NCD981021157_19910328_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RI_Review and Comment on Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MAR 2 8 1991
SUBJECT: Review and comment on Draft Remedial Investigation Work Plan for
the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Superfund Site
TO:
FROM:
Addressees
A-/b(JY>vt ~
JJ/. K. Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
Attached is copy of the above referenced document as prepared by the Environmental services Division. The work proposed in this Remedial
Investigation (RI) Work Plan.builds upon the existing data base developed for this Site. This data base includes previous sampling efforts performed by the State, the County, and EPA. The most recent sampling effort occurred
during the removal action conducted in November-December 1990.
RI field work is to begin, Monday, April 8; therefore, please provide me with
any comments or concerns you may have to me by Friday, April 5. I apologize for the short review time frame. ESD has had this field sampling effort scheduled since February"and ESD was not able to complete the development of the Work Plan until the \i.ata generated as part of the removal action was reviewed. The lab wher~ .:t·he samples collected during the removal action were sent to was extremely slow in releasing the data. This unfortunately
translated •into the belated completion of this draft version of the Work Plan.
If you wish, please initially communicate your comments to me verbally and then follow them up in writing. Again, I am sorry for the short time frame to review this document. Thank you for your indulgence.
If you have any question, please call me at 347-7791.
Attachment
Addressees: Elmer Akin, EPA
Lee Crosby, NCDEHNR (w/o attachment)
Bernie Haye~,_G~WTSU~
Ccharlotte ~esneck, N.CDEHNR
Jaine8Le0, DOI
Mary Leslie, CDM
John Lindsay, NOAA
Lee Page, ATPMD
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I --
1
I ~
· REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION WORKPLAN
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
BURN-PIT SITE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
. Prepared By:
-----. ..
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--REGION IV
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE BRANCH
EN.VIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
MARCH 1991
I . dbEPA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........ .
1.1 Work Plan Overview .... .
1.2 Site Status and Project Type
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION
2.1 Site Description
2.1.1 Location .... .
2.1.2 History .... .
2.2 Previous InVestigations
2.2.1 Groundwater Data ..
2.2.2 Surface Water/Sediment Data
2. 2. 3 Soil Data
2. 2. 4 Tank and Burn Pit Contents
2.2.5 Enforcement Profile
c2.2.6 Physical Features
2.3 Project Objectives ..
3.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
3.1 Geology
3.2 Hydrogeology ...
3.2:1 Surface Water
3.2.2 Groundwater
4. 0 PRELIMINAR;,' DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Data Requirements
4.2 Existing Data Base
4.3 Data Gaps
5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPE OF WORK 5.1 Project Planning ..
5.1.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
5.1.2 Health and Safety Plan .
5.1.3 Community Relations Plan
5.2 Field Activity Preparation
5.3 Field Activities . :· ...
5.3.1 Water Level Testing
5.4 Sample Analysis/Validation
5.5 Data Evaluation
5. 6 Risk 'Assessment
5.6.1 Contamination Identification
5.6.2 Exposure Assessment
5.6.3 Toxicity Assessment
5.6.4 Risk Characterization
5.6.5 Endangered Species Assessment
5.7 Remedial Investigation Report
5.8 Feasibility Study
6.0 SCHEDULE
DRAFT
1
1
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
14
14
16
17
18
18
19
19
19
! 20
20
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 STAFFING PLAN 27 7.1 Project Organization 27
8. 0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN 28 8.1 General 28 8.1.1 Data Collection 28 8.1.2 Site Security 28 8.1.3 Health and Safety Objectives 28 8.1.4 Command Post . . . . . . . . 29 8.1.5 Equipment Decontamination ·29 8.1.6 Investigation Derived Wastes 29 8.2 Soil Sampling . . . . . . . . . 30 8.3 Installation of Temporary Piezometers and Groundwater Monitor Wells 30 8.3.1 Objectives . . . . 30 8.3.2 Field Equipment . . . . . . . . 30 8.3.3 Specific Protocols .. ·. . . . . 30 8.4 Installation of Permanent Monitoring Wells 30 8.5 Groundwater Sampling 31 8.5.1 Objectives . . . . 31 8.5.2 Field Equipment 31 8.5.3 Specific Protocols 32 8.6 Aquifer Testing 32 8.6.1 Objectives 32 8.6.2 Field Equipment 32 8.6.3 Specific Protocols 32 8.7 Surveying 32 8.7.1 Objective 32· 8.7.2 Field Equipment 33 8.7.3 Specific Protocols 33
9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
9.1 Data Quality Objectives
9.3 Calibration Procedures and Frequency
9.4 Analytical Procedures
9.5 Quality Control Checks
9.5.1 Field Quality Assurance Samples
10.0 REFERENCES
34
34
34
35
35
35
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section No. 1.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 1
The New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site (New Hanover Site), is located in New Hanover County, Wilmington, North Carolina. The age of the burn pit is uncertain. Aerial photography dated October 26, 1965, indicates that the site was being used at that time for fire fighter training. A small pit is visible near the center of the site in this imagery. Later photography indicates that this small pit was located on the site of the burn pit which was constructed sometime prior to September 15, 1968. This larger burn"pit was in use until 1979
by the Cape Fear Technical Institute and the Wilmington Fire Department for fire training purposes. Jet fuel (JP-4), drainage from_petroleum fuel storage tanks,
kerosene, and oil were used to fuel the fires, and water, carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals used to extinguish the fires. Sorbent materials from river spill cleanups were also disposed of in the pit sometime prior to 1982. The U.S.
Customs Service also burned confiscated drugs in the pit on at least one
occasion.
In 1985, the county applied for a permit for land application of oil sludge and
water from the burn pit, but the application was denied. The New Hanover County Department of Engineering conducted sampling i.n 1985 that revealed heavy metals and volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOC's) in the pit sludge. In 1986, the North Carolina Division of Health Services sampled the bottom sludge layer of the pit and soil outside the pit. The State's sampling effort detected heavy metals,
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) and VOC's. The site was subsequently
proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL).
This work plan has been developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region IV, Environmental Services Division (ESD), Environmental
Compliance Branch (ECB), Hazardous Waste Section (HWS). In addition to developing this work plan, HWS will conduct the necessary field work and write
the Remedial Investigation (RI) report. Development of the community relations
plan will be contracte~, as will be the risk assessment, endangered species
assessment, and the feasibility study (FS). The RI proposed in this work plan will address the nature and extent of the contamination problem in sufficient
detail to support a feasibility study of remedial alternatives, and subsequent
Record of Decision (ROD) for the New Hanover Site.
1.1 Work Plan Overview
This work plan parallels the overall RI/FS approach outlined by CERCLA for investigation of an NPL site (1). Specifically, this document is organized as follows:
• Section 1. 0 -The New Hanover Site is introduced and the project I s s t_atus
and type are outlined.
• Section 2.0 -The Site's history is summarized, and the site is described in terms of onsite conditions, geology, and hydrogeology. Existing data are summarized and evaluated.
• Section 3.0 -A brief description of applicable remedial alternatives is presented, and the data necessary to evaluate each alternative on a site-
specific basis are summarized. A list of data gaps is then obtained by
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 1.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 2
comparing the existing data to the level of knowledge necessary to implement
each of these remedial alternatives. The objective of the RI is co obtain
the data necessary to fill the data gaps.
• Section 4.0 -The scope of work for the RI is presented. The RI tasks are
designed to characterize the type, quantity, and extent of contamination.
Furthermore, any transportation pathways, such as surface or groundwater routes will be identified.
• Section 5.0 The schedule for the field work is presented.
• Section 6. 0
are listed.
Personnel involved with the project and their responsib~lities
• Section 7 .0 -The Field Sampling Plan (FSP) is presented. A
phased approach will be utilized in that background sampling and
well installation will occur as groundwater flow direction
delineation is accomplished using field screening techniques.
compressed
background
and plume
• Section 8.0 -The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is presented. The QAPP follows the proce,dures given in the Environmental Compliance Branch
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurnace Manual, (ECBSOPQAM),
February 1, 1991.
1.2 Site Status and Project Type
The New Hanover Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in March 1989. According to CERCLA, EPA must, when feasible, identify potentially responsible
parties (PRP's) who may be liable for future site cleanup. The following PRP's have been identified:
• New Hanover County (owner of the airport)
• City of Wilmington (trained firefighters at the site)
• Cape Fear Technical Institute (trained firefighters at the s·~te)
• Army Corps of Engineers (constructed the site)
• United States Customs Service (burned confiscated drugs at the site)
• United States Air Force (trained firefighters at the site)
EPA has given approval to the PRP's to initiate removal activities at the site. Materials were removed from the burn pit, along with contaminated soils. Contaminated soils were also removed the fire training areas. In addition, structures associated with firefighter training activities were dismantled and removed, including the fuel supply tank and its associated underground piping system, a railroad tank car, automobile bodies and an aircraft mockup. Excavated
areas were backfilled to grade with clean soil.
The prior removal of wastes and contaminated soils has significantly altered the scope of the RI/FS. Characterization of the site will consist of determining
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
~-~; :.~ .. ~.'.·~ .. ('\~~/"'$
~;.j,I I!; J.::i-··'.:,\ L'.! ;'j
what residual contamination may remain in groun~water
the site specific geology and hydrogeology.
Section No. 1.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 3
and soils, and describing
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION
2.1 Site Description
2 .1.1 Location
Section No. 2.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 4
The New Hanover Site is located on Gardner Road 500 feet west of the New Hanover County Airport in New Hanover County, approximately 1.5 miles north of Wilmington, North Carolina at 34"16'29''-latitude .and 77"54'55" longitude (see Figure 2-1). The approximate 1,500 square foot burn pit was located near the
center of a 4-acre plot (see Figure 2-2). Land use in the vicinity is commercial, industrial, and residential. There are rental car maintenance. facilities, a closed sawmill/lumberyard, and a trucking company to the east of the site. The closest residential areas to the site are estimated to be appi:oximately O. 22 miles to the west of the site. This area is separated from the site by a road, railroad tracks, and a wooded area.
2.1.2 History
The airport was built in the 1920' s as a civil air facility owned by New Hanover County. In 1942, the Department of Defense requisitioned the airport for the U.S. Army Air Corps. In 1947 and 1948, the Army deeded the airport back to the county. Formerly known as Bluthenthal Airport, in 1970 the facility was renamed the New Hanover County Airport. The date of construction of the original burn pit is unknown, but the current pit was constructed in 1968 and used until 1979 by the Air Force, Cape Fear Technical Institute, and local industries for firefighter training purposes. Prior to this the site had been used as a military hospital. The Wilmington Fire Department also used the burn pit for firefighter training purposes during the years 1968 to 1974, estimating that 100 to 500 gallons of jet fuel were burned in the pit daily during this period. Jet fuel, gasoline, petroleum· storage tank bottoms, fuel oil, kerosene, sorbent materials from oil spill cleanups, and on at least one occasion, confiscated marijuana were burned in the pit. Water was the primary firej extinguishing
agent; however, carbon dioxide and dry chemicals were also used. The county applied for a permit to close out the burn pit by land application of the pit contents, but this request was denied by the state (2,3).
A survey for hazard ranking purposes was conducted at the site on January 9, 1987. EPA contacted the PRP's on October 7, 1988, seeking information concerning the identity and/or quantity of materials generated, treated, stored, disposed of, or transported to the New Hanover Site. Draft enforcement-consent orders were negotiated with the PRP's throUgh three to four rounds of correspondence.
These attempts were not successful. The New Hanover Site was then propOsed for inclusion to the NPL on March 31, 1989.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted a health assessment of the New Hanovei: Site in March 1989. The Health Assessment
concluded that the site is of potential public concern because of risk to human
health resulting from possible exposure to hazardous substances at concentrations
that may result in adverse human health effects (4).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 2.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 5
The USEPA set Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG's) for the site in January, 1991. PRG' s were set for various inorganic and organic contaminants found at the site, and these PRG's were used in determining the scope and nature of the field and anlytical work to be performed at the site. PRG's are subject to change, and may be modified at any time during the RI/FS process. The PRG's are included as Appendix A.
2.2 Previous Investigations
Previous sampling investigations performed at the site include studies performed by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division ~f Health Services, 1986 (2), and the New Hanover County Department of Engineering, 1985. USEPA collected samples in April 1990, in preparation for an emergency removal action (5). This investigation focused primarily on water and sludges contained in the burn pit and sludge from the supply tank. USEPA again collected samples from the site. in December 1990, to confirm removal activities (6). The samples collected in December 1990 were sent to CLP laboratories for analysis. These samples were to analyzed for TCL/TAL constituents. The CLP laboratory selected for inorganic analyses inadvertently lost the sample tags on the groundwater. Consequently, no inorganic contaminants groundwater data is available for evaluation. The CLP laboratory selected to analyze samples for organic contaminants cannot re cons true t chain-of -custody. Consequently, this data (soil, sediment, and groundwater) will be used only for planning purposes.
2.2.1 Grou11dwater Data
Groundwater samples were collected from a well near the site during the 1985 investigation, no contamination was detected. The well is located in a grassy area located approximately l.00 feet southeast of the site. There are essentially no other existing groundwater data for this site·. Based on the literature, the d~rection of groundwater flow appears to be to the west-southwest; however, there are no site-specific data -to verify this.
As part of the confirmation sampling activities performed by USEPA in December
1990, four groundwater samples were collected from temporary mon"itoring wells. Sample locations are noted in Figure 2-3, the analytical data is• summarized in Table 2-1. Benzene was the sole contaminant noted at levels above those specified in the PRG's. The PRG for benzene is currently 1 ug/1 in groundwater. Sample BP-25·, collected in the former pit area, contained 210 ug/1 of benzene. Sample BP-24, located approximately 70 feet from the burn pit (in the presumed downgradient direction), contained 8 ug/1 of benzene.
2.2.2 Surface Water/Sediment Data
As part of the confirmation sampling conducted by USEPA in December, 1990, two sediment samples were collected at the points where surface drainage would leave the site via culverts. As previously noted, there are no onsite surface waters other than periodic wet areas. The perimeter drainage ditch is not a perennial
surfa_ce water feature but it does connect offsite to other surface water drainage features. Sediment sampling locations are noted in Figure 2-3, analytical data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 2.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 6
are summarized in Table 2-2. No contaminants were noted at levels above or even approaching those limits set by the PRG's.
