NCD003446721_20110419_Celeanse Corporation - Shelby Fiber_FRBCERCLA RD_Independent Design Review 2008 - 2011-OCR

SA
MCDEMR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Luis Flores
Remedial Project Manager
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
April 19,201 I
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: OU-I Semiannual Report
July 20 IO -December 20 I 0
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Shelby, Cleveland County, NC
NCO 003 446 721
Dear Mr. Flores:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the OU-I Semiannual Report: July 20 JO-December 20 IO for the Celanese
Corporation National Priorities List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR Superfund Section has reviewed
this document and offers the following attached comments.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone] or at
david.matt ison@ncdenr .!!ov.
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Sincerely,
L)~ls ft{~
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] I Internet: http://portalncdenr.org/weblwm
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmatl\le Action Employer
One No11hCarolina ;Nnt11rnlly
Mr. Luis Flores
OU-I Semiannual Report
July 2010-December 2010
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
NCD 003 446 721
April 19, 2011
OU-1 SEMIANNUAL REPORT: JULY 2010-DECEMBER 2010
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
I. Please correct the spelling of the word "plan" in the third sentence of the first paragraph of
the OU-/ Semiannual Report: July 20 l 0-December 20 l 0.
2. Please correct the third sentence of the second paragraph of the OU-I Semiannual Report:
July 20/0-December 2010 to state "The groundwater elevation data are included as Table
4."
Table 1 Sampling Plan
3. Please revise Table I to indicate whether or not the sample collected from groundwater
monitoring well Q-33 is to be analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and diethylene dioxide content.
Table 2 Groundwater Analytical Summary
4. Table 2 indicates that the sample collected from groundwater monitoring well CC-33 contained no
ethylene glycol at a laboratory detection limit of35 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However Figure 2
indicates that the sample collected from groundwater monitoring well CC-33 contained 35 mg/L
ethylene glycol. Please clarify this discrepancy.
5. Table 2 indicates that the sample coll_ected from groundwater monitoring well IT-I contained no
ethylene glycol at a laboratory detection limit of70 mg/L. However Figure 2 indicates that the
sample collected from groundwater monitoring well IT-I contained 70 mg/L ethylene glycol. Please
clarify this discrepancy.
6. Table 2 indicates that the sample collected from groundwater monitoring well T-17 contained 1.63
micrograms per liter (µg/L) trichloroethene. However Figure 2 indicates that the sample collected
from groundwater monitoring well T-17 contained no trichloroethene at a laboratory detection limit
of0.00163 mg/L. Please clarify this discrepancy.
Figure I Well Locations
7. Please define the diamond shapes in the Legend of Figure I.
8. Please revise Figure I to depict the groundwater potentiometric surface as well as well locations.
Mr. Luis Flores
OU-I Semiannual Report
July 2010 -December 2010
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
NCO 003 446 721
April 19, 2011
Figure 3 TCE -September 2010
9. Groundwater monitoring well GG-61 was inadvertently omitted from Figure 3. Please correct this
oversight.
Figure 5 Diethylene Dioxide -September 2010
10. Groundwater monitoring well GG-39 was inadvertently omitted from Figure 5. Please correct this
oversight.
A:COM
March 31, 2010
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
AECOM
1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30309
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
404.965.9600
404.965.9605
Subject: Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
OU-1 Semiannual Report
July 2009 -December 2009
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Document Control Number: 026SB-290
Dear Ms. Walden:
tel
fax
Please find attached the analytical data associated with sampling event completed at the Former
Celanese Fibers Operations site during the second half of 2009. Data were collected under the
approved interim sampling plan.
The samples were collected during November 2009. A summary of the groundwater data is
presented in Table 1. A summary of the surface water data is presented in Table 2. Only those
parameters detected in at least one sample are included in the summary tables. The sample
locations are presented on Figure 1.
Ethylene glycol results are presented in Figure 2. The data shown in Figure 2 is consistent with
previously presented assessments. The concentration at well F-55 was 3,01 O milligrams per liter
(mg/L). This is equal to the result observed in July of 2008. This concentration is the lowest level
noted since increases were first observed in 2004. Concentrations at well F-55 have declined since
reaching a peak in 2006.
