NCD991278953_20060515_National Starch & Chemical Corp._FRBCERCLA LTRA_Site Monitoring Report 2002 - 2006-OCR

. • I .
•
•••.-: ••-i~ "'•"-'·"'~l"J;"< 'l•, • • '> """' '~•, ~r-''' ., .. ~ , • ~ '· ...... ,.,;:·~ ''· :~ . ·. -· ....... ~. ~. ~~:. ( ,..,.. . ,J
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4WD-SRSEB
Ms. Angela J. Doh!
REGION 4 ,
SAM NUNN ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
May 15, 2006 .
National Starch & Chemical Company
10 Finderne Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
Mr. Michael P. Fleischner
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
1990 N. California Blvd.
Suite 830
Walnut Creek, California 94596-3792
SUPERFUND SECTION
SUBJ: Comments on 2005 Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical
Company Superfund Site, Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina
The Agency received numerous copies of the "2005 Site MonitoringR~port", dated April
2006, on April 28, 2006. This report was prepared on behalf of National Starch & Chemical
Company (NSCC) by NSCC's environmental consultant, Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL).
As agreed to earlier, BBL also sent a copy of this report to North Carolina Department of.
Environment & Natural Resources (NCDENR) for the State's review and Site file. A copy of
this document was forwarded to David Jenkins, EPA/Region 4/Office of Technical Service for . . ,., . . .
review.
Below are my comments and enclosed are comments from NCDENR, dated May 9,
2006. I will forward to you any comments from Mr. Jenkins upon receipt.
This report does not provide all pertinent information and in the Agency's opinion, fails
to provide an overall assessment of the Site. The following comments highlight the short
comings of this report. In its present condition, this report is not acceptable.
1. Page 1-1, ·section I. Introduction: It would be helpful if a subsection was added to this
section entitled something like "Status of Operable Units" . .The Agency would like to see
the following topics covered under this subsection:
• • 2
a. Current status of the operable unit
b. . Issues resolved
c. Outstanding issues
As you go through the remaining comments, you will see that a number of these
identified issues could be addressed in this subsection.
2. Page 1-1, Section I. Introduction: Does the recently collected data impact our understanding
of the Site's conceptual model? If so, then how? This discussion should include supporting
rationale.
3. Page 1-2, Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two: What is the status of the concept of
reforesting the "Trench Area"? This idea was proposed sometime ago. Was
· phytoremediation ever implemented in the Trench Area?
4. Page 1-2, Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two: What is the status of the evaluation of
the plume periphery extraction/monitoring system? The Agency had suggested doing some
discrete sampling in the Unnamed Tributary which the Agency understands was done. The
data and findings/conclusions of this effort should be included in this report.
5. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1 Operable Unit One and Two, second bullet: This bullet lists the
wells where groundwater level measurements were taken. This list includes wells NS-30
and NS-32. However, in the first sentence of the last paragraph of this section it states static
water levels were not measured in wells NS-30 and NS-32. Please clarify this discrepancy.
6. Page 2-1, Section 2.1. l Operable Unit One and Two, last paragraph, first sentence: Any
reason/thought as to why well NS-26 was not artesian this year? ·
7. Page 2-2, Section 2.2: Include a short paragraph under this heading that specifies the
following:
Sampling procedures used at the Site followed.those specified in the Opernble Unit #3
Performance Verification Plan (PVP) which were based on EPA's Region 4/
Environmental Investigations s·tandard Operating Procedures and Quality Control
Manual (EISOPQAM), as amended. Include purging method, field parameters measured
during purging, and sampling method(s). If there were any discrepancies to the
EISOPQAM, then these should be identified and explained.
8. Page 2-2, Section 2.2: The field parameters measured during each purging effort heed to be
included in this report along with the volume of groundwater/time they were collected/
measured. These measurements can be placed in an appendix.
• • 3
9.. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1 Operable Units One and Two, second paragraph: This paragraph
should include the information specified in the first full paragraph on page 2-3 (i.e., purging .
rates, measuring groundwater parameters," in accordance to the Operable Unit (OU) #3
PVP). (refer to comment #7)
10. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.2 Operable Unit Three: Refer to comment #8 above.
11. · Page 2-3, Section 2.2.3 RCRA Sampling: A short statement should be included in this
section stating whether or not this data is incorporated into this report.
12. Page 3-1, Section 3, all the appropriate tables: •Instead of using "-": to denote a
"Concentration is less than Performance Standard", the actual detection limit followed by
"U" should be incorporated into these tables. This is necessary due to the elevated detection
levels reported by the laboratory on a number of the analyses.
13. Page 3-1, Section 3 Results: As in· previous reports, there is no discussion or figures
showing/confirming that NSCC has hydraulic control at the Site. If this issue is not
addressed in the revised 2005 Site Monitoring Report, the Agency will task one of its
contractors to conduct this evaluation. So that it is not left unsaid, these costs are cost
recoverable. In a correspondence July 22, 2004, the Agency provided NSCC what should
be included in an evaluation of the capture zone. If a copy of this letter is needed, I will
send another copy to you.
14. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.1, third sentence: This sentence states, "Groundwater elevations are
consistent with recent measurements." What is meant by "recent"?
15. Page 3-3, Section 3.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells, last paragraph, last sentence: This.
sentence states, 'Therefore, the elevated detection of selenium in January 2005 was not
confirmed." Not sure what point the author is trying to make in this se_ntence. Is the
January 2005 data for selenium incorrect? If the data is correct (i.e., selenium was detected
at an elevated level), then could not this same argument be set forth for all the metals
detected? A statement about using the resuiis from the next samplin£event to evaluate this
detection should be included in this paragraph.
16. Page 3-5, Section 3.2.2.1, table at bottom of page: Note I refers to well NS-42. However,
the data for well NS-39 is also noted with "l". Please clarify.
17. Page 3-6, Section 3.2.3, last paragraph, last sentence: The Agency concurs with the
conclusion that collecting surface water and sediment samples from the Northeast Tributary
can be dropped from the annual sampling effort. However, be aware, these surface water
and sediment samples will need to be collected as part of the five-year review process.
18. Page 3-6, Section 3.2.4 RCRA Sampling: In Section 2.2.3 it states that four wells were
sampled as part of the RCRA sampling effort. These wells are NS-33, NS-39, NS-42, and
NS-49. However, there is no discussion of the results for well NS-33 in this section.
• • 4
19. Page 3-8, Section 3.3.1. Groundwater Extraction System, first paragraph, first sentence:
This s.entence states that tlie system is shut down once a week to maintain the air stripper.
Include in this sentence or in another sentence the average length of time the system is down
during this maintenance effort.
" . . ~-·"' ·~ .. ' -.
20. Page 3-8, Section 3.3.1.1 Plume Periphery and Trench Area Wells: This section needs to be
expanded. Refer to comment #13 above.
21. Page 3-8, Section 3.3.1.1 Plume Periphery and-Trench Area Wells, second paragraph: This
paragraph highlights the worked conducted at the Site. This includes hydraulic and
geochemical analyses, turning off the pumps in.the plume periphery extraction wells,
additional investigation of bedrock, fracture trace analysis and overburden trenching. This
discussion needs to be expanded. This paragraph needs to state where we are with each of
these efforts and a timeiine for those that still need to be completed .
.
22 Page 3-9, Section 3.3.1.1, first-full paragraph: Refer to comment #4 about including a
discussion on the results of the sampling of the Unnamed Tributary.
23 Page 3-9, Section 3.3.1.1: Is there sufficient information to calculate the quantity of
contaminant mass removed from the subsurface by each of the groundwater extractions
systems: Plume Periphery, Trench Area, and OU #3?·
24 Page 3-9, Section 3.3.1.2 OU3 Collection Trench and Extraction Wells, first sentence: As
specified in the OU #3 Record of Decision (ROD), the objective of the groundwater
remediation system is not only for "groundwater collection and treatment" and "hydraulic
control" but also the restoration of the aquifer to unlirnited use.
25 · Page 3-9, Section 3.3.2.1: NSCC has stated on numerous occasions that a dense non-
aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) may exist in this portion of the property. What efforts, if
any, have been made to either confirm or dispute this supposition
.
26 Page 5-4, Section 5.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis Results: The trend analyses need to be
incorporated into an appendix of this report.
27 Page 5-4, Section 5.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis Results: How were the samples with
high detection levels and deemect·"non detect" handled? If these samples were not included
in the Mann-Kendall analyses even though other sampling events did confirm detections,
how would this skew the results? ·
28 Page 5-5, Section 5.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis Results, last sentence: This sentence
implies that the increasing trend of manganese is due to reducing conditions in the
groundwater. Does the dissolve oxygen (DO) levels measured during purging support this
hypothesis?
• • 5
29 Page 5-5, Section 5.3: Refer to comment #25 about investigating whether or not a DNAPL
exists on Site.
30. Page 5-5, Section 5.3: NSCC may want to look into the successful application of soil vapor
extraction at the Medley Farm Superfund Site in South Carolina or at other Sites as an
alternative to natural degradation.
31. Page 5-5, Section 5.3: The Agency was under the assumption some additional remediation
related work was going to be proposed for the OU #1 area.
32. Table 5-1, under NOTES: Typo, "ND_-Compoun" should read "ND -Compound".
33. Table 5-1: Refer to comment #26. It would be helpful if the following values were
incorporated into this table for each determination: the Mann-Kendall statistic, the
confidence factor, and the coefficient of variation.
As stated previously, this document needs to be revised. If you have any questions,
please feel to call me at 404-562-8820.
Enclosure ( 1 ):
1. Comments from NCDENR (May 9, 2006)
cc: David Mattison, NCDENR
Sincerely,
i /{ {7o)iVV• C✓/ ,Jrll
\...,j .
Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
•
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: 2005 Site Monitoring Report
May 9, 2006
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
•
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) has reviewed the 2005 Site Monitoring Report. The NC DENR Superfund Section
offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Si_ncerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
.I,,
NC DENR Superfund Section
cc: Mr. Bud McCarty, NC DENR Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
Mr. Jon Boinholm
May 9, 2006
Page I
2005 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Section 1 Introduction
I. Please revise Section I to include a description of Operable Unit (OU) 4, yet indicating.
that documentation of the results of the fifth year of the Natural Degradation Treatability
Study (NOTS) shall be submitted under separate cover.
Section 1.2.2.3 Sediment Monitoring
2. Please correct the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1.2.2.3 to state
"Sediment samples were collected on an annual basis from four locations (SE-09, SE-10,
SE-11, and SE-13) in the Northeast Tributary shown on Figure 1-2."
Section 2.1.1 Operable Units One and Two
3. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1.1 regarding the Plume Periphery monitoring
well network to indicate 17 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-25. · ,
4. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1. l regarding the Trench Area monitoring well
network to indicate 15 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-04 ..
Section 3.2.4.1 June 2005
..... '•,.,, . ' .. ·-· ····· .
5. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.4.1 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-49 contained 160 BJ micrograms per liter
(µg/L) methylene chloride.
• &~"----NCDENR
•
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
· Dexter R Matthews, Director
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
May 9, 2006
Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: 2005 Site Monitoring Report
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr .. Bornholm:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Env.ironment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) has reviewed the 2005 Site Monitoring Report. The NC DENR Superfund Section
offers the following attached comments.
-We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
cc: Mr. Bud McCarty, NC DENR Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] I FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Mr. Jon Bornholm
May 9, 2006
Page I
•
2005 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Section 1 Introduction
1. Please revise Section 1 to include a description of Operable Unit (OU) 4, yet indicating
that documentation of the results of the fifth year of the Natural Degradation Treatability
Study (NDTS) shall be submitted under separate cover.
Section 1.2.2.3 Sediment Monitoring
2. Please correct the first sentence of the second paragraph of Section 1.2.2.3 to state
"Sediment samples were collected on an annual basis from four locations (SE-09, SE-I 0,
SE-11, and SE-13) in the Northeast Tributary shown on Figure 1-2."
Section 2.1.1 Operable Units One and Two
3. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1.1 regarding the Plume Periphery monitoring
well network to indicate 17 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-25.
4. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1.1 regarding the Trench Arca monitoring well
network to indicate 15 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-04.
Section 3.2.4.1 June 2005
5. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.4.l to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-49 contained 160 BJ micrograms per liter
(µg/L) methylene chloride.
• ,.;;;;;;;&;;;;;::;.,;~iih •
MCDEMR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
6 I Forsyth Street, I I th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Division of Waste Management
July 27, 2005
RE: 2004 Site Monitoring Report
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) has reviewed the 2004 Site Monitoring Report. The NC DENR Superfund Section
offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
/)a..ui cf B fY)_a.,[JJ_-U•N Id (/
David B. Mattison 0
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
cc: Mr. Robert Glaser, NC DENR Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone] \ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Mr. Jon Bornholm
July 27, 2005
Page I
•
2004 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Table of Contents
1. Please correct the Table of Contents to reflect the following tables and their respective
titles:
Section I
Table 3-18 Groundwater Analytical Results -July 2004, RCRA Post-Closure
Monitoring
Table 3-19 Groundwater Analytical Results -December 2004, RCRA Post-
Closure Monitoring
Table 5-1 Plume Periphery Well Trend Summary
Table 5-2 Trench Area Well Trend Summary
Table 5-3 OU3 Well Trend Summary
Introduction
2. Please revise Section 1 to include a description of Operable Unit (OU) 4, yet indicating
that documentation of the results of the fourth year of the Natural Degradation
Treatability Study (NDTS) shall be submitted under separate cover.
Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two
3. The bullet items located in the first paragraph of Section 1.2.land the last sentence of the
third paragraph of Section 1.2.1 both indicate that groundwater monitoring well NS-56 is
associated with the Plume Periphery monitoring well network and that groundwater
monitoring well NS-55 is associated with the Trench Area monitoring well network.
However, Figure 1-2 indicates that groundwater monitoring well NS-55 is associated with
the Plume Periphery monitoring well network and that groundwater monitoring well NS-
56 is associated with the Trench Area monitoring well network. Please clarify this
discrepancy. ·
4. The last sentence of Section 1.2.1 states that groundwater constituents of concern (COCs)
for OUs I and 2 include nine metals. However, the table included in Section 1.2, 1
indicates that groundwater COCs for OUs 1 and 2 include ten metals. Please clarify this
discrepancy.
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 27, 2005
Page2
Section 1.2.2.1
• •
Groundwater Monitoring
5. The last sentence of Section 1.2.2.1 states that groundwater COCs for OU3 include five
metals. However, the table included in Section 1.2.2.1 indicates that groundwater COCs
for OU3 include six metals. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Section 2.1.1 Operable Units Ohe and Two
6. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1.1 regarding the Plume Periphery monitoring
well network to indicate 17 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-25.
7. Please correct the bullet item in Section 2.1.1 regarding the Trench Area monitoring well
network to indicate 15 monitoring wells, including the addition of groundwater
monitoring well NS-04.
8. The bullet items located in Section 2.1.1 indicate that groundwater monitoring well NS-
56 is associated with the Plume Periphery monitoring well network and that groundwater
monitoring well NS-55 is associated with the Trench Area monitoring well network.
However, Figure 1-2 indicates that groundwater monitoring well NS-55 is associated with
the Plume Periphery monitoring well network and that groundwater monitoring well NS-
56 is associated with the Trench Area monitoring well network. Please clarify this
discrepancy.
Section 3.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
9. Please revise the last sentence of Section 3.2.1.1 to state "Selenium concentrations in
monitoring well NS-29 will be observed in the upcoming sampling events to see if this
is an ongoing trend."
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
10. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 such that the headings and table
entries are not truncated due to a lack of space. Notable examples include the heading
"OU! ROD Performance Standard" and the table entries for groundwater extraction wells
EX-05, EX-08, and EX-10
Section 3.2.2.1 OU3 Wells
11. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 such that the entire table is shown
on one page, rather than two pages as currently located.
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 27, 2005
Page 3 ·
• •
Section 3.3 Groundwater Remediation System
12. Section 3.3 provides little information regarding the performance and efficiency of the
groundwater remediation system other than documentation of the extraction system
history for the 2004 operating year. Please revise Section 3.3 to include much greater
detail regarding the performance of the groundwater remediation system, including, but
not limited to, a summary of operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, any issues or
problems noted, recommendations for improving system performance, documentation of
the type and amount of contaminants removed, documentation of compliance with the
National Starch and Chemical Company (NSCC) agreement with the City of Salisbury
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) agreement, documentation of contaminant
plume hydraulic containment, etc.
Section 3.3.1.1 Plume Periphery and Trench Area Wells
13. The table included in Section 3.3.1.1 indicates wide fluctuations in the volume of
groundwater extracted on a monthly basis as well as wide fluctuation in the average
combined pumping rate. Please provide additional details regarding this wide fluctuation
in extraction rates as well as any O&M activities completed or anticipated in order to
achieve optimal extraction and treatment efficiencies.
Section 3.3.1.2 OU3 Collection Trench and Extraction Wells
14. The table included in Section 3.3.1.2 indicates wide fluctuations in the volume of
groundwater extracted on a monthly basis as well as wide fluctuation in the average
combined pumping rate for both the OU3 Collection Trench and the OU3 Extraction
Wells. Please provide additional details regarding this wide fluctuation in extraction rates
as well as any O&M activities completed or anticipated in order to achieve optimal
extraction and treatment efficiencies.
Section 4.1.2 Operable Unit Three
15. Please correct the spelling ofthe compound "methylene chloride" in the second bullet
item given under the "VOC" heading in Section 4.1.2.
16. Please correct the spelling of the word "verification" in the fifth bullet item given under
the "VOC" heading in Section 4.1.2.
17. Please correct the spelling of the compound "4-nitrophenol" in the fifth bullet item given
under the "SVOC" heading in Section 4.1.2.
Mr. Jon Bornholm
July 27, 2005
Page 4
• •
18. Please correct the spelling of the word "analyte" in the fourth bullet item given under the
"Metals" heading in Section 4.1.2.
Section 4.1.3 RCRA Sampling
19. Please correct the second sentence of the bullet item given under both "VOC" headings in
Section 4.1.2 to state, "All compounds <30% RSD will use an average response factor
curve ifno visible improvement is accomplished using a quadratic curve."
Section 4.2.2 Operable Unit Three
20. Please correct the spelling of the compound "bis (2-chloroethyl) phthalate" in the tenth
bullet item in Section 4.2.2.
21. Please correct the spelling of the compound "bis (2-chloroethyl) ether" in the eleventh
bullet item in Section 4.2.2.
Section 5. Summary
22. Please revise Section 5 by including a subsection following Section 5.2 summarizing the
performance and efficiency of the groundwater remediation system. This would include
the additional information requested for Section 3.3 in comment #12 above.
23. Please revise Section 5 by including a subsection following Section 5.2 that provides a
concise summary/evaluation of the groundwater remedial activities at the NSCC site.
This section should clearly summarize the groundwater quality and trends, the
groundwater remediation system performance, and any issues or recommendations that
can be made in order to optimize the efficiency of the groundwater remediation at the site.
Section 5.1 Groundwater Quality and Trends
24. Please revise the last sentence of the first bullet item in Section 5.1 to state, "As shown in
the above table, acetone, toluene, and 1,2-dichloroethane were detected most frequently
and at the highest concentrations."
Section 5.2 Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis Results
25. Please revise the last three paragraphs of Section 5.2 to greatly expand upon the
evaluation of the results of the Mann-Kendall analysis, including issues of insufficient
data and contaminants not detected above the standard (and were method detection limits
adequate to support this position), and a greater discussion of the individual increasing,
stable or decreasing trends noted for both contaminants and monitoring wells.
• • Mr. Jon Bornholm
July 27, 2005
Page 5
Table 3-1 OUl/OU2 Water Level Measurements
26. Please revise Table 3-1 to include the OUI/OU2 water level measurements for either NS-
55 or NS-56, depending on the results of above comments #3 and #8, on the first page of
Table 3-1 (Plume Periphery Wells) or on the second page of Table 3-1 (Trench Area
Wells).
Table 3-4 Comparison of 2004 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to
Performance Standards
27. Please correct the title of Table 3-4 to reflect the title given in the Table of Contents,
"Comparison of 2004 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to Performance
Standards".
28. Table 3-4 indicates that groundwater data from monitoring wells NS-55 and NS-56 are
not included in the figures. Please revise all tables and figures, as appropriate, to include
the groundwater data from monitoring wells NS-55 and NS-56. Specific items to be
.revised in the 2004 Site Monitoring Report include Table 3-5, Table 3-6, Table 3-7 and
Figure 3-3.
Table 3-8 Comparison of 2004 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to
Performance Standards
29. Please correct the title of Table 3-8 to reflect the title given in the Table of Contents,
"Comparison of 2004 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to Performance
Standards".
Table 3-12 Comparison of2004 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance
Standards
30. Please correct the title of Table 3-12 to reflect the title given in the Table of Contents,
"Comparison of2004 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance Standards".
Figure 3-1 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Saprolite Wells, December
2004
31. Please correct Figure 3-1 to indicate that the groundwater elevation for saprolite
monitoring well NS-02 is 754.32 feet above mean sea level (ft, ms!).
32. Please revise Figure 3-1 to include the groundwater elevation for saprolite monitoring
wells NS-03 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Mr. Jon Bornholm
July 27, 2005
Page 6
• •
Figure 3-2 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OUI/OU2 Transition Zone Wells,
December 2003
33. Please revise Figure 3-2 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1
and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OUI/OU2 Bedrock Wells,
December 2004
34. Please revise Figure 3-3 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1,
SG-2 and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
35. Please verify the groundwater elevations for monitoring wells NS-55 and NS-56 as
indicated on Table 3-1 and revise Figure 3-3 to reflect the correct groundwater elevations
for these wells. Of concern is that the groundwater elevations, as given in Table 3-1, do
not agree with the groundwater elevations shown in Figure 3-3 nor do they agree with the
groundwater elevations of adjacent groundwater monitoring wells as shown on Figure 3-
3. Please clarify these discrepancies.
Figure 3-5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map for OU3 Bedrock Wells -December
2003
36. Please revise Figure 3-5 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-6
and SG-7 as reflected in Table 3-2.
0
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
April 26, 2005
4WD-SRSEB
Mr. David Mattison
North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural Resources/Superfund Section
Suite 150
40 l Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
SUPERFUND SECTIOI~
SUBJ: Request to Review Response to Comments on 2003 Site Monitoring Report for the
National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site, Salisbury, Rowan County, North
Carolina
Dear Mr. Mattison:
Enclosed for the State's review and Site file is a copy of the above referenced document,
dated September 2, 2004 which the Agency did not receive until January 2005. Please review the
response prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., National Starch & Chemical Company's
consultant.
The Agency would appreciate receiving the State's comments by Monday, May 16, 2005.
If the State is unable to provide comments/approval by this date, please inform the Agency as to
when a response can be expected. '
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 404-562-8820.
Sincerely,
t~o~~
Remedial Project Manager
Enclosure( I)
I. Response to Comments on 2003 Site Monitoring Report for at the National Starch &
Chemical Company Superfund
I
BBL
SLASlAND. BOUCK & LU .. INC
en9mt>•''~ H:IWll!Sls, eco•>O""I'~
•
Transmilled Via U.S. Mail -Relllrn Receipt Requested
September 2, 2004
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
United States Environmental Protection Agency -Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
Re: Response to Comments on the 2003 Site Monitoring Report
National Starch & Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina ·
BBL Project #: 05007
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
•
On behalf of National Starch & Chemical Company (NSCC), Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL) has
prepared this response to regulatory comments dated July 22; 2004 on the 2003 Site Monitoring Report
for the National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site (Site). We appreciate the insightful
comments offered by both the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and look forward to continuing to work together to
optimize the implementation of the remedies of all of the Operable Units (OUs) at the Site.
Past Site Monitoring Reports have served to provide USEPA and NCDENR with the annual site
groundwater, surface water and sediment data collected at the Site. These reports historically have not
provided a detailed level of interpretation of the collected data. Such interpretation has been performed _in
the various Technical Memoranda and Remedy Evaluaticn Reports prepared and submitted to the
agencies. We believe that the entire body of work on the site and activities to be proposed in the
forthcoming OUI Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report will address the majority of USEPA's
comments.
We continue to believe that the Plume Periphery Extraction System (PPES) as it formerly operated, is not
an appropriate remedy for OU I. As a method of hydraulic containment, the PPES was not successful.
Minimal conslituent mass was being removed under operation of the PPES, and mass removal which does
not also achieve hydraulic containment will not reasonably restore the aquifer. If it is not ·being
contained, it is not being removed and thus the aquifer is not being restored. If the objective of th·e PPES
was to remove mass, wells EX-02 and EX-03 historically have been doing a poor job and EX-01 and EX-
04 have been entirely unsuccessful. If the objective of the PPES was to stem downgradient migration, the
PPES has been unsuccessful in this measure as well. The Supplemental Remedy Evaluation indicates that
8 South River Road• Cranbury, NJ 08512-3698
Tel [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.bbl-inc.com • Offices Nationwide
Mr. Jon Bomholm
September 2, 2004
Page 2 of 14
groundwater extraction closer to the Trench Area is likely a more appropriate way to remove mass and
stem migration towards the Unnamed Tributary.
• •
The re_mainder of this letter presents NSCC's responses to agency comments on a point by point basis.
The forthcoming Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report will address several of the USEPA' s concerns
relative to augmentation of the OU I remedy and addi_tional investigation activities.
USEPA REGION 4 COMMENTS DATED JULY 22, 2004: .
L Page 1-1, Section LI: An o_bjective spelled out in the Operable Unit (OU) #1 Record of
Decision (ROD) is "Groundwater will be extracted until the groundwater at the Site meets
ARARs established for this Site throughout the plume area(s)," Unfortunately, it is difficult
to ascertain from the information provided in this report if the remediation efforts
underway at the Site are achieving this objective, From the data presented in Table 3-9,
contaminated groundwater is being extracted from the underlying formation, The question
remains, are there sufficient extraction. wells -in the~trench. area .(hoth _in. the saprf?lile,
transition, and/or bedrock zones) to capture the contaminated groundwater being
generated by the contaminated soils in the trench area. With the data presented, it is not
feasible to evaluate if hydraulic control/capture has been achieved in the trench area. It
would be helpful if Section 3.0 be expanded to include a detail discussion on hydraulic
control,
A preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the OUI remedy was performed in 1998. The
preliminary. evaluation included preparation of a· Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model, performance of
numerical groundwate~ flow. modeling, and a comprehen.sive statist_ical analysis. of groundwater quality
data for OU l/OU2 'monitoring and extr,1ction· wells. . . . . . . , .
The Conceptual Hydrogeoligic Model presented i'n the Technical Memor~ndum on the Site Conceptual
Model evaluated the site-specific groundwater monitoring results as they compared to the understood
geology and hydrogeology of the Piedmont Province (BBL, I 998). The conceptual model indicated the
use of deep bedrock extraction wells is not supported in the Piedmont due to the presence of steeply
dipping fractures. Groundwater extraction from the Transition Zone is preferential for hydraulic control.
Plume Periphery Wells are approximately 200 feet in depth with screen intervals from the Transition
Zone into the Bedrock Zone. However, Trench Area Wells are shallower with depths ranging from 85 to
I 35 feet below ground surface with screen intervals in the Saprolite and Transition Zone. Therefore,
operation of the Plume Periphery Wells is not supported by the conceptual model, but operation of the
Trench Area Wells is supported by the conceptual model.
The results of the numerical groundwater flow model were presented in the Technical Memora11d1m1 for
Site Groundwater Flow Modeling in June 1998. The numerical flow modeling supported the conceptual
model. In the Plume Periphery, numerical modeling was less accurate with respect to the simulation of
the heads· under pumping conditions due to the small scale, highly heterogeneous flow regime. In the
Trench Area, the numerical model was more consistent. Additionally, modeling indicated the Trench
Area Wells were effective in providing hydraulic control over the Trench Area .
. Results of the comprehensive statistical analysis were presented as an attachment to the Five Year Review
for OU2 in August 1998. The comprehensive statistical analysis included the performance of statistical
tests to evaluate the ·data collected for OU I· and OU2 from I 993 to I 998. The results of the stat_istical
analysis indicated. the operation of the Trench Area \Veils was. generally successful, but the .operation of
the Plume Periphery Wells was less successful. ·
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomholm
September 2, 2004
Page 3 of 14
Based on the results of the preliminary evaluation, a Remedy Evaluation Plan for OU 1 was prepared in
June 1999. The Remedy Evaluation Plan included hydrogeologic evaluation and groundwater quality and ·
geochemical evaluation for OU 1 during the cessation ·of pumping of the Plume Periphery Wells. Field
investigation activities proposed in the Remedy Evaluation Plan were conducte_d in February 2000.
Remedy evaluation results were presented in the Remedy Evaluation Report for OU 1 in November 2000.
The hydrogeologic, groundwater quality, and natural attenuation investigation indicated operation of
Plume Periphery Wells did not further the remedial objectives of the OU! ROD.
A Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Work Plan for OU I was prepared in December 2001. Fracture trace
analysis and overburden trenching, monitoring well installation, downhole video logging, and packer
testing were proposed to further investigate the selected remedy for OU l. The fracture trace analysis was
completed in July 2002. Results of the fracture trace analysis indicated a major fracture trace set is
present at the Site trending northe·ast/southwest and three sets of minor fracture traces are present between
the Trench Area and Unnamed Tributary. Based on the results of the fracture trace analysis, trenching
activities were completed to confirm the presence and location of major and minor fractures.
Overburden trenching and fracture mapping was completed in October 2002. While individual fractures
and intrusions were observo;d during the trenching activity, the most pertinent data obtained was the
general areas of fractures and intrusions that were observed. Many of the fractured areas were observed
in the vicinity of the swale from the Unnamed Tributary along EX-02 and NS-26. Based on the results of
the trenching and fracture mapping, monitoring wells were installed in the identified facture areas.
Downhole video logging and packer testing were completed during well installation activities.
A Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report is being prepared to summarize the results of the fracture
trace analysis, trenching activities, monitoring well installation, downhole video logging, and packer
testing. The Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report for OU I will provide a proposal for additional
bedrock pumping closer to the Trench Area than the Plume Periphery Extraction System. The additional
bedrock extraction wells will provide increased control over groundwater in the vicinity of the Trench
Area.
2, Page 1-1, Section 1.1, second paragraph, last sentence: This sentence states that the focus of
the monitoring program has shifted from monitoring the effectiveness of the extraction
system to just monitoring and evaluating· water quality, Do not loose sight of the overall
goal as stated in comment# I, "Groundwater will be extracted until the groundwater at the
Site meets ARARs established for this Site throughout the plume area(s),"
The groundwater monitoring program continues to monitor the Trench Area Extraction System (T AES).
Remedy evaluation activities have provided information indicating that implementation of bedrock
pumping in the vicinity of NS-7 and NS-16 may provide additional control on dissolved phase
constituents with potential to migrate through fracture conduits into the Plume Periphery area. This
addition to the T AES will be another step to reach the overall goal of meeting ARA Rs established for the
Site throughout the plume areas.
3, Page 1-1, Section 1.1, third paragraph: Another objective needs to be added to OU #3
groundwater monitoring program; delineating and evaluating the hydraulic "capture zone
associated with the OU #3 groundwater extraction system,
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists. economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomhol~1
September 2, 2004
Page 4 of 14
The capture zone of the OU3 extraction system is delineated in the Final Design Report for OU3 (BBL,
1999), Evaluating performance of the ~ystem to the design may·be performed to meet this objective.
This would-include comparison of predicted pumping and water elevations to actual pumping rates and
water elevations, recognizing that the design was based on average conditions and that these conditions
will deviate somewhat from year to year.
4. Page 1-1, Section 1.1, third paragraph: This paragraph highlights the objectives of the
groundwater monitoring program for OU #3. This paragraph should also highlight the
objective of the OU #3 · ROD, remediate the contaminated aquifer by removing the
contaminated groundwater through extraction until the performance standards are
achieved.
This objective of the OU3 ROD wiil be inciuded in the highiighted objectives.
5. Page 1-2, Section 1.2.1, third paragraph, second sentence: It would he helpful if the date of
EPA 's letter could he included in this sentence.
The date of the letter will be added.
6. Page 1-3, Section 1.2.2.1, first paragraph, first sentence: This sentence uses the term "zone
of hydraulic control" (i.e., capture zone), however, the zone is not defined or delineated in
this report. Refer to comment # 1. A systematic approach for capture zone analysis is
highlighted below:
Step 1: Review site data, site conceptual model, and remedy objectives
Step 2: Deline site-specific target capture zone(s)
Step 3: Interpret water levels
Potentiometric surface maps
Water level pairs (gradient control points)
Step 4: Perform calculations (asa appropriate based on site complexity)
Flow budget calculation
Capture zone width calculation (can include drawdown calculation)
Modeling (analytical and/or numerical) to simulate heads, in conjunction with
particle tracking and/or transport modeling
Step 5: Evaluate concentration trends (and potentially tracer tests)·
Step 6: Interpret actual capture based on steps 1 to 5, compare to target capture zone(s),
assess uncertainties and data gaps.
The following is a list of references/guidances:
• "Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems,"
November 2002, OSWER 9355.4-27FSA .
•
• · "Methods· for; Monitoring Pump-and-Treat -Performances," June -1994.
Publication EPA/600/R-94/123, NTIS Order Number-PB95,125456.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists. economists
ORD-.
• • Mr. Jon Bomh'oiin
September 2, 2004
Page 5 of 14
• "Design Guidelines for Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems," September 1997.
ORD and OSWER joint publication EPA/540/S-97/504, EPA-68-C4-0031, NTIS Order
Number PB98-I 153891NZ, 44p.
• "Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation: A guide for Decision Makers and
Practitioners"' July 1996. ORD Publication EPA/625/R-95/005, NTIS Order Number
PB97-154009, 74p.
