NCD003446721_19850722_Celeanse Corporation - Shelby Fiber_FRBCERCLA RA_Final Report - Forward Planning Study-OCR

'•'\:,,
t. f ·~. ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL REPORT
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
FORWARD PLANNING STUDY
JULY 22, 19B5
DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER
173-WPl-RT-BDPM-3
**Company Confidential**
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Contract No. 68-01-6939. The material contained herein is not
to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or
persons for any reason without the prior expressed approval of a
responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
environmenral engineers, scientists,
planners. & managemen/ consultants
July 22, 1985
Mr. Russell L. Wright
Regional Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ms. Meredith L. Clarke
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
SUBJECT: Final Report for the Celanese
Fibers Operations Site
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO: 71-4LG5
EPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-6939
DOCUMENT NO.: 173-WPl-RT-BDPM-3
Dear Mr. Wright and Ms. Clarke:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
1945 The Exchange, N, W., Suite 290
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
404 952•8643
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) is pleased to submit this Final Report
for the Celanese Fibers Operations site in accordance with Task 4 of the
Work Plan Memorandum. Please note that the scope of activities under
Task 4 has been changed per discussions with Mr. Jim Orban and Ms.
Meredith Clarke on June 4, 1985. Because this Forward Planning Study is
being conducted in parallel with efforts by PRP consultants to develop a
Work Plan for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), CDM's
scope of work for the Final Report was amended to include the
identification of additional work required to complete the RI, and
development of preliminary cost estimates for a complete RI/FS. A
discussion of feasible remedial alternatives and their associated costs
is no longer included in the scope of work for this project.
This report includes a description of the site and its environmental
setting, a summary of the history of operations at the site, and a review
of the data collected during previous site investigations. Information
deficiencies and data gaps are identified to provide a basis for the
development of subsequent remedial investigation activities. Preliminary
cost estimates for the RI/FS are presented.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Russell L. Wright
Ms. Meredith L. Clarke
July 22, 1985
Page Two
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the report, please call
us.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
JLR:RCJ/jmp
l a
Associate
Region IV M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION •. ..••. .•. ••••• •••. •• ••••• •• • .. . •••••••.••••• 1-1
1.1 Site Location ... .......... .... .. .. .. ....... .... .... 1-1 1.2 Site Status and Project Type . ..... .. . • ..•.••. ...••• 1-3 1.3 Overview ........................................... 1-3
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION •••.••••••••••••....••.•.•.•.••.•. 2-1
3. 0
2.1
2.2
Site Description .................................. . 2.1.l Environmental Setting •••..••.••.•••..•..••••
2.1.2 Site History ............................... . 2.1.3 Review of Existing Database ••••..••••..••••• Contamination Problem Definition •..•••••.••••••••••
IDENTIFICATION OF DATA REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS FOR A
2-1
2-1
2-5
2-9
2-23
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY ..•.••....••••. 3-1
4.0 REFERENCES • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • 4-1
APPENDIX A -Site Topographic Map
APPENDIX B -Site History
APPENu!X C -Groundwater Analysis Results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
LIST OF TABLES
Normal Monthly and Annual Average Temperature and Precipitation at Shelby, North Carolina for the Period 1951-1980 ••.....•••...•...•.......•...•.....•.•.•• 2-6
pH Data . • . • • . • • . . • • . . . . • • . • • . • • . . . • • • . . . . . • . . . • • • • • . . • • . • 2-15
Specific Conductivity and Total Organic Carbon Analysis
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Organic Compound Analysis Results . • . . . . • • . . . . . • . • . • • • • • . • 2-18
2-5 Potential Onsite Contamination Sources •.••••..•••••••.••• 2-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
Location Map ........ .... ... ... ..... ... ...... .. ... .. 1-1
Waste Disposal Areas............................... 1-2
Private Well Locations .. .••.. .••.•. .• .•. . .. ••. .. . .• 1-2
Water Level Contours . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Monitor Well Locations •• ••. •••.••••• •• .. .. .•••... •• 2-10
Location of Geologic Sections •• .. .. .• ••. ..••.•••••• 2-13
Geologic Section A-A
Geologic Section B-B
...............................
...............................
2-13
2-13
Conductivity Contours from EM Survey............... 2-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Forward Planning Study (FPS) report has been prepared by Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. (COM) Region IV, REM II for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in response to Work Assignment 71-4LG5 issued February 5,
1985. The Work Plan Memorandum dated February 25, 1985 summarizes the
scope of work for this work assignment.
The purpose of the FPS is to provide a description of the current situation
at the site. This report includes a description of the site and its
environmental setting, a summary of the history of operations at the site,
and a review of the data collected during previous site investigations.
Information deficiencies and data gaps are identified to provide a basis
for the development of subsequent remedial investigation activities.
This report has been organized into the following sections:
1.0 Introduction;
2.0 Initial Site Evaluation;
3.0 Identification of Data Requirements and Costs for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study; and
4.0 · References.
1.1 SITE LOCATION
As shown on Figure 1-1, the Celanese Fibers Operations site is located in
Cleveland County on North Carolina (NC) Highway 198 approximately 2 miles
south of Patterson Springs, North Carolina and 1 mile north of Earl, North
Carolina. Shelby, North Carolina is about 10 miles northwest of the site.
The site can be reached from Charlotte, North Carolina by traveling
approximately 45 miles south on Interstate 85 to the exit marked Earl,
North Carolina and N.C. Highway 198. The site is located 5 miles north of
the exit on N.C. Highway 198.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CALE IN FEET . '
II\-. I //'
~2-fERAJI
-
REM II
LOCATION MAP
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE HO
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Celanese Fibers Operations site is located in the southern two-thirds
of Cleveland County which is characterized by a broadly flat and gently
rolling plateau that gives way to mountainous conditions northward. The
plateau is about 900 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southern part
of the county.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Blacksburg North 7.5 minute quadrangle
map shows elevations ranging from 780 to 860 feet above msl in the
developed portions of the site (see Figure 1-1). Figure 1-2 is a map of
the Celanese facility showing the locations of the manufacturing plant,
waste treatment plant, and waste disposal areas. The USGS quadrangle
indicates that the Celanese manufacturing plant was constructed on the
highest elevations of the site with fairly steep drop-offs occurring to the
north and south, and more gradual elevation decreases to the east and west.
The plant's waste treatment facilities are located east of and downslope
from the manufacturing plant at elevations ranging between 800 and 820 feet
above msl. A site-specific topographic map has been prepared by Soil and
Material Engineers Inc. (SME), consultants to Celanese.Fibers Operations.
A copy of the map is included in Appendix A of this report.
The waste treatment area perimeter fence is bounded by trees to the north
and east. A recreation area and pond are located south of the
manufacturing plant. Land use in the surrounding area is predominantly
agricultural. However, some commercial and residential development lies
within a mile radius of the plant. According to Celanese Fibers Operations
personnel, there are approximately 50 private residential potable water
supply well-s within a mile radius of the plant. As shown on Figure 1-3,
the nearest downgradient wells are located approximately 1300 feet
southeast of the plant. In addition, several wells are clustered east of
the plant along State Route 2210. An unnamed tributary to Buffalo Creek
runs between the plant and these wells. Several wells are also located on
N.C. Highway 198 west of the Celanese Fibers Operations facility.
Surficial drainage at the site is generally eastward with flow dividing to
the northeast and southeast to intercept two unnamed tributaries to Buffalo
Creek that flank the site. One tributary crosses the northeastern corner
1-2
I-"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
ETHYLENE GLYCOL-
METHANOL SPILLS
PtllODUCTION A.IA
FORMER DRUM STORAGE AREA
SOAK AWAY PONDS-~
0 500 1000 ------SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
AB -AERATION BASIN
CT -COOLING TOWER
EP -EMERGENCY POND
PP -POLISHING POND
SP -SLUDGE POND
•
•
REM II
FENCE
SLUDGE LAND APPLICATION AREA
POLYMER 8 FIBER LANDFILL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
LANDFILL
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF CHEMICAL DITCH
WASTE DRUM BURIAL
AND BURIED WASTE
-, ,-----,_,.----, i
•••
..
i
i
l
I " -'1.J ·\·--~
□\\ .. .. .___.,. \
~)
• T
OLD BURNING PITS
PVC MONITOR WELL LOCATION
STAINLESS STEEL MONITOR
WELL LOCATION
RAILROAD
WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
FIGURE NO
1-2 CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REM 11
PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONS
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
'1CIUAE NO
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the property; the other originates
the southern portion of the property.
at the recreational pond located in
Buffalo Creek is located about 1.5
miles southeast of the site. It serves as both the water supply for the
plant and the receiving stream for discharges from the plant's waste
treatment facility.
1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE
In June 1984, Region IV EPA personnel and personnel from the North Carolina
Division of Health Services' (DHS) Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Branch conducted a physical inspection of the Celanese Fibers Operations
Shelby plant. Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score sheets and documentation
were completed in July 1984.
HRS scores are designed to take into account a standardized set of factors
related to risks from potential or actual migration of wastes via
groundwater, surface water, and the atmosphere. If a site receives a score
equal to or greater than 28.5, it is eligible for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The Celanese Fibers Operations site was proposed
for inclusion on the NPL in September 1984.
1.3 OVERVIEW
This FPS was conducted in parallel with efforts by the Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) consultants to develop a Work Plan for a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site. The objectives of the
FPS are to describe the current situation at the site; and to identify
information deficiencies and data gaps to be considered in developing
subsequent remedial investigation activities.
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
Several areas have been used for waste disposal at the Celanese Fibers
Operations site. Onsite groundwater contamination has been detected in the
vicinity of two of these disposal areas, a glycol recovery unit (GRU)
sludge burial area and a former drum storage and staging area. Groundwater
contamination is also present near two unlined emergency spill ponds, which
were used once to contain a spill, and once to contain material that could
not be treated at the waste treatment facility or directly discharged.
Off site groundwater contamination has not been suggested by the results
from any of the Celanese facility's monitor wells. However, the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has been monitoring
groundwater quality at two private residential wells located within one
quarter-mile of the plant.
2.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Geology
The geology of Cleveland County was described by Duncan and Peace (1966) in
"Groundwater Resources of Cleveland County, North Carolina". Cleveland
County is entirely within the Piedmont geologic province. The rocks
occurring in the vicinity of the Celanese Fibers Operations site lie within
the Inner Piedmont geologic belt. This belt consists of polymetamorphosed
mica schists, and granitic and mafic gneisses with numerous conformable
bodies of intrusives which.are predominantly quartz monzonite. These rocks
are intensively folded and faulted, and are generally considered to be late
Precambrian to early Paleozoic in age.
Duncan and Peace ( 1966 l reported that as much as 75 percent of the county
area is underlain by a mica schist and gneiss complex. The coloration of
these rocks is generally light to dark gray and weathers to dull gray,
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
yellow, and various shades of red. The contacts and boundary zones
separating the mica schist and gneiss complex from other rock units are
generally indefinite because of their gradational character.
Groundwater in the schist and gneiss complex occurs in and moves
principally through intersecting sets of fractures. Duncan and Peace
(1966) reported the average depth of 117 wells drilled in schist as 189
feet. The average yield from these wells was 25 gallons per minute (gpm).
Data from 56 wells drilled into gneiss showed the average depth to be 226
feet. The average yield of these wells was 35 gpm. According to Duncan
and Peace (1966) most drilled wells in gneiss and schist obtain adequate
supplies for domestic and farm use at depths ranging from 100 to 200 feet.
Included in the gneiss and schist complex are geologically younger bodies
of quartz monzonite, gabbro, and dikes and lenses of pegmatite. Duncan and
Peace (1966) reported Toluca Quartz Monzonite underlies approximately 10
percent of Cleveland County. Examination of geologic maps presented in
Duncan and Peace (1966) and Soil and Material Engineers, Inc. (1982)
indicates that the Shelby plant is located near the contact between the
mica schist and gneiss complex, and the Toluca Quartz Monzonite. Recent
investigations by SME geologists have tentatively located the contact
between the schist and the gabbro (Toluca Quartz Monzonite) running in a
north-south direction through the center of the polishing pond area.
Generally, the larger quartz intrusions display strong foliation,
especially in and near contact zones.
The Toluca Quartz Monzonite, along with the surrounding mica schi.sts and
gneisses, weathers to saprolite which may be defined as disintegrated rock
that lies in its original place, and retains the overall appearance,
texture, and structure of the bedrock. According to Duncan and Peace
(1966), the saprolite developed from the Toluca Quartz Monzonite extends
from a few feet below ground surface to depths as great as 100 feet and
averages 30 to 70 feet deep. The residuum overlying the saprolitic layer
is typically finer grained near the surface and has a higher clay content
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
because of advanced weathering. The residuum typically becomes coarser
grained with increasing depth because of decreased weathering.
Duncan and Peace (1966) reported the average depth of 25 wells penetrating
Toluca Quartz Monzonite as 246 feet. The average yield from these wells is
about 10 gpm.