Ethylene glycol concentrations remain stable in the former GRUB disposal area. Detections
continue to only be noted at wells V-23 and IT-6, with concentrations fluctuating within stable
ranges. The results downgradient of the former GRUB disposal area are non-detect, as has been
the case for the past few years.
Trichloroethene data collected in November are presented in Figure 3. Concentrations are near or
below the detection limit in most samples. The highest detections remain at wells TD-3 and TD-4 in
the central plant area. The concentration at well TD-3 was down notably to 0.0688 mg/L, compared
to concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 mg/Lover recent years. The concentration at deeper well
TD-4 has increased in prior reports. The concentration in November was 3.84 mg/L, comparable to
the March 2009 result of 3.74 mg/L. Lower concentrations of TCE were noted at wells PEW-3,
PEW-4, T-35, and Tl-2. All other locations were below the reporting limit.
L:\work\Projects\79750\WordProc\08 2H 2009\Draft 2H 2009 memo.docx
AECOM 2
Wells F-55, PEW-1, PEW-3, and PEW-4 were analyzed for DowTherm A™ components (biphenyl
ether and 1, 1-biphenyl) in November. Biphenyl ether is the more prevalent component and data for
this parameter are presented in Figure 4. Biphenyl ether is primarily present at well F-55 and free
product is removed when observed at this location. In November 2009 an interface probe did not
detect free product in the well. A bailer placed in the well was observed to contain approximately
0.2 feet of product. No product was recovered.
Diethylene dioxide data collected in November 2009 are presented in Figure 5. The data collected
in November includes samples from all twelve surface water sampling locations rather than just the
scheduled SW4 and SW7 locations. Routine sampling for diethylene dioxide has only been in place
for two semiannual events. An increased concentration of diethylene dioxide was noted at well
K-28 and a decreased concentration was noted at well G-50. Semiannual monitoring will continue
and trends will be assessed as more data is gathered.
In addition to the monitoring event, two investigation events were completed during the second half
of 2009. The GRUB area DPT investigation and the stream discharge study were completed in
September and October. These events were completed as described in the work plan (Work Plan
and Field Sampling Plan for Supplemental Investigation and Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring,
Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, NC, AECOM, March 2009). Results and conclusions
associated with these activities are being prepared and will be submitted as separate technical
memorandums.
Semiannual monitoring will continue in the first half of 2010. The sampling event for the first half of
2010 occurred the week of March 15, 2010 and followed the same sampling plan as was completed
in March of 2009, with the addition of the new deeper well at the II location.
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further information. You may reach Everett
Glover at 404-965-9687 or Bryon Dahlgren at 404-965-9657.
Yours sincerely
Br on ahlgren, PE
Project Engineer
L:\work\Projects\79750\WordProc\08 2H 2009\0raft 2H 2009 memo.docx
~t~~~r., ~ '~
Project Manager
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/L
benzene mg/L
2-butanone mg/L
carbon disulfide mg/L
carbon tetrachloride mg/L
chlorobenzene mg/L
chloroform mg/L
cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/L
1,2-dichloroelhane mg/L
diethylene dioxide mg/L
ethyl benzene mg/L
tetrachloroethene mg/L
toluene mg/L
trichlorethene mg/L
xvlenes mq/L
1,1-biphenyl mg/L
biphenvl ether mq/L
ethylene qlycol mq/L
ferrous iron mg/L
ORP mV
dissolved oxygen mg/L
pH SU
specific conductance mS/cm
temperature degrees C
turbiditv NTU
ORP -oxidation-reducUon potential
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
mS/cm -millisiemens per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
NA -not analyzed
J -estimated value
C-49 F-55 G-50
11/03/2009 11/05/2009 11105/2009
<0.005 1.020 <0.005
<0.001 0.0535 <0.001
<0.005 <0.0250 <0.005
0.00104 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
