volume ib final scri report phase 1. revision · volume ib final scri report phase 1. revision...

V O L U M E I BF I N A L S C R I R E P O R TP H A S E 1 . R E V I S I O N

0000009

SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT

FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Prepared forFields Brook Action GroupAshtabula, Ohio

May 30, 1997

Woodward-Clyde

30775 Bainbridge RoadSuite 200Solon, Ohio 44139216/349/270886C3609K

Section 5.0

Woodward-Clyde

Phase I Source ControlRemedial Investigation Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

5.0 RESULTS OF MISCELLANEOUS FIELDS BROOK RI SITEAcnvmEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.1 SOIL-GAS SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.2 FIELD SCREENING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15.3 SEWER ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.3.1 Dyed Water Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.3.1.1 Former TDI Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25.3.1.2 Middle Road Storm Sewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.3.1.3 State Road Storm Sewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-35.3.1.4 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company Facility . . 5-3

5.3.2 Closed Circuit Television Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.3.2.1 Former TDI Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-45.3.2.2 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company Facility . . 5-453.2.3 Forty-Eight-In. Combined Storm Sewer - State

Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.4 STREAM GAUGING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55.5 FIELDS BROOK VIDEO RECONNAISSANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-55.6 SLUG TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65.7 PHYSICAL TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

KK478/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION5.WP5 5-i 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1 Soil-Gas Survey ResultsTable 5.2 Staff Gauge Elevations and Discharge MeasurementsTable 5.3 Slug Test Initial ConditionsTable 5.4 Slug Test ResultsTable 5.5 Hydraulic Conductivity Test Data

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Slug Test Data and Boring Logs

KK478/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON5.WP5 5-11 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


5.0RESULTS OF MISCELLANEOUS FIELDS BROOK RI SITE ACTIVITIES

As discussed in Section 2.0, several field tasks were completed as part of the Phase I SCRIsite investigation. The geologic, hydrogeologic, and analytical findings obtained from eachof the source-specific and facility-specific investigations are described in Section 4.0.Because some field investigation tasks were done on a watershed-wide basis, some of theresults have not been reported in the facility-specific sections. The miscellaneous fieldinvestigations were described in the USEPA-approved SCRI FSP. The following sectionsdescribe the results from these miscellaneous field investigations.

5.1 SOIL-GAS SURVEY

As part of the planned investigation for the Occidental Chemical Corporation facility, asoil-gas survey was conducted to aid in the placement of monitoring wells. The results ofthe soil-gas survey are summarized on Table 5.1. The HNu (PID) readings ranged frombackground levels (0 ppmv) to 15.5 ppmv. The OVA (FID) readings ranged frombackground levels to greater than 1,000 ppmv.

5.2 FIELD SCREENING

As described in the FSP, a procedure for field screening soil samples collected from boringswas used to aid in selection of depth intervals for laboratory analysis. The results of fieldheadspace screening of subsurface soil samples are included on the boring logs for each soilboring. The logs and headspace readings are included in Appendix A.

KK478/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON5.WP5 5-1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


5.3 SEWER ASSESSMENT

In order to evaluate the occurrence of potential unidentified sewer outfalls and illicitconnections, several field tasks were completed. The findings of the sewer assessmentactivities are presented in the following sections.

5.3.1 Dyed Water Testing

5.3.1.1 Former TDI Faciiitv

A preliminary sewer assessment was performed at the former TDI facility on February 22 and23, 1993. The airspaces within the manholes and above the catch basins in the southernportion of the facility were screened using an FID. The probe of the FID was inserted intothe sewer, and the highest observed reading was recorded as the organic vapor reading forthat location. FID readings ranged from background levels to 10 ppmv. Several catch basinsand manholes could not be found because of snow on the ground and, therefore, were notscreened.

Water was observed discharging from a 10-in. vitrified clay pipe into the ravine east of theoutfall ravine on the south side of the former TDI facility. The location of this ravine isshown on the sample location figure. The clay pipe was positioned inside a 36-in. reinforcedconcrete pipe, and no water was observed flowing from the 36-in. concrete pipe. Althoughthe clay pipe was mostly filled with gravel, some water was observed flowing from the pipe.The source of the water could not be identified. A small catch basin was found along therailroad tracks, south of the wastewater settling ponds, and is assumed to be connected to the10-in. discharge pipe. WCC personnel reviewed blueprints of the former TDI facilityprovided by Mr. Hank Graff of the Vygen Corporation. The blueprints indicated a 10-in."overflow pipe" in the vicinity of the wastewater settling ponds, but did not indicate thedischarge point or the origin of the overflow line.

KK478/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION5.WP5 5-2 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


A large catch basin was observed north of the spent caustic tank (OLIN-6T). To find thefinal discharge point of the water flowing out of this catch basin, approximately five gallonsof dyed water were poured into the catch basin. After approximately one hour, the dyedwater discharged from the former TDI outfall. No dyed water was observed flowing fromthe 10-in. clay pipe at the eastern discharge point.

5.3.1.2 Middle Road Storm Sewer

Dyed water was poured into the catch basin along the north side of Middle Road, near thecentral portion of the SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 facility (across from the Acme Scrap facility).Several hours after placing the dye in the sewer, dye was observed in the east pond on theSCM Plant 2, TiCl4 facility (2SCM1). This observation indicated the drainage along thesouth side of Middle Road discharged into the SCM treatment ponds through an unknownconnection point. After passing through the SCM settling ponds, the water is discharged atthe SCM Plant 2 Outfall 002.

5.3.1.3 State Road Storm Sewer

Dyed water was poured into a catch basin on the west side of State Road, outside the NorthCoast Auto Crushing property. The dyed water discharged from a drain pipe to the southside of Fields Brook west of the State Road bridge. The size or type of pipe discharging atthis location could not be determined because it was covered by several inches of water andsediment. It is assumed to be of a similar size and type (5-in. vitrified clay) as the stormsewer pipe that drains the east side of State Road.

5.3.1.4 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company Facility

To confirm the flow path from the oil retention lagoon through the manhole at theintersection of State and Middle Roads, and to the discharge pipe at Fields Brook, dyed waterwas poured into the manhole at State and Middle Roads. Within one hour, dyed water was


Woodward-Clyde


observed discharging from the drain pipe positioned on the south side of Fields Brook, eastof the State Road bridge.

5.3.2 Closed Circuit Television Survey

5.3.2.1 Former TDI Facility

Due to the volume of sediment and water in the storm sewer leading to the outfall, a CCTVsurvey was not performed. Using a vacuum truck, AAA Pipe Cleaning Co. pumped waterfrom the catch basin north of the spent caustic storage tank (OLIN-6T) to the VygenWastewater Settling Pond 5 in an effort to expose the outlet pipe and the inlet pipes comingfrom the east and west laterals. Exposing the pipes was necessary for placement of thecamera into the sewer lines. Upon removal of the water, sediment was observed to haveaccumulated in the bottom of the catch basin. A sample of the sediment (ID20AS) wascollected and submitted for laboratory analysis for TCL and TAL parameters and TOC. Thecamera could not be moved through the sewer line without disturbing the sediments that hadaccumulated in the pipe. The east and west laterals were estimated to be 30 to 50 percentfilled with sediment. The design of the catch basin also did not allow for continuousmovement of the camera along the east-west interceptor. A copy of the report from AAAPipe Cleaning Co. is presented in Appendix A (under the "Sewers" section).

5.3.2.2 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company Facility

The CCTV survey was not performed in the storm sewer connecting the oil retention lagoonat the Acme facility (ACME4) and the outfall discharge point located at State Road andFields Brook. AAA Pipe Cleaning Co. was not able to place the required cables through thesewer because of obstructions in the piping. Obstructions were encountered in the linebetween the lagoon and State Road and in the storm sewer running along the east side ofState Road and discharging to Fields Brook. Numerous attempts were made to string thecable though the two sections of sewer to be surveyed, but none were successful. To evaluatethe condition of the piping, AAA Pipe Cleaning Co. placed dyed water on the ground surface

KK478/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECT10N5.WP5 5-4 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


near a surface depression above the sewer line on the northwest corner of the facility. Dyedwater was observed in the manhole in the southeast corner of the intersection of State andMiddle Roads. This condition indicated a break in the sewer line which allowed surfacewater to infiltrate the storm dramline.

5.3.2.3 Forty-Eight-In. Combined Storm Sewer - State Road

A CCTV camera survey was attempted along the 48-in. combined storm sewer that parallelsState Road. The sewer line begins at West 6th Street and ends at Fields Brook west of theState Road bridge. The CCTV camera was lowered into a catch basin on the west side ofState Road, near the Occidental Chemical facility, and placed into the sewer pipe. Becauseof debris in the pipe, the camera could not be moved through the pipe. A copy of thevideotape that was recorded at this time has been submitted to the USEPA. Debris recordedon the video tape included bricks, wood, sediment, and pieces of concrete.

5.4 STREAM GAUGING

The stream elevation and flow rate measurements were collected when groundwater surfaceelevation measurements were collected during the Phase I SCRI activities. Stream flow andmeasurements reported for the nine gauging stations along Fields Brook and its tributaries aresummarized in Table 5.2.

5.5 FIELDS BROOK VIDEO RECONNAISSANCE

A video reconnaissance of Fields Brook was performed between March 29 and April 8, 1993.The reconnaissance was completed along all reaches of Fields Brook to identify any outfallsor seep areas not previously identified. A video recording was made during thereconnaissance to document the condition of Fields Brook. In completing the videoreconnaissance, no new or additional outfalls or seeps to Fields Brook or its tributaries wereidentified. A copy of the video tape was submitted to USEPA on June 23, 1993.

KK478/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT1ON5.WP5 5-5 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


5.6 SLUG TESTING

Slug test results were analyzed using the AQTESOLV computer software program. Themethod described by Bouwer and Rice (1976) and Bouwer (1989) for unconfined aquiferswas applied to data from wells ACMMW10S, CEIMW03, LINMW01S, ELKMW04,DETMW12S, SC1MW04S, OCCMW12S and OCCMW13I, which were screened in theshallow water-bearing formation. The method described by Cooper, Bredehoeft, andPapadopulos (1967) for confined aquifers was applied to data from well OCCMW14D, whichwas screened in the deep water-bearing formation. Information concerning the stratigraphyof wells OCCMW03 and OCCMW08 was not available; the model for unconfined aquiferswas applied to data from these wells. The saturated thickness at each well was estimatedfrom available boring logs. Most wells were assumed to fully penetrate the water-bearingformation. Where the saturated thickness is greater than assumed, hydraulic conductivityestimates slightly overestimate actual hydraulic conductivity. Slug test initial conditions aresummarized in Table 5.3. Slug test results are summarized in Table 5.4 and showngraphically in the figures at the end of this section.

Hydraulic conductivity estimates for the shallow water-bearing formation ranged from8.74 x lO'3 cm/sec (SC1MW04S) to 4.61 x 10'7 cm/sec (OCCMW08S) with a mean of1.01 x 10"3 cm/sec. The higher values may have been influenced by the presence of morepermeable fill material. A hydraulic conductivity of 1.21 x 10'7 cm/sec was estimated for thedeeper water-bearing formation from data collected at well OCCMW14D.

5.7 PHYSICAL TESTING

Subsurface soil samples were collected in accordance with the USEPA-approved SCRIFSP/QAPjP. A summary of the results of physical testing is presented in Table 5.5. Theresults of the physical testing confirms the presence of two distinct stratigraphic formationsat the site. The results of grain-size, liquid and plastic limit, and plasticity index analysesindicate that the shallow, lacustrine formation can be classified as a brown or gray silt (ML)

KK478/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION5.WP5 5~6 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


or clay (CL). The results of these analyses show that the deeper till formation can beclassified as a gray silty clay (CL-ML) to clay (CL) with sand.

The water content for the till was reported to range from 11.7 to 18.4 percent, with anaverage of 14.9 percent. The water content of the lacustrine samples ranges from 18.5 to25.0 percent, with an average water content of 21.9 percent. The liquid limit of the tillsamples was reported to be between 21 and 27, within an average of 24. In the lacustrinesamples, the liquid limit ranged from 20 to 35, averaging 28.

The plasticity index (PI) of the samples was calculated also. The PI of the till samples wasreported to be between 7 and 10. The PI of the lacustrine samples was found to be between1 and 15.

As part of physical testing, the average vertical hydraulic conductivity of the samples wasmeasured. In the till, hydraulic conductivities were reported in the range of 1.3 x 10"7 cm/secto 9.4 x 10"8 cm/sec. The hydraulic conductivities measured in the lacustrine ranged from 1.2x 10"5 cm/sec to 2.6 x 10"7 cm/sec.


Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 5.1SOIL-GAS SURVEY RESULTSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

FID PK) Depth to Test Total ProbeProbe ro Reading (ppmv) Reading (ppmv) Water (ft) Depth (ft) Depth (ft)

OCCSGOl

OCCSG02

OCCSG03

OCCSG04

OCCSG05

OCCSG06

1

2

BG

100

> 1000

2.3

0.25

15.5

BG

0.6

BG

0.8

2.83

NE

1.75

4.0

3.0

3.67

1.83

5.0

0.75

3.0

2.0

2.67

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

Soil-gas survey was conducted on January 20, 1993 at the Occidental Chemical facility,ppmv = parts per million vapor.BG = Background (0 ppmv).NE = water not encountered.

JSLH:\RIREPORT\REVISION\TABLE51

TABLE 5.2STAFF GAUGE ELEVATIONS AND DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTSFffiLDSBROOK SOURCE CONTROL INVESTIGATIONASHTABULA, OHIO

DATE Units 04/12/93 04/16/93 04/20/93 04/26/93 05/05/93 06/21/93 07/08/93 08/26/93 AVERAGESTAFF;iGAUGE:i;Cook Road DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A 4.78 3.83 6.66 0.35 0.10 0.00 0.00 2.25

Middle Road DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A 14.90 5.48 12.73pis;03;i

5.13!$|5M;

4.56 633 2.06 7.31SiTAF ;<3AlK5E;3CEI Right of Way

|p!::E]LEVil;;;;|DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A N/A 9.03 17.89 7.31 5.97 6.01 2.24 6.92

Vygen DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A 21.58 11.85 22.62 9.31 9.63 9.33 5.20 12.19STAFFGAUGE;SState Road DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A 24.24 13.85 21.30 15.26 11.30

l11.69 7.58 15.03

DS Tributary DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A 1.24 1.44 1.34 0.82 0.98 1.61 1.22609;10

St. Highway 11 DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A|N$|N/A N/A N/A N/A

Conrail RR Bridge DISICHARGE (cfs)573.46;

N/AI573-60

21.24 30.01 21.72 11.24 8.87 10.75 4.51 15.48

RMI Sodium DISICHARGE (cfs) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.22 1.00B

1.06 1.09Meteorological ;;::;Measurements (inches)

RoM.CT(in. ofHg)

presentpreceed.presentpreceed.

0.00

29.70

0.00

29.62

0.00

29.90

0.00

29.90

0.00

(30.04

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

ooo

29.83

iOaia6s

NOTE:

JSLH:\RIREPORT\REVISION\TABLE52

MSL = Mean Sea Levelcfs = cubic feet per secondN/A - Indicates information not measured on that date.

TABLE 5.3SLUG TEST INITIAL CONDITIONSPHASE I SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFIELDS BROOK SUPERFUND SITE - ASHTABULA, OHIO

Woodward-Clyde

MonitoringWell

ACMMW10SCEIMW03SLINMW01SELKMW04SDETMW12SSC1MW04SOCCMW12SOCCMW13IOCCMW14DOCCMW03SOCCMW08S

DateTested

7/28/937/28/937/28/937/28/937/28/938/18/938/18/938/18/938/18/938/18/938/18/93

CasingStickup

2.352.201.841.901.832.011.832.672.161.722.60

TotalWell

Depth*17.0617.2215.7022.3813.7516.1610.3625.2759.6811.7822.36

Depth toWater*

9.202.755.237.353.706.786.907.6912.376.326.00

Height ofWaterin Well

7.8614.4710.4715.0310.059.383.4617.5847.315.4616.36

Length of Assumed AquiferSaturated Saturated

Screen Thickness7.8610.007.0015.005.009.383.4610.007.005.005.00

7.8615.0017.0015.0310.059.383.4610.0010.005.4616.36

NOTES: All measurements reported in feet.* measured from top of well casing.

JSLH;\RIREPORT\REVISION\TABLE 5.3

TABLE 5.4SLUG TEST RESULTSPHASE I SOURCE CONTROL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONFIELDS BROOK SUPERFUND SITE - ASHTABULA, OHIO

Estimated Hydraulic ConductivityMonitoring Well ft/min cm/s Lithology NotesLacustrine WellsACMMW10SCEIMW03SLINMW01SELKMW04SOCCMW13IOCCMW03SOCCMW08SAverage

Fill WellsDETMW12SSC1MW04SOCCMW12SAverage

Bedrock WellsOCCMW14D

1.50E-032.5 IE-057.75E-054.90E-05I.16E-051.02E-049.08E-072.52E-04

3.30E-041.72E-026.75E-046.07E-03

2.39E-07

7.62E-041.28E-053.94E-052.49E-055.89E-065.18E-054.6 IE-071.28E-04

I.68E-048.74E-033.43E-043.08E-03

1.2 IE-07

Silty Sand/Clay (Lacustrine)Clay/Silty Sand/Clay (Lacustrine)Clay/Silty Clay (Lacustrine)Clay (Lacustrine)Clayey Silt/Silt (Lacustrine)Silt (Lacustrine)Silt Lacustrine)

Clay/Silt (Fill); Clay (Lacustrine)Gravel/Clay/Sand (Fill); Clay (Lacustrine)Silt (Fill); Silt/Clayey Silt (Lacustrine)

Shale (Bedrock)

22

1

NOTES:1 Hydraulic conductivity computed from an estimated Transmissivity of 2.39E-06 ftVmin and water bearing formation thickness of 10 ft.2 Lithology taken from boring log for OCCMW09D.

Ioaa6

S:\FBROOK\RIR\RIREPORT\REVISION\TABLE54.XLS

TABLE 5.5HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST DATAFIELDS BROOK SITE - SOURCE CONTROL PHASE I SCRIASHTABULA, OHIO

SampleIdentification

Sfetif^Dextrex US at 18.5ft:/^mt!i^Acme 10S at 14.5 ft

^^^fjSii^f^s^^Occidental 09D at 12.0 ftOccidental fl3j[=j| ;Qjffe;|Occidental 131 at 14.5ftMketTi;:21i)';;al'6:iO; ft^WitElkem 2 ID at 19.0 ft

IPJI IlLjJ •"•" "':i'1 0 1 TV "-t~f" 1 '£•• C ''- -fi • ;-;' • ; -::': ' •:-'-::::

SampleDescription

<3i$pjjUtili^Gray silty clay withsand. CL-ML (T)Gjray^l^h; clay i\:CL; (L) ;;;:•;Gray sandy silty clay.CL-ML (T)JBj-i^Gray lean clay. CL (T)1(3$Gray lean clay. CL (T)Eiifotoh lean clay; Cfj (E)Gray lean clay withsand. CL (T)5iray iieiii;;claiy\wit]h^v:>:;::;,

WaterContent, %

iiiis' iii15.7

IfiMi:®.11.7

||S;25.0;;|§16.6

;il22i6;||f18.4

:ffl::;26;5^:@10.7

•:•• -•v:V|-^-T"A:'

Dry UnitWeight, PCF

Iliiiisi^ll119.8

129.7

';;|t|lO$.9|;l118.5

t?llliQ6,0^114.1

-:::::: : 108^9r:^; ::;

•' '' \*)f \ - •' ' -

AverageHydraulic

Conductivitycm/sat20°C

I|l:;;0p i6f6|ll9.4 x 10-8

l^xiiQ^ll1.7x10-7

Ifg^^lOjrSiy^6.7 x 10-8

f7;();:;x|i6- ;; :;i1.3x10-7

^&&MMJ:^--

• ' O fi ' "•'•"1 A Q

FinalDegree of

Saturation, %

99

101

105

99

:•; '• ;:. -.;. : ; x 1-A/\"'':- '-•''•-':- -:-':::::::::

AverageInitial

HydraulicGradient

illilll21

•iiiiiH21

iiiiiii26

25iiiiiii'::>:i::::::y:i:;".t O !":-.•:' i::;.v.

LiquidLimit

22

11130121

26lli;27j

2718351

^ <t24

PlasticityIndex

iiiill7

Ilii2|il7

lilill10

liliOIl?9

lllllli9

':RffP£|-Notes:(L) indicates sample collected from lacustrine unit.(T) indicates sample collected from till unit.Elkem 21D at 19.0 ft - thin-walled sampling tube deformed during sampling operations.De-aired potable water utilized for permeant liquid.Total back pressure utilized for saturation was 100 psi. For Elkem 21D at 16.5 ft. Back pressure utilized was 90 psi.Maximum effective stress for all specimens was 5 psi.Nominal test specimen size of all samples tested: 3.93 in. height and 2.85 in. diameter.JSLH:\RIREPOR1AREVISION\TABLE55

iOaia61(D

o*o

3'

3"

p>

poroo

Displacement (ft)

i i i i M ii| i i i MI MI y i f i rn~m

0) C5.M *

i*"> inH- M.

•*>rf

3 '

I I I I I I ITl

>O

oCO

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula. OhioProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: Acme Scrap Iron and Metals

Log of Boring ACMMW10SSheet 1 of 1

Date(c)Drilled 2/20/93 Logged

BY G.R. Lunt CheckedBy J.A. Ozimek

DrillingMethod Hollow dam auger Auger Bit

Size/Type (in. I.D.)Approx. Surface ft-e nElavatlon (feet, MSL) °**°-u

Drill RigTypa Falling F-7 gj,illed Uahti Drilling Total Depth

Drilled (feet) 15.0

Ground waterElevation (feet, MSL)

Numberof Samples Collected: 6 Analyzed: ?J|"pI*r Continuou. sampleType

ScreenPerforation

Diameter ofHole Cinches) 8.25 Diameter of

Well (inches)Type ofWell Casing PVC 0.010 in.

Typa ofSand Pack 20 mech of Seal(s) 1 ft bentonUe pellets

Comment* AS10AS represents a surface soil cample. Top of Well Casing -*-, -EElevation (feet, MSL) **'••**

2.0-3.0

3.0-4.5

25

30-1- 615

oJ=aa o0.3

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

Loose, moist, dark brown. Silly SAND and^medium GRAVEL 1TOPSOIU._________Loose, moist, tan to brown, SILTY SANDwith some fine to medium, subroundedgravel, oxidation stains (SAND).

I———With occasional coarse sand and fine' gravel zones.I———Becomes wet.

Stiff, moist, gray, CLAY with some silt, tracemaroon clay mottling, occasional silt and claylaminations [LACUSTRINE],

Stiff to hard, moist, gray. Silly CLAY, withtrace to some coarse cand and fine gravel[TILL).

END OF BORING *t 15 feet.

c.o

ai

CL3,

a

7.5

2.0

1.0

2.3

12.0

55.0

REMARKS

Sample sent to Lib:ABIDES

Samples sent to Lab:AB10FS

1WL7A fOACM -Woodward-Clyde Consultants MT+ Figure

oo

o

to

Displacement (ft)

rrrr

o

n n

**> "^4*H- M

I

in -om

oGJ

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula. Ohio j_Qg Qf goring CEIMW03SProject Number:Boring Location:

86C3609KCleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI) Company Sheet 1 of 1

Date(s) 9M*Drilled <£MO

93 Logged Q R Lunt

Drillina u „ . Auger Bit A oeMethod Hollow *tem Buaer Size/Type On. I.D.) 4*25

DriB Kig Failing F-7 nv Lahti Drilling

Ground waterElevation (feet, MSI)Diameter of g 05Hole (inches) 'Type of 9rtSand Pack 20 m

cample. Collected: 6 Analyzed: 3

Diameter of 9 Type of PwcWell (inches) * WeB Casing

Checked ,. Q-^-I.ByApprox. Surface ftoo cElevation (feet, MSL) DJO-°Total Depth -enDrilled (feet) *°'u

Sampler Continuou. cample

Screen O O1O inPerforation

esh o lealjs?606" 1 ft* Bentonite P«IIet*

Comments Top of Welt Casing 64Q ^QElevation (feet, MSL) OHU-/U

^

0»

0-

5—

10-

15-

.

-

20-

-

25-

30

com> t;M 2JCD"

SAMPLES

DQ.>•i

- 635 •

•

1i- 620

- 615

- 610

0)J3fc

A

0

C

~D"

f

»k.

ou

CC 3^

1OO

100

1OO

o> *û cO o>£LD-

OJIa

U —J

g/\/%^•VXXxw/##

Ii


Dense, moist, tan to brown mottled Silty,SAND, with fine to medium subroundedgravel [FILL].

Hard, moist, brown to gray mottled CLAY• with silt, trace fine sand and oxidation

staining (LACUSTRINE).

Dense, moist to wet, brown, Silty SAND,trace clay [SAND].

. Hard, moist, gray CLAY, trace silt andmedium to coarse sand, oxidation staining at

- 6.4 ft. - 7.5 ft (LACUSTRINE],

_T Increasing silt content.

. _^y Moist, very fine sand.

•

END OF BORING at 15 feet.

•

—

•

-

•

coV

£a•2 o ff5o_j

1

1mHSw

l!"";!|; —1! —;:;|j:i *™

BE

II —iS

11

1•|8;

ii^

fSS:

1:«-ft

1i

EQ.Ôu_

7.5

3.5

11.0

2.5

1.0

1.0

REMARKS

Sample sent to Lab:BBO3BS

Samples sent to Lab:BB03CSOtJUJuU

.

— ———— —— — — — — —— - \Mr\f\ri\*i~**t4 f"Mwr?A f^rtfôi llf o r\ + o ^^ . —— . — - ———— — "

LINMW01S

o_o<±L52b

7.7531E-05 ft/nin0.9381 ft

10. 15. 20. 25.Time (min)

30.

JJ L- — 2^ — S-S THU 1 3 = 5 6

ELCSJXtONTOPofmseRpiPtt

$40.336AOUKDCtCVATtON:

fi36^

pi ' ™ &t -ffly. — * p» w *«*i(I-1 = &\!t^ tuw. *,= ?£

LOCATION- Unchem DA^E DRILLED: 25 Julv 1930DRILLING FIRM: Mateco DrtBfoo Company INSPECTOR: S. BivAamORimNG RIG TYPE CMEHT75

DEPTH(FO

*T"

•

"To"

*Ts"

"20"

"2T

ur

~H"

"<o"

sun.HO. tv« P.P, Fl£C

«

DESCRIPTION OF STRATIGRAPHY

See log of F8MW-25D ror description ofstratigraphy.

t/AMl^'1^^>^JU^ -f-V'-.

COMMENTS

LOG OF BORING FBMW-26S j&iffiaxt*#tSF=tELOS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL - ASHTABULA. OHIO

CHECKED BY: JCt DATE; i MOV 1990 PROJECT No.: 85C060SD-230 |FIGURE No.: 4 1

Woodward-Ciyde Consultants

T-U U — 2 ^ — 3 THU 1- e s

8e

oQsIiiiI

•I- nM.

A2i[>£

E

Ij

•EWTfOHTOP

640.74ROUND.EVATJOH:

633.3 x>JL\3|Ii.i! • •!*!sJ\

n

1i

Fi9«

ifOfffim

i1ii1!1

ini2gS1

i1ii.»*

ii

mmm

\

\

LOCATION; Unchom GATE DftlLLED; 25 July 1 99$DRILLING FIRM: Mateco Drilling Company INSPECTOR: S, BashsmDRILLING RIG 1YPE: CME HT75

DEPTH(Ft)

"TT•

"To"—

—is

."35"=. ——

~

"So"—

"§T

"40*

CUKHa

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

tvre

^

&$

II

8Ps§.

IS'§?:

§S

§.ss

fltlSS'

ss

?.ssssNQ

B/FT

r5

5

10

4

6

7

4

7

3

IS

17

19

32

33

27

40

>69

REC

1.9

2.2

2.2

2-0

2.2

2.0

1.9

1.5

2.0

2-2

1.8

2,0

2.2

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.05.0

DESCRIPTION OP STRATIGRAPHY

Firm, moist to dry! brown with orange and graymottling, CLAY(CL)

Firm, moist, oray with Iron staining CLAY

Firm, moist, gry w/ Iron staining silty CLAY (CL)Stiff, wet, dark brown Silty CLAYStiff, wet. gray Sitty CLAYtnlerbed,, sod, moist, gray, CUY and SiltyCLAY(CL)Interbedded. firm, moist, gray, CLAY and silty CLA...S-Inch orange silty sand layerFirm, moist, gray CLAY (CL); trace gravel

Soft, moist, gray CLAY; trace gravel

Pirm, moist, gray CLAY; traca gravel

Soft, moist, gray CLAY; trace gravel

Stiff, moist, gray CLAY; trace gravelStiff, moist to dry, gray Silty CUY (CL-ML); somegravel ...becomes very stiff

Hard, moist to dry, gray Silty CLAY; some gravel

Very stiff, moist to dry. gray Silty CLAY; somegravelHard, moist to dry, gray Silty CLAY; some gfsvet

Grav SHALEHighly weathered, thin beddedSfightly weathered, thin bedded, gray SHALE

COMMENTS

Lacustrine

/

LacustrineTill

ThlBedrock

LOG OF BORING FBMW^26tP llA/MWtyFIELDS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL - ASHTABULA. OHIO

CHECKED BY; JCC DATE: 1 NOV 1990 PROJECT No.: 56C36090-230 | FIGURE No.: 40

Woodward-Clyde Consultants

ELKMW0410.

E<DO

JOCL09*—~Q

0,1

-I I I I I I I 1 I I M i l l I I I | I I I I | I I I I-)I K = 4.9047E-0S rt/nin- y0 = 1.112

0, 5, 10. 15. 20. 25.Time (min)

30.

— •53 THU

LOCATION MAP

ELEVATIOM 640,40

CASING TYPE PVC

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE WELL LOG P^^^S^^3^^^c^S^^yf^ LOCATION ELtcej ^E^^^Tasgt ncssDATE 10/24/89 VtATHCft SUHNY, 60-70T

$WL* BILL HUGHES S?ILLED £DftCMETHOD"5 4 l/^' HDLLOU-STEM AUt£fc SrSi 2' SPLIT-SPOONPACK"" «3 SAND i£AL HOLE PLUG

OtAHCTEft 2* LEWCTH S1

SCRECN TYPE PVC SLOT 0^»lO BIAHCTO8 2' LCWGTH 15'

SAM

PLE

HO.

•

DR

GAK

ICV

AP

OR

S<P

PK>

32,1

24,0

49.9

37.1

39.3

23.6

20.5

13,9

13.9

*•»g

o-L-

2-

3-

5-

7-

"-.

13-

16-

17-•

ao-

31 —

>- ttf £

H ^• 2^H ^^^H H

• 6

•1 IS(\7i 10 jlAl 10HjB 3H £fT/i 9l/\| joHI 6

• II l£N/l "lAJ ife•Sl 4

n * "m yy__ | —H 12

1 14

1 fbM — is~jy A 2

1 V 1 3. l/^l 5

O 7• — | —Iv^ ^lAl 17\m &• i&H i^H ^4

1

/COLOR, MQISTURC, PLASTICITY. \\ SORTINQ, SOIL TYPO DOOR. }

DARK BROV/H MOIST, S1LTY TQPSOILTRACE TINE GRAINED SAND, TRACE PEBBLES

4T

t1

40TTLED BROVN TO LIGHT BRDVN, DAMP^•Q MOIST CLAY, SOME PEBBLES

BOTTLED GRAY AND LIGHT BROUN, DRYTO DAMP CLAY

MOTTLED LIGHT BROWN TO RED BROW^DRY TO DAMP CLAY

i-£II

&m/v n*wo TQ Mfiitt n*r vt|p ^rvwr tm)RY TO DAMP, GRAY CLAY WITH 1 1/4" THICK3RDVN, UET SILT LAYER B 6' FROM TOP

DRY, GRAY CLAY

DAMP, GRAY CLAY

-m.GRAY CLAY (NO RECOVERY)

t

DRY, GRAY CLAY, TRACE TO SOME *~PEBBLES, TRACE FINE OR COARSEGRAINED SAND ^

^*- • ^7

SEE PAGE 2

LITH

D.

PR

OFI

LE

S -3-c_-^'= L=•— -^;

£-~ C'•—'" "?g •— j-

i-S'.v -.l_ . .- -

. — — I

l~^*-~ '

If r_jfS*&«=. _ a-

z- j-

HOLC ,,au 6J

TOTAL ';"DEPTH 22'

VELLCQHPLtTIOH -

-

-.

-

•S- -5-ir1

^~~ "f,.w-_ j.iiri---

?^^

'S^Sfet

^

-

*V

*t?

s;

*",**••*•>"•. \V.

' ? Vi

. (•"

,v•VV

•V-•^^

'iv.'***/*-**;•

i

—

E^ _*—

—

—

!•;>

'•*/*

.vV

.*.• \

•V ;";

V." /:•*.• i

»*. ••

vj

•S**.

N^

sb^

-

rUl_ — THU 1 3 = 5 - 1

LOCATION HAP

ELEVATION 640.40

ENGINEERING-SCIENCE WELL LOG PAGt ^^ggg)jg£cp ®jg2^^ ujwio^^ggS^SSaissis^BATC 10/24/89 VEATHER SUNNY, 60-704r ~~

fe?CATED BILL HUGHES g?ILLED EDAC

METHbi?0 4 1/4* HDLLDV-STEH AUGER SfrHnD16 2' SPLIT-^PDDNScl Et S3 SAND SEAL

CASIHG TYPE PVC DIAMETER 2' LEiJOTH $'

SCREEN TYPE PVC SLOT 0.010 DIAHCtCft 2' LEKCTH IS'

(J*J

Id

OR

GA

NIC |

VA

PO

RS

IPP

H)

1S.6

9.5

DEP

TH

20-

ei-»

£2-

£3-

b0

e?-

89-

30-

31 —

32-

33-

34-

35-

SA

MP

LER

ECO

VER

Y

S±^U

I8is ...18e?1218

" H52914182733

*•

-

CESCRIPTIDM/REKARICS/COLOR, MOISTURE, PLASTICITVA^ SORTING, SOIL TYPE, ODOR. }

DRY, GRAY CLAY, SOME PEBBLES, TRACEFINE GRAINED SAND

DRY, GRAY CLAY AND PEBBLES, MINORFINE GRAINED SAND

END OF SAMPLING, AUGERS AT 22'

.39Ce§JO.

Bil,-! » -2^ • c£

£x*£>

H3LE .,DIX . 6'TOTAL oa/DEPTH 22'

VCLLCOHPLETIOM

_ ' /:• *'J • — t. ,"/* .*;•.*7*; __ _ *Vji

•\»'. - — _ fc'.'V' .*• • '•*• "",

-

-

-

—

-

-

—

-

-

-

-

-Oifl*a»

Displacement (ft)

I I I I I I 1 I

3'CD

O

I I I I I I I £

It II =

in o.0) CDca•*> Mrf CD

CD

3 _E

I I

Om

GO

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, OhioProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: Detrex Corporation

Log of Boring DETMW12SSheet 1 of 1

Date(s) 2/7/93 Logged EDrilled Z///93 By

Drlllino it.. . Auger BitMethod Hollow «tem au*er Size/Type (In.

Page

I.D.) 4'25

DJJ™a Failing F-7 g** Uhti Drilling

Groundwater cyn Q-* 7/57/Qi NumberElevation (feet, MSU °*U-S>|S "*"« of Sample*Diameter of o 25Hole (inches) °""

Diameter of ? Type ofWell (inches) WeH Casing

CoBected: 4 Analyzed: 2

Stainleit Steel

Checked j A Ol.mftk

Approx. Surface K*9 ~Elevation (feet. MSL) D**"*Total Depth - , nDrilled (feet) '*'"

Sampler Continuout .ample

PerfTatton 0'010 in-

sSdhck 20melh Jj f""! ft bentonit. pellet.

Comments Top of Welt Casing 624 03Elevation (feet, MSL) 0*H<UlJ

x:

f\ ^!_!>«-

O-i-

"

_

-

5-

--

10-

"

-

15-

-

20-

:25-

-

30-

COCO> *-*fl) VJTi ^

SAMPLES

(D

• ia cUJ**-t >- .qj

m^~- 620 1 __

- 615 H__

- 610

- 605

- 600

- 595

Eroo

78

TOO

*- «

o co oD-Q.

11«/93 1WUAF6OE1

UJ=ara CBU _i

X Nc/\/\yvX./\/1xx yC/N/\ y

X)%^*sy/sj<

W/

%Wtts^sS


Soft, moist, brown CLAY with sitt, root hairs,• and fine to coarse gravel, trace oxidation

stains [FILL).".

r —— Becomes wet, dark gray, loose sift, with•T fme cand, come clay. Dark staining.

detritus or wood fragments from 3.5 to3.7 feet [FILL]. -

Soft to hard, moist, brown to gray mottled• CLAY with cPt, trace oxidation stains, and

coarse cand to fine gravel, (Free Product)(LACUSTRINE!.

T —— Medium, to hard, moist, gray, CLAY with "c8t, trace coarse cand to fine angulargravel [TIU|. "

END OF BORING at 12.O feet.

-

•

-

•

-

Woodward-Ch

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

/de Consultants «

co0

a

5 o o•^ U _J

'

^£>:

^

li —

$& «•

IE

^

^tHi|S^^^xp

»>:

1

i

£a.

au.

0.0

12.O

5.0

30.0

REMARKS

Sample cent to Lab:CB12BS

Sample cent to Lab:

10-12 feet logged bycuttings.

l Figurem

SC1MW04S10.

1.c<1>£<i>o

_oCL

0,1

0,01

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I H- K 0.01721 rt/nin

y0 = 0.3379

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n n n i h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 . 2,

Time (min)3,

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, OhioProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: SCM Plant 1

Log of Boring SC1MW04SSheet 1 of 1

Oate(s)Drifted 2/5/93 Logged

BY E. Page CheckedBy J.A. Ozimek

DrillingMethod Hollow etem auger Auger Bit ^ oe

Size/Type (in. I.O.) *"*aApprox. SurfaceElevation (feet, MSL) 641.7

Drill RigType Failing F-7 gVilied Lahti Drilling Total Depth

Drilled (feet) 15.5

Ground waterElevation (feet, MSL)

Numberof Samples Collected: 6 Analyzed: 4 Sampler Continuous campleType

ScreenPerforation

Diameter ofHole (inches) 8.25 Diameter of

Well (inches)Type ofWell Casing PVC 0.010

Type ofSand Pack 20 mesh 1 ft. Bentonite pellets

Comments Top of Well CasingElevation (feet, MSL)


Gray coarse GRAVEL [FILL).

r——Becomes soft, moist, brown CLAY with* sift, trace fine to medium sub angular___gravel and coarse sand [FILL].I Becomes loose, moist, mottled orange to* brown, fine Clayey SAND (FILL).

~ Layer of wet black coarse gravel withsand.______________________

Firm to hard, moist, brown CLAY, some silt,with maroon mottDng (LACUSTRINE)._____Firm to hard, moist, gray CLAY, with fine to —medium sub-angular gravel, and oxtdationstaining and partings of brown silt [TILL].

END OF BORING at 15.5 feet.

^

ill

da.

NS

0.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

REMARKS

Samples sent to Lab:NB04DSNB04DD

Samples sent to Lab:NB04FSNB04FM

1I/B/93 1WUAFBSC1 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Figure

OCCMW12S1.

c§ 0,1o_aa.

0,01

J I II I I I I I 7 I I I I I II I III I I I I I I I I I M-lI K « 0.0006752 Tt/nin- y0 = 0.459G Tt

0, 5, 10. 15. 20. 25. 30. 35.Time (min)

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, Ohio [_(>„ of Boring OCCMW1 2SProject Number; 86C3609KBoring Location: Occidental Chemical Corporation Sheet 1 of 1

grille!?' 4'1'93 a?"" G'R'Lunt

Drillino u n « Auger Bft x oeMethod Hollow stem auger Size/Type On. I.D.) *'"

55".™" Failing F-7 gj?'6*1 Uhtl Drilling

Ele^oMfeet. MSL) 629'88 7/26/93 Sample. *>"•*«"« *»'V»* 2

Diameter of g 95Hole (inches) °-^:*

Diameter of ^ Type of pwrWen (inches) * Wefl Casing rvw

Checked , A o»:«.irBy J'A- Ozimck

Approx. Surface o-»e nElevation (feet, MSL) OJO-U

Total Depth n RDrilled (feet) °'°

TypePer Continuous cample

Screen n n-n •Perforation O.O1O «.

Sand Pack 20 me*h o/'sealfs)^"*** 1 ft' Bentonite pellet*.

Comments Top of Well Casing fi->fi O1Elevation (feet, MSL) DOO-°'»

j=»••

ol—

10-

15-

20-

25-

Elev

atio

n,fe

et

R«n

- 625

- 620

- 615

- 610

ROf*

SAMPLES

oaH-

o

A

B

C

D

~

Rec

over

y,%

70

100

ID *x.0 Co o

O.O.

11/US3 IWL7AFBOCC

JO

o./ n °

1%


Loose, moist, brown to gray mottled SILT,some clay (FILLJ.

1 f Increasing clay content.

Dense to very dense, moist, brown SILT,• trace clay (LACUSTRINE).

' Dense, moist, gray Clayey SILT, trace sand_vand fine subangular gravel (TILL). ^~

END OF BORING at 8.8 feet. -

Woodward-Clyde Consultants «

co0)

a

III

ssisxXXvv;

|E

\

1i:S

11

a

9u_

1.0

650.0

100.0

REMARKS

Sample sent to Lab:HB12CS

Sample sent to Lab:HB12CS

r Figure

oDisplacement (ft)

3-

•— •

en«

_j.o*

y1

N>O

tn

OJp

C*J$"> .

r 1 1 1 1 1 1 M £. 1 1

E t~ i"_ JL— a._ 4—— 4

J— •*— i?_ _ 7_ J

- 1— -J" J__ j[_ J

—— |

I J~™~ ••

- f— r— r————— . y.