These documents are availahle at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/gewdocs/pum tre.htm
Each of these steps was completed in 1999 with the exception of Step 5. An analysis of the capture zone
created by the extraction wells and collection trench was perfonned as part of the Remedial Design
Report for OU3. This effort included preparation of a conceptual site model. flow budget calculations
and numerical modeling. The results of these efforts will be compared to current water levels and
pumping scenarios. Additional evaluation of trends will be performed and inserted into Section 5.1 in a
revised 2003 SMR:
7. Page 1-4, Section 1.2.2.2, first sentence: Typo, this sentence refers to Figure 1-2. However,
the referenced sampling locations are not shown on this figure but are shown on Figure 3-1.
We apologize for this error.
8. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, first paragraph, first sentence: This sentence should refer the reader
to Figure 1-2 as this is the first time the "stream gauges" have been discussed.
This reference will be added.
9. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, second paragraph, second sentence: When did monitoring wells NS-
26 and NS-30 become artesian?
Monitoring wells NS-26 and NS-30 have experienced artesian conditions after cessation of pumping of
the PPES .
. 10. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.l;second paragraph, second sentence: The text in this sentence states
that water levels were not measured in three wells" ... due to artesian conditions". The three
wells NS26, 30, and 32 are located in the vicinity of the Unnamed Tributary. Wasting the
water level information from these wells is inappropriate, especially when the information
presented in this report demonstrates that groundwater conditions are not completely
understood. The water levels ·should be measured by standard methods for wells under
these conditions.
Methods to measure the water levels in the wells experiencing artesian conditions are being investigated.
These include: attaching an extension to the monitoring well casing and allowing the water level to
equilibrate before measurement or using a pressure transducer or gauge coupled with a pressure-tight
fitting on the well head to measure the pressure and convert that to feet of water. One of these methods
will be used and the water levels will be measured and recorded at the artesian wells. However, the
presence of the artesian wells indicates the upward flow of groundwater toward the Unnamed Tributary.
BLASLANO, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bornhof~
September 2, 2004
Page 6 of 14
11. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.2, first bullet: This sentence should refer the reader to ·Figure 1-2 as ·
this is the first time these "stream gauges" have been discussed.
Figure 1-2 will be referenced so the location of the stream gauges can be discerned.
12. Page 2-2, Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2: Both of these sections provide a list of monitoring wells
that are ·used to monitor the groundwater as part of OU's #1 and #2, and OU #3,
respectively. It would be helpful, if the depths (i.e., the zone) these monitor wells are
identified.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present the zones for monitoring and extraction wells at the Site. A table will be
prepared providing the depths of the monitoring wells and hydrogeologic unit screened for each
monitoring and extraction well sampled.
13. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1, second paragraph, second sentence: This sentence states that a
minimum of 3 gallons was purged from each extraction well prior to collecting the sample.
This procedure is sufficient for the trench extraction wells as these are actively pumping but
not for the plume periphery extraction wells as they have been off since January 2000. If
this was th.e procedure used for sampling extraction wells EX-01, EX-02, EX-03 and EX-04,
then the data for these wells is not acceptable unless it can be shown that sufficient water
was purged to insure that fresh formation groundwater as collected in this sampling effort.
This effort needs to be documented. ·
Groundwater samples from non-pumping wells are collected using the low-flow groundwater sampling
method. Samples are collected when pH, conductivity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and
oxidation-reduction potential all are within the proscribed tolerances.
14. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.2, first paragraph and first bullet: Refer to comment # 6 above about
hydraulic zone.
Please refer to the response to comment 6.
15. Regarding Water Level Contour' Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: The report
states on page 3-1 that groundwater contours from saprolite, transition zone, and bedrock
flow to the Northeast Tributary, and that groundwater in· these units originates from
precipitation. This is an interconnected flow system, with rainfall becoming groundwater
which ultimately discharges to the streams. However, Figures 3-1 through Figure 3-5 plot
the water level contours in different portions of the property separately. Figures which
demonstrate a unified understanding of groundwater movement at this Site are not
presented.
Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-4 both show "Transition Zone" wells. The 750, 755, and 760 foot
contours on Figure 3-2 are plotted without regard to groundwater flow divides.
Comparison of these two figures shows a major discontinuity in the water level elevations
between NS24, NSlS, and NS02.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomholrl'i
September 2, 2004
Page 7 of 14
Why is a 15 foot difference in water level contours west of NS24 presented Figure 3-2 and 3-
4 without explanation? Why do the water level contours on Figure 3-2 cross groundwater
flow divides as if they don't exist? Why are multiple water level contour maps presented
for what appear to be the same hydrologic unit? After collecting groundwater levels for a
number of years, we should be able to clearly present water level contours and groundwater
flow directions, which would help us know where the plume is and where it is going. If a
consistent set of water level contours can't be drawn for the various units, then we probably
don't know where the plume(s) are going.
Water level contour maps should be drawn.for the entire site from the recharge areas to the
surface water bodies. Water quality data should be drawn on the water level contour maps
showing the extent of contamination between source and discharge areas.
Additional groundwater level contour maps will be created including hydrogeologic cross-sections across
the Site. However, the saprolite, transition zone and bedrock are three separate units and groundwater
levels should not be depicted across units. Groundwater flow does occur within groundwater
compartments roughly coincident with the watershed boundaries of perennial streams. but the precise
location of the groundwater divide is not known and may change with season and precipitation amount.
Maps showing both water level contours and water quality data will be prepared.
16. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.lthird sentence: What does the phrase "consistent with recent
measurements" mean? Should this read, "consistent with past measurements"?
Groundwater elevation data for the Site has been collected since the 1980s under a variety of pumping;
non-pumping and meteorologic conditions. Recent measurements indicate those with similar regimes
(i.e., winter while the PPES is not operating and the TAES is operating).
17. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.2: Based on the information provided in Figure 3-4 (groundwater
contours for the saprolite and transition zone), no hydraulic control is visible associated
with the Collection Trench.
One of our general concerns in development of contour maps is not to misrepresent aquifer conditions by
using pumping well elevation data. Our experience is that the well effect~ are significant, particularly
considering the relatively low hydraulic conductivity, and that using the data would anomalously indicate
large cones of depression which may not exist or may not be easily inferred using the existing monitoring
well array (e.g., wells are sufficiently downgradient/downhill that the elevations should be lower than the
observed elevations upgradient/uphill of the extraction). Additionally, the OU3 Collection Trench
operates on a level switch which maintains a water level in the trench lower than the bottom of the
Northeast Tributary.
The goal of the hydraulic design is to remove an appropriate amount of water (i.e., as close as possible to
the rate of recharge) from the most advantageous zones (transition zone) to mitigate migration and
efficiently meet remedial objectives: As observed in the historic operation of the PPES, extraction of
groundwater at a rate greater than recharge from nonadvantageous zones only spreads impacts over a
greater area and uhimately will lengthen the time required to meet remedial objectives.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• Mr. Jon Bomholin
September 2, 2004
Page 8 of 14
18. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.2, first paragraph; second sentence: Typo, note that the text in this
sentence stat.es that. Figure 3-5 shows water level contours. for_ bedrock wells from a-sample
event in 2002, while Figure 3-5 itself is titled 2003.
The groundwater levels were recorded during a monitoring event in 2003.
19. Page 3-2, Section 3.2.1 and page 3-4, Section 3.2.2: Were innuent samples collected from
each of the groundwater extraction systems (OU #I/OU #2 and OU #3) for chemical
analysis? If so, this data should be incorporated into this report. If not, these samples need
to be collected in the future. If these samples were collected, do the concentrations of
contaminants in the innuent renect the concentrations detected in each individual
extraction well?
Samples are collected from each of the extraction system components (EX-05 to EX-10, NS-49, Ns:51
and CT-I).· The rates of extraction are recorded and the retention time in the pre-treatment system is
relatively short. Thus, the total influent concentration may be estimated relatively easily and the
individual well data is more useful than the combined data would be for potential optimization decisions.
Please clarify how combined influent data would be used in evaluating the system performance.
20. Page 3-2, Section 3.2.2.1: Since the only contaminant being detected above performance
standards in the Collection Trench is 1,2-dichloroethane 'imd since the trench is only
producing approximately 50,000 gallons per month, where the two extraction wells are
generating a combined 789,000 gallons per month, is the Site benelitting from the passive
Collection Trench? Would replacing the Collection Trench with an active extraction well
or extraction wells (i.e., in .the vicinity of monitoring well NS-47) allow NSCC to achieve
performance standards in a more timely fashion?
Monitoring well NS-45 was instaHed to be used as a saprolite extraction well. Based on pumping tests
performed at this well as part of the OU3 remedial design process, NS-45 was not able to sustain pumping
at an appreciable rate and the extraction method for groundwater in the saprolite/transition zone in this
area was reconsidered. As described in the Final Design Report for OU3, the groundwater collection
trench was designed and installed as a more effective measure than individual extraction wells.
The geologic conditions in the vicinity of the Collection Trench and the Lagoon Area are different. The
two extraction wells are located in an area of an inferred shear zone with significant fracturing and
substantially thicker transition zone'. Thu~. the extraction wells 'produce more waier. in the vicinity of the
Collection Trench, there was less fracturing and a relatively thinner transition zone.
As discussed in the Technical. Memorandum on the Site Conceptual Model and in the Final Design
Report, there is a strong indication that there may be residual dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL)
in the aquifer. We do not believe that pumping additional groundwater will be effective achieving the
performance standards in a more timely fashion.
21. Page 3-3, Section 3.2.1.2: What zone does monitoring well NS-28 monitor? Should this
monitoring well be incorporated into the annual monitoring program? Shoul_d other
monitoring wells.b_e incorporated into the annual monitoring program?
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scieritists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomhol111·
September 2, 2004
Page 9 of 14
Monitoring · well NS-28 is approximately 81 feet deep and is screened in the transition zone.
Modifications, including the addition of monitoring-wells, to the Site groundwater monitoring-program
_ are proposed in the forthcoming Supplemental OU 1 Remedy Evaluation Report. : ·
22. Page 3-5, Section 3.2.2.1, table al iop of table: Neither history sections in the OU #1 nor OU
#3 RODs account for these elevated levels of manganese being detected in the groundwater
over such a wide area. Can some light be shed as to why these elevated levels of manganese
are being detected in the groundwater?
Elevated manganese concentrations were noted in the Remedy Evaluation Re(lOrt for OU 1. The results of
the geochemical parameter sampling during the remedy evaluation suggest that degradation of organics is
likely occurring under manganese-reducing conditions which results in increased solubility of naturally-
ocurring manganese.
23. Page 4-5, Section 4.3.1: Typo, "extraction well NS-30" should read "monitoring well
NS-30".
We apologize for this error.
24. Page 4-5, Section 4.3.2: Typo, "extraction well NS-42" should read "monitoring well NS-
42".
We apologize for tliis error:··· . '
25. Page 5-1, Section 5.0: This section should be expanded to include a section· ·for
"Recommendations". Below is one such recommendation that the Agency wants to see
initiated.
Surface Water and Groundwater Investigations: The relationship between the surface
water streams and groundwater contamination is a critical issue at this Site. The
information presented in this report does not do a convincing job of describing the
distribution.of groundwater contamination, the effectiveness'of the groundwater extraction
wells, and whether the extraction wells are actually capturing contamination. In
preparation for re-starting the PPES and other potential modifications to the existing
extraction wells, the Agency recommends that an investigation of the impacts of
groundwater contamination on surface water be performed. The investigation should
utilize innovative methods including Henry Samplers, color-reactive tubes, and traditional
laboratory samples as described below.
Henry Push Point samplers in can be used in the Unnamed Tributary and Northeast
Tributary to further characterize the plumes contributing chlorinated volatile organic
compounds (CVOCs) and BTEX to these streams. Information regarding Henry Push
Point 'samplers and pictures showing applications are available at the following web site:
http://www.MHEProducts.com
EPA Region 4 has used these samplers at sites in Region 4, primarily to document the reach
(length) of a stream impacted by a groundwater plume. These investigations have been able
to sample the stream bed, detect the up gradient edge of a plume, find the more
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • ,!.,
Mr. Jon Bomholm
September 2, 2004
Page IO of 14
contaminated center of the plume, then find the down gradient edge of the plume below
which samples obtained by the same methods are uncontaminated.
Groundwat.e, samples collected with Henry Samplers should be tested in the field with color
sensitive tubes which detect the presence of CVOCs. These methods should be used to
identify groundwater samples which define the extent of contamination, and the quality of
groundwater directly beneath the stream bottom. Selected groundwater samples should be
sent to a laboratory for analysis by traditional methods. Surface water samples from the
selected groundwater sample locations, also should be sent for laboratory analysis using
traditional methods. · .
The results from groundwater and surface water samples on both streams will determine
I.he width of plumes atstreams,.compare groundwater and surface. water quality, and help
identify locations for additional groundwater recovery wells. The PPES wells should be
turned back on soon, but this study should be performed first, before the PPES wells are
turned on. The study should be repeated one year after the PPES wells are back on.
Information regarding these color-sensitive tubes is available at the following web sites:
EPA Internet Seminar : Initial Site Screening Using Dynamic Field Activity: Calloway
Drum Recycling Site Auburndale, Polk County, Florida.
http://www.cluin.org/conf/tio/PASU
ColorTec Documentation: http://www.apbuck.com/gasproducts/kits/colortec.htm
Florida Dry Cleaner Coalition:http://www.drycleancoalition.org/download/color_tec.pdf.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2003, An Innovative Field-Based Analytical Method For
Low-Level Detection of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater and Soil Samples
The Agency has additional information regarding these methods which is not at the web
sites listed in this memo. Region 4 has used these methods and modified them at
chlorinated solvent sites in Florida. Descriptions of the methods used are in the process of
being published. The Agency will be available to supply additional information for a work
plan for this investigation.
Surface water qu·ality in the Unnamed Tributary was evaluated during the OU I remedy evaluation. At
that time surface water samples were collected from three locations in the Unnamed Tributary. volatile
organic compounds and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected in any of the surface water
samples.
A section for "Recommendations" will be included in future Site Monitoring Reports. The Agency's
recommendation for a surface water ~nd groundwater investigation in the Unnamed Tributary will be
incorporated into the forthcoming Supplemental OU I Remedy Evaluation Report. Paired groundwater
and surface water samples will be collected from points in the Unnamed Tributary using PushPoirit
samplers and sent for analysis of OU I constituents of concern by an analytical laboratory.
26. . Page 5-1, Section 5.0: The Summary states that. rnoderate to. significant decreases in
concentrations have occurred since the PPES was shut off, and concentrations in all wells
·sLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomliciim
September 2, 2004
Page 11 of 14
remain at or below levels observed in 2002. But the table on page 5-1 shows that the range
of detected concentrations for some contaminants remains 5 to 62,000 times the OU #I ROD
Performance Standard, so simply remaining below the 2002 levels is inadequate. Further,
the report proviiles no explanation for why the contaminant concentrations have deceased,
or where the contamination is going under the new coriditioris since the PPES was turned
off in January 2000.
Example 1: Table 3-5 page 7 of 14 shows that 1,2-dichloropropane concentrations decreased
greatly between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in EX-02 and NS-29. Where did this contamination go
after the PPES was turned off? Clearly these data show that a plume, which was being
captured when the pumps \vere on, is now passing through these wells. Where is the plume
now? The report text doesn't mention this situation. The concentration of 1,2-
dichloropropane reported· before the 4Q00,. and the detection limit of samples eollected
afterwards, both greatly exceed the Rod Performance Standard for this chemical. Also see:
Table 3-5 page 6 of 14 1,2-dichloroethane EX02 and NS29.
Example 2: Table 3-5, page 10 of 14 shows that toluene concentrations increased greatly
between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in NS-29 after the PPES was turned off. Where did this toluene
plume come from? Also, Table 3-15, page 14 of 14 shows that xylene concentrations
increased greatly between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in NS-29. Where did the xylene come from? The
report text doesn't mention this situation.
Example 3: Table 3-7; page 2 of 9 shows that barium concentrations have increased in EX02
and NS29 since the PPES wells were turned off. Where did this plume come from? Why
wasn't this condition mentioned in the text of the report? ' ·
There are a number of issues related to these observations. The possibility of a BTEX
plume at NS-29 is not discussed in the report. The possibility of a BTEX plume near NS-29
reaching surface· water in the Northeast Tributary is not discussed in the report. The
figures in the report do not combine water level data with water quality data, so important
relationships between groundwater flow, contaminant plumes and surface water streams
are not presented. Where is the 1,2-dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloroethane 'plume now
that the PPES wells have been off since 2000?
On-going OU l Remedy Evaluation activities address issues surrounding operation of the PPES and
evaluation of fate of constituents under the various pumping regimes in place since the early 1990s.
These issues are addressed in the forthcoming OU l Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report.
We agree that concentrations of 1.2-DCA are detected at 62,000 times the performance standard in EX-05
(310 mg/L). This concentration is greater than 3% of aqueous solubility and has been consistently
detected at approximately the same concentration since initial sampling in 1996. As discussed in the
Technical Memorandum on the Site Conceptual Model it is not reasonable to assume that the remedy will
significantly reduce concentrations if residual DNAPL is present in the vicinity of the Trench Area. We
appreciate the USEPA's interpretation of groundwater concentration as a multiple of the performance
standard and will incorporate the method into the SMR.
There is no evidence that operation of the PPES captured any plume. During operation of the PPES,
concentrations of COCs were significantly greater in wells downgradient of the PPES extraction wells
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC,
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomhol,n
September 2, 2004
Page 12ofl4
than they are since cessation of pumping. Observation of decreases in concentrations of eoes in a well
downgradient of.the PPES extraction wells after cessation of pumping does n_ot indicate that pumping
captured the plume. During operation of the PPES, increasing concentrations of eoes were noted in NS-
29 which typically is evidence of failure to capture a plume. Thus, it should be inferred that operation of
the system spread plumes.
The properties of the bedrock aquifer can be characterized as low primary porosity with low-to moderate-
fracturing. This would yield significant flow velocities through fractures under pumping conditions with
lesser retardation due to matrix diffusion. It is possible that under pumping conditions, operation of the
PPES pulled impacted groundwater from the trench area at a greatly increased rate. Subsequent to
cessation, the velocity dropped allowing more time for degradation of eoes. Additionally, lowering the
bedrock groundwater elevation may have increased flow from the transition zone to the bedrock and
further spread impacts that i.nay have been _captured by the T AES unde~ non-pumping conditions.,
Xylenes increased in concentration by one order of magnitude between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in NS-29 then
dropped back down to the same order of magnitude as prior measurements in 4Q01 and 4Q02, although at
higher concentration. Xylenes are observed at elevated concentration in the trench area, although at lesser
concentrations than other eoes. Regardless, concentrations of xylenes are less than 4 times performance
standards in the 4Q99 event, whereas historic concentrations of 1,2-DeA were more than 700 times the
performance standard in NS-29 during operation of the PPES and not detected at IO times the
performance standard in 4Q02.
Barium has not been consistently detected. at elevated. concentrations in _the Trench Areas. Barium has
been associated with drilling fluids and grout. It is possible _that rebound in water elevation has resulted
in contact of casing grout with the aquifer and solubility of barium.
27. Page 5-1, Section 5.1 second to the last sentence on the page: Why wasn't acetone included
in this list of most frequently detected contaminants?
We apologize for this oversight, acetone has been more frequently detected and will be added to the list of
constituents in Section 5. I.
28. Page 1 of 3, Table 3-8, Arsenic concentration in well EX-09: The rq1orted concentration is
"8.4" with a performance standard of 10. Why is the "8.4" in bold print?
We apologize for this error. The reported arsenic concentration of arsenic in well EX-09 should not be in
bold font.
29. Tables and High Detection Limits for Water Samples: The detection limits presented in
Table 3-5 typically are very high, and often are many limes greater that the Rod
Performance Standard shown on each page in the table. The high detection limits reduce
the usefulness of the summary information presented in Section 5. Future summary
reports should count the results for .Non-Detect samples with detection limits greater than
the ROD Performance Standard as accedences.
Due to the high concentration of one or more voes in groundwater samples at the Site, the analytical
laboratory must run these samples at increased dilutions to prevent equipment contamination. Because of
the dilution required for one or more voes in a sample this causes the detection limit for all voes in that
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers. scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomticilin
September 2, 2004
Page 13 of 14
sample to be elevated. Please recognize that using high non°detect results will 0·01 provide additional
insight because a well with an elevated concentration typically is ·impacted by another constituent with
concentration greater • than its respective • performance standard. -We -suggest using a separate
nomenclature · which· identifies locations with non-detect. concentrations greater than 'performance
standards.
30. Water Level Contour Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc;: Figure 3-4 shows, that
Extraction well CT-I is either off or totally ineffective in capturing contamination. The 740
foot contour passes through the well with no evidence that a capture zone is created. If this
well is pumping, additional monitoring wells need to be installed in locations which will
demonstrate the creation of a capture zone.
Groundwater elevations will be-.collected at multiple ports in the collection trench to provide a more
accurate picture of the effect or the trench on groundwater capture. Please refer to the response to
Comment 17 for additional information. ·
31. Water Level Contour Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: Figure 3-4 shows an oval-
shaped depression in the water level elevations around a single point at wells NS49 and 50.
The 740 foot contour in the depression is incorrectly contoured to include the 741.13 foot
measurement at NS49 within the depression. The water level in this well is higher than 740
feet and should be outside of the contour. More importantly, water level data, well
construction data, geologic data and contaminant distributions must be combined into a
single, consistent -groundwatu concept: model. which-:,dcscribes ·where ·groundwater
contamination is and where. it is going. Gaps identified during this process, where
insufficient data is available, should be identified and a work plan to fill the gaps by
appropriate methods should be submitted to the Agency.
The data that has been collected does support the current hydrogeologic conceptual model where
groundwater is introduced through recharge of precipitation; groundwater flows both horizontally and
vertically, ultimately discharging to surface water in the stream; the saprolite and transition zones act as
storage reservoirs and fractures within the underlying bedrock act as conduits for groundwater flow; and a
well screened in bedrock will intersect fractures to convey groundwater from the overlying regolith.
The information requested was submillcd to USEPA in the Technical Memorandum on the Site
Conceptual Model in 1998. Data collected since the submittal of the Technical Memorandum on the Site
Conceptual Model is consisient with data collected to generate the conceptual model.
32. Hydrogeologic Cross'.sections, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: Cross-sections should be
drawn through the Site showing appropriate geologic data, monitoring well screen
placement, water levels, etc. Flow nets should be drawn from these data lo the extent
possible. These data should be combined with water quality data to draw contaminant
plumes and lo evaluate whether wells, such as NS28, are located properly and are screened
at the· appropriate depth to intercept contamination from the western portion of the trench
area. As it is, the presentations in this report do not show that the locations of
contaminated water to be remediated are known. None of the maps presented in this report
show a groundwater plume or define the extent of contamination. Gaps identified during
• this process, where insufficient data is available, should be identified and a work plan to fill
. the gaps hy appropriate methods should be submitted to the Agency.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE,"INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
• • Mr. Jon Bomholin
September 2, 2004
Page 14 of 14
These activities have been the subject of the on'.going OU I remedy evaluation. NS-28 is a transition zone
monitoring well and was sampled in the 2000 evaluation. Impacts were observed in NS-28. Additional
evaluation of groundwater quality downgradient of NS-28 will be addressed in the forthcoming OU I
Supplemental Remedy Evaluation Report.
We app_reciate the ·Agency's comments and look forward to providing additional information that will
allow the Site Monitoring Report to be a valuable document in understanding the progress of the OU! and
OU3 remedies. After receipt of the Supplemental OU I Remedy Evaluation Report, it may be valuable to
schedule a meeting to discuss current conditions at the Site and share thoughts on potential activities that
may.further the remedial goals.
If you ha•.'e any questions. please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. c:=..::., ... -----·.
v'
Michael P. Fleischner
Associate
MPF/CYD/jas
cc: Angela Dohl, National Starch & Chemical Company
Catherine Dayton, Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE:INC.
engineers, scientists, economists
December 22, 2004 July 2004 RCRA Pos\-Cl...atlStarch & Chemical Company (NSCC) •
I of I
Subject: December 22, 2004 July 2004 RCRA Post-Cl~sure Monitoring Report for National Starch
& Chemical Company (NSCC)
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:46:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Mr. Utterback,
I am the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Agency for the Superfund
portion of this Site. I offer the following two comments on the above
referenced document.
1. On Page 2 of 4, the paragraph in the middle of the page, second
sentence: This sentence states, " ... however, concentrations exhibit a
stable or decreasing trend from previous sampling events.11 It would be
helpful if a table or figure demonstrating this "trend" was included in
the report to support their claim. It may also be helpful to require
NSCC to conduct some trend analyses to support this claim.
2. On Page 3 of 4, third paragraph, first sentence: This sentence
states, "Groundwater in this area is being collected by extraction
wells ... " It would be helpful if NSCC could support this claim through
piezometric surface or potentiometric surface figures showing that the
referenced wells are actually in the cone of influence. These
piezornetric surface or potentiometric surface figures should not rely on
the water level measurement from the extraction wells themselves.
If you have any questions, please feel to call me at 404-562-8820 or
David Mattison at 919-733-2801, x349.
Jon Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
01/12/2005 3:12 PM
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303'.3104
July 22, 2004
Ms. Angela J. Doh!
National Starch & Chemical Company
IO Findeme A venue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
Mr. Michael P. Fleischner
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
1990 N. California Blvd.
Suite 830
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3792
< .I
_lj ff @o ;v; ~~
.! . .1 JUL 2 6 2004
SUPERFUNO SECTION
SUBJ: Comments on 2003 Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical
Company Superfund Site
Dear Ms. Doh! & Mr. Fleischner:
The Agency received numerous copies of "2003 Site Monitoring Report", dated June
2004. Cop.ies of this document were forwarded to David Jenkins, EPA/Region 4/Office of
Technical Service and North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
(NCDENR) for the State's review and Site file.
This report does not accomplish all of the goals and objectives stated in Section I. 1. As
presented, it was difficult to interpret the data in this document. The data presented in this report
indicates that the plume periphery extraction system (PPES) should be turned back on in a
modified manner as the levels of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX)
downgradient of the extraction wells have increased since the PPES was shut down. A main
concern is that BTEX along with the chlorinated contaminants are discharging into the Unnamed
Tributary.
The following recommendations are made based on the Agency's interpretation of
groundwater contamination at the Site from the information presented in the appendices:
I. improve the presentations of data including hydro-geologic cross-sections, comprehensive
water level contour maps, and groundwater contaminant plumes;
2. collect data to demonstrate the relationships between the contaminant plumes and the
Unnamed and Northeast Tributaries, and use these data to supplement the PPES or design
a new remedial measure; and
3. tum the PPES on while the supplemental or new remedial measure is implemented.
• •
• ·• 2
Below are the Agency's specific comments and enclosed are comments from NCDENR.
I. Page 1-1, Section I.I: An objective spelled out in the Operable Unit (OU) #I Record of
Decision (ROD) is "Groundwater will be extracted until the groundwater at the Site meets
ARARs established for this Site throughout the plume area(s)." Unfortunately, it is difficult
to ascertain from the information provided in this report if the remediation efforts underway
at the Site are achieving this objective. From the data presented in Table 3-9, contaminated
groundwater is being extracted from the underlying formation." The question remains, are
there sufficient extraction wells in the trench area (both in the saprolite, transition, and/or
bedrock zones) to capture the contaminated groundwater being generated by the
contaminated soils in the trench area. With the data presented, it is not feasible to evaluate
if hydraulic control/capture has been achieved in the trench area. It would be helpful if
Section 3.0 be expanded to include a detail discussion on hydraulic control.
2. Page 1-1, Section 1.1, second paragraph, last sentence: This sentence states that the focus of
the monitoring program has shifted from monitoring the effectiveness of the extraction
system to just monitoring and evaluating water quality. Do not loose sight of the overall
goal as stated in comment # I, "Groundwater will be extracted until the groundwater at the
Site meets ARARs established for this Site throughout the plume area(s)."
3. Page 1-1, Section l. I, third paragraph: Another objective needs to be added to OU #3
grogl!flwater monitoring program; delineating and evaluating the hydraulic capture zone
associated with the OU #3 groundwater extraction system.
4. Page 1-1, Section 1.1, third paragraph: This paragraph highlights the objectives of the
groundwater monitoring program for OU #3. This paragraph should also highlight the
objective of the OU #3 ROD, remediate the contaminated aquifer by removing the
contaminated groundwater through extraction until the performance standards are achieved.
5. Page 1-2, Section 1.2.1, third paragraph, second sentence: It would be helpful if the date of
EPA's letter could be included in this sentence.
6. Page 1-3, Section 1.2.2.1, first paragraph, first sentence: This sentence uses the term "zone
of hydraulic control" (i.e., capture zone), however, the zone is not defined or delineated in
this report. Refer to comment # I. A systematic approach for capture zone analysis is
highlighted below: .
Step I:" Review site data, site conceptual model, and remedy objectives
Step 2: -Define site-specific target capture zone(s)
Step 3: Interpret water levels
► Potentiometric surface maps
► Water level pairs (gradient control points)
Step 4: Perform calculations (asa·appropriate based on site complexity)
► Flow budget calculation
• 3 •
► Capture zone width calculation (can include drawdown calculation)
► Modeling (analytical and/or numerical) to simulate heads, in conjunction
with particle tracking and/or transport modeling ·
Step 5: Evaluate concentration trends (and potentially tracer tests)
Step 6: Interpret actual capture based on steps 1 to 5, compare to target capture zone(s),
assess uncertainties and data gaps.
The following is a list of references/guidances:
• "Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems," November
2002, OSWER 9355.4-27FSA.
• "Methods for Monitoring Pump-and-Treat Performances," June 1994. ORD Publication
EP N600/R-94/l 23, NTIS Order Number PB95-l 25456 ..
• "Design Guidelines for Conventional Pump-and-Treat Systems," September 1997. ORD
and OSWER joint publication EP N540/S-97 /504, EPA-68-C4-003 l, NTIS Order Number
PB98-l l 5389INZ, 44p.
• "Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation: A guide for Decision Makers and
Practitioners"' July 1996. ORD Publication EPN625/R-95/005, NTIS Order Number PB97-
154009, 74p.
These documents are available at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resourccs/gewdocs/pum tre.htm
7. Page 1-4, Section 1.2.2.2, first sentence: Typo, this sentence refers to Figure 1-2. However,
the referenced sampling locations are not shown on this figure but are shown on Figure 3-1.
8. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, first paragraph, first sentence: This sentence should refer the reader
to Figu·re 1-2 as this is the first time the "stream gauges" have been discussed.
9. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, second paragraph, second sentence: When did monitoring wells NS-
26 and NS-30 become artesian?
10. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, second paragraph, second sentence: The text in this sentence states
that water levels were not measured in three wells" ... due to artesian conditions". The three
wells NS26, 30, and 32 are located in the vicinity of the Unnamed Tributary. Wasting the
water level information from these wells is inappropriate, especially when the information
presented in this report demonstrates that groundwater conditions are not·completely
understood. The water levels should be measured by standard methods for wells under these
conditions.
11. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.2, first bullet: This sentence should refer the reader to Figure 1-2 as
this is the ·first time these "stream gauges" have been discussed.
• 4 •
12. Page 2-2; Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2: Both of these sections provide a list of monitoring wells
that are used to monitor the groundwater as part of OU's #I and #2, and OU #3,
respectively. It would be helpful, if the depths (i.e., the zone) these monitor wells are
identified.
13. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.1, second paragraph, second sentence: This sentence states that a
minimum of 3 gallons was purged from each extraction well prior to collecting the sample.
This procedure is sufficient for the trench extraction wells as these are actively pumping but
not for the plume periphery extraction wells as they have been off since January 2000. If
this was the procedure used for sampling extraction wells EX-01, EX-02, EX-03 and EX-04,
then the data for these wells is not acceptable unless it can be shown that sufficient water
was purged to insure that fresh formation groundwater as collected in this sampling effort.
This effort needs to be documented.
· 14. Page 2-2, Section 2.2.2, first paragraph and first bullet: Refer to comment# 6 above about
hydraulic zone:
15. Regarding Water Level Contour Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: The report
states on page 3-1 that groundwater contours from saprolite, transition zone, and bedrock
flow to the Northeast Tributary, arid that groundwater in these units originates from
precipitation. This is an interconnected flow system, with rainfall becoming groundwater
which ultimately discharges to the streams. However, Figures 3-1 through Figure 3-5 plot
the water level contours in different portions of the property separately. Figures which
demonstrate a unified understanding of groundwater movement at this Site are not
presented.
Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-4 both show "Transition Zone" wells. The 750, 755, and 760 foot
contours on Figure 3-2 are ploued without regard to groundwater flow divides. Comparison
of th_ese two figures shows a major discontinuity in the water level elevations between
NS24, NS 15, and NS02.
Why is a 15 foot difference in water level contours west of NS24 presented Figure 3-2 and
3-4 without explanation? Why do the water level contours on Figure 3-2 cross groundwater
flow divides as if they don't exist? Why are multiple water level contour maps presented for
what appear to be the same hydro logic unit? After collecting groundwater levels for a
number of years, we should be able to clearly present water level contours and groundwater
flow directions, which would help us know where the plume is and where it is going. If a
consistent set of water level contours can't be drawn for the various units, then we probably
don't know where the plume(s) are going.
Water level contour maps should be drawn for the entire site from the recharge areas to the
surface water bodies. Water quality data should_ be drawn on the water level contour maps
showing the extent of contaminat_ion between source and discharge areas.
• 5 •
16. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.1 third sentence: What does the phrase "consistent with recent
measurements" mean? Should this read, "consistent with past measurements"?
17. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.2: Based on the information provided in Figure 3-4 (groundwater
contours for the saprolite and transition zone), no hydraulic control is visible associated with
the Collection Trench.
18. Page 3-1, Section 3.1.2, first paragraph, second sentence: Typo, note that the text in this
sentence states that Figure 3-5 shows water level contours for bedrock wells from a sample
event in 2002, while Figure 3-5 itself is titled 2003.
19. Page 3-2, Section 3.2.1 and page 3-4, Section 3.2.2: Were influent samples collected from
each of the groundwater extraction systems (OU #I/OU #2 and OU #3) for chemical
analysis? If so, this data should be incorporated into this report. If not, these samples need
to be collected in the future. If these samples were collected, do the concentrations of
contaminants in the influent reflect the. concentrations detected in each individual extraction
well?
20. Page 3-2, Section 3.2.2.1: Since the only contaminant being detected above performance
standards in the Collection Trench is 1,2-dichloroethane and since the trench is only
producing approximately 50,000 gallons per month, where the two extraction wells are
generating a combined 789,000 gallons per month, is the Site benefitting froni the passive
Coll_e_~tion Trench? Would replacing the Collection Trench with an active extraction well or
extraction wells (i.e., in the vicinity of monitoring well NS-47) allow NSCC to achieve
performance standards in a more timely fashion?
21. Page 3-3, Section 3.2.1.2: What zone does monitoring well NS-28 monitor? Should this
monitoring well be incorporated into the annual monitoring program? Should other
. monitoring wells be incorporated into the annual monitoring program?
22. Page 3-5, Section 3.2.2.1, table at top of table: Neither history sections in the OU #1 nor OU
#3 RODs account for these elevated levels of manganese being detected in the groundwater
over such a wide area. Can some light be shed as to why these elevated levels of manganese
are being detected in the groundwater?
23. Page 4-5, Section 4.3.1: Typo, "extraction well NS-30" should read "monitoring well NS-
30".
24. Page 4-5, Section 4.3.2: Typo, "extraction well NS-42" should read "monitoring well NS-
42".
2S: Page 5-1, Section 5.0: This section should be expanded to include a section for
"Recommendations". Below is one such recommendation that the Agency wants to see
initiated.
• • 6
Surface Water and Groundwater Investigations: The relationship between the surface water
streams and groundwater contamination is a critical issue at this Site. The information
presented in this report does not do a convincing job of describing the distribution of
groundwater contamination, the effectiveness of the groundwater extraction wells, and
whether the extraction wells are actually capturing contamination. In preparation for re-
starting the PPES and other potential modifications to the existing extraction wells, the
Agency recommends that an investigation of the impacts of groundwater contamination on
surface water be performed. The investigation should utilize·innovative methods including
Henry Samplers, color-reactive tubes, and traditional laboratory samples as described below.
Henry Push Point samplers in can be used in the Unnamed Tributary and Northeast
Tributary to further characterize the plumes contributing chlorinated volatile organic
compounds (CVOCs) and BTEX to these streams. Information regarding Henry Push Point
samplers and pictures showing applications are available at the following web site:
http://www.MHEProdticts.com
EPA Region 4 has used these samplers at sites in Region 4, primarily to document the reach
(length) of a stream impacted by a groundwater plume. These investigations have been able
to sample the stream bed, detect the up gradient edge of a plume, find the more
contaminated center of the plume, then find the down gradient edge of the plume below
which samples obtained by the same methods are uncontaminated.
Groundwater samples collected with Henry Samplers should be tested in the field with color
sensit.i_ve tubes which detect the presence of CVOCs. These methods should be used to
identify groundwater samples which define the extent of contamination, and the quality of
groundwater directly beneath the stream bottom. Selected groundwater samples should be
sent to a laboratory for analysis by traditional methods. Surface water samples from the
selected groundwater sample locations, also should be sent for laboratory analysis using
traditional methods.
The results from groundwater and surface water samples on both streams will determine _the
width of plumes at streams, compare groundwater and surface water quality, and help
identify locations for additional groundwater recovery wells. The PPES wells should be
turned back on soon, but this study should be performed first, before the PPES wells are
turned on. The study should be repeated one year after the PPES wells are back on.
Information regarding these color-sensitive tubes is available at the following web sites:
EPA Internet Seminar :
Initial Site Screening Using Dynamic Field Activity:
Calloway Drum Recycling Site Auburndale, Polk County, Florida
http://www.cluin.org/conf/tio/P AS I/
ColorTec Documentation : ·
http://www.apbuck.com/gasproducts/kits/colortec.htm
• 7 •
Florida Dry Cleaner Coalition:http:
//www.drycleancoalition.org/download/color_tec.pdf.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2003, An Innovative Field-Based Analytical Method_ For
Low-Level Detection of Chlorinated Solvents in Groundwater and Soil Samples
The Agency has additional information regarding these methods which is not at the web
sites listed in this memo. Region 4 has used these methods and modified them at
chlorinated solvent sites in Florida. Descriptions of the methods used are in the process of
being published. The Agency will be available to supply additional information for a work
plan for this investigation.
26. Page 5-1, Section 5.0: The Summary states that moderate to significant decreases in·
concentrations have occurred since the PPES was shut off, and concentrations in all wells
remain at or below levels observed in 2002. But the table on page 5-1 shows that the range
of detected concentrations for some contaminants remains 5 to 62,000 times the OU #I
ROD Performance Standard, so simply remaining below the 2002 levels is inadequate.
Further, the report provides no explanation for why the contaminant concentrations have
deceased, or where the co_ntamination is going under the new conditions since the PPES was
turned off in January 2000.
Example I: Table 3-5 page 7 of 14 shows that 1,2-dichloropropane concentrations decreased
greatly between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in EX-02 and NS-29. Where did this contamination go
after the PPES was turned off? Clearly these data show that a plume, which was being
captured when the pumps were on, is now passing through these wells. Where is the
plume now? The report text doesn't mention this situation. The concentration of 1,2-
dichloropropane reported before the 4Q00, and the detection limit of samples collected
afterwards, both greatly exceed the Rod Performance Standard for this chemical. Also
see: Table 3-5 page 6 of 14 1,2-dichloroethane EX02 and NS29.
Example 2: Table 3-5, page 10 of 14 shows that toluene concentrations increased greatly
. between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in NS-29 after the PPES was turned off. Where did this toluene
plume come from? Also, Table 3-15, page 14 of 14 shows that xylene concentrations
increased greatly between 4Q99 and 4Q00 in NS-29. Where did the xylene come from?
The report text doesn_'t mention this situation.
Example 3: Table 3-7, page 2 of9 shows that barium concentrations have increased in EX02
and NS29 since the PPES wells were turned off. Where did this plume come from? Why
wasn't this condition mentioned in the text of the report?
There are a number of issues related to these observations.
The possibility of a BTEX plume at NS-29 is not discussed in the report.
The possibility of a BTEX plume near NS-29 reaching surface water in the Northeast
Tributary is not discussed in the report.
• 8 •
The figures in the report do not combine w,ater level data with water quality data, so
important relationships between groundwater flow, contaminant plumes and surface
water streams are not presented.
Where is the 1,2-dichloropropane and 1,2-dichloroethane plume now that the PPES wells
have been off since 2000?
27. Page 5-1, Section 5.1 second to the last sentence on the page: Why wasn't acetone included
in this list of most frequently detected cont~minants?
28. Page I of 3, Table 3-8, Arsenic concentration in well EX-09: The reported concentration is
"8.4" with a performance standard of 10. Why is the "8.4" in bold print?
29. Tables and High Detection Limits for Water Samples: The detection limits presented in
Table 3-5 typically are very high, and often are many times greater that the Rod Performance
Standard shown on each page in the table. The high detection limits reduce the usefulness
of the summary information presented in Section 5. Future summary reports should count
the results for Non-Detect samples with detection limits greater than the ROD Performance
Standard as acce\lences.
30. Water Level Contour Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: Figure 3-4 shows that
Extraction well CT-I is either off or totally ineffective in capturing contamination. The 740
foot contour passes through the-well with no evidence that a capture zone is created. If this
wel! _!§ pumping, additional monitoring wells need to be installed in locations which will
demonstrate the creation of a capture zone.
31. Water Level Contour Maps, Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: Figure 3-4 shows an oval-
shaped depression in the water level elevations around a single point at wells NS49 and 50.
The 740 foot contour in the depression is incorrectly contoured to include the 741.13 foot
measurement at NS49 within the depression. The water level in this well is higher than 740
feet and should be outside of the contour. More importantly, water level data, well
. construction data, geologic data and contaminant distributions must be combined into a
single, consistent groundwater concept model which describes where groundwater
contamination is and where it is going. Gaps identified during this process, where
insufficient data is available, should be identified and a work plan to fill the gaps by
appropriate methods should be submitted to the Agency.
32. Hydrogeologic Cross-sections,.Groundwater Flow Directions, etc.: Cross-sections should be
drawn through the Site showing appropriate geologic data, monitoring well screen
placement, water levels, etc. Flow nets should be drawn from these data to the extent
possible. These data should be combined with water quality data to draw contaminant
plumes and to evaluate whether wells, such as NS28, are located properly and are screened
at the appropriate depth to intercept contamination from the western portion of the trench
area. As it is, the presentations in this report do not show that the locations of contaminated
water to be remediated are known. None of the maps presented in this report show a
groundwater plume or define the extent of contamination. Gaps identified during this
• 9 •
process, where insufficient data is available, should be identified and a work plan to fill the
gaps by appropriate methods should be submitted to the Agency.
In its current state, the Agency does not find this report acceptable and therefore, will not
approve this report. If you would like to discuss any of these comments in a conference call,
please allow 2-3 day lead time so that the necessary parties can arrange their schedules
accordingly. The Agency would like to see written responses to these comments within three (3)
weeks of receipt of this letter. This letter should also specify when a revised document will be
submitted.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 404-562-8820.
Sincerely,
. i c-----t :,.~::
Remedial Project Manager
Enclosure (I)
I. July 13, 2004 Comments from NCDENR
cc: David_Mattison, NCDENR (w/encl)
• • &i3).
MCDEMR
f,Jorth C,11olina Departrnenl of E1wironrnenl and r~ntu1·c-11 Resources
Division of \Nastc M::nrnfjtirncnt Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr. Secretary
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11 th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: 2003 Site Monitoring Report
July 13, 2004
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
The Supei'fund Section and the Hazardous Waste Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) have reviewed the 2003 Site Monitoring
Rep.ort. The NC DENR offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to callme at [phone] extension 349.
Sincerely,
/';ca1.ci /3 fl'Lo .. ClL:,·c-; . ....., / ~
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
cc: Mr. Robert Glaser, NC DENR Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
!' 1,-:1~:1c,,,.1-,-.:',,rl,, ~:· !·.' ·.:,~.-oi,t·,·· I:'·• ')/~:018 l'C:t;''.' ;Q•!,Jil/d;,,_.,._-,i,f.,, . .,,,_l,t.,,,"l,,.!(jfl_,11,J1l1,'-"',·,1[J.l,c, ,_i..,,v· U.,l
F·ho11t! ~: i ()_ i'J:~-,.1~1)_, -, F-,~ >:. '-·: :~ ··: r:,.:11 ;:·1,; \ lnit:rw:l 1·, tt;1.i/v1cistr:notnr..org
·1
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 13, 2004
Page I
•
2003 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Table of Contents
1. Please correct the Table of Contents to reflect the following tables and their respective
ti ties:
Table 3-16 Analytical Results, OU3 Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring
Table 3-17 Historical Analytical Results, OU3 Surface Water and Sediment
Monitoring
Table 3-18 July 2003 Groundwater Analytical Results, RCRA Post-Closure
Monitoring · -
Table 3-19 December 2003 Groundwater Analytical Results, RCRA Post-
Closure Monitoring
Section 3,1.2 Operable Unit 3
2. Please correct the second sentence of Section 3.1.2 to state, "Figure 3-4 shows
grollndwater contours for the saprolite and transition zone wells and Figure 3-5 shows
groundwater contours for the bedrock wells for the 2003 sanipling event."
Section 3.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
3. Please revise the second table included in Section 3.2.1.1 to include the detection of
arsenic at groundwater monitoring well NS-29 at a concentr\ltion of20.3 micrograms per
liter ( g/L) in excess of the Operable Unit 1 (OU!) Performance Standard of 10 g/L.
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
4. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 to include the detection of 1,2-
dichloroethane at groundwater extraction well EX-07 at a concentration of7.9 g/L in
excess of the OU! Perfonnance Standard of5 g/L.
Section 3.2.2.1 OU3 Wells
5. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to include the detection of vinyl
chloride at grou.ndwater monitoring well NS-41 at a concentration of 4.3 g/L in excess
of the OU3 Performance Standard of 1 g/L.
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 13, 2004
Page 2
• •
6. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the detection of
1,2-dichloroethane at groundwater monitoring well NS-51 is at a concentration of 6,300
g/L (without a "J" laboratory·qualifier) in excess of the OU3 Performance Standard of I
g/L.
7. Please revise the second bullet item included in Section 3.2.2.1 to include the detection of
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether at groundwater monitoring wells NS,24 and NS-38 at
concentrations of21 g/L and 7.7J g/L, respectively, in excess of the OU3
Performance Standard of 5 g/L.
8. Please revise the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the detection of
manganese at groundwater monitoring well NS-52 is at a concentration of 1,000 g/L in
excess of the OU3 Performance Standard of 50 g/L.
Section 3.2.4.1 July 2003
9. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.4.1 to indicate that the detections of
trichloroethene (201 g/L) and vinyl chloride (270 g/L) are attributed to the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NW-42, not NS-49 as currently
indicated in the table.
Section 3.3 Groundwater Remediation System
10. Please correct the spelling of the word "equalization" in the fourth sentence of Section
3.3.
Section 3.3.1. I Plume Periphery and Trench Area Wells
11. Please correct the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of Section 3.3.1.1 to state,
"During 2003, a total of 1,425,350 gallons of water was extracted from the Trench Area."
Section 4.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
12. Please correct the seventh bullet item in Section 4.2.1.1 to state "VOCs: EX-02 (20X),
EX-03 (SX), NS-29 (750X), and NS-31 (75X); and".
Section 4;2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
13. Please correct the third bullet item in Section 4.2.1.2 to state, "1,1-Dichloroethene and
bromodichloromethane in EX-05, EX-08, EX-09, EX-I 0, and NS-09;"
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 13, 2004
Page 3
• •
14. Please correct the tenth bullet item in Section 4.2.1.2 to state, "VOCs: EX-05 (7,500X
and 8,500X), EX-08 (SOX and 5,000X), EX-09 (10,000X), EX-10 (3,125X), and NS-09
· (25X and 250X); and''.
Section 4,2,2 Operable Unit 3
15. Please correct the spelling of the chemical "bis(2-chloroethyl)phthalate" in the first bullet
item of Section 4.2.2.
16. Please correct the second bullet item in Section 4.2.2 to state, "Bis(2-chloroethyl)
phthalate and thallium in NS-44;"
17. Please delete the reference to DUP-1 in the last bullet item of Section 4.2.2.
Section 4.2.3 RCRA Samples
18. Please correct the second bullet item in Section 4.2.3 to state, "Ethylbenzene and 1,1-
dichloroethene in NS-39, NS-42, DUP-90, and NS-49;"
19. Please correct the last bullet item in Section 4.2.3 to state, "VOCs: NS-39 (S00X), NS-42
(7X and l0X), DUP-121603 (l0X), and NS-49 (125X)."
Figure 3-1 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OUI/OU2 Saprolite Wells, December
2003
20. Please revise Figure 3-1 to include the groundwater elevations for saprolite monitoring
wells NS-03, NS-04 and NS-05 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-2 Groundwater Elevation_ Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Transition Zone Wells,
December 2003 ·
21. Please revise Figure 3-2 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1,
SG-2 and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Bedrock Wells, December
2003
22. Please revise Figure 3-3 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1,
SG-2 and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
• •
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 13, 2004
Page 4
Figure 3-4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map for OU3 Saprolite and Transition
Zone Wells -December 2003
23. Please revise Figure 3-4 to include the groundwater elevations for saprolite monitoring
well NS-14, transition zone extraction wells NS-49 and NS-50, and stream gauges SG-6
and SG-7 as reflected in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map for OU3 Bedrock Wells -December
2003
24. Please revise Figure 3-5 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-6
and SG-7 as reflected in Table 3-2.
,, • :.;;:;;;&;;::;;.'• iih
NCDEMR
• f llE COPY
l~orth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund I3ranch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11 th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Division of Waste Management
July 13, 2004
RE: 2003 Site Monitoring Report
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Borriholm:
l•/iichd:~i :=.-::.:::~,l~;y. G-J·✓~·!rnJr
Williarn G ~:::-;s Jr., Secretr:~y
The Superfund Section and the Hazardous Waste Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) have reviewed the 2003 Site Monitoring
Report. The NC DENR offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone] extension 349.
Sincerely,
/)QJ,11d 8 fr?..aT/.J..Scr~ / ~
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
cc: Mr. Robert Glaser, NC DENR Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
1SJS I,lail Service Center. Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone 9 -, 9-733-4 99·3 I F.i\>: 91 ?-7 ·, 5-3505 I Internet hltp//wastenomc.org
' I:
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July 13, 2004
Page I
• •
2003 SITE MONITORING REPORT
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Table of Contents
I. Please correct the Table of Contents to reflect the following tables and their respective
titles: ·--
Table 3-16
Table 3-17
Table 3-18
Table 3-19
Analytical Results, OU3 Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring
Historical Analytical Results, OU3 Surface Water and Sediment
Monitoring
July 2003 Groundwater Analytical Results, RCRA Post-Closure
Monitoring
December 2003 Groundwater Analytical Results, RCRA Post-
Closure Monitoring
Section 3.1.2 Operable Unit 3
2. Please correct the second sentence of Section 3.1.2 to state, "Figure 3-4 shows
groundwater contours for the saprolite and transition zone wells and Figure 3-5 shows
· groundwater contours for the bedrock wells for the 2003 sampling event."
Section 3.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
3. Please revise the second table included in Section 3.2.1. l to include the detection of
arsenic at groundwater monitoring well NS-29 at a concentration of 20.3 micrograms per
liter ( g/L) in excess of the Operable Unit I (OUI) Performance Standard of 10 g/L.
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
4. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 to include the detection of 1,2-
dichloroethane at groundwater extraction well EX-07 at a concentration of 7.9 g/L in
excess of the OU 1 Performance Standard of 5 g/L.
Section 3.2.2.1 OU3 \Velis
5. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to include the detection of vinyl
chloride at groundwater monitoring well NS-41 at a concentration of 4.3 g/L in excess
of the OU3 Performance Standard of 1 g/L.
Mr. Jon Bornholm
July 13, 2004
Page 2
• •
6. Please revise the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the detectiQJ1 of
1,2-dichloroethane at groundwater monitoring well NS-51 is at a concentration of 6,300
g/L (without a "J" laboratory qualifier) in excess of the OU3 Performance Standard of I
g/L.
7. Please revise the second bullet item included in Section 3.2.2.1 to include the detection of
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether at groundwater monitoring wells NS=24 and NS-38 at
concentrations of21 g/L and 7.7J g/L, respectively, in excess of the OU3
Performance Standard of 5 g/L.
8. Please revise the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the detection of
manganese at groundwater monitoring well NS-52 is at a concentration of 1,000 g/L in
excess of the OU3 Performance Standard of 50 g/L.
Section 3.2.4.1 July 2003
9. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.4.1 to indicate that the detections of
trichloroethene (201 g/L) and vinyl chloride (270 g/L) are attributed to the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NW-42, not NS-49 as currently
indicated in the table.
Section 3.3 Groundwater Remediation System
I 0. Please correct the spelling of the word "equalization" in the fourth sentence of Section
3.3.
Section 3.3.1.1 Plume Periphery and Trench Area \Veils
11. Please correct the fourth sentence of the third paragraph of Section 3.3.1.1 to state,
"During 2003, a total of 1,425,350 gallons of water was extracted from the Trench Area."
Section 4.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
12. Please correct the seventh bullet item in Section 4.2.1.1 to state "VOCs: EX-02 (20X),
EX-03 (5X), NS-29 (750X), and NS-31 (75X); and".
Section 4.2.1.2 Trench Area \\'ells
13. Please correct the third bullet item in Section 4.2.1 :2 to state, "I, 1-Dichloroethene and
bromodichloromethane in EX-05, EX-08, EX-09, EX-I 0, and NS-09;"
Mr. Jon Bomholm
July I 3, 2004
Page 3
• •
14. Please correct the tenth bullet item in Section 4.2.1.2 to state, "VOCs: EX-05 (7,5.00X
and 8,500X), EX-08 (SOX and 5,000X), EX-09 (I 0,OO0X), EX-IO (3, 125X), and NS-09
(25X and 250X); and".
Section 4.2.2 Operable Unit 3
15. Please correct the spelling of the chemical "bis(2-chloroethyl)phthalate" in the first bullet
item of Section 4.2.2.
16. Please correct the second bullet item in Section 4.2.2 to state, "Bis(2-chloroethyl)
phthalate and thallium in NS-44;"
17. Please delete the reference to DUP-1 in the last bullet item of Section 4.2.2.
Section 4.2.3 RCRA Samples
18. Please correct the second bullet item in Section 4.2.3 to state, "Ethylbenzene and 1,1-
dichloroethene in NS-39, NS-42, DUP-90, and NS-49;"
19. Please correct the last bullet item in Section 4.2.3 to state, "VOCs: NS-39 (S00X), NS-42
(7X and l0X), DUP-121603 (l0X), and NS-49 (12SX)."
Figure 3-1 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Saprolite Wells, December
2003
20. Please revise Figure 3-1 to include the groundwater elevations for saprolite monitoring
wells NS-03, NS-04 and NS-05 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-2 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Transition Zone Wells,
December 2003
21. Please revise Figure 3-2 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1,
SG-2 and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
Figure 3-3 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map, OU1/OU2 Bedrock Wells, December
2003
22. Please revise Figure 3-3 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-1,
SG-2 and SG-5 as reflected in Table 3-1.
• • Mr. Jon Bornholm
July I 3, 2004
Page 4
Figure 3-4 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map for OU3 Saprolite and Transition
Zone Wells -December 2003
23. Please revise Figure 3-4 to include the groundwater elevations for saprolite monitoring
well NS-14, transition zone extraction wells NS-49 and NS-50, and stream gauges SG-6
and SG-7 as reflected in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-5 Groundwater Elevation Contour Map for OU3 Bedrock Wells -December
2003
24. Please revise Figure 3-5 to include the groundwater elevations for stream gauges SG-6
and SG-7 as reflected in Table 3-2.
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
4WD-NSMB
Ms. Angela J. Doh!
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
March 10, 2003
National Starch & Chemical Company
10 Findeme Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
Mr. Michael P. Fleischner-
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
1990 N. California Blvd.
Suite 830
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3792
SUBJ: Reaction on Response to Regulatory Comments on 2001 Site Monitoring Report from
EPA's National Risk Management Research Laboratory for the National Starch &
Chemical Company Superfund Site
Dear Ms. Doh! & Mr. Fleischner:
The Agency received one copy of a document entitled, "Response to Comments on 200 I
Site Monitoring Report for National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site", dated
January 14, 2003. This document was reviewed by the EPA's Regional office, EPA's National
Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL), and North Carolina Department of
Environmental & Natural Resources (NCDENR). In a February 11, 2003 correspondence the
Agency shared with National Starch & Chemical Company (NSCC) comments from the
Regional Office and NCDENR. Enclosed are comments from NRMRL. As stated in the
previous correspondence, the Agency is not requesting NSCC to conduct any additional field
work associated with the enclosed comments. However, the enclosed comments are significant
and should be considered. The concepts/ideas highlighted in NRMRL's comments will become
important in the future.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 404-562-8820.
Sincerely,
Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
..,
I
•
Enclosure (1):
I. February 20, 2003 Comments from NRMRL
cc: David Mattison, NCDENR
David Reisman, NRMRL
•
• •
Response to Comment on the May 2002 Phase II Natural Degradation Treatability Study
Annual Sampling Event Results for the National Starch and Chemical Company, Cedar
Springs Plant Site BBL Project #05007.003
Below are itemized responses to comments in BBL's letter:
Region IV Comments/Responses
I. The response to this comment is satisfactory with the PRP promising future submissions
within 90 days of sampling.
2. The PRP suggests that the use of PID screening is standard practice. Although this type of
screening is sometimes used, it must be shown to be reliable if the results are to be used to deem
the soils clean and/or to eliminate sites from further sampling. However, not only do the data
from this site show that there is not a direct correlation between the PID readings and"the_ voe
concentration, but the data also strongly suggest that there is no correlation between the PID
reading and the voe concentration. The statement that "Generally, if the PID registers a
concentration there is voe in the soil" is moot. The data suggest that there is a strong possibility
that there may be voe in the soil that the PID is missing and these soils are assumed clean when
in fact we don't know whether this is true. This concern is the reason for the original comment.
3. The response to this comment is satisfactory with the PRP indicating that the soil samples in
the Lagoon area were collected from SBLA-13 and SBLA-14. The locations should be provided
in the text as well as indicated on Figure 3 and 4.
4. The answer to th_is concern was satisfactory regarding the modification to Table 5 to include
the PID results for the two locations in question.
5. The answer to this concern was satisfactory. It should be noted that EPA is not requesting a
"comprehensive" analysis the soil and/or soil-gas data. We understand that this is not even
possible at this stage of the evaluation. However, the data may be of value for supporting the
case for natural attenuation at more of a qualification level than a quantification level:
6. The answer provided is satisfactory with the 12 locations identified.
7. The provision of Figure 9 should satisfactorily answer this question. (Note: We could not
distinguish between the symbol for soil borings to be sampled in 2002 and the soil borings to be
eliminated from the monitoring program. Slightly larger or more differentiated symbols might
help.)
8. The request was to define the "J" and "E" flags in Table 2. The PRP submitted revised
versions of-Tables.3,.4,.and 5,.which was.appropriate for those.tables. Standard report writing·
practices call for definition of terms at the first use (i.e., Table 2). Subsequent defining of these
terms in latter tables helps to facilitate the review, even though these are often considered
standardized flags.
• •
2
9. See #8
10. This concern was addressed with a footnote added to the revised Table 3 to eliminate any
confusion.
11. See #8
12. This concern was adequately addressed with the data from SBA2-16-0l removed from the
revised version of Table 5.
13. This response to this concern was satisfactory with the PRP indicating that the locations in
question (SB-ISSA, SB-ISSB, and SB-173B) will be included in the 2002 sampling event.
14. This concern was properly addressed.
NRMRL Discussion:
General Comment. Tl)e PRP appears to believe that EPA was asking for what they call a
"comprehensive" analysis of the data to provide proof that natural attenuation is occurring. They
point out the fact that "it is unreasonable to expect that sufficient data could be provided in the
First Annual Report." EPA does not expect that the data to "prove" that natural attenuation is
occurring or that it will continue into the future to ensure protection of human health and the
environment would be obtained after one year of monitoring, especially considering that only one
sampling event was conducted. In addition, it was not requested that a "comprehensive" analysis
be conducted. It is "standard" practice when evaluating any remedial approach that the data be
evaluated for what they are worth. EPA's comments were provided to do just that. It is not
necessary to go back to the "extensive discussion in the correspondence on the Phase II Work
Plan on the necessity of data collected over time and the untenability of collecting sufficient data
in a single event" as suggested in BBL's response to comments. EPA's agrees that one year
(especially one sampling event) is in no way sufficient to evaluate and prove the efficacy of any
remedial technology. However, it must be pointed out that EPA's concerns regarding the lack of
useable data after 5 years of the Phase II activities were stated; based on the data quantity and
quality of the data provided from the first annual sampling event, these concerns remain true.
One pages I and 3 of the letter report of August 20, 2002, BBL states "Thus natural attenuation
has been successful in reducing concentrations to the Record of Decision (ROD) performance
standard or the initial estimate of impacted material is significantly greater than the actual mass."
Making such a statement requires that a "comprehensive" analysis of the data be performed.
Based on the argumentrepeated in the response to comments, it is.not clear how this could be ..
done with the data provided. The inclusion of these statements is why EPA provided the
suggestion of further data analysis to support this claim. Without such support, these claims are
superficial, unsubstantiated, and of no value.
• •
3
Area 2. The first paragraph of BB L's response suggests confusion between sampling location
and core. Table 4 clearly shows that 8 cores were collected from discrete depths from 5
locations, hence core, not location. That being clarified, BBL pointed out that no locations were
selected as a "background" location. We assumed, apparently incorrectly, that SBA2-16 was
located in an uncontaminated (background) region of the site. This was based on the fact that the
540 µglkg concentration reported in the table on page 3 of the report was 2 orders of magnitude
less than the next highest concentration and the fact that the value was reported with an
undefined "D" qualifier. We recognize that the high level of horizontal and vertical
heterogeneity in 1,2-DCA across the site would preclude such an assumption and we accept
BBL's statement that this area is not a "background" area and will not consider it as such.
As far as redistribution, it was pointed out in EPA's response that the data from the two soil-
boring locations (SBA2-09 and SBA2-20) suggested contaminant redistribution, not that the data
proved this was occurring. In BBL's response, it is stated "Additional samples collected at
previously sampled soil boring locations throughout the Phase II NOTS will provide additional
data on the tendency of 1,2-DCA impacts to redistribute in the soil column over time." The
response goes on to state "If redistribution was an important mechanism of 1,2-OCA transport in
the vadose zone, one wpuld expect the 1,2-OCA to rapidly vacate the unsaturated zone." This
argument borders on absurd and suggests a lack of understanding of the basic principles and
processes governing contaminant transport and distribution in the vadose zone. The responder
goes on to point out that "it is important to note that the nature of impacts is very heterogeneous
and the distribution of impacts may differ on the order of millimeters. This heterogeneity
coupled with inherent limitations of soil sampling (it is impossible to return to the exact same
location) means that even if a sample collected at a previously sampled location has a different
vertical profile of impacts this may be a result of the original distribution of impacts rather than
redistribution of impacts over time." This has been EPA's concern all along and the variability
between paired borings as well as between duplicate analyses within the same sample heightens
this concern. It is not clear how a pair-wise analysis will be possible based on this level of
heterogeneity and the data strongly suggests that this Phase II approach will prove to be a futile
effort.
The discussion regarding the use of the PIO on page 5 indicates that there was confusion about
EPA's original comments and the intent of providing the graph in Figure I. The data provided in
Figure I do not presuppose a linear relationship but instead show that there is no correlation
between PID readings and 1,2-DCA concentrations. This takes into account the fact that the data
is bunched around the O µglkg 1,2-DCE concentration. It is not expected that there would be a
direct relationship between the two detection methods, and such a relationship is not necessary
for screening. Fortunately, the PID data set provided in BBL's response for SBA2-09 and SBA2-
20 provide even stronger evidence that using the PID to deem soil cores clean is not appropriate
and in fact not acceptable. Figure I below is a plot of the PID readings against the 1,2-OCA
concentrations from these to soil boring locations. The data in the figure clearly show that there
is no correlation between the two parameters (note: the data in the figure do not presuppose a
• •
4
linear relationship). Of even more importance is the fact that the data provided in the revised
Table 5 shows that three samples that registered a O PID reading had 1,2-DCA concentrations of
1,600E, 510, and 71, two of which are over the performance standard and that would have been
· assumed clean.
The response on page 6 stating "It is possible that some of the 1,2-DCA degradation occurring at
the site may be occurring aerobically, if this is the case oxygen rather than other hydrocarbons is
acting as the electron donor" is ·
bothersome. This statement
indicates a basic lack of
understanding of the underlying
principles of biodegradation.
First, the discussion to which
this reply was responding to
discussed the presence of
daughter products that could
signal reductive dechlorination
and some fraction of the TOC
was suggested as a possible·
source of electron donor. While
it is possible that 1,2-DCA
could be degraded under aerobic
conditions, the analytical
protocol has not been
established to investigate this
route. If this is to be proposed
as a mechanism, data beyond
.
4COxl01
3Cll:d01
20Jxl01
lO)xl01
;
2xl0i" / ;
2xl01
,
llC101
50Jxl(lll
0
0
• •
FigureJ. PID Readings.vs 1,2:DCA Concentration
Results from Continuous Coring LocatiOns
Revised Table 5
•
• •
• • •
•
5 10 15 20 25
PIO Readout
-
I;
/
/
30
simple parent compound disappearance may need to be provided. What is most disturbing is the
claim that oxygen is serving as the electron donor in place of other hydrocarbons. This suggests
a pathway that has never been reported and is physically, chemically, and thermodynamically
impossible. Under aerobic conditions, the 1,2-DCA is the electron donor and oxygen is the
electron acceptor. The lack of this basic level of understanding suggests that the individual
making this observatio_n is not qualified to be evaluating natural attenuation mechanisms.
It is good to see that the PRP will continue to collect soil-gas data over the course of the Phase II
NDTS. Based on the heterogeneity of the data produced to date, this line of support may be
needed to support a claim of success. It must be noted that the soil-gas data will not override or
replace the soil data for making that claim.
The last response regarding Area 2 once again addresses the contaminant redistribution issue. It
is not necessary to caution EPA against using the data to interpret contaminant redistribution, as
it is understood that heterogeneity is extremely important and that the data variability will play a·
• •
5
major role in the ability to analyze the data at the end of each year and the 5-year period. EPA
has clearly expressed these concerns to the PRP.
Lagoon Area. The response discussing the use of PID is moot, as this· method has been proven
unacceptable based on the data provided in the revised Table 5 attached to the response letter.