0.00365 0.313 0.562
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 0.0173 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.002 <0.01 <0.002
NA 6.880 NA
NA 35.000 NA
NA 3010 <7
<0.200 6.00 2.00
289 -91 41
5.86 1.73 1.60
5.28 5.26 5.87
0.0190 3.10 0.419
18.9 20.3 21.0
2.80 128 16.0
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Second Half 2009
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
1-57 K-28 T-35 V-23 V-65
11/05/2009 11/04/2009 11/03/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009
<0.005 0.883 <0.005 <0.005 0.00685
<0.001 0.00930 <0.001 0.0174 0.00216
<0.005 0.728 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00193 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00124 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.360 0.738 0.0452 2.940 0.470
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00271 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 0.00113 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00929 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 0.00151 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.01 <0.002 0.0101 <0.002
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
<7 <7 NA 3850 <7
0.200 7.00 0.500 3.50 6.00
217 -119 136 55 -105
2.90 0.29 0.30 0.42 0.36
4.62 6.10 5.58 5.02 6.80
0.0260 5.93 0.547 6.06 0.842
19.7 18.9 19.2 18.6 17.1
7.00 4.78 8.00 3.10 3.00
AA-54 CC-33 DD-58R GG-61 11-65 11-112
11/04/2009 11/03/2009 11/05/2009 11/03/2009 11/04/2009 11/04/2009
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 0.00193 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00762
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.00284 0.00102 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.00496 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.199 0.128 0.0789 0.0377 0.235 0.00633
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
<7 NA <7 NA <7 <7
0.200 0.500 1.20 0.200 0.200 1.20
228 -32.6 33 175 276 -44
0.50 0.82 2.81 0.93 2.70 1.40
5.04 6.24 6.59 6.33 5.93 7.13
0.352 0.288 0.545 0.162 0.180 0.151
17.0 17.9 17.3 16.5 16.0 16.0
6.00 5.10 463 1.00 34.0 1.00
Page 1 of 2
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/L
benzene mg/L
2-butanone mg/L
carbon disulfide mg/L
carbon tetrachloride mg/L
chlorobenzene mg/L
chloroform mg/L
is-1,2-dichloroethene mg/L
1,2-dichloroethane mg/L
iethylene dioxide mg/L
ethylbenzene mg/L
etrachloroethene mg/L
oluene mg/L
trichlorethene mg/L
xylenes mg/L
1,1-biphenyl mg/L
biphen'; I ether mg/L
ethylene glycol ma/L
errous iron mg/L
ORP mV
dissolved oxygen mg/L
pH '" specific conductance mS/cm
temperature degrees C
urbidity NTU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
mSlcm -millisiemens per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephclometric turbidity unit
NA-not analyzed
J -estimated value
KK-55 IT-5 IT-5 Oup
11/05/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009
<0.005 0.0777 J 0.0564 J
<0.001 0.00506 0.00484
<0.005 0.127 J 0.0906 J
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.104 0.809 0.856
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.00141 0.00138
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
<7 <7 8.36
3.00 1.40 1.40
-50 -87 -89
0.85 0.50 0.50
6.39 6.71 6.71
0.484 1.45 1.45
16.1 17.5 17.5
1.00 26.0 26.0
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Second Half 2009
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
IT-6 IT-7 OT-2R PEW-1
11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11/05/2009
<0.005 0.0767 <0.005 0.00649
0.0154 0.0454 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
0.00282 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0471 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00378
<0.001 0.00139 <0.001 <0.001
2.460 0.429 0.0872 0.0216
0.00118 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.00519 0.0175 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0129
0.00472 0.00294 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA <0.01
NA NA NA <0.01
948 <7 <7 NA
6.00 4.00 1.40 0.200
1 -62 -65 138
0.70 0.60 0.60 0.85
4.85 6.19 6.93 5.92
2.03 0.788 0.473 0.154
19.0 19.0 18.0 19.4
5.00 20.0 14.0 1.10
PEW-3 PEW-4 TD-2 TD-3 TD-4 Tl-2