—— ?

i i i i i n i 1 1 i i

i i t i1C XQII II

l-k M-

9 Uv* 0)0) O

N)-•> Mrf 1

Ul-*)rf\3D*

l i t )

1 L

—

H——

__——

_—

——~

—™*——

i r

ooo

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, Ohio [_Og Qf Boring OCCMW13IProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: Occidental Chemical Corporation Sheet of 1

Date(s) im/Q') A/19/Q1. Logged •Drilled 3KJ1/93. 4/1Z/3J . By J.

Drilling Hollow stem auger Auger BitMethod Sbe/Tvpe (In.

A. Ozimek & G.R. Lunt8.25 (0-10 ft)

I.D.) 4.25 (10-22 ft)

2r"re« Failing F-7 £lllftd Lahti Drillingi ype oyGroundwiter c-»n *o •7/9era^ NumberElevation (feet. MSL) 630'42 "Z6'93 of SamplesDiameter of p 9=Hole (inches) °'"Type of -0Sand Pack zo

Comments 1 0

£**

o-

5-

10-

15-

20-

25-

C.9+3(0

ROC Li

- 630 !

- 625 J

- 615F

- 610

fine _

11/6/93 1WL7 FBOCC

Diameter of 9 Type ofWell (inches) * Well Casing

. Type/Thickneof SeaKsl

Collected: 8 Analyzed: 2

PVC

Checked , . OzimekBy • 'Approx. Surface *.*e nElevation (feet, MSL) DJO>U

Total Depth 99 nDrilled (feet) "*u

Sampler Continuous aampleTypeScreen n nin :«Perforation «•*"" 'n.

"2ft.BentoniUPelleU.

in. I.D. steel casing from 0-10 ft., grouted in place. Top of Well Casing 337 ^7Elevation (feet, MSL) ' '

SAMPLES

lyp

e

Num

ber

• A

1 8

1 C

E• G

• H

Rec

over

y,%

60

92

86

100

0 Co o>0-fi-

^oa

\K^VvS'Vy^^VvS^VvS*v

\


Soft, moist, brown CLAY, some silt, tracefine to medium gravel (FILL).

Dense to very dense, moist SILT, trace tosome clay ILACUSTRINEJ.

Dense, moist, gray clayey SILT, trace coarse_ sand and fine gravel ILACUSTRINEJ. _

.

" 1 Increasing fine sand content, decreasing-T •*-

yfffy. Hard, moist, gray CLAY, trace fine sand

/x/x^ T Fine sand and clay laminations.

END OF BORING at 22 feet

'_

c.9JD

ill

!

! •

i

|

•

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^

H

—^^m—•••^

B

31

o.

Qu.

1

1

6

O

1

3

3

4

Q.

O0.

O

o

o

0

o

1

o

o

REMARKS

Sample sent to Lab:HB13FS

Sample sent to Lab:HB13HS

20-22 feet logged bycuttings.

Rgure

o

ooo

ILIM II III III III III IIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIII Illllllll llllllllljlllllllll lllllllll|lllllllll|ll!llllii

nX

H" »H

*• c: \• 44

- co "~o enL- \ CM —

W N- in T< —- « ® _05 O

CO O

N O ~_ II II _

H CO

ninniiliiMiiiti immnliimmi iiitinii iiiiiMiimitiiiii niiiiiiiliiiiiiiiminiiin

oo

c — C.;§£f—

*o o o o o o o o

OH/H

OCCMW14D10.

Kye

8.0762E-07 Tt/nin1.114

E0>£a>o_oCL22b

n-iii-i IM i :•: 11-: t: m m m nt {: :•:: :•! j :•: i :•: i :•

0.10, 10. 20. 30. 40.

Time (min)50. 60.

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, Ohio j_Og Qf Boring OCCMW14DProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: Occidental Chemical Corporation Sheet 1 of 2

Oate(s) -/« >Q4 Logged ADrilled •t/i/aa gy ** R. Lunt/J.A. Ozimek

Drilling Hollow stem auger (0-47 ft) Auger Bit 8.25 (0-21 ft)Method Wet rotary (47-58 ft) Size/Type On. I.D.) 4.25 (21 -47ft)

$J™BRifl Failing F-7 §J?"d Lahti Drilling

Ground water coo ,A(i *7/7fi/<n NumberElevation (feet, MSL) °"-H;» /w/ao of SamplesDiameter of pHole (inches) °* 25 Diameter of y Type of

Wen (inches) ^ WeD Casing

Collected: 23 Analyzed: 2

PVC

Checked j^ Qzimek

Approx. Surface K-*A oElevation (feet, MSL) DJH-:|

Total Depth eo nDrilled (feet) &H'°Sampler Continuous campleType NX core barrelScreen O O1O inPerforation * * "*

sEd feck 20 m"h Wat!!?0*" 8 f <• *"*»•*• .lurry.

Comments 10 in. I.D. ateel casing from 0-21 ft., grouted in place.

*-«

°~l

5-

101U

i b

20-

25-

30

Elev

atio

n,fe

et

- 630

625

- 615

- 610

- fin*

ii;e/83 iwufsocc

Top of Well Casing fio-y ACElevation (feet, MSL) OJ/-UO

SAMPLES

o° £

UH~~c~

EEE— __

p

Rec

over

y,%

28

0

80

100

72

94

u*-> *-

u co oo_o_N

/\

/s

s/*,f\*\f\

\/s/

>3.25 ;^

***itt*»rti>4.0 ''tfti••

oaa co

^^\fy^y^x^xr^^S^<r>rS^S^xTyo*xy .^S<

i


Soft, moist, brown, CLAY, some silt, trace' fine to medium gravel (FILL).

,

Dense to very dense, moist, gray clayey• SILT, trace sand and angular gravel

[LACUSTRINE1.

•

• •< — Oxidation staining.

Medium dense to dense, moist, gray SILT.• with gray and maroon clay laminations

ILACUSTRINEI.

Very stiff to hard, moist, gray CLAY, tracesand and gravel [TILL).

r —— Oxidation laminations,

•f —— Becomes hard.

Wel

l]]

C

ompl

etio

n

;.

!,de Consultants **

aD

Q.^a.Ou.

NS

0

NS

NS

1

1

8

4

1

15

18

25

o.

a0.

o

0

0

0

REMARKS

Sample sent to Lab:HB14JS

Rgure

Project: Fields Brook Superfund Site - Ashtabula, Ohio LQg Qf Boring OCCMW14DProject Number: 86C3609KBoring Location: Occidental Chemical Corporation Sheet 2 of 2

j£

30 .

-

35--

-

40-

-

45-

50-

55-

60-

65-

70-

Elev

atio

n,fe

etSAMPLES

oQ.

K Num

ber

M

H N

- 600 H-Q-

B~p~

- 595 H ——• Q

B~R"

- 590

- 585

- 580

- 575

- 570

- 565

•s

T

U

V

w

Rec

over

y,%

90

92

96

88

62

64

•4 **

U CO DO.O.

>4.0

>4.0

>4.0

>4.0

,0

Q.CD Ok. oOJj

§

mm'%%

%,%.j1


Hard, moist, gray CLAY, trace sand and• gravel [TILL],

•

-

•

•

~ -~

-

—

Soft, gray SHALE with interbedded cittstone• [BEDROCK].

END OF BORING »t 58 feet.

-

Wel

lC

ompl

etio

nLo

g

^

Q.

au.50

eo

300

400

210

300

425

Q.

OQ.

O

70

50

20O

50

100

30

REMARKS

Sample cent to Lab:HB14RS

Displacement (ft)«

o

p

top

3*° OJ

3"s —

p

p

~ *

— 1 1 1 1 1 1 If

;z 1M» •*

i 1i /i /- i i -if/ i i i ii

ci i i i i i i h

c ^ z

II 11 — ~99 =• • ^~CO O =M 9 ZCO 9 —M « -9 —•*> ^ zrf Ul -

rf- —N. -3 ZM> ——

3 -

1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 fi

:>

OOo2:oCM

at<I

•o/oo

!§as

vm

ocQ_

2.0' SQUARE ciCONCRETE PAD

NOTES:

C

BOTTOM OF BOfHNG

"NOT TO

1. RISER PIPE IS 2 IN. J.O. SCHEDULE 4O PVCPIPE. THREADED. FLUSH- JOIN TED.

2. SCREEN IS 2 IN. 1.0. PVC PIPE CONTINUOUSSLOT SCREEN (0.010 IN. SLOT SIZE).

3. LOWER END OF SCREEN IS CAPPED.

4. ELEVATION OF WATER LEVEL C38.60'.

5. WATER LEWL READING ON 10-8-87.

IT CORPORATIONCOPYRIGHTS RESERVED

FIGURE B-16

INSTALLATION DETAILSMONITORING WEIL-MW-t4——

OCC-fiilAJO^PREPARED FOR

OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATIONASHTABULA, OHIO

... Creating a Saf«r TomorrowDo

Displacement (ft)

3o>

1 I I I I i1C XoII IIh* CD "

!b b -N 00

O•*) CO ——rt M

O "M

rf

25* "

en

OOO

OCO

Canonic ObservationWell DetailsPROJECT No. 88-085-6

WELL No. ._UW-2T—

PROJECT NAME OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION - ASHTABULA, OHIO _______

BORING LOCATION SEE DWG. 88-085-E141______^_________ DATE 7-10-90 BY TCP

DIA. STEEL PROTECTIVE CASING

(

J |

! "1 olT t "

BROWN SILTf ClAY (CL

CONTACT DEPTH 6.0* -^

-

CRAY SILTY CLAY (CL)

•

)

'

.-.*

^

•*

;*

4

5

•*

4.'///t

'•:•.

•:•.

:vv;'•\£*••

£

••

».

I'•V

£;

"-V.-vV,'

y."

.*.•

a

12

—

Z.

—

—

—

^>

—

' Oi

• o

%1

••; I

>'.'

»V-

1"•v.'-v

•;V§.

•?*.v*!"*-•!**".§-v

8•'•'•''•'

.IA.

,x

V

*:

-— -

/

^-TOP OF 12" DIA. PVC CASING

—————— £=•— —————— rGROUND SURFACE-^ DEPTH 0.0

^— CEMENT-BENTONITE GROUT

^ — 2" DIA. SCH 40 BLANK PVC PIPE

EL TOP OF SEAL AND BjDEPTH 11.0' OF 12" DIA. PVC Of

_—— BENTONITE PELLETS

————— — ———————— TOP OF BACKRLLDEPTH 13.0

CI

DEPTH 15.0]

S~ 0.010* SLOT2" DIA. SCH 40 PVC SCREEN

^^No. 5 QUARTZ SAND

CL. BOTTOM OF SCREENDEPTH 20.0* AND BORING

NOTES:

1. NOT DRAWN TO SCALE.2. SEE BORING LOG MW-21

FOR DETAILED SOIL DESCRIPTION.

Section 6.0

Woodward-Clyde


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

6.0 RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16.2 RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46.3 FIRST LEVEL: SCREENING OF SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5

6.3.1 Description/Location of Potential Source Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.3.1.1 Occupational Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-76.3.1.2 Residential Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19

6.4 FIRST-LEVEL: SCREENING FOR PRESENCE OF COMPLETEPATHWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24

6.4.1 Surface Water and Sediment Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25

6.4.1.1 Surface Water Pathway Screening . . . . . . . . . 6-256.4.1.2 Sediment Runoff Pathway Screening . . . . . . . . 6-25

6.4.2 Direct Discharge Through Outfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-276.4.3 Groundwater Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30

6.4.3.1 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company . . . . . . . 6-306.4.3.2 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company . . . . . 6-316.4.3.3 Detrex Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-316.4.3.4 Hanlin (LCP Chemicals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-326.4.3.5 North Coast Auto Crushing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-326.4.3.6 Former TDI Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-326.4.3.7 RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant . . . . . 6-336.4.3.8 RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction

Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-336.4.3.9 RMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility . . . . . 6-336.4.3.10 SCM Plant 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-336.4.3.11 SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-34

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Section Page

6.4.3.12 SCM Plant 2, TiO2 Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-346.4.3.13 Vygen Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-346.4.3.14 Conraii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35

6.4.4 Sediment Pathway Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-35

6.5 DETERMINATION OF WATERSHED SOIL LOSS . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-36

6.5.1 Watershed and Sub-basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-366.5.2 Definition of Universal Soil Loss Equation Parameters . . . . . . 6-37

6.5.2.1 Rainfall Erosion Index (R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-396.5.2.2 Soil-Erodibility Factor (K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-396.5.2.3 Length-Slope Factor (LS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-406.5.2.4 Cover and Management Factor (C) . . . . . . . . . 6-406.5.2.5 Conservation Practice Factor (P) . . . . . . . . . . . 6-40

6.5.3 Determination of Sub-basin Specific USLE Parameters . . . . . 6-41

6.5.3.1 Rainfall Erosion Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-41 ^j6.5.3.2 Soil-Erodibility Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-416.5.3.3 Length-Slope Factor (LS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-426.5.3.4 Coverage and Management Factor . . . . . . . . . . 6-436.5.3.5 Conservation Practice Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-43

6.5.4 Example Soil Loss Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-456.5.5 Sub-basin Annual Soil Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-51

6.5.5.1 Non-Erosion Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-516.5.5.2 Results of Sub-basin Soil Loss Calculations

using USLE . . . ! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-56

6.5.6 Industrial Outfall Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-566.5.7 Sediment Delivery Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-56 i6.5.8 Comparison to Measured Sediment Loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-58 *****

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-U 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



Section Page

6.6 RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-61

6.6.1 Source Locations and Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-616.6.2 Sediment Contributors to Exposure Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-626.6.3 Transport to Fields Brook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-626.6.4 Calculation of Resultant COC Concentration in Exposure

Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-636.6.5 Exposure Unit Sediment Recontamination Assessment . . . . . . 6-646.6.6 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-65

6.7 SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSENSITIVITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-73

6.8 OUTFALL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-756.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-80

6.9.1 Recontamination Assessment of EU6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-826.9.2 Recontamination Assessment of EU8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-82

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-111 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



LIST OF TABLES

6.3.1 Analytical Results in Excess of 11/1/93 CUGS - Occupational Area6.3.2 Analytical Results in Excess of 11/1/93 CUGS - Residential Area6.3.3 Comparison of Radionuclide Data from RMI Extrusion to RCUGs

6.4.1 Screened Sources6.4.2 Source Areas with CUG Exceedances in Areas Contained by Industrial Outfalls

6.5.1 Soil Types in Fields Brook Watershed6.5.2 "C" Factors for Permanent Pasture, Rangeland, Idle Land, or Grazed Woodland6.5.3 Values of the Topographic Factor, LS, for Specific Combinations of Slope Length and

Steepness6.5.4 USLE Soil Loss Calculations By Sub-Basin6.5.5 Summary of Annual Flow and TSS Loading Data6.5.6 Correlation of Metered Flow Rate and TSS/TDS Measurements6.5.7 Determination of Average Annual Discharge At Metered Locations6.5.8 Fields Brook Sediment Loads Calculated from Field Measurements

6.6.1 Cross-Reference for Isoconcentration Contour Maps6.6.2 Exposure Unit Sediment and Source Contributions6.6.3 Sediment Recontamination Calculations

6.7.1 Sensitivity Analysis6.7.2 Sediment Decontamination Calculations using Sub-basin Specific Sediment Delivery

Ratios

6.8.1 Outfall Analysis - Lead at Acme6.8.2 Outfall Analysis - PCBs at Acme6.8.3 Outfall Analysis - Benzo(a)pyrene at Acme6.8.4 Outfall Analysis - PCBs at Detrex Facility6.8.5 Outfall Analysis - Hexachlorobenzene at Detrex Facility6.8.6 Outfall Analysis - Arsenic at6.8.7 Outfall Analysis - PCBs at SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 Facility6.8.8 Outfall Analysis - Arsenic at SCM Plant 2, TiO2 Facility

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-i V 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



LIST OF FIGURES

6.1.1-A Source Control Logic Diagram (Page 1)6.1.1-B Source Control Logic Diagram (Page 2)6.1.2 Conceptual Site Model (CSM)6.1.3 Acme Scrap and Metal Company CSM6.1.4 Cleveland Electric illuminating Company CSM6.1.5 Detrex Chemical Company CSM6.1.6 Elkem Metals Company CSM6.1.7 Hanlin Group, Inc. CSM6.1.8 L-TEC Welding and Cutting Services CSM6.1.9 North Coast Auto Crushing CSM6.1.10 Occidental Chemical Corporation CSM6.1.11 Vygen (Former TDI) Facility CSM6.1.12 Plasticolors CSM6.1.13 RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant CSM6.1.14 RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction Facility CSM6.1.15 RMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility CSM6.1.16 SCM Plant 1 CSM6.1.17 SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4) Facility CSM6.1.18 SCM Plant 2 (TiO2) Facility CSM6.1.19 Vygen Corporation6.1.20 Consolidated Rail Corporation CSM

6.3.1.1 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil and Sediment Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Cleanup Goals - Acme Scrap Iron and Metal

6.3.1.2 Compounds Detected in Subsurface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93Cleanup Goals - Acme Scrap Iron and Metal

6.3.1.3 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

6.3.1.4 Compounds Detected in Subsurface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93Cleanup Goals - Detrex Corporation Facility

6.3.1.5 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Detrex Corporation Facility

6.3.1.6 Compounds Detected in Groundwater Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Detrex Corporation Facility

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-V 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



6.3.1.7 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Hanlin Group (LCP)

6.3.1.8 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil and Sediment Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Cleanup Goals - Vygen (Former TDI) Facility

6.3.1.9 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - RJvfl Titanium Company Sodium Plant

6.3.1.10 Compounds Detected in Subsurface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93Cleanup Goals - SCM Plant 1

6.3.1.11 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4

6.3.1.12 Compounds Detected in Subsurface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93Cleanup Goals - SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4

6.3.1.13 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - SCM Plant 2 -TiO2

6.3.1.14 Compounds Detected in Sediment Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Storm Sewers

6.3.1.15 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - North Coast Auto Crushing

6.3.1.16 Total Uranium Detected in Sediment Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - RMI Titanium Company Extrusion

6.3.1.17 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - RMI Titanium Company Extrusion

6.3.1.18 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction

6.3.1.19 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Conrail Property

6.3.1.20 Compounds Detected hi Subsurface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93Cleanup Goals - Conrail Property

6.3.1.21 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Mitchell Transport

6.3.1.22 Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Reese Machine Facility

6.3.1.23 Compounds Detected in Sediment Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 CleanupGoals - Storm Sewers

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-vi 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



6.4.16.4.26.4.36.4.4

6.4.5

6.4.6

6.4.76.4.86.4.96.4.106.4.11

6.5.16.5.26.5.36.5.46.5.56.5.66.5.76.5.8

6.6.16.6.26.6.36.6.46.6.4A6.6.56.6.66.6.76.6.86.6.96.6.106.6.116.6.12

Facility Stormwater Collection Area: Acme Scrap Iron and Metal CompanyFacility Stormwater Collection Area: Detrex CorporationFacility Stormwater Collection Area: Occidental Chemical CorporationFacility Stormwater Collection Area: RMI Titanium Company ExtrusionFacilityFacility Stormwater Collection Area: RMI Titanium Company MetalsReduction FacilityFacility Stormwater Collection Area: RMI Titanium Company SodiumFacility

SCM Plant 1SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4) FacilitySCM Plant 2 (TiO2) FacilityVygen Corporation

Facility Stormwater Collection Area:Facility Stormwater Collection Area:Facility Stormwater Collection Area:Facility Stormwater Collection Area:DNAPL Plume at Detrex Facility

Fields Brook Drainage Basin MapAverage Annual Values of the Rainfall Erosivity Parameter, ElSoil Survey Maps (-A through -S for Sub-basins)Cover and Management "C" Factor Maps (-A through -S for Sub-basins)Topographic Maps (-A through -S for Sub-basins)Drainage Line Maps (-A through -S for Sub-basins)Non-Erosion Areas (-E through -S for Sub-basins)Correlation Metered Flow Rate and TSS Measurements

IsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentrationIsoconcentration

Contour Map: Total PCBs at AcmeContour Map: Lead at AcmeContour Map: Benzo(a)pyrene at AcmeContour Map: Hexachlorobenzene at AcmeContour Map: Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene at AcmeContour Map: Hexachlorobenzene at DetrexContour Map: Total PCBs at DetrexContour Map: Arsenic at DetrexContour Map: Benzo(a)pyrene at HanlinContour Map: Arsenic at VygenContour Map: Arsenic at RMI SodiumContour Map: Total PCBs at SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4)Contour Map: Hexachlorobenzene at SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4)

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-vii 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



6.6.136.6.146.6.156.6.166.6.176.6.186.6.196.6.206.6.216.6.226.6.236.6.246.6.256.6.266.6.276.6.306.6.30A6.6.31

6.6.32

6.6.336.6.346.6.356.6.36

6.6.376.6.386.6.396.9.39A6.9.39B

6.6.406.6.416.6.426.6.43

Isoconcentration Contour Map:Isoconcentration Contour Map:Isoconcentration Contour Map:

Isoconcentration Contour Map: Arsenic at SCM Plant 2 (TiO2)Isoconcentration Contour Map: Total PCBs at Northcoast AutoIsoconcentration Contour Map: Arsenic at Northcoast AutoIsoconcentration Contour Map: Beryllium at Northcoast AutoIsoconcentration Contour Map: Lead at Northcoast AutoIsoconcentration Contour Map: Hexachlorobenzene at RMI ExtrusionIsoconcentration Contour Map: Arsenic at RMI Extrusion

Total PCBs at RMI Metals ReductionArsenic at ConrailLead at Conrail

Isoconcentration Contour Map: Benzo(a)pyrene at ConrailIsoconcentration Contour Map: Benzo(b)fluoranthene at ConrailIsoconcentration Contour Map: Total PCBs at Mitchell TransportIsoconcentration Contour Map: Beryllium at Mitchell TransportIsoconcentration Contour Map: Benzo(a)pyrene at Reese MachineArsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin ALead CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin ABenzo(a)pyrene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basinABenzo(b)fluoranthene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin ACUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin EArsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin FBeryllium CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin FHexachlorobenzene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin FTotal PCBs CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin FArsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin GBeryllium CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin GBenzo(a)pyrene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin GHexachlorobenzene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas inSub-basin GLead CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin GTotals PCBs CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin GArsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin HArsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin J

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-viii 5/97

Woodward-Clyde



6.6.44 Benzo(a)pyrene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basinJ

6.6.45 Benzo(b)fluoranthene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin J

6.6.46 Lead CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin J6.6.47 Total PCBs CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin J6.6.48 Arsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin K6.6.49 Arsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin L6.6.50 Arsenic CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin M6.6.51 CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin N6.6.52 CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin P6.6.53 CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin Q6.6.54 CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basin R6.6.55 Benzo(a)pyrene CUG Exceedance Areas and Nonerosion Areas in Sub-basins

S, T, U, V, and W

6.7.1 Relationship between Drainage Area and Sediment Delivery Ratio

6.8.1 Outfall Screening - Lead at Acme Scrap Iron and Metal6.8.2 Outfall Screening - PCBs at Acme Scrap Iron and Metal6.8.3 Outfall Screening - Benzo(a)pyrene at Acme Scrap Iron and Metal6.8.4 Outfall Screening - PCBs at Detrex Corporation6.8.5 Outfall Screening - Hexachlorobenzene at Detrex Corporation6.8.6 Outfall Screening - Arsenic at Detrex Corporation6.8.7 Outfall Screening - PCBs at SCM Plant 2, (TiCl4)6.8.8 Outfall Screening - Arsenic at SCM Plant 2, (TiO2) Facility

K424/FBU/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-ix 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.0RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the analytical process used to identify potential sources ofrecontamination to Fields Brook sediments. Ninety-four potential sources were identified in wthe Source Control Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Phase I Work Plan(WCC 1992c). The purpose of the analysis was to identify those sources that are candidatesfor further evaluation of remedial alternatives in the FS. The recontamination assessmentapproach is described in the Fields Brook logic diagram, generic conceptual site model, andsite-specific conceptual site models. The approach includes a two-level screening which is ^Jdiscussed in Section 6.2. The locations where CUGs (USEPA 1993a) are exceeded andcomplete pathways from source areas to Fields Brook occur are identified in the first levelscreening. The recontamination potential of each source identified in the first-level screeningwas assessed in the second level screening using transport modeling.

The objectives of the Source Control Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (SCRI/FS) are ^^to:

• Identification of the sources of sediment contamination in Fields Brook andits tributaries; and

• Evaluate cost-effective response alternatives that would minimize or mitigaterecontamination of Fields Brook sediment by these sources.

The USEPA's Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Actions (OSWER Directive9355.0-7B) depicts data quality objectives as a set of hypotheses to be tested with respect tothe relationship between the sources, contaminant migration pathways, and the receptor of -^^contamination. Figures 6.1.1-A and 6.1.1-B are the logic diagram illustrating this process.


Woodward-Clyde


In order to meet the objectives of the SCRI/FS as described above, the sediment in FieldsBrook and its tributaries is the receptor of potential contamination from sources within thewatershed. Data have been collected to address the following hypotheses:

• Source exists

• Source is or can be contained

• Source has been or can be removed and disposed of

• Source is being or can be treated

• Pathway exists

• Pathway is or can be interrupted

• Pathway is or can be eliminated

• Receptor (i.e., Fields Brook sediment) will not be recontaminated tounacceptable levels by migration of contaminants

• Receptor can be protected

USEPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies UnderCERCLA (OSWER Directive 9335.3-01) and Data Quality Objectives for Remedial ResponseActions (OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B) recommend the use of a conceptual model of the siteto assist in (1) understanding the relationship between sources, contaminant releasemechanisms, pathways, and receptors at a site and (2) identifying where and what type ofsamples are needed (taking into account existing data) to address the hypotheses listed above.

K424/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-2 5/97.

Woodward-Clyde


A generic CSM for potential sources of recontamination of Fields Brook sediment is shownin Figure 6.1.2. This model depicts the relationship between potential sources and pathwaysby which contamination can migrate to the sediment in Fields Brook. As shown in the CSM,the three potential pathways from potential source areas are:

• Surface water and sediment runoff• Direct discharge through outfalls• Groundwater discharge

The extent to which each of these potential pathways is complete or significant varies fromsource to source. The potential exists for Fields Brook sediment to be recontaminated bymultiple media, sources, and release mechanisms. Therefore, facility-specific CSMs havebeen prepared and analyzed to identify specific pathways to Fields Brook sediment and toevaluate data gaps. This process supports the overall objective of identifying effectiveremediation strategies (if necessary) that should be targeted at significant sources andmechanisms of sediment recontamination.

Facility-specific CSMs were developed for each facility as part of the Phase I SCRI/FS WorkPlan (WCC 1992c). They provided a logical, structured basis for planning data collection ina cost-effective manner. Additional data collected during each phase of the SCRI were usedto refine and clarify the CSMs and to:

• Identify and characterize potential sources of sediment recontamination

• Confirm and evaluate the significance of pathways from sources to FieldsBrook sediment

• Assess the extent to which sources with complete pathways are expected tocontribute to recontamination of Fields Brook sediments

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT10N6/RECONTAM.001 6~3 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


• Evaluate the extent to which natural or man-made barriers contain thecontaminants and the adequacy of the barriers

The CSM process described above assisted in focusing the SCRI sampling plan to evaluatepotential sources, release mechanisms, and pathways that are potentially significantcontributors to recontamination of Fields Brook sediment. The sources where chemicals ofconcern (COCs) are not present in concentrations greater than CUGs have been modified toshow that they are no longer considered a potential source of recontamination. Transportpathways from sources were not investigated if CUG exceedances are not present. The CSMsare presented as Figures 6.1.3 through 6.1.20.

6.2 RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT APPROACH

The 94 potential sources identified in the Phase I SCRI Work Plan (WCC 1992c) weresubjected to a recontamination assessment to identify those sources that are candidates forfurther evaluation of remedial alternatives in the FS. The approach for the recontaminationassessment involved a two-step process that relied on Phase 0 SCRI source descriptions,CSMs, Phase I SCRI analytical results, and facility-specific hydrogeologic information. Thetwo-step process was described in Section 6.0 of the Phase I SCRI Work Plan (WCC 1992c)and involved the following:

• First Level: Screening of Sources

The present status of source areas was evaluated and the presence of acomplete pathway confirmed. If the source area had been removed and/or thepathway was incomplete, then the source was eliminated from furtherevaluation.

Phase I SCRI soil, surface water, sediment, groundwater, and outfall analyticalresults were compared to CUGs. If results indicated concentrations above aCUG, then the potential source area was selected for further evaluation.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-4 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


• Second Level: Transport Modeling from Sources to Fields BrookSediment

The potential for remaining sources to recontaminate sediment was assessedusing field data and appropriate transport models. As depicted in the logicdiagram, the CSMs developed for individual sources indicate thatrecontamination might occur by:

W— Surface water and sediment runoff— Groundwater discharge (includes DNAPL)— Direct discharge through outfalls

For the purposes of this assessment, recontamination of Fields Brook sediment will occur if jthe overall concentration of sediment entering an exposure unit (or sub-basin) exceeds a cleanup goal or if DNAPL enters brook sediment. The assessment of recontamination potentialis discussed in more detail in Section 6.6.

The decisions that were made during this process are shown on the logic diagram inFigures 6.1.1-A and 6.1.1-B. s*/

6.3 FIRST LEVEL: SCREENING OF SOURCES

As described in the Recontamination Assessment Plan (WCC 1994b), the first level screeninginvolves three decisions which must be made. These decisions are:

• Does the source exist?

• Are there any COCs present in the source at concentrations exceeding theCUGs?

• Is there a complete pathway for migration from the source to Fields Brook?

K424/FB14/RIREFORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-5 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


More than 200 potential sources of chemicals to Fields Brook sediments were identified andcatalogued during initial Phase 0 efforts reported to the USEPA in March 1992. As a resultof completing a field reconnaissance to prepare for Phase I field work in August 1992, someof these sources were eliminated as potential sources due to observed conditions such ascontainment structures, the presence of compounds stored or used in these areas that are notincluded on the IL list (WCC 1992a), or the facilities are closed and the structures wereremoved during plant closure. If sources were observed to be related to similar processes(i.e., several settling ponds that treat and store similar discharges), they were grouped as asingle source area. Ninety-four potential sources of recontamination were identified as aresult of this preliminary screening. A summary of the status of the potential sources for eachfacility, as characterized in Phase 0 and Phase I, is presented in the Phase I Work Plan inTables 3.2.1-1 through 3.2.17-1 (WCC 1992c).

The next step in the recontamination assessment process was to identify the potential sourcesof recontamination to Fields Brook sediment. This identification was made by comparing theconcentrations of compounds on the CUG list in the samples collected during the Phase ISCRJ sampling to their respective CUGs. The facilities on the west side of State Road werecompared to the Residential CUGs, while the facilities on the east side of State Road werecompared to the Occupational CUGs. All samples collected from all media were includedin the first level screening. As directed by USEPA, analytical results for water media werecompared to the sediment CUGs. Because the location of Acme's outfall discharge point isat the downstream end of EU7, an occupational EU, and close to EU6, a residential EU,USEPA requested in their letter dated May 18, 1994 that the sources on the Acme propertybe screened using the residential CUGs.

Tables 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 list those surface soil sample locations which had COCs presentin excess of CUGs and the sources with which the sample locations are associated. In mostcases, the locations were associated with the source areas closest in the upgradient or upslopedirection. In some cases, the compounds detected in the Phase I SCRI sample were not COCsassociated with the closest source area. In these cases, best professional judgement was usedto identify the most likely (and closest) potential source of that COC. Some samples were

K424/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-6 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


collected to assess an entire property rather than a specific source area. For example, sampleswere collected from drainage areas downgradient or downslope of several source areas or anentire facility. The information presented in the facility descriptions in the Phase 0 RI Report(WCC 1992d) and the Phase I SCRI Work Plan (WCC 1992c) was used to identity thesources of the COCs at each sampling location. The results of the screening are discussedin more detail in Section 6.3.1.

6.3.1 Description/Location of Potential Source Areas

This section presents the results of the first level screening. The source areas and media inwhich COCs are present in concentrations greater than their CUG are described below. Atotal of 94 potential source areas were screened for the presence of COCs in concentrationsgreater than the CUGs. In the occupational area, eighty-eight exceedances of CUGcompounds were found in sixty samples. These samples are located in twenty-three sourceareas on nine facilities plus the storm sewer system. The exceedances were detected insurface soil, subsurface soil, and sediment. An area of DNAPL was identified during thePhase I SCRI. In the residential area, forty-seven CUG compound exceedances were foundin thirty-one samples. These samples are located in ten source areas on six facilities plus thestorm sewer system. The exceedances of the CUGs were detected in surface soil, subsurfacesoil, and sediment collected from thirty-one source areas. These thirty-three source areaswere screened for the presence of complete pathways to Fields Brook. The thirty-threesources and the compounds detected in concentrations greater than the CUGs are describedbelow. The locations of the CUG exceedances and the associated source areas are includedon Tables 6.3.1 and 6.3.2. The area of the CUG exceedance, as estimated using theisoconcentration map (Figures 6.6.1 through 6.6.53), is provided for each COC in each sourcearea.

6.3.1.1 Occupational Areas

The locations where CUG compounds were detected in concentrations greater than theoccupational CUGs are listed on Table 6.3.1. The compound, concentration detected, and

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-7 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


source area(s) associated with each sampling location are included on this table. No COCswere detected in concentrations greater than their respective CUGs in any outfall dischargesample collected in the occupational area. The facilities with exceedances are describedbelow.

Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company

The description of the Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company facility is included inSection 4.1. This facility is located east of State Road in the occupation area; however,USEPA has requested that residential CUGs be used to screen this facility due to the closeproximity of the outfall to residential EUs. This section includes descriptions of the sourceareas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility. The results for eachcompound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater than CUGs are shownin Figures 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.2. As discussed in Section 6.3, the sources at Acme werescreened using the residential CUGs.

Oil Retention Lagoon (ACMEH

The Oil Retention Lagoon captures storm water runoff from the site. The sediment in thepond (ACMSD20) was found to contain PCBs at a concentration greater than the CUG. Thisarea consists entirely of the oil retention lagoon. The locations where PCB concentrationsexceed the CUG are shown in Figure 6.3.1.1.

Drummed Storage Area (ACME2)

A surface soil sample (ACMSS19) was collected from inside the building used to store emptydrums and drums containing grease for equipment maintenance. This sample was found tohave concentrations of PCBs and lead above their CUGs. A surface soil sample (ACMSS05),collected outside the building, was reported to contain PCBs in a concentration greater thanthe CUG. Analytical results for PCBs and lead detected above their CUGs in the surface soilat the Acme facility are shown in Figure 6.3.1.1.

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT10N6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6- 8 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Oil Soaked Soil TACME3)

Several areas on the Acme property display surface soil staining. The stained soils werefound generally in the area surrounding the scrap processing areas. A number of the surfacesoil samples (ACMSS03, ACMSS06, ACMSS09, ACMSS14, ACMSS16, ACMSS18, andACMSS23) collected in these areas contained PCBs, lead, and benzo(a)pyrene inconcentrations greater than their CUGs. Hexachlorobenzene was detected in ACMSS09 ina concentration greater than the CUG. In ACMSS14, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene was detectedabove the CUG. Figure 6.3.1.1 illustrates the CUG exceedances in the surface soil at theAcme facility. 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane was reported to be present in a concentration greaterthan the CUG in the subsurface soil (ACMSB03) downgradient of ACME3. This locationis shown in Figure 6.3.1.2.

Sewer System TACME4)

Surface soil sample ACMSS21 was collected near the location where the storm sewerdischarges on the east side of State Road, south of Fields Brook. PCBs were detected at thislocation in concentrations greater that the CUG. Figure 6.3.1.1 illustrates the CUGexceedances in the surface soil at the Acme facility.

Transformer Processing Area (ACMES')

Transformers were processed in the area north of the main facility building. PCBs and leadwere detected in concentrations greater than CUGs in several surface soil samples (ACMSS07,ACMSS16, and ACMSS18) collected from ACME5. These locations are shown inFigure 6.3.1.1.

Source areas ACME3 and ACME5 were combined for the purposes of assessing therecontamination potential of lead and PCBs hi the surface soil. PCBs were detected in anarea which is not source specific and is downgradient from several source areas.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-9 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Carbide Waste Pile (ACME6)

A soil boring was drilled through the waste pile, and samples were collected from each 2 ftinterval. In three of the intervals sampled, 12.5 to 15.0, 15.0 to 17.5, and 17.5 to 20.0,benzo(a)pyrene was detected in concentrations greater than its CUG. These locations areshown in Figure 6.3.1.1.

Cleveland Electric and Illuminating Company (CEI)

The description of the CEI property is included in Section 4.2. This section includesdescriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility.The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater thanCUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.3.

Coal Stockpiles (CEI1)

Arsenic was detected in concentrations exceeding its CUG in two surface soil samplescollected from the area of the coal stockpiles (CEISS03 and CEISS06). These locations areshown in Figure 6.3.1.3.

Detrex Corporation

The description of the Detrex Corporation facility is included in Section 4.3. This sectionincludes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at thefacility. The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrationsgreater than CUGs are shown in Figures 6.3.L4 through 6.3.1.6.

Seven Closed Lagoons (DETH

The closed lagoons are located in the northeastern portion of the Detrex facility. Subsurfaceand surface soil samples collected from the area surrounding the lagoons were found to

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-10 5/97


contain several volatile and semivolatile compounds in concentrations exceeding their CUGs.An area of DNAPL was encountered underneath the lagoons. This area was estimated tocover approximately 9 acres. In locations downgradient of this area, the compounds detectedin the DNAPL were found to be present in concentrations greater than their CUGs in thesurface and subsurface soil. In the subsurface soil, hexachlorobenzene,1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and tetrachloroethene were detected in concentrations greater thantheir CUGs. The analytical results for these compounds in the subsurface soil are illustratedin Figure 6.3.1.4. Hexachlorobenzene was detected in the surface soil in concentrationsgreater than the CUG. Hexachlorobenzene concentrations detected in the surface soil atDetrex are shown in Figure 6.3.1.5. The soil samples where CUG concentrations areexceeded are DETSS04, DETSB05, DETSB07, DETSB09, DETSB15, and DETSB19. Theanalytical results greater than CUGs for the DNAPL sample are included on Figure 6.3.1.6.

Former Waste Pile

A pile of hexachlorobutadiene crystals was located south of the seven lagoons. The crystalswere removed from site and incinerated in 1981 and 1982. Hexachlorobenzene was detectedin both surface soil and subsurface soil in concentrations greater than the CUG (DETSB09,DETSB10, and DETSS23). PCBs were also detected in concentrations greater than the CUGin the surface soil in the vicinity of DET2 (DETSS23). The samples were collected fromlocations adjacent to and downgradient of the waste pile. The distributions ofhexachlorobenzene in the subsurface and surface soil and PCBs in the surface soil areillustrated in Figures 6.3.1.4 and 6.3.1.5, respectively.

Lime Ponds (DET31

Hexachlorobenzene was detected in both surface soil and subsurface soil in concentrationsgreater than the CUG. PCBs were detected in one surface soil sample collected from alocation adjacent to the pond (DETSS17). The samples were collected from locationsadjacent to and downgradient of the lime ponds. These locations are shown in Figures 6.3. 1 .4and 6.3. 1.5.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTON6/RECONTAM.001 6-1 1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Storm Water Retention Basin (DET7)

As part of the surface drainage modifications made in 1989, a dike and storm water retentionbasin were installed near old Outfall 001 in the southeastern portion of the facility. TheDetrex Tributary previously discharged to Fields Brook at this location, and as a result of thedrainage modifications, no longer discharges off site. Water collected in the basin is pumpedto the facility and treated before being discharged through Outfall 002. During storm eventsthat exceed the flow capacity of the treatment system, excess flow goes over the spillway anddischarges into EU8 of Fields Brook. Hexachlorobenzene, PCBs, and arsenic were detectedin a surface soil sample collected from the retention basin in concentrations greater than theirCUGs. The hexachlorobenzene and arsenic were detected in a surface soil sample collectedfrom within the basin. The area of the CUG exceedances is contained entirely within thebasin. The location of this sample is shown in Figure 6.3.1.5.

Other Areas

A surface soil sample (DETSS13) was reported to contain PCBs in a concentration greaterthan its CUG. The sample was collected in the floodplain of Fields Brook downslope of theCatalyst Pile (DET6). However, representatives of the Detrex Corporation indicated thatPCBs were never stored in this area. The distribution of PCBs detected in concentrationsabove the CUG in the surface soil at the facility is shown in Figure 6.3.1.5.

Hanlin Facility

The description of the Hanlin facility is included in Section 4.5. This section includesdescriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility.The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater thanCUGs at the Hanlin facility are shown in Figure 6.3.1.7.


Woodward-Clyde


Settling Lagoons (LIN2)

This source area was a large compartmentalized settling lagoon and is located near the centerof the facility. One surface soil sample (LINSS06) collected from an area downgradient ofLIN2 was reported to contain benzo(a)pyrene at a concentration greater than the CUG. Theresults for benzo(a)pyrene detected at concentrations greater than CUGs are shown inFigure 6.3.1.7.

Former TDI Facility

The description of the former TDI facility is included in Section 4.9. This section includesdescriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility.The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater thanCUGs at the former TDI facility are shown in Figure 6.3.1.8.

Other Areas

The concentration of arsenic in one surface soil sample collected downgradient of OLIN8 andOLIN9 was reported be greater than the CUG. This location (OLINSS15) may not beassociated specifically with OLIN8 and OLIN9 since the sample was collected downgradientof several other source areas. OLIN8 and OLIN9 are the source areas located closest to thesampling location. Arsenic was detected at a concentration greater than the CUG in a surfacesoil sample (OLINSS10) collected from a drainage ditch location in the southern portion ofthe facility. This sample is located downgradient of and closest to the Vygen treatment ponds(VYG1 and VYG2). However, the ditch drains much of the southeastern portion of thefacility. Arsenic is not known to be a chemical of concern at the facility, and arsenic ispresent in most areas of Fields Brook. The distribution of arsenic detected in concentrationsabove the CUG in the surface soil at the facility is shown in Figure 6.3.1.8.

K424/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-13 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


RMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility

The description of the RMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility is included in Section 4.13.This section includes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samplescollected at the facility. All results for each compound and analyte which were detected atconcentrations greater than CUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.9.

