10.2.4_-_2011c_-_Baseline_Risk_Assessment.pdf

DRAFT FINAL

BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT

DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS FUSRAP SITE

DEEPWATER, NEW JERSEY

Contract Number: W912DR-04-D-0015/0004

Prepared for:

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

PHILADELPIA DISTRICT

PHILDELPHIA, PA

Prepared by:

103 E. Mount Royal Ave., Suite 2B

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

January 2009

Baseline Risk Assessment DRAFT FINAL DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Baseline Risk Assessment Approach.........................................................................1-2

1.2 Report Organization...................................................................................................1-3

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Site History ................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 History of MED Activities at the Site........................................................................2-6

2.2.1 AOC 1 – Former Building 845.........................................................................................2-7

2.2.2 AOC 2 – Former Building 708.......................................................................................2-10

2.2.3 AOC 3 – The Central Drainage Ditch ...........................................................................2-10

2.2.4 AOC 4 - Historical Lagoon A ........................................................................................2-11

2.2.5 AOC 5 – Former Building J-16 (Building J-26 Area) ...................................................2-12

2.2.6 AOC 6 - The East Area ..................................................................................................2-12

2.3 Physical Characteristics of Site................................................................................2-12

2.3.1 Meteorology ...................................................................................................................2-12

2.3.2 Land Uses ......................................................................................................................2-13

2.3.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................2-13

2.3.4 Geology..........................................................................................................................2-13

2.3.5 Hydrogeology.................................................................................................................2-14

2.4 Designation of Exposure Units ................................................................................2-14

3.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION........................................ 3-1

3.1 Site-Related Constituents...........................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Radiological Constituents................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Chemical Constituents .....................................................................................................3-2

3.2 History of Site Investigations.....................................................................................3-2

3.3 Sampling Information ................................................................................................3-3

3.4 Collection of Background Reference Area Samples .................................................3-6

3.5 Data Evaluation..........................................................................................................3-7

4.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT ............................................. 4-1

4.1 Identification of Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs)...................................4-2

4.1.1 Data Reduction ................................................................................................................4-3

4.1.2 Weight-of-Evidence Screening.........................................................................................4-4

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. ii

4.1.3 Background Screening.....................................................................................................4-4

4.1.4 Risk-Based Screening ......................................................................................................4-4

4.2 Exposure Assessment.................................................................................................4-9

4.2.1 Development of Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for Each EU..........................................4-9

4.2.2 Quantification of Exposure Concentration and Pathway Specific Intakes ....................4-22

4.3 Toxicity Assessment ................................................................................................4-35

4.3.1 Toxicity Assessment for Radiological COPCs...............................................................4-35

4.3.2 Toxicity Assessment for Chemical COPCs ....................................................................4-36

4.4 Risk Characterization...............................................................................................4-37

4.5 Results......................................................................................................................4-40

4.6 Uncertainty Assessment...........................................................................................4-55

4.6.1 Uncertainties in Analytical Data ...................................................................................4-56

4.6.2 Uncertainties in Exposure Assessment ..........................................................................4-57

4.6.3 Uncertainties Related to Toxicity Information...............................................................4-59

4.6.4 Uncertainties in Risk Characterization .........................................................................4-63

4.7 Human Health Risk Assessment Summary .............................................................4-64

5.0 SCREENING LEVEL ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT............ 5-1

5.1 Results of Ecological Exclusion Criteria and Ecological Assessment ......................5-2

5.2 Characterization of the Ecological Setting ................................................................5-4

5.3 Selection of Stressor ..................................................................................................5-7

5.4 Screening-Level Problem Formulation....................................................................5-10

5.4.1 Scope of this SLERA ......................................................................................................5-11

5.4.2 Ecological Conceptual Site Model.................................................................................5-12

5.5 Screening-Level Ecological Exposure Assessment .................................................5-15

5.5.1 Receptors and their Exposure........................................................................................5-15

5.5.2 Quantification of Exposure............................................................................................5-21

5.6 Screening Level Ecological Effects Assessment .....................................................5-26

5.6.1 Effects Evaluation for Radionuclides.............................................................................5-26

5.6.2 Chemical Toxicity ..........................................................................................................5-26

5.7 Screening Level Risk Characterization....................................................................5-27

5.7.1 Risk Characterization for Radionuclides.......................................................................5-27

5.7.2 Current Chemical Preliminary Risk to Ecological Receptors .......................................5-28

5.8 Uncertainty Analysis................................................................................................5-34

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. iii

5.8.1 Uncertainties Related to Problem Formulation.............................................................5-35

5.8.2 Uncertainties Related to Exposure Assessment .............................................................5-35

5.8.3 Uncertainties Related to Effects Assessment .................................................................5-37

5.8.4 Uncertainties Related to Risk Characterization ............................................................5-39

5.8.5 Summary of Uncertainties .............................................................................................5-40

5.9 Summary of the Screening or Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment ................5-40

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... 6-1

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: DuPont Chambers Works Manufacturing History ....................................................2-5