11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/04/2009 11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11/04/2009
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00470 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00363 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.00105 <0.001 0.00115 0.00864 0.00529
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00245 0.00540 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 0.0426 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.00478
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00619
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0379 <0.001 0.0688 3.840 0.00817
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
0.0422 <0.01 NA NA NA NA
0.251 0.0173 J NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA <7
0.500 1.50 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
227 122 220 275 187 156
4.86 1.32 2.40 4.70 1.20 3.40
6.70 5.45 4.95 5.23 6.38 5.99
0.0600 0.0710 0.0950 0.251 0.0440 0.0480
21.1 21.5 18.0 19.0 18.0 21.2
1.00 1.00 31.0 4.00 77.0 33.0
Page 2 of 2
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/L
rliethylene dioxide mg/L
errous iron mg/L
ORP mV
issolved oxygen mg/L
pH '" ~cific coadoctaece mS/cm
perature degrees C
iditv NTU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
mS/cm -millisiemens per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
NA -not analyzed
SW1 SW2
11/04/2009 11/04/2009
NA NA
0.0117 0.0340
0.200 0.200
128 125
6.40 6.60
7.03 6.79
0.179 0.445
12.3 15.4
1.10 1.00
SW3
11/04/2009
NA
0.00410
0.200
163
8.00
6.04
0.126
11.0
1.80
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facilty
Second Half 2009
SW4
Analytical Surface Water Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
SW4 DUP SWS SW6
11/05/2009 11/05/2009 11104/2009 11/03/2009
<0.005 <0.005 NA NA
0.0141 0.0168 0.00357 <0.002
1.10 1.10 0.200 0.300
82 82 123 88.5
5.90 5.90 3.70 4.20
6.77 6.77 6.82 6.83
0.203 0.203 0.315 0.0850
15.7 15.7 13.4 17.6
1.70 1.70 1.70 5.00
SW7 swa SW9 SW10 SW11 SW12
11/04/2009 11/04/2009 11/03/2009 11/03/2009 11103/2009 11/03/2009
0.00560 NA NA NA NA NA
0.00418 <0.002 0.00551 0.00372 0.00821 0.00770
0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.300 0.200
134 125 105.2 88.3 -103.5 120
8.00 6.10 6.50 5.80 6.60 6.60
6.67 6.95 7.48 7.67 7.03 6.50
0.120 0.0610 0.111 0.102 0.157 0.164
12.3 14.7 16.8 16.2 15.0 14.0
1.30 2.69 1.70 1.89 18.1 2.80
0
PRODUCTION
AREA
-3
~~OD~
l.~p -
I "
EW-4
;;:
SW-8
181
_/ \ ~-
' '
7(80 \
ee....._, ,
DD-5BR8
---J
LEGEND
8 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
\
181 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
A:COM
181sw-10
181sw-11
181sw-12
FEBRUARY 2010
500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS. INC./TICONA
SHELBY. NORTH CAROLINA
79750
0
(J
\----,,-={I!
\-~~-\----+---
\--+----\-+----
I-+----\-+----
'1
I
PRODUCTION
AREA
L, _____ ,_
)
\
I ~ ,-•-"' ~~~----\
\
\ 08L
p0\40 0Ll
8 pQl'l0
--~,w ,oso
'N ___ _Joao
·-•7
790
-·--'"
po\40
I
\ ?90
,aJ
I
./ -2R'--.-?--','7\ ? .
DD-58RO I
<7
\
I
A:COM
I
I
• ♦
I
\
I
\
I
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 2
ETHYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS
NOVEMBER 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.ITICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 2010
800'
79750
\----+---
\ --+---
0
[J
I
PRODUCTION
AREA
L. ________ _
s,0---='-,;,\,_
\
•\,..-----08L
i 0LL
790
I
I
AS'COM
\
I
\
I
SW-7
<0.001 I
•
♦
121
LEGEND
I
~i
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
o· 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 3
TRICHLOROETHENE RESULTS
NOVEMBER 2009
FEBRUARY 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
800'
79750
D
fJ
l1i J :l
\ \---~~
\ __ _,:__ __ \-____,_ __ _
\ --1-------
\ --1-----
\ _ _j__ __
\ _\----·,
\---+--
(
\ ---+--
\ \-+--
\----+ "=ec-
D
I
PRODUCTION
AREA
L-·-·-·-•
)
\
•-•,rn
B
B
"N __ _j~o
·-•7 _,_,,,,,·~~
?CN\)
pQt<D
I
I
\
\
\
(l 9g;
"'
.,~"
08L
0Ll
I
I
AS'COM
I
I
e
♦
I
\
\
I
I
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 4
Bl PHENYL ETHER RESULTS
NOVEMBER 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 2010
800'
79750
0
0
i_ ______ _
PRODUCTION
AREA -
3
TD 3
<0.00 J°0
Cl
DO·
0 0
□
SW-8
<0.002 181
,,•-~----------
760
\
15._ __
~~ /\ ·"·, --.
