NCD980840409_19980601_Charles Macon Lagoon Drum_FRBCERCLA RI_Remedial Investigation Feasability Study Work Plan May 1988-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
Date:
Subject:
From:
UNITED,STATE~ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY•
REGION IV
June 1, 1988
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30315
Draft RI/FS Work Plan for the Macon-Dockery
CERCLA Site, Cordova, North Carolina
Chris Provost K
Remedial Project Manager
To: Addressees
Attached please find the draft RI/FS Work Plan for the
Macon-Dockery site located near Cordova, in Richmond County,
North Carolina. The RI/FS is being conducted under a consent
agreement between EPA and two PRPs. Charles T. Main, Inc. of
Charlotte, North Carolina is the PRPs consultant.
Please review this draft Work Plan and provide any comments you
may have to me by June 24, 1988. If you have any questions
please contact me at [phone], FTS 257-7791 /
Attachment
ADDRESSEES
Gail Mitchell, GWB
Doug Lair, ESD
~.-.Jad;_"-: ~~.l•?ht,. ESD
Lee Crosby, NCDHR
/
.,. I ' •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For
Remedial Investigation
....... .:,··rFeasibili ty Stud·j~'.-
Submitted To:
U.S. EPA
Pre pared By:
:--r:
1. '
--,...,•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
1. 2 .1 Climate
1.2.2 Topography
1. 2. 3 Geology
1.2.4 Soils
1.2.5 surface Water
1.2.6 Groundwater
1.3 SITE HISTORY
1.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
1.5 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
SECTION 2
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2
2.3
2.1.1 Preliminary Determination of Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARAR'S)
2 . 1. 2 Phase I
2.1.3 Phase II
PHASE
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
PHASE
2.3.l
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
Ground Survey
soil Sampling
Sampling of Existing Monitoring Wells
Tank Sampling
Magnetometer Survey
Electromagnetic Survey
Data Compilation
Detailed Scoping of Phase II
II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
Soil Gas survey
Install New Monitoring Wells
Additional Soil Borings
Lagoon 10 Waste Characterization
Drilling and Soil Sampling
2.3.5.1 Drilling Program
1-1
1-1
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-5
1-6
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-12
1-16
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-5
2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-7
2-7
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-11
2-11
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10
2.3.11
2.3.12
2.3.13
2.3.5.2 Split-Spoon Samples for
Chemical Analysis
2.3.5.3 Undisturbed Soil Sampling
Procedures
Well Installation/Development Procedures
Groundwater Measurement and Sampling
Surface Water Sampling Procedure
Sediment Sampling Procedure
Other Sampling Procedures
Analytical Procedures
Aquifer Test Procedures
Remedial Investigation Report
2.4 PHASE III REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
2.5 POTENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ACTIVITIES
SECTION 3
3.1 RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
SECTION 4
3.1.1 Baseline Public Health Evaluation
3.1.2 Development of Performance Goals
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
4.2 SITE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 5
5.1 SCHEDULE
APPENDICES
2-12
2-12
2-13
2-15
2-16
2-17
2-17
2-17
2-17
2-18
2-19
2-20
3-1
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-1
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The Charles Macon Drum · and Lagoon Site and the Dockery Site
(Site) are located in Richmond County, North Carolina. The Site
had been operated as a waste oil recycling and anti-freeze
manufacturing facility from 1979 to 1982. Inspections and
investigations conducted by North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch (NCDHR)
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
determined that releases of hazardous materials to the
environment had occured. The Site was placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in 1987. Further data collection is
planned to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility study
(RI/FS) in accordance with the provisions and :.:-equirements set
forth in an Administrative Order by Consent between EPA and the
Respondents, Clark Equipment Company and crown cork and Seal
company dated April 13, 1988. This Work Plan has been prepared
to detail investigative and analytical activities for the RI/FS.
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY
The scope of the RI/FS is to collect sufficient field and
laboratory data to characterize the site and provide
necessary information to evaluate remedial alternatives.
The data collected during the RI should adequately describe:
o The nature and extent of contamination in groundwater,
surface water, soils, sediments and air;
o The site's hydrogeologic characteristics;
o The potential for contaminant migration;
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o The threat to public health and the environment.
The FS should adequately identify and evaluate the remedial
alternatives which protect human health and the environment,
and are technically and economically feasible.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2 SITE DESCRIPI'ION
The Macon-Dockery site is located approximately 1. 6 miles
southwest of Cordova, North Carolina and 0.76 miles east of
the Pee Dee River on State Road 1103. The Macon Site is
located at 340 53' 30" N. Lat., 79° 50' 1811 w. Long. and
the Dockery Site is located at 340 53' 5211 N. Lat., 79°
50' 1811 w. Long. The combined area for the two sites is
approximately 17 acres (See Figure 1) . For the purposes of
this investigation, the Macon and Dockery Sites have been
divided into the Upper and Lower Macon Sites and the Upper
and Lower Dockery Sites. The Upper Site in each case is
located adjacent to S.R. 1103 near the topographic ridge
east of the sites. The Lower Site in each case is located
topographically down gradient and west of the Upper Site.
The Macon and Dockery properties are not contiguous. The
Dockery property is located approximately 500 feet north of
the Macon property on the west side of State Road 1103. The
Dockery Site is wooded with few cleared areas. One lagoon
as well as several drum disposal areas are located at this
site. A single unpaved road accesses the site from SR
1103. Aerial photos indicate that drums were deposited
from SR 1103 west ah,.ig the access road for approximately
600 to 700 feet. The lagoon on the Dockery Site is located
about 2400 feet west of SR 1103. The single lagoon was
unlined and open areas around the lagoon were used to
dispose of drums.
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following structures and features are present at the
Macon Site:
(4) Building and Sheds
(2) Truck Tankers
(1) Van Trailer
(9) Tanks
(10) Lagoons-sludges removed and backfilled
(1) Lagoon containing creosote sludge capped
with soil
(3) Diked lagoons -No sludges present
(1) Debris Pile
(22) Drum Disposal Areas
(1) Separation Basin -Constructed of concrete
block
The property is approximately 60% wooded. Several cleared
areas are present where buildings, lagoons and drum disposal
areas are located see figures ( 2, 3, 4, and 5) • The
l majority of oil reclamation activity occurred on the east
side of the property adjacent to the state road. Two
lagoons are located in a cleared area on the southwest side
of the property. Three empty and apparently unused lagoons
are located in the central portion of the property adjacent
to an orchard.
1.2.1 Climate
Information provided by the National Climate Data Center,
Asheville, North Carolina is for the area around Hamlet,
North carol ina. The Site is located approximately 8
miles west of Hamlet, therefore this information should be
indicative of conditions at the Site. The 30 year normal
average high and low temperatures are 73. 7 degrees F and
48.3 degrees F, respectively. Average normal annual
precipitation is 48.27 inches. Snowfall is typically less
1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-""\' -. . '
LsJ
QUADRANGLE LOCA7iO'i
ROCKINGHAM, N.C ,
N3452.5-W7945/7.~
SCALE l:24000
CONTOUR IN1ERVAL IO FEE1
0A.1'UM IS MEAN SE.t. LEVEL
1956
MACON 6 DOCKERY
SITES
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLIN A
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
-$2 EXIST MONITORING WELL
-WOODS LINE
ROAD
DIAGOON
*ALL TANKS ARE ♦,2 (}LAGOON 2
ABOVE GROUND.
(/LAGO<J<3
LAGOON
6
AGOON 50 OLA~ON
TANK 4
TANK 2
TANK
5
7
/\. TANK 8~
LAGOON U
TANK 9c::::::;
LAGOON9g
UPPER MACON r---0-7
SITE ----.. 0 o I
r----7
I I
I I
I I
le
I I
I O I
t-LDWER-M~ON
SITE
I
I
I
I
I
fo D
(J
0
I 0
L----
TANK 7
l::::J
BLDG. 3
BLDG.
4
0
,.,
Q
l&J 1-::,
~
l&J ~ Iii
FARM
HOUSE
SCALE
TRUCK~
TANKER~
2
I I I I I
50 100 150
VICINITY MAP ~'\Al~
1893
UPPER MACON SfTE
FIGURE 2
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
~ EXIST. MONITORING WELL
• • • • WOODS LINE
-;::::::::::= ROAD
¼ ALL TANKS ARE
ABOVE GROUND.
c:::::> LAGOON I I.
LAGOON 10
I
0
SF~LE, I ~~~
50 100 150
UPPER MACON r---0 -7
SITE ---.. 0 0 I
fa r----7 II o
I I Q
I I O
0
I L_ ---
1 c:, l--'-1 _ _,
I
I I
t LOWER MiCON
SrTE
VICINITY MAP
...
LOWER MACON SITE
FIGURE 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
I ......... ♦ I WOODS LINE --ROAD
r----1· 0 -i__LOWER
I II DOCKERY
I SITE
I I
I I
I I I L ____ _J
----7
UPPER I I
DOCKERY I I
SITE-.....:' I I I
I
I
I
SP-1103
I L ____ _J
VICINITY MAP
STATE ROUTE 110'3
SCALE
I 1 I I I 1 I
0 50 100 150
li_'-AI~ UPPER DOCKERY SITE
•saa FIGURE 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
LEGEND
WOODS LINE
~ ROAD
,-0 -7 -LOWER
I I DOCKERY
I I SITE
I
I
I
I L ____ _J
UPPER
DOCKERY
SITE--
r - ---,
I I
I
I
I
I
I Sll.1103
I
L---_ _J
VICINITY MAP
SCALE
I I I I I I 0 50 100 150
~AI~ LOWER DOCKERY SITE
1893 FIGURE 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
than 6 inches per year. Rainfall is greatest during the
winter months December through March. The summer months
July through September are the dry months al though short
duration thunderstorms can account for large amounts of
precipitation during this period.
1.2.2 Topography
The site is located on the western margin of the Sandhills
Region of the Atlantic Coastal Plain. The topography in
this area is smooth with extensive gently rolling
interstream areas. Along the Pee Dee River the topography
changes to a more rugged setting with deeply dissected
stream valleys where tributaries .flow_into the river. High
cliffs exist adjacent to the river and just above the
alluvial plain.
The Macon-Dockery Site slopes moderately from a ridge toward
the Pee Dee River from approximate elevation 275 feet m.s.l.
near and parallel to SR 1103 to approximately 160 feet
m.s.l. at both property's western boundary. A broad flat
alluvial plain approximately 2000 feet wide is located about
1000 feet west of the site adjacent to the Pee Dee River
(see Figure 1).
1.2.3 Geology
The site is located on the western margin of the Sandhills
region of the Inner Coastal Plain Physiographic Province.
The Sandhills region in contrast to the Tidewater region to
the east is characterized by deep sand and sandy soil,
rolling topography and the highest elevations in the Coastal
Plain. The lithology, as indicated by its name, consists of
relatively horizontal interfingered marine deposits which
1-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
slope at approximately 15 feet per mile eastward toward the
Atlantic Ocean.
The Cretaceous Age Middendorf Formation outcrops at the
Macon-Dockery site. The exact thickness of this unit at the
site is not presently known.
An erosional unconformity marks the contact between
underlying crystalline Carolina Slate Belt rocks of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province and the Middendorf
Formation. The Middendorf lithology consists of extensively
weathered gray to pale gray and orange cast sand, sandstone
and mudstone. The formation is locally mottled and
commonly contains clay balls and iron-cemented concretions.
Beds are laterally discontinuous and exhibit cross bedding
structure. Well logs in the vicinity of the site indicate
that the unconsolidated material is approximately 195 feet
thick. The unconsolidated mantle includes both the
Middendorf sediments and the weathered saprolite of the
slate belt rocks. A boring log from a well in the vicinity
of the site shows the formation at this location to consist
mainly of loose gravelly clay with kaolin lenses.
Borings conducted by NUS Corporation reveal the formations
beneath the site are unconsolidated interfingered clayey
sands, gravelly sands, clays and sandy clay saprolites.
Borings were advanced to a maximum depth of 68 feet below
grade. No confining units were encountered in any borings.
1.2.4 Soils
As mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service, both the Macon and Dockery sites are
mantled by the soils of the Orangeburg-Lucy Association.
This association is described by the Soil Conservation
1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Service as containing well drained soils that have friable
sandy clay loam subsoils.
The soil series within the Orangeburg-Lucy Association that
are found to occur on the Macon site are the Orangeburg,
Kempsville and Udorthents.
When entering the site from the east the first soil series
encountered is the Orangeburg loamy sand. This series
traverses the site from north to south. As described by the
Soil Conservation Service this soil has a moderate
permeability of 0.6 -2.0 inches/hour. This soil is usually
between 60 and 80 inches thick and has a low shrink/swell
potential. Where this soil occurs, the seasonal watertable
is usually deeper than six feet.
The Kempsville loamy sand is found adjacent to the
Orangeburg loamy sand on the Macon site. Soil in this
series traverses the site from north to south and blankets a
larger area of the site than either of the two other soil
series found to occur on the site. The Kempsville series is
very similar to the Orangeburg series, except for the fact
that it is usually shallower and typically only about
seventy inches thick.
Adjacent to the western border of the Kempsville series is
what the Soil Conservation Service calls the Udorthents
series. This series covers only the western most portion of
the site, and is described as being an area where all
topsoils and subsoil_s have been removed.
Soil series on the Dockery site include the Orangeburg,
Ailey and Kempsville. The central portion of the site is
blanketed by Ailey loam sand which covers the site from
north to south. This is a well-drained soil with a
1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
moderate permeability of 0.7 - 2 inches/hour. The bottom of
the B-horizon in this series usually occurs at 45 -60
inches below grade. A brittle layer which exhibits a
decrease in permeability may be found in this series at a
depth from 45 -60 inches. The seasonal watertable is
usually below five feet from grade in this series. The
Ailey loam sand which blankets most of the site has a low
shrink/swell potential.
Adjacent to the eastern edge of the Ailey series is a narrow
strip of the Orangeburg loamy sand. The Orangeburg loamy
sands extends north-south across the eastern most portion of
the Dockery site.
Kempsville loamy sand is found along the western edge of the
Ailey series on the Dockery site.
1.2.5 Surface Water
Surface water on the Macon site drains off-site to the west.
Water which exits the northern portion of the site enters
either a pond located west of the site or an unnamed first
order tributary to Solomons Creek. Water exiting the
sout:t,'-'rn portion of the site is expected to directly enter
Solomons Creek. Solomons Creek enters the Pee Dee River
approximately two miles downstream from where site run-off
would be expected to enter Solomons Creek (See Figure 1).
Surface run-off from the Dockery site exits the site via
numerous gul 1 ies and intermittent streams. Water leaving
the northern portion of the site enters a westward flowing
first order tributary to the Pee Dee River. The tributary
enters the Pee Dee River approximately one mile west of the
site. Water leaving the southern portion of the site enters
the same unnamed tributary to Solomons Creek as water
1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
leaving the northern potion of the Macon Site. Water from
the Dockery site enters the tributary approximately one-half
mile upstream from the Macon Site.
1.2.6 Groundwater
Groundwater at the Macon-Dockery Site is mainly derived from
infiltration of precipitation through the soil mantle. It
exists in primary pore spaces within the upper sediments and
lower weathered residuum. Groundwater also occurs within
fractures (secondary pore spaces) in the underlying granitic
bedrock. All geologic units described in Section 1.2.3 are
hydraulically connected since no known confining units exist
beneath the facility. Water in the aquifer underlying the
site exists under phreatic conditions, therefore, the
unconsolidated geologic units act as one hydrologic unit.
A laboratory permeability test was conducted on an
undisturbed sample obtained from a depth of 21.5 feet-
23. o feet during drilling of well MW-04, located on the
Lower Macon Site. Results indicated that the sample had a
permeability of 1.5 x 10 -4 cm/sec. The hydraulic gradient
at the site as determined from existing data is
approximately 0.054 ft/ft. According to Darcy's Law with an
estimated soil porosity of 40 percent the groundwater
velocity at the Macon-Dockery site is approximately 2.0 x
10-5 cm/sec or 0. 06 ft/day. The depth to groundwater
ranges from 27 feet. below grade at well MW-01, east of SR
1103. on the Upper Macon Site, to about 37 feet in well MW-
04. Many domestic water wells in the vicinity of the site
are less than 70 feet deep. Groundwater from these welli; is
generally acidic and very soft. A estimated 300 residences
are served by groundwater within a 3 mile radius of the
site. Many may be on the other side of the Pee Dee River
and uninfluenced by the Site.
1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.3 SITE HISTORY
From the late 1970's to 1981, Mr. Charles Macon operated a
waste oil reclamation and anti-freeze manufacturing facility
at the Macon property on SR 1103. Along with these
activities waste paint, solvents, acids, and bases were also
received and stored in drums on site. Waste oils were
collected in eleven (11) surface impoundments, nine (9)
above ground tanks, two ( 2_) t~~kers on _ the Macon property,
and one (1) impoundment on the Dockery property (See Figures
2,3,4 and 5).
An inspection of the facility by the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources (NCDHR) Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management Branch on October 22, 1980 revealed that
the waste oil handled at the facility exhibited E.P.
Toxicity characteristics for lead, chromium and barium. The
NCDHR representatives also observed 55-gallon drums stored
on site. On November 10, 1980, NCDHR informed Mr. Macon by
letter of his obligation to notify EPA of hazardous waste
activites at this site. A subsequent site inspection
determined that the site continued to be operated without
proper notification or EPA Identification Number. Following
a subsequent inspectio11 of the site NCDHR recommended that
EPA conduct a site investigation and in the mean time
conducted a visual inventory of lagoons and drums existing
on the site.
Following the death of Mr. Macon operations at the site were
terminated. In response to a court order Mr. Donald
Dawkins, executor of the Macon estate, held an auction of
materials and equipment left at the site. Moneys raised
were used to remove 300 55-gallon drums and install two
groundwater monitoring wells. Mr. Dawkins contracted
Enviro-Chem Waste Management services to conduct the initial
1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
clean-up. With available estate money expended, NCDHR
requested assistance from EPA to complete immediate removal
of wastes from the site. EPA contracted Triangle Resource
Industries to resume clean-up operations. EPA operations at
the Macon and Dockery sites were supervised by On-Site
Coordinators, Fred Stroud and Diane Hazaga. Oily wastes
were either sold for use as fuel or solidified and removed
to SCA's Pinewood Facility for disposal. All lagoons on
back filled
volume of
Macon and Dockery
with soil except
property were excavated and
Lagoon 10. Due to the
solidification materials required for this lagoon, it was
decided by osc Fred Stroud that creosote wastes as well as
wastes which are described below were closed in place and a
3 foot thick clay cap was installed._ The contents of all 55
-gallon drums
and disposed
containing hazardous materials were removed
off-site. Drums were either sold for
recycling or scrap metal. The U.S. Army Explosive Disposal
unit removed calcium hydride flare charges which had been
discovered during clean-up operations. The clean-up
operations at the Macon site were completed on January 17,
1984.
Quantities of waste materials removed from the site or
disposed off-site are include~ in Table I. Per EPA
estimates, Lagoon #10 received five (5) truckloads of
solidified sludge from Lagoon #7, two (2) truckloads of
boiler fly ash; forty-three (43) crushed empty drums and an
unknown quantity of contaminated soil from the drum staging
area. An estimated 940 tons of creosote based sludge was in
Lagoon #10 prior to the addition of other wastes.
1-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
QUANTITIES OF WASTE REMOVED FROM
MACON DRUM STORAGE AND LAGOON SITE
CORDOVA, NORTH CAROLINA
----------------------------------------------------------SOLIDIFIED DRUM WASTE* 126 TONS
SOLIDIFIED OIL/SLUDGE* 2,997 TONS
311 (K) WASTE OIL RECYCLED 26,000 GAL.
3ll(K) WASTE OIL DISPOSED 111,000 GAL.
LAND APPLIED WASTE WATER 467,700 GAL.
CALCIUM HYDRIDE FLARES REMOVED 246
*SOLIDIFYING MATERIALS USED 840 TONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
NCDHR first became aware of hazardous waste activities as a
result of a site inspection conducted by North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management to monitor compliance
with an Air Discharge Permit issued to Macon Machine Company
(Permit No. 4299) on February 13, 1980. NCDHR inspected the
Macon property on October 22, 1980, and November 10, 1980.
An inspection of manifest and random sampling of material at
the site revealed that sodium hydroxide, a RCRA listed waste
(D002), had been transported to the site. Samples collected
also exhibited the characteristic of corrosivity (pH 13.7).
Samples of waste oil analyzed exceeded E.P. Toxicity limits
for chromium and lead.
Enviro-Chem Waste Management Services, as part of the
initial clean-up operation field screened all drummed
waste, prepared and analyzed composite samples of drummed
waste, installed two monitoring wells and analyzed
groundwater samples, and collected soil samples for
analysis. Laboratory data sheets for waste characterization
and analysis of groundwater samples from two (2) monitoring
wells are included in Appendix A.
In February, 1985, NUS Corporation began a geological and
sampling investigation. The objective of the investigation
was to obtain hydrogeological data and collect samples of
soil, groundwater, surface water and stream sediments. The
data obtained during this investigation was used to
determine the current site conditions following initial
clean-up and to provide data to apply the Hazard Ranking
System to the site. One (1) upgradient (MW-01) and three
(3) downgradient wells (MW-02, MW-03, MW-04) were installed.
The upgradient well was installed across SR 1103 from the
Macon Site and the three remaining wells were installed
1-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
immediately downgradient of closed lagoons 2, 6 and 10.
Groundwater samples were collected from the four new wells
and one existing well (MW-05) and analyzed for purgeable and
extractable organics and inorganic constituents. A summary
of analytical results are included in Table 2.
EPA analyses of groundwater damples detected five organic
compounds in well MW-02. Concentrations ranged from 6. 9
ug/1 of 1,1-dichloroethane to 200 ug/1 of trichloroethylene.
The pesticides gamma-BHC and PCB 1254 were detected in Well
MW-04 at concentrations of 0.53 ug/1 and 4.9 ug/1
respectively. In addition, acetone was detected at 51 ug/1
although it was less than that detected in the background
well. Inorganic constituents were detected in all
downgradient well samples at concentrations greater than
background.
Surface water samples and sediment samples were collected
and analyzed for purgeable and extractable organics and
inorganics. The sediment samples were collected at the same
location as surface water samples. Results of these
analyses are included in Tables 3 and 4.
Samples taken at the pond revealed low concentrations r:-f
acetone. Barium, chromium and tin were detected in one pond
at concentrations of BO ug/1, 10 ug/1 and 700 ug/1
respectively.
detected in the
None of these
background sample.
three constituents were
Sediment samples taken exhibited concentrations of bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate, toluene, dichlorodifluoromethane
(DCDFM) and other unidentified compounds. Concentrations
ranged from 27 ug/kg and 40 ug/kg for toluene and DCDFM to
1500 ug/kg bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Barium was detected
1-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABlE 2
SUMMARY OF GRaJND-IATER SAMPIE ANALYSES
M:lNl'IORING WEllS
OlARUS MAro. IRJM AND lAGCXlN SITE
RiaMJND CXXJNl'Y, NORlH CAROLINA
PARAMEI'ER (ug/1) MW-01 MW-02 MW-03 MW-04
EXI'RACI'ABIE OKiANICS
3, 3-DICliIDROBENZIDINE 40 -

-
-
:ruRGFABI.EO~CS
1,1-DICliIDROElllENE* -7.3 --
1,1-DICliIDROElllANE* -6.9 --
TRICliIDROEIHYIENE -200 --
1, 1, 2, 2-TEI'RACliIDROEIHANE -42 --
ACEIDNE 84 14 -51
PESTICIDES
GAMMA-EHC -

-

-
0.53
PC&-1254 -

-
-4.9
I.NOIG\NICS
BARIUM* 60 200 300 700
CDB.l\LT* -

-

-
30
OiRCMIUM* -10 30 20
CDPPER* -

-
-30
NICKEL* -

-
-20
VANADIUM* --30 30
ZlNC* 20 60 90 200
* ESTIMATED VAIIJE
RESUirrS TAKEN FRCM NUS REEORI· rM'ED J1INUARY 10, 1986
MW-05
-
----
NA
NA
NA
400
200 --
60 -
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
TABlE 3
SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER Sl\MPIE ANALYSES
CliARllS MACXlN IRlM AND Il\GCXt-l' SITE
RICllM'.lND CXXlNI'Y, NORlH CAROLINA
PARAMEI'ER (ug/1) ~ lSl' roND 2ND roND
EXTRACTABlE OR:;ANIC3
~ OR:;AN!C3
ACE!DNE
MEIHYL EIBYL KEIONE
PESTICIDES
INORGANIC3
BARIUM*
Clffi:MIUM*
TIN*
ZINC*
AllJMINUM*
CALCIUM*
MANGNESIUM*
IRON*
SODIUM*
CYANIDE*
POI'ASSIUM*
-ANALYZED FOR R1I' NCll' DETECTED
ND NONE DEI'ECTED
* ESTIMATED VAilJE
ND ND
--
ND ND
-80 -10 -700
20 40
400
4000 8000
2000 2000
4000 800
6000 6000
20 10
1000 2000
RESULTS TAKEN FOCM NUS REroRI' CWI'ED J1iNUARY 10, 1986
ND
12
ND
30
4000
2000
900
6000
6000
SWAMP
ND
18
42
ND
10
2000
800
2000
3000
I
I
I
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE ANALYSES
CHARLES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PARAMETER (ug/1) BACKGROUND 1ST POND 2ND POND SWAMP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE*
C9 ALKL KETONE**
UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS*
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
TOLUENE
DICHLORODIFLUROMETHANE**
PESTICIDES
4,4-DDE
INORGANICS ---------------------------BARIUM*
COBALT*
CHROMIUM*
COPPER*
NICKEL*
LEAD*
TIN*
VANADIUM*
ZINC*
ALUMINUM*
MANGANESE*
CALCIUM*
MAGNESIUM*
IRON*
SODIUM*
400
3, 000/5
11
200,000
30,000
80,000
40,000
40,000
100,000
50,000
100,000
300,000
30,000,000
1,000,000
4,000,000
4,000,000
50,000,000
1,000,000
3,000/2 1,000/2
27
100,000 800,000
R 60,000
30,000
70,000
R R
50,000
30,000 50,000
200,000
20,000,000 40,000,000
700,000
1,000,000 5,000,000
2,000,000
s,000,000 20,000,000
1,500
10,000/4
40
200,000
60,000
600,000
70,000
80,000
20,000,000
1,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
30,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
R DATA UNUSEABLE BASED ON QUALITY
/ CONCENTRATION/NUMBER OF COMPOUNDS
ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
ND NONE DETECTED
* ESTIMATED VALUE
** PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL (ESTIMATED VALUE)
RESULTS TAKEN FROM NUS REPORT DATED JANUARY 10, 1986
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
at 4 times the background concentration and nickel at less
than 2 times background in one of the ponds.