Table 2-2: DuPont Chambers Works MED Manufacturing History ..........................................2-9

Table 3-1: Number of Samples for each EU...............................................................................3-5

Table 4-1: Summary of COPCs for Each Medium.....................................................................4-6

Table 4-2: Results of EPCs for Radiological COPCs...............................................................4-24

Table 4-3: Results of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment to Industrial Worker..............4-42

Table 4-4: Results of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment to Construction Worker ........4-43

Table 4-5: Results of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment to Utility Worker ..................4-44

Table 4-6: Results of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment to Maintenance Worker ........4-45

Table 4-7: Results of Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment to Residential Receptor.........4-46

Table 4-8: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment to Industrial Worker...................................4-49

Table 4-9: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment to Construction Worker .............................4-50

Table 4-10: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment to Utility Worker......................................4-51

Table 4-11: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment to Maintenance Worker ...........................4-52

Table 4-12: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment to Residential Receptor............................4-53

Table 4-13: Results of Radiological Dose And Risk Assessment ............................................4-65

Table 4-14: Results of Chemical Risk Assessment ..................................................................4-66

Table 5-1: List of COPECs for Various Environmental Media..................................................5-9

Table 5-2: Summary of Life History Parameters for Ecological Receptors (1).........................5-21

Table 5-3: Results of Risk Characterization for Meadow Vole................................................5-30

Table 5-4: Results of Risk Characterization for Short-Tailed Shrew.......................................5-31

Table 5-5: Results of Risk Characterization for American Kestrel ..........................................5-32

Table 5-6: Results of Risk Characterization for Red Fox.........................................................5-33

Table 5-7: Results of Risk Characterization for Mallard Duck ................................................5-33

Table 5-8: Results of Risk Characterization for Belted Kingfisher..........................................5-34

Table 5-9: SLERA Summary Table..........................................................................................5-40

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Location of DuPont Chambers Works FUSRAP Site..............................................2-2

Figure 2-2: Designation of FUSRAP Operable Units (OUs) and Areas of Concern (AOCs)....2-3

Figure 2-3: Process Flow Diagrams for Uranium Refinement ...................................................2-8

Figure 2-4: Designation of EUs and AOCs ..............................................................................2-15

Figure 4-1: Conceptual Site Model for Exposure Unit 1..........................................................4-17

Figure 4-2: Conceptual Site Model for Exposure Unit 2A.......................................................4-18

Figure 4-3: Conceptual Site Model for Exposure Unit 2B .......................................................4-19

Figure 4-4: Conceptual Site Model for Exposure Unit 3A.......................................................4-20

Figure 4-5: Conceptual Site Model for Exposure Unit 3B .......................................................4-21

Figure 5-1: Ecological Conceptual Site Model for DuPont Chambers Works Site..................5-14

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. vi

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Determination of Background Concentrations for Radionuclides and Metals at Each Medium

APPENDIX B: Identification of COPCs and Determination of Exposure Point Concentration (EPC) for Each COPC at Each Medium

APPENDIX C: Assigned Values for Exposure Parameters

APPENDIX D: Toxicological and Physical Properties for Each COPC

APPENDIX E: Radiological Dose and Risk Assessment Summary Report

APPENDIX F: Intake and Chemical Risk Assessment Summary Report

APPENDIX G: Output Summary for Johnson Ettinger Vapor Intrusion Model

APPENDIX H: Ecological Exclusion Worksheets and Ecological Assessment Checklists

APPENDIX I: Identification of COPECs and Determination of EPC for Each COPEC

APPENDIX J: Results of SLERA for Radiological COPECs

APPENDIX K: Results of SLERA for Chemical COPECs

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. vii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABS constituent-specific absorption factor

ADD average daily dose

ADR automated data review

ADS all depth soil

AEC Atomic Energy Commission

AF soil to skin adherence factor

ANL Argonne National Laboratories

AOC Area of Concern

Am-241 americium-241

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AT averaging times

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry

Atm-m3/molatmospheres per cubic meter/mole

AUF area use factor

B chemical-specific constant reflecting the partitioning properties

Β constant (3.14159)

BAF bioaccumulation factor

BCF bioconcentration factor

BCG biota concentration guide

BEE baseline ecological evaluation

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation

Be-7 beryllium-7

Bi-212 bismuth-212

Bi-214 bismuth-214

BRA baseline risk assessment

BW body weight

C- Concentration

CABRERA Cabrera Services Inc.