2.2.3 Soil Data
Results of samples collected in 1986 by North Carolina are swnmarized in Table 2-3. A map of approximate sample locations is presented in Figure 2-4. With one exception all samples were collected within three inches of ground surface. Sample location nine was augered to a depth of 12 feet.
Barium, chromium, and lead occurred in the highest concentration for inorganics. Fluoranthene, pyrene, methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene occur in the greatest concentration for organics, with concentrations of diethyl-and dibutyl-phthalate occurring at lower levels. No significant concentrations of contaminants were discovered in soils sampled outside the burn pit.
2.2.4 Tank and Burn Pit Contents
Sludge and liquid samples were collected from the supply tank and burn pit prior to their excavation and removal. Sludge· samples from the burn pit were collected in 1985 for inorganic analyses; results are presented in Table 2-4. Total lead levels were measured at 182 mg/kg and total halogens were reported at 545 mg/kg. In 1986, sludge samples were again collected from the burn pit. Resulting data is presented in Table 2-5. Several types of organics occurred at elevated concentrations. Inorganics in EP Toxicity extract of sludge were all below the limit of detection. Inorganics detected at greater concentrations or frequency include: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, and lead.
During sampling in April 1990, waste material from both the burn pit and the supply tank were analyzed. Analyses of water, s'ediment, and sludge from the burn pit performed by EPA at the ESD laboratory are presented in Table 2-6. Sample locations are given in Figure 2-5. Pesticides and PCB's were not detected in either case. Extractable organics were not detected in the burn pit sample. Sludge samples were also sent to a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory for Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis. Resulting data from the analysis could not be verified and are therefor not included in this report.
During the ·confirmation sampling of December, 1990, 18 soil samples were collected at the site. Soil samples were collected from areas exposed during the removal activities, and samples were representative of all areas excavated. All soil samples collected were surface samples, as this was assumed to represent "worst case" conditions remaining on the site. Sample locations are shown in Figure 2-3; analytical data are summarized in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. Only one sample, BP-21 (a duplicate of BP-18) contained contaminants above the levels currently specified in the PRG' s. These contaminants were not detected in sample BP-18.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.5 Enforcement Profile
Section No. 2.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 7
Enforcement activities are currently ongoing between EPA Region IV and the PRP's. Consent order negotiations were initiated in the fourth quarter of 1989, and, to date, a satisfactory agreement with all PRP's involved has not been obtained.
The surface cleanup, however, has been completed.
2.2.6 Physical Features
The burn pit was of earthen construction, 30 feet by 50 feet in dimension, surrounded by a 3 foot berm, located near the center of a 4-acre open field, It (the bottom of the pit) did not extend below the land surface. On March 19, 1990, the county repaired a break in the berm around the burn pit. The height
of the berm was increased using soil removed from an area approximately 50 feet northeast of the pit. There were two valves, concealed within the berm, at the bott.om of the pit on the north side; one for draining water and the other for adding fuel to the pit. Most of the liquid in the pit was water (2,3). Water from the pit was allowed to flow onto the land surface. The bottom of the pit and the soil immediately surrounding the pit were black with characteristics similar to tar (2). Soil 30 feet west of the pit and 50 feet north of the pit was dry, but showed evidence of prolonged periods of standing water. The
apparent source of this water was drainage and/or overflow from the pit.
In addition to the burn pit, there are other areas where contaminants may be present as a result of training activities. These include:
• an old automobile
• a railroad tank car
• an aircraft mock-up made of 55 gallon drums·
• the fuel supply tank
• the pipeline from the supply tank to each burn area
• two stained soil areas adjacent to the burn pit
Several concrete block buildings (apparently constructed for the military
hospital), are located onsite. Only the building used as the smoke house was used in the training exercises.
The fuel distribution system consisted of an above ground storage tank and a
pipeline system. The fuel pipeline system was buried approximately 1 foot below land surface. The pipeline extended from the storage tank northwest to a pipe junction. The valve controlling flow to the burn· pit was located at the approximate midpoint along this segment of the pipeline. At the junction, valves controlled flow to the three firefighter training areas.
In addition, a small amount of medical waste (discarded syringes which were apparently burned) was noted in the area of the aircraft mock-up during the confirmation sampling (December, 1990). A manhole accessing the former
infirmary's septic tank was also located. The PRP's agreed to dispose of the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
D
I
I
I
,_.,:.,;,,: -""" i;.;) t::L/ :::,, i,.
Section No. 2.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 8
medical waste as part of the removal plan; the contents of the septic tank will be investigated by USEPA.
2.3 Project Objectives
The project objectives are to fill data gaps in the work plan and to develop a cost-effective remediation plan. Specifically, the remedial investigation will:
• Provide the data required to determine-the extent of the residual soil contamination, in relation to the Preliminary Remediation Goals for soil.
• Collect the data necessary to determine whether groundwater contamination exists and to determine the extent of such contamination in relation to the Preliminary Remediation Goals for groundwater.
• Provide data to determine local groun_dwater quality and aquifer characteris-tics.
• Provide information on the types of pollutants involved so that a risk assessment can be conducted and treatability studies can be performed.
• Provide information required to perform the feasibility study.
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
3 .1 Geology
Section No. 3.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 9
The New Hanover Site is located in the northwest portion of New Hanover County, north of Wilmington, North Carolina. New Hanover County is within the Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The major geomorphic features associated with the county include beaches and barrier islands along the A0tlantic Ocean, low relief terraces, and dune hills lying east of the coast, and the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. Generally, the sequence of rock types beneath New Hanover
County consists of unconsolidated and consolidated sedimentary rock of predominantly coastal and marine origin that begin at land surface and unconformably overlie crystalline rock at depth. Potable water supplies are obtained from the relatively shallow sedimentary formations. Groundwater occurring at greater depths is undeveloped due to saline conditions. Groundwater flow associated with the fresh water aquifers beneath New Hanover County are largely effected by topography, surface water features, and the geologic structure (6).
A deep well drilled between Smith's Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear River penetrated 1,109 feet of sedimentary rock prior to encountering a granite rock-type associated with the crystalline rock. Other drilling activities in the county document the crystalline rock as lying at depths as great as 1,540 feet. The crystalline rocks consist of schist, gneiss, granite, and metamorphosed
volcanic rocks, all of which are typical of the rocks exposed at land surface further to the west in North Carolina's Piedmont Physiographic Province. The top of the crystalline rock is an erosion surface. Above this erosional surface, a
discontinuity in structure occurs. The crystalline rock is estimated to date from the •Precambrian to possibly Mississippian Age.
The sediments that overlie the erosional contaCt are of late Cretaceous Age. Sediments older than those of the late Cretaceous Age are absent beneath New Hanover County, although the sediments of the Tuscaloosa Formation and Lower
Cretaceous Formations are prominent in other Coastal Plain areas of North
Carolina.
!
The geologic time units represented by the sedimentary rocks of New hanover
County include, in order of decreasing age, the Cretaceous System, the Tertiary System, and the Quarternary System.
A geologic structure known as the Cape Fear Arch, roughly parallels the Cape Fear River and runs southeast through New Hanover County. The arch is a broad gentle
uplift responsible for several geologic phenomena observed in New Hanover County, including the lack of Lower Cretaceous sediments, the structure of the thick Upper Cretaceous sediments and the thin veneer of Tertiary sediments (6).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2 Hydrogeology
3.2.1 Surface Water
Section No. 3.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 10
The Coastal Plain Physiographic Province is characterized by low relief land
forms consisting of rolling sand hills, salt marches, tidal flats, shallow
sounds, barrier islands/beaches, and narrow inlets of-geologically recent age.
Elevations in New Hanover County range from approximately 80 feet above mean sea
level (MSL) at the dune system lying east-southeast of Greenfield Lake to sea
level along the Atlantic Coast. Overall the land surface slopes slightly toward
the Atlantic Coast, the Cape Fear River, and the Northeast Cape Fear River. A
drainage divide, that generally runs northeast., directs surface water to either
the Cape Fear or Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, which discharge to the Atlantic
Ocean in south New Hanover County, or directly toward the Atlantic Ocean through
systems of creeks, sounds, and inlets. Other surface water features include
small shallow sinkholes formed by dissolving near surface limestone and coquina
beds, where present. These features are most common in the vicinity of the town
of Castle Hayne and south of Wilmington.
The higher elevations in New Hanover County represent the locations of "fossil
dunes'' or "sand hills", generally located from Fort Fisher northward toward
Wilmington, and continuing to the Pender County line. These sand hills represent
previous . beach sands that have been sifted by the wind to form sand dunes.
Because the process ·of dune formation tends to result in the sorting and
accumulation of rapidly permeable surficial sand deposits, most of these areas
do not promote overland drainage or sheet runoff (6).
The study area of the New Hanover Site is topographically and hydraulically
bounded by Smith's Creek to the south and southwest, small tributaries to the
Northeast Cape Fear River to the north and northeast, and the Northeast Cape Fear
River to the west. Essentially, all overland drainage that occurs within this
area is toward the Northeast Cape Fear River, which combines flow with the Cape
Fear River and eventually discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. From the site, it
is approximately 4,800 feet to the nearest topographically downgradient perennial
surface water feature, Smith's Creek. From this point, Smith's preek meanders
to the Northeast Cape Fear River for an overland distance of approximately two
miles. From the point of its confluence with Smith's Creek, the Northeast Cape
Fear River flows southward for approximately two miles and combines with the Cape
Fear River. Flow continues southward for approximately 20 miles until the Cape
Fear River d'ischarges to the Atlantic Ocean.
The intermittent surface water features in the immediate vicinity of the site
consist mainly of stormwater ditches that typically terminate in nearby swales,
and topographic depressions that apparently lose water through rapid infiltration
and evapotranspiration, as opposed to overland flow to perennial surface water
features.
The New Hanover Site is completely surrounded by elevated roads which form a berm
around the site. Although perimeter ditches and drainage culverts are present,
drainage from the site apparently either infiltrates or evaporates. There
appears to be little or no offsite surface water drainage.
,:.,..·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
··-· -~~----!~ t.) .!. ..... ~>~~-
3.2.2 Groundwater
Section No. 3.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 11
The occurrence, movement, and quality of groundwater beneath New Hanover County is well documented for those aquifers that do not contain saline water. These aquifers are restricted to the upper portion of the Pee Dee Formation, the Castle Hayne Limestone, and the two series of undifferentiated deposits. Figure 3-1 presents a generalized hydrogeologic section across New Hanover County that includes the subsurface features relevant to potable ~roundwater supplies.
The deepest geologic unit of significance is tne·silt and clay aquiclude situated between the uppermost saline aquifer and the Sandstone Aquifer, all contained in the Pee Dee Formation. This aquiclude, which is approximately 150 feet thick, is present throughout New Hanover County. It is an unconsolidated greenish-gray to dark gray, clayey, sandy silt containing glauconite, which is responsible for a characteristic 11 salt and pepper 11 appearance.
Lying above the silt and clay aquiclude is the Sandstone Aquifer, the principal freshwater aquifer in New Hanover County. The Sandstone Aquifer, which is laterally persistent throughout the central and eastern portions of the county, is approximately 35 feet thick, except in locations where the unit is truncated by erosional contacts with the undifferentiated sand deposits. The Sandstone Aquifer generally dips to the southeast at approximately 14 feet per mile. The aquifer is quartz sand with calcareous cement.
Lying above the Sandstone Aquifer is a clay aquiclude which marks the top of the Pee Dee Formation in New Hanover County. As a result of erosion on its upper surface, the clay aquiclude varies in thickness from absent to more than 50 feet. Where present, the clay aquiclude is typically black and massive. However, because recharge to the Sandstone Aquifer probably occurs through downward migration, and the areas of greatest recharge coincide with high elevations of the potentiometric-surface, the clay aquiclude is likely to be semi-confining in these high recharge zones.
The Castle Hayne Limestone ranges in thickness from absent to 80 feet, and is believed to be absent for some of the northwest portions of New Hanover County, including the vicinity of the site. Where present, the Castle Hfyne Limestone Formation is typically represented by a discontinuous, basal sandy shell conglomerate occupying channels cut into the Pee Dee Formation,· overlain by a glauconitic shell limestone with interbedded sand, which are in turn overlain by a 11 cap rock" consisting of a dense, chalk-white siliceous limestone containing phosphate at· its base. The upper-most lithology associated with the Castle Hayne Limestone is a light-green glauconitic mixture of shell fragments containing bryozoans. The sandy shell portions of the Castle Hayne Limestone are the most productive in terms of water supply; however, aquifer yields ?-epend on the degree to which the permeability has been increased by solutioning.
The sediments of each of the undifferentiated deposits vary greatly both laterally and vertically. Along the coast, these sediments include fine-grained deposits that act as an aquiclude and confine the Castle Hayne Limestone. To the west, the Castle Hayne Limestone, where present, communicates with the undifferentiated deposits and the aquifer is under water table conditions. The contact between the undifferentiated deposits and the underlying formations is
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 3.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 12
erosional. The lower portion of the undifferentiated deposits may occupy former
stream channels and may contain reworked materials from underlying formations.
The undifferentiated deposits of late Tertiary Age are phosphatic sands, silts,
clays, and phosphatic limestones. In north ~entral New Hanover County, these
Tertiary deposits include as intervening gray to blue dense clay that thickens
from approximately 5 to 20 feet eastward. Small water supplies may be developed
from sands within the undifferentiated Tertiary depos~ts and moderate supplies
from localized occurrences of coquina.
The undifferentiated surface deposits also rest on an erosional contact and
consist of clay, sand, and marl. Although absent in the towns of Wilmington and
Castle Hayne, the deposits are as much as 70 feet thick at other locations. In
the northwestern one-third of New Hanover County, where the Castle Hayne
Limestone is absent, the undifferentiated surface deposits rest unconformably on
the Pee Dee Formation. Within these areas, the deposits include a basal sand
that is coarse and well sorted, occurs from sea level to approximately 30 feet
below sea level (BSL) and occupies the channels cut into the Pee Dee Formation.
