[Federal Register: September 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55459-55461]
[DOCID:fr13se10-3]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0217; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-23-AD;
Amendment 39-16427; AD 2010-18-13]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4000 Series
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for PW
PW4052, PW4056, PW4060, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4074, PW4077, PW4077D,
PW4084D, PW4090, PW4090-3, PW4152, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4164, PW4168,
PW4168A, PW4460, and PW4462 turbofan engines. This AD requires initial
and repetitive fluorescent penetrant inspections (FPI) for cracks in
the blade locking and loading slots of the high-pressure compressor
(HPC) drum rotor disk assembly. This AD results from reports of cracked
locking and loading slots in the HPC drum rotor disk assembly. We are
issuing this AD to detect cracks in the locking and loading slots in
the HPC drum rotor disk assemblies, which could result in rupture of
the HPC drum rotor disk assembly and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 18, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulations as of October 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You can get the service information identified in this AD
from Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone
(860) 565-7700; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39
with a proposed AD. The proposed AD applies to PW PW4000 series
turbofan engines. We published the proposed AD in the Federal Register
on March 25, 2010 (75 FR 14375). That action proposed to require
initial and repetitive FPI for cracks in the blade locking and loading
slots of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Concur With the AD as Proposed

    Two commenters, United Services and Boeing, concurred with the AD
as proposed.

Request To Reference the Latest Service Bulletin (SB)

    One commenter, a private citizen, requested that we reference the
latest SB in the AD, which is Pratt & Whitney SB No. PW4G-112-72-264,
Revision 2, dated February 23, 2010.
    We agree. We changed the AD to use the most current version of the
SB.

Request To Change the Inspection Compliance Time

    One commenter, Delta Tech Ops, requested that we change the
inspection compliance time to be done only when all of the blades of a
specific stage are removed, rather than when any of the blades from a
specific stage are removed, as written in the proposed AD. The
commenter states that doing the inspection when any blades are removed
is an added maintenance burden.
    We do not agree. Our risk assessment establishes that, because the
rotating life-limited parts addressed by this AD action have a known
cracking problem, the parts must be inspected at the times stated in
the AD. Inspection can be done without removing all of the blades, by
sliding remaining installed blades to expose the locking and loading
slots for local fluorescent penetrant inspection. We did not change the
AD.

Engine Model Removed

    Since we issued the proposed AD, we became aware that we
inadvertently listed engine model PW4156. We removed that engine model
from the AD.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comments received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1,038 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1
work-hour per engine to perform the actions, and that the average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. No parts are required. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be
$88,230.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD and
placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2010-18-13 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment 39-16427. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0217; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-23-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
18, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4052, PW4056,
PW4060, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4074, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090,
PW4090-3, PW4152, PW4156A, PW4158, PW4164, PW4168, PW4168A, PW4460,
and PW4462 turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Boeing 747-400, 767-200, 767-300, 777-200, and 777-300
airplanes; McDonnell Douglas MD-11 airplanes; and Airbus A300-600,
A310-300, and A330-200 airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracked locking and loading
slots in the high-pressure compressor (HPC) drum rotor disk
assembly. We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the locking and
loading slots in the HPC drum rotor disk assemblies, which could
result in rupture of the HPC drum rotor disk assembly and damage to
the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Local Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection

    (f) Perform a local fluorescent penetrant inspection for cracks
in the HPC drum rotor disk assembly blade locking and loading slots
of the specific stages of the HPC drum rotor disk assemblies from
which any of the blades are removed as specified in Table 1 of this
AD.

     Table 1--Compliance Times and Service Bulletins by Engine Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      For engine model.         Inspect whenever.           Use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) PW4074, PW4077, PW4077D,  Any of the 13th or    Paragraphs 1.A.
 PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-  14th stage blades     through 1.B. of the
 3.                            are removed during    Accomplishment
                               a shop visit.         Instructions of
                                                     PW4G-112-72-264,
                                                     Revision 2, dated
                                                     February 23, 2010.
(2) PW4164, PW4168, and       Any of the 13th,      Paragraphs 1.A.
 PW4168A.                      14th, or 15th stage   through 1.C of the
                               blades are removed    Accomplishment
                               during a shop visit.  Instructions of
                                                     PW4G-100-72-186,
                                                     Revision 1, dated
                                                     September 2, 2004.
(3) PW4052, PW4056, PW4060,   Any of the 13th,      Paragraphs 1.A.
 PW4062, PW4062A, PW4152,      14th, or 15th stage   through 1.C. of the
 PW4156A, PW4158, PW4460,      blades are removed    Accomplishment
 and PW4462.                   during a shop visit.  Instructions of
                                                     PW4ENG 72-796,
                                                     dated June 11,
                                                     2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (g) Remove from service any HPC drum rotor disk assembly found
with a crack in the blade loading and locking slots of the HPC drum
rotor disk assembly.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (h) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (i) Contact Rose Len, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use the service information specified in the
following Table 2 to perform the inspections required by this AD.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of the documents listed in the following Table 2 in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; telephone (860) 565-
7700; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for a copy of this service information.
You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

                                       Table 2--Incorporation by Reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pratt & Whitney Service Bulletin
               No.                         Page                Revision                       Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PW4G-100-72-186; Total Pages: 11.  ALL.................  1...................  September 2, 2004.
PW4G-112-72-264; Total Pages: 11.  ALL.................  2...................  February 23, 2010.
PW4ENG 72-796; Total Pages: 22...  ALL.................  Original............  June 11, 2009.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 26, 2010.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-21869 Filed 9-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48975]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-15337]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Parts 240, 241, and 250

 [Release No. 34-72472; File No. S7-02-13]
RIN 3235-AL25

Application of ``Security-Based Swap Dealer'' and ``Major
Security-Based Swap Participant'' Definitions to Cross-Border Security-
Based Swap Activities; Republication

Correction

    In rule document R1-2014-15337 beginning on page 47278 in the issue
of Tuesday, August 12, 2014, make the following correction:
    On page 47278, in the first column, in the eleventh through
seventeenth lines, and on page 47372, in the third column, in the
eighth through fourteenth lines, the editorial notes should read as
follows:

    Editorial Note:  Rule document 2014-15337 was originally
published on pages 39067 through 39162 in the issue of Wednesday,
July 9, 2014. In that publication the footnotes contained erroneous
entries. The corrected document is republished in its entirety.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-15337 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


Name of Sitc Contact Perf U. S. Environ North Caroli <

Roy F. Wesl Pathways, C Grol obse The targc SUI% there soil 1 l i v i n g A i r 8 collel SFUND 2001 0009 0010 IRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD REVIEW COVER SHEET Reasor Chemical Company NCD 986 187 094. ,

Is: ental Protection Agency, Region 4:

Pame) (Telephone) Samantha Urquhart Foster, RemedialProjectManager( 404) 562 8760 Cynthia Gurley, NPL Coordinator (494)

L Depkent of Environment and Natural Resources Site Inspection: Stuart Parker, Hydrogeologist( 919) 733 2801 Documentation Record: JeanetteStanley, Chemist (919) '733 2801 ext. 318 1:

Remedial Investigation: DavidNelson. P. G. (770) 263 5400 monents. or Threats Not Scored:

dwater Migration Pathway  The groundwater pathway was not scored because no ed release of site contaminants to surrounding drvlking water wells was documented. oundwater pathway would not contribute significantly to the site score based on potential e Water Drinking Water .Threat  The drinking water threat was not scored because no drinking water intake downstream of the site.

gosure Pathway  The soil exposure pathway was not scored because there is no one e and within 200' of the areas of contamination.

gration Pathway  The air pathway was not scored because no air samples were :d The air pathway would not contribute significantly to the site score based on 1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: ReasorChemicalCompany NCD 986 187 094 EPA StreetAddress of Site: 5 100 NorthCollegeRoad CountyandState: NewHanoverCounty, NC General Location in the State: Southeast Coastal Plain, near Wilmington, NC TopographicMap: CastleHayne, North Carolina, 1980 (Orthophotograph, no topographic map available) (Ref 10)

Latitude: 34'20'36S''NLongitude: 77'53'3 1 "W (Ref 14)

Scores Air Pathway  Not Scored Ground Water Pathway  Not Scored Soil Exposure Pathway  Not Scored Surface Water Pathway  64.27 HRS SITE SCORE ' 32.14 2 1.

2a.

3.

4.

5.

6. Groun Surfac Drinla Food En\ rirc Surfac Soil E Ail"

Total 1 HRS I ..

WORKSHEET FOR SITE SCORE S S2 X WaterMigrationPathwayScoreNotScored : Water OverlandElood Migration

lg Water Threat Not Scored :hain Threat* 4.27 mental Threat 60 i WaterOverlandEloodMigrationComponent 64.27 4130.63 cposure Not Scored gration Not Scored If SP2 + s, 2 + s, 2 + s," = 4130.63 ,ite Score: Valueonline 5. divided by four, .

then take the square root 32.14 ' 3 SURFACE WATER OVERLANDIFLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET 1 Factor I Maximum Value I V a l u e A s s i g n e d II I DRINKING I O b s e r v e d I 550 I 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow: ..

2 a . 10 2 b . 25

2 c . D i s t a n c , 25

2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a x :.+ ., t [2b + 2cj) . 500 .. i  ,#

3. Potential to Release by Flood:

10. Population:

loa. Level I Concentrations  b 1 Ob. Level I1 Concentrations  b ~~~~

1Oc. Potential Contamination 10d. Population  b (lines 1 Oa + 1 Ob + 1 Oc)

 5 11. Resources  b 4 I 12. TargetsI( 1ines 9 + 10d + 11) I b I  NS I F a c t o r C a t e g o r i i s a n d F a c t o r s Maximum Value Value Assigned I 1 I DRINKING WATER THREAT (Concluded) I 13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([ lines 3l. x 8 x 12]/ 82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100  NS HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT I 14. Likeljb ood of Release (same value as line 5) 550 I 15.

