Final Site Inspection Report for the Astoria Marine Construction Company Site, Which Is Located in Astoria, Oregon

ecology and environment, inc. International Specialists in the Environment 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98104 Tel: (206) 624-9537, Fax: (206) 621-9832

June 1, 2010

Brandon Perkins, Task Monitor United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-112 Seattle, Washington 98101

Re: Contract Number: EP-S7-06-02 Technical Direction Document Number: 07-08-0005 Final Astoria Marine Construction Company Site Inspection Report

Dear Mr. Perkins:

Enclosed please find the Final Site Inspection report for the Astoria Marine Construction Company site, which is located in Astoria, Oregon. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please call me at (206) 624-9537.

Sincerely, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC.

Linda Costello START-3 Project Leader cc: Jeff Fetters, Project Manager, E & E, Seattle, Washington

10:Finial 2009 Phase I and II SI Report 5-26-2010.doc-6/1/2010

07-08-0005

Astoria Marine Construction Company Site Inspection Report

Astoria, Oregon

June 2010

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-112 Seattle, Washington 98101

Prepared by:

ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, INC. 720 Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98104

able of Contents

Section Page

1 Introduction ...... 1-1

2 Site Background...... 2-1 2.1 Site Location...... 2-1 2.2 Site Description...... 2-1 2.3 Site Ownership History ...... 2-2 2.4 Site Operations and Source Characteristics ...... 2-2 2.5 Previous Investigations...... 2-3 2.5.1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Site Visits – 1996 and 1997 ...... 2-3 2.5.2 AMCC Sampling – 1997...... 2-4 2.5.3 EPA Preliminary Assessment – 1999...... 2-5 2.5.4 START and ODEQ File Reviews – 2007 ...... 2-5 2.5.5 START Site Visit...... 2-5 2.5.6 START Technical Memorandum...... 2-6 2.6 Summary of Site Inspection Locations ...... 2-8 2.6.1 Phase I Site Inspection Locations...... 2-8 2.6.2 Phase II Site Inspection Locations ...... 2-9

3 Field Activities and Analytical Protocol ...... 3-1 3.1 Sampling Methodology...... 3-2 3.1.1 Ground Water Sampling...... 3-2 3.1.2 Surface Soil Sampling...... 3-2 3.1.3 Sediment Sampling...... 3-2 3.1.3.1 Phase I Sediment Sampling ...... 3-2 3.1.3.2 Phase II Sediment Sampling ...... 3-3 3.1.4 QA/QC Sampling ...... 3-3 3.2 Analytical Protocol...... 3-3 3.2.1 Phase I Analytical Protocol ...... 3-3 3.2.2 Phase II Analytical Protocol...... 3-4 3.3 Global Positioning System ...... 3-4 3.4 Investigation-Derived Waste...... 3-4

4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control...... 4-1

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 iii Table of Contents (Cont.)

Section Page

4.1 Phase I...... 4-1 4.1.1 Satisfaction of Data Quality Objectives ...... 4-1 4.1.2 QA/QC Samples...... 4-2 4.1.3 Project-Specific Data Quality Objectives ...... 4-2 4.1.3.1 Precision...... 4-2 4.1.3.2 Accuracy ...... 4-2 4.1.3.3 Completeness ...... 4-3 4.1.3.4 Representativeness...... 4-3 4.1.3.5 Comparability ...... 4-3 4.1.4 Laboratory QA/QC Parameters...... 4-3 4.1.4.1 Holding Times/Temperatures ...... 4-3 4.1.4.2 Laboratory Blanks...... 4-3 4.1.4.3 Trip Blank...... 4-3 4.1.4.4 Rinsate Blank...... 4-4 4.1.4.5 Serial Dilution...... 4-4 4.1.4.6 Internal Standards...... 4-4 4.2 Phase II...... 4-4 4.2.1 Satisfaction of Data Quality Objectives ...... 4-4 4.2.2 QA/QC Samples...... 4-4 4.2.3 Project-Specific Data Quality Objectives ...... 4-5 4.2.3.1 Precision...... 4-5 4.2.3.2 Accuracy ...... 4-5 4.2.3.3 Completeness ...... 4-5 4.2.3.4 Representativeness...... 4-5 4.2.3.5 Comparability ...... 4-6 4.2.4 Laboratory QA/QC Parameters...... 4-6 4.2.4.1 Holding Times/Temperatures ...... 4-6 4.2.4.2 Laboratory Blanks...... 4-6 4.2.4.3 Serial Dilution...... 4-6 4.2.4.4 Internal Standards...... 4-6

5 Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples ...... 5-1 5.1 Analytical Results Evaluation Criteria...... 5-1 5.1.1 Sample Results Reporting ...... 5-1 5.2 Phase I Background Sampling ...... 5-2 5.2.1 Phase I Background Ground Water Sampling ...... 5-2 5.2.1.1 Sample Location...... 5-2 5.2.1.2 Sample Results...... 5-2 5.2.2 Phase I Background Sediment Sampling ...... 5-2 5.2.2.1 Sample Location...... 5-2 5.2.2.2 Sample Results...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.3 Phase I Background Surface Soil Sampling...... 5-2 5.2.3.1 Sample Location...... 5-2 5.2.3.2 Sample Results...... 5-3 5.3 Phase II Background Sampling...... 5-3

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 iv Table of Contents (Cont.)

Section Page

5.3.1 Phase II Background Sediment Sampling...... 5-3 5.3.1.1 Sample Locations...... 5-3 5.3.1.2 Sample Results...... 5-4

6 Potential Sources...... 6-1 6.1 On-Site Sources Investigated During Phase I Site Investigation ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Burn Area...... 6-1 6.1.1.1 Sample Locations...... 6-1 6.1.1.2 Sample Results...... 6-1 6.1.2 Former Grit Pile ...... 6-2 6.1.2.1 Sample Locations...... 6-2 6.1.2.2 Sample Results...... 6-2 6.1.3 New Grit Pile...... 6-2 6.1.3.1 Sample Locations...... 6-2 6.1.3.2 Sample Results...... 6-3 6.1.4 Oil-Stained Area...... 6-3 6.1.4.1 Sample Locations...... 6-3 6.1.4.2 Sample Results...... 6-3 6.2 Potential Off-Site Sources Investigated During Phase II Inspection ...... 6-4

7 Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets...... 7-1 7.1 Ground Water Migration Pathway ...... 7-1 7.1.1 Geologic Setting...... 7-1 7.1.2 Aquifer System...... 7-1 7.1.3 Drinking Water Targets...... 7-1 7.1.4 Phase I Ground Water Sample Locations and Results...... 7-2 7.2 Surface Water Migration Pathway ...... 7-3 7.2.1 Overland Pathway...... 7-3 7.2.2 Drinking Water Targets...... 7-4 7.2.3 Human Food Chain Targets ...... 7-4 7.2.4 Environmental Targets...... 7-5 7.2.5 Phase I Target Sampling ...... 7-6 7.2.5.1 Phase I Target Sample Locations...... 7-6 7.2.5.2 Phase I Target Sample Results...... 7-6 7.2.6 Phase II Target Sampling ...... 7-7 7.2.6.1 Phase II Target Sampling Locations...... 7-7 7.2.6.2 Phase II Sample Results...... 7-9

8 Summary and Conclusions...... 8-1 8.1 Sources ...... 8-1 8.1.1 On-Site Sources...... 8-1 8.1.2 Off-Site Facilities...... 8-2 8.2 Targets...... 8-2 8.2.1 Phase I Targets ...... 8-2

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 v Table of Contents (Cont.)

Section Page

8.2.2 Phase II Targets...... 8-3 8.3 Conclusions ...... 8-4

9 References...... 9-1

Appendix

A Sample Plan Alteration Form ...... A-1

B Photographic Documentation...... B-1

C Global Positioning System Coordinates...... C-1

D Data Validation Memoranda ...... D-1

E Chain-of-Coustody Documentation...... E-1

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 vi

ist of Tables

Table Page

3-1 Phase I Sample Collection and Analytical Summary ...... 3-5

3-2 Phase II Sample Collection and Analytical Summary...... 3-6

6-1 Phase I Surface Soil Sample Results ...... 6-5

7-1 Groundwater Drinking Water Population Within a 4-Mile Radius, Astoria Marine Construction Company...... 7-12

7-2 Groundwater Sample Results...... 7-13

7-3 Sport and Commercial Catch Data Within the 15-Mile TDL Astoria Marine Construction Company ...... 7-14

7-4 Phase I Sediment Sample Results...... 7-15

7-5 Phase II Astoria Marine Transect Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-17

7-6 Phase II Lewis and Clark River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-21

7-7 Phase II Skipanon Waterway Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-25

7-8 Phase II Youngs River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary ...... 7-27

7-9 Phase II Youngs Bay Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-29

7-10 Phase II Craig Creek Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-31

7-11 Phase II Columbia River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary...... 7-32

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 vii

ist of Figures

Figure Page

1-1 Site Vicinity Map...... 1-3

2-1 Site Map Showing Potential Sources and Targets Inspected During Phase I...... 2-12

2-2 Potential Off-Site Sources and Targets Inspected During Phase II ...... 2-13

3-1 Phase I Site Inspection Sample Location Map ...... 3-9

3-2 Phase II Site Inspection Sample Location Map Near Facility Location...... 3-11

3-3 Phase II Site Inspection Sample Location Map Outside of Immediate Facility Area...... 3-13

7-1 4-Mile Target Distance Limit (TDL) Map...... 7-34

7-2 15-Mile Target Distance Limit Map and Wetlands ...... 7-35

7-3 Project Site with Shoreline Wetlands ...... 7-36

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 ix

ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AMCC Astoria Marine Construction Company ARI Analytical Resources, Inc. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials bgs below ground surface CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act cfs cubic feet per second CLP Contract Laboratory Program CRQL Contract-Required Quantitation Limit DQOs Data Quality Objectives E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. ECSI Environmental Cleanup Site Information EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GPS Global Positioning System IDW investigation-derived waste MEL Manchester Environmental Laboratory mg/L milligrams per liter MS/MSD matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality PA Preliminary Assessment PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCP Pentachlorophenol Pesticides/ chlorinated pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs PPE Probable Point of Entry QA quality assurance QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QC quality control %R percent recovery RI remedial investigation RPD relative percent difference SCS United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service SI Site Inspection SPAF Sample Plan Alteration Form SQAP Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan SQL Sample Quantitation Limit START Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds TAL Target Analyte List

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 xi List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (Cont.)

TBT tributyl tin TCLP toxicity characteristic leaching procedure TDL Target Distance Limit TM Task Monitor TOC total organic carbon TPH-D diesel-range total petroleum hydrocarbons TPH-G gasoline-range total petroleum hydrocarbons USCB U.S. Census Bureau VOCs volatile organic compounds WW II World War II

xii 10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214

1 Introduction

Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) was tasked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide technical support for completion of a Site Inspection (SI) at the Astoria Marine Construction Company (AMCC) site in Astoria, Oregon (Figure 1-1). The SI activities were completed in two phases under Technical Direction Document Number 07-08-0005, issued under the EPA Region 10 Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START)-3 Contract Number EP-S7-06-02. Phase I of the SI was conducted under the Sampling and Quality Assurance Plan (SQAP) for AMCC dated March 2008. Phase II of the SI was conducted under the Phase II SQAP for the AMCC dated October 2009.

The specific goals for the Phase I AMCC SI, identified by the EPA, were to:

. Determine the potential threat to public health or the environment posed by the site; . Determine the potential for a release of hazardous constituents into the environment; and . Determine the potential for placement of the site on the National Priorities List.

The specific goals for the Phase II AMCC SI are similar to the goals of the Phase I SI listed above. However, the Phase II SI was intended to build on the Phase I SI fieldwork by:

. Conducting additional target sampling near potential contaminant sources within the Target Distance Limit (TDL); and . Determine if potential contaminant sources within the TDL may be contributing to sediment contamination in the water bodies near AMCC.

Completion of both the Phase I and Phase II SIs included reviewing existing site information, determining regional characteristics, collecting receptor information within the range of site influence, executing sampling plans, and producing this report. The report is organized as follows: . Section 1, Introduction – Authority for performance of this work, goals for the project, and summary of the report contents;

05:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 1-1

1. Introduction

. Section 2, Site Background – Site description, site operations and waste characteristics, and a summary of investigation locations; . Section 3, Field Activities and Analytical Protocol – Summary of the field effort; . Section 4, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) – Summary of the laboratory data; . Section 5, Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples – Discussion of results reporting criteria and background sample locations and analytical results; . Section 6, Potential Sources – Discussion of site sources, sample locations, and analytical results; . Section 7, Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets – Discussion of the migration/exposure pathways, sample locations, and analytical results; . Section 8, Summary and Conclusions – Summary of the investigation and recommendation for the site based on the information gathered during the investigation; . Section 9, References – Alphabetical listing of the references cited throughout the text; . Appendix A, Sample Plan Alteration Form (SPAF) – Changes between the approved sample plan and the field event; . Appendix B, Photographic Documentation – Photographs taken during the sampling event and site visit; . Appendix C, Global Positioning System (GPS) Coordinates – latitude and longitude coordinates of sample locations; . Appendix D, Data Validation Memoranda – Laboratory results and quality assurance evaluation for all samples; and . Appendix E, Chain-of-Custody Documentation – Forms documenting sample chain-of-custody for the sampling event.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 1-2

Source: Maptech, Inc. 2001. OREGON

Astoria N

Site Location

Jeffers Slough

ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO. Figure 1-1 ecology and environment, inc. SITE INSPECTION SITE VICINITY MAP & International Specialists in the Environment Astoria, Oregon Seattle, Washington 0 1,333 2,666 Date: Drawn by: Approximate Scale in Feet 4-14-10 AES 10:START-3\07080005\fig 1-1

1-3

2 Site Background

This section provides background information about the site including location, description, ownership history, operations and source characteristics, previous investigations, and a summary of the site investigation locations.

2.1 Site Location

Site Name: Astoria Marine Construction Company CERCLIS ID Number: OR0002392793 Site Address: 92134 Front Road Astoria, Oregon 97103 Latitude: 46o 08' 49" North Longitude: 123o 51' 43" West Legal Description: Township 8 North, Range 10 West, Section 25 County: Clatsop Congressional District: 1 Site Owner/ Donald Fastabend Operator/Contact: 92134 Front Road Astoria, Oregon 97103 (503) 325-4121

2.2 Site Description The AMCC site is an active marine shipyard located at the confluence of Jeffers Slough and the Lewis and Clark River within the city limits of Astoria, Oregon (Figure 2-1). The site occupies approximately 8 acres of low-lying land adjacent to tidal flats along the Lewis and Clark River.

The AMCC property includes one ship-sized assembly/maintenance building, storage areas, various work shops, and administrative offices. Formerly, a large boathouse was located near the center of the site; this building burned down in 1962. Four marine ways (Marine Ways 1 through 4) extend from the west side of the site into the Lewis and Clark River. Marine Ways 3 and 4 are covered. A dike adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River begins just north of the main building, the covered marine ways, and work space areas, and extends north along the river

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-1

2. Site Background

toward Highway 101. The southern side of the site is adjacent to Jeffers Slough and has been configured as a dock along the entire south-side frontage. The flow of Jeffers Slough into the Lewis and Clark River is controlled through a tide box that closes at high tide and allows the slough to flow one way into the river. A piece of property owned by Ms. Carol Olsen is located across Jeffers Slough to the south. (E & E 1999)

The site has been active since 1924. The shipyard primarily constructed wooden boats and ships, except for brief periods during World War II (WW II) and the Korean Conflict, when the company had major contracts with the military to construct metal-armored warships and to refurbish previously mothballed warships (Fortuna 2007).

Jeffers Slough has a high rate of sedimentation, which, left unchecked, would block AMCC’s south-side dock. AMCC periodically excavated the accumulated sediments in the slough under appropriate permits, and deposited the spoils on the Olsen property (leased by AMCC) south of Jeffers Slough (E & E 1999).

2.3 Site Ownership History AMCC was founded in 1924 by Joe Dyer. The site is currently owned and operated by Donald F. Fastabend, who has worked at the site since the 1950s. According to Mr. Fastabend, Joe Dyer sold the business to a group of employees in the 1960s, of which Mr. Fastabend has the remaining interest (E & E 1999).

2.4 Site Operations and Source Characteristics AMCC was incorporated in 1926. In 1955, AMCC had approximately 1,100 employees, but by 1960, the company had decreased in size to 15 employees. (E & E 1999)

Between 1926 and the 1940s, AMCC manufactured and repaired wooden-hulled sail- and motor-powered fishing boats. During WW II, the facility was converted to build military craft such as wooden-hulled mine sweepers. In the 1960s, the Navy contract ended and operations at the site consisted primarily of fishing and tow boat repair. In 1962, due to the reduction in business, the owner decided to sell the company. Rather than lose their jobs, the 15 employees, including Mr. Fastabend, bought the company from Mr. Dyer. After 1985, due to the loss of a large contract, AMCC began working primarily on fishing boats. (E & E 1999)

Until 1989, AMCC used copper-based paints containing organotins, notably tributyl tin (TBT). TBT is used as an anti-fouling agent to keep grass, marine organisms, and barnacles off of the bottom of boats. TBT is known to be toxic to marine organisms. In approximately 1989, it became illegal to use paints containing this compound, except in small quantities. (E & E 1999)

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-2

2. Site Background

Until approximately 1997, a portion of the repair and maintenance operations at the facility consisted of sandblasting old paint off ships and boats; the paint typically contained copper from cupric oxide, lead, and TBT. Wooden boat hulls were treated using a copper/chromium/arsenic solution or with copper naphthenate. If sandblasted, these constituents may have been present in waste grit piles. (E & E 1999)

AMCC stored spent sandblast grit, which contained paint chip residue, in two distinct piles immediately south of the main building. One was an historic “former” waste grit pile and one was a newer “current” waste grit pile. In 1997, material from the “former” grit pile was disposed of at an approved landfill. Since at least 1999, AMCC has only sandblasted new material on boats to avoid the risk of generating sandblast waste that may contain hazardous substances, such as copper, lead, TBT, and paint chips. (E & E 1999)

Leakage of oily wastes from a faulty hoist engine and aboveground oil storage tanks has caused soil contamination. The two 500-gallon tanks, located near the center of the facility, were used to store waste oil and bilge waste. They were often used by boat owners without supervision; therefore, some spillage may have occurred. The facility operator had removed some of the stained soil near the bilge waste storage tanks and burned it in a pit at the northwestern corner of the site. Waste oil and bilge waste collected in the 500-gallon tanks is currently hauled off site by a used oil recycler. (E & E 1999)

An area used as a burn pit is located near the northwestern corner of the site. Excess solvents, oil-stained soil, and waste petroleum have been burned in this area. During the Preliminary Assessment (PA) site visit, AMCC was still in the practice of applying solvents to help start fires in the burn pit. During this site visit the burn area was estimated to be 20 feet in diameter. The burn area is on mounded land that merges with the dike about 10 feet from the Lewis and Clark River.

The potential contaminants of concern at the site associated with these operations are organotins, diesel-range total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-D), chlorinated pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls (pesticide/PCBs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), Target Analyte List (TAL) metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

2.5 Previous Investigations 2.5.1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Site Visits – 1996 and 1997 The site was first visited in June 1996 by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). During this visit, ODEQ collected one sample from each waste sandblast grit pile for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) and Aquatic Toxicity tests. Leachate from the “old” (or former) waste grit pile contained barium and lead. Leachate from the “new” pile contained

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-3

2. Site Background

barium, chromium, and lead. No other analytes were detected above their respective method reporting limits (Paul 1996). All concentrations were below those that would characterize the wastes as hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The sample from the “old” waste grit pile failed the Aquatic Toxicity test by killing more than 50% of the test organisms within 96 hours; and in fact killing 100% of the test organisms in that time frame. Grit in the “old” waste pile subsequently was classified as Oregon-only hazardous waste. The sample from the “new” (or current) waste grit pile did not elicit a toxic response from the test organisms. It was speculated by ODEQ that the agent responsible for the mortality observed in the Aquatic Toxicity test of “old” waste grit may have been TBT, which is highly toxic to these organisms (ODEQ 1997b).

During this site visit, ODEQ collected one sample from surface water in a drainage ditch near a small building containing the faulty engine hoist. Water in the ditch had an iridescent sheen. Sample results indicated the presence of diesel, light lubricating oil, and a fuel cut, possibly kerosene (ODEQ 1997b). In a subsequent letter to ODEQ, the facility reported that this area had been “cleaned,” but the letter did not specify how the cleanup was conducted (Fastabend 1997b).