Surface soil samples were not collected at either Macon or
Dockery site. Monitoring wells were not installed at the
Dockery site.
Table 5 is a chronological summary of activities at the
Macon/Dockery Site.
1-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2/13/80
Late 1970's-
1981
10/22/80
11/10/80
5/26/81
5/29/81
7/27/82
11/82
11/83
11/21/83
1/9/84
TABLE 5
Chronology of Activities at Macon Site
NCDHR issues Air Discharge Permit to Macon for
oil-fired burner.
Charles Macon operates site.
NCDHR inspection -sample collection.
NCDHR informs Macon of notification
responsibility.
NCDHR inspects Macon site.
NCDHR recommends EPA conduct investigation
NCDHR conducts visual inventory of hazardous
materials on site.
Mr. Donald Dawkins, Macon Estate Executor
contracts Enviro-Chem to provide remedial
services at Macon and Dockery sites.
estate moneys expended.
Available
EPA contracts Triangle Resource Industries to
complete clean-up.
Clean-up at Macon site begins.
Clean-up begins at Dockery Site.
1/17/84 Clean-up of Macon and Dockery Sites complete.
2/19 -3/28/85 NUS conducts geological and sampling
investigation.
1/10/86 NUS issues results of investigation.
3/21/86 EPA issues Hazard Ranking System Scoring Summary.
1-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.5 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES (DQO)
Background data and site history are included in the
previous subsections. All information available on the site
was reviewed and quality evaluated as part of development of
the DQO's. Tables 1 through 4 include reasonably reliable
data for waste identification for the purpose of removal and
constituents detected in samples of groundwater, surface
water, soils and sediments. Immediate removal activities
have been undertaken and include:
o Removal of waste oils & sludges in lagoons
o Removal of drummed waste
o Removal of liquids from above ground tanks and process
tanks in the buildings
o Backfilling of the excavated lagoons
o In place closure of creosote waste, crushed drums and
solidifying materials in Lagoon #10
o Grading and seeding of most disturbed areas
A preliminary geological and sampling investigation was
conducted. Samples of various media were collected and
analyzed for Hazardous Substance List constituents. A
summary of data is included in Section 1. 4. According to
this data, contamination was detected in groundwater,
surface water and stream sediments. A conceptual model of
the Macon-Dockery Site was developed from the data described
above. The model shown on Figure 6 is actually a schematic
cross section of the site showing potential sources of
contamination and possible pathways for migration. The
possible pathways identified are groundwater, surf&ce water,
plant uptake and direct contact.
During development of a Work Plan the nature of known
contaminants and the need for efficient and cost effective
1-16
---- - --- - - - - - --
CONCEPTUAL MODEL
MACON DRUM & LAGOON SITE
-
Proce11 Bldg.
Excavated Waite 011 Lagoons
P•• Dee River
Storage
Tank•
Solomon
Creek
Clo1ed Waate 011 Lagoon
(Creo1ote Waate lnPl ■oe)
Mw-oe
Woodl • Drum•~
••-.. \ 11J:,. .......
IUflfACI
Groundwater
--
Drum•
MW-01
•i U :•~-d~.:~~~--~-•~.:~~~-~-·it~:~~---------------S=■:p~ro:11:,:.----tj-
,,,,:'.'.:'.'.==---~-::-:-::-c~tl--(SI ■ to Be II l
Flood Plaln Sedlmentl -------.........
(
FIGURE 6
Fractured
Granite
(Slate Bell)
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
methods of delineating the extent of contamination were
considered. Therefore, a phased approach to the field
investigation utilizing both indirect and direct sampling
methods was selected.
Phase I will include direct sampling of site soils and
sampling of groundwater from existing wells. Indirect
geophysical surveys will be used in this phase to aid in
delineating the horizontal extent of contamination and
detecting possible buried metallic vessels which may be
sources of contamination. Electromagnetic (EM) surveys and
magnetometer surveys will be the geophysical methods
employed. Soil samples will be collected from drum storage
areas identified in aerial photgr.aphy •~_Groundwater samples
will be • collected from all existing wells. All samples
during Phase I will be analyzed for HSL parameters. The
full list was selected since drums with various contents
were randomly placed over a large area of the site. In
addition the last groundwater samples were analyzed two
years ago. The migration of groundwater over a two year
period and the possible degradation of certain organic
compounds in the groundwater may have changed the character
of the contamination.
Phase II will largely be dependent upon results of Phase I
although many of the field activities have been planned.
The analytical results of Phase I sampling will be used to
develop a list of parameters for Phase II sampling. This
will be necessary if soil gas surveys are conducted as
planned since calibration of the portable gas chromatograph
requires a knowledge of compounds to be sampled.
New monitoring wells will be installed in locations as
indicated by the soil gas survey and geophysical surveys.
1-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Aquifer characteristics will be determined by a pump test.
Data acquired from this test will aid in determining
groundwater flow conditions and possible migration pathways.
This information will also be used during the Feasibility
Study for possible development of groundwater pumping
parameters, should this option be required.
Not identified as specific tasks in the Work Plan,
groundwater models may be utilized as a tool to locate
monitoring wells in later phases. In addition, models may
be used during the Feasibility Study to evaluate selected
remedial options.
1-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 2
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY TASKS
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The remedial investigation field activities for the
Macon/Dockery site have been designed to collect surface and
subsurface information to assist in site characterization,
determine contaminant migration, and define the potential
off-site migration pathways. This investigation has been
designed to be completed in phases in order to identify
areas of concern using indirect geophysical methods and to
focus the detailed investigation toward these areas.
2.1.1 Preliminary Determination of Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR'S)
Preliminary contact has been made with representatives of
the State of North Carolina Department of Human Resources,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch, CERCLA Section
to discuss expected ARAR's at the Macon/Dockery site. Per
·Ms. Lee Crosby of the Branch, it may be anticipated that
clean-up standards for the site will be based on state
groundwater management regulations for
contamination and health based limits
groundwater
for soil
contami~ation. In general, the North Carolina groundwater
management regulations require background levels or national
primary drinking water standards (whichever is greater) for
inorganic contaminants and zero or background concentration
for synthetic contaminants.
2.1.2 Phase I
Phase I has been designed to utilize geophysical techniques
and initial direct sampling to identify locations of
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
possible buried drums,
identify areas of
contamination. Phase I
tanks, and waste material and to
possible soil and groundwater
will include the following:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Development of a detailed base map of the site.
Visual investigation and surface soil sampling of
twenty (20) areas on the Macon site and four ( 4) areas
on the Dockery site which have been identified as
locations at which a number of drums had been stored.
Redevelopment and sampling of existing wells 1, 2, 4,
and 5 on the Macon site.
Inspection of ten (10) tanks and two (2) tankers
identified on the Macon site for possible contents. If
liquids or solid residue are found to be remaining in
the above ground tanks or truck tankers, they will be
sampled.
A magnetometer survey will be conducted on the site to
identify possible buried drums, tanks,
metallic vessels which may contain
contamination.
and any other
sources of
Electromagnetic (EM) surveys will be conducted on site,
in the areas surrounding the lagoons to assist in
delineating the horizontal extent of groundwater
contamination.
Results of the EM survey will be compared to available
boring logs to aid in the correlation of conductivity
values to earth materials and the possible changes of
natural conditions due to contamination.
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
EM values will be incorporated into isoconductivity
maps. This information will aid in locating and
vertically projecting monitoring wells and soil
sampling points.
Results of the magnetometer survey will be plotted on
the base maps and areas of anomalously high magnetic
values will be targeted for investigation for buried
containers.
2.1.3 Phase II
Phase II of the remedial investigation involves directly
sampling the groundwater, soils, surface waters and stream
sediments to identify areas of contamination and delineate
any related plumes. The precise details of Phase II, such
as exact numbers and locations of samples will be based on
the findings of Phase I, and will be determined at the
conclusion of Phase I. At this time, it is estimated that
Phase II will include the following work items:
0
0
0
If soil and groundwater sampling in Phase I indicates
the presence of soil or groundwater volatile organic
contaminants, a soil gas survey will be conducted in
the areas of concern.
A series of monitoring wells and well clusters will be
installed on the site. Groundwater from the wells will
be sampled to assess the groundwater quality on site.
During the drilling program, split-spoon soil samples
will be collected and analyzed to assess the extent of
soil contamination on the site.
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
Soil samples also will be collected from auger holes
drilled in selected closed lagoons to assess soil
contamination and characterize waste remaining in
lagoon 10.
A pumping well and piezometer will be installed on the
Macon Site. A pump test and falling head tests will be
conducted to assess aquifer characteristics.
2-4
I
I 2.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
PHASE I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
2.2.1 Ground Survey
A site map will be developed showing existing buildings,
tanks, topography, vegetation, surface water bodies, roads,
fences, approximate locations of former lagoons, existing
monitoring wells, property lines, and surrounding
residences. The base map which will be generated from a
ground survey by a registered surveyor will be utilized
throughout the remedial investigation.
2.2.2 Soil Sampling
Field logs and records of the initial clean-up of the
Macon/Dockery sites has lead to the identification of twenty
(20) general locations on the Macon property and four (4)
general locations on the Dockery property at which drums
were located prior to removal. Field logs and interviews
with EPA's OSC for the initial clean-up indicate that the
ground surface in the majority of these areas was scraped
and disposed to remove soil which was stained or showed
signs of contamination.
These areas (shown on Figures 7 through 10) will be
visually investigated during Phase I. Any areas found
which still show signs of staining will be sampled over the
first two feet of depth with a hand auger. A composite
sample from the hand augered hole will be collected and
analyzed for the inorganic parameters included in the CERCLA
Hazardous Substance List (HSL) • The hole will then be
covered with plastic for several hours to allow accumulation
of volatile or semivolatile organic contaminants beneath the
plastic. Air accumulated beneath the plastic will then be
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lt.l:it:NU
1 ♦ • ♦ •, I -
EXiSl MONITORltf3 WELL
WOODS LINE
ROAD
X SAMPLE TAKEN . (}LAGOON 2 ~ SUSPECTED ♦2 ~AREA
-f ALL TAM<S ARE /2LAGOON 3
ABOVE GROUND. V
LAGOON
6
LA
·o o
LAGOON 1l> .
T AN K 9<t:::::::::J
LAGOON 9
BLDG. 2
BLDG. 3
SCALE I I I I
0 50 100 150
FARM
HOUSE
----~ SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES §.~~~ UPPER MACON S fTE
FIGURE 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
LEGEND
~ EXIST. MONITORING WELL
I..._.__, WOODS LINE = ROAD
X SAMPLE TAKEN
~ SUSPECTED
~AREA
¼ALL TANKS ARE
ABOVE GROUND.
c::::::? LAGOON 11
w;:;_
LAG~ SCALE
I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150
SURFACE SOIL SAM LES
LOWER MACON SITE
FIGURE 8
I LEGEND
'""""' ~OS LINE
I -Fl:>AD -X SAMPLES TAKEN
I @ SUSPECTED
I AREA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ST ti.TE ~ 1103
SCALE
I t I I I I I
0 50 100 150
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
UPPER DOCKERY SITE
FIGURE 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
__., _._.,_ --·~~-...... -
LEGEND
~ WOODS LINE
;::::-.: ROAD
X SAMPLES TAKEN
@ SUSPECTED
AREA
SCALE
1111111
0 50 100 150
"''A1i,..;l SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES -LOWER DOCKERY SITE
C,s03:..:.J FIGURE 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
screened with a HNU photoionization detector. Sample
locations exhibiting
readings will be
parameters.
readings in excess of twice ambient air
soil sampled for the organic HSL
2.2.3 Sampling of Existing Monitoring Wells
Of the five monitoring wells previously installed on the
site, four appear to be in good condition. Wells number 1,
2, 4, and 5 will be purged and sampled. These samples will
be analyzed for all HSL parameters. Due to the length of
time which has elapsed since these wells were last sampled,
they should be investigated prior to sampling to determine
whether they are properly developed for sampling. If an
accumulation of silt is found -in-·the--wells they should be
redeveloped before sampling.
2.2.4 TanJc Sampling
Interviews with Mr. Fred Stroud, EPA osc during the initial
clean-up of the Macon
contained in the ten
property indicate that materials
(10) tanks and two (2) tankers
identified on site were removed during the clean-up
operations. Some of the tanks appear to have been punctured
to prevent accumulation of rain water in the tanks. Some of
the tanks, however, do appear to have some accumulation of
liquids in them.
Each tank or tanker will be inspected to determine if there
is any liquid or solid residue remaining in them. If
contents are found samples will be collected for waste
characterization for disposal.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.5 Magnetometer Survey
A magnetometer survey will be conducted to identify areas
where drums, tanks, or other metallic vessels may have been
buried. Drums, tanks, or other vessels may serve as sources
for groundwater contamination. The survey will be conducted
using a 50 foot grid with smaller intervals being chosen in
suspect areas identified during a background information
search. Diurnal variations in the magnetic field will be
monitored periodically each day during the survey to check
for natural variations of the earth's magnetic field.
2.2.6 Electromagnetic Survey
An electrical geophysical method will be used to investigate
the extent of contamination at the Macon/Dockery site. An
electromagnetic (EM) survey will be performed to aid in the
determination of the horizontal extent of contamination and
location of buried features in areas surrounding the
lagoons. The survey will be conducted on a 50 foot grid
with smaller intervals being used in suspect areas. The
horizontal dipole coil configuration will be used throughout
the study.
2.2.7 Data compilation
The data collected during Phase I will be compiled and
incorporated onto base maps and profiles. Data obtained
from the magnetometer and EM surveys will be plotted and
contoured. Background conductivity and resistivity data
will be compared to data collected over the Macon/Dockery
site. Anomalously high or low readings will be targeted for
direct sampling. Anomalously high magnetic values may
indicate buried ferromagnetic material and will require
further examination.
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.a Detailed Scoping of Phase II
After all data· from Phase I of the Remedial Investigation
has been compiled, it will be evaluated to determine the
adequacy of the data and areas in which more data may be
required. At this time, the data will also be analyzed
quantitatively to further identify potential pathways for
exposure of receptors to contaminants.
This information will be used to further refine the scope of
work for Phase II of the Remedial Investigation.
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3 PHASE II REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
The following represents anticipated activities during Phase
II of the Remedial Investigation. The major purpose of
conducting preliminary investigation work during Phase I is
to allow for better definition of activities to be performed
in subsequent phases. Until Phase I data is available for
review, the following discussions should be considered as
pre_liminary only.
2.3.1 Soil Gas Survey
If the results of surface soil sampling and groundwater
sampling from the existing wells during Phase I indicate the
presence of volatile organic compound contaminants in the
soil or groundwater, a soil gas survey of suspect areas will
be conducted. Parameters to be used as indicators during
the soil gas survey will be selected based on the results of
soil and groundwater analyses during Phase I.
If hydrologic and geologic conditions permit, soil gas
samples will be collected in the field using hollow steel
sampling probles mechanically inserted into the soil. After
insertion, a small vacuum pump will be used to withdraw soil
gases up through the probes and into a gas sampling bulb.
Gas samples will then be withdrawn from the sample
container and injected into a portable gas chromatograph,
which will quantify and qualify the contaminants for _which
it is calibrated. Soil gas results, when interpreted with a
general knowledge of the local geologic setting and an
understanding of controlling biochemical attenuation factors
that affect a target compound, can be effectively used to
preliminarily map the areal extent of groundwater/soil
contamination.
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.2 Install New Monitoring Wells
It is anticipated that four monitoring well clusters,
consisting of two wells each and approximately four
additional sampling wells to assist in plume delineation
will be required to assess the groundwater quality on the
Macon property. On the Dockery property, which currently
has no monitoring wells in place, it is recommended that one
upgradient and two downgradient wells be in~talled.
Proposed locations of the new monitoring wells are shown on
Figures 11 through 14. A potentiometric map developed with
preliminary information from existing wells in Phase I will
be used to determine actual locations and depths of the new
wells.
The well clusters will assist in determining the aquifer
characteristics and vertical extent of contamination.
Because the existing wells on site were constructed with 20
foot screen intervals in the water table, it is not likely
that they would yield useful information if used as part of
a well cluster. The existing wells with the exception of
MW-03, however, should be included for plume delineation
monitoring.
Split-spoon soil samples will be collected during
installation of the new monitoring wells, for development of
boring logs only, on standard sampling intervals in
accordance with ASTM D-1586. Samples will be collected
every 2.5-feet to a depth of 10-feet and every 5-feet
thereafter. In the case of well clusters, only the deep
well of each cluster will be split-spoon sampled as
described.
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
-
EXIST MONITOR!~ WELL
WOODS LINE
ROAD
DLAGOON I
It (},_._,,
*ALL TANKS ARE /2. LAGOON 3
ABOVE GROUND <Y
AGOON
LEGEND {CONT.)
♦ NEW WELL CLUSTER
♦ NEW MONITORING WELL
• NEW SOIL BORING
•
TANK 7 c::::,
BLDG.3
@AI~ 1893
BLDG.
4
FARM
HOUSE
SCALE
I I I I I I
l&I ~ I-V>
0 50 100 150
NEW MONITORING WELLS
AND SOIL BORINGS
UPPER MACON S fTE
FIGURE II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
LEGEND
~ EXIST. MONITORING WELL
• • • • WOODS LINE =ROAD
♦ NEW WELL CLUSTER
• NEW MONITORING WELL
• NEW SOIL BORING
-f ALL TANKS ARE
ABOVE GROUND.
~ LAGOON II
D LAGOON 10 SCALE
I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150
NEW MONITORING WELLS
AND SOIL BORINGS
LOWER MACON SITE
FIGURE 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
' • • • " 'tllOOD S LINE -FnlD -
-$-NEW MONITORING WELL
SCALE
I I I I I I I
0 50 100 150
NEW MONITORING WELLS
~~~iS) UPPER DOCKERY SITE
FIGURE 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
,vvv,,--. WOODS LINE
::;::-.:: ROAD
♦ NEW MONITORING WELL
• NEW SOIL BORING
SCALE
I I I I I I
0 50 100 150
,-------, NEW MONITORING WELLS fMAINl
C,soa:..:J AND SOIL BORING-LOWER DOCKERY SITE
FIGURE 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two additional wells will be installed on the Macon site to
be used for a pump test. The location of these wells will
be selected at the completion of Phase I.
2.3.3 Additional Soil Borings
Auger holes will be drilled to the water table at the
locations of closed lagoons number 3, 6, 9, and 11 and one
at the closed lagoon on the Dockery property for the purpose
of determining the possibility of contamination remaining in
place, see Figures 11-14. These borings will be split-spoon
sampled for chemical analysis as described in paragraph
2.3.5.2, below.
2.3.4 Lagoon 10 Waste Characterization
A soil boring will be conducted at lagoon 10. Split-spoon
or Shelby tube samples will be collected from the boring as
required to characterize the waste left in place at lagoon
10. Samples will be analyzed for complete HSL parameters as
well as an E.P. toxicity test. Attempts will be made during
the soil boring to estimate the approximate depth of the
remaining waste.
2.3.5 Drilling and Soil Sampling
2.3.5.1 Drilling Program
The drilling program proposed for this site will be
performed utilizing two methods of drilling. The monitoring
wells will be installed utilizing mechanically advanced
continuous flight hollow-stem augers.
The two wells required to perform a pump test will be
installed using air rotary methods.
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.5.2 Split-Spoon Samples for Chemical Analysis
New monitoring wells (deep wells only, in well clusters) and
additional auger holes described in paragraph 2.3.3 will be
split-spoon sampled at five (5) foot intervals for chemical
analysis. These split-spoon samples will be screened on
site with a HNU photoionization detector. This procedure
will entail warming the samples and measuring any off
gassing which may occur.
Any samples exhibiting concentrations in excess of two times
the background concentration will be preserved for
additional analysis. Background values during preliminary
site reconaissance appear to be on the order of 0.25 to 0.75
ppm.
2.3.5.3 Undisturbed Soil Sampling Procedures
Thin-walled tube samples will be collected at the well
screen intervals in six of the new wells. It is anticipated
that these will be the upgradient cluster wells and the
cluster wells downgradient of lagoons 6 and 10. These
samples will be collected and prepared in accordance with
ASTM D1587. These undisturbed samples will be analyzed for
the following physical characteristics:
Wet Sieve Analysis with Hydrometer
Unit Weight
Void Ratio
Degree of Saturation
Natural Moisture Content
Bulk Specific Gravity
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Laboratory permeability tests per ASTM 2434 will be
conducted on undisturbed soil samples collected from the
water table wells and from the deeper saprolite wells.
Information obtained from the laboratory and field tests
will be used to determine aquifer characteristics i.e.
hydraulic conductivities, transmissivities and storage
coefficients.
2.3.6 Well Installation/Development Procedures
The proposed permanent monitoring wells will be constructed
of 2-inch diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe with screwed
connections and manufactured well screens installed in
accordance with North Carolina Administrative Code, Title
15, Subchapter 2C, Well Construction Standards Criteria and
standards Applicable to Water Supply and Certain Other Type
Wells. Various research papers have been prepared relating
to appropriate material selection in groundwater monitoring
wells. Four documents on the subject are included in
Appendix c. From material presented in these documents, it
can be concluded that rigid PVC well casing performs as well
as Teflon and stainless steel when exposed to monitoring
well environments.
These wells will be installed in soil test borings to
depths determined during Phase I of this remedial
investigation. All the wells will be constructed with 10-
foot long manufactured stainless steel screens with o. 01-
inch slot size. The annulus around the well will be
backfilled with clean medium sand to an elevation one foot
above the top of the screen interval, and sealed with one
foot of bentoni te.
with lean grout to
and finished with
The remaining void will be backfilled
within three feet of the ground surface
a concrete collar and locking steel
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
protective casing labeled in accordance with North Carolina
Code (Figure 15).
After the wells have been installed and all grout and
concrete materials allowed to cure, the wells will be
developed by alternate pumping and surging of the screened
interval. This will be accomplished using a Brainard Kilman
1.7 inch hand pump for purging the well and a 36 inch teflon
bailer for surging the screen interval or other approved
purging methods. Specific conductance of formation water
will be measured during well development. Development will
be considered complete when formation water appears clear
and specific conductance has stabilized.
2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TYPICAL WELL SCHEMATIC
rFil
LOCKING STEEL PROTECTIVE COVER -
CONCRETE COLLAR-----
LEAN GROUT
2 INCH 1.0. SCH 40
PVC CASING
BENTONITE SEAL ------
MEDIUM SAND
0.01 INCH SLOT
PVC SCREEN
0
7
FIGURE 15
> 1 FT.