Regarding the response to the soil-gas data, EPA und.erstands that the soil-gas monitoring
protocol was not originally designed to obtain data that directly corresponds to individual soil
sampling locations. In addition, the Agency agrees that this data might prove useful for
supporting claims of natural attenuation processes maoe based on s-.Qil sampling results. It was
simply being pointed out that the soil-gas data would be of more value as ·supporting evidence if
they were collected from areas corresponding to the areas where soil sampling occurs: It is
important to note that the soil-gas data may reflect conditions in the aquifer as much as the soil
profile so soil-gas data alone is of limited value. This demands that the soil data be the primary
indication of natural attenuation.
EPA is pleased to see that previous sampling data will be included in the subsequent reports.
Again, the Agency is by no mearis suggesting a comprehensive review but we caution the PRP
not to make unsubstantiated claims of natural attenuation performance. We also reiterate our
concerns that the approach being followed and the data being generated stands a strong chance of
not being sufficient to prove natural attenuation 'as a viable approach.
Conclusions. The responder has raised the concern over what is meant by statistically valid
evidence, going through the exercise of calculating the need for collecting 5,124,654 samples to
identify a ½-inch hot spot at a 90% confidence level. Just the fact that this exercise is performed
and the results used to make a point suggests that the PRP does not understand what is required
to validate data. First, EPA has not made any demand that the site be cleared free of any ½-inch
diameter immobile globule. Second, EPA is sensitive to the sampling and analysis cost and has
not and would not require such an excessive number of samples to be collected. However, we do
expect that the data be statistically valid in order to be accepted. This means that the changes
within "true" pair wise comparisons must be statistically significant at some level of confidence
within the level of variability observed between sample locations and even between duplicates
within the same sample. Taking the variability in the data generated to date on this effort, and
· the argument of heterogeneity provided by the responder, it is difficult to see how this will be
accomplished using local and/or pair wise comparisons. Also, the sparse data density for this
size of a site will yield extremely poor site-wide estimates:
Summary. BBL repeatedly raised several concerns over EPA comments on the first year's
results. First, the responder suggests in several responses that it is not appropriate to do a
"comprehensive analysis" after 1 year of data collection. EPA did not request a comprehensive
analysis but rather provided some suggestions to get the most of the data that has been generated.
In BBL's report, they reiterate the claim that the !st year data showed that natural attenuation was .
•
6
successful in reducing concentrations to the ROD performance standard. Making such a claim
does require a comprehensive analysis. In reality, the procedures followed and the data generated
do not allow such and analysis, not do they support such a statement.
Second, the discussion to support the use of the PID for screening purposes is raised at several
points in the response letter. In fact, the data provided in the revised Table 5 proves that this
method is not valid for determining when 1,2-DCA concentrations are below the performance
standard. As such, the use of this method must be halted.
Third, the discussion of redistribution and heterogeneity is repeated several times. EPA
recognizes the complexities of both phenomena and their implications for data evaluation, even
after 5 years of data are collected under the proposed sampling plan. The responder cautions
EPA not to put too much emphasis on the potential for redistribution as the heterogeneity in
contaminant distribution may be equally or more important. If fact, this has been EPA's position
and we agree with the responder. It is not clear that the responder understands the implications
of these variables on the ability to.show natural attenuation effectiveness.
The responses provided_ by BBL also raised several concerns regarding their ability to effectively
obtain and evaluate the data necessary to support selection of natural attenuation as a viable
remediation approach. First, the response indicated a lack of understanding of the underlying
principle of contaminant behavior in the vadose zone. This basic level of understanding is .
necessary to perform these responsibilities. Second, the responders understanding of
biodegradation processes was called into question by their comment that under aerobic
conditions oxygen was serving as an electron donor in place of other hydrocarbons. Again, a
basic understanding of the biodegradation pathways is a prerequisite to evaluating natural
attenuation.
Finally, there seems to be some misunderstanding regarding the need for statistically valid ·data.
EPA has made their concern clear and it is up to the PRP to live up to that requirement. EPA has.
expressed their concern that the sampling protocol might not provide the data necessary to do
accomplish this and the data generated during the first sampling event support this concern.
'
, • • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
February 11, 2003
4WD-NSMB
Ms. Angela J. Dahl
National Starch & Chemical Company
10 Findeme Avenue
Bridgewater, NewJersey 08807
·• ;' ·· ::r;,;Mt,iJMichael\Pt;Eleischner
FEB 1 7 2003
· . · , O"\ •, : .C: ,::Bhisl and;\Boucld&.":l:ee;Inc.
:_,;~:\'1990}N'.'.Califcimia.Blvd .
. ... Suite.830
.\ · .. ::M'illniifCreeki'.C,A-i94596'.-3792
SUBJ: Reaction on Response to Regulatory Comments on 2001 Site Monitoring Report for the
National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site
Dear Ms. Dahl & Mr. Fleischner:
The Agency receii/ed o~e copy of a doctimeriterititled, "Response tci Comments ori 200·1.
Site Monitoring Report for National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site", dated
January 14, 2003. The Agency reviewed National Starch & Chemical Company's (NSCC's)
responses and found all but the response to comment# l S acceptable. The Agency realizes that
additional field work would be required to ascertain the necessary information to address the
question raised in comment #IS. Currently, the Agency does not feel that this is a significant
enough issue to require NSCC to conduct the necessary field work to develop the needed data .
. :·.::_ However, because.of the.elevated.levels of contaminants in the groundwater in these monitoring
, . /•,, .• ,wells, .the,Ageni:y feels coritinued•sampliii'g .of the, Northeast ffributa1y,(surface :water/sediment)
on a regular basis is warranted.
· Enclosed are comments·froniNcirth Carolina Department of Environmental & Natural
_Resources of the above referenced.document. As can.be.seen,.these.corrunents.are editorial in
nature. Please make note of the corrections highlighted in the State's comments for future
.. · ·-reference. ·Consequently,-the Agency deems the-January 14 document as·acceptable.
•• L ;
• • 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 404-562-8820.
Sincerely, ✓ jnt (3~ .
Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
--Enclosure (1):
. , ·. ,,.L.Eebruaiy,W,.2003.,Comments.Jrom,NGDENR
,. ,.
" " ,,
r,
_,.
North Carolina • Department of Environment and Natural ·
Resources : (c (\~ '\
\\\_\ .. \JU Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, ll th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
February 10, 2003
RE: Response to Comments -2001 Site Monitoring Report
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
The Superfund Section and the Hazardous Waste Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) have reviewed the Response to Comments -
2001 Site Monitoring Report. The NC DENR offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone] extension 349.
Attachment
Sincerely,
ba..1,r/Cr.' s . ir2 a[Ll s 0---/ clz
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: ,vww.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY\ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
i
i ' ,.
. :
'
Mr. Jon Bornholm
February I 0, 2003
Page I ·
• •
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS -2001 SITE MONITORING REPORT
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Section 3.2.3.2 February 2002
1. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.3.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-39 in February 2002 contained 0.53
micrograms per liter ( g/L) chloroform.
Table 3-12 Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance
Standards
,2, Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-53 in the I st Quarter of 2002 was collected on March 13, 2002 .
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
4WD-NSMB
Mr. David Mattison
North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural Resources/Superfund Section
Suite 150
40 I Oberlin Road
.Raleigh, NC 27605
SUBJ: Request to Review Response to Comments on 2001 Site Monitoring Report for the
National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site
Dear Mr. Matti son:
Enclosed for the State's review and Site file is a copy of the above referenced document,
dated January 14, 2003. Please review this document.
The Agency would appreciate receiving the State's comments by Friday, January 31,
2003. If the State is unable to provide comments/approval by this date, please inform the Agency
as to when a response can be expected.
If you have any questions, 1 can be reached at 404-562-8820.
Sincerely,
Remedial Project Manager
Enclosure( 1)
I. Response to Comments on 200 I Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical
Company Superfund Site
• •
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineer5 & scientists
Transmilled Via Federal Express
January 14, 2003
Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-3104
i '
i•I 1. JAN 1 7 2003
I 1 •. -~ • : ·, ~ ' ...
. \ \ ,.'1 !
Re: Response to Comments on 2001 Site Monitoring Report for National Starch & Chemical
Company Supcrfund Site
Dear Mr. Bornholm:
On behalf of National Starch & Chemical Company (NSCC), Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL) has
prepared this response to comments dated September 5, 2002 on 200 I Site Monitoring Report for NSCC
in Salisbury, North Carolina. We appreciate the effort put forth by both the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) and the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources·
(NCDENR) in preparing these comments. Comments provided by the agencies are listed below with
NSCC's responses on a point by point basis.
USEPA REGION 4 COMMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2002:
I 1. General Comment: There are several components to the groundwater remediation system:
00832188
the groundwater extraction system, the groundwater treatment system, the groundwater
monitoring system, and the pipes/wiring/electrical control constituents. A discussion on the
groundwater treatment system was completely omitted and the discussion on the
groundwater monitoring effort focused on the contaminants present in the groundwater.
There was some discussion of hydraulic capture by the Trench Area extraction wells but
there were no figures provided showing the hydraulic capture zone created by the Trench
Area extraction wells. There was no discussion on the hydraulics (vertical and/or lateral
control) for the Operable Unit (OU) #3 extractions (i.e., collection trench and bedrock
extraction wells).
NSCC concurs. Future annual Site Monitoring Reports will contain a section describing the
operation· of the ·groundwater treatment system and any operational· difficulties encountered. A
discussion of the effectiveness of the extraction systems will also be presented.
8 Soun, River Rood • Cranbury. NJ 08512-9502
lei [phone] • Voice Moil (609) 860-80:2 • Fox [phone] • www.bbl-inc.corn • offices natiomvide
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January I 4, 2003
Page 2 of IO
The groundwater treatment system operates continuously with the exception of one shutdown per
week to clean out the air stripper. The system has operated normally within its design criteria and
in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Manual (BBL, 1997).
Data collected in the monitoring program is consistent with the Site Conceptual Model.
Groundwater elevation data collected during operation of the system indicates that capture is
occurring in OU3 due to operation of the groundwater extraction wells and collection trench. The
Conceptual Model indicates groundwater flow in the bedrock is through secondary porosity
which is primarily in the form of vertical or high angle fractures. Bedrock extraction wells are
screened with open boreholes in the fractured bedrock. The vertical or high angle fractures
intersect the boreholes and act as conduits for groundwater flow from the overlying regolith.
Groundwater gradients in the vicinity of the Northeast Tributary.Jl[e upward and the Northeast
Tributary is a gaining stream. The botto"ii, ·of the collection trench is located below the streambed
of the Northeast Tributary and intercepts groundwater flowing upwards under the natural gradient
toward the Northeast Tributary.
/ 2. General Comment: A number of compounds (methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, etc.) have
been detected in the groundwater at a number of locations across the Site that reportedly
have never been used at this facility. However, this report neither mentions this fact nor
attempts to explain the occurrence of these compounds. A sub-section should be devoted to
explain or attempt to explain the occurrence of these contaminants.
Vinyl chloride is a daughter product in the chlorinated reduction of 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-
DCA). Vinyl _chloride is detected in eight wells where 1,2-DCA is also detected. Data collected
during the Remedy Evaluation (BBL, 2000) indicate that other daughter products of 1,2-DCA
biodegradation, such as ethene and chloride, are also present in wells where 1,2-DCA and vinyl
chloride are detected. Future annual Site Monitoring Reports will contain description ·of the
occurrence of compounds not reported to have been used in site activities.
Methylene chloride was detected in six of the monitoring wells sampled. Only two of these
detections are at a greater concentration than the performance standard. Whereas methylene
chloride was never used as a stand alone compound at the Site, small amounts of methylene
chloride may have been present in other mixtures used at the Site.
General Comment: This report does a good job in presenting the data, however, very little
effort is made in interpreting what the data means. For examples, refer to comments #1, #2,
#12, and #15.
NSCC concurs. Future annual Site Monitoring Reports will contain more discussion of the
collected data. Please sec response to comments# I, #2, # 12 and # 15 for further information.
}4_ Page 1-1, Section 1: This paragraph states that the current remedial action (RA) efforts are
being done under the appropriate Record of Decision (RODs). This is not an incorrect
statement but the appropriate Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) and the Consent
Decree (CD) should also be included in this paragraph:. UAO for OU #1 Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA), issued 011 ,July 27, 1989; OU 32 CD signed August 1991,
entered in Federal Court on July 20, 1992; and UAO for OU #3 and OU #4 RD/RA, issued
on September 29, 1995._ ·
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
00832188
Is.
/4.
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 3 of 10
NSCC concurs. Future annual Site Monitoring Reports will include the appropriate UAOs and
CD.
Page 1-1, Section 1.1: This section lists the purposes and objectives of the groundwater
monitoring programs for OU #1, OU #2, and OU #3. A bullet should be added to both OU
#1/OU #2 and OU #3 lists of purposes/objectives identifying hydraulic control (delineation
of capture zones) of the groundwater extraction systems.
NSCC concurs. Future annual Site Monitoring Reports will include identifying hydraulic control
of the groundwater extraction systems for the Trench Area and OU3.
Page 1-1, Section 1.1, second paragraph, second sentence: I do not remember either EPA or
NCDENR concurring with the gist of this sentence, " ... groundwater pumping in any
capacity would not further the remedial objectives ... ".
One conclusion of the Remedy Evaluation for Operable Unit One is that pumping of the PPES
would not further the remedial objectives in the vicinity of the Unnamed Tributary. Additional
investigation is necessary to design and implement a more appropriate remedial action for this
area of the Site. A fracture trace analysis and overburden trenching were performed as part of the
second phase of the remedy evaluation. A letter report describing the findings of the overburden
trenching and outlining future activity for OU 1 will be submitted to the Agency by January 31,
2003.
/ 7. Page 1-4, Section 1.2.2.4: A general question, is NSCC required do to duplicative effort to
satisfy the needs of both CERCLA and RCRA? If so, please identify them so that EPA and
NCDENR can work with NSCC to resolve duplicative efforts.
Both the CERCLA annual groundwater monitoring program and the RCRA Post-Closure semi-
annual groundwater monitoring program include monitoring wells NS-33, NS-39 and NS-42 and
extraction well NS-49. These wells are sampled once in December to serve the purposes of both
monitoring programs:J No duplicative effort is expended.
/ 8. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1., last paragraph, last sentence: Include the rationale as to why access
to extraction well EX-08 was not feasible.
00832188
Extraction well EX-08 was unable to be gauged along with the other wells due to a problem with
the mechanical piping. This problem was resolved and EX-08 was able to be sampled with the
other wells. This well will be able to be gauged and sampled during the 2002 sampling event.
Page 3-2, tables on this page and throughout the text: Further define the symbol "-" by
saying ·"the laboratory detection level can be found in the appropriate table in the Table
Section."
Attached please find a revised Section 3 of the Site Monitoring Report. Future annual Site
Monitoring Reports will include the more descriptive note for the"-" symbol.
BLASLAND.· BOUCK & LEE, HK.
---5) 10.
/11.
/12.
./13.
00832188
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 4 of IO
Page 3-3, Section 3.3, third paragraph: This paragraph first states that the combined
pum·ping rate for the collection trench is approximately 6 gallons per minute (gpm).
However, later in the paragraph it is stated that the pumping rate for the collection trench
is approximately 0.59 gallons per minµte. Why the discrepancy?
We apologize for this discrepancy. The collection trench is designed to pump at a rate up to 6
gpm. The pump in the trench is fitted with a level alarm that regulates pumping from the trench
only when water is in the trench. During the monitoring period, the average pumping rate from
the collection trench was approximately 0.59 gpm.
Table 3-1, SG-2: The test and this table state that stream gauge SG-2 was damaged. Was
SG-2 repaired? If not, why not?
Stream gauge SG-2 will be repaired before the December 2002 groundwater monitoring event.
Table 3-5: Docs the data (i.e., analytical data for monitoring well NS-31) support or
contradict NSCC's suppositions about the flow of groundwater in OU #1 area of the facility
(i.e., the conceptual Site model)?
The monitoring data and the additional data collected as part of the OUI Remedy Evaluation does
support the conceptual Site model. In the conceptual model for the Site, water enters the
groundwater system as recharge from precipitation and flows horizontally through the saprolite,
transition zone and bedrock to the vicinity of the stream where it flows upward from the bedrock
and transition zone to the saprolite where it discharges to the stream. Recent groundwater quality
data from monitoring well NS-29 indicate that there may be a fracture or other feature that runs
from the vicinity of the Trench Area to the vicinity ofNS-29 and the Unnamed Tributary. This
feature may provide a preferred pathway for highly-impacted water to travel to NS-29.
Monitoring well NS-31 may also be located along this apparent fracture connecting the area of
NS-29 to the Trench Area. The fracture trace and fracture mapping activities occurring as part of
the second phase of the OUI Remedy Evaluation are designed to identify and located this
preferred pathway and aid in the design of a more appropriate remedy for OU I groundwater.
Table 3-5, Page 3-14: What is the significance of the last "Note" (i.e., "Shading indicates
"E" qualified ... ").
The "E" qualifier indicates that the concentration of the compound in the sample is estimated
because the calibration range of the laboratory equipment was exceeded. In most instances, the
laboratory will dilute the sample and analyze the sample again for the constituents of concern.
The shading indicates that the laboratory did not dilute the sample and analyze the sample at a
dilution. Therefore, only an estimated concentration of the compound in the sample is available.
Table 3-8, Page 1 of 3: Define "NA".
We apologize for this error. Attached please find a revised version of Table 3-8. "NA" indicates
that the compound was not analyzed for in the sample. The qualifier "NA" will be defined in the
footnotes of Table 3-8.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
ong,'neors & ,ctantl.~r~
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
· January 14, 2003
Page 5 of 10
Table 3-13, Page 3 or 12: Are monitoring wells NS-35, NS-36, and NS-47 upgradient of the
collection trench? If so, why aren't the elevated levels of contaminan.ts being detected in
these monitoring wells being detected in the groundwater being withdrawn from the
collection trench. This relates back to General Comment #1.
Monitoring wells NS-35, NS-36 and NS-47 are upgradient of the collection trench, as are NS-45
and NS-46. Concentrations of 1,2-DCA in monitoring wells NS-45 and NS-46 are 3.3 ug/1 and
12 ug/1, respectively, as compared with the concentration of 1,2-DCA observed in wells NS-35,
NS-36 and NS-47 which range from 6,700 ug/1 to 180,000 ug/1. The water collected in the
collection trench comes from a wide area upgradient of the trench. The impacts from the area of
NS-35, NS-36 and NS-37 are diluted by water entering the trench from less-impacted areas.
Additionally, downgradient migratioJ}_Qf 1,2-DCA may be retarded by effects of matrix diffusion
and adsorption io organic carbon.
NCDENR COMMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2002:
Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two
Please revise the table included in Section 1.2.1 to reflect the constituents of concern (COCs)
for Operable Units (OU) 1 and 2 as given in Table 3-3.
We apologize for the discrepancy. The revised table for Section 1.2.1 is presented below.
~;}\{:~::;,~·,:;.:){~tGll;'.;~~}Jc;l,~{ fJ·,; ;f;~!J:·1~'~1~£0.G~1ff ti~{:::? ~~~~ \/t;Nj}i!~i;~~:.:\:;·;~i";-
Acetone 4-Nitroohenol Arsenic
Benzene B is(2-chloroethvl)cther Barium
Bromodichloromethane Bervllium
Chloroform Cadmium
I, 1-Dich\oroethene Chromium
1,2-Dichloroethane Manganese
1,2-Dichloropropane Nickel
Ethvlbenzenc Selenium
Methylene Chloride Zinc
Toluene
I, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
Section 1.2.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring
008J2 !88
Please revise the last sentence of Section 1.2.2.1 and the table included in Section 1.2.2.1 to
reflect COCs for OU3 as given in Table 3-3.
We apologize for the discrepancy between the two tables. Groundwater COCs for OU3 include
the following 12. VOCs, two SVOCs, and five metals:
BLASLMJD. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
flf'lQinfler~ & ,c/Antlsts
•
·4;1;:,;, ,'.' t,1'Ti(.i~',;•-ih ·f{'L'.'f>· ">· •\,''. . "'' ~.1.,~ i ~-V(j'C ,~,,t.1. ,,,,.,,,,;: :;~-::r;~~:ir ::~-;~_,!,:t~i::;.-~:~<:~~:=~i
Acetone
Chloroform
I, 1-Dichloroethene
Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichlorooropane
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethane
1, 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
1-:r;:yr·;::'.~~1,syo:d:;~< ·~~~\ :~:~r,;
;;:.,:.·;--~ 'S;,_::,1., .:· .. ,~l,~ .<.l.,..1<,,-__..,~~:s.~
B is(2-ch loroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethvlhexyl)phthalate
• Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 6 of 10
,:· •)/:ji~~~i :;;.1• i\'ip,<;,2r°!>t:··~:JZ;t~f•\: .• : . ~-uc tPp;,· eta g: ,,.,;,,.: ··l •••" -:i:.:\' ?.!.'.;:; ~:.-~ ' .,'\)'.I: ,r; ...::':,;f·i~;-";.,
Antimony
Chromium
Manganese
Thallium
Zinc
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench. Area Wells
Please correct. the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from extraction well EX-09 in the I" Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000 -
?g/L acetone (with no laboratory qualifiers).
We 'apologize for this error. The first table in Section 3.2.1.2 has been correctly revised.
Attached please find a revised copy of Section 3.
/ 3. Please delete the row for ethyl benzene in the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 as the
groundwater sample collected from extraction well EX-10 (as in all of the Trench Area
extraction and monitoring wells) in the l't Quarter of 2002 contained ethylbenzene at
concentrations less than the Performance Standard.
Please see the response to comment 3.
Section 3.2.2.1 March 2002
/4. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the groundwater .
sample collected from monitoring well NS-54 in the 1 't Quarter of 2002 contained no
concentrations of tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene or vinyl chloride greater than their
respective Performance Standards.
We apologize for this error. The first table in Section 3.2.2.1 has ·been correctly revised.
Attached please find a revised copy of Section 3.
/5. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.l to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-13 in the l't Quarter of 2002 contained 72.6 ?g/L
chromium.
Please see the response to comment 5.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE. INC.
00102188
• Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 7 of 10
J6. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-37 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained 1280
?g/L manganese.
Please see the response to comment 5.
Section 3.2.3.2 February 2002
J 7. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.3.2 to indicate that the groundwater sample
collected from monitoring well NS-42 in February 2002 did not contain concentrations of
methylene chloride in excess of the Performance Standard.
We apologize for this error. The table included in Section 3.2.3.2 has been revised accordingly.
Attached please find a revised copy of Section 3.
Table 3-4 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to Performance
Standards.
} 8. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-04 in the I" Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) with a_dilution factor of I.
/10.
We apologize for this error. Table 3-4 has been revised accordingly. Atiached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-4.
Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate ·that the groundwater sample collected from .
monitoring well NS-29 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
bromodichloromethane at a laboratory detection limit of 100 micrograms per liter (?g/L).
Please see the response to comment number 9.
Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the l't Quarter of2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
acetone at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
Please see the response to comment number 9.
Table 3-5 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring
Wells
/11.
00832188
Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater . sample collected from
monitoring well NS-29 in the l'' Quarter of2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
bromodichloromethane at a laboratory detection limit of I 00 ?g/L.
We apologize for this error. Table 3-5 has been revised accordingly. Attached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-5.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
onglneor~ & sclenrlsrs
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 8 of 10
Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the t" Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
acetone at a laboratory detection limit of to ?g/L.
Please see the response to comment number 12.
Table 3-8 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to Performance
Standards
/ 13. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-05 in the t'' Quarter of 2002 contained 350,000 ?g/L 1,2-dichlorocthanc (with a
"E" laboratory qualifier).
We apologize for this error. Table 3-8 has been revised accordingly. Attached please find a
copy of revised Table 3-8.
j 14. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-07 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.63 ?g/L (with a "B" and a ".J" laboratory qualifier).
Please see the response to comment number I 4.
Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-09 in the I 't Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000-?g/L acetone (with no laboratory
qualifiers).
Please see the response to comment number 14.
Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-15 in the l't Quarter of2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
toluene at a laboratory detection limit of0.77 ?g/L (with a ",J" laboratory qualifier).
Please see the response to comment number 14.
Table 3-9 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring
Wells
00832188
Please correct Table 3-9 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-09 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000-?g/L acetone (with no laboratory
qualifiers).
We apologize for this error. Table 3-9 has been revised accordingli, Attached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-9.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE, INC.
on9/naAf$ & sr;lantlsts
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 9 of 10
Table 3-12 Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance Standards
/is. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-41 in the I" Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of 1.
J 20.
--?'22.
We apologize for this error. Table 3-12 has been revised accordingly. Attached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-12.
Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-45 in the I" Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of 1.
Please see the response to comment number 19.
Please revise Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring well NS-42 in the 1'1 Quarter of 2002 and analyzed for manganese and thallium
content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2.
Please see the response to comment number 19.
Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the l't Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
antimony at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
Please see the response to comment number 19.
Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the g~ and the diluted
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well l'is:53-inlhcl" Quarter of 2002 were
collected on March 13, 2002.
Please see the response to comment number 19.
Table 3-15 Historical Analytical Results -Metals, OU3 Extraction and Monitoring Wells
J 23. Please correct Table 3-15 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the l" Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
antimony at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
We apologize for this error. Table 3-.15 has been revised accordingly. Attached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-15.
Table 3-16 Comparison of RCRA Analytical Results to Class GA Groundwater Standards,
July 2002
00832188
Please correct Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1" Quarter of 2002 contained 130-?g/L acetone (with a "J"
and a "B" laboratory qualifier).
BLASLMJD. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
,
/25.
• • Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
January 14, 2003
Page 10 of 10
We apologize for this error. Table 3-16 has been revised accordingly. Attached please find a
revised copy of Table 3-16.
Please correct Table 3-16 to· indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1" Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations of
toluene at a laboratory detection limit of 15 ?g/L (and no laboratory qualifiers).
Please see the response to·comment number 25.
Please revise Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells NS-33, NS-39, NS-42, NS-90 and NS-49 in the 1'1 Quarter of 2002 and
analyzed for zinc content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2: --
Please see the response to comment number 25.
Thank you for the effort extended in preparing these comments. If you have any questions or comments,
please contact me at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC. Ci-----------
Michael P. Fleischner
Senior Project Engineer
MPF/hrl
cc: Angela Doh!, National Starch & Chemical Company .
00832188
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
s n gin o tJ rs & s c'I an r I s t s
• •
Revised Section 3
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
ef'lgineers & scientists
• •
3. Results
This section outlines the results of the groundwater elevation measurements, laboratory analyses of groundwater
samples, and pumping data for 200 I.
3.1 Groundwater Elevations
3.1.1 Operable Units One and Two
DTW and groundwater elevations for the OU I and 2 March 2002 sampling event are listed in Table 3-1.
Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 show groundwater contours for the saprolite, transition zone, and bedrock wells,
respectively, for ·the March W!);2 sampling event. Groundwater elevations are consistent with recent
measurements. Groundwater flow is from the Trench Area toward the Unnamed Tributary. Groundwater flow is
presumed to follow topographic features such as the swale that is evident in the area of wells NS-21, NS-26, and
EX-02.
3.1.2 Operable Unit 3
DTW and groundwater elevations for the March 2002 OU3 sampling event are listed in Tables 3-2. Figure 3-4
shows groundwater contours for the saprolite and transition zone wells and Figure 3-5 shows groundwater
contours for the bedrock wells for the 2002 sampling event. Groundwater elevations are consistent with recent
measurements. Groundwater contours in the saprolite, transition zone, and bedrock indicate that groundwater
flows into the Northeast Tributary.
The observed groundwater elevations provide agreement with the conceptual model of groundwater flow al the
site described by the following:
• groundwater flow occurs within groundwater compartments rnughly coincident with the watershed
boundaries of the Unnamed and Northeast Tributaries;
• groundwater is introduced to the compartments through recharge from precipitation;
• groundwater flows both horizontally and vertically within the groundwater compartment. ultimately
discharging to surface water in the stream; and
• due to differences in primary porosity. the saprolite and transition zones act as storage reservoirs and
fractures within the underlying bedrock act as conduits for groundwater from the overlying regolith.
3.2 Analytical Results
This section summarizes the current .analytical results for groundwater samples relative to the Performance
Standards and historical data. The OU I and OU3 Performance Standards are presented in Table 3-3 with the
North Carolina Groundwater Standards.
3.2.1 Operable Units One and Two
Groundwater samples collected from the Plume Periphery wells were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs. and metals
listed as site COCs. VOCs were analyzed by EPA method 8260. SVOCs were analyzed by EPA method 8270.
and metals were analyzed by EPA method 60IO.
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers & scientists 3-1
200! SMR.J,,c
• •
3.2.1.1 Plume Periphery Wells
Analytical results for the Plume Periphery wells are compared to the Performance Standards as shown in Table
3-4. This comparison indicates the following:
, Detected concentrations of VOCs are less than the Performance Standards, with the exception of the
following:
NS-29 NS-31
Acetone 3,500 220,000
1,2-Dichloroethane 5
1,2-Dichloro ro ane 6 C
Toluene 2.000 3,300
X lene 350 650
All concentrations in µg/1
"-" Concentration less than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU I ROD
100
200
• Detected concentrations of SVOCs arc less than the Performance Standards, with the exception of bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether in EX-02 (740 µg/1), EX-03 (600 µg/1), NS-29 (9,900 µg/1), NS-30 (150 ug/1), and NS-
31 (81 µg/1). The concentration listed for EX-02 is the average concentration of sample EX-02 and the
duplicate sample. The Performance Standard for bis(2-chloroethyl)ether is 5 µg/1.
, Detected concentrations of metals are less than the Performance Standards, with the exception of the
following:
~.' \lJ1(\7.t:'fjt;5 • rerrormance,~ ~~&:f•~•~'i<Ji~~t~J~~,,:r~~iF'!~rf!;'tl:lt !?"!•"Metal~,~ '.~St'Ii-icti.-fd~~I\~ ,Groundwater,Goncentrahon,. (~ft"4fill:t'.;;fr;fJri y;q,:¢~ · 1$. ½~/4. ~kf ;S~~'t'~ill!ii,~!11~~~-fM.··,.
Well EX-02 NS-29
Arsen.ic to . 18.2
Barium 1,000 4,365** 10.700
Manganese 7,700 15,050** 104,000
Selenium IO 10.7*** 44
All concentrations in µg/1
"-" concentration less than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU I ROD ** A veragc concentration of sample EX-02 and duplicate
*** Compound was not detected in duplicate sample for EX-02
Detection limits and dilution factors for the annual sampling event are discussed in Section 4.2.
Historical analytical results for the 27 monitoring events arc shown in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 for YOCs,
SYOCs, and metals, respectively. As shown in these tables. analytical results for the March 2002 monitoring
event are similar to or less than the historical results.
3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
Analytical results for the Trench Area wells are compared to the Performance Standards as shown in Table 3-8.
This comparison indicates the following:
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
engineers & scientists 3-2
200! SMR.do~·
• •
• Detected concentrations of voes are less than _the Performance Standards, with the ·exception of the
following: ·
-•~-•c,•c:-•~41 'o.!•:••f'.!>"f~' , p '"rf "h". ~ ...• I' '"""'1'" ''~it"~, ~ ·"•%'i'illli; 'i<"' "'~'"'';t'i,!:;="' i•·i,• ~y;-,,.l.-••o·~~-. ~,--1,~•·:ti.1 e ormance-,-~~~;;; •.;f ·-'·:tMr"'.">!''''' ,~ --·,";j'I ... ·.;.;v' -c•tii-t-J-;,;ct ,i;;,"(j''I"'' i·. i~i _·,, )V:OC~ ,:11~~,, . .' .. : :_,tt)"'~i1;:1+-·~? ,,.,.<d.l ifoi .:t··-\ff '-i:;.r. i.:~U. :\~1,.·'.GMtini1W8ter1ConCCnt'fatiOn~.,-, ~: -kl'Jiffl-itF.\iN~m 1,;;. ~~~ "•,.;, Standard* •.,:.tJ teliJ.,~i1,.~v~•.:gF,1t,i~:(1~~-v,..h~,r.@:t-~;JtJ&t~·,:v...,·~-.~.1-sr:,,;~~m1.itt~·;.,:\'-' ~:c.'.%1 ,.1.• . ~•~11 • -~ • > •• , ...... -~~' 'l'ii,• . ''\.¾ < ~,~•••'•~~..-~ -~ • ~ -·~· ,0 ' •'"'-"' ~ ,..., ,~~!, • S • .;,:;,;;_,.., ,~ :.. -.-: ~,t:-1,t._ < _;,, I
Well EX-05
Acetone 3,500 53,000 J
I ,2-Dichloroethane 5 390,000
I, 1-Dichloroethene 7 -
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 -
Toluene 2.000 26,000
Vinvl chloride 2 -
Xylene 350 -
All concentrations in µg/1 ·
"-" concentration less than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU I ROD
EX-07
-
270
-
-
-
-
-
J -EStimated concentration is less than the reporting limit.
EX-08
70,000
190,000
-
2,300 J
17,000
-
-
EX-09 EX-IO NS-09 NS-IO NS-15
30,000 44,000 ---
91,000 14,000 1,400 13 27
--7.8 --
7,000 11,000 ---
39,000 3,000 ---
-140) 42 J --
-5.900 ---
• Detected concentrations of SVOes are less than the Performance Standards, with the exception of bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether in EX-08 (1,800 µg/1), EX-09 (2,900 µg/1), and EX-IO (4,800 µg/1). The Performance
Standard for bis(2-chloroethyl)ether is 5 µg/1.