During this site visit, ODEQ representatives also understood the facility operator to have said that in the 1950s, sandblasting of large boats occurred over Jeffers Slough (Paul 1996). In 1997, AMCC responded to this assertion by stating that AMCC had never sandblasted over the slough and offered that a sufficient supply of piped air to this area for sandblasting did not exist. The facility indicated that in the late 1950s, it sandblasted the decks of three naval vessels on floating docks and that waste grit was collected and brought ashore (Fastabend 1997b).

Following this site visit, the AMCC site was placed into ODEQ’s Environmental Cleanup Site Information database and was assigned a medium- to high-priority for further action. The facility was visited again by ODEQ in June 1997. During this visit, the facility operator indicated that sediment contamination may exist within the AMCC’s docks along the Lewis and Clark River. If present, such contamination would have resulted from pre-1950 activities, and would therefore likely be covered by more than 8 feet of silt that had accumulated since the last dredging of this area occurred (possibly in the early 1950s). The site visit was conducted at low tide, and no sandblast grit or paint flecks were observed in the mud around the docks (ODEQ 1997a).

2.5.2 AMCC Sampling – 1997 In March 1997, AMCC submitted two samples, one from the “old” grit pile and one from the “new” grit pile, for laboratory analysis of TCLP metals. These samples were apparently collected to determine disposal options. Laboratory results indicated the presence of barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead in leachate from the “old” grit pile; and barium and chromium in leachate from the “new” grit pile (Fastabend 1997a). On June 5, 1997, a removal contractor hired

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-4

2. Site Background

by AMCC began removal of the “old” and “new” grit piles located south of the main building (Larson 1997). This material was disposed of at the Hillsboro Landfill in Hillsboro, Oregon on June 30, 1997 (UWSI 1997). No samples were subsequently collected from the area of the former grit piles to confirm that no grit remained in the area.

2.5.3 EPA Preliminary Assessment – 1999 In 1999, a PA for the site was completed by E & E for the EPA. The PA report discussed the site’s history, current and former waste handling practices, and identified several possible sources of hazardous substances at the site. During the PA site visit, the area of the former grit piles was estimated to measure 50 feet wide by 75 feet long (3,750 square feet). Some residual grit was observed to be present in this area. Grit was also observed to be present in non-paved areas south of the main building and on a mounded area of the site that is adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River. (E & E 1999)

The PA report erroneously stated that the facility sandblasted boats from floating docks in the mooring basin of Jeffers Slough and that AMCC employees shoveled the sandblast grit off these dry docks and rinsed the residue into the water (E & E 1999).

2.5.4 START and ODEQ File Reviews – 2007 In 2007, the EPA tasked E & E with conducting an SI as a follow-on investigation of the facility. During the course of the SI file review, and also through conversations with the facility’s owner, Mr. Donald Fastabend, it became evident that correspondence between the facility and the ODEQ regarding the apparently erroneous reporting of sandblasting of boats on the floating docks was not included in the 1999 PA. Further, additional source removal activities, including removal of the “old” waste grit pile, have taken place since the PA was completed.

2.5.5 START Site Visit On December 11, 2007, START personnel met with Mr. Fastabend to conduct a walk-through of the property in preparation for the Phase I sampling event. The START was accompanied by representatives of the EPA and ODEQ.

During the site visit, Mr. Fastabend reiterated that AMCC had never conducted sandblasting over Jeffers Slough. Mr. Fastabend went on to state that no sandblasting had been conducted over the Lewis and Clark River either. He also stated that there never has been a dry dock on the river. These statements seem to differ from the information obtained earlier in 1997 by ODEQ. At present, all sandblasting is conducted in a sandblast shed. New steel sheeting is blasted in this shed to remove iron oxide, and then the sheeting is welded onto the boats.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-5

2. Site Background

Mr. Fastabend stated that the last time Jeffers Slough was dredged was approximately 1994. AMCC has maintained their dredging permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Division of State Lands.

The locations of the two grit piles that were removed in 1997 now contain dredge spoils from the southernmost marine ways (i.e., Marine Ways 1 and 2). Residual grit is still present in this area. New grit piles exist west of this area. These piles consist primarily of green diamond grit and mill scale (i.e., removed iron oxide). Sandblasting of boat hulls has not been conducted at the site since approximately 1996. During the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, AMCC applied and removed asbestos from boats. No asbestos was observed to be currently present at the site. It is not known how this material was disposed of.

Marine Ways 3 and 4 have large covered buildings on their east ends. Several roof panels were blown off of the buildings in a Fall 2007 wind storm. During annual flood events, the water level of the Lewis and Clark River extends to these buildings. Painting and boat repair work is conducted primarily in Marine Way 3. Marine Way 4 is used mainly for storage, having not been used for boat repair work over the last 25 to 30 years. A wood shop is present at the east end of this building. Painting conducted by AMCC usually consists of priming the boats only. Generally, boat owners will perform their own painting once the steel is welded on. AMCC does not allow boat owners to perform their own welding.

The burn area still exists on the northern end of the property near the Lewis and Clark River. This is the same area previously mentioned in discussions of earlier site visits. During the site visit in 2007, Mr. Fastabend indicated that AMCC was still in the practice of applying solvents to help start fires. This area is approximately 50 feet in diameter and is within 30 to 40 feet of the river. At the time of the Phase I site visit, this area contained tree debris from a recent wind storm and some lumber.

Several areas of oil staining were observed around the site. These areas often coincided with locations previously or currently used to store boat engines.

2.5.6 START Technical Memorandum The Phase I field event was conducted in the Spring of 2008. In June 2009, the EPA tasked E & E with conducting a search for additional potential sources of contamination to Youngs Bay and the Lewis and Clark River due to strong tidal influences that cause flow reversals on the Lewis and Clark River where Phase I sediment samples were collected and due to the site’s proximity to historic shipbuilding activities in the City of Astoria (E & E 2009a). The purpose of this search was to indentify other potential facilities or activities that could be contributing contamination to the Lewis and Clark River; if present. Additionally, research was completed to determine the extent of tidal influence on the Lewis and Clark River and the Youngs River. This research revealed that both the Lewis and Clark River and Youngs River are tidally influenced up to

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-6

2. Site Background

River Miles 6 and 10; respectively. Potential active and historic sources of contamination that were discovered during the preparation of the technical memorandum are presented below. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of these features.

Port of Astoria The Port of Astoria is the first deep-draft port available upon entering the Columbia River, and is located at River Mile 13 from the Pacific Ocean. The Port of Astoria has a long history of ship building and repair facilities operating at the Port. The Port maintains nearly 7,250 feet of total dock space on three piers. These piers and the adjacent property are dedicated to marine-dependent commercial and industrial activities. Pier 1 (the easternmost of two marine terminal piers) serves as a cruise ship berth and port-of-call for a variety of cruise lines. Pier 2 serves the bulk of the commercial fishing needs of Astoria. Additionally, Pier 2 houses three fish processors and provides commercial fishing fleet support via fish off-loading and fish net haul-out areas. Pier 3, the westernmost pier, serves recreational and commercial boaters as a haul- out/boatyard facility. This area of the port includes an 88-ton lift and a wash down pad. The lift allows boats to be safely removed from the water. The wash down system makes it easier for boaters to wash boat hulls. Below is a list of companies, though no longer in operation at the port, that could have contributed to contamination in Youngs Bay based on their type of work activities.

. Astoria Marine Iron Works: Astoria Marine Iron Works was a ship manufacturing company located at Pier 2 and had 1,237 workers. . McEachern Ship Company: The McEachern Ship Company was established in 1916 with its head office in Portland, Oregon and its ship building plant in Astoria. The plant covered 10 acres and included six ship building slips. Approximately 400 workers were employed. . George F. Rodgers Ship Building Company: The George F. Rodgers Ship Building Company was established in 1917 with its head office in Astoria. A 5-acre plant was located at Pier 2. The plant included four ship building slips and employed approximately 300 workers. . Wilson Ship Building Company: The Wilson Ship Building Company was established in 1912 with its head office in Portland and its ship building plant at Smith’s Point in Astoria. The plant covered 33 acres and included two ship building slips. Approximately 350 workers were employed. Although the facility is no longer in operation, remnants of the former ship building slips are still present.

J&H Boatworks, Incorporated J&H Boatworks, Incorporated is an active facility that was established in 1976 and is located at 92519 Wireless Road in Astoria on Cook Slough. The company designs, builds, remodels, and repairs boats. Materials used for the operation of the facility as well as work practices may be sources of contamination.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-7

2. Site Background

Warrenton Boat Yard The Warrenton Boat Yard is an active facility located at the head of the Skipanon Waterway at 101 Northeast Harbor Court in Warrenton, Oregon. Historically, elevated levels of metals have been detected in stormwater runoff from the site. Additionally, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols, phthalates, PCBs, and pesticides have been detected in sediments at the site.

2.6 Summary of Site Inspection Locations 2.6.1 Phase I Site Inspection Locations Sampling under the Phase I SI was conducted at possible on-site sources of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)-regulated substances and at areas (i.e., targets) that may have been contaminated through the migration of hazardous substances from site sources. Sampling during the Phase I SI was conducted at the AMCC facility. The investigated features identified under the Phase I AMCC SI were determined based on the site visit, interviews with former workers and regulatory agencies, and a review of background information. Possible sources and targets inspected during Phase I of the AMCC SI are presented in Figure 2-1, and these features are discussed below.

Potential Sources Investigated During Phase I Former Grit Piles Historic grit piles at the site, although no longer present, may have released heavy metals and/or organotins to ground water. These contaminants, if present, may be migrating through ground water to surface water. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining the presence of contamination that may be associated with the former grit piles. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals and organotins.

Current Grit Piles Grit from sandblasting new steel is stored on the ground surface near the location of the former grit piles. It is possible that this grit contains metals that may leach to groundwater and migrate to surface water. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining the presence of contamination that may be associated with the current grit piles. Potential contaminants of concern are TAL Metals.

Burn Area An area located near the Lewis and Clark River has been used to burn lumber, trees, debris, and other items. Solvents have been used to assist with fire starting. Solvents may have migrated to ground water and may be migrating through

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-8

2. Site Background

ground water to surface water. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining the presence of contamination that may be associated with the burn area. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, SVOCs, VOCs, pesticides/PCBs, TPH-D, TPH-G, and organotins.

Waste Oil and Petroleum Several areas of petroleum-stained soil were present at the site. These areas generally coincided with areas used to store boat engines. Petroleum and heavy metal contamination associated with waste oil may be migrating to ground water and through ground water to surface water. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining the presence of contamination that may be associated with the waste oil- and petroleum-stained areas. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, SVOCs, VOCs, TPH-D, and TPH-G.

Targets Investigated During Phase I Ground Water Shallow ground water at the site may be contaminated as a result of historic waste handling activities and use of solvents to aid in burning. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining if site contaminants are migrating to and impacting ground water at the site. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-D, TPH-G, and Pesticides/PCBs.

Surface Water Bodies Surface water features adjacent to the site, including Jeffers Slough and the Lewis and Clark River, may be contaminated as a result of historic waste handling activities and the use of solvents to aid in burning. Phase I of this SI was designed to assist in determining if site contaminants are migrating to and impacting surface water near the site. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, VOCs, SVOCs, TPH-D, TPH-G, and Pesticides/PCBs.

2.6.2 Phase II Site Inspection Locations Sampling under the Phase II SI focused on targets that may have been contaminated through the migration of hazardous substances from additional site sources. These off-site sources may contain CERCLA-regulated substances. Sampling during the Phase II SI was conducted off site of the AMCC facility. The features identified under the Phase II AMCC SI were determined based on interviews with regulatory agencies and a review of background information. Possible sources and targets inspected during Phase II of the AMCC SI are presented in Figure 2-2 and discussed below:

Potential Sources Investigated During Phase II Port of Astoria The Port of Astoria is located on Youngs Bay. The port has a long history of ship building and repair facilities that have operated from the port, including: Astoria Marine Iron Works, McEachern Ship Co., George F. Rodgers Ship Building Co., and Wilson Ship Building. Based on the length of time the port has operated and

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-9

2. Site Background

the types of operations at the port, the Port of Astoria may contain historic or current sources of contamination to Youngs Bay. Contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs. Phase II of this SI was designed to determine whether facilities at the port have contributed to contamination in the Lewis and Clark River, Youngs Bay, and adjacent sediments.

J&H Boatworks, Incorporated J&H Boatworks, Incorporated (located approximately 1.9 miles south of the City of Astoria on Cook Slough) designs, builds, remodels, and repairs boats. The facility is currently in operation. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs. Phase II of this SI was designed to determine whether this facility has contributed to contamination in the Lewis and Clark River, Youngs Bay, and adjacent sediments.

Warrenton Boat Yard The Warrenton Boat Yard is located at the head of the Skipanon Waterway. This facility currently is in operation. Phase II of this SI originally included collecting sediment samples immediately offshore of this facility. However, based on information contained in a draft remedial investigation (RI) report (Feige & Associates 2009) made available to the EPA TM and information contained in the ODEQ Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) system indicating that sediment samples had previously been collected in this area, it was decided that no additional sediment sampling in this area was required for the Phase II SI. Instead only the planned samples at the mouth of the Skipanon Waterway were collected. Details of this sampling change are included in Section 6.2 and in Appendix A.

Former Astoria Municipal Landfill The former Astoria Municipal Landfill is located approximately 0.33 miles north of Youngs Bay on Craig Creek. Currently, a waste transfer station operates at the former landfill location. Historically, arsenic and chromium have been detected in ground water near the landfill (ODEQ 2009b). Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs. Phase II of this SI was designed to determine whether this facility has contributed to contamination in Craig Creek, the Lewis and Clark River, Youngs Bay, and adjacent sediments.

Targets Investigated During Phase II Youngs Bay Potential sources near Youngs Bay may be contributing to contamination in the bay. The Phase II SI was designed to assist in determining whether contaminants are impacting this surface water body. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-10

2. Site Background

Lewis and Clark River Flow reversals on the Lewis and Clark River occur up to approximately river mile 6. Contamination off shore of AMCC, as well as contamination from other potential sources in the vicinity, may be moving both upstream and downstream in the river from their points of entry to surface water. Phase II of this SI was designed to assist in determining whether the river has been impacted. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs.

Columbia River Potential sources near the river may be contributing to contamination in the Columbia River. Phase II of this SI was designed to assist in determining whether contaminants are impacting this surface water body. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs

Craig Creek The former Astoria Municipal Landfill may be a potential source of contamination to Craig Creek and may be contributing to contamination in the Youngs River. Phase II of this SI was designed to assist in determining whether contaminants are impacting this surface water body. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs.

Youngs River Flow reversals occur up to approximately river mile 10 on the Youngs River. Contamination from potential sources in Youngs Bay may be moving both upstream and down stream from their points of entry to the river. Phase II of this SI was designed to assist in determining whether contaminants are impacting targets in the Youngs River in the zone of tidal reversal. Potential contaminants of concern include TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, and Pesticides/PCBs.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 2-11 Lewis and Clark River Flow Direction to Youngs Bay

Marine Way 1 Marine Way 3

Marine Way 2 Marine Way 4

Winch House Dredging Fill Area Former Grit Storage Area Covered Covered Dock Marine Marine Burn Way and Way and Area Work Work Gas Tank Space Space and Pump Mooring Lumber Storage Basin/Dredged Above- 2-12 Area ground Drum Storage Work Tanks Shop Current Machine Grit Shop Storage Jeffers Slough Area Pipe Shop New Sand- blast Shop Property Boundary

Office Tide Box Storage Lumber Jeffers Slough Storage (controlled Flow N at High Tide) Notes: All locations are approximate. ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO. Figure 2-1 SITE INSPECTION SITE MAP SHOWING POTENTIAL SOURCES AND ecology and environment, inc. Astoria, Oregon TARGETS INSPECTED DURING PHASE I & International Specialists in the Environment Seattle, Washington 0 25 50 Date: Drawn by: Approximate Scale in Feet 4/14/10 AES 10:START-3\07080005\fig 2-1 Source: Maptech, Inc. 2001.

Astoria Marine Iron Works McEachern Ship Co. George F. Rodgers Ship Building Co.

Port of Astoria Piers 1, 2, and 3

Wilson Ship Building Skipanon Waterway Former Astoria Municipal Landfill Craig Creek Warrenton Boat Yard

Youngs Bay J & H Boatworks

Youngs River

Astoria Marine Construction Co.

Lewis and Clark River

Figure 2-2 ecology and environment, inc. ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO. POTENTIAL OFF-SITE SOURCES AND TARGETS 0 5,000 10,000 Astoria, Oregon INSPECTED DURING PHASE II & International Specialists in the Environment N Seattle, Washington Approximate Scale in Feet Date: Drawn by: 4/1/10 AES 10:START-3\07080005\fig 2-2

2-13

Field Activities and Analytical 3 Protocol

A separate SQAP was developed by START for each phase of the AMCC SI prior to field sampling (E & E 2008, 2009b). Both SQAPs describe the sampling strategy, the sampling methodology, and the analytical program used to investigate potential hazardous substance sources and potential targets. With few exceptions, the SI field activities were conducted in accordance with the approved SQAP. Deviations from the Phase I and Phase II SQAPs are described, when applicable, in this section and in the sampling location discussions in Section 6 (source areas) and Section 7 (target areas). Further, changes to the SQAPs are described in detail in the SPAFs provided in Appendix A. All deviations to the SQAPs were pre-approved by the EPA Task Monitor (TM) during the field sampling events.

The Phase I SI field sampling event was conducted from April 30 through May 2, 2008. A total of 32 samples, consisting of 17 surface soil (including one background), six ground water (including one background), seven sediment (including one background), and two quality assurance (QA) (rinsate and trip blank) samples, were collected for Phase I of the SI. Phase II sampling activities were conducted from November 9 through 14, 2009. A total of 54 sediment samples (including six background samples) were collected during Phase II of the SI. No surface soil or ground water samples were collected as part of Phase II of the SI.

Sample types and methods of collection are described below. A list of all samples collected for laboratory analysis under Phase I of this SI is presented in Table 3-1. A list of all samples collected for laboratory analysis under Phase II of this SI is presented in Table 3-2. Sample locations for samples collected during Phase I of this SI are shown on Figure 3-1. Sample locations for samples collected during Phase II of this SI are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3. Photographic documentation of both Phase I and Phase II SI field activities is provided in Appendix B.

Alphanumeric identification numbers applied by the START to each sample location (e.g., BA01) are used in this report as the sample location identifiers.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 3-1

3. Field Activities and Analytical Protocol

This section describes sampling methodology, analytical protocol, use of GPS equipment, and investigation-derived waste (IDW).

3.1 Sampling Methodology Grass, leaves, and other vegetative material, rocks, and other debris were removed from the sample material before it was placed into sample containers. Samples were stored on ice in coolers continuously maintained under the custody of START personnel. Sampling methods for each sample type are discussed below.

3.1.1 Ground Water Sampling A total of six groundwater samples were collected during Phase I of this SI (Figure 3-1). Temporary well points were installed using direct-push GeoprobeTM sampling equipment. All groundwater samples were collected directly into sample containers and preserved as appropriate. Prior to sampling at each location, the static water level was measured to the nearest 0.01 foot using an electronic water level indicator. The static water levels were measured at low and high tides. Sampling was conducted using dedicated tubing and a non-dedicated peristaltic pump. Water quality parameters were not collected from these locations due to insufficient water volume. Groundwater sampling information is provided in Table 3-1.

3.1.2 Surface Soil Sampling A total of 17 surface soil samples were collected during Phase I of this SI (Figure 3-1). Surface soil samples were collected from known or likely areas of soil contamination. Surface soil samples (0 to 6 inches below ground surface [bgs]) were collected using dedicated stainless steel spoons. Collected material was placed in a dedicated stainless steel bowl, thoroughly homogenized, and then placed into a pre-labeled container. The VOC aliquots were removed directly from the sampling locations using 5-gram Core-N-One™ samplers prior to homogenization. A summary of surface soil sampling information is provided in Table 3-1.

3.1.3 Sediment Sampling 3.1.3.1 Phase I Sediment Sampling A total of seven sediment samples (0 to 6 inches bgs) were collected during Phase I of this SI (Figure 3-1). Samples were collected from known areas of sediment deposition using dedicated stainless steel spoons. Collected material was homogenized thoroughly in dedicated stainless steel bowls and placed into pre-labeled containers. The VOC aliquots were removed directly from the sampling locations using 5-gram Core-N-One ™ samplers prior to homogenization. A summary of sediment sampling information is provided in Table 3-1.

3.1.3.2 Phase II Sediment Sampling A total of 54 sediment samples (0 to 6 inches bgs) were collected during Phase II of this SI (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Samples were collected from areas that could

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 3-2

3. Field Activities and Analytical Protocol

have been potentially affected by off-site sources. All sediment samples were collected using a stainless steel Van Veen® dredge deployed from an EPA- operated boat. It was necessary to drop the Van Veen® dredge multiple times at each sample location in order to retrieve sufficient sample volume for the planned analytical suite. Sample material was removed from the center portion of the sampler using dedicated stainless steel spoons, taking care not to collect sediments that were in contact with the wall of the sampler. Collected material was then homogenized thoroughly in a dedicated stainless steel bowl and placed into prelabeled containers. A summary of Phase II sediment sampling information is provided in Table 3-2.