3 FT.
VARIES
VARIES
1 FT.
1 FT.
10 FT.
~\AI~
1893
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.7 Groundwater Measurement and Sampling
To ensure that representative groundwater samples are
collected the following procedures will be followed.
The groundwater levels will be measured from all the wells
prior to purging. Water levels will be measured to the
nearest 0.01 feet from the top of the well casing using an
electronic level indicator and fiberglass measuring tape.
Prior to purging each well, a sheet of plastic will be
placed at the base of the well. This prevents the bailer
rope from being contaminated by the ground during the
purging and sampling activities. All wells will be purged
to remove at least three well volumes or to dryness. This
purging procedure will flush the well of any stagnant water
and provide representative groundwater to samples.
All the wells will be sampled as soon as they have recharged
sufficiently to yield a sample. These samples will be
collected using a teflon bailer lowered carefully into the
well to minimize mixing.
Samples
provided
will be collected in EPA approved containers
by the CPL approved analytical laboratory. The
samples will be collected in an assigned priority in which
volatile organic compounds are sampled first, acid and
base/neutral extractable compounds second, oil and grease
third, metals fourth and field measurements (pH, specific
conductance and temperature) fifth.
All samples on which metals analyses will be conducted will
be filtered through a 0.45 micron membrane filter prior to
being preserved for shipment. All samples will be
immediately preserved and prepared for transportation to the
analytical laboratory. Between sampling each well, all
2-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
field equipment will be cleaned following the
decontamination procedures outlined in Section 3.
Further details of sampling protocol are included in the
project Sampling and Analysis Plan, submitted in the Project
Operations Plan (POP).
2.3.8 Surface Water Sampling Procedure
To evaluate any possible continuing offsite migration of
contamination by surface water transport, surface water
samples will be collected from Solomons Creek both up stream
and downstream of the Macon/Dockery site and from the small
pond downstream of the Macon site (Location shown on Figure
16). These samples will be collected using the following
procedures.
Surface water samples will be collected using a dipper
device constructed of inert material such as stainless
steel, teflon or glass. The device will be securely
attached to an eight foot long pole to allow access to any
point in the stream. Prior to collecting any samples, the
dipper device will be flushed thoroughly with water from the
stream.
To collect a sample, the dipper device will be submersed
with minimal surface disturbance.
When the sample has'been collected in the dipper device, it
will be gently transferred to the sample containers to be
shipped to the analytical laboratory.
2-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f--"_J,' rJ,J .r
CXIAORANGLE LOCl"."iC"
111D0 0 1000
ROCKINOHAM, N.C •
SCALE l:24000
,000 ,ooo 4000
CONTOUR INHRVAL 10 FEET
DA1UM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
N3452.5-W7945/7.~
1956
""" 6000 ,ooo rm
MACON 8 DOCKERY
SITES
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLIN A
SURFACE WATER
SAMPLING POINTS •
FIGURE 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.3.9 Sediment Sampling Procedure
Fine sediment samples will be collected from Solomons creek
and the drainage ravines downgradient of the lagoon. These
samples will be collected as grab samples at locations
determined at the completion of Phase I (Preliminary
locations are shown on Figure 17).
2.3.10 Other Sampling Procedures
It is anticipated that other samples may be required to
assess this site. These samples may include water samples,
not yet identified, collected from abandoned tanks and
buildings on site. Grab samples will be utilized for this
program following the procedures-def-rned in the previous
pertinent subsections.
2.3.11 Analytical Procedures
At the completion of Phase I, analytical results will be
reviewed to establish a parameter list for analytical work
during Phase II. Any of the HSL parameters detected in any
sample during Phase I will be included in the Phase II
parameter list. This Phase II parame~er list will be used
for all groundwater samples, soil samples for chemical
analysis, surface water
collected during Phase II,
samples, and sediment samples
unless describe otherwise above.
2.3.12 Aquifer Test Procedures
Site aquifer characteristics will be determined by field
falling head hydraulic conductivity tests and pump testing.
These tests will be performed utilizing the procedures
discussed below.
2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
·• I
I
GUADAA.NGLE LOCA".'iC,.
ICII> 0 1000
ROCKINGHAM, N.C •
N3452.5-W7945/7.f
SCALE 124000
,000 )000 ,ooo SOOD
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
DATUM IS MUN SEA L[V[L
1956
6000 1000 fUl
MACON 8 DOCKERY
SITES
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
STREAM SEDIMENTS
SAMPLING POINTS e
FIGURE 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is estimated that four falling head aquifer tests will be
required at the facility. These tests will be performed in
accordance with SW846 method 9100.
one 48 hour pump test will be performed in a new 4 inch
diameter PVC well utilizing adjacent observation wells to
monitor the effects. The screen intervals for the pumping
and observation wells will be set so as to acquire the
necessary information for the determination of both vertical
and horizontal hydraulic conductivity for each hydrogeologic
unit. Pump test data will be analyzed in accordance with
procedures outlined in Geological Survey Professional Paper
708 or equivalent.
2.3.13 Remedial Investigation Report
Upon completion of this phase of the Remedial Investigation,
a report will be prepared summarizing the field and
laboratory results.
The report will include:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Discussion of site history
Discussion of existing site conditions
Results of Phase I investigation
Detailed description of the site geology and
hydrogeology, demography, climate
Description of the nature and extent of contamination
Results of groundwater sampling
Results of surface water sampling
Surface water, groundwater, air and biota investigation
Results of any bench treatability test, if conducted
Baseline public health and environmental risk
assessment
2-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4 PHASE III REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES
Phase III of the Remedial Investigation would be instituted
only if certain data gaps are identified after Phase II
which need to be filled to successfully complete the
Feasibility Study. Items which might be required could
include additional soil or groundwater sampling or possibly
additional well installations or soil borings. The decision
to institute a Phase III would be made after compilation of
the data from Phase II.
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.5 POTENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY ACTIVITIES
As information is accumulated from the phased remedial
investigation, work can begin on the Feasibility Study.
The first task of the Feasibility Study involves utilizing
the results of the RI to formulate and develop alternatives
and to evaluate technologies available. These alternatives
are then screened on the basis of technical feasibility,
economics, and effect on the environment and public health.
Alternatives may include active onsite or off-site treatment
technologies, isolation, contaminment or removal of
contamination and/or long term monitoring. Remediation
processes are addressed in terms of contaminant "Source
Control" and "Management of Migration".
Following preliminary screening, various alternatives
undergo detailed analysis to provide the decision makers
with information to select the proper course of action.
Important items to be considered include an engineering
analysis in terms of constructability and reliability,
institutional analysis in terms of federal, state and local
standards, public health exposure evaluations and a detailed
cost analysis.
The final goal of the FS is selection of the most
appropriate, cost-effective system or combination of systems
to limit exposure to the public and the environment.
2-20
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1
SECTION 3
RISK ASSESSMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Health risk assessment is an ongoing task throughout the
RI/ FS process. In general, the effort may be divided into
two basic components. These components are:
o baseline public health evaluation
o development of performance goals for remedial
alternatives.
An analysis of the baseline is a requirement for all
remedial sites. Baseline public health evaluations can
range from straightforward and uncomplicated to very
detailed and complex. In addition to a baseline
health-based performance goals should be developed
analysis,
to assist
in development and refinement of appropriate remedial
alternatives.
3.1.1 Baseline Public Health Evaluation
The baseline public health evaluation covers a wide range of
complexity, quantification, and level of effort, depending
on a numerous site factors. The appropriate level of detail
for a public health evaluation is a site specific decision
to be made as information is learned about the site.
The baseline evaluation typically may involve up to five
steps, although some of the steps do not necessarily apply
to some sites. As data from Phase I of the remedial
investigation becomes available decisions as to the level of
risk assessment required will be established.
3-1
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
As a first step in the process, indicator chemicals are
selected from among the list of contaminants known to be
present at the site. The procedure for selecting indicator
chemicals incorporates chemical toxicity information,
physical/chemical factors, and measured concentrations at
the site. The second step in the evaluation is an
assessment of exposure concentrations of the indicator
chemicals. Chemical releases are estimated and
environmental fate and transport may be modeled to project
exposure levels via air, groundwater, surface water or other
pathways. Following the estimation of exposure
concentrations, comparisons to ARAR' s are made. The next
step involves estimating human intakes. Standard
assumptions for daily water and air intake, fish
consumption, and other relevant factors may be used if site-
specific information is unavailable. The fourth step of the
process involves an in-depth review of the toxicity of the
indicator chemicals. Finally, in Step 5, human health risks
are characterized for potential carcinogens and for
noncarcinogenic effects by combining the exposure and
toxicity information developed in the first four steps.
3.1.2 Development of Performance Goals
The second
analysis and
for proposed
component of the risk assessment process is
development of heal th-based performance goals
remedial alternatives. Performance goals for
source control remedies will be based on applicable or
relevant and appropriate design and operating requirements
and best engineering judgment. Where soil removal is a
part of the remedial alternative, a risk based approach can
be used to determine the extent of removal. Performance
goals for management of migration alternatives'will be based
on applicable or relevant and appropriate ambient chemical
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
concentration requirements, if available. Otherwise, a
target carcinogenic risk range will be used to develop
numerical performance goals. The emphasis of the
performance goal procedure is to use techniques of risk
analysis to assist in setting target levels of contaminant
concentrations at exposure points. The public health
evaluation for remedial alternatives is closely linked with
other components of the feasibility study, especially the
detailed technical evaluation.
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION 4
PROJECT AND SITE MANAGEMENT
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Remedial Project Manager and Project Coordinator for the
RI/FS will be Mr. Chris Provost of the U.S. EPA, Region IV,
Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Christopher Keele, of Wildman,
Harrold, Allen and Dixon, Chicago, Illinois will be the
Project Coordinator for the respondents. Engineering
consultants selected by Clark Equipment Company and Crown
Cork and Seal Company for performance of the RI/FS will be
Chas. T. Main, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina.
4.2 SITE MANAGEMENT
A site manager will be appointed by the engineering
consultants to perform duties of physical site management as
well as field activity oversight, including sample
collection and sample shipment. The site manager will also
function as the site health and safety manager.
If possible, the existing unused office on site will be set
up as a site office during field operations, otherwise, a
mobile temporary site office will be established. The
office will house field records and files. This office will
not be manned continuously during the working day.
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1 SCHEDULE
SECTION 5
SCHEDULE
The attached bar chart is a preliminary proposed schedule
for completion of the RI/FS. Task 1 of the remedial
investigation will commence within seven (7) days of EPA
approval of the Work Plan and Project Operations Plan.
5-1
-- --- -
TASK 1
PHASE I
GROUND SURVEY
SOIL SAMPLING -
- - - - - - -
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASK SCHEDULE
MACON DRUM & LAGOON SITE
MONTHS
-
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
SAMPLE EXISTING -WELLS
TANK SAMPLING -
MAGNETOMETER -SURVEY
EM SURVEY -
RECEIVE • ANALYTICAL DATA
DATA COMPILATION
DETAILED SCOPING --OF PHASE II
PHASE II
SOIL GAS SURVEY
WELL
INSTALLATION
SOIL BORINGS -LAGOON #10 ""' Wt.STE SAMPLING
GROUNDWJI.TER
SAMPLING -
FIGURE 16
-- - --
10 11 1 2
-------------------
TASK
1
PHASE II
SURFACE Wt.TE R
SAMPLING
SEDIMENT
SAMPLING
RECEIVE
GROUNDWt.TER
AND SOIL
ANALYSIS
RECEIVE SURFACE
Wt.TER AND
SEDIMENT
ANALYSIS
AQUIFER TESTING
PREPARE RI
REPORT
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASK SCHEDULE
MACON DRUM & LAGOON SITE
MONTHS
2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9
-
-
I I
•
FIGURE 16 (CON'T)
10 1 1 12
-------------------
TASK
9
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
FORMULATE
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
SCREENING
DETAIL ANALYSIS
OF ALTERNATIVES
SELECTION OF
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVES
PREPARATION OF
FS REPORT
FEASIBILITY STUDY TASK SCHEDULE
MACON DRUM & LAGOON SITE
MONTHS
10 1 1 1 2 13 H 1 5 16
•
FIGURE 19
1 7 1 6 1 9 20
I
I
GRAINGER LABORATORIES
f.JI/ALYTICAL LABORATORY
l [nn•onmtnl AMly111!1-
Constru~ion Mairrials
ICH'ntiflr111on ol llnkno•-ns
A1:nrulturt
INCORPORATtD
ANALYTICAL ANO CONSULTING CHEMISTS
709 West Johnson Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27603
[phone]
December 30, 1982
82-5637
CO\'SL'LTATIO\
~1e1:i!lutJ1ral ServirT~
Polluoon ,,ba,t'mtfll
Pron•~~ Dt-,rloPmtnl
).Jr1hoch Dt•tlr,pm,:11
Spf'cia! ln,e•t15'.a11on Ir .. ,,
Tu1it,,
CM'ffl,r:il.,
Enviro-Chem Waste Management Services
Post Office Box 10784 AMENDED COPY P•'""'"
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 {l-5-83) RCRA
Attention: Mr. Jerry Deakle
Subject: Analyses of Samples Received 11/24/82, 12/6/82
Sample Identification:
Incineration Profile
1. So 1 vents
2. Waste Oils
3. Oxidizing Oils
Incineration Profile
Lead, total as Pb, µg/g
Sulfur, total as S, µg/g
Beryllium, total as Be, µg/g
Mercury, total as Hg, µg/g
Arsenic, total as As, µg/g
Cadmium, total as Cd, µg/g
Chromium, total as Cr, µg/g
Halogens, as Cl, µg/g
pH
Ash, ·wti:
BTU/lb
Specific Gravity
Flash Point, (CC), °F
JDT:ca
Customer 144500
Landfil1 Profi1e
1. Al ka 1 i ne
2. Aqueous
3. Paint
4. Solids
RESULTS
l
<2.4
0.0003
<0.12
0.20
0.13
0.17
0.96
73,990
3.8
0.01
15,389
0.941
5.
6.
7.
8.
2
<4.8
0.0002
0.82
<0.05
0.24
0.33
46.8
14,350
7.1
3.26
16,226
0.979
<~ . <140
~-;if%:t:..
•'
mes D. Thacker
Techical Director
Acicl 1
Acid 2
Tar
Pesticides
3
0.6
0.0002
0.11
<0.20
<0.20
0.11
1.4
1,386
6.3
0.07
15,424
0.962
>140
------Enviro-Chcm Waste Management Services
GLI #82-5637
December 30, 1982
Page 3
Landfill Profile
Titanium, total as Ti, pg/g
Barium, total as Ba, pg/g
Selenium, total as Se, pg/g
Zinc, total as Zn, pg/g
Cadmium, total as Cd, pg/g
Silver, total as Hg, pg/g
Nickel, total as Ni, pg/g
Chromium, total as +3 Cr , pg/g
Iron, total as Fe, µg/g
Antimony, total as Sb, pg/g
Manganese, total as Mn, pg/g
Cobalt, total as Co, µg/g
Chromium, total as Cr+6 , µg/g
(l) BL -8ilayered
ML -Multilayered
(2) H -Hydrophi)ic
L -Lypophil ic
•Not Detected
"*i1ethod of Method by Schoniger
•••sample not a11111enable to test
1
<9.9
2.5
<0.10
2.4
<0.12
<0.02
<0.99
1.7
46
<5.0
1.5
2.0
<0.1
----
ll[SLILTS
(con't)
2 3
<10.0 <10.1
82.8 10.0
<0.10 <0.10
9.9 3.3
<0.13 0.68
0.50 <0.25
1.0 1.8
220 8.6
57 220
7.5 <5.0
5.0 3.5
<1.3 <1.3
<0.8 <1.0
---------
4 5 6 7 8
<20.7 9.7 12.6 36.1 10.0
72.4 2.4 7.5 10.3 2.5
'
<0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10 ' I
510 2.2 2.6 2,898 1.1 I
49.1 0.88 3.3 1.1 0.13 I '
0.52 <0.24 0.25 0.52 0.25
17 540 1.0 6.7 1.0
540 <O. 7 1.8 <1.6 0.75
12,000 260 160 190 2.5
16 7.3 <5.0 <10 <5.0
19 10,000 0.8 8.3 0.25
45 20 2.8 2.6 1.3
3.8 0.43 0.47 <1.0 <0.10
-------Enviro-Chem Waste Management Services
GLI #82-5637
December 30, 1982
Page 2
Landfi 11 Profile
Physical S_tate
Viscosity -70°F
Layering(l)
Specific Gravity at 70°F
Suspended Solids, by vol.
Suspended Solids, by wt.
Dissolved Solids, by wt.
Thousands of BTUs/lb
Flash pt. (cc) °F
Toxicity
Affinity for Water(2)
Organically bound Sulfur, wt%
Organically bound Chlorine, wt%
Organically bound Nitrogen, wt%
pH
Volatile Solids, wti
Moisture, wti
Cyanides, total as CN, µg/g
Pesticides
Total Organic Carbon, µg/g
Arsenic, total as As, µg/g
Lead, total as Pb, µg/g
· .copper, total as Cu, µg/g
l
Liquid
Medium
BL
1.088
5-20'.t
5-20%
<l
>140
Unknown
H
<0.1
<0.0001
0.360
13.8
90.89
82.84
21.82
*
53,000
<0.20
<2.5
1.2
-
2
Liquid
Medium
ML
1.028
5-20'.t
5-20%
<l
>140
Unknown
H
<0.1
<0.0002
0.244
6.1
97.48
88.07
1.27
*
62,900
0.06
2.5
2.5
----

-

-
RESULTS
(can't)
3
Liquid
Medium
BL
1.030
5-20'.t
5-20'.t
12-16
60-140
Unknown
H
<0.1
<0.0003
0.598
96.92
77.80
3.85
*
238,000
0.5
57 .8
2.3
4
Solid
High
None
N/A
>20'.t
>20%
<1
>140
Unknown
L
<0.1
0.077
0.120
51.33 .
29.58
2.17
*
62,500
5.6
165
241
5
Liquid
Medium
BL
1.476
5-20%
5-20%
<1
>140
Medium
H
<0.1
<0.0001
0.175
<1
89.98
33.50
*
•
546
0.09
21.9
4.1
-

-

-

-
-
6
Liquid
Medium
None
1.042
<5%
<5%
<1
>140
Medium
H
<0.1
<0.0001
0.0093
<1 .
99.29
99.02
•
*
149,000
<0.20
<2.5
4.3
7
Solid
lligh
None
N/A
>20%
>20%
<1
60-140
· Unknown
.L
<0.1
0.748**
0.463
97.18
13.60
•
•
***
42.9
283
4.6
8
Liquid
Medium
None
0.820
<5%
<5'.t
9-12
>140
Unknown
H
<0.1
0.0043
0.794
8.1
98.57
99. 71
•
•
•••
<0.20
<2.5
<0.50
•••
U!L~
H20 H20
I Samele ti .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibilitv Reactivitl
B-9 Neutral
I
C-0 Neutral
0-1 Neutral
C-10 Neutral Slight
I C-3 Neutral
D-2 Alkaline +
I A-1 Neutral
C-12 Neutral Strong +
I D-7 ~leutra 1
B-10 Neutral
I
D-4 Neutral
A-1-A Neutral Slight
B-0 Neutral 50/50
I C-5 Neutral
.
I ACIDS
'
I
H20 H20
Samele II .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibilitv Reactivity
B3 Acidic +
I Cl3 Acidic +
C4 Acidic + + +
I BASES
I
H20 H20
. Samele# .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibility Reactivitv
-~
I A2E Alkaline +
B-5 A 1 ka 1 i ne +
I C-8 Alkaline +
0-11. Alkaline +
I
C-7 Alkaline +
I
1-
I
..• -...
1·
/\1,JLIEOUS
H20 H20
Samele fl .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibilit.z: Reactivit.z:
I A2C Neutral +
A12 Neutral +
I Al3 Neutral +
Bl Neutral +
I OS Neutral +
SOLVENTS
I
H20 H20
Sa~le i! ~ Oxidizer Reducer nisci~ilitv Re:c:ivi!\'
0-3 Neutral
I C-9 Neutral
B-8 Neutral
I C-2 Neutral
C-6 Acidic +
I Cl Acidic
· B-6 Acidic +
I D-6 Acidic
2AG Acidic
I
PAINTS H20 H20
Samele # .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibilit.z: Reactivitv
I A2B Neutra 1 Suspendable
A2Cl Neutral Suspendable.
I SOLIDS
I H20 H20
Samele II .E!! Oxidizer Reducer Miscibilit.z: Reactivit.z:
I B-7 Neutral +
B-2 Neutral + ..
I A2D Neutral +
B-14 Neutral
I A2S1 Neutral
C-11 Neutral +
I B-12 Neutral
A2S Neutral
A2F Neutral +
I. •sample C-6 reclassified as. an Acid.
I
1·
LU11PU~l II:. t-URMAI
Oils, Redox Neutral, pH Neutral
I Al co D4
BO C3 07
I B9 cs 1+3
B10 01 1+3
I Dils, Oxidizino, pH Neutral
I
AlA
ClO
Cl2
I Acids, Composite #1
I C-4
C13
F8
I A4
• Acids, Composite 112
I B3
•, F2
I H-14
C6
I Solvents
H-4 BB
I H-6 C-2
2AC C-9
B6 0-3
I 0-6
I Al kal 1ne
F-4 H-4 C-7
-f-6 H-8 C-8
I H-11 · B-5 0-2
H-12 B-11 42E
I Paint
I A2b
Cl
I,
I
---· • r--···
\..Ul"ll"'U.'.:>l It rU!"l.!'l.""\I
I
. (continued)
I Aqueous
A-1-2 D-5 H-9
I
A-1-3 F-5 H-7
A-2-6 E-6
B-1 F-16
I Solids
I A2D HS B14 HS
A2S1 B7 A2F
B2 F3 HlS
B12 Hl3 Cll
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I ••
I -I
I
I
I
I
··-. --. -. . .. . --~--·--... --· --
I GRAINGER LABORATORIES
tNCOP.POfl.ATED .
ANALYTICAL ANO CONSULTING CHEMISTS
I 709 West Johnson Street • Raleigh, Korth Carolina 27603
A!\ALYTICAL L(BORATORY
[phone]
I n, ir0nmtn1 An.ly1is
ons:runion Ma1uial,
ldtr.:ihraliDTI of t·nkno,rn:s
February 25, 1983
82-5515
l"'&r:tuhurf
Ufl~
f~t,its
("nt :::Tf"III.~
Enviro-Chem Waste Management Services
Post Office Box 10784
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Attn: Jerry Deakle
Subject: Analyses of Samples Received 2/21/83
Sample Identification:
1. Waste Solvents Composite
2. ~laste Oil Composite
RESULTS
Trichloroeth.)11ene, wt%
l
1.53
C0\St:LT.HlO\
Mr:.:.liur11r;,! SC'r..-itt.'
Polluuon .~t..11rmn:
Prol'l:.t_t D.-1tlci;:ml':1:
Ou;,:;:_, ror.:rc!
,,t',hN~~ Dt•1 rlo;;,m .. M
SV('l1;,,\ lr.,c•~11j'._;::1,,r.
2
<0.2
I
I
I
I
I 1. 1. 1-Trichloroethane, wt% 2.96 <0.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
Other OrgaTiir:s identified "'ere: Methyl Isobutyl Ketcne, p-Xylene,
m-Xy1ene, a-Xylene, and Toluene.
WPB/ab
Customerl/44500
.J.v.£J.-e~
W. Paul Brafford
Laboratory Supervisor
I
I
' I
STATE LABORATORY OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
--N.C. OEPAR'rMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 28047;;. 306 N. WILMINGTON ST .. RALEIGH ·27611
••
INORGANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSES -PUBLIC WATER SYST
Complete All Items Above Heavy Line
(See Instructions on Reverse Side)
~-A ',. I T,~o,S-
f:,:,1_f.J~:::C~•L~c-"~~--------1-'·-----1-(...: l\...:J..\-...:~-,:;;,,;-' ( ) Community ,,7 -, ___ <......;.,.., _ ... _i'l_ofi_._c_o_m_m_u_n_it_Y ______ _
ddress: ---------------------'-I Sou~ of Water: ..
------------'·.::-::.·.c:::,__/ZIP ( . J Ground
-------, ( ) Surface
Source of Sampie:
( ) Qistribution Tap
I
(
nty: K ,(._,,~,,,_('"\'\j
ort To: \c .. -r C v l)l~v-(...-v
t S l \. 1 ~J L\ z I ,'-c ,._\, Type of Sample:\
ress: _ ___,=:.;;;..l.:..\,,;,~-",,-...l::"'"'-'=....--"C::a.:::...:..~:,_---~, ___ < _I __ R_a_w __ ___, ______ _
------------ZIP------l . . -~
l!lephone Number: _;(c...._......;.) _____ -_______ _,
' I
111"•cted By, ~ --, , ,. \,..., -=
· '11e Collected: f4 -17-6 '.;
Type of Treatment:
( ) None
( I Chlorinated
( ) Fluoridated
( ) Filtered
I I l"'"""'-t ~ : ( ) Alum
Time: _.;...;__;:a....::---=l'Nr:..i------------------
.
