DEQ-CFW_00034656

E
E
FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
DUPONT - FAYETTEVILLE WORKS
Preparedfor
22828 NC Highway 87 W
Fayetteville, NC 28306
Di' 368 642-RI
Date: June 30, 2006 DuPont Project No.: 5044(m
I&,
Im
CORPORATE RETMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and URS Corporation -North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
DEQ-CFW-00034656

Fayetteville APFO Investgation Report
1.0 Introduction ............................... ................................................................................. l
l.l Investigation Purpose and —..---.-----------..--.—..}
1.2 Report Layout ------.-------.-------.------------]
2.0 B----'----'--------------------------~--'2
2.1 Facility _........ ^...................... .......................................................... 2
2.2 Regulatory Information and Program Status ............. ....................... ................ 2
2.3 Historical Site Conceptual Model ...................................................................... 3
2.].} Physical Setting .................................................................................... 3
2.3.2 Site Setting ........................................................................................... 4
3J0Investigation Approach ..... ............................ ............................................................ h
3.1
Investigation Purpose and (lhjectives,^..................... ....................................... 6
3.2
Investigation Activities .--------.---------.~---..7
3.2.1 RE Work Plan JTivestigation Activities ............................... ............... 7
3.2.2 Additional Investigation Activities. .... ............................................... g
3.3
Methodology —.....--.---.—...—.-------.-----.-----.l1
3.3.1 General Field Procedures ................................................................... ]l
3.3.2 In -situ Groundwater Installation and Sampling -------.--.-,l2
3.3.3 Monitoring Well Installation ..............................................................
13
3-3.4 Groundwater Sampling ------...----....-----..—....l4
3-3.5 Surface Water................................................ ........ ...........
16
3.3/6 Sediment Sampling ....... ......................................... ___ -....................
16
3.3.7 Soil .......... ......................................... ................................
16
3.3-8 Air Sampling .................. --................................ .........................
]7
3.3.9 InvestigationDerived Waste .............................. —.........................
8
3.4
Split ......... .......................................... .............................................
19
3.5
Deviations from the Phase lTR]pTWork Plan ..................................................
l9
4J0 Results 0f/QPF(l Investigation .---.—.—.----..---.----.-----...
21
4`1
(])otool Program .-----.---------.—..2l
4l1 Field --.-------..---.---------.----..2l
4`12 -----..................
/�l-� of QCFindings ....................... ................. '.......................
23
4.1.4 Air Resulfn—.--.-----.------....'--.
24
4.2
Analytical Screening Process ........ .................... .............................................
25
4.3
Analytical Results ............................................ ..................................... .........
26
4.3.1 Groundwater ^......^. ....................^..._ ............'.................................
26
4-3-2 Surface Water .................................................. ..................................
27
4.3.3 Soil ....................... ^...................... .................................................... ^..28
4.3'4 Sediment .............................................................................................
28
4.3-5 Air--...---.--^-----.---.—..--.—.------.—...
28
4.3.6 Split S—....------..---....--------.—~..--20

Fayetteville APFO Investigafion Report
5.0 Revised Conceptual Site Model ................................................................................
30
5.1
Physical Setting ................................................................................................
30
5.1.1 Topography .........................................................................................
30
5.1.2 Lithology ........................ ...................... ......................................
30
5.1.3 Hydrogeology .....................................................................................
31
5.1.4 Cape Fear River .......... ......... --- .............................. .........................
33
5.1.5 Wind Speed and Direction ............................................. ...................
33
5.2
Identification and Characterization of Potential Source Areas ........................33
5.2.1 North/Soutb Sediment Basins ............................................................33
5.2.2 Nafion@ Area .... ................................................................................
34
5.2.3 APFO Manufacturing Area ............................ ...................................
34
5.3
Identification of Potential Receptors and Exposure Points ..............................36
5.3.1 Exposure Pathways .............................................................................
36
5.3.2 Potential Receptors ............................ ................................................
37
5.3.3 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways ..........................................38
5.3.4 Incomplete Exposure Pathways ..........................................................39
5.4
Risk Evaluation ........................................................................................... ....
40
5.4.1 Groundwater .......................................................................................
40
5.4.2 Surface Water .....................................................................................
40
5.4.3 Air ................................................................................ I ......................
41
5.4.4 Soil and Sediment ............................................. - ........................
41
6.0 Conclusions,
Recommendations And Path Forward ................................................43
6.1
Conclusions ................... ............................. ....................................................
43
6.2
Recommendations and Path Forward ......... ....................................................
45
6.2.1 Recommendations ..............................................................................
45
6.2.2 Path Forward ............................ ................... - .... ... .....................
A6
7.0 References .............................. ................... ......... .................... ............................... 47
Table I c
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
TABLES
Field Parameters for June/July 2005 Sampling Event
Field Parameters for September, October, November, and December 2005
Sampling Events
Field Parameters for January/February 2006 Sampling Event
APFO Groundwater Results
APFO Surface Water Results
APFO Soil/Sediment Results
Ambient Air Sampling Summary
Ambient Air Results for OVS Tubes
Ambient Air Results for HVS
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NCF
DEQ-CFW-00034658

Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
Table 8 Summary of Particle Size Characteristics
Table 9 Split Sampling Data
FIGURES
Figure I
Site Location Map
Figure 2
Site Layout Map
Figure 3
Perched Zone Potentiometric Map
Figure 4
Sample Location Map
Figure 5
APFO Surface Water Analytical Results Map
Figure 6
APFO Cape Fear River Surface Water Analytical Results Map
Figure 7
APFO Soil Sample Analytical Results Map
Figure 8
APFO Sediment Sample Analytical Results Map
Figure 9
APFO Drinking Water Sample Analytical Results Map
Figure 10
Air Sample Location Map
Figure 11
APFO Groundwater Analytical Results Map — June/July 2005
Figure 12
APFO Groundwater Analytical Results Map
September/October/November/December 2005
Figure 13
APFO Groundwater Analytical Results Map — January/February 2006
Figure 14
West -East Schematic Subsurface Conceptual Cross -Section Illustration
Figure 15
APFO Manufacturing Area West -East Schematic Subsurface Conceptual
Cross -Section Illustration
Figure 16
North -South Schematic Subsurface Conceptual Cross -Section Illustration
Figure 17
Wind Rose Events I and 2
Figure 18
Wind Rose Event Onsite
Figure 19
Conceptual Exposure Model
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2 Air Sampling Field Logs
Attachment 3 EPA Split Sampling Report
Attachment 4 Laboratory Analytical Data Sheets
ff
DEQ-CFW-00034659

1.0 INTRODUCTION
E.I. du Pont de Nemours. and Company (DuPont) has been voluntarily collecting monitoring dat2
related to the presence of ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) at the DuPont - Fayetteville
Works facility (Figure 1) since 2003. Analytical data collected as part of the Work Plan is
The intention of this report is to present the data collected, to provide a summary of the
investigation findings to date, and to propose recommendations for additional actions, as
appropriate. Although APFO is not a regulated substance under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), this voluntary sampling effort is being coordinated with the RCRA
Corrective Action investigations at the site.
The objective of the APFO investigation at the Fayetteville Works site is to identify the presence
of APFO in various environmental media for the purpose of understanding the potential
source(s) of, and exposure to, any identified releases. To date DuPont has collected over 98
groundwater, 9 water supply, 29 surface water, 11 soil, 2 sediment, and 30 air samples for this
1.2 Report Layout
The purpose of the Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report is to present the technical approach
and procedures used during the investigation, discuss the results of analytical data and evaluate
the significance of the results. This document also includes recommendations for further
investigation where waTranted. The Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report is organized into
the following seven sections:
u Section 2.0 provides a brief summary of site operations, regulatory information, and the
historical site conceptual model (SCM).
U Section 4.0 presents the data screening process and the laboratory analytical results
(including QA/QC sample results).
1:1 Section 5.0 discusses the revised Site Conceptual Model (SCM) as it pertains to the
significance of the results, potential source areas and potential risk, if any, to potential
• Section 6.0 presents the conclusions and recommendations, identification of data gaps, and a
discussion of further investigation needs, where warranted.
• Section 7.0 presents the references used in this report.
Charlotte, NC
------ ------

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Background
0 2.0 BACKGROUNT
0 11 - - I . 0 -
2.1 Facility Operations
The DuPont -
Fayetteville Works (Figure 2) consists of five main manufacturing areas
and two support areas as described below:
Butaciteg
U Manufactures Butaciteg polyvinyl butyral sheeting and polyvinyl
butyral resin for automotive and architectural safety glass.
Nafiong
Q Manufactures Nafiong fluorocarbon membrane for the
chloroalkaline industry and fuel cells.
C) Manufactures fluorocarbon intermediates for NafionS membrane,
Teflong resin, and Vitong elastomers.
PMDF
U Manufactures Fluorinated Ethylene Propylene (PEP)
fluoropolymer resin for electrical wiring insulation and other
applications.
[Note: This unit does not use APFO in its process]
SentryGlas@
Q Manufactures SentryGlasg Plus structural interlayer for
Plus
architectural safety glass (previous location of the now defunct
Dymetrol& nylon strapping facility).
APFO
u Manufactures Ammonium Perfluorooctailoate (APFO) for use in
fluoropolyrner manufacture.
Power
Q Produces steam via oil -fired boilers for the facility's
manufacturing areas as well as comfort heating for employees.
Q Produces process water and demineralized water from raw river
water.
Wastewater El Treats process wastewater and sanitary wastewater prior to
Treatment discharge to the Cape Fear River.
2.2 Regulatory Information and Program Status
APFO is not a regulated compound either by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or by NCDENR. However, in March 2003, the DuPont Company and other
fluoropolymer manufacturers entered into a voluntary agreement with the EPA through a
Letter of Intent (LOI) which provided for certain monitoring and reporting for APFO
users and manufactures. In addition, in January 2003, DuPont conducted groundwater
and surface water sampling just after the October 2002 start up of the APFO
APFO ReporLfinal Jun. 29, 06 2
Chadotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034661

FAYEWEVILLE "FO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Background
manufacturing unit. The results of the January 2003 sampling were consistent with tht.
LOI commitments and have been reported to the N.C. Division of Waste Management of
NCDENR. Based on the presence of APFO in this initial monitoring in the vicinity of
the Nafion@ production area, DuPont initiated a broader, voluntary investigation to
determine the nature and extent of APFO presence on the site. Efforts associated with
this voluntary investigation were communicated and coordinated with representatives of
the Division of Waste Management. As the scope of the investigation expanded, DuPont
and DENR acknowledged that, although APFO is not a RCRA regulated compound, it
would be appropriate to conduct any additional investigatory activities in coordination
with the RCRA Corrective Action Program. As such, the Phase II RFI Work Plan and
associated Addendum and Update specified under the RCRA permit included activities to
gather additional APFO data.
2.3 Historical Site Conceptual Model
the chemical and physical characteristics of a site in order to focus investigation efforts
and remedial decision making.
A conceptual model of a site, as defined by the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM) (E 16 8 9-95), may include the following information: identification of
potential contaminants; identification and characterization of source(s) of contamination;
deten-nination of potential migration pathways through environmental media such as
groundwater, surface water, soils, and air; establishment of background areas;
identification and characterization of potential environmental receptors (human and
ecological); and determination of the limits of the study area or system boundary. In
summary, it describes the physical/chemical environmental status of a site at a particular
time in its history.
This section of the APFO Investigation Report presents a summary of the broader SCM
ft,ertaining to the entire DuPont - Fayetteville Works facility that had been developed
based on previous investigations. An updated SCM, included in Section 5.0 of this report
1crovides additional site -wide information and a more detailed discussion of the APFO
manufacturing area based on data collected as part of the Phase II RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI)
HUUNUSEZM&�a
FWuPont owns and operates the DuPont - Fayetteville Works facility located in Duart
Township, Bladen County, North Carolina. The facility is located 15 miles southeast of
the city of Fayetteville on NC Highway 87, along the Bladen-Cumberland county line
(Figure 1). The geographic location of the facility is 34'50'30" North latitude, 78'50'00"
West longitude.
The DuPont property was originally purchased as parcels from several families in 1969.
The first manufacturing area of the Fayetteville Works was constructed in the early
1970s. The facility is currently a manufacturer of plastic sheeting, fluorochemicals,
APFO Reportfinal Jun. 29, 06 3
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034662

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Background
ammonium perfluorooctanoate (APFO) and interinediates for plastics manufacturing. A
former manufacturing area, which was divested in 2002, produced nylon strapping and
Elastomeric Tape.
The site contains 2,177 acres of relatively flat undeveloped open land and woodland
bounded on the east by the Cape Fear River, NC Highway 87 on the west, and
undeveloped property and residences to the north and farmland to the south. Figure 2
depicts the facility layout.
Regional Topography
The region is generally level to gently sloping. However, approaching the Cape Fear
River and its tributaries the slopes steepen.
IL =.Elmo Mlwoam��
The facility is located in the northwestern portion of Bladen County. Bladen County is
situated within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. The Coastal Plain consists of a
seaward thicking wedge of sedimentary deposits ranging in age from Cretaceous to
Recent. Palcozoic age metamorphic and igneous rocks underlie these deposits. In the
northern portion of Bladen County these "basement" rocks are approximately 400 feet
below the surface. A detailed description of the Coastal Plain sediments is presented in
the Confirmatory Sampling Report.
- �.O�"&tffiff:.JEJu
lenses of cross -bedded sand. The upper portion of the formation may also contain
glauconitic, fossiliferous clayey sand lenses.
The Black Creek Formation and surficial deposits are the principal aquifers in the
area. The layers of sand within the Black Creek Formation supply the groundwater
locally, especially for the larger wells. The surficial deposits in the site area provide
water for many small domestic wells.
Site Topography and Drainage
The Cape Fear River is located along the eastern property boundary of the facility
approximately 1850 feet from the eastern portion of the manufacturing area. Willis
Creek, a tributary of the Cape Fear River coincides with the northern property boundary
and is located approximately 3,000 feet from the manufacturing area. A drainage channel
leading to the Cape Fear River is located just south of the facility area and is used as the
outfall area covered by National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 4
Charlotte, NC7
DEQ-CFW-00034663

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Background
Permit Number NCO03573. Additional drainage channels leading to the Cape Fear River
have been observed between in the eastern portion of the property between the developed
portion of the site and the Cape Fear River.
The facility is located on a plateau at an approximate elevation of 150 feet above mean
sea level. The facility is situated approximately 70 feet above the 100 and 500-year flood
ff:lains and at least 1,000 feet from the 100-year flood plains nearest approach.
Site Geology
The soil at the facility falls within the Norfolk -Goldsboro -Raines general classification
(Soil Survey of Bladen County, 1990). The soils range from well to poorly drained and
have a sandy or loamy surface layer with loamy subsoil. These soils are located on old,
high stream terraces in the northern part of Bladen County.
Based on historical geotechnical boring logs and boring logs generated during the
Confirmatory Sampling Event, the Phase I RFI, and the Phase I Supplemental RFI, thre-
distinct soil layers were observed. The surficial layer consists of a brown to tannish,
silty, medium to fine grain sand that coarsens to medium grain well -sorted sand near it
base. The unit ranges in thickness from 15 to 18 feet. This sand layer is underlain by a
stiff gray to black lignatic clay layer. Based on previous investigation borings the clay
layxr ran-Ges fi­ . iately, 18 feet thick in the Nafion@ Area to less th three fe
thick in & central p"ortion of the manufacturing area. Beneath the clay layer is a silty
sand unit.
Site Hydrogeology
40 Two separate shallow saturated zones have been observed during previous investigations,
a perched saturated zone and a water table aquifer.
E
The facility intakes river water that is processed through a clarification system on -site to
remove river sediment. The saturated sediments are directed to the north/south sediment
basins located irmnediately west of the Nafion@ area (Figure 2). Water seeping through
the bottom of these sediment basins appears to have created a perched zone on top of the
clay layer underlying the site. The perched zone flows in a radial pattern from a
hydrologic high in the vicinity of the north/south sediment basins (Figure 3). The perched
zone was encountered from roximatel, our feet be s) in the y f
vicinity of the north/south sediment basins to a depth of approximately 20 feet bgs along
the edges of the perched zone to the west of the holding ponds.
A separate regional water table aquifer was encountered approximately 45 to 50 feet
below the ground surface and below the clay layer that underlies a majority of the
manufacturing area. This aquifer flows in an easterly direction towards the Cape Fear
River.
APFO Report — final Jun. 29, 06 5
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034664

FAYETTEV11,11,E APFO INVESTIGATION MPORT
Investigation Approach
3.0 INVESTIGATION APPROACH]
DuPont has been conducting a voluntary investigation of APFO at the Fayetteville Works
facility since 2003. The approach utilized has evolved from the January 2003 sampling
of four strategically located groundwater monitor wells (SMW-01, SMW-02, NAF-01,
and MW- IS) and one surface water outfall (Outfall 002) into a more comprehensive,
RCRA permit -directed RFl approach. The Phase 11 RFl was initiated in late May 2005.
T� . ectio-ii dysctbes the activities conducted as nart of Favetteville APFO investigation.
As part of this investigation, both the NCDENR and US EPA Region IV indicated a
desire to conduct split sampling at select locations. At the request of NCDENR and US
EPA Region IV, DuPont split six public/private water supply samples, three groundwater
samples and two sediment samples during the January/February 2006 sampling effort.
As stated in Section 1. 1, the objective of the APF0 investigation at the Fayetteville
Works facility is to identify the presence of aF0 in various environmental media for t
purpose of understanding the potential source(s) of, and exposure to, any identified
releases. To help meet this objective, a dynamic, objective -driven investigation approac
is utilized. This investigation was completed in conjunction with ongoing RFI activities,
therefore some of the investigation objectives served a dual purpose under both I
Li Further characterize down gradient groundwater quality from historical releases from
the Nafiong area.
u Characterization of surface water quality in the channel located north/northeast of the
Nafion(D area.
Li Characterize surface water quality at the discharge point of two drainage channels
leading to the Cape Fear River.
• Characterize surface water quality in the Cape Fear River.
• Characterize soil and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the APFO manufacturing
area.
Fn addition to the above stated Work Plan objectives, several additional investigation
,?ctivities were conducted during the course of the APF0 investigation. These are also
i-iscussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2 below.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 6
Charlotte, Nd-
DEQ-CFW-00034665

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
3.2 Investigation Activities Completed
To accomplish the previously stated objectives presented in Section 3. 1, the activities
described below were completed during the A_PF0 Investigation. Section 3.3 presents a
detailed discussion of methodologies utilized while completing this investigation. The
results of these activities are discussed in Section 4O of this report. Figure 4 depicts the
locations of on -site sampling points during the course of the investigation.
Further characterization of down gradient groundwater quality from historical
releases from the Naflong area
Initial APFO sampling conducted in 2003 detected low levels of APFO in perched zon
monitor well NAF-0 I located in the Nafion(D area (Figure 4). Subsequent sampling of
n f
U trc
)31
other existing wells (NAF-02 through NAF-04) in the NafionO area indicated SWMU
(common sump) as a potential source for APFO. Toffirther understand potential sourc
and extent in the Nafion@ area, additional groundwater sampling was conducted. Fi
4 depicts the locations of sampling points associated with this objective. This addition
characterization effort was conducted in multiple steps and included:
u The installation of six monitor wells in the vicinity of the NafionO area to further
evaluate the groundwater quality of the perched zone above the underlying clay layer.
Monitor well NAF-06 was installed as a permanent replacement for temporary
piezometer PZ-2. A second monitor well (NAF-07) was installed as a down gradient
ID monitoring point to the north of piezometer PZ-6. A third monitor well (NAF- 11 A)
was installed across the drainage channel located to the northeast of the unit to
evaluate the potential for groundwater to flow under the drainage channel. The fourth
(NAF-08A) and fifth (NAF-09) down gradient shallow monitor wells were installed
to the southeast of the NafionO area. The sixth down gradient shallow monitor well
(NA-F- 10) was installed to the south of the NafionG area.
it The installation of two monitor wells to evaluate groundwater quality beneath the
clay layer and down gradient of the Nafion(D area. One monitor well (NAF- 11 B) was
paired with shallow monitor well NAF-1 1A located across the drainage channel to the
nortb/northeast of the unit. The second monitor well (NAF-08B) was paired with
shallow monitor well NAF-08A located to the southeast of the Naflong—art-,a.
• The installation of five monitor wells (LTW-01 through LTW-05) along the Cape
Fear River. The purpose of these wells was to provide down gradient groundwater
quality data to complete delineation requirements and assist in the site assessment.
• Collection of groundwater samples from newly installed monitor wells and existing
monitor wells and select piezometers. The following monitor wells were sampled for
APFO: LTW-0 1 through LTW-05, NAF-0 I through NAF- 11 B, PZ-04, PZ- 15, PZ- 16
and MW-7S. Monitor wells NAF-05A and NAF-05B are located within the Nafion(D
safety barricade zone and were sampled during facility shut down in the fourth
quarter of 2005.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 7
Charlotte, NO
DEQ-CFW-00034666

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
Characterization of surface water quality in the drainage channel north and
northeast of the Naflon@ area.
Perched zone groundwater flow in the vicinity of SWMU 6 (common sump) trends
toward the northeast. As discussed in previously submitted RFI Reports and RFI Work
Plans (See references in Section 7.0) the shallow groundwater is underlain by a dense
clay layer. Seepage faces have been observed along the drainage channel bank at the
location of an outcropping of the clay layer. This channel is located to the northeast,
down gradient of the Nafiong area (Figure 5). Surface water samples were collected to
determine the potential impacts on surface water in the channel from releases in the
NafionG area. The following surface water samples (sample locations are depicted on
Figure 5) were collected to meet this objective:
• Collection of four surface water samples (SW-01 through SW-04). Surface water
samples collected from these locations are believed to be influenced by groundwater
discharge to the channel.
• Collection of a surface water sample at an additional location (SW-05) along with
resampling the four original locations. Sample location SW-05 is located upstream of
the four initial sample locations.
Characterization of surface water quality at the discharge point of two drainage
channels leading to the Cape Fear River
To examine surface water quality entering the Cape Fear River, surface water samples
(SW-06 through SW-09) were collected from the locations of two drainage channel
confluences along the Cape Fear River and two tributaries to one of these channels.
These confluences were the only locations observed to discharge surface water directly to
the Cape Fear River down gradient of the facility. Surface water sampling points are
depicted on Figure 5.
Characterization of surface water quality in the Cape Fear River
To characterize water quality of the Cape Fear River, surface water samples were
collected at five locations. The surface water sample locations are depicted in Figure 6.
The first surface water sample (CFR-5) was collected approximately 33 miles upstream
of the DuPont facility. A second sample (CFR- 10) was collected at the intersection of
Interstate 95 and the Cape Fear River. This location is located upstream of the facility and
downstream of the City of Fayetteville. A third sample (CFR- 13) was collected from
Rockfish Creek which is a significant tributary of the Cape Fear River located upstream
of the facility. The forth sample (CFR- 14) was collected near DuPont's river water
intake. The fifth sample (CFR- 16) was collected downstream of the facility's permitted
wastewater discharge point to the Cape Fear River.
Evaluate soil and groundwater quality in the immediate vicinity of the APFO
manufacturing facility,
soil
To evaluate potential impacts to surface soil in the immediate vicinity of the APFO
manufacturing area, eight surface soil samples were collected (locations A through
0 Soil-001 and S-501) as depicted in Figure 7. 11
APFO Report —final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NC
0
DEQ-CFW-00034667

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
Groundwater
1qW To evaluate the potential impacts to groundwater in the vicinity of the APFO
manufacturing area the following activities were conducted.
u Installation of four monitor wells (SMW-05 through SMW-08) immediately
surrounding the APFO facility (Figure 4). Given the local hydrogeology (e.g.,
relatively flat, minimal saturated thickness, etc.) it was determined the best approach
to meet this objective was to encompass the APFO facility with the monitor wells and
to try to capture the first evidence of groundwater. The depth of the installed wells
corresponded to top of the clay layer that underlies the site. If the clay layer was not
encountered during boring advancement, the monitor well was terminated at what
appeared to be the first evidence of groundwater.
❑ Installation of four monitor wells (SMW-02B, SMW-03, SMW-04A and SMW-04B)
to the north and northeast of the APFO manufacturing building (Figure 4). Monitor
wells SWM-03 and SWM-04A were installed to gather additional information to the
north of APFO. These wells were installed above the clay layer underlying the area.
Monitor wells SMW-02B and SMW-04B were completed beneath the underlying
clay layer.
❑ Installation of piezometer SMW-05P adjacent to SMW-05 to evaluate groundwater
quality beneath the clay layer (Figure 4). SMW-05 had exhibited relatively elevated
APFO concentrations therefore this well was installed to evaluate groundwater
quality beneath this location.
❑ Collection of groundwater samples from newly installed monitor wells as well as
existing piezometer PZ-12.
Characterization of groundwater quality to the north and northwest of the
APFO facility
To further examine groundwater quality to the north and northwest of the APFO facility,
in -situ groundwater samples were collected at discrete intervals at two locations (Insitu
#1 and Insitu #2) in order to profile the surficial aquifer. The locations of these sampling
points are depicted in Figure 4. Based on lithologic logs generated as part of
implementing this task, two saturated zones were observed- the surficial saturated zone
and the lower saturated zone (encountered at a depth of approximately 75 feet bgs).
At each location one in -situ sample was collected from the shallow groundwater zone by
installing a temporary piezometer. At location Insitu #2 a second in -situ sample was
collected from the lower saturated zone encountered at a depth of 76 feet bgs. An attempt
was also made at location Insitu #1 to collect an in -situ sample from the lower saturated
zone. However, drill rig limitations did not allow sufficient depth to be reached.
3.2.2 Additional Investigation Activities
The following activities were completed in addition to activities outlined in the approved
Phase II Work Plan and associated Addendum and Update.
❑ To evaluate the potential impact of the north/south sediment basins and the non -
contact, once -through cooling water ditch in the Nafion@ area on groundwater
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NC
M.
DEQ-CFW-00034668

• INVESTIGATION ItEPORT
InvestigationApproach
quality, samples were collected from three locations: RW-0 I (river water clarifier
sample port), RW-02 (overflow pipe in the south sediment basin), and NR-01 (non -
contact, once -through cooling water ditch near the Nafion@ area). Figure 5 depicts
the locationsof R
■ At • of It sediment !I^s were collected from two locations
(adjacent to surface water locations SW-06 and down gradient of Outfall 002) as
depicted in Figure 8. The sediment• i• was collected from the drainage
channel immediately upstream of the confluence between the drainage channel and
the Cape Fear River. The sedimentsample from Outfall 002 was collected from
area downstream of the Outfall 002 surface water sampling location and upstream of
confluencethe of discharge channel and the Cape Fear River.
• During installation of piezometer SMW-05P, three soil samples were collected to
evaluate the potential for APFO to migrate through the clay layer underlying the area
(Figure 7). One sample was collected from the foot of soil directly above the clay
layer r 1• R • soil sample was collected from the first foot
clay layer (17-18 feet bgs), and the third sample was collected from the last foot of
clay at ` bottom of the clay layer (19-20 feet •+
• Collection of three water samples from off -site private water supply wells (Figure 9).
ii At the request of NCDENR and US EPA Region IV, split was conducted at
` • •: • • 1 a 1 f4Yand 04C
throughtwo sediment sample locations (SW-0,6/SEDOI and Outfall 002 SED); one surface
water sample location (Outfall 002); and six water supply well samples (PW-01
' f r -
u To better understand sources of APFO to air and the presence of APFO in soil and
groundwater, DuPont is conducting a three -phased investigation to evaluate current
APF0 air concentrations at the site. Air sampling locations are depicted on Figure
10. The three -phased approach consists of the following:
Phase 1: Air samples from Fayetteville were collected to characterize APFJOin
ambient air during two campaigns at perimeter locations surrounding the
operating APFO stack and at upwind and downwind locations. This phase of t
air sampling approach was completed over two events. Each event correspond
to a manufacturing cam�iai and involved the collection of air samrs-le
(1) a sorbent tube method foTmeasuring particulate and vapor phases and (2) a
high volume impactor to evaluate the particle size distribution of APFO and
achieve a lower limit for ambient air concentrations. Information collected via
these two methods allows for a more detailed understanding of the APFO
partitioning and particle
• Phase 2. Sampling of the APFO stack and process vents during 2 manufacturing
campaigns. This phase of the air -sampling program is pending implementation.
• Phase 3: Modeling of potential air deposition rates to groundwater, assuming
detection of APFO during stack sampling. This phase of the air -sampling program
is pending implementation.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 1
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW 00034669

FAYETrEVMLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
3.3 Methodology
This section provides a discussion of the methodology used to accomplish the tasks
perfon-ned as part of the APFO investigation at the DuPont - Fayetteville Works facility.
The tasks included installation and sampling of in -situ groundwater monitoring points,
installation of monitoring wells, collection of groundwater and surface water samples,
collection of sediment samples, collection of surface and subsurface soil samples, and
collection of air samples. Deviations from the work plan are discussed in the relative
portion of Section 3.5.
UKAW I =94FU =I. I
Field meters used during sampling [photo ionization detector (PID) or organic vapor
analyzer (OVA), pH, conductivity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen meters] were
checked daily for calibration consistent with the manufacturer -recommended procedure
PIDs were utilized during the investigation to monitor the breathing zone of volatile
compounds during well installation efforts. Conductivity, pH, temperature and dissolve
oxygen meters were utilized during the groundwater sampling events to determine when
stagnate groundwater within the sampling point had been purged and groundwater from
L
the swounding saturated zone was entering the sample tubing. If any meter exhibited
unacceptable error (according to manufacturer specifications), it was recalibrated. If aft
Aft recalibration, the meter still exhibited unacceptable error, it was replaced. All field
equipment was supplied and maintained by a manufacturer -certified supplier.
The static water level (SWL) in a well was measured with an electric water level
indicator. The SWL was measured from a scribed mark at the top of the well casing.
Decontamination Procedures
Field equipment was decontaminated in the following manner:
• Tap water rinse;
0 Scrub with tap water containing non -phosphate detergent;
• Tap water rinse;
EI De -ionized water rinse;
El Air dry
Disposable equipment such as bailers and sampler liners were not reused.
All drilling equipment (i.e., hollow stem augers, Geoprobeg rods) was decontaminated
by steam cleaning prior to use at each sample location. Decontamination activities were
performed over a temporary pad for rinse water collection. This temporary pad was
located on -site in a staging area where extra drums and drilling equipment were stored.
Rinse water from decontamination activities was collected, drained into drums, and
labeled for appropriate waste management. During steam cleaning activities, drillers
were required to wear protective gloves, Tyvekg, and a face -shield.
APFO Repor-Lfnal Jun. 29, 06 11
Chadotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034670

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
Collection, Preservation, and Handling Samples
All media samples were collected into laboratory supplied sample containers using the
procedures specified in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) provided in the
approved DuPont - Fayetteville Works RCRA Phase 11 Investigation Work Plan dated
January 12, 2005. Plastic "bubble wrap", and or polystyrene foam was used to protect
samples during shipping. Wet ice was placed directly in contact with the sample
containers within a heavy-duty Polyethylene bag. Each individual sample container was
sealed according to laboratory specifications prior to being placed in the cooler. Clean
disposable gloves were worn during the handling of all samples and sampling devices.
6 ampic c"s Tia ice 11 ere-Tseci to 777
i - a coo emperatTre
(optimum 4'C ± 2'C) from the time of collection until the coolers am'ved at the
laboratory.
The custody of samples collected during the field investigation was traceable at all times
during sampling activities. Prior to dispatch of any samples, a chain -of -custody form was
completed by the field sample custodian. Sample locations, sample identification
numbers, description of samples, number of samples collected, and specific laboratory
analyses to be run on each sample were recorded on the chain -of -custody form. The field
sample custodian signed and dated the chain -of -custody form, and prior to presentation to
a registered courier, the sample -shipping container (cooler, box, etc.) was sealed with
signed chain -of -custody forms inside. The authorized laboratory custodian that received
the samples signed the chain -of -custody forms, thus terminating custody of the field
Aft sample custodian. Therefore, the chain -of -custody forms record possession of the
W samples from the time of collection until the samples were disposed of or archived at the
laboratory.
Field Quality Control Samples
Duplicates of groundwater samples (i.e., monitor wells) were obtained by alternately
filling sample containers ftom the same sampling device.
contamination. Equipment blanks (field rinsate blanks) were used to evaluate equipment
cleaning or decontamination procedures. At the sample location, analyte-free, organic -
free water was fcoured over or throu.4k the sarnfcle collection device.. collected in a sam-de
container, and preserved as appropriate. The field blanks consisted of sample containers
exposed to sampling conditions and filled with analyte-free organic -free water supplied
by the analytical laboratory. Trip blanks accompanied every shipping container that had
sample bottles specified for volatile analysis.
All blanks were handled, transported, and analyzed -in the same manner as the actual fielU
samples. The temperature of all the blanks was maintained at 4'C while on site and
during shipment. Holding times for individual parameters were dictated by the specific
analytical method used.
3.3.2 In -situ Groundwater Installation and Sampling
To collect in -situ groundwater samples from the surficial saturated zone at locations
Insitu #1 and Insitu. #2 temporary piezometers were installed. The temporary piezometers
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 12
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034671