3.1.4 QA/QC Sampling QA samples (rinsate blank and trip blank samples) were collected for Phase I of this project. One rinsate blank sample was collected from non-dedicated sampling equipment (the GeoprobeTM well screen), and one VOC trip blank sample also was collected from a deionized water source. No rinsate blank or trip blank samples were collected as part of Phase II of this SI.

Samples included matrix spike (MS) and matrix spike duplicate (MSD) samples for organic analysis. MS/MSD samples were collected at a rate of one MS/MSD sample per 20 samples per matrix. A total of two MS/MSD samples were collected as part of Phase I, and a total of three MS/MSD samples were collected as part of Phase II of this SI. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 indicate which samples were collected for laboratory QA/QC purposes.

3.2 Analytical Protocol 3.2.1 Phase I Analytical Protocol The samples collected during Phase I of this SI were submitted to the following Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) or subcontract laboratories for analysis: . Organotins (Method by Krone et al.): Seven water samples were submitted to Test America, Inc., of Tacoma, Washington, and 20 soil/sediment samples were submitted to the EPA Manchester Environmental Laboratory (MEL) of Port Orchard, Washington. . TPH-D (Ecology Method NWTPH-Dx): Fourteen samples were submitted to the EPA MEL, of Port Orchard, Washington. . SVOCs (EPA SOM01.2): Eighteen samples were submitted to KAP Technologies, Inc., of The Woodlands, Texas. . TAL Metals (EPA ILM05.4): Thirty-one samples were submitted to A4 Scientific, of The Woodlands, Texas. . VOCs (EPA SOM01.2): Twenty samples were submitted to KAP Technologies, Inc., of The Woodlands, Texas.

3.2.2 Phase II Analytical Protocol The samples collected during Phase II of this SI were submitted to the following CLP or subcontract laboratories for analysis:

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 3-3

3. Field Activities and Analytical Protocol

. Organotins (Method by Krone et al.): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to Analytical Resources, Inc. (ARI), of Tukwila, Washington. ARI typically reports organotin data as the Ion form; however, they performed a stoichiometric conversion to convert from the Ion form to the chloride form. This conversion was preformed on the Phase II data to ensure it was comparable to the Phase I data analyzed by MEL. . Grain Size (ASTM [American Society for Testing and Materials] D-422): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to ARI, of Tukwila, Washington. . TPH-D (Method NWTPH-Dx): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to the EPA MEL of Port Orchard, Washington. . Total Organic Carbon (Method Puget Sound Estuary Program): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to the EPA MEL of Port Orchard, Washington. . SVOC and Pesticides/PCBs (EPA SOM01.2): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to Mitkem Laboratories Inc., of Warwick, Road Island. . TAL Metals (EPA ILM05.4): Fifty-four sediment samples were submitted to A4 Scientific of The Woodlands, Texas.

3.3 Global Positioning System Equipment A Trimble GeoXH mapping-grade GPS unit was used by START personnel to approximate sample location coordinates of the Phase I SI samples collected from the AMCC Property. During Phase II of the SI, sample locations were approximated utilizing a portable Garman GPSMAP 276C chart plotter. GPS coordinates by sample point, for both Phases I and II, are listed in Appendix C.

3.4 Investigation-Derived Waste IDW generated during Phase I and Phase II of the SI sampling effort consisted of disposable personal protective equipment and sampling equipment. Approximately 10 gallons of wastewater comprising purge water and water from decontamination of non-dedicated ground water sampling equipment was generated during Phase I of the SI. Wastewater was contained in two small buckets and allowed to evaporate.

All disposable personal protective equipment and sampling equipment generated during field activities was rendered unusable by tearing (as appropriate), bagged in plastic garbage bags, and disposed of at the local municipal landfill at the end of the sampling event. No IDW generated during the Phase I and Phase II SI field events remains at the site.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 3-4

3. Field Activities and Analytical Protocol

Table 3-1 Phase I Sample Collection and Analytical Summary Sample Analysis

EPA CLP Sample Sample Station ID ID Location Matrix Sampler Date Time TPH-D SVOCs TAL Metals Tins Butyl VOCs Description 08184100 J8GM6 BA01SS SS BC 5/1/2008 1220 X X X X Dry gray soil, some organics. 08184101 J8GM7 BA02SS SS BC 5/1/2008 1200 X X X X Dry gray soil, some organics. 08184102 J8GM8 BK01GW GW BC 5/1/2008 0930 X X X X X Some sediment, no sheen or odor. 08184103 J8GM9 BK01SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1350 X X X X X Moist gray sediment. 08184104 J8GN0 BK01SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1115 X X X X X Dry dark brown, some organics. 08184105 J8GN1 FG01SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0952 X X Slightly moist brown soil. 08184106 J8GN2 FG02SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1010 X X Slightly moist brown soil. 08184107 J8GN3 FG03SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1020 X X Slightly moist brown soil. 08184108 J8GN4 FG04SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1030 X X Slightly moist brown soil. 08184109 J8GN5 FG05SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1040 X X Slightly moist gray soil. 08184110 J8GN6 FG06SS SS BC 5/2/2008 1050 X X Slightly moist brown, organics. 08184112 J8GN8 JS01SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1250 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184113 J8GN9 JS02SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1815 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184114 J8GP0 LC01SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1450 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184115 J8GP1 LC02SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1650 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184116 J8GP2 LC03SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1715 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184117 J8GP3 LC04SD SD BC 5/1/2008 1730 X X X X X Moist light brown sediment. 08184118 J8GP4 MW01G GW BC 5/1/2008 1119 X X X Clear, no sheen or odor. W 08184119 J8GP5 MW02G GW BC 5/1/2008 1145 X X X Clear, no sheen or odor. W 08184120 J8GP6 MW03G GW BC 5/1/2008 1205 X X X Clear, no sheen or odor. W 08184121 J8GP7 MW04G GW BC 5/1/2008 1220 X X X Clear, no sheen or odor. W 08184122 J8GP8 MW05G GW BC 5/1/2008 1235 X X X Clear, no sheen or odor. W 08184123 J8GP9 NG01SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0750 X X Dry gray sand. 08184124 J8GQ0 NG02SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0848 X X Slightly moist brown sand. 08184125 J8GQ1 OS01SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0805 X X X Slightly moist brown sand. 08184126 J8GQ2 OS02SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0825 X X X Moist brown sand. 08184127 J8GQ3 OS03SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0835 X X X Moist brown sand, some organics. 08184128 J8GQ4 OS04SS SS BC 5/2/2008 0845 X X X Moist brown sand. 08184131 J8GQ7 TB01WT WT BC 5/1/2008 0825 X Trip blank. 08184134 J8GR0 BA03SS SS BC 5/1/2008 1240 X X X X Dry dark brown, some organics. 08184135 J8GR1 BA04SS SS BC 5/1/2008 1300 X X X X Dry dark brown, some organics. 08184136 J8GR2 RI01WT WT BC 5/2/2008 1220 X X X X X Rinsate blank.

Key: BC = Sampler Bryan Ciecko. NG = New grit pile. TAL = Target Analyte List. CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. OS = Oil stain. TB = Trip blank. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection SD = Sediment. TPH-D = Diesel-range total petroleum Agency. SS = Surface soil. hydrocarbons. GW = Groundwater. SVOCs = Semivolatile organic VOCs = Volatile organic compounds. ID = Identification. compounds. WT = Water.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 3-5 Table 3-2 Phase II Sample Collection and Analytical Summary Sample Analysis

EPA Sample Location CLP Sample Sample Sample Number ID Number Depth Date Time Sample Description Matrix Organotins Pesticides /PCBs SVOCs Grain Size TOC TPH-D TAL Metals 09454100 AM01SD JC1P2 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 13:43 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, clay sandy silt, brown 09454101 AM02SD JC1P3 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 14:12 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, clay sandy silt, brown 09454102 AM03SD JC1P4 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 14:34 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silt with clay, dark brown to black, strong organic smell. 09454103 AM04SD JC1P5 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 10:01 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, clay sandy silt, brown to dark brown

09454104 AM05SD JC1P6 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 10:16 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, sandy silt, brown to dark brown 09454105 AM06SD JC1P7 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 10:46 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, sandy silt, brown to dark brown 09454106 AM07SD JC1P8 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 16:12 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, clay silt, brown, no mottling, no organics 09454107 AM08SD JC1P9 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 16:22 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, sandy silt, brown, black organics 09454108 AM09SD JC1Q0 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 16:32 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silty sandy clay, brown to black 09454109 AM10SD JC1Q1 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 15:25 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silt, brown, no sand, no organics 09454110 AM11SD JC1Q2 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 15:42 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, sandy silt, brown 09454111 AM12SD JC1Q3 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 15:53 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, sandy silt, brown

3-6 09454112 AM13SD JC1Q4 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 14:32 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silty clay brown with black mottling

09454113 AM14SD JC1Q5 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 14:45 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silty clay brown with black mottling

09454114 AM15SD JC1Q6 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 15:03 X X XXXX X Astoria Marine Transect, silty clay brown with black mottling

09454115 BK01SD JC1Q7 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 10:16 X X XXXX X Background Lewis and Clark River, silty sandy clay, brown with reddish mottling, MS/MSD 09454116 BK02SD JC1Q8 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 13:06 X X XXXX X Background Skipanon Waterway, silty sandy clay, brown, MS/MSD 09454117 BK03SD JC1Q9 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 11:15 X X XXXX X Background Youngs River, clay silt, brown to black, organics noted, MS/MSD 09454118 BK04SD JC1R0 SD 0-6 inches 11/13/2009 13:50 X X XXXX X Background Craig Creek, gravelly silt, light to dark brown 09454119 CC01SD JC1R1 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 13:11 X X XXXX X Craig Creek, silty clay, brown with reddish brown and black mottling 09454120 CC02SD JC1R2 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 13:29 X X XXXX X Craig Creek, silty clay, brown with reddish brown and black mottling 09454121 CC03SD JC1R3 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 13:48 X X XXXX X Craig Creek, silty clay, brown with reddish brown and black mottling, some organics noted 09454122 JH01SD JC1R4 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 09:01 X X XXXX X J&H Boatworks, silty clay, brown, no mottling, no sand, no organics 09454123 JH02SD JH02S SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 09:22 X X XXXX X J&H Boatworks, silty clay light to dark brown, no mottling, no sand, no organics

Page 1 of 3 Table 3-2 Phase II Sample Collection and Analytical Summary Sample Analysis

3-7 organics 09454129 LC05SD JC1S1 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 10:50 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown to light gray, high organics, worms present in sediment 09454130 LC06SD JC1S2 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 11:31 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown to light gray, high organics, clam present in sediment 09454131 LC07SD JC1S3 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 11:50 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown with red and brown mottling 09454132 LC08SD JC1S4 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 12:11 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown with red mottling 09454133 LC09SD JC1S5 SD 0-6 inches 11/10/2009 13:01 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown with red and brown mottling, two clams present in sediment 09454134 LC10SD JC1S6 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 11:00 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty sand, very fine sand, very little clay, brown with reddish brown mottling, worms present in sediment

09454135 LC11SD JC1S7 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 11:28 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay with small amounts very fine sand, brown to grey with reddish mottling, some organics 09454136 LC12SD JC1S8 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 09:10 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay with very fine sand, brown with reddish mottling, some organics 09454137 LC13SD JC1S9 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 09:35 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty sandy clay, brown, no organics 09454138 LC14SD JC1T0 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 09:51 X X XXXX X Lewis and Clark River, silty clay, brown with dark gray mottling, some organics (roots and leafs)

Page 2 of 3 Table 3-2 Phase II Sample Collection and Analytical Summary Sample Analysis

EPA Sample Location CLP Sample Sample Sample Number ID Number Depth Date Time Sample Description Matrix Organotins Pesticides /PCBs SVOCs Grain Size TOC TPH-D TAL Metals 09454139 PA01SD JC1T1 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 08:45 X X XXXX X Port of Astoria, silty sand, brown, high mica content, some shell fragments noted 09454140 PA02SD JC1T2 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 09:07 X X XXXX X Port of Astoria, silty clay, little to no sand, brown with black organics 09454141 PA03SD JC1T3 SD 0-6 inches 11/12/2009 09:27 X X XXXX X Port of Astoria, clay silt, brown to black, organics noted, slight sheen noted in sediment 09454142 SW01SD JC1T4 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 13:52 X X XXXX X Skipanon Waterway, silty sandy clay, dark brown to black, with shell fragments 09454143 SW02SD JC1T5 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 14:19 X X XXXX X Skipanon Waterway, silty sand, brown 09454144 SW03SD JC1T6 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 14:41 X X XXXX X Skipanon Waterway, silty sand, brown 09454148 WB01SD JC1W0 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 15:37 X X XXXX X Wilson Ship Building, sandy silty clay, brown, shell fragments noted, some organics 09454149 WB02SD JC1W1 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 15:03 X X XXXX X Wilson Ship Building, sandy silty clay, brown, shell fragments noted, some organics 09454150 WB03SD JC1W2 SD 0-6 inches 11/11/2009 15:27 X X XXXX X Wilson Ship building, silty sand, brown, shell fragments noted 3-8 09454151 YR01SD JC1W3 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 11:29 X X XXXX X Youngs River, silty clay, dark gray 09454152 YR02SD JC1W4 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 11:48 X X XXXX X Youngs River, silty clay, dark brown to black with reddish brown mottling, high organics (roots) 09454153 YR03SD JC1W5 SD 0-6 inches 11/9/2009 12:13 X X XXXX X Youngs River, silty clay, dark brown to black Key: AM = Astoria Marine Construction Company. BK = Background. CC = Craig Creek. CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. JH = J&H Boatworks. LC = Lewis and Clark River. MS/MSD = Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate. PA = Port of Astoria. PCB = Polychlorinated biphenyls. SVOC = Semivolatile Organic Compounds. SD = Sediment. SW = Skipanon Waterway. TAL = Target Analyte List. TPH-D = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons Diesel-Range. TOC = Total Organic Carbon. WB = Wilson Ship Building. YR = Youngs River.

Page 3 of 3 Lewis and Clark River Flow Direction to Youngs Bay

Marine Way 1 Marine Way 3 LC03SD Marine Way 2 Marine Way 4 LC04SD

Winch House

Dredging JS02SD Fill Area MW04GW Covered Former Grit Marine BA03SS Storage Area Way and Covered LC01SD BK01SD FG06SS Marine Dock FG05SS Work LC02SD BA04SS Space Way and Burn Gas Tank Work BA02SS BA01SS Area and Pump MW05GW FG04SS Space FG03SS MW02GW FG02SS Lumber Storage Mooring MW03GW NG02SS Basin/Dredged FG01SS Area Above- NG01SS MW01GW Drum Storage 3-9 ground Work Tanks OS02SS OS03SS Shop OS04SS OS01SS Machine New Grit Shop Jeffers Slough Storage Area Pipe Shop New Sand- blast Shop Property Boundary JS01SD Office Tide Box Storage Lumber Jeffers Slough Storage BK01GW (controlled Flow BK01SS N at High Tide) Notes: All locations are approximate. ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO. Figure 3-1 SITE INSPECTION PHASE I SITE INSPECTION ecology and environment, inc. Astoria, Oregon SAMPLE LOCATION MAP & International Specialists in the Environment Seattle, Washington 0 25 50 Date: Drawn by: Approximate Scale in Feet 4/22/10 AES 10:START-3\07080005\fig 3-1 r e iv R k r la C d n a is w e L

AM15SD AM14SD AM13SD

Astoria Marine Construction Co. AM12SD AM11SD AM10SD

AM09SD AM08SD AM07SD

AM06SD AM05SD AM03SD AM04SD

AM01SD AM02SD

Legend Sample Locations

FIGURE 3-2 ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SAMPLE LOCATION MAP NEAR FACILITY LOCATION SITE INVESTIGATION Feet Map Reference: 02100 00400 Digital Globe, 2006

TDD Number: 07-08-0005 Astoria, Oregon File Location: r:\3 START 3\Astoria Marine Date: Prepared by: 1/8/2010 amm

3-11 3-13

4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

QA/QC data are necessary to determine precision and accuracy and to demonstrate the absence of interference and/or contamination of sampling equipment, glassware, and reagents. Specific quality control (QC) requirements for laboratory analyses are incorporated in the Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analyses (EPA 2007b) and Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organic Analyses (EPA 2007a). These QC requirements or equivalent requirements found in the analytical methods were followed for analytical work on the SI. This section describes the QA/QC measures taken for the SI and provides an evaluation of the usability of data presented in this report.

Data from the CLP laboratories and the MEL were reviewed and validated by EPA chemists. Data from the START-subcontracted commercial laboratory were reviewed and validated by a START chemist. Data qualifiers were applied as necessary according to the following guidance:

. EPA (2004), Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review; and . EPA (2008), Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review.

In the absence of other QC guidance, method- and/or standard operating procedure-specific QC limits were also utilized to apply qualifiers to the data.

4.1 Phase I 4.1.1 Satisfaction of Data Quality Objectives The following EPA (EPA 2000) guidance document was used to establish data quality objectives (DQOs) for this SI:

. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), EPA/600/R-96/055.

The EPA TM determined that definitive data without error and bias determination would be used for the sampling and analyses conducted during the Phase I field activities. The data quality achieved during the fieldwork produced sufficient

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-1

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

data that met the DQOs stated in the SQAP (E & E 2008). A detailed discussion of the SI objectives attained is presented in the following sections.

4.1.2 QA/QC Samples QA samples (one rinsate blank and one trip blank) were collected. The trip blank sample was collected at the required frequency of one per VOC sample cooler. The rinsate blank sample was collected at the required frequency of one per 20 samples collected using non-dedicated sampling equipment (the GeoprobeTM well screen). QC samples included MS/MSD samples for organic analyses at a rate of one MS/MSD per 20 samples per matrix and MS/duplicate samples for inorganic analyses at a rate of one per 20 samples per matrix.

4.1.3 Project-Specific Data Quality Objectives The laboratory data were reviewed to ensure that DQOs for the project were met. The following describes the laboratories’ abilities to meet project DQOs for precision, accuracy, and completeness and the field team’s ability to meet project DQOs for representativeness and comparability. The laboratories and the field team were able to meet DQOs for the project.

4.1.3.1 Precision Precision measures the reproducibility of the sampling and analytical methodology. Laboratory and field precision is defined as the relative percent difference (RPD) between duplicate sample analyses. The laboratory duplicate samples or MS/MSD samples measure the precision of the analytical method. The RPD values were reviewed for all commercial laboratory samples. Ten sample results (approximately 0.35% of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on laboratory duplicate QC outliers; therefore, the project DQO for precision of 90% was met.

4.1.3.2 Accuracy Accuracy indicates the conformity of the measurements to fact. Laboratory accuracy is defined as the surrogate spike percent recovery (%R) or the MS %Rs. The surrogate %R values were reviewed for all appropriate sample analyses. Forty-two sample results (approximately 1.4 % of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on surrogate QC outliers.

The MS %R values were reviewed for all MS/MSD analyses. Twenty-five sample results (approximately 0.85% of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on MS QC outliers; therefore, the project DQO for accuracy of 90% was met.

4.1.3.3 Completeness Data completeness is defined as the percentage of usable data (usable data divided by the total possible data). All laboratory data were reviewed for data validation and usability. No sample results were rejected; therefore, the project DQO for completeness was met.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-2

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

4.1.3.4 Representativeness Data representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or environmental condition. The number and selection of samples were determined in the field to account accurately for site variations and sample matrices. The DQO for representativeness was met.

4.1.3.5 Comparability Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Data produced for this site followed applicable field sampling techniques and specific analytical methodology. The DQO for comparability was met.

4.1.4 Laboratory QA/QC Parameters The laboratory data also were reviewed for holding times/temperatures, laboratory blank, trip blank, and rinsate blank samples, serial dilution analyses, and internal standard analyses. These QA/QC parameters are summarized below. In general, the laboratory and field QA/QC parameters were considered acceptable.

4.1.4.1 Holding Times/Temperatures All holding times were met. All samples were maintained within QC temperature limits except seven butyl tin samples (approximately 0.24 % of the data), which were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ).

4.1.4.2 Laboratory Blanks All laboratory blanks met the frequency criteria. The following potential contaminant of concern was detected in the laboratory blanks.

. TAL Metals: Antimony.

See the data validation memoranda in Appendix D for qualifiers applied based on laboratory blank contamination.