Groundwater Hydrology
In 1981, SME conducted a Phase I hydrogeologic study of the Shelby plant
site. The purpose of this study was to explore the shallow subsurface
geology and prepare a hydrogeological report addressing the rates and
directions of groundwater flow beneath the site. To provide data for this
study, a number of test borings were drilled in specific areas around the
site. Subsequent to drilling, the borings were converted to permanent
groundwater monitor wells so that the effects of plant operations on the
groundwater system could be monitored.
At each well location, standard penetration tests were performed and
samples taken on 2.5-foot intervals for the first 10 feet, and 5-foot
intervals thereafter to the boring completion depth. These samples were
visually classified in the field by a geotechnical engineer/geologist.
Constant head infiltration tests were conducted at selected boreholes to
quantify the hydraulic conductivity of the soil.
Nine undisturbed samples were taken to test the in-situ and hydraulic
properties of the soils. Several laboratory tests were performed to
complete the assessment of the soil classifications made in the field and
quantify the hydraulic properties of these soils. Grain size distribution
tests were made in accordance with ASTM D-422. Atterberg Limit tests were
performed in accordance with ASTM D-423 and D-424. Porosity determinations
were made on all of these samples. In addition, four of the undisturbed
samples were subjected to permeability tests in accordance with the
procedure outlined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Manual EM
1110-2-190b.
2-3
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Investigations conducted by SME indicated that a water-table aquifer occurs
at the Shelby plant site in residual soils and saprolite overlying bedrock.
The depth to groundwater ranged from 5 to 45 feet below ground surface with
an average depth of about 20 feet. Bedrock depths ranged between 17 and 88
feet below ground surface at the boring locations.
As shown on Figure 2-1, the main groundwater flow direction is eastward
from the topographic highest portion of the site. An eastward trending
groundwater divide then directs flows to the northeast and southeast. The
hydraulic gradients calculated by SME from November 1981 water level
measurements ranged from about 0.010 to 0.030 foot per foot near the center
of the groundwater divide to about 0.023 to 0.050 foot per foot toward the
periphery of the main plant area. Piezometric head differences were
observed at 5 of the 6 locations where well screens were set at two
different depths. At locations where differences were observed, the
groundwater levels in the deep wells were below water levels in the shallow
wells, suggesting a downward hydraulic gradient. However, SME indicates
that the recorded potentiometric differences may be caused by interbedded
silt layers encountered in the profile that act as a confining bed between
the shallow and deep wells.
Using the available water-level, porosity and hydraulic conductivity data,
SME calculated average linear groundwater velocities of 18 feet per year
toward the southeast and 28 feet per year toward the northeast. According
to SME, the rate of flow in an eastward direction should be within the
range of 18 to 28 feet per year. Flow rates in a southward direction were
not calculated because of limited water-level data in the area south of the
p 1 ant.
SME is currently preparing a Phase II hydrogeologic report that includes
additional information developed following the installation of 9 new
monitor wells in February 1985.
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
WATER LEVELS TAKEN AUGUST 17, 1984
DATUM: PLANT PRODUCTION AREA FLOOR = 200 FEET
0 500 1000 ------SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
__,,_.._ FENCE
• PVC MONITOR WELL LOCATION
RAILROAD
AB -AERATION BASIN
CT -COOLING TOWER
EP -EMERGENCY POND
PP -POLISHING POND
8P -SLUDGE POND
170-CONTOUR LINE AND ELEVATION IN FEET
REFERENCED TO PLANT DATUM
REM II
WATER LEVEL CONTOURS
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Surface Water Hydrology
The site is flanked by two unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek. Flow
measurements are not available for these tributaries. The USGS has taken
miscellaneous discharge measurements in Buffalo Creek at a station located
at the bridge on N.C. Highway 198 one-tenth of a mile upstream from the
N.C.-S.C. state line, and 4 miles west of Grover. Recent measurements
range from 106 cubic feet per second (cfs) on January 3, 1980 to 343 cfs on
April 12, 1983.
Climate
Climatic data recorded at Shelby, North Carolina is summarized in Table
2-1. The annual average precipitation of 49.43 inches is fairly evenly
distributed throughout the year. Historically, March is the wettest month.
The fall months of September through December are somewhat drier than the
spring and summer months.
Over an annual period, average monthly temperatures range from a low of
39.2 degrees Fahrenheit in January to a high of 77.2 degrees Fahrenheit in
July. The warm summer temperatures combined with heavier precipitation in
these months serve to maintain a typically humid environment. Winters are
moderate with normal snowfall ranging from 0.1 inch in November to 2.6
inches in January and February.
2.1.2 SITE HISTORY
Operations began at the Shelby facility around 1960 under the ownership of
Fiber Industries Incorporated. Manufacturing operations included the
production of polymer chips, polymer fiber, and polyester textur.izing. The
texturizing plant was phased out of operation in 1982.
Effective December 30, 1983, Fiber Industries' assets and liabilities were
transferred to Celanese Corporation. Since that time, the production of
polymer chips and polymer fiber has been managed by Celanese Fibers
Operations. Reportedly, the principal chemicals involved in polymer
2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Average
TABLE 2-1
NORMAL MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
AND PRECIPITATION AT SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FOR THE PERIOD 1951-1980
Average Temperature (OF) Average Precipitation
39.2 4.14
41. 6 4.03
49.4 5.36
59.2 3.86
67.1 4.12
73.8 4.51
77. 2 4.35
76.3 4.57
70.3 4.01
59.0 3.35
49.3 3.15
41.2 3.98
58.6 49.43
( in. )
Source: National Climatic Data Center, Climatography of the United States
No. 20
2-6
j
/ /
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
production are dimethyl terephthalate and ethylene glycol. Other small
quantity additives include titanium dioxide and antimony.
The locations of the Celanese manufacturing plant, waste treatment plant,
and waste disposal areas were shown on Figure 1-2. Reportedly, the
treatment plant was constructed in phases concurrent with the manufacturing
plant. During part of the early years, chemical wastes were discharged
through a ditch draining in a generally easterly direction. The ditch
began near the western edge of what is now known as the former drum storage
area, and travelled east to the northeast corner of the present emergency
spill ponds. The ditch was replaced with pipes when the waste treatment
plant became fully operational in the mid-1960's. In 1973, the plant was
expanded with the addition of a polishing pond, two emergency spill ponds,
and an additional aeration basin. Effluent from the waste treatment plant
is piped to a discharge point on Buffalo Creek.
The concrete lined portions of the waste treatment facility include a
chromate reduction pond which is no longer in use, a digester, three
equalization basins, two aeration basins, and two clarifiers. The unlined
plant units include the three polishing ponds, two sludge ponds, and two
emergency spill ponds. The polishing ponds are compacted fill-type
structures with water depths ranging from 7 to 12 feet. Some seepage was
noted on the south embankment of polishing pond 2 during the fall of 1980.
In addition to the discharge from the wastewater treatment plant, the
Celanese facility also discharges alum treated bandcaster water directly to
Buffalo Creek. Bandcaster water is used to cool the polymer products.
Both of these discharges are permitted by the North Carolina DEM.
Several areas around the plant have been used for waste disposal. Normal
plant wastes {primarily polyester and miscellaneous trash) were disposed of
in old burning pits located just north of the aeration basins. North and
east of the burning pi~s. glycol recovery unit {GRU) sludge was buried
during the early 1960's in trenches measuring approximately 25 feet square
and 4 to 6 feet deep. West of the GRU sludge burial area is a former drum
storage and staging area. Solutions which failed to polymerize were stored
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
here during the early 1960's. The drums were removed in the mid-l960's and
the storage area was backfilled. Two soak away ponds located west of the
existing aeration basins were used to
during the period from 1960 to 1964.
contain treated sanitary sewage
It has not been determined whether
these were unlined ponds that allowed the waste to percolate or were lined
ponds equipped with a drain.
Three areas of buried waste are reported to be located to the north and
outside of the main plant perimeter fence. The polymer and fiber landfill
reportedly contains primarily non-hazardous inert materials such as
excavation spoil, polymer, and waste yarn.
landfill contains items such as old cinder
The construction debris
blocks and steel strapping
bands. The contents of the waste drum burial area and buried waste area
are unknown.
In the period from 1970 to 1978, approximately 2000 to 3000 drums of waste
chemicals and solvents, including lab packs, were stored temporarily in the
area shown as the drum storage area near the former burning pit. All drums
were removed from the area by 1978 and sent to outside disposal facilities.
Approximately 21 acres of the northwest quadrant of the property have been
permitted by OEM for sludge disposal since 1978. The North Carolina State
University Extension service conducted spray irrigation experiments in an
area_ between polishing ponds land 2 during 1982 and 1983. Influent to the
waste treatment plant was sprayed directly onto the land. Researchers made
measurements to determine the mass of vegetative growth occuring on the
irrigated land. Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes the history of
operations at the site and the chronology of response actions.
Permit History
Permit No. 5002 was issued by the North Carolina OEM for a one-time
application of 4 million gallons (MG) of sludge that had accumulated in the
plant's sludge lagoons over a period of 18 years. Permit No. 7241 was
issued by DEM on March 18, 1982 for the operation of a non-discharging type
sludge land application facility for the disposal of approximately 1.2 MG
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
per year of digested sludge on the 21 acre site. The reason for the
substantial increase in the rate of sludge production was that alum sludge
from the plant's water treatment facility was also being discharged to the
wastewater treatment system. Permit No. 7241R was issued by DEM on October
12, 1983 amending the previous Permit No. 7241 to allow for the disposal of
1.6 MG per year of digested sludge at the 21 acre site. Permit No. 7241R
expires on December 31, 1986.
Permit No. 4952-103 was issued by DEM for the discharge from the waste
treatment facility. Permit No. 4952-002 was issued for the discharge of
alum treated bandcaster water. Both these permits allow discharge directly
to Buffalo Creek.
2.1.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING DATABASE
Investigation of the Celanese Fibers Operations site began in October 1981
when SME installed 23 groundwater monitor wells. In conjunction with the
monitor well installation program, SME conducted a Phase I hydrogeologic
evaluation. Subsequently, a groundwater sampling and analysis program
began under the supervision of Davis & Floyd Incorporated.
SME has also conducted an electromagnetic survey and test pit excavations
at the site. Most recently they installed 9 additional monitor wells and
conducted the Phase II hydrogeologic evaluation. The results of SME's work
are summarized in three documents:
1. Hydrogeologic Evaluation Fiber Industries Inc., Shelby Facility,
Shelby, North Carolina, Soil and Material Engineers, Inc., February
5, 1982.
2. Electromagnetic Survey Report Waste Treatment Area, Shelby, North
Carolina, Soil and Material Engineers, Inc., November 8, 1983.
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. Summary of Findings and Suggested Future Work, Wastewater Treatment
Plant Area, Shelby, North Carolina, Soil and Material Engineers,
Inc., April 3, 1984.
Monitor Well Installation
In October 1981, SME installed 23 groundwater monitor wells at the Shelby
plant. All 23 wells have 2-inch diameter threaded Schedule 80 PVC casings
with a 3/4-inch air lift sampling device and 5-foot well screens.
Initially, the borings were advanced by either mechanically augering or
wash boring through the soils. Where necessary, a heavy drilling fluid was
used below the water table to stabilize the sides and bottom of the drill
hole. The annular space around the screen was backfilled with coarse sand.
The annular space above the screen was sealed with bentonite and a
cement-bentoni te grout.
The well locations are identified by the letters A through Ton Figure 2-2.
Two wells, one shallow and one deep, were installed at locations G, H, J,
K, N, and R. In addition to a letter prefix, each of the wells is also
identified by a number representing the depth below ground surface at the
bottom of the well screen.
During installation of the 23 groundwater monitor wells, test borings were
drilled at 18 locations on the Shelby plant site. Fill soils were
encountered at boring sites G, K, and J, extending to depths of 5 and 8
feet at G and K, respectively, and to depths of 12 and 24 feet at the two J
boring locations. The fill at the G location is associated with general
structure or utilities construction at the plant site; the fill at the K
location is associated with the disposal of the GRU sludge; and the fill at
the J location is associated with the former drum storage area. Fill
depths and consistencies in the vicinity of the former drum storage area
(near borings J-59.5 and J-28.5) are anticipated to vary considerably and
are dependent on the storage methods used.
Residuum occurs beneath the fill and at the ground surface in other areas
of the site. The site exhibits a typical Piedmont weathering profile.
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ec-41
s
e A-39
PfllOOUCTION A•■•
0 500 1000 ------SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
AB -AERATION BABIN
CT -COOLING TOWER
EP -EMERGENCY POND
PP -POLISHING POND
BP -SLUDGE POIID
□
□
•
•
• e-54.5
I Y-H.8 Y-7◄./,-~P-51.8
,::~: pp 2 / N~55.S ·---~--.• ~,--=-1--=== c::J• H-71.5 IP ■H-59 "'
•J-28.5 0-2•
J-59.5 ■ 't I v-n IP -159.2
FENCE
PVC MONITOR WELL LOCATION
STAINLESS STEEL MONITOR
WELL LOCATION
RAILROAD
,
REM II FIGURE NO
MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The upper portion of the profile consists of stiff to very stiff sandy
silts ranging in depth from 7 to 42 feet at the locations penetrated.