CEA Classification Exception Area

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CDD Central Drainage Ditch cm2 square centimeter

COCs constituents of concern

COPCs constituents of potential concern

COPECs chemicals of potential ecological concern

Cs concentrations of radionuclides in soil or sediment

Cs-137 cesium-137

Csed concentrations of radionuclides in sediment

CSF cancer slope factor

CSM conceptual site model

Cw concentrations of radionuclides in water

DAD dermally absorbed dose

Dair diffusion coefficient in air

DAevent absorbed dose per event in water

Dcap eff effective diffusion coefficient through capillary zone

DC dietary composition

DCF dose conversion factor

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. viii

DE Delaware

DOE Department of Energy

DQO data quality objectives

Dwat diffusion coefficient in water

DWS

eff effective diffusion coefficient between groundwater and soil

Dv eff effective diffusion coefficient through unsaturated zone

ED exposure duration

EF exposure frequency

EPC exposure point concentration

ERA ecological risk assessment

ERAGS Ecological Risk Assessment Guide for Superfund

ESA Endangered Species Act

EU exposure unit

°F Fahrenheit

FCM food chain multiplying factor

FGR federal guidance report

FI contaminated plant fraction

FR fraction

FS Feasibility Study

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program g/mol grams per mole

GI gastrointestinal

GW groundwater

H Henry’s Law Constant

Hair ambient air mixing zone height

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables

HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment

HI hazard index

HQ hazard quotient

HR home range

I chronic daily intake

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICRP International Commission on Radiologic Protection

IDW investigative-derived waste

IEUBK Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic model

ILCRs incremental lifetime cancer risk

IR ingestion rate

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

J&E Johnson and Ettinger

K-40 potassium-40 kg kilogram kg/yr kilogram per year km kilometer

Kow octanol/water coefficient

Kp permeability coefficient from water

L/day liter per day

LGW depth to groundwater

LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level µg/pCi microgram per picocurie µg/L microgram per liter m3 cubic meter

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. ix

MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual

MED Manhattan Engineer District

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level mg milligram mg/cm2 milligram per square centimeter mGy/d milliGray per day mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mg/kg-d milligrams per kilogram-day mol mole mph mile per hour mrem/yr millirem per year

MW molecular weight

NAVD 88 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

NCP National Contingency Plan

ND not detected

NIR normalized food ingestion rate

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

NOAEL no observed adverse effect level

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OU Operable Unit

Pa-234 protactinium-234

Pa-234m protactinium-234m

PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbon

Pb-210 lead-210

Pb-212 lead-212

Pb-214 lead-214

PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls pCi/g picocuries per gram pCi/L picocuries per liter

PEF particulate emission factor

PEST pesticides

Po-210 polonium-210

PPRTV Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values

PRG preliminary remediation goals

QA quality assurance

QAPP quality assurance project plan

QC quality control

Ra-226 radium-226

Ra-228 radium-228

RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund

RBCA Risk based corrective action

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RESRAD RESidual RADioactivity computer code

RfD reference dose

RI Remedial Investigation

RME reasonable maximum exposure

SA skin surface area exposed to soil

SD sediment

SITE DuPont Chambers Works

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. x

SLERA screening level ecological risk assessment

SPUF soil-to-plants uptake factors

STSC Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center

SS surface soil

SSL soil screening level

STL Severn Trent Laboratories

SVOCs semi-volatile organic compounds

SW surface water

SWMU solid waste management unit t* chemical-specific time to reach steady-state

TAL target analyte list

TEL tetraethyl lead tevent duration of event

Th-228 thorium-228

Th-230 thorium-230

Th-231 thorium-231

Th-232 thorium-232

Th-234 thorium-234

Tl-208 thallium-208

TRV toxicity reference values

Uair wind speed above the ground surface in the ambient mixing zone

UCL upper confidence limit

U-234 uranium-234

U-235 uranium-235

U-238 uranium-238

UF uptake factor

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

VD varied diet

VF volatilization factor

VOCs volatile organic compounds

W width of source area parallel to wind or groundwater flow direction

WIR normalized water ingestion rate wt weight yr year

Θacap volumetric air content in capillary fringe soils

Θas volumetric air content θT total soil porosity

Θwcap volumetric water content in capillary fringe soils

Θws volumetric water content ϑ lag time per event

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This baseline risk assessment (BRA) report presents the potential health impacts to human and ecological receptors from exposure to both radiological and chemical contamination present at three operable units (OUs) within the DuPont Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, NJ

(referred to as the “Site”). Past operations at the Site have resulted in releases of chemicals and radionuclides to environmental media that may pose risks to human and ecological receptors.

The Site is currently being addressed under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action

Program (FUSRAP) managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999 [Public Law 105-245] mandates that response actions undertaken by USACE under FUSRAP be performed subject to the provisions of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).

This report describes both the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and ecological risk assessment (ERA) that have been performed at the Site. Both assessments include separate evaluations for radiological and non-radiological (chemical) contaminants present at the Site.

Although only a subset of the contaminants present at the Site is eligible for cleanup under

FUSRAP, USACE is conducting separate evaluations to assess potential risks for all Site contaminants, consistent with CERCLA requirements. This assessment does not address any current structures present at the Site.