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
consisted of a Y4-inch PVC pipe completed with a I 0-foot pre -packed screen that was
installed using direct -push technology. The temporary piezometers were installed to a
depth of bgs. The surficial saturated zone groundwater sam
collected using a stainless steel hand bailer and were analyzed for APFO.
• • • ':: 1 1 • - f • f f •
encountered at a depth of 76 feet bgs. Direct -push technology was used to advance a
PVC pipe with . five-foot - -t interval to .: depth of it feet.t • •'- rods
were then pulled up to 76 feet allowing the screen to be exposed to groundwater from 76
to 80 feet. A groundwater sample was collected from the screened interval using a
stainless steel hand bailer. This groundwater sample was also analyzed for APFO. After
the sample was collected, everything was removed from the borehole, and the hole was
grouted to the surface.
location hisitu 41. However, subsurface conditions (i.e. refusal) and did not allow
sufficient depth to be reached.
Attachment I contains the individual piezometer construction diagrams and associated
boring logs that show well screen intervals and describe subsurface lithology.
Monitoring L r 1<
During the investigation a total of 25 new monitoring wells were installed. The total
depth of the monitoring wells ranged from 15 feet to 60 feet bgs. Prior to well
Ak installation, soil samples were collected from each location for lithologic description at
mr two to four -foot continuous intervals using direct push technology (DPT). During
drilling, all borings were monitored with an organic vapor meter to assess the presence of
volatilevolatiles in the soil• •' Attachment I containsindividual
construction diagrams and associated boring logs that showand
describe subsurface lithology.
L'
track-
outer
diameter) • • -m augers. The monitor• 1 of
1 . 71 • f ' r 1 -r •
or stainless steel casing. The well screens were factory -slotted with 0.010-inch diameter
openings. ! fifteen feet in lengthand were set, depth
allowing.fI to be bracketed.
the boring was advanced below •'installed
grouted into place and allowed to harden for 24 hours. The boring was then advanced
through the outer casing using mud rotary technology to the determined depth. At the
termination depth, a 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or stainless steel screen
connected to flush joint PVC or stainless steel casing was installed. The well screens
were factory -slotted with 0.0 1 0-inch diameter openings and are ten feet in length.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 13
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW 00034672

FAYETTEVILLE "FO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
At each well, after the well screen was set in place, a filter pack was installed through the
is augers around the screened portion up to approximately two feet above the top of the
screen. The augers were then removed, and a minimum of two feet of bentonite seal was
placed above the filter pack. If the bentonite seal was placed above the water table,
approximately 5 — 10 gallons of potable water was added for hydration purposes. The
bentonite seal was allowed to hydrate prior to grouting the remainder of the hole to
ground surface. Attachment 1 contains monitoring well construction diagrams and
associated boning logs that show individual well screen intervals and describe subsurface
lithology.
11
The monitoring wells, most of which extend approximately three feet above ground
surface, were then completed with a protective steel casing with a hinged, lockable lid. A
two -by -two foot diameter concrete pad was constructed around the steel protective casing
and six-inch diameter, steel bollards filled with sand and capped with cement were placed
outside each comer of the square concrete pad (where needed). The bollards and
protective covers were painted yellow to increase visibility. One monitoring well (SMW-
07), which is located in a high -traffic area of the facility, was flush -mounted. Labels
were placed on all monitoring wells that identify the number, installation date, depth,
screened interval, and drilling contractor.
Newly installed monitoring wells were developed after • using •
pumping (with a WhaleO submersible pump), andJor surging techniques. This
development was perfonned to remove any fine materials in the producing zone and to
repair any potential damage to the formation created during the installation operation to
ensure good hydraulic communication with the aquifer. Monitoring wells were
developed until the purge water was as clear as possible. In several cases, the wells werl difficult to develop due to poor recharge, and it was necessary to introduce small amoun
of clean water into the well to facilitate development.
Upon completion of monitor well installation and development, the wells were accurately
surveyed for location and elevation control by a surveyor licensed in the State of North
Carolina. Horizontal locations were determined by direct measurement from physical
locations (i.e., benchmarks) at the facility. To reduce the effects of any chemical changes
caused by formation damage that occurs during any drilling operation, monitoring wells
were not sampled until at least 24 hours after installation and development.
3.3.4 Groundwater Sampling
Unfiltered groundwater samples were collected using low flow purging and sampling
methods from the newly installed monitoring wells, existing piezometers, and existing
monitoring wells (Figure 4). A peristaltic pump operating at low flow rates (not
exceeding 500 milliliters per minute) was used to purge each well except where noted.
Dedicated, disposable polyethylene and silicone tubing was used at each well location to
minimize the potential for cross -contamination. The standard procedure used for
obtaining groundwater samples from wells with a depth to water of less than 25 feet is
described below.
APFO Report — final Jun, 29,06 14
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034673

E
FAYETTEVH,LE A_PF0 INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
L) Chemically inert tubing was placed into the well water column within the
screened interval. This tubing was connected with flexible chemically inert
tubing to the peristaltic pump head.
U Water was then pumped from the well into a bottom -filling flow -through cell th
held the field parameter (turbidity, pH, D.O., temperature and conductivity)
probes. I
The water level was monitored to ensure no drawdown occurred during
purging/sample collection. A falling water column would indicate that water was
beMR removed from the well instead of the formation.
El Field parameters were recorded and monitored for stability. Stable was defined as
parameter measurements being within 10% of the previous measurement over a 5-
minute time interval or over the last well volume.
Ll Upon water level and field parameter stabilization, sample containers were filled
directly from the pump discharge tubing.
El To ensure a representative sample, the water intake position at the midpoint of the
screen interval remained constant throughout the sampling process. Sampling
flow rate did not exceed purging flow rate.
El If, during purging activities, the well went dry it was noted in the log. Samples
were collected as quickly as recharge would allow, within the following 24-hour
period.
U Both the down -hole tubing and flexible pump tubing were disposed of after
sampling each well.
TM
in wells with insufficient volume. Therefore, all wells that could not be sampled with a
peristaltic pump were purged and sampled with a disposable polyethylene bailer. The
wells were purged of three well volumes and sampled directly from the bailer. Field
1o,ararneters were recorded after each well volume.
One monitor well (SMW-05) was observed to be normally dry except after significant
rainfall. After significant rainfall occurred, the presence of water in the well was checked
on a regular basis. Once water appeared in the well, a sample was taken directly from the
well without purging due to the very low sample volume and limited recharge. Because
the well was dry prior to water entering the well screen and the sample was collected
immediately after water appeared in the well, the water collected from this monitor well
is believed to be representative of water quality in the immediate vicinity of the well
location.
The analytical laboratory supplied all necessary sample containers along with shippin
containers. All samples were shipped in coolers packed with wet ice to ensure
tem-Derature Dreservation reouirements we I inles viere,?.x2.1v7.cd for.lPF1
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 15
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034674

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION "PORT
Investigation Approach
3.3.5 Surface Water Sampling
The analytical laboratory supplied all necessary sample containers along with shipping
containers (coolers). All samples were shipped in coolers packed with wet ice to ensu
temperature preservation requirements were met. To ensure against cross-contommminati
between surface water sampling• !ns, the sampler collecting the surface water
samplesamples wore clean, disposable latex and/or nitrile gloves and changed gloves at every
•',.
On-she1 J 1
whereUnfiltered on -site surface water samples were collected either directly ftom a sampling
port/drain overflow (RW-0 land RW- 02) or by submerging the sample bottle below the
water surface. In areas bottles could not be ! +'• by • due to lack of
access, the laboratory -supplied sample bottles were attached to an "tension pole and
lowered into the water. If the flow and configuration of the surface water sampling
location did not allow for complete submersion, the sample bottle was submerged as
completely as possible. The sample bottles were then recapped, labeled, and placed in a
cooler of ice for shipment to the laboratory. All samples were analyzed for APFO.
Cape Fear River Sampling
Cape Fear River surface water samples were collected from the water surface at mid -
channel locations along the river. Surface water samples were analyzed for APFO. The
following procedure was used to collect surface water samples from each location along
the Cape Fear River.
❑ The sample bottle was submerged below the water surface, and the bottle cap was
unscrewed.
D The bottle was filled by turning the bottle parallel to the water surface and slowly
rotating so that the mouth of the bottle was upright. This procedure ensured that a
representative sample of the surface water body, excluding water from the surface
microlayer, was pulled into the sample bottle.
❑ The sample bottle was recapped under water, labeled, and placed in a cooler of ice
for shipment to the laboratory.
3.3.6 Sediment Sampling
samplesAt the request of NCDENR, two sediment samples were collected. The procedures for
collection of the sediment samples and the specific sample locations were mutually
established with NCDENR prior to collection. Each sediment sample was collected by
pyrex mixing bowl for homogenization- The homogenized sample was then transferred
to a laboratory -supplied sample collection bottle using the stainless steel spoon. All
_ analyzed for APFO.
Soil Sampling
Surface Soil
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 16
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW 00034675

FAYETTEVELLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
All surface soil samples were collected from a depth of zero to two feet below the ground
40 surface using a clean stainless -steel hand auger and were transferred directly to a stainless
steel mixing bowl for homogenization. If gravel was present in the sampling location this
gravel was removed prior to advancing the hand auger. The soil samples were then
transferred to laboratory -supplied collection bottles using stainless steel spoons. All
samples were analyzed for APFO.
Subsurface Soil
Subsurface soil samples were collected continuously via direct push technology for
logging purposes from ground surface to total depth of the all borings. The firstfilve fee
of each boring was collected with a hand auger in order to confirm the absence of any
underground utilities. Below five feet, soil samples were collected from borings using
Geoprobe@ techniques (utilizing a track- or truck -mounted
The Geoprob2' rig was equipped with stainless -steel rods (1.75-inch inner diameter) th
were either hydraulically pushed or hammered into the ground at two -foot to four -foot
intervals until the desired depth was reached. Soil samples were collected from each
interval into a four -foot long disposable acetate sleeve contained within the core barrel.
Once the sample was collected from the desired depth interval, the core barrel and
associated rods were removed from the borehole. The acetate sleeve was removed fro
the sample rod, and the sample was extracted by cutting along the length of the acetate
sleeve. Sample cores were scanned for the presence of organic vapors using an organic
vapor meter (OVM) equipped with a photo -ionization detector (PID).
Ask Individual subsurface soil samples were transferred from the acetate sleeve to laboratory -
supplied collection bottles using stainless steel spoons. All samples were analyzed for
APFO.
3.3.8 Air Sampling
Air sampling was conducted using two methods, a sorbent method and a high volume
impactor. The purpose of using two methodologies is to take advantage of the strengths
of each In order to improve the amount of information gathered from the field. The
sorbent tube method has the advantage of capturing particulate and vapor phases
separately and can therefore inform what phases are present in ambient air. The high
volume impactor is capable of operating at a higher sample rate, allowing more air
through the equipment in a 24-hour period, and thus achieving a lower detection limit
than the sorbe-wt tube -cie6a.
Sorbent Tube Method
In general, this method involves drawing ambient air through a medium while adsorbing
the analyte of concern onto that medium. The collected species are preserved and
shipped to a laboratory for analysis. The laboratory desorbs the analyte from the medium
and proceeds with analysis.
For collection and analysis of APFO, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) Versatile Sampling (OVS) tube was used, which is uniquely designed to
simultaneously capture aerosols and vapors. For Events I and 2, Supleco's ORBOTM 65P
OVS Fluoride Tube with glass fiber filter (Part Number 20029-tD was used. For Event
APFO Report - final Jun. 29, 06 17
Chartotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034676

FAYETrEVU,LE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
2, an additional OVS tube (catalogue # 226-58 from SKC, Inc., Eighty -Four,
Pennsylvania) was used in addition to the Supelco tube, to test any potential differences
in the two tubes. (The Supelco and SKC tubes were found to be essentially equivalent.)
f umps were requirea at eacti sampling location to proviae ai I P=ffne
Sample pumps capable of 500 niUminute to 1,500 mlJminute flow rate were used. Th
samplers were set to run at a nominal I liter per minute flow rate for a total volume of
1.44 cubic meters over a 24-hour sampling period. Pre and post calibration data were
recorded 'in sampling logs, included in Appendix 1. 1. Sampling equipment was mountle
on poles and covered as needed to provide protection from weather and other potential
damage. I
18282828 - ►1 11 - 1116EVIL411
High volume sampling equipment with a cascade impactor was located at each sampling
position, coincident with an OVS sample tube. This inertial classification device is most
often used for the determination of particle size fractions for ambient air. The ambient air
stream enters the sampler from the top and flows through a series of collection stages
fitted with cellulose filters that are designed to capture particles in a specific size range.
The sample flow exits the sampler from the bottom and proceeds through a flow
measurement device and tubing on its way to a high -capacity pump.
An impactor operates under the principle that if a stream of particle -laden air is directed
at a surface, particles of sufficient inertia will collect on the filter surface and the smaller
particles will follow the air streamlines and pass through to the next stage of the sampler.
Particles exiting the smallest impactor stage (less than approximately 0.3 microns in this
case) are collected on a back-up filter, which represents the final stage. Thus, particles
smaller than the final cut size are collected on a final back-up filter.
Equipment consisted of Tisch Model 235 High Volume Cascade Impactors. These
samplers have a 5 -stage impactor head attached to a high volume sampling pump.
Impactors were operated at a nominal flow rate of 40 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfm) over the 24-hour sampling period. The impactors were calibrated in accordance
with Reference Method for the Determination of Suspended Particulate Matter in the
Atmosphere (High -Volume Method), CFR 40 Part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1976 and
operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions (Tisch, 2004). In order to
distinguish APF0 collected in the sampler from other compounds and dusts, material at
each of the collection stages was analyzed separately to detennine the mass at each stage
or cut size. Thus, in addition to a total measured particulate concentration of APFO in
ambient air, an additional result was a particle size distribution from each sampling
location.
At each of the locations, flow rates and run time were recorded and calibrations were
performed to determine actual cut sizes and airflow during the sampling period. Field
logs are contained in Attachment 2.
Types of waste generated during the field investigation included soil cuttings, soil
macrocores, purge water, decontamination water, personal protective equipment (PPE),
APFO Report — final Jun. 29, 06 18
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034677

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
plastic sheeting, and plastic tubing. The management of all waste generated during the
field investigation was dictated by the Phase 11 RF1 Waste Management Plan (WMP).
Plastic sheeting and tubing, excess well casing and screen material, acetate soil liners,
PPE, and other non -contaminated waste were placed into large garbage bags and
deposited in on -site dumpsters. Decontamination and purge water was drummed and
stored for disposal as specified in the P. Purge water from monitoring wells was
containerized in 7-gallon portable containers prior to being transferred into 55-gallon
drums, Soil cuttings generated from auger drilling and excess soil macrocores generated
from Geoprobet activities were containerized in 55-gallon steel drums and stored for
disposal as specified in the WMP. Periodically, facility personnel moved drums from the
sample/well locations to the designated enclosed staging area.
All drums containing soil and groundwater were properly labeled according to the WMP.
Drums containing soil or purge/decon water that were generated during the investigation
were properly disposed of at a DuPont approved off -site disposal facility.
3.4 Split Sampling
At the request of NCDENR and US EPA Region IV, split sampling was conducted at
monitor well locations SMW-0 1, NAF-03, MW- I S, LTW-04 and SMW-04B; sediment
locations SW-06/SED01 and Outfall 002 SED; surface water sample location Outfall
002; and water supply well samples PW-01 through PW-06. DuPont Corporate
Remediation Group (CRG) representatives conducted the sampling. US EPA Region IV
Ah representatives supplied separate laboratory bottles and handed them to DuPont CRG
Mr representatives for filling at each sampling location. US EPA Region IV representatives
were present at each split sampling location. Sampling protocols as described in the
sections above were followed. A report from US EPA Region ry summarizing the
sampling effort is presented in Attachment 3.
C7
Deviations from the Phase 11 RF1 Work Plan and Addendum/Update are as follows:
a The Phase 11 RF1 Work Plan specified that all monitoring wells were to be
installed with ten to fifteen feet of 2-inch diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
screen connected to flush joint PVC casing. However, due to the very shallow
clay layer and water table, monitor well NAF-1 1A was installed with only five
feet of screen. In addition, eleven monitor wells (NAF-06, NAF-07, NAF-08A,
NAF-0813, NAF-09, NAF-10, NAF-1 IA, NAF-01 IB, SWM-03, SMW-04A, and
MW-1 1) were installed with 2-inch diameter stainless steel screen connected to
flush joint stainless steel casing.
U Two piezometers were installed along the Cape Fear River to evaluate vertical
hydraulic gradient adjacent to the river. The work plan specified that one of the
I
piezometers would be installed next to monitor well LTW-01. However, due to
I
drill rig limitations and the stiff clay underlying the area, piezometer
installed next to LTW-02 instead. I
[film noiUNKIL
W.
DEQ-CFW-00034678

FAYETTEVILLE • INVESTIGATION REPORT
Investigation Approach
U After installation of all new monitor wells, development was attempted using a
41 down -hole pump. However, minimal or no recharge prevented development of
• several wells could not be purged of bore volumes
8B, NAF-1 IA, and NAF-1 IB) it was also necessary to add potable water to aid in
development.
Therefore,1 1B, and SMW-08) were always dry at the time of the Phase 11 Investigation
sampling events and, as a result, no groundwater samples were collected from
them. In addition, three wells (NAF- 11 A, SMW-05 and SMW-06) had limited
groundwater volume and were only able to be sampled when water was present.
- wells were not• -fr as often as the other wells during the
. ., f ,
a During the Phase II Investigation, two of the wells that had limited groundwater
volume (SMW-05 and SMW-06) could not be purged before sampling. An
immediate grab sample was collected. The wells were then allowed to recharge
as much as possible and any additional groundwater was collected. Furthermore,
due to lack of volume, field parameters could not be collected from these wells.
To further examine groundwater quality to the north and northwest of • ''
facility, the work plan specified that two in -situ samples would be collected from
the lower saturated zone (approximately 75 feet below ground surface). However-,
due to drill rig limitationsand the stiff clay underlyingone of
samplescould not be collected.
was installed adjacent to monitor well SMW-05 to further evaluate groundwater
quality below the clay layer in the APFO area.
J The Phase 11 RFI Work Plan specified that all sample containers would be filled
using a new Teflong bailer. In order to prevent sample contamination and to
follow APFO sampling guidelines, samples were actually collected directly from
the chemically -inert pump tubing or with a new polyethylene bailer.
• While collecting surface water samples, it was not possible for bottles to be
completely submerged in all locations due to field conditions (accessibility, flow,
and depth). Therefore, as was specified in the RCRA Phase 11 Investigation Work
Plan Addendum (September 19, 2005), the field team determined the most
appropriate sampling method at each location.
• Upon arriving to sample the first monitor well (SMW-01) during the US EPA
Region IV split sampling, it was noted that the field team had not placed the pump
tubing intake at the center point of the screen interval. The problem was
corrected before sampling began.
Charlotte, NC
M
DEQ-CFW 00034679

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
This section presents the analytical results of the APFO investigation sampling efforts.
Analytical data are summarized in tables referenced in the text. Field parameters are
summarized in Tables I a, lb, and I c. Laboratory analytical data reports are presented in
their entirety in Attachment 4.
DuPont has collected over 98 groundwater, 9 water supply, 29 surface water, I I soil, 2
sediment, and 30 air samples for this investigation. With the exception of one monitoring
location, the on -site groundwater analytical results ranged from not detected to 6.5 parts
per billion (ppb). Off -site water supply well analytical results ranged from not detected
to 0.011 ppb. Surface water analytical results ranged from not quantifiable to 0.302 ppb.
Soil analytical results ranged from not detected to 49 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg).
APFO was not detected in collected sediment samples. Air analytical results ranged from
0.2 to 87.9 nanograms per meter cubed (ng/ni.3).
This section begins with a discussion of the QA/QC results and is followed by a
description of the screening process developed for the analytical data. A discussion of
the analytical results by media follows.
4.1 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program
The purpose of the RFI Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) Program was to
ensure that collected data were both representative and valid. Data Quality Objectives
(DQ0s) enable the decision -maker to assess the level of certainty that can be attributed t4
environmental measurements. The DQOs consist of comparability, accuracy, precision,
completeness, and representativeness.
UUMMLC1 i �
To ensure that the DQO for comparability was satisfied APFO sampling activities
followed the standard operating procedures described in Section 4.0 of the RCRA Phase
II Investigation Work Plan Addendum (September 19, 2005). Each sample was
documented at the time of collection by the investigator. The sample quantity, type
(composite or grab), and sample location were recorded in the field logbook.
MAN=-IM_ T t;4111ples, UI1kUI1-+1-2*LhUF4Lj 24777M ;;rrc MIMpictot ant Me wirprcT&
secured with a custody scal.
The quality and integrity of samples collected and analyzed during the investigation were
monitored by routine preparation of various QA/QC samples. Field program QA/QC
samples included field duplicate samples and field or equipment (rinsate) blanks,
typically collected at a frequency of one per day.
U DIMlicates - Duplicate samples ensure precision and comparability of results and
are collected in the same manner as routine analytical samples. By comparing the
results of the duplicate and the original sample, the precision of the analytical
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NC7
DEQ-CFW-00034680

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
method, sample matrix and collection technique can be evaluated. A total of 6
field duplicates were taken over the course of the investigation.
U Field/Equipment Rinsate Blanks — Field/equipment blanks address the DQOs of
accuracy and representativeness and are used to identify potential sources of
cross -contamination. At the sample location, analyte-free water or deionized
water was poured either directly into a new sample container (field blank) or
over/through the sample collection device and collected in a new sample
container (equipment blank), and preserved on ice. All blanks were handled,
transported, and analyzed in the same manner as the actual field samples. A tow
of 6 field blanks and 13 equipment blanks were collected over the course of the
investigation.
M
Samples collected during the investigation were analyzed for APFO using specific
fluorochemical characterization by liquid chromatography/ tandem mass spectrometry
(LC/MS/MS). Exygen Laboratories performed the analyses of all of the groundwater and
surface water samples collected during the investigation except for the initial
groundwater sample collected during the installation of SMW-05P. Severn Trent
Laboratories in Denver, Colorado performed the analyses of all of the soil and sediment
samples collected during the investigation and also of the initial groundwater sample
collected from SMW-05P.
Ah The labs reported results for PFOA and APFO for each sample. It should be noted that
Mr
the calibration standard measured at the instrument in all cases is perfluorooetanoic acid
(PFOA). The PFOA result obtained by the lab is mathematically converted to an APFO
result by multiplying the PFOA result by 1.041 (the ratio of the molecular weights of
APFO to PFOA).
01"Wit
FIRI M I -.W
Pirecision Oj Me file COMSr•I•
laboratory replicate result.
0 If both results are less than the practical quantitation limit (PQL, comparable to
the limit of quantitation or LOQ), the replicate sample for that analyte is
considered to have passed the precision criteria.
0 If one or both results are between one and five times the PQL, the replicate is
considered to have met the precision criteria if the two results differ by less than
the PQL.
0 If one result is less than the PQL and the other is not, and if the two results
differed by a value less than the PQL, the replicate is said to have met the
acceptance criteria.
® If both results are at least five times the PQL, the replicate is considered to have
met the criteria if the relative percent difference (RPD) between the two results is
less than or equal to 20%. The RPD is the absolute value of the difference of two
measurements divided by their average.
APFO Reportjnal Jun. 29, 06 22
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034681

FAYETTEVELLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
A& When the precision criteria outlined above were met, the lab reported the average of
field sample and lab replicate results reported by the laboratory. If criteria for precision
were exceeded, the lab reported the higher of the sample and lab replicate results.
Finally, when one result (from the sample/lab replicate pair) is above the PQL and one
below, the result that is above the PQL was reported.
Matrix spike (MS) samples were also analyzed on at least a batch basis. Results of the
MS analyses are used to assess accuracy. The maximum amount used to spike field
samples is 500 ug/L.
Extraction blanks were prepared and analyzed with every extraction batch of samples.
Instrument blanks in the form of clean methanol solvent were also analyzed after every
high-level calibration standard and after known high-level samples. In addition,
laboratory control samples were prepared by spiking milliq water with PFOA and were
analyzed with each extraction set.
an=
All samples were received by the lab intact and in good condition. The analytical meth
used was validated against a maximum holding •
time if 14 days in water samples. All
samples were analyzed within the required holding time with the exception of several
samples collected in January 2006 (because of shipping delays several samp
d odooles were
analyzeutsie•f the hlding time) and the sampR les collected from the Cape Fear■iv
in February 2006. It should be noted that the target compound (APFO) has shown 11
stability in water for periods greater than 90 days. Furthermore, due to matrix effects, P
04 was analyzed using a dual -labeled 13C Perfluorooetanoic Acid (PFOA-di- 13 Q as an
internal standard and alternate analysis conditions. No holding time has been establishe
for this method. I
Te instrimeir U Lt7ri
curve for the compound of interest at the beginning of each analytical sequence and
throughout the ran. For all results, calibration criteria were met. I
above the limit of detection (LOD, comparable to the method detection limit or N4DL).
For all samples, the extraction blanks and the instrument blanks are compliant.
The MS recovery value must fall between 70 to 130%, unless the sample concentration is
at least four times the amount spiked. All matrix spike recoveries were within the
acceptable range, expect for samples NAF-06 (collected on 06/16/05), SMW-05
(collected on 10/ 17/05), and PZ-04 (collected on 02/01/06). NAF-06 showed low matrix
spike recovery, even after re -extraction and reanalysis, confirming the presence of matrix
effects. Therefore, the result from NAF-06 is considered to be an estimated value and
has been flagged with a 'J.' SMW-05 had concentrations much higher than the spiking
Lei IFFt n. i go I
M]
DEQ-CFW-00034682

level, and therefore accurate recovery could not be obtained. There was insufficient
sample volume of SMW-05 to re -spike at a higher level. PZ-04 showed low recovery,
even after re -extraction and reanalysis, confirri-fing the presence of matrix effects. PZ-04
was analyzed using PFOA-di- I 3C as an internal standard and alternate analysis
conditions. The matrix spike recovery from this analysis was within the acceptable
range.
In addition, the relative percent differences (RPDs) between the laboratory sample
duplicate results for sample SMW-05P(17-18) (collected on 2/20/06) and S-B(O-2)
(collected on 10/12/05) were outside control limits indicating possible variability in the
sample.
Several samples collected during the Phase II RFI Investigation, including SMW-04B
and SMW-05 (both collected on 10117/05) and SMW-05P (collected on 2/22106),
rea uired dilution. In addition MW- 1 OD (co Meted on 06/20/05), NA-F-08B (collected on
1 1075 �,an on ., VPTFery viscous ana woulu not pass
through the SPE column. These samples were diluted 10 times prior to clean-up, and
therefore the LOD and limit of quantitation (LOQ, comparable to the practical
quantitation limit or PQL) are 10 times higher than for the other samples in the data sets.
Insitu #2-Deep (collected on 12/20/05) was very thick and did not separate with
centrifugation. The sample was diluted 10 times prior to extraction.
A review of the data reported by the labs indicates that all results have been generated in
compliance with the appropriate laboratory SOP, with few exceptions as noted above.
All data reported by the labs have been judged usable for the purposes of the project.
Raw QA/QC data can be found in Attachment 4.
4.1.4 Air Sampling QA/QC Results
No quantifiable APFO was reported in field or trip blanks for OVS tubes during Event I
or Event 2. Field and trip contamination is not considered a concern during either event.
WA&91�1�iS were us,,, 2 to
measurements. Co -located tubes showed duplicate measurements were within 2 ng/M3 at
each location, which confirms the repeatability of the measurements taken with OVS
tubes.
Field and trip blanks for HVS filters showed small amounts of APFO during each
sampling event. The largest mass found in any field blank (15.2 ng) was less than 5% of
the mass found at any sampling station. The largest mass found in any trip blank (0.76
ng) was less than I percent of the mass found at any sampling station. Based on the
small amount of material found in field and trip blanks, contamination of HVS samples is
not considered a concern.
Comparison of OVS Tube and HVS Results
Results for OVS tubes and HVS samples were comparable during Event 1; these results
differed by less than 3 ng/m3 at each station. Results were less comparable during Even)
M
DEQ-CFW-00034683

E
FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESUGATION RIEPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
2. While samples closest to the stack were reasonably well correlated, the two most
distant sample results (SMW-01 and 02) showed poor correlation between the two
methods. Samples taken by the HVS recorded APFO over 10 times greater than results
recorded in OVS tubes. Given the excellent correlation of the two methods during Event
1, this discrepancy is not easily explained. It is possible that the rain event that occurred
during Event 2 created problems with two of the tubes. However, because the sample air
flow of the HVS equipment is over 1000 times greater than the airflow in the OVS tube,
the HVS sample is considered the more reliable measurement value in cases where the
two methods do not agree, due to its larger sample size.
4.2 Analytical Screening Process
Concentrations of APFO in the various environmental media at the site were evaluated to
determine which observations would be carried forward for further consideration. As
stated in Section 1. 1, the objective of the APFO investigation at the site is to identify the
presence of APFO in various environmental media for the purpose of understanding the
potential source(s) of, and exposure to, any identified releases.
Ordinarily, data collected from a remedial investigation would be compared against some
form of health -based screening level, with only those observations that exceeded the
screening levels being carried forward in the analysis. However, in light of the objective
of this program, and given the fact that there are no established regulatory standards in
North Carolina or EPA Region IV against which to compare the analytical data, all of the
data points where APFO was observed above the practical quantification limits (PQLs)
for the respective media will be carried forward in the assessment. Such an approach is
consistent with the approach specified by the State of North Carolina, which requires
constituents that do not have established 2L (groundwater) or 2B (surface water)
standards to be automatically carried forward in the assessment.
The various PQLs for the environmental media that were analyzed for APFO at the
Fayetteville facility are shown in the table below. All measured concentrations above
these PQLs are carried forward for further consideration.
Media
Measurement Units
Practical Quantification
Limits
Soil
ug/kg (parts per billion)
2.1 3.3
Sediment
ug/kg (parts per billion)
3.3-4.0
On -Site
Groundwater
ug/l (part per billion)
0.0073 — 2.20
Off -Site Water
Suy Wells
ug/l (part per billion)
0.006 — 0.022
Surface Water
ug/l (part per billion
0.006 — 0.050
Air — OVS. Tube
Im
m
'
0.6
Air - HVS
m
g/rn;
_--pg/
0.2"
1. Lowest calculated PQL assuming I liter/min flowrate for 24-hour sampling period.
2. Lowest calculated PQL assuming 1132 liter/min (40 W/min) flowrate for 24 hour sampling period.
APFO Report — final Jun. 29, 06 25
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034684

FAYE=VELLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
0 4.3 Analytical Results
4.3.1 Groundwater
sampling events are presented in Attachment 4. The data presented below has been
screened as described in Section 4.2.
UTIMMIX
Upon installation of six new monitor wells, a groundwater -sampling event was
conducted. Eighteen monitoring wells were sampled in June 2005. Two monitoring
wells had already been sampled (in November 2004). All samples were analyzed for
APFO by EPA -validated method 01M-008-046. Groundwatcr results are presented on
Figure I I and summarized in Table 2.
September 2005
In early September 2005 one monitoring well (SMW-02) was sampled. The sample was
analyzed for APFO by EPA -validated method 01M-008-046. APFO was not detected in
this well above the practical quantitation limit. Groundwater results are presented on
Figure 12 and summarized in Table 2.
OctoberlNovember 2005
October 2005, a total of 19 monitoring wells and one piezometer were sampled. All
MW samples were analyzed for APFO by EPA -validated method 01M-008-046. Groundwater
results are presented on Figure 12 and summarized in Table 2.
In November 2005, two drinking water wells north and northwest of the plant and
monitoring well SMW-04B were sampled (Figure 12). All samples were analyzed for
APFO by EPA -validated method OIM-008-046. Groundwater results are presented on
Figure 12 and summarized in Table 2.
December 2005
conducted. A total of three monitoring wells and one piezometer around the APFO
north of the APFO manufacturing area were sampled. All samples were analyzed for
APFO by EPA -validated method OIM-008-046, Groundwater results are presented o
Figure 12 and summarized in Table 2.
Upon installation of five new downgradient monitor wells (LTW-0 1 through LTW-05),
the final Phase H RFI groundwater/surface water sampling event was conducted. A total
of 22 monitoring wells and four piezometers were sampled (Figure 13). Six public water
supply wells were also sampled (Figure 9). All samples were analyzed for APF0 by
Aft EPA -validated method OIM-008-046. In addition, a piezometer (SMW-05P) was
Nor installed below the clay layer adjacent to monitoring well SWM-05. A groundwater
sample was collected from the new piezometer in February 2006 and analyzed for APFO
1.
It-IF-11 n4imlo
M
DEQ-CFW-00034685

