table D-2 of WV DEP (1997). (7) Recommended parameter value listed in Exhibit 6-17 of U.S. EPA (1989). Sources: U.S. EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A OERR. EPA/540-1-89-002. U.S. EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002F, August 1997. U.S. EPA, 2004: Example Exposure Scenarios. National Center for Environmental Assessment. April 2004. WV DEP, 1997: West Virginia Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Act Guidance Manual Version 2.1. 1997. WV DHHR, 2007: West Virginia Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Guide 2nd Edition. Revised: December 12, 2007. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.9 VALUES USED FOR DAILY INTAKE CALCULATIONS FOR SURFACE WATER - CURRENT RECREATIONAL SWIMMING SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Surface Water Exposure Medium: Surface Water Exposure Point: Ingestion and Dermal Receptor Population: Recreational Swimmer Receptor Age: Youth & Adult Exposure Route Parameter Code Ingestion CW IR ET EV EF ED - youth ED - adult BW - youth BW - adult AT-C AT-N (youth) AT-N (adult) Dermal CW SA - youth SA - adult CF ET EV EF ED - youth ED - adult BW - youth BW - adult AT-C AT-N (youth) Units RME Value RME Rationale/ Reference CT Value CT Rationale/ Reference Chemical Concentration in Surface Water Ingestion Rate Exposure Time/event Event Frequency Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Duration Body Weight Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/L L/hour hour/event event/day days/year years years kg kg days days days (1) 0.05 3 1 100 6 24 59 70 25,550 2,190 8,760 (1) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (3) WV DEP, 1997 (3) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 2009 (6) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 1997 (8) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) (1) 0.03 1 1 5 6 9 59 70 25,550 2,190 3,285 (1) U.S. EPA, 2004a U.S. EPA, 1997 (4); WV DEP, 1997 (3) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 1997 (8) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) CDI (mg/kg-day) = CW x IR x ET x EV x EF x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Chemical Concentration in Surface Water Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Skin Surface Area Available for Contact Conversion Factor Exposure Time/event Event Frequency Exposure Frequency Exposure Duration Exposure Duration Body Weight Body Weight Averaging Time (cancer) Averaging Time (non-cancer) mg/L cm2 cm2 L/cm3 hour/event event/day days/year years years kg kg days days (1) 18,000 18,000 0.001 3 1 100 6 24 59 70 25,550 2,190 (1) U.S. EPA, 2004b (10) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) -U.S. EPA, 1997 (4); WV DEP, 1997 (3) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 2009 (6) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 1997 (8) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) (1) 18,000 18,000 0.001 1 1 5 6 9 59 70 25,550 2,190 (1) U.S. EPA, 2004b (10) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) -U.S. EPA, 1997 (4); WV DEP, 1997 (3) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 1997 (5) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 2004b (7) U.S. EPA, 1997 (8) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) CDI (mg/kg-day) = DAevent x SA x EF x EV x ED x 1/BW x 1/AT Parameter Definition AT-N (adult) Averaging Time (non-cancer) FA PC Tevent B days 8,760 U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) 3,285 U.S. EPA, 1989 (2); WV DEP, 1997 (9) Fraction Absorbed Permeability Constant unitless cm/hour chemical-specific chemical-specific U.S. EPA, 2004b U.S. EPA, 2004b chemical-specific chemical-specific U.S. EPA, 2004b U.S. EPA, 2004b Lag Time per event hr/event chemical specific U.S. EPA, 2004b chemical specific U.S. EPA, 2004b dimensionless chemical specific U.S. EPA, 2004b chemical specific U.S. EPA, 2004b Constant Notes: (1) For concentration in surface water, refer to Table 5.7. (2) Recommended parameter value listed in Exhibit 6-17 of U.S. EPA (1989). (3) Recommended parameter value listed in Table H-1 of WV DEP (1997). (4) Recommended parameter value listed in Table 15-176 of U.S. EPA (1997). (5) Recommended parameter value listed in Table 15-18 of U.S. EPA (1997). (6) Frequency represents value recommended by U.S. EPA Region 3 (U.S. EPA, 2009) for potential swimming every day, all summer (100 days). (7) Recommended parameter value listed in Exhibit 3-2 of U.S. EPA (2004b). (8) Average of male and female bodyweights for 13-18 year olds from Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH) Table 7-3 (U.S. EPA, 1997). (9) Recommended parameter value listed in Table D-2 of WV DEP (1997). (10) Surface area assumed to be equivalent to that of an adult. Sources: U.S. EPA, 1989: Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A OERR. EPA/540-1-89-002. U.S. EPA, 1997: Exposure Factors Handbook, EPA/600/P-95/002F, August 1997. U.S. EPA, 2004a: Example Exposure Scenarios. National Center for Environmental Assessment. April 2004. U.S. EPA, 2004b: RAGs Volume 1, Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E: Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004. WV DEP, 1997: West Virginia Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Act Guidance Manual Version 2.1. 1997. U.S. EPA, 2009. Comments on Proposed Exposure Factors. Email from Mr. Randy Sturgeon (U.S. EPA Region 3) to Randall Cooper (Monsanto, Inc.) dated May 29, 2009. CRA 031884 (51) Intake Equation/ Model Name DAevent (mg/cm2-event) - Inorganics= PC x CW x CF x ET DAevent (mg/cm2-event) - Organics= ET <= t* = 2 x FA x PC x CW x CF x SQRT(6 x Tevent x ET / PI) ET > t* = FA x PC x CW x CF x (ET/(1+B)+2 x Tevent x ((1+3B+3B 2)/(1+B)2) t* =2.4 x Tevent Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.10 NON-CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Chemical of Potential Concern Chronic/ Subchronic Oral RfD Value Oral RfD Units Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor Adjusted (1) Primary Combined Sources of RfD: Dermal Target Uncertainty/Modifying Target Organ (2) Organ Factors developmental effects 90 RfD (COPC) Units Dates of RfD: Target Organ (MM/DD/YY) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD chronic 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 100% 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d (3), (4) Notes: (1) U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part E Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004. (2) Adjusted Dermal RfD = Oral RfD x Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor (3) ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs), December 2008. (4) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Master Table, April 2009, (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm). CRA 031884 (51) (3), (4) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.11 CANCER TOXICITY DATA -- ORAL/DERMAL ROUTE OF EXPOSURE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Chemical of Potential Concern Oral Cancer Oral to Dermal Slope Factor Adjustment Factor (COPC) Adjusted Dermal Cancer Slope Factor Units Weight of Evidence/ (2) Source Cancer Guideline (1) Date (MM/DD/YY) Description Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.30E+05 100% 1.30E+05 Notes: (1) U.S. EPA, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, (mg/kg-day) -1 B2 (3), (4) (3), (4) U.S. EPA Weight of Evidence Classification: A - Known Human carcinogen Part E Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment, EPA/540/R/99/005, July 2004. B1 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates that limited human data are available U.S. EPA, Technical Guidance Manual Risk Assessment, Assessing Dermal Exposure from Soil, B2 - Probable human carcinogen - indicates sufficient evidence in animals EPA/903-k-95-003, December 1995. and inadequate or no evidence in humans (2) Adjusted Dermal CSF = Oral CSF / Oral to Dermal Adjustment Factor C - Possible human carcinogen (3) CalEPA, 2008. Cal EPA Toxicity Criteria Database, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen December 17, 2008. (4) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) Master Table, April 2009, (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/index.htm). CRA 031884 (51) E - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.12 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Angler Receptor Age: Child & Adult Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Receptor Chemical of Potential Concern EPC Value Cancer Risk Calculations Units Intake/Exposure Concentration Value Fish All Fish Kanawha River Units (1) CSF/Unit Risk Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration (2) RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 2.4E+00 Ingestion Child 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7.25E+00 ng/kg 2.07E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 2.7E-05 2.42E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Ingestion Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 7.25E+00 ng/kg 8.88E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 1.2E-04 2.59E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Exp. Route Total 1.4E-04 Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Notes: (1) Total cancer risk estimate reflects the sum of child and adult estimates. (2) Total hazard index estimate reflects the maximum of child and adult estimates. CRA 031884 (51) Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Cancer Risk 2.6E+00 2.6E+00 1.4E-04 2.6E+00 1.4E-04 2.6E+00 1.4E-04 2.6E+00 1.4E-04 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 2.6E+00 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.13 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER CENTRAL TENDENCY SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Angler Receptor Age: Child & Adult Medium Fish Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route All Fish Kanawha River Receptor Chemical of Potential Concern EPC Value Cancer Risk Calculations Units Intake/Exposure Concentration (1) CSF/Unit Risk Value Units Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration (2) RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 2.2E-01 Ingestion Child 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.41E+00 ng/kg 1.85E-11 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 2.4E-06 2.16E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Ingestion Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.41E+00 ng/kg 2.50E-11 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 3.3E-06 1.95E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Exp. Route Total Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Notes: (1) Total cancer risk estimate reflects the sum of child and adult estimates (2) Total hazard index estimate reflects the maximum of child and adult estimates CRA 318884 (51) Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Cancer Risk 1.9E-01 5.7E-06 2.2E-01 5.7E-06 2.2E-01 5.7E-06 2.2E-01 5.7E-06 2.2E-01 5.7E-06 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 2.2E-01 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.14 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Swimmer Receptor Age: Youth & Adult Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Receptor Chemical of Potential Concern EPC Value Cancer Risk Calculations Units Intake/Exposure Concentration Value Surface Water Surface Water Kanawha River Units (1) CSF/Unit Risk Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration (2) RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 2.6E-05 Ingestion Youth 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.67E+01 fg/L 2.19E-15 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 2.8E-10 2.55E-14 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Ingestion Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.67E+01 fg/L 7.38E-15 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 9.6E-10 2.15E-14 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Exp. Route Total 1.2E-09 Youth 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.67E+01 fg/L 2.63E-12 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 3.4E-07 3.07E-11 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Dermal Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 3.67E+01 fg/L 8.87E-12 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 1.2E-06 2.59E-11 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.5E-06 Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Notes: (1) Total cancer risk estimate reflects the sum of youth and adult estimates. (2) Total hazard index estimate reflects the maximum of youth and adult estimates. 2.2E-05 2.6E-05 Dermal Exp. Route Total CRA 031884 (51) Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Cancer Risk 3.1E-02 2.6E-02 3.1E-02 1.5E-06 3.1E-02 1.5E-06 3.1E-02 1.5E-06 3.1E-02 1.5E-06 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 3.1E-02 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.15 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISKS AND NON-CANCER HAZARDS FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL SWIMMER CENTRAL TENDENCY SCENARIO EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Swimmer Receptor Age: Youth & Adult Medium Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Receptor Chemical of Potential Concern EPC Value Cancer Risk Calculations Units Intake/Exposure Concentration Value Surface Water Surface Water Kanawha River Units (1) CSF/Unit Risk Value Units Intake/Exposure Concentration (2) RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 1.6E-07 Ingestion Youth 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.34E+01 fg/L 1.40E-17 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 1.8E-12 1.63E-16 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Ingestion Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.34E+01 fg/L 1.76E-17 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 2.3E-12 1.37E-16 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Exp. Route Total 4.1E-12 Youth 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.34E+01 fg/L 4.84E-14 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 6.3E-09 5.65E-13 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Dermal Adult 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.34E+01 fg/L 6.12E-14 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 8.0E-09 4.76E-13 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d Exposure Point Total Exposure Medium Total Medium Total Total of Receptor Risks Across All Media Notes: (1) Total cancer risk estimate reflects the sum of youth and adult estimates. (2) Total hazard index estimate reflects the maximum of youth and adult estimates. 1.4E-07 1.6E-07 Dermal Exp. Route Total CRA 031884 (51) Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations Cancer Risk 5.7E-04 4.8E-04 1.4E-08 5.7E-04 1.4E-08 5.7E-04 1.4E-08 5.7E-04 1.4E-08 5.7E-04 1.4E-08 Total of Receptor Hazards Across All Media 5.7E-04 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.16 FISH SPECIES FOUND IN THE KANAWHA RIVER WHILE SAMPLING EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Common Name Scientific Name American eel Black crappie Bluegill Brown bullhead Chain pickerel Channel catfish Common Carp Flathead catfish Freshwater drum Gizzard shad Golden shiner Green sunfish Largemouth bass Longnose gar Muskellunge Northern pike Pumpkinseed Quillback River redhorse Sauger Shiner Shorthead redhorse Smallmouth bass Smallmouth buffalo Spotted bass Walleye White bass White sucker Anguilla rostrata Pomoxis nigromaculatus Lepomis macrochirus Ictalurus nebulosus Esox niger Ictalurus punctatus Cyprinus carpio Pylodictis olivaris Aplodinotus grunniens Dorosoma cepedianum Notemigonus crysoleucas Lepomis cyanellus Micropterus salmoides Lepisosteus osseus Esox masquinongy Esox lucius Lepomis gibbosus Carpiodes cyprinus Moxostoma carinatum Stizostedion canadense Notropis sp. Moxostoma macrolepidotum Micropterus dolomieu Ictiobus bubalus Micropterus punctulatus Stizostedion vitreum Morone chrysops Catostomus commersoni CRA 031884 (51) RM 33 RM 42 RM 33-45 RM 68 RM 75-95 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.17 BODY BURDEN EFFECT ENDPOINTS BASED ON 2,3,7,8-TCDD CONCENTRATION IN FISH EGGS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Species lake trout brook trout rainbow trout lake herring channel catfish fathead minnow medaka zebrafish northern pike white sucker NOEC pg/g ww LOEC pg/g ww LCegg 50 pg/g ww 35 135 188.3 175 55 185 279 270 92.6 200 447.7 902 385 235 455 424 1190 848 486.4 (1) 435 949 2000 1800 1220 644 539 1110 2610 2460 1890 Notes: (1) CRA 031884 (51) This number is an LC20, used because the LC 50 was lower than the LOEC. Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.18 BODY WEIGHTS AND INGESTION RATES FOR SLERA MEASUREMENT RECEPTORS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA q Measurement Receptor Muskrat Canvasback Little Brown Bat Body Weight Rate g Rate Ecological guild Herbivore Herbivore (kg) (kg WW/kg BW–day) (L/kg BW–day) (kg DW/kg BW-day) 1.09 0.77 0.267 0.199 0.33 0.0982 0.0643 0.172 0.00064 0.00182 0 Source EPA 1999 EPA 1999 Baron et al. 1999 Insectivore 0.007 0.755 0.2 0 Baron et al. 1999 0.081 0.0024 0.0032 0.00193 0.0036 Tree Swallow Insectivore 0.02 Raccoon Mallard Mink Great Blue Heron Omnivore Omnivore Carnivore Carnivore 7 1.04 0.974 2.2 g (1) 0.1 0.179 0.216 0.18 0.0582 0.0993 0.0454 g Rate (1) Notes: WW = wet weight DW = dry weight BW = body weight (1) Food ingestion rate and Incidental ingestion rate for soil, from EPA 1993, both divided by 2 to account for terrestrial half of diet. CRA 031884 (51) EPA 1993b EPA 1999 EPA 1999 EPA 1993b Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.19 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Medium Surface water: Surface Water, Total (1) Fish/benthic macroinvertebrates: Gizzard shad, 2,3,7,8-TCDD not lipid norma Bass, 2,3,7,8-TCDD lipid normalized Crayfish (4) Sediment: Surface Sediment (3) Study Area Location Number of samples Frequency of detection Mean (pg/L) Max (pg/L) 95% UCL (pg/L) Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream adjacent to site downstream 4 2 4 100% 100% 100% 0.005 0.041 0.046 0.010 0.073 0.063 - Study Area 1 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 downstream (RM 33) 11 10 12 91% 100% 100% 0.64 5.01 8.58 2.10 9.05 16.10 1.46 6.69 12.09 Study Area 1 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 downstream (RM 33) 10 10 10 20% 100% 100% 1.66 9.18 5.12 4.71 16.15 8.58 2.55 11.78 6.18 Study Area 1 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 downstream (RM 33) - - 4.15 22.95 12.80 11.77 40.38 21.44 6.38 29.45 15.46 8 15 55 25% 73% 89% 0.77 265.35 18.96 2.90 3400 280 2.06 1257 41.96 Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream adjacent to site downstream Notes: ppt = parts per trillion. Concentrations are dissolved plus adsorbed 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. (2) 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for gizzard shad are used for great blue heron and mink risk calculations. (3) 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for bass are lipid normalized at 1% lipid. (4) Crayfish concentrations calculated by multiplying lipid normalized bass concentration by 2.5, the percent lipid of a crayfish. Concentration used in risk calculations for little brown bat, tree swallow, raccoon, and mallard. (1) CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.20 SCREENING OF SURFACE WATER FOR IMPACTS ON WATER COLUMN SPECIES (FISH) EE/CA REPORT KANAHWA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Medium Study Area Location NOEC (pg/L) LOEC (pg/L) Mean (pg/L) Max (pg/L) Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) downstream (RM 33) 11 11 11 38 38 38 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.014 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) downstream (RM 33) 11 11 11 38 38 38 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.063 0.049 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream adjacent to site downstream 11 11 11 38 38 38 0.005 0.041 0.046 0.010 0.073 0.063 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ESQ NOEC ESQ LOEC Surface Water: Surface Water, Dissolved Surface Water, Adsorbed Surface Water, Total (1) Notes: (1) Concentrations are dissolved plus adsorbed 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.21 SCREENING OF RISKS TO FISH USING THE BODY BURDEN METHOD EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Fish species (2,3,7,8-TCDD lipid normalized at 1% lipid) Study Area Location Number of samples Frequency of detection Mean (ng/kg) Max (ppt) 95% UCL (ng/kg) Test Gizzard shad Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) downstream (RM 33) 11 10 12 91% 100% 100% 0.15 1.32 1.99 0.66 3.12 2.89 0.32 1.81 2.27 95% approx gamma 95% students 95% students Bass Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 & 4 upstream (RM 68) adjacent to site (RM 42) downstream (RM 33) 10 10 10 20% 100% 100% 1.66 9.18 5.12 4.71 16.15 8.58 2.55 11.78 6.18 95% students 95% students 95% students Catfish and Sauger Study Area 1 Study Area 2,3,4 upstream (RM 75-95) adjacent/downstream to site (RM 33-45) 7 10 71% 100% 0.51 6.13 1.42 30.68 1.34 13.03 95% approx gamma 95% approx gamma CRA 031884 (51) NOEC (ng/kg) = 80 ng/kg at 1% lipid LOEC (ng/kg) = 178 ng/kg at 1% lipid Mean NOEC ESQ 95% UCL NOEC ESQ Mean LOEC ESQ 95% UCL LOEC ESQ 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.07 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.22 SCREENING OF RISK VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE FOR SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES FORAGING STUDY AREAS 3 AND 4 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Measurement Receptor Aquatic Food Ingestion Rate (kg WW/kg (1) BW–day) Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg BW–day) Sediment Ingestion Rate (kg DW/kg BW/day) Muskrat Canvasback Little Brown Bat 0.267 0.199 0.33 0.0982 0.0643 0.172 0.00064 0.00182 0 Tree Swallow Raccoon Mallard Mink Great Blue Heron 0.755 0.1 0.179 0.216 0.18 0.2 0.081 0.0582 0.0993 0.0454 0 0.0024 0.0032 0.00193 0.0036 LOAEL LOAEL ESQ mean LOAEL ESQ 95% UCL 1 10 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.01 10 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.1 11.7 1.7 1.5 2.7 1 10 1 10 3.9 4.23 0.97 1.33 0.12 0.49 5.11 1.17 1.65 0.15 0.69 10 100 10 100 16.6 0.42 0.10 0.13 0.01 0.11 0.51 0.12 0.17 0.02 0.16 2.3 10 0.16 0.23 100 0.02 0.02 Water (mean) Water (max) Sediment (mean) Sediment (95% UCL) Mean Dose 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 18.96 18.96 41.96 41.96 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 8.58 15.45 15.45 15.45 15.45 12.09 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 18.96 18.96 18.96 18.96 18.96 41.96 41.96 41.96 41.96 41.96 4.2 9.7 1.3 1.2 1.9 8.58 12.09 0.05 0.06 18.96 41.96 1.6 Ingestion rates for sediment and water are included in the risk calculation but not shown on the table; see Table 5.18. CRA 031884 (51) NOAEL ESQ 95% UCL Food (max) Notes: (1) NOAEL ESQ Mean Food (mean) 95% UCL NOAEL Dose Page 1 of 1 TABLE 5.23 SCREENING OF RISK VIA FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE FOR SEMI-AQUATIC VERTEBRATES FORAGING STUDY AREA 2 EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Measurement Receptor Aquatic Food Ingestion Rate (kg WW/kg BW–day) Muskrat Canvasback Little Brown Bat 0.267 0.199 0.33 Water Ingestion Rate (L/kg BW–day) 0.0982 0.0643 0.172 Tree Swallow Raccoon Mallard Mink Great Blue Heron 0.755 0.1 0.179 0.216 0.18 0.2 0.081 0.0582 0.0993 0.0454 (1) Sediment Ingestion Rate (kg DW/kg BW/day) 0.00064 0.00182 0 0 0.0024 0.0032 0.00193 0.0036 LOAEL LOAEL ESQ mean LOAEL ESQ 95% UCL 1 10 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.3 10 100 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 9.7 22.2 6.0 7.7 3.9 1 10 1 10 3.9 7.6 1.7 2.9 0.3 0.4 9.7 2.2 6.0 0.8 1.0 10 100 10 100 16.6 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 5.7 10 0.2 0.6 100 0.0 0.1 Water (mean) Water (max) Sediment (mean) Sediment (95% UCL) Mean Dose 0.30 0.30 1.41 1.41 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 265.35 265.35 1257 1257 0.3 0.5 1.2 2.6 22.95 22.95 22.95 22.95 5.01 29.45 29.45 29.45 29.45 6.69 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 265.35 265.35 265.35 265.35 265.35 1257 1257 1257 1257 1257 7.6 17.3 2.9 2.9 1.6 5.01 6.69 0.04 0.07 265.35 1257 1.9 Ingestion rates for sediment and water are included in the risk calculation but not shown on the table; see Table 5.18. CRA 031884 (51) NOAEL ESQ 95% UCL Food (max) Notes: (1) NOAEL ESQ Mean Food (mean) 95% UCL NOAEL Dose Page 1 of 5 TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Authority Citation ARAR Status TBC Comment Federal Clean Water Act [Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended], 33 U.S.C. §§ 12511387 40CFR 131.36 Relevant and Appropriate (see below) TBC for drinking water use The ambient water criteria for 2,3,7,8-TCDD: 0.013 pg/L for consumption of water and organisms and 0.014 pg/L for consumption of water only. State West Virginia Regulations Requirements Governing Water Standards WV 47 CSR 02 Relevant and Appropriate for Recreational Contact Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f -300j-26 40 CFR § 141.61 TBC - Not used for water supply The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD in finished drinking water supplied to consumers of public water supply is 0.00000003 mg/L. Federal Clean Water Act - TMDL for Dioxin Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek, West Virginia, September 14, 2000 TBC Identified endpoints of dioxin exposures in Kanawha River for Study Areas and sources of dioxin loading, including historical depositions in sediment. Modeled connections between sources and endpoints and performed waste load allocations. State West Virginia Division of Health and Human Resources Fish Consumption Advisory 2009 TBC Advisory against fish consumption on Lower Kanawha River downstream of I-64: Do Not Eat Flathead and Channel Catfish, Carp, Hybrid Striped Bass and Suckers due to dioxin, mercury and PCB content Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A Chemical Specific ARARs Water use designations for streams in state and protective water quality standards. Kanawha River designated for recreational contact; excludes drinking water use. Water Contact Recreational - 0.014 pg/L 2,3,7,8-TCDD (fish consumption) Chemical Specific TBCs Location Specific Federal Sets forth EPA policy and guidance for carrying out Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. Potentially Applicable if activity at River bank Potentially Applicable if activity at wetland area (Armour Creek?) CRA 031884 (51) Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management requires evaluation of potential effects of actions in a floodplain to avoid or limit adverse effects associated with direct and indirect development of a floodplain. Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands requires avoidance or limiting adverse impacts associated with the destruction or loss of wetlands. Page 2 of 5 TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Authority Citation ARAR Status TBC Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 50 CFR Part 17, Subpart I; 50 CFR Part 402 Applicable but not believed present Requirement to verify that action will not jeopardize the continued existence of any §§ 1531- 1544 endangered species or threatened species or loss of a critical habitat of such species, without appropriate exemptions. No federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species are known to exist in the Lower Kanawha River. Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. § 662 N/A Applicable to dredging or capping Changes to the channel or the stream or otherwise modified for any purpose, requires prior consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior and state wildlife resources agency to prevent loss of and damage to such resources. Federal National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq. 36 CFR Part 800 Applicable if present Evaluation required of impacts on properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Registry of Historic Places. Potential impacts require review and comment by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A Stage 1A cultural resource survey is expected to be necessary for any active remediation. Federal EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Policy on Floodplains and Wetland Assessments for CERCLA Actions, August 1985 Federal Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(b) 40 CFR Part 230 Applicable for dredging or capping Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. Prohibition or limitation of discharges of dredged or fill material requires demonstration of no practicable alternative. Includes criteria for evaluating whether a particular discharge site may be specified. Federal Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(c) 40 CFR Part 231, 33 CFR Parts 320, 323, and 325 Applicable for dredging or capping Regulation of disposal sites for discharges of dredged or fill materials (including return water from dredged material disposed of on the upland) into U.S. waters, which include wetlands. Includes special policies, practices, and procedures to be followed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. TBC if wetland and floodplain areas impacted Comment Describes situations that require preparation of a floodplains or wetlands assessment, and the factors that should be considered in preparing an assessment, for response actions taken pursuant to Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA. For remedial actions, a floodplain/wetlands assessment must be incorporated into the analysis conducted during the planning of the remedial action. Action Specific Dredging, Capping and Discharges CRA 031884 (51) Page 3 of 5 TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Federal Authority Citation ARAR Status Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 33 CFR Part 322 Applicable for capping TBC Comment U.S. Army Corps of Engineers limits actions to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of the channel of any navigable water of the United States. Construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under such waters, or any work which would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters Note: Federally authorized channel in Kanawha River is 9 feet maintained depth in channel 200 feet wide State Public Land Corporation (West Virginia Code Article 11 Chapter 7) State Water Pollution Control Act (West Virginia Code Article 22 Chapter 11-7(a)) WV CSR 5A Certification not Applicable, but may be Relevant and Appropriate to meet Substantive Requirements Provisions for State to Certify WQ on Federal Permitted Activities apply to Corps permits Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Title I, 15 U.S.C.§ 2605 40 CFR § 761 Potentially Applicable if PCBs >=50 ppm are cleaned up Cleanup and disposal options for PCB remediation waste, which includes PCB-contaminated sediments and dredged materials. 40 CFR § 761.61(c) provides an EPA Regional Administrator to approve a risk-based disposal method that will not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment; this provision applies to sediment remediation. Federal Clean Water Act Effluent Guidelines and Standards 40 CFR 401 Applicable to discharge of waters from on Site dewatering of dredged sediment Applicable for discharges of wastewaters to surface water bodies. Provides requirements for point source discharges of pollutants. State Water Pollution Control Act (WV Code Chapter 22 Article 11) WV 47 CSR 2 Relevant to the discharge of water from dewatering sediment on Site Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations for known point source discharges to surface water State Water Pollution Control Act (WV Code Chapter 22 Article 11) WV 47 CSR 10 Applicable to discharge of waters from on Site dewatering of dredged sediment Regulation of discharges containing pollutants from known point sources, including stormwater from construction sites Federal Clean Water Act NPDES Stormwater Discharge Requirements 40 CFR 122 Applicable to discharge of stormwaters from Site sediment dewatering, disposal and water treatment Applicable for point source discharges of stormwater to surface waters. Regulates the discharge of stormwater from industrial activities and those associated with construction activities that are in a land disturbance of equal to or greater than one acre of land. TBC? All applicants must receive a permit from the Public Lands Corporation of the Division of Natural Resources to work in a stream. Cleanup PCBs Federal Water Discharges CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 5 TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Authority Citation ARAR Status TBC Comment Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Treatment, Storage and Disposal of Hazardous Waste 40 CFR 260-268 Applicable if RCRA Haz Waste disposed off Site; Relevant and Appropriate if HW disposed on Site Specifies requirements for the identification and listing of hazardous wastes, the determination of hazardous wastes, the transportation, documentation and operation of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Applicable for on-site hazardous waste treatment and storage and disposal activities State Solid Waste Management Act (WV Code Article 22 Chapter 15) WV 33 CSR 1 Applicable for disposal of dredged sediments in on Site CDF Provides regulations for the disposal and management of solid wastes Waste Management CRA 031884 (51) Page 5 of 5 TABLE 6.1 PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Authority Citation ARAR Status Hazardous Waste Management Act (WV Code Article 22 Chapter 18) WV 33 CSR 20 Applicable for disposal of dredged sediments in on Site CDF if Haz Waste Provides regulations on the identification, management, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes Federal Clean Air Act 40 CFR 50 Applicable to on Site construction and operation of sediment dewatering, treatment and disposal facilities National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter, etc. State Air Pollution Control (WV Code Chapter 22 Article 5) WV 45 CSR 17 Applicable to on Site construction of sediment dewatering, treatment and disposal facilities State regulations to prevent and control particulate air pollution from materials handling, preparation, storage and sources of fugitive particulate matter, preparation and storage, disposal areas, roads, haulways and parking lots, vehicles and construction and demolition activities. Federal USEPA Contaminated Sediment Strategy (EPA-823-R-98-001, April 1998) TBC Establishes an Agency-wide strategy for contaminated sediments. Federal USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWER 9355.0-85 Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites EPA-540-R05-012 December 2005 TBC Provides integrated strategy and describes process for remediation of contaminated sediments Federal USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OSWER Directive 9285.6-08 Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites. February 12, 2002 TBC Outlines and describes 11 principles EPA should use for managing risks associated with contaminated sediments. State TBC Comment Air Emissions Sediment Remediation CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 6.2 SUMMARY OF SWAC CALCULATIONS FOR ROLLING 3-MILE REACHES EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Section (by River Mile) From To RM 45.0 RM 44.5 RM 44.0 RM 43.5 RM 43.0 RM 42.5 RM 42.0 RM 41.5 RM 41.0 RM 40.5 RM 40.0 RM 39.5 RM 39.0 RM 38.5 RM 38.0 RM 37.5 RM 37.0 RM 36.5 RM 36.0 RM 35.5 RM 35.0 RM 34.5 RM 34.0 RM 33.5 - RM 42.0 RM 41.5 RM 41.0 RM 40.5 RM 40.0 RM 39.5 RM 39.0 RM 38.5 RM 38.0 RM 37.5 RM 37.0 RM 36.5 RM 36.0 RM 35.5 RM 35.0 RM 34.5 RM 34.0 RM 33.5 RM 33.0 RM 32.5 RM 32.0 RM 31.5 RM 31.0 RM 30.5 Armour Creek Backwater Area Pocatalico River Backwater Area CRA 031884 (51) Surface Weighted Average Concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ug/kg) 0.0013 0.0116 0.0188 0.0198 0.0207 0.0215 0.0219 0.0121 0.0074 0.0084 0.0090 0.0106 0.0109 0.0119 0.0102 0.0089 0.0105 0.0109 0.0114 0.0127 0.0144 0.0162 0.0142 0.0126 0.0119 0.0009 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 7.1 SCREENING OF REMOVAL ACTION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA No Action Institutional Controls Monitored Natural Recovery (MNR) In Situ Treatment Capping Dredging CRA 031884 (51) Effectiveness Short Term Long Term Very Low - Exposure Very Low - Exposure would continue would continue unabated unabated Low to Moderate - May reduce potential Low to Moderate increased exposure due Difficult to ensure ICs to coal recovery are maintianed dredging Low - Slow rate of recovery Implementability Technical Administrative High High Moderate - Dependant Low to Moderate on thorough evaluation Dependant on the stability of the sediment and understanding of recovery process and bed and control of rates contaminant sources Low to Moderate -The Moderate to High - The MNR process is incorporation of Moderate - Dependant accelerated by the enhancements would on thorough evaluation introduction of organic result in a reduction in and understanding of carbon to provide an the recovery timeframe recovery process and immediate reduction in and improve the rates contaminant effectiveness of the bioavailability within remedy the bioactive zone Moderate to High - Cap Moderate to High High - Immediate stability susceptible to Technology established, covering of erosion from propwash infrastructure available, contaminated sediment and storm events. can be improved with resulting in SWAC Ongoing inspection and armoring reduction maintenance is required Low to Moderate Provides mass removal, however, release of resuspended sediment will cause increase in fish tissue concentrations in short term High Low to Moderate Requires ICs to be placed by entities not directly involved in project (e.g. USACE) Moderate - Requires implementation of Institutional Controls and equipment for monitoring alternative effectiveness Cost Low Low Low to Moderate Requires baseline and ongoing monitoring of fish, water, and sediment Low to Moderate - Costs relative to Alternative 2, Moderate - Relative to however, the time for Alternative 2, but also ongoing monitoring may requires specialized be reduced, but there equipment/operators will be additional costs for the enhancement product/method Moderate - Capping requires U.S. ACE and WV DEP approval Moderate - Requires High - Dredging, specialized Moderate to High dewatering and disposal equipment/operators Success limited due to is proven and equipment and coordination with residuals is readily available USACE for approvals Moderate to High Capital costs vary primarily on cost of cap and armoring materials. Operation, monitoring and maintenance required to verify cap integrity must be included Very High -Due to dredging costs and capital costs for land acquisition, siting investigation, design, construction, operation during filling, and closure of Near-Shore CDF Page 1 of 1 TABLE 8.1 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SUMMARY EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Alternative No Action/ 1 Institutional Controls Effectiveness Implementability Cost • Easily implemented • Capital Cost: $0 • O&M Cost: $0 • Gradual reduction in sediment, surface water, an fish tissue concentrations over time (15+ years) • Most reliant on effective source control and ICs • Does not improve stability of existing sediment in areas of elevated surficial sediment 2,3,7,8Institutional TCDD concentrations Controls/ • Effectiveness of remedy determined over time based on comparisons of monitoring data to 2 Monitored Natural anticipated recovery trends • Risk of future active remedial activities (dredging, capping, enhanced MNR) if recovery criteria Recovery not met • ICs need to be re-evaluated if additional sources are identified or existing sources are no longer present • Significant efforts in evaluation, source control and monitoring to support remedy • Ability to establish institutional control against coal recovery dredging unknown • Capital Cost: $686,000 • O&M Cost: $1,006,000 (Present Worth) - Costs to monitor sediment, surface water, and fish tissue - Potential for significant future costs if recovery timeframe not met Institutional Controls/ Enhanced 3 Monitored Natural Recovery/ In-Situ Treatment • Same as Alternative 2 except enhancement may accelerate recovery trends • Relies on source control Enhancement (carbon addition) methods include proprietary and nonproprietary alternatives • Does not improve stability of existing sediment in areas of elevated surficial sediment 2,3,7,8TCDD concentrations • Agency approval and public acceptance likely more easily obtained (compared to Alternative 2) due to active treatment component. • Significant efforts in evaluation, source control and monitoring to support remedy • Ability to establish institutional control against coal recovery dredging unknown • Capital Cost: $2,029,000 • O&M Cost: $1,006,000 (Present Worth) - Costs to monitor sediment, surface water, and fish tissue Institutional Controls/ Enhanced 4 Monitored Natural Recovery/ Capping of Selected Areas • Relies on source control • Immediate reduction in surface-weighted average concentration (SWAC) in capped areas • Proven effectiveness in capped areas • Armoring of capped areas must be designed in accordance with shear stress model • Provides immediate risk reduction and accelerates recovery, however recovery of fish tissue will lag 5-10 years behind dredging. • Habitat considerations need to be evaluated based on selected capping material • No issues with agency or public acceptance anticipated • Requires coordination with RCRA Closure of former Flexsys Facility (bank stabilization) • Requires coordination with USACE and adjacent landowners to approve cap design (capping limited to non-navigational areas) • Capping can be implemented quickly (vs. dredging & off-Site removal) • Capital Cost: $7,109,000 • O&M Cost: $1,049,000 (Present Worth) - Costs to monitor cap integrity - Costs to monitor sediment, surface water, and fish tissue Institutional Controls/ Monitored Natural Recovery/ 5a Dredging of Selected Areas/ Near-Shore Confined Disposal Facility • Relies on source control and mass removal • Capping of dredged areas likely required to address increased concentrations in dredged areas due to dredge residuals • Results in short-term risk increase but accelerates long-term recovery (if SWAC reduced after dredging or area capped), however recovery of fish tissue will lag 5-10 years behind dredging. • The extent of risk reduction likely to be disproportionately small as compared to cost • Requires increased coordination with Solutia to coordinate consolidation of dredge spoils on former Flexsys Facility • Risk with dispersion/volatilization of contaminated material during dredging which could be transported downstream of Site • No issues with agency or public acceptance anticipated. • Requires significant coordination with RCRA Closure of former Flexsys Facility (construction of CDF) • Requires coordination with USACE and adjacent landowners to approve cap design (capping limited to non-navigational areas) if capping of residuals is required • Sediment dewatering and water treatment components poses more technical challenges than any other remedy components • Possible schedules delays due to weather if dredging is not feasible • Possible impacts to the community (noise, residential/commercial disruption) • Capital Cost: $24,582,000 - High cost due to dredging - Higher costs for sediment treatment and dewatering • O&M Cost: $1,438,000 (Present Worth) - Costs to monitor sediment, surface water, and fish tissue - Costs for CDF maintenance and monitoring • See Alternative 5A • Difficulty in locating disposal facility to accept waste may exist • Community impacts more significant than 5A due to off-site transportation of large volume of contaminated soil • Capital Cost: $40,051,000 - Highest cost due to off-Site disposal fees • O&M Cost: $1,049,000 (Present Worth) - Costs to monitor sediment, surface water, and fish tissue • Not anticipated to be effective Institutional Controls/ Monitored Natural 5b Recovery/ • See Alternative 5A Dredging of Selected Areas/ Off-Site Disposal CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 8.2 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 2 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND MNR KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Detailed Design/Permitting and Approvals -- lump sum -- $ 150,000 2. Establishment of Institutional Controls -- lump sum -- $ 52,500 3. Baseline Sampling - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each $ $ 168,750 135,000 4. Data Validation and Reporting for Baseline Sampling -- lump sum $ 42,500 Subtotal - Capital Costs $ 548,750 Contingency (25%) $ 137,188 Total - Capital Costs $ 685,938 $ $ 168,750 135,000 Item Total Cost Capital Costs $ $ 3,750 27,000 -- Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs 5. Ongoing Sampling (1 sampling event every 5 years) - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each 6. Data Validation and Reporting -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 7. 5-Year Review -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 Subtotal - OMM Costs $ 373,250 Contingency (25%) $ 93,313 Total - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 466,563 Net Present Worth - OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 1,005,565 TOTAL - ALL ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 1,692,000 Notes: Baseline and ongoing sampling costs are based on the sampling procedures for fish tissue and surface water employed in the EOC Study. CRA 031884 (51 ) $ $ 3,750 27,000 Page 1 of 1 TABLE 8.3 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 3 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, IN SITU TREATMENT, AND MNR KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Pre-Design Investigations (limited sampling to refine cap areas) -- lump sum -- $ 120,000 2. Detailed Design/Permitting and Approvals -- lump sum -- $ 150,000 3. Establishment of Institutional Controls -- lump sum -- $ 52,500 4. Contractor Procurement -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 5. Mobilization -- lump sum -- $ 145,000 9.39 acre $ 497,670 7. Demobilization -- lump sum -- $ 70,000 8. Quality Assurance testing to confirm activated carbon application rate -- lump sum -- $ 75,000 9. Oversight During Construction -- lump sum -- $ 80,000 10. Final Construction Report -- lump sum -- $ 60,000 11. Baseline Sampling - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each $ $ 168,750 135,000 12. Data Validation and Reporting for Baseline Sampling -- lump sum $ 42,500 Subtotal - Capital Costs $ 1,623,420 Contingency (25%) $ 405,855 Total - Capital Costs $ 2,029,275 $ $ 168,750 135,000 Item Total Cost Capital Costs 6. Activated Carbon Addition (1) $ $ $ 53,000 3,750 27,000 -- Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs 13. Ongoing Sampling (1 sampling event every 5 years) - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each 14. Data Validation and Reporting -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 15. 5-Year Review -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 Subtotal - OMM Costs $ 373,250 Contingency (25%) $ 93,313 Total - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 466,563 Net Present Worth - OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 1,005,565 TOTAL - ALL ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 3,035,000 $ $ 3,750 27,000 Notes: (1) Quantities are based on areas to be treated as identified on Figure 7.3. The unit cost assumptions were based on median values from other similar projects, derived from confidential bidding or completed cost information compiled by Anchor QEA and CRA. Baseline and ongoing sampling costs are based on the sampling procedures for fish tissue and surface water employed in the EOC Study. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 8.4 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 4 INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, AND CAPPING OF SELECTED AREAS KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Pre-Design Investigations (limited sampling to refine cap areas) -- lump sum -- $ 120,000 2. Detailed Design/Permitting and Approvals -- lump sum -- $ 150,000 3. Establishment of Institutional Controls -- lump sum -- $ 52,500 4. Contractor Procurement -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 5. Mobilization -- lump sum -- $ 145,000 6. Sand Cap Placement (6-inch minimum thickness) (1) 9.39 acre $ 160,000 $ 1,502,400 7. Armor Stone Placement (12-inches of rip rap) (1) 9.39 acre $ 325,000 $ 3,051,750 8. Demobilization -- lump sum -- $ 70,000 9. Quality Assurance testing to confirm cap thickness -- lump sum -- 105,000 10. Oversight During Construction -- lump sum -- $ . $ 11. Final Construction Report -- lump sum -- $ 37,500 12. Baseline Sampling - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each $ $ 168,750 135,000 13. Data Validation and Reporting for Baseline Sampling -- lump sum $ 42,500 Subtotal - Capital Costs $ 5,687,400 Contingency (25%) $ 1,421,850 Total - Capital Costs $ 7,109,250 $ $ $ 168,750 135,000 16,000 Item Total Cost Capital Costs $ $ 3,750 27,000 -- 80,000 Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs 14. Ongoing Sampling (1 sampling event every 5 years) - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - Cap Inspection 45 5 1 each each each 15. Data Validation and Reporting -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 16. 5-Year Review -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 Subtotal - OMM Costs $ 389,250 Contingency (25%) $ 97,313 Total - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 486,563 Net Present Worth - OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 1,048,670 TOTAL - ALL ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 8,158,000 $ $ $ 3,750 27,000 16,000 Notes: (1) Quantities are based on capping the areas as identified on Figure 7.4. The unit cost assumptions were based on median values from other similar projects, derived from confidential bidding or completed cost information compiled by Anchor QEA and CRA. Baseline and ongoing sampling costs are based on the sampling procedures for fish tissue and surface water employed in the EOC Study. It has been assumed that all capped areas will require armoring to prevent erosion or physical damage to the cap. Actual extent of armoring will be determined during detailed design. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 2 TABLE 8.5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 5A INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Pre-Design Investigations (limited sampling to refine dredge areas) -- lump sum -- $ 120,000 2. Detailed Design/Permitting and Approvals -- lump sum -- $ 345,000 3. Establishment of Institutional Controls -- lump sum -- $ 70,000 4. Contractor Procurement -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 5. Mobilization -- lump sum -- $ 240,000 24,200 CY $ 5.25 $ 127,050 7. Composite Liner System Construction (double FML lined cell with leak detection and leachate collection systems) 2.75 acre $ 180,000.00 $ 495,000 8. Composite Cap Construction (composite FML/GCL liner system) 2.90 acre $ 138,000.00 $ 400,200 83,400 in place CY $ 70.00 $ 5,838,000 83,400 in place CY $ 90.00 $ 7,506,000 -- lump sum $ 400,000 6,570,000 gallons $ 0.12 $ 788,400 4.70 acre $ 485,000 $ 2,277,075 14. Demobilization -- lump sum -- $ 150,000 15. Quality Assurance Testing for CDF, Dredging and Capping -- lump sum -- $ 190,000 16. Oversight During Construction -- lump sum -- $ 255,000 17. Final Construction Report -- lump sum -- $ 75,000 18. Baseline Sampling - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each $ $ 168,750 135,000 19. Data Validation and Reporting for Baseline Sampling -- lump sum $ 42,500 Subtotal - Capital Costs $ 19,665,475 Contingency (25%) $ 4,916,369 Total - Capital Costs $ 24,581,844 Item Total Cost Capital Costs 6. Excavation and Stockpiling of Soil for Containment Cell Construction 9. Dredging (1) 10. Dewatering (Geotubes) (1) 11. Wastewater Treatment Facility 12. WWTF Operation 13. Capping of Dredge Residuals (assumed to be 50% of area dredged) CRA 031884 (51) -- $ $ 3,750.00 27,000.00 -- Page 2 of 2 TABLE 8.5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 5A INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND NEAR-SHORE CDF KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit 150,000 gallons 22. Monitoring, Inspection and Maintenance of CDF -- lump sum 23. Data Validation and Reporting - CDF -- lump sum Item Unit Price Total Cost Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs Annual Monitoring 21. Leachate Collection/Disposal from CDF (non-hazardous) $ 2,400 -- $ 10,000 -- $ 5,500 Subtotal - Annual OMM Costs $ 17,900 Contingency (25%) $ 4,475 Total - Annual OMM Costs $ 22,375 Net Present Worth - Annual OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 318,133 $ $ $ 168,750 135,000 16,000 Monitoring Every 5 Years 20. Ongoing Sampling (1 sampling event every 5 years) - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - Cap Inspection $ $ $ $ 0.016 45 5 1 each each each 3,750 27,000 16,000 21. Data Validation and Reporting - River Monitoring -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 22. 5-Year Review -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 Subtotal - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 389,250 Contingency (25%) $ 97,313 Total - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 486,563 Net Present Worth - 5-Year OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 1,048,670 TOTAL - OMM ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 1,438,000 TOTAL - ALL ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 26,020,000 Notes: (1) Quantities are based on dredging of material as identified on Figure 7.6 The unit cost assumptions were based on median values from other similar projects, derived from confidential bidding or completed cost information compiled by Anchor QEA and CRA. Baseline and ongoing sampling costs are based on the sampling procedures for fish tissue and surface water employed in the EOC Study. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE 8.6 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATIVE 5B INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS, MNR, DREDGING OF SELECTED AREAS, AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Estimated Quantity Unit Unit Price 1. Pre-Design Investigations (limited sampling to refine dredge areas) -- lump sum -- $ 120,000 2. Detailed Design/Permitting and Approvals -- lump sum -- $ 345,000 3. Establishment of Institutional Controls -- lump sum -- $ 70,000 4. Contractor Procurement -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 5. Mobilization -- lump sum -- $ 240,000 6. Dredging (1) 83,400 in place CY $ 70.00 $ 5,838,000 7. Dewatering (Geotubes) (1) 83,400 in place CY $ 90.00 $ 7,506,000 -- lump sum $ 400,000 6,570,000 gallons $ 0.12 $ 788,400 4.70 acre $ 485,000.00 $ 2,277,075 99,246 tons $ 135.00 $ 13,398,210 12. Demobilization -- lump sum -- $ 150,000 13. Quality Assurance Testing for Dredging and Capping -- lump sum -- $ 190,000 14. Oversight During Construction -- lump sum -- $ 255,000 15. Final Construction Report -- lump sum -- $ 75,000 16. Baseline Sampling - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis 45 5 each each $ $ 168,750 135,000 17. Data Validation and Reporting for Baseline Sampling -- lump sum $ 42,500 Subtotal - Capital Costs $ 32,041,435 Contingency (25%) $ 8,010,359 Total - Capital Costs $ 40,051,794 $ $ $ 168,750 135,000 16,000 Item Total Cost Capital Costs 8. Wastewater Treatment Facility 9. WWTF Operation 10. Capping of Dredge Residuals (assumed to be 50% of area dredged) 11. Loading, Transportation and Disposal of dewatered sediment to off-Site Landfill (1) -- $ $ 3,750.00 27,000.00 -- Operation, Maintenance, and Monitoring Costs 18. Ongoing Sampling (1 sampling event every 5 years) - Fish Tissue Sampling (5 composite fish tissue samples at 9 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - High-Volume Surface Water Sampling (5 stations) including 2,3,7,8-TCDD Analysis - Cap Inspection 45 5 1 each each each 19. Data Validation and Reporting -- lump sum -- $ 42,500 20. 5-Year Review -- lump sum -- $ 27,000 Subtotal - OMM Costs $ 389,250 Contingency (25%) $ 97,313 Total - OMM Costs (once every 5 years) $ 486,563 Net Present Worth - OMM Costs (30 years, 5.7% discount rate) $ 1,048,670 TOTAL - ALL ACTIVITIES (Rounded) $ 41,100,000 $ $ $ 3,750 27,000 16,000 Notes: (1) Quantities are based on dredging of material as identified on Figure 7.8 The unit cost assumptions were based on median values from other similar projects, derived from confidential bidding or completed cost information compiled by Anchor QEA and CRA. Baseline and ongoing sampling costs are based on the sampling procedures for fish tissue and surface water employed in the EOC Study. Disposal is assumed to be landfill disposal. The inclusion of thermal treatment, if required based on material characteristics, will substantially increase costs CRA 031884 (51) ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS (EE/CA) REPORT KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA APPENDICES – VOLUME 2 OF 2 FEBRUARY 27, 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) This report is printed on recycled paper. APPENDIX A CSTAG CORRESPONDENCE 031884 (51) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 Signed May 14, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: CSTAG Recommendations on the Kanawha River, WV Contaminated Sediment Site FROM: Stephen J. Ells /s/ Stephen J. Ells John C. Meyer, Co-chairs /s/ John C. Meyer Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) TO: Dennis Matlock, On-scene Coordinator Randy Sturgeon, Remedial Project Manager Region 3 Background OSWER Directive 9285.6-08, Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites (February 12, 2002), established the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) as a technical advisory group to “monitor the progress of and provide advice regarding a small number of large, complex, or controversial contaminated sediment Superfund sites.” The main purpose of the CSTAG is to help Regional site project managers of selected large, complex, or controversial sediment sites appropriately manage their sites throughout the Superfund process in accordance with the eleven risk management principles set forth in the OSWER Directive. CSTAG membership consists of one representative per Region, two from the Office of Research and Development, and two from the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Brief Description of the Site In March 2004, EPA, Monsanto and Pharmacia entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to study dioxincontaminated sediment in the Kanawha River. The EE/CA Order requires Monsanto to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, a form of dioxin) contamination in the Kanawha River Site as a result of contaminant releases from the now-defunct Flexsys America L.P. plant in Nitro, West Virginia. The purpose of the EE/CA is to evaluate response alternatives that would protect public health, welfare, and the environment and to provide sufficient information for EPA to determine the necessity, feasibility, and efficacy of particular non-time critical removal actions. The study area covers approximately 14 miles of the Kanawha River from the confluence of the Coal and Kanawha Rivers to the Winfield lock and dam. Although TCDD contamination extends beyond the Winfield dam, the CSTAG focused its review on the study area as this is also believed to be the area of greatest TCDD contamination in the river. EPA Region 3 believes that the Flexsys plant, which is located in this area, is the predominant source of TCDD to the river. The plant, previously owned by Monsanto, was used to produce the herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). 2,4,5-T was made from 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (also made by Monsanto). TCDD is formed as a by-product in the production of trichlorophenol and ends up in the 2,4,5-T. The Kanawha River, the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek (tributaries to the Kanawha River) were placed on the State of West Virginia's 303(d) list of water quality impaired bodies because of TCDD contamination, and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was completed in September 2000. The applicable standards included in the TMDL specify that the maximum allowable concentration of TCDD should not exceed 0.014 pg/L in the Kanawha River, and 0.013 pg/L in the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek. Based on fish tissue samples collected in October 1985, the State of West Virginia issued an advisory not to consume fish collected from the Kanawha River between the Coal and Ohio Rivers. The current advisory extends from the from the I-64 bridge at Dunbar (at or near the downstream end of the former Monsanto plant) to the Ohio River and includes the lower two miles of the Pocatalico River and of the Armour, Heizer and Manilla Creeks. The advisory is a “do not eat” advisory for carp, catfish, suckers, and hybrid striped bass. In addition, there is a one meal/month limit on all other species. EPA Region 3 believes that the most expedient way to begin addressing the sediment contamination is to conduct a non-time critical removal action. Sampling to date shows areas at and downstream of the former Monsanto plant that have elevated levels of TCDD and areas that appear to be relatively clean. EPA Region 3 believes that by addressing the hotspots, it can significantly reduce the average sediment dioxin concentration and thereby reduce the fish tissue levels of dioxin. The CSTAG visited the site and met with the site team on April 21 and 22, 2004. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection attended much of the meeting. Four of the invited stakeholders made presentations to the CSTAG. The four presenters included the Monsanto Company, the West Virginia Bureau of Public Health (WVBPH), the Heizer/Manilla Watershed Organization, and the West Virginia River Coalition. CSTAG Recommendations Based upon the site visit, the review of the site information provided to us, and the presentations made by the stakeholders, the CSTAG offers the following recommendations in order that the OSC can more fully address the 11 principles. The CSTAG expects that the OSC will consider these recommendations as the investigations continue, as the conceptual site model is refined, and as response alternatives are developed and evaluated. The CSTAG recognizes that the project has just begun and appreciates the opportunity to provide recommendations this early in the process. 2 Principle #1, Control Sources Early • • • • • • In order to better understand, track, and communicate about the numerous potential sources of dioxin contamination to the study area, develop a comprehensive map of the potential sources of contamination, including documentation of various historical aliases for each source area. Document existing dioxin inputs from surface water and sediment from tributaries (e.g., Pocatalico River, Heizer Creek, and the Manilla Creek). Make an additional effort to evaluate, at least qualitatively, the relative contribution of contaminant releases from each major upland/on-shore source to sediment and surface water in the study area. Develop a prioritization scheme in order to identify and classify the largest contaminant contributions and the most significant transport pathways (e.g., groundwater, bank erosion, overland flow, etc.). This information could be used to prioritize any upland source studies and control actions and to phase any in-river actions that may be warranted. In order to evaluate the extent to which in-place sediment contamination is a “source”, design the EE/CA study to be able to determine the relative contributions to the water column and fish contamination from on-going sources compared to in-place sediment. Although the TMDL study concluded that, within the study area, the in-place sediment was not a source of water column contamination because the total suspended solid (TSS) load remained constant, resuspension of sediments can still be occurring. Coordinate with the NPDES program to ensure that point sources to the Kanawha River (e.g., Fike pretreatment outfall, Dana/Kincaid outfall, Poca WWTP, stormwater discharges) contain dioxin limits in the NPDES permits where appropriate. Coordinate with the RCRA program on the Flexsys cleanup with respect to river inputs. Discuss whether any early actions to address inputs to the river are appropriate (e.g., sheetpiling along the river bank, hydraulic containment of groundwater). Principle #2, Involve the Community Early and Often C C C Develop a comprehensive community involvement program that encompasses all of the on-going EPA investigation and cleanup efforts in the valley. Discuss with the State whether a joint EPA/State community involvement program would be appropriate. Work with the community to determine whether there is interest in creating a valley-wide community advisory group. Consider using a variety of ways to communicate site information to the public (e.g., local public television station, internet, periodic stakeholder meetings). Principle #3, Coordinate with States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Natural Resource Trustees C C C Work with ATSDR/WVBPH to clarify their plans for and the objectives of any health consultations for the site. Work with the WVBPH to evaluate the most effective placement of fish consumption advisory signs to reach potential fish consumers. Evaluate whether posting additional signs upstream of the study area is warranted, especially at boat ramps where fishers may enter the river and then travel to the area covered by the advisory. Discuss with West Virginia’s fish consumption advisory committee the consumption rates used to develop the State’s fishing advisory. Consider undertaking a creel survey (fish consumption survey) to determine the effectiveness of the fish consumption 3 C C C advisory and to garner information about consumption rates, species, and cooking preparation methods. Coordinate with the agencies that issue dredging permits to ensure that environmental impacts caused by the resuspension of dioxin-contaminated sediments are fully evaluated before any proposed dredging. Request notification from such agencies for any activities proposed within the study area. Check with local universities to determine whether additional data exist to refine the conceptual site model (CSM) (e.g., dioxin data in various media, other COCs, documentation of adverse impacts to biota, information on resident species that might be useful for long-term monitoring). Coordinate with the Corps of Engineers to discuss whether sediment management activities for the Winfield dam contribute to dioxin transport beyond the study area. If so, discuss potential modifications in order to minimize any transport. Principle #4, Develop and Refine a Conceptual Site Model that Considers Sediment Stability C C C C C C Evaluate the stability of the surficial sediments in the River using, as proposed, the in situ inverted flume developed by Ravens and Gschwend (1999). However, since this device only measures the shear stress required to initiate surficial bed sediment movement, this device cannot be used to characterize the erosion potential of sediment (i.e., critical shear stress and resuspension rate) with depth. CSTAG recommends that the USACE’s Sedflume be used, in addition to the in situ inverted flume, for this purpose. Develop a screening level ecological risk assessment in order to evaluate the protectiveness, in regard to ecological receptors, of any potential response action and the associated cleanup goals. Evaluate grain size distribution in the surface sediments (i.e., top three inches) within the river to help guide location of the sediment stability studies and chemistry samples. Identify the screening criteria used to determine that other human health exposure pathways do not need to be quantified (e.g., dermal contact with surface water). Develop a pictorial CSM that shows such things as inputs and exports of dioxin from the study area, fate and transport mechanisms, and exposure pathways. Use this CSM to help refine the goals of this study and to identify data gaps to help guide the data collection activities. To predict the lateral variations in flow velocities and the associated bed shear stresses, consider using a two-dimensional, depth-averaged or a three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model rather than the one-dimensional HEC2 model. Even though the Kanawha River is most likely not vertically stratified, a 3D model would be able to simulate the secondary circulation that develops around bends, whereas a 1D or 2D model could not. Principle #5, Use an Iterative Approach in a Risk-Based Framework C C When developing cleanup alternatives for the study area, evaluate phasing of cleanup actions in order to minimize recontamination of downstream areas. Evaluate whether the study area will be recontaminated from source areas upstream of the study area. 4 Principle #6, Carefully Evaluate the Assumptions and Uncertainties Associated with Site Characterization Data and Site Models C C C C C C C C Adopt a consistent approach in presenting dioxin data (e.g., ppt TCDD, TEQ). Consider what approach (e.g., BSAF, mathematical food chain models) will be used to link surface water/sediment chemistry with fish tissue concentrations. Different approaches require different kinds of data which could affect the proposed activities in the work plan. In evaluating the water column sample collection activities, consider data needs for both exposure assessment and contaminant transport (e.g., nearshore and cross-sectional). Do not assume that dioxin concentrations are low in coarse grained areas. The coal fines in the shipping channel can absorb dioxin, (note that dioxin absorbed to coal may not be bioavailable, but could still contribute to water quality standard exceedances). The work plan should include several samples in channel areas to evaluate this possibility. Explain the rationale behind the proposed number of fish and sediment samples to establish baseline conditions or trends. Consider conducting a statistical analysis to determine the appropriate number of samples needed to establish temporal and spatial trends. Consider whether sufficient samples are planned to relate sediment concentrations to fish tissue concentrations for establishing action levels. Consider sampling fish species with small home ranges when establishing food chain models or developing BSAFs in order to reduce uncertainty as to the amount of dioxin uptake. Co-located sediment, fish tissue, and surface water quality samples within the estimated home range would also be helpful in establishing a link between sediment and fish tissue dioxin concentrations. Ensure that bathymetry and shoreline mapping are based on consistent fixed survey points. Since the proposed sampling program calls for widely spaced samples, consider better defining the localized variability in sediment dioxin concentrations by using several high density sampling areas. Principle #7, Select Site-specific, Project-specific, and Sediment-specific Risk Management Approaches that will Achieve Risk-based Goals C Establish a clear, risk-related objective(s) for the response action, e.g. to reduce risks from fish consumption in the study area and/or to reduce risks to downstream areas (including the Ohio River) by reducing the TCDD loading to those areas from the study area. Principle #8, Ensure that Sediment Cleanup Levels are Clearly Tied to Risk Management Goals • Prior to selecting a response action, clearly understand the relationship between the range of sediment clean-up goals and the human health and/or ecological assessment endpoints that are driving the need for a response. Any decision document (e.g., action memorandum) should clearly explain the relationship between the final sediment cleanup levels and residual contaminant concentrations and the risk-based goals (e.g., reduced fish tissue concentrations). 5 Principle #9, Maximize the Effectiveness of Institutional Controls and Recognize their Limitations • Consider working with WVBPH to provide greater public outreach to improve awareness of and compliance with fish consumption advisories (e.g., public education programs, brochures, postings in bait/tackle shops, fishing license proprietors) Principle #10, Design Remedies to Minimize Short-term Risks while Achieving Long-term Protection The CSTAG will evaluate consistency with this principle later in the process. Principle #11, Monitor During and After Sediment Remediation to Assess and Document Remedy Effectiveness The CSTAG will evaluate consistency with this principle later in the process. Regional Response Please send us a short written response to these recommendations within 60 days. If you have any questions or would like a clarification to any of these recommendations please call one of us (Steve Ells at 703.603.8822 or John Meyer at 214.665.6742). cc: Abraham Ferdas, Region 3 Fran Burns, Region 3 Michael Cook, OSRTI Elizabeth Southerland, OSRTI David Lopez, OSRTI JoAnn Griffith, OSRTI 6 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Wheeling Field Office Wheeling, West Virginia 26003 October 8, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Region III Response to CSTAG Recommendations on the Kanawha River, WV Contaminated Sediment Site FROM: Dennis Matlock, On-Scene Coordinator EPA Region 3 TO: Stephen J. Ells (EPA Headquarters) and John C. Meyer (EPA Region 6) Co-Chairs, Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) Background We appreciate the opportunity to work with the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) on the Kanawha River Site and for the comments and recommendations CSTAG provided to assist the project team in incorporating EPA’s eleven management principles for contaminated sediment sites. We look forward to further discussion with the CSTAG as our project progresses. Our responses to CSTAG’s recommendations are provided below. Brief Description of the Site In March 2004, EPA, Monsanto and Pharmacia entered into an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct an Environmental Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) to study dioxincontaminated sediment in the Kanawha River. The EE/CA Order requires Monsanto to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, a form of dioxin) contamination in the Kanawha River Site as a result of contaminant releases from the now-defunct Flexsys America L.P. plant in Nitro, West Virginia. The purpose of the EE/CA is to evaluate response alternatives that would protect public health, welfare, and the environment and to provide sufficient information for EPA to determine the necessity, feasibility, and efficacy of particular non-time critical removal actions. The study area covers approximately 14 miles of the Kanawha River from the confluence of the Coal and Kanawha Rivers to the Winfield lock and dam. Although TCDD contamination extends beyond the Winfield dam, the CSTAG focused its review on the study area as this is also believed to be the area of greatest TCDD contamination in the river. EPA Region III believes that the Flexsys/Solutia plant, which is located in this area, is the predominant source of TCDD to the river. The plant, previously owned by Monsanto, was used to produce the herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). 2,4,5-T was made from 2,4,5-trichlorophenol (also produced by Monsanto). TCDD is formed as a by-product in the production of trichlorophenol and ends up in the 2,4,5-T. Response to CSTAG Recommendations The CSTAG provided the following recommendations to help the OSC more fully address the eleven principles. The recommendations were based upon a site visit, the review of the site information provided to CSTAG by the project team and the presentations made by several stakeholders. Below are the Region’s responses to the recommendations. In addition, the OSC will continue to consider, as appropriate, these recommendations as the investigation continues, as the conceptual site model is refined and as response alternatives are developed and evaluated. Principle #1, Control Sources Early Recommendation: In order to better understand, track, and communicate about the numerous potential sources of dioxin contamination to the study area, develop a comprehensive map of the potential sources of contamination, including documentation of various historical aliases for each source area. Response: We agree that tracking and communication of information related to potential sources between the various State and Federal source control programs will be a key element in the development of an overall cleanup strategy for the Kanawha River. As part of the draft EE/CA work Plan, Monsanto has prepared an initial draft map summarizing potential sources of dioxin contamination within the regional watershed, as identified from prior investigations. This map will continue to be updated as new information is obtained by EPA, the WVDEP and Monsanto, and will be included in the EE/CA Report and included in the GIS-based mapping for the Site. Recommendation: Document existing dioxin inputs from surface water and sediment from tributaries (e.g., Pocatalico River, Heizer Creek, and the Manilla Creek). Response: Previous sampling completed by EPA, WVDEP, and the Ohio River Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), and flow modeling completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) partially characterized dioxin inputs from regional tributaries, including the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek. The initial Conceptual Site Model (CSM) developed in the draft EE/CA Work Plan presented a loading analysis updated with recent data, including an analysis of available sediment sampling data. EPA has approved EE/CA surface water sampling activities in the Kanawha River at locations upstream and downstream of the project study area and at two locations within the study area (at the former Monsanto facility and near Guarno Creek which is downstream of Armour and Pocatalico Creek). This information, plus future sediment stability tests and river modeling will help provide an overall mass balance of the dioxin transport in the study area. The need to conduct specific sampling in, for example, the Pocatalico and/or Armour Creek areas will be evaluated in light of the results of the currently approved sampling event. Recommendation: Make an additional effort to evaluate, at least qualitatively, the relative contribution of contaminant releases from each major upland/on-shore source to sediment and surface water in the study area. Develop a prioritization scheme in order to identify and classify the largest contaminant contributions and the most significant transport pathways (e.g., groundwater, bank erosion, overland flow, etc.). This information could be used to prioritize any upland source studies and control actions and to phase any in-river early actions that may be warranted. Response: All information that EPA, WVDEP and Monsanto has obtained or will obtain regarding potential sources will be utilized to evaluate dioxin contributions to the river. The CSM will be updated after each major data collection activity to incorporate the new data. At 2 that time, data from other sources can also be incorporated. As part of each update, the predominate sources of dioxin will be highlighted such that EPA can evaluate opportunities for early source control. The initial CSM developed in the draft EE/CA Work Plan theorized that two greatest sources of dioxin in the water column were ground water discharge from the former Monsanto facility and sediment resuspension due to coal dredging (which has ceased). Recommendation: In order to evaluate the extent to which in-place sediment contamination is a “source”, design the EE/CA study to be able to determine the relative contributions to the water column and fish contamination from on-going sources compared to in-place sediment. Although the TMDL study concluded that, within the study area, the in-place sediment was not a source of water column contamination because the total suspended solid (TSS) load remained constant, resuspension of sediments can still be occurring. Response: Data from co-located surface water, sediment, and fish tissue data will be used to evaluate the relative contributions to fish contamination. In addition, the EE/CA Work Plan includes plans for a detailed evaluation of potential sediment-related releases of dioxin to the water column, including characterization of resuspension processes using a range of sediment transport analysis methods (e.g., hydrodynamic analysis, sediment stability testing, radioisotope analysis, and sediment trap deployment). This study, plus the rest of the dioxin mass balance evaluation will help EPA determine the surface water loading from on-going sources versus inplace sediment. Recommendation: Coordinate with the NPDES program to ensure that point sources to the Kanawha River (e.g., Fike pretreatment outfall, Dana/Kincaid outfall, Poca WWTP, stormwater discharges) contain dioxin limits in the NPDES permits where appropriate. Response: We agree that coordinating with the State and Federal NPDES’ programs is important to minimize any on-going dioxin inputs to the river. The project team will contact these programs to discuss such items as dioxin permit limits (if they exist), the necessity of dioxin permit limits, detection of any testing, loading calculations, etc. Any historical data obtained will be used to help refine the CSM. Recommendation: Coordinate with the RCRA program on the Flexsys cleanup with respect to river inputs. Discuss whether any early actions to address inputs to the river are appropriate (e.g., sheetpiling along the river bank, hydraulic containment of groundwater). Response: The project team has had a number of discussions over the past several years with the RCRA program and agrees that coordination of the EE/CA and any subsequent cleanup activities with the activities at the Flexsys America L.P. site under the RCRA Corrective Action program is important. Principle #2, Involve the Community Early and Often Recommendation: Develop a comprehensive community involvement program that encompasses all of the on-going EPA investigation and cleanup efforts in the valley. Discuss with the State whether a joint EPA/State community involvement program would be appropriate. Response: The project team has begun developing a Community Relations Plan for the project. The team will discuss the plan with the State and discuss whether or not a joint program would be appropriate. The team will also discuss with the RCRA program whether or not the communication activities of the EE/CA and the Corrective Action project at the former Monsanto facility should be combined. Recommendation: Work with the community to determine whether there is interest in creating a valley-wide community advisory group. Response: The Region will discuss this issue with the community. 3 Recommendation: Consider using a variety of ways to communicate site information to the public (e.g., local public television station, internet, periodic stakeholder meetings). Response: The Region is in the process of developing a Community Involvement Program and will consider various methods of communication. Principle #3, Coordinate with States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Natural Resource Trustees Recommendation: Work with ATSDR/WVBPH to clarify their plans for and the objectives of any health consultations for the site. Response: EPA will continue to work with ATSDR and WV Bureau of Public Health. ATSDR/WVBPH plan to conduct several reviews during 2005. One involves the review of sediment and surface water data (scheduled for late spring/early summer) and the other involves reviewing recreation use of the river (scheduled for middle to late summer). Recommendation: Work with the WVBPH to evaluate the most effective placement of fish consumption advisory signs to reach potential fish consumers. Evaluate whether posting additional signs upstream of the study area is warranted, especially at boat ramps where fishers may enter the river and then travel to the area covered by the advisory. Response: The Region has already installed numerous signs along the Kanawha River. EPA will continue to coordinate with WVBPH regarding additional sign placements. Recommendation: Discuss with West Virginia’s fish consumption advisory committee the consumption rates used to develop the State’s fishing advisory. Consider undertaking a creel survey (fish consumption survey) to determine the effectiveness of the fish consumption advisory and to garner information about consumption rates, species, and cooking preparation methods. Response: Since the main goal of the EE/CA is to evaluate cleanup options to reduce fish tissue concentrations, the Region does not believe that a creel study is appropriate at this time. The Region may reconsider this issue if it becomes apparent that such a study would benefit the project. Recommendation: Coordinate with the agencies that issue dredging permits to ensure that environmental impacts caused by the resuspension of dioxin-contaminated sediments are fully evaluated before any proposed dredging. Request notification from such agencies for any activities proposed within the study area. Response: We agree that close coordination between the various State and Federal regulatory agencies is needed to ensure that any future dredging projects in the area appropriately minimize environmental impacts of such actions. The project team will begin this coordination by obtaining a point of contact in both the State and the USACE in regard to dredging activities in this area. Recommendation: Check with local universities to determine whether additional data exist to refine the conceptual site model (CSM) (e.g., dioxin data in various media, other COCs, documentation of adverse impacts to biota, information on resident species that might be useful for long-term monitoring). Response: Significant efforts have been made to obtain as much data as possible for the Site. Monsanto will contact local universities, such as the University of Charleston, to determine the status of any historical and/or on-going research or studies. Recommendation: Coordinate with the Corps of Engineers to discuss whether sediment management activities for the Winfield dam contribute to dioxin transport beyond the study area. If so, discuss potential modifications in order to minimize any transport. 4 Response: In developing the draft EE/CA Work Plan, Monsanto performed an initial review of USACE’s past sediment management actions, including localized dredging in the Winfield Dam area. If, as the CSM is further refined, it becomes apparent that changes in the USACE’s sediment management strategy would help reduce dioxin transport beyond the Winfield Dam, the project team will discuss appropriate options with the USACE. The need for future modifications to the USACE’s sediment management actions should be further assessed as part of the EE/CA. Principle #4, Develop and Refine a Conceptual Site Model that Considers Sediment Stability Recommendation: Evaluate the stability of the surficial sediments in the river using, as proposed, the in situ inverted flume developed by Ravens and Gschwend (1999). However, since this device only measures the shear stress required to initiate surficial bed sediment movement, this device cannot be used to characterize the erosion potential of sediment (i.e., critical shear stress and resuspension rate) with depth. CSTAG recommends that the USACE’s Sedflume be used, in addition to the in situ inverted flume, for this purpose. Response: The Region agrees that the Ravens flume will only measure shear stress required to initiate surficial bed sediment movement. The need for SEDFLUME tests will be evaluated once the Ravens flume data is interpreted in concert with bottom shear stresses computed from modeling efforts (i.e., if the model shows stresses that will initiate surficial bed sediment movement, SEDFLUME testing will be conducted). Recommendation: Develop a screening level ecological risk assessment in order to evaluate the protectiveness, in regard to ecological receptors, of any potential response action and the associated cleanup goals. Response: A screening level ecological risk assessment will be conducted using both historical data and data collected as part of the EE/CA. Recommendation: Evaluate grain size distribution in the surface sediments (i.e., top three inches) within the river to help guide location of the sediment stability studies and chemistry samples. Response: The EE/CA Work Plan includes an initial (Phase I) bathymetric and geophysical survey task that will map sediment bed properties, including surface features and general surface grain size distributions. As part of this activity, sediment samples (0-4 inches) will be collected for grain size analysis to support interpretation of the data. This data will allow grain size distributions of surficial sediments to be determined and mapped. The results of this Phase I evaluation will assist in the scope of Phase II sediment stability studies and chemical characterization tasks. Recommendation: Identify the screening criteria used to determine if other human health exposure pathways need to be quantified (e.g., dermal contact with surface water). Response: Based on our knowledge of the site and the bioaccumulative characteristics of dioxin, the Region believes that fish consumption is by far the greatest risk driver at this site. As a result, the EE/CA is focused on this pathway. If additional data points to other significant pathways that would not be concurrently addressed along with the fish consumption pathway, the Region will evaluate whether or not changes in the scope of the study at the site are necessary. Recommendation: Develop a pictorial CSM that shows such things as inputs and exports of dioxin from the study area, fate and transport mechanisms, and exposure pathways. Use this CSM to help refine the goals of this study and to identify data gaps to help guide the data collection activities. 5 Response: As part of the next revision to the CSM that will incorporate the data collected this fall, a pictorial section will be added to help summarize inputs and outputs of dioxin from the study area, as well as key fate and transport mechanisms and exposure pathways. Inputs will include both point and non-point sources identified during implementation of the study. Recommendation: To predict the lateral variations in flow velocities and the associated bed shear stresses, consider using a two-dimensional, depth-averaged or a three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic model rather than the one-dimensional HEC2 model. Even though the Kanawha River is most likely not vertically stratified, a 3D model would be able to simulate the secondary circulation that develops around bends, whereas a 1D or 2D model could not. Response: The Region and Monsanto have had several preliminary discussions regarding the type of modeling effort required for the EE/CA. The Region understands that the onedimensional model likely is not sophisticated enough to answer the questions necessary for the project and will take this into account once the detailed plans for the model are being developed and reviewed. Principle #5, Use an Iterative Approach in a Risk-Based Framework Recommendation: When developing cleanup alternatives for the study area, evaluate phasing of cleanup actions in order to minimize re-contamination of downstream areas. Response: The Region will evaluate phasing of cleanup actions in order to minimize re- contamination of downstream areas. Recommendation: Evaluate whether the study area will be re-contaminated from source areas upstream of the study area. Response: As part the evaluation of cleanup criteria and cleanup options, the potential for re- contamination from sources upstream of the study area will be evaluated. Principle #6, Carefully Evaluate the Assumptions and Uncertainties Associated with Site Characterization Data and Site Models Recommendation: Adopt a consistent approach in presenting dioxin data (e.g., ppt TCDD, TEQ). Response: Efforts will be made to report dioxin data in consistent units to allow for easier comparison of data. Also, the identity of the data will be clearly presented (e.g., just 2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin [2,3,7,8,-TCDD] or a Toxicity Equivalence [TEQ] value). Recommendation: Consider what approach (e.g., BSAF, mathematical food chain models) will be used to link surface water/sediment chemistry with fish tissue concentrations. Different approaches require different kinds of data which could affect the proposed activities in the work plan. Response: The BSAF approach is being used to link sediment chemistry with fish tissue concentrations. Recommendation: In evaluating the water column sample collection activities, consider data needs for both exposure assessment and contaminant transport (e.g., near shore and cross- sectional). Response: Surface water sampling will be completed utilizing a flow weighted compositing approach to provide data at each sample location representative of the water quality throughout the river cross-section. Further interpretation of water column concentrations at specific locations will be evaluated with the aid of modeling tools. 6 Recommendation: Do not assume that dioxin concentrations are low in coarse grained areas. The coal fines in the shipping channel can absorb dioxin, (note that dioxin absorbed to coal may not be bioavailable, but could still contribute to water quality standard exceedances). The work plan should include several samples in channel areas to evaluate this possibility. Response: The Region agrees the that coal fines can absorb dioxin. Several sediment surface samples will be collected in relatively coarse-grained areas that may also have coal fines to further characterize dioxin concentrations in the river. Recommendation: Explain the rationale behind the proposed number of fish and sediment samples to establish baseline conditions or trends. Consider conducting a statistical analysis to determine the appropriate number of samples needed to establish temporal and spatial trends. Consider whether sufficient samples are planned to relate sediment concentrations to fish tissue concentrations for establishing action levels. Response: The fish sampling program has been substantially revised compared to the first draft of the EE/CA work plan that was discussed with the CSTAG. A statistical approach to determining the number of fish to be collected (both number of composites and the number of fish per composite) has been used. Additionally, the home range of each species has been factored into the placement of the sampling locations. As part of this fall’s sampling event, sediment samples are being collected to help evaluate the local variability of the dioxin levels. Recommendation: Consider sampling fish species with small home ranges when establishing food chain models or developing BSAFs in order to reduce uncertainty as to the amount of dioxin uptake. Co-located sediment, fish tissue, and surface water quality samples within the estimated home range would also be helpful in establishing a link between sediment and fish tissue dioxin concentrations. Response: In addition to the collection of catfish and bass, fish with small home ranges (such as juvenile white and redhorse suckers and pumpkinseed) are being collected. In addition to reducing uncertainty, these species will respond faster to changes in levels of dioxin in the sediment and surface water allowing trends to be identified at an earlier date. Co-located sediment, fish tissue, and surface water quality samples are being collected. Recommendation: Ensure that bathymetry and shoreline mapping are based on consistent fixed survey points. Response: The Region will ensure that bathymetry and shoreline mapping are based on consistent fixed survey points. Recommendation: Since the proposed sampling program calls for widely spaced samples, consider better defining the localized variability in sediment dioxin concentrations by using several high density sampling areas. Response: As part of this fall’s sampling event, composite sediment samples are being collected at locations where fish are being collected. The Region is sampling some of the individual sediment samples to help evaluate localized variability in sediment dioxin concentrations. Principle #7, Select Site-specific, Project-specific, and Sediment-specific Risk Management Approaches that will Achieve Risk-based Goals Recommendation: Establish a clear, risk-related objective(s) for the response action, e.g. to reduce risks from fish consumption in the study area and/or to reduce risks to downstream areas (including the Ohio River) by reducing the TCDD loading to those areas from the study area. Response: The main goal of the EE/CA is to evaluate cleanup options that will reduce the fish tissue levels of dioxin, however other goals, such as reducing TCDD loading from the study area to downstream areas of the Kanawha River and the Ohio River may be evaluated as well. 7 Principle #8, Ensure that Sediment Cleanup Levels are Clearly Tied to Risk Management Goals Recommendation: Prior to selecting a response action, clearly understand the relationship between the range of sediment clean-up goals and the human health and/or ecological assessment endpoints that are driving the need for a response. Any decision document (e.g., action memorandum) should clearly explain the relationship between the final sediment cleanup levels and residual contaminant concentrations and the risk-based goals (e.g., reduced fish tissue concentrations). Response: Data collection activities in the EE/CA are being designed to provide understanding of the relationship between sediment and fish tissue dioxin levels. Any decision document will clearly explain the relationship between the final sediment cleanup levels and residual contaminant concentrations and the risk-based goals (e.g., reduced fish tissue concentrations). Principle #9, Maximize the Effectiveness of Institutional Controls and Recognize their Limitations Recommendation: Consider working with WVBPH to provide greater public outreach to improve awareness of and compliance with fish consumption advisories (e.g., public education programs, brochures, postings in bait/tackle shops, fishing license proprietors) Response: The Region will work with WVBPH and the WVDEP in determining ways to improve public outreach Principle #10, Design Remedies to Minimize Short-term Risks while Achieving Long-term Protection Recommendation: The CSTAG will evaluate consistency with this principle later in the process. Response: N/A Principle #11, Monitor During and After Sediment Remediation to Assess and Document Remedy Effectiveness Recommendation: The CSTAG will evaluate consistency with this principle later in the process. Response: N/A If you have any questions or would like a clarification to any of these recommendations please call one of us (Dennis Matlock at 304.234.0284 or Randy Sturgeon at 215.814.3227). cc: Fran Burns, Region 3 Randy Sturgeon Carrie Dietzel Bruce Pluta Marc Greenberg Kathy Patnode 8 Abe Ferdas Tom Bass APPENDIX B SEDIMENT BATHYMETRY AND GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT – GOLDER ASSOCIATES, INC. & KANAWHA RIVER VELOCITY PROFILING AND DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT REPORT – BLUE COAST SCIENTIFIC, INC. 031884 (51) Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rood, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax ( 425) 882-5498 www.golder.com December 29, 2004 Our ref: 043-1307 Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. 6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 110 Portland, Oregon 97224 Attention: Mr. Todd Thornburg RE: RESULTS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Dear Mr. Thornburg: This report presents the result of the hydrographic and geophysical survey conducted by Golder Associates Inc. on the Kanawha River, West Virginia from October 21" to October 25'", 2004. The enclosed document briefly summarizes the instrumentation and field operations, discusses the methods and procedures for data analysis and presents the interpreted results. In addition the results of the bathymetric, sid°escan sonar and subbottom profiler interpretations are presented on a series of maps included in a separate bound volume. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding this report. We appreciated the opportunity to work with Anchor Environmental on this challenging project. Sincerely GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. ,· I \) fl ,. ~ \ A-ylw~ Richard E. Sylwester Associate/Senior Geophysicist David Aldrich Senior Scientist RES/DNtp l22904rcsl doc OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 www.golder.com REPORT ON RESULTS OF THE KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY Submitted to: Anchor Environmental, L.L. C. 665 0 SW Redwood Lane, Suite I I 0 Portland, OR 97224 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. I 8300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Distribution: 4 2 Copies Copies Copy Conestaga-Rovers & Associates Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. Golder Associates Inc. December 29, 2004 !22904rest doc OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA 043-1307 December 29, 2004 -ES-1- 043-1307 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A comprehensive hydrographic and geophysical survey, using a precision echosounder, subbottom profiler and sidescan sonar, was conducted on the Kanawha River between Winfield Dam and the Coal River (RM 31 to RM 46.6). The objective of the investigation was to obtain data to characterize the riverbed including the river bathymetry, the lateral distribution of bedrock, and the aerial extent The following summarizes the results of this and thickness of unconsolidated sediment. investigation. • The width of the river channel ranges from approximately 800 to 1200 feet and the water depth of the main channel is approximately 30 feet. • The steep river banks consist of exposed bedrock on the right bank (east) and bedrock and sediment on the left bank (west). Bedrock is also often exposed on the river floor or mantled with a thin sediment cover (less than I foot) • The unconsolidated sediment is interpreted to consist of fine to medium-grained material. The sediment deposits, which are variable along the river, have a maximum thickness of 6 feet in several areas along the lower slope of the left bank, and 3 to 4 feet thick in discontinuous deposits along the riverbed. • There are localized zones on the riverbed that could not be penetrated by the acoustic signal. The seismic response of this material is characteristic of sediment containing organic material and/or biogenic gas from the degradation of organic material. The actual nature of these acoustical opaque materials would need to be confirmed by sediment coring or sampling. • Several pipelines that cross the river and one possible sunken vessel, or very large piece of debris, were detected on the river bed. J22904resl doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 + 043-1307 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 2.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................... ] FIELD OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.0 Navigation and Bathymetry ......................................................................................... .4 Sidescan Sonar Data Analysis ..................................................................................... .4 Subbottom Profiler Data Analysis ............................................................................... .4 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 4.2 5.0 Survey Area .................................................................................................................. 2 Navigation ..................................................................................................................... 2 Bathymetry .................................................................................................................... 2 Sidescan Sonar .............................................................................................................. 2 Subbottom Profiler (SBP) ............................................................................................. 3 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................................... .4 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.0 ES-I Bathymetry .................................................................................................................... 6 Sidescan Sonar and Subbottom Profiler Results ........................................................... 6 4.2.1 Bedrock ............................................................................................................ 6 4.2.2 Unconsolidated Sediments ............................................................................... 6 4.2.3 Cultural Artifact and/or Debris ........................................................................ 7 LIMITATION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ............................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Site Location Map Sidescan Sonar, Echosounder and Subbottom Profiling Methods Sidescan Image Parallel to Shoreline Plan View Sonar Image Across River Representative Subbottom Profile Across River Representative Subbottom Profile Across River 122904rcsl doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 -11- 043-1307 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Provided under separate cover) Attachment A Results of the Kanawha River Geophysical Survey Sheet A Location of Map Sheets Sheet I Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 31.5 - R.M. 32.1) Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 31.5 - R.M. 32.1) Sheet lA Sheet 2 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 32.1 - R.M. 32.8) Sheet 2A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 32.1 - R.M. 32.8) Sheet 3 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 32.7 - R.M. 33.4) Sheet 3A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 32.7 - R.M. 33.4) Sheet 4 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 33.3 - R.M. 34.0) Sheet 4A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 33.3 - R.M. 34.0) Sheet 5 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 34.0 - R.M. 34.6) Sheet 5A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 34.0 -R.M. 34.6) Sheet 6 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 34.6 - R.M. 35.3) Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 34.6-R.M. 35.3) Sheet 6A Sheet 7 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 35.3 - R.M. 35.9) Sheet 7 A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 35.3 - R.M. 35.9) Sheet 8 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 35.9 - R.M. 36.6) Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 35.9- R.M. 36.6) Sheet SA Sheet 9 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 36.6- R.M. 37.2) Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 36.6- R.M. 37.2) Sheet 9A Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 37.3 -R.M. 37.9) Sheet 10 Sheet 1OA Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 37.3 - R.M. 37.9) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 37.9-R.M. 38.6) Sheet 11 Sheet l lA Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 37.9 - R.M. 38.6) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 38.6- R.M. 39.2) Sheet 12 Sheet 12A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 38.6- R.M. 39.2) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 39.2 - R.M. 39.9) Sheet 13 Sheet 13A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 39.2 - R.M. 39.9) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 39.8 - R.M. 40.5) Sheet 14 Sheet 14A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 39.8 - R.M. 40.5) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 40.5 - R.M. 41.1) Sheet 15 Sheet 15A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 40.5 -R.M. 41.1) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 41.1 - R.M. 41.8) Sheet 16 Sheet 16A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 41.1 - R.M. 41.8) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 41.8 - R.M. 42.5) Sheet 17 Sheet 17 A Geologic Interpretation and lsopach Map (R.M. 41.8 - R.M. 42.5) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 42.5 - R.M. 43.2) Sheet 18 Sheet 18A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 42.5 - R.M. 43.2) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 43.2 - R.M. 43.9) Sheet 19 Sheet 19A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 43.2-R.M. 43.9) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 43.9- R.M. 44.5) Sheet 20 Sheet 20A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 43.9- R.M. 44.5) Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 44.6-R.M. 45.3) Sheet 21 Sheet 21A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 44.6-R.M. 45.3) Sheet 22 Trackline, Bathymetry and Grab Sample Location Map (R.M. 45.3 - R.M. 46.0) Sheet 22A Geologic Interpretation and Isopach Map (R.M. 45.3 - R.M. 46.0) I22904rcs I doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 1.0 -I - 043-1307 PROJECT OBJECTIVE A bathymetric and geophysical survey was conducted for the purpose of mapping the water depth and riverbed of the Kanawha River, between Winfield Dam (RM 31.1) and the Coal River (RM 46). The specific objective of the subsurface investigation was to characterize the riverbed and map the distribution and thickness of recent sediment deposits. This information will be used by others to interpret river geomorphology with regards to the location of bedrock exposures, and identifying areas affected by scour and erosion and low-energy areas where fine-grained deposits may be accumulating. In addition, these data will be used to assist in selecting sites for sediment sampling in a follow-on phase of investigation. 122904res1 doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 2.0 FIELD OPERATIONS 2.1 Survey Area -2- 043-1307 The survey area is located on the Kanawha River between the confluence of the Coal and Kanawha Rivers and Winfield Dam a distance of approximately 14 miles (Figure 1). The approximate width of the river in this area ranges from 800 to 1200 feet with an average maximum water depth of 30 feet. To obtain detailed information on the riverbed and subsurface stratigraphy, a series of transects were run between the river banks spaced at an interval of approximately 200 feet (Sheets 1-22). On many crossings it was not possible to reach the shorelines because of debris, trees and brush growing offshore and shallow water. Four transects were also run parallel to the each shoreline to provide a continuous profile and sidescan sonar image of the shoreline and river banks along the entire length of the survey area. 2.2 Navigation The position of the survey vessel was determined using a differential global pos11lonmg system (DGPS). The navigation data were acquired with a CSI PRO Max, interfaced with Coastal HYPACK navigation software. The shipboard DGPS receiver obtained differentially corrected WGS 84 latitude and longitude values, using the Omnistar satellite, five times per second with sub-meter accuracy. The position of the survey vessel was displayed in real-time on a color monitor that also provided additional navigation parameters to the helmsman. This enabled piloting the survey vessel along transects that crossed the river perpendicular to the centerline at a 200 foot interval between adjacent transects as well as running four transects parallel to the shoreline. 2.3 Bathymetry Precision bathymetric data were acquired with an Odom Echotrack 200 kHz precision echosounder. This instrument produced a hard-copy print out and also sent digital depths to the navigation computer where it was archived for post-cruise processing. Measurements to determine the velocity of sound in the water (bar check) and draft of the transducer were performed each day. This information was used for initial system calibration and also logged in the navigation computer and used during data editing and processing The Winfield Dam operators were contacted for obtaining pool elevation each day during the survey. Bathymetric data files obtained from the ACOE dual transducer survey, conducted by a private contractor in July and August, 2004, were used to provide additional water depths particularly in the very nearshore areas. The contractor mounted a transducer on the bow of their vessel and obtained depth data up to the shoreline (This was not possible during this investigation because of the towing depth of the subbottom profiler and sidescan sonar transducers). The maximum discrepancy in depth between the ACOE data and the data obtained on this survey was an occasional 2 to 5 inch difference which occurred on the steep slopes. However, the majority of the depths from the two surveys was within several inches of each other or showed no appreciable difference. 2.4 Sidescan Sonar Acoustic images of the riverbed were acquired with a GeoAcoustic dual frequency sidescan sonar (Figure 2). The data were displayed in real-time on a thermal graphic recorder and archived on a Sony 122904resl.doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 -3- 043-1307 PC208 digital recorder. Both the graphic recorder and the digital recorder received event marks at a· 20 second interval from the navigation system. The sidescan data were acquired and displayed on a time scale of 160 milliseconds which represents _a horizontal swath width of 400 feet; 200 feet to either side of the sidescan sonar transducer (Figures 3 and 4). 2.5 Subbottom Profiler (SBP) A high-resolution subbottom profiler was used to characterize the nature and determine the distribution and thickness of unconsolidated, fine to medium-grained sediment. The subbottom data were acquired with a Datasonic Model 1200 SBP operating at a frequency of 3.5 kHz, displayed in real-time on an EPC Model 1086 thermal graphic recorder, and recorded on a Sony Model PC 208 digital recorder along with the side scan sonar data. The graphic recorder and the digital acquisition system were interfaced with the navigation system that provided fix marks at a 20-second interval. 122904resl doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 -4- 3.0 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.1 Navigation and Bathymetry 043-1307 The navigation and geophysical data were downloaded to processing computers for editing, analysis and conversion to graphic, GIS and CAD images and maps. The navigation and bathymetry data were edited for anomalous readings, and then converted to their respective formats for mapping. The navigation data were converted to state plane coordinates, WV south, imported to Arc Map and GIS (v.9.0) and plotted as trackline maps, with event marks, at a scale of I inch= 300 feet (I :3600) The bathymetric data were adjusted for minor variation in the velocity of sound in water determined from the bar checks. The data from this survey showed excellent correlation with the bathymetric data set obtained from the ACOE. The two data sets were merged, contoured at a two (2) foot contour interval and plotted on a scale of I inch= 300 feet (I :3600). 3.2 Sidescan Sonar Data Analysis The sidescan sonar data were used to: • characterize the riverbed sediment (fine-grained, medium-grained etc) based on the reflection signal strength (fine-grained sediment produce a light pattern on the data and medium or coarse-grained sediment produce a dark pattern), • identify and map bedforms (sand waves or sand ripples) that help to characterize the river dynamics, • map the location of bedrock (appears as an extremely dark pattern on the data and often produces shadows behind pinnacles), and • identify cultural artifacts such as pipelines, sunken vessels etc. resting on the riverbed. Examples of these interpreted features and the sidescan sonar pattern are shown on Figures 3 and 4. The sidescan sonar information was plotted on an overlay of the trackline map and eventually integrated with the subbottom profiler results to produce the final map set showing the interpretation of surficial and subsurface geologic features on the riverbed (Sheets 1A-22A). 3.3 Subbottom Profiler Data Analysis Analysis of the SBP data consisted of reviewing the entire data set on a color monitor and developing a general sediment classification of riverbed material based on reflection patterns or characteristics. This method of classifications is known as seismic facies analysis. For example, on the SBP data, bedrock reflections are characterized by high amplitude reflections (dark images on the data), have an irregular, angular surface and often produce multiple reflections or echoes of the riverbed (Figures 5 and 6). The identification and mapping of bedrock was further aided by the sidescan sonar data. Uniform, fine-grained sediments on the other hand are acoustically transparent, or have a low amplitude return (Figure 5). That is, they produce a reflection from the surface (water-riverbed contact) and the lower boundary of the deposit (sediment-bedrock contact) with no internal reflectors or horizons within the deposit itself. Medium to coarse-grained sediments, or a mixture of fine and coarse-grained sediments have reflection patterns that fall within these two !22904rcs! doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 -5- 043-1307 extremes. That is, limited subsurface penetration, internal reflections within the deposit, and are often· laterally discontinuous. One unusual reflection pattern was observed at several locations on the riverbed. This reflection pattern appeared as an extremely smooth surface, exhibited no subsurface penetration, and produced strong multiple reflections (Figure 6). The geologic nature of this reflection pattern cannot be specifically determined without additional sediment samples. However, this type of reflection is characteristic of fine-grained sediment that contains organic material particularly if they produce biogenic gas. Several of the sediment grab samples obtained leaves and other plant debris that potentially would produce biogenic gas during decomposition. The presence of gas and organic debris produces sediment having a low compressional velocity, low shear strength, and low density, resulting in most of the acoustic energy being reflected at the water sediment interface. Following general classification of the riverbed material the thickness of the fine and medium or mixed grained sediment deposits were measured on the SBP records using a compressional velocity of 5000 feet/second to convert the time scale to a depth scale in feet. The thickness of the deposits was then plotted on the trackline maps, contoured and coded with a pattern to distinguish the different sediment type. l22904rcsl doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 4.0 -6- 043-1307 RESULTS The results of the hydrographic and geophysical investigation are presented on several figures located in the appendix and in an attached booklet of maps. One set of maps shows the river bathymetry overlain on the survey tracklines (Sheets 1-22). A second set of maps presents the results from the integration of the sidescan sonar and subbottom profiler data (Sheets IA-22A). The following is a brief discussion of the information presented on these maps. 4.1 Bathymetry The water depth ranged from the shoreline to a maximum of 60 feet The typical depth along the main channel of the river was 20 to 60 feet Because of the presence of debris, brush and trees, as well as shallow water it was not possible to obtain bathymetric data to the rivers edge. However, shallow water bathymetric data, acquired on the ACOE multitransducer survey, were used to fill in these areas. The slope of the right bank was very steep, usually on the order of 1:3 whereas the slope of the left bank was somewhat more gradual at I :4 to I :5. 4.2 Sidescan Sonar and Suhbottom Profiler Results The interpreted results from these two acoustic systems were integrated to produce the surficial features map and sediment thickness maps. The results of the geophysical investigation will be discussed in terms of the acoustic characteristic and interpreted geology, as well as non-geologic features observed on the data. 4.2. 1 Bedrock No subsurface penetration was achieved on the steep river banks that are interpreted to consist of exposed bedrock. Bedrock forming the right bank often extends from the base of the slope to the thalweg or deepest part of the channel and may have a thin, discontinuous sediment cover (less than I foot thick). On the left bank however the bedrock on the lower slope is buried under sediment and seldom extends onto the river floor. 4.2.2 Unconsolidated Sediments Unconsolidated sediments were found primarily on the lower slope of the left river bank and on the riverbed in the main channel. The sediments range in size from fine to medium-grained, or a mixture of the two and in some areas possibly contain organic debris. In addition, some of the sediment on the riverbed appear as small bedforms, sand waves or ripples, with a height of less than I foot and a wavelength of IO to 20 feet (Figure 4). The largest deposits of sediment are comprised of fined-grained material that are up to 6 feet thick. The largest deposits tend to be located between RM 31.5 and RM 35.9 (Sheets IA to 7A). It is possible that some of these deposits are the result of shoreline erosion and subsequent slope failure. Other localized deposits, ranging in thickness from I to 5 feet, are towards the center of the floor of the channel along much of the river for example RM 41.2 (Sheet 16A). The sediments on the river bed of the main channel range from fine to medium-grained or a mix of the two. The sediments that may contain organic debris are primarily located along the right side of the river between RM 34.4 and RM 38 (Sheets 9A to I IA). Smaller pockets of this sediment were also found at several other locations. 122904resl doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 4.2.3 -7- 043-1307 Cultural Artifact and/or Debris Only a few, small and unidentified objects were detected on the sidescan sonar data. These might be small pieces of pipe or cable usually less than 10 feet in length with very little relief above the river floor; on the order of 1 foot or Jess. The largest targets detected were two pipelines that cross the river (Figure 3), several bedrock pinnacles, and a possible sunken vessel located near RM 36. 1 (Sheet 8A). 122904.-es l doc Golder Associates December 29, 2004 5.0 -8- 043-1307 LIMITATION OF GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Golder services are conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the geophysical community currently practicing under similar conditions subject to the time limits and financial and physical constraints applicable to the services. Subbottom profiling and side scan sonar are remote sensing geophysical methods that may not detect all surface and subsurface discrete targets or stratigraphic features of interest. Furthermore, it is possible that because of the presence of organic material or gas-charged sediment, or coarse-grained material, that the SBP may be ineffective for mapping the thickness of recent sediment deposits. l22904resl doc Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates 0 10,000 FEET 20,000 ----z-FIGURE Source: USGS 30x60 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, Charleston and Ripley, West Virginia (1984) DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg08.fh11 DATE 12/27/04 DRAWN BY EFS 1 SITE LOCATION MAP ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA Golder Associates DGPS Antenna Sidescan sonar produces plan view image of riverbed left and right of center of transducer Sidescan Sonar Transducer Subbottom Profiler \ _Tra~s_du_cer 1J!li!IIII \ /,<....... ,'·······~-\""--.. ~'-.. .'s:,,__ k ~ :~ -~.--- -:-- -- . Echosounder { ~· : I •:.t· .... I'-... Transducer Measures Water Depth "::• '§ Subbottom profiler maps thickness of fine-grained sediment directly beneath the transducer FIGURE 2 SIDESCAN SONAR, ECHOSQUNDER AND SUBBOTTOM PROFILING METHODS ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg06.fh11 DATE 12/29/04 DRAWN BY EL Golder Associates ~ ~.'.- ..,::;-,:·, - Left Side Image Centerline fli'.' Base of Bedrock SI J 1-ji, l:FIGURE See Figure 2 for orientation of image. DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg04.fh11 DATE 12/28104 DRAWN BY EFS 3 SIDESCAN IMAGE PARALLEL TO SHORELINE ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA Golder Associates -<-Left Side Centerline -~·· .- -1 - Bottom of Slope ' I ~- _i - ~ I ··.t.·f:· .- Right Side Image-----+ • ~ Fine-Grained I i ·'.' -! +-- Upstream Downstream -----+ J - NOTE: Bedforms are small sand waves with amplitudes less than 1 foot. = .:FIGURE See Figure 2 for orientation of image. DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg07.fh11 DATE 12/28104 DRAWN BY EFS 4 PLAN VIEW SONAR IMAGE ACROSS RIVER ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA Golder Associates Left Bank 1 ----· No Subsurface Penetration; Possibly Sediment with Organic Material T1--~ ···-·· 11 / I Goo~in~~~~~~~~e:e~r~~~{ion; I Right Bank --···--··- \ I .... ---------------~------- --..··-"-·--··--·· . No Subsurface Penetration; Exposed Bedrock or Very Thin Sediment Over Bedrock- - - - ~-Rwer :ed-----l ---- !' I I I .J _ __ I I 11 :FIGURE 5 REPRESENTATIVE SUBBOTTOM PROFILE ACROSS RIVER ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg01.fh11 DATE 12128/04 DRAWN BY EFS Golder Associates Left Bank I · ----1--I I I No Subsurface Penetration; 1Exposed Bedrock or Very Thin Sediment Over Bedrock I l I \ I T rl·i\ 5' I it __ll I Bedrock -----1·--·------··---1---~-----1---~----1 -- ... ~ I I Right Bank --,-1 I I I I I I A ,,111 1 No Subsurface Penetration; Possibly Sediment with Organic Material I I I . Ii I I .J ------- L :FIGURE 6 REPRESENTATIVE SUBBOTTOM PROFILE ACROSS RIVER ANCHOR/KANAWHA RIVER GEOPHYSICSNA DRAWING NO. 0431307003fg02.fh11 DATE 12/28/01 DRAWN BY EFS Golder Associates Kanawha River Velocity Profiling and Discharge Measurement West Virginia, USA Prepared for: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Waterloo, Ontario Jessica M. Hartsock Blue Coast Scientific, Inc. 221 Whiterock Drive Mount Holly, NC 28120 USA October 2004 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... Description of Data Acquisition Instrumentation ............................................................... Description of Survey Technique ...................................................................................... Data Processing Techniques ............................................................................................ Results ............................................................................................................................. 1 1 3 4 6 Table of Figures Figure 1. Overview map of Kanawha River survey region from river mile 31 to river mile 46 (river mile 68 was not included to reduce scale of map). Although the river is primarily oriented north to south, the sharp bend near river mile 33 creates an east to west orientation. . ............................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 31, just upstream from Winfield Lock. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NW to SE). The span of current vectors on the navigation chart show the pool elevation was above normal, reaching the 580 foot elevation contour. River flow was approximately 20 cm/s towards the southwest. The river cross-section plots indicate the channel hugs the right bank at this location .................................. 8 Figure 3. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 31, just upstream from Winfield Lock. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NW to SE). The span of current vectors on the navigation chart show the pool elevation was above normal, reaching the 580 foot elevation contour. River flow was approximately 20 cm/s towards the southwest. . .............................................. 9 Figure 4. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (NW), center, and right side (SE) of the channel at river mile 31. Current speeds increased during the 5 minute time period on the left side of the channel at a water depth of 6.4 meters, but were relatively consistent at the other two locations. On average current speeds were highest at the center channel station. . ........... 10 Figure 5. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 33, in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the south-southwest. The river cross-sections indicate the deepest point of the river channel is approximately 60 meters from the left river bank, and 160 meters from the right river bank. . ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 6. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 33, in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river velocity speeds were slightly lower across Q2 than Q1 ........... 12 Figure 7. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (N), center, and right side (S) of the channel at river mile 33. Current speeds were relatively consistent throughout the 5 minute measurement period at all three locations… ..................................................... ………………………………….13 Figure 8. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 42. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (SE to NW). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the northeast. The river cross-sections indicate the river channel is relatively flat in this area. Flow speeds are slightly higher in the center of the channel ..................................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 42. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (SE to NW). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the northeast. Flow speeds are lower along the banks of the river ................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 10. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (SE), center, and right side (NW) of the channel at river mile 42. Current speeds at all three locations demonstrate a natural pulsing, slightly increasing and slightly decreasing, throughout the 5 minute measurement period ............................. 16 Figure11. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the west. Flow speeds exceeded 30 cm/s in the center of the channel ..................................................................................... 17 Figure 12. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). The river channel is relatively flat, but slightly deeper on the south side of the channel.. .......................................... 18 Figure 13. Transect Q3 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river flow speeds were slightly higher during transect Q3 .............................................................................. 19 Figure 14. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (N), center, and right side (S) of the channel at river mile 46. Currents tended to ebb and flow, pulsing in speed, throughout the 5 minute measurement period at all three locations ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 15. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow was approximately 25 cm/s directed towards the northwest. Flow speeds reached 40 cm/s in the profile approximately 140 m from the northeast side of the channel, where the water depth was approximately 10 m ........................................................................................ 21 Figure 16. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow speeds were lower across transect Q1 than Q2… .............................................................................................................. 22 Figure 17. Transect Q3 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). River flow was directed towards the center of the channel across this transect. In the top figure, depth-averaged current vectors on the southwest side are directed northerly, towards the center of the channel. In the lower figure, currents on the right side (southwest side) show the same northerly trend throughout the water column.. .............................................................. 23 Figure 18. Transect Q4 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow speeds were lowest across transect Q4 at river mile 68. . ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 19. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (NE), center, and right side (SW) of the channel at river mile 68. Current speeds were weakest at the left channel location, on the steeply sloping side of the channel in a water depth of 7.6 m. Current speeds were relatively consistent at each individual station over the 5 minute time period.. ........................................... 25 Introduction On October 6 and 7, 2004, river current measurements were collected on the Great Kanawha River, West Virginia to resolve volume flow rates and assist in establishing water sampling locations. Blue Coast Scientific, Inc. (Blue Coast) performed this data collection in conjunction with Conestoga-Rovers, & Associates (CRA). Current measurements were collected using a vessel-mounted Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) along five pre-defined transect lines through the survey area (Figure 1). This effort resulted in high-resolution observations of spatial and temporal variations in tidal currents throughout the survey area. During the field operations, weather conditions were good, with air temperatures of 15 to 20o C, mostly clear skies, and light winds. Vessel traffic was minimal throughout the survey period. This report describes ADCP data collection techniques, data processing techniques, and volume flow rate calculations. Data is presented graphically as navigations charts overlaid with depth-averaged currents, color contoured cross-sections of speed and direction, and time series of depth-averaged velocity vectors. Volume flow rates are presented in tabular form. Description of Data Acquisition Instrumentation Measurements were obtained with a BroadBand 1200 kHz Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) manufactured by RD Instruments (RDI) of San Diego, CA. The ADCP was mounted to a rigid frame, which was attached to a plank of wood and hung over the side of the survey vessel. The ADCP was oriented to look downward into the water column, with the sensors located 22 cm below the water surface on October 6 and 40 cm below the water surface on October 7. The depth of the ADCP was adjusted to accommodate the draft of the survey vessel; a flat bottomed Jon boat was used on October 6 and a Pontoon boat was used on October 7. The mounting technique assured no flow disturbance due to vessel wake. The ADCP emits individual acoustic pulses from four transducers mounted in the head of the instrument angled at 20° from the vertical. The instrument then listens to the backscattered echoes from discrete depth layers in the water column. The difference in time between the emitted pulses and the returned echoes, reflected from ambient sound scatterers (plankton, debris, sediment, etc.), is the time delay. BroadBand ADCPs measure the change in travel times from successive pulses. As particles move further away from the transducers sound takes longer to travel back and forth. The change in travel time, or propagation delay, corresponds to a change in distance between the transducer and the sound scatterer, due to a Doppler shift. The propagation delay, the time lag between emitted pulses, and the speed of sound in water are used to compute the velocity of the particle relative to the transducer. By combining the velocity components for at least three of the four directional beams, the current velocities are transformed using the unit’s internal compass readings to an orthogonal earth coordinate system in terms of east, north, and vertical components of current velocity. 1 Figure 1. Overview map of Kanawha River survey region from river mile 31 to river mile 46 (river mile 68 was not included to reduce scale of map). Although the river is primarily oriented north to south, the sharp bend near river mile 33 creates an east to west orientation. 