100 a Waste Quantity 16. Hazardbus 5x108 a Toxiciky/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation I 1,000 1 320 I 5 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET (CONCLUDED)

6 REASOR CHEMICAL NCD 986 187 094 CASTLE HAYNE, NEW HANOVER CO., NC LIST OF REFERENCES Protection Agency, Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule, 55 FR 51 532,1990 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U. S. C. cover page provided)

2. USEvironmentalProtectionAgency, SuperfundChemicalDataMatrix( SCDM). Officeof '* Solid aste and Emergency Response. Directive 9345.1 13. September 1996. 3 1 pages. (Only cover page provided)

I 3. RoyF. Weston, Inc., ReasorChemicalCompanySiteRemedialInvestigationReportwith Appe dices, Revision 2, U. S. EPA Contract No. 68 W7 0026, Work Assignment No. 042 RICO A424, December 1999. 654 pages.

Analyhcal Data for Remedial Investigation Report, Reasor Chemical Company site, New Hanover County, North Grolina, Work Assignment No. 77 4RI24, US No 68 W9 0057, Roy F. Weston Work Order No. 04400 077 096 0015 00, and Analytical data fi om followup samples collected May 1999. 602 pages.

'. NOTE: This reference only includes surface water and sediment sample data. No groundwater, swface soil, or subsurface soil data were included in this package.

NC Department of Transportation Photogrammetry Unit, Mission 1432, December 23, 1978. 1 page.

Hydrogeologist, NC Superfund Section, "Site Inspection, Reasor Chemical 31,1995. 271pages.

Map, US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Castle Hayne, NC, 1994 and Totes to Users", May 1988. 10 pages.

Jeanette S., Memo to file, August 2,2000; US EPA Office of Solid Waste and Response Publication Numbers 9240.0 08 FSDY 9240.0 33FS, both dated January February 2000. SUBJECT: CRQLKRDL. 13 pages.

9. Stanle , Jeanette Y., Memo to file, July 5,2000, Targetsitingdocumentation, andNC NamJ Herita e Program List'of Sigtllficant Natural Heritage Areas, 1999. SUBJECT: Surface Water Pathw y Targets. 7 pages.

H 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20. REASOR CHEMICAL NCD 986 187 094 CASTLE hYNE, NEW HANOVER CO., NC LIST OF REFERENCES US Geological Survey, 7.5 minute orthophotograph, Castle Hayne, NC, 1980; and topographic quadrangkmaps: Rocky Point, NC, 1970, photorevised 1988; Mooretown, NC, 1970; Scott's Hill, NC, 1970. NOTE: Castle Hayne'topographic quadrangle map not available.

US Environmental Protection Agency, "Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination", EPA 540 F 904 28, OSWER 9285.7 14FSY PB94 963311 , November 18 pages. :2,

USGS Water Supply Paper 2221 , Hydrology o f Major Estuaries and Sounds of North Carolina, 1985; and National Flood Ipsurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel Number 370168 0030 D, April 15,1986: SUBJECT: Surface Water Pathway. 6 . ,

pages.

Field Log Notes, August 4, 1997  May 13,1999. 302 pages,

US Environmental Protection Agency, "Stanpard Operating Procedure to Determine Site Latitude and Longitude Coordinates," 1991. Calculation worksheet for Reasor Chemical Co., Stuart Parker, July 18,1994. 2 pages.

h e y . W. A, Attorney, letter to Jack Butler, NC Superfhd Section with attachment "Notification of An Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site, August 3 1,1990. 7 pages.

Nicholson, Bruce, Chemical Engineer, NC Superfhd Section, Pre] lrmnary Assessment On Reasor Chemical Co. Site, September 6, 1991. ., 9 pages.

Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, Third Edition, Volume .24,:. 1984, pp. 601; 747,749,750. 5 pages.

MacDonald, Ronald G, Pulp and Paper Manufacture, Second Edition, Volume I, 'The Pulping of Wood",. McGraw Hill Book Co., pp. 64,66,68. 4 pages.

Lewis, Richard J., Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary, Twelfth Edition, Van JYTostrand Reinhold Company, 1993, pp. 322,323,480,1157,1194  1195,1235. 9 pages.

Paddock, Todd, "Dioxins and Furans: Were They Come From", Academy of Natural Sciences, July 1989. 3 pages.

8 21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30. REASOR CHEMICAL NCD 986 187 094 CASTLE HAYNE, NEW HANOVER CO., NC LIST OF REFERENCES NC S u p e h d Section, Memo to File, July 20, 1994; NC Superfund Section, Memo to File, August 29,1991; Selected Sites on Streams in North Carolina", Open File 83 21 1, US Department of the Interior Geological Survey, 1983, pp. 79  80; and R, et al, "Map of the Mean Annd Runoff for the Northeastem, Southeastern United States, Water Years 1951  80, U. S. Geological Survey Water Report 88 4094, 1990. SUBJECT: Surface Water Pathway Flow SuperfUnd Section, MEMO to File, September 29, and fishing at Reasor Chemical, April 4,2001.

 Sept. 29, 1999. 17 pages April 30,2001 and May 3 1,2001, Interviews with former Co. sites, and US EPA Region 4 Mississippi NPL Site T Photogrammetry Unit, Aerial Photograph, Mission 347, h e 38, March 24, 1963.

Yvonne C., Assistant General Counsel, Martin Marietta Materials, Letter to Ms Giezelle US EPA, October 11, 1996. 3 pages.

Ham Ranking System Guidance Manual, EPA540 R 92 026, OSWER Directive 9345.1 07, Noverflber d 1992. 43 1 pages plus Appendices. (Only cover page provided).

Jeanette S., Memo to file with attachments, August 9,2000. STJBECT: Wetlands and property usage, 8 pages.

Georg , Linda S., Office of Technical Services, US EPA Region 4, Site Visit Comments, Reaso 4 Chemical Site, September 12,2000. 3 pages.

Region 4 SESD, Selected Surface Soil Data Sheets, Projects 97 0353,97 0357, and August 1997. 50 pages.

9 i REASOR CHEMICAL NCD 986 187 094 CASTLE WAYNE, NEW HANOVER CO., NC LIST OF FIGURES 1. SiteLocationMap, ReasorChemical Co., June 18,1998.

2. ReasorChemicalCo. SurfaceWaterSamplingLocations, 09/ 08/ 98.

3. ReasorChemical Co. Sediment Sampling Locations, 05/ 19/ 99.

4. ReasorChemicalCo. Surface Soil SamplingLocations, 05/ 19/ 99.

10 ,f "" i . ." . '.

SD Characterization and Containment SourceNo.: 1 (Pond 1)

SOURCE DESCRIPTION 2.2 Source Characterization impoundment (Ref. 1, Table 2 5)

Pond contains fiee liquids and is the most downgradient pond fiom the extractor unit (Refs. 3, pp. 3 i ,3 37; Ref 5; Figures 3,4). The Reasor facility was mostly demolished by the time investgations started (Ref 16, p. 4). A 1970 appraisal map of the Reasor Chemical Co. site shows Lagoon" Wo ponds defined as Waste Lagoons (Ref. 26, pp. 1  3). The southernmost "Waste of the pond relative to other site features (Ref 3, p. 3 8; ReK5), and statements by a location 1978 aerial photograph (Ref. 5). Based on the rectangular shape of Pond 1 (Ref. 5), the ,the shown on the 1970 Appraisal map (Ref. 26, p. 2) is in the area of Ponds 1 and 2 on .  . . forme:: employee of a sister facility (Ref 24, p. l), it is likely that Pond 1 was constructed for the purpose of receiving discharge fiom the facility during o p t i o n .

Reasor Chemical Co. produced turpentine, resin, pine oil, and related compounds fiom pine tree stumps (Refs. 6, p. 4; 16, p. 4; 24, pp. 1,2). A review of standard industrial practices for pine stump rendering facilities has revealed that solvent extraction followed by steam stripping, and fractional and/ or destructive distillation were processes typically used (Refs. 17, 18, pp. 2  4; 19, p. 7). Naptha extraction of pine stumps occurred on this site (Ref. Typical hazardous wastes include but are not limited to spent solvents, semivolatile dioxins (fkom manufacbg and coppa reclamation), and metals (Refs. 17,  4; 19, pp. 7, s; 20, pp. 1  3).

Location of de source, with reference to a map of the site:

Containmentactor: 10 f (Ref. 1, Table 3 2, section <IP_ADDRESS>) SD Hazardous Substances SourceNo.: 1 (Pond 1) 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances Hazardous substances attributable to Pond 1 include: 0 thallium, il 1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 octachlorodibenzodioxin7 0 total heptachlorodibenzodioxin, and il totalestimatedTCDD.

This is based on sediment sample SE 26 collected from Pond 1 center on 8/ 18/ 98 which was analyzed for organic constituents and sediment sample SE 01. collected as a 5 point composite on 5/ 13/ 99 and analyzed for metals. (pond 1 se&& t had not been previously analyzed& or metals.)

Pond 1 Samdes and References L'* ,., . 'j_

V = Volatiles; S = Semivolatdes; D = D i o x i n s ' '.

Contaminants in Pond 1 pgkg = micrograms/ kilogram, or parts per billion (ppb) ' mg/ kg = milligrams/ lalogram, or parts per d o n (ppm> *Note that the table showing dioxin results, Table 5 14 which appears 'in Ref. 3, p. 5 61, incorrectly reports 60,000 ngikg for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachloro& benzofkan Analytical results (Ref 4, p. E9) show that this concdrit& on should have been reported for 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 octachlorodibenzodioxin. ,.