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
by EPA -validated method 4500-CN D. Groundwater results are presented on Figure 13
and summarized in Table 2.
Water l Supp , _X Well Samplin
Nine water supply wells have been sampled during the course of the APFO investigation.
All samples were analyzed for APFO by EPA -validated method 01M-008-046. Figure 9
depicts the sampling locations and the associated analytical results. Table 2 also presents
the analytical results. As presented in the referenced table, one sample (4328MLR)
contained APFO at a concentration of one part per trillion above the corresponding PQL
of 10 ppt. The corresponding split sample for this location was non -quantifiable for
APFO at a PQL of 22 ppt. As such, this detection of APFO above the PQL may not be
reproducible and is not considered significant.
EMR-40RMrf
Laboratory analytical data sheets for the surface water samples collected during the
below sampling events are presented in Attachment 4. The data presented below has been
screened as described in Section 4.2.
Qnsite-Surface Water Samples
June 2005
In June 2005 four surface water locations and a plant -permitted outfall (Outfall 002) were
sampled. All samples were analyzed for APFO by EPA -validated method 0IM-008-046.
Surface water results are presented on Figure 5 and summarized in Table 3.
September 2005
In early September 2005 another surface water sampling event was conducted. A total Of
six surface water locations were sampled. All samples were analyzed for APFO by EPA -
validated method 01M-008-046. Surface water results are presented on Figure 5 and
summarized in Table 3.
October/November 2005
In October 2005 five surface water locations were sampled. All samples were analyzed
for APFO by EPA -validated method 0IM-008-046. Surface water -results are presented
on Figure 5 and summarized in Table 3.
JanuarylFebruary 2006
In January/February 2006 five surface water locations and a plant -permitted outfal I
(Outfall 002) were sampled. All samples were analyzed for APFO by EPA -validated
method 0 1 M-008-046. Surface water results are presented on. Figure 5 and summarized in
Table 3.
Cape Fear River Sur ace Water Sam ples
In February 2006 four surface water locations within the Cape Fear River and one
location on Rockfish Creek were sampled. All samples were analyzed for APFO by
EPA -validated method 0 1 M-008-046. Surface water results are presented on Figure 6 and
summarized in Table 3.
APFO Report — final Jun. 29,06 27
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034686

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION ••
Results, of APFO Investigation
A— 4.3.3 Soil
49 Laboratory analytical data sheets for the soil samples collected during the below
sampling events are presented in Attachment 4. The data presented below has been
screened as described in Section 4.2.
Eight surface soil samples were collected during the investigation (Figure 7). Surface
J4 lil ii - g I -
6.0
IMMIN01" W-MAN 111 1 [.1115 r-Eld-M-41 I I I. K04"1401 In iJ$IU- I I I �-
MBMMMM���
2- M
MEN "Mm"t P"PR"WIT""M IMMIM" 1.
D. Subsurface soil results are presented on Figure 7 and in Table 4.
4.3.4 Sediment
4.3.5 Air
Sampling was conducted at six locations (Figure 10) during two separate events to
evaluate emissions from the site's two production campaigns, the Virgin and Purification
Campaigns. Table 5 summarizes the dates of ambient air sampling and the number of
samples collected.
Ambient air results for OVS tubes, expressed as • per cubic meter (ng/M3 ) are
• in Table 6. Raw analytical data for all air sampling are provided in
Attachment 4. OVS tubes consist of three fractions: fraction A is designed to capture
particulate, fraction B is designed to capture vapor, and fraction C is designed to capture
breakthrough from the second fraction. The laboratory reported separate analytical
results for each of the three fractions in a single OVS tube. Results were reported either
as a mass value above the Limit of Quantitation (LOQ), as ND (not detected above the
Limit of Detection (LOD) for a sample batch) or NQ (not quantifiable above the LOQ for
a sample batch). For cases where material was quantifiable in one or more tube fractions,
these values were added, converted into a concentration and presented in Table • 1n
these cases, if any other fraction in the tube was reported to be ND or NQ, no adjustment
was made to the concentration. Worksheets that include starting and ending pump
calibrations, runtime, and analytical information used in calculations are included in
Attachment 2. Worksheets also include concentrations expressed as both APFO and
PFOA, although for simplicity, Table 6 shows only APFO concentrations.
M
DEQ-CFW-00034687

FAYETTEVILLE APF0 INVESTIGATION REPORT
Results of APFO Investigation
HVS Results
Ambient air results for HVS, expressed as ng/m 3 are summarized in Table 7. Raw
analytical data for all air sampling are provided in Attachment 4. Worksheets that
include starting and ending pump calibrations, runtime and analytical information used in
calculations are included in Attachment 2. Worksheets also include concentrations
expressed as both APFO and PFOA, although for simplicity, Table 7 shows only APFO
concentrations.
Particle Size Distributions
At each of the six locations, the mass of APFO was determined for each size fraction in
the cascade impactor. This information was used to calculate a particle size distribution,
both as a weight fraction and as a cumulative distribution, for each event. Particle size
characteristics are summarized in terms of one and coarse fractions in Table 8.
Calculations for each station are included in Attachment 2.
UU319MMS13=Z
Data collected as part of this split sampling effort from both US EPA Region IV and
DuPont are presented in Table 9. This split sampling effort indicated very good
correlation between the data collected by DuPont and the US EPA Region IV.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 29
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034688

FAYETTEVILLE AFFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
REVISED CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL
This section provides a discussion of the significance of the data collected as part of the
APFO investigation with respect to the updated SCM and the stated investigation
objectives. Soil, groundwater, surface water and air infonnation, utilized to update the
SCM indicates there is no unacceptable exposure to the levels of APFO detected at the
site. To date, there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA (including
the ammonium salt, known as APFO). Based on health and toxicological studies
conducted by DuPont and other researchers, DuPont believes the weight of evidence
indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public.
5.1 Physical Setting
Figures 14 through 16 depict schematic subsurface cross-section illustrations of the
physical aspects (i.e. topography, lithology and hydirogeology) of the site conceptual
model. Figure 4 depicts the transect locations of the schematic cross -sections. This
illustration is provided as a pictorial representation of a complex system that is discussed
in the sections below. A three-dimensional graphical site model utilizing Environmental
Visualization Software (EVS) is currently being developed.
5.1.1 Topography
The overall facility topography is relatively flat within the developed portion of the site.
The topographic relief increases outside the developed area of the site towards the Cape
Fear River and towards Willis Creek to the north of the facility. Topographic relief from
the facility to the river is approximately 50 feet and approximately 40 feet from the
facility to Willis Creek.
Within the APFO manufacturing area, the topography is relatively flat. The surface area
in the immediate vicinity slopes slightly to the north. Storm water runoff in this area is
directed via the grade of the area to a shallow storm water channel located immediately
north of the APFO building. This shallow storm water channel directs storm water to a
shallow storm water basin located to the north of the APFO building (Figure 15). Storm
water within the basin is then believed to infiltrate into the underlying soil and/or
evaporate. The exact surface area around the APFO building that slopes towards this
storm water basin system is unknown.
5.1.2 Lithology
Based on the lithologic logs generated during investigations completed to date, the site is
underlain by a fine to medium grained sand unit with interbedded sill/clay lenses. This
unit is underlain by a stiff clay/clayey silt layer.
The depth to the top of the clay layer is approximately 15 to 18 feet below the ground
surface. The clay/clayey silt layer was observed across the developed portion of the sl
in 26 of 31 cone penetrometer (CPT) borings and 26 of 29 -monitor wells/piezometers
installed (note that piezometers PZ- 19 through 21 were not installed to the depth of th
Loki a Emn k a a Qq
�E
DEQ-CFW-00034689

YAYETTEVILLE APFO INVES11GATION REPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
clay layer). The clay layer becomes thinner moving west across the site and was not
encountered in those CPT borings; completed in the Powerhouse, Administration and
Butacite(b manufacturing areas. The exact lateral limits of the clay/clayey silt layer are
unknown.
..........
Based on lithologic logs generated during the installation of SMW-05P, SMW-04B and
CPT boring D-2 the clay layer appears to range in thickness from one to three feet in the
vicinity of the APFO area. Based on CPT borings. advanced through the clay layer at
several locations outside of the manufacturing areas and monitor wells installed beneath
the clay/clayey silt layer the thickness • the clay layer ranged from approximately •
+f �m
Naflong area. Generally, the clay/clayey silt layer thickness increases towards the
eastern portion of the facility.
Based on the lithologic logs of borings advanced around the APFO area, the elevation of
the top of the clay layer appears to increase between SMW-06 and SMW-05. An abrupt
decrease in the clay layer appears between SMW-05/SMW-07 and SMW-08/SMW-04A.
This abrupt change may represent a discontinuity in the clay layer beneath the APFO
Manufacturing area.
5.1.3 Hydrogeology
Based on the investigations completed to date, the site's shallow hydrogeologic system
consists of two separate groundwater bearing zones, a perched groundwater zone and an
underlying water table aquifer.
The clay/clayey silt layer that has been observed underlying a majority of the
manufacturing area provides a foundation for the perched groundwater zone. Depth to
groundwater in this perched zone at the time of the Phase II RFI investigation ranged
from approximately six feet bgs in the vicinity of SWMU 6 (common sump) to
approximately 23 feet bgs in the vicinity of SWMU 9 and the APFO Manufacturing area.
The saturated thickness of the perched zone ranges from approximately 10 feet in the
vicinity of the north/south sediment basins to not being present in some of the wells near
the APFO manufacturing area. The perched zone flows in a radial pattern centered at the
river water holding ponds. The perimeter of the perched zone appears to be controlled by
the topography as well as the lateral limits of the underlying clay/clay silt layer. A
surface expression (i.e., seepage faces) have been observed in the drainage channel
located to the northeast of the Nafion@ area. Additionally as the saturated thickness of
the perched zone decreases away from the recharge area (i.e., north/south sediment
basins), topographic rises in the clay layer appear to limit lateral movement of the
perched zone.
APFO Report Tina! Jun. 29, 06 31
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034690

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESUGATION MPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
The recharge center of the perched zone appears to be the north/south sediment basins
(Figure 14). Additionally this perched zone is also recharged to a much lesser degree by
infiltrating rainfall and the non -contact, once -through cooling water ditch in the Nafiono
area. Additionally storrn water runoff collected in the storm water catch basin (Figure
15) located immediately north of the APFO manufacturing area may locally recharge a
limited area above the clay layer.
Perched zone groundwater has been repeatedly observed in monitor wells SMW-07 and
PZ-12 located south and east of the APFO manufacturing area. Water has only been
observed in monitor well SMW-05 after a significant rainfall, that resulted in the filling
of the storm water catch basin and associated collection channel located immediately
adjacent to the monitor well location (Figure 16). Based on this empirical observation,
the presence of water in SMW-05 appears to be directly related to infiltration of storm
water through the bottom of the sediment basin and associated collection channel. This
monitor well remains dry between significant rain events. Thus, subsurface water irithe
area of monitor well SMW-05 is not a potential media for human exposure.
The limits of the perched zone in the APFO manufacturing area of the site appear to be
located between SMW-08/SMW-05 and SMW-07TZ-12. Perched zone groundwater is
'vi,fil'i(I PZ- I
wells of approximately two feet. SWM-08 has been dry since the time of installation and
water is only present in SMW-05 when storm water has infiltrated through the adjacent
sediment basin.
Water Table Aqu
The second and separate groundwater-b caring zone encountered at the site consists of
water table aquifer. This aquifer lies beneath the clay/clayey silt layer that supports the
perched groundwater zone.
The water table aquifer was encountered at approximately 48 to 55 feet bgs.
Groundwater elevations ranged from approximately 107 feet above mean sea level (ms
nisl in the SWNM 9 area to approximately 93 feet msl in the vicinity of the Nafione area
suggesting groundwater flow in this zone is generally towards the Cape Fear River.
However the presence of Willis Creek to the north of the manufacturing area and the
.4T T A
wast-c-'ri-ater. injLar'
water table aquifer.
To examine the vertical gradient in the water table aquifer along the Cape Fear River,
piezometers (PZ-22 and PZ-23) were paired with shallow monitor wells (LTW-02 and
LTW-04). An upward vertical gradient of 0. 11 was measured in the pairing of LTW-
02/PZ-22 and an upward vertical gradient of 0.07 was measured in the pairing of PZ-23
and LTW-04. This upward gradient suggests that the Cape Fear River is a discharge
boundary for water table aquifer. Vertical gradients have not been evaluated along
Willis Creek to the north of the manufacturing area, but based on visual observations of
base flow conditions in the creek during the Phase It RE as well as the topography of the
area, Willis Creek likely intersects the water table aquifer.
In addition to discharge of the water table aquifer to the Cape Fear River and most likely
to Willis Creek, a series of drainage channels were observed in the Cape Fear River flood
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06 32
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034691

111111111 111111 �
JAII
plain located to the east of the manufacturing area. These channels were observed to
contain a steady flow of water during the Phase 11 RFL The most likely cause for the
presence of base flow in these channels is that they probably intersect the water table
aquifer.
5.1.4 Cape Fear River
Four samples were collected from a 33-mile stretch of the Cape Fear River. An
additional sample was collected from Rock Fish Creek, which is a tributary to the Cape
l7ear River located upstream of the DuPont facility's river water intake (Figure 6).
Detections of APFO in the Cape Fear River ranged from 0.0944 to 0. 125 ppb. APFO
was at detected 0.00687 ppb in the sample collected from Rock Fish Creek. Given the
narrow range between the concentrations detected over the 33-mile stretch of the river
sampled, with the IhWhest concentration detected approximately 30 miles upstream, the
low level presence oiAPFO in the river does not appear to be a result of operations at the
DuPont facility and may represent a background level of APFO in the Cape Fear River.
Information about wind speed and direction is useful when interpreting ambient air data.
The Fayetteville Regional Airport is located approximately eight miles northwest of
DuPont's Fayetteville manufacturing facility, and collects reputable meteorological data.
This information is available for the Events I and 2 and is summarized in wind roses
shown in Figure 17. Note that during both sampling events, winds were blowing
40 predominantly from the northeast quadrant toward the southwest quadrant.
An on -site meteorological station which is setf-calibrated and maintained by site
personnel also collects wind speed and direction data for use in emergency response
situations. Data from Event 2 was downloaded to create an on -site wind rose, shown in
Figure 18. (No data were collected during Event 1). The on -site station shows that local
wind patterns did not follow regional patterns for the March 6-7 sampling event. For 13
hours, winds registered as calm; for those hours where wind speed was measurable,
WZRT&", I
the southwest to the northeast.
5.2.1 North/South Sediment Basins
As previously discussed, the facility intakes river water that is processed through a
clarification system on -site to remove river sediment. The saturated sediments are
directed to the north/south sediment basins located immediately west of the Naflon@
area. River water within these unlined ponds infilrates into the subsurface where it
accumulates on the underlying clay/clayey silt layer and creates a perched water zone.
A water sample collected from the clanification system prior to discharge to the southern
pond (RW-01) and a water sample collected directly from the southern sediment basin
(RW-02) in November 2005 indicated the presence of APFO at 0.0844 and 0.0816 ppb,
rW"Vrd n*j 06
G§klf
W
DEQ-CFW-00034692

UAYETTEVILLE "FO INVESTIGATION IIEPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Mode'
respectively. Surface water sampling of the Cape Fear River indicates the presence of
APFO in the river water being utilized by the facility. The concentration of APFO
measured in the river water collected ftom the facility river water intake was 0.0944 ppb
during the sampling event. Additionally a water sample was collected from the non -
contact, once -through cooling water ditch in the Nafiong area during the November 2005
sampling event and APFO was detected at a concentration of 0.0776 ppb. This channel
transports non -contact cooling water (i.e. clarified river water not utilized directly in the
facilities processes) to the NPDES permitted final effluent discharge point (Outfall 002).
Based on the site conceptual model, these data suggests that a non -site related
background level of A -FPO exists in the perched zone as a result of the on -site use of
Cape Fear River water.
[ *41PMZFT
F-Z,ased on the potentiometric map of the perched zone and the analytical data collected to
date the former common sump and associated process sewer system located within the
[*;afion@ area appears to be a historical source of APFO detected in the perched zone.
Additionally based on the presence of seepage faces and surface water data collected
from locations SW-02 through SW-04 the common sump appears to be the source for
APF0 detected at the referenced locations.
The process sewer system including the common sump within the Nafion@ area was
taken out of service in 2000. As such additional release from the former underground
system is unlikely to occur. The current process sewer system is located above ground.
APFO Manufacturing Area
Localized air deposition from the APFO manufacturing facility is believed to be the
source of APFO detected in media in APFO area.
Wet and dry deposition of airborne materials can be important air removal mechanisms in
the environment and can lead to subsurface soil and groundwater loading. Deposition is
influenced by the characteristics of a material: its presence as a particle versus a vapor
and its particle size. Particles in the coarse fraction (greater than about 2 to 2.5 microns)
are more likely to deposit during dry conditions than fine particles or vapor due to their
fuglier settling velocity. Coarse particles are also more cfficiently scavenged by rain and
snow during precipitation events. Conversely, particles between 0.1 and 2.5 microns are
least likely to be removed via wet or dry deposition.
Air samples ftom Fayetteville were characterized to examine the vapor/particle
partitioning of APFO during two distinct campaigns. The majority of the APFO found in
ambient air is present as a particulate. Results showed that during the Purification
I
Campaign (Event 1) approximately 60% or more of the material is present as a particle
while 88 to 100% was measured as a particulate during the Virgin Campaign (Event 2).
DuPont is conducting tests to verify that material reported to be present in the vapor chamber of the OVS tube is
actual vapor in the environment.
APFO Repork_final Jun, 29, 06 34
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034693

7-11.13 ILI I !I'I•I It I I I I I, $,L^.T#7TrFM'TRM
Air samples were also characterized to understand the particle size distributions at eacil
sampling location and during the two campaigns.
Results show that during the Virgin Campaign the average particle size at any location
was less than 0.4 microns with about 10% of the mass present in the coarse fraction.
These samples were collected while the APFO area scrubber/demister were operating
with no maintenance or performance issues. Results demonstrate that routine
scrubber/demister operations produce mostly fine particles that are not subject to
immediate dry deposition and would not be efficiently removed during precipitation
events due to their predominantly small size.
Wesults snom T7 Tig 1r=.tMW=o" 777paT7.71 TYTT i era&e TrLMF=-r'AT
less than 0.3 microns to 0.6 microns in five of the six locations. At location SMW-05
located just North of the APFO stack, the largest average particle size was measured at
about 2 microns. The coarse fraction also varied, with three locations showing coarse
fractions as high as 18, 19 and 39%, respectively. These samples were collected while
the scrubber was running, however the demister was not operating at the tine. Results
suggest that when the demister is not running, particle sizes can be larger creating the
potential for increased dry and wet deposition.
The fact that the majority of the airbome APFO is present as a particle and that, under
certain conditions, a significant portion of the material can be present in the coarse
fraction suggests a reasonable potential for deposition from ambient air to the ground
surface near the APFO stack. Once the material is deposited on the ground surface, it
would be available for transport through subsurface soil to the groundwater. This I
potential is increased due to the porous nature of local soils and the shallow depth to
to groundwater north of the APFO stack, and the preference of APFO to partition to the
water compartment. I
9tW C9APW rA W 9tW C9APW rA W C9APW rA
stack. If the demister is not operating, as was the routine practice during the Purification
Cam 'Mt �irior to Janutm 2006R�sarticle sizes maI have beenwlge enou", C such that dq-A
deposition occurred in the APFO area. This practice has been changed such that the
demister routinely operates during both campaigns.
Non -routine operations could also have contnibuted to larger particle sizes. On December
23, 2005, a release occurred from the AFPO stack that l4to visible deposition of a small
amount of material in the vicirn'ty of SMW-05. Note that an incident investigation took
place and the Site worked with appropriate agencies to document the incident and prevent
future releases. It is estimated that less than 1 pound of APFO was released; however,
due to the visibility of the particles, it is expected that most of the material was large
enough to deposit and settled immediately north of the stack. In addition, it was
discovered during routine maintenance inspections that the demister's packing material
had developed a small hole, presumably due to material incompatibility. There is a
possibility that during demister operations, some material exited the stack through the
hole, which could have exited as aerosols with large enough diameter to deposit nearby
the stack. The material packing was changed to stainless steel in January 2006 to prevent
0 recurrence of the packing deterioration.
-. 6 -$*A I
to III MOM
M
DEQ-CFW-00034694

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION PXPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
As previously discussed, storm water runoff in the immediate vicinity of the APFO
manufacturing area is directed to a storm water catch basin located to the north of the
unit. Monitor well SMW-05 and SMW-05P are located adjacent to this storm water
catch basin. Storm water runoff may carry air depositional APFO accumulated on the
ground surface to this storm water catch basin and associated collection channel. The
collected storm water then infiltrates into the subsurface and accumulates on the
underlying clay layer. Monitor well SMW-05P was completed beneath the underlying
clay layer. The presence of APFO in groundwater samples collected from this well
indicates infiltrating A.PFO-containing stonn water may seep through the clay layer. Soil
samples collected from immediately above the clay layer, from the first foot of the clay
layer, and from the last foot of the clay layer showed increasing concentrations with
depth. This data suggests that migration of APFO through the clay layer is possible,
Also the exact edge of the clay layer in this area is unknown, therefore it is possible that
APFO maybe reaching the lower saturated zone by means of a direct infiltration of storm
water.
ffig
1=11111 " W, NIN Nil MN - I
accumulated on the clay layer to migrate towards the north. Either scenario would allow
for the transport of infiltrated APFO containing water to the vicinity of SWM-04B.
Current potentiometric data and knowledge of clay layer structure in this portion of the
site is limited and warrants fitrther investigation.
Identification of Potential Receptors and Exposure Points
As presented in Section 4.0, APFO was detected above the PQL in on -site groundwater,
on- and off -site surface water, on -site soil and on -site air samples, With the exception of
one off -site location (4328MLR) APFO was not detected above the PQL in off -site
rmublic and private water supply wells. As discussed in Section 4.3.1, this slight detection
above the PQL is not considered significant.
MM - LAULIM17MUN
-q T
receptors.
5.3.1 Exposure Pathways
An exposure pathway consists of.
Q Source of constituents;
Ll Mechanism of constituent release to the environment;
0 Transport or exposure medium containing the constituents;
Ll Exposure point where humans (receptors) can contact the exposure medium; and
Q Exposure route (e.g., inhalation or ingestion).
APFO ReportfinalJun. 29,06 36
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034695

FAYETrEVILLF, APFO INVESTIGATION "PORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
10 All of these elements must be present for an exposure to occur. Figure 19 depicts
exposure pathways by which human and ecological receptors may be exposed to
constituents in environmental media under current land- and water -use conditions. The
purpose of this figure is to identify chemical sources and exposure pathways that may
result in human and/or ecological exposure; to aid in identifying data needs to address
significant chemical release and migration pathways for quantifying potential health risk;
and, ultimately to aid in identifying effective remedial alternatives that are targeted at
significant contaminant sources and exposure pathways.
The model in Figure 19 shows both potentially complete and incomplete pathways.
Potentially complete and incomplete pathways for each of the potential receptors are
discussed in the following section.
MimWof MT(MBLg='
Potential receptors are defined as human populations or individuals and environmental
systems that may come in contact with APF0 in environmental media at the site. Only
current land- and water -use conditions were considered in determining exposure
scenarios. However, future land use is anticipated to be no different than current, in that
manufacturing operations will continue and use of the property will remain non-
residential.
Shallow groundwater is not used on -site for potable or industrial purposes and drinking
water is provided to the site by a municipality. However, river water is used by the site
for industrial purposes including non -contact and contact cooling water, fire water,
10 process water, conversion to demineralized water to generate steam, and/or consumption
in the manufacturing processes. As a result, on -site industrial workers were considered
potential receptors. The Fayetteville Works Plant is fenced and guarded, and access is
controlled and limited to authorized personnel only. However, trespassers may gain
access to portions of the site adjacent to the Cape Fear River. Therefore, on -site
trespassers were also considered potential receptors.
M AT -TA n* i
No downgradient receptors of off -site groundwater exist due to the prevailing flow
direction towards on -site surface water bodies (such as drainage channels) and the Cape
Fear River. Furthermore, APFO has not been appreciably detected above detection limits
in off -site groundwater sample locations. Therefore, off -site residents were not
considered potential receptors.
- A 1731071TY. "o _&� _� 47A, =,d7LT=1 X-Ma) May
discharge to the Cape Fear River and adjacent lowlands/wetlands. The river is designated
as a Class C river by the state of North Carolina. As a Class C river, water from the river
is used for aquatic life propagation and maintenance, wildlife, secondary recreation,
source. However, as previously discussed concentrations in river water samples were not
significantly different than concentrations observed in upstream and downstream
locations. Therefore, recreational users of the river (fishing and boating) and ecological
receptors were not considered potential receptors.
Sensitive receptors (such as dayeare) are not located on or adjacent to the site. Therefore,
these receptors were also not considered potential receptors for the groundwater pathway.
M
DEQ-CFW-00034696

LUMAr-1 X1 IrIK"A i Pro M_
5.3.3 Potentially Complete Exposure Pathways
Groundwater
The potential for exposure is low since shallow groundwater is not used for any purpose
at the site. However, due to the shallow depth of groundwater (6 ft bgs) in some portions
of the site exposure may occur during construction/excavation activities. Therefore,
potentially complete exposure pathways are limited to those involving on -site
cons truction/excavati on workers- incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with
groundwater.
A rigorous system of policies and procedures have been employed at the Fayetteville
Works Plant to prevent disturbance of soil (both surface and subsurface) such that on -site
receptors will not become exposed to impacted groundwater. The site has utilized a
permitting process, which requires authorization for any intrusive activities (boring,
drilling, excavation, etc.) into the soils or building foundations at the facility. The
purpose of the permitting process is to ensure that:
• Appropriate measures are taken for personnel protection should such subsurface
activity encounter impacted groundwater (i.e., personal protective equipment (PPE)).
• Construction methods are conducive to protection of the groundwater from
contamination or transfer of contaminants laterally or vertically.
• Construction practices are carried out so as to minimize the generation of potentially
impacted media and to ensure that such media are properly characterized and
disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements.
As a result of these policies and procedures at the site, the potential exposure of on -site
construction/excavation workers to impacted shallow groundwater can be controlled; and,
therefore, is not considered significant.
Soil
The potential for exposure to APFO in soil is low for most receptors under current
conditions because the principal areas are covered by gravel, concrete or crushed stone.
The receptor with the greatest potential for exposure is the on -site
construction/excavation worker, where a greater likelihood of direct contact with
1mpacted soil is associated with intrusive activities.
Potentially complete exposure pathways, therefore, may include the following:
U On -Site Industrial Worker- incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface
soil and inhalation of soil -derived particulates; and
0 On -Site Construction/Excavation Worker - incidental ingestion of and dermal contact
with surface soil and inhalation of soil -derived particulates.
Surface Water
The potential for exposure to surface water by on -site receptors is limited to those
involving direct contact with process water and incidental direct contact with surface
water in on -site drainage channels. As a result, potentially complete exposure pathways
are limited to those involving.
M
DEQ-CFW-00034697

E
iTir. m
• On -Site Industrial Workers: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with river
water as process water.
• On -Site Trespassers: incidental ingestion of and dermal contact with surface water
in on -site drainage channels.
At the Fayetteville Works Plant, direct contact with process water containing APFO is
expected to be minimal due to the low duration and frequency of contact; and, because
appropriate and protective health and safety procedures (such as PPE) have been
established when working with or around process water.
Likewise, the potential for exposure to APFO in drainage channel surface water is low
because the drainage channels have limited access due to steep terrain and natural
inaccessibility (i.e., thick underbrush).
Air
Potentially complete exposure inhalation pathways are limited to those involving on -site
industrial workers and on -site trespassers. With respect to off -site exposure, Dupont is
currently in the process of developing information, which would enable DuPont to
determine if there is a potentially complete exposure pathway.
Incomplete Exposure Pathways
Mitigating factors wereused in the evaluation of the completeness of an exposure
pathway. The evaluation of mitigating factors uses logical and scientifically defensible
reasoning based on a broader, more site -specific understanding of the SCM to predict
more accurately the potential effects of evaluated releases.
Mitigating factors may include caps and covers that minimize the potential for direct
contact, groundwater use restrictions, or institutional controls established to minimize
worker exposure. Application of gating factors is consistent with the approach used
in the Performance 1993 Government Results Act (GPRA) related to environmental
indicator (EI) determinations. Current human exposures are considered to be controlled
if there is not a complete exposure pathway.
Shallow groundwater is not used on -site for potable or industrial uses and APFO was not
significantly detected above detection limits in off -site public and private water supply
wells. In addition, landscaping/maintenance activities do not occur in on -site drainage
channels, which may receive shallow groundwater discharge. Therefore, direct contact
(ingestion or dermal contact) with groundwater for on -site industrial workers and off -site
residents are incomplete.
Surface Water
APFO has been detected in on -site drainage channels. However as previously noted
above, landscaping and maintenance activities do not occur in on -site drainage channels.
Therefore, direct contact with surface water (ingestion or dermal contact) in the drainage
channels for on -site industrial workers is incomplete.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NC
M
DEQ-CFW-00034698

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
5.4 Risk Evaluation
0 5.4.1 Groundwat]
Levels of A.PFO observed in the water table aquifer on -site range from less than PQL to
6.5 ppb. Groundwater in this aquifer in the on -site area is not used as a source of
drinking water. To date, there are no hul-nan health effects known to be caused by PFOA
(including the ammonium salt, known as APFO). Based on health and toxicological
studies conducted by DuPont and other researchers, DuPont believes the weight of
evidence indicates that PFOA exposure does not pose a health risk to the general public.
Thus, the presence of these levels does not represent an unacceptable risk to human
health. Similarly, continuously occurring perched water at the facility does not have the
potential to serve as a source of drinking water. Thus, the presence of APFO in these
wells does not represent a potential source of human exposure. Moreover, sporadically
occurring perched water, such as that monitored in SMW-05, is not a potential source of
human exposure. Thus, the presence of APFO in this well — even at the detected levels
up to 765 uo, does not represent a potential risk to human health, given the lack of
exposure to it.
The only wells in the vicinity of the Fayetteville facility that could serve as potential
sources of human exposure are the off -site drinking water wells, designated 4328MLR
and PW-05. None of these off -site drinking water wells contained A.PF0 above the
practical quantitation limits except one sample (4328MLR) which was detected at one
part per trillion above the corresponding PQL (0.010 ug/1). The associated split sample
was detected below the PQL. Thus, there is no cur -rent potential for unacceptable
exposure to APFO from the use of water from these wells.
In summary, under current conditions observed in this investigation, groundwater does
not appear to present a risk to human health or the environment, given either a lack of
potable wells.
NOM.- M W-J411961111to
mclij.(Lc 111gusLmull
while using the river for recreational purposes.
Based on data collected from the site drainage ditch, the facility outfall and upstream and
downstream samples in the Cape Fear River, there does not appear to be demonstrable
impacts to surface water quality with respect to APF0 from facility operations. Levels of
APFO observed in surface water range from non -quantifiable (NQ) to 0.302 ug/l. The
State of North Carolina does not currently have a surface water quality standard for
APFO. Similarly, the USEPA has not developed a standard for surface water quality.
However, the States of West Virginia and Minnesota have developed water quality
screening values deemed to be protective for drinking water exposure of 150 ug/l and 7
ug/l, respectively. All of the values of APFO observed in surface water are far below any
of these levels. Thus, even if the watermi the Cape Fear River immediately downstream
APFO Repor#jnal Jun. 29, 06 40
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034699