2 Vertical structure of the currents is obtained using a technique called ‘rangegating’. Received echoes are divided into successive segments (gates) based on discrete time intervals of pulse emissions. The velocity measurements for each gate are averaged over a specified depth range to produce a single velocity at the specified depth interval (‘bin’). A velocity profile is composed of measurements in successive vertical bins. The collection of accurate current data with an ADCP requires the removal of the speed of the transducer (mounted to the vessel) from the estimates of current velocity. ‘Bottom tracking’ is the strongest echo return from the emission of an additional, longer pulse to simultaneously measure the velocity of the transducer relative to the bottom. Bottom tracking allows the ADCP to record absolute versus relative velocities beneath the transducer. In addition, the accuracy of the current measurements can be compromised by random errors (or noise) inherent to this technique. Improvements in the accuracy of the measurement for each bin are achieved by averaging several velocity measurements together in time. These averaged results are termed ‘ensembles’; the more pings used in the average, the lower the standard deviation of the random error. For this study, the standard deviation (or accuracy) of current estimates (resulting from an ensemble average of 5 individual pulses) was approximately 8.65 cm/sec. Each ensemble took approximately 2 seconds to collect. Averaging parameters resulted in a horizontal resolution of approximately 2 meters along the transect line. For example, at River Mile 68 the survey transect was approximately 220 meters, resulting in approximately 110 independent velocity profiles per transect. The vertical resolution was set to 25 cm, or one velocity observation every 25 cm of water depth. The first measurement bin was centered 78 cm from the surface on October 6 and 96 cm on October 7. The depth of the first bin allowed for the transducer draft as well as an appropriate blanking distance between the transducer and the first measurement bin. Differential GPS positioning was collected concurrently with the ADCP measurements. The position data were read from the device in the WGS-84 coordinate system. Position updates were available every 1 second. Each ADCP ensemble and GPS position were recorded by WinRiver (®RD Instruments), an integrated ADCP and navigation software package running on a PC laptop computer. Description of Survey Technique Current measurements were collected by the ADCP at five (5) pre-defined locations between river mile 31 and river mile 68 on the Kanawha River (Figure 1). Upon arrival at each location, a transect line from left bank to right bank (looking upstream) in the vicinity of the designated river mile was surveyed (identified as “Q1”). Based on the survey Q1, three locations were selected to anchor and collect continuous time series of velocity. The three locations were chosen to identify the potential differences in water velocity based on channel shape and water depth. The stationary velocity measurements are identified as “left”, “center”, and “right” to indicate the position the boat was anchored relative to the channel looking upstream. A second survey of the transect line was conducted upon completion of the stationary velocity measurements,”Q2”. At some locations, additional transect lines were measured, identified as “Q3” and “Q4”. 3 At least two velocity survey transects and three stationary velocity profiles were measured at each river mile location. The transect line at each river mile location was designed to measure as accurately as possible the water velocities from left bank to right bank, and to capture the volumetric flow rate at the specified river mile. ADCP measurements were collected in the vicinity of river mile (RM) 31, RM 33, RM 42, RM 46, and RM 68. Data Processing Techniques Data processing consisted of the following: • Convert raw ADCP (binary) files to engineering units • QA/QC procedures to verify the accuracy of both ADCP and position data • Manipulate the ADCP data to calculate spatial averages and cross section discharge values Current velocity measurements and GPS positioning were recorded in WinRiver, a real-time data collection program provided by RD Instruments (RDI). The data files were converted from raw binary format to engineering ASCII values using WinRiver in playback mode. This conversion process is described in greater detail in the RDI ADCP manual, and consists of developing a user-defined output file format through which all conversions are defined. The output data file from this procedure consists of multiple ensemble data ‘packets’. The ensemble ‘packet’ consists of a single line containing the time of the profile, the ensemble number, the GPS position, and internal sensor data (heading, pitch, roll, and temperature measured by the ADCP) followed by consecutive rows and columns of the profile data. Each row of profile data corresponds to one bin, or depth layer, with succeeding columns representing velocity magnitude and direction, east and north components of velocity, error velocity, echo amplitudes (for 4 beams), and percentage of good acoustic pings. Each ensemble, collected approximately every 2 seconds, has 57 rows corresponding to each discrete depth layer (0.78 to 15 meters) with each row containing 12 columns of data. A single data file, consisting of multiple ensembles, was recorded for each transect. For this project, 28 ADCP data files were recorded. The data were reduced through a QA/QC procedure to calculate vertical averages. Data recorded for the bottom-most bins in the water column can be contaminated by side lobe reflections from the transducer. At times, the measurements can be invalid. Validity of the bottom bin measurements is determined by comparing the standard deviation (std) of bottom values to the standard deviation of mid-column measurements. If the std at the bottom was more than twice the std of mid-column measurements, the bottom bin was discarded. If the bottom value was within the limits defined by adjacent measurements, the value was included. A mean value of each east and north component of velocity is calculated for each vertical profile. The velocity component mean values are then used to determine mean speed and mean direction at each position recorded along the survey transect. Plan view charts, such as in Figure 2, and velocity time series, such as Figure 4 illustrate 4 depth-averaged velocity measurements. Velocity direction was noisy due to the low velocity magnitudes in Kanawha River. A weighted triangle filter was used to smooth the velocity vectors displayed in color contoured cross-sections. The Latitude and Longitude position recorded on a Leica handheld GPS during the survey appear to be slightly inaccurate in the horizontal when plotted on aerial photographs of the river. New positions were derived based on transect end point positions approximated from aerial photographs, and ADCP bottom track velocities. The total discharge, Q, represents the total volumetric flow perpendicular to the river cross-section. The total volume flow rate is the summation of the volume flow rate at each discrete time interval (ensemble). A velocity vector cross-product algorithm is used to determine accurately the discharge normal to the channel cross-section (i.e. along-stream). The discharge through a profile during a single ensemble, Qi is the cross product, Fz , of the water velocity, Vw , and the boat velocity, Vb integrated over the ensemble depth, d, multiplied by the time interval, ti . where, and, k = a unit vector in the vertical direction ti = elapsed travel time between ensemble i and ensemble i-1, in seconds The velocity vector cross-product algorithm is a form of the common discharge equation Q = AV . For a moving boat, the area A is defined as the vertical surface beneath the path along which the vessel travels. The cross product will equal zero when the vessel is moving directly upstream or downstream, and will equal Vw when the vessel is moving normal to Vw . The total measured volumetric flow, Qm is the summation of measured volumetric flow at each ensemble between time i and time i-1, where i = 1 to N, and N is the total number of ensembles. There are three areas of each river cross-section that are not measured during an ADCP transect and thus not represented by Qm . The three unmeasured areas are Qs , the volume flow through the blanking distance between the water surface and the first good bin, Qd , the volume flow through the last good measurement bin and the bottom, and Qe , the unmeasured volume flow near the channel banks. 5 Therefore, the total volumetric flow is, Q =Qm +Qs +Qd +Qe The ADCP cannot directly measure the surface velocity, it is assumed the surface layer discharge is equivalent to the discharge in the first depth layer. Data recorded for the bottom-most bins in the water column can be contaminated by side lobe reflections from the transducer and the measurements can be invalid. The same linear assumption was applied to bottom bins when the bin measurement was declared invalid; that is, the bottom bin value was assumed equivalent to the overlying bin velocity value. The volumetric flow edge estimates Qe are calculated using the basic discharge equationQ = AV . The velocity V is estimated as the measured mean velocity at the first or last ensemble, and A is estimated by a triangular area. Results The ADCP survey on Great Kanawha River, West Virginia provided observation of the temporal and spatial variability of flow between river mile 31 and river mile 68. The data are presented in two formats: (1) multi-image cross-sections of velocity transects collected to measure volume flow rate and (2) time series of depth-averaged current vectors at stationary locations. All map coordinates are in UTM zone 17 NAD83 meters, and all velocities are in cm/s. For each river mile location there are at least two cross-sections and one time series. In the multi-image cross-section, the top panel presents a plan view of depthaveraged currents on a navigation chart. The second panel presents color contour of current speed, scaled by the bar to the right, and the lower panel depicts current direction, scaled by the color spectrum to the right. The figures begin at river mile 31 and end at river mile 68. In general, the Kanawha River flows from the south to the north. Due to the natural curvature and bends of the river, flow direction at each river mile is a local effect or river orientation. For example, at river mile 31 flow is directed southwest, and upstream is northeast. In general current speeds were swiftest at river mile 68, and slowest at river mile 33. Volume flow rates were calculated for each Q transect measured. The total volume flow rate calculations showed some variability at any single river mile location. The variability is primarily due to differenced in water velocity from one transect to another due to the natural ebb and flow of a river. Slight differences in boat navigation attempting to traverse the exact transect as previously, may also introduce some variability. Total volume flow rates are presented in Table 1. Volumetric flow rates will vary along the length of the river due to natural and mechanized gains and losses of water to the system. The lowest volumetric flow was observed at river mile 42, and the highest volume flow rates were observed at river mile 31. The large amount of industry, river management, and creeks or streams along the Kanawha River, contributes to the variability in volumetric flow from section to section. 6 Table1. Volumetric Flow (Q) and length of transect line listed by river mile Transect name Q (m3/s) Length (m) RM31 - Q1 RM31 - Q2 RM33 - Q1 RM33 - Q2 RM42 - Q1 Rm42 - Q2 RM46 - Q1 RM46 - Q2 RM46 - Q3 RM68 - Q1 RM68 - Q2 RM68 - Q3 Rm68 - Q4 283 266 260 209 196 159 226 236 244 251 249 213 205 7 328 330 221 228 235 232 224 226 224 220 219 221 219 Figure 2. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 31, just upstream from Winfield Lock. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NW to SE). The span of current vectors on the navigation chart show the pool elevation was above normal, reaching the 580 foot elevation contour. River flow was approximately 20 cm/s towards the southwest. The river cross-section plots indicate the channel hugs the right bank at this location. 8 Figure 3. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 31, just upstream from Winfield Lock. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NW to SE). The span of current vectors on the navigation chart show the pool elevation was above normal, reaching the 580 foot elevation contour. River flow was approximately 20 cm/s towards the southwest. 9 Figure 4. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (NW), center, and right side (SE) of the channel at river mile 31. Current speeds increased during the 5 minute time period on the left side of the channel at a water depth of 6.4 meters, but were relatively consistent at the other two locations. On average current speeds were highest at the center channel station. 10 Figure 5. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 33, in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the south-southwest. The river cross-sections indicate the deepest point of the river channel is approximately 60 meters from the left river bank, and 160 meters from the right river bank. 11 Figure 6. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 33, in the vicinity of Little Guano Creek. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river velocity speeds were slightly lower across Q2 than Q1. 12 Figure 7. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (N), center, and right side (S) of the channel at river mile 33. Current speeds were relatively consistent throughout the 5 minute measurement period at all three locations. 13 Figure 8. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 42. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (SE to NW). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the northeast. The river cross-sections indicate the river channel is relatively flat in this area. Flow speeds are slightly higher in the center of the channel. 14 Figure 9. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 42. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (SE to NW). River flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the northeast. Flow speeds are lower along the banks of the river. 15 Figure 10. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (SE), center, and right side (NW) of the channel at river mile 42. Current speeds at all three locations demonstrate a natural pulsing, slightly increasing and slightly decreasing, throughout the 5 minute measurement period. 16 Figure11. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river flow was approximately 20 cm/s directed towards the west. Flow speeds exceeded 30 cm/s in the center of the channel. 17 Figure 12. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). The river channel is relatively flat, but slightly deeper on the south side of the channel. 18 Figure 13. Transect Q3 measured at river mile 46. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (N to S). On average, river flow speeds were slightly higher during transect Q3. 19 Figure 14. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (N), center, and right side (S) of the channel at river mile 46. Currents tended to ebb and flow, pulsing in speed, throughout the 5 minute measurement period at all three locations. 20 Figure 15. Transect Q1 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow was approximately 25 cm/s directed towards the northwest. Flow speeds reached 40 cm/s in the profile approximately 140 m from the northeast side of the channel, where the water depth was approximately 10 m. 21 Figure 16. Transect Q2 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow speeds were lower across transect Q1 than Q2. 22 Figure 17. Transect Q3 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). River flow was directed towards the center of the channel across this transect. In the top figure, depth-averaged current vectors on the southwest side are directed northerly, towards the center of the channel. In the lower figure, currents on the right side (southwest side) show the same northerly trend throughout the water column. 23 Figure 18. Transect Q4 measured at river mile 68, just downstream from the Marmet dam. The transect was navigated from left to right looking upstream (NE to SW). On average, river flow speeds were lowest across transect Q4 at river mile 68. 24 Figure 19. Depth-averaged velocity measurements near the left side (NE), center, and right side (SW) of the channel at river mile 68. Current speeds were weakest at the left channel location, on the steeply sloping side of the channel in a water depth of 7.6 m. Current speeds were relatively consistent at each individual station over the 5 minute time period. 25 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 031884 (51) C.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS C.2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS C.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES IN STUDY AREA APPENDIX C.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS 031884 (51) APPENDIX C.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX C.1 This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS.........................................................C.1-1 1.1 KANAWHA RIVER .....................................................................................C.1-1 1.2 ARMOUR CREEK ......................................................................................C.1-20 1.3 MANILA CREEK/POCATALICO RIVER .............................................C.1-23 1.4 PREVIOUS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES INVESTIGATION .................C.1-29 1.5 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING ACTIVITY ...........C.1-29 1.6 SOURCE, NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION ............C.1-31 1.6.1 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS ................................................................C.1-31 1.6.1.1 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA 1 – INSTITUTE AND SOUTH CHARLESTON ............................................................................C.1-32 1.6.1.2 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA 2 – MARMET, BELLE, AND CEDAR GROVE..........................................................................................C.1-34 2.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................C.1-36 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS % 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,4-D 2,4,5-T ACF Industries ACLF Allied Chemical Bayer CNFRL COCs CSM Dow EOC fg/L FMC FPRL HCLF HRS Kanawha Dredging Midwest MP ND ng/kg NPDES NPL OCDD ORSANCO OxyChem PCDDs pg/g Potesta ppb ppt PSML 031884 (51) percent 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-Trichloropenoxyacetic acid American Car and Foundry Industries Armour Creek Landfill Allied Chemical Corporation Bayer Corporation Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory Contaminants of Concern Conceptual Site Model Dow Chemical Company Extent of Contamination femtograms per liter FMC Corporation Fish Pesticide Research Laboratory Heizer Creek Landfill Hazard Ranking System Kanawha Dredging and Mineral Company Midwest Steel Corporation Mile Point Not detected nanograms per kilogram National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System National Priority List 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dixoin Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission Occidental Chemical Corporation polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins picograms per gram Potesta & Associates, Inc. parts per billion parts per trillion Poca Strip Mine Landfill CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS (cont'd) QAPP RCRA REMCOR Rhône-Poulenc River RM SATA Site TEQs TMDL UCC UCL µg/kg µg/L U.S. ACE U.S. EPA U.S. FDA U.S. FWS USGS Voyager Coal Weston WV WB BPH WV CDC WV DEP WV DNR WVU 031884 (51) Quality Assurance Project Plan Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Remedial Corporation Rhône-Poulenc AG Company Kanawha River River Mile Site Assessment and Technical Assistance Team Kanawha River Site located in Nitro, West Virginia Total Toxicity Equivalents Total Maximum Daily Load Union Carbide Company upper confidence limit micrograms per kilogram micrograms per liter United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Environmental Protection Agency United States Food and Drug Administration United States Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey Voyager Coal Company Roy F. Weston, Inc. West Virginia West Virginia Bureau for Public Health West Virginia Center for Disease Control West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Department of Natural Resources West Virginia University CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS This appendix provides a summary of previous environmental investigations that were completed at the Kanawha River (River) Site located in Nitro, West Virginia (WV) (Site). This information was utilized in conjunction with the potential source areas and Conceptual Site Model (CSM) information to focus the investigative efforts of the Extent of Contamination (EOC) Study. The Site extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River to where the River enters the Ohio River. The Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern each extend two miles upstream of their respective confluences with the River (Limno-Tech, Inc., 2000). A detailed summary of each investigation is provided in the following sections. The investigations are listed in chronological order, by location. Letters and memorandum have also been reviewed and have been listed according to the date of the correspondence. 1.1 KANAWHA RIVER November 1976 Sampling and Analysis of Fish Tissues for Toxic Substances, EPA/FWS IAG-DY-01001, Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980 This final report summarizes the results of an interagency agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). In November 1976, the U.S. FWS and the Columbia National Fisheries Research Laboratory (CNFRL) (known as the Fish Pesticide Research Lab (FPRL) at the time) agreed to sample several fish samples from their storage bank. Selected archived monitoring samples were analyzed for priority pollutants, including dioxins. This information was provided to U.S. EPA in order to assess the risks of exposure to these substances to people and the environment. Approximately 180 samples representing selected collection sites of interest, collected over the period of 1970 through 1978, were analyzed for selected toxic substances. Thirty primary stations were selected from U.S. FWS freshwater fish monitoring network, and 24 secondary stations were chosen to be used as substitutes for primary stations, should the archive samples not be available. Samples collected prior to 1970 were not selected due to uncertainty of their validity due to storage problems. 031884 (51) C.1-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Station No. 023 was located on the River at Winfield, WV. This station was not analyzed for dioxins, but was analyzed for phenols. Results indicated that no residues of phenolic compounds were present in 1970 or 1971, however were present in measurable levels in 1973, 1974, and 1976 samples. Dibenzofurans were found in the Ohio River at Station No. 024, Marietta, Ohio (1971 sample) and at Station No. 069, Cincinnati, Ohio (1970 sample) (Ludke, 1980). August – November 1984, and September 1985 Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan, An Evaluation of Dioxin Contamination in Fish Tissue and Sediments in the Kanawha and Mud Rivers, WV, WV DNR, Draft – March 10, 1986 The Monitoring Branch of the Division of Water Resources of the WV Department of Natural Resources (WV DNR), prepared this Draft Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan. It was prepared to address the issue of dioxin contamination in fish in the Kanawha River from a spatial aspect, and to determine if sediments contain measurable amounts of dioxin. This report also summaries background investigations, which led to the 1984 fish consumption advisory. The objective of the proposed sampling activity was to determine the extent of dioxin contamination in selected target fish species and sediments from a geographic standpoint. The proposed sampling locations were upstream and downstream of Nitro, WV, and in selected tributary areas, which include: Amour Creek and the Pocatalico River. Sediment samples were to be collected at fish sample sites located in depositional type areas. The results of the investigation are to be used to determine the EOC beyond the Nitro area, the original study area that the fish advisory was based upon. Emphasis was on heavily fished areas in the River and other major tributaries, in order to determine if the existing fish consumption advisory is appropriate in terms of geographic boundaries and fish species. In 1984, U.S. EPA conducted a National Dioxin Study, which was based on tiers, or categories of contamination. The tier scale ranged from one to seven, the lower the tier number, the greater the potential for higher levels of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) contamination. The River at Nitro, and the River at Gauley Bridge, along with approximately 400 other U.S. sites were examined as part of this study. The River sites were classified as Tier 7 sites, which are defined as, "Networks of existing ambient stations where fish and soil were sampled to determine whether 2,3,7,8-TCDD is widespread in the environment, and if so, at what levels". The River at Nitro was 031884 (51) C.1-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES chosen based on the presence of past chemical manufacturing processes involving dioxin. U.S. EPA and WV DNR collected samples from August to November 1984. Detectable levels of dioxin were found in fish from the River at Nitro at the following concentrations: • Largemouth bass fillet: 13 parts per trillion (ppt) (0.013 parts per billion (ppb)) • Smallmouth bass fillet: 22 ppt (0.022 ppb) • Whole Black buffalo: not detected at or above 1.2 ppt (ND (1.2) ppt) (ND (0.0012) ppb) • Whole Smallmouth bass: 31 ppt (0.031 ppb) • Whole Spotted bass: 51 ppt (0.051 ppb) Based on these results, the WV Center for Disease Control (WV CDC), and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commented that only two of the samples were fillets. Fillet samples are more representative of human health risks than whole samples, since fillet specimens contain only the edible portion of the fish. Whole fish samples are more representative of the ecosystem, as analysis can detect 2,3,7,8-TCDD contaminated soil contained in the fish gastrointestinal track, which is not consumed by humans. It was noted that this would explain why whole samples had higher 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA), has stated fish contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels exceeding 50 ppt (0.05 ppb), should not be consumed and not to consume fish at levels 25 – 50 ppt (0.025 – 0.05 ppb) more than twice per month. Additional fish samples were collected in September 1985 in response to these comments. All samples were fillets and samples consisted of a greater number of species, individuals per sample, and samples than the 1984 sampling event. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and tissue lipids were as follows: 031884 (51) • Largemouth bass: 2.1 – 5.3 picograms per gram (pg/g) (0.0021 – 0.0053 ppb), 0.3 – 0.4 percent (%) lipids • Spotted bass: 13.0 pg/g (0.013 ppb), 0.5 % lipids • Smallmouth bass: 6.8 pg/g (0.068 ppb), 0.3% lipids • Sauger: 6.0 – 6.4 pg/g (0.006 – 0.0064 ppb), 0.5 – 0.7 % lipids • Channel Catfish: 6.9 – 38.1 pg/g (0.0069 – 0.0381 ppb), 1.5 – 2.0% lipids • Smallmouth buffalo: 19.8 – 56.0 pg/g (0.0198 – 0.056 ppb), 2.1 – 4.6% lipids • Freshwater drum: 7.1 – 9.5 pg/g (0.071 – 0.095 ppb), 0.7 – 1.3% lipids C.1-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The WV Governor's Office issued a fish advisory based on these results on March 1, 1986. The public was advised not to consume fish caught in the River from the mouth of the Coal River in St. Albans, to the confluence of the River and the Ohio River at Point Pleasant, WV (WV DNR, 1986). October 1984 Memorandum – 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Fish in the Kanawha River, Nitro, WV, Center for Disease Control, 1985 The WV CDC sent this memorandum to Charles C. Walters, Public Health Advisor for U.S. EPA Region III on June 28, 1985 in response to data that U.S. EPA sent to WV CDC. U.S. EPA submitted five fish samples for analysis for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Specimens were collected from the River near Nitro. This sampling was conducted in response to recommendations from WV CDC, which was previously provided as part of a review of the Old Monsanto Chemical facility conducted in October 1984. Samples were composites of ten fish, composited by fish species. summarized as follows: • Largemouth bass fillet: 13 ppt (0.013 ppb) • Smallmouth bass fillet: 22 ppt (0.022 ppb) • whole Black buffalo: not detected (ND) (1.2) ppt (ND(0.0012) ppb) • whole Smallmouth bass: 31 ppt (0.031 ppb) • whole Spotted bass: 51 ppt (0.051 ppb) Results are WV CDC concluded that the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in fish from the River indicated that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a contaminant of that ecosystem. The WV CDC further stated that "although dioxin concentrations in the fish fillet samples are not above 25 ppt (0.025 ppb), the presence of other fish contaminants, as indicated by a previous WV fish consumption advisory, in addition to dioxin poses a health threat to persons regularly consuming fish from the segment of the Kanawha River" (Jones, 1985). 031884 (51) C.1-4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES November 1984, September 9, 1985 Draft - Assessment of Lifetime Cancer Risk from Consuming Fish Contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from the Kanawha River, WV, U.S. EPA, 1986 This report was prepared by U.S. EPA in order to determine 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in edible portions of fish from the River near Nitro, and to assess the risk of consuming specific fish species. In November 1984, U.S. EPA analyzed samples of fish from the River near Nitro for 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the request of WV CDC. Samples contained detectable concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. WV CDC concluded that although dioxin concentrations in fish fillets were not above 25 ppt (0.025 ppb), the presence of other contaminants in addition to dioxin posed a health threat to those who regularly consumed the fish. Additional fish sampling was conducted by WV DNR to address this issue. On September 9, 1985, fish samples were collected along the north bank of the River between Poca (MP 39.6) and Nitro (MP 41.9). Sampling was conducted approximately where the 1984 fish samples were collected, and entirely within the backwater from the Winfield Dam. Armour Creek enters the River in this area. The highest concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD found was 56 pg/g (0.056 ppb), and was observed in a composite of 5 fillets from Smallmouth buffalo. The lowest concentration of 2.1 pg/g (0.0021 ppb), was found in a composite of five largemouth bass fillets. In terms of estimated lifetime excess cancer risks, Smallmouth buffalo were found to have the highest mean risk, 0.24 meals per year for a risk of 1 in a 100,000. Largemouth bass had the lowest mean risk 2.0 meals per year for a risk for 1 in a 100,000. U.S. EPA therefore advised consumers not eat more than one 8-ounce meal of Largemouth bass fillet per year, or one meal of Smallmouth buffalo fillets every 8.3 years. U.S. EPA stated that since 2,3,7,8-TCDD appeared to be strongly partitioned to tissue lipids, consumption of oily fish likely carries a higher risk than eating lean fish (Smith, 1986 1 ). 1984, October 1985, July 28, 1987 A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments in the Kanawha River Basin, EPS-QA87-004, Final Project Report, EPA Region III, 1988 In 1984, U.S. EPA conducted a National Dioxin Study, during which samples of fish tissue were collected from the River at Nitro. The study classified this area as a "Tier 2" site, indicating that it is "possibly contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD by the manufacture 031884 (51) C.1-5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES of pesticides from 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) and associated disposal practices". In October 1985, five samples of fish tissue were collected at Nitro, and results reported that whole fish samples of Small-mouthed bass and Spotted bass were contaminated with 31 pg/g (0.031 ppb), and 51 pg/g (0.051 ppb) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and fillets of Largemouth bass, and Smallmouth buffalo contained 13 pg/g (0.013 ppb) and 22 pg/g (0.022 ppb) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. As a result of the 1984 study, in 1986 WV Governor Arch Moore advised the public not to consume fish collected from the Kanawha River in the area between the Coal River and the Ohio River. As a result of these finding, U.S. EPA conducted sediment sampling in April 1986, in order to meet the following objectives: • Determine the area extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination • Determine if contamination is continuing • Locate "hot spots" of contamination • Locate any present sources Fifty-one sediment samples were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and results determined that: • Sediments in the lower River are uniformly contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels approaching 100 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) (0.1 ppb) • 2,3,7,8-TCDD inputs may be continuing, or scouring and bioturbation may be maintaining the high 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in surface sediments • There are two 2,3,7,8-TCDD hot spots, the Pocatalico River near Poca, and at the mouth of Armour Creek U.S. EPA determined two hypotheses regarding continuing sources: 031884 (51) • 2,3,7,8-TCDD was or is being released from landfills near the two 2,3,7,8-TCDD hot spots, and this contamination has spread throughout the lower River • 2,3,7,8-TCDD was or is being released into the River from unknown sources, and has accumulated in the backwaters of Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River C.1-6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In order to investigate the hypotheses, U.S. EPA conducted an additional sampling activity on July 28, 1987. To test the first hypotheses, sampling stations were located near the landfills next to Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River. To test the second hypothesis, sampling stations were located in Bills Creek and Lingbarger Creek. U.S. EPA concluded that data supports the second hypothesis, which states that contamination is from unknown sources and is being deposited in slow-flowing backwaters of tributaries along the River. It was also concluded that low-level dioxin contamination is widespread in the lower River backwater areas below Nitro. Dioxin was not detected in sediment samples collected from the Coal River, which indicates that the source(s) are downstream of the Coal River, probably at or below Nitro. The highest concentrations of dioxin were found in sediments collected from the mouths of backwater River streams. Contamination in Armour Creek was more widespread than expected, indicating additional sources in that watershed. The highest concentration in Armour Creek was found near its mouth. Dioxin sediment concentrations exceeded 1 ppb in Armour Creek. The highest dioxin contamination in the Pocatalico River was found at Station No. 1 near its mouth. There was also contamination at the mouth of Linbarger and Bills Creek. Dioxin sediment concentrations exceeded 1 ppb in Linbarger Creek, and low-level contamination, less than 0.1 ppb, was found in sediment samples from the Pocatalico River and Bills Creek. U.S. EPA recommendations included: 031884 (51) • Developing a backwater sediment sampling program in the area south of Charleston to further define contamination problems • Conducting verification sampling in Linbarger Creek for possible remedial action • Consideration of a remedial action in Armour Creek due to continued high levels of dioxin • Conducting soil sampling along the railroad right-of-way in order to determine a possible source (U.S. EPA Region III, 1988) C.1-7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1985 - 1987 Letter from WV DNR to U.S. EPA Region III, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dioxin data from Kanawha and Ohio River fish samples This letter prepared by WV DNR presents dioxin data from the River and Ohio River fish samples collected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) in 1986. It also presents a summary of fish tissue data collected in the River during 1985 to 1987. Results provided by U.S. ACE, Huntington District, Operations and Readiness Division which was attached to the WV DNR letter. Results reported that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was only detected in channel catfish samples, and was below the detection level of approximately 1 ppt (0.001 ppb) in all other species examined. WV DNR noted that this was disturbing news, since dioxin was found in samples from Marmet at 26.4 ppt (0.0264 ppb), and at Gallipolis 21.9 ppt (0.0219 ppb) which are areas where it was not expected to be found. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD detected at the Winfield Locks and Dam was reported as 26.0 ppt (0.026 ppb) (WV DNR, NA). April 4, 1986 Internal Memorandum from Roy L. Smith, U.S. EPA Region III: Sampling of Kanawha River Fish and Sediments for Dioxin Analysis This memorandum reiterates WV Governor Arch Moore's advisory against consuming fish collected from the River between St. Albans and the confluence of the Kanawha and Ohio Rivers. The advisory is based on high concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD found in fish fillets collected from the Nitro, WV area. U.S. EPA and WV DNR were cooperating to further study the extent of contamination. The goals of the study were to determine the aerial extent of fish contamination, determine the aerial extent of sediment contamination, and to search for "hot spots" of sediment contamination. The investigation was to involve collecting fish tissue samples from 10 locations, and sediment samples from 17 locations. The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) states that 46 sediment and 40 fish tissue samples were to be collected, and samples analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD at a detection limit of 1 pg/g (0.001 ppb). In addition, one sediment sample and three fish samples were to also be analyzed for pent- and hexa- isomers of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and possibly furans. Five fish tissue samples, which were captured by U.S. FWS in the Winfield area in 1976, 1978, and 1980 were to be analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the same time as the new samples. 031884 (51) C.1-8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES It was also noted that Senator Byrd recently received a letter from a constituent, which raised the possibility that Old Monsanto disposed of waste toluene in their Armour Creek Landfill (ACLF). Since toluene is reasonably water soluble, and is a good solvent for dioxin, it is suggested that dioxins buried at the ACLF site could migrate into groundwater, and into the River. It was therefore concluded that groundwater at the site should be sampled for both toluene and dioxin (Smith, 1986 4 ). April 1986 Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, WV and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling, U.S. EPA, 1986 U.S. EPA Region III prepared this report as part of a cooperative effort between U.S. EPA and WV DNR to study 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in the River near Nitro, WV. This cooperative effort was the result of findings of 1984 U.S. EPA National Dioxin Study, and 1983 U.S. FDA fish advisories for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The report summarizes the reasoning behind the joint effort, sampling activities conducted to date, and the findings of sediment sampling in the River in April 1986. In 1984, U.S. EPA conducted a National Dioxin Study, during which five fish tissue samples were collected from River near Nitro, WV, and this area was classified as a Tier 2 site. A Tier 2 site is a site that is possibly contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD by the manufacturer of pesticides from 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and the associated disposal practices. U.S. EPA reported that whole fish samples of Smallmouth bass and Spotted bass were contaminated with 31 pg/g (0.031 ppb) and 51 pg/g (0.051 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD, respectively. Fillets of Largemouth bass and Smallmouth bass were reported as 12 pg/g (0.012 ppb) and 33 pg/g (0.033 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD, respectively. In 1983, U.S. FDA advised Great Lakes fishermen not to consume fish containing 50 pg/g (0.05 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD or greater, and not to consume fish containing 25 to 50 pg/g (0.025 to 0.05 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD more then twice per month. Bass species typically contain lower residues of lipophilic organics as compared to other species such as channel catfish, and bottom feeders like Buffalofish. Since levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination near U.S. FDA levels of concern were reported in bass from the River, U.S. EPA concluded that other species may be contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD at unacceptable levels. The joint study has consisted of two sets of sampling to date. The first sampling event occurred in October 1985. Fillets from seven fish species were collected to detect differences in contamination among species. The second event was conducted in April 1986. Fillets from two fish genera were collected at seven locations to test the 031884 (51) C.1-9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES difference in concentration among locations. Results indicated that there is a significant difference in 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration among species and location. The most contaminated fish were Smallmouth buffalo, White bass, channel catfish, and Freshwater drum. The least contaminated fish were Smallmouth bass, Sauger, Spotted bass, Largemouth bass, and Bluegill. The most contaminated areas were Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River, where the mean 2,3,7,8-TCDD residues in channel catfish fillets exceeded 25 pg/g (0.025 ppb), and the 90% upper confidence limits (UCLs) exceeded 50 pg/g (0.05 ppb). The fish tissue results confirmed the presence of unacceptable levels of contamination that could possibly endanger the health of fishermen. Based on the 1985 sample results, WV Governor Arch Moore issued an advisory not to consume fish collected from the River between the Coal and Ohio Rivers. In April 1986, concurrent with the second set of fish tissue sampling, sediment sampling was conducted in the River, Armour Creek, and the Pocatalico River. The purpose of the sediment sampling was to determine the aerial extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination, determine if contamination was continuing, locate any "hot spots" of contamination, and locate any point sources. Results of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD analysis concluded that: • There is widespread low-level 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination at levels approaching 100 ng/kg (0.01 ppb) in sediments in the River, with hot spots in Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River • 2,3,7,8-TCDD inputs to Armour Creek may be decreasing; however, 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination of the Pocatalico River is increasing • There are two hypotheses concerning continuing sources: contamination may have entered the tributaries directly from nearby landfills, or may have been deposited in backwater areas from the River U.S. EPA recommended that additional sediment data be gathered to pinpoint 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources, and to test the two hypotheses. Proposed sediment sampling in Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River was designed to detect gradients from proximal sources. Proposed sediment sampling to downstream backwaters was proposed for Bills Creek (RM 38.2) and Linbarger Creek (RM 39.9). These samples were intended to characterize current 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination and therefore included surface sediment samples only (Smith, 1986 2 ). 031884 (51) C.1-10 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES April and May, 1986 Dioxin Contamination in 1986 Fish Tissue Samples from the Kanawha River, Armour Creek, and the Pocatalico River, WV, 1986 This report was prepared by Roy L. Smith, et al. (Smith) for WV DNR. In April and May 1986, fish were collected from Stations 1, 2, and 4 through 8 located on the River. Stations 3, 9, and 10 were not sampled because they were considered conditional stations that would be sampled pending the results from previous sampling. The target species for sampling were Largemouth, Smallmouth and Spotted basses, and channel catfish. Four composite samples were taken at each station, two channel catfish, and two bass, with each composite sample consisting of 3 to 5 fish. Analytical results reported that channel catfish were significantly more contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD than bass. Fish from Nitro and Plymouth were found to be the most contaminated at 45 ppt (0.045 ppb) and 35 ppt (0.035 ppb), respectively. Fish from St. Albans and Winfield had the lowest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations at 2 to 5 ppt (0.002 to 0.005 ppb) and 5 to 16 ppt (0.005 ppb to 0.016 ppb), respectively. It was also noted that contamination of catfish varied more by location than did bass. Included in Smith's report was Table 3, which provided mean 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations for each genus, location, and 90% UCLs for these means. There was a 50% probability that the true mean 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations were higher than estimated means, however only a 5% probability that the true means were higher than the 90% UCLs. It was therefore suggested that UCL values and not the mean be used to estimate upper bound human health risks from consuming fish. Smith concluded that due to the significant interaction between species and location, some fish were considerably more contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD than the means suggest. The highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration was found in channel catfish collected from Armour Creek, which had a mean tissue concentration of 40.5 pg/g (0.0405 ppb), and a 90% UCL of 68.0 pg/g (0.068 ppb). Due to the possibility that there may be fishermen that consume fish exclusively from Armour Creek, Smith recommended that the UCL be used to estimate upper bound risks to individuals exposed at the maximum level (Smith, 1986 3 ). 031884 (51) C.1-11 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES July 17, 1986 Site Visit with Pamela Hayes as Requested by Mr. Boggess of St. Albans, WV DNR, 1986 On July 17, 1986, WV DNR inspectors Pamela Hayes and Rebecca J. Robertson visited the Rock Branch/Poca area to view three potential landfill areas. The trip was made at the request of Mr. Boggess of St. Albans, who requested that these areas be investigated due to Old Monsanto dumping materials at these areas several years prior to the investigation. Inspectors reported that they were already aware of two of the three sites; however, the third was a new discovery, and most likely to contain dioxin wastes. The site in question was reported as being "located on Manila Creek, approximately one mile out on the right". WV DNR Inspectors concluded that the site should be reported to U.S. EPA for further investigation (Robertson, 1986). 1990 to 1998 Updated Kanawha River Fish Consumption Advisory, WV Bureau for Public Health, 2000 WV DNR, WV Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP), with assistance from U.S. EPA and WV University (WVU) sampled several species of fish in the River. These species include the following: 031884 (51) • Largemouth bass • Smallmouth bass • Spotted bass • White bass • Hybrid striped bass • Suckers • Crappie • Sauger • Freshwater drum • Channel catfish C.1-12 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES High dioxin concentrations were consistently found in channel catfish and hybrid striped bass. Examination of historic sampling results revealed that traces of dioxin have been found in the edible portions of fish. The highest dioxin concentration, 70.93 ppt (0.07093 ppb) was found in hybrid striped bass collected from the River near Scary, WV and the lowest concentration, 0.89 ppt (0.00089 ppb) was found in crappie collected at Institute, WV. Results for channel fish ranged from 3.71 ppt (0.00371 ppb) to 68.21 ppt (0.06821 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. As a result, the WV Bureau for Public Health (WV BPH), WV DNR, and WV DEP updated a fish consumption advisory that had been in place since 1986. The previous advisory included catfish and other bottom-feeding species caught in the River between the Coal River and Point Pleasant. The updated advisory includes additional fish, and extends from the Interstate 64 bridge at Dunbar downstream to Point Pleasant. This also covers Manila Creek, Heizer Creek, Armour Creek, Bills Creek, and the lower two miles of the Pocatalico River. The updated advisory was also based on data obtained from a sampling event U.S. EPA performed in 1998, all data collected since 1990, and new protocols for setting risk levels for consumption of fish developed by the agencies through a contract with WVU. These new protocols contain more stringent guidelines than previously issued U.S. FDA guidelines. The advisory entitled, WV Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Guide, recommends not consuming fish with a dioxin concentration greater than 20.7 ppt (0.0207 ppb) for both adults and children. This advisory was more protective than U.S. FDA standards previously used to establish advisories, which recommend 50 ppt (0.050 ppb) for the general public, and 25 ppt for children and women of a child-bearing age (Weston, 2000 1 ). September 1998 Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV, Weston, 1999 Complaints were made to WV DEP by residents living along the Pocatalico River, Heizer Creek, and Manila Creek who were concerned about the possibility of dioxin leaching from nearby landfills into these water bodies. In September 1998, U.S. EPA, in coordination with WV DEP, conducted a windshield assessment of four landfills of concern in the Nitro and Poca areas of Putnam County. These landfills included: the 031884 (51) C.1-13 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Manila Creek Landfill, the Heizer Creek Landfill (HCLF), the Poca Strip Mine Landfill (PSMLF), and the ACLF. On November 9, 1998, U.S. EPA directed the Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) Site Assessment and Technical Assistance Team (SATA) to conduct a sampling assessment of dioxin contamination along the River Valley between Mile Point (MP) 39 and MP 49. This included sediment sampling along the Pocatalico River, Heizer Creek, Manila Creek, and Armour Creek in order to assess the levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD being released from the four landfills of concern. Weston was also directed to investigate the impacts on the local fish population. Sampling concentrated on determining dioxin levels downgradient of the four landfills, and therefore sampling occurred in three categories: downgradient of the landfills, in surface sediment, and fish sampling. Elevated dioxin levels found downgradient of HCLF and the Manila Creek Landfill were determined to be possibly due to the migration of dioxin from the landfills. Creek sediment results of 4.9 ng/kg (0.0049 ppb) at Heizer Creek, and 6.8 ng/kg (0.0068 ppb) at Manila Creek were equivalent to the residential soil risk-based concentration of 4.3 ng/kg (0.0043 ppb) for dioxin. Therefore, it was noted that elevated sediment results from any stream could be due to a historical concentration of dioxin in sediment, and not necessarily due to continuous release from the landfills. Weston recommended that an additional study be conducted to delineate a historical concentration of dioxin in stream sediment from elevated levels due to migration from landfills. Based on composite soil samples results and sediment samples collected at the entry point of Armour Creek, it was determined that elevated levels of dioxin were due to migration from the ditchline north of the railroad. Historical research conducted by Weston determined that the former Midwest Steel Corporation (Midwest) site and the adjacent landfill drain into the ditchline. In regard to fish results, it was concluded that dioxin levels exceeded risk-based concentrations of 0.021 ng/kg (0.000021 ppb) at all locations, and increased significantly downstream of River MP 49. Results indicated that the highest fish dioxin levels are at MP 42 and MP 36, and at Armour Creek. In addition, fish dioxin levels at the Pocatalico River and Bills Creek were also significantly greater than those upstream at MP 49 (Weston, 1999). 031884 (51) C.1-14 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1999 Dioxin Contamination of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, WV Citizen Research Group, Baker, 1999 The WV Citizen Research Group produced this study of dioxin in the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers in 1999, with funding from the Virginia Environmental Endowment. The WV Citizen Research Group reports that dioxin in the River and other water bodies downstream of Nitro, including hundreds of miles of the Ohio River, is chemically traceable back to Old Monsanto's production of 2,4,5,-T between 1948 and 1969. They further state that dioxin still remains in the soils, sediments, groundwater, and river water of the Nitro area three decades after the production of 2,4,5-T ended. The dioxin has concentrated up the food chain, making fish from the River 1,000 times more likely to cause cancer in the consumer than from U.S. EPA's safe level. In 1998, the River carried a dioxin load that exceeded U.S. EPA's estimated total dioxin discharge from the entire U.S. pulp industry. For these reasons, the WV Citizen Research Group felt that the site should be placed on the National Priority List (NPL). The study also states that the U.S. EPA draft Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of the River dioxin did not report the geographic proximity of dioxin hotspots in the River's sediments to Old Monsanto's riverbank pesticide dumps and location of the former 2,4,5-T building. The draft also failed to mention Old Monsanto's (now Flexsys), wastewater outfall as a potential source area. It is suggested that the Old Monsanto's dioxin contamination in the Nitro area should be recognized in the NPL of Superfund sites, as other major Agent Orange sites have been already added to the list. The group stated that both the draft TMDL and site status reflect favoritism that U.S. EPA and the WV governor have shown Old Monsanto. The WV Citizen's Group stated that citizens are cautioned to remain skeptical of the motives of both Old Monsanto and government bureaucrats. The WV Citizen Research Group report concluded with the following recommendations regarding dioxin standards and TMDLs: 031884 (51) • U.S. EPA should adopt a stringent enforceable dioxin standard for fish and new detection methods for water. This would make TMDLs more commonplace, which would place a greater burden on U.S. EPA and dioxin levels much lower than those in the River would be recognized as unhealthy. • U.S. EPA needs to adopt a strategy to reduce the nation's major dioxin sources in order to deal with a multitude of dioxin TMDLs. C.1-15 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • The draft TMDL should be re-written to include all available relevant data from U.S. EPA and other federal, state, and regional agencies. • The U.S. EPA Region III director should create a new TMDL team for the River in order to include team members from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Superfund, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs; watershed groups including the United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. FWS, U.S. ACE, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), and citizens groups such as the WV Citizen Research Group and the Heizer-Manila Watershed Association. The WV Citizen Research Group also concluded that the TMDL process has been delayed by U.S. EPA and feels that it would be better to start the report over again rather than to accept the current draft. Information should continue to be collected and incorporated to fill data gaps. As other important TMDLs will be based largely on the information in the River TMDL, the deadline for the report should be allowed to coincide with the deadline for the Ohio River. The WV Citizen Research Group stated that the River TMDL should be recognized as a means of dealing with one of the nation's worst cases of water pollution (Baker, 1999). February 2000 2000 – Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site (Nitro Storm Sewer/Outfall Investigation), Weston In the mid 1980's, WV DNR and U.S. EPA conducted a study which revealed significant levels of dioxin in sediment and fish tissue samples. In September 1998, U.S. EPA and WV DEP conducted a windshield assessment of the Kanawha Valley near Nitro and Poca. In November 1998, Weston SATA conducted a sampling assessment in the River under the direction of U.S. EPA. Sampling included the River and its tributaries in the vicinity of the four old landfills, and included the collection of soil, sediment, and fish tissue. In February 2000, U.S. EPA directed SATA to investigate several outfalls, which discharge into the River, and the sanitary and stormwater systems located in and around the Nitro side of the River. The objective of this investigation was to gain information to be used to draft a dioxin sampling plan. Data from the sampling plan is required to determine point sources of dioxin to the River, and to be used in an upcoming draft TMDL report. 031884 (51) C.1-16 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES During the week of February 28, 2000, SATA visited various facilities and representatives in the Nitro area in order to gain a better understanding of the stormwater and sanitary drainage systems. Several maps of both the current system and of the original system, installed during World War I (WWI), were obtained from Nitro's Wastewater Superintendent Constance Stephens. These maps were examined for possible point sources where dioxin contamination could be entering the River or Armour Creek. SATA identified specific locations where the old WWI system was still being used as part of the existing sewer system, and traced these lines to their junctions and outfall locations. Concern was expressed that residual contaminated sludges could possibly be contributing to dioxin concentration, due to breakthrough from old lines. In February 2000, SATA interviewed WV DEP Enforcement Richard Hackney to discuss his concerns regarding possible dioxin point sources in Kanawha and Putnam counties. One of Mr. Hackney's primary concerns was regarding the Fike Artel Superfund site. He indicated that he has reason to believe that only a portion of the Fike site stormwater was diverted to the Fike Treatment Plant during the Superfund cleanup of the site. He believes that up until 1997, when most of the cleanup operations ended, the majority of the stormwater was discharged into the River via a 66-inch line located near the Par Industrial Park near MP 42.9. U.S. EPA and SATA members conducted a study in March 7, 2000 to identify and log all visible outfall point sources and all permitted discharge locations from MP 46.5 to MP 41. The study focused on outfalls located along the right-descending bank; however, also included five outfalls along the left-descending bank, and several private residential runoff outfalls. Flow, type of pipe, size of pipe, and registered permit holder was noted for each outfall. On March 8, 2000, WV DEP and SATA members conducted an additional study to understand some of the source contributors and regulatory history of the numerous outfalls. SATA filmed outfalls and noted comments that WV DEP Enforcement Officer Charlie Moses offered regarding the purposes and outlet sources for many of the outfalls. On March 21, 2000, SATA members met with Tony Tuk, Remedial Projects Manager for Solutia the Flexsys/Solutia Facility in Nitro. Mr. Tuk escorted SATA on a site visit to view the sources for the Flexsys/Solutia outfalls and discharge locations. In conclusion, SATA plans to further review maps and information obtained during this investigation to prepare a dioxin sampling plan for the collection of surface 031884 (51) C.1-17 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES water/stormwater and sediment samples to identify possible point sources of dioxin (Weston, 2000 2 ). May 2000 [CRA Box 2] Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Weston, 2001 In May 2000, the Weston SATA assisted in a sampling investigation of dioxin contamination in the River near Nitro, in Kanawha and Putnam Counties. The purpose of this sampling event was to characterize dioxin contamination present in River sediments, to identify dioxin-contaminated hot spots, and to assist in the delineation of potential threats to human health and the environment by the contaminated sediments. In the mid 1980's, WV DEP and U.S. EPA conducted studies, which revealed significant levels of dioxin in sediment and fish tissue samples. In September 1998, U.S. EPA OSC Walter Lee, Site Assessment Manager James Hargett, and WV DEP Inspector Pam Hayes conducted a windshield assessment of the Kanawha Valley near Nitro and Poca, WV. In November 1998, U.S. EPA and SATA sampled soil, sediment, and fish tissue in the River and its tributaries located near four old landfills. U.S. EPA determined that an extensive sediment sampling event was necessary to finalize the TMDL study of the River. Approximate sampling locations were determined by analyzing historical and recent data. Sampling was conducted from May 11 to 19, 2000. A total of 151 sediment samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin. U.S. EPA reviewed the dioxin data, and determined that several concentrations were above U.S. EPA removal guideline. The guideline used for comparison was the current standard residential sediment removal guideline for dioxin, based on the 1989 interim scheme of Total Toxicity Equivalents (TEQs), which was 1 ppb. At sample location KRSD-21, located near MP 42.7, just downstream of a 66-inch outfall, the highest dioxin concentration reported was 5,110 ppt (5.11 ppb) for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This submerged outfall is located in the PAR Industrial Park, and serves much of the industrial area south of MP 42.9. At sample location KRSD-19, located one-half mile downstream of the left descending bank, the highest 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration reported was 1,720 ppt (1.72 ppb). Sample location KRSD-05, located along the right descending bank at the mouth of Guano Creek near MP 36 reported a highest concentration of 1,590 ppt (1.59 ppb) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and location KRSD-09 reported a highest concentration of 5,020 ppt (5.20 ppb) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 031884 (51) C.1-18 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Data obtained from this report was to be used along with data gathered from previous sampling activities for the development of the River Site Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package. The HRS package was to be used to determine future actions for the Site. Data would have also been used in the River Dioxin TMDL report (Weston, 2001). June 16, 2000 - June 27, 2000 Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Hi-Vol. Water Sampling, Nitro, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2000 This report is a result of an inter-agency agreement between U.S. EPA, Region III and USGS to conduct sampling of dioxin contamination in the River and its tributaries located near Nitro, WV. USGS conducted high-volume sampling at ten locations on the River and its tributaries near Nitro from June 16 to 27, 2000. The Weston SATA assisted with the hi-volume sampling by taking custody, packing, and shipping samples. Ecology and Environment, Inc. was tasked to write the trip report. Ten high-volume samples were collected from selected points on the Kanawha, Pocatalico, and Coal Rivers, Armour, Heizer, Manila, and Bills Creek, and also from an industrial outfall located on the right descending bank of the River. The highest concentration of 2,380 femtograms per liter (fg/L) (0.002380 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found in sample R383814, 16, the PB&S outfall. Ecology and Environment, Inc. concluded that data and information obtained from this sampling event would be used to identify possible point sources of dioxin to the River. The data may also be used in the TMDL study of the Kanawha River Valley (Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2000). September 2001 Kanawha River Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, Region III, START, 2003 In September 2001, Ecology and Environment, Inc. conducted sampling and a site investigation at the River MP 41 to MP 42.5 and MP 42.5 to MP 46.5, under the direction of U.S. EPA Region III. The purpose of this investigation was to characterize potential sources, the nature of contamination, relative hazards posed by sources, and impacts to targets. U.S. EPA requested this information to determine whether the site was eligible for placement on the NPL. 031884 (51) C.1-19 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Previous investigations by state and federal agencies identified an area of contaminated sediment concentrated around the Nitro Industrial Area, and certain locations downstream, between MP 31.0 and MP 44.5. Potential point sources were identified as residential, municipal, and industrial outfalls. Non-point sources of contamination included overland runoff and possible groundwater contamination. The sampling event included collection of aqueous effluent, water, and sediment samples from both source and attribution sample locations. Sediment samples were analyzed for chlorinated herbicides. Sample location KRSO-31 (R3109709) indicated a concentration of 38.0 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) (38.0 ppb) of 2,4,5-T, and sample location KRSO-27 (R3109710) indicated a concentration of 31 ppt (0.031 ppb) 2,4,5-T. These results were consistent with dioxins and furans, which were also found in samples KRSO-31 and KRSO-27. Based on the results, Ecology and Environment, Inc. determined that the surface water pathway is the major pathway of concern for the site (Region III, START, 2003). 1.2 ARMOUR CREEK The sediments in Armour Creek were sampled in November 1998 in response to public concern that ACLF was contributing to dioxin contamination in Armour Creek (Pam Hayes, WV DEP Office of Environmental Remediation). Dioxin was detected in the sediment. Soil sampling completed in the Armour Creek watershed resulted in elevated levels of dioxin. Armour Creek Landfill is located north of the City of Nitro along State Route 25. It is comprised of approximately 45 acres of land, and was jointly operated by Old Monsanto and Akzo Nobel Corporation. Armour Creek is located to the north of the landfill (Weston, 1999). May 2, 2000 Letter to Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill, 2000 This letter, prepared by WV DEP, was attached to Solid Waste/NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit Number WV0077020 for the Armour Creek Landfill, and presents responses to comments submitted by Solutia in a letter dated April 3, 2000. 031884 (51) C.1-20 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP stated that they have received comments from the public and from U.S. EPA regarding concerns of dioxins being present in surface water runoff from ACLF, which was alluded to in the Weston report, "Trip Report Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV" dated April 14, 1999. WV DEP stated that the report does not state that ACLF is the source of dioxins to Armour Creek; however, it does indicate that it may be a possible source. The letter concluded with two additional conditions that WV DEP placed on the permit which includes: • C.14 The permittee shall by the time frame specified in Section B.1.b (six months) submit a plan to sample and analyze the storm water runoff from the landfill for its potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any form of dioxin • C.15 Upon obtaining any evidence that the facility is discharging or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any other form of dioxin, the permit may be reopened and revised accordingly (WV DEP, 2000 1 ) May 2, 2000 Letter to Renae Bonnett, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, 2000 This letter was prepared by WV DEP in response to comments concerning the Draft Permit for the ACLF provided by Ms. Renae Bonnett of Rt. 1, Poca, WV. WV DEP stated that regarding concerns about dioxin, the dioxin issue was discussed with WV DEP hazardous waste personnel during the period in which the previous permit was prepared. WV DEP stated that analysis of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,-D) is required to monitor dioxin in water. 2,4-D is a breakdown product of most dioxin and of the dioxin group, it is the most soluble in water and weak acids, which are typical conditions in a landfill. It was noted that due to the physical characteristics of dioxin, they are not a typical water-borne substance, and therefore under landfill conditions, can't be found through water sampling. WV DEP states that typically, dioxin is only found through analysis of sediments or biological tissues, since that is where dioxin tends to accumulate. It was also reported that groundwater at the landfill was monitored for ten quarters for 2,4-D, and historical data have reported it as ND. In addition, Solutia has installed new caps on the disposal areas, which should eliminate dioxin, if present, from contacting surface water and as a result contaminating stormwater runoff. 031884 (51) C.1-21 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP also stated that the Weston report entitled "Trip Report Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site Nitro, Putnam County, WV", dated April 14, 1999, does not state that the ACLF is the source of dioxin in Armour Creek. It does indicate however, that the railroad ditch, which borders the landfill contains dioxin contaminated sediments, and that this contamination may have originated from outside the landfill. WV DEP concluded by saying that the landfill can currently only be identified as a potential source until the U.S. EPA assessment is complete, and there is evidence to support that the landfill is discharging, or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In response, two conditions have been incorporated into the permit which include sampling and analyzing stormwater runoff for its potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and upon obtaining evidence that the facility is discharging or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the permit may be reopened and revised (WV DEP, 2000 2 ). 2001 Letter to Ms. Allyn Turner, from Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, Re: 3rd Quarter, 2001 Report, Armour Creek Landfill - NPDES Permit Requirements, WV 0077020, Potesta & Associates, Inc., 2001 This report was prepared by Potesta & Associates, Inc. (Potesta) to fulfill the requirements of the Solutia's ACLF Solid Waste/NPDES Permit Number WV0077020, effective June 2, 2000. Potesta reported that during the third quarter of 2001, the focus of the permit was a continuation of routine maintenance of final closure items completed during 1999/2000. Approximately 5,000 gallons of leachate and rainwater was treated, and groundwater and leachate samples were collected. In addition, stormwater samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin, which completed the required one-time landfill sampling event. Stormwater sampling for dioxin was completed as per Section C. 14 of the current Solid Waste NPDES Water Pollution Permit No. WV0077020, for the closed ACLF. Section C. 14 requires the formulation of a plan to sample and chemically analyze stormwater runoff from the landfill for 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any other form of dioxin. Potesta reported that they collected a stormwater sample from an outlet at ACLF (ACLF Stormwater Outlet 009), as well as an additional background sample at a location outside the limits of ACLF. According to Potesta, ACLF Stormwater Outlet 009 is considered the most significant surface water sampling, and stormwater discharge point for the landfill, since its location is central to the previously active portions of the 031884 (51) C.1-22 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES landfill. This outlet is sampled on a quarterly basis and results are submitted to WV DEP as part of the permit requirements. The selected off-site point was a drainage point of an approximately 7.2 acre area near the westbound Nitro exit of Interstate 64, approximately 2,500 feet south of Outlet 009. Potesta reported that the chosen off-Site sample location is situated at the discharge point of the drainage culvert passing beneath the exit ramp. Stormwater from this area is reported to drain to Armour Creek east of the ramp. Samples were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxin compounds, which included the seventeen congeners considered to be the most toxic of the 210 compounds in the dioxin family. Potesta reported that sample ACLF-009 was ND for 2,3,7,8-TCDD with a detection limit of 1.8 pg/L, however 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) was detected at 38.3 pg/L, which is an estimate of the true concentration. Potesta reported that the background sample, BG-1 had a reported concentration of 6.1 pg/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Potesta concluded that sampling results indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not present in the runoff from Outlet 009 at ACLF. OCDD, a dioxin congener was reported, however Potesta stated that this detection was due to an apparent peak on the analysis chromatography, and therefore the concentration could only be estimated. The reported concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the off-site background sample was also an estimate since the calculated response peak was below the method concentration comparison curve. Potesta concluded that due to estimation of values used in the analysis method, accuracy of the results must also be considered estimates (Potesta & Associates, Inc., 2001). 1.3 MANILA CREEK/POCATALICO RIVER The sediments in Manila Creek and Pocatalico River were sampled in November 1998 in response to public concern that this landfill was contributing to dioxin contamination in the Pocatalico River (Pam Hayes, WVDEP Office of Environmental Remediation). The results from this sampling revealed some potential off-site migration of dioxin contaminated soils. A subsequent round of sampling was conducted in September 1999 and revealed contamination of soils and groundwater at the site. The soil samples ranged from 0 to 385 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Groundwater sampling revealed dioxin concentrations ranging from 197 to 1,470 pg/L. These reported results are from water collected from monitoring wells installed within the waste layer at the landfill. The creek sediments are also contaminated in this region (0 to 38 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD). 031884 (51) C.1-23 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES September 1964 Memorandum – Nitro Refuse Dump on Poca River, WV DWR, 1962 WV DWR received complaints in September 1964 from residents on the Poca River regarding pollution from the City of Nitro Dump and chemical plants in the Nitro area. Concern was that wastes were entering the Poca River via a small tributary. An inspection was conducted on September 14, 1962 by WV DWR in response to these complaints. In a memo dated September 17, 1962, Mr. John Hall, Chief Chemist of WV DWR made the following observations: • A fish kill was occurring near the point where the small tributary from the dump entered the Poca River. Mr. Hall stated that "thousands of small fish were breaking water and appeared to be in distress". • Chemical plant wastes of solid and semi-solid nature were disposed of in barrels at the site. • Chemical and domestic wastes disposed of at the site were not being covered by earth, and therefore considered an open type dump. • Acid mine drainage was present in the dump. The memo concluded that the chemical wastes constituted a potential water pollution problem, and that efforts should be made to ensure chemical plants and dump operators disposed of waste properly. Mr. Hall noted that barrels hauled to the site often rupture when the trucks dump the barrels, which permits spillage of chemicals. Mr. Hall collected samples; which indicated pollution from the dump. In response to these observations, a letter dated September 24, 1962, from Bern Wright, Chief of WV DWR, was sent to the City of Nitro, Ohio Apex, Old Monsanto, and Cadle Sanitary Service (who hauled waste material to the site). The letter informed the parties of the complaint, site conditions, and that stream pollution was occurring and must be stopped. Parties were given until October 1, 1962 to respond to the matter, to which most responded; the general agreement among the parties was that no serious problem existed, and that the responsibility did not rest individually with them. WV DWR continued to receive complaints of scums and foams on the river and as a result, Chief Bern Wright wrote to Old Monsanto, Ohio Apex, and the Mayor of the City of Nitro informing them that the waste disposal problem had not been resolved. The parties were given until December 15, 1962 to develop proper disposal of refuse and 031884 (51) C.1-24 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES waste material procedures for the Nitro Dump. If the parties did not comply, the State Litter Law would be enforced. A re-inspection of the site was conducted on November 30, 1962 at the request of Mayor Alexander of Nitro. Representatives from Old Monsanto, Ohio-Apex, the Nitro Dump, and WV DWR were present. The companies were given more time to analyze samples on the water above and below the dump (Wright, 1962). May 13, 1980 Site Inspection Summary Sheet, Manila Creek, Site Number WV-1, WV DEP, 1982 Old Monsanto notified a congressional survey that they disposed of organic, herbicide, fungicide, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes at a site in Amherst, Putnam County, WV from 1956 to 1957. On May 13, 1980, the site was inspected by a state representative who reported that dark, oily leachate was seeping from the landfill, and that the site had been abandoned. It was also noted that the landfill did not contain any vegetation. As a result of the investigation, water sampling of an adjacent tributary occurred on June 28, 1981. Results indicated the presence of 2,4,5-T at 3.3 micrograms per liter (ug/L) (3.3 ppb). On August 27, 1981, WV DEP and U.S. EPA conducted on-site sampling, which was not completed due to shipment difficulties. On September 11, 1981, WV DEP collected off-site water samples, which did not detect the herbicide. As a result of these investigations, WV DEP contacted property owners Amherst Coal and Old Monsanto (WV DEP, 1982). June 29, 1981 Site Inspection, Manila Creek, WV DNR, 1981 On June 29, 1981, WV DNR conducted a site investigation at the Manila Creek dump site area. The area investigated was on top of a knoll adjacent to county road 5 near Washington Hollow. Inspectors observed an area of approximately 75 feet by 75 feet, which was nearly devoid of vegetation. Normal vegetation was observed around the site perimeter, except for a small area down-gradient of the site that indicated the path of water runoff. Inspectors obtained stream grab samples from a tributary adjacent to the hill. This tributary runs from Washington Hollow into Manila Creek. Samples were taken to analyze for 2,4,5-T. Sections of the creek band showed evidence of mine seepage from springs. 031884 (51) C.1-25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The inspectors drove to a dirt road, approximately a quarter of a mile north, and traveled 300 yards to observe a partially excavated area noted earlier. No soil discoloration or odors were observed in this area. The inspectors observed a swamp-like area with scrap appliances and trash while driving back to Heizer Road. Blackish sediment was observed along the ground in this area, and a chemical odor was detected (Casdroph, 1981). December 14, 1982 Inter-Office Memorandum – Manila Creek Benthic Survey, WV DNR, 1982 On December 14, 1982, a preliminary benthic survey was conducted in Manila Creek, Putnam County. The purpose of the survey was to determine the impact of an abandoned chemical dump site on the stream. Five stations were sampled as part of the survey: three in Manila Creek and two in small tributaries to the creek. A standard benthic kick sample was collected at each station and rocks were turned over to examine the area for benthic macroinvertebrates. WV DNR determined that in situ examinations provided adequate information since the numbers of individuals and taxa were low at all sites. They also noted that several specimens were taken to the lab to confirm the field identifications. WV DNR reported that the entire study area was heavily impacted by abandoned coal mining activity since iron seeps, refuse dumps, and strip benches were highly visible. Station 1, which was located below a large iron seep, yielded no organisms. Stations 2, 3, and 4 were all located in Manila Creek, and contained a limited number of taxa, with mostly the same species composition. Station 5 was located in Washington Hollow, and was observed to have escaped serious damage from mine drainage. WV DNR noted that stream size appears to limit the benthic potential more than water quality. WV DNR concluded that mine drainage problems overshadow any biological impacts, which may be due to the abandoned chemical dump site (WV DNR, 1982). September 18, 1984 A Field Trip Report for Manila Creek, NUS Corporation, 1984 On September 18, 1984, the NUS Corporation FIT III team conducted a dioxin screening at Manila Creek as part of U.S. EPA Region III, Tier II, Dioxin Study. 031884 (51) C.1-26 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A total of 19 field samples and 5 quality assurance samples were taken. Sample locations were selected based on current site conditions, past sampling results, and lab space restraints. Site observations included the following: • Site sampling was restricted primarily to the unvegetated portion of the area. • The area void of vegetation measured approximately 30 by 60 feet. The surface of this area was covered with patches of a hardened, asphalt-like material. Debris was scattered across the surface of this area. • The leachate area near the northern perimeter of the site measured approximately 3 feet by 3 feet. The leachate was black in color and had a high viscosity. • HNU readings above the 1 ppm background concentration were not observed either in the ambient air or in downhill measurements (NUS Corporation, 1984). 1986 Manila Creek Site Water Level and Highwall Study, ERM-Midwest, Inc. In order to assess remedial action alternatives proposed for the remedial action plan at the Manila Creek site, it was important to determine if recharge was occurring from the highwall, and also to determine the slope of the highwall. ERM-Midwest was retained to conduct test borings to determine the slope on the east side of the fill. In order to determine the water level and flow direction, ERM-Midwest installed two piezometers on the bench above the borings. In 1984, NUS Corporation conducted sampling at the site under the direction of U.S. EPA. Surface soils were analyzed for 2,3,7,8,-TCDD to approximately a 2 foot depth. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found at concentrations up to 52 ppb. In January 1986, Remedial Corporation (REMCOR) conducted test borings at the site to determine the extent of fill material present. Data obtained from REMCOR's study was used for this water level and highwall study. Work completed during this investigation included: • 031884 (51) Drilling and installing two piezometers to assist in determining water levels and flow direction C.1-27 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Drilling 15 borings to be used to profile the slope of the highwall at the east side of the site • Surveying the piezometer and borings and tying their locations and elevations into the REMCOR survey and establishing a benchmark off site for future reference ERM-Midwest concluded that coal serves as an aquifer, and therefore it is probable that recharge to the fill material exists. It was also determined that water appears to be travelling in a northwest direction at the base of the coal, and appears to be confined to the eastern portion of the fill. Borings indicate that a steep wall is located on the east side of the fill area, and that in the center of the fill material, the material was placed directly on underclay and/or flyash (ERM-Midwest, 1986). 1986 Subsurface Investigation, Manila Creek Site, Nitro, WV, Remedial Corporation In 1986, REMCOR completed a remedial investigation of subsurface conditions at the Manila Creek site in order to determine the lateral and vertical extent of fill placed at the site. This information was required to calculate the total volume of material present at the site, which is required to analyze site remedial alternatives. This study was also conducted to determine the location and extent of saturated areas that contribute to seeps. This work was completed by REMCOR at the request of Old Monsanto. In 1984, the NUS, under contract with U.S. EPA, sampled surface soils at the site for the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected at concentrations up to 52 ppb. Seeps have been observed at the site; seep flow appears to increase proportionately with rainfall. Three seeps have been identified at the site. One was located to the north of the investigation area on a down slope. Old Monsanto has determined that this seep, which is black, oily, and tarry, contains an Old Monsanto product. The other two seeps are located at the south end of the site, and lead to a man-made pond. The seeps are viscous in nature, and are not black or oily. Work completed during the REMCOR investigation included: 031884 (51) • Discussion with Old Monsanto officials to identify the area of concern • Layout of a grid system for horizontal and vertical control • Drilling of borings with identification of subsurface conditions encountered C.1-28 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES REMCOR reported the following: • Approximately 20 to 50 feet of fill material covers the investigation area • The uppermost materials encountered were composed of mostly fill soils, which ranged from sandy/silty clays to broken siltstone fragments • In the northern part of the site, chemical waste products were found at six boring locations • REMCOR estimates that a total of 2,400 to 2,900 cubic yards of identified waste material exists at the site • A large part of the site is underlain by flyash fill which lies directly beneath the visibly identified waste material • REMCOR estimates a total of 5,000 to 7,000 cubic yards of flyash exist at the site (REMCOR, 1986) 1.4 PREVIOUS INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES INVESTIGATION In addition to the investigations described above, a summary of investigations completed for industrial facilities upstream, in and downstream of the Study Area has been completed. The purpose of this summary was to assist in determining other potential sources of contaminants of concern (COCs) to the River. The summary is presented in Appendix C. 1.5 SUMMARY OF KANAWHA RIVER DREDGING ACTIVITY Historical dredging activities in the vicinity of the Site were determined by reviewing dredging permits on file at the Huntington District of U.S. ACE and are summarized in Section 4.5.1 of the EE/CA Report. According to U.S. ACE, the federal navigation channel in the Winfield Pool is virtually self-scouring and therefore requires no maintenance dredging throughout most of the pool. Some localized dredging is required in the vicinity of the Winfield Locks to maintain the upriver and down river approach lanes to the locks. Otherwise, private parties have performed dredging activities in and upstream of the Site for the purposes of building or improving waterfront structures, clearing water intake lines, or reclaiming spilled coal. 031884 (51) C.1-29 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Construction Dredging. Dredging permits were issued to various parties for one-time waterfront construction projects involving maintenance and/or improvements to docks, bulkheads, marinas, and clearing water intake lines. Construction dredging permits have been issued to FMC Corporation (FMC), Old Monsanto, Allied Chemical Corporation (Allied Chemical), Union Carbide Company (UCC), Union Boiler, Midwest, and Rhône-Poulenc AG Company (Rhône-Poulenc). These projects were authorized to remove between 30 and 5,000 cubic yards of dredged material. Reclamation Dredging. By far the most significant dredging activities in the Winfield Pool (in terms of total dredged sediment volumes) have been performed by the Kanawha Dredging and Mineral Company (Kanawha Dredging) and the Voyager Coal Company (Voyager Coal). These companies held permits in several reaches of the River during the 1980's and 1990's for the purpose of reclaiming spilled coal and sand from various locations within the River bed. Kanawha Dredging was incorporated in July 1975 and terminated in December 1992; Voyager Coal was incorporated in May 1990 and terminated in June 2002. Voyager Coal generally succeeded Kanawha Dredging as the active permittee for U.S. ACE dredging permits. Dredged sediments were processed to remove spilled coal from the sediment bed (estimated at 38 to 85 percent of the dredged material), and the processed materials were redeposited in the River near their original location. The companies processed between 2,000 and 8,000 cubic yards of sediments per day, year round, weather permitting, using a typical dredge cut of 12 feet. Permit conditions limited such reclamation dredging activities to bands of the River located more than 150 feet beyond the federal channel, but also more than 130 feet from the shoreline. Dredging was originally performed using a 3 cubic yard clamshell bucket; however, the clamshell was replaced with a 10-inch hydraulic dredge in September 1988. The majority of the permitted dredging areas for coal reclamation were on the left (southern) bank of the River. However, one of the permitted areas was on the right (northern) bank of the River, downstream of Pocatalico River, between River Mile (RM) 36.97 and RM 38.81. Water Quality Certification of Reclamation Dredging. As early as 1987, WV DNR recognized that "The proposed dredge site [RM 40.45 to 41.70] lies within a reach of the Kanawha River where joint WVDNR/U.S. EPA sampling has documented dioxin contamination in sediments and fish." (WV DNR, 1987 2 ). WV DNR nevertheless granted conditional certification of the dredging activity based on the assumption that reclamation dredging would involve processing relatively coarse-grained channel sediments, whereas the majority of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination was assumed to be associated with finer 031884 (51) C.1-30 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES grained bank sediments. However, the file review did not produce data that would verify this assumed condition. In subsequent years, WV DNR/WV DEP occasionally denied Section 401 Water Quality Certification for certain reclamation dredging applications on the grounds that "…the hydraulic dredging and redepositing of 85 percent of dredged material will impact both the River's water quality and its aquatic resources by increasing turbidity and resuspending other pollutants." (WV DNR, 1991) and "…potential adverse affects are recognized for fish spawning sites, degraded aquatic habitat, excessive sedimentation, and resuspended pollutants." (WV DEP, 1997). In at least some cases, the denials were successfully appealed by the applicant, and Water Quality Certification was eventually obtained for reclamation dredging. 1.6 SOURCE, NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 2,3,7,8-TCDD is a common by-product of burning (including incineration) of a range of materials, the production of chlorinated organic compounds, and the bleaching step of the papermaking process. Historical industrial activities in the Kanawha River area appear to have resulted in the release of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River system. 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Site may have originated in part from the production of industrial solvents and the herbicide 2,4,5-T. Other more recent sources, such as the former American Car and Foundry (ACF) Industries site near Winfield Dam, may also have released 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River system. Depending on the ultimate cleanup goal for the River, ongoing discharges from Flexsys/Solutia Outfalls 006 and 008, and potentially other upland facilities, may also represent potential ongoing sources. 1.6.1 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREAS This section discusses potential upstream sources of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, other dioxin congeners, and other potential COCs in the Kanawha River Valley. Information regarding the facilities included in this section is based on documents reviewed to date, and will be updated as appropriate, based on new information. Additional potential sources exist in downstream areas. Available information related to these facilities is included in the database (in Appendix G) prepared for the Site, which has been evaluated in the EE/CA Report to which this Appendix is appended. 031884 (51) C.1-31 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Potential upstream source areas are generally grouped into the following two areas where the majority of the facilities are located: • Potential Source Area 1 – Institute and South Charleston • Potential Source Area 2 – Marmet, Belle, and Cedar Grove The locations of potential upstream sources are shown on Figures 3.1 and 3.2 of the EE/CA Report. 1.6.1.1 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA 1 – INSTITUTE AND SOUTH CHARLESTON Union Carbide Corporation UCC was founded in 1917 from five companies producing widely different products. UCC's key fields of activity include chemicals, plastics, alloys and metals, industrial gases, welding and cutting equipment, carbon and graphite products, electronics, nuclear energy, fibers and fabrics, and packaging products (Hurley, 1979). South Charleston Facility In 1920, UCC constructed the world's first petrochemical plant and UCC's first chemical-producing plant at Clendenin, WV. Operations were moved to South Charleston in 1925, in order to meet demands for the manufacture of ethylene glycol. The South Charleston site eventually expanded to occupy 236 acres in South Charleston, extending across the Kanawha River onto Blaine Island (Dow, 2006). Many of UCC's current product lines were originally developed at South Charleston, including major technological advances such as olefin gas separation techniques and vinyls technology. The UCC South Charleston Facility was acquired by the Dow Chemical Company (Dow) in 2001 through a merger with UCC. The Dow South Charleston Facility is a manufacturing facility that produces more than 500 different chemicals and plastics. The facility also serves as a redistribution center for chemicals manufactured at other locations. Products include automotive moldings, chewing gum, paint primers, brake fluids, hard surface cleaners, car wash, rinse aids, and a diverse mix of chemical intermediates for agricultural, automotive, and industrial uses. The South Charleston facility is a multi-company site. Bayer Corporation (Bayer) currently owns and operates the former UCC Polyols Production Unit, and Dow provides staffing, services, and utilities to Bayer (UCC, 1995 – 2003). 031884 (51) C.1-32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES South Charleston Technical Center The South Charleston Technical Center was dedicated in 1949. Prior to 1949, the South Charleston facility conducted research and development for petrochemicals and plastics. In 1959, two additional development labs, and an engineering building were constructed. A large data processing building was constructed in 1977. The current center consists of a 651-acre complex, consisting of 400 labs, several chemical pilot plants, a computer operations center, and an engineering center. A majority of the major processes for petrochemicals were developed at this center by UCC. Dow acquired the UCC Technical Center in 2001 through a merger with UCC (UCC, 1995 – 2003). North Charleston Storage Area The North Charleston Storage Area is located in the City of Charleston. The site is bounded by 21st street to the north, Kanawha Two Mile Creek to the east, the Kanawha River to the south, and the Charleston Sewage Treatment Plant to the west. The storage area is approximately 3 acres in size, with an area of approximately 200 by 200 ft used as a disposal area. UCC began using the storage area in the early 1950's. Materials disposed of included flyash, spent catalyst, polyethylene-pellets, drums of unknown contents, and rubble. No records were kept of the volume of materials disposed (Foster, 1982). Institute Facility UCC originally built and operated the Institute Plant in 1943 as a U.S. government plant for the production of butadiene and styrene. UCC purchased the plant in 1947 to produce commodity type products, which eventually changed to specialty chemicals and agricultural products. The facility was sold to Rhône-Poulenc in December of 1986, and was later purchased by Aventis CropScience, under agreements that the plant would share certain facilities. The Polyols Unit was sold to ARCO Chemical in 1990, and in 2001, Dow acquired UCC's operations through a merger with UCC and is presently a tenant at the facility. Currently, Bayer Corporation owns the plant site property, general facilities and the agricultural producing units. The Dow Institute Facility produces approximately 500 million pounds of specialty products annually. Dow's variety of products include: shampoo, contact lens products, paint, pharmaceuticals, liquid detergent, all purpose cleaners, sinus tablets, antifreeze, hair spray, and nail polish remover (UCC, 1995-2003). 031884 (51) C.1-33 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.6.1.2 POTENTIAL SOURCE AREA 2 – MARMET, BELLE, AND CEDAR GROVE DuPont Belle Facility The DuPont Belle facility is located on a 100 acre site along the River, 10 miles east of Charleston, WV. Throughout its operating history, DuPont has produced nearly 175 products used in every basic industry, and has developed more than 120 chemical processes at the Belle facility. Construction of the Belle Facility began in 1925. The facility was the first commercial ammonia synthesis plant in the U.S. to produce ammonia by fixation of nitrogen from air. The first ammonia was produced at the Belle facility on April 1, 1926, providing the raw material for chemical products such as Methanol. During the 1930's, DuPont Belle produced the first modern plastic polymers such as Lucite methacrylic polymer and Zerex ethylene glycol antifreeze. It was also at Belle that DuPont developed the technology to produce Nylon, and supported the war effort in the 1940's by producing Nylon raw materials, which were shipped to other locations to be made into parachutes and other items. In the 1950's and 1960's, the country's first synthetic urea for fertilizers and plastics were produced at Belle. In the late 1960's ammonia from natural gas feedstock was manufactured. Production of modern crop protection chemicals such as Fungicides and Sulfonylurea Herbicides began in the 1970's and 1980's. In the 1990's DuPont upgraded infrastructure and control systems, and currently continues to produce specialty chemical products, crop protection herbicide intermediates, and crop protection sulfonyl urea herbicide intermediates (DuPont, 2002). Principal products at Belle include dymel aerosol propellants, methylamines/methylamides, dimethyl sulfate, glycolic acid, and vazo initiators (DuPont, 1995-2003). Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) – Belle Facility The Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) facility is a multi-product chloromethane plant located on a 23.5-acre property northwest of the Town of Belle, WV. The facility is located on the River at RM 68.0, immediately adjacent to and southeast of DuPont (ERM-Midwest, 1993 2 ). Reynolds Branch, a small intermittent stream and tributary to the River, passes from northeast to southeast, just southeast of the OxyChem facility (ERM-Midwest, 1993 1 ). The facility was founded in 1920 as Belle Alkali, and produced two common commodity chemicals, chlorine and caustic soda. In approximately 1940, the facility was converted to chlorinated solvents production. Several other chemical manufacturing and industrial facilities were operated in the eastern portion of the current OxyChem property from the early 1930's to the mid 1970's, which included the Sharples Solvents 031884 (51) C.1-34 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Company, Givauden–Virginia, Inc., Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation, and Union Concrete Pipe Company (ERM-Midwest, 1993 2 ). Diamond Shamrock purchased the Belle Alkali facility in approximately 1953, and in 1977 the remainder of what is the present OxyChem property. In the late 1970's, a wastewater treatment plant was constructed adjacent to Reynolds Branch as part of a $25 million dollar process upgrade. OxyChem purchased the property from Diamond Shamrock in 1986, and has since produced the chloromethanes: methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride from liquid chlorine and methanol feedstock (ERM-Midwest, 1993 2 ). 031884 (51) C.1-35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 REFERENCES Baker, 1999. Dioxin Contamination of the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, WV Citizen Research Group. Casdroph, 1981. Site Inspection, Manila Creek, WV DNR. Website: http://www.dow.com/PublishedLiterature/dh_0093/0901b8038009372b.pdf?fil epath=publicreport/pdfs/noreg/730-10015.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc Dow, 2006. West Virginia Operations Public Report. DuPont, 1995-2003. Dupont Overview, DuPont Worldwide, Belle, West Virginia, USA, DuPont Website: www.DuPont.com Ecology and Environment, Inc., 2000. Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Hi-Vol. Water Sampling, Nitro, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV. ERM-Midwest, 1986. Manila Creek Site Water Level and Highwall Study. ERM-Midwest, 1993 1 . RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan (Revision 1.0), Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV. ERM-Midwest, 1993 2 . RCRA Facility Investigation Program Fact Sheet, Occidental Chemical Corporation. Foster, 1982. Letter to Mr. J.E. Northemier, WV DWR, from R.L. Foster, UCC, South Charleston Plant, Re: Request for Information – UCC North Charleston Storage Area Past Waste Disposal, Union Carbide Corporation, Silicones and Urethane Intermediates, South Charleston Plant, South Charleston, WV. Hurley, 1979. Letter to Mr. Scott MacMillin, WV DWR, from George F. Hurley, UCC. Jones, 1985. Memorandum – 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Fish in the Kanwaha River, Nitro, WV, WV CDC. Limno-Tech, Inc., 2000. Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia. Ludke, 1980. Sampling and Analysis of Fish Tissues for Toxic Substances, EPA/FWS IAG-DY-01001, Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NUS Corporation, 1984. A Field Trip Report for Manila Creek. Potesta & Assoicates, Inc., 2001. Letter to Ms. Allyn Turner, from Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, Re: 3rd Quarter, 2001 Report, Armour Creek Landfill - NPDES Permit Requirements, WV 0077020. REMCOR, 1986. Subsurface Investigation, Manila Creek Site, Nitro, WV, Remedial Corporation. Robertson, 1986. Site Visit with Pamela Hayes as Requested by Mr. Boggess of St. Albans, WV DNR. 031884 (51) C.1-36 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Smith, 1986 1 . Draft - Assessment of Lifetime Cancer Risk from Consuming Fish Contaminated with 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from the Kanawha River, WV, U.S. EPA. Smith, 1986 2 . Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, WV and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling, U.S. EPA. Smith, 1986 3 . Dioxin Contamination in 1986 Fish Tissue Samples from the Kanawha River, Armour Creek, and the Pocatalico River, WV. Smith, 1986 4 . Internal Memorandum from Roy L. Smith, U.S. EPA Region III: Sampling of Kanawha River Fish and Sediments for Dioxin Analysis. UCC, 1995 – 2003. Union www.dow.com/ucc. Carbide Corporation Website. Available at: U.S. EPA, 1986. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, WV and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling. U.S. EPA Region III, 1988. A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments in the Kanawha River Basin, EPS-QA87-004, Final Project Report. U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003. Kanawha River Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV. Weston, 1999. Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV. Weston, 2000 1 . Updated Kanawha River Fish Consumption Advisory, WV Bureau for Public Health. Weston, 2000 2 . Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site (Nitro Storm Sewer/Outfall Investigation). Weston, 2001. Trip Report, Kanawha River Valley Site, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV. Wright, 1962. Memorandum – Nitro Refuse Dump on Poca River, WV, WV DWR. WV DEP, 1982. Site Inspection Summary Sheet, Manila Creek, Site Number WV-1, WV DEP. WV DEP, 1997. Letter from B.S. Taylor, Chief, WV DEP Office of Water Resources, dated January 7, 1997, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Charleston, WV. WV DEP, 2000 1 . Letter to Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill. WV DEP, 2000 2 . Letter to Renae Bonnett, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP. WV DNR, 1982. Inter-Office Memorandum – Manila Creek Benthic Survey, WV DNR. 031884 (51) C.1-37 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DNR, Date Not Available. Letter from WV DNR to U.S. EPA Region III, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dioxin data from Kanawha and Ohio River fish samples. WV DNR, 1986. Draft – Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan, An Evaluation of Dioxin Contamination in Fish Tissue and Sediments in the Kanawha and Mud Rivers, WV. March 10, 1986. WV DNR, 1987 . Kanawha River Cooperative Monitoring Project: An Evaluation of Water Quality, 1986 – 1987, WV Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV, 1987. WV DNR, 1991, Letter from J.E. Hamrick, Director of WV DNR, dated January 14, 1991, WV Division of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV. 031884 (51) C.1-38 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX C.2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS 031884 (51) APPENDIX C.2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL UPSTREAM SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX C.2 This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INDUSTRIES LOCATED UPSTREAM OF SITE .........................................................C.2-1 1.1 BAYER CROPSCIENCE (FORMERLY AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE, FORMERLY RHONE POULENC COMPANY) .......................................C.2-1 1.2 OLD MONSANTO LANDFILL..................................................................C.2-4 1.3 GOFF MOUNTAIN LANDFILL ................................................................C.2-6 1.4 SOUTH CHARLESTON LANDFILL.........................................................C.2-6 1.5 DON'S DISPOSAL SERVICE ......................................................................C.2-7 1.6 CLARK PROPERTY .....................................................................................C.2-7 1.7 MCJUNKIN CORPORATION (1971 - PRESENT) ...................................C.2-7 1.8 HEIZER CREEK AND HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL ..............................C.2-8 1.9 MILLER SPRINGS REMEDIATION MANAGEMENT INC. (OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (OXYCHEM), DIAMOND SHAMROCK) ........................................................................C.2-11 1.10 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (UPSTREAM) .............................C.2-15 1.11 AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED ..C.2-21 2.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................C.2-49 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,4,5-T ACF Allstates AOC ARCADIS ATSDR Aventis bgs BNA Burlington CA CERCLA CMS COPC DNT EE/CA EOC ERA ERM-Midwest GML GWQAP HCLF HHRA Holz HRS IMs KEMRON LCAP McJunkin MDL mg/kg mg/L 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid American Car & Foundry Industries, Inc. Allstates Environmental Services, Inc. Administrative Order on Consent ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Aventis CropScience below ground surface base neutral/acid extractable analytes Burlington Environmental, Inc. Corrective Action Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Corrective Measures Study Contaminant of Potential Concern dinitrotoluene Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Extent of Contamination Environmental Risk Assessment Environmental Resources Management, Inc. Goff Mountain Landfill Groundwater Quality Analysis Plan Heizer Creek Landfill Human Health Risk Assessment Holz Impoundment Hazard Ranking System Interim Measures Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. Landfill Closure Assistance Program McJunkin Supply Company Method Detection Limit milligrams per kilogram milligrams per liter CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS ND ng/g NPDES OxyChem PCBs PCDDs pg/L POTW ppb ppm PTO RBCs 031884 (51) Not detected nanograms per gram National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Occidental Chemical Corporation polychlorinated biphenyls polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins picograms per liter Publicly Owned Treatment Works parts per billion parts per million Private Trucking Operations Risk Based Concentrations RCRA RFI Rhône-Poulenc River Site SVOCs SWMUs TC TCLP TEF TEQ TOC TOX TSDF Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRA Facility Investigation Rhône-Poulenc AG Company Kanawha River Kanawha River Site located in Nitro, West Virginia semi-volatile organic compounds Solid Waste Management Units Toxic Charateristic toxicity characteristic leaching procedure toxicity equivalent factor toxicity equivalency quotient Total Organic Carbon Total Halogenated Organics Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility UCC UCC Tech ug/kg U.S. DOI U.S. EPA VI VOA VOCs Union Carbide Company UCC South Charleston Technical Center micrograms per kilogram United States Department of the Interior United States Environmental Protection Agency verification Investigation Volatile Organic Analytes Volatile Organic Compounds CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS WCLF WCSWA WEG WV WV DEP WV DHHS 031884 (51) Wetzel County Landfill Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority Weavertown Environmental Group West Virginia WV Department of Environmental Protection WV Department of Health and Human Services CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 INDUSTRIES LOCATED UPSTREAM OF SITE This section provides a summary of industries that are located upstream of the Kanawha River (River) Site located in Nitro, West Virginia (WV) (Site). This information was utilized in conjunction with the potential source areas and Conceptual Site Model (CSM) information to focus the investigative efforts of the Extent of Contamination (EOC) Study. The Site extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River to where the River enters the Ohio River. The Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern each extend two miles upstream of their respective confluences with the River (Limno-Tech, Inc., 2000). A detailed summary of each property upstream of the Site is provided in the following sections. 1.1 BAYER CROPSCIENCE (FORMERLY AVENTIS CROPSCIENCE, FORMERLY RHONE POULENC COMPANY) Located in Institute, WV along the River, the Rhône-Poulenc AG Company (Rhône-Poulenc) site encompasses approximately 350 acres. The facility was built in 1943 by the U.S. government for the production of rubber for World War II. The plant was then bought and utilized by Union Carbide Company (UCC) in 1947 until 1986 when Rhône-Poulenc purchased it for the production of agricultural chemicals. From 1987 to 1999 the land was owned and operated by Rhône-Poulenc. From approximately 2000 until 2005 Aventis Cropscience used the land. Aventis Cropscience operated as a manufacturer of pesticides and agricultural chemicals and industrial organic chemicals. Bayer CropScience purchased the Institute site in June 2002. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CA) activities at the Rhône-Poulenc site are being conducted under the direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP). The investigation and any necessary cleanup activities are being implemented in accordance with a U.S. EPA RCRA CA permit. The main contaminants in the groundwater and soils are benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, and tetrachloroethane (U.S. EPA Region III, 2008 1 ). 031884 (51) C.2-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES January 1991 Bayer CropScience (Formerly: Aventis Cropscience USA; formerly Rhone Poulenc Company) Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility, U.S. EPA Region III, 2008. In January 1991, U.S. EPA issued a RCRA CA permit to the company to proceed with site cleanup. U.S. EPA and the facility are working jointly to complete the requirements of the permit which include the following: • Conduct a Verification Investigation (VI) to determine if hazardous waste or contaminants have migrated into the soil or groundwater • Conduct a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) of 24 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) • Implement Interim Measures (IMs)/stabilizations to address known releases or threats • Conduct a Corrective Measures Study (CMS) to address areas where contaminants pose a threat to human health or the environment The facility has implemented an air sparging/soil vapor extraction system to remediate soils and groundwater, which are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (U.S. EPA Region III, 2008 1 ). August 9, 1995 Letter to Mr. Mike Zeto, WV DEP, from Kevin H. Keys, Rhone-Poulenc, Rhone-Poulenc, 1995 On August 9, 1995, Rhône-Poulenc reported a release of 207 pounds of hazardous waste, which was identified as multi-source leachate, with waste code F039. The release occurred at Rhône-Poulenc's Goff Mountain Landfill (GML), and was released to a storm water runoff ditch that flows to a tributary of the River. Rhône-Poulenc reported that the release occurred as a truck operator was off-loading excess leachate at the truck weighing station. While connecting the off-loading hose, leachate began flowing out of the pipe and splashed onto the berm of the asphalt secondary containment. During investigation of the incident, it was determined that approximately 50 gallons of leachate had been discharged, half into secondary containment, and the other half flowing onto the asphalt roadway. The asphalt roadway 031884 (51) C.2-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES slopes toward a grassy shoulder that borders a storm water runoff ditch, leading to a tributary of Goff Branch. Rhône-Poulenc reported that the release exceeded the Reportable Quantity limits for F039 waste, which is one pound (Rhone-Poulenc, 1995). August 2001 State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of August 2001, Aventis, 2001 Aventis CropScience (Aventis) submitted this State of West Virginia National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of August 2001, to the WV DEP. Carbofurans were reported at an average monthly concentration and maximum daily concentration of 0.293 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Aventis, 2001 1 ). September 2001 State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of September 2001, Aventis, 2001 Aventis submitted this State of WV NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of September 2001, to the WV DEP. Carbofurans were reported at an average monthly concentration and maximum daily concentration of 0.119 mg/L (Aventis, 2001 2 ). October 2001 State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of October 2001, Aventis, 2001 Aventis submitted this State of WV NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of October 2001, to the WV DEP. Carbofurans were reported non-detect (ND) at a method detection limit (MDL) of 0.0357 mg/L (Aventis, 2001 3 ). November 2001 State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of November 2001, Aventis, 2001 Aventis submitted this State of WV NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of November 2001, to the WV DEP. Carbofurans were reported ND at a MDL of 0.017 mg/L (Aventis, 2001 4 ). 031884 (51) C.2-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2001 Newspaper Article: Bayer CropScience to pay more than $1 million to settle federal charges, Daily Mail, 2008 Multimedia inspections of the Institute site by U.S. EPA in 2001, from May 15 to 24, Aug. 13 to 16 and Nov. 6 to 9 revealed several nonconformances including the following: • Discharges of toluene, isophorone, chloroform, ammonia-nitrogen, carbofuran, fecal coliform, methylene chloride, cyanide and other regulated substances in excess of permitted limits • A failure to report measured outflows from several discharge locations • Disposal of wastewater treatment sludge in the GML without meeting applicable land disposal restriction treatment standards with respect to p-cresol or 4-Methylphenol (Daily Mail, 2008) March 2002 State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of March 2002, Aventis, 2002 Aventis submitted this State of WV NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report for the month of March 2002, to the WV DEP. Carbofurans were reported at an average monthly concentration and maximum daily concentration of 0.1778 mg/L (Aventis, 2002). 1.2 OLD MONSANTO LANDFILL The Old Monsanto Landfill site is located approximately two miles north of Nitro, WV, on the east side of the River. The site is located on Old Monsanto's property, to the north of the wastewater treatment plant, and is bounded to the east by Armour Creek, to the west by the Penn Central Railroad, and to the south by State Route 25. Old Monsanto owned and operated this landfill from 1964 to 1980, and used it to dispose of industrial and non-hazardous waste. The landfill was upgraded in 1980; a new secure cell was constructed and used only for non-hazardous wastes. The inactive portion of the site was capped with clay, graded, and re-vegetated. In September 1984, NUS Corporation conducted sampling for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) at the site. As a result, Old Monsanto determined additional sampling was required to determine the extent of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination. In March 1995, Old Monsanto took seventeen samples and six additional samples at ground surface. 031884 (51) C.2-4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found at a depth of greater then 21 inches, however was not found at the ground surface, which indicated that the cap was effectively preventing 2,3,7,8-TCDD migration. Sampling conducted in Armour Creek, which is adjacent to the site, also supported this conclusion. Four sediment samples were collected from Armour Creek, and all four were ND for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Wilson, 1986). 1979 U.S. EPA to Inspect Monsanto Dump at Nitro, The Charleston Gazette, 1979 The Charleston Gazette printed this article prepared by staff writer Robert Morris on May 25, 1979. The article reported that U.S. EPA planed to inspect a dump site at the Old Monsanto Nitro plant, where it had been reported that Old Monsanto buried chemicals associated with the production of 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). The Gazette reported that the most toxic byproduct that has been found is dioxin. The article quoted an Old Monsanto spokesperson that reported decontaminated equipment that was used in the manufacturing of 2,4,5-T was buried at the site after production of the herbicide ended. However, 2,4,5-T, and associated byproducts had never been buried at the site. It was reported that a U.S. EPA spokesperson stated that U.S. EPA planed to inspect the site, which is located under a building near the plant's waste treatment facility, near the River. The Gazette stated that reports indicating that chemicals may had been buried at the site surfaced at a recent public meeting held by the Kanawha Valley Committee of Environmental and Occupational Health. It was reported that an Old Monsanto employee present at this meeting, stated that Old Monsanto drilled holes and deposited 2,4,5-T or its byproducts in the landfill. This employee was also quoted as saying that Old Monsanto does not believe that there is any remote chance that dioxin is going into the River or ever was. The Gazette reported U.S. EPA officials as stating the monitoring of water supplies down River of Old Monsanto in Huntington and Cincinnati, has not found traces of 2,4,5-T or byproducts (Morris, 1979). 031884 (51) C.2-5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.3 GOFF MOUNTAIN LANDFILL The GML is located to the north of the Bayer Cropscience facility across Route 25, in Institute, WV, approximately 4 miles upstream of the Site. October 23, 1989 DRAFT - RCRA Part B Permit for Rhône-Poulenc AG Company's Institute Plant, Rhone-Poulenc, 1989 The GML is located in a small valley near the Rhône-Poulenc Plant, on the north side of Highway 25. The GML is approximately 12.5 acres in size and is bordered to the north, east, and west by steep hills, and to the south by Highway 25, which runs between the landfill and the plant. The landfill is a triangular shape and was built on a slope. It consists of an active, and an inactive area. The inactive area is the lower, narrow end, and the active area is the wider, upper end of the site. The landfill was built on a clay line, and upon closure will have an approved RCRA cap. Rhône-Poulenc and UCC use the GML. The majority of waste within the landfill comes from the Rhône-Poulenc Plant, however waste is also received from the UCC South Charleston Facility, and UCC South Charleston Technical Center (UCC Tech). The majority of the waste sent to the GML was non-hazardous, however hazardous wastes such as 2,4,5-T have been accepted. Hazardous wastes that may be deposited at the landfill, however were not routinely received, were listed in Tables C-1c-2, C-1c-2, and C-1c-3 of the draft RCRA Permit B Report (Rhône-Poulenc, 1989). 1.4 SOUTH CHARLESTON LANDFILL The former South Charleston Municipal Landfill site received wastes from many of the industries in the area. A 1999 sampling event reflected dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and arsenic. This landfill is one of 29 landfills receiving assistance from the Landfill Closure Assistance Program (LCAP) and is scheduled to receive a state regulated closure cap. A perimeter leachate drainage system is to be installed to collect leachate from the landfill with subsequent discharge to the South Charleston Sanitary Department for treatment. 031884 (51) C.2-6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.5 DON'S DISPOSAL SERVICE Don's Disposal Services is located in Charleston, WV is located approximately 6 miles upstream of the Site. This 80-acre closed landfill is suspected to have caused ground water contamination. Don's Disposal Service accepted 500 tons of waste for 14 years. After 1994, the owners' terminated the disposal operation, capped the landfill and installed a monitoring well(s), a vent(s) and a leachate collection system. This landfill is one of 29 landfills receiving assistance from the LCAP and was due to receive a state regulated closure cap starting in 2004. A perimeter leachate drainage system was to be installed to collect leachate from the landfill with subsequent discharge to the Charleston Sanitary Department for treatment. A new passive gas system was also to be installed during construction, consisting of one vent per acre of land. 1.6 CLARK PROPERTY The Clark Property is located adjacent to U.S. Route 62 at the intersection of Dutch Hollow Road, in Kanawha County, approximately 4 miles upstream of the Site. The Site covers approximately 20 acres, most of which appear to be an abandoned strip mine. The site contained two ponds, four buildings and a salvage area. Originally the site contained over 500 drums, several compressed gas cylinders and containers of various sizes. Samples collected from six drums by the U.S. EPA Region 3 Technical Assistance Team contractor identified the following substances: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, acetone, xylene, 2-butanone, 4-methylpentanone, isophorone, acenaphthene, acenapthalene, anthracene, bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, flourene, napthalene and 2-methyl napthalene. No dioxin sampling has been preformed. 1.7 MCJUNKIN CORPORATION (1971 - PRESENT) The McJunkin Supply Company (McJunkin) was founded in Charleston in 1921, as an oil and gas supplier for WV. The opening of UCC in 1932 allowed McJunkin to become involved in the chemical industry with UCC becoming a major customer. A large central warehouse was opened in Nitro in 1971 when McJunkin became more involved in the refining and petrochemical industries. In 1998, the hub and spoke operation in Nitro was expanded by 16,000 square feet to total of 75,000 square feet (McJunkin, 2007). 031884 (51) C.2-7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.8 HEIZER CREEK AND HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL The Heizer Creek Landfill (HCLF) is located approximately 1 mile northeast of Poca, off Heizer Creek Road. The Landfill is approximately 1 acre, and is bounded to the south by Heizer Creek Road and to the north, east, and west by trail roads. The City of Nitro used this landfill from the late 1950's until the early 1960's. Old Monsanto used the HCLF in 1958 and 1959 to dispose of approximately 170,000 cubic feet of unknown plant trash and waste. According to state officials, wastes included 2,4,5-T manufacturing wastes and floor sweepings. Old Monsanto entered into a consent agreement with U.S. EPA in April 1987, after a sampling investigation conducted by the NUS Corporation in 1984 found elevated levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The consent agreement called for the removal of contaminated soil, and directed Old Monsanto to store the contaminated soil at its Nitro plant pending licensing of a dioxin disposal facility (Weston, 1999). A total of 9 fifty-five gallon drums of excavated material were removed from the site and transported to Old Monsanto's Nitro facility (U.S. EPA Region III, 2004). September 15, 1983 A Site Inspection for the Heizer Creek, NUS Corporation, 1985 On September 15, 1983, NUS Corporation performed a site inspection of Heizer Creek. NUS Corporation, FIT III team members observed 8 drums in various stages of decay, and a black tar-like substance. Six aqueous and nine solid samples were collected during the investigation. Samples indicated the presence of 2,4,5-T at approximately 21 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (21,000 parts per billion (ppb)). The following conclusions were drawn: 031884 (51) • Re-sampling of the on-site spring and home wells should be conducted to verify the release of contaminants • A Hazard Ranking System (HRS) should be conducted under separate cover • The site should be properly closed, which may involve the removal of on-site wastes (visible waste and drums) (NUS Corporation, 1985) C.2-8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES September 1984, October 1985 Feasibility Study of Heizer Creek Site, Monsanto Engineering, 1986 This report was prepared by Old Monsanto Engineering in order to review remedial action alternatives, and to recommend one which best addresses site conditions at Heizer Creek. Investigations to determine the presence of 2,3,7,8,-TCDD in soil were conducted in September 1984 by NUS Corporation and in October 1985 by Old Monsanto Engineering. The Old Monsanto Engineering study reported that 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranged from ND or less than 1.0 ppb to 3.79 ppb. Three Remedial Action Alternatives were developed based on the Old Monsanto Engineering study findings. They included: no action, capping, and excavation. Old Monsanto Engineering concluded that no action was the most favorable action for this site. Due to the isolated nature of the site, there was only a small chance that significant human exposure would occur. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations found at this site were below recommended levels for sites of this type (Wilson, 1986). 2000 Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV, ARCADIS, 2000 See the following section for a summary of this report. September 29, 2001 – October 1, 2001 Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis Addendum, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam, WV, 2001 ARCADIS Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (ARCADIS) prepared this addendum to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Report for HCLF site dated September 2000. ARCADIS was retained by Old Monsanto to prepare the EE/CA, which addressed the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the site pursuant to Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) Docket No. 99-036-DC, dated September 30, 1999, issued by U.S. EPA Region III. On July 3, 2001, Old Monsanto received a letter from U.S. EPA Region III requesting further characterization of the nature, concentration, and extent of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in residential wells, and was accompanied by an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) report recommending a full groundwater 031884 (51) C.2-9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES evaluation. The addendum to the EE/CA summarizes findings of the groundwater investigation, and addresses the requirements of the AOC. The EE/CA, dated September 2000, presented the results of the field investigation conducted in May 2000, and the preferred remedial action alternative, full vegetative soil cover with consolidation. The field investigation involved soil, surface water, and sediment data, and is summarized below: • A total of 36 soil samples were collected, 27 from 0 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs), 7 from 6 to 12 inches bgs, one from 12 to 18 inches bgs, and one background sample from a topographically high area east of the site, outside the waste limits. 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in soil ranged from 0.011 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) (0.011 ppb) at the southwestern corner of the site, to 100 ug/kg (100 ppb) inside the southeastern corner. The background sample was reported as 0.093 ug/kg (0.093 ppb). • Three surface water and sediment/soil samples were collected from the drainage swale along the western site boundary. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranged from 0.865 ug/kg (0.865 ppb) at the head of the swale, to 0.034 ug/kg (0.034 ppb) immediately upstream of the confluence with the perennial stream. Immediately downstream of this stream, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was reported at 0.0065 ug/kg (0.0065 ppb). • An Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), and a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) were performed to determine the incremental risk associated with the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the site. It was determined from the HHRA that the incremental cancer risks for exposure to soil/sediment were within the U.S. EPA target risk range of 1x10-4 to 1x10-6 for the following receptors: adult trespasser/visitor, teenage trespasser/visitor, excavation worker, and maintenance worker. The ERA concluded that potential adverse effects are not expected to be present for population level terrestrial invertebrates, aquatic life, or terrestrial wildlife due to the limited area of the site within a similar, neighboring habitat. The EE/CA concluded that there is a potential for migration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD through erosion and surface water run off from the site; however, it does not pose a significant threat. Implementation of the full vegetative cover with consolidation would mitigate human and ecological exposure, and potential releases to surface water and sediment from the site. Four monitoring wells were installed in order to characterize conditions in the water table aquifer. Three wells were installed to characterize groundwater conditions immediately downgradient of the landfill, and one to characterize cross-gradient 031884 (51) C.2-10 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES groundwater conditions. Groundwater samples were collected between September 29, 2001, and October 1, 2001. Samples were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD using U.S. EPA SW-8476 Method 8290. Groundwater sampling results reported that 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the samples. The detection limits ranged from 1.6 to 2.3 picograms per liter (pg/L) (0.0000016 to 0.0000023 ppb). It was concluded that since 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not detected in any of the samples, it is not migrating from the site via groundwater. It therefore poses no threat to the Pocatalico River, or to nearby residents using groundwater as a potable water supply (ARCADIS, 2000 and 2001). 1.9 MILLER SPRINGS REMEDIATION MANAGEMENT INC. (OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION (OXYCHEM), DIAMOND SHAMROCK) The former OxyChem facility is located in Belle, West Virginia, approximately 15 miles southeast of Charleston, West Virginia, on a 23-acre site adjacent to the Kanawha River. The Belle Facility is located in a mixed industrial/residential area, which includes the DuPont Belle plant located immediately adjacent to the site's northern property boundary. Chemical production operations began at the site in 1920 by Belle Alkali Company and continued through a succession of owners and tenants until OxyChem purchased the facility in 1986. OxyChem manufactured multi-product chloromethanes from chlorine until the plant shutdown in October 1994. All process equipment and buildings have been taken down and removed from the site (U.S. EPA Region III, 2008 2 ). Diamond Shamrock began chlorine production in 1919 at a facility located in Belle approximately 20 miles upstream of the Site. Chlorine production was phased out by 1946 and was replaced by production of chlorinated methanes, including methylene chloride and chloroform. Chlorine production is a source of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs). They are formed from the reaction of the chlorine with graphite electrodes and the linseed oil or phenolic resins used to bind the electrodes. They can also be formed from the reaction of chlorine with greases used to seal joints; from organic materials used in the cell header pipes and from trace organic chemicals present in the feed water used to dissolve the salt. The PCDD from the chlorine process are dominated by higher chlorinated PCDD, but 2,3,7,8-TCDD would be expected to be present. PCDDs are typically expected to be byproducts from any chlorinated organic manufacturing process. The chlorinated methane production would be expected to produce some PCDD, which would be concentrated in the residuals and distillation 031884 (51) C.2-11 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES bottoms. A preliminary review of Diamond Shamrock patents was performed. One patent was for production of chlorophenols from chlorobenzenes, specifically pentachlorphenol, which is a known source of PCDD. Another patent was for the dehydrochlorination of benzene hexachloride to produce chlorobenzenes. There was also a patent for production of vinyl chloride form ethylene dichloride. These processes are likely to produce PCDD. Many other patents were for chlorinated chemical products including chlorinated paraffins. All could produce PCDD. It is not known if processes utilizing these patents were in use at this facility. VOCs are the main constituents found in the site's soil and groundwater. These compounds primarily consist of methylene chloride, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride. Semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and metals were also detected. August 9, 1993 RCRA Corrective Action Program Bimonthly Progress Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV, 1993 On June 5, 1993, rainwater surge storage tank T-101 collapsed releasing approximately 111,250 gallons of rainwater that contained small amounts of chloromethanes. Analysis determined that the tank contained: methylene chloride at 146 parts per million (ppm) (146,000 ppb); chloroform at 103 ppm (103,000 ppb), and carbon tetrachloride at 24 ppm (24,000 ppb). Due to discoloration of surface gravels, impacted surface soil and gravel was removed and stock piled in areas designated as Stockpiles A through E. Environmental Resource Management, Inc. (ERM-Midwest) collected 12 random, discrete soil samples on August 9, 1993. Among other constituents, samples were analyzed for 2,4,5-T. Analysis reported that all samples were ND or less than the quantitation limit of 0.020 mg/l (20.0 ppb) for 2,4,5-T (ERM-Midwest, 1993). May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995 Updated Section 4 of the Phase I RFI Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Facility, ERM-Midwest, 1996 This document, prepared by ERM-Midwest, serves as a replacement to the previous Section 4 for OxyChem, Belle. The changes reflect the addition of statistical parameters such as detection limit per sample, positive detections, total number of samples collected, and maximum, geometric, and mean concentrations. 