12 Backmound Four 08/ 24/ 97 (Fig Pond 1 sedin naturally oca were either n level ieportec D45, D49). collected on I pp. B2 1 B24 between the 1 Backgiound V = Volatiles ( ) = Detectio SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 1( Pond1)

d ONOC Samples lckgi oundupgadient ditch soil samples (SE 1, SE 2, SE 3, SE 4) were collected on e 3) and analyzed for organics, inorganics, and dioxins. Due to the presence of metals in It, these ditch soil samples are used to determine the background concentmtions of ing metals. AU of the contaminants listed above as contaminants in Pond 1 sediment 1 detect iri these background samples or were detected at levels less than one third of the n the Pond 1 sediment samples. (Ref. 3, pp. 3 32,5 60,5 62; Ref 3, Appendix D, pp. sediment sample and'its duplicate, SE 11 and RESEl DUP, respectively, were ?4/ 97 &d analyzed for volatiles and semivolatiles (Ref. 13, p. 188; Ref 4, Appendix D, Z25 27, D46 47, Fl F6). With the exception of acetone, results were comparable o samples.

mples ICustodyRecordIFieldnotes Inorganics in background ditch samples: az. Sub. IAnalytes bE 1 IV, S, P, I, D :I450 (ND (0.22) 11  = Semivolatiles; P = PesticidesPCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins '

Limit or reportable quantitation limit, where different &om the CRQLICRDL 13 SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 1( Pond 1)

2.4.2HazardousWasteQuantity <IP_ADDRESS>.1HazardousConstituentQuantity Sufficient information is imvailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

<IP_ADDRESS>.2HazardousWastestreamQuantity Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Volume Sufficientinformation is unavailable to valuate volume , +*, ,.

<IP_ADDRESS>.4  Area Surface Impoundment size measured on aerial photograph using a ruler and the indicated scale to determine dimensions (Ref 5).

Area of source (ft2): 7,800square ft.

Area assigned value = N13 = 7,800/ 13 = 600 (Ref 1, Table 2 5). Reference: 5 <IP_ADDRESS>.5SourceHazardousWasteQuantity. Value =& QQ 14 2.2 Sourceharacterization 9 Number oftti. Source : 2 SD Characterization and Containment Source: 2 (Pond 2)

e impoundment (Ref. 1, Table 2 5)

from Pond 1 (Ref. 3, pp. 3 8,3 37; Ref. 5 ; shed by the time investigations started (Ref, cal Co. site shows two ponds defined as the two "Waste Lagoons" shown on the at the downgradient (southern) edge s 1 and 2 on the 1978 aerial appears to be fed by a ditch (ReE` 5)

p. l), it is likely that Pond 2 was ed compounds fiorn pine tree dustrial practices for pine by steam stripping, cally. used eefs. 17,

ge ditch, labeled "Pond 2" on aerial d water  Not Evaluated . (Ref. 1, Table 4 2; Ref. 3, p. 2 3; Ref. 5). Part of site in the 100 year flood plain 15 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 2 (Pond 2)

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances Hazardous substances attributable to Pond 2 include: 0 xylenes, [I copper, 0 nickel, and 0 Zinc.

This is based on sediment samples collected on 8/ 25/ 97 and 8/ 18/ 98 which were analyzed for organic constituents and a sediment sample collected on 5/ 13/ 99 which was analyzed for metals.

*** E is an estimated value (Ref. 4, p. G 111) ' ' :" ' .

16 collected during a previous sampling event indicated the presence of toluene,

Discussion Sediment Sample SE 14, a 3 point composite, was collected at shoreline (Ref 3, p. fiaction of the sample was immediately placed in appropriate laboratory glassware, sited in a stainless steel bowl before being placed into (Ref 3, p. 3 35). VOCs and SVOCs had very high detection limits (Ref. 4, pp. Because xylene is insoluble in and is less dense than water (Ref. 19, p. 9) (i. e. it ected that xylene would be detected at a higher level in sediment along the d fiom pond center (Ref 3, p. 3 35). Although no SVOCs were m for most compounds and as high as 600 ppm for some SVOCs could be present in the sediments at levels lower than 17 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 2( Pond2)

Background Ditch Soil samules Four backgroundupgradient ditch soil samples (SE I, SE 2, SE 3, SE 4) were collected on 08/ 24/ 97 and analyzed for organics, inorganics, and dioxins (Figure 3). The level of inorganics in the four background ditch soil samples was used to deten; line the .level of naturally occurring metals upgradient fiom the site. All of the contaminants listed in Pond 2 sediment were either non detect in these background samples or were detected at 'levels less than one third of the level reported in the Pond 2 sediment samples.( Ref. 3, pp. 3 32,5 60,5 62; Ref. '3, Appendix D, pp. D45, D49; Ref. 4, pp. ,I B13 Bl6, B 57 B72; C41 C43, C48 C59).

bE 4 18/ 24/ 97 1915 IRef. 3, pp. 3 32; 5 53; IRef. 4, ppl B69 72; IRef. 3, App. D, pp" k e f . 13, pp. 38, ~~~~ ~ ~

V =

o = Volatiles; S Detection L ~~ ~~ ~

 = Semivola& es; P = Pesticides/ PCQs; I = ,horganics; D = Dioxins 3rd or reportable quantitation 'knit, ' where diBerent from the CRQL/ CRDL 18 2.4.2 Hazl <IP_ADDRESS>.1 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 I' ,

<IP_ADDRESS>.3 <IP_ADDRESS>.4 <IP_ADDRESS>.5 i .,

. ., , . "' ' . ' ~",;~~"~~.,:~:,~~;~~~~~ . . ,  ;.* x,. ;~~.:?' ~~~~~~,.~~~~!~?~~:~~.:. I.., . ;, ?

.. .. .?,

SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 2 (Pond 2)

IUS Waste Quantity Hazardous Constituent Ouantity Sufficient informaion is unavailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity Volume Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate volume Area Surface Impoundment size measured on aerial photograph using a ruler and the indicated scale to determine dimensions (Ref 5)

Area ofsource (fi2): 3,900square ft.

Area assigned value = All3 = 3,900/ 13 = 300 (Ref. 1 , Table 2 5). Reference: 5 'Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value = 300 19 SD Characterization and Containment Source: 3 (Pond 3) 2.2 Source Characterization Number of the Source: 3 Name and description of the source: Pond 3, Source type: surface impoundment (Ref 1 , Table 2 5)

Pond 3 contains free liquids and is downgradient from the former distillation unit (Ref 3, p. 3 8, 3 37; Ref 5 ; Figures 3,4). The Reasor facility was mostly demolished by the time investigations started (Ref 16, p. 4). Based on the rectangular shape of the pond (Ref. 5), thelocation of the pond relative to other site features @if. 3, b. 3 8; Ref. 5), and statements by a:& mner employee of a sister facility (Ref. 24, p. 11, it is likely that Pond 3 was constructed for the, purpose of receiving discharge from the facility during operation.

Location of the source. with reference to a map of the. site: Pond along drainage ditch, labeled "Pond 3'' on aerial photograph (Ref 5).

Containment Release to ground water  Not Evaluated Release via overland migration aidor flood

Surface impoundrnent has free liquids present and there is no regular inspection or maintenance of ddung. (Ref 1, Table 4 2; Ref 3, p. 2 3; Ref 5). Part of site in the 100 year flood plain (Ref 12).

Containment factor: 10 (Ref 1 , Table 3 2, section <IP_ADDRESS>)

20 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 3( Pond3)

to Pond 3 are: toluene, 3/ 4 methylphenol [a synonym is cresol (Ref 19, p. 3)], copper, zinc, and xylenes.

is based on sediment and water samples collected on 8/ 24/ 97 and 8/ 18/ 98 which were organic constituents, and sediment and tar samples collected on 5/ 13/ 99 and 5/ 14/ 99 which d for metals. The tar sample was also analyzed for SVOCs. Several volatile contaminants with J'd values due to very high detection limits.

Pond 3 Sar& les and References .

* = 314 methylpl ** E'is an estirna ytes ]Toluene IXylenes 13/ 4* 11 101 (a synonym is cresol (Ref. 19, p. 3)) 3 value (Ref. 4, p. G 111)

21 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 3( Pond3)

Discussion Sediment sample SE 12 was collected as a 3 point composite at shoreline (Ref 3, p. 3 35). VOCs and SVOCs had very high detection limits (Ref. 4, pp. B25  B28, C21 C24>. VOCs were not composited, but were clumped together. Xylenes and 3/ 4 methylphenol [( a synonym is cresol (Ref 19, p. 3)] were J'd as value was less than the very high qwntitation limit (Ref. 4, pp. 100,101).

3 Sedimentsample SE 25 wascollected from Pond 3 center( Ref 3, p. 3 35) andanalyzedfor organic compounds and dioxins. Although no '$ WOCs we& reported, the detection lwt was 250 ppm for most compounds and as high as 1,200 ppm for some SVOCs (Ref 4, pp. El E5),+ ms indicates that there could be SVOCs present in pond sedjrnent at ley+ greater than three times background levels, but this could not be documented due to the high detection limits. Xylenes were ?d due to this high detection limit (Ref 4, p. E3).

Toluene was detected in pond 3 sediment sample SE 12 at 7,600 pg/ kg, collected on 08/ 24/ 97 at 1345 (Ref. 4, p. C22) and in sediment sample SE 25 at 29,000 pg/ kg collected on 08/ 1 8/ 98 at 1520 (Ref. 4, p. E3). The attfibution section of this documentation recosd discusses background &tch results in more detail, but the results ofthe back& oupd ditch samples are discussed herein for the sake of further clarification of the presence of toluene $'this sowe. Of the six background ditch samples collected, the highest background ditch level of JolueGe was reported as 16 J pg/ kg, in sample SE 5 (Ref 4, p. C45). This level was J'd as it w& less: than the qq& htation limit (Ref. 4, p. 100) of 20 pgikg . Even if assuming that this is a low biy aqd adjusting accordingly by mdtiplfig by the factor for toluene in soil of 1.63 (Ref 11, p. 12) [16 x 1.63 =l: 26.1 pg/ kg], the resulting adjusted value of 26.1 pgkg shows that this leGel of toluene in the' sod i@& ins sigmfjcantly greater than three times the background ditch soil level. /I . 8:. , . . I _*I , P l d , ,'

*> ,# " i A sample of the liquid tar layer above sediments in Pond 3 was collected on 05/ 14/ 99 and analyzed for SVOCs and metals. At least 30 unidentified ,,~ SVOCs were listed in the analytical data (Ref. 4, p. G49). .$

' : j , ,

' 1 It is worth noting that toluene and cresol &main in pond water thrty years after.% e facility ceased op6rations. These contaminants listed 'above as present in Pond 3 water were either non detect in the background ditch water samples or were {eteded in the background ditch water samples at levels less than one third of the level reported in the Pond ,, I 3 water samples. Background ditch water. sample results are discussed in the attribution section. ~

ii .