East and West Brine Ponds (RMIS7)

The brine ponds are located in the southwestern portion of the facility. One surface soilsample (RMSSS06) was reported to contain arsenic in a concentration greater than the CUG.The sample was collected from a location downgradient of RMIS7. Arsenic is not known tobe a chemical of concern at the RMI Sodium Facility. The distribution of arsenic detectedin the surface soil at the facility is shown in Figure 6.3.1.9.

Other Areas

Arsenic was detected in excess of the CUG in a surface soil sample collected from a drainagearea in the central portion of the facility (RMSSS10). This ditch drains the northwest portionof the facility. Arsenic is not known to have been used at the RMI Sodium Facility and ispresent in most areas of Fields Brook. The distribution of arsenic detected in the surface soilat the facility is shown in Figure 6.3.1.9.

SCM Plant 1

The description of SCM Plant 1 is included in Section 4.14. This section includes detaileddescriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility.The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater thanCUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.10.

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-14 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Western Section Settling Ponds (1SCM2) and Former Mining Waste Area OSCM4')

A subsurface soil sample (SC1SB03), collected from the area between 1SCM2 and 1SCM4at the western end of the property, contained arsenic in a concentration greater than the CUG.Source area 1 SCM2 includes two ponds. One was used as a temporary holding basin, whilethe other was used for treating wastewater. This area (1SCM2) was used bySherwin-Williams for the placement of material from ore processing. Arsenic is not believedto have been a chemical of concern at SCM Plant 1 and has been detected in many areas ofFields Brook. Figure 6.3. 1 . 1 0 presents the results for arsenic in the surface soil at the facility.

SCM Plant 2, TiCl, Facility

The description of SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 facility is included in Section 4.15. This sectionincludes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at thefacility. The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrationsgreater than CUGs are shown in Figures 6.3.1.11 through 6.3.1.12.

Inactive Waste Pile (2SCM2)

The waste pile is located east of the plant, between Middle Road and Fields Brook andconsists of waste metal hydroxides generated from plant operations under a former owner.PCBs and hexachlorobenzene were detected above their CUGs in surface soil samples(SCCSS07, SCCSS08, SCCSS09, and SCCSS11) collected on the pile and in the areabetween 2SCM2 and Fields Brook. PCB and hexachlorobenzene concentrations in the surfacesoil are shown in Figure 6.3.1.11. PCBs were reported to be present in a concentrationgreater than the CUG in a subsurface soil sample (SCCSB03) collected downgradient of2SCM2. All PCB concentrations detected above the CUG in the subsurface soil areillustrated in Figure 6.3.1.12.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-15 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


PCB Soils (2SCM4)

PCBs have been detected during previous investigations in four areas of the facility. Someof the areas included in 2SCM4 have been paved with concrete or covered with gravel. PCBswere detected in concentrations exceeding the CUG in Phase I SCRI surface soil samples(SCCSS04, SCCSS05, SCCSS06, SCCSS10, and SCCSS13) collected in various areas of theSCM Plant 2, TiCl4 facility. All PCB concentrations detected in the surface soil areillustrated in Figure 6.3.1.11.

For the purposes of the recontamination assessment, PCBs and hexachlorobenzene in thesurface soil were combined for source areas 2SCM2 and 2SCM4.

SCM Plant 2. TiO? Facility

The description of SCM Plant 2, TiO2 facility is included in Section 4.16. This sectionincludes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at thefacility. The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrationsgreater than CUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.13.

TiO-. Settling Ponds (2SCM4)

The five settling ponds contain cooling water, storm water runoff, sump overflow, and boilerblowdown. Arsenic was reported to be present at a concentration greater than the CUG inthree surface soil samples collected from the vicinity of 2SCM4. Arsenic is not known tohave been used at the TiO2 facility. The distribution of arsenic in the surface soil is shownin Figure 6.3.1.13 and 6.3.1.13A.

Storm Sewers

Sediment samples were collected from three storm sewer catch basins on the east side of StateRoad. A complete discussion of the results of the storm sewer sampling is included in

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTJON6/RECONTAM.001 6-16 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Section 5.4. Volatile, semivolatile, and pesticide compounds were detected in concentrationsgreater than their CUGs in one sediment sample (SEWSD06). The catch basin from whichthis sample was collected is located near the northwestern corner of the Detrex Corporationproperty. The volatiles detected above their CUGs are 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,1,1 -dichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene; benzo(a)pyrene and hexachlorobenzene are thesemivolatiles. The pesticides detected in concentrations greater than their CUGs areheptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, and gamma-BHC (Lindane). The distribution ofconcentrations of these compounds are shown in Figure 6.3.1.14.

1,1-Dichloroethene, heptachlor, and gamma-BHC (Lindane) were not detected above theirCUGs in the sediment in EU6.

The following sources were identified as having no COCs present in concentrations greaterthan any occupational CUG, or residential CUG at Acme, and therefore will not be subjectedto the pathway screening:

ACME4-ACME6-CEI2 -DET5-DET18T-26T-ELK1 -LIN1 -LIN3-LTEC1-OLIN1 -OLIN2-OLIN3 -OLIN4-OLIN5 -

Sewer SystemCarbide Waste PilePowerline Right-of-WayWaste Storage AreaTanksSettling PondsConcrete Lined PitBrine Mud Storage PitLime Pond, West Pond, North Pond, Killen PondNorth PondsDecontamination PondWaste Oil Storage PadWaste Drum Storage PadLaboratory Drum Waste Storage Pad, TDA and MCBUnloading Area

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTJON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-17 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


OLIN6 -• OLIN7 -

OLIN10 -OLIN11 -

• OLIN12 -OLIN1T-10T

• PLC1-RMIS1 -

• RMIS2 -• RMIS3 -

RMIS4 -RMIS5-RMIS6 -RMIS8 -RMIS9-RMIS10-

• RMIS11-1SCM1 -

• 1SCM3 -• 1SCM5 -

2SCM1A/B -• 2SCM3 -• VYG3 -• VYG4-• VYG5 -• VYG1T-8T -

Drum Waste Storage AreaEast Solar PondMuriatic Acid Loading AreaTDI Product and Purification PlantTDA Purification ColumnTanksDrum Storage AreaClosed LandfillFill Area, North of Wastewater Treatment PondsFill Area, West of Wastewater Treatment PondsContaminated Surface Soil North of RMIS1Former Fill Area - Wastewater Treatment PondsWastewater Treatment Ponds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5South Chute Waste PileThermal Oxidation UnitTreatment Area - Sodium BurningElectromet PondPrimary and Secondary Settling Ponds, Holding Ponds, andNorth Holding BasinWaste PileToluene USTNorth, South, and East PondsExcavated PCB SoilsPreneutralization PitNeutralization PitDrum Storage AreaTanks

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.O01 6-18 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.3.1.2 Residential Areas

The locations where CUG compounds were detected in concentrations greater than theresidential CUGs are listed on Table 6.3.2. The compound, concentration detected, andsource area(s) associated with each sampling location are included on this table. No COCswere detected in concentrations greater than their respective CUGs in any outfall dischargesamples collected in the residential area.

North Coast Auto Crushing

The description of the North Coast Auto Crushing Facility is included in Section 4.7. Thissection includes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samplescollected at the facility. The results for each compound and analyte which were detected atconcentrations greater than CUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.15.

North Coast Proerty (NCA1)

Source area NCA1 includes the entire North Coast Auto Crushing property. Several metalswere detected in the surface soil at the site in concentrations greater than their CUGs(NCASS02, NCASS04, and NCASS05). The metals detected in concentrations greater thantheir CUGs are arsenic, beryllium, and lead. Also, PCBs were reported above the CUG inone surface soil sample (NCASS02). The results for these COCs are shown inFigure 6.3.1.15.

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant

The description of the RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant is included in Section 4.11.This section includes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samplescollected at the facility. The results for each compound and analyte which were detected atconcentrations greater than CUGs or RCUGs (radionuclide clean up goals) are shown inFigures 6.3. 1.16 and 6.3. 1.17.


Woodward-Clyde


Former Evaporating Pond (RMIE1)

The evaporating pond was located north of the facility building and was used for disposal ofneutralized nitric acid. Uranium has been detected in concentrations exceeding the RCUGin the sediment in the vicinity of RMIE1. Remediation of the pond is being conductedcurrently under RCRA. The distribution of uranium is shown in Figure 6.3.1.16.

Former Waste Pile TRMIE2)

The waste pile consisted of soil excavated from the former evaporating pond (RMIE1). Thematerial has been removed and placed in drums for disposal. Uranium has been detectedabove the RCUG in the sediment in the vicinity of RMIE2. The distribution of uranium isshown in Figure 6.3.1.16.

Swale Area North of Plant (RMIE3)

RMIE3 is a non-industrialized, vegetated area located north of the RMI Extrusion Plant andsouth of Fields Brook in the Fields Brook floodplain. Hexachlorobenzene and arsenic werereported in concentrations greater than their CUGs in the surface soil in RMIE3 (RMESS03).This location may not be associated specifically with RMIE3. The sample was collected inthe floodplain of Fields Brook, and hexachlorobenzene and arsenic are not known to be COCsat the RMI Extrusion facility. The results for hexachlorobenzene and arsenic in the surfacesoil are shown in Figure 6.3.1.17. Uranium was detected in concentrations above the RCUGin sediment samples collected in the vicinity of RMIE3. The distribution of uranium isshown in Figure 6.3.1.16.

RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction Plant

The description of the RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction Plant is included inSection 4.12. This section includes descriptions of the source areas and analytical results for

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-20 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


the samples collected at the facility. The results for each compound and analyte which weredetected at concentrations greater than CUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.18.

Landfill 2 TRMIM6)

Landfill 2 is northwest of the plant and was used for disposal of various solid wastes. Onesurface soil sample (RMMSS09) collected from RMIM6 was reported to contain PCBs at aconcentration greater than the CUG. This area is outside the area where surface water iscollected and discharged through the facility outfall. Runoff from this area generally followsthe slope and enters Reach 10-1. All concentrations of PCBs detected in the surface soil atRMI Metals are shown in Figure 6.3.1.18.

Conrail

The description of the Conrail property is included in Section 4.18. This section includesdescriptions of the source areas and analytical results for the samples collected at the facility.The results for each compound and analyte which were detected at concentrations greater thanCUGs are shown in Figures 6.3.1.19 and 6.3.1.20.

Aboveground Storage Tanks (CON1)

Two tanks are present near the yardmaster building in the southwestern portion of theproperty. One has a capacity of approximately 500 gallons and is labeled "diesel." The otherhas a capacity of 300 to 400 gallons and is labeled "lube oil". Arsenic and lead were detectedin concentrations greater than their CUGs in a surface soil sample (CONSS09) collected inthis area. Arsenic and lead detected at concentrations greater than CUGs in the surface soilat Conrail are shown in Figure 6.3.1.19.

K424/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-21 5/97


Compressor Building (CQN2)

The compressor building is located in the south side of the property. Arsenic,benzo(a)pyrene, and benzo(b)fluoranthene were detected above their CUGs in a surface soilsample collected near CON2 (CONSS03). The distributions of arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, andbenzo(b)fluoranthene in surface soil are shown in Figure 6.3.1.19.

Soil Staining and Rail Yard fCON3)

Soil staining was observed west of the bridge across Fields Brook, on the western side of theproperty. This source area also includes the entire length of the railroad tracks on theproperty. Arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in concentrations greater than theirCUGs in surface and subsurface soil samples collected from various locations downgradientof CON3. The sampling locations where CUGs were exceeded are CONSB05, CONSSS07,CONSS11 (arsenic only), and CONSS13 and are shown in Figures 6.3.1.19 and 6.3.1.20.

Since CUG exceedances for arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in samples collectedin the vicinity of several sources, the source areas were combined. The combined source areaincludes CON1, CON2, and CON3. Arsenic is not believed to be a chemical of concern atthe Conrail property, since there is no record of its use.

Mitchell Transport

A description of the Mitchell Transport property is included in Section 4.19. No specificsource areas were identified on the Mitchell Transport property. The entire property isconsidered a potential source area. PCBs and beryllium were reported to be present inconcentrations greater than their CUGs in a surface soil sample (MTRSS01) collecteddowngradient from the active portion of the facility. PCBs were also detected at aconcentrations in excess of the CUG in one of the additional samples (MTRSS06) collectedon the property. The concentrations of PCBs and beryllium detected in the surface soil at theMitchell Transport property are presented in Figure 6.3.1.21 and 6.3.1.21A.


Woodward-Clyde


Reese Machine Company

A description of the Reese Machine Company property is included in Section 4.19. Nospecific source areas were identified on the Reese Machine Company property.Benzo(a)pyrene was reported to be present in a concentration exceeding the CUG in thesurface soil sample collected in the downgradient portion of the property (RESSS01). Theadditional sample collected from the property (RESS02) contained benzo(a)pyrene at aconcentration below the CUG; however, a duplicate of this sample slightly exceeded theCUG. Since these samples were from a drainage ditch area, the exceedances may be relatedto surface drainage from developed areas. Figures 6.3.1.22 and 6.3.1.22A present theconcentrations of benzo(a)pyrene detected in the surface soil at the Reese Machine property.

Storm Sewers

Sediment samples were collected from three storm sewer catch basins on the west side ofState Road. A discussion of the results of the storm sewer sampling is included inSection 5.4. Hexachlorobenzene was detected in concentrations exceeding its CUG in onecatch basin sediment sample (SEWSD04). Benzo(a)pyrene was reported to be present inconcentrations greater than its CUG in two catch basin sediment samples (SEWSD04 andSEWSD05). These catch basins are located across from the RMI Sodium facility and at theintersection of State Road and East 6th Street, respectively. The concentrations of COCsdetected in concentrations greater than their CUGs are shown in Figure 6.3.1.23.

The following sources were identified as having no COCs present in concentrations greaterthan any residential CUG, and therefore, will not be subjected to the second-level screening:

• OCC1 - Area Inside the Slurry Wall• RMIM1 - North and South Plant Effluent Settling Ponds• RMIM2 - Former Acid Brine Pond 1709, 1710• RMIM3 - Acid Brine Pond 1711

RMIM4 - Sodium Burn Area "B"

K424/FBH/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6^£CONTAM.OOI 6-23 5/97


• RMIM5 - Titanium Burn Area "A"• RMIM7 - Landfill 1 Southwest• RMIM8 - Enclosed Burning Device• Property• Motta's Auto Body• Property• Refuse Equipment Service

After the screening for CUG exceedances, eight source areas and the sewer system remainedin the residential area. Each of the remaining source areas was subject to the screening forthe presence of complete pathways. The pathway screening is discussed in Section 6.4.

6.4 FIRST-LEVEL: SCREENING FOR PRESENCE OF COMPLETE PATHWAYS

The first-level screening process confirmed the presence of 31 primary source areas withCUG exceedances (not including storm sewers) in the Fields Brook watershed. The secondstep in the first-level screening involved evaluating the presence of a complete pathway toFields Brook.

The purpose of this assessment is to assess the potential for remaining sources torecontaminate sediment in Fields Brook using field data and appropriate transport models.As depicted in the logic diagram (Figures 6.1.1-A and 6.1.1-B), the CSMs developed forindividual sources indicate that recontamination might occur by:

• Surface water and sediment runoff (discussed in Section 6.4.1)• Direct discharge through outfalls (discussed in Section 6.4.2)• Groundwater (including DNAPL) discharge (discussed in Section 6.4.3)

The discussion of the screening is organized by potential pathways for each source area.Table 6.4.1 details sources (subsurface soil, surface soil, groundwater, sediment, and surface

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-24 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


water media) for each facility by constituent. Each media was screened for the presence ofcomplete pathways from source areas to Fields Brook.

6.4.1 Surface Water and Sediment Runoff

Surface water and sediment runoff is one of the three potential complete migration pathwaysdepicted in the generic and facility-specific CSMs. The potential for sedimentrecontamination by this mechanism was evaluated and the results used to identify any sourceareas which have the potential to cause recontamination of Fields Brook sediments via surfacewater and sediment runoff.

6.4.1.1 Surface Water Pathway Screening

No COCs were detected above CUGs in any surface water sample collected as part of thePhase I SCRI.

6.4.1.2 Sediment Runoff Pathway Screening

As shown in Table 6.3.1 and Table 6.3.2, CUG exceedances were reported in surface soil at27 of the 31 sources. The soil in these sources has the potential to be eroded and depositedin Fields Brook as sediment. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) was selected as thesediment runoff model for the migration of eroded soils to Fields Brook sediment. Use ofthe USLE was discussed with USEPA in August 1993 and was approved in their letter ofDecember 7, 1993 (USEPA 1993b).

The specific application of the USLE to the recontamination assessment was described inSection 6.2.2.1 of the Recontamination Assessment Plan (WCC 1994b). The results of theevaluation were used to identify any remaining source areas which have the potential to causerecontamination of Fields Brook sediment. As described in the Recontamination AssessmentPlan (WCC 1994b), only those source areas in which COC concentrations exceed CUGs were

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SEC71ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-25 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


modeled, although the method used to characterize source chemical concentrations includedall the concentration data from other sources in the same sub-basin.

Ten facilities contain industrial outfalls with storm water collection systems. Four facilitieshave collection systems that contain CUG exceedances. These facilities are Acme Scrap Ironand Metal, Detrex, SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4, and SCM Plant 2, TiO2. These sources are infacilities where one of the following is true:

• Runoff is collected by a series of drains or sumps, treated, and dischargedthrough the outfall

• Runoff collects in a retention basin and is treated and discharged through theoutfall

Diagrams of the storm sewer system at each facility were presented in the Phase I SCRI WorkPlan (WCC 1992c) and were reviewed in conjunction with the 2-foot contour topographicmap of the industrialized area of the watershed to determine the approximate collection areafor each industrial outfall. Table 6.4.2 is a list of sources which are located within any ofthe ten facilities' storm water runoff collection systems which discharge through an outfallinto Fields Brook. Figures 6.4.1 through 6.4.10 show the location(s) of each source areawithin the facility collection system. Some source areas are partially contained by thecollection system. For those portions of source areas which are contained within a facility'scollection system, direct runoff transport modeling using USLE is not appropriate. Theanalytical results for the outfall samples include this sediment contribution. However,transport modeling using the USLE was applied to the portion of the source area which is notcontained by the collection system. Sediment contributions via industrial outfalls wereevaluated separately as discussed in Section 6.4.2.

Upon further review of surface soil sampling locations at the RMI Sodium and RMI Metalsfacilities, the previously reported CUG exceedances in surface soil are located outside the

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-26 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


collection and treatment systems. Surveyed elevation data and photographs were reviewedto confirm this.

The topography at the Conrail property is relatively flat, with gradients of less than 1% to5%. The ground surface is composed of a mixture of gravel, miscellaneous fill, and railroadballast. These materials have a low potential for erosion and are highly permeable. Thepotential for soil transport in many areas of the Conrail property is low. In the southeasternportion of the property, there is a berm along the bank of Fields Brook which would reducethe flow of surface water to Fields Brook.

The updated information for the Conrail (detailed survey completed in July 1994) and RMIMetals properties was used to revise the recontamination assessment calculations forSubbasins A and F to more accurately characterize sediment loading to Fields Brook.

6.4.2 Direct Discharge Through Outfalls

As reported in the Phase 0 RI Report, the flow in Fields Brook consists of both natural andindustrial sources of water. The natural base flow of Fields Brook under non-flood conditionswas reported to average approximately 7 cubic feet per second (cfs) (USEPA 1986a). Thisvalue assumes a unit runoff of 1 .25 cfs/sq.mi. and that the Fields Brook drainage area issimilar to the Ashtabula River drainage. It was assumed that this water originates fromprecipitation and discharge of groundwater. Hydraulic modeling performed using the HEC-1model was updated in 1994 to include beaver dams and the large swampy area in Reach 8.As part of this analysis, the base flow for Fields Brook was estimated to be 15 cfs.

During the Phase 0 RI field activities performed in 1990, the industrial water discharge pointswere sampled and it was determined that the combined outfall from all industrial dischargeswas 14.6 cfs in dry weather and 17.8 cfs in wet weather. At this time of sampling thefollowing ten facilities were operational: ACME, Detrex, Occidental, RMI Extension, RMIMetals, RMI Sodium, SCM Plant 1, SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4), SCM Plant 2 (TiO2) and Vygen.Analytical results obtained from sampling the industrial outfalls in 1 990 indicated there were


Woodward-Clyde


no COCs detected at concentrations greater than CUGs. The discharge water from theoutfalls is a combination of treated process water and/or storm water.

During the Phase I RJ field activities performed in 1993, the industrial water discharge wassampled from each outfall. As described in Section 6.3, each industrial outfall was sampledand evaluated as a source of potential recontamination to sediment in Fields Brook.Analytical results obtained from sampling the industrial outfalls in 1993 indicated there wereno COCs detected at concentrations greater than CUGs. At this time of sampling, several ofthe facilities had terminated process operations and treated process water was no longer beingdischarged. Since there is not a central storm water collection system in the watershed, thosefacilities that have terminated active operations continue to discharge water to Fields Brookfrom their outfalls. In these situations the discharged water is a combination of any treatedsanitary effluent and storm water runoff. At the time of sampling in 1993 the following tenfacilities were operational, as noted: ACME, Detrex, Occidental, RMI Extrusion (processterminated), RMI Metals (process terminated), RMI Sodium (process terminated), SCM Plant1, SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4), SCM Plant 2 (TiO2) and Vygen.

During the Summer of 1994, the Vygen facility terminated operations and has recently beensold. No information regarding the current facility discharge status is available. Since theindustrial discharge contained a combined flow of water from process, sanitary and stormwater, it is assumed that the outfall remains active, but contains no process water discharge.As a result of the changes in plant operations, the following status of each outfall has beenprepared:

• ACME - treated storm water• Detrex - treated process and storm water• Occidental - treated process and storm water/groundwater• RMI Extrusion - storm water (process terminated)• RMI Metals - storm water (process terminated)• RMI Sodium - storm water (process terminated)• SCM Plant 1 - treated process and storm water

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-2 8 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


• SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4) - treated process and storm water• SCM Plant 2 (Ti02) - process (treated at TiCl4) and storm water• Vygen - storm water (process terminated)

Several of these facilities also contribute some treated sanitary effluent that is not listedseparately in the items above, regardless of the current facility operative status.

As described in Section 6.4.1, there are four facilities with industrial outfalls that containsource areas with surface soil exceedances. These facilities include:

• ACME• Detrex

SCM Plant 2 (TiClJSCM Plant 2 (TiO2)

Table 6.4.2 summarizes the source areas partially or fully contained by the collection systemsand indicates the EU into which the outfalls discharge. At these facilities, runoff is collectedin retention basins or holding ponds where sediment settles out of the water prior todischarge. If necessary, additional sediment is removed during treatment to meet NPDESdischarge limits. NPDES testing/monitoring indicates adequate sediment removal for eachfacility is achieved. Each of the four systems has storm event holding capacity as describedin Section 4. Using best professional judgement and considering the treatment systemdescriptions contained in Section 4.0, no direct pathways were identified by which sedimentcan be removed from the retention basins or holding ponds for typical operating conditionsand transported to Fields Brook or its tributaries through outfall discharge. Outfall samplingperformed during Phase 0 (1990) and Phase I (1993) has indicated there were no COCsdetected at concentrations greater than CUGs. Since these facilities have treatment systemsthat reduce suspended sediment loadings, it is unlikely that sediment can be discharged fromthe outfall. For these reasons, CUG exceedances in sediment contained in a storm waterretention basin or holding pond are not included in the recontamination assessment describedin Section 6.4.


Woodward-Clyde


As requested by USEPA, a separate screening analysis was performed at these four facilitiesto evaluate potential sediment contributions from areas of facilities where surface water iscollected and treated. This analysis used the USLE to evaluate sediment loadings fromuntreated outfall discharge and is presented in Section 6.8.

6.4.3 Groundwater Discharge

Groundwater (including DNAPL) is identified in the generic CSM as a transport medium forconstituents which have infiltrated through or leached from surface or subsurface soils.Individual facility CSMs identify release mechanisms and pathways by which COCs can enterthe groundwater, either in the dissolved or free phase. If COCs are present in thegroundwater and the pathway is complete, then there is a potential for constituents torecontaminate sediments in Fields Brook. A discussion of this pathway is provided for eachfacility where CUG exceedances were identified.

6.4.3,1 Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.3).Based on the results of the Phase I SCRI sampling, the only COC detected in the subsurfacesoil in a concentration above its CUG is 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane at a concentration of 120mg/kg (Field ID AB03FD), which is very close to the CUG of 119mg/kg for theoccupational area. This sample is a duplicate sample from location ACMSB03. Its associatedsubsurface soil sample (Field ID AB03FS) contained 1,1,2,2,-tetrachloroethane at aconcentration of 39 mg/kg, which is below the CUG. The average of these samples is belowthe CUG. However, to be conservative, the duplicate sample exceedance has been noted.

The subsurface soil analytical results do not indicate a continuing source which would leachto the groundwater. This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater atconcentrations above CUGs at the facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedialalternatives is not required.

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-30 ' 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.4.3.2 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.4). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil analytical results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach and impactgroundwater. This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrationsabove CUGs at CEI. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is notrequired. s^

6.4.3.3 Detrex Corporation

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.5).COCs (hexachlorobenzene, 1 , 1 ,2,2,-tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethene, and total PCBs) were Jdetected at concentrations above CUGs in subsurface soils from source areas DETl, DET2,and DET3. A complete pathway exists for the COCs in the subsurface soil to enter thegroundwater (transport medium). Other than the DNAPL in several wells, there are no CUGexceedances in the groundwater.

DNAPL has been detected in monitoring wells associated with the seven closed lagoons ^^(DETl). COCs in the DNAPL are soluble and can dissolve into the groundwater, and aremobile in the free phase. The groundwater flow direction in this area is towards Fields Brookand its tributary, as shown in Figure 6.4.1 1. Subsurface mapping conducted in the northernarea of the Detrex facility indicates that the DNAPL flow in this area is controlled partiallyby gravity and moves along the top of the till formation. Therefore, a pathway exists forCOCs dissolved or in free phase from the DNAPL to discharge to Fields Brook andrecontaminate the sediment. The DNAPL and associated groundwater will require thedevelopment of remedial alternatives in the Feasibility Study.


Woodward-Clyde


6.4.3.4 Hanlin (LCP Chemicals)

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.7). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil analytical results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atthe facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.3.5 North Coast Auto Crushing

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.9). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil analytical results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atNorth Coast Auto. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is notrequired.

6.4.3.6 Former TDI Facility

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.11A-E).No COCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs ingroundwater at the facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives isnot required.

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-32 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.4.3.7 RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6, 1.13). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atthe facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.3.8 RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction Facility

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6. 1.14). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atthe facility. Therefore, no development of groundwater remedial alternatives is required.

6.4.3.9 RMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.1 5A-B).No COCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atthe facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.3.10 SCM Plant 1

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.16).Arsenic was detected in the subsurface soil (SC1SB03) at a concentration greater than itsCUG. Arsenic is not known to have been used at the facility and has a low solubility inwater. The subsurface soil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which wouldleach to groundwater. This is confirmed by the absence of arsenic in the groundwater at

K424/FBJ4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-33 5/97


SCM Plant 1 in concentrations above the CUG. Therefore, development of groundwaterremedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.3.11 SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 Facility

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1,17).Analytical results indicate concentrations of total PCBs in subsurface soil near the waste pile(2SCM2) in excess of the CUG. PCBs have a very low solubility in water. The absence ofCOCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs in groundwater at the facility indicatesthat there is no continuing source in the subsurface soil which could leach to groundwater.Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.3.12 SCM Plant 2, TiO2 Facility

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.18). NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs ingroundwater at the facility. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives isnot required.

6.4.3.13 Vygen Corporation

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.19A-B).No COCs were detected at concentrations above CUGs in the subsurface soil. The subsurfacesoil sample results do not indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater.This is confirmed by the absence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs atVygen. Therefore, development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.


Woodward-Clyde

sJPhase I Source Control

Remedial Investigation Final Report

6.4.3.14 Conrail

Facility-specific sources to groundwater pathways are shown in the CSM (Figure 6.1.20).Arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene were detected in concentrations above their CUGs in thesubsurface soil collected in the vicinity of CONS (Soil Staining and Rail Yard). Arsenic andbenzo(a)pyrene have very low solubilities in water. The subsurface soil analytical results donot indicate a continuing source which would leach to groundwater. This is confirmed by theabsence of COCs in groundwater at concentrations above CUGs at Conrail. Therefore, w*development of groundwater remedial alternatives is not required.

6.4.4 Sediment Pathway Screening

Sediment samples with COCs at concentrations exceeding CUGs are shown in Tables 6.3.1. iand 6.3.2.

Sediment in the storm sewers in the industrialized area of the watershed was sampled, andCUG exceedances are described in Section 6.3.1.1 and 6.3.1.2, respectively. A completepathway exists for these sediments to reach Fields Brook; therefore, remedial alternatives forstorm sewers will be developed in the Feasibility Study. -w/

A sediment sample collected from the Oil Retention Lagoon (ACME1) at the Acme facilitycontained total PCBs in excess of the CUG. The sediment is contained in the lagoon. NoCOCs were detected at concentrations above residential CUGs in the subsurface soil(ACMSB02) or groundwater (ACMMW02S) in the vicinity of ACME1. Based on theseresults, no migration of PCBs away from the lagoon appears to be occurring. Therefore,development of remedial alternatives is not required for sediment in ACME1.

Uranium in the sediment at concentrations greater than RCUGs were reported for the seepagepond and swale (RMIE3) at the RMI Extrusion facility. These samples were collectedbetween June 1985 and January 1989 by RM. Additional samples were not collected as part ^^of the Phase I SCRI. Using qualitative-quantitative assessment/best professional judgement


Woodward-Clyde


(QQA/BPJ), this area was evaluated for recontamination potential. There is no potential forerosion of the sediment since this is an area of standing water. The seepage pond and swaleare more likely deposition areas, and thus no movement of surface soil to Fields Brook isexpected. Therefore, development of remedial alternatives is not required for sediment at thisfacility.

6.5 DETERMINATION OF WATERSHED SOIL LOSS

Surface topography, field investigations, and other published documents were used to definethe watershed boundary for Fields Brook. Within the watershed, 23 sub-basins wereidentified. The sub-basin boundaries are shown in Figure 6.5.1. The USLE was used toestimate soil loss from each sub-basin.

The USLE is an empirical equation that was developed to predict soil loss by sheet and rillerosion (Wischmeier and Smith 1978) estimated from statistical analyses of over 10,000plot-years of erosion field research. The USLE accounts only for overland erosion and doesnot account for other sources of sediment such as suspended sediment from outfalls, streamchannel erosion, and stream bank erosion.

6.5.1 Watershed and Sub-basins

The Fields Brook watershed has been described in conjunction with Fields Brook SedimentOperable Unit characterization (WCC 1992b). Primary land uses in the watershed consist ofa mix of residential, agricultural, and industrial areas. Overland slopes (which is used tocalculate the length/slope factor) range from less than 0.3 percent to 10 percent. Runoff isconveyed predominantly from the southeast to the northwest by several small tributaries andirrigation ditches which collect and convey runoff to Fields Brook.

The watershed was divided into 23 sub-basins to account for tributary flow during modelingusing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Hydrograph Package, HEC-1 computer model.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-3 6 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


This watershed sub-basin delineation was utilized in the USLE modeling. Sub-basindrainage was confirmed in the field on October 12 and 13, 1993 by WCC personnel.

Man-made drainage patterns and engineered structures that drain to facility water treatmentplants have altered the natural drainage in the watershed. This is particularly true in theindustrialized portion of the watershed north of the Perm Central railroad tracks. Direct(overland) runoff from such areas will not occur as long as a storm event is less than thecapacity of the system and the system continues operating. Therefore, contribution from theseareas was evaluated based on discharge through the industrial outfall. Contributions ofsuspended solids to Fields Brook via industrial outfalls are discussed in Section 6.5.5. Noindustrial outfall was identified in the first-level screening as a potential source ofrecontamination. Sources contained by industrial facility drainage and treatment plants werediscussed in Section 6.4.1.

Other areas in the industrial facilities (parking lots or buildings) are covered and prevent soilerosion. Non-erosional areas are discussed in Section 6.5.4.1.

6.5.2 Definition of Universal Soil Loss Equation Parameters

The USLE for average annual soil loss is stated as follows (Schwab et al. 1981):

A=RxKxLSxCxP

where

A = average annual soil loss (tons per acre)R = rainfall erosion index (foot-ton-inch/acre-hour)K = soil-erodibility factor (tons per acio/R factor unit)LS = topographic (length-slope) factor (unitless)C = cover and management factor (unitless), and

K424/FB 14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO I 6-3 7 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


P = conservation practice (erosion control) factor, which is the ratio of soil loss fora given practice to soil loss for "up-and-down the slope farming" (1.0 unitless).

6.5.2.1 Rainfall Erosion Index (R)

The energy of moving water detaches soil particles from the soil matrix and transports thesematerials downhill. Research has shown that when all factors other than rainfall are constant,soil loss during a storm is proportional to the energy intensity (El) value of the storm. TheEl parameter is the product of the total raindrop energy of a storm and the maximum30-minute intensity. The erosive potential of a rainstorm is a function of its kinetic energy,maximum prolonged intensity, and their interaction, all of which are reflected in the Elparameter (Wischmeier 1976).

Soil losses are linearly proportional to the number of El units. Historical records areaveraged for a given location to obtain an area-specific average annual rainfall erosion index.This annual index serves as the R factor for the USLE.

6.5.2.2 Soil-Erodibility Factor (K)

Some soils erode more readily than others even when rainfall, topography, cover, andmanagement are identical. The resistance of a soil surface to erosion is a function of thesoil's physical and chemical characteristics. The properties most significantly affecting soilcredibility are texture, organic matter content, and permeability. As discussed above, soil lossis directly and linearly related to the El parameter. However, the increase in soil loss foreach additional unit of El differs with soil type and is a quantitative measurement of theinherent credibility of a specified soil (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The K factor in theUSLE equals the average soil loss per El unit on a standardized land plot.

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-38 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.5.2.3 Length-Slope Factor (LS)

Both the length and the steepness of the land slope substantially affect the rate of soil erosionby water. The USLE denotes the effects of slope length by L and effects of steepness by S.Both factors are expressed relative to a "unit" plot and are therefore dimensionless. Typically,the two factors are combined into a single topographic factor denoted as LS. The LS factoris the expected ratio of soil loss per unit area from a field slope to that from a 72.6-ft lengthof uniform 9 percent slope under otherwise identical conditions. ^^

6.5.2.4 Cover and Management Factor (C)

The cover and management factor (C factor) is a dimensionless factor which accounts for theeffects of cover and management variables that reduce the mechanical forces of the water jacting on the soil particles or increase the soil's resistivity to erosion (Wischmeier and Smith1978 and Wischmeier 1976). The C factor has been subdivided into three distinct effects:(1) canopy, (2) mulch, and (3) tillage and residual effects of prior land use. Canopy coverdissipates some of the rainfall energy by intercepting the falling raindrop. Mulch interceptsraindrops and also reduces runoff velocity. Drops intercepted by mulch do not regain any fallvelocity as they do from canopy cover. Therefore, mulch is more effective than an equivalent ^/canopy cover. Tillage and residual effects of prior land use influence infiltration rates andsoil detachability. Relationship curves and tabular data for the individual effects have beenpublished and were used to estimate C values for various conditions.

6.5.2.5 Conservation Practice Factor (P)

The conservation practice factor (P factor) is dimensionless and measures the effect of controlpractices that reduce the erosion potential of the runoff by their influence on drainagepatterns, runoff concentration, and runoff velocity (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). Suchpractices include contouring, strip-cropping, and terracing. Values of P range from 0.25 to1.0, depending on the slope steepness. A P value of 1.0 was applied to all areas of the ****watershed since no such practices are known to exist within the watershed.

K424/FBH/RJREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-39 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.5.3 Determination of Sub-basin Specific USLE Parameters

As noted earlier, the watershed was divided into 23 sub-basins. To calculate annual soil lossfrom the watershed, average annual soil loss factors were calculated for each sub-basin in thewatershed. The specific values assigned to each LS line in each sub-basin can be found inAppendix D. An example calculation for sub-basin G is provided in Section 6.5.4.


The average annual El value for the entire United States is shown in a figure presented byWischmeier (1976) and is included as Figure 6.5.2. As shown in the figure the El value fornorthern Ohio is approximately 125. This value was used in the soil loss calculation for eachsub-basin.

Additionally, the local office of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), located in Jefferson,Ohio, was contacted on March 7, 1994 for information regarding the area-specific applicationof the USLE. SCS personnel recommended the use of a rainfall erosion index (R factor) of125 foot-ton-inch/acre-hour for Ashtabula County.

An evaluation of the rainfall variation using QQA/BPJ indicated that there is very littleseasonal or monthly variation. As a result, use of the average annual rainfall in USLEcalculations is appropriate. Factored into this modeling is the effect of high and low flowstorm events for a watershed of the size of the Fields Brook watershed.

6.5.3.2 Soil-Erodibility Factor (K)

Fields Brook is a tributary of the Ashtabula River, which ultimately discharges to Lake Erie.The soils in the watershed have been classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, SoilConservation Service (Reeder et al. 1973) and range from well-drained gravelly soils topoorly drained silty and sandy soils. WCC developed soil classification maps for eachwatershed sub-basin using SCS maps. The soil maps for each sub-basin are presented in


Woodward-Clyde


Figures 6.5,3-A through 6.5. 3-S. The legend for the soil types identified in these figures isshown in Table 6.5. 1 . The Ashtabula County Soil and Water Conservation District, Jefferson,Ohio, was contacted on March 8, 1994. They provided a list of K factors for the soil typesfound in Ashtabula County. This list is provided in Appendix B. The K factor for the eachSCS-classified soil type in the Fields Brook watershed is also shown in Table 6.5.1.

For each LS line, a K factor was assigned to each soil type found along the line. A weightedaverage (using the length of the line passing through each soil type) of the K factors was used ^^in the calculation of the A factor for the line.

Precipitation data gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fornorthern Ohio are presented in Appendix A. Monthly precipitation data are available from1980 to 1988 for the Ashtabula, Ohio station and from 1959 to 1988 for the Cleveland, Ohio ^Jstation. Rainfall generally occurs evenly throughout the year in the Ashtabula. The availableCleveland data includes average monthly precipitation and annual rainfall. Monthly averagesrange from a low of 2.32 inches (February) to high of 3.40 inches (July). Average annualprecipitation is 34.49 inches. Because the annual precipitation is evenly distributed (lowmonthly variability), varying the K factor in the USLE to account for seasonal fluctuationsin precipitation is not appropriate. The effects of high and low flow storm events is factored ^— 'into the K factor for average annual rainfall used in the soil loss calculation.


Representative length-slope lines were drawn for each sub-basin based on the topography, soiltypes, and types of cover present. The lines were started at points where elevation could bedetermined with confidence and terminated at locations where the USLE format becameinapplicable for calculating soil loss. The USLE applies to sheet and rill flow, therefore,when the runoff water enters a well-defined channel, the assumptions upon which the USLEdepends no longer hold (Wischmeier and Smith 1 978), and the lines were terminated at roads,railroad tracks, streams, ditches, and man-made structures. The length of the drainage line \**swas measured using the appropriate map scale, and the changes in elevation were determined

K424/FB 1 4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.O0 1 6-4 1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


from the contour lines on the topographic maps of the sub-basins (see Figures 6.5.5-Athrough 6.5.5-S). The percent slope was calculated for each length-slope line. If the lengthof the line was equal to or less than 1,200 feet, Table 6.5.3 was used to determine thelength-slope factor (LS factor). Interpolations were performed as needed. If the length ofthe drainage line exceeded 1,200 feet, the following equation was used to calculate the LSfactor (Wischmeier and Smith 1978):

LS = (65.41sin29 + 4.56 sin6 + 0.065)72.6

where X = slope length in feet

0 = angle of slope

m = 0.5 if percent slope is 5 or more

m = 0.4 if percent slope is between 3.5 and 4.5 percent

m - 0.3 for slopes of I to 3

m = 0.2 for uniform gradients of less than 1 percent

The length-slope lines are shown in Figures 6.5.6-A through 6.5.6-S, and the calculations areprovided in Appendix D.

6.5.3.4 Coverage and Management Factor (C)

The C factor was estimated for various areas in each sub-basin based on the type ofvegetation in the sub-basin as well as the percent coverage of the vegetation and othermaterials in the sub-basin. C factor classification maps for each sub-basin are shown inFigures 6.5.4-A through 6.5.4-S. The C factor maps were developed by overlaying the mapsonto an infrared aerial photograph taken on April 18, 1991 which was enlarged to correspondin scale with Figures 6.5.4-A through 6.5.4-S. Areas with trees were clearly defined in theaerial photographs, as were areas covered with thick cut grass.


Woodward-Clyde


C factors were obtained from the SCS Technical Guide. Section I-C-5.6-7 (revised 3-90).The guide was obtained from the SCS office in Medina, Ohio and was developed specificallyfor application of the USLE in Ohio. A table of C factors has been reproduced in thisdocument as Table 6.5.2.

For each LS line, a C factor was assigned to each cover type found along the line. Aweighted average (using the length of the line passing through each cover type) of the Cfactors was used in the calculation of the A factor for the line.


No large-scale agricultural areas exist within the Fields Brook watershed. In nonagriculturalareas, P factor is equal to 1.0. Therefore, a conservation practice factor of 1.0 was used forall sub-basins in the watershed.

6.5.4 Example Soil Loss Analysis

This section provides a detailed description of the modeling process used to calculate soil lossfrom each of the 23 sub-basins. The calculations performed for sub-basin F will be used forthis example and are typical for all sub-basins. The analysis performed for sub-basin F isdescribed and calculations for LS line Fl are provided as a specific example. The area ofsub-basin F is shown in Figure 6.5.1.

The parameters utilized in the USLE to calculate average annual soil loss are presented inSection 6.5,2, and their specific application to sub-basin F is described in the sections below.


Figure 6.5.2 shows the average annual rainfall energy intensity (El) value for the entireUnited States. This information was used to identify the El value for northern Ohio (125foot-ton-inch/acre-hour). R remains constant for all the sub-basins.