I .
( )
( I
( )
( )
( I
( I
( )
( )
( )
( )
-r-·
•
cation of Sampling Point: -l.-!.V\~,, ·:.=;•,,:.· "':'""•:..0 .;.'·-.:..":......--:..· _;_-•~•:..."-1<·:.:...-~
ddre., where sample was collected)
Type of Sample:
( I Regular
( ) Check
( )
( I
.....
-
Both
Purchased
House Tap
Well Tap
Treated
Lime
Soda Ash
Polyphosphate
Water Sohener
Other
Private
Special
WATER SYSTEM 1.0. NUMBER (COPY FROM MAILING LABEL)
:. □□-□□-□□□
'aH Drinking Water Parameters (Required)
· Results
Optional Parameters (List as needed)
A
I rsenic
arium
admium
, (',-.-.. , ' ' .I.. .:. -l.,
? J , f', .-·)·"'. -r
, -
< .,, I mg/I
~ £1, Cc,✓-. mg/I
,,
-·hromium ? ,. h' "-· .I ,
luoride "',lp mg/I ? "'-") "
ead ...:::_ ,CJ-d 3 mg/I 2 ,r,
lercurv A ~.,..._<.
itrate (as NI ? 7 . ""-~
elenium -3 -··
ilver 2
H ,.~ / · units 1
•on -.C:: 7J, 0 1 mall ?
ann2:iese ✓ "'. 0 .-, mg/I ?
S-11-i.3 late Received -----------Date Reported-----------Reported By ___________ _
, .. te Analyzed
-, 2187
09bJ7 APRZB 83
___________ Laboratory Number ________________________ _
7/79 OW11Ell Mildred A. Ktrb,augh
Director
I-
I
I
I
,•of em:
ldress:
.
f./\ 0. (._ -
9,, c.L ~-·--~-\ ~
\
STATE LABORATORY OF PUBLIC HEALTH .
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 28047 -306 N. WILMINGTON ST., RALEIGH 27611
/,-. w) ( Community
'Am\/,;..\< . , Type of System·
( , Non-Community
Source of Water:
( , Ground ( l Both
ZIP ( , Surface ( l Purchased
Source of Sample:
( l Distribution Tap ( l House Tap tnty:
epon To: ~ -r...-·• ~.--I' ( l Well Tap
ldress '":, • \ · 1) l µ_ ~ 2. L·'-·r. ,.'t... Type of Sample: / ( , Raw . ( , Treated
ZIP
'•phone Number:
Type of Treatment:
( I I , None I , Lime -( , Chlorinated ( l Soda Ash
-~--;--, -·., \ \ "'-
( , Fluoridated ( , Polyphosphate
lllected By: ~ I ) Filtered I l Water Softener
';(-17-63 I" ,-,'-( ) Alum I l Other
ate Collected: Time: . '
-cation of Sampling Point: l,1.;:c:. \.\ \
Type of Sample:
( l Regular ( ) Private
ddress where sample was collected) ( , Check ( l Soecial
fmarks: . t. ('i\ .
WATER SYSTEM 1.0. _NUMBER (COPY FROM MAILING LABEL)
.J,.. □□-□□-□□□
late Orinkil"lg Water Parameters (ReQuired) Optional Parametel"S (List as needed)
Results Results
rsenic <O-OI mg/I ., it"-,,., I I· .I )( ~ ,4 ~1~-✓ •
arium FJ, ., mg/I ? I~, l ,,_
:admium 7 ,9. ~--mg/I ..
·hromium L 0.DI mg/I ? ,-. -·, ' .. --(' /J, () ( -
luoride "-"'. /l'J mg/I ? ...,......__ ..,, ,._ /\
.ead .t:_ ,C), D "'-j mg/I 2 s; .1 L/ " ..
Aercury ,;,,_ 000:::, mg/I A ~.--.--~ II
it rate (as N) I, IJb mg/I , -~ '-C>. I ..,
'"".elenium <'tJ,o o ~ mg/I 3 •. l
iilver ,,_,-n A I mg/I 2
H -z:. .-, units ,
ron ,;11 ""JU mg/I ,
Aano.anese C) ,7"'--mg/I " *-ro~ A_ .. ,,~---~·----i s.-.... ;,10 -late Received __________ om Repone~ ~-~-FJ,,
TOo 1 44 ~-=> v ~ &... .. / y, t,,
Reported By __________ _
05'296 APR25 83 loatt Analyzed ___________ Laboratory Number _______________________ _
>HS Form zae 7 7 /79 Mildrtd A. Ktrblugh
Oirtct0r
STATE LABORATORY OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES
N.c'. DEPARTMENT OF HUM~RESOURCES
j• P.O. BOX 28047-306 N. WILMINGTO T., RALEIGH 276_11 .:-i_'I§, --~
' • ,. I q.,
INOR .. GANIC CHEMICAL ANALYSES -PUBLIC WATERS ~~
•· ; -~ ✓."
I
I
I
I-
Complete All Items Above Heavy Line • -~ ~ ·,,,
---~-f (See lnnructions on Reverse Side) ·"'~ . 'J _f
. ---:~-' ~.,.~ ~
I • MAN~"\~-
Type of Syrtem ·
lame of M /" {. , \
•
rum: ~~~ ~w
I . ·1 ·._
.ddress: -------------------'1--~I
) .. Community
I ·Non-Community
Source of Water:
_____________ ZIP. _____ ----1 ' ( I Ground
( I S_;,.face
( ) Both
( ) Purcha1ed
Source of San,ple:
( ) Oistlibution Tap ( ) Houie Tao
( ) Well Tap
'dress:
Type of Sample:
( I _Raw ( ) Treated
_____________ ZIP------~
Type of Treatment:
I ( ) _ · -·-./ ( I None
lephone Number: _;;___....;. ____________ ---I · ( ) Chlorinated
( ) Lime
( ) Soda Ash
~ \..\ ( ) Fluoridated
011-dB _......;.J~· _:a.0 ..;.·---~-~•-.,__~D=::..;•:.:·..s<'-· i::...:..i.....~------~ ( ) Polyphosphate
=•e y: ( ) Filtered l '"":J . --
( ) Water Sohener
' te Collected: -~..:.,__:.·_\1.J_,__· .JC..,_)o<...._Time: __ 1:,_C!,...._"'s..,::.;l::..c'·-.!.P.!:IJl.!..l---(-I __ A_i_um __________ _ ( ) Other
·l•'c _ _\\ 2,__
cation of Sampling Point: -....!..''-''~:::....:=::..........;=:_-----~
creu where umple was collected)
l ,jte Drinking Water Parameters (Rec:iuired)
Results
.... rsenic < 0,07
Barium /). J
1dmium < ,!7, cc..r
~rcmium ...:.~-0/
Fluoride .lr.,,J()
!Id ~.d7-c,.,3
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
mg/I
ercury ,,u S· F FtCJ£A,/ ~ .l,t/t.e mg/I
Nitrate (IS N) '., _, (,,.,._ ,. (,f,..... . ,e mg/I
~lenium /n' ~ -mg/I
fver < ~,v1 mg/I
.,r4 r--,, units
Iron ;,,,n+ mg/I
~_ganese I')-~ mg/I
•------Date Reported
?
? ..
?
?
2
A
?
3
2
1
?
?
·~ \ Laboratory Number
········-··---········ ·-··--.. ··· .. ······· ...
Type of Sample:
( ) Regular ( ) Private
( I Check ( ) Special
WATER SYSTEM 1.0. NUMBER (COPY FROM MAILING LABEL)
□□-□□-□□□
Optional Parameters (List as needed)
( J .!-·l J: '. ~:.
,·, t ... , \ ,-... \ •
I ' ' -' ....
',• .. -l I
<. ,,. J
? ~., -
1T'\<.
S-11-1..J
OWNEi<
l.
J
Results •
• .. ,I ,,
7 -,
Reponed By __________ _
09608 APR ZS 83
Mildred A. Kerbaugh
Oirtc1or
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
February 3, 1983
Enviro-Chem Waste Management Services
Post Office Box 10734
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
· Attention: Mr. Jerry Deakle, President
Reference: Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Macon Farm
Cordova, North Carolina
S&ME Job No. 051-83-008-A
Gentlemen:
Soll and Material Engineers, Inc .. has completed the Installation of
two groundwater monitoring wells at the Macon Farm located off SR 1103 in
Richmond County. Attached are copies of the test boring records, well
records, a location diagram, and a typical well schematic. Copies of the test
bori,1g loas and well records are attached. Copies have also been supplied to
the North Carolina Department of Natural Resou,'ces .:.,1d Community
Development.
It has been a pleasure working with you on this project. Please
contact us If you have any questions or If we can be of further service.
EFP/bsp
Attachment(s)
Sincerely,
SOIL & MATERIAL Ep
1
INEERS,
---==::-=;rt--;;::;;i, .
Ernest F. Parker, J ., P.E.
RALEIGH, GREENSBORO. ASHEVILLE. WILMINGTON. FAYETTEVILLE. Ct-<ARLOTTE. NC
----·-·•-,. ~"""• ••ueo,-. ru,.,t,1 ~CTf"'lfJ lAVFliLE BE•CH. SC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I .
.....
C --a:: V,
. IE. .
I Fann Monitoring
I
. . .. ·--·
□
SOIL 6 MATERIAL ENGINEERS,INC
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Laooon
SCALE: Not to Scale
JOB NO: 051-83-008-A
C'lr-IUI"\ • 1
-
I
•:...-----
1
Steel lcicidng Call ,;=-=-· ...;.;-">t'
I 4" Steel Casing
I . --.. • •
. . . .
• 11 • -. I Neat Cement Grout..,...---t,..
I
,ia.
I
I
I
I
,arse Sand
I
I
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • •
(ASTM C-33)-~~
I" Sch. 40 We11 Screen ..
I
I
I ...
. • . . . . • . . • • •
. . .. . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. . • • • . • • • • • • . . • •• • • • • • • • • • •
--
---- -----··-· -· . --· --· ---·
2':.
3.!_
Varies (20'+)
2'
--··-
20'
SCALE: NTS SOIL &MATERIAL ENGINEERS,INC
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA JOB NO: 051-83-00B~A
r
-
I
I
:PTH DESCRI, ,i~
J·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.0
5 ro:·:n Fi r.e to 1-'.ediur.i Silty s;.Nn
Red to Orange Slightly Clayey Fine
Medium Sandy SILT
to
I Brown Clayey Fine to Medium Sandy SILT
I
I
•• o
I
I
j. 0
I ,.o
., ..
.. . ..... .. . .
-
Orange to Brown-Fine to Medium Sandy
Silty CLAY ..
arown Fine to Medium Sandy Silty CLAY
I 80RING AND SAMPLING MEETS ASTM l>-1516
-COR£ DRIL.LING MEETS ASTM D-2.1~
-
I PENETRATION IS "Tl!E NUM&R OF IL0WS OF 140 LIi. HAMMER
!'AL.LING :,0 IN. flEOUIREO TO l)RI\IE l'I 11. LO. SAMPLER I FT.
~~STURBEO SAllf'LE -::-wATtR TAa.E-24HR.
---...... -a ..-a111 S'-IHR
ELEV. CPEI\ ~RATION-BLt,.
0 IO 20 30 40 60 BO 00 I
I
-
-
... ·-·
I
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. ...::.W-;;,.,l~-
DATE DRILLED l-12-B3
JOB NO. B3-00R
SOILS MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
I
I
I
DESCRI: • -
s~, Previous PaQe for nescriotion
lo ._ ______ --------,-,j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Boring Terminated at 53.0"
!'-'ote: Field Classification, Bag
san;,les collected from auger
cuttin_is remain _at site ..
• • • t
Note: ~bni toring 1\°ell instaiied
.in Borehole, See Attached Sheet.
. I BORING ANO S!\MPLN; MEETS ~TM 0-1~86
CORE DRILLING MEETS ASTM D-2113 .
I PEl£TRATION IS 'TM£ Ni,,c8ER OF IJ..O,rlS OF 140L8. HAMMER
FALLING llO IN. REQUIRED TO DR~ L4 IN. LO. SAMPLER I FT.
~UNOIST161BED SAliof'I.£ -=-WATER TAa.£-24HR.
----·---•PW P_IL.ID
ELEV. OPEi\ IRATIDN-8Ll 'ER FT.
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. -'W:-•.:..l --,-
DATE DRILLED l-lZ-B3
JOB NO. s3-f'JnB
SOIL a MATERIAL . ENGINEERS, INC.
-
i i
I
I
I
' lo
••
10
I
I ,.s
j·o
I
I
I
I
lo.o
DESCR. JN.
~fo~n to Red Sli~htly Clayey Silty
Fi r.e to Medi urn S1'1m
-
•
Brown to Red Silty Clayey Fine to
Medium SAND
Red Slightly Clayey Fine to Medium
Sandy SILT
-
Red Clayey Fine to Mediur.1 Sandy SILT
~ -=------=-
Red to Brown Slightly Clayey Fine to
Medium Sandy SILT. -. . ..
Brown_ Silty Fine to Medium Sandy CLAY
.
I BORING ANO SA,l,IPI..ING MEETS AS'fl,I l>-1586
COR£ 1)11I1..LING MEETS ASTM 0-ZIB
..
I FENETRA'TlON IS '1'HE NI..M!l£II Of a.0WS Of MO LB. HAMMER
'f'AL.LING SO IN. REQUIRED TO DRIVE L4 IN. LO. _ SAMPLER I FT.
~UNOIST~BED $AMPl.E -=--WATtR T4!U-Z4HR.
ELEV. CPEN~Tf ;noN-BLl -:,ER FT.
o 10 20 30 ~o 60 ..,.., 100
i I ' I
' I
.. . . . -
-
.
,EST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. _W,a.-_.2 __ _
DATE DRILLED l-ll-8)
JOB NO. 83-008
SOIL a MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·TH OESCRIP"
See Previous Page for Descriotion
-
Boring Tenninated at 48.0'
NOTE: Field Classification.,Bag Samoles
Collected From Auger Cuttings Remain
at S1 te
NOTE: Monitoring Well Installed fn
Borehole, See Attached Sheet
... ·-· --
..
.
• Brown-Silty Fine to Medium SAND
I BORING ANO SAMPL.ING MEETS ASTM l>-15B 6
CORE DRIL.L.ING MEETS ASTM 0-2113
PENETRATION IS "THE N1.M9ER OF 8LllWS OF MO L.8. HAMMER
I FAU.ING llO IN. REOUIREO TO l)Rr,,[ L4 IN. LD. $AMPLER I FT.
m:1 UNOISTi,!BEO $Al,FL£ ·-=-WATEJI TAfl.£-24HR.
• ---.:-..,._,,.., TAl!t.E -I HR.
ELEV. OPEN:'.-~TION-BLOV
-. .o . .. 10 _ _20 ?O 40 60 I.
l I
.. . ! I
I -
-.
i • .
I
TEST BORING RECORD
BORING NO. __.lo/ ... -2 __ _,_
DATE DRILL.ED l-ll-B3
JOB NO. 83-OQB
SOIL 8 MATERIAL ENGINEERS, INC .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I •
14 t, ,.ltill.t. O!P,U-:'~f•;~ :,r •.,i.~1.iU,L 11:lSC\.l'-C[S r ":~•1,.•!~1'!1 :
i>IY1S1ON O' [t:VJ'-C!:""!:t~·_,.L ~-'-?o.:.:a~!!OT, ,P.01,,' .. _.·:.~!•. !!C~:
P.O. IOJ :76S7 • l&L!IGH, N,C. 17611
:r::.:.:~::; C:"::-:"PJ.C-:-OR~j) !,· "3fp,..j:,J f---~.!:;. !:O. '11" lt:'!:.L C'C'~;!~F::~::~: r!:r:.""'.:':' ~::,,
1. \it:.:. :..c:,;.-:-10:-h (ShOv 1ketc~ of th• locu.•i=m below)
Nunn T-,,, ·eordova, !sorth Carolina County: Ric!-rr.o:id
_,,,SR...,__.1..,1..,o .. J.,_ _________ ....,. _________ .ou••ran91e i:o. flo::k:ipfb3m
l ~-0, c:or.-.-:ilolnU.)' or 5~~iVl.Sl.Ofl &nd 1,.ot , .. o. J
C..ontracted · .
z. By: Eilviro--Cll6'!1 ,faste \lanagemept Serv.
,. ~,iss, P.O, Box 10784. RaJele;b NC 27605 DEPTH
C.::::::... . r..o;,-TO
•. TOPOC.RAPKY1 dzav ,valley ~hilltop, flat Ccircle one)
s. Dst DF ottU.r G)\'R Monitoring DATE• 1113/83 See Attached Test Boring Records
,. DOES nus WEU auz.Aa AN etlSTD" vu.L7_.""N .. o,__ __ _
,. ~1.1. Dtrn, • 53 Ft. air:; nrt oa 111:nion, Hol 10\\' Stem:..:;A:=u:.cg,:;e:.:r'----------------
•• FOP.'<ATlON .s,ug,J.a C01.l.ZCTE.D I ns__x_110
•• C:A.SlllCir Dept.II lnaide llall thick. type
Ci&. or vei9ht./h .•
rn....Q_to~ft 2" "Sell, ~Q IM:
10. c.aovr, Dept.II .. t.bod
rrca_E_ to2!,_rt N. Carent _~__.,_· ___ _
.fil_ ~ Bentonite ..,pe,..._JJ...,e .. t .. s,__ __ _
11. 5=E>lr Dept.II Dia. ~ • Openin9
~-0.010" 1,0CA T l 01' 5 KrTC H rr= 33 to...2Ln 2" ~ 11.ltaN:• te INld,eud ro.ada1 BT otMT aap rehrnu l'°h.tr
ii. Ga.\VU.r Depth She llaterial
rrca~to 53 ft Sand AS'N C-33
U • IQTU 10111:S (dept.II) , ___ 4.,3,;,-:,5"'3.._Ft._...L, _____ _
Sv..?lC: •n• LEVEL•&. ft. • .,.l~top of ca■iD9
Ca1ia9 b 2 1 + ft. uo,,e land aurface C.ZV • --

-
u. Ylc.D(9pa) , ____ N_, .. A ___ ... J:THCX> or ftSTDICir ______ _
N/A u. PCIKPlMG IIA.U:a JZ\IJl.r ______ .r,.
u.
11.
afur ____ .1oou1 at,._ _____ ,,pc ... _ -··-·
c:at0U11A.naN, ~-------""'-----
..,.Tu QDA.1.lffr Not Tested fl:Ml'UATD:U: 1°rt.-.
it. PU:,,U,£11T PIMP• Deu la11talled,-_...;.N_/_A ___ _
7>'~•-----C·•P•~ity _____ ltpal NP __ _
llake _________ lnt&ke Depth,_ ___ _
A.Lr Un• Depth _ _:Y.:::e.:::s;...._
.5ee Att~cbed .Sketrh
JD. MAS THE c,,,wu au,, •aoy~D r. COPY Dr THU UCORI> IUII) lNFOMtn or THE DEPARTll!:IITS 11!:0UIJ.VU:IITS ... ,.,,
au:Ot1KDID'-TlaNS7
n.auw.us _______________________________________ _
1 do hereby
Aa9vlai. i.Of\l
~ell Con1trvction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A Cl. ... 1tri1& ot,,,,~.!.Jro1 :, •.:.~1,,1t . .C.L •tSO'..'~C£S f ......... ;~~'!' :! :~
:>IV1$10"il o, ftlYltO~••!·•·uL ..,.t,a.;[,,.[NT. ,,,i..•,•.-o-·.&.-:-!'11: !!C~:=··
•.o. IOl ::!n .. IA.L[lGM, M.C. :'611
1 • ._"EL!. J.,O:.,..t1e:1 (ShO"' aketch of the location below)
Jlorut T.,.,,., CQrdova' :-<onh Carolina County: __ il..,..i._Ch'i·C'1d
-----_..,SR...._..,1,.,1,,,0.,3<,------,--,---,---,------0••dran,;lo Ko. _B....,cx: .... k:..i !'J=ghuam!!!.!2 _____ _
(lload.Co::..":",1.ir.u.y or S@t,,.viu.on end Lot i-:o.)
2• ~tracted Enviro-Chern· \~astP. Manal!e!Tlent Serv.
,. &00,.us, P.O. Box 10784, Balelgb, ''C 275os
t. TOPOCM.PHYi draw,valley,alc;,e,hilltop,flat(circle OM)
J. vn or ·vw., G\\"R llcini toring 11.\n, 1/11/83 See Attached Test Boring Records
,. DOU THU wt:u. iu:rt-\Cc ui n1n1J1C ='-"N~a._ __ _
,. 'IOTA%. DCPTH, 48 ft.uc: TYPE.Ok KET11DD, Rol!CM' Sterni:!!,.;;;A"'-11~¢.,e ... r _______________ _
•• 1'1lP.KA.T1011 SAIIPLES COUJ:CTU>1 ns_L•o ______ _
1M ide Wa 11 thick. trPO
CJ.a. or vai9bt/f~.
r .... _o__ to ..2,B._f t 2" $::b 4Q rn::
10. GIIOUT• Depth llated&l llethod
rrca_Q_ to 26 ft N. Cenent Plffl!,
.2fL ..zz_ BeD :t aJ j te Pellets
11. SCQ:DI: Depth Dia. Tne I Openin9 ..
r .... la_toJ.a_ft 2" ~ 0.010"
U. c:u.vu., Depth ,1 .. Mat.uial
rrca...2:z..to~f• Sand ASI\! C-33
U, •TU ICll'CS (depthJ •_..;40-=...;4;;.8;;....;Ft;..;;.._• _____ _
u. ll'tATlC IO.TP u:vii.,.!Q.. ft .... 1..:;tap of oaab9
Caaua9 1a1.:.:!;_rt. al>ove land 1vhce ICl.EV•~
is. nJ:u> 1vpa1 • NIA Nrl'IIOO or nn1.11c:, ___ _
1'. POKPlNC: IIAffk u:vc.•_..:N;.;./:.:A:;.. __ , .•.
aft.er ____ ._bo.ura at. _______ ,.
11. CIILOkINAT101h Type N/A Aao1111t ____ _
11. ana QU1'1.1n, Not TestedT1.:1CPDATUiu:1"ri___·
1t. •1:IIKAHEWT t!IU', Deta laau.lled:.....aNiu./A.._ ___ _
Tn>e ______ c.,;,ac1ty ____ lr,al Ill' __ _
Kake _________ .llluke Depth,_ ___ _
Ail:11M Depth ____ _
LOCATIO:-.· SKI:TCH
l~-~~t~~!!.!!..!.,~d•, ot othet up refU'ftll!• oohul
See Attached Sketch
JD, IIAS THI: owwr~ •Ull ,aov:DCD A COPr VI' THIS JUC0111) AJID lHrCMED or THE DEPART"'1:NT5 ltEOU!U>IV<TS AJ,"0
iu:C0N\DID.\TtC1Hs, __ .Y~e~s.._ __ _
21.-.... ~-----------------,-----------------------
1 do hereby cert.U':r th.at U.ia well vea conau·,lcted in accor~ance with N.C. ~•11 conn.ruction
a.9Ylat.1on1 and &t.•ndardl and c.Mt c.hi• ·nU i•coro 11 true and •••ct.
-.£-, ~ ,, .~ .. /J'I
-------------------
Depth (ft) GrllinShe
0.0-1.5' Clay
5.0-6.5' Fine to medium
10.0-11.5' Fine
15.0-16.5' Fine to coarse
20.0-21.5' Fine to coarse
25.0-26.5' Fine to coarse
30.0-Jl.5' Clay
)5.0-)6.5' Clay
,0.0-,1.5' Clay
• 5.0-,6.5' Coarse
50.0-51.5' Clay
Charles Maoon Drum and Lagoon Site
Project No.z TOO F._&412-0J
Boring No.a IIW-01
Date: February 20. 21. 17&5
Drillers Dan Graham
Field Geologists K. Finder
Subcontractors Graham and Currie WeU Drilling Campany
Sorting HzOContent Llthologic Description
Good Damp Clay. sandy, reddish-brown.
Fair Damp Sand, clayey. reddish-brown. ,
Well Moist Sand, clayey. orange-brown, s-,nd is quartz.
Poor Moist Clay and sand, quartz gravel, sand is fine,
gravel is coarse, orange-brown. grey.
Poor Moist Same as above. except color is mostly grey •.
Poor Moist Same as above. clay 'l6 Is higher than sand 'lr..