Underlying, and occasionally interfingered with the sandy silts are medium
to fine, or coarse to fine sands. The sands generany have relative
densities ranging from loose to very firm. After the initial weathered
zone is penetrated, the samples are generally saprol itic; i.e. retain some
remnant or relict structure of the parent material.
Partially weathered rock was encountered at several of the test boring
locations. This material can be augered with a drill rig, but exhibits
standard penetration resistances in excess of 100 blows per foot. The
predominant soil constituents of partially weathered rock can be sands or
silts, depending on the mineral composition of the parent rock. Since the
weathered rock portions of the profile are perceived to have similar
hydrogeologic properties, partially weathered rock is considered as one
unit, independent of the soil constituents. Partially weathered rock was
encountered in test borings G, H, J, K, M, N, Q, and Rat depths of 80, 77,
47, 35, 31, 18, 22, and 40 feet, respectively.
Auger refusal was encountered at borings T-17 and P-31.5, at depths of 17.5
feet and 32 feet, respectively. The rock was not cored, but these refusal
depths were interpreted by SME as the top of relatively sound, unweathered
rock rather than a boulder or rock lens in the weathered rock matrix.
During the grouting of a 65-foot deep well near the B location, grout
losses in excess of pumping capacity occurred. At this location, the grout
set-up at a depth of about 51 feet, indicating a fracture zone in the rock,
at about this depth.
Odors were noted at nine locations during drilling operations. A Dowtherm
odor was reported at boring F-55. Dowtherm is a heat transfer fluid used
in plant processing operations. A Dowtherm odor was also noted at boring
G-88 from the surface to a depth of 60 feet. At boring H-79.5, an organic
odor was noticed at a depth of 12 to 17 feet. At boring J-59.5, a carbide
odor was noted at a depth of 14 feet. Other chemical odors were noted at
depths of 24, 29, and 49 feet.
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Odors were noticed at 8 to 22 feet and 42 to 60 feet in boring K-58. At
this boring, a silver oil-base substance was detected in auger cuttings
from below the water table. At boring M-44.5, a chemical odor was noted at
depths of 19, 24, and 29 feet. A faint odor that may have been ethylene
glycol was noted at 6, 9, 14, 24, and 29 feet in boring N-53.5. Odors were
noticed at all depths in boring 0-25. At boring R-42.5, a chemical odor
was noted at depths of 9, 14, and 19 feet.
Nine additional stainless steel monitor wells were installed by SME in
February 1985 at the locations shown on Figure 2-2. Because organic
compounds had been detected in the wells with PVC casings, the new wells
were constructed using 2-inch diameter stainless steel casing with 5-foot
screens rather than PVC to insure more accurate determination of any
organic contamination in the groundwater samples. Well installation
procedures were similar to those described for the first 23 wells. Well
H-59 is located approximately 260 feet southeast of well H-79.5. HNU
photoionization detector readings between 10 and 20 ppm were obtained at
depths of 11 to 16 feet below ground surface. Well 0-59.2 is located next
to well 0-25. Organic vapor analyzer {OVA) readings up to 100 ppm were
measured during drilling. These HNU and OVA readings are indicative of
organic contamination at the depths where they were measured. OVA readings
of 5 to 10 ppm were obtained in the breathing zone at well 0-59.
Background readings in the breathing zone ranged from Oto l ppm. Level C
protection is required when time weighted average readings 5 ppm above
background are obtained over a 15 minute period.
Well U-38.6 is located about 100 feet north of the aeration basins. Fill
material was encountered at depths of l to 5 feet at this location. The
boring was terminated at 53 feet in mica schist rock. OVA readings in the
borehole during drilling ranged from 40 to 50 ppm. Well V-23.3 is located
in the center of the GRU sludge burial area. OVA readings of 50 ppm were
obtained at depths of 13 to 15 feet. OVA readings ranged between 80 and 90
ppm at depths of 18 to 20 feet. Well W-23.2 is located in the area at the
center of the polishing ponds. The boring was terminated in quartz
monzonite at a depth of 24.3 feet.
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well X-32.9 is located adjacent to polishing pond 3 near the plant
perimeter fence. The boring was terminated at a depth of 33.5 feet with
auger refusal in mica schist. Wells Y-38.8 and Y-74.4 are located
approximately 300 feet east of the K wells. These wells were installed to
evaluate groundwater quality conditions in an area hydraulically
downgradient from the GRU sludge burial area. Well Z-78,4 is located at
the southern corner of site perimeter fence near polishing pond 2.
Originally a well nest was planned at location W. However, because bedrock
was encountered at a shallow depth, it was decided to install a well at
location Z instead.
The general subsurface conditions encountered in the area of contamination
are depicted by the geologic cross-sections indicated on Figure 2-3, and
presented in Figures 2-4 and 2-5. Section A-A traverses the waste
treabnent area in a generally east-west direction. Section B-B lies
perpendicular to Section A-A in a generally north-south direction. In
Section B-B, the apparent foliation of the saprolite and underlying bedrock
is visible. Well W was terminated in quartz monzonite while all the others
terminated in mica schist. The material in Section A-A is more variable
because this section lies perpendicular to the apparent foliation. A
subsurface anticlinal feature in the vicinity of well W is suggested by
both these cross-sections.
Groundwater Sampling and Analytical Results
In November 1981, Celanese Fibers Operations began a groundwater sampling
and analysis program at their Shelby facility. Davis and Floyd, Inc. was
contracted to perform sampling and analysis. The program consisted of
sampling background wells of possible concern on an approximately quarterly
basis with the other wells sampled at least annually. The initial list of
analytical parameters was chosen on the basis of their use as indicators of
possible contamination and their presence in materials used at the plant.
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
s
e A-39
,.IIIOOUCTION AIIIIA
0 500 1000 ------SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
AB -AERATION BASIN
CT -COOLING TOWER
EP -EMERGENCY PONO
PP -POLISHING POND
SP -SLUDGE PONO
□
□
•
•
REM II
A
B
FENCE
B
•• •
PVC MONITOR WELL LOCATION
STAINLESS STEEL MONITOR
WELL LOCATION
RAILROAD
LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC SECTIONS
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
\
\
' x-:3t.9
I
\
\
R-42.5 R-17 .
FIGURE NO.
2-3
-------------------0 m G> rm ►o ~ r-0) (/) 0 x m G> m -r-"T1 0 a, -<mo ·m z ... :0 0 ..., 0 :JJ ::u Cl> m -4 0 (/) I: % ,, (/) nm en ~:om o► o !: -I -I z-->o o Zz (/) ► Cl> I =i ► m I\) I ~ ,i i5 C :JJ m z 0 845 825--f;;j > w -' < 805-l~ z < w :lE 785-lw > 0 ID < 785--f t;; w u. z 745--f 5 i= < > w 725---1 ;;j 705 [Ill] ~ ~ DEPTH OF WELLS H-79.5 J ~I V LEGEND VARIABLE FILL MATERIAL ~ SIL TY FINE AND FINE-TO-MEDIUM SAND ~ SANDY SIL TY CLAY ■ SIL TY FINE-TO-COARSE SAND z FINE AND FINE-TO-MEDIUM SANDY SILT SANDY SILT WITH ROCK PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK WITH N-COUNT > 100 BLOWS PER FOOT FROM SME 845 825 805 7815 7815 741 7211 7015
-------------------0 µ! C) ►m zo mr-o, (I) 0 :cm C> m -r-'Tl 0 Ill --< CD 0 ·m z ... JJ o-w o::a ::a Cl> m -t O (I) ;c :c "'O (I) -om en ~ JJ m o► o !: --t --t z-->o o zz Cl> CD Cl> I ::::j CD m I\) I (11 ,. i i "' z 0 816 806 796 786 775 766 766 746 736 726 ..J w > w ..J < w V) z < w ::; w > 0 CD < 1-w w u.. z z 0 I-< > w ..J w T R LEGEND [ill] ~ VARIASLE FILL MATERIAL SIL TY FINE AND FINE-TO-MEDIUM SAND SIL TY FINE-TO-COARSE SAND X ~ ~ II DEPTH OF WELLS w p FINE AND FINE-TO-MEDIUM SANDY SILT SANDY SILT WITH ROCK PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK WITH N-COUNT > 100 BLOWS PER FOOT FROM SME 811 801 791 781 771 781 711 746 731 7215
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The initial analytical parameter list included:
o pH
o conductivity
o total organic carbon (TOC)
o total dissolved solids (TDS)
o oil and grease
o nitrate
o antimony
o tota 1 chromium
o copper
o zinc
Nitrate was included in this list because the plant is located in a rural
area where fertilizer use on surrounding agricultural lands may lead to
elevated nitrate levels in the groundwater system. Antimony is used as a
catalyst in plant processing operations. A combination chromium/zinc
compound was used at the plant until 1979. Copper was included in this
list because the heat exchangers in use at the plant contain copper piping.
The analytical results of sampling conducted from November 1981 through
March 1985 are contained in Appendix C.
One of the more notable features of these data is the variability and range
exhibited in the pH values. Values range from as low as 4.5 up to 10.8 at
various monitor well locations. At a given location, pH values may vary by
as much as 3 units over an annual period. Table 2-2 summarizes a portion
of the pH data exhibiting this variability.
At location C, pH ranges from a low of 5.2 to a high of 8.1. At location
I, near the former chromate reduction pond, pH values started out near 10
and have dropped to between 6 and 7. Of the two wells at location K, the
deeper well exhibits the greater variability and range in pH values. This
same pattern is noted at location N, where pH values measured in the deeper
well have steadily increased from 5.9 to 9.7.
2-14
I
I
TABLE 2-2
I PH DATA
I Date C-49 I-57.5 · K-28 K-58 N-29 N-53.5 Q-33 S-50 T-17
November 24, 1981 5.2 9.6 6.0 7.0 5.6 5.9 4.5 10.3 4.9 I March 4, 1982 7.4 9.8 6.3 6.5 5.3 7.1 5.1 10.4 5.2
I June 9, 1982 7.2 10.2 6.5 8.1 5.7 8. 2 5.4 10.8 5.4
September 9, 1982 6.7 8.7 6.5 7.1 6.0 9.1 5.9 10.2 6.3
I June 27, 1983 5.9 NA 5.6 6.6 NA NA NA NA NA
September 1, 1983 6.7 6.6 5.9 7.1 5.9 9.7 5.6 10.4 5.6 I November 11, 1983 7.4 NA 6.2 6.8 NA NA NA NA NA
I February 16, 1984 8.1 NA 6.4 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA
May 18, 1984 7. 7 NA 6.5 7.1 NA NA NA NA NA
I August 17, 1984 6.0 7. l 5.6 6.6 6.1 9.7 5.8 9.9 5.6
November 16, 1984 7.2 NA 6.0 8.3 NA NA NA NA NA
I March 15, 1985 5.2 NA 5.3 6.5 NA NA NA NA NA
I NA = Not analyzed
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 2-15
\l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The pH recorded at locations Q and Tis on the acidic side, while values at
location Sare quite basic. pH may be an indicator of contaminant
migration, particularly at locations I, N, and S. High pH may also be an
indication of grout contamination in the well screen area.
Specific conductivity and TOC measurements have been used as indicator
parameters for inorganic and organic contaminants, respectively. Table
2-3 summarizes the specific conductivity and TOC results obtained at the
well locations exhibiting the highest levels of these two parameters. Data
from well locations C and Dare shown because these locations were
identified by SME as being upgradient of the plant, and therefore are
indicative of background conditions.
Both inorganic and organic contamination is suspected in wells J-28.5,
K-28, 0-25, and V-23.4. However, this contamination appears confined to
the shallow zone since wells J-59.5, K-58, and 0-59.2 are relatively clean.
The source of the contamination observed in wells K-28 and V-23.4 is most
likely the GRU sludge burial area. The sources of the contamination
observed at locations J and Oare not as clear.
Priority pollutant analyses have been conducted at wells D-35, K-28, 0-25,
and T-19. The results are summarized in Table 2~4. Thirteen priority
pollutants were identified in the June 27, 1983 sample from well 0-25. The
contaminant present at the highest concentration was 2-chlorophenol (17,090
ug/1). When this well was resampled on December 6, 1984, 2-chlorophenol
was not detected. Compounds that were detected in both sampling rounds
include benzene, chloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethylene, methylene chloride,
toluene, phenol, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Five priority pollutants including benzene, methylene chloride, toluene,
phenol, and diethyl phthalate were found in the May 18, 1984 sample from
well K-28. When this well was resampled in December 1984, benzene was the
only repeat compound identified. Other compounds detected in the December
1984 sample included trichlorofluoromethane, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate,
butyl benzyl phthalate, nickel, and zinc.