6.5.4.2 Soil Erodibility Factor (K)

The K factor in the USLE equals the average soil loss per El unit on a standardized land plot.Soil classification maps for each watershed sub-basin were prepared using informationprovided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.The following soil types and their associated K factors have been identified in sub-basin F:

Symbol

At

BrB

E1B

Hm

Ma

PsB

RhB

Name

Atherton silt loam

Braceville loam, 2 to 6percent slopes

Elnora loamy fine sand

Holly silt loam

Made land

Platea silt loam

Red Hook silt loam

K Factor

0.43

0.24

0.17

0.28

0.37

0.43

0.32

See Table 6.5.1 for a complete listing of soil types for the Fields Brook watershed.

The soil type along the entire length of line Fl is RhB which has a K value of 0.32 tons peracre/R factor unit. For lines that are situated across more than one soil type, a weightedaverage of K values, based on the length of the portion of the line crossing each soil type,was applied in the calculation of soil loss.


Five representative length-slope lines were drawn for sub-basin F based on the topography,soil types, and types of cover present, as shown in Figure 6.5.6-F. The lines were started at

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECTJON6/RECONTAM.001 6-44 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


points where elevation could be determined using contour lines from USGS maps andterminated at locations where the USLE format became inapplicable for calculating soillosses. The following table presents the information used to calculate the LS factor for eachline in sub-basin F:

Line

Fl

F2

F3

F4

F5

Length (ft.)

200

100

125

75

200

Elev. Diff.(ft.)

26

3

12

16

6

% Slope

13

3

9.6

21.33

3

LS Factor

2.8950

0.29

1.4460

3.9487

0.35

A complete listing of calculations for lines F2 through F5 and other sub-basins are presentedin Appendix E. The calculations for line Fl are presented below as an example.

Percent Slope = (100) * f——) = 13%y (200J

The formula presented in Section 6.5.3.3 was used to calculate the LS for a 12 percent slope(2.55) and 14 percent slope (3.24). These results were interpolated to obtain the LS for a 13percent slope using the following formula:

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-45 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Interpolating LS = 2.55 + 13 - 1214 - 12

* (3.24 - 2.55) = 2.8950

6.5.4.4 Coverage and Management Factor (C)

The following vegetation types and their associated C factors have been identified in sub-basin F:

Type and Height of CanopyRaised Canopy Cover %

Type 20%GroundCover

40%GroundCover

60%GroundCover

No appreciablecanopy

Trees, but noappreciable low

brush with averagedrop height of 13

feet or more

50 G

0.20

0.18

0.10

0.09

0.42

0.40

A complete listing of vegetation types and their associated C factors are listed in Table 6.5.2.

The coverage along the entire length of LS line Fl consists of trees, 50 percent cover, and40 percent grass coverage. Using the table above, a C factor of 0.09 is applicable for LS lineFl. For lines that are situated across more than one coverage type, a weighted average of Cvalues, based on the length of the portion of the line crossing each type of coverage, wasapplied in the calculation of soil loss.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO I 6-46 5/97

Woodward-Clyde

sJPhase I Source Control



Values of P range from 0.25 to 1.0, with 1.0 being the most conservative. No conservationpractices are known to exist within the Fields Brook watershed, therefore 1.0 was used tocalculate soil loss for all sub-basins.

6.5.4.6 Calculation of Soil Loss

Using the parameters presented for line Fl, calculation of the A factor is as follows:

AFI = (125) * (0.386) * (2.895) * (0.1725) *(1.0)

AF1 - 24.0954 tons/acre/year

The A factors calculated for each LS line in sub-basin F were averaged to obtain the total soilloss for the sub-basin. The A factor for lines that pass through source areas were not usedto calculate the average soil loss but were applied specifically to the calculation of soil lossfrom the source area.

The calculation for soil loss in sub-basin F is:

AFJ + An + AF3 + AF4 + AFSAF = ——————————————————F 5

and

, 24.0954 + 1.0114 + 8.6760 + 4.9754 + 0.6649 _ 00A£ , , ,,AF = ——————————————————————————— = 7.8846 tons/acre/day

K424/FBI4/IUREPORT/SECnON6/RECONTAM.001 6-47 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.5.5 Sub-basin Annual Soil Losses

Some areas within the watershed are considered non-erosional due to the presence ofman-made structures. The location and size of these areas was determined as described belowin Section 6.5.4.1. Using the sub-basin-specific USLE parameters developed with thetechniques described in Section 6.5.3, annual soil losses for each sub-basin in the watershedwere estimated from these parameters using the USLE.

6.5.5.1 Non-Erosion Areas

As described in Section 6.4.1.2, ten facilities have storm water collection systems whichcollect overland runoff. Facility-specific storm water collection areas are shown in Figures6.4.1 through 6.4.10. Direct runoff transport modeling using USLE is not appropriate forthese areas. Sediment contribution to Fields Brook via industrial outfalls was evaluatedseparately as described in Section 6.5.6.

In addition to storm water collection areas, industrial facilities contain large areas whichcannot erode due to man-made structures such as buildings, parking lots, and other pavedareas. Both types of non-erosional areas have been identified for each sub-basin and areshown in Figures 6.5.7-A through 6.5.7-S. The sizes of all non-erosion areas within thewatershed were measured using a planimeter. The non-erosional area in each sub-basin wassubtracted from the total sub-basin area to determine the net erosional area of that sub-basin(see Table 6.5.4).

6.5.5.2 Results of Sub-basin Soil Loss Calculations using USLE

The average annual soil loss (A factor) was calculated for each sub-basin in the watershed.Table 6.5.4 is a summary of the results of these calculations. The total soil loss from theFields Brook watershed due to rainfall runoff sheet and rill flow is estimated at 7,761tons/year.

K424/FBM/RIREPORT/SEC71ON6/RECONTAM.001 6-48 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.5.6 Industrial Outfall Contributions

As discussed previously, ten facilities have outfalls which discharge to Fields Brook or itstributaries. These facilities provided information on the discharge rates of their outfalls andthe contribution of suspended sediments to Fields Brook. This data is included in AppendixC and was used to calculate estimates of annual flow volumes and suspended sedimentdischarge from each outfall. The results are presented in Table 6.5.5. The method formeasuring TSS at the outfall at each facility is included in Table 6.5.5.

6.5.7 Sediment Delivery Ratio

The USLE is used to predict gross sheet and rill erosion but not downstream sediment yield.The sediment delivery ratio, defined as the ratio of sediment delivered at a point in a streamsystem to the gross erosion from all sources in the watershed above that point, adjusts USLEestimates downward to provide for deposition along field boundaries, at the toes of slopes,and along channels and alluvial valleys. In addition, the sediment delivery ratio must accountfor sediment additions along transport paths such as gullies, stream banks, and streambeds(Stewart et al. 1975), The maximum sediment delivery ratio was used.

Empirical sediment yield delivery equations have been developed by researchers fromobserved watershed sediment data. In a given physiographic area, the larger the drainagearea, the larger the sediment yield. Generally, the sediment yield per unit of area (sedimentyield rate) decreases as the size of drainage area increases. Stewart et al. (1975) state thatsediment delivery ratios vary widely for any given size of drainage area, but roughly, theyvary inversely as the 0.2 power of drainage area. They give the following tabulation of datato use as an estimate of sediment delivery ratio:


Woodward-Clyde


Drainage Area Sediment Delivery(Square Miles) Ratio

0.5

1

5

10

50

100

200

0.33

0.30

0.22

0.18

0.12

0.1

0.08

Graphical presentation of this data is provided in Appendix D. The sediment deliveryratio for a drainage area of approximately 6 sq mi, based on the Stewart et al. data, isestimated to be 0.21 (fraction of erosion). Applying this sediment delivery ratio to theUSLE-calculated erosion, 1,630 tons/year of annual suspended sediment is estimated forFields Brook.

A second relationship between drainage area and sediment delivery ratio is from theUSDA National Engineering Handbook (1971) and is presented in Appendix D. Themedian sediment delivery ratio for a 6-sq mi drainage area is estimated to be 0.23, witha range from approximately 0.10 to 0.42. Applying this sediment delivery ratio to theUSLE-calculated erosion, a median estimate of 1,785 tons/year of annual suspendedsediment is estimated for Fields Brook, with a range from 776 to 3,260 tons/year.

As presented Appendix E of the Feasibility Study for the Fields Brook Site, SedimentOperable Unit (CH2M Hill 1986), three methods were used to estimate the annualsuspended sediment load in Fields Brook. The results ranged from 590 to1,170 tons/year.

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-50 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


6.5.8 Comparison to Measured Sediment Loads

Samples of suspended sediment in Fields Brook were collected during storm events onApril 6, 1994 and May 24, 1994. Samples were collected during two different flowconditions and at three locations:

• Reach 11-1, upstream of confluence with Fields Brook

• Fields Brook (Reach 5-1), upstream of confluence with Reach 11-1

• Upstream of CEI right-of-way (Reach 8-1)

The sampling results for TSS and TDS are shown in Table 6.5.6. During theMay 24, 1994 sampling activity, no flow was measured at Reach 11-1 due to a newlyconstructed beaver dam. Upstream of the CEI right-of-way (Reach 8-1), the TSS was<5.0mg/l at both the low and high flow conditions, 8.91 cubic feet per second (cfs) and33.87 cfs, respectively. Figure 6.5.8shows the relationship of suspended sediment loadto the flow volume in Reach 5-1 based on the data from these two sampling events.

The available historical stage and outfall discharge data is summarized in Table 6.5.7from Cook Road (the most upstream gauging station) downstream toward the AshtabulaRiver for each gauge/outfall. Two sets of gauges have been installed in Fields Brookby WCC (1990 [gauges 1A-6A] and current [gauges 1-9]). Separate gauging of Reach 11is shown in the lower portion of Table 6.5.7. Historical discharge data has been groupedby month. If multiple readings existed for one month (such as April), the availabledischarge readings for that month were averaged to represent the month.

In order to estimate the annual average sediment load in Fields Brook, an annualaverage discharge at known locations is needed. The annual average discharge wasdetermined for the three locations in Fields Brook (CEI right of way, Conrail RailroadBridge, and Reach 11) where the suspended sediment sampling was performed. The


Woodward-Clyde


stage data presented in Table 6.5.7 was used to estimate the annual average stage forthe three sampling locations. An annual average stage was calculated as the arithmeticaverage of each month of data. This averaging technique was used to account forseasonal variability in stage. However, at the sampling locations, some monthly stagedata is missing and data from other months in the same season were substituted for themissing data to properly weight the annual average. Therefore, February is representedby the Nov-Dec-Jan data, March is represented by the April data, and October isrepresented by the September data. Due to missing fall and winter data for the DSTributary, six months of April data represents late winter and early spring, May, June,and July; and three months of August represents fall and early winter.

No historical stage data for the metering location upstream of the DS Tributary wasavailable. The discharge value at this location was estimated by subtracting the DSTributary contribution from the stage data at the Conrail RR Bridge. An annualaverage discharge of 22.46 cfs was estimated for this metering location.

Table 6.5.8combines information from Table 6.5.6and 6.5.7to determine the annualtotal suspended sediment load, annual total bed load, and annual total sediment load forFields Brook. Annual suspended sediment load concentrations for the three TSS/TDSmetering locations in Fields Brook were estimated using the annual average dischargeat these locations. The bed load was estimated to be 5% of the sediment load at eachlocation hi Fields Brook. At the point where Reach 11 enters Fields Brook, the annualsuspended sediment load in Fields Brook is estimated to be 439 tons/year. A bed loadof approximately 22 tons/year was calculated for this location. By summing the loadscalculated upstream of the DS Tributary and the DS Tributary, a total sediment load ofapproximately 461 tons/year is calculated for this location in Fields Brook.

At the point where Reach 11 enters Fields Brook, approximately 73.5% of the watersheddrainage area has discharged to Fields Brook and its tributaries. Sub-basins A, B, C, D,E, F, and W discharge to Fields Brook downstream of the DS Tributary. The projectedannual sediment load in Fields Brook was calculated by applying the sediment load

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-52 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


measured upstream to the downstream reaches based on a ratio of the respectivedrainage areas. The average annual suspended, bed load, and total loads are estimatedat 597, 30, and 627 tons/year, respectively.

Annual suspended sediment load in Fields Brook was estimated in Section 6. 5. 6 usingvarious techniques. Three annual suspended sediment load estimating methods werepresented in Appendix E of the Feasibility Study (CH2M Hill 1986). The results rangedfrom 590 to 1,170 tons/year. The calibration method described above resulted in anannual suspended sediment load of 597 tons/year. Applying a sediment delivery ratiorange of 0.10 to 0.42 to the USLE-calculated erosion, annual suspended sediment forFields Brook is estimated to range from 776 to 3, 260 tons/year. This estimate does notconsider the numerous settling ponds and water treatment systems of the industrialfacilities , or the settlement which occurs upstream of beaver dams . TheUSLE-calculated erosion of the Fields Brook watershed is consistent with annualsuspended sediment loads in Fields Brook calculated from field measurements .Recontamination assessment calculations will be based on a delivery ratio of 0.21. Asrequested by USEPA, a sensitivity analysis for sub-basin specific sediment delivery ratiowas performed and the results are in Section 6.7. No additional correction/correlationfactors will be applied to the USLE-calculated annual erosion values.

6.6 RECONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT

This section describes the results of the recontamination assessment of Fields BrookExposure Units (EUs). The recontamination assessment was performed using the resultsof the USLE modeling. The EUs are defined in the Phase II SODI Sampling DesignField Sampling Plan - Addendum 1 (WCC 1994a).

6.6.1 Source Locations and Concentrations

Isoconcentration maps were developed for each COC present in the surface soil hi aconcentration exceeding its CUG in each of the source areas identified in the first-level

K424/FB 1 4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-53 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


screening. The isoconcentration maps are presented in Figures 6.6.1 through 6.6.29.Contour lines for each source were selected as orders-of-magnitude of the CUG.Table 6.6.1provides a cross-reference between the source areas and the isoconcentrationcontour maps. Where a sample and its duplicate are present, the maximum result wasused to create the isoconcentration lines.

For area-specific sources (such as waste piles), only source-related surface soil samplelocations were used to develop the isoconcentration lines. The CUG isoconcentrationline defines the areal extent of the source area for that particular COC. One of thecriteria used in developing isoconcentration contour lines for surface soil sources wasterminated at physical boundaries such as roads, streams, topographic barriers, andmanmade structures (where appropriate).

The isoconcentration source definition maps were overlaid on the sub-basin non-erosionarea maps (Figure 6.5.7-A through 6.5.7-S) to develop CUG exceedance areas andnon-erosion maps for each COC in each sub-basin in the watershed. These maps arepresented as Figures 6.6,30through 6.6.55. Both contained and non-contained sourceareas were overlaid onto the sub-basin figures.

The areal extent of each non-contained source area was measured using a planimeter.The measured areas are posted on Figures 6.6.28through 6.6.53. Source area names arealso noted on these figures.

6.6.2 Sediment Contributors to Exposure Units

Sediment contribution to Fields Brook comes from direct runoff (sub-basins) and facilityoutfalls. Constituent contributions come from non-contained source areas. Details ofthe contributions from direct runoff, industrial outfalls, and source areas to each EU arepresented in Table 6.6.2. No non-contained source areas are located in the sub-basinswhich drain into EU2, EU3, EU5, and EU10. Therefore, no recontamination assessmentcalculation was performed for these sub-basins.


Woodward-Clyde

>JPhase I Source Control


The sub-basins which drain into the remaining six EUs contain sources areas for one ormore COCs. A recontamination assessment was performed for each sub-basin in whichnon-contained source areas were present. Therefore, 20 recontamination assessmentcalculations have been performed (four for EU1, five for EU4, four for EU6, one forEU7, five for EUS, and one for EU9).

As shown in Table 6.6.2,portions of sub-basins H, J, and K drain into a tributary ofFields Brook, while the remainder drains to the main Fields Brook channel. Formodeling purposes, these sub-basins have been divided and assigned to the appropriateEUs, Sub-basin G, containing part of the Acme Scrap Iron and Metal facility, falls onboth sides of State Road. Therefore, sub-basin G has been divided at State Road. Thearea east of State Road is assigned as contributing to EU6, and the area west to EUS.

6.6.3 Transport to Fields Brook

Transport of sediment from source areas to Fields Brook was modeled using the USLE.As described in Section 6.5,USLE sub-basin-specific annual soil losses (A factors) werecalculated for the entire sub-basin. Additionally, length-slope lines were developed forsource areas and source-specific A factors were calculated using the USLE calculationtechniques described in Section 6.5. Source-specific A factors were used to calculate theannual soil loss from each source area within each sub-basin (or portion).

In the area inside the innermost isoconcentration contour and in areas with only onecontour, a concentration equal to the maximum concentration detected inside that linewas assumed. For the outer areas, a concentration equal to the isoconcentration contourvalue of the next most inner ring was assumed (i.e., all soil between the CUG andCUGxlO lines was assumed to have a concentration equal to CUGxlO). Assigning theseconcentrations in this manner is a conservative approach in that the actualconcentrations of the eroding soils will tend to be overestimated.

K424/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-55 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


The area (within the sub-basin subject to erosion) outside the outermost isoconcentrationcontour line (equal to the CUG) was assigned a concentration equal to the average ofthe concentrations detected in the Phase I SCRI surface soil samples located outside theCUG contour line. A concentration ofO.lmg/kg was used for those samples with PCSconcentrations below the method detection limit. Where duplicate samples are present,analytical results from both samples were used to calculate the average COCconcentration.

6.6.4 Calculation of Resultant COC Concentration in Exposure Units

Table 6.6.3presents the 20 recontamination assessment calculations for the Fields BrookEUs. The information presented in Table 6.6.3 was gathered during the investigationand discussed in the previous sections. The size (in square miles) of the area where noCUG exceedances were identified was calculated by subtracting the size of the sourcearea from the size of the sub-basin net erosional area. The soil loss for each source areaand sub-basin was calculated by multiplying the USLE annual soil loss (A factor) by theerosion area. The sediment yield for each sub-basin and source area was calculated bymultiplying the A factor by the sediment delivery ratio. The concentration of each COCin the sediment in each sub-basin was calculated using the total sediment yield andconcentration of the eroding source the total soil eroding from the sub-basin. Theresultant concentration of each COC in each EU was calculated using the sediment yieldand concentration of the eroding source and to the total soil eroding from the sub-basinand the sediment contribution of the industrial outfalls discharging to the EU.

In addition to the analysis performed by WCC, USLE calculations for the SCM Plant2 - TiCl4 were performed by AquAeTer as a further refinement of the method used inthis analysis. This refinement included detailed, facility-specific information regardingslopes, surface cover, and size of source areas. The results from these analyses indicatethe sediment concentration of PCBs in EUS is lower than the result presented inTable 6.6.3, but is above the sediment CUG. The sediment concentration forhexachlorobenzene in EUS also was lower and did not exceed the CUG. This variation


Woodward-Clyde


in results maybe reasonable and expected considering the detailed site information used.A copy of the report prepared by AquAeTer is included in Appendix D.

6.6.5 Exposure Unit Sediment Recontamination Assessment

As described in Sections 6.6.2,20 recontamination assessment calculations have beenperformed. The sub-basins contributing to EUs 2, 3, 5, and 10 do not contain anynon-contained sources. Therefore, no recontamination assessment calculation wasperformed for these sub-basins groups. A recontamination assessment was performedfor each COC with non-contained source areas in the sub-basin groups.

The recontamination assessment calculations are presented in Table 6. 6.3. Based on theresults ofUSLE modeling, recontamination of Fields Brook sediment in EUs 1,2,3,4,5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 is not expected to occur from surface water runoff and industrialoutfalls. As a result, no remedial alternatives for surface soil sources contributing tothese EUs are required to be developed during the FS. However, FBPRPO wasrequested by USEPA to also use best professional judgement (BPJ) to assess potentialsources that are located in close proximity to Fields Brook and that due to their location,may pose a threat to the recontamination of Fields Brook. Due to EPA's specificrequest, potential sources that are located close to Fields Brook in EUs 1 and 4 (viareach 10-1) will be evaluated for remedial alternatives. BPJ was used in conducting therecontamination assessment which did not fail for the potential sources on Conrail(adjacent to EU1) and RMI Metals (EU4).

Based on the results of the recontamination assessment, the PCB concentration insediment entering EUS of Fields Brook is calculated to exceed the occupational CUG.Two sub-basins, J (southern portion) and G (eastern portion), contribute eroded soilsto EUS. Both sub-basins contain multiple PCB sources which are not contained.Sources include areas at Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company property, DetrexCorporation facility, and SCM Plant 2, TiCl4 facility. Remedial alternatives for PCB

K424yFB14/R]REPORT/SECTlON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-57 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


sources in sub-basin J (southern portion) and G (eastern portion) will be developedduring the FS.

6.6.6 Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis of the recontamination assessment was performed to evaluate howsensitive the USLE model is to the soil credibility factor and the cover and managementfactor. These parameters were selected as variables because they are site specific,measurable, and were varied across the source area.

The sensitivity analysis was accomplished by examining the specific K and C values usedin the calculations to determine if the annual soil loss (A factor) calculated was themaximum possible for the sub-basin or source area. If not, a sensitivity analysis wasconducted using the maximum deviation factor specific to the constituent of concern fora particular exposure unit. The sediment concentration was then multiplied by thisspecific deviation factor and compared to the CUG. The results of this sensitivityanalysis are described below.

The minimum soil credibility factor (K factor) used in the Fields Brook watershed was0.17 and the maximum was 0.43. In USLE calculations where the minimum K value wasused, the most the A factor could increase due to a variation hi the K factor would beby a factor of 0.43 divided by 0.17, or approximately 2.53 times the calculated value.Similarly, the minimum C factor used was 0.042,and the maximum was 0.20. Therefore,in USLE calculations where the minimum C value was used, the most the A factor couldincrease due to a variation in the C factor would be by a factor of 0.20 divided by 0.042,or approximately 4.76.

The sensitivity analysis examined the K factors and C factors that were actually used tocalculate the A factors for the constituent/exposure combinations identified above, withthe exception of EU8 totals for total PCBs. Since this combination already exceedsCUG, it does not require sensitivity analysis.


Woodward-Clyde

EU1


Arsenic: USLE length-slope lines A2, A3, and A4 were used to calculate the soilloss factors applied to the first combination: EU1 total for arsenic. The K valuefor all three lines was 0.37. The C value for one of three lines was 0.02.Therefore, the maximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.37) x (0.20/0.02) = 11.62

Multiplying the arsenic concentration, 20.52 mg/kg, by 11.62 yields 238.5 mg/kg,which exceeds the CUG of 27.6mg/kg, based on the values used in the sensitivityanalysis.

Benzo(a)pvrene: The lines used in the EU1 arsenic calculation were used forbenzo(a) pyrene. The K value for line A3 was 0.37. The C value for line A3 was0.09. Therefore, the maximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.37) x (0.20/0.09) = 2.58

Multiplying the benzo(a)pyrene concentration, 0.70 mg/kg, by 2.58 yields1.81 mg/kg, which exceeds the CUG of 1.40 mg/kg, based on the values used inthe sensitivity analysis.

Benzo(b)fluoranthene: USLE length-slope line A3 was used in calculating thesoil loss factors applied to this combination: EU1 total for benzo(b)fluoranthene.The K value for line A3 was 0.37. The C value for line A3 was 0.09. Therefore,the maximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.37) x (0.20/0.09) = 2.58


Woodward-Clyde

EU4


Multiplying the benzo(b)fluoranthene concentration of 0.51 mg/kg by 2.58 yields1.32 mg/kg, which is less than the CUG of 13.97 mg/kg.

Lead: USLE length-slope line Al was used in the EU1 lead calculation. The Kvalue for line Al was 0.37. The C value for line Al was 0.0225. Therefore, themaximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.37) x (0.20/0.0225) = 10.33

Multiplying the lead concentration of 169.96 mg/kg by 10.33 yields 1,755 mg/kgwhich exceeds the CUG of 500 mg/kg, based on the values used in the sensitivityanalysis.

Hexachlorobenzene: USLE length-slope line F2 was used in calculating the soilloss factors applied to this combination: EU4 total for hexachlorobenzene. TheK value for line F2 was 0.31. The C value for line F2 was 0.09. Therefore, themaximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.31) x (0.20/0.09) = 3.08

Multiplying the hexachlorobenzene concentration of 0.51 mg/kg by 3.08 yields1.57 mg/kg, which is less than the CUG of 6.38 mg/kg, based on the values usedin the sensitivity analysis.

Arsenic: The line used in the EU4 hexachlorobenzene calculation was used forarsenic. Multiplying the arsenic concentration of 10.87 mg/kg by 3.08 yields33.48 mg/kg, which exceeds the CUG of 27.6 mg/kg, based on the values usedin the sensitivity analysis.

K424/FB14/R]REPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-60 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Beryllium: The line used in the EU4 hexachlorobenzene calculation was used forberyllium. Multiplying the beryllium concentration of 0.97 mg/kg by 3.08 yields2.99 mg/kg, which exceeds the CUG of 2.4 mg/kg, based on the values used inthe sensitivity analysis.

Total PCBs: USLE length-slope lines F3 and F4 were used in calculating the soilloss factors applied to this combination: EU4 total for total PCBs. The K valuefor these two lines was 0.24. The-arithmetic average of the C values for the twolines is 0.121. Therefore, -the maximum deviation factor for this combination is:

(0.43/0.24) x (0.20/0.121) = 2.96

Multiplying the PCB concentration of 0.40 mg/kg by 2.96 yields 1.18 mg/kg,which does not exceed the CUG of 1.30 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

Benzo(a)pvrene: USLE length-slope line W2 was used in calculating the soil lossfactors applied to this combination: EU4 total for benzo(a)pyrene. The K valuefor line W2 was 0.29. The C value for line W2 was 0.066. Therefore, themaximum deviation factor is:

(0.43/0.29) x (0.20/0.066) = 4.49

Multiplying the benzo(a) pyrene concentration of 0.0812mg/kg by4.49yieldsO.36mg/kg, which is less than the CUG of 1.4 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

K424/FB14/R1REPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.001 6~61 5/97

Woodward-Clyde

EU6


Lead: USLE length-slope line G2 was used in calculating the soil loss factorsapplied to this combination: EU6 total for lead. The K value for line G2 was0.27. The C value for line W2 was 0.042. Therefore, the maximum deviationfactor is:

(0.43/0.27) x (0.20/0.042) = 7.58

Multiplying the lead concentration of 23.06 mg/kg by 7.58 yields 175 mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 500 mg/kg, based on values used in the sensitivityanalysis.

Total PCBs: The line used in the EU6 lead calculation was used for Total PCBs.Multiplying the PCB concentration of 0.05 mg/kg by 7.58 yields 0.38 mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 1.3 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

Arsenic: The line used in the EU6 lead calculation was used for arsenic.Multiplying the arsenic concentration of 2.62 mg/kg by 7.58 yields 19.86 mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 27.6 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

Beryllium: The line used hi the EU6 lead calculation was used for beryllium.Multiplying the beryllium concentration of 0.17 mg/kg by 7.58 yields 1.29mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 2.4 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-62 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


EU7

Arsenic: USLE length-slope lines H3, Jl, and J2 were used in calculating the soilloss factors applied to this combination: EU7 total for arsenic. The K value forthese three lines is 0,37. The C value for these three lines is 0.20. Therefore, themaximum deviation factor for this combination is:

(0.43/0.37) x (0.20/0.20) = 1.16

Multiplying the arsenic concentration of 8.00mg/kg by 1.16 yields 9.28mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 27.6 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECT1ON6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-63 5/97

Woodward-Clyde

EU8


Lead: USLE length-slope lines G4, G5, and J8 were used in calculating the soilloss factors applied to the combination: EU8 total for lead. The arithmeticaverage of the K values for these three lines is 0.326. The C value for thesethree lines is 0.10. Therefore, the maximum deviation factor for this combinationis:

(0.43/0.326) x (0.20/0.10) = 2.64

Multiplying the lead concentration of 336.69 mg/kg by 2.64 yields 888.9mg/kg,which exceeds the CUG of 500 mg/kg, based on the values used in the sensitivityanalysis.

Total PCBs: No sensitivity analysis calculation performed as the calculation forthis combination resulted in a concentration which exceeds the CUG.

Hexachlorobenzene: USLE length-slope lines J4 and J6 were used in calculatingthe soil loss factors applied to the last combination considered: EU8 total forhexachlorobenzene. The arithmetic average of the K values for these two linesis 0.245. The arithmetic average of the C values is 0.095. Therefore, themaximum deviation factor for this combination is:

(0.43/0.245) x (0.20/0.095) = 3.70

Multiplying the hexachlorobenzene concentration of 3.47 mg/kg by 3.70 yields12.8mg/kg, which is less than the CUG of 15.00mg/kg, based on the values usedin the sensitivity analysis.


Woodward-Clyde

EU9


Benzo(a)pvrene: USLE length-slope line J8 was used in calculating the soil lossfactors applied to this combination: EU8 total for benzo(a)pyrene. The K valuefor line J8 was 0.24. The C value for line J8 was 0.1. Therefore, the maximumdeviation factor is:

(0.43/0.24) x (0.20/0.1) = 3.58

Multiplying the benzo(a)pyrene concentration of 0.15 mg/kg by 3.58 yields0.537mg/kg, which is less than the CUG of 1.4 mg/kg, based on the values usedin the sensitivity analysis.

Dibenzo(a.h)anthracene: USLE length-slope lines J8 and G4 were used incalculating the soil loss factors applied to the combination: EU8 total fordibenzo(a,h)anthracene. The arithmetic average of the K values for these twolines is 0.305. The C value for these lines is 0.10. Therefore, the maximumdeviation factor for this combination is:

(0.43/0.305 x (0.20/0.10) = 2.82

Multiplying the dibenzo(a,h)anthracene concentration of 0.01 mg/kg by 2.82yields 0.028 mg/kg which is less than the CUG of 3. 30 mg/kg.

Arsenic: USLE length-slope lines L2 and Ml were used in calculating the soilloss factors applied to the combination: EU9 total for arsenic. The K value forthese three lines is 0.272. The C value for these three lines is 0.57. Therefore,the maximum deviation factor for this combination is:

(0.43/0.272) x (0.20/0.10) = 3.16


Woodward-Clyde


Multiplying the arsenic concentration of 6.75mg/kg by 3.16yields 21.33mg/kg,which is less than the CUG of 27.6 mg/kg, based on the values used in thesensitivity analysis.

As described above, the sensitivity analysis that was completed considered the highestpossible credibility factor and the highest cropping factor. Several very conservativeassumptions have been used in this analysis, in particular, assigning a concentrationequal to the average COC concentration detected in surface soils to all sub-basin areasoutside the CUG line. Therefore, exceedances of CUGs in this sensitivity analysis arenot representative of an actual potential for recontamination of Fields Brook sediments.Conservative assumptions were used in the recontamination assessment so that anypotential for recontamination of Fields Brook sediment could be identified. Increasingthe soil erodibility factor and cropping factor provides an additional measure ofconservatism to the analysis of recontamination potential, and the results are notconsidered to be representative of actual conditions. The source-specific erodibility andcropping factors are considered to be more representative of actual site conditions.

6.7 SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIO SENSITIVITYANALYSIS

A sub-basin-specific sediment delivery ratio sensitivity analysis was performed for theFields Brook watershed in response to USEPA comments. Tabular data presented byStewart et al. (1975) of sediment delivery ratio as a function of drainage area wasextrapolated to smaller size drainage areas. In general, smaller drainage areas yieldproportionally more sediment. The extrapolated data from Stewart et al. (1975) isshown in Figure 6.7.1.

Regarding the sub-basin calculation issue, this issue was partially resolved at the 12/94meetings between USEPA and the FBPRPO. Specifically, USEPA's General Commentfrom the 10/14/94 comment letter, noted that averaging of sub-basins within an exposureunit and averaging across the brook and DS tributary was not acceptable, and


Woodward-Clyde


recalculations were required. In response to this comment at the 12/19/94 meetings,EPA and FBPRPO attempted to determine whether this issue was moot, since if it werethe issue would not need to be resolved and no further response would be necessary.The issue was determined in part to be moot (only for the 'averaging across the brook*portion).

To make this determination, at the 12/20 meeting USEPA and FBPRPO conducted thefollowing efforts in reviewing the 8/94 SCRI Report, Volume I:

1) reviewed each source area and Sub-basin which remained after screeningfor whether it was above the CUG (Table 6. 7.1) and had an exposureroute to the Brook (Table 6.7.2),which were listed in Table 6.7.3,to assessthe relationship between the sediment concentrations columns to theCUG;

2) cross referenced these areas and these results with the watershed maps ofFigure 6. 5.1, to assess and estimate the % of watershed on one side vs. theother side of the Brook; and

3) compared these estimated %'s of watershed to the CUG, to estimate howclose to the CUG the sediment concentration would be if the watershedarea from each side of the Brook were assessed separately and notaveraged.

Once this effort was completed, USEPA concluded that it made no difference whetherany sub-basin area indicated to be below the CUG on Table 6. 7. 3 had averaged bothsides of the Brook within the calculation, since in all cases no CUG exceedances wouldresult if each side were calculated individually vs. not be averaged. Thus, USEPA willnot pursue the issue of averaging both sides of the Brook further with FBPRPO.

K424/FBI4/R]REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.001 6-67 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Based on the size of each sub-basin, sediment delivery ratios were determined fromFigure 6.7.1 for each sub-basin as shown in Table 6.7.1. The sediment load to FieldsBrook using this technique is estimated at 2,606 tons. These same sub-basin-specificsediment delivery ratios were used in the recontamination assessment calculations (seeTable 6.7.2). EU8 is calculated to produce sediment in Fields Brook in excess of CUGsfor Total PCBs. Therefore, this recontamination assessment sensitivity analysis hasresulted in the same conclusion as the base case presented in Table 6.6.3. The resultsare not very sensitive to a widely varying sediment delivery ratio.

Using sub-basin-specific sediment delivery ratios, annual sediment loading to FieldsBrook is estimated at 2,606 tons. As discussed in Section 6.5.7,the annual suspended,bed load, and total loads are estimated at 297, 30, and 627 tons/year, respectively.Three annual suspended sediment load estimating methods were presented inAppendix E of the Feasibility Study (CH2M Hill 1986). The results ranged from 590 to1,170 tons/year.

6.8 OUTFALL ANALYSIS

As requested by the USEPA, a screening analysis was performed for the containedportions of facilities at Fields Brook without consideration of the facilities' watertreatment processes. The analysis was based on overland flow erosion of sedimentwithin each facility's storm water runoff collection area. The purpose of the screeningwas to identify any contained areas that need further evaluation for recontaminationpotential. The facilities for which this analysis was performed are:

• RMI Sodium• Detrex Corporation• Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Company• SCM Plant 2 - TiO2 Facility• SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4 Facility


Woodward-Clyde


Initially, the facilities were screened to identify whether CUG exceedances were presentwithin the storm water runoff collection area. As shown in Table 6.4.2, no CUGexceedances were identified in the surface soil within the RMI Sodium facility outfallcollection system area. Therefore, untreated runoff from this facility does not have thepotential to recontaminate Fields Brook sediment. No further screening or considerationof this facility is required as part of this analysis.

The remaining four facilities had CUG exceedances in the surface soil for one or moreconstituents in the collection area. These outfalls were screened using USLEmethodology similar to Source Control recontamination procedures. Calculations wereperformed for the following chemicals:

Outfall Screening

Acme Scrap Iron and Metal Co.

Detrex Corporation

SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4SCM Plant 2 - TiO2

PCBs

PCBs, Hexachlorobenzene

Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs, Lead

Arsenic

Chemical-specific facility maps (Figures 6.8.1 through 6.8.8) were developed as a basisfor each screening calculation. The area of collection for each facility is indicated oneach map, as are watershed sub-basin boundaries. Nonerosional areas such as buildings,paved parking lots, roadways, and ponds also are shown in a hatched pattern. Thesurface area of each nonerosional area was calculated, and the results are indicated oneach map.

Using the USLE procedures presented in the Recontamination Assessment Work Plan(WCC 1994a), assuming runoff of untreated sediment, sediment concentrations andcontributions from the storm water collection areas also were calculated, as shown inTables 6.8.1through 6.8.8. The purpose of this second screening is to evaluate individualfacilities where overland runoff from only the storm water collection system is in excess

K424/FB 14/R1REPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-69 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


of the CUG concentration for a particular COC. Residential CUGs were used to screenthe outfall discharge from the Acme and Detrex Corporation facilities. OccupationalCUGs were used to screen the outfall discharge from the SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4 and SCMPlant 2 Ti2 facilities. Therefore, the average COC concentrations in the untreatedsediment runoff from each of these facilities were calculated.

The following CUG exceedances were identified in the outfall analysis at three facilities:

• Acme Scrap Iron and Metal: Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs, and lead• Detrex Corporation: Hexachlorobenzene, PCBs

SCM Plant 2 - TiCl4: PCBs

The technique presented in this section is for screening purposes only since the analysesare inconsistent with the complete Source Control recontamination assessmentprocedures outlined in the Recontamination Assessment Plan (WCC 1994a).

Since the Detrex screening analysis did not consider the commingling effect of sedimentcontributions from the Occidental and RMI Sodium outfalls into the 48-in. combinedstorm sewer, the chemical concentrations of sediment entering Fields Brook (by thisanalysis procedure) would be significantly less than those shown in Tables 6.8.4through6.8.6.

Facilities with untreated runoff in excess of CUGs are assessed below using bestprofessional judgement to evaluate the capability of the existing treatment process totreat sediment releases during a storm event. A description of the treatment systemdesign and implementation, permit requirements and overflow situations for thesefacilities is presented in the description of each facility in Section 4.Oof the RI Report.

K424/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO] 6-70 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Acme Scrap Iron and Metal

The descriptions and operations of the stormwater collection system at this facility aredescribed in Section 4.1.2.2. The beneficial effect of the facility's water treatmentprocess is the reduction of sediment flow during runoff events by sedimentation in theOil Retention Lagoon. At typical low flows, the water quality of the unfiltered outfallsamples shows no evidence of adverse impact due to sediment discharge. Theperformance of the sedimentation for flows during low frequency rainfall events isunknown. Sources ACME2 and ACMES within the contained area are identified inSection 6.9 to be included in the feasibility study.

In the FS, post remedy recontamination assessment for runoff entering EU-8 wasperformed using USLE calculations for several proposed remedial alternatives at theAcme facility. For the alternatives evaluated USLE calculations predicted that sedimentcontributions from subbasin H and J portions of EU-8 will be at concentrations belowthe residential CUG for PCBs.

Detrex Corporation

The descriptions and operations of the stormwater collection and treatment system atthis facility are described in Section 4.3.2.2. The treatment system at the Detrex facilitywas designed to contain runoff from a 10-year frequency storm. The emergency spillwayat the dike containing the sedimentation basin was designed conservatively to containthe 50-year frequency storm. Any flow passing over the spillway proceeds along theDetrex Tributary to EU8 and does not go through the outfall and into EU6.

Virtually all of the sediment calculated in the screening analysis of the contained areaeither settles in the sedimentation basin or is pumped to the treatment plant and isretained in the filtration units. The capacity of the treatment plant is sufficient to treatand remove sediment from all the flow that is pumped from the sedimentation basin.


Woodward-Clyde


The sediment content of spillway overflow (into EU8) is reduced substantially from thatcalculated in the screening analysis since the erosion index used for the average annualrunoff is about 125, whereas a low frequency storm that might overflow the spillwaywould have an index about half that value. Also, the sediment overflow will be furtherreduced because the pond will continue to act as a settling basin during the storm.

The character of the overflow sediment will tend to consist of smaller, finer particles.This sediment entering EU8 at very low frequencies (more than 10-year frequency) willlikely have reduced impact on Fields Brook sediment since the high velocity flow inFields Brook during the overflow period would likely keep most of the sediment insuspension. Once in Fields Brook, the sediment from the overflow will commingle withthe suspended sediment load that is passing down Fields Brook.

As a result of this evaluation, sources DET2, DET3, and DET7 in the contained areaof the Detrex facility will be included in the feasibility study.

On Saturday, August 13, 1994, a rain event of 4.9 inches occurred in Ashtabula, Ohio.The 100-yr storm event for this area is 4.8 inches. The following observations weremade at the Detrex facility:

• The stormwater storage tank overflowed into the secondary containmenttank. Due to increased flow from the retention pond and the front yard,this tank also overflowed. In order to prevent buildings from flooding, thepumps in the retention basin were stopped. The l,000gpm pump in thefront yard stayed on. Overflow from the tank was recycled using thispump until the treatment system processed enough water to end theoverflow. Overflow stopped at approximately 7:30 a.m., Tuesday,August 16, 1994.

• No untreated water infiltrated or flooded the outfall 002 or overflowed thebermed area in the front of the facility.


Woodward-Clyde


• The retention pond (DET7) at old outfall 001, filled and overflowed viathe spillway sometime Saturday evening, August 15, 1994. Overflowstopped at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 1994.

• A sample of the overflow water from the spillway of the retention pondwas collected at 9:30 a.m., Monday, August 15, 1994. The sample washand delivered to Free-Col Laboratory in Meadville, Pennsylvania. Thesample was tested for volatile organic compounds and base neutralcompounds using EPA Methods 624 and 625.

• Results reported indicate the following:

Only two volatile organics were detected at very low concentrations(1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.011 jig/1, trichloroethene 0.008|ag/l).No semivolatile organics were detected. The concentrationsreported are within the NPDES permit discharge limitations for thefacility outfall.

• This sampling indicates that surface water overflow from a storm eventthat exceeds the capacity of the treatment system does not exceed NPDESpermit limitations or sediment CUGs for volatile and semivolatilecompounds.

SCM Plant 2 • TICL

The description and operation of the stormwater collection and treatment system at thisfacility is described in Section 4.15.2.2. Stormwater from the contained area enters theeast settling pond and is pumped to the neutralization tank and transferred through theclarifier and north-south settling ponds prior to discharge through the permitted outfall.


Woodward-Clyde


The capacity of the east settling pond and the system installed at this facility is largeenough to hold water from major storm events. According to facility personnel, thecapacity of the system has never been exceeded. The operation of the storm watermanagement system has no provision for bypassing the settling ponds. The capacity ofthe sequence of settling ponds is sufficient to provide several days of retention time todeposit sediment.

Sediment is removed periodically from the settling ponds and is recovered, settled, sentto the filter press and disposed off site.