Poor Wet Clay, saprolite, coarse quartz and feldspar fragments,
reddish-brown, white. very micaceous. WATER.
Fair Wet Clay. whitish-gray, brown. less quartz, more feldspar.
Fair Wet Same as above, color slightly lighter than previous
sample. micaceous.
Poor Wet Sand. clayey, brown, weathered feldspar streaking •
Poor Wet Clay, saprolite, coarse quartz and feldspar fragments,
brown, white, micaceous.
- - - - ---· --.. ----- - - - -
Charles Macon Drum and Lagoon Site
Boring MW--01
Page Two
Depth (ft)
,,.0-,6.5'
60.0-61.5'
GralnSbe
Clay
Clay
Sorting
Poor
H;zO Content
Wet
Wet
lithologic Description
Clay, saprolite, coarse quartz and feldspar fragments,
brown, white, micaceous.
Same as above, more clay, less feldspar fragments.
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
CHARLES MACON DR!../M AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Well I:
Driller:
Date of Completion:
Drilling Method:
•Elevation (top of pipe):
• Elevation 0and surface>:
• Elevation (water table):
Sorehole Diameter:
Thickness of Overburden:
Depth Drilled in Rock:
Total Depth of Hole:
Type:
Diameter:
Length:
Type of Joint:
Saeen Slot:
Saeen Length:
Saeen Setting: .
Type:
Size:
Depth:
Type:
Method:
Depth:
Method:
Rate of Flow:
Length of Time:
•
MW-01
GMC/Graham & Currie
February 21, 1985
Regular Augers/ Air Rotary
WATER LEVEL INFORMATlON -26.5.41'
262.31°
23.5.34'
BOREHOLE DATA
8"
Unknown o•
60°
CASING
Stainless steel, Schedule .5
411
38°
Threaded/flush
0.01011
20'
35' -.5.5°
GRAVEL/SAND PACK
Washed Sand/cave-in
coarse sand
26' -.5.5°
SEAL
Bentonite Seal
Dropped
231 -26'
DEVELOPMENT
Bailer/Submersible Pump
Unknown
3.7.5 hours
COMMENTS
CROUT
Cement -bentonite
Dropped
0° -23•
• All elevations are recorded adjusted mean sea level (AMSL).
• At end of development, water was sediment free, but cloudy due to colloidal
clay stalning.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•c=====::J'----L°"Nlla CAP
'-----1• PROTICTIVI CAIINa
•••• ••••
•••
~ ""1----C .IWINT PAD
=i _ • IORIHOLI
u
@ ~ ~~--CIWINT-IINTONITI ILURRY
4• ITAINLIII ITDIL CAIINa
~~ 12-21 ,, 1z ,'i'li!i 1i"----■.1NTO•IT■ .... L I•• I. I I I •••••• •••••••• ............... . ..... . . ·••. 'f..11 I I I I I •·.:•·.: •·· .... • •:. :,;• ,•,.~• .~., L---IAND ,ACIC/CA Yl•IN " ............ . •,:; ........ :
la ........ ·;. === ............ · r,..: • •• : •• ==3:~-~. -. .:..•,•i-::,;.,.;..• .r,!•,,--... ·• ITAINLIU ITIIL IC"IIN ,•::,•::, 0.010' ILOT IIZI ••••••• • • • • • • • •
' ... ............. ...,, ...... . ,•♦I::, I ..... I,•:,\':•,::••: ....... :: .. :: ..... ·.:. ·. :: ·. I I I II I I I I II <I I II I I • o· 4-_..;,-'.&1·· ,~· •:...'-:..: •..:'•;i. ··.i,:',lj•'.,:.: ,:.;"i.:,:.i:. .• ·~·
WELL CONSTRUCTION MW-01 CHARLES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITI · RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA ttj~
0 A~ C.orflW'Y
-------------------
~th(ft) Cirain She
0.0-1.)' Coarse
,.0-6.)' Fine to coarse
10.0-11.)' · Fine to coarse
15.0-16.)' Sand is coarse
20.0-21.)' Sand is coarse
25.0-26.)' Sand is coarse
J0.0-)1.)' Sand is coarse
)5.0-)6.)' Sand is coarse
,0.0-'1.,, Fine to medium
• ,.0-,6.)' Fine to medium
,0.0-'1.5' Fine to coarse
Charles Macon 0nm and Lagoon Site
Project No.s TDD F._1,12-0J
Boring No.s MW-02
Dates February 25, 26_ 1915
Drillers Dan Ciraham
Field Geologists K. Finder
Suhoontractor: Ciraham and Cwrie Well Drilling CompanJ
Sorting HzOContent Llthologlc Description
Good Damp Sand, orange-brown.
Fair Damp Sand, cla,e,, few quartz gravellfragments, orange-
brown.
Fair Damp Same as above.
Poor Damp Clay, sandy, saprollte, orange-brown, tan weathered
feldspar.
Poor Damp Same as above, more weathered feldspar, more quartz
gravel.
Poor Damp Same as above, few black organk spots.
Poor Damp Same as above, more black organic spots.
Fair 'l'et Same as above, less weathered feldspar, reddish-
brown, more black organic spots, 'l'ATER.
Fair Wet Sand and day, larger 'll!, of sand here, brown, few
black organic spots •
Fair '&'et Same as above.
Poor Wet Sand and gravel, clayey, higher 'l, gravel, brown,
tan, weathered feldspar.
-------------------
Charles Macon Dnsn arid I agoan Site
Borillg MW..02
PageT-
Depth (ft)
,,.0-'6.5' Medium to coarse
Sorting
Poor
H2QC-tent
Wet
Llthologlc Description
Sarni and gravel, less clay, more gravel, brown, tan,
weathered feldspar.
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WELL CONSTRUCTION INFOP.MATION
CHARLES MACON DRUM AND i.:,GO')N SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Well I:
Driller:
Date of Completion:
DriJling Method:
•Elevation (top of pipe):
•Elevation (Ja.nd surface):
• Elevation (water table):
Borehole Diameter:
Thickness of Overburden:
Depth Drilled in Rock:
Tat al Depth of Hole:
Type:
Diameter:
Length:
Type of Joint:
Saeen Slot:
Saeen Length:
Screen Setting:
Type:
Size:
Depth:
Type:
Method:
Depth:
Method:
Rate of Flow:
Length of Time:
MW-02
GMC/Graham &: Currie
February 26, 198S
Regular Augers/Mud Rotary w/W ater
WATER LEVEL IN1'0RMATION -232.19'
229.30'
193.13'
BOREHOLE DATA
8"
Unknown
0'
61'
CASING
Stainless steel, Schedule 5
4" 41 .,,
TIYeaded/flush
0.010"
20'
38.5'. ,a.,,
GRAVEL/SAND PACK
Washed Sand/cave-in
coarse sand 1 ,, • ,a.,,
SEAL
Bentoni te Seal
Dropped
14'-1''
DEVELOPMENT
Submersible Pump
Unknown
3 hours
COMMENTS
GROUT
Cement -bentonite
. Dropped
0' -14'
• All elevations are recorded adjusted mean sea level (AMSL). • At end of development, water was sediment free, but cloudy due to collcidal clay staining. This water is the cloudiest of the four wells.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•••••
••••• . ,.
LOCltlNO CA, .. ,_ ____ ,. '"ocnrv1 CAIINO .... r"'""'l::~--CIIIIIINT ,AO -~
I II
••••••• ........... .. ....... •:.
e •• •II -I .. : .. :
a• IOIIIHOLI
CIWINT•IINTONITII tLUIIIIY
_INTONITI IIAL
:,•.::·-~ --t"",""' .. r-.~.-r.-t---4' ITAINLIII tTIIIL CAIINI ......... ·:.•
I• I I I I • I .. : .. : ••••••• • • •• • •• • ••• ••• • • • •• • ••• ••• • · ............ . •••••• ••• ••• • • • •• • •• • ••• ••• I I♦ • II • I ...... ·_, ••••••• • ••• •• • • I • e I • ........ ... .. .. . .. I" ••••••
I 1• ••• I ••••••• •• ••• ••• I • I I I I I :!',:!•,:
·••:••· . . . . .. ·_, ••••••• •• ••• ••• ••••••• . .. -.-......... :,•.::·.-: •••••••••••• ••••• ••• .. . .. . .. . .. : ...... .
I ••• ••• 1'1 I I • • I I ··•·······=··=·•!•• •••••••••••••••••• ••_!••!••:••!••·····
••ITAINLIII ITIIL ICIIIIN
0,01 o• ILOT IIZI
WELL CONSTRUCTION MW-02
CHARLES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
--------------------
Depth (ft) Crain Sia!
0.0-1.,. Coarse
,.0-6.,. Fine to coarse
10.0-11.,. · Fine to coarse
U.0-16.,-Sand Is coarse
20.0-21.,. Sand Is coarse
2,.0-26.,. Sand is coarse
J0.0-JI.,-!iand Is coarse
J,.0-)6.,. Sand is coarse
,0.0-'1.,. Fine to medium
,,.0-,6.,. Fine to medium
.50.0-51.,. Fine to coarse
Charles Macon Drum and Lagoon Site
Ptoject No.: TOO F4-ll412-0J
8oring No..i MW-02
Date: Friwuary 2,, 26, 1,11,
Driller: Dan Graham
Field C-logistt K. Finder
Subcontractor: Craham and Ctrrle Well OriUlng Company
Sorting HzOContent llttmloglc Description
Good Damp Sand, orange-brown.
Fair Damp Sand, clayey, few quartz gravelHragments, orange-·
brown.
Fair Damp Same as above.
Poor Damp Clay, sandy, saprolite, orange-brown, tan weathered
feldspar.
Poor Damp Same as above, more weathered feldspar, more quartz
gravel.
Poor bamp San1e as above, few black organk spots.
Poot bamp San,e as above, more black organic spots.
Fair Wet Same as above, less weathered feldspar, reddish-
brown, more black organic spots, WATER.
Fair Wet Sand and clay, larger W. of sand here, brown, few
black organic spots.
Fair Wet Same as above.
Poor Wet Sand and gravel, clayey, higher % gravel, brown, .
tan, weathered feldspar.
--------llliil -liil liii --- - - --
Olilrles Maaln Dnsn and Lagoon Site
Doring MW-42
PqeTwo
Depth (ft)
,,.0-,6.Y
GralnSbe
Medi!A'n to CIOlll'se
Sorting
Poor
H2QContent
Wet
Lithologic Description
Sand and gravel, less clay, more gravel, brown, tan,
weathered feldspar.
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION CHARLES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Well #:
Driller:
Date of Completion:
DriJling Method:
•Elevation (top of pipeh
• Elevation (land surface>:
• Elevation (water table):
Borehole Diameter:
Thickness of Overburden:
Depth Drilled in Rock:
Total Depth of Hole:
Type:
Diameter:
Length:
Type of Joint:
Screen Slot:
Saeen Length;
Saeen Setting:
Type:
Size:
Depth:
Type:
Method:
Depth:
Method:
Rate of Flow:
Length of Time:
MW-03
GMC/Graham &: Cirrie
February 28, 198.5
Mud Rotary w/Vlater
WATER LEVEL INFORMATION ...
226.79'
233.99'
198.60'
BOREHOLE DATA
8"
Unknown o•
60'
CASING
Stainless steel, Schedule .5 4"
33,
Threaded/flush
0.010"
20'
30'. ,o,
CRA VEL/SAND PACK
Washed Sand/cave-in
coarse sand
20' -.50'
SEAL
Bentoni te Seal
Dropped
11' -20'
DEVELOPMENT
Submersible Pump
Unknown
3 • .5 hours
COMMENTS
CROUT
Cement • bentonite
Dropped
0'. 11'
• AU elevations are re-corded adjusted mean sea level (AMSL). • At end of development, water was sediment free, but cloudy due to colloidal clay staining.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
-LOCICINCI CA,
------1• ,11OT■CTIVI CAIINCI
~ l"""-.~•..,---c■WBNT ,AD
1• IOIIIMOLI
, ••-1.. CIWINT•IINTONITU ILUIIIIY
IINTONITI .. AL 10·-~·•.::•.•· It::•.=:· • •• • •• • • -. .. ... . ---f~, .... "'.~,.:., .... 4----•• ITAINLI .. ITIIL CAIINCI ••••••• ••• ••• • •• • •• 10' ... _____ _.._. .......... .
t. •••••• • •• • ••
"'.': ~•,1.••.ii•,.:•:.,•"'----IAND ,ACK/ CA-•IN ···••"•···· ... ••• ••• • •• • •• • • . ... ·••, .::•.=:• •. ··=··=· ............ ••• ••• •• ··=··=· ....... . ... . . . . .. ••••••• , ............ . ••• ••• ~1 .. : .. : .
IO• ➔ .... ,,...,,....,.., ... ~·: ·• .. : ·• -~: • • • • • • • ••••••• ••:••=··= .. • .............. . ........... •··=••: .. :,,: •••••••••••••••••• , ................. . IO' -1, ____ ....:; ·• .. • .. •.:•:.• .. •.,• :.• •;.•,.•~•:.;•._.,..•.,:•.;• .. •:.•.•.,..-.•·u•
WELL CONSTRUCTION MW-03
•• ITAINLIII ITIIIL ICIIIIN 0,0 1 o• ~OT IIZI
CHARlES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA rn~~·
C) A Hllb.m' Co•~
-------------------
Depth(ft)
0.0-1.Y
,.0-6.Y
10.0-11.Y
U.0-16.Y
20.0-21.,
2,.0-26.Y
J0.0-Jl,Y
1,.0-16.J'
,o.O-U.J'
,,.o.,,.,.
,o.o.,i.,-
Charles Macon Drum and lagoon Site
Project No.s TOO Ft-11,12-01
· Boring No.a MW-CM
Datez March I, Z. 1,11,
Orlllen Dan Graham
Field Geologists K. Finder
•
~tractors Graham and Currie Well OrlUlng C,ompany
GralnSbe Sortiftg H,O Cantent Llthologic De,crlptlon
Mediwn to coarse Fair Dry Sand, brown.
Medlwn to coarse Poor Ory Sand and gravel, clayey, orange'-brown.
Fine to medlwn Fair Damp Sand and clay, gravelly, lower _-., gravel, higher 'M, clay, reddish-brown.
Clay Fair Damp Clay, and sand, gravely, small 'M, sand and
gravel, light brown, white.
Sand is medlwn Fair Damp Clay, sandy, saprolite, light brown to red, white, some
weathered feldspar, some black organic spots.
Sand Is medlwn Good Moist Clay, sandy, saprolite, light brown to red,
weathered feldspar.
Sand Is coarse Poor Moist Same as above, orange-brown, bottom six inches -coarse sand and gravel, organics, little clay.
Sand is medlwn Fair Moist Clay, saprolite, sandy, oran&e-light brown,
white, mlcaceous.
Sand is medium Fair Moist Same as above, orange-brown.
Sand Is mediwn Fair Wet Same as above, WATER.
Fine Good Wet Sand and clay, gravelly, brown, white.
liiii liili -' liiliii ' -' -' ilill' lilii -liii' -' -' iiiii -iiiil --' -iiii Charl6 M-. Drum and lagoon Site Boring MW~ Pag,e T-Depth (It) ,,.0-,6.5' 60.0-61.,. GrllinSbe Fine to mane Fine to coarse Sort~ Poor Poor H.zQ.Cantent 'l'et 'l'et Llt'->logic Description Same as above, higher 'Jr, quartz gravel, brown, white, weathered feldspar. Same as above, brown to reddish brown, white, higher 'Jr, quartz gravel. · ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WELL CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
CHARLF.S MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE
IUCHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Well I:
Driller:
Date of Completion:
Drilling Method:
· •Elevation (top of pipeh
• Elevation 0and surface):
•Elevation (water tableh
Borehole Diameter:
Thickness of Overburden:
Depth Drilled in Rock:
Total Depth of Hole:
Type:
Diameter:
Length:
Type of Joint:
Screen Slot:
Screen Length:
Screen Setting:
Type:
Size:
Depth:
Type:
Method:
Depth:
Method:
Rate of Flow:
Length of Time:
MW-04
GMC/Graham l!c Cll'rie
March 2, 198.5
Regular Augers/Mud Rotary w/Vlater
WATER LEVEL INFORMATION -190. 7'3°
117.,a'
J,0.40'
BOREHOLE DATA
S"
Unknown o•
68'
CASING
Stainless steel, Schedule , 411
44'
Threaded/flush
O.OJO"
20°
41°-61°
GRAVEL/SAND PACK
Washed Sand/cave-in
coarse sand
3J • 61 I
SEAL
Bentonite Seal
Dropped
21.,0 -31'
DEVELOPMENT
Submersible Pump
Unknown
2.2, hours
COMMENTS
GROUT
Cement • bentonite
Dropped o•. 2a.,,
• All elevations are recorded adjusted mean sea level (AMSL).
• Very little stalning in this water -cleanest of the four wells.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• . -
/_ • --..... ...
I J. .L I u1.fl •Ji,_,, ••
'" • J ,l
-\1 '11
111• J . .11
: l l , .l l 1 , .1
I JI I J I I 1. 1,
l JI I! I ...
II Ill ,J.lla
I.I I I I 1,.J. I .I J.
ll •.1 l
D J. .l J j .l 1 ll
111
•1 11 .111 .lJI " .. ....
I I 11 I , V
,\ J. I J I I.I
,.l.l .\JI ,iJ •••• .. , . . ,. ' 11//1, -.-......... ,._ .......... , •• ! •• : • ............. , ............
~ ....... ',. •'• ..... • •••••• . ... . . . , ......... ••• ••• •• .. : .. : . '• •, ... · .... · . •• • •• • • • ••• ••• • • •• • •• ••• ••• • II : I I : _I ,•:•,::•,:,
:•.,:•.•; •.:: •.::• . •• • • • • • ••••••• ·.=:•.::• • . ,. •• • •• • • I•• I.-•• I.--. I,-, I I I I I I I I I I I • • • • •• • •• • ••••••• •• ••• ••• ••••• •••••• .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . ' ••••••••••••••••• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • •• ··• ...... ····· ... ··~ ..... : .. : .........
• ••• • • • • • ••• ••• • ••• . . . . .. . .. : ...... ·.•, .................
WELL CONSTRUCTION MW-04
I.OCICI NI CAP
OTICTIVI CAIINQ • "" -
CUii NT PAD
•• 10 RIMOLI
CIWI WT•IINTONITI ILUllln'
IINT ONITI IIAL
... IT AINLIII lfflL CAl•I
IAND
... IT
0
PACIC/ C~ Yl•IN
AINLIII ITlllL ICIIIIN
.O IO' ILOT 81ZI
CHARLES MACON DRUM AND LAGOON SITE R. II ~
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA rn~
C)AH■lbl'D'IC.ol~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix c
Well Casing Material Articles
-,~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
RJ:VIn' OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Various research papers have been prepared relating to appropriate material
selection in groundwater monitoring wells. Four of the more recent
documents included within this Appendix are listed below:
l. Frank H. Jarke, "A Review of Materials Used in Monitoring and
Monitoring Well Construction"., Waste Management, Inc. Document.
2. A. L. Sykes, R.A. McAllister and J.B. Homolya, "Sorption of Organics
by Monitoring Well Construction Materials", Groundwater Monitoring
Review, V. 6, No. 4, pp. 44-41.
3. G. w. Schmidt, "The Use of PVC Casing and Screen in the Presence of
Gasolines on the Ground Water Table", Groundwater Monitoring Review,
1981.
4. G. w. Reynolds and R. w. Gillham, "Absorption of Halogenated Organic
Compounds by Polymer Materials Col!l.lDonly Used in Groundwater Monitors",
The Second Annual Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology:
Hazardous Wastes in Groundwater -A Soluahle-Dilema,-Banff, Alberta,
Canada, June 25-29, 1985.
From material presented in these documents, it can be concluded that rigid
PVC well casing performs as well as Teflon and stainless steel when exposed
to environments expected in a monitoring well.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A REVIEW OF MATERIALS USED IN MONITORING AND
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Frank H. Jarke
Waste Management, Inc. Oak Brook, Illinois
Groundwater monitoring has become the single most important issue concerning storage, treatment and disposal facilities. According to EPA estimates, most landfills which are required to conduct groundwater monitoring programs are "out of compliance" with RCRA regulations.
RCRA regulations parts 40 CFR 264 and 265, Subpart F,. cover groundwater protection. Most comments presented herein are intended to ., apply to both 40 CFR 265 regulations under which all interim status facilities currently operate,. as well as regulations contained in 40 CFR 264. The primary thrust of these comments, however,. is directed at guidance language contained in the draft RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document dated August 1985, (specifically, Section 3. 2.1. ).
The purpose of the groundwater monitoring program is to "determine a facility's impact on the quality of groundwater in the uppermost aquifer underlying the facility". To accomplish this goal, each facility must "install a groundwater monitoring system that is capable of yielding groundwater samples for analysis and must consist of: (1) monitoring
1
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
wells (at least one) installed hydraulically upgradient ... ," and "(2)
monitoring wells (at least three) installed hydraulically downgradient.
Their number, locations, and depths must ensure that they immediately
detect any statistically significant amounts of hazardous waste .... " (40
CFR Part 265). RCRA further states that, "All monitoring wells must be
cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the monitoring wel I
borehole. This casing must be screened or perf9rated, and packed with
gravel or sand where necessary, to enable sample collection at depths
where appropriate aquifer flow zones exist".
Since little or no guidance was provided on appropriate use of casing
material at the time the RCRA regulations were promulgated, most
operators installed PVC casing in both the original and subsequent moni-
taring systems. This material was readily available and was fairly
inexpensive. In the intervening years, a number of questions were raised .., as to exactly what casing material is appropriate for use in a monitoring
well, and some research was initiated to provide guidance in this area.
Initially, many wells were installed using glued joints. Not until the
Agency started requiring extensive organic analyses was it discovered that
glued joints could_ contaminate a monitoring well with such chemicals as
tetrahydrofuran, methyl ethyl ketone and cyclohexanone. Such chemicals
would normally be washed out of an ordinary water well used for domestic
purposes, but for monitoring wells used only once per quarter, the
organics would not likely be totally washed out for years. The reputation
of PVC was thus tainted as some people, unaware of the actual cause,
believed the organics were desorbing from the PVC.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
The second factor which raised some questions was the availability of
alternate casing materials. Materials such as Teflon and 316 stainless
steel were suggested because of their apparent "inertness" primarily with
respect to organics. Teflon has long been thought to be a stable, un-
reactive, "inert" material. This led to the suggestion that Teflon or 316
stainless steel would be preferable to PVC. Barcelona, et al. (1983)1
stated, "A preliminary ranking of commonly u~ed materials !for well
construction] was performed on the basis of chemical compatibHity and
manufacturer's recommendations. Compatibility was judged from the point
of view of potential deterioration of each material. No second order effects
~ ~ adsorption. absorption or leachino were considered". (emphasis
added).
The preliminary ranking presented was:
., Teflon
Stainless Steel 316
Stainless Steel 306
PVC I
Lo-Carbon Steel
Galvanized Steel
Carbon Steel
Barcelona goes on to support his contention that adsorption and
leaching are, indeed, second-order effects. 11Since well casing materials
are rigid and nonporous, they present a very low surface area to water in
the well bore relative to that of the adjacent soil or aquifer particles".
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
He further states, "Thus, the occurrence of adsorptive bias in our
representative water sample, ... would be likely only if the well casing
presented an extremely active surface uncharacteristic of nonporous
materials and if the rates of desorption/adsorption were very fast relative
to the duration of a sampling operation".
The intent of Barcelona's paper was, presumably, to show that under
certain circumstances, such as highly contaminated groundwater, PVC
might not stand up and that it would be prudent to consider Teflon or
stainless steel. However, his conclusion has been extended by the U.S.
EPA to include all monitoring wells without consideration of water quality.
This misinterpretation of the facts forms the background for the current
controversy.
THE CONTROVERSY
The controversy surrounds the August 1985 draft guidance document
entitled "RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Manual" which was intended to help EPA and State enforcement officials
decide whether specific elements of an owner/operator's groundwater
monitoring system satisfy the RCRA requirements. The guidance document
states that only Teflon or stainless steel 316 are acceptable for use as
screen or casing in new well installations. While the agency has backed
off on requiring the use of these materials for the fully cased well to only
that portion located within the saturated zone, the guidance requirement
raises serious questions as to its technical validity.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE CASE OF PVC VS. TEFLON
There are three primary reasons why the U.S. EPA has decided that
PVC is unacceptable as casing material in the saturated zone.
I. The U.S. EPA believes that PVC will not be sufficiently resistant
to attack by concentrated organics. This belief stems from reports of PVC
co1sing installed at CERCLA sites collapsing. after being softened by high
concentrations of organics.