2-16
-- ---- ----- -
TABLE 2-3
SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY ANO TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
Specific Conductivity
(millimhos/centimeter)
ANALYSIS RESULTS
-- -
Total Organic Carbon
(m /1)
- -
Date C-49 D-35 J-28.5 J-59.5 K-28 K-58 0-25 0-59.2 V-23.4 C-49 D-35 J-28.5 J-59.5 K-28 K-58 0-25 0-59.2 V-23.4
November 24. 1981
March 4, 1982
June 9, 1982
September 9, 1982
June 27, 1983
75 180 900 300 175 160 1600
85 JOO 1050 163 970 110 3900
70 105 250 1660 460 · 152 4000
65 120 1650
300 95 1560
September I, 1983 250 100 155D
225 450 110 45D0
130 7200 460 4000
190 5000 110 3000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
November 11. 1983
February 16, 1984
May 18, 1984
August 17, 1984
November 16. 1984
March 15, 1985
84 104 995
40 95 1200
20 70 1400
30 120 2000
19 129 2000
95 80 3000
BOL -Below detection limit.
NA -Not analyzed.
135 1800 100 300 NA
165 4500 105 3000 NA
150 6000 120 2000 NA
70 5000 80 20D0 NA
145 3050 95 2900 NA
145 60D0 145 2500 250
NA 6.0 5.0 10.0
NA 14.0 7.5 8.5
NA 12.0 7.5 7.5
NA 7.0 5.5 10.5
NA 7.7 1.5
NA 6. 7 BDL
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6750
2.0 <1.0
5. 5 7. 5
3.6 4.2
7.8 13.4
1.7 1.3
2.5 3.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
130
17.0
6. 7
7 .4
13.0
6.5 6.5 6.5 270
7.5 320 8.0 600
15.0 13.0 9.0 930
4.0 26.D 4.5 865
BOL 6667 BDL 1028
1.5 3130 1.5 306
1.0 1440 1.0 150
6.8 2804 8.5 196
13.5 5400 11.2 145
2.6 3350 12.6 99.0
1.5 2054 3.7 51.6
2.5 3920 7.7 22.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2550
--
I
I I
TABLE 2-4
I ORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS RESULTS
I il-35 K-28 K-28 0-25 0-25 T-19 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1 ug/1
I Compound (12-6-84) (5-18-84) (12-6-84) (6-27-83) (12-6-84) (12-6-84)
Priorit.z'. Pollutants
I Benzene 29 20 219 117
Carbon Tetrachloride 23 12
1,1-Dichloroethane 192 I Ch 1 oroethane 698 1,025
Chloroform 1,432 262
I 1,1-Uichloroethylene 166 24
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 48 16
I Ethyl Benzene 14
Methylene Chloride 26 1,046 40 81
I Trichlorofluoromethane 439 3,921 756 645
To 1 uene 29 42 16
Trichloroethylene 10 I Vinyl Chloride 24
2-Chlorophenol 17,090
I Phenol 13 4,484 232 3
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) P htha late 51 114 49 24
I Butyl Benzyl Phthalate 16 13
Di-n-butyl Phthalate 11 50
I Diethyl Phthalate 170 46
Antimony NA l!A 38
Arsenic NA NA 9 I Nickel NA 20 NA 210
Zinc 101 NA 27 NA 29 45
I
I NA -Not analyzed.
I Note: A blank line indicates a compound was not detected.
I 2-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-4 (CONTINUED)
ORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS RESULTS
Other Organic Peaks (Semi-quantitative) 0-35 K-28 0-25 T-17
(12/84 samples only) ~ ~ ~ ~
3-Methyl-Butanoic Acid 1,000
Butanoi c Acid 20,000
4-Methyl Phenol 2,000 200
Octadecanol 50
Octanoic Acid 2,000
Benzoic Acid 2,000
3,5-Dimethyl Benzoic Acid 2,000
7-Methyl-1-octene 500
Ethyl Cyclohexene 200
1-Hexadecanol 100
Tetrahydrofuran 200 100
2-Methyl-1,3-Dioxolane 200
1,1-0xybisbenzene 500 200
Xylenes 50
Furan compound -unidentified 100 50
3-Chlorophenol 200
Tetradecanol 50
1,1-Biphenyl 100
Hydrocarbons -unidentified 1,500 5,000 5,000 3,000
Note: For Well 0-25, a specific constituent analysis of the 6/27/83 sample showed acetic
acid at 677,000 ug/1, and butyric acid at 996,000 ug/1.
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The priority pollutants detected in the December 1984 samples from wells
D-35 and T-19 do not correspond closely with those found in samples from
wells K-28 and 0-25. Trichlorofluoromethane and zinc were detected in all
four of the December 1984 samples. Other compounds detected in well D-35
and T-19 include carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, trans-1,2-dichloro-
ethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, phenol, bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate, and di-n-butyl phthalate.
Private Well Sampling. The North Carolina OEM's Asheville Regional Office
sampled private water supplies at the James Elliott residence and the
Austell Gram Trailer Park on March 5, 1985. The locations of these
supplies were shown on Figure 1-3. Both samples were analyzed for
inorganics and organics. Dimethyl hexene was detected in the sample from
James Elliott's residence at a level of 52 ug/1. Arsenic was detected in
the sample from the Austell Gram Trailer Park at a level of 87 ug/1. The
allowable level of arsenic in potable water is 50 ug/1 according to EPA's
interim primary drinking water standards.
A second sample was collected from the Austell Gram Trailer Park by the
Cleveland County Health Department (CCHD), and arsenic was again detected
at a level of 87 ug/1. In an April 3, 1985 letter, CCHD advised the
trailer park residents to stop using this water. However, CCHD indicated
the presence of arsenic was not necessarily related to activities at the
Celanese plant.
The James Elliott residential well was re-sampled on April 2, 1985.
Butoxyethylbutylester benzenedicarboxylic acid was detected at a
concentration of 120 ug/1. DEM sampled this well again on May 23, 1985.
GC/MS analysis indicated the presence of a compound with possible empirical
formula C9H20 at an estimated concentration of 50 ug/1. Positive
identification of the compound was not possible. The presence of organic
or inorganic compounds in nearby residential wellwater supplies has not
been correlated with plant activities.
2-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Electromagnetic Survey
In August 1983, SME performed an electromagnetic survey in three areas of
the Shelby plant site in an attempt to delineate areas containing elevated
specific conductivity levels in the groundwater and possible buried
materials. The results of this work were documented in the November 8,
1983 letter report entitled Electromagnetic Survey Report, Waste Treatment
Area, Shelby, North Carolina.
Area 1 is defined as the open area north of the wastewater treatment plant
and west of the emergency spill ponds. This was the area of primary
concern during the survey. Area 2 consists of the area immediately east of
polishing pond number 1, and located between polishing ponds 2 and 3. Area
3 is the construction debris landfill containing miscellaneous wastes,
located north and west of the waste treatment plant area.
Figure 2-6 shows the results of the survey using 10-meter coil spacings
with a horizontal dipole orientation. This orientation yields a
theoretical exploration depth range of 25 to 50 feet below ground surface.
The lateral zone of influence was about 33 feet on either side of the
survey line. A log transformation was used to convert the raw data
measured in units of millimhos per meter into dimensionless values
representing the level measured above background. Transformed values above
2 to 4 were considered by SME to be indicative of potential contamination.
These values are shown on Figure 2-6.
The most conspicuous trend shown on Figure 2-6 is a strong north/south
lineation in Area 1, located near the western edge of the aeration basins
and extending northward. Toward the fence line, the higher conductivity
values encompass a wider area in the east/west direction and trend
generally east toward borings K-28 and K-58. This area correlates
approximately with the location of the GRU sludge disposal area.
At the time of the electromagnetic survey, Area 2 was being used as a test
plot for the spray application of plant process wastes. The elevated
values observed in this area have been interpreted by SME as being related
2-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f CONSTRUCTION
__,/ DEBRIS 12 LANDFILL
8
4 LEGEND
0
8--CONTOUR LINE REPRESENTS
SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY LEVEL
ABOVE BACKGROUND
SLUDGE
POND
PIT N0.1
0 0 CLARIFIERS
REM II
N0.3
POLISHING
POND
CONDUCTIVITY CONTOURS FROM EM SURVEY
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
N0.2
POLISHING
PONO
FIGURE NO
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to the spray application with some contribution from the adjacent polishing
ponds.
No prominent trends were noted in Area 3, except that values substantially
above background occur in the deeper fill sections. According to SME,
measurements made in the vertical dipole orientation indicate the probable
presence of metallic objects within the landfill.
Test Pit Excavations
Based on the results of the electromagnetic survey, SME excavated three
test pits in February 1984 at the locations shown in Figure 2-6. The
results of their investigation are summarized in an April 3, 1984 letter
report entitled Summary of Findings and Suggested Future Work, Wastewater
Treatment Plant Area, Shelby, North Carolina. Test pit TP-1 was excavated
at the height of the conductivity anomaly observed during the
electromagnetic survey, and in an area where the survey indicated buried
metal objects may exist. Test pits TP-2 and TP-3 were excavated north of
TP-1 in an area showing a lower conductivity anomaly, but not suspected to
contain buried metal objects.
Buried metal consisting of steel strapping, crushed drums, reinforcing
steel, pipe, and other debris was encountered in test pit TP-1. At a depth
of approximately 8 feet below land surface, free water entered the test
pit. This water and the underlying residuum was sampled. No unusual odors
were noted during the excavation.
Test pit TP-2 was excavated in an area suspected of containing GRU sludge.
An odorous reddish-brown and white material was encountered in this
excavation. Celanese Fibers Operations personnel identified the odor as
characteristic of GRU sludge and similar to that of water extracted from
wells at the K location. Free water was encountered at a depth of
approximately 2.5 feet. Samples of this water and the underlying residuum
were collected.
2-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conditions in test pit TP-3 were similar to those observed in test pit
TP-2, without encountering free water. A crushed drum was observed in the
test pit.
2.2 CONTAMINATION PROBLEM DEFINITION
While several areas around the Celanese Fibers Operations Shelby facility
have been used for waste disposal, all of these are not considered
potential sources of the observed onsite groundwater contamination. Table
2-5 summarizes each waste disposal area's potential as a source of
contamination. According to Table 2-5, the most likely sources of
contamination are the glycol recovery unit sludge burial area, the former
drum storage area, and the emergency spill ponds.
The degree of contamination of the site and the study area is detailed in
Section 2.1.3, Review of Existing Database, which summarizes and presents
the results of previous site investigations. Onsite groundwater
contamination has been detected in shallow wells at locations J, K, 0, and
V. To date this contamination has not been detected in the deep wells at
locations J, K, and 0.
2-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-5
POTENTIAL ONSITE CONTAMINATION SOURCES
Waste Disposal Area Potential as Contamination Source
Sludge land application area
Polymer and fiber landfill
Former burning pits
Glycol recovery unit
sludge burial area
Former drum storage area
Ethylene glycol-methanol spills
Former chemical ditch location
Emergency spill ponds
Low. Land application operation is
permitted by NC OEM.
Low. Materials buried in this area
include primarily inert materials, such
as excavation spoil, polymer, and waste
yarn.
Medium. Materials originally disposed of
at this location are likely to be inert
as a result of combustion. However, any
spills or leaks from approximately 2000
to 3000 drums of waste chemicals and
solvents stored near this location during
the 1970's may have contaminated soils in
this area.
High. Onsite groundwater contamination
has been detected in vicinity of this
area. Sludge was buried in unlined
trenches approximately 4 to 6 feet deep.
Medium to high. Spillage and leakage
from drums stored here during the early
1960's may have contaminated soils in
this area. Onsite groundwater
contamination has been detected in this
area.
Medium. Potential for contaminated soils
in these areas.
Medium.
ditch.
Chemicals discharged via unlined
Potential soil contamination.
Medium to high. Materials occasionally
discharged to unlined pond because they
cannot be handled by waste treatment
facility and cannot be discharged
directly. Potential for contaminated
soils and migration to underlying
groundwater. Onsite groundwater
contamination has been detected in this
area.
2-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-5 (CONTINUED)
POTENTIAL ONSITE CONTAMINATION SOURCES
Waste Disposal Area Potential as Contamination Source
Construction Debris Landfill
Soak away ponds
Waste drum burial and buried
waste
Low. Landfill contains solid material
such as cinder blocks and steel strapping.
Medium. If found to be unlined,
potential for soil contamination and migration of material placed in pond.
Medium. Contents of drums and buried waste unknown.
2-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA REQUIREMENTS AND
COSTS FOR A REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
In order to conduct a feasibility study of remedial alternatives,
additional site-specific data on the types and extent of contamination of
soils and groundwater, and the sources and pathways for contaminant
migration, must be collected. The following are descriptions of specific
data requirements for the Celanese Fibers Operations site.
o Further exploration of the potential sources of contamination is
needed. The areal and vertical extent of contamination in the GRU
sludge burial area, the former drum storage area, and the burn pit
area may be determined by split-barrel sampling along a grid system.
Samples of discolored soil or soil producing HNU and OVA readings
above the established background should be collected. Emphasis
should be. placed on defining the distribution of these potential
source areas. In some areas, test pits may be required to further
define the extent of soil contamination.
o At those locations outside the grid system where odors were noted
during previous boring operations, test holes allowing for deep soil
sampling should be installed. These locations include:
G -Dowtherm odor in samples from surface to depth of 60
feet; odor dissipated with depth.
0 -Odor in soil samples from ground surface to depth of 25
feet.