Since the treatment facility is adequate to contain both high and low frequency floodevents, the portions of source areas 2SCM2 and 2SCM4 which are inside the containedarea will not be included in the feasibility study.

6.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Phase 0 SCRI source descriptions, Phase I SCRI analytical results, and facility-specificCSMs were used to perform a recontamination assessment. The first-level screeningconfirmed the presence of sources in the media described in the facility-specific CSMs.These sources were then evaluated for the presence of a complete migration pathwayto Fields Brook. Sources which were identified as having the potential to recontaminateFields Brook sediment via complete migration pathways were then subjected to asecond-level screening.

The second-level screening was based on transport modeling from sources to FieldsBrook. The USLE was selected as the sediment runoff model for the migration ofcontaminated eroded soils to Fields Brook sediment. A sediment delivery ratio for theFields Brook watershed was estimated from literature values and may be refined basedon the results of Fields Brook suspended sediment sampling analytical results.

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECTJON6/RECONTAM.OOI 6-74 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Based on the results of the first- and second-level screenings, the concentration of COCsin the sediment entering EUs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 of Fields Brook was calculatedto be less than the CUG. Recontamination of Fields Brook sediment from sourcescontributing to these EUs is not likely to occur. Therefore, remedial alternatives forsources in these areas will not be developed during the FS, with the exception of EUs1 and 4.

In EU1, remedial alternatives for sources on the Conrail property will be developedduring the FS. As stated in the preceding paragraph, based on the results of the first-and second-level screenings, the sources on the Conrail property will not recontaminateFields Brook sediment to levels above the CUGs. However, due to the property's closeproximity to Fields Brook and the specific request of USEPA, portions of the Conrailsite which drain towards Fields Brook and which contain arsenic concentrations abovethe CUGs will be included in the FS.

In EU4 (via Reach 10-1), remedial alternatives for one potential source on the RMIMetals property will be developed. As stated in the preceding paragraph, based on theresults of the first- and second-level screenings, the sources on the RMI Metals propertywill not recontaminate Fields Brook sediment to levels above the CUGs. However, dueto the RMI Metals close proximity of one potential source to Reach 10-1 of FieldsBrook and the specific request of USEPA, a portion of the RMI Metals site which drainstowards Fields Brook and which contains PCB concentrations above the CUGs will beevaluated for remedial alternatives. Because no potential source of these PCBconcentrations were identified to be associated with the RMI Metals facility, remedialalternatives will be evaluated apart from the Feasibility Study (FS) . RMI is currentlyconducting further delineation of this area and will develop remedial alternatives in aseparate submittal to USEPA.


Woodward-Clyde


6.9.1 Recontamination Assessment of EU6

Sewers on west side of State Road north of Fields Brook have sediments containingCOCs in concentrations exceeding CUGs and may provide a direct pathway for releaseto Fields Brook. Remedial alternatives for sewer remediation will be developed duringthe FS.

6.9.2 Recontamination Assessment of EU8

The concentration of PCBs in the sediment entering EU8 was calculated to exceed theoccupational CUG. Source areas have been identified at the Acme Scrap Iron andMetal Company property, the Detrex Corporation facility, and SCM Plant 2 TiCl4facility. Remedial alternatives for sources of PCBs in sub-basins J (southern portion)and G (eastern portion) will be developed during the FS. These sources include:

ACME1 Oil Retention LagoonACME2 Drum Storage AreaACMES Oil Soaked SoilACME4 Outfall Discharge SewerACMES Transformer Processing AreaACME An area which is not source-specific2SCM2,4 PCB Soils (portions) and Waste Pile (portions)DET6 Catalyst Pile

At DET6, the surface soil sample was collected in the Fields Brook floodplain areadownslope of the catalyst pile. Additional samples were collected from the catalyst pile.These samples contained PCBs at concentrations in excess of the occupational CUG.

It should be noted that only partial remediation of some or all of these sources willachieve the CUG for PCBs in EU8. Recalculation of recontamination potential for



various remediation options should be utilized to evaluate the most appropriatecombination of remedial actions required to meet the CUG for PCBs.

If allowed sufficient time to transport to Fields Brook, the DNAPL beneath the DetrexCorporation facility also may impact EU8. Remedial alternatives for the DNAPL insub-basin J will be developed during the FS.

Sewers provide a direct pathway for the release of sediment containing COC inconcentrations exceeding CUGs to Fields Brook. Remedial alternatives for theremediation of the storm sewer on the west side of State Road, north of Fields Brook,and the outfall discharge sewer connecting ACME4 and the discharge point at FieldsBrook will be developed during the FS. In addition, remedial alternatives will bedeveloped for the sediment in the sewer on the Acme property, since the sewer collectssurface water runoff from source areas.

K424/FB14/RJREPORT/SECTION6/RECONTAM.OO 1 6-77 5/97

Woodward-ClydeTABLE 6.3.1ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN EXCESS OF 11/1/93 CUGS - OCCUPATIONAL AREASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIOLocation Field ID Medium | Chemical Result Units |Qual CUG SourceAcme Scrap Iron and Metal Facility l

ACMSB03ACMSB15ACMSBI5ACMSB15ACMSB15ACMSD20ACMSD20ACMSS03ACMSS05ACMSS06ACMSS06ACMSS06ACMSS06ACMSS07ACMSS09ACMSS09ACMSS09ACMSS14ACMSS14ACMSS16ACMSS18ACMSS1SACMSS19ACMSS19ACMSS19ACMSS19ACMSS21ACMSS21ACMSS23

AB03FDAB15GSAB15FSAB15HSAB15GSAD20ADAD20ASAS03ASAS05ASAS06ADAS06ADAS06ASAS06ASAS07ASAS09ASAS09ASAS09ASAS 14 ASAS14ASAS16ASAS18ASAS18ASAS19ADAS19ADAS19ASAS19ASAS21ADAS21ASAS23AS

Subsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSedimentSedimentSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyTeneBenzo(a)pyreneTotal PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBsLeadTotal PCBsLeadTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsLeadBenzo(a)pyreneDibenzo(a,h)anthraceneTotal PCBsTotal PCBsLeadTotal PCBsLeadTotal PCBsLeadTotal PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBs

1201.53

2.92

1.53.18.4

2.1938

1,85036

2,5603.21441

8,0206.41.74.1

79.5659

16.97793.8824

1.691.58

3

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

J

NJJNJJJJ

J

NJJ

511.41.41.41.41.31.31.31.31.3

5001.3

5001.3

6.381.3

5003.31.41.31.3

5001.3

5001.3

5001.31.31.3

ACME 3*ACME 6ACME 6ACME 6ACME 6ACME1ACME1ACME 3ACME 2ACME 3ACME 3ACME 3ACME 3ACME 5ACME 3ACME 3ACME 3ACME 3ACME 3ACME 2, 3, 5*ACME 3. 5ACME 3, 5ACME 2ACME 2ACME 2ACME 2ACME 4ACME 4ACMES*

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI)CEISS03CEISS06

BS03ADBS06AS

Surface SoilSurface Soil

ArsenicArsenic

81.233.5

mg/kgmg/kg

JJ

27.627.6

CEI1CEI1

Detrei CorporationDETSB05DETSB05DETSB05DETSB06DETSB07DETSB07DETSB07

CB05EDCB05ESCB05HSCB06GSCB07EDCB07EDCB07ES

Subsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface Soil

HexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzene1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneHexachlorobenzeneTetrachloroetheneHexachlorobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

28045

12090

93071

680

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

JJJ

J '

J

151511915

45915119

DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1

JSLH:\RECONTOCCUGIND.XLS Page 1 of3

Woodward-ClydeTABLE 6.3.1ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN EXCESS OF 11/1/93 CUGS - OCCUPATIONAL AREASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIOLocation Field ID | Medium | Chemical [Result (Units JQual CUG Source

Detrei CorporationDETSB07DETSB07DETSB07DETSB08DETSB08DETSB08DETSB08DETSB09DETSB09DETSB10DETSB12DETSB15DETSB15DETSB15DETSB19DETSB19DETMW07SDETMW07SDETMW07SDETMW07SDETMW07SDETMW07SDETMW07SDETSS04DETSS12DETSS13DETSS17DETSS17DETSS20DETSS20DETSS20DETSS20DETSS23DETSS23

CB07ESCB07HSCB07HSCB08EDCB08ESCB08HSCB08HSCB09DDCB09DSCB10ESRECB12BSCB15CDCB15CSCB15HSCB19ESCB19ESCG07DSCG07DSCG07DSCG07DSCG07DSCG07DSCG07DSCS04ASCS12ASCS13ASCS17ASCS17ASCS20ADCS20ADCS20ASCS20ASCS23ASCS23AS

Subsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilNAPLNAPLNAPLNAPLNAPLNAPLNAPLSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

Hexachlorobenzene1,1,2,2-TetiachloroethaneHexachlorobenzene1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroeihane1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroeihaneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBs1,1,2,2-TetrachIoroethane1 , 1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneHexachlorobenzene1 , 1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneTetrachloroethene1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,2-Dichloroethene (total)TetrachloroetheneTrichloroetheneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachloroethaneHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneArsenicHexachlorobenzeneArsenicHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBs

6914052

2701601705919181510

20014068

420770

260,0001,300

45,000290,000

4,6008,500

20,000340110

40.49502326

39.462

46.7284.8

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/1mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

J

JJJ

JJJJJ

JJJ

JJJ

NJ

1511915119119119151515153.111911915119459119170459

216815

15153.1153.115

27.615

27.6153.1

DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET2,3DET2.3DET2.3DET7 ^>DET1DET1DET1(off site) DET1(off site) DET1DET1DET1 \*fDET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET1DET7 **+DET*DET2,3DET 2, 3DET 7DET7DET7DET 7DET 2, 3DET 2, 3

Hanlin Group (LCP)LINSS06 ES06AS Surface Soil | Benzo(a)pyrene 8.5 mg/kg 3.3 LIN2

Vygcn (Former TDI) FacilityOLISS10OLISS15

IS10ASIS15AS


ArsenicArsenic

61.630.3

mg/kgmg/kg

JJ

27.627.6

OLIN8,9'VYG1,2*S»-'

JSLH:\RECONTOCCUGIND.XLS Page 2 of3

Woodward-ClydeTABLE 6.3.1ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN EXCESS OF 11/1/93 CUGS - OCCUPATIONAL AREASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIOLocation Field ID Medium Chemical Result Units Qua! CUG Source

RMI Titanium Company Sodium FacilityRMSSS06RMSSS10

MS06ASMS10AS


ArsenicArsenic

36.631.5

mg/kgmg/kg

JJ

27.627.6

RMIS7RMIS*

5CM Plant 15C1S803 NB03BS | Subsurface Soil (Arsenic 28.7 |mg/kg 27.6 1SCM2.4SCM Plant 2 - TiC14 FacilitySCCSB03SCCSS04SCCSS05SCCSS06SCCSS07SCCSS07SCCSS08SCCSS08SCCSS08SCCSS08SCCSS09SCCSS09SCCSS10sccssnSCCSS11SCCSS13

OB03GSOS04ASOS05ASOS06ASOS07ASOS07ASOS08ADOS08ADOS08ASOS08ASOS09ASOS09ASOSIOASOS11ASOS11ASOS13AS

Subsurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

Total PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBsTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsTotal PCBsHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCBsTotal PCBs

3606.688078.84

266013932402828778.765

6237.32

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

JNJNJNJ

NJ

NJ

NJNJ

NJNJ

3.13.13.13,1153.1153.1153.1153.13.1153.13.1

2SCM2,42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2,42SCM2.42SCM2>42SCM2.42SCM2,42SCM2.42SCM2,42SCM2.42SCM2,42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2,42SCM2.4

SCM Plant 2 - TiO2 FacilitySCOSS14SCOSS14

PS14ADPS HAS


ArsenicArsenic

69.257.3

mg/kgmg/kg

JJ

27.627.6

2SCM42SCM4

Storm SewersSEWSD06SEWSD06SEWSD06SEWSD06SEWSD06

ZD06ASZD06ASZD06ASZD06ASZD06AS

SedimentSedimentSedimentSedimentSediment

1,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane1,1-DichloroetheneTetrachloroetheneHeptachlorgamma-BHC (Lindane)

800440

4,6004,500

700

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

NJNJ

11940

4595.318

*****

1 Although the Acme facility is in the occupational area of the Fields Brook site, the sources were screenedusing residential CUGs.

* Indicates sampling location is downgradient of several source areas and not associated with a specific source.NAPL •* Nonaqueous Phase Liquid

JSm:\RECONTOCCUGIND.XLS Page 3 of3

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.3.2ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN EXCESS OF 11/1/93 CUGs - RESIDENTIAL AREASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Location | Field ID [Medium Chemical Result Units |Qual CUG | Source

North Coast Auto CrushingNCASS02NCASS02NCASS04NCASS04NCASS05NCASS05

GS02ASGS02ASGS04ASGS04ASGS05ASGS05AS

Surface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

Total PCBsArsenicArsenicBerylliumArsenicLead

7.970.591.23.6

60.8695

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

NJ 1.327.627.62.4

27.6500

NCA1NCA1NCA1NCA1NCA1NCA1

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion PlantRMESS03RMESS03

KS03ASKS03AS


HexachlorobenzeneArsenic

9141

mg/kgmg/kg

6.3827.6

RMIE3 ^^RMIE3

RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction PlantRMMSS09 LS09AS (Total PCBs 6.89 mg/kg |NJ 1.3 RMIM6

Consolidated Rail (Conrail)CONSB05CONSB05CONSB05CONSS03CONSS03CONSS03CONSS07CONSS07CONSS08CONSS09CONSS09CONSS09CONSSllCONSS12CONSS12CONSS13

TB05BDTB05BSTB05BSDLTS03ASTS03ASTS03ASTS07ASTS07ASDLTS08ASDLTS09ADTS09ASTS09ASTS11ASTS12ASTS12ASTS13ASDL

Subsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSubsurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

ArsenicArsenicBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneArsenicArsenicBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(a)pyreneArsenicArsenicLeadArsenicBenzo(a)pyreneArsenicBcnzo(a)pyrene

51.547.33.3

318

38.133.23.31.848

48.966461.5

1.9622.7

mg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kgmg/kg

JJ

J

27.627.6

1.41.4

13.9727.627.6

1.41.4

27.627.6500

27.61.4

27.61.4

CON3CON3^ ^COM3CON2CON2CON2CON3CON3CON3 ^CON1CON1CON1CONSCON 3CON3CON 3

Mitchell TransportMTRSS01MTRSS01

US01ASUS01AS


Total PCBsBeryllium

293.1

mg/kgmg/kg

JJ

1.32.4

MTR*MTR*

JSm\WREPORT\REVISION\XCUGRES .XLS Page 1 of 2

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.3.2ANALYTICAL RESULTS IN EXCESS OF 11/1/93 CUGs - RESIDENTIAL AREASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Location Field ID Medium Chemical (Result | Units Qua! |CUG [Source

Reese MachineRESSS01 WS01AS Surface Soil |Benzo(a)pyrene 2 |mg/kg 1.4 RES*

Storm SewersSEWSD04SEWSD04SEWSD04SEWSD04SEWSD05

ZD04ASZD04ASZD04ADZD04ADZD05AS

SedimentSedimentSedimentSedimentSediment

Benzo(a)pyreneHexachlorobenzencBenzc<a)pyreneHexachlorobenzeneBenzo(a)pyrene

1.9203.913

5.4

mg/kg

mg/kg

mg/kg

J

J

1.46.38

1.46.38

1.4

*****

Indicates no specific sources identified at facility.

JSLH:\WRETORTOEVISION\XCUGRES.XLS Page 2 of2

Woodward-ClydeTABLE 6.3.3COMPARISON OF RADIONUCLIDE DATA FROM RMI EXTRUSION TO RCUGsSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Location | Media Parameter (Result units IRCUG Source

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion PlantSwaleSeepage PondSwale

Surface SoilSurface SoilSurface Soil

Total UTotal UTotal U

149136

91.9

pCi/gpCi/gpCi/g

313131

RNOE1.2RMIE3RME1,2

Total U = Total UraniumOne half of the Total Uranium result compared to the RCUG for Uranium-238 +D because uraniumconsists of approximately 50% U-238 based on radioactivity (E. Hanlon letter to J. Heimbuch, February 2,1994).Samples were collected between June 1985 and January 1989 by RMI. Additional samples notcollected as part of Phase ISCRI.

JSLH:\RECONT\RADIO.XLS Pagel

TABLE 6.4.1SCREENED SOURCESSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Woodward-Clyde

OCCUPATIONAL AREAFacility Source ID ChemicalAcme Scrap Iron and Metal Company1

ACME1 Total PCBsACME2 Total PCBsACME2 LeadACME3 1 , 1 ,2,2-TetrachloroethaneACME3 LeadACMES HexachlorobenzeneACMES Benzo(a)p)TeneACMES Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneACMES Total PCBsACME4 Total PCBsACMES Total PCBsACMES LeadACME6 Benzo(a)pyrene

Cleveland Electric Illuminating CompanyCEI1 Arsenic

Dctrci CorporationDET1 HexachlorobenzeneDET1 1, 1,2,2-TetrachloroethaneDET1 TetrachloroetheneDET1 DNAPLDET2 HexachlorobenzeneDET2 Total PCBsDET3 HexachlorobenzeneDET3 Total PCBsDET Total PCBsDET7 Total PCBsDET7 HexachlorobenzeneDET7 Arsenic

HanlinLIN2 Benzo(a)p)Tene

Former TDI FacilityOLIN8 ArsenicOLIN9 ArsenicVYG1 ArsenicVYG2 Arsenic

Medium -where COC exceeds CUGSubsurface

Soil

X

XXX

X

X

X

SurfaceSoil

XX

XXXXXXXXX

X

X

XXXXX

XX

X

XXXX

Grovndwater

X

Sediment

X

SurfaceWater

JSLH:\RECONTJIECONT\\SOURCES2.XLS Page lofS


Woodward-Clyde

OCCUPATIONAL AREAFacility Source ID ChemicalRMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility

RMIS7 Arsenic

SCM Plant 11SCM2 Arsenic1SCM4 Arsenic

SCM Plant 2 (TICI4) Facility2SCM2 Total PCBs2SCM2 Hexachlorobenzene2SCM4 Total PCBs

SCM Plant 2 (TiO2) Facility2SCM4 Arsenic

Storm Sewers1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

1,1-DichloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Heptachlorganuna-BHC (Lindane)

Medium where COC exceeds CUGSubsurface

Soil

XX

X

SurfaceSoil

X

XXX

X

Groundwater Sediment

XXXXX

SurfaceWater

1 Although the Acme property is in the occupational area of the Fields Brook Site,the sources were screened using residential CUGs.

JSLH:\RECONT\RECONTftSOURCES2JOS Page 2 of3


Woodward-Clyde

RESIDENTIAL AREAFacility Source ID ChemicalNorth Coast Auto Crushing

NCA1 Total PCBsNCA1 ArsenicNCA1 BerylliumNCA1 Lead

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion PlantRMIE1 Total UraniumRMIE2 Total UraniumRMEE3 HexachlorobenzeneRMIE3 ArsenicRMIE3 Total Uranium

RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction PlantRMIM6 Total PCBs

Consolidated Rail (Con rail)CON1 ArsenicCON1 LeadCON2 ArsenicCON2 Benzo(a)pyreneCON2 Benzo(b)fluorantheneCON3 ArsenicCON3 Benzo(a)pyrene

Mitchell TransportMTR Total PCBsMTR Beryllium

Recse MachineRES Benzo(a)pyrene

Storm SewersBenzo(a)pyrene

Hexachlorobenzene

Medium -where COC exceeds CUGSubsurface

Soil

XX

SurfaceSoil

XXXX

XXXXX

X

XXXXXXX

XX

X


XX

SurfaceWater

Page 3 of3

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.42SOURCE AREA WITH CUG EXCEEDANCES IN AREAS CONTAINED BY INDUSTRIAL IOUTFALLS ^**SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Facility

Acme Scrap Iron andMetal CompanyDetrex Corporation

Occidental ChemicalCorporationRMI Titanium CompanyExtrusion FacilityRMI Titanium CompanyMetals Reduction FacilityRMI Titanium CompanySodium FacilitySCM Plant 1

SCM Plant 2 (TiCl4)FacilitySCM Plant 2 (TiO2)FacilityVygen Corporation

Source with Partial or FullContainment by FacilityCollection SystemACME2, ACMES,ACMESDET2, DET3, DET7, areawhich is not source specificNo sources identified

No sources contained



No surface soil sourcesidentified2SCM2, 2SCM4

2SCM4


Exposure Unit in FieldsBrook where OutfallDischargesEU8

EU6

EU6

EU6

EU 4 via Reach 10-1

EU6

EU10

EU8

EU9

EU9 J

JSLR-\REOONT\RECONT\OUTFALL.TBL

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.5.1SOIL TYPES IN FIELDS BROOK WATERSHEDSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SymbolAsAtBrBBrC2CmBCoDCtE1BHmKfMaOtBOuCOvEPsBRhBSmSw

NameAllis silt loamAthcrton silt loamBraceville loam, 2 to 6 percent slopesBraceville loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, moderately erodedClaverack loamy fine sand, silty subsoil variant, 2 to 6 percent slopesColonie loamy fine sand, 6 to 18 percent slopesConneaut silt loamElnora loamy fine sand, 1 to 5 percent slopesHolly silt loamKingsville fine sandy loamMade landOtisville sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopesOtisville gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopesOtisville and Chenango soils, 12 to 25 percent slopesPlatea silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopesRed Hook silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopesSteep land, loamySwanton fine sandy loam, silty subsoil variant

USLE SoilErodibilityFactor, K

.433724.24.17.1737.17.28.24

*

.17

.17

.17

.4332**

.28

LEGEND: . The first capital letter is the initial one of the of the soil name. A second capital letter,A, B, C, D, or E, shows the slope. Most symbols without a slope letter are those ofnearly level soils, but some are for land types that have a considerable range in slope.A final number, 2 or 3, in the symbol shows that the soil is moderately eroded orseverely eroded.

REFERENCE: Soil Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio, SCS and ODNR, issued May 1973.

NOTES: * Based on conversation with personnel in Jefferson, Ohio SCS Office, Ma has K ofnearby soil (particularly K«037 for Ct).

** Based on conversations with personnel in Jefferson, Ohio SCS office, Sm hasK=037 (Gosport).

JSLK\RECX)NT\RECONT\RA3609.TBS

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.5.2"C" FACTORS FOR PERMANENT PASTURE, RANGELAND, IDLE LAND, ORGRAZED WOODLAND1

SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Vegetal Canopy

Type and Height ofRaised Canopy2

No appreciable canopy

Canopy of tall grassesor bushes with averagedrop height of 3 feet orless

Appreciable brush orbushes with averagedrop height of 6 1/2feet

Trees but noappreciable low brushwith average dropheight of 13 feet ormore

CanopyCover

%

25

50

75

25

50

75

25

50

75

Type4

GwGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGWGW

Percent Ground Cover1

0.45.453636.26.26.17.17.40.403434.28.28.42.4239393636

2030.24.17.20.13.16.10.12.18.22.16.19.14.17.19.23.1821.17.20

40.10.15.09.13.07.11.06.09.09.14.08.13.08.12.10.14.09.14.09.13

60.042.091.038.083.035.076.032.068.040.087.038.082.036.078.041.089.040.087.039.084

80.013.043.013.041.012.039.011.038.013.042.012.041.012.040.013.042.013.042.012.041

95-100.003.011.033.011.003.011.003.011.003.011.003.011.003.011.003.011.003.011.033.011

NOTES:1 The listed "C" values assume that the vegetation and mulch are randomly distributed over the entire

area. For grazed woodland with high buildup of organic matter in the topsoil under permanentforest conditions, multiply the table values by 0.7.

2 Canopy height is measured as the average fall height of water drops falling from the canopy to theground. Canopy effect is inversely proportional to drop fall height and is negligible if fall heightexceeds 33 feet

3 Portion of total area surface that would be hidden from view by canopy in a vertical projection (abird's-eye view).

4 G: Cover at surface is grass, grass-like plants, or duff.W: Cover at surface is mostly broadleaf herbaceous plants (as weeds with little lateral-root networknear the surface) or litter, or both.

5 The portion of a grass or weed cover that contacts the soil surface during the rainstorm andinterferes with water flow over the soil surface in included in "cover at the surface." The remainderis included in canopy cover.

REFERENCE: Technical Guide, Section I-C-5.6-7, SCS-Ohio, revised 3-90.

JSLH:\REOONT\RECONT\RA3609.TBS

STABLE 6.5.3v VALUES OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR, LS, FOR SPECIFIC COMBINATIONS OF SLOPE LENGTH AND STEEPNESSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

f!»r« t4*ttfc (ft«t) .2

71 .0450 .0771 .07

104 .Oft

115 .00150 .09\n .09700 ,0f

771 .09750 .10211 .If

150 .10400 ,10500 .11400 .11

700 .12100 .12900 .12

1000 .11

1100 .11

.9

.07

.00

.99

.19

.19

.10

.11

.It

*tt.11.12.11

.19

.11

.11

.14

.14

.14

.11

.11

.11

.14*

.ft

.09*!•.11.11

.12

.11

.11•11

• 11.14.14.14

.14

.11

.14

.14

.17

.17

.11

.19

,tl.19

1.4

.99

.U

.u

.11

.14

.11• 11•14

.14

.17• 17.14

'.19• 29,tl.21

.21

.24

.21

.24

.14

2.0

JJ.14.U.20

.11

.21

.24

.21

.24

.24•17

.29

.10* .11,u

' .w.17.19,40

.41'

.41

1.0

*I9.1).14.29

.11

.12'

.14

.11

•17•1ft.19

.42•41.44.49

.51

.54

.51

.17

.59

1 Slop*4.0 5.0 4.0 •.• tO.O 11.0 14.0 tt.O 14.0 f*.O ll.t M.O 4«.» 9O.O 40.0

.11 .27 .14 .54 .44 .90 Ml 42 1.73 .04 7.94 ,9ft 4.11 9.91 11.59,10 .14 .44 .79 .97 1.2ft 1.42 01 1,41 .14 4,14 .42 • 1.91 12.40 14.17.14 .44 .5ft .44 19 1.54 1.99 44 2.97 .11 1.19 .99 10.94 11.44 2ft.91.40 .11 .47 .99 If 1.10 2.29 44 1.41 .4ft M9 .91 12.41 17.42 21.11

.44 ,40 .71 I. It 11 2.02 2.54 17 1.94 .54 4.59 .49 14.11 19.91 21.99

.47 .44 .42 1.21 4ft 1. 11 2.11 4» 4.71 .00 7.21 .74 11.19 21.91 24.15

.10 .71 ,ft9 1.11 91 1.19 1.01 71 4.54 .40 7.79 10.11 14.74 21.19 M.41

.51 .74 .91 1.40 94 2.55 1.24 01 4,ft4 ,7f t.Jj 11.15 |M9 tl.1l ll.U

.11 .90 1.01 1.49 41 2.71 1.44 24 1.11 .11 9.11 11.91 ll.9ft 14.91 14.71

.10 .11 1.04 1.51 .14 2.05 1.41 49 1.41 .49 9.11 12.17 20,01 ll.U 14.40,40 .49 l.U 1,44 .77 2.99 l.ftO 71 1.49 .14 9.11 11.19 10.9ft 2>.M lft.19

.44 .00 1.24 1.01 .54 1.17 4,29 11 4.42 .41 11.12 14.4ft 21.47 11,14 41.11

.70 .07 l.U 1.9ft .74 1.41 4.19 4ft 4.11 .14 11.9ft 11,91 21.10 11.41 44.M

.74 .20 1,50 2.22 .04 4.01 5.11 .11 7.44 .12 ll.U 17.7ft 21.29 19.95 51,77

.ft2 .11 1.41 1.4) .11 4.41 5.42 .91 9.41 .99 14.43 19,49 90.99 41.44 54.71

.•7 .41 1.71 2.42 .42 4.71 4.07 .51 9.OO 10.79 11.5ft 21.04 11.49 47.14 41.21

.97 .51 1.90 2.40 .11 1.10 4.49 .01 9,71 11.54 14.44 92,49 11.79 50.4| 45.41

.94 .40 1.01 2.97 .11 1.41 4.94 .51 10.1O U.24 17.47 21.44 17.94 11.47 49.411.00 .49 l.U l.U .1) 5.10 7.)5 .97 10.44 12.90 |ft.41 21.11 40.01 54.14 71.21

1.04 .17 2.21 1.79 .54 1.91 7.4l .4| 11.19 11.11 19.11 24.1ft 41.94 19.11 74.19I.W .•> 9.11 J.4J ,14 4.11 7.11 .41 11.49 14.11 20.40 27.11 41.11 41.74 N.10

- I.S values for slopes greater than 20 percent nnd/or slopes exceeding 1000 feet are speculative.

Source: Technical Guide, Section I-C-4.1, Soil Conservation Service of Ohio, Rev. 3/90

JSLH:\RECONTUIECONTMADLE653^LS Page 1

Ioa§oS

TABLE 6.5.4USLE SOIL LOSS CALCULATIONS BY SUB-BASINSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Woodward-Clyde

Sub-basin Area Area Non-erosion Net Erosion Calculated Soil Soil LossID Area Area Loss Factor A

(sq. miles) (acres) (acres) (acres) (tons/year/acres) (tons/year)

ABCDEF

GtoEU6GtoEUSH toEU7HtoEUS

IJtoEU7J to EU 8KtoEU7KtoEU9

LMNOPQRSTUVw

0.170.090.090.020.280.160.070.050.030.160.030.090.160.020.150.030.060.130.030.040.120.370.891.230.540.190.77

108.857.657.612.8

179.2102.444.8

3219.2

102.419.257.6

102.412.8

9619.238.483.219.225.676.8

236.8569.6787.2345.6121.6492.8

1.250.000.000.004.71

22.053.023.767.18

14.330.00

28.6817.900.00

21.895.756.521.790.000.85

33.291.440.000.000.000.000.00

107.5557.6057.6012.80

174.4980.3541.7828.2412.0288.0719.2028.9284.5012.8074.1113.4531.8881.4119.2024.7543.51

235.36569.60787.20345.60121.60492.80

1.37876.36166.39871.54206.05637.88460.72720.75703.17371.62353.17271.60762.65141.03110.64562.08342.02780.92681.66560.74022.24310.53341.96742.31292.10191.36030.5423

14836636920

1057633

302138

1436146

2241348286575321898

12611211821726165267

TOTAL 5.97 3820.8 174.42 3646.38 7761

JSLH:\RECONT«ECOhmSOrLLOSSJCLS

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.5.5SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FLOW AND TSS LOADING DATASOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Facility

Acme Scrap Iron & MetalDetrex CorporationOccidental Chemical CorporationRMI Titanium Company Extrusion PlantRMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction FacilityRMI Titanium Company Sodium FacilitySCM Plant 1SCMPIant2-TiC14SCMPIant2-TiO2Vygen Corporation

Total Annual Flow(10E-6 gallons)

4.15173.96

42.1210.82

2.77126.98

1494.151359.89102.05184.03

TSS Loading(tons)

0.2114.010.570.460.13

70.1244.1666.07

1.329.43

TSS - Total Suspended Solids

JSIJi:\RECONT\RECOmsUMMARY.XLS

TABLE 6.5.6 Woodward-ClydeCORRELATION OF METERED FLOW RATE AND TDS/TSS MEASUREMENTS

FIELDS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL RI/FSASHTABULA, OHIO

Location Flow Rate TSS TDS Sampling(cfs) (mg/I) (mg/1) Date

DS TributaiyReach 11-1 no flow 5/24/94

3.96 351 806 4/6/94

FB upstream of confluencewith DS TributaiyReach 5-1 25.61 15 3010 5/24/94

36.81 21 2170 4/6/94

Upstream of CEI right-of-wayReach 8-1

8.91 <5.0 1970 5/24/9433.87 <5.0 1304 4/6/94

J

S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREPOR-nSECnON6\TABLES^TDSJCLW]tdsts» Page 1

TABLE 6.5.7DETERMINATION OF AVERAGE ANNUAL DISCHARGE AT METERING LOCATIONS

FIELDS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL RI/FSASUTABULA,OHIO

Station

Fields BrookCook RoadSCM Plant 1Middle RoadCEI Righi-of-WayTDS/TSS Metering LocationVygenSCM #2 Outfall 001VygcnSCM #2 Outfall 002GaugeAcme ScrapState RoadRMI SodiumOxyDetrexRMI ExtrusionGaugeTDS/TSS Metering LocationReach 11 (see below)RMI Metals Red via Reach 10St Highway 11GaugeConrailRR BridgeAshtabula River

Reach 11RMI SodiumDS Tributary

Nov.,Dec.Outfall/ Jan.

Staff Gauge (cfs)

1outfall

23/6A 8

outfalloutfall4/1A 26

outfall2A 16.5

outfall5

outfalloutfalloutfalloutfall

3A 25

outfall7

4A 258/5A 26.5

96

TDS/TSS Metering LocationS:\MAZZOCCO\RlREPORT\SECTlON6\TABLES\rrDS^LW]annuaI

Fcb.March April May June July August Sept Octno data no data

(cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

5.09 0.35 0.1 0.00 0

11.04 5.13 4.56 6.33 2.0613.46 7.31 5.97 6.01 1.75 19.5

18.68 9.31 9.63 9.33 4.4 21

5 20.5

19.8 15.26 11.3 11.69 7.58

7.5 32

Discharge not reported for any staff gauge reading17.5 45

24.32 11.24 8.87 10.75 12.8 43.5

1.22 1.00 1.061.34 0.82 0.98 1.14 1.61

Page 1

Annual Extrapol. ReportedAverage Annual NPDES

(cfs) (cfs) (cfs)

6.33

9.919.91

0.780.43

18.005.76

0.02

0.540.180.740.05

22.46

0.01

23.78

1.327.52

OOaQ)•ta6a<P

I>.j.-fiTABLEiFIELDS BROOK SEDIMENT LOADS CALCULATED FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS

FIELDS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL RI/FSAHSTABULAfOHIO

Outfall/Station Staff Gauge

Fields BrookCook Road 1SCM Plant 1 outfallMiddle Road 2TDS/TSS Metering LocationCEIRight-of-Way 3Vygen outfallSCM #2 Outfall 001 outfallVygen 4SCM #2 Outfall 002 outfallAcme Scrap outfallState Road 5RMI Sodium outfallOxy outfallDetrex outfallRMI Extrusion outfallTDS/TSS Metering LocationReach 1 1 (see below)Sediment Load below Reach 1 1RMI Metals via Reach 10 outfallSt. Highway 11 7ConrailRR Bridge 8Ashtabula RiverProjected Sediment LoadReach 11RMI Sodium 9DS Tributary 6TDS/TSS Metering Location

FLOWAnuualAverage

(from Table 6.5.7)(cfs)

9.91

22.46

1.32

SUSPENDED SEDIMENTFrom Est. from

NPDES Average AverageOutfalls Concentration Discharge(tons/yr) (tons/d) (tons/yr)

44.16

9.431.32

66.070.21

70.120.57

14.010.46

0.13

< L56E-07

4.06E-07

3.65E-06

< 48J8

287.41

439.44

597.88

152.03

BedLoad

(tons/yr)

2.44

14.37

2L97

29.89

7.60

Total*Sediment

Load(tons/yr)

< 57.27

30L79

461.41

627.77

159.63

* Total sediment load is the sum of the suspended load (average discharge) and bedload.S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREPOR'nSECnON6\TABLESMTDS.XLWJbalance

Ioaa6

TABLE 6.6.1CROSS-REFERENCE FOR ISOCONCENTRATION CONTOUR MAPSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Woodward-Clyde

OCCUPATIONAL AREAFacility Source ChemicalAcme Scrap Iron and Metal Company *

ACME1 Total PCBsACME2 Total PCBsACME2 LeadACME3 1,1,2,2-TetrachIoroethaneACME3 LeadACME3 HexachlorobenzeneACME3 Benzo(a)pyreneACME3 Dibenzo(a,h)anthraceneACME4 Total PCBsACME5 Total PCBsACMES Total PCBsACME5 LeadACME6 Benzo(a)pyrene

Cleveland Electric Dluminating CompanyCEI1 Arsenic

Detrei CorporationDET1 HexachlorobenzeneDET1 1 , 1 , 2,2-TetrachloroethaneDET1 TetrachloroetheneDET1 DNAPLDET2 HexachlorobenzeneDET2 Total PCBsDET3 HexachlorobenzeneDET3 Total PCBsDET Total PCBsDET7 Total PCBsDET7 HexachlorobenzeneDET7 Arsenic

HanlinLIN2 Benzo(a)pyrene

Fonner TDI FacilityOLIN8 ArsenicOLIN9 ArsenicVYG1 ArsenicVYG2 Arsenic

Medium with SourceSubsurface

Soil

X

XXX

X

X

X

Groundwater

X

Sediment

X

'

SurfaceWater

SurfaceSoil

XX

XXXXXXXXX

X

X

XXXXX

XX

X

XXXX

IsoconcentrationContour Map

Figure Number

6.6.16.6.2

6.6.26.6.46.6.3

6.6.4A6.6.16.6.36.6.16.6.26.6.3

6.6.5

6.6.56.6.66.6.56.6.66.6.6

6.6.56.6.7

6.6.8

6.6.96.6.96.6.96.6.9

JSLH:\RECOKT«ECONTMSOCONCJCLS Page 1 of3


Woodward-Clyde

OCCUPATIONAL AREAFacility Source ChemicalRMI Titanium Company Sodium Facility

RMIS7 Arsenic

SCM Plant 11SCM2 Arsenic1SCM4 Arsenic

SCM Plant 2 <TiC14) Facility2SCM2 Total PCBs2SCM2 Hexachlorobenzene2SCM4 Total PCBs

SCM Plant 2 (TiO2) Facility2SCM4 Arsenic

Storm Sewers1 , 1,2,2-TetrachIoroethane

1,1-DichloroetheneTetrachloroethene

Heptachlorgamma-BHC (Lindane)

Medium with SourceSubsurface

Soil

XX

X


XXXXX

SurfaceWater

SurfaceSoil

X

XXX

X

IsoconcentrationContour Map

Figure Number

6.6.10

6.6.116.6. 1 W6.6.11

6.6.13

W

1 Although the Acme property is in the occupational area of the Fields Brook Site,the sources were screened using residential CUGs. J

JSLH:M?ECONT\RECONT\ISOCONCJa-S Page 2 of3


Woodward-Clyde

RESIDENTIAL AREAFacility Source ChemicalNorth Coast Auto Crushing

NCA1 Total PCBsNCA1 ArsenicNCA1 BerylliumNCA1 Lead

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion PlantRMIE1 Total UraniumRMIE2 Total UraniumRMIE3 HexachlorobenzeneRMD53 ArsenicRMIE3 Total Uranium

RMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction PlantRMIM6 Total PCBs

Consolidated Rail (Conrail)CON1 . ArsenicCON1 LeadCON2 ArsenicCON2 Benzo(a)pyreneCON2 Benzo(b)fluorantheneCON3 ArsenicCON3 Benzo(a)pyrene

Mitchell TransportMTR Total PCBsMTR Beryllium

Reese MachineRES Benzo(a)pyTene

Storm SewersBenzo(a)pyrene

Hexachlorobenzene

Medium -with ExceedanceSubsurface

Soil

XX


XX

SurfaceWater

SurfaceSoil

XXXX

XXXXX

X

XXXXXXX

XX

X

IsoconcentrattonContour Map

Figure Number

6.6.146.6.156.6.166.6.17

6.6.186.6.19

6.6.20

6.6.216.6.226.6.216.6.236.6.246.6.216.6.23

6.6.256.6.26

6.6.27

JSUttRECONT\R£CONTaSOCONC.XLS Page 3 of3

TABLE 6.6.2EXPOSURE UNIT SEDIMENT AND SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Woodward-Clyde

Fields BrookExposure Uni

EU1

EU2

EU3

EU4

EU5

EU6

EU7

EU8

EU9

EU10

Residential orOccupational?

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

Residential

Occupational

Mixed

Occupational

Occupational

Sub-basins withDirect Runoff

AAAA

B, C, and D

E

FFFFW

H (western portion)

G (western portion)G (western portion)G (western portion)G (western portion)

I

H (eastern portion), J (northern portion)K (northern portion)

J (southern portion), G (eastern portion)J (southern portion), G (eastern portion)

J (southern portion)J (southern portion)J (southern portion)

L.MK (southern portion)

N,0,P,Q,R,S,T,U,andV

Secondary SourceChemicals

ArsenicBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)flourantheneLeadNo secondary sources

No secondary sources

HexachlorobenzeneArsenicBerylliumTotal PCBsBenzo(a)pyrene


LeadTotal PCBsArsenicBerylliumNone

ArsenicNone

IndustrialOutfalls

No industrial outfalls



RMI Metals Reduction


RMI SodiumOccidentalDetrex ^~*RMI Extrusion


Lead AcmeTotal PCBs SCM Plant 2 (TiC14)HexachlorobenzeneBenzo(a)pyreneDibenzo(a,h)anlhraceneArsenicNone


VygenSCMPIant2(TiO2)(storm water)SCM Plant 1

JSLH:\RECOKnRECONTXUSOURCEJCLS

TABLE 6.6.3SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASIITABULA, OHIO

EU CHEMICALSOIL LOSSCOMPONENTS

CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

USLELINE

USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENTFACTOR LOSS DELIVERY

(totu/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

cocCONC(mBfcg)

SEDIMENTCONC(nig/kg)

CUG(me/kg)

CUGEXCEEDED?

Arsenic Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area) 107.5511CON3 0.0320CON3 0.0534CON2 0.1067

CONl.2,3 0.3416

AlA2A3A3

1.25295.01163.75873.7587

Subtotal 0.5337Sub-basin A (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 107.0174

0.040.270.401.28

1.3787 147.54

0.210.210.210.21

0.21

0.010.060.080.27

30.98

48.933.238.161.5

20.08Sub-basin A Subtotals

Industrial Outfall ContributionsNone

EU 1 Totals for Arsenic

31.40

0.00

31.40

20.52 27.60

20.52 27.60 No

iOaiO

JSUl\RECONTRECONTXEUCCIN3E4JCLWIEUCON3E4 Page 1 of 20 CD

u £cTABLE 6.SEDIMEM. ^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT • FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

USLELINE

USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENTFACTOR LOSS DELIVERY

(tons/icre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

COCCONC(mg/kg)

SEDIMENTCONC(mgflcg)

CUG(ing/kg)

CUGEXCEEDED?