The coarse sand is overlain by less permeable, finer-grained sediments such as
silts and clays. At and near land surface, a thin veneer of sands may be present
in the form of terraces, related beach sands, and sand dunes (6).
Groundwater in the undifferentiated deposits is under water table conditions; the
water table surface approximates topography. Recharge occurs from rainfall,
predominantly in the· broad areas between streams. It is estimated that 90
percent of the precipitation effectively recharges the undifferentiated deposits.
Shallow boring logs are available for the New Hanover County Airport, immediately
east of the site. These logs, combined with the information obtained from
regional literature, are used to define a range of hydrogeologic conditions that
may exist beneath the New Hanover Site.
Figure 3-1 indicates that the New Hanover County Sit_e may lie in a recharge area
for the Sandstone Aquifer.· That is, the clay aquiclude may not be present at the
site.
i If the clay aquiclude is present, the Sandstone Aquifer would be confined; where
absent, the Sandstone Aquifer and the undifferentiated deposits would be
hydraulically connected and both would be under water table conditions. Given
this uncertainty, it is also possible that the clay aquiclude could pinch out in
the vicinity· of the site, creating a transition near the site from water table
conditions to confined conditions within the Sandstone Aquifer. Under either
condition, vertical groundwater between the Sandstone Aquifer and the overlying
aquifers flows upwards.
Boring logs to depths up to 73 feet bls are available for the airport. These
borings indicate the presence of predominately fine-grained sands and silts, to
depths of approximately 25 to 30 feet bls. From approximately 30 to 50 feet bls,
a fine-to medium-grained sand occurs in most borings that reach these depths.
The log from the deepest boring indicated that a very dense, gray limestone
occurs from 67.5 feet to the total drilled depth of 73.5 feet bls and is overlain
by approximately 15 feet of dark gray silty, fine-grained sand. Based on this
description, the limestone does not appear to be characteristic of the Castle
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 3.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 13
Hayne Formation which is almost invariably very light-colored and, with the exception of the chalk-white "cap rock" strata, is not as well indurated as the limestone reported for the deep airport boring. It is likely that this limestone is part of the Pee Dee Formation, which is reported to contain impure limestone lenses within the clay aquiclude portion.
Twenty-four water level measurements obtained from the open boring report the static water levels as ranging from 2.5 to 6 feet bls,
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4 .0 PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section No. 4.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
·Page 14
This section discusses the various remedial alternatives that may be considered for use at the New Hanover Site. However, inclusion of an alternative in this section does not necessarily constitute viability. As information is gathered during the RI/FS, alternatives will be evaluated on a more definitive basis. Treatability testing may be conducted to assess viability and effectiveness. The preliminary alternatives are identified at this stage .to guide the planning of the actual data gathering portion of the study.
Remedial action technologies will consider the following general categories:
• No action
• Treatment
• Containment
• Disposal
Remedial alternatives may, therefore, be evaluated over a complete range of cost-versus-benefit categories. The perf~rmance criteria and applicable relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR's) are described in Section 5.
As summarized in Section 2. 4, both organic and inorganic contaminants were identified in tank and pit sludge, soil and burn pit water. It is anticipated .that ARAR' s for sludge and soil will be met as a result of the removal action. If these remedial goals are met, groundwater (if contaminated) will be the sole remaining resource requiring remediation. Potential remedial technologies to be considered in developing remedial alternatives include the following:
Groundwater
• Precipitation
• Flocculation, sedimentation, filtration
• Air stripping
• Activated carbon
• Offsite treatment
• Biological treatment
4.1 Data Requirements
Remedial alternatives that will be scoped for the New Hanover Site are a combination of remedial technologies to address both organic and inorganic contamination within a given media (e.g., precipitation and activated carbon). The remedial technologies will be evaluated using the RI data base, and non-applicable technologies will be eliminated. Treatability testing will be conducted to evaluate the potential effectiveness of remedial alternatives.
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 4.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 15
Data needs for the various technologies may be divided into the following general
categories:
• Site conditions
• Nature of contamination
• Extent of contamination
• Site geology
• Soil/sediment characteristics
• Groundwater characteristics
• Climatology
Site conditions, such as accessibility, topography, site structures, and native vegetation, may limit or promote the use of a particular remedial technology. This is particularly important for technologies involving onsite treatment.
The nature of contamination at the site is important in determining the feasibility and potential effectiveness of the selected remedial alternatives.
These characteristics include the chemical composition of contaminated media. Preliminary sampling ·has identified both organic and inorganic contaminants. Contaminant characteristics affect the applicability or in-situ treatment, direct treatment methods,_ and onsite or offsite land disposal.
The extent of contamination is required for all technologies involving treatment, containment, or removal. The horizontal and vertical extent of contamination must be measured for soil, groundwater, and sediment. The extent of contamina-tion, together with site cleanup goals, are used.to determine the volume of soil to be removed from all sources.
Knowledge of the site geology is necessary to identify conditions that may limit or promote certain remedial technologies. Geological parameters' include depth I to confining layer and its permeability, subsurface profile, and structural strength. Geology plays a major role in determining the feasibility of groundwater and removal technologies. For instance, these data are required to effectively design a groundwater extraction system, if necessary.
Soil/sediment characteristics must be determined to obtain background levels of contaminants. OnCe background levels are known, the extent of contamination can be determined. Soil characteristics are also a factor in de~ermining the amount of surface water runoff from storm events.
Groundwater characteristics include groundwater chemistry, seasonal poten-tiometric surfaces, aquifer profile, aquifer characteristics, groundwater
velocity and direction of flow,· groundwater discharge and recharge areas, and contaminant profiles. These parameters greatly affect groundwater removal and control technologies. Groundwater removal and treatment requires either pumping
or the use of subsurface drains to extract groundwater for treatment or disposal. The use of barriers to control groundwater consists of installing low permeable
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 4.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 16
walls underground to divert groundwater flow or m1n1m1ze leachate generation and
plume movement by dewatering and hydraulic head reduction.
Climatology is a factor in determining the potential for
schedulling of field activities and the design of facilities for
surface runoff,
remedial action.
Burn pit water and sludge chemical analyses have adequately characterized these
media. No general surface water sampling is planned given the absence of nearby
streams. Groundwater discharge to surface water will'not be evaluated since a
number of potential sources (both onsite -and offsite) would render source
identification unreliable.
4.2 Existing Data Base
Compared to the information required to effectively evaluate the various remedial
technologies, the ~xis ting data base is limited. Three sampling events have been
conducted (January 1985, May 1986, and April 1990). The present data base
consists of the following:
• One groundwater sample and burn pit sludge was analyzed in January 1985.
• Soils around the burn pit and sludge in the burn pit were sampled in May
1986.
• Burn pit surface water and sludge as well as the tank sludge were sampled in
April 1990.
• Site photographs were taken in April 1990.
• Aerial photographs were taken in between October 1965 to April 1990.
• A site inspection report was issued in February 1987.
• A health assessment was conducted in November 1989.
J • A sampling investigation to determine residual contamination levels after
removal activities was performed in December 1990.
General site conditions and local climatology for the site are adequately defined
by the existing data base. Local precipitation map, evapotranspiration map, and
temperature ranges describe the climatology to the extent necessary to evaluate
the candidate remedial technologies.
Based upon information obtained to date, contamination appears to be limited to
the immediate area of the site. The only contaminant noted in groundwater
samples that exceeded the PRG' s was benzene. The concentration of benzene
appears to fall dramaticaly immediately downgradient of the former burn pit
source area. One soil sample collected from a former source area was noted to
have carcinogenic PAH's slightly above the levels specified in the PRG's.
Site specific data regarding geologic conditions and groundwater patterns are
only approximately known based on regional data, and are not adequate as a base
for an FS.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.3 Data Gaps
Section No. 4.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 17
Before a comprehensive site analysis can be performed, the following should be
determined:
• Typical onsite soil background concentrations.
• Specific subsurface hydrogeologic data.
• Extent of groundwater contamination and contaminant types.
• Flow direction of the groundwater.
• Analyses of water and sludge from the septic tank.
•_Existence of endangered species in the area.
/.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPE OF WORK
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 18
The objective of the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site Remedial Investigation is to determine the nature and extent of the contamination problem in sufficient detail to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives, as appropriate. The scope of work is presented below, along with USEPA's approach to each task.
The remedial investigation described herein will be a·multi-phased effort that can be briefly summarized as follows. The first phase (which has been completed) consisted of confirmation sampling of areas at t_he site excavated during the removal action. Soil samples were collected from all areas where soil· was removed, prior to backfilling. In addition, four groundwater samples were collected from temporary monitoring wells and two sediment samples were also collected. These samples were analyzed for the TCL/TAL at DQO Level IV. .This data shall serve two purposes. First, this data can be used to certify that the remqval action has met its goals, and provide the RI/FS with the worst case residual soil contaminants on-site. Second, it will serve to firmly tie the
removal activities to the remedial investigation, and ensure thereby that field work is not repeated unneccessarily.
The objectives of the next field effort will be to determine the edge of the contaminant plume using screening techniques. Temporary piezometers will be installed and surveyed in to determine the direction of groundwater flow. Utilizing this information, the contaminant plume will then be determined using temporary monitoring wells. Groundwater samples from these wells will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds at the US-EPA laboratory in Athen's (DQO Level V), on a quick turn-around basis.
Once all of the above data has been collected and evaluated, permanent monitoring wells will be installed and sampled. The precise number of wells required is dependent upon the nature and extent of contamination revealed by the prior field work, but six wells are anticipated (four shal_low and two deep wells). Some of the wells will be installed in clusters consisting of a shallow and deep well, but fewer deeper wells will be required. The shallow wells will be screened at the top of the water table, the deeper wells will be screened immediately above the Sandstone aquifer or the clay aquiclude, depending upon whi~h is present. Private residences with potable wells near the site and hydraulically downgradi-ent will also be sampled. Groundwater samples will be analyzed for TCL/TAL at DQO Level IV.
At the completion of the field effort, the data will be evaluated and the remedial investigation report will be written.
5.1 Project Planning
Project planning generally includes preparation of the work plan, sampling and analysis plan, community relations plan and health and safety plan. Altogether, these plans provide the framework for completion of the remedial investigation, including all field and laboratory activities and the feasibility study.
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
··-:, • .,. .-... ,:,:1111.-~;10 ;~:. 3 ~),,\ L'-~ 2 Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 19
During the project planning phase, which is currently ongoing and will end when this work plan is approved, several important activities have occurred, in addition to preparation of the various project plans. These activities include:
• Compilation and evaluation of existing site-specific data from previous investigations which are presented in detail in Section 2.2 of this document.
• Preparation of a site background summary which adaresses the site history, regional hydrogeology, existing site features and a summary of regulatory and response actions to date, which are pres.ented in Section 2 .0 of this document.
• A scoping meeting was held October 1, 1990, between ESD and WMD personnel to review and discuss ESD's proposed approach for the remedial investigation prior to preparation of the work plan and sampling and analysis plan.
These activities have played an important role in preparation of this work plan and the various project plans to be described below.
5.1.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan
ESD has prepared a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) which consists of a field sampling plan (FSP) and quality assurance project plan (QAPP). These may be found in section 7.0 and 8.0, respectively. The FSP describes the various field activities proposed during the RI including: the collection and analysis of soil, sediment, and groundwater samples to determine the extent of contamination (for the baseline risk assessment and FS technology evaluation) and the collection of representative soil samples for conducting a treatability study. The FSP includes the location, number of samples, and analyses necessary to define site contamination. This plan will guide all fie.ld work, identify individuals responsible for site work activities, and provide detailed procedures for conducting all field activities.
The QAPP has been prepared in accordance with EPA region IV guidelines, and ! covers all site sampling activities. This section specifies the procedures that must be implemented to ensure that data gathered at the site are consistent with specific quality goals of accuracy, precision, and completeness.
5.1.2 Health and Safety Plan
ESD has prepared the Heal th and Safety Plan (HASP) for field personnel in accordance with the USEPA Region IV Field Health and Safety Manual (1990), and 29 CFR 1910.120. The HASP is required for any site activity. The HASP describes personnel monitoring and .decontamination procedures in detail, and also addresses health and safety procedures and requirements for all onsite personnel. The HASP may be found in Appendix D.
5.1.3 Community Relations Plan
The community relations plan (CRP) will be prepared by a US-EPA contractor.
•--:; ... :.::,,.,d
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
5.2 Field Activity Preparation
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 20
The Waste Management Division (WMD) will be responsible for obtaining all permits and authorization for field activities from New Hanover County. Site access is not expected to be an issue. In addition, WMD will procure various items and services for field support which are listed under separate cover. ESD will obtain the necessary drilling supplies. New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington are providing water for drilling, and a backhoe for construction of the decontamination pad.
5.3 Field Activities
Soil Sampling
The overall strategy is to determine the depth and lateral extent of contamina-tioD by collecting soil samples from around the source areas until contaminant concentrations approaching the Preliminary Remediation Goals are obtained.
The contaminant source has been adequately characterized in prior sampling events and has been removed. Background soil conditions have yet to be adequately determined for the site. Background soil samples will be collected with hand augers. Two samples will be collected from the background soil sample station, a surface (0-1 foot) and saturated zone (4-5 foot) sample. The background soil samples will be analyzed for TCL/TAL constituents at DQO Level IV. Two soil samples will be collected from source areas, one from the sample location designated BP-18 in the confirmation sampling study, and the burn pit area.
The following are potential source areas: burn pit, two stained soil areas related to the burn pit, (northeast and west), three firefighter training areas (tank car, auto, and aircraft), burn fuel supply pipeline (if significant leaks are discovered during the removal actioTI), the aiea around the burn fuel storage tank, and perimeter site ditches. These areas were sampled during the removal action, prior to backfilling (confirmation sampling). The analytical results indicate that the soil contaminant concentrations are at or below the levels specified in the PRG, with the possible exception of sample location BP-18.
!