031884 (51) C.2-12 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Constituents found in all media sampled during the site investigation were identified, and concentrations were compared to U.S. EPA Region III Risk Based Concentrations (RBCs). Samples collected from the boundary wells were discussed in Section 4.3.4.3, and corresponding results were presented in Table 4-14 of the Phase I RFI Report. Table 4-14 presents a comparison of the alluvium groundwater boundary wells sampling results with applicable standards. Table 4-14 results for dibenzofurans included: • MW-2: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, all reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • P-2: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, all reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • MW-5: May 1994, reported 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • P-5: May 1994, reported 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • MW-8: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, all reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • P-8: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, all reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • MW-17: May 1994, and February 1995, both reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb). • P-17: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, all reported as 10.0 ug/L (10.0 ppb) • MW-18: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, 2,300.0 ug/L (2,300.0 ppb), 220.0 ug/L (220.0 ppb), and 94.0 ug/L (94.0 ppb) respectively • P-18: May 1994, November 1994, and February 1995, 27.0 ug/L (27.0 ppb), 52.0 ug/L (52.0 ppb), and 24.0 ug/L (24.0 ppb) respectively ERM-Midwest noted that the majority of exceedances for U.S. EPA RBCs were associated with concentrations detected in wells MW-2, P-2, MW-18, and P-18 (ERM-Midwest, 1996). January 22, 1997 Compliance Schedule Evaluation Inspection Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV, WV DEP, 1997 WV DEP Inspectors John R. Fredericks and Talal Fatallah conducted an inspection at the OxyChem facility in Belle, WV on January 22, 1997. This inspection was conducted to observe sampling sites on dikes at the facility, and to determine if sites were 031884 (51) C.2-13 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES representative. OxyChem planned to demolish the dike walls, and bury the concrete on site. OxyChem representative Mr. Ed Midkiff accompanied the inspectors during the investigation. Mr. Midkiff provided information describing sampling sites and analytical results, which indicated that the sampled dike walls do not contain hazardous materials associated with OxyChem's production processes. Samples were analyzed for 2,4,5-T, and were reported as ND at a quantitation limit of 0.020 mg/L (20.0 ppb). WV DEP Inspectors observed sampling sites and determined that they were representative. Areas of concern the WV DEP noted was that concrete in some of the dikes may be considered a "U" type waste due to spillage of commercial chemical products may have occurred in this area over the lifetime of the plant. It was also noted that the concrete is at least an industrial waste and should therefore be disposed of in an industrial landfill (Fredericks, 1997). 2001 Human Health Risk Assessment for Surface Water and Sediment - Fish Ingestion Evaluation, Former OxyChem Facility, Belle, WV, Environmental Resources Management, Inc. 2001 ERM-Midwest prepared this assessment on behalf of Glenn Springs Holding, Inc., and Miller Springs Management, Inc. [The first several pages of this report were missing]. This assessment examined the uptake of River sediment and surface water by fish to evaluate potential risks associated with human ingestion of fish from the River. In order to determine if potential risks were related to the OxyChem Facility, analytical data of sediment and surface water adjacent to the facility were as a basis of evaluation. Table 1.0, Kanawha River Sediment Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC), reported that a total of 38 samples were analyzed for dibenzofurans. Five of the samples detected dibenzofurans at a reported concentration range of 45.0 ug/kg (45.0 ppb) to 200.0 ug/kg (200.0 ppb). This table also reported that dibenzofurans are not considered an important bioaccumulative constituent as defined in U.S. EPA, 2000a. The assessment concluded that both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were at or below acceptable levels. In regard to risks associated with human consumption of fish from the River, it was concluded that the facility does not impact sediment or surface water such that risks are at unacceptable levels (ERM-Midwest, 2001). 031884 (51) C.2-14 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.10 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (UPSTREAM) The UCC Alloy Plant is located in South Charleston approximately 10 miles upstream of the Study Area. The UCC Alloy Plant began producing aluminum in 1901. Metals production is a potential source of PCDD. Particulate emission control of the submerged arc furnaces was installed in 1962, suggesting that significant particulate emissions occurred before that date. In 1929 UCC began production of vinyl chloride from ethylene dichloride at South Charleston. Manufacturing of ethylene dichloride is known to produce significant quantities of PCDD containing wastes, including still bottoms and waste catalyst. Ethylene chlorohydrin and tetraethyl lead were also produced at the UCC Alloy Plant. In 1937 the Fine Chemicals piloting unit was expanded on Blaine Island, and in 1960 it was producing 30 million pounds of 200 different organic chemicals, some of which were likely chlorinated. Bakelite, a phenolic resin, production began at Bound Brook, NJ in 1939. UCC produced phenol using the Raschig process, which involves the production of phenol by the hydrolysis of chlorobenzene. The process is known to produce PCDD, particularly dioxins including 2,3,7,8-TCDD. This production could have occurred at one of the UCC Kanawha Valley Plants. A coal hydrogenation plant was built at Institute in 1951 and produced aromatic hydrocarbons and coke. 1985 Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan, Union Carbide Corporation, 1985 UCC had completed the analysis of three surface impoundments at the Private Trucking Operations (PTO) site. IT Corporation was retained by UCC to conduct sampling and analysis and to implement the Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan. The objectives of the investigation were to: • Determine the direction and rate of groundwater flow • Determine if hazardous constituents were entering the groundwater • Evaluate the existing hydro-geological conditions In July 1985, five additional monitoring well were installed at PTO site as required by the Ground Water Quality Analysis Plan (GWQAP). Fieldwork and laboratory analyses were carried out through September 1985. A total of ten monitoring wells samples and two composite sludge samples were collected during the sampling event. The samples were analyzed by selected hazardous constituents, which may have resulted from wastes handled at PTO. This included all volatile, semi-volatile, pesticides, and PCB priority pollutants as well as the non-priority hazardous substances. The two sludge 031884 (51) C.2-15 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES samples were also analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which were measured below the detection limit. According to the analyses of the samples from the wells nearest to the surface impoundments, no compounds appeared to be migrating from this area, and no contaminant migration plume was originating from the impoundments. Results also indicated that no imminent hazard to human health or the environment exists from the three surface impoundments (UCC, 1985). 1988 Union Carbide Corporation – South Charleston Plant, Holz Impoundment Delisting Petition (Volume I of II), Union Carbide, 1988 UCC submitted this petition to U.S. EPA Delisting Office to request for the contents in Holz Impoundment (Holz) be excluded from the hazardous waste lists of 40 CFR Part 261. Holz was owned by UCC and was operated as a RCRA hazardous waste disposal impoundment. Holz mainly accepted three types of waste streams in slurry form: • Boiler flyash from UCC's South Charleston plant – Energy System Department • Sludges from South Charleston Waste Treatment plant at Rhone-Poulenc's Plant • Sludges from the South Charleston Waste Treatment Works, which treated wastewater from UCC's South Charleston plant and municipal wastewater from the City of South Charleston In August 1987, U.S. EPA conducted an audit of Holz Impoundment by collecting eighteen groundwater samples from surrounding wells. 2,3,7,8-TCDD dioxin was among the many compounds analyzed and was found to be below the detection limit. No significant levels of volatiles and semi-volatiles organics were detected in the eighteen groundwater samples. UCC had conducted a comprehensive program to obtain representative samples of the impoundment contents and analyzed the collected samples for hazardous waste characteristics. The average groundwater concentrations of all the compounds and metals detected were consistently lower than U.S. EPA's health-based standards. With the absence of contaminants in any of the monitoring wells installed as part of an on-going groundwater program, UCC submitted this petition to grant that the contents of Holz be excluded from the hazardous waste lists (UCC, 1988). 031884 (51) C.2-16 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1991 Groundwater Protection Procedure Evaluation Phase Report, Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc., 1991 UCC and Plastics Company Inc., conducted an evaluation phase investigation at the dinitrotoluene (DNT) facility located in Institute, WV. The investigation included the sampling and analysis of soil, surface water, air and groundwater to determine whether the inactive DNT manufacturing site had resulted in contamination. Samples were collected at the following areas at the DNT facility: toluene storage tank, toluene transmission line leak, DNT product storage, burning pit, waste disposal basin, and DNT sump. Seven surface water samples and five soil samples were collected and three groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the DNT facility. All samples were analyzed for metals, volatile and semi-volatile organics. Review of analytical results for samples collected from the burning pit, toluene storage tank area and DNT product storage area showed no contamination at these units. DNT pond had caused contamination of the surrounding soil and groundwater. Groundwater concentrations of 25 ppm of 2,6-DNT and 19 ppm of 2,4-DNT were detected in the vicinity of the DNT pond. These concentrations had exceeded the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) regulatory level of 0.130 ppm for 2,4-DNT. The soil sample collected from the DNT pond also contained low ppm (<10 ug/g) of 2,6 DNT and 2,4-DNT. Based on the results of the evaluation phase of the groundwater protection procedure, it was recommended to conduct additional soil borings and to continue to monitor the groundwater wells after the closure of the pond (UCC, 1991). 1991 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report – Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., State of West Virginia Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources, 1991 UCC conducted a sludge characterization study at the South Charleston Waste Treatment Works. The results from the study were submitted to the U.S. EPA Department of Natural Resources in conjunction with other information as per requested during the compliance inspection. 2,4,5-T was among the chemicals analyzed, which was found to be below the detection limit (10 ppm). All other constituents analyzed were also below the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure values (WV DCLER, 1991). 031884 (51) C.2-17 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES July 10, 1992 Trip Report: Site Visit of the #20 Sump Area, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc., Plant 514, WV DEP, 1992 On July 10, 1992, WV DEP Inspectors conducted a site visit of the #20 sump area at UCC and Plastics Company, Inc. – Plant 514 in South Charleston, at the request of UCC officials. The purpose of the investigation was to view a contaminated area from an old production unit on Blaine Island. The area is located near the ARCO – Polyols Unit. According to UCC, historical time frames of processes are uncertain. From the 1920's to the 1940's a small crude oil refinery was in operation at the site, and from 1940's to the 1960's, a dripolene distillation process. The WV DEP stated that the dripolene distillation process was associated with a decanting sump, and that evidence suggests that a discharge pipe connected it to the River. The WV DEP reported that the sump is no longer present, and approximately 15 feet of fill material is present on top of the old production area. The WV DEP reported that UCC has determined groundwater contamination is present in the ARCO – Polyols Unit area. The upstream edge of the contamination plume has been defined; however, investigations are still underway to determine the downstream edge. Inspectors also viewed the River channel adjacent to this area, where oil-like seeps from the bank have been observed, and sheen develops on the River. Inspectors reported that UCC has installed a curtain and an absorbent boom in this area. WV DEP inspectors reported that UCC is concerned about reporting requirements to the National Response Center for spillage to the River. UCC officials would like to obtain a variance from the requirements, since seepage is minimal and somewhat continuous during the summer (WV DEP, 1992). July 8, 1993 Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. - Holz Impoundment, WV DEP, 1993 On July 8, 1993, WV DEP Inspectors conducted a RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the UCC Holz Impoundment, located in South Charleston on Route 214. Holz is a permitted hazardous waste land disposal Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF). It receives fly ash and bottom ash from UCC Plant 514, and sewage 031884 (51) C.2-18 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES treatment sludge from the City of South Charleston Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The South Charleston POTW treats domestic wastewater from the City of South Charleston, and industrial wastewater from UCC Plant 514. WV DEP Inspectors conducted a physical inspection of the impoundment by observing the new groundwater recovery well system, which was installed due to detected groundwater contamination in monitoring well cluster 502 in August 1992. This system consists of a series of five wells equipped with a pump/recovery system. WV DEP inspectors reported that the #3 recovery well has shown trace contamination of metals and volatile organics (WV DEP, 1993). January 17, 1996 Signed Consent Order HW-491-95 for the UCC PTO Facility This Order was issued by the Director of the WV DEP, and has an effective date of January 17, 1996. The basis of the order is that the UCC PTO is a closed facility located in Institute, WV. The PTO is currently undergoing closure requirements, which include semi-annual monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells. Seven recovery wells are present at the PTO, which pump contaminated groundwater to a common sump, and then to the Rhône-Poulenc Wastewater Treatment Facility. East of the site there are two additional recovery wells, which initially discharge into an oil/water separator, and then the medium continues to a common sump which also serves the seven recovery wells. If oil media were present, it would then be pumped to 55-gallon drums and handled as a hazardous waste. A Compliance Evaluation conducted at the facility on September 14, 1994 by the WV DEP concluded that the "PTO failed to make a proper hazardous waste determination on all wastes generated or stored on-site, in violation of 40 CFR Section 262.11, as referenced by Section 5.1 of the Regulations". Some of the requirements of the order included: • 031884 (51) That the PTO continues annual toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) analysis of wastewater produced from recovered groundwater from the recovery wells (WV DEP, 1996) C.2-19 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • That if wastewater analysis indicates a significant change in the sludge, which is generated, such that it may have become hazardous, a TCLP analysis of the sludge must be performed (WV DEP, 1996) • That the PTO determines if there is affirmative evidence that phthalate parameters recovered from PTO wastewater/sludge is from listed wastes (WV DEP, 1996) May 28, 1998 Memorandum to Tom Fisher, WV DEP, from Jim McCune, Re: Stolen Vehicle Situation, WEG, 1998 This memorandum was prepared by Jim McCune of Weavertown Environmental Group (WEG) to notify various Kanawha County agencies that a vehicle and roll off container containing waste bearing waste code D005 was stolen on May 18, 1998. Newspaper articles prepared by the Charleston Gazette and a Kanawha County Sheriff's Department report were attached to the WEG memorandum. The truck and roll off container were stolen from WEG's Charleston transfer station. The container, a dark brown, 20 by 8 by 5 foot box containing about 2,200 pounds of soil UCC South Charleston facility to a waste disposal facility in Model City, NY. WEG reported that the truck had been parked overnight in an area of the transfer station that was not fenced in. The WV DEP stated that WEG stored the truck improperly, explaining that since it was too tall to fit inside the bay properly, they parked it outside the enclosed area. On May 19, 1998, the truck was discovered damaged and abandoned on 40th street in Nitro, however the container was not found until May 23, 1998. The container was eventually found at the public stream access on River Bend Road along the Coal River outside of St. Albans. The Kanawha County Sheriff's Department report stated that the tarp on the container had been sliced in several places (WEG, 1998). May 6-7, 2002 Letter Report: Building 603 Geoprobe Investigation, DOW South Charleston Facility, Kemron Environmental Services, 2002 Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. (KEMRON) was retained by UCC to evaluate environmental conditions at Building 603, Doe South Charleston Facility. On May 6th and 7th, 2002, KEMRON conducted a Geoprobe soil investigation at the site. Laboratory analytical results for soil samples included analysis for 2,4,5-T and 031884 (51) C.2-20 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES dibenzofurans. Analytical results indicated that sample L0205151-09 contained 1220 µg/kg (1220 ppb) 2,4,5-T and 1230 µg/kg (1230 ppb) dibenzofuran. Sample L0205151-10 contained 631 µg/kg (631 ppb) 2,4,5-T, and 722 µg/kg (722 ppb) dibenzofuran (KEMRON, 2002). 1.11 AMERICAN CAR & FOUNDRY INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED American Car & Foundry Industries, Inc. (ACF) was located in Putnam County, approximately 20 miles northwest of Charleston, WV near the communities of Red House, Eleanor, and Buffalo, WV. The ACF site consisted of a 21.81 acre tract of land adjacent to the right descending bank of the River. The site is located immediately upstream of the Winfield Locks and Dam and is bordered by Highway 62 to the north and the west. The site of the ACF facility was originally prime agricultural land that was part of the Noffsinger farm, as documented by aerial photographs taken in 1950. ACF constructed and operated a railcar service and repair facility at the site from 1952 until closure in March 1986. In their prime, ACF maintained a fleet of over 47,000 tank and covered hopper railcars, which were leased to various companies to haul liquid and solid chemical products. Shop facilities required for cleaning and repairing railcars, a paint shop, and an on-site wastewater treatment system were also located on-site. The wastewater treatment system consisted of a series of lagoons adjacent to the River. The site remained idle until December 8, 1989, when U.S. ACE filed a Declaration of Taking for the 21.81-acre tract in order to construct an upstream approach for the new lock and gate bay at the Winfield Locks and Dam. U.S. ACE took possession of the site on May 1, 1990, after ACF had completed a limited excavation and removal activity on-site (U.S. ACE, 1992 1 ). U.S. ACE added a new lock chamber, and straightened and widened the River channel through the former ACF site in 1997. The ACF site is located approximately 1 mile upstream of the Lock and Dam. October 29, 1985 Preliminary Assessment of Shippers Car Line, NUS, 1986 On October 29, 1985, NUS, FIT III members conducted a preliminary assessment of the Shippers Car Line site located one half mile southeast of Eleanor, WV. The Shippers Car 031884 (51) C.2-21 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Line site is a railroad tank cleaning facility, which ACF has owned and operated for 29 years. NUS, FIT III presented Data Exhibit 3.1, Confirmation Sampling Test Results for Soil, Excavation Pit No. 1, Allstates Environmental Services, Inc. (Allstates) Data in the appendices of their report. This table reported an estimated concentration of 180 ppb for dibenzofuran in pit bottom sample 313-F1 (NUS Corporation, 1986). November 30, 1988 - 1992 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Soil at the former ACF Industries, Inc. Site, Red House, WV, U.S. ACE, 1992 This EE/CA Report, prepared by U.S. ACE, summaries site background and analytical data collected to date, identifies removal action objectives and alternatives, and recommends a removal action alternative for the site. Several water and soil sampling investigations have occurred at the site and are summarized in the following subsections: 031884 (51) • On November 30, 1988, U.S. ACE initiated Initial U.S. ACE Evaluation: environmental investigations at the ACF site to determine if hazardous and toxic wastes were present. On December 1, 1988, U.S. ACE representatives met with the ACF Corporate Manager for Environment and Safety to discuss the proposed environmental testing. The ACF representative stated that they wished to be present for any sampling or reconnaissance activities, and would require two weeks notice before access to the property would be granted. The U.S. ACE, along with their contractor, conducted the initial site investigation on December 14, 1988. The former ACF Plant Manager was present, however sampling was not completed as ACF denied entry and sampling on the site. • WV Division of Natural Resources Compliance Investigation: On December 4, 1988, the WV Department of Natural Resources (WV DNR) conducted a Complaint Investigation, and on February 14, 1989 they conducted a Compliance Evaluation Inspection at the site. The focus of this inspection was to determine the status and condition of various on-site drums of waste materials. ACF agreed to sample the drums and several areas devoid of vegetation that had been noted by the WV DNR. • ACF Environmental Site Investigation: On May 12, 1989, Allstates hired by ACF, began an environmental site investigation. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the extent of soil contamination within a localized portion of the site. The C.2-22 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES investigation also defined the geographic boundaries of soil contamination, and the chemical contaminants. Allstates determined that the area of primary contamination was 21,600 square feet, with an estimated volume of 3,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Allstates recommended excavation and landfill disposal. The organic contaminants detected in the soils were tetrachloroethylene, chloroform, dichloroethane, trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, benzene, ethyl benzene, and toluene. • ACF Remediation Activity: On October 27, 1989, WV DNR issued Administrative Order No. HW-225-89 requiring ACF to clean-up the identified contaminated areas. Remediation activities occurred from January 22, 1990 to April 11, 1990 and included the excavation, removal, and disposal of 9,151 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Approximately 100 empty containers, the majority of which were 55-gallon drums with minor chemical residues, were unearthed, crushed, and shipped for disposal in a chemical landfill. Organic compounds detected in samples included: methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, chloroform, 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethene, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethene, benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene. • Preliminary Residual Contamination Survey: In May 1990, U.S. ACE observed contaminated water seeping from the pit walls of an excavation that had been left open following ACF's remediation activities. Surface water samples were obtained from the former ACF facility, piezometer installations within the Winfield Locks and Dam area approximately one half-mile downstream of the site, and from the Town of Eleanor's water supply wells. • Groundwater contamination was not detected; however, seeps in the excavation had high contaminant levels indicating contamination in adjacent soils. Organic compounds detected during sampling included: methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, chloroform, trichloroethene, 1,1,2,2-trichloroethane, toluene, ethylbenzene, 1,2-dichloropropane, 1,2-dichlorobenzene, dibenzofuran, 1,2-dimethlybenzene, 2,4-dimethlyphenol, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and acetone. Confirmation of Contamination: On August 17, 1990 during the Lock construction, an equipment operator experienced skin and throat irritation after encountering unknown material while removing pavement with a backhoe. The unknown material was determined to be coming from a buried vault separate from the ACF excavation pit noted earlier. An initial site investigation was developed, which included soil gas surveys, soil sampling, and any necessary groundwater monitoring. Due to the nature of the 031884 (51) C.2-23 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES identified contaminants, confirmation activities were expanded to include dioxin sampling, and a total site characterization. • Soil Sampling: Soil sampling was conducted to confirm the presence and to identity the types of contamination present. Twenty-seven soil samples consisting of soil borings and surficial samples were collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, RCRA metals, cyanide, and dioxin/furans (3 samples). Results indicated that high concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs were detected in several areas of the site along with pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins. U.S. ACE determined that due to the number and concentrations of contaminants found in the soil matrix, groundwater contamination was possible and should be further investigated. U.S. ACE also determined that since dioxin was detected in two of the three samples, additional sampling was required to determine if dioxin contamination is localized or widespread. • Groundwater Monitoring: Four groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site. Groundwater monitoring was conducted by testing these wells along with three existing water supply wells in the area. Water samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and RCRA metals. Low concentrations of volatile organics were detected in shallow perched groundwater, and no contaminants were detected in the deeper aquifer indicating that groundwater contamination is not a major concern. • Soil Sampling for Dioxin: During initial sampling, dioxin was detected in two of the three soil samples. Thirteen additional soil sample locations were selected for dioxin analysis in order to determine if dioxin contamination was localized or widespread. Analysis determined that over 50% of the soil samples contained dioxin contamination at a significant level, which concluded that dioxin contamination was widespread and present at levels to cause a major concern. U.S. ACE determined that due to disposal problems associated with dioxin contaminated soils, a total site characterization was necessary to determine the quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil. • Site Characterization: During November and December 1991, soil, groundwater, and River sediment samples were collected and analyzed in order to complete a total site characterization for the ACF site. Site characterization included soil sampling, groundwater sampling, and River sediment sampling. In order to define the excavation limits for remediation activities, U.S. ACE designed a soil sampling program to detail both the lateral and vertical contamination. Soil samples were collected from 134 soil borings. Samples were analyzed for the presence of volatile, semi-volatile, and dioxin contamination. Certain samples were also analyzed for pesticides/PCBs, metals (8 RCRA plus iron and manganese) and 031884 (51) C.2-24 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES dioxins/furans. U.S. ACE analysis determined that the extent of contamination is within the site boundaries except along the northern border. Dioxin contamination was detected above action levels between the railroad tracks and the exclusion zone fence north of the maintenance building. Other organic contamination above action levels is present and the majority of which is located within the dioxin plume. A total of 14 groundwater samples were collected from selected wells screened in the shallow perched water and the deep aquifer. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, metals, and dioxins/furans. Results indicated that halogenated organic solvents are present in the shallow perched aquifer. Other contaminants were not detected above current action levels. River sediment samples were collected from the River in 16 locations in the vicinity of the ACF site. Sampling was conducted to determine the extent and nature of any off-site contaminated migration. Sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, metals, and dioxin/furans. Results indicated that all analytes were detected below action levels. U.S. ACE recommended on-site thermal treatment for the removal of contaminated soils at the site. U.S. ACE also recommended that this treatment be used in conjunction with temporary storage of the contaminated material, to avoid delay in construction of the Winfield Locks and Dam (U.S. ACE, 1992 1 ). August 1989 Phase I: Contamination Evaluation at the Former American Car & Foundry Site, TCT St. Louis, 1991 In August 1989, U.S. ACE, Huntington District hired TCT - St. Louis to perform environmental contamination assessments at the former ACF site. The ACF property was contaminated by hazardous waste as a result of ACF operations that included cleaning and maintenance of railroad tank cars. U.S. ACE acquired a tract of land from ACF that would be excavated during the construction activities associated with upgrading the Winfield Locks and Dam Project. During 1989, ACF contractors performed an environmental assessment of the site and excavated and removed 9,151 cubic yards of contaminated soil. After the remedial actions, WV DNR notified U.S. ACE that additional soil and groundwater contamination was believed to exist at the Site. In response to WV DNR, U.S. ACE collected several soil and water samples that confirmed the presence of high levels of organic compounds in the soil. The objective of this study was to assess the potential presence of contamination resulting from ACF operations. The assessment consisted of the collection of 16 soil samples from 8 soil borings. Samples were analyzed for Total 031884 (51) C.2-25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Organic Carbon (TOC), Total Halogenated Organics (TOX), volatile organic analytes (VOA), total metals, dioxin, and PCBs. Dioxin analyses were only performed on soil samples WB-91-1 and WB-91-7 (TCT-St. Louis, 1991). June 26th – 27th, 1991 Dioxin Sampling at the Former American Car & Foundry Site, Winfield Locks & Dam Project, Red House, WV. Attachment to letter from U.S. ACE to WV Air Pollution Control Commission, 1991 This summary, reporting the results of dioxin sampling, was included as an attachment to a letter requesting the WV Air Pollution Control Commission to be present at a meeting with WV DEP on October 10, 1991. This meeting was held in order to discuss remediation of hazardous substances at the former ACF Industries site. U.S. ACE stated that due to the presence of dioxin, on-site remediation alternatives such as incineration were being discussed. Dioxin contamination was detected in two of the three samples analyzed during Phase I of the Contamination Evaluation conducted in the spring of 1991. Due to the significance and toxicity of dioxin, additional sampling was conducted to confirm its presence and the extent of dioxin contamination. Sampling was conducted between June 26, 1991 and June 27, 1991. A total of 15 samples were collected, which included 11 samples (including 1 duplicate) from the former ACF site, one from an area near the River bank, and two near building foundations upstream of the ACF site (site blanks and matrix spike). An additional sample was collected from the Bank Property site. U.S. ACE concluded that the reported data indicates dioxin contamination is widespread at the site. Results were compared to U.S. EPA sources, which stated concentrations greater than 1 nanogram per gram (ng/g) (1 ppb) of the total toxicity equivalent quotient (TEQ) is considered high. Six of the samples analyzed exceeded this criterion (Vandevelde, 1991). July 22, 1991 Decision Document, Winfield Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, Former ACF Industries Facility, Red House, WV, U.S. ACE, 1991 U.S. ACE prepared this document to summarize site history and actions conducted to date at the Winfield Locks and Dam, River, Former ACF Property in Red House, WV. This information was used by U.S. ACE to support their decision to proceed with a 031884 (51) C.2-26 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES removal action under the authority of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Act (CERCLA), Subpart E – Hazardous Substance Response. U.S. ACE purchased a 22-acre parcel from ACF on December 8, 1989, as part of a project to modernize the existing Winfield Locks and Dam. This facility was formerly used by ACF to repair and service their fleet of tank and covered hopper railcars, which were leased to various companies to haul liquid and solid chemical commodities. On August 18, 1989, WV DNR issued an Administrative Order requiring ACF to perform an environmental remediation at the property, due to the possibility of the presence of hazardous and toxic waste. In response, ACF removed and disposed of approximately 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil, and 100 metal drums during January 1990 through April 1990. U.S. ACE observed discolored water seeping from the excavation pit walls, and discolored soils in May, 1990. Analysis confirmed the presence of contaminants including VOAs, base neutral/acid extractable analytes (BNA), pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins. U.S. ACE stated that the majority of contamination is limited to the soil matrix; however, detectable levels of contaminants have been reported in a perched groundwater aquifer. On January 14, 1991, U.S. EPA, Region III, issued an Order under Section 104 (e) of CERCLA requiring ACF to provide all information and documents in their procession regarding hazardous substances, which were transported to, stored, treated, or disposed of at the ACF site (U.S. ACE, 1991 1 ). October 2, 1991 Draft – Memorandum: Winfield Additional Lock and Gate Bay, Meeting with WV DNR to Discuss On-site Alternatives for Cleanup of Contamination on the Former ACF Property, U.S. ACE, 1991 On October 2, 1991 representatives from the Nashville, Omaha, and Huntington Districts of the Ohio River Division met with WV DNR to discuss on-site disposal alternatives for cleanup of hazardous wastes at the former ACF site. U.S. ACE stated that their primary focus was to keep construction of the new lock underway while developing the quickest practical approach to remediating the site. Due to the presence of dioxin, on-site disposal alternatives were examined. 031884 (51) C.2-27 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES An overview of site contamination was presented by U.S. ACE, which stated that contamination was the worst in the lagoon area, so this area was identified as a hot spot. The highest concentration of dioxin was 2,212 ppb, which was found in sample number 103. The Nashville District office stated that they do not believe dioxins are all over the ACF property, however they confirmed that dioxins have been found along the bank of the Kanawha River. Their objective for upcoming sampling events is to define the limits of contamination, and to separate soils containing dioxin from other contaminated soils (Kessinger, 1991). October 4, 1991 Letter to Dale Farley, Director, WV Air Pollution Control Commission, from Charles E. Vandevelde, U.S. ACE, 1991 U.S. ACE prepared this letter in response to a telephone conversation between Mr. Mark Kessinger of U.S. ACE, and Ms. Lucy Pontiveros and Mr. Bob Weiser of the WV Air Pollution Control Commission regarding the remediation of hazardous substance on the former ACF property. U.S. ACE states that a wide range of contamination remains on the property, including dioxin. Due to the presence of dioxin, on-site remediation is necessary, and incineration is being considered as an alternative. With this letter, the U.S. ACE provided a list of contaminants that have been identified at the site. The U.S. ACE also attached a summary report on the results of the dioxin sampling entitled, "Dioxin Sampling at the Former American Car & Foundry Site, Winfield Locks and Dam Project, Red House, WV", and a summary table of other soil contamination (U.S. ACE, 1991 2 ). January 22, 1992 Letter to Riad Tanner, WV DNR, from R.J. Conner, U.S. ACE, Re: Advance Copy of Action Level Letter on Winfield Site, 1992 R.J. Conner, Chief, Engineering-Planning Division, U.S. ACE, prepared this letter to propose soil action levels for the response action involving hazardous substances at the former ACF property at the Winfield Locks & Dam site, Red House, WV. U.S. ACE stated that the anticipated response action will involve excavations of contaminated materials, placement of materials in one or more above ground, enclosed storage buildings, and thermal destruction of contaminants using a mobile, on site incinerator. Other potential actions included constructing an on site landfill, and off site disposal of non-dioxin contaminated materials. 031884 (51) C.2-28 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES U.S. ACE calculated proposed soil action levels based on sampling data available to date, and therefore it was noted that the action levels may be updated as new data becomes available. Consultation with regulatory and private agencies may also alter the action levels. To calculate soil action levels, contaminants were characterized according to the following groups: Dioxins, Carcinogens, and Systemic Toxicants. U.S. ACE established the action level for dioxins to be 1.0 ppb, as 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents. U.S. ACE received information from U.S. EPA, which recommended using this level for clean-up at Superfund Sites. U.S. ACE stated that a review of literature revealed that 1.0 ppb was used as the action level for dioxin at several Superfund sites, including Denney Farms, and Shenandoah Stables (Conner, 1992). January 31, 1992 Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section, 1992 J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section, prepared this letter to address the "substantial hazardous and toxic waste problem involving dioxins at the former ACF property". Mr. Hamrick stated that WV DNR supports the storage/ incineration alternative, and vigorously opposes the landfilling alternative for the following reasons: • The dioxins and other wastes would have to be pre-treated before landfilling. The pre-treatment required for dioxins, and some of the other wastes, is incineration, and therefore the incineration is necessary for both alternatives • The proposed landfill is immediately adjacent to the Town of Eleanor, and also located in a floodplain • Landfilling requires continuous maintenance and monitoring. The dioxins would still exist, and may at some future date need to be removed and disposed (Hamrick, 1992) May 15, 1992 U.S. ACE Tries To Get Company To Pay Costs Of Dioxin Cleanup At Site Of Ohio River Project, Environment Reporter, 1992 This newsletter states that according to U.S. ACE, ACF used their property to clean and maintain railroad cars, including chemical tankers from the 1950s to 1986. In the early 031884 (51) C.2-29 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1980's ACF installed a U.S. EPA approved treatment plant. However prior to this, substances washed out of rail cars were channeled into three ponds connected by a ditch to the River. The newsletter also states that U.S. ACE has reported dioxin contamination that is substantially above federal limits of 2 ppb (Environment Reporter, 1992). June 1, 1992 Letter to James R. Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from William L. Finn, ACF, 1992 William Finn prepared this letter on behalf on ACF, in response to U.S. ACE's May 6, 1992 letter requesting comments on the U.S. ACE recommendation for removal of approximately 61,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil. ACF stated that they have ongoing concerns that make it necessary for soil conditions to remain undisturbed at the site. ACF's concerns include: • The quantity of soil that U.S. ACE claims is contaminated, the method that U.S. ACE used to calculate this quantity of contaminated soil, and whether the site has been accurately characterized • Indications that cross contamination occurred due to the presence of dioxin in sample blanks, and that this dioxin was used to calculated the volume of dioxin in soil • Very little dioxin was found, most toxicity equivalent factor (TEF) found were furans • No formal hydrogeological study or risk assessment was conducted at the site to support U.S. ACE's claim that there is a threat to public health • The administrative record has been deleted in certain portions, impeding ACF and the public's review (ACF, 1992) June 2, 1992 Memorandum: Winfield Additional Lock and Gate Bay, Meeting With WV DNR to Discuss U.S. ACE/WV DNR Coordination During Removal Action on the Former ACF Property, U.S. ACE, 1992 This memorandum summarizes the minutes of a meeting between U.S. ACE and WV DNR on June 2, 1992 to discuss coordination efforts between the two agencies during the cleanup of hazardous substances at the former ACF property in Red House, WV. 031884 (51) C.2-30 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Item nine, WV DNR Comments on the EE/CA, included information about a dioxin plume that had been referenced in the EE/CA prepared by U.S. ACE. Mr. Dave Meadows of U.S. ACE explained that most dioxin was found between the surface and depths to 2 feet; however, in one area dioxin was found at depths of 6 feet. U.S. ACE sampled sediments in the River, and dioxin was below action levels in all tested samples. Mr. Meadows stated that it is U.S. ACE's opinion that there are two sources of the dioxin: spillage, and residue from burn pits. Groundwater contamination was discussed under item eleven. Mr. Meadows stated that contamination had not been detected in groundwater, and that U.S. ACE had developed an extensive groundwater monitoring program, which included fourteen wells between the ACF site and the Town of Eleanor. Mr. Lewis Baker, WV DNR Geologist, suggested that there was a large distance between the site and Town's wells, and that additional wells should be installed beside the lock construction area. Mr. Baker noted a report by International Technology Corporation that indicated volatile contamination is present at depths below the water table. He stated that a review of boring data showed there is not a single clay layer across the site, and therefore perched water may not be confined. Mr. Baker concluded that sands below the water level are contaminated, and therefore the groundwater in the sands is also contaminated, only to a lesser degree. Item sixteen (summary) discussed the public's perception regarding incineration of contaminated soils. Mr. Terry Clarke of U.S. ACE stated that U.S. ACE had promoted landfilling the materials, but the State was strongly opposed to this alternative. Item sixteen also noted that U.S. ACE is receiving comments from the public regarding why WV DNR did not analyze for dioxin, and why WV DNR allowed dioxin contaminated soils to be taken off-site. This item was later included as an action item at the conclusion of the memorandum. Specifically, it was decided that WV DNR should prepare a position paper that documents "why dioxin were not tested for under ACF's cleanup and why dioxin-contaminated soils were landfilled off-site". This paper is to be submitted to U.S. ACE, which would allow U.S. ACE to respond in a manner, which is consistent with the WV DNR's position on the matter (U.S. ACE, 1992 2 ). June 8, 1992 Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources, 1992 This letter was written by J. Edward Hamrick III, Director of the WV Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources in response to a public meeting held in 031884 (51) C.2-31 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Eleanor, WV, on May 25, 1992 concerning the former ACF property. During this meeting, a representative of U.S. ACE stated to the assembly that WV DNR had certified that the ACF property was clean. Mr. Hamrick stated that this allegation has caused great concern, and in response to this statement, Mr. Hamrick noted that "the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources does not now nor has it ever certified any site as being clean''. In response, WV DNR Waste Management office has allowed the Citizens Action Group, and members of the local media access to ACF files, telephone logs, and daily planners of staff members that document communication between WV DNR and U.S. ACE as early as January, 1990. Mr. Hamrick noted that tank car cleaning facilities are known to be sources of potential environmental liabilities, and that it was no secret that materials handled at the facility were potentially hazardous. He also stated that WV DNR personnel informed U.S. ACE personnel of potential problems at the former ACF site as early as December 1989 (Hamrick, 1992). June 18, 1992 Letter from Rolley Moore, Chairman, Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, to Mike Dorsey, Public Information Office, WV DNR, 1992 Rolley Moore, Chairman of the Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority (WCSWA) prepared this letter in response to the May 5, 1992 EE/CA for Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Soil; the Former ACF Site, Red House, WV, prepared by U.S. ACE. The above mentioned report is a source of great concern to WCSWA, since soils from the ACF site were deposited at the Wetzel County Landfill (WCLF) during the period of January 22, 1990 through April 11, 1990. WCSWA stated that their primary concern is in regard to Section 1.1.8, page five of the U.S. ACE report, regarding discolored water that U.S. ACE observed seeping into an excavation in May, 1990. WCSWA quoted the report as stating "…samples collected from seeps exiting the walls confirmed the presence of a wide range of contaminants including volatile organics and base neutral/acid extractables. Subsequent investigations have confirmed the presence of pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins in this area". WCSWA states that since the seeps were observed weeks after the area that was thought to be the most contaminated area of the site was excavated, it is reasonable to assume that soils removed from the site are contaminated with dioxin. 031884 (51) C.2-32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The Authority has determined through contact with U.S. ACE, WV DNR, and U.S. EPA that Enviro Safe of Toledo, Ohio, nor WCLF were notified of the possibility of receiving dioxin contaminated soils, even though dioxin contamination at the ACF site was reported as high as 2,000 ppb. WCSWA also noted that records they obtained from WV DNR indicated that specialty wastes were not transported to the WCLF during the period of concern. To WCSWA's knowledge, the WCLF is a sanitary landfill, and WCSWA is unaware of any provisions within WV DNR for specialty waste landfills. However, the U.S. ACE report gives two direct references to the Wetzel County "Specialty" Waste Landfill receiving 6,641 tons of soil from the ACF site during the period of concern. WCSWA is also concerned that the waste was deposited in an unlined facility. They feel that many of the conditions, which justified a removal action at the ACF site, will apply to the WCLF if the analysis reports that soil buried at the WCLF is similarly contaminated. Groundwater and surface water contamination, and the effects on landfill workers and nearby residents are also of concern. WCSWA concluded by officially requesting U.S. ACE, WV DNR, and U.S. EPA to take the following actions: • Provide a specific determination of where soils were deposited • Conduct a soil gas survey at the WCLF using the same guidelines as U.S. ACE used at the ACF site • Conduct soil sampling, including sampling for dioxin, and a groundwater monitoring program at the WCLF using the same guidelines as the U.S. ACE used at the ACF site • Issue a similar site characterization report, prepared by U.S. ACE, based on soil and groundwater sampling, and Peach Fork sediment sampling (Moore, 1992) June 26, 1992 Wetzel County Landfill Suspected Dioxin Investigation, Memorandum to Brad Swiger, District 1 Supervisor, and Larry Betonte, Assistant Chief Inspector, Northern Office, from Jamie Fenske, Inspector, WV DNR, 1992 On June 18, 1992, WV DNR received a telephone call from WCSWA, regarding concerns that the WCLF had accidentally received soil contaminated with dioxin. The WCLF accepted approximately 6,640 tons of soil from the Winfield Locks and Dam, former ACF site, between January 22, 1990 and April 11, 1990. During the removal action at the ACF site, 9,159 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated, removed, and 031884 (51) C.2-33 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES disposed. Approximately 4,466 tons of hazardous waste soils were transported to the Envirosafe, Inc. Landfill in Toledo, Ohio, and approximately 6,640 tons of soils characterized as non-hazardous were transported to the WCLF. On July 1, 1992, WV DEP inspector Jamie Fenske, met with WCLF site Engineer Dave Brown, and Site Manager Randy Simms at the WCLF. Inspector Fenske was provided with documents regarding the approval to accept landfill materials and maps indicating the location where soil was used as a cover material. The WCLF representatives stated that no field analysis or soil samples were collected during the period when wastes were accepted. On June 26, 1992 Technical Testing Laboratories, on behalf of WCLF, collected three downgradient monitoring well samples, and one leachate sample (Fenske, 1992). July 2, 1992 Review of Available U.S. ACE Data, Former ACF Property, Red House, WV, Burlington Environmental, 1992 Burlington Environmental, Inc. (Burlington) was retained by ACF to prepare this preliminary technical review of available U.S. ACE data regarding environmental investigations at the former ACF facility in Red House, WV. The majority of the information that Burlington has reviewed to date includes reports prepared by U.S. ACE and its contractors, which include International Technology Corporation and Law Environmental, Inc. Burlington also obtained a soil quantification computation sheet from U.S. ACE dated January 23, 1992, and other U.S. ACE memorandum available from the U.S. ACE Huntington office. In conclusion, Burlington stated that the U.S. ACE has: 031884 (51) • Based conclusions on samples collected in such a manner that interpretation of many of the results is questionable • Inappropriately used data from certain chemical analysis procedures for dioxin in their determinations • Based their conclusions on inaccurate, imprecise, and otherwise flawed chemical analysis data • Assessed the level of risk to public health and the environment at this property using procedures that are inappropriate and outdated according to U.S. EPA C.2-34 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Greatly overestimated the potential risk to public drinking water supplies at Eleanor, WV, based on erroneous estimations of the groundwater flow at this property • Inaccurately mapped the extent of contaminated soils at this property • Substantially overestimated the quantity of soil that must, according to their own contractor's analytical data and calculations, be removed from the property • Selected on-site incineration as the technology to be used to clean up this site even though the soil can be hauled off-site for incineration (Burlington, 1992) July 7, 1992 Letter to Colonel James Van Epps, U.S. ACE from William Finn, Vice President, ACF, 1992 William Finn, Vice President of ACF prepared this letter as a formal initial response to the EE/CA report that U.S. ACE issued on May 5, 1992. Mr. Finn stated that technical expertise for ACF's review of the document was provided by Burlington, a firm whose expertise is in dioxin site investigations. Mr. Finn states that ACF opposes U.S. ACE's planned activities outlined in the EE/CA, and concludes that the proposed activities are not consistent with the U.S. EPA National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan under CERCLA. ACF also concluded that U.S. ACE's estimate of 61,000 cubic yards of dioxin contaminated soil is inaccurate and grossly exaggerated. Burlington has shown that the volume of dioxin contaminated soil requiring removal is potentially only 8,950 cubic yards. ACF stated that they have learned that U.S. ACE, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. DOI) all had knowledge of the presence of dioxin contamination in the River as early as 1986. ACF commented that they had no such knowledge, and that this knowledge should have led U.S. ACE to conduct dioxin testing prior to instituting a condemnation of the site. ACF states that they conclude this precludes U.S. ACE from seeking to recover response costs from ACF. ACF concluded with the following comments: 031884 (51) • U.S. ACE's determination that 61,000 cubic yards of soil must be excavated and incinerated is inaccurate, grossly exaggerated and based upon flawed mathematical calculations. • U.S. ACE selected on-site incineration as the technology to be used to address the site even though the soil can be hauled off-site for incineration. C.2-35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • U.S. ACE contractors (International Technology Corporation and Law Environmental, Inc.) used two chemical analysis methods to measure dioxin concentrations. One method was an isomer analysis using U.S. EPA Method 8280, SE-846. The other was the "U.S. EPA Region VII – Rapid Turnaround Dioxin Analysis" Method. U.S. ACE has used both of these methods inappropriately. • The data U.S. ACE used to arrive at the quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil contains many Quality Assurance/Quality Control problems. • In the site delineations performed by International Technology Corporation and Law Environmental, Inc. in January and April, 1992, the soil sampling procedures and decontamination procedures may have exaggerated the areas shown to contain dioxin concentrations due to cross contamination. • U.S. EPA proposed action level of 1 ppb for dioxin is inappropriate. • The method U.S. ACE used to compute the volume of dioxins and furans was inappropriate. • The site can be further evaluated without immediately excavating the soil and storing it within buildings, due to the fact that there is a confining clay unit at a depth of approximately 15-25 feet beneath the facility, which separates an upper waterbearing zone from the deeper aquifer. • ACF has obtained reports produced by U.S. ACE, U.S. EPA, and U.S. DOI, which indicate that all of those departments or agencies had knowledge of dioxin contamination in the River as early as 1986. • ACF is not liable for paying the costs involved in the investigation U.S. ACE has conducted on the property from the period beginning in approximately May 1990 and continuing until the present time (ACF, 1992). July 23, 1992 Letter to Colonel Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, U.S. DOI, 1992 This letter outlines U.S. DOI comments on the EE/CA report for the former ACF site, submitted by U.S. ACE. Some of the U.S. DOI comments were regarding the following: • 031884 (51) There is no human health or ecological risk assessment included in the EE/CA, but the report documents contaminants at or near the soil surface, and also indicates the probability of the River receiving these contaminants via stormwater runoff. C.2-36 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Two of the four proposed ponds to be created as fish and wildlife mitigation will be temporarily used to store contaminated soil. Not only will this delay wildlife benefits, it is possible that residual contamination within the affected pond areas could adversely affect wildlife. U.S. DOI recommended that the presence of contaminants in all project areas be identified before wildlife mitigation is introduced. The fact that dioxin contaminated soil was found outside the northern border of the ACF property indicates the possibility of site contamination in other project areas (other than the Winfield Lock expansion area), including those potentially associated with wildlife migration (U.S. DOI, 1992) July 24, 1992 Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from Abraham Ferdas, Associate Division Director for the Superfund Program, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1992 This letter outlines U.S. EPA's comments on the EE/CA report for the former ACF site, submitted by the U.S. ACE. U.S. EPA stated that they agree with the incineration alternative that U.S. ACE has selected. The site has, in places, significant dioxin, volatile, and semi-volatile contamination, and to date, no off-site alternative exists for disposal of dioxin contaminated waste. U.S. EPA also noted that besides incineration, no proven on-site large-scale technology exists for dioxin contamination destruction. U.S. EPA recommended that U.S. ACE conduct trial burns to ensure that all applicable requirements are met (U.S. EPA, 1992). 1992 1992 – Quality Control Summary Report for Winfield Locks and Dam Site, Law Environmental, Inc. Law Environmental, Inc. was hired by U.S. ACE to investigate the former ACF site for the presence of hazardous material. The site investigation was designed to study the presence of soil and groundwater contamination at the site, and was approached in two phases. Phase I activities included collecting 201 soil samples from locations across the site. Soil samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs and 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Areas that were found to contain contamination were further investigated during Phase II. The objective of Phase II was to collect samples to confirm the presence of contamination, and to provide 031884 (51) C.2-37 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES additional information concerning the extent of the contamination. Phase II activities included collecting 52 soil samples that were analyzed for PCDDs. For each phase, the results of each congener group were reported with the associated TEF (Law Environmental, Inc., 1992). 1992 Winfield Locks harbor $100 million mess, feds find, Charleston Gazette, 1992 This article written by staff writer Rick Steelhammer, was printed in the Charleston Gazette in 1992, the exact date the article appeared is unknown. The Gazette reports that work on the new Winfield Locks has been stalled for several months due to cleanup of dioxin contaminated soil. The project, initially designed to eliminate barge traffic delays averaging 13 hours at the nation's busiest river navigation complex was estimated to cost $210 million. U.S. ACE has recently announced that clean-up of dioxin contaminated soil will cost approximately $100 million. Extent of contamination investigations has reported that there are 61,000 cubic yards of contaminated materials at the site, and most of it is soil containing a mixture of dioxins and organic contaminants. The Gazette reports that ACF used the site from the 1950s until 1986 to wash and service railroad cars, including chemical tanks and hoppers. In the early 1980's ACF installed a U.S. EPA approved treatment plant; however, prior to this substances were washed out of rail cars and channeled into three ponds, which were connected to the River by a ditch. Prior to U.S. ACE purchasing the property in 1989, WV DNR reported to have ordered ACF to remove more than 9,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and about 100 empty metal drums, which were buried on site. The Gazette reports that U.S. ACE found dioxin contamination that was substantially above the federal limits of 2 ppb. It was reported that the Inland Waterways Trust Fund will pay half of the expense of the dioxin cleanup, estimated at $98.7 million in 1991 dollars, and the remainder will be paid by U.S. ACE civil works budget. U.S. ACE is reported as stating that ACF is responsible for the cleanup and plans to pursue the matter in court to recover costs. The Gazette also reports that there was evidence that site contaminants may have entered the River, particularly during heavy rain events,; however, recent sediment sampling in the River have reported that no harmful substances were present above federal guidelines (Steelhammer, 1992). 031884 (51) C.2-38 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES January 6, 1993 and March 1, 1993 Memorandum: Health Consultation: ACF Site (aka Winfield Lock and Dam) Red House, WV, Department of Health & Human Services, 1993 The WV Department of Health and Human Services (WV DHHS) prepared this memorandum which summaries background information and presents a statement of issues. The memo states that U.S. ACE requested ATSDR to review environmental sampling data collected from the former ACF site. ATSDR was also directed by U.S. ACE to access U.S. ACE's actions to date in a health consultation that was to include a discussion of the findings of a site visit ATSDR conducted on January 6, 1993. ACF operated a railcar service and repair facility on a 22-acre parcel of land located along the River in Red House, WV. The ACF facility was in operation from the 1950s to 1986. According to WV DHHS, it is believed that residual chemicals in the railcars were either dumped on the ground or drained into unlined ponds at the site. WV DHHS stated that ACF conducted a limited environmental site investigation in April and May of 1989, which led to the excavation and removal of approximately 9,151 cubic yards of contaminated soil, and approximately 100 buried drums in January through April 1990. U.S. ACE took possession of the site in May, 1990; however, during the beginning stages of the project, U.S. ACE observed a colored liquid emanating from a pit wall. This pit remained from ACF's removal, which suggested that contamination still remained. Analysis found surface and subsurface soils to contain elevated levels of VOCs, SVOCs, and chlorinated dibenzodioxins/furans or dioxin. The maximum dioxin concentration in the surface and subsurface soils was reported to be 19,100 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. A total of 16 sediment samples were collected from the River near the site area, and all samples were reported to contain less than 1.0 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. Vertical migration of organic compounds through soil has occurred at the ACF site. WV DHHS reports that this migration threatens to contaminate a deep aquifer underlying the site that serves as a potable water source for the Town of Eleanor. The U.S. ACE tested water from Eleanor's wells and did not report any site related contamination; however, private wells have not been sampled (WV DHHS, 1993). 031884 (51) C.2-39 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES March 31, 1994 Letter to David M. Flannery, Attorney-at-Law, Robinson & McElwee, from Max Robertson, Chief, WV DEP, 1994 This letter was prepared by WV DEP to state their position on the status of contaminated soils at the ACF facility at Red House, WV. WV DEP states that due to difficulty determining the sources of specific contaminants, WV DEP concurs with U.S. EPA and ACF that contaminated soils should not be considered listed as hazardous wastes as defined by RCRA. However, WV DEP does not concur that the soils are not hazardous by their characteristics as shown by TCLP. Analysis of site samples was designed to determine risk factors and not to characterize soil for off-site disposal. Analysis reveals that many analytes regulated by TCLP, are also present in quantities large enough to warrant concern regarding their RCRA hazardous characteristics. WV DEP concluded that before disposal options can be considered, an in depth determination of the hazardous waste status of soils is required. No soils with dioxin levels in excess of cleanup levels established for the site will be allowed into an in-state municipal waste facility (WV DEP, 1994). July 30, 1995 Contaminated Putnam soil OK for shipment to Utah, The Associated Press, The Huntington Herald-Dispatch, 1995 This newspaper article appeared in the Huntington Herald-Dispatch on July 30, 1995. The article states that a federal judge has ruled that an estimated 61,000 cubic yards of soil contaminated with dioxin may be transported from a Putnam County storage facility to a landfill in Utah. The soil is presently stored on a property once owned by a rail car cleaning firm, ACF, of Earth City, Missouri. The ACF property, located along the River, cleaned rail cars from 1952 to 1986. This article reports that the project is expected to cost ACF 16 million dollars, and that ACF has 210 days to clean the area. Walsh Environmental of Denver is reported to have been hired to conduct the cleanup (Herald-Dispatch, 1995). 031884 (51) C.2-40 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES December 1995 & January, 1996 Closure Report for the Removal Action for the Former ACF Site, Red House, WV, Philip Environmental Services Corporation, 1996 This report summaries removal action activities conducted by Philip Environmental Services Corporation on behalf of ACF, at the former ACF railcar repair facility in Red House, WV. The removal action was performed in accordance with a Consent Decree effective July 26, 1995. U.S. ACE acquired the 21.81-acre site in May 1990 in order to expand the Winfield Locks and Dam structure, which is located approximately 1 mile downstream. A new lock chamber will be added to the structure, and the River channel width will be widened and straightened through the former ACF site. This closure report summarizes soil removal and verification soil sampling/testing activities preformed at Excavation Areas 1 through 10, and the deep VOC area. It also summaries other miscellaneous verification sampling conducted at the site. Excavation Area No. 1 Dioxin exceedances were reported at locations 1-18 and 1-19 with sub-area dioxin TEF of 1.43 ppb and 1.03 ppb, respectively. The excavations of both sub-areas were deepened by approximately one foot and re-sampled. Re-sample results reported dioxin concentrations below the 1 ppb dioxin TEF action level at both locations, sub-area 1R-18 (0.06 ppb) and sub-area 1R-19 (0.05 ppb). Sub-area 1-93 (1.90 ppb) exceeded the dioxin action level when sampled in December 1995. An additional 1 to 2 feet of soil was excavated and the sub-area was re-sampled in January 1996. Sample results were below the action level. Exceedances were also reported in the south end of Area 1 at the following locations: 1-71, (36.00 ppb), 1-72, (30.00 ppb), 1-73, (15.00 ppb), 1-82, (1.50 ppb), and 1-90, (17.00 ppb). It was discovered that these sub-areas overly a drum pit, consequently the drum pit was excavated and the locations were re-sampled. Re-sample results were below the action level for dioxin. The volume of soil removed from Excavation Area No. 1 for surficial dioxin removal was approximately 8,600 cubic yards, or 12,900 tons. In addition, a pit containing trash, which included rubber tires, hoses, paint cans, gloves, and old coveralls, and crushed drums was discovered in the center of sub-area 1-73. 031884 (51) C.2-41 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Samples were collected from the floor of this area in October 1995 at a depth of 8 feet for dioxin analysis. A composite sample at 6 feet (1S-DP-WALL), which consisted of aliquots from the four walls, was also analyzed for dioxin. Sample 1S-DP-WALL (13 ppb) exceeded action levels for dioxin. The pit was consequently deepened by 2 feet and extended approximately four feet to the east to allow for re-sampling of the overlying areas (1R-71, 1R-72, 1R-73, 1R-82, and 1R-90). This resulted in an additional 290 cubic yards, or 430 tons of soil removal from Excavation Area No. 1. Excavation Area No. 2 The majority of Area No. 2 was excavated and tested in August and September 1995. Additional excavation of areas exceeding the action level occurred October 1995 through January 1996. The north end of the area was excavated and re-tested in February 1996. The following sub-areas exceeded the 1 ppb TEF action level for dioxin: • 2-21 (1.05 ppb) • 2-22 (8.00 ppb) • 2-24 (3.35 ppb) • 2-25 (1.80 ppb) • 2-26 (1.33 ppb) • 2-27 (15.40 ppb) • 2-28 (1.48 ppb) • 2-29 (64.24 ppb) • 52-29 (23.11 ppb) • 2-30 (16.00 ppb) • 2-31 (10.34 ppb) • 2-33 (16.93 ppb) • 2R-33 (3.31 ppb) • 2-34 (7.89 ppb) • 2-35 (17.28 ppb) • 2-36 (5.54 ppb) • 52-36 (5.26 ppb) The approximate volume of soil removed from Excavation Area No. 2 for surficial dioxin removal was 5,800 cubic yards, or 8,700 tons. 031884 (51) C.2-42 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In addition, during excavation for the removal of concrete water treatment lagoon structures, discolored soil leading toward the Kanawha River was discovered. It was noted that this material likely lied under the former discharge trench of the original treatment ponds system, which would be removed as part of the deep VOC excavation. Three samples were collected from the floor of the trench, after the stained soil was removed. Two of the three samples, 2S-DP-C, and 2S-DP-S, exceeded the action level for dioxin. These locations were not re-sampled since they were located in an area that was going to be removed as part of the deep VOC excavation, and therefore the results were not included in the report. Excavation Area No. 3 The majority of this area was excavated in September 1995. The sub-areas around the wastewater treatment area that exceeded the dioxin action level were: • 3-13 ( 1.20 ppb) • 3-18 (3.17 ppb) • 3-19 (1.34 ppb) • 3-20 (2.04 ppb) • 3-21 (1.41 ppb) • 3-22 (1.77 ppb) • 3-26 (23.27 ppb) • 3-28 (2.91 ppb) These sub-areas were re-tested in November 1995 after an additional 1 to 2 feet of soil was removed, and all sub-areas were reported below the dioxin action level. Approximately 2,400 cubic yards, or 3,600 tons of soil were removed from Excavation Area No. 3 for surficial dioxin removal. Excavation Area No. 4 This area was excavated in August 1995, and all sub-areas were below the action level for dioxin. The majority of this area was removed during the excavation of the deep VOC area. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal was 2,500 cubic yards, or 3,700 tons. 031884 (51) C.2-43 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Excavation Area No. 5 This area was excavated in August 1995, and all sub-areas were below the action levels for dioxin. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal was 2,700 cubic yards, or 4,100 tons. Excavation Area No. 6 This area was excavated in October 1995, and all sub-areas were below the action level for dioxin. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal was 800 cubic yards, or 1,200 tons. Excavation Area No. 7 This area was excavated in October 1995, and all sub-areas were below the action level for dioxin. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal was 100 cubic yards, or 150 tons. Excavation Area No. 8 The majority of Area No. 8 was excavated in November 1995, and all sub-areas were below the action level for dioxin. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal was 5,300 cubic yards, or 8,000 tons. Excavation Area No. 9 The southern half of Area No. 9 was excavated in October and December 1995, and the northern half in February and March 1996. All samples were below action levels except for those sampled from the decon sump area, which included samples 9-9 (1.84 ppb), 9-10 (1.15 ppb), and 9-13 (2.09 ppb). These areas were excavated an additional 2 feet and re-sample results were below action levels. Approximately 4,300 cubic yards, or 6,500 tons of soil were removed from this area for surficial dioxin removal. Excavation Area No. 10 Sampling in this area was based on the results of an initial sample taken at location EMB-11 (1.10 ppb). Additional sampling was based on visual inspection of soil conditions during expansion of the area during excavation and removal of trash. Sample 10-01 (20.42 ppb), collected in January 1996 exceeded the action level for dioxin. An additional 2 to 3 feet of soil was excavated from this area and the resample was below action levels. Approximately 1,700 cubic yards, or 2,600 tons of soil were removed from Area No. 10 for surficial dioxin and buried trash removal. Miscellaneous • Steamrack Area: Excavation and removal of impacted soil in the steamrack area was part of the 45-day extension to the Consent Decree, dated February 3, 1996. It was 031884 (51) C.2-44 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES believed that the steamrack was the source area for rinsate to drain to the former treatment ponds. Discolored soil was observed during excavation south of the southeast end of the streamrack, and under its concrete foundation. Sampling conducted in this area was analyzed for either rapid scan or full isomer dioxin. All samples, which included: B-9, ND(0.1), L-11 (ND), RHSS-315 (ND), RHSS-316 (0.78 ppb), RHSS-317 (ND), and RHSS-318 (ND), were reported below the action level for dioxin. 031884 (51) • Main Repair Building Area: In December 1995, an area of oily soil, approximately 20 feet by 10 feet by 3 feet deep was found adjacent to and under the floor slab in the northwest corner of the Main Building. Removal of this material became a requirement of the 45-day extension to the Consent Decree dated February 3, 1996. All samples, which included: ABRB-02 (0.01 ppb), collected from under the former abrasive blast building in March 1996, PNTS-02 (0.4 ppb), collected from under the paint shop, and verification samples REPS-03 (0.06 ppb), and REPS-04 (0.01 ppb), were below the action level for dioxin. The approximate volume of soil removed from this area was 2,400 cubic yards, or 3,600 tons. • Pit 1: This pit was used by ACF for removal of paint wastes in 1990. The pit had a floor depth of approximately 6 feet bgs. Samples collected in December 1995 that exceeded the dioxin action level were, PIT1-03 (4.2 ppb) and PIT1-05 (5.5 ppb). In November 1995, 2 additional feet of soil were excavated from the pit, and the area was re-sampled. Re-sample results, PIT1R-03 (0.34 ppb) and PIT1-05 (0.12 ppb), were below the dioxin action level. Other exceedances included sample RD-PT1-02E (6.40 ppb) collected in December 1995 from the location of a temporary haul road in the south end of Pit 1, and sample PIT1R-13 (1.7 ppb) collected on May 15, 1996 from an area just south of the two concrete lagoons. Following additional soil removal and re-sampling, sample results RD-PT1-RR02E (0 ppb) and PIT1RR-13 (0.08 ppb) were below the dioxin action level. Approximately 1,950 cubic yards, or 2, 900 tons, of soil were removed from this area. • Pit 2: All initial samples, PIT2-1 (9.00 ppb), PIT2-2 (11.0 ppb), and PIT2-3 (1.2 ppb), collected from the floor of the existing Pit 2 in September 1995 exceeded the action level for dioxin. After removing approximately 2 feet of additional soil, re-sample results, PIT2R-1 (0.15 ppb), PIT2R-2 (0 ppb), and PIT2R-3 (0.01 ppb), were below the action level. Approximately 250 cubic yards, or 400 tons, of soil was removed from this area. • Sand Blast Shed: Samples collected from a dark-colored area beneath the north end of the sand blast shed were analyzed for dioxin. Analytical results reported that all samples were below action levels. Approximately 700 cubic yards, or 1,000 tons, of soil was removed from this area. C.2-45 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Haul Roads: Samples were collected from the north, east, south, and deep VOC haul roads and analyzed for dioxin. All analytical results were below action levels, except for one sample collected from the haul road in Pit 1, which is discussed above. • Batch Tank, Shallow Lagoon and East and West Lagoons: Soil impacted with paint wastes was believed to be located under the concrete foundation of the batch tank, under the shallow lagoon south of Pit 2, and under the large concrete lagoons. Samples were collected from these areas in January 1996. It was noted that the samples were analyzed for dioxin in April and May 1996, outside of the holding time. Analytical results reported that dioxin levels were below the action level. Approximately 2,700 cubic yards, or 4,100 tons, of soil were removed from this site. Groundwater samples were obtained from six monitoring wells on April 4, 1995, prior to site remediation, and on March 27 and 28, 1995, after site remediation was completed. The samples were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and were reported as ND. The wastewater treatment plant operated between August 12, 1995 and March 13, 1996 treated a total of 1,698,152 gallons of water. The concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD was below the limit of 10 pg/L (1x10-5 ppb), except for two samples collected on October 12, 1995, and October 16, 1995 which corresponded to 12.2 pg/L (1.22x10-5 ppb) and 11.3 pg/L (1.13x10-5 ppb) respectively (Philip Environmental, 1996). No Date Available State Questions Eleanor Cleanup: Water contaminated, WV DEP letter states The name of the newspaper and date that this article was printed was not available: however, it was written by Staff Writer Rusty Marks. According to this article, David Callaghan, director of WV DEP, sent a thirteen page letter to Colonel James Van Epps of U.S. ACE, outlining deficiencies and concerns regarding the U.S. ACE cleanup analysis for the former ACF site. Marks states that ACF formerly used the site to wash out chemical tank cars, and flooded the soil with dioxins and other chemicals. It was reported that U.S. ACE decided to incinerate the contaminated soil, and reported that there was no contamination of the area's water supply. State officials are reported to disagree with this conclusion, stating that there was evidence of deep groundwater contamination near the site that has threatened Eleanor's water supply. Marks reported that contractors found dangerous chemicals in a 60 foot deep well, located west of the site, and quoted WV DEP as stating that analytical data from this 031884 (51) C.2-46 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES well indicates there is contamination in the deeper aquifer used by the Eleanor public supply. International Technology Corporation also reported that organic chemicals were found 30 feet below the water table, and dioxin 10 feet below the water table. WV DEP officials were quoted as saying that tests run by U.S. ACE were not sensitive enough to detect dangerous levels of some chemicals, and were set well above the maximum allowable limits. The state was also quoted as suggesting that pressure to build the locks may have led to hasty decisions by U.S. ACE (Marks, NA). No Date Available Dioxin worries surface on buried soil in Wetzel, Charleston Daily Mail The Charleston Daily Mail printed this article written by Daily Mail Environmental Writer, Pat Sanders. The date this article was printed was not available. The Charleston Daily Mail reported that Wetzel County officials are worried after learning that more than 6,600 tons of soil were taken from a dioxin contaminated property was disposed of in the WCLF in 1990. The soil was taken from the former ACF property near Winfield, where dioxin contamination in soil has been reported as high as 2,212 ppb. Dioxin levels must be no greater then 2 ppb to be accepted at a non-hazardous waste landfill. The Charleston Daily Mail reported that the soil was classified as non-hazardous; however, was never tested for dioxin. This soil is presently 80 feet underground, and lies in a 200 square foot plot in the WCLF. State officials have told the Charleston Daily Mail that there is no way to test, or to remove the soil from the landfill at this time. The state explained that there is no way to guarantee that sampling would occur in the material that was to be tested. The Daily Mail quotes WCSWA representative Martha Huffman as saying that the WCSWA's greatest fear is that the material was place on a single clay liner, and therefore they are extremely concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination. In 1990, ACF's contractor, Allstates classified 4,466 tons of the soil as hazardous and transported it to a hazardous waste facility in Toledo, Ohio. The remaining 6,641 tons of soil was classified as non-hazardous, and was transported to the WCLF. The Daily Mail states that prior to being transported, soil was tested for several contaminants; however, not for dioxin. WV DEP supervised these tests. In response, the Daily Mail quotes WV DEP as stating that when they were dealing with the soil, they had no idea that dioxin contamination was present. WV DEP also stated that at the time, they had no 031884 (51) C.2-47 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES regulatory authority to look for dioxin. They did however test for organics, and explained that dioxin is associated with organics. WCLF operators have performed groundwater tests to determine if dioxin is leaking from the facility. Analysis has been reported as negative; however, WV DEP has noted that due to the properties of dioxin, it is rarely found in the water column. According to the Daily Mail, U.S. ACE has said that it has no authority to test soil in Wetzel County, since Allstates took the soil to the WCLF under the authority of the WV DEP (Sanders, NA). 031884 (51) C.2-48 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 REFERENCES ACF, 1992. Letter to Colonel James Van Epps, U.S. ACE from William Finn, Vice President, ACF. ARCADIS, 2000. Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam County, WV. ARCADIS, 2001. Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis Addendum, Heizer Creek Landfill Site, Putnam, WV. Aventis, 2001 1 . State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of August 2001. Aventis, 2001 2 . State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of September 2001. Aventis, 2001 3 . State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of October 2001. Aventis, 2001 4 . State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of November 2001. Aventis, 2002. State of WV Discharge Monitoring Report for the Month of March 2002. Burlington Environmental, 1992. Review of Available U.S. ACE Data, Former ACF Property, Red House, WV. Conner, 1992. Letter to Riad Tanner, WV DNR, from R.J. Conner, U.S. ACE, Re: Advance Copy of Action Level Letter on Winfield Site. Daily Mail, 2008. charges. Bayer CropScience to pay more than $1 million to settle federal (http://www.cbgnetwork.org/2632.html) Environment Reporter, 1992. U.S. ACE Tries To Get Company To Pay Costs Of Dioxin Cleanup At Site Of Ohio River Project. ERM-Midwest, 1993. RCRA Corrective Action Program Bimonthly Progress Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV. ERM-Midwest, 1996. Updated Section 4 of the Phase I RFI Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV Facility. ERM-Midwest, 2001. Human Health Risk Assessment for Surface Water and Sediment Fish Ingestion Evaluation, Former OxyChem Facility, Belle, WV. Fenske, 1992. Wetzel County Landfill Suspected Dioxin Investigation, Memorandum to Brad Swiger, District 1 Supervisor, and Larry Betonte, Assistant Chief Inspector, Northern Office, from Jamie Fenske, Inspector, WV DNR. Fredericks, 1997. Compliance Schedule Evaluation Inspection Report, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Belle, WV, WV DEP. 031884 (51) C.2-49 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Hamrick, 1992. Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from J. Edward Hamrick III, Director, WV Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources, Waste Management Section. Herald-Dispatch, 1995. Contaminated Putnam soil OK for shipment to Utah, The Associated Press, The Huntington Herald-Dispatch. KEMRON, 2002. Letter Report: Building 603 Geoprobe Investigation, DOW South Charleston Facility. Kessinger, 1991. Draft – Memorandum: Winfield Additional Lock and Gate Bay, Meeting with WV DNR to Discuss On-site Alternatives for Cleanup of Contamination on the Former ACF Property, U.S. ACE. Law Environmental, Inc., 1992. Quality Control Summary Report for Winfield Locks and Dam Site. Limno-Tech, Inc., 2000. Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia. Marks, No Date Available. State Questions Eleanor Cleanup: Water contaminated, WV DEP letter states). McJunkin, 2007. McJunkin Corporation Webpage. http://www.mcjunkin.com/aboutus/mcj_history.htm Available at: Moore, 1992. Letter from Rolley Moore, Chairman, Wetzel County Solid Waste Authority, to Mike Dorsey, Public Information Office, WV DNR. Morris, 1979. U.S. EPA to Inspect Monsanto Dump at Nitro, The Charleston Gazette. NUS Corporation, 1985. A Site Inspection for the Heizer Creek. NUS Corporation, 1986. Preliminary Assessment of Shippers Car Line. Philip Environmental, 1996. Closure Report for the Removal Action for the Former ACF Site, Red House, WV. Rhone-Poulenc, 1989. DRAFT - RCRA Part B Permit for Rhône-Poulenc AG Company's Institute Plant. Rhone-Poulenc, 1995. Rhone-Poulenc. Letter to Mr. Mike Zeto, WV DEP, from Kevin H. Keys, Sanders, No Date Available. Dioxin worries surface on buried soil in Wetzel, Charleston Daily Mail. Steelhammer, 1992. Winfield Locks harbor $100 million mess, feds find, Charleston Gazette. TCT-St. Louis, 1991. Phase I: Contamination Evaluation at the Former American Car & Foundry Site. 031884 (51) C.2-50 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES UCC, 1985. Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan, Union Carbide Company. UCC, 1988. Union Carbide Corporation – South Charleston Plant, Holz Impoundment Delisting Petition (Volume I of II). UCC, 1991. Groundwater Protection Procedure Evaluation Phase Report, Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. U.S. ACE, 1992 1 . Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for Removal and Treatment of Contaminated Soil at the former ACF Industries, Inc. Site, Red House, WV. U.S. ACE, 1992 2 . Memorandum: Winfield Additional Lock and Gate Bay, Meeting With WV DNR to Discuss U.S. ACE/WV DNR Coordination During Removal Action on the Former ACF Property. U.S. ACE, 1991 3 . Decision Document, Winfield Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, Former ACF Industries Facility, Red House, WV. U.S. ACE, 1991 4 . Letter to Dale Farley, Director, WV Air Pollution Control Commission, from Charles E. Vandevelde. U.S. DOI, 1992. Letter to Colonel Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs. U.S. EPA, 1992. Letter to Colonel James R. Van Epps, U.S. ACE, from Abraham Ferdas, Associate Division Director for the Superfund Program, U.S. EPA, Region III. U.S. EPA, 2004. Memorandum from U.S. EPA Region III to EPA Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG)– Kanawha River Site EE/CA Study – "Eleven Principle" Sediment Management Memo. (http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/sites/WVSFN035516/Kanawha_CST AG_eleven_principle_memo_april_2004.pdf) U.S. EPA Region III, 2008 1 . Bayer CropScience (Formerly: Aventis Cropscience USA; formerly Rhone Poulenc Company) Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility. (http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd005005509.pdf) U.S. EPA Region III, 2008 2 . Miller Springs Remediation Management Inc. (Formerly: Occidental Chemical Company) Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility. (http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd005010277.pdf) Vandevelde, 1991. Dioxin Sampling at the Former American Car & Foundry Site, Winfield Locks & Dam Project, Red House, WV (Attachment to letter from U.S. ACE to WV Air Pollution Control Commission, 1991). 031884 (51) C.2-51 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WEG, 1998. Memorandum to Tom Fisher, WV DEP, from Jim McCune, Re: Stolen Vehicle Situation. Weston, 1999. Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV. Wilson, 1986. Feasibility Study of Heizer Creek Site, Monsanto Engineering. WV DCLER, 1991. Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report – Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., State of West Virginia Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources. WV DEP, 1992. Trip Report: Site Visit of the #20 Sump Area, Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc., Plant 514. WV DEP, 1993. Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co., Inc. - Holz Impoundment, WV DEP. WV DEP, 1994 2 . Letter to David M. Flannery, Attorney-at-Law, Robinson & McElwee, from Max Robertson, Chief, WV DEP. WV DEP, 1996. Signed Consent Order HW-491-95 for the UCC PTO Facility. WV DHHS, 1993. Memorandum: Health Consultation: ACF Site (aka Winfield Lock and Dam) Red House, WV. 031884 (51) C.2-52 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX C3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES IN STUDY AREA 031884 (51) APPENDIX C.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES IN STUDY AREA KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX C.3 This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES WITHIN THE SITE LIMITS ....................C.3-1 1.1 WV ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WAREHOUSE SITE .....................................................................................C.3-1 1.2 ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION (1947 - ) ....................................C.3-2 1.3 ARMOUR CREEK LANDFILL ...................................................................C.3-3 1.4 AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT SALES (AES) ..............................................C.3-6 1.5 AVTEK CORPORATION (AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION, FMC CORPORATION, NITRO PULP MILLS) ........................................C.3-8 1.6 CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. (1958 - )..........................................C.3-9 1.7 CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES FACILITY ...................................C.3-9 1.8 COASTAL TANK LINES, INC (DANA CONTAINER, INCORPORATED) .....................................................................................C.3-11 1.9 FEDERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY (EARLY 1920'S) ..........................C.3-11 1.10 FIKE/ARTEL SUPERFUND SITE / COOPERATIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT, INCORPORATED ...........................................................C.3-11 1.11 FLEMING LANDFILL ...............................................................................C.3-25 1.12 FLEXSYS AMERICA, L.P. AND SOLUTIA, INCORPORATED (RUBBER SERVICES LABORATORY, SOUTHERN DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, ELKO, OLD MONSANTO).......................................C.3-25 1.13 HECK'S WAREHOUSE PROPERTY .......................................................C.3-44 1.14 HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL ....................................................................C.3-44 1.15 MAINE COASTAL RAILROAD TANK WASHING SITE ...................C.3-45 1.16 MANILA CREEK LANDFILL ..................................................................C.3-45 1.17 MIDWEST STEEL SITE..............................................................................C.3-53 1.18 NITRO PENCIL COMPANY (APPROX. 1920 – 1963) ..........................C.3-53 1.19 NITRO SOAP FACTORY (1924 – 1930)...................................................C.3-53 1.20 NITRO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL ............................................................C.3-53 1.21 NITRO SANITATION LANDFILL (NITRO LANDFILL) ....................C.3-56 1.22 POCA BLENDING, L.L.C. (1999 - ) .........................................................C.3-58 1.23 RALEIGH JUNK COMPANY...................................................................C.3-59 1.24 REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION CONTAINER DIVISION ..........C.3-64 1.25 SEYDEL CHEMICAL COMPANY (EARLY 1921 - 1932) .....................C.3-66 1.26 VIKING LABORATORIES (LATE 1920'S – EARLY 1930'S) .................C.3-66 1.27 VIMASCO CORPORATION (1955 - )......................................................C.3-66 1.28 WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM ...............................................................C.3-67 2.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................C.3-68 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD 2,4-D 2,4,5-T ACLF AES Allied Chemical American Viscose AOC AST Avtek bgs BN/AE CA CERCLA Coastal COCs COPCs CST Dana Elko ERT Fike Fike/Artel Flexsys FMC HSWA ICF IMs IT Kearney LCAP 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4,5-Trichlorphenoxyacetic acid Armour Creek Landfill Automatic Equipment Sales Allied Chemical Corporation American Viscose Corporation Administrative Order on Consent aboveground storage tank Avtek Corporation below ground surface base-neutral and acid extractable Corrective Action Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Coastal Tank Lines, Inc. Constituents of Concern contaminants of potential concern Cooperative Sewage Treatment Plant Dana Container, Inc. Elko Company, formerly Southern Dyestuff Company Environmental Response Team Fike Chemicals, Inc. Fike/Artel Superfund Site Flexsys America LP FMC Corporation Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ICF Kaiser Engineers Interim Measures IT Group A.T. Kearney, Inc. Landfill Closure Assistance Program CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS LNAPL Main Coastal Railroad MCPA mg/L MP ND NEIC Nitro Pencil NPDES NUS OCDD OSC OSWER OVA PAHs PCB pg/L Poca Blending Potesta ppb ppm ppt PVD RCRA Republic Steel RFI RI/FS River Roux Rubber Services SATA Seydel 031884 (51) light non-aqueous phase liquid Main Coastal Railroad Tank Washing 4-Chloro-2-Methlyphenoxyaceteic acid milligrams per liter Mile Point Not detect National Enforcement Investigations Center Nitro Pencil Company National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NUS Corporation 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin On-Site Coordinator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Organic Vapor Analyzer Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons polychlorinated biphenyl picograms per liter Poca Blending, L.L.C Potesta & Associates, Inc. parts per billion parts per million parts per trillion Passive Vapour Diffusion Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Republic Steel Container Corporation RCRA Facility Investigation Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Kanawha River Roux Associates Rubber Services Laboratories Site Assessment and Technical Assistance Team Seydel Chemical Company CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS SWMUs Solutia SVOCs TCDF TCE TCL TCLP TEQ TERRADON TMDL TNT TOC TOX UCC µg/kg U.S. ACE U.S. CDC U.S. EPA VOA VOCs WV WV ABCA WV DEP WV DNR WV DWR WWTP 031884 (51) Solid Waste Management Units Solutia, Inc. semi-volatile organic compounds Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Trichloroethylene Target Compound List Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure Toxicity Equivalency Quotient TERRADON Corporation Total Maximum Daily Loading Trinitrotoluene total organic carbon total organic halides Union Carbide Company micrograms per kilogram United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Center for Disease Control United States Environmental Protection Agency volatile organic analytes volatile organic compounds West Virginia WV Alcohol Beverage Control Administration WV Department of Environmental Protection WV Department of Natural Resources WV Department of Water Resources wastewater treatment plant CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SOURCES WITHIN THE SITE LIMITS 1.1 WV ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WAREHOUSE SITE The West Virginia (WV) Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (WV ABCA) property is located in the HUB Industrial Park, in Nitro, WV. The property is approximately 12.17-acres, and is adjacent to the northeast property boundary of the former Flexsys America LP (Flexsys) site. The area of concern is approximately 9.37-acres in size. In January 1996, the WV ABCA purchased the property and existing warehouse building from Nitro Warehouse, Inc. WV ABCA presently uses the warehouse to store and distribute retail alcoholic beverages (Potesta, 2003). March 26, 2003 – April 1, 2003 Draft - Summary of Analytical Data Results, Warehouse Area Groundwater/Soil Investigation, Potesta & Associates, Inc., 2003 Potesta & Associates, Inc. (Potesta) conducted a groundwater and soil investigation at the WV ABCA property on behalf of Solutia, Inc. (Solutia) from March 26, 2003 to April 1, 2003. The investigation was conducted in response to a telephone conference on March 4, 2003 between Solutia, Old Monsanto, WV Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) Office of Land Restoration, and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region III. The primary goals of the investigation were to: • Confirm the presence and determine the location of two buried foundations from the U.S. government munitions production facility, which were reported to extend beneath the warehouse structure from the rear of the western side. In addition, the investigation was to determine the depth to the foundations and possibly identify the presence of buried wastes in the backfill material placed above the foundations. • Determine the subsurface lithology. • Collect soil samples. • Collect groundwater samples. The investigation consisted of the advancement and construction of three paired temporary monitoring points in the following locations: • 031884 (51) One located upgradient along the eastern side of the existing WV ABCA warehouse (MW-1A/B) C.3-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Two additional points located downgradient along the western side or rear of the warehouse (MW-2A/B, and MW-3AB) Soil samples were analyzed for 17 chlorine substituted dioxin/furan congeners. Dioxin/furan congeners were detected in the following locations: • MW-2A (6 to 28 feet) - 17 parts per trillion (ppt) (0.017 parts per billion (ppb)) • MW-2A (6 to 28 feet) - 1.3 ppt (0.0013 ppb) • MW-3A(CR) - 0.82 ppt (0.00082 ppb) • MW-3A (0 to 6 feet) - 20 ppt (0.02 ppb) • MW-3A (0 to 6 feet) - 1.5 ppt (0.0015 ppb) While installing a perimeter fence along the western boundary, behind the warehouse, several excavations for support posts were found to contain waste materials. The waste materials exhibited distinct color that was different than the surrounding soil. The materials were classified as a dark, grey to black, sandy sludge material, and a yellow material. Samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin/furan congeners. Analysis reported the concentration of 2.3.7.8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in the dark, sandy sludge material as 1,200 ppt (1.2 ppb), and in the yellow material as 2,000 ppt (2 ppb). 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) was detected at a concentration of 0.094 ppb in the MW-1A sample, and at an estimated concentration of 0.31 ppb in the MW-2A sample. None of the groundwater samples indicated positive results for any of the 17 dioxin/furan congeners. Potesta concluded that due to the history of the development, and the disturbance to the site prior to ownership by WV ABCA, the limited scope of this investigation could not be used to determine the sources of the contaminants of potential concern found in samples (Potesta, 2003). 1.2 ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION (1947 - ) Allied Chemical Corporation's (Allied Chemical), General Chemical Division facility began production in Nitro in 1947. This plant produced sulfuric acid and 99% and 20% oleum. Nearby American Viscose Corporation (American Viscose) was the principal customer. Production increased to all grades of acid and the product was supplied to most of the other plants in the Kanawha Valley. 031884 (51) C.3-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In 1958, a unit to produce hydrofluoric acid was built to supply the fluorocarbons unit at the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) Institute facility. The plant also began to produce high-purity anhydrous and 70% aqueous hydrofluoric acids for steel mills and glass plants. In approximately 1961, the Nitro plant began to warehouse molten sulfur for Freeport Sulfur. This product was then shipped to local plants. The plant also warehoused soda ash for a short period around 1962. Allied Chemical, General Chemical Division eventually changed its name to Allied Chemical, Industrial Chemicals Division (Johnston, 1977). 1.3 ARMOUR CREEK LANDFILL Armour Creek Landfill (ACLF) is located north of the City of Nitro along State Route 25. It is comprised of approximately 45 acres of land, and was jointly operated by Old Monsanto and Akzo Nobel Corporation. Armour Creek is located to the north of the landfill (Weston, 1999). The sediments in Armour Creek were sampled in November 1998 in response to public concern that ACLF was contributing to the persistent dioxin problem in Armour Creek (Pam Hayes, WVDEP Office of Environmental Remediation). No dioxin was detected at the site (soils, surface water and groundwater) though dioxin was detected in nearby soil. This detection of dioxin may not be attributable to the landfill itself. May 2, 2000 Letter to Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill, 2000 This letter, prepared by the WV DEP, was attached to Solid Waste/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Water Pollution Control Permit Number WV0077020 for the ACLF, and presents responses to comments submitted by Solutia in a letter dated April 3, 2000. WV DEP stated that they have received comments from the public and from U.S. EPA regarding concerns of dioxins being present in surface water runoff from ACLF, which was eluded to in the Weston report, "Trip Report Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV" dated April 14, 1999. WV DEP stated that the report does not 031884 (51) C.3-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES state that ACLF is the source of dioxins to Armour Creek; however, it does indicate that it may be a possible source. The letter concluded with two additional conditions that the WV DEP has placed on the permit that include: C.14 The permittee shall by the time frame specified in Section B.1.b (six months) submit a plan to sample and analyze the storm water runoff from the landfill for its potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any form of dioxin. C.15 Upon obtaining any evidence that the facility is discharging or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any other form of dioxin, the permit may be reopened and revised accordingly (WV DEP, 2000 1 ). May 2, 2000 Letter to Renae Bonnett, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, 2000 This letter was prepared by the WV DEP in response to comments concerning the Draft Permit for the ACLF provided by Ms. Renae Bonnett of Rt. 1, Poca, WV. The WV DEP stated that regarding concerns about dioxin, the dioxin issue was discussed with WV DEP hazardous waste personnel during the period in which the previous permit was prepared. The WV DEP stated that analysis of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,-D) is required to monitor dioxin in water. 2,4-D is a breakdown product of most dioxins and of the dioxin group, it is the most soluble in water and weak acids, which are typical conditions in a landfill. It was noted that due to the physical characteristics of dioxin, they are not a typical water-borne substance, and therefore, under landfill conditions, can't be found through water sampling. The WV DEP states that typically, dioxin is only found through analysis of sediments or biological tissues, since that is where dioxin tends to accumulate. It was also reported that groundwater at the landfill was monitored for ten quarters for 2,4-D, and historical data have reported it as non-detect (ND). In addition, Solutia has installed new caps on the disposal areas, which should eliminate dioxin, if present, from contacting surface water and as a result contaminating storm water runoff. The WV DEP also stated that the Weston report entitled "Trip Report Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site Nitro, Putnam County, WV", dated April 14, 1999, does not state that the ACLF is the source of dioxin in Armour Creek. It does indicate however, that the railroad ditch, which borders the ACLF contains dioxin contaminated sediments, and that this contamination may have originated from outside the landfill. 031884 (51) C.3-4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The WV DEP concluded by saying that the landfill can currently only be identified as a potential source until the U.S. EPA assessment is complete, and there is evidence to support that the landfill is discharging, or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD. In response, two conditions have been incorporated into the permit which include sampling and analyzing stormwater runoff for its potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD, and upon obtaining evidence that the facility is discharging or has the potential to discharge 2,3,7,8-TCDD, the permit may be reopened and revised (WV DEP, 2000 2 ). 2001 Letter to Ms. Allyn Turner, from Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, Re: 3rd Quarter, 2001 Report, Armour Creek Landfill - NPDES Permit Requirements, WV 0077020, Potesta, 2001 This report was prepared by Potesta to fulfill the requirements of the Solutia's ACLF Solid Waste/NPDES Permit Number WV0077020, effective June 2, 2000. Potesta reported that during the third quarter of 2001, the focus of the permit was a continuation of routine maintenance of final closure items completed during 1999/2000. Approximately 5,000 gallons of leachate and rainwater was treated, and groundwater and leachate samples were collected. In addition, stormwater samples were collected and analyzed for dioxin, which completed the required one-time landfill sampling event. Stormwater sampling for dioxin was completed as per Section C. 14 of the current Solid Waste NPDES Water Pollution Permit No. WV0077020, for the closed ACLF. Section C. 14 requires the formulation of a plan to sample and chemically analyze stormwater runoff from the landfill for 2,3,7,8-TCDD or any other form of dioxin. Potesta reported that they collected a stormwater sample from an outlet at ACLF (ACLF Stormwater Outlet 009), as well as an additional background sample at a location outside the limits of ACLF. According to Potesta, ACLF Stormwater Outlet 009 is considered the most significant surface water sampling, and stormwater discharge point for the landfill, since its location is central to the previously active portions of the landfill. This outlet is sampled on a quarterly basis and results are submitted to the WV DEP as part of the permit requirements. The selected off-site point was a drainage point of an approximately 7.2 acre area near the westbound Nitro exit of Interstate 64, approximately 2,500 feet south of Outlet 009. Potesta reported that the chosen off-site sample location is situated at the discharge point of the drainage culvert passing beneath the exit ramp. Stormwater from this area is reported to drain to Armour Creek east of the ramp. 031884 (51) C.3-5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Samples were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxin compounds, which included the seventeen congeners considered to be the most toxic of the 210 compounds in the dioxin family. Potesta reported that sample ACLF-009 was ND for 2,3,7,8-TCDD with a detection limit of 1.8 picograms per liter (pg/L); however, 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9-Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) was detected at 38.3 pg/L, which is an estimate of the true concentration. Potesta reported that the background sample, BG-1 had a reported concentration of 6.1 pg/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Potesta concluded that sampling results indicate that 2,3,7,8-TCDD is not present in the runoff from Outlet 009 at ACLF. OCDD, a dioxin congener was reported; however, Potesta stated that this detection was due to an apparent peak on the analysis chromatography, and therefore the concentration could only be estimated. The reported concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the off-site background sample was also an estimate since the calculated response peak was below the method concentration comparison curve. Potesta concluded that due to estimation of values used in the analysis method, accuracy of the results must also be considered estimates (Potesta, 2001). 1.4 AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT SALES (AES) The AES property is a flat, approximately 3-acre parcel located south of Interstate 64 in Nitro, WV. There are no buildings located on-site; however, there are several areas that contain piles of abandoned concrete foundations, construction debris, brush, and soil. A continuous perimeter chain link fence with a locked gate restricts access to the property. The property was originally part of Explosives Plant "C", owned by the U.S. government. Monsanto owned the property in the 1970's, but never operated any facilities on-site, and eventually sold the property to AES. In 1999 Solutia purchased the property, however Solutia has never operated any facilities on-site, nor have they altered the property other than mowing brush, stump grinding, construction of a security fence, and collection of samples for analysis. In 1998, during development of the property by AES, WV DEP informed U.S. EPA that 14 buried drums were unearthed while grading the property. AES's environmental contractor overpacked the deteriorating drums in four overpack drum containers. WV DEP supplied U.S. EPA with a composite sample from several of the drums, which indicated that the drums contained 4.0 ppb Toxicity Equivalency Quotient (TEQ) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. 031884 (51) C.3-6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In December 1998, U.S. EPA's Site Assessment and Technical Assistance Team (SATA) conducted a magnetic survey around the AES property in order to locate any additional buried drums. The investigation indicated four suspected drum anomalies within the area. One drum was located adjacent to the excavation where the original drums were found, and the others in an additional area. SATA took samples from the four overpacks, which were noted to contain deteriorated drums and a black tar-like solid residue. Sample results verified the presence of dioxin at 4.26 ppb TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD. One of the overpacks was observed to contain a yellow crude solid. This solid was found to contain 639 parts per million (ppm) of 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (MCPA), and 3.59 ppm of 2,4,5-T. In June 1994, Potesta performed an investigation to evaluate and sample surface soils from 0 to 6 inches below ground surface (bgs) for the presence of dioxins and furans, with a detection level of 1.0 ppt. Eight soil samples were collected based on topographic relief, and seven of these samples were analyzed. Results indicated concentrations ranging from 0.728 ppb TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD to 6.403 ppb TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Potesta, 2001). In 1999 Solutia purchased the property from AES, but did not operate any on-site facilities. December 6, 1998 AES Complaint Response Report, WV DEP, 1988 WV DEP received a complaint in April 1998, which stated that while digging footers for a building, several 55-gallon drums were unearthed at the end of Independent Avenue toward the Kanawha River (River), in Nitro, WV. AES of Charleston owned the site. AES was completing pre-construction work on the property prior to closing of the sale of the property and reported that during excavation, four 55-gallon drums were cut open, and three others were partially exposed. The drums were over-packed and sampled by WasteTron, Inc. Waste determination included a full Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) analysis and screening for dioxins and furans. On December 6, 1998, SATA and U.S. EPA Region III conducted a site investigation and overpack sampling at the site. Samples were collected from overpack drums, which contained a dark tar-like waste material and a yellow substance in one of the drums. 031884 (51) C.3-7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES On January 18 and 20, 1999, WV DEP inspected the site and found that overpack drums were still on site and improperly labeled. As a result, WV DEP concluded that AES was in violation of four parts of the WV Hazardous Waste Regulations 33 CSR 20, which are summarized below: • The facility failed to place an accumulation start date on containers holding hazardous wastes. • The facility failed to label each container holding hazardous waste with the words "Hazardous Waste". • The facility failed to a conduct proper inspection of all containers holding hazardous waste. • The facility failed to properly dispose of all hazardous waste generated older than 90 days. Facility was granted an extension of 30 days, and still failed to dispose of waste properly. Facility is operating an illegal storage facility without a permit (WV DEP, 1988). 1.5 AVTEK CORPORATION (AMERICAN VISCOSE CORPORATION, FMC CORPORATION, NITRO PULP MILLS) The Nitro Pulp Mills, which were established in 1920 by the Durham Paper Company of Regalsville, Pennsylvania, manufactured paper pulp. The Mills were located at the former cotton cellulose processing area of the explosives plant, which allowed the facility to utilize the large supply of cotton linters left over from WWI operations. The Viscose Corporation of Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania purchased the Nitro Pulp Mills in 1921 to manufacture sheet pulp for their rayon producing facility. In 1937, the name was changed to American Viscose Corporation and the plant was converted to manufacture rayon staple fiber. In 1939, the facility employed approximately 1,200 people, making it Nitro's largest employer since WWI. In 1948, a major plant expansion and modernization project more than doubled production. At the height of production, the facility was the largest staple fiber plant in the world, producing in excess of 150 million pounds per year. American Viscose sold their holdings to FMC Corporation (FMC) in 1963 for a reported $116 million and operated the facility as a separate division of the corporation (U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003). The American Viscose Division operated until 1978, when 031884 (51) C.3-8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES they disposed of their textile interests, partially due to a decline in the industry (U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003). Avtek Corporation (Avtek), a new corporation formed by a group of former Viscose management employees, purchased FMC's interests in 1978. Avtek continued production at the facility until 1980, when it became apparent that the facility could no longer remain competitive or meet current environmental standards, without major renovations (U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003). 1.6 CHEMICAL FORMULATORS, INC. (1958 - ) Chemical Formulators, Inc. packaged insecticides for retail use. Operation began in 1948 in North Charleston, across the River from UCC's South Charleston plant. The operation was eventually moved to Nitro around 1958 and was located at the Explosives Plant "C" site. State regulations for pesticides eventually forced the plant to switch from retail packaging to custom manufacturing of agricultural chemicals for other plants. However, changing state and federal standards and regulations for agricultural chemicals, which occurred around 1977, kept the company's future uncertain (Johnston, 1977). 1.7 CHEMICAL LEAMAN TANK LINES FACILITY This facility is part of the WV Voluntary Remediation Program. The facility had an unpermitted discharge to the River. A wastewater lagoon facility is located at County Route 44/Scary Creek Road, Putnam County, Scott Depot, WV. The site is also known as the former Gertrude G. Elmore residence. The site is located 100 feet from Scary Creek and is located approximately 1,600 feet from the entrance of Scary Creek into the River. The site history and ownership is summarized as follows: 031884 (51) • Residential or vacant land prior to the late 1950s • Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc. operated a wastewater lagoon from the late 1950s to the early 1960s (total of 5 to 6 years) • The site has been vacant since the early 1960s C.3-9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Further investigation will be needed to determine the extent of groundwater and soil impact. Contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) are petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), dioxins, and inorganic compounds. March 1994, April 22, 1994, and April 26, 1994 Site Status Report #2 for The Chemical Leaman – Scary Creek Site, St. Albans, Putnam County, WV, WV DEP, 1994 This site status report was prepared by WV DEP in response to reports from local residents that a chemical dump existed on Scary Creek Road, Route 44, in St. Albans, Putnam County, WV. WV DEP reported that the site is owned by Ms. Gertrude Elmore of 110 Scary Creek Road, and is located adjacent to Ms. Elmore's residence. Chemical Leaman deeded this site to Ms. Elmore. WV DEP conducted site investigations in March 1994, on April 22, 1994, and on April 26, 1994. Inspectors reported that the site consists of three ponded areas. Pond No. 1, located adjacent to the Elmore residence, is the location of the chemical dump. No readings on the Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) above background were noted; however, a strong phenolic odor was noticed. Surface water drainage from Pond No. 1 was observed to discharge to Scary Creek. Inspectors also viewed Ponds No. 2 and No. 3. Two groundwater samples were collected, one from the Elmore, and one from the Cathey residence. In addition, three surface water samples, and three sediment samples were also collected. Samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and for inorganic analysis. WV DEP reported that the area described as Pond No. 1 is the source of contamination, and that contaminant migration to the groundwater system has occurred based upon the presence of numerous identical compounds found in collected samples. WV DEP has recommended that the Elmore family discontinue use of the water from their well for any purpose (WV DEP, 1994 1 ). 031884 (51) C.3-10 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.8 COASTAL TANK LINES, INC (DANA CONTAINER, INCORPORATED) Coastal Tank Lines, Incorporated (Coastal) operated a truck terminal adjacent to the western boundary of the former Fike Chemical, Inc. (Fike) site. Coastal hauled finished chemical products and raw materials interstate. The terminal was used to clean and repair tank trailers. The site is currently owned and operated by Dana Container, Inc. (Dana) (IT Group, 1999). Dana currently operates a truck terminal adjacent to the western boundary of the former Fike site. Dana uses the property for tanker car cleaning, maintenance and repair (IT Group, 1999). 1.9 FEDERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY (EARLY 1920'S) This plant was located on the banks of the River in Explosives Plant "C" property at Nitro in the early 1920's. Molasses brought by tank car from Louisiana were fermented in concrete tanks, and the alcohol was distilled in order to produce various grades of denatured and undenatured alcohol. This plant was only in operation for a short period of time; however, the exact operating dates are unknown (Johnston, 1977). 1.10 FIKE/ARTEL SUPERFUND SITE / COOPERATIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT, INCORPORATED The Fike/Artel Superfund Site (Fike/Artel) is located on Viscose Road (Plant Road) in Nitro, WV, 1.1 miles south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 64 and State Route 25. The site consists of an 11.9 acre former chemical manufacturing facility and a 0.9 acre former waste water treatment plant (WWTP) known as the Cooperative Sewage Treatment Plant (CST) (ICF, 1998). Fike was located on the portion of the U.S. Explosives Plant "C" that was used to produce sulfuric acid. The explosives plant used the area between the Fike facility and the River for producing and colloiding nitrocellulose (U.S. ACE, 2001). Two former Old Monsanto employees, Elmer A. Fike and Harold Bruner, founded Fike in 1953 as "Roberts Chemicals". Roberts Chemicals originally produced ethyl xanthic disulfide. Xanthic disulfide was sold as a herbicide for onions, which was a development product abandoned by Old Monsanto. Roberts Chemicals also produced dithiocarbamates, which were based on carbon bisulfide, for agricultural use. Production of these derivatives was based on ethylene diamine. This production resulted in a patent 031884 (51) C.3-11 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES litigation that resulted in Roberts Chemicals changing the emphasis of their company from agricultural chemicals to small volume industrial specialties. The company then began to produce sodium amide, sodium methylate, substituted thioureas, mercaptans, and pharmaceutical intermediates. Harold Bruner sold his interests soon after the company was founded, and Elmer Fike resigned in 1969. Elmer Fike founded Fike, in 1969, and eventually purchased financially troubled Roberts Chemicals in 1971. Both operations were consolidated at the Roberts Chemicals site. Fike specialized in medium volume specialty chemicals, with a production of a few 1,000 to a few 100,000 pounds per year. Local chemical plants provided both raw production materials, and a market for final products (Johnston, 1977). Fike operated until 1986, when the name and principal ownership changed to Artel, who operated the site until it was closed in June 1988 (ICF, 1998). More than 60 different chemicals were produced throughout the operational history of the facility, mainly by batch reaction processes (GeoSyntec, 2000). CST was formed as a joint venture between Fike and Coastal to treat industrial wastewater through the WWI era sewer system. The CST waterwater treatment plant was located northwest of the main Fike site on land owned by Coastal which was leased to CST. The former chemical facility area can be separated into three main areas: • Southern portion of the former Fike site – former drum burial area • Northern portion of the former Fike site – former process area where chemical manufacturing act ivies were performed • Former process waste lagoons – consists of Lagoons 1, 2, and 3 (ICF, 1998) In 1978, Coastal stopped use of the CST and sold its interest to Fike. U.S. EPA constructed and operated a wastewater treatment facility at the CST as part of the 1988 Emergency Removal Action at the Fike site. In 1995 the CST was decontaminated, demolished, and closed as part of the CST Removal Response Action (IT Group, 1999). The former Fike facility is located in the Nitro Industrial Complex, approximately 2,200 feet east of the River. The Fike facility was a small volume chemical manufacturing plant that specialized in the development of new chemicals, custom chemical processing, and specialty chemicals. The former CST is located approximately 500 feet west of the facility. Dana, a tank repair and cleaning facility, separates the former Fike facility from the former CST (ICF, 1998). 031884 (51) C.3-12 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES June 28, 1977 and October 3, 1977 Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Characterization of Fike Chemicals, Inc., Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., and Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc., Nitro, West Virginia, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1978 U.S. EPA Region III and the National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) prepared this report in response to a request from U.S. EPA for NEIC to conduct a study of the Fike site. The site area was defined to include Fike, Coastal, and CST. The objective of the study was to identify and quantify all toxic chemicals discharged to the River from the Fike site. A monitoring study was conducted at the site from October 3 to 7, 1977 to determine compliance with NPDES Permit limitations, and to identify toxic chemicals being discharged. Samples collected at the Coastal Wash Facilities from October 2 through 7, 1977 reported concentrations of 2.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), 0.54 mg/L, and 0.27 mg/L (2,000 ppb, 540 ppb, and 270 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD respectively. Samples collected in the Prerinse Tank Trailer Discharge to the new evaporation pond at Coastal, which were collected over the same dates, reported concentrations of 44.0 mg/L and 0.48 mg/L (44,000 ppb, and 480 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. U.S. EPA concluded that organic and toxic compounds that were detected during this study were not representative of all compounds that could be discharged to the River due to batch operations occurring at both Fike and Coastal (U.S. EPA Region III, 1978). March 29, 1983 Memorandum: to Kenneth E. Biglane, U.S. EPA, Washington, from Benton M. Wilmoth, OSC, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Request for Assistance of ERT for a Technical Assessment of the Current Environmental Corrective Work at Fike Chemical Company, Nitro , West Virginia, U.S. EPA, Region III, 1983 This memorandum was sent to U.S EPA Washington from U.S. EPA Region III in order to request assistance of the Environmental Response Team (ERT) in reviewing the environmental cleanup requirements imposed on Fike by the current U.S. EPA Consent Order. U.S. EPA Region III wants to determine if the proposed work would remedy the off-site migration of hazardous chemicals in a timely and sufficient manner. The memorandum states that U.S. EPA Region III and Weston have detected high levels of priority pollutants migration off-site from Fike. It also reports that the U.S. Center for 031884 (51) C.3-13 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Disease Control (U.S. CDC) has certified the environmental and public health risks of the off-site migration of hazardous materials. An attachment to this memo reports that on March 29, 1983, Weston collected off-site samples of soil and water from a drainage area adjacent to the Fike facility. Analytical results report that dibenzofurans were detected in soil sample STA.05 at a concentration of 123,600 ppb (U.S. EPA Region III, 1983). September 1989, July 1994, and April 1995, September 1995, and October 1995 Information Summary: WWI Era Sewers, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, WV, The IT Group, 1999 This report was prepared by the IT Group (IT) to provide a summary of prior research and currently available information relating to the location and condition of WWI era sewers located beneath, and in the vicinity of the Fike site. IT summaries four individual sewer investigations, which have been conducted to date, and provides an overall summary of available information. The sewer investigations were designed to determine the following: • To identify the locations of the WWI era manholes and sewers • To determine the interconnections between manholes, drains, and sewers • To characterize the physical condition of, and flow if any, through the sewers IT reports that in recent months, several sinkholes have developed in the southern portion of the Fike site, approximately 60 feet north of former Lagoon #3. The sinkholes are reported to correspond with the locations of one of the WWI era main trunk line sewers, and the former aboveground sludge storage tank farm. It has been speculated that the sinkholes are due to a collapse or partial collapse of a WWI era sewer line and tank farm, which raises concern that the sinkholes present a potential pathway for the off-site migration of accumulated surface runoff. NUS Corporation (NUS) conducted the first sewer investigation in September 1989 as part of a site wide remedial investigation. During this investigation, 5 off-site manholes and 16 on-site manholes were identified and measured for influent and effluent pipes, total depth, manhole diameters, etc. NUS noted that many of the manholes were flooded with water at the time, which inhibited data collection. The investigation also included collecting sludge samples from 5 manholes, liquid samples from 2 manholes, partial sewer dewatering and smoke testing. Smoke testing was performed to identify sewer connections, leaks, and discharges to the CST sewer system. The NUS investigation identified three major and distinct sections of the sewer system that 031884 (51) C.3-14 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES included the WWI era gravity system running parallel to the west boundary of the site, the former cooling tower sump, and the WWI era gravity system that extends from the northeast corner of the main Fike site to the west under Dana, and to MH-1 at the CST influent sump. NUS did not provide information regarding the WWI sewers in the south end of the main Fike site where the sinkholes are located, because NUS was not able to locate any of the manholes in this area. U.S. EPA conducted the second investigation in July 1994, which included a sewer smoke investigation and dye trace study. The investigation was conducted to address a reported inflow/infiltration problem between Fike and neighboring facilities, such as Dana. The purpose of the study was to determine if the facilities were contributing flow to the CST via the WWI gravity sewer line running east to west from the main Fike site, under Dana's property, to the CST. Smoke testing was performed at two manhole locations along the WWI era gravity sewer line on the Dana Transport property, and limited dye tracing was performed to determine if a floor drain in Dana's Service Shop was connected to the WWI sewer line that discharges to the CST. U.S EPA concluded that smoke and dye test activities indicate that roof drains on Dana's Service Shop are connected to the WWI sewer line and contribute flow to the CST. It was noted that the study did not indicate that Dana was contributing flow from any other sources, including process waste water from the Service Shop or from the tanker cleaning facility. U.S. EPA stated that smoke was observed coming from several locations on the main Fike site during testing of MH-1, however, the exact sources of the smoke could not be determined since U.S. EPA personnel were not stationed inside the Fike site fence during the investigation. U.S. EPA also noted that large piles of demolition debris and other materials from the demolition of the facility prevented access and limited visibility of the Fike site. ICF Kaiser Engineers (ICF) conducted the third investigation in April 1995, which consisted of two parts. The first part identified and inspected on-site manholes and drains, and the second consisted of a smoke test to identify locations of WWI sewer lines, interconnections among manholes and drains at the site, and off-site sources that may be contributing flow to the site. ICF concluded that the smoke testing was inconclusive in determining the location of the WWI era sewer beneath the site. This was due to significant amounts of sediments and standing water in sewer manholes, process drains, and sewer lines. It was noted that the only sewer line that was not plugged with sediment was the main gravity line that runs from the northern portion of the Fike site west under the Dana property to the CST. ICF conducted the fourth investigation in September and October 1995, as a follow up to their previous investigation in April 1995. The purpose of the investigation was to 031884 (51) C.3-15 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES locate and access off-site manholes located south and west of the site, to determine the location and condition of WWI sewers beneath the Fike site. ICF used basic surveying and excavating techniques to located and access the WWI sewer manholes. ICF mapped the layout of the WWI sewer system beneath the Fike site, and the location of 15 manholes that were included in the investigation. ICF concluded that the only WWI sewer line through which there is any flow is the main gravity line extending from the northwest corner of the Fike site west under the Dana property to the CST. Off-site manholes included in this investigation were reported by ICF to be full of either sediment or standing water, or to be collapsed or destroyed. IFC concluded that this investigation supported the findings of previous sewer investigations performed at the site. After review of the four previous sewer investigations, IT concluded that results indicate the WWI sewers beneath the Fike site were blocked either intentionally by Fike during the operating period of the facility, or due to natural accumulation of sediment in the sewer lines and manholes. IT reported that the WWI gravity line extending from the northern portion of the main Fike site under the Dana property to the CST is an exception; however, this sewer line has been taken out of service as part of the CST Removal Response Action. IT concluded that sewers are likely partially or fully collapsed due to their age, which contributes to the accumulation of sediments within the lines. IT noted that sewer lines in the southern portion of the Fike site are in poor condition, and may have been removed or destroyed during construction of waste disposal lagoons and the burial of waste material including drums. IT concluded that the presence of sinkholes in this portion of the site supports the belief that sewer lines have collapsed, and recommends that specific lines, sumps, and manholes be marked on the ground surface so that test pits can be excavated in the area of the sinkholes. IT states that excavation in these areas may indicate if sink holes are related to the former sump located within the former above ground tank farm area (IT Group, 1999). April 11, 1994 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2 RA, Dioxin Suspect Materials, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1994 This letter prepared by Warren L. Smull, Project Coordinator for the Fike/Artel Site Trust was sent to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region III in order to confirm topics discussed in a conversation that occurred on April 11, 1994. On this date, U.S. EPA advised the Fike/Artel Site Trust that four pieces of concrete which were found wrapped in plastic in the diked area west of the cooling tower may be contaminated with dioxin suspect materials. The Fike/Artel Site Trust stated that they 031884 (51) C.3-16 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES would move the four items to the diked area on the site that contains dioxin suspect materials (Smull, 1994). April, 1995 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site April 1995 Monthly Progress Report #20, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The April 1995 Monthly Progress Report #20 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis report 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranging from 2.6 pg in sample ST23215-D, to 11.2 pg in sample ST23095-D (Smull, 1995 1 ). March 3, 1995 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site July 1995 Monthly Progress Report #23, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The July 1995 Monthly Progress Report #23 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected on March 30, 1995 report a total 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 3.40 ppb, and a 2,4,5-T concentration of 1.40 ppb (Smull, 1995 2 ). March 9, 1995 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, February 1995 Monthly Progress Report #18, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The March 1995 Monthly Progress Report #18 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected in February 1995 were reported to range from 3.2 pg to 14.6 pg (Smull, 1995 3 ). 