Benzo(a)pyrene Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON3CON2

CONI.2,3Subtotal

Sub-basin A (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin A Sub-totals

107.55110.28820.12810.24550.6618

106.8893

A2A3A3

5.01163.75873.7587

1.3787

1.440.480.92

147.37

0.210.210.21

0.21

0300.100.19

30.95J/.55

333

2.7

0.6550.70 1.40 No


EU 1 Totals for Benzo(a)pyrcne

0.00

31.55 0.70 1.40 No

Page 2 of 20

ioaia6S(0

TABLE 6.6 3SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

EU CHEMICAL

1 Bcnzo(b)Quoranthene

SOIL LOSSCOMPONENTS

CUGEXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON2

SubtotalSub-basin A (Non-CUG Excccdance Areas)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

107.55110.06400.0640

107.4871

USLE USLE "A" SOILLINE FACTOR LOSS

(loru/acrc/yr) (tons/year)

A3 3.7587

1.3787

0.24

148.19

SEDIMENTDELIVERY

RATIO

0.21

0.21

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

0.05

31.12

cocCONC(mg/kg)

18

0.483

SEDIMENTCONC(mg/ke)

cueCUG EXCEEDED?

(me/kg)

Sub-basin A Sub-totals


EU 1 Totab for Benzo(b)fluoranthene

31.17

0.00

31.17

0.51 13.97

0.51 13.97 No

fOa§

Page 3 of20

o1ft

J.v/C

TABLE 6.<SEDIMEN1 .^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

EU

1

SOIL LOSSCHEMICAL COMPONENTS

CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

Lead Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON1.3Subtotal

Sub-basin A (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

107.55110.03200.0320

107.5191

USLELINE

Al

USLE "A" SOILFACTOR LOSS

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year)

1.2529

1.3787

0.04

148.24

SEDIMENTDELIVERY

RATIO

0.21

0.21

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

0.01

31.13

cocCONC(mg/kg)

664

169.83

SEDIMENTCONC(me/kg)

CUGCUG EXCEEDED?

(mg/kg)

Sub-basin A Subtotals 31.14 169.96 500.00 No

Industrial Outfall ContributionsNone 0.00

EU 1 Totals for Lead 31.14 169.96 500.00 No

Oa§"ta6

JSLH:«ECONT«ECONT\(EUCON3E4 -XLWJEUCON3E4 Page 4 of.20

TABLE 6.6.3SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (icres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (me/lte) (me/kg) (mgfltg)

4 Hexachlorobenzene Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area) 8035RMIE3 0.2882 F2 1.0114 0.29RMIE3 0.1281 F2 1.0114 0.13

Subtotal 0.4163Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 79.9337 7.8846 630.25Sub-basin F Sub-totals

Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 492.80 0.5423 267.25

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction Facility

EU 4 Totals for Hexachlorobenzene

0.21 0.06 63.80.21 0.03 91

0.21 132.35 0.48132.44 0.53 638

0.21 56.12 0.46

0.13

188.69 0.51 6.38

No

No

Oaia6

JSLH:\RECONT«ECON1XEUCON3E4JCLW]EUCON3E4 Page 5 of 20 0

ti .clcTABLE 6SEDIMENi ..^CONTAMINATIONCALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASIITABULA, OHIO

~>SOIL LOSS CUC EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUC

EU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/yetr) (ing/kg) (me/kg) (ing/kg)

4 Arsenic Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area) 8035RMIE3 03843 F2 1 .0 1 1 4 039

Subtotal 03843Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 79.9657 7.8846 630.50Sub-basin F Sub-totals

Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 492.80 0.5423 26755



051 0.08 41

051 132.40 1055132.49 10.27 27.60

051 56.12 123

0.13

188.73 10.87 27.60

No

No

IOa

Page 6 of 20 (D


EU CHEMICAL

4 Beryllium

EU 4 Totals for Beryllium

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGCOMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acrc/yr) (Ions/year) RATIO (tons/year) fme/ke) (mc/ke) (ms/ks)

Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area) 80.35Mitchell Transport 0.2135 F3 8.6760 1.85

Subtotal 0.2135Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Enceedance Areas) 80.1365 7.8846 631.84Sub-basin F Sub-totals



0.21 0.39 3.1

0.21 132.69 0.999133.03 1.01 2.40

0.21 56.12 0.88

0.13

189.33 0.97 2.40

No

No

S:\BROOKFS\TM3\SUPRIMTR.XLS Page 7 of 20 11/17/95

1TABLE 6.(SEDIMENT . CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASIITABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acrc/yr) (Ions/year) RATIO (tons/year) (nig/kg) (me/kg) (mg/ke)

4 Toial PCBs Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area)RMIM6

Mile he II TransportMitchell Transport

SubtotalSub-basin F(Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin F Sub-totals

80.351.0995 F40.2562 F30.9287 F32.2844

78.0656

4.97548.67608.6760

7.8846

5.472.228.06

615.52

0.210.210.21

0.21

1.150.471.69

129.26132.57

6.892913

0.2390.56 1.30 No

Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRMI Titanium Company Melats Reduction Facility

492.80 0.5423 267.25 0.21

EU 4 Totals for Total PCBs

56.12

0.13

188.81

0.1

0.42 1.30 No

S:\BROOKFSVTM3\SUPR1MTR.XLS Page 7 of 20 11/17/95

EU

TABLE 6.63SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

CHEMICALSOIL LOSSCOMPONENTS

CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?(acres) (tons/acrc/yr) (tonsfycar) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

4 Benzo(a)pyrene Sub-basin W (Net Erosion Area)Reese Machine FacilityReese Machine Facility

SubtotalSub-basin W (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin W Sub-totals

Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)


EU 4 Totals for llenzo(a)pyrene

492.800.0560 W4 0.6196 0.030.0720 W4 0.6196 0.040.1280

492.6720 0.5423 267.18

80.35 7.8846 633.53

0.21 0.01 20.21 0.01 1.9

0.21 56.11 0.08156.12 0.0816 1.40

0.21 133.04 0.081

0.13

189.29 0.0811 1.40

No

No

S:\BROOKFS\TM3\SUPR1RES.XLS Page 9 of 20 II / I7/V5

»<rc<TABLE 6SEDIMEtfi .CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (me/kg) (rag/kg)

6 Lead Sub-basin G (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 4 1 .78NCAI 0.6405 G2 0.5471 0.35

Subtotal 0.640SSub-basin G (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 41.1395 0.7272 29.92Sub-basin G Sub-total*

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 19.2000 3.1727 60.92

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRMI Titanium Company Sodium FacilityOccidental Chemical CorporationDetrex CorporationRMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Lead

0.21 0.07 695

0.21 6.28 123.46.36 130.02 500.00

0.21 12.79 123.4

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16104.31 23.06 500.00

No

No

JSUI:\RECONT«ECX)NT>rEUCON3E4^a,W]EUCON3E< Page 10 of 20

Ioaia61(D


SOIL LOSS CUC EXCEEDANCE EROSIONEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA

(By Source Name) (acres)

6 Total PCBs Sub-basin G (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 41.78NCA1 1.708

Subtotal 1.7080Sub-basin G (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 40.0720Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 1 9.2000


Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Total PCBs

USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(lons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (me/kg) (me/kg) (mg/kg)

G2 0.5471 0.93 0.21 0.20 7.9

0.7272 29.14 0.21 6.12 0.436.32 0.66 L30 No

3.1727 60.92 0.21 12.79 0.1

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16104.27 0.05 1JO No

IOaia6

Page 11 of 20

TABLE 6 1SEDIMEN. DECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSOUUK^CI uunin.uLturE.KA.DLit, umi * ricuja uK.uun.aii c.ASIITABULA,OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSIONEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA ~


6 Arsenic Sub-basin G (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 41.78NCAI 3.448

Subtotal 3.4480Sub-basin G (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 38.3320Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 1 9.2000

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRM1 Titanium Company Sodium FacilityOccidental Chemical CorporationDetrex CorporationRMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Arsenic

JSm:\RECONT«ECONT>(EUCON3E4JCLWlEUCON3E4

USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (me/kg) (me/kg)

G2 0.5471 1.89 021 0.40 91.2

0.7272 27.88 0.21 5.85 12.675.85 18.84 27.60 No

3.1727 60.92 0.21 12.79 12.67

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16103.80 2.62 27.60 No

$Oa

a6

Page 12 of 20 (J>

TABLE 6.6.3SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT- FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCEEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS

(By Source Name)

6 Beryllium Sub-basin G (EU 6 Net Erosion Area)NCA1

SubtotalSub-basin G (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin G Subtotals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)


Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Beryllium

EROSIONAREA(acres)

41.780.88070.8807

40.8993

19.2000

USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENTLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONG CONC

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

G2 0.5471 0.48 0.21 0.10 3.6

0.7272 29.74 0.21 6.25 0.9126.25 0.97

3.1727 60.92 0.21 12.79 0.912

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16104.20 0.17

CUCCUG EXCEEDED?

(mg/kg)

2.40 No

2.40 No

Page 13 of 20

Ooaiaoa<p

TABLE 6 | 1SEDIMEN . .^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS JSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABUIA OHIO

I

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSIONEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS

(By Source Name)

7 Arsenic Sub-basin H (EU 7 Portion)RMIS7

SubtotalSub-basin H (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin fl Sub-totals

Sub-basin J (EU 7 Portion)CEI1

RMIS7RMIS Combined Source Area

SubtotalSub-basin J (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Sub-basin K (EU 7 Non-CUG Exceed. Areas)



AREA(acres)

12.021.70801.7080

10.3120

28.923.89630.26690.97145.1346

23.7854

12.8000

) •) )USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg)

H3 3.1737 5.42 0.21 1.14 36.6

3.1737 32.73 0.21 6.87 12.68.01

Jl 1.3255 5.16 0.21 1.08 81.2J2 1.8898 0.50 0.21 0.11 36.6J2 1.8898 1.84 0.21 0.39 31.5

1.6076 38.24 0.21 8.03 12.69.61

1.0311 13.20 0.21 2.77 12.6

0.000.00

20.39

CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(me/kg) (rag/kg)

16.01 27.60 No

21.37 27.60 No

8.00 27.60 No

Ioa§•<a6

Page 14 of 20

StdC5 OB id

Id0idC5 2B SII

cw o 3s 5 €s o IFo G ,§td ^

8§1H ^«3 ssri |CO °

H >«S os otd (d M

^•J 55 wo o >(0 J go*•*•

|;|f>*•*

2 < 't83 £C£ ^ *5"td

NTA

MIN

ATI

ON

CA

LCU

LATI

ON

S>L

OPE

RABL

E UN

IT -

FIEL

DS

BROO

K S

ITE

IO SOIL

LO

SS C

UG

EX

CEED

AN

CECO

MPO

NENT

S AR

EAS

(By

Sour

ce N

ame)

Q W M

td fco ^ *Jb u p 5

td Id C9 SS y < 2

S KM W

0- _ L. *^

wa eo <•

13Id

8 g

r- Mo *o

o o

fS SM M

pj

fO ^T

— r*

eo

ill!«-i — **i

00

C 3*** 3

Sub-

basin

J (E

U 8

Net

Eros

ion A

rea)

ACM

E3,

Subl

Sub-

basin

J (N

on-C

UG E

xcee

danc

e A

reas

)

•o

eo

£

gg10

>>^•*°

§ o «o S< i eo

ft 8 3 1: 8i^ O *rt * d>

o o o c

v» M Is- O<f r* f* co so *ri 9

M —

0 — — 0fv. lA \O *^o eo oo r-»—•_;-: o

3 S S

Siii i iO M O r*v •'•

IN

rj so c 3a M m o

Sub-

basi

n J S

ub-to

tals

Sub-

basin

G (E

U 8

Net

Eros

ion A

rea)

ACt

ACM

E3.

ACM

E3,

Subl

Sub-

basin

G (N

on-C

UG

Exc

eeda

nce

Are

as)

5 £

<a o<=> oS oS o** ifi

•n 2•o* \o>• JJJ

^ fS O M go

S °$8;q

Sub-

basin

G Su

b-to

tals

Indu

strial

Outf

all C

ontri

butio

nsAc

me

Scra

p Iro

n an

d M

etal

SCM

Plan

t 2 (T

iCI4

) Fac

ility

Indu

stria

l Outf

all C

ontri

butio

ns Su

b-To

tals

•9ft

h-J

iS«S,0H00DW

Woodward-Clyde

TABLE 6.6..SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSIONEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA


8 Total PCBs Sub-basin J (EU 8 Portion)2SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2, 42SCM2.4

DET - Not Source SpecificDET - Not Source Specific

ACME3. 5ACME3, 5ACME3. 5

SubtotalSub-basin J (Noo-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J SubtotalsSub-basin G (EU 8 Net Erosion Area)

Acme - Not Source SpecificAcme * Not Source Specific

ACME3. 5ACME2ACME2

ACME3, 5ACME3, 5

SubtotalSub-basin G (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin G Sub-totalsIndustrial Outfall Contributions

Acme Scrap Iron and MetalSCM Plant 2 (TiCM) Facility

84.50.86470.76832.97872.91422.81820.16020.07470.50172.00685.5722

18.659765.8403

28.243.923

0.75791.281

0.28821.14222.14560.5124

10.050318.1897

USLE USLEMA" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUCLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

((ons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (me/kfd (mg/kc) (nig/kg)

J5J5

(J5+J6V2J6J6J3J3J7J8

(J7+J8V2

G3G3G304G4G5G5

7.02147.02145.47433.92723.92720.45320.45320.37201.13730.7547

2.6514

0.43510.43510.43511.07901.0790

11.863111.8631

0.7570

6.075.39

16.3111.4411.070.070.030.192.284.21

174.57

1.710.330.560311.23

25.456.08

13.77

0.210.210.210.210.210.210.210.210.210.21

0.21

0.210.210.210.210.210.210.21

0.21


1.271.133.422.402320.020.010.040.480.88

36.664164

0360.070.120.070.265351.28

2.89J0.38

03166.0766.27

125.30

80731031

31062331

40.44.1

79.513

0.56376.89 3.10

4.13

1316.9

134113

0.56323,60 3.10

31.81 3.10

Ya

Ya

g

gl£iaia6

JSLH;\MCOm>RECOKT>fEUCON3E4JCLWTEUCON3E4 Page 16 oif20

f*«qbdu o5 tdn ww ua0 3B fflm

M - t ^^W U 3sg*|8sCO

r, CJ 3CJ 2£ .J5 5 §881fe «^ 0 •td N vSi|Q > gtd 3£ ~

£S 0td Id S5 £ f c5 ^ 2gS cj g? SssfW5 J g

«•

« -'EV S •£i O fisy i60 .< gD <* S**»

td td^ zCO •—5 J2O rf> 'S1

§ 5 sw 3 to 5 a* < -2-u

CONT

AMIN

ATIO

N C

ALCU

LATI

ONS

RO

L O

PERA

BLE

UN

IT -

FIEL

DS

BROO

K S

ITE

)I1IO

SOIL

LOS

S CU

G E

XCEE

DANC

ECO

MPO

NEN

TS

AREA

S(B

y So

urce

Nam

e)

Hi su w ffl C? u < *•2 5 t2 td°li iId O ^M GO <

,,.'

DId

O V> SO-SO o

00 ^ Ms 2 Irto «^ <*T

V4 ^M ———1 1O 0 O

oo oo r*<*j ^ -.O 'T t

M S

O M ^1

r* r- —Ov M «rt5\O. *ci ri es

S*

m -* r» *n r*..• oo "» r4 rS 2 g ^ 2

O* SO « i

» ^ "3«a Tr 3

e Su

b-ba

sin J

(EU

8 P

ortio

n) DET

• Not

Sou

rce S

peci

2SCM

2Su

bto£i

itwh»

tn I

fNm

i-T^K

i F.xc

eedf

lnc«

Are

as'!

•i

^ *— o

m — « r«-5 ov M^ ~ "t

^ M0 0

f 2— «o< c

In r*>o «noo r*^ o

w>O

8 \o %o <voe oo ~^ c- t* •*oo o o r-M r«

Si

Sub-

basin

J Su

b-to

tals

Sub-

basin

G (E

U 8

Net

Ero

sion

Area

)AC

MSu

bto

Cnh-

hfl«

;n 1

n*I

nn.T

!I JO

Fxc

eecU

nce

Are

asl

I

Oo10w*

•0 fS># «

to — p- r- oo?$ ri p rj <s<d o « *O _5

35 * M*4

Sub-

basin

J Su

b-to

tals

Indu

strial

Outf

iall C

ontri

butio

nsAc

me S

crap

Iron

and

Meta

lSC

M P

lant 2

(TiC

M) F

acili

tyIn

dustr

ial O

utfall

Con

tribu

tions

Sub-

Tota

lstch

loro

bcnz

enc

S H3 vJ5 «g o^ *•J M

i 1a H00

« 1

Woodward-Clyde

or-

eocu

L ~€C

TABLE 6.tSEDIMEN1 ..^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO



8 Benzo(a)pyrene Sub-basin J (EU 8 Portion) 84.5ACME3 0.2135ACME3 0.2242ACME3 2.3591Subtotal 2.7968

Sub-basin J (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 8 1 .7032Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Sub-basin G (EU 8 Net Erosion Area) 28.2400ACME3 0.8006ACME3 0.4163Subtotal 1.2169

Sub-basin J (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 27.023 1Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Industrial Outfall ContributionsAcme Scrap Iron and MetalSCM Plant 2 (TiCH) Facility

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 8 Totals for Benzo(a)pyrene

USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENTLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (rag/kg) (mg/kg)

J8 1.1373 0.24 0.21 0.05 3.1J8 1.1373 0.25 0.21 0.05 1.5J8 1.1373 2.68 0.21 0.56 6.4

2.6514 216.63 0.21 45.49 0.13446.06 0.22

05 11.8631 9.50 0.21 1.99 3.1G4 1.0790 0.45 0.21 0.09 1.9

0.7570 20.46 0.21 4.30 0.1346.3B 1.09

t

0.2166.0766.27

112J3 0.15

Page 18 of 20

CUGCUC EXCEEDED?

(mg/kg)

3.30 No

3.30 No

3JO No

Woodw

ard-Clyde

*~aWo o8 fad

S*:IdofR *w 1

w o 5S ^ 'sX 0 BQ U J,id w

CO

0^1o Z *8 0 Bu U 4

g «« R :Sii§*iCO "•*

£ 5 0U bd S5 > bM ""! <Q 3 2w aCO »

=28 1o q >co J e

* e* £< 0 >e P Cat 33^3 bb e

N^

W (dJ 2CO •-s -3zO -rf C1

to H E§1 1w

w uH (J *-t— S ueo 3 E

1 S?^g8 sal& a x 3 o2 CO H M

iS a gis B<fc»§S5 ^ HO W gg« ^g22 s|iS js^ CM *• £^o o o5 JO w°o 2 5<J g 5w C w^« 5 j«•» tl o 5 <^g uS S

« W te3 C9 =W S W < S

-i S a: H ua S P 5 3< w O 2 0H co co <

: - :'" »bd

r* •*- 5

b

S «rt0

b soT

<1 w0 O

O\ ON-- trib ri

(NM

1 (*» ^f^ — ••m w*i« %O— cs

00•^

<rt 00 00 <N• O O O>S^t:sb b 5eo

S3§-y 3< CO

*•••M

i1 1CU ?js §

• S 5*•» -^5 c

J *5;JO-5 jb

3 3CO CO

Vu

&S

«•n*i

3Qi

O l^'Ob

a s ?>d o "»>

r^ So b

8 00ob ~

<N

O\ t"»P» «Oo r^— b

3

BUS^ O O "9-<^ p p noo b b oo« C4

2 3ii.Z. 3CO

* .IT

J «i•f 1tS u:

1 1 BK ^ fi5 00 Q

1 ! I™» O •-.•1 .E .53 3 5-9 .3 ^4 ^> -i,a 3 ac^ co co

o o* 2

0 O*» f*>M f4

"^ -*c. o« 0

O\ — f"" I"** F*> ci p ci K^ ° S S rf^^ w^

vN

4j1- *3« — "o.V *U *9

H "S .* Bc A u. S.2 -o — ^51I§1J S 5 P g

J E £ ^ 5s 3 0.2 I =5 i Si ei illti| i*«li3 1 ISi 1 ifoe

NC

g o-S • £H QA T"5 iS! aX O3 sDeo tf

Woodward-Clyde

h.ftETABLESEDIMEN . DECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO



9 Arsenic Sub-basin L (Net Erosion Area) 13.45VYG1.2 0.1708Subtotal 0.1708

Sub-basin L (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 13.2792Sub-basin L Sub-totals

Sub-basin M (Net Erosion Area) 3 1 .88OLIN8.9 1.2169

Subtotal 1.2169Sub-basin M (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 30.663 1Sub-basin M Sub-totals

Sub-basin K(EU 9) 74.1100

Industrial Outfall ContributionsVygen CorporationSCMPIant2TO2



(tons/acrt/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

L2 3.5067 0.60 0.21 0.13 303

2.0834 27.67 0.21 5.81 17.045.94 17.32

Ml 3.1020 3.77 0.21 0.79 61.6

2.0278 62.18 0.21 13.06 17.0413.85 19.59

0.6456 47.85 0.21 10.05 17.04

! 9.43132

10.7540.58 6.75

CUGCUG EXCEEDED?

(mg/kg)

27.60 No

27.60 No

27.60 No

iOaia6

JSUl:\RECOm>RECOKr(EUCON3E<JCLW)EOCON3E4 Page 20 of 20 fl)

Woodward-ClydeTABLE 6.7.1SENSITIVITY ANALYSISUSLE SOIL LOSS CALCULATIONS BY SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

Sub-basin AreaID

(sq. miles)

ABCDEF

GtoEU6GtoEUSH toEU7HtoEUS

IJtoEU7JtoEUSK to EU 7KtoEU9

LMNOPQRSTUVw

0.170.090.090.020.280.160.070.050.030.160.030.090.160.020.150.030.060.130.030.040.120.370.891.230.540.190.77

Area Non-erosion Net Erosion Calculated Soil Soil Loss Sed. Del. SedimentArea Area Loss Factor A Ratio

(acres) (acres) (acres) (tns/yr/acres) (tns/yr) (fraction) (tns/yr)

108.857.657.612.8

179.2102.444.8

3219.2

102.419.257.6

102.412.8

9619.238.483.219.225.676.8

236.8569.6787.2345.6121.6492.8

1.250.000.000.004.71

22.053.023.767.18

14.330.00

28.6817.900.00

21.895.756.521.790.000.85

33.291.440.000.000.000.000.00

107.5557.6057.6012.80

174.4980.3541.7828.2412.0288.0719.2028.9284.5012.8074.1113.4531.8881.4119.2024.7543.51

235.36569.60787.20345.60121.60492.80

1.37876.36166.39871.54206.05637.88460.72720.75703.17371.62353.17271.60762.65141.03110.64562.08342.02780.92681.66560.74022.24310.53341.96742.31292.10191.36030.5423

14836636920

1057633

302138

1436146

2241348286575321898

12611211821726165267

0.3650.3950.395

0.460.348

0.370.405

0.420.440.370.44

0.3950.370.46

0.3750.44

0.4130.380.440.43

0.3850.335

0.30.290.32

0.3630.305

54.12144.74145.58

9.08367.75234.39

12.308.98

16.7852.9126.8018.3682.89

6.0717.9412.3326.7028.6714.077.88

37.5842.06

336.19528.01232.4560.0481.51

TOTAL 5.97 3821 174 3646 7761 2606

S;\MAZZOCCO\RlREPOR<nSECnON6\TABLES\SENSrrjaS

TABLE 6. 1 \ \ f \SEDIMENT ^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUu-^ASIN-SPECIFIC SEb...ffiNT DELIVERY RATIOS /SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


(By Source Name)

1 Arsenic Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON3CON3CON2

CONI.2.3Subtotal

Sub-basin A (Noo-CUG Exceedance Areas)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

107.55110.03200.05340.10670.34160.5337

107.0174

USLELINE

AlA2A3A3

USLE "A"FACTOR

(tons/acre/yr)

1.25295.01163.75873.7587

1.3787

SOILLOSS

(tons/year)

0.040.270.401.28

147.54

SEDIMENTDELIVERY

RATIO

03650.3650.3650.365

0.365

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

0.010.100.150.47

53.85

COC SEDIMENTCONG CONC(mg/kg) (mgflcjO

48.933.238.161.5

20.08

CUGCUC EXCEEDED?

(ing/kg)

Sub-bain A Sub-totals



S45S

0.00

54.58

20.52 27.60 No

20.52 27.60 No

Ioaa6

S:\MAZZOCCOMUREPORT\SECTION6\TADLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 1 of 20

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OH1O

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONG CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/icrc/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/ke) (mg/kfi) (nig/kg)

1 Benzo(a)pyrene Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON3COM2

CONI.2,3Subtotal

Sub-basin A (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)

107.55110.2882 A20.1281 A30.2455 A30.6618

106.8893

5.01163.75873.7587

1.3787

1.440.480.92

147.37

0.3650.3650.365

0.365

0.530.180.34

53.79

333

2.7

0.655Sub-basin A Sub-totals


EU 1 Totals for Benzo(a)pyrene

54.13

0.00

54.83

0.70 L40

0.70 1.40 No

iOaia6

S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREPORT\SECnON6\TABLES\EUSENTE4JCLS Page 2 of 20 (P

TABLE6 JSEDIMEN i DECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SL^*ASIN-SPECIFIC SE^SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO

_*/ NT DELIVERY RATIulIUS

SOIL LOSSEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS

CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)________(tona/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (me/kg)

1 Benzo(b>fluoranthene

Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area)CON2

SubtotalSub-basin A (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)

107.55110.0640 A30.0640

107.4871

3.7587 0.24 0.365

1J787 148.19 0.365

0.09 18

54.09 0.483Sub-basin A Sub-totals 54.lt O.S1 13.97


EU 1 Totals for Bcnzo(b)fluoranthene

0.00

54.18 051 13.97 No

iOai

S;\MAZZOCCO\RIREPOR'nSECTION6\TABLES^USENTE4.XLS Page 3 of 20

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE COnfTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)________(lons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (Ions/year) (nig/kg) (m^kg) (mg/kg)__________

Lead Sub-basin A (Net Erosion Area) 107.5511CON1.3 0.0320 AlSubtotal 0.0320

Sub-basin A (Non-CUO Excecdance Areas)________107.5191

12529

1.3787

0.04

148.24

0.365

0.365

0.01

54,11

664

169.83Sub-basin A Sub-totals


EU 1 Totals for Lead

54.12

0,00

54.12

169.96 500.00

169.96 500.00

No

No

Ioaia6

S:\MAZZOCCO«IREPORinSECTlON6\TABLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 4 of 20

. Jrf+t ~BATABLE 6.'.SEDIMENT KrTCONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-8 AS IN-SPECIFIC SEDt...SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO

DELIVERY RATIOS


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE"AM SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)________(tons/icrc/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mgflcg) (mg/kg) (nig/kg)

4 Hexachloro- Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area)benzene RMIE3

RMIE3Subtotal

Sub-basin F (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin F Sub-totals

Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)

80.350.28820.12810.4163

79.9337

492.80

F2 1.0114F2 1.0114

7.8846

0.5423

0.290.13

630.25

267.25

0.3700370

0.370

0305

0.110.05

233.19233.35

81.51

63.891

0.480.53 6.38 No

0.46


EU 4 Totals for Hexachlorobcnzene

0.13

314.98 0.51 6.38 No

S:\MAZZOCCORIREroRT\SECnON6\TABLES\EUSENTE4XLS Page 5 of 20

Ioa

ID

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)

4

EU

Arsenic Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area) 8035RMIE3 0.3843 F2 1.01 14 039Subtotal 0.3843

Sub-basin F (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 79.9657 7.8846 630.50SuMfasin F Sub-totals

Sub-basin W (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 492.80 0.5423 267.25


4 Totals for Arsenic

0370 0.14 41

0370 233.28 10.25233.43 10.27 27.60

0305 81.51 123

0.13

315.07 10.79 27.60

No

No

Oa

S:\MA2ZOCCOWREPOR7\SECTION6\TABLES^USENrE4JCLS Page 6 of20

a6s(D

TABLE 6.7..SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?(acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (me/kg) (mg/kg)

4 Beryllium Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area) 80.35Mitchell Transport 0.2135 F3 8.6760 1.85

Subtotal 0.2135Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 80. 1 365 7.8846 63 1 .84Sub-basin F Sub-totals



EU 4 Totals for Beryllium

0.370 0.69 3.1

0.370 233.78 0.999234.47 LOl 2.40

0.305 81.51 0.88

0.13

316.10 0.97 2.40

No

No

S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREroRT\SECTIONftTABLES\EUSEhrTE4.XLS Page 7 of 20 11/17/95

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULAOHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)

4 Total PCBs Sub-basin F (Net Erosion Area)RMIM6

Mitchcll TransportMitchell Transport

SubtotalSub-basin F (Non-CUG Exccedance Areas)

80.351.09950.25620.58711.9428

78.4072

F4F3F3

4.97548.67608.6760

7.8846

5.472.225.09

618.21

0.3700.3700.370

0.370

2.020.821.88

228.74

6.892913

0.239Sub-basin F Subtotals

Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Excecdance Areas)

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRM1 Titanium Company Metals Reduction Facility

492.80 0.5423 267.25 0.305


233.47

81.51

0.13

315.11

0.50 1.30 No

0.1

0.40 1.30 No

S:\MAZZOCCO\RI REPORT\SECT1ON6\TADLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 8 of 20 I I/I7/95

, CCTABLE 6.7SEDiMEm .^CONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-B/^YN-SPECIFIC SEDIMEN .SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OHIO

LIVERY RATIOS


CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE"A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name)_____(acres)_______(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (nig/kg) (mg/kg)_________

4 Bcnzo(a)pyrenc Sub-basin W (Net Erosion Area) 492.80_____Recsc Machine Facility 0.1779

Subtotal 0.1779Sub-basin W (Non-CUG Exccedance Areas)_______492.6221

W4 0.6196 0.11 0.305 0.03 2

0.5423 267.15 0.305 81.48 0.081Sub-basin W Sub-totals

Sub-basin F (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)


80.35

EU 4 Totals for Benzo(a)pyrene

7.8846 633.53 0.370

SI.51

234.41

0.13

316.05

0.0818 1.40

0.081

0.0812 1.40

No

No

S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREPORTASECT1ON6\TABLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 9 of 20 11/17/95

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLEAREA LINE(acres)

USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGFACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mo/lug (me/ke) (me/kg)

6 Lead Sub-basin O (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 41.78NCA1 0.6405 G2 0.5471 0.35

Subtotal 0.6405Sub-basin O (Non-CUO Exceedancc Areas) 41.1395 0.7272 29.92Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUO Exceedancc Areas) 19.2000 3. 1727 60.92

Industrial Outfall ContributionsRMI Titanium Company Sodium FacilityOccidental Chemical CorporationDctrcx CorporationRMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Lead

0.405 0.14 695

0.405 12.12 123.412.26 130.02 500.00 No

0.440 26.80 123.4

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16124.22 39.46 500.00 No

£OOaia•o

S:\MAZZOCCO«IREPORT\SECT1ON6\TADLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 10 of 20 <D

TABLE | \ \ /SEDIMEN. -RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING Sofl-BASIN-SPECIFIC Sfc,^<MENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acrea)________(tons/acrc/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (me/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

6 Total PCBs Sub-basin G(EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 41.78NCAI 1.708 02 0.5471 0.93

Subtotal 1.7080Sub-basin G (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 40.0720 0.7272 29.14Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 19.2000 3.1727 60.92



0.405 038 7.9

0.405 11.80 0.43JZJ8 0.66 1.30 No

0.440 26.80 0.1

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16124.14 0.09 1.30 No

aoa

a6

S:\MA22OCCOJUREPOR'nSECTlONfi\TABLES^USENTE4.XLS Page 11 of 20

: TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)


6 Arsenic Sub-basin 0 (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 4 1 .78NCA1 3.448 02 0.5471 1.89

Subtotal 3.4480Sub-basin 0 (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 38.3320 0.7272 27.88Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 19.2000 3.1727 60.92



0.405 0.76 913.

0.405 11.29 12.6711.29 IB.84 27.60 No

0.440 26.80 12.67

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16123.25 4.48 27.60 No

Ooa§S:\MAZZOCCOMUREPOR~nSECnONfi\TABLES\EUSEKrE4.XLS Page 12 of 20

1 /foilTABLESEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING Sbi^BASIN-SPECIFIC SLw&IENT DELIVERY RA1SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO

i\JS


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE "AM SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(acres)________(fons/icre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)__ (me/kg)

6 Beryllium Sub-basin O (EU 6 Net Erosion Area) 4 1 .78NCA 1 0.8807 G2 0.5471 0.48

Subtotal 0.8807Sub-basin G (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas) 40.8993 0.7272 29.74Sub-basin G Sub-totals

Sub-basin I (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas) 19.2000 3. 1727 60.92


Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 6 Totals for Beryllium

0.405 020 3.6

0.405 12.05 0.912nos

0.440 26.80 0.912

70.120.57

14.010.46

85.16124.01

0.97 2.40 No

0.29 2.40 No

$OOaia•O

S:\MAZZOCCO«mEPOR'nSECTION6VTABLES^USENTE4.XLS Page 13 of 20 o

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)


7 Arsenic Sub-basin H (EU 7 Portion) 12.02RMIS7 1.7080 H3 3.1737 5.42 0.440 239 36.6

Subtotal 1.7080Sub-basin H(Non-CUOExceedancc Areas) 10.3120 3.1737 32.73 0.440 14.40 12.6Sub-basin H Sub-totals 16. 79

Sub-basin J (EU 7 Portion) 28.92CEI1 3.8963 Jl 1.3255 5.16 0.395 2.04 81.2

RMIS7 0.2669 J2 1.8898 0.50 0.395 0.20 36.6RMIS Combined Source Area 0.9714 J2 1.8898 1.84 0.395 0.73 31.5

Subtotal 5.1346Sub-basin J (Non-CUG Exceedancc Areas) 23.7854 1.6076 38.24 0.395 15.10 12.6Sub-basin J Sub-totals 19.07

Sub-basin K (EU 7 Non-CUG Exceed. Areas) 12.8000 1.03 1 1 13.20 0.460 6.07 12.6

Industrial Outfall ContributionsNone 0.00

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-Totals 0.00EU 7 Totals for Arsenic 40.92

S:\MAZZOCCO\RlREPOR-nSECTION6\TABLES\EUSEKTB4.XLS Page 14 of 20

16.01 27.60 No

21.37 27.60 No

8.44 27.60 No

Woodw

ard-Clyde

0wPI^ 1o 3B et

1

w 0 3S y J,Ed ^

09881MS j ><M

w *?5? *• Hw s.w ^

X^^ L« iwJ Z K i*\

O M W 2i i|ie* Cj> J V5 »»3 oofHU Ja efc O1

^^^f* • ^^ k.^^ ? o e

* ^* u^ j U -5

y 3 £CJ *J Z& D *3z

^*^ iS?I o « S•—iri B " "^

w H "0 So6 t^

sn ^'C

ONTA

MINA

TION

CALC

ULAT

IONS

usCO

NTR

OL

OPE

RABL

E U

NIT

- FI

ELD

S BR

OO

ULA,

OH

IO

SOIL

LO

SS

CUG

EX

CEED

AN

CE,

CO

MPO

NEN

TS

AR

EAS

(By

Sour

ce N

ame)

^° u w pa *J

C3 Q 3 23 5< w O w 5H w w < SX

O

Dw

§ ?

^ §

0 O

o o

r- r-<*1 °.M —Pi

m -vr- — •2 £M (s

00

w% o» C» "•— : o o CN3 q a P500

c 1*""' p

Sub-

basin

J (E

U 8

Net

Ero

sion A

rea)

ACM

E3,

Sub

Sub-

basin

J (N

on-C

UG E

xcee

danc

e Are

as)

A

J

OO

£

g«

§

i

00 S 0 ffiV4 OO ^°

K ON <s 3 oori O — CS K•a "

o o o oCN <S IN d

O O O O

**> (s r* o^ r^ «o po vd "X ovc« —

o — — oC^ f*i f*\ P*«O oo oo r*»"" zi "^ o

3 S S

^ J*J f ("• 'J *O

" 5 2 x Z: 3;O C4 O fl VICS

2 i: i: fl=s " m. S

Sub-

basin

J Su

b-to

tals

Sub-

basin

O (E

U 8

Net

Ero

sion A

rea)

AC*

ACM

E3,

ACM

E3,

Sub

Sub-

basin

O (N

on-C

UG E

xcee

danc

e Are

as)

8 £

s £9 O§ 15? c5> 00

S 3i3|Su

b-ba

sin G

Sub-

tota

ls

Indu

strial

Out

fall

Cont

ribut

ions

Acm

e Sc

rap

Iron

and

Met

alSC

M P

lant 2

(TiC

I4) F

acili

tyIn

dustr

ial O

utfall

Con

tribu

tions

Sub-

Tota

lsLe

ad

u

•A

"3oH00PW

Woodward-Clyde

,

o*o

oco.£

CO

u

paI118iM




8 Total PCBs Sub-basin J (EU 8 Portion)

1

2SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.4

DET6DET6

ACME3.5ACME3. 5ACME3. 5

SubtotalSub-basin J (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)

84.50.86470.76832.97872.91422.81820.16020.07470.50172.00685.5722

18.659765.8403

USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGLINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONG CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mgflqO (nig/kg) (mg/ke)

J5J5

(J5+J6)/2J6J6J3J3J7J8

(J7+J8V2

7.02147.02145.47433.92723.92720.45320.45320.37201.13730.7547

2.6514

6.075.39

163111.4411.070.070.030.192.28471

174.57

037003700.3700370037003700370037003700370

0370Sub-basin J Sub-totalsSub-basin G (EU 8 Net Erosion Area)

Acme - Not Source SpecificAcme - Not Source Specific

ACME3.5ACME2ACME2

ACME3, 5ACME3, 5

SubtotalSub-basin G (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)

28.243.923

0.75791.281

078821.14222.14560.5124

10.050318.1897

G3G3G3G4G4G5G5

0.43510.43510.43511.07901.0790

11.863111.8631

0.7570

1.710330.560.31173

25.456.08

13.77

0.4200.4200.4200.4200.4200.4200.420

0.420Sub-basin G Sub-totals

2752.006.034734.100.030.010.070.841.56

64.5995,70

0.720.140730.130.52

10.692.55

5.7820. 76

80731031

31062331

40.44.1

79.513

0.56376.B9 3.10

4.13

1316.9

134113

0.56323.60 3.10

Yts

r«Industrial Outfall Contributions

Acme Scrap Iron and MetalSCM Plant 2 (TiC14) Facility


S:\MAZZOCOWUREPOR'nSECTION6\TABLES^USENTE4.XLS Page 16 of 20

07166.0766.27

172.74 40.98 3.10

<agYcs—— On ——1a•Oao

TABLE 6. / / / )SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIIvfENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGAREA LINE FACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

Jicres)________(tons/acrc/yr) (tons/yw) RATIO (torn/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

8 Hexachloro- Sub-basin J (EU 8 Portion)benzene Detrex - Not Source Specific

2SCM2Subtotal

Sub-basin J (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J Subtotals

Sub-basin G (EU 8 Net Erosion Area)AMCE3Subtotal

Sub-basin J (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Industrial Outfall ContributionsAcme Scrap Iron and MetalSCM Plant 2 (TiCM) Facility

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 8 Totals for Hexachlorobenzene

84.50.1281 J4 2.9970 0386.2342 J6 3.9272 24.486.3623

78.1377 2.6514 207.17

28.24000.7686 05 11.8631 9.120.7686

27.4714 0.7570 20.80

,

0370 0.14 1100370 9.06 6503700370 76.65 0.6

85.86 7.58 15.00

0.420 3.83 14

0.420 8.73 0.612.56 4.68 15.00

0.2166.0766.27

152.13 4.66 15.00

No

No

No

Ioa

S:\MAZZOCCO\RIREPOR'nSECTION6MADLES^USENTE4.XLS Page 17 of 20

TABLE 6.7.2SEDIMENT RECONTAMINATION CALCULATIONS USING SUB-BASIN-SPECIFIC SEDIMENT DELIVERY RATIOSSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OHIO


(By Source Name)

8 Bcnzo(a)pyrenc Sub-basin J (EU 8 Portion)ACME3ACME3ACME3Subtotal

Sub-basin J (Non-CUO Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Sub-basin O (EU 8 Net Erosion Area)ACME3ACME3Subtotal

Sub-basin J (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)Sub-basin J Sub-totals

Industrial Outfall ContributionsAcme Scrap Iron and MetalSCM Plant 2 (TiCI4) Facility

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-TotalsEU 8 Totals for Bcnzo(a)pyrcnc

EROSIONAREA(acres)

84.50.21350.22422.35912.7968

81.7032

28.24000.80060.41631.2169

27.0231


(tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

J8 1.1373 0.24 0.370 0.09 3.1J8 1.1373 0.25 0.370 0.09 1.5J8 1.1373 2.68 0.370 0.99 6.4

2.6514 216.63 0.370 80.15 0.13481.15 0.21

G5 11.8631 9.50 0.420 3.99 3.1G4 1.0790 0.45 0.420 0.19 1.9

0.7570 20.46 0.420 8.59 0.1347277 1.09

0.2166.0766.27

147.42 0.21

CUGCUG EXCEEDED?

(mg/kg)

3.30 No

3.30 No

3.30 No

Woodw

ai »Q.O

S:\MAZZOCCO\RlREPORT\SECTlONe\TADLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 18 of 20 Q

r-Qbd

O GB cd

CdS/-^ S

0 J

B!

6 ~cd 0 a5 Z «Is!bdCO

M 0 30*18s!«s!S ** Pihi V5 > g& §,w *•*

^ fc >^N z « o; Ed Cd S

s -§-5s sgs>, V) "OS TCxJ 5> J 8 "C w- CO >,3 oofu w J gG 2

^ !<gf; 36!•^ w < 3co -3 Ex. gcj e-EC S gw g £8- D Jco = -1

S 5rCA S3 o < c-

— -J H u *^ S« g«e s < 4U t-y w5 ^go uS ° u ^co «i x »2 S S EO S •w co Q to 2tZ rt U -H ^^si lii

N. /

ECO

NTA

MIN

ATI

ON

CAL

CUI C

ON

TRO

L O

PER

AB

LE U

NIT

- Fl

ULA,

OH

IO

SOIL

LOS

S CU

G E

X.