Surface Water/Sediment Sampling
No surface water samples are planned. There is no surface drainage from the site because the ·sandy nature of the soil permits rapid infiltration. Two sediment samples were collected during the confirmation sampling from the perimeter ditches encircling the site. No additional sediment samples are required.
Septic Tank Sampling
There is an abandoned septic tank located in the south central portion of the site. Water was observed standing in the tank, and the tank is not properly secured. A sample of the solids in the tank will be collected.
Surveying and Mapping
The site survey will consist of a ground survey. The ground survey will locate temporary piezometers, permanent wells, soil samples, and areas of concern. All
•
, . ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 21
of the confirmation soil samples and temporary wells along with the areas of concern are located on a survey plat referenced to a temporary benchmark. All surveyed points will be referenced to the state planar coordinates and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), 1929. Top of well casing, ground elevations and other vertical and horizontal controls will be addressed.
Confirmation soil samples were surveyed in relative to the site at the time of sampling. These samples will be referenced to state planar coordinates.
Endangered Species Survey
US-EPA will contract an endangered species survey of the forested area adjacent to the site to determine if rare, threatened or eildangered species are present. This effort will also involve a literature review and discussions with local, state, and federal entities with knowledge of and jurisdiction over endangered species. Preliminary indications are that an endangered species of carnivorous plant and tree frog may be present near the site. If endangered species are present this information will be factored into the risk assessment.
Groundwater Flow Direction
Eight to twelve temporary piezometers will be installed at the site to determine groundwater flow direction in the surficial aquifer. Currently, there is no site specific hydrogeologic data. The piezometers will play a role in providing the necessary hydrogeologic data to construct a water table map prior to delineation of the contaminant plume, determining suitable locations for permanent monitoring wells and construction of the permanent monitor wells.
Piezometers will be installed hydraulically using the Geo-Probe system. The temporary piezometers will be pushed to approximately one foot below the water table. No samples will be collected from the piezometers.
After acquisition of adequate water level data, ·the temporary piezometers will be pulled and abandoned. If the collapse of the borehole is not to grade, clean soil will be used to fill •the borehole to grade.
Contaminant Plume Delineation
After the piezometers are installed, and groundwater flow direction has been determined, ten to fifteen temporary monitoring wells will be installed using the Geo-Probe hydraulic system, to a depth of one to two feet below the water table. Groundwater · samples from these wells will be analyzed using DQO Level V techniques on a quick turn-around basis. The main objectives of this sampling will be to deterCTine the extent of the volatile contaminants plume. Volatile contaminants will be analyzed for at the levels specified in the ASB SOP, with the exception of benzene, which will be analyzed for at 1 ppb (normally 5 ppb). The burn pit area will be evaluated, along with the surrounding area. After the sample is collected and analyzed, the temporary monitoring well will be abandoned. The procedure will involve the removal of the stainless steel casing and screen. If the collapse of the borehole is not to grade, clean soil or sand will be used to fill the borehole to grade.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Permanent Monitoring Wells
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 22
Installation and sampling of the permanent groundwater monitoring wells comprise
the last phase of the field activities. After evaluating all of the previously
collected data, the numbers, locations, and design of the permanent monitoring
wells will be finalized.
If groundwater contamination at the site is minimal, as anticipated, four shallow
and two deep permanent wells will be installed. One monitor well cluster will
be installed upgradient of the burn pit area to·determine upgradient groundwater
conditions at the site. All monitoring wells will be constructed as specified
in Appendix E of the ECBSOPQAM. .
Wells will not be installed into the Sandstone Aquifer at this time. If
contamination is present in samples taken from the surficial-Sandstone Aquifer
interface, an additional investigation may be necessary.. Based on known site
chai;acteristics and the typical contaminant movement, it is unlikely that
contamination will be found below the surficial aquifer.
Both shallow and deep wells will be developed by over pumping, and surging if
necessary, until the water is free of visible sands and drilling fluids (if
used). Developed water will be monitored for specific conductance stabilization.
Lockable protective outer casings will be installed to prevent vandalism.
Groundwater Sampling·
Groundwater samples will be collected from permanent monitoring wells to define
the limits of the contaminant plume in the surficial aquifer and to determine if
contamination exists in the Sandstone Aquifer. A summary of sample types,
number, analytical parameters and QA samples is presented in Table 4-1.
5.3.1 Water Level Testing
Water level measurements will be taken in all temporary piezometers and permanent
monitoring wells. All water level measuring activities will be performed within , the shortest period of time possible so that levels will be relatively
comparable. Each measurement will be made from a know point of elevation marked
on the well casing, as surveyed by a qualified surveyor. These levels will allow
flow directions to be determined.
5.3.2 Pump Tests
In situ hydraulic conductivity tests of saturated materials will be performed on
all permanent monitoring wells. Pump tests will be performed using positive
pressure air displacement. To perform a pump test, a pressure sensitive water
level transducer will be installed in the well to be pumped and the static water
level recorded. Temporary piezometers at known distances (and in a line with the
well) are treated likewise. The well is then pumped and the transducers record
the amount of draw down in the well and the piezometers over time.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.4 Sample Analysis/Validation
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 23
Data management and document control are specified in the ECBSOPQAM. Laboratory
data are subject to ESD quality assurance procedures. These procedures cover
sample storage, preparation, and analyses.
The Field Project Leader, Fred Sloan, is responsible for the implementation of
this study. Deviations from the approved SAP will be documented in the field
notes and in the QA section of the RI report.
5.5 Data Evaluation
Data evaluation is central to the RI report. All data resulting from the field
investigation will be compiled, tabulated and reviewed as specified. Data
reduction and tabulation will be performed in a systematic manner to facilitate
data· review and interpretation. The actual data reductton process may include
computer analyses, graphic representations or other methods that aid in
evaluation and conceptualization of the results.
5.6 Risk Assessment
The risk assessment (RA) for the New Hanover Site will be prepared by CDM. This
work plan allows for the development of a baseline risk assessment for the New
Hanover Site which incorporates data collected previously and the data obtained
during the RI. The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), (1989) will
be used as a starting point for preparation of the RA for the site.
The risk assessment proposed is an analysis of the potential adverse health
effects (current and future) caused by hazardous substance releases from the site
in the absence of any actions to control or initigate these releases. The
baseline RA will contribute to the site characterization and subsequent
development, evaluation, and selection of an appropriate remedy and will assist
in development of the ROD.
;
5.6.1 Contamination Identification
All available information on the hazardous substances present will be reviewed
and the major contaminants of concern will be selected based on toxicological
properties, frequency of occurrence and concentrations, and/or because they are
currently in, or potentially may migrate into critical exposure pathways.
5.6.2 Exposure Assessment
An exposure assessment will be conducted to estimate the magnitude of actual
and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures,
and the pathways by which humans may be exposed. The information obtained will
allow the assessment of various exposure pathways, primarily inhalation. This
assessment will involve analyzing contaminant releases, identifying exposed
populations, identifying all complete potential pathways of exposure, estimating
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'' ·~ .. , .. :~
. ;:.\;J·;\\ju
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 24
exposure point concentrations, and estimating contaminant intakes for specific pathways.
5.6.3 Toxicity Assessment
A toxicity assessment will be provided for each of those chemicals found to be of concern. This evaluation will include assessing the types of adverse health or environmental effects associated with chemical exposures, the relationship between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects, and related uncertainties such as weight by evidence of a particular chemical's carcinogenicity potential.
5.6.4 Risk Characterization
All information developed during the exposure and toxicity assessments will be int~grated to characterize the current or potential risk to human health and)or the environment posed by the site. This characterization will identify the potential for adverse health or environmental effects for the contaminants of concern and identify any uncertainties associated with the contaminants, their toxicities, and/or exposure assumptions. The risk characterization will summarize and combine the outputs of exposure and toxicity to characterize the baseline risk.
5.6.5 Endangered Species Assessment
An endangered species assessment will be performed if endangered species are identified on or near the site. The following are plant and animal species which have been identified near the New Hanover Site:
• Alligators
• Lelaelopsis carolinsus
• Seminal bat
• Tracy's Beakrush
• Stylisma pickeringii
5.7 Remedial Investigation Report
Draft and final remedial investigation reports will be prepared and submitted to the Waste Management Division. The RI report will include much of the same site history and background information presented herein along with the results of all field investigation/surveys conducted at the site, data tabulation and analysis, monitor well construction details, quality assurance information, results of risk assessment, treatability study activities, potential remedial alternatives, and conclusions and recommendations.
The RI report in both draft and final form
appendices containing QA data, data tables,
will be accompanied by
raw data sheets, etc.,
several
as ap-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section No. 5.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 25
propriate, to provide full documentation of the RI activities. The draft RI
report will be submitted to WMD by June 28, 1991. The final RI report will be
prepared following ESD and WMD review and comment on the draft report.
5.8 Feasibility Study
It is believed (based upon the confirmation sampling). that the source removal
action was fully successful in removing wastes and contaminated soils from the
site (6). The remaining media potentially requiring remediation is residual
contaminated groundwater. If the risk assessment shows unacceptable health risks
associated with residual contaminated groundwater, a feasibility study to
determine the appropriate groundwater remediation technology will be conducted.
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 SCHEDULE
Section No. 6.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 26
The schedule of activities for the RI is presented in Table 5-1. Total project duration is approximately 10 months. The draft RI report will be submitted June 28, 1991.
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 STAFFING PLAN
7.1 Project Organization
Section No. 7.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 27
The following is a list of the personnel assigned to this project and their areas of responsibility:
Name
Jon Bornholm
Fred Sloan
Jon Vail
Terry Thomas
Role
Remedial Project manager
Field Project Leader
Project Geologist
Safety Officer
Other personnel will be utilized from ESD and WMD resources as needed.
' i,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
8.1 General
Section No. 8.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 28
All field procedures described in this field sampling and quality assurance plan will adhere to · the ECBSOPQAM, unless specifically noted otherwise. Detailed instructions for completing the various field tasks outlined here may be found in that manual.
8.1.1 Data Collection
All field procedures used during this study will be in accordance with the Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, February 1, 1991, USEPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division. All laboratory services used during this investigation will be in accordance with standard USEPA methods with the exception of the quick turn-around samples for VOA analysis which will have a reduced quantitation limit for benzene. The quality assurance procedures used will be those specified in the Analytical Support Branch Laboratory Operations and Quality Control Manual, September, 1990, USEPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division.
The major data collection tasks include the following:
• Site survey (partially completed)
• Source area soil sample collection (completed)
• Temporary piezometer installation and measurement
• Temporary monitor well installation and samPling
• Permanent monitor well installation and sampling
• Water level measurements and aquifer tests
8.1.2 Site Security
The site is located on the grounds of the New Hanover County Airport, which has 24 hour security services. The site is separated from the main road by a ditch and three locked gates. Security services will be required each night of the investigation from 5:00 PM until the following morning at 8:00 AM. Airport security will also be notified of site activities. No unauthorized persons will be allowed on the site during the remedial investigation without permission from the field project leader or his designee.
8.1.3 Health and Safety Objectives
Standard health and safety procedures will be implemented during all phases of the field activity. Specific procedures are in the Health and Safety Plan.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.1.4 Command Post
Section No. 8.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 29
A command post will be set up on the northern portion of the site. The command post will provide shelter, a break area, lights, power, toilet facilities, etc. The command post will be a self contained motor home. A cellular phone will be utilized to provide telephone services.
8.1.5 Equipment Decontamination
All equipment decontamination procedures will be as specified in the ECBSOPQAM, February 1, 1991. Any deviations from these procedures will be noted iff the field logbooks and the final report. A decontamination pit will be constructed on the northern part of the site.
_8.1.6 Investigation Derived Wastes
Investigation derived wastes will be handled in a manner consistent with their nature and origin. All trash generated on the site, including non-hazardous
disposable coveralls, boot covers, and sampling equipment will .be placed in a leased dumpster on site for disposal as garbage.
All wastewater generated on site, ·including monitoring well development water,
purge water, and decontamination water will be placed in a large holding tank. A representative sample of the tank will then be collected and analyzed for TCL/TAL constituents on a quick turn-around basis. Additional samples will be collected for the City of Wilmington to be analyzed for pH, total suspended solids, BODS and oil & grease. These additional samples will be analyzed by the Wilmington wastewater treatment plant. The TCL/TAL analytical results will then be given to New Hanover County officials, who will accept the wastewater into the municipal Wastewater treatment plant if the leveis of contaminants do not exceed permit levels. It is anticipated that contaminant levels will be low. If
however, the contaminant. levels exceed the pre-treatment standards for the wastewater treatment plant, the wastewater will be taken off-site, treated and disposed of properly.
Spent isopropanol generated by the equipment decontamination proce'ss will be kept to a minimum volume. The spent solvent will be collected and returned to the ESD laboratory in Athens, Georgia, for proper disposal.
Drill cuttings will be placed in 55 gallon drums. A composite sample will be collected from all the drums and analyzed for the TCLP. If the composite soil sample does not fail the TCLP, the soil in the drums will be placed in a pit on site immediately downgradient of the burn pit excavation area and covered over.
The drums will be rinsed and returned to the ESD warehouse in Athens, Georgia.
Water generated from the pump tests will be discharged to the perimeter ditch.
The tested wells will be upgradient of the source areas.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2 Soil Sampling
Section No. 8.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 30
Most required soil sampling was performed during the confirmation soil sampling conducted by USEPA in December, 1990. Necessary soil sampling remaining to be performed includes the collection of two background soil samples which will be collected in the area of the upgradient monitoring wells (see Figure 8-1). A surficial and saturated zone sample will be collected using hand augers. Table 4-1 lists the numbers and types of samples and analyses -required for all sampling activities.
8.3 Installation of Temporary Piezometers and Groundwater Monitor Wells
8.3.1 Objectives
Temporary piezometers will be installed at the locations shown in Figure 8-2. Approximately 8 -12 temporary piezometers and 10 -15 temporary monitoring wells will be installed at the site. Temporary piezometers will be installed first to determine the groundwater gradient at the site. Following this, temporary monitoring wells will be installed and sampled for volatile organic compounds on a quick turn-around basis to locate the downgradient edge of the contaminant plume.