~.

22 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 3 (Pond 3)

Backmound Dhch Soil Samples ditch soil samples (SE 1, SE 2, SE 3, SE 4, SE 5 and SE 6; (Ref. 3, pp. 3 32, 5 60,5 62; Ref. 3, Appendix D, pp. D45, of these were analyzed for inorganics. All of the confaminants in these background samples or were .detected at levels 3 sediment samples (Ref. 4, pp. B13 B1$, B 57

was less than the quanti@ tion limit (Ref 4, p. level of toluene was reported as 16J pg/ kg in "( Ref. 1 I , p. 12). Multiplying 16 x 1.63 = 26.1 ditch soil levels are shown below.

SE 48/ 24/ 97915 !Ref. 4, pp. B69 72, Ref. 3, App. D, pp. Ref. 13, pp. 38, 'C48,49,58,59,72 D45, D49,53 I Background Ditch Soil Sample Results az. Sub. A n a l y t e s T o l u e n e IXylenes 13/ 4* c u I r o n Z n I is cresol (Ref. 19, p. 3)) P = PesticidedPCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins quantitation limit, where different from the CRQLICRDL 23 SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Soace No.: 3 (Pond 3)

2.4.2 HazardousWasteQuantity <IP_ADDRESS>.1 HazardousConstituentQuantity Suffkient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

<IP_ADDRESS>.2 HazardousWastestreamQuanti Sufficient information is unavai; le to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Volume Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate volume not evaluated;$::

i'l, ',?

<IP_ADDRESS>.4 Area Surface Impoundment size measwed on aerial photogmph using a ruler and the indicated scale to determine dimensions (Ref. 5)

Area of source (fi2): 3650 square ft.

N13 = 3,650/ 13 = 280 (Ref 1, Table 2 5) References: 5.

<IP_ADDRESS>.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quaritity Value = 280 SD Characterization and Containment Source: 4 (Pond 4)

2.2 Source Characterization (Ref. 1 , Table 2 5)

es not contain free liquids. It is near the distillation unit and is the most upgradient of . 3 8, 3 37; Ref. 5; Figures 3,4). The facility was lished by the time investigations started (Ref. 16, p. 4). Based on the rectangular ond (Ref 5) and a 1970 diagram of the facility showing Pond 4 labeled as "Waste 26, pp. 1 , 2), it is likely that this pond was constructed for the purpose of . Statements by a former employee of a sister facility (Ref 24, p. 1) indicate that constructed for the purpose of receiving discharge fiom the facility. The d relative to other site features (Ref 3, p. 3 8; Ref. 5) and a visible ditch m the North Tank Cradle and Drum Disposal Areas into Pond 4 (Figures 3,4,5; Ref this pond was used as a waste lagoon. A ,former employee of this Reasor (Ref. 24, p. 2) has reported that Pond 4 received spillage fiom facility resin, pine oil, and related compounds h m pirie tree . Naptha extraction of pine stumps occurred on of standard industrial practices for pine sturnp renderhg wastes include but are not limited to spent solvents, (from mandacturipg and copper reclamation), and ; 19, pp. 7, 8; 20, pp. 1  3).

Location oft& source. with reference to a map ofthe site: Northernmost pond along binage ditch, labeled "Pond 4" on aerial photograph (Ref. 5).

Release to gro d water  Not Evaluated i. 1 migration and/ or flood

has no regular inspection or maintenance of diking. (Ref 1 , Table 4 2; site in the 100 year flood plain (Ref. 12).

Containment f ctor: 10 a (Ref 1, Table 3 2, section <IP_ADDRESS>)

I 25 2.4.1 Hazardous Substances SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 4 (Pond 4)

Hazardous substances attributable to Pond 4 include: 0 toluene, 0 ethylbenzene, 0 3/ 4 methylphenol[ asynonymis cresol (Ref. 19, p. 3)], 0 arsenic, 0 copper, 0 lead, 0 mercury, 0 nickel, 0 Zinc, 0 Total2,3,7,8 TCDDToxicityEquivalent (TEQ)

0 TCDD( estimatedtotal). 0 ' 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 (and total) heptachlorodibenzofixan, and This is based on sediment sa& ples collected on 8/ 24/ 97 and 8/ 18/ 98 which were analyzed for organic constituents and a sediment sample collected on 5/ 13/ 99 which was analyzed for metals.

Pond 4 Samples and References Sample Ref. 13, pp. Ref. 3, App. d, P. D45 Ref. 4, pp. B17 B20, Figure 3; Ref. 3, p. 3 32, 08/ 24/ 97; 1315 SE 10 Field notes Custody records Results Reference Datehime 3 33,3 35, Fig. 3 6 38,187 C28 C31 ' .,

SE 23 Ref. 23, p. 2 Ref. 3, App. D, p. D90 Rd. 4, p. GI18 Figure 3; Ref. 3, pp. 3 32  05/ 13/ 99; 0900 SE 04 Ref. 23, p. 2 Ref. 3, App. D, P. D88.1 Ref. 4, pp. E35 E39 Figure 3, Ref. 3, p. 3 35 08/ 18/ 98; 1650 .r 1 c and Dioxin Contamin ** TCDD = tetrachlozodibenzodio~, n (TCDD), (estimated total) ndkg 2: nanogram/&, Or parts Per trillion *** Hepta = Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,436,7,8 and total) " *g/ kg = micrograms/ kg, or ppb **** Tot. TCDD = Total 2,3,7,8 TCDD Toxicity Equivalent (TEQ) '' LTL 26 SD Hazardous Substances ~

Source No.: 4 (Pond 4)

Discussion I sample SE 10 was collected on 08/ 24/ 97 at 13 1 5 as a 3 point composite at the shoreline VOCs and SVOCs. The VOCs were not composited, but clumped together (Ref. 3, p. s had a detection limit of 32,000 pgkg and most SVOCs had a detection limit of 6 1,000 17 B20, C28 C31). This indicates that there could be sigdicant levels ofVOCs and but this could not be verified. 3/ 4 methylphenol [( a synonym is cresol (Ref. 19, p. re J'd because the levels reported were less 'than the high quantitation hts of 0 pg/ kg, respectively( Ref 4, pp. 99, 101). Neitherethylbenzene nor 3/ 4 determine waste characteristics or an observed release.

E 23 was collected on 08/ 18/ 98 fiom Pond 4 center. No VOCs or SVOCs e (Ref 4, pp. E35 E39).

S e d e n t sample SE 04 was collected fiom Pond 4 on 05/ 13/ 99 at 0900 as a 5 point composite I 27 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 4 (Pond 4)

Backaound Ditch Soil samdes Four backgroydhpgradient ditch soil samples (SE I, SE 2, SE 3, SE 4) were collected30n 08/ 24/ 97 and analyzed for organics, inorganics, and dioxins (Figure 3). (Two other background ditch soil samples, SE 5 and SE 6 were analyzed for organics only.) The levels of naturally occurring metals in these four samples serve to document background 'concenktions for comparison to pond sediments. These background ditch soilresults are shown mthe table below. All ofthe contaminants listed in Pond 4 sediment were either non detect in these background samples or were detected at levels less than one third of the level reported in the Pond 4 sediment sahples. .. ,

Background Ditch Soil Sample References Sample Date Time Results I CustodyForms I Fieldnotes ll Ref. 3 , App. D, pp. Ref. 13, pp. 38, D45,49,53 I 39,186 I ISE" I I I c 5 4 . 5 5 .7 0 ' 1~ 45.49.53 139.186 8/ 24/ 97 822 Ref. 4, pp, B6l 64, Ref. 3, App. D, pp. Ref. 13, pp. 38,

Ref. 4, pp. B65 68, Ref. 3, App. D, pp Ref. 13, pp. 38, C50. 56. 57. 71 I D45.49.53 I 39.186 I *J'd because Matrix Spike recovery 74.3%, therefore results biased low (Ref. 4, p. 73). [ ] = Estimated concentration adjusted according @e fact sheet ''tJs& g Qualltiea Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination" (Ref. 1 1, p. 18). V = Volatiles; S  = Semivolatiles; P = PesticidesPCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins ( ) = Detection Limit or reportable quantitation limit, where different fiom the CRQL/ CRDL 28 2.4.2 Haza <IP_ADDRESS>.1 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 <IP_ADDRESS>.4 <IP_ADDRESS>.5 I I , .> .' i .*,,.? .. .

+,,., .I, ~

. .*. z. l&. .' , .. . ' ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~j .;< ,  ~

..; l. lr .. . ~ . ..

SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 4 (Pond 4)

ous Waste Quantity Hazardous Constituent Quantity Sufficient idoxmation is unavailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardous Wastestream Ouantity Sufficient idoxmation is unavailable to evaluate hazardous wadestream quantity Volume Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate volume Area Surface Impoundment size measured on aerial photograph using a ruler and the indicated scale to determine dimensions (Ref 5)

Areaofsource (ft2): 4,900square ft.

A/ 13 = 4,900/ 13 = 377 (Ref. 1, Table 2 5) Reference: 5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value = 377 29 SD Characterization and Containment Source: 5 (Former Laboratory)

2.2 Source Characterization Number of the Source : 5 Name and description of the source: Contaminated soil, near former laboratory (Ref. 1 , Table 2 5)

This source is contaminated soil in an area identilied as the former laboratory (Figures 3,4; Ref 25; Ref. 26, p. 2).