COM

PON

ENTS

A (B

y So

- cd w ca 5w s U < ^e ig S ^"" U 3 M ^< td O w «H to co •< J2

C5W

*": "*"** o

o

I-* mo r»0 S3

o or* r*m «*•»0 O*

o» ovM W-J

o* <*»<N<N

f*^ -Vr* —f*i »n— \o~ <s

00•>

«r> oe oo <s-: o o ONS r- r- rs*-M V4 ( l

°' d sS a2 2o •§< V3

•s-1

• Su

b-ba

sin J

(EU

8 P

ortio

n)

Sub-

basin

J (N

on-C

UG

Exc

eeda

nce

AS

o«n«S

3Qj

o *rOo

^ S S?•e O os«M O oo•0

o oM C4^ ^1

0 O

8 00no —M

S r-r* M-Io t*>~ o

3

s g l s^ o o -n-( N O O N00 O O 00M M

u -3z -55 2i •§* ««M

^~v JJ

Sub-

basin

J Su

b-to

tals

Sub-

basin

G (E

U 8

Net

Ero

sion A

m

Sub-

basin

J (N

on-C

UO

Exc

eeda

nce

« oS fc

« 0*n «"< W

•N **3 o^ 0

« ^- r- r* t*-« ^1 P ft g* ° 3 $ e?***

jjafi^ j>

Sub-

basin

J Su

b-to

tals

Indu

strial

Out

fall

Cont

ribut

ions

Acm

e Scr

ap Ir

on an

d M

etal

SCM

Plan

t 2 (T

iCM

) Fac

ility

Indu

stria

l Outf

all C

ontri

butio

ns Su

Dib

enzo

(a,h

)ant

hrac

ene

•? o *-•*. 8 oA 5 «SIE J2S -s 5.•e s ,°S a H

00«— 1NJ

00 W

Woodward-Clyde

o

I

D%SIII



CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)


USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGFACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(tons/acrc/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (me/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

9 Arsenic Sub-basin L (Net Erosion Area) 13.45VYOI.2 0.1708 L2 3.5067 0.60 0.440 0.26 303Subtotal 0.1708

SuW»sin L (Non-CUG Exceedancc Areas) 13.2792 2.0834 27.67 0.440 12.17 17.04Sub-basin L Sub-totals 12.44

Sub-basin M (Net Erosion Area) 3 1 .88OLIN8.9 1.2169 Ml 3.1020 3.77 0.413 1.56 61.6

Subtotal 1.2169Sub-basin M(Non-CUGExcecdance Areas) 30.6631 2.0278 62.18 0.413 25.68 17.04Sub-basin M Sub-totals 27.24

Sub-basin K (EU 9) 74. 1 100 0.6456 47.85 0.375 17.94 17.04

Industrial Outfall ContributionsVygen Corporation 9.43SCM Plant 2 TiO2 1.32

Industrial Outfall Contributions Sub-Totals 10.75EU 9 Totals for Arsenic 68 J6

17.32 27.60 No

19.59 27.60 No

7.62 27.60 No

£OOa§•ta6

S:\MAZZOCCO«IREPOR'nSECnON6\TABLES\EUSENTE4.XLS Page 20 of 20

1ETTABLE.OUTFALL ANALYSIS - LEAD AT ACME SCRAP IRON AND M£TAL COMPANYSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENTEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS YIELD

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) (tons/year)

8 Lead Acme Facility Outfall AreaACME2ACME3Subtotal

Acme Outfall (Non-CUG Exceedancc Areas)

3.5550.3202 04 1.0790 0.351.5372 J7 0.3720 0.571.85741.6976 J7 0.3720 0.63

0350.57

0.63

COC SEDIMENT CUCCONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

8245000

62.295Acme Facility Outfall Sub-totals 2055.23 500.00 Yes

IOaia6

SAMAZZOCCOMUREPORT\SECnON6\TADLES\TEUCON3E4.XLWlAC-LEAD Page 1 of 1 (D

TABLE 6.8.2OUTFALL ANALYSIS - PCBs AT ACME SCRAP IRON AND METAL COMPANYSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABUIAO1IIO

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (Ions/year) (torn/year) (mg/kg) (me/kg) Ong/kg)8 Total PCBs Acme Facility Outfall Area

CUG AreasCUG x 10 Areas

SubtotalAcme Outfall (Non-CUG Exceedancc Areas)Acme Facility Outfall Sub-totals


3.5551.61731.39833.01560.5394

M 2.9970 4.85 4.85 31J4 2.9970 4.19 4.19 79.5

J4 2.9970 1.62 1.62 17.047ft 65 47.96 3.10

135.75 33.12 3.10

\'a

Yes

Ioaia6

Page I of 1

TABLE tOUTFAL /ALYSIS - BENZO<A)PYRENE AT ACME SCRAP HvSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

'AND METAL COMi


(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tonsfyear) (tons/year) (me/kg) (rag/kg) (me/kg)

8 Benzo(a)pyrenc Acme Facility Outfall AreaACME2ACME3Subtotal

Acme Outfall (Kon-CUG Exceedance AreasAcme Facility Outfall Sub-totals

3.5550.2989 040.6565 J70.95542.5996 (G4+J7V2

1.0790 0.32 0.07 230.3720 0.24 0.24 23

0.7255 1.89 1.89 17.042.10 17.89 3.30 Yes

Page I of 1

iOaia6So

TABLE 6.8.4OUTFALL ANALYSIS - PCBS AT DETREX FACILITYSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT- FILEDS BROOK SITEASHTABUIAOHIO


CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)

EROSIONAREA(acres)

USLELINE

USLE "A"FACTOR

(tons/acre/yr)

SOILLOSS

(tons/year)

SEDIMENTYIELD

(tons/year)

COCCONC<mg/kg)

SEDIMENTCONC(mgfcg)

CUGCUG EXCEEDED?

(me/kg)

8 Total PCBs Dctrcx Facility Outfall AreaDET2.3

17.0590.8086

SubtotalDclrex Outfall (Non-CUG Excccdancc Areas)

0.808616.2504

J3

J3

0.4532

0.4532

0.37

7.36

0.37 23

7.36 17.04Detrcx Facility Outfall Subtotals 7.73 17.32 3.10 Yes

fOa

Page 1 of 1

a6sCD

TABLE 6.OUTFALL. YSIS-HEXACHLOROBENZENE AT DETREX KSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT • FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA,OIIIO

LITY


(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) (Ions/year) (mg/kc) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

8 Hexachlorobenzene Detrex Facility Outfall AreaNot Source SpecificNot Source Specific

DET7DET2.3DET2.3Subtotal

Detrex Outfall (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)

17.0590.06400.16020.57640.22420.58441.6092

15.4498

J3J3MJ3J3

J3

0.45320.45322.99700.45320.4532

0.4532

0.030.071.730.100.26

7.00

0.010.020.360.020.06

7.00

34015062

950150

0.6Detrex Facility Outfall Subtotals 7.46 7.99 1S.OO No

S; MAZZOCCO^RmEPOR^ASECTlO^WTABLES^(EUCC»43E4JCL\Vldet-hex Page 1 of 1

TABLE 6.8.6OUTFALL ANALYSIS - ARSENIC AT DETREX FACILITYSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO

EU

8

SOIL LOSS CUG EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGCHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (Ions/year) (tons/year) (me/kg). (nig/kg) (nig/kg)Arsenic Dctrcx Facility Outfall Area

DET7Subtotal

Detrex Outfall (Non-CUG Exceedancc Areas)

17.0590.5764 J4 2.9970 1.730.5764

16.4826 2.9970 49.40

1.73 46.7

49.40 17.04Detrex Facility Outfall Sub-totals 51.13 18,04 15.00 Yes

S:\MAZZOCCCWUREPOR'nSECnON€\TABLES\tEUCON3E4.XLWJDET-ARS Page 1 of 1

IOaia6s(0

1TABLE.OUTFAL*. -^ALYSIS - PCBs AT SCM PLANT 2 - TICL4 FACILI.SOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT - FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA.OIIIO

SOIL LOSS CUC EXCEEDANCE EROSION USLE USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGEU CHEMICAL COMPONENTS AREAS AREA LINE FACTOR LOSS YIELD CONC CONC CUG EXCEEDED?

(By Source Name) (acres) (tons/acre/yr) (tons/year) (tons/year) (rag/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

8 Total PCBs TiC14 Facility Outfall Area2SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.42SCM2.4

SubtotalTiCl4 Outfall (Non-CUG Exceedance Areas)

2.87970.032

0.08540.02130.06400.20272.6770

J5J5J5J5

J5

7.02147.02147.02147.0214

7.0214

0.220.600.150.45

18.80

0.220.600.150.45

18.80

31031

31031

0.563TIC14 Outfalls Sub-totals 20.22 7.87 3.10 Yes

SAMAZZOCCCAMREPORTVSECnONOTABLES\(EUCON3E4jaW]TiCM Page] ofl

IOaia6f

TABLE 6.8.8OUTFALL SCREENING FOR ARSENIC AT SCM PLANT 2 - TIO2 FACILITYSOURCE CONTROL OPERABLE UNIT • FIELDS BROOK SITEASHTABULA, OHIO


Arsenic

CUG EXCEEDANCEAREAS

(By Source Name)


USLE "A" SOIL SEDIMENT SEDIMENT COC SEDIMENT CUGFACTOR LOSS DELIVERY YIELD CONC. CONC. CUG EXCEEDED?

(lons/acre/yr) (tons/year) RATIO (tons/year) (mg/kg) (rag/kg) (mg/kg)

TiO2 Facility Outfall Area2SCM4

SubtotalTi02 Outfall (Non-CUG Exccedance Areas)

8.84940.2669 K30.26698.5825

0.5979

0.5979

0.16

5.13

0.21

0.21

0.03

1.08

35.8

16.55TiO2 Facility Outfall Sub-totals Lll 17.13 27.60

S:\BROOKFS\TM3\SUPPRIINJCLS\TiO2 Page 1 of 1 11/17/95

SOURCE CONTROL RI/FS OBJECTIVES:

• IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE SOURCES THAT COULD RECONTAMINATE FIELDS BROOKTO LEVELS RESULTING IN UNACCEPTABLE RISK

• IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE RESPONSE ALTERNATIVES THAT WILL PREVENT ORMITIGATE RECONTAMINATION TO UNACCEPTABLE L£VELS BY THESE SOURCES

IDENTIFICATION OFPOSSIBLE SOURCES

PHASE 0 DESCRIPTIONSPHASE I ANALYTICAL RESULTS

FIRST LEVEL SCREENINGOF SOURCES

DOES SOURCE EXIST?

YES

ARE ANY CHEMICALS OFCONCERN PRESENT IN THE SOURCE

IN EXCEEDANCE OF CUGa?

YES

IS THERE A COMPLETEPATHWAY .FROM SOURCE

TO BROOK?

YES

NO NO FURTHEREVALUATION OF

SOURCE


SOURCE


SOURCE

FOR CONTINUATION, SEE FIGURE 6.1-B

SOURCE CONTROL LOGIC DIAGRAMFIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA. OHIO

.M.jg DRAWN BY: R.A.M. CHECKED BY: M.L.S, PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3B09HI DATE: 1-12-94 FIGURE 6.1.1-A

Woodward-ClydeConsultants

FOR CONTINUATION. FIGURE 6.1 -A

FACILITY/SOURCESCONCEPTUAL MODELS

FOR COMPLETEPATHWAYS

ASSESSMENT OFRECONTAMINATION

POTENTIAL

MODEL TOPREDICT LOADINGTO FIELDS BROOK

FIELDDATA

MODELING

MODEL CUMULATIVE LOADINGTO FIELDS BROOK SEDIMENT

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __|

QQA-BPJ

COMPARE TO CUGs

WILL SOURCES RECONTAMINATEFIELDS BROOK TO AN UNACCEPTABLE

LEVEL IF NOT CONTROLLED OR REMEDIATED?

YES

DEVELOP SOURCE CONTROL/REMEDIAL RESPONSE OBJECTIVES

SOURCE CONTROL LOGIC DIAGRAM___ FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIO

DRAWN BY: OAS I CHECKED BY: JSL PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609LI DATE: 1-20-94 FIGURE 6.1.n,

Woodward-ClydeConsultants

SOURCEfS) RELEASEMECHANISM (1)

INFILTRATION/LEACHING

RUNOFF

MIXING WITHSURFACE SOIL

SECONDARYSOURCE

SUBSURFACESOILS

SURFACESOILS

RELEASEMECHANISM (2\

TRANSPORT

INFILTRATION/LEACHING GROUNDWATER

CONTAINMENT

SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT COLLECTION

TREATMENT

oo

I

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODELFIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA. OHIO

DRAWN BY: B.Mc I CHECKED BY: JSL I PROJECT NUMBER: B6C3609L I DATE: 1-20-94 IFIGURE 6.1.2

HOI-11

Woodward-Clyde

7PRIMARYSOURCE

T SEWER "1I SYSTEM[__ACME_4_ J

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

LEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND-

- - -"- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY— — — -]

| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN__ __ I

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.1-1ACME SCRAP AND METAL COMPANY (ACME)

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA. OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.Wl CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-11-94 |FIGURE NO: 6.1.3

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND CNVIRONMCNTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARY RELEASE SECONDARY RELEASE TRANSPORTSOURCE MECHANISM- 1 SOURCE MECHANISM 2 MEDIUM

— *- RUNOFF ————————————————————————————————————— -

COALSTOCKPILES -*-

CEI1

MIXING WITH SURFACE _ ^...^r- ' SURFACE _ COLLECTION/ _SURFACE SOILS SOILS "UNOrr *• WATER •- TREATMENT ~~

T POWERLINE "1 :

RIGHT OF WAYh*-

L CEI2 J———— ' ———— CEI2

ta MIXING WITH 1 ———————————————————————————— •-SOILS

1

^jp'^nRFAPF *J SUBSURFACE fc INFILTRATION/ GROUNDbUdbUKhALt. ^" cn|. ————— - , r-.nuiMr- ————— " mArro ——————————————————————————— ^5QIL5 SOIL LEACHING • WATER

————————————— LEGEND ——————————————

~ - -*" INCOMPLETE PATHWAYr~"~~"~~i| | NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERNL_____J

FIEL

DS

BRO

OK

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.2-1CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W) CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K j DATE: 4-6-94 (FIGURE NO: 6.1.4

CONCEPI/SU

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

MtHARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SEC, -ftARYSOURCE

EASEMECHANISM 2

TR/vMEDIUM

sr ES OFI FORMER TANKSlI DET18.23. f

LEGEND-

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY

NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.3-1DETREX CHEMICAL CORPORATION

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.Wl CHECKED BY: MIS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-11-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1.5

CONCFM/615

Woodward—Clyde Consultants'cntiMn IIMC fNfrniuH*. Arnifir.isif. AMI* invikoitui NIAI Sf:ifNTT:.f!i

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

SURFACESOILS

SUBSURFACESOIL

RUNOFF


SURFACEWATER

GROUNDWATER

y£>c><ti<^^

LEGEND-

- - -"- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY— — — ~1


CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.4-1ELKEM METALS COMPANY

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-11-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1.6

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

7PRIMARYSOURCE

I BRINE MUD \I STORAGE PILEL _ J-1H3— _ J

T CONCRETE-1I LINED PIT \L__L!I^L_ J

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND-

« INCOMPLETE PATHWAY,| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.5-1HANLIN GROUP, INC.

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K DATE; 4-6-94 |FIGURE NO: 6.1.7

CONCCPT/617Woodward-Clyde Consultants

CONSULTING ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LIME PONOWEST PONO

NORTH PONDKILLIN PONO

LTEC-1

LEGEND-

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY~1| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.6-1L-TEC WELDING AND CUTTING SERVICES

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABUU, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY; MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-6-94 1FIGURE NO: 6.1,8

CONCCPI/618

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING CNG1NECRS. GEOLOGISTS AND CNVIRONMCNTAl SC

PRIMARYSOURCE

yRELEASE

MECHANISM-1SECONDARY

SOURCERELEASE

MECHANISM 2

7TRANSPORT

MEDIUM


LEGEND-

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.7-1NORTH COAST AUTO CRUSHING

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABUU, OHIO

<•

DRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS I PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-6-94 IFIGURE NO: 6.1.9

eONCrPT/614

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING tNCINCfRS. CtOLOGtSTS AND ENVIRONMtNTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

SURFACESOILS RUNOFF

SUBSURFACESOIL

LEGEND-

---"- INCOMPLETE PATHWAYr* — — iI | NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.8-1OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.wl CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-11-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1.10

CONCCFT/6110

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINCCRS, GEOLOGISTS AND CHVIRONUCNTAL SCIENTISTS

•>•PRIMARYSOURCE

NORTH PONDS !1 OLIN1 h

(DECONTAMINATION!I PAD h|__jOLIN2__ J

T WASTE OIL ~1I STORAGE PAD hL _ —L—L — J

r WASTE DRUM"!I STORAGE PAD I1__OLIN_4__-_J—'

f "LAB "DRUM""!I WASTE STORACQIPAO & TOA & UCBl—t(UNLOADING AREAL_OLIN5j_ j

TDRUM WASTE"!I STORAGE AREA I—*-"L_OLIN_6_»_ J

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND•

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.9-1 P1VYGEN(FORMER TDI) FACILITYFIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIO

DRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO:6.1.11A

CONCm/filllA

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AMD ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

'EAST SOLAR'POND 1 —— *-]

[_ OIIN7 J

TOI RESIDUESOLIDSOLIN8

——— -

TDI RESIDUESTORAGE AREA

OLIN9— : — *-

MURIATIC ACID!LOADING AREAl —— "-

OLIN10 J

i —— fw —— 'PRODUCTION

& PURIFICATIONPLANT

——— -

L OLIN11 j

IDA "1

MIXING WITHSURFACE SOILS

i

— »- MIXING

————

WITHSOILS

1

MIXING WITHSUBSURFACE

SOILS

PURIFICATION I ——— "-1

COLUMNOLIN 1 2

^

SURFACESOILS

SUBSURFACESOIL

———— RUNOFF


————

————

SURFACEWATER

GROUNDWATER

k

1S3ak

LEGEND-

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAYn| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN


DRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO:6.I.11B

CONCCPT/fitllfl

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING tNCINCCRS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

•>•PRIMARYSOURCE

foiL STORAGEI TANK h(___ OLINU _ J

MCB TANK !OLIN2T r

TDA TANK !OLINJT p

TDI TANK !OLIN4T j

T SLOW-DOWN!I TANK h[___OLIN5T_J

_. — — _ — — —I SPENT CAUSTIC'I STORAGE TANKhL OLINGT J

•)•RELEASE

MECHANISM- 1SECONDARY

SOURCERELEASE

MECHANISM 2TRANSPORT

MEDIUM

LEGEND-

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


MIXING WITHSURFACE SOILS

, ,

MIXING WITHSOILS

SUBSURFACESOILS

———— ^

SURFACESOILS

SUBSURFACESOIL

———— ^-

RUNOFF


———— •».

SURFACEWATER

GROUNDWATER

FIEL

DS

BRO

OK

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.9-1T1VYGEN(FORMER TD!) FACILITYFIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIO

DRAWN BY: P.A.W| CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-6-94 IFIGURE N0:6.i.nc

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCOHSULTINC ENCINCCRS. CCOLOCI5T5 AND CHVIROHUCHtAL SCltNflSTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

SURFACESOILS

SUBSURFACESOIL

LEGEND ——

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY



DRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY; MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K DATE: 4-6-94

FIEL

DS

BRO

OK

FIGURE N0:6.1.110

Woodward-Clyde Consultants _CONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

I OLIN7T J

T PHOSGENE| TANK ,I OLIN8T j

FMURIATIC ACID!I TANK II OLIN9T J

f "RECYCLED" "II MCB TANK (-

L _ IHISJ— J

RELEASEMECHANISM- 1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND•

---•— INCOMPLETE PATHWAY

| | NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

FIEL

DS

BRO

OK

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.9-1T2VYGEN(FORMER TDI) FACILITYFIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIO

DRAWN BY: P.A.WJ CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-6-94 (FIGURE NO: 6. 1.1 IE

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

foRUM STORAGE!I AREA r[___PLC1__J

- - -»- INCOMPLETE PATHWAYI— — — — —)| | NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.10-1PLASTICOLORS

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C36Q9K I DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO: 6. 1.12

CONCfPt/61I?

Woodward-Clyde Consultants _CONSULTING tNCIHCERS, CtOLOClSTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

TPRIMARYSOURCt

RELEASEMECHANISM-

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

PONDED WATER/STAINED SOIL

ALONG N. COASTAUTO PROPERTY

LINENCA1

SURFACESOILS

LEGEND-

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY1| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

RMICONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.11-1

TITANIUM COMPANY EXTRUSION PLANT (RMIE)FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIO

DRAWN BY: P.A.Wj CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-6-94 IFICURE NO: 6.1.13

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

Ti BURNAREA A

L _ jwys, _ jI ENCLOSED"!| BURNING II DEVICE l~L RMIM8 j

NO BURNI AREA BI RMIM4 J

r N & S "II EFFLUENT PONDS hI RMIM1 J

I URINE PONDS !-•I RMIM2 J

T ACID BRINE "1I PONDS !-•t RMIM3 J

LANDFILL \RMIM7

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND-

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY"I| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.12-1RMI TITANIUM COMPANY METALS REDUCTION FACILITY (RMIM)

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W| CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1.14

CONCCPt/6114

Woodward— Clyde Consultants, TIMH rnr.Htttn*. r.rmor.isti AMO

> > )PRIMARY RELEASE: SECONDARY RELEASESOURCE MECHANISM- 1 SOURCE MECHANISM 2

f ~ CLOSED" "I| LANDFILL | ——— F~I

RMIS1 j

[~ SOIL "]I NE & NW OF I ——— —

L" RMIS4 j

f~ FORMER F!LL~]1 AREAS IN '1 VICINITY OF 1 ——— *-| WWT POND |

I WWT 1PONDS 1 & 2 ————

1 RMIS6* 1L _ _ — — — J

1 THERMAL IOXIDATION UNIT ——— *-

1 RMIS9 1

f" TREATMENT ~]1 AREA - 11 SODIUM | ——— •-| BURNING ]

1 ELECTROMET 1| POND | ——— "-1

I RMIS11 J

MIXING WITH _ SURFACE fc nnnnrr •_SURFACE SOILS SOILS KUNUI '

i .

MIXING WITH-*" SOILS

1 1

iim-nnrArr «- SUBSURFACE _ INFILTRATION/SOILS SOIL LEACHING

1 1

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

SURFACEWATER

GROUNDWATER

——— LEGEND- —————————————

^

HE

LDS

BR

OO

K

)

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.13-1ARMI SODIUM PLANT (RMIS)

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.WJ CHECKED BY: MLS | PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-11-94 (FIGURE NO: 6.1. ISA

CONCCPt/6111*

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING CNCINtrftS. GEOLOGISTS AND CHVlRONUtNTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

' FILL AREA — 'I NORTH or II wwi POND |L _ J!4!?±_ _ J

FILL AREAWEST OF I

WWT POND f_ R |S3_ j

WWT ~]PONDS 3.4.5 -

RMIS6«

I~SOUTH CHUTE"!I WASTE PILE hi RMIS8 J

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

MIXING WITHSUBSURFACE

SOILSSUBSURFACE

SOIL

LEGEND-

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY1| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.1 3-BRMI SODIUM PLANT (RMIS)

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.wJ CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K | DATE: 4-11-94 IFIGURE NO:6.i. i5B

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING fNCtHtrRS, CtOI OOifiTfi AND rHVIROtlMfHUl SC

0PRIMARYSOURCE

f "WA"STF RLE" "II

[~ "PRIMARY AND "]1 SECONDARYI SETTLING AND II HOLDING PONDS I\ NORTH HOLDING |i BASIN t^ 1SCM-1 J

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

SURFACESOILS

! INFILTRATION/"| LEACHING

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

J GROUND !^ WATER f-

LEGEND-

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


)

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.14-1SCM PLANT I

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.WI CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-11-94 FIGUR£ NO: 6.1.16

CONCm/6116

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING fNCtNttRS. GfOlOGISTS AND CHVIftOHUCNTAL SCtCNHSTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

r EXCAVATED 1I PCS SOILS r-L __ ?5E^zrL J

TN.S.E SETTLING!I PONDS I-L 2SCM-1 J

KLLIASUMECHANISM- 1

SLCONUAKYSOURCE

KtLEASEMECHANISM 2

IKANSPORTMEDIUM

^J GROUND !_^ WATER j"

- - —— INCOMPLETE PATHWAY

NO CONTAMINANTS OFCONCERN ABOVE CUGs

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.15-1SCM PLANT 2 (TiCU) FACILITY

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: M.R.R CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K DATE: 8-5-94 FIGURE NO: 6. 1.17

CONCCPT/6II7

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSUiriNC ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

"1PRIMARYSOURCE

)RELEASE

MECHANISM-SECONDARY

SOURCERELEASE

MECHANISM 2

)TRANSPORT

MEDIUM

SURFACEWATER

, GROUND*] WATER

LEGEND-

COLLECTION

TREATMENT

1

fc

1

8*

--—- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY(- — — — — 1| | NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.16-1SCM 2 (Ti 02) FACILITY

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.W CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K DATE: 4-11-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1. 18

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING tNCIHECRS. CCOLOOISTS AND ENVIRONUCNTAL SCICNTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

• DRUM ISTORAGE AREA-

I VYC5 'L_________I

I NEUTRAL- |IZATION PIT -

I VYG4 IL _ _ — __ J

I PRENEUTRAL- IIZATION PIT

MIXING WITHSURFACE

SOILS———— »» SURFACE

SOIL

! SUBSURFACE

L__S!!L__J

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

LEGEND-

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


b

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.17-1PVYGEN CORPORATION

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN UY: P.A.Wl CHECKED BY: MLS I PROJECT NUMBER; 86C3G09K I DATE: 4-11-94 IFIGURE NO:6.I.I9A

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING EHCIHECRS, GEOLOGISTS *NO tHVIRQNUCNtAL SCIENTISTS

7PRIMARYSOURCE

FORMER THF TANKSVYG1T

FINISH PVC TANKS

VA,TCE TANKSVYC3T

VCM TANKVYG4T

FORMER FUELOIL TANKS

H2S04 TANKVYG6T

VCM TANKVYG8T

L _ _ _ _ _ _ .r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ n

I UST GASOLINE I, VYG7T

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

MIXING WITHSURFACE

SOILS

SURFACESOIL RUNOFF

SUBSURFACESOIL


LEGEND•

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

SURFACEWATER

i ,

GROUNDWATER

FIEL

DS

BRO

OK

- INCOMPLETE PATHWAY}

| NO CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.17-1TVYGEN CORPORATION

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABUU, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.WI CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO:6.1.19B

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING [NCINEfRS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

PRIMARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM-1

SECONDARYSOURCE

RELEASEMECHANISM 2

TRANSPORTMEDIUM

GROUND LL_:A:EI_J

LEGEND-

1

INCOMPLETE PATHWAY


CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL 3.2.18-1CONRAIL

FIELDS BROOK - ASHTABULA, OHIODRAWN BY: P.A.Wl CHECKED BY: MLS PROJECT NUMBER: 86C3609K I DATE: 4-6-94 FIGURE NO: 6.1.20

CONCEPT/6120

Woodward—Clyde ConsultantsCONSULTING ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS

oDRAFT

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB's

ACMSD20AD20AS3100uft/kg Sample Location

Field IDTotal PCB's

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sBenzo(a)pyrene

ACMSS07AS07AS3200 ug/kg1500 UK/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sLead

ACMSS16AS16AS4 100 ug/kg66500 ug/kg

Sample locationMeld IDTotal PCB'sLead

ACMSS23AS23AS3000 ug/kg69900 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDI*ad

Sample LocationField IDLead

ACMSS22AS22AS58600 ug/kg

ACMSS22AS22AD50800 ug/kg

ACMSS03AS03AS8400 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sLead

ACMSS18AS18AS79500 ug/kg659000 ug/kg

Sample locationField IDBenzo(a)pyrene

ACMSSI4AS14AS6400 uft/kg

Sample LocationField IDDibenzo(a.h)anlhracene

ACMSS12AS12AS

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sDeo7.o(a)pyreDeLeadSample l^ocationI'iclJ IDTotal PCB'sBenzo(a)pyreneLead

ACMSS06AS06AS36000 ug/kg3100 ug/kg2560000 ug/kgACMSS06ASOftAI)34000 ug/kg1800 ug/kg1850000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDTola! PCB's

ACMSS05AS05AS21 90 ug/kg

O

Sample: Sedimen!Sample: Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (1 in = 450 ft)

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sBenzo(a)pyreneLeadSample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sBenzo(a)pyreoeLead

ACMSS19AS19AS3800 ug/kg1600 ug/kg824000 ug/kgACMSS19AS19AD16900 ug/kg1900 ug/kg779000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'sI lexachlorobenzcneLead

ACMSS09AS09AS4 1000 ug/kg14000 ug/kg8020000 ug/kg

Note: Arsenic Pjcoeedance Bused on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)500 1000

Figure 6.3.1.1Compounds Detected in Surface Soil and Sediment

Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsAcme Scrap Iron and MetalRelds Brook Phase I SCRI

Ashtabula, Ohio

DRAFT

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2,2-Tetnchloroelhtne

ACMSB03AB03FD120000 tig/kg

O Boring(V Monitoring Well ,

Woodward-Clyde Consultants________ft (Up-450n)________

0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exoeedince Based on 27,600 ug/Vg (Background)

Figure 6.3.1.2Compounds Detected In Subsurface Soil

Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsAcme Scrap Iron and MetalRelds Brook SCRI Phase I

March 2.1994

DRAFT

Sample LocationField IDArsenic

CEISS06BS06AS33500 wg/ks

CEI-2 Elkem Metals

RM1 Sodium


CEISS03DS03AD81200 og/Vg

O Sample: Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultants______ft (lio = 100Qft)______

\ i g^^^S0 1000 2000

Nolet Arsenic Cxceedance Based oo 27,600 og/kg (Daclcground)

N-

Elkem Metals

Vygen Facility (Former TDi Facility)

SCM Plant 2 - Ti02 Figure 63.1.3Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater than

USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsCleveland Electric Illuminating Company

Relds Brook SCRI Phase IMarch 2,1994

Simple LocationField ID1, 1,2,2-Tetracbloroelhine

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2,2-Telrichloroelhane

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzene

DETSBI5CBI5CS140000 ug/ka

DE13B15CB15CD200000 ug/kg

DSTSB15CB15HS68000 ug/kg

Sample LocationHeld ID1,1,2,2-Telrachloroe thane

DETSB05CB05HS120000 ug/kg DRAFT

Simple LocationHeld IDHexachlorobenzene

Sample Local! onField IDHexachlorobenzene

DGTSD05CD05ES45000 ug/Vg

DETSD05CD05ED280000 us/kg N -

Simple LocationField ID1,1,2,2-TclrachIoroc thaneTetrachloroetheoe

DETSBI9CB19ES420000 ng/kg770000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2,2-TetnchlofoelhaneHexachlorobenzene

DETSD08CD08HS170000 ug/kg59000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDI,l*2i2-Tetrtch)oroelhaneSample LocationField ID1 , 1 ,2,2-Te tnchloroethane

DETSB08CB08ES160000 og/kgDETSD06CB08ED270000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDI Icxichlofobcnzeo*

DET3D10CBIOES15000 uttAg

Sample LocationField IDHexichlorobenzene

DETSB06CB06GS90000 ng/kg

Staple LocationField ID1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroc thaneHex ichlo robe nreneSimple LocationField IDTelrachloroetbeneHexichlorobenzene

DETSB07CB07ES680000 ug/kg69000 ug/Vg

DETSD07CB07ED930000 ug/kg71000 ng/kg

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2, 2-TetracbJoroe thineHexachlorobenzene

DETSB07CB07HS140000 ug/kg52000 og/Vg

0 Boringft Monitoring Well

Woodward-Clyde Consultants____n (i in=500 n)____0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceedance Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Sample LocationField IDHexacbtorobenzeoeSnmplo IxicalionField IDHexichlorobenzene

DBTSB09CB09DS18000 ng/kgDBTSB09CB09DD19000 ug/kg


DETSB12CBI2BS10000 ug/kg

Figure 6.3.1.4Compounds Detected in Subsurface Soil

Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsDetrex Corporation FacilityFields Brook SCRI Phase I

March 2,1994

~)DRAFT

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobe nzene

DETSS04CS04AS340000 UR/kg

Sample LocationField IDToUlPCB'a

DETSSI3CS13AS40400 UR/VR


Woodward-Clyde Consultants______ft (lln*500ft)______

0 500 1000

Hote: Ancnic Exceedance Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzene

DGTSS12CS12AS110000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCB'«

DETSS23CS23AS28000 ug/kg4800 tig/kg

Sample LocationHeld IDHeuchlorobeazeneTotal PCB't

DETSS17CS17AS950000 ng/kg23000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobeozeneArsenicSample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneArsenic

DEISS20CS20AS62000 ug/kg46700 UR/kRDBTSS20CS20AD26000 ug/kg39400 ug/kg

Figure 6.3.1,5Compounds Detected in Surface Soil

Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsDetrex Corporation FacilityRelds Brook SCR! Phase I

March 2,1994

DRAFT

MoniloringWtll DCTMW05S

Monitoring Well DETMW08S

Boring | DETSB19SI

MoniloringWtll |PETMW06S|

Sample LoalioaHeld ID1,1,2,2-TetnchlonxlhaaeTetrtchloroelheoeTrichloroetheoeHexichlorobenzeneHexachlorobutidieneHexachloroethane

DETMW07SCG07DS260000000 ug/145000000 ugfl290000000 ug/14«00000«g/l8500000 «g/l20000000 ug/1

- N -i

O Boring?} Monitoring Well

Woodward-Clyde Consultants_______ft (lia«500fl)_______

0 500 1000Nole; Anenic Exceedaace Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Dackgrouod)

Note: Monitoring Wells DETWM05S, DETMW06S. DETMW07S,DETMW08S, and Soil Boring DETSB19 contain DNAPL

Figure 6.3.1.6Compounds Detected In Groundwater Greater than

U§EPA 11/01/93 Clean UD GoalsDetrex Corporation FacilityFields Brook SCRI Phase I

March 2,1994

DRAFT

ESAB Welding


Woodward-Clyde Consultantsn ( i in = soon)

soo 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceedince Dased on 27,600 ug/Vg (Background)

Figure 6.3.1.7Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater than

Greater than LJSEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsHanlln Group (LCP)

Relds Brook SCRI Phase IMarch 2.1994

DRAFT

OLIN2

Vygen Corporation


OLISS15IS 15 AS30300 us/kg

© Sample: SedimentO Simple: Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultants____________ft (Ha = 3500)____________\fm^^mm^mmm^m^m^!^mm^^mmimmH^S0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceed a nee Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

OLIN1

OLIN3

OLIN4

OLIN6

CEI tN-


OUSS10IS10AS61600 uRAfi

Figure 6.3.1.8Compounds Detected In Surface Soil and Sediment

Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsVygen Facility (Former TDI Facility)

Fields Brook SCRI Phase IMarch 2.1994

DRAFT~)

RMIS2

Occidental

Simple LocationField IDAisenle

RMSSS06MS06AS36600 UR/Vg

O Simple: Sorfcce Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultants_____n (iin»65on)_____

0 500 1000 1500

Nole: Ancoic Exceedince Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

CEI

t

Simple LocationHeld IDAfsenlc

RMSSS10MS10AS31500 ng/kg

Detrex

RMIS11

Figure 6.3.1.9Compounds Detected in Surface Soil Greater

than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsRMI Titanium Company Sodium


DRAFT


SC1SD03ND03DS28700 ug/kg

<V Monitoring Well

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsn (iio

t• N -

1SCM3

1SCM4

o soo 1000 isooNote: Arsenic Exceedance Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Figure 6.3.1.10Compounds Detected In Subsurface Soil Greater than

USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsSCM - Plant 1

Fields Brook SCRI Phase IMarch 2,1994

DRAFT

Sample LocatioaField IDTotal PCB's

SCCSS05OS05AS807000 ug/kg

Simple Local ionField IDTotal PCB's

SCCSS06OS06AS8840 ug/kg Detrex

Sample LocationHeld IDTotal PCB'i

SCCSS13OS13AS7320 tig/kg





State Road _„


Woodward-Clyde Consultants_______ft (1 in » 300 ft)_______

0 200 400 600

Note: Arsenic Exceedanoe Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

f

Sample LocatioaField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCB's

SCCSS11OS11AS65000 ug/kg623000 «g/kg

N-lSample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCS'*

Simple LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCB'i

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneTotal PCB's

SCCSS07OS07AS26000 ug/kg601000 ug/kg

SCCSS08OS08AS40000 ug/Yg28000 ug/Vg

SCCSS08OS08AD39000 ug/kg32000 ug/kg

VygenSample LocationField IDHcxacDlorobcnzeneTotal PCB't

SCCSS09OS09AS28000 ug/kg77000 ng/kg

Figure 63.1.11Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater than

USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsSCMPIant2-TlCI4


DRAFT

Detrex

State Road

Middle Road

ft Monitoring Well

Woodward-Clyde Consultants____n (Una 300 n>_____

0 200 400 600

Note: Anenic Exceedtoce Dued on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

N -1Simple LocationField IDTotal PCB's

SCCSB03OB030S360000 ug/kg

Vygen

Figure 6.3.1.12Compounds Detected In Subsurface Soil Greater than

USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsSCMPIant2-TICI4

Fields Brook SCRI Phase IMarch 2( 1994

DRAFT

Vygen

SCMPIant2-TICI4

Acme Scrap Iron and Metal



____n (i in«soon)

0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceedance Dased on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

2SCM4

Sample LocationField IDAnenle

SCOSS14PSI4AS57300 ag/kg

Sample LocationField IDArtenic

SCOSSUPS 14 AD69200 ugAg

Figure 6.3.1,13Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater

than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsSCM Plant 2-T102 FacilityRelds Brook SCRI Phase I

March 2,1994

SCMPIant2-TiCI4


SCOSS15PS15AS13.9mK/kR

Acme

t•Ni

Sample LocationField IDAisenic

SS18PS18AS35.8 me/kg


SCOSS20PS20AS30.8 rag/kg


Woodward-Clyde Consultants______ft (lin*500ft)


SCOSS19PSI9AS17.3 rag/kg

Figure 6.3.1.13AResults of Additional SamplingSCM Plant 2 - TiO2 FacilityFields Brook Phase I SCRi

DRAFT

• N -

Sample LocationField IDBen7o(a)pyrenc

SEWS DOSZD05AS5400 ug/kg

SEWSD06ZD06AS800000 ug/kg440000 ug/kg4600000 ug/kg11000 ug/kg5800000 ug/kg6400000 ug/kg6400000 ug/kg450000 ug/kg700000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2,2-Telrachlofoethane1,1-DichloroethentTetrachloroetheneBeozo(a)pyreneHexachlofobeozcoeHexachlorobutadieoeHe xichloroe thaneHeptachlorgamma-DHC (Uodane)

SQWSDCMZD04AS1900 ug/kg20000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDDeuzo(a)pyreneHexacbJorobeozene

SEWSD04ZCXMAD3900 ug/kg

Sample LocationField ID

I lexachlofohen/cne

Sample: Sediment

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsn ( i i o

Residential Industrial

2000 4000Note: Arsenic Fjtcecdnnce Hastd on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Figure 6,3.1,14Compounds Detected in Sediment Greater than

USEPA 08/03/93 Clean Up GoalsStorm Sewer Sediment

Fields Brook SCRI Phase IApri!12,1993

DRAFT

Sample LocationField IDArsenicLead

NCASS05OS05AS60600 ug/kg695000 ug/kg

o

RM1 Extrusion

Sample LocationHeld IDTotal PCD'sArsenic

NCASS02GS02AS7900 ug/kg70300 ug/kg

SCMPIant2-TlC14 t• N -

Acme Scrap iron and Metal

RMI Metals ReductionO Sample: Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsn

Sample LocationField IDArsenicBeryllium

NCASS04GS04AS91200 ug/kg3600 ug/kg

0 200 400

Note: Arsenic Excee dance Based OQ 27,600 ug/kg (Back ground)


than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsNorthcoast Auto CrushingRelds Brook SCRI Phase I

March 2.1994

DRAFT

Sample LocationToUlUSample LocationTotal U

Swale149.0 pCi/gSwile91.90 pCi/g

Sample LocationTotal U

Seepage Pood136,0 pCi/R SCM

Seepage Pond


^ Monitoring Well© Sample: SedimentD Sample: Water

Woodward-Clyde Consultants_________ft (1 In a 400 H)________

500

tN-

SCMPIant2-TICI4

Northcoast Auto Crushing

1000

Figure 6.3.1.16Total Uranium Detected In

SedimentGreater than USEPA Clean Up Goals

RMI Titanium Company ExtrusionRelds Brook SCRI Phase I

March 29,1994

DRAFT

SCM

Sample LocationField IDHexachlorobenzeneArsenic

RMESS03KS03AS91000 ug/kg41000 og/kg

Mitchell Transport

t• N -

SCMPIant2-TiCI4

Northcoast Auto Crushing


O Sample; Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (I in = 400 ft)

r ———*!^^_____I0 500 1000

Hole: Arsenic Exceedance Based on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Figure 6.3.1.17Compounds Detected in Surface Soil

Greater than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsRMI Titanium Company Extrusion


DRAFT

RMI Extrusion


RMMSSC9LS09AS6890 ug/kg

Refuse Equipment

RMIM7O Sample: Surface Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultants__________ft (Up ° 400 ft)__________

0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceedaoce Dased on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

N-iAcme Scrap Iron and Metal

Figure 6.3.1.18Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater

than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsRMI Titanium Company Metals Reduction


t• N -

Sample LocationField IDDenzo(a)pyreneDC nzo(b)QuonotheoeArsenic

CONSS03TS03AS3000 ug/kg18000 og/kg38 100 ug/kg

Simple LocationField IDBenzo(a)pyfeneAneoic

CONSS12TS12AS1900 ug/kg62000 ug/kg



Woodward-Clyde Consultants_______ft (1 ins450n)_______

0 500 1000

Note: Arsenic Exceedance Dased on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

Sample LocationField IDBenzo(a)pyrene

CONSS13TS13AS2700 ug/kg

CONSS11TS11AS


CONSS08TS08AS1800 ng/kg

CONR1Sample LocationField IDBenzo(a)pyreneArsenic

CONSS07TS07AS3300 ug/kg33200 ug/kg

Sample LocationField IDAnenic

CONSS09TS09AD48000 tig/kg

Sample LocationField IDAnenicLead

CONSS091309 AS48900 ug/kg664000 ug/kg

Figure 6.3.1.19Compounds Detected In Surface Soil Greater

than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsConrail Property


DRAFT

Sample LocationField IDBeazo(a)pyrtneAne oie

CONSD05TBOSBS3300ttg/kg47300 UR/VR

Sample LocatiooField IDAfseoie

CONSB05TB05BD51500 og/kg

CONR1

CD Boring<V MonlloringWetl

Woodward-Clyde Consultants________ft ( l ln«450n) _____

0 500 1000

Note: Anetuc Exceedaooe Based on 27,600 ugAg (Background)

Figure 6.3.1.20Compounds Detected In Subsurface Soil Greater

than USEPA11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsConrail Property


DRAFT


Woodward-Clyde Consultants_______n (1 in a 300 R)_______

0 200 400 600

Note: Arsenic Uxceeilnace llascd on 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

t• Ni

RMI Extrusion

Simple LocationField IDTotal PCB'tBeryllium

MTRSSOlUS01AS29000 og/kg3lOOuR/kg


than USEPA 08/03/93 Clean Up GoalsMitchell Transport


~)tN-i

MTRSSQ3

MTRSS02

MTRSS04US04AS0.130 mg/kg0.960 mg/kg

Sample LocationField IDTotal PCD'sBeryllium

RMI Extrusion

MTRSSOl

'oI,

o — —Sample LocationField IDTotal PCB'iBeryllium

MTRSS05US05ASNDl.TOmft/kg


Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (linn300ft)

Sample Local ionField IDTotal PCB'iBeryllium

MTKSS06US06AS4.60 mg/kg1.000 mg/kg

200 400 600

Figure 6.3.1.21A

Results of Additional SamplingMitchell Transport

Fields Brook Phase I SCRlAshtabula, Ohio

DRAFT

- N

Figure 6,3.1.22Compounds Detected in Surface Soil

Greater than USEPA 11/01/93 Clean Up GoalsReese Machine Facility


Sample LocationField IDBenzo(a)pyreoe

RESSS01WS01AS2000 ug/kg


Woodward-Clyde Consultants______ft (Itn«l50n)______

0 100 200 300

Note; Anenic Exceedaoce Dased oa 27,600 ug/kg (Background)

N-

I

RESSS01

Q-

Sample LocationField IDBcnzo(i)pyreoe


RESSS02WS02AS1300uR/kg

RESSS02WS02ADIPOOug/kg

O Sample: Sur&ce Soil

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsft (1 in « 150 ft)

100 200 300

Figure 6.3.1.22A

Results of Additional SamplingReese Machine Facility

Relds Brook Phase I SCRIAshtabula, Ohio

DRAFT

SEWSD06ZD06AS800000 ug/kg440000 ug/kg4600000 ug/kg11000 ug/kg5800000 ug/kgMOOOOO ug/kg6400000 ug/kg450000 ug/Vg700000 ug/kg

SEWSD05ZD05AS5400 ug/kg

Sample LocationField ID

Sample LocationField ID1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroe th a ne1,1-DicbloroetheoeTetracbloroetheneDco7.o(i)pyrcDCHexachJorobenzeaeHexachlorobutadicncHexachloroctbaoeHeplachlorgamma-BHC (Uodaoe)

SEWSD04ZD04AS1900 ug/kg20000 un/kg

Simple LocationField ID.Beozo(>)pyreneHexachlorobenzeoe

SEWSD04ZD04AD3900 ug/kg13000 ug/kg

Sample LocationField ID6eazo(a)pyreneHexachlombcnr.cnc

0 Sample: Sediment


Residential IndustrialFigure 6.3.1.23

Compounds Detected in Sediment Greater thanUSEPA 08/03/93 Clean Up Goals

Storm Sewer SedimentFields Brook SCRI Phase I

* _ .!! 4 ft 4 ri

Sub-basin Boundary

TllDBLE ROAD—

Legend:

FadJity Stonnwatcr(Collection area foroutfall discharge)

Approximate area ofsurface soil secondarysource (exact source areais COC-spedfic)

Facility StormwaterCollection Area

Acme Scrap Iron andMetal Company

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsContmung Engineer*. G*ok»9«u

•nd Enwronffwntil SotntrttsBaton Roug*. Lov**na

SCALE:r -300-

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY-

DATE:DATE:

Fields BrookAshtabula, Ohio

Source Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

FIG. NO.