The BRA is being conducted as part of the Sitewide Remedial Investigation (RI), and is intended to provide an assessment of risks to human health and environment that will support the selection of a remedy to eliminate, reduce, or control those risks. The specific objectives of the BRA are to:

• Estimate potential human health and ecological risks associated with the Site if no remedial action occurs;

• Identify areas that pose no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment, and thus require no further action;

• Develop a list of constituents of potential concern (COPCs) that contribute to unacceptable risks to human health or the environment; and

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 1-2

• Quantify risks associated with FUSRAP-related contaminants for the no action alternative in the Feasibility Study (FS) that will be used to evaluate risk reduction for each proposed alternative.

1.1 Baseline Risk Assessment Approach

The general approach for conducting the risk assessment follows U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and USACE risk assessment guidance and the data quality objective (DQO) process. The DQO process consists of a series of planning steps, based on scientific method, that are designed to ensure that the type, quantity, and quality of environmental data used in decision-making are appropriate for their intended purpose. The approach focuses on clearly defining the problem to be resolved (identification and, as appropriate, remediation or control of unacceptable risk) by focusing on the decisions to be made and the overall quality of data necessary to make these decisions. The risk assessment process produces information necessary for making risk management decisions.

The DQO for this risk assessment was to identify any unacceptable risks to human health and ecological receptors. The risk assessment identified receptors who may be exposed to site contaminants, the exposure pathways through which receptors are potentially exposed to site contaminants, and the concentrations of chemical contaminants in environmental exposure media

(e.g., soil) for each exposure area. Based on these elements, and the specific toxicity of the site contaminants, the noncancer hazards and carcinogenic risks were calculated and the uncertainty associated with these calculations discussed. The risk assessment ultimately identifies those contaminants found at unacceptable levels of risk and provides information to be used by stakeholders for risk management decisions.

The risk assessment process, both for human health and ecological assessments, typically involves the following five steps:

• Data Review and Evaluation selects a data set for use in the risk assessment and summarizes the nature and known extent of environmental contamination at the site. COPCs are selected based on the risk assessment data set.

• Exposure Assessment evaluates the magnitude, frequency, duration, and routes of potential human exposure to site-related COPCs. The exposure assessment

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 1-3

considers both current and potential future site uses under a range of potential exposure scenarios and is based on complete exposure pathways to either actual or hypothetical receptors (i.e., generalized groups that could come in contact with site-related COPCs). The exposure scenarios are summarized in the Conceptual

Site Model (CSM), which includes the sources, affected media, release mechanisms, and exposure pathways for each identified receptor population.

• Toxicity Assessment provides a review of available information to identify the nature and degree of toxicity, and to characterize the dose-response relationship

(the relationship between magnitude of exposure and magnitude of potential adverse health effects on each receptor) for each COPC.

• Risk Characterization is a synthesis of exposure and toxicity information to yield quantitative estimates of potential cancer risks and noncancer hazards to defined receptor populations.

• Assessment of Uncertainty identifies and characterizes the uncertainties associated with each of the four previous steps to assist decision-makers in evaluating the risk assessment results in the context of the assumptions and variabilities in the data used.

1.2 Report Organization

The general format of this document is as follows:

• Section 1: Introduction. This section presents the general purpose and scope of the BRA, the overall approach to the BRA, and the BRA Report organization.

• Section 2: Site Information. This section provides the site description, site history, history of Manhattan Engineer District (MED) activities at the site, physical characteristics of the site, and designation of exposure units.

• Section 3: Data Collection and Evaluation. This section summarizes the site-related constituents, history of site investigations, sampling information, data evaluations, and collection of background reference area sample information.

• Section 4: HHRA. This section describes how COPCs were identified for quantitative risk assessment; presents the land use and potentially exposed receptors (people), conceptual site model, methodology for estimating exposure

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 1-4

point concentrations, and intake equations and exposure factor parameter values;

describes the approaches for evaluating chemical toxicity; describes the methodology used for the estimation of health hazard and cancer risk, and discusses sources and implications of uncertainty in the risk characterization.

• Section 5: Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA). This section describes when, how, and why particular ecological entities may be exposed to chemical and radiological stressors present at the site; describes the receptor, constituents sources, and exposure media, methodology for estimating intake equations and exposure factor parameter values; describes the approaches for evaluating chemical toxicity; describes the methodology used for the estimation of health hazard, and discusses sources and implications of uncertainty in the risk characterization.

• Section 6: References. This section lists the references cited in the HHRA and SLERA.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-1

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

DuPont Chambers Works is a 700-acre active chemical plant located in Salem County, Pennsville and Carneys Point Townships, on the southeastern shore of the Delaware River, north of the Interstate-295 Delaware Memorial Bridge. The plant is adjacent to the community of

Deepwater, New Jersey. Figure 2-1 shows the location of Chambers Works within the floodplain of the Delaware River, between Helms Cove to the north and the Salem Canal to the south.