Location of the source. with reference to a map of the site: Slightly east of center of property, south of '" North Tank Cradle area" (Ref 5 ; Ref. 25; Ref 26, p. 2).

Containment Release to ground water  Not Evaluated Release via overland migration andor flood

No containment features have been documented for the source (Ref. 1 , Table 4 2; Ref. 3, p. 2 3). Part of site in the 1 00 year flood plain (Ref 12).

Containment factor: 10 (Ref. 1, Table 3 2, section <IP_ADDRESS>)

30 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 5 (Former Laboratory)

2.4.1 Hazard& Substances inthe area ofthe former laboratory (Ref 3, Figure 5 1; pp. SS 18 collected on August 15,1997 at 1045 showed Ref. 4, pp. 11 13; Ref. 30, pp. 1,2). Reference Mercury collected and analyzed for inorganics (SS 98, SS 99, D, pp. D 39, D 40, D 43, D 54; Ref 13, pp. are provided in the tables below.

I Back ( ) = Detectio Limit or reportable q u 1, lti ound Surface Soil Sample Data tation limit, where merent fiom the CRQLKRDL 31 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 5 (Former Laboratory)

Discussion An unknown volume and area of soil near the former laboratory is contaminated with mercury.

32 2.4.2 H z <IP_ADDRESS>.1 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 <IP_ADDRESS>.4 <IP_ADDRESS>.5 SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 5 (Former Laboratory)

ous Waste Quantity Hazardous Constituent Quantity Sufficient idormation is unavailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

JQf Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity V o h e Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate volume Area unknown but > 0 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value =

Unknown but > 0 33 SD Characterization and Containment Source: 6 (D m Disposal area)

2.2 Source Characterization Nuinber of the Source : 6 Name and description of the source: Contaminated soil, near former drum disposal area (Ref 1, Table 2 5)

This source is contaminated soil in anarea identified as the drum disposal area in Figures 3 and 5. While the facility was mostly demohhed by the time investigations started (Ref.,. 16, p. 4), during the 1997 sampling event, drums were noted in this area (Ref. 3, p. 3 9; Ref. 135pp. 167  173). Samples were collected of soil in the vicipityofthe drums. The drum disposal area was near a ditch leading from the "North Tank Cradle Area" (as described m Figure 2), or `Finish Tanks" (as 8 described in Ref. 26, p. 2), that drained to Pond 4. Some of the dnuns and the ditch are visible in the 1978 aerial photograph (Ref 5).

Location of the source. with reference to a map of the site: (Figures 3'4'5; Ref. 5).

containment Release to ground water  Not Evaluated Release via overland migration andor flood  No containment features have beendocumented forthe source (Ref. 1, Table 4 2; Ref. 3, p. 2 3). Part of site in the 100 year flood plain (Ref. 12).

Containment factor: 10 (Ref 1, Table 3 2, section <IP_ADDRESS>)

.I ,x....

::..> i ,

34 2.4.1 Hazard SUfi described m signhcant le, 1997 at 101' samples werl results (Ref detected in tl folloyhg tab p. 5 i5).

Semi greater that phenanthnc *J'd 1 b c c SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 6 (Drum Disposal area)

s Substances soil samples were collected in the area identified as the drum disposal area inFigure 4 and )re detail in Ref. 3, p. 3 9 and Ref. 13, pp. 167  173. Two of these samples showed of semivolatile contaminants. Samples SS 23 and SS 26 were collected on August 1 8, Id 1055, respectively (Ref 3, p. 5 6; D 22, D 23; Ret 13, pp. 32,159  160). The 1997 nalyzed for volatiles and semivolatile organic contaminants only. Signdicant semivolatile 7. 1 18; Ref 30, pp. 3  10) are summarized below. No volatile organic constituents were e samples (Ref 3, p. 5 6; Ref. 30, p p 3, 7). Reference information is repeated in the , Surface soil was also collected in this area in 1999 and analyzed for metals only (Ref. 3,

latile organic hazardous substances found in surface soil in the drum Mesal area at levels etimesbackground includebenzo (a) anthracene, benzo (a) pyrene, chrysene, fluoranthene, nd p y k e m SS 26 and phenanthrene and pyrene in SS 23. Data is summarized below.

Organic Contaminants in Source 6 ause less than quantitation limit (Ref. 4, p. 1 18). Data not used to document source.

35 SD Hazardous Substances Source No.: 6 (Drum Disposal area)

Surface Soil Reference Information 30, pp. 3  6; Ref. 4, p.

I I I 13 19, 5 6, 5 10 1184, 185 I Backmounds:

Relevant reference idormation is providedh the table below Six background surface soil samples were collected and analyzed for organic constituents.

Background Surface Soil Results Sample (pglkg): ss 97 SS 98 ss 99 ss 100 Benzo (a) anthracene U (350) U (390) U (3 80) U (390)

b i n z o (a) pyrene l U (350) l U (390) ' l U (380) l U (390)

Eluoranthene U (350) u (390) U (380) u (390)

Phenanthrene U (350) U (390) U (3 80) U (390)

yrene U (350) U (390) U.( 380> U (380)

( ) = Detection Limit or reportable quantitation limit, ' where different from the CRQL/ CRC ss I 0 1 ss 102 ?. J (380) U (390)

U (38, O) U t390)

U (380)

36 2.4.2 Ham]

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 <IP_ADDRESS>.2 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 <IP_ADDRESS>.4 <IP_ADDRESS>.5 SD Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No.: 6 (Drum Disposal area)

US Waste Quantity Hazardous Constituent Quantity Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous constituent quantity.

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate hazardous wastestream quantity Volume sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate volume Sufficient information is unavailable to evaluate area Area is unknown but > 0 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value = unknown but > 0 37 SD Other Potential Sources Other Potential Sources Not Evaluated:

0 0 Scrap Copper Area The scrap copper area, while showing numerous semivolatile, inorganic, and dioxin contaminants (Ref. 3, pp. 5 5,5 13,5 17,5 18) was not documented as a source in this documentation package. Neither the source size nor the overland pathway to surface water were clearly defined during the sampling event. Documenting an additional source, above the s+ already provided, did not result in a higher site score.

"Sluice Area" This area was sampled as a potential source,` but no significant site related contaminants were detected in this area (Ref 3, pp. 5 5,5 15). A former employee reported that this was the area was used to deposit spent wood chips (Ref. 24, p. 2). I ,

I X f 0 "SettlingPond" The pond labeled as "Settling Pond" in the Figures 3 and 4 was sampled as a potential source. Data tables in the RI report (Ref 3, pp. 5, 535 64) reflect this pond title. The 1970 Appraisal map (Ref. 26, pi 2) shows this site feature as a lake, with an associated pump house. A former employee reported that this pond was used for cooling water for the boiler (Ref 24, p. 2).

0 OtherPotentialsources Other potential source areas, such as the Former Rosin Warehouse, shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5 were sampled as a part of the Remedial Investigation on the site. Documenting additional sources, above the & already documented, did not result in a higher site score.

. _. SD SLUIXIIZIIY SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Quantity Values = 600 + 300 + 280 + 377 + >O + >O = 1557.

the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100.

is subject to Level I or Level 11 concentrations, assign either the whichever is greater" (Ref 1, section 2.4.2,. 2)

~~

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100 39 SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowElood Migration Pathway 4.1 OVERLAND/ FLOODMIGRATIONCOMPONENT <IP_ADDRESS> DEFINlTION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE MIGRATION PATH FOR OVERLAND/; LOOD COMPONEHT Overland flow from sources enters the same southerly flowing ditch at different points on the eastem side of the Reasor Chemical Co. property (Ref. 5, Ref. 10). This ditch enters a Palustrine Forested deciduous/ evergreen seasonally flooded @FO1/ 4C) wetland, at the probable point of entry (PPE) (Figures 3,4; Refs. 5; 7, pp. 1, 7; 21, p. 1;: 28, pp. 1, 3; 29, pp. 1,2). This PFOl/ 4C wetland is southandsoutheastofthefacility, extendingwell ofthe backgroundsamplinglocations( Refs. 7, p. I; 28, pp. 1 2) and Prince George Creek flows through this wetland (Ref. 7). Ther, e is no clearly defined channel; between the PPE into the wetlwd Ad Prince George Creek (Refs. 7; .$ I, p. 1; 28, pp. 1,3,6  8; Ref. 29, pp. 1,2). Prince George'Creek +e ~ flows through an adjoinhig yet different type of wetland, a Palustrine Forested Deciduous Se& P&& nently Flooded wetland (PFOGF), ( Ref. 7, p, 1). This PF06F wetland lies along the southern edge ofthi Reasor site and adjoins the PFO1/ 4C wetland described previously. .,

r , ,. , .,.>; < . , . , ,

Prince George Creek flows westward through these wetlands and enters a culvert under Highway 132. Photographs taken of the stream both upstream and downstream of this culvert confirm that it is not channelized at this point (Ref 28, pp. 6  8) prince George Creek, then continues flowing generally westward toward the Northeast Cape Fear River. Downstream of US Route 1 17, approximately 1 mile downstream from the site, Prince George Creek is reported to experience flow reversal due to tidal influence. The creek does not experience flow reversal upstream of this location (Ref. 21, p. 3). The portion of the CreekXhat experiences tidal reversal and salt water intrusion is brackishhalt water. The first mile of the surface water pathway is fresh water (Ref. 2 1, p. 3). , The mean annual flow along the nonltidal segment of Prince. George Creek is estimated to Pe 13.6 cfs. The remainder of the creek has an estimated mean annual flow of 20.2 cfs. (Ref. 21, p. 2).

Prince George Creek enters the Northeast Cape Fear River 5.5 miles downstrq from the PPE. The mean annual discharge of the Northeast Cape Fear Riyer downstream of the:& nce George Creek confluence is approximately 2370 cfs (Ref. 21, 'p. 2). The Northeast Cape Fear River undergoes tidal dong its main channelasfaras 6.5 mjles upstreamofthemouthofPrinceGeorgeCreek (Ref. 2 1, p. 1). Therefore, the surface water pathway' divides at the mouth of Prince George Creek continuing 9.5 miles downstream and 6.5 miles ups@& along the main Northeast Cape Fear River channel. ~

Tidallyinfluencedportions of its &butares 1.5 water miles &om the site are also within the pathway (Ref. 10, Ref. 21). ,. .