• Detected concentrations of metals are less than the Performance Standards, with the exception-of the
following:
::; :ii:,."'J,,:_.d",.,;"t':-,.J:• ,,t,;· ~~-r-1 :,1Per ormance:> ,"'· .:..~.'.j_):?,¥.~.~t.t:,.~r.,..· .. :_ 2•,!.{f~·~ •1_.:-":<2:~:t-\b-:,,:;.~,,,Ji,-.:,.•!' • ~'tf;.~~-~-:, ·•JRr-,·,m•v.·•"·" . JE';W'"~• ., >' ., ·r . .,, , , . ._, .. ,~--~•· .. ,·s,•. "' ,,_,,. J· -~--~;,,,05;;,f,,.,.""" ,-,···,p~= ry,,'", ••
.,~ ~:--~~Metal~-·-t : , 11 · :. ~ ·~.•::-::;~ 1~J;.;."'!"'"3i'.'. :~• .,',ri~~-. Groundwater.~.Gonccntrat1ont~., .. (~~t.,~li<lf". ,..~. iw:~t-k?t::~1:.t~f,t~ !th!Standa rd ~""r~t ·k:i;J•Ni:'i~;i'-.?\1-~·~'!:6~t~·:_tt;.~"!~✓-~.~t'iqiof~~~i~~t~::;~
Well EX-05
Cadmium IO 16.5 JE
Manganese 7,700 52,600
Nickel 350 1,640
Selenium IO 47.6
All concentrations in ~lg/I
"." concentration less than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU I ROD
EX-08
-
196,000
758
72.3
J -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
E -Concentration exceeded the calibration range.
EX-09 EX-IO NS-09
---
108,000 101,000 12,800
407 --
42.5 33 -
Detection limits and dilution factors for the annual sampling event arc discussed in Section 4.2.
NS-15
-
10,600
-
-
Analytical results for the 27 monitoring events conducted in the Trench Arca monitoring wells and the 14
monitoring events conducted in the Trench Area extraction wells are shown in Tables 3-9, 3-IO, and 3-11 for
voes, SVOes, and metals, respectively. As shown in these tables, analytical results for the March 2002
monitoring event are similar to or less than the historical results.
3,2.2 Operable Unit Three
Groundwater samples collected from OU3 wells were analyzed for voes, SVOes, and metals listed as site
eoes. voes were analyzed by EPA method 8260, SVOes were analyzed by EPA method 8270, and metals
were analyzed by EPA method 60IO.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
engineers & scientists 3-3
200! S~IR.U"c
• •
3.2.2.1 March 2002
Groundwater analytical results of the March 2002 sampling event are compared to the Performance Standards as
shown in Table 3-12. This comparison indicates the following:
• Detected concentrations of VOCs in ground water are less than the Performance Standards, with the
exception of the following:
~i-'!t· ~ .. ~. · · -r 'Zi ·<:fti, er onnance~ :-., .. '._ ,_ .-~ .... -:l,<'lf,i.::fii· '"..'.S.:._,,.:-1:, ?.-.,P~.., ,., ,11,, •1:·lf-~1\lii;,r·~·~·t1~P·-v···•--•""·-,,,~,-~-,..""-,,·%iJi··:!«,~'-:~ --'i!c-~Y0G;, ::.-:;: .. ~ f,:.:~},·:,_.1.-½l~ti~~;,~ff•r---,.;.g1, ~:. , roundwater.:Goncentratt "·••"---~••·~ '• -J/' *'~._"•'"'• "-'"C"""''"·"""'P.''.;,,;!-11),••;!}f'"'~-V ,Jft.11,"~',;,'~"liii.,i&~'\\ ~.,Standard,;,,m. "" ,, .. "'''"""". ;i,)•-a•c-•-"" ·-"~""'"'•l!\L . . . . . .
Well NS-35 NS-36 NS-39 NS-40 NS-41 NS-42 NS-45 NS-46
Acetone 700 - ---- -- -
Chloroform I -- ------
B-Dichloroethane I 6,700 39,000 46 73,000 36 I IO 3.3 12
I, 1-Dichloroethene 7 ------7.2 -
1,2-Dichloropropane I - -
1.7 J --- - -
Methvlene Chloride 5 --13 -----
Tetrach \oroethene I --1.3 J -1.7 - -1.2
Trichloroethene 2.8 - -
---7.5 3.3 5.9
Vinvl chloride I - -9.7 -2.9 36 1.9 J 9.5
~itt~t~11-11~~ti~t1~rt~~t:t~1,tit~~J'.'i½'~~~~:.\'t~"1e~t~~t':i~;~~-at~~~:itttj.~~~ll;11~~-~m*~~t~J.J
Well NS-47
Acetone 700 30,000 J
Chloroform I -
1,2-Dichloroethane I 180,000
I, 1-Dichloroethenc 7 -
1,2-Dichloroprooane I -
Methylene Chloride 5 -
Tetrachlorocthcne I -
Trichloroethenc 2.8 -
Vinyl chloride I -
All concentrations in µg/1
"-" concentration less than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU3 ROD
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
- -
-
-1.8 -
3.2 7,500 390
---
-2.4 -
-5.3 -
-2.6 -
-5.1 -
-15 26 J
** Average concentration of sample NS-51 and duplicate or NS-53 and duplicate
J -Estimated concentration is below reporting limit
NS-51 NS-52 NS-53 NS-54
- - -6,500 J
--175** -
48,000** 5.2 83** 69,000
- -- -
-- - -
--- -
--- -
- ---
-3.4 --
• Detected concentrations of SVOCs in ground water are less than the Performance Standards, with the
exception of bis(2-cholorethyl)ether in NS-24 (40 (Lg/I), NS-39 (9.8 J µg/1), NS-40 (6.7 J µg/1), NS-49
( 12 ftg/1); and NS-50 (24 µg/1). The Performance Standard for bis(2-chloroethyl)ether is 5 (Lg/I.
• Detected concentrations of metals in ground water are less than the Performance Standards, with the
exception of the following:
Well NS-13 NS-24 NS-35 NS-36 NS-37 NS-38 NS-39 NS-40 NS-41
Chromium 50 72.6 122
Manganese 50 157 3,200 J I 1,100 2,600 1280 J 34,700 J 174 J 7.360 J 1,830 J
NS-42 NS-45 NS-46 NS-47 NS-48 NS-49 NS-50 NS-51 NS-52
Manganese 50 12.800 J 4,570 189 1.810 5.830 5,870 2,680 J 3,445** 741 **
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
engineers & scientists 3-4
• •
~~Tt~if~4~-tt~Ji~l~1f~fa~,}~1{~1){:~~~~1~t~~~ittllf~~ttt;?P:;~.,rlP.11~~-f.~Jii®:~;,~~~f{~2~ib~ili!t~~l,-~
Well I I NS-53 I NS-54 I CT-1 I
Manganese I 50 I 411 J I 4,520 I 163 I
All concentrations in µg/1
"-" concentration ·Jess than Performance Standard
* Performance Standards from OU3 ROD
** Average concentration of sample NS-51 and duplicate or NS-52 and duplicate
J -Estimated concentration is below reporting limit
Detection limits and dilution factors for the March 2002 sampling event are discussed in Section 4.2.
Analytical results for the 7 monitoring events conducted in the OU3 monitoring and extraction wells are shown
in Tables 3-13, 3-14, and 3-15 for VOCs. SVOCs, and metals, respectively. As shown in these tables, analytical
results for the March 2002 monitoring event are similar to or less than the historical results.
3.2.3 RCRA Sampling
In the November 2000 RCRA Post-Closure Monitoring Data Report, NSCC requested that in future monitoring
events. delta-BHC not be included on the list of compounds to be sampled. Delta-BHC had not been detected
during the rounds of RCRA Post-Closure groundwater monitoring. The elimination of the pesticide, delta-BHC,
was approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources in a telephone conversation
on July 18, 2001. Delta-BHCwas eliminated as a monitoring parameter from the February 2002 sampling event.
Delta-BHC will not be included on the list of compounds to be sampled in future RCRA monitoring events
Groundwater samples collected from RCRA wells were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals listed as site COCs.
Samples collected during the July 200 I sampling event were also analyzed for pesticides. VOCs were analyzed by
EPA method 8260, SVOCs were analyzed by EPA method 8270, and metals were analyzed by EPA method 60IO.
3,2.3,1 July 2001
Groundwater analytical results of the July 2001 sampling event are compared to the Class GA Ground Water
Standards (located in ISA NCAC 02L.0202(g)) as shown in Table 3-15. This comparison indicates the
following:
• Detected concentrations of VOCs. in ground water are less than the Class GA Ground Water Standards,
with the exception of the following:
2001 S~IR d,1<.:
Well NS-39
1,2-Dichlorocthane 0.38 31
1,2-Dichloro ro anc 0.56 2
Chloroform 0.19 0.7 J
Meth lene Chloride 5 10
Trichloroethene 2.8
Vinyl Chloride 0.015 14
All concentrations in ~lg/I
.. _,, concentration less than Class GA Ground Water Standard
* A veragc concentration of sample NS-42 and duplicate
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
engineers & scientists
NS-42 NS-49
735* 7,900
10*
11 *
37.5*
3-5
• •
• Detected concentrations of SYOCs and pesticides in ground water are less than the Class GA Ground
Water Standards;
• Detected concentrations of metals in ground water are less than the Class GA Ground Water Standards,
with the exception of manganese in NS-39 ( 122 µg/1), NS-42 (8,700 µg/1), NS-49 (6,480 µg/1), and NS-
90 (8,900 µg/1). NS-90 is a duplicate sample of NS-42. The Class GA Ground Water Standard for
manganese is 50 µg/1. ·
Detection limits and dilution factors for the July 2001 sampling event are discussed in Section 4.2.
3.2.3.2 February 2002
Analytical results of the February 2002 sampling event are compared to the Class GA Ground Water Standards
· as shown in Table 3-16. This comparison indicates the following:
• Detected concentrations of YOCs are less than the Class GA Ground Water Standards, with the
exception of the following:
•
•
-';'.>
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.38 42
1,2-Dichloro ro ane 0.56 1.74
Chloroform 0.19 0.5
Meth lene Chloride 5 13
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 1.5
Trichlorocthene 2.8
Vin I Chloride 0.015 9.5
All concentrations in µg/1
"-" concentration less than Class GA Ground Water Standard
• Average concentration of sample NS-42 and duplicate
2.4
1.9
3.0
9.5* 5.0
48* 18
Detected concentrations of SVOCs are less than the Class GA Ground Water Standards .
Detected concentrations of metals are less than the Class GA Ground Water Standards. with the
exception of manganese in NS-39 (211 µg/1), NS-42 (13,200 ~tg/1). NS-49 (6.270 µg/1). and DUP-90
(13,000 µg/1). Dup-90 is a duplicate sample of NS-42. The Class GA Ground Water Standard for
manganese is 50 µg/1.
Detection limits and dilution factors for the February 2002 sampling event are discussed in Section 4.2.
3.3 Pumping Data
Evaluations conducted in 1998 indicated that the Trench Area Extraction System has been successful and that
the Plume Periphery Extraction System has not been successful. In 2000, the Plume Periphery System was shut
down to perform hydraulic and geochemical analyses to identify opportunities to implement a more effective
remedy. A report was submitted in November 2000 which proposed additional investigation to identify
potential bedrock conduits which may be responsible for migration of impacted groundwater from the Trench
Area to the Plume Periphery.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
engineers & scientists
2001 SMR . .JL>c
• •
The Trench Area Extraction Wells (EX-5 through EX-IO) operate on high and low level switches. Therefore,
the groundwater elevation controls the quantity of water extracted from each well. From January 2, 2001
through December 31, 2001, a total of 179,729 gallons of water was extracted from the Trench Area.
Approximately 0.34 gallons per minute (gpm) of groundwater was pumped on average from each of the six
extraction wells.
The ROD for OU3 calls for pump-and-treat to address groundwater impacts in OU3: In 1999, a collection
trench was installed in the low-lying area adjacent to Area 2 and existing wells were retrofitted in the vicinity of
the lagoons. Additionally, the existing OU! system was upgraded to improve operations and treat the combined
OU I Trench Area and OU3 groundwater streams. Since February 2000, the collection trench has been pumping
approximately 6 gpm and the two lagoon area wells have been pumping at a combined rate of approximately 20
gpm. From January 2, 2001 through December 31, 2001, the collection trench pumped 307,956 gallon~ of
groundwater at a rate of approximately 0.59 gpm and the OU3 extraction wells (NS-49 and NS-51) pumped
11,142,416 gallons of water at a combined rate of 21.2 gpm.
A total of 11,610,101 gallons of water was pumped from nine extraction points on the Site from January 2, 2001
through December 31, 200 I.
BLASLAND. BOUCK & LEE. INC.
enginfters & scientists 3-7
2/)01 SMR.dllc
• •
Revised Tabies
BBL
BLASLAND, BOUCK & LEE, INC.
englne8rs & s·ci0n-tists
• •
Table 3-4
Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells lo Perfonnance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID EX-01
Sample No. Perfonnancc C2C I 60138006
Sample Date Standard 03/15/02
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWJP81AA
voes
Acetone 3,500 IOU
Benzene 5 1.0 U
Bromodichloromethane 5 1.0 U
Chlorofonn 5 1.0 U
l ,2-Dichloroethane 5 1.0 U
I, 1-Dichlorocthene 7 1.0 U
1,2-Dichloropropanc 6 1.0 U
Ethylbenzenc 3,500 1.0 U
Methylene ch_loride 5 2.0 U
Toluene 2,000 1.0 U
I, 1.2-Trichlorocthanc 5 1.0 U
Trichlorocthcne 5 1.0 U
Vinyl chloride 2 2.0 U
Xylene 350 3.0 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWJG81AA
svocs
bis(2-Chlorocthyl) ether 5 IOU
4-Nitrophcnol 350 50 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank C2Cl8000-233
METALS
Arsenic IO 10 U
Barium 1,000 45.5 B
Beryllium 17.5 5.0 U
Cadmium IO 5.0 U
Chromium 50 5.0 U
Manganese 7,700 169
Nickel 350 40 U
Selenium 10 5.0 U
Zinc 7,350 · 20 U
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
* Sample diluted at a factor of 2 for this compound.
U • Not detected at indicated concentration
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
EX-02
CZC I 6013800 I
03/15/02
I
EWJP8IAA
IOU
1.4
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U -1.0 U
1.0 U
33
2.0 U
310 E
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
130 E
I
EWJG81AA
550 E
50 U
I
C2C 18000-233
3.2 B
4,360
5.0 U
5.0 U
6.1
15,100 *
12.3 8
10.7 *
4.6 8
J {Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Performance Standard
EX-02 DUP-031502
C2C I 6013800 I C2Cl60138006
03/15/02 03/15/02
15 15
EWJP81AA EWJP81AA
100 J 96 J
15 U 15 U
15 U 15 U
15 U 15 U
15 U --15 U
15 U 15 U -
15 U 15 U
20 24
30 U 30 U
380 480
15 U 15 U
15 U 15 U
30 U 30 U
83 97
15 I
EWJG8IAA EWJG8IAA
730 560 E
750 U 50 U
-I
C2CI8000-233
NA 3.8 B
NA 4,370
NA 5.0 U
NA 5.0 U
NA 6.2
NA 15,000 *
NA 12.2 8
NA 10 U*
NA 5.9 B
DUP-031502
C2C I 60 I 38006
03/15/02
.
EWJP81AA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15
EWJG81AA
750
750 U
-
NA
NA
NA
·NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page I of 3
• •
Table 3-4
Comparison of2002 Analytical Re~uhs for Plume Periphery Wells to Perfonnance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID EX-03
Sample No. Performance C2C 160138004
Sample Date Standard 03/15/02
Dilution Factor 1
Associated Method Blank EWJP81AA
voes
Acetone 3,500 39
Benzene 5 0.61 J
Br.omodichlorometh~ne 5 1.0 U
Chloroform 5 1.0 U
1,2-Dichlorocthanc 5 --0.96 J
I, 1-DichfOrOcthene 7 1.0 \j-
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 1.0 U
Ethylbcnzenc 3.500 7.3
Methylene chloride 5 2.0 U
Toluene 2,000 7.5
I, 1,2-Trichloroethanc 5 1.0 U
Trichlorocthcne 5 1.0 U
Vinyl chloride 2 2.0 U
Xylene 350 12
Dilution Factor I
Associntcd Method Blank EWJG81AA
svocs
bis(2-Chlorocthyl) ether 5 480 E
4-Nitroohcnol .350 50 U
Dilution F:ictor 1
Associated Method Blank C2C 18000-233
METALS
Arsenic 10 10 U
Barium 1,000 561
Beryllium 17.5 5.0 U
Cadmium 10. 0.29 B
Chromium 50 _ 23.2
Manganese 7,700 2,180
Nickel 350 19.2 8
Selenium JO 5.0 U
Zinc 7.350 94.5
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
* Sample diluted at a factor of 2 for this compound.
** Sample diluted at a factor of 50 for this compound.
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
E -Estimated concentration cxceeJs the calibration range
EX-03 DL
C2C I 60138004
03/15/02
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
JO
EWJG81AA
600
500 U
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Perfom1ance Slandard
EX-04 NS-29
C2C I 60 I 38002 C2C20015 J007
03/15/02 03/19/02
1 100
EWJP81AA EWRTQlAA
JO u 250,000 E
1.0 U JOO U
1.0 U JOO U
1.0 U 100 U
0.70 J 100 U
1.0 U JOO U
1.0 U JOO U
1.0 U 140
2.0 U 200 U
0.52 J 3,300
1.0 U JOO U
1.0 U 100 U
2.0 U 200 U
3.0 U 650
I JO
EWJG81AA EWPV51AA
2.6 J 8,100 E
50 U 500 U
I I
C2C 18000-233 C2C2J000-158
10 U 18.2
61.2 8 10,700 *
5.0 U 5.0 U
5.0 U 5.0 U
5.0 U 26.9
2,240 104;000 ••
40 U 45.3
5.0 U 44
20 U 4.8 B
NS-29 DL
C2C200 I 5 J007
03/19/02
5000
EWWXWlAA
220,000
5,000 U
5,000 U
5,000 U
5,000 U
5,000 U
5,000 U
5,000 U
J0,000 U
2,600 J
5,000 U
5,000 U
10,000 U
15,000 U
200
EWPV51AA
9,900
10,000 U
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 2 of3
•
Table 3-4
Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to Perfonnance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well JD NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
Sample No. Performance C2Cl3011900I C2C200 I 5 l006 C2CJ30l 19002
Sample Date Standard 03/1 1/02 03/19/02 03/11/02
Dilution Factor I 50 I
Associated Method Blank EWC3VIAA EWWXWIAA EWC3VIAA
voes
Acetone 3,500 IOU 2,300 IOU
Benzene 5 0.46 J 50 U 1.0 U
Bromodichloromethane 5 1.0 U 50 U 1.0 U
Chlorofonn 5 1.0 U 50 U 1.0 U
1,2-Dichloroethanc 5 2.8 100 1.0 U
1, l=Dichloroelhenc 7 1.0 U 50 U 1.0 U
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 1.0 U 200 1.0 U
Ethylbcnzene 3,500 3.1 50 U 1.0 U
Methylene chloride 5 2.0 U JOO U 2.0 U
Toluene •2,000 2.1 23 J 1.0 U
I, 1,2-Trichlorocthanc 5 1.0 U 50 U 1.0 U
Trichloroethenc 5 1.0 U 50 U 1.0 U
Vinyl chloride 2 2.0 U l00 U 2.0 U
Xvlcne 350 6.3 150 U 3.0 U
Dilution Factor 3 4 I
Associated Method Blank EWC441AA EWPV5IAA EWC44IAA
SVOCS
bis(2-Chlorocthyl) ether 5 150 81 JOU
4-Nitroohcnol 350 150 U 200 U 50 U
Dilution Factor I I I
Associated Method Blank C2Cl40000-174 C2C2l000-158 C2C I 40000-174
Mf:TALS
Arsenic 10 10 U 4.7. B JOU
Barium 1,000 405 22.9 8 107 B
Beryllium 17.5 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U
Cadmium 10 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U
Chromium 50 5.0 U 1.9 B 5.0 U
Manganese 7,700 1.070 22.5 119
Nickel · 350 1.8 B 40 U 40 U
Selenium JO 5.0 U 5.0 U 5.0 U
Zinc 7,350 20 U 20 U 20 U
NOTES,
Units in ug/1
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Inorganics) -Estimated concentration is le"ss than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Pcrfonnance Siandard
Page 3 or 3
Table 3-5
Historical Analy1ical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
ACETONE
I Quarter II EX-01 I EX-02 I EX-03 I EX-04
IQ93 75 NS 1300 D 1200 D
2Q93 10 u 29000 1l 2200 D JO u
3Q93 6 J 34000 DB 6100 DB 29 B
4Q93 10 u 27000 1200 27
JQ94 JO u 26000 2200 21
2Q94 10 lJ 31000 B 3700 B 30 ll
3Q94 10 lJ 41000 1400 20
4Q94 10 u ~•:r.-·--~ :~000:<f;'i;t:;•:E''-• 3700 15
IQ95 10 u 27000 1000 JO u
2Q95 ]3 D 24000 I) 9200 I) I 100 D
JQ95 70 29000 1l 2500 D 2000 D
4Q95 39 50000 1900 820'.
IQ96 10 u 10000 5800 9 J
2Q96 14 ',:i";12ogo£Jt".E ,: 'i,/12100~~ ~~1300;ji~'\t:E1i¾
3Q96 12 33000 I)
4Q96 10 u 25000 D
JQ97 8 BJ 30000 DB
2Q97 4.5 JB 7800 DB
3Q97 10 J 12000 D
4Q97 10 u 7900 I)
JQ98 4 JB 3200 DB
2Q98 J J 3800
JQ9S 10 u 14000 D
4Q98 10 u 31000 DB
4Q99 10 u 33000
4Q00 2 u 200 u I
1002 10 u 10 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 3,500 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
8800
7200
14000
12000
15000
8000
10400
6900
5900
4600
1500
100
39
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E/4 -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
D 675
D 460
DB 810
DB 2200
D 2400
D 460
DB 850
D 7
D 9
DB 10
4 49
u 2
10
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Organics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
D
D
DB
DB
D
DB
J
u
4
u
u
I
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-29
12000 D
JO u
JO
10 u
10 u
10 lJ
10 u
10 u
39
I 100 D
42000 1l
80000
12000
i~-6400~:l~~~
100000 D
50000 I)
39000 DB
37000 DB
100000 DB
59000 D
93000 DB
100000 DE
99000 D
220000 D
110000 4
2000 u
220000
Shading indicates "E" qualified concentration for which a diluted run concentration is unavailable.
I NS-30 I NS-31 I NS-32 I
2900 4700 D 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
II ' 18 10 u
10 U' 10 u 10 u
10 u JO u 10 u
10 u JO lJ 10 u
13 II JO u • 10 lJ 130 B JO u
10 u 9200 10 u
JO u 15000 I) JO u
32 4800 1l JO u
JO u 16000 10 u
10 u 3500 JO u
13 i;}nooot~~E•J 10 u
6 J 33000 D JO u
10 u 41000 D 10 u
6 BJ 43000 DB JO BJ
4 JB 30000 DB 3 JB
6 BJ 19000 B 4 BJ
10 11 31000 D JO u
8 45000 DB 13 B
91 47000 DB 4 J
1600 D 52000 D 10 u
3100 D 19000 D 140 B
3000 4 770 4 10 u
100 u 2900 u 2 u
10 u 2300 JO u •
Page I of 14
.
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 JO u I J
4Q93 JO u 3300 u
IQ94 JO u 2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
JQ94 5 u 1200 u
4Q94 5 u 660 u
IQ95 5 u JOOO u
2Q95 5 u 42 u
3Q95 5 .u 250 u
4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 50 u
3Q96 10 u JOOO u
4Q96 JO u 250 u
IQ97 JO u 250 u
2Q97 JO u 250 u
3Q97 JO u 250 u
4Q97 JO u 250 u
IQ98 JO u 50 u
2Q98 JO u 250 u
3Q98 JO u JOO u
4Q98 JO (/ JOO u
4Q99 I u I u
4Q00 I u JOO u
IQ02 I u 1.4
NOTES:
Unils in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS · Not Sampled
U • Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results . VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
IIENZENE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 2 J 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u I J JO u
170 u JO u JO u
250 u JO u JO u
/20 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 5 u 5 u
93 u 5 u 5 u
33 u 5 u 5 u
45 u 5 u 12 u
17 u 17 u 250 u
50 u 62 u 3100 u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
. 250 u 2 J 97 J
250 u 0.6 J 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u 2 J 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
JOO u JO u 500 u
JOO /J JO u 500 u
200 u JO u 2500 u
200 u JO u 250 u
I u I u I u
50 u I JOOO u
I J I u JOO u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u JO u
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u • 5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u 10 u 5 u
5 u 32 u 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u 250 u JO u
JO u 2500 u JO u
50 u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOO u JO u
I u I u I u
50 u I u I u
0.46 J 50 u I u •
Page 2 of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 JO u /0 u
4Q93 JO u .lJOO u
JQ94 JO u 2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 ·5 lJ /200 u
4Q94 5 lJ 660 u
IQ95 5 u JOOO u
2Q95 5 u 42 u
3Q95 5 u 250 u
4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 50 u
3Q96 JO u JOOO ·u
4Q96 JO u 250 u
JQ97 JO u 250 u
2Q97 JO u 250 u
JQ97 10 u 250 u
4Q97 /0 u 250 u
JQ98 /0 u 50 u
2Q98 JO u 250 u
3Q98 JO u JOO u
4Q98 JO u JOO u
4Q99 l u l u
4Q00 I u JOO u
IQ02 I u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Ex1raction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
BRO~IODICHLOROMETHANE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
/0 u JO u /0 u
!70 u JO u JO u
250 u JO u JO u
/20 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 5 u 5 u
93 u 5 lJ 5 u
33 u 5 lJ 5 u
45 u 5 u 12 u
17 u 17 u 250 u
50 u 62 u 3JOO u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
/00 u /0 u 500 u
JOO u JO u 500 u
200 u JO u 2500 u
200 u JO u 250 u
l u I u l u
50 u l u /000 u
I u I u JOO u
Italic font indica1es detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u /0 u JO u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u JO u
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u • 5 u . 5 lJ 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JO u 5 u
5 u 32 .U 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u /000 u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
JO u 250 u JO u
JO u 2500 u JO u
50 u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOO u JO u
I u I u I u
50 u I u I u
I u 50 u I u •
Page 3 of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 JO u JO u
4Q93 JO u 3300 u
IQ94 JO u 2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 5 u 1200 u
4Q94 5 u 660 u
IQ95 5 u 1000 u
2Q95 5 u 42 u
3Q95 5 u 250 u
4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 50 u
3Q96 JO u. 1000 u
4Q96 JO u 250 u
]Q97 JO u 250. u
2Q97 /0 u 250 u
3Q97 JO u 250 u
4Q97 JO u 250 u
IQ98 /0 u 50 u
2Q98 JO u 250 u
3Q9S JO u 100 u
4Q9S JO u JOO u
4Q99 I u I u
4Q00 I u JOO u
1002 I u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
lJ -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
CHLOROFOR,\'1
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 5 u 5 u
s u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
170 u JO u JO u
250 u /0 u JO u
120 u 5 u 5 u
50 u s u 5 u
93 u 5 u 5 u
33 u 5 u 5 u
45 u 5 u 12 u
17 u 17 u 250 u
50 u 62 u 3100 u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
/00 u JO u 500 u
JOO u JO u 500 u
200 u JO u 2500. u
200 u JO u 250 u
I u I u I u
50 u I u 1000 u
I u I u JOO u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Per~ormance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 2 J 5 u
·5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u /0 u
JO u JO u /0 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u • 5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
s u JO u 5 u
5 u 32 u 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u 1000 u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u 1000 u JO u
10 u 1000 u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u 250 u JO u
/0 u 2500 u JO u
50 u 1000 u JO u
JO u JOO u JO u
I u I u I u
50 u I u I u
I u 50 u I u •
Page4of 14
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,2-]}]CIILOROETIIANE
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 20 NS
2Q93 5 u 460 DJ
3Q93 JO u 510 DJ
4Q93 JO u 3300 u
IQ94 Jo u 2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 5 u /200 u
4Q94 5 u 550 J
IQ95 5 u JOOO u
2Q95 5 u 750
3Q95 3 J 570
4Q95 5 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 1200
2Q96 4 J 590
3Q96 JO u 610 .J
4Q96 5 J 140 J
IQ97 7 J 520
2Q97 3.5 J 290
3Q97 JO u 690
4Q97 JO u 920
·IQ98 JO u 230
2Q98 JO u 410
3Q9S JO u 600
4Q9S JO u 1000
4Q99 I u 880
4Q00 I u JOO u
IQ02 I u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-03
23
65
60
55
250
/20
50
93
33
59
10
61
150
42
250
60
220
240
200
230
200
190
200
200
9.1
50
0.96
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
J u
u
u
u
u
.J
J
u
J
J
J
J
J
u
u
lJ
J
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
EX-04
4 J
3 J
5 J
JO u
10 u
5 u
5
3 J
7
5
17 u
62 u
4 J
25 u
JO u
3· J
5 J
6 J
5 J
/0 u
JO u
/0 u
5 J
JO u
I u
I u
0.7 J
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-29
110
22
3
3
JO
17
3
43
8
37
690
3JOO
860
300
500
1200
760
680
1900
1700
2300
4200
2400
3600
3500
JOOO
JOO
J
J
u
J
u
u
J
lJ
u
Shading indicates "E" qualified concentration for which a diluted run concentration is unavailable.
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
79 J 100 5 u
8 71 5 u
56 49 JO u
JO u 20 JO u
10 u 9 J 10 u
4 J 5 5 u
5. u ·4 J 5 u • 5 u 4 J 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 U' 41 5 u
5 U' 120 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
JO u JOOO u JO ·u
JO u 170 J JO u
3 J 150 J JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u 260 JO u
5 J 2500 u JO u
42 J JOOO u JO u
58 /00 u JO u
84 62 I u
50 u ~iH~~l I u
2.8 100 I u • '
Page 5 of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 /0 u /0 u
4Q93 /0 u 3300 u
IQ94 JO u 2500 u
2Q94 7 u 2300 u
3Q94 7 u /800 u
4Q94 7 u 920 u
IQ95 7 u 1400 u
2Q95 7 u 59 I}
3Q95 7 u 350 I}
4Q95 7 u 3500 I}
IQ96 5 u 500 I}
2Q96 5 u 50. u
3Q96 JO I} /000 I}
4Q96 /0 u 250 I}
IQ97 JO u 250 I}
2Q97 JO u 250 I}
JQ97 /0 u 250 I}
4Q97 /0 I} 250 u
!Q98 /0 I} 50 I}
2Q98 /0 I} 250 u
3Q98 /0 I} /00 u
4Q98 /0 I} /00 u
4Q99 I u I lJ
4Q00 I u /00 I}
1002 I . lJ I u
NOTES:
Uni1s in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 7 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Nol de1ec1ed al indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and_ Mollltoring Wells
Naiional Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs" Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
l,1-DICIILOROETHENE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
/0 u /0 u /0 u
170 u /0 u /0 u
250 u IO u /0 u
/80 u 7 u 7 u
70 u 7 u 7 u
/30 u 7 u 7 u
47 u 7 u 7 u
63 I} 7 u /8 u
23 u 23 u 350. u
70 u 88 u 4400 u
500 I} 5 u 500 u
25 I} 25 u 50 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 I} JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 I} /0 u 500 I}
/00 I} JO u 500 u
/00 I} /0 I} 500 u
200 I} /0 u 2500 u
200 I} /0 u 250 u
I lJ I u 3.8
50 I} I u 1000 u
I u I u JOO I}
Italic font indicates de1ection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
/0 u /0 u JO u
/0 u /0 u /0 u
/0 u /0 u /0 u
7 u 7 u 7 u
7 u 7 u 7 u • 7 u 7 u 7 u
7 u 350 u 7 u
7 u 15 u 7 u
7 u 45 u 7 u
7 u 700 u 7 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
/0 I} 1000 u JO u
/0 u /000 u /0 I}
/0 I} 1000 u /0 I}
/0 u /000 u /0 u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u 1000 u /0 u
/0 I} 250 u /0 u
/0 u 2500 I} JO u
50 I} /000 u /0 u
/0 I} JOO u /0 u
I u I u I u
50 u I u I lJ
I u 50 u I u •
Page 6 of 14
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,2-DICIILOROPROPANE
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 35 NS
2Q93 4 J 820 DJ
3Q93 /0 u l000 DJ
4Q93 /0 u 3300 u
IQ94 /0 u 2500 u
2Q94 6 u 1600 J
3Q94 6 u 1200 J
4Q94 6 u 1200
IQ95 6 u 670 J
2Q95-6 u 1300
3Q95 6 u 890
4Q95 6 u .WOO If
IQ96 5 u 830
2Q96 5 u 650
3Q96 /0 If 640 J
4Q96 I J 100 J
IQ97 7 J 400
2Q97 3 J 190 J
3Q97 2 J 460
4Q97 /0 If 730
IQ98 /0 If 130
2Q98 /0 If 170 J
3Q9S /0 u 360
4Q9S /0 u 490
4Q99 I u 810
4Q00 I u /00 u
1002 I u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 6 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-03
120
180
150
/70
250
70
44
53
40
160
24
130
140
33
87
71
150
240
230
3IO
200
235
l00
200
30
50
I
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
EX-04
5
5
10
u /0
u /0
J 6
J 6
J 6
If 6
6
· 26
75
J 5
25
.J 2
.I I
J 7
.I 17
J 7
2
3
/0
J /0
u /0
I
If I
u I
J (Organics) -Estimated concentra1ion is less than the reporting limit
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
If
J
J
J
J
J
J
u
If
u
u
u
u
Bold fom indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic_ font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Perfonnance Standard
NS-29
350
46.5
5
/0
/0
6
6
6
6
12
l000
2200
1600
7IO
1900
1800
1200
980
2500
2700
2700
3700
2100
2700
3l00
/000
/00
I)
J
u
u
u
u
u
u .,
.J
J
u
u
Shading indicates "E" qualified concentration for which a diluted run concentration is unavailable.