The USACE, based on previous Department of Energy (DOE) investigations, initially identified six potentially impacted areas, referred to as areas of concern (AOCs). To facilitate further investigations and remedial decisions, the USACE organized the six AOCs into three OUs under the FUSRAP and include:

• OU 1: Former Building 845 (AOC 1) and F Corral (AOC 2) – These AOCs were production areas where uranium refinement processes occurred.

• OU 2: Central Drainage Ditch (CDD) (AOC 3) and Building J-26 Area (AOC 5) – These

AOCs include the location of a former laboratory building (J-16) and drainage ditches through which processing wastes were discharged.

• OU 3: Historical Lagoon A (AOC 4) and East Area/East Burial Area (AOC 6) – Those

AOCs were disposal areas for building rubble, discarded equipment, and process wastes.

Figure 2-2 is an aerial view of the Chambers Works property outlining the OUs and the six corresponding AOCs.

2.1 Site History

The Chambers Works Complex traces its origins to 1892, when the Carneys Point Smokeless

Gunpowder Plant was constructed at Carneys Point, just north of Chambers Works. By 1914, manufacturing operations had extended south into the Chambers Works facility. In 1917, dye and specialty chemical manufacturing began at Chambers Works. Freon® and tetraethyl lead

(TEL) production began in the 1920s, followed by aromatic chemical manufacturing in the

1940s. By the 1960s, Chambers Works began elastomer production. As chemical

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-2

FIGURE 2-1: LOCATION OF DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS FUSRAP SITE

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-3

FIGURE 2-2: DESIGNATION OF FUSRAP OPERABLE UNITS (OUS) AND AREAS OF CONCERN (AOCS)

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-4

manufacturing activities expanded, the low-lying areas were filled in with spoils from river dredging operations and construction debris to form consolidated subgrade for further development. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the explosives and dye manufacturing divisions were shut down, leaving only chemical manufacturing.

Chambers Works’ plant manufacturing history is summarized in Table 2-1. Chemical materials produced at Chambers Works between 1920 and 1960 are presented in chronological order.

Although this is not an all-inclusive listing of manufactured materials, the information is intended to provide a general representation of DuPont products (exclusive MED materials) that have been manufactured at Chambers Works.

Currently, approximately 650 acres of Chambers Works are developed. The Chambers Works

Complex produces approximately 600 products, employing more than 1,500 different processes in 44 manufacturing buildings. The general product manufacturing areas at Chambers Works currently include organic intermediates, aromatics, petroleum chemicals, fluorochemicals, polymers, elastomers, and specialty chemicals.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-5

TABLE 2-1: DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS MANUFACTURING HISTORY

Date Production Process 1920 Phthalic Anhydride developed.

1922 Tetra Ethyl lead developed.

1922 3-4 Acridine (Basic) dyes produced.

1924 Benzoic acid and sodium benzoate produced.

1924 Vulcone produced.

1925 to 1929 “Pink and Orange” Sulfanthrenes produced.

1926 to 1927 Gallopont and Luxol Dyes produced (Galloponts were discontinued in 1940.

Luxols were transferred to New Brunswick Works in 1948-1949).

1930’s “Lithosol” fast yellow # produced. Discontinued in 1938.

1931 Sulfanthrene Brown G produced.

1931 to 1932 S.D.O (Special Drying Oil) paint produced.

1932 Antraquinone dyes (Ponsol dyes) produced.

1932 to 1937 Mercury Fungicides produced.

1933 to 1948 “Diagen’ Colors produced; transferred to other areas in 1948.

1934 “White Products” produced.

1935 to 1949 Rubber chemicals (dimethoxydiphenylamine) produced.

1936 to 1948 Catalyst No. 3 Reduced produced.

1936 to 1949 Methrarols produced (transferred to New Brunswick plant in 1949).

1936 to 1949 “Monastral” Dyes or copper phthalocyanine colors produced.

1937 to 1946 Zelan A, Zelan AP water repellants produced.

1937/38 to

1947 Petroleum chemicals (known as Ortholeum) produced.

1939 to 1949 In-255 produced.

1941 to 1945 Monastral dyes, nickel catalysts, Zelans, In-2555 and other products produced.

1942 to 1945 Mustard gas antidote (1:2-dithioglycerol) produced.

1943 to 1950 Freon 1114 (Chlorotrifluoroethylene) produced.

1943 to 1952 Isocyanates produced (production suspended 1944-45).

1945 to 1957 Freon-13 produced. In 1957, it was produced at a rate of up to 56K lbs/year.

1946 to 1948 “Ceresan” M concentrate produced.

1949 Many manufacturing processes were moved to other plants.

Chambers Works returned to a greater research and development role.

1950 to 1957 Fluoroalcohols produced.

1950 to 1959 “Teslar” film produced.

1951 to 1957 Freon-13B1 produced.

1953 to 1959 Polyac (rubber chemical) produced at a rate up to 50-80K lbs/year.

1953 “Zelec” NF (textile finishing agent) produced.

1954 to 1958 Hydrophobic fibers produced.

1956 “Zelec” NO (textile finishing agent) produced.