4.1.4.3 Trip Blank The water trip blank was collected from a deionized water source. One water trip blank sample was collected during the field event, therefore meeting the frequency criteria of one per cooler per 20 VOC samples. Methylene chloride was detected in the trip blank at 5.6 micrograms per liter. Sample results were qualified as not detected (U) if the associated sample result was less than 10 times the trip blank concentration for the common laboratory contaminant. The qualifiers are included in the data tables but not in the data validation memoranda.

4.1.4.4 Rinsate Blank One rinsate blank sample was analyzed for each 20 samples collected using non- dedicated sampling equipment (the GeoprobeTM well screen), meeting the

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-3

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

frequency criteria. The following contaminants of concern were detected in the rinsate blank sample and resulted in sample qualifications:

SVOCs: Diethyl phthalate; and TAL Metals: Iron.

For sample results greater than the quantitation limits, sample results less than five times the rinsate blank concentration (10 times for common contaminants) were qualified as not detected (U).

4.1.4.5 Serial Dilution Serial dilution analyses were performed at a frequency of one per 20 samples per matrix, meeting QC frequency criteria. A total of 100 results (approximately 3.4% of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on serial dilution outliers.

4.1.4.6 Internal Standards Internal standards were added to organic samples at the required frequency. A total of 119 results (approximately 4.1% of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on internal standard outliers.

4.2 Phase II 4.2.1 Satisfaction of Data Quality Objectives The following EPA (EPA 2000) guidance document was used to establish DQOs for this SI:

. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), EPA/600/R-96/055.

The EPA TM determined that definitive data without error and bias determination would be used for the sampling and analyses conducted during the Phase II field activities. The data quality achieved during the fieldwork produced sufficient data that met the DQOs stated in the SQAP (E & E 2009b). A detailed discussion of the SI objectives attained is presented in the following sections.

4.2.2 QA/QC Samples QA samples (rinsate and trip blanks) were not required. Trip blank samples are only required for volatile organic compound samples. Rinsate blank samples are only required when collecting samples using non-dedicated sampling equipment. Even though the Van Veen® dredge is non-dedicated sampling equipment, no rinsate samples were collected because care was taken to collect sample material that had not come in contact with the edge of the Van Veen® dredge. QC samples included MS/MSD samples for organic analyses at a rate of one MS/MSD per 20 samples per matrix and MS/duplicate samples for inorganic analyses at a rate of one per 20 samples per matrix.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-4

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

4.2.3 Project-Specific Data Quality Objectives The laboratory data were reviewed to ensure that DQOs for the project were met. The following describes the laboratories’ abilities to meet project DQOs for precision, accuracy, and completeness and the field team’s ability to meet project DQOs for representativeness and comparability. The laboratories and the field team were able to meet DQOs for the project.

4.2.3.1 Precision Precision measures the reproducibility of the sampling and analytical methodology. Laboratory and field precision is defined as the RPD between duplicate sample analyses. The laboratory duplicate samples or MS/MSD samples measure the precision of the analytical method. The RPD values were reviewed for all commercial laboratory samples. No sample results were qualified based on duplicate outliers; therefore, the project DQO for precision of 90% was met.

4.2.3.2 Accuracy Accuracy indicates the conformity of the measurements to fact. Laboratory accuracy is defined as the surrogate spike %R or the MS %Rs. The surrogate %R values were reviewed for all appropriate sample analyses. One hundred ninety- one sample results (approximately 2.8 % of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on surrogate QC outliers.

The MS %R values were reviewed for all MS/MSD analyses. Twenty sample results (approximately 0.3 % of the data) were qualified as estimated quantities (J or UJ) based on MS QC outliers; therefore, the project DQO for accuracy of 90% was met.

4.2.3.3 Completeness Data completeness is defined as the percentage of usable data (usable data divided by the total possible data). All laboratory data were reviewed for data validation and usability. No sample results were rejected; therefore, the project DQO for completeness was met.

4.2.3.4 Representativeness Data representativeness expresses the degree to which sample data accurately and precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, or an environmental condition. The number and selection of samples were determined in the field to account accurately for site variations and sample matrices. The DQO for representativeness was met.

4.2.3.5 Comparability Comparability is a qualitative parameter expressing the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another. Data produced for this site followed applicable field sampling techniques and specific analytical methodology. The DQO for comparability was met.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-5

4. Quality Assurance/Quality Control

4.2.4 Laboratory QA/QC Parameters The laboratory data also were reviewed for holding times/temperatures, laboratory blank samples, serial dilution analyses, and internal standard analyses. These QA/QC parameters are summarized below. In general, the laboratory and field QA/QC parameters were considered acceptable.

4.2.4.1 Holding Times/Temperatures All holding times were met. All samples were maintained within QC temperature limits.

4.2.4.2 Laboratory Blanks All laboratory blanks met the frequency criteria. The following potential contaminant of concern was detected in the laboratory blanks:

. SVOCs: Di-n-butyl phthalate.

See the data validation memoranda in Appendix D for qualifiers applied based on laboratory blank contamination.

4.2.4.3 Serial Dilution Serial dilution analyses were performed at a frequency of one per 20 samples per matrix, meeting QC frequency criteria. All serial dilution results were within QC limits.

4.2.4.4 Internal Standards Internal standards were added to organic samples at the required frequency. All internal standard results were within QC limits.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 4-6

Analytical Results Reporting and 5 Background Samples

This section describes the reporting and methods applied to analytical results presented in Sections 6 (sources) and 7 (targets) of this report, and discusses background locations and sample results. Tables 3-1 and Table 3-2 list all samples collected for laboratory analysis.

5.1 Analytical Results Evaluation Criteria Analytical results presented in the summary tables of Sections 6 and 7 show all analytes detected above laboratory detection limits in bold type. Analytical results indicating significant/elevated concentrations of contaminants in source samples (Section 6) and target samples (Section 7) with respect to background concentrations are shown underlined and in bold type. For the purposes of this investigation, significant/elevated concentrations are those concentrations that are:

. Equal to or greater than the sample’s Contract-Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) or the Sample Quantitation Limit (SQL) when a non-CLP laboratory was used; and . Equal to or greater than the background sample’s CRQL or SQL when the background concentration was below detection limits; or . At least three times greater than the background concentration when the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limits.

The analytical summary tables present all detected compounds, but only those detected analytes at potential sources and targets meeting the significant/elevated concentration criteria are discussed in the report text. All detected concentrations are also discussed for the background samples. When samples were diluted for reanalysis at a laboratory, the dilution results were considered for evaluation and are provided in the tables.

5.1.1 Sample Results Reporting The analytes aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are common earth crust elements. Based on EPA Region 10 policy, these common earth crust elements will not be discussed in this report.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 5-1

5. Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples

5.2 Phase I Background Sampling Phase I background samples were collected for each of the naturally occurring media from which Phase I SI samples were collected, including ground water, sediment, and surface soil. Results for the appropriate background samples are shown in the first column of the analytical results summary tables in Sections 6 and 7 for comparison against source or target results.

5.2.1 Phase I Background Ground Water Sampling 5.2.1.1 Sample Location One background ground water sample (BK01GW) was collected during Phase I of this SI from a monitoring well installed at the site in an area expected to be unaffected by site activities. The monitoring well was installed in the northeast property corner approximately 27 feet from the northeast corner of the covered marine way and work space (Figure 3-1). The background ground water sample was analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, and VOCs.

5.2.1.2 Sample Results Sample results are presented in Table 7-2. Sample results indicate the presence of one organotin (TBT) and one TAL Metal (manganese). No TPH-D, SVOCs, or VOCs were detected in the background ground water sample.

5.2.2 Phase I Background Sediment Sampling 5.2.2.1 Sample Location One background sediment sample (BK01SD) was collected during Phase I of the SI from a location north of the facility (Figure 3-1) expected to be unaffected by nearby potential sources. The Phase I background sediment sample was analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, and VOCs.

Subsequent to the Phase I field event, it was determined that the location of the background sample may be under the influence of the site. For this reason, the Phase II background sediment sample collected from the Lewis and Clark River at approximately River Mile 6.5 is considered a more appropriate background sample for sediment samples collected during the Phase I field event. Throughout the remainder of this report, Phase I sample BK01SD will be considered a release sample; while Phase II sample BK01SD will be used as the background sample for both sampling events.

5.2.3 Phase I Background Surface Soil Sampling 5.2.3.1 Sample Location One background surface soil sample (BK01SS) was collected during Phase I of the SI from the property in an area that is outside of operational areas of the facility. This sample was collected from the northeast portion of the property approximately 27 feet from the northeast corner of the covered marine way and work space (Figure 3-1). The background surface soil sample was analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, and VOCs.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 5-2

5. Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples

5.2.3.2 Sample Results Sample results are presented in Table 6-1. Sample results indicate the presence of three organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride), motor oil, six SVOCs (fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, benzo(g,h,i)perylene), and 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). No VOCs were detected in the background surface soil sample.

5.3 Phase II Background Sampling Phase II background samples were collected for each of the naturally occurring media from which Phase II SI samples were collected. Results for the appropriate background samples are shown in the first column of the analytical results summary tables in Section 7 for comparison against target results.

5.3.1 Phase II Background Sediment Sampling 5.3.1.1 Sample Locations Six background sediment samples (BK01SD through BK06SD) were collected during Phase II of the SI (Figure 3-3) from locations expected to be unaffected by nearby potential off-site sources. The Phase II background sediment samples were analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, Pesticides/PCBs, total organic carbon (TOC), and grain size. Phase II background sample locations are discussed below.

Lewis and Clark River One background sediment sample (BK01SD) was collected from the Lewis and Clark River outside of the tidally influenced zone, at approximately River Mile 6.5. This background sample location was deemed appropriate for the Lewis and Clark River samples and the samples collected near Cook Slough because it was collected on the same water body, it was outside the zone of tidal reversal, and it had similar sediment characteristics to downstream samples.

Skipanon Waterway One background sediment sample (BK02SD) was collected from the Skipanon Waterway. This sample was collected from the farthest upriver location accessible by boat. This location is down river from a dam located on the Skipanon River. The presence of the dam was not known prior to the sampling event. The dam appeared to act like a tide box, preventing water from moving up river as the tide comes in. This sample location was not out of the tidally influenced zone.

Youngs River One background sediment sample (BK03SD) was collected from the Youngs River outside of the tidally influenced zone, at approximately River Mile 10. This background sample location was deemed appropriate for all samples collected on the Youngs River. These samples include YR01SD through YR03SD, CC01SD through CC03SD, and JH01SD through JH03SD because it was collected on the

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 5-3

5. Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples

same water body, it was outside the zone of tidal reversal, and it had similar sediment characteristics to downstream samples. It is important to note that samples CC01SD through CC03SD were collected on the Youngs River at the confluence of Craig Creek and the Youngs River, and samples JH01SD through JH03SD were also collected on the Youngs River at the confluence of Cook Slough and the Youngs River.

Craig Creek Two background samples (BK04SD and BK06SD) were collected from Craig Creek. Initially, only one background sample was to be collected from Craig Creek. However, when the field team met with Ken Nelson (Superintendent of Public Works, City of Astoria), he informed the START that Craig Creek was forked (into east and west forks) and that it converged below the landfill. START collected the planned background sample (BK04SD) from the east fork and at the request of the EPA TM, and one additional background sample (BK06SD) was collected from the west fork of Craig Creek. Details of this change are included in a SPAF located in Appendix A. Both of these background samples were collected above the Astoria Municipal Landfill. These sample locations were deemed appropriate for comparison with the sample collected from Craig Creek (CC04SD) because they were collected from the same water body and they had similar sediment characteristics to downstream samples.

Columbia River One background sediment sample (BK05SD) was collected from the Columbia River from an area west of the Skipanon Waterway. This background sample location was deemed appropriate for samples collected on the Columbia River because it was collected on the same water body and had similar sediment characteristics to downstream samples. A background sample was not originally intended to be collected from this location; however, one was added to ensure a background sample was collected from each sediment and water body type. The details of this change are included in a SPAF located in Appendix A.

5.3.1.2 Sample Results Phase II background sediment sample results are discussed by location below.

Lewis and Clark River Sample results are presented in Tables 7-5 and 7-6. Sample results indicate the presence of 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). No organotins, TPH-D, pesticides/PCBs, or SVOCs were detected in the background sediment sample collected from the Lewis and Clark River.

Skipanon Waterway Sample results are presented in Table 7-7. Sample results indicate the presence of eight TAL Metals (arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). No organotins, TPH-D, pesticides/PCBs, or SVOCs were

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 5-4

5. Analytical Results Reporting and Background Samples

detected in the background sediment sample collected from the Skipanon Waterway.

Youngs River Sample results are presented in Tables 7-8 and 7-9. Sample results indicate the presence of 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). Additionally, sample results indicated the presence of one SVOC, di-n-butylphthalate. No organotins, TPH-D, or pesticides/PCBs were detected in the background sediment sample collected from the Youngs River.

Craig Creek Sample results are presented in Table 7-10. Sample results from the east fork of Craig Creek (BK04SD) indicate the presence of 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). Sample results from the west fork of Craig Creek (BK06SD) indicate the presence of nine TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). No organotins, TPH-D, pesticides/PCBs, or SVOCs were detected in the either of the background sediment samples collected from Craig Creek.

Columbia River Sample results are presented in Table 7-11. Sample results indicate the presence of nine TAL Metals (arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc). No organotins, TPH-D, pesticides/PCBs, or SVOCs were detected in the background sediment sample collected from the Columbia River.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 5-5

6 Potential Sources

This section describes potential sources, sample locations, and analytical results of SI samples obtained from potential sources. Laboratory data sheets of analytical results for all samples are provided in Appendix D.

6.1 On-Site Sources Investigated During Phase I Site Investigation Sources located on site at the AMCC facility were investigated during Phase I of the SI. Sample locations and results are discussed below for each of these sources.

6.1.1 Burn Area An area located near the Lewis and Clark River has been used to burn lumber, trees, debris, and other items (Figure 3-1). Solvents have been used to assist with fire starting. These solvents may have migrated to ground water and may be migrating through ground water to surface water. This area is estimated to be approximately 1,900 square feet (approximately 50 feet in diameter).

6.1.1.1 Sample Locations Four surface soil samples were collected from the burn area (BA01SS through BA04SS). The burn area is near the northern property boundary on the bank of the Lewis and Clark River (Figure 3-1). Samples were collected between 0 and 6 inches bgs. The area had an odor that would be expected from a burn pile.

6.1.1.2 Sample Results Burn area samples were analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TAL Metals, and VOCs. Surface soil sample results are presented in Table 6-1. Sample results indicate the presence of four organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tetrabutyltin, and tributyltin chloride), three SVOCs (acetophenone, naphthalene, and bis[2-ethylhexl]phthalate), 12 TAL Metals (antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc), and five VOCs (methylcyclohexane, ethylbenzene, m,p-xylenes, o-xylene, and toluene) at significant concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Of the burn area samples, BA02SS appeared to be the most heavily contaminated. This sample had significant concentrations of all four organotins, all three

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 6-1

6. Potential Sources

SVOCs, and all five VOCs. Most of the significant concentrations of SVOCs and VOCs in this sample are those typically associated with petroleum products. Metals contamination was prevalent among the sample points. Arsenic, barium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc were detected at significant concentrations in all four samples.

6.1.2 Former Grit Pile An historic grit pile at the site, although no longer present, may have released heavy metals and organotins to groundwater (Figure 3-1). The former grit pile is located approximately 25 feet south of the covered marine way and work space (Figure 3-1). This area is estimated to be 1,500 square feet (50 feet by 30 feet).

6.1.2.1 Sample Locations Six surface soil samples (FG01SS through FG06SS) were collected from the area of the former grit storage pile. Samples FG01SS and FG06SS were collected from the perimeter of the former grit storage area, which is adjacent to several mounds of dredged spoils. Each sample contained visible grit. Samples were collected from 0 to 6 inches bgs. No staining, discoloration, or discernable odors were noted.

6.1.2.2 Sample Results Former grit pile samples were analyzed for organotins and TAL Metals. Surface soil sample results are presented in Table 6-1. Sample results indicate the presence of four organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, tetrabutyltin, and tributyltin chloride) and four TAL Metals (antimony, chromium, copper, and nickel) at significant concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Butyltin trichloride, tributyltin chloride, and copper were detected at significant concentrations in all six grit pile samples. Chromium and nickel were detected at significant concentrations in four of the six samples. The organotins, copper, and chromium are associated with marine paints. Nickel is associated with steel.

6.1.3 New Grit Pile Grit from sandblasting new steel is stored on the ground surface near the location of the former grit storage pile (Figure 3-1). This area is estimated to be 300 square feet (30 feet by 10 feet).

6.1.3.1 Sample Locations Two surface soil samples were collected from the new grit storage area (NG01SS and NG02SS). The new grit pile is partially enclosed by cinderblocks forming a “U” shape to prevent the wind from spreading the grit around the site. The storage area is covered with a tarp. Samples were collected between 0 and 6 inches bgs and analyzed for organotins and TAL Metals. No odors or staining were noted near the new grit storage area.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 6-2

6. Potential Sources

6.1.3.2 Sample Results New grit pile surface soil samples were analyzed for organotins and TAL Metals. Sample results are presented in Table 6-1. Sample results indicate the presence of two TAL Metals (chromium and nickel) at significant concentrations with respect to background concentrations. No organotins were detected at significant concentrations in the new grit storage area surface soil samples. Nickel was detected at a significant concentration in both new grit pile samples.

6.1.4 Oil-Stained Area Several areas of petroleum-stained soil are present at the site (Figure 3-1). These areas generally coincided with areas used to store boat engines. These areas are estimated to cover a combined area of 400 square feet (10 feet by 10 feet for each area multiplied by four oil-stained areas).

6.1.4.1 Sample Locations Four surface soil samples were collected from the facility (OS01SS through OS04SS). Sample OS01SS was collected from below the valve to an aboveground storage tank where oil stains were present; petroleum-related odors were noted at this location. Sample OS02SS was collected from the soil at the edge of a puddle that had an oily sheen on it; no odor was noted at this location. Sample OS03SS was collected from an area that was covered in what may be waste oil; a strong fuel odor was noted in this area. Sample OS04SS was collected from soil that looked like it was covered in heavy oil or grease; no odor was noted at this location. Samples were collected between 0 and 6 inches bgs and analyzed for TPH-D, SVOCs, and TAL Metals.

6.1.4.2 Sample Results Surface soil sample results are presented in Table 6-1. Sample results indicate the presence of two TPH-Ds (diesel and motor oil range), 11 SVOCs [acetophenone, n-nitrosodiphenylamine, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, pentachlorophenol (PCP), butylbenzylphthalate, benzo(a)anthracene, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(b)fluoranthene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene], and six TAL Metals (antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel) at significant concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Diesel oil was present in samples OS01SS and OS03SS, while motor oil was present in samples OS01SS, OS02SS, and OS04SS. SVOC contamination was most prevalent in sample OS02SS, collected from an area covered in what appeared to be waste oil. The SVOCs present in this sample are mainly those associated with petroleum products. Samples OS03SS and OS04SS contained significant concentrations of n-nitrosodiphenylamine, while sample OS04SS also contained PCP at a significant concentration. Chromium and nickel were detected at significant concentrations in both OS01SS and OS02SS. Both PCP and chromium are known to be used in some anti-fouling paints. Again, nickel is associated with steel. These locations are close to areas where boats were hauled out and painted, which may be why TAL Metals were detected at significant concentrations.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 6-3

6. Potential Sources

6.2 Potential Off-Site Sources Investigated During Phase II Inspection Several facilities that may contain sources of contamination to surface water bodies near the AMCC site were investigated during Phase II of the SI. These facilities include: J&H Boatworks Inc., the Port of Astoria, and the former Astoria Municipal Landfill. Surface water near these facilities also could be impacted by activities at the AMCC site since these facilities are downstream of the AMCC site and within the site’s potential range of influence. Sources at these off-site facilities were not sampled as a part of this SI; however, target samples were collected immediately off shore of the facilities. Phase II target sampling and sampling results are discussed below in section 7.2.6. These off-site facilities are depicted in Figure 2-2.