8.3.2 Field Equipment
Temporary piezometers and monitoring wells will be pushed into soils at the site using Geo-Probe equipment. Temporary monitoring wells will be sampled using peristaltic pumps.
8.3.3 Specific Protocols
Piezometers will be emplaced in groups of 4 to 6. Water levels ~ill be allowed to stabilize for approximately one hour before measurement. GroU:Tldwater levels will be measured and elevations surveyed using the techniques in ·the ECBSOPQAM, February 1, 1991. A temporary benchmark will be placed on the ground next to each piezometer and surveyed in (horizontal and vertical control). Groundwater samples will be collected from the temporary monitor wells using peristaltic pumps.
8.4 Installation of Permanent Monitoring Wells
Six permanent monitoring wells will be installed at the New Hanover Site. Four shallow and two deep monitoring wells are planned. Upgradient wells will be placed as shown in Figure 8-3. Locations of the downgradient wells will be determined_ during the investigation as described above.
, ,-i .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.4.l Objectives
Section No. 8.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 31
Permanent monitoring wells will be installed on site to provide long-term high quality ground water sampling stations. Permanent monitoring wells will be sampled for Target Compound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL) compounds at DQO Level IV. These samples are intended to define the nature and limits of the groundwater contaminant plume at the New Hanover Site.
8.4.2 Field Equipment
Wells will be installed using the Hazardous Waste Section's CME 4500 drill rig. Well casing and screen will be constructed of 304 stainless steel, delivered to to ESD with no printing. The slot size of the screens will be #10, and the screens and casings will be 2 inch I.D. Well screens will be 10 feet in length. Filter pack sand will be Ottowa sand, with a grain size of 20/40. The grout used to s.eal the annular space will be Volclay Pure Gold Grout. The bentonite pellets used to make the bentonite seal will be 1/4 inch diameter pure bentonite.
8.4.3 Specific Protocols
Wells will be installed as outlined in the ECBSOPQAM (see Figure 8-4). Shallow wells will be installed installed using 6 inch I.D. hollow stem augers. The well screens will intercept the top of the water.table, which is approximately 5 feet below ground surface at the site. It is anticipated that it will not be necessary to use water or mud rotary to install the shallow wells. The deep wells will be installed using G inch I.D. hollow stem augers. The screens will be set immediately above the clay aquiclude or the sandstone aquifer, whichever is present. It is anticipated that these deeper wells will require water and/or mud rotary drilling methods to complete construction.
· 8.5 Groundwater Sampling
8.5.1 Objectives
Temporary and permanent monitoring wells will be sampled. Temporary monitoring wells will be sampled for volatile organic compounds only. Data from temporary monitor wells will be utilized to determine the extent of the contaminant plume for the purpose of locating the permanent monitoring wells. Permanent monitoring wells will be sampled for TCL/TAL compounds. This data will be utilized to determine the nature and extent of the contaminant plume for the risk assessment and feasibility study.
8.5.2 Field Equipment
Temporary monitoring wells will be purged
Permanent monitoring wells will be purged
will be sampled using Teflon® hailers.
electric water level indicators.
and sampled using
using peristaltic
Water levels will
peristaltic pumps.
or Fultz pumps and
be measured using
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.5.3 Specific Protocols
Section No. "8. 0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 32
Temporary monitoring wells will be purged (if possible) using peristaltic pumps. Purging is intended to remove silt from the well. Samples will be collected by allowing the peristaltic pump to draw water into the Teflon® tubing, removing the tubing from the well and the pump, and allowing the groundwater to drain into the sample containers. Permanent monitoring wells will be purged •._and sampled in ac_cordance with the ECBSOPQAM.
8.6 Aquifer Testing
8.6.1 Objectives
Pump tests will be performed upon the two upgradient wells to determine the hyd,aulic conductivity of the water table aquifer local to the site.
8.6.2 Field Equipment
A gasoline powered centrifugal pump will be used to pump the wells. Five temporary piezometers will be installed using hand augers. The piezometers will be 10, 25, 50, 75 and 100 feet from the wells being pumped, and in line with the wells. The water levels in the wells and piezometers will be measured electronically using transducers.
8.6.3 Specific Protocols
Four temporary piezometers will be installed using hand augers in a line
originating at the upgradient well cluster. Sand will be poured around the piezometers to hold them upright and to keep the piezometers from silting in.
A gasoline powered centrifugal pump capable of pumping approximately 10 gallons
per minute will be used to d·raw down the upgradient wells. The pump test will run for approximately 8 hours. Water levels in the well being pumped and the piezometers will be monitored electronically.
8.7 Surveying
8.7.1 Objective
Temporary and permanent wells and piezometers will be surveye·d in (horizontal and vertical control) during the remedial investigation. This will allow figures to be produced showing the groundwater gradient ·across the site, and allow the
locations of the permanent structures and sampling stations to be expressed in terms of the state planar coordinate system.
•
; ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.7.2 Field Equipment
Section No. 8.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 33
The Hazardous Waste Section's Topcon® theodolite will be used to establish
horizontal and vertical controls at the site.
8.7.3 Specific Protocols
All surveying will be performed in accordance with the ECBSOPQAM. Temporary monitoring wells and peizometers will be surveyed in before their removal. The permanent monitoring wells will be surveyed in during the pump test (after they have been sampled) along with the temporary piezometers associated with the.pump test. The site will be located in relation to the state planar coordinate grid
as the pump test is being conducted.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii
I
I
9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
9.1 Data Quality Objectives
Section No. 9.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 34
Data Quality Objectives (DQO' s) provide a framework for understanding the
potential data uses for various field and analytical procedures. There are
currently five defined levels of DQO's:
• Level I -Field screening or analys_is using portable instruments. Results
are often not compound specific and not quantitative but results are
· available in real time. Field work performed at DQO Level I may involve
techniques and sampling equipment that would be inappropriate for higher
quality analytical work, but is acceptable for this level because of the
poor resolution of the analytical in7trumentation.
•.Level II· Level II analyses involve more sophisticated portable analytical
instruments. Field work (decontamination procedures, sampling equipment
construction materials, etc.) may be modified as appropriate for this level,
with the guiding _criteria being that Quality Assurance samples collected
contain none of the analytes of concern when analyzed using these tech-
niques.
• Level III All analytical procedures are performed using an offsite
laboratory. All field methods are as specified in the ECBSOPQAM.
• Level IV All analytical procedures follow CLP protocols. All field
methods are as specified in the ECBSOPQAM.
• Level V -Analyses are by non-standard methods. Field methods may require
modification to be appropriate to the analytical procedures.
All sample analyses at the New Hanover Site will be at conducted at Level IV or
V. Field work will also be at Level IV and V. Because of their temporary nature
(no concrete pad, probable high levels of silt, little or no development), the
piezometers and temporary monitoring wells will be considered Level III (non-
standard) field work. Analytical results from the temporary wells will be
performed at Level V. This is because of the increased resolution for benzene,
1 ppb instead of the normal 5 ppb.
9.2 Sample Custody Procedures
Sample chain of custody procedures will be followed as described in the
ECBSOPQAf!.
9.3 Calibration Procedures and Frequency
Field instruments will be calibrated and maintained as specified in the
ECBSOPQAf!.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:·'I_.
G..!·,.i :~ 1~:,}·-
9.4 Analytical Procedures
Section No. 9.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 35
All laboratory services used during this investigation will be in accordance with standard USEPA methods with the exception of the quick turn-around samples for VOA analysis which will have a reduced quantitation limit for benzene. The quality assurance procedures used will be those specified in the Analytical Support Branch Operations and Quality Assurance Manual, September, 1990, USEPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division.
9.5 Quality Control Checks
9.5.1 Field Quality Assurance Samples
Field quality assurance samples of the type and quantity specified in the ECB~OPQAM will be collected. Following is a narrative summary of the quality assurance samples anticipated:
Trip Blanks
Two water and two soil trip blanks (VOA analyses) are anticipated for the proposed RI (one blank of each media for each week on site).
Preservative Blanks
Two preservative blanks (metals and cyanide analyses) are anticipated, one collected at the beginning and one at the end of the study.
Blanks and Spikes
Blanks and spikes will be utilized if CLP laboratory services are procured. The numbers and types will be dependent upon the type of services utilized and the number of laboratories involved.
System Blanks
Two system blanks (full scan) of the organic free water system are anticipated, one for each week of the study.
Water Tank B1ank
One blank (full scan) of the water in the tank truck will be required. This blank will be analyzed on a quick turn-around basis. Drilling will not proceed until the results of the analysis are known.
Well Materials Blanks
One blank (full scan) of the sand used to construct the filter packs on the monitor wells will be collected. One blank (full scan) of the bentonite pellets used to construct the bentonite seal will be collected. One blank (full scan) of the grout materials will be collected. One blank (full scan) of the drilling mud (if used) will be collected.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Equipment Rinse Blanks
Section No. 9.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 36
Two equipment rinse blanks (full scan) are anticipated, one for each week of the study.
Split Samples
No more than 10 per cent of all samples collected will be submitted as blind splits (or duplicates) for full scan analyses.
Duplicate For Matrix Spike
One water sample for extractable organic analysis will be collected in duplicate and clearly labeled 11 Duplicate for matrix spike''.
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 REFERENCES
Section No. 10.0
Revision No. 1
Date: 03/26/91
Page 37
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1988. Guidance for Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
(2) North Carolina Department of Human Resources, 1987. Site Inspection Report,
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit.
(3) New Hanover County, Engineering and Facilities Department, November 4, 1988.
Letter summarizing site history.
(4) U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, December 17, 1989. Preliminary Health Assessment for the New
Hanover County Burn Pit, Wilmington, North Carolina.
(5) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, May 1990. Site Sampling Investigation, New Hanover Burn Pit,
Wilmington, North Carolina.
(6) North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources, November 17, 1970.
"Geology and Groundwater Resources of New Hanover County, North Carolina",
by George L. Bain. Groundwater Bulletin.
(7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, February 1, 1991. Environmental Compliance Branch Standard
Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, (ECBSOPQAM).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
. . . ·. . . '·,'~,--,~ .. -, ..
·,;.! :·.
'J L:
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
• • --•• ......... ,.A·<,•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
-------------------
~EPA
FIGURE 2-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991
--UJnQUO U ---
FIGURE 2-2
SITE MAP
--- --
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991 I ,
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I ;
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ,'( -------/ '<.~-----::--"'a. 0 ,,.... ------... ..... o.
I I ::--......, ,,-~
I I ..._ ..._ r~.
1, .... , .... ~.J _,,,,.--
'1 .... ---,,,..--"
I I ..._ ..,__, \'
I I \
I I \ \
I I ' \ \ I I ..._' .._ \
I I '' ..._' \ \ ....... \ \ -\._
&EPA
-·-- -
-,,
I I
I \
I I
I I ' \ ,✓;-,\
\ I I I
I I
\ \ \ '
\ \ \ '
\ \ \ \
\' '\
\ \ \ '
\ ' \ \ ' \ \ \ \ I I
\ \ I
\ \. \ \
"-.__ I '--\ \ \
- - -
LEGEND
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
-
SCALE APPROXIMATE
t 't' T
1· ... 125'
-
--- - -UJn UO U
FIGURE 2-3
CONFIRMATION SAMPLING
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL, 1991
~EPA
-- --·---
-----' -, \
I I
I I
I I
I I
\ \ ,,;·, \
I I I I I I
\ \ \ \
\ \ \ \
I \ \ \
\ I \ \
\ \ \ \
I \ \ \
I \ \ \
\ I \
I \ I
'" \1 ' '---\ '---\ \ \
-- -
LEGEND
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
-
SCALE APPROXIMATE
1 't' T
,._ 125'
-
- --- - -UJn 00 U
FIGURE 2-4
1986 SAMPLING EVENT
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
It
I I
I I
I I
I I
&EPA
- - -----·--
-----
•
- -
LEGEND
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
-
SAMPLE LDCA TION
SCALE APPROXIMA 1E
I 't' T
,~-125'
-
-----UJO UO U
FIGURE 2-5
APRIL 1990 SAMPLING EVENT
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991
&EPA
--------
---' -, \
I I
I I
I I
I I ' \ ,,;,,\
\ \ \ \ I I \ I \ \
I I \ \
I I \ \
\ \ \ \
\ \ I I
\ \ \ '
\ \ \ \
\ I \
\ \ \
\ \_ \ \
'-. '-... I '--\ \ \
---
LEGEND
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
-
SCALE APP ROXI MA TE
b 't' 'i
,._ 125'
-
' .
- - - - --- - - --· -· - - - - - - -
SEA
LEVEL
FIGURE 3-1
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT AREA
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991
"' l;t
"' >-~ §
~ w NORTH "' "' ~ v.£ST ~ ~ 0 "' 0 w "' ~ "' < z < 50' It w E iE w ~ i's ~ "' 0 "'''°'" . ···'~ z
100'
SILT AND CLAY AQUICLUDE
150'
200'
250'
JOO'
SILT AND CLAY AQUICLUDE
350'
SOURCE: BAIN, 1970
>-" i's l:J PIEZOMETRIC ~ "' "' 0 SURFACE < ~ E :, "'
::l
-~ ~ ~ ~ z < >-u\ I "' I,! I,! "' ~ <
APPROXIMATE SCALE
, 0 , I'---.-I
(IN tr.Ill.ES)
vtR'llCAL SCAI.£ CREAn.Y WCCERATED
,..
~ "' I,!
~
~ ~ < 0 0 < I= ~
·suRFICIAL DEPOSITS
' CLAY AQUICL
A.Nos.,. ,oNt A.ou ······· ...... IFtF?
Ii < w m
~ ~ 12 % "1 lli
.. --
Soun<
EAST
-- - --- -UJn UO U
FIGURE 8-1
BACKGROUND SOIL SAMPLES
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL, 1991
-
/ I ,
I I
I I
I I
I I
~EPA
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I ,'( ------
- -
liiiiill. ----
■
- -
LEGEND
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
DEEP WELL
SH ALLDW WELL
-
SCALE APPROXIMATE
l e!t' T
1·-125'
-
- --- - --UJn UO U
FIGURE 8-2
TEMPORARY PIEZOMETERS AND WELLS
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL, 1991
1101£:~ AN0 tOO.TIOl'o'S AR( .lPPAOXll,IA,TE.
f1NN.. NVWIXRS NI~ LOCI\TlONS 'IIIU. II( ocaoro DIJRlt.a mo 1ll0ftK,
• •
&EPA 0
•
-
•
- - - -
-----
-----
ASSUMED GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION
LEGEND
0 •
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
TEMPORARY PIEZ .