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
190 170 5 u
23 200 5 u
97 83 I J
/0 u 31 /0 u
/0 u /0 u /0 u
6 u 3 J 6 u
6 u 6 u 6 u • 6 u 6 u 6 u
6 u 300 If 6 u
6 lJ 50 6 u
6 u 260 6 u
6 u 340 J 6 u
5 u 250 If 5 u
5 u 94 J 5 u
/0 If /000 If /0 If
/0 u 160 J /0 u
/0 If' /000 If /0 u
/0 u· /000 If /0 u
/0 If /000 If /0 If
/0 u /000 u /0 If
/0 u 170 .I /0 u
5 J 2500 u /0 If
68 /000 If /0 If
54 /00 u /0 u
20 160 I u
50 If iti'i,j180~ I u
I u 200 I u •
Page 7 of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 9
3Q93 10 u 13
4Q93 10 u 3300 u
IQ94 10 u 2500 u
2Q94 10 u 3300 u
3Q94 10 u 2500 u
4Q94 10 u 1300 u
IQ95 10 u 2000 u
2Q95 10 u 85 u
3Q95 10 u 500 u
4Q95 IO u 5000 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 12 J
3Q96 IO u 1000 u
4Q96 IO u 32 J
IQ97 10 u 250 ·u
2Q97 10 u 250 u
3Q97 10 u 250 lJ
4Q97 10 u 250 u
IQ98 10 u 50 u
2Q9S 10 u 250 u
3Q98 10 u 100 u
4Q98 10 u 18 J
4Q99 I u 24
4QOO I u 72 JD
IQ02 I u 33
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 3,500 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analy1ical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
ETHYLBENZENE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 2 J 5 u
2 J 5 u 5 u
3 J 10 u IO u
170 u 10 u IO u
250 u 10 u IO u
250 u 3 J IO u
100 u 10 u IO u
190 u 10 u 10 u
67 u 10 u 10 u
89 u 10 u 25 u
33 u 33 u 500 u
100 u 120 u 6200 u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
250 u 2 J 500 u
250 u 2 J 500 u
250 u 3 J 500 u
250 u 4 J 500 u
250 u IO u 500 u
250 u 2 J 500 u
100 lJ 2 J 500 u
100 u 2 J 500 u
200 lJ 3 J 2500 u
200 u 3 J 74 J
6.3 2.4 68 4
50 u 2 1000 u
7.3 I u 140
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E14 -Estimated conccntra1ion exceeds the calibration range
J (Organics) -Estimmed concentration is less than the reporting limit
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 2 J 5 u
5 u 2 J 5 u
I J I J 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u IO u IO u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u IO u 10 u • 10 u IO u 10 u
10 u 500 u IO u
10 u 21 u IO u
10 u 65 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u IO u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 lj 100 u 5 u
IO u 1000 u IO u
10 u 1000 u IO u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
IO u 1000 u 10 u
IO u 1000 u IO u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
10 u 250 u IO u
10 u 2500 u IO u
50 u 1000 u IO u
10 u 48 J IO u
1.8 5.9 I u
50 u 3 I u
3.1 50 u I u •
Page 8 of 14
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 2 BJ NS
2Q93 I J 4 J
3Q93 2 BJ JO u
4Q93 NR NR
IQ94 NR NR
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 9 B 2900 B
4Q94 5 u 1200 B
IQ95 5 u 1300 B
2Q95 3 BJ 44 B
3Q95 5 u 250 u -4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 2 BJ 150 BJ
2Q96 I BJ 13 J
3Q96 10 u 620 J
4Q96 0.6 J 74 J
IQ97 10 lJ 250 u
2Q97 10 lJ 250 u
3Q97 10 lJ 250 /}
4Q97 10 lJ 40 J
!Q98 10 u 50 u
2Q98 10 u 250 /}
3Q98 10 lJ JOO u
4Q98 10 u 9 .I
4Q99 I lJ 7.5 1
4Q00 I u 300 BU
IQ02 2 u 2 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance S1andard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
NR -Not Reported
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
I -Common laboratory contaminant
EX-03
2
2
JO
NR
NR
/20
l lO
150
37
41
17
72
160
25
140
16
250
250
250
40
JOO
JOO
110
200
I
160
2
D -Concentration from a secondary dilmion analysis
BJ
J
u
u
B
B
B
BJ
u
B
BJ
u
J
J u
u
u
J
/}
/}
J
/}
u
BD
u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Organics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
EX-04
5 u
2 J .
5 BJ
NR
NR
5 u
7 B
6 B
3 BJ
7 B
17 u
62 u
2 BJ
5 Bl
4 J
I J
JO u
JO u
JO u
JO /}
JO /}
JO /}
JO /}
JO /}
I u
I u
2 u
Bold font indicaies detected.concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-29
3
2
2
NR
NR
5
8
7
3
13
250
3JOO
150
50
2200
37
500
500
500
89
500
500
1100
250
14
2000
200
BJ
J
BJ
u
B
B
BJ
B
u
u
BJ
u
J u
u
/}
J
u u
J
/}
1
BD
/}
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
48 BJ 3 BJ 2 BJ
5 u 5 u I J
2 BJ 2 BJ I J
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
5 u 5 u 5 u
8 B 9 B 9 B • 5 u 6 B 9 B
5 u 200 BJ 4 . BJ
10 B 16 B II B
5 u 32 u 5 u
5 u 480 BJ 5 u
2 BJ 71 BJ 2 BJ
5 u 21 J 5 u
JO u 3!0 J JO u
0.6 J 110 J 0.7 J
JO u 1600 B 3 J
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO u JOOO u JO u
JO /} 160 J JO /}
JO u ' 250 u JO u
JO u 2500 /} JO u
12 J /000 /} JO /}
JO u JOO /} JO u
I u 1 u I u
38 JBD l u I u
2 u JOO /J· 2 u •
Pagc9of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
!Q93 13 NS
2Q93 5 u 110
3Q93 10 u 2500 u
4Q93 10 u 3300 u
IQ94 10 u 2500 u
2Q94 10 u 3300 u
3Q94 10 u 2500 u
4Q94 10 u 420 J
IQ95 10 u 2000 u
2Q95 10 u 280
3Q95 10 u 280 J
_4Q95 10 u 5000 u
IQ96 5 u 290 J
2Q96 5 u 260
3Q96 10 u 340 J
4Q96 1 J 280
IQ97 10 u 300
2Q97 10 -u 110 J
3Q97 10 u 210 J
4Q97 10 u 290
IQ98 10 u 62
2Q98 10 u 130 J
3Q98 10 u 260
4Q98 10 u 540
4Q99 I u 430
4Q00 I u 1400 D
1002 1 lJ 380
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2,000 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Nol detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
TOLUENE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
58 5 60
46 2 J 6.5
55 3 J 3 J
66 J 3 J 10 u
250 u 10 u . 10 u
91 J 7 J 10 u
60 J 4 J 10 u
87 J 7 J 10 u
69 10 u 10 u
80 J 26 25 u
32 J 31 J 200 J
60 J 120 u 6200 u
130 J 2 J 370 J
55 46 150
99 J 31 J 850
120 J 26 440 J
190 J 41 400 J
160 J 33 260 J
180 J 23 910
200 J 17 1100
165 22 950
185 II 1400
150 J 17 1000 J
220 19 1800
100 4 10 1400
480 D 0.7 J 5500 D
7.5 0.52 J 3300
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E/4 -Estimated conccntralion exceeds the calibration range
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
ltalic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD_ Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
34 J 34 5 u
2 J 34 5 u
23 15 10 u
10 u 6 J 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u • 10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 500 u 10 u
10 u 12 J 10 u
10 u 45 J 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
5 u 64 J 5 u
5 u 150 5 u
10 u 310 J 10 u
10 u 370 J 0.8 J
10 u 315 J 10 u
10 u 370 J 10 u
10 u 390 J 10 u
10 u 610 J 10 u
10 u 620 10 u
10 u 980 J 10 u
12 J 940 J 10 u
26 1200 10 u
36 140 I u
560 D 31 I u • 2.1 23 J I u
Page IO of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 JO u JO u
4Q93 JO u 3300 u
IQ94 JO u 2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 5 u /200 u
4Q94 5 u 660 u
IQ95 5 u 1000 u
2Q95 5 u 42 u
3Q95 5 u 250 u
4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 50 u
3Q96 JO u 1000 u
4Q96 JO u 250 u
IQ97 /0 u 250 u
2Q97 /0 u 250 u
3Q97 JO u 250 u
4Q97 JO u 250 u
IQ98 JO u 50 u
2Q98 JO u 250 {}
3Q98 JO u /00 u
4Q98 JO u JOO {}
4Q99 I u I u
4QOO I u /00 {}
IQ02 I u 'I u
NOTES: .
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3.5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Moni1oring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETIIANE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
170 u /0 u JO u
250 u /0 u JO u
/20 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 5 u 5 u
93 u 5 u 5 u
33 u 5 u 5 u
45 u 5 u 12 u
17 u 17 , u 250 u
50 u 62 u 3/00 u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u /0 u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
JOO u JO u 500 u
JOO u 10 u 500 u
200 u /0 u 2500 u
200 u JO {} 250 u
I u I u I u
50 u I u 1000 u
I u I u JOO {}
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Smndard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 5 u 5 u
5 ti 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
/0 u JO u JO u
/0 u JO u JO u
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u • 5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JO u 5 u
5 u 32 u 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
JO u JOOO u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u JOOO u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
/0 u 1000 u /0 u
JO u 250 u JO u
JO u 2500 u JO u
50 u 1000 u JO u
2 J /00 u JO u
I u I u I u
50 u I u I u
I u 50 {} I u •
Page II of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 5 u NS
2Q93 5 u 5 u
3Q93 JO u JO u
4Q93 JO u 3300 u
IQ94 /0 I] ·2500 u
2Q94 5 u 1700 u
3Q94 5 u /200 I]
4Q94 5 u 660 I]
IQ95 5 u 1000 u
2Q95 5 u 42 u
3Q95 5 u 250 I]
4Q95 5 u 2500 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 50 u
3Q96 JO u 1000 u
4Q96 10 u 250 I]
IQ97 JO u 250 u
2Q97 JO u 250 u
. 3Q97 JO u 250 u
4Q97 /0 u 250 u
IQ98 JO u 50 I]
2Q9S /0 u 250 u
3Q98 /0 I] JOO u
4Q98 2 J 4 J
4Q99 I u I u
4Q00 I u JOO u
IQ02 I u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results . VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site.
Sali.sbury, North Carolina
TRICIILOROETHENE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
170 I] /0. u JO I]
250 I] JO I] JO u
120 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 5 u 5 u
93 u 5 u 5 u
33 u 5 u 5 u
45 u 5 u 12 u
17 u 17 I] 250 u
50 u 62 u 3100 u
500 u 5 u 500 u
25 u 25 u 50 u
250 I] JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 I]
250 I] JO u 500 u
250 u JO u 500 u
250 u 10 u 500 I]
250 u JO u 500 u
JOO u /0 u 500 I]
JOO I] JO u 500 u
200 I] JO u 2500 I]
200 I] /0 u 150 J
I u I u I u
50 I] I u 1000 u
I u I u JOO u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less lhan 1he reporting limit
Italic font indicates detection limil greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u JO u
JO u JO u /0 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u • 5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u JO u 5 u
5 u 32 u 5 u
5 u 500 u 5 u
5 u 250 I] 5 u
5 u JOO u 5 u
/0 u 1000 u -JO u
JO u 1000 u 10 u
JO u 1000 u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
JO u 1000 u JO u
JO u 250 u JO I]
JO u 2500 u JO I]
50 u !000 u JO u
JO u JOO I] JO u
I u ' I u I u
50 u I u .1 u
I u 50 u I u •
Page 12 of 14
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 JO I} NS
2Q93 JO I} JO I}
3Q93 JO I} 19
4Q93 JO I} 3300 I}
JQ94 JO I} 2500 I}
2Q94 2 u 670 I}
3Q94 2 u 500 I}
4Q94 2 u 260 I}
IQ95 2 u 400 I}
2Q95 2 u 17 I}
3Q95 2 u JOO I}
4Q95 2 u 1000 I}
JQ96 JO I} JOOO I}
2Q96 JO I} JOO I}
3Q96 JO I} 1000 I}
4Q96 JO I} 250 I}
JQ97 JO I} 250 I}
2Q97 JO I} 250 I}
3Q97 JO I} 250 I}
4Q97 JO I} 250 I}
IQ98 JO I} 50 I}
2Q98 JO I} 250 I}
3Q98 JO I} JOO I}
4Q9S JO I} 15
4Q99 l u 6.5
4Q00 l u JOO I}
JQ02 2 u 2 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
Nalional S1arch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plan1 Sile
Salishury, North Carolina
VINYL CHLORIDE
EX-03 EX-04 NS-29
JO I} 28 JO I}
JO I} JO I} JO I}
JO I}. JO I} JO I}
/70 I} JO I} JO I}
250 I} JO I} JO I}
50 I} 2 u 2 u
20 I} 2 u 2 u
37 I} 2 u 2 u
/3 I} 2 u 2 u
/8 I} 2 u 5 I}
7 I} 7 I} JOO I}
20 I} 25 I} /200 I}
1000 I} JO I} 1000 I}
50 I} 50 I} JOO I}
250 I} JO I} 500 I}
250 I} JO I} 500 I}
250 I} JO I} 500 I}
250 I} JO I} 500 I}
250 I} JO u· 500 I}
250 I} JO I} 500 I}
JOO I} JO I} 500 I}
JOO I} JO I} 500 I}
200 I} JO I} 2500 I}
200 I} JO I} 250 I}
1.9 l u 5.8
50 I} l u 1000 I}
2 u 2 u 200 I}
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicmes detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates dc1ection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
250 u JO I} JO I}
lO u JO I} JO I}
lO u 2 J JO I}
10 u JO I} JO I}
lO u JO I} JO I}
2 u 2 u 2 u
2 u 2 u 2 u • 2 u 2 u 2 u
2 u JOO I} 2 u
2 u 4 I} 2 u
2 u /3 I} 2 u
2 u 200 I} 2 u
JO I} 500 I} JO I}
JO I} . 200 I} JO I}
JO I} /000 I} JO I}
JO I} 1000 I} JO I}
JO I} /000 I} JO . I}
JO I} 1000 I} JO I}
JO I} JOOO I} JO I}
JO I} 1000 I} JO I}
JO I} 250 I} JO I}
JO I} 2500 I} JO I}
50 I} /000 I} JO I}
JO I} JOO I} JO I}
I u L7 l u
50 I} l u I u
2 u JOO I} 2 u
Page 13 of 14
Table 3-5
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Plume Periphery Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Quarter EX-01 EX-02
IQ93 2 J NS
2Q93 5 u 38
3Q93 10 u 52
4Q93 10 u 3300 u
IQ94 10 u 2500 u
2Q94 10 u 3300 u
3Q94 10 u 2500 u
4Q94 10 u /300 u
IQ95 10 2000 u
2Q95 10 u 24 J
3Q95 10 u 500 u
4Q95 10 u 5000 u
IQ96 5 u 500 u
2Q96 5 u 34 J
3Q96 10 u 1000 u
4Q96 10 u 26 J
IQ97 10 u 250 u
2Q97 10 u 250 u
3Q97 10 u 250 u
4Q97 10 u 250 u
IQ98 10 u 50 u
2Q98 10 u 250 J
3Q98 10 u 30 J
4Q98 10 u ·68 J
4Q99 3 u 98
4Q00 l [J 290 D
1002 3 u 83
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance S1andard: 350 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
lJ -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-03
10
7
10
170
250
250
100
190
67
89
33
100
500
6
250
250
250
250
250
250
17
33.5
200
200
18.9
75
12
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
FJ4 -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
u
u
u u
u
u
u u u
u
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
J u
u
D
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
XYLENE
EX-04
2 J
I J
2 J
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
10 u
33 u
120 u
5 u
25 u
6 J
5 J
6 J
10
2 J
4 J
5 J
6 J
4 J
4 J
l.5
l
3 u
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-29
12
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
500
6200
500
20
I 10
56
500
500
110
160
130
220
2500
320
270
1200
650
J
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
J
J
u
u
J
J
J
J
u
4
D
NS-30 NS-31 NS-32
120 u 6 5 u
5 u 7 5 u
4 J 4 J 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 10 u 10 u • 10 u 10 u 10 u
10 u 500 u 10 u
10 u 21 u 10 u
10 u' 65 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
5 u 250 u 5 u
5 u 100 u 5 u
10 u /000 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
10 u /000 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
10 u 1000 u 10 u
10 u 89 J 10 u
10 u 2500 u 10 u
50 u 1000 u 10 u
5 J 200 10 u
7.3 23.2 3 u
42 D 9 l u
6.3 150 u 3 u •
Page 14 of 14
• •
Table 3-8
Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to Performance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID EX-05 EX-05 DL
Sample No. Performance C2C08016600! C2C080 I 6600 I
Sample Date Standard 03/06/02
Dilution Factor 3,000
Associated Method Blank EV8PWIAA
voes
Acetone 3,500 24,000 J
Benzene 5 3,000 U
Bromodichloromethanc 5 3,000 U
Chloroform 5 3,000 U
1,2-Dichlorocthanc -5 350,000 E
l, 1-Dichloroethenc 7 -3,000 U
1.2-Dichloropropanc 6' 3,000 U
Ethylbenzene 3,500 3,000 U
Methylene chloride 5 6,000 U
Toluene 2,000 26,000
I, 1,2-Trichlorocthane 5 3,000 U
Trichlorocthene 5 3,000 U
Vinyl chloride 2 6,000 U
Xvlcnc 350 9,000 U
Dilution Factor 60
Associated Method Blank EV71V1AA
SVOCs
bis(2~Chlorocthyl) ether 5 600 U
4-Nitronhenol 350 3,000 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank C2Cl 10000-128
Metals
Arsenic 10 7.1 B
Barium 1,000 228
Beryllium 17.5 5.0 U
Cadmium JO 16.5 .IE
Chromium 50 15.2
Manganese 7,700 52,600 *
Nickel 350 1640
Selenium JO 47.6
Zinc 7,350 365
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
* Sample diluted at a factor of IO for this compound.
** Sample diluted at a factor of 100 for this compound.
NA -Not Analyzed
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
03/06/02
15,000
EWFRTIAA
53,000 .I
15,000 U
15,000 U
15,000 U
390,000
15,000 U
15,000 U
15,000 U
30,000 U
24,000
15,000 U
15,000 U
30,000 U
45,000 U
-
-
NA
NA
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater th:in Performance Standard
EX-06 EX-07
C2Ct30119003 C2C080166002
03/11/02 03/06/02
I JO
EWC3VIAA EV8VX1AA
10 U 80 J
1 u 10 U
lU 10 U
lU 10 U
lU 270
lU 10 U
JU 10 U
lU 10 U ·
2 U 20 U
lU 48
JU 10 U
JU 10 U
2 U 20 U
3U 30 U
I I
EWC441AA EV7!VIAA
10 U 10 U
50 U 50 U
I I
EWC441AA C2C I 10000-128
10 U 10 U
24.6 B 29.5 B
5.0 U 0.63 BJ
5.0 U 5.0 U
13.6 5.0 U
256 1.170
2.2 B 13.8 B
5.0 U 5.0 U
17.5 B 5.7 B
EX-08
C2C080166003
03/06102
3,000
EV8VX1AA
58,000
3,000 U
3,000 U
3,000 U
170,000 E
3,000 U
2,000 J
3,000 U
6,000 U
17,000
'3,000 U
3,000 U
6,000 U
9,000 U
60
EV71VIAA
1,800
3,000 U
I
CZC I 10000-128
6.6 B
21.5 B
11.7 J
6.3 J
35.7
196,000 **
758
72.3
1,000
Page I of 3
• •
Table 3-8
Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to Performance Standards
National Starch and Chcmical'Company
Cedar Springs,Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID EX-08 DL
Sample No. Perfonnancc C2C080 I 66003
Sample Date Standard 03/06/02
Dilution Factor 5,000
Associated Method Blank EV8VXIAA voe,
Acetone 3,500 70,000
Benzene 5 5,000 U
Bromodichloromethane 5 5,000 U
Chloroform 5 5,000 U
1,2-Dichloroethanc 5 190,000
l, 1-Dichlorocthcnc 7 5,000 U
1,2-Dichloropropanc 6 2,300 .I
Ethylhenzene 3,500 5,000 U
Methylene chloride 5 10,000 U
Toluene 2,000 23,000
I, 1,2-Trichlorocthanc 5 5,000 U
Trichlorocthenc 5 5,000 U
Vinyl chloride 2 10,000 U
Xvlene 350 15,000 U
Dilution Factor .
Associated Method Blank .
SVOCs
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5 NA
4-Nitroohenol 350 NA
Dilution Factor .
Associated Method Blank .
1\.-tetals
Arsenic IO NA
Barium 1,000 NA
Beryllium 17.5 NA
Cadmium IO NA
Chromium 50 NA
Manganese 7,700 NA
Nickel 350 NA
Selenium IO NA
Zinc 7,350 NA
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
** Sample diluted at a factor of 100 for this compound.
NA -Not Analyzed
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
EX-09
C2C080166004
03/06/02
2,000
EV8VXIAA
30,000
2.000 U
2,000 U
2,000 U
87,000 E
2,000 U
6,400
2,000 U
4,000 U
30,000
2,000 U
2,000 U
4,000 U
2,200 J
60
EV71VIAA
2,900
3,000 U
I
C2CI 10000-128
3 B
12.7 B
II J
2.0 BJ
21.7
108,000 ••
407
42.5
983
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
J (lnorganics) -Co"mpuund detected in associated method blank
B (lnurganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Performance Standard
EX-09 DL EX-10
C2C080166004 C2C080 I 66005
03/06/02 03/06102
3,000 100
EV8VXIAA EV8VXIAA
25,000 J 33,000 E.
3,000 U 100 U
3,000 U 100 U
3,000 U l00 U
91,000 --12,000 E
3,000 U 100 U
7,000 9,800 E
3,000 U 1,600
6,000 U 200 U
39,000 2,900
3,000 U 100 U
3,000 U 100 U
6,000 U 140 J
9,000 U 5,900
. 20
. EV71VIAA
NA 4,000 E.
NA 1,000 U
. I
. C2Cl 10000-128
NA 3.1 B
NA 14.3 B
NA 12.1 J
NA I. I B J
NA 32.8
NA 101,opo **
NA 292
NA ,33
NA 789
EX-10 DL
C2C080 I 66005
03/06/02
1,000
EV8VXIAA
44,000
1,000 U
1,000 U
1,000 U
14,000 -1,000 U
11,000
1,400
2,000 U
3,000
1,000 U
1,000 U
2,000 U
5,300
100
EV7IVIAA
4,800
5,000 U
.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Page 2 of3
• •
Table 3-8
Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to Pcrfonnance Standards
· National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID NS-09
Sample No. Performance C2C200 I 5100 I
Sample Date Standard 03/18/02
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWRTQIAA
voes
Acetone 3.500 IOU.
Benzene 5 1.0 U
Bromodichloromethane 5 1.0 U
Chloroform 5 0.64 J
1,2-Dichloroethanc 5 -~-1,400 E
I, 1-DichloroelhCne 7 7.8
1,2-Dichloropropanc 6 0.53 J
Ethyl benzene 3.500 8.2
Methylene chloride 5 3.8
Toluene 2.000 180 E
I, 1,2-Trichlorocthanc 5 1.9
Trichloroethcne 5 4.7
Vinyl chloride 2 47 E
Xvlcnc 350 25
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWPVSIAA
SVOCs
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5 10 U
4-Nitroohenol 350 50 U
Dilution Factor .I
Associated Method Blank C2C2 I 000-158
Metals
Arsenic 10 2.5 B
Barium 1.000 346
Beryllium 17.5 5.0 U
Cadmium 10 5.0 U
Chromium 50 5.9
Manganese 7.700 12,800 *
Nickel 350 6.6 B
Selenium 10 5.2
Zinc 7.350 5.8 B
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
* Sample diluted at a factorof2 for.this compound.
NA -Not Analyzed
U • Not detected at indicated concentration
E • Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
NS-09 DL
C2C20015100 I
03/18/02
60
EWWXWIAA
600 U
60 U
60 U
60 U
1,400
60 U
60 U
60 U
120 U
150
60 U
60 U
42 J
180 U
I
EW4FNIAA
10 U
50 U
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than PcrformanCe Standard
NS-IO
C2C200 I 5 !003
03/18/02
I
EWRTQIAA
10 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
13
1.0 U
1.0 U
l·.0 U
2.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
3.0 U
I
EWPVSIAA
10 U
50 U
I
C2C2 I 000-158
10 U
98.5 B
5.0 U
5.0 U
2.1 B
1.860
IS.I B
5.0 U
9.3 B
NS-I I
C2C200151002
03/18/02
I
EWWXWIAA
10 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.2
2.0 U
1.4
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
9.1
I
EWPVSIAA
10. U
50 U
I
C2C2I000-158
2.7 B
73 B
5.0 U
5.0 U
1.4 B
117
40 U
5.0 U
20 U
NS-15
C2C20015 IO0S
03/18/02
I
EWWXWIAA
10 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
27
1.0 U
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.0.U
0.77 J
1.0 U
1.0 U
2.0 U
3.0 U
I
EWPVSIAA
10 U
50 U
I
C2C2 I 000-158
10 U
305
5.0 U
5.0 U
4.5 B
10,600 *
2.0 B
5.0 U
20 U
Page 3 of 3
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 24000 D 420
3Q96 3200 J 36
4Q96 28000 300 D
IQ97 27000 B 170 B
2Q97 33000 B 470 DB
3Q97 34000 500 D
4Q97 36000 540 D
IQ9S 29000 II 120 B
2Q98 17000 B 430 B
3Q98 29000 120
4Q98 45000 DB 73
4Q99 86000 4 II
4QOO 100000 I) 2 u
1002 24000 J 10 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 3.500 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
tJ -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7100
920
550
4900
4000
2000
3600
3300
59
47000
36000
5000
10
80
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E/4 -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
DJ
J
DJ
II
B
ll
ll
JB
I)
I)
u
u
J
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results . VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
ACETONE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
230000 D 23000 D 43000 D
11000 8100 8200
72000 37000 75000
120000 DB 53000 DB 96000 B
130000 DB 40000 B 92000 B
67000 B 23000 B 49000 B
220000 D 19000 ;210000J'5.>E]
63000 DB 24000 DB 82000 DB
72000 D 14000 93000 B
130000 D 21000 200000 D
65000 D 13000 77000 I)
100000 100000 u 150000 4
4000 u 10000 u 93000 D
58000 30000 44000
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Organics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
Shading indic:ncs "E" qualified concentraiion for which a diluted run concentration is unavailable
NS-09 NS-JO NS-JI NS-15
NS NS NS NS
10 u 10 u 10 u NR
3000 D 100 15 10 u
720 330 u 130 67 u
130 500 u 4100 50 u
65000 B 2100 B 44 B 25 u
330000 670 u 29 530 • 390000 270 54 18 B
5400 D 620 u 21 25 u
87000 D 800 10 u 10 u
450 D 170 u 10 u 120
1600 670 u 17 27
7 J 500 u 10 u 20 u
110 100 u 10 u 5 J
22 J 8 J 7 J 8 J
200 100 u 10 u 10 u
110 B 8s· BJ 6 BJ 15 B
94 Jll 78 JB 22 B 10 u
830 B 300 DB 32 DBJ 40 B
180 100 u 14 7 J
79 JB 10 u 10 u 9 JB
53 J 6 J 2 J 6 J
570 10 u 10 u 10 u
22 J 2 J 6 J 10 u
10 u 12 16 120 4
20 u 42 4 u 20 u
10 u 10 u 10 u 10 u •
Page I of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
JQ95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 49 J 25 u
3Q96 5000 u JO u
4Q96 2000 u JO u
IQ97 2000 u JO u
2Q97 2_ooo u JO u
3Q97 2000 u JO u
4Q97 2000 u 10 u
IQ98 5000 lJ JO lJ
2Q98 5000 lJ JO u
3Q98 5000 u 10 u
4Q98 2500 lJ JO lJ
4Q99 500 lJ I u
4Q00 5000 u I u
1002 3000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
30
3300
250
250
250
250
250
JOOO
JOO
500
JOOO
500
5
JO
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
lJ
lJ
lJ
lJ
u
lJ
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -YOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
BENZENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
34 J 64 J 40 J
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 lJ
2500 lJ JOOO u 500 u
2500 u JOOO lJ 500 u
JOOO u 2000 u 5000 lJ
2500 lJ JOOO lJ 500 lJ
/200 u 5000 lJ /000 lJ
2000 u 2000 u 5000 u
3000 u 2000 lJ JOO u
J (Organics)~ Estiinated concentration is less than the reporting limi1
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
5 u 5 u 5 u NR
JO u JO u JO u JO u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
JO u 500 u 500 u 50 u
3JOO u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
8300 u 330 u 5 u 25 u • JOOOO u 17 u 5 u 5 u
I J 3JO u 5 u 12 u
500 u 89 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 83 u 5 u 5 u
57 u 330 u 5 u 8 u w u 250 u 5 u JO u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u JO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO lJ JO u JO u
JOO lJ JO lJ JO lJ JO u
JOO u 20 lJ JO u JO lJ
500 u JO u JO u JO u
JOO lJ JO lJ JO lJ JO u
I u I u I u I u
· 10 u I u 2 u JO u
I u I u I u I u •
Page 2 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
!Q93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
JQ93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 120 u 25 u
JQ96 5000 u JO u
4Q96 2000 u JO u
IQ97 2000 u /0 u
2Q97 2000 lJ JO lJ
JQ97 2000 /J /0 u
4Q97 2000 u /0 u
!Q98 '5000 u JO u
2Q98 t.5000 /J JO /J
3Q9S 5000 /J /0 /J
4Q98 2500 u JO u
4Q99 500 u I u
4Q00 5000 /J I u
IQ02 3000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Nm Sampled
U -Noc detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
"NS
NS
NS
/20
3300
250
250
250
250
250
/000
JOO
500
/000
500
5
/0
u
u
u
lJ
lJ
/J
u
u
u
/J
u
u u
u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Arca Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National S1arch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
BROMODICIILOROMETHANE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
/20 u /20 u 120 u
5000 u 3300 u /700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 lJ 5000 lJ
5000 lJ 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u· 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 /J
2500 u JOOO /J 500 u
2500 u 1000 u 500 u
/000 u 2000 u 5000 u
2500 u 1000 /J 500 /J
/200 u 1000 /J 1000 u
2000 /J 5000 u 5000 u
3000 /J 2000 /J JOO /J
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Sfondard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
5 u· 5 u 5 u NR
JO u JO' u JO u JO u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
/0 u 500 u 500 u 50 u
3/00 u 310 u 5 u 12 u
8300 u 330 u 5 u 25 u • 10000 u 17 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 3/0 u 5 u /2 u
500 u 89 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 83 u 5 u 5 u
57 u 330 u 5 u 8 u
JO u 250 u 5 u JO u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u JO u JO u JO u
/00 u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO lJ JOO u JO u JO lJ
JOO u /00 u JO u JO u
JOO u JOO lJ JO u JO u
JOO /J JO /J JO /J /0 /J
JOO /J 20 u JO u JO lJ
500 /J JO /J JO u JO /J
JOO u JO u JO /J JO u
I u, I u I u I u
JO /J• I u 2 u JO /J
I u I u I u I u ••
Page 3 of 14
Quarter EX-OS EX-06
JQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
JQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS· NS
JQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS-
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
JQ96 NS NS
2Q96 44 J 25 u
3Q96 5000 u JO u
4Q96 2000 CJ 10 CJ
JQ97 2000 I} JO I}
2Q97 2000 I} JO u
3Q97 2000 I} 10 I}
4Q97 2000 u /0 u
JQ9_8 5000 I} JO I}
2Q98 5000 I} JO I}
3Q9S 5000 u JO u
4Q98 2500 u JO I}
4Q99 500 I} I u
4Q00 5000 u I u
JQ02 ./000 I} I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance S1andard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U • Nm detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
/20
3300
250
250
250
250
250
/000
JOO
500
/000
500
5
JO
u
u
CJ
u
u
u
I}
I}
u
u
I}
u
u
I}
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Sp~ngs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
CHLOROFORM
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
/20 ·u /20 u /20 u
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 CJ 2500 CJ 5000 CJ
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 I} 2500 u 5000 u
5000 I} 2500 I} 5000 I}
2500 u /000 I} 500 I}
2500 u /000 I} 500 I}
/000 I} 2000 u 5000 u
2500 I} /000 I} 500 I}
/200 I} 5000 u /000 I}
2000 u 5000 u 5000 u
3000 u 2000 I} JOO I}
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
5 u 5 u 5 u NR
10 u I J /0 u /0 u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
/0 u 500 u 500 u 50 u
.l/00 u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
8300 u 330 u 5 u 25 u • /0000 u 17 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
500 u 89 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 83 u 5 u 5 u
57 u 330 u 5 u 8 u
/0 u 250 u 5 u /0 u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u /0 u 10 u /0 u
/00 CJ /00 CJ /0 CJ /0 CJ
JOO u /00 u JO u /0 u
JOO u /00 u JO u 10 u
JOO u JOO u JO I} JO u
/00 u /00 I} 2 J JO u
JOO u /0 I} . /0 I} /0 I}
JOO I} 20 I} JO I} /0 u
500 u /0 u JO u JO u
JOO u JO u /0 u /0 u
1.8 I u I u I u
/0 u I u 2 u JO u
0.64 J I u I u I u •
Page 4 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS .NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
!Q95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
!Q96 NS NS
2Q96 350000 D 920
JQ96 .moo u JO u
4Q96 430000 I) 240 D
!Q97 510000 I) 53
2Q97 470000 I) 530 D
3Q97 340000 I) 550 D
4Q97 380000 I) 140
IQ98 340000 I) 80
2Q98 340000 D 550
JQ98 230000 I) 120
4Q98 300000 I) 12
4Q99 400000 I u
4Q00 530000 I) I u
1002 390000 I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
83000
.1300
50000
34000
35000
36000
27000
19000
JOO
140000
130000
500
180
270
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
D -Concen!ration from a secondary dilution analysis
D
u
I)
I)
I)
I)
I)
lJ
I)
I)
lJ
I)
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plill1t Site
Salisbury. North Carolina
(
1,2-DI Cl ILO RO ETI IANE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-IO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
"NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS N,S
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
330000 D 71000 D 28000 D
5000 u .l.lOO u /700 u
350000 I) 190000 D 35000
390000 D 180000 D 31000
290000 D 130000 I) 30000
310000 D 160000 D 53000
270000 D 130000 D 59000
220000 I) 110000 I) 44000 I)
220000 D 85000 D 29000 D
210000 I) 79000 D 39000
180000 I) 71000 D 36000 I)
180000 100000 25000
190000 I) 160000 D 40000 D
190000 91000 14000
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
Shading indicates "E" qualified concentration for which a diluted run concentration is unavailaQ,_le
NS-09 NS-IO NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
10000 D 16000 D 5 u NR
uooo D 8000 D 100 440 D
4700 2800 25 u 530
170 8800 500 u 480
3/00 u 9700 8 400
8300 u 7100 5 u 380
/0000 u 420 5 u !~380t~f~E~ • 30 9100 5 u 370
500 u 9800 D 5 u 330 D
11 7600 D 6 250 D
1700 8100 5 260
9 ·J 6100 9 250
840 ~1oo~g~E~ 5 u J,ti21or:ili~E1
2100 D 2200 D II 67
7100 D 4500 D 34 150
10000 D 2000 D 400 D 190
4400 D 870 3 J 120
4900 I) 1800 170 D 160 D
5900 D 1600 260 D 160
10000 D 920 I) 24 100
25000 1900 D 4 J 130
25000 D 1200 I) 15 20
17000 D 460 I) 15 98
21000 330 I u 69
550 I) 13 2 u 76 D
1400 13 I u 27 •
Page 5 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
JQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
JQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
JQ95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
JQ96 NS NS
2Q96 120 u 25 u
3Q96 5000 u JO u
4Q96 2000 u JO u
JQ97 2000 u /0 u
2Q97 2000 u JO u
JQ97 2000 u /0 u
4Q97 2000 u /0 u
JQ98 5000 u /0 u
2Q98 5000 If /0 u.