Phase II of this SI originally also included sampling sediments immediately off- shore of the Warrenton Boatyard. However, a draft RI report and information contained in the ODEQ ECSI data base indicated this area had previously been sampled. Data from RI samples indicated that elevated concentrations of TAL Metals were present in storm water runoff, and that PAHs, phenols, phthalates, and pesticides/PCBs were present in sediments near the site (Feige & Associates 2009; ODEQ 2009a). Following consultation with the EPA TM, it was decided that since recent data was available the Phase II SI sediment samples planned to be obtained from this area would not be collected. Instead, only the planned samples at the mouth of the Skipanon Waterway were collected. Details of this change are included in a sample plan alteration form contained in Appendix A.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 6-4 Table 6-1 Phase I Surface Soil Sample Results EPA Sample ID 08184104 08184100 08184101 08184134 08184135 08184105 08184106 08184107 08184108 08184109 08184110 08184123 08184124 08184125 08184126 08184127 08184128 Original EPA Sample ID 08174004 08174000 08174001 08174031 08174032 08174005 08174006 08174007 08174008 08174009 08174010 08174022 08174023 08174024 08174025 08174026 08174027 CLP Sample ID J8GN0 J8GM6 J8GM7 J8GR0 J8GR1 J8GN1 J8GN2 J8GN3 J8GN4 J8GN5 J8GN6 J8GP9 J8GQ0 J8QQ1 J8GQ2 J8GQ3 J8GQ4 Station Location BK01SS BA01SS BA02SS BA03SS BA04SS FG01SS FG02SS FG03SS FG04SS FG05SS FG06SS NG01SS NG02SS OS01SS OS02SS OS03SS OS04SS Description Background Burn Area Former Grit Pile New Grit Pile Oil Stain Organotins (g/kg) Butyltin Trichloride 91 440 530 17 JL 78 JL 770 490 1300 2100 1900 2900 4 JQ 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A Dibutyltin Dichloride 65 JL 160 JL 610 JL 8 JL 32 JL 520 JL 460 JL 760 JL 3300 JL 1300 JL 2300 JL 7 JL 7 JL N/A N/A N/A N/A Tetrabutyltin 5 UJL 5 UJL 36 JL 5 UJL 5 UJL 6 JL 2 JQ 4 JQ 11 JL 3 JQ 4 JQ 5 UJL 5 UJL N/A N/A N/A N/A Tributyltin Chloride 38 95 630 7 JL 32 JL 330 160 430 1500 320 600 1 JQ 4 JQ N/A N/A N/A N/A NWTPH-Dx (mg/kg) Diesel Range 4.2 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18000 JK 59 U 9600 10000 U Motor Oil Range 97 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46000 JK 640 2100 U 110000 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Acetophenone 180 U 110 JQ 1100 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 270 270 U 700 88 JH

Naphthalene 180 U 210 U 570 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 270 U 190 U 200 UJK N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 180 U 210 U 240 U 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 270 U 190 190 JH

Pentachlorophenol 350 UJK 410 UJK 460 UJK 530 UJK 640 UJK N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 360 UJK 530 UJK 360 UJK 1500 JH

Phenanthrene 99 JQ 84 JQ 190 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 710 190 U 170 JH (180 SQL) Fluoranthene 260 160 JQ 410 270 U 140 JQ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 830 1000 190 U 180 JH

Pyrene 280 140 JQ 360 270 U 150 JQ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 770 850 130 JQ 250 JH

Butylbenzylphthalate 180 U 210 U 240 U 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 270 U 670 200 UJK Benzo(a)anthracene 120 JQ 210 U 120 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 330 190 U 200 UJK (180 SQL) Chrysene 200 210 U 190 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 440 190 U 110 JH

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 180 U 560 2100 550 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 U 490 880 200 UJK Benzo(b)fluoranthene 160 JQ 210 U 130 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 UJK 370 190 U 200 UJK (180 SQL) Benzo(k)fluoranthene 140 JQ 210 U 93 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 UJK 270 190 U 200 UJK (180 SQL) Benzo(a)pyrene 190 210 U 98 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 UJK 280 190 U 200 UJK

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 180 210 U 86 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 UJK 210 JQ 190 U 200 UJK

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 240 210 U 100 JQ 270 U 330 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 190 UJK 240 JQ 190 U 200 UJK

Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 6220 3490 6900 12600 9370 2840 2960 6200 4970 3980 2630 1220 2250 1510 5830 5060 6520 Antimony 4.5 U 14.6 40.2 23.5 20 U 4.3 U 4.5 U 3.2 U 6.3 U 12.9 8.2 U 2.7 U 8.2 U 3.3 U 7.4 U 28.8 10.2 U Arsenic 2.2 112 412 1450 420 4.3 3.2 5.2 4.5 3.5 1.8 1 U 1.1 U 2.9 6.5 5.5 10.6 Barium 39.5 207 2180 1900 3400 45.2 41.7 51.2 59.2 32.4 45.8 37 20.7 JQ 19 JQ 69.9 57.6 60.7 Cadmium 0.49 JQ 2.2 6.6 18.4 7.7 0.82 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.69 0.34 JQ 0.52 U 0.53 U 0.41 JQ 0.83 0.66 1.3 (5.5 SQL) Calcium 3500 3670 9240 37400 31300 1910 1580 2420 2390 2020 1470 808 JK 1450 JK 970 JK 2520 4020 3370 Chromium 144 JH 1410 JH 596 JH 384 JH 433 JH 410 JH 370 JH 459 JH 769 JH 1500 JH 984 JH 411 1230 451 959 JH 198 JH 201 JH

Cobalt 16.9 27.6 43 41.2 61.9 9.6 11.2 20 16.3 27.6 22.5 13.3 23.1 12.4 26.6 20 11.9 Copper 95.3 5390 60500 118000 9430 485 293 386 793 546 424 14 25.3 66.8 694 263 769 Iron 30200 41500 56500 52300 66500 19900 25300 26300 31700 35600 25200 16600 29100 24300 42000 36800 33100 Lead 116 JL 417 JL 2170 JL 10100 JL 545 JL 206 JL 180 JL 64.2 JL 89.5 JL 147 JL 61.1 JL 6 18.1 49.5 168 JL 1020 JL 574 JL

Magnesium 7250 JH 47500 JH 16300 JH 9040 JH 9010 JH 13800 JH 16400 JH 17800 JH 28800 JH 42500 JH 35100 JH 19300 42900 21500 38200 JH 3730 JH 8150 JH Manganese 411 608 584 890 3350 263 289 359 394 538 418 226 JK 441 JK 254 JK 631 340 261

Nickel 71.2 JH 688 JH 1570 JH 231 JH 560 JH 213 JH 212 JH 754 JH 377 JH 845 JH 985 JH 745 956 620 477 JH 19.9 JH 80.7 JH

Potassium 807 315 JQ 924 2020 2190 325 JQ 419 JQ 671 487 JQ 282 JQ 246 JQ 523 U 526 U 150 JQ 766 JQ 1590 1130 Silver 1.1 U 0.61 JQ 3.7 8.7 1.3 JQ 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.2 U 1.2 U 0.22 JQ 1.0 U 1.0 U 1.1 U 1.1 U 1.5 U 1.1 U 0.35 JQ Sodium 370 JQ 447 JQ 1070 3500 3590 187 JQ 537 U 267 JQ 185 JQ 171 JQ 520 U 523 U 526 U 545 U 342 JQ 568 502 JQ Vanadium 90.5 14.3 30.7 14.7 42.1 15.1 17.8 29.5 22.2 18 11.9 5.1 JQ 11 6.2 51.5 95.5 49.6 Zinc 423 JL 2670 JL 11000 JL 17000 JL 9660 JL 507 JL 343 JL 508 JL 493 JL 279 JL 432 JL 654 596 511 830 JL 500 JL 1060 JL

6-5 Table 6-1 Phase I Surface Soil Sample Results EPA Sample ID 08184104 08184100 08184101 08184134 08184135 08184105 08184106 08184107 08184108 08184109 08184110 08184123 08184124 08184125 08184126 08184127 08184128 Original EPA Sample ID 08174004 08174000 08174001 08174031 08174032 08174005 08174006 08174007 08174008 08174009 08174010 08174022 08174023 08174024 08174025 08174026 08174027 CLP Sample ID J8GN0 J8GM6 J8GM7 J8GR0 J8GR1 J8GN1 J8GN2 J8GN3 J8GN4 J8GN5 J8GN6 J8GP9 J8GQ0 J8QQ1 J8GQ2 J8GQ3 J8GQ4 Station Location BK01SS BA01SS BA02SS BA03SS BA04SS FG01SS FG02SS FG03SS FG04SS FG05SS FG06SS NG01SS NG02SS OS01SS OS02SS OS03SS OS04SS Description Background Burn Area Former Grit Pile New Grit Pile Oil Stain Volatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) 1,4-Dioxane RRRRRN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A Ethylbenzene 3.7 U 6.9 U 1200 8.3 UJK 16 UQ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A m,p-Xylenes 3.7 U 6.9 U 43000 8.3 UJK 16 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Methylcyclohexane 3.7 U 6.9 U 7100 8.3 UJK 16 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o-Xylene 3.7 U 6.9 U 23000 8.3 UJK 16 U N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Toluene 3.7 UJK 9.3 JL 58000 JL 4.9 JQ 8.4 JQ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Note: After sample collection activities began, revised EPA sample ID numbers were provided to the field team; both numbers are listed in this table. Bold type indicates the sample results is above the contract required quantitation limit or sample quantitation limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5. Key CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency. H = High bias. ID = Identification. J = The associated result is an estimated quantity. K = Unknown bias. L = Low bias. mg/L = micrograms per liter. N/A = Not applicable. Q = The associated result is less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit or Sample Quantitation Limit. R = The associated result is rejected. SQL = Sample quantitation limit. U = The associated result is less than the listed sample quantitation limit. UJ = The associated result is less than the listed estimated sample quantitation limit.

6-7

Migration/Exposure Pathways 7 and Targets

The following subsections describe migration pathways and potential targets within the site’s range of influence (Figures 7-1 and 7-2). This section discusses the ground water migration pathway and the surface water migration pathway. At the EPA TM’s direction, the soil exposure and air migration pathways were not evaluated during Phase I or Phase II of the SI.

7.1 Ground Water Migration Pathway The TDL for the ground water migration pathway is a 4-mile radius that extends from the sources at the site. Figure 7-1 depicts the ground water 4-mile TDL.

7.1.1 Geologic Setting The site is located in the northern end of the Clatsop Plains, which consist of two main formations, the Astoria formation and the Quaternary alluvium. The bedrock of the Clatsop Plains, the Astoria formation, is a nearly impermeable layer of shale and sandstone approximately 1,400 feet thick. The Astoria formation is of Tertiary age. The bedrock is overlain by a relatively thin (100- to 300-foot-thick) layer of unconsolidated Quaternary alluvial deposits consisting of sand and clayey layers. The Quaternary alluvium contains the area’s principal aquifers (Frank 1970).

7.1.2 Aquifer System The average annual precipitation of 66.4 inches (WRCC 1961 to 1990) per year recharges the alluvial aquifers with fresh water. An upper, perched water table exists, which is subject to extremes of seasonal variations in rainfall. A deeper, main aquifer has less seasonal variation and is most often selected for water wells. Wells in the area produce up to 100 gallons per minute of water but the water may contain high native iron concentrations that make the water objectionable for drinking purposes (Frank 1970).

7.1.3 Drinking Water Targets A total of 139 drinking water wells are located within the 4-mile TDL. The nearest well is 0.5 to 1 mile from the site (OWRD 1998). No public drinking water wells or resources are found within 4 miles of the site (EPA 1999). The Clatsop County average household population is 2.3 (USCB 2001). It is estimated that 320 people use groundwater for drinking water within 4 miles of

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-1

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

the site. Table 7-1 lists the drinking water wells by distance within 4 miles of the site.

7.1.4 Phase I Ground Water Sample Locations and Results Five temporary well points were installed into the shallow ground water zone for collection of ground water samples during Phase I of the SI. The well points were installed and samples were collected at the following locations (Figure 3-1):

. Sample MW01GW was collected near the lumber storage area, between 4 and 8 feet bgs; . Sample MW02GW was collected near the burn area. This sample was collected on top of a dike, near the burn area, between 8 and 12 feet bgs; . Sample MW03GW was collected south of the former grit storage area near Jeffers Slough between 8 and 12 feet bgs; . Sample MW04GW was collected west of the former grit storage area toward the Lewis and Clark River in an oil-stained area. This sample was collected between 8 and 12 feet bgs; and . Sample MW05GW was collected in the former grit storage area, between 7 and 11 feet bgs.

All ground water samples were analyzed for organotins, TAL Metals, and VOCs. Ground water samples were intended to be analyzed for organotins, TPH-D, SVOCs, TAL Metals, and VOCs; however, none of the monitoring wells produced enough water for all of the desired parameters. After consultation with the EPA TM, the field team attempted to collect sample aliquots from the monitoring wells for parameters in the following order: VOCs, TAL Metals, organotins, SVOCs, and TPH-D. Sufficient water volume was collected from all five monitoring wells for VOCs, TAL Metals, and organotins analyses, but none of the wells produced enough water for SVOC or TPH-D analyses. Therefore, SVOC and TPH-D analyses were not performed for the ground water samples.

Phase I ground water sample results are presented in Table 7-2. Sample results indicate the presence of one organotin (tributyltin), 10 TAL Metals (arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc), and two VOCs (toluene and m,p-xylenes) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Chromium, copper, manganese, nickel, and zinc were detected at elevated concentrations in all five ground water samples, while arsenic, barium, lead, and vanadium were detected at elevated concentrations in four of the five ground water samples. The elevated concentrations of organotins and the two VOCs were found in sample MW02GW, collected from the burn area. The VOCs detected at elevated concentrations are associated with petroleum products. In addition, the highest metals concentrations observed in ground water at the site were primarily those detected in this sample (MW02GW). All of the detected contaminants (with the exception of vanadium) were similarly detected in source samples collected from the site and can be attributed to the site.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-2

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

7.2 Surface Water Migration Pathway The surface water migration pathway TDL begins at the probable point of entry (PPE) of surface water runoff from the site to a surface water body and extends in the direction of flow for 15 miles. This subsection discusses the surface water migration pathway and potential targets within the site’s range of influence.

7.2.1 Overland Pathway The land surface at the site is generally flat. The site is located on tidal flats adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River. A dirt berm has been built up along portions of the western shore of the site along the river. The water level of the Lewis and Clark River often rises, flooding some portions of the site. The site drains into either Jeffers Slough on the south side of the site or the Lewis and Clark River on the western side of the site. Several PPEs are present along these shorelines.

From the PPEs, the surface water migration pathway 15-mile TDL continues approximately 1.25 miles downstream in the Lewis and Clark River to its confluence with Youngs Bay, continues in Youngs Bay approximately 1.75 miles to the Columbia River, then extends approximately 7.2 miles downstream to the Pacific Ocean. The 15-mile TDL concludes as a 4.8-mile radial arc in the Pacific Ocean. Additionally, the Columbia River experiences reversal of hydraulic flow up to approximately River Mile 25 from the mouth of the river (Clark and Snyder [no date]). Because of this reversal, the 15-mile TDL also extends 15 miles up the Columbia River from the site. Additionally, the 15-mile TDL extends up the Lewis and Clark River to River Mile 6 and up Youngs River to River Mile 10 due to tidal reversal. Figure 7-2 depicts the surface water migration 15-mile TDL.

The average flow rate of the Lewis and Clark River is estimated to be 200 cubic feet per second (cfs). The last recorded annual average flow rate for Youngs Bay is 185.8 cfs (USGS 1928 to 1958). The flow rate of the Columbia River near Astoria, Oregon is approximately 275,000 cfs (USGS 2008).

The 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event for the area of the site is 4.5 inches (NOAA 1973). The average annual precipitation is 66.4 inches (WRCC 1961 to 1990). Floodplain maps indicate that the site is in a 100-year floodplain; however, the site owner stated that the river frequently rises over its banks and floods portions of the site. The upgradient drainage area of the site is estimated from a topographic map to be 8 acres (USGS 1984).

Soils at the site are classified as Clatsop silty clay loam. This soil is common in tidal areas and is of marine origin. The soil forms mud flats characteristic of tidal areas, but tends to mound around the mouths of sloughs. The soil surface is yellowish brown or gray and may contain organic matter. The deeper layer, below 40 inches, tends to be a gray to bluish-gray silty clay that is acidic. Clatsop silty clay loam is generally poorly drained or waterlogged. (SCS 1949)

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-3

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

7.2.2 Drinking Water Targets The Lewis and Clark and Youngs rivers, Craig Creek, and the Skipanon Waterway are not used as a source of public drinking water. The city of Astoria’s public water supplies come exclusively from reservoirs located east and south of the site in the Youngs River basin, outside of the site’s TDL (Hatched 1999). There are no drinking water intakes within the TDL; however, the Columbia River is used as a major water recreation area.

7.2.3 Human Food Chain Targets The mouth of the Columbia River, along with Youngs Bay and its two major tributaries, the Lewis and Clark River and the Youngs River, offers a good variety of sport fishing opportunities for salmon and steelhead, along with bottom- dwelling sturgeon. The mouth of the Columbia River is for the most part a boat fishery. Anglers troll the mouth for fall Chinook salmon and sturgeon, Youngs Bay for the difficult spring Chinook fishery, and the Lewis and Clark River for steelhead, Chinook, and Coho. Cutthroat trout fishing can be found in the upper, out-of-the-way sections of the Youngs River. Key species sought include Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and sturgeon (Trails.com 2007).

Sport and commercial fishing and crab harvesting are conducted on the Columbia River within the TDL. Table 7-3 provides information on the total pounds of fish and crab caught by sport and commercial fishermen within the TDL. The most recent steelhead trout sport catch data is from 2001 to 2002 (WDFW 2004), which is presented by zone. The fishing zone within the TDL for steelhead trout is from Buoy 10 located at the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to the Astoria Bridge. This zone is completely within the 15-mile TDL. It was reported that 264 steelhead trout were caught from this zone.

In 2007, 579 Chinook salmon and 18,400 Coho salmon were reported to have been caught near or on the Columbia River by sport fishermen near Astoria, Oregon (ODFW 2007a). This data source does not include a map of the catch area. It is assumed that 50% of this catch occurred within the 15-mile TDL. .

Recent sport catch data for Youngs Bay and the Lewis and Clark River could not be located; however, information from 1997 was available. The reported 1997 salmon sport fishing catch in the Lewis and Clark River portion of the 15-mile TDL is estimated at 32 fish. Based on an estimated average weight of 8 pounds per salmon, it is estimated that 256 pounds of salmon were caught from within this zone (E & E 1999).

Recent commercial bottom fish harvest data is not available. In 1999, the total commercial bottom fish harvest near the mouth of the Columbia River was estimated at 3,784,158 pounds (E & E 1999). It is estimated that the site’s TDL covers approximately 15% of this area; therefore, the total bottom fish catch within the TDL is estimated at 567,624 pounds.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-4

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Commercial troll fishing occurs in the Pacific Ocean near the Columbia River; however, the statistical area for commercial salmon harvest is too large to estimate the catch within the 15-mile TDL. It is possible that no troll fishing occurs in the portion of the Pacific Ocean that is included in the TDL because only a small section of ocean near the mouth of the Columbia River is in this zone (ODFW 2007b). For this reason, commercial troll fishing data have not been included here.

Commercial fishing for Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) occurs within the 15-mile TDL in both Washington and Oregon waters. Three commercial crab fishing areas are present within the 15-mile TDL in Washington waters, areas 60A-2, 60D, and 61. Catch areas 60A-2 and 61 include coastal waters from Cape Disappointment to the Clatsop Spit. The portions of catch areas 60A-2 and 61 included in the 15-mile TDL are insignificant and located in relativity shallow waters near to the coast. Commercial crab fishing is likely to not occur in catch areas 60A-2 and 61 within the 15 mile TDL in the shallow waters near the mouth of the Columbia River. Commercial catch area 60D includes the Columbia River beginning at the mouth and extending to the Skipanon Waterway (Reed 2010). Catch area 60D is wholly contained within the 15-mile TDL. Based on Washington State Non-Treaty coastal commercial Dungeness crab landings, approximately 13,913 pounds of Dungeness crab were harvested from catch area 60D located within the 15 mile TDL (WDFW 2010a).

As stated above, commercial crab fishing occurs in the Columbia River within Oregon waters west of the Skipanon Waterway. Unlike Washington, Oregon does not separate crab harvest in the Columbia River from crab harvest in the ocean; thus, the statistical area for commercial crab harvest in Oregon is too large to estimate the catch within the 15-mile TDL (Smith 2010).

Sport fishing for Dungeness crab occurs within the 15-mile TDL in marine area 1 in Washington waters. Catch record cards are not required for sport crab fishing in this marine area; thus, no catch record data is available (WDFW 2010b). Like Washington, sport crabbers in Oregon are not required to report their catch; thus, no catch record data is available for Oregon (Smith 2010). It is assumed that between 0 and 100 pounds of Dungeness crab are caught for human consumption from Washington and Oregon waters in the Columbia River.

7.2.4 Environmental Targets Three species of federally listed endangered or threatened fish are present on the Columbia River, Lewis and Clark River, and Youngs River within the 15-mile TDL. These species include the threatened Spring run/Fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), the threatened Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and the threatened Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta). (ORNHIC 2007)

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-5

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Approximately 19.39 miles of wetland frontage exists along the surface water migration pathway 15-mile TDL. Of these, 0.95 miles is present along the Lewis and Clark River, 4.86 miles are present along Youngs Bay, and 13.58 miles are present along the Columbia River (including 0.07 miles along Skipanon Slough, 2.69 miles along Jetty Lagoon, and 9.03 miles along Baker Bay). No wetlands are present on the Pacific Ocean within 15 miles downstream of the site (Hanson 2008). Wetland locations are depicted on Figure 7-3.