031884 (51) C.3-17 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES March, 1995 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site May 1995 Monthly Progress Report #21, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The May 1995 Monthly Progress Report #21 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected in March, 1995 report 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranging from 0.09 ppb to 1.90 ppb (Smull, 1995 4 ). April 1995 Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site June 1995 Monthly Progress Report #22 Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The June 1995 Monthly Progress Report #22 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected in April 1995 report 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations ranging from 0.20 ppb to 2.0 ppb, (Smull, 1995 5 ). July 14, 1995 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, September 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #44, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The September 1995 Monthly Progress Report #44 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section X. A. of the Fike Chemical Superfund Site OU-2 Consent Decree. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected on July 14, 1995 report a concentration of 1.28 ppm 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Smull, 1995 6 ). 031884 (51) C.3-18 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES October 5, 1995 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, October 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #45, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The October 1995 Monthly Progress Report #45 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected on October 5, 1995 reported 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration of 9.39 ppt, sample F-25-024MS, and 14.62 ppt, sample F-25-024MSD (Smull, 1995 7 ). October 1995 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, November 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #27, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1995 The November 1995 Monthly Progress Report #27 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected in October 1995 report a concentration of 0.2164 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Smull, 1995 8 ). February 15, 1996, and March 1996 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, June 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #34, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1996 The June 1996 Monthly Progress Report #34 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. For OU-4, the results of dioxin analysis of sample FC4-S-002 collected on February 15, 1996 reported a concentration of 0.025 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD. For OU-3, the results of dioxin analysis for samples collected in March 1996 reported a concentration of 0.025 ppb to 1.96 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Smull, 1996 1 ). 031884 (51) C.3-19 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES March 6, 1996 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, April 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #32, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1996 The April 1996 Monthly Progress Report #32 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of sample FC3-BL-001 MS collected on March 6, 1996 reported a concentration of 9.8 ppt (0.0098 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Analysis of sample FC3-BL-001MSD reported a concentration of 9.72 ppt (0.00972 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Smull, 1996 2 ). June 1996 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, August 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #36, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1996 The August 1996 Monthly Progress Report #36 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment of the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of samples collected in June 1996 report a concentration of 0.342 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 0.342 ppb TEQ TCDD (Smull, 1996 3 ). July 30, 1996, August 1, 1996 and August 21, 1996 Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, September 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #37, Fike/Artel Site Trust, 1996 The September 1996 Monthly Progress Report #37 was submitted by the Fike/Artel Site Trust in fulfillment f the monthly requirements of Section VII.D.6.a of the Fike/Artel Site OU-3 Order. The results of dioxin analysis of sample FC3-L-120 collected on July 30, 1996 reported a concentration of 5.13 ppt total TCDD. Sample FC3-L-127 collected on August 1, 1996 reported a concentration of 1.72 ppb TEQ TCDD. Sample FC3-S-132 collected on August 21, 1996 reported a TEQ TCDD concentration of 0.655 ppb, and a concentration of 0.239 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Smull, 1996 4 ). 031884 (51) C.3-20 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1996 Letter to Eugene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-4 RI/FS Sampling and Analysis Plan and Work Plan, WV DEP, 1996 This letter was prepared by WV DEP after observing the removal of buried drums, cylinders, and other containers during the spring 1996 field season of the OU-3 Remedial Action. WV DEP noted concern with page 1-27 of the work plan, under section 1.6 that states "During the OU-3 RA subsurface soil samples will be collected from the base of excavations following removal of all drums and soils visibly impacted by drum contents to support the OU-4 RI/FS effort". According to WV DEP, this statement implies that all visibly contaminated soil will be removed, which justifies not considering removal areas in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as sources of contamination. WV DEP reported that under ICF's direction, contaminated soils were only removed from areas where they could be directly traced to a particular drum or container. Soil was not removed from areas surrounding drums that had deteriorated to the extent that they no longer maintained their shape or contents. Soil was also not removed from the areas surrounding drum nests, where possible simultaneous rupturing of drums made it impossible to determine from which drum the contamination occurred. WV DEP reported that in several instances, soil surrounding drum nests was heavily contaminated with a black, oily substance, and that this semi-liquid material was placed on the spoil pile to be used to refill the excavations. WV DEP reported that this issue was discussed with the ICF on-site contractor; however, no change in procedure occurred. WV DEP also reported that in several instances, there was such a large quantity of fluid released from the drums that the area had to be diked. WV DEP reported that they observed this fluid material being mixed with soil from the excavation and then placed on the soil pile. In conclusion, WV DEP wants the excavation areas considered potential sources of contamination, which should be sampled after being refilled. WV DEP stated that samples taken by the Fike/Artel Site Trust do not properly characterize the excavations. The samples are taken in visibly clean soil before the area is backfilled. WV DEP also noted that the samples taken were only 18 inches deep, which do not properly characterize a disposal pit that may be as much as 20 feet deep (WV DEP, 1996). 031884 (51) C.3-21 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1998 Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report The Fike/Artel Site Trust submitted this fourth quarter 1998 waste water management system analytical report to U.S EPA, pursuant to Section IX., Paragraph 32 of the Consent Decree with the trust. The Fike/Artel Site Trust reported that 20.5 pg/L 2,3,7,8-TCDD was found in the Baker Tanks, Fike WWTP. The sample was collected on July 27, in the third quarter of calendar year 1998 (Smull, 1998). October 1999, December 1999, and March 2000 Draft Soil Feasibility Study, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, West Virginia, GeoSyntec, 2000 GeoSyntec prepared this Draft Soil Feasibility Study on behalf of The Fike/Artel Site Trust. The study summaries the results of previous investigations and source removal efforts that have been performed at the site, as reported in the Soils RI Report. GeoSyntec reported that previous investigations and source removal efforts have resulted in the removal of the following items from the Fike site: • 167 gallons of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-contaminated liquid • 115 tons of asbestos-containing material • 3,600 gallons of hazardous liquids • Over 670,000 gallons of non-hazardous liquids • Over 14,600 tons of hazardous and non-hazardous solids • Over 2,100 drums Approximately 30 surface soil samples were collected at the former Fike site and approximately 17 surface soil samples were collected at CST. Samples were analyzed for dioxins, which were converted to 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs. Approximately 50 subsurface soil samples were collected at the former Fike site, and approximately 17 subsurface soil samples were collected at the CST. Subsurface soil results reported a concentration of 0.00015 to 10.45 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) (0.00015 to 10.45 ppb) 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ. 031884 (51) C.3-22 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES GeoSyntec reported that a summary of previous investigations that have occurred at the site was included in the draft Soil RI dated May 12, 2000. As a result, this report provides only a summary of three additional investigations that have been made available since the submittal of the draft Soil RI Report. The first investigation focused on Lagoon 3, for the purpose of characterizing and quantifying the extent and volume of the stabilized lagoon soils. During the December 1999 investigation conducted by IT, samples were collected from 20 borings and were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents. 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents were detected in the stabilized lagoon material at less than 1.0 µg/kg (1.0 ppb) in ten samples, between 1.0 to 20.0 µg/kg (1.0 to 20.0 ppb) in nine samples, and above 20.0 µg/kg (20.0 ppb) in one sample, which was reported to be 24.0 µg/kg (24.0 ppb). In March 2000, IT conducted the second investigation, a directed sampling program that included six directed surface soil samples and one duplicate. Three samples were collected at reported locations of elevated concentration that were previously sampled by NUS Corporation. Two samples were collected from at random locations at the CST, and one sample was collected near Lagoon 3. 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents were reported to range from less than 1.0 µg/kg to 45.0 µg/kg (1.0 to 45.0 ppb). The third investigation GeoSyntec summarized was the U.S. EPA Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) Study conducted in October 1999. Weston conducted soil, sediment, and surface water sampling in the region on behalf of U.S. EPA. This information was collected in order to develop a TMDL for dioxin for the River basin. Weston collected 17 soil and 3 sediment samples from the former Fike Site during this investigation. Directed soil samples were also collected from the area immediately adjacent to concrete building foundations remaining on site. 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents were reported to be below 1.0 µg/kg (1.0 ppb) for all samples collected. GeoSyntec noted that the average 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent concentration detected at the Fike site was 0.0015 µg/kg (0.0015 ppb), which is more then 100-fold lower then the average concentration detected in the other samples taken in areas of Nitro and the Kanawha Valley. The average 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent concentration for these areas was reported to be 0.48 µg/kg (0.48 ppb). To conclude the Soil FS, GeoSyntec identified volumes and areas of impacted soil and recommended alternatives for each area. The total surface area for surface soil was identified as approximately 79,000 square feet. This area includes the former process area of the Chemical Plant, two elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent concentrations located near the access road in the northern portion of the former Fike site, and an isolated arsenic detection. The total surface area for subsurface soil is approximately 031884 (51) C.3-23 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 137,000 square feet. This area includes an area of approximately 58,000 square feet located on the southern portion of the property which includes Lagoon 3 and nearby areas, and an approximately 79,000 square foot area in the northern portion of the property which has the same limits as defined for the surface soil impacted area. In regard to the Lagoon 3 area, the volume of stabilized waste was reported to be 5,500 cubic yards. GeoSyntec concluded that Remedial Alternative 4, an asphalt cap over the entire Chemical Plant, including Lagoon 3, was the best alternative for the former Chemical Plant site, and Remedial Alternative 2, asphalt cap over the entire CST, was the best alternative for the CST area (GeoSyntec, 2000). May 29, 2001 Letter to Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Mark L. Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: WVDEP Trip Report - Offsite Sewer System Investigation (May 29, 2001), Fike/Artel Site, Nitro, West Virginia, WV DEP, 2001 This letter report was prepared to document a site visit conducted by WV DEP at the Fike/Artel site on May 29, 2001. The site visit was conducted to determine the relationship between the site and the off-site sewer system. The objectives of the visit included: • Examining the existing sewer system in the vicinity of the Fike/Artel site • Comparing field observations with historic records and maps • Determining if sufficient evidence existed to suggest dioxin contaminated wastes related to historic Fike/Artel chemical manufacturing operations, prior to the construction of the CST may have been discharged to the River WV DEP reported that historic maps and records indicate sewer lines associated with Fike/Artel may have been connected to the Nitro WWI era sewer system prior to the construction of the CST in the late 1970's. There is concern that dioxin related wastes were discharged to the River via a 66 inch diameter trunk line during this period. WV DEP concluded that the presence of residual dioxin contaminated waste, potential distribution, accumulation, and points of discharge have not been determined and should become a task under the Record of Decision (WV DEP, 2001 1 ). 031884 (51) C.3-24 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.11 FLEMING LANDFILL Fleming Landfill (Mundy [Monday] Hollow Landfill) is an inactive state permitted 16 acre landfill on the 75-acre landfill. This landfill is one of 29 landfills receiving assistance from the Landfill Closure Assistance Program (LCAP) and received a state regulated closure cap in 2002. A perimeter leachate drainage system was installed to collect leachate from the landfill, with the leachate collected and stored in a vertical storage tank and trucked to the Charleston Sanitary Department for treatment. A passive gas system was also installed, consisting of one vent per acre of land. Mundy Hollow Creek's sediment reflects an observed release of mercury, dioxin, other heavy metals (from U.S. EPA March 2000 samples), and 4-methylphenol (from WV DEP July 1985 samples). Fleming Landfill is downgradient of Holmes & Madden Landfill; however, attribution of dioxin contamination is uncertain until better sampling locations are used. 1.12 FLEXSYS AMERICA, L.P. AND SOLUTIA, INCORPORATED (RUBBER SERVICES LABORATORY, SOUTHERN DYESTUFFS CORPORATION, ELKO, OLD MONSANTO) The Solutia Inc. Nitro Plant is located on the east bank of the River, approximately one-half mile north of the City of Nitro in Putnam County, WV, in a heavily industrialized region. The site encompasses approximately 116 acres. Production areas, warehouse buildings, parking, or open storage had covered about 60 percent of the site. The facility is bordered to the east and northeast by commercial properties on State Route 25, to the south by industrial property, to the west and northwest by the River, and Interstate Highway 64 divides the facility (U.S. EPA, 2008a). Old Monsanto purchased Rubber Services Laboratories (Rubber Services) in June 1929. Rubber Services was organized in December 1928 by four ex-Goodyear employees from Akron, Ohio in order to supply the large number of small rubber companies across the U.S. with manufactured rubber chemicals. The plant's first products were aldehyde-amine accelerators. They also supplied anti-oxidants, softeners, and tackifiers, which comprise only a small, but quite essential, part of the rubber compound. Old Monsanto purchased the nearby Southern Dyestuff Company, which operated a synthetic phenol process, in 1927. At that time, this was the second largest synthetic phenol operation in the U.S. The plant's name was changed to the Elko Chemical Company (Elko), and was made a subsidiary. Elko produced thionyl chloride, phosphorous oxychloride, chlorophenols, triphenylphosphate, phenol, and other chemicals. Operations at Nitro continued to expand during the 1930's by branching out into flotation agents, chemicals for copper mining, pickling inhibitor for steel plate, 031884 (51) C.3-25 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES anti-oxidants for toilet soap, anti-skinning agents for varnishes and enamels, wetting agents, and anti-oxidants for unsaturated fats and oils. Old Monsanto continued to expand in the 1940's and 1950's. New synthetic rubber that was developed during WWII created a demand for new rubber chemicals. In 1947, Old Monsanto's production of a wide variety of products reached 60 million pounds per year. The agricultural chemicals 2-4-D and 2,4,5,-T were added in 1948, and compounds such as methyl parathion were added in the late 1950's. In 1958, Old Monsanto began using a unit for refining Tall Oil for the production of rosins and fatty acids. These products were used primarily as raw materials for a variety of other products. Old Monsanto acquired the total assets of the Nitro Industrial Corporation (the entire remains of the Explosives Plant "C" property), in 1959 (Johnston, 1977). The Nitro plant expanded its products over the years, and in addition to rubber chemicals, began to produce an animal nutrition chemical used for vulcanization accelerators, a vulcanization inhibitor for the rubber industry, antioxidants for miscellaneous rubber products, and general animal feed. Raw chemical materials used included inorganic compounds, organic solvents, and other organic compounds (Roux, 1995). As of May 1, 1995, management, operation, and substantially all assets of the Nitro facility, except the improved real estate and certain limited manufacturing assets, were transferred to Flexsys, a partnership of Old Monsanto (Roux, 1995). May 16, 1986 Phase II, RCRA Facility Assessment of the Monsanto Company, Nitro, WV, A.T. Kearney, 1986 In 1986, A.T. Kearney, Inc. (Kearney) completed a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment of the Old Monsanto Nitro, WV facility. Information for the Kearney assessment was obtained from a site inspection conducted on May 16, 1986, from U.S. EPA Region III files, Parts A and B of the RCRA Permit Application, and a response to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) Solid Waste management Units (SWMUs) response letter. This assessment identifies 34 SWMUs located at the facility, 11 of that are RCRA regulated hazardous waste management units. It is Kearney's recommendation that a remedial investigation be conducted for the following SWMUs: 031884 (51) • Teepee Incinerator • Inactive Landfill Area • Process Residue Fill C.3-26 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • City of Nitro Dump • Decontaminated 2,4,5-T Building • Niran Residue Pits • Past Disposal Area • Active Landfill Cell • Sludge Pit No. 1 • Sludge Pit No. 2 • Facility Sewer System October 2, 1990 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report, WV DCLER, 1990 On October 2, 1990, inspectors conducted a Compliance Evaluation at Old Monsanto in Nitro, WV. Inspectors noted that a second tier pallet supporting two overpack containers of F027 dioxin waste was tilted and as a result, the containers were leaking. Facility representatives assured inspectors that the situation would be corrected promptly. Upon further investigation of the inspection logs, inspectors discovered that the "highly tilted pallet" had been noted six days prior to the inspection; however, Old Monsanto had not taken any action to correct the situation (Wright, 1990). September 19, 21, and 23, 1994 Compliance Monitoring Evaluation, Monsanto Chemical Company, WV DEP, 1994 On September 19, 21, and 23, 1994, inspectors from the WV DEP Office of Waste Management visited the Old Monsanto facility to conduct a Compliance Monitoring Evaluation. The inspection was conducted in conjunction with work by Roux Associates, Inc. on Old Monsanto's RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). Old Monsanto sampled approximately 65 wells as part of the RFI. On September 19, 1994, the inspectors observed the purging and sampling of monitoring well No. MW-1A and 1B at the southeast corner of the facility property. WV DEP split six of these samples with Old Monsanto. The team then proceeded to wells MW-6A and 6B, located along the River bank on the northeast corner of the Old Monsanto production facility. It was noted that similar to most of the "A" wells located along the riverbank, MW-6A had a very slow recharge rate. Liquid obtained from this well was very black in color, had contained a great deal of solids, and a very strong chemical odor similar to the ambient air at the facility. These samples were also split, and were analyzed for volatile organic analytes (VOA), base-neutral and acid extractable (BN/AE) 031884 (51) C.3-27 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES SVOCs, metals, total organic carbon (TOC) and total organic halides (TOX). MW-6B was also sampled, and liquid from this well appeared clear and normal in color. On September 23, 1994 inspectors observed sampling of wells located near the Old Monsanto waste treatment unit and decontaminated 2,4,5-T building. Wells WT-5A, 5 B, and 6A were purged and samples were split. The group then observed the sampling of well TD-3, which is located on the River bank behind the decontaminated 2,4,5-T building. The water level and recharge rates of this well were so low that it had to be hand bailed instead of pumped. Liquid from this well was brackish and had a chemical odor. Samples from this well were analyzed for dioxins and dibenzofurans, in addition to the parameters analyzed for the other wells. Samples were also split from well WT-13A. WV DEP concluded that the compliance evaluation for this facility is pending, until further completion of the RCRA Corrective Action (CA) process can occur (WV DEP, 1994 2 ). August 1994, September 1994 RFI Report and Stabilization/Corrective Measures Plan, Volume I of II, Monsanto Nitro Plant, Roux, 1995 In August and September 1994, Roux Associates conducted an investigation at the Old Monsanto Nitro facility to fulfill the requirements of the facility's RCRA CA and Waste Minimization Permit. The permit specifies 14 SWMUs that are subject to RCRA. It further specifies that soil, sediment, and surface water must be investigated for 3 of the 14 SWMUs, and that groundwater must be investigated for all but one SWMU. The emphasis of the permit is on groundwater investigations due to findings of the RFI conducted at the site in 1986, which found that groundwater across the site contains VOCs. Additionally, the Facility Sewer System SWMU is the focus of its own stabilization measure evaluation program, due to the fact that it historically conveyed many of the VOCs as part of the normal process wastewater flow to the wastewater treatment plant. The objectives of the RFI Report were to: 031884 (51) • Characterize the nature, extent, concentration, and migration of hazardous constituents released from SWMUs into groundwater and surface water • Identify actual or potential receptors C.3-28 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Provide a detailed geologic and hydrogeologic characterization of the area surrounding the SWMUs • Determine the need for and scope of corrective measures The following activities were performed as part of the RFI Work Plan: • Collection of soil samples at the Building 46 Incinerator • Collection of riverbank soil samples along the bank of the River • Collection of sediment samples from the Past Disposal Area • Collection of surface water samples from the Past Disposal Area • Installation of monitoring wells at the facility • Collection of groundwater samples from selected monitoring wells • Performance of aquifer tests Surface water sampling results indicated that hazardous constituents were not present above levels of concern. Sediment sampling results indicated low levels of BN/AE compounds and inorganic metals. BN/AE compounds were also found in samples taken along the banks of the Kanawha River. Low levels of VOCs, BN/AE compounds, and inorganic metals were found in samples collected near the Building 46 Incinerator. Roux concluded that the observed low levels of detection are not indicative of residual source areas, which would require corrective action. Dioxin and dibenzofuran compounds were not detected in groundwater, however the results indicate that shallow groundwater is impacted by VOCs, BN/AE compounds, and inorganic metals. Roux concluded that the observed inorganic concentrations are representative of typical background levels, and therefore primary groundwater constituents would include trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene, and various chlorinated phenols. From these findings, Roux identified three potential areas of concern, which included the Past Disposal Area, the former City of Nitro Dump, and the Facility Sewer System (Roux, 1995). February 5, 1998 Compliance Evaluation Inspection, WV DEP, 1998 On February 5, 1998, WV DEP conducted a RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection at Flexsys. The inspection was completed in two phases, which included a review of written records and inspection of the plant area. 031884 (51) C.3-29 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP inspectors reviewed Flexsys' records, which included manifests of hazardous waste shipments from the facility over the last two years, the facility's bi-annual report, waste profiles, a contingency plan, an emergency response plan, inspection logs, and personal training records. Mr. Tony Tuk, a Solutia representative, answered the inspector's questions regarding in-plant clean-ups, groundwater treatment activities, and corrective action projects. Mr. Tuk stated that Flexsys is currently operating a CA pump and treat system for an area of the plant that has a groundwater contamination problem. Flexsys currently pumps seven wells continuously for TCE removal and three wells continuously to remove kerosene from groundwater. After phase separation, groundwater is pumped to the facilities WWTP for further treatment. The sludge from the WWTP is then burned in an incinerator at the facility as a non-hazardous waste. The WV DEP report noted that inspectors stated, "soils in this part of the plant (the pump and treat activity area) are so contaminated with dioxin that as structures are built in and around it, the footers are being constructed above ground to prevent from having to dig into the soils and have to remove them as a hazardous waste". During the physical inspection of the plant, WV DEP noted that there were several hazardous waste labels on drums on the permitted hazardous waste storage pad that were illegible and peeling off. WV DEP Inspectors found Flexsys to be in violation of 40 CFR Part 264.13, which states that the "facility failed to make proper hazardous waste determination on all wastes generated". The WV DEP inspectors determined that dioxin is likely being pumped to the facility's WWTP due to the following reasons: • The documented dioxin contamination in the soils around the pump and treat system • The fact that the facility is continuously pumping 10 wells in the area around the pump and treat system • Considering the solvent properties of TCE and kerosene WV DEP concluded that the sludge from the WWTP, which is currently burned in the facility's incinerator, may be type "F020", and that Flexsys must address the following waste codes regarding this issue: F020, F027, F001, F002, D040, and D018. WV DEP gave Flexsys 30 days to complete the following: "make proper hazardous waste determinations on the groundwater being sent to the WWTP from the pump and treat system and on the sludge from the WWTP being burned in your boiler" (Cunningham, 1998). 031884 (51) C.3-30 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES September 1998 1998 – Results of Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater and Kerosene (Volume I of III), Solutia Inc., Nitro, WV, Roux Roux Associates (Roux) conducted groundwater and kerosene product sampling for dioxins at the Solutia facility in September 1998. This work was performed in response to a written request from U.S. EPA Region III dated July 24, 1998. U.S. EPA requested that three samples be collected for analysis, these samples included: • One composite groundwater sample from recovery wells EW-5A, EW-5B, EW-6A, EW-6B, EW-7A, EW-7B, and EW-8 (composite #1) in the TCE hot spot area • One composite groundwater sample from recovery wells EW-1, EW-2, EW-3, and EW-4 (composite #2) in the separate-phase kerosene area • One composite sample of separate-phase product from recovery wells EW-1, MW-7, R-2, B-2, B-3 (kerosene component) in the separate-phase kerosene area Groundwater samples were collected as separate samples on a per well basis and were composited by the laboratory and analyzed for dioxins. Composite #1, Composite #2 duplicate, and Composite #2 groundwater samples showed non detect values for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and Tetrachlrodibenzofuran (TCDF) at a method quantitation limit (lowest point of the calibration curve) of 5 pg/L. Estimated concentrations reported by the laboratory below this level were attributed by the data validator to blank contamination, and therefore the results for groundwater composites were also below the WV groundwater quality standard of 5 pg/L for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Analysis of the kerosene composite sample identified 2,3,7,8,-TCDD at a concentration of 369 pg/g (ppt), and 2,3,7,8-TCDF at 920 pg/g. OCDD was detected at 3310 ppt, and other penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octa-CDD and –CDF congeners were detected at levels below their quantitation limits. The overall TCDD TEQ for the sample was 519 ppt (based on detected congeners only). Roux reported that similar levels were observed in the kerosene composite duplicate. Roux stated that as there is no recommended standard for dioxin in a kerosene matrix in the environment, and therefore levels found were compared to typical soil cleanup levels. Using the Office of Solid Waste Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9200.4-26 (Approach to Addressing Dioxin in Soil at CERCLA and RCRA Sites), dated April 13, 1998 (Appendix G), U.S. EPA has generally selected a cleanup level for dioxin within the range of 5 ppb to 20 ppb TCDD TEQ for commercial/industrial soils. 031884 (51) C.3-31 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Therefore, Roux concluded that the kerosene composite concentration was an order of magnitude below U.S. EPA's range, and slightly higher than what would be detected in a municipal sludge (approximately 60 ppt TEQ). Analysis of laboratory grade kerosene identified dioxin and dibenzofuran congeners at a TCDD TEQ concentration of 24.5 ppt. Roux concluded that this is consistent with published reports that have reported dioxins in a wide variety of media, including petroleum refinery product and waste streams. Roux concluded that while low concentrations of TCDD/TCDF and/or related congeners were identified in select site media, they were found in concentrations below the most applicable identified standard or reference. Estimated trace concentrations of dioxin found in groundwater were less than current WV Groundwater Quality Standards. Concentrations of dioxins in kerosene were less than typical U.S. EPA target values for industrial soils, and slightly higher than levels observed in a typical municipal sludge (Roux, 1998 1 ). 1998 Work Plan for Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater Pump and Treat Wells, Roux Associates, Inc. In September 1998, on behalf of Solutia, Roux prepared a work plan to address proposed groundwater and product sampling for dioxins. The work plan is in accordance with the U.S. EPA request in their July 24, 1998 letter that the extracted groundwater in the "TCE Hot Spot Area" and "Separate-Phase Kerosene Area" be sampled for dioxins (Roux, 1998 2 ). September 13, 2001 and September 14, 2001 Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Flexsys Nitro Plant, WV DEP, 2001 WV DEP inspectors performed an unannounced inspection of the Flexsys Nitro facility on September 13 and 14, 2001. Inspectors examined a permitted storage pad, where 19 containers of hazardous waste were stored. Two of the drums were marked with accumulation start dates that exceeded one year, dated August 14, 1999 and July 11, 2000, and both drums belonged to Solutia. Solutia is responsible for groundwater remediation at these locations on plant property. Plant personnel told inspectors that the drums contained waste contaminated with dioxin containing compounds, and that disposal options were limited, therefore making it necessary to store the material for long periods. 031884 (51) C.3-32 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Samples of leachate coming from ACLF were taken and analyzed for dioxin. Samples were obtained in the leachate flowing to Flexsys WWTP prior to the carbon beds. Sample results were not included in the WV DEP inspection report (WV DEP, 2001 2 ). 2001 Report on Phase 1A Activities – Corrective Measures Study, Roux Associates, Inc. In September 2001, Solutia hired Roux and Potesta to conduct surface water and sediment sampling in the River. All surface water and sediment sampling activities were conducted as directed by U.S. EPA in the August 17, 2001 letter to Solutia and in accordance with the U.S. EPA approved work plan. A total of 23 sediment samples and 13 surface water samples were collected from the River, as directed by U.S. EPA. The surface water and sediment sampling locations targeted three segments along the River: • Segment A – located adjacent to the Process Study Area (10 sediment and 5 surface water samples were collected) • Segment B – located adjacent to the light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) Area (4 sediment and 3 surface water samples were collected) • Segment C – located adjacent to the Waste Treatment Study Area (9 sediment and 5 surface water samples were collected) Based on the sampling results, it was concluded that the constituents of concern (COCs) in site ground water that discharges to the River do not present an unacceptable risk with respect to impact to surface water or sediments. In addition to the COCs, U.S. EPA has requested the collection of discrete ground water samples to confirm the absence of dioxin in ground water. However, composite groundwater samples collected previously in 1998 by Roux detected no significant level of dioxins in groundwater. Since dioxins were absent from the composite sample, it was concluded that the potential presence of extremely low concentration in discrete groundwater samples would not affect future remedial actions. Therefore, collection of discrete groundwater samples for dioxin analyses was not warranted (Roux, 2001). 031884 (51) C.3-33 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES March 15, 2002 Letter to Ms. Jennifer Shoemaker, U.S. EPA, from D.M. Light, Solutia, Re: Notification of Potential Release, Solutia, 2002 Solutia sent this letter to U.S. EPA to report a potential release of hazardous constituents from the Flexsys facility. Solutia reported that during a visit to the facility by WV DEP, a localized slough/slide was discovered near the toe of the Riverbank adjacent to the Flexsys facility. The slough/slide area is approximately 75 feet long, 5 to 6 feet deep measured into the Riverbank, and was located near Mile Point (MP) 42.1 in the vicinity of MW No. 22-R. Failure of the River's edge caused shifting of the slough material, exposing an unidentified black material. The exposed scarp was reported to be 6 to 8 feet in height, with the estimated 2 inch seam of black material located near the top of the scarp. The 2 foot by 75 foot long layer of black material was reported by Solutia to be overlain by construction rubble and debris. Solutia stated that the material had been disposed of in the Past Disposal Area, which is an identified Permit SWMU. It was estimated that approximately 30 to 40 cubic yards of material were displaced by the slough/slide mass. On March 15, 2002, WV DEP and Solutia sampled the unidentified material, and analysis has indicated the presence of hazardous materials. Solutia reported that the physical appearance of the material and preliminary analytical results are consistent with pitch from the NaMBT process. Solutia is preparing a scope of work to collect and dispose of the black material that will also include stabilizing the bank in the area of the slough (Solutia, 2002). March 15, 2002 Interim Measures Work Plan – Final - Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, WV, 2002 In 2002, Potesta prepared an Interim Measures (IMs) Work Plan for the Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility to remediate a localized slough/slip that occurred along the River bank near MP 42.1. In early March 2002, WV DEP notified Solutia that a recent inspection of the Riverbank resulted in the finding of a black tarry residue seeping from the bank of the River. The area of concern was located along the River outside the fenced limits of the Flexsys Nitro production facility. 031884 (51) C.3-34 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP, Flexsys, and Potesta representatives performed a site visit on March 15, 2002. There was a thin lens of discolored material present near the top of the resulting scarp, which was intermingled with a black tar residue. The residue appeared to be under a layer of construction demolition material that covered the exposed sloping Riverbank. Some of the residue material mobilized during warmer periods and migrated down the scarp. In one location, it was noted that the residue had entered the water at the edge of the River. The material appeared to be upon entering the River. The exposed material, located below the stained lens, appeared to be native alluvial silt, which is tan to light brown in color and consistent in composition. To determine the nature and extent of contamination, 18 sediment core samples were collected at recoveries ranging from 3.75 to 19.75 inches. Six samples were collected from each of the following areas: 8 feet from the water's edge, 15 feet from the initial set of samples, and 15 feet from the second. No residue was observed in the core samples, or otherwise, during the investigation. The residue samples from the initial site visit with WV DEP conducted on March 15, 2002 were split between WV DEP and Potesta for independent analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD. An additional split was also provided to Solutia for analysis. A third sample was collected and submitted to Flexsys' laboratory for source characterization testing. The preliminary results indicated that the material was similar to a waste material generated from a production process at the plant facility. Results were obtained for analine, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, methylene chloride, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Aniline presented the most immediate concern. The short-term effects of exposure to n-nitrosodiphenylamine were unknown but it was mentioned that n-nitrosodiphenylamine was a primary pollutant. The methylene chloride concentration detected was suspected to have originated from laboratory contamination. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations reported appeared to be representative of background levels of surrounding areas. A detailed site topographic survey was completed following the initial site visit. The survey included the approximate location of any buried utilities in close proximity to the slide area. The fieldwork was conducted on March 27, 2002. Included in the IMs Work Plan is the proposed abatement and removal of tar residue material from the Riverbank, which was based on the visual examination of the site soils. The proposed collection of confirmatory samples was also included in the plan (Potesta, 2002 1 ). 031884 (51) C.3-35 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES March 15, 2002 Sampling Inspection Report – Solutia, Inc., DWM, WV DEP, 2002 As part of River patrol activities on March 6, 2002, WV DEP field staff discovered a blackish-brown residue like substance protruding from the River bank, approximately 15 feet up from the River edge. Field staff investigated this River bank area, which approximately 15 ft by 10 ft in surface area, 1 to 3 inches in depth, and located between the Flexsys/Solutia plant property and the River. The material observed was hard and solid, appeared temperature sensitive, having oozed from the bank into the River due to warm temperatures. On March 15, 2002, WV DEP conducted a sampling investigation of the area described above. Split samples were taken on the bank midway between the stormwater holding tanks, and the back gate the locked the blacktop access road to plant property. Results confirmed the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD along the River bank at a concentration of 599 pg/g. Because of the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the sampling data, the residue material should be removed from the riverbank to prevent contamination to the River; and Solutia needs to submit a Sampling and Remediation Plan for addressing the contaminated area on the riverbank. The staff of WV DEP will review the plan and a work plan schedule will be established (Gatens, 2002). January 2001, and July 26, 2002 2002 – Summary of HUB Drainage Ditch Dye Study, Flexsys America L.P. Production Facility, Potesta The Hub Industrial Park is located along Interstate 64 in Nitro, WV. A drainage ditch running parallel to the main access road collects and conveys storm water runoff from the approximately 84 acres of developed properties located within the industrial park. The runoff is conveyed to an area of impounded water near the Flexsys Plant boundary, near the LNAPL recovery area. On December 30, 2000, Solutia entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to construct a soil cap on a 3-acre parcel of land located immediately north of the ponded area. During development of design plans, an assessment was conducted in order to determine the effects of increased stormwater runoff due to the capped area. The assessment determined that the majority of the flow would be directed and discharged to the existing adjacent storm water drainage ditch. 031884 (51) C.3-36 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Potesta conducted fieldwork in order to determine if a discharge culvert or structure was located within the ponded areas of the drainage ditch. A structure was never located; however, water levels in the ditch fluctuated with rainfall events and increased runoff, indicating that some type of outlet structure exists. Potesta conducted a dye study around January 2001 in order to determine if there was a connection between the ponded ditch areas and a potential outlet point located along the River, or in portions of the old City of Nitro sewer, which exists in the area. Results of the dye study identified a seep located along the edge of the River. A discharge was visible, which entered the River from underneath a large slab on concrete rubble along the riverbank. Potesta was not able to determine the exact nature of the discharge, as the concrete obstructed the view. As a result of this discovery, Potesta collected water samples both in the HUB storm water drainage ditch, and at the location of the seep. Additional samples were collected from both locations on July 26, 2002 and analyzed for VOC's and SVOC's. Potesta concluded that there is some level of connection between the discharge of water from the HUB storm water drainage ditch, and the riverbank seep. Although the flow mechanism is unknown, dye test results indicated that at least a portion of flow migrates from the storm water ditch to the seep location. Potesta noted that a portion of the flow from the seep might be due to stored water from the old City of Nitro sewer. Direct storm water runoff from the Flexsys plant does not contribute to the ditch flow. The dye study results also indicated that there is a connection between the HUB storm water drainage ditch discharge and manhole 414, which is located within portions of the old City of Nitro sewer system (Potesta, 2002 2 ). August 6, 2002 Letter to Michael Light, Solutia, from David Farley, WV DEP, 2002 This letter prepared by WV DEP presents sampling results from a sampling event on August 6, 2002 at the Flexsys facility in Nitro, WV. WV DEP conducted sampling in conjunction with Potesta of a solid waste material present on the Riverbank near the Flexsys facility. It was reported that the material appeared to be grease or some type, and had significant potential to pollute State waters during higher River water levels. A priority pollutant scan for organic chemicals determined that none of the chemicals were present at the prescribed practical quantitation limits, indicating that the material may be a type of hydrocarbon or animal fat-based grease. 031884 (51) C.3-37 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP collected a sample of the material for dioxin analysis; however, the sample was mishandled during transport and therefore was not analyzed. However, Potesta analyzed their sample for dioxin, and the results are pending. The letter concludes by WV DEP noting that this material is currently being addressed in a work plan for the facility, and that this letter serves to reiterate that the waste material must be removed from the Riverbank to prevent contamination of the Kanawha River (WV DEP, 2002). 2002 Dioxin seep discovered at Nitro plant, The Charleston Gazette, 2002 This article written by staff writer Ken Ward Jr., and was printed in the Charleston Gazette, in 2000 (the exact date the article appeared is unknown). The Gazette reports that WV DEP has discovered dioxin seeping from a waste pile at the Flexsys facility in Nitro, and that an undetermined amount has already seeped from the waste pile into the River. It was reported that Flexsys sent a letter to WV DEP, describing the seep as a 2-inch wide, by 75-foot long seam of black material. It was reported that the seep was first spotted by WV DEP in early March as they inspected the Flexsys plant from a boat on the River. The seep was visible due to the fact that Flexsys and other area facilities had recently removed brush and other debris from the Riverbanks for security reasons following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was reported that the seep adds to evidence that the Flexsys plant, which was formerly operated by Old Monsanto Company, is the source of unsafe levels of dioxin found in fish from the River. The Gazette reports that U.S. EPA has recently released Old Monsanto's proposal for the cleanup of Heizer Creek Landfill, which was reported to be one of numerous sites where Old Monsanto dumped wastes from the manufacture of the herbicide Agent Orange. The article states that making the herbicide in Nitro created the toxic chemical dioxin as a byproduct, and that Old Monsanto disposed of wastes containing dioxin in dumps at Heizer and Manila Creeks, north of Old Monsanto's Nitro plant. It was reported that D.M. Light, Remedial Project Manager for Solutia, sent a letter to U.S. EPA, stating that the state had found a localized slough/slide near the toe of the Kanawha Riverbank, adjacent to the facility. Solutia reported that the material was suspected to be pitch, which is a waste connected to the production of the chemical 031884 (51) C.3-38 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES NaMBT, used in rubber making. The slough/slide was reported to be 75 feet long, 5 to 6 feet deep, and it was estimated that a total of 30 to 40 cubic yards of the material had been displaced by the slough/slide. Samples indicated a concentration of dioxin greater than 650 ppt. U.S. EPA was reported as stating that there is no exposure to humans or to the River. However a WV DEP Inspector who was present when the seep was discovered was reported as stating that the material has already reached the River (Ward, 2002). June 12, 2003 Letter to Jon W. McKinney, Plant Manager, Flexsys, from Belinda Beller, Permitting Section, WV DEP, Re: Permit Application No. WV0000868 Putnam County, WV DEP, 2003 This letter prepared by WV DEP, was sent to Flexsys June 12, 2003 along with a draft copy of WV/NPDES Water Pollution Control Permit No. WV0000868, and a Fact Sheet for the permittee. The permit allows Flexsys to operate and maintain a disposal system for the direct discharge of treated industrial wastes, or effluent into the River via Outlet 001 at MP 41.9. The permit also grants operation of disposal systems for the direct discharge or untreated stormwater from non-process areas into the River via Outlets 005 and 008. The permit states that Flexsys is authorized to discharge a maximum daily concentration of 0.014 pg/L of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from Outlets 001, 005, and 008 to be monitored annually. Requirement C.21 of the permit states that compliance with permit limits for dioxin in Outlets 001, 005, and 008 will be determined by the following: • Collecting a composite sample of effluent from Outlet 001 annually using high volume sampling, and analyzing the sample using EPA Method 1613. The permit states that the first sample be taken within three months of the effective date of the permit, and if results of two sampling events are in compliance, then the permittee may discontinue sampling. • Collecting grab samples from Outlets 005 and 008 annually and analyzing the sample using EPA Method 1613. The permit states that the first sample be taken within six months of the effective date of the permit, and if the results are within compliance, the permittee may discontinue sampling. • Submitting the analytical results to the agency within 30 days of their receipt. Section 10. C, Major Concerns, of the attached WV DEP Fact Sheet for the Flexsys facility states that WV DEP has concerns regarding the leaking underground sewer system, and 031884 (51) C.3-39 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES its impacts on groundwater. The fact sheet reports that the facility sewer system has been in operation since 1918, and drained process wastes, sanitary waste, steam condensate, and stormwater runoff from the Flexsys facility. The WV DEP Fact Sheet reported that the sewer system contains more than 6000 feet of piping, lift stations, and pump stations to transfer wastewater to the wastewater plant, to be discharged through Outlet 001. The concern is due to the possibility of the system leaking during the manufacture of 2,4,5-T at the facility, which may have polluted groundwater with dioxin and other contaminants. Another concern listed was the possibility of contaminated groundwater infiltrating into the sewer system, and reaching the wastewater treatment system through normal operation, or being discharged directly into the River during bypass occurrences. The Fact Sheet also states that due to the potential presence of dioxin in the discharge, the proposed permit limit for dioxin shall be 0.014 pg/L, the applicable water quality standards for dioxin. This is due to the fact that the River is on the 303(d) list for dioxin, and the fish in the River contain unsafe levels of dioxin for human health (WV DEP, 2003). February 2004 Interim Measures – Final Report: Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, WV Potesta prepared this report for Solutia under Section E.2; IMs of the current RCRA CA permit (EPA ID. No. WVD039990965) for the Flexsys facility. The purpose of this investigation was to achieve the following: • Safely contain the contaminated area • Remove the construction/demolition material from the affected area • Remove the visually impacted residue from the site resulting in a final regraded stable Riverbank The area of concern is located along a steeply sloped (1:1) section of Riverbank on the eastern bank of the River (MP 42.1). The site is located outside both the fenced limits of the plant facility, and the limits of an adjacent SWMU, the Past Disposal Area. The area was discovered by WV DEP on March 6, 2002, during a site inspection of the plant from the River. A blackish-brown residue material was observed in the soil in the limits of a surface slough along the Riverbank. The inspectors reported that the material appeared to have flowed down the bank and had entered the River in at least one location. Potesta sampled the residue on March 15, 2002 at the request of U.S. EPA and WV DEP. Residue samples revealed the presence of aniline, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, methylene chloride, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Potesta reported that the area of concern was 031884 (51) C.3-40 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES centered on a slough or shallow side near the toe of the existing bank at the water's edge. Solutia formally notified U.S EPA of the potential release on April 15, 2002, and an IMs Work Plan was submitted on August 2, 2002. Potesta reported that in the immediate vicinity of the area of concern, the River is shallow and gently sloping near the edge of the bank with water depth approximately 6 to 8 feet in depth 20 feet from the edge. The majority of the failed slide mass was reported to have been eroded from the toe along the River's edge. Potesta determined that since a located area of residue had migrated into the River, sediment coring samples would be retrieved from the area in order to determine the nature and extent of the residue material. Potesta conducted core sampling near the toe of the slide/slough area on June 9, 2002. A total of 18 sediment core samples were collected with recoveries ranging from 3.75 to 19.75 inches. Samples points were taken from three transects, with each transect being made up of six individual sediment sample locations. The first transect was located in the River approximately 8 feet from the water's edge, the second was advanced 15 feet from the first, and the third and additional 15 feet from the second. Potesta reported that none of the recovered cores showed any visual signs of residue materials. Residue samples were split between WV DEP and Potesta and were analyzed for SVOCs (method 8270), VOCs (method 8260) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD high-resolution dioxin analysis (method 8290) at REIC Laboratories in Beaver, WV. Solutia submitted an additional split sample to Test America, Inc. in Nashville, Tennessee for the same analysis. Flexsys submitted an additional sample to their in-house laboratory for potential source characterization testing. Preliminary results reported by Flexsys indicated that the material was similar to NaMBT pitch, which is a waste material generated at the plant. Analysis conducted at REIC and Test America Labs reported 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations of 656 pg/g (0.656 ppb) and 550 pg/g (0.55 ppb), respectively (Potesta, 2004 1 ). May 2004 Kanawha River Surface Water/Sediment/Passive Vapor Diffusion Sampling Results: Appendix G from Revised Data Report, CA-750 Groundwater Environmental Indicators, Flexsys America L.P. Facility, Nitro, WV This Appendix prepared by Potesta for Solutia, summarizes the results of surface water, sediment, and passive vapor diffusion sampling of the River conducted in 2002. 031884 (51) C.3-41 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Potesta reported sediment dioxin results ranging from 1.8 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD at sample location GSD-3-N to 190,000 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD at sample location DSD-1-N (Potesta, 2004 2 ) June 17, 2004 Letter to Jeffrey Waldbeser, Monsanto, from Mike House, Solutia dated June 17, 2004, Re: Flexsys Nitro, West Virginia Facility – River and Riverbank Data Mike House of Solutia sent this letter to Jeff Waldbeser of Monsanto on June 17, 2004 in response to Monsanto's request for data from investigations conducted by Solutia at the Flexsys facility. Attached to the letter were the following reports: • Interim Measures – Final Report: Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, West Virginia, February 2004 • Kanawha River Surface Water/Sediment/PVD Sampling Results: Appendix G from Revised Data Report, CA750 Groundwater Environmental Indicator, Flexsys America L.P. Facility, Nitro, West Virginia, May 2004 Mr. House stated that the IMs Report documents the cleanup of a slough on the River bank, sampling procedures, and results. The second report is an appendix to Solutia's CA750 Environmental Indicator Data Report, which was recently submitted. This appendix includes figures and tables for surface water, sediment, and passive vapor diffusion sampling results that are the result of the implementation of two work plans previously approved by U.S. EPA. These work plans include: • Kanawha River Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Work Plan, dated September 2001 • Supplemental Surface Water September 2002 and Sediment Sampling Work Plan, dated Solutia provided a summary of the implementation of the work plans that involved the following items; 2001 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling, 2002 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling, 2003 Surface Water Sampling, Sediment and Surface Water Analytical Results, and Passive Vapour Diffusion (PVD) Samples (Solutia, 2004). 2001 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling: A total of 23 sediment samples and 13 surface water samples. Samples were collected from three segments, B, and C, all of which were located along the River. Each segment was biased to detect any possible groundwater discharge impacts to the River in these segments. Solutia collected surface 031884 (51) C.3-42 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES water samples during both average flow conditions (September 2001), and during low flow conditions (October 2001). Two background samples were also collected. Sediment and surface water sampling began with the most downstream point and proceeded upstream to minimize the potential of cross-contamination of upstream and downstream points. Sediment samples were collected from an area approximately 10 feet from the River's edge, however in two locations; samples were collected from an area farther from the bank due to the existing riprap in the vicinity of the existing WWTP. The TCE extraction wells that are located immediately along the top of the Flexsys Riverbank were shut off prior to and during sampling. 2002 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling: In December of 2002, a total of 29 sediment samples were collected from the River immediately adjacent to the Riverbank. Eighteen samples were collected from four new stream segments D, E, F, and G to address U.S. EPA concerns regarding areas not sampled in 2001. Sampling began with the most downstream point and proceeded upstream to minimize the potential of cross-contamination of upstream and downstream points. Ten samples were collected at three 2001 locations for dioxin and furan analysis, and seven samples (three from Segment A, one from Segment B, and three from Segment C) were collected at 2001 sampling location to confirm 2001 results. Two upstream background samples were collected, one at a previous 2001 sample location, and also at a point upstream along the bank adjacent to the industrial site. Surface water samples were collected at eighteen locations, Segments D, E, F, and G, including background samples at two locations. Samples were collected at five locations in Segments A, B, and C for dioxin and furan analysis. The TCE extraction wells at the Flexsys facility were turned off during the sampling event. 2003 Surface Water Sampling: On August 28, 2003, a second low flow sampling event was conducted in accordance with procedures described in the Supplemental Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Work Plan dated September 13, 2002. This sampling event included four segments of the River previously sampled in 2002 that are described as follows: 031884 (51) • Segment D – from the upriver property boundary near well MW-23A to the upriver portion of Segment A near MW-20A • Segment E – from the downriver portion of Segment A near MW-24A to the upriver portion of Segment B near the LNAPL unit • Segment F – from the downriver portion of Segment B near MW B-7 to the upriver portion of Segment C near MW WT-13A C.3-43 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Segment G – From the downriver section of Segment C near MW WT-7A to the downriver plant property boundary A total of twenty-one samples were collected from the River including two background samples. A boat was used to access all sampling locations, and all samples were collected approximately 10 feet from the Riverbank. Surface water and sediment samples were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, dioxin, and furans. Passive Vapor Diffusion Samples: PVD was included in this investigation at the request of U.S. EPA in order to determine the volatilization of VOC constituents in the hyporheic zones along the River. A total of forty PVD sampling devices were installed in sediment along the River bank at 19 distinct points on December 19, 2002. Two PVD samples were positioned at each sample location, except at sample location DSD-4, which had four PVD samplers (second set required for field duplicate). The installation of PVD samplers began from the furthest downstream point and moved upstream. PVD samplers were retrieved on January 9, 2003, which resulted in a sample collection period of 21 days. All samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs (Solutia, 2004). 1.13 GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL SITE The Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLCC) site, formerly FMC Corporation (FMC), was located in the Kanawha Valley in Nitro, WV. The Former Flexsys Facility is adjacent to the north of the GLCC site and the River is located directly west of the GLCC site. The former FMC plant manufactured phosphorus-based organic and inorganic chemical intermediates for commercial use. FMC operated from 1987 until 1999 when GLCC purchased the plant and continued chemical manufacturing operations. The plant discontinued operations and closed in 2001 (U.S. EPA, 2008b). In May 2005, Blasland, Bouck, & Lee (BBL) collected surface soil samples along the northern and eastern perimeter of the GLCC site. Samples were submitted for analysis of PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, chloride, percent solids, phosphate, and total phosphorus. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were measured in soil at concentrations between 0.0025 B µg/kg to 0.59 J µg/kg. The highest concentration, 0.59 J µg/kg, was observed near the northeast corner of the GLCC site, approximately 830 ft from the River (BBL, 2007). 031884 (51) C.3-44 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES In May/June 2006, BBL collected surface soil samples in the area of the former lab and warehouse buildings located approximately 700 ft east of the samples collected in 2005, adjacent to the east of the Former Flexsys Facility. Samples were submitted for analysis of PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, chloride, percent solids, phosphate, and total phosphorus. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-TCDD were observed to range from 0.0034 J µg/kg to 3.3 J µg/kg. The two highest concentrations, 1.7 µg/kg and 3.3 µg/kg, were located outside the lab and warehouse buildings approximately 40 ft and 80 ft east of the northern property boundary, respectively (BBL, 2007). 1.14 HECK'S WAREHOUSE PROPERTY Heck's Warehouse property is located to the immediate north of the Flexsys Facility main office parking lot, and to the east of the Flexsys Past Disposal Area. In 2002, a "black, tar residue" was discovered adjacent to an old bunker foundation. The waste material was fully contained, and there did not appear to be an imminent threat of the material moving (Light, 2002). 1.15 HEIZER CREEK LANDFILL Heizer Creek landfill was operated by City of Nitro from late 1950's to early 1960's and accepted municipal and industrial rubbish. Information available to U.S. EPA indicates that Monsanto used the landfill for approximately one year (1958-1959) for disposal of plant wastes. In 1983, surface soil samples showed dioxin concentrations as high as 9.6 ppb. In approximately 1988, Monsanto excavated nine 55-gallon drums of soil contaminated with dioxin from certain areas of the landfill. A 1998 sampling event showed 21.54 ppb 2,3,7,8-TCDD from a composite landfill sample. Another sample collected from the surface runoff stream indicated elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD levels of 0.021 ppb, possibly indicating the migration of dioxin from the Heizer Creek landfill. 2,4,5-T, methylene chloride, phenols, benzene compounds and heavy metals have also been found (U.S. EPA, 2008a). 1.16 MAINE COASTAL RAILROAD TANK WASHING SITE The Maine Coastal Railroad Tank Washing (Main Coastal Railroad) site is located approximately 1 half mile east of the River, immediately adjacent to the Fike property. The site is owned by Fike, and has been leased to the Maine Coastal Railroad Tank 031884 (51) C.3-45 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Washing Company since November 1980. Prior to 1980, the site was used to store tanks belonging to Fike and 300 feet of railroad tracks. Maine Coastal Railroad washed railroad tank cars for various companies such as U.S. Steel, Koppers, Uniroyal, FMC, and Monsanto. Tanks were cleaned when a product was being changed, or when tanks cars were overweight. Wastewater was sent to the Fike WWTP, and excess waste materials were shipped to Cecos International in Williamsburg, Virginia. The site is a RCRA generator, and generates approximately 76 drums of waste every 6 to 8 weeks. No major spills are known to have occurred at the site; however, WV Department of Natural Resources (WV DNR) inspectors report that a great deal of accidental spillage occurs daily. During an inspection by NUS in September 1985, several tanks belonging to Fike were found on-site. One tank, located near the office, was leaking and pooled liquid was observed (NUS Corporation, 1986). 1.17 MANILA CREEK LANDFILL Manila Creek Landfill is located approximately 2 miles north of the Pocatalico River, along County Route 5 in Putnam County. Old Monsanto used this landfill as a disposal dump for general organic chemical wastes during 1956 and 1957 (Weston, 1999). Prior to the 1950's, the area was mined for coal using surface and auger mining methods. Many of the mines were abandoned and consequently there is an abundance of mine seeps in this area (ERM-Midwest, 1987). The site was originally owned by the Amherst Coal Company of Charleston, and was purchased by Amherst Industries of Charleston around 1983 (NUS Corporation, 1983 1 ). A Hazardous Waste Site Notification Form submitted by Old Monsanto in June 1981 stated that Old Monsanto used the landfill to dispose of one hundred and seventy thousand cubic feet of general organic chemical waste. No records or documents containing the exact amount or types of waste were available (NUS Corporation, 1983 1 ). There are several streams near the site, with Manila Creek and Washington Hollow being the closest. Washington Hollow is a tributary to Manila Creek, which flows southwesterly to a confluence approximately 200 feet west of the disposal area. Manila Creek borders the landfill site to the west, and flows southerly to the Pocatalico River approximately three miles south of the site (NUS Corporation, 1983 1 ). The landfill site is approximately 0.5 acres and is located on a small hillside within 100 feet of the eastern bank of Manila Creek (NUS Corporation, 1983 1 ). An earthen dike 031884 (51) C.3-46 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and highwall surround the landfill. Waste material was placed inside the dike on a layer of flyash. The site was left undisturbed for many years until seeps from the dike area were observed (ERM-Midwest, 1987). In April 1983, NUS conducted a field investigation under the Field Investigation Team III contract. The investigation determined that surface soils contained 2,3,7,8-TCDD at 3.72 ppb. As a result of this finding, U.S. EPA entered into a consent agreement with Old Monsanto in April 1987, under which Old Monsanto was directed to dewater the landfill, block off an underground seep, cap and fence the area, and monitor the landfill on an ongoing basis (Weston, 1999). August 18, 1982 Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Immediate Removal Action, Poca, WV, U.S. EPA, 1982 This report prepared by U.S. EPA, outlines federal, state, and local site clean-up operations that occurred at the Manila Creek dump site between August 18, 1982 and October 15, 1982. On August 18, 1982, WV DNR inspectors investigated a citizen's complaint that 50 to 60 drums had been dumped into a mine tailings pile along Manila Creek Road near Poca, WV. The investigation revealed that there were 77 drums, several of which were leaking, with labels indicating contents may have included poisons, corrosives, germicides, and organic compounds. WV DNR reported this discovery to U.S. EPA's Region III Wheeling, WV Field Office Federal On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), Benton Wilmoth. This site presented an imminent threat to public health, which provided the legal basis for federal response activities. The declared a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Federal Immediate Removal on August 19, 1982. Contaminated materials were to be removed and safely disposed off site. On August 21, 1982, a site visit was performed to provide photographic documentation of the site before site work began. Approximately 15 of the 77 drums were observed to be leaking liquid chemicals. The Ecology and the Environment, Inc. ERT sampled 8 of the drums to obtain a representative sample of drum contents. Between August 23, 1982 and August 30, 1982, a heavy overnight rain occurred, which caused surface runoff to collect in the dump. This resulted in approximately 7,000 gallons of contaminated water. This water was removed using vacuum trucks and transported to the cleanup contractor's facility for treatment before disposal. Fifteen 031884 (51) C.3-47 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES truckloads (approximately 208 tons) of material were excavated from the site and transported to a secure landfill. It was observed that three of the drums had entirely leaked their contents, which increased the chemical migration problem. On August 31, 1982, the Manila Creek drum dump site was secured and permanently closed to the public. On September 10, 1982, the Ecology and Environment, Inc. Technical Assistance Team, sampled 72 of the drums. From September 11, 1982 to September 29, 1982, the site contractor obtained samples from all 77 drums in order to perform RCRA characterization of the contents. It was determined that 32 of the drums contained low pH liquids, which were bulked for disposal. Several drums contained high levels of cyanide and therefore required solidification before disposal (Ecology and Environment, 1982). The RCRA characterization determined that the drums fall into four compatibility groups for solidification, transportation, and disposal. Characterization was reported as follows: • Alkaline – cleaning waste with cyanide (11 drums) • Alkaline – phenolic waste (3 drums) • Dirt and clay with organics and solvents (11 drums) • Cutting oils and organic solvents (10 drums) All drums were emptied, triple rinsed, crushed, and transported to the cleanup contractor's landfill for disposal. The clean-up contractor was Browning – Ferris Industries. The OSC stated that midnight dumping such as at Manila Creek would continue to occur as long as proper disposal is more expensive than illegal dumps and alternative end uses. Increased inspections and enforcement of preventative regulations would reduce the number of similar incidents occurring. The OSC concluded that increased public awareness and vigilance should result in quicker notification of similar potentially hazardous illegal dumps (U.S. EPA, 1982). 031884 (51) C.3-48 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES September 1984 Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site, Monsanto Company, Corporate Engineering Department, 1985 This report was prepared by the Old Monsanto Corporate Engineering Department to review remedial action alternatives, and recommend an option that best meets concerns at the Manila Creek site. In September 1984, NUS collected 19 surface soil samples, which were analyzed for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Concentrations ranged from ND, or less than 1.0 ppb, to 57.2 ppb. Sampling was conducted primarily in the relatively unvegetated sections, and was chosen based on current site conditions, past sampling results, and lab space constraints. Old Monsanto Engineering noted that the levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD are probably due to industrial rubbish. It was noted that due to the nature and level of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the soil and remote access to the site, there appears to be minimal threat to human exposure and the environment. Old Monsanto Engineering concluded that the problems fall into four categories: • Air pollution • Surface water infiltration or contamination • Leachate generation • Contaminated soils Old Monsanto Engineering considered three remedial action alternatives: • No Action - This action is attractive due to the nature, remote access, and slight degree of concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The minimal public health and environment concerns also make this an attractive option. • Containment-Capping - This option is favored because it would effectively prevent migration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from the source. • Soil Removal - Excavation and removal of soil would eliminate exposure risks at that point. This action was the least desirable since there would be higher exposure to the workers, also due to the fact that there is currently no acceptable method for landfilling 2,3,7,8-TCDD contaminated soils. Old Monsanto Engineering recommended that the site and sample point number 9 be capped with 6 inches of compacted clay, to effectively cap the area where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was identified. Twelve inches of topsoil will be placed in this area in order to 031884 (51) C.3-49 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES re-vegetate. Old Monsanto also stated that water from the small pond should be removed. The pond bank should be modified to allow for drainage, and prevent ponding of surface water (Wilson, 1985). April 28, 1983 Draft - Site Inspection of Manila Creek Dump, NUS, 1983 On April 28, 1983, the NUS FIT III team conducted a site inspection that included sampling Manila Creek dump site. NUS conducted the inspection and prepared a draft report for U.S. EPA under Contract No. 68-01-6699. WV DEP representative Pam Hayes, and Amherst Coal Company representative Douglas Peck were also present. WV DNR has previously collected soil and surface water samples from the site. Analysis of samples indicated the presence of 2,4,5-T in on-site soils and nearby surface wells. The NUS FIT III team obtained samples from nearby surface waters and sediments, leachate, on-site surface and sub-surface soils, and off-site background soils. An on-site auger was used to obtain samples from a depth of 0 to 6 inches. Analysis of these samples showed the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD at a concentration of 3.72 ppb. NUS noted that data from this draft report has not yet undergone a Quality Assurance review, and that the Toxicological Assessment is therefore under review. Some of NUS's observations included: 031884 (51) • Except for an area approximately 30 feet by 60 feet, the site was entirely vegetated • A hardened asphalt type material and scattered debris were observed on the surface of the unvegetated area • Two black, highly viscous leachate seeps were observed near the northern perimeter of the site • A slightly foul odor was present near the leachate seep; however, HNU readings of this area were not above background • The two leachate seeps entered ponded water near the northeast portion of the site • Acid mine drainage was observed just beyond the northern boundary of the site, and several abandoned strip mines in the surrounding area • Moist fill material underlain by decomposed grey-black, cardboard material was observed at a depth of 3 feet bgs, at auger locations 1 through 4 • Subsurface HNU measurements at auger location 1 and 2 were 50 ppm and 140 ppm, respectively C.3-50 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Ambient air HNU levels throughout the site did not exceed background levels of 0.2 ppm (NUS Corporation, 1983 2 ) September 1984, December 1985, July 1986 Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site, Putnam County, WV, Monsanto Chemical Company, 1986 This report was prepared by Old Monsanto to review remedial action alternatives, and to recommend the best option to address concerns at the Manila Creek Site. In September 1984, 19 samples were collected from the relatively unvegetated area of the site, and analyzed for the presence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The samples were collected from the surface, at 0 to 12 inches, and at 12 to 24 inches. Results indicated that 2,3,7,8-TCDD ranged from non detect to 57.2 ppb. A follow up remedial investigation was conducted in December 1985, to determine the depth and lateral extent of the fill. The investigation determined the dimensions are a depth of 20 to 25 feet, and area of 40 to 80 feet. The total volume of fill material was estimated to be 2,900 cubic yards. In July 1986, an additional study was conducted to determine the source of water that was found perched in the fill. This study confirmed the results of the December 1985 investigation that concluded the source to be a coal seam. Results from both studies concluded that there is an approximately 20 to 25 foot thick, continuous layer of impermeable clay/flyash directly beneath the fill material. Three remedial action alternatives were evaluated based on the results of the previous investigations. Alternatives included: no action, capping, and excavation. Concerns for the Manila Creek site were listed as air pollution, groundwater degradation, and soil degradation. Alternatives were evaluated based on potential for public exposure, current environmental conditions of the surrounding area, designing a permanent solution requiring little maintenance, minimizing worker exposure during construction, and cost. Old Monsanto determined that the most favorable action for this site would be containment capping. This option was chosen due to the nature, remote location and size of the area, and the levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which were detected during the investigation. Installation of a groundwater diversion, and a dewatering system was also recommended. As a result, the area where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected would be 031884 (51) C.3-51 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES capped, and any movement of waste materials from the fill area due to groundwater would be eliminated (Wilson, 1986). 1987 Summary Report of Remedial Actions at Manila Creek Site, Project No. 127-06, ERM-Midwest, 1987 ERM-Midwest, Inc. prepared this report for Old Monsanto to address a consent order issued to Old Monsanto from U.S. EPA. This consent order was in regard to seeps that had been observed from a dike area at the Manila Creek Landfill site. An earthen dike and highwall surround the Manila Creek site. Waste was placed inside the dike on a layer of flyash. This site was undisturbed for many years, however, recently seeps have been observed from the dike area. The Consent Order required Old Monsanto to take action to eliminate the migration of waste from the site to protect human health and the environment. An additional investigation was conducted simultaneously by REMCOR, to address different site issues. Numerous soil borings and two piezometers were installed to provide data to devise a plan for the remedial action. Data included waste characterization, waste and flyash depths, water levels and flow directions, and highwall location. Results of the ERM-Midwest and REMCOR investigations are as follows: • Dry flyash underlies the waste layer • Perched water in the waste comes from mine seepage and surface infiltration • The waste contains low levels of dioxin • The highwall face is a steep grade with a coal seam near the base • Numerous auger openings in the coal seem are located adjacent to the site • The waste material varied in color ranging from tan to green, to gray and black. Some of the waste material from the boring cuttings has a resinous type consistency Work performed at the site included: 031884 (51) • Safety training from July 29, 1987 to August 7, 1987 • Grubbing and clearing of the site from August 3, 1987 to August 10, 1987 and August 19, 1987 to August 20, 1987 • Drilling boreholes and dewatering from August 10, 1987 to August 20, 1987 C.3-52 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Spreading initial clay layer and site work from August 13th, 1987 to September 4, 1987 • Driving sheet piling from August 25, 1987 to September 14, 1987 • Site preparation for the high-density polyethylene cap from September 24, 1987 to September 23, 1987 • Installation of the high-density polyethylene cap from September 24, 1987 to September 27, 1987 • Covering cap with clay and topsoil from September 28, 1987 to September 30 1987 • Erecting fence and plant cover from September 30, 1987 to October 2, 1987 • Final cleanup and contract closeout from October 2, 1987 to November 2, 1987 Three remedial action alternatives were evaluated for this site, which included: • No action • Capping • Excavation Other issues considered to determine the best alternative were air pollution, groundwater degradation, soil degradation, potential for public exposure, current environmental conditions of surrounding area, designing a permanent solution, which requires little maintenance, minimizing worker exposure during construction, and cost, Old Monsanto in a report entitled, Feasibility Study of Manila Creek, dated August 5, 1986 presented recommendations for the site to U.S. EPA. The Old Monsanto report recommended: 031884 (51) • Installing a groundwater diversion and dewatering system. • Capping the fill area and ponded area with 12 inches of clay, and re-vegetating this area by adding 6 inches of topsoil. This effectively caps the area where 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected, and eliminates any movement of waste materials from the fill area due to groundwater. • Removing water from the ponded area, grading the pond banks, and capping the area. • Installing a chain link fence around the site area (ERM-Midwest, 1987). C.3-53 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.18 MIDWEST STEEL SITE The site is located north of Armour Creek Landfill along State Route 25. The River flows along the northwest edge of the property. Sampling for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was conducted in May of 1999. The results of 11 to 14 soil samples ranges in concentration from 5.92 to 123 pg/g 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The remaining three samples were ND for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. Surface runoff from this site is likely a contributor of 2,3,7,8-TCDD to the River and Armour Creek. 1.19 NITRO PENCIL COMPANY (APPROX. 1920 – 1963) The Nitro Pencil Company (Nitro Pencil) was located in the Explosive Plant "C", and made leads for lead pencils using natural graphite and clays that were mostly imported from abroad. Nitro Pencil was owned by the Joseph Dixon Crucible Company of Jersey City, NJ. The leads were used in Dixon and Ticonderoga pencils. The plant was entirely rebuilt after a disastrous fire in 1922 and operations continued until 1963. 1.20 NITRO SOAP FACTORY (1924 – 1930) The Nitro Soap Factory was a fat-rendering outfit, which processed animal carcasses. The factory was located on the road leading to Rubber Services (U.S. EPA Region III, START, Reference 6, 2003). 1.21 NITRO MUNICIPAL LANDFILL Also Known As: Nitro City Dump Nitro Municipal Dump Poca Landfill Poca Strip Mine Landfill Poca Strip Mine Pits Putnam County Drum Dump The Poca Strip Mine Landfill is a surface mine bench located one quarter mile off Poca River Road, on an un-named tributary to the Pocatalico River. The site is approximately 3 miles east of Poca, WV, and received municipal and hazardous wastes in the late 1950's and early 1960's (WV DWR, 1984). During the period of 1962 to 1963, the landfill 031884 (51) C.3-54 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES was known as the Nitro City Dump, and was used by the City of Nitro, FMC Corporation, Ohio Apex, and the Monsanto (Weston, 1999). A Hazardous Waste Survey that was completed by Monsanto indicates that Monsanto used the landfill site in 1959 and 1960 to dispose of both open drummed and contained hazardous wastes. This report also states that open burning occurred at the site. Other documentation obtained by the WV Department of Water Resources (WV DWR), reports incidents of foam and scum on the River, and fish kills in the early 1960's (WV DWR, 1984). As part of an investigation that occurred in approximately 1988, the ERM Group interviewed the landfill owner, Mr. Garnet Smith. During the interview, Mr. Smith indicated that chemical wastes were disposed in three distinct, separate areas known as: the open dump area, the chemical waste pit, and the drum storage area (ERM-Midwest, 1988). Remedial investigations of the open dump area of the landfill focused on 2,3,7,8-TCDD. NUS conducted the first investigation under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6699; Monsanto performed an additional investigation to supplement and verify the NUS data and FMC conducted an investigation in April 1987 in response to U.S. EPA Docket No. III-87-12-DC (The ERM Group, 1988). Monsanto conducted an RI of this landfill in order to determine the extent of dioxin contamination under a consent agreement in March 1986. Dioxin clean-up efforts and landfill capping were completed in the late 1980's (Weston, 1999). March 30, 1983 Preliminary Assessment, Putnam County Drum Dump, WV DWR, 1984 The WV DWR, Hazardous Waste/Ground Water Branch completed this assessment. The Putnam County Drum Dump is also known as the "Poca Strip Mine Pits". The site is located on an unnamed tributary to the Pocatalico River, approximately one quarter mile off Poca River road. On March 30, 1983, an assessment of the site conducted by U.S. EPA and U.S. EPA Technical Assistance team. Follow-up sampling occurred on May 24, 1984. Assessment of the site determined that chemical and municipal wastes were placed in the ravine and on the old surface mine bench. Drums were also placed in these areas, 031884 (51) C.3-55 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES and no evidence of soil covering was observed. It was noted that most of the drums were badly deteriorated, and that portions of the dump have been burned at some point in the past. WV DWR reported that some of the drums must still be full, since they received reports from a nearby neighbor that he recently emptied some of the drums that contained liquids. WV DWR determined that groundwater contamination is highly likely, due to the uncontained wastes and the presence of jointed and fractured bedrock. Although surface water contamination was not documented in the sampling, it was determined that it likely occurred due to the uncontained nature of the waste, and its availability for transport. On March 30, 1983, the U.S. EPA Technical Assistance Team installed air sampling pumps to evaluate a noticeable chemical odor present at the site. Results of sampling were not included, and therefore could not be summarized. The first sampling event did not include the stream, and the second sampling event did not include soil and sediment, it was recommended that re-sampling be performed at the site. Soil, air, water, and sediment samples should be collected during re-sampling. It was also noted that although earlier sampling of the pond water tested positive for dioxin, no off-site contaminant migration has been documented. March 13, 1985 Letter Report, Nitro Municipal Dump, NUS, 1985 The NUS FIT III performed a preliminary assessment and site reconnaissance of the Nitro Municipal Dump on March 13, 1985. FIT members met with Mr. George Garnet Smith, owner of the landfill, to obtain background information on the site. The site is inactive, and was part of Poca Strip Mine Pits property, also owned by Mr. Garnet Smith. The site area is approximately one quarter acre in size, and was used for municipal and domestic wastes. 1.22 NITRO SANITATION LANDFILL (NITRO LANDFILL) The Nitro landfill is located adjacent to the River. The Nitro Sanitation Landfill began operation in 1965 and was used mainly for the disposal of municipal waste through 1971, when operations ceased. During operation, FMC was permitted by WV DNR to dispose of industrial waste and plant refuse at the site. Wastes disposed in these drums included phenolic compounds, aryl compounds, heptane carbon filter cake, plasticizers, alcohols, ethers, and heavy metals. Dioxin was a contaminant of concern. The landfill is 031884 (51) C.3-56 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES in the WV DEP's Voluntary Remediation Program and is undergoing cleanup. Homes have been purchased and currently 80% of the waste has been removed. December 16, 1980 Field Investigation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, FIT Project, Nitro Landfill, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1980 On December 16, 1980, a well located at the Mid West Corporation Facility was sampled by FIT, Region III. On December 17, 1980, the FIT III team took four soil/hazardous samples from the bank of the River. Three soil samples were collected from the riverbank to determine if material is being leached from the landfill. Two pipes were observed to be discharging effluent near the north end of the landfill; this effluent was also sampled. Various used drums and scrap metal belonging to Mid West Corporation were observed in the landfill. Also observed were several burned and rusted drums containing charred material, and it was noted that refuse had been pushed to the edge of the River bank (Stone, 1980). 1980 Results of Site Investigation and Leachate Sample Analysis, Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc. Fred Hart Associates, Inc. completed a site investigation of the Nitro Municipal Landfill to examine the nature and extent of potential ground and surface water contamination. Both soil and groundwater samples were taken for analysis. From the laboratory results, it was concluded that there was no conclusive evidence that industrial waste products are present in the leachate of the Nitro Municipal Landfill. Also, assuming a dilution factor greatly in excess of ten, there was no indication of serious contamination of the River from this landfill (Hart Associates, 1980). June 16 – 23, 1982 Field Trip Report of Nitro Sanitation No. F3-8108-14A, Ecology and Environment, Inc., 1982 Ecology and Environment, Inc. conducted an investigation of the Nitro Sanitation site on June 16, 1982 through June 23, 1982. Four monitoring wells were installed and soil and water samples were collected and analyzed. The results indicated contamination was present in groundwater under the site; however, dioxins were not detected. 031884 (51) C.3-57 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Ecology and Environment, Inc. recommended the following actions be performed at the site: • Continuous monitoring of groundwater quality • Covering any exposed seeps or drums • Performing regular checks for further outbreaks of drums and seeps (Ecology and Environment, 1982) 1983 Enforcement Review of Available Data for Nitro Sanitation, WV, NUS, 1983 NUS conducted a review of existing data for the Nitro Sanitation site to determine if enforcement action is required. It was concluded that the uncontrolled site is estimated to have accepted approximately 1,200 pounds of phenol (NUS Corporation, 1983). Some of the key actions recommended by NUS include: • Installing a security fence around the perimeter of the contaminated area • Removing buried drums and shipping to appropriate disposal site • Implementing a water and soil sampling program October 18, 1985 Sampling and Investigation Report for the Nitro WV, Sanitation Site, 1985 On October 18, 1985, a site visit at the Nitro Sanitation site was made by the inspector, U.S. EPA Region III and WV DNR representatives, and the dump site coordinator. The purpose of this visit was to conduct air monitoring to evaluate the site and the possibility that releases from the site may be causing residents to be ill. HNU and OVA readings were obtained at the site, and ambient readings were not greater than 3 to 5 ppm. However, readings from sludge material and a resin-containing drum were taken and both were greater than 500 ppm on the OVA. Three deteriorated drums were found and three air samples were collected at these drums, which indicated 5 to 10 ppm for phenol. Most of the concern in the landfill appears to be the phenol, although smaller quantities of other contaminants seem to be present. 031884 (51) C.3-58 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES The inspector re-visited the site on October 23, 1985, as he was advised that it would be necessary to collect samples at the point of discharge from the storm drain. This was performed to determine whether leachate is leaving the site. Samples collected were analyzed for aromatics, volatiles, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and phenols. These samples were preserved and taken to the Guthrie Lab on October 24th, and their results will be included in a subsequent report (U.S. EPA Region III, 1985). 1988 Field Trip Report for Nitro Sanitation Landfill NUS performed this work under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7346. The report was prepared in accordance with Technical Directive Document No. F3-8801-30 for the Nitro Sanitation site located in Nitro, WV. On February 16th and 17th, three NUS staff members visited the Nitro Sanitation site. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a re-sampling of the site and perform a magnetometer survey to indicate where buried drums of waste may have been located (NUS Corporation, 1988). 1.23 POCA BLENDING, L.L.C. (1999 - ) Poca Blending, L.L.C. (Poca Blending) a full-service industrial chemical blending facility, is located in the Par Industrial Park off Plant Road, in Nitro. Poca Blending began operations in 1999 to produce chemicals to serve the coal mining industry. Services include: chemical formulation development; raw material storage; computer controlled blending; 5 gallon pail to 25,000 gallon railcar packaging, and bulk transportation via tank truck or railcar. The facility produces 23 million gallons of finished product annually. The following products comprise the majority of volume produced; inorganic salt-based freeze conditioning agents, glycol-based freeze conditioning agents; belt de-icers, and side release agents; alcohol based flotation reagents; water treatment polymers for thickeners, acid mine drainage, belt press dewatering, and effluent treatment; defoamers; process dust control surfactants; road dust control chemicals; railcar veneer treatment; and binders for coal briquetting/pelletizing. Poca Blending also produces specialty chemicals for use in the following industries: coke and steel production; refining/petrochemical; cement; iron ore mixing; and zinc oxide refining (Poca Blending, 2002). 031884 (51) C.3-59 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.24 RALEIGH JUNK COMPANY The Raleigh Junk Company is located on the north bank of the River along Route 25 in Sattes, WV, east of the Nitro/St. Albans Bridge. The site is a 12-acre active scrap yard bounded to the south by the River, to the north by a railroad bed, and is fenced to the east and the west (Hass, 1995). The site was owned by Jerome Goldberg and used as a junk and salvage yard from approximately 1949 to 1960. The Raleigh Junk Company purchased the property in 1960, use of this site prior to 1949 is unknown (NUS Corporation, 1988 2 ). Raleigh Junk Company purchases scrap metals from the Kanawha Valley, and other facilities in WV and outside states. The facility has previously purchased scrap metal from Allied Chemical in Ironton, Ohio, and from Monsanto and UCC (Robertson, 1985). In April 1985, a Raleigh Junk Company employee received dermal burns from an unknown substance, coated on metallic scrap shipped to the yard from the Allied Chemical Plant in Ironton. An Investigation conducted by WV DEP revealed that the Ironton Plant was a Superfund site, and that the unknown material was residue from coal tar products residue (Robertson, 1985). Various types of metals are shipped to the junkyard, and sorted on site. Materials observed on site by NUS during an August 1987 inspection included drums, railroad tank cars, batteries, electrical transformers, copper, brass, and aluminum metals (NUS Corporation, 1988 2 ). A preliminary assessment of the junkyard prepared by WV DNR stated that there are several hundreds of batteries stored in a building near the entrance to the facility. Spillage from the batteries is visible, and an acid odor is present inside the building. WV DNR also noted the presence of an unknown sludge material in several areas of the yard. A burning ground is located near the office buildings, where approximately 200 drums were found. The source and contents of the drums were unknown. Other waste materials observed on site include a sludge type material contained in process lines, an old Monsanto tanker, filter media, and several large tanks, one of which contained a black sludge-like material caked on its inside (Blake, 1987). Documentation shows that sulfuric acid and coal tar are present at the site. Other possible contaminants include PCBs, dioxin, solvents, acids, metals, pesticides, and other organic compounds. There is the possibility of a fire or explosion due to other wastes that may be explosive. The potential for injury is great, since there has already been one documented injury of an employee, and also there is a concern of injury to the public, since the site is not secured, and there are homes and businesses nearby (Blake, 1987). 031884 (51) C.3-60 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES April 6, 1985 Incident Report, Burns received by Leroy Whit after handling scrap metal from Allied Chemical Plant, Ironton, OH, WV DNR, 1985 WV DEP received a telephone call on April 27, 1985 from the Putnam County Sheriff's Department to inform them that an employee of Raleigh Junk Company had been hospitalized after receiving burns on his arms and face from handling metal grating. The metal was heavily coated in a tar like substance, and had been shipped to the yard from Allied Chemical in Ironton, Ohio. Investigation revealed that the Allied Chemical Facility at Ironton was a Superfund site that had been sold on two different occasions, and then re-purchased by Allied. The WV DEP contacted the corporate office and spoke to representatives at the Ironton facility who reported that the substance was a "coal tar products residue". It was reported that the material was possibly present on the grating as a result of employees scraping their feet on the gratings after walking through process areas. The Allied Chemical representative stated that the material had no acute toxic effects, and is a by-product of coke manufacturing. Allied Chemical treats the coal tar as a hazardous waste and transports the coal tar to a secure landfill in Michigan for disposal. WV DEP inspected the Raleigh Junk Company Yard on April 6, 1985. An HNU was used to take readings of the material on the metal grading, and were reported as 0.1 to 0.3. As a result, WV DEP advised Raleigh Junk Company to place the contaminated material in an area where it could not be handled. WV DEP inspectors returned to the site on April 8, 1985 to collect samples of the material on the gratings and inside a process line. They reported that following analysis of samples, they will advise Raleigh Junk Company of how to dispose of the materials properly. The Raleigh Junk Company employee was hospitalized for several days for burns to his face, arms, and eye area (Robertson, 1985). August 1987 Site Inspection of Raleigh Junk – Sattes, NUS, 1988 In April 1985, WV DNR investigated an accident at the Raleigh Junk Company facility in Sattes, WV. A Raleigh Junk Company employee received dermal burns from an unknown substance that was found coating some metallic scrap. The scrap had been shipped to the yard from Allied Chemical, located in Ironton, Ohio. WV DNR obtained samples of the material, which was identified by a laboratory as coal tar residue. This material was shipped as a hazardous material back to Allied Chemical for disposal. 031884 (51) C.3-61 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES NUS conducted a site inspection of the Raleigh Junk Company – Sattes facility in Kanawha County in August 1987. This work was performed under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-01-7346, and was prepared in accordance with the Technical Directive Document No. F3-8707-23. NUS collected nine soil samples, including a background and a duplicate. Split samples were also collected, and the site was photographed. Observations made at the site include the following: • No HNU readings were above the background reading of 0.2 ppm (200 ppb). • The radiation mini-alert was on the X1 position; no readings above background were recorded. • The entire facility was actively used as a scrap yard and huge piles of metallic scrap were observed throughout the yard. • A dirt road circled the scrap yard. • Two to three transformers and transformer parts were observed on the extreme southwestern corner of the facility. • Stained soil was observed near the transformers and two surface soil samples, one composite and one of the stained soil, were collected from the area. • An area of stained soil was observed on the site perimeter road west of the barge dock and a soil sample was collected from the stain. • A 6 inch pipe that seemed to be a discharge pipe was observed on the river embankment east of the barge dock. The pipe appeared to lead toward the middle of the site. A soil sample was obtained from the pipe's point of discharge. • Three drainage patterns were observed in the soil near the river bank. Soil samples were obtained from each area. • The riverbank was approximately 30 feet high, very steep, and heavily overgrown (NUS Corporation, 1988 2 ). August 26, 1987 1987 – Site Visit Summary Report for Raleigh Junk Company – Sattes, NUS NUS conducted a site inspection of the Raleigh Junk Company – Sattes site on August 26, 1987. NUS was accompanied by Robert Levine and Bud Simmons of Raleigh Junk during the inspection. 031884 (51) C.3-62 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES A total of seven solid samples were obtained, including duplicates and blanks. Several deviations from the sampling plan were noted, which included: • No aqueous and sediment samples were obtained from the River because of the steepness of the embankment and the hazards present on the embankment. Embankment hazards include scrap metals and vegetation. • Only three drainage pathways were identified and sampled during the site inspection. • Only two surface soil samples were obtained. The majority of the site's surface soil was covered with scrap metal and the surface soil that was not covered was highly compacted from heavy equipment use. The site visit summary report concluded with the following observations: • The HNU was used during the pre-sampling site reconnaissance and sampling. No readings above the background reading of 0.2 ppm were recorded. • The radiation mini-alert was used during the site inspection. The meter was on the X1 setting and no readings above background were recorded. • The entire yard was actively being used as a junkyard. Metallic scrap was observed throughout the site and numerous cranes and crushing machines were being operated. • The site is bordered on the east and west by fences, on the north by a railroad track, and on the south by the River. • Two or three electrical transformers were observed on the northwestern corner of the property, and numerous oily stains were observed nearby. Two surface soil samples were obtained in this area. • The site slope is nearly flat but three drainage patterns were observed leading into the River. • Residential/commercial zones surround the site on three sides (NUS Corporation, 1987). October 26, 1988 Investigation of Complaint at Raleigh Junk, Sattes Yard, WV DEP, 1988 On October 26, 1988 WV DEP investigated a complaint at the Raleigh Junk Company Facility that some materials were being stored in the basement of the office building, and also in a tank on site. The inspectors were unable to locate the tank, however were able 031884 (51) C.3-63 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES to locate the materials in the basement of the office building, which included 20 to 39 five gallon cans, and 30 to 40 fifty-five gallon drums, contents of which are unknown. The Inspectors spoke to James Noffsinger, Foreman, who advised them that there were possibly 4 or 5 drums of paint received from Kaiser Aluminum of Ravenswood, approximately 10 years ago. It was noted that these materials could possibly be hazardous. Some of the containers were marked with a variety of labels; however, Mr. Noffsinger could not identify them. The WV DEP Inspectors requested that the materials not be moved until they could be sampled, and identified (Robertson, 1988). December 10, 1996 Summary of Site Investigation and Remediation Activities, Raleigh Junk Company, Sattes, 1996 TERRADON Corporation (TERRADON) prepared this report on behalf of the Raleigh Junk Company in response to a Multimedia Compliance Evaluation Inspection conducted by WV DEP at the Raleigh Junk Company site on April 19, 1995. The inspection noted areas of concern at the site, and cited Raleigh Junk Company for failing to make determination on a number of wastes generated and stored at their facility. TERRADON has summarized the major investigative and corrective activities that have occurred to date at the site into the following categories: 031884 (51) • The "ELMER" Tank: A tank with the word "ELMER" written on one end was found in the northeastern area of the site. Mr. Elmer Fike was contacted and identified this material as lauryl alcohol/soap mixture that could be used as a hand soap. A sample was collected from the tank for analysis. The sample was not analyzed for dioxin. • The "UCAR" Tank: A railroad tank car containing residues, and identified as "UCAR" is located in the northeastern area of the site. A sample of the residue was scrapped from the bottom of the railcar for analysis. The sample was not analyzed for dioxin. C.3-64 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES • Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil: Non-Operating Baler A 2000-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) is located in the southwest center of the facility at the non-operating baler. The AST is used for diesel fuel storage. Stained soil was observed around this tank, and was excavated and placed in an on-site bio-cell for remediation. Petroleum Release Site – River Bank On June 6, 1996, a release of petroleum to the River occurred. Emergency response activities included placing containment booms in the River, excavating impacted soil from the Riverbank and placement in an on-site bio-cell for remediation, evacuation of drain lines, plugging of drains in the basement of the office/warehouse building, and collection of samples for analysis. The following samples were tested for dibenzofuran and 2,4,5-T. They were all reported as ND. • River Inside Boom (Sample ID 9612976) • River Outside Boom (Sample ID 9612977) • Pit #1 and Pit #2 (Sample ID 9612978) • Bailer (Sample ID 9612979) • Fill Discharge (Sample ID 9612980) TERRADON concluded that no corrective action is recommended for the site (TERRADON, 1996). 1.25 REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION CONTAINER DIVISION Republic Steel Container Corporation (Republic Steel) is located on Viscose Road in an industrial section of Nitro, WV. The facility consists of approximately 5 acres, and manufactures 55-gallon steel drums. Fike Chemicals is located along the north boundary, the railroad and State Route 25 are located to the east, NAPA Auto Parts Distribution Center is located to the west, and vacant land is located to the south. The U.S. government owned the property prior to 1957 (WV DNR, 1984). The areas of concern at this facility are three unlined pits that were used for the disposal and burning of on-site wastes from 1958 to 1963. Two of the pits are located on the 031884 (51) C.3-65 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES northern boundary of the site, and the other is located in the northeast corner. Site representatives stated that housekeeping wastes such as paint sludge, thinner, solvent, and plant trash were disposed in the pits. There may also be drums buried in the pits, however they would be open and would contain the same material that is located in the pits (NUS Corporation, 1985 2 ). The pits were filled, graded, and seeded in 1963 (WV DNR, 1984). May 11, 1984 A Preliminary Assessment on Republic Steel Corporation Container Division, Nitro, WV, WV DEP, 1984 On May 11, 1984, WV DEP inspector, Pamela Hayes conducted a preliminary assessment of the Republic Steel facility in Nitro, WV. The area of concern for this investigation was the disposal pits that were utilized prior to the implementation of RCRA hazardous waste requirements. Republic Steel is located on Viscose Road in Nitro, and manufactures 55-gallon steel drums. On May 13, 1983 a compliance evaluation inspection was completed at this facility, which determined that the facility produces hazardous wastes. Wastes handled presently include D001, F017, and K078. Other wastes that have been reported to be placed in the pits include F003, F005, and D001 (WV DEP, 1984). 1985 Non-sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, Republic Steel Corporation, Nitro, WV, NUS In November 1984, NUS visited the Republic Steel site in Nitro, WV, to conduct a site reconnaissance. The following observations were made: • HNU background readings were 0.2 ppm. There were no readings above background. The radiation mini-alert was set at x1. • Pit 3 has an area of stressed vegetation. • There were 5 drums on a concrete slab. Three of the drums had paint filter pads in them. It was concluded that U.S. EPA should take no further action at this time. Waste was found to be present in the pits; however, there were no receptor targets that would be affected by waste disposal on the site. There is little chance of direct contact, since the waste is covered with 2 to 3 feet of cover material, and a fence surrounds the site. It was also noted that since the site is located in an industrial section of Nitro and it would be 031884 (51) C.3-66 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES difficult to determine if waste from the site entered the environment. It was determined that there are no sampling locations that would provide more information about the waste (NUS Corporation, 1985 2 ). 1.26 SEYDEL CHEMICAL COMPANY (EARLY 1921 - 1932) Seydel Chemical Company (Seydel) began operation in Nitro in 1921 (U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003), and manufactured benzoic acid by oxidation of toluene with nitric acid. This process was a batch reaction with a by-product of trinitrotoluene (TNT). In 1928, the plant ceased operations for several months after the main autoclave exploded, hurling pieces of metal and building materials into the residential section of Nitro (Johnston, 1977). The facility was later re-opened under new management and began producing pharmaceutical chemicals. The plant closed permanently in January 1932 after a severe fire (U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003). Fike Chemicals is now located on the site of the old Seydel Plant (Johnston, 1977). 1.27 VIKING LABORATORIES (LATE 1920'S – EARLY 1930'S) Viking Laboratories was a short-term operation located in the Explosives Plant "C" area in Nitro, WV in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Viking Laboratories was a petroleum cracking plant, which used a large quantity of mercury as a heat transfer agent (Johnston, 1977). 1.28 VIMASCO CORPORATION (1955 - ) Vimasco Corporation has been in operation in Nitro since 1955. The facility manufactures specialized insulation-related coatings and adhesives, fire-retardant cable coating, shipyard-related products, products for nuclear applications, asbestos abatement products, and log home chinkings (Vimasco, 1998). 031884 (51) C.3-67 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.29 WINFIELD LOCKS AND DAM November 13, 1987 Letter from U.S. EPA Region III to Robert E. Lee, U.S. ACE: Final Environmental Impact Statement Kanawha River Navigation Study Winfield Lock Replacement, Interim Feasibility Report – September 1986 The purpose of this letter was to inform the United States Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) that U.S. EPA concurred with the selection of Plan A, which is to build a new 110 x 800 foot lock. This lock will be adjacent to the existing lock structure at Winfield. U.S. EPA stated that they are satisfied that only approximately 12% or 360,000 cubic yards of the estimated 3 million cubic yards of material to be excavated, will be excavated by dredging the River channel. They also expressed concern that approximately 10%, or 36, 000 cubic yards of the dredged material contains dioxins and other toxic materials. U.S. EPA stated that dioxin has been found in the sediments of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek in concentrations of ppb, which is considered significantly high for this very toxic substance. A report entitled "Data Validation of Kanawha Sediment Sample Results for 2,3,7,8-TCDD by High Resolution Gas Chromatography/High Resolution Mass Spectrometry was included with this letter. Attention was drawn to samples 10, 10A, collected from the Pocatalico River, and 16A, collected from Armour Creek. All three of these samples reported concentrations of dioxin in the ppb range. It was concluded that it is imperative that U.S. ACE coordinated and consulted with U.S. EPA and WV DEP before any of the contaminated dredged material is disposed (Alper, 1987). 031884 (51) C.3-68 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 REFERENCES Alper, 1987. Letter from U.S. EPA Region III to Robert E. Lee, U.S. ACE: Final Environmental Impact Statement Kanawha River Navigation Study Winfield Lock Replacement, Interim Feasibility Report – September 1986. Blake, Thomas et al., 1987. Preliminary Assessment for Raleigh Junk Company, Sattes, Kanawha County, WV, WV-263, Division of Waste Management, Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV. Blasland, Bouck, & Lee (BBL), 2007. Table 5-4 Detected Site Soil OSS Parameter Constituent Summary. RFI Report Great Lakes Chemical Corporation and FMC Corporation. Cunningham, 1998. Compliance Evaluation Inspection, WV DEP. Ecology and Environment Inc., 1982. No. F3-8108-14A. Field Trip Report of Nitro Sanitation ERM-Midwest, Inc., 1987. Summary Report of Remedial Actions at Manila Creek Site, Project No. 127-06. ERM-Midwest, Inc., 1988. Site Investigation Baseline Risk Assessment and Remedial Alternative Review, Nitro Municipal Landfill Site. Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc., 1980. Results of Site Investigation and Leachate Sample Analysis. Gatens, 2002. Sampling Inspection Report – Solutia, Inc., DWM, WV DEP. GeoSyntec, 2000. Draft Soil Feasibility Study, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, WV. Hass, Henry E. 1995. Compliance Evaluation Inspection: Raleigh Junk Company, WV Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Waste Management, Charleston, WV. ICF, 1998. Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Jerry DeMuro, ICF, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site OU-4 RI/FS Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan, ICF Kaiser Engineers, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. IT Group, 1999. Information Summary: WWI Era Sewers, Fike Chemical Superfund Site, Nitro, WV. Johnston, F., 1977. A Brief History of Chemistry in the Kanawha Valley, Kanawha Valley Section, American Chemical Society. Light, 2002. Letter to Ms. Jennifer Shoemaker, U.S. EPA, from D.M. Light, Solutia, Re: Notification of Potential Release. Solutia. NUS Corporation, 1983 1 . Draft - Site Inspection of Manila Creek Dump. 031884 (51) C.3-69 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES NUS Corporation, 1983 2 . Enforcement Review of Available Data for Nitro Sanitation, WV. NUS Corporation, 1985 1 . Draft Letter Report, Nitro Municipal Dump, NUS, Wayne, Pennsylvania. Non-sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, NUS Corporation, 1985 2 . Republic Steel Corporation, Nitro, WV, NUS, Wayne, Pennsylvania. NUS Corporation, 1986. Preliminary Assessment of Maine Coastal Railroad Tank Washing, NUS, Superfund Division. NUS Corporation, 1987. Site Inspection of Raleigh Junk – Sattes, NUS, Superfund Division, Wayne, Pennsylvania. NUS Corporation, 1988 2 . Site Inspection of Raleigh Junk – Sattes, NUS, Superfund Division, Wayne, Pennsylvania. NUS Corporation, 1988 1 . Field Trip Report for Nitro Sanitation Landfill, Nitro, WV. Poca Blending, LLC, 2002. Poca Blending, LLC, About Poca Blending, Webpage. Available at: http://www.pocablending.com/about/default.htm Potesta & Associates, 2001. Letter to Ms. Allyn Turner, from Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, Re: 3rd Quarter, 2001 Report, Armour Creek Landfill - NPDES Permit Requirements, WV 0077020. Potesta & Associates, 2002 1 . Interim Measures Work Plan – Final - Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, WV. Potesta & Associates, Inc., 2002 2 . Summary of HUB Drainage Ditch Dye Study, Flexsys America L.P. Production Facility. Potesta & Associates, 2003. Draft - Summary of Analytical Data Results, Warehouse Area Groundwater/ Soil Investigation. Potesta & Associates, 2004 1 . Interim Measures – Final Report: Kanawha River Bank Stabilization and Residue Cleanup, Flexsys Nitro Plant Facility, MP 42.1, Nitro, WV. Potesta & Associates, 2004 2 . Kanawha River Surface Water/Sediment/Passive Vapor Diffusion Sampling Results: Appendix G from Revised Data Report, CA-750 Groundwater Environmental Indicators, Flexsys America L.P. Facility, Nitro, WV. Robertson, 1985. Incident Report, Burns received by Leroy Whit after handling scrap metal from Allied Chemical Plant, Ironton, OH, WV DNR. Robertson, 1988. Investigation of Complaint at Raleigh Junk, Sattes Yard, WV DEP. 031884 (51) C.3-70 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Roux Associates, Inc., 1995. RFI Report and Stabilization/Corrective Measures Plan, Volume I of II, Monsanto Nitro Plant. Roux Associates, Inc., 1998 1 . Results of Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater and Kerosene (Volume I of III), Solutia Inc., Nitro, WV. Roux Associates, Inc., 1998 2 . Work Plan for Dioxin Sampling in Groundwater Pump and Treat Wells. Roux Associates, 2001. Report on Phase 1A Activities – Corrective Measures Study, Roux Associates, Inc. Smull, 1994. Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2 RA, Dioxin Suspect Materials, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 1. Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site April 1995 Monthly Progress Report #20, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 2 . Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site July 1995 Monthly Progress Report #23, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 3 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, February 1995 Monthly Progress Report #18, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 4 . Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site May 1995 Monthly Progress Report #21, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 5 . Letter to Ms. Katherine A. Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site June 1995 Monthly Progress Report #22 Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 6 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, September 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #44, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 7 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-2, October 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #45, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1995 8 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, November 1995 Monthly Progress Report, #27, Fike/Artel Site Trust. 031884 (51) C.3-71 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Smull, 1996 1 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, June 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #34, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1996 2 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, April 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #32, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1996 3 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, August 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #36, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1996 4 . Letter to Mr. Eugene P. Wingert, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Chemical Superfund Site, OU-3, September 1996 Monthly Progress Report, #37, Fike/Artel Site Trust. Smull, 1998. Letter to Ms. Katherine Lose, U.S. EPA, from Warren L. Smull, Fike/Artel Site Trust, Re: Fike/Artel Superfund Site, Waste Water Management System Analytical Report. Solutia, 2002. Letter to Ms. Jennifer Shoemaker, U.S. EPA, from D.M. Light, Solutia, Re: Notification of Potential Release. Solutia, 2004. Letter to Jeffrey Waldbeser, Monsanto, from Mike House, Solutia dated June 17, 2004, Re: Flexsys Nitro, West Virginia Facility – River and Riverbank Data. Stone, 1980. Field Investigation of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, FIT Project, Nitro Landfill, Ecology and Environment, Inc. TERRADON Corporation, 1996. Summary of Site Investigation and Remediation Activities, Raleigh Junk Company, Sattes Yard. U.S. ACE, 2001. Archives Search Report, Findings for the Artel Chemical Facility/Fike Chemicals, Inc. (United States Explosives Plant "C"), Nitro, WV, Defense Environmental Restoration Program for Formerly Used Defense Sites, Ordnance and Explosives, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District, Rock Island, Illinois. U.S. EPA, Region III, 1978. Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Characterization of Fike Chemicals, Inc., Coastal Tank Lines, Inc., and Cooperative Sewage Treatment, Inc., Nitro, WV. U.S. EPA, 1982. Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Report, Immediate Removal Action, Poca, WV. U.S. EPA Region III, 1983. Memorandum: to Kenneth E. Biglane, U.S. EPA, Washington, from Benton M. Wilmoth, OSC, U.S. EPA, Region III, Re: Request for Assistance 031884 (51) C.3-72 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES of ERT for a Technical Assessment of the Current Environmental Corrective Work at Fike Chemical Company, Nitro, WV. U.S. EPA Region III, 1985. Sanitation Site. Sampling and Investigation Report for the Nitro WV, U.S. EPA Region III, START, 2003. Kanawha Mile Point 41 to 42.5 and Mile Point 42.5 to 46.5 Site Inspection Report, Kanawha and Putnam Counties, WV, TDD No.: SW3-02-0017, SW3-02-07-0018, Region III, START, Ecology and Environment, Inc. U.S. EPA, 2008a. Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility, Solutia Nitro Site (Formerly: Flexsys, Solutia, Monsanto). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd039990965.pdf U.S. EPA, 2008b. Region 3 GPRA Baseline RCRA Corrective Action Facility, Great Lakes Chemicals Company (Formerly: FMC Corporation). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/ca/wv/pdf/wvd005005087.pdf Vimasco, 1998. Vimasco Corporation "Coatings and Adhesives for the World's Industries" Webpage. Available at: http://www.vimasco.com/ Ward, 2002. Dioxin seep discovered at Nitro plant, The Charleston Gazette. Weston, 1999. Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV, Roy F. Weston, Inc. Wilson, 1985 . Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site, Monsanto Company, Corporate Engineering Department. Wilson, 1986. Feasibility Study of Manila Creek Site, Putnam County, WV, Monsanto Chemical Company. Wright, 1990. Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report, WV DCLER. WV DEP, 1984. A Preliminary Assessment on Republic Steel Corporation Container Division, Nitro, WV. WV DEP, 1988. AES Site Complaint Response Report. WV DEP, 1994 1 . Site Status Report #2 for The Chemical Leaman – Scary Creek Site, St. Albans, Putnam County, WV. WV DEP, 1994 2 . Compliance Monitoring Evaluation, Monsanto Chemical Company. WV DEP, 1996. Letter to Eugene Wingert, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Michael I. Stratton, WV DEP, Re: Fike/Artel OU-4 RI/FS Sampling and Analysis Plan and Work Plan. WV DEP, 2000 1 . Letter to Anthony C. Tuk, Solutia, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP, Re: WV SW/NPDES Permit No. WV0077020 Armour Creek Landfill. WV DEP, 2000 2 . Letter to Renae Bonnett, from Allyn G. Turner, Chief, WV DEP. 031884 (51) C.3-73 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES WV DEP, 2001 1 . Letter to Kate Lose, U.S. EPA, Region III, from Mark L. Slusarski, WV DEP, Re: WVDEP Trip Report - Offsite Sewer System Investigation (May 29, 2001), Fike/Artel Site, Nitro, WV. WV DEP, 2001 2 . Compliance Evaluation Inspection, Flexsys Nitro Plant. WV DEP, 2002. Letter to Michael Light, Solutia, from David Farley, WV DEP. WV DEP, 2003. Letter to Jon W. McKinney, Plant Manager, Flexsys, from Belinda Beller, Permitting Section, WV DEP, Re: Permit Application No. WV0000868 Putnam County, WV. WV DWR, 1984. Preliminary Assessment, Putnam County Drum Dump. 031884 (51) C.3-74 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES APPENDIX FIELD NOTES 031884 (51) ALL-WEATHER thebook'?pg 31.1 . j; in .{chlJ OJQP-isf?hlli Oat-chef 2.907 - - 1? - w? -0- .. no. 3 ..: I~Lll/oi}. . . . . bCv.J:Ld .... ,. ~ :~ ' ., . ~6P2<'1:~J 0.t>L..~Z..OJ. . . .. .i.L . . . . . . . . .. ~,!V\f4dt. 1-~i~=t~:::1:=~:=~~e ! . HiJJ_,,,f,,...., .£....f,.., ,.,,..£..,.. ....-, l.1v £9~3 o o" ~-d~ .. ee,-{.di~!~ ... ..1a~ · · · · · · · · · · · · ·. i,c. i i !' .. . . . l;"f .Z 1 A-r Cc~~]cc£A) ~. . tdf .C . ,.,d~Jh.i lc~t.<'f~ar . . . . . . . To"' "' t I/ ?mwmm.Mm?15 s/gal-- JAH~tk.Ci !"~~ fe.,j~/4~ . . . . . · · _ .:,~i~l"" lo .. / aeL'~·~r~ /],JO ·.----'-~I'l;!:t:; !-:'t-z.-1__ -/lZ; :t:1fi:;!:~:i~~tdj "',:Jr ~t.~{~'-"Tj ;1flf~ )k.L 1. J t:£ 1 __,~1,,/ Jeff bfvt,/'vl 1hdft~l.LJ.Jti1e. ~.. / · · · · · ·--· •.. le"Y. , ~ 7-6..~<;::~_ Jf!:?_'. t":/q,/oj• _; .. ])p_ .. , (l_ l ':/. 9.: m;--JL- , ~o.t JJ.a1:~'1c:f~1v_/dedf""7'k -{~lik~ ............ \ r-e,cbJ(: :.+ >~i,~u . · ~ Jt . . . tP . . rdv./' . . 0~11,l<+(f,1.'. . I?.-:..t>.l... ¥rdAi 7 ·····- i \,,':~tv J1r$)f tl s ... -.,/e_Jc£. T,$£. -. f. 6tJJL ~8'.& /!(TU , ! 1 ~Jlfo{t ....•... • 1 . . . . .L. l lll(r1 . -~}~ 2~~-}i-c1s;~:Qv< / / ~ / e. .... . . ' 4tt.'f -a o I cJ\11' v v /.vfll /VIC..~ ~...:,(J / f'cf/\f.'C O II f ,-/fti de ilJ/e $711 /1 fl' rfl J/1 , ~ I\Al'I ~::r:~~;:ri:t~!t/f611; · · ; OtOd-f).Uq 0'1&-o /a:c..J ~r.1~r- - - - ~ i.N'l '1.2.. _si,...~l"'J /l)cJ. ,_ __ A11,..,,. ~· . J_m;,.. 1,.1¥, t,..'A 1,,,1,,;; .yi1k..., Af'r,w.. 1 l1Ad di,-,{. e U, 9 , d :J8,.'f '/D2. '1 df,p ,· cs. 2_ m~~u ~ w ~8 J. l_~tltf_{ _ ~1 1 /rec.-/'""~ s~~11~v:;~:~~4 '°' t•M j 1..;/1 te't' :1,D DD . 1~ . mJ/~ tk · 1 6 .'11 [ "'~ /4 :~;! ,;.v" ' •. ' . ' , I· i f - - - - -- _,&.41,t~_!)·~ I ~f~ __loJ~J~fJ___ /~,+v.,/o ___ _ ~~=!?2~~~l;j:t~~%~L~l!.~-,L •. .9_6,_~ __ ----~!J _m,v,L _~___ 2___ J{~_j_/J,$_~..JT~7J?-~~ 'd . ~L'f; h . ,z::'!Sd.,_ -1.,,,_,__j, , ------ .h,,J. :....... ------~--- • /•1. ---·"· - - - - ,..Jl;,1. " !J. ,L;/}{Js:i4-.l I C ~:~==1~~::tz:-::t~t hL (d},J).'11.ld_ I' 7 .J _ --~-~.U.'¥'1c:.'(.1 • : u ~I -------/:1. $g_rlq1u-__4A;i-d/:c_i,~J...Z..,~~--.'!li_~J ___ j i 1J?.~1i~ ' i ,/i,jf/j/i.,>j\{/;;~/i~Jl1,j(,i,\..'10J_,,Ji/,),;;;,>,A.,,\~{'if.1{:('1t,,,'kA{f;:,/,j;{'k;,~\%•Y;~'#<;,,,w;,;,{,\\t\\;c;~:\;,·J~i\t~,\_\,.,i/}>"•1,/','>\,,,;-'>'>')t<, . , t 11 U#idMI U • U I l ,.-··r,r: I r · r r nnu : ,: °'>i / o/q/q'1 '1/1,/IJ . '1661-,'/J} -o()J 1o sfwr Jb 3 C.2 ,?,• 5p {,Ylt'-\~wX-v tr-()i~l - bO j N'1t>i 122J ; A d;,!s -l .~ tJ~ }, 1 et-# l'-1.'-lf J.f, 9 /;),,If' mJ, /l 1$.Jo v'4h, :l t/1/f ,,.1 I t ~:,_Jp. e..FJ JZ. ~ L. .- f I I !. 1'~4 .·,. · t Toe.., . . s.A:f-.Mv-r Poe.. svlJv.1:tc. i _,1., J.161~. J,,,.J ,~ ~~-leu:~ ·1 llail}o JJJf Sbdl) t°tN W~ ., . J'f!rf:: c,.µ1~"<" 'b.~ ~. !: . ..-. b),../;,-, s.l:,y:t t~¥'? # . \ j ~001 1~'1 ! .."¥. ~~( -;4f.Ju. :e ~-d' 1:t-~<" 7 - •_I' . eoJ}~e,J ~w~'JrUcf'±'." 1>t--::JIIJ:J.LB.f't~ 1>?: /0)/lAI..., " ~ L / .. s;oo r1 I ;[.~S . "': .VA f te-sv.x-~ :::1 - ' .I.,._l.Jit:.. '.~"' $";6, : ../±. jt!!/~ -'-f'' J. '-I - ·:~,t:/:1:~~,,.,, ·rt},(] ,..kg , co..,,.) · d,l!Z, . midk ~l.-~. 3£o 0 6e"'P i,.J 0 . . . iw~[ .6,o,S', . ·---- ,~~- $i7,$_ .fl I 12, I 0 ~.,d_ ( . . . ,F llO zYJ.l-a:tu, ·02--01___ )0/1~/b"f I !.; .... h11 15 ·; /l /76() & cl,£~~/~~- f ioJ.·J..i -~~ , ! ~ . e_S("JJ;/~ . ~J.J/,hc. :::-_ 2.1 fref· ____ _ . I,.l. . lu e S:s .4'-d. ~J)ArJ't1.e:le,/.I ___ , f:<,..i':L.e ,IA.-~ fo Ls ~ . : + I . ~+"'7t; 6 .d'J.S;,'jlj_Jrft _lA},o&I • 81K.<'! _,~:a~J-~.itt _ Lj ·~::~.,"i f ' 1 :·~.:tJJ~11td,)t~z . · i1J . "'J.' k""'',...J'1,;/'a VZ .e=':j i":l ·....... . 1-1 : :.· 25 ~hs:i~t::.~;Tt:s·:Jt..iZ.f ___ i··"' .'l ···•H 2 ·I w-o1 ,. "1:t"'-·· .· · ft · . t'i 1 .. ~ . o)-ff!' /IO~YI - 0 tl.fl'C~S e, _YC> !, _ i- -- - , " L . a7cl> : .,t/lJ\ /; .~ u-1 - 1l:; ,·. -1 I .-- J --· · -- -·----·- ' 27 ; _._ .i~L~kf4-6•u~i:f~~~/Itl --·--...... _..,. ! le C S7' :; llf1.~l,s/p_'f.-4o 2.. ______ ___ _:__.SfA_¥ __ 1 ---f N'11~c..J_f-_,,.J_c J '' .J_-~.~ T_'t/' --- -- - - -- . tfi-~IA_c..aL1t.~.t1._._1:Ll11::_____ ' ' . ' ---- ___ ; - - i ' '·· t !Ill I lll I Ill II 1:S:f :r:r·' :f WtiJli1Tiitlfii rm n 111 f . 11 I P ' ' 28 . I LJ_(lf I: . . 1oh1/u+ _______ _! .- . :.····!· ··--· [ i --- ·- t I Dh7 0~ - 9 ( /J Z'-lrJ/. bO J ;- ~ I if/· . . \~~~~,.,.d_ 60 3-;;,~ 1tJ~~=1:.!.Jk •. fJ.VT····· '!1: ; (':IL~LJ L7f- _:Ji!1~.-· ti,~. _J~lc-,. - _{,,Js[/_,.£fd,i_td~i~. . ei _f)__]J)_(/__;___ _ ., . ·····-··-·· -·-··-···---~ r rrmrw,r· :rrrrmmr:r ' 30 J )1J/p_~L 0 gKoi._/J.'ik~..:t1b1. 1Q J 0 ':1 ._ 'l1J~..,.Lv, 1cA; ~.soy; . . 1~_r:;k,,c.._ l 2.-fr;-wi / f',J)·j v: t1/ ~e1°J!C,.cf_) J ~,,[ .: 6N,~-.rJ;1~~ ~ (t:J I~--· i . 4. <~Uk. 1,.,P,..,1'rf' d!c~ . r ~H " " " " l le"'f'. ,~lAk.sv.fe/e;.c..e •. e ..nv t~~ " ec.!!" tf""it_-v,i"l . .-1;_ . . ~ ; .. L2 V, ·---- .JO,. t/. 7 ,,,,;/L- . .IY..T ...... . - ---- - ;!~~:tje~;:0ttt~~~-f:;~·-1 >o /l"?~ S_e.:_ 1"_1_ C"-"\ _______ ~, .1/.1,e > ,ri_'J_ e: i, "L~~.,f~ .;:,~'f;-.-~-?--- -·-_ - -~-'-. ·1o/~-J1t-----~_{.:_:_, 1.,,, - J ~C;(q . I.,-111\Jl_~C ... },,;4.'(/,.0.. ;;~:1:l _;J. ,O.~.-~e, · · · · · ····------ - ¥·· . •~.1,'p.1{,\t\,ftAiht.: _(! __ ':f...lL_li("'\(/lv.f.. ._JY'J8 .. S l()?'/ .bL08J. 2~ 6:~!L ~o .1.. ........... ..... '~1~{: ~~~ ~-~-47.::j_ JJtz : le?'~Rcla.__ J'!'l(}._~__l-!p-{,uft..!Yi_:_ p.) ( ~t1,'dfl' tlA.c) /ldf V "'1 e ftl tf. ' ' ------. i I~ i ' i't/' °j'v"-l;/ J:;60 '-'_et, i e./,.,., 7; 6J l.JJ.td.. tJ,,Zl~ 'g ;1 . ;,g 'iE ,,,..e....;~. i _ ,;,s/e,,,,,., ('-1 A-e e ./ JI .L . .±362..MlL 1Jw'1. )S,2, ;..e,.17,J J'(disX. i I;, t 1:· . /: /:i i 1,) I:,,, f:, J~ cJd . . . . I tot lit:t,o< _l!._ /t Jl> · F,0,~h 11.,;tJ4 tl't111 . _· -·- , . . J('tS'. . _t;d_· l/e,cA: S&..J -l1Kl/;t- t,~ -:L4/rJ/()_'1-:tJa.J ... ' '¥ · ·-~·-· J -1 Nc1)~fllfA,t~ i .-J 1" ~ ,II\ (!fJI..,~,,. d/1cl" . ------t-: - - - 't( . -- ··i ;5 .ft"""Yle·; J'/(~/ /'a~ fJJI it.l!Ll. v~~-~----- _ ······ ------ _;1>e7' -o, OJ ~C. :(e,ht11'?.) L. .. _ I}>{). ·- . ,. 'J,. lK'.. ""'J-11.. 17J_o:· . . E~~ls. ( _ ; 6: 6 II _} t mel;.S:c..ft:.sl!cc./~_t!?:_l_;~~,i..J G'),?,f$" ~ (CP,LJ;d l: l.1!.~eX~ ·--~L ,'tiJ~~J.v,·,./s) l12,i4!'J j R:1'. 37 £~.1 /~'1//.j ' . . J'&ftJ·-_ Ca#ed S"1.J~JlgJt-/-nt.~ N/15/a't:002.- ~---- Jl.,;,_f'"'?P. . .ill. f.:lf 11t:r1 ~,~} 7.JJ_ , ;, J t 1,c;,; JtQ/ S4~/~-~-:l?-rt~ ' ~~-f e/'.. Jw+~r. ~--·:&_ I ~}; t!J OJ '-1 i) s~¥-l~->fo/l---~ ~L~v/ . i' -;pk---~d1,,1c1, - · .. ........ . } o} ~· 'bC(p ,~d bJA ~ r , , ) ]v,-.,.t,o1,Ji(A Je~A'C1i:/e: 1,~d { /1,:,(~) . f..1HI'- .tw,f~<' w~td: ..cc.vy,/,vi)' r,~s."'"fc. Sr-.Vlf'/~ -tlx /c;,/e 6,//e,cf 69 dO / 1 'te. . DeCP~ ~ s uivv, e/..f.J /.,, 0 ,'l,s;· 1 fV'r' CS.S. 7tt. ,1.,.)..~.~J e;.s.... ~/b't-1-C (i) 1~1 l,.}t:,.:/'f/" ,+ o.}u.-,n Jh.!4 (i;.) t"f vJ bti YI' ':)/J.! t, '1 @) Md~,:l f/vJ/, /@) DJ:: wc,.1' .fc,._y (S. rL). le Jai//e.4 ((c.,,, fllt::i~ve. rl..fL - 10/~tJ/6''1- JJ~ I b L/O-lv'\/v/~1 ) I z S'o-,-, 11',1 j JtJ/ZcrJ04 I 002. LJ.J l. tJO I 1 l~lwlovi~ '}602'13.), O()} r; Lo J H2}p'-f ; 1tlG / f>(Je, U/1/ r{.Sfl ""'Jj T.!..l L. CtJ Iv,.., I\ ~ . ol\ e>~ l f;tfv · /J,: tf-d" - -- - - - ---------- - - - - AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT ~ Pro·ect Mana er: Field Technician: Client Reference: Pro"ect: Client: Wi'-.e-¢ Contact: Date Comments Time - l 0 (,, , l---l--J-ll--""--+'~t-,.[!=:L__;;;J_!l.O"--"'"""'--"'::._--J:>L..'--_::____1!,_~3c..,_,--'~"'--"S'--3::!...__+--'-"---"c::r'- v P..c.. 'f lOb Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (55), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID) Date: ;t Nov o 'I Page l_ of J§ AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Pro·ect: Dates: Client: Contact: Date Comments Time • IIADJC.. (,. C. c..u f..A-C... Sv (.,4$ ~o, cJ - 1:-\ ove. IJ T" Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID) Date: P. /Jo\! D':i Page Z. of _i:; ,J AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Pro·ect: Client Reference: Date Comments Time (, oc.r i;;, Comments Sample Paramet rs: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow ate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID) Date: :;.. rvo• o'i Page !f_ of l'5 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Project: \ '2.<., $ b Dates: 1'1. -~- ,., '/ Client: C."' " Contact: Date Time Proiect ManaQer: Field Technician: ;). Client Reference: ~ .., .. ~..,.....,...,.,., \.... "'· .. • .. . . '\.J\.A. ,,&) Comments 0 l---l-JD~__µW&a:r:......S:f't.t:1lf..LL!J.!...,._...J;:!,lI:ft'C,£__..1i____$:..S:~'--_j~21;:L,_''L:f.._lll,'Z._::_j 4-cc.u £Ao C 't' l---+--+rc,c..Li2.Jc--;-.!..D.