R -Chemical odor in samples from 9, 14, and 19 feet.
o Additional stainless steel monitor wells should be installed to
better define the observed groundwater con tami nation and fl ow
patterns. Stainless steel casing rather than PVC is recommended to
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
insure more accurate determination of any organic contamination in
the groundwater samples. Suggested locations for additional monitor
wells include:
-Shallow and deep wells at location C to indicate background
conditions.
-Deep well at location T where organic priority pollutants have been
detected in the existing shallow well.
-Shallow and deep wells at a new location north of the sludge ponds,
west of polishing pond 3, south of the emergency spill ponds, and
east of the aeration basins.
o Additional offsite shallow and deep stainless steel monitor wells
should be installed downgradient of the site in the direction of two
private residential water supply wells. The North Carolina DEM has
been sampling the well at the James Elliott residence. However, well
construction and use practices are unknown. Installation of shallow
and deep wells at this location will address quality control
concerns. Shallow and deep monitor wells are also recommended at a
location near the potentially occupied residence west of the Elliot
residence and south of the Celanese facility property line.
o The existing organic analysis results do not show good correlation
between wells or between sampling dates in terms of the types of
compounds detected. Groundwater samples should be collected from all
wells for priority pollutant analysis. If these types of analysis do
not show a correlation between wells of the types of compounds
detected, then further analyses for specific compounds identified
from production and wastestream records should be conducted.
o The suspected nature of the materials discharged to the emergency
spill ponds and the observed groundwater contamination at well
location O suggest a need for corings in each of the emergency spill
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ponds. Samples of discolored or odorous material, and any material
producing organic vapors should be collected for analysis.
o Because of the large variation in topography at the site, and the
nearby presence of the recreational pond and the two unnamed
tributaries to Buffalo Creek, surface water and sediment sampling is
recommended. Suggested sampling locations include:
-Inlet and outlet of the recreational pond as well as an in-pond
sample.
-Tributary downstream of the recreational pond at road crossing.
-Upstream of the confluence of this tributary with the eastern
tributary.
-Eastern tributary near the sludge land application area.
-Eastern tributary upstream of confluence with the southern
tributary.
-Downstream of tributary confluence.
o In order to better define and update current information on the
location of potential receptors, a private well survey within a one
mile radius of the waste disposal areas should be conducted. The
survey should identify the depth at which water is being withdrawn,
any well construction features that may affect water quality, and any
use practices affecting water quality.
o Slug permeability tests are recommended to define potential
groundwater flow rates and yields. Pump tests should be run
following the development of a groundwater quality database that
shows some clear trends and patterns with respect to potential
contamination sources.
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Future and past groundwater and surface water sampling should be
correlated with.storm events. The observed anomalies in pH and
groundwater level measurements, as well as, the lack of correlation
between wells in terms of the types of contaminants detected may be
better understood if sampling events are correlated with storm
events. Correlation with storm events is also important to surface
water sampling because stream stage and discharge are impacted by
storm events.
o Two 6-inch wells apparently used by the plant site contractor during
facility construction are located near the N and Y monitor well
locations. These wells may be serving as a conduit for contaminated
groundwater flow to deeper zones. This possibility should be
investigated.
Table 3-1 summarizes the preliminary cost estimate for a RI/FS at the
Celanese Fibers Operations site. Included in the estimate are itemized
costs for well installation, sampling, specific capacity testing,
permeability testing, and a well inventory. The costs for preparation of
the Work Plan, Project Operations Plan (POP), the Remedial Investigation
report, and the Feasibility Study are also shown. The estimated total cost
for a RI/FS is $530,000.
The costs for well installation assume that stainless steel is used for the
entire casing length. These costs may be reduced by installing stainless
steel casing in the saturated zone and PVC casing above the saturated zone.
The 150-foot wells are recommended for installation at two offsite
locations near private residences downgradient of the Celanese facility.
This depth was selected based on reports in Duncan and Peace (1966) that
most water supply wells in Cleveland County are between 100 and 200 feet
deep. Level C protection was assumed for all well installation activities.
Groundwater sampling costs include an initial round of priority pollut~nt
analyses at all the wells followed by analyses for a reduced analytical
group at selected well locations.
3-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3-1
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Work Plan Preparation, Project Operations
Pl an Preparation, Remedial Inve sti ga tion Report
Well Installation
Mobilization (within 150 miles,
at $20/mile)
Test drilling, well construction,
field testing (4, 30-ft. wells
with 2-inch casing, at $30/foot)
Test drilling, well construction,
field testing (3, 60-ft. wells with
2-inch casing, at $40/foot)
Test drilling, well construction,
field testing (2, 150-ft. wells with
2-inch casing, at $40/foot)
Well Construction Materials
(Stainless steel well casings
and 5-ft. screen, fittings, well
protectors, cement, sand, and
bentonite for 4, 30-ft. wells
3, 60-ft. wells, and 2, 150-ft.
we 11 s)
Level C Contingency
Subtotal Well Installation
Sampling
Groundwater Sampling
(Full priority pollutant scan
at 41 wells, supplementary
analyses at 15 wells)
$ 3,000
3,600
7,200
12,000
8,200
17,000
$ 51,000
$ 89,600
1985
Cost
$150,000
$ 51,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3-1
(CONTINUED)
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Soil Sampling
Mobilization (within 150 miles,
at $20/mile)
Test borings at 39 grid locations
Full priority pollutant scan at
15 locations
Hand auger borings at 6 locations
in emergency spill ponds
EP toxicity analyses at these
6 locations
Full priority pollutant scan at
these 6 locations
Level C Contingency
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
(Full priority pollutant scan at
8 locations, reduced analytical
group at 12 locations)
Sub to ta 1 Sampling
Specific Capacity Testing and Permeability
Testing
We 11 Inventory
Feasibility Study
3,000
15,600
24,000
300
1,200
9,600
9,300
30,400
$183,000
TOTAL
SAY
1985
Cost
$183,000
15,000
3,000
$125,000
$527,000
$530,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil sampling using a grid system is recommended in the approximately 7.5
acre area encompassing the former drum storage area, the burn pits, and the
GRU sludge burial area. Duplicate samples should be collected using a
split barrel sampler at depths of 1-ft., 3-ft., 5-ft., and at 5-ft.
intervals thereafter to a maximum depth of 30 feet. All samples with
either HNU or OVA readings exceeding background will be sent to a
laboratory for analysis. A percentage of the samples with HNU or OVA
readings at or below background should also be analyzed. For the purpose
of cost estimating, it was assumed 15 samples would be collected and
analyzed for priority pollutants. Additional test borings at locations
outside the grid system are recommended in the ethylene glycol-methanol
spill areas, and at well locations O and R.
Hand auger borings are recommended in the emergency spill ponds. Costs for
both EP toxicity testing and priority pollutant analyses are included in
the estimate. Surface water and sediment sampling are recommended at 8
locations. Both the surface water and sediment samples will be analyzed
initially for priority pollutants. Subsequent samples collected from 12
locations will be analyzed for a reduced group of chemical constituents.
Costs for specific capacity and permeability testing are included because
these parameters are needed to determine the a qui fer characteristics
necessary for an evaluation of a pump and treat remedial alternative. An
inventory of private residential well water supplies is recommended to
locate potential receptors and evaluate the risk to public health.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 REFERENCES
Duncan and Peace. December 1966. Groundwater Resources of Cleveland County, North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Water Resources, Division of Groundwater. Bulletin, No. 11. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Soil and Material Engineers, Inc. 1982. Hydrogeologic Evaluation Fiber Industries, Inc. Shelby Facility, Shelby, North Carolina.
Vollmer, S.C.; Glover, E.W.; and Parker, E.F. (Soil and Material Engineers Inc.). 1983. Letter to B. Ross of Fiber Industries, Inc., Shelby, North Carolina. November 8. Electromagnetic Survey Report Waste Treatment Area, Shelby, North Carolina.
Glover, E.W. and Parker, E.F. (Soil and Material Engineers Inc.). 1984. Letter to B. Ross of Celanese Fibers Operations, Shelby, North Carolina. April 3. Summary of Findings and Suggested Future Work, Wastewater Treatment Plant Area, Shelby, North Carolina.
4-1
i
l
7Vl~3l'1V'4 B 710S "'.JNI SH33Nl9N3
• A873HS VNl"lffif'il''.J H.J..OON 3')
"381~ 3S3NV7 1N\17d 0
) ,
0'
1/
I
I I
I I
j I
I t .
I
ilJ~ 00,,.
/
/
/
// . /I
/
·--
=
OOO'H
I . ;
'
11~--, J;_
fl . • r.,__"-"z~----
,·,. ' 1: . -:'.-·', .. ---, "1 . . ' ' ·-
··1· g i.·~ /
, '(, •,' ;:1 ;.f
,, ', l 11 ,
• ~ ~ "l., I I I
jl Ii i
'1' I '« ,,
/-!I I,
0
. -
0
0
'-i
Ii ~..,_.L-41--1, II
000-0,3
··..:..._J_
'
•
,.•
_o. __
,·
-=-.
--
,,
0
0
·, -~□ ' ,'
:()
Cl \ 0 ◊ ""
\ \
\ \
'\ \,
\ \ ,, '
•
\
'·=
'.0 '.
(
[] '
" • I
' . 4 • .. ..
..
//
/
(
)
\
/
I/
• f I
;f i
(]
, I J
· 11 I -A~ ~~•~1
·1· l .:.-::.,. . .. I / ...... I/ / I
., , ... ,.
•
•
' ' '
1/
7 I ., ... "'"'·'"""' , I I, J ~.
rl I :,{---,.
.,/ //'' /~
)
'
-. ~ ~ . ~
\\
\\
\\
\I ,,
\'
I
\
000"6 :i
•
•·
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I Site History
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
1960
Early 196U's
Mid 1960's
1970-1978
1973
July 1978
1978
Fall 1980
November 1980
TABLE B-1
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA PLANT
SITE HI STORY
Event
Fiber Industries, Inc. Shelby plant began opera-
tion. Involved with the production of polymer
chips, polymer fiber, and polyester texturizing.
Old burning pits north of and adjacent to new aera-
tion basin used to dispose of normal plant wastes
(primarily polyester and miscellaneous trash).
Glycol recovery unit sludge buried north of aera-
tion basins and west of emergency spill ponds.
Sludge reportedly placed in trenches measuring 25
feet square and 4 to 6 feet deep.
West of the sludge burial area is a former drum
storage area used for about 4 or 5 years. Material
stored at this location primarily included solu-
tions which failed to polymerize.
Drums removed by contract from storage area. Area
subsequently backfilled.
Drums of waste chemicals and solvents, including
lab packs, stored temporarily in old burning pit
location. Site cleaned up by 1978.
Expansion of WWTP with the addition of polishing
pond #2, two emergency spill ponds, and an addi-
tional aeration basin.
Sludge samples collected from WWTP lagoons for
analysis.
Accumulated sludge in WWTP lagoons applied to 21
acres of land located north of the manufacturing
plant. Permit No. 5002.
Seepage noted on the south embankment of polishing pond #2.
Submitted RCRA Part A application for drum storage
facility.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
April 1981
October 1981
November 24, 1981
February 5, 1982
March 4, 1982
March 18, 1982
June 9, 1982
September 9, 1982
June 27, 1983
August 1983
September 1, 1983
October 12, 1983
November 8, 1983
November 11, 1983
TABLE B-1
(Continued)
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA PLANT
SITE HISTORY
Event
Decision made to conduct hydrogeological study of plant. Retained Soil & Material Engineers, Inc.
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. installed 23 wells at 18 locations around the Shelby plant site.
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. publishes "Hydro-geologic Evaluation Fiber Industries, Inc. Shelby
Facility, Shelby, North Carolina."
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
Permit No. 7241 issued for sludge land application facility.
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
Monitor wells C-49, D-35, G-50, G-88.5, J-28.5,
J-59.5, K-28, K-58, 0-25, and R-17 sampled. GC scan performed on sample from well 0-25. Superfund notification made to EPA and North Carolina OHS.
Geophysical survey conducted by Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. to determine if any drums were
buried.
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
Permit No. 7241R issued for sludge land application facility.
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. publishes "Electro-magnetic Survey Report -Waste Treatment Area, Shelby, North Carolina."
Monitor wells C-49, D-35, G-50, G-88.5, J-28.5,
J-59.5, K-28, K-58, 0-25, and R-17 sampled.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
December 30, 1983
February 1984
February 16, 1984
April 3, 1984
Apri 1 1984
May 18, 1984
June 1984
July 11, 1984
August 1984
August 17, 1984
September 1984
De tober 1984
TABLE B-1
(Continued)
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA PLANT
SITE HISTORY
Event
Fiber Industries, Inc. transfers its assets and
liabilities to Celanese Corporation. Reorganized
into a single company--Celanese Fibers Operations.
Test pit excavation,s made at three locations. Soil
and water samples collected from 2 test pits.
Monitor wells C-49, 0-35, G-50, G-88.5, J-28.5,
J-59.5, K-28, K-58, 0-25, and R-17 sampled.