40 <IP_ADDRESS>.1 SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway LILIKELIHOOD OF RELEASE table of Background Sample IDS, Dates, Times and References is given below.

EPA Contract Laboratory Program, the Hazard Ranking System Final Rule (Ref 1, that when the background concentration is not detected or is less than the detection ion Limit (SQL), or if this can not be determined, the Contract Required Quantitation V = Volatiles; Limit or reportable quantitation limit, where LiiEerent from the CRQLKRDL ( ) = Detection S  = Semivolatiles; P = PesticidesPCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins I 41 SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway Backa ound _ Concentrations  Surface Water wetlands upgradient fi om the PPE fi om the ditch draining the somces. Surface water background sample SW 16 was analyzed for organics. Surface water background sample SW 19 was analyzed for inorganics. A sumtnary table of Background Sample IDS, Dates, Times and References is given below. A surface water sample and a duplicate, SW 12 and RCSWIDUP, were collected on 8/ 25/ 97 (Ref. 13, p. 189, Ref. 4, pp. A45 A 50, F7 12). Two'background sdace water samples (Figure 2) were collected in the Prince George Creek SW 19** 11 only V = Volatiles; S = Semivolatiles; P = PesticideWCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins ** These background water samples were not analfled. for <EMAIL_ADDRESS>No dioxins were background ditch water samples SW 1  SWL4'( Ref. 4, pp." A77 A80). ,, ,.

detected in the 42 1 ~ . "*  ~. " ." ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~~ ~5 1 "<" . i. V" i .*:+ s ?+. ~ ." " .: .. ?. .

1 ' ' I .~ > ."

I , ..\ . ' ' L ~ "1 i I 2.

I ,,>??>> L\ . C,: d.., _. 4 . +&$+&& f+;: J ' '

_I.: . , T ,: 'p, ,, , q. e< yk*, :. r:: ~ ": .> t ~

SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowElood Migration Pathway have been collected downgradient from the site (Figure 3). Samples collected on 08/ 25/ 97. Sample times and references are provided in f toluene in sample SE 21 was reported at 460 J pgkg. There has been due to a low surrogate recovery (Ref. 4, p. 99), and is therefore ased release sample does not require adjustment (Ref. 1 I, p. S). ' The 1 9) showed a non detect for toluene. As an additional so made to background ditch soil samples (data and references sion). The highest level found in these six soil samples, was 165 4, pp. (244 47). This level was J'd because it was less than the 20 pgkg. Even if this were adjusted king the adjustment factor for lying 16 x 1.63, the adjusted background result of 26.1 clgikg is sample result. Because the release sample is low biased, .the f 1 1, p. 51, and documents a Level 11 observed release of 01 (Ref 19, p. 3)] was present in sowces 3 and 4, sample and it was shown in the release sample SE 21 at ease because the level reported is less than the 43 SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowElood Migration Pathway Observed Release to Sediment:

Prince Geor e Creek wetland sediment release sam les ~

Field notes 'Ref. 13, pp. 38,40, 192 ~~~

Ref. 13, pp. 38,44, 192 Ref. 13, pp. 38, 193 ~~~

..i Ref. 23 BOLD indicates contaminants determined to be an observed release V = Volatiles; S  = Semivolatiles; P = Pesticides/ PCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins ( ) = Detection Limit or reportable quantitation limit, where different from the CRQLKRDL * Toluene J'd due to low internal standard recovery (Ref. 4, p. 99). This is'a low biased sample. ** J'd as < quantitation limit (Ref. 4, p. 101)

44 Surface Watt Threc , Samplerefeu AWQC stan( background (

the surface vc 08/ 18/ 98. Hc been used to but documen Suds xylene. Xyle Prince Georg been docume SW 18 shop SW 6); how€ Surfa 0.2 ng/ L octa (Ref 4, p. AI (Sources 1 ar water sample not scored. (SW 1  SF .... i'," , .  . ., . .;

. .. . p L:,&+.<. ;;;&;. ':, , ~:?

. . . ,.~ A. .. .*; c.~~~~~,,~~!.~,~ id4..~~.~ __ j ,m,!: +;: +  ' ' ,. i .

SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowFlood Migration Pathway * Release Samples downstream surface water samples were collected in the Prince George Creek wetlands: ices and data are shown in the tables below. Figure 2 provides sample locations. Sample :d 13,000 pgL. iron and sample SW 20 showed 3,690 pg/ L iron, both greater than the Kd and greater than three times the backgroimd level shown in any of the 12/ 02/ 97 tch water samples and also greater than three times the level detected in sample SW 19, .ter wetland background sample collected in Prince George Creek on the same day, wever, iron is not a CERCLA hazardous substance, and it's release from the site has not roduce the site score. Iron may be shown to be a pollutantkontaminant in hture studies, ng iron's release fiomthe site is not critical to the site score.

e water sample SW 21 collected in the Prince George Creek wetland showed 25 pgL le was detected in at least one source, xylene was not detected in either the background Creek wetland sample (SW 16) or any of the background ditch water samples (SW 1

r e r , because this level was less than the CRQL, an observed release of xylene has not ted.

e water sample SW 18 was the only surface water sample that was analyzed for dioxins. hlorodibenzodioxin and J'd levels of heptachlorodibenzodioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 and total) l ) were detected in this surface water sample. Dioxins were detected in two sources 1 4) and these compouids were not detected in the background ditch water samples 4); however, because neither of the two Prince George Creek background surface were analyzed for dioxins, an observed release of dioxins to surface water pathway was 45 Surface Water Rele:

SampleDate SW 1808/ 26/ 97 SW 2008/ 18/ 98 SW 2108/ 18/ 98 S WOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway e Samples (Figure 2) rime IRefs. 1Results Forms 315 Ref. 3, App. D, Ref. 4, pp. A61 Ref. 3, pp. 3 36,37; 5 62  5 pp. D47, D49 A68; A82 68 ,.

1130 Ref 3, App. D, Re& 4, pp. E27 ' Ref. 3, pp. 3 ' '~

36,37; 5 62  5 p. D88.1 ' I E29 68 1007 Ref. 3, App, D, Ref. 4, pp. E30 ,' Ref. 3, pp. 3 , '

36,37; 5 62  5 p. D88.1 E33 Field Notes Ref. 13, pp. 38,40,45, 192 Ref. 23, p. 2 ~~

46 I ',

Observed Rklease to Surface Water Attribution !

ey of local businesses was conducted on March 29,2001 (Ref. 28, pp. 1,4,5). Several noted to the southeast of the site, particularly "Automated Plastic Engineering", and Salvage & Sales". These businesses do not appear to be upgradient of the site (Ref further document attribution of the observed release to the surface water pathway, a ditch samples (soil and water) collected upgradient and downgradient from the ,4 Back ound itch Soil ck ground ditch soil samples were collected upgradient from sources and releases (SE 1, SE 5 and SE 6) on 08/ 24/ 97 (Figure 2). Four of these samples were analyzed for and dioxins. Ditch soil dioxin data is not included. The other two (SE 5 and SE 6) only. References for the analytical results, chains of custody and field log below. Ditch soil samples were also collected downgradient from the were found in the downgradient ditch soil samples at levels geater background ditch soil samples. Background &ta on these I 47 SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway Background Ditch Soil Inorganic Soil Resullis SE 2 V, S, P, I, D ND (0.23) ND (0.46) 880 2.8 J* [4.03] ND (0.05) ND (2.3) ND (0.23) ND (0.91)

SE 3 V, S, P, I, D ND (1) ND (2) 100 6.2 J* '( 8.931 ND (0.05) ND( 2.1) ND( 0.22) 7.5 PE 4 V, S, P, I, D ND (1) ND( 2) 1700 7.9 J* ' [I 1.381 ND (0.07) ND (2.6) ND (0.26) 10 ., 1 .,

Background Ditch Soil Organic Sample Results a z a r d o u s A n a l y t e s 314 Zylene ,.

( ) = Detection Limit or reportable quantitation'@$ it7 where diffei. ent from the CRQL/ CRDL ** J'd because less than quantitation limit of 20 i g k g (Ref 4, p. ' 100) *J'd because Matrix Spike recovery 74.3%;$ erefor? results biased low (Ref. 4, p. 73). [ ] = Estimated concentration adjusted accordihg the fact sheet"," Ushg Quahfied Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Conta&$ ation;, (Ref. 1 1 7 ' p 18). pgkg = microgram/ lulogram, or parts per b& o+ bpb); @ = microgmnshter, or ppb mg/ kg = milligram^ / UO or parts ;" '"" 1;"! Fpm); CRQL = Contract Required Quantitation Limit;; 'CPLDL = Contract Required Detection Limit ', '&, I ,y;,,

*y ,' ' 1 , ,,

,, . ,, , ?"! .