2. The U.S. EPA believes that PVC desorbs or emits contaminants to
otherwise uncontaminated groundwater. This misconception originates
from confusion regarding the previously described problem with glued
joints and also from published work (2,3,4 ,S) that describes the release by
PVC of some organic compounds which are used as plasticizers.
3. The U.S. EPA believes that PVC adsorbs chemicals from the
water, thus delaying the detection of contamination. This belief is ba~ed
on the misinterpretation of the work of Barcelona.
The U.S. EPA believes that Teflon and stainless steel 316 do not
exhibit any of the above problems. Each of these issues will be discussed
in detail below.·
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISCUSSION
The first issue regarding PVC raised by the guidelines is related to
its ability to stand up to high concentrations of chemical solvents. This,
we believe, is a moot point in this discussion. The issue is whether PVC
is adequate for use in detection monitoring wells at RCRA facilities .. Our
experience with almost 3,000 monitoring wells suggests that interim status
facilities designed to RC RA specifications, i.e. double liners, leachate
collection sytems, etc., have yet to detect migration of organic '
constituents in high concentrations that would threaten the integrity of
PVC casing. Even in cases where contaminants have reached the parts
per million level, no instance of PVC casing failure !;las occurred to the
best of our knowledge.
The second issue involves the reported desorption of contaminants to ~
otherwise clean groundwater. This issue has been fairly well covered in
the literature as to sources, types of contaminants, expected
concentrations and under what cc:,di:ior,s desorption would be expected.
As pointed out by Barcelona, 1 the use of only National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF) tested and approved PVC formulations can be expected
to reduce the possibility of desorption of either residual monomer, fillers,
stabilizers or plasticizers.
well installation equipment
desorption of contaminants.
Proper cleaning of the well casing material and
will further reduce the possibility of later
The exclusive use of threaded joints prevents any residual chemicals
from solvent-cemented joints from contaminating the groundwater. This
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
has been the major problem with organic contaminants in monitoring wells.
Testing for other additives typically found in PVC formulations is not
generally tested for under any of the current monitoring protocols.
Curran and Tomsons investigated the leaching characteristics of rigid PVC
and various other plastics used in well construction and sampling.
Looking at their data, it is clear that desorption from rigid PVC is at least
as low as from Teflon and may be slightly lower. They concluded," ...
that rigid PVC is an acceptble alternative to Teflon for monitoring
wells ... "
The final issue, that of adsoprtion or absorption (collectively referred·
to as sorption) of groundwater constituents on PVC casing, is cited as
the major problem in the guidance documents. The guideline suggests that
sorption would tend to lower the amount of contaminant in a monitoring
well sample to the point where it might go undetected (false negative).
The possibility of a false °"negative is of prime concern to the U.S. EPA
and other regulatory agencies.
Absorption is the process in which molecules enter the spaces between
other molecules, much as water is absorbed by a sponge. This process is
not an equilibrium ·pr-ocess, but will continue as long as there is a driving
force pushing the molecules into the matrix and capacity exists in the
substrate to absorb additional molecules.
In the case of organic molecules In aqueous solution in a monitoring
well casing, the rate of absorption is proportional to the concentration.
Berens6 reported that for concentrations of organics up to 25%, and
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
assuming the wall thickness of typical PVC pipe, the time lag between
initial exposure and breakthrough would be roughly 50,000 years. The
steady-state rate of permeation (which is related to absorption) even after
6000 years would be only 20 micrograms per square meter of surface area.
Clearly, this rate of permeation is negligible when one considers that the
time from proper flushing of a well prior to sampling to completion of
sampling activities is usually on the order of a few-hours.
Adsorption is an equilibrium process in which molecules that contact a '
surface adhere to it for some period of time. Adsorption is the first step
in absorption, which is then followed by diffusion of the molecules into the
surface substrate. Absorption would be expected to be a much Jess
important process than adsorption in this controversy because the
diffusivities of organic molecules in PVC (10-14 cm2/sec) are much lower
than the diffusivities in water. Hence, many more organic molecules will ....
contact the surface of the PVC per unit time than wlll diffuse into the
substrate.
Al I surfaces adsorb. The forces that hold a molecule to a surface
are electric in nature (Van der Waal's forces) and are dependent on the
structure of the molecule, and the temperature and nature of the
-adsorbing medium. The rate of adsorption is controlled by two factors,
the length of time each molecule adheres to the surface and the rate of
diffusion of the molecule to the surface.
The length of time a molecule spends adsorbed to a surface is
dependent only on its heat of adsorption. For organic molecu_les that
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
might be found in contaminated wells, the length of time of adsorption
would be on the order of 10-s seconds. Only one layer of molecules can
be adsorbed on a surface at one time which is commonly referred to as a
monolayer. Thus, for any given surface area, only so many molecules can
be adsorbed at equilibrium.
At least three notable experimental efforts to _determine the magnitude
of adsorption of organics on PVC, Teflon and other mat.erials have
appeared in the literature.
The first is a paper by Barcelona 7 which deals exclusively with
sorption of organics on various polymeric tubing materials associated with
sampling equipment. He states explicitly in the paper: "The tubing
material is more critical than that used · for well casing under most
conditions." Barcelona adds that, 11 Jn both tubing studies, sorpti_on was
"' at least two orders of magnitude greater than that o.bserved by Miller,
1982 (18), for rigid PVC, PE and PP well casing materials," and "Under
equivalent conditi.:>ns, the sorptive capacities of the corresponding !:.i.9.!.£
well casing materials are much below those of the tubing materials".
( Emphasis added.)
Barcelona's experiments involved only fresh 1/4-inch i. d. tubing of
various polymeric types. The experiments show that 10 to 20 minutes are
required to reach equilibrium;
zero. While his experiments
i.e., for the rate of sorption to drop to
are valid for sample tubing materials, he
concedes that these materials (except Teflon) contain up to 50!1, foreign
ingredients (plasticizers) included in the formulation to produce the
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
necessary flexibility. The sorption results for rigid materials may,
therefore, be as much as two orders of magnitude less.
The second experimental work performed by Reynolds 8 dealt with
rigid PVC, but unfortunately included a comparison with only Teflon
tubing. Therefore, while the comparison of the two materials may be
biased, the results for the rigid PVC should be valid.
Reynolds concludes that," Of particular interest in this study were
the results with PVC and Teflon. PVC only absorbed 4 of the 5
compounds, and the rate of absorption was sufficiently slow that
absorption bias would likely not be significant for these compounds should
well development and sampling take place in the same day. Telfon showed
similar results." (Emphasis added.)
"' The above two studies were performed for different test periods.
The Barcelona experiment was conducted over 10 minutes to 60 minutes,
and the Reynolds experiments over 10 minutes tc 50,000 minutes. both
tests determined the sorption of each compound for the different well
materials.
The Barcelona study used chloroform, trichloroethane, trichloro-
ethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. The Reynolds study used trichloro-
ethane and 1, 1, 2, 2 -tetrachloroethane, bromoform, tetrachloroethylene, and
hexachloroethane. The Barcelona study compared Teflon tubing with
flexible PVC tubing, while the Reynolds study compared Teflon tubing with
rigid PVC, the material actually used in well casing.
,o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The results of the two studies are presented in Table 1. The results
clearly show a significant difference between rigid PVC and flexible PVC.
Although two of the chemicals tested by Barcelona and three of the
chemicals tested by Reynolds are not the same, chemicals used by
Barcelona show an average sorption rate for flexible PVC of 25 times more
than the sorption rate of chemicals used by Reynolds for rigid PVC. The
Barcelona study further shows that flexible PVC sorbs roughly three times
as much as the Teflon tubing, while the Reynolds study shows that, on
the average, the rigid PVC sorbs slightly less than the Teflon tubing.
Assuming that these sorption rates are also valid for shorter
exposure periods representative of monitoring sampling, one can
calculate sorption for a hypothetical 'case using a well casing four inches in
diameter, ten feet long, filled with water contaminated with one of the
chemicals used in the above tests at the 10 parts per billion (ppb) level.
""\ If the well casing were Teflon, and the chemical were tetrachloroethylene,
the maximum that would be sorbed would be 16 percent. None would be
sorbed by the rigid PVC. If the chemical were trich!crot:-tl 1ane, .the
maximum sorbed by the rigid PVC would be 6 percent. In neither case
would the analytical uncertainty levels be exceeded.
More recently, a paper by Kresse9 describes a test performed on
" ... finely-ground PVC to increase the surface contact area between the
sample containing the solvent and the PVC, so the test shows a much
higher potential for adsoprtion than would be expected to occur in a well.
The test shows that if the contact time between PVC casing and the
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1
Comparison of Well Material Sorption
( in ,A.l.g/m')
Chemical
Chloroform
Tri ch lo roe t.ha n e
Trichloroet.hylene
Tetrachloroethylen~
1122-Tetrachloroet.hane
Hexachloroethane
Bromoform
Average
Test time
Barcelona, et.al.
60 min.
TFE
40
iO
105
56
PVC
(flexible)
150
145
160
160
154
Reynolds, et.al.
200 min.
TFE
10
41
0
4
0
11
PVC
(rigid)
16
0
8
4
5
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
groundwater is minimized, representative samples to test for the solvents
can be obtained. Therefore, the use of more expensive
materials for well construction may be wasteful". (Emphasis added.)
Since none of the experiments reported to date addressed what we
feel is a key
construction,
experimental
issue with regard to the use of these materials in well
we have conducted a series of experiments of our own. The
protocol appears in Appendix A. The issue that this
experiment addresses Is that of absorption on previously exposed casing
surfaces. Exposure of monitoring well casing material to contaminated
formation water for a sufficient length of time to allow dynamic
equilibrium between the material surface and the organic molecules to be
established may result in some adsorption (up to 20%) when the materi_al is
fresh, as illustrated in Figure 1.
"'\
However, proper sampling techniques require that the stagnant water
be removed (purged) from a well prior to sampling. This has the effect of
removing water from the well that may have lost up to 20% of the organics
through sorption and replacing it with formation wate'r representative of
the ambient organic concentration. Because this new water is in. contact
with the already saturated surface of the well casing for as short a time as
one hour; and probably no longer than 24 hours, the real issue is how
much sorption takes place under these conditions? The results of our
experiments which were designed specifically to answer this question are
shown in Figures 2 and 3. In both cases, and for all materials exposed,
the net sorption is nominally zero. While admittedly there will be some
experimental error associated with these tests and time did not permit us
. l.
-------------------
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER ONE WEEK EXPOSURE
( :t OF CONTROL)
100
90
80
70
J .., .... ..,
C 80 .. .. ~ u
I: 50
"' L
40
20
10
0
t.lECL DCEE DCE TCEE TOL Ct,EN
IZ:'.:_.,J PVC ~ TEFLON fS2l ss
-------------------
.., ..... oc
C .,
n,
~ z w u
IS
L
110
100
90
1!10
70
110
50
JO
20
10
0
MECL
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER 1 HR. RE-EXPOSUR°E
( :t OF CONTROL )
OCEE OCE TCEE TOL
kZ_.d PVC K:§J TEFLON l'\ZI S.S.
CBEN
-------------------
I-"'1 ..... z 00 w C ... u n, ct:
'"' w
L
120
110
100
90
80
70
eo
-40
JO
20
10
0
MECL
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER 24 HR. RE-EXPOSURE
( ,C OF CONTROL )
Fl ~
! j I
,:
DCEE DCE TCEE TOL
~ PVC F.::::§J TEFLOM CS:,,=:] s. s.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to carry out the experiment in duplicate or triplicate, the result still is
obvious --rigid PVC well casing performs as well as, If not better than,
Teflon or stainless steel.
13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
1. Michael J. Barcelona, James P. Gibb and Robin A. Miller, ''A Guide to the Selection of Materials for Monitoring Well Construction and Groundwater Sampling", ILL. State Water Survey, 1983.
2. G.A. Junk, H.J. Svec, R.D. Vick and M.J. Avery, "Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer Tubes", Env. Sci. and Tech, 1974, 8, 1100.
3. E.A. Boettner, G. L. Ball, F. Hollings·worth and R. Aquino, "Organic and Organotin Compounds Leached From PVC and CPVC Pipe". EPA 600/1-81-062, 1981.
4. J.B. Sos~bee, P.C. Geiszler, D.L. Winegardner and C.R. Fisher, "Contamination of Ground Water Samples with PVC Adhensives and PVC Primer from Monitor Wells". Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Gainesville, FL., 1982.
5. G.M. Curran and M.D. Tomson, ''Leaching .of Trace Organics into Water fr.om Five Common Plastics". Groundwater Monitoring Review, 1983, 3, 68.
6. Al Berens, "Prediction of Organic Chemical Permeation Though PVC Pipe", submitted to J. of Aro. Water Works Assoc., November~. 1984.
7. M.J. Barcelona, J.A. Helfrich and E.E. Garske, ''Sampling Tubing Effect on Groundwater Samples", Anal. Chem., 1985, 57,460.
8. G. W. Reynolds and R. w. Gillham, "Absorption of Halogenated Organic Compounds by Polymer Materials Commonly Used in Groundwater Monitors", The Second Annual Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology: Hazardous Wastes in Groundwater -A Soluable Dilema, Banff, Alberta, Canada, June 25-29, 1985.
9. F.C. Kresse, "Exploration of Groundwater Contamination", Bull of the Assoc. of Eng. Geol., 1985, 22,275.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
CHEt1ICAL WASTE MANAGEt1ENT, INC.
TECHNICAL CENTER
RESF.AOCH PRCGRAM
Msorption of Organics by 1-bnitoring Well Construction Materials
August 27, 1985
Introduction
It has long been recognized that polyrreric materials tend to adsorb
organic carq:ourxls. Recently, regulatory agencies have questioned the
feasibility of the use of PVC as a well-casin_g material in ground-water
rronitoring wells, due to its potential for adsorption of hydrophobic
ccrnpounds. The agencies have been praroting the use of stainless steel
or Teflon instead. Recent studies cx::rnparing the adsorption capabilities
of PVC, Teflon, and other polyrreric materials (1,2) have led to
ronflicting, results. Due to confusion in the literature on the relative
rrerits of Teflon versus PVC, and to the adverse econanic impact of the
use of rrore expensive casing materials in potentially th:>usands of
·wells, OlM has undertaken this study to directly cx::rnpare adsorption
capabilities of PVC, Teflon, and stainless steel on organic ccmp:::;un:l.s
camonly found as ground-water contaminants.
1-bnitoring wells are generally p.rrged before sarrpling. Depending on the
recharge rate of the well, sampling is perforned anywhere fran 1 to 24
hours after purging. Between samplings, the well casing material is in
constant cont.act with ground water. In addition to the basic question
of adsorption capability of different materials, this study will also
investigate adsorption capabilities of casing materials which have been
allawed to attain sorbtion--oesorbtion equilibrium with trace-;:,rganic-
contarninated water.
The study will consist of two phases. In Phase I, different. well
materials will be exposed to water spiked with two different levels of
organic caip:,nents (10 and 100 ppb per carq:onent). Cont.act ti.Ire will be
one week. The water will be analyzed for volatile ·ccrnponents by purge
and trap GC/IDJ to determine adsorption capability of different
materials on various organics. Adsorption equilibrium will be ass\Jlre(l
to be ~lete at this ti.Ire. (This may have to be verified later.)
In Phase II, the well materials fran Phase I will
solutions of identical concentrations as in Phase I.
(1 hour and 24 hours) will be investigated.
Apparatus and Materials
be re-exposed to
'I\..Q contact ti.Ires
1) Well Material Coupons: One inch O.D. tubes of 316 stainless
steel and of PVC fran Brainard Kilman Co. and two inch Teflon
tubing fran Fluor=arbon Co. will be used for coupons. This
material will be cut to fit the exposure jars and to give a
surface area of 10,000 mn' per coupon. 'I\..Q coupons will be
used per jar to give a volurre/surface ratio equivalent to that
of a two inch ITDnitoring well.
-1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) Solvents: All solvents will be Chrarotography grace and will
be used without further purification. A stock spiking solution
ccnt.aining Methylene Chloride, l, 2-Dichloroethane, Trans
Dichloroethylene, Trichloroethylene ,. 01.lorobenzene, and Toluene
at concentrations of 1000 rrg/1 each will be prepared in a
Methanol solvent. The stock spiking solution will be further
diluted in rrethanol so that 1.0 ml of rrethanol solution will be
required per liter of water to obtain final desired
ccnce.ntration.
3) Water: D:ionized, carl::on filtered water will be used without
further purification.
Procedure
Well rraterial coup:ms will l::e placed in glass jars which will be the.'1
carpletely filled with spiked water soluticn so that no head space
rerrains. Jars will be stored at constant ~ature and agitated once
per day. After a seven day contact period, an aliquot of the liquid
will be taken by pouring for analysis . A se=nd aliquot will be poured
into a 40-ml Teflon capped vial with zero head space for preservation.
The remaining liquid will be discarded. The jars, with the original
coup:ms, will be then re-filled with organic-spiked water of the sarre
concentration as in the seven day cont.act tirre. After a cont.act period
of one hcur, aliquots will l::e again taken for analysis and preservation.
The jars will be re-filled with organic-spiked water for a contact
period of 2~ h:Jurs, after which a third aliquot will t:e ta.Y.en for
analysis. Control sa.~les, ccnsisting of spiked water with r.o well
rraterial ccupons will., t:e carried through the entire procedure for each
spike concentration. Blank samples, consisting of pure, unspiked water
will t:e carried through as well.
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Msorption of Organics by Well Materials -Analytical Procedure
Tre analytical procedure will essentially follaw EPA ~th:xl 601 (fran "Test ~thods for Organic Olernical Analysis of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater", EPA 600/4-82-057, July, 1982) with the follo.ri..ng m:x:li f ica tions.
1.1 Scop.. and Application
The scope of the ar.-,lytical procedure will be limited to the follcwi.ng pararreters:
Methylene 01.loride
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Oilorot::enzene
Toluene
2 .1 Nitrogen will be used as the P-ll"ge gas.
6.5 Stock Standard Solutions
6. 5 .1 A stock solution of naninal 1000 rrg/1 will be prepared by adding 100 ul (i.e., approximately 0.1 gm) of each ccrr;:onent
to 90 ml of reagent grade rrethanol, and then diluting to 100 ml with rrethanol. Exact concentrations will be determined
fran the densities of the individual c:oip:,nents.
The sarre stock solution will be use:l. for preparation of the organic standards, as 1"'=11 as for the preparation of the fortified water to be use:l. in the adsorption of the 1"'=11
material.
7. 4 Internal Standard Calibration
7.4.2 A spiking solution of 15 rrg/ml 1,4-Dichlorobutane is used as the internal standard. Response factors will be determined
at three consecutive levels for the pararreters of interest.
8. C\lality Control
8 .1. 3 Every tenth sample must be duplicated and spiked to rronitor analytical performance. Spike levels will be determined by
the arrount of analyte present in the sample, i.e., a sarrple with 1000 ppb of each a:nponent \..Ould be fortified with an
additional 1000 ppb.
8. 2 .1 A guali ty control check sample will be prepared using the stock solution of the a:npounds of interest. In addition,
the internal standard will be rronitored as an instrurrent perfonrance check. Retention time, area counts, and peak width wi 11 be recorded according to <:w-1 Q: procedures.
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9. Sanple Collect.ion, Preservation, and Handling
9.1 !Xlplicate sarrples will l::e obtained at each s~li.ng.
Sarrples will 1:e collected by pouring the spiked water fran
the 125 ml jars into t\o.Q 15 ml vials with teflon-lined caps.
These 15 ml vials will then 1:e refrigerated until ready for
analysis.
10. Sarrple Extraction and Gas Ouurow,raphy
10. 2 The syste-n will be calibrated daily by the use of the Q:::
check sample.
10.3 Purge gas will be 40 ml/min nit.ro;en.
10. 4 The SaJ!l)le wi 11 be intrcduced into the p.1rging chamber by
i;ouring frcrn the 15 ml vial.
10.6 The SaJ!llle will be purged for 10.0 minutes.
Additional Ccmrents on Analytical Procedure
For preparation of the fortified water to be used in the absorption
experirrent, the proper sto:k dilution will first be prepared in
rrethanol. Then 1. 0 ml of the rrethanol solution will be added to 1. 0 L
of D. I. water. The fortified water will then be i;oured into the 125 ml
bottles for the desorption experiJTent.
Six chemicals will l:e., tested at two different concentrations, n::rninally
10 Pl=b and 100 pp:> using three materials of construction. Each material
at each dilution will be sampled three tirres. The first tirre will be
after one week exposure. Then the week-old spiked water will l:e poured
out, and replaced with fresh spiked water. SaJ!llles for analysis will
then be taken at one hour and at 24 hours.
Whenever samples for analysis are taken (2 x 15 ml = 30 mll, an addi-
tional 30 ml of s~le water will l:e added to the bottle to eli..minate
head space. Thus, after the one-week aliquots are taken, the sa.'l'f'le can
be held for several ITOre days ·before proceeding with the one hour and
one day sarrpling.
Thus, total number of s~les will be:
3 rraterials x 2 dilutions x 3 SaJ!l)lings = 18
+ (1 blank + 1 control) x 2 dilutions x 3 samplings = 12
= 30 total samples
-4-
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Since a blank plus a quality sanple nust be analyzed daily, and since
tre total p..,.rge and run tirre will be approx.inately one tour, a maxinun
of six sarrples can be analyzed per day (this does not include the
duplicate and spike of the tenth sanple).
Peferenc:es
l. k2ynolds, Glenn W and Gillham, Robert W, Absorption of
Halogenated Organic Carp:,unds by Polyrrer Materials Camonly
used in Groundwater lt>nitors, Seoond Annual Canadian/Arrerican
Conference on Hydrogeology: Hazardous Wastes in Ground Water,
June 1985, Bauff Alberta, canada.
2. Barcelona, Michael, Helfrich, John A, Garske, Ed'ward E,
Sarrpling Tubing Effects on. Grc:,,,,md.;ater Sarrples, Anal. Olern.
1985, 57, 460-464 (unp.iblished).
Schedule
Start exposure
1st sanples
1-1 hr. sanples
Re-expose 24 hr.