TEMPORARY WELL
SCALE APPROXIMATE
I ·1:• 'l'
,._ 125'
-
- -
UJOQUD U --- - -
FIGURE 8-3
PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL, 1991
NOTE: t.0CAl10HS NIE APPROXJ,IAT(. rtHAI. l.OCA110-1$ 'MU. llf DCCDED OU'l!i'tO fE..D Jll0RK.
-
~EPA
0
--·--- --·-
-\, ASSUMED GROUNDWATER
FLOW DIRECTION \ \
\ \
\ \
I \
\ \
,~\\
\ \ \ \ I \
\ ' \ ' I \ \ \
\ I \ \
\ I \ \
\ \ ' \ ,, Ef)I'
\ \ \ ' \ \ 0 I I
\ I \
\ \ l'
' '-I
LEGEND
EB
0
BERM/ROAD
PIPELINE
DEEP WELL
SHALLOW WELL
-
'--\ \ I SCALE APPROXIMATE
l '! T
1·-125'
-
u:::
r..:..\.!
l;;.,.' ,,.: .,,.,.
J.u~·-:
tz:·.1 '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4'X 4'X 6"
CONCRETE PAD
FROST LINE
v
APPROXIMATE
WATER LEVEL
(5' BLS)
~EPA
STEEL VENTED PROTECTIVE A '°"'" '" COC<S
F=::::::'::=);ri CAP
WEEP HOLE
VOLCLAY GROUT
STAINLESS STEEL
2" DIA.
BENTONITE SEAL (2')
SAND PACK
AINLESS STEEL WELL SCREEN
(2" DIA. 10' LENGTH)
FIGURE 8-4
MONITORING WELL DIAGRAM
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
APRIL 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .,
I
APPENDIX B
I TABLES
I
I
I
11
'
I
I
I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
NEW HANOVER SITE
DECEMBER 1990
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
MERCURY
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
TRIMETHYLCYCLOPENTENONE
TRIMETHYLHEXANOIC ACID
METHYLNAPHTHALENEACETIC ACID
NAPHTHOPYRANDIONE
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
10 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
17 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
"PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BENZENE
ETHYL BENZENE
TOTAL XYLENES
PENTANE
METHOXYMETHYLPROPANE
OXYBISPROPANE
TETRAHYDROTHIOPHENE
TRIMETHYLBENZENE
ETHYLMETHYLBENZENE(2 ISOMERS)
PROPYLBENZENE
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
**"' FOOTNOT Es,,<,*
NA NOT ANALYZED J -ESTIMATED VALUE
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
BP-22
TEMP
WELL#l
12/12/90
.1030
MG/KG
UG/L
lJ
lJ
UG/L
BP-23 BP-24
TEMP. TEMP
WELL#2 WELL#3
12/12/90 12/12/90
1150 1405
MG/KG
UG/L
19
22
200J
UG/L
7JN
MG/KG
UG/L
2J
2J
20JN
50JN
40J
UG/L
8J
lJ
2J
•
BP-25
TEMP
WELL#4
12/12/90
1450
MG/KG
l.60J
UG/L
15
70JN
300JN
N
2000J
UG/L
210
120
2J
lOJN
lOOJN
20JN
60JN
40JN
60JN
50J
--
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL LEAD
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ALUMINUM MANGANESE CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM IRON POTASSIUM
-
EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS
PHENANTHRENE ANTHRACENE PYRENE BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE CHRYSENE
-
BENZOCB AND/ORK)FLUORANTHENE
BENZO-A-PYRENE
NAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE OCTAHYOROHEXAMETHYLINDENE
ETHYLDIMETHYLBENZENE 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE DIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE TRIMETHYLNAPHTHALENE DIHYDRCX1ETHANONAPHTHALENE 3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 9 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 10 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 11 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
12 UNIDENTIFIED Cct-!POUNDS
15 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
16 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
16 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 19 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
PURGEABLE ORGANICS
BENZENE ETHYL BENZENE TOTAL XYLENE$ DECANE DIMETHYLHEPTANE NONANE
PROPYLHEXANE ETHYLMETHYLHEPTANE (2 ISCMERS)
TRIMETHYLHEPTANE ETHYLMETHYLBENZENE
TRIMETHYLBENZENE TRIMETHYLNDNANE
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
ut1FQOTNOTESt1u
-
NA NOT ANALYZED J -ESTIMATED VALUE
-
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
-
BP-01
SEDIMENT WEST
12/11/90
0935
MG/KG
1. 9 48J
5 7.7J
1.8 NA
26
1500
240
150J
UG/KG
2000J
UG/KG
-
BP-02
SEDIMENT EAST
12/11/90
1000
MG/KG
8,3
4.3
llJ
5.8 NA
26
4900
260
140
730J
130
UG/KG
UG/KG
--- -- -- --TABLE 2-2
ANALYTICAL DATA S1.R-t-1ARY
SEDIMENT AND PIT SAMPLES NEW HANOVER SITE
DECEMBER 1990
BP-13
BURN PIT SW
12/11/90
1600
MG/KG
7.1 3.2
7. 4J
3.2 NA
18
2600
'10
590J
UG/KG
BP-14
BURN PIT
SE
12/11/90
1610
MG/KG
4 .. 9
2.8 13J
8. SJ
2. 9 NA
18
2500
460
500J
BP-15
BURN PIT NE
12/11/90
1620
MG/KG
21
2. 9 6.6J
13J
3.4 NA
36
2200
8.3
1100
100
730J
UG/KG
BP-16
BURN PIT NW
12/11/90
1630
MG/KG
13
3 6.6J
23J
3.9 NA
40
2800
4. 4
1300
150
780J
120
UG/KG UG/KG
9BJ 350J 780J
3700 4000JN
90000J
l00000J
N N
UG/KG UG/KG
l40J
2600
3900
370J 960J
2000JN
2000JN
200000J
60000J
N N
UG/KG UG/KG
5000JN
3000JN
2000J
BP-17
SMALL
BURN PIT
12/11/90
1650
MG/KG
2. 2
llJ
2.6J
2
NA
27
1500
92
400J
UG/KG
2000J
1600J
11000
20000JN
6000JN
l0000JN
200000J
BP-18
SMALL BP TRENCH
12/12/90
0840
MG/KG
6.6
3
l4J
!BJ
3
NA
32 2200
3.7
890 98
560J
UG/KG
200JN
8000J
N N
UG/KG UG/KG
420J
ll00J
30000JN 4000JN
8000JN
5000JN
6000JN
3000JN
li000JN
l0000JN
7000J
BP-21
DUP OF
BP-18
12/12/90 0840
f,(j/KG
5.4
2.2
61J
2.1
NA
1700
3.7
1200
130 540J
UG/KG
240J
53J
250J
160J
150J
250J
83J
lOOOOJ
N
UG/KG
BP-19
BORROW
PIT
12/12/90 0855
M:;/KG
3.2
7.6J
3.2
NA
2800
300
130
520J
UG/KG
320J
50J
2000JN
2000JN
60000J
N
UG/KG
BP-20
BURN PIT
HORN
12/12/90 0915
MG/KG
5.6
2.9
12J
7.3J
3.3 NA
14
2400
2.6
330
620J
UG/KG
3200
9000JN
7000JN
200000J
N
UG/KG
-
-----------------
1
TABLE 2-3
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
SOIL SAMPLES -1986
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
2 3 4 5 6 9 EDGE OF EDGE OF EDGE OF EDGE OF SOUTH OF NORTH OF SOUTH OF
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FLUORANTHENE1
PYRENE
HYDROCARBONS
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
BURN PIT BURN PIT
SURFACE SURFACE
MG/KG MG/KC
.59 70
5.0 80
133 170
UG/KG UG/KG
1000 3750
4500 14000
+2 +
UG/KG !JG/KG
5473
406
BURN PIT BURN PIT
SURFACE SURFACE
MG/KG MG/KG
74 60
4.0 4.5
143 174
UG/KG UG/KG
1500 2000
10500 12500
+ +
UG/KG UG/KG
262
******************************************************* 1 Fluoranthene found in blank at the detection limit of 30000 ug/kg. 2 Positive for presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in liquid extract. --Not detected.
BURN PIT
SURFACE
BURN PIT BURN PIT
SURFACE SUBSURFACE
MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
9 10
2. 3 7. 0
23 70
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
+
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
8 16
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
NICKEL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
ZINC
Table 2-4
Analytical Data Summary
Sludge Sample -1985
New Hanover Burn Pit
Wilmington, North Carolina
SLUDGE
SAMPLE
MG/KG
0.36
445
2.73
13.6
182
40
1. 82
28.5
25
58.2
*********~********************************************************
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD MERCURY
SELENIUM
SILVER
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ANTHRACENE
2-BUTANONE
FLUORENE
2-METHYLNAPTHALENE PYRENE
.HYDROCARBONS l
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BENZENE ETHYL BENZENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHYLENE
0-XYLENE
7
TABLE 2-5 ANALYTICAL DATA Sut-t1ARY BURN PIT SLUDGE SAMPLES -1986 NEW HANOVER BURN PIT WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
7 7 8 BURN PIT SLUDGE
TOP LAYER
BURN PIT SLUDGE
BOTTOM
LAYER
BURN PIT SLUDGE
LIQUID
LAYER
BURN PIT
SLUDGE
TOP LAYER
MG/KG MG/KG MG/L t-(;/KG
15 9.0 0,09 8.4 60 120 0.4 42 2.5 5.5 2.2 51 104 0.23 26 670 730 2.0 360 0.5
0,05
0.05
ill/KG MG/KG "3/L t-K;/KG
73 20 114 109 0.35 49094
56 45
35 116.5 62 1'3 9 13.5 79.5 + t + +
P,3/KG MG/KG MG/L MG/KG
0. 41., 0.03
0.97 1. 4 7 3.43 1. 87 0.02 2. 73 0.38 1.81 4.0 38.23 841 16.66
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 Positive for presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in _liquid extract. --Not detected.
8 BURN PIT SLUDGE
BOTTOM
LAYER
r-x:;/KG
6.6
55
6.0
43
1,300
1.1
MG/KG
33
16
102
11. 33
+
HG/KG
0.15
0.32
0.03
0.02
7. 71
8 BURN PIT SLUDGE
LIQUID
LAYER
MG/L
0.36
0.6 ..
0.71 17 .8
MG/L
114
41230
67
92
+
MG/L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-6
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT WILMINGTION, NC
APRIL 10, 1990
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CADMIUM COBALT CHROMIUM
COPPER MOLYBDENUM NICKEL
LEAD
TIN STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM ZINC
MERCURY
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM IRON
SODIUM
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
NAPHTHALENE
FLUORENE PHENANTHRENE
Hexadecanoic acid, methyl ester
Methylheptadecanoic acid,methyl
(Dimethylpropyl)benzene
· 1-Methylnaphthalene
Ethenylnaphthalene ·
Dimethylnaphthalene(5-isomers)
Trimethylnaphthalene(6-isomers)
Propenylnaphthalene •
Methylphenanthrene(4-isomers)
Dimethylphenanthrene(4-isomers)
Trimethylphenanthrene Petroleum product
2-Unidentified Compounds
ester
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE) TOLUENE
ETHYL BENZENE
(M-AND/OR P-)XYLENE
0-XYLENE
TRIMETHYLBENZENE (3 ISOMERS) ETHYLMETHYLBENZENE
TRIMETHYLBENZENE
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
'"'*FOOTNOTES***
NA NOT ANALYZED J -ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
SW-01
BURN PIT
WATER
04/10/90
1230
UG/L
44
260
180
36
20
190
550
MG/L
8.7
1. 8 35
26
UG/L
l00JN
50JN
N
UG/L
.66J
, ,:.-ili:: ;, ~1
·.: .. ·:\1.:•)::~~~i~ k
SD-01 BURN PIT
SEDIMENT
04/10/90 1320
MG/KG
6_.8
520 . 3·_ 2
3.0
25
120
8.6
11
540
9.2
33
33
18
310
0.10 1500
170
MG/KG
5400 420
12000
110
UG/KG
MG/KG
45000J
47000J
900000JN
l00000JN
N
TS-01 TANK
SEDIMENT
. 04/10/90
1420
MG/KG
3.3
450 0.54
1.2
8.5
17
1.4
3.8 860
2.9
7.8 14
12 180 0.10
180
53
MG/KG
800
130 3400 940
UG/KG
4.2E6
680000J 340000J
700000J
300000JN
3E6JN
1E6JN 20E6JN
10E6JN
2E6JN 3E6JN
3E6JN
200000JN
N 4E6J
MG/KG
l00000J
60000J
26000J
300000JN
N
- -- ----- -- -- - - - -- -
TABLE 2-7
ANALYTICAL DATA SUM-1ARY
PIPELINE AND TRAINING AREAS SAMPLES NEW HANOVER SITE
DECEMBER 1990
BP-03 BP-04 BP-05 BP-06 BP-07 BP-08 BP-09 BP-10 BP-11 BP-12
SUPPLY BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED BURIED VALUE AIRCRAFT CAR RR TANK TANK PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE BOX AREA AREA AREA 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/ 11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 12/11/90 1026 1045 llOS 1130 1155 1340 1410 1430 1500 1520
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG H3/KG MG/KG t-,;/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 5.5 4. 8 9.3 29 CHROMIUM 4 3.3 2.6 3. 1 2.8 2. 3 2.8 4.3 5.2 2 .1 COPPER 24J 2J 35J 12J 16J NICKEL 7.1 LEAD 5.l+J 4.SJ 3, 4J 4.8J · 4. lJ 8.2J 3.BJ 19J 38J 3.2J VANADIUM ·5 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 2.7 2.1 3.2 3.4 1. 7 ZINC 25 21 18 23 42 20 18 68 110 23 ALUMINUM 4100 2800 2200 2400 400 2100 3000 1600 1400 1600 MANGANESE' 3. 9 20 14 CALCIUM 310 77 140 500 66 83 260 280 MAGNESIUM 140 96 IRON 1300J 4liOJ SOOJ SS0J 600J 360J 680J 7600J S000J 200J POTASSIUM 130
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 4ZOUR 63J llOOUR 380UR NAPHTHALENE 420UR 1600 llOOUR 380UR DIETHYL PHTHALATE 68J 420UR llOOUR 380UR FLUORANTHENE 80J 420UR llOOUR 380UR PYRENE 420UR 48J llOOUR 380UR PHENYLETHANONE 80JN lOOJN TETRAHYDROMETHANOINDENE 3000JN ETHYLDIMETHYLBENZENE(Z ISOMERS) lOOOJN METHYLPROPENYLBENZENE 300JN TETRAMETHYLBENZENE(Z ISOMERS) ZOOOJN 1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND 600J lOOOJ 2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 5000J 5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS SOOOJ 7 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 6000J 20 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 30000J 40000J PETROLEUM PRODUCT N N
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
ETHYL BENZENE 72 TOTAL XYLENES 460
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
NA NOT ANALYZED
J ESTIMATED VALUE
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED u MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT
R QUALITY CONTROL INDICATES THAT DATA ARE UNUSEABLE, COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION, THE VALUE IS THAT REPORTED BY THE LABORATORY
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-1
PROJECTED SAMPLE TABLE
NEW HANOVER BURN PIT SITE
, .. ,: _"!;r·.:~.:
,;
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Type Number of Samples Week Collected Analyse·s
Groundwater (Screen) 10-15 1st
Soil 2 1st TCL/TAL,,
Groundwater 7 2nd TCL/TAL
Wastewater 1 2nd TCL/TAL
Trip Blanks 1 1st & 2nd VOA
Preservative Blank 1 1st & 2nd
Drilling Water 1 1st TCL/TAL
Sand 1 1st TCL/TAL
Drilling Mud 1 1st TCL/TAL
Grout 1 1st TCL/TAL
Sys(:em Blank 1 1st & 2nd TCL/TAL
Equipment Rinse Blank 1 1st & 2nd
TCL/TAL No
1 Quick Turn-Around
OTA1
VOAYes
No
No
Yes
No
TALNo
Yes
No
No
No
No
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4/8/91
4/9/91
4/10/91
4/17/91
5/28/91
6/28/91
TABLE 5-1
ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE
IN-HOUSE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
NEW HANOVER SITE
DECEMBER 1990
Begin Installation of temporary piezometers
Install and sample temporary monitoring
wells. -·Begin Installation of permanent
monitoring we,lls.