E
FAYETTMLLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Model
of the facility were to be used as a source of drinking water, one would not expect any
risk to human health to result.
Neither the State of North Carolina nor the USEPA has developed a surface water quality
standard for the protection of aquatic life. However, the State of West Virginia has a
developed a value for the protection of aquatic life for PFOA of 1,360 ug/l. This would
be equivalent to a level of APFO of 1,416 ug/l. All of the levels of APF0 observed in
surface waters on and in the vicinity of the site are far below this threshold. Thus, one
would not expect aquatic life impacts to result from the levels of APFO currently
observed in these water bodies.
APFO levels measured in ambient air at the DuPont - Fayetteville Works site are below
published human health screening levels, as described below. The maximum measured.
concentration was approximately 88 nghn 3, with most concentrations under 10 ng/M-3.
Although APFO is an unregulated compound, these measured values can be compared
with publicly available screening levels to show that the inhalation pathway for APFO
does not present an exposure concern. While USEPA has not yet determined an unsafe
level of APFO in ambient air, the State of West Virginia does recognize a risk -based
human health protective screening level (SL) for this compound, as determined by the C8
Assessment of Toxicity Team (CATT). The CATT is a tearn of 10 expert toxicologists
who calculated a health protective SL for oral and inhalation ro-utes of exposure using US
EPA Region IX standard methodology. Results were published in 2002 and are publicly
available via this link:
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/Docs/4505 FINAL CATT—REPORT-8-02.pdf
The GATT derived a health protective SL of I ug/m3 (1,000 ng/M3) for air. The
maximum concentration measured at the Fayetteville Works site is over 10 times below
the SL, and the majority of concentrations are more than 100 times below the SL.
For samples collected near areas where workers are present, it may be appropriate to
consider the Threshold Limit Value (TLV) for occupational exposure. The American
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) recommends a TLV for
APF0 of 0.01 Mg/M3 (10,000 ng/M3) in air as an eight -hour time -weighted -average limit.
Samples collected over a 24-hour period at the Fayetteville Works site can be used as a
conservative point of comparison with the eight -hour TLV. If it is assumed that workers
were exposed to the maximum concentration measured at the Fayetteville Works site and
that the exposure took place over an eight -hour workday, the worker would be protected
with a margin of safety of over 100. Therefore, ambient air measurements of APFO do
not suggest occupational exposure is a concern.
5.4.4 Soil and Sediment
Tne area OrTne-rayMovilte lacility inculae curect contact incluaing incluental ingestion
and dermal contact.
APFO Report final Jun. 29,06
Charlotte, NC
IT
DEQ-CFW-00034700

r, AYETTEVILLE APFO INVESnGATION REPORT
Revised Conceptual Site Mode,'
Neither the State of North Carolina nor the USEPA have developed a soil standard for the
protection of human health. However, the State of West Virginia has developed such as
value as part of its CATT process equivalent to 240 mg/kg APFO (150 mg/kg PFOA).
The levels of APFO observed in site soils and sediments are all far below this threshold.
Thus, one would not expect unacceptable risks to human health to result from the
incidental ingestion of soils and sediments and dermal contact with these media.
APFO Report — final Jun. 29, 06 42
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034701

F-1 L
FAYETrEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Conclusions, Recommendations And Path Forwari
6.0 CONCLUSIONS., RECOMMENDATIONS AND PATH
FORWARD
u Data collected to date indicates site conditions are protective of human health and t
environment. I
t Three potential source areas of APFO have been identified: Nafion@ area former
common sump and process sewer, north/south sediment basins impacted by upstream
A.PFO containing river water and deposition from the APFO manufacturing process
vent stack.
u Based on data collected from monitor wells downgradient of the Nafion(D area, the
characterization of groundwater quality from histonical releases from the Nafion@
area is complete.
u Data collected from the river water clarifier sample port, south sediment basin and
NafionO area non -contact, once through water ditch as well as the SCM indicate river
water pumped on -site may a source of low level detections of APFO in the perched
zone.
u Based on data collected from the surface water channel located to the north and
northeast of the Naflon@ area, minor amounts of APFO is being discharged from the
perched zone to the channel and the characterization of surface wateT quality 'in this
channel is complete.
• Sediment samples collected from two channels leading to the Cape Fear River did not
indicate the presence of APFO above the detection limit.
• Based on data collected from the two surface water channel confluenccs, very minor
a -mounts of APFO are being discharged to the Cape Fear River and chayacterization
of the surface water quality is complete.
u Based on data collected from surface soil samples collected in the APFO
manufacturing area, localized air deposition has occurred.
u Based on data collected from monitor wells in the vicinity of the APFO
manufacturing area, APFO is in the groundwater underlying this area. The preseric
of APFO in monitor well SMW-05 and SMW-05P may be the result of air depositi
from the APFO unit vent stack transported to the storm water retention pond via
runoff and then infiltrating into the subsurface adjacent to these monitor well
locations. Low level A.PFO detections in monitor wells SMW-06 and SMW-07 are
likely the result of perched zone water associated with the north/south sediment
basi-f.s.
APFO Report final Jun. 29, 06
Charlotte, NC7
M
DEQ-CFW-00034702

FAYETTEVIIO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Conclusions, Recommendations And Path Forwari
L3 APFO was not detected in -situ groundwater samples collected north and northwest of
the facility above the PQL indicating groundwater in this portion of the site has not
been adversely impacted by APFO operations.
o Based on soil samples collected during the installation of SWM-05, water containing
APFO that has accumulated on the clay layer in the vicinity of this well may infiltrate
through the clay layer.
c3 US EPA Region IV data collected during the split -sampling event correlated very
well with DuPont's analytical data.
:3 Data collected from the Cape Fear River and Rock Fish Creek indicate operations at
the DuPont facility have not adversely impacted surface water quality in the river.
Presence of APFO well upstream of the site suggests that the Cape Fear River
contains a background level of unknown origins, but not related to DuPont —
Fayetteville Works site operations.
• The air -sampling program demonstrated that current ambient air levels do not lead to
unacceptable inhalation exposure. Thus, no immediate air abatement program is
required to mitigate APFO in air. In addition, particle size information shows that
deposition has been a potentially important transport pathway for APF0. This
potential to deposit coupled with local soil and groundwater characteristics and the
affinity of APFO for water may help to explain levels detected in groundwater in the
vicinity of the APFO manufacturing area. As discussed, both routine and non -routine
scrubber operations could influence particle size and, therefore, deposition potential.
It is important to note that every attempt has been made to adopt practices and design
equipment to minimize this potential. Specifically, standard operations now include
running the demister during all campaigns to minimize particle size. Process control
of the scrubber has been reviewed and upgraded to prevent future releases. Finally, a
change in demister packing material has been made to correct material
incompatibility that could lead to inefficiency of the demister.
• Measured air concentrations are well below human health screening levels or
occupational exposure guidelines for inhalation.
u Particle characteristics suggest the potential for deposition as an important historical
transport pathway. Scrubber operations may have impacted the potential for localized
deposition.
Ei The hypotheses presented for air deposition and subsequent transport to the
groundwater are based on ambient air measurements. A source investigation of the
APFO stack is required to evaluate these hypotheses. The source characterization
would incltde measurement of mass emission rates and deposition modeling that
could support the hypothesis that deposition is an important historical pathway for the
presence of APFO in groundwater.
u Knowledge of the groundwater flow characteristics of the water table aquifer is
limited especially between the APFO area and Willis Creek in the northern portion of
the site and neighboring water supply wells.
APFO Report —final Jun. 29, 06 44
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034703

FAYETTEVILLE APFO INVESTIGATION PXPORT
Conclusions, Recommendations And Path Forwar-f
illo�k u The perimeter of the clay layer underlying the APF0 manufacturing area is unclear as
W is the connection between the water infiltrating in the storm water catch basm' and thOM
detection • APFO in monitor wells SMW-05P and SMW-04B.
■' •• samples were not obtained from SMW-08 due to the well being dry. As
such, a groundwater quality data gap exists • the west side of the APFO
manufacturing area.
zi Groundwater samples were not obtained from SMW-03 I ocated to the • of the
APFO manufacturing area. As such a groundwater quality data gap exists between
SMW-04B and SMW-02B.
o Stack samples are not yet available to perform deposition modeling that would
confirm air deposition as a reasonable explanation for APFO concentrations in wells
• near the APFO area.
Based on data collected during this investigation, several data gaps have been identified.
Data gaps are associated with the clay layer underlying the APFO manufacturing area,
groundwater quality data gaps in the vicinity of the APFO manufacturing area and air
quality associated with emissions from the APFO unit. The following recommendations
are offered close to data gaps associated with these areas of the site conceptual model as
well as to ensure that the overall site goal of protection of human health and the
environment continues to be met.
❑ Conduct a phased investigation to evaluate the structure of the clay layer underlying
the APFO manufacturing area and potentiometric surface of the water table aquifer
and the perched zone to the north of the facility.
• The first phase of investigation will include evaluation of the structure of the
clay layer in the vicinity of the manufacturing area.
• Data collected from the clay structure investigation will be utilized to direct a
second phase investigation of the potentio-metric surface of the water table
aquifer and perched zone.
Based on the two phases of investigation recommendations for additional
monitor wells will be made where warranted.
• Install a deeper monitor well adjacent to SMW-08.
❑ Install a deeper monitor well adjacent to SMW-03.
❑ Replace PZ-04 with a permanent monitor well.
❑ Abandon piezometers located within the Naflon (9 area.
❑ In order to fill the data gaps identified above, it is recommended that two additional
phases be conducted under the air program. Phase I included the ambient air
sampling and characterization described in this report. Recommended future phases
are:
APFO Report fina) Jun. 29, 06 45
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034704

E
FAYErfEVU,LIE APFO INVESTIGATION REPORT
Conclusions. Recommendations And Path Forward
• Phase 2: Sampling of the APFO stack and process vents during two
manufacturing campaigns to ascertain actual mass flow rates and provide a
mass balance of APFO sources to the stack exhaust.
• Phase 3 - Modeling of potential air deposition rates to groundwater, •
detection of APFO during stack sampling.
stated recommendations.
APFO Report —final Jun. 29, 06 46
Charlotte, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034705

0 7.0 REFERENCES
DERS, 1996, RCRA Facility Assessment, Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North
Carolina, December 1996.
Len L'
Works, North Carolina, December 1999
DuPont, 1999, Confirmatory Sampling Report, DuPont - Fayetteville Works, North
Carolina, May 1999
DuPont, 2001, Phase I RFI Work Plain, DuPont - Fayetteville Works, North Carolina,
June 2001
DuPont, 2*46, Revised ??,,. Phase I Supplemental Investigation 1T1Ferk-14'an-,-*,&'ont
Fayetteville Works, North Carolina, December 2003.
DuPont, 2005, Revised RCRA Phase I Supplemental Investigation Report, DuPont
Fayetteville Works, North Carolina, January 2005.
DuPont, 2005, RCRA Phase 11 Investigation Work Plan, DuPont Fayetteville Works,
North Carolina, January 2005
Works, North Carolina, September 2005
A
WMAR4 V-12f I V-AAT010 4, mod 11INUM UOT-WRTITITNO
NCDENR, 1997, RCRA Part B Pen -nit, DuPont - Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, No
Carolina, December 1997 1
NCDENR Ground Water Section, Groundwater Section guidelines for the Investigation
and Remediation of soil and groundwater, July 2000
Fetter, C.W., 1980, Applied Hydrogeology, Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus
Ohio.
Heath, R. C, 1980, Basic Elements of G roundwater Hydrology with Reference to
Conditions in North Carolina, United States Geological Survey Water Resourc
Investigations, Open -file Report No. 80-44. 1
DEQ-CFW-00034706

E
Horton, J. W., and V. A. Zullo, editors, 199 1, The Geology of the Carolinas, Carolm'
Geological Society, Fiftieth Anniversary Volume, The University of Tenness
Press, Knoxville. 1-
1995, Standards of Construction: Wells Other Than Water Supply,
T15A:02C.0108. August 29,1995.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
1995, Guidance for theUse of RCRA National Corrective Action Prioritization
System (NCAPS) in North Carolina. August 29, 1995.
USEPA, 1986, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,
SW-846 Third September 1986, as amended by Update 1, July 1992.
USEPA, 1989b, Interim Final RFT (RFI) Guidance, Volume I of IV; Section 8, Health
and Environmental Assessment, OSWER Directive 9502.00-61), EPA 530/SW-
89-031.
I -SW=, 9-cjTa—,ffjF Wegion TT iSTa—n-dar=lf�pe—ra-ring—l-roccaures an I ua HY Assurance
Manual, February 19f,3.
USEPA, 1992a, RCRA Ground -Water Monitoring: Draft Technical Guidance.
November 1992.
Winner, M. D., 1977, Groundwater Resources Along the Blue Ridge Parkway, North
Carolina, United States Geological Survey, Groundwater Division, Raleigh, NC,
1977.
DEQ-CFW-00034707

DEQ-CFW 00034708

r I
L
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
MW-1s 6/20/2005
32.22
18.98 8.03 19.02
0.135
2.62
-58
70.2
MW-2S
612012005
29.13
19.22
10.33
17.42
0.2111
2.31
-243
228
MW-51D
6/2012005
48.46
44.44
7.24
19.28
0.125
6.46
-43
1 185
MW-1 OD
6/20/2005
43.17
42.34
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
MW-1 1
6/15/2005
24.10
23.45
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NAF-01
611512005
18.20
6.69
3.60
21.02
0.186
0.31
283
1.9
NAF-02
611512005
18.10
8.59
12.03
21,46
2.430
1.00
-221
4.5
NAF-03
6/15/2005 1
18.08
9.18
5,47
22.56
0.131
1.95
165
6.2
NAF-04
611712005
14.77
6.11
8.55
19.68
0.168
0.33
-137
1 28.9
NAF-06
6/1612005
15.05
11,77
4.87
20.53
0.910
4.53
208
522
NAF-07
6/16/2005
18.40
9.13
4.41
19.67
0130
7.28
223
58.5
NAF-08A
6/17/2005
17.57
8.95
5.54
19.35
0.095
0.46
144
20.5
NAF-08B
6/21/2005
56.88
53.66
6.21
20.68
0.317
12.01
60
>999
NAF-09
6116/2005 1_
19.50
12,11
4.38
18.29
0.111
3.67
242
22.2
NAF-1 0
6/1612005
20.95
11.25
179
19.34
0.129
0.38
267
45.9
NAF-1111A
7/512005
10.04
9.72
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NAF-1 I B
7/5/2005
46.57
46.35
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
SIVW-01
612012005
22.75
13.51
3.08
1 16.92
0.610
5.39
271
35.7 1
SMW-02
6120/2005
17.02
13.72
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
PZ-03
6/2112005 1
20.68
5.05
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
PZ-04
6/1712005
21.81
7.37
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
PZ-05
611612005
21.50
6.60
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
PZ-06
NOTES:
611612005 17.80 7.25
(C) = degrees Celsius
(mS/cm) = Millisiemens per Centimeter
(NTU) = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
(mg/L.) = Milligrams per Liter
9.313
19.01 0.924 2.15
(ft) = Feet
(MV) = millivolts
NM = Not measured due to low sample volume.
A41
23.1
MG
DEQ-CFW-00034709

Field Parameters for September, October, November, and December 2005 Sampling Events
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
offs
���
1 i'
! :L
•i
l� /
��
�1�llla�
t 1 i
�I�
�
t•
�!
�'
1
t i►
•*I�T�
i
«
�•
•*•'
, ,�,
1 «1
��Mffala,
510MUT154
OEM�
Si(a11EM
« !/ 1MMM�MMM��
MEMO
t / i
i�
�'
�'
t «
•' ' 1
�'
MET,/
/ i1OEM
ME -AM
I
i.... 1/OCR=
�
M
1
�
•i1
1/
1 M1
! •
�
it
,, 1i
��•��tTl������
WIFE=
1 /fWHOM
MMIM
•' . 11�I�
1
��
ji
DEQ-CFW 00034710

Tab 'Ic
Field Parameters for January/February 2006 Sampling Event
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
_..._................
I ffi
...
�
►
m
...
r 7
_..:.....--
ft f
I!.
•
• .:I
Yj
• /I.
����
f
f ..}.�1�
t1
` 1
f f
���
_
► ►►
►4 R
1FMFZ#L.
1®'��:�'
•'�
f '«f
# ff
1 !
1 1'1
MMFZF Me
1
ff.
���
► �
1 If
. f#
IM
•
DEQ—CFW 00034711

Table 2
APFO Groundwater Results
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Cape Fear River
10/14/2005
Nafion Area
10/13/2005
MADE
OEQ-CFVV_00034712

Table 2
APFO Groundwater Results
DuPont Fayetteville Works
MON Mimi
6/2012005
APFO Manufacturing
Area
12/13/2005
Water Supply Wells
NO = Non Quantifiable:
analyte is present, but result is
between the
Method Detection
Limit (MDL) and the PQL.
ND = Non Detect
J Result reported is estimated
due to low matrix spike
recovery.
* Reanalyzed at STIL-Denver
Laboratories.
uQIl = Micrograms per Liter
OEQ-CFVV_00034713

InvestigationTable 3
APFO Surface Water Results
p.
DuPont
Near Nafion Area
OUTFA !
► 1 it i f
f
i f 1
11
1 /•*
# 1
f: ii:,
! 1• • I�'
1 1
f
• • !1
! f
�
1 1#
1
. 176
!
Drainage -
/1
1 �
• 1 !1
i 1•, •
1 We=
f
ff•
1 f
�'��
i i
--------------------------------------------
CapeFearRiver
. fi■
! 1�"
�
f If
NQ = Non Quantifiable; analyte is present,
but result is between the
Method Detection Limit (MDL) and the PQL.
u: • ograms per Liter
DEQ-CFW 00034714

Tat
APFO SoillSediment Results
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fi
M IRS Ul41.
------ ----- -
Note:
-------------------------------------- ----------
--------------
POL = Pratical Quantitation Limit - equal to the
Limit of Quantitation (LOO)
NQ = Non Quantifiable-,
analyte is present, but result is between the
Method Detection Limit (MDL) and the PQL.
NA Not Applicable
ND = Non Detect
A ug/kg = Micrograms -per
Kilogram
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
- --------------
Om
DEQ-CFW-00034715

11
E
Table 6
Ambient Air Sampling Summary
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
MORE=
6 HVS'
December 5-6, 2005 Purification Campaign
6 OVS2
- - - - ----------------- ---- - -----------------
6 HVS'
March 6-7, 2006 Virgin Campaign OVS3
12
-----------
Note:
1. HVS = High Volume Impactor Samples
2. OVS = OVS Tube Samples
3. Duplicate OVS Samples Taken at Each Location
Samples collected exclude field and trip blanks
Um
DEQ-CFW-00034716

APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Sample Location H
Event I
Event 2
i
Purification Campaign
Virgin Campaign
Pi
WN
OEQ-CFVV_00034717

Table 7
Ambient Air Results for HVS
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Event I
Event2
Sample Location
— —
Purification Campaign
-
Virgin Campaign
-A
----------- -------------------- -------- --------------
---------------- --------- ------------------
----------------
-------------------- -----------------
IMMIN 1 rPl 1914
E
C7
am
DEQ-CFW-00034718

APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
-------------
Sample Location
Purification Coarse Fraction
Virgin Coarse Fraction
UM
OEQ-CFVV_00034719

Table 9
Split Sampling Data
O Investigation Report
wwwwi"
-------
DUPONT DATA
mnn� ------------------------- ---- -------
MM RESULT (ppb)
• i�:
rl.
Ili
# r
�
4 1•
�,
MDL = Method Detection Limit
PQL = Practical Quanitation Limit
ND = not detected at the listed MDL.
NQ = not quantifiable. NQ indicates a result above the MDL but below the PQL.
IN - not provided. EPA results provided by the Denver lab did not list an LOQ or PQL.
-J - Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate.
* EPA results provided by the Athens lab; results were reported only as PFOA and were converted to APFO
by DuPont to allow a direct comparison to the DuPont results.
The EPA sample of SMW-04B was analyzed at two labs. The results from the Denver lab are presented first with the
results from the Athens lab shown in parentheses ( ).
1 of 1
DEQ-CFW 00034720

w
mueTRU—IFION OFFICE
ENGINEERING
w-_w 10 TITLE: Site Layout Map
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP a Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
AnVtancebetween
t?VP011tamyURS cwpof-ah'017 - Nom cart ma DuPont Fayetteville Works
6a24 Fwrft-W Road
Chadou. NC 4210 Fayetteville, NWh Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034723

MA"
0 0.5
Miles
Non -Contact, Once Through Water Ditch
River
Site Structure
SwmU
Map Scale; 117,2000
Map Projection- NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taken 12/2005
N
w
0 650 11300
Feet
- ----- — - --------- � DRAWN: DATE_ OUPQNT NO,:
4461
REVISION: FIGURE NO.: URSO NO.:
D 2 A6984515
FILE NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034724

Rpd-�
SMW-04A
D(y
SMW-D5
,.Catch Basin Dty APFO
LEARNING csunp
r+ FACTURTUC
AREA
SENTRY
GLASS
A'
wwo �Z-12
13174
'Dry
RA ;
SMW-07
I .
128.29 :0
MMU-4
common 2nm:
-�l
F2-
5 PPOCESS 11 j4I -
ADMINISTRATIon
ER
FARE PEINP A
7�
FTA,01 14'-07
HC
134.54
SE IMStsP
5b P21
Ail -0
134-351 k
P4
F A2�9 %3A9F00
33.N0
138
PZ-18 MW-12S N \-T 137,67
1AM.41 132.
Was.
135,46
+
J.-
MW-1S\
9 13
131-113 N W -19
31-l'a B
-19A pz-is
10 N MW-2s
OFFICE 130135,86
MNSTRUCTloN om -AM
k—,
55k C',
A
At 1 133
fky + MW-11 C
125-11 \%l
e
L---------------------
CORPORATE REMEOIATfON GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and URS corpor86on - Ncrm Ca
rolina
6324 Fairvew Road
aaftft, NC 26210
TITLE: Perched Zone Potentiornetric Map
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034725

TNTAKF
Ca
rs
Monitoring Well - Drainage Channel
Type 11
Non -Contact, Once
A Piezometer Through Water Ditch
Groundwater River
Contour (ft)
Site Structure Pavement/Curb
sWMU Plant Border
All elevations reported in feet above mean see level
Map Scale: 1/6,000
Map Projection: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
1 Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taken 1212005
N
0 600 1,200
Feet
DRAWN: DATE: DUPONT NO.:
ND QW28fos
_rG_U_RE_N_0:
gy 3
- - - ------------ -
FILE NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034726

INSITU-1 4
0
w%1T"
tz
MA FAC7'UR7N6 AREA
R-12
Pz:d
Moll ;AA
W
-ItRr PUMP V
'T&JEF
7 -A'13Z�i
7 , ?z 9
k
+
Wrs
K-18
Mw..
NW-iS U .2D
HAS
A
tl
kwTOD
Mw
mw-l$
TIRESample Location Map
CORPORATEREMENATiON ROUI�' Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
An Alliance bet"en
1 is DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034727

won ySMWM
NAF-06
NAP4M
P70
Ak PZ-f3
A
PZ-14
EDP
RIVRR
IVTAKR
14I
-111�
PI-22
11 0=0
♦ Monitoring Well - Type 11 Drainage Channel
Non -Contact, Ows
Monitoring Well - Type III .... ...... Through Water Ditch
outfall River
A Rezorrveter
Insitu Groundwater
Sample
�' SWMU
Pavement/Curb
Plant Border
Site Structure
Map Scale, 118,400
Map Projection: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taken 1212006
W
0 700 1,400
t �UPONT N"' 4461
DRAWK OUPON 0 W 0 TH
NO 06a,06 4461
tt-
7 RrSVISION,. FIGURF NO,: URSD NO,,.
0
7� 4
FLE NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034728

Gir
Sw-01 1366120105 APF:0 0-0995
storm Kater sw-01 09106/05 APFO 0.129
,Catch Rapin APFO
AC' ING AREA SW-0 I
IVR 10107105 APFO 0.0672
SENTRY
Outfatf-002 06120105 APPO NQ
Outfall-002 01124/06 APFQ 0.0249
ww
am------ — ------
CORPORATE REMMATION GROUP
An Adliance between
DuPont and URS COM"Iba - N" Cardina
Ba24 Fait4eW Road
Charlotte, Nr, 2a210
TITLE: APFO Surface Water Analytical Results Map
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Favetteville- Vo-ft Cors4ims.
P�
M MI
-01
2
SM2
DEQ-CFW-00034729

MMMI
MMIMM
IMMM
I
Mr.
ft)'V r N,
outfall
River
Surface Water Sample
pavementlCurb
Surface Process
Plant Border
Water Sample
. . .
Drainage Channel
SwMU
Non -Contact. Once
Through Water Ditch
Site Structure
All results reported in ug/l (ppb)
NO = Not Quantfflable
Map Scale; 116,000
Map Projection. NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aelial Photograph provided by DuPont, taken 1212005
N
fi
500 1,000
ND O6f2&p6 4461
- ---------------
REV&M FIGURE NO.:
FILE NAMFt G:ffaygh4elGi%fPro)ed_4gute.WPhaftiI RFIf
DEQ-CFW-00034730

DEQ-CFW 00034732

F
L3
I SOIL-001 1 1/27/2006 1 0 j 2 ( APR
&601 12/13f2006 1 0
Storm Water 05P
-
Catch tasin SC-1 APFO
LEARNING CENtER FACTURING AREA
% �
Soil-,
-VUIL
SENTRY C0
7T
GLASS 0 M?
r)
4m 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Mance between
DUPOnt and UPS CDTPOPatidn - NOrM Cqfv&?a
6324 fanOw Ro2d
Chad0ft,K23210
14 G
TITLE: APFO Soil Sample AnalyhGal Results Map
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville-,-NoTth Carolina
PdWER
DEQ-CFW-00034733

�oRak��
irk i
APFC) ND
FNIMM=1
"­"--'-.' Drainage Channel
Non-Cantact, Once
Through Water Ditch
Pavemer)VIDurb
= Site Structure
All results reported in ugikg (ppb)
Soil Top and Bottom depths reported in feet below ground surface
i = Estimated value
NO = Non Detect
NQ = Not Quantifiable
Map Scale. 113,600
Map Projection: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taker 12J2005
DAT
DRAW E: 06a&06 I)UPONT44 I NO.:
"oVI p
R NO.: - -------
- UR60 -Ej�,6�
0 7 139MI5
I'LLE NAME: GJFgyetAoGistpMecjiguresIPhasell--RFU
DEQ-CFW-00034734

S Sediment sample
DrainageChannel
Non -Contact, Onm
Through Water Ditch
River
Pavement/Curb
ND = Non Detect
Map Scale: I M,400
Map Ptojection., NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
.............
swmu
Site Structure
700 1,400
DRAWN', 13ATE: DUPONT NO,:
ND OBr28lO6 4461
URSD NO.:
18984515
---------------
FILF NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034736

0+
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DoPont and URS Corporatbn - North Carolina
e324 Faheiw Road
Charlotte, NC 28210
TfTLE' APFO Drinking Water Sample Analytical Results Map
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
DRAW 11ATE., DUPONT N11,,
ND We28106 4461
kEfV—I$—1 &N-
NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034738

1—�
. VW-01 fair)
tiTITLE: Air Sample Location Map
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
An Aftnm baft"n
E7jftnt and UR8 CorpmWbn - North CZ?Wina DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034739

I * Air Sample Location — —, — Drainage Channel I
SWIAU
Site Structure
— — — Non -Contact, OncM
Through Water DitZ
River
PavementlCurb
Plant Border
Air Sample taken above MonitOelng Well C8SIng
Map Scale: 118,400
Map Projection: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
0 700 1,400
1 W_ Feet
OMWN: DATE: ­-TOUPOw ko.:
NO 446t
REOON FIGORi
0 M84616
FLE NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034740

4m 0, APFO Groundwater Analytical Results Map - June/July 2005
An Affiamv bet"an Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
NC Fayetteville, North Carolina
OEQ-CFVV_00034741

j06/1&05jAPF0 i No
APAA
NAF-03 j06115i05jAPF0 10.663
061161051APF0 10.262J
5F-02 106115105]APFO
10.338 INAF-118 J07105f05jAPF2_j
ND
NAF-VA
I
n-ML .
A
[NAF-1 1A JOV 0&051 PFO
NO
A 9M pw
..........
0.104
PYp
WtSA
P,
AL
NAF-08B 06121105 APFO
ND
px-
AL
Mw
NAF-09 106/161051APFO f 0.08
I
:Ark, 2D INAF-10 0�6116)051�APFO 1�0.122
wis
98
Mw_Iw 40,
11
Legend
Monitoring Well - Type 11 Drainage Channel
+ Monitoring Well -Type III Non -contact, Once
Through Water Ditch
Outfall River
I. Piezometer Pavement/Curb
Site Structure Plant Border
SwMU
All results reported in ugfi (ppb)
No = Non Detect
NO = Not Quantifiable
Map Scate, 1/8,400
Map Projection: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taken 1212005
N
0 700 1,400
1 Feet
DRAVft VATE: DUPONT NO.�
W26M 4461
--- --------------
REVIS)OW FIGURE NO.: URSO NO
FILE NAME:
DEQ-CFW-00034742

I / }
I Enfal t �ul
SMW-05 1 101171051A
SMW-04B 10/17/05 APFO 2.25
SMW-04B 11MO/05 APFO 2.51
BMW-04
LEARNZ?Jr Ep.
GLASS
WW
i ITLE: APFO Groundwater Analytical
CORPORATE REMEDIATto Results Map - September/October/November/[)
An mancebemeer? Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPbf)f and URS CorpaUAwM%
6324 Fairvaw RWd DuPont Fayetteville Wo
821rks
77 Chaflo%-- NC 2a
�FaYe;ftevifle, North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034743

_n
CD
ZE
101141051APFO 10.535
101141051APFO 10,0851
nm 027�11vm
121131051APFO 10.224
41-.." AF-11B INAF-11A 110117M5LAPF0 ]0,0206
APFO 0.246 X11w , +
44AF,
WAF-M
14/05 APFO 0.872
APZ
t NAF-05A 10113105 APFO 0.187
IPA-04 I
NAF-0 10118/05 APFO 0.212
NAFMA
j 4 AAF-W
IWUM5 APFO J0AT2
PZ-13
A,
PLSf-f©
NAF-088 10l13J45 APF0 No
pZ-id
NAF-09 I I Oil APFO 0.121
fj4AF-10 1 10/13f05 APF0 0A
PZ-15
pMOR
PZ11G A '
Legend
Monitoring Well -Type 11 Drainage Channel
Non -Contact, Once
Monitoring Well- Type III Through Water Ditch
outfall River
A Piezorneter PavementlCurb
Insitu Groundwater
Sample. Plant Border
= Site Structure SwMU
All results reported in ugA (ppb)
ND = Non Detect
NO = Not Quantifiable
Map Scale: 1/8,000
Map Projection. NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
Aerial Photograph provided by DuPont, taker) 1212005
K
W-*E
S
0 700 1,400
------ — --------
DRAWN. - DATE DUPONT NO.:
ND 4461
RFVISJON: FIGURE NO._ uFtso No.:
12 jB%m6i5
FILE t4AME:
DEQ-CFW-00034744

m
A
ISMW-02 1011261061APFO j NQ
SMW42+SmW-
..............
L4
...................
.I5mw-07 1a1lZfilQ6 APFO NO P2-12 I Oliza/081APF0
PROCESS
A
FIZ
At)NINISTRATMN
ea
61APR) 0.116
F, r F, E, P
HOUSE
PZ- 0
FTA-01
Y
F748
:.
FTA-02PAZ.10
JPZ1
NAI04 021011061AFTO
FTA-03
rt
MW -7S PV4
MVV-125
PZ-18 MW420
6 A FQ 0.0
Was
bash
WIS a
9A-B
vv
-1 S 01124/061APr-O I
S PZ-15
At
PZ-16
01126/CMN-3TWJCTX13N OFFICE VMTP v- S
FNGINSERING + mW-1D A MW*
+
W-11
t.
PMDF
SMW-01 is located due west 4306jeet, near fhe'n,wo
intersection of Highway 87 & Con*uction R6a(bEntrance
IS M7,
CORPORATE REMENATION GROUP
An Alliame betwew
DuPont and URS Cotpomuon - Nwh Carogna
8324 Fah,*w ROM
Ctmbtle,K2am
TITLE: APFO Groundwater Analytical Results Map - January/February 2006
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00034745

RZVRR
INTAKE
Mrim. m.�H'Tm*m
041
7 S m
LTW­04
Li W{1d rO FZ-21
- _ 124=106
Monitoring Well- Type if Drainage Channel
Non -Contact, Once
+ MoWlWng Well -Type III Through Water Ditch
0 Outfalf River
A Piezometer PavernentlCurb
Site structure Plant Border
SwmU
AN results rel)Wed in U9/1 (PPb)
map Scaie: 1/6,OW
Map Projeotion: NC State Plane Feet, NAD 83
ELI
N
0 5_00 1001010
Feet
DATE: wmw No.:
440
MV0014: FiGuRf NO.:
13 1OW515
FILE E-,
F'm
DEQ-CFW-00034746

MMM
Legend;
elayjaioyey Ot
soturoted Zone
a0 fl p
01 r
cQt it
C3
{ 1
N
cng < Z i
(f`); (LS
f r
CROSS SECTION:
.... — groundwater fine
DEQ-CFW 00034747

I
<+
L.L.
} Z
! NAAONO i 1
0
*mq
0
Corporate Remediotion Group
i Mtld fti�
L�
INR
DuPont . _Works
Fayetville, North Carolina
WTJL i OVI_ I "1, a 1 Ss
DEQ-CFW 00034748