Re-exfose 1--wh sarrples
Data Analysis
Rep::>rt Preparation
Septenber 5
Septenber 12
Septenber 12
Septenber 13
Sept.ember 20
Septarcer 23 -27
Septenber 27 -O::tober 1
I
i ' 1:
i
i
ll
Ii:
Sorption of Organics by
~onitoring \Veil Construction
Jv12terials
by ,.d...L Sykes, R.A. ]cfcAllisrer
and J.B-Homol_ra
Inrroducion t;., ........ b~~~~: of:be 2..:Z.bi~r cr,:-;:-.;c ::i~:-::.-:-In A.l.!..r.!Si of 19~ th= E:ni.ro~=:..al P:cr:=:ion ricn. a.=i..ci v.:ou.id be:!! ;:o:u.~: ""1.~ lDe sa~-m:-d s-,.Hi~: ;f P._g:::cy ~::~::: a Cr~·: g,..!..iC~c: cioc=:=.e:11 t~i .. ..: t±..:~..J c:::c--=-~.for a pciod orDe:-.:;.~ o~ d ~.!. bo~ "RCR.A. Grou,icwar:: .Mocitor.n.£ Te::::.n.ic.:ti E.:ifor~-· be:or-e s=piing. Tc::e:ore, a ;e::-i~ of ::;i'e::-ir:,:::ts we:e c:~t GuiC2.!lc: 1'-fanu~" which .;as i.nte:1cie-:i to h:!:, · · conducr:d to IIIve~ri~te t.3e pore:iiial of e:-wosed c~be: · EPA and sw.e ::i.forc=:u ofiic'..als &6:ie wh:the: ro~-· · nmcia!s to fur.he: s6rptioo by n:::iar,e • of the w::L _ · ~iic :!~e:.!.S of an OVw'De:j occ:-ator's E!OU!Jd ware:' m~~-... : R!:sult.s of tbos: =~~~,me:m d.!.:::nons~ that for ail · ·it□ring sys~:n satisfy the RC~u~::ue~!S-T.ae ~..!.id-.. n:21::ials =~□s~·:1 f~r ~otb th: on: 21:d 2.:! hour C2!:s, the . anC'!' doc-.1menr states th2t po1yte-:r-a..fluoroe:byie;e 'Or ne: Sory~ion ·~-~ ~o~a!ly z~:o: Tnes: :::sc!t.s~ howc·:e:, Type 316 ,..2in.Jess s-~! are the mate:-',.;.!.; of choic: as· we.: ornnrre=nary oe:ause cr.e Stuaywas limited to a :·. scr:::i ·or ca.sing in new Well in.s:allations wber: volat.ue Si'i2:1 nL!.!Dbe:-of expcsur:·s2.mpies1 makL~g a statistical ·:, , .. ·. organics are the paramete:s ofime::st. Sine: 00 !!Uidar,c: . im::;,n::at.ion of the data impossible. . · · : ~:: ·. was provided on appropriate use of ca.sine mate;al at tl:e · -." · Tne ·major ted·..nical question resulting from WM!'s _ : ,:::_.;-; time th~ RCRA _regulat/ons · were pro;;,uigated, mos, ·· ·• · preliminary r:searc!i program was the use of methanol as :,'
0
. ···operators installed PVC ca.sine in both the oricinal and a means of dissolvin2 sorbates of interest into water for subsequent monitoring syste~ because this maierial had material exposure st~dies. Since the final !eve! of meiha-bee? used for years in the waler well industry, is readily no! in water was sienificant!v 2rcater than the sorbates it .. ·.-.. , avadabk, aad is fairly inexpensive. :·. : . -. .. · ·.• is possible that the expos;d-material surfaces ·beca~e ,_:/_ ,/.' ·. ·.,The EPA has cited a _number of reasom~hy PVC is saturated with a mono-laye_r of methanol, preventing any ,.-~ : .. ,:· not an acceptable ma ten al for well construction. These sorption ofother organics. Radian's studies were designed · ~::_{_'_:),,include: .' · · to address the criticisms of the WMI wcirk. Conseq'uenily, ... . .. . . . methanol was not used as a vehicle for introducing sor-·:-: '· · ~ Potentialforcasingattackandfatiguebyexposure 'bates to the water.matrix. Each component was spiked to high :oncentrations of certain organic compounds directly into pure water. Also, each experiment was done •i-•'. '. ~• Desorption of plasticizers and additives from the _: h triplicate wit~ full quality assurance and control well casing to otherwise uncontaminated ground water ,. procedures followed throughout. (false posi_tive) . , · ... · .. ·... .... . .... ·__:.,·.;· .. :: ... • Sorption of organic compounds into the well c·as: i?g exposed to contaminated gcound water (false nega-
. -· •."··~
Technic:il Approach
·'
tive). . ·
Sorption was c:ted as the major problem in the 2ui-da.nce docaJ1ent, sine: the possibiiitv of a false ne2a~ive is of prime concern to the EPA a;d other re~uiatorv agencies. -·
· · ·'·In August of 1985, Waste Man~gement Inc. (Jarke 1986) conducted a preliminary research program designed as a practical and realistic evaluation of the potential for sorption to occur for PVC and other materials of eon-struction expected in monitoring wells. This study was · designed to address the potential for sorption of pre-viously exposed casing surfaces. Proper moni1oring we!I sampling protocols require that the stagnant water (in equilibrium with the casing) be pumped from a well prior to s;impling. The rcchJrgt of formJtion w:.itcr would
fall Inf, C\\',\Jll
Well i\bteriol Coucons: All materials wer: obt2ined from Braint1.rd-K:lm~n Drii! Co. (Stan: lv!ountai~. Georgia). The PVC was "Triloc Monitor Pipe," 2-inc:: (51 mm) l.D. by2l1,-inch (60mm) O.D. The stainless mei was "Armco Welded 2-inch Type 316." 2¼-inch (56mm) I.D. by 21/,-inch (60mm) O.D. The polytetrafluoroethy-lene (virgin PTFE) was 2¼-inch (52mm) I.D. by 2½-inch (60mm) O.D. All coupons were cut to a length of 53mm, which produced a surface area of l00cm1 per coupon. Each eoupon was then cut once lengthwise to allow placement into a 237 ml jar. The tube edges were not · considered to be a factor in this studv. E~posurc hrs: The e.,posure j;rs were "Quorpak Clear with TFE-lincd" screw caps 237 ml capacity (:actuJI 260 ml with no hc:ad sp:1cc). These j:1rs wrcc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
,..
Sol"cn1s: All sohe:its wecc purchased as chromatog-
raphy grad: and we;: used without funher purification.
A s1ock soik,:i• solution containine mcthvlenc chloride (McC I 2)." 1,2-<lichloroethane ( 1,2:DCE): trans-1,2-di-
chloroc:hy!e~e (DCEE), tolue:ie and chlorobe:iz::ie at a conc=n1rat:on of JO ppm each was pre?ared in distilled/
. _d::onized wai::. A second spiking solution was prep~rcd
containing 0.5 ppm trichloroe1hyle:ie (TCEE) in dis-
@e~/C'!:oniz~d wJre:-. Tn.i.s s~:;:i.ra.re s:;i.k: W:l! or::,jr::d
.be:::n:!:: of Tc~·! .t:::.!~:: iol,.l;"~:-scil!;.8:y in \~at:·: (LI
""FF=) ~:.::!:i :!::: OiZ:~ :...,1..-:-OL?":'"~C£.
\Y:it:~ D~~:=:. C.::o-·-·:: c:::.rbnn 17'~:::::-.-,~:·..\·as
nuur::i, a11c:: \\ f11ch a thirJ ah4u0t \1,·a.s take::, for anah·sis
Control samples, consisting of spiked wa1c, with no ·weli
material coupons were carried through the e:itire proce-dure. Blank samples, consisting or pure, unspiked wa1er
and no coupons were carried through as wc!I.
S2mple A ... 'lalysis
The ano.lytical procedure followed was E!'A l'vk:hod
602 (E?A 190~). which uses gZ!.5 chror.1a1og-r;;phy with fl::.n:: :ritr-:-..,,..;on d::~c:.iou. Tne :sc:::.!.!.:-:inc:>r:-o~~ c.
Pure-• a::i.d ~-:-r .. -:.,.,;c"• t0 ·c ....... ,..-~-~ .. ,~.: ,-o:-::.~; .. =· ' ;.....,;.=' --~ _ .... _ ....... __,_~ i..:..;_ ·--orgcics.fron:; w~: s~pi.=. To:~-..:..:=:::: U!:= 'J.'c.! 2.
V 2.1~ ;tUO:.z=C ±.: Ca.t:2 s:•~-=~ \::.·~ a V.,. '.c ': \:--!S!2.lf.!:.
T:i: =oiu:::::! v.-as I ..3m ~ ~ ~-~=~-~~ ;;cci::d v:iri Proce!im:e ··•• .. -· l p:~:-:.~ S?-lOGO en G°ooF;:i..ci.: E 60/ SO r::.:!:i:. Ta:: _ P7-e?ar:irion oi Gla..c-s JJ.I'!: T.n: ~~! jars :,~d lie! te=.ce:-2.!'=: of th: ov::. was il:;U2..!.Iv ar 45 C fur tb:r::: :...,_.e:-!" =~~ c:::LlJ~ s;.-it=i sv:i.::-a.nd -;;at~:-foilo,;,:e~ bv rcin-u~.tb.!:iprog!-;_•-•:ito.200 C :ai 15 C p::-, ; ... ,~;• . ~·· C~..iI::'./ d::o=i:::: •.-.;u::-~~-Eacij::..r a::d iiC ·,i,·as :z:; Tu.: n.iirog::i c-~~;e; g::..s w2.5 se: z..t 30 ml. pc::-rci.uu!: /drie:i at 100 C. · . _ .. --. . • , ti:.rougb. the coiu= a!!d 40 mL pe: minute throt!g!l the ':::-_. Solution St.:1buitY Srudie5: Prior 1ci Llie mate:ial Tckm.a!-LCS-1 Purg,: and Tra?. Eac:i sa.mpie anAlyzed f: e~?0Sure srl!cies, t.'ie-10 p~m "1Jd 0-5 ppm.spik.in.g.solu-was rr=fe:i-::d to a 5 mL gas tight syringe eqcippe:i wi1h :-.r .:joru we:-e :·.cluat:d .forsi..c.bilirv a:n'd tl.e !"mtabilirv of the-a s2..!I!;le valve. Te:1 mic:-olit~ of a thr=-:-:orc.?oi:e~t .,.. -.;::..:s: protocoi Gesig:.: Six 1.60 m.Ljars with foii-lin~d caps inte~ai s:.a:.da.--d mu (J5 r.g,'µL) \Vas ;J.CC:d to e:::.c:1.
I'
I
I
r:;,a.-_e:: fiiled .(-.--i1hou1 he~c space) ·-.,.ith aiio_uots oi the sampie through the syringe to produce a conce:itra.!ion '('_spiking soiu1ions a.~d pure w2tc: to yield approxin:.at.e!y of 30 ppb. The three in1e:nal standarcis were bromoc:ilo-.\~:)00 ppb 6fc2ch component. An additional six jars vierc . . romc,hane, l-<:hloro-2-bromopropane and 1,4-dichloro-·).'.;'fiiled with pu,e water and represented water blank.; for . butane. .. ··-· ·:• _:;;_. ;,·:·:::·::, ,., _,,·;;· .. •:; ·,. ;.~: the study. After a one_-hour period, an aliquot from each ·. One exposure level for each compound was studied. ?Jar was transferred to a Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA) These ranged between 87 and 150 ppb. The conce:ma-•:i,jial (polymrafluoroethylene-lined cap) and stored in a lions varied because the same mass of each compound 'i-.. refrigerator a1 5 C for a sevcn-<lay period. At the end of was used to prepare the stock-spiking soluiion of each ;\the seven days, the original slOck-spiking solution was compound. The density was then used to calculate exact :i:u.sed to prepare a JOO ppb component solution .quxture concentrations.·· .. ,: . .. -, .. '.;.::= which was then aliquoted to 2 VOA vials for analysis. -:-· --.-·The following is a list of each compound studied ar,d .i:? Additional VOA aliquots were taken from the original · the concentration level prepared in the exposure medium: >,·:"._260 ml jars and used for analysis. On day nine, all VOA h I hi··· "d "···Vt• J I · 1 d f met v enc c on e 133 ppb ·'°· : a samp cs were again ana yze and compared to rcshly 1 2-d, hi h 126 0 .• d "k d O • . , 1c oroct anc ._, .. prepare soi e water. ne,nally, these exposures were t 1 2-d-hi h I 123 -.:. · · ... rans-1c oroet v ene :,;}9 be at two lcvc(s, 10 ppb and 100 ppb, bu~ due to the trichlo;oeth Jene -147 ". unacceo1ablc variance of compound recovenes from the I y j ·• ·• • to uene 87 , ... spiked water a1 10 ppb, onlv the 100 ppb level was used hi b 110'·· ' · f · · c oro enzc ... · or the exposures. · ·
. . We!! :'>faterial Coupon Exposure Studies: Well mate-·. nal ccepons we~e piaced ir. foil--covered glass jar.; and
.;,. fiiled wi1h spiked wate: solution so that no h:ad space • re:nained. The water solutions were spiked al levels lo
:, Yie!d com;,one:it concen1ra1ions bc:ween 90 and 150 ·;° Ppb. The jars were stored al 5 C in a refrigerator for ::,_ seven davs and a~i1a1ed dailv. After the scvcn-davcondi-
; ·1ioning pe:iod, ;n aliquot ·was pipe11ed into~ 40 ml
:._ VOA vial wi1h zero head space for analysis. A second ~'. al1quo1 was also pipe11ed into a 40 ml vial and stored at .· · -~ Casa preserved sample. The remaining solution in the
~::-Jar Was discarded. The jars, wi1h the original coupons,
·., Were then refilled with organic-spiked waler of the same ·._. toncen1ra1ion as in the seven-dav conditioning period.
Artcr-:i contJct rime of ont hou-r, aliquots were again
C:i.libr:ition and Qu:ility Control
The calibration procedure t!sed for the volariie ornanic analvsis was the cxte:nai standard technique, wi;h internal ~tandards added 10 each standard and sam-
ple for quality control of the analysis. A calibration curve was constructed by preparing three concentration lcve!s
of each compound al approximately JO ppb, 50 ppb and . JOO ppb levels. A system blank of pure water was used as . a zero point on the curve. A stock solution was prepared
from the pure materials in chromatography grade metha-
nol by accurately measuring microlitcr ponions into a known volume. The concentration of each component was then calculated based on its density (mg/µL). The
F,11 1n1, r.w.,rn 45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'-!::! eco ··················· 0 t.
"" ,en ··················-····"··· c 5 u
~ " <
0
0
-MtC%
oc
Pa--:s Fer :::nc.'1
-·-!..2-::::::
~=-:-rc-
w.1.)· prtp~r.:J 1111t1aJly at the b~~inning of the stability study and again at the be;iinning of 1he exposure study. Linear regression equa1ions were calcula1ed for each curve, the:i plo1ted for visual agre:::ie:11 wi1h linearity.
Subsequen1ly, only the 100 ppb standard was usd to ensure that the calibration curve w:,.s within tr.: EPA protocol of< IO percent CV (pe:cem coeflicien1 of varia-tion). The linear regression plots are shown in Figure I. In addition, three in1emal standards were used to verify svst:::::i control. Each 5 ml sample and standard rece:ved JO µL of th: th:ee-:om;,onent mi~ (15 µgfml), whic:, was e:,uivale:::t to :0 µg'L (ppb), ~:diat:!y b::or., a.::alys.i.s. F:g,.!~.2.·is-a plot oi ~:-Inte:-=al standards with the c..:::Jc-:::::=-r~ pc-...=:.LCVs. Tci.E &t.2. 5C;ows thatthroug.:t-
ocr the-s:;JJ.Jiy ~ p::::::r CVs .. ie.~ 5 pe:ce:i!., ,,r.ic:i,
.ac=tiiig-m ?.."-M:::boci 602 <1.0 p== i ~..tiiie. Tu! ""!"1_,., c..::,ru:=:::r-.o.llon oiai! ttl'! :>ic::ci:s-zalyz~ ciufug th-= =:.'C?Csur! ~.!dy ~ho-.i.:s L'12r c~::J::!e::e ::Jo ride ·~·as lJ ppb; 1,2-DCE was 3 ppb;DCE and TC:::: we:e 2 ppb; and tolue::e and c!:ilorob=e v,e~ I ppb.
Fi:ur: I. \"oi::iciie or::mk ~:,·sis ciwr:t.::ia.c. c:::l;"\'~ oi c::iapoc U?OSUres
~ttlts-~d.-Dis~sion . ' .. .. . --·
R=.tlts of.Subiliry· .Stndy
··· Tn.e obj:----=ive oft!:~ Si.abiliry sruCy We! to c·.~
each comoour.d for rc::ove:v variabilitv e::ciudin2 well-casi..,g m~te:::iai sorp1ioo e:f~u;. Analyses of dupiic:ne sampies de:e=ined precision; and analyses at day one,
30
Rd&l'I C.,,p. ( All u. at 30 ~ 1--..1 I
· day seven and day nine de:::mined the pote:::tial storage effects. Analvsis of water blanks also determi.~ed back-ground cont~mi::iation due to the glass jar.;, liners and storage. The stability study also established ·a reference for evaluating analytical precision and quality control of Fi:urc 2. Percent coefficients Or r.ari.ation or three internal st::ind-:nds for coupon exposures
· Parts Per Billion ·· · ·,··: .,.·· .. · ·: 200 ,-----..,...-----..C---......:.;.-------,----------.
I
·)..2G ♦ 49
141 ! 2 . ······································ri.ii··.;··r1·············
············································
54 + 22 72 + 6
50
0
MeCl2 1,2-DCE DCEE TCEE Toluene Cl-benz .-.
SE Day 1 ruJ Day 7 ~ Day 9 E22] Blank
Fic,ur, ). S1::ihili1y of "0J-.,1ilr or;:rniu in 5 Jc;rrr: C. \ot':alrr for nine th!'\
l's/I 1986 GW/.Jll
r
C
r
C
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
··;J
.•. :~-...
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I
I.
-.
Fi:"'JT?-~-5r::a,ci.:uci dM2'rioo of 0t1c hour"C'Oupoo ~cm:res n.. c:cc.rois
1.0 ·····························-·······················
Ft-;-.m: :'. Sunciln:i cicVUrioD of:.4-.iour coupoc f':?OSUT~ ,'1.
c:imrols
·tJ:: ::.i::hoci. . .J:J..at:::i:iis w::e:i ex?ose: 10 appro~:y 100 ppb cor.-'J: Tne =oits of the subilitv srudv show th2:1for the •. ta!llinated watedorseve:i days a:nd SC, thme~osed -i: comoouods srudied, the:,: :s s~rne ~abi.ii:tv. This varia-for or.e bot:r, a:nd·rl:~ for 24-bours. t:'.bili.,....; .se:= to be assorc'"d with the solubiiitv of cacii ~ _f~cou:;pound in water. F:g,..,re 3 pphically dispi.ays the Acknowledgme:n. . . :;, .TCS'.l!ts fore?..~ corapot.'Tld 2:1 day one, days:·:~ z:id day . ····:.. ·· ; _Tnis oroiec:. w~ fwided. bv Wasue lv!.2.n.>2=Llnc. ;:, .. n::::, and a"biank water sample. _ .. .. • .: :. :Toe ~uthors v.is:i to aci;owledge C. Black!e;·, J. ~.c· •.. . .. _ _ Lom.o.is, N. Cole and T. Buede\ for th6 2.SSistznc: in {t._ Resulu ~f i\fateri:,J .Exp~sure· S~dy ··.:/ ~;. ': < :,,:·.i, .).:C ; conducting the.se expe::ime:ns ... : :_·: :~-~' ·· The objectives of the :oaierial exposure study were to .· ,:Refe~ences ' ~ ·:; · ·'./ . · .•. ' ->·:--· :',:, de:e:mine if the.re were signiiicaot differeoce.s in ·corn-··, ? pound sorption between PVC, polyte:rafluoroethyle:ie,
·:-;:-and stainless ste:1 weli-<:a.sing materials when exposed to .,. · volatile organic hydrocarbons in a simulated "well"
·~-;:_environment.The laboratory experiments were designed
-:_;_to simulate actual conditions of sampling grourid water ;-,:;.containing approximately 100 ppb of hydrocarbons
/:· normally found in contaminated waters. In addition, the ,:;·experiments were designed to determine adsorption ·or .::._·.desorption effects of these materials when exposed to
/<these compounds over time. It is necessary to determine if ·:? false positive or false negative results bias the actual
.-.. -;-:concentrations of the samples. The study did not, how~ ··:_.ever, determin,e if the materials released compounds into
· ·non-contami.,ated water.
. Tne results of the material exposure study are shown
in Fi!1'Jres 4 a.:;d 5. Nine control sarnole.s were analvzed
for e;ch cor.:..oound sa:d:e:i. Tbe!e ;.ioe cor.trols ;.,ere : ·, ave.aged and ·a standard de•,iation obt:tined. The three
· · repiicate values for each comoound for each type of · :: material studied were also av~raged. Figures 4 and 5 ·represent the effect of sorption at one hour and 24 hours,
respectively, for the six compounds on the three casing
.. materials. All results are approximately one standard
· ·. deviation of the mean for all compounds and all casing
· · · materials. A more rigorous analysis of these data will be · .. ."performed at a later date.
· ·. The results of these experiments show that statisti-
. cally, there is no significant difference between PVC,
polytctr:inuorot:thylt!nc, and J 16 stainless Slee I we!I c:i..sing
EPA Method 602. 1984. Purgeable Aromatic; i~ 40 CFR
Part 136. Federal Register, v. 49, no. 209, pp. 40-48. . Jarke, F.H. 1986. A Review of Materials Used in Moni-
toring and Monitoring Well Construction. Draft Report. Waste Management Inc., Oak Brook, Illinois.
.· . . . . . ~ . The authors are employed by Radian Corp., P.O. Bor 1300, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.
J7 .
!'i
! . ' ..
I I:.
i ;
JI
i '
i:
I I ;
' ' . ' .! 1·
I_ □ESCUSSION __ I
The Use of PVC Casing and Screen in
the Presence of Gasolines on the
Ground Water Table
by G. W. Schmidt
The purpose of this discussion is to extend the conclusions of the Field Repon by A.L. Sykes, R.A. McAllister and J.B. Homolya titled "Sorp1ion of Organ-ics by Monitoring Well Construction Materials," pub-lished in Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 6, no. 4, 1986.
The authors should be commended for statistically.
demonstrating that !here are no significant differences in organic compound sorption between polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polytetrafluoroethylene and stainless steel well
casing when exposed to dissolved vols tile organic hydro-carbons of approximately 100 ppb concentrations (Sykes
et al. 1986). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has incorrectly concluded that PVC is not an acceptable material for monitoring well construction
because ii "deteriorates when in contact with ... aromatic hydrocarbons"(EPA 1986). It has also been implied over the past several years by both federal and state regulatory
agencies that PVC casing wiil swell and deteriorate in the presence of the aromatic fraction of liquid gasoline.
Therefore, many regulators do not allow the use of PVC casing, and especially PVC screen, in monitoring wells because they erroneously believe that the swelling of PVC in 1he presence of gasolines will cause the screen slots to close and the casing to deteriorate.
h has been my observation in using PVC screen and casing in monitoring liquid gasoline on the ground water table in many thousands of wells, over 13 vear;, that there is neither swelling nor deterioration of.PVC casing or screen. To demonstrate these field observations, small sections of rigid 2-inch diameter, Type I PVC screen
(0.006 slol size) were placed in different gasolines to record any changes in slot opening sizes or any other ahera1ions. Each PVC screen was cul 10 include two slots .. as well as being cut a1 right angles to lhe slots. The sections were completely submerged in premium, un-. leaded regular. and leaded regular grades of i\moco
gasolines. A control sample was retained that was not
94 Sprin~ J9X7 GWMH
placed in contact with any gasoline. After the sections of PVC screen were in the gasolines for 6.5 months, they were removed and, along with the control sample. were
photographed under a scanning electron microscope
(Amray Model I OOOB) to observe any swelling or altera-
tion. The results are shown in Figure I, photograph .I (premium gasoline), photograph 2 (unleaded regular),
photograph 3 (leaded regular), and photograph 4 (control sample not in any gasoline).
The photographs (samples I, 2 and 3) clearly show no changes in slot size of any of the PVC screens in contact with gasolines compared to the control (sample 4). Even
the fragments on the "cut face" of each of the sections show no alteration from long-term exposure to liquid
gasolines. From this study, the conclusion is clear that Schedule 40, rigid, Type I PVC casing and screen can be useu with confidence when monitoring for the occurrence of gasolines on the grcund water t:~le. /',5 H:r.ry David Thoreau said, "The question is nol what you look a1, bu1 what you see." The EPA and slate regulatory agencies
should recognize such confirmation data and eliminate unsubs1an1iated conclusions such as not recommending
the use of PVC casing and screen in the presence of gasolines.
References
Sykes, A.L., R.A. McAllister and J.B. Homolya. 1986. Sorplion of Organics by Monitoring Well Construc-
tion Materials. Ground Water Monitoring Review, v.
6, no. 4, pp. 44-47.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document. OSWER-9950.1, pp. 78-79.
Biographical Sketch
Gene W. Schmidt is director of Ground Water
Ma;IDK<'tne,;t in the Environmental Affairs and Safety
Dt'pnrtmmt of the Amoco Corp. (l'.O. Box JJ/15, Tulsa, OA. 7./1111).
-----------------.... -····
-..: r·i!?nrt I. Scannin~ rlt-c1ron microuop, phnlo~nph~ or l'VC-.;crrtn srcfions . . ,,
I .. •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Proceedings
Second Canadian/American
Conference on Hydrogeof ogy ·
Hazardous Wastes in Ground Water: A Soluble DVemma
Banff, Alberta, Canada
June 25-29, 1985
Edited by
Briart'riitchon and Mark R. Trudell
Alberta Research Council
Edmonton. Alberta, Canada
Published by
National Water Well Association
Dublin, Ohio, U.S.A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
►
Absorption of Halogenated
Organic Compounds by
Polymer Materials Commonly
Used in Ground Water Monitors
by Glenn W. Reynolds and Robert W. Gillham
Abstract
Laboratory studies were conducted to determine the absorption of five halogenated compounds, at parts per billion concentrations, by six polymer mate-rials commonly used in ground .water monitor con-struction. The batch experiments were carried out under static conditions to simulate water star\ding in a well bore. Measurements were made over the r~nge of five minutes to five weeks. The organic compounds
used were 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane, 1, 1,2,2-tetrachloro-
ethane, hexachloroethane, bromoform and tetrachlo-
roethylene. 1l,e polymer materials evaluated were PVC, p'>lytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), nylon. polypro-
pylene. polyethylene and latex rubber.
Uptake by the polymer materials can be explained by a model where the organic compound first under-goes sorption/dissolution into the polymer surface followed by diffusion into the polymer matrix. PVC and PTFE both absorbed four of the five compounds. However, absorption was generally slow for both of these materials with decreases in solution concentra-tion of less than 50 percent after five weeks. An excep-tion was the rapid absorption of tetrachloroethylene
by PTFE. This compound was reduced to 50 percent of its original concentration in solution in about eight hours. The other polymers rapidly absorbed all com-pounds, with latex rubber having the most rapid absorption followed by polyethylene and then poly-propylene and nylon.