3Q98 5000 If /0 u
4Q98 2500 If /0 If
4Q99 500 u I u
4Q00 5000 u I u
JQ02. .1000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 7 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS.
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
120
3300
250
250
250
250
250
1000
/00
500
JOOO
500
5
JO
D -Concemration from a secondary dilution analysis
, u
u
u
u
u
u
u
If
u
u
If
If
u
If
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraclion and Monitoring Wells
Na1ional Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,1-DICIILOROETIIENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS. NS
NS NS NS
120 u 120 u 120 u
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
2500 If JOOO u 500 If
2500 u 1000 If 500 u
1000 u 2000 u 5000 u
2500 u 1000 If 500 If
1200 u 5000 u /000 u
2000 u 5000 If 5000 u
3000 If 2000 u JOO If
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-II NS-IS
NS NS NS NS
10 5 u 5 u NR
18 2 J JO u JO u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
JO u 500 u 500 u 50 u
4400 u 440 u 7 u 18 u
12000 u 470 u 7 u 35 u • 14000 u 23 u 7 u 7 u
6 J 440 u 7 u 18 u
700 u 130 u 7 u 7 u
9 120 u 7 u 7 u
80 u, 470 ·u 7 u 12 u
9 .I 250 u 5 u JO u
50 u . 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u JO u JO u JO u
IS J JOO u JO u JO u
/00 u /00 u JO u /0 u
JOO u JOO u JO u JO u
25 J JOO u JO u JO u
100 u JOO u JO u JO u
JOO . If JO u JO u /0 If
JOO u 20 u JO u JO u
500 u JO If JO If JO If
JOO u JO u JO u JO u
30 I u I u I u
18 D I u 2 u /0 If
7.8 I u I u I u •
Page 6 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q9] NS NS
JQ9] NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
]Q94 NS. NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS i\'S
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 350 25 u
3Q96 5000 /J JO /J
4Q96 250 J JO /J
IQ97 2000 /J JO u
2Q97 2000 u JO u
JQ97 2000 ·u JO /J
4Q97 2000 u JO u
IQ98 5000 u JO u
2Q98 5000 u JO u
. 3Q98 .moo u 10 u
4Q98 2500 /J JO u
4Q99 · 500 /J I u
4Q00 .moo /J I u
IQ02 3000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 6 ug/L
NR -Nol Reported
NS -Nm Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
/20
3300
250
250
250
250
250
/000
JOO
88
/000
500
5
JO
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J u
u
u
u
Table -3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,2-DICllLOROPROPANE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS· NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS" NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
530 9400 D 82000 D
5000 u 12000 81000 D
5000 u 11000 78000
5000 /J 12000 68000
5000 u 9100 56000
5000 /J 11000 60000
1000 J 12000 75000
1200 J 12000 41000 I)
2800 13000 44000 I)
3100 14000 54000
3600 15000 42000 I)
2700 13000 22000
1500 JD 16000 I) 31000 D
2300 J 6400 11000
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration _is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
5 u 2 J 5 u NR
IO u I J 10 u 2 J
250 u· 330 u 25 u 67 u
IO u 500 u 500 u 50 u
3800 u 380 u 6 u 15 u
/0000 u 400 u 6 u 30 u • 12000 u 20 u 6 u 6 u
6 u 380 u 6 u 15 u
600 u 110 u 6 u 6 u
6 u JOO u 6 u 6 u
68 u 400 u 6 u IO u
IO u 250 u 5 u JO u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 10 /J JO u JO u
JOO u JOO u IO u JO u
JOO u JOO u 10 /J IO u
JOO u JOO u JO u IO u
JOO u JOO u JO /J IO u
JOO u JOO u IO u IO u
JOO u 10 u JO u JO u
JOO u 20 u IO u IO u
500 u IO u JO u IO u
JOO u 10 u IO u IO u
2 I u I u 1.5
JO u I 2 u IO u
0.53 J I u I u I u •
Page 7 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS· NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 190 25 u
3Q96 5000 u IO u
4Q96 120 J IO u
IQ97 2000 u 10 u
2Q97 2000 u IO u
3Q97 2000 u 10 u
4Q97 2000 u 10 u
IQ98 5000 u 10 u
2Q98 5000 u 10 J
3Q98 5000 u 10 u
4Q98 2500 lJ 10 u
4Q99 500 u I u
4Q00 . 5000 u I u
IQ02 3000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/l
ROD Performance Standard: 3,500 ug/L
NR -Not Repor1ed
NS -Not Sampled
U • Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
120
3300
250
250
250
250
250
IO00
IO0
81
IO00
500
2
IO
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
J
u
u
JD
u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results . VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
ETHYLBENZENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-JO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
140 1300 2400
5000 u 590 J 2400
5000 u 480 J 2400 J
5000 u 4IO J 2200 J
5000 u 2500 u 1800 J
5000 u 2500 u 1900 J
5000 u 500 J 2500 J
2500 u 490 J 1900
2500 u 660 J 2000
370 J 560 J 2100 J
380 J 630 J 2200
1200 u· 5000 u 1700
2000 u 5000 u 3400 JD
3000 u 2000 u 1600
J (Organics) • Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-JO NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
32 4 J 95 NR
98 4 J . 140 . IO u
250 u 330 u 300 67 u
6 J 500 u 500 u 50 u
6200 u 620 u 10 u 25 u
17000 u 670 u 91 50 u • 20000 u 33 u 40 IO u
4 J 620 u 120 25 u
IO00 u 180 u 76 IO u
5 J 170 u 98 10 u
110 u 670· u 57 17 u
10 250 u 62 · IO u
50 u 50 u 81 5 u
50 u 10 u 100 IO u
8 J 100 u 92 IO u
IO0 u 100 u 140 IO u
IO0 u 100 u 20 IO u
IOO u IO0 u 5 J IO u
100 u IO0 u 22 10 u
100 u 10 u 54 IO u
100 u 20 u 15 10 ,U
500 u 10 u 22 10 u
IO0 u 2 J 29 10 lJ
1.8 I u 6.5 I u
5 JD I u 8 D IO u
8.2 I u 2.2 I u •
Page 8 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06 EX-07
1Q93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS·
1Q94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
1Q95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
1Q96 NS NS
2Q96 56 J 25 u
3Q96 1900 BJ 4 BJ
4Q96 130 .I 2 J
1Q97 2000 (} IO u
2Q97 2000 (} IO (}
3Q97 2000 (} IO u
4Q97 340 .I JO u
1Q98 5000 (} IO u
2Q98 5000 u IO u
3Q98 5000 (} IO If
4Q98 2500 If IO (}
4Q99 500 If 1 u
4Q00 5100 BD I u
1002 6000 (} 2 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NR -Nm Reported
NS -Not S:impled
U -Not dett!cted at indicated concentration
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
/20
1200
16
250
250
250
44
JOOO
JOO
170
JOOO
500
4
20
D -Concentrati?n from a secondary dilution analySis
I -Common laboratory contaminant
u
BJ
J
u
(}
u
.I
u
.u
J u
u
)Bl)
u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Exlraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-IO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
40 J 48 J 94 .I
5000 u 490 BJ 880 BJ
300 J 170 J 370 J
5000 (} 2500 u 5000 u
5000 (} 2500 (} 5000 (}
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 (} 2500 u 5000 u
2500 u JOOO u 200 J
420 J 220 J 130 .I
270 J 550 J 980 J
2500 (} /000 u 500 u
/200 u 500 u JOOO u
1600 Jill) 5100 8D 3800 .IBD
6000 u 4000 u 200 If
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Organics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
Bold font indicates detected concentrmion greater than ROD Performance St:i.ndard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-IO NS-11 NS-IS
NS NS NS NS
5 u 3 J I J NR
9 BJ 6 BJ 4 BJ 3 BJ
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
.l/00 u 170 BJ 5 u 12 u
14000 B 930 B 8 B 24 BJ • 13000 B 17 u 5 u 11 B
4 BJ 350 B 2 BJ 12 u
1300 B 230 B 7 B s B
5 u 83 u 5 u s u
57 u 330 u s u 7 BJ
IO u 73 BJ 2 BJ 3 BJ
50 u IO BJ 5 u 2 J
50 u 2 J JO u 2 J
7 J 7 J JO u 1 J
JOO l/ /00 u JO (} JO u
JOO (} JOO (} IO (} IO (}
JOO u JOO u IO u JO u
JOO u JOO (} IO (} IO (}
JOO u JO u IO u IO u
JOO u 20 u IO u IO u
500 (} IO (} /0 u IO u
/00 u JO If IO (} JO If
8.8 I I u I u 8.9 I
14 D I u 1 JBD 8 JBD • 3.8 2 u 2 u 2 u
Page 9 of 14
Quarter EX-OS EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
!Q95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 16000 D 74
3Q96 19000 67
4Q96 20000 65
IQ97 24000 42
2Q97 23000 37
3Q97 22000 82
4Q97 21000 43
IQ98 21000 40
2Q98 14000 75
3Q98 13000 48
4Q98 14000 31
4Q99 24000 4 I V
4Q00 5l000 D I V
IQ02 26000 I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2,000 ug/L
NR -Not Reported,
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not dctec1ed at indicaled concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3200
2200
1700
1600
1200
1l00
1l00
820
56
6800
6600
500
120
48
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
E/4 -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
J
J
J
u
D
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -YOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
TOLUENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-IO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
68000 D 38000 D 14000 D
28000 29000i 15000
25000 28000 15000
30000 28000 16000
24000 20000 12000
25000 23000 12000
26000 22000 14000
24000 21000 I) 9000
20000 15000 7600
22000 D 18000 l0000
20000 18000 9000
34000 3l000 5000
26000 D 65000 D 9500 I)
17000 30000 2900
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Uold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-IO NS-11 NS-IS
NS NS NS NS·
400 D 2 J 61 NR
1100 D 17 59 23
330 330 u 120 18 J
100 500 u 500 u 50 u
6200 u 620 u 7 J 13 J
17000 u 670 u 13 17 J • 20000 u 33 u 6 I IO
47 620 V 23 IO I
340 I 180 u 11 8 I
130 170 u 15 5 I
410 670 u 6 I 9 I
180 250 u 6 II
170 50 u II 15
69 4 I 12 2 I
200 9 J 19 6 J .
100 V l00 V 28 5 J
80 J 100 u 5 J 4 J
150 100 u 7 J 10
1 IO 100 u 29 8 J
30 J 10 u 9 J 3 J
76 I 5 J 6 I 7 I
500 u 5 J 10 IO u
29 I IO 28 2 J
53 4 I u 3.3 2.6
I IO D I 6 D 13 D
150 I u 1.4 0.77 J •
Page JO of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
1Q95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 66 J 25 u
3Q96 5000 u JO u
IQ97 2000 u JO u
2Q97 2000 u JO u
3Q97 2000 u JO u
4Q97 2000 u JO u
IQ98 5000 u JO u
2Q98 .moo u /0 u·
3Q98 5000 u JO u
4Q98 2500 If /0 If
4Q99 500 u I u
4Q00 5000 u I u
IQ02 .1000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS .
NS
NS
NS
120 u
3300 u
250 u
250 u
250 u
250 .u
/000 u
JOO u
500 u
/000 u
500 u
5 u
JO If
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, N9rth Carolina
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
120 J 120 u /20 u
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
.moo u ,2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
2500 u /000 u 500 u
2500 u /000 u 500 u
/000 u 2000 u 5000 u
2500 If /000 u 79 J
1200 u 5000 If /00 If
2000 If 5000 u 5000 u
.woo u 2000 u /00 u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Dold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-10 NS-11 NS-15
NS NS NS NS
3 J 10 5 u NR
6 J ·12 /0 u /0 u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
/0 u 500 u 500 u 50 u
3/00 u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
8300 u 330 u 5 u 25 u • /0000 u 17 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 3/0 u 5 u /2 u
500 u 89 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 83 u 5 u 5 u
57 u 330 u 5 u 8 u
/0 u 250 u 5 u /0 u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u 6 J JO u /0 u
JOO u 20 J /0 u /0 u
/00 u JOO u JO u JO u
/00 u /00 u JO u JO u
JOO u /00 u JO u JO u
/00 u 2 J JO u JO u
JOO u 20 u /0 u /0 u
500 u 2 J /0 u /0 u
JOO If /0 u /0 If /0 u
7.7 I u I .u I u
/0 u I u 2 u /0 If
1.9 I u I u I u •
Page II of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
JQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 120 u 25 u
3Q96 5000 u /0 u
4Q96 2000 u /0 u
IQ97 2000 u /0 u
2Q97 2000 u /0 u
3Q97 2000 u 10 u
4Q97 2000 u /0 u
IQ98 5000 u /0 u
2Q98 5000 u /0 u
3Q9S 5000 u /0 u
4Q98 2500 u 2 J
4Q99 500 u I u
4Q00 5000 u I u
JQ02 3000 u I u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance S1andard: 5 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected a1 indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
/20
.lJOO
250
250
250
250
250
/000
/00
500
/000
500
5
10
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u.
u
u
u
u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Sile
Salisbury, North Carolina
TRICIILOROETHENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-JO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
120 u /20 u 120 u
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
.moo u 2500 u 5000 ·u
2500 u /000 u 500 u
2500 u /000 u 500 u
/000 u 2000 u 5000 u
2500 ·u /000 u 500 u
/200 u 5000 u /000 u
2000 u 5000 u 5000 u
3000 u 2000 u JOO u
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
llold fon1 indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-JO NS-11 NS-JS
NS NS NS NS
5 u I J 5 u NR
3 J /0 u /0 u /0 u
250 u 330 u 25 u 67 u
/0 u 500 u 500 u 50 u
3/00 u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
8300 u 330 u 5 u 25 u • /0000 u 17 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 3/0 u 5 u 12 u
500 u 89 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 83 u 5 u 5 u
57 u 330 u 5 u 8 u
/0 u 250 u 5 u /0 u
50 u 50 u 5 u 5 u
50 u /0 u /0 u /0 u
/00 u JOO u /0 u /0 u
/00 u /00 u /0 u /0 u
JOO u /00 u /0 u /0 u
/00 u /00 u /0 U· /0 u
/00 u /00 u /0 u /0 u
/00 u /0 u /0 u /0 u
/00 u 20 u /0 u /0 u
500 u /0 u /0 u /0 u
17 J JO u /0 u /0 u
5.3 I u I u I u
7· JD I u 2 u /0 u
4.7 I u I u I u •
Page 12of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
IQ93 NS NS
2Q9] NS NS
JQ93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
IQ94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
]Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
IQ95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 . NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 990 50 u
3Q96 5000 u IO u
4Q96 2000 u 4 J
IQ97 970 J 4 J
2Q97 1200 J 3 J
3Q97 580 J 3 J
4Q97 820 J IO u
IQ98 ·.moo u IO u
2Q98 .moo u 2 J
JQ98 5000 u 2 J
4Q98 500 .I IO u
4Q99 500 u I I)
4QOO 5000 u I u
IQ02 6000 u 2 I)
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2 ug/L
NR -Not Reported
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS·
NS
NS
250
3300
250
53
250
250
250
IOOO
IOO
270
220
500
5
20
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
84 -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
u
u
u
J u
u
u
u
u
J
J
u
If u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -YOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Siarch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plam Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
VINYL CHLORIDE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-IO
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS ·Ns
NS NS NS
NS NS· NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
250 u 250 u 220 J
5000 u 3300 u 1700 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
5000 u 2500 u 5000 u
2500 u IOOO u 250 J
2500 u IOOO u 210 J
IOOO u 2000 u 5000 u
2500 u IOOO u 200 J
2500 u IOOOO u IOOO u
2000 u 5000 u 5000 If
6000 u 4000 u 140 .I
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detec1ed concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-IO NS-II NS-15
NS NS NS NS
IO u 8 J IO u NR
480 DJ IO u IO u 18
75 J 330 u 25 u 67 u
48 500 u 500 u 50 u
I200 u. 120 u 2 ·u 5 u
3300 U, I30 u 2 u IO u • 4000 u 7 u 2 u 2 u
46 I20 u 2 u 6
200 u 36 u 2 u 4
81 33 u 2 u 4
160 I30 u 2 u 5
62 500 u IO u 20 u
89 J IOO u IO u IO u
50 u IO u IO u IO u
110 JOO u IO u IO u
20 J IOO u IO u 3 J
49 J IOO u JO u 2 J
84 J IOO u JO u 2 J
IOO u IOO u IO u IO u
53 J IO u IO u IO u
17 J 20 u IO u IO u
500 u IO u IO u IO u
25 j IO u IO u IO u
140 4 1.3 I u 1.2
140 D I u 2 u IO u
42 J 2 u 2 u 2 u •
Page 13 of 14
Quarter EX-05 EX-06
1Q93 NS NS
2Q93 NS NS.
3Q93 NS NS
4Q93 NS NS
1Q94 NS NS
2Q94 NS NS
3Q94 NS NS
4Q94 NS NS
1Q95 NS NS
2Q95 NS NS
3Q95 NS NS
4Q95 NS NS
IQ96 NS NS
2Q96 470 25 u
3Q96 5000 u 10 u
4Q96 250 J 0,6 J
IQ97 2000 u 10 u
2Q97 2000 u 10 u
3Q97 390 J 10 u
4Q97 340 J 10 u
IQ98 '5000 u 10 u
2Q98 5000 u 10 u
3Q98 5000 u 2 J
4Q98 2500 u 10 u
4Q99 /500 u 3 u
4QOO 5000 u. I u
IQ02 9000 u 3 u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 350 ug/L
NR -Not R_eported
NS . Not S:impled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
EX-07
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
29
3300
18
250
250
250
250
1000
100
150
160
1500
6
30
D -Concentration from a secondary dilution analysis
J
u
J
u
u
u
lJ
u
u
J
J
u
D u
Table 3-9
Historical Analytical Results -VOCs
Trench Area Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina
XYLENE
EX-08 EX-09 EX-10
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
550 3000 7700 D
5000 u 2300 J 7800
5000 u 1800 J 7300
5000 u 1300 J 6800
5000 u 1000 J 5800
5000 u 1100 J 6300
5000 u 1800 J 8300
680 J 1800 6200
1100 J 2300 6200
1400 2000 6800
1600 J 2200 7900
3700 u /5000 u 5800
1800 n 5000 JD 12000 D
9000 u 2200 J 5900
J (Organics) -Estim::itcd concentra1ion is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic fom indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
NS-09 NS-IO NS-II NS-IS
NS NS NS NS
69 10 150 NR
120 DJ 10 220 1 J
250 u 330 u 560 67 u
13 500 u 500 u 50 u
6200 u 620 u 100 25 u
17000 .u 670 u 110 50 u
20000 ,U 33 u 50 10 u • 4 J 620 u 120 25 u
1000 u 180 u 44 10 u
15 170 u 66 10 u
110 u 670 u 22 17 u
23 250 u 21 10 u
12 J 50 u 46 5 u
6 J 10 u 50 10 u
21 J 100 u 140 I J
100 u 100 u 180 10 u
100 u 100 u 35 10 u
100 u 100 u 4 J 10 u
100 u 100 u 42 10 lJ
100 lJ 2 J 110 10 u
22 J 4 J 64 10 u
500 u 10 u 47 10 u
100 u 5 J 53 10 u
8 3 u 23.4 3 u
20 D I u 35 D 10 u
25-3 u 9,1 3 u •
Page 14 of 14
Table 3-12
Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for OU3Wclls to Performance Slandards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Well ID NS-13
S.imple No. Performance C2C090l33001
Sample Date Standard 03108102
Dilution Factor I
Associated-Method Blank EV7G61AA
voe
Acetone 700 10 U
Chloroform I 1.0 U
1,2-Dichlorocthane I 0.53 J
cis-1,2-Dichlorocthcne 70 1.0 U
trans-1,2-Dichlorocthene 70 1.0 U
1.1-Dichlorocthcnc 7 1.0 U
1,2-Dich!oropropane I 0.66 J
Methylene chloride 5 2.0 U
Tctrachloroethenc I 1.0 U
l, 1,2-Trichloroethane 5 2.5
Trichlorocthcne 2.8 0.62 J
Vinyl chloride I 2.0 U
Dilution Factor I.II
Associated Method Blank EV71VIAA
SVOCS
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5 II u
bis(2-Ethvlhexvl) ohthal3tc 5 II U
Dilution Factor I
Associated rvtcthod Blank C2C I I 0000-225
METALS
Antimony 6
Chromium 50
Manganese 50
Thallium 2
Zinc 2,IOO
NOTES:
* Sample diluted at a factor of 2 for this compound.
** Sample diluted at a factor of 5 for this compound.
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
10 U
72.6
157
10 U
7.6 B
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound detected in associated method blank_
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
NS-24 NS-35
C2Cl60140013 C2C080109005
03114102 03107102
I 250
.EWK9GIAA EV7L81AA
IOU 2,500 U
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 6,700
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 250 U
2.0 U 500 U
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 250 U
1.0 U 250 U
2.0 U 500 U
I I
EWJG81AA EV71VIAA
'40 10 U
10 U 10 U
I I
C2CI8000-23 I C2CI 10000-129
IOU IOU
1.5 B 4.5 B
3200 J 11,100
10 U 20 U*
IO.I B 20 U
8 (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentralion greater than Performance Standard
NS-36 NS-37
C2C080 I09004 C2Cl60140012
03107102 03114/02
1,500 I
EV7GRIAA EWRDVIAA
15,000 U 10 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
39,000 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
3,000 U 2.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
1,500 U 1.0 U
3,000 U 2.0 U
I I
EV71VIAA EWJGSIAA
10 U 10 U
IOU 10 U
I I I
C2CI 10000-129 C2CI 8000-23 I
10 U 10 U
2.6 B 30
2,600 1280 J
10 U I IOU
7.8 B 5 B
NS-38 NS-39
C2Cl6014001 I C2C I 60140009
03/14/02 03/14/02
I 2.5
EWRTQIAA EWRDVIAA
31 25 U • 1.o·u 2.5 U
1.0 U 46
1.0 U 2.5 U
.1.0 U 2.5 U
1.0 U 2.5 U
1.0 U 1.7 J
2.0 U · 13
1.0 U 1.3 J
1.0 U 1.5 J
1.0 U 1.4 J
3.6 9.7
I I
EWJG81AA EWJG81AA
10 U 9.8 J
IOU 10 U
I I
C2Cl8000-231 C2C 18000-23 I • 10 U 10 U
9.1 7.2
34,700 J** 174 J
50 U** 10 U
20 U 20 U
Page I of 5
Table 3-12
Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for OU3Wells to Performance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Wei\ ID NS-40
Sample No. Performance C2Cl60l40008
Sample Date Standard 03/14/02
Dilution Factor 2,000
Associated Method Blank EWRTQIAA
voe
Acetone 700 20,000 U
Chloroform I 2,000 U
1,2-Dichloroethane I 73,000
cis-1,2-Dichloroethenc 70 2,000 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 2,000 U
l, l-Dichloroethene 7 2,000 U
1,2-Dichloropropane I 2,000 U
Methylene chloride 5 4,000 U
Tetrachloroethene I 2,000 U
I,! ,2-Trichloroethane 5 2,000 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 2,000.U
Vinyl chloride I 4,000 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWJG81AA
svocs
bis(2-Chlorocthyl) ether 5 6.7 J
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 5 10 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank C2Cl8000-23I
1'1ETALS
Antimony 6 10 U
Chromium 50 2.2 B
Manganese 50 7,360 J
Thallium 2 10 U
Zinc 2,IOO 20 U
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
B (Inorganics) -Estimated conccnliation is less than the reporting limit
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
NS-41 NS-42
C2C I 60 I 40006 C2C 160 I 40007
03/13102 03/13/02
I 6
EWK9GIAA EWRDVIAA
10 U 60 U
1.0 U 6.0 U
36 110
1.2 18
1.0 U 6.0 U
1.0 U 3.3 J
1.0 U 6.0 U
1.2 J 12 U
1.7 6.0 U
0.55 J 6.0 U
2.3 7.5
2.9 36
I
EWJG8IAA
NS IOU
NS 10 U
I I
C2C I 8000-23 I C2Cl8000-23I
10 U 10 U
122 32.4
1,830 .I 12,800 J*
10 U 20 U*
8.9 B 20.3
Bold font indicates detected concenliation greater than Performance Standard
NS-43 NS-44
C2COSOI09003 C2C080I09002
03/06/02 13/0t02
I
EV7GRIAA EV7GRIAA
10 U 10 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U I 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
2.0 U 2.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U ' 1.0 U
2.0 U 2.0 U
I I
EV7IVIAA EV7IVIAA
10 U IOU
10 U IOU
I I
C2CIIOOOO-l29 C2CI I0000-129
10 U 10 U
4.1 B 38
5.2 B 15 U
10 U IOU
20 U 20 U
NS-45 NS-46
C2C090133002 C2Cl30l 16004
03/08/02 03/12/02
I I
EV7G61AA EWC3VIAA • 10 U 3.7 J
1.0 U 1.0 U
3.3 12
6.4 0.33 J
1.0 U 1.0 U
7.2 1.8
1.0 U 1.0 U
I.I J 2.0 U
1.0 U 1.2
1.0 U 1.0 U
3.3 5.9
1.9 J 9.5
4 I
EV71VIAA EWC3VIAA
40 U 10 U
40 U 1.4 J
I I • C2CI 10000-225 C2Cl50000-l3I
IOU 10 U
1.3 B SU
4,570 189
IOU 10 U
7.6 B 20 U
Page 2 of 5
Table 3-12
Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for OU3Wclls to Performance Standards
Nmional Starch and Chemical Company
Well ID NS-47
Sample No. Performance C2Cl30116003
Sample Date Standard 03/11/02
Dilution Factor 10,000
Associated Method Blank EWC3VlAA
voe
Acetone 700 30,000 J
Chloroform 1 10,000 U
1,2-Dichloroethanc 1 180,000
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 10,000 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 10,000 U
I, 1-Dichloroethene 7 I0,000 U
1,2-Dichloropropane 1 10,000 U
Methylene chloride 5 20,000 U
Tetrachloroethcnc 1 10,000 U
I, 1,2-Trichloroethane 5 10,000 U
Trichloroethene 2.8 I0,000 U
Vinvl chloride 1 20,000 U
Dilution Factor 1
Associated Method Blank EWCJVlAA
SVOCS
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5 IOU
bis(2-Ethvlhexyl) phthalate 5 IOU
Dilution Factor 1
Associated Method Blnnk C2C 150000-131
'.\IETALS
Antimony 6 10 U
Chromium 50 5 U
M:.mganese 50 1,810
Thallium 2 10 U
Zinc 2,IOO 9.9 B
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
U -Not detected at indicnted concentration
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibrnti9n rnnge
J (Orgnnics) -Estimnted concentration is less than the reponing limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
NS-48 NS-49
C2Cl30116001 C2C080109006
03111/02 03/07/02
1 1
EWCJVlAA EV7GR1AA
10 U IOU
1.0 U 1.8
3.2 2,500 E
1.0 U 0.76 J
1.0 U 1.0 U
1.0 U 1.3
1.0 U 2.4
2.0 U 5.3
1.0 U 2.6
1.0 U 3.7
1.0 U 5.1
2.0 U 15
1 1
EWC3VlAA EV71VlAA
10 U 12
10 U IOU
1 1
C2C 150000-13 1 C2Cl 10000-129
10 U 10 U
2 B 1.6 B
5,830 5,870
IOU IOU
20 U 47.9
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Performance Standard
NS-49 DL NS-50
C2C080109006D C2C 160140003
03/07/02 03/13/02
300 15
EV7GRIAA EWRDVlAA
300 U 150 U
300 U 15 U
7,500 390
300 U 15 U
300 U 15 U
300 U 15 U
300 U 15 U
600 U 30 U
300 U 15 U
3,000 U 15 U
300 U 15 U
600 U 26 J
-1
-EWJG81AA
NA 24
NA IOU
1
C2Cl8000-231
NA IOU
NA 2.4 B
NA 2,680 J
NA IOU
NA 20 U
NS-51 DUP-030702
C2C080 I09007 C2C080 I09009
03/07/02 03/07/02
1,000 2,000
EV7G61AA EV7G61AA
10,000 U 20,000 U • 1,000 U 2,000 U
38,000 58,000
1,000 U 2,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
2,000 U 4,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
1,000 U 2,000 U
2,000 U 4,000 U
1 1
EV71VlAA EV71VlAA
10 U IOU
IOU 10 U
1 1
C2Cl 10000-129 C2Cl 10000-129 • IOU IOU
1.6 B 1.7 B
3,460 3,430
IOU IOU
41.8 31
Page 4 of 5
Table 3-12
Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for OU3Wells to Performance Standards
National Starch and Chemical Company
Wei\ ID NS-52
Sample No. Performance C2CI60140002
Sample Date Standard 03/13/02
Dilmion Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWK9GIAA
voe
Acetone 700 10 U
Chloroform I 1.0 U
1,2-Dichloroethane I 5.2
cis-1,2-Dichloroethenc 70 0.44 J
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 1.0 U
l, 1.-Dichlorocthcne 7 1.0 U
1,2-Dich\oropropane I 1.0 U
Methylene chloride 5 2.0 U
TetrachloroctheOe I 0.8 J
I, 1,2-Trichloroethane 5 1.0 U
Trichloroethcne 2.8 0.72 J
Vinyl chloride I 3.4
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank EWJG81AA
SVOCS
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5 IOU
bis(2-Ethvlhexvl) ohthalate 5 10 U
Dilution Factor I
Associated Method Blank C2C I 8000-231
1\:IETALS
Antimony 6 IOU
Chromium 50 I.I B
Manganese 50 1,070 J
Thallium 2 IOU
Zinc 2,100 20 U
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
E -Estimated concentration exceeds the calibration range
J (Organics} -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
J (lnorg.inics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
NS-53 NS-53 DL
C2C I 6014000 I C2Cl60140001 o(§o2 03/13/02
I '!, I 5
EWJP81AA EWK9GIAA
IOU 50 U
99 E 170
47 E 82
1.0 U 5.0 U
1.0 U 5.0 U
1.0 U 5.0 U
1.0 U 5.0 U
2.5 4.4 J
I.I 5.0 U
1.0 U 5.0 U
0.52 J 5.0 U
2.0 U IOU
I -
EWJG81AA
10 U NA
IOU NA
I
C2C 18000-231 -
IOU NA
I.I B NA
411 .I NA
10 U NA
31.9 NA
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than Performance Standard .