6.4.1

Facility Stormwater(Collection area foroutfall discharge)

Approximate area ofsurface soil secondarysource (exact source areais COC-specific)


Detrex Corporation

Woodward-Clyde Consultants — Consulting Engm**f*. G«o*O9«u fL^tk

and Envtfonrrwniil Scwntists ^^^^JBaton Rouo*. Lou«<ana ^^^

SCALE:1" -30CT

DRAWN BY: Vfl OAT£: -^/14



FILE NO.

S4C3609

FIG. NO.

6.4.2

Watershed Boundary

Levend:

Facility Stonnwater(Collection area foroutfall discharge)

No Secondary Source

Facility StonnwaterCollection Area

Occidental ChemicalCorporation

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Enginwrt. G*O*OQ*U

•nd Environmental ScwnMtsBtton Rou9t.

SCALE:r -SOD-

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY: Cc

DATE:DATE:



**>FIG. NO

6.4.3

Sub-basin Boundary

Leeend:


No Secondary Source


RMI Titanium CompanyExtrusion Facility

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsand Env*onm*ntal ScwntiSU

B«ton HouQ*.

SCALE:r -xxr

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY: CCu"5

DATE:DATE:



RMb-METALSREDUCTION

Sub-basin Boundary




RMI Titanium CompanyMetals Reduction Facility

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Eflgm*«n. G*o>og*u

and Environmental ScwmrtttBaton Rouga.

SCALE:r « 3

DRAWN BY: YQCHKD. BY:

DATE: 4 MI-DATE: <\ I CV4^



FIlP N'

FIG. NO.

6.4.5

Sub-basin Boundary

Facility Slormwiier(Collection irei (oroutfall dischtr|c)

No Secondary Source

Scale 1" = 468'FicUity Seocmwiler

Collection Ai e«


Wootfwird-Oydt ContuHtnli

Fields BrookAsh tabu la, Ohio

RMI Tiliniura CorapioxSodium Ftcility

Sub-basin Boundary

Scale 1" = 468'Facility Slornwiler

Collection Area

Facility Slormwaicr(Collection area foroutfall discharge)

No Secondary Source


Fields BrookAshlahula, Ohio

'~'

SCM Plant 1




SCM Plant 2 (TiCl.)Facility

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ~*^Concufimg Engineers. Gaotogitu mJijA

and Environmental Scientists V^^^^B*lOfl flowp*. Louvana ^^^

SCALE:!• -300"

DRAWN BY: ydCHKO BY- Ol »»—

DATE: 4\*4DATE' ^ / ^ M



FILE NO.

S6O609

FIG. NO.

6.4.8

Sub-basin Boundary


Approximate area ofsurface soil secondaiysource (exact source areais COC-specific)


SCM Plant 2 (TiOj)Facility

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsContuttmg Engmwr*. Gftotogtsu

mnO Environmental ScMnunsBcton Rowg*. tou«i*n«

SCALE:r »3o

DRAWN 9Y: Vb!CHKD. BY: rr w->

DATE:DATE U



FILE NO

FIG. NO.

6.4.9

' Sub-basin Boundary

Legend:


No Secondary Source


Vygen Corporation

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Consulting £ng<n««rv G*otO94U JK^^fc

•nd Environmental Scientists ^^^^VBcion Roufp. Lounisn*

SCALE;r -300-

DRAWN BY: VUCHKD. BY: CC«-i>

DATE; 4/^^-DATE- -4 I^V



FILE NO.

K6C3609

FIG. NO.

6.4.10

LEGEND

Kx- Shallow GroundwilerContours in fell MSL•i of July 1993

^ Direction ofGroundwiicr Flow

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-buln J


Fields BrookAshlabula, Ohiolla,Oim

DHAPL Plunw In Oroundwtlw «t CMr«i

SOURCE CONTROL PHASE IREMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

ConiulUnU

FIELDS BROOKASHTADULA. OHIO

RARIN MAP * * .

Source: Wischmeler, W.H. (1976). 'Control of Water Pollution from Cropland.Volume II: Overview"; Chapter 3: Cropland Erosion and Sedimentation,prepared under an Interagency Agreement with the Office of Researchand Development. EPA, EPA-600/2-75-026b.


Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting EngnMrs. Gtotoglsti

and EnvtronnwnUI ScientistsBaton Roug*. Louisiana

FELDS BROOKASHTABULA, OHIO

NA occKEDav:3/94

86C3600AVERAGE ANNUAL VALUES OF THE

RAINFALL-EROSMTY PARAMETER, El 6.5.2

FIGURE 6.5.8CORRELATION OF METERED FLOW RATE AND TSS MEASUREMENTS

REACH 5-11'IKLDS BROOK SOURCE CONTROL UI/I-S

ASIITABULA.OIIIO

25

20

10

10 12 14 16 1H 20 22 24

Discharge (eft)

26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Page I 6/20/94

Figure 6.7.1Relationship Between Drainage Area and Sediment Delivery Ratio

Graph based on tabulated data presented by Stewart et al. (1975)u.o -

0 45 -V«~T»i*

*c

olii rt OC

oco

it•° 0 2510

DCw** 02-VQ*-•c 0 1 5 -E

•O0>

*0 rt 1 .U. I

0.05

n .

x^^\

NV"X sx, *s

^ ^" ,

"X^X.

"XX.

^"X -4 h

^ ^ l i — — —x.x. •

X.ss,

> ^s

X- I I ^ ^

X"N

*xV-1 s h

N1 .

Xw-•— 1 1 —

'Xfc,Xj

" ^x,

5 v h

0.01 0.1 1 10

Drainage Area (Square Miles)

100 1000

CCWARREN\EXCEL\FIELDSBK\* 8^94

So* CoMCtvHlMi Stivin M< OW» Dcyi. •( NMMl KcaMmc >br

Scale 1" = 468*Source Control Phase IRe me dill Investigation

Fields BrookAshtibula. Ohio

Watershed Sub^osia F Soil Survey Map

~>

No n erosion a I Area

cale: 1" - 468'Watershed Sub-basin I7

Source Control Phase 1Remedial Investigation

Fields BrookAshiabula, Ohio

Cover and Management ("C*) Factor Map U a t-f

Scale 1" = 468'Source Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

Woodwinf-Ctyd* Contult*nt>


Watershed Sub-basin F Topographic Map

Scale 1" = 468'Source Control Phase IRemedial Investigation


Watershed Sub-basin F Liaci Used For USLE Leogdi-SlopeFactor Calenlatloai

PsB

Ct

m K a 0.37

PsB

c-t

Scale: 1" - 468'Watershed Sub-bum A

sounce CONTTIOL PHASE iREMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONWoodwird-Clyd* Consultant*

FIELDS BROOKASHTABULA. Ol HO

Soil Survey Map66C36OO

- j )

Source: Soil Survey - Ashtabula County, US. Dept. of Agriculture.Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin B

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Consulting Engineers. G«o<ogi«t« ^K^R

and ErtviTDnnwnui Scwnnu V^^^^Baton flouQt. Louttuna ^^^

SCALE:I* - 300»

DRAWN BY: >IXCHKO. BY- CCLO

DATE: ^/^4-DATE- U(c,U.

Fields BrookAshtabula, OhioSource Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

Fll •- "

i*^S

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-8

Sourte: Soil Survey - Ashtabula County, U.S. Dept.'of Agriculture,Soil Conservalion Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin C

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting £ngin«*n.

andBaton Rougi. Loumant

SCALE:r -xxrDRAWN BY:CHKD BY-

DATE:


FILE NO.

(60609

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-C

Source: Soil Survey • Ashtabula Counry, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin D

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCorwunmg EnpiMcn. G«OK>QWU

•no Environmental SewntnuBaton Rou9«, LCMMA*

SCALE:r -?

DRAWN BY: ytit. DATE:DATE:


FILE

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-0

Sown: Soil S.m* - A*M»bnU COMM*. U.S. Oipl.

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin E

Source Control Pliaic IRemedial Investigation

Fields DrookAibtabula. Ohio

"_ _[CXO>I»*T ft"* ^"* 4*4

Soil Survey Map55?

• »>-<

taunt: SoJ S«rv»» . Aih *ti«fy. L'A Dtp*. «f ApfcvMwra,«M Ohw Dtp*. g| N

Scale I11 = 468'Watershed Sub-basin G

Source Control Phue IRemedial Investigation

Fields OrookA^htabula. Ohio

Soil Survey Map

I

Sovirc: Soil S.MV - A*k"b.li Cowiiy, LM D<p«-«« Apwvtwt.SoJ CDMMMIM* S*rvK* **4 Okw Dtp*. •* Niivnl KUMICU. Mi* tf n

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-bis in II

Source Conlrol Phase IRemedial Invciiigaiion

Fields DrookAsbubula, Ohio

Soil Survey Map

Source Soil Survey - Ashtabula County, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin I

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsContaining Gngin«m. Gtdogins

and Emtronnwtui SewnMUBaton ftoug*. Lowwna

SCALE:r »3o

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY: CClO

DATE:DATE:



F1LF N~

FIG. NO.

e.5.3-1

Source Coout)! Phase IRemedial Investigation

Scale 1" = 468'Watenhed Sub-basin J

fed Suvr> - AtM 1(1*1* CAMM*. US. Ckf«. W Apmhtin.S.-4 CwiM(*«iHMi H(VKt t*4 OhM Ihpc •( N*i«nl KIMWKU. M«* I»7J.

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-bum K


Fields DfookAshtabula, Ohio

Soil Survey Map

Source: Soil Survey - Ashtabula County, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin L

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting

•no Environments ScwntntsBaton AouQ*. touo*»n*

SCALE:1- -MO-

DRAWN SY:CHKD. BY- Cf Hi

DATE:DATE:


FILE NO

16O605

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-C

Source: Soil Survey - Ashtabula County, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin M

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting EngmMrt. G*otogtata

»na Envwonmtnui SawttiroBaion Rouge. U>u«iwia

SCALE: DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY-

DATE:DATE:


FILE NOif

FIG. NO.

0.5.3-M

Source: Soil Survey - Ashtabula County.U.S. Dept, of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service andOhio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin N

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCon*urtm9 Engirt**?*. G«otogi*u

•no Environmental ScB*ion Aou9*.

SCALE:r » 300-

DRAWN BY: YQCHKD BY- CC

DATE:DATE:


FILE NO.

S6C3609

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-N

Source: Soil Survey - Ash tabu la County, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources. May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin O

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsCofuunmg Engmawm. G«otogists

ana Environment*! Sci«msttBaton Rou9*.

SCALE;r •SCO-

DRAWN BY: YGCHKD BY- Cr t-O

DATE: 3/4 +DAT6:


FILE NO

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-O

Source: Soil Survey - Ash tabu la County, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service and Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, May 1973.

Watershed Sub-basin P

Soil Survey Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Enqm««n. G«o*ognu

ana Environment*! ScwntntsBnon Rou?*. LOuai*ru

SCALE:I' » SOT

DRAWN BY:CHKD BY-

DATE:


FILE NO.

UC3609

FIG. NO.

6.5.3-P

Sowitt: $«| S,nr,, Aiki.k.U OMitn. UJ. Dtp*, ef A«nnilni«,Sort CoMtmmo S*mn «n4 Ofci* O»(X. ft NwMtl KcMwm*. Mn I

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-buin Q

Source Control Phue IRemediaJ Investigation

Fields BrookAshlabult. Ohio

Soil Survey Map

Soil SUM* . AiMiftnli Co>niy. UJ. Dipt. »f Apwvhvn,Soil OxiumiKM S*rvw« «J Otutt Of pc of Ntnnl Kumnu. Mi* |f >}.

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin R


Fields DrookAihUbula, Ohio

Soil Survey Map

Match Line

toon*! (ml **ntf . Athtikvta Catiaf, U S. Dtp. W A|iiraM*n.

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin RSource Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

Wootfw«rd-Cfyd« Con«ufl*

Fields DrookAshtabula. Ohio

Soil Survey MapiSoS*

193-fl

Scale: 1" - 468'Watershed Sub-basin A

SOURCE CONTROL PHASE IREMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONWoodward-CIyd* Coniullanlt

12*1- wt»,• • ihown OVOID**

FCLDS BROOKAStfTABULA. OHIO

B6C3609•«w

Covtr ind Mintgcmcnl fC*) Faclor Mip


Cover and Management("C") Factor Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Engm««n. G*o*oquti

and EnvwDnnwntal ScitntrstsBtton flow9«.

SCALE:I- - 300-

DRAWN BY: T-=VCHKD BY- f

DATE: •*/<?*/DATE'


FIG. NO.

6.5.4-B



Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Engineer*. Geologist*

*nd Environmental ScientistsBiion Houg«.

SCALE:r -3o

DRAWN BY: 7VU/CHKD BV

PATH:DATE:


FILE NO.

16O609

FIG. NO.

6.5.4-C



Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Enginwn. 0*010901*

•nd EmnronfTwntaJ ScBaton Roue*.

SCALE:1* -300*

DRAWN BY:CHKO. BY'

DATE:DATE: ) q


FIG. NO.

6.5.4-O

Noncrosional Area

Watershed Sub bairn 1:

Source Conirol I'liRemedial Inveiligalion

Helils llrookAshlatnita, ()tiii>

t-M

In. -I

Scale T •= 468'Watershed Sub-twin G

Noncrosional Area

Source Control I'lme IRemedial Invcstigaiion

fields llronk

»,y|(>«(*i**> r ( <•• '«'»OKI'| I "*^*c*—— . ——— !_._ ..._J' -U II I —— --.f^f

Cnvci »ni| MinjgfmE I'jclof Mjp U S *H

i !

Noncrosional Area

Scale: r = 468*Watershed Sub-basin II

Source Control Phase IRemedial Inveitigaiion

l-'ielih IIrookAihubula. Ohio

I'uvtr ami Minaecmeni (*t-~) l:«loi



Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConaumng Engmvvn. G«o»og»u

nment SewnutuAoug*. Uiu«t«na

SCALE:T -300"

DRAWN BY:CHKO. BY:

DATE:DATE: A IQ <t



Source Control I'liase IKemctlial Investigation

Scale: 1" - 468Wtierjhcd Suh-ha^n J

*^Pields BrookAshlabtila, Ohio

( .•i.Ji'i.r/. I0**! "/'i ]iir"'— __ .._ _*- ._ _ >, „..-l.^^__anil Mafiaftcmcnl ("(."} r*ctnr Map U i « - j

L(

Noncrosional Area

Watershed Sub-buin K

Scale T - 468'

Source Control I'liuc IKemedial Investigation

FieltU llfookAlhlalmla, Ohio

ior M*p

Nonerosional Area



Woodward-Clyde Consultantsi. G#ooqou

SCALE:r - 300- DRAWN BY:CHKD

DATE,DATE" <*


FILE NO.

I4O609

FIG. NO.

Watershed Sub-basin M


Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting EngmMft. G«otO9«u

and Environmental ScwnitttlSaion Roug«. Louwtana

SCALE:1- -30CT

DRAWN BY: TVIVCHKO. BY- CCtO

DATE:DATE:


FILE

FIG. NO.

0.5.4-W

Nonerosional Area


Cover and Management("CT) Factor Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting €nq*

SCALE:1" * JOT

DRAWN BY:CHKD BY-

DATE:DATE:


FILE NO

S6O6O9

FIG. NO.

8.5.4-N

Watershed Sub-basin OCover and Management

("C") Factor Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultantsj Scwntnti

Baton ROUQI. LXM«I«'X«

Nonerosional Area

Fields BrookAshtabula, OhioSource Control Phase IRemedial Investigation | e.s.4-

FlG.

Nonerosional Area

Watershed Sub-basin P

Cover and Management("C*) Factor Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Conaunmq Erxym««ra. G»o>OQ«u JBL^^

*na £m*ronm*mil Scwntou ^^^^VB*ion ROUQ*. Lou«**n«

SCALE:1- - WO*

DRAWN BY: /•£{>/CHKD BY" CCuJ)

DATE: V/«?VDATE" <1 fCO-


FILE NO

S6O609

FIG. NO

8.5.4-P

Noncrosional Area

_c c Scale: I' - 468'Watershed Sub-basin Q


Fields It rookMhuliula, Ohio

Match Line

Noncrosional Area

Watershed Sub-basin K

Source Conirol Phase IRemedial Investigation

Con«ull»nl«

rields DriiiikAiltial)iila, Ohio

"l (*C") I "»

Scale 1" = 468'Waicnhed Sub-basin R

Source Control Pbase IRemedial Investigation

Scale 1" - 468*Watershed Sub-basin A


Woodwird-Clydi Contuttlnts

Fields BrookAsh tabula, Ohio

Topographic Map


Topographic Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Consulting Engmwrs. G*olog<sis fU^

•no Environmental Scientists vl FBaton Bougt. Louisiana ^^^

SCALE:1- -SOT

DRAWN BY: CCLOCHKD. BY: re vv

DATE: 31^4DATE: -J/ </-


FIL

I60ST

FIG. NO.

e.s.s-8

too


Topographic Map

Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Engineers. Geologists

and Environmental ScientistsBaton Roug*. Louisiana

SCALE:r -3o DRAWN BY: C-CtOCHKD. BY:

DATE:DATE: ******


FILE NO.

160609

FIG. NO.

6.5.5-C

Ale,


Topographic Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Consulting Engineers. Geologists jem<A

and Environmental Scientists ^HHTBaton Rouge. Louisiana ^^^

SCALE:I- -300'

DRAWN BY: CGlO DATE: «b fa *fCHKD. BY: r « tv DATE: ^ / ««/


Fl

FIG. NO.

e.5.5-D


Source Control Phase IRemedial Invciligalion

Woodwifd-Cfrdi Contuftinli

Fields DrookAshlabula. Ohio

ic MnpTCW]«99-(


Fields BrookAshlabula. Ohio

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin G


Woodwanf-Ctyd* CentulUnti

Fields BrookAshlabula, Ohio

| ,

Topographic Map

Scale 1" = 468*alershed Sub-basin II

Source Control Phase 1Remedial InvestigationWoodward-Clydt ContullinU

Fields DrookAsh tabula, Ohio

Topographic Map


Topographic Map


and Environmental ScwniistsBaton Rouge, Louisiana

SCALE:1- - 300'

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY: "!•/ DATE: * /•»-



FILE NO.

86C3609

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin K


Woodward-Clyde ConiuHanti


*

Topographic Map


Topographic Map


and Environmental ScientistsBaton Rouge, Louisiana

SCALE:1- -300'

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY:

DATE:DATE-


FILE NO.

S6C3609

FIG. NO.

0.5.5-L


Topographic Map


•nd Environmental ScientistsBaton Rouge.

SCALE:I' - 300'

DRAWN BY:CHKD. BY: Tc

DATE:DATE:


FILE NO.

S6C3609

FIG. NO.

C.5.5-N

Watershed Sub-basin O

Topographic Map

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^*^Consulting Engineers. Geologist* Jam^aa

and Envtronmanial Scientrvts ^^^VBaton Rouge. Louisiana ^^^

SCALE:I- m 300'

DRAWN BY: CCtOCHKD. BY: 7"~ ^/

DATE: 3DATE: -

^*4-^C-


FILE

86C360y

FIG. NO.

C.5.5-O

\Vatershed Sub-basin P

Topographic Map


and Environmental ScientistsBaton Rouge. Louisiana

SCALE:1- - 300'

PRAWN BY:CHKD. BY:

DATE:DATE: ~f<rt


FILE NO.

WC3609

FIG. NO.

C.5.5-P

Scale 1" = 468'f Watershed Sub-basin Q


Fields DrookAshubula, Ohio

Topographic Ma

Match Line

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-buin RSource Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

Woodwirrf-Clydt ConiutUnU


~Ingulf t.cu3 \°*'l~Ky.]"Ll *°l^btto >> -|T , J[ t>"t Y/ vv 1 **°*°*

Topographic Mapf«M*f

• SS-f)

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin R

Source Control Phase IRemedial InvestigationWoodward-Clycf* ComulUnlt

Fields BrookAshlibula, Ohio

tttotiM fc^UJ I1**1!

Topographic Map

ItCMOtt*M*t

Scale: I" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin A


FIELDS OROOKAStfTABULA. OHIO

ItSI [IUM IT86C360fl

LJnei Used For USLE Length-SlopeFactor Calculations

iVater&hed Sub-basin BLines Used For

USLE Length-SlopeFactor Calculations

Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^Corawflm? tnynotn. G*omg»U JKdgfc

B«on Roue*. LDUMA* ^^^

SCALE:I--30T

DRAWN BY: rgv/CHKD- BY- WM

DATE: */«?•#DATE: 4114.


FILE s^xU060*

FK3. NO.

fl.5.fl-B

Watershed Sub-basin CLines Used For



SCALE:r « JOT

DRAWN BY: TEWCHKQ

DATE:OATH:


FILE NO.

RG. NO.

.ershed Sub-basin DLines Used For



SCALE: I DRAWN BY: 7TEV1* -W I CHKD BY-


FILE NO.

UCM09

FK3. NO.

C.5.6-O



Woodwird-Clyd* C«n»ulUnU

'Fields DrookAshlabula, Ohio

Lines Used For USLE Length-SlopeFactor Calculation!

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin G

Source Control Phue 1Remedial Investigation

Fields DrookAshtabula, Ohio

Lino Uied For USLJE Le*(lb-SlopeFactor Cilculittont

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin 11


Woodward-Clyde ConiulUnlt

Fields DrookAih tabula, Ohio

Unci UicJ For USLE Length-SlopeFictor Calcutilioiu

Watershed Sub-basin ILines Used For


Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^

taon ftou»i. LBMaam ^^^

SCALE:1* -30CT

DRAWN BY: TeW DATE: «/*?**CHKO BY- WM- DATE: •*!«*•



Flf

FK3. NO.


Fields DrookAshtabula, Ohio

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin J Luei Uud For USLE LtDpb Slope

Ficlor CiltuUlioni

Scale 1" = 468'

Watershed Sub-basin K


Woodwarrf-Ctyd* Con*wlt*nli


Line* Used For USLG Uogth-SlopeFtctof Qlcuiy

Watershed Sub-basin LLines Used For


Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConsulting Engm**n. Oottgoti

•rxj Environmental ScwmmsBaton Aeug*. Louwtana

SCALE:1* - 3001

DRAWN BY:CHKO. BY- «wt

DATE:DATE-


FILE NO.

16O609

FIG. NO.

Watershed Sub-basin MLines Used For


Woodward-Clyde ConsultantsConmmng Engm««rv. Gflotogau

Bcton Rouge.

SCALE:r-300-

DRAWN BY:CHKO. BY:

DATE:DATE:

Fields BrookAsbtabula, OhioSource Control Phase IRemedial Investigation

Ftl

FIG. NO.

6.5.e-M

Watershed Sub-basin N Woodward-ClycH Consultants Fields BrookLines Used For



Watershed Sub-basin OLines Used For


Woodward-Clyde Consultants ^^CoiMMng GnpnMvfL, GwttpMi ^£^^£

•rrt Er»«u»r»M< E.II mi ^^V

SCALE:I* -SOT

Daon Aoug*. LmM*n»

DRAWN BY: T£ w7CHKO. BY- XVK

^^^

DATE: V/?-VOATH: -* H *


p. - 1.^-/F(G. NO.

C.5.9-O

Watershed Sub-basin PLines Used For



SCALE:r - yxr

DRAWN BY:CHKD BV- wu

DATE:DATE:

Fields BrookMhtabula, OhioSource Comrol Phase IRemedial Investigation

FILE NO.

MOO*

FK3. HO.

6.5.&-P

Scale 1" = 468'Watershed Sub-basin Q


Fields DrookAshtabulaj Ohio _^

IMCTTiV~]~j '. iyL.n*|*J«/A 1 1 *»rssjtxotiUfWM |a*"i 4/H I i*o*°*

Uaei Used For USLE Unglb SlopeFactor Calcutalioni

Milch LJne

Watershed Sub-basin RSource Control Phue IRemedial Investigation

Fields BrookAJ b tabu la. Ohio

Linet Uted For USLE Lcofth-SlopeFictor Calculilioni

\

•LScale: 1" - 468*Watershed Sub-buin A


Woodward-Clyde Coiuultinlt

FELDS BROOKASKTABULA. OHIO

86C3609

Non-erosioa.ArcasDO. "re


Source Control Phue IRemedial tnveslignion


I »T yq ]om| »n;|l**l "I0

aa»«r etu> |a-"ir^fj44i ucMJ

Non-erosion Areas

Section 7.0

VVoodward-Cly


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

7.0 DATA GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL DATA GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1


Woodward-Clyde


7.0DATA GAPS

7.1 IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL DATA GAPS

Analysis of the Phase I SCRI data collection efforts indicate that data gaps have beenidentified during the SCRI/FS. However, these data gaps pertain to further delineation ofpotential sources identified in the Recontamination Assessment. The additional work thatmay be required to further define identified sources will be addressed during completion ofthe Phase I Feasibility Study, Technical Memorandum 3. Additional surface soil samples willbe collected at the SCM Plant 2, TiO2 facility, the Mitchell property, and the Reese Machineproperty during preparation of Technical Memorandum 3. This position was discussed withUSEPA during the July 28, 1994 meeting and as documented in USEPA's August 9, 1994,Comments to 8/2/94 FBPRPQ Meeting Summary; Fields Brook letter.

The Phase I SCRI efforts completed did not identify any data gaps requiring further researchor investigation of unknown potential sources of recontamination to Fields Brook. Therefore,no further assessment work is required in the SCRI phase of the project. This position wasdiscussed and approved by the USEPA, as stated in the USEPA's May 18, 1994, PreliminaryDraft Comments to 4/26/94 Draft Recontamination Assessment, SCRI Report, Source ControlOperable Unit, Fields Brook Site.

KK479\FB]4\RIREPORT\SECTION7.WP5 7-1 5/97

Section 8.0

Woodward-Clyde


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

8.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18.2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

KK505/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION8.WP5 8-1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


8.0REFERENCES

8.1 LIST OF REFERENCES

Adache-Ciuni-Lynn Associates, Inc. 1983. Report and Certification of Closure Plan for OlinChemical Corporation Plant. Cleveland, OH.

The ADVENT Group, Inc., and James L. Grant and Associates, Inc. 1989. Work Plan forSupplemental Hydrogeologic Site Investigation for a New Impoundment.

. 1991. Phase II (and Phase III) Activities Data Complication PCB SourceQuantification Investigation, SCM Chemicals, Inc.. Ashtabula, Ohio.

Ashtabula County Planning Commission. 1980. Population Profiles for Ashtabula County.Ohio.

————. 1991. Population Profiles for Ashtabula County, Ohio.

Brenkus Excavating. January 30, 1987. Letter from Mr. Brenkus to Peter Page of USEPA.

Bouwer, H. 1989. "The Bouwer and Rice Slug Test — An Update." Groundwater.Vol. 27, No. 3. pp. 304-309.

Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1976. "A Slug Test for Determining Hydraulic Conductivity ofUnconfined Aquifers with Completely or Partially Penetrating Wells. WaterResources Research. Vol. 12, No. 3. pp. 423-428.

Burgess and Niple, Ltd. 1981. Subsurface Investigation Report. Columbus, OH.

KK505/FB14/R1REPORT/SECTION8.WP5 8-1 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


-. 1988b. Design Report on Proposed Collection and Treatment Improvements. DetrexCorporation. Prepared for Detrex Corporation, Ashtabula, Ohio site. Columbus, OH.

-. 1988b. Permit to Install.

-. 1989. Amended Closure Plan.

CH2M Hill. 1986. Feasibility Study Fields Brook Site, Sediment Operable Unit. Ashtabula.Ohio. EPA 19.5L46.0.

Cooper, H.H., J.D. Bredehoeft, and I.S. Papadopulos. 1967. "Response of A Finite-DiameterWell to an Instantaneous Charge of Water." Water Resources Research. Vol. 3, No.1. pp. 11-46.

Dames & Moore. 1985. Geohydrologic Report, RMI Extrusion Plant, Ashtabula, Ohio.

————. 1986. Ground Water Quality Assessment.

Detrex Chemical Industries, Inc. July 25, 1977. Letter from W.G. Robrecht to R. Hart atOhioEPA regarding the ponds at the State Road plant.

————. July 30, 1984. Letter from W.G. Robrecht to Steve Tuckerman (USEPA,Region V) regarding the closure plan for the Detrex site.

————. July 21, 1986. Letter from I.H. Shamiyeh to Basil G. Constantelos (USEPA RegionV).

————. 1987. Laboratory Analyses of Samples of the Detrex Ashtabula Site Point SourceRun-Off Water. Prepared by J.G. Singh, Manager Process and Analytical Chemistry.

Eckenfelder, Inc. 1989. Supplemental Hydrogeologic Assessment, RMI Extrusion Plant,Ashtabula, Ohio.

KK505/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECTION8.WP5 8-2 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


-. 1991. Supplemental Investigation Report for the RCRA Facility Investigation. RMISodium Plant. Ashtabula. Ohio.

Engineering Science, Ltd. 1980. Solid Waste Disposal Investigation. Cleveland, OH.

————. 1982a. First Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report.

————. 1982b. Groundwater Monitoring Program at Linde Welding Products.

————. 1985. Groundwater Quality Assessment Plan.

————. 1990. Hydrogeologic Report.

Envirolab, Inc. August 8, 1979. Letter from Don Richer to Bob Mills of Union Carbide.

Harza Engineering Company. 1979. Identification of MCB, TDA, and TDI in Soil, Rock.and Groundwater at Olin Chemical Corporation Plant and at Brenkus Landfill,Ashtabula, Ohio.

International Minerals & Chemical Corporation. June 21, 1979. Letter to OhioEPA.

International Technology Corporation. 1987a. Phase II - Ground Water Assessment andRecover and Treatment Alternatives. Final Report. Prepared for Occidental ChemicalCorporation, Ashtabula, Ohio. Pittsburgh, PA.

————. 1987b. Phase II Site Hydrogeologic Study. Interim Report. Prepared forOccidental Chemical Corporation, Ashtabula, Ohio. Pittsburgh, PA.

-. 1987c. Phase H - Study of Site Hydrogeology and Treatment of Process Water andStorm Water. Final Report. Prepared for Occidental Chemical Corporation,Ashtabula, Ohio. Pittsburgh, PA.

KK505/FBU/RIREPORT/SECT10NB.WP5 8-3 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


Kearney, AT. 1989a. RCRA Facility Assessment.

————. September 19, 1989b. Letter to USEPA.

LaMoreaux, P.E. and Associates. 1979. Hvdrogeologic Evaluation of MercuryContamination, with Recommendations for Control of the IMC Chemical Group,Ashtabula Plant.

-. 1980. Hvdrogeologic Evaluation of the Disposal Site at the IMC Chemical GroupAshtabula Plant.

LCP Chemicals. June 23, 1986. Letter to USEPA.

National Carbide Corporation. An undated, untitled, confidential internal National CarbideCorporation memo.

Occidental Chemical Corporation. March 8, 1990. Letter from Alastair McGregor to JackLanigan of Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

Olin Chemical Corporation . July 7, 1993. Letter from David Cummings to Edward Hanlonof USEPA.

————. October 13, 1980. Interoffice memo from K.D. Hiltgen to C.M. Richards.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. April 25, 1980. Letter from Lynn Clark to GeorgeShahin, the IMC plant manager.

————. March 27, 1984. Interoffice memo from Gary Gifford to Steve Love regardingRMI/Detrex.

————. June 4, 1984. Internal memo from Steve Tuckerman to Steve Love regardingDetrex's Subsurface Investigation Report dated November 1981.


Woodward-Clyde


-. 1989. Water Quality Based Effluent Limits.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Emergency and Remedial Response.1991. How Clean is Clean Policy.

Reeder, N.E., V.L. Riemenscheneider, and P.W. Reese. 1973. Soil Survey of AshtabulaCounty, Ohio. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, incooperation with Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Soil,and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

RMI Titanium Company Extrusion Plant. 1992. Corrective Measures Study.

Saada, A.S. 1972. Foundation Investigation for New 185 Ft. Thickener. Prepared for CabotTitania Corp.

Schwab, G.O., R.K. Frevert, T.W. Edminster, and K,K. Barnes. 1981. Soil and WaterConservation Engineering. John Wiley and Sons.

SCM Chemicals. November 8, 1991. Letter from William Schildt to Shelton Simon and EdHanlon at USEPA.

Stewart, B.A., W.H. Wischmeier, Woolhiser, and others. 1975. Control of Water Pollutionfrom Cropland. Vol. I, A Manual for Guideline Development: Vol. II, An Overview.U.S. Department of Agriculture, ARS-H-5-1 and ARS-H-5-2.

Union Carbide Corporation. May 28, 1981. A letter from R.C. Mills to Ms. MelindaMerryfield-Becker, OhioEPA, NEDO.

————. August 24, 1981. A letter from R.C. Mills to William Skowronski, OhioEPA,NEDO.


Woodward-Clyde


Union Carbide Corporation, Linde Division. June 25, 1986. Letter from Lawrence Barrento USEPA.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1971. Sediment sources, yields,and delivery ratios. In National Engineering Handbook, Section 3, "Sedimentation."

-. 1973. The Soil Survey of Ashtabula County, Ohio.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 19, 1975. Internal memo fromA.R. Winklhofer regarding inspection of waste lagoons.

————. 1982a. PCB Inspection at Acme Scrap Iron and Metal in Ashtabula. Ohio.

-. 1985. Remedial Investigation Report, Fields Brook Site, Ashtabula, OH. FinalReport. Contract No. 68-01-6692.

-. 1986. Record of Decision, Remedial Alternatives Selection, Fields Brook SedimentOperable Unit. Ashtabula, Ohio. Chicago, IL.

-. 1987. Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response Activities: Volumes 1and 2. EPA/540/G-87/003 and 004.

-. 1988a. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility StudiesUnder CERCLA. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. Interim Final. Washington, D.C.

-. 1988b. Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating InorganicsAnalyses. Washington, D.C.

-. 1988c. Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating QrganicsAnalyses. Washington, D.C.


Woodward-Clyde


-. 1989. Source Control RI/FS Phase 0 Administrative Order and Statement of Work.Fields Brook, Ashtabula, Ohio. Chicago, IL.

-. 1990. National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. Revised 1991.

-. 1992. Guidance Document on the Statistical Analysis of Ground WaterMonitoring Data at RCRA Facilities. Interim Final Guidance.

-. November 1, 1993. Letter from Edward J. Hanlon to Joseph A. Heimbuchregarding the cleanup goals issue.

————. December 7, 1993. Letter from Edward J. Hanlon to Joseph A. Heimbuchregarding comments to the 9/13/93 Recontamination Assessment Plan.

White, G.W. and S.M. Totten. 1979. Glacial Geology of Ashtabula County, Ohio. Reportof Investigation No. 112. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Divisionof Geological Survey. Columbus, OH.

Wischmeier, W.H. 1976. "Chapter 3: Cropland Erosion and Sedimentation." In Controlof Water Pollution from Cropland, Volume II: Overview. Prepared under anInteragency Agreement with the Office of Research and Development, EPA.EPA-600/2-75-026b.

Wischmeier, W.H., and Smith, D.D. 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide toConservation Planning. Agriculture Handbook No. 537. U.S. Department ofAgriculture.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1986. Hydrogeological Assessment. Prepared for DiamondShamrock Process Chemicals Facility.

————. 1992a. Revised Phase I Field Sampling Plan and OAPiP. Revision 2.

KK505/FBJ4/RIREPORT/SECTION8.WP5 8-7 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


-. 1992b. Sediment Quantification Design Investigation Report Phase I, Fields BrookSite. Ashtabula. Ohio.

-. 1992c. Source Control Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/Feasibility StudyPhase I Work Plan, Fields Brook Site, Ashtabula, Ohio. Revision 1.

-. 1992d. Source Control Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Phase 0 Report.Fields Brook Site. Ashtabula, Ohio. Revision 2.

-. 1993a. Revised Source Control Operable Unit Remedial Investigation/FeasibilityStudy Phase I Work Plan, Fields Brook Site, Ashtabula. Ohio. Revision 2.

1993b. Sediment Operable Unit Phase II Sediment Quantification DesignInvestigation Field Sampling Plan. Revision 2.

-. 1994a. Phase II SODI Sampling Design Field Sampling Plan, Fields Brook Site,Ashtabula, Ohio. Addendum 1.

-. 1994b. Recontamination Assessment Plan, Fields Brook Site, Ashtabula, Ohio.Revision 0.

8.2 DEFINITIONS

QQA/BPJ - Qualitative-Quantitative Assessment and Best Professional Judgment

As part of the Phase I SCRI, USEPA requested that QQA/BPJ be used in several ways. Inseveral sections (facility descriptions in 4.0, 6.0) of the Phase I SCRI, QQA/BPJ was usedto explain the following conditions:

1. Unexpected results of contamination above CUGs.

KK.S05/FBI4/RIREPORT/SECT1ON8.WP5 5-fi 5/97

Woodward-Clyde


2. Relationship between CUG compounds identified in upgradient sources andFields Brook sediments.

3. Possible visual signs of releases from source areas.

4. Potential contamination reaching Fields Brook from outfalls, surface water,and groundwater.

5. Potential recontamination reaching Fields Brook from outfalls and duringstorm events.

KK505/FB14/RIREPORT/SECTJON8.WP5 8-9 5/97

volume ib final scri report phase 1. revision · volume ib final scri report phase 1. revision...

Documents