1957 to 1959 “Viton” A produced.

1959 Fluorowax (dispersed in Freon 113®) produced.

1959 Tetraisopropyl Titanate produced.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-6

2.2 History of MED Activities at the Site

Operations to refine uranium for MED at the site began in 1942. In 1946 all MED activities were transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) with DuPont continuing its research for AEC until late 1947. MED contracted with DuPont to perform several uranium-processing activities, as outlined in Figure 2-3. A summary of production activities under MED contracts is provided in Table 2-2. Uranium refinement and production of fluorocarbons were performed in an area referred to as the “Blue Products Area” (located in OU 1). These processes included the following:

• Brown oxide process

• Recovery process

• Green salt process

• Metal process

Chambers Works developed processes for converting uranium oxides to uranium tetrafluoride, uranium hexafluoride, and small quantities of uranium metal. DOE has estimated that more than half of the Chambers Works product came by processing uranium-bearing scrap (shipped from other sites) into uranium peroxide, which was then fed into the Brown Oxide Process (DOE

1997). Other research activities were also performed but no enrichment or depletion processes occurred at the Site.

Chambers Works converted scrap and dross into uranium peroxide dihydrate in Buildings 101 and 102. These buildings adjoined each other and were later collectively called Building 845.

During processing, 5,486 tons of scrap material was converted to 982 tons of black oxide.

Uranium peroxide and oxides were processed in Buildings 708 and 205, ultimately producing

(through several steps) uranium tetrafluoride and uranium metal.

Chambers Works used a pilot plant located in former Building J-16 to develop the processes used in the Blue Products Area. In addition to the small batch-scale versions of the processes listed above, DuPont conducted batch-scale testing of the Hexafluoride process at former

Building J-16.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-7

As previously mentioned, six AOCs are presently being investigated to evaluate any residual contamination resulting from MED operations at Chambers Works (refer to Figure 2-2). A brief description of each AOC and former MED activities is provided below.

2.2.1 AOC 1 – Former Building 845

AOC 1 is the site of the former Building 845, which was located in the northwest quadrant of the manufacturing complex, just east of the F Parking Corral Area. Work in Building 845 consisted of the recovery of uranium from scrap and other by-products. Some of the wastes from these recovery processes were discharged to the wooden trough located east of the building and ultimately discharged to the CDD.

AOC 1 is predominantly covered with 6 to18 inches of crushed stone and asphalt. The area is bounded by a wooden trough to the east and northeast (which is a part of AOC 3). Rail lines are located adjacent to the wooden trough to the east-northeast. The northwest portion of AOC 1 is bounded by the portion of the CDD that is an open channel. The west side of AOC 1 is bounded by a slight depression (formerly the open channel of the CDD, now enclosed within two concrete culverts). The south side of the area is bounded by a rail yard. The adjacent land use is industrial. There is very little vertical relief in AOC 1. The wooden trough on the east and depression of the former CDD on the west convey surface water drainage to the open channel portion of the CDD along the northwest corner of the site.

Following completion of the Recovery Process operations in Building 845, equipment from the building was removed and either buried in the East Burial Area (OU 3-AOC 6) or sent to the

Niagara Falls Storage Site within the Former Lake Ontario Ordnance Works. In 1948, Building

845 was surveyed and decontaminated by AEC, then released to DuPont. DuPont subsequently used Building 845 as a warehouse. The USACE surveyed and demolished Building 845 in 1996.

The building rubble was then disposed offsite in a radiation-permitted landfill (Waste Control

Specialists) due to the presence of residual levels of uranium fixed to metal surfaces. The only remaining portions of the building are the concrete slab and elevator shaft, which are covered with 12 to 18 inches of crushed stone.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-8

FIGURE 2-3: PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMS FOR URANIUM REFINEMENT

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-9

TABLE 2-2: DUPONT CHAMBERS WORKS MED MANUFACTURING HISTORY

Project/ Contract No. MED Project Description/Dates

Project 9233 Contract

W-7412-Eng. 8 Begins July

Production of commercial grade hydrofluoric acid for use in the fluorine generators. Initial acid production 300,000 pounds/ month. The facilities were located within an area of Chambers Works owned by Kinetic Chemicals, Inc.

Project 9595 Contract

W-7412-Eng. 2

Production of 20,000 pounds of n-perfluoroheptane, beginning in April 1943.

Actual production was 117,032 pounds. The production buildings were referred to as Process Buildings A and B, located on a 5.3-acre area in the center of Chambers Works in the Blue Products area.

Project 9634 Contract

W-7412-Eng.3

Converted sodium uranate, commercial black oxide, and uranium peroxide dihydrate to brown oxide in Buildings 708 and 205. The brown oxide was then converted to green salt, which, in turn, was converted to uranium metal.

Production began in April 1943. Green salt and uranium metal production were suspended in August 1944, and brown oxide production in May 1946.

Total production had been 1,970 tons of brown oxide, 608 tons of green salt, and 232 tons of uranium metal.