7.2.5 Phase I Target Sampling 7.2.5.1 Phase I Target Sample Locations Seven sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River and Jeffers Slough. Sample locations are described below and shown in Figure 3-1. Sample BK01SD, collected down river of AMCC during Phase I, was originally intended to be used as a background sample. However, a new background sample (BK01SD) was collected during Phase II of the SI from a more appropriate location. Figure 3-3 shows the location of BK01SD, collected at approximately River Mile 6.5, during Phase II of this SI. Because of the new background sample collected during Phase II, the original background sample collected during Phase I is considered a release sample. Add in section explaining the use of BK01SD as a release sample.

Jeffers Slough Two sediment samples JS01SD and JS02SD were collected from Jeffers Slough. Sample JS01SD was collected near the tide box at the southern end of the site. Sample JS02SD was collected from Jeffers Slough at the south end of the site near the dock.

Lewis and Clark River Five sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Sample LC01SD was collected near the burn area. Sample LC02SD was collected near Marine Way 4. Sample LC03SD was collected near Marine Way 3. Sample LC04SD was collected from the area between Marine Ways 1 and 2. Sample BK01SD was collected approximately 150 down river (north) of the burn area.

7.2.5.2 Phase I Target Sample Results All sediment samples were analyzed for organotins, TPH-D, SVOCs, TAL Metals, and VOCs. Sediment sample results are presented in Table 7-4.

Sample results from the two sediment samples collected from Jeffers Slough indicate the presence of three organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride), two TAL metals (copper and lead), and both diesel and motor oil range TPH-D at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations.

Sample results for samples collected from the Lewis and Clark River indicate the presence of four organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride,

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-6

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

tetrabutyltin, and tributyltin chloride), two TPH-Ds (diesel and motor oil range), and 10 TAL Metals (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, and zinc) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride were detected at elevated concentrations in all five sediment samples collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Tetrabutyltin was detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in four of five sediment samples. Copper and lead were both detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in all five samples collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Sample LC01SD, collected near the burn area, contained the greatest number of contaminants.

No SVOCs or VOCs were detected at elevated concentrations in the sediment samples. All of the detected contaminants were similarly detected in source samples collected from the site and may be attributed to sources at the site.

7.2.6 Phase II Target Sampling 7.2.6.1 Phase II Target Sampling Locations Fifty-four sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River, Skip- anon Waterway, Youngs River, Youngs Bay, Craig Creek, and the Columbia River as part of Phase II of this SI.

Lewis and Clark River (Astoria Marine Transects) Fifteen samples (AM01SD through AM15SD) were collected from the Lewis and Clark River in front (and west) of the AMCC facility. Samples were collected from five transects. Each transect ran perpendicular to the Lewis and Clark River and were spaced approximately 200 feet apart. Along each transect, three samples were collected from locations spaced approximately 100 feet apart extending from the shoreline into the center of the river. Strong winds and river currents (often pushing the boat in opposite directions) made it difficult to set straight transect lines and achieve consistent spacing. These samples were intended to assess whether sediments immediately off shore of the AMCC site have been impacted by site activities. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-2.

Lewis and Clark River Eleven sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Sam- ples LC04SD through LC14SD were collected at approximately 0.5-mile intervals beginning at River Mile 0.5 and ending at River Mile 6.0. These samples were collected from likely areas of deposition in the river. These samples were intended to assess whether sediments upstream or downstream of the AMCC site have been impacted by activities at this site. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

Skipanon Waterway Three samples (SW01SD, SW02SD, and SW03SD) were collected from the mouth of the Skipanon Waterway on the Columbia River. Sample SW01SD was

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-7

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

collected from the center of the Skipanon Waterway. Samples SW02SD and SW03SD were collected from the west and east portions of the waterway, respectively. These samples were intended to assess whether sediments located down river of the Warrenton Boatyard have been impacted by activities at this site. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3. Additionally, two samples were planned to be collected immediately off shore of the Warrenton Boatyard; however, based on information made available to the EPA TM and contained in the ODEQ ECSI database, these samples were not collected.

Youngs River Nine samples were collected from the Youngs River. Samples CC01SD, CC02CD, and CC03SD were collected from the north side of the Youngs River near the confluence of Craig Creek and the Youngs River. CC01SD was collected at the confluence of Craig Creek. Samples CC02SD and CC03SD were collected east and west, respectively, of CC01SD. Samples YR01SD, YR02SD, and YR03SD were collected from the north side of the Youngs River, near its confluence with an unnamed stream. Sample YR01SD was collected at the confluence, and samples YR02SD and YR03SD were collected east and west of YR01SD, respectively. These samples were collected from the confluence of an unnamed stream with the Youngs River that was misidentified by the field team as Craig Creek. These samples were submitted for analysis after consulting with the TM. Details of this change are included in a SPAF included in Appendix A. Samples JH01SD, JH02SD, and JH03SD were collected from the south side of the Youngs River near the mouth of Cook Slough. Sample JH02SD was collected near the center of the mouth of Cook Slough. Samples JH01SD and JH03SD were collected east and west of JH02SD, respectively. Samples CC01SD through CC03SD (collected from the Youngs River) were intended to assess whether sediments immediately off shore of the former Astoria Municipal Landfill have been impacted by activities at this site. Samples JH01SD through JH30SD (collected from the Youngs River) were intended to assess whether sediments immediately off shore of J&H Boatworks have been impacted by activities at this site. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

Youngs Bay Six samples were collected from Youngs Bay. Three samples (LC01SD, LC02SD, and LC03SD) were collected at the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River. Sample LC02SD was collected near the center of the channel/mouth of the Lewis and Clark River. Samples LC01SD and LC03SD were collected west and east of LC02SD, respectively. Samples WB01SD, WB02SD, and WB03SD were collected near the former Wilson Ship Building facility. Samples WB01SD and WB02SD were collected east of the Oregon Coast Highway Bridge off shore from an area that appeared to have been used as a railway for ship building/repair. Sample WB03SD was collected off shore west of the Oregon Coast Highway Bridge. Samples LC01SD through LC03SD were intended to assess the impact of the AMCC site on Youngs Bay at the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River. Sam- ples WB01SD through WB03SD were intended to assess the impact of the former

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-8

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Wilson Ship Building facility on the sediments of Youngs Bay. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

Craig Creek One sediment sample was collected from Craig Creek. Sample CC04SD was collected from Craig Creek downstream from the former Astoria Municipal Landfill, below the confluence of the east and west forks. This sample was collected from an area in the creek before it enters a culvert running under Williams Port Road and SE Front Street to better assess the former landfill. The SQAP did not include a sample at this location; however, a sample was collected following con- sultations with the TM after learning that Craig Creek had an east and west fork. This sample location (down gradient of the landfill) was intended to assess the possible impact of the landfill on the sediments of the Youngs River. The details of this change are outlined in a SPAF included in Appendix A. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

Columbia River Three sediment samples were collected from the Columbia River. Samples PA01SD, PA02SD, and PA03SD were collected at the Port of Astoria. Sample PA01SD was collected from within the west basin moorage area, from the end of float G dock number 12. Sample PA02SD was collected from the east side of Pier 2 near the 700-foot marker. Sample PA03SD was collected from the east side of Pier 3. These samples were intended to assess whether sediments immediately off shore of the Port of Astoria have been impacted by activities at this site. Sample locations are presented in Figure 3-3.

7.2.6.2 Phase II Sample Results All sediment samples were analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, Pesticides/PCBs, TOC, and grain size. Sediment sample results are presented by location below.

Lewis and Clark River (Astoria Marine Transects) Sample results are presented in Table 7-5. Sample results indicate the presence of three organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride), one SVOC (di-n-butylphthalate), and one TAL Metal (mercury) at elevated concentrations with respect to background. Analyte detections appear to be located near the mouth of Jeffers Slough, although no analytes were detected at elevated concentrations in Jeffers Slough during the Phase I sampling. No TAL Metals were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in samples collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Additionally, no TPH-D or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs. One SVOC (di- n-butylphthalate) was detected in the laboratory QA/QC blank. The three organotins detected at elevated concentrations were similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I of the SI and can be attributed to sources at the site.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-9

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Lewis and Clark River Sample results are presented in Table 7-6. Sample results indicate the presence of one SVOC (caprolactam) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in five of the 11 samples. Additionally, one TAL Metal (thallium) was detected at an elevated concentration with respect to background concentrations in one sample. No organotins, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs in samples collected from the Lewis and Clark River. Caprolactam and thallium were not similarly detected in source samples and, for this reason, cannot be attributed to sources at the site.

Skipanon Waterway Sample results are presented in Table 7-7. Sample results indicate the presence of two TAL Metals (barium and cobalt) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. No SVOCs were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Additionally, no organotins, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs. Both barium and cobalt were similarly detected in source samples collected at the AMCC site during Phase I of the SI. However, due to the distance from the site to the sample locations, flow and tidal effects of the Columbia River, and other potential sources of contamination, these contaminants are not likely to be attributed to sources at the site.

Youngs River Sample results are presented in Table 7-8. Sample results indicate the presence of two SVOCs (caprolactam and pyrene) and one TAL Metal (lead) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Caprolactam was detected at elevated concentrations in all but one sample (CC04SD) collected from the Youngs River. No organotins, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs in samples collected from the Youngs River. Both pyrene and lead were similarly detected in source samples collected at the AMCC site during Phase I of the SI. However, due to the distance from the site to the sample locations, flow and tidal effects of the Youngs River and in Youngs Bay, these contaminants are not likely to be attributed to sources at the site.

Youngs Bay Sample results are presented in Table 7-9. Sample results indicate that two SVOCs (caprolactam and di-n-butylphthalate) were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. No TAL Metals were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in samples collected from Youngs Bay. Additionally, no organotins, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs. Neither caprolactam nor di-n- butylphthalate was similarly detected in source samples collected at the AMCC site during Phase I of the SI and, for this reason, these SVOCs cannot be attributed to sources at the site.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-10

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Craig Creek Sample results are presented in Table 7-10. Sample results indicate the presence of one TAL Metal (lead) at an elevated concentration with respect to the background concentration. No organotins, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs. Lead was similarly detected in source samples collected at the AMCC site during Phase I. However, due to the sample’s location and the flow characteristics of the Youngs River, lead at this location is not likely to be from sources at the site.

Columbia River Sample results are presented in Table 7-11. Sample results indicate the presence of three organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride) and two TAL Metals (barium and copper) at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Barium was detected at elevated concentrations in all three of the sediment samples. No SVOCs, TPH-D, or Pesticides/PCBs were detected above the CRQLs in samples collected from the Columbia River. All of the organotins and TAL Metals detected at these sample locations were similarly detected in source samples collected at the AMCC site during Phase I of the SI. However, due the Port of Astoria’s history of ship building, the distance from the site to the sample locations, and the high flow volume of the Columbia River, these analytes are not likely to be from sources at the site.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-11

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Table 7-1 Groundwater Drinking Water Population Within a 4-Mile Radius, Astoria Marine Construction Company Distance Well Identification Well Population (miles)

0 – 0.25 NA 0

0.25 - 0.5 NA 0

0.5 - 1 Domestic Wells (6) 14

1 – 2 Domestic Wells (21) 48

2 – 3 Domestic Wells (36) 83

3 – 4 Domestic Wells (76) 175

Total 320 Sources: EPA 1999; OWRD 1998; USCB 2001. Average household size for Clatsop County, Oregon is 2.3 people. Population has been rounded to the nearest integer.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-12

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Table 7-2 Groundwater Sample Results Revised EPA Sample ID 08184102 08184118 08184119 08184120 08184121 08184122 Original EPA Sample ID 08174001 08174017 08174018 08174019 08174020 08174021 CLP Sample ID: J8GM8 J8GP4 J8GP5 J8GP6 J8GP7 J8GP8 Station Location: BK01GW MW01GW MW02GW MW03GW MW04GW MW05GW Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Description Background Well Well Well Well Well Butyl Tins (µg/L) Tributyltin 0.015 JL 0.010 JL 0.082 JL 0.004 UJK 0.037 JL 0.012 JL Target Analyte List Metals (µg/L) Aluminum 1840 JH 23500 JH 25300 JH 8730 JH 3450 JH 31500 JH Arsenic 10 U 18.2 35 11.1 6.4 JQ 21.5 Barium 200 U 167 JQ 306 333 282 382 Calcium 35800 60100 69800 84700 86700 52800 5.2 JQ Chromium (10 SQL) 129 140 78.3 64.1 94 Cobalt 50 U 37.5 JQ 44.4 JQ 28.5 JQ 38.5 JQ 63.4 Copper 25 U 101 847 71.4 46.1 216 Iron 18700 112000 132000 81700 105000 116000 Lead 10 U 18.6 224 22.2 7 JQ 70.3 Magnesium 72600 111000 127000 125000 140000 75300 Manganese 672 2570 2440 3760 3610 3570 Nickel 40 U 347 338 561 970 369 Potassium 18600 24400 26400 25500 27600 18700 Sodium 377000 389000 311000 402000 695000 108000 Vanadium 50 U 146 256 51.4 22.1 JQ 205 53.9 JQ Zinc (60 SQL) 3710 9060 2430 285 9850 Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L) 1,4-Dioxane R R R R R R Toluene 5 U 5 U 18 5 U 5 U 5 U m,p-Xylenes 5 U 5 U 5.3 5 U 5 U 5 U Note: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit or sample quantitation limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

Key: CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. H = High bias. ID = Identification. J = The associated result is an estimated quantity. K = Unknown bias. L = Low bias. µg/L = Micrograms per liter. Q = The associated result is less than the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit or sample quantitation limit. R = The associated result is rejected. SQL = Sample quantitation limit. U = The associated result is less than the listed sample quantitation limit. UJ = The associated result is less than the listed estimated sample quantitation limit. 10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-13

7. Migration/Exposure Pathways and Targets

Table 7-3 Sport and Commercial Catch Data Within the 15-Mile TDL Astoria Marine Construction Company Average Number Pounds per Pounds Species Harvested Fish Harvested Sport Catch (Columbia River) Chinook salmon 579 x 50% = 22 6,369 (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 289.5 Coho salmon 18,400 x 50% = 10 92,000 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 9,200 Steelhead trout 264 x 100% = 7.5 1,980 (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 264 Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) N/A N/A > 0 - 100 Sport Catch (Lewis and Clark River) Salmon 32 8 256 Commercial Catch Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) N/A N/A 13,913 Bottom Fish (Various Species) N/A N/A 3,784,158 x 15% = 567,624 Total 682,142 Sources: WDFW 2004; ODFW 2007a.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 7-14 Table 7-4 Phase I Sediment Samples Results EPA Sample ID 09454115 08184112 08184113 08184114 08184115 08184116 08184117 08184103 Original EPA Sam N/A 08174011 08174012 08174013 08174014 08174015 08174016 08174003 CLP Sample ID JC1Q7 J8GN8 J8GN9 J8GP0 J8GP1 J8GP2 J8GP3 J8GM9 Station Location BK01SDa JS01SD JS02SD LC01SD LC02SD LC03SD LC04SD BK01SDb Jeffers Jeffers Lewis and Lewis and Lewis and Lewis and Lewis and Description Background Slough Slough Clark River Clark River Clark River Clark River Clark River Butyltins (g/kg) Butyltin Trichloride 6.0 U 12 17 140 370 210 560 44 Dibutyltin Dichloride 6.9 U 15 JL 34 JL 320 JL 740 JL 830 JL 3100 JL 81 JL Tetrabutyltin 4.6 U 5 UJL 5 UJL 5 JL 5 JL 3 JL 6 JL 5 UJL Tributyltin Chloride 4.0 U 6 43 93 520 220 700 32 NWTPH-Dx (mg/kg) Diesel Range 6.8 U 38 8 U 110 160 66 450 23 Motor Oil Range 14 U 110 71 370 240 260 2200 86 Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 14200 17800 16100 15400 15800 16100 17900 14900 Antimony 11.3 UJL 15.8 U 13 U 300 17.6 U 14.3 U 16.3 U 17.1 U Arsenic 6.6 10.1 8.6 42.8 10.3 9.8 14.4 10.4 Barium 119 82.9 64.4 106 76.8 72.1 249 62.3 7-15 0.54 JQ Cadmium (SQL = 0.87) 0.8 JQ 0.68 JQ 2.6 0.85 JQ 0.69 JQ 1.1 JQ 0.73 JQ Calcium 3610 4460 4130 5030 4320 4530 25500 JK 4500 Chromium 12.9 27 JH 22.3 JH 284 JH 31.5 JH 29.9 JH 37 40.2 JH Cobalt 14.5 17.8 15.7 31.6 15.7 16.3 17.8 16.8 Copper 21.2 67.1 58.9 10300 273 558 5670 174 Iron 34600 33600 28000 104000 33100 31400 45800 29600 Lead 8.3 70.6 JL 13.6 JL 1080 JL 78.8 JL 46.9 JL 47.6 61 JL Magnesium 5000 6680 JH 6020 JH 5610 JH 5880 JH 6210 JH 6400 6100 JH Manganese 339 364 283 546 329 502 1850 JK 267 Nickel 17.9 24.5 JH 21 JH 215 JH 25.4 JH 23.4 JH 31.2 JK 24.2 JH Potassium 1220 2130 1870 1460 2020 1730 2400 1830 Silver 1.9 U 2.6 U 2.2 U 7.1 2.9 U 2.4 U 0.83 JQ 2.9 U Sodium 559 JQ 2390 2050 2530 2780 1950 2940 2970 Vanadium 62.9 68.9 63.9 48.6 66.5 65.9 61.9 64.3 Zinc 85 185 JL 147 JL 1650 JL 313 JL 173 JL 1610 206 JL Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/kg) 1,4-Dioxane NARRRRRRR Note: Bold type indicates the sample results is above the contract required quantitation limit or sample quantitation limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5. a Sample collectected during Phase II of the SI b Sample collected during Phase I of the SI. This sample is not being used to demonstrate background concentrations and is considered a release sample. Key CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency. H = High bias. ID = Identification. J = The associated result is an estimated quantity. L = Low bias. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram. g/kg = micrograms per kilogram. NA = Not analyzed. Q = The associated result is less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit or Sample Quantitation Limit. R = The associated sample result is rejected. SQL = Sample quantitation limit. U = The associated result is less than the listed sample quantitation limit. UJ = The associated result is less than the listed estimated sample quantitation limit. 7-16 Table 7-5 Phase II Astoria Marine Transect Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 09454115 09454100 09454101 09454102 09454103 09454104 09454105 09454106 09454107 09454108 09454109 09454110 09454111 09454112 09454113 09454114 CLP Sample ID JC1Q7 JC1P2 JC1P3 JC1P4 JC1P5 JC1P6 JC1P7 JC1P8 JC1P9 JC1Q0 JC1Q1 JC1Q2 JC1Q3 JC1Q4 JC1Q5 JC1Q6 Station Location BK01SD AM01SD AM02SD AM03SD AM04SD AM05SD AM06SD AM07SD AM08SD AM09SD AM10SD AM11SD AM12SD AM13SD AM14SD AM15SD Description Background Lewis and Clark River Astoria Marine Transect Samples Organotins (g/kg) Butyl Tin Trichloride 6.0 U 6.3 U 6.2 U 6.4 U 6.1 U 5.9 U 6.0 U 6.0 U 26 6.2 U 5.8 U 6.0 U 6.2 U 5.9 U 5.8 U 6.2 U Dibutyl Tin Dichloride 6.9 U 7.2 U 7.1 U 7.3 U 7.0 U 41 9 7.0 U 40 7.1 U 6.7 U 7.0 U 7.2 U 6.8 U 6.7 U 7.2 U Tributyl Tin Chloride 4.0 U 4.2 U 4.1 U 4.2 U 4.0 U 12 4.0 U 4.0 U 72 4.1 U 3.9 U 4.0 U 4.1 U 3.9 U 3.8 U 4.1 U Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Di-n-butylphthalate 340 U 350 U 310 U 320 U 390 210 JQ 160 JQ 370 180 JQ 220 JQ 220 JQ 170 JQ 150 JQ 260 JQ 220 JQ 200 JQ Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 14200 11500 11900 12400 12700 11800 12200 11700 12800 13900 12000 13000 13500 15200 11500 14100 Arsenic 6.6 7.1 8.5 8.5 6.4 8.2 9.0 8.3 10.2 7.2 7.9 10.4 7.8 8.4 9.1 8.1 Barium 119 46.8 49.6 47.8 48.4 48.6 50.8 50.0 51.8 62.4 53.0 50.2 60.0 66.1 49.1 77.4 Calcium 3610 3060 2720 2460 3270 2880 2630 4080 4910 2700 3140 2960 2630 3970 2840 2920 Chromium 12.9 15.0 13.6 13.9 17.7 16.3 15.4 16.9 16.1 15.6 16.9 15.6 15.7 20.6 14.3 16.0 Cobalt 14.5 12.5 13.2 14.0 14.0 13.3 14.3 13.2 15.5 14.6 13.1 15.8 14.5 16.6 14.6 15.6 Copper 21.2 31.3 28.5 21.2 34.8 37.0 29.0 35.3 32.9 23.5 52.0 24.7 22.4 40.6 24.9 23.6 Iron 34600 22700 28400 30400 24700 27800 29800 25700 31700 31400 26200 34400 31600 31200 29400 32800 Lead 8.3 11.0 10.0 10.8 12.3 9.8 11.0 10.9 12.3 11.1 11.2 11.5 10.8 13.0 13.9 11.1 Magnesium 5000 4960 5130 5320 5380 5160 5140 5140 5380 5670 5300 5480 5590 6460 5210 5450 Manganese 339 221 302 217 276 294 272 305 292 206 277 329 275 294 308 359 Mercury 0.18 U 0.21 U 0.17 U 0.18 U 0.053 JQ 0.046 JQ 0.17 U 0.2 U 0.50 0.19 U 0.06 JQ 0.074 JQ 0.059 JQ 0.063 JQ 0.05 JQ 0.18 U Nickel 17.9 15.5 15.3 15.8 20.8 19.8 20.5 20.2 21.6 22.4 20.1 22.0 22.0 25.4 20.4 23.0 Potassium 1220 1920 1700 1760 1980 1690 1720 1870 1920 2010 1920 1720 1880 2360 1700 1870 Sodium 559 JQ 2570 2750 2820 2830 2820 2680 2850 3080 3260 2790 2860 2960 3380 3120 2990 Vanadium 62.9 52.3 55.0 59.7 60.6 58.8 63.4 58.8 67.2 72.1 59.3 70.0 67.2 75.4 61.8 66.8 Zinc 85.0 95.6 102 105 105 94.7 103 96.1 110 100 97.5 110 101 118 97.8 102 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 23800 21100 17900 30100 21000 19700 17300 23600 33100 19100 19800 17800 19900 18800 26400 16800 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 12.9 14.1 7.1 13.6 13 9.8 9.7 11.4 10.2 13.2 10.9 10.1 9.8 10.3 10.9 11.1 Percent retained 1.3 micron 9.1 7.9 6.4 8 8.7 7.7 6.9 7.6 6.8 8.8 8 6.8 8.4 9.5 8.2 9.7 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 6.1 17.3 8.5 5.6 18 7 6.9 13.7 6.1 5.9 13.8 6.1 7.7 16.1 4.1 8.3 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 9.1 0.2 2.7 5.9 0.3 1.3 5 0.6 10.1 4.9 0.5 11 4 0.2 2.8 1.5 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U 0.3 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.6 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 7.6 12.6 7.8 8 11.5 9.8 9 13.7 7.5 5.1 10.9 4.1 8.4 16.1 6.8 6.2 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 3.6 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.6 2.4 0.8 0.3 1.9 0.9 0.1 1.9 0.5 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 13.7 8.6 6.4 7.2 15.9 10.5 9.7 14.4 10.2 16.1 13.1 6.1 10.5 13.9 9.6 11.1 Percent retained 32 micron 11.4 23.1 26.6 14 18.7 23.4 16.5 20.4 9.9 10.4 25.1 12.1 14.7 21.3 18 21.1 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 0.6 0.3 1 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.2 1.9 0.4 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 0.2 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 1.2 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.2 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.2 Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 4.6 4.7 4.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.8 4.6 4.7 2.9 2.9 7.4 4.9 5.9 4.1 4.2 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 17.2 2 22 24.5 2.2 17.4 24.3 4.1 23.3 25.6 5 26.9 24.5 0.1 U 26.4 19.2 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.1 0.2 Percent retained 9 micron 3.8 8.6 5 5.6 6.5 7 4.1 7.6 4.7 5.9 8.7 4.1 4.9 5.9 4.1 6.2 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U