�m
borehole
total depth
well screen
U)
<t
— — groundwater lint
DEQ-CFW 00034749

fol I
EAST
?
WMARENZIMUNIMI
Corporote Remediction Group
A% Agf&'%N befultan
DuPont aind URS Dimwnd
Badey MM Pima. SuldIng ig
DEQ-CFW-00034750

a
F
a
►i,
Ei►
RS IS ATTORNEY/CLrENT R COMMUNICA71a;,
(2) THIS IS THE ATTORNEYS•, .,aD
DEQ-CFW 00034751

�`'-
I
8 i
I
Y
-------- gig
t
4�
Corporatei i ' s s
DuPont +
yettevillie Works
Fayetville. North+
mul Ram Bulcong 19
DEQ-CFW 00034752

Ll
DEQ-CFW 00034753

;=Rrz
m
w
�-1
Cabn hours
-o 1.54 mis
1.54 - 3.09 mfs
3.09 - 5.14 m1b
EJ 5.14 - 8.23 mf
8.23 - 10.00
'PTLE:
DRAWN:
DATE'.DUPONT
OAT
1
NO.:
Wind Rose Event Onsite
ND
M2&06
I 4461
GROUP
CORPORATE nee
Fayetteville APFO Investigation Report
REVISION:
NO
URSD NO.:
be
An AfKanee beMwn
0
18
18084516
13VP0rdw4 u9s coopom— - Nwh camuna
DuPont Fayetteville Works
0324 FJry . R.0
C!.Ibtwflcmlo
Fayetteville, North Carolina
FILE NAME:
G:,,FoyeMWGi&/Project_MgurftPhaSe11.RFII
F.. W.H aweSil—d
DEQ-CFW-00034754

wiIhafremd..dj.
DuPont lie Works
4m 01 Fayetteville, NC
DEQ-CFW-00034755

°I Monite r ink WeIi �nstructron Details
APFQ Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
INNIZIMEMIME-EMMEIM,
�������
RI
# 1
4 1 f : 1 I f
f 1:#
���i;A�'r��
` `4 f
'` f.•
��ii�ill*L�i
�'liai
�.�
�
i f
f f
{ f
f t /
4 ! !:
�f.:
• a 1 '
M ' ' I : .
�iaiil'Jf>�
� 1
�
�
I I
! !
! f
/ i
# 1 f�
• « `
• : • `
1 1 :
�� 1
�
11
1 #
� 1 I
1 � 1
1' f 1
��
«:•• :I
f !•''M :•
��
JS�NESM3M
IVO M,
! 1
mass=
13MMEMOMM
w f mo
! 1
`'...1 1
! ',.: 1
0 1. ! 1
• M
Men=
` : •: ' # /INEMEM
Nzam
f• is 1
��
{ f#
# ! R
{ 1 # !
1 ! i
! 1 !
��
• '`!
!� ` "'
���'�f1:«�
�'41:C�
1 ' : 1
�
�
1 1 1
/ f. 1
/ i 1 1 '.
: # l 1
t i : 4
' «�..
�
" • . •
i ' ` ! 1
�
I
DEQ-CFW 00034757

Affink
Monitoring WeIRronstruction Details
APFO Investigation Report
DuPont Fayetteville Works
PZ-22
01/11106
PVC 3/4
46.00
36.0-46.0
34.0-46.0
32.0-34.0
O0-32,0
49.03
51.81 397272.80
2052584.04
PZ-23
01/31106
PVC
3/4
52.00
47,0-52.0
45.0-52.0
43,0-45.0
0.0-45,0
50.75
53.66
398829.09
2052327.19
MWAD
11/11/83
PVC
2
47.00
37.0-47.0
33.0-47.0
32.0-33.0
0.0-32.0
146.10
148.92
397094.55
204911422
MWAS
02/28/72
Stainless Steel
4
32.25
21.0-24.0
NA
NA
NA
149.13
149.93
397080.31
2049120.73
MW-213
1119M983
PVC
2
43.60
33.6-43.6
30.0-43.6
28.0-30,0
0.0-28,0
147.36
148.57
396949.57
2049317.11
MW-2S
2130/72
Stainfess Steel
4
29.26
19.0-23.0
NA
NA
NA
149.70
149.91
396934.75
2049321.85
MW-4D
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM-
146.74
396703.73
2049933-69
MW-51)
04/30173
Stainless Steel
4
48.46
NA-
NA
NA
144.96
146.36
396546.87
2049554.72
MW-7S
07/21/83
Stainless Steel
2
15.
-NA
MW-BS
07123183
Stainless Steel
2
14AD
NA
NA
NA
NA
NM
146,48
397096.48
2049867.77
MW-913
11/03183
PVC
2
62.50
52.5-62.5
48.0-62.5
46.0-48,0
0.0-46.0
148.35
151.44
396762.11
2049730.40
Mw-9S
11/03/83
PVC
2
22.50
17.5-22 , 5
15,0-22.5
14.0-1 5.O
0.0-14.0
151-77
154,39
396760.16
2049734.30
MW-1013
10127/83
PVC
2
40.00
30.0-40.0
28.0-40.0
23.0-28.0
0.0-23.0
143.91
146,79
396697.39
2049145.12
MW-1 1
05131105
PVC
2
21.50
11.5-21.5
9.3-21.5
7.3-9.3
0.0-7.3
145.44
148,53
396544.40
2049051.05
MW-12D
16/31/83
PVC
2
52.00
42.0-52.0
40.0-5 . 2.0
36.040.0
0.0-38.0
147.48
149.10
397254.20
2049269,36
MW-1 2S
11101183
PVC
2
22.50
17.5-22.5
15.5-22.5
14.6-15,5
0.0-14.5
149.89
152.06
397263.60
2049273,89
SMw-01
01/23/03
PVC
2
15.00
5.0-15.0
4.0-15.0
2.0-4.0
0.0-2.0
NM
NM
395295.75
2043679,19
SMW-02
01123103
PVC
2
20.00
5.0-20.0 --4.0--20.0
2.0-4.0
0,0-2.0
144.74
147.93
399983.75
205065C77
SMW-02B
10106/05
PVC
2
53.00
43.0-53.0
40.0-53-0
35.0-40,0
0.0-35.0
142.28
145.21
399983.49
20W6e0A8
SMW-03
06104/05
Stainless Steel
2
20.00
10.0-20.0
8.0-20.0
6.0-8.0
0.0-6.0
148.43
151.09
399778.25
2049445,96
SMW-04A
06/04/05
Stainless Steel
2
34.50
19.5-34.5
17.5-34.5
15.5-17.5
0.0-15.5
145.46
148.09
399668.71
2048387.57
SMW-04B
10/05105
PVC
2
53.00
410-53.0
41 .0-53.0
34.0-41.0
0.0-34.0
145.18
148.37
399667A2
2048390.30
SMW-05
10/10105
PVC
2
20-00
10.0-20.0
8.0-20.0
6.0-8.0
0.0-6.0
144A7
148.1-0
399334.07
2048557.33
SMw-05P
02/21106
PVC
3/4
60.00
45.0-60.0
410-60,0
41.0-43.0
0.0-41.0
146.06
149.32
399338.61
2048559.26
SMW-06
10110/05
PVC
2
22.00
12.0-22.0
2 '0
1U-22.0
0 '0-2
8.0-10.0
0.0-80
147.92
150.97
399172.35
2048759.48
SMW-07
10110105
PVC
2
1 23.00
110-210
3.0
11 �0-23.0
1 .0-2
8.5-11.0 '
0.0-8,5
147.74
147.64
398932.91
2048611.16
SMW-08
10/11/05
PVC
2
31.00
21.0-31.0
18.5-21,0
1 2 1,6 0
8
E25.8-38.0
1
14.5-18.5:1
0.0-14,5
147,93
151,02
399064.97
2048468.78
LTW-01
01116106
PVC
2
26.00
11.0-26.0
9.0-26,0
6.0-9.0
0.0-6.0
51.22
53.83
399506.17
2052149.95
LTW-02
01/16106
PVC
2
X00
28,0-38.0
23.5-25.81
0.0-23.5
50.03
52.48
398848.36
2052354.37
LTW-03
D1105/06
PVC
2
30.00
15.0-30.0
13,0-30.0
11.0-13.0
0.0-11.0
50.33
52.91
398115.15
2052557.52 1
LTW-04
12122105
PVC
2
27.00
12.0-27.0
9.5-27,0
7.5-9.5
0.0-7.5
49.34
51.86
397280.24
?2E?5§3�02;0
LTW-05
12/21105
PVC
2
44.00
29.0-44.0
27,044.0
25.0-27.0
0
96430,68
2052738
iNSITU-01
12113105
PVC
3/4
17.00
7.0-17.0
7.0-17.0
NA
0.0-7.0
116.99
118.2_
401658.20
2046077.31
INSITU-02 12113/05 PVC
NOTES.
1* = Portand Cement in place of Bentonite Grout
N/A/M = Not Available, Not Measured
314
17,00 7.0-17.0 7.0-17-0
ft = Feet
ft-msl = Feet Above Mean Sea Level
NA
0.0-7.0 IV 2D49136.62
NAU 63 = 19a3 North Carolina state Piano Coordinates
_.M
DEQ-CFW-00034758

'ROJECT:
Phase 11 RFI
NORTHING,
40165820
_I -CATION:
Fayetteville, NC
EASTING:
2046077.31
BORING 10:
INSITU-01
DATE STARTED:
12/13/05
SURFACE ELEVATION: 115.99
DATE COMPLETED: 12113105
,CASING ELEVATION:
118.20
LOGGED BY-
Tracy Ovbey
OVA
CL
lt�
0
DESCRIPTION
LU
0
PPM-V
E
144
95
M
owl
M
M##
Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
SAND: Light yellowish tan, medium grained
om .0
CORPORATE REMEOIATION GROUP
An AMence between
ouporg erns UPS Corporation- N072h cgrokte
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 20210
1RILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
DRILLER NUMBER,
SAND: Light tan, sticky, medium coarse
SAND: Light tan, damp, coarse
SAND: Tan, damp, medium grained
$AND: Greyish -tan, damp, sticky, medium coarse
SAND: Light arangish-tan, damp, medium grained
SAND: Light tanish-white, medium fine
SAND: Light grey, medium grained
SAND: Brown, medhim, grained
SAND: Orange, medium grained
SAND: Light greyish -white, medium fine
SAND: Orange, light orange and raddish orange bands, medium grained
SAND: Light grey, wet, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Light brownish -orange, we(, very soft
CLAY: Dark grey -black, soft
SAND: Tan, medium grained
CLAY: Very wet, soupy material (consistency of pudding), some clay and sand
CLAY: Dark grey, -black, medium soft
SAND: Oranae, mediuni fine, with bands of pink, white, reddish -orange and 4 inches of
grey, soft, sandy clay
SAND: Bright orange, medium fine, with stripes of tight orange and reddish -Oran"
WON
stickup
3/4 inch
riser
sand
3/4 inch
screen
Pp
sand
DEQ-CFW-00034759

I
LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR INSITU-01
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alkance between
DvPord and UPS CkypofaYon- North Carokna
6324 Fairview Road
Chadolle, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT, Phase lIRFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 12/13/05
BORING ID: INSITU-01 DATE COMPLETED. 12A 3/05
X o a OVA WELL DIAGRAM
d Q DESCRIPTION
0
(Ppm-v) INSITU-01
El
UJI
L.
SAND: Stripes of light orange, dark orange, pink and yellow, damp, medium grained, with
spots of soft light grey clay
. ...... .. ..
SAND: Orange, medium grained, bands of light and dark orange. with 0.6 ft of dark
organge, medium grained damp sand, with bands of reddish -orange
SAND: Orange, yellowish -orange, and dark orange, wet, medium grained
SAND: Light pinkish -orange, very wet
SANDY CLAY: Orange, soft
CLAYEY SAND: Orange, wet, medium grained, soft
SANDY CLAY: aright orange, soft
CLAY: Dark grey, medium stiff
SAND: Dark grey, medium fine
SANDY CLAY: Dark grey, medium soft
.... .... ... ... .. ... ... .
SAND: Dark grey, damp, medlurn to medium fine
SAND: Light grey, wet, medium fine
SAND: Grey, damp, medium grained
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff, with spots of greenish -grey
50
'01 E 0.0
40
BLS - Below Land Surface
IVISL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
M,
FP
LZ
W
EU
RM
11!
EM
mm
DEQ-CFW-00034760

KWO
4M 4
CORPORATE REMEDIA"r I ON GROUP
An Affiance between
Di�onr and UPS Corporafton- North Caiokm
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION- Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED. 12/13/05
BORING ID.- INSITU-01 DATE COMPLETED.-12/13105
z >-
0 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
�
P: — 0
= < V- DESCRIPTION
Wj 0M (Ppm-v) INSITU-01
Uj
PR
rp
vk.
11
�fl
PE
112
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff, with spots of medium grained sand
SAND: Dark grey, wet, medium grained, with spots of medium soft, dark grey day
SANDY CLAY: Black, medium soft
SAND: Grey, damp, medium grained
SAND: Bright Orange, very wet
-- -----
CLAYEY SAND: Grey, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
• SAND: Grey, wet, medium coarse
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
0-0 CLAY: Dark grey, stiff, with spots of light grey and greyish -green
0.0 CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
Boring Terminated at 69 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapi
DEQ-CFW-00034761

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR INSITU-02
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance beMeen
•ECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING-
401863.46
DuPorg and ORS Oorporation- JVMh Catoh)7a
6324 Fairview Road
,RwCATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING:
2049136,62
I Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
BORING ID: INSITU-02 DATE STARTED:
ingm
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Dritling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 110.71 DATE COMPLETED: 12/1.3/05
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 113.12 LOGGED BY:
Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
z
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
DESCRIPTION
W- S 8
a W (pprn,-v) INSITU-02
W
. . . .
SAND: Tan, loose, medium grained
Ickup
lit}
3/4 inch
riser
CLAYEY SAND: Light tan, sticky, medium grained, with spots of bright orange
0.0
SANDY CLAY: Light grey, with spots of bright orange
5—,
bentonite
CLAYEY SAND: Tan, medium grained
SAND: Bright orange, wet, medium coarse
705
0.0
sand
SAND: Bright orange, wet, medium coarse
SAND- Tan, wet medium coarse with one foot of grey, with some debris
314 inch
screen
debris
.-100
SAND: Grey, medium -grained, wet, with silver flecks
0.0
sand
CLAYEY SAND: Grey, medium -coarse
SANDY CLAY: Grey, medium -stiff
CLAY: Grey, medium -stiff
--95
SANDY CLAY: Grey, medium -stiff
-
CLAY: Grey, medium -stiff, with spots of sand
20—.
. . .
0.0 CLAY: Grey, medium -soft, with some pebbles
SAND: Light grey, medium -fine grained, wet, with silver flecks (mica)
ORGANICS: Dark brown crumbly organic matter
[
--90
ao SAND: Light grey, medium -coarse, very wet -drippy
25
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff, with Grumbles of black organic matter
BLS - Below
Land
Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea
Level
pprn-v
- parts per
million - vapor
Page I of 3
DEQ-CFW-00034762

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR INSITU-02
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
4M 40
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
AnAftwebahmen
DuPont and UPS Corporation- Narth Carolina
8324 Fairview Road
Chakits. Nwth Caru5na 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFl
LOCATION, FaYettelfiils. NC DATE STARTED: 12109105
BORING ID. INSITU-02 DATE COMPLETED. 12/13105
2:
P OVA WELL DIAGRAM
(Ppm-v) DESCRIPTION
0 INSITU-02
a W
W
It
M
CLAY: Grey, stiff, with spots of stiff sandy day
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
SAND: Light grey, medium -grained
SANDY CLAY: Grey, medium stiff
SAND: Grey, medium-warse, damp/ wet
SANDY CLAY: Dark grey, medium -soft
-SAND: Grey, medium -gained, wet
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
CLAY, Light grey, stiff
CLAY: Grey, stiff
SAND: Grey, medium -grained
CLAY: Grey, stiff
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
W SD III
- * (3-
- ' - * 0
. . . SAND: Grey, coarse -grained
0
SLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
M
11M
DEQ-CFW-00034763

lxwl, I1111] NIOX let 0 0 0
IM-FIRTINTIMM
am A
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
Dupork end URS Cbrporabbn- North Gem Ma
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT; Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION-. Fayeftville, NC DATE STARTED: 12 O9105
BORING 10: IN-SITU-02 DATE COMPLETED: i2M/05
z
OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
j DESCRIPTION
LU 0
(ppm-v) INSITU-02
Uj ZI
I"
�R
Ei
W-
DI
P2
r .9
Fit'
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
irl=F]
DEQ-CFW-00034764

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR LTW-01
4M
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEMATION GROUP
AnAffiametw"an
OJECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 399665,75
DuPont and UPS Corpomtjbr�- North Carolina
6324 Faitview Road
®CATKIN: Fayetteville, NO EASTING: 2052148.31
Charloils, With Carolina M10
BC RING 10: LTW-01 DATE STARTED: 12121/o5
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 51,22 DATE COMPLETED; 111&06
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 63.83 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
z 0)
9 Zi
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
1
0 0
j
M
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
LTW-01
M
LU
LJ
n
W
rp
UJI
Em
KM
'T-
T- _T
r -r
-7 'T_ _r
' _r _r 7
T T T
_r --r _T_ 0.0
-T -r -7
0.0
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
11711011riffelF MR 0
SILTY CLAY; Brown, dry, stiff
SILTY CLAY: Brown, moist, soft
SILTY CLAY: Orange -brown, moist, soft
. .. .. .. ... ... .. _.. - ­.............. -
SILTY CLAY, Light brown, dry, medium stiff
SILTY CLAY: Light brown, medium stiff
SILTY CLAY: Light orangish-brown with spots of light gray, moist, medium soft
SILTY CLAY: Light grey with spots of orange, medium soft
CLAYEY SAND: Light grey, mist, sticky, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Greyish -orange, medium soft
SAND: Orange With stripes of dark orange and yellow, damp, medium grained
SAND: Light Greyish -white, wet, medium fine
SAND: Tan with spots of orange, wet, medium fine
SAND: Light orange -tan with spots of brighter orange, wet, medium fine
SAND: Bright orange, with water, medium grained
SAND: Grey, wet, medium fine, with layers of black, crumbly orgainic material
M41
grout
2" FIVC. riser
sand
2"PVC
screen
sand
27MEEE
DEQ-CFW-00034765

PROJECT. Phase If RF1
LOCATION: FayetteMile, NC
BORING 10: LTW-01
z
OVA
0
(pprn-V)
o
RE,
m
M
E
WE
tLl
In
M
DATE STARTED. 12/21IG5
4m 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance bw"en
DuPool and URS CoWraWn- North Carotins
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Catolina 28210
IM44111101
MEMO
CLAY: Light grey, stiff
Well Casing instailec! to 26.0 feet SLS
2' PVC
screen
Boring Terminated at 28.0 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
I
DEQ-CFW-00034766

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR LTW-02
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEMATION GROUP
An AXance bet"en
DvPont and URS Carporabon- North CaroMa
dhOJECT'. Phase III RFl NORTHING: 398W.97
G324 Fa wiew Road
WCATION'. Fayetteville, NC FASTING: 2052352.87
Charlotte, Not1h Carolina 20210
BORING 10: LTW-02 DATE STARTED: 121 m5
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 50.03 DATE COMPLETED. 1116106
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 52.48 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER-
6 2'n
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
!� M
> A
8
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
LTW-02
LU 4e
71
50 _r _r _r __
____ — ----- — ----- — -------- — ------- — ----- — ----
-r- _T _T
SILTY CLAY: Brown,soft, at 4 ft. got slightly less moist - more crumbly
_r­ _r _r
_r _r. _T
-71
_T­ '7 _r
46
().0
- _r 7- 1
SILTY CLAY: Brown, dry, crumbly, slightly stiff
_7 _r _r
�r 'r
-
-1 -1
0.0 SANDY CLAY: Orangish-brown, damp, soft
40
CLAY: Orange -brown with spots of light grey, medium soft
MENEE
20-+30
flT. I ff Int �_L f-11i
CLAY� Dark grey, stiff, with some sand
0-0 1 CLAY: Da* grey, stiff
25 25
BILS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean See Level
ppm-v - parts per million - val
Eli
=1
2" PVC riser
?"M
bentonite
DEQ-CFW-00034767

... ...... ... 1111
om 0
CORPORATE REME01ATION GROUP
An AWance between
DuPont and UPS Gorpomvon- North Carofina
6324 FaiNisw Road
Cha&tts, Nzdh C'dm4in-a 28219
PROJECT: Phase If RFl
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 12/20105
BORING ID: LTW-02 DATE COMPLETED: 1/16/06
Lz OVA WELL DIAGRAM
<' DESCRIPTION
(PPM-V) LTW-02
ul
30 --j— 20
1P
I
40 --{- 10
uzw
-M
E
... ........ ... ... 0.0 CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
2" PVC riser
.... ......
0.0 CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
. . .
SAND: Dark grey, damp, medium coarse
()-0 SAPID. Dark grey, damp, medium grained
7, PVC
screen
SAND: Dark grey, wet, medium grained
------ - ....
....
-- ------- ....
sand
0-0 SAND: Dark grey, wet, medium grained, with spots of medium soft clay
0.0 SANDY CLAY: Light grey, sticky, medium soft
Well Casing Installed to 36.0 feet BLS
0.0 Boring Terminated at 40.0 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
M5L - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034768

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR LTW-03
dM 0
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDJATION GROUP
M Alliance between
Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 398113-50
DuPont and UPS Carpomdon- North Camfina
6324 Fairview Road
rJECT:
CATION: Fayetteville, NC EA TING: 2052567.64
Charlotte, North Carohns MIO
BORING ID: LTW-03 DATE STARTED: ovosm
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION- 50.33 DATE COMPLETED: 1)51()6
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 52-91 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
0
j
0
(pprn-v)
DESCRIPTION
L7W-03
W ei
SILTY CLAY: Brown, medium soft
4.00
up
TTT
-r -r 7
7- -r -7-
-r -T- -T
- -r -r -7
45
7- 7- -r
0.0 SILTY CLAY: Brown, dry, crumbly
-r -r 7
TTT
grout
-r -r -T
-TTT
r -r 7
-r -r
SILTY CLAY: Brown, crumbly
2" PVC riser
7-
-r -r 7
SILTY CLAY: Brown, medium soft
10TTT-
40
TTT
SANDY CLAY. Brown, moist, soft
bentanite
0.0 SANDY CLAY: Orange-lxown, moist, soft
SANDY CLAY: Orange with spots of tan, medium soft
SANDY CLAY. Orartgish-tan, medium stiff
fS
35
SANDY CLAY: Orangish-tan, medium stiff
sand
CLAY: Ofangish-fan, wet, very soft
SANDY CLAY: Orangish-brown, medium stiff
CLAY: Light grey, medium soft with spots of dry crumbly orange silly clay
20-
-30
-r -r 7
2" PVC
0,0 SILTY CLAY: Dark orange, medium stiff, crumbly with thick streaks of light grey moist clay
TTT
screen
7- -r -1
----------------------
CLAY: Light grey, moist, very soft
25-
SAND: Light grey, wet, medium grained
25
BLS - Below
Land
Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea
Level
ppm-v
- parts per
million - vapor
Page 1 of 2
DEQ-CFW-00034769

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR LTW-03
WITY20VITOR WELL 1,11-STALL411
PROJECT:
Phase Il RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC
BORING ID: LTW-03
z
Q
0
OVA
Uj
0
(ppm -v)
a
F
LU
-i
W11"
ip
ME
:R1
M$
4W A
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
AnAffia"between
DuPont &,nd UPS Carporatfon- Hwth Cvrofina
6324Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 29210
\SAND: Orange, wet, medium grained
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
CLAY: Layers of stiff dark grey clay with alternating layers of orange and white, medium
0.0 coarse, wet sand
CLAY. Dark grey with bands of grey medium fine sand
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
Well Casing Installed to 30,0 feet SLS
0
Below Land Sorface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
pprn-v - parts per million - vapot
DEQ-CFW-00034770

LITC LOG FOR LTW-04
0
Im
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMED IATION G Ro Up
An Al#wre between
Phase " RF1 NORTHING: 397280.23
DUP00 and UPS C47PD?&2iDA-- JVOnh Caffl§M
6324 Fairv�ev4 Road
IROJECT:
OCATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING: 2052583.10
Charlotte, North Carolina 26210
BORING ID: LTW-04 DATE STARTED: i2/22/o
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION. 49.34 DATE COMPLETED- 12122105
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 511-86 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER- SC B01419
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
iu on
0
(pprn-v)
DESCRIPTION
as
Uj
I f I
-
2.52'stIck-
SILTY CLAY: Brown, mist, soft
up
T.-
SILTY CLAY: Light brown, dry, crumbly
'7- -F 7
-r -r -7
45
-F -r -T
-r --ri
�
grout
$-
-r
-T -r -T
0.0
2" PVC riser
SILTY CLAY: Ligtht brown, dry, medium stiff
-r- -T- -7
-r -r -T
7- -r -7
bentonite
40
T T -r-
0.0 SILTY CLAY: Orangish-brown dry, medium stiff
7- -T
-T- -r 7-
sand
r -r -r
0.0 SILTY CLAY: Orangish-brown, dry, medium skiff
TTT
-7- -F 7
-r -T- -r
35
-r -T- -T
SILTY CLAY: Oran&h-brown, moist, medium soft, with spots of soft, light grey clay
15-
0.0 CLAY: Orangish-brown, mist, medium soft, with streaks of soft, light grey clay
PVC
SANDY CLAY: Orangish-brown, moist, soft, with streaks of light grey
screen
0.0 BLANK: No recovery, watery, two attempts made
30
20-
sand
SAND: Orange, medium fine, water
SAND: Light grey, wet, medium fine to medium coarse
-26
0.0 SAND: Orange, medium coarse, mixed with water
25-
BLS - Below
Land
Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea
Level
pprn-v -
parts per
million - vapor
Pagel
o1`2
DEQ-CFW-00034771

Uwe M KOM 0 0 1
•
'k
W—WOM, 00=
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affience between
DuPont and URS Gorporatbn- NMh Carokna
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, Noilh Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase It RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 12122tO5
BORING ID: DATE COMPLETED. 12122105
z >-
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0- V- 0 DESCRIPTION
W :r (Ppm-v)
LU-j
M,
M
EP
ffl
EB
M
M
SAND: Reddish -orange, wet, coarse
SAND: Orange, wet, coarse, with spots of very soft clay
SAND: Orange, medium grained mixed with water
Z'PVC
screen
Well Casing Installed to 27.0 feet BLS
--- ---- ------ --
SAND: Light tan, medium coarse
0,0 Boring Terminated at 30.0 feet BLS
KS - Below Land Surface
VISL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034772

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR LTW-05
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
Ai? A&wxe b&waen
MOJECT: Phase It RFI NORTHING* 3%431.86
9CATION:
DuPoN and UPS Corporation North Cawfina
6324 Fairview Road
Q Fayettevilie, NC, FASTING' 2052737.17
Chorlolle, North Carolina 20210
BORING ID: LTW-05 DATE STARTED: 12121105
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 49.29 DATE COMPLETED: 12121joS
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
CASING ELEVATION: 52.01 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
02
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
W ra
P'��
g 8
0
-j
0
(ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
LTW-fly
o
W.0 !
j tu
M
LU ck
- — -- -
- - -- - - ---- - ----- - ------ - ---- - - ----- - ---- - ---- - ----
2.72' stick -
SILTY CLAY: Brown, moist, soft
-r -r 7
up
SILTY CLAY: Brown, dry, crumbly
-45
TTT
5-
0.0
SILTY CLAY: Brown dry, crumbly
-1- 7- -T-
T T
40
-F -T- --r
0•0
SILTY CLAY: Brown, dry, with spots of light brown
10--
- --F -T- 7
-r -r -r
grout
-71-1-.... 1
SILTY CLAY: CWangish-brown, dry, with spots of fight grey
SILTY CLAY: Oranglish-brown and right grey, slightly moist, medium soft
7- -r -7
-35
is-
0.0
—Y
2" PVC riser
Orarigish-brown, slightly moist, medium stiff, with large streaks of medium soft, light
r
cu grey clay
-r -r -r SILTY CLAY: Brown, soft, with spots of soft, light grey clay
T- -r -7
30 --F 7- 7-
-r,7 -T
20- -7 -F -r
-7 -r -7
-1 0,0
'T- -7 -r -r 7- SILTY CLAY: Brown, medium soft to soft, with bands of soft, light grey clay
-r -r- -7
-7 -F 7-
25
25--
bentorilte
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor Page I of 2
DEQ-CFW-00034773

NIA k If M ail D111 �" I k Q01:4711411111
4M
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
DaPont and UPS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Ch"cite, North Carolina 29210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NG DATE STARTED. 12/21/05
BORING ID- LTW-05 DATE COMPLETED: 12121105
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
9 DESCRIPTION
0
(pprn-v) LTW-05
EM
U-j
-M]
K11
jL4]
bentonite
L
2" PVC riser
0-0 CLAY: Light grey, very soft
CLAY: Tan, moist, very soft
sand
CLAY: Light grey, very soft
SAND: Grayish -orange, wet medium grained
SAND: Orangish-tan, wet, medium grained
2- PVC
screen
. . . .
SAND: Light orangish-brown, wet, medium grained
....
.
....
Boring Terminated at 40.0 feet BLS
...
sand
Well Casing Installed to 44.0 feet BLS
521-S - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
i772im
DEQ-CFW-00034774

uU1 I
OG FOR Mww
LITHOLOGIC L.
A
4M
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE RrEIVIEDIATION GROUP
An AAance between
080JECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 396544.40
URS
Dvpom and 5324 FCorporation- North Carohna aiiview Road
CATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING, 2049051.06
Charlotte, North Carolina M219
BORING lb: MW-11 DATE STARTED: 5mm
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Orilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 145.44 DATE COMPLETED:smm
DRILLER: Mike Dams
CASING ELEVATION: 148.53 LOGGED BY; Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER-
3:
C'
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
0
{Rpm-v)
DESCRIPTION
MW-11 1
0
-145
..1 -
---- -- - - ----- - ---
SILTY SAND: Dark Brown to Oran&h Brown
109'sfick-
i.:.
u P
SAND, Brownish Orange to Light Ton, fine to medium grained
grout
CLAYEY SAND: Orangish Brown, medium grained
140
--7
r r
2" stainless
steel riser
SILTY CLAY: Orange
SAND: Orange to White, medium to coarse grained
bentonite
SAND: Orange, coarse grained, sticky, with some clay
.. .. .. . ... .. . .. ... .
SAND: Light Orange to Light Grey, medium grained
10-
-
135
sand
SAND. White to Grey, loose medium to coarse grained
15
-
-130
SAND: Bright Orange, loose, coarse grained
2" stainless
SAND: Light Tannish While to Light Grey, fine grained, wet
steel screen
. . .
SAND: Light Grey to Grey, medium to coarse grained, wet
20-
.. .. .. ... ..
SAND: Bright Orange, coarse grained, wet
-125
CLAY: Greyish Brown, medium stiff
Boring Terminated at 21 feet BLS
Well Installed at 21.5 feet SILS
25
------
BLS - Below
Land
Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea
Level
Rpm-v -
parts per
Million - vapor
Page I of I
DEQ-CFW-00034775

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-06 4M A
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AlAome between
DuPont -end URS Corporarobn� North Caiofiw
VROJECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 398809,83 6324 Fa irview Rood
10CATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING: 2050911.89 Chatiotte. North Carolina 2821G
BORING ID: NAF-06 DATE STARTED: 5120105 DRILLING CO.-. Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 143,17 DATE COMPLETED: 5120j05 DRILLER: Mike Davis
W 0-0
,a
92
� I
III ;Er
—140
8 OVA
(Ppn"--v) DESCRIPTION
J
Soil cuttings removed while dearing utilities
NAF-M replaced PZ-02 and the Lithology was taken from PZ-02, which was drilled an
9/18102 by Mandel Harvey
No OVA readings were recorded during PZ-02 lithology recording
WELL DIAGRAM
NAF-06
.... ........
3.26'stick-
up
bentonite
2"stainfess
steel riser
sand
SAND, Pink and grey, fine-grained
135
2" stainless
CLAY: Pale red
steel screen
Well Installed at 12.75 feet BLS
CLAY: Slat*
15
--125
20—
Boring Terminated at 20 feet BLS
120
25--
0
BLS - Below
Land Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea Level
ppm-v -
parts per ftillon - vapor
Page
I of I
DEQ-CFW-00034776