Collect remaining soil samples.
Collect groundwater samples.
Receive analytical data.
Issue draft RI report
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET, N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
January 23, 1990
SUBJECT: Preliminary Remediation Goals for the New Hanover
County Airport Burn Pit Site.
FROM: Rebecca Fox~
Toxicologist
TO: Fred Sloan
Environmental Services Division
THROUGH: Elmer Akin~
Health Assessment Officer
Per your request, I have developed preliminary remedia.·tion
goals (PRGs) for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site.
The PRGs for soil and groundwater and the supporting
documentation are contained in the attached report.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I c~n be of
further assistance.
Attachment:
cc: Jon Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION GOALS FOR THE NEW HANOVER COUHTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
The New Hanover County burn pit is part of an active airport and was used from 1968-1974 for fire training exercises. During this period, it has been estimated that 100 to 500 gallons of jet fuel were burned in the pit daily. The pit has an area of approximately 1500 square feet and is surrounded by a two foot earthern berm. water released from the pit was allowed to flow onto the land surface. The site soils are sandy with a rapid infiltration rate. The surficial aquifer is approximately five to seven feet below ground surface.
A removal action was performed at the site in November 1990, in which contaminated soil was removed from the burn pit, the training areas and the supply tank. Site analytical data represents pre-removal conditions.
The purpose of this document is to develop chemical specific preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) to assist in site decision making. PRGs are concentration goals for site contaminants of concern for specific medium and land use combinations. There are two general sources of PRGs: (1) concentrations based on ARARs and (2) concentrations based on risk assessment.
The first step in the PRG process is to identify the media and contaminants of concern. The media of concern at this site are contaminated soil in and surrounding the pit and groundwater which may be contaminated as a result of the leaching of chemicals from the soil. The initial contaminant of concern list contains chemicals which have been previously detected at the site and chemicals that the site history indicates are likely to be present. The contaminants of concern will be modified as more site data is collected, Table 1 contains the initial list of site contaminants along with the toxicity values used in the risk calculations.
Since the site is located on the property of an activ~ airport, it is felt that the most likely future land use for the site is commercial/industrial. For this reason, the soil PRGs were based on exposure assumptions for a commercial/industrial
future land use. However, the residential exposure assumptions were used to address the groundwater pathway, since the closest residential area is approximately 0.25 miles from the site and if the groundwater is contaminated the plume could migrate offsite to the residential area.
Initially, all possible ARARs were identified for the groundwater pathway and presented along with the risk associated with the most likely ARAR concentration. When ARARs did not exist, risk-based concentrations were calculated using standard default expos·ure assumptions. Figure 1 contains the equations and the exposure assumptions used to calculate the health-based groundwater PRGs for the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern. The risks associated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with the ARAR concentrations were calculated by rearranging these equations and solving for either the target ris]: for carcinogens or the target hazard quotient for noncarcinogens. Table 2 s.ummarizes the potential groundwater ARARs, tha risk at the ARAR concentration, the risk-based concentration for chemicals without ARARs and the contract required quantitation limit (CRQL) for the preliminary contaminants of concern.
Since there are no ARARs for soil, the soil PRGs were based on calculated health-based concentrations. Soil exposure which was considered under the commercial/industrial scenario evaluated intake of the contaminant by direct ingestion, inhalation of volatile organics from the soil and inhLlation of semi-volatile organic compounds absorbed ·to soil particulates. The soil intake calculated ·from these exposure pathways is combined with the toxicity information contained in Table 1 to develop risk-based PRGs. The equations and exposure assumptions for the soil PRGs are contained in Figure 2. Table 3 summarizes the soil risk based PRG concentrations. Figure 3 and·· Table 4 contain information used in deriving the special parameters for the soil-air pathway.
The PRGs contained in this report are initial PRGs based on preliminary site information. The PRGs will be modified during the RI/FS process to reflect the data collected during the remedial investigation. Modifications will be based on a reevaluation of the media of concern, the contaminants of concern, the land-use assumptions and exposure pathways, toxicity information and potential ARARs. The modified PRGs will be contained in the baseline risk assessment and uill better reflect the actual site conditions. [The PRG development was based on the Review Draft Guidance for Part B of the Human Health Evaluation Manual (Development of Preliminary Remediation Goals). The modified PRGs will also reflect changes made in future guidance revisions.]
•
I
TABLB 1
I PRELIMINARY CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND TOXICITY INFORMATION
I Exposure Route: Ingestion
Chemical Reference Source Slope Weight Source I Dose (RfD) Factor of evidence
(mg/kg-day) -1 (mg/kg-day)
I Benzene 2.9E-2 A IRIS Ethyl Benzene lE-1 IRIS
2-Butanone (MEK) SE-2 IRIS
I Methylene Chloride 6B-2 IRIS 7.SE-3 B2 IRIS Toluene 2E-l IRIS
Xylene 2B+O IRIS
Carcinogenic PAHs8 1.lSE+l B2 BCAO I Noncarcinogenic PAHs
Acenapthene 6B-2 HEAST
Anthracene' 3E-l KEAST
I Fluoranthene 4B-2 HBAST
Fluorene 4E-2 KEAST
Naphthalene 4E-3 KEAST
Pyrene 3E-2 KEAST I Other PAHB 4E-3b KEAST
Lead0
Chromiumd SE-3 IRIS B2 IRIS . ; I Arsenic lE-3 HEAST l.BE+O IRIS
I Exposure Route: Inhalation
I Benzene 2,9E-2 A IRIS Ethyl Benzene
2-Butanone (KEK) 9B-2 KEAST
I Methylene chloride BE-1 KEAST l,4E-2 B2 IRIS Toluene 6E-1 KEAST
J_ Xylene 9B-2 HBAST
I Carcinogenic PAHsa 6.lE+O B2 BCAO Noncarcinogenic PAHs
Acenaphthene
I Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
I Pyrene
other PAHs
Leadc
I Chromium d 6E-7 KEAST 4.lE+l A IRIS A.u.enic SE+l A IRIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
b
C
d
IRIS
BEAST
BCAO
TABLE 1 (Cont,)
PRELIMINARY CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND TOXICITY ~NFOR~ATION
Integrated.Risk Information System
Health Effects Summary Table
Bnvironment~l Criteria and Assessment Office
The slope factor for benzo(a)pyrene was used for all carcinogenic
PAHs. The following PAHs which are contained on the target compound
list are classified as carcinogenic; benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenz(a;h)
anthracene and ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene.
The reference dose for naphthalene was used for noncarcinogenic PABs which do not have an Agency verified RfD.
The Agency has no verified toxicity values for lead. The Agency is recommending that lead be evaluated by incorporating site specific
information into the lead Uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model. The UBR model
was used to determine a soil lead PRG for this site.
The toxicity value is for hexavalent chromium, The risk based
calculations conservatively assume that all chromium is in the
hexavalent form.
I
I
I
I
I'·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure l
Groundwater PRG Equations for Residential Bxposure0
Carcinogenic
Risk-based TR x BW x AT x 365 days/year PRG(mg/1)
Parameters Definition {units) ·~
TR target excess individual lifetime cancer risk {unitless) 10-6
SFi inhalation cancer slope factor ( (mg/kg-day) ..:i) ch'emical specific
SF0 oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-dayJ-l) chemical specific
aw adult body weight (kg) 70 kg (adult average)
AT averaging time (yrs) 70 yrs
EF exposure frequency (days/yr) 338 days/yr
ED e:q)O&ure duration (yrs) 30 yrs (90th percentile at a resijence)
K volatilization factor (L/m3) Q.S L/m3 (Andelman 1986)b
IR• daily inhalation rate (m3/day) 30 m3/day
IRW daily water ingestion rate (L/day) 2 L/day
Non-carcinogenic Risk-based
P.RG(mg/1) THQ x BW x AT x 365 days/year
Parameters Definition (units)
THO
'If Do
RfDi
AT
•F
,o
K
IR•
IRW
aw
•
target hazard quotient (unltless)
oral chronic reterence dose (mg/kg-day)
inhalation chronic reference dose (mg/kg-day
averaging time (yrs)
exposure frequency (days/yr)
exposure du.ration (yrs)
volatilization factor (L/m3 )
3 daily in~a.lation rate (m /day)
daily water ingestion rate (L/day)
adult bodi vieght (kg)
1.0
chemical specitic
chemical spe.cific
30 yrs (alw~ys equal to ED)
338 days/yr;
30 yrs (90th percentile at a resi~enc)
0.5 L/m3 (Andelman, 1986)b
30 m.3/day
2 L/day
70 kg (adult average)
The residential scenario assumes that expo6ure to groundwater occurs through intake from ing~stion and inhalation of volatiles from Water. Intake from volatiles la considered only for chemicals that have~ -5 Henry's Law constant of l x 10 or greater and a molecular weight of 200 g/mole or less.
Andelman, J.B. •Total Exposure to Volatile Organic Chemicals in Potable water.• Significance and Trca~~ent ot ~olatile Organic Compounds in Water Supplies. H.H. Ram, R,F. Christman X.P. Cantor (Eds.). Lewis PuL:ishers.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2
Preliminary Groundwater Remediation Goals
Chemical ARARa
YQ£!
Benzene
2-Butanone(MEK)
Ethyl Benzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Xylenee
fil!.9.£!.
Carcinogenic PAHs
Benz(a)anthrancene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k) fluoranthen·e
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h,)anthracene
Ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Non Carcinogenic PAHs
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Flouorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-methyl
naphthalene
Benzo(g,h,i)
perylene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
State
HCL
State
State
HCLG
HCL
State
PMCL
State
HCLG
HCL
State
HCLG
HCL
ARAR Cancer
concentration Risk at
(mg/1) ARAR
O.OOl(PRG) 2,BE-6
0.005
0.17(PRG)
0.029(PRG)
0.7
0.7
O.OOS(PRG) 6.4R-6
o.oos
l.O(PRG)
1.0
1.0
0,4(PRG)
10
10
0.0002(PRG) 2,6E-5
HQ at Risk-based
ARAR concentration (mg/1)
10-6 Risk HQ • l
o.s
0.008
0.003
0.2
0.3
8.0B-6
2.2(PRG)
11.l(PRG)
l.S(PRG)
l.S(PRG)
0.2(PRG)
1. 1 (PRG)
_0.2°(PRG)
0.2c(PRG)
0.2c(PRG)
0.2°(PRG)
CRQL
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
UBLB 2 (coOt.)
Preliminary Groundwater Remediation Goals
Chemical ARARa ARAR
concentration
(mg/1)
Cancer
Risk at
ARAR
HQ at
ARAR
Risk-based
concentration (mg/1)
CRQL
10-6 RJ.ak HQ -1
Lead d 0.0lS(PRG) 0.005 Supert:und
State o.os
Chromium State 0.0S(PRG) 0.03 0.01
MCL 0.10
Arsenic State 0.0S(PRG) l.0B-3 .1.3 0.01
MCL
MCLG
PKCL
voe
svoc
a
b
C
d
MCL ·o.os
Contract Required Quantitation limit. Thie is the quantitation limit required by the contract
Laboratory program. If additional sensitivity is needed to measure the PRG level, consult a regional
analytical chemist.
Maximum Contaminant Level
• Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
• Propopsed HCL
• Volatile Organic Compound
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
The first ARAR listed for each chemical is the most stringent ARA.Rand therfore the ARAR which is
selected as the PRG. The risk calculations are based on this ARAR concentration.