Project 9757

DuPont Project 9757 was located on 21 acres in the East Area. Construction of facilities began on 3/8/43 and was completed on 10/21/44. Production began on 12/17/43. Total production included 3.9M lbs of hexadecafluoro-dimethylcyclohexane, 286K pounds of monochlorohexadecafluoro-dimethylcyclohexane, 8.2K lbs of fluorolube, and an unknown quantity of C7F16.

Project 9803 Contract

W-7412-Eng.22

This project was located on a 5.3 acre area in the “Blue Products” area, and included recovery of scrap uranium and by-products of other uranium process (uranium metal sludge, uranium metal dross and slag from the green salt/ magnesium reaction) and their conversion first into uranium peroxide dihydrate and then to the end product, black oxide. Facility construction began on 4/12/43 with the construction of Bldgs 101 and 102, which ultimately became Bldg 845. They were completed on 9/23/44. Production began on 8/16/43 and continued until at least December 1945. Approximately 982 tons (1,964,000 lbs) of black oxide was produced. Total amounts are not available.

Contract W-7412- Eng.151

Conducted research and development activities at the former Building J-16, now the location of Building J-26. The demolished Building J-16 was disposed of in the Historical Lagoon A area.

Contract W-7412- Eng.161

Freon 113® produced under MED contract. Production of 79,850 pounds of Freon 113®. The location where production occurred and duration of the contract are not mentioned in the contract.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-10

2.2.2 AOC 2 – Former Building 708

AOC 2 is the F Parking Corral, which is located directly west of former Building 845. This parking lot is the former location of Building 708, which was used for the production of brown oxide, green salt, and uranium metal. AOC 2 is currently covered with asphalt. The area is bounded to the north by a portion of an open channel drainage ditch (which is part of AOC 3).

The east portion of the Site is bounded by the slight depression (formerly the open channel of the

CDD, now enclosed within two concrete culverts). The south side of AOC 2 is adjacent to a former storage area and DuPont’s former TEL production area. The west portion of AOC 2 is next to a stone and asphalt lot. The depression of the former CDD on the east portion of the site, and drainage ditch on the north, convey surface water drainage to the open portion of the CDD.

The adjacent land use is industrial. The topography of AOC 2 is flat with very limited change in elevation.

Building 708 housed operations for DuPont Project 9634, under contract W-7412-Eng. 3. Under this contract, DuPont converted sodium uranate, commercial black oxide, and uranium peroxide dihydrate to brown oxide. The brown oxide was then converted to green salt, which was then converted into uranium metal. The green salt was produced at a rate of 47 tons per month.

Production began in April 1943. A total of 1,970 tons of brown oxide was produced through

May 1946. When the green salt and metal production was suspended in the summer of 1944, 608 tons of green salt and 232 tons of uranium metal had been produced.

In 1945, part of Building 708 was demolished and removed from the Site as reported in the

Phase I Records Review (Weston 2001). In 1953, the remainder of the building and some underlying soil were removed and disposed of in Historical Lagoon A (Weston 2001). The building is present in historical aerial photographs through 1954. The building is no longer present in the 1959 photograph, indicating that it was removed sometime between 1954 and

1959.

2.2.3 AOC 3 – The Central Drainage Ditch

The CDD was used to transfer liquid wastes from production areas to the lagoon complex during the MED production era. The portion of the CDD that ran in between AOC 1 and AOC 2 was remediated by DuPont because of lead contamination in the 1990s.

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-11

the CDD in AOC 3, has a nearly linear shape, approximately 1000 feet long and 30 feet wide, running between OU 1 and the lagoon. Historical aerial photographs show that part of the CDD was re-routed in the 1950s (in the area where the CDD meets the north side of the F Parking

Corral). The southern end of the CDD east of the rail spurs was open water during the MED period. The other sections of the CDD were channelized and did not allow lateral migration of water.

A wooden trough runs along the northern border of AOC 1 and connects to the CDD. This structure is part of AOC 3. Historical aerial photos indicate that the trough was in use during the

MED era. Former Building 845 appears to have been connected to the wooden trough.

AOC 3 lies approximately 1,000 ft from the bank of the Delaware River. The CDD averages

30feet in width at the top of its bank. It has an approximate elevation of 0ft North American

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) at the base of the ditch. The water flow direction of the

CDD is eastward toward the B basin. The water depth in the ditch averages one to two feet. The

CDD exhibits perennial water flow. Groundwater seeps from the elevation of the A Aquifer were noted on the banks of the CDD during the 2003 RI field work.

A historical air-photo review of the CDD was conducted in order to determine the placement of the ditch from the 1940s to present. During the 1940s, in the area of AOC 3, the CDD consisted of two streams that converged just west of Kinetic Road. The eastern, downstream reach of the

CDD was significantly different from its current run. Two railroad spurs traverse the CDD east of Kinetic Road. In the 1940s, the CDD opened into a ponded area near these spurs. East of the railroad spurs the CDD discharged into Lagoon A.