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-07 4M 40
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Aftqca between
UPS adPhase 11 RFl NORTHING: 39MO9.33 DuPont and 6324 Fairview RGxporaboad roarer CeroMa
OCATION, Fayetteville, No EASTING: 2050616.50 Charlorhe, North Carolina 28210
BORING 10: NAP-07 DATE STARTED: 6/20/os DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 146.73 DATE COMPLETED: 512Cvo5 DRILLER: Mike Davis
CASING ELEVATION: 149.69 LOGGED BY, TT8Cy Ovbey DRILLER NUMBER:
:3 1
go >-
�5 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
0 DESCRIPTION
NAF-07
0 t LU X (Ppm-v)
SANDY SILT: Light Tan, dry, With some pebbles 2.96'stick-
up
145
SANDY SILT: Brown, With some pebbles
bentonite
SILTY CLAY: Oranglsh Brown, soft to medium
I
SANDY CLAY: Orangish Brown, soft to medium 2" stainless
steel riser
SANDY CLAY: Light Orangish Brown, soft to medium
... SANDY CLAY: Tan, medium grained, soft to medium
. . . . .... ...
SAND: Brownish Orange, medium to coarse, with bright orange spots
-140
SAND: Orange, coarse
sand
SAND-. Light Yellow Orange, coarse, wet
SAND: Light Grey, coarse, wet
. . . SAND: Light Tan, coarse, wet 2" stainless
steel screen
SANDLight Grey, very fine, wet, with some clay
—135 . . .
SAND: Light Gray, coarse, wet
\!A!D. Light Grey, Coarse, wet, With Some bright orange spots
... ........
.... ......
CLAY: Grey, soft
0-0 ....... . .... ..
CLAY: Light Brownish Orange, soft to medium
CLAY: Brown, stiff
130 Boring terminated, Well installed at 15.5 feet BLS
20-
125
25-
0
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor Page I of I
DEQ-CFW-00034777

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-08A & 08B
4M 40
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
dMOJECT: Phase 11 RF1 NORTHING: 398098-D9
Dupork and UPS 001P010on- NCV1h cafflAna
6324 Faimiaw Road
INCATION` Fayetteville, NC EASTING; 2050886.63
Chadatte North Carolina 29210
BORING ID: NAP-08A & 088 DATE STARTED: 611io5
DRILLING CO.- Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 145,54 DATE COMPLETED: 6/2/05
DRILLER: Mike Davis
CASING ELEVATION: 148,82 LOGGED BY: Tracy OvbeY
DRILLER NUMBER:
z to
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
WELL DIAGRAM
'L M
—
I
0
DESCRIPTION
LU
>
W ca
a:
(Ppm-v)
NAF-08A
NAF-08B
_j
W�
_j
145
�fvxxxl. SANDY CLAY: Orangish Brown, medium grained
up
up
spots of orange and some pebbles
bento6%te
0.0
2" stainless
steel and 8"
2"stainless
schedule 40
steel riser
PVC riser
5-
X ...
r5AND. 0,anorish Brown, medium stiff
-140
SAND: Orangish Gray, medium grained
grout
SAND: Light Grey, fine grained
0.0
send
SAND: Grayish White, coarse grained, with spots of orange
SAND: Light Grey, coarse grained, wet
SANDY CLAY: Light Grey, soft
2"stainless
-135
SAND: Light Grey, coarse grained, wet
steel screen
.... ...... 0.0
SAND: Orangish Gray, coarse grained, wet, with bands of
bright orange
SAND: Tan, coarse grained, wet, with spots of bright orange
.........
I. CLAY: Light Orange to Orange, medium to coarse grained,
0.0
wet
Ed of 6"
-130
CLAY: Dark Grey and Orange, soft
scnhedule 40
PVC riser
SANDY CLAY: Gray, medium grained, soft
CLAY: Dark Grey, stiff
CLAY: Light Grey, medium soft to stiff
0.0 CLAY: Light Brown, stiff
grout
20-
.. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ... ..........
CLAY: Dark Grey to Light Grey, stiff
125
SANDY CLAY: Light Grey, medium to stiff
CLAY: Grey, stiff
2"stainless
steel riser
0.0
CLAY: Dark Grey to Black, very stiff
25-
0-
120
BLS - Below
Land Surface
MSL -
Mean Sea Level
ppm-v -
parts per million -vapor
Page
1 of 3
DEQ-CFW-00034778

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-08A & 08B
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Agiance betvwan.
DuPont and UPS 0<wpotabbr�- Ncvth Caro#w
6324 Fa iry iew Road
Charlolle, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFl
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 611105
BORING ID: NAF-08 DATE COMPLETED: 612/05
x 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
0
DESCRIPTION
W
0 1 (Ppm-v) NAF-08A NAF-08B
W _j
301 115
PIE
am
Mr.
CLAY: Grey to Black, very stiff
SANDY CLAY: Light Grey, soft, fine to medium grained, wet
CLAY: Dark Grey, stiff
SAND: Gray, fine grained
SANDY CLAY: Dark Grey to Black, stiff
CLAY: Black, very sfiff
CLAY: Dark Gray, medium stiff
SANDY CLAY: Dark Grey, medium soft
SAND: Gray, medium to coarse grained, wet
No Lithology Recorded (46-53.5 feet BLS)
5095
1
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
pprn-v - parts per million -vapor
M
Act
muo
M
2'stainless
steel riser
EM,
bentonite
sand
2" stainless
steel screen
DEQ-CFW-00034779

III i, I �� �
mw
0 0 0 . I m I1111111 X010 WEEMEM
Qft 40
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AM4,nce between
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 26210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED. 6/1/05
BORING ID: NAF-08 DATE COMPLETED:6005
z >-
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
0 DESCRIPTION
0
(ppm-v) NAF-08A NAF-0813
LU
-a
m
FTI
EL
E
m
'P
LZ
EL
81-8 - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
[J=V-11(l
DEQ—CFW-00034780

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-09
4M 4
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Agarxe between
OJECT: Phase 11 RFl NORTHING: 398711.09
Dupor'l am UPS corporetbn- North Carom6324 Fairview Road
CATION: Fayetteville, NC FASTING: 2050806.52
Chadulte, North Carolina 26210
BORING ID: NAF-09 DATE STARTED: 5/1 9to5
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 146.52 DATE COMPLETED: 5119105
DRILLER: Mike Davis
CASING ELEVATION: 149.29 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
a
z (0
LO ;E
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
OL m
W
-j
0
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
NAF-09
W �
-j
0
INNWWAWMA------------ ------------------------------------------------ — ------------------------- —;t—ick-'UT
SANDY CLAY: Light Tan, very fine grout
SILTY CLAY: Orangish Brown, medium stiff
SANDY CLAY: Light Brown, soft to medium, very fine to fine
....
2"stainless
SANDY CLAY: Greyish brown, medium stiff, fine to medium
steel riser
144)
SAND: Greyish Brown, loose, coarse
---
----
SAND: Tan, fine to medium
SAND: Yellowish Tan, coarse
0.0
'i SAND: Light Brown, coarse
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ..
....
....
sand
—135
... ...
SAND: Licht Greyish Tan, very fine to fine, wet
.
SAND: Tan, fine to medium, wet
2-1 stainless
steel screen
SAND: Yellowish White, medium grained, wet
- --
-----
SAND: Light Orange, medium grained, wet
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. ..
15—
... ... .. .. .
SAND: Orange, medium to coarse
SAND: Greyish Orange, medium grained
—130
SANDY CLAY: Greyish Orange, soft
SAND: Light Grey, medium to coarse, wet
0.0
CLAY: Light Grey, soft to stiff
20—
..CLAY: Light Brown, stiff
CLAY: Light to Dark Grey, stiff to very stiff
—125
SANDY =Y: Light Grey, medium stiff
CLAY: Grey, stiff
-
CLAY: Grey to Black, very stiff
25—
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
PPM-V - parts per million
- vapor
Page I of 2
DEQ-CFW-00034781

W P, no W-1
4M 40
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance batmen
DuPont and UPS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, Norlh Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase tl RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED- 6119105
BORING ID: NAF-09 DATE COMPLETED: 5/19/05
z >-
OVA WELL DIAGRAM
a- dH DESCRIPTION
NAF-09
W o S 0
(Ppm-v)
'D W
go
M
ER
M,
E
IKE
Rips
HMA
inm
ME
0.0
0.0
SANDY CLAY: Light Grey, soft, fine to medium grained, wet
Boring Terminated at 37 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
I
DEQ-CFW-00034782

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF40
4M 0
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AAqawe between
ROJECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 397612.57
URS Corporation-
Dupont and 6324 Fairview Road North Carolina
Fayetteville, NC EASTING; 2050423.15
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
BORING ID: NAF-10 DATE STARTED: wigm
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 146.94 DATE COMPLETED: 51191o5
DRILLER- Mike Davis
CASING ELEVATION: 150-00 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
x in
g 2
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
W
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
NAF-10
W .8
I it
M
W
zj
0-0 1SANDY CLAY: Brcmn to Orangish Brown, medium soft, medium grained, with some
orange spots
SAND: Light Brown, loose, medium grained
140 . . . .
M 0.0 CLAY: Light Grey to Grey, medium stiff
. . . SAND: Light Grey to Grey, very fine to medium grained, wet
0.0
SAND: Light Greyish Brown, medium to coarse grained, wet
--135 ... .. .. .. .. .
SAND: Whitish Tan, coarse grained, wet
15 . . . . 0.0
SAND: Orange, very coarse, loose, wet
130 CLAY- Orangish Grey, soft to medium soft
CLAY: Light Grey to Grey, medium sfiff to stiff
EE
ER�
SAN DY CLAY: Grey, soft, medium grained
0.0
CLAY: Light Grey, stiff
SANDY CLAY- Grey, soft, medium grained
25--
0 1 il� CLAY: Light Grey, stiff
BILS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean See Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
M
bontonite
2" stainless
steel riser
sand
12" stainless
DEQ-CFW-00034783

4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AljYajxe between
OuPont and URS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fa iry is W Ro ad
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED; 5119105
BORING ID: NAF-10 DATE COMPLETED: 5119/05
z >_
2 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
DESCRIPTION
W 0 (Ppm-v) NAF-10
W
�u
U41
_]E
E
DKIA
31F31111
110
ma
SANDY CLAY: Black, soft, medium grained
SAND: Dark Grey, coarse grained
CLAY: Dark Grey, medium 60 to stiff
SANDY CLAY- Dark Grey, medium soft, medium grained
0.0 SAND: Whitish Grey to Dark Grey, fine to medium grained
SILTY CLAY: Black, medium soft
SAND: Whitish Grey, medium grained
CLAY: Dark Grey, stiff
0.0 SAND: Whitish Grey, medium grained
. . . .
SILTY CLAY: Black, medium stiff
SAND: Whitish Grey, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Dark Grey, medium stiff
SAND: Light Grey, fine grained
Boring Terminated at 37 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
DEQ-CFW-00034784

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-i I A & 11 B
4
4M
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATI ON GROUP
An Affiance between
OJ Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 398911.13
Dupont and UPS Carporation- North Gaiofina
6324 Fairtiepw Road
OCATION; Fayetteville, NC EASTING: 2050995.88
Charlotte, North Carolina 26210
BORING ID, NAF41A. & 11B DATE STARTED: w3m
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
SURFACE ELEVATION: 137.55 DATE COMPLETED: e/5106
DRILLER: Mike Davis
CASING ELEVATION: 140.74 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER:
o
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
-8
2
(pprn-v)
NAF-1 1A
NAF-1 I B
WS
0-
--------- —
- ---- — --------- —
TOPSOIL
------ ------
­ --------- — ----- -
3.104' stick-
3.19 stick -
up
up
rT r
SILTY SAND: Brown, medium grained
bentonite
2'stainfess
-135
0.0
SAND: Tan, medium grained
steel riser
2"staWess
.. ... .. .. ..
steel and 6"
SAND: Whitish Light Tan, medium to coarse grained
PVC riser
SAND: Light Tannish Grey, coarse grained, trace clay, wet
sand
.. ... .. ... .. .
. . .
SANO. Brownish Grey, very fine gratned, spots of orange,
2"stainless
0.0
trace clay, wet
- - ------------------- - - -
steel screen
grout
CLAY: Brownish Orange, medium to stiff, spots of bright
130
orange
CLAY: Grey to Dark Grey, stiff
90
CLAY: Dark Greyish Brown, stiff
end of 6"
PVC riser
ao
.. .. I. .. ­.... .. .. .. . .. .. ..
CLAY: I .. Grey, I . stiff,. . .. with .. spots .. . of . orange
CLAY: Grey to Dark Grey, stiff
-126
CLAY: Black, sfiff, with pieces of black wood -like organic
2" stainless
material, dry
. .. ... .. ...
steel riser
0.0
CLAY: Dark Grey, stiff
15
CLAY: Black, stiff, crumbly, with pieces of brown wood -like
organic material, dry
.. .. .. ... .. . . .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ..
CLAY: Dark Grey to Black, stiff to very stiff, dry
120
0.0
grout
20-
1i
0.0 - CLAY: . G , rey t . o . . Dark . G . rey, � m . odium .. s . liff
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean See Level
ppm-v - parts per million -vapor Page I of 3
DEQ-CFW-00034785

M
all
1 ITHOLOGIC LOG FOR NAF-1 I A & 11 B
1WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
4M A
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Afflance between
DuPont and UPS Goeporahbn- North Calofina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 262 1 B
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC. DATE STARTED: 613105
BORING ID: NAF-1 1 DATE COMPLETED: 615/05
Z
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
®
DESCRIPTION
(pprn-v) NAF-1 1 A NAF-1 1 B
Lu
rp
SAND: Orange to White, medium grained, loose, dry
SAND: White, fine grained, loose
SAND: Grayish White, coarse grained, loose
.. .. .. .. .. ..
SAND: Bright Orange, medium to coarse grained, with some
clay
. .. ... .. ... ..
SAND: Light Orange, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Dark Brown, very fine grained, with stripes of
black and white and light brown
SAND: White, medium grained, dry
SAND: Yellowish Tan, medium grained, dry
. .. ... ... .. ... .. .
SAND: Bright Orange, fine to medium grained
.. .. ... .. ..
SAND: Light Tan, medium to coarse grained, damp
. .. .. .. ... ..
SAND: Bright Orange, coarse, wet
CLAY: Brownish Grey, medium stiff
. .. .. .. ... ..
CLAY: Dark Grey, stiff
/SAND-. Bright Orange, medium grained, with bands of light
orange, white, and magenta, bands of grey clay, damp
CLAY- Light Grey, very soft with bands of orange medium
grained sand, wet
501-i— - SAND: Orange, medium grained, with bands of dark orange
. - 0.0
. . . . CLAYEY SAND: Grey, medium grained, with stripes of
k orange, dark orange, and dark grey, very wet
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million -vapor
MCI
grout
bentonite
2"stainless
steel tiser
M
2" stainless
steel screen
DEQ-CFW-00034786

Ak
4m IR
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Aftme between
DWa onf ar4 ORS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT. Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 613/05
BORING ID- NAF-1 I DATE COMPLETED: 6/5/05
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
-i DESCRIPTION
0
n W (ppm-v) NAF-1 1 A NAF-1 1 B
EEj
U1
Ep
W
LJ
m,
CE
11�
EE
Fu
Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034787

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR PZ-22
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
IOJECT.
Phase 11 RFl
NORTHING:
397272.80
r
--v,tCATION-
Fayetteville, NC.
EASTING:
2052584.04
BORING ID:
PZ-22
DATE STARTED:
olmom
SURFACE ELEVATION:
49.03
DATE COMPLETED: 1/11106
CASING ELEVATION:
51,81
LOGGED BY:
Nathaniel Si�rz
O
OVA
P:
DESCRIPTION
2
ppm-v
LU 'D
W
PTO,
1E
LEI
KE
:KE
FP
CO RPORATE REMED IATION G RO UP
An Affiance between
f4h4l?�� Tj
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drillinff
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
D
Nft'T' T
$.0'Stick-up
TTT
SILTY CLAY: Brown, moist, soft
TT -T
SILTY CLAY: Light brown, dry, crumbly
--r -7 -7
TTT0.0
SILTY CLAY: Ligtht brown, dry, medium stiff
-r -r -T
-r -r -r
-T- -r -r
-r -r -r
-r -r- -T
0.0
TTT
SILTY Cl-W Orangish-brown dry, medium stiff
TTT
Grout
-r -r 7
-r -r -r
--r -7 -T
-r- -r -r
TTT
-r -r 7
0.0 SILTY CLAY: Orangish-brown, dry, medium stiff
-r -r -r
TT -T
TTT
1"P C
SILTY CLAY: Orangish-brown, moist, medium soft, with spots of soft, light grey day
7- --r- -T-
RiserV
0.0 CLAY: Orangish-brown, moist, medium soft, with streaks of soft, light grey day
SANDY CLAY: Orangish-brown, moist, soft, with streaks of light grey
0.0
BLANK: No recovery, too watery, sample ran out of tube twice
SAND: Orange, medium fine, water
SAND: Light grey, wet, medium fine to medium coarse
.. .. ... .. . .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . . .. ..
0,0 SAND: Orange, medium coarse, mixed with water
BILS - Below Land Surface
NISL - Mean Sea Level
iflia 1
DEQ-CFW-00034788

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR PZ-22
32-my-Tfla
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
DuPont and URS Corporation- North Carokna
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte. Noah Carolina M10
PROJECT: Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 01/10106
BORING ID: PZ-22 DATE COMPLETED: 1/11106
z
OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
d DESCRIPTION
W (Pprn-v) PZ-22
a W
LU �3
tLl
M­
12
-a
KI
EE
M,
�j
71
SAND: Reddish -orange, wet, coarse
SAND: Orange, wet, coarse, with spots of very soft clay
SAND: Orange, medium grained mixed with water
SAND: Light tan, medium coarse
0.0 SAND: Orange, wet, medium grained
SAND: Greyish -orange, wet, medium fine
SAND: Reddish -orange, damp, medium coarse
----- -------- ----
SAND. Reddish -orange, damp, medium coarse, with clumps of dark grey sandy clay
SAND: Light grey, damp, medium grained to medium coarse
Boring Terminated at 39.0 feet 61.8
Bentonite
Seal
Filter Send
0.05"
Slotted PVC
Screen
Well Casing Installed to 47.5 feet BLS
BILS - Below Land Surl'boe
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapul
D ZT-
E CFW00034789

Is] 111111c] let 0 0
OJECT:
Phase 11 RFI
NORTHING:
398829.09
CATION:
Fayetteville, NC
EASTING:
2052327.19
BORING ID.
PZ-23
DATE STARTED:
113v06
SURFACE ELEVATION:
50.75
DATE COMPLETED: jj3jj06
CASING ELEVATION:
53.66
LOGGED BY:
Tracy Ovbey
0
3:
OVA
L
!�
0
DESCRIPTION
W 1j
> .�
0
PPM-V
Uj
LLI
_j
ip
11
M
Eu
M11
35
M,
QM A
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and UPS Corpoiabbin- ftft Cerok)xa
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
DRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
DRILLER: Anthony Frye
DRILLER NUMBER:
_r _r -r
- 7- _T­ _T
— — — - -- — ---------------- - -----------------------------
SILTY CLAY: 13rown,soft, slightly less moist at 4 ft.- more crumbly
2.91'stick-
-7 -r
up
7-
- -r -r 7
7--77-
- 7- -r 7
-r 7- 7-
- -T . -r 7
7- -r --F
- -r -r 7
7- -r 7-
-r 7- 7
-7 --F 7
SILTY CLAY: Brown, dry, crumbly, slightly stiff
SANDY CLAY: Orange -brown, damp, soft
SANDY CLAY: Orangish-brown, damp, soft
grout
CLAY: Orange -brown with spots of light grey, medium soft
CLAY: Orange -brown with spots of light grey, medium soft
2" PVC riser
SAND: Bright orange, very wet with water, coarse
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff, with some sand
................
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
grout
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
V'Jjj&j��y �01blu�L.--kw, .1
; =1117,Kci
DEQ-CFW-00034790

I
LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR PZ-23
WITY IfOVITOP. ITIELL 111STALLATIO
Im 0
CORPORATE REMFDIATJON GROUP
An Alliance bwvwen
DuPont and VRS Corporetbn- North GaroMa
6324 Fa iry i9w Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFl
LOCATION. Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED- V31106
BORING ID: PZ-23 DATE COMPLETED: 1/31/06
z >-
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
W
in >W - ox (ppm-v) PZ-23
I
OF
im
dF.
01
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
SAND: Dark grey, damp, medium coarse
SAND- Dark grey, damp, medium grained
SAND: Dark grey, wet, medium grained
SAND: Dark grey, wet, medium grained, with spots of medium soft clay
SANDY CLAY: Light grey, sticky, medium soft
SANDY CLAY: Light grey, sticky, medium stiff, medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Light grey, sticky, medium soft, medium grained
....... .. ... .
SANDY CLAY. Grey, medium -soft, medium grained, very sandy
t grey, very wet, medium grained
L� YEY SAND: Light grey, fine grained
------ — --------
SAND: Ll ht rey, medium grained
----- — --------- — ------- — --------- — --------- - ----------- - ------------ - ----------- - -------------
'IZA
SAN
V. 0.
-0
Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
EM
F51079111m;M
1117-mr1r,ri �-
we
DEQ-CFW-00034791

11WWM [111111] lKlelei 0 0
4W 0
CORPORATE PFIVIEDIATION GROUP
An ANance between
DuPont and UPS CorporaUbn- North CaroWna
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFl
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC OATS STARTED: 1/31106
BORING 10: PZ-23 OATS COMPLETED: 1131/06
z >_
0 ( PTV) WELL DIAGRAM
2 DESCRIPTION
0
PZ-23
Uj
;p
LE
EEI
W
E
IM
IE
SE
M,
0.0 SANDY CLAY: Light grey, medium -soft
SANDY CLAY! Light green , medium -soft, with mica flakes
Well Casing Installed to 52.0 feet BLS
2PVC
screen
CLAY: Grey, stiff
Boring Terminated at 56.0 feet BLS
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
-%I - . I . IT I'll I I
DEQ-CFW-00034792

LIT HOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-02B
0
4M
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 399983.75
Dupork and UPS C<wporatibn- North Cwokm
6324 Fairview Road
INOJECT:
CATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING: 2060654.77
Charlotte, North Carolina M210
BORING ID: SMW-02B DATE STARTED: 5/24/05
DRILLING CO.: . Geologic Exploration
SURFACE ELEVATION: 144.74 DATE COMPLETED: 10/6j05
DRILLER: Mike McConahey
CASING ELEVATION: 147.93 LOGGED BY; Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER., NC 2402
g M
0 0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
W
-
0
(Ppmw)
DESCRIPTION
SW-02B
W
j ®
--------
W ,�
-------
-------
SILT: Brown -light brown
up
_r 7- 7 SILTY CLAY: Orangish-brown
-TTT
7-7-7
SILTY CLAY: Lighter orangish-bmwn
0.0
T -r 7 SILTY CLAY. Browfiish-orange with spots of brighter orange
-T-T T
- T 7-7 SILTY CLAY: Light brownish -orange with spots of orange
_r _r _r
—140
SILTY CLAY: Brown with spots of orange
_r 7
7- 'r
SAND: Tan, medium -grained
. . . .
0.0 SAND: Brown, medium -coarse grained
2" PVC riser
and 6" PVC
Y _Ey
��YYFLASAND: Light tan, coarse -grained, with some very small pebbles
riser
Light
SAND:
brownish -orange,
medium-grainedI
—135
. I .. .. .1 .. . . .. - . .. I . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ..
medium -coarse grained, wet
SAND: Bright orange,
grout
0,0 . .. .. . . - . . . .. . . ..
SAND: Grey, medium -coarse grained
CLAY: Light brown, stiff
CLAY: Dark brown, stiff
. ... ... ..
-
.
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
end of 6"
PVC riser
154-130
CLAY: Black, stiff
2"PVC riser
0.0
an 125 1 11 grout
DEQ-CFW-00034793

OR 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and UPS Covporafion- North Carofina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT' Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 5124/05
BORING ID; SMW-02B DATE COMPLETED: 1016105
z
3: 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
�-
( 2 0
L -j DESCRIPTION
W 0
0 F- (Ppm-v) SMW-02B
LU
Imm
110
Milu
now
"M U-
SANDY
SANDY CILAY. Bright With spots of grey, dry
.. L
SANDY WAY: Bright orange with spots of light I orange & rust color, dry
CLAY:
� '
L i t soft
CLAY: Light brown, soft
S
SANDY CLAY: Bright orange with spots of light orange & rust, dry
SAND: Light orange, medium -fine grained
0.0 SAND: White, fine-grained
.. ... .. ... . .. .. ..
SAND: Light orange, fine-grained
SAND: Bands of shades of orange to reddish, medium -grained
SAND: Bands of pinks, purples, whites, and reds, medium -grained
. ... .. .. ..
0.0 SAND: Pinkish -purple, coarse -grained
SAND: Bands of white, pink, reddish -purple, orangebrown, and greyish -pink, medium -
coarse to coarse grained
SAND: Pinkish -white, medium -grained
SAND: Pink, medium -grained
SAND: Tan I grey with bands of dark reddish -purple, brown, and light tan, medium -grained
SAND: Bands of bright purple, purplish -red, grey, pink, dark brown, and tan, medium -
grained
SAND: Light pink, medium grained
0.0 SAND: Bright orange, wars"rained, wet
13LS - Below Land Surface
MSL - M ean Sea Level
CLAY:
SAND: CLAY- Light brown, very soft
L
_Purple, coarse -grained
YZd'di',oh
CLAY: Light brown, very soft, wet
SAND: Large bands of brown, light brown, orange, dark orange, and red, coarse -grained
71
V=
2"FVC riser
bentonite
sand
2" PVC
screen
DEQ-CFW-00034794

4m 40
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alfiance between
DuPont and URS Corporation- North Gatohna
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 23210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 5124105
BORING 10: smw-02B DATE COMPLETED: 10/6/05
z
OVA DESCRIPTION WELL DIAGRAM
(ppm-V) SW-02B
W :I
all
- M&
Is&
75 J- 70
E
BLS - Below Land Surfaoe
MSL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034795

allift 0 1 J, [elm Eel ZU'A III 1111111d"zA GIOMMOTOM
-7 1 OJECT:
Phase 11 RFI
NORTHING:
399779-32
-i,CATION-
Fayetteville, INC
EASTING:
2049445.32
BORING ID:
SMW-03
DATE STARTED:
6W05
SURFACE ELEVATION:
148.43
DATE COMPLETE D:6j4/05
CASING ELEVATION.
151-09
LOGGED BY:
Tracy Ovbey
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and UPS Corpoeadon- North Catoka
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte. North Carolina 28210
-FRILLING CO.: Gregg Drilling
'PRILLER: Mike Davis
DRILLER NUMBER-
z cn
3: E 2 2 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
W
DESCRIPTION
0 SMW-03
Lu (PPM-V)
iE
K(I
il!H21
M
im
IFTE
2.66'stick-
up
CLAYEY SILT: Brownish Orange
.............. .
SILTY SAND: Light Tan
SAND: Light Tan, fine grained
grout
SANDY CLAY: Orange to Brownish Orange
2"stainless
steel riser
bentonite
ai
sand
SAND: Brownish Orange, medium to coarse grained
SAND: Light Tan, coarse grained
.. .. ... .. ... .. .. .
SAND: Light Orange, medium grained, with spots of bright orange
Yr
SAND: Light Orange, coarse grained, with bands of white and bright orange
SAND: Orange, Light Orange, Tan, Pink, and White bands, medium grained
2" stainless
SAND: Grey, White, Orange, Light Orange, and Pink bands, niediurn grained
SAND: Grey, coarse grairsed, with spots of white and stripes of orange
SAND: Bright Orange, medium grained, with sorne clay and spots of red
CLAY: Grey, stiff, with spots of light orange and some plant roots.
SAND: Orange, medium grained
Grey, medium stiff, with spots of orange
•
ND: Orange, medium grained
------- - -------
SAND: Light Orange to Bright Orange, medium grained
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034796

• -rff
IM MIA4 4
4m 40
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Agiance batm en
DuPont and URS Corporation- North Carofins
6324 Fairview Road
Chariatte, Norlh Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase It RFt
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 614/05
BORING ID: BMW-03 DATE COMPLETED:6/4105
OVA WELL DIAGRAM
o 0
-j DESCRIPTION
Uj (Ppm-v) SMW-03
Uj
01
ME
M
110
40-
45-
50t '100
0
BLS - Below Land Surfacwe e
MSL - M�ean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034797

1=1[41cla
A OJECT-
n
Phase 11 RFI
NORTHING:
399668.86
muCATION:
Fayetteville, NC
EASTING.
2048386.78
BORING ID:
SMW-04A & 0413
DATE STARTED:
6/4105
SURFACE ELEVATION:
145.46
DATE COMPLETED: I Lw&o5
CASING ELEVATION:
148AI
LOGGE13 BY,
Tracy Ovbey
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
DuPont and UPS Corporation North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
TRILLING CO.: Gregg Dr./ Geologic Exp.
DRILLER: Mike Davis I Mike McConahey
DRILLER NUMBER: NC 2402
:a
z co
92 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
W -8 om (Ppm-v) SMW-04A SMW-048
C3
LU
IP
EEO
w
His
JJ]JMII11
ins
IKE
EERE
RTA
NOR--, Kim
I Jill �� ill III III
illo]§RM* Ilan
riser
CLAY: Brownish Orange, rnedium stiff, with spots of grey
SAND: Orange, coarse grained, with some day %
MEN
SANDY CLAY: Greyish Orange, medium stiff
SAND: Bright Orange, medium grained
SAND: Orange, medium grained, with spots of light orange
SAND: White, fine to medium grained, with bonds of light and
2" PVC and
6"PVC
bright oran,, a n d spo Is of ora, Ig a cla y
riser
SAND: Orange, coarse grained
SAND: Light Grey, medium to coarse grained, with stripes of
tan
grout
wet
sMD npg 0qq;?0rqhfinq %ron&dium
ge a nge grained
z
SAND: Light Orange, fine to medium grained
CLAY: Grey, medium soft, with spots of oraNe
Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
"•.I., " - Amxvtu
DEQ-CFW-00034798

, LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-04A & 041
1 WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
4M 0
CORPORATE RENtEDIATION GROUP
An AJAW@ between
Dupont and ORS Gorporation- North Carofina
6324 Fairview Road
Chadatte. Norih Catalina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RR
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 614105
BORING ID: SMW-04A & 046 DATE COMPLETED: 1015/05
z
0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
0 DESCRIPTION
W S 0
(Ppm-v) SMW-04A SMW-04B
W _j
am
M1
me
NO,
SAND: White, Magenta, Light Orange, Orange, and Dark
Orange stripes, rr*diurn grained
SAND: Orange, medium to coarse grained, with spots of
medium soft grey clay
.. .. .. ... .. ... .. . . .. .. .... .. SAND: White. Magenta,Light Orange, Orange, and Dark
Orange stripes, medium grained
..........
SAND: Light Orange, medium to coarse grained, with spots of
medium soft grey clay
CLAY: Brown, medium soft, with spots of orange
CLAY: Black, stiff
... .. .. .. ...
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
SANDY CLAY: Light gray, very wet, goopy
CLAY: Dark grey, stiff
CLAY: Black, dry, crumbly
SAND: Tan, medium -grained
SAND: Bright orange, medium -grained
CLAY: Grey, medium -soft
...... .... .. .. .. .. ..... ..
CLAY: Grey, medium -soft, wet
SAND: Bright orange, medium -coarse grained, very wet
.. ... .. . .. .. .. .
SAND: Bright orange, medium -coarse grained, wet
SAND: Bright orange, medium -coarse grained, wet
sol 95 Baring Terminated at 47 feet BLS
qP
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million -vapor Page 2 of 3
DEQ-CFW-00034799
ME
ME
MCI
WE
M
2' stainiess
steel screen
rrm
2" PVC and
6"PVC
riser
grout
end of 6"
PVC. riser
bentonite
sand
71 PVC
screen

4M 10
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
Arm Affiwice tetween
.DuPont " URS Corporation- NMh Gerokna
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFI
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 614/05
BORING ID: SMW-04A & 04B DATE COMPLETED: 1015105
z
OVA WELL DIAGRAM WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
Uj
0
0 LU (ppm-v) SMW-04A SMW-04B
62
Z11
ER
01
U�
M,
EP
rV
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million -vapor
DEQ-CFW-00034800

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-05
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AJ&nce between
Dupolit and UPS Corporation- North Oarofina
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
BORING ID: SMW-05 DATE STARTED: imm
DRILLING CO.: Geologic Exploration
SURFACE ELEVATION: 144-168 DATE COMPLETED: 1016/05
DRILLER: Mike McConehey
CASING ELEVATION: 148,099 LOGGED BY., Tracy Ovbey
------------
DRILLER NUMBER: NG 2402
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
iL
M
nil
11
Irm
Wvn
HKM
up
SILTY SAND: Light Tan, loose
CLAYEY SAND: Dark orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
7!
Grout
Riser
Bentonite
Seal
CLAYEY SAND: Orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Brownish orange, medium -coarse grained
Filter Sand
SANDY CLAY: Light orangish tan, medium grained. medium stiff
SAND: Light orange with bands of bright orange, fine grained
\� LAYEY SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
SAND� Light tan, fine grained
SAND: Tannish orange, medium -fine grained
3/4" PVC
Pre PacA
SAND: Light tan, medlum-fine grained
SAND: Light greenish tan, medium grained
Screen
SAND.' Orangish-gfey, medium grained
SAND: Light grey, very fine grained
' L CLAYEY SAND� Dark orange, medium coarse grained
CLAY: Light grey, flecks of bright orange, stiff
Boring Terminated at 20 feet BILS
BLS - Below Land Surface
NISL - Mean Sea Level
OEQ-CFVV_00034801