7-17 Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

7-19 Table 7-6 Phase II Lewis and Clark River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 09454115 09454128 09454129 09454130 09454131 09454132 09454133 09454134 09454135 09454136 09454137 09454138 CLP Sample ID JC1Q7 JC1S0 JC1S1 JC1S2 JC1S3 JC1S4 JC1S5 JC1S6 JC1S7 JC1S8 JC1S9 JC1T0 Station Location BK01SD LC04SD LC05SD LC06SD LC07SD LC08SD LC09SD LC10SD LC11SD LC12SD LC13SD LC14SD Background Lewis and Clark River Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Caprolactam 95 JQ 780 JL 510 JL 510 JL 390 UJK 500 740 120 JQ 360 U 120 JQ 98 JQ 270 JQ (SQL = 340) Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 14200 11100 12300 13300 11600 11300 11500 12300 13000 12500 14000 13900 Arsenic 6.6 7.9 7.4 7.3 6.3 7.5 6.7 6.2 6.5 4.9 7.2 14.8 Barium 119 49.0 52.8 68.1 49.8 55.9 59.9 69.8 73.7 81.8 86.8 110 Calcium 3610 2850 3250 2570 2790 3010 2880 2710 2760 2540 3150 4050 Chromium 12.9 13.6 16.6 13.7 16.1 13.2 15.0 13.9 14.0 11.8 12.4 14.7 Cobalt 14.5 11.7 13.9 13.8 12.8 11.8 12.6 13.3 13.2 13.0 13.8 15.8 Copper 21.2 24.3 32.0 21.8 29.3 22.8 30.0 24.4 23.9 18.6 19.7 26.9 Iron 34600 26700 24600 32900 24800 28300 26500 28800 29400 28500 36500 34800 Lead 8.3 9.3 14.8 9.3 12.7 9.4 11.9 9.2 9.5 7.6 8.6 17.2 Magnesium 5000 5140 5650 5930 5400 5220 5500 5060 5190 4710 5320 4860 Manganese 339 279 312 253 232 265 245 308 238 241 363 619 Nickel 17.9 14.6 17.5 17.5 16.7 15.0 16.8 16.6 16.4 15.7 17.0 18.1 Potassium 1220 1730 2030 1670 1850 1580 1690 1490 1620 1350 1310 1450 Sodium 559 JQ 3430 2910 2630 2680 1610 1630 1510 1400 1020 739 JQ 743 JQ Thallium 4.4 U 4.6 U 5.0 U 4.1 U 5.3 U 4.4 U 5.0 U 4.8 U 5.0 U 4.4 U 4.5 U 7.0 Vanadium 62.9 49.9 51.8 57.3 51.8 50.5 51.6 57.4 58.1 56.3 61.3 62.1 Zinc 85.0 82.9 109 98.4 102 85.3 97.2 90.7 92.2 75.9 89.8 92.8 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 23800 18600 21600 16700 22700 15500 28400 29000 25800 18000 21800 33100 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 12.9 12.7 14.9 13.7 14.9 13.9 14.3 12.3 13.4 14.3 10.1 7.9 Percent retained 1.3 micron 9.1 7.1 7.8 6.8 7.9 7 7.2 10 10.3 8.6 8.8 19 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 6.1 7.9 11 6.2 12.6 10.8 15.1 9.2 11.8 7.2 6.1 12.7 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 9.1 0.7 0.4 5.3 0.5 1.7 0.6 6.1 2.7 6.9 11.6 2.2 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.2 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 7.6 10.3 12.5 7.4 12.6 9.3 12.8 6.1 6.3 7.9 6.8 9.5 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 3.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 11.4 1.3 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 13.7 14.2 15.7 11.2 17.3 13.9 15.9 14.5 12.6 9.3 7.4 19 Percent retained 32 micron 11.4 20.4 14.9 12.9 14.8 14.9 13.5 9.6 16 19.5 14.5 7.2 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.4 2.9 0.7 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.7 0.1 U 0.9 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.8 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 4.6 5.5 6.3 5.6 5.5 3.9 6.4 4.6 6.3 2.9 4.7 8.7 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 17.2 10.4 4.3 23.3 2.9 17.6 4.4 15.7 6.9 15.8 10.5 4.1 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 Percent retained 9 micron 3.8 9.5 10.2 6.2 9.4 6.2 8 9.2 11.8 5 4.7 7.1 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U

7-21 Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

7-23 Table 7-7 Phase II Skipanon Waterway Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 9454116 9454142 9454143 9454144 CLP Sample ID JC1Q8 JC1T4 JC1T5 JC1T6 Station Location BK02SD SW01SD SW02SD SW03SD Description Background Skipanon Waterway Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Caprolactam 1200 120 JQ 110 JQ 82 JQ Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 4970 9990 4570 5840 Arsenic 6.8 5.0 3.4 3.7 Barium 22.2 JQ 39.8 20.1 JQ 22.9 JQ (31.8 = SQL) Calcium 1890 4410 2200 3130 Chromium 9.8 14.0 8.4 10.9 Cobalt 7.0 JQ 10.5 7.0 8.1 (7.9 = SQL) Copper 12.5 26.6 7.4 11.0 Iron 19600 17200 11400 13500 Lead 5.3 8.5 4.7 4.5 Magnesium 2510 4450 2300 2930 Manganese 289 206 176 156 Nickel 8.5 13.2 8.1 9.9 Potassium 1140 2050 880 1120 Sodium 1330 7750 1400 1990 Vanadium 40.1 44.3 30.0 36.8 Zinc 55.8 75.8 36.6 44.7 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 10200 17000 3360 8620 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 4.9 10.7 3.1 4.1 Percent retained 1.3 micron 2.5 5.4 1.3 2.3 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 1.2 9.9 0.1 U 1.8 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 57.7 14.7 56.9 48.1 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.2 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 2.5 9.9 2.2 3.2 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 4.4 6.2 17.3 9.8 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 5.6 13 4.4 5.5 Percent retained 32 micron 4.5 11.3 0.8 3 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 0.1 U 3.8 0.1 U 0.9 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 14.3 7.5 11.1 18.9 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.2 Percent retained 9 micron 1.9 5.4 2.2 1.8 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U

7-25 Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

7-26 Table 7-8 Phase II Youngs River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 09454117 09454119 09454120 09454121 09454156 09454151 09454152 09454153 9454122 9454123 9454124 CLP Sample ID JC1Q9 JC1R1 JC1R2 JC1R3 JC1W8 JC1W3 JC1W4 JC1W5 JC1R4 JC1R5 JC1R6 Station Location BK03SD CC01SD CC02SD CC03SD CC04SD YR01SD YR02SD YR03SD JH01SD JH02SD JH03SD Description Background Youngs River Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Caprolactam 280 JQ 1300 890 700 JL 140 JQ 750 850 1000 840 JL 970 JL 660 JL (SQL = 490) Di-n-butylphthalate 680 380 U 350 U 340 UJK 490 U 370 U 280 U 350 U 350 UJK 360 UJK 310 UJK Fluoranthene 490 U 380 U 390 340 UJK 490 U 370 U 280 U 350 U 350 UJK 360 UJK 67 JQ Pyrene 490 U 380 U 490 340 UJK 490 U 370 U 280 U 350 U 350 UJK 360 UJK 110 JQ Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 16600 11000 8310 8780 11800 12200 5880 11900 9670 9920 8590 Arsenic 6.3 7.4 14.9 17.6 9.9 5.4 4.3 6.7 7.7 6.7 7.3 Barium 178 49.2 37.3 JQ 41.7 85.0 50.5 24.7 JQ 51.9 43.1 42.6 41.8 Calcium 3070 3500 2310 2610 3530 4080 1480 3220 3060 2880 2690 Chromium 15.6 15.3 14.4 17.0 19.1 16.0 7.9 15.7 14.7 14.9 14.5 Cobalt 14.1 11.7 10.6 11.8 11.7 JQ 11.4 5.9 JQ 11.7 11.7 11.9 12.2 Copper 24.6 28.6 20.5 24.0 34.2 31.3 12.9 30.8 25.7 28.7 20.9 Iron 38800 23700 32400 35700 45000 22800 12900 23500 20700 20500 19100 Lead 10.8 11.8 11.8 15.2 54.8 11.4 6.7 10.8 10.3 10.7 12.9 Magnesium 4330 4990 3630 4080 3800 5200 2440 5150 4770 4720 4150 Manganese 356 225 341 326 501 204 235 237 483 301 265 Nickel 22.1 15.0 13.5 16.0 31.4 15.2 7.3 15.4 14.3 14.7 13.1 Potassium 1280 JQ 1930 1420 1640 1100 JQ 1990 903 1870 1550 1640 1570

7-27 Sodium 858 JQ 3130 2490 2780 675 JQ 3310 1500 3130 2690 3190 2390 Vanadium 57.3 47.8 46.1 52.1 55.6 49.2 25.3 50.2 46.1 46.1 43.5 Zinc 107 97.0 105 117 153 90.7 47.1 86.8 84.2 87.8 98.1 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 43500 19700 15800 14800 61500 19000 9480 19800 14700 19000 22500 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 7.1 9.8 10.1 10.3 14.1 10.2 6.8 10.2 12.6 13.1 8.5 Percent retained 1.3 micron 8.6 7.6 7 7.1 9.2 7.1 2.3 8.6 10.3 12.3 4.6 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 11.8 13.6 10.1 10.3 5.6 16.5 4.5 17.3 14 16.1 7 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 2.8 0.6 12.5 2 2.7 0.3 17.5 0.1 0.2 3.8 2.7 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 0.1 U 0.5 0.1 U 2.9 0.1 U 0.3 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 11.8 13.6 5.5 7.1 8.5 17.3 5.3 18.9 15.5 13.1 11.6 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 2.1 0.9 11.4 0.3 3.9 0.1 22.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 9.4 9.8 14.8 9.5 11.3 15.7 11.3 12.6 5.9 9.2 11.6 Percent retained 32 micron 20.4 19.8 4 26.2 6.4 16.1 3.3 13.5 27.3 11.1 20.6 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 1.3 0.6 4.3 0.3 4.6 0.2 6.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 1.6 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 7.1 10.6 3.1 11.8 10.6 7.9 3.8 7.1 5.2 6.1 2.3 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 10.5 2.8 6.2 6 3.2 1.2 10.5 0.9 1.9 6.7 20.5 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.9 0.3 2.6 0.4 6.5 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 Percent retained 9 micron 6.3 9.8 7.8 8.7 8.5 7.1 5.3 10.2 5.9 6.9 8.5 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.6 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

Key: bgs = Below ground surface. CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. ID = Identification. J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is an estimate. K = Unknown bias. L = Low bias. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. g/kg = Micrograms per kilogram. Q = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is above the instrument detection limit but below the CRQL. SQL = Sample Quantitation Limit. U = The analyte was not detected at or above the associated value. 7-28 Table 7-9 Phase II Youngs Bay Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 9454115 9454117 9454125 9454126 9454127 9454148 9454149 9454150 CLP Sample ID JC1Q7 JC1Q9 JC1R7 JC1R8 JC1R9 JC1W0 JC1W1 JC1W2 Station Location BK01SD BK03SD LC01SD LC02SD LC03SD WB01SD WB02SD WB03SD Description Background Background Mouth of Lewis and Clark River Wilson Ship Building Semivolatile Organic Compounds (g/kg) Caprolactam 95 JQ 280 JQ 570 JL 650 960 450 JL 93 JQ 120 JQ (SQL = 340) Di-n-butylphthalate 340 U 680 320 UJK 340 U 320 U 250 UJK 250 U 250 U Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 14200 16600 8950 11600 9430 6680 5910 5720 Arsenic 6.6 6.3 6.5 7.8 5.9 5.0 4.5 4 Barium 119 178 37.4 55.1 37.0 34.2 24.4 JQ 27.4 JQ Calcium 3610 3070 2850 2610 2920 2480 2090 2240 Chromium 12.9 15.6 13.0 14.6 14.1 12.1 10.6 10.2 Cobalt 14.5 14.1 10.0 12.8 10.4 9.3 7.9 9.3 Copper 21.2 24.6 22.4 24.1 23.8 12.9 12.1 9.73 Iron 34600 38800 19200 28100 19100 16700 14100 13800 Lead 8.3 10.8 9.6 10.8 10.1 10.4 8.8 8.1 Magnesium 5000 4330 4300 5490 4600 3350 2800 2670 Manganese 339 356 269 174 184 223 163 369 Nickel 17.9 22.1 12.6 17.0 13.2 11.0 9.1 10 Potassium 1220 1280 JQ 1540 1960 1670 1240 1050 943 Sodium 559 JQ 858 JQ 2470 4680 3160 1790 1590 1540

7-29 Vanadium 62.9 57.3 40.5 57.6 44.0 37.3 36.5 33.7 Zinc 85.0 107 78.1 94.3 81.4 69.3 55.0 50.2 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 23800 43500 12900 19100 12300 6380 5430 3550 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 12.9 7.1 8 9.4 8.6 3.8 4.5 4.4 Percent retained 1.3 micron 9.1 8.6 5.1 7.1 5.4 3.1 3.5 2.2 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 6.1 11.8 8.7 12.6 15.6 2.3 5 2.6 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 9.1 2.8 4.2 6.7 0.5 25.6 42.1 42 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 7.6 11.8 23.3 11 10.9 3.1 2.5 1.8 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 3.6 2.1 11.2 2 0.2 2.2 7.4 20.2 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 13.7 9.4 10.2 11.8 7.8 7.7 7.5 2.2 Percent retained 32 micron 11.4 20.4 5.6 11.3 25.3 8 9 5.5 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 0.6 1.3 5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.7 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 4.6 7.1 8.7 4.7 6.2 2.3 1.5 2.6 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 17.2 10.5 4.1 12.9 8.2 38.8 14.2 13.2 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.3 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Percent retained 9 micron 3.8 6.3 4.4 9.4 10.9 2.3 2.5 2.6 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

Key: bgs = Below ground surface. CLP = Contract Laboratory Program. EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency. ID = Identification. J = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is an estimate. mg/kg = Milligrams per kilogram. g/kg = Micrograms per kilogram. Q = The analyte was positively identified. The associated numerical value is above the instrument detection limit but below the CRQL. U = The analyte was not detected at or above the associated value. 7-30 Table 7-10 Phase II Craig Creek Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 9454118 9454154 9454156 CLP Sample ID JC1R0 JC1W6 JC1W8 Station Location BK04SD BK06SD CC04SD Background Background Craig Creek Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 19600 12200 11800 Arsenic 6.7 4.8 9.9 Barium 120 54.8 85.0 Calcium 3070 5560 3530 Chromium 42.5 19.9 19.1 Cobalt 9.3 5.3 JQ 11.7 JQ Copper 19.2 11.9 34.2 Iron 35800 28500 45000 Lead 17.9 11.1 54.8 Magnesium 4840 3210 3800 Manganese 554 181 501 Nickel 31.7 19.9 31.4 Vanadium 81.1 45.0 55.6 Zinc 67.9 74.3 153 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic 79100 14900 61500 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 8.2 17.1 14.1 Percent retained 1.3 micron 6.5 7.9 9.2 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 2.9 1.8 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 4.1 1.8 5.6 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 1.9 10.1 2.7 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 17.4 3.3 2.9 Percent retained 22 micron 5.3 2.4 8.5 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 3.1 17 3.9 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 10 9.8 11.3 Percent retained 32 micron 2 6.7 6.4 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 5.6 5.4 4.6 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 6.7 0.9 1.6 Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 3.5 2.4 10.6 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 2 3.6 3.2 Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 15 3.7 6.5 Percent retained 9 micron 3.5 3.1 8.5 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 2.2 2.8 0.6 Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

7-31 Table 7-11 Phase II Columbia River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 9454155 9454139 9454140 9454141 CLP Sample ID JC1W7 JC1T1 JC1T2 JC1T3 Station Location BK05SD PA01SD PA02SD PA03SD Description Background Port of Astoria Organotins (g/kg) Butyl Tin Trichloride 5.9 U 6.4 U 6.1 U 6.7 Dibutyl Tin Dichloride 6.8 U 7.4 U 7.0 U 17 Tributyl Tin Chloride 3.9 U 4.2 U 4.0 U 8.5 Target Analyte List Metals (mg/kg) Aluminum 4990 7050 11100 9990 Arsenic 3.6 3.5 6.8 5.3 Barium 26.4 JQ 42.7 47.9 42.9 (27.2 SQL) Calcium 2710 3410 3960 3360 Chromium 8.9 11.3 16.6 15.0 Cobalt 7.2 9.5 10.8 10.1 Copper 9.8 13.5 33.3 29.4 Iron 12300 14100 19300 17300 Lead 5.3 5.5 10.8 9.9 Magnesium 2500 3650 5460 4790 Manganese 234 202 345 264 Nickel 10.0 12.3 15.3 13.8 Potassium 792 1350 2170 1990 Sodium 1690 1980 7420 5900 Vanadium 30.9 31.4 46.1 41.3 Zinc 40.4 58.1 93.7 81.7 Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg) Total Organic Carbon 6250 11500 21700 17900 Grain Size (percent) Percent passing LT 1.3 micron 4.7 4 11.7 10.1 Percent retained 1.3 micron 1.3 1.3 7 5.4 Percent retained 12500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 13 micron 2.7 3.3 12.5 11.6 Percent retained 150 micron sieve 37 16.4 0.7 2.1 Percent retained 19000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 2000 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 22 micron 2.7 2.7 15.6 11.6 Percent retained 250 micron sieve 24.3 1.7 0.3 0.6 Percent retained 25K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 3.2 micron 3.3 3.3 7.8 7.7 Percent retained 32 micron 4.4 12 22.4 27.8 Percent retained 37.5K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 425 micron sieve 5.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 Percent retained 4750 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 50K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 7 micron 3.3 1.3 7 6.2 Percent retained 75 micron sieve 6.8 52.8 6.4 11.1

7-32 Table 7-11 Phase II Columbia River Sediment Sample Analytical Results Summary EPA Sample ID 9454155 9454139 9454140 9454141 CLP Sample ID JC1W7 JC1T1 JC1T2 JC1T3 Station Location BK05SD PA01SD PA02SD PA03SD Description Background Port of Astoria Percent retained 75K micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Percent retained 850 micron sieve 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 Percent retained 9 micron 3.3 0.1 U 7.8 4.6 Percent retained 9500 micron sieve 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U 0.1 U Notes: Bold type indicates the sample result is above the Contract-Required Quantitation Limit. Underline type indicates the sample result is elevated as defined in Section 5.