48 SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway Attribution ~ downgmdent samples Overland FIo$ samples  in ditch between backgxound samples and release samples m Hazardous phenol Substance cu Toluene 3 /4 methyl Analytes P I"" I semivolatile compoundsi found in Source 6 were also reported in this downgradient limit (Ref 4, p. 1 13). Reorted semivolatiles included naphthalene, however, all of the serdivolatile organic conarninants reported were J'd as they were fluorene, fhoranthene, ~pyrene. SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowIFlood Migration Pathway >

Attribution  Ditch Water Background Ditch Water Samples As part of the Remedial Investigation, five background ditch water samples were collected on 12/ 2/ 97 (SW 1, SW 2, SW 3, SW 4, and SW 6). FOG of these 3amples were analyzed for org& ics, inorganics, and dioxins. SW 6 was analyzed, for organics only. Downgradient ditch water samples were collected on the same day as the backgro~ d ditch water samples. Ditch water samples were not collected at, the same time as the ditch soil and the surface. water and sediment background and release samples (collected 08/ 24/ 97) because the ditches were dry at that time (Ref. 3, p. 3 37.;, Ref. 13, pp. 38,39,68, 73). These background and downgradient 'ditch water samples serve to f&$ er document that sources: release conkupinants to @e overl& pathway. The'compounds lided belo%& the background ditch water sample results we& detected at least one source and in at least one downgradient ditch water sample at a level.& )east thr& i& ies greater than background. For compounds not detected in the backgroqd, :thq CRQLICRDL afid detection limit (if diffaent from CRQLICRDL) are given. ,, ,,

1 1,,! ,. " ' (' I" '. , ':, , , ,>, ' , ,I ,

I ' ,

Background Ditch Water Samples  upgradient from site Sample Ref. 13, pp. 38,39, Ref. 3. App. D, pp. Ref. 4, pp. A5 A6.1, Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,3 0915 12/ 02/ 97, SW 1 Field notes Custody Forms Results Refs. Time Date 39; 5 62  5 68 68,73 D70,72,74 A77 "

SW 2 Ref. 13, pp. 38,39, pef. 3. App. D; pp. Ref'. 4; pp. A7 AI0, Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,3 1015 12/ 02/ 97 39; 5 62  5 68 ' A78 68,73 D71,72,74 SW 3 Ref. 13, pp. 38, 39, Ref. 3. App. D, pp. pp. A l I ~~l 4 ; Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,3 1200 12/ 02/ 97 39; 5 62  5 68 68,73 D71,72,74 A79 I ,

SW 4 Ref. 13, pp. 38,39, Ref. 3. App. D, p. '1 kef. 84; $i'A25 k26 Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,3 1410 12/ 02197 SW 6 Ref. 1 3 , pp. 38,39, Ref. 3. App. D, pp. Ref; 4, pp. 'A15 418 Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,3: f215 12/ 02/ 97 39; 5 62  5 68 . 68; 73 b71,72,74 (V; S , 6,$, 480 ,( D) ,

39; 5 62  5 68 , 68,73 D71 (Y, S)

V = Volatiles; S = Semivolatiles; P = PesticidesPCBs; . ,:. I = Inorg& cs; D = Dioxins 50 I '

I SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway * 3/ 4 = 314 $ethylphenol (a synonym is cresol (Ref 19, p. 3))  ~

were detected in the overland flow background surface water samples P = PesticidesRCBs; I = Inorganics; D = Dioxins quantitation limit, where different from CRQLICRDL billion (ppb); CRDL = Contract Required Detection Limit Limit (Ref 8, p. 3);

51 SWOF  Surface Water Overland Flow/ Flood Migration Pathway Attribution  Downaadient Ditch Water Sample SW 8 was collected upgradient of all ponds (Figure 2) and analyzed for organics only. Sample SW 9 was collected between Ponds 3 and 4. Sample SW 13 was collected downgradient of all ponds, but upgradient of surface water a d wetlands. Copper, iron, ind lead were found in SW 13 at levels greater than three times all of the background samples. Silver and zinc were also detected in this sample at elevated levels, three times greater than most of the background ditch water samples. SW 13 results demonstrate that source contaminants were detected in the overland flow sample between the sources and the surface water, and levels 'were three &es greater than the background ditch water samples collected? on the same date. Dioxirq were . ._ not detected ih SW 13 (Ref 4, p. , A84). ,I.. ,.

' . .. w 4,. , I a ,.

SW 8 12/ 2/ 97 1450 Ref. 3, pp. 3 37, , ' Ref: 4; pplA21 A22, Ref. 3, App. D, p. Ref., l3, pp. 38, 3 39; 5 62  5 68 , ' D 70 39, 69, 73 SW 9 12/ 2/ 91 1450 Ref. 3, pp. 3 37,, Ref. 4; pp. A27 A2,8 ,, Ref. 3, App. D, p. Ref. 1 3 ,~~. 38,

3W 13 12/ 2/ 97 1515 Ref. 3, pp. 3 37, Ref. 4, 'pp: AllA4, ' Ref. 3, App. D, pp. Ref. 13, pp. 38, 3 39; 5 62  5 6% ,,.> . D7 1 ' 39,69,73 ' ' I I I I I 13 39; 5 62  5 68 !A84 ID70,72,73 139. 69,, 73, 190 r _. ~ h ,'

bampIe IDate IT& IRefs. IResults ' , lcustody FormsIFieldnotes I I I 13 39; 5 62  5 68 lA84 [D70,72,73 139. 69,, 73, 190 1 r _.

Downgradient Ditch Water Sample Results kazardous Substance I h l y t e s (Lead ISilver IZinc 52 Hazardous I U IrOK D49, D88.1 and has not surface watt D88.1; 4, p 3/ 4 they were IC Cop water down surface watt sources at 1~ release to W I downgradie~ for these COI Die detected in E collected in SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowRlood Migration Pathway bstances released to the Surface Water Pathway:

Toluene (to sediment) at 460 pgkg (Ref. 3, p. D48; Ref. 4, pp. C63 C67)

vas documented in wetlands at a level greater than the AWQC (Ref. 2; Ref 3, pp. D47, Ref. 4, pp. A61 A68, E27 E29); however, iron is not a CERCLA Hazardous Substance een established as a pollutant or contaminant (40 CFR 302.4). Xylene was detected in in wetlands at a J'd value, J'd because it was less than the quantitation limit (Ret 3, p. E30 E33).

nethylphenol was detected in wetland sediment at J'd values, but these levels were J'd as j than the quantitation limit (Ref 3, p. D48; Ref. 4, pp. EM9 B52).

er, iron and lead were detected at levels greater than three times background in ditch .adient fiom the sources, but neither copper nor lead were found in the observed release to in the wetlands. Copper, zinc, and iron were found in ditch soil downgradient from the els greater than three times background, but they were not documented in the observed land sediment. A number of semivolatile organic contaminants were detected in ditch soil from the sources, but these levels were J'd as results were less than the quantitation limit '

pounds.

ns could possibly have been documented as observed release to sediment. They were urces and in the downgradient sediment, but the background wetlands sediment sample ince George Creek was not analyzed for dioxins.

~ Surface Water Sediment Observed Release Factor Value 550 53 SWOF  Surface Water Overland FlowBlood Migation Pathway <IP_ADDRESS>.2POTENTIAL TO RELEASE i <IP_ADDRESS>.2.1POTENTIALTORELEASEbyOverlandFlow Potential to Release was not evaluated because an observed releases to sediment was established by chemical analysis (see section 4.1.2. I. 1. of this HRS documentation record).

54 <IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>.1 AlthOl documented tl evaluated. Do the higher of tl instance (ReE contajnment fi t t L t L t c L SWOF/ FOOD CHAIN TOXICITY/ PERSISTENCE/ BIOACCUMULATIOIV HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS ToxicityPersistenceh3ioaccumulation $I fishing as been observed in the wetland area near the site (Ref22, p. l), it has not been ~t fish collected near the site have been cogsumed, so only the potential to release is being mtream fisheries are located in both salt water and fi esh water, and HRS instructs that : two Bioaccmulation Potential Factor Value @PFV) values should be used in this , section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.3). (All sources are available for overland flow migration because fie %or for all sources is 10). &stance I Source1 Tox. Factor1 PF'I BPFV* I TIP value1 TIPIBPFV No. value (Table 4 16)

4 10,000 I 500 10,000 5x IO6 'ene 6 10,000 1 50,000 10,000 5 x 10s hracene 6 1,000 1 50,000 1,000 5 x 107 6 10 1 500 10 5 x lo3 6 100 1 5,000 100 5 x lo5 I I 61 """" """"

ToxicityLPersi& nce/ Bioaccmulation Factor Value: = 5 x 1 O8 I 55 SWOF  Food Chain <IP_ADDRESS>.2HazardousWasteQuantity HRS (Ref l), Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2 instructs to assign the same Hazardous Waste Quantity as is assigned for the drinking water threat, as instructed in <IP_ADDRESS>.2. Section <IP_ADDRESS>.2 instructs that the Hazardous Waste Quantity is the same as determined HR? Seetion 2.4.2. This value has previously been determined in Section 2.4.2 of this HRS documentation package.

SumofValues: 1.557 Hazardous Waste Quantity = 100 (Calculations shown in section 2.4.2 and, (TabIe, 2 6). ,y4;>,

Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100 Value entered in Table 4 1. *,$< j ,. . , 8 ,

<IP_ADDRESS>.3HumanFoodChainThreatWasteCharacteristicsFactorCategoryValue:

For Benzo (a) pyrene : ToxicityPersistence Value = 10,000, Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value = 50,000 ToxicityPersistence Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 10,000 x 100 = 1 x lo6. ' .

ToxicityPersistence x Hazardous, Waste Quantity Value x Bioaccumulation Potential Value: 1 x lo6 x 50,000 = 5 x 16" I "_"" HumanFoodCha@ HazardousWasteQ& tity Assigned Value: '2 Human Food Chain !Waste Characteristics Factor Category V$ ue I (Ref. I, Table 2  7; Sections <IP_ADDRESS>.3 and <IP_ADDRESS>): ' 320 56 SWOF/ Food Chain <IP_ADDRESS> FOOD CHAIN THREAT  TARGETS Actual H d Food Chain Contamination Observed Release to Surface water documented in Section <IP_ADDRESS> .

Level II release to a fishery documented. Because the BCF of toluene is 50, documenting which toluene was released is a fishery would not elevate the site score.