?/~ '\ ee, ,
08i/:9R
I
.. -----l LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
181 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
AS'COM
181sw-12
0.0077
O'
ADDITIONAL SURFACE WATER
LOCATION ELEVATIONS (IN FEET MSL)
SW-10 667
SW-11 666
SW-12 697
500'
SCALE
FIGURE 5
181 SW-10
0.00372
181SW-11
0.00821
1000'
DI ETHYLENE DIOXIDE RESULTS
NOVEMBER 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.ITICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 2010 79750
~COM
Mr. Luis Flores
Remedial Project Manager
AECOM
1360 Peachtree St
Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30309
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 ForsY1h St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
March 28, 2011
[Phone]
[Fax]
Subject: Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
OU-1 Semiannual Report
July 201 O -December 201 O
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Document Control Number: 026SB-305
Dear Mr. Flores,
404.965.9600
404.965.9605
Please find attached the analytical summary tables and figures showing the distribution of selected
site constituents associated with sampling event completed at the Former Celanese Fibers
Operations site during the second half of 2010. Data were collected under the approved expanded
sample plan, "Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan for Supplemental Investigation and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring, Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, NC, AECOM, June 201 O", that
is included as Table 1. In addition to the plant presented in Table 1, the recently installed well PP-
70 was included as part of the September 2010 event. This technical memorandum provides a
summary of the data collected from the September 2010 event.
A summary of the September 2010 groundwater analytical data is presented in Table 2; the
September 2010 surface water data is presented in Table 3. Tables 2 and 3 include only
parameters that were detected in at least one sample. The groundwater monitoring data are
included as Table 4. The sample locations are presented on Figure 1 and the analytical results for
ethylene glycol, trichloroethylene, biphenyl ether and diethylene dioxide are presented on Figures 2,
3, 4, and 5, respectively.
The September 201 O sampling event is the first of two expanded characterization events described
in the site work plan. The second characterization monitoring event was completed during March
2011. A report summarizing the combined results of these events will be submitted in September
2011. This report will include conclusions and recommendations for long term monitoring at the
site.
AECOM 2
Please contact us if you have questions or need further information. You may reach Everett Glover
at 404-965-9687 or Bryon Dahlgren at 404-965-9657.
Yours sincerely,
Bryon Dahlgren, PE
Project Engineer
1:~,,~~
Project Manager
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Sampling Plan
AECOM Project No. 60135442
TCLSVOCs
Sample TCL Diethylene including Ethylene Manganese Field
Location voes Dioxide DOWTHERM Glycol Arsenic Parameters'
A™ and TICs
C-49 X X --X X X
D-27 --------X X
F-55 X X X X X X
G-50 X X X X X X
G-88 X X X X X X
H-59 X X X X X X
H-79 X X X X X X
1-57 X X X X X X
K-28 X X X X X X
K-58 X X X X X X
M-44 X X X X X X
0-25 ------X --X
0-59 ------X --X
P-58 X X X X X X
Q-33 --X --X
T-17 X X X X X X
T-35 X X X X X X
T-58 X X X X X X
V-23 X X X X X X
V-65 X X X X X X
W-23 X X X X X X
Z-78 X X X X X X
AA-54 X X X X X X
BB-18 X X --X --X
CC-33 X X X X X X
CC-64 X X X X X X
DD-58R X X --X --X
GG-39 X X --X --X
GG-61 X X --X --X
HH-48 X X --X --X
HH-77 X X --X --X
11-65 X X X X X X
11-112 X X --X --X
KK-55 X X X X X X
LL-110 X X --X --X
LL-175 X X --X --X
LL-295 X X --X --X
MM-128 X X --X --X
MM-170 X X --X --X
MM-280 X X --X --X
NN-105 X X X X X X
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Sampling Plan
AECOM Project No. 60135442
TCLSVOCs
Sample TCL Diethylene including Ethylene Manganese Field
Location voes Dioxide DOWTHERM Glycol Arsenic Parameters'