~1-£:..l..i.:::Ll...;~~c\...._----~!!IL..I.LD._.L.l:l...!....:l:....lc_T°Lj ;: TOT.: Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID) Date:; tvo" o '/ Page ..5__ of J§ 8 2. I AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Pro·ect: Dates: Client: Contact: Date Comments Time 1----I-----J...:C-l.....>...b__.J:_.h....._..L....:::..L.!...l.beil-J.q.l...lh---':..E,,__-'----=..l...,.:~'.:!L..!.!]lil.L--'-c"'--=c...L!../""' .,( I----IW.i!.il..--l--1-..I..h.._~_L..C:.-L...Ll..4!..!'.!LL..n..,...--'-"'----'Se....::..!.-'-"-!c...LlL..[!1.>..ll,_...:.LIJjL...::__Lfl8~ I Wr .,;-. "l-J.. l---l--~~~cJ;;,__~::....L.c=-L....:r..JJ..,,~ill,-s::.!,:_~..!..!.:.:.=.Jl!llJtl._l!l2.L..::=-.;;:u;!..!p~ 5' l-----+l...t',;>_Q__-IIS/:lc.J;;;;&.2~;,)Il','J;.Jc..__::i:f:l.___l~...fil_Jl3ce,=<-o,:Q_\1.A>~..S.:,.LB..1~~__J!Q:I~>..Uj ~ J. l----l----J..l.L....;;o...Lw..±::.-.t::.1',._J_.:::....L~~=l...,.LF..E......:#-'---'"'"=--i-.....2.0..i..Lll!1j-l~.l..!.Ll.---""-"z:..L.f",) 1--_u-"--".;,_u:,...._,_Ll..1.......k~~~'~-~-L.!.....!--"'-""-L!c:lll'-,....'.~~~~~~~ct Project Manaoer: Field Technician: , ~ nClient Reference: c._ivl- "~IJP. vJ' • • c:,4 ~ Comments Time l---+---___µ'----1....C....__,--'---'"------'----""----'--'--""'-e::>£..!C!Lll.J..+...-''-=---'=--=--<-_._=._=:t....m.LI.L---L..>"-'-l""- 1-----ll---!,!____',!_L~~-=::u:.!!~,!'.___l=~~=~~=---~ ::_ Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD , Flo . ate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID Date: 2, ~>011 o'i Page -:/- of /!, "":/-5" _(. ~~ -t AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Pro· eel Mana er: Field Technician: Client Reference: Pro·ect: Dates: Client: Contact: Date Comments Time Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Fl w Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID) Date: 2 rvov o 't Page~ of JS AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT '=' ', Project Manaqer: Field Technician: Client Reference· Project: l '1 I Contact: Date - - • ~ o;;> '<:Ab-J~w· .• ~ n~ ~ Comments Time 2..3 .' Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID) Date: :2 Nov o 'i Page '1 of _15 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Project ManaQer: Field Technician: ;:, . e,e,o" ~<:> Client Reference: r n .. - Project: 1<2 C.-"', Dates: - ..,.. o'/ Client: p . 0 . Contact: ,- Date "'... Time .' Q Comments ,s eP e,'-/ lo'-15 AC. I - 7.-SP!..T °18J/,..,,;,, ,oT.: /7 A Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID (SID) Date: :L Nov Page I 0, of oi J.? r.c.o ~ ------~- AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Proiect: Dates: i"" - - Client: C-~f\ Contact: Date Project Manaaer: Field Technician: Client Reference: \ '.l ' .,.. ' o<./ Time J ~e,'Q · - s:, ~n A ,_A. - .. Comments L---l..LL..::L:2.l-~c.'....1..1..Ccc!::...:1<-~St'l=.JM~~=-!.!:...-.--'L.!::!...uct=-~~~c.Sa..i.t_...w;.l-/'..Llll' l:> L---!....t:;.!l'...2..:'.l-_;;_~e..i:.:!Cs....u..-"'-5~~~~2\LP~l~~.!::.....!.:c.J.1..1&...u----'"'~....1.c~~-..1...__..i:,.=..l.il:........:~~ss Pc1:: 1 'E- Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID Date:.Z /Jov o'I Page /J_ of J.5 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Project Manager: Field Technician: ~ be= Otu'2_ D Client Reference: ,_,, r,. I<:,,,""'" i--1 I\ Project: 1 'l. iv 5 '7 Dates: 11,\ OC', c'I Client: ,- (\ Contact: " Date 0 e Comments Time :t I L ;). 4 (,, - I I c_ u " £ o 'f 2 - c,E r" L Cc· LJ 5 - ?. I 0 e~~C'-J ">" li!.F A. c_E 1-~--+~2-=:'._j_:'ill>S..cL_::iJ:,J:'.!.!:J.:l;&!,<_+--=~Le,_~K~~~~l'.:G:i_!t,)'.~Ji,...J...C~L.....il.!..fijA<:_E 1--/ 06(.S" ~?-."1-D A (_ I Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID) Date: :{ /\/av r;, y Page 12 of 15 AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Project: 11. & 5 0 Dates: 19, ~,, , ,, v Client: r· IZ "' Contact: Date Project Manaoer: Field Technician: \ ;,., <:., D ~ 17 0 Client Reference: C-'1.A lUI NA vJ 1--IA- "' Time Comments TOT,. Sample Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date (STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID Date: ;). Page Nov J3 oy of_!_? r5o AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Proiect: \'l&,5"(,, Dates: IB a ' r,y Client: c<>-A Contact: Date - i G\ Project Manaaer: Field Technician: J £es,D"n Client Reference: c_,0 A \C'"" o c..,r n '-I Time ·"A I? Comments L------1..l...!l~LJ...!;,..l..J~~...l.L_;_:i..!l..l~L:uLI..l..lc._::16LI.8..lLl--Ji1--..L.!:!'.L-L:2c..Jl..Q:',61...~.;_q,--Acc I - 302,J L-----1_!_.'16~1~Se.._!.i52.1T~u~-"t-JL_,l!nJ:.1.U<.?crAJJU--ro'-'='--'=G,s__,.,---1,;iu.i-_J,L_[\Oc__Ln~Ec~lill..J__-l..l..!F~ c d 11: c_ Sa mp Ie Parameters: Sample Number (SN), Sample Source (SS), Sample Media (SM), Parameter (P), Apparatus (A), Start Time/Date {STD), End Time/Date (ETD), Flow Rate (FR), Volume (V), Filtration Media (FM), Surrogate ID SID Date: J, Nov o'-1 Page IL/ of J_!> ~ Ae G c- AXYS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS FIELD REPORT Project: l J..(.., <:: (Dates: i '1 n r-r o'-1 (_Qr. Client: Contact: Date ·- 2o C, e,.,r O -'i b"- 0 f><-Q_ ,-, r o • V.A•tA.1 ·''".ft e_' Comments Time I~ 35 c • ..1 PL!,Ur- aESIJMr:.-0 In Ps.- , ~"'"' l, H, 12.S"S" '1.i>.T.'.l( II ? - 0~ Project Manaaer: Field Technician: Client Reference: ?\ kaxu?z?kzs a; . it kn. .. ?t?wm? ?w 'S??Wm/cz/m?325.: \?ai 55v. fa k1 l?yaquse ?3 ax . a .. max?? ?1 Axihm?w?vzkvumsb. Rx 133 ?awn .xs? a ?98% a 9w}? 3.2% 3 a Vv. .3. km? .852? . . be 9% ?l-lmsh ?Ar/we #5 ea{.4331 an} 0,0 4 ?Ix . @933?xaer A . $01k as. ?a 9' 2%Md?wn?r?wymi uh?? ?w?sxxm (k a. {x 3? Lg. 1% 59Gb ?i Ca) 5% MW Vow9&iaxkaxx Xx .. a 1 zw?Mk akra 1 if 3s .wggw?s . . 5.3a @?gg a (W SJH, 05? in?M- 3 4 NMch/wm Hi6 md? Jwemw M?jamc \9\u Ex. . . . vs: aulk?mxu3,4 at. \Vth.quuSn?& :?wx?am .3, 929% My SC 1. .. Sg?c00_ P: u: at \x?xu?va?u? Sax i 2; I 311% 4 . i #3 g?w? vgmpawkav 29% . 2 .mVA/sz. >5 v? i A307 159*}? e~ w; 2mm: w; . ?9 .. co?-Wi 0+3 gol?hffm "f 139 i (km? . mg, To?) . . 6%3?1?5? 9W9 In: a i 02/65. at 4 "fa-m MN 9'7; WM Haw?? "cglfe&??5?0??8?i$ Md ianed- ?1&ng ?z . I ---t------"=+----J .,_____ _ - P - - ' - - - ' - - ' - - - - f - - - ' - - r' ~I ., . r ·,.. -n> I I I ·, 'I ·,' I I I -:(J[ ,.. u~ -f,_t ,, '(t;-.. ('2.(,; I 1~7~ I !~~ iN._.,-~ I - -,.. I ;,J-...'lli I ~?s..;z, i ... .10~ -,~ t~l; l~X -tilf7 C,Il/) \ld'4.M' . 1Vii ft"7-$', \ 7.r~co I I I 1 is. ,, 1~ • -Ho l.AlO) ' b - tMfl, µ{r..·o71o---ais·c,J/i I I .... ... ~,r - ,t+2.r--'tf ... "" -. ' .br~~~ I«-~ I I : ( ' ·, Pct! dm (Lenora fa, Sd $03? 6mm Pew . at 5?5 73 ilk r7 \5 25 5' Way/2?? (5)355 l;~·tS·01- 013\~b~ I~. .-·,N_ <:.t C"f\l •\e ts· ~ \ -· & ~ 'q.3 ......_ .,,, !-U \; J AA~; 0 lN', ~ II. ';)' U,.i ~ ~ <)\f ~ \\ e~~ ~ (v . \~ , ~:c Ot '01 ',nc I 2~ '!1>&( , l J - ~~ )'2,<1:0 ...,-c..kt ) 4//-· ~ z. - -;q €" i€P4..-13/'5 LI 1$1.( t i)t? -/2 0 -2 'tt: ~I -t >L~ ~:t ;)-~ l l'. .. I I i I I i I I I I ' I ; I I 1. .1 . 5,6 .- '006 (93.9, G: 3WD, (3 but?! c4437 (19M Ids Wall/as 031m . . I?l INC- FIELD BOOK 4% 05 5 Wm WM MM Mwmm.w? MW A REFERENCE WWMM (1 ~W~0?rf (DAM Mlo_g I S?Erpsugq? manque?SGT m3 I S. Cmiec?r SOILMQ {243m 2.91 .10: ?lo?ta?senmv 1) ?um? 13ka . 5 M1 a . 3&9) L-Wtr ([3711. Eli/0(a) 1330: CM, mm (-3103 . cw?r +0402. W5 195 e-ook?f?ON ?qt-2515?; mva #wzp 0190 "41% New 1.3M swaplex i Mm ULBH ?1Dpi'f Mt, I. jar? Rf C100 entity, .D {hi Newer: 50's may" Flama.m. Who'- me, (ha-EB: ?Mimi?s (5c; Field fwvn? KW . tom, ??13 6'56": (Rig Cc?ecf Wni? blank mu :m 1 ?W?W?wquh UBlmHuuo?t- 36 ~00! H!ij VOA mg 1L ?nber?? (30" Cm {C?th 1a *cmked?? a RICH ?31; 5- 1 I . 3mm Ia?Lgog mag 1% .Bpjb. ~Pur'owao MPH: From 435' lr-Ho 39A 0 (3 5 3100 3L 0+2 Pl ?l?qc? 7+4 St?jlleq- a s: . a? ~o3mv- ?opa 13.20 ?nal? I 2, 5 36*031534 - llgot?? "59 *010 1.3130 mg.131 359(61qu lla?SG??U?z i 1:50 may? 9" e? 37?) '10 Coll saw-pig, from 0-2! WW?um??om - mun 515?0 Emu 3- mam Iuomse-UB mo 3&5: 124.2&6:va RIMS SE 1-1 Ill .155 sec 0-2 . I 635?s .. 1" 53 1 ?ts-o 3? 1 by n/{o/og is ?d ?243qu 1001:} Ce a? To; 10"ng - I 3?50 {maximum vap I 5? ?Mm fk: mm Quax/pf 55% MW qr JP .9100 (?ee/71? Sam-Nah 4mm. 0?15 i Wk ?01 5E~03k?q~lu0095?wooq \o 1" #meb mwma?d 1 a) . . 1,3110 um F911 Wk; farm-m 3?4 awn! I - Ck \Ui ~39?u? duqb (waded ccl?_ 15120 naturals; I I gig/mam 11/10 [or f; $39 mum Ht?c,? 3:35. Coded 60m 0-1! 9 31W MIL misewwzw-xwopSG :9 with? .(ouec?r isWe, T50 unkempt sample 9mm ?ZJ-kt/ 5 139? lmo??e ~01! 51xka 1m: . :34 (bikers?f 5&101' I :5 gwmgu aka-03m ?100 649?; 0% :5 v3 . Max:313 Mm (3W Fur mum 55E BM M'xkti like 3 ewe! .lmj 1111ch red? cmf{?32? lama-?09 5 (3m lair Aggile Wines} "i will wcmaa [acclaim- (MM-H ?135%29 55L 0me MA ?away: i N, fix-mthde 1 I Hm??ll? ?4 Love Kame?i' . mm 1m. Cbued' Stow/?mg 60v? meu} MM H31 SE?Osww-luoqgmger?mB rgcovd unw? . . ?#141 Sail?sh} ?Mm/r0 Sample 89!? 5913+ MM EPA. 13 Mutated 'lra {of chitin (bed [0 For (id-fad!ij .2115 . ??r?sl/t (WW1 52 Hital?zmnw?b geta? ?smvupw i" I Ex, our \cl (3me 3 Cowman-Mgr 3:30 am cf?+8rb. I tilill(< ; 4 I ~~~'f- ?,;,.,. ];~~;: \\',\O ~ "" . s;~(2>3ffi__• 121\ os ·SG ' I:} \\'.-Zo •c -..._ !' . (< _ , ,• 0 •• iS"C:--o3Li1~ -1-111«<-,s..W·:5 )f~ltfi1.<-11.~1 oi-5, 9 tt':- o --- ~-~3~ \2.lt~~ _ -- 2 M!'l - a ~ 1 ~J13.!ll-11r1Q&~L -1~: IQ_?3"A_ '. ~s S~ !'e&f-- ~ ~t18"1ro ·. I~ re _?Pi , ; r ~- 4. 1-Z.\\Qi-__ ~ 'IJS-<81"6"{ t2..l\Oi'- - \~.:_· O!f -=- l}lfb - 5:91 :52M'dep?x? 21" 55 Cargrm .: . m; I Sampww" H400 cum-pk walalc . 35?? KPcl/vwber bb?f?rlax 3 Wm (aka/bl ?2 Uou?b dweller" gen?1 WWf?Oml-? JQLOX lztto?~5G 13:3] H100: . .x'wprj. Imemelami MAMA cm damn sapwpr 9mm SWW form . Mn 10? 03? 9W a ule/L (Wake-W?- +0 demb WW bow- . . FHA samples ?Cam/Vb B1079 (200101! in . 13bit; - okWC-i 50w nut/rt MAW WA if - - 3 "we. ?rm \?un 1350-} - 1. . 6m @5479. 53% bgj?n 4" I (mamm? aw (in(I, .. A .. 2m}. . ?3 ?gio . ,2 Sge: 2. (I. . . ,?gwg?gg wm?o?, 2m? WMQEQ ?43 {a ?361: (are 4mg" 1:5" 354/ 6" ?at. @116 0W awfa? Si'?if? - 36?. i 94,ROVEJV gamma SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: ]-~0 DATE(mm/dd/yy) ON STATION (time) ~.'50 STATION POSITION (NAO 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) I Push Corer (size _ __, .5 / / 'f·y ----~ M I I U-, vd-{ Fm Other: Van Veen Grab Sample Type I Sedflume* KRs\) Of LJ5 AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Gravity Corer Vibracorer Sampling Area r INITIALS Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (I ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery I J_ I I g// ~ I ~ I b tY ;) ,/ 6 ,,, ; 9: JO ~01' ~o // Y<5 l) 1!> DB DS () B DB Debris interference Disturbed surface NS FR D/5 No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes Photographed ? No E) at - - -cm )).../3 9, 5 // Gravity Corer Vibracorer Sampling Area ~WS INITIALS Van Veen I ""1 v()( Other: Grab I Sample Type @M Fm Longitude or Easting Push Corer (size _ __, 5, 1·,y d.. 0 CORQ7 Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery b 3 Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code I I I I IO.'J..0 I b// I /; ,I/ YPS s DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes Noe Photographed ? at - - -cm Coto7 ---""-----'"'-4--L"-'-4!........C._--r->'"'-"---'-..L-=.:::..>,,.___...u....i,,..::.:::..L...>...-'C'------'~-'-"'-'::.......:,::;_~--=----........___-~----'-=-'-!-/-_..c...._.,...,....._._J\ , ' @4.. Reviewed by - - - - - - - - Date - - - - bfy .la:50011 SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: 7- j 0 DATE (mm/dd/yy) ON STATION (time) 10.: 3 o STATION POSITION (NAD 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) I AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Longitude or Easting Gravity Corer Vi bra corer Sampling Area f LJ 5 INITIALS Push Corer (size _ _ _, .5, 1·ty Van Veen Grab I Sample Type I Sedflume* I Lv1 veA 6 Ft M Fm 21 °51 / ~ 3. )- // Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery l /0.'S5 :).O I I I I I I/ J... 0 , _. Yes DB NS FR Debris interference O.W Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm k~s[) OL/ Photographed ? No@ Comments ~ P,) M (I.J k O / 9 t core hc-..r re I., +~Jf? I I Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: 7- 3 0 DATE (mm/dd/yy) S ON STATION (time) [ J; ) STATION POSITION (NAD 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH '7 J 12 Q0 JO Gravity Corer Vibracorer I Sampling Area ~kl 5 INITIALS h"j / JO kR 5 DoSFt M Fm // Longit~de J , ,/ or Eastmg Van Veen Grab Push Corer (size _ _ _, I Sample Type . I Sedflume* sl ltr h-tvd cl~ V I Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm {l ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery 2._ ( I .:> I i/.'Sb I I I ;}.OP "'- :l-0 /./ - .,, VJ y>) )' f"5 '&i.J O'r,w., 'gt. J O "r l-1c, - DB DS - Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Comments Yes at - - -cm GP.5 MN" k ~8 ~\J f'/ver Reviewed by - - -- -- - - - Date - - - - - SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: DATE (mm/dd/yy) Project Title: (- dJ F4JS INITIALS ON STATION (time) WATER DEPTH Latitude or Northing STATION POSITION (NAD 83) SAMPLER USED (circle one) AREA-STATION ID Gravity Corer Vibracorer I Sampling Area 38 °d, 1/ /S. 7 / ,,.. Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery @M Fm Longitude or Easting Van Veen Grab Push Corer (size _ _~ I I Sample Type I Ty h.1 ...,c,( I Sedflume* * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code ;)_ Q :s, Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) p I 9-o I I I I I/ ,,, ~v· Ye5 DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Photographed ? LOR~O No~ Comments G-PS Mt:vk O(b Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: 7-J- 9 DATE (mm/dd/yy) STATION POSITION (NAD 83) SAMPLER USED (circle one) /Q // ~ ON STATION (time) AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH 5 k RSD I0 (li)M Fm Latitude or Northing Gravity Corer Vibracorer I Sampling Area -FLJ S- INITIALS Sample Type I Sedflume* :5o~t 5t' I fv "'-I I I ' (/ti{ Other: Van Veen Grab Push Corer (size _ _~ Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery 1 1/i:l/-C I I I I /bl/ I b '/ YfS DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes Photographed ? at - - -cm kRsD 10 No~ Comments Reviewed by - - - - - - - - - Date - - - - - SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: DATE (mrn/dd/yy) Project Title: /- l 9 ON STATION (time) 10:30 STATION POSITION (NAD 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) Flu 5" INITIALS J,A/~ AREA-STATION ID k 'R SJ) ® _3 ---- l.j t M Fm Longitude or Easting I /,,,,,,vt{ Other: Van Veen Grab Push Corer (size - - ~ Sample Type I I Sedflume* 5o}f J/ (iy Sampling Area //lvf WATER DEPTH Gravity Corer Vibracorer K4 I Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery I /0.'5b I I I I I /6 // I b .v tes DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at _ _ _cm Noe Photographed ? Comments Gf5 .Mv-k O / Y Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: 7,- J S DATE (mm/dd/yy) 6 .' 5 s;- ON STATION (time) / STATION POSITION (NAD 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) rWS- INITIALS WATER DEPTH Push Corer (size _ _~ Sample Type I I Sedflume* loose Seivrd Sampling Area co ~~ ~ M f.<_ di; Fm Longitude or Easting Gravity Corer Vibracorer AREA-STATION ID I I I Other: Van Veen Grab Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code I NR Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery DB DS I I JV I< A/ "/Z Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR I I NR.. IV/<.. No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Photographed ? No Comments Yes t ~ tf e_w; f 5 ;5 5~okE' + 0 jef.r T)c.vue/5 hf sai"J our 7---.t_f->__ INITIALS DATE (mm/dd/yy) ....... II r·oo ON STATION (time) STATION POSITION (NAD 83) SAMPLER USED (circle one) L~~~:~r WATER DEPTH 1, 0 Push Corer (size _ _ _, Sampling Area Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery Van Veen Grab Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) Sedflume* Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code 15 38 ~ 6/ ~J, s Gravity Corer Vibracorer AREA-STATION ID d,, J '-I I I I I ·- - I f)5 DB DS NR Debris interference Disturbed surface - ()1) NS FR ' .S- I //.' <..( DI'-- 16 J/ I -6 // Yt5 .DS' No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Noe Photographed ? Comments /£f'5 W?cJ'k 0q2> Reviewed by _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: 7 -- d- 2 DATE (mrn/dd/yy) ON STATION (time) /);)) STATION POSITION (NAD 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) Ft;Jj INITIALS AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Longit~de or Eastmg Gravity Corer Vibracorer k.a lll?t \,,vi Push Corer (size _ __, Sampling Area 5 ti'\ cog3~ Ft M Fm <1( 0 10 , ,I 1 7 11 .;? .:::> '1 {;) Van Veen Grab E> Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery I !~too I J : /~ ~ I I I I l // a-. I // Ye; DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes Noe at - - -cm Photographed ? Comments G PS ' Was k 00<) to avotci P1--.5C o Reviewed by _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUMESAMPLINGDATASHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title: ~ ;-) DATE (mm/dd/yy) tLJ f /) INITIALS 1 Io~ 6-0 ON STATION (time) AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Gravity Corer Vibracorer Push Corer _, (size __ Sedflume* * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery coRl/O d> ®M Fm Q ( 0 D co :> IL t ;) I ,r; Other: Van Veen Grab Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) Sampling Area , I Jr,.: ")~ / 2> / I I I I / f~r y~S DB DS Debris interference Disturbed su.nace NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes Photographed ? No 5) at - - -cm J 'i£ 0 j<1J1V10\ W~o\ Longitude or Easting SAMPLER USED (circle one) (~ COR Comments Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ 11 SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: DATE (mm/dd/yy) Project Title: \<.o,.Y\O. 7-d-{2 - 0 ~ Lj) ON STATION (time) (:J ; STATION POSITION (NAO 83) Latitude or Northing SAMPLER USED (circle one) f tJ S' INITIALS AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH 3 4U ,od>. b/ OQ,. :JC Gravity Corer Vibracorer '3 [ 0 ~ lj }__ © Fm i / Longitude or Easting Push Corer (size - - ~ Sample Type I I Sedflume* Mu~ ,Al/ cluv Sampling Area W ~'\ Van Veen Grab I I Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery I I ~: 50 I JOJO).. lb I I I 11 I;.., 1 / - '/IS DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core bas visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Photographed ? No Comments Yes G 'f>S Mai k. ()Ob Reviewed by _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ I SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: DATE (mm/dd/yy) / - ON STATION (time) J..7 (:) ,' STATION POSITION (NAD 83) SAMPLER USED (circle one) Ko ns /.J~O\ Project Title: lj 6 AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Latitude or Northing I _ . d> . __®M Van Veen Grab Push Corer _, (size __ I Sampl~ Type I Sedflume* k: Rs r ;)_Lf Fm Longitude or Easting Gravity Corer Vibracorer Sampling Area rw5 INITIALS 5 "' t1rirY I ·u,111d Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm) Recovery (ft orcm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code -)),:r-r Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery DB DS 1 I - ~ I I - Ig /G ! to I I j/ ) 25 // Y€.S ~ !) Pi - - Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: J, NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Photographed ? No Comments E> 5 WA Reviewed by - - -- - - - - Date - - -- SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: Project Title:'K.CM\O\ W~O\ DATE (mm/dd/yy) ; - ON STATION (time) / STATION POSITION (NAD 83) SAMPLER USED (circle one) d,) -(1r f t,Jf INITIALS Lj,' I.;'£ AREA-STATION ID WATER DEPTH Latitude or Northing Longitude or Easting Gravity Corer Vibracorer Sample Type I [ Sedflume* J r..vid V J..rt vt'.il w rV~ ~r:S * Core must have undisturbed swface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery ' I -- -.,,-.,-~/VO I Other: Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) ~ 15:(CJ I /5.'iJ... I s: $!JI / 5.'J{) _, I Ft M Fm 7?/co 5 0 I 5o( , t.; ,-/ Van Veen Grab Push Corer (size - - ~ Sampling Area .::, I I I I6II !h,1/ -')QS iwf ,/,1f-r DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface For Acceptable Sample: NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here Visible color change near surface? No Yes at - - -cm Noe Photographed ? Comments 004 Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ SEDFLUME SAMPLING DATA SHEET Sea Engineering, Inc. Project Number: DATE (mm/dd/yy) Project Title: 7--17-- 09 INITIALS [w( C Rk kt1 rl~ w~c; AREA-sTATioNrn WATER DEPTH ____ STATION POSITION (NAD 83) & M Fm Latitude or Northing Gravity Corer Vibracorer I Sampling Area ',£ 0 k Rs D:}$ i.....___ ON STATION (time) SAMPLER USED (circle one) [~ ] Push Corer (size _ _ _, wl JM,Jd S of/lJ... Grab I Sample Type I Sedflurne* Other: Van Veen I Minimum Acceptable Recovery 30 cm (1 ft) * Core must have undisturbed surface and no visible fractures in core. Attempt Number Attempt Start/End Time Apparent Penetration Depth (ft or cm ) Recovery (ft or cm) Accepted (yes/no) Rejection Code Rejection Codes OP Overpenetrated NR Insufficient Recovery I / f/:(1}! I '-/.' I 6 I I I I d'-0 / ;)o // '/f.S DB DS Debris interference Disturbed surface NS FR No sediment in sampler Core has visible fracture in sediments Attach Unique Sample ID here For Acceptable Sample: Visible color change near surface? No Yes at _ _ _cm Photographed ? No@ Comments (s PS Mark Q03 Reviewed by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date _ _ __ APPENDIX PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG 031884 (51) PHOTO 01 : FISH OBTAINED FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS. OCTOBER 2004. PHOTO 02: PREPARATION OF FISH TISSUE FILLET SAMPLE. OCTOBER 2004. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA012 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 03: VAN VEEN GRAB SAMPLER USED TO COLLECT SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLES. NOVEMBER 2007. PHOTO 04: HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE KANAWHA RIVER. DECEMBER 2007. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA012 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 05: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLING ACTIVITIES. NOVEMBER 2007. PHOTO 06: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT SSD-17 (STUDY AREA 3). NOVEMBER 2007. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA012 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 07: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT COR-39 (STUDY AREA 2). DECEMBER 2007. PHOTO 08: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT COR-33 (STUDY AREA 2). NOVEMBER 2007. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA012 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 09: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT COR-35 (STUDY AREA 2). NOVEMBER 2007. PHOTO 10: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT COR-37 (STUDY AREA 2). NOVEMBER 2007. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA013 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 11 : SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT COR-28 (STUDY AREA 3) FOR SUBSURFACE SAMPLING. NOVEMBER 2007. PHOTO 12: O" TO 15" SUBSECTION OF COR-28 (STUDY AREA 3). DECEMBER 2007. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA013 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 13: 11" TO 24" SUBSECTION OF COR-28 (STUDY AREA 3). DECEMBER 2007. PHOTO 14: 0 TO 12" SUBSECTION OF COR-39 (STUDY AREA 2). DECEMBER 2007. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA013 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 15: 9 TO 22" SUBSECTION OF COR-39 (STUDY AREA 2). DECEMBER 2007. PHOTO 16: 23" TO 35" SUBSECTION OF COR-39 (STUDY AREA 2). DECEMBER 2007. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA013 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 17: SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT SSD-20 (STUDY AREA 3) FOR ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL PARAMETERS. DECEMBER 2007. PHOTO 18: SAMPLE PREPARATION OF SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT NRC-07 (STUDY AREA 2) FOR RADIOISOTOPE ANALYSIS. DECEMBER 2007. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA014 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 19: SECTION OF SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT NRC-07 (STUDY AREA 2) FOR RADIOISOTOPE ANALYSIS. DECEMBER 2007. PHOTO 20: PREPARATION OF SAMPLES FROM SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT NRC-08 (STUDY AREA 2) FOR RADIOISOTOPE ANALYSIS. FEBRUARY 2008. ~ ~ 31884-00(051)GN-WA014 OCT 27/2009 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia PHOTO 21 : PREPARATION OF SURFACE SEDIMENT SAMPLE COLLECTED AT BC-SSD-26A (STUDY AREA 1) FOR BLACK CARBON ANALYSIS. FEBRUARY 2008. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA014 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 22: ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT COR-36 ( STUDY AREA 2) FOR RE-SAMPLING . DECEMBER 2008. PHOTO 23: ADDITIONAL SEDIMENT CORE COLLECTED AT COR-36C ( STUDY AREA 2). DECEMBER 2008. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA015 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 24: WATER DEPTH MEASUREMENT BEFORE COLLECTION OF CORE FOR SEDFLUME TESTING. JULY 2009. PHOTO 25: SPECIALIZED CORING EQUIPMENT USED TO COLLECT SEDIMENT CORES FOR SEDFLUME TESTS. JULY 2009. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA015 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 26: RETRIEVAL OF SEDIMENT CORE FOR SEDFLUME TESTING . JULY 2009. PHOTO 27: RETRIEVED SEDIMENT CORE AT KRSD-25 (STUDY AREA 1) FOR SEDFLUME TESTING . JULY 2009. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA015 OCT 27/2009 PHOTO 28: RETRIEVED SEDIMENT CORE AT KRSD-20 (STUDY AREA 2) FOR SEDFLUME TESTING. JULY 2009. PHOTO 29: RETRIEVED SEDIMENT CORE AT COR-30 (STUDY AREA 3) FOR SEDFLUME TESTING . JULY 2009. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA015 OCT 27/2009 - C. -_ - ---- ·-- ,- -- - - ..,,,,- -=-- PHOTO 30: RETRIEVED SEDIMENT CORE AT COR-07 (STUDY AREA 4) FOR SEDFLUME TESTING . JULY 2009. PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG EOC INVESTIGATION FIELD ACTIVITIES EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia 31884-00(051)GN-WA015 OCT 27/2009 APPENDIX GIS DATABASE OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ON COMPACT DISC) 031884 (51) APPENDIX G ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS (ON COMPACT DISC) 031884 (51) G.1 2004 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.2 2005 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.3 2007 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS G.4 2008 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS APPENDIX (3.1 2004 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS 031884 (51) APPENDIX G2 2005 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS 031884 (51) APPENDIX (3.3 2007 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS 031884 (51) APPENDIX (3.4 2008 ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTS 031884 (51) APPENDIX FISH TISSUE SAMPLE PREPARATION FIELD NOTES 031884 (51) Kanawha Fish Samples CRA October 2004 Replicate 4 5 -049 Replicate 5 0 -050 DUP 0 MSDS 0 5 -044 5 -045 0 0 -043 15 -037 15 -038 15 -051 15 -052 6** -039 0 5 -001 5 -011 5 -012 5 -033 5 -034 0 0 Forage 15 -003 15 -004 15 -005 15 -006 15 -007 0 0 33-45 Sample No. C. Catfish 5 -002 5 -008 5 -009 5 5 -035 0 0 -010 33 Bass 5 -023 5 -024 5 -025 5 -026 5 -027 0 0 Forage 15 -013 15 -014 15 -015 15 -016 15 -017 Replicate 1 5. -046 Replicate 2 5 -047 5 -041 5 -042 Forage 15 -036 Bass 42 Sample No. RM 75-95 Sample No.* Species C. Catfish 68 Bass Sample No. 68 Sample No. 42 Sample No. -~ -~- 33 5 -048 5 I Sample No. Sa'!'_ple No. Replicate 3 * Sample No. TISS0318841 OXX04DFK-OXX ** 6 large gizzard shad *** Sample not obtained All forage fish are gizzard shad 75 50 -018/-022 -028/-032 Live Sample RM L/.l Prepared Sample Predator !3A S ~ Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. Sample B Species _)i'\,\') Length .1S cm Weight I~,:;.~+- l') Abnormalities . lv/)· \ L~oo Cat._ __ ~-~-=--v ____ SampleB Weight S(o. 'l \ '",. L_·;-P .- ,:_f\ ;f.:' \cf'.!.'-~ , i... "\'1 \ I OL·v·Cv (0.AA.+:;--Q -\-1\r\ Sample C Species s ''1' 6 Length ..;) :; c vY\ Weight 113, J- lX Abnormalities , c.\re_, Sample C Weight S'6 .0 ~ Sample D Species ._.::.,'Y'i \o Length .~ h ,: YY) Weight : Abnormalities SampleD Weight ~J Lt, • j Sample E Species .:·. ,,Y,b Length J}, .:. \'Y\ Weight I J.{7. ~ Abnormalities Sample E Weight 1.1--;. e,1 V (.\ 10 ~''2-/ IO 1 0 f _. hoDJ,1 &:;~ 2 c. \my documents\f1sr nc1ddatasheer.doc to [u(otf / Prepared Sample Live Sample RM :i.. ~)··· L1S Predator_ _ Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. &10/). ---'------ Sample No:11::i:>-· lf~\1'6(1 --1rn 10\;..t .--nK:- oc;,:')illet, skin off · ii e ~scaled __________ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species Q,v,_;;i.n(\-t\ C\:_:r Length !.,PS en" Weight C , 'Vi K\ Abnormalities · r.J t·;\e,. Sample A Weight Sample B Species (, c c:t Length lj~ cx·t\ Weight \, ( i(c~ Abnormalities !J C{\.:2.., Sample B Weight i <1i Sample C Species (h.c'"n\1-e \ cc. t' Length G\ ?) .~ c..rn Weight 0.1, (c, Abnormalities .J Sample C Weight \~5j Sample D Species d,osW\-et ( cX Length t.,j1 cvv, Weight \. \ Abnormalities . , ,"Jcv\z..- SampleD Weight \ o-v\- E ~ LO(t\\c.} 2 c\my documents\fish lielddatasheet 1joc Prepared Sample Live Sample RM 4.:-Ty~: Cat_ __ Predator ·Fora~~ G~i-Ztu..-J .Sv\t:\,.L-- "··-.=-="-_..,....-~ COMPOSITE No. Sample No. ·n.s.s --o3l'Z1'..l/ - iO i :JY~t _·-:r-:,1~. ·- 003 Fillet, skin off_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Ffil~~kin on, sc~led _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ~ 1 7 5 Cs ,e:t~ <)f \'& -h'~\...0 003 --+'1~~jh 00·1 ,1ss·· C:-:)\~Ssi,r- 1012::icti --p.~-ot~;r-ebr'GO-s c·,s Sample A ~hs~) Sample A ,iss.··c&l&~ -101£:;c:lf-~L-oc,s Species 6; z..Vt.Av& ~S:\tlu\ \\.J.j 1-'·:'l.,:}·\J.t-\'.l_),\..:;.IV•.:}·l:;,~l,'1\.S I~,~ ; · .. , ·. -· 1 Abnormalities j >. ;, ',~.a-,,o.:rJl~t,i~·l. ,-e_ 01 ,t::;;s" o:3\~~t-t- 1 ' ,A ,, J: ' \Q\&i-l- 'b.k'.'..-&~ ~ o(JLj SampleB Lt:) ,h"s,h) SampleB nss--0-=:.1~~li- 1016C~1-·t¥- c:t:)E:=ii o ''-·( Species 6i l-k,t,y""'t S\'\tvi· Weight , -:s -h's'-, ( i..;J\.-,ol'(:..) 1:J1u Lengthl_cn-0 ~ IG; io.,;,, tt >l~., il.S~ ii..(, t'S.:, I~ S:.. \(L~·, \(}, >It)) ,C) ,05;~ 9} lcj ~Weight (:s_;: . . .1.\.o· . ,,.~· .. . " :, c:>-1.5, .. ~ . 10.4; i,~ \·) n.,i >· ,y.~.)-<,, 5 lo,) i ".'.'I,, ~ \.-~.I'_, c-,. d (.., ~ > > · 1> 1 ~~ Ab normaI1t1es )-.kne.1,7:)< 1:) j ~- ()O(p SampleD (IS-h·s}·<) SampleD T'l's.-s-,,o:~l'S~~-\OL~CLt-'""DK·..·ec.~§1:::, ,-=x'Jb Species 6 i LZ,,~vc..f :~ho..,J . .. . . Weight IS -h-."=>\r' ( t,Jho\ <) I« :S,.J LengthkvV\Y il·)ll.S:,1c 1 \l.~.> l::l~"l 1 tc.'1, H.~, io.i:;> "6.S,; \U}:) lC,~, \l 1 10 ~ > \O.S J ,o. Weight(~~:. it i ~ .'1:. ,4-, \.~ t ·, \~ -l; cl,(p 1 lll ·> ~~2.11 ;5. ~ ,;}.~ \c .~, \.:l.l.c '., \L ;;;- ,. 9.i., J r,.Lt. Abnormalities \0 t.Y{)e... J ! c, Sample E ( \S h·;.\--0 Species G: Lz.t,:t-.. -d.' ~\r'\c:1,..J Length (...cv,<). r; I \t;·} l ;, ) \ \.i:'::i:. \ ?:..6, Weight (}:.3Y ;2-1.,-} ilt.t.1:, Abnormalities Sample E Weight u) '\O .~ ~ 10' 1;} .. ·,\\:,\I·> 2 c\my documents\fish fielddatasheet doc -n S.S~ · 03' \~S:~t \ '::~ l c..d\n o \-.: ) \C,i.f·., H >\L4 j :l.0. - IC I :~:i..t - -~ut. -,.,.._,.,_,....,;,.i~/L15 Predator_ _ Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. _0.::::;_·-=--0-+9-- Sample No. T\ss--o:1,<3~Y - 1013otf ·-T:Y-.-c,o'j Cat Choj')(\ftfillet, skin off_ _5__________ Fillet, skin on, scaied _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species C,Y'\.0-.V\n-J,. Gr~ Length L{Oc~ Weight C: . "6 \L~ Abnormalities i0one. Sample A Weight l \ Sample B . Species C,~'\O...hi) .J c o--:t-' Length Zf6 CW'\ Weight t .O:'.':> \lG~ Abnormalities ~ Sample B Weight '8S_j Sample C Species CV\Cl\'\{)-~ Length y;i_ un'"l Weight 01·-1 ~~ Abnormalities-\_), Sample C Weight \ ':):).c;, l.QJ l'J [>'f\..9..- a,J-,. ~ / 'v t,yy-e,, Sample D Species C,A1_ctnn-e2 Length L{J~ Weight \. ~~) ~ Abnormalities SampleD Weight it~ Sample E Species C. \n1tnn-cQ co~\--Length dcl O'Y\ Weight ~~,r '\ ( 0, )-(L~~) Abnormalities -\'\..l r;r-ru ... Sample E Weight 2 c:\my documents\fish fiG-!ddatasheet.doc ~:5c" ...J Prepared Sample Live Sample RM ~~- LjS Type: Forage_ _ __ Predator_ _ COMPOSITE No. 0 to Sample No.,·1ss. ~ 0?::d~~-- /Ot'3olf - ];JC- oto Cat ci:]e-,.n \Fillet, skin off.__~ = · = - - - - - - - - - - Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species o)r\c( V-H1--eJ Ccc~Length Y ~ GVV\ Weight o · ~j Abnormalities 1Juv,0 Sample A Weight t'S5 _s, Sample B Species CJ\o,. vw'\ ~ C.GA* Length 3 "6 C\t'V'\ Weight O, S i<.L~ Abnormalities IV O\J\.-L- Sample B Weight lO+- ~ Sample C Species ~'"'"--& c0.Jt-Length LI ~ c,yY"\ Weight O :1 K-5 Abnormalities \Jff\t\...U Sample C Weight \ 55~ Sample D Species c'.Y\0....1/'\\{)~Q Co~ Length LtLf cnn Weight 0 . -~ lfr\ Abnormalities SampleD Weight ~ Sample E Species 0'v\.i_;_;v,\"\4 c <-'-7\ Length r..f1 tA""·" Weight i KJ Abnormalities Sample E Weight c, 2 c.·\my documents\f1sh f1e/ddatasheet.doc l\ Live Sample RM L:fa: Prepared Sample . 'b~<;.. Predator~-~ Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. 0 \\ Cat_ __ I ' Sample No .. ~tss- CS\~~·y -\01 :soy -·l)\l.-o\ ~ Fillet, skin off-------=--------Fillet, skin on, scaled __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5=-· ..,___ _ _ _ __ --=c._..:.._-'----- Sample A Species :S\'>ot\<.1 ~~ss.. Length :):::, c~ Weight l ~i:\ Abnormalities 1\l ~ Sample A Weight l~0i Sample B .. Species .s;.rott-cci. b(l:~s: Length c:9.c:\ OVY'\ Weight \"l ~ ~ Abnormalities -Wcn-e..... Sample B Weight t ~ l"j Sample C ii Species S{)o tt-ed bGS Length c;/9 cvn Weight i4Q. ~ Abnormalities Nc--A..rL., Sample C Weight 45P Sample D Species ~.~bu~s Length , '6 CVY\ weight -, I ·\ Abnormalities l\J e ; ~ SampleD Weight (~Lt_cj Sample E Species '.S{lA-\-cxl bct.<::-,s Length ·i<71 C\IY\ Weight '6 LI t) Abnormalities /dn'\-1...... Sample E Weight ?SO:'.\ J j :J \ __) 2 c \my documents\f1sh f1elddatasheet doc I /lc100 Live Sample RM Y(J.. Prepared Sample Predator ~ot.S.S.. Type: Forage_ _ __ Sample No. \ I S.S ~ 03 i ~~Y'- 1o i ~oL{ -pk-- o\;Fillet, skin off -----------Fillet, skin on, scaled _.,,,..-~~-_ _ _ _ _ __ Whole --------------- 0 I 3- COMPOSITE No. Sample A I Species ~() ot-\-e.J., Length ,1(o c""' Weight ~cc\ Abnormalities- Cat_ __ Sample A b:\S.s. Weight ')s Cat_ __ Type: Predator Forage {;;z,z o:v,_f s:\;\p~ COMPOSITENo. Sample No ...TlSS--' 413\ ~SL( - )o\ltD4 -·nil-(}\ 3. ~~tt1 Fillet, skin off_____________ Fillet, skin on, scaled - - - - - - - ~ - Whole 15 ( i:.::> s(;f-s ei-(2 r5 -h:Sh) {)t;_ -0\1 613 Sample E Species .'.~7 .. : •.v~./___ S,\1_,.,_,.-\,. Length(c~); H:. t.J.,\4·1tY·;Hi ::~~~!;1;ti~/' '/. Sample E 1\SS-· O~\bq,,~~- l0l4Glt- ~--c) \ --( Weight ..f.~::"s.h l )~ 1IIS 1 t1·, 10.":1o,l\.~,,\C 4 :,J. . i • ll,, l ·/'i.'1 , J. t,,, tb I; I.:> 's, 1.'.L I , 11, 1 , I 2 c\my documents\fish fielddatasheet doc ;,. , .0 J 1.1 I, ID. ;. · v ...: Prepared Sample Live Sample RM ·<:,2, Sample No. 11SS ·"(.f31~'::j- lo\ljl)L{ - bil.-618, t\NJ,, W~ilin~ ~ Fillet, skin on, r.~led Whole -, 5 ~:) s c:!s cf' PS) Cat_ __ Type: Predator_ _ Forage bi2z.r,.,\'~ ~t.c{ 0\'8 - oay ("b.~11' cd-6 ~r:,n1~ <-,) COMPOSITE No. Sample A Sample A ·,iS.S-Jo31~qLi - lO\l-l04 -1*- -Ol ~ Species btZ,Z-c.,1;-t:( S:v·\ci:....:l Weight 's i.Jhv\~ h~s\r·" Length (cr_vl): IO \l 1 lo,5) ld--j l t 10.5: \4:>.S· lO, \\ S I· t~S I· ,o, '5,) 10·,.J ,c e:: IC··i 'tO',) \ ' ...) ) Weight (~)) ~ 10 :·,, 11. \,it,Lt, l('t l, l.-3.. ~. \G l ~ rj' . , _ c .. .. . , , , 4, ,1. ~\5.1)-a~.\s,u.a,.o,1.·\·,c1 -·. AbnormalitiesN (>\~ .1 J > • , \0./·1, (O,l-\ J • ' c> ) '- .J ' Sample C ·-nss-- O:':>i~~t(- io14c4 ~,~ ~o:;iu Sample C , __ , Species G, .z..Zi::'w"'CR ~;~.....t Weight \ 5 L,,_:.\r1Dle- hi:;~ Length(cr") · tJ;,? ·~ \;);·. \4'. ~ \01 '::>; ll, S ~ l l·1 t 5 1 \S j \ l ,\ j l\.Sj \J,S, ci,Si l;.).:, Weight(~\~·· l 6 ~ri ·, lL?'> J.4.~·, 1.;. \S.S; ,,.~~ lo.5:, aa. \ ~9 ~ \~'J.. q , Ci' I . \ I L \. 1 I ; .-_, . · i •.., I '6 ) I 5 • d'"" Abnormalities \4 Ci'{\;2., ,C, I Sample E Species 6 .; Z,Z.c·;,v ,.<\ ~\,\c. . ,~ Length(c,,,,') \C. \O.~ /10· '1.S \.,.. .) J J I\, ) S·,; i/'1 ,:;, J '.J • ,. d (>· IC r:--; Weight(e~') lD, S·., Ti; -1.0 L\.'.:'> ·:Z,,t,\ · t,,.r;. ~ .1; Abnormalities \"-J tr\i\c: ' I • 1\. ; \ -· ,, ." i/t :~ .1 2 c.\my documents\fish fielddatasheet.doc • ) • \ ; ,, Prepared Sample Live Sample RM ;,..;·~ Type: Forage_ _ __ Predator'P:x::\ s.,S COMPOSITE No. -=-0=-~.,,,..-.3.e..___ _ Cat_ __ Sample N o~:tlS:~ - o3 \ ,i~lt-\O\Ljo4 -"'l)\(__-(\;xE) Fillet, skin o f f · - - - - - - - - ~ - - Fillet, skin on, scaled ___.5-J--·_ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Weight \ tl1..:> Jc'/1-.L Sample B Species s Vot+ed \~vs:s Length :.}'1.-5 CW\ Weight l q,,i ,.:) Abnormalities-\\)C)\.JL. Sample B Weight l.G,i Sample C Species .S rn b ct.SS Length ~ l G-\,'Y\ Weight \ t 9.:) Abnormalities \\Jty\JL, Sample C Weight L{ 6 Sample D _ Species S 1vct~ ej, bClS~ Length \ i ~rY\ , Weight '6 r) ::) Abnormalities ~a~ Sample E Species Length ~2 ~ o"Vi Weight u. Abnormalities SampleD Weight ~\ Sample E Weight 2 c \my documents\fish f1e!ddatasheet doc r j .J J Prepared Sample Live Sample /') /} RM :>~ Type: Forage_ _ __ ·,c-c ._:v.:\...;>> Pre d a t ort?- Cat_ __ Sample No. TtSS.- O~l'>?&':f .. to ISol.[ ·-:t.JC -o~ ~ Fillet, skin off_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, scaled --""""~·-..____ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMPOSITE No. _o'----"'·,;}"-"'~-"_ _ Sample A Species -~QGi-tt:d. \'Jc\$.-; Length ,:1t,\CM Weight \~~} Abnormalities h\'-JV\,..._... 'r\ A..v Sample A Weight tp ?Jj Sample B Species S:i~1+e.t.:i- bc'-'~s;: Length ~~'S C.VV'\ Weight C. ~K~ Abnormalities CfV\JL Sample B weight Sample C Species 5~n k:x:\Ss Length ~IGM Weight Ci.L,t K_s Abnormalities /Jt)\J;L,, Sample C Weight Sample D , Species.:~ rn bo. .s:s Length .~i4 G\IY\ Weight no~) Abnormalities j,\, , SampleD Weight Sl Sample E \ . Spec1es ~rn Y'JCl/~'.~ Length J.tou(\ . ht O. . ·)t i'":)!.) \( ,~ W e1g Abnormalities , ·.-.l Sample E Weight i. v,1 ~ N ~J ' \J 'C\' \_;._, \\i ~Y\-t,., 2 c \my documents\fish fielddatasheet doc J J Prepared Sample Live Sample RM 3s Predator~~~ Type: Forage_ _ __ Cat_ __ Sample No. :rrs.s-o'.2,tClrs':(--locSoLf --1>K-o.;,7 Fillet, skin off_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, scaled __6_ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMPOSITE No. _L"""'--1=.;J-'1'----- Sample A Species .:Sf'<"\bt'S'S Length ;~ Cv-r\ Weight G ..lv. Kc~) Abnormal1t1es f'->t,"t., Sample A Weight \ ~ ,J. c, _) Sample B Species Sp ct-\--e-J bct-S.S Length ~;,ri C.V', Weight c,4 I<~ Abnormalities \'.)CY\.e.,. Sample B Weight \ O \ ~~ Sample C Species SM~ r\.S:<;. Length <~,; cvv, Weight \ 4J. ~) Abnormalities f"J C1"\-z.., Sample C Weight S,:JJ Sample D Species '.'; Ql~~e.1 bc...ss Length ,~ \ L\IY\ Weight \(_ r 1 '~i Abnormalities i;'-.J ;,:.\~ SampleD Weight Lt Sample E Species .::~¥c -\-hd Length lc\.'S C,v~ Weight \ \ ·~ .l\ Abnormalities Sample E Weight 4.Q 1 2 c\my documents\fish fieiddatasheet doc ls Live Sample Prepared Sample RM ~~_,..,,..:") .?r, _ __ Type: Forage Cat_ __ Predator_ _ ~ z2~:.-w.l s.ne'~ 6 S Sample C Species 6 ~ t.Zc.Uv\..~ s V\('--J Length ;~Ctv\) it.'5_·, 10_ .5 ~ 11. S; \I; 1\) , o. 5 1o ., . , . . . ; · Weight lo\ IS> P. Lt . ll.:1. s . : 1·s. 1. i., 1 tf. , ri I Abnormalities rJt~'\JL, .~ • I · .i , c, l ·,. '). v'- . .., ./ \I·I f)l _ ·r IS s: -Cf~\ ~~Cf .... I01.5 J O i.A)V) c\-<. - bll.-o3o --h-~ h 11. It ) i:-_ /,";:)' 1 ; '~i. t:;~ ;c ,J-·i · i c.< •.J ~· ii, , , 1. 1 - ··i I t, u:. q :l~J-1t,)-·'·, ..• ·}, ) .) .l Sample E -r- t 'iS · 0'"1 t '~gel-- to\ Weight .1 :S '., l .c1 :. 2 c\my documEnts\fish f1e/ddatasheet. doc B$-1r)::S SampleDt\ 5S -c;; ~ ~~y - l 0\ '5 cl-l - blC - o:=1 t Weight O Ic. -h ..s Sample D Species 6 i ZZc:a:>,,...ct Shc...c:L Length (t11-~) iY: 1,.. ; t · ,c Weight( . ~ . i(p Abnormalities Ni::·Y·\9-· Sample E Species · -ZZ..f,:.,-.::, Length fr,A I~ .. ·,. S Weight l; , I. Abnormalities Sample C Weight I,')~')!,;..>(, ,/ Sample No.~T-\ SS- () 3 \~~t( - l 0 l 5cJ ·y - nK Fillet, skin off_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, pealed _·-------.,----Whole SD l :se_\s c,,~ ) a t.;;· 'O Prepared Sample Live Sample RM_1ll _ _ Predator Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. fh~:s:"5 Cat_ __ Sample A Species ..5£~.A'.1 b:\,na Length ~ 1 c.y,.,-,. Weight (). i..t Kt:.,) Abnormalities f.}J1\L Sample A Weight \ OC\ Sam~le B.,._,,...:, 1~i:l k:nfla Spec1es <':..I( ,,,"11"Length d~c~ Weight I~ \_3 Abnormalities tJi:"'(\.Q.... Sample B Weight 51) Sample C ot+c.l bevy) Species Length 0<6 Ct'Y' Weight o. ; t<~ Abnormalities \' \ _ Sample C Weight -~ ·'2 Sample D Species ,Syl'#e..1 ~:t.$S Length .~J,.crf'\ weight \ )o ('.:\ Abnormalitiei SampleD Weight ..~.. v." ,-,, Sample E Species Length Weight ') .:-1 Abnormalities Sample E Weight S~r:1 0 ~ lJj ''\J IJ't\..5l... -Jf)J _J 2 c.\my documents\fish f1elddatasheet doc ~' l4?_o Sample No.·:n~-;·-o2Wl~ - IU\':)0'1 _, ~-D:~~~ Fillet, skin off._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, scaled -----==5::;___________ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _o"'"'----"'-'--3,"""'""'/">;.___ _ :.S9 I / Prepared Sample Live Sample RM Y-9.. J"'\ Type: Predator \';_k~- r?J Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. Cat_ __ Sample No. -nss .. c~\~''&~ -1015oL{-l)K.-03lt Fillet, skin off· - - - - - - - - - - - Fillet, skin on, scaled --""-5""'"-------Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 Si Sample A b:\.5;.~ Species Length .3C u·Y"\ Weight 0. 5 ~~~ Abnormalities t~c~ Sample A Weight ;irs~ Sample B , Species S vctte)l h1.~;s Length 3.-1 Ct"'"' WeightO, 4 K') Abnormalities f\j DV...JL- Sample B Weight c1 J~) ~:;rc+ted t Sample C . . Species S \>D-ttel bcvY.J Length JD orA Weight \\O'\ Abnormalities D·t\e_ Sample C Weight _, o 61'.)C\ _) rJ SampleD Weight (o1 Sample E Species ~-f (,~te,1 Length:-:~\ cvn Weight I II '-'\ Abnormalities ;,_,"'VlC ' Sample E Weight j 2 c:\my documents\fish fie/ddatasheet.doc J Live Sample RM 3·3-y5 Prepared Sample Predator_ _ Type: Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. Sample No. TlSS-- o -~tt U,S- 2o zz 3'-t j \1-1 \.\ .5 / \IS2. l I\ \ 1S ·nss -- Weight \ Lf; 5 [ l 3 \ l 2 .., 31 23,S l-"f,T D31ggty _ l\ f() l(t;Cl(- -~ -6:!Jy-_;:; . 3 \ 13 \ t3.5 2. 22 1 z z_ I j 110 r3 . Z.3 Abnormalities Sample B Species _biz__z.,,~ SV\L:td) Length[c~} i3 li2> I is,S Weight('.)) dl.y 116.1 Abnormallt1es I l \4 \as.to\ ;;11,,,1 \.;n l .J.1 03/ Sample D Species Gt 2-2..~r-J Length CW\ z..t+ Weight wt" llf '2Abnormalities ~ \\_ ~ \ 2-"Z..o.,v el 1 \s.5 i \~ S~J Sample E Species Length Weight Abnormalities '2- '-t l b'1 Sample B llS.S - 03ti0-t-10· tW(--v~-(SZ.7 Weight . ,:> f ,.,. l4 \ i 4 °, 1:,1. 31"1. J. \ ;4. s I Id'/.~ \ ··""l "' ,~, z..t;.~ t t./ '1 'J}f. ~ Sample E Weight 2 c:\my documents\f1sh f1e!ddatasheetdoc \ ,v, \ ;'1 \ 14. '5 ,4 :i,;.i \ 31. 1 1 3.;: .<] j I a. s ! \ "' t-S~c\ tol2..sf oci 5 l · . \l oi Live Sample RM 1 68 Predator~~ Type: Forage_ _~ COMPOSITE No. ot-f - -I - - - Prepared Sample S~mple No.Tiss-o3/8i'/-ID.1..kc't'-C>k- 0 Cat- - - FIilet, skin off Fillet, skin on,~s:c:a;:le:-=;d;---------Whole - - - - - - - - Sample A Species Spo Length 4 t c \v\ Weight \ ,/, t.i; Abnormalities 0 Sample A Weight 5tD Sample B Species ~ pa ~ Length '? 2.c W\ Weight \ L{ 5 Abnormalities Sample B Weight Lf Sample C Species S po+k J Length ;;z. '3, c Vo'\. Weight \ '=:> Abnormalities ~ Sample C Weight Sq-(} Sample D Species S po ~ Length 1-t...\: C\M.. Weight l L\ 3 Abnormalities ~ SampleD Weight Sample E Species Length 2- '? c '-\.. Weight ;2.bO Abnormalities Sample E Weight ~ 1S l4-ed ~ 1'a° i 1 5~W 3 2 c:\my documen/s\f1sh fielddatasheet.doc C-\ £" D ~ ,, I -..:r...a.~ Prepared Sample Live Sample RM 6B Type: Forage_ __ Predator~,:; COMPOSITE No. --=Q'-----L/--'__ --2 Sample No.Tiss-03/8g'/-IDL~clf-C>k-::Z Cat- - - Fillet, skin off- - - - - - - - - - Fillet, skin on, scaled - ~ X, ~ - - - - - - Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species Sf>oW Length . 4 3cl,\,\ Weight l L.{- DOC\ Abnormalities Cl Sample A Weight Sample B Species~~ \;\-ec\ Length Z.B clM Weight t.jDD 0v, Abnormahties 0 Sample B Weight Sample C Species S pt> t\-d Length 2. 3 C.\.\.A Weight \~~~ Abnormalities -....) Sample C Weight tf Sample D Species Length 2- 5c M Weight 3 c>Oe>y Abnormalities O SampleD 'Spotted Sample E Species 5po Length -z_ 2c M Weight \ "'32.(5 Abnormalities t\eJ 4tfOt ~2-i Weight ~ " SampleE Weight L-j 2 c\my documents\f1sh fielddatasheet doc lf-7! 'IT 11 !::f. i~ / Live Sample RM Prepared Sample ,s:: Type: Forage_ __ Predator~sS COMPOSITE No. D Lf-3 Sample A Species Scf>o~ Length 2-4,5 c.hA Weight 3 to Abnormalities ~ Cat_ __ Sample No.Tiss-03/88f./,-I02.fe..ol..f-C>k-~ Fillet, skin off Fillet, skin on, scaled Whole -------------- --,e-><~------ Sample A Weight Sample B . Species fb Length ~VV\ Weight ~50 Abnormatifies ~ SampleB Weight Sample C Species £' f'C:> ~ Length 3 C Weight \ vy Abnormalities ) Sample C Weight Sample D Species $'pc Length c \Iv\. Weight J .3 Abnormahtles SampleD Weight Sample E Species S Length 2 \ C W\. Weight \3L\Abnormalities · ~ Sample E 5 z.~ W z. -=f-5 J 9''i5') 5 / 'j L.{5 lA-cJ z. \ 1°) po~ Lf-5 Weight 2 c \my documents\f1sh fielddatasheet.doc LJ cf °) ~ !1~~ · J Prepared Sample Live Sample RM ~~ Predator Type: Forage_ __ COMPOSITE No. 6 Bas$ 4-Y- Cat_ __ Sample No.Tiss-03/8~f./-lDL~o'/-Ok-!2. Fillet, skin off_ _ _ _--,--_ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, scaled - - -Y- . , ~ ~ - - - - - Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species Spo ~ Length 1.o. 5 C"V\ Weight l \ 2 q Abnormalities 0 Sample A Weight Sample B Species S t>o Length '?..-OcVv'\ Weight l \ 3 ~ Abnormalities Sample B Weight Sample C Species Length 3 q c M Weight \o\ ~ Abnormalities v Sample C Weight Sample D Species s .pat-4-~ ~ Length ,S)_[;,CrY1 Weight :S 00 /), Abnormalitie~ SampleD Weight qS Sample E Species ,,,.,., Length ')-ri,, .__A,j<.__,, V 1 weight ,~:;o0 ri: 1_ Abnormalities J Sample E Weight 14 6 r,, W z">fc>~ 30 c:>(S 3~ . '{; ~1 5 Sample E Weight 5S:lci l ._/ .~ 2 c\my documents\f1sh f1e/ddatasheel.doc · ~5 Prepared Sample Live Sample RM 7~5-,.,.'T~:> ~~ss-03/88'/-IOll.l-Otf-C>k-~ Ca~~·~---~~--------- Type: Predator_ _ Forage_ _ __ COMPOSITE No. Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---'='O'---Hl-'!?.(t.1-,_ _ Sample A , Species GCO.:.k Length f/i C:W"' Weight \ ·=> Abnormalities f\.)ui'J2_, Sample A Weight .J3iej Sample B • r, Species C Co~ Length c*l r \,v"\ Weight It tp~1 Abnormalities ) \ Sample B Weight (7'IJ f)t _ -.. V\V !• tLs . fl :sn~ec\: 5(._Jv-\0 t J ?r ~JJ _,/ 4 vf&i. ~V'-\ Sample C ., Species G ~ Length Efl cl/Y"\ Weight 6, \c? ~) AbnormalitiesL tJ~ Sample C Weight~ Sample D Species c.~ Length 3-'ScW\ Weight O .~ (c\ Abnormalities {'Jo~v... SampleD Weight t.~J j Sample E Species C. Length 315 ~. ..?\ Weight ~ ,_lt? \lj Abnormalities · Sample E Weight ioQ., Jl) . 2 c\my documents\fisr• fielddatasheet doc ') !i. \\l l Prepared Sample Live Sample RM 15--(tS Type: Forage_ __ Predator_ _ COMPOSITE No. _6--=-4_,_]_ __ CafCh,,.01d Sample No.Ttss-03/8~t/-lD~J..O'/-C>k-:E. !:J. ;:;.: Fillet, skin off . ~ Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Species G C. (>-..,.t Length wS UV\ Weight 3.4 ~ Abnormalities ~~ Sample A Weight I Sample B Species c..cc'1' Length S~..:.i.'Y\ Weight ;. 'Sile Abnormaliti~s Ne~ Sample B Weight i Sample C Species c. c.c~ Length CS.OCVY'\ Weight L. ~ \l_5 _ Abnorrnaht1es \"'JOVuL, Sample C weight 3co Sample D Species GCc1...,+-Length Xc10" Weight Jk-!E. .:/~ ~ Fillet, skin off X- 5 Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SampleAC~ Co..~ Species Length '-t 9-c wt Weight f· 4 k~ Abnormalities ~ Sample A Weight ZZ-5(S' Sample B 1 • (l Species C · C,j- ~ Length 4 'l-C' \Iv\ Weight o.q \<~ Abnormalities ~ Sample B Weight lb?~ Sample C 1 _j . ~('t Species (:, Oet.,~ Length 'i2 C. I.M. Weight l·& \l..'1 Abnormalities ~ Sample C Weight t4D Sample D . l. ·.0. Species C, C(A_~ Length 3 4 CW' Weight O 11Abn ormaliti es t/l (J'p\]2_. SampleD Weight ?:, I "'-o Sample E 1_£:,. 't Species C, ~ ~ - Length 2 'Sc. w-. Weight l l ~~ Abnormalities~ 2 c:\my documen/s\fish fielddatasheet doc '3 °(f Live Sample RM qt; Type: Forage_ __ Prepared Sample Predator_ _ COMPOSITE No. Sample A Species C ~ Length 3S c: \v\ weight 6 5' k Abnormalities 0 6 ~ 9_ ~~s~ Cat ')( Sample No.Ttss-C>3/8Bt/-lD.flo'I-Ok-!E. Fillet, skin off_--=-__,.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sample A Weight ~ Lf 7f I \f\cr1I\J2.- Sample B Species c_ ,Co._+ Length 3 c\lVt Weight \0'===, Abnormalities °o (uJYl.Q. Sample B weight -z.A:s () Sample C Species C~ ~ Length 2-8 cl,,V\ Weight l 1""0 ~ Abnormalities O Sample C Weight '3 l (5 z V\Q'Vt_Q Sample D Species C .. ~ Length 3 °3,c.vA Weight t> .. 5\.<.t Abnormalities SampleD Weight 5 z.%' ,··"'tLet)"'l_L Sample E Species G C,tctLength 'ff! C:. \IV\.. Weight I ;3 kt\Abnormalities 0 Sample E Weight ~:Z 2 c\my documents\fish fielddatasheet.doc .:i Live Sample Prepared Sample RM ?;~-~45 Predator_ _ Type: Forage_ _ __ ., .- COMPOSITE No. _ _o_· -=-C-~)- Cat )< Sample No~TI5S03 l t lZt:. h ..t \vw'"J COMPOSITENo. OS\ . . os·~]- Sample No. TtSS631$-~L}({l tbt/:QF\( - O 5 I Cat- - - Fillet, skin off- - - - - - - - - - - --= O ~e;:=·- ·-:, Fillet, skin on, scaled _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Whole ;J s-c1 s, ~1 .f ( S +;·~ Sample B .._ CJ 5t;? Species 6 ·, l'2t~vi:{ -~hi,:... A Length (ertl) · ,s i \l, 1· n Weightlj) ~ i0 \ ~l ~ \ ~\ aa ;).1 Lrl Abnormalities t,.}GY\""G I~ \'~ \' iS\ '~ \l Sample C Species Length Weight Abnormalities Sample C Weight Sample D Species Length Weight Abnormalities SampleD Weight Sample E Species Length Weight Abnormalities Sample E Weight 2 c \my documents\f1sh fielddatasheet.doc 1 ·: !! l z.t{o Live Samule RM ...>(1lil G· bvo· 0 L(C Predator Type: Forage_ __ r COMPOSITE No. *i v Prepared Sample :;o I Sa,nple No.TJ!.t {) ?./pt'f-J'ZJ ]OK~ Cat- - Fillet; skin off."'"'.""-----'-------Fillet, on, scaled Whole skin ,X. -l - - - - Sample A Species s~~ ~ Length 2> l CVV\ Weight 3.00~ Abnormalities - IA 1 . ~~ LQv,-41~_) S~ple A Weight ~ - l~ Sam~le Bd)()\\e.J Species ~, c1' SampleB Weight Length CIA/\ ._ Weight 3C'5,~ Abnormalities - - ~'S ::i le SampleC .lf.,.., Species S ~OOt:6Length ~\OV\ Weight ~'3 Abnormalities - SampleC Weight ~ (~ Sample D \[ _ l Species S QOttCc.Length ell ~', Sample E I ~ 1_ Species ~ t b '(.t'OlW1M,4'-. 'f'~v) Length ;;,_ lQ Of'('. ,. Weight 2:!D Abnormalities _ _ Sample£ Weight ~3.0 lS d 2 c:\documents and settings\dknommy documents\aq biol\fish fielddatasheet.doc ------~- /_ t . o r~o"' l_~~) P~epared Sample LiveSam~e RM ~'L: .· ' ->i: .,.,.._·..1 ·; s.. . ~mple No:OSSO?m'.(-l1d10i"' D Flt --' oOJ Type: Predator Forage- - - Cat Fillet, skin off · · <-Fl11et, skin on,~s;::ca:i1=ed:;-------Whole COMPOSITE No. 'ZrA Sample A Species l.XY\ Length .&) CW\ Weight '3fte) G< Abnormalities ~ Sample A Weight . ?fto~ (w~ ~(b SampleB Species Sp~~ Length 'b \ CV¥"\. Weight 4 \'5 "" Abnormalities 0 SampleB Sample.C \I _ \ Species S~~ Length /) 3c.-'f'.I\ Weight \l..C'O~ · Abnormalities - - - SampleC Weight l(d)J Sample D . 1f _ ( Species S~~ Length o16L-0¥\ Weight \':D~ Abnormalities _;..- SampleD Weight SampleE Species Sy)arkd, Le11gth &t{ ~ Weight 4C\O Abnormalities Sample E Weight L\15.~ Weight - ·~G c1D KL tflO - 2 c:\documents and settings\dknornmY do cuments\aq biol\fish ,, ,-,elddatasheet.doc I~ ~ Live Samgle RM LtL Type: .,/ Predator Forage~ ~~ I COMPOSITE No. _ 3 ___ ____;__ ~ Sample A Species Length ~3~ / ~eight tlt1..<) Abnormalities _ Sample A Weight \~L-+\3 -z._ ~Li~· I ,~'L"...> ~ SampleB Weight lL,\ 0 SampleB Species ( Length :;} S Gh'l ;/SOV"'\ Weight \L{O~/ \'Soev Abnormalities O J O - --r- ( So ~°t03 3L.-, SampleC Species Length ~6 · ~ 6 e,~ ( .vtc.h Weight ~O (_o\fV\~ ~\ Abnormalities ) · ·' ~ SampleC ) Weight ~.J Zt> SampleD Species Length .Q_[ CIV\ { ~i Weight l qo { l'1sD , Abnormalities °'"' SampleD Weight 'Lqo -r l ~ ~1 o°lf 6S SampleE Species / Length 2-&C'<'f\ d_~ OV\ Weight 120~/ 2-,\0 . Abnormalities Sample E Weight +. -t- '\0,0 t10 Species Length ~7J ~S _'.) Weight Abnonnahttes Ov\ SampleB Weight \YO - ::s.3 D ~ L{G SampleC ,. Weight' t S'l +- 11 o /no 3~~~ LLD SampleD Species / Length ~'SI~ tp Weight t1S/ll S Abnormalities SampleD , Weight t15 -t 1, 5 SampleE Species 1 Length· !lr; ,~t,, Weight120/ Abnormalities Sample E Weight 22..c> ,3506 lfs ' -t ·/ g 5 Lj O 5 j 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr\my documents\aq biol\fish Delddatasheet.doc · ID l'iO _1 ((;(JO Live SamJ!I'.!£ RM 1.-Sa:p1ple No~· - CD~ Cat_ _ ·•~$lwl off~,- - - - - - - - - ' ~---------~::.._- Type: ,./ Predator Forage~ COMPOSITE No. ~ S ~ O B , !1fuN-.-_-1-f.1.._-ih..,,...,_ _ _,;.._:_ 5 'SA···sampleA SampleA Species ·Qt\ Length a.1 / B'S . ~ Weight ~() jl'-(cJ _.J Abnormahties · ·~ '10 _Weight ~ \ L(O 3 I o 5g SampleB Weight,\~ -t-l'Sg SampleB Species Lln Length '2-~ ff Weight lR.) /f'5g Abnormalities 1~ 336 . j SampleC / Species Length 83 ~ Weight l l & ( ~ Abnormalities SampleC ~C.... Weight l l~ SampleD Species Length o(l ~ (-Ulen) Weight Co-m\c,~~ L({RQ°\ Abnom1alities · _J SampleD Tf~ ~°l SampleE Species [ Length 2-l CM 2 Sc""' Weight Cd<'t\bi\\.Q_,d_ 3 lQo. Abnormalities Weight 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr.my documents\aq bioMsh fielddatasheet.doc ~1) 4U>Qj Sample E Weight J i:, -- .(%f'to(og: . II ~eSamql Type: J . Predator- Forage_!\ __ COMPOSITE No. Sample.No.:--:-:--------------~OC>~(p Cat- - Fillet, skin off Fille~ skin on, ·scaled ~-------'...-.,.._. .· . . ~_/l'O "~-c_L·:\ L! -ft zr-1) - (o SampleB Species. __·/ Length ~3/ . f.lf Weight \'25 / IS() Abnormalities . Sample A Sample C Weight -~C) ~ SampleD ~l (l~ (p 1) ~lf D Weight Spe.cies / Length ~l., c~ Weight tYo· Abnormalities - "t""\&>l) szo~ . --------------------L Sample E Weight -t· 2 fielddatashl!,et.doc ls:, (__ llfo -,.. °t 0 SampleD c:\documents and settings\dknommy documents\aq biol\fish Coo\b~ tJ75j jcto r lo A- · SampleB {(?{5 Weight ('2S -r. \ "'=:() Species / Length d. :> I ol I Weight I40 Abnormalities - SampleE Species Length ;)':::> :> \ Weight \40 /\00 Abnormalities" ot~_,~/7 x ~ ~ l{:L.\Oj Weight Samptec· j P:· Whole· Sample A Species . Length a1CM(~4ch.J . Weight ~b,\\.l_1 l{\.{Q °\ Abnormalities _; CJ(\ o Prepared Sample (o[_ \L(O lOU v Live Samole RM 1(4) . 1,2_, Type: J Predator__ Forage_'\__ 5 COMPOSITE No. -Oc,,;, Cat . Sample No" Fillet, skin off·_,..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___;_ Fillet, skin on, scaled · · . . -~.......__- .flO- i""c!.·L"·Whole·. ~ ~J - ---I: )( .. Sample A / Species Length· .Q'S .;li Weight I ¥D/ 9' 'O Abnormalities - SampleA f Weight l~ ..- &l 10 SampleB Specie·s Length o14. c...N\Weight ~\O~ Abnormalities SampleB A - 390:) ~~&\ .. l~ Weight 3\0_j Sample C Weight 'l c_ ollco ((:.C)rnbc~) SampleC Species .Length ~l{ CM ( t Weight CUN\~,~ Abnormalities - qc\r\) ~ o).{o() \ _) SampleD Species . ( Length ~ ~\{ Weight l lc() / \~() Abnormalities _ SampleD L Weight (lPO SampleE Species (o'.. 'CO( ooz_ ooi 00'7· . I Live Samole RM Prepared Sample C(1...- ~pleNo.7~~~ttntt-1:Ef(.. Cat Predator Type: Forage---- J COMPOSIT!:· ---E~:!)--~Cs ~~~ Sample A Species ~l'c\ Length ~ Weight 4CXl) Abnormalities Fillet, skin on, ·scaled Weight 9}.- l..\:c;o X\. ..J - . Sample B cf:> Weight · L{'10 j SampleC Species Sf~l Length a1~ W~ight ~~ Abnormalities SampleC Weight SampleD Species Sf>u\{e_l Length ~ Weight \ ~ Abnormalities 'SampleD Weight . SampleE Species S Length ~O Weight 'b40 Abnormalities SampleE Weight _j ~ ot\~ J 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorrvny docu fielddatasheet.doc ments\aq biol\r/Sh ! I J;- ~ ( ~~ -__ y Whole Sample A SampleB Species S { ) ~ ~ Length 3"2Weight Ll10 j Abnormalities oot,1 - ~" >u (~J , I Fillet, skia off / - 0/Q freparedSample Live Sample RM YL: Type: Forage_ __ Predator~ COMPOSITE No. ,\-~ -- Cat- - CJ ---,~- SampleA Species S ~ Length Weight \\0 Abnormalities - Sample A Wei~t SampleB Species ~rv\ Length oi't Weight l l.tO'\ Abnormalities -:::r- SampleB Weight Sample C Species Sr(\ Length 6{~ Weight \So Abnormalities - - - SampleC Weight I Sc:) SampleD Species Length ~~ Weight \ ~ Abnormalities - SampleD Weight 150J SampleE Species Sfoltel Length 2-.;_,'L \ Weight l u..J Abnormalities -- SampleE Weight Z--1- S-pu-ltcl 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr\my documents\aq biol\fish fielddatasheet.doc 5 \'s?o Live Sample RM -.......... _ 5 . twepared'Sample 4:L: Predator- Type: Forage_ __ COMPOSITE No. _ _\>-,;::0:;;_·_ _ ~s -- Cat s-h~{ ~ SampleA . · Species Sp~ Length ol...1 ~ Weight 6l'-tO Abnormalities SatnpleA Weight SampleB ,I Species Length ~~ Weight ~l{i} Abnormalities - - s.mpleB Weight --=j__ Sf~~ Sample C Species Length 7-L · Weight l'""LO ~ Abnormalities ~d:Q SampleC Weight t°l~ Sample D Species s.p~ Length 2-..l Weight °lcJ Abnormalities -'--- SampleD Weight SampleE Species ot\---c.-l Lengtti '2...- ( Weight \ 00 Abnormalities - - SampleE Weight s-p 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr\my documents\aq biol\fish fielddatasheet.doc ;:2.LW_j 'b_j loo~ ~ ·:_\\ .·. -~·'. \L }.· ~ ,; ,0,:) t, "7 - 0 \ l{ - 0 . (:S3-lt 'S) . . f\ Uve Sample \t:[::: c_4~~. ~ RM Type: Predator__ Forage___ - Cat S~mple No.1]SS:o31K gt-( .. ~ · .· · l -P,-~l s~~ ~ ~l ll ~ Sample A Sample A Species C~V\~ Length :;o ~ Weight IL.too) Gc-4 ~) Abnormalities - flfco'j Weight SampleB SampleB n Species ~vv...X. Length 4t0v\ Weight \ t:-j Abnormalities - - Weight (\. . n ~ I K:i Sample C () Sample E Species ~~ 'f\_,t..\ Length ~':) 6v-A Weight 3ft:OJ{ Filleh skin off-"'.'"" · ~-------Fillet, skin on, scaled ~ Whole \J.--_ Sample C _ , n· Species~ Length 'SL~ Weight nro ~ Abnormalities - - Y1 . ~ COMPOSITE No. ___ \ °" Prepared Sample ll z_, ~fu ~ (1.1 ~) LiveSample RM ~+:S Type:· Forage ....\{S ~~ edator V, Cat--J:l_ COMPOSITE -fl- z..._ No. O&So C~I\,.&, \1...- b~s.4-:\ PreJ!ared Sample " Sample So.1].SS r-:.K_ --01 Fillet. skilr off . . r 'Fillet, skin on, ·scaled . ; ; ': .Whole :b'.:.I~:-"1,~~,~::-_--~~,l~ 9- - 'f, . \ \ _..a....=;..___ _ Sample A_ Species ~ f \ ~ L~gth Weight ( 'boo ~ Abnormalities - lf~~ Sample A. Weight SampleB _,. 0 Species~ Length 41 e,rA. Weight \CSOQ °) Abnormalities __ Sample B Weight .Sample c_ I n Species~ Length L{ c.-~ Weight ltOO ~ Abnormalities SampleC Weight ~ \L lbOO _j \1-1s \~05 1 -- SampleD Species Length 51- <..h\ Weight I~~ Abnormalities - ~.jz SampleE O Species ~ ( \ ~ Length S -:S c....w'-Weight l't 00 ') Abnormalities ··SampleD t1.... Weight lScQ f,e/ddatasheet.doc '"t:> ~ SampleE Weight 2 ,v,, =mens c:\documents and settings\dknor,•-y .,,__, t \a q biol\fish ('L\tt.,lo&' Live Sample RM PJ:ma~Sample ~~...,YS Cat~ Predator Type: 0,\ 3 __..;~_.:_ SapipleA . . Species Length .4L{ G-\-v'"'\ Weight 1-,0l) Abnormalities ___2_ 1Zit'.1Q[-Df(~ F~e~:sliil on,?;·s:ca1:i_e::d;-------------- Forage- - COMPOSITE No. _ ~3 . ;t~Po'31Ul( ~\1\-J. ~ l °' ~~i W!11!~~~",,,1 £,-sA ( s : ~ ·. . sampieA 13,A Weight \"'ZoD 3 . SampleB 0 Species · C~IJ\~ Length Weight °100 Abnormalities 'j 4'2..-·~ - SampleC Species ~ CM.A-0\ ~ . Length~\~ Weight ~\() ~ Abnormalities SampleC Weight SampleD Species S'~-l-\_ Length ~3> err"\ Weight ~S~ Abnormalities SampleD Weight --- - L SampleE Species S ~ Length .::>1 ~ Weight l{ql) Abnormalities 0 SampleE Weight --2 c:\documents and settings\dknornmy documents\a . q bioMsh fielddatasheet.doc Live Sample RM Prepared Sample 6~-l{S S~mple ~o.T/~ 0 3 ( ~ -{2170K-0Pt:. Fillet, skin o~fJf'iX'~:.=.=.....L-l.=:!--J-f~~rs_.:Q_OiJJ_I '-( Cat~ Fillet, skin on,~s;ca:i1e=d·------- Predator_.~ Type: Forage- - COMPOSITE No. #- ~ (at 4J Sample A Species O#vJtn~ ~ Length L(~ 3 Weight '1CV~ Abnonnalities · Whole ~ (.g~(sct~ s SampleB S ~ Species Length Weight '6~~ Abnormalities - ~y SampleC Species S" ~~ Length '3:,'?..Weight !A°/ 0 Abnormalities - - Cat X • Sample No. TJSS 03/grt -121,og-J:{-(-CiS Fillet, skin off - . S< Fillet, skin on, scaled Whole ( --h~ ~-~~-_.;,·---- ------------- 5~~~( 6:>VVvfOS;-t'~ Sample A SampleB \5 ~ Weight 2,'SO~ Sample C Weight SampleD Species c:;. OJA.~..e-v--Length ~ Weight 3 ~ Abnormalities - SampleD Sample E Species ~~~vLength 'b1Weight f;l_ 40 ~ Abnormalities 0 Sample E Weight Weight - 2 c:\documents and settingsldknorr\my documentslaq biQMish fielddatasheet.doc l~ A Weight · "sl{Oj (5 c__ oL°!O_J \CS D 3~0_j o9Lfo · PreparedSample Live Sample 33 RM Type:· Forage t· CfV\ ~ Sample No.T/SS03>t~Lf-n-n·or- OFK. -{)/fa Predator- - ~ COMPOSITE No. ~, Cat- - Fillet, skin.off:,· . ~ - - -. -.---Fillet, ~kin on~ scaled . Sample A (l, Weight "10 ,,~ 10 / IOO SampleB Species .·, Length a~ Weight lL\O Abnormalities _ w l,o f S.pecies Length 7-1- '2.,~ Weight '10 1\1=l) AbnormalitiJs - - A-- .,... , ()0 Abnormalities - SampleC L~J,,-,--·~---.-{Jh---·-~-~----·-.-. - WhOle /' CJ/ {tJ Sample A Species / · Length f q ~ { weight Sample B \1c,@, Weight llfo t- 1o L,t o 5 Sample C ( {p (_ Weight 0 '-,o -+l '30 2-20 5 tJ SampleD Species Length '"ZS / "'1.0 Weight IW·/ ~ Abnormalities _ SampleD \ lo Weight fv,() Sample E Species / Length 'L-l Weight °1~ / t 90 Abnormalities ~ Sample E ll.o f_, Weight C)S 2...1 -t w L!={ (J j -+1 l)o ·~~5 ./ 2 c:\documents and settings\dknornmy documents\aq biof\fish fielddatasheet.doc t J /000 Prepared Sample Live Sample RM Type: 33 j -0...:::::..!/--4J Sample No.-=-=-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fillet, skin off . Fillet, skin on, scaled , Whole 2«_..,..;f;Y\.'-----r-+-/ ---------- -- Cat Predator_ _ Forage_ __ §k;pf-C--- )I (on) COMPOSITE No. ---"""""'=-- 10 Sample A Species ~ Length~~/ ;Jg _:) Weight 'a.L(Q / ~l(o AbnormalitieJ - I,-~ (7 A Sample A Weight ~'iO 1- &'10 [4)~· - qt{)~ l,g SampleB Species / Length ;)..l 0Y Weight lSl) / CL(O Abnormalities - - Sample B Weight SampleC Species / Length~~ ~~ Weight /&f:i IL(0 Abnonnaliti s - Sample C r1 Weight \iS Z"LCJ 3 i --~-z.5 SampleD Weight ; r1 D a10 f (oO Sample E Weight tl (., 320 t~~s ~o s.5 2 f,e/ddatasheet.doc ~ L(3~ - c:\documents and settings\dknorrvny documents\aq biol\lish - c.. -t \L(D SampleD Species Length 'L,~ { ~ ~ Weight a,o /ttoO Abnormalities - Sample E Species j Length J._C) '2> l Weight~,~~ Abnormalities ~ -tl lfo ---- v w Prepared Sample Live Sample 3;J RM J Type: s~~~ Predator Forage- - - J, COMPOSITE No. ~ Sample A Species / Length :;i_3, L'L Weight \ \0 tro Abnormalities - 5 rz/n/ot -- I Cat g~ Fillet, skin o~fff._-----------~ Type: Forage___ J COMPOSITE / Predator~ Sample No.~----------0~~z~3 Cat___ Fillet, skin off. Fillet, skin on,-s-ca-le_d_X-r------- No.( ____ 3__._G--'--'0?3~~ S fi'S) / co~P· Sample A Species SR~ Co\ Length ';;L/ ~ Weight 9..L{O Abnormalities - SampleB Species LN\ Length~ Weight \..eID~ Abnormalities - SampleC Species _sr~,J(eJ Length Weight fL{O Abnormalities - - Whole "- SampleA ( fl~{~ :i6A Weight .;tl{,0~ SampleB Weight Sample C Weight ~7_ Sample D Species Length 1...-2 Weight \40 Abnormalities - - - SampleD Weight Sample E 1\ Species -S()cm-e~ Length 2...., \ Weight \ lO Abnormalities SampleE '3pcAf-e.l Weight 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorrvny documents\aq bioMsh f,e/ddatasheet. doc l ~~ ~ \lQj I 'L-IU Live Sample RM Prepared Sample ~CW) ;b'!;;> Predator Type: Forage- - - -WL( COMPOSITE No. j. (ov-t) ------------~m Sample No. skin o~ff~Fillet, Cat- - Fillet, skin on,:-;s;;:ca:i1e=d·~x-;-----Whole s~~ Gt)~, Sample A Species Length as Weight zzi) Abnormalities S\'cltecl SampleB Species So~ Length Weight ,9r&:> Abnormalities _ _ \ p,~_ ( Slko,pl ,. __. Sample A. Weight SampleB Weight J5 SampleC Species S~e Length Weight 6l-Li 0 Abnormalities W .i :2_({ Sample C Weight ~L{Q ~ SampleD Species Length QS Weight~ Abnormalities ~ SampleD Weight Sample E e 6.Species Length 1-Z, Weight I\O Abnorma1ihes - S~ple E ~kJ.. c.__ - S~u-\\ Weight 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr\rny do fielddatasheet.doc cuments\aq biol\lish d-4 r__ I\ oj C I Live Sample 1 -33 RM Predator_L_ Type: Forage Cat- - - --- 5 COMPOSITENo. -:!ls (ot.,5) Sample A Species ~~ 04\ Length ~ Weight \ \O Abnormalities Prepared Sample 0 Sample No._ tl ss 0 ~ 1g-gtf _ _ Fillet, skin off /'2.fl W ']:.flt: 0 t~ Z§. Fillet, skin on scaled. Whole { ?fi"Sb ( Sample A Weight '2--t SampleB Species ,, \ Length ~Otte__ d- Sample B 2.-S Weight '6S j 6 Weight~ Abnormalities SampleC Species e, Length \ °\\ Weight W Abnormalities ~ _ Sou\-\ cl Sample C '""2, "S c_ Weight ~ ~ Sample D Species sr~e_l Length '2-,( Weight \ '2-0 Abnormalities SampleD Weight Sample E Species ~po-\\-c_ ~ Length \~ Weight Gl0 Abnormalities __ Sample E Weight ~---_L_--~-_J 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr\my do fielddatasheet.doc cuments\aq bioNish V Prepared Sample Live Sample lo~ RM Type: Predator J. Cat ' fi~ -'"--'-~L...Mo:'.....!:-i:::1.ILA) 6h~( Sample A Species SM Length ~1. Weight 4lfO ~ Abnormalities _ ~ \ Sample A· -Z,Lt' Weight l{ lfo A ~ "l & (3 Sample B Weight 5£.0J Sample C Species S'(\{\ Length ~ '3> weight LI t,o Abnormalities j Sample C Weight SampleD Species S 'N\ Length 3\ Weight U"'Jo Abnonnali\ies _ SampleD Weight Sample E Species ~~1 Length 'L~ Weight °Z-1-o Abnormalities _ Sample E Weight 2 c:\documents and settings\dknort'lrny documents\aq biof\r,sh fielddatasheet. doc ;-r....--~~--- Fillet, skin on, scaled v' Whole ( S:;:-4 Forage- - COMPOSITE No. Sample No;-f\S.so'3. ~ Fillet. skin off l ::ll-l~~ ~RC:D:zl:, "1, Vl c_ L{ lJOj 2.Le. ~ Lf'.1oj 2-f.p f._ L--Z.O j ,/ Live Sample RM Prepared Sample lpg'· Predator Type: Forage J Cat --- -Z., , l ;.,~~t\ ~M;;(.._ Whole COMPOSITE No. -~-7_,.=;....._.......!::l~cJ7:.~'.J) ~f;-~ Sample A Species '-'> ~ Length Weight ~ O Abnormalities _ <..l "=i.\, a-~_;~-:Y.1n~~.. FJJlet, skin off. ~ '- v Fillet, skin on_,-;s;:ca:i1e=d·~:--;------ s~mple ~o:1l~S;::L.ISl.c~i!.l.JlOOC,.lU.:l':i~'""~P~\~M.:~:...""'Qf SampleB Species 'S.;.t(\ Length 30 Weight ~\-{O Abnonnalities _ _ SampleC Species Length £....~- · · ~d.. Weight ~l Abnormalities O ~o:.At- \ u~,1,i ,.;t._1 Sample A Weight 'Uz~ SampleB ~ Weight '3,lt _s..pu-t\-~.l Sample C Weight SampleD · Weight -- Sample E Species Length ~D Weight 3,l{o Abnom1alities Sri\ Sample E Weight 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr'vny documents\a b. fielddatasheet. doc q iof\F,sh (3 j-iO~ ---- · SampleD Species Length ,z...~ Weight Q.LfO Abnormalities A 1 Prepared Sampl~ Live Sample RM {1& Cat Predator Type: Forage- - - -- 3 COMPOSITE No. -~-.. .: ~mr.. -~Coo~~~) st~. Sample A Species SN\ ~ Length _1-'1 ~ Weight fltO Abnormalities --- Sample A Weight Sample B Weight SampleB Species \.)'(\ Length z.J;. Weight ~40 Abnormalities 2-f ~ ILto .'.J ~K {s «40 j --- SampleC Species Length~ Weight Abnormalities h'{bn-J l'.o.ift:c~j --z~ ~ Sample C ;ti Weight ~~ G ~ _ SampleD Species Sr<\ Length ~ 0 Weight '3\..\0 Abnormalities - Sample E Species UY\ Length '2-i Weight .;i~ Abnormalities ,,,,_. SampleD Weight Sample E Weight 2 c:\documents and seffings\dknomm do fie/ddatasheet.doc y cumenfs\aq bioNish ~i b '3.'t O J Live Sample RM Prepared Sample ~ Sampleskin No.o~fff._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __..::.,,.....:J0~2.j_1 Fillet, Predator_}_.. Type: Forage --- COMPOSITENo. ¥:4 (Ci2-"'() Sample A Species Length -z_3.. Weight l \.o O Abnormahttes ____ _ ~QO~Gd., SampleB ,species Length 2...& weight "3"7-o Abnormalities s"" Cat ~,-i.~-M-F~--~ Fillet, skin on, scaled Whole ( ){ Sample A Weight SampleB Weight -- Sample C \ .·\Iv\ Species "--" ~ ' Length 2-\p Weight Z<.,O j Abnormalities ...-·· Sample D Species ~ Weight 2L{O Abnormalities _ SampleD Species S?ot\--ej Length Z,.l, Weight i..-tQ Abnormalities SampleC Weight SampleD Weight - Sample E Species S.r(\ Length "'2., ~ Weight \Y.O Abnormalities Sample E Weight ~~ 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorr'lmy do fielddatasheet.doc cuments\aq bioMish 'i. ~'-¥'b'{~S~~~---,,~-- ~O 2.40j C... 2o 1:) '-lo ..J I Live Sample RM Type: Forage Prepared Sample toK / Cat Predator V -- S~mple ~o.~:p,-SS.;;;.__;;;.D...:::.'3..:..:1wt~· ..J...--1-1£7-.!...;I~~---7)~Ff.:::-:._:'"~r~t:> l Fillet, skm off. P v.... Fillet, skin on~~s=ca::i1=ed;-------Whole __1 _ COMPOSITE No.* s f;·~l Sample A Species Length ~\ Weight ~ _cP3i't) Abnormalities ___ CJ' SampleB Weight ---- Sample C Species Length 30 Weight Z,,l{ 0 Abnormalities SampleD Species Length zi Weight lGfc) Abnormalities Sample E Species Length 3S Weight Lf f 0 Abnormalities Sample C Weight SampleD Weight Sample E Weight 2 c:\cfocuments and settings\dknorrvny do . fie/ddatasheet.cfoc cuments\aq b,of\fish + l -h~ ~ Sample A. 3~A S3 SampleB Species Length ~ weight '3:-lO ') Abnormalities v :.:t::f1= FIiiet, skm off. .;;, ~,05 \'1 L(o Gt33~ ~ f1P~reipamre;.d81Sa;;m;-;;.pl~_e---~'~2'~~~~a§_~ 72 1 Live RM Sample - -- Predator Type: Forage---- Cat S~mple~o._J)SS-CSl&~ -t1.:Ltdt-tl~ ~ Fillet, skm off . :'2 _ Fillet, skin on, scaled Whole X l ~ ~ ~ ~s.J4 COMPOSITE No. ___ ..\-___ ·~-+----·- 5.~( Sample A Species Length ~\ Weight Q.L{O Abnormalities Cov'f· 3u• I /"'-\ A Sample A Weight QJ-(O_:i L SampleB Weight SampleB Species Length ~ Weight I'6{.) Abnormalities SampleD Species Length Weight Abnormalities SL{ C, Sample C SampleC Species Length "6\ Weight 3HO Abnormalities Weight . Sqo 5 SampleD Weight ~q tro Sample E .::::.. Species Length ~..J Weight Abnormalities lf tO Weight _ 2 '"" documents\aq bio(\fish c:\documents and settings\dknor,"-y fielddatasheet.doc ~L( [ SampleE 1./_ /lj \450 6'33~ ~!RPt!rempa~reiljdSSaammp~le;-----~l'i~(~~cfb~. Live Sample /_o~ RM Cat+ -- Predator Type: Forage --- COMPOSITE No. ~S S~mple ~o.--;1lfSS~O.:::~t~W1~. . u.12:..f:'2~~~-J::":'~!?:if~~Q_~?< Fillet, skm off ~~ ..::,-.J Fillet, skin on,~s;;cadle~d.--------Whole s~~~( Sample A Species Length~ Weight l{ l«J Abnormalities -- ~· I B'»J-:{ ~~ 'f, Sample A '3.'S A Weight \{ lo() j SampleB Weight Sample B Species Length Weight ~lO Abnormalities - ~1 SampleC Species Length 2,'::, Weight 4,10 Abnormalities · S~ple C Weight - SampleD Species Length Weight ~ (JO Abnormalities __.. i4 Sample E Species Length Lf2.. C,h Weight Sto Abnormalities Sample E Weight ~ 2 c:\documents and settings\dknorNny do fielddatasheet.doc cuments\aq bioMish 8~ c_, 'flO~ O~vv' 1· 0~1v o?:,i 0~ °\ Ol{Q L. 1ve Sample RM 7S---1S s-~~. Cat_j_ Predator Type: Forage --- (_~(0=-~) Prepared Sample S~mple No.-:;::fr.lSS~/)~~.;z.\Wi~-:.i./!::.2..-~r2'D~g~-1JPJ~!::~~-=/2_~"2 l ~ Fillet, skin off. )< Fillet, skin on,-;s;;ca:i1=ed:;-------- ~~ X Whole I ,£:Sb Jt COMPOSITE No. -~-- s~~( Sample A Species .S CW\ Length 3'-( ~ j Weight 3 ~ ~, Sample A Weight '3L,. A 32oj Abnormalities SampleB Species ~~(.;\ SampleB Weight Length &) . Weight 2.co Abnormalities -- SampleC Species S:~-~~-VLength i, -,.J Weight 1:50 Abnormalities Sample C Weight SampleD Species C~~ Length -z_pt ,::.J- ·, S~pleD Weight 1 z Sample E Weight Weight \ ~ Abnormalities 2 c:\documents and sen·,ngsId'l1A Weight ~ ~ Length i.(, CJ ' Weight "3l«:) Abnormalities _..- SampleB Species S-~-~ Length ;2.1 a Weight Abnormalities- \ SampleB Weight \4£) Sample C Species S ~,.(.,\ Length 2,(p Weight f L.{ () Abnormalities Sample C Weight - Sample D Species S'~~ \ Length 3,!) () ~Weight e:.40 Abnormalities _ Sa11;1pieD Weight Sample E Species SO,.M.... c.\ .c.,. Length ? t, .J \ Weight 1.)-/ Q Abnormalities· _ 2 c:\300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 >300 75-300 <75 -- -648 500 U -500 U 500 U -500 U 1,440 -1,080 500 U -500 U 500 U 1,130 500 U 500 U -500 U 500 U 87,200 73,300 72,300 1,640 500 U 533 1,730 2,390 2,270 42 3.2 3.6 49 1.4 7.8 130 4.6 13 74 7.9 ND ND ND ND 4.4 1.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 13 4.2 4.9 0.76 J 0.76 J 0.77 J -100 100 -100 100 -100 100 -100 100 -100 100 100 100 100 -100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 100 100 -1,300 1,200 -1,000 600 B -4,900 2,700 -700 B 900 B -5,100 3,000 9,920 2,000 1,000 -2,200 1,000 49,000 39,300 22,000 33,600 10,600 14,600 20,800 23,100 49,500 831 3,000 -874 502 -4,070 1,150 -1,400 620 -7,470 2,390 8,870 2,080 1,410 -2,780 1,030 66,300 61,000 47,600 33,300 10,900 37,600 23,200 27,300 43,100 Notes: Lloyd Kahn Methods 2 Method 9060 (modified) 3 Insufficient volume to perform TOC and black carbon analyses on samples 4 Samples for COR-15 and COR-16 were not indentified on the COC for black carbon analysis but lab performed analysis um - micrometers mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram pg/g - picograms per gram J - Estimated concentration JA - The analyte was positively identified but the quantitation is an estimate U - Not present at or above the associated value Q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. B - Estimated result. Result is less than Reporting Limit 1 CRA 031884 (51) APPENDIX SEDFLUME ANALYSIS REPORT - SEA ENGINEERING, INC. 031884 (51) Sedflume Analysis Kanawha River, West Virginia, USA Prepared for: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Prepared by: Sea Engineering, Inc. 200 Washington Street, Suite 210 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Tel: (831) 421-0871 Fax: (831) 421-0875 Summary Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) conducted a Sedflume analysis on eighteen cores obtained from the Kanawha River, West Virginia. These cores were collected offshore in areas from 0.6 to 6.7 m of water depth. The primary goal of this work was to characterize the stability of the sediments within Kanawha River. The Sedflume analysis determines sediment erosion rates, critical shear stress, particle size and wet bulk density at depth intervals down the length of each core. The following is a brief physical description of the eighteen cores. The report contains details of the full Sedflume analysis • Core COR07 was collected in 6.1 m water depth. The core consisted of a 1 mm light grey oxic layer overlying light grey silt with pockets of black material down core. Shell fragments and detritus were present throughout the core. The mean grain size of the core was 31.17 µm (silt). • Core COR20 was collected in 6.1 m water depth. The core consisted of a 5 mm olive oxic layer overlying a 1 cm thick light grey layer. Below 1.5 cm, olive grey sediment persisted down core with pockets of light and dark grey sediment. Plant material was observed at the surface and present down core to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were also observed down core. The mean grain size of the core was 23.70 µm (silt). • Core COR30 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm olive grey oxic layer of 8 to 10 cm of olive grey sediment. Below 10 cm, yellowish orange sediment persisted to the end of the core. Plant material was observed from 8 cm to the deepest depth interval. Additionally, three large boulders (Wentworth Classification) were removed at 9.7 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 201.99 µm (sand). • Core COR35 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2-3 mm oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of finer and coarser grained sediments. Three small sticks were present at surface. At 23 through 30 cm of core depth a distinctly coarser grained sediment layer was observed. Plant material was visible from 22 cm to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 69.95 µm (sand). • Core COR36 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of coarser and finer sediment. Pockets of dark grey sediment were present from 2 to 10 cm. Plant material was observed from 2 to 8 cm and 21 to 27 cm. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 51.62 µm (silt). Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 1 of 175 • Core COR39 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 14 cm light brown surface layer, overlying a 2 cm dark grey layer. Below the dark grey layer, olive grey silt persisted to the end of the core. Plant material was observed at the surface and continued down core to approximately 31 cm. Gas bubbles were present intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 64.49 µm (sand). • Core COR40 was collected in 0.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm light brown oxic layer, overlying a yellowish orange sediment layer to a depth of 3 cm. At 3 cm to the end of the core olive grey sediment was observed. Pockets of dark grey sediment were observed from 3 to 14 cm. At 25 cm to the end of the core, the sediment got notably coarser. Plant material was observed from 5 cm to 15 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 110.22 µm (sand). • Core COR42 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm dark grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark grey sediment. At 34 cm a rose colored sediment layer was present. Plant material (roots, leaves, and small sticks) and gas bubbles were present at the surface and throughout the core to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 55.55 µm (silt). • Core KRSD01 was collected in 2.4 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm dark grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark sediment. Gas bubbles and plant material were present down core. The mean grain size of the core was 51.05 µm (silt). • Core KRSD04 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm light grey oxic layer overlying light grey sediment down core. Dark grey pockets of material were present from 0 to 6 cm. Gas bubbles are present intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 35.83 µm (silt). • Core KRSD05 was collected in 3.0 m of water depth. The core consisted of 2-3 mm light grey oxic layer, overlying light grey sediment with pockets of notably coarser grained material down core. At 37 cm a dark grey layer of material was observed. Plant material (roots, leaves, and small sticks) were present from 3 mm below surface to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently from the surface to the end of the core. The mean grain size of the core was 41.96 µm (silt). • Core KRSD10 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 1 mm thick yellowish orange oxic layer, overlying a 1 cm layer of light grey sediment. Below the light grey sediment, olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark grey sediment persisted to the end of the core. Plant Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 2 of 175 material (roots, leaves and small sticks) was present at the surface throughout the core to the deepest depth interval. At 6 to 9 cm large sticks, approximately 1 cm diameter, were removed from core. The mean grain size of the core was 85.07 µm (sand). • Core KRSD14 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm light brown oxic layer, overlying a light brown coarser grained layer to 3 cm. At 3 cm a layer of coarser grained, olive grey sand persisted to approximately 14 cm where a 1 cm thick dark grey layer was observed. Below the dark grey layer to the end of the core, light grey silt was present. Plant was observed material from the surface to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were present intermittently from the surface to 14 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 47.93 µm (silt). • Core KRSD20 was collected in 4.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of 0 to approximately 3 cm light brown surface layer overlying a layer of dark grey material from a depth of 3 to 8 cm. An olive grey layer was present from 8 cm to approximately 21 cm, where a visibly coarser grained olive grey layer persisted to the end of the core. Plant material (root, leaf, and small sticks) was observed at the surface and persisted to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 69.13 µm (sand). • Core KRSD24 was collected in 0.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2-3 mm olive grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey silt with pockets of light and dark grey silt down core. Plant material (leaves, roots, and small sticks) was observed at the surface and persisted down core. Gas bubbles were present intermittently to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 69.73 µm (sand). • Core KRSD25was collected in 2.7 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm olive grey oxic layer over 16 cm of olive grey coarse grained sediment. Olive grey sediment was present from 16 cm to the end of the core. Plant material was found at the surface and persisted to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were also observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 62.57 µm (sand). • Core KRSD28 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of multiple sediment layers. At the surface a 2 mm thick olive grey oxic layer was overlying a 1 cm olive grey sediment layer. Below the olive grey sediment layer, from a core depth of 1 cm to 3-6 cm, a dark grey layer was present. From 3-6 cm to 33 cm a layer of yellowish orange fine to medium sand was observed. The final layer, from 33 cm to the end of the core, was a greenish grey silt/clay layer. Detritus was observed at the surface and at a core depth of 20 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 288.29 µm (sand). Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 3 of 175 • Core KRSD48 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of approximately 1 mm light orange oxic layer over an approximate 1 cm thick dark grey layer. Olive grey sediment persisted down core from 1 cm to the end of the core with visible pockets of dark grey sediment and gas bubbles. Detritus (root and leaf material) were also observed at the surface and throughout the core. The mean grain size of the core was 33.13 µm (silt). Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 4 of 175 CONTENTS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................... 5 DESCRIPTION OF SEDFLUME............................................................................................. 5 SEDFLUME CORE COLLECTION ........................................................................................ 7 MEASUREMENTS OF SEDIMENT EROSION RATES ............................................................. 7 DETERMINATION OF CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS ................................................................. 8 MEASUREMENT OF SEDIMENT BULK PROPERTIES ............................................................ 8 EROSION RATE COMPARISONS ......................................................................................... 9 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 11 CORE COR07 ................................................................................................................ 13 CORE COR20 ................................................................................................................ 16 CORE COR30 ................................................................................................................ 19 CORE COR35 ................................................................................................................ 22 CORE COR36 ................................................................................................................ 26 CORE COR39 ................................................................................................................ 29 CORE COR40 ................................................................................................................ 32 CORE COR42 ................................................................................................................ 36 CORE KRSD01 .............................................................................................................. 40 CORE KRSD04 .............................................................................................................. 43 CORE KRSD05 .............................................................................................................. 46 CORE KRSD10 .............................................................................................................. 51 CORE KRSD14 .............................................................................................................. 54 CORE KRSD20 .............................................................................................................. 57 CORE KRSD24 .............................................................................................................. 60 CORE KRSD25 .............................................................................................................. 64 CORE KRSD28 .............................................................................................................. 67 CORE KRSD48 .............................................................................................................. 71 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 74 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 74 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 77 APPENDIX A – PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS .............................................. 78 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 5 of 175 Introduction Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) conducted a Sedflume analysis on seven cores obtained at Kanawha River, West Virginia. These cores were collected offshore in areas from 0.6 to 6.7 m of water depth MLLW. The primary goal of this work was to characterize the stability of the sediments within the Kanawha River. The cores were eroded using Sedflume to determine erosion rates as a function of shear stress and depth. In addition, each core was sub-sampled at vertical intervals to determine sediment bulk density and particle size distribution. Critical shear stresses were determined through two interpolation techniques for each vertical interval sampled. The following report outlines the procedures used in the Sedflume analysis, presents the Sedflume data, and provides a summary of the results. Experimental Procedures A detailed description of Sedflume and its application are given in McNeil et al (1996) and Roberts et al (1998). The following section provides a general description of the Sedflume analysis conducted for this study. Description of Sedflume Sedflume is shown in Figure 1 and is essentially a straight flume that has a test section with an open bottom through which a rectangular cross-section core containing sediment can be inserted. The main components of the flume are the core; the test section; an inlet section for uniform, fully-developed, turbulent flow; a flow exit section; a water storage tank; and a pump to force water through the system. The coring tube, test section, inlet section, and exit section are made of clear acrylic so that the sediment-water interactions can be observed. The coring barrel has a rectangular cross-section, 10 cm by 15 cm, and can be up to 1 m in length. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 6 of 175 Figure 1. Sedflume Diagram Water is pumped through the system from a 500 gallon storage tank, through a 5 cm diameter pipe, and then through a flow converter into the rectangular duct shown. This duct is 2 cm in height, 10 cm in width, and 120 cm in length; it connects to the test section, which has the same cross-sectional area and is 15 cm long. The flow converter changes the shape of the cross-section from circular to the rectangular duct shape while maintaining a constant cross-sectional area. A ball valve regulates the flow so that the flow into the duct can be carefully controlled. Also, there is a small valve in the duct immediately downstream from the test section that is opened at higher flow rates to keep the pressure in the duct and over the test section at atmospheric conditions. At the start of each test, a core containing sediments collected from the site is prepared. The core and the sediment it contains are then inserted into the bottom of the test section. An operator moves the sediment upward using a piston that is inside the core and is connected to a hydraulic jack with a 1 m drive stroke. The jack is driven by the release of pressure that is regulated with a switch and valve system. By this means, the sediments can be raised and made level with the bottom of the test section. The speed of the hydraulic jack movement can be controlled at a variable rate in measurable increments as small as 0.5 mm. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 7 of 175 Water is forced through the duct and the test section over the surface of the sediments. The shear produced by this flow causes the sediments to erode. As the sediments in the core erode, they are continually moved upward by the operator so that the sediment-water interface remains level with the bottom of the test and inlet sections. The erosion rate is recorded as the upward movement of the sediments in the coring tube over time. Sedflume Core Collection The sediment cores were collected from Kanawha River, WV by SEI personnel. At each coring location, a GPS system was used to position the vessel at a fixed sampling station. A pole was attached with clamps to the 10 cm by 15 cm rectangular core. A valve was temporarily affixed to the top of the core tube to provide suction when the core was pulled out of the sediment bed. The core was then lowered into the water and positioned perpendicular to the sediment bed. Pressure was applied by hand until at least 30 cm and no more than 60 cm of the core penetrated into the sediment bed. Upon penetration of the core barrel into the sediment bed, the valve opens upward and allows the sediment to enter the core tube and water to exit without disturbing the sediment surface or deeper strata. When the barrel is lifted from the sediment bed, the valve closes and retains the sediment inside the core tube. During this sampling effort, the core was immediately inspected visually for length and quality. Undisturbed surface sediments were present in the core. The cores were capped and immediately shipped upright at ambient temperature to the SEI Sedflume Laboratory in Santa Cruz, CA. All cores arrived intact with sediment structure and surface preserved. Measurements of Sediment Erosion Rates The procedure for measuring the erosion rates of the sediments as a function of shear stress and depth were as follows. The sediment core was inserted into the Sedflume test section using the hydraulic jack until the sediment surface was even with the bottom of the Sedflume channel. A measurement was made of the core length. The flume was then run at a specific flow rate corresponding to a particular shear stress (McNeil et al., 1996). Erosion rates are obtained by measuring the core length at different time intervals, taking the difference between each successive measurement, and dividing by the time interval as shown in Equation 1: E= Δz T (1) E = Erosion rate ∆z = Amount of sediment eroded T = Time In order to measure erosion rates at several different shear stresses using only one core, the following procedure was used. Starting at a low shear stress, the flume was run sequentially at higher shear stresses with each succeeding shear stress being twice the previous one. Generally about four shear stresses are run sequentially. Each shear stress was run until at least 1 to 2 mm but no more than 2 cm were eroded for that shear stress. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 8 of 175 The time interval was recorded for each run with a stopwatch. The flow was then increased to the next shear stress, and so on until the highest shear stress was run. This cycle was repeated until all of the sediment had eroded from the core. If after three cycles a particular shear stress showed a rate of erosion less than 10-4 cm/s, it was dropped from the cycle; if after many cycles the erosion rates decreased significantly, a higher shear stress was included in the cycle. Determination of Critical Shear Stress The critical shear stress of a sediment bed, τcr, is defined quantitatively as the shear stress at which a very small, but accurately measurable, rate of erosion occurs. For Sedflume studies, this rate of erosion has been practically defined as 10-4 cm/s. This represents 1 mm of erosion in approximately 15 minutes. Since it is difficult to measure τcr exactly at 10-4 cm/s, erosion rates were determined above and below 10-4 cm/s. The τcr was then determined by two interpolation techniques, linear and power law regression (McNeil et al. 1996; Roberts et al., 1998). Measurement of Sediment Bulk Properties In addition to erosion rate measurements, samples were collected to determine the water content, bulk density, and particle size of the sediments. Sub-samples were collected from the surface of the Sedflume cores at the end of each erosion cycle. This allowed 5 samples to be collected approximately every 5 cm for analysis. Bulk density was determined in the SEI Sedflume laboratory by water content analysis using methods outlined in Hakanson and Jansson (2002). This consisted of determining the wet and dry weight of the collected sample to determine the water content, W, from Equation 2. W = Mw − Md Mw (2) W = water content Mw = wet weight of sample Md = dry weight of sample Once the water content was calculated, the bulk density, ρb, was determined from Equation 3. ρb = ρwρs ρ w + ( ρ s − ρ w )W (3) ρw = density of water (1 g/cm3) ρs = density of sediment particle (2.65 g/cm3) Particle size distributions were determined using laser diffraction analysis. Samples collected from the Sedflume core were prepared and inserted into a laser diffraction particle sizer (Beckman Coulter LS 13 320). Each sample was analyzed in three 1Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 9 of 175 minute intervals and the results of the four analyses were averaged. This method is valid for particle sizes between 0.04 and 2000 μm. Any fraction over 2000 μm was weighed and compared to total sample weight to determine the weight percentage greater than 2000 μm. Table 1 summarizes all measurements conducted during the Sedflume analysis. Table 1. Parameters measured and computed for the Site. Measurement Bulk Density, ρb (wet/dry weight) Water Content Particle Size Distribution Erosion Rate Critical Shear Stress τcr Definition ρb = ρwρs ρ w + ( ρ s − ρ w )W W = Mw − Md Mw Distribution of particle sizes by volume percentage using laser diffraction E = Δz/T Shear stress when erosion rate equals 10-4 cm/s Units g/cm3 unit less μm cm/s N/m2 Detection Limit Same as water content 0.1g in sample weight ranging from 10 to 50 g 0.04 μm – 2000 μm Δz > 0.5mm T > 15s 0 to 10.0 N/m2 This value is interpolated as described in the text. W = water content Mw = wet weight of sample (g) Md = dry weight of sample (g) Δz = amount of sediment eroded (cm) T = time (s) ρw = density of water (1 g/cm3) ρs = density of sediment (2.65 g/cm3) Erosion Rate Comparisons A useful method of analyzing sediment characteristics at a specific site is to compare the inter-core and intra-core Sedflume erosion rates. This method provides a means to quantify the erosion susceptibility within each core as well as the general erosion susceptibility of the coring site. In this analysis, each core has been sub-sampled into separate depth intervals. Following the methods of Roberts et al (1998), the erosion rate for each interval can be approximated by E = Aτ n ρ m (4) Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 10 of 175 where E is the erosion rate (cm/s), τ is the shear stress (N/m2) and ρ is the sediment bulk density (g/cm3). A, n and m are constants that depend on the sediment characteristics. The equation used in this analysis is an abbreviated variation of Equation 4: E = Aτ n (5) where the sediment bulk density parameter is a function of the constant A. The variation of erosion rate with density cannot be typically determined in the field due to natural variation in other sediment properties (e.g. mineralogy and particle size). Therefore, the density term for a particular interval of approximately constant density is lumped into the constant A. For each depth interval, the measured Sedflume erosion rates (E) and applied shear stresses (τ) were used to determine the A and n constants that provide a best fit power law curve to the data for that interval. With good fits (i.e. r2 > 0.9), these parameters can be used to predict erosion rates for the core interval of interest. From this process an average erosion rate for a core can also be determined, and the erosion rate at each depth interval can then be directly compared to this average. The result is an erosion rate ratio which provides an estimation of the erosion susceptibility of each depth interval relative to the core average. This procedure highlights the depths of the core that will erode more rapidly and those that will tend to resist erosion, relative to the other intervals in the core. Intervals for which the r2 is less than 0.8 or the interval has less than three data points are omitted from this comparison and will show up as blank intervals in the following plots. In addition, a site-wide erosion rate average can be estimated that incorporates the data from all sampled cores. The erosion rate for each depth interval within a core is compared to the site-wide average and a graph of the erosion rate ratios for all of the cores is created. Again, the procedure highlights the cores and depth intervals at which the most rapid erosion would be expected (relative to the other core locations), and a spatial assessment of erosion probability can be generated. In this analysis, two interpolation techniques were used to determine values of critical shear stress: a power law interpolation and a linear interpolation. For the former, a power law curve was created (in the form of Equation 5) by solving for the variables A and n by maximizing the correlation (r2) to the measured data points. A solution for the critical shear stress can then be computed from Equation 5 by inserting an erosion rate of 10-4 cm/s. For the latter, a simple linear interpolation solves for the critical shear stress at an erosion rate of 10-4 cm/s based on the measured Sedflume data. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 11 of 175 Results and Discussion Table 2 provides the core location, coordinates, coring date and the depth of water for the eighteen cores collected in Kanawha River, WV. Figure 2 shows a map of the coring site with the coring locations. Table 2. Core collection information. Station Water Collection Collection Latitude Longitude ID Depth* (m) Date Time (LST) (DD MM SS N) (DD MM SS W) COR07 6.1 7/30/2009 09:50 38 32 39.5 81 53 01.5 COR20 6.1 7/29/2009 12:10 38 29 15.7 81 49 53.6 COR30 1.8 7/28/2009 15:06 38 27 04.4 81 49 39.3 COR35 1.5 7/28/2009 12:55 38 26 31.0 81 50 41.4 COR36 0.9 7/28/2009 13:20 38 26 32.2 81 50 52.2 COR39 1.5 7/28/2009 11:55 38 26 12.4 81 50 54.7 COR40 0.6 7/28/2009 10:20 38 26 06.2 81 50 57.5 COR42 0.9 7/28/2009 09:45 38 26 00.5 81 51 10.2 KRSD01 2.4 7/30/2009 08:50 38 31 40.6 81 54 24.7 KRSD04 1.8 7/30/2009 10:30 38 31 37.4 81 51 43.2 KRSD05 3.0 7/30/2009 11:15 38 30 53.1 81 50 45.5 KRSD10 1.5 7/29/2009 11:10 38 28 43.2 81 49 21.9 KRSD14 1.8 7/28/2009 16:00 38 27 14.8 81 49 40.8 KRSD20 4.6 7/28/2009 11:00 38 26 22.5 81 50 49.2 KRSD24 0.6 7/27/2009 15:46 38 25 14.1 81 51 06.1 KRSD25 2.7 7/27/2009 14:48 38 24 43.2 81 50 52.4 KRSD28 1.5 7/27/2009 14:16 38 23 45.3 81 50 31.0 KRSD48 0.9 7/29/2009 10:30 38 28 35.4 81 49 00.9 * Depths are measured from the water surface and are not corrected to any vertical datum. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 12 of 175 Figure 2. Map of core locations (Google Earth, 2009) Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 13 of 175 Core COR07 Core COR07 was collected in 6.1 m water depth. The core consisted of a 1 mm light grey oxic layer overlying light grey silt with pockets of black material down core. Shell fragments and detritus were present throughout the core. The mean grain size of the core was 31.17 µm (silt). Figure 3 shows a photograph of the core and the erosion rate ratio (described in the Erosion Rate Comparisons section). The intra-core erosion rates provide a nondimensional comparison of relative erosion rates down core. The dashed line is the core average and each bar shows the erosion rate ratio for that interval. The higher the value, the more erodible that layer of sediment is relative to the rest of the core. The sediment surface (depth = 0) is plotted at the top of the graph with depth into the sediments increasing down the Y-axis. Variations in erosion rate for each applied shear stress are shown. Figure 4 shows the bulk density and D50 (median particle size) as a function of depth. Figure 5 shows the power law curves used in the data analysis. Figure 6 shows an erosion rate plot shows each shear stress cycle run on the core, ranging from 0.1 to 9.0 N/m2, as a function of depth. For plotting purposes, erosion rates of zero are plotted as 1 x 10-5 cm/s on the graph. Tables 3 and 4 summarize the measured data and provide a laboratory description of the data shown in the plots. Figure 3. Picture of core COR07 aligned with intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 14 of 175 Figure 4. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR07. Figure 5. Power law curve fits for depth intervals in core COR07. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 15 of 175 Figure 6. Measured Sedflume erosion rate data for core COR07. Table 3. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR07. A N r2 9.79E-04 4.72E-04 5.73E-05 4.63E-06 1.85E-04 1.63 2.03 2.71 3.35 2.71 0.97 0.94 0.99 0.98 0.99 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 7.8 13.8 19.1 22.4 7.8 13.8 19.1 22.4 27.5 Table 4. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR07 Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 7.80 13.80 19.10 22.40 Mean 63.98 36.24 26.51 24.43 24.66 31.16 1.44 1.72 1.76 1.77 1.72 1.68 0.25 0.47 1.23 2.50 0.80 1.05 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.48 0.64 1.28 2.24 0.92 1.11 Page 16 of 175 Core COR20 Core COR20 was collected in 6.1 m water depth. The core consisted of a 5 mm olive oxic layer overlying a 1 cm thick light grey layer. Below 1.5 cm, olive grey sediment persisted down core with pockets of light and dark grey sediment. Plant material was observed at the surface and present down core to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were also observed down core. The mean grain size of the core was 23.70 µm (silt). Figure 7 through Figure 10 show the data results and analysis and Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the data. Figure 7. Picture of core COR20 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 17 of 175 Figure 8. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR20. Figure 9. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR20. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 18 of 175 Figure 10. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR20. Table 5. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR20. A N r2 2.84E-04 3.42E-04 1.31E-04 9.97E-05 3.82E-06 2.54 2.33 2.22 2.86 4.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.83 0.93 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 5.7 11.0 16.4 21.6 5.2 10.4 16.4 21.3 26.1 Table 6. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR20 Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 5.70 11.00 16.40 21.60 Mean 25.86 29.83 17.87 19.64 25.29 23.70 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.48 1.59 1.45 0.66 0.59 0.89 1.00 2.26 1.08 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.64 0.64 1.04 1.28 1.92 1.10 Page 19 of 175 Core COR30 Core COR30 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm olive grey oxic layer of 8 to 10 cm of olive grey sediment. Below 10 cm, yellowish orange sediment persisted to the end of the core. Plant material was observed from 8 cm to the deepest depth interval. Additionally, three large boulders (Wentworth Classification) were removed at 9.7 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 201.99 µm (sand). Figure 11 through Figure 14 show the data results and analysis and Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the data. Figure 11. Picture of core COR30 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 20 of 175 Figure 12. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR30. Figure 13. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR30. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 21 of 175 Figure 14. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR30. Table 7. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR30. A N r2 1.46E-03 2.03E-02 1.24E-01 3.32E-02 0.44 2.90 3.97 3.06 0.83 0.99 0.98 0.98 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 0.0 2.7 9.7 14.8 0.9 7.0 14.5 18.7 Table 8. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR30. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.0 2.7 9.7 14.8 Mean 100.68 161.56 190.75 354.96 201.99 1.56 1.82 1.81 1.89 1.77 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.16 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 Page 22 of 175 Core COR35 Core COR35 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2-3 mm oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of finer and coarser grained sediments. Three small sticks were present at surface. At 23 through 30 cm of core depth a distinctly coarser grained sediment layer was observed. Plant material was visible from 22 cm to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 69.95 µm (sand). Figure 15 through Figure 18 show the data results and analysis and Table 9 and Table 10 summarize the data. Figure 15. Picture of core COR35 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 23 of 175 Figure 16. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR35. Figure 17. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR35. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 24 of 175 Figure 18. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR35. Table 9. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR35. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.3 11.7 22.7 19.2 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 5.1 10.8 17.8 27.9 23.3 A N r2 2.31E-04 1.66E-05 2.49E-04 1.30E-02 8.97E-03 2.81 3.86 3.47 2.43 2.14 0.90 0.96 0.99 0.94 0.92 Page 25 of 175 Table 10. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR35. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm ) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.30 11.70 22.70 28.30 32.40 Mean 33.9520 34.4220 16.4500 45.9450 187.1280 89.8176 69.9524 1.62 1.63 1.58 1.72 1.70 1.68 1.65 0.74 1.59 0.77 0.13 0.12 0.67 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.81 1.28 0.81 0.16 0.16 0.64 Page 26 of 175 Core COR36 Core COR36 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of coarser and finer sediment. Pockets of dark grey sediment were present from 2 to 10 cm. Plant material was observed from 2 to 8 cm and 21 to 27 cm. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 51.62 µm (silt). Figure 19 through Figure 22 show the data results and analysis and Table 11 and Table 12 summarize the data. Figure 19. Picture of coreCOR36 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 27 of 175 Figure 20. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR36. Figure 21. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR36. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 28 of 175 Figure 22. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR36. Table 11. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR36. A N r2 1.13E-03 1.57E-03 3.72E-04 5.81E-04 1.81E-03 0.42 1.81 2.83 3.06 1.78 0.87 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 1.7 8.5 14.6 20.9 0.9 8.1 12.5 20.4 27.0 Table 12. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR36 Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 1.90 8.50 14.60 20.90 Mean 88.02 63.60 23.34 17.86 65.29 51.6219 1.32 1.60 1.59 1.46 1.59 1.51 0.22 0.63 0.56 0.20 0.40 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.52 0.32 0.64 0.64 0.43 0.51 Page 29 of 175 Core COR39 Core COR39 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 14 cm light brown surface layer, overlying a 2 cm dark grey layer. Below the dark grey layer, olive grey silt persisted to the end of the core. Plant material was observed at the surface and continued down core to approximately 31 cm. Gas bubbles were present intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 64.49 µm (sand). Figure 23 through Figure 26 show the data results and analysis and Table 13 and Table 14 summarize the data. Figure 23. Picture of core COR39 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 30 of 175 Figure 24. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR39. Figure 25. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR39. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 31 of 175 Figure 26. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR39. Table 13. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR39. A N r2 9.34E-05 1.18E-03 2.36E-04 1.81E-03 1.52E-05 2.93 1.89 2.10 1.53 3.17 0.97 0.96 0.91 0.92 0.98 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.8 12.5 25.8 31.6 6.1 11.9 17.1 31.4 35.9 Table 14. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR39 Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.60 12.50 25.80 31.60 Mean 67.57 101.45 16.02 86.05 51.40 64.50 1.56 1.42 1.60 1.61 1.66 1.57 1.02 0.27 0.67 0.15 1.81 0.78 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.88 0.26 0.81 0.21 1.84 0.80 Page 32 of 175 Core COR40 Core COR40 was collected in 0.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm light brown oxic layer, overlying a yellowish orange sediment layer to a depth of 3 cm. At 3 cm to the end of the core olive grey sediment was observed. Pockets of dark grey sediment were observed from 3 to 14 cm. At 25 cm to the end of the core, the sediment got notably coarser. Plant material was observed from 5 cm to 15 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 110.22 µm (sand). Figure 27 through Figure 30 show the data results and analysis and Table 15 and Table 16 summarize the data. Figure 27. Picture of core COR40 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 33 of 175 Figure 28. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR40. Figure 29. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR40. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 34 of 175 Figure 30. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR40. Table 15. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR40. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 5.4 9.8 15.4 18.0 21.2 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3.9 8.9 12.0 16.7 18.6 27.3 A N r2 1.63E-03 6.38E-02 8.09E-05 4.96E-01 1.40E-04 2.85E-02 3.35 3.06 3.77 3.78 2.32 3.15 0.99 0.93 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.99 Page 35 of 175 Table 16. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR40. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm ) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 5.40 9.80 15.40 18.00 18.60 21.20 Mean 134.23 125.25 47.11 141.45 51.11 79.00 193.43 110.22 1.74 1.50 1.50 1.66 1.62 1.73 1.79 1.65 0.43 0.12 0.11 0.87 0.17 0.34 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.41 0.13 1.60 0.10 0.84 0.16 0.54 Page 36 of 175 Core COR42 Core COR42 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm dark grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark grey sediment. At 34 cm a rose colored sediment layer was present. Plant material (roots, leaves, and small sticks) and gas bubbles were present at the surface and throughout the core to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 55.55 µm (silt). Figure 31 through Figure 34 show the data results and analysis and Table 17 and Table 18 summarize the data. Figure 31. Picture of core COR42 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 37 of 175 Figure 32. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core COR42. Figure 33. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core COR42. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 38 of 175 Figure 34. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreCOR42. Table 17. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core COR42. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 4.5 11.1 17.4 26.3 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 4.1 11.0 16.8 25.1 29.7 A N r2 1.71E-03 1.64E-03 1.82E-04 1.67E-03 6.65E-05 3.00 1.68 2.51 1.67 3.03 0.93 0.90 0.98 0.97 0.93 Page 39 of 175 Table 18. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for COR42. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm ) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 4.50 11.10 17.40 26.30 Mean 50.24 49.65 37.37 77.59 62.91 55.55 1.39 1.43 1.53 1.73 1.62 1.54 0.39 0.19 0.79 0.19 1.14 0.54 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.32 0.32 0.96 0.26 1.28 0.63 Page 40 of 175 Core KRSD01 Core KRSD01 was collected in 2.4 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm dark grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark sediment. Gas bubbles and plant material were present down core. The mean grain size of the core was 51.05 µm (silt). Figure 35 through Figure 38 show the data results and analysis and Table 19 and Table 20 summarize the data. Figure 35. Picture of core KRSD01 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 41 of 175 Figure 36. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD01. Figure 37. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD01. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 42 of 175 Figure 38. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD01. Table 19. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD01. A N r2 8.09E-03 1.17E-02 1.62E-03 6.57E-03 2.41E-03 2.63 3.25 2.94 2.35 2.45 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.98 0.94 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.1 10.3 15.5 21.0 6.1 10.1 14.6 20.7 25.2 Table 20. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD01. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.10 10.30 15.50 21.00 Mean 40.43 26.53 41.23 89.21 57.83 51.05 1.25 1.43 1.49 1.58 1.68 1.48 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.17 0.27 0.25 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.16 0.32 0.25 Page 43 of 175 Core KRSD04 Core KRSD04 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 2 mm light grey oxic layer overlying light grey sediment down core. Dark grey pockets of material were present from 0 to 6 cm. Gas bubbles are present intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 35.83 µm (silt). Figure 39 through Figure 42 show the data results and analysis and Table 21 and Table 22 summarize the data. Figure 39. Picture of core KRSD04 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 44 of 175 Figure 40. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD04. Figure 41. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD04. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 45 of 175 Figure 42. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD04. Table 21. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD04. A N r2 1.52E-03 1.76E-04 1.11E-04 1.65E-06 9.05E-05 1.90 2.47 1.73 4.47 2.81 0.98 0.99 0.82 0.98 0.99 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.5 12.6 16.1 20.6 6.1 12.6 16.1 20.4 25.9 Table 22. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD04. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.50 12.60 16.10 20.60 Mean 42.74 54.94 22.49 24.44 34.51 35.83 1.55 1.68 1.66 1.80 1.70 1.68 0.24 0.80 0.94 2.50 1.04 1.10 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.26 0.96 1.04 2.08 1.04 1.08 Page 46 of 175 Core KRSD05 Core KRSD05 was collected in 3.0 m of water depth. The core consisted of 2-3 mm light grey oxic layer, overlying light grey sediment with pockets of notably coarser grained material down core. At 37 cm a dark grey layer of material was observed. Plant material (roots, leaves, and small sticks) were present from 3 mm below surface to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were observed intermittently from the surface to the end of the core. The mean grain size of the core was 41.96 µm (silt). Figure 43 through Figure 46 show the data results and analysis and Table 23 and Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 47 of 175 Table 24 summarize the data. Figure 43. Picture of core KRSD05 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 48 of 175 Figure 44. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD05. Figure 45. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD05. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 49 of 175 Figure 46. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD05. Table 23. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD05. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.6 12.1 16.6 22.5 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 6.1 12.1 16.5 20.5 27.1 A N r2 6.80E-04 8.86E-04 4.92E-07 2.46E-06 4.37E-03 2.56 1.95 5.06 4.43 2.84 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.92 Page 50 of 175 Table 24. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD05. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.0 6.6 12.1 16.6 22.5 30.50 Mean 11.07 43.33 11.20 7.90 29.16 149.07 41.96 1.46 1.53 1.54 1.50 1.49 1.54 1.51 0.47 0.33 2.86 2.31 0.26 1.25 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.48 2.56 1.92 0.32 1.32 Page 51 of 175 Core KRSD10 Core KRSD10 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of an approximate 1 mm thick yellowish orange oxic layer, overlying a 1 cm layer of light grey sediment. Below the light grey sediment, olive grey sediment with pockets of light and dark grey sediment persisted to the end of the core. Plant material (roots, leaves and small sticks) was present at the surface throughout the core to the deepest depth interval. At 6 to 9 cm large sticks, approximately 1 cm diameter, were removed from core. The mean grain size of the core was 85.07 µm (sand). Figure 47 through Figure 50 show the data results and analysis and Table 25 and Table 26 summarize the data. Figure 47. Picture of core KRSD10 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 52 of 175 Figure 48. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD10. Figure 49. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD10. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 53 of 175 Figure 50. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD10. Table 25. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD10. A N r2 1.30E-03 6.41E-04 1.27E-02 1.76E-03 1.59E-03 1.80 4.22 3.37 1.29 0.45 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.82 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.7 11.0 16.2 17.6 6.4 10.5 15.5 17.5 20.0 Table 26. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD10. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.70 11.00 16.20 17.60 Mean 93.04 78.29 141.96 98.36 13.72 85.07 1.53 1.62 1.57 1.60 1.47 1.56 0.24 0.64 0.24 0.11 0.31 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.26 0.64 0.22 0.14 0.52 0.36 Page 54 of 175 Core KRSD14 Core KRSD14 was collected in 1.8 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm light brown oxic layer, overlying a light brown coarser grained layer to 3 cm. At 3 cm a layer of coarser grained, olive grey sand persisted to approximately 14 cm where a 1 cm thick dark grey layer was observed. Below the dark grey layer to the end of the core, light grey silt was present. Plant was observed material from the surface to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were present intermittently from the surface to 14 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 47.93 µm (silt). Figure 51 through Figure 54 show the data results and analysis and Table 27 and Table 28 summarize the data. Figure 51. Picture of core KRSD14 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 55 of 175 Figure 52. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD14. Figure 53. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD14. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 56 of 175 Figure 54. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD14. Table 27. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD14. A N r2 5.75E-04 5.32E-05 1.29E-04 2.07E-05 2.23E-05 1.74 3.58 2.25 3.22 3.09 0.97 0.94 0.98 1.00 0.99 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 4.3 11.2 17.9 23.2 3.9 10.7 17.5 23.2 27.6 Table 28. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD14. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 4.30 11.20 17.90 23.20 Mean 78.45 57.87 49.68 18.18 35.46 47.93 1.51 1.64 1.76 1.67 1.73 1.66 0.37 1.19 0.89 1.63 1.62 1.14 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.32 1.28 0.88 1.63 1.63 1.15 Page 57 of 175 Core KRSD20 Core KRSD20 was collected in 4.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of 0 to approximately 3 cm light brown surface layer overlying a layer of dark grey material from a depth of 3 to 8 cm. An olive grey layer was present from 8 cm to approximately 21 cm, where a visibly coarser grained olive grey layer persisted to the end of the core. Plant material (root, leaf, and small sticks) was observed at the surface and persisted to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 69.13 µm (sand). Figure 55 through Figure 58 show the data results and analysis and Table 29 and Table 30 summarize the data. Figure 55. Picture of core KRSD20 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 58 of 175 Figure 56. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD20. Figure 57. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD20. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 59 of 175 Figure 58. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD20. Table 29. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD20. A N r2 1.95E-04 1.24E-02 3.65E-03 6.83E-04 2.56E-03 3.15 1.01 2.14 1.78 2.26 0.95 0.60 0.91 0.88 0.89 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 0.4 8.7 12.7 20.8 3.9 8.1 12.4 19.2 26.4 Table 30. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD20. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 4.40 8.70 12.70 20.80 Mean 10.40 34.11 218.58 65.74 16.83 69.13 1.37 1.39 1.72 1.59 1.67 1.55 0.81 0.19 0.34 0.24 0.39 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.64 0.20 0.21 0.32 0.32 0.34 Page 60 of 175 Core KRSD24 Core KRSD24 was collected in 0.6 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2-3 mm olive grey oxic layer, overlying olive grey silt with pockets of light and dark grey silt down core. Plant material (leaves, roots, and small sticks) was observed at the surface and persisted down core. Gas bubbles were present intermittently to the deepest depth interval. The mean grain size of the core was 69.73 µm (sand). Figure 59 through Figure 62 show the data results and analysis and Table 31 and Table 32 summarize the data. Figure 59. Picture of core KRSD24 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 61 of 175 Figure 60. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD24. Figure 61. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD24. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 62 of 175 Figure 62. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD24. Table 31. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD24. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 5.3 12.5 16.3 18.2 25.4 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 4.7 11.9 16.2 17.7 25.1 28.2 A N r2 4.03E-04 1.86E-03 1.36E-01 4.39E-03 3.00E-04 1.38E-03 3.28 2.02 3.30 2.34 2.31 0.43 0.99 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.98 0.95 Page 63 of 175 Table 32. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD24. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm ) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 5.30 12.50 16.30 18.20 25.40 Mean 78.19 90.20 116.49 81.99 32.08 19.45 69.73 1.44 1.59 1.74 1.69 1.60 1.56 1.60 0.65 0.24 0.11 0.20 0.62 0.36 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.64 0.26 0.12 0.21 0.64 0.90 0.46 Page 64 of 175 Core KRSD25 Core KRSD25was collected in 2.7 m of water depth. The core consisted of a 2 mm olive grey oxic layer over 16 cm of olive grey coarse grained sediment. Olive grey sediment was present from 16 cm to the end of the core. Plant material was found at the surface and persisted to the deepest depth interval. Gas bubbles were also observed intermittently down core. The mean grain size of the core was 62.57 µm (sand). Figure 63 through Figure 66 show the data results and analysis and Table 33 and Table 34 summarize the data. Figure 63. Picture of core KRSD25 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 65 of 175 Figure 64. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD25. Figure 65. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD25. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 66 of 175 Figure 66. Sedflume erosion rate data for coreKRSD25. Table 33. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD25. A N r2 2.39E-02 4.74E-03 3.84E-03 2.33E-05 1.53E-04 2.64 1.86 1.60 3.22 2.57 0.95 0.96 0.67 0.95 0.99 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 4.9 12.5 17.9 22.1 3.7 12.5 17.9 22.1 25.8 Table 34. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD25. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 4.90 12.50 17.90 22.10 Mean 101.76 165.38 14.00 14.77 16.96 62.57 1.49 1.77 1.41 1.57 1.54 1.55 0.13 0.13 1.57 0.85 0.67 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.11 0.16 0.16 1.28 0.96 0.53 Page 67 of 175 Core KRSD28 Core KRSD28 was collected in 1.5 m of water depth. The core consisted of multiple sediment layers. At the surface a 2 mm thick olive grey oxic layer was overlying a 1 cm olive grey sediment layer. Below the olive grey sediment layer, from a core depth of 1 cm to 3-6 cm, a dark grey layer was present. From 3-6 cm to 33 cm a layer of yellowish orange fine to medium sand was observed. The final layer, from 33 cm to the end of the core, was a greenish grey silt/clay layer. Detritus was observed at the surface and at a core depth of 20 cm. The mean grain size of the core was 288.29 µm (sand). Figure 67 through Figure 70 show the data results and analysis and Table 35 and Table 36 summarize the data. Figure 67. Picture of core KRSD28 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 68 of 175 Figure 68. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD28. Figure 69. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD28. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 69 of 175 Figure 70. Sedflume erosion rate data for core KRSD28. Table 35. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD28. Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 2.7 8.1 14.1 20.6 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 1.3 7.6 13.5 19.8 26.0 A N r2 5.37E-04 1.79E-02 3.01E-02 2.35E-02 2.94E-02 1.56 2.97 3.03 2.78 2.73 0.92 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.99 Page 70 of 175 Table 36. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD28. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm ) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 2.70 8.10 14.10 20.60 34.10 Mean 39.06 370.57 444.22 427.98 431.67 16.26 288.29 1.26 1.85 1.81 1.84 1.82 1.69 1.71 0.34 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.19 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. 3 Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.32 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.24 Page 71 of 175 Core KRSD48 Core KRSD48 was collected in 0.9 m of water depth. The core consisted of approximately 1 mm light orange oxic layer over an approximate 1 cm thick dark grey layer. Olive grey sediment persisted down core from 1 cm to the end of the core with visible pockets of dark grey sediment and gas bubbles. Detritus (root and leaf material) were also observed at the surface and throughout the core. The mean grain size of the core was 33.13 µm (silt). Figure 71 through Figure 74 show the data results and analysis and Table 37 and Table 38 summarize the data. Figure 71. Picture of core KRSD48 aligned with Intra-core erosion rate ratios. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 72 of 175 Figure 72. Bulk density and D50 with depth for core KRSD48. Figure 73. Best fit power law curves for depth intervals in core KRSD48. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 73 of 175 Figure 74. Sedflume erosion rate data for core KRSD48. Table 37. Power law best-fit variables for specified depth intervals in core KRSD48. A N r2 2.47E-03 7.86E-04 1.02E-03 3.48E-04 9.70E-06 1.69 1.56 1.53 1.48 3.07 0.96 0.98 0.93 1.00 1.00 Interval Depth Start (cm) Depth Finish (cm) 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 6.2 13.0 19.1 21.7 6.2 12.7 18.3 21.7 24.0 Table 38. Bulk density, D50, critical shear stress with depth for KRSD48. Depth (cm) D50 (μm) ρb (g/cm3) Power Law τcr (Pa) 0.00 6.20 13.00 19.10 219.70 Mean 30.23 24.87 54.74 37.76 18.05 33.13 1.28 1.71 1.52 1.62 1.60 1.54 0.15 0.27 0.22 0.43 2.14 0.64 Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Linear Interpolation τcr (Pa) 0.20 0.32 0.32 0.44 2.08 0.67 Page 74 of 175 Summary Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) conducted a Sedflume analysis on eighteen cores obtained from the Kanawha River, West Virginia. These cores were collected offshore in areas from 0.6 to 6.7 m of water depth. The primary goal of this work was to characterize the stability of the sediments within Kanawha River. The Sedflume analysis determines sediment erosion rates, critical shear stress, particle size and wet bulk density at depth intervals down the length of each core. A summary spatial comparison of the erosion rate ratios relative to the average of the Kanawha River site as a whole is presented in Figure 75a, Figure 76, Figure 77. All cores are not represented in a single figure as a result of the large data set. The colored bars represent the different intervals within each core as compare to the entire site. The dashed line denotes the site wide average erosion rate ratio of 1. Ratios above this line denote intervals that are more susceptible to erosion than ratios below this line. 10 Erosion Rate Ratio 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4 Interval 5 Interval 6 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 COR07 COR20 COR30 COR35 COR36 COR39 Figure 75a. 1 of 3 images illustrating the spatial comparison of site-wide erosion rate ratios from Kanawha River. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 75 of 175 10 Erosion Rate Ratio 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4 Interval 5 Interval 6 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 COR40 COR42 KRSD01 KRSD04 KRSD05 KRSD10 Figure 76. 2 of 3 images illustrating the spatial comparison of site-wide erosion rate ratios from Kanawha River. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 76 of 175 10 Erosion Rate Ratio 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 3 2 Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 4 Interval 5 Interval 6 1 0 -1 -2 KRSD14 KRSD20 KRSD24 KRSD25 KRSD28 KRSD48 Figure 77. 3 of 3 images illustrating the spatial comparison of site-wide erosion rate ratios from Kanawha River. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 77 of 175 References Hakanson, L., and M. Jansson, 2002, Principles of Lake Sedimentology. Blackburn Press, Caldwell, New Jersey, USA. Jepsen, R., J. Roberts, and W. Lick, 1997, Effects of bulk density on sediment erosion rates, Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 99:21-31. McNeil, J., C. Taylor, and W. Lick, 1996, Measurements of erosion of undisturbed bottom sediments with depth, J. Hydr. Engr., 122(6):316-324. Roberts, J., R. Jepsen, D. Gotthard, and W. Lick, 1998, Effects of particle size and bulk density on erosion of quartz particles, J. Hydr. Engrg., 124(12):1261 1267. Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 78 of 175 Appendix A – Particle Size Distributions Sedflume Data Report Kanawha River, West Virginia Sea Engineering, Inc. Page 79 of 175 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR07_1_613.$av COR07_1_613.$av COR07 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_1_611.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_1_612.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_1_613.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR07_1_613.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.820 µm 100% 93.44 µm 63.98 µm 1.460 140.1 µm <25% 12.02 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 63.98 µm 104.9 µm 10998 µm2 112% 1.936 Right skewed 4.657 Leptokurtic <75% 138.3 µm <90% 211.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 80 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR07_2_616.$av COR07_2_616.$av COR07 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_2_614.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_2_615.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_2_616.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR07_2_616.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.690 µm 100% 70.50 µm 36.25 µm 1.945 127.7 µm <25% 7.838 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 36.25 µm 86.85 µm 7543 µm2 123% 2.222 Right skewed 6.879 Leptokurtic <75% 109.4 µm <90% 176.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 81 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR07_3_619.$av COR07_3_619.$av COR07 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_3_617.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_3_618.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_3_619.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR07_3_619.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.427 µm 100% 53.73 µm 26.51 µm 2.026 105.9 µm <25% 6.819 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 26.51 µm 59.66 µm 3559 µm2 111% 1.224 Right skewed 0.625 Leptokurtic <75% 88.98 µm <90% 148.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 82 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR07_4_622.$av COR07_4_622.$av COR07 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_4_620.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_4_621.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_4_622.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR07_4_622.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.497 µm 100% 49.27 µm 24.43 µm 2.017 127.7 µm <25% 6.901 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 24.43 µm 54.59 µm 2980 µm2 111% 1.246 Right skewed 0.648 Leptokurtic <75% 80.04 µm <90% 137.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 83 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR07_5_625.$av COR07_5_625.$av COR07 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_5_623.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_5_624.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR07_5_625.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR07_5_625.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.473 µm 100% 50.17 µm 24.67 µm 2.034 116.3 µm <25% 6.731 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 24.67 µm 55.19 µm 3046 µm2 110% 1.190 Right skewed 0.469 Leptokurtic <75% 83.95 µm <90% 138.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 84 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR20_1_448.$av COR20_1_448.$av COR20 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_1_446.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_1_447.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_1_448.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR20_1_448.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.345 µm 100% 60.38 µm 25.86 µm 2.335 37.97 µm <25% 8.711 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 25.86 µm 86.45 µm 7473 µm2 143% 2.824 Right skewed 9.813 Leptokurtic <75% 77.99 µm <90% 160.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 85 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR20_2_442.$av COR20_2_442.$av COR20 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_2_440.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_2_441.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_2_442.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR20_2_442.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.785 µm 100% 68.68 µm 29.83 µm 2.302 41.68 µm <25% 10.03 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 29.83 µm 103.7 µm 10749 µm2 151% 3.363 Right skewed 15.31 Leptokurtic <75% 85.80 µm <90% 173.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 86 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR20_3_430.$av COR20_3_430.$av COR20 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_3_428.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_3_429.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_3_430.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR20_3_430.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.579 µm 100% 47.10 µm 17.87 µm 2.636 11.29 µm <25% 6.290 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 17.87 µm 69.93 µm 4891 µm2 148% 2.919 Right skewed 11.23 Leptokurtic <75% 56.87 µm <90% 134.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 87 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR20_4_451.$av COR20_4_451.$av COR20 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_4_449.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_4_450.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_4_451.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR20_4_451.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.734 µm 100% 58.94 µm 19.64 µm 3.002 12.40 µm <25% 6.800 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 19.64 µm 94.75 µm 8978 µm2 161% 3.220 Right skewed 13.24 Leptokurtic <75% 73.12 µm <90% 158.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 88 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR20_5_421.$av COR20_5_421.$av COR20 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_5_419.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_5_420.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR20_5_421.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR20_5_421.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.949 µm 100% 67.68 µm 25.29 µm 2.677 116.3 µm <25% 7.618 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 25.29 µm 101.6 µm 10315 µm2 150% 2.994 Right skewed 11.67 Leptokurtic <75% 92.15 µm <90% 173.