The PRG is based on a proposed MCL; ~herefore a risk-based concentration has ala~ been calculated.
'· Based on RfD for naphthalene.
Thie concentration has been recommended as a cleanup level for lead in groundwater by the EPA Superfund
Office.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rigure 2
Soil PRG Bquationa tor Comercial/Induatrial Land Uaea
TR x BW x AT x 365 days/year
Carcinogenic
Risk-based
PRG(mg/l) -• •• z BD x [(SPO x 10 kg/mg x IRsoil) + (SFi x IRair x (1/vr + 1/PEF)))
Parameters
TR
AT
2F
!D
PRP
Definition ( unit"s)
target excess individual lifetime cancer risk (unitle&a)
inhalation cancer elope !actor ((mg/kg-day)-l)
-1 oral cancer slope factor ((mg/kg-day) )
adult body weight (kg)
averaging time (yra)
expoaure frequency (days/yr)
expoaure duration (yra)
soil ingestion rate (mg/day)
inhalation rate of air (m3/day)
3 volatilization factor (m /kg)
re■pirable particulate emia■ion factor
chemical specific
chemical specific
70 kg
70 yra
250 daya/yr
40 yrs
SO mg/day
3 15 m /day
Figure 3
s.2 x 107 m3/kg (Pigu.re 3)
Non-carcinogenic
Risk-baaed
PRG(mg/1)
™i x BW X AT x 36S day■/year
ED x BP x ((1/R.fDO x 10-kg/mg x IRsoil) + (1/RtDi X IRair x (l/V!' + 1/PEP))J
Parameters
aw
AT
!F
ED
IRair
VF
PBF
Definition (unit■)
target hazard quotient (unitlea■)
adult body weight (kg)
averaging ti.ma (yr■)
expo■ure frequency (day■/yr)
elCpO■u.ra duration (yra)
oral ref'erance do■• (mg/kg-day)
inhalation r■f ■rence do■e (mg/kg-day)
soil inge■tion rate (mg/day)
daily inhalation rate (ml/kg)
volatilization factor (ml/kg)
reapira.ble particulate em.i■■ion factor
Y!.ill
1.0
70 kg
40 yrs (alway■ equal to ED)
2S0 day■/yr
40 yrs
chemical specific
chemical specific
SO mg/day
3 1S m /day
Figure l
7 3 S.2 z 10 m /kg (Figure 3)
• The VF term waa uaed to evaluate the.air pathway for volatile organic compounds. The PBP term waa used to esti
air contaminant intake tor th■ particulate pathway .•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Chemical
Volatile Organic Compounds
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
2-Butanone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Xylenes
Semi-Volatile organic Compounds
Carcinogenic PAHs
Benz(a)anthrancene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h,)anthracene
Ideno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Noncarcinogenic PAHsa
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Pyrene
2-methyl naphthalene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Phenanthrene
Inorganics
Arsenic
Chromium
Lead
HQ Hazard Quotient
Table 3
Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals
Risk-based Concentration (mg/kg) -6 10 Risk HQ • 1
4.0E-l(PRG)
2.0B+Sa(PRG)
2. SE+3 ( PRGJ
l.SB+O(PRG) 8.7E+3
7.9E+3(PRG)
3.0B+3(PRG)
3.lE-l(PRG)
l.2E+S(PRG)
6.1E+5(PRG)
8.2E+4(PRG)
8.2E+4(PRG)
8.2E+3(PRG)
6.1B+4(PRG)
8.2E+3b(PRG)
8.2E+3b(PRG)
8.2E+3b(PRG)
1. 7E+O(PRG)
l,SE+lc(PRG) 2,1B+2
5,0B+2d(PRG)
CRQL • Contract Required Quantitation Limit
CRQL (mg/kg)
SE-3
SE-3
lE-2
SB-3
SE-3
SE-3
3.JE-1
3.JE-1
3.JE-1
3.JE-1
3.3E-l
3.JE-1
3.JE-1
3,JE-1
3.JE-1
3.JE-1
• There ie not an Agency-~erified inhalation RfD for thie compound or compounde. The PRG is based on the
oral exposure route.
b
C
d
There is not an agency-verified RfD for this compound. The PRG is based on the oral RfD for
napththalene.
There is not an Agency-verified oral slope factor for this compond. The carcinogenic risk-based PRG is
based on the inhalation elope factor.
There are no current Agency-verified toxicological values for which a protective soil cleanup level can
be developed, The PRG was developed by using the EPA Uptake/Biokinetic (UBK) model for lead. The
model was run using the standard exposure default values incorporated into the model. The model is
based on the exposure of infants and young children in a residential scenario.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3
lquation ■ tor Special Parameter ■ for the Soil-Air Pathway
VolatilizatiOD factor {VP)
VP
Parameter
VP
LS
V
IOI
.A
Doi
B
••• alpha
Pa
T
oc
Di
B
LS x V ! NH
A
(l.14 x alpha x T)l
2x Dei Bx KA ■ x CF)
Definition (unit■)
volatilization factor (m3/kg)
width ot contaminated area (m)
wind ■peed in mixing zone (m/■)
m.1.z:ing height (m)
2 area ot contam.ination (cm)
effective dittu■ivity ccm2/■)
■oil poro■ity (unitle■■)
3 ■oil/air parition coetticient (g ■oil/cm
(Di Z B)/((B + p (l-B))/1 )(cm2/■) • • l a.a true ■oil denaity (g/cm)
1!1%pO■ure interval (a)
organic carbon cOnt■nt ot ■oil (percent)
molecular ditfuaivity (cm2/a)
3 Henry•■ lav con■tant (atm-m /mol)
air)
Default
HA
4S m
2.25 ml•
2 m
20;250,000 cm.2
Di z B
0.35
H/J:d z 41
calculated
2.65 g/cm3
9.5 z 108•
1•
chemical ■peeific b
chemical ■pecitic b
Id ·= CP
3 ■oil-water partition coefficient (g/cm )
3 organic-carbon partition coefficient (g/cm)
eith■r chemical apec:itic or Koc z OC b,c
chemical apec::ific
conver■ion factor (kg/g)
Particulate Bmi■■ion Pactor tor Re■pirahle Particle■ (PH10 )
Parameter
LS
V
IOI
A
0.036
V
cm
Ci
P(z)
LS XV ■ MR z 3600 ■/hr
A
Definition (unit■)
width of contam.inaed ar■a (m)
vind ■peed in mixing zone (ml ■)
mizing height (m) . 2 area ot contamination (m )
re■pirahle traction (g/m2-hr)
X
traction of vegetative cover (unitle■a)
mean annual vind speed {ml■)
thr■-hold wind llpead (al/a)
function dapeudent on Um/Ut (unitle■■)
'oetault Pyticulate 111.i.lPioP pactord
PBP
0.001
1000 g/kg
Default
4S m
2.2S m/•
2 m
2025 2 m
0.036
0
4.S m/a '·
7.5 ml• o.,
e The organic content ot the ■oil was con ■ervatively a■■umed to be 1 percent baaed on the ■andy nature of
the ■ite aoil.
b
C
d
The chemical apocitic information u■ed to determine VP value■ and the correaponding VP values are
contained in Table 4.
The kd va■ calculated bu9d on the koc and OC.
The default PB:P value va■ uaed to determine the ri■k bued PRGa.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND TOXICITY INFORMATION
Chemical H
3 (atrn-m /mol)
Benzene 9.328-2 6.4B+l S.43B-3 1.048+3
Ethyl Benzene 7.SB-2 1.4E+3 7.908-3 4.52E+3
2-Butanone 8.lOE-2 4.5 B+0 2-748-5 4,14E+3
Methylene chloride l.OOE-1 8.7E+O 2.575E-3 1.718+3
Toluene 8,708-2 2,6B+2 6,61E-3 l.98B+3
Xylene
•
b
K oc
7,BSE-2 l,4E+311 6,29E-3b 4,96E+3
Value represents an average of o, p and m xylene.
Value represents an average of o and m xylene,
Molecular diffusivity in air. Values obtained from EPA Air/Superfund National Technical Guidance
Stlldy Series, Volume 11, Estimation of Baseline Air Emissions at Superfund Sites, August 1990.
EPA-450/1-B9-002a,
j
'·
Organic-carbon partitition coefficient derived from log KOc values. LcJg Koc valUea obtained
from training manual from the Superfund University Training Institute (SUTI) Workshop entitled,
Transport and Fftte of contaminants in the Subsurface, September 1990.
H Henry's law constant. Values were obtained from the SUTI training manual !eferenced above.
VF Volatilization Factor. Value was derived from equation contained in Figure 3.
I
I APPENDIX D
I HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAFETY PlAN
Site Name: New Hanover Burn Pit
Address: 414 Chestnut St. Rm. 101,
Phone Number: 919/341-4340
Contact: Ray Church
Wilmington, NC 28401
Purpose of Site Visit: Perform Remedial Investigation
Proposed Date(s) of Work:_,,4=8~-~1291.2.9~1--------------'--'-------
Directions to Site: 23rd St. north from Wilmington to State Route 1311.
North Approximately 1/2 mile, site is on left.
Site Investigation Team:
Personnel~': Safety Category
Fred Sloan I
Terry Thomas I
Jon Vail I
Charles Till I
Milton Henderson I
Brian Striggow I
Steve Pilcher I
Responsibilities**
Project Leader
Safety Officer
Project Geologist
Drill Rig Operator
Sampler
Sampler
Sampler
* All employees have been trained/medically monitored in accordance with OSHA
29 CFR 1910.12 requirements.
** Note: Site Safety Officer Designee.
Plan Preparation
Prepared by: _______________ _
Reviewed/Approved by: __________ _
OHSD-Athens: _______________ _
Site Status: Active, XXX Inactive,
EMERGENCY INFORHATION:
Local Resources:
Ambulance (Name): _________________ _
Hospital (Name):
Police (Local or State): _____________ _
Fire Department: _________________ _
Date
____ Unknown
Phone:-"9~1~1~----
Phone:-"9~1~1~----
Phone:-"9~1~1~-----
Phone:-"9~1~1~----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2
SAFETY PLAN
Office Resources:
ESD Office
EPA -Emergency Response -Atlanta
HWS Chief -William R. Bokey
RCRA Unit Chief -Steve Hall
Superfund Unit Chief -Steve Hall
Safety -Jim Gray
EMERGENCY CONTACTS:
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Work: 404/546-3300
Work: 404/546-3173
Work: 404/546-3173
Work: 404/546-3308
Home: 549-2611
Home: 548-7600
Home: 548-7600
'.Home: 543-0710
Poison Control Center
National Response Center
Phone: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
(FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCY ONLY)
Directions to Hospital (Attach Map if Available): New Hanover Memorial
Hospital. South on State Route 1311 to 23rd St. South on 23rd St. to first
traffic light. Turn right (Princess St.). Follow Princess St. to 2nd
traffic light (16th St.), Follow 16th St, approximately 1 mile to hospital,
on left.
SAFETY AND HEALTH RISK ANALYSIS
Waste Types/Chemicals: All known waste sources removed and residual soil and
groundwater has been sampled. Benzene is only known contaminant that may be
above established risk levels (210 ug/1 in groundwater).
Hazard Evaluation:
Known or Suspected Hazardous/Toxic Materials (If applicable include: PEL/IDLH
and/or TLV-TWA/TLV-STEL, LEL, flammability, odor, reactivity, stability,
corrosivity) BENZENE: TWA -0.1 ppm: IDLH -3.000 ppm
Overall Hazard:
XXX
Serious
Low
_____ Moderate
_____ Unknown
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3
SAFETY PLAN
Site Perimeter Establishment:
Map/Sketch attached?
Perimeter identified?
Zone(s) of contamination identified?
Recommended Level(s) of Protection:
A B
• Level of Protection:
• Modifications:
\
XXX
XXX
XXX
C D
XXX (check tGose that apply)
Respiratory: ________________ ~----------------
Field Dress: ________________________________ _
Monitoring Procedures/Equipment*:
XXX HNU
XXX Radiation Survey Meter
Oxygen Meter
XXX OVA
XXX Explosimeters
Other, Specify
* All instruments are calibrated in accordance with the Engineering Support Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Control Assurance Manual or by the manufactures specification.
Method of Air Surveillance: Drill cuttings, sampling activities will be monitored with all instruments. Boreholes and septic tank will be monitored with ex losimeter.
Additional Site Specific Information/Stipulations: _______________ _
Site Decontamination Procedures: Decontamination pit will be constructed as s ecified in work lan.
Confined Space Entry (check one): YES XXX NO
If yes, define pr'ocedures to be used: _______________________ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AUGERING AND DRILLING OPERATIONS:
Underground Utilities:
-

4

SAFETY PLAN
All underground utilities must be located prior to commencement of drilling operations involving the drill rig and power augers. Complete the underground utilities checklist below and prepare a site map showing the locations of all underground utilities identified.
Utility Locator/Contact Person Phone# Date of Location
Power U-LOCO 800/632-4949 4/8/91
Telephone * U-LOCO 800/632-4949 4/8/91
Gas U-LOCO 800/632-4949 4/8/91
Water U-LOCO 800/632-4949 4 /8 /91
Sewer U-LOCO 800 /632 -4949 4/8/91
Other
* Include non-AT&T lines such as Sprint, MCI, etc.
IMPORTANT: Check all proposed drilling locations with a pipe-seeker. As a minimum, the first four feet of a power bored hole will be dug using a post hole digger/hand auger. Personnel involved in the ·drilling will wear eye protection in addition to normal safety gear appropriate for the required level of protec-tion. The site safety officer will insure that all personnel remove watches, rings and other jewelry, as well as securing loose fitting or dangling articles of clothing while in the vicinity of the drilling operations. Additionally, the safety officer will insure that a 90 degree clear zone is maintained for a radius of at least 25 feet behind the drill rig.
Above Ground Utilities:
All above ground utilities must be located prior to commencing drilling/augering activities. A map will be prepared showing the locations of all power lines, telephone lines, video cables, guy wires, and other objects which could pose a hazard to personnel operating the drill rig, power auger, or hand auger with multiple extensions. The site safety officer will insure that all operations are kept well clear of such hazards.
(Version 9/19/90)