A™ andTICs
NN-240 X X X X X X
IT-1 X X X X X X
IT-2 X X X X X X
IT-3 X X --X --X
IT-4 X X X X X X
IT-5 X X --X --X
IT-6 X X --X --X
IT-7 X X X X X X
IT-SR X X --X --X
IT-9 X X --X --X
OT-1R X X --X --X
OT-2R X X X X X X
OT-3 X X --X --X
OT-5 X X X X X X
PZ-12 X X X X X X
PEW-1 X X X X X X
PEW-3 X X X X X X
PEW-4 X X X X X X
TD-2 X X --X --X
TD-3 X X X X X X
TD-4 X X X X X X
Tl-2 X X --X --X
SW-1 --X ------X
SW-2 --X ------X
SW-3 --X ------X
SW-4 --X ------X
SW-5 --X ------X
SW-6 --X ------X
SW-7 --X ------X
SW-8 --X ------X
SW-9 --X ------X
SW-10 --X ------X
SW-11 --X ------X
SW-12 --X ------X
SW-13 --X ------X
1 Wells and parameters on this table will be sampled the second half of 2010 and the first half of 2011.
2 Field Parameters -depth to groundwater, dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance,
temperature, turbidity
Parameter Result
Type.
· Acetone TRG
Benzene TRG
2-Butanone TRG
Carbon Disulfide TRG
Carbon Tetrachloride TRG
Chlorobenzene TRG
Chloroform TRG
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene TRG
1,2-Dichloroethane TRG
Diethvlene Dioxide TRG
Ethvlbenzene . TRG
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone TRG
Styrene TRG
Tetrachloroethene TRG
Tetrahvdrofuran TRG
Tolllene TRG
Trichloroethene TRG
vinvl chloride TRG
Xvlenes, Total TRG --. --"'" --·--• ·-.
1,1'-Biphenvl TRG
Biphenvl Ether TRG =~-·••<;t· ""-=--_-..,.. ,. _....,.,,,. .. ,.' -~ -~;; -"'·=· -
Ethvlene Glvcol TRG ,. -. ~-~-~ -~, --~-.,.,,,. . ' ·---__ ,..
Benzeneacetic acid TIC
Benzeneorooanoic acid TIC
Benzoic acid TIC
Bromacil -TIC
Butanoic acid TIC
1-Butanol . TIC
Butvl acetate TIC
2-Chloroohenol TRG
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
C-49 D-27 F-55 G-50 G-88 H-59 H-79 1-57 Unit 9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/24/2010
11n/L < 5.00 -747 5.52 < 5.00 <5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
1m/L < 1.00 .. 63.9 J < 1.00 0.890 J 0.650 J 0.910 J < 1.00
11n/L < 5.00 .. < 500 < 5.00 < 5.00 <5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
11n/L < 1.00 27.8 J < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 0.730 J < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L 0.670 J .. < 100 < 1.00 3.84 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 3.43 2.42 6.05 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 2.00 U -296 357 11.7 17.7 44.0 657
11n/L < 1.00 -< 100 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 5.00 -< 500 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
"n/L < 1.00 .. < 100 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 0.980 J < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 5 UJ .. 3000 J 3.81 J 5.15 J 95.4J 192 J 2.04J
"n/L < 1.00 .. 23.2 J < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 100 < 1.00 123 6.65 15.8 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 -< 100 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 2.00 -< 200 < 2.00 < 2.00 <2.00 0,940 J < 2.00 ·----. "'-"W-_,.,;,,..,.,.; . ~---· ----~---· .. --.,~---·-·~---«"'------~ ---'-'-"'~ -•' _,,,___.
ef, ·-·"'"' ,. '
"n/L I 4740 264 I < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
,1n/L I 14100 1280 I < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
,_·;;,· -'""'"'""''· _,., 5_,,_, -"'"--; ;...,.~ ~· ---'• -,--,.-,;-_.,,,,, --,-=·"' . ' -~~ """· ""'-"""''· """·""'· ~
___ , . ·---· . ···'"" ---,r"<s . -. ' ' moil < 7.00 -1830 < 7.00 I < 7.00 <7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 . ......,-,~ --~--_,., . """' . . -·-·-. . ••. :«• -=·· --"'""' "--------~-,---.... -,_-~-.. --,.,...,,----.. ,~_,.,,--, ----,
o,n/L
11n/L ------
"n/L
11n/L -----· --24.8 J
11n/L -- -
11n/L --- -
..