2.2.4 AOC 4 - Historical Lagoon A

Lagoon A was located in the northern portion of the Site, bounded by the Delaware River to the north, Plant No.1 Road to the south, Kinetic Road to the west, and Boundary Road to the east.

Lagoon A was later separated into three settling basins: Settling Basins “A”, “B”, and “C”. The number and size of these basins varied significantly over time during the operational period of the facility. The lagoons were periodically dredged by DuPont as they filled with sediment.

Historically, Lagoon A received wastewater from Chambers Works, including that generated by

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-12

MED operations. The CDD provided the conduit for wastewater discharged from the MED production areas to the lagoon. It is believed that one or more of the fill areas, including the

North Burial Area, received building debris and contaminated soil from buildings used in MED operations.

2.2.5 AOC 5 – Former Building J-16 (Building J-26 Area)

Former Building J-16 was used by Jackson Laboratory (a DuPont research and development subsidiary) to conduct batch experiments for uranium refinement. The Hexafluoride Process was conducted in Former Building J-16. Building J-16 was demolished in the mid-1950s and the foundation as well as several feet of underlying soil was removed. DuPont then constructed

Building J-26 over the footprint of Building J-16.

AOC 5 is completely paved by concrete or asphalt. The drains surrounding Building J-26 are open-topped trenches that are covered with slotted steel gratings. The drains are approximately

1ft wide. AOC 5 lies at an elevation of approximately 5ft NAVD 88. The AOC 5 drains are used to collect storm water and direct it to the B Basin. The drains usually contain water.

Surges in water flow are observable and indicate the use of pumps to feed water into the drain.

2.2.6 AOC 6 - The East Area

The East area was used to manufacture fluorinated hydrocarbons and fluorolube under contract with MED during World War II. The East Area includes the East Burial Area which received demolition debris and discarded equipment from MED projects conducted in the Blue Products

Area (OU 1). The location of this burial area was adjacent to and north of East Road.

2.3 Physical Characteristics of Site

The following section summarizes the physical and environmental characteristics of the

Chambers Works site that are relevant to identifying potential migration pathways, transport mechanisms, and potential current and future receptors.

2.3.1 Meteorology

Based on climatological data collected from National Weather Service Station at New Castle

County Airport, Wilmington, Delaware (DE) for the period 1948 through 2000, the mean temperature in the site is 54 degrees Fahrenheit (º F), ranging from a minimum monthly mean temperature of 23º F in January to a maximum monthly mean temperature of 86º F in July. The

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-13

average annual precipitation for this period is 41.5 inches, with a monthly average precipitation of 3.5 inches. The highest monthly mean precipitation is in July with 4.3 inches and the lowest monthly mean precipitation is in October with 2.9 inches. The prevailing winds come from the northwest at 8 to 14 miles per hour (mph) during the spring, fall, and winter, and from the south at 9 to 10 mph during the summer.

2.3.2 Land Uses

The Site is a 700-acre active chemical plant located in Salem County, New Jersey along the eastern shore of the Delaware River across from the city of Wilmington, Delaware. The village of Deepwater is adjacent to Chambers Works. Approximately 650 acres of Chambers Works are currently developed. The Site is zoned as industrial.

The Site is located in a moderately populated area consisting of light to heavy industry, recreational areas, community service areas, and residential neighborhoods. Situated south of the Site is the Atlantic Electric Power Plant. East of the site are light industrial, residential, and recreational areas. North of the Site are community service areas, and residential areas of

Carneys Point Township.

The surrounding area is predominantly rural. Approximately 50% of the county’s land is used for agriculture with an additional 25% of the land dedicated to environmental uses such as tidal and freshwater wetlands, marshland, lakes, ponds, flyways, and natural habitats. The developed lands make up only 13% of land use, and accommodate all types of uses including residential, commercial, and industrial.

2.3.3 Hydrology

The Delaware River is tidal and brackish at Deepwater and is not a potable water source in the area of the Site, but is a major supplier of potable water to communities north of the area.

2.3.4 Geology

Native site soils are of alluvial and palustrine (marsh) origin, but have been substantially modified by landfilling and construction activities. The land along the shoreline has most likely been accreted as point-bar deposits from the Delaware River, or possibly, from over-bank deposition during periodic flooding, which has resulted in the formation of a natural levee.

Behind these shoreline deposits, which consist of sands and silty sands, there once existed a tidal

W912DR-04-D-0015/0004 CABRERA SERVICES INC. 2-14

marsh consisting of silty clays, with an elevation near sea level. The Site was gradually enlarged by filling in the marsh areas.

2.3.5 Hydrogeology

The sedimentary deposits beneath the Chambers Works can be divided into five major sequences

(DERS 1993): (1) the A and B aquifer and the A-B and B-C aquitards. The A-B aquitard is discontinuous and thins to zero to the east and in areas where stream channels were once present.

The A aquifer is the uppermost water-bearing zone…