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 89 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR30_1_730.$av COR30_1_730.$av COR30 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_1_728.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_1_729.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_1_730.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR30_1_730.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 7.732 µm 100% 117.2 µm 100.7 µm 1.164 127.7 µm <25% 38.86 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 100.7 µm 108.3 µm 11733 µm2 92.4% 1.935 Right skewed 4.929 Leptokurtic <75% 155.9 µm <90% 220.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 6 Volume (%) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 90 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR30_2_733.$av COR30_2_733.$av COR30 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_2_731.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_2_732.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_2_733.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR30_2_733.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 14.51 µm 100% 219.0 µm 161.6 µm 1.356 168.9 µm <25% 88.56 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 161.6 µm 228.5 µm 52195 µm2 104% 2.978 Right skewed 13.15 Leptokurtic <75% 274.5 µm <90% 460.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 6 Volume (%) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 91 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR30_3_736.$av COR30_3_736.$av COR30 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_3_734.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_3_735.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_3_736.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR30_3_736.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 9.361 µm 100% 254.8 µm 190.7 µm 1.336 356.1 µm <25% 75.68 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 190.7 µm 265.4 µm 70427 µm2 104% 2.424 Right skewed 8.651 Leptokurtic <75% 354.9 µm <90% 525.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 92 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR30_4_739.$av COR30_4_739.$av COR30 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_4_737.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_4_738.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR30_4_739.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR30_4_739.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 17.61 µm 100% 343.7 µm 355.0 µm 0.968 391.0 µm <25% 215.3 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 355.0 µm 217.4 µm 47260 µm2 63.2% 0.754 Right skewed 2.109 Leptokurtic <75% 458.7 µm <90% 566.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 10 Volume (%) 8 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 93 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_1_544.$av COR35_1_544.$av COR35 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_1_542.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_1_543.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_1_544.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_1_544.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.936 µm 100% 79.27 µm 33.95 µm 2.335 153.8 µm <25% 8.210 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 33.95 µm 111.3 µm 12391 µm2 140% 2.729 Right skewed 10.05 Leptokurtic <75% 112.5 µm <90% 198.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 94 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_2_547.$av COR35_2_547.$av COR35 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_2_545.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_2_546.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_2_547.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_2_547.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.902 µm 100% 77.90 µm 34.42 µm 2.263 153.8 µm <25% 8.190 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 34.42 µm 101.2 µm 10235 µm2 130% 2.083 Right skewed 4.909 Leptokurtic <75% 115.9 µm <90% 204.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 95 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_3_550.$av COR35_3_550.$av COR35 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_3_548.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_3_549.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_3_550.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_3_550.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.155 µm 100% 53.69 µm 16.45 µm 3.264 7.776 µm <25% 5.411 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 16.45 µm 83.25 µm 6931 µm2 155% 2.650 Right skewed 8.189 Leptokurtic <75% 66.16 µm <90% 157.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 96 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_4_553.$av COR35_4_553.$av COR35 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_4_551.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_4_552.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_4_553.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_4_553.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.845 µm 100% 93.39 µm 45.94 µm 2.033 185.4 µm <25% 8.459 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 45.94 µm 105.7 µm 11175 µm2 113% 1.386 Right skewed 1.802 Leptokurtic <75% 158.6 µm <90% 237.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 97 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_5_556.$av COR35_5_556.$av COR35 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_5_554.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_5_555.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_5_556.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_5_556.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 39.39 µm 100% 189.1 µm 187.1 µm 1.010 203.5 µm <25% 126.0 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 187.1 µm 107.0 µm 11439 µm2 56.6% 0.610 Right skewed 1.058 Leptokurtic <75% 244.4 µm <90% 308.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 10 Volume (%) 8 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 98 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR35_6_568.$av COR35_6_568.$av COR35 6 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_6_566.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_6_567.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR35_6_568.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR35_6_568.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.941 µm 100% 162.6 µm 89.82 µm 1.811 168.9 µm <25% 21.35 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 89.82 µm 251.7 µm 63357 µm2 155% 3.768 Right skewed 18.05 Leptokurtic <75% 186.8 µm <90% 403.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 99 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR36_1_742.$av COR36_1_742.$av COR36 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_1_740.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_1_741.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_1_742.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR36_1_742.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.974 µm 100% 119.3 µm 88.02 µm 1.356 140.1 µm <25% 16.96 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 88.02 µm 127.4 µm 16231 µm2 107% 1.634 Right skewed 2.640 Leptokurtic <75% 166.1 µm <90% 286.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 100 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR36_2_745.$av COR36_2_745.$av COR36 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_2_743.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_2_744.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_2_745.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR36_2_745.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.447 µm 100% 97.53 µm 63.60 µm 1.534 140.1 µm <25% 12.48 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 63.60 µm 111.6 µm 12451 µm2 114% 1.932 Right skewed 4.405 Leptokurtic <75% 143.7 µm <90% 221.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 101 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR36_3_748.$av COR36_3_748.$av COR36 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_3_746.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_3_747.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_3_748.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR36_3_748.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.625 µm 100% 68.86 µm 23.34 µm 2.951 168.9 µm <25% 6.894 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 23.34 µm 95.67 µm 9153 µm2 139% 2.229 Right skewed 5.788 Leptokurtic <75% 104.5 µm <90% 190.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 102 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR36_4_754.$av COR36_4_754.$av COR36 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_4_752.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_4_753.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_4_754.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR36_4_754.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.285 µm 100% 55.79 µm 17.86 µm 3.124 116.3 µm <25% 5.918 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 17.86 µm 83.98 µm 7052 µm2 151% 2.848 Right skewed 10.78 Leptokurtic <75% 80.32 µm <90% 157.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 103 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR36_5_757.$av COR36_5_757.$av COR36 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_5_755.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_5_756.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR36_5_757.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR36_5_757.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.379 µm 100% 93.40 µm 65.29 µm 1.431 140.1 µm <25% 10.84 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 65.29 µm 105.1 µm 11037 µm2 112% 1.926 Right skewed 4.718 Leptokurtic <75% 139.6 µm <90% 209.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 104 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR39_1_526.$av COR39_1_526.$av COR39 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_1_524.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_1_525.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_1_526.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR39_1_526.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.719 µm 100% 108.3 µm 67.57 µm 1.602 153.8 µm <25% 11.36 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 67.57 µm 129.8 µm 16845 µm2 120% 2.094 Right skewed 5.718 Leptokurtic <75% 155.9 µm <90% 255.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 105 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR39_2_529.$av COR39_2_529.$av COR39 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_2_527.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_2_528.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_2_529.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR39_2_529.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.839 µm 100% 254.8 µm 101.4 µm 2.512 168.9 µm <25% 15.39 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 101.4 µm 413.2 µm 170.7e3 µm2 162% 2.444 Right skewed 5.439 Leptokurtic <75% 242.1 µm <90% 777.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 106 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR39_3_532.$av COR39_3_532.$av COR39 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_3_530.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_3_531.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_3_532.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR39_3_532.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.268 µm 100% 55.83 µm 16.02 µm 3.485 11.29 µm <25% 5.660 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 16.02 µm 96.72 µm 9354 µm2 173% 3.164 Right skewed 12.19 Leptokurtic <75% 56.48 µm <90% 162.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 107 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR39_4_535.$av COR39_4_535.$av COR39 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_4_533.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_4_534.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_4_535.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR39_4_535.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.997 µm 100% 125.8 µm 86.05 µm 1.462 185.4 µm <25% 15.35 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 86.05 µm 132.5 µm 17545 µm2 105% 1.353 Right skewed 1.556 Leptokurtic <75% 192.2 µm <90% 312.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 108 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR39_5_538.$av COR39_5_538.$av COR39 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_5_536.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_5_537.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR39_5_538.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR39_5_538.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.988 µm 100% 119.1 µm 51.40 µm 2.317 153.8 µm <25% 11.55 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 51.40 µm 178.8 µm 31964 µm2 150% 3.175 Right skewed 13.17 Leptokurtic <75% 155.1 µm <90% 301.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 109 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_1_589.$av COR40_1_589.$av COR40 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_1_587.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_1_588.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_1_589.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_1_589.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 26.73 µm 100% 134.8 µm 134.2 µm 1.004 153.8 µm <25% 90.62 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 134.2 µm 73.88 µm 5458 µm2 54.8% 0.616 Right skewed 2.294 Leptokurtic <75% 179.5 µm <90% 223.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 10 Volume (%) 8 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 110 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_2_592.$av COR40_2_592.$av COR40 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_2_590.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_2_591.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_2_592.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_2_592.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.960 µm 100% 183.7 µm 125.3 µm 1.467 185.4 µm <25% 24.99 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 125.3 µm 252.9 µm 63974 µm2 138% 3.309 Right skewed 13.79 Leptokurtic <75% 218.1 µm <90% 402.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 111 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_3_595.$av COR40_3_595.$av COR40 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_3_593.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_3_594.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_3_595.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_3_595.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.474 µm 100% 103.2 µm 47.11 µm 2.190 185.4 µm <25% 9.237 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 47.11 µm 128.1 µm 16400 µm2 124% 2.045 Right skewed 5.998 Leptokurtic <75% 163.5 µm <90% 265.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 112 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_4_598.$av COR40_4_598.$av COR40 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_4_596.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_4_597.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_4_598.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_4_598.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 7.924 µm 100% 196.9 µm 141.4 µm 1.392 168.9 µm <25% 54.26 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 141.4 µm 235.9 µm 55639 µm2 120% 3.372 Right skewed 16.08 Leptokurtic <75% 243.4 µm <90% 427.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 113 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_5_601.$av COR40_5_601.$av COR40 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_5_599.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_5_600.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_5_601.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_5_601.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.424 µm 100% 107.3 µm 51.11 µm 2.098 185.4 µm <25% 10.83 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 51.11 µm 134.1 µm 17988 µm2 125% 1.961 Right skewed 4.566 Leptokurtic <75% 159.5 µm <90% 280.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3.5 Volume (%) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 114 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_6_607.$av COR40_6_607.$av COR40 6 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_6_605.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_6_606.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_6_607.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_6_607.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.281 µm 100% 115.5 µm 78.99 µm 1.463 185.4 µm <25% 15.21 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 78.99 µm 121.4 µm 14738 µm2 105% 1.414 Right skewed 1.974 Leptokurtic <75% 180.2 µm <90% 272.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 115 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR40_7_610.$av COR40_7_610.$av COR40 7 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_7_608.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_7_609.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR40_7_610.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR40_7_610.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 25.74 µm 100% 225.7 µm 193.4 µm 1.167 203.5 µm <25% 122.6 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 193.4 µm 198.8 µm 39508 µm2 88.1% 3.111 Right skewed 16.07 Leptokurtic <75% 275.6 µm <90% 412.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 8 Volume (%) 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 116 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR42_1_574.$av COR42_1_574.$av COR42 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_1_572.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_1_573.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_1_574.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR42_1_574.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.604 µm 100% 91.70 µm 50.24 µm 1.825 127.7 µm <25% 11.24 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 50.24 µm 115.9 µm 13422 µm2 126% 2.190 Right skewed 5.200 Leptokurtic <75% 126.3 µm <90% 214.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 117 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR42_2_577.$av COR42_2_577.$av COR42 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_2_575.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_2_576.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_2_577.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR42_2_577.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.992 µm 100% 95.74 µm 49.65 µm 1.928 140.1 µm <25% 11.07 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 49.65 µm 120.3 µm 14482 µm2 126% 2.021 Right skewed 4.151 Leptokurtic <75% 134.1 µm <90% 230.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 118 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR42_3_580.$av COR42_3_580.$av COR42 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_3_578.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_3_579.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_3_580.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR42_3_580.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.240 µm 100% 81.03 µm 37.37 µm 2.169 127.7 µm <25% 9.129 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 37.37 µm 111.8 µm 12508 µm2 138% 2.778 Right skewed 10.36 Leptokurtic <75% 114.7 µm <90% 193.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 119 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR42_4_583.$av COR42_4_583.$av COR42 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_4_581.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_4_582.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_4_583.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR42_4_583.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.793 µm 100% 134.1 µm 77.59 µm 1.728 140.1 µm <25% 16.40 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 77.59 µm 191.7 µm 36742 µm2 143% 3.059 Right skewed 11.46 Leptokurtic <75% 160.6 µm <90% 334.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 120 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\COR42_5_586.$av COR42_5_586.$av COR42 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_5_584.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_5_585.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\COR42_5_586.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) COR42_5_586.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.891 µm 100% 92.98 µm 62.90 µm 1.478 105.9 µm <25% 13.99 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 62.90 µm 107.8 µm 11625 µm2 116% 2.153 Right skewed 5.451 Leptokurtic <75% 128.9 µm <90% 206.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 121 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD01_1_670.$av KRSD01_1_670.$av KRSD01 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_1_668.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_1_669.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_1_670.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD01_1_670.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.607 µm 100% 121.7 µm 40.43 µm 3.010 105.9 µm <25% 9.147 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 40.43 µm 185.9 µm 34557 µm2 153% 2.283 Right skewed 4.961 Leptokurtic <75% 141.3 µm <90% 384.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 122 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD01_2_676.$av KRSD01_2_676.$av KRSD01 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_2_674.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_2_675.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_2_676.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD01_2_676.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.043 µm 100% 69.31 µm 26.53 µm 2.613 105.9 µm <25% 7.613 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 26.53 µm 100.8 µm 10157 µm2 145% 2.662 Right skewed 8.285 Leptokurtic <75% 94.99 µm <90% 179.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 123 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD01_3_682.$av KRSD01_3_682.$av KRSD01 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_3_680.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_3_681.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_3_682.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD01_3_682.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.762 µm 100% 98.73 µm 41.23 µm 2.394 140.1 µm <25% 9.681 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 41.23 µm 148.2 µm 21957 µm2 150% 3.204 Right skewed 13.76 Leptokurtic <75% 132.0 µm <90% 230.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 124 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD01_4_685.$av KRSD01_4_685.$av KRSD01 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_4_683.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_4_684.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_4_685.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD01_4_685.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.840 µm 100% 116.6 µm 89.21 µm 1.307 140.1 µm <25% 17.09 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 89.21 µm 126.7 µm 16041 µm2 109% 1.868 Right skewed 3.919 Leptokurtic <75% 160.8 µm <90% 250.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 125 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD01_5_691.$av KRSD01_5_691.$av KRSD01 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_5_689.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_5_690.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD01_5_691.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD01_5_691.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.179 µm 100% 97.90 µm 57.83 µm 1.693 153.8 µm <25% 9.264 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 57.83 µm 122.3 µm 14952 µm2 125% 2.479 Right skewed 8.928 Leptokurtic <75% 145.5 µm <90% 215.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 126 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD04_1_628.$av KRSD04_1_628.$av KRSD04 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_1_626.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_1_627.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_1_628.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD04_1_628.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.081 µm 100% 76.45 µm 42.74 µm 1.789 127.7 µm <25% 8.957 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 42.74 µm 93.42 µm 8727 µm2 122% 2.290 Right skewed 6.960 Leptokurtic <75% 115.9 µm <90% 180.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 127 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD04_2_631.$av KRSD04_2_631.$av KRSD04 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_2_629.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_2_630.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_2_631.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD04_2_631.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.236 µm 100% 85.68 µm 54.94 µm 1.559 153.8 µm <25% 13.63 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 54.94 µm 95.28 µm 9079 µm2 111% 2.066 Right skewed 5.872 Leptokurtic <75% 130.0 µm <90% 195.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 128 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD04_3_640.$av KRSD04_3_640.$av KRSD04 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_3_638.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_3_639.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_3_640.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD04_3_640.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.196 µm 100% 46.91 µm 22.49 µm 2.086 127.7 µm <25% 6.107 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 22.49 µm 53.75 µm 2889 µm2 115% 1.349 Right skewed 0.986 Leptokurtic <75% 73.97 µm <90% 133.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 129 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD04_4_643.$av KRSD04_4_643.$av KRSD04 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_4_641.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_4_642.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_4_643.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD04_4_643.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.609 µm 100% 54.50 µm 24.44 µm 2.230 127.7 µm <25% 7.035 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 24.44 µm 68.69 µm 4718 µm2 126% 2.275 Right skewed 8.062 Leptokurtic <75% 83.63 µm <90% 150.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 130 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD04_5_646.$av KRSD04_5_646.$av KRSD04 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_5_644.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_5_645.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD04_5_646.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD04_5_646.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.000 µm 100% 75.20 µm 34.51 µm 2.179 168.9 µm <25% 8.362 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 34.51 µm 92.91 µm 8633 µm2 124% 2.040 Right skewed 5.482 Leptokurtic <75% 121.0 µm <90% 193.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 131 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_1_475.$av KRSD05_1_475.$av KRSD05 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_1_473.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_1_474.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_1_475.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_1_475.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.732 µm 100% 24.65 µm 11.07 µm 2.227 8.537 µm <25% 4.232 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 11.07 µm 34.28 µm 1175 µm2 139% 2.513 Right skewed 6.821 Leptokurtic <75% 30.10 µm <90% 64.44 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 132 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_2_481.$av KRSD05_2_481.$av KRSD05 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_2_479.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_2_480.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_2_481.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_2_481.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.555 µm 100% 97.73 µm 43.33 µm 2.255 140.1 µm <25% 9.509 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 43.33 µm 132.9 µm 17674 µm2 136% 2.381 Right skewed 6.937 Leptokurtic <75% 135.2 µm <90% 246.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 133 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_3_487.$av KRSD05_3_487.$av KRSD05 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_3_485.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_3_486.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_3_487.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_3_487.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.753 µm 100% 33.53 µm 11.20 µm 2.992 10.29 µm <25% 4.327 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 11.20 µm 53.71 µm 2884 µm2 160% 2.535 Right skewed 6.493 Leptokurtic <75% 32.74 µm <90% 107.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 134 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_4_496.$av KRSD05_4_496.$av KRSD05 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_4_494.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_4_495.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_4_496.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_4_496.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.489 µm 100% 17.04 µm 7.898 µm 2.158 7.776 µm <25% 3.320 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 7.898 µm 25.92 µm 672.1 µm2 152% 3.154 Right skewed 11.12 Leptokurtic <75% 18.19 µm <90% 40.45 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3.5 Volume (%) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 135 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_5_499.$av KRSD05_5_499.$av KRSD05 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_5_497.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_5_498.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_5_499.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_5_499.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.588 µm 100% 90.71 µm 29.16 µm 3.111 105.9 µm <25% 7.205 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 29.16 µm 131.9 µm 17405 µm2 145% 2.209 Right skewed 5.300 Leptokurtic <75% 122.2 µm <90% 268.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 136 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD05_6_505.$av KRSD05_6_505.$av KRSD05 6 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_6_503.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_6_504.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD05_6_505.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD05_6_505.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 14.16 µm 100% 185.2 µm 149.1 µm 1.242 168.9 µm <25% 75.35 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 149.1 µm 175.7 µm 30877 µm2 94.9% 3.330 Right skewed 22.50 Leptokurtic <75% 247.2 µm <90% 392.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 6 Volume (%) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 137 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD10_1_709.$av KRSD10_1_709.$av KRSD10 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_1_707.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_1_708.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_1_709.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD10_1_709.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.209 µm 100% 165.9 µm 93.04 µm 1.783 153.8 µm <25% 19.44 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 93.04 µm 267.9 µm 71785 µm2 162% 3.615 Right skewed 14.40 Leptokurtic <75% 183.9 µm <90% 371.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 138 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD10_2_712.$av KRSD10_2_712.$av KRSD10 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_2_710.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_2_711.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_2_712.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD10_2_712.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.719 µm 100% 152.9 µm 78.29 µm 1.953 140.1 µm <25% 15.26 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 78.29 µm 218.4 µm 47714 µm2 143% 2.628 Right skewed 7.843 Leptokurtic <75% 182.9 µm <90% 417.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 139 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD10_3_715.$av KRSD10_3_715.$av KRSD10 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_3_713.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_3_714.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_3_715.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD10_3_715.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.671 µm 100% 224.3 µm 142.0 µm 1.580 185.4 µm <25% 28.77 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 142.0 µm 276.2 µm 76260 µm2 123% 2.296 Right skewed 6.188 Leptokurtic <75% 297.4 µm <90% 526.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 140 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD10_4_721.$av KRSD10_4_721.$av KRSD10 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_4_719.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_4_720.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_4_721.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD10_4_721.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.571 µm 100% 145.8 µm 98.36 µm 1.482 153.8 µm <25% 18.64 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 98.36 µm 196.3 µm 38547 µm2 135% 3.013 Right skewed 11.23 Leptokurtic <75% 174.5 µm <90% 344.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 141 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD10_5_724.$av KRSD10_5_724.$av KRSD10 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_5_722.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_5_723.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD10_5_724.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD10_5_724.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.956 µm 100% 47.07 µm 13.72 µm 3.430 6.453 µm <25% 4.681 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 13.72 µm 78.94 µm 6232 µm2 168% 3.177 Right skewed 12.64 Leptokurtic <75% 52.25 µm <90% 136.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 142 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD14_1_457.$av KRSD14_1_457.$av KRSD14 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_1_455.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_1_456.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_1_457.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD14_1_457.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.276 µm 100% 96.89 µm 78.45 µm 1.235 116.3 µm <25% 22.74 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 78.45 µm 97.90 µm 9585 µm2 101% 2.141 Right skewed 6.272 Leptokurtic <75% 135.0 µm <90% 193.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 143 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD14_2_433.$av KRSD14_2_433.$av KRSD14 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_2_431.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_2_432.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_2_433.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD14_2_433.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.626 µm 100% 84.00 µm 57.87 µm 1.451 127.7 µm <25% 11.87 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 57.87 µm 92.43 µm 8543 µm2 110% 2.021 Right skewed 5.617 Leptokurtic <75% 126.8 µm <90% 187.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 144 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD14_3_436.$av KRSD14_3_436.$av KRSD14 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_3_434.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_3_435.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_3_436.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD14_3_436.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.557 µm 100% 88.82 µm 49.68 µm 1.788 153.8 µm <25% 10.41 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 49.68 µm 105.3 µm 11088 µm2 119% 1.960 Right skewed 4.496 Leptokurtic <75% 134.7 µm <90% 208.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 145 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD14_4_439.$av KRSD14_4_439.$av KRSD14 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_4_437.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_4_438.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_4_439.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD14_4_439.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.127 µm 100% 48.18 µm 18.18 µm 2.650 105.9 µm <25% 5.471 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 18.18 µm 63.98 µm 4093 µm2 133% 2.292 Right skewed 8.246 Leptokurtic <75% 71.95 µm <90% 141.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 146 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD14_5_445.$av KRSD14_5_445.$av KRSD14 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_5_443.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_5_444.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD14_5_445.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD14_5_445.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.624 µm 100% 77.71 µm 35.46 µm 2.192 168.9 µm <25% 7.606 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 35.46 µm 94.48 µm 8927 µm2 122% 1.786 Right skewed 3.784 Leptokurtic <75% 126.7 µm <90% 203.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 147 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD20_1_454.$av KRSD20_1_454.$av KRSD20 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_1_452.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_1_453.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_1_454.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD20_1_454.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.810 µm 100% 34.51 µm 10.40 µm 3.319 7.776 µm <25% 4.147 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 10.40 µm 66.62 µm 4438 µm2 193% 4.001 Right skewed 19.61 Leptokurtic <75% 31.04 µm <90% 96.43 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 148 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD20_2_424.$av KRSD20_2_424.$av KRSD20 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_2_422.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_2_423.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_2_424.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD20_2_424.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.533 µm 100% 84.62 µm 34.11 µm 2.480 168.9 µm <25% 6.954 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 34.11 µm 108.6 µm 11798 µm2 128% 1.865 Right skewed 3.781 Leptokurtic <75% 132.6 µm <90% 225.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 149 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD20_3_490.$av KRSD20_3_490.$av KRSD20 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_3_488.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_3_489.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_3_490.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD20_3_490.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 18.67 µm 100% 242.4 µm 218.6 µm 1.109 269.2 µm <25% 109.9 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 218.6 µm 220.1 µm 48457 µm2 90.8% 2.895 Right skewed 13.25 Leptokurtic <75% 310.4 µm <90% 423.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 8 Volume (%) 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 150 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD20_4_418.$av KRSD20_4_418.$av KRSD20 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_4_416.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_4_417.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_4_418.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD20_4_418.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.271 µm 100% 126.4 µm 65.74 µm 1.923 185.4 µm <25% 10.11 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 65.74 µm 173.7 µm 30183 µm2 137% 2.850 Right skewed 11.10 Leptokurtic <75% 179.7 µm <90% 296.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 151 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD20_5_415.$av KRSD20_5_415.$av KRSD20 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_5_413.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_5_414.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD20_5_415.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD20_5_415.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.825 µm 100% 57.90 µm 16.83 µm 3.441 153.8 µm <25% 4.913 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 16.83 µm 84.35 µm 7114 µm2 146% 2.289 Right skewed 6.269 Leptokurtic <75% 84.48 µm <90% 172.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 152 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_1_508.$av KRSD24_1_508.$av KRSD24 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_1_506.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_1_507.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_1_508.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_1_508.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 6.146 µm 100% 111.0 µm 78.19 µm 1.419 116.3 µm <25% 25.33 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 78.19 µm 122.1 µm 14909 µm2 110% 2.145 Right skewed 5.814 Leptokurtic <75% 145.8 µm <90% 246.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 153 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_2_511.$av KRSD24_2_511.$av KRSD24 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_2_509.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_2_510.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_2_511.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_2_511.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.092 µm 100% 109.7 µm 90.20 µm 1.216 168.9 µm <25% 20.07 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 90.20 µm 106.7 µm 11395 µm2 97.4% 1.619 Right skewed 3.629 Leptokurtic <75% 164.1 µm <90% 228.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 154 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_3_514.$av KRSD24_3_514.$av KRSD24 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_3_512.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_3_513.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_3_514.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_3_514.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 8.548 µm 100% 125.9 µm 116.5 µm 1.080 140.1 µm <25% 57.29 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 116.5 µm 102.0 µm 10413 µm2 81.1% 1.779 Right skewed 5.061 Leptokurtic <75% 167.7 µm <90% 222.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 8 Volume (%) 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 155 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_4_517.$av KRSD24_4_517.$av KRSD24 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_4_515.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_4_516.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_4_517.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_4_517.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 5.148 µm 100% 104.9 µm 81.99 µm 1.279 153.8 µm <25% 19.45 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 81.99 µm 106.6 µm 11368 µm2 102% 1.768 Right skewed 3.936 Leptokurtic <75% 152.6 µm <90% 221.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 5 Volume (%) 4 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 156 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_5_520.$av KRSD24_5_520.$av KRSD24 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_5_518.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_5_519.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_5_520.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_5_520.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.928 µm 100% 78.46 µm 32.08 µm 2.446 96.49 µm <25% 8.316 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 32.08 µm 123.8 µm 15329 µm2 158% 3.240 Right skewed 12.92 Leptokurtic <75% 98.03 µm <90% 187.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 157 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD24_6_523.$av KRSD24_6_523.$av KRSD24 6 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_6_521.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_6_522.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD24_6_523.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD24_6_523.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.409 µm 100% 53.43 µm 19.44 µm 2.748 11.29 µm <25% 6.149 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 19.44 µm 83.47 µm 6967 µm2 156% 3.166 Right skewed 12.53 Leptokurtic <75% 67.18 µm <90% 144.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 158 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD25_1_469.$av KRSD25_1_469.$av KRSD25 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_1_467.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_1_468.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_1_469.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD25_1_469.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.893 µm 100% 211.7 µm 101.8 µm 2.080 168.9 µm <25% 14.29 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 101.8 µm 284.3 µm 80851 µm2 134% 1.970 Right skewed 3.814 Leptokurtic <75% 278.7 µm <90% 606.6 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 159 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD25_2_478.$av KRSD25_2_478.$av KRSD25 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_2_476.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_2_477.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_2_478.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD25_2_478.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 6.760 µm 100% 309.5 µm 165.4 µm 1.871 185.4 µm <25% 40.72 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 165.4 µm 382.7 µm 146.5e3 µm2 124% 1.928 Right skewed 3.712 Leptokurtic <75% 436.3 µm <90% 836.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3.5 Volume (%) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 160 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD25_3_460.$av KRSD25_3_460.$av KRSD25 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_3_458.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_3_459.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_3_460.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD25_3_460.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.961 µm 100% 51.81 µm 14.00 µm 3.700 7.084 µm <25% 4.667 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 14.00 µm 92.91 µm 8632 µm2 179% 3.267 Right skewed 12.17 Leptokurtic <75% 52.86 µm <90% 145.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 161 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD25_4_463.$av KRSD25_4_463.$av KRSD25 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_4_461.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_4_462.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_4_463.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD25_4_463.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.069 µm 100% 48.32 µm 14.77 µm 3.273 13.61 µm <25% 5.270 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 14.77 µm 87.09 µm 7584 µm2 180% 3.457 Right skewed 13.98 Leptokurtic <75% 45.59 µm <90% 136.7 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 162 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD25_5_466.$av KRSD25_5_466.$av KRSD25 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_5_464.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_5_465.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD25_5_466.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD25_5_466.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.155 µm 100% 52.73 µm 16.96 µm 3.110 14.94 µm <25% 5.650 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 16.96 µm 87.40 µm 7640 µm2 166% 3.105 Right skewed 11.49 Leptokurtic <75% 57.00 µm <90% 151.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 163 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_1_694.$av KRSD28_1_694.$av KRSD28 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_1_692.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_1_693.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_1_694.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_1_694.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 4.020 µm 100% 114.1 µm 39.06 µm 2.921 105.9 µm <25% 10.25 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 39.06 µm 170.7 µm 29141 µm2 150% 2.235 Right skewed 4.853 Leptokurtic <75% 133.0 µm <90% 379.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 164 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_2_697.$av KRSD28_2_697.$av KRSD28 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_2_695.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_2_696.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_2_697.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_2_697.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 7.106 µm 100% 329.3 µm 370.6 µm 0.889 429.2 µm <25% 42.49 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 370.6 µm 257.7 µm 66406 µm2 78.3% 0.963 Right skewed 3.487 Leptokurtic <75% 483.9 µm <90% 589.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 10 Volume (%) 8 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 165 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_3_700.$av KRSD28_3_700.$av KRSD28 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_3_698.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_3_699.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_3_700.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_3_700.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 98.98 µm 100% 431.4 µm 444.2 µm 0.971 471.1 µm <25% 337.2 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 444.2 µm 211.2 µm 44592 µm2 49.0% 0.261 Right skewed 2.010 Leptokurtic <75% 545.7 µm <90% 651.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 12 Volume (%) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 166 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_4_703.$av KRSD28_4_703.$av KRSD28 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_4_701.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_4_702.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_4_703.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_4_703.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 300.5 µm 100% 446.1 µm 428.0 µm 1.042 429.2 µm <25% 354.2 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 428.0 µm 134.1 µm 17979 µm2 30.1% 1.469 Right skewed 5.597 Leptokurtic <75% 517.9 µm <90% 612.5 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) Volume (%) 15 10 5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 167 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_5_706.$av KRSD28_5_706.$av KRSD28 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_5_704.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_5_705.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_5_706.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_5_706.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 315.3 µm 100% 443.8 µm 431.7 µm 1.028 429.2 µm <25% 363.8 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 431.7 µm 105.8 µm 11203 µm2 23.8% 0.560 Right skewed -0.036 Platykurtic <75% 512.6 µm <90% 590.8 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) Volume (%) 15 10 5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 168 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD28_6_718.$av KRSD28_6_718.$av KRSD28 6 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_6_716.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_6_717.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD28_6_718.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD28_6_718.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 1.950 µm 100% 70.14 µm 16.26 µm 4.314 7.084 µm <25% 5.112 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 16.26 µm 116.9 µm 13669 µm2 167% 2.451 Right skewed 5.874 Leptokurtic <75% 81.25 µm <90% 211.2 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 169 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_1_649.$av KRSD48_1_649.$av KRSD48 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_647.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_648.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_649.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_1_649.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.899 µm 100% 58.81 µm 28.92 µm 2.033 96.49 µm <25% 7.794 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 28.92 µm 80.63 µm 6501 µm2 137% 3.010 Right skewed 12.10 Leptokurtic <75% 83.13 µm <90% 145.3 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 170 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_1_652.$av KRSD48_1_652.$av KRSD48 1 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_650.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_651.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_1_652.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_1_652.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.900 µm 100% 62.67 µm 30.23 µm 2.073 87.90 µm <25% 7.959 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 30.23 µm 86.55 µm 7491 µm2 138% 2.767 Right skewed 9.367 Leptokurtic <75% 86.23 µm <90% 154.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 171 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_2_655.$av KRSD48_2_655.$av KRSD48 2 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_2_653.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_2_654.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_2_655.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_2_655.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.275 µm 100% 65.61 µm 24.87 µm 2.638 13.61 µm <25% 8.105 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 24.87 µm 99.56 µm 9911 µm2 152% 2.830 Right skewed 9.101 Leptokurtic <75% 83.74 µm <90% 168.0 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 172 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_3_661.$av KRSD48_3_661.$av KRSD48 3 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_3_659.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_3_660.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_3_661.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_3_661.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.859 µm 100% 104.5 µm 54.74 µm 1.909 140.1 µm <25% 11.48 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 54.74 µm 141.1 µm 19916 µm2 135% 2.563 Right skewed 7.869 Leptokurtic <75% 139.6 µm <90% 240.4 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 4 Volume (%) 3 2 1 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 173 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_4_664.$av KRSD48_4_664.$av KRSD48 4 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_4_662.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_4_663.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_4_664.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_4_664.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 3.155 µm 100% 80.75 µm 37.76 µm 2.138 140.1 µm <25% 9.036 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 37.76 µm 107.2 µm 11495 µm2 133% 2.407 Right skewed 6.986 Leptokurtic <75% 117.0 µm <90% 199.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 3 Volume (%) 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 174 of 175 2000 LS Particle Size Analyzer 24 Sep 2009 Kanawha River File name: C:\Documents and Settings\Lisa\My Documents\Projects\WestVirginiaSedflume\ParticleSize\KRSD48_5_667.$av KRSD48_5_667.$av KRSD48 5 ANDES Fraunhofer.rf780z Aqueous Liquid Module Run length: 60 seconds 80 File ID: Sample ID: Operator: Optical model: LS 13 320 SW Pump speed: Average of 3 files: C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_5_665.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_5_666.$ls C:\LS13320\Projects\WestVirgina\KRSD48_5_667.$ls Volume Statistics (Arithmetic) KRSD48_5_667.$av Calculations from 0.375 µm to 2000 µm Volume: Mean: Median: Mean/Median ratio: Mode: <10% 2.457 µm 100% 58.52 µm 18.05 µm 3.242 10.29 µm <25% 6.022 µm S.D.: Variance: C.V.: Skewness: Kurtosis: <50% 18.05 µm 100.8 µm 10155 µm2 172% 3.432 Right skewed 14.57 Leptokurtic <75% 67.26 µm <90% 156.1 µm Differential Volume (Average) (2 S.D.) 2.5 Volume (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.4 0.6 1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 Particle Diameter (µm) 100 200 400 600 1000 Page 175 of 175 2000 APPENDIX MODELING SUMMARY AND RESULTS 031884 (51) APPENDIX L MODELING SUMMARY AND RESULTS KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX L This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... L-1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... L-2 3.0 MODELING APPROACH ................................................................................................. L-3 4.0 MODELING RESULTS....................................................................................................... L-4 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE L.1 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 1 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FIGURE L.2 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 2 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FIGURE L.3 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 3 WATER SURFACE ELEVATION FIGURE L.4 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 4 SURFACE WATER ELEVATION FIGURE L.5 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 1 WATER DEPTH FIGURE L.6 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 2 WATER DEPTH FIGURE L.7 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 3 WATER DEPTH FIGURE L.8 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 4 WATER DEPTH FIGURE L.9 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 1 FLOW VELOCITY FIGURE L.10 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 2 FLOW VELOCITY FIGURE L.11 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 3 FLOW VELOCITY FIGURE L.12 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 4 FLOW VELOCITY FIGURE L.13 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 1 SHEAR VELOCITY FIGURE L.14 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 2 SHEAR VELOCITY FIGURE L.15 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 3 SHEAR VELOCITY FIGURE L.16 100 YEAR FLOOD – STUDY AREA 4 SHEAR VELOCITY 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD Anchor QEA AOC cfs CRA EE/CA EFDC EMS EOC FESWMS FEMA FHWA Flexsys FST2DH ft/s Golder Monsanto Company n River Site SMS U.S. EPA WV WV DEP 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Anchor QEA, L.L.C Administrative Order on Consent cubic feet per second Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code Environmental Modeling Systems Inc. Extent of Contamination Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Federal Highways Administration's Flexsys America L.P. Flow and Sediment Transport model feet per second Golder Associates, Inc. the corporation presently known as Monsanto Company Manning coefficients Kanawha River Consists of the normal pool of an approximate 14-mile portion of the Kanawha River from the Coal River downstream to the Winfield Locks and Dam (between RM 31.1 and RM 45.5) Surface Water Modeling System United States Environmental Protection Agency West Virginia West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 INTRODUCTION Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) prepared an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Work Plan to be submitted by Monsanto Company for the Kanawha River (River) Site (Site) located in Nitro, West Virginia (WV). Monsanto Company and Pharmacia Corporation negotiated with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WV DEP) the terms of an Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) to perform the EE/CA. The overall objective of the EE/CA is to characterize the nature and extent of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) at the Site that has been and/or is currently being released from what is now the Flexsys America L.P. (Flexsys) plant on Plant Road in Nitro, WV (the "Nitro facility"). The Site is located in the southwest portion of WV, near Nitro, approximately twelve miles northwest of Charleston. This EE/CA Work Plan includes a phased extent of contamination (EOC) study work plan to identify historical and/or potential ongoing 2,3,7,8-TCDD source areas to the River and to identify and fill data gaps to characterize the extent of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD at the Site. One of the tasks described in the AOC was to perform a sediment stability evaluation of the sediments in the River. As part of this task, hydrodynamic and sediment transport modeling was completed to develop a more accurate understanding of sediment stability, transport, and recovery within the Site and with particular focus on areas of elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentration. The objectives of the modeling were to: • Develop a detailed understanding of hydrodynamics within the River to evaluate sediment stability over a range of storm and non-storm flow conditions. This aids in the evaluation of sediment transport as well as preliminary cap design activities for alternatives involving capping. • Determine the stability of deposits of impacted sediments and identify areas within the channel and floodplain which have the ability to transport sediment during a 100-year flood event. The hydrodynamics of the River were studied using a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model called Surface Water Modeling System (SMS) and a three-dimensional model that solves the vertically hydrostatic, free surface, and turbulence averaged equations of motion for a variable density fluid called the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC). 031884 (51) L-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The River is a tributary of the Ohio River and approximately 97 miles in length located in both the Kanawha and Putnam Counties. This hydrodynamic study was conducted on a 14-mile section of the River located between the confluence of the Coal and River and Winfield Dam. Although the River is primarily oriented north to south, the sharp bend near the Winfield Dam creates an east to west orientation. The average width of the River channel ranges between approximately 800 to 1,200 feet. Average water depths in the main channel vary from approximately 25 to 45 feet with a maximum water depth of 60 feet. The side slopes of the River are steep, typically 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), descending to the channel depth within 50 to 150 feet of the shoreline. The deepest part of the channel (i.e., thalweg) tends to migrate toward the outside of meander bends (i.e., toward the left side of the River across from Nitro, and toward the right side of the River approaching Winfield Dam), locally forming steeper banks in these areas. A bathymetric and geophysical survey of the Site was completed by Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder), under the supervision of Anchor QEA, L.L.C (Anchor), to map the distribution and thickness of fine-grained, soft sediment deposits which may be subject to scour and erosion. The survey identified that bedrock outcrops appear to be exposed or covered by a thin sediment veneer on many of the side-slope areas, especially on the lower portions of the side slopes. The survey also noted that finer grained sediments appeared to be mainly restricted to shallower, near shore benches and bays. During the 100-year flood event, the River delivers a total of 226,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow to the Winfield Dam. The River is large with several tributaries, 11 in total, entering within the limits of the Study Area. The largest tributary is the Pocatalico River, which contributes 20,900 cfs of flow during the 100-year flood event. 031884 (51) L-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.0 MODELING APPROACH The SMS, developed by Aquaveo and distributed by Environmental Modeling Systems Inc. (EMS), was used for hydrodynamic modeling of the River. SMS is a comprehensive environment for one-, two-, and three-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling. The SMS environment includes pre- and post-processors for a number of numerical models. In this Project, the U.S. Federal Highways Administration's (FHWA) Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System (FESWMS) was used to calculate flow directions and velocities in the river. FESWMS is a hydrodynamic model that supports both super and sub-critical flow analyses, including area wetting and drying. It uses the depth-averaged Flow and Sediment Transport model (FST2DH), a two-dimensional finite element surface water model that can compute the direction of flow and water surface elevation in a horizontal plane. The FESWMS model was setup for the River and its floodplain between the confluence of the Coal and River and Winfield Dam. A curvilinear, mostly orthogonal grid was developed for the floodplain. The grid was defined by 54,787 nodes connected into 19,579 quadrilateral and triangular elements. The bathymetric surface required for the modeling was created in ArcView from a Digital Elevation Map (United States Geological Survey) and a hydrographic and geophysical survey conducted by Golder in 2005. One initial and two boundary conditions were used in the model to properly capture all key hydrodynamic features of the system. The initial boundary condition was used to define initial water surface elevation at the beginning of the simulation. The upstream boundary condition characterized flows entering the model domain. These flows entering the model domain include the most upstream section of River and all contributing tributaries located in the study area. The contributing flows were determined from Flood Insurance Studies provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A downstream head boundary defined the water surface elevation at the downstream end of the model domain (Flood Insurance Study, FEMA). A bottom friction was defined to specify different Manning coefficients (n) for the floodplain (n = 0.079) and the channel (n = 0.03) (Flood Insurance Study, FEMA). The SMS Steering Module was used to run the simulations in a spin-down mode. The spin-down mode is used when the desired boundary conditions differ greatly from the cold start (bathtub) conditions. The Steering Module iteratively solves the nonlinear flow equations in a series of progressive runs until a convergence is obtained. A combination of manual and automated wetting-drying was used to decrease the time required for model convergence. The model scenarios were run in a steady state mode. 031884 (51) L-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.0 MODELING RESULTS The modeling scenario simulated using the FESWMS model was the 100-year flood event. The water surface elevation, water depth, and flow velocity and direction for the 100-year flood scenario predicted are presented on Figures L.1 to L.12. The model simulated sloped water surface elevations in the floodplain surrounding the River that ranged from 578 feet in the downstream sections of the floodplain to 588 feet in the upstream sections of the floodplain. The model results indicated that the flow velocities ranged from 4 feet per second (ft/s) to a maximum flow velocity within the channel of 8 ft/s and ranged from 0 ft/s to a maximum of 4 ft/s in the floodplain. The extent of flooding was observed to be very small with the flow mostly concentrated within the River network. High flow velocities are mostly seen in the main channel following the thalweg of the River. High velocities were also observed at the mouth of the tributaries entering into the River, the highest velocity being associated with the Pocatalico River. The shear velocity was calculated in SMS by using a shear velocity formula based on Manning's equation and Shields curve. The shear velocity formula was input into the model data calculator function: n2 1 U* = ( * g) * u 2 * 3 2 1.49 d where: U * - Shear Velocity (ft/s) n - Manning coefficient g - gravity (ft/s2) u - velocity (ft/s) d - water depth (ft) The shear velocity was used to estimate the minimum velocity needed to initiate sediment movement within the River. The shear velocities calculated for each of the study areas for the 100-year flood are presented on Figures L.13 to L.16. The shear velocities calculated indicate that during the 100-year flood event, the loose clays and silts within the River channel will move downstream. As presented on Figures L.13 to L.16, there are a few small areas along the outside edge of the floodplain where high shear velocities are present. These localized areas are not representative of predicted behavior and are considered oddities. These oddities in the results are due to artifacts from the model which are based on the grid formations developed. Regardless of the presence of these few oddities, the results indicate that sediment will move in the channel and banks of the River. 031884 (51) L-4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Recovery rates on a Site-wide basis are projected to be approximately 1.95% per year on average. This evaluation is based on incoming sediment load to the project containing 2,3,7,8-TCDD at concentrations equivalent to the current SWAC of Study Area 1 (upstream of Nitro). Reductions in upstream loading of 2,3,7,8-TCDD would further accelerate this trend. Projected fish tissue concentrations based on these reductions are discussed in Section 8.1 of the EE/CA Report. Based on the stability of the sediments identified in Sedflume testing (Appendix K of the EE/CA), the area in front of the Former Flexsys Facility (COR 39 area) and the area directly across the River (COR 36) become erosive under conditions less than the 100-year storm events. Due to the elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations in these areas, these areas are targeted for evaluation under the Remedial Action Alternatives evaluated as part of the EE/CA. Other areas of the Site do not represent areas which combine erosive potential with elevated 2,3,7,8-TCDD concentrations. 031884 (51) L-5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES / / / KRSD-22 . / / COR-43 TCLP-02 SSD-26 , , : / RM 43 SSD-27 02, 8:, 3 ";7, 8-;5+ 90:, KRSD-23 KRSD-24 TCLP-01 . . Study Area 1 Upstream Area KRSD-25 . KRSD-26 . RM 44 / . / SSD-28 0:86 "( 50:( 8? ( 5+-033 ";8-( *, "( 4 73, 8, <06;9 ";8-( * , "( 4 73, KRSD-27 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, Water Surface Elevation (ft) . / SSD-29 KRSD-29 . KRSD-28 . RM 45 , ? ( 7 ! % ! # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & # ! "$! % # ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! / - @ ) 8 RM 4 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area KRSD-14 - - ; / . COR-29 / 95 7<9 9- - 3 ) 6, .144 COR-30 COR-32B / COR-33 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area COR-34 / KRSD-19 . COR-36 / 9- ) ; ) 3- : 0- 5 1+ ) 4 798 / . / SSD-24 SSD-25 . KRSD-20 / COR-38 . . . 76: ) 6; 7 .4, ) 6, .144 # % !978- 9; @ COR-40 KRSD-21 . / COR-41 . KRSD-22 / . COR-39 / / / COR-42 / . . COR-37 / 4- ?:@: 5 - 91+) ! 9- ) ; ) 3- : 0- 5 1+) 4 798 ! ! COR-43 0) 66- 4 <; 416- 7> !- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 !- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 / SSD-26 / . #<9.) +- #) 5 84- !9- =17<: #<9.) + - #) 5 84- Water Surface Elevation (ft) / RM 43 SSD-27 . $ !978- 9; @ *7<6, ) 91- : : 07>6 ) 9- ) 8897?15 ) ; - $0- 4) ; - 9) 4 - ?; - 6; 7. ; 0- #1; - ) 6, #; <, @ 9- ) *7<6, ) 91- : ) 9- 415 1; -, ; 7 ; 0- "1=- 9 >1; 016 ; 0- >) ; - 9 : <9.) + - , - .16- , *@ ; 0- 6795 ) 4 8774 - 4- =) ; 176 , 2) +- 6; ) 9- ) : ) 9- 16+ 4<, - , .79 9- .- 9- 6+- 764@ ) 6, ,7 67; .795 8) 9; 7. ; 0- #1; - # %" " $ " % $%" "( !" " $ ' #$ & " # %$ #! " ! # ' - *9<) 9@ . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . . . KRSD-18 COR-35 / SSD-21 SSD-23 / RM 42 . / COR-31 / . KRSD-16 COR-32 RM 41 / . . ./ . SSD-22 COR-32A . KRSD-17 / . .1/ <9- ( " A #$% ( " ' $ " #%" & $ " ! "$ ' " & " ' #$ & " KRSD-51 .KRSD-09 / COR-21 . OR IVE - - ; / R COR-23 / . LIC ATA COR-22 / RM 38 C PO KRSD-08 . KRSD-53 . SSD-14 KRSD-10 . . . KRSD-50 . KRSD-11 COR-24 KRSD-49 . . KRSD-48 / / SSD-15 ! ! John E. Amos Power Plant 0) 66- 4 <; 416!- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 SSD-16 / 7> !- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 RM 39 #<9.) +- #) 5 84- / !9- =17<: #<9.) + - #) 5 84- . / SSD-17 Water Surface Elevation (ft) . / SSD-18 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area / COR-25 KRSD-13 . $- ?; RM 40 COR-29 / COR-32B ER COR-33 . / / / / 25 TE / COR-34 / KRSD-19 / COR-35 COR-31 . KRSD-16 KRSD-21 COR-40 # %" " $ " % $%" "( !" " $ ' #$ & " # %$ #! KRSD-22 SSD-20 . KRSD-57 . - @ ) 8 . Armour Creek Landfill . " ! # ' - *9<) 9@ COR-41 / / . KRSD-59 . . 795 - 9 $ 9- ) KRSD-15 . . / SSD-21 COR-37 / . $ KRSD-20 !978- 9; @ *7<6, ) 91- : : 07>6 ) 9- ) 8897?15 ) ; - $0- 4) ; - 9) 4 - ?; - 6; 7. ; 0- #1; - ) 6, #; <, @ 9- ) *7<6, ) 91- : ) 9- 415 1; -, / COR-38 ; 7 ; 0- "1=- 9 >1; 016 ; 0- >) ; - 9 : <9.) + - , - .16- , *@ ; 0- 6795 ) 4 8774 < *- 9 0+ ) < 9- )4< - 4- =)"; 1* 76 , 25) 1+ -) 46; )6< 9-.)) + :; )9196/- 16+ ,-, .79 9- .- 9- 6+- 764@ ) 6, ,7 COR-39 67; .795 8) 9; 7. ; 0- #1; - / . / ST A COR-28A ARM OUR CRE EK INT COR-32A .RM 41 COR-32/ / . . ./ 64 SSD-22 KRSD-17 . . . . KRSD-18 / SSD-19 / COR-28 KRSD-14 . COR-30 / COR-27 / COR-26 Former Flexsys Facility . .1/ <9- ( " A #$% ( " ' $ " #%" & $ " ! "$ ' " & " ' #$ & " COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. COR-04 RM 32 / COR-02 / SSD-06 / COR-07 / COR-06 / / COR-08 / COR-03 COR-10 SSD-05 KRSD-03 SSD-07 / / RM 33 / . SSD-04 SSD-03 / KD-200 KD-201 . / / COR-01 / . / .. .. ... . / SSD-01 COR-11 / RM 31 COR-12 RM 34 KRSD-04 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area COR-15 RM 35 SSD-09 !9- = 17<: #<9.) +- #) 5 84 RM 36 COR-18 / KRSD-06 . / KRSD-07 . SSD-10 SSD-12 RM 37 / / SSD-11 / SSD-13 / KRSD-09 $ !978- 9; @ *7<6, ) 91- : : 07>6 ) 9- ) 8897?15 ) ; - $0- 4) ; - 9) 4 - ?; - 6; 7. ; 0- #1; - ) 6, #; <, @ 9- ) *7<6, ) 91- : ) 9- 415 1; -, ; 7 ; 0- "1=- 9 >1; 016 ; 0- >) ; - 9 : <9.) + - , - .16- , *@ ; 0- 6795 ) 4 8774 - 4- =) ; 176 , 2) +- 6; ) 9- ) : ) 9- 16+ 4<, - , .79 9- .- 9- 6+- 764@ ) 6, ,7 67; .795 8) 9; 7. ; 0- #1; - # %" " $ " % $%" "( !" " $ ' #$ & " # %$ #! " ! # ' - *9<) 9@ $ ( $"( $ ! ! #<9.) +- #) 5 84- Water Surface Elevation (ft) " $%" " & "( " $ $ 6, .144 / ) 9- - 3 . ) 6144) KRSD-05 ! ! . COR-16 / / COR-17 " ) Î / . /COR-13 COR-14 / / 0) 66- 4 <; 416- - - ; - @ ) 8 . KRSD-01 COR-09 KRSD-02 SSD-02 / . . . . . / KRSD-08 COR-19 / KRSD-63 . COR-20 . . KRSD-45 / COR-21 RM 38 . COR-22 / KRSD-10 John E. Amos Power Plant KRSD-51 . KRSD-49 SSD-14 KRSD-11 . COR-24 . . . / COR-23 / KRSD-53 / . SSD-16 RM 39 .. KRSD-50 KRSD-48 / / . . . KRSD-56 KRSD-55 .1/ <9- ( " A #$% ( " ' $ " #%" & $ " ! "$ ' " & " ' #$ & " / / / KRSD-22 . TCLP-02 / / **8 / RM 43 .0* 68*1 95*6+ 93) 7.8* KRSD-23 KRSD-24 TCLP-01 . . Study Area 1 Upstream Area KRSD-25 . KRSD-26 . RM 44 KRSD-27 - &33*1 981.3* / . .864 &3.8&6= &3) + .11 / . 96+ &( * &2 51* 6*: .497 96+ &( * &2 51* Water Depth (ft) / KRSD-29 . KRSD-28 . RM 45 *= &5 # ! 645*68= '493) &6.*7 7- 4;3 &6* &5564<.2 &8* !- * 1&8*6&1 *<8*38 4+ 8- * .8* &3) 89) = 6*& '493) &6.*7 &6* 1.2 .8*) 84 8- * .: *6 ;.8- .3 8- * ;&8*6 796+ &( * ) *+ .3*) '= 8- * 3462 &1 5441 *1*: &8.43 ) /&( *38 &6*&7 &6* .3( 19) *) + 46 6*+ *6*3( * 431= &3) )4 348 + 462 5&68 4+ 8- * .8* " ! " !" % ! $ ! # "! $ *'69&6= + ., 96* % > !" % $ ! ! ! $ # $ ! # / , ? ( 7 RM 4 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area KRSD-14 , , : / . COR-29 / 84 6;8 8, , 2 ( 5+-033 COR-30 COR-32B COR-32A COR-33 COR-36C Study Area 2 Adjacent Area COR-36B . KRSD-19 / . / COR-36A COR-35 RM 42 KRSD-20 / COR-38 / SSD-25 . KRSD-22 / . . . . 659( 5:6 .3+ ( 5+-033 " $ 867, 8:? COR-40 KRSD-21 . / COR-41 / . COR-39 / / COR-42 / . 3, >9?9 4 , 80*( 8, ( : ( 2, 9 / , 4 0*( 3 687 COR-43 SSD-26 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, / 6= , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 SSD-27 , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 / . RM 43 . # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? 8, <06;9 ";8-( *, "( 4 73, . KRSD-24 ";8-( *, "( 4 73, Water Depth (ft) KRSD-23 . . . COR-37 / / SSD-21 COR-31 / . KRSD-16 COR-32 RM 41 / . . ./ . SSD-22 SSD-23 / SSD-24 / . / . KRSD-18 COR-34 / COR-36/ 8, ( : ( 2, 9 / , 4 0* ( 3 687 KRSD-17 . / . -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & # ! # ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! KRSD-51 .KRSD-09 / . IVE , , : / KRSD-10 R OR COR-23 / . LIC RM 38 ATA COR-22 / KRSD-53 . C PO KRSD-08 COR-21 . SSD-14 KRSD-50 KRSD-11 . KRSD-49 . . . . KRSD-48 . COR-24 / / John E. Amos Power Plant SSD-16 / RM 39 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, SSD-15 , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 6= , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 / . ";8-( *, "( 4 73, / Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 8, <06;9 ";8-( *, "( 4 73, Water Depth (ft) SSD-17 . / SSD-18 / COR-25 KRSD-13 . / COR-27 RM 40 KRSD-14 COR-30 INT ER COR-33 . / / / / 25 KRSD-19 TE KRSD-17 / COR-34 / / 64 . . / COR-32 / . . ./ SSD-22 COR-31 . KRSD-16 KRSD-21 COR-40 . / / SSD-20 . SSD-21 KRSD-57 . . KRSD-59 , ? ( 7 . Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility . " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? COR-41 KRSD-22 KRSD-15 . . . KRSD-18 COR-35 / . . COR-37 / . KRSD-20 # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, / # / , 3 ( :, 8 ( 3 , > :, 5: 6- :/ , " 0 :, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + COR-38 :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 COR-39 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 / 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, . / ST A COR-32A .RM 41 / SSD-19 COR-28A ARM OUR CRE EK COR-32B / / COR-28 . COR-29 / COR-26 . -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & # ! # ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. . SSD-04 SSD-03 / / COR-02 / COR-04 RM 32 KD-200 KD-201 / / COR-03 / / SSD-06 / COR-07 / COR-06 KRSD-03 SSD-07 / / RM 33 COR-08 COR-10 SSD-05 . / KRSD-02 COR-11 / RM 31 COR-12 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area COR-15 RM 35 COR-16 / / COR-17 " ) Î . / 2 '4*,/2 ++1 7 '4/22' KRSD-05 SSD-09 +7 3 +'( 2+ '6 Water Depth (ft) / RM 36 KRSD-06 . / KRSD-07 . SSD-10 SSD-12 / / SSD-11 / SSD-13 / KRSD-09 ! # " # "# & " % !" $ ! #" ! ! % +( 7 : '7 > " & " & " COR-18 RM 37 " 7 56+7 9 > ( 5: 4*'7 /+8 8. 5<4 '7 + '667 5=/3 '9 + ". + 2'9 +7 '2 +=9 +49 5, 9 . + !/9 + '4* !9 : *> 7 +' ( 5: 4*'7 /+8 '7 + 2/3 /9 +* 9 5 9 . + /;+7 9 . + 457 3 '2 6552 +2+;'9 /54 *0') +49 '7 +'8 '7 + /4) 2: *+* ,57 7 +,+7 +4) + 542> '4* *5 459 ,57 3 6'7 9 5, 9 . + !/9 + "# $ & " " . '44+2 : 9 2/4+ !: 7 ,') + !'3 62+ / +;/5: 8 !: 7 ,') + !'3 62+ . 7 . /COR-13 COR-14 / / 5< +7 3 +'( 2+ '6 +> '6 RM 34 KRSD-04 ++9 . KRSD-01 COR-09 / COR-01 / . / .. .. ... . / SSD-01 SSD-02 / . . . . . / KRSD-08 COR-19 / KRSD-63 . COR-20 . . KRSD-45 / COR-21 RM 38 . COR-22 / KRSD-10 John E. Amos Power Plant KRSD-51 . KRSD-49 SSD-14 KRSD-11 . COR-24 . . . / COR-23 / KRSD-53 / . SSD-16 RM 39 .. KRSD-50 KRSD-48 / / . . . KRSD-56 KRSD-55 ,/- : 7 + & ? !"# & % " " " % $ % !" $ / / / KRSD-22 . / / COR-43 SSD-26 , , : / RM 43 SSD-27 02, 8:, 3 ";7, 8-;5+ 90:, . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . Study Area 1 Upstream Area , ? ( 7 KRSD-25 . KRSD-26 . RM 44 / SSD-28 0:86 "( 50:( 8? ( 5+-033 . KRSD-27 / . ";8-( *, "( 4 73, / SSD-29 8, <06;9 ";8-( * , "( 4 73, / ( 55, 3 ;:305, . KRSD-29 Flow Velocity (ft/s) KRSD-28 . RM 45 ! % ! # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & % #' ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! , ? ( 7 / RM 4 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area / KRSD-14 . , , : / COR-29 / 84 6;8 8, , 2 ( 5+-033 . / COR-30 / COR-32B / COR-31 / COR-32A / RM 41 / COR-32 / SSD-21 . KRSD-16 . / SSD-22 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area COR-33 / COR-36C / COR-36B / KRSD-19 . COR-34 / COR-36 / SSD-24 / RM 42 . KRSD-18 3+ 659( 5:6 ( 5+-033 SSD-23 / COR-37 / KRSD-17 . / COR-35 COR-36A / . KRSD-20 " $ 867, 8:? COR-38 / COR-39 / COR-40 / SSD-25 / COR-42 / . KRSD-21 / COR-41 . KRSD-22 3, >9?9 4 , 80*( 8, ( : ( 2, 9 / , 4 0*( 3 687 / COR-43 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, / SSD-26 6= , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 / / SSD-27 . ";8-( *, "( 4 73, 8, <06;9 ";8-( * , "( 4 73, Flow Velocity (ft/s) RM 43 . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? . -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & % #' ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! KRSD-51 .KRSD-09 / COR-21 . OR / COR-23 IVE . LIC . KRSD-49 R ATA / COR-22 RM 38 C PO KRSD-08 . KRSD-53 . SSD-14 / , , : KRSD-10 . . KRSD-50 . KRSD-11 . KRSD-48 COR-24 / / SSD-15 John E. Amos Power Plant SSD-16 / RM 39 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 6= , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 / . Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area ";8-( *, "( 4 73, 8, <06;9 ";8-( * , "( 4 73, / SSD-17 / SSD-18 Flow Velocity (ft/s) / COR-25 KRSD-13 . RM 40 / COR-28A . KRSD-15 / SSD-20 COR-30 / INT / ER / / 25 TE 64 / SSD-22 / COR-35 COR-37 / . KRSD-20 # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + / COR-38 :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 COR-39 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, / KRSD-21 COR-40 . / ST A COR-32A / COR-31 / . KRSD-16 / COR-32 KRSD-17 . COR-33 / / COR-36C . KRSD-18 / . COR-36B / COR-34 KRSD-19 / COR-36 / RM 41 " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? COR-41 KRSD-22 / SSD-21 ARM OUR CRE EK COR-32B / / SSD-19 / COR-28 KRSD-14 . COR-29 / / COR-27 / COR-26 . KRSD-57 , ? ( 7 . KRSD-59 Armour Creek Landfill Former Flexsys Facility -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & % #' ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. / SSD-06 / COR-07 / COR-06 / COR-04 COR-08 / RM 32 . / / COR-03 / RM 33 COR-10 SSD-05 KRSD-03 / / COR-09 / COR-02 / COR-12 COR-11 / COR-01 / SSD-01 . . KRSD-02 SSD-04 SSD-03 / SSD-02 / SSD-07 / / , ? ( 7 / RM 34 RM 31 KRSD-01 KRSD-04 / RM 35 COR-16 . KRSD-05 3 ( 5+-03 8, , 2 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, Flow Velocity (ft/s) / COR-18 RM 36 KRSD-06 SSD-10 . / . KRSD-07 SSD-12 RM 37 / / SSD-11 / SSD-13 / COR-19 / # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? , , : ( 5033( / / COR-17 / SSD-09 ";8-( *, "( 4 73, / ";8-( * , "( 4 73, . 8, <06;9 . /COR-13 COR-14 / COR-15 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area KRSD-08 . KRSD-63 COR-20 . KRSD-45 . KRSD-09 / COR-21 . COR-22 / RM 38 / . SSD-14 KRSD-11 . COR-24 . . KRSD-53 . KRSD-54 / COR-23 KRSD-10 John E. Amos Power Plant KRSD-51 . KRSD-49 . KRSD-50 / . KRSD-48 SSD-16 / RM 39 / . KRSD-56 . KRSD-55 -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! & % #' ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! / / / KRSD-22 . / / COR-43 SSD-26 , , : / RM 43 SSD-27 02, 8:, 3 ";7, 8-;5+ 90:, . KRSD-23 KRSD-24 . Study Area 1 Upstream Area KRSD-25 . KRSD-26 . RM 44 / SSD-28 0:86 "( 50:( 8? ( 5+-033 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, ";8-( *, "( 4 73, / ";8-( * , "( 4 73, . 8, <06;9 Shear Velocity (ft/s) . KRSD-27 / SSD-29 . KRSD-29 KRSD-28 . RM 45 , ? ( 7 ! % ! # 867, 8:? ) 6;5+( 80, 9 9/ 6=5 ( 8, ( 7786>04 ( :, #/ , 3( :, 8( 3 , >:, 5: 6- :/ , "0:, ( 5+ ":;+? 8, ( ) 6;5+( 80, 9 ( 8, 304 0:, + :6 :/ , !0<, 8 =0:/ 05 :/ , =( :, 8 9;8-( * , +, -05, + ) ? :/ , 5684 ( 3 7663 , 3, <( :065 +1( *, 5: ( 8, ( 9 ( 8, 05* 3;+, + -68 8, -, 8, 5*, 653? ( 5+ +6 56: -684 7( 8: 6- :/ , "0:, " $! ! # ! $ #$! !' ! ! # & "# % ! " $# " ! " & , ) 8;( 8? -0. ;8, ' ! @ "#$ ' ! " ! % #' ! !# & ! % ! & "# % ! / , ? ( 7 RM 4 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area / KRSD-14 . , , : / COR-29 / 84 6;8 8, , 2 ( 5+-033 . / COR-30 / COR-32B / COR-31 / COR-32A / RM 41 / COR-32 / SSD-21 . KRSD-16 . / SSD-22 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area COR-33 / COR-36C / COR-36B / KRSD-19 . COR-34 / COR-36 / SSD-24 / RM 42 . KRSD-18 3+ 659( 5:6 ( 5+-033 SSD-23 / COR-37 / KRSD-17 . / COR-35 COR-36A / . COR-38 / COR-39 / COR-40 / SSD-25 / COR-42 / . KRSD-21 / COR-41 . KRSD-22 3, >9?9 4 , 80*( 8, ( : ( 2, 9 / , 4 0*( 3 687 / COR-43 / . ";8-( *, "( 4 73, 8, <06;9 ";8-( * , "( 4 73, / SSD-26 / ( 55, 3 ;:305, 6= , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 , 84 , ( ) 3, ( 7 Shear Velocity (ft/s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ohn E. Amos Power Plant SSD-16 / RM 39 ! ! 0) 66- 4 <; 416- !- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 7> !- 95 - ) *4- ) 8 / SSD-17 Shear Velocity (ft/s) / SSD-18 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area / COR-25 KRSD-13 . RM 40 / COR-28A . KRSD-15 / SSD-20 COR-30 / INT / ER / / 25 TE 64 / SSD-22 KRSD-21 COR-40 # %" " $ " % $%" "( !" " $ ' #$ & " # %$ #! " ! # ' - *9<) 9@ COR-41 KRSD-22 . KRSD-57 - @ ) 8 . KRSD-59 Armour Creek Landfill / COR-35 COR-37 / . KRSD-20 $ !978- 9; @ *7<6, ) 91- : : 07>6 ) 9- ) 8897?15 ) ; - / $ 0 4 ) ; 9 ) 4 ? ; 6; 7. ; 0 # 1 ; ) 6, # ; < , @ 9 ) *7<6, ) 91- : ) 9- 415 1; -, COR-38 ; 7 ; 0- "1=- 9 >1; 016 ; 0- >) ; - 9 : <9.) + - , - .16- , *@ ; 0- 6795 ) 4 8774 COR-39 - 4- =) ; 176 , 2) +- 6; ) 9- ) : ) 9- 16+ 4<, - , .79 9- .- 9- 6+- 764@ ) 6, ,7 / 67; .795 8) 9; 7. ; 0- #1; - . / ST A COR-32A / COR-31 / . KRSD-16 / COR-32 KRSD-17 . COR-33 / / COR-36C . KRSD-18 / . COR-36B / COR-34 KRSD-19 / COR-36 / RM 41 / SSD-21 ARM OUR CRE EK COR-32B / / SSD-19 / COR-28 KRSD-14 . COR-29 / / COR-27 / COR-26 Former Flexsys Facility .1/ <9- ( " A #$% ( " # " & $( " ! "$ ' " & " ' #$ & " COR-05 Former ACF Industries, Inc. COR-04 / RM 32 . COR-03 SSD-05 COR-08 SSD-07 / / RM 33 COR-10 . / / / COR-09 / COR-01 COR-12 / SSD-01 . KRSD-03 / COR-02 / / / COR-06 KRSD-02 SSD-04 SSD-03 / SSD-02 / / / SSD-06 / COR-07 / RM 31 KRSD-01 COR-11 / KRSD-04 / RM 35 COR-16 / / COR-17 6, .144 ) 9- - 3 / SSD-09 ! ! 0) 66- 4 <; 416 ) 6144) . KRSD-05 #<9.) +- #) 5 84/ #<9.) + - #) 5 84. !9- =17<: Shear Velocity (ft/s) / COR-18 RM 36 KRSD-06 SSD-10 . / . KRSD-07 SSD-12 RM 37 / / SSD-11 / SSD-13 / COR-19 / $ !978- 9; @ *7<6, ) 91- : : 07>6 ) 9- ) 8897?15 ) ; - $0- 4) ; - 9) 4 - ?; - 6; 7. ; 0- #1; - ) 6, #; <, @ 9- ) *7<6, ) 91- : ) 9- 415 1; -, ; 7 ; 0- "1=- 9 >1; 016 ; 0- >) ; - 9 : <9.) + - , - .16- , *@ ; 0- 6795 ) 4 8774 - 4- =) ; 176 , 2) +- 6; ) 9- ) : ) 9- 16+ 4<, - , .79 9- .- 9- 6+- 764@ ) 6, ,7 67; .795 8) 9; 7. ; 0- #1; - # %" " $ " % $%" "( !" " $ ' #$ & " # %$ #! " ! # ' - *9<) 9@ . /COR-13 COR-14 / COR-15 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area - - ; - @ ) 8 RM 34 KRSD-08 . KRSD-63 COR-20 . KRSD-45 . KRSD-09 / COR-21 . COR-22 / RM 38 / . SSD-14 KRSD-11 . COR-24 . . KRSD-53 . KRSD-54 / COR-23 KRSD-10 John E. Amos Power Plant KRSD-51 / RM 39 / . KRSD-55 .1/ <9- . KRSD-49 . KRSD-50 / . KRSD-48 SSD-16 . KRSD-56 ( " A #$% ( " # " & $( " ! "$ ' " & " ' #$ & " APPENDIX M GROUNDWATER TMDL CALCULATIONS FOR FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY M.1 DIOXIN TMDL DEVELOPMENT FOR KANAWHA RIVER, POCATALICO RIVER, AND ARMOUR CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA (LIMNO-TECH INC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) 031884 (51) M.2 SOLUTIA GROUNDWATER LOADING CALCULATON M.3 SOLUTIA POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE LOADING CALCULATION APPENDIX M GROUNDWATER TMDL CALCULATIONS FOR FORMER FLEXSYS FACILITY KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX M This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 GROUNDWATER LOADING ASSESSMENT METHOD ................................................ 1 3.0 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM POINT SOURCES (OUTFALLS)......................................... 2 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT M.1 DIOXIN TMDL DEVELOPMENT FOR KANAWHA RIVER, POCATALICO RIVER, AND ARMOUR CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA (LIMNO-TECH INC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) ATTACHMENT M.2 SOLUTIA GROUNDWATER LOADING CALCULATON ATTACHMENT M.3 SOLUTIA POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE LOADING CALCULATION 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CA) for the Former Flexsys Facility, Potesta & Associates, Inc. (Potesta) was retained by Solutia Inc. (Solutia) to complete evaluations of current loading to the Kanawha River from groundwater discharge into the River as well as point source discharges (storm sewer outfalls). It should be noted that the loading calculations presented herein represent 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ loading rather than 2,3,7,8-TCDD specific. 2.0 GROUNDWATER LOADING ASSESSMENT METHOD The groundwater flux estimate completed as part of the TMDL in 2000 was on the order of 7 µg/day of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The basis of this estimate was presented in a simplified manner utilizing very limited data for the Nitro Area, and the very conservative assumption that the entire observed increase in water column concentrations between RM 45.5 and RM 41.3 was due entirely to groundwater flux. This analysis was identified within the TMDL to contain a high degree of uncertainty. A copy of the TMDL calculations are included as Attachment M-1 Since the completion of the TMDL study, dismantling of the Former Flexsys Facility, and implementation of the EOC for the River, Solutia has completed additional groundwater sampling to determine the actual 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ loading to the River via the groundwater pathway from the Former Flexsys Facility. This work was completed as part of the ongoing RCRA closure process and reviewed as part of the EE/CA completion. This analysis was completed utilizing much more accurate and current Site-specific data. High volume groundwater sampling from wells sited specifically to support this analysis was completed to provide groundwater concentration data. Gradients measured at the Former Flexsys Facility, and hydraulic conductivity data from testing of Former Flexsys Facility soils were employed to generate water volume estimates reflective of Former Flexsys Facility conditions. To be conservative, no attenuation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ concentrations between monitoring wells and the River was assumed. The calculated loading to the River from groundwater was approximately 0.0083 μg/day 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ (less than 0.1-percent of the loading calculated in the TMDL). A copy of the most current evaluation was transmitted via email from Mr. Michael Light (Potesta) to Mr. Randy Cooper (Monsanto Company) on October 27, 2009. A copy of this information is presented in Attachment M-2. This analysis was developed as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility and has been submitted to WV DEP and U.S. EPA. 031884 (51) M-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.0 2,3,7,8-TCDD LOAD FROM POINT SOURCES (OUTFALLS) Source investigation results indicate that residual 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination in the outfalls draining the area in and around the Former Flexsys Facility could have historically added a significant 2,3,7,8-TCDD load to the River. These outfalls have since been closed and no longer represent a pathway for ongoing releases. Based on the evaluation completed as part of the RCRCA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility, a maximum loading under current conditions of 2.445 μg/day from surface water was calculated. The proposed construction of a clean permeable cover system, abandonment and replacement of the sewer system, and consolidation/capping of designated areas of impacted material will further reduce loading from surface water. A copy of the most current evaluation was transmitted via email from Mr. Michael Light (Potesta) to Mr. Randy Cooper (Monsanto Company) on October 27, 2009. A copy of this information is presented in Attachment M-3. This analysis was developed as part of the RCRA CA for the Former Flexsys Facility and has been submitted to WV DEP and U.S. EPA. 031884 (51) M-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES ATTACHMENT M.1 DIOXIN TMDL DEVELOPMENT FOR KANAWHA RIVER, POCATALICO RIVER, AND ARMOUR CREEK, WEST VIRGINIA (LIMNO-TECH INC, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) 031884 (51) Decision Rationale Total Maximum Daily Load for Total 2,3,7,8-TCDD for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Amour Creek I. Introduction This document will set forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) rationale for establishing the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for total 2,3,7,8- TCDD (dioxin) for the Kanawha River and two tributaries of the Kanawha River: Pocatalico River and Amour Creek, which were sent out for public comment on July 5, 2000. Our rationale is based on the determination that the TMDL meets the following 8 regulatory conditions pursuant to 40 CFR §130. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The TMDLs are designed to implement applicable water quality standards. The TMDLs include a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load allocations. The TMDLs consider the impacts of background pollutant contributions. The TMDLs consider critical environmental conditions. The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations. The TMDLs include a margin of safety. The TMDLs have been subject to public participation. There is reasonable assurance that the TMDLs can be met. The Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek were placed on the State of West Virginia's 303(d) list of water quality impaired water bodies for dioxin. The applicable State standards specify that 1he maximum allowable concentration of dioxin shall not exceed 0.014 pg/L in the Kanawha River, and 0.013 pg/Lin the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek. Water quality data collected in support of this study show that dioxin concentrations routinely exceed the State water quality standard. The Kanawha River segment of concern extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River near Nitro, West Virginia to where the Kanawha enters the Ohio River. The Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern each extend two miles upstream of their respective confluences with the Kanawha. A review of available monitoring data indicates that observed water column dioxin concentrations in the Kanawha River routinely exceed the water quality standard. No suitable water column data are available for the Pocatalico River or Armour Creek. Fish tissue data for all three systems also commonly exceed the water quality standard. The water column water quality standard was used as the endpoint of the TMDL for all three systems. A mass balance dilution model was applied to define the maximum allowable dioxin load that will achieve compliance with water quality standards for the entire range of flow conditions that may occur in each river. Analyses indicate that a TMDL designed to achieve compliance with the water column concentration standard will also achieve compliance with the fish tissue standard, after the system has time to respond to the reduced loadings. No direct dioxin loading data were available from any sources for any of the water bodies of concern. Dioxin loads were estimated from available information, and attributed to four source categories: I) contaminated groundwater 1, 2) in-place river sediments, 3) surface erosion of contaminated soils in the watershed, and 4) upstream sources. Reductions from these sources will be required in order to achieve compliance with water quality standards. Future monitoring activities are described that are designed to further identify sources and conditions contributing to dioxin impainnent in the Kanawha River, the Pocatalico River, and Annour Creek. II. Background Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that are not meeting designated uses under technology-based controls. The TMDL process establishes the allowable loading of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a water body based on the relationship between pollution sources and instream conditions. By following the TMDL process, states can establish water quality-based controls to reduce pollution from both point and nonpoint sources and restore and maintain the quality of their water resources (EPA, 1991b). The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) has identified the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Annour Creek as being impaired by dioxins, as reported on the 1998 303(d) list of water quality limited waters (WVDEP, 1998). The consent decree established in conjunction with the West Virginia TMDL lawsuit has identified the Kanawha River as a priority watershed, with a TMDL for dioxin to be completed by September, 2000. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) is most commonly encountered as an unwanted by-product of incineration, production of chlorinated pesticides and herbicides, and the bleaching step of the papermaking process. Industrial activities in the study area, especially near the city of Nitro, West Virginia have resulted in several contaminated sites. Dioxin in the study area likely originated with the production of industrial solvents and the herbicide 2,4,5-T at facilities in and around Nitro. Disposal practices earlier in the century, including burial of dmms, dumping of dioxin-contaminated liquid wastes, and incineration of dioxin-contaminated material, spread dioxin throughout the Nitro area. Areas downstream of Nitro likely became contaminated through the release and transport of dioxin into the Kanawha River and its tributaries. The Kanawha River and two of its tributaries, the Pocatalico River and Annour Creek, are the focus of this TMDL because of their noncompliance with water quality and fish tissue standards. The Kanawha River is located in western West Virginia. The Kanawha River segment of concern (Figure 1) extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River near Nitro, West Virginia 1 Appendix B of the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Annour Creek TMDL for dioxin contains an exposition on the meaning of the term " contaminated Groundwater''. (Kanawha River Mile (RM) 45.5) downstream to its confluence with the Ohio River (Kanawha RM 0.0). The Kanawha River watershed covers a total of 518 square miles, with a land use primarily (>90%) of forest. The segments of concern for the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek each extend 2 miles upstream from their respective confluences with the Kanawha River (Figure I). The Pocata!ico River watershed spans 359 square miles, also primarily of forest. The Armour Creek watershed covers 9 square miles, and is the most highly developed, with over 20% of the land use listed as developed. ,- ', 0 ' J ' l ,; L * 'J tA l::s ,, - t:1vr::rlv'i1r: .Mu.m .;:p.U.1!:i:;::.. Fiver 'T'MDT. R:-.-Lt1,°':.8"'Y Figure I. Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, Annour Creek Study Area / III. Discussion of Regulatory Conditions EPA finds that sufficient information has been provided to meet all of the 8 basic regulatmy requirements for establishing dioxin TMDLs on the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek. 1) The TMDL is designed to meet the applicable water quality standards. All waters of West Virginia are designated for the propagation and maintenance offish and other aquatic life and for water contact recreation as part of State water quality standards 0NY 46-1-6.1). In addition, the tributaries to the Kanawha River have been designated as Water Use Category A-public water supply 0NY 46-1-7.2.a) and must be protected for this use. The Kanawha Rivermainstem is exempt from this designation 0NY 46-1-7.2.d.19.1). The applicable water quality standards for water column concentrations ofTCDD are: Pocatalico River and Armour Creek-0.013 pg/L Kanawha River mainstem - 0.014 pg/L West Virginia standards has contained limitations on the maximum dioxin concentration allowed in edible tissues offish. The maximum fish tissue concentration of dioxin is 6.4 pg/g (8.22.2 of Appendix E cited in WV-1-8.1). ( This has just been removed from the WV regulations, but this change has not been submitted to EPA for Approval.) West Virginia water quality standards are written to apply at all times when flows are equal to or greater than the minimum mean seven consecutive day drought flow with a ten year return frequency (7Q10) 0NY 46-1-7.2.b), with the exception of the Kanawha River, where the minimum flow shall be 1,960 cfs at the Charleston gauge 0NY 46-1-7.2.d.19.2). EPA (1991a) guidance suggests that the average condition represented by the harmonic mean flow is the appropriate design condition for carcinogens such as dioxins. West Virginia water quality standards 0NY 46-1-8-2.b) defer a specific decision on critical design flows for carcinogens, so the default approach ofrequiring compliance with standards for all flows above a minimum critical value is taken for this TMDL. For the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek TMDLs, the applicable endpoints and associated target values can be determined directly from the West Virginia water quality regulations. The in-stream dioxin targets are based on the water use designation of the water body. The Kanawha River is not designated as a public water supply and has a dioxin target of0.014 pg/L. The tributaries to the Kanawha River are designated as public water supplies and have a dioxin target of0.013 pg/L. As stated in the West Virginia water quality regulations, dioxin and the dioxin targets refer specifically to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. While other dioxin congeners exist, they are not the subject of this TMDL. The back-calculated, water column concentration from the fish tissue concentration is much higher than the applicable water column standard of 0.014 pg/L (0.013 pg/L for the tributaries), and indicates that a TMDL that achieves the water column standard will also be protective of the fish tissue standard. For that reason, the water column standard will be used as the TMDL endpoint. It should be recognized, however, that the procedure for relating fish tissue concentration to water column concentrations implicitly assumes steady state conditions between the water column and sediments. As a result, the actual response time of fish tissue to changes in water column concentration may be driven by the amount of time required for sediment concentrations to decrease in response to changes in the water column. 2) The TMDL includes a total allowable load as well as individual waste load allocations and load a/locations. TMDLs are comprised of the sum of individual waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load allocations (LAs) fornon-point sources, andnaturalbackground levels. In addition, the TMDL must include a Margin of Safety (MOS), either implicitly or explicitly, that accounts for uncertainty in the relation between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving water body. Conceptually, this definition is denoted by the equation: LC= TMDL = LWLAs + LLAs + MOS (!) The term LC represents the Loading Capacity, or maximum loading that can be assimilated by the receiving water while still achieving water quality standards. The overall loading capacity is subsequently allocated into the TMDL components of waste load allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for non-point sources, and the Margin of Safety (MOS). Results of the allocation process are summarized in Table I, which shows the individual TMDL allocations for each of the three systems. The TMDL changes as a function of river flow, so allocations are listed for a range of flows. In order to determine the 2,3,7,8-TCDD reductions needed to achieve water quality and fish tissue standards and to allocate 2,3,7,8-TCDD inputs among the sources, it is necessary to consider the existing and potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources. The TMDL divides allowable loading into separate categories corresponding to point sources (which enter the river from a well-defined source location) and nonpoint (diffuse) sources. The TMDL defines allowable point source permit limits (called wasteload allocations) and necessary reductions in non-point and background sources (called load allocations). These sources must be characterized so that the waste load and load allocations can be assigned to ensure compliance with the TMDL. Table 1. Summary of Allocations (ug/day) for a Range of Flow Conditions Kanawha River 1960 cfs 5000 cfs 10000 cfs 20,000 cfs 50,000 cfs Point Sources 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Unstream Sources Groundwater In-place Sediments Runoff MOS Exolicit MOS 43 16.5 0 0 110 16.5 20 10.25 220 16.5 64 10.25 440 16.5 152 10.25 1100 16.5 416 10.25 6.7 0.32 cfs 17 500 cfs 34 1000 cfs 69 2000 cfs 171 5000 cfs Point Sources 0 0 0 0 0 Unstream Sources Groundwater In-place Sediments Runoff MOS Explicit MOS 0 0.0092 0 0 0 0.0092 12 5.91 0 0.0092 26 5.91 0 0.0092 55 5.91 0 0.0092 141 5.91 0.001 0 cfs 1.6 200 cfs 3.2 400 cfs 6.4 600 cfs 16 800 cfs Point Sources 0 0 0 0 0 Upstream Groundwater In-nlace Sediments Runoff MOS Exolicit MOS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 4.34 0 0 7.1 4.34 0 0 13 4.34 0 0 19 4.34 0 0.64 1.3 1.9 2.5 WLA LA Pocatalico River WLA LA Armour Creek WLA LA LOADING CAPACITY Because a simple dilution model is being used to describe dioxin fate and transport, tbe loading capacity for each TMDL segment can be calculated as a function of stream flow using a simple equation, i.e. LC = Qriv X CwQS (2) Where: LC = Loading Capacity (MIT) Qriv = River flow (L3/I) CwQs = Water Quality Standard concentration (M/L3) The loading capacity defined in Equation 2 applies to all river flows for which water quality standards apply. This corresponds to flows above tbe minimum stream flow of 1960 cfs in tbe Kanawha River, and flows above tbe 7Q10 flows of0.32 cfs in tbe Pocatalico River and 0.0 cfs in Armour Creek. The resulting loading capacities for tbe three systems are shown in Figures 2 through 4. ~ 2500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :g,;:, 2000 - 1500 ·c:; 1000 "' 500 I;- +----------------,,,..-"1 +------------::::::....---1 +------~-::::::....-------! +---~~=------------! "'0 ..J 0 ~ Figure 2 . Kanawha Loading Capacity ,,u River 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Kanawha River Flow (cfs) Figure 3. Pocatalico Loading Capacity 5000 10000 15000 Pocatalico River Flow (cfs) 20000 River Armour Creek Flow (cfs) Figure 4. Armour Creek Loading Capacity WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION Point sources within the watershed discharging at their current levels were considered negligible in their impact on instrearn dioxin levels. An allocation is given to the Nitro WWTP in response to their treatment of runoff from the Fike Chemical Co. site. The magnitude of the allocation is set to the required pretreatment limit, which is 0.82 ug/day. The allocation to remaining point sources is set to zero. It is noted here that due to the lack of data within the study area concerning point source contribution of dioxin to the waterbodies, the actual loading of dioxin maybe significantly greater than 0.82 ug/ per day, and hence significant reductions in dioxin loading to the waterbodies may be possible. Table 2. Wasteload Allocations to Point Sources Point Sources Existing Load {u<1idav) Allocated Load fu<1idav) Percent Reduction Kanawha River Pocatalico River Armour Creek 0.82 0 0 0.82 0 0 0 NA NA LOAD ALLOCATIONS Discussion of load allocations to nonpoint sources is divided into categories of upstream sources, contaminated groundwater, in-place sediments, and contaminated soil. A wide range of reduction alternatives could theoretically meet the loading capacity limitations in Figures 2 through 4. The overall allocation strategy can be constrained by considering two conditions: Drought, or minimum, flow conditions, where the predominant sources contributing to contamination are upstream sources and contaminated groundwater. High flow, erosional conditions, where the additional sources ofin-place sediment resuspension and erosion of surface contamination become important. Consideration of drought conditions places an upper bound on allowable upstream source and contaminated groundwater allocations. Additional loading capacity at flows above drought flow can be allocated to erosion of in-place sediments and contaminated soil. Upstream sources The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) conducted field sampling in May, 1999 to provide a measurement of the dioxin concentration entering the study area at the upstream boundary. The dioxin concentration determined in that sample, 0.009 pg/L, is being used as the upstream boundary concentration for the TMDL. The draft TMDL assumes that the upstream boundary concentration will remain constant at this concentration for all river flows. The uncertainty inherent in this assumption will be reflected in the Margin of Safety. No evidence exists of dioxin contamination upstream of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern, so upstream boundary concentrations for these segments were assumed to be zero. River Kanawha Pocatalico Armour Table 3. Load Allocations to Unstream Sources Existing Load Allocated Load (u,,-/dav) 90% -149 u•/day@20000 cfs Pocatalico NA See Equation 5-5 NA - 0 ug/day @0.3 cfs - 8.4 ug/day @500 cfs - 51 ue/dav '"'2000 cfs Armour NA See Equation 5-6 NA - 0 ug/day @O cfs - 1.4 ug/day @200 cfs - I 3 u•/dav ""600 cfs Hazardous Waste Sites A list of sites that could be potential sources of dioxin loading to the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek was compiled with input from the WVDEP, EPA Region III and internal investigation. These sites are listed below: Armour Creek/Solutia Landfill Clark Property* Don's Disposal* Dupont Belle Plant* Fike Chemical, Inc. Fleming Landfill* George's Creek Landfill* Heizer Creek Landfill Holmes and Madden Landfill* Old Avtex Landfill Landfill adjacent to Midwest Steel/Nitro Landfill Manila Creek Flexsys Property Old Nitro Landfill/Monsanto Dump 1929-1956 Kanawha County Lanfill Poca Strip Mines/Poca Drum Dump* South Charleston Landfill* Union Carbide Plant at Institute* Western Kanawha Landfill* *indicates landfills up-watershed of the TMDL study reaches These sites were researched using three of the EPA's databases for hazardous waste sites: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Record of Decision System (RODS); and No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) database. BPA has categorized sites within its CERCLIS database to one of three lists. List 8T includes all sites that were previously listed as contaminated or were suspected of being contaminated, but have been subsequently cleared of contamination or are no longer suspected of contamination. These sites can also be found in the NFRAP database, indicating that Superfund has completed its assessment of a site and has detennined that no further steps will be taken to list that site on the National Priority List. The SCAP 11 list includes all sites/incidents on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL). The SCAP 12 list includes all Superfund sites/incidents that are not on the NPL but have planned or actual remedial/removal activities. Most of the sites in question were on one of these three lists. 3) The TMDL considers the impacts of background pollution. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) conducted field sampling in May, 1999 to provide a measurement of the dioxin concentration entering the study area at the upstream boundary. The dioxin concentration determined in that sample, 0.009 pgl_L, is being used as the upstream boundary concentration for the TMDL. The draft TMDL assumes that the upstream boundary concentration will remain constant at this concentration for all river flows. The uncertainty inherent in this assumption will be reflected in the Margin of Safety. No evidence exists of dioxin contamination upstream of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern, so upstream boundary concentrations for these segments were assumed to be zero 4) The TMDL considers critical environmental conditions. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 130.7 (c)(l) require TMDLs to take into account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the water quality of the Kanawha River Watershed is protected during times when it is most vulnerable. Concurrent with the selection of a numeric concentration endpoint, TMDL development must also define the environmental conditions that will be used when defining allowable loads. The critical condition is defined as the set of environmental conditions which, if controls are designed to protect, will ensure attainment of objectives for all other conditions. For example, the critical condition for control of a continuous point discharge is the drought stream flow. Pollution controls designed to meet water quality standards for drought flow conditions will ensure compliance with standards for all other conditions. The critical condition for a wet weather-driven sources may be a particular rainfall event. Dioxin sources to the Kanawha River study area are believed to arise from a mixture of continuous and wet weather-driven sources, and there may be no single critical condition that is protective for all other conditions. For example, contaminated groundwater loading is assumed to be relatively constant over time, and its control will be most critical during low stream flow conditions. Resuspension of contaminated in-place sediments, on the other hand, will be most critical during high river flow periods. For this reason, the TMDL will examine the entire range of flow conditions and will define load allocations that will be protective for all conditions. 5) The TMDLs consider seasonal environmental variations. Seasonal variations involve changes in stream flow as a result ofhydrologic and climatological patterns. In the continental United States, seasonally high flow normally occurs during the colder period of winter and in early sp1ing from snow melt and spring rain, while seasonally low flow typically occurs during the warmer summer and early fall drought periods. Seasonality in this TMDL is addressed by expressing the TMDL in terms of river flow, as changes in flow will be the dominant seasonal environmental factors affecting the TMDL. 6) The TMDLs include a margin ofsafety. This requirement is intended to add a level of safety to the modeling process to account for any uncertainty. Incorporation of a margin of safety (MOS) in the TMDL analysis. The MOS accounts for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between pollutant loading and water quality. The MOS can either be implicit (e.g., incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative assumptions) or explicit (e.g., expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings). This TMD L uses both explicit and implicit components of the Margin of Safety. An implicit MOS is provided through the use of a conservative dilution model for allocation purposes. This implicit MOS is as protective as possible for modeling purposes as it assumes complete conservation of mass. Another component of the implicit margin of safety is the State requirement that the water quality standard for dioxin be met for all flow conditions above the critical minimum flow. This will result in an allowable load much smaller than would be derived using the EPA-recommended harmonic mean flow conditions as the design condition. An additional explicit Margin of Safety is also provided, to account for uncertainty in loading entering each system across the upstream boundary, as well as other potential dioxin sources not identified during the source assessment. The explicit Margin of Safety is set at 10% of the LA. 7) The TMDLs have been subject to public participation. This TMDL was subject to a number of public meetings. The meetings started in March 1999. All the meetings listed below were held at the Nitro Senior Center, in Nitro West Virginia: July 26, 1999 7:00 pm-9:00 pm with court reporter November 5/1999 (2 meetings) 2:30 to 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm to 9: OOpm January 11, 2000 ( 2 meetings) 2:30 to 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm to 9: OOpm March 14, 2000 (2 meetings) 2:00 to 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm to 9: OOpm May 11, 2000 (2 meetings) 2:00 to 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm to 9: OOpm July 25, 2000 public hearing from 7:00pm to 9:00 pm with hearing officer and court reporter. Information repository locations in Nitro West Virginia, with all site information was available to the public. Recently collected data at various sites in the Kanawha River Valley were also available at each of the meetings stated above. This information was presented and supplied at the public meetings. At each meeting, various offices of EPA and state DEP were represented, including: Water Protection Division; EPA Superfund; EPA Site Assessment, Superfund; EPA RCRA program; Agency for Toxics Disease Registry(ATSDR); USGS and Ohio River Sanitary Commission (ORSANCO). During these meetings EPA's technical approach for the development of this TMDL was presented and discussed. The document was also subject to a 45-day public comment period. The TMDL was public noticed on July 5, 2000 and closed on August 18, 2000. 8) There is a reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be met. EPA requires that there be a reasonable assurance that the TMDL can be implemented. WLAs will be implemented through the NPDES pennit process. According to 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(B), the effluent limitations for an NPDES pennit must be consistent with the assumptions and requirements of any available WLA for the discharge prepared by the state and approved by EPA. Furthennore, EPA has authority to object to issuance of an NPDES pennit that is inconsistent with WLAs established for that point source. The Kanawha River/Pocatalico River/Annour Creek TMDL site data confirm that dioxin concentrations exceed water quality standards. However, additional data are needed to define many of the sources of dioxin entering these systems. For this reason, implementation activities must first focus on better identifying existing sources in order to control them. EPA has initiated activity at over 16 sites throughout the watershed with the intent of collecting the data necessary to define the magnitude of dioxin loading from each site and/or identify necessary control actions. fu addition to the land sites, monitoring is recommended to define the contribution of the ambient air as a source to the watershed. Annour Creek/Solutia EPA HSCD will be conducting a Preliminary Assessment (PA) under CERCLA at the site in Sununer 2000. Clark Property EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site infonnation in Sununer 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. Don's Disposal EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site infonnation in Sununer 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. DuPont Belle Plant EPA's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division's Site Assessment Program will review the current conditions at this property to determine whether it is a possible source or contributor of dioxin to the Kanawha River, Armour Creek or the Pocatalico River. This review will be based on EPA's existing infonnation and new data collected in September 1999. Fike Chemical Co. EPA HSCD will be conducting a sampling assessment of stonnwater sewers of the Nitro WV area in Sununer 2000. Sampling will include collection of sediment and surface water from drainages used by the old CST. Fleming landfill EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. George's Creek Landfill EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. Heizer Creek Landfill EPA HSCD conducted a CERCLA site inspection at the site in May 2000 and is currently awaiting the results of the sampling event EPA HSCD will determine future remedial actions at the site pending receipt of the SI data. Kanawha Western Landfill EPA's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division's Site Assessment Program will review the current conditions at this property to determine whether it is a possible source or contributor of dioxin to the Kanawha River, Armour Creek or the Pocatalico River. This review will be based on EPA's existing information, which had earlier resulted in a Superfund "No Further Response Action Planned" (NFRAP) classification, plus additional information as needed. Landfill adjacent to Midwest Steel EPA HSCD will be conducting a sampling assessment (SI) at the site in Fall 2000 to further characterize potential migration of dioxin from the site to Armour Creek. Manila Creek landfill EPA HSCD conducted an Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) at the site in May 2000 which included the installation of four off-site groundwater monitoring wells and collection of samples to determine if dioxin and other contaminates are migrating off site. EPA will determine what actions, if any are necessary upon receipt of the data. Flexsys Plant Property EPA HSCD is currently in the process of negotiating a consent order with Solutia to address the removal of drums and dioxin contamination at the part of the facility, formerly owned by AES. Old Nitro Landfill EPA HSCD will be conducting a PA of the site in Summer 2000 to determine if any further assessment of the site is necessary. Poca Strip Mines/Poca Drum Dump EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site file information in the Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. South Charleston Landfill EPA HSCD is currently awaiting a health consultation by ATSDR on data collected at the site in September 1999, before determining what future actions if any are necessary at the site. Union Carbide (Rhone Poulanc) Institute Plant EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site file information in the Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary CONTROL OF IN-PLACE SEDIMENTS Resuspension of contaminated in-place sediments has been identified as contributing to violations of water quality standards for dioxin during high flow events. The primary implementation options under consideration are natural attenuation and physical removal of contaminated sediments (e.g. dredging). Natural attenuation processes can include burial of contaminated sediments as cleaner sediments are deposited upon them, and/or the flushing of contaminated sediments out of the system during high flows. Since the data to adequately characterize the site contamination, and dioxin fate and transport pathways in the river, is inadequate the preferred course of action to control in-place sediments is not evident. Additional monitoring activities are needed to better define the benefits of natural attenuation compared to physical removal of contaminated sediments. Dioxin TMDL Development for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek, West Virginia Prepared for: U.S. EPA Region Ill Philadelphia, PA Under Subcontract to: Tetra-Tech, Inc. Fairfax, VA September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech Inc. Excellence in Environmenlal Solutions Since 1975 Ann Arbor, Michigan Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION E-1 1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 Applicable Water Quality Standards .................................. 1 2.0 TMDL ENDPOINT and WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ................... 5 2.1 Selection of a TMDL Endpoint ...................................... 5 2.1. l Selection of Critical Condition ............................. 5 2.2 Discussion oflnstrearn Water Quality ................................. 6 2.2.1 Inventory of Available Water Quality Monitoring Data ........... 6 2.2.2 Analysis oflnstrearn Water Quality Monitoring Data ............. 8 2.3 Fish Tissue Dioxin Concentrations .................................. 10 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT ............................................. 13 3.1 Introduction ................................................... 13 3.2 Assessment of Point Sources ...................................... 13 3.3 Nonpoint Source Assessment ...................................... 14 3.3.1 Source Identification .................................... 14 3.3.2 Source Qualifications ................................... 29 4.0 MODELING PROCEDURE: LINKING the SOURCES to the ENDPOINT ....... 37 4.1 Modeling Framework Selection .................................... 37 4.1.1 Consideration of Model Type .............................. 37 4.1.2 Model Selection ........................................ 37 4.1.3 Suitability of Dilution Model under Low Flow .................. 38 4.1.4 Suitability of Dilution Model under High Flow (Eroding) System Condition ............................................ 40 4.2 Selection of Representative Modeling Period .......................... 41 5.0 ALLOCATION ................................................... 43 5.1 Loading Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............... 4 5 5.2 Waste Load Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 46 5.3 Load Allocation ................................................ 46 5.3.1 Upstream sources ....................................... 47 5.3 .2 Contaminated groundwater . . . . . . . . . . ...................... 4 7 5.3 .3 Contaminated soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 48 5.3.4 In-place sediment ....................................... 49 5.4 Incorporation of a Margin of Safety ................................. 50 5.5 Seasonality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................. 50 6.0 ONGOING ACTIVITIES and FUTURE MONITORING ..................... 51 6.1 Control of Watershed Sources ..................................... 51 6.1.1 Armour Creek/Solutia .................................. 51 6 .1.2 Clark Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 51 6.1.3 Don's Disposal ....................................... 51 6. I. 4 DuPont Belle Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... 51 6.1.5 Fike/Arte! NPL Site .................................... 52 6.1.6 Fleming Landfill ....................................... 52 6.1.7 George's Creek Landfill ................................. 52 6.1.8 Heizer Creek Landfill ................................... 52 6.1.9 Kanawha Western Landfill ............................... 52 6.1.10 Landfill adjacent to Midwest Steel ......................... 52 6.1.11 Manila Creek Landfill ................................... 52 6.1.12 Flexsys Plant Property .................................. 53 6.1.13 Old Nitro Landfill ....................................... 5 6.1.14 PocaStripMines/PocaDrumDump ........................ 53 6.1.15 South Charleston Landfill ................................ 53 September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Page ii 6.1.16 Union Carbide (Rhone Poulanc) Institute Plant ................ 53 6.2 Control of In-Place Sediments ..................................... 53 6.3 Additional Monitoring ............................................ 54 6.3 .1 Upstream Boundary Loads ............................... 54 6.3.2 lnstream Conditions .................................... 55 REFERENCES ................................................... 57 APPENDIX A Estimates of Water Column Dioxin Concentrations from Fish Tissue 61 APPENDIX B Contaminated Groundwater .............................. 65 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4-3 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 5-4 Table 5-5 Table 5-6 Kanawha River Water Column TCDD ............................. 8 Summary of Available Fish Tissue TCDD Data ...................... 10 Summary of Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD) Information Available by Site ..... 19 Groundwater Loading Calculation ................................ 30 Mass Flux Calculation for Sediment Porewater Diffusion ............... 34 Mass Flux Calculation for Sediment Resuspension ................... 36 Selected HEC2 Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 39 Volatilization Inputs .......................................... 40 Photolysis Factors ........................................... 40 Summary of Allocation (ug,'day) for a range of Flow Conditions ......... 44 Wasteload Allocations to Point Sources ........................... 46 Load Allocations to Upstream Sources ............................ 47 Load Allocations to Contaminated Groundwater ..................... 48 Load Allocations to Contaminated Soils (wet weather) ................ 49 Load Allocations to in-place Sediments (wet weather) ................ 50 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 5-1 Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, Armour Creek Study Area ............ 2 ORSANCO Sampling Points .................................... 7 Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Water Column Dioxin Concentration to Water Quali1Y Standard ...................................... 9 Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quali1Y Standard by River Mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quali1Y Standard by Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Comparison of Observed Armour Creek Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quali1Y Standard by Date ............................................ 12 Comparison of Observed Pocatalico River Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quali1Y Standard by Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Sediment Sampling Locations ................................... 16 Location of Potentially Contributing Landfill Sites .................... 21 Increase in Observed TSS Concentration between St. Albans and Winfield Lock and Dam as a function of River Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 35 Increase in Observed TSS Concentration between Winfield Lock and Dam and Point Pleasant as a function of River Flow ...................... 36 Kanawha River Loading Capaci1Y ............................... 45 Pocatalico River Loading Capaci1Y ............................... 45 Armour Creek Loading CapaciJy ................................ 46 September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. This page is left intentionally blank. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek were placed on the State of West Virginia's 303(d) list of water quality impaired water bodies for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin). The applicable State standards specify that the maximum allowable concentration of dioxin shall not exceed 0.014 pg/Lin the Kanawha River, and 0.013 pg/Lin the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek. Water quality data collected in support of this study show that dioxin concentrations routinely exceed the State water quality standard. The Kanawha River segment of concern extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River near Nitro, West Virginia to where the Kanawha enters the Ohio River. The Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern each extend two miles upstream of their respective confluences with the Kanawha. A review of available monitoring data indicates that observed water column dioxin concentrations in the Kanawha River routinely exceed the water quality standard. No suitable water column data are available for the Pocatalico River or Armour Creek. Fish tissue data for all three systems also commonly exceed the water quality standard. The water column water quality standard was used as the endpoint of the TMDL for all three systems. A mass balance dilution model was applied to define the maximum allowable dioxin load that will achieve compliance with water quality standards for the entire range of flow conditions that may occur in each river. Analyses indicate that a TMDL designed to achieve compliance with the water column concentration standard will also achieve compliance with the fish tissue standard, after the system has time to respond to the reduced loadings. No direct dioxin loading data were available from any sources for any of the water bodies of concern. Dioxin loads were estimated from available information, and attributed to four source categories: 1) contaminated groundwater 1, 2) in-place river sediments, 3) surface erosion of contaminated soils in the watershed, and 4) upstream sources. Reductions from these sources will be required in order to achieve compliance with water quality standards. Future monitoring activities are described that are designed to further identify sources and conditions contributing to dioxin impairment in the Kanawha River, the Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek. 1 Appendix B contains an exposition on the meaning of the term "contaminated groundwater". September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek This page is left intentionally blank. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Page 1 Dioxin TA1DLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water bodies that are not meeting designated uses under technology-based controls. The TMDL process establishes the allowable loading of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a water body based on the relationship between pollution sources and instream conditions. By following the TMDL process, states can establish water qualitybased controls to reduce pollution from both point and nonpoint sources and restore and maintain the quality of their water resources (EPA, 1991 b). The West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) has identified the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek as being impaired by dioxins, as reported on the 1998 303(d) list of water quality limited waters (WVDEP, 1998). The consent decree established in conjunction with the West Virginia TMDL lawsuit has identified the Kanawha River as a priority watershed, with a TMDL for dioxin to be completed by September, 2000. The Kanawha River is located in western West Virginia. The Kanawha River segment of concern (Figure 1-1) extends 45.5 miles from the confluence of the Coal River near Nitro, West Virginia (Kanawha River Mile (RM) 45.5) downstream to its confluence with the Ohio River (Kanawha RM 0.0). The Kanawha River watershed covers a total of 518 square miles, with a land use primarily (>90%) of forest. The segments of concern for the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek each extend 2 miles upstream from their respective confluences with the Kanawha River (Figure 1-1 ). The Pocatalico River watershed spans 359 square miles, also primarily of forest. The Armour Creek watershed covers 9 square miles, and is the most highly developed, with over 20% of the land use listed as developed. 1.2 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS All waters of West Virginia are designated for the propagation and maintenance. of fish and other aquatic life and for water contact recreation as part of State water quality standards (WV 461-6.1 ). In addition, the tributaries to the Kanawha River have been designated as Water Use Category A-public water supply (WV 46-1-7.2.a) and must be protected for this use. The Kanawha Rivermainstem is exempt from this designation (WV 46-1-7.2.d.19.l). The applicable water quality standards for water column concentrations ofTCDD are: Pocatalico River and Armour Creek-0.013 pg/L Kanawha River mainstem - 0.014 pg/L Figure 1-1. Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, Armour Creek Study Area September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TlvfDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page2 r ,/\ ( '- ,, I / '-.. September 14, 2000 • .K1ver J,l...1le * 1funj :..pal.it.Cl: - "F:ivr:f" TMD 1- Bo·Jn-oacy ./ Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page3 West Virginia standards also contain limitations on the maximum dioxin concentration allowed in edible tissues of fish. The maximum fish tissue concentration of dioxin is 6.4 pglg (8.22.2 of Appendix E cited in WV-1-8.1). West Virginia water qualily standards are written to apply at all times when flows are equal to or greater than the minimum mean seven consecutive day drought flow with a ten year return frequency (7Ql0) (WV 46-1-7.2.b), with the exception of the Kanawha River, where the minimum flow shall be 1,960 cfs at the Charleston gauge (WV 46-1-7.2.d.19.2). EPA (1991a) guidance suggests that the average condition represented by the harmonic mean flow is the appropriate design condition for carcinogens such as dioxins. West Virginia water qualily standards (WV 46-1-8-2.b) defer a specific decision on critical design flows for carcinogens, so the default approach of requiring compliance with standards for all flows above a minimum critical value is taken for this TMDL. It should be recognized that this approach provides a significant additional safely factor beyond use of harmonic mean flow conditions, resulting in an allowable load much smaller than would be derived using the average flows as the design condition. September 14. 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek This page is left intentionally blank. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page5 2.0 TMDL ENDPOINT AND WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2.1 SELECTION OF A TMDL ENDPOINT One of the major components of a TMDL is the establishment of in-stream numeric endpoints, which are used to evaluate the attainment of acceptable water quality. In-stream numeric endpoints, therefore, represent the water quality goals that are to be achieved by implementing the load reductions specified in the TMDL. The endpoints allow for a comparison between observed in-stream conditions and conditions that are expected to restore designated uses. The endpoints are usually based on either the narrative or numeric criteria available in state water quality standards. For the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek TMDLs, the applicable endpoints and associated target values can be determined directly from the West Virginia water quality regulations. The in-stream dioxin targets are based on the water use designation of the water body. The Kanawha River is not designated as a public water supply lllld has a dioxin target of0.014 pg/L. The tributaries to the Kanawha River are designated as public water supplies and have a dioxin target of0.013 pg/L. As stated in the West Virginia water quality regulations, dioxin and the dioxin targets refer specifically to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. While other dioxin congeners exist, they are not the subject of this TMDL. The fish tissue standard of 6.4 pgig also applies throughout the study area, and serves as a potential endpoint for the TMDL. Two potential endpoints exist in terms of numeric criterion, the water column standard and the fish tissue standard. Application of a bioaccumulation factor relating fish tissue to water column concentrations (EPA, 1995) using parameter values representative of the Kanawha River indicates that the fish tissue standard of 6.4 pgig corresponds to a water column dioxin concentration of about 0.1 to 0.2 pg/L. This back-calculated water column concentration is much higher than the applicable water column standard of0.014 pg/L (0.013 pg/L for the tributaries), and indicates that a TMDL that achieves the water column standard will also be protective of the fish tissue standard. For that reason, the water column standard will be used as the TMDL endpoint. It should be recognized, however, that the procedure for relating fish tissue concentration to water column concentrations implicitly assumes steady state conditions between the water column and sediments. As a result, the actual response time of fish tissue to changes in water column concentration may be driven by the amount of time required for sediment concentrations to decrease in response to changes in the water column. 2.1.1 Selection of Critical Condition Concurrent witl1 the selection of a numeric concentration endpoint, TMDL development must also define the environmental conditions that will be used when defining allowable loads. Many TMDLs are designed around tl1e concept of a "critical condition." The critical condition is defined as the set of environmental conditions which, if controls are designed to protect, will ensure attainment of objectives for all other conditions. For example, the critical condition for control of a continuous point discharge is the drought stream flow. Pollution controls designed to meet water quality standards for drought flow conditions will ensure compliance with standards for all other conditions. The critical condition for a wet weather-driven sources may be a particular rainfall event. Dioxin sources to the Kanawha River study area are believed to arise from a mixture of continuous and wet weather-driven sources, and there may be no single critical condition tliat is protective for all other conditions. For example, contanlinated groundwater loading is assumed to be relatively constant over time, and its control will be most critical during low stream flow conditions. Resuspension of contanlinated in-place sediments, on the other hand, will be most critical during high river flow periods. For this reason, the TMDL will examine the entire range of flow conditions and will define load allocations that will be protective for all conditions. September 14, 2000 LimnoRTech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 6 2.2 DISCUSSION OF INSTREAM WATER QUALITY 2.2.1 Inventory of Available Water Quality Monitoring Data This section provides an inventory and analysis of available dioxin data in the water column and fish of the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Annour Creek. The main sources of data for the Kanawha River and its tributaries were: ORSANCO High Volume Water Sampling STORET EPA ORSANCO High Volume Water Sampling The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) conducted high volume water sampling at one location on the Kanawha River in 1997 and at four locations during 1998. Station locations are shown in Figure 2-1. The high-volume sampling technique filters and extracts dioxins from a large volume of water, typically 1000 liters. The sample water is passed through a 1 um glass fiber filter which separates and collects the particulate phase dioxin adsorbed onto the suspended solids. The dissolved phase dioxin is extracted from the sample water by passing the water through an XAD-2 resin column. The filters and columns are analyzed separately to quantify the dioxin concentration in the particulate and dissolved phases, respectively. Approximately 1,000 liters of water were collected at nine locations along the cross section of each station and analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin), and dioxin TEQ. This study provided the majority of the dioxin water column concentrations used for this TMDL. ORSANCO also conducted bimonthly sampling ofTSS at one location. STORET Historical data were available from EPA's database for the STOrage and RETrieval of chemical, physical and biological data (STORET) for numerous stations along the Kanawha River and its tributaries. This database contains data collected by the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and the United States Anny Corps of Engineers (COE). Data from the 1970s through 1998 are collected in this database. Parameters of interest to this study include water column dioxin, fish tissue dioxin, % lipids, TSS, organic carbon, and flow. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page? Figure 2-1. ORSANCO Sampling Points -•,..._.o_....,.__.·1,..._,,_._.,•-...·10 We: __________ r'..J'/tt , / EPA September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Page8 Dioxin TMDL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a sediment and fish survey in 1986, a sediment survey in 1987 and another sediment and fish survey in 1998. The 1986 survey was a collaborative effort between EPA Region ill and the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources (WVDNR) to study TCDD contamination in this region of the Kanawha in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 1983) advisory regarding the consumption of fish containing 50 pg/g or more of TCDD (Smith and Ruggero, 1986). The 1987 sediment survey was a follow-up study to the 1986 survey and focused on the sediments of the tributaries to the Kanawha River (Kanetsky, 1986). The objective of the 1998 sediment and fish survey was to assess the levels of dioxin coming from four landfills in the Nitro area and their impact on the local fish population (SATA, 1999). Data collected by the EPA included sediment dioxin concentration, percent moisture, fish tissue dioxin concentration, and percent lipids. Several stations along the Kanawha River and its tributaries were monitored. 2.2.2 Analysis of lnstream Water Quality Monitoring Data Water column dioxin concentrations A limited number of total, particulate, and dissolved water column dioxin measurements were available from ORSANCO for the Kanawha River. No water column dioxin measurements were available for the Kanawha River tnbutaries. A summary of the available Kanawha River water column dioxin data is given in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Kanawha River Water Column TCDD 1nax1mu Minimum Average Type (pg/L) (pg/L) m (pg/L) Analysis Station R.M. t.3 R.M. 29.7 K.lYl. R.NJ. Ju.J 4t.3 Number Total Particulate Dissolved Total Part1cu1ate D1sso1veo 1 ota1 t'arl!CUJate .u1sso1vea Total Particulate Dissolved 0.463 0.447 0.020 0.306 u.1.75 U.vJ! U.51v U.jJl U.vJ! 0.412 0.365 0.047 0.094 0.087 0.008 0.245 0.222 U.VLJ U.LjJ U.LUL U.uL.~ 0.130 0.115 0.015 U.l~l U.loo7 0.014 0.270 U.243 U.U27 U.JL.7 u.~~j U.UjO U.L>4 0.264 0.030 7 7 7 3 3 3 j j j 3 3 3 Dates 0197 0197 6!97 6/97 0197 0197 V/71 U/71 U/71 b/~7 6197 6/97 - ll/98 ll/9~ 11/98 11/98 lli>o 11/98 11/70 ll/70 11/SO lli,o 11198 11/98 The data were compared to the Kanawha River dioxin WQS of 0.014 pg/L and show exceedances of the standard throughout the sampling area (Figure 2-). All of the total dioxin concentrations exceed the standard, by an average factor of five. The West Virginia standard for dioxin is expressed in terms of total chemical; Figure 2-2 indicates exceedances even if the standard were expressed in terms of dissolved concentrations. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek TCDD To ta I 0.5 0, ~ • 0.4 c 0.2 i - 0.1 0 0 . . •- 0.3 " § 0 I- 20 30 River Mile "' • • • • 10 Page9 40 ... June-Oct, 1997 June 1998 July 1998 October 1 998 - - - - - -w 50 n Q n 4 s = , - '" Particulate TCDD 0.5 0, • 0.4 ~ o· . • 0.3 " 0 I- "• ~ 0.2 :Ii 0.1 ~ 10 20 30 River Mile Dissolved ~ 0.06 0.05 o· 0.04 " 0 I- 0. 0 3 .; 0. 0 2 0.01 • 'S - ~ XJune • Oct, 1997 •June 1998 •July 1998 • October 1998 - 0 0 0, J. 40 50 TCDD . ... . •• !! X 0 0 . 10 20 30 River Mile - -• XJune. Oct, 1997 •June 1998 •July 1998 • October 1998 • 40 50 Figure 2-2. Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Water Column Dioxin Concentration to Water Quality Standard September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLJor Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 10 No recent water colunm dioxin measurements exist for the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek; however, the available fish tissue data can also be used to infer water colunm concentrations. Application of a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) relating fish tissue to water colunm concentrations (EPA, 1995), using parameter values representative of the Kanawha River, indicates that all of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek fish tissue samples correspond to water column dioxin concentrations that exceed the water quality standard. Back-calculated Pocatalico River water colunm dioxin concentrations exceed the water quality standard by a factor of 6.1 to 540. Back-calculated Armour Creek water colunm dioxin concentrations exceed the water quality standard by a factor of2.8 to 93. While application of this BAF involves numerous simplifying assumptions, its results conclusively demonstrate the existence of a problem. The specific back-calculation procedure, the required assumptions, and the resulting data are provided in Appendix A. 2.3 FISH TISSUE DIOXIN CONCENTRATIONS Dioxin was measured in fish tissues by several agencies at many locations throughout the Kanawha River, Armour Creek and the Pocatalico River beginning in the early seventies and continuing through 1998. These data are summarized in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. Summary of Available Fish Tissue TCDD Data A comparison of the data to the applicable fish tissue criterion of 6.4 pg/g shows exceedances in all three of the receiving waters (Figure 2-3 through Figure 2-6). 105 fish samples were collected in the Kanawha River study area ranging from RM 2 to RM 44. 73.5% of these fish samples had concentrations above the 6.4 pg/g standard. 50% of the 14 fish samples collected in the Pocatalico River exceeded the 6.4 pg/g criterion. However, fish taken from the Pocatalico River show a decreasing trend in dioxin concentration and the most recent fish data are compliant with the state standard. 53.8% of the 13 fish samples collected in Armour Creek exceeded the 6.4 pg/g criterion. It must be noted that the fish tissue database contains a mixture of whole fish samples, edible fillets, and unidentified portions. All of these data are shown in Figures 2-3 through 2-6. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Page 11 Dioxin Tlv!DLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek 1000 •I •l 100 ' . • "' C. c ·;. I • f .!? 10 0 I i5 . ····-··--··-· ····- . I- .. standard= 6.4 ••• I I •t • ••• •• I ! . .. I· • . ·It I I . ' • ! I I I I I I I I • • •• • I 0.1 0 10 30 20 40 50 River Mile Figure 2-3. Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quality Standard by River Mile Figure 2-4. Comparison of Observed Kanawha River Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quality Standard by Date 10 I \ I • I I 1 1, I • • • +I ,t I +---------------'"~--·-------------+-! ···-·············-.... -· -..... ······-.... ·-. ·····i·7····l-·-....)...........................t... •• •• standard = 6.4 l I I• :• • +-----~----~-----~----~----~-~ 0.1 1/1/70 6/24/75 12/14/80 6/6/86 11/27/91 5/19/97 Date September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 12 70 ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ i i" 60 +--------------------------------; 50 +--------------------------------; 40 +--------------------------------; 30 +------------------------------ 20 +-------------'-------------------; T standard= 6.4 10 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; • o+-----~----~-----~----~--------'--' 1/1/84 9/27/86 6/23/89 3/19/92 12/14/94 9/9/97 Date Figure 2-5. Comparison of Observed Armour Creek Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quality Standard by Date Figure 2-6. Comparison of Pocatalico River Observed Fish Tissue Dioxin to Water Quality Standard by Date 25~-----------------------------~ 20-1---------------------------------l c, 15-t---------------------------------1 ~ :"~ Cl 1 0 - j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l standard = 6.4 ···-···--.---,-·----·-·-··························-·----- .. ··-·-·-···-·························· 5+-----------------------------~·_, O+-----~-----~----~-------------~ 1/1/84 9/27/86 6/23/89 3/19/92 12/14/94 9/9/97 Date September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 13 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT 3.1 INTRODUCTION In order to determine the 2,3,7,8-TCDD reductions needed to achieve water quality and fish tissue standards and to allocate 2,3,7,8-TCDD inputs among the sources, it is necessary to consider the existing and potential 2,3,7,8-TCDD sources. The TMDL divides allowable loading into separate categories corresponding to point sources (which enter the river from a well-defined source location) and nonpoint (diffuse) sources. The TMDL defines allowable point source permit limits (called wasteload allocations) and necessary reductions in non-point and background sources (called load allocations). These sources must be characterized so that the waste load and load allocations can be assigned to ensure compliance with the TMDL. 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) is most commonly encountered as an unwanted by-product of incineration, production of chlorinated pesticides and herbicides, and the bleaching step of the papermaking process. Industrial activities in the study area, especially near the city of Nitro, West Virginia have resulted in several contaminated sites. Dioxin in the study area likely originated with the production of industrial solvents and the herbicide 2,4,5-T at facilities in and around Nitro. Disposal-practices earlier in the century, including burial of dnnns, dumping of dioxincontaminated liquid wastes, and incineration of dioxin-contaminated material, spread dioxin throughout the Nitro area. Areas downstream of Nitro likely became contaminated through the release and transport of dioxin into the Kanawha River and its tributaries. The Kanawha River and two of its tributaries, the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek, are the focus of this TMDL because of their noncompliance with water quality and fish tissue standards. Determining the dioxin load that these industrial and landfill/dump sites have contributed to the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek is a formidable task; no direct dioxin loading data to any of these systems exist. Consequently, historical reports from the EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) as well as the best available (anecdotal) information were used to identify these sites. Available water, sediment, soil and fish monitoring data and literature values were used to estimate the magnitude of their load contribution to the Kanawha, Pocatalico, and Armour. This section documents the available information and interpretation for the modeling analysis. 3.2 ASSESSMENT OF POINT SOURCES A search of the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database revealed that there are no permitted discharges of dioxin to the Kanawha River, the Pocatalico River or to Armour Creek. Conversations with officials from the WVDEP Office of Water confirmed this. A potential point source could exist with the City of Nitro wastewater discharge to the Kanawha River. This facility has been receiving on-site treated surface runoff from the Fike Chemical Company Superfund site. This site has documented dioxin contamination in its surface soils. The site is permitted to discharge up to 144,000 gallons per day of pretreated wastewater to the City of Nitro wastewater treatment plant. Pretreatment discharge limits are imposed on the City of Nitro at 1.5 pg!L for dioxin based on a quarterly monitoring frequency. Dioxin has not been detected in any of the samples monitored under this requirement from 1996 to 1998 (however, the method detection limit is 5.6 pg!L). The City of Nitro discharges its treated eftluent to the Kanawha River at River Mile 41. Using the conservative assumptions that the Fike/Arte! wastewater contains 1.5 pg/L of dioxin and that all of the dioxin passes through the City of Nitro system, the maximum daily load to the September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 14 Kanawha River is 0.82 ug/day, which is less than one percent of the estimated total daily load received by the Kanawha. However, it is more likely that a large portion of any dioxin in the pretreated Fike/Arte! wastewater will be tied up in the biological sludge generated in the City of Nitro's wastewater treatment process, thereby reducing the load to the Kanawha River. The current practice ofland applying the biological sludge at various farms throughout the valley may need to be re-evaluated. EPA HSCD is currently in the process of collecting high-volume water samples from various points within the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek as well as a select few NPDES outfalls, e.g., Flexsys/Solutia WWTP, Nitro WWTP, PB&S/Kincaid as well as sampling surface water and sediments from approximately 70 point discharges (storm water and permitted outfalls) to assess potential point sources of dioxin to these waterbodies. Until this data is obtained, it is premature to definitely state that the only possible source of dioxin in the area is from the Nitro WWTP. 3.3 NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT Nonpoint loadings to surface water can occur via a number of mechanisms: contaminated groundwater or base flow, surface runoff of contaminated soil, diffusion from contaminated sediments in the river, and scouring or resuspension of contaminated sediments. Two categories of nonpoint sources were identified: nonpoint sources originating within the river itself, which includes contaminated sediment, and nonpoint sources which are land based, such as contaminated landfills, that may contribute dioxin loading to the river through contaminated groundwater or surface runoff of contaminated soil. Two tasks were required to complete the nonpoint source assessment: source identification and source quantification. 3.3.1 Source Identification This section describes the data available to identify existing nonpoint sources, and is divided into categories discussing in-place sediments and hazardous waste sites. In-Place Sediments The extent and magnitude of contaminated sediment in the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Armour Creek were assessed by reviewing the available sediment monitoring data. EPA collected sediment samples in these three systems in 1986, 1987 and 1998. Concentrations of dioxin in the sediment ranged from non-detected to approximately 1600 ng/Kg in the Kanawha, 3000 ng/Kg in the Pocatalico, and 2000 ng/Kg in Armour Creek. Sediment sampling locations for each survey are shown in Figure 3-1. The magnitude of these data indicates that in-place sediments could be a major source of dioxin to the water. EPA conducted sampling in 1998 in response to public concern that four landfills in the area, Armour Creek landfill, Poca Drum Dump, Manilla Creek Dump, and the Heizer Creek landfill, were still actively contributing dioxin to the Pocatalico River and to Armour Creek. Results from this survey indicate that the sediments within the TMDL study area in the Pocatalico River, the Kanawha River and Armour Creek have concentrations of dioxin ranging from non-detect to several thousand nanograms per kilogram. Details of this survey's results are also discussed in the Hazardous Waste Sites section, which specifically discusses the aforementioned landfills. Sampling by the EPA during 1986 and 1987 attempted to determine the origin of contaminated sediment around the mouths of the tributaries draining into the Kanawha River. The high sediment concentrations near the mouths of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek could have been the result of deposition of contaminated solids entering these streams upstream of the mouth or the result of contaminated solids from the Kanawha depositing in these areas during low flow periods. Discussions with area consultants and USGS personnel familiar with the flow patterns of the Kanawha River indicate that under low flow conditions, flow in the Kanawha River and its tributaries is almost stagnant, which could allow contaminated solids in the Kanawha to be September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLJor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 15 deposited in the tributaries. Sediment sampling results from 1987 also supported the hypothesis that the contaminated solids from the Kanawha River were being deposited in tributaries (Kanetsky, 1987). Nevertheless, the viability of sources other than the Kanawha River to potentially load dioxin to the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek was assessed. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Page 16 Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Figure 3-1. Sediment Sampling Locations ,, ' 2 1 4 ~ 1C '-,,1ile-s '; D JH! ::>:l.l. ~.wJ},llt:: ; J~H S~d. :':.amp!~ * 1 )~" S=li ~ntrlfl1 P!' l,'J'i(f \ September 14, 2000 / Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 17 Hazardous Waste Sites A list of sites that could be potential sources of dioxin loading to the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River and Annour Creek was compiled with input from the WVDEP, EPA Region III and internal investigation. These sites are listed below: Annour Creek/Solutia Landfill Clark Property* Don's Disposal* Dupont Belle Plant* Fike Chemical, Inc. Fleming Landfill* George's Creek Landfill* Heizer Creek Landfill Holmes and Madden Landfill* Old Avtex Landfill Landfill adjacent to Midwest Steel/Nitro Landfill Manila Creek Flexsys Property Old Nitro Landfill/Monsanto Dump 1929-1956 Kanawha County Lanfill Poca Strip Mines/Poca Drum Dump* South Charleston Landfill* Union Carbide Plant at Institute* Western Kanawha Landfill* *indicates landfills up-watershed of the TMDL study reaches These sites were researched using three of the EPA' s databases for hazardous waste sites: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Record of Decision System (RODS); and No Further Response Action Planned (NFRAP) database. EPA has categorized sites within its CERCLIS database to one of three lists. List 8T includes all sites that were previously listed as contaminated or were suspected of being contaminated, but have been subsequently cleared of contamination or are no longer suspected of contamination. These sites can also be found in the NFRAP database, indicating that Super:fund has completed its assessment of a site and has determined that no further steps will be taken to list that site on the National Priority List. The SCAP 11 list includes all sites/incidents on the Super:fund National Priority List (NPL). The SCAP 12 list includes all Super:fund sites/incidents that are not on the NPL but have planned or actual remedial/removal activities. Most of the sites in question were on one of these three lists. Table 3-1 lists these identified sites and summarizes currently available information on 2,3,7,8-TCDD contamination at these sites. Interviews with WVDEP staff, EPA staff and an EPA Super:fund consultant were conducted to gather more information about dioxin contaminated sites in the study area. This was followed by a qualitative attempt to assess whether each site is currently contributing a dioxin load to the river by one of the mechanisms cited above. Research on potential sites was hindered by the fact that several of the landfills/sites have been referred to by various names over the years. Figure 3-2 shows the locations of the identified sites. Table 3-1 contains a summary of the information gathered for each site. Annour Creek/Solutia Landfill: September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin T.MDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and A,mour Creek Page 18 The Armour Creek Landfill is operated by Flexsys Corporation (a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel corporations in Nitro, West Virginia). The site is approximately 45 acres in size and is located north of Nitro along State Route 25 and drains into Armour Creek. The landfill has been under closure since 1994 with no additional disposal since that period (Randy Sovie, WVDEP). The sediments in Armour Creek were sampled in November 1998 in response to public concern that this landfill was contributing to the persistent dioxin problem in Armour Creek (Pam Hayes, WVDEP Office of Environmental Remediation). No dioxin was detected at the site (soils, surface water and groundwater) though dioxin was detected in nearby soil. This detection of dioxin may not be attributable to the landfill itself EPA's Removal Program revisited the site in the spring of 1999 for a subsequent round of sampling. Data from this survey are included in summary table 3-1. EPA HSCD will be conducting a Preliminary Assessment (PA) under CERCLA at the site in the summer of 2000. Clark Property: The Clark property is approximately 20 acres in size and is located upstream of the TMDL study area near the intersection of State Route 62 and Dutch Hollow Road in Kanawha County. The WVDNR conducted a preliminary assessment of the site in March 1985 and observed leaking and broken containers of several materials, including unspecified ·herbicides. Soil and water were also contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. In August 1985 a removal action was initiated by the EPA, resulting in the removal of 442 tons of contaminated soils and bulk waste by May 1986. Sampling performed in October 1988 indicated that there was no evidence of off-site migration of any contaminants. The EPA has included this site on its NFRAP 8T list. This site is not believed to contribute a dioxin load to the Kanawha. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 19 Table 3-1. Summary of Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD) Information Available by Site ;:,1ie Name nece1vmg Water ccep,e ore" oroxln Materlal? .... 1oxm ulhOC eu In Soll on~lte? .... one. (pgfg) ..1oxm ....11,ec In Sutface Water on~rte? vonc. (pgfL) ...1oxm ...11,ec e.. in Groundwater on~lte? ,.,one. (pg/L) ..1oxm ue,ec,eu 1vonc. ,pg,g or nearby (stream or pg/L) soll)? , ~rmour 1..,ree11. Lanu1111 ·-····-·1 ... ·- .. --··-···· Site v,arK t'ropen:y on s u1sposa, · upom i:se11e t-'1anc 11-1Ke ,._., em1ca1 1..,ompany 1 (Production Area and River River .... ua ' ua r OCclL<>1ICO Riller uO River " Riw, . ,, -, ,es, -, -··-·-··· r-oca1<111co River r3eorge's Creek Landfill 'RI-~·~- M~~;~k>-19s~1960 Heizer Creek Site 1.. andfill 1 , oca,a1co River ,eS\IVlc;i~t --- Holmes and Madden Landfill 1·3 Manila Creek Landfill rO~w1ICO Rwer UnFire'C~~~f tJf 1-'ocata1co River Yes(MO~~),.,..'"..JV" -, '"· -, Yes(1998) WWTP) ·iemmg Lanu1III ... ,es,. -·. -·. ,es" 3:720 18,325 ~o.o "' '" """"' "'"" 385"- Yesl"''""I '"' -, ~., -··' (Kan·av.11a sediment) ·=9 0 "' ········- '" ······- Yes (1998) Yes(1:;:,:;,:;,I Yes (1999) "' (tank near l'M'TP) .. , es 1..,e.,1men,1 ·'" ,.,os,, ecen, Sampling Date "' ·--- - -·- l'W9 ·····- ·--2000/WA NIU ,,,,,,,,, Q.767 "' 1•;fo~n9/Kg Yes \'"'"'"'I v-.:. •.:.wg !J.,-,, ,,,, {creeKJ 046.8 pgfg 2000NIA GW:0- 1628 armer Midwest Steel 1 Site Flexsys Property (including WWTP) "",, ,our t..:reeK Kan,,...,,a River Armourt..:reeK Nitro Landfill~ ...,1u nt1,ro ·R;~~.a Landfill/Monsanto Dump (1929·1956) /Nitro Sanitation Landfill 2 u,w~, Yes 1,,,,.,.,, "' Yes 1,.,..,.,, unK110M1 '"" Monsanto-1929-19sJ ···- No 119991 -"·"" mu mu ·- '"" yes l'.""'"r kerosene !ayer only ··- ···- 1,080,000 m,,,,,, "'"·" ,,,,,,-, ,~ '~ ··---, ,,,, , "·"'' tseciment In AATlour Creek) 6-123 ~11~:~t~\ ~:Ot~ ., (neamys ",o_ (Kan·~a sediment) , .,-'?. \area near l'M'TP) - Kanawha County Landfill RiverUnkrlown but possibly used for Wllsles from MonsantoYes (1985) oruy 1 sampleN/DN/DN/DN/ 01985 oca v,rrp 1vune Pits/Poca Drum Dump/Nitro City Dump/Poca Landfill/Putnam County Drum Dump 2·3 ::iouu1 ..., .. anes on Landfill 2·3 September 14, 2000 oca a1co Riller es 1...o~~\ ·--·"·' M~;;k>-1~ti~ River 1 0 " '" o-•• "' v-v.~ "'" Limno~Tech, Inc. "' ,.,...._.. r.t'g """" Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek r,cece1vmg Water ,;,he Name .;mon i...-ar.... 1,..e r-1an, Institute 3 ~ Rwer ,,esLern "-anaw11a 23 Landfill • N/D - Not Determined ., , , '"' PIOl /"\Va11auie ' ' ' River I ~CCBPL!:,-.,-.OrB, ·.; 1000 Cl. 500 0"' 0 .,, Figure 5-1. Kanawha River Loading "' 0 0 ..J 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Kanawha River Flow (cfs) Capacity ,;; 800 .,,"' -"' 600 2. .i:' 400 ·.; Figure 5-2. Pocatali co River Loading Capacity September 14, 2000 "'Cl. .,,0"' "'0 ..J 200 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Pocatalico River Flow (cfs) Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 44 Armour Creek Flow (cfs) Figure 5-3. Armour Creek Loading Capacity 5.2 WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION Point sources within the watershed discharging at their current levels were considered negligible in their impact on instream dioxin levels. An allocation is given to the Nitro WWTP in response to their treatment of runoff from the Fike Chemical Co. site. The magnitude of the allocation is set to the required pretreatment limit, which is 0.82 ug/day. The allocation to remaining point sources is set to zero. It is noted here that due to the lack of data within the study area concerning point source contribution of dioxin to the waterbodies, the actual loading of dioxin maybe significantly greater than 0.82 ug/ per day, and hence significant reductions in dioxin loading to the waterbodies may be possible. Table 5-2. Wasteload Allocations to Point Sources 5.3 LOAD ALLOCATIONS Discussion ofload allocations to nonpoint sources is divided into categories of upstream sources, contaminated groundwater, in-place sediments, and contaminated soil. A wide range of reduction alternatives could theoretically meet the loading capacity limitations in Figures 5-1 through 5-3. The overall allocation strategy can be constrained by considering two conditions: Drought, or minimum, flow conditions, where the predominant sources contributing to contamination are upstream sources and contaminated groundwater. High flow, erosional conditions, where the additional sources of in-place sediment resuspension and erosion of surface contamination become important. Consideration of drought conditions places an upper bound on allowable upstream source and contaminated groundwater allocations. Additional loading capacity at flows above drought flow can be allocated to erosion of in-place sediments and contaminated soil. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page45 5.3.1 Upstream sources The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) conducted field sampling in May, 1999 to provide a measurement of the dioxin concentration entering the study area at the upstream boundary. The dioxin concentration determined in that sample, 0.009 pg/L, is being used as the upstream boundary concentration for the TMDL. The draft TMDL assumes that the upstream boundary concentration will remain constant at this concentration for all river flows. The uncertainty inherent in this assumption will be reflected in the Margin of Safety. No evidence exists of dioxin contamination upstream of the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek segments of concern, so upstream boundary concentrations for these segments were assumed to be zero. Table 5-3. Load Allocations to Upstream Sources X OW CS X 0 2.447 = 43 ug/day@ 1960 cfs = I 10 ug/day @ 5000 cfs = 440 ug/day @ 20000 cfs 5.3.2 Contaminated groundwater Contaminated groundwater was identified as a major contributor of dioxin to the Kanawha River. The upper bound of the maximum allowable groundwater load to the Kanawha can be calculated by performing a mass balance calculation at the location where the groundwater enters the Kanwha (and assuming no loss of dioxin between the upstream boundary and this location) during minimum river flow. The mass balance equation calculates the maximum load that just achieves compliance with the water quality standard, assuming no source other than upstream. The resulting equation is: (5-3) Where LAow = Load Allocation to contaminated groundwater (MIT) Qm;n = Minimum stream flow at which water quality standards apply (L3IT) Cwqs = Water Quality Standard concentration (M/L3) Cup = Dioxin concentration at upstream boundary of segment (MIL3) Equation 5-3 is expressed as an inequality, because the LA must be set less than or equal to this value to ensure compliance with water quality standards at minimum flow. The potential reasons for setting the LA less than (as opposed to equal to) this upper bound value include providing allowance for a Margin of Safety and/or achieving greater than absolutely necessary reductions in one source category in order to lessen the amount of reductions required in another source category. The maximum possible LA for contaminated groundwater in the Kanawha River was determined from application of Equation 5-3 to be 24 ug/day. The upper bound LAs for September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 46 contaminated groundwater in the Pocatalico River and Armour Creek are 0.0102 and 0.0 ugiday, respectively. For purposes of this TMDL, 16.5 ugiday is provided as an allocation to contaminated groundwater in the Kanawha River. This allocation is based upon providing the fullest allocation possible to this source (24 ugiday), minus the wasteload allocation (0.82 ugiday) and minus 10% of the Loading Capacity (6.7 ugiday) which will be allocated to the Margin of Safety as discussed below. This corresponds to a 99% reduction in the estimated existing load. The LA for contaminated groundwater to the Pocatalico River is 0.0092 ugiday. This allocation is also based upon providing the fullest allocation possible to this source, minus I 0% of the Loading Capacity which will be allocated to the Margin of Safety. No allocation is given to Armour Creek, because the 7Q IO flow is zero. No explicit reductions are expected to be required for these sources, based upon the conclusion ofKanetsky (1987) that the primary source of dioxin impairment to these streams is caused by backflow from the Kanawha, which will be corrected through source loading reduction to the Kanawha River. Table 5-4. Load Allocations to Contaminated Groundwater River Segment 5.3.3 Contaminated soils Once loads have been allocated to the sources described above that must be controlled in order to meet water quality standards during low flow conditions, the remainder of the loading capacity (except for the Margin of Safety) can be allocated to the wet weather/higher flow categories. The first of these to be considered is erosion from contaminated soils in the watershed. Remediation efforts are planned to control the soil contamination at Heizer Creek landfill. This load allocation assumes that soils will be cleaned to a Removal Action Level dioxin concentration of 1.0 ppb (units ofTEQ, but treated for allocation purposes as TCDD), resulting in an allowable load of 4.53 ugiday to the Pocatalico River. This same allocation is given to the Kanawha River, because runoff delivered to the Pocatalico River will eventually reach the Kanawha. Additional runoff load of 1.38 ugiday is calculated for the Pocatalico River and subsequently to the Kanawha River from contaminated soils near the Manila Creek landfill. No additional remediation is assumed in allocating this load. Runoff of 4.34 ugiday is calculated for Armour Creek and subsequently to the Kanawha River from contaminated soils at the Midwest Steel site. No additional remediation is assumed in allocating this load. Table 5-5. Load Allocations to Contaminated Soils (wet weather) egmen xis mg oa oca e oa ercen on (ugiday) (u day) 0 5.3.4 In-place sediment The final remaining source category is contaminated in-place sediments. With load reductions assigned to all other loading categories, the allowable load for this source category can be calculated from the September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TAfDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page47 difference between load capacity and the other allocated sources (plus the Margin of Safety). The resulting allocation is a function of river flow, and is calculated as: LA in-place, Kanawha = Load Capacity - WLA - LA upstream, Kanawha - LAGW, Kanawha - LAsoi!s, Kanawha - MOS -0.00881 x Kanawha River flow (cfs)-27.6 LAin-place, Pocatalico LAin-place, Armour September 14, 2000 (5-4) = Load Capacity - LAmv, Pocatalico - LA soils, Pocata!ico - MOS - 0.0286 x Pocatalico River flow (cfs)-5.92 (5-5) = Load Capacity - MOS - 0.0286 x Armour Creek flow (cfs)- 4.34 (5-6) Limno-Tech, Inc. Page 48 Dioxin TlvDJLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Table 5-6. Load Allocations to in-place Sediments (wet weather) River Segment 1£xisting Load Allocated Load Percent Reduction Kanawha See Table 3-4 >90% """[l"ocata 1co = See Equation 5-4 - 0 ug/day@!960 cfs - 16 ug/day @5000 cf - 149 ug/da~ @20000 cfs "-'ee i...·guat1on .,_., - 0 ug/day @0.3 cfs - 8.4 ugida~ @500 cfs - 51 ue/day rn,zooo cfs See .Equation )-6 - 0 ug/day @O cfs - 1.4 ug/day @200 cfs - 13 ug/day @600 cfs AIIIlOUf l'A NA NA 5.4 INCORPORATION OF A MARGIN OF SAFETY This section addresses the incorporation of a margin of safety (MOS) in the TMDL analysis. The MOS accounts for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between pollutant loading and water quality. The MOS can either be implicit (e.g., incorporated into the TMDL analysis through conservative assumptions) or explicit (e.g., expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the loadings). This TMDL uses both explicit and implicit components of the Margin of Safety. An implicit MOS is provided through the use of a conservative dilution model for allocation purposes. This implicit MOS is as protective as possible for modeling purposes (yet not overly conservative, as discussed in Section 4), as it assumes complete conservation of mass. Another component of the implicit margin of safety is the State requirement that the water quality standard for dioxin be met for all flow conditions above the critical minimum flow. This will result in an allowable load much smaller than would be derived using the EPA-recommended harmonic mean flow conditions as the design condition. An additional explicit Margin of Safety is also provided, to account for uncertainty in loading entering each system across the upstream boundary, as well as other potential dioxin sources not identified during the source assessment. The explicit Margin of Safety is set at 10% of the LA. 5.5 SEASONALITY Seasonality in the TMDL is addressed by expressing the TMDL in terms of river flow, as changes in flow will be the dominant seasonal environmental factors affecting the TMDL. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page49 6.0 ONGOING ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE MONITORING The Kanawha River/Pocatalico River/Annour Creek TMDL site data confirm that dioxin concentrations exceed water quality standards. However, additional data are needed to define many of the sources of dioxin entering these systems. For this reason, implementation activities must first focus on better identifying existing sources in order to control them. This section describes activities that are currently ongoing and/or planned, designed to ensure that the TMDL can be implemented. It is divided into separate sections describing: Control of watershed sources Control of contaminated in-place river sediments Additional monitoring 6.1 CONTROL OF WATERSHED SOURCES EPA has initiated activity at 16 sites throughout the watershed with the intent of collecting the data necessary to further define the magnitude of dioxin loading from each site and/or identify necessary control actions. In addition to the land sites, monitoring is recommended to define the contribution of the ambient air as a potential source to the watershed. 6.1.1 Armour Creek/Solutia EPA HSCD will be conducting a Preliminary Assessment (PA) under CERCLA at the site in Summer 2000. 6.1.2 Clark Property EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Summer 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. 6.1.3 Don's Disposal EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Summer 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. 6.1.4 DuPont Belle Plant EPA's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division's Site Assessment Program will review the current conditions at this property to determine whether it is a possible source or contributor of dioxin to the Kanawha River, Annour Creek or the Pocatalico River. This review will be based on EPA's existing information and new data collected in September 1999. 6.1.5 Fike Chemical Co. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 50 EPA HSCD will be conducting a sampling assessment of stormwater sewers of the Nitro WV area in Summer 2000. Sampling will include collection of sediment and surface water from drainages used by the old CST. 6.1.6 Fleming Landfill EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. 6.1.7 George's Creek Landfill EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site information in Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. 6.1.8 Heizer Creek Landfill EPA HSCD conducted a CERCLA site inspection at the site in May 2000 and is currently awaiting the results of the sampling event. EPA HSCD will determine future remedial actions at the site pending receipt of the SI data. 6.1.9 Kanawha Western Landfill EPA's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division's Site Assessment Program will review the current conditions at this property to determine whether it is a possible source or contributor of dioxin to the Kanawha River, Armour Creek or the Pocatalico River. This review will be based on EPA's existing information, which had earlier resulted in a Superfund "No Further Response Action Planned" (NFRAP) classification, plus additional information as needed. 6.1.10 Landfill adjacent to Midwest Steel EPA HSCD will be conducting a sampling assessment (SI) at the site in Fall 2000 to further characterize potential migration of dioxin from the site to Armour Creek. 6.1.11 Manila Creek Landfill EPA HSCD conducted an Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) at the site in May 2000 which included the installation of four off-site groundwater monitoring wells and collection of samples to determine if dioxin and other contaminates are migrating off site. EPA will determine what actions, if any are necessary upon receipt of the data. 6.1.12 Flexsys Plant Property EPA HSCD is currently in the process of negotiating a consent order with Solutia to address the removal of drums and dioxin contamination at the part of the facility, formerly owned by AES. 6.1.13 Old Nitro Landfill EPA HSCD will be conducting a PA of the site in Summer 2000 to determine if any further assessment of the site is necessary. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 51 6.1.14 Poca Strip Mines/Poca Drum Dump EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site file information in the Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary. 6.1.15 South Charleston Landfill EPA HSCD is currently awaiting a health consultation by ATSDR on data collected at the site in September 1999, before determining what future actions if any are necessary at the site. 6.1.16 Union Carbide (Rhone Poulanc) Institute Plant EPA HSCD will be reviewing (PA) available site file information in the Fall 2000 to determine if any further reassessment of the site is necessary 6.2 CONTROL OF IN-PLACE SEDIMENTS Resuspension of contaminated in-place sediments has been identified as contnbuting to violations of water quality standards for dioxin during high flow events. The primary implementation options under consideration are natural attenuation and physical removal of contaminated sediments (e.g. dredging). Natural attenuation processes can include burial of contaminated sediments as cleaner sediments are deposited upon them, and/or the flushing of contaminated sediments out of the system during high flows. Since the data to adequately characterize the site contamination, and dioxin fate and transport pathways in the river, is inadequate the preferred course of action to control in-place sediments is not evident. Additional monitoring activities are needed to better define the benefits of natural attenuation compared to physical removal of contaminated sediments. These are discussed below. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL for Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 52 6.3 ADDITIONAL MONITORING The EPA and W.Va. will continue to support monitoring, as funds allow, to further identify sources and conditions contributing to dioxin impairments in the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek. Monitoring can support further identification of sources or inappropriate discharges, improved understanding of the delivery and transport of dioxin in the area of concern, and tracking of the changes in frequency of violations and degree of impairment. If monitoring information suggests that the TMDL reqnires revision, the West Virginia and EPA Region III may choose to revise the TMDL analysis or allocation as appropriate. EPA Superfund Program conducted sediment and water sampling in the Kanawha River in May/June 2000 to further identify hot spots of contamination and to indicate potential source areas of dioxin. EPA anticipates sampling of storm water and industrial discharge outfalls to the Kanawha River in Fall 2000 in an attempt to identify current loading sources of dioxin to the Kanawha River. Additional data are recommended in three areas to allow implementation of the TMDL and verification that water quality standards are being achieved in response to the TMDL. These areas are: watershed sources, upstream boundary loads, and instream conditions. Monitoring activities intended to identify and quantify watershed sources were discussed previously in the section on control of watershed sources. The remainder of this section discusses monitoring needs for upstream boundary loads and instream conditions. 6.3.1 Upstream Boundary Loads The existing TMDL is based upon only a single data value describing dioxin concentrations at the upstream boundary of the Kanawha River study area. Tiris data value indicated the presence of dioxin contamination, but provided no information on boundary concentrations in the Pocatalico River, Armour Creek, or the sources or variability in dioxin at the Kanawha upstream boundary. High volume dioxin sampling results in the Coal River, Armour Creek, Bill's Creek, and above Coal River are not yet available for incorporation into this TMDL report. Additional monitoring could be conducted on a seasonal (e.g. quarterly) basis, and should be structured to include at least one high flow and one low flow period. Tiris will better characterize the magnitude and seasonal variability of boundary concentrations. With respect to identification of upstream sources, EPA's Removal Program collected a sediment sample in the Coal River for dioxin analysis in the Spring of 1999. EPA's Hazardous Site Cleanup Division's Site Assessment Program will search EPA's CERCLIS data base for any sites in this sub-basin. Based upon the sample results and data base review, EPA will determine whether any additional assessment work or cleanup is necessary. 6.3.2 lnstream Conditions Future data collection in the Pocatalico River, Armour Creek, and Kanawha River systems will be useful in order to monitor trends in dioxin concentration and verify that implementation of controls is leading to compliance with water quality standards. This monitoring could be September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Page 53 Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek conducted on a seasonal (e.g. quarterly) basis, and should be structured to include at least one high flow and one low flow period. Additional monitoring efforts will also be useful in order to perform an assessment of the relative benefits of natural attenuation versus physical removal of contaminated sediments. Components ofthis monitoring include: Characterization of stream hydrology and geomorphology Sediment grain size analysis of suspended and bedded sediments Sediment core profiles of dioxins and moisture content Periodic sampling of dioxin and suspended sediment throughout the system High flow event monitoring Flume studies to evaluate sediment resuspension Sediment core dating September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek This page is left intentionally blank. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TlvfDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 55 REFERENCES September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 56 "Dioxin Data Summary", September 1999. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TA1DLfor Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 57 ecology and environment, inc., 1981. Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. TDD F3-8011-07. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 58 Fike/Arte! Superfund Site, Fike WWTP Analytical Data with Attachments, May 1999. ATSDR Health Consultation-Sampling Plan, November 1999. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TlvfDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 59 EPA Region III, 1980. Trip Report-RCRA fuspection of the Holmes and Madden Landfill. Philadelphia, PA . September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TA1DLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 60 EPA, 1986. EPA Environmental News, "EPA Announces Consent Agreements with Monsanto on Two West Virginia Dump Sites." West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Public Information Office, Charleston, WV. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TlYfDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 61 EPA, 199 la. Technical Support for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. BPN505/2-9000 I, PB91-127415, Office of Water (EN-336), Washington, D.C. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 62 EPA, 1991b. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001, Office of Water (WH-553), Washington, D.C. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico·River, and Armour Creek Page 63 EPA, 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality fuitiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors. EPA-820-B-95-005, Office of Water (4301), Washington, D.C. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLJor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 64 EPA, May 11, 2000. "EPA Superfund Kanawha Valley (Dioxin) Site Assessments." September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 65 EPA, May 25, 2000. "Kanawha River Valley Dioxin Assessment Project-March 2000 Site Information Update." Brownfield & Site Assessment Section (3HS34), Wheeling, WV. September I4, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 66 Halliburton NUS Corporation, 1993. Final Report, Site Inspection Prioritization, Monsanto Chemical. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 67 Halliburton NUS Corporation, 1995. Final Report, Site Inspection Prioritization (SIP) No. 2, Clark Property. EPA Region III, Charleston, WV. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDlfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 68 Kanetsky, 1986. A Study of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments in the Kanawha River Basin. EPS-QA87-004, EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocalalico River, and Armour Creek Page 69 Limno-Tech, Inc., 1992. Phase II Screening Model Application to Dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD) in the Columbia River. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 70 Monsanto Corporation, ca. 1977. Hazardous Waste Survey Certification (aka, Eckhardt Survey). West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Hazardous Waste Ground Water Branch, Nitro, WV. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLJor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 71 NUS Corporation, 1983. A Field Trip for Union Carbide Corporation Institute Plant. TDD No. F3-8306-27, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 72 NUS Corporation, 1985a. A Site Inspection for the Heizer Creek. TDD No. F3-8308-29, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 73 NUS Corporation, 1985b. A Field Trip Report for Monsanto Site. TDD No. F3-8407-45, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin T.MDL for Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Annour Creek Page 74 NUS Corporation, 1986. Site Inspection of Manila Creek Dump. TDD No. F3-821 l-48, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin Tlv!DL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 75 NUS Corporation, 1986. Non-Sampling Site Reconnaissance Summary Report, Hohnes and Madden Landfill. TDD No. F3-8412-08, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 76 NUS Corporation, 1987. Site Inspection of DuPont Belle Plant. TDD Nos. F3-8405-38/F38702-21, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLJor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 77 ORSANCO, 1999. Dioxin Modeling for the Development of an Ohio River TMDL. Interim Draft Report. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio. September 14, 2000 LimnomTech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 78 Paradigm Analytical Laboratories, Inc. 1998. Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans Measurements. Wilmington, NC. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 79 SATA, 1998. Site Summary Report-Heizer Creek Site, Poca, Putnam County, WV. CERCLIS No. WVD980538656, EPA Region III, CEPP and Site Assessment Section, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Annour Creek Page 80 SATA, 1998. PREscore Summary Report-Heizer Creek Site, Poca, Putnam County, WV. CERCLIS No. WVD980538656, EPA Region ill, CEPP and Site Assessment Section, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech 1 Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 81 SATA, 1999. Trip Report, Kanawha Valley-Dioxin Site, Nitro, Putnam County, WV. TDD No. 9901-04, EPA Region III Removal Response Section, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin T.MDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 82 Smith and Ruggero, 1986. Concentrations of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in Sediments in the Kanawha River, West Virginia and Proposal for Further Sediment Sampling. EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 83 St. John, 1986. Gazette-Mail, "Chemicals oozing from old Poca dump." West Virginia Department of Natural Resources Public Information Office, Charleston, WV. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 84 Tetra-tech, 1993. Level 1 Site Inspection Prioritization Report of South Charleston Municipal Landfill, South Charleston, WV. CERCLIS No. WVD980538243, EPA Region III, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Philadelphia, PA September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin T.MDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 85 Tetra-Tech, date unknown. Nitro Landfill Sites, Level !-Site Inspection Prioritization. Work Assignment Number 92-3 l-3JZZ, EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 86 US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. Health Consultation: Dioxins in Soil at the Former Midwest Steel Site. Atlanta, GA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 87 WVDEP, 1998. 303(d) List September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TA1DLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 88 West Virginia Division of Water Resources, 1984. Preliminary Assessment, Putnam Counly Drum Dump. Hazardous Waste/Ground Water Branch, West Virginia Department of Water Resources, (location unknown). September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin T}.J[)Lfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 89 WESTON, 1998. "Site Summary Report, Heizer Creek Site, Poca, Putnam County, WV." Prepared for BPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 LimnoRTech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 90 WESTON, 1999. Trip Report Former Midwest Steel Site Dioxin Assessment, Nitro, Putnam County WV. Prepared for EPA Region Ill, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 91 WESTON, 2000. Manilla Creek Landfill Site-PREscore Summru:y Report. TDD No. 000169, EPA Hazardous Site Control Division, Philadelphia, PA. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL/or Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 92 Wischmeier and Smith, 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion losses - a guide to conservation planning. Agricultural Handbook 537, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek September 14, 2000 Page 93 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek This page is left intentionally blank. September 14, 2000 Lim no~Tech, Inc. Page 95 Dioxin TlvfDL for Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek APPENDIX A Estimates of Water Column Dioxin Concentrations from Fish Tissue Only a limited number of water column dioxin concentration measurements are available for the Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek. A much larger data base of fish tissue dioxin measurements are available. Instream dioxin concentrations were estimated from the available fish tissue dioxin data using the following equation based on the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for the Procedure to Determine Bioaccumulation Factors (EPA, 1995): C,oral pg/L = (I 09) x (Cfi,h tissue ug/g) I fr,pid I BAF I J;,i (A-1) Where frd = 1 / [! + (POC x K0 wx 10"6) + (DOC x Kaw /10 x 10·6)] POC = 0.35 mg/L DOC= 2.43 mg/L log1o(K0 wLlkg) = 7.02 BAF = 9360000 L/kg Fish tissue dioxin concentrations were available for 148 samples in the TMDL site. However, many of the other inputs to Equation A-1 were not available for individual samples and needed to be estimated. An average lipid fraction was calculated by specie and substituted where necessary. When the fish specie was not identified for the dioxin tissue concentration, an overall average lipid concentration was used. Average particulate and dissolved organic carbon values were calculated and used throughout the calculations. The resulting back-calculated water column concentrations (i.e. an estimate of the water column concentration that would lead to the observed fish tissue dioxin concentration) are shown in Figures A-1 through A-3, and compared to the water quality standard. It is recognized that the calculation procedure requires many simplifying assumptions, and each estimate has a high degree of uncertainty associated with it. Nonetheless, the extent to which these backcalculated concentrations exceed the water quality standard strongly imply that the water column water quality standards for dioxin have been routinely exceeded in all three systems. Figure A-1. Kanawha River Water Column Concentrations from Fish Tissue by Date September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek 10 Fi g -"' ..J ur e A E" C C - 1 •• C C: >< .!:! C • ~ Q. 2. p oc at al ic Page 96 • • 0.1 C ___sta_nd~rd _~ _O.CJ1 ~?~I~ _____ . ... ____ 0.01 , , 1/1/84 9/27/86 6/23/89 0 • . ____ . _.. _. _________ . _______ _ 3/19/92 12/14/94 9/9/97 Date R iv er Water Column Concentrations from Fish Tissue by Date 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ • -"' ..J Q. -~ 1+---------------------------1 i .!:! C • • C: • • •• 0.1 - ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • • standard = 0.013 pg/L 0.01 ................................................................................ . 1/1/84 9/27/86 6/23/89 3/19/92 12/14/94 9/9/97 Date September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDL for Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 97 Figure A-3. Armour Creek Water Column Concentrations from Fish Tissue by Date September 14, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek This page is left intentionally blank. September I 4, 2000 Limno-Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocatalico River, and Armour Creek Page 99 APPENDIXB CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER The primary source of dioxin to the Kanawha River at low flows has been preliminarily attributed in this report to contaminated groundwater. No direct data exist quantifying contaminated groundwater loading; rather, this source was selected through the process of elimination of other potential sources. The possibility exists that atmospheric deposition or upstream sources are significant contributors of dioxin. Additional data are required to better define the exact sources of dioxin. These additional data will not significantly change the TMDL, but will be used to better define the implementation plan required to reduce existing sources. This addendum explains the decision process for selecting contaminated groundwater as a significant source, and potential impacts on the TMDL. Decision Process The facts leading to selection of contaminated groundwater are as follows: 1) A large increase in water dioxin concentration is observed at RM 41.3, relative to the upstream boundary at RM 45.5. A mass balance calculation shows that the magnitude of this load ranges from 2700 to 4400 ug/day. 2) Potential sources contributing to this increase include: direct point source discharge; runoff of contaminated soils; atmospheric deposition, diffusion from in-place contaminated sediments; upstream sources; and contaminated groundwater. 3) Direct point sources were eliminated from consideration because no known point sources of dioxin occur in this area. 4) Runoff of contaminated soils was eliminated from consideration because the increases in dioxin were observed during low flow, dry weather periods. 5) Atmospheric deposition was eliminated because the dioxin increase occurred over a localized area, while atmospheric deposition would be expected to have a more diffuse impact. Chapter 6 of this report calls for the need of monitoring studies to better quantify atmospheric deposition. 6) Preliminary mass balance calculations shown in Chapter 3 indicate that diffusion from inplace contaminated sediments could only account for a very small fraction of the observed increase in dioxin. 7) The one available dioxin measurement at the upstream boundary (River Mile 45.5) indicated dioxin concentrations significantly lower that those observed at River Mile 41.3. Because this one measurement may not be representative of overall Kanawha River conditions, Chapter 6 of this report calls for monitoring studies to better quantify upstream sources. 8) Contaminated groundwater was selected as the loading category via the process of elimination. It is recognized that, in the absence of organic solvents, dioxin has very low solubility in water and would not normally be expected to be present in significant quantities in groundwater. Given the heavily industrialized nature of the area and past presence of groundwater contamination, it is quite plausible that dioxin is in solution with contaminated groundwater moving as base flow. Potential Impact on TMDL The final TMDL will not be greatly affected whether contaminated groundwater is a major loading category or not. The implementation activities necessary to achieve the TMDL, however, will be highly dependent on the nature of the source. Groundwater loading of dioxin must be maintained at a level less than or equal to that stated in the load allocation in order for water quality standards to be maintained at low river flows. If contaminated groundwater is not a source of water quality standards violations at low flow, its current magnitude will be less than the load allocation. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. Dioxin TMDLfor Kanawha River, Pocata/ico River, and Armour Creek Page 100 Additional data better defining the source of dioxin will directly impact the implementation measures necessary to achieve the TMDL. Source control activities must focus on those sources that are causing the water qualily standards violations. Chapter 6 of this report, Ongoing Activities and Future Monitoring, lays out plans for collecting additional data to better define the sources and to guide future implementation activities. September 14, 2000 Limno~Tech, Inc. DETERMINATION OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY ESTIMATES In order to determine reasonable estimates of the hydraulic conductivities at the Flexsys Nitro facility a number of historic resources were utilized along with the completion of Slug Tests in a number of the recently installed ERFI wells. In order to assess the sites groundwater resources, the generally accepted site model was adopted and followed. This model was proposed and established during the development of the initial 1995 Remedial Feasibility Investigation report prepared and submitted by Roux Associates, Inc. This model proposed the existence of two rather distinct aquifer units throughout the site. The shallow aquifer, extending from the phreatic surface to a depth averaging 35 feet beneath the ground surface was noted as the shallow unconsolidated unit. This shallow unit (A horizon) was composed primarily of a fine grained silty horizon with lower permeabilities. The lower unit (B horizon) extended from the base of the shallow aquifer to the underlying bedrock horizon (55 to 60 feet below the ground surface). This B horizon exhibited signs of higher permeabilities with unconsolidated strata composed of silty sands. The use of this model was developed primarily due to the drastic difference in the aquifer's hydraulic characteristics. The geology of each of the aquifers is discontinuous and fairly non-homogenous and non-isotropic as would be expected from an alluvial aquifer formed from fluvial deposition. These units are not distinct aquifers separated by impermeable horizons. Leakage and vertical migration of groundwater from the shallow unit likely occurs throughout the facility. The distinct and marked difference in average strata permeabilities requires that each of the horizons be modeled and considered as two separate aquifers. In the early 1990's, Roux completed a number of slug tests in the existing monitoring wells which were installed throughout the site. This information was included as a appendix in the 1995 RPI report. POTESTA reviewed this information during the development of the ERFI document. Unfortunately, very little was known related to the geologic formations tested during these tests. The well drilling logs obtained for these wells provided very little description. Given the nature of this ERFI study and the site conceptual model developed for the site, additional slug test information was collected at the site. POTESTA worked to collect additional slug test information utilizing the recently installed ERFI wells. These wells were installed using sonic drilling techniques which resulting in the collection of a continuous soil core sample. Detailed drilling logs from this work were developed which offered detailed insight into the subsurface geology of the site. Given the current use of these wells for the collection of analytical samples, the slug tests methodology was altered. Instead of introducing water, a potential source for cross contamination into the formations, formation water was extracted from each well utilizing the existing bladder pumps to establish a drawdown in each well. After reaching static conditions the pumps were shut off and the recharge rate was measured using a transducer. The resulting rate of recharge was then used to calculate the hydraulic conductivity of the formation. The following table serves to indicate the results of these recent tests within the shallow (A horizon) aquifer zone: Table 1: ERFI Shallow Aquifer Conductivity Results Well Process Area GW-3A (PS) GW-4A (PS) PDA Area GW-9A (DIPS) GW-1 IA (DIPS) WWTUArea GW-13A (D) GW-17A (DIPS) SWL Depth (ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) 30.40 27.30 40 40 0.214 0.089 23.23 29.65 37 39 1.357 1.163 26.54 19.82 35 38 0.626 1.0 The RFI hydraulic conductivity data collected during the 1995 study by Roux correlated relatively well with the aforementioned data. Table 2: 1995 RFI Shallow Aquifer Conductivity Results Well Process Area MW-3A MW-4A MW-5A MW-6A MW-10 MW-21A MW-22R WWTU Area WT-5A WT-7A WT-13A TW-1 TW-2 TW-5 SWL Depth (ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) 29.25 27.96 26.29 23.17 17.65 26.23 29.27 35 37.5 33 30 29.5 41.5 40 0.39 0.23 0.80 0.11 24 0.21 0.47 Geo. Mean 0.57 23.57 22.71 24.43 29.14 23.25 22.85 43 33.8 34 45 42 30.4 14 4.5 0.11 0.01 0.11 0.99 Geo. Mean 0.44 This approach was also attempted in the deep aquifer zones (B horizon) however given the higher deliverability of these wells due in part to the much higher permeabilities, sufficient drawdown could not be established in these zones. The minimal drawdown established with the limited pumping rates offered by the small pumps was immediately recharged after the pumps were shut off. The historic RFI data was utilized to determine to estimate the hydraulic conductivities of the deeper aquifer zones. Table 3: 1995 RFI Deep Aquifer Conductivity Results Well Process Area MW-3B MW-4B MW-SB MW-6B MW-21B WWTU Area WT-3 WT-SB WT-7B SWL Depth (ft.) Well Depth (ft.) Hydraulic Conductivity (ft/day) 29.02 27.91 26.73 25.25 25.74 61.5 37.5 60 58 58 8.5 2.8 6.1 4.9 13 Geo. Mean 6.21 19.33 23.18 22.47 55 60 33.5 7.2 12 5.1 Geo. Mean 7.61 In the case of both the shallow and deep well horizons, the hydraulic conductivity results were utilized to estimate the potential discharge volume or flux to the adjacent Kanawha River. This was completed using Darcies equation (Q=kiA) where Q=discharge, k=formation hydraulic conductivity, i=hydraulic gradient, and A=cross sectional flow area of the aquifer along the river boundary. Flow estimates were provided for three distinct areas of the facility, these included the river boundary along the Process Area, Past Disposal Area, and the WWTU. The following data was utilized for this calculation in each of the study areas considered: Process Area (Well GW-4A) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient Saturated Thickness of Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity * 787.5 feet* 0.00615 ft/ft 11.15 feet 0.089 ft./day Apply half of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in Process Area is I 575 ft. Past Disposal Area (Well GW-9A) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient Saturated Thickness of Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity 300 feet** 0.00615 ft/ft 11.56 feet 1.357 ft/day Past Disposal Area (Well GW-1 JA) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient 300 feet** 0.00615 ft/ft Saturated Thickness of Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity ** Apply one third of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in Past Disposal Area is 900 fl. WWTU Area (TiVell GW-l 3A) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient Saturated Thickness of Shallow Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity *** 11.56 feet 1.163 ft/day 1050 feet*** 0.005 ft/ft 13.32 feet 0.626 ft/day Apply half of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in WWTU Area is 2100 fl. Using the aforementioned data, the resulting flux to the river from the shallow zone was estimated to be as follows: Process Area Total Flux (GW-4A) Past Disposal Area (GW-9A) Past Disposal Area (GW-lOA) Past Disposal Area (GW-1 lA) WWTU Area (GW-14A) 35.95 gal/day 216.5 gal/day 216.5 gal/day 185.6 gal/day 327.5 gal/day The 1995 hydraulic conductivity data was utilized to estimate the flux to the river from the deep aquifer zones. The aquifer data utilized for these calculations is as follows: Process Area (TiVell GW-4B) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient Saturated Thickness of Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity * Apply half of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in Process Area is 1575 fl. Past Disposal Area (TiVell GW-9B) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient Saturated Thickness of Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity ** 787.5 feet* 0.00615 ft/ft 31.19 feet 6.21 ft./day 300 feet** 0.00615 ft/ft 28.56 feet 6.21 ft/day Apply one third of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in Past Disposal Area is 900 fl. WWTU Area (TiVell GW-l 4B) Length of Riverbank Boundary Hydraulic Gradient 1050 feet*** 0.005 ft/ft Saturated Thickness of Deep Aquifer Hydraulic Conductivity *** 30.28 feet 7.61 ft/day Apply half of riverbank length to each well location (total length of riverbank in WWTU Area is 2100 ft. Using the aforementioned data, the resulting flux to the river from the deep zone was estimated to be as follows: Process Area Total Flux (GW-4A) Past Disposal Area (GW-9A) WWTU Area (GW-14A) 7,017 gal/day 2,447 gal/day 9,049 gal/day ATTACHMENT M.2 SOLUTIA GROUNDWATER LOADING CALCULATON 031884 (51) TCDD TEQ Flux (average soluble) to Kanawha River via the Groundwater Pathway in 2Q08 and 3Q08 Basis - 2008 Supplemental Data Collection- Two rounds of high volume TEQ sampling during 2Q08 and 3Q08 GW Flow Groundwater Zone / Site Area A-Shallow Zone Flux PA Flux PDA Flux(avg) WWTU AVG TEQ Conc AVG TEQ Flux COMMENTS gpd l/day pg/l 35.95 206.2 327.5 136.09 780.55 1239.72 0.067 0.153 0.654 9.16E+00 1.20E+02 8.11E+02 0.0000 0.0001 0.0008 7017 2447 9049 26562.23 9262.90 34254.19 0.008 0.037 0.195 3.42E+02 3.42E+02 6.68E+03 0.0003 0.0003 0.0067 19,083 72,236 pg/day ug/day B-Deep Zone Flux PA Flux PDA Flux WWTU Total 0.0083 16.5 0.05% AVG TCDD TEQ Flux to river in groundwater TMDL TCDD allocated load (ug/day) to contaminated GW @ 7Q10 Flow- June'98 TMDL, Pg 42 AVG TEQ flux as % of allocated TCDD load TCDD Flux Total - Groundwater plus surface water TOTAL 2.4454 0.0083 2.4537 ug/d-tcdd ( TCDD flux to from Surface Water) ug/d-tcdd (AverageTCDD flux - as TEQ- from GW) ug/day tcdd 14.9% Current total TCDD flux to river as % TCDD load allocation (ug/day) ("safe load level) @ 7Q10 Flow- June'98 TMDL, Pg 42 - 16.5 ug/day 0.07% Current load from GW plus SW as % of hypothesized TCDD load of 3324 ug/day at 7Q10 flow per TMDL Report 3.7854118 7.4805 24 60 60 8.64E+04 1.00E-06 2.45 Conversions Liters per gallon gal per CF hrs/day min/hr sec/min sec/day ug/pg Conversion factor X Conc (pg/l) X Flow Rate (cfs) = ug/day Basis - 2008 Supplemental Data Collection- Two rounds of high volume TEQ sampling during 2Q08 and 3Q08 A Aquifer TEQ Conc (pg/L) Wells PA PDA WTA GW-3 GW-4 GW-9 GW-10 GW-11 GW-12 GW-13 GW-14 GW-19 GW-18 GW-17 2Q08 3Q08 0.0028 0.0092 0.19 0.16 0.26 0.074 0.79 0.018 5.6 0.28 0.089 0.0012 0.13 0.22 0.075 0.062 0.023 0.27 0.064 0.0013 Average 0.067 0.153 0.654 B Aquifer TEQ Conc (pg/L) 2Q08 3Q08 0.0039 0.021 0.088 0.0097 0.016 0.88 1 0.18 0.025 0.0021 0.026 0.0046 0.0032 0.083 0.022 0.0029 0.063 0.039 0.071 0.016 0.0039 0.034 Average 0.008 0.037 0.195 ATTACHMENT M3 SOLUTIA POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE LOADING CALCULATION 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-TCDD Loading Rate Calculations - via Site Surface Water Basis Outlet 001 Avg. Daily Flow Assume MDL/2 or Actual Avg TCDD concentration in SW 137,000 gpd 518,601 Lpd TCDD Conc. 2.3 pg/l Loading Rate 1.19E+00 ug/d Oulet 002 Avg. Daily Flow 3,000 gpd 2006 avg 11,356 Lpd TCDD Conc. 18.5 pg/l-tcdd Loading Rate 2.10E-01 ug/d-tcdd Outlet 003 Avg. Daily Flow 15,000 gpd 56,781 Lpd TCDD Conc. 2.3 pg/l-tcdd Loading Rate 1.31E-01 ug/d-tcdd Sheet Flow - WTA Avg. Daily Flow 13,000 gpd 1/2 MDL for 2006 49,210 Lpd TCDD Conc. 18.5 pg/l-tcdd Loading Rate 9.12E-01 ug/d-tcdd 2.445 ug/d-tcdd TCDD Loading TOTALS Avg results - Dec-06 thru Apr-07 1/2 MDL for 2006 (Maximum flow to river from Surface Water) Conversions 3.7854118 7.4805 24 60 60 8.64E+04 2.45 Liters per gallon gal per CF hrs/day min/hr sec/min sec/day Conversion factor X Conc (pg/l) X Flow Rate (cfs) = ug/day APPENDIX N SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES BASED ON WEST VIRGINIA FISH ADVISORY CONSUMPTION GUIDE 031884 (51) APPENDIX N SUMMARY OF RISK ESTIMATES BASED ON WEST VIRGINIA FISH ADVISORY CONSUMPTION GUIDE KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX N This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. N-1 2.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT............................................................................................... N-2 3.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................. N-3 4.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................................... N-4 5.0 RISK QUANTIFICATION SUMMARY .......................................................................... N-7 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ N-8 7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... N-9 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE N.1 EXPOSURE FACTORS FROM WEST VIRGINIA SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE TABLE N.2 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - BASS TABLE N.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - CATFISH TABLE N.4 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - SAUGER TABLE N.5 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER - BASS TABLE N.6 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER - CATFISH TABLE N.7 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER – SAUGER 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS AND TERMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD AT ATSDR BW CDI CF C fish COPC CSF EE/CA EPCs FM g HHRA HQ LADD mg/kg MS ND ng/kg oz PDRF RfD U.S. EPA WV DHHR 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin averaging time Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry body weight chronic daily intake conversion factor chemical concentration in fish chemical of potential concern Cancer Slope Factor Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis exposure point concentrations number of fish meals per year gram Human Health Risk Assessment hazard quotient Lifetime Average Daily Dose milligrams per kilogram meal size non-detect nanograms per kilogram ounce preparation dose reduction factor reference dose United States Environmental Protection Agency West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 INTRODUCTION A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) has been requested based on fish consumption parameters included in the West Virginia Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Guide (WV DHHR, 2007). Fish advisory methodology including that used by West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (WV DHHR) was developed to provide simplified and uniform advice to local populations regarding recommended rates of consumption of locally caught fish. The methodology is based on a standardized meal size of approximately 8 ounces (oz) or 227 grams (g). Consumption rates are included in WV DHHR (2007) for five groups based on a different number of meals/year. Table N.1 presents the exposure factors included in WV DHHR (2007). Besides fish consumption rates, Table N.1 also includes other exposure factors needed to calculate potential risk estimates. In particular, WV DHHR (2007) includes preparation dose reduction factors (PDRF) to account for the loss of lipophilic substances from prepared fish meals due to skin removal and cooking loss. These are selected based on the analytical methodology used to collect fish tissue sample data. For example, if the samples were analyzed with the skin on, a PDRF of 0.5 is used to account for chemical of potential concern (COPC) loss with skin removal and cooking. If the samples were analyzed with skin off, a PDRF of 0.7 is used to account for COPC loss due to cooking. In addition, fish advisories are issued to provide guidance on consumption of specific fish species. For the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), fish tissue samples were collected for bass, catfish and sauger. To be consistent with WV DHHR (2007), risk estimates were developed for each species. Exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for bass, catfish, and sauger are presented in Tables N.2, N.3, and N.4, respectively. Since there were only three sauger composites and two of the analyses were non-detect (ND), the maximum detection limit of 1.15 nanograms per kilogram (ng/kg) was used because this value was higher than the single detection of 0.975 ng/kg. 031884 (51) N-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 2.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT As noted, five groups are included in the WV DHHR (2007) that reflect different intake rates. Intakes were calculated according to the following equation: CDI = Cfish × MS × FM × CF × PDRF BW × AT Where: CDI = Cfish MS FM CF BW AT PDRF = = = = = = = chronic daily intake (milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) body weight-day) chemical concentration in fish (mg/kg) meal size - (g/meal) number of fish meals/year (meals/yr) conversion factor (kg/g) body weight (kg) averaging time (days) preparation dose reduction factor (unitless) As noted previously, Table N.1 presents the exposure factors included in WV DHHR (2007). Tissue samples of bass and sauger were analyzed with the skin on. Therefore, the PDRF for these samples used in the fish advisory HHRA was 0.5. Catfish tissue samples were analyzed with the skin off, and therefore, the PDRF used to develop risk estimates with respect to consumption of catfish was 0.7. The following table summarizes intake rates for the five consumption groups presented in Table N.1. These intakes were obtained from WV DHHR (2007), and form the basis for evaluations presented in this appendix. Group 1 2 3 4 5 031884 (51) Meals per Year 225 52 24 12 6 N-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 3.0 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT As with the assessment included using United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) exposure factors, toxicity values for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibeno-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) were obtained from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (ATSDR, 1998) and Cal EPA Toxicity Criteria Database (CalEPA, 2008), consistent with U.S. EPA (2009). 031884 (51) N-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.0 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The objective of this risk characterization is to integrate information developed in the exposure and toxicity assessments. As noted previously, the potential for non-cancer health effects from exposure to a COPC is evaluated by comparing a calculated intake over a specified time period to a reference dose (RfD) for a similar time period. This ratio, termed a hazard quotient (HQ), is calculated according to the following general equation: HQ = CDI RfD where: HQ = The Hazard Quotient (unitless) is the ratio of the chronic daily intake of a chemical to a reference dose. A hazard quotient equal to or below 1.0 is considered protective of human health. CDI = The Chronic Daily Intake is the chemical dose or concentration calculated by applying the exposure scenario factors and expressed as mg/(kg-day). The intake represents the average daily chemical dose or concentration over the expected period of exposure. RfD = The Reference Dose is a daily dose believed not to cause an adverse effect from even a lifetime exposure [mg/(kg-day)]. Cancer risks are calculated utilizing the following general equation: Cancer Risk = LADD × CSF where: 031884 (51) Cancer Risk = Estimated upper bound on additional risk of cancer over a lifetime in an individual exposed to the carcinogen for a specified exposure period (unitless). LADD = The Lifetime Average Daily Dose of the chemical calculated using exposure scenario factors and expressed in mg/(kg-day) for oral and dermal exposure. The intake represents the total lifetime chemical dose or concentration averaged over an individual's expected lifetime of 70 years. CSF = The Cancer Slope Factor models the potential carcinogenic response and is expressed as [mg/(kg-day)]-1. N-4 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Cancer and noncancer risk estimates for bass are presented in Table N.5 and summarized below. Receptor Medium Route Recreational Angler Bass Ingestion Group Carcinogenic Risk Risk >10-4 NonCarcinogenic Hazard Quotient HQ >1.0 Table Reference 1 4.3E-04 Yes 3.3E+00 Yes Table N.5 2 9.9E-05 No 7.6E-01 No Table N.5 3 4.6E-05 No 3.5E-01 No Table N.5 4 2.3E-05 No 1.8E-01 No Table N.5 5 1.1E-05 No 8.7E-02 No Table N.5 Cancer and noncancer risk estimates for catfish are presented in Table N.6 and summarized below. 031884 (51) Receptor Medium Route Recreational Angler Catfish Ingestion Group Carcinogenic Risk Risk >10-4 NonCarcinogenic Hazard Quotient HQ >1.0 Table Reference 1 1.5E-03 Yes 1.2E+01 Yes Table N.6 2 3.5E-04 Yes 2.7E+00 Yes Table N.6 3 1.6E-04 Yes 1.2E+00 Yes Table N.6 4 8.1E-05 No 6.2E-01 No Table N.6 5 4.0E-05 No 3.1E-01 No Table N.6 N-5 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Cancer and noncancer risk estimates for sauger are presented in Table N.7 and summarized below. 031884 (51) Receptor Medium Route Recreational Angler Sauger Ingestion Group Carcinogenic Risk Risk >10-4 NonCarcinogenic Hazard Quotient HQ >1.0 Table Reference 1 1.5E-04 Yes 1.2E+00 Yes Table N.7 2 3.5E-05 No 2.7E-01 No Table N.7 3 1.6E-05 No 1.2E-01 No Table N.7 4 8.0E-06 No 6.1E-02 No Table N.7 5 4.0E-06 No 3.1E-02 No Table N.7 N-6 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 5.0 RISK QUANTIFICATION SUMMARY Group 1 (no restrictions) cancer risk levels and HQs for bass, catfish, and sauger exceeded WV DHHR (2007) risk targets for 1.0 x 10-4 for cancer risk and 1.0 for HQ. The fish advisory intake rate for Group 1 is 225 meals/year each of 227 g for an average daily intake of 140 g/day. Estimates for all other groups, i.e., Groups 2 through 5 were below WV DHHR risk targets for both bass and sauger. The fish advisory intake rate for Group 2 is one meal/week or 52 meals/year each of 227 g for an average daily intake of 32 g/day. For catfish, estimates for Groups 4 and 5 were below WV DHHR targets. The fish advisory intake rate for Group 4 is one meal/month or 12 meals/year each of 227 g for an average daily intake of 7.5 g/day. 031884 (51) N-7 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The HHRA indicates that consumption of 1 meal/week of bass or sauger and 1 meal/month of catfish are below risk targets presented in WV DHHR (2007). 031884 (51) N-8 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 7.0 REFERENCES ATSDR, 1998. Toxicological Profile for Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, February. CalEPA, 2008. Cal EPA Toxicity Criteria Database, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. December 17, 2008. http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/chemicaldb/index.asp U.S. EPA, 2009. U.S. EPA Region III: Risk-Based Concentration Table, April 2009. http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/Generic _Tables/index.htm. WV DHHR, 2007, West Virginia Sportfish Consumption Advisory Guide (2nd Edition). West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Revised December 2007. Available at: http://www.wvdhhr.org/fish/FishAdvisorySketch/guide-intro.asp. 031884 (51) N-9 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.1 EXPOSURE FACTORS FROM WEST VIRGINIA SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: Bass; Catfish, Sauger Receptor Population: Recreational Anglers Receptor Age: Adult Exposure Parameter Route Code Parameter Definition Units RME RME CT CT Intake Equation/ Value Rationale/ Value Rationale/ Model Name Reference Ingestion Cfish Chemical Concentration in Fish mg/kg (1) Reference (1) -- -- Chronic Daily Intake (CDI) (mg/kg-day) = Cfish x MS x FM x PDRF x CF x 1/BW x 1/AT MS Meal Size g/meal 227 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- FM Number of Fish Meals - Group 1 meals/yr 225 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- FM Number of Fish Meals - Group 2 meals/yr 52 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- FM Number of Fish Meals - Group 3 meals/yr 24 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- FM Number of Fish Meals - Group 4 meals/yr 12 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- FM Number of Fish Meals - Group 5 meals/yr 6 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- CF Conversion Factor kg/g 0.001 -- -- -- BW Body Weight kg 70 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- days 365 WVDHHR, 2007 -- -- AT Averaging Time PDRF-off Preparation Dose Reduction Factor - Bottom Dwellers (Skin Off) unitless 0.7 WVDHHR, 2007 (2) -- -- PDRF-on Preparation Dose Reduction Factor - Non-Bottom Dwellers (Skin On) unitless 0.5 WVDHHR, 2007 (3) -- -- Notes: (1) For concentration in Bass, refer to Table N.2. For concentration in Catfish, refer to Table N.3. For concentration in Sauger refer to Table N.4. (2) PDRF for Catfish. (3) PDRF for Bass and Sauger. Sources: WVDEP, 1997: West Virginia Voluntary Remediation and Redevelopment Act Guidance Manual Version 2.1. 1997. WVDHHR, 2007: West Virginia Sport Fish Consumption Advisory Guide 2nd Edition. Revised: December 12, 2007. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.2 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - BASS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: Bass Chemical Units of Arithmetic Statistic Maximum Maximum EPC Mean Rationale Detected Qualifier Units Potential Concentration Reasonable Maximum Exposure Medium Concern Medium Medium Central Tendency Medium Medium Medium EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale 3.29E+00 95% UCL-NP (1), (2) 2.40E+00 Average (1), (2) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD ng/kg 2.41E+00 (1) 1.26E+01 ng/kg Notes: Data set evaluated using USEPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 US EPA ProUCL: User Guide EPA/600/R-07/038 February 2009; Software http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htm For data sets with multiple detection limits, ProUCL recommends use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-L); 95% UCL of Gamma distributed data (95% UCL-G); Non-parametric method used to Determine 95% UCL (95% UCL-NP). (1) ProUCL calculated or recommended value. (2) Statistic included in Exposure Factors submitted for regulatory review. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - CATFISH EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: Catfish Chemical Units of Arithmetic Statistic Maximum Maximum EPC Mean Rationale Detected Qualifier Units Potential Concentration Reasonable Maximum Exposure Medium Concern Medium Medium Central Tendency Medium Medium Medium EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale 8.32E+00 95% UCL-G (1), (2) 3.94E+00 Average (1), (2) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD ng/kg 3.94E+00 (1) 1.95E+01 ng/kg Notes: Data set evaluated using US EPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 US EPA ProUCL: User Guide EPA/600/R-07/038 February 2009; Software http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htm For data sets with multiple detection limits, ProUCL recommends use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-L); 95% UCL of Gamma distributed data (95% UCL-G); Non-parametric method used to Determine 95% UCL (95% UCL-NP). (1) ProUCL calculated or recommended value. (2) Statistic included in Exposure Factors submitted for regulatory review. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.4 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION (EPC) SUMMARY FOR CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN IN FISH - SAUGER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Medium: Fish Exposure Medium: Sauger Chemical Units of Arithmetic Statistic Maximum Maximum EPC Mean Rationale Detected Qualifier Units Potential Concentration Reasonable Maximum Exposure Medium Concern Medium Medium Central Tendency Medium Medium Medium EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC EPC Value Statistic Rationale Value Statistic Rationale 1.15E+00 (2) (1), (3) 1.15E+00 Average (1), (3) Dioxins 2,3,7,8-TCDD ng/kg 1.15E+00 (1) 9.75E-01 ng/kg Notes: Data set evaluated using US EPA's ProUCL 4.00.04 US EPA ProUCL: User Guide EPA/600/R-07/038 February 2009; Software http://www.epa.gov/esd/tsc/TSC_form.htm For data sets with multiple detection limits, ProUCL recommends use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistics: Maximum Detected Value (Max); 95% UCL of Normal Data (95% UCL-N); 95% UCL of Log-transformed Data (95% UCL-L); 95% UCL of Gamma distributed data (95% UCL-G); Non-parametric method used to Determine 95% UCL (95% UCL-NP). (1) There were only three samples, which is too few for development of EPCs by ProUCL. EPC repesents highest detection limit, which exceeded the single dection of 0.975 ng/kg. (2) EPC repesents highest detection limit. (3) Statistic included in Exposure Factors submitted for regulatory review. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.5 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER - BASS REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Angler Receptor Age: Adult Medium Fish Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Bass CRA 031884 (51) Kanawha River Ingestion Chemical of Potential Concern 2,3,7,8-TCDD EPC Value 3.29E+00 Group Units ng/kg Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration 1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Value Units Value Units 3.29E-09 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 -1 Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 4.27E-04 3.29E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 3.29E+00 2 7.60E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d) 9.88E-05 7.60E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 7.60E-01 3 3.51E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 4.56E-05 3.51E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 3.51E-01 (mg/kg-d) -1 2.28E-05 1.75E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.75E-01 (mg/kg-d) -1 1.14E-05 8.77E-11 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 8.77E-02 4 1.75E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 5 8.77E-11 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.6 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER - CATFISH REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Angler Receptor Age: Adult Medium Fish Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Catfish CRA 031884 (51) Kanawha River Ingestion Chemical of Potential Concern 2,3,7,8-TCDD EPC Value 8.32E+00 Group Units ng/kg Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration 1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Value Units Value Units 1.16E-08 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 -1 Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 1.51E-03 1.16E-08 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.16E+01 2 2.69E-09 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d) 3.50E-04 2.69E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 2.69E+00 3 1.24E-09 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 1.61E-04 1.24E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.24E+00 (mg/kg-d) -1 8.07E-05 6.21E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 6.21E-01 (mg/kg-d) -1 4.04E-05 3.10E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 3.10E-01 4 6.21E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 5 3.10E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 Page 1 of 1 TABLE N.7 CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL CANCER RISK AND NON-CANCER HAZARD QUOTIENT BASED ON SPORT FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY GUIDE FOR CURRENT/FUTURE RECREATIONAL ANGLER - SAUGER REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURE EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future Receptor Population: Recreational Angler Receptor Age: Adult Medium Fish Exposure Exposure Exposure Medium Point Route Sauger CRA 031884 (51) Kanawha River Ingestion Chemical of Potential Concern 2,3,7,8-TCDD EPC Value 1.15E+00 Group Units ng/kg Cancer Risk Calculations Intake/Exposure Concentration 1 Non-Cancer Hazard Calculations CSF/Unit Risk Cancer Risk Value Units Value Units 1.15E-09 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 -1 Intake/Exposure Concentration RfD/RfC Hazard Value Units Value Units Quotient 1.49E-04 1.15E-09 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.15E+00 2 2.66E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d) 3.45E-05 2.66E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 2.66E-01 3 1.23E-10 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 (mg/kg-d)-1 1.59E-05 1.23E-10 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 1.23E-01 (mg/kg-d) -1 7.97E-06 6.13E-11 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 6.13E-02 (mg/kg-d) -1 3.98E-06 3.07E-11 mg/kg-d 1.00E-09 mg/kg-d 3.07E-02 4 6.13E-11 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 5 3.07E-11 mg/kg-d 1.30E+05 APPENDIX 0 REVIEW OF RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 031884 (51) DIVISION OF NATURAL RESOURCES Wildlife Resources Section Operations Center Joe Manchln Ill Governor P.O. Box67 Elkins, West Virginia 26241-3235 Telephone (304) 637-0245 Fax (304) 637-0250 Frank Jezioro Director January 23, 2009 Ms. Amy MacCausland Conestoga-Rovers & Associates 410 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 110 Exton, PA 19341 Dear Ms. MacCausland: We have reviewed our files for information on rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) species and sensitive habitats for the area of Monsanto Company's Kanawha River site in Kanawha and Putnam counties, WV. We have several records for rare species along the Kanawha River in this area, which includes an area known as Winfield Swamp. In addition to the rare species, the backwater areas associated with tributaries of the Kanawha River are important breeding and feeding areas for a variety of wildlife. The following plant communities and rare species occur along the Kanawha River from the Coal River to the Winfield Locks and Dam: Decodon verticillatus semi-permanently flooded shrubland - Water willow shrub swamp Quercus palustris-Quercus bico/or-(Liquidambar styraciflua) mixed hardwood forest Pin oak mixed hardwood forest Carex typhina - CaHail sedge Phoxinus erythrogaster- Southern redbeily dace Potamogeton pulchra - spotted pondweed Pycnanthemum muticum - Blunt mountain-mint Sida hermaphrodita - Virginia mallow Triadenum tubulosum - Large marsh St. John's-wort Wolffia columbiana - Columbia water-meal Zapus hudsonius - Meadow jumping mouse This response is based on information currently available and should not be considered a comprehensive.survey of the area under review. The information provided above is the product of a database search and retrieval. This information does not satisfy other consultation or permitting requirements for disturbances to the natural resources of the state. If your project will directly impact the waters of the state or cause a a "take" of fish and/or wildlife, consultation may be required. Requests for WV wildlife agency consultation should be directed to Mr. Roger Anderson at the address given in the letterhead or by email at rogeranderson@wvdnr.gov. Database requests for information on RTE species and sensitive habitats should still be directed to me. Thank you for your inquiry, and should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the above number, extension 2048. Enclosed please find an invoice. Si1/r~ly, .; )l&L UL ~ ~+- ,J\1{ Barbara Sargent Environmental Resources Specialist Wildlife Diversity Program enclosure S:\Monthly\Barb\lnvoices\CRA.doc Polan, Heather Sargent, Barbara D [Barbara.D.Sargent@wv.gov] Thursday, November 29, 2012 11:34 AM Polan, Heather RE: Information Request (31884) From: Sent: To: Subject: Heather— I reviewed the current map for the Monsanto Company’s EE/CA study area on a 14-mile portion of the Kanawha River in the Nitro area. This project was previously reviewed in January 2009. There is no new information on rare, threatened and endangered species for this area, and my 2009 letter remains accurate. Please let me know if you require more information. Barbara Barbara Sargent WVDNR – Wildlife Resources Section Wildlife Diversity Unit PO Box 67 – Ward Road Elkins, WV 26241 304/637-0245 (voice) 304/637-0250 (fax) www.wvdnr.gov “There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot.” --Aldo --Aldo Leopold From: Polan, Heather [mailto:hpolan@craworld.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:04 AM To: Sargent, Barbara D Cc: Project Email Hold; Lawlor, Laura Subject: Information Request (31884) Hi Barbara, As per our recent conversation, please find the attached information request for rare, threatened and endangered species. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thank you, Heather _______________________________ Heather Polan, BES. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates (CRA) 651 Colby Drive Waterloo, Ontario N2V 1C2 Phone: 519.884.0510 Fax: 519.884.5256 1 Cell: 519.571.7699 Email: hpolan@craworld.com www.CRAworld.com Think before you print Perform every task the safe way, the right way, every time! This communication and any accompanying document(s) are confidential and are intended for the sole use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me at the telephone number shown above or by return email and delete this e-mail and any copies. You are advised that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance upon the communication without consent is strictly prohibited. Thank you. 2 APPENDIX SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ANALYTICAL DATA TABLES 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.1 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- SURFACE WATER KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA 2,3,7,8 TCDD Sample Date Results (pg/sample) Sample Volume 2,3,7,8-TCDD Filtered Results (pg/L) Notes RM Sample ID RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-003A 10/19/2004 5.96 J 1000 0.00596 RM 31 SW-31884-DL-4/14/05-004A 4/14/2005 14 1000 0.01400 Dissolved RM 31 SW-31884-DL-4/14/05-004B 4/14/2005 48.9 1000 0.04890 Particulate Dissolved RM 31 SW-31884-DL-10/19/04-003B 10/19/2004 46.3 1000 0.04630 Particulate RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-004A 10/14/2004 10.9 1000 0.01090 Dissolved RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-004A 4/15/2005 10.3 997 0.01033 Dissolved RM 33 SW-31884-DL-4/15/05-004B 4/15/2005 33.5 997 0.03360 Particulate Particulate RM 33 SW-31884-DL-10/14/04-004B 10/14/2004 15.6 1000 0.01560 RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-004A 10/13/2004 5.33 J 756 0.00705 Dissolved RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-004B 10/13/2004 3.78 J 756 0.00500 Particulate RM 42 SW-31884-DL-10/13/04-005A 10/13/2004 5.36 J 756 0.00709 Dissolved, Duplicate RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-005A 4/16/2005 9.67 J 1003 0.00964 Dissolved RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-005B 4/16/2005 7.98 J 1003 0.00796 Particulate RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-006A 4/16/2005 9.69 J 1003 0.00966 Dissolved, Duplicate RM 42 SW-31884-DL-4/16/05-006B 4/16/2005 119 1003 0.11864 Particulate, Duplicate RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-001A 10/12/2004 0.874 J 1000 0.00087 Dissolved RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-004A 4/13/2005 ND (2.20) 994 0.00111 Dissolved RM 46 SW-31884-DL-4/13/05-004B 4/13/2005 8.48 J 994 0.00853 Particulate RM 46 SW-31884-DL-10/12/04-001B 10/12/2004 ND (1.27) U 1000 0.00064 Particulate RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-004A 10/18/2004 1.12 J 1000 0.00112 Dissolved RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-004A 4/12/2005 ND (1.90) 1008 0.00094 Dissolved RM 68 SW-31884-DL-4/12/05-004B 4/12/2005 6.40 J 1008 0.00635 Particulate RM 68 SW-31884-DL-10/18/04-004B 10/18/2004 ND (0.753) U 1000 0.00038 Particulate Notes: pg/L - picograms per liter ND - Not detected at or above the associated value J - Estimated concentration CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.2 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- SURFACE SEDIMENT EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Location Sample ID Sample Date Study Area Sample Depth (inches) 2,3,7,8 TCDD Results (pg/g) Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Percent Solids (%) COR-43 SE-031884-112807-DD-006 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 0-3 ND (0.82) 9100 69.7 SSD-26 SE-031884-112807-DD-004 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 0 - 3.5 2.9 25600 58.8 SSD-26 SE-031884-112807-DD-005 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 0 - 3.5 1.4 21800 60.7 SSD-27 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 0-2 ND (0.87) 24700 54.1 SSD-28 SE-031884-112807-DD-002 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 ND (0.79) 29500 55.4 SE-031884-112807-DD-001 11/28/2007 Study Area 1 0-2 ND (0.62) 21000 72.2 RM 68 10/30/2004 Study Area 1 surface grab ND (0.36) --- --- Composite Sample (KD-021 to KD025) RM 68 SD-31884-10302004-KD-204 SD-31884-10302004-KD-205 10/30/2004 Study Area 1 surface grab ND (0.31) --- --- Composite Sample (KD-026 to KD030) COR-33 SE-031884-112907-DD-019 11/29/2007 Study Area 2 0-3 15 24200 47.4 COR-34 SE-031884-112907-DD-018 11/29/2007 Study Area 2 0-4 21 10800 33.1 COR-35 SE-031884-112907-DD-017 11/29/2007 Study Area 2 0-1 55 27300 58.9 COR-36 SE-031884-112907-DD-016 11/29/2007 Study Area 2 0-4 5.6 31900 60.5 COR-37 SE-031884-112807-DD-015 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0-3 3.1 101000 73.1 COR-38 SE-031884-112807-DD-012 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0-3 250 14200 60.4 COR-39 SE-031884-112807-DD-011 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0-3 3400 J 16000 65.5 COR-40 SE-031884-112807-DD-010 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 surface grab 59 27000 59 COR-41 SE-031884-112807-DD-009 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0 - 2.5 ND (0.6) 2400 78.4 COR-42 SE-031884-112807-DD-007 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0 - 3.5 ND (1.7)U 28000 58.4 SSD-23 SE-031884-112807-DD-014 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0-1 74 31500 43.4 SSD-24 SE-031884-112807-DD-013 11/28/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 ND (1.7)U 3100 69 0-4 ND (0.98) 27500 46.8 MS/MSD SSD-25 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 11/28/2007 RM 42 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 10/28/2004 Study Area 2 surface grab 71 --- --- Composite Sample (KD-011 to KD015) RM 42 10/29/2004 Study Area 2 surface grab 24 --- --- Composite Sample (KD-016 to KD020) COR-24 SE-031884-113007-DD-037 11/30/2007 Study Area 3 0-4 4.3 3300 71 COR-25 SE-031884-112907-DD-031 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-3 1.1 10800 63.2 COR-25 SE-031884-112907-DD-032 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-3 2 9900 60.6 COR-26 SE-031884-112907-DD-030 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0 - 3.5 2.6 2100 74.2 COR-27 SE-031884-112907-DD-028 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-3 13 3800 COR-28 SE-031884-112907-DD-027 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-1 8.8 14400 66.3 COR-29 SE-031884-112907-DD-025 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-3 1.3 9700 80.5 COR-30 SE-031884-112907-DD-024 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0 - 1.5 13 13900 64.8 COR-31 SE-031884-112907-DD-023 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-4 3.9 7600 69.7 COR-32 SE-031884-112907-DD-021 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-4 12 23900 62.2 SSD-15 SE-031884-113007-DD-036 11/30/2007 Study Area 3 0-2 12 16500 60.3 SSD-16 SE-031884-113007-DD-035 11/30/2007 Study Area 3 0-4 5.5 31100 55.9 SSD-17 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 11/30/2007 Study Area 3 0-3 35 22000 55.1 SSD-19 SE-031884-112907-DD-029 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-1 1.8 1300 79 SSD-21 SE-031884-112907-DD-022 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-1 10 8250 66.2 SSD-22 SE-031884-112907-DD-020 11/29/2007 Study Area 3 0-4 15 12900 72.7 SE-031884-120207-DD-071 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-6 14 30600 42.4 COR-02 SE-031884-120207-DD-070 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-3 48 16000 78.8 COR-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 10 33400 65.6 COR-04 SE-031884-120107-DD-067 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 7.3 40000 64 COR-05 SE-031884-120107-DD-065 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 20 2300 75.8 COR-05 SE-031884-120107-DD-066 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 5.7 2300 78 COR-06 SE-031884-120107-DD-062 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 3.1 1400 74.5 COR-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-5 48 31800 56.1 COR-08 SE-031884-120107-DD-061 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-5 4.1 31100 44.8 COR-09 SE-031884-120107-DD-059 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 14 39100 55.4 COR-10 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 ND (3.8) U 7000 COR-11 SE-031884-120107-DD-057 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-5 10 32000 55 COR-12 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-5 23 30400 55.1 COR-13 SE-031884-120107-DD-055 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 10 12700 71.2 COR-14 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 12 26500 48 COR-15 SE-031884-120107-DD-053 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-6 ND (6.9) U 30300 47.1 COR-16 SE-031884-120107-DD-052 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 ND (5.2) U 27900 62.1 COR-17 SE-031884-120107-DD-051 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-3 ND (2.8 U) 4100 81.4 COR-18 SE-031884-120107-DD-049 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 ND (7.2) U 19700 56.5 COR-19 SE-031884-113007-DD-044 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 12 29900 61.2 COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 9 33500 45.7 COR-20 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 9.4 31400 44.5 COR-21 SE-031884-113007-DD-041 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 23 32800 48.6 COR-22 SE-031884-113007-DD-040 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 56 19100 63 COR-23 SE-031884-113007-DD-039 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0 - 2.5 66 15900 56.1 SSD-01 SE-031884-120207-DD-075 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 2.6 2100 71.6 SSD-02 SE-031884-120207-DD-074 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-3 6.5 32100 52.7 SSD-03 SE-031884-120207-DD-073 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 4.6 24700 SSD-04 SE-031884-120207-DD-072 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 4.1 23700 62.6 SSD-05 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 12/2/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 24 59300 51.2 SSD-06 SE-031884-120107-DD-064 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-6 38 30300 40.3 SSD-07 SE-031884-120107-DD-060 0-3 17 SSD-09 SE-031884-120107-DD-050 12/1/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 ND (25) U 20000 49.3 SSD-10 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-4 3.8 22600 59.4 SSD-12 SE-031884-113007-DD-046 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-3 15 27500 62.1 SE-031884-113007-DD-045 12/1/2007 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 Study Area 4 0-4 4600 38 33200 49.7 SE-031884-113007-DD-038 11/30/2007 Study Area 4 0-3 23 10400 65.3 10/28/2004 Study Area 4 surface grab 15 --- --- RM 33 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 10/28/2004 Study Area 4 surface grab 280 --- --- pg/g - picograms per gram mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram ND - Non-detect J - Estimated concentration U - Analyte was analyzed for but not detected above the reporting limit. Duplicate MS/MSD 77.2 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 -- Parameter not analyzed MS/MSD 55.4 RM 33 Results for sample locations SSD-11, SSD-18, and SSD-20 were excluded from the screening as they were not collected from the main stem of the River. Duplicate 78.8 SSD-14 Notes: Duplicate 72.8 COR-01 SSD-13 CRA 031884 (51) Duplicate SSD-29 Study Area 2 0-2 Notes Composite Sample (KD-001 to KD005) Composite Sample (KD-006 to KD010) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.3 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- PCBs IN SEDIMENT EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Location Name Sample ID Sample Date Sample Depth (inches) Location COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 12/13/2007 24-48 Study Area 4 COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 12/10/2007 24-49 Study Area 4 COR-28 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 12/8/2007 0-24 Study Area 3 COR-33 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 12/6/2007 0-21 Study Area 2 COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 12/5/2007 24-48 Study Area 2 COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 12/5/2007 48-72 Study Area 2 COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 12/4/2007 0-17 Study Area 2 COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 12/4/2007 17-33.5 Study Area 2 Units PCBs Aroclor-1016 (PCB-1016) Aroclor-1221 (PCB-1221) Aroclor-1232 (PCB-1232) Aroclor-1242 (PCB-1242) Aroclor-1248 (PCB-1248) Aroclor-1254 (PCB-1254) Aroclor-1260 (PCB-1260) total (including half DL) ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ND(54) ND(54) ND(54) ND(54) 89 ND(54) 67 291 ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) 39 J ND(56) ND(56) 207 ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) ND(44) 154 ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) ND(48) 31 J ND(48) 175 ND(55) ND(55) ND(55) 46 J ND(55) 39 J ND(55) 222.5 ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) ND(56) 530 ND(56) ND(56) 698 ND(3400) ND(3400) ND(3400) ND(3400) 3000 J ND(3400) ND(3400) 13200 ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) ND(5400) 75000 ND(5400) 14000 102500 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Organic Carbon (TOC) Total Solids % ug/kg % -72200000 Q 60.6 Dup 60.6 -102000000 Q 59.2 Dup 59.2 -5400000 74.2 Dup 74.2 -27900000 68.8 Dup 68.8 -69500000 Q 60.4 Dup 60.4 -80200000 Q 58.5 Dup 58.5 -83900000 Q 49.2 Dup 49.2 -79200000 Q 61.4 Dup 49.2 Notes: ND - Not detected at or above the associated value J - Estimated concentration ug/kg - micrograms per kilogram Q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.4 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- SUBSURFACE SEDIMENT EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Station ID Sample ID Sample Date Study Area Sample Interval (ft) COR-41 SE-031884-120407-DD-081 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 0-1 COR-25 SE-031884-120807-DD-178 12/8/2007 Study Area 3 0-1.17 ND (1.6) U ND (0.45) Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Percent Solids (%) 17900 74.6 14400 68.9 99.8, 100, 100 COR-16 SE-031884-022308-DD-407A/B/C 2/23/2008 Study Area 4 0-1.33 0.76J, 0.76J, 0.77J 20,800, 23,100, 49,500 Q COR-42 SE-031884-120908-SG-001 12/3/2007 Study Area 2 0-1.38 ND(1.1)U 14000 COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 0-1.42 22000 J 83900 Q 49.2 COR-42 SE-031884-120908-SG-002 12/9/2007 Study Area 2 0-1.438 1.8 16000 68.6 99.2, 99.6, 99.7 COR-15 SE-031884-022308-DD-406A/B/C 2/23/2008 Study Area 4 0-1.58 13, 4.2, 4.9 COR-33 COR-12 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 12/6/2007 Study Area 2 190 27900 68.8 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 12/15/2007 Study Area 4 0-1.75 0-1.83 2 10800 69.2 COR-43 SE-031884-120307-DD-077 12/3/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 ND (0.22) 4480 COR-38 SE-031884-120407-DD-085 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 8.7 8100 73.5 COR-40 SE-031884-120407-DD-079 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 10 68700 Q 62.4 COR-40 SE-031884-120908-SG-003 12/9/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 49 42000 67.0 COR-35 SE-031884-120507-DD-086 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 3.6 31400 67.2 COR-35 SE-031884-120507-DD-087 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 3 30900 COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-123 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 27 42700 65.3 COR-36 SE-031884-121008-SG-007 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 0-2 150 43000 64.5 COR-30 SE-031884-120707-DD-175 12/7/2007 Study Area 3 0-2 ND (0.36) 1800 78.1 COR-28 COR-18 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 12/8/2007 Study Area 3 ND (0.4) 5400 74.2 SE-031884-121107-DD-221 12/11/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 0-2 5700 76.4 COR-20 SE-031884-121107-DD-218 66.5 12/10/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 30600 56.2 COR-21 SE-031884-121007-DD-213 12/10/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 2700 J 63800 Q 58.2 COR-21 SE-031884-121007-DD-214 12/10/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 65000 Q 55.2 COR-22 SE-031884-121007-DD-180 12/10/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 2300 J 3000 J 110000 Q 58.8 COR-04 SE-031884-121207-DD-269 12/12/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 13 34700 67.4 COR-03 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 12/13/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 8.3 27300 64.4 COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-279 12/13/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 9.3 24700 65.2 COR-07 SE-031884-121407-DD-282 12/14/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 70.8 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 12/15/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 ND (0.31) 8.6 8000 COR-09 36700 63.9 COR-11 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 12/15/2007 Study Area 4 0-2 150 31700 59.6 COR-23 SE-031884-120807-DD-179 12/8/2007 Study Area 4 0-2.25 ND (0.52) 28600 64.9 COR-42 SE-031884-120307-DD-078 12/3/2007 Study Area 2 0-2.42 ND (0.26) 17500 69.4 COR-39 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 1.4-2.79 33000 J 79200 Q 49.2 COR-41 SE-031884-120407-DD-082 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 1-2.08 ND (0.49) COR-30 COR-20 SE-031884-120707-DD-174 12/7/2007 Study Area 3 4900 80.3 12/11/2007 Study Area 4 2-2.5 2-2.63 2.1 SE-031884-121107-DD-219 52 32900 60.9 COR-09 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 12/15/2007 Study Area 4 2-2.83 ND (0.55) 42900 65.9 COR-07 SE-031884-121407-DD-283 12/14/2007 Study Area 4 2-3 ND (0.27) 7400 73.6 COR-40 COR-22 SE-031884-120407-DD-080 12/4/2007 Study Area 2 84300 Q 67.1 12/10/2007 Study Area 4 2-3.3 2-4.1 8.1 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 1100 J 102000 Q 59.2 COR-40 SE-031884-120908-SG-004 12/9/2007 Study Area 2 2-4 ND(0.74)U 38000 67.3 COR-35 SE-031884-120507-DD-088 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 2-4 ND (0.34) 12600 70.1 COR-36 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 2-4 3300 J 69500 Q 60.4 COR-36 SE-031884-121008-SG-008 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 2-4 2300 J 78000 COR-36 COR-21 SE-031884-121008-SG-009 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 Study Area 4 1600 J 88 63.4 12/10/2007 2-4 2-4 70000 SE-031884-121007-DD-215 55600 Q 64.6 COR-04 SE-031884-121207-DD-270 12/12/2007 Study Area 4 2-4 9.8 43100 58.8 COR-03 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 12/13/2007 Study Area 4 2-4 11 40500 57 COR-08 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 12/13/2007 Study Area 4 2-4 1400 J 72200 Q 60.6 COR-35 SE-031884-120507-DD-089 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 4-4.5 ND (0.38) 20800 69.3 SE-031884-120908-SG-005 12/9/2007 Study Area 2 4-5.5 ND(0.30) 26000 73.1 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 12/5/2007 Study Area 2 4-6 18000 J 80200 Q 58.5 COR-36 COR-21 SE-031884-121008-SG-010 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 Study Area 4 25000 J 1.8 61.0 12/10/2007 4-6 4-6.5 82000 SE-031884-121007-DD-216 40900 64.3 COR-04 SE-031884-121207-DD-271 12/12/2007 Study Area 4 4-6 8.6 50400 Q 63.1 COR-03 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 12/13/2007 Study Area 4 4-6.8 19 45900 59.8 COR-36 SE-031884-121008-SG-011 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 6-8 3800 J 43000 69.6 COR-36 SE-031884-121008-SG-012 12/10/2007 Study Area 2 8-9 210 27000 73.1 Q - Elevated reporting limit. The reporting limit is elevated due to high analyte levels. ND - Not detected at or above the associated value J - Estimated concentration Duplicate 63.9 COR-36 mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram Duplicate 75.2 COR-40 pg/g - picograms per gram Duplicate 76.8 ND (0.47) U 14 9400 Notes 68.4 33,600 Q, 10,600, 14,600 Notes: CRA 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8 TCDD (pg/g) Duplicate Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.5 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- GIZZARD SHAD EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample ID Sample Date Location 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg) Lipids (%) Lipid normalized concentration TISS-031884-101404-DK-013 10/14/2004 RM 33 4.50 2.39 1.88 TISS-031884-101404-DK-014 10/14/2004 RM 33 3.69 2.07 1.78 TISS-031884-101404-DK-015 10/14/2004 RM 33 7.53 2.61 2.89 TISS-031884-101404-DK-016 10/14/2004 RM 33 3.40 1.97 1.73 TISS-031884-101404-DK-017 10/14/2004 RM 33 3.35 2.63 1.27 TISS-031884-101404-DK-019 10/14/2004 RM 33 5.72 2.56 2.23 TISS-031884-101404-DK-020 10/14/2004 RM 33 5.99 2.54 2.36 TISS031884-121708-DFK-016 12/17/2008 RM 33 15.8 7.39 2.14 TISS031884-121708-DFK-017 12/17/2008 RM 33 7.07 6.9 1.02 TISS031884-121708-DFK-018 12/17/2008 RM 33 13.7 8.15 1.68 TISS031884-121708-DFK-019 12/17/2008 RM 33 16.1 6.35 2.54 TISS031884-121708-DFK-020 12/17/2008 RM 33 16.1 6.76 2.38 TISS-031884-101304-DK-003 10/13/2004 RM 42 1.50 1.8 0.83 TISS-031884-101304-DK-004 10/13/2004 RM 42 6.70 2.15 3.12 TISS-031884-101304-DK-005 10/13/2004 RM 42 0.877 J 2.14 0.41 TISS-031884-101304-DK-006 10/13/2004 RM 42 1.59 1.94 0.82 TISS-031884-101304-DK-007 10/13/2004 RM 42 5.98 2.49 2.40 TISS031884-121608-DFK-003 12/16/2008 RM 42 9.05 6.31 1.43 TISS031884-121608-DFK-004 12/16/2008 RM 42 7.1 6.13 1.16 TISS031884-121608-DFK-005 12/16/2008 RM 42 4.22 6.05 0.70 TISS031884-121608-DFK-006 12/16/2008 RM 42 5.2 6.45 0.81 TISS031884-121608-DFK-007 12/16/2008 RM 42 7.93 5.32 1.49 TISS-031884-101604-DK-036 10/16/2004 RM 68 1.44 3.73 0.39 TISS-031884-101804-DK-037 10/18/2004 RM 68 2.10 3.19 0.66 TISS-031884-102104-DK-038 10/21/2004 RM 68 0.511 J 3.13 0.16 TISS-031884-102104-DK-039 10/21/2004 RM 68 0.222 J 4.56 0.05 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-051 11/17/2004 RM 68 0.936 J 4.6 0.20 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-052 11/17/2004 RM 68 0.307 J 5.02 0.06 TISS031884-121808-DFK-031 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (1.22) U 10.9 0.06 TISS031884-121808-DFK-032 12/18/2008 RM 68 0.191 J 9.65 0.02 TISS031884-122208-DFK-033 12/22/2008 RM 68 0.185 J 9.48 0.02 TISS031884-122208-DFK-034 12/22/2008 RM 68 0.387 J 7.22 0.05 TISS031884-122208-DFK-035 12/22/2008 RM 68 0.195 J 10.5 0.02 Notes: J - Concentration less than LMCL ND - Not detected at or above the associated value CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.6 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- BASS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample ID Sample Date Location 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg) Lipids (%) Lipid normalized concentration TISS-031884-101404-DK-023 10/14/2004 RM 33 4.46 0.52 8.58 TISS-031884-101404-DK-024 10/14/2004 RM 33 2.83 0.51 5.55 TISS-031884-101404-DK-025 10/14/2004 RM 33 2.72 0.5 5.44 TISS-031884-101504-DK-026 10/15/2004 RM 33 1.37 0.76 1.80 TISS-031884-101504-DK-027 10/15/2004 RM 33 1.74 0.45 3.87 TISS031884-121708-DFK-021 12/17/2008 RM 33 1.44 0.34 4.24 TISS031884-121708-DFK-022 12/17/2008 RM 33 2.14 0.31 6.90 TISS031884-121708-DFK-023 12/17/2008 RM 33 1.7 0.29 5.86 TISS031884-121708-DFK-024 12/17/2008 RM 33 1.22 0.26 4.69 TISS031884-121708-DFK-025 12/17/2008 RM 33 1.28 0.3 4.27 TISS-031884-101204-DK 001 10/12/2004 RM 42 3.58 0.28 12.79 TISS-031884-101304-DK-011 10/13/2004 RM 42 4.02 0.39 10.31 TISS-031884-101304-DK-012 10/13/2004 RM 42 3.52 0.42 8.38 TISS-031884-101504-DK-033 10/15/2004 RM 42 1.79 0.53 3.38 TISS-031884-101504-DK-034 10/15/2004 RM 42 2.04 0.48 4.25 TISS031884-121708-DFK-001 12/17/2008 RM 42 1.71 0.4 4.28 TISS031884-121708-DFK-002 12/17/2008 RM 42 5.68 0.54 10.52 TISS031884-121708-DFK-008 12/17/2008 RM 42 4.77 0.67 7.12 TISS031884-121708-DFK-009 12/17/2008 RM 42 7.17 0.49 14.63 TISS031884-121708-DFK-010 12/17/2008 RM 42 12.6 0.78 16.15 TISS-031884-101604-DK-041 10/16/2004 RM 68 ND (0.221) U 0.38 0.29 TISS-031884-101604-DK-042 10/16/2004 RM 68 0.469 J 0.3 1.56 TISS-031884-101604-DK-043 10/16/2004 RM 68 ND (0.178) U 0.26 0.34 TISS-031884-101804-DK-044 10/18/2004 RM 68 0.365 J 0.65 0.56 TISS-031884-101804-DK-045 10/18/2004 RM 68 ND (0.077) U 0.31 0.12 TISS031884-121808-DFK-026 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (0.989) U 0.21 2.35 TISS031884-121808-DFK-027 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (1.13) U 0.21 2.69 TISS031884-121808-DFK-028 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (0.97) U 0.15 3.23 TISS031884-121808-DFK-029 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (1.13) U 0.12 4.71 TISS031884-121808-DFK-030 12/18/2008 RM 68 ND (1.14) U 0.81 0.70 Notes: J - Concentration less than LMCL ND - Not detected at or above the associated value CRA 031884 (51) Page 1 of 1 TABLE P.7 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY- CATFISH AND SAUGER EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample ID species Sample Date Location 2,3,7,8-TCDD (ng/kg) Lipids (%) lipid normalized concentration TISS-031884-101204-DK 002 catfish 10/12/2004 RM 33-45 19.5 3.05 6.39 TISS-031884-101304-DK-008 catfish 10/13/2004 RM 33-45 3.34 1.20 2.78 TISS-031884-101304-DK-009 catfish 10/13/2004 RM 33-45 1.33 2.26 0.59 TISS-031884-101304-DK-010 catfish 10/13/2004 RM 33-45 6.07 2.51 2.42 TISS-031884-101504-DK-035 catfish 10/15/2004 RM 33-45 4.02 0.77 5.22 TISS031884-121708-DFK-011 catfish 12/17/2008 RM 33-45 8.58 1.08 7.94 TISS031884-121708-DFK-012 catfish 12/17/2008 RM 33-45 2.09 0.94 2.22 TISS031884-121708-DFK-013 catfish and sauger 12/17/2008 RM 33-45 36.2 1.18 30.68 TISS031884-121708-DFK-014 catfish and sauger 12/17/2008 RM 33-45 2.53 1.07 2.36 TISS031884-121708-DFK-015 sauger 12/17/2008 RM 33-45 0.975 1.31 0.74 TISS-031884-102104-DK-046 catfish 10/21/2004 RM 75-95 0.635 2.13 0.30 TISS-031884-102104-DK-047 catfish 10/21/2004 RM 75-95 0.251 J 4.85 0.05 TISS-031884-111704-DFK-050 catfish 11/17/2004 RM 75-95 0.300 J 2.91 0.10 TISS031884-121808-DFK-036 sauger 12/18/2008 RM 75-95 ND (1.15) U 0.49 1.17 TISS031884-121808-DFK-037 sauger 12/18/2008 RM 75-95 ND (1.11) U 0.39 1.42 TISS-031884-102204-DK-048 catfish 10/22/2004 RM 95 0.736 J 2.24 0.33 TISS-031884-102204-DK-049 catfish 10/22/2004 RM 95 0.462 J 2.20 0.21 Notes: ND - Not detected at or above the associated value CRA 031884 (51) APPENDIX SURFACE WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 031884 (51) APPENDIX Q SURFACE WEIGHTED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY KANAWHA RIVER NITRO, WEST VIRGINIA FEBRUARY 2015 REF. NO. 031884 (51) – APPENDIX Q This report is printed on recycled paper. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 GENERAL APPROACH...................................................................................................... Q-1 2.0 SWAC CALCULATION METHOD ................................................................................... Q-1 3.0 INPUT DATA....................................................................................................................... Q-2 4.0 SWAC CALCULATION RESULTS ................................................................................... Q-3 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF FIGURES (Following Text) FIGURE Q.1 SWAC CALCULATION - HALF-MILE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS FIGURE Q.2 EXISTING CONDITION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE FIGURE Q.3 POST-REMOVAL ACTION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE Q.1 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 01, HALF MILE 02 TABLE Q.2 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 01, HALF MILE 03 TABLE Q.3 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 01, HALF MILE 04 TABLE Q.4 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 01, HALF MILE 05 TABLE Q.5 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 01, HALF MILE 06 TABLE Q.6 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 02, HALF MILE 07 TABLE Q.7 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 02, HALF MILE 08 TABLE Q.8 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 02, HALF MILE 09 TABLE Q.9 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 03, HALF MILE 10 TABLE Q.10 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 03, HALF MILE 11 TABLE Q.11 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 03, HALF MILE 12 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF TABLES (Following Text) TABLE Q.12 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 03, HALF MILE 13 TABLE Q.13 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 03, HALF MILE 14 TABLE Q.14 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 15 TABLE Q.15 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 16 TABLE Q.16 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 17 TABLE Q.17 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 18 TABLE Q.18 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 19 TABLE Q.19 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 20 TABLE Q.20 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 21 TABLE Q.21 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 22 TABLE Q.22 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 23 TABLE Q.23 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 24 TABLE Q.24 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 25 TABLE Q.25 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 26 TABLE Q.26 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 27 TABLE Q.27 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 28 TABLE Q.28 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 29 TABLE Q.29 SWAC CALCULATION - STUDY AREA 04, HALF MILE 30 031884 (51) CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIST OF ACRONYMS 2,3,7,8-TCDD CA EOC EVS River RCRA Site SWAC U.S. EPA 031884 (51) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Corrective Action Extent of Contamination Environmental Visualization System Kanawha River Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Kanawha River Site Surface Weighed Average Concentration United States Environmental Protection Agency CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 1.0 GENERAL APPROACH Surface-weighted Average Concentrations (SWACs) were determined for a number of different boundary conditions corresponding to fish migration boundaries and exposure scenarios. The boundary conditions are consistent with home ranges of target fish species (bottom feeders and sport fish). The home range for bottom feeders includes the entire length of the Study Area. The home range for sport fish is shorter than the length of the Study Area. Therefore, SWACs for sport fish were calculated based on the length of their home ranges. A 3-mile home range was selected to represent a conservative home range for the target fish species. A rolling 3-mile SWAC in half mile increments was calculated for the Site based on surficial sediment 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) concentrations. The 1/2-mile increments for which SWACs were calculated are identified on Figure Q.1. Within each 3-mile reach, SWAC calculations focused on areas in which receptor species would be exposed to sediment deposits, to ensure concentrations are not impacted by areas which are not subject to exposure. Specifically, the center channel area of the river which is primarily bare rock or coarse-grained sediment deposits was not included in the SWAC calculations, as inclusion of these areas would inappropriately bias the results low. SWACs were calculated for backwater areas from tributaries discharging into the river. SWACs for the 1/2-mile increment into which they discharged are presented both including and excluding the backwater areas. 2.0 SWAC CALCULATION METHOD Prior to calculating the SWACs, the database of surficial samples was reviewed to address non-detect and duplicate results. Non-detect values were replaced with concentrations at one-half of the detection limit. In any cases where split samples or field duplicate sample results are available, these values were averaged prior to any statistical or geostatistical computations. Boundary conditions were established laterally at riverbanks, home range boundaries and the mouths of tributaries, and at sediment deposit limits. Boundaries for backwater areas were established laterally at the tributary banks and extended upstream from the Kanawha River to either the limit of the backwater area or the limit of the backwater area where data existed to calculate the SWAC, whichever was encountered first. Six adjacent 1/2-mile increments were combined to form a 3-mile reach. The distribution of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in each 3- mile reach is described by producing a three-dimensional contour map using commercial software, Environmental Visualization System (EVS). Contouring was performed by kriging routines using a method appropriate for the observed data distribution 031884 (51) Q-1 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES (e.g., normal, lognormal, gamma-distributed, etc.). The distribution was confirmed prior to the kriging to confirm an appropriate approach. The kriging performs surface weighting, as each grid node on the map was based on a weighed average, median or other statistic based on the kriging model used. Statistical outliers were identified and screened and boundary conditions finalized prior to this process. The kriged data was used to estimate a baseline SWAC and upper confidence level bound on this value for each area from the contoured model. The remedial action alternatives were developed and tested to assess effectiveness in reducing the SWAC of each area. If a remedial scenario includes capping of portions of the remaining in-place sediments, then the capping material was assumed to have a concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD consistent with the upstream background concentration. 3.0 INPUT DATA Tables Q.1 through Q.29.present the data utilized for SWAC calculation for each of the rolling 1/2-mile reaches, moving from upstream to downstream from Half-Mile 2 through Half-Mile 30. There was no surficial sediment data within Half-Mile 1. Post implementation SWACs associated with the capping alternative evaluated for the Site removed data points within the capped area, replacing those data points with upstream background concentrations. Surficial sediment data was included in this data set from four sources: 031884 (51) • Phase I and II Extent of Contamination (EOC) Study data collected as part of this Project • Historic data obtained as part of the file search completed to support EE/CA Work Plan development • United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) data collected in 2000 • Data collected by Solutia as part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action (CA) Program investigation of the Former Flexsys Facility colleted in 2001 Q-2 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 4.0 SWAC CALCULATION RESULTS Output data from the SWAC determination for the rolling 3-mile reaches is presented on Figures Q.2 and Q.3 for the existing condition and the capping scenario, respectively. Scenarios both including and excluding backwater areas are included. The results are summarized below. The SWAC for the 3-mile reach from River Mile (RM) 39 to RM 42 exhibited the highest existing condition SWAC (0.022 μg/kg). Four areas were identified for active remediation. Following remediation the highest calculated SWAC concentration is estimated to be 0.009 μg/kg in the 3-mile reach from RM 34.5 to RM 37.5. 