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-05P
4M
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
d=OJECT: Phase 11 RFI NORTHING: 399391-46
DuPont and ORS Corporation- Noah Carofina
6324 Fairview Road
IWATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING. 2049235.07
Chadatte, North Carolina 28210
BORING ID: SMW-05P DATE STARTED: 2/21106
DRILLING CO.: Geologic Exploration
SURFACE ELEVATION: 146-41 DATE COMPLETED: 2/21106
DRILLER: Johnny Burr
CASING ELEVATION: 149.66 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER: NC 3098
3:
z (0
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
M
j
0
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
SMW-05P
W
15
K11
EM
ff, 91
EM
EEII
0ID
-- - - ---- ----- - - ------------------- - - --------------
SANDY SILT: Dark brown, loose, dry
SILTY SAND: Light Tan, loose
CLAYEY SAND: Dark orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
Initial Ifthology taken from SMW-05 (0-19 feet)
SANDY CLAY: Light orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Brownish orange, medium -coarse grained
SANDY CLAY: Light orangish tan, medium grained, medium stiff
SAND: Light orange with bands of bright orange, fine grained
CLAYEY SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
SAND: Light tan, fine grained
SAND: Tannish orange, medium -fine grained
...... .. .. .
SAND: Light tan, medium -fine grained
.. ... .. ... ... .. .
SAND: Light greenish tan, medium grained
SAND: Orangish-grey, medium grained
SAND: Light grey, very fine grained
CLAYEY SAND: Dark orange, medium coarse grained
CLAY: Light grey, flecks of bright orange, stiff
No Lithology Recorded (19-20 feet)
SAND: Light grayish -white, fine to medium -fine grained
Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
13.25'stick-
up
314" PVC
riser
DEQ-CFW-00034802

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-05P
1111TY
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and UPS Corporatbn- North CamM49
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 213210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RFl
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 2121Y06
BORING 10: SMW-06P DATE COMPLETED: 2)21/06
z >_
M g 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
rL 'H DESCRIPTION
(Ppm-v) SMW-05P
_j
W
11
EA
up
M
M11
MP
Lq
X11
SAND: Light tannish -white, medium grained
so
SAND: Reddish -purple, coarse grained, wet
SAND: Orange with bands of brown, coarse grained, wet
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Levet
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor
grout
bentonite
3/4" PVC
riser
3/4" PVC
pre pack
screen
send
DEQ-CFW-00034803

WISNIFIM :0411A :4 WIRM, N W-' 0,41, 00-
i-ROJECT: Phase 11 RIFI
10RING ID: SMw-05P
INNE
go
60—
Amb� -
85
65
so
70-
75
75-
0
DATE STARTED: 2/21/01
4M 4
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Alliance between
DuPont and UPS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte. North Carolina 28210
SAND: Slack, coarse grained, damp, with pebbles
Boring Terminated at 54 feet BLS
sand
314* PVC
pre pack
screen
Well Set at 60 feet BLS
*-LS - Below Land Surface
VISL - Mean See Level
DEQ-CFW-00034804

0 6 0 0 0 '* it I
I Ji 101 0 !, '
mWOJECT:
Phase It RFI
NORTHING:
399172-35
_-i I CATION:
Fayetteville, NC
EASTING:
2048759-48
BORING 10:
SMW_06
DATE STARTED:
10110IC5
SURFACE ELEVATION: 147.917
DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/06
CASING ELEVATION:
150.979
LOGGED BY:
Tracy Ovbey
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
DuPont and URS Corpoxa6or Noah Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Chariotte, Norlh Carolina 28210
DRILLING CO.: Geologic Exploration
DRILLER: Mike McConahey
DRILLER NUMBER: NC 2402
OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0
W i> $ rnvDESCRIPTION
SMW-05
(Pp)t
cd
145
140
135
20--
.... ...... ..
. . . .
130
n
SAND- Light ion medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium grained
0.0 SAND: Tan, medium -fine grained
CLAYEY SAND: Browniah orange, medium grained
CLAYEY SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
SAND: Dark brown, medium grained, wet
SAND: Light tan, medium grained
.. ... .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .. . . .. . . ..
SAND: Bright orange, medium grained
0,0 SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium grained, medium stiff
SAND: Tan, medium grained
I SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, dry, crumbly
C 0
CLAYEY SAND: rang', moist , medium -fine grained
SAVID: Bright orange, medium grained, moist
SANDY CLAY: Brownish orange, medium grained
SAND: Bands of light orange, bright orange, yellow, peach, and pink, medium -coarse,
loose, damp
SAND: Light pink, medium -coarse grained, damp
0.0 SAND: Light gray with bands of pink and light orange; medium -fine to medium grained
SANDY CLAY: Brownish orange, stiff
0.0 SAND: Light grey, very fine to medium to medium -coarse grained, damp
SAND: Grey, medium -coarse grained, damp
0.0 SAND: White, medium grairved
SAND: Light grey, with bands of light pink and white, medium -fine grained, damp
0.0 SAND: Orange, medium -fine grained, damp
SAND: 0(angish-tan, fine grained, damp
SAND: Bands of brown, bright orange, light orange, and light gray, medium grained, damp
CLAY: Dark brown, stiff I
SLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ip'lFaiij M-12"aj
Grout
3/4" PVC
Riser
Bentonite
Seal
Filter Sand
3W PVC
.... Pre Pack
Screen
�M
DEQ-CFW-00034805

Own [111) Keleei 0 0 - of
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
&ePant ant! URS GorporeWn- North Caroft*
6324 Fairview Road
Charlotte, North Carolina 213210
PROJECT: Phase 11 RF1
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NG DATE STARTED: 10110/05
BORING ID: SMW-05 DATE COMPLETED: 10110/05
o OVA WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
azi
Uj 0 (Ppm-v)
SW-05
W
m
Im
rp
E0
125
W51
3FE
110
RES
SAND: Dark brown and orange
Boring Terminated at 23.1 feet BLS
RLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034806

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-07
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An AXwxe Wwoon
OJECT: Phase 11 RFl NORTHING: 398932.911
DuPont and URS Corporation- North Carolina
6324 Fair6sw Rzad
ATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING' 2048611.16
Charlotte, Nolh Carolina 28210
BORING ID: SMW-07 DATE STARTED: 10110/05
DRILLING CO.-. Geologic Exploration
SURFACE ELEVATION: 147.737 DATE COMPLETED: 1 (V10105
DRILLER: Mike McConshey
CASING ELEVATION: 147-640 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbay
DRILLER NUMBER. NC 2402
0
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
W on
9
(Ppm-v)
DESCRIPTION
SMW-07
-8
LU
R
0
145 .0
BLANK: Cobbles
SAND: Light brown, medium grained, wet
SANDY CLAY: Orange, medium grained, medium soft
SAND
I : Tan, medium grained, damp
MES AN■,
own
Tan, medium grained, damp
&OZZOR 7
—135
i V 6
115-
130
EE
M
MM
M�w
SANDY CLAY: Orange, medium grained, medium -stiff
SAND: Tan, medium grained, damp
SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium stiff
SAND: Bright orange, mediumrccrzfse grained
SANDY CLAY: Tan, medium grained, damp
SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium stiff
SAND: Bright orange, medium -coarse grained, damp
CLAYEY SAND: Light orangish-grey, fine grained
('-L SANDY
RANn- I laht cirev- finer. damn
SAND: White, medium grained
SAND: Grey with stripes of orange, medium to medium -fine grained, wet
SAND: Brown, medium grained, wet
BLS - Below Land Surfjace
MSL - Mean Sea Level
............
RM
3/4" PVC
Riser
Bentonite
Seal
Filter Sand
314- PVC
Pre Pack
Screen
iu=
DEQ-CFW-00034807

0 � lli ' : k
, 0 0 15, F�l Ili I
V0111MR11ORZKo- % 40
4M
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
Ar)Alkarxv between
DuPont and UPS Corporation- North Camfina
6324 Fairview Road
C l North Carolina 28210
PROJECT: Phase 11 l
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 10111))05
BORING ID: SMW-07 DATE COMPLETED: 10/10/05
z >-
= 2 0 OVA WELL DIAGRAM
0 DESCRIPTION
LUV 0 5MW-07
LU
no]
Em
l
IFTIN
His
ffd 12
HEM
U22
SAND: Yellow, medium -fine grained
SAND: Light grey with bands of hot pink and magenta, medium grained, very wet
CLAY: Black, medium to medium -stiff
Boring Terminated at 23 feet BLS
6LS - Below Land Surface
',ASL - Mean Sea Level
DEQ-CFW-00034808

LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-08
WITH MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION NOTES
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An Affiance between
DuPont and URS GNporaUon- Nwth CaroAw
gnOJECT: Phase 11 RF1 NORTHING: 399064.97
6324 FaireiRw Road
IqNWCATION: Fayetteville, NC EASTING: 2048468.78
Charlotte. North Carolina 2B210
BORING 10: SMW-08 DATE STARTED: ICV11105
DRILLING CO.: Geologic Exploration
SURFACE ELEVATION. 147.930 DATE COMPLETED: 10/11/05
DRILLER: Mike McConahey
CASING ELEVATION: 151,017 LOGGED BY: Tracy Ovbey
DRILLER NUMBER: NC 2402
OVA
WELL DIAGRAM
1 (Pprn-v)
DESCRIPTION
SMW-08
1
-
I -------- - -------
IR
El
4 0 . . ! . ; 0
SAND: Brown, medium grained
SAND-. Light brown, medium grained
SAND: Orangish-brown, medium grained
SAND: Light tan, medium grained
SAND: Brownish -orange, medium grained
SAND: Light orange, medium grained
1111.11P 'IMP
;ZAAD: White, medium -fine grained
SAND: Dark orange, medium grained
SAND: Orange, medium grained
.. ... .. ...
SAND: Tan, medium grained
SAND: White with striDes of briaht oranae. medlum-fine orained
150
.... 0.0
14.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
135
aape
0.0
0.0
130
0.0
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
pprn-v - parts per million - vapor
UUM41
=1
Bentonite
Seal
2"PVC
Riser
2"PVC
Screen
E�
DEQ-CFW-00034809

I
LITHOLOGIC LOG FOR SMW-08
4M 0
CORPORATE REMEDIATION GROUP
An A19me bwween
Dupont and UPS Gorpombon- Hollh Carolina
6324 Fairview Road
Charivtts, NsAh Carolina MW
PROJECT: Phase It RFl
LOCATION: Fayetteville, NC DATE STARTED: 10/11105
BORING ID: SMW-08 DATE COMPLETED: 10111105
o OVA WELL DIAGRAM
DESCRIPTION
W
(Ppal-v) SW-08
LU _j
125 SAND: Dark orange, medium -coarse grained
SAND: Light brown, medium coarse grained, wet - - ------
SANDY CLAY: Bands of maroon, brownish -red, dark yellowish -orange, and dark brown,
0.0 very sandy, 2� PVC
Screen
SAND: Light whitish -orange, medium -fine grained, damp
30-- . . .......
SAND: Orange, medium -coarse grained, wet Filter Sand
SANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium -soft
SA
NDY W S A
A
A
r
N
N N y
D
D
sandy,
D .1 Y SANDY
SANDY
ANDY CLAY: Bright orange, medium -soft, very sandy
SAND:
Orangish-tan, medium grained, damp
SAND: 0mrigish-brown, medium -coarse grained, sticky, wet
SAND: Tan, medium grained, damp
.. ... ... . . . ... .. ... ... .
115 SAND. Stripes of orange, light orange, hot pink, magenta, and dark red, medium grained
SAND: Bands of Light orange, pink, bright orange, magenta, white, and brown, medium
grained
Boring Terminated at 31 feet BLS
M
a
rm
BLS - Below Land Surface
MSL - Mean Sea Level
ppm-v - parts per million - vapor Page 2 of 2
DEQ-CFW-0003481 0

Re'ti �- 4pt e` t: a e x : f
yy33
'stl �,, :i� +t.1 r ( ux•:
`iw . EeF�
�a. i r`t'�' %t:. s 4v
0. ��. � dp,l
•: .. J :
y r TK, E� • t,,� ,_ L eA
S d
t $ � is 5��. T �8. �
tz
2
i
-: at
DEQ-CFW 00034812

RAM
Hi6h Vol
-Cascade ImpactorFleid DAta SheetuVrat
Bammetd
c ,, s 1 rs"
TA
Opetat=S
COrPOmte M-. RAMCON Building .1S25 Efthway 7e ® Wmpftv Sprbigs, TN 3
Telephone: 567 ® In N ` e: 615-M-5461 ,Flam 615-9S7,S4.11
�t
DEQ-CFW 00034813

} { {� {'
&.{}, E'C ff� nnS�� �S Y�x_ ':•..
:.-. .... � �
_
4
1
.. a ... .,. .. ... .. -:
r-f
AI-D"
opetator Commentr:
- Opemw= wtials
Corporate O CON SaUd€ng . 1625 Wighway 70 . Mnpftn Sprbw4 TS 37082
Telephone: :8 . 567 .'Ia Nashvffle: 635;.- 1 a Fax: [phone]
Y
DEQ-CFW 00034814

r
Opemtm 121wau
-Corporate N.ftading ® 1625 Eftkway'7 =Wmgdan SpriaM TN 37 ...
Telephone: 8 *In Nasbvxlie< 615-95Z-5461 • F'8I: 615 5411
DEQ-CFW 00034815

Corporate QMce: RAMCON DuUding • 1635 toghway 70 .® MngstmuSpy TN37
Diepboae: 567 + In :6M952- : 1 • F 61 5411
DEQ-CFW 00034816

=75
ON, M
'ENVIRONMENTAL
e
Opewor
2,
VL
Op=tcws Inidah - ------ ---------
Corpomte Office., RAMCON BOding. * 1625 ffighw2y 70 o Kbiptan SprkM TN 37M -A
Telephone: $90-4584567 9 In Nashville. 615-952-5461 0 Fm-
DEQ-CFW-00034817

RAMCON
r
6L
ENVIRONMENTAL
LA
Volume
High Cascade Impactor_
<n -/( 1) Event
Temperature Operator
Barometric Pressure Date lo 6
Station t etElevation,-
Date/Time
• }Z' i. iit8tt' h End ,.,. �
%, '3 f 7
Chart Reading
clim `4
ok ra e1ac.�h`v..,
.Td
JE
Weatbier ditiaus;�ek�,5f
0pmtor Comments:
Opetators. I
Corporate O11ieec RAMCONSuilding * 1625 EUgbW2y 70 • KkWWn SprhkM TN 37082
Telephone: Sao- 4 567 • In Nashville: 615-952-5461 * Fax: 61 5411
DEQ-CFW 00034819

1
StationHigh Volume Cascade Impactor Field Data Sheet
Event
Temperature i 'r . ■. Pressure_
Sta
r!n r; ri rf
IRM
1\ 5.6" x 5.4?'
r
25.6'x5A'
3 5.C'x5.V
4 5.6'-'x 5.4"
5 5.6" x 5.4"
8'a10"
Operatat Co eats;
Q n �3 . -7
Opewors 111idakzi—
Co pomteOffice: RAMCON BuRding a 1625 ffiglaway 70 . MbgsWa Sprinp, TN 37082
Telephone: 567 r In N%tsh ° ec 615-952- 1 a Fax: [phone]
DEQ-CFW 00034820

La
0
High Volume Cascadei - <s Data raSheet
Station A
Operator
Barometric + /1
on Elevation, --
�,C6U6e ►a DateJ:.Tur
farye,
5.6"
x 5.4"
3
5.6"85.Y"
4
5.6"
x 5.4"
5
5.6"
x 5.4"
6
8"XT0"
• s, , e, F.
OpeMtDM InitialS
CorporateOffice- RAMCON Building * 1625 Highway 70 • Mwgstm SprbW6 TN 37082
Teleptto►ae: 567 w In Nas ' le: 615-952-5461 • Fax: 61S-9S2-5411
DEQ-CFW 00034821

ij
C9
RAMCON
ENVIRONMENTAL
station
High Volum'e Cascade Impactor Field Data Sheet
•
•operator
Barometric Pressure
Stationr tEle-vatioA-
w �
®rrf
OperawmInitials
Corporate is RAMCON BuRding.: Highwzy 70 Oanpton Springs, TN 37M
Telephone: :w E `1 r ,
DEQ-CFW 00034822

Li
rl
7W idskmk.�-A
High Volume Cascade Impactor Field Data Sheet
Station # Shl W - o Event#..
Temperawre--- 5-017-- Operator t�L
Barometric Pressure_�A,/x-> Daw ZZ4/6ii�
Station Locadon.S x ElevatioA
ML MI-S Mt. =I i
0 0 R M M. 411 111111) R M"!
Weather Conchdoom I n4 V
41va
z Ic
Opetawr Comments: z 37 5-3
P(A4W I q ZZ
Operawts Inifi.-as
Corporate Offlee: RAMCON Buflding * 1625 Elighway 70 * Kingstaik SpdRgi4 TN 37082
Telephone: 80045&4567 * In Nashyffle.- 615-952-5461 a Fax: 615-9n-5411
DEQ-CFW-00034823

■ R R R s• d y
Station Event
Temp- 1,
Date
Station r . ■ r .:
1Y EE .[ ♦.. :� I � s
Roily c""4
w
Operator Comments: 2 2, . 2..
Op"ators initials
Corporate Officm RAMCON Building + 1625 Highway 74 •Kinptas Springs, TX 37082
Telephone: [phone] r In bash ; 61S-M-5461 ® Fax: 615- -5411
DEQ-CFW 00034824

AMEL
DuPont Washington Works
Phase II Air Sampling Program DVS Tube
Sampler(s) V,
FedEx Alrbill M
Field Blank;
Trip Blank:
Weather:
CommentsiTotal minutes column Is the reading from the monitor counter.
AdMIL
1p
8/1 5120('r- Page of air sample data sheet.xls
DEQ-CFW-00034825

DuPont Washington Works
Phase If Air Sampling Program - OVS Tube
Sampler(s)
FedEx Alrbill M
Field Blank:
Trip Blank:
Weather:
Comments,Eotal —minutes column Is the reading from th--e monitor -counter.
M
•
EventNumber
Page of 1 alr sample data sheaUls
DEQ-CFW-00034826

A lQY T 123 04/19/06 10:12 [!P :02/02 N0:351
SKC Pump-Callbration Log 4u4f-
Dupont Wsshington Works
Plisse If Air Sa.mpllng Program - OVS Tube
Samplar(a)- klit, L9 Event Numberroi eTta%k% A/c,
rl
c= C' I alihmwin Ahmw
DEQ-CFW-00034827

E
Cathie,
Charles J Zarzeckl DuPont
04/14/2006 11:43 AM
To Catherine A Barton/AE/DuPont
cc
bec
Subject Be: updated input file for Events 1-3D
I think there is an hour beginning/hour ending problem. The first sample day runs from 9 AM 8/25 to 9 AM
8/26. The op. file runs from 9 am 8/25 to 8 AM 8126, which is most likely hour beginning. For modeling,
we need hour ending, so, the first sample d6y would be 10 AM 8/25 to 9 AM 8/26. This may be resolved
by simply adding one hour to all of the values, as long as all of the data for each hour is truly "hour
beginning".
After you have read this, you probably feel you need another vacation. We can discuss this confusing
matter further, if you still have questions.
Regards,
Charlie Z.
S�
!Catherine �A
art(m
Barton/AE/DuPord
i MV4 4 . 1 4 .
Charlie,
cc
Subject updated input file for Events 1-3
I've finally worked out all the craziness, and I THINK I've got the right emissions, temperatures, and
velocities in place. Take a look at this revised sheet and tell me if anything looks screwy to you. I still
have to right up all the logic of which parameters are measured and which are merely permit values, but
that will have to wait until after I get back from VACATION. My mind is a blur.
[attachment "Event 1-3 Ops Data.xls" deleted by Charles J Zarzecki/AE/Du Pont]
Have a great Easter!
IN
Ll
DEQ-CFW-00034828

REGION 4
Enforcement and Investigations Branch
980 College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30605-2720
4SESD-E1B
EM
Raw�1��
SUBJECT: Field Overview for Revised RCRA Phase 11 Investigation,
DuPont Fayetteville Works
Fayetteville, North Carolina
EPA ID Number: NCD 047 368 642
SESD Project Number: 06-0241
FROM: Mike Neill
Enforcement Section
TO: John Johnston
RCRA Programs Branch,
On January 24 and 25, 2006, Mike Neill from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) overviewed a field investigation at
the DuPont facility located in Fayetteville, North Carolina. DuPont's consultant, URS
Corporation, was conducting this study as part of a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFO at the
DuPont facility. The objective was to obtain additional data on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or
C-8) contamination detected in monitoring wells at the facility as well as to assess some potable
wells near -by. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), through the Region 4 RCRA Programs Branch, requested SESD to conduct the
overview and split samples with DuPont.
During the overview, five ground water samples from monitoring wells, six samples from
fotable wells, two surface water and two sediment samples were split with URS field
investigators. The following individuals were present during the overview:
NAME,
AFFILIATION
PHONE
Mike Neill
USEPA
Athens, GA
706-355-8614
John Johnston
USEPA
Atlanta, GA
404-562-8458
Larry Stanley
NCDENR
Raleigh, NC
919-508-8562
Michael Johnson
DuPont
Fayetteville, NC
910-678-1155
Jamie Van Buskrik
DuPont
Charlotte, NC
704-362-6626
Bryan Reath
URS Corp.
Charlotte, NC
704-362-6633
Tracy Ovboy
URS Corp.
Charlotte, NC
704-362-6632
Nate Sipe
URS Corp.
Charlotte, NC
704-362-6627
Ken Stuart
URS Corp.
Charlotte, NC
704-362-6627
DEQ-CFW-00034830

W
Ak Both DuPont and URS Corporation personnel were cooperative. EPA and NCDENR
1W representatives met with DuPont and URS personnel on January 23 to tour the facility and review
the proposed sampling locations. URS personnel collected water level measurements from the
monitoring wells proposed for sampling. Monitoring wells SMW-03 and SMW-05 are located
near the Ammonium Perfluorooctanoate (APFO) plant, a potential source to the C-8 ground
water contamination. However, these wells contained insufficient water to sample during the
investigation.
On January 24 and 25, 2006, SESD observed URS personnel collecting: ground water
samples from monitoring wells SMW-O 1, SMW-04B, LTV-04, MW- I S and NAF-03; potable
well samples PW-01 through PW-06; surface water samples outfall 002 and SW-06; and
sediment samples outfall 002-sed and Sed-O L Figure I shows the sample locations and Tablel
provides data associated with each sample. SESD collected split samples at each of the samp
locations. The USEPA National Enforcement Investigations Center in Denver, Colorado, is
analyzing the split water samples and the USEPA National Exposure Research Laboratory in
Athens, Georgia, is analyzing the split sediment samples. I
The URS sampling personnel were organized and prepared for the sampling
investigation. Each day began with a safety briefing. Based on the sampling protocols observed
during the overview, the following concerns were noted:
When collecting samples for trace chemical analyses, extreme care should be used whe
17111ing sample containers to ensure that tubing or tapping device does not enter the samp'l
contai-mr.
Ardirds Lai ERWA, of U-11 1r, Reims Ilin "I WMINHWO 111 ID&IN1010 [MRS1141 0 0 1 -go
The work plan prescribed that intake be placed at the "center point of the screen interval",
not near the screen bottom. Also, the work plan prescribed that the sampler submerse the
sample container, remove cap, fill, and replace cap prior to removing the container from
the water body, However, conditions (accessability, flow, etc.) prevented URS samplers
from using the proposed sampling procedure. Deviations of sampling procedures should
be noted along with reporting the data so that any impact can be assessed.
Photographs and a field overview checklist are attached. If you have any questions
pertaining to the overview, please contact me at [phone].
cc: Yvonne Martin, USEPA, Region 4 "i
Larry Stanley, NCDENR
E
DEQ-CFW-00034831

:7
TableSample
f Fi A
Sample
Location
Media
Type
r
Date Tim Equipmen f
e t
SW-01
SMW-01
ground
grab
1-24-06 094 pump
water
5
S-04B
SMW-04B
ground
grab
1-24-06 113 bailer
water
0
LTV-04
LTV-04
ground
grab
1-24-06 143 pump
water
0
W-is
MWAS
ground
grab
1-24-06 170 bailer
water
5
NAF-0
NAF-03
ground
grab
1-25-06 135 pump
water
0
outfall002
outfall002
surface
grab
1-24-06 150 dip
water
5
SW-06
unnamed tributary
surface
grab
1-25-06 145 dip
water
0
PW-01
3671 County Line Rd.
drinking
grab
1-25-06 083 tap
Fayetteville, NC
water
0
2830
P-02
3184 County Line Rd.
drinking
grab
1-25-06 092 tap
Fayetteville, NC
water
0
28306
PW-03
1248 Bill Hall Road
drinking
grab
1-25-06 103 tap
Fayetteville, NC
water
5
206
PW-04
22828 NC Hwy 87 W
drinking
grab
1-25-06 15 tap
Fayetteville, NC
water
5
28306
PW-05
Turner Rd & Hwy 87
drinking
grab
1 -25-06 164 tap
S.
water
2
Fayetteville, NC
2830
PW-06
7876 NC Hwy 87 S.
drinking
grab
1-25-06 171 tap
Fayetteville, NC
water
2
2806
outfallO02-
unnamed tributary
sediment
grab
1-25-06 110 SS spoon
sed
0
Sed-01
unnamed tributary
sediment
grab
1-25-06 145 SS scoop
DEQ-CFW 00034832

.7
Attachment 9
Photographs
DuPont Revisesd RCr Phasei " 1 'y;
DEQ-CFW 00034834

Attachment
SESD Overview Checklist
Phase
DEQ-CFW 00034835

E
Facili!y/Site Name DuPont Facile ty Works
Address 22828 NC HighjALa 187 West, FaXetteville, NC 28302
Project No. 06-0241 EPA ID No. NCD047368642
Facility Contact Mike Johnson Phone No. 910.678.1155
Overview Personnel Mike Neill, SESD Date 1/ 24-25 /06
Contractor Project Leader Jamie Van Buskirk
Affiliation DuPont Co orate Remediation Phone No. 704-362-6626
Address 6324 Fairview Road, Charlotte, NC 28210
Sampling Personnel: B!yan Heath S 704.362.6633), Tracey QvbeRS 704.362.6632)
Other Personnel & Affiliation; John Johnson (EPA, 404.562,8458)
1Stanley (NCDENR, 919.508.9562)
Type of study?_ RCRA Phase II Investigation, C-8 investigation,
Study plan issued? Yes Date issued? Revised 12/16/05
Study plan reviewed by the Division? No Acceptable? "Yes
Comments:
Was study plan followed?
Comments: Study plan was followed with minor modifications made in the field.
Was a safety plan prepared for the study? Yes, January 2006.
Comments: DuPont operates an extensive safety pro am at the lent.
Was the safety plan adequate? Yes
Comments:
Was the safety plan followed? Yes
Comments:
Additional coniments or information:
Checklist sections completed
for this overview:
xx
1
xx
2.
xx xx
3. 4.
5. 6.
Key: 1. General Procedures 4. Surface Water Sampling
2. Ground Water Sampling 5. Waste Sampling
3. Soil, Sediment, Sludge Sampling 6. Monitoring Well Installation
DEQ-CFW-00034836

E
U
E
1.
Type samples collected? Ground water, potable water, surface water and sediment.
Comments:
2.
Were sampling locations properly selected? Yes,
Comments: Spits samples were designated prior to implementing the study. Alternative
monitoring wells were selected when water levels =e inadeyuate to samvle.
3.
Were sampling locations adequately documented in a bound field log book using indelible ink? MI
Water quality parameters were being recorded and locations were GPS.
Comments.
4.
Were photos taken and a photolog maintained? Not by URS or DuPont personnel
Comments-
5.
What field instruments were used during this study9 Thermo OVM and Horiba U-22
Comments:
6.
Were field instruments properly calibrated and calibrations recorded in a bound field log
book? Yes, daily or when instruments were switched.
Comments:
7.
Was sampling equipment properly wrapped and protected from possible contamination
prior to sample collection? Yes, wrapped in plastic.
Comments:
8.
Was sampling equipment constructed of Teflon@, glass, or stainless steel? Yes
Comment�: polyethylene or p - ---------------------------
9.
Were samples collected in proper order? (least suspected contamination to most contaminated?.J_
Yes
Comments:
10.
Were clean disposable latex or vinyl gloves worn during sampling? Yes, nitrile
Comments:
Il.
Were gloves changed for each sample station? Yes
12.
Was any equipment field cleaned? Yes
Comments:
13.
Type of equipment cleaned: Well sounder cleaned with alconox and DI water
Comments: ------ — -------
14.
Were proper field cleaning procedures used? Yes
1--comments:
— - - - - ------------------------- — - --------------------------- - ----- - - -------- -
15.
Were equipment rinse blanks collected after field cleaning.? Equipment blanks were collected
Comments:
16.
Were proper sample containers used for samples? Yes, HDPE.
Comments:
17.
Were split samples offered to the facility owner or his representative?
Co nts: SDIA samples were movide to EPA (5 GW, 6 PW, 2 SW and 2 Sed)
18.
Was a Receipt for Samples forin given to facility representative? NA
Comments:
DEQ-CFW-00034837

E
19. Were any duplicate samples collected? Yes
Comments:
20. Were samples properly field preserved? Yes, ice
Comments:
21. Were preservative blanks utilized? NA
Comments:
22. Were field and/or trip blanks utilized? URS prepared field blanks daily.
Cr%mrnf-nt.q-
23. Were samples adequately identified with labels or tags? Yes, labels
Comments:
24. Were samples sealed with custody seals after collection? Samples were placed in coolers
Comments: and coolers were sealed nor to shipment.
25. What security measures were taken to insure custody of the samples after collection?
Comments: Kept in vehicles
26. Were chain -of -custody and receipt for samples forms properly completed?
Comments: Did not observe
27. Were any samples shipped to a laboratory? Yes
Comments:
28. if yes to No. 27, were samples properly packed? Did not observe
Comments:
29. if shipped to a CI-P lab, were Traffic Report Forms properly completed? NA
Comments:
30. What safety monitoring equipment, protection, and procedures were used prior to and during
sampling? Level D, gloves and air monitoring with aThernio OVM PID.
Comments,
31. Was safety monitoring equipment properly calibrated and calibrations recorded in a bound field
tog book? Yes
Comments:
DEQ-CFW-00034838

E
E
1. Type of wells sampled? (monitoring, potable, industrial,etc.) Monitoring and Potable
Comments: MWs - SMW-01, SMW-04B, MWI S,-NAF-03_ & LTW-04; PWs - PW-01 - PW06
2. Were wells locked and protected? Yes
Comments:
3. Were identification marks and measurement points affixed to the wells? Yes
Comments:
4. What were the sizes and construction materials of the well casings? 2", and PVC & SS
Comments: E
5. Were the boreholes seated with a concrete pad to prevent surface infiltration? Yes, 2'X2'pad
Comments-.
6. Was there a dedicated pump in the well? No
Comments: Potable wells had submersible -pumps.
7. Was clean plastic sheeting placed around the wells to prevent contan-fination of sampling
equipment and containers? Yes
Comments: URS di d not replace plastic sheeting before sampling when plastic became dirty
during purging monitoring well LTW-04.
8. Were total depths and depths to water detern-iined before purging? Yes, for monitoring wells
Comments:
9. What device was used to determine depths? Heron Dipper TO well sounder
-----
10. Were measurements made to the nearest 0.0 1 ft? Yes
Comments:
11. Was the measuring device properly cleaned between wells? Yes, alconox and DI water
Comments:
12. Was the standing water volume in each well determined? Sometimes
Comments: When URS was bailing, they would purge 3 well volumes. On some wells they
used a peristaltic pump to conduct low flow purging.
13. How was the volume determined? Measured water love] and total -fepth ant then calculatet
Comments: for the well diameter,
14. Was a sufficient volume purged prior to sampling? Yes
Comments:
15. How many volumes? 3 ( some wells used low flow techniques).
Comments:
16. How was the purged volume measured? In 5 gallon buckets
- -Comments:
17. What was the method of purging? Bailing (pumps for low Dow)
Corrunents-
18. Were pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity measurements taken and recorded at least
once during each well volume purged? Yes, also dissolve oxygen and redox.
Comments: _N
19. Were pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity readings stable prior to sampling? Yes
Comments:
20. How many wells were sampled? 11 Upgradient? Downgradient?
DEQ-CFW-00034839