The order in which compounds were absorbed was different for each polymer. No relationship was found between the order or rate of absorption onto any polymer and the solubility or octanol/waler parti-tioning coefficient of the organic compound. However,
125
hexachloroethane and tetrachloroethylene, with solu-
bilities one or two orders of magnitude less than the other compounds, were always absorbed the fastest and to the greatest extent. A relationship was found for polyethylene and polypropylene of increased
absorption with an increase in the compound's unde-cane/water partitioning coefficient.
Introduction
Many ground water contamination studies are concerned with organic pollutants at trace (µg/L or ppb) concentrations. Polymer materials used to con-struct ground water monitoring wells and samp!!~g equipment may bias the samples by either leaching
chemicals into or absortr.ng compounds out of the water being sampled.
Evaluations of trace organics leaching into water from some polymers commonly used in ground water applications have been carried out by Junk et al. (1974), Boettner et al. (1981), Sosebee et al. (1982), and Curran and Tomson (1983). However, other than Miller (1982), there is considerably less information
reported on absorption of organic pollutants by poly-mer well casings from aqueous solution at trace con-centrations. Absorption may cause a negative bias, i.e., less contaminant is found in the ground water sample than is actually present In situ. This has con-siderable legal and interpretive significance should negative bias result in the erroneous conclusion that an organic pollutant is not present or its concentration
is below a specified criterion.
This paper reports the results of laboratory exper-iments conducled to measure !he absorption of four halogenated alkanes and one halogenated alkene at trace concentrations onto six polymer materials, most of which are commonly used in the construction of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'ground water monitoring wells. The experiments were
conducted under stalic conditions (where water move-
ment was not occurring) to simulate absorption from
waler standing in the bore of a monitoring well.
Experimental Methods
The live organic compounds used in the experi-
ments were 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane (CH3CCl3). 1, 1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane (CHCl2 CHCI2). hexachloroethane
(CCl3 CCl3). bromolorm (CHBr3) and tetrachloroethy-
lene (CCl2 CCl2). These compounds, and similar vola-
tile halogenated alkanes and alkenes. have be~n
reported by Page ( 1981) and Zoeteman et al. ( 1981) as
some of the most common organic contaminants in
ground waters.
The polymers evaluated in this study were pieces
of rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) rod (9.5mm O.D.),
extruded polytetrafluoroethylene . (PTFE) tubing
(7.9mm O.D. x 4.9mm I.D.). nylon 6/6 plate (0.8mm x
9.6mm), low density polypropylene tubing. low density
polyethylene tubing and latex rubber tubing (all 6.4mm
O.D. x 3.2mm I.D.). PVC, PTFE, polypropylene and
polyethylene are materials commonly used in the
construction of ground water monitors. Nylon was
included because we have seen nylon mesh used in
some instances as a filter material around the screened
portions of monitors (Jackson et al. 1985). Latex
rubber is not a well casing material, however, this
material was included because it was anticipated to
represent an extreme of maximum absorption.
Each polymer was cut into pieces 6.35cm long and
cleaned by washing in a strong detergent solution,
followed by a rinse sequence of organic free water,
methanol and organic free water. They were then air
dried. These cleaning procedures are similar to those
described by Scalf et al. (1981) for cleaning materials
used for ground water monitoring wells prior to
installation.
The aqueous solutions used in the experiments
were prepared by spiking buffered organic free water
with a concentrated methanol stock solution contain-
ing all five organic compounds. The solution was
mixed in a 20 L glass carboy without headspace.The
mean initial concentrations of each compound, for all
experiments. were: 45±5 µg/L for 1, 1, 1-trichloro-
ethane, 45±3 µg/L for 1, 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane. 44±4
µg/L for bromolorm, 39±3 µg/L for tetrachloroethy-
lene and 20±4 µg/L for hexachloroethane. The solu-
tions had an ionic strenth of 0.01 moles/Land a mean
pH of 6. 7±0.1. The ± values represent one standard
deviation, a notation used throughout this paper.
To evaluate the ellect of a particular polymer
material on the concentration of the organics in solu-
tion, several pieces of the polymer being evaluated
were placed in each of thirty 160ml glass hypovials.
The hypovials were then filled by gravity flow from the
carboy containing the aqueous solution spiked with
the five organics. The hypovials were filled without
headspace and seale<:l with aluminum crimp caps lined
wilh PTFE faced silicon septa. Two sets of 30 hypo-
vials. each set containing a different polymer material .
for evaluation. plus one set of 30 control hypovials
containing no polymer materials, were filled from each
20 L batch of aqueous solution spiked with the organ-
ics. Samples of the filling solution were collected peri-
odically throughout filling to determine the initial con-
centration. No significant change in concentration due
to volatilization during filling was noted.
All hypovials in which the absorption experiments
were being conducted, were stored in the dark at
22±1 C until sampled. To simulate the static condi-
tions of water standing in the bore of a ground water
monitoring well, the hypovials were not shaken during
the experiment. However, they were occasionally tilted
back and forth to make sure that all surfaces were
exposed to the solution. The polymer surface area to
water volume ratios used in these static experiments
were similar ranging from 2.69 to 3.11 cm2/ml, with a
mean value of 2.85±0.16 cm2/ml. This ratio would be
representative of a sma!'I monitor with a diameter in
the range of 1.59cm (¾ inch) to 1.27cm (½ inch).
Samples of the solution in the hypovials were col-
lected for analysis after approximately five, 15 and 30
minutes; one, three, six and 12 hours; one, two and
four days; and one, two, three, four and five weeks. Al
each time, two hypovials containing the polymer being
evaluated and two controls were opened and duplicate
samples of the water in the vials collected from each in
bottles without headspace. The hypovials were shaken
just prior to sampling to ensure homogeneity of the
sample. The solution from a hypovial was poured into
the sample bottle quickly, but in as laminar a fashion
as possible, to minimize volatilization. Based on the
data from the control samples no significant volatiliza-
tion losses were encountered. The hypovials were
discarded after sampling because the volatility of the
cor..pour.O::s .;r;der study precluded further use. oi the
bottle to measure absorption when a headspace was
present.
""
A modification of the pentane, second generation
liquid-liquid extraction technique described by Glaze :;~ ··~ et al. (1981) was used to analyze the collected water .:1
126
samples for the five halogenated organic compounds. c::;
The technique was modified by using no buffer-
quench solution, a water to pentane ratio of 20 ml to
1.5 ml, and a rotary table shaker to mix the pentane/·
water sample emulsion until equilibration was reached
(about 30 minutes).
For analysis, a 1 to 2 µL aliquot of extracted pen-
lane was removed and injected directly into a Hewlett
Packard 5710A gas chromatograph with a Ni63 elec-
tron capture detector. A 2mm I.D. x 2.44m long glass
chromatograph column packed with 10 percent UCON
polar 50 HB5100 on 80/100 mesh chromasorb was
used. The column was maintained at a constant
temperature of 120 C. with a detector temperature of
300 C. The carrier gas was Argon with 5 percent
methane, flowing al 25 mUmin. Integration and calcu-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--•· I ••
Hewlett Packard 3390A integrator based on three daily
standards. which were prepared in aqueous solution
and extracted in a similar manner lo the samples being
analyzed.
With the preceding method, detection limits were
approximately 3µg/L for 1, 1, 1-trichloroelhane. 1 µg/L
for bromoform, 0.5 µgll for telrachloroethylene. 0.5
µgll for 1, 1 ,2,2-lelrachloroelhane and 0.05 µg/L for
hexachloroethane.
Results and Discussion
The results of the static absorplion experiments
and the controls are plotted on Figures 1 to 5. The
y-axis on lhese figures is relative concentration (C/Co).
This is the concentration of the organic compound
remaining in solution (C) divided by the inilial concen-
tration (Co). A relative concenlration of 1.0 represents
no absorption.
The values shown are the means of four mea-
surements (duplicate samples from duplicate experi-
·ments). A variation of one standa~d deviation around
the means due to experimental and analytical error
was generally less than ±0.03 relative concentration
units. Below C/Co values of 0.05 the standard devia-
tion was smaller, generally less than ±0.005 relative
concentration units.
Absorption Process
The uptake of organic compounds by polymers is
considered to proceed first by sorption/dissolution in
the polymer surface followed by dittusion into the
polymer matrix (Serota et al. 1972. Yasuda and Stan-
nett 1975). This process is referred to as absorption.
An analytical model is given in Equation 1 thtit uses
this mechanism to accounl for decreases in the relative
concentration of the solution with time for the bound-
ary conditions of our static experiments.
[Kotl r rKo)'ht\l] C!Co " ex~ A2 J enc l ' A ( 1)
This model applies for a limited and constant
volume of well mixed solution and a constant surface
area of polymer. In this equation C is the concentration
in solution (µg/L), Co is the initial solution concentra-
tion (µg/L). C/Co is lhe relative concentration (dimen-
sionless). K is the partition coetticient between the
organic compound in solution and the polymer
(dimensionless), A is the ratio of solution volume to
polymer surface area (cm). D is the dittusion coetti-
cient in the polymer (cm2/s) end t is time (s). The
product of K and D is defined as the permeability
coefficient (P) and has units of cm2/s (Serota et al.
1972. Yasuda and Stannett 1975).
Equation 1 assumes thal equilibrium between the
solution and polymer surface is reached rapidly. The
Polymer is assumed lo contain none of the compound
initially and lo be semi-infinite in extent. As well. lhe
values of K and D are assumed lo remain constant
127
w1111 criangc~ in solution concentral1on. and are
assumed not to be affected by the presence ol other
compounds in solution or on the polymer surface.
The curves fitted through the data on Figures 1 to 5
show that. in most cases, there can be reasonable
agreement between Equation 1 and the experimental
results. These curves were based on a non-linear
regression analysis that varied the value of KO in
Equation 1 to provide the besl fit. The agreement
lends support to the concept thal uplake in this case is
the result of sorplion/dissolution inlo the polymer sur-
face followed by dittusion inlo the matrix. No curve
was fit through the data for bromoform absorption by
PTFE and 1,1,1-trichloroethane absorption by PVC
because these compounds showed no measureable
absorption trend over the experimental period ol five
weeks. .
The few exceptions that were not closely matched
by Equation 1 were: (1) more rapid absorption of all
compounds by latex rubber after about one hour, (2)
more rapid absorption of hexachloroethane and tetra-
chloroethylene by polyethylene after about one hour,
(3) decreased absorption of bromoform, 1, 1, 1-trichloro-
ethane and 1. 1 .2,2-tetrachloroelhane on polyethylene
after about one week, and (4) increased absorption of
hexachloroelhane and bromoform by PVC beyond
three weeks. The latex rubber results are likely due to
swelling from water uptake that was noted for this
material after about one hour. The reason for more
rapid losses of hexachloroethane and bromoform in
the presence of polyethylene was not determined. For
the compounds exhibiting decreased absorplion on
polyethylene, equilibrium was apparently achieved
t 1'10\1! t d•r 1 -••"-I I 1.2 Co111,011
1.0
'o !:! o.•
1.2 '" 0 .!!.
'"' • z IU~ON • Q 0 0 0 .. 1.0 .. "' oo .. z 0.8 ... u z 0 u 0.6 ... > ;: 0.4 ..
J ... "' 0.2
"Ol'"'0•TLfMl ..
PCX.Uh"llNf 0 lAll• IIIUlst• D 0.0 • o' ,o' ,0. o' ,o' ,0
TIM[ ("'i"w11,)
Figure 1. Absorption of 1. 1, 1-trichloroethane by
polymers. (Points are experimental data and curves
are best fits using the absorption model /Equat,on
1 })
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
u+,---..L..-----'----'----------;-
co"'•oh .-.... _____ __,,_:;::~
10 fa" ~-~--~
"o' e ,,,11••C ■ ••'•" tl ......... ,.__,.,_,,.,,.,.,.,. Ol•••• ••·~ $;! o.e
g 1.2~---------------:,_,:;,c--;:;o-T
z 2 ► C " ►
1.0
! 0.8
i' 0 u 0.6 .. > ;:
C J ..
"
o•
0.7
.,,. .
NUOtll ■ • e o
0 ~· oc I.
Figure 2. Absorption of 1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane by
polymers. (Points are experifT)ental data and curves
are best fits using the absorption model {Equation
1))
~ ~ " ►
I.
1.0
t .-o .. ,
I
~ o.e u z 0 u 0.6
o.,
"°'-'""0f'T\.(N(. "01.•I fMHll>ff A l.l.T(l flVlllll 0 0.0
o' o'
0
o o'
TIME (fflHIYtH)
Figure 3. Absorption of hexachloroethane by poly,
mers. (Points are experimental data and curves are
best fits using the absorption model {Equation 1))
.-------------------------------------------'-------·~ . ?{
z 2 ► C " ►
,.
,.o
~ o.e u z 0
U 0.6 ..
?:
C 0.4
J .. " o.,
•,,_~-u=u ==•::::::::::• ---o-':;:::::fj'~
"0ll"-Of'YL[t,j( oil
0
0
.E~~.!~~~·~:J~;_!;!;~!:..._"sc __ ~_..';.E...,..i;wt::::~;;;;.-+ 0~d o' o d d o'
TIME (fflitwtH)
Figure 4. Absorption of bromoform by polymers.
(Points are experimental data and curves are best
fits using the absorption model {Equation 1))
after one week, while Equation 1 does not predict
equilibrium. Slow degradation of hexachloroethane
and bromoform In the presence of PVC is a possible
reason for the results with this material. After three
weeks, additional peaks were noted In the chromato-
graphic traces of samples that had been in contact
with PVC. Although unidentified, these peaks were
similar to those observed in degraded stock solutions
of bromoform and hexachloroethane.
Comparison of Polymers
To qualitatively compare the polymers with respect
128
·1.0
'o' • Ptrc1,•C ■ .,.,,_ A ...,,.,._,,.,..,,..1,.,,.,.,..,. 0 l•tu ....... ~ o.e
g ,.2---------------.~,~,--c-.--r
z 2 ► C " ►
,.o
~ o.e u z
0
U 0.6
o.,
f'OI.U"'°""'-1"£ ,6 ~n, .. nf"'f I\ l.t.lU •u111f• C: 0.0
o' o'
Pt(( e
JolYlOIOI ■
0
•
o'
Figure S. Absorption of tecrachloroethylene by
polymers. (Points are experimental data and curves
..
0.
are best fits using the absorption model {Equation 1)) '
to the absorption results it has been assumed that any
reduction in solution concentration to a C/Co less
than 0.9 on the fitted curves constitutes a potentially
significant absorption bias. A C/Co value of 0.9 was
chosen because analytical end experimental variation,
as evidence by the co,,trols, seldom resulted in lower
relative concentrations.
Table 1 lists for each polymer the approximate
time al which absorption reduced the relative concen-
tration cl each organic compound to 0.9.
Absorption losses from solution onto PVC were
I
I
I
I
I
I
•·
I
R
I
•
Table 1
Time at Which Absorption Reduced the Relative Concentration In Solution to 0.9
Least absorption most absorption
PVC TRI TET BRO HEX TEY >S weeks -2 weeks -3 days -1 day -1 day
PTFE BRO TET TRI HEX TEY >S weeks -2 weeks -1 day -1 day <S minutes
Nylon TRI TET BRO TEY HEX
-6 hours -1 hour -30 minutes -30 minutes <S minutes
Polypropylene TET BRO TRI HEX TEY
-4 hours -1 hour -1 hour <S minutes <5 minutes
Polyethylene TET BRO TRI HEX TEY
-15 minutes <5 minutes <5 minutes <5 minutes <Sminutes
Latex rubber TET, TRI BRO TEY HEX
<5 minules <5 minutes <5 minutes <5 minutes <5 minutes
"LOG (undecane/water TET BRO TRI HEX TEY partitioning coefficient) 2.04 2.10 2.62 Not reported 3.43
ewater solubility BRO TET TRI TEY HEX (mg/L) 3100 2962 1495 150 50
CLOG (octanol/water BRO TRI TET TEY HEX partitioning coefficient) 2.30 2.49 2.56 2.60 3.34 I TRI = 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane
TET = 1, 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroethane
BRO= bromoform I HEX = hexachloroethane
TEY = tetrachloroethylene
" from Barbari and King (1982)
8 from Horvath (1982)
c from either Callahan et al. (1979) or
Hansch and Leo (1979i
I
I
I
I
noted for only four of the five compounds. The com-effects on the concentration of tetrachloroethylene pound 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane did not show any mea-may occur even when the time between development sureable absorption over the five-week measurement end sampling is short. The absorption of organic period. Rates of loss for the other compounds were chemicals by PTFE, especially the rapid and substan-slow as evidenced by the periods of days to weeks tial uptake of a common contaminant such es tetra-required for a reduction to C/Co of 0.9. These slow chloroethylene, is of considerable interest because rates of absorption would suggest th~t for these PTFE is presently considered by most ground water organic compounds absorption bias may not be sig-investigators to ~e an inert and preferrable material for nificant where the ground waters recovers rapidly and constructing ground water monitoring wells. As well, is sampled within the same day as well development. it is interesting to note the better performance of PVC PTFE else absorbed only four of the five com-than PTFE with respect to absorption of tetrachloro-P0unds. Bromoform had no measureable absorption ethylene. I over the five weeks of testing. Reduction to a C/Co of All of the other polymers resulted in relatively rapid 0.9 for hexachloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and concentration decreases for all five compounds. The 1, 1 ,2,2-tetrachloroelhane occurred in the same days values on Table 1 show that for ell compounds
I lo weeks time period as for PVC. However. the absorp-absorption was the most rapid by latex rubber, fol-t,on of tetrachloroethylene by PTFE was very rapid, lowed closely by polyethylene. With these materials exhibiting a reduction to C/Co of 0.9 in less than five significant absorption losses occurred within minutes minutes and a reduction to 50 percent of the original for ell five organics. Concentrations were generally I concentration in about eight hours. This suggests that reduced to 50 percent of the Initial concentration
129
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tu,urµ1,un ul 11,e live organic compounds was d1ller-
ent for most of the well casing materials. As well. no
relationship could be found between the order of
absorption and readily available parameters such as
aqueous solubility or octanol/waler partitioning coef-
ficient. Therefore, predicting which organic chemicals
are most susceptible to absorption and the amount of
absorption is likely not possible tor most compounds
and materials given our present state of knowledge.
The exception appears to be absorption onto polyeth-
ylene and polypropylene which showed a relationship
of increased absorption with an increase in the unde-
cane/water partitioning coetticient of the compound.
For the other materials solubility may have some
influence because hexachloroelhane and tetrachloro-
ethylene, whose solubilities were one to two orders of
• magnitude less than the other compounds. always
exhibited the fastest absorption.
Absorption of the organic compounds by the
polymers appears to occur by sorption/dissolution of
the organic compound from solution into the polymer
surface followed by dittusion into the matrix. Good
agreement between the experimental results and an
analytical absorption model supports this mechanism.
Some of the implications of absorption onto polymer
well casings are as follows. First. the sorption capacity
of the materials should not be significantly reduced
due to saturation of surface sorption sites, because
dittusion of the compound into the polymer matrix will
continue to make the surface sorption sites re-avail-
able. Thus absorption may continue until the polymer
matrix becomes saturated with the compounds. This
may require a long period of time depending on the
rate and amount of chemicals to be absorbecl. Where
the ground water surrounding the monitor contains
lower concentrations of the absorbing compounds
than the ground water inside the casing, the matrix
may never !:>"come saturated because the compounds
are being sorbed on the inner casing surface. trans-
po'1ed t!ircugh :~.e pc,iymar by difiusion and then
desorbed from the outer casing surface. Similarly,
where well casing penetrates through a contaminated
zone, contaminants may be absorbed on the outer
surface, diffuse through the casing and desorb into
the water standing within the well. Secondly, at a site
where ground water quality is improving. the large
amounts of chemicals previously absorbed in the
matrix of the well casing may dittuse out of the polymer
and contaminate the clean ground water now standing
in the well bore. This may occur for a long period of
tirr,e.
Effects on absorption due to concentration. temp-
erature. different surface area to water volumes ratios.
flowing vs. static conditions, aging of the polymer
and/or bacterial coatings were not evaluated in this
study: however. these ~rP po!entially important factors
and therefore should be researched fur1her.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the National Science
and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the
University of Walerloo.
Glenn W. Reynolds is with Gartner Lee Associates Ltd.,
Marl<ham, Ontario. Cannda. Robert W. Gillham is associaled
witt, the Department of Earth Science, University of Water-
loo, Waler1oo, Ontario, Canada.
References
Barbari, T.A. and C.J. King. 1982. Equilibrium Distri-
bution Coetticients for Extraction of Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons and Aromatics from Water into
Undecane. Environmental Science and Technol-
ogy,"· 16, no. 9, pp. 624-627.
131
Boettner, E.A., G.L. Ball. Z. Hollingsworth and R.
Aquino. 1981. Organic and Organotin Compounds
Leached from PVC and CPVC Pipe, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, EPA~/1-81--062.
Callahan, M., M. Slimak, N. Gabel, I. May, C. Fowler, A.
Freed, P. Jennings, R. Durfree, F. Whitmore, B.
Maestri, W. Mabey, B. Holt and C. Gould. 1979.
Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. v. II. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA 440/4-79--029b.
Curran, C.M. and M.D. Tomson. 1983. Leaching of
Trace Organics into Water from Five Common
Plastics. Ground Water Monitoring Review, v. 3, no.
3, pp. 68-71. .
Glaze. W.H., A. Rawley, J.L. Burleson. D. Mapel and
D.R. Scott. 1981. Further Optimization of the Pen-
lane Liquid-Liquid Extraction Method for the Anal-
ysis of Trace Organic Compounds in Water. Ad-
vances in the Identification and Analysis of Organic
Pollutants in Water, v. 1, Ann Arbour Science, pp.
267-280.
Hansch. C. and A. Leo. 1979. Substituent Constants
• for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology.
John Wiley, New Yo,~:.
Horvath, A.L. 1982. Halogenated Hydrocarbons Solu-
bility -Miscibility with Water. Dekker, New York.
New York.
Jackson. R.E .. R.J. Patterson, B.W. Graham, J. Bahr,
D. Belanger, J. Lockwood and M. Priddle. 1985.
Contaminant Hydrogeology of Toxic Organic
Chemicals at a Disposal Site. Gloucester, Ontario.
1. Chemical Concepts and Site Assessment.
National. Hydrology Research Institute, Inland
Waters Directorate, Environment Canada. NHRI
Paper No. 23, IWD Scientific Series No. 141.
· Junk, G.A., H.J. Svec, R.D. Vick and M.J. Avery. 1974.
Contamination of Water by Synthetic Polymer
Tubes. Environmental Science and Technology, v.
B, no. 11, pp. 1100-1106.
Miller, G.D. 1982. Uptake and Release of Lead. Chro-
mium and Trace Level Volatile Organics Exposed
to Synthetic Well Casings. Proceedings Second
Annual Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and
Ground Waler Monitoring. National Water Well
Association. Wor1hinglon, Ohio. pp. 236-245.
Page. G.W. 1981. Comparisons of Ground Water and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·surface Water for Patterns and Levels of Contami-
nation by Toxic Substances. Environmental Science
and Technology, v. 15, no. 12, pp. 1475-1481.
Polack, A.E., L.J. Nunez and J. Autian. 1979. Transport
of Solutes into Polyethylene Bottles from Aqueous
Solutions: Empirical Relationships of the Data,
International Journal of Pharmaceutics, v. 3, pp.
157-175.
Scalf, M.R., J.F. McNabb, W.J. Dunlap. R.L. Cosby and
J. Fryberger. 1981. Manual of Ground Water Sam-
pling Procedures. National Water Well Association,
Worthington, Ohio.
Serota, D.G., M.C. Meyer and J. Autian. 1972. Effects
of Structure on Permeability of Substituted Anilines
from Aqueous Solutions through Polyethylene.
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. v. 61, no. 3,
pp. 416-419.
Sosebee, J.B. Jr., P.C. Geiszler, D.L. Winegardner and
C.R. Fisher. 1982. Contamination of Ground Water
· Samples with PVC Adhesives and PVC Primer from
Monitor Wells. Environmental Science and Engi-
neering Inc., Gainesville, Florida.
Yasuda, H. and V. Stannett. 1975. Permeability Coeffi-
cients. Polymer Handbook. J. Brandrup and _E.H.
lmmergut, Editors. Wiley lnterscience Publications,
pp. t 11-229 to 111-240.
Zoeteman, B.C.J., E. DeGreef and F.J.J. Brinkmann.
1981. Persistency· of Organic Contaminants in
Ground Water. Lessons from Soil Pollution Inci-
dents in the Netherlands. The Science of the Total
Environment. v. 21, pp. 187-202.