Soil & Material Engineer's, Inc. publishes "Summary
of Test Pit Operations and Suggested Future Work -
Wastewater Treatment Plant Area, Shelby, North Carolina."
Additional information requested by EPA including
analytical data, history of site, etc.
Monitor wells C-49, D-35, G-50, G-88.5, J-28.5,
J-59.5, K-28, K-58, 0-25, and R-17 sampled. A
priority pollutant analysis was performed on the
sample from well K-28.
Physical inspection of plant by EPA (Atlanta) and
North Carolina OHS. EPA requested a copy of the
hydrogeological report. (A MITRE evaluation was
made by EPA using the data submitted.)
HRS score sheets and documentation completed.
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc. proposed expansion
of the monitor well network.
All 23 monitor wells sampled.
EPA proposed the Celanese Fibers Operations site
for inclusion on the NPL.
Meeting with EPA (Atlanta) to discuss Work Plan and
RI /F S.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
November 16, 1984
December 1984
February 5, 1985
February 1985
March 1985
April 3, 1985
June 4, 1985
TABLE B-1
(Continued)
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA PLANT
SITE HISTORY
Event
Monitor wells C-49, 0-35, G-50, G-88.5, J-28.5,
J-59.5, K-28, K-58, 0-25, and R-17 sampled.
Samples taken from wells 0-35, K-28, 0-25, and T-17
for GC/MS organic constituent analysis. (Report
issued February 1985).
EPA issues Work Assignment to COM for Forward
Planning Study.
Nine stainless steel monitor wells installed by
Soil & Material Engineers, Inc.
First round of samples collected from the nine
additional wells. Samples also taken at previously
installed wells.
Shelby plant visit by EPA and COM.
EPA, SME, and COM met in Atlanta to discuss Forward
Planning Study and Work Plan.
4
·-- -- - - -- -- ---- ---- -
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES FloH· MONITORiNG.WELL A3'f
WATER SPECIFIC OIL t TOTAL
··-ELEY, TEMP PH CONDUCT TOC TOS GREASE N !TR ATE ANT I HON Y CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC
OA TE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH ~G/L HG/L HG/l HG/L HG/L MG/L MG/L HG/L
11/24/BI I 55. 36 ... ----5.6 90 4 92 1--;3 -0,23 i:ci. 01 · <0.01 (0,01 0,023
03/04/B2 161.56 6,2 70 9 92 BDL 1. 7 (0.005 <0.02 <0,02 0,037
06/09/B2 159,99 6,9 BO B,5 54 BDL 1.2 (0,01 <0.02 <0.02 0,06
09/09/B2 ·158,C9 6,8 70 7 11~ BOL 1,3 (0,005 <0.02 (0,02 0.05•
09/Jl/83 156,99 t,." 2 60 I, 3 80L 0,95 <0,002 <0.02 <0,02 0,028
08/1718• 159,69 __ 19 ______ 5.9 30 4,7 <l,_O J .. •-~"-<0.005 <0.02 (0,02 0 ,2• 3 -· ---·-·-··-·· ---~---·-
GRCUNOWATE R ANALYSES FROH HONITORING WELL B34,5
SATER SPECIFIC OIL t TOTAL
ELEY. TEHP PH CONDUCT TDC TOS GREASE NITRATE ANTIMONY CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
CATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH HG/L HG/L HG/l HG/l HG/L MG/l HG/l HG/l
1112•1e1 127,65 6,2 500 e.5 228 I, 7 0,33 <0,01 <0.01 (0.01 0 ,159
03/04/82 129,65 6,3 600 10.5 352 BOL 0.9't (0,005 (0.02 (0.02 0, 102
06/09/82 129,98 7,1 590 6,5 328 BOL 4,65 (0,01 (0,02 (0,02 0 , 111
09/09/82 128,88 6,8 550 6,5 350 BOL l,B5 (0,005 (0.02 (0,02 0. 1 't
09/0 I /8 3 12 7, 38 6.86 700 2 BOL 1 , I (0,002 <0,02 (0,02 0,079
08/17/84 129,48 19 7,6 550 28,5 <1,0 1,0 (0,005 (0,02 (0,02 0.111
• . GRCUNOWATER ElEYATIO~ FROH TOP OF P JPE
- - - ------- -- -- -- ----
CELANESE f 18E RS OPE RAT IONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
-·---·--··-··· ----~----------GR-OUNDWATER ANALYSES FROM HO.NIT OR ING WELL-c,9 :...!.;
. ::
WATER SPECIFIC Oil t TOTAL . ELEV, --fEHP PH CONDUCT TDC TDS -GREASE NITRATE ANTIHONY CHROHJUH COPPER ZINC
DATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH ~G/l HG/l HG/L HG/l HG/L HG/L HG/L HG/L
-----n 7Hi!il ··193.ee 5.2 75 6 · ·so 2.2 o.i (0.01 <0.01 <0.01 o ;04 3
0310,102 197.5, 1,, 85 1' 136 BDL 0,27 (0.005 <0.02 <0.02 0. 127
06/09/82 197,Bl 7.2 70 12 62 Bill 0.73 <0.01 <0.02 o.o, 0.104
09/09/82 195.91 6.7 65 7 .,, . BDL 0.33 (0.005 <0.02 (0.02 o.oe
06/27/83 199. 71 5,95 300 1. 7
09/01/83 I 96. 61 6.7 250 6.7 BOL_ 0.2.9 <0.002 (0.02 (0.02 0.039 -----,T/11783--,~4~~4-·-n-· ------7 .·, 2 e, 2.0
02/16/B, 1~7.46 17 e.oe ,o 5.5
0511 e 1B, 200. II 15 7 .69 20 3.6
08/17/B, 200.31 19 6 30 1.e (1.0 0 .22 (0.005 <0.02 (0.02 0.359
l l /16/B, 197.93 16 1.2 19 I • 7
03/15/85 199,2' 16 5.2 95 ?.5
GROUNDWATER ANALYSfS FROH HONITORING WELL 035
WATER SPECIFIC Oil t TOTAL
ELEV. TEHP PH CONDUCT TDC TOS 'REA SE NITRATE ANTIHONY CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
DATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH HG/l HG/l HG/L HG/l HG/l HG/l HG/l HG/l
11/2'181 I 7b, B 5,9 IBO 5 IM 2,6 0 .37 <0.01 (0.01 (0,01 0,068
03/0'182 180,06 5.6 100 7.5 H BDL ,.3 (0,005 <0.02 <0.02 0.09 It
06/09/82 !BO, 16 6.3 105 7.5 64 BDL 2.7 (0.01 <0.02 (0.02 0.)25
09/09/82 I 79. 16 6.2 120 5.5 64 T.62 2,4 (0.005 <0.02 <0.02 o. 192
06/27/83 IB I ,I 5,75 95 I • 5
09/01 /B3 178. 96 6.1 100 EDL I 1,6 (0.002 <0.02 <0,02 0,127
ll/ll/83 176,89 16 7, I 2 104 < I .O
02/16/B, IH, 48 17 6.8) 95 7.5
05/18/8' 18 I. 86 15 7.15 70 ,.2
OB/17/B, 180.96 19 6.6 120 13 ·" <I. 0 1. 70 (0.005 (0.02 (0,02 0,116
11/16/B, 179. 07 16 5.9 129 J. 3
03/15/85 180,07 15 5.3 BO 3.0 • . G~OUNOWATER ELEVATION FROM TOP Of PIPE
-----

-
-

-
---

-
WATER . --ELEY, --TEHP
DATE FEET C
111tilie1 16o~e3
03/04/S2 160,5B
06/091e2 1eo.26
·o<J1091e2 160.66
09/0l/i3 162,06
OS/17/S4 167,26 22 ---------··-·-··----------
WHER
~ELEY, -. TEHP
DA TE FEET C
11/24/81 161 .o
03/04/82 161,S5
06/09182 162,2B
09/09182 163,4.8
06/27/S3 163.51
09/0l/S3 163,08
11111·,a3 162,35 20
02/l6/S4 l62,S5 16
05/IS/84 164.18 J6
OB/11184 165. 08 22
ll/16/S4 165. 4 e 17
03/15/S5 164 • 63 19 • .
PH
UNITS
·---b-.2
6.2
7. I .6 .9
6.7e
6,7
PH
UNITS
6,3
5.6
6,6
-6 ~ 7
6.95
6,lB
6.39
6,9
6.76 6.3
7,3
5,e
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELSY PLANT, SHEL8T,NC
CROUNDWHER ANALYSES FROH MON.JTORINC weiCF55
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT
HHHOS/CH
... 195
11e
112
85
55
40
TDC
HC/l
GROUNDWATER
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT TDC
MHHOS/CH HC/l
400 6.5
560 10,5
600 12 ,5
550 e
12e 5
400 1. 5
350 3,0
350 11.0
270 11 ,2
270 2,9
273 3.4
350 19,2
TOS
HC/L
226
132
62
52
ANH TSE S
TOS
HC/L
2ee
2ee
328
310
Oil£
GREASE NITRATi ANTIHONT
HC/L HC/l HC/L
eoi. 0.13
SOL (0, 10
SOL 0,2
SOL 0;14
6.4 0.4
15.6 _o_.n.
·c:0.01
(0,005
<0.01
<0,005
(0,002
(0,005
FROH HONITORINC WEL( C50
Oil£
CREA SE NITRATE ANTIHONT
HC/l HC/L MC/l
80L 0.2 (0.01
SOL 0,3 5 (0,005
80L 0 ,69 <O, 01
80l o.73 (0,005
SOL 0.22 <0,002
1.0 <0.10 <0,005
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROH TOP OF PIPE
--

-
-·-
TOTH
CHROHIUH
HC/l
<0.-01
(0,02
(0,02
(0.02
(0.02
<0,02
TOTAL
CHROHIUH
HC/l
<0.01
<0,02
<0,02
(0,02
(0.02
(0.02
COPPER
HC/L
<0;01
(0.02
<0;02
(0,02
(0.02
(0._02
COPPER
MC/l
(0.01
(0,02
(0.02
(0.02
(0.02
<0.02
ZINC
MC/l
ZINC
HG/l
o.oe 4
0 .079 o.o!t
0.111
0.124
0.114
--
---------
'
DATE
ll/H/81
03/04/82
06/09/82
09/09/82
06/27/83
09/01 /83 1 J/IT/83
OZ/I 6/84
05/)8/84
08/17/84
11/)6/84
03/15/85
WATER
ELEV.
FEET
16 I. 59
161.01
162. 36
161.86
163,45
16,.06
··16J;1r
163.34
163.86
165.66
165.36
164.62
WATER
TEHP
C
.
19
20
16
2 I
18
19
. ELEv;·----TEHP
FEET C
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
GROUNDWATER ANA.LYSES FROH HONITORINC WELL C88.5
SPECIFIC 01 l E_ PH CONDUCT TOC roS" CREASE NiTR.ffE ANTIMONY UNITS HHHOS/CH HG/L NC/L HC/L MG/L HC/L
7.2 170 65 156 80L ---0.J I <0.01 6.3 143 8 132 BOL 0.2 <O. 005 7.5 155 JO 100 BOL 0.2 3 <0.01 6.9 132 10.5 114· 8DL 0.15 <0.005 6.25 450 2 7.17 JOO 7.5 ·--------8DL __ _Q. I 5 --_i0,002 6 ~8·6 )30 I• 0 7.7 95 4.0 7 .13 85 9.4 6.7 70 6,1 I .2 --0.19 <0.005 7.3 80 I , 7 6.3 94 3.0 ------
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES FROH H()NJTORING WELL H59
SPECIFIC
PH CONDUCT UNITS HHHOS/CM
TOC
HC/L
Oil E T□s-· -GREA·st·-·,.rr~. 1E ANTIMONY MG/L HG/L HG/l MG/l 03115185 -•u.1s n, 6.4 15 3.5 • • GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM TOP OF PIPE
------------------------
TOTAL
CHROHJUM COPPER ZINC MC/L HC/L MG/L
<0.01 0.01 0.025 <0.02 (0.02 0.02 7 <0.02 <0.02 O.HJ (0.02 <0.02 0 .075
<0.02 (0_._02 0 -~~~
(0.02 (0.02 O.OH
TOTAL
CHROMIUM COPPER
MG/L MG/l
- - -
WATER
ElE V,
DATE FEET
-·-111Hie1 152,82
03/04/82 153.09
06/09/82
09i09/82 154,51
09/01/83 154.81
08/17/84 155.57 -·-----·--------~----.
WATER
ELEV.
DATE FEET
11/2H81 155,4
03/04/82 136,48
06/09/82 158,18
. 09/09/82 f5i,78
09/01 /83 157,28
08117184 158,48
--
TEHP PH
C UNITS
---i, ,2
6
7,2
7,7
6.8
19 6. 1
·reHP PH
C UNITS
9,6
9.8
10.2
8,7
6,6
20 7, 1
---- -
CELANESE FIBE~S OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANlr, SHELBY,NC
--
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES f'IoH MONITORiNC WELL .. H.79;5
SPECIFIC Oil t
CONDUCT TDC TDS CREA SE NITRATE ANTIHONY
HHHOS/CH HC/l HC/l HC/l HC/l HC/l
135 4 84 8Dl -· 0,13 -· ·-<0·;01 ..