.7
Comments: 5 monitorin I and 6 potable
2L
How were the samples collected? Bailers and Pumps
Cqm!nmts: Tubing and bailer tapping device occasionally would be placed inside sample
container
22.
If a pump was used, what type? Peristaltic for monitoring wells
Comments: Submersible for potable
23.
If a pump was used, was it properly cleaned before and/or between wells? Yes
24.
What were the cleaning procedures? Tubing was Elaced in the peristaltic pumps
25.
Did bailers have TefionS coated wire leaders to prevent rope from Coming into contact with
water? Stainless steel leader was used
26.
Were bailers open or closed top? Closed, disposable polyqhyjene
27.
Was a clean bailer and new rope used at each well'? Yes
28.
Were samples properly transferred from the sampling device to the sample containers? (i.e.,
volatile sample first - not aerated, etc.) Yes
29,
Was pH of preserved samples checked to insure proper preservation? NA
30.
Were samples iced immediately after collection? Yes
31.
For what anal ses were the sam Ies collected? C-8
32.
If samples were split, what were the sample/station numbers for these?
(,'ommcnts-MWs - SMW-01, SMW-0413, MWIS, NAF-03 & LTW-04; PWs - PW-01 - PW06
33.
Are the grourid water sgEles beinS filtered? No
34.
If the ground water are being filtered, what procedure is being used?. NA
35.
Is low flow/low volume sampling being conducted (e.g., is the intake of the pump at the middle
of the screen)? Yes low flow was conducted for SMW-0 1, NAF-03 and LTW-04
Comments: Intake was placed z, I' from the bottom of the screen
36.
If low flow/low volume sampling is being conducted, is the water level being measured
constantly to insure minimal drawdown of the less than 3 to 4 inches? Yes
Comments: URS monitor water levels and adjusted it purging to minimize drawdown
33.
Other comments or observations. 1) Extreme care should be used when filling sample
containers to ensure that tubing or tapping device does not enter the sample container. 2)
Sample containers should be minimally handle pre and post filling to ensure the that the data
for the media of concern is accurate and the sample was not cross-contan-tinated. 3) The
work plan prescribed that intake be placed at the "center point of the screen interval", not -near
the screen bottom. Deviations of sampling procedures should be noted along with reporting the
data so that any impact can be assessed.
DEQ-CFW-00034840

1.
Type of samples collected? Sediment
2.
General description of samples? Silty sands
3.
How many samples were collected? 2
4.
Were background and/or control samples collected? No
5.
Were representative samples collected? Grab samples were collected.
6.
Were grab or composite samples collected? Grab
7.
Were composite samples areal or vertical? NA
8.
How many aliquots were taken for the composite sample? NA
9.
What procedures and equipment were used to collect samples? Spoon/scoop used to
Comments: collect s2LDEles from areas of dqposition 0-3".
10.
Were samples thoroughly mixed prior to putting them into the sample containers?
Comments: S��les mixed in bowl p�nor to sphittng.
M
Were samples properly placed into sample containers? Yes
12.
Were samples iced immediately after collection? Yes
13.
For what analyses were the samples collected? C-8
14.
If samples were split, what were the sample/station numbers for these?
15.
Was a drilling rig, back hoe, etc. used to collect soil samples? NA
16.
Were the drilling rig(s), backhoc(s), etc., properly cleaned according to the SOP, Appendix B,
prior to arriving on site? NA
17.
What was the condition of the drilling and sampling equipment when it arrived on site? NA
18.
Was a decontamination area located where the cleaning activities would not cross -contaminate
clean and/or drying equipment? Did not observe
19.
Was clean equipment properly wrapped and stored in a clean area? Yes
20.
Was the drilling rig(s) properly cleaned between well borings? NA
OEQ-CFVV_00034841

E
E
21, Were the cleaning and decontamination procedures conducted in accordance with the SOP?
Comments: Did not observe. URS did collect eguipment rinse blanks.
22. Other comments or observations:
DEQ-CFW-00034842

E
SECTION 4 - SAMPLING - SURFACE WATER (Pond, Stream, River, Leachate, EtcA
1
Type of samples collected? Surface water
Comments:
2.
General description of samples? Outfall 002 and SW-06
Comments:
3.
How many samples were collected? 2
Comments:
4.
Were background and/or control samples collected? No
Comments.
5.
Were grab oT composite samples collected? Grabs
Comments:
6.
How many aliquots were taken for the composite sample? NA
Conments:
7.
What procedures and equipment were used to collect the samples?
Comments: Using an extension pole and plastic ties to dip the container
8.
Were samples collected directly into sample containers? Yes
Comments:
9.
Did the sampler wade in the stream to collect the samples? No
Comments:
10.
Were the samples collected upstream from the sampler?
CommMts: S22pler used a pole and did not enter stream.
11.
Did the sampler insure that roiled sediments were not collected along with the water samples?
Comments: Yes
12.
Were representative samples collected? Grab samples
Comments:
13.
Was the pH of preserved samples checked to insure proper preservation? NA
Con-iments:
14.
Were samples iced immediately after collection? Yes
Comments:
15.
For what analyses were the samples collected? C-8
Comments:
16.
If samples were split, what were the sample/station numbers for these? Outfall 002 & SW-06
Comments:
17.
Other comments or observations: Work plan prescribed that the sampler submerse the sample
container, remove cap, fill, and replace cap prior to removing the container from the water
body. However, conditions (accessability, flow, etc.) prevented URS samplers from using the
proposed sampling procedure. Deviations of sampling procedures should be noted along with
reporting the data so that any impact can be assessed.
DEQ-CFW-00034843

05/10/2006 09:57 9197153605 DWM
PAGE 01/15
APR-17-20 0 0718 AM EPA E10 FAX NO, 3932365116
P, 01
UNITED STATES ENVJR0NMeJ4T4L VROTECTION ASIE14CT
,April 14,2006
AHDELM
SU131P-CT: Analytical R=lLq 0"10NAL FOAM 091741%
DuPont Fayet"le Works PAX TF I F
N E IC Projcct No.: VP0707 pft0t7
4 /
1 cur 0'I'mou
e
I -ROM: Disma A. Low, Esq. C1w4r"'".yk"_ FV= m, - e- 9WArk
Dirmtor, NhIC ril A
TO, Yvonne Martin
Eastern Enforcement Section -
WaWr Programs Enfarccmmt Branch
USEPA - Regioll 4
A(t ached is a repOrt fbT the subjout casc. If them are any quostions, p1ma contact
Christine Casey at (3 03) 462-9109 or De, Larry S.traftan at (303) 462-9 106.
MRT�AT-
cc W1 k o Noi 11, Reg) o a 4, V, S D
Yoh a E. Johnston, Reloon 4, RCRA Pro yams Brinch
13ocky AUmibich, Rtgim 4, ?,AD
Lourdos BOB], OECA, OCE, WEB
i3cric LubicaiecCivil Program Coordinator, NEW
KF_ Nottingham, Laboratory Branch Chief, NEIC
Christina Casey, Project Leader, NEIC
Larry Sim, (imn, Pyoject Leader, NETC
z:
XUMAR E
/0 facar
f7LAI
a-Z
RPA Fom 1320-}AI Lvat
PrWird m
- — - — --- ---------
DEQ-CFW-00034844

05/10/2006 09:57 131137153605 DWM PAG:- 02/15
APR-17-2006 MON OV36 0 EPA HEIC' FAX NO, 3G32365116 P. 02
E
UNITED STATF.S ENVIRONMENTAL FROTECTIOIS
OPME OF CRMNI�L ENFORCEMENT, FORE ICS AN( e,
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVEnGATIONS C E
1P.0. BOX 252V, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
bENVEt, COLORADO 80225
SUBJE'Cr, Analytical Results
DuPont Fayeaevilla Works
N131C Prpj=t'No.: V?0707
"�- q_
FROM, Diam A. Love, Esq-9
T)irntor, N BIC
TO: Yvq�lna Martin
EUtern fAliforcernent Section
WeT Prograin.s Unforcem"t Brctncl�
USF,FA - Region 4
E
Attached is a report'for the nbcct case. If icrc are any questions, plow contract
Christine Cwuy -at [phone] or Dy, Larry RrAttm at [phone],
00: Mike Net% Rcgion 4, SFSD
John F- Johnston, Region 4, RCRA Programs Bran&
13coky Allembach, Region 4, F-AD
Lourdes Bufill, 0ECA, OCB, WEB
Owe Lubimiiccki, Civil rrograin Cmrtltnatar, 24EIC
K.E. Nottingham, Laboratory breach Chief, NEIC
Christine CaSey, Project LegdeT.. NBIC
1,arry Strattan, Project Lcadcr� NRIC
11
DEQ-CFW-00034845

O
05/18/2006 09:57 9197153695 DWm PAGE 03/15
APR-17-2008 MON 07036 M EPA NFIG FAX K 3032385118 P.- 03
UNUIM STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 1PROTEC110N AOUNCY
Off oo of Enforcement and Complianco Asswanco
Office of Crimirml. Enforommt, Forcmsies,and Timining
14MVP0707F,01
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
ANALWICAL REPORT
Dupont Fayetteville Wozks
Fayetteville, North Carolina
NMC Project No.: VP0707
April 2006
Project Leaders
('11ristine R, Casey
Larry Strattaki, PhD.
Prepared for:
U.S. EPA Region 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta lFed"aj C=4r
Street, sw
61 r�qrsytll
Atlaila, Georgia 30303
Authoriz'1619r'" crease by;
Diana A. hove, 01ircdor
NATIONAI., ENFORCEMBNT 1NVJ~,STJGAnGNS CENTER
Dolver, Colorado
Page I of a
II
------ - — -------- - - — --- - --- - ------ -
DEQ-CFW-00034846

E
E
05/10/2006 09:51 9197153805 DWM PAGE 04/15
tl
APR-17-2006 MON 07:37 AM EPA NEIC FAX NO, 3032365116 P, 04
FjqvoRcEmF,NT cOMIWNTTAT.
EXECUTivaSUMMARY........... ........................................... ......................... ... 3
I ...................................................... ...............................................I Rpm
SUMMARY Oil FINDINGS . � ......... ................................................................................... 3
SAMPLEKPOFMATION .................. ..................................... ...................... ............. —A
4
1 Lubordtory Sample Receipt and Trawrer ............................. .......... ................. ......
2 QAW. Resill �s ............................... I ....... I—— ...... .... ............................................... . ...........
3 Samplo Results .................................. ......................... ....... .................. ............................. I
APPENDICES
A U-S. EPA National Exposure Research lAboratory Analytical Results for Fnvironw
&*nple.q CoHeLted fTom DuPont Fnyettdville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina (I pa
B NEIC Anal�tical Proccriure for Analyzb)g PFOA in Watcr by HPLCIMS/MS (2 Vagals)
.T
and w-ovides n cles indication of die mnd of tho rej)ort.
WK-WrOME41 Page 2 Df 9 %do
DEQ-CFW-6003-4847

05/1012006 09;57 91971536e5 DWM PAGE 05/15
APR-17-2006 MON 07:37 AM EPA NEW FAX NO, 3032365116 - P. 05
ENFORCEMENTCONFIVEWr)[Al.
EXECU'fIVE SUMMARY
Thc National Hnfb=nent Inves0gallons Ccnter (NHIC) providcd laboratary msistance
to U.S. - EPA Region 4, Water Propums Enfomemem Division, in support of an invc�tigation
involying perfluomocunoic acid (PPOA or C-8). PFOA has become a We= for the
canimunity living near a DuPont f3cility that mAnuructurcs ?I?0A in Fayetteville, North
CA-v&n. Rccont data sue
the rwid(ing conmm efeacd thc need to evaluate PFOA in ground and surface water noar flic
DuPont t�cllity. EPA Region 4 personnel coll"ted 13 surface andgrowi6vatcr samples Nvithin
thc DtiPont Fayotteville Works and in the sorroun ding arun.
Tho NFIC Inboratory wa3 asked to analyze the wator samples to detemiine if PFOA was
prosent at levtls abovt 0.04 paxts p--r billion tppb or microgmms per litor (�%/L)], Two triP
blanks wero abzo sabmiticd rind analyzed for PFOA. Tlia samples were snalrzed using liquid
CbromatOW-aphy/tandom gnass spec-trome" (LCIMS/MS). All analy-4w; perfoi7nod M NEIC were
conducted by NEIC personnel in accordance wilh the NEIC Quality Systcrn.
At the reqiicst of Mike Neill of Rc&n 4, watcr satnplc,� from two sta6ons (SMW-04B
and NAF-03) wcro also analyzed for PFOA by the EPA Office of Research and Devclopmcnt�
Nationni Expo.�ure Rescamb 'Laboratory (NERL) in Athens, Gco4a, The NERT, analytical
rmliltS arcattacl)Qd as'Appendix A.
I'lic NEIC leboratory identified PT�OA hi samples from 2 of 13 stmians. A Samplo fror-r
station SMW-0413 contained approxfmatoly 1.7 ppb PFOA, and a sample from station
MW-18 contoinad FFOA at a oonocii"tioll near the nictliod detectjon Iiinit' of 0.037
ptfts iper hill itm.
VFOA was not detw-tod in any of flie trip blawk watcr samples (method d0cotion liml
0,031 parts par bilfiDn).
Dvo to intarf�xmm, the NFIC laboratalry tould not mcasum PFOA In tLe sample frmo
station NAP-03. Portionsof this,,cumple and the SamPle ftom station SMW-00 w
analy/od flor PFOA by NERL. NERIL identified PFOA in both water samplet
c(incmirntions botwDcn thcir rnethod detoction limit 10,36 zonognims -per gram (ngtg)
0.40 4WLI and practical quawtiflca� on limi t (.1. 8 ng/g or 2.0 11 g/L), I
D --- I.
r fire 3 Of, this roart
NEIC V"707FO I psize 3 of 8 Dupont V'qY0(I*V'rV0 warju
DEQ-CFW-00034848

0.5./10Y2006 09:57 9197153605 PAGE 06/15
API-17-2008 0 07.37 M RNEID FAX NO, 3032365116 P, 00
.dab.
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDWIM
LABORATORY ACTIV)TIES
1]
SAM 111,19 INFORMATION -
Civistino'k. Casey and Larry Stnttan Teep-Wed 13 Wator r-ftmples: and 2- trip blanks on
Fobritary 1, 2006, whicJi wera handled in accordance with the MIC Bvidence Managment
Proccdurc (NFICPROC/00-059RI). Tablo I summarizes; the sbippin& receipt, and tratsftrs
essociatcd with these sampliss.
Table I
Via Fa&ml BxpmIss (1-odEx No, 933740343170) by
Alike NcM,
Date Aipwmit racciv4d by NFIQ chftina CUOZY pl:km-J Iwo Unopeacd 1W &Ws -iA a
IC-230.-
'irry
IC,210.. Chain-akwtody &borm Vncd by 1.
Straffin at 1339 batm.
M In AVAI I LOM 6 1 1 -1
The procedures used to Ar1ftlyZO the water s=ples for PFOA were derived psimarily frorn
articlos publishod In tlic sclendfic literature,] 2 aW modified to accommodate tho NBIC
histruin=tation and uptimize pctrormanac. SanVlcs were analyzed for PFOA using two
scparato enniple preparation lachniques: dirtxt aqueoui injection and solid plill.qe extraction
(SPB) incorporating isotope difution. Isotope dilution was parfornied by adding "C4.12beled
extenial stiwdard quanLitallon as explained below. Appetdix B includes detaflod infbmafion
about the cxtraction procedure, and NPIC instrummtation and operating conditioms.
The result for SMW-0413 is bitsed oil exterrml standard calibnWon, altho'vgh MPPOA w
ipiked bafore extraction. The extTact had to be diluted for analysis, aftd whcxl dilutcd it wa.t n
within the rcspoase ratige of the intemal standard ciaTibration- However, the PFOA msponie w
PaSE 4 Uf 9 FaYMC0114: W#1
DEQ-CFW-00034849

O5/10/2006 09:57 9197153605 DWM PAGE 07/15
APR-17-2006 HOR 07:37 AM EPA SE10 FAX NO, 3032365116 F. 07
ANN&
ENVORCEMMTcox YMEANTIAL
Within the VFOA rosponso range of the calibration curve as an external 51andard curve, ond the
snmple was quaildtated on ffist Vasis. Tbo MPFOA rosponse in Nzutdihitcd extras indicated
fllcu,e were Ljo problems with recovery of PFOA in the extract.
Sclectiv"
QualitaliVo certainty was achicvcd for PFOA and MPFOA by manitoring
chromatogmphic retention tirtles ,md, chzractaii0c producl ions formod in (he mass
s s pectrornotcr. Since MPFOA unct PFOA bavo the samo rctontion times, the rctcation timo of
PFOA was confirmed oacb injecticrn by Ilie presence of MPFOAResults ftom rc-agent blanks
-wd method Wanks Indicated that there were no slancAnt laboratory- dcrived interferences.
'Do samplw from station NAF-03, collWod next to the Naflon Plant, all dcnionstraled
low rcsponse for the spiked MPFOA, apparently duc to siappression oC ionixation by uanown
weluting materials. Subsarnples from theso containtrs w= shipped to NFRI, in Ath%is,
Gcoirgia for PFOA nimurements. A subsomple of thestation SMW-04B sampIc, idenfified by
the NEW laboratory aa containing PFOA, was al4o, sent to NMI, for confirmoflon.
Detection Limits
Pirect ]injection: The inatfumcnt dawtion limit (IDL) for PFOA was cstimalod 64
per1brmft)&1- seven injections of a low-level calibration standard (1.5 jig/Q. This IDL rcprosonts
flit tr&imum detwalble conow(ration of a%alyte iii a 50-�il, injection volume, and renects
Within -run instrument precision ordy. The RX for 11170A was LO pg/L. This TD1, is also thc
U sami3les �malvzed hv dir—t-t i-y-lection bV
SPE- Two c3leulations, both, based on 40 CPR Part 136, Appen(lix B, wcre uied to
cstlinate a method d0cotion Ifinit (MDL) for smples eoncvamted by SPB with isotope dilution.
Initially, nine allpots of reagent water oortaining 0. 125 JAg/L'ofPFOA analyte wele sUbjcMd
to the ex(raction procedure and instrumental analyids. The MDL calculated, based on these nine
,wnlysm was 0.043 pg/l.. SeconJ, coneurrclit %kith sample analysii, an additional four
laboratory Control 3=1pits (LCS), cmistiag of PFOA spikc�t into laboratory b4ank'Woer at
OA25 y&4, were analyzed- Recalculating using oll 13 LCS &-unples gave an MDL estilnute of
Ask 0-0,17 gel- 710 95 percent conlidenre interval foT the VjDL is 0.027 to 0,062 pg/L
L- V
NJqC V117071F41 Pule 5 of 8 1 DePant FayMitVilla WarU
DEQ-CFW-00034850

1�1
05/10/2006 09:57 9197153605 DWM PAGE Be/,iS
AFR-17-200B WN 07.38 Ah EPA HEIC FAX NO, 3032365116 R 08
MO-OIRCKMWf COn'IDE IAL
Itrati
I$e 0,037 �tg/Lmay be an overcstimata of tbo MIDL becau%e the sPiked coneof 'i
was hi0er than ft intent desmbed in the APPandix B proccdure. The spikcd concentrotion w
NV
t1lo Saina as OIC ismope dilution st2ndard conecntration, which vp&s choi�n to be below
but high enough to Sjve. an "tablc instrument response, The intent of Appondix B is
perrurm mengurorncuts clom to the limit of imtr%wnent re4ponsa. I
A variety of QA/QC safoples weTe used to wqgm zboasumroant bias and Precision at
analyto conecrttrations reasonably dose to 0.040 :tp)L, such as rcpliCAtO RnItlYSCS Of C31iby;16011
standards, spiked rcagent water, and spiked field samples, 'Me lwiniary source or random
uncestainty in the analytical data was Wm6W as instniment rr-sponso variafion among
anaiytical miu. Ilic irclative standard deviation (RSV) of tbc 13 YLCSs givus the best estimata of
overall prevision, wbich was 12 pceccnt.
Isotope dilation is intch" to convct msultr, for sample-to-s4panple diffieronces in
preparadon steps mul matrix by providing tin inb=nt "recovery corrcctiod' for each S=ple,
thw; minimizing bias and tmproving precision relative to non -isotope diludon mcjhoJs. no
NAV-03 samplo sent to NERL.Umonstrates both tlic strengih of isotoj74 dilution, and thAt the
te4ini qua Ns limitadons. The presence ofTOFOA in ewh aijalysiashowed. that the mothod did
not bahavc za.% expacted for the station. NAF-03 maWx; The MPFOA rcspansc was about 3 percent
ThL a P espon )3
of the aVMIgt Te-SPOASO Ob%MVC4 ift OdICT SSLOPICS. , Act th t the 11 OA r so wt
si�pprcssod would no[ have beeri apparent if tbc'MPFOA wa5 not prcsclit. However, MPFOA
could not compawatc for the interferonce(s) prment.
Table 2 swnrnwiyos spike fmIts; thcso =suits relicet the babavlor of averogta of
darlicate injoctions into the LCIMS/MS. In addition to the 13 LCS MuIts, two field swnples
Werc sPikcd to evduata potential mzbix effeco. Table 2 contain.9 a SmMary of AjIlly(C
xe�;Oycrieq Crom %Aking Subsa-Mples of th�% two sarnples 8hown. The spikcd concentration in
SMW-0411 was less ihan the PFOA content of the sample and is: therefore, not a zood indicator
orblas bmaxise dio TLSD for the dcutwtfilDtion is 12per=t.
WWI=
IFI%A* 4 of 8
NNW? FAin-tILVAC Wades
DEQ-CFW-00034851

05/10/2006. 09:57 9197153605 DWM PAGE 09/15
APR-17-2006 MOO 07:38 0 EPA NE10 FAX NO. 3032365118 P. 09
Y.NFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL
TaMe 2
SAMPLE RESULTS
Table 3 contains the rpwnplc rcavIts, The third colmma shows the r=lt as PFOA, and Iho
fowth oolunin as amimonium perfluorooctmicate. Two of 13 water s4niples Coatained detacmble
amounts of PVOAWilb two exccptions, tho valucs repo;tcd in Tab] c 3 are the rcsul t of onIc
oxtraction and two ffisuumqlal mosomments. The oxcuptions are. the sqniplca frorn sistions
SMW-04B Dnd PW-00; t1zso zample.5 wero pierrared iv% triplivatfi, and the mean value for SMW-
048 is reported, The reported voluas for dic two arunpIcs containing dctectable amoucts of
PFOA incW6 99 percent confidenco intayals. The confideace intemls ua based on tho ovemil
12% RSD obsj�rved for LCSs, The method detection limit for PFOA, as descTibW pTcvioasly,
wv 0.037
PLIC VP0707MI Page 7 of 9 Moyeftevild wfwjtr
DEQ-CFW-00034852

05/10/2006 09.57 9197153605 Dwm PAGE 10/15
APR-17-2008 0 11:48 AM EPA NEIC FAX NO. 3032365116 P, al
E
m
jNFOACEMEWl'CON FWEN'rlAl,
Table
SAMPLAiRliSULTS
DaPont FAyatevilla Works
Fayetteville, Nomh Carolina
tall.,
M I rl ml, I i
< 0,042
r.tat
I
REFERENCES
1, Moody, CA.; KNvml, W.C.; Martill, J.W.; Muir, D.C,,(3.; Mabury, S.A. /lj,,71. Chen). 2001,
73,2200-2206.
2. Risha, Karca; Filahorty, John, el al, Anal. Chan, 2005, 77,1503-1$09,
Al FQjqM le (y-" —
FAX TRANSMITTAL
q4 S )U M UA
NEIC V117OW-01 race $ of s Durvat Fayelteville WarFix
DEQ-CFW-00034853

05/10/2006 09:57 9197153605 Da
Hum
Pi
APPENDIX
U.S, FPA NAVONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR FiNVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES COLLECTED
rROM DUPON'J'FAYETTEIVILLEWORKS, FAYETTEVILLE, NORT11 CAROLINA
(I page)
E
PAGE 11/15
P. I I ,
DEQ-CFW-00034854

LJ
E
IMP
UM
UNITED STATES ENORONMENTAL PRoyacrION AGIENcY
NATIONAL EXPOSURrm RESEARCH LABORATORY
ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH DIVISION
SSG COLILF.Of- STATION ROAD . A -A MNS, GA 2OG05-27W
7
OFFIC9.0f
RFEEWH AND 01!veLoPMFNr
Analytical Results for Faviromental Samples CoHefed
frarn DuPont Fayetteville Works, Fayeflovdiej NC.
wpoyt to- Christinc Casoy, ISSF11A, 01,:CA, OCEFT, W.1
Repart datv: March 27,2006 1
Sample locaflovis., DuPont FmyWavilla Works, Fayetteville. NC
Sample dalesr week of January 23, 2006
Sarriplivig observer: Mike Ncill
Sample Comsuladonlappearance; water
Pro -analytical sample frea(view: dilute I mL sample with 100 pl. of inf=nl standard; actual rgas.,?as
of noininal volarnos aTorccorded.
a ON 0
Anniyte- perflnozin-ated octanoic acid (PFOA)
�vkA AXE-AL-FMAI C&I -:i cwt 6, 6:jj;'0.
ancklyu confirmtion on413 > 169 transidem; intenial %taadaxd (IS) - viass-labeM PFOA, IS
quandflution on 417 > 372 trMsition, IS confirmation on 417 > 169 traijaition.
Analyllc2l, limits.- MDL (method detection Jimit) - 0.36 ng/g (as analyzed; defined eks 3-11mas 0.10
standArd doviation of 9 hijoctlow oFa low-conocatration gtan&rd); PQL (practical quantillcation
limit) -a 1.9 ng/g (defined as 5�tlrncs the MDL�- 3 —. identificalicni, of analyte is accoptable,
TeRmtod Value 1% -an eainlau.
Ila
FARM=
DEQ-CFW-00034855

05/10/2006 69:57 9197153605
.OPR-17-2006 MON 07:39 AM EPA NElt
APPENDIX13
NWC ANA�YTICAL PROCEDURE
0- • •
E
PAGE 13/15
P. 13
DEQ-CFW-00034856

05/10/2006 09.57 9197153605 DWM PAGE 14/15
ApR-17-2006 MON 07:39 AM EPA NEIC FAX NO. 3032365118 P. 14
ENFORCEMEM CONFIDENTIAL
AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
H111,C; -
Aocnt Sorics 1100, bawd colurnri ffistalW (rcfcrcnec 1)
cokmlw.
Phonomenex, Luna 5 micron C 9(21), 50 x 2.0 millimeters
Coluinn Tcnip:
35 "C
woctioll V61111ne,
50 microliters (pl,; two injcdions from cacti HPLC vial)
MONO MIR=
(A) 2 millin-tolar (rnM) arrkmoni= acctatc in water
(B) Methanol
Gmitimt program'.
Bw FLOW gate fap �03—an
O-OD 0.30 mUmin A - 60%, B - 40%
0.40 0.30 mUmin A=60% 13=40%
1.00 0.30 UMin A n 10% B - 90%
7.00 0.30 MIAnin A =% B = 10MI,
9.00 rotun'to initial conditions
gdft
4PMass Spec(r0tFiaLer, ThermoVinnig-sn Dcoa XP
Electrosprity
Cam ulcr DcH
Softwnrc; 'MarmoVinnigan Xcalibur running on Windows NT
Ions monitored (all negative Ion modo):
•
13
The mags spocLromvqer was tuacd with FFOA by irifwqing a 0,5�-jaghnL standard Folution
of PFOA (ol 10 l,tUmin using uil filfusion pump) IT" o a stream of mobile rkiase
=itaining 40 Ix-rcent inetbanol and 60 perecint 2 mM arnrnolllum acetato or 100 pc=nt
mothanol, depending on the extraction procedure. The histrumcnt was initially tuncKI for the
parent ion and the collisioa cnergy was increased until tho product io%l signal was stable- I�CV
labeled FFOA (MPFOA).was infused and analyzed with the PFOA tune to cnsijre MPFOA coOd
be damted- 7lic tw)c parameters wcTe saved and usod for thcanilysas-
NPIC V"107FOI 1"Age B-1 Of 2 bitrortl Fn),0Ue41k Works
DEQ-CFW-00034857

C
05/10/2006 09:57 9197153605 DM PAGE 15/15
APR-17-2008 MON 07:39 Afl EPA NE10 FAX NO, 3032365116 P. is
XNF0R(.,jFMENT CONVIDRIMAL
J'hc doprotonaiod acid anjolls were formed. Frm the two compounds in the cdcct-ospray
intorface- ratio (rrllz) 413 for PFOA, and 417 for MPFOA, At tho appropriate
retantion time, PPOA in/z 413 and MPFOA m/z 40 wore selectod for tandern mus
spettrometLy for dic: chmcleristir, fraguacot ions at nVi 369 and rn/z 372.
90 LID PHASE EXTRACTION (SPE) APPARA7US
sysicM.- Rostcx, 12-PM SPE SYsteni
Cardilgos, Supelco Discovery C- IS, 6 grams
SAMPLE PREPAIWION
Dirac( "oution. Subsamplcs w= directly Weeted into the HPLUE SVMS in duplic
I'lie diruct ix�cction inaliod was uscd to determine if any samples contained lavcls of PF0
Above flic instrumcm detootion Timit (IDL) of I [LS/L. One sample, SMW-049, contained PFO
Solid phu%t cvxtractlow, Water subsm-nplos and QC samples werc prcparcd by a sol
Pluise extracti,011 WE) concentration procedurc. lbo procedure included adding W170A
overy sample at a known cancontration (0.125 pg/L). A 100-ml., rJiquot of saumple W
mensured into a dispoaable, plastic, gmduatcd cylinder and p=cd through an SPE cortzid�i
(SupcIcoDis;covcryC-I8,6 grams). Ile omirldgc was cluted with 5 io 6 mLoFrncthanoI,aj
Oio clunto was collceted in a plsduated test tubo. Tbo cluake was concentrated to 0,5 m
and diltacd to a final volume of I inL with mobile phase corroVonding to biltial instrome
won&
INSTRUMP.]NT CALIBRATION
Both rcrcrcnct--.q 12 prescribcd The use of extractcd calibmtion standatcb at a mininium of
five con" -Titration lovelm. This c4bratioa appn-)ach was nor uscd .9t the NEIC laboratory. Non -
and duplientu 11ijections of each were pertormcd. The 111--OA insbinnent response was lincar
ovcr ilia calibration range of intcrest (5 gg/L to 50 jig/L).
REFERENCES
I. Risha, Karen; flaherty, Joba, el a/, Anal. Chen 2005, 77,1503-1509,
k". MDDdy, C.A.; Kwan, W.C.; Madin, JW; Muir, D.C.G.; Mabury, S.A. AnaL Chem. 2001,
73,220 0-2206.
N111C vmvol PSTIff ES-2 of 2 romPent Fayelfeville Works
DEQ-CFW-00034858

a
11
%S* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
NATIONAL EXPOSURE RESEARCH LABORATORY
ECOSYSTEMS RESEARCH DIVISION
960 COLLEGE STATION ROAD e ATHENS, GA 30605-2700
mriie 'e I
OMCE Of
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENr
Analytical Results for Environmental Samples Collected
from DuPont Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, NC
Report date: March 27, 2006
Sample locations: DuPont Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, NC
Sample dates: week of January 23, 2006
Sampling observer: Mike Neill
Sample constitution/appearance: sediment and/or soil material
Pre -analytical sample treatment: sieved to <2-nun, —90% sample passed sieve; 8 g dry sample
extracted in 4 nil, "20 + 6 mL acetonitrile; dilute 1 mL extraction solution with 100 pL of
internal standard; actual masses of nominal volumes are recorded.
F--%T!l MUM 100 arg-ORMURRU
Analyte: perfluorinated octanoic acid (PFOA)
Analytical method: LC/MS/MS, Hypersil Gold column; analyte quantification on 413 > 369 transition,
analyte confirmation. on 413 > 169 transition; internal standard (IS) - mass -labeled PFOA, IS
quantification on 417 > 372 transition, IS confirmation on 417 > 169 transition.
Analytical limits. MDL (method detection limit) — 0.36 ng/g (defined as 3-times the standard deviation
of 9 injections of a low -concentration standard); PQL (practical quantification limit) = 1.8 ng/g
(defined as 5-tirnes the MDL). J — identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an
estimate.
Station
ID
--------------
IPFOA]
(ng/g as
analyzed)
------------
IPFOA]
(Pg/ k% dry
soil)
--------- ---------------- - -------
173863
----------- - ----------------------■-----
Outfall 002-SED
---------------------------------------
—0.36J
--- ------------------ ------------------
0.50J
173868
Sed 01
<MDL
<MD11
173869
mll�i
173870
�01111�
<MDL
DEQ-CFW-00034859