DUP-031302 DUP-031302
C2C 160140005 C2C I 60140005
03/13/02 03/13/02
I 6
EWK9GIAA EWK9GIAA
10 U 60 U
95 E 180
47 E 83
1.0 U 6.0 U
1.0 U 6.0 U
1.0 U 6.0 U
1.0 U 6.0 U
2.4 4.9 J
0.87 J 6.0 U
1.0 U 6.0 U
0.46 J 6.0 U
2.0 U 12 U
I
EWJG81AA
IOU NA
IOU NA
I -
C2C 18000-231 -
10 U NA
5.0 U NA
412 J NA
IOU NA
26.8 . NA
NS-54 CT-I
C2C 130116005 C2C080109-008
03/12/02 03/07/02
2,500 I
EWC3VIAA EY7GRIAA
6,500 J IOU
2,500 U 1.0 U
69,000 2.0
2,500 U 0.67 J
2,500 U 1.0 U
2,500 U 0.51 J
2,500 U 1.0 U
5.000 U 2.0 U
2,500 U 1.0 U
2,500 U 1.0 U
2,500 U 0.39 J
5,000 U 2.0 U
I I
EWC3YIAA .EV71YIAA
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
I I
C2C 150000-131 C2Cl 10000-129 • IOU IOU
1.5 B SU
4,520 163
IOU IOU
248 22.7
Page 5 of 5
(.)11:irtcr NS-13 NS-14
2Q9S 4.2 u NS
JQ98 NS NS
3Q99 5 u s u
IQ00 NS NS
JQ00 1.6 u 1.6 u
IQ0I NS NS
IQ02 JO 11 NS
Quarter NS--U NS-45
2Q98 NS 4.2 u
JQ98 NS 4.2 u
JQ99 5 u 5 u
IQ00 5 u NS
JQ00 1.6 u 1.6 u
IQ0I NS NS
1no2 JO u JO u
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 6 ug/L
NS. Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
NS-24 NS-JS
NS 4.2
NS 4.2
5 u 5
5 u 5
1.6 lJ 1.6
I u I
JO 11 JO
NS-46 NS-·H
4.2 u 4.2
4.2 u 4.2
5 u 5
NS NS
1.6 lJ 1.6
NS NS
JO u JO
13 (lnorg:mics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
u
u
u
u
u
u
11
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3-15
Historic::i.l An:t!)1ical Results -Meials
OU3 Extr:i.ction and Monitoring Wells
National Siarch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolin:t
ANTIMONY
NS-36 NS-37 NS-38
NS NS NS
NS NS 5.8
5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u
I u NS 1.4 B
JO u JO u JO 11
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
4.2 u 4.2 u 4.2 u
4.2. u 4.2 u 4.2 u
5 u 5 u 5 u
NS 5 u NS
1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u
NS I u 2 B
JO u JO u JO u
NS-39 NS-40 NS-41 NS-42 NS-43
NS 4.2 u NS 4.2 u NS
NS 4.2 u NS 4.2 u 4.2 u
5 u 5 u 5 u 5 u 5 u
NS NS NS NS 5 u
1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u • NS NS NS NS NS
JO 11 JO 11 JO 11 JO 11 JO u
NS-51 NS-52 NS-53 NS-54 CT-I
4.2 u 4.2 u 4.2 u 4.2 u NS
4.2 u 4.2 u 4.2 u 4.2 u NS
5 u 5 u 5 u 5 u 5 u
5 u NS NS NS 5 u
1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u 1.6 u
NS NS NS I u 3.2 B
JO u JO u JO u JO u JO u
•
Page I of 5
Quarter NS-IJ NS-14
2Q98 9.8 J NS
3Q98 NS NS
3Q99 2 u 4.4
IQ00 NS NS
JQ00 50.5 7.8 B
IQ0I NS NS
1002 72.6 NS
Ouarter NS-44 NS-45
2Q98 NS 10.8
JQ98 NS 4 u
3Q99 J.8 2 u
IQ00 2.6 NS
JQ00 1.3 B 0.7 LI
IQ0I 2.9 8 NS
1002 3 8 1.3 B
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 50 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
NS-24 NS-35
NS 13
NS 7.3
2 u 2
2 u 2
0.7 u 0.7
0.9 u 3. I
1.5 B 4.5
NS-46 NS-47
4 u 10.2
4 u 4
2 LI 2
NS NS
0.7 u 0.7
NS NS
5 u 5
8 (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reponing limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound deteclcd in associated method blank
J
u
u
u
B
B
u
u
LI
u
Bold font indicates detected concentration greater than ROD Pcrfonnance Standard
Table 3-15
Historical Analytical Results -Metals
OU3 Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, Nonh Carolina
CHROMIUM
NS-36 NS-37 NS-J8
NS NS NS
NS NS 8
2 u 240 2
2 u ]8 2.5
0.7 u 7.4 B 4.7
1.2 B 5.7 B 9.1
2.6 B 30 9.1
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
4 u 4 u 4
4 u 4.9 J 4
2 u 2 u 2
NS 2 u NS
0.7 u 4.9 u 1.4
NS J. I B 1.3
2 B 1.6 B 2.4
NS-39 NS-40 NS---11 NS-42 NS-43
NS 6.6 J NS 5.2 J NS
J NS 4 u NS 4 u· 10.4
u 2 u 2 LI 25 26 u 14
NS NS NS NS 13
B 4.9 u 0.96 B 8.2 B 4.9 u 2.4 B • B NS NS NS NS 4.3 B
7.2 2.2 B 122 32.4 4.1 B
NS-SI NS-52 NS-53 NS-54 CT-I
u 4 u 4.5 J 4 u 4 u NS
u 4 u 4 u 4 u 4 u NS
u 2 u 3.9 2 u 2 u 2 u
2 u NS NS NS 2 u
B 0.89 B 0.7 LI 0.7 u 0.7 u 0.7 u
B NS NS NS J.I B 0.99 B
B 1.6 8 I.I B I. I B 1.5 B 5 u
•
Page 2 of5
Quarter NS-13 NS-1-1
2Q98 240 NS
3Q98 NS NS
3Q99 2900 8.2
IQOO NS NS
JQ00 2060 80
IQ0I NS NS
IQ02 157 NS
Ouartcr NS-4-1 .NS--15
2QIJ8 NS 3790
3Q98 NS J220
3Q99 8.5 4500
IQ00 5 u NS
JQ00 11.9 B 52-10
IQ0I ·;5:~s: ,f: ~1:1 Bi[: NS
1002 15 u .4570
NOTES,
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 50 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected :it indicated concentration
NS-2-1 NS-JS
NS 780
NS 928
7600 JliO0
-1900 5J00
-1880 67.30
~20:---:1~.~gi2 W30e~/., E•j
.3200 J 11100
NS--16 NS-47
80 1500
117 808
190 · 1100
NS NS
69.7 1490
NS NS
189 1810
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
E -Estimated concen1ra1ion exceeds 1he calibration range
J (lnorganics) -Compound de1ee1ed in associated method bllnk
Bold font indicates de1ec1ed concentration greater than ROD Perfonnance Standard
Table 3-15
Historical Analytical Results -Metals
OUJ Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National Starch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, North Carolina
MANGANESE
NS-J6 NS-37 NS-JS
NS NS NS
NS NS 15000
1200 490 27000
BOO 150 22000
1850 91.5 29500
§'~290 ~--;~J: filT: &1it42~Ji"i6iE~ 1.;;·36400;\1~E;t;
2600 1280 J J4700 J
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
6840 9870 10600 .noo 6440 10700
-1900 7000 6900
NS 8600 NS
7540 8180 · 4860
NS 3)!:727omli:J,jE~ ~~-3620..tt.~B;Ea
5830 5870 2680 J
Shading indicates "E" qualified concentration for which a diluted run concentration is unavailable.
NS-J9 NS-40 NS-41 NS-42 NS-4J
NS 1.3500 NS 1800 NS
NS 10100 NS 4110 17.3
170 14000 2300 8200 76
NS NS NS NS 75
97.6 9600 2-120 14900 28
NS NS NS NS ~13%1:tteE'
174 J 7360 J 1830 J 12800 J 5.2 B
NS-51 NS-52 NS-53 NS-54 CT-I
5590 584 4760 1540 NS
4040 561 J320 1160 NS
12000 360 840 4000 2500
3500 NS NS NS 320
J.100 4280 960 J610 606
NS NS NS ~2oft~~iEg JtioTof~~E',~
3460 1070 J 411 J 4520 163
•
Page 3 ofS
(}uarter NS-13 NS-14 NS-24
2Q98 3.3 u NS NS
3Q98 NS NS NS
JQ99 2 u 2 u 2 lJ
IQOO NS NS 2 u
3QOO 1.3 UNW 1.3 UN 1.3 UNW
tQOI NS NS
1nm JO u NS
Quarter NS-44 NS-45
2Q98 NS 4.1 J
3Q98 NS J.3 u
3Q99 2 u 2 lJ
IQOO 2 u NS
3QOO 13 UN 13 UNW
IQOI NS NS
'""' JO /I JO /I
NOTES,
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2 ug/L
NS . Not Sampled
U • Not detected at indicated concentration
1.7
JO
NS-46
3.7
3.3
2
NS
1.3
NS
JO
N • Spiked sample recovery is not wi1hin comrol limits
W • Post digestion spike is out of comrol limits
u u
J u
u
UN
/I
J (lnorganics) • Compound detected in assoc:ilted method blank
NS-35
5.7 J
3.3 u
2 u
2 u
1.3 u
1.7 u
20 u
NS-47
5.6 J
3.3 u
2 u
NS
1.3 u
NS
JO /I
Bold font indicates detected concemration greater than ROD Performance Standard
Italic font indicates detection limit greater than ROD Performance Standard
Tlbk 3-15
Historical Anllytica\ Results -Metals
Ol!3 Extraction Jnd Monitoring Wells
N:nion::il Starch :ind Chemical Company
Cedlr Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, Nonh Carolina
TIIALI.IUM
NS-36 NS-37 NS-38
NS NS NS
NS NS 20.2
2 u 2 u 2 u
2 u 2 u 2 u
1.3 uw 1.3 UN 1.3 UNW
1.7 u NS 1.7 uw
JO u JO u 50 u
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
5.2 J 6.3 J 5.8 J
3.3 u 6.1 J 9_7 J
2 u 2 u 2 u
NS 2 u NS
1.3 UNW 1.3 u 1.3 u
NS 1.7 uw 1.7 uw
JO /I JO /I JO u
NS-39 NS-40 NS-41 NS-42 NS-43
NS 6.8 J NS 3.J u NS
NS
I
10.7 NS 3.3. u 3.3 u
2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u
NS NS NS NS 2 u
1.3 uw 1.3 u 1.3 UN 1.3 uw 1.3 UN • NS NS NS NS NS
JO u JO u JO u 20 u JO u
NS-SI NS-52 NS-53 NS-54 CT-I
6_7 J 3.3 u 3.8 J 3.4 J NS •-• J 3.3 u 3.3 u 3.3 u NS
2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u
2 u NS NS NS" 2 u
1.3 UNW 1.3 uw 1.3 u 1.3 u . 1.3 u·
NS NS NS 1.7 u 40.3
JO u JO u JO u JO u JO u
•
Page 4 of5
Quarter NS-13 NS-14
2Q98 5 u NS
JQ9S NS NS
3Q9_9 16 16
JQ00 NS NS
3Q00 1.7 B 137
JQ0J NS NS
lQ02 7.6 B NS
Quarter NS-44 NS-45
2Q98 NS 9.4 J
3Q98 NS 9.7 J
3Q99 12 16
JQ00 JO u. NS
3Q00 1.6 l/ 1.6 u
JQ0J !0.6 B NS
1002 20 u 7.6 B
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
ROD Performance Standard: 2,100 ug/L
NS -Not Sampled
U -Not detected at indicated concentration
NS-2-1 NS-35
NS 5.1
NS 9.2
88 17
JO u JO
1.6 u 7.8
31 24.1
JO.I B 20
NS-46 NS-47
21.7 35.8
5 u 5
14 17
NS NS
1.9 B 1.6
NS NS
20 u 9.9
B (lnorganics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reponing limit
J (lnorganics) -Compound detected in associated method blank
J
J
u
B
u
u
u
ll
Bold font indicates de1ec1ed concentra1irnl greater than ROD Performance S1andard
Table 3-15
Historical Analytical Results• Metals
OU3 Extraction and Monitoring Wells
National S1:irch and Chemical Company
Cedar Springs Plant Site
Salisbury, Nonh Carolina
ZINC
NS-36 NS-37 NS-38
NS NS NS
NS NS 7.5
17 66 14
JO u JO u 10
1.6 u 21.6 31.9
8.6 u 24.\ 21.2
7.8 B 5 B 20
NS-48 NS-49 NS-50
5 u 5 u 14.2
5 u 5 u 5
18 14 16-
NS 41 NS
1.6 u 76.9 1.6
NS 37.5 46
J
u
u
J
u
u
20 u 47.9 20 u
NS-39 NS-40 NS-41 NS-42 NS-43
NS 5 u NS 180 NS
NS 5 u NS 15.5 J 5 u
16 16 26 40 17
NS NS NS NS JO u
1.6 u 1.6 u 3.9 B 4.4 B 1.6 u • NS NS NS NS 8.6 u
20 u 20 u 8.9 B 20.3 20 u
NS-51 NS-52 NS-53 NS-54 CT-I
130 5 u 9.3 J 587 NS
5 u 5 u 5 u 474 NS
14 28 20 3400 27
84 NS. NS NS 38
1390 6.2 B 1.6 u 1290 15.7 B
NS NS NS 154 1.7 u
41.8 20 u 31.9 248 22.7
•
Page 5 of5
• • Table 3-16
Comparison of RCRA Analytical Results to Class GA Groundwater Standards
July 2001
National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina
Well ID Class GA NS-33
Laboratory ID Groundwater 200987-2
Sample Date Standards 07/26/01
Dilution Factor I
voes
I, 1,2-Trichloroelhane NS 0.4
1,2-Dichloroethane ' 0.38 0.3
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.56 0.3
2-Butanone NS 0.9
Acetone 700 1.0
B romod i c hloromctha ne NS 0.3
Carbon Disulfide NS 0.3
Chloroethane NS 0.3
Chlorofonn 0.19 0.3
cis-1,2-Dichloroethcne 70 0.3
Dibromochloromethane NS 0.3
Ethylbcnzene 29 0.3
Methylene Chloride 5 0.5
Tetrachlorodhene 0.7 0.5
Toluene 1,000 0.3
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 0.3
Trichloroethene 2.8 0.3
Vinyl Chloride 0.Ql5 0.4
Xv\cne 530 05
SYOCs
Dilution Factor I
Bis(2-chloroc1hyl)ethcr NS 2.0
Di-n-butyl phthalatc NS 4.0
l3is(2-cthylhcxyl)phthalate 700 2.0
Di-n-ocl"i "hlhalate 140 3.0
Pesticide □ Dilution Factor I
delta-Bl·tC 0.01 I
Metals
Dilution Factor I
Antimony NS 1.4
Arsenic 50 1.7
Barium 2,000 23.5
Beryllium NS 0.087
Chromium 50 6.6
Cobalt NS 4.2
Copper 1.000 1.7
Lead 15 1.6
Manganese 50 19.1
Nickel 100 8.4
Selenium 50 2.3
Thallium NS 3.8
Vanadium NS 20.2
Zinc 2.100 28.2
Mcrcurv I. I 0.081
NOTES:
Units in ug/1
NS-90 is a duplicate sample of NS-42.
NS -No standard exists for this constituent .
NA -The sample was nut analyzed for this constituent
U -Not de1cctcd at indicated concentration
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
IJ
u
u
u
lJ
u
u
u
B
u
B
IJ
ll
u
ll
u
u
ll
B'
B
J (Organics) -Estimated concentration is less than the reporting limit
B (Organics) -Compound detected in associated method h\ank
l3 (lnorganics) -Es1imated concentrMion is less than the reporting limit
* -Sampled analyzed with a dilution factor of 2 for this compound
NS-39
200987-5
07/26/01
I
1.0
31
2
0.9 u
1.0 u
0.3 u
0.3 u
0.3 u
0.7 J
0.3 u
0.5 u
0.3 u
10
0.8 J
0.3 IJ
0.3 u
1.0
14
0.5 u
I
9.0 J
4.0 IJ
2.0 lJ
3.0 u
I
0.01 I u
I
2.7 B
1.7 u
39.9 B
0.087 u
5.7 B
4.2· u
1.4 IJ
1.6 u
122
2.9 B
2.3 u
3.8 u
19.5 B
45.5 •
0.044 ll
NS-42 NS-90
200987-3 200987-6
07/26101 07/26101
5 5
2.0 u 2.0
680 790
2.0 u 2.0
4 u 4.0
56 32
2.0 u 2.0
2.0 u 2.0
40 38
2.0 u 2.0
30 29
2.0 u 2.0
2.0 u 2.0
10 10
2.0 IJ 2.0
II 13
2.0 u 2.0
II II
37 38
6.0 7
I I
2.0 u 2.0
4.0 u 4.0
2.0 IJ 2.0
3.0 IJ 3.0
I I
0.QII u 0.01 I
I I
2.3 B 1.4
1.7 u 1.7
94.2 B 96.4
0.087 u 0.087
3.0 B 5.0
22.6 B 23.2
3.1 u 3.4
1.6 u 1.6
8,700 8,900
19.7 22.7
2.3 u 2.3
4.6 ll 6.2
3.4 u 3.4
17.2 u• IOI
0.061 8 0.052
NS-49
200987-4
07126/0 I
50
u 20 u
7,900
u 15 u
u 45 u
B 130 lB
u 15 u·
u 15 lB
15 u
u 15 u
15 u
u 15 u
u 15 u
B 25 lJ
u 25 u
15
u 15 u
15 u
20 u
25 u
I
u 9.0 J
u 4.0 u
u 2.0 u
u 3.0 u
I
IJ 0.01 I u
I
u 1.4 u
u 1.7 u
ll 52.3 B
u 0.087 u
B 1.3 B
ll 20.3 B
ll 1.4 u
u 1.6 u
6,480
5.7 B
u 2.3 u
B 3.8 u
u 3.4 u
• 68.8 •
ll I. I
• ••
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATLANT:~:~R~:CENTER 1 ·, r:-0-,-~-~-.. ~7-J.J~
61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 1),
le: ''nl\ I r . , I
c:: ,\\ I
I. I
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 j U: SEP . ; I
9 2002 L ::'.,I
September 5, 2002 I •• ..J
4WD-NSMB
~·· .. ''"" ·--·c ... , ,1·_'.·.,· < . l '" r-i~ ' 1 •· ·; ! ·.
,. \ I 1.., I -. , 1 ,~ . ...J
Ms. Angela J. Dahl
National Starch & Chemical Company
10 Findeme Avenue
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807
Mr. Michael P. Fleischner
Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.
1990 N. California Blvd.
Suite 830
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3792
SUBJ: Comments on 2001 Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical Company
Superfund Site
" '
Dear Ms. Dahl & Mr. Fleischner: . ',., 1, ••
The Agency and the State of North Carolina Department of Environment _and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) have completed our review of the 2001 Site Monitoring Report, dated
August 2002. This document was prepared for National Starch & Chemical Company (NSCC)
by their consultant, Blasland, Bouck & Lee. Below are the Agency's comments and enclosed are
comments from NCDENR.
I. Genernl Comment: There are several components to the groundwater remediation system:
the groundwater extraction system, the groundwater treatment system, the groundwater
monitoring system, and the pipes/wiring/electrical control constituents. A discussion on the·
groundwater treatment system was completely omitted and the discussion on the
groundwater monitoring effort focused on the contaminants present in the groundwater.
There was some discussion of hydraulic capture by the Trench Area extraction wells but
there were no figures provided showing the hydraulic capture zone created by the Trench
Area extraction wells. There was no discussion on the hydraulics (vertical and/or lateral
control) for the Operable Uni_t (OU),#3 extractions (i.e., collection trench and bed.rock
extraction wells). . .
2. General <;:o)l1m,ent: A number of compounds (methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, etc.) have
been d~tected in the groundwater at a number of locations across the Site that reportedly
have never been used at this facility. However, this report neither mentions this fact nor
attempts to explain the occurrence of these compounds. A sub-section should be devoted to
explain or attempt to explain the occurren~e of these contaminants.
• • 2
3. General Comment: This report does a good job in presenting the data, however, very little
effort is made in interpreting what the data means. For examples, refer to comments #1, #2,
#12, and#l5.
4. Page 1-1, Section I: This paragraph states that the current remedial action (RA) efforts are
being done under the appropriate Record of Decisions (RODs). This is not an incorrect
statement but the appropriate Unilateral Administrative Orders (UOAs) and the Consent
Decree (CD) should also be included in this paragraph: UAO for OU #I Remedial
Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA), issued on July 27, 1989; OU 32 CD signed August
1991, entered in Federal Court on July 20, 1992; and UAO for OU #3 and OU #4 RD/RA;
issued on September 29, 1995.
5. Page 1-1, Section I. I: This section lists the purposes and objectives of the groundwater
monitoring programs for OU #1, OU #2, and OU #3. A bullet should be added to both OU
#I/OU #2 and OU #3 lists of purposes/objectives identifying hydraulic control (delineation
of capture zones) of the groundwater extraction systems.
6. Page 1-1, Section I.I, second paragraph, second sentence: I do not remember either EPA or
NCDENR concurring with the gist of this sentence, " ... groundwater pumping in any capacity
would not further the remedial objectives ... ".
7. Page 1-4, Section 1.2.2.4: A general question, is NSCC being required do to duplicative
effort to satisfy the needs of both CERCLA and RCRA? If so, please identify them so that
EPA and NCDENR can work with NSCC to resolve these duplicative efforts.
8. Page 2-1, Section 2.1.1, last paragraph, last sentence: Include the rationale as to why access
to extraction well EX-08 was not feasible.
9. Page 3-2, tables on this page and throughout the text: Further define the symbol"-" by
saying "the laboratory detection level can be found in the appropriate table in the Table
Section."
10. Page 3-3, Section 3.3, third paragraph: This paragraph first states that the combined
pumping rate for the collection trench is approximately 6 gallons per minute (gpm).
However, later in the paragraph it is stated that the pumping rate for the collection trench is
approximately 0.59 gpm. Why the discreptancy?
11. Table 3-1, SG-2: The text and this table state that stream gauge SG-2 was damaged. Was
SG-2 repaired? If not, why not?
12. Table 3-5: Does the data (i.e., analytical data for monitoring well NS-31) support or
contradict NSCC' s suppositions about the flow of groundwater in OU# I area of the facility
(i.e., the conceptual Site model)?
• • 3
13. Table 3-5, Page 3-14: What is the significance of the last "Note" (i.e., "Shading indicates
"E" qualified ... ").
14. Table 3-8, Page 1 of 3: Define "NA".
15. Table 3-13, Page 3 of 12: Are monitoring wells NS-35, NS-36, and NS-47 upgradient of the
collection trench? If so, why aren't the elevated levels of contaminants being detected in
these monitoring wells being detected in the groundwater being withdrawn from the
collection trench. This relates back to General Comment #1.
All comments need to be addressed as soon as feasible. If you would like to discuss these
comments via a conference call, please allow several days prior notice so that Mr. Mattison and
myself can arrange our schedules accordingly. I can be contacted at 404-562-8820.
Enclosure (I)
Sincerely,
/4n K {3;(jvJ~--
~~-K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
I. September 4, 2002 Comments from NCDENR
cc: David Mattison, NCDENR (w/encl)
Mr. Jon K. Bomholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
•
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: 2001 Site Monitoring Report
•
September 4, 2002
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bomholm:
The Superfund Section and the Hazardous Waste Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) have reviewed the 2001 Site Monitoring
Report. The NC DENR offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone] extension 349.
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
cc: Ms. Daphne Olszewski, NC Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
· Mr. Jon Bornholm
September 4, 2002
Page I •
2001 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two
I. Please revise the table included in Section 1.2.1 to reflect the constituents of concern
(COCs) for Operable Units (OUs) I and 2 as given in Table 3-3.
Section 1.2.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring
2. Please revise the last sentence of Section 1.2.2.1 and the table included-in Section 1.2.2.1
to reflect the COCs for OU3 as given in Table 3-3.
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
3. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from extraction well EX-09 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000
-?g/L acetone (with no laboratory qualifiers).
4. Please delete the row for ethylbenzene in the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 as the
groundwater sample collected from extraction well EX-10 (as in all of the Trench Area
extraction and monitoring wells) in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained ethyl benzene at
concentrations less than the Performance Standard.
Section 3.2.2. 1 March 2002
5. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-54 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no
concentrations of tetrachloroethene. trichloroethene or vinyl chloride greater than their
respective Performance Standards.
6. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-13 in the I st Quarter of 2002
contained 72.6 ?g/L chromium.
7. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the . .
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-37 in the I st Quarter of 2002
contained 1280 ?g/L manganese.
• Mr. Jon Bornholm
September 4. 2002
Page 2 • •
Section 3.2.3.2 · February 2002
8. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.3.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-42 in February 2002 did not contain
· concentrations of methyiene chloride in excess of the Performance Standard.
Table 3-4 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to
Performance Standards
9. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
extraction wclltX-04 in the_l st Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for semivolatile .o.rganic
compounds (SVOCs) with a dilution factor of 1.
10. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-29 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of bromodichlornmethane at a laboratory detection limit of 100 micrograms per liter
(?g/L).
e
11. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of acetone at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
Table 3-5 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Plume Periphery Extraction and
Monitoring Wells
12. Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-29 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of bromodichloromethane at a laboratory detection limit of 100 ?g/L.
13. Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of acetone at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
Table 3-8 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to
Performance Standards
14. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
extraction well EX-05 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained 350,000 ?g/L
1,2-dichloroethane (with a "E" laboratory qualifier).
Mr. Jon Bornholrn
September 4, 2002
Page 3 • •
15. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
extraction well EX-07 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of beryllium at a laboratory detection limit of 0.63 ?g/L (with a "B'" and a "J" laboratory
qualifier).
I 6. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
extraction well EX-09 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000-?g/L acetone (with no
laboratory qualifiers).
17. Please correct Table 3-8 t~Lndicate that the groundwater sample collect~_from ..
monitoring well NS-15 in the 1st Quarter of2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of toluene at a laboratory detection limit of 0.77 ?g/L (with a 'T' laboratory qualifier).
Table 3-9 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Trench Area Extraction and
Monitoring Wells
18. Please correct Table 3-9 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
extraction well EX-09 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained 30,000-?g/L acetone (with no
laboratory qualifiers).
Table 3-12 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance
Standards
19. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-4lin the I st Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of l.
20. Pl~ase correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-45in the I st Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of 1.
21. Please revise Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
· monitoring well NS-42 in the I st Quarter of 2002 and analyzed for manganese ~nd --
thallium content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2.
22. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of antimony at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
23. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample and the diluted
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-53 in the I st Quarter of 2002
were collected on March 13, 2002.
Mr. Jon Bornholm
September 4, 2002
Page 4 • •
Table 3-15 Historical Analytical Results -Metals, OU3 Extraction and Monitoring
Wells
24. Please correct Table 3-I 5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of antimony at a laboratory detection limit of 10 ?g/L.
Table 3-16 Comparison of RCRA Analytical Results to Class GA Groundwater
Standards, July 2002
2i_ Please correct Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained 130-?g/L acetone (with a
"J" and a "B" laboratory qualifier).
26. Please correct Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of toluene at a laboratory detection limit of 15 ?g/L (and no laboratory qualifiers).
27. Please revise Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells NS-33, NS-39, NS-42, NS-90 and NS-49 in the I st Quarter of 2002 and
analyzed for zinc content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2.
;; North Carolina
Department of Environrne.nd Natural
Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 11 th Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: 2001 Site Monitoring Report
FILE copf NA
September 4, 2002 NCDIEMR
National Starch and Chemical Company NPL Site
Salisbury, Rowan County, NC
Dear Mr. Bornholm:
The Superfund Section and the Hazardous Waste Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) have reviewed the 2001 Site Monitoring
Report. The NC DENR offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or
comments, please feel free to call me at [phone] extension 349.
Sincerely,
Dcwi.d. .5. ff/ati:;u.,,,.,j dk
David B. Mattison, CHMM
Environmental Engineer
Superfund Section
cc: Ms. Daphne Olszewski, NC Hazardous Waste Section
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: vvww.enr.state.nc.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY\ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/ 10% POST CONSUMER PAPER
... :-
Mr. Jon Bomholm
September 4, 2002
Page I
•
2001 SITE MONITORING REPORT
•
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY NPL SITE
Section 1.2.1 Operable Units One and Two
I. Please revise the table included in Section 1.2.1 to reflect the constituents of concern
(COCs) for Operable Units (OUs) I and 2 as given in Table 3-3.
Section 1.2.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring
2. Please revise the last sentence of Section 1.2.2.1 and the table included in Section 1.2.2.1
to reflect the COCs for OU3 as given in Table 3-3.
Section 3.2.1.2 Trench Area Wells
3. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from extraction well EX-09 in the !st Quarter of2002 contained 30,000-
g/L acetone (with no laboratory qualifiers).
4. Please delete the row for ethylbenzene in the first table included in Section 3.2.1.2 as the
groundwater sample collected from extraction well EX-10 (as in all of the Trench Area
extraction and monitoring wells) in the I st Quarter of2002 contained ethylbenzene at
concentrations less than the Performance Standard.
Section 3.2.2.1 March 2002
5. Please correct the first table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well NS-54 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no
concentrations oftetrachloroethene, trichloroethene or vinyl chloride greater than their
respective Performance Standards.
6. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-13 in the I st Quarter of 2002
contained 72.6 g/L chromium.
7. Please correct the second table included in Section 3.2.2.1 to indicate that the
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-37 in the I st Quarter of2002
contained 1280 g/L manganese.
Mr. Jon Bomholm
September 4, 2002
Page2
• •
Section 3.2.3.2 February 2002
8. Please correct the table included in Section 3.2.3.2 to indicate that the groundwater
sample collected from monitoring well _NS-42 in February 2002 did not contain
concentrations of methylene chloride in excess of the Performance Standard.
Table 3-4 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Plume Periphery Wells to
Performance Standards
· 9. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
.well EX-04 in the !st Quarter of2002 was analyzed for semivolatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) with a dilution factor of 1.
I 0. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-29 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
ofbromodichloromethane at a laboratory detection limit of 100 micrograms per liter
( g/L).
11. Please correct Table 3-4 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of acetone at a laboratory detection limit of IO g/L.
Table 3-5 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Plume Periphery Extraction and
Monitoring Wells
12. Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-29 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
ofbromodichloromethane at a laboratory detection limit ofl00 g/L.
13. Please correct Table 3-5 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-30 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of acetone at a laboratory detection limit of IO g/L.
Table 3-8 Comparison of 2002 Analytical Results for Trench Area Wells to
Performance Standards
14. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-05 in the I st Quarter of 2002 contained 350,000 g/L 1,2-dichloroethane (with a
"E" laboratory qualifier).
Mr. Jon Bornholm
September 4, 2002
Page 3
• •
15. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-07 in the 1st Quarter of2002 contained no detectable concentrations of beryllium
at a laboratory detection limit of 0.63 g/L (with a "B" and a "J" laboratory qualifier).
16. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-09 in the I st Quarter of2002 contained 30,000-g/L acetone (with no
laboratory qualifiers).
17. Please correct Table 3-8 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-15 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of toluene at a laboratory detection limit of 0. 77 g/L (with a "J" laboratory qualifier).
Table 3-9 Historical Analytical Results -VOCs, Trench Area Extraction and
Monitoring Wells
18. Please correct Table 3-9 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from extraction
well EX-09 in the 1st Quarter of2002 contained 30,000-g/L acetone (with no
laboratory qualifiers).
Table 3-12 Comparison of2002 Analytical Results for OU3 Wells to Performance
Standards
19. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-41 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of I.
20. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-45in the 1st Quarter of2002 was analyzed for metals with a dilution
factor of I.
21. Please revise Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring well NS-42 in the I st Quarter of 2002 and analyzed for manganese and
thallium content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2.
22. Please correct Table 3-I 2 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of antimony at a laboratory detection limit of IO g/L.
23. Please correct Table 3-12 to indicate that the groundwater sample and the diluted
groundwater sample collected from monitoring well NS-53 in the I st Quarter of 2002
were collected on March 13, 2002.
..
. , .
Mr. Jon Bornholm
September 4, 2002
Page4
• •
Table 3-15 Historical Analytical Results -Metals, OU3 Extraction and Monitoring
Wells
24. Please correct Table 3-15 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of antimony at a laboratory detection limit of IO g/L.
Table 3-16 Comparison of RCRA Analytical Results to Class GA Groundwater
Standards, July 2002
25. Please correct Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the !st Quarterof2002 contained 130-g/L acetone (with a
"J" and a "B" laboratory qualifier).
26. Please correct Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater sample collected from
monitoring well NS-49 in the 1st Quarter of 2002 contained no detectable concentrations
of toluene at a laboratory detection limit of 15 g/L (and no laboratory qualifiers).
27. Please revise Table 3-16 to indicate that the groundwater samples collected from
monitoring wells NS-33, NS-39, NS-42, NS-90 and NS-49 in the 1st Quarter of2002 and
analyzed for zinc content were analyzed with a dilution factor of 2 .
4WD-NSMB
• • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
August 8, 2002
Mr. David Mattison
I' :.\\i
' 'I I
AUG 9 2002 / / North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural Resources/Superfund Section
Suite 150
. -/ I
I
40 I Oberlin Road
Raleigh, NC 27605
.. ' ' . ' . \ l•·,, ' . I 'I :.J,. I , .J
SUBJ: Request to Review 200 I Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical
Company Superfund Site
Dear Mr. Mattison:
Enclosed for the State's review and Site file are two copies of the above referenced
document, dated August 2002. Please review this document.
The Agency would appreciate receiving the State's comments by Thursday, September 5,
2002. If the State is unable to provide comments/approval by this date, please inform the Agency
as to when a response can be ex peeled.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 404-562-8820.
Enclosure( I)
Sincerely,
f K 0~ ~
Jon K. Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
I. 2001 Site Monitoring Report for the National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site