96 7.5 96 8Dl 0.38 (0,005
90 7.5 54 8Dl 0.4 3 (0.01
74 6.5 56 4. 75 o.~ <0.005
70 1. 3 I • I 0,65 (0,002
60 2.0 1 , 3 _i)_.r,o .. ·--_<0,005_.
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES FROM MONITOR INC WELL 157,5
SPECIFIC Oil t
CONDUCT TDC TDS CREA SE NITRATE ANTIHONY
HHHOS/CH HC/l HC/l "C/l HC/l HC/l
165 • 128 I ,3 0, I 5 (0.01
145 9 116 1 ,5 0.33 (0,005
152 7.5 64 8Dl 0 .46 (0,01
85 4,5 76 1 • 1 0,25 (0.005
300 15.8 BDL 0,52 (0.002
80 2,3 <1. 0 o.,o (0,005 •• GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM TOP OF PiPE
-- - -- -
TOTAL
CHROHIUH
HC/l
<o~·cn
<0,02
(0,02
<0.02
<0.02
(0.02
TOTAL
CHROHIUH
HG/L
(0,01
(0,02
<0.02
(0,02
(0,02
(0,02
COPPER
HC/l
ZINC
HC/l :-2...
---<O .o .-~o-.~076---------~Q
(0.02 0.047
<0,02 0,072
(0,02 0;079
(0,02 0.057
. (0.02. __ 0 .059. --··---·----
COPPER ZINC
HG/L HC/l
0.01 0.001
<0,02 0.01
(0,02 0,013
(0,02 0.011
(0,02 0,028
(0.02 0.034
-
- --
WATER --· -flfV~
DATE FEET
--
"'rEHP________ PH
C UNITS
-7172ii1et··--154,49 --• 6,3 D3/D4/82 158,59 6,6 06/09/82 158,59 , 6,9 09/09/82 -•-151,89 6,8 06/27/83 159,92 6,65 09/01/83 157.31 , 6,65 ---i1n1c',1,..1118 3 I !i 5 ; o 1 ------n --~"5"1
02/16/84 160,59 16 7,35 05/18/84 161,99 16 6,54 08/17/84 "160,49 18 6,6 11/16184 156,71 16 7,7 03/15/85 160,49 14 6,4
WATER ···nev. TEHP PH DATE FEET C UNITS
11/24/81 154;49 6, I 03/04/82 156, H 5,9
06/09/82 157,51 6,B
09/09/82 155, 41 7, I 06/2 7 /8 3 158,62 7, I 5 09/01 /83 156.29 • 6.~2 11/11/83 15 4, 99 13 7,18
02/16/84 156, 41 16 7,75
05/18/84 159,11 16 7.24 08/17 /84 158,51 19 6,7 11/16/84 158.59 16 7.2 03/15/85 158,55 16 6
-----
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBT,NC
--
i;"RQUNDWATER A NACY SES FRciTHON-ITOR-JNC ·wei.CJ28 ,5
SPECIFIC Ill t -. CONDUCT TOC TDS &REA SE N!TRiTE Aiff IHONY HHHOS/CH HC/L HC/L .. C/L HC/L HC/L
90·0 ···10 i.ii4 --, 2~ i 2 --(0,01 1050 8,5 B16 3,9 (0,005 250 7,5 126 (0,10 (0,01 1650 10,5 1116 5,05 63-<"0.005 156C 4
1550 4 --~-2Z __ <O,Q92 995 . -6 • 0
1200 130
HOO 17 .o 2000 6,7 r:o 150 <0,005 20cc 7,4
3000 13,0 . ···---·---------·--·-
CROUNDWHEP ANALYSES FR oif"HON I TOR INC WELL J59 ,5
SPECIFIC lhl t CONDUCT TOC TDS •RA SE NITRATE ANTIMONY HHHOS/CH HC/L HC/L IIC/L HC/L HC/L
300 6,5 212 ebi: (0,10 0,017 163 7,5 120 BDL <0,10 (0,005 1660 15 I 020 BDL 37 (0, 01 225 4 1 oe IDL 0.1 (0,005 130 80L
190 I, 5 __ fQL 0,07 (0.002 135 I, 0
165 6,8
150 13 .5
70 2,6 -<J~O <0,10 <0,005 145 1,5
H5 2,5 • . GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROH TOP OF PIPE
-- -- -
TOTAL
CHROH!UH
HC/L
-(0,01
(0,02
(0,02
(0,02
<0,02
<0.02
TOTAL
CHROHIUH
HC/L
<0,01
<0.02
(0,02
(0,02
(0,02
(0.02
COPPER
HC/L
zTNc ------·-·
HC/L
o.,-,-i---0.11
(0,02 0,105
(0,02 Q,Q_75
0,03 0,233
COPPER ZINC
HC/L HC/L
(0,01 0,093
(0,02 0,072
(0,02 0 ,I 01
<0,02 0,186
<0,02 0,092
<0,02 0,090
--
-- -------- ----- -----CELANESE FIBE~S OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBT,NC
···--------·---cRouHOWATER AN,.-LYSE s----..-oH fltONffcf,fiP,fC" WETi--K28 -----·-·--------------,.!..!
------·----WATER _SPECIFIC OIL ·--~ -ELEv·;---TEHP ---Pit CONDUCT TOC TDS GREASE NITRATE ANTJHON-Y
DATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CM 1,G/L MG/L MG/L HG/L HG/L
TOTAL
CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
HG/L HG/L HG/L
11/24/Bl 146,17 6 . 175 6~·5·· 144 2 ,I o.·42 <o,oc·
03/04 /82 -153,23 6,3 970 320 704 BDL 3 <0,005 06/09 /82 14 7 ,4 ---·--6,5 460 13 220 BOL 2,2 <0,01 · ··-· 0910918t ~-147.e 6 .5· 450 26 264 B0L 2,2 '<i>'.005
06/27183 149,86 5,65 7200 6667
<0;01 (0,01 ------·--------· 0,015
(0,02 <0,02 0.095
<0,02 <!),_02 0,055
(0,02 (0,02 0,119
09/01/83 146, 4 • 5.87 5000 3130 I , I 3,5 (0,002 ---·-,nn ,e·l-l<f5-;51· -·-1 ,-~ ~)--!BOO i440 --------·--------0,03 (0,02 0 ,192
02/16/84 152,57 16 6,4 4500 2804
05/18/84 153,1 16 6.118 6000 5400 --08/1 7 /84 148, 35 18 5,6 5000 3350 <l,O I, I 0 <0,005 <0,02 (0,02 0, 177 11/16/84 147,28 16 6 3050 2054
03/15/85 150,81 14 5,3 6000 3920
GROUNCWATER ANALYSES FROM MONITORING WELL k58
WATER SPECIFIC OIL t TOTAL -ELEY,--TEMP PH CONDUCT TDC TOS ----GREASE NITRATE ANTIHONT CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
DA TE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH l<G/L HG/L MG/L HG/L HG/L HG/L MG/L HG/L
11/24/81 144,9 7 160 6,5 140 2,7 0.11 (0,01 (0,01 <0,01 0,027
03/04/82 151,92 6,5 110 e I 04 BOL (0,10 (0,005 (0.02 <0,02 0,01 7
06/09/82 147, 65 8. 1 152 9 82 BDL (0,10 (0,01 <0,02 (0,02 0,01 '09/09/82. 1H,. 15 7 ~ 1 110 4,5 76 8DL 0 • 1 l <0,005 <0,02 <0,02 0,01
06/27183 148,83 6,6 460 8DL
09/01/8 3 145,45 . 7,06 110 1,5 8DL 0,05 (0,002 <0,02 <0,02 0,021
11/11/83 JU ,5 17 6:8 100 1, 0
02/16/84 151,42 16 7. 14 105 e,5
05/18/84 151_,e~ 16 7.09 120 11,2 -08/i 7/8~ 149, 5 20 6,6 80 12,6 <I, 0 0,35 (0,005 <0,02 <0,02 0,071
11/l6/84 148, 23 16 8,3 95 3,7
03/15/85 149,62 14 6,5 145 7,7 • . GRCUNDWATER ELEVATION FROH TOP OF PIPE
- - - - -
WATER ---·--ELEV_-TEMP ___ PH
DATE FEET C
--1Tii<1ie1 --n1.e 1--·;
03/04/82
06/09/82
09/09/82
09/01/83
-·-··· 08/17/84 _
DATE
11124/81
03/04/82
06/09/82 · ·-·---0·9,o~,e2
133. 29
132,62
133,92·
131. 62
133,92 20 ---· ·-·-----
WATER
ELEV. -TEMP .
FEET C
142.87
150. 5
1•5.05 • 141 ;45·--...
141.45
UNITS
5.6
6
6.3 ---·t,-; 8
6.29
5.8
PH
UNITS
5,6
5.3
5.7
6
5.88
-- -- -
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
--
·-CROUNDWATER. ANALYSES FR011-oibNITOR.iNG WELL M44 ;·~
SPECIFIC OIL t ·coNDuci'-1ot-.. ·---·--· C-REASE TDS NITRATE ANTIMONY MHHOS/CM l!G/L HG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
100 5.5 ---124 -~5 <0.10 <0.01 94 12,5 56 BDL (0,10 <0,005
105 8 54 BOI. (0,10 (0.01 95 -6~---· ··ea -BDL <o:·i o (0,005 70 1,3 1,7 <0.10 (0.002
85 ~.3 _Q_._Q Q_,J...2 (0.005
GROUNDM ATER ANALYSES FROPI.MONI TOR ING MELL N29
SPECIFIC OIL t
CONDUCT TDC TOS tEASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
MMHOS/CM l!G/L HG/L G/l MG/L MG/l
110 5 104 2,5 0.55 <0.01
60 9 32 8Dl 3,1 (0.005
60 6,5 26 BDL 1.2 (0,01
62 5·.5 40 1;25 1,5 <0.005
70 BDL BDL 1 • 1 <0.002 09/01/83
08/1_ 7 /84_ 142. 6 19 6,1 50 2,9 1,5 0,90 <0,005 • ~-tROUNDWATER ~LEYATION F~OM TOP OF PIPE .
--------~--------·
-- - -- - -
TOTAL
CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC
l!G/l MG/L MG/L
(0,01 <0.01 0,065
<0.02 <0,02 0,062
<0.02 (0.02 0,095
(0,02 <0.02 0.12 3
(0,02 <0.02 0 .062 (0,02 (0.02 0.~01
TOTAL
CHROMIUM COPPER l INC
MG/l MC/L MG/L
(0,01 (0,01 0,09
<0.02 (0,02 0.01 (0,02 <0,02 0,099
<0.02 (0,02 0,123
<0.02 <0.02 0,025
<0.02 <0.02 0,096
- --
11/2'18 l
03/04/82
06/09/82
09/09/82
09/01/83
oe111 ,e,
DATE
11/2'181
03/0'182
06/09/82
09)0~ /8-2
06/27/83
09/01 /83
11/11/83
02/16/8•
05/18/8•
08/17/8•
11/16/8•
03/15/85
WATER
ELEV.
FEET
1•0-. 58
1,8.03
1'3. 7
1,0. 5
139. 2
I••. I 5
WATER
ELEV.
FEET
I• 7. 09
1'8. 67
1•8.37
"ff'l-.67
148,84
1'9.97
1•6.5~
1'8. 92
1'\9,67
1'8. 77
1,e.21
I• B. 50
-
TEHP
C
•
17
TEMP
C
18
16
1_6
20
16
15
-
PH
UNITS
. 5·.·9
7. I
8.2
9. I
9.69
9,7
PH
UNITS
6
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.25
6.4~
6. 18
6.8
6. 1
6.2
6,3
5.8
-

-
---CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLA~T, SHEL8Y,NC
--
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES ~H 11liNifORINC .. wf(C-H53;5·-
SPECIFIC OIL t
CONDUCT TDC TOS GREASE ><ITR A TE . ANT I HONY
HHHOS/CH HC/L HC/L HC/L HG/L HG/L
155 -~5 184 SOL 0.1' <D,01.
II 7 II 76 BDL <o, 10 <0.005
135 II 80 SOL 0,1 <0,01
128 5,5 92 BDL . <0.10 -((). 005
110 2.3 BOL <0.10 <0,002
75 2.6 < 1. 0 . O_. I 9 . _<_0.0_05
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES F~OM MONITORING WELL 025
SPECIFIC OIL t
CONDUCT TDC TDS . --GREASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
HHHOS/CH HG/L HG/L MG/L HG/L HG/L
1600 270 1232 I 2.H 0,092
3900 tOO 23• 0 15.2 3 •• o. 136
•ooo 930 2598 10.2 1.8 0.111
•500 865 3110 3.39 -·-,-. --0.4
400C 1028
3000 306 •• 6 2.1 0.02•
300 15 0
3000 196
2000 1•5
200C 99 .o < I ,0 1 ,30 <0,005
2900 51.6
250C 22.0 • . GROUNDWATER fLEVAT ION FROM TOP OF PIPE
--

-
-----
TOTAL
CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
HG/L HG/L HG/L -
<O ;o I <0:01 -0.088 :J
<0.02 <O,O2 0,037
<0.02 <0,02 0,076
<O.02 <0,02 6.0'6
<O,O2 (0.02 0,094
(0.02 <O_. 02 0,0_3Q
TOTAL
CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
HG/L HG/L HG/L
<0,01 (0.01 0,072
co.oz (0.02 0. I
<0.02 <0.02 0.1' -
<O,O2 0.02 0;112
(0,02 <0.02 0,128
<0,02 <0.02 0 .11.