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 1 ' Food Chainhdividual Bec use there is no observed release to sediment of a hazardous substance having a Bioaccumul *on potential factor value of 500 or greater, the Food chain individual value is determined as follows ( i ef 1, Section <IP_ADDRESS>.1)

Prince George Creek Small to moderate stream Ref 22. 0.1  The mean annual flow along the non tidal segment of Prince George Creek is estimated to be 13.6 cfs. The remainder of the creek has an estimated mean annual flow of 20.2 cfs. (Ref 1, Table 4 13; Ref. 21, p 2).

of nearest fishery x food chain individual factor value (Ref 1, Section 4.1 3.3.1) = 0.1 x 20 = 2 """"_

Food Chain Individual Factor Value = 2 Entered in Table 4 1, line 18 NOTE: sample SW 18 was the only surface water release sample that was analyzed for octachlorodibenzdoxin and J'd levels of heptachlorodibenzdoxjn 4, p. A82) were detected in this surface water sample. were detected in Sources 1 and 4 and these compounds were not ditch water samples (SW 1  SW 4); however, because neither of background surface water samples were analyzed for dioxins, an surface water pathway was not used to produce the site score.

57 SWOF/ Food Chain <IP_ADDRESS>.2 FoodChainPopulation 4.1 .<IP_ADDRESS>Potential Human Food ChainContamination Identity of Fishery = Cape Fear River Annual Production (pounds) = >O (Ref. 2i, p. 1) Type of Surface Water Body = Large Stream to River Average Annual Flow = The me? &ual discharge of the river downstream of hce Population Value (Pi) = 0.03 (Ref 1, Table 4 18) Dilution Weight @1) = 0.001 George Creek is approximately 2370 cfs (Ref, 2 1, p. 2).

Pi X Di = 0.00003 Sum ofPi x Di : 0.00003 Sqn of (Pi x Q)/ IO: 0.000003 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value : 0.000003 58 <IP_ADDRESS>.2.2 <IP_ADDRESS>.2.3 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 Likelihoodv , " ". z*~. ~

. x., .

SWOFIFood Chain Level I Concentrations  NONE DOCUMENTED Level I1 Concentrations  NONE DOCUMENTED Calculation of Human Food chain threat score for a watershed.

Lelease x Waste Characteristics x Targets /82,500 = 550 x 320 x 2 / 82,500 =

59 ~1 SWOFEnvironment 4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL, THREAT <IP_ADDRESS> ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT WASTE CHARACTERISTICS While the Hazard Ranking system (Ref 1, section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1) calls for using Table 4 19 in order to as sign an ecosystem toxicity factor value for each substance, SCDM (Ref. 2) provides these values. Because there was an observed release of toluene to sediment in the wetlands, and the portion of the surface water pathway where this release occyred is fi esh water, only the fi esh water toxicity values were used.

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 Ecosystem ToxicityPersistenceA3ioaccumulation #PF =Persistence Factor Value *Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value (Ref. 2) (fresh water) ** Eco. toxicity/ persistence factor value (Ref. 1, Table 4 20; Ref. 2) *** Tox/ Persist/ Bioaccumulation Potential FactorYalue (fresh water) (Ref: l, Tables 4 19 and 4 21; Ref. 2)

Ecosystem ToxicityL'ersistenceBioaccumuIation Factor Value = 5 x 1 Os 60 S WOFEnvironment <IP_ADDRESS>.2 <IP_ADDRESS>.3 For Benzo (:

Ecosystem T 10, ot Ecosystem TI Value: 1 x 1 Ref.

Envit Hazardous Waste Quantity Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value = 100 Environmen@ threat  waste characteristics factor category value.

pyrene, or benzo (a) anthracene : Ecosystem dpxicityPersistence Factor Value = 10,000 Ecosystem B oaccumdation Potential Factor Value = 50,000 1 CicityPersistedce Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: )x loo= 1 x i o 6 ticityPersistenLe x Hazardous Waste Quantity Value x Bioaccutndztion Potential Factor j x 50,000 = 5Ix 10''

Table 2  7 (S k ction <IP_ADDRESS>) assigned value = 320 I mental Threat Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 320 ..

61 SWOF/ Environment <IP_ADDRESS> ENVIRONMENTK~ THREAT  TARGETS Level I concentrations None Documented.

Most Distant Level I1 Sample Sample SE 21 collected in the wetland showed toluene at levels greater than three times background. SE 21 also contained xylene and 3/ 4 methylphenol at levels less than the sample quantitation hit, so these contaminants were not documented in the observed release. Wetland li ontage between the PPE and sample SE 21, measured along the perjrneter of the unchnneked wetland, is 0.8 miles (Refs. 3, pp. 3 36  3 39; 7; 28, pp. 1 3,6 8; Figures 3,4). The remainder of the surface water pathway has a potential for contamination, but no site related contamination has been documented M e r downstream than sample SE 2 1.

Sample ID: SE 2 1 ; 460J ygkg toluene Distance from the Probable Point of Entry: 0.9 mile Reference: Ref. 4, pp. B49 B52, C63 C67; Ref. 3, App. D, pp. D48; Ref 3, pp. 3 36 39; Ref. 7; Ref. 28; Ref. 13, pp. 38,44, 192 62 <IP_ADDRESS>.1 <IP_ADDRESS>.1.1 No Level I c <IP_ADDRESS>.1.2 Sensitive EnT Wetlands Wetland PF01/ 4C an Sum of Sensii Level I1 Con( SWOFEnvironment Sensitive Environments Level I Concentrations centrations documented.

Level I1 Concentrations Klrnmts:

PF06F Wetland Frontage Reference 0.9 mile (Refs. 5, 7; 28, p 3; Figure 4). (Ref 1, Table 4 24)  Value 25 TotalWetlandFrontageexposedtoLevel II contamination: 0.9 miles WetlandValue: 25 (Ref 1, Table 4 24)

2 EnvironmentsValue + WetlandValue: 25 Itrations Factor Value = 25 ' .

Level I1 Concentrations Factor Value: 25 63 ,

 .. SWOFEnvironment '

<IP_ADDRESS>.1 .3 PotentialContamination Sensitive Environments Type of Suface Water Body Sensitive Environment:

Reference: SensitiveEnvironmentValue: 75 Wetlands Type of Surface Water Body:

Wetland Frontage:

Reference: Wetlands Value for Type of Surface Water Body:

Type of Surface Water Body:

Wetland Frontage: Reference: Wetlands Value for Type of Surface Water Body: Small to moderate stream (dilution weight 0.1) and Large stream to river (dilution weight 0.001) (Ref 1 , Table 4 1 3; Ref 2 1, p. 2) Habitat known to be used by Federal designated or proposed endangered or threatened species (Ref. 1, section <IP_ADDRESS>.1.3, Table 4 23; Ref. 9)

.',..<

.p . ,e>. ~. 7 Small to moderate s&& (dilution weight 0.1) (Ref 1; Table 4 1 3; Ref 21, p. 2) Total Prince George Creek wetland fi ontage: 9.5 miles less Level II frontage (0.9 miles) = 8.6 miles (Refs. 4, pp. 21; Ref. 7; Ref 28, pp. 1 3) ,.

 250 (Ref. 1, Table 4 24)

Large stream to river (dilution weight 0.001) (Ref. 1, Table 4 13; Ref. 2 1, p. 2) TotalCapeFearwetlandfiontage: 62.2 miles (Ref. 2 I, p; 2)

 500 (Ref. 1, Table 4 24)

Sum ofQ( Wj + Sj): 33 (Sum of Q( Wj + Sj))/ lO: 3.3 Potential Contamination Factor Value: 3.3 64 SOURCE: S OlTS HILL & CASTLE HAYNE QUADRANGLE NORTH CAROLINA 7.5 MIN. SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)

P NORTH ~AROLINA GRAPHtC SCALE 0 2000' 4000'

f . . .


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65935]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26819]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0073]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated August 20, 2012, the Norfolk Southern
Corporation (NS) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a
signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2012-0073.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. Brian Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.
    NS seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of automatic
signals within traffic control signal (TCS) territory and the
installation of a cab signal system without wayside signals on the NS
Port Road Branch from Perrysburg, MD, Milepost (MP) PD-0.3, to Enola,
PA, MP EP-68.2. The discontinuance would include automatic signals: PD
1.9, PD 6.4, PD 9.7, PD 15.7, PD 18.7, PD 23.6, PD 28.8, PD 35.7, EP
35.2, EP 40.0, EP 42.4, EP 47.6, EP 49.5, EP 53.6, EP 54.0, EP 58.3, EP
62.8, EP 67.1.
    The installation of cab signals without wayside signals will
include ``Block Clear'' signals at all control points in the event of
an onboard cab signal failure en route. The reasons given for the
proposed changes are that the installation of cab signals without
wayside signals will improve train operations and will facilitate the
installation of Positive Train Control on the Port Road Branch.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 17, 2012 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78), or online at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2012.
Brenda Moscoso,
Director, Office of Safety Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2012-26819 Filed 10-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20594-20595]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08065]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0005]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of denials.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 28
individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing materials in the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0005, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 28 individuals who requested an
exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period
to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety that would be obtained by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
Therefore, the 28 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions
from the physical qualification standards in Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 16 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Jamarion D. Allen (TX)
Said Atrach (FL)
Brandon P. Bryant (CA)
Kenneth J. Dever (PA)
Jason R. Ewing (IL)
Steven D. Gann (GA)
Sebastien C. Guilbot (MD)
Jeremy J. Lawrence Davis (FL)
Jeffrey C. Layer (MN)
Silas Lee (NC)
Jay W. Magnuson (WA)
Jeremy H. Norton (CT)
Keith F. Reynolds (OK)
Richard D. Shofner (MN)
Lawrence N. Tuihalamaka (ND)
Jason R. Wolf (CO)

    The following six applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

Bradley F. Bodeker (FL)
Ian Coleman (WA)
Dave Counts (IN)
John L. Horvath (MI)
Brandon A. Oldro (MO)
Conner B. Todd (NE)

    The following three applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision
deficiencies:

Davis J. Charles (AL); David Hunt (AR); and Hector A. Mercado (FL)

    The following two applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions (gaps in driving record):

William Y. Gomez Denis (FL); and Reniery A. Mendez Erazo (MO)

    The following applicant was denied for multiple reasons:

Sandra K. Macklen (SC)

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-08065 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P