7-33 Source: Maptech, Inc. 2001.

4 Miles

3 Miles

2 Miles

1 Mile

0.5 Mile 0.25 Mile Site Location

ASTORIA MARINE CONSTRUCTION CO. Figure 7-1 ecology and environment, inc. SITE INSPECTION 4-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMIT (TDL) MAP & International Specialists in the Environment Astoria, Oregon Seattle, Washington 0 .5 1 Date: Drawn by: Approximate Scale in Miles 2-16-10 AES 10:START-3\07080005\fig 7-1

7-34 © Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project# \SEANAS1\Projects\edms-projects\astoria_marine_contr\figIlwaco 1-7 15mile TDL map.mxd 10/1/2009

Baker Bay 10.2 Miles Washington Grays Bay 3.4 Miles Grays River Cape Disappointment Chinook Knappton Rosburg End TDL Chinook

1 0 Altoona 4 Y W H T E STA Megler

Lewis and Clark National

Wildlife Refuge TDL End Jetty Lagoon Columbia River US HWY 101 16.7 Miles 3.3 Miles 7.1 Miles

Pacific Ocean Hammond Clatsop Spit Warrenton Astoria Cathlamet Bay Knappa Astoria LAKE DR Knappa U S H PETER IREDALE RD W Y Skipanon Slough 1 RIDGE RD 0 1 BUS 0.1 Miles STATE HW 7-35 Y BURMA RD Youngs 202 MP 0 MP 1 US Bay HW End TDL E HARBOR ST Y 30 0 3 Warrenton 3.4 Miles Y OLD HW Legend MP 2 S HWY Start TDL EN EV ST AIRPORT RD RAMP Site Location T D Wallooskee River R R O RK F A Mile Post Marker L 3.8 Miles VALLEY WAY Lewis and Clark C MP 0D MP 3 Tow n sh ip US HWY 26 River N Youngs River A

S 4.9 Miles I 10.4 Miles USGS Topo Grid (1:24,000) W E Oregon MP 1 L Wetlands Location MP 4 CAMP RILEA RD Wetlands Intersect Y O

F U O MP 2

US HWY101 N R Baker Bay Wetlands G T MP 3 S C MP 5 L R Columbia River Wetlands A I V T E S R MP 6 O P LO Grays Bay Wetlands R FF O D O P UT R MP 4 C D Jetty Lagoon Wetlands SUNSET BEACH RD K LEWIS AVE CR E E Gearhart TUCKER Olney Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge Wetlands MP 7 Green Mountain Wickiup Mountain SADDLE MOUNTAIN RD Lewis and Clark River Wetlands MP 5 OLNEY CUTOFF RD MP 8 Skipanon Slough Wetlands MP 6 D R Wallooskee River Wetlands AN G

MANION RD MANION O L MP 9 Youngs Bay Wetlands MP 7 Youngs River Wetlands MP 10

024681 Figure 7-2 Astoria Marine Construction Company 15-MILE TARGET DISTANCE LIMITS MAP Kilometers 0123450.5 Site Inspection AND WETLANDS Miles Scale:1:171,000 Astoria, Oregon Map Reference: ESRI, USFWS, USGS

Date: GIS Analyst: Project ID: 3/20/2009 avh © Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project# \SEANAS1\Projects\edms-projects\astoria_marine_contr\fig 1-8 site area wetlands.mxd 10/1/2009

Legend

Site Location Wetlands Location Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested Wetland Freshwater Scrub-Shrub Wetland

Figure 7-3

0 250 500 1,000 1,500 Astoria Marine Construction Company PROJECT SITE WITH SHORELINE WETLANDS Feet Site Inspection

Scale 1:12,000 Job Id:

Date: GIS Analyst: Astoria, Oregon 2/22/2008 avh Map Source Information:

7-36

8 Summary and Conclusions

The AMCC site is an active marine shipyard located at the confluence of Jeffers Slough and the Lewis and Clark River in Astoria, Oregon. The AMCC site has been active since 1924. Between 1926 and the 1940s, AMCC manufactured and repaired wooden-hulled sail- and motor-powered fishing boats. During WW II, the facility was converted to build military craft such as wooden-hulled mine sweepers. In the 1960s operations at the site consisted primarily of fishing and tow boat repair. Until 1989, AMCC used copper-based paints containing organotins, which are known to be toxic to marine organisms. Until approximately 1997, a portion of the repair and maintenance operations at the facility consisted of sandblasting old paint off ships and boats; the paint typically contained copper from cupric oxide, lead, and organotins. Wooden boat hulls were treated using a copper/chromium/arsenic solution or copper naphthenate.

The AMCC site occupies approximately 8 acres of low-lying land adjacent to tidal flats along the Lewis and Clark River and includes one ship-sized assembly/maintenance building, storage areas, shops, and administrative offices. Four marine ways extend from the west side of the site into the Lewis and Clark River.

The SI field event was conducted in two phases. Phase I was performed from April 30 through May 2, 2008. A total of 32 samples (including QA/QC samples) were collected during Phase I of the field event and were analyzed for organotins, TPH-D, SVOCs, TAL Metals, and/or VOCs. Phase II of the SI field event was conducted from November 9 to 14, 2009. A total of 54 samples (including background and QA/QC samples) were collected during Phase II of the field event and analyzed for organotins, SVOCs, TPH-D, TAL Metals, Pesticides/ PCBs, TOC, and grain size.

8.1 Sources 8.1.1 On-Site Sources Sources of contamination on the site include the burn area, historic grit pile area, new grit pile area, and oil-stained areas. A total of 16 surface soil samples were collected from these source areas during Phase I of this SI. Four surface soil samples were collected from the burn area, six from the historical grit pile, two from the new grit pile, and four from oil-stained areas. Sample results indicated

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 8-1

8. Summary and Conclusions

the presence of four organotins, diesel- and motor oil-range TPHs, 12 SVOCs, 12 TAL Metals, and five VOCs at significant concentrations with respect to background concentrations.

Based on the sample results, the burn area appears to be the most contaminated, since it is the only area sampled that indicated organotin, SVOC, TAL Metals, and VOC contamination. This contamination likely came from using old paints (possibly containing organotins) and solvents to aid in the burning of lumber, trees, debris, and other items. Both grit piles exhibited TAL Metals contamination, with organotins only detected in the historical grit pile. Sample results from the oil-stained areas indicated TPH-D, SVOCs, and TAL Metals contamination.

8.1.2 Off-Site Facilities Off-site facilities containing potential sources of contamination were investigated during Phase II of the SI. No source samples were collected from these facilities; however, target samples were collected off shore of the operations. These off-site facilities included: . The Port of Astoria on the Columbia River near Youngs Bay; . J&H Boatworks, Incorporated located approximately 1.9 miles south of the City of Astoria on Cook Slough; and . The former Astoria Municipal Landfill located approximately 0.33 miles north of Youngs Bay on Craig Creek.

8.2 Targets 8.2.1 Phase I Targets Five monitoring wells were installed into the shallow ground water zone at the site: one near the burn area, one on top of a dike, and three near the grit piles. Sample results indicate the presence of 10 TAL Metals, tributyltin, and two VOCs at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Contamination of shallow ground water by TAL Metals is prevalent across the site.

Five sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River and two sediment samples were collected from Jeffers Slough during Phase I of the SI. Sample results indicate the presence of organotins, diesel range TPH, and TAL Metals at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations in samples from the Lewis and Clark River. Additionally, analytical results from Jeffers Slough indicate the present organotins, diesel and motor oil range TPH, and TAL Metals at elevated concentrations. Although each sample collected from the Lewis and Clark River exhibited contaminants at elevated concentrations, the sediment sample collected near the burn area (i.e., LC01SD) exhibited the greatest contamination. Targets in surface water adjacent to the site are subject to actual contamination.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 8-2

8. Summary and Conclusions

8.2.2 Phase II Targets Forty-eight sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River, Youngs River, Columbia River, Craig Creek, Youngs Bay, and the Skipanon Waterway as part of Phase II of this SI. . Lewis and Clark River (Astoria Marine Transect): Fifteen samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River in front (and west) of the AMCC facility. Sample results indicate the presence of three organotins (butyltin trichloride, dibutyltin dichloride, and tributyltin chloride); since these compounds were similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I, their presence maybe attributed to the AMCC facility. One SVOC (di-n- butylphthalate) and one TAL Metal (mercury) also were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations; however, these analytes were not similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I and cannot be attributed to the AMCC facility. . Lewis and Clark River: Eleven additional sediment samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River. These samples were collected from the Lewis and Clark River at approximately 0.5-mile intervals beginning at river mile 0.5 and ending at river mile 6.0. Sample results indicate the presence of one SVOC (caprolactam). However, this analyte was not similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I and cannot be attributed to the AMCC facility. . Youngs River: Nine samples were collected from the Youngs River. Three of these samples were collected from the north side of the Youngs River near the confluence with Craig Creek. Sample results indicate the presence of two SVOCs. One of these SVOCs (pyrene) was similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I. However, due to the distance from the AMCC facility, this detection is not likely attributable to the AMCC site. Three samples were also collected from the north side of the Youngs River near its confluence with an unnamed stream. Sample results indicate the presence of one SVOC (caprolactam) at elevated concentrations with respect to background. This analyte was not similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I and thus cannot be attributed to the AMCC facility. Three additional samples were collected from the south side of the Youngs River near the mouth of Cook Slough. One SVOC (caprolactam) was detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background in all three samples. . Youngs Bay: Six samples were collected from Youngs Bay. Three samples were collected at the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River. Sample results indicate that one SVOC (caprolactam) was detected at an elevated concentration with respect to background. Three samples were collected near the former Wilson Ship Building facility. Sample results indicate that one SVOC (caprolactam) was detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background. However, this analyte was not similarly detected in source samples collected during Phase I and thus cannot be attributed to the AMCC facility. . Craig Creek: One sediment sample was collected downstream from the former Astoria Municipal Landfill at the confluence of the east and west forks of

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 8-3

8. Summary and Conclusions

Craig Creek. Sample results indicate that one TAL Metal (lead) was detected at an elevated concentration with respect to background. Lead was similarly detected in source samples at the AMCC site collected during Phase I; however, due to the location of the sample and the distance from the AMCC facility, this analyte is not attributed to the AMCC facility. . Columbia River: Six sediment samples were collected from the Columbia River. Three samples were collected at the Port of Astoria. Sample results from samples collected near Pier 3 at the Port of Astoria indicated the presence of three organotins and two TAL Metals (barium and copper) at elevated concentrations with respect to background. The Port of Astoria uses Pier 3 as the port’s haul-out/boatyard facility. This area of the port includes an 88-ton lift and a wash down pad. Even though the organotins and TAL Metals detected at the port were similarly detected in on-site sources at the AMCC facility, they are likely not attributable to the AMCC facility because of the port’s distance from the AMCC site and historic and current operations at the port. Three sediment samples were also collected near the mouth of the Skip- anon Waterway on the Columbia River. Sample results indicated that two TAL Metals (barium and cobalt) were detected at elevated concentrations with respect to background in two of these samples. These analytes are not likely attributable to the AMCC facility because of the distance from the site to the sample locations.

8.3 Conclusions Based on the results of the SI field sampling events, it appears that the AMCC site contains sources of CERCLA hazardous substances. Ground water samples collected from the site indicate the presence of organotins, TAL Metals, and VOCs at elevated concentrations with respect to background concentrations. Sandblasting old paint off ships and boats is the likely source of organotins and TAL Metals contamination. Leakage of oily wastes from a faulty engine hoist and aboveground oil tanks has caused soil contamination, and the burning of solvents, oil-stained soil, and waste petroleum products in the burn area may have contributed to the VOC, SVOC, and TPH-D contamination in this area.

Based on analytical results from Phase I, contamination appears to be migrating from sources at the AMCC site to surface water targets, including areas where threatened and endangered species are known to occur (the Lewis and Clark River). Facilities that may be contributing to contamination within the AMCC surface water migration pathway TDL investigated during Phase II of this SI include: the Port of Astoria, J&H Boatworks, and the former Astoria Municipal Landfill. Based on analytical data from Phase II of this SI; the distance to AMCC from potential sources at the facilities listed above; the flow characteristic of the Columbia, Lewis and Clark, and Youngs Rivers; and the tidal effects on these rivers from the Pacific Ocean, it appears unlikely that these facilities have contributed to contamination in the Lewis and Clark River near AMCC.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 8-4

8. Summary and Conclusions

However, based on the Phase II analytical data, it does appears that sediments immediately off-shore from the Port of Astoria have been impacted by past or present work activities at the port. Phase II analytical data indicate that sediments immediately off-shore of J&H Boatworks do not appear to have been impacted. Phase II analytical data indicates that Craig Creek may have been impacted by the former Astoria Municipal Landfill. However, based on the results of samples collected at the confluence of Craig Creek and the Youngs River, it appears that the Youngs River has not likewise been impacted by the former landfill.

Sediments immediately off shore of the Warrenton Boat Yard were not sampled as part of this SI. Information made available to the EPA TM and contained in the ODEQ ECSI database, indicate that these sediments have been impacted and may present a potential source of contamination to the waters near the AMCC site. However, Based on Phase II analytical data, the sediments at the mouth of the Skipanon Waterway appear to have not been impacted.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 8-5

9 References

Clark, Shirley M., and George R. Snyder, (no date), Timing and Extent of a Flow Reversal in the Lower Columbia River, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E), April 1999, Astoria Marine Construction Company, Preliminary Assessment Report, Astoria, Oregon, TDD 98-10- 0006. ______, March 27, 2008, Final Astoria Marine Construction Company Sampling and Quality Assurance Project Plan, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Direction Document 07-08- 0005, Seattle, Washington. ______, June 24, 2009a, Technical Memorandum, Astoria Marine Construc- tion Company Additional Information Search, Astoria, Oregon, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Direction Document 07-08-0005, Seattle, Washington.

______, October 28, 2009b, Final Astoria Marine Construction Company Sampling and Quality Assurance Project Plan, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Direction Document 07-08- 0005, Seattle, Washington. Fastabend, Donald, June 9, 1997a, Astoria Marine Construction Company letter to the ODEQ regarding correspondence from ODEQ dated April 28, 1997. ______, March 19, 1997b, Astoria Marine Construction Company letter to ODEQ regarding correspondence from ODEQ dated March 4, 1997. Feige & Associates Inc., April 13, 2009, Draft Remedial Investigation Report - Warrenton Boatyard, Warrenton Oregon Fortuna, Steve, September 10, 2007, ODEQ, Northwest Region Site Assessment, memorandum regarding “Review Comments: Astoria Marine Construction Company, Preliminary Assessment Report, Astoria, Oregon, TDD: 98-10- 0006, Region 10 START, Contract 68-W6-0008, prepared by Ecology and Environment, Inc., April 1999,” to Chuck Harmon, ODEQ, Northwest Region Site Assessment.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 9-1

9. References

Frank, F.J., 1970, Ground-water resources of the Clatsop Plains sand-dune area, Clatsop County, Oregon. Hanson, Al, June 2008, E & E, GIS Analyst, electronic mail regarding wetland frontage, to Andy Uhrig, E & E. Hatched, Jim, March 5, 1999, City of Astoria Public Works, Senior Utility Worker, telephone call to Donald Smith, E & E, regarding drinking water for city of Astoria. Larson Construction Company, Inc., (Larson), June 5 through June 10, 1997, Invoice # 6692, to Astoria Marine Construction Company for removal and hauling of “contaminated soil.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1973, Precipitation- Frequency Atlas of the Western United States, Volume IX–Washington. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), June 25, 1997a, ODEQ Site Assessment Program – Strategy Recommendation, Astoria Marine Construction Company; revision to March 4, 1997, strategy recommendation. ______, March 4, 1997b, ODEQ Site Assessment Program – Strategy Recommendation, Astoria Marine Construction Company. ______, November 2009a, Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Database, accessed November 2009, ODEQ # 2764 http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ECSI/ecsidetailfull.asp?seqnbr=2764. ______, November 2009b, Environmental Cleanup Site Information (ECSI) Database, accessed November 2009, ODEQ # 4874 http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ECSI/ecsidetailfull.asp?seqnbr=4874. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), 2007a, Preliminary 2007 Oregon Ocean Recreational Salmon Fishery Estimates Web page http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/salsportcatch.html, accessed on February 22, 2008. ______, 2007b, Preliminary 2007 Oregon Ocean Commercial Troll Salmon Catch and Effort Estimates Web page, http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/salmon/saltrollcatch.html, accessed on February 22, 2008. Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center (ORNHIC), September 14, 2007, Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plant and Animal Records near Astoria, Oregon. Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), May 1998, Groundwater Resource Information Distribution (GRID), Clatsop, Columbia, Lincoln, and Tillamook counties, NORCO-I CD-Rom. Paul, Rebecca, June 6, 1996, ODEQ, Northwest Region, memorandum to file regarding Astoria Marine Construction Company.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 9-2

9. References

Reed, Heather, April 15, 2010, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal conversation. Smith, Jill, April 15, 2010, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal conversation. Trails.com, 2007, Fishing Oregon, Lower Columbia River and Youngs Bay, Web page http://www.trails.com/tcatalog_trail.asp?trailid=FGW017-001, accessed on February 22, 2008. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), June 1949, Soil Survey of Clatsop County, Oregon. United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), May 2001, Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Oregon. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), June 2008, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Superfund Organic Methods Data Review, OSWER 9240.1-48, EPA-540-R-08-001. ______, August 2007a, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Organics Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, SOM01.2. ______, January 2007b, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Media, Multi-Concentration, ILM05.4. ______, October 2004, USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review, OSWER 9240.1-45, EPA 540-R-04-004. ______, August 2000, Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-96/055. ______, January 6, 1999, Site Information Query System, Astoria Marine Construction Company. United States Geological Survey (USGS), retrieved October 27, 2008, Columbia River Basin, Web address: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Washington/ColumbiaRiver/descripti on_columbia_river.html. ______, 1958 (photorevised 1984), 7.5 minute series topographic map, Astoria, Oregon, quadrangle. ______, 1928 through 1958, Average Annual Flow Rate for Youngs River near Astoria, Oregon Web page, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/annual?referred_module=sw&site_no=142 51500&por_14251500_1=546932,00060,1,1928,1958&year_type=W&for mat=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM-

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 9-3

9. References

DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list, accessed on February 21, 2008. USA Waste Services, Inc. (UWSI), June 30, 1997, Invoice #0147816, to Astoria Marine Construction Company for disposal of 233.10 tons of material. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), February 2004, 2001 – 2002 Steelhead Harvest Summary. ______, Coastal Commercial Dungeness Crab Fishery, Web page accessed April 2010a, http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/crabreg/comcrab/coast/index.htm. ______, Puget Sound Sport Crabbing, Web page accessed April 2010b, http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/crab/index.htm. Western Regional Climatic Center (WRCC), 1961 to 1990 Normals, Means, and Extremes, Astoria, Oregon, Web page, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/clilcd.pl?or94224, accessed on February 21, 2008.

10:\STARTDOC\07080005\S1214 9-4