- - --
WATER Ei.Ev, TEHP
CATE FEET C
WATER · nrv; lEHP
DA TE FEET C
11/2'181 123,53
0310• /82 121,86
06/J9/B2 121 , 66
09/09/82 122,56
09/01 /83 121,36
08/17/84 122,16 19
-
PH
UNITS
- -- -- --
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
GROUNOWA YER ANALYSES F ROH-HONITOR J°NG-·wti"i. 059 :z
SPECIFIC
. CONDUCT ·foe
HHHOS/CH HG/L
TOS
HG/L
!!ll. & ·---GREASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
MG/L MG/L MG/L
6,7 250
-··
GRCUNDWATE R Ai<AL YSf S FROM HON! TORI NG WELL P31,5
SPECIFIC OJL &
PH CONDUCT Tat ----,cs WUSE NITRATE ANTIMONY
UNITS MMHOS/CH Hell MG/L IG/L HG/L HG/L
5,7 650 10,5 396 ·3~3 <0,10 0,031
6,2 790 14,5 412 BOL (0,10 <0,005
6.7 775 15.5 424 BOL (0,10 <0.01
6,5 850 ·e ----·-488 ;o,"91 · <0,-10 (0,005
6.76 800 5 till 0,04 (0,002
6,3 I 000 II•<>. __ <1,0 <0,10 (0,005
• = GRCUNDWATER ELEYATlO~ FROM TOP OF PIPE
-- --,_
TOTAL
CHROMIUM
MG/L
TOTAL
CHROMIUM
MG/L
<0,01
(0,02
(0,02
<0,02
(0.02
<0.02
COPPER ZINC
HG/L MG/L
COPPER ZINC
HG/L MC/L
0,01 0 ,107
<0,02 0.118
(0.02 0. lb
(0,02 0,129
<0,02 o. 129
(0,02 o.on
--
. -_ _:_:_, ..
,. ----
.. ---··;~~
•'!• ;,
- ----

-
----

-
--------
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLAN.T, SHELBY ,NC
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES--0" NONI TOR INC ii°ELL ·033
WATER SPECIFIC OIL t TOTAL
ELEY. TE"P PH CONDUCT TOC TDS CREASE -,, ITRA TE ANTIMONY CHROHIUH COPPER i INC
DATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH HC/L HC/L HC/l HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L
-ff/24/!ll . ··-119,-09 4 .5 ·n,5 13.5 124 1,3 0,13--0.011 (0~01 <6 ;01 · 0,109 ·--------
03/04 /82 119, 26 5, I 185 e 172 BOL <O, 10 <0,005 <0,02 <0,02 0.095
06/09/82 I I 8. 29 5,4 260 10 192 BDL <0.10 <0,01 (0,02 <0,02 0,149
09/09/82 I I 8. 79 ·5 .9 300 6 142 BDL c:o~ io (0,005 (0,02 <0.02 0.222
09/01/83 118,59 5.58 350 3,2 2, I <0,10 (0,002 <0,02 (0,02 0,135
08/17184 120,29 19 5.8 400 6,0 (1,0 ____ <0,10. ,c_o, 005 <0,02 (0,02 .\?.• 1,"
. ·-------···----------· -----· -------
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES f-kOH HON I TOR I NC WELL R 17
W.I TE R SPEC If IC OJ L t TOT AL
ELEV, TEHP PH CONDUCT TOC TOS -GREASE NITRATE ANTIMONY CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
DATE FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L HG/L HC/L HC/L HC/L
11/24/81 126,52 5 175 7,5 I 8• 2 .8 0.11 (0,01 <0,01 0,01 0,173
03/04182 126,27 5 , I 158 14 132 ~Ol (0,10 (0,005 (0,02 (0,02 0 ,13 I
Ob/09/82 123,47 5,b 225 9 110 SOL <O, 10 (0, 01 <0,02 <O, 02 o.o,
09/09/82 124,37 5,7 250 7,5 130 4,32 <0.10 <0,005 (0,02 (0,02 0,128
Ob/21183 125,37 5,95 240 •• 6 ':,-
09/01/83 123,67 5. 75 180 1,8 BDL (0,10 (0,002 <0,02 <0,02 0 ,15
11/11/83 123,02 18 6,06 155 I, 5
02/lb/84 125, 77 lb 6.85 170 9,5
05/18/84 126.01 lb 6,71 110 22, I
08/17/84 125,37 19 5,7 140 3,5 (l,O <0,10 <0.005 <0.02 <0,02 0, IOI
11/16/84 124, 27 17 6 140 4,9
03/15/85 124,53 13 4,9 225 6,7
• . GROUNDWATER ELEVATIOS FROH TOP OF PIPE
--
DA TE
--------
CELANESE FIBERS IJPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, IHELBY,NC
- -
-CROUNDWAfER ANALYSES FROi4 lioiIT"fDRING WELL R42,5
WATER SPECIFIC ELE"'v~.-~T=E=HP--·-PH----ciJNDUCT · ·-·roe
FEET C UNITS HHHOS/CH HC/L
TDS
HC/L
----
TOTAL
CHROHIUH
MC/L
COPPER fi,ic-
MC/L MC/L
--
1112 41if1-Uy;-9 'I--. 5,6
6, I
6,2
350
375
375 -375
7,5
9.5 e.5
--256-Ii& <0.10 <0;01--·-.:o.01 ___ <0.01 0.133 ___________________ -' 03/04/82 125,63 •
06/09 /82 124, I ---0910918r·-r2j-;9
09/01/83 123,3
08/17/84 124 18
SATER
--ELEV, -TEHP
DATE FEET C
11/24181 153 .·29
03/04/82 156,37
06/09/82 153,94 ---()9/09 /82-154. n · -----·-
09/01/83 I 5 3, 94 • 08/17/84 155,_Q_4 19 • .
·····------···· ---
6-~i
6,31
6,3
400
310
5 .5 --.
3,2
4,7
184 ._ <0,10 <0,005 <0,02 <0,02 D,079
··22520~ -•.5_3 _____ <<_00 __ • ___ 11_00_ <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 o.10 9.5 --·;:0,065 (0,02 <0,02 0·.12 ~.4 (0,10 (0,002 (0,02 (0,02 0,121 ___.J.,_!__ ___ (0,10 <<>,_!>()_5 <!),02 (0,02 __ 0,120
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES FROM MONITORING WELL S50
SPECIFIC OIL t TOTAL PH CONDUCT TDC TOS ~ASE NITRATE ANTIMONY CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC UNITS MMHOS/CM HC/L HC/L /L HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L
t"0.3 400 4,5 192 -eoi-0,18 (0,01 0,03 (0,01 0,01 10.4 450 7 148 I ,5 0,33 (0,005 (0,02 (0,02 0,018 10,8 400 5,5 84 BOL 0,78 <0,01 (0,02 (0,02 0,009 --10.2 350 5 f26 ----r.u 0.56 (0,005 <O ,02 <0,02 o·; I 16 10,35 165 3,5 3 o. 71 (0,002 <0,02 <0.02 0,017 9,9 130 3,5 1.z 0, 70 <0,005 <0.02 <0,02 0,024 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROH TOP OF PIPE-
-
-- -- - - -- ------ ---
DATE
11/24/81'
03/04/82
06/09/82
09/09/82
09/01/83
08/17/84
DATE
03/15/85
WHER ELEV. ----TEHP
FE ET C
120. 22
121.12
120.6
111 • 3
120. I
124.8
•
20
SPECIFIC
PH . CONDUCT
UNITS HHHOS/CH
4 .9 350
5. 2 193
5. 4 325
-6;3 350
5.56 400
5 .6 320
SHELBY PLANT, SHtLHT,NL
tot . TOS -
HctL HC/L
14 .5
12 .5
13
10 .5
8.5
9.3
--T96
200
166
156
OIL ~-
CREA SE
HC/L
1 ~if
8DL
BDL 8.9i--
NITRATE ANTIMONY
HC/L HC/L
0.14 o;o1---
<o.10 <0.005
0.2 <0.01
(0.10 <0.005
1.5 <0.10 <0.002
1.4 ____ ·_ (0. 10, ____ <0.005
GROUNDWATER ANALYSES ~ROH HONJTORINC WELL U38.6
OIL t
TOTAL
CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC
HC/L HC/L HC/L
(0.01 __ _
<0.02
<0.02
<o·. 02
(0.02
<0.02
TOTAL
<0.01 0.105
<0.02 0.075
(0.02 0.156 (O~02-0·.i i3 -·-··--·-
<0.02 0.137
. _<0_,Q2 __ o_. 120 _ ·-----__ _
WATER
ELEV.
FEET
-uHP
C
SPECIFIC
-· PH. CONDUCT TDC
HC/l
TOS
HC/L
·cREASE --NITRATE ANTIHONT CHROHIUH COPPER ZINC,
UNITS HHHO S/CH HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L HC/L
•19.60 17 6.1 145 2.0
• ■ GROUNDWATER ELEVATION FROM TOP OF PIPE
- -
- -
OATE
-
WATER
EL EV.
FEET
-
TEMP
C
03115185 ·· •6.10 14
SATER ···nEv; -··-TEMP
FEET C
-- - -- - ---- -
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHELBY,NC
GROUNOWATER··•NALYSES FROl1-110NITORING-·wEH. V23,4
SPECIFIC
.PH CONOUCT
UNITS MMHOS/CM
675C
TbC
MG/l
TOS
MG/L
Oil t
GREASE
HG/l
TOTAL
NfTRATE ANTIMONY CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC
HG/l HG/l HG/L HG/L HG/l
GRO~OWATER ANALYSES FROH-110NITORING >Ell W23.3
SPECIFIC
PH CONOUCT
UN IT S 1111HO S /CM
TOC
HG/l
TOS
MG/l
Oil t
!;IE'ASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
~C/l HG/l MG/l
TOTAL
CHROMIUM
HG/L
COPPER ZINC
HG/l MG/l OATE
03/15/85 •11.02 14 5,8 575 7.3
• • GROUNOWATER ELEVATION FROM TOP OF PIPE
- -- -
--~
-- -- -
WATER
EL Ev·;-TEMP PH
DATE FEET C UNITS
-- - - -
CELANESE FIBEIS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLAJII, SHELBY,NC
---- --
GROUNDWATER A.NALTSIT-H ilONITOiffNG. ·wfilT32~9··-·-··
SPECIFIC
CONDUCT TOC -res-
MMHOS/CM HG/l MG/l
Oil t
GREASE
MG/l
.NITRATE .. ·•iifIMONY
MG/l MG/l
TOTAL
CHROMIUM
MG/l
COPPER ZINC
MG/L MC/L
-·--03/I 5/85 ... •15-;50-·-15· ·-··-6 250 3·. 2
03/15/85
WA lER
ELEV.
FEET
GROUNDWA!ER AN&LYSES7'1bH MONITORING WELL Y38.8
TEMP
C
SPEC JFJC
PH CONDUCT
UNITS HHHOS/CH
16 8.5 •co 11.0
TOS ·-·
HG/L
OIL t
GREASE
HG/L
• • GROUNOWA!ER ELEVATION FROM TOP OF llltPE
TOUL
NITRATE ANTIMONY CHROMIUM COPPER ZINC
MG/l MG/l MG/L MG/L HC/L
---
---- -
WATER
-- - - -
CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS
SHELBY PLANT, SHEL8T,NC
--
... -GiiOUNDWATEr-ANiL Y SE s·F RO" jONJJOR ING WELL y74·~·~
-·--------ELEV_-----TEMP ___ Pt{ SPECIFIC CONCUCT···-· roe" TCS
HG/l
!UL__,_ . --
GREASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
HG/l CATE FEET C UNITS MMHOS/CM "G/L "5/L HG/L
CATE
03/15/85
WATER
ELEV.
FEET
•19,83
6, I i60 ---5--;-5.
GROUNCWHER ANALYSES FROKNONITORING WELL ne.~
. TEMP
C
SPECIFIC
PH CONDUCT
UNITS MMHOS/CM
TOC
HG.fl
15 6,3 190 15,5
TDS
"G/L
oft. ,
CIASE NITRATE ANTIMONY
~l MG/L HG.fl
• • GROUNCWATER ELEVATIO• FROM TOP OF PIPE
-- --
TOTAL
CHROM-IUM
MG.fl
TOTAL
COPPER
MG.fl
CHROMIUM COPPER
MG/L MG.fl
iiNC
MG.fl
ZINC
HG.fl
-- -
\
i