031884 (51) Q-3 CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES 26 27 28 30 29 RM 31 RM 32 - 25 - RM 33 - 0 24 RM 34 - ´ 1:55,000 23 1 Study Area 4 Downstream 2 Area 22 - RM 35 0.5 Miles 21 20 HALF MILE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 RIVER MILE RM 45.0 to 45.5 RM 44.5 to 45.0 RM 44.0 to 44.5 RM 43.5 to 44.0 RM 43.0 to 43.5 RM 42.5 to 43.0 RM 42.0 to 42.5 RM 41.5 to 42.0 RM 41.0 to 41.5 RM 40.5 to 41.0 RM 40.0 to 40.5 RM 39.5 to 40.0 RM 39.0 to 39.5 RM 38.5 to 39.0 RM 38.0 to 38.5 RM 37.5 to 38.0 RM 37.0 to 37.5 RM 36.5 to 37.0 RM 36.0 to 36.5 RM 35.5 to 36.0 RM 35.0 to 35.5 RM 34.5 to 35.0 RM 34.0 to 34.5 RM 33.5 to 34.0 RM 33.0 to 33.5 RM 32.5 to 33.0 RM 32.0 to 32.5 RM 31.5 to 32.0 RM 31.0 to 31.5 RM 30.5 to 31.0 RM 36 - 19 RM 37 18 - 17 16 RM 38 15 - C 14 RM 39 Study Area 3 Downstream 1 Area 13 RM 40 RM 41 Study Area 2 Adjacent Area RM 42 Tributary Half Mile Markers Study Area 1 - Upstream Study Area 2 - Adjacent Study Area 3 - Downstream 1 Study Area 4 - Downstream 2 Proposed Cap Area Armour Creek Boundary Pocatlico River/Heizer Creek/Manila Creek System Boundary Critical 3-Mile Reach - - 12 11 10 - 9 8 7 RM 43 LEGEND - - RM 44 6 Study Area 1 Upstream Area 5 4 - 3 2 RM 45 - 1 Aerial: National Agriculture Imagery Program Dated 2014 (West Virginia South SPC, NAD83); Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane West Virginia South FIPS 4702 Feet NOTE: (1) Property boundaries shown are approximate. (2) The lateral extent of the Site and Study Area boundaries are limited to the River within the water surface defined by the normal pool elevation. Adjacent areas are included for reference only, and do not form part of the Site. (3) Proposed cap areas to be defined during the design process. 031884-00(REP051)GIS-WA116 February 27, 2015 figure Q.1 SWAC CALCULATION - HALF-MILE BOUNDARY LOCATIONS EE/CA REPORT KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Note: Study Area 1 corresponds to approximately RM 45.5 to 42.5, Study Area 2 - RM 42.5 to 41.5, Study Area 3 - RM 41.5 to 38.5, and Study Area 4 - RM 38.5 to 30.5. 031884-00(REP051) - figure Q.2 February 26, 2015 figure Q.2 EXISTING CONDITION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia Note: Study Area 1 corresponds to approximately RM 45.5 to 42.5, Study Area 2 - RM 42.5 to 41.5, Study Area 3 - RM 41.5 to 38.5, and Study Area 4 - RM 38.5 to 30.5. 031884-00(REP051) - figure Q.3 February 26, 2015 figure Q.3 POST-REMOVAL ACTION SWAC FOR ROLLING 3-MILE RANGE EE/CA REPORT Kanawha River, West Virginia Page 1 of 2 TABLE Q.1 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 02 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile 1729473.621 1727170.996 1727170.996 1727170.996 1727170.996 1727791.243 1727513.629 1726954.353 1726079.843 1726079.843 508685.2531 509428.1558 509428.1558 509428.1558 509428.1558 509981.5377 510338.3153 510975.15 512707.185 512707.185 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Quarter Mile Location Name All Depth (ft) - TOP All Depth (ft) - BOT Mid Depth (ft) A A A A A A A B A A KRSO-3 KRSD-28 KRSD-28 KRSD-28 KRSD-28 KRSD-29 KRSO-5 SSD-29 KRSD-27 KRSD-27 1.7 0 0 2 4 0 1.7 0 0 0 0.5 2 4 6 0.5 0 0.5 2 0.25 1 3 5 0.25 0 0.25 1 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 1 Half Mile 2 Original Result Chemical Name Concentration Unit 0.00033 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00092 0.00211 0.0000335 0.0005 0.00031 0.0000335 0.00069 0.00033 J ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00092 0.00211 ND(0.000067) ND(0.001) ND(0.00062) ND(0.000067) 0.00069 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Page 2 of 2 TABLE Q.1 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 02 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RDL Half Coordinate Remark Location Description Subfacility Name 0.0005 0.00031 - Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed - Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 006 Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 005 - Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River CRA 031884 (51) System River Location Code Marker KR-KRSO-3 KR-KRSD-28 KR-KRSD-28 KR-KRSD-28 KR-KRSD-28 KR-KRSD-29 KR-KRSO-5 KR-SSD-29 KR-KRSD-27 KR-KRSD-27 45.7 NA NA NA NA NA 45.3 NA NA NA Sample Name R3109139 R380992 R380989 R380990 R380991 R380993 R3109138 SE-031884-112807-DD-001 R380986 R380985 Sample Date Depth-Original 9/1/2001 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 (20-) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS Sample Type Fraction Code Matrix Code Subfacility Code - Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Sediment SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.2 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 03 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1726954.353 1726079.843 1726079.843 1725713.156 1725704.006 1725571.579 1725571.579 1725571.579 1724931.042 1725635.096 1725596.41 1725596.41 Y Coordinate 510975.15 512707.185 512707.185 514160.2121 513996.788 515255.6078 515255.6078 515255.6078 514200.5023 514936.7135 515320.4876 515320.4876 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 1 2 STUDY AREA 1 3 STUDY AREA 1 3 STUDY AREA 1 3 STUDY AREA 1 3 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 Quarter Mile B A A B B A A A A A A A Location All Depth All Depth Mid Name (ft) - TOP (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) SSD-29 0 0 0 KRSD-27 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-27 0 2 1 KRSO-48 1.7 1.7 SSD-28 0 0 0 KRSD-25 0 2 1 KRSD-25 2 4 3 KRSD-25 4 6 5 KRSD-26 0 0.5 0.25 KRSO-12 1.7 1.7 KRSO-13 1.7 1.7 KRSO-40 1.7 1.7 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 1 Half Mile 3 0.00031 0.0000335 0.00069 0.0005 0.000395 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 0.00036 0.212 Original Result ND(0.00062) ND(0.000067) 0.00069 ND(0.001) ND(0.00079) 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 J 0.00036 J 0.212 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.2 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 03 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) CRA 031884 (51) Concentra tion Unit RDL Half Coordinate Remark ug/kg 0.00031 Surveyed ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.0005 Traced - 20130116 ug/kg 0.000395 Surveyed ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Traced - 20130116 ug/kg Traced - 20130116 ug/kg Traced - 20130116 Location Description Unknown Stormwater Abandoned Pipe Nitro Sanitation Landfill Outfall Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 001 System River Subfacility Name Location Code Marker Kanawha River KR-SSD-29 NA Kanawha River KR-KRSD-27 NA Kanawha River KR-KRSD-27 NA Kanawha River KR-KRSO-48 44.2 Kanawha River KR-SSD-28 NA Kanawha River KR-KRSD-25 43.8 Kanawha River KR-KRSD-25 43.8 Kanawha River KR-KRSD-25 43.8 Kanawha River KR-KRSD-26 NA Kanawha River KR-KRSO-12 44.3 Kanawha River KR-KRSO-13 44.2 Kanawha River KR-KRSO-40 41.7 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.2 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 03 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-112807-DD-001 R380986 R380985 R3109137 SE-031884-112807-DD-002 R380982 R380983 R380984 R380994 R3109136 R3109133 R3109118 CRA 031884 (51) Sample Date 11/28/2007 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 5/17/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/19/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 DepthSample Original Type (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 04 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile Quarter Mile Location Name 1725713.156 1725704.006 1725571.579 1725571.579 1725571.579 1724931.042 1725635.096 1725596.41 1725596.41 1725280.597 1725280.597 1724502.729 1724502.729 1724502.729 514160.2121 513996.788 515255.6078 515255.6078 515255.6078 514200.5023 514936.7135 515320.4876 515320.4876 518680.3286 518680.3286 518418.5816 518418.5816 518418.5816 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 B B A A A A A A A B B B B B KRSO-48 SSD-28 KRSD-25 KRSD-25 KRSD-25 KRSD-26 KRSO-12 KRSO-13 KRSO-40 KRSD-23 KRSD-23 KRSD-24 KRSD-24 KRSD-24 All All Depth Depth Mid (ft) - Depth (ft) (ft) TOP BOT 1.7 0 0 2 4 0 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 6 0.5 0.5 2 0.5 2 4 1.7 0 1 3 5 0.25 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.25 1 0.25 1 3 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 1 Half Mile 4 0.0005 0.000395 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 0.00036 0.212 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 04 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA CRA 031884 (51) Original Result Chemical Name ND(0.001) ND(0.00079) 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 J 0.00036 J 0.212 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentra tion Unit RDL Half Coordinate Remark ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.0005 0.000395 - Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 - Location Description Unknown Stormwater Abandoned Pipe Nitro Sanitation Landfill Outfall Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 001 - Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 04 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Subfacility Name System Location Code River Marker Sample Name Sample Date DepthOriginal Sample Type Fraction Code Matrix Code Subfacility Code Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-KRSO-48 KR-SSD-28 KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-26 KR-KRSO-12 KR-KRSO-13 KR-KRSO-40 KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 44.2 NA 43.8 43.8 43.8 NA 44.3 44.2 41.7 43.1 43.1 43.2 43.2 43.2 R3109137 SE-031884-112807-DD-002 R380982 R380983 R380984 R380994 R3109136 R3109133 R3109118 R380962 R380961 R380981 R380979 R380980 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 5/17/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/19/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS - Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Sediment SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR CRA 031884 (51) TABLE Q.4 Page 1 of 3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 05 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1725571.579 1725571.579 1725571.579 1724931.042 1725635.096 1725596.41 1725596.41 1725280.597 1725280.597 1724502.729 1724502.729 1724502.729 1725145.572 1725053.86 1724247.697 1724951.805 Y Coordinate 515255.6078 515255.6078 515255.6078 514200.5023 514936.7135 515320.4876 515320.4876 518680.3286 518680.3286 518418.5816 518418.5816 518418.5816 519553.4399 520070.2611 520104.3235 520223.789 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 4 STUDY AREA 1 5 STUDY AREA 1 5 STUDY AREA 1 5 STUDY AREA 1 5 STUDY AREA 1 5 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A B B B B B A A A A Location All Depth All Depth Mid Name (ft) - TOP (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) KRSD-25 0 2 1 KRSD-25 2 4 3 KRSD-25 4 6 5 KRSD-26 0 0.5 0.25 KRSO-12 1.7 1.7 KRSO-13 1.7 1.7 KRSO-40 1.7 1.7 KRSD-23 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-23 0 2 1 KRSD-24 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-24 0 2 1 KRSD-24 2 4 3 KRSO-18 1.7 1.7 KRSO-19 1.7 1.7 KRSO-45 1.7 1.7 SSD-27 0 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 1 Half Mile 5 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 0.00036 0.212 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00055 0.0011 0.00043 0.000435 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 05 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.00735 0.00282 0.00042 0.00024 0.00077 J 0.00036 J 0.212 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00055 J 0.0011 0.00043 ND(0.00087) CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half 0.000435 Coordinate Remark Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Location Description Abandoned Pipe Nitro Sanitation Landfill Outfall Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 001 Old World War I Outfall Swale Area Tow Maintenance Cleaning Outfall 001 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 05 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River CRA 031884 (51) System Location Code KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-25 KR-KRSD-26 KR-KRSO-12 KR-KRSO-13 KR-KRSO-40 KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSO-18 KR-KRSO-19 KR-KRSO-45 KR-SSD-27 Sample River Marker Name Sample Date 43.8 R380982 5/17/2000 43.8 R380983 5/18/2000 43.8 R380984 5/18/2000 NA R380994 5/19/2000 44.3 R3109136 9/1/2001 44.2 R3109133 9/1/2001 41.7 R3109118 9/1/2001 43.1 R380962 5/16/2000 43.1 R380961 5/16/2000 43.2 R380981 5/17/2000 43.2 R380979 5/17/2000 43.2 R380980 5/17/2000 43.5 R3109131 9/1/2001 43.2 R3109130 9/1/2001 43 R3109132 9/1/2001 NA 884-112807-D 11/28/2007 Depth-Original (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0) IN Sample Type - Fraction Matrix Subfacility Code Code Code Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur Sediment KR Diox Fur SE KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.5 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 06 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile Quarter Mile Location Name All Depth (ft) - TOP All Depth (ft) - BOT Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 1 Half Mile 6 1725280.597 1725280.597 1724502.729 1724502.729 1724502.729 1725145.572 1725053.86 1724247.697 1724951.805 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724854.908 1724854.908 1724938.486 1724850.097 1724850.097 1725032.224 1725032.224 1725032.224 1724245.197 1724245.197 1724245.197 1724245.197 1725005.463 1725005.463 1724312.831 518680.3286 518680.3286 518418.5816 518418.5816 518418.5816 519553.4399 520070.2611 520104.3235 520223.789 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521944.481 521944.481 521685.2532 521131.841 521131.841 522972.291 522972.291 522972.291 523004.14 523004.14 523004.14 523004.14 522522.513 522522.513 523194.654 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 1 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 B B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A KRSD-23 KRSD-23 KRSD-24 KRSD-24 KRSD-24 KRSO-18 KRSO-19 KRSO-45 SSD-27 BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26B BC-SSD-26B BC-SSD-26B COR-43 COR-43 KRSO-23 SSD-26 SSD-26 COR-41 COR-41 COR-41 COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 KRSD-22 KRSD-22 SSD-25 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 2 0.5 2 4 0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 1.8 0.25 1 0.25 1 3 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.9 1.7 0 0 0 0.5 1.55 0 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.25 1 0 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00055 0.0011 0.00043 0.000435 0.000455 0.0000345 0.000145 0.0000335 0.0000445 0.00005 0.00041 0.00011 0.058 0.0029 0.0014 0.0003 0.0008 0.000245 0.00085 0.0018 0.00055 0.00013 0.00237 0.0000335 0.00049 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) 0 0 0 1 2.1 0 1.4 1.4 2.4 0.5 2 0 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.5 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 06 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA CRA 031884 (51) Original Result Chemical Name Concentration Unit RDL Half ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00055 J 0.0011 0.00043 ND(0.00087) ND(0.00091) ND(0.000069) ND(0.00029) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000089) ND(0.0001)UJ ND(0.00082) ND(0.00022) 0.058 0.0029 0.0014 ND(0.0006) ND(0.0016)U ND(0.00049) ND(0.0017)U 0.0018 ND(0.0011)U ND(0.00026) 0.00237 ND(0.000067) ND(0.00098) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.000435 0.000455 0.0000345 0.000145 0.0000335 0.0000445 0.00005 0.00041 0.00011 0.00215 0.0003 0.0008 0.000245 0.00085 0.00055 0.00013 0.00049 Coordinate Remark Traced - 201301 Traced - 201301 Traced - 201301 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 201301 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Old World War I Outfall Swale Area Tow Maintenance Cleaning Outfall 001 Bank - Right Bank - Right Dana/Kincaid Outfall Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left - Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.5 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 01 - HALF MILE 06 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA CRA 031884 (51) Subfacility Name System Location Code River Marker Sample Name Sample Date Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-23 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSD-24 KR-KRSO-18 KR-KRSO-19 KR-KRSO-45 KR-SSD-27 KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-COR-43 KR-COR-43 KR-KRSO-23 KR-SSD-26 KR-SSD-26 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-KRSD-22 KR-KRSD-22 KR-SSD-25 43.1 43.1 43.2 43.2 43.2 43.5 43.2 43 NA 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 42.5 42.5 43 NA NA 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.4 42.4 NA R380962 R380961 R380981 R380979 R380980 R3109131 R3109130 R3109132 SE-031884-112807-DD-003 S-031884-022408-DD-461 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-461 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-461 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (B) SE-031884-112807-DD-006 SE-031884-120307-DD-077 R3109129 SE-031884-112807-DD-004 SE-031884-112807-DD-005 SE-031884-112807-DD-009 SE-031884-120407-DD-081 SE-031884-120407-DD-082 SE-031884-112807-DD-007 SE-031884-120908-SG-002 SE-031884-120908-SG-001 SE-031884-120307-DD-078 R380988 R380987 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 11/28/2007 12/3/2007 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 11/28/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/3/2007 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 11/28/2007 DepthOriginal Sample Type Fraction Code (0-0.5) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-0.5) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur (20-) IN Diox Fur (20-) IN Diox Fur (20-) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-3) IN Diox Fur (0-3) IN Diox Fur (0-3) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-22) IN Diox Fur (20-) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Duplicate Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-12) IN Diox Fur (12-25) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-16.5) IN Duplicate Diox Fur (0-16.5) IN Diox Fur (0-29) IN Diox Fur (0-0.5) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur Matrix Code Subfacility Code SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.6 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 07 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724850.097 1724854.908 1724854.908 1724938.486 1724850.097 1724850.097 1725032.224 1725032.224 1725032.224 1724245.197 1724245.197 1724245.197 1724245.197 1725005.463 1725005.463 1724312.831 1725397.751 1725397.751 1725397.751 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725290.249 1725334.599 1725930.276 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725624.228 1725624.228 1725521.03 1725591.764 1725642.288 1725728.179 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521131.841 521944.481 521944.481 521685.2532 521131.841 521131.841 522972.291 522972.291 522972.291 523004.14 523004.14 523004.14 523004.14 522522.513 522522.513 523194.654 524274.529 524274.529 524274.529 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523672.9788 523672.9788 523672.9788 523672.9788 523702.536 523909.9307 525251.9666 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 524781.605 524781.605 524433.4759 524574.9435 524736.6206 524908.4026 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 STUDY AREA 1 6 7 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 7 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26A BC-SSD-26B BC-SSD-26B BC-SSD-26B COR-43 COR-43 KRSO-23 SSD-26 SSD-26 COR-41 COR-41 COR-41 COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 COR-42 KRSD-22 KRSD-22 SSD-25 COR-39 COR-39 COR-39 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSO-25 KRSO-27 ASD-2 BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37B BC-COR-37B BC-COR-37B COR-37 COR-38 COR-38 DSD-1 DSD-2 DSD-3 DSD-4 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 0.6 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 1.8 0 0 0 1 2.1 0 1.4 1.4 2.4 0.5 2 0 0 1.4 2.8 0 2 2 3.3 4 5.5 2 2 4 6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Mid Depth (ft) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0.9 1.7 0 0 0 0.5 1.55 0 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.25 1 0 0 0.7 2.1 0 1 1 2.65 3 4.75 1 1 3 5 0.6 1.5 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 7 0.000455 0.0000345 0.000145 0.00005 0.0000335 0.0000445 0.00041 0.00011 0.058 0.0029 0.0014 0.0003 0.0008 0.000245 0.00085 0.0018 0.00055 0.00013 0.00237 0.0000335 0.00049 3.4 22 33 0.059 0.01 0.049 0.0081 0.00037 0.00015 5.11 0.479 0.166 0.00689 0.279 0.0162 0.057 0.00022 0.000225 0.0013 0.0044 0.0011 0.0005 0.0031 0.25 0.0087 190 0.083 0.038 3.6 Original Result ND(0.00091) ND(0.000069) ND(0.00029) ND(0.0001)UJ ND(0.000067) ND(0.000089) ND(0.00082) ND(0.00022) 0.058 0.0029 0.0014 ND(0.0006) ND(0.0016)U ND(0.00049) ND(0.0017)U 0.0018 ND(0.0011)U ND(0.00026) 0.00237 ND(0.000067) ND(0.00098) 3.4 J 22 J 33 J 0.059 0.01 0.049 0.0081 ND(0.00074)U ND(0.0003) 5.11 0.479 0.166 0.00689 B 0.279 0.0162 0.057 ND(0.00044) ND(0.00045) ND(0.0026) 0.0044 0.0011 ND(0.001)U 0.0031 0.25 0.0087 190 D E 0.083 0.038 3.6 E Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.6 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 07 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg CRA 031884 (51) RDL Half 0.000455 0.0000345 0.000145 0.00005 0.0000335 0.0000445 0.00041 0.00011 0.00215 0.0003 0.0008 0.000245 0.00085 0.00055 0.00013 0.00049 0.00037 0.00015 0.00022 0.000225 0.0013 0.0005 - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Dana/Kincaid Outfall Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right ACS Outfall 001 FMC Outfall 003 Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia System Location Code KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26A KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-BC-SSD-26B KR-COR-43 KR-COR-43 KR-KRSO-23 KR-SSD-26 KR-SSD-26 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-41 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-COR-42 KR-KRSD-22 KR-KRSD-22 KR-SSD-25 KR-COR-39 KR-COR-39 KR-COR-39 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSO-25 KR-KRSO-27 SOL-ASD-2 KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37B KR-BC-COR-37B KR-BC-COR-37B KR-COR-37 KR-COR-38 KR-COR-38 SOL-DSD-1 SOL-DSD-2 SOL-DSD-3 SOL-DSD-4 River Marker 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 39.7 42.5 42.5 43 NA NA 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.4 42.4 NA 42 42 42 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.5 42.5 NA 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.9 41.9 42 42 41.9 41.9 Sample Name S-031884-022408-DD-461 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-461 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-461 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-462 (A) SE-031884-112807-DD-006 SE-031884-120307-DD-077 R3109129 SE-031884-112807-DD-004 SE-031884-112807-DD-005 SE-031884-112807-DD-009 SE-031884-120407-DD-081 SE-031884-120407-DD-082 SE-031884-112807-DD-007 SE-031884-120908-SG-002 SE-031884-120908-SG-001 SE-031884-120307-DD-078 R380988 R380987 SE-031884-112807-DD-008 SE-031884-112807-DD-011 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 SE-031884-112807-DD-010 SE-031884-120407-DD-079 SE-031884-120908-SG-003 SE-031884-120407-DD-080 SE-031884-120908-SG-004 SE-031884-120908-SG-005 R380975 R380978 R380976 R380977 R3109128 R3109127 ASD-2-N S-031884-022408-DD-459 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-459 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-459 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (C) SE-031884-112807-DD-015 SE-031884-112807-DD-012 SE-031884-120407-DD-085 DSD-1-N DSD-2-N DSD-3-N DSD-4-N Sample Date 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 11/28/2007 12/3/2007 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 11/28/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 12/3/2007 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/9/2008 12/4/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/24/2001 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 Depth-Original (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-22) IN (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-12) IN (12-25) IN (0-0) IN (0-16.5) IN (0-16.5) IN (0-29) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-17) IN (17-33.5) IN (0-0) (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN (24-48) IN (48-66) IN (0-2) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (7-) IN (18-) IN (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN - Sample Type Duplicate Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL SOL SOL SOL Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.6 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 07 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1725809.018 1725834.28 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725496.058 1725820.466 1725820.466 1725911.711 1725288.684 1724912.695 Y Coordinate 525075.1322 525267.1238 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 524383.5436 525097.23 525097.23 525259.6332 525682.336 524969.985 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 STUDY AREA 2 8 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name DSD-5 Kanawha River - MP 42.2 east-upper layer KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSO-31 KRSO-32 KRSO-32 KRSO-33 SSD-23 SSD-24 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 4 6 8 0 0 Mid Depth (ft) 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 3 5 7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0 0 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 7 4 0.00864 0.0723 0.116 0.00075 0.00024 R 1.02 0.564 0.278 0.106 0.074 0.00085 Original Result 4E 0.00864 0.0723 J 0.116 J 0.00075 0.00024 B R 1.02 J 0.564 J 0.278 0.106 0.074 ND(0.0017)U Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.6 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 07 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half 0.421 0.00085 Coordinate Remark Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 007 Monsanto 002 Monsanto 002 Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 008 - Subfacility Name Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code SOL-DSD-5 KR-D-34 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSO-31 KR-KRSO-32 KR-KRSO-32 KR-KRSO-33 KR-SSD-23 KR-SSD-24 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) River Marker 41.8 NA 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 42.4 42.45 42.45 42.2 NA NA Sample Name DSD-5-N D-34 R380974 R380970 R380971 R380972 R380973 R3109126 R3109124 R3109125 R3109123 SE-031884-112807-DD-014 SE-031884-112807-DD-013 Sample Date 9/24/2001 5/12/1999 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 Depth-Original (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (10-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Sample Type Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE Subfacility Code SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.7 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 08 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1725397.751 1725397.751 1725397.751 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725254.851 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725241.351 1725290.249 1725334.599 1725930.276 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725661.812 1725624.228 1725624.228 1725521.03 1725591.764 1725642.288 1725728.179 1725809.018 1725834.28 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725894.229 1725496.058 1725820.466 1725820.466 1725911.711 1725288.684 1724912.695 1726243.525 1726152.582 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 524274.529 524274.529 524274.529 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523688.951 523672.9788 523672.9788 523672.9788 523672.9788 523702.536 523909.9307 525251.9666 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 525318.21 524781.605 524781.605 524433.4759 524574.9435 524736.6206 524908.4026 525075.1322 525267.1238 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 525320.3805 524383.5436 525097.23 525097.23 525259.6332 525682.336 524969.985 525757.2077 525585.4258 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 Study Area STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 Half Mile 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B Location Name COR-39 COR-39 COR-39 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 COR-40 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSD-21 KRSO-25 KRSO-27 ASD-2 BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37A BC-COR-37B BC-COR-37B BC-COR-37B COR-37 COR-38 COR-38 DSD-1 DSD-2 DSD-3 DSD-4 DSD-5 Kanawha River - MP 42.2 east-upper layer KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSD-20 KRSO-31 KRSO-32 KRSO-32 KRSO-33 SSD-23 SSD-24 ASD-10 ASD-7 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 2 4 0.6 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 Mid All Depth Depth (ft) - BOT (ft) 0 0 1.4 0.7 2.8 2.1 0 0 2 1 2 1 3.3 2.65 4 3 5.5 4.75 2 1 2 1 4 3 6 5 0.6 1.5 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.15 0.3 0.15 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 6 5 8 7 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.8 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 4.5 4.25 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 8 3.4 22 33 0.059 0.01 0.049 0.0081 0.00037 0.00015 5.11 0.479 0.166 0.00689 0.279 0.0162 0.057 0.0013 0.00022 0.000225 0.0044 0.0011 0.0005 0.0031 0.25 0.0087 190 0.083 0.038 3.6 4 0.00864 0.0723 0.116 0.00075 0.00024 R 1.02 0.564 0.278 0.106 0.074 0.00085 1.1 1.3 0.055 0.0036 0.003 0.00017 0.00019 Original Result 3.4 J 22 J 33 J 0.059 0.01 0.049 0.0081 ND(0.00074)U ND(0.0003) 5.11 0.479 0.166 0.00689 B 0.279 0.0162 0.057 ND(0.0026) ND(0.00044) ND(0.00045) 0.0044 0.0011 ND(0.001)U 0.0031 0.25 0.0087 190 D E 0.083 0.038 3.6 E 4E 0.00864 0.0723 J 0.116 J 0.00075 0.00024 B R 1.02 J 0.564 J 0.278 0.106 0.074 ND(0.0017)U 1.1 E 1.3 E 0.055 0.0036 0.003 ND(0.00034) ND(0.00038) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half 0.00037 0.00015 0.0013 0.00022 0.000225 0.0005 0.421 0.00085 0.0033 0.00017 0.00019 Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.7 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 08 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed CRA 031884 (51) Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right ACS Outfall 001 FMC Outfall 003 Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 007 Monsanto 002 Monsanto 002 Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 008 Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-39 KR-COR-39 KR-COR-39 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-COR-40 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSD-21 KR-KRSO-25 KR-KRSO-27 SOL-ASD-2 KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37A KR-BC-COR-37B KR-BC-COR-37B KR-BC-COR-37B KR-COR-37 KR-COR-38 KR-COR-38 SOL-DSD-1 SOL-DSD-2 SOL-DSD-3 SOL-DSD-4 SOL-DSD-5 KR-D-34 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSD-20 KR-KRSO-31 KR-KRSO-32 KR-KRSO-32 KR-KRSO-33 KR-SSD-23 KR-SSD-24 SOL-ASD-10 SOL-ASD-7 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 River Marker 42 42 42 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.5 42.5 NA 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.9 41.9 42 42 41.9 41.9 41.8 NA 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 41.8 42.4 42.45 42.45 42.2 NA NA 41.7 41.7 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 Sample Name SE-031884-112807-DD-011 SE-031884-120407-DD-083 SE-031884-120407-DD-084 SE-031884-112807-DD-010 SE-031884-120407-DD-079 SE-031884-120908-SG-003 SE-031884-120407-DD-080 SE-031884-120908-SG-004 SE-031884-120908-SG-005 R380975 R380978 R380976 R380977 R3109128 R3109127 ASD-2-N S-031884-022408-DD-459 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-459 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-459 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-460 (C) SE-031884-112807-DD-015 SE-031884-112807-DD-012 SE-031884-120407-DD-085 DSD-1-N DSD-2-N DSD-3-N DSD-4-N DSD-5-N D-34 R380974 R380970 R380971 R380972 R380973 R3109126 R3109124 R3109125 R3109123 SE-031884-112807-DD-014 SE-031884-112807-DD-013 ASD-10-N ASD-7-N SE-031884-112907-DD-017 SE-031884-120507-DD-086 SE-031884-120507-DD-087 SE-031884-120507-DD-088 SE-031884-120507-DD-089 Sample Date 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/4/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 12/9/2008 12/4/2007 12/9/2008 12/9/2008 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/24/2001 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 12/4/2007 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 5/12/1999 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/28/2007 11/28/2007 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 11/29/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-17) IN (17-33.5) IN (0-0) (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN (24-48) IN (48-66) IN (0-2) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (7-) IN (18-) IN (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-3) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (10-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-54) IN Sample Fraction Code Type Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Duplicate Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Duplicate Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE Subfacilit y Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL SOL SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.7 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 08 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725482.782 1726064.552 1726324.364 1726516.355 1726662.875 1726199.972 1726095.15 1725737.755 1725737.755 1725737.755 1725737.755 1726107.611 1726107.611 1729776.184 1726471.539 1726471.539 1726738.95 1726186.614 1726186.614 1727588.705 1727147.907 1727365.161 1727547.007 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727588.705 1727722.915 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 525953.061 526781.794 525918.8849 526176.5579 526312.973 525699.3965 525818.87 526428.3107 526428.3107 526428.3107 526428.3107 525629.948 525629.948 524403.2327 527137.718 527137.718 526682.229 526956.636 526956.636 526314.1448 526803.0569 526939.472 527048.0989 526797.7927 526797.7927 526797.7927 526797.7927 527023.5367 527119.4004 Study Area STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36A COR-36B ESD-1 ESD-2 ESD-3 Kanawha R - near Monsanto MP 42.2 KD-203 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSO-34 KRSO-34 KRSO-49 COR-33 COR-33 COR-34 COR-36C COR-36C Frmr AES property culvert, NE corner FSD-2 FSD-3 FSD-4 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 Old Nitro LF/Mon Dump,I64 S ditchline Old Nitro LF/Mon Dump,I64 N ditchline All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Mid All Depth Depth (ft) - BOT (ft) 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 6 5 6 5 8 7 9 8.5 0.9 0.45 1 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 6 5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 1.8 0.9 0 0 2 1 3.3 2.65 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 2 1 4 3 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 8 0.0056 0.027 0.15 3.3 2.3 1.6 25 18 3.8 0.21 0.000325 0.025 1.7 0.041 0.0031 0.95168 0.024 0.00733 0.0232 0.0963 1.72 3.57 2.3 0.0029 0.015 0.19 0.021 0.46 0.16 0.694 0.009 0.022 0.015 0.0106 0.0839 0.00871 R 0.274 0.865 Original Result 0.0056 0.027 0.15 3.3 J 2.3 J 1.6 J 25 J 18 J 3.8 J 0.21 ND(0.00065) 0.025 1.7 E 0.041 0.0031 0.95168 0.024 0.00733 B 0.0232 J 0.0963 1.72 3.57 2.3 J 0.0029 0.015 0.19 0.021 0.46 J 0.16 0.694 0.009 0.022 0.015 0.0106 B 0.0839 0.00871 R 0.274 0.865 Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half 1.95 0.000325 2.935 - Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.7 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 - HALF MILE 08 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - Location Description Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 006 Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 006 Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 007 Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property AES Property System Location Code KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36A KR-COR-36B SOL-ESD-1 SOL-ESD-2 SOL-ESD-3 KR-D-08 KRKD-203 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSO-34 KR-KRSO-34 KR-KRSO-49 KR-COR-33 KR-COR-33 KR-COR-34 KR-COR-36C KR-COR-36C AES-D-72 SOL-FSD-2 SOL-FSD-3 SOL-FSD-4 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 AES-D-71 AES-D-70 River Marker 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.7 41.5 41.6 41.5 41.4 NA NA 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 42.1 42.1 AC 41.3 41.3 41.4 41.4 41.4 NA 41.3 41.3 41.2 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 NA NA Sample Name SE-031884-112907-DD-016 SE-031884-120507-DD-123 SE-031884-121008-SG-007 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 SE-031884-121008-SG-008 SE-031884-121008-SG-009 SE-031884-121008-SG-010 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 SE-031884-121008-SG-011 SE-031884-121008-SG-012 SE-031884-121008-SG-006 SE-031884-121008-SG-013 ESD-1-N ESD-2-N ESD-3-N D-08 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 R380956 R380953 R380954 R380955 R3109122 R3109121 R3109146 SE-031884-112907-DD-019 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 SE-031884-112907-DD-018 SE-031884-121008-SG-014 SE-031884-121008-SG-015 D-72 FSD-2-N FSD-3-N FSD-4-N R380969 R380969 R380967 R380968 D-71 D-70 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Sample Date 11/29/2007 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 11/9/1998 10/28/2004 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/29/2007 12/6/2007 11/29/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (24-48) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (48-72) IN (72-96) IN (96-108) IN (0-10.5) IN (0-12) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-21) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS - Sample Fraction Code Type Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Duplicate Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Duplicate Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE Sediment SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacilit y Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR AES SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR AES AES TABLE Q.8 Page 1 of 4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 -HALF MILE 09 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1726243.525 1726152.582 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 1726529.974 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725671.896 1725482.782 1726064.552 1726324.364 1726516.355 1726662.875 1726199.972 1726095.15 1725737.755 1725737.755 1725737.755 1725737.755 1726107.611 1726107.611 1729776.184 1726471.539 1726471.539 1726738.95 1726186.614 1726186.614 1727588.705 1727147.907 1727365.161 1727547.007 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727153.148 1727588.705 1727722.915 1730785.38 1727874.335 1728102.813 1728405.957 1728567.634 1728655.989 1727835.035 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 525757.2077 525585.4258 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 526203.831 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 526314.211 525953.061 526781.794 525918.8849 526176.5579 526312.973 525699.3965 525818.87 526428.3107 526428.3107 526428.3107 526428.3107 525629.948 525629.948 524403.2327 527137.718 527137.718 526682.229 526956.636 526956.636 526314.1448 526803.0569 526939.472 527048.0989 526797.7927 526797.7927 526797.7927 526797.7927 527023.5367 527119.4004 525643.4533 528076.747 527404.2939 527550.8138 527636.7048 527796.8377 527257.774 Study Area STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 2 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B Location Name ASD-10 ASD-7 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-35 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36 COR-36A COR-36B ESD-1 ESD-2 ESD-3 Kanawha R - near Monsanto MP 42.2 KD-203 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSD-19 KRSO-34 KRSO-34 KRSO-49 COR-33 COR-33 COR-34 COR-36C COR-36C Frmr AES property culvert, NE corner FSD-2 FSD-3 FSD-4 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 KRSD-18 Old Nitro LF/Mon Dump,I64 S ditchline Old Nitro LF/Mon Dump,I64 N ditchline Armour Creek I64 Bridge COR-32A CSD-2 CSD-7 CSD-9 Flexsys, swale, 150yds upgrad along E ba FSD-5 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth Mid (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 4.5 4.25 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 4 3 4 3 6 5 6 5 8 7 9 8.5 0.9 0.45 1 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 6 5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 1.8 0.9 0 0 2 1 3.3 2.65 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 2 1 4 3 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 1.5 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 9 1.1 1.3 0.055 0.0036 0.003 0.00017 0.00019 0.0056 0.027 0.15 3.3 2.3 1.6 25 18 3.8 0.21 0.000325 0.025 1.7 0.041 0.0031 0.95168 0.024 0.00733 0.0232 0.0963 1.72 3.57 2.3 0.0029 0.015 0.19 0.021 0.46 0.16 0.694 0.009 0.022 0.015 0.0106 0.0839 0.00871 R 0.274 0.865 0.0041 0.000275 0.035 0.097 0.36 0.0117 1 Original Result 1.1 E 1.3 E 0.055 0.0036 0.003 ND(0.00034) ND(0.00038) 0.0056 0.027 0.15 3.3 J 2.3 J 1.6 J 25 J 18 J 3.8 J 0.21 ND(0.00065) 0.025 1.7 E 0.041 0.0031 0.95168 0.024 0.00733 B 0.0232 J 0.0963 1.72 3.57 2.3 J 0.0029 0.015 0.19 0.021 0.46 J 0.16 0.694 0.009 0.022 0.015 0.0106 B 0.0839 0.00871 R 0.274 0.865 0.0041 ND(0.00055) 0.035 0.097 0.36 0.0117 1E Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.0033 ug/kg 0.00017 ug/kg 0.00019 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 1.95 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.000325 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 2.935 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.000275 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - TABLE Q.8 Page 2 of 4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 -HALF MILE 09 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed CRA 031884 (51) Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 006 Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 006 Nitro Sanitary Board Outfall 007 Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left - Subfacility Name Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property AES Property Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia AES Property Flexsys Solutia System Location Code SOL-ASD-10 SOL-ASD-7 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-35 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36 KR-COR-36A KR-COR-36B SOL-ESD-1 SOL-ESD-2 SOL-ESD-3 KR-D-08 KRKD-203 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSD-19 KR-KRSO-34 KR-KRSO-34 KR-KRSO-49 KR-COR-33 KR-COR-33 KR-COR-34 KR-COR-36C KR-COR-36C AES-D-72 SOL-FSD-2 SOL-FSD-3 SOL-FSD-4 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 KR-KRSD-18 AES-D-71 AES-D-70 KR-ARM_CR-I-64BRIDGE KR-COR-32A SOL-CSD-2 SOL-CSD-7 SOL-CSD-9 AES-D-75 SOL-FSD-5 River Marker 41.7 41.7 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.7 41.5 41.6 41.5 41.4 NA NA 41.5 41.5 41.5 41.5 42.1 42.1 AC 41.3 41.3 41.4 41.4 41.4 NA 41.3 41.3 41.2 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.4 NA NA NA 41.1 41.1 41.1 41 NA 41.2 Sample Name ASD-10-N ASD-7-N SE-031884-112907-DD-017 SE-031884-120507-DD-086 SE-031884-120507-DD-087 SE-031884-120507-DD-088 SE-031884-120507-DD-089 SE-031884-112907-DD-016 SE-031884-120507-DD-123 SE-031884-121008-SG-007 SE-031884-120507-DD-124 SE-031884-121008-SG-008 SE-031884-121008-SG-009 SE-031884-121008-SG-010 SE-031884-120507-DD-125 SE-031884-121008-SG-011 SE-031884-121008-SG-012 SE-031884-121008-SG-006 SE-031884-121008-SG-013 ESD-1-N ESD-2-N ESD-3-N D-08 SD-31884-10292004-KD-203 R380956 R380953 R380954 R380955 R3109122 R3109121 R3109146 SE-031884-112907-DD-019 SE-031884-120607-DD-128 SE-031884-112907-DD-018 SE-031884-121008-SG-014 SE-031884-121008-SG-015 D-72 FSD-2-N FSD-3-N FSD-4-N R380969 R380969 R380967 R380968 D-71 D-70 R3809H9 SE-031884-121108-SG-021 CSD-2-N CSD-7-N CSD-9-N D-75 FSD-5-N Sample Date 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 11/29/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 12/5/2007 11/29/2007 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/5/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 11/9/1998 10/28/2004 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/29/2007 12/6/2007 11/29/2007 12/10/2008 12/10/2008 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 5/17/2000 12/11/2008 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-54) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (24-48) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (48-72) IN (72-96) IN (96-108) IN (0-10.5) IN (0-12) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-21) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-40) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (0-18.5) IN - Sample Type Duplicate Duplicate Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SEDIMENT Subfacility Code SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR AES SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR AES AES KR KR SOL SOL SOL AES SOL Avg Sample/Dup TABLE Q.8 Page 3 of 4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 -HALF MILE 09 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1728835.412 1729022.35 1728385.748 1727892.43 1727843.605 1727843.605 1727843.605 1727740.365 1728652.417 1728722.026 1729351.571 1728887.369 1728994.707 1729812.745 1729026.662 1728189.452 1729017.299 1729204.238 1729376.02 1729583.169 1729777.74 1729777.74 1729777.74 Y Coordinate 527773.1199 527655.0596 527591.2331 527599.81 527294.0923 527294.0923 527294.0923 527247.9854 527770.0613 527776.066 528429.188 528174.214 527988.5652 527675.4103 527892.7014 528372.0203 527869.1158 527965.1116 528061.1074 528187.4177 528295.1182 528295.1182 528295.1182 Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name GSD-1 Kanawha R - near Monsanto MP 41.8 Kanawha River - MP 41.8 east KD-202 KRSD-17 KRSD-17 KRSD-17 KRSO-36 KRSO-38 SSD-22 COR-31 COR-32 Flexsys, E bank swale sediment Flexsys, NE fenceline drainage ditch Flexsys, swale comp 90 above riprap Flexsys, W bank swale GSD-2 GSD-3 GSD-4 GSD-6 KRSD-16 KRSD-16 KRSD-16 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 All Depth Mid (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 TCDD Study Area 2 Half Mile 9 0.0098 1.648202 0.038 0.071 0.0591 0.0744 0.00054 0.416 0.315 0.015 0.0039 0.012 0.00962 0.376 0.0176 0.0132 0.01 0.0018 0.0067 0.0067 0.0957 0.00286 0.00068 Original Result 0.0098 1.648202 0.038 0.071 0.0591 0.0744 0.00054 B 0.416 J 0.315 J 0.015 0.0039 0.012 0.00962 0.376 0.0176 0.0132 0.01 0.0018 0.0067 0.0067 0.0957 0.00286 B 0.00068 B Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - TABLE Q.8 Page 4 of 4 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 02 -HALF MILE 09 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Traced Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - CRA 031884 (51) Location Description I-64 Stormwater Outfall Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 001 Bank - Centre Bank - Centre - Subfacility Name Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property AES Property AES Property AES Property Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code SOL-GSD-1 KR-D-10 KR-D-36 KRKD-202 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSO-36 KR-KRSO-38 KR-SSD-22 KR-COR-31 KR-COR-32 AES-D-74 AES-D-73 AES-D-69 AES-D-76 SOL-GSD-2 SOL-GSD-3 SOL-GSD-4 SOL-GSD-6 KR-KRSD-16 KR-KRSD-16 KR-KRSD-16 River Marker 41 NA NA NA 40.7 40.7 40.7 41.85 41.7 NA 40.8 40.9 NA NA NA NA 40.9 40.9 40.8 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 Sample Name GSD-1-N D-10 D-36 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 R380946 R380944 R380945 R3109120 R3109119 SE-031884-112907-DD-020 SE-031884-112907-DD-023 SE-031884-112907-DD-021 D-74 D-73 D-69 D-76 GSD-2-N GSD-3-N GSD-4-N GSD-6-N R380966 R380964 R380965 Sample Date 9/24/2001 11/9/1998 5/12/1999 10/28/2004 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 5/17/2000 Depth-Original (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE Subfacility Code SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR AES AES AES AES SOL SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.9 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 10 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1730785.38 1727874.335 1728102.813 1728405.957 1728567.634 1728655.989 1727835.035 1728835.412 1729022.35 1728385.748 1727892.43 1727843.605 1727843.605 1727843.605 1727740.365 1728652.417 1728722.026 1729351.571 1728887.369 1728994.707 1729812.745 1729026.662 1728189.452 1729017.299 1729204.238 1729376.02 1729583.169 1729777.74 1729777.74 1729777.74 1729846.029 1729846.029 1729846.029 1729846.029 1731945.86 1731945.86 1731945.86 1730478.826 1730804.226 1732444.76 1732444.76 1732466.984 1732436.033 1732069.626 1731991.769 1732286.017 1732444.76 1731467.569 1731506.211 1731506.211 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 525643.4533 528076.747 527404.2939 527550.8138 527636.7048 527796.8377 527257.774 527773.1199 527655.0596 527591.2331 527599.81 527294.0923 527294.0923 527294.0923 527247.9854 527770.0613 527776.066 528429.188 528174.214 527988.5652 527675.4103 527892.7014 528372.0203 527869.1158 527965.1116 528061.1074 528187.4177 528295.1182 528295.1182 528295.1182 529173.875 529173.875 529173.875 529173.875 528219.6555 528219.6555 528219.6555 528742.4118 528968.935 528632.8912 528610.6677 528610.6677 528638.6934 529389.6171 529666.211 527973.2387 528610.6677 530067.191 529522.487 529522.487 Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name Armour Creek I64 Bridge COR-32A CSD-2 CSD-7 CSD-9 Flexsys, swale, 150yds upgrad along E ba FSD-5 GSD-1 Kanawha R - near Monsanto MP 41.8 Kanawha River - MP 41.8 east KD-202 KRSD-17 KRSD-17 KRSD-17 KRSO-36 KRSO-38 SSD-22 COR-31 COR-32 Flexsys, E bank swale sediment Flexsys, NE fenceline drainage ditch Flexsys, swale comp 90 above riprap Flexsys, W bank swale GSD-2 GSD-3 GSD-4 GSD-6 KRSD-16 KRSD-16 KRSD-16 COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B KRSD-59 KRSD-59 KRSD-59 KRSO-41 SSD-21 Armour Creek 01 - upgradient near I-64 Armour Creek 02-cell and landfill drain Armour Creek 04-ditchline comp sample Armour Creek Kanawha Stone Armour Creek Landfill Runoff Armour Creek Midwest Steel Armour Creek SR35 Armour Creek03-ditchline N of road drain COR-29 COR-30 COR-30 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 6 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 4 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 4 2 4 6 7.7 0.5 1.7 3.3 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 2 Mid Depth (ft) 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 3 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 3 1 3 5 6.85 0.25 0.85 2.5 1.7 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 1 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 10 0.0041 0.000275 0.035 0.097 0.36 0.0117 1 0.0098 1.648202 0.038 0.071 0.0591 0.0744 0.00054 0.416 0.315 0.015 0.0039 0.012 0.00962 0.376 0.0176 0.0132 0.01 0.0018 0.0067 0.0067 0.0957 0.00286 0.00068 0.000125 0.00021 0.00018 0.00039 0.0142 0.0207 0.0927 0.0005 0.01 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.01777 0.013 0.0203 0.0614 R 0.03743 0.0013 0.013 0.00018 Original Result 0.0041 ND(0.00055) 0.035 0.097 0.36 0.0117 1E 0.0098 1.648202 0.038 0.071 0.0591 0.0744 0.00054 B 0.416 J 0.315 J 0.015 0.0039 0.012 0.00962 0.376 0.0176 0.0132 0.01 0.0018 0.0067 0.0067 0.0957 0.00286 B 0.00068 B ND(0.00025) ND(0.00042) ND(0.00036) ND(0.00039) 0.0142 0.0207 0.0927 ND(0.001) 0.01 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.01777 0.013 0.0203 0.0614 R 0.03743 0.0013 0.013 ND(0.00036) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.9 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 10 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg CRA 031884 (51) RDL Half 0.000275 0.000125 0.00021 0.00018 0.000195 0.0005 0 0 0.00018 Coordinate Remark Surveyed Traced Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Left I-64 Stormwater Outfall Flexsys/Solutia Outfall 001 Bank - Centre Bank - Centre Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Midwest Steel Area Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia AES Property Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River AES Property AES Property AES Property AES Property Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Flexsys Solutia Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-ARM_CR-I-64BRIDGE KR-COR-32A SOL-CSD-2 SOL-CSD-7 SOL-CSD-9 AES-D-75 SOL-FSD-5 SOL-GSD-1 KR-D-10 KR-D-36 KRKD-202 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSD-17 KR-KRSO-36 KR-KRSO-38 KR-SSD-22 KR-COR-31 KR-COR-32 AES-D-74 AES-D-73 AES-D-69 AES-D-76 SOL-GSD-2 SOL-GSD-3 SOL-GSD-4 SOL-GSD-6 KR-KRSD-16 KR-KRSD-16 KR-KRSD-16 KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSO-41 KR-SSD-21 KR-D-15 KR-D-16 KR-D-18 KR-ARM_CK-KAN_STONE KR-ARM_CK_LF_RO KR-ARM_CK_MW_STEEL KR-ARM_CK-SR_35 KR-D-17 KR-COR-29 KR-COR-30 KR-COR-30 River Marker NA 41.1 41.1 41.1 41 NA 41.2 41 NA NA NA 40.7 40.7 40.7 41.85 41.7 NA 40.8 40.9 NA NA NA NA 40.9 40.9 40.8 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 NA NA NA 41.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40.3 40.4 40.4 Sample Name R3809H9 SE-031884-121108-SG-021 CSD-2-N CSD-7-N CSD-9-N D-75 FSD-5-N GSD-1-N D-10 D-36 SD-31884-10282004-KD-202 R380946 R380944 R380945 R3109120 R3109119 SE-031884-112907-DD-020 SE-031884-112907-DD-023 SE-031884-112907-DD-021 D-74 D-73 D-69 D-76 GSD-2-N GSD-3-N GSD-4-N GSD-6-N R380966 R380964 R380965 SE-031884-121108-SG-016 SE-031884-121108-SG-017 SE-031884-121108-SG-018 SE-031884-121108-SG-019 R3809H4 R3809G4 R3809G5 R3109134 SE-031884-112907-DD-022 D-15 D-16 D-18 R3809I2 R3809I0 R3809I1 R3809I3 D-17 SE-031884-112907-DD-025 SE-031884-112907-DD-024 SE-031884-120707-DD-175 Sample Date Depth-Original Sample Type 5/17/2000 12/11/2008 (0-18.5) IN 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 11/9/1998 5/12/1999 10/28/2004 5/15/2000 (0-0.5) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (0-2) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (2-4) ft BGS 9/1/2001 (20-) IN 9/1/2001 (20-) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 6/16/1997 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 9/24/2001 5/17/2000 (0-0.5) ft BGS 5/17/2000 (0-2) ft BGS 5/17/2000 (2-4) ft BGS 12/11/2008 (0-24) IN 12/11/2008 (24-48) IN 12/11/2008 (48-72) IN 12/11/2008 (72-92) IN 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 (0-1.667) ft BGS 5/12/2000 (1.667-3.333) ft BGS 9/1/2001 (20-) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/9/1998 11/9/1998 11/9/1998 5/19/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/19/2000 11/9/1998 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 12/7/2007 (0-24) IN - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE Sediment SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SEDIMENT SE SE SE Sediment Sediment Sediment Sediment SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR SOL SOL SOL AES SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR AES AES AES AES SOL SOL SOL SOL KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Avg Sample/Dup Avg Sample/Dup Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.9 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 10 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1731506.211 1731380.207 1731380.207 1731380.207 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1732222.051 1732222.051 1732222.051 1732220.723 1732220.723 1732220.723 1731141.534 Y Coordinate 529522.487 530548.381 530548.381 530548.381 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 528868.6798 528868.6798 528868.6798 528901.9262 528901.9262 528901.9262 529203.5813 Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-30 KRSD-14 KRSD-14 KRSD-14 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-57 KRSD-57 KRSD-57 KRSD-58 KRSD-58 KRSD-58 KRSO-42 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - TOP 2 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 1.7 0 0 1.7 1.7 All Depth (ft) - BOT 2.5 2 4 6 0.5 2 4 6 8 0.5 1.7 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.3 Mid Depth (ft) 2.25 1 3 5 0.25 1 3 5 7 0.25 0.85 2.5 0.25 0.85 2.5 1.7 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 10 0.0021 0.00108 R 0.0000335 0.021 0.227 2.02 0.748 0.00456 0.0177 0.163 0.414 0.014 0.0182 0.044 0.0005 Original Result 0.0021 0.00108 B R ND(0.000067) 0.021 B 0.227 2.02 J 0.748 J 0.00456 B 0.0177 0.163 0.414 0.014 0.0182 0.044 ND(0.001) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.9 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 10 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg CRA 031884 (51) RDL Half 0.0005 Coordinate Remark Surveyed Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Location Description Bank - Right Midwest Steel Area Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-30 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSO-42 River Marker 40.4 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 41.65 Sample Name SE-031884-120707-DD-174 R380941 R380942 R380943 R380952 R380948 R380949 R380950 R380951 R3809H2 R3809G0 R3809G1 R3809H3 R3809G2 R3809G3 R3109135 Sample Date Depth-Original Sample Type 12/7/2007 (24-30) IN 5/15/2000 (0-2) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (2-4) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (4-6) ft BGS 5/16/2000 (0-0.5) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (0-2) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (2-4) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (4-6) ft BGS 5/15/2000 (6-8) ft BGS 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 (0-1.667) ft BGS 5/12/2000 (1.667-3.333) ft BGS 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 (0-1.667) ft BGS 5/12/2000 (1.667-3.333) ft BGS 9/1/2001 (20-) IN - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR TABLE Q.10 Page 1 of 2 SWAC CALCUATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 11 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1729846.029 1729846.029 1729846.029 1729846.029 1731945.86 1731945.86 1731945.86 1730478.826 1730804.226 1732444.76 1732444.76 1732466.984 1732436.033 1732069.626 1731991.769 1732286.017 1732444.76 1731467.569 1731506.211 1731506.211 1731506.211 1731380.207 1731380.207 1731380.207 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1731990.723 1732222.051 1732222.051 1732222.051 1732220.723 1732220.723 1732220.723 1731141.534 1732586.614 1732586.614 1732307.659 1732583.054 1732619.447 1733067.224 1733450.325 Y Coordinate 529173.875 529173.875 529173.875 529173.875 528219.6555 528219.6555 528219.6555 528742.4118 528968.935 528632.8912 528610.6677 528610.6677 528638.6934 529389.6171 529666.211 527973.2387 528610.6677 530067.191 529522.487 529522.487 529522.487 530548.381 530548.381 530548.381 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 529966.9235 528868.6798 528868.6798 528868.6798 528901.9262 528901.9262 528901.9262 529203.5813 530703.681 530703.681 530361.864 529658.592 531418.909 532625.5801 531908.09 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 10 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 11 STUDY AREA 3 12 12 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 12 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A Location Name COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B COR-32B KRSD-59 KRSD-59 KRSD-59 KRSO-41 SSD-21 Armour Creek 01 - upgradient near I-64 Armour Creek 02-cell and landfill drain Armour Creek 04-ditchline comp sample Armour Creek Kanawha Stone Armour Creek Landfill Runoff Armour Creek Midwest Steel Armour Creek SR35 Armour Creek03-ditchline N of road drain COR-29 COR-30 COR-30 COR-30 KRSD-14 KRSD-14 KRSD-14 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-15 KRSD-57 KRSD-57 KRSD-57 KRSD-58 KRSD-58 KRSD-58 KRSO-42 COR-28 COR-28 COR-28A SSD-20 COR-27 KRSD-13 SSD-19 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 2 4 6 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 1.7 0 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 2 4 6 7.7 0.5 1.7 3.3 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 2 2.5 2 4 6 0.5 2 4 6 8 0.5 1.7 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.3 0 2 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 Mid Depth (ft) 1 3 5 6.85 0.25 0.85 2.5 1.7 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 1 2.25 1 3 5 0.25 1 3 5 7 0.25 0.85 2.5 0.25 0.85 2.5 1.7 0 1 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 11 0.000125 0.00021 0.00018 0.00039 0.0142 0.0207 0.0927 0.0005 0.01 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.01777 0.013 0.0203 0.0614 R 0.03743 0.0013 0.013 0.00018 0.0021 0.00108 R 0.0000335 0.021 0.227 2.02 0.748 0.00456 0.0177 0.163 0.414 0.014 0.0182 0.044 0.0005 0.0088 0.0002 0.0002 0.017 0.013 0.0072 0.0018 Original Result ND(0.00025) ND(0.00042) ND(0.00036) ND(0.00039) 0.0142 0.0207 0.0927 ND(0.001) 0.01 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.01777 0.013 0.0203 0.0614 R 0.03743 0.0013 0.013 ND(0.00036) 0.0021 0.00108 B R ND(0.000067) 0.021 B 0.227 2.02 J 0.748 J 0.00456 B 0.0177 0.163 0.414 0.014 0.0182 0.044 ND(0.001) 0.0088 ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) 0.017 0.013 0.0072 B 0.0018 Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg TABLE Q.10 Page 2 of 2 SWAC CALCUATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 11 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA RDL Half 0.000125 0.00021 0.00018 0.000195 0.0005 0 0 0.00018 0.0005 0.0002 0.0002 - CRA 031884 (51) Location Description Coordinate Remark Surveyed Bank - Left Surveyed Bank - Left Surveyed Bank - Left Surveyed Bank - Left Traced - 20130116 Midwest Steel Area Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Centre Surveyed Bank - Right Surveyed Bank - Right Surveyed Bank - Right Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Traced - 20130116 Midwest Steel Area Surveyed Bank - Right Surveyed Bank - Right Surveyed Bank - Right Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Centre Surveyed - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-COR-32B KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSD-59 KR-KRSO-41 KR-SSD-21 KR-D-15 KR-D-16 KR-D-18 KR-ARM_CK-KAN_STONE KR-ARM_CK_LF_RO KR-ARM_CK_MW_STEEL KR-ARM_CK-SR_35 KR-D-17 KR-COR-29 KR-COR-30 KR-COR-30 KR-COR-30 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-14 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-15 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-57 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSD-58 KR-KRSO-42 KR-COR-28 KR-COR-28 KR-COR-28A KR-SSD-20 KR-COR-27 KR-KRSD-13 KR-SSD-19 River Marker 40.7 40.7 40.7 40.7 NA NA NA 41.7 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40.3 40.4 40.4 40.4 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 40.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 41.65 40.1 40.1 40.2 NA 40 39.7 NA Sample Name SE-031884-121108-SG-016 SE-031884-121108-SG-017 SE-031884-121108-SG-018 SE-031884-121108-SG-019 R3809H4 R3809G4 R3809G5 R3109134 SE-031884-112907-DD-022 D-15 D-16 D-18 R3809I2 R3809I0 R3809I1 R3809I3 D-17 SE-031884-112907-DD-025 SE-031884-112907-DD-024 SE-031884-120707-DD-175 SE-031884-120707-DD-174 R380941 R380942 R380943 R380952 R380948 R380949 R380950 R380951 R3809H2 R3809G0 R3809G1 R3809H3 R3809G2 R3809G3 R3109135 SE-031884-112907-DD-027 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 SE-031884-121108-SG-020 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 SE-031884-112907-DD-028 R380940 SE-031884-112907-DD-029 Sample Date 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 9/1/2001 11/29/2007 11/9/1998 11/9/1998 11/9/1998 5/19/2000 5/18/2000 5/18/2000 5/19/2000 11/9/1998 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 12/7/2007 12/7/2007 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/16/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 9/1/2001 11/29/2007 12/8/2007 12/11/2008 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 5/15/2000 11/29/2007 Depth-Original (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (72-92) IN (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-30) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (20-) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-6) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-0) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Subfacility Code Code Sediment KR Sediment KR Sediment KR Sediment KR SE KR SE KR SE KR Sediment KR SE KR SE KR SE KR Avg Sample/Dup SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR Sediment KR SE KR SE KR Sediment KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.11 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 12 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile Quarter Mile 1732586.614 1732586.614 1732307.659 1732583.054 1732619.447 1733067.224 1733450.325 1734332.823 1734332.823 1734332.823 1733547.829 1735082.702 1735059.017 1734955.127 530703.681 530703.681 530361.864 529658.592 531418.909 532625.5801 531908.09 533380.761 533380.761 533380.761 532597.187 534747.771 534780.1968 535152.828 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 B B B B A A A B B B B A B B Location Name All Depth (ft) TOP All Depth (ft) BOT Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 12 COR-28 COR-28 COR-28A SSD-20 COR-27 KRSD-13 SSD-19 COR-25 COR-25 COR-25 COR-26 SSD-18 Linbarger Creek Runoff SSD-17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0.5 0 0 1 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.25 0 0.0088 0.0002 0.0002 0.017 0.013 0.0072 0.0018 0.002 0.0011 0.000225 0.0026 0.052 0.122 0.035 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.11 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 12 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result Chemical Name 0.0088 ND(0.0004) ND(0.0004) 0.017 0.013 0.0072 B 0.0018 0.002 0.0011 ND(0.00045) 0.0026 0.052 0.122 J 0.035 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.0002 0.0002 0.00155 0.000225 - Coordinate Remark Location Description Subfacility Name System Location Code Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre - Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-COR-28 KR-COR-28 KR-COR-28A KR-SSD-20 KR-COR-27 KR-KRSD-13 KR-SSD-19 KR-COR-25 KR-COR-25 KR-COR-25 KR-COR-26 KR-SSD-18 KR-LIN_BARKER_CREEK KR-SSD-17 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.11 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 12 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Marker Sample Name 40.1 40.1 40.2 NA 40 39.7 NA 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.7 NA NA NA SE-031884-112907-DD-027 SE-031884-120807-DD-176 SE-031884-121108-SG-020 SE-031884-112907-DD-026 SE-031884-112907-DD-028 R380940 SE-031884-112907-DD-029 SE-031884-112907-DD-032 SE-031884-112907-DD-031 SE-031884-120807-DD-178 SE-031884-112907-DD-030 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 R3809I4 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 Sample Date DepthOriginal Sample Type 11/29/2007 12/8/2007 12/11/2008 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 5/15/2000 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 11/29/2007 12/8/2007 11/29/2007 11/30/2007 5/18/2000 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-6) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-14) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Duplicate - Fraction Code Matrix Code Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur Sediment Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Diox Fur SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.12 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 13 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1734332.823 1734332.823 1734332.823 1733547.829 1735082.702 1735059.017 1734955.127 1734966.885 1734382.48 Y Coordinate 533380.761 533380.761 533380.761 532597.187 534747.771 534780.1968 535152.828 537423.505 536903.993 Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 Quarter Mile B B B B A B B A A Location Name COR-25 COR-25 COR-25 COR-26 SSD-18 Linbarger Creek Runoff SSD-17 SSD-15 SSD-16 All Depth (ft) All Depth (ft) - TOP - BOT 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 13 0.002 0.0011 0.000225 0.0026 0.052 0.122 0.035 0.012 0.0055 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.12 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 13 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.002 0.0011 ND(0.00045) 0.0026 0.052 0.122 J 0.035 0.012 0.0055 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg 0.00155 ug/kg ug/kg 0.000225 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-25 KR-COR-25 KR-COR-25 KR-COR-26 KR-SSD-18 KR-LIN_BARKER_CREEK KR-SSD-17 KR-SSD-15 KR-SSD-16 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.12 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 13 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Marker 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.7 NA NA NA NA NA CRA 031884 (51) Sample Name SE-031884-112907-DD-032 SE-031884-112907-DD-031 SE-031884-120807-DD-178 SE-031884-112907-DD-030 SE-031884-113007-DD-033 R3809I4 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 SE-031884-113007-DD-036 SE-031884-113007-DD-035 DepthSample Date Original 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 12/8/2007 (0-14) IN 11/29/2007 (0-0) IN 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 5/18/2000 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Sample Type Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.13 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 14 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1735059.017 1734955.127 1734966.885 1734382.48 1734061.138 1734638.591 1734638.591 1735497.077 1735497.077 1735325.634 1738861.217 1735756.158 1735756.158 1735541.273 1735541.273 1736368.883 1736368.883 1737097.097 1737097.097 1737849.221 1737849.221 1737849.221 1738235.162 1738235.162 1739661.33 1739661.33 1739661.33 1737097 1737097 1737849.2 1737849.2 1738235.1 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 534780.1968 535152.828 537423.505 536903.993 538502.616 538674.464 538674.464 539381.8412 539381.8412 539345.6503 542872.6708 540140.7701 540140.7701 542166.1893 542166.1893 541857.6368 541857.6368 541069.5379 541069.5379 540826.5102 540826.5102 540826.5102 541911.8985 541911.8985 543494.0442 543494.0442 543494.0442 541069.53 541069.53 540826.51 540826.51 541911.89 - Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 3 13 STUDY AREA 3 13 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 Quarter Mile B B A A B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C All Depth (ft) All Depth (ft) Mid Location Name - TOP Depth (ft) BOT Linbarger_Creek_Runoff 0 0.5 0.25 SSD-17 0 0 0 SSD-15 0 0 0 SSD-16 0 0 0 COR-24 0 0 0 KRSD-48 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-48 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-50 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-50 1.7 3.3 2.5 0.25 Poca_RR_Bridge 0 0.5 HCSD1 0 0.5 0.25 HCSD2 0 0.5 0.25 HCSD3 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-45 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-49 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-49 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-51 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-51 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-53 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-53 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-54 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-54 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-55 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-55 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-55 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-56 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-56 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSD-63 0 0.5 0.25 KRSD-63 0 1.7 0.85 KRSD-63 1.7 3.3 2.5 KRSO-54 0 0.5 0.25 KRSO-54 1.7 1.7 KRSO-55 0 0.5 0.25 KRSO-55 1.7 1.7 KRSO-56 1.7 1.7 POND 0 0.5 0.25 SD01 0 0.5 0.25 SD-01 0 0.2 0.1 SD02 0 0.5 0.25 SD-02 0 0.2 0.1 SD03 0 0.5 0.25 SD-03 0 0.2 0.1 SD04 0 0.5 0.25 SD-04 0 0.2 0.1 SD05 0 0.5 0.25 SD-05 0 0.2 0.1 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 14 0.122 0.035 0.012 0.0055 0.0043 0.00074 0.00324 0.00388 0.0167 0.00327 0.14 0.034 0.0065 0.00105 0.0025 0.00077 0.00098 0.00332 0.0000335 0.00083 R R 0.00124 R 0.00908 0.00182 0.00255 0.00106 0.00169 0.00122 0.00029 0.00029 J 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 480 0.00188 0.0138 0.0000335 0.00942 0.0000335 0.0078 0.000689 0.00679 0.038 0.00837 Original Result 0.122 J 0.035 0.012 0.0055 0.0043 0.00074 B 0.00324 B 0.00388 0.0167 0.00327 0.14 0.034 0.0065 0.00105 0.0025 0.00077 0.00098 J 0.00332 J ND(0.000067) 0.00083 B R R 0.00124 R 0.00908 0.00182 B 0.00255 0.00106 0.00169 0.00122 0.00029 J 0.00029 J ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(960) 0.00188 J 0.0138 ND(0.000067) 0.00942 ND(0.000067) 0.0078 0.000689 J 0.00679 0.038 0.00837 Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 480 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.13 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 14 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed CRA 031884 (51) Location Description Bank - Left Duplicate of KRSO-56 Background 1 Duplicate of KRSO-56 Background 1 Background 1 Background 1 Background 2 From Intermittent Stream just priot to PPE - to Pocatalico River From intermittent stream south of Midway From intermittent stream south of Heizer Creek From intermittent stream North of Heizer Creek From Intermittent stream at base of Kandfill Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek System Location Code KR-LIN_BARKER_CREEK KR-SSD-17 KR-SSD-15 KR-SSD-16 KR-COR-24 KR-KRSD-48 KR-KRSD-48 KR-KRSD-50 KR-KRSD-50 KR-POCA_RR_BRIDGE HEI-HCSD1 HEI-HCSD2 HEI-HCSD3 KR-KRSD-45 KR-KRSD-49 KR-KRSD-49 KR-KRSD-51 KR-KRSD-51 KR-KRSD-53 KR-KRSD-53 KR-KRSD-54 KR-KRSD-54 KR-KRSD-55 KR-KRSD-55 KR-KRSD-55 KR-KRSD-56 KR-KRSD-56 KR-KRSD-63 KR-KRSD-63 KR-KRSD-63 KR-KRSO-54 KR-KRSO-54 KR-KRSO-55 KR-KRSO-55 KR-KRSO-56 MAN-POND MAN-SD01 HEI-SD-01 MAN-SD02 HEI-SD-02 MAN-SD03 HEI-SD-03 MAN-SD04 HEI-SD-04 MAN-SD05 HEI-SD-05 River Marker NA NA NA NA 38.6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 47 47 47 47 47 NA NA NA NA NA NA - Sample Name R3809I4 SE-031884-113007-DD-034 SE-031884-113007-DD-036 SE-031884-113007-DD-035 SE-031884-113007-DD-037 R3809E2 R3809E3 R3809E6 R3809E7 R3809H5 HCSD1 HCSD2 HCSD3 R3809D1 R3809E4 R3809E5 R3809E8 R3809E9 R3809F2 R3809F3 R3809F4 R3809F5 R3809H6 R3809F6 R3809F7 R3809F8 R3809F9 R3809H7 R3809H0 R3809H1 KRSO-54 R3109145 KRSO-55 R3109142 R3109143 POND SEDIMENT R369733 R382033 R369717 R382034 R369703 R382035 R369722 R382036 R369715 R382037 Sample Date 5/18/2000 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/1/2000 5/1/2000 5/1/2000 5/14/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/11/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/12/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 9/22/2001 9/1/2001 9/22/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.33) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.33) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Subfacility Code Code SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR sediment HEI sediment HEI sediment HEI SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR SE KR Sediment KR SE KR Sediment KR Sediment KR SE MAN SE MAN SE HEI SE MAN SE HEI SE MAN SE HEI Avg Sample/Dup SE MAN SE HEI SE MAN SE HEI Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.13 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 14 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1734170.759 1732994.837 1732994.837 1732994.837 1732994.837 1733644.233 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 539287.6221 539471.0211 539471.0211 539471.0211 539471.0211 539874.121 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 14 STUDY AREA 3 15 STUDY AREA 4 15 STUDY AREA 4 15 STUDY AREA 4 15 STUDY AREA 4 15 STUDY AREA 4 15 Quarter Mile C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C A A A A A A Location Name SD06 SD-06 SD07 SD-07 SD08 SD09 SD-09 SD10 SD-10 SD11 SD-11 SD-11 SD12 SD13 SD14 KRSD-11 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 SSD-14 All Depth (ft) All Depth (ft) Mid - TOP Depth (ft) BOT 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.25 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 2 1 2 4 3 4 6 5 6 8 7 0 0 0 TCDD Study Area 3 Half Mile 14 0.000317 0.085 0.0000335 0.895 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00134 0.0000335 0.00433 0.0000335 0.00165 0.00229 0.00222 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00136 0.00347 0.0105 0.0112 0.0195 0.023 Original Result 0.000317 J 0.085 ND(0.000067) 0.895 + ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00134 B ND(0.000067) 0.00433 ND(0.000067) 0.00165 B 0.00229 B 0.00222 J ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00136 B 0.00347 B 0.0105 0.0112 0.0195 0.023 Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.00197 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.13 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 03 - HALF MILE 14 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed Location Description Sediment sample of intermittent stream adjacent to Landfill Background Sediment of Intermittent stream above landfill Background Sediment from Pocatalico River PPE of Intermittent stream into Pocatalico River Release sample from Pocatalico River Release sample from Pocatalico River - Subfacility Name Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code MAN-SD06 HEI-SD-06 MAN-SD07 HEI-SD-07 MAN-SD-08 MAN-SD09 HEI-SD-09 MAN-SD10 HEI-SD-10 MAN-SD11 HEI-SD-11 HEI-SD-11 MAN-SD12 MAN-SD13 MAN-SD14 KR-KRSD-11 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-SSD-14 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) River Marker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.5 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.3 NA Sample Name R369710 R382038 R369712 R382039 R369705 R369708 R382040 R369724 R382041 R369725 R382043 R382042 R369735 R369737 R369734 R380947 R380933 R380934 R380935 R380936 SE-031884-113007-DD-038 Sample Date 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 11/30/2007 Depth-Original (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (0-0) IN Sample Type Duplicate Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN HEI HEI MAN MAN MAN KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.14 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 15 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1734061.138 1734638.591 1734638.591 1735497.077 1735497.077 1735325.634 1738861.217 1735756.158 1735756.158 1735541.273 1735541.273 1736368.883 1736368.883 1737097.097 1737097.097 1737849.221 1737849.221 1737849.221 1738235.162 1738235.162 1739661.33 1739661.33 1739661.33 1737097 1737097 1737849.2 1737849.2 1738235.1 CRA 031884 (51) Y Coordinate 538502.616 538674.464 538674.464 539381.8412 539381.8412 539345.6503 542872.6708 540140.7701 540140.7701 542166.1893 542166.1893 541857.6368 541857.6368 541069.5379 541069.5379 540826.5102 540826.5102 540826.5102 541911.8985 541911.8985 543494.0442 543494.0442 543494.0442 541069.53 541069.53 540826.51 540826.51 541911.89 - Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 Half Mile 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Quarter Mile B B B B B B C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Location Name COR-24 KRSD-48 KRSD-48 KRSD-50 KRSD-50 Poca_RR_Bridge HCSD1 HCSD2 HCSD3 KRSD-45 KRSD-49 KRSD-49 KRSD-51 KRSD-51 KRSD-53 KRSD-53 KRSD-54 KRSD-54 KRSD-55 KRSD-55 KRSD-55 KRSD-56 KRSD-56 KRSD-63 KRSD-63 KRSD-63 KRSO-54 KRSO-54 KRSO-55 KRSO-55 KRSO-56 POND SD01 SD-01 SD02 SD-02 SD03 SD-03 SD04 SD-04 SD05 SD-05 SD06 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.3 1.7 3.3 0.5 1.7 3.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 Mid Depth (ft) 0 0.85 2.5 0.85 2.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.85 0.85 2.5 0.85 2.5 0.85 2.5 0.85 2.5 0.25 0.85 2.5 0.85 2.5 0.25 0.85 2.5 0.25 1.7 0.25 1.7 1.7 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 15 0.0043 0.00074 0.00324 0.00388 0.0167 0.00327 0.14 0.034 0.0065 0.00105 0.0025 0.00077 0.00098 0.00332 0.0000335 0.00083 R R 0.00124 R 0.00908 0.00182 0.00255 0.00106 0.00169 0.00122 0.00029 0.00029 J 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 480 0.00188 0.0138 0.0000335 0.00942 0.0000335 0.0078 0.000689 0.00679 0.038 0.00837 0.000317 Original Result 0.0043 0.00074 B 0.00324 B 0.00388 0.0167 0.00327 0.14 0.034 0.0065 0.00105 0.0025 0.00077 0.00098 J 0.00332 J ND(0.000067) 0.00083 B R R 0.00124 R 0.00908 0.00182 B 0.00255 0.00106 0.00169 0.00122 0.00029 J 0.00029 J ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(960) 0.00188 J 0.0138 ND(0.000067) 0.00942 ND(0.000067) 0.0078 0.000689 J 0.00679 0.038 0.00837 0.000317 J Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 480 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.14 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 15 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Surveyed CRA 031884 (51) Location Description Bank - Left Duplicate of KRSO-56 Background 1 Duplicate of KRSO-56 Background 1 Background 1 Background 1 Background 2 From Intermittent Stream just priot to PPE - to Pocatalico River From intermittent stream south of Midway From intermittent stream south of Heizer Creek From intermittent stream North of Heizer Creek From Intermittent stream at base of Kandfill - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek System Location Code River Marker KR-COR-24 38.6 KR-KRSD-48 NA KR-KRSD-48 NA KR-KRSD-50 NA KR-KRSD-50 NA KR-POCA_RR_BRIDGE NA HEI-HCSD1 NA HEI-HCSD2 NA HEI-HCSD3 NA KR-KRSD-45 NA KR-KRSD-49 NA KR-KRSD-49 NA KR-KRSD-51 NA KR-KRSD-51 NA KR-KRSD-53 NA KR-KRSD-53 NA KR-KRSD-54 NA KR-KRSD-54 NA KR-KRSD-55 NA KR-KRSD-55 NA KR-KRSD-55 NA KR-KRSD-56 NA KR-KRSD-56 NA KR-KRSD-63 NA KR-KRSD-63 NA KR-KRSD-63 NA KR-KRSO-54 47 KR-KRSO-54 47 KR-KRSO-55 47 KR-KRSO-55 47 KR-KRSO-56 47 MAN-POND NA MAN-SD01 NA HEI-SD-01 MAN-SD02 NA HEI-SD-02 MAN-SD03 NA HEI-SD-03 MAN-SD04 NA HEI-SD-04 MAN-SD05 NA HEI-SD-05 MAN-SD06 NA Sample Name SE-031884-113007-DD-037 R3809E2 R3809E3 R3809E6 R3809E7 R3809H5 HCSD1 HCSD2 HCSD3 R3809D1 R3809E4 R3809E5 R3809E8 R3809E9 R3809F2 R3809F3 R3809F4 R3809F5 R3809H6 R3809F6 R3809F7 R3809F8 R3809F9 R3809H7 R3809H0 R3809H1 KRSO-54 R3109145 KRSO-55 R3109142 R3109143 POND SEDIMENT R369733 R382033 R369717 R382034 R369703 R382035 R369722 R382036 R369715 R382037 R369710 Sample Date 11/30/2007 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/1/2000 5/1/2000 5/1/2000 5/14/2000 5/15/2000 5/15/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/11/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/12/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 5/16/2000 9/22/2001 9/1/2001 9/22/2001 9/1/2001 9/1/2001 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.33) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.33) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (20-) IN (20-) IN (20-) IN (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS - Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE sediment sediment sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE Sediment Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR HEI HEI HEI KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR MAN MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN Avg Sample/Dup Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.14 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 15 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1734170.759 1732994.837 1732994.837 1732994.837 1732994.837 1733644.233 1732572.025 1732572.025 1731744.237 1731744.237 1731744.237 Y Coordinate 539287.6221 539471.0211 539471.0211 539471.0211 539471.0211 539874.121 540720.879 540720.879 541288.687 541288.687 541288.687 Study Area STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 3 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 Quarter Mile C C C C C C C C C C C C C C A A A A A A B B A A A Location Name SD-06 SD07 SD-07 SD08 SD09 SD-09 SD10 SD-10 SD11 SD-11 SD-11 SD12 SD13 SD14 KRSD-11 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 KRSD-10 SSD-14 COR-23 COR-23 COR-22 COR-22 COR-22 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - BOT 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 4 6 8 0 0 2.3 0 2 4.1 Mid Depth (ft) 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 3 5 7 0 0 1.15 0 1 3.05 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 15 0.085 0.0000335 0.895 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00134 0.0000335 0.00433 0.0000335 0.00165 0.00229 0.00222 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.00136 0.00347 0.0105 0.0112 0.0195 0.023 0.066 0.00029 0.056 3 1.1 Original Result 0.085 ND(0.000067) 0.895 + ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00134 B ND(0.000067) 0.00433 ND(0.000067) 0.00165 B 0.00229 B 0.00222 J ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.00136 B 0.00347 B 0.0105 0.0112 0.0195 0.023 0.066 ND(0.00052) 0.056 3J 1.1 J Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.00197 ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.14 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 15 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark - Location Description Sediment sample of intermittent stream adjacent to Landfill Background Sediment of Intermittent stream above landfill Background Sediment from Pocatalico River PPE of Intermittent stream into Pocatalico River Release sample from Pocatalico River Release sample from Pocatalico River - - - Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right CRA 031884 (51) Subfacility Name Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Heizer Creek Heizer Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Manilla Creek Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code HEI-SD-06 MAN-SD07 HEI-SD-07 MAN-SD-08 MAN-SD09 HEI-SD-09 MAN-SD10 HEI-SD-10 MAN-SD11 HEI-SD-11 HEI-SD-11 MAN-SD12 MAN-SD13 MAN-SD14 KR-KRSD-11 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-KRSD-10 KR-SSD-14 KR-COR-23 KR-COR-23 KR-COR-22 KR-COR-22 KR-COR-22 River Marker NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38.5 38.3 38.3 38.3 38.3 NA 38.1 38.1 37.8 37.8 37.8 Sample Name R382038 R369712 R382039 R369705 R369708 R382040 R369724 R382041 R369725 R382043 R382042 R369735 R369737 R369734 R380947 R380933 R380934 R380935 R380936 SE-031884-113007-DD-038 SE-031884-113007-DD-039 SE-031884-120807-DD-179 SE-031884-113007-DD-040 SE-031884-121007-DD-180 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 Sample Date 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 5/10/2000 5/10/2000 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 5/16/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 12/8/2007 11/30/2007 12/10/2007 12/10/2007 Depth-Original (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.25) ft BGS (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-27) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-49) IN Sample Type Duplicate Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code HEI MAN HEI MAN MAN HEI MAN HEI MAN HEI HEI MAN MAN MAN KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.15 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 16 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1732572.025 1732572.025 1731744.237 1731744.237 1731744.237 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1730582.104 1730582.104 1730582.104 1731043.682 1731043.682 1731043.682 1730499.085 1730499.085 1730499.085 1730499.085 Y Coordinate 540720.879 540720.879 541288.687 541288.687 541288.687 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 541502.2357 541502.2357 541502.2357 542114.7831 542114.7831 542114.7831 542790 542790 542790 542790 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 Quarter Mile B B A A A B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A Location Name COR-23 COR-23 COR-22 COR-22 COR-22 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 KRSD-08 KRSD-08 KRSD-08 KRSD-09 KRSD-09 KRSD-09 COR-20 COR-20 COR-20 COR-20 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) All Depth (ft) - BOT 0 2.3 0 2 4.1 0 2 2 4 6.5 2 4 6 0.5 2 4 0 0 2 2.6 Mid Depth (ft) 0 1.15 0 1 3.05 0 1 1 3 5.25 1 3 5 0.25 1 3 0 0 1 2.3 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.15 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 16 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 16 0.066 0.00029 0.056 3 1.1 0.023 2.7 2.3 0.088 0.0018 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 2.4 1.33 5.02 0.0094 0.009 0.014 0.052 CRA 031884 (51) Original Result 0.066 ND(0.00052) 0.056 3J 1.1 J 0.023 2.7 J 2.3 J 0.088 0.0018 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 2.4 J 1.33 J 5.02 J 0.0094 0.009 0.014 0.052 Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half - - - - - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.15 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 16 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River CRA 031884 (51) System Location River Code Marker KR-COR-23 38.1 KR-COR-23 38.1 KR-COR-22 37.8 KR-COR-22 37.8 KR-COR-22 37.8 KR-COR-21 37.7 KR-COR-21 37.7 KR-COR-21 37.7 KR-COR-21 37.7 KR-COR-21 37.7 KR-KRSD-08 37.8 KR-KRSD-08 37.8 KR-KRSD-08 37.8 KR-KRSD-09 37.5 KR-KRSD-09 37.5 KR-KRSD-09 37.5 KR-COR-20 37.5 KR-COR-20 37.5 KR-COR-20 37.5 KR-COR-20 37.5 Sample Name SE-031884-113007-DD-039 SE-031884-120807-DD-179 SE-031884-113007-DD-040 SE-031884-121007-DD-180 SE-031884-121007-DD-181 SE-031884-113007-DD-041 SE-031884-121007-DD-213 SE-031884-121007-DD-214 SE-031884-121007-DD-215 SE-031884-121007-DD-216 R380920 R380921 R380922 R380937 R380938 R380939 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 SE-031884-121107-DD-218 SE-031884-121107-DD-219 DepthSample Fraction Sample Date Original Type Code 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/8/2007 (0-27) IN Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (24-49) IN Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN Duplicate Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (24-48) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (48-78) IN Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (4-6) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (0-0.5) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/11/2007 (0-24) IN Diox Fur 12/11/2007 (24-31.6) IN Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR TABLE Q.16 Page 1 of 3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 17 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1731061.284 1730582.104 1730582.104 1730582.104 1731043.682 1731043.682 1731043.682 1730499.085 1730499.085 1730499.085 1730499.085 1729867.879 1729502.161 1728712.195 Y Coordinate 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 542078.493 541502.2357 541502.2357 541502.2357 542114.7831 542114.7831 542114.7831 542790 542790 542790 542790 543822.587 544413.604 545994.375 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A B B A Location Name COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 COR-21 KRSD-08 KRSD-08 KRSD-08 KRSD-09 KRSD-09 KRSD-09 COR-20 COR-20 COR-20 COR-20 COR-19 SSD-13 SSD-12 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) Mid BOT Depth (ft) 0 0 2 1 2 1 4 3 6.5 5.25 2 1 4 3 6 5 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 2.6 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 17 0.023 2.7 2.3 0.088 0.0018 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 2.4 1.33 5.02 0.0094 0.009 0.014 0.052 0.012 0.038 0.015 TABLE Q.16 Page 2 of 3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 17 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.023 2.7 J 2.3 J 0.088 0.0018 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 2.4 J 1.33 J 5.02 J 0.0094 0.009 0.014 0.052 0.012 0.038 0.015 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Coordinate Location Unit RDL Half Remark Description ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed ug/kg Surveyed - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-21 KR-COR-21 KR-COR-21 KR-COR-21 KR-COR-21 KR-KRSD-08 KR-KRSD-08 KR-KRSD-08 KR-KRSD-09 KR-KRSD-09 KR-KRSD-09 KR-COR-20 KR-COR-20 KR-COR-20 KR-COR-20 KR-COR-19 KR-SSD-13 KR-SSD-12 River Marker 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.7 37.8 37.8 37.8 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.5 37.2 NA NA TABLE Q.16 Page 3 of 3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 17 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-113007-DD-041 SE-031884-121007-DD-213 SE-031884-121007-DD-214 SE-031884-121007-DD-215 SE-031884-121007-DD-216 R380920 R380921 R380922 R380937 R380938 R380939 SE-031884-113007-DD-043 SE-031884-113007-DD-042 SE-031884-121107-DD-218 SE-031884-121107-DD-219 SE-031884-113007-DD-044 SE-031884-113007-DD-045 SE-031884-113007-DD-046 CRA 031884 (51) DepthSample Fraction Sample Date Original Type Code 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (0-24) IN Duplicate Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (24-48) IN Diox Fur 12/10/2007 (48-78) IN Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/12/2000 (4-6) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (0-0.5) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur 5/15/2000 (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Duplicate Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 12/11/2007 (0-24) IN Diox Fur 12/11/2007 (24-31.6) IN Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur 11/30/2007 (0-0) IN Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.17 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 18 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1729867.879 1729502.161 1728712.195 1729116.843 1727172.695 1727172.695 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727159.993 Y Coordinate 543822.587 544413.604 545994.375 546277.253 547832.2135 547832.2135 548081.3327 548081.3327 548081.3327 547567.204 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 4 17 STUDY AREA 4 17 STUDY AREA 4 18 STUDY AREA 4 18 STUDY AREA 4 19 STUDY AREA 4 19 STUDY AREA 4 19 STUDY AREA 4 19 STUDY AREA 4 19 STUDY AREA 4 19 Quarter Mile B B A B A A A A A A Location Name COR-19 SSD-13 SSD-12 SSD-11 KRSD-06 KRSD-06 KRSD-07 KRSD-07 KRSD-07 SSD-10 All Depth (ft) - All Depth TOP (ft) - BOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 4 4 6 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 3 5 0 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 18 0.012 0.038 0.015 0.0052 0.0483 R 0.0331 R R 0.0038 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.17 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 18 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.012 0.038 0.015 0.0052 0.0483 R 0.0331 J R R 0.0038 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentra tion Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-19 KR-SSD-13 KR-SSD-12 KR-SSD-11 KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-SSD-10 River Marker 37.2 NA NA NA 36.4 36.4 36.3 36.3 36.3 NA Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.17 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 18 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-113007-DD-044 SE-031884-113007-DD-045 SE-031884-113007-DD-046 SE-031884-113007-DD-047 R380915 R380916 R380917 R380918 R380919 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 CRA 031884 (51) Sample Date 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 5/11/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 11/30/2007 DepthOriginal (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacilit y Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.18 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 4 - HALF MILE 19 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1729116.843 1727172.695 1727172.695 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727159.993 1727159.179 1727159.179 Y Coordinate 546277.253 547832.2135 547832.2135 548081.3327 548081.3327 548081.3327 547567.204 550370.023 550370.023 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 Quarter Mile B A A A A A A A A Location All Depth (ft) All Depth - TOP Name (ft) - BOT SSD-11 0 0 KRSD-06 0 2 KRSD-06 2 4 KRSD-07 0 2 KRSD-07 2 4 KRSD-07 4 6 SSD-10 0 0 COR-18 0 0 COR-18 0 2 Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 19 0 0.0052 1 0.0483 3 R 1 0.0331 3 R 5 R 0 0.0038 0 0.0036 1 0.000235 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.18 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 4 - HALF MILE 19 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.0052 0.0483 R 0.0331 J R R 0.0038 ND(0.0072)U ND(0.00047) CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentr ation Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-SSD-11 KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-SSD-10 KR-COR-18 KR-COR-18 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.18 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 4 - HALF MILE 19 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Marker NA 36.4 36.4 36.3 36.3 36.3 NA 35.9 35.9 CRA 031884 (51) Sample Name SE-031884-113007-DD-047 R380915 R380916 R380917 R380918 R380919 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 SE-031884-120107-DD-049 SE-031884-121107-DD-221 Sample Date 11/30/2007 5/11/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 11/30/2007 12/1/2007 12/11/2007 DepthOriginal (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 4 TABLE Q.19 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 20 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile Quarter Mile Location Name All Depth (ft) - TOP All Depth (ft) - BOT 1727172.695 1727172.695 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727946.224 1727159.993 1727159.179 1727159.179 1726947.265 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 547832.2135 547832.2135 548081.3327 548081.3327 548081.3327 547567.204 550370.023 550370.023 552121.377 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 A A A A A A A A B A A A A A KRSD-06 KRSD-06 KRSD-07 KRSD-07 KRSD-07 SSD-10 COR-18 COR-18 SSD-09 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 2 4 2 4 6 0 0 2 0 0.5 2 4 6 8 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 4 TABLE Q.19 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 20 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 20 Original Result Chemical Name 1 3 1 3 5 0 0 1 0 0.25 1 3 5 7 0.0483 R 0.0331 R R 0.0038 0.0036 0.000235 0.0125 0.0131 0.504 0.421 1.59 0.139 0.0483 R 0.0331 J R R 0.0038 ND(0.0072)U ND(0.00047) ND(0.025)U 0.0131 0.504 0.421 1.59 0.139 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) CRA 031884 (51) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Page 3 of 4 TABLE Q.19 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 20 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Coordinate Remark Location Description Subfacility Name System Location Code River Marker Sample Name Sample Date Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - Bank - Right Bank - Right - Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-06 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-KRSD-07 KR-SSD-10 KR-COR-18 KR-COR-18 KR-SSD-09 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 36.4 36.4 36.3 36.3 36.3 NA 35.9 35.9 NA 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 R380915 R380916 R380917 R380918 R380919 SE-031884-113007-DD-048 SE-031884-120107-DD-049 SE-031884-121107-DD-221 SE-031884-120107-DD-050 R380931 R380923 R380924 R380925 R380926 5/11/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 11/30/2007 12/1/2007 12/11/2007 12/1/2007 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 CRA 031884 (51) Page 4 of 4 TABLE Q.19 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 20 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA CRA 031884 (51) Depth-Original Sample Type Fraction Code Matrix Code Subfacility Code (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS - Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.20 SWAC CALCULTION STUDY ARE 04 - HALF MILE 21 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate Y Coordinate Study Area Half Mile Quarter Mile Location All Depth (ft) Name TOP 1726947.265 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 1726469.83 1724896.805 1723814.271 1723814.271 1723814.271 552121.377 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 552661.6632 554383.678 555109.208 555109.208 555109.208 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 B A A A A A B A A A SSD-09 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 KRSD-05 COR-17 COR-15 COR-15 COR-15 1723814.271 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 555109.208 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 22 22 22 22 22 A A A A A COR-15 COR-16 COR-16 COR-16 COR-16 All Depth (ft) BOT Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 21 0 0 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 2 4 6 8 0 0 1.6 1.6 0.25 1 3 5 7 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.0125 0.0131 0.504 0.421 1.59 0.139 0.0014 0.00345 0.013 0.0042 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.8 0 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.0049 0.0026 0.00076 0.00076 0.00077 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.20 SWAC CALCULTION STUDY ARE 04 - HALF MILE 21 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Location Description Subfacility Name - Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Centre Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-SSD-09 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-KRSD-05 KR-COR-17 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-15 NA 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 35.3 35 34.8 34.8 34.8 - Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River KR-COR-15 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 34.8 35 35 35 35 Concentration Unit RDL Half Original Result Chemical Name ND(0.025)U 0.0131 0.504 0.421 1.59 0.139 ND(0.0028)U ND(0.0069)U 0.013 0.0042 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg 0.0049 ND(0.0052)U 0.00076 J 0.00076 J 0.00077 J 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg CRA 031884 (51) Coordinate Remark System Location Code River Marker Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.20 SWAC CALCULTION STUDY ARE 04 - HALF MILE 21 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA CRA 031884 (51) Sample Name Sample Date DepthOriginal Sample Type Fraction Code Matrix Code Subfacility Code SE-031884-120107-DD-050 R380931 R380923 R380924 R380925 R380926 SE-031884-120107-DD-051 SE-031884-120107-DD-053 S-031884-022308-DD-406 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (B) 12/1/2007 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 5/13/2000 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 (0-0) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-19) IN (0-19) IN - Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR S-031884-022308-DD-406 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-052 S-031884-022308-DD-407 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (C) 3/31/2008 12/1/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 (0-19) IN (0-0) IN (0-16) IN (0-16) IN (0-16) IN - Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur SE SE SE SE SE KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.21 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 22 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1724896.805 1723814.271 1723814.271 1723814.271 1723814.271 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1723149.64 1721890.566 1721890.566 Y Coordinate 554383.678 555109.208 555109.208 555109.208 555109.208 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 556751.033 557206.4348 557206.4348 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Quarter Mile B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-17 COR-15 COR-15 COR-15 COR-15 COR-16 COR-16 COR-16 COR-16 BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13B BC-COR-13B BC-COR-13B COR-13 COR-14 KRSD-04 KRSD-04 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0 0 1.6 1.6 1.6 0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 2 4 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 1 2 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 22 0.0014 0.00345 0.013 0.0042 0.0049 0.0026 0.00076 0.00076 0.00077 0.13 0.0046 0.013 0.0079 0.0006 0.074 0.01 0.012 0.0238 0.00048 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.21 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 22 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result ND(0.0028)U ND(0.0069)U 0.013 0.0042 0.0049 ND(0.0052)U 0.00076 J 0.00076 J 0.00077 J 0.13 0.0046 0.013 0.0079 ND(0.0012)U 0.074 0.01 0.012 0.0238 0.00048 B CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentra Coordinat Location tion Unit RDL Half e Remark Description ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Centre ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Left ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Left ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Left ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Left ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Centre ug/kg Surveyed Bank - Right ug/kg ug/kg - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-17 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-15 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 KR-COR-16 KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13B KR-BC-COR-13B KR-BC-COR-13B KR-COR-13 KR-COR-14 KR-KRSD-04 KR-KRSD-04 River Marker 35 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 35 35 35 35 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.5 34.3 34.3 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.21 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 22 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-120107-DD-051 SE-031884-120107-DD-053 S-031884-022308-DD-406 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-052 S-031884-022308-DD-407 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (A) SE-031884-120107-DD-055 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 R380913 R380914 CRA 031884 (51) Sample Date 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 12/1/2007 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/31/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 DepthOriginal (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-19) IN (0-19) IN (0-19) IN (0-0) IN (0-16) IN (0-16) IN (0-16) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (0-4) ft BGS Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.22 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILES 23 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1723814.271 1723814.271 1723814.271 1723814.271 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 1724952.883 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1723149.64 1721890.566 1721890.566 1720952.404 1720952.404 1720993.534 1720993.534 Y Coordinate 555109.208 555109.208 555109.208 555109.208 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 554805.452 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 556751.033 557206.4348 557206.4348 559487.96 559487.96 558404.586 558404.586 Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 22 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 23 STUDY AREA 4 24 STUDY AREA 4 24 STUDY AREA 4 24 STUDY AREA 4 24 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location All Depth Name (ft) - TOP COR-15 0 COR-15 0 COR-15 0 COR-15 0 COR-16 0 COR-16 0 COR-16 0 COR-16 0 BC-COR-13A 0 BC-COR-13A 0 BC-COR-13A 0 BC-COR-13B 0 BC-COR-13B 0 BC-COR-13B 0 COR-13 0 COR-14 0 KRSD-04 0 KRSD-04 0 COR-11 0 COR-11 0 COR-12 0 COR-12 0 All Depth Mid (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 23 0 0 0.00345 1.6 0.8 0.013 1.6 0.8 0.0042 1.6 0.8 0.0049 0 0 0.0026 1.3 0.65 0.00076 1.3 0.65 0.00076 1.3 0.65 0.00077 0.2 0.1 0.13 0.2 0.1 0.0046 0.2 0.1 0.013 0.2 0.1 0.0079 0.2 0.1 0.0006 0.2 0.074 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.012 2 1 0.0238 4 2 0.00048 0 0 0.01 2 1 0.15 0 0 0.023 1.8 0.9 0.002 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.22 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILES 23 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result ND(0.0069)U 0.013 0.0042 0.0049 ND(0.0052)U 0.00076 J 0.00076 J 0.00077 J 0.13 0.0046 0.013 0.0079 ND(0.0012)U 0.074 0.01 0.012 0.0238 0.00048 B 0.01 0.15 0.023 0.002 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentr ation Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Subfacility System Location Name Code Kanawha River KR-COR-15 Kanawha River KR-COR-15 Kanawha River KR-COR-15 Kanawha River KR-COR-15 Kanawha River KR-COR-16 Kanawha River KR-COR-16 Kanawha River KR-COR-16 Kanawha River KR-COR-16 Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13A Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13A Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13A Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13B Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13B Kanawha River KR-BC-COR-13B Kanawha River KR-COR-13 Kanawha River KR-COR-14 Kanawha River KR-KRSD-04 Kanawha River KR-KRSD-04 Kanawha River KR-COR-11 Kanawha River KR-COR-11 Kanawha River KR-COR-12 Kanawha River KR-COR-12 River Marker 34.8 34.8 34.8 34.8 35 35 35 35 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.5 34.3 34.3 33.8 33.8 34 34 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.22 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILES 23 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-120107-DD-053 S-031884-022308-DD-406 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-406 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-052 S-031884-022308-DD-407 (A) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (B) S-031884-022308-DD-407 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (A) SE-031884-120107-DD-055 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 R380913 R380914 SE-031884-120107-DD-057 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 CRA 031884 (51) DepthSample Date Original 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 3/31/2008 (0-19) IN 3/31/2008 (0-19) IN 3/31/2008 (0-19) IN 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 3/31/2008 (0-16) IN 3/31/2008 (0-16) IN 3/31/2008 (0-16) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 3/28/2008 (0-2) IN 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 5/12/2000 (0-2) ft BGS 5/12/2000 (0-4) ft BGS 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 12/15/2007 (0-24) IN 12/1/2007 (0-0) IN 12/15/2007 (0-22) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.23 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 24 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1722462.494 1723149.64 1721890.566 1721890.566 1720952.404 1720952.404 1720993.534 1720993.534 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719458.457 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 Y Coordinate 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 557056.444 556751.033 557206.4348 557206.4348 559487.96 559487.96 558404.586 558404.586 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 561425.534 561425.534 561425.534 560988.973 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13A BC-COR-13B BC-COR-13B BC-COR-13B COR-13 COR-14 KRSD-04 KRSD-04 COR-11 COR-11 COR-12 COR-12 BC-COR-10A BC-COR-10A BC-COR-10A BC-COR-10B BC-COR-10B BC-COR-10B COR-09 COR-09 COR-09 COR-10 KRSD-03 KRSD-03 KRSD-03 KRSD-03 KRSD-03 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 4 6 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 2 2.8 0 0.5 2 4 6 8 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 24 0.1 0.13 0.1 0.0046 0.1 0.013 0.1 0.0079 0.1 0.0006 0.074 0 0.01 0 0.012 1 0.0238 2 0.00048 0 0.01 1 0.15 0 0.023 0.9 0.002 0.25 0.0032 0.25 0.0036 0.25 0.042 0.1 0.049 0.1 0.0014 0.1 0.0078 0 0.014 1 0.0086 2.4 0.000275 0 0.0019 0.25 0.0203 1 0.513 3 0.0107 5 0.0000335 7 0.0000335 Original Result 0.13 0.0046 0.013 0.0079 ND(0.0012)U 0.074 0.01 0.012 0.0238 0.00048 B 0.01 0.15 0.023 0.002 0.0032 0.0036 0.042 0.049 0.0014 0.0078 0.014 0.0086 ND(0.00055) ND(0.0038)U 0.0203 0.513 J 0.0107 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.23 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 24 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) CRA 031884 (51) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ‐ ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - Location Description Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13A KR-BC-COR-13B KR-BC-COR-13B KR-BC-COR-13B KR-COR-13 KR-COR-14 KR-KRSD-04 KR-KRSD-04 KR-COR-11 KR-COR-11 KR-COR-12 KR-COR-12 KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-10 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 River Marker 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.3 34.5 34.3 34.3 33.8 33.8 34 34 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 Sample Name S-031884-022408-DD-457 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-457 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-458 (A) SE-031884-120107-DD-055 SE-031884-120107-DD-054 R380913 R380914 SE-031884-120107-DD-057 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 S-031884-022408-DD-455 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-059 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 R3809I0 R380909 R380910 R380911 R380912 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.23 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 24 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Date 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/1/2007 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/11/2000 CRA 031884 (51) DepthSample Original Type (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (0-4) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-0) IN (0-22) IN (0-6) IN (0-6) IN (0-6) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-34) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.24 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 25 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1720952.404 1720952.404 1720993.534 1720993.534 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719458.457 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1717137.45 1717137.45 1717137.45 1717677.66 Y Coordinate 559487.96 559487.96 558404.586 558404.586 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 561425.534 561425.534 561425.534 560988.973 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 562409.832 562409.832 562409.832 562425.934 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location All Depth Name (ft) - TOP COR-11 0 COR-11 0 COR-12 0 COR-12 0 BC-COR-10A 0 BC-COR-10A 0 BC-COR-10A 0 BC-COR-10B 0 BC-COR-10B 0 BC-COR-10B 0 COR-09 0 COR-09 0 COR-09 2 COR-10 0 KRSD-03 0 KRSD-03 0 KRSD-03 2 KRSD-03 4 KRSD-03 6 COR-08 0 COR-08 0 COR-08 2 SSD-7 0 All Depth Mid (ft) - BOT Depth (ft) 0 0 2 1 0 0 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0 0 2 1 2.8 2.4 0 0 0.5 0.25 2 1 4 3 6 5 8 7 0 0 2 1 4 3 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 25 0.01 0.15 0.023 0.002 0.0032 0.0036 0.042 0.049 0.0014 0.0078 0.014 0.0086 0.000275 0.0019 0.0203 0.513 0.0107 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0041 0.0093 1.4 0.017 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.24 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 25 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.01 0.15 0.023 0.002 0.0032 0.0036 0.042 0.049 0.0014 0.0078 0.014 0.0086 ND(0.00055) ND(0.0038)U 0.0203 0.513 J 0.0107 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.0041 0.0093 1.4 J 0.017 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.24 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 25 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA System Location Code KR-COR-11 KR-COR-11 KR-COR-12 KR-COR-12 KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-10 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-COR-08 KR-COR-08 KR-COR-08 KR-SSD-7 CRA 031884 (51) River Marker 33.8 33.8 34 34 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 32.9 32.9 32.9 NA Sample Name SE-031884-120107-DD-057 SE-031884-121507-DD-331 SE-031884-120107-DD-056 SE-031884-121507-DD-334 S-031884-022408-DD-455 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-059 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 R3809I0 R380909 R380910 R380911 R380912 SE-031884-120107-DD-061 SE-031884-121307-DD-279 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 SE-031884-120107-DD-060 Sample Date 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/1/2007 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/11/2000 12/1/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/1/2007 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (0-0) IN (0-22) IN (0-6) IN (0-6) IN (0-6) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-2) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-34) IN (0-0) IN (0-2) ft BGS (2-4) ft BGS (4-6) ft BGS (6-8) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (0-0) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR TABLE Q.25 Page 1 of 3 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 26 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719458.457 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719592.689 1719458.457 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1719637.865 1717137.45 1717137.45 1717137.45 1717677.66 1715781.459 1715757.471 1715757.471 1715757.471 1716410.294 1716410.294 1716036.679 1714213.196 1714213.196 Y Coordinate 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 560988.973 561425.534 561425.534 561425.534 560988.973 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 561496.3967 562409.832 562409.832 562409.832 562425.934 563173.704 563513.888 563513.888 563513.888 562949.6256 562949.6256 563781.505 563022.593 563022.593 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B A A Location All Depth (ft) All Depth (ft) Mid Name - TOP BOT Depth (ft) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 26 BC-COR-10A 0 0.5 0.25 0.042 BC-COR-10A 0 0.5 0.25 0.0032 BC-COR-10A 0 0.5 0.25 0.0036 BC-COR-10B 0 0.2 0.1 0.049 BC-COR-10B 0 0.2 0.1 0.0014 BC-COR-10B 0 0.2 0.1 0.0078 COR-09 0 0 0 0.014 COR-09 0 2 1 0.0086 COR-09 2 2.8 2.4 0.000275 COR-10 0 0 0 0.0019 KRSD-03 0 0.5 0.25 0.0203 KRSD-03 0 2 1 0.513 KRSD-03 2 4 3 0.0107 KRSD-03 4 6 5 0.0000335 KRSD-03 6 8 7 0.0000335 COR-08 0 0 0 0.0041 COR-08 0 2 1 0.0093 COR-08 2 4 3 1.4 SSD-7 0 0 0 0.017 COR-06 0 0 0 0.0031 COR-07 0 0 0 0.048 COR-07 0 2 1 0.000155 COR-07 2 3 2.5 0.000135 KD-200 0 0.5 0.25 0.015 KD-201 0 0.5 0.25 0.28 SSD-06 0 0 0 0.038 COR-05 0 0 0 0.02 COR-05 0 0 0 0.0057 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Original Result 0.042 0.0032 0.0036 0.049 0.0014 0.0078 0.014 0.0086 ND(0.00055) ND(0.0038)U 0.0203 0.513 J 0.0107 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) 0.0041 0.0093 1.4 J 0.017 0.0031 0.048 ND(0.00031) ND(0.00027) 0.015 0.28 0.038 0.02 0.0057 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.25 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 26 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) CRA 031884 (51) Concentration Unit RDL Half ‐ ug/kg ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ ug/kg ‐ Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced Traced Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre Bank - Centre Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10A KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-BC-COR-10B KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-09 KR-COR-10 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-KRSD-03 KR-COR-08 KR-COR-08 KR-COR-08 KR-SSD-7 KR-COR-06 KR-COR-07 KR-COR-07 KR-COR-07 KRKD-200 KRKD-201 KR-SSD-06 KR-COR-05 KR-COR-05 River Marker 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 32.9 32.9 32.9 NA 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 NA NA NA 32.3 32.3 Sample Name S-031884-022408-DD-455 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-455 (C) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (A) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (B) S-031884-022408-DD-456 (C) SE-031884-120107-DD-059 SE-031884-121507-DD-332 SE-031884-121507-DD-333 SE-031884-120107-DD-058 R3809I0 R380909 R380910 R380911 R380912 SE-031884-120107-DD-061 SE-031884-121307-DD-279 SE-031884-121307-DD-280 SE-031884-120107-DD-060 SE-031884-120107-DD-062 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 SE-031884-121407-DD-282 SE-031884-121407-DD-283 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 SE-031884-120107-DD-064 SE-031884-120107-DD-065 SE-031884-120107-DD-066 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.25 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 26 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Date 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 3/28/2008 12/1/2007 12/15/2007 12/15/2007 12/1/2007 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/12/2000 5/11/2000 12/1/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 CRA 031884 (51) DepthSample Fraction Original Type Code (0-6) IN Diox Fur (0-6) IN Diox Fur (0-6) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-2) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-24) IN Diox Fur (24-34) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur Diox Fur (0-2) ft BGS Diox Fur (2-4) ft BGS Diox Fur (4-6) ft BGS Diox Fur (6-8) ft BGS Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-24) IN Diox Fur (24-48) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-24) IN Diox Fur (24-36) IN Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Diox Fur (0-0) IN Duplicate Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Avg Sample/Dup KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.26 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 27 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1715781.459 1715757.471 1715757.471 1715757.471 1716410.294 1716410.294 1716036.679 1714213.196 1714213.196 1713567.333 1713567.333 1713567.333 1713567.333 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1713251.364 Y Coordinate 563173.704 563513.888 563513.888 563513.888 562949.6256 562949.6256 563781.505 563022.593 563022.593 561847.685 561847.685 561847.685 561847.685 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560887.391 Half Study Area Mile STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 26 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 27 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 STUDY AREA 4 28 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B A A B B B B A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-06 COR-07 COR-07 COR-07 KD-200 KD-201 SSD-06 COR-05 COR-05 COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 SSD-05 All Depth (ft) - All Depth (ft) TOP - BOT 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 4 6 0 0 0 2 2 4 4 6.8 0 0.5 0 1.7 1.7 3.3 3.3 5 7.3 9.6 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) 0 0 1 2.5 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 1 3 5.4 0.25 0.85 2.5 4.15 8.45 0 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 27 0.0031 0.048 0.000155 0.000135 0.015 0.28 0.038 0.02 0.0057 0.0073 0.013 0.0098 0.0086 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 0.0000335 0.024 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.26 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 27 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.0031 0.048 ND(0.00031) ND(0.00027) 0.015 0.28 0.038 0.02 0.0057 0.0073 0.013 0.0098 0.0086 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 ND(0.000067) 0.024 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg RDL Half - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Traced Traced Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Centre Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Right Bank - Centre Bank - Centre Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left - Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-06 KR-COR-07 KR-COR-07 KR-COR-07 KRKD-200 KRKD-201 KR-SSD-06 KR-COR-05 KR-COR-05 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-SSD-05 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.26 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 27 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA River Marker 32.6 32.6 32.6 32.6 NA NA NA 32.3 32.3 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 NA CRA 031884 (51) Sample Name SE-031884-120107-DD-062 SE-031884-120107-DD-063 SE-031884-121407-DD-282 SE-031884-121407-DD-283 SD-31884-10282004-KD-200 SD-31884-10282004-KD-201 SE-031884-120107-DD-064 SE-031884-120107-DD-065 SE-031884-120107-DD-066 SE-031884-120107-DD-067 SE-031884-121207-DD-269 SE-031884-121207-DD-270 SE-031884-121207-DD-271 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 R380908 R380904 R380905 R380906 R380907 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 Sample Date 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/14/2007 12/14/2007 10/28/2004 10/28/2004 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/1/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/2/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 12/2/2007 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-36) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-81.6) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (3.333-5) ft BGS (7.333-9.583) ft BGS (0-0) IN Sample Type Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR Avg Sample/Dup KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 3 TABLE Q.27 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 28 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1713567.333 1713567.333 1713567.333 1713567.333 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1713251.364 1710952.925 Y Coordinate 561847.685 561847.685 561847.685 561847.685 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560887.391 559745.125 Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 Quarter Mile B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 COR-04 COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 SSD-05 COR-02 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 0 1.7 3.3 7.3 0 0 All Depth (ft) Mid BOT Depth (ft) 0 0 2 1 4 3 6 5 0 0 2 1 4 3 6.8 5.4 0.5 0.25 1.7 0.85 3.3 2.5 5 4.15 9.6 8.45 0 0 0 0 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 28 0.0073 0.013 0.0098 0.0086 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 0.0000335 0.024 0.048 Page 2 of 3 TABLE Q.27 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 28 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Original Result 0.0073 0.013 0.0098 0.0086 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 ND(0.000067) 0.024 0.048 CRA 031884 (51) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Location Description Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Centre Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River System Location Code KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-04 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-COR-03 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-KRSD-02 KR-SSD-05 KR-COR-02 River Marker 32.1 32.1 32.1 32.1 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 NA 31.5 Page 3 of 3 TABLE Q.27 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 28 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Sample Name SE-031884-120107-DD-067 SE-031884-121207-DD-269 SE-031884-121207-DD-270 SE-031884-121207-DD-271 SE-031884-120207-DD-068 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 R380908 R380904 R380905 R380906 R380907 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 SE-031884-120207-DD-070 CRA 031884 (51) Sample Date 12/1/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/2/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-72) IN (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-81.6) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (3.333-5) ft BGS (7.333-9.583) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN Sample Type - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR KR Page 1 of 2 TABLE Q.28 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 29 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712999.825 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1712992.506 1713251.364 1710952.925 1710131.123 1709497.451 1709174.619 1709558.275 1709408.556 1709071.687 1709118.475 1709296.992 1709035.561 1709419.352 1709734.676 1709082.56 1709082.56 1709082.56 1708814.357 1708926.647 1708744.176 1708636.566 1708266.946 1708327.77 1707990.901 1707939.435 1708042.367 - Y Coordinate 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 561018.481 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560984.1945 560887.391 559745.125 558931.634 558996.2 558561.0784 558944.734 558935.3766 558668.6891 558621.9019 558306.87 558937.103 559143.065 559335.253 557703.1711 557703.1711 557703.1711 558476.8613 558369.2506 558416.0379 558238.2462 558083.8482 558032.3823 557812.4821 557873.3055 557756.3374 - Study Area STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 STUDY AREA 4 Half Mile 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Quarter Mile A A A A A A A A A A A B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 COR-03 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 KRSD-02 SSD-05 COR-02 COR-01 RIV 1 RIV 10 RIV 2 RIV 4 RIV 8 RIV 9 SSD-01 SSD-02 SSD-03 SSD-04 KRSD-01 KRSD-01 KRSD-01 RIV 11 RIV 13 RIV 14 RIV 15 RIV 16 RIV 17 RIV 18 RIV 19 RIV 20 RIV 21 RIV 6 RIV 7 SED-1 SED-1 SED-2 SED-4 SED-5 All Depth (ft) - All Depth (ft) Mid Depth TOP - BOT (ft) 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 4 3 4 6.8 5.4 0 0.5 0.25 0 1.7 0.85 1.7 3.3 2.5 3.3 5 4.15 7.3 9.6 8.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 0.85 1.7 3.3 2.5 3.3 5 4.15 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 29 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 0.0000335 0.024 0.048 0.014 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.35 0.1 0.0026 0.0065 0.0046 0.0041 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Original Result 0.01 0.0083 0.011 0.019 0.00291 0.00519 0.00582 0.00468 ND(0.000067) 0.024 0.048 0.014 ND(0.1) ND(0.3) ND(0.2) ND(0.2) ND(0.7) ND(0.2) 0.0026 0.0065 0.0046 0.0041 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.4) ND(0.1) ND(0.2) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.2) ND(0.1)X ND(0.1)X ND(0.1)SJH ND(0.1) ND(0.1) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentr ation Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - Location Description Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Left Bank - Centre Bank - Centre - Page 2 of 2 TABLE Q.28 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 29 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Subfacility Name Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam CRA 031884 (51) System Location River Code Marker KR-COR-03 32 KR-COR-03 32 KR-COR-03 32 KR-COR-03 32 KR-KRSD-02 32 KR-KRSD-02 32 KR-KRSD-02 32 KR-KRSD-02 32 KR-KRSD-02 32 KR-SSD-05 NA KR-COR-02 31.5 KR-COR-01 31.3 WLD-RIV1 NA WLD-RIV10 NA WLD-RIV2 NA WLD-RIV4 NA WLD-RIV8 NA WLD-RIV9 NA KR-SSD-01 NA KR-SSD-02 NA KR-SSD-03 NA KR-SSD-04 NA KR-KRSD-01 31 KR-KRSD-01 31 KR-KRSD-01 31 WLD-RIV11 NA WLD-RIV13 NA WLD-RIV14 NA WLD-RIV15 NA WLD-RIV16 NA WLD-RIV17 NA WLD-RIV18 NA WLD-RIV19 NA WLD-RIV20 NA WLD-RIV21 NA WLD-RIV6 NA WLD-RIV7 NA WLD-SED1 NA WLD-SED1 NA WLD-SED2 NA NA WLD-SED4 WLD-SED5 NA Sample Name SE-031884-120207-DD-068 SE-031884-121307-DD-274 SE-031884-121307-DD-275 SE-031884-121307-DD-276 R380908 R380904 R380905 R380906 R380907 SE-031884-120207-DD-069 SE-031884-120207-DD-070 SE-031884-120207-DD-071 RIV 1,3,12 RIV 10 RIV 2 RIV 4 RIV 8 RIV 9 SE-031884-120207-DD-075 SE-031884-120207-DD-074 SE-031884-120207-DD-073 SE-031884-120207-DD-072 R380901 R380902 R380903 RIV 11 RIV 13 RIV 14 DUP (RIV 15) RIV 16 RIV 17 RIV 18 RIV 19 RIV 20 RIV 21 RIV 6 RIV 7 SED-1 SED-1 DUP SED-2 SED-4 SED-3 Sample Date 12/2/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 12/13/2007 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/12/1991 12/6/1991 12/12/1991 12/12/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/9/1991 12/12/1991 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-24) IN (24-48) IN (48-81.6) IN (0-0.5) ft BGS (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (3.333-5) ft BGS (7.333-9.583) ft BGS (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (3.333-5) ft BGS - Sample Type (other) Duplicate - Fraction Matrix Code Code Subfacility Code Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE KR Diox Fur SE WLD SE WLD Diox Fur Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur Sediment WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Diox Fur SE WLD Page 1 of 2 TABLE Q.29 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 30 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA X Coordinate 1710131.123 1709497.451 1709174.619 1709558.275 1709408.556 1709071.687 1709118.475 1709296.992 1709035.561 1709419.352 1709734.676 1709082.56 1709082.56 1709082.56 1708814.357 1708926.647 1708744.176 1708636.566 1708266.946 1708327.77 1707990.901 1707939.435 1708042.367 - Y Coordinate 558931.634 558996.2 558561.0784 558944.734 558935.3766 558668.6891 558621.9019 558306.87 558937.103 559143.065 559335.253 557703.1711 557703.1711 557703.1711 558476.8613 558369.2506 558416.0379 558238.2462 558083.8482 558032.3823 557812.4821 557873.3055 557756.3374 - Study Area Half Mile STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 29 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 STUDY AREA 4 30 Quarter Mile B B B B B B B B B B B A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Location Name COR-01 RIV 1 RIV 10 RIV 2 RIV 4 RIV 8 RIV 9 SSD-01 SSD-02 SSD-03 SSD-04 KRSD-01 KRSD-01 KRSD-01 RIV 11 RIV 13 RIV 14 RIV 15 RIV 16 RIV 17 RIV 18 RIV 19 RIV 20 RIV 21 RIV 6 RIV 7 SED-1 SED-1 SED-2 SED-4 SED-5 All Depth (ft) - TOP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 3.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Depth (ft) - BOT 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.7 3.3 5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Legend Data from adjacent upstream or downstream half-miles included to eliminate edge effects. Core data excluded as it is co-located with surficial samples Data excluded as only the maximum was taken in cases of splits and duplicates. CRA 031884 (51) Mid Depth (ft) 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.85 2.5 4.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 TCDD Study Area 4 Half Mile 30 0.014 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.35 0.1 0.0026 0.0065 0.0046 0.0041 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.0000335 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Original Result 0.014 ND(0.1) ND(0.3) ND(0.2) ND(0.2) ND(0.7) ND(0.2) 0.0026 0.0065 0.0046 0.0041 ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.000067) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.4) ND(0.1) ND(0.2) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.1) ND(0.2) ND(0.1)X ND(0.1)X ND(0.1)SJH ND(0.1) ND(0.1) Chemical Name 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Concentration Unit RDL Half ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg - Coordinate Remark Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed Surveyed - - - - Location Description Bank - Centre - Page 2 of 2 TABLE Q.29 SWAC CALCULATION STUDY AREA 04 - HALF MILE 30 KANAWHA RIVER, WEST VIRGINIA Subfacility Name Kanawha River Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Kanawha River Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam Winfield Locks & Dam CRA 031884 (51) System Location Code KR-COR-01 WLD-RIV1 WLD-RIV10 WLD-RIV2 WLD-RIV4 WLD-RIV8 WLD-RIV9 KR-SSD-01 KR-SSD-02 KR-SSD-03 KR-SSD-04 KR-KRSD-01 KR-KRSD-01 KR-KRSD-01 WLD-RIV11 WLD-RIV13 WLD-RIV14 WLD-RIV15 WLD-RIV16 WLD-RIV17 WLD-RIV18 WLD-RIV19 WLD-RIV20 WLD-RIV21 WLD-RIV6 WLD-RIV7 WLD-SED1 WLD-SED1 WLD-SED2 WLD-SED4 WLD-SED5 River Marker 31.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 31 31 31 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Sample Name SE-031884-120207-DD-071 RIV 1,3,12 RIV 10 RIV 2 RIV 4 RIV 8 RIV 9 SE-031884-120207-DD-075 SE-031884-120207-DD-074 SE-031884-120207-DD-073 SE-031884-120207-DD-072 R380901 R380902 R380903 RIV 11 RIV 13 RIV 14 DUP (RIV 15) RIV 16 RIV 17 RIV 18 RIV 19 RIV 20 RIV 21 RIV 6 RIV 7 SED-1 SED-1 DUP SED-2 SED-4 SED-3 Sample Date 12/2/2007 12/12/1991 12/6/1991 12/12/1991 12/12/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 12/2/2007 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 5/11/2000 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/6/1991 12/9/1991 12/12/1991 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 1/1/1901 Depth-Original (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-0) IN (0-1.667) ft BGS (1.667-3.333) ft BGS (3.333-5) ft BGS - Sample Type (other) Duplicate - Fraction Code Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Diox Fur Matrix Code SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Sediment SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Subfacility Code KR WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD KR KR KR KR KR KR KR WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD WLD