11n/L -- - - -- -
11n/L - -< 200 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 UJ
1m/L - -- - - - - -
1 of 27
Parameter Result
Type
1.1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethvl ohthalate TRG
Diethvlene olvcol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,4]Dioxinof2,3-b]-1 ,4-dioxin,. .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naohthalene TIC
2-FI u o ro-6-n itro oh en ol TIC
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methvl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methvl-2-butanone TIC
Methvl Cvclooctane TIC
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methyl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methyl Propanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYlPHENOl TRG
2-Methvloroovl acetate TIC
2-Methvloroovll-cvclooentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc. I Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit C-49 D-27 F-55 G-50 G-88
9/2412010 9/2412010 9/2412010 9121/2010 9/2112010
ua/l --2189.3 J - -
ua/l - -< 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
11n/L < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
"nil
"n/l - -< 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
"nil - - - - -
11n/l ------
1m/l - - - - -
ua/l - - -. --
ua/l - ------
"n/l --
"n/l --
11n/L --
r1n/L ---184.1 J -
"n/l - - - ---
11n/l - - - - -
11n/l --1221.6 J ---
11n/l - - - - -
ua/l - -4909.8 J - -
ua/l - - - - -
1rn/L
"nil --
11n/L -
"nil - -400 J - -
11n/l - ---- -
un/l - -2513.3 J - -
ua/l - ---- -
ua/l - - - - -
ua/l - - - - -
ua/l - -< 200 UJ <10.0UJ < 10.0 UJ
"n/l
"n/l
2 of 27
H-59 H-79 1-57
9/2112010 9121/2010 9/2412010
- --
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
- - -
- --
- - -
- - -
- ---
--
--
---
- ---
- - -
---
- ---
- - -----
--
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- --
- - -
<10.0UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
Parameter
N-Methvlbenzenesulfonamide
N-methv I-n-( 1-oxododecvll-Glv
Octanoic acid
Pentanoic acid
Phenol
2-Phenoxv Ethanol
4-Phenoxv Phenol
Sulfur, mol.
Trimethvloxirane . . • ·c ~ -·---.,~ ., .. ..
Arsenic
Manqanese . .. >,-~ -· ~---· ----~
Conductivitv
DissolvedOxvnen
Oxidation RP
nH
Temoerature
Turbidity
Notes:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
..
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina.
Result
Type
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC
TRG
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC
--~. .
TRG
TRG ,.,,_ ,,,,_,..-
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
Unit
11n/L
11n/L
11n/L
1m/L
ua/L
ua/L
"n/L
,on/L
11n/L . --mq/L
mq/L . . . ..
Second Half 2010. First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
C-49 D-27 F-55 G-50 G-88
9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
- -
.. -..
- - - -
..
- -2630.2 J - -
- -597.1 J - -
-.. < 200 < 10.0UJ < 10.0
- -
.. -..
. .. 5.8 J
-
-- ---~--. . . ---•'·"""' . .._. •. -,--.,,, --~---~=-,,.-;,;,.-~, . ----. ,,,.,_,, . -·--,-, "'·
< 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500
0.0158 0.127 192 18.0 0.0363
·"' _ , ""---~---= ,e::-;..~""'-"---~--"'"'-,_,,,,_-;.~ ·""'""'~' -~-~--•-,'<. ·-,,_ _ --------~,.,--.
mS/cm 0.028 0.243 2.834 0.466 0.096
mail 6.59 5.20 1.42 1.91 2.64
mV 141.2 162.5 56.3 -21.7 118.8
SU 6.36 6.34 5.82 5.96 5.27
C 19.71 20.80 22.68 26.53 26.06
NTU 18.9 14.2 70 8.4 7.7
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate or imprecise
□UP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG -target compound
3 of 27
H-59 H-79 1-57
9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/24/2010
- --
-.. -
- - -
-- -
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
--..
..
- - -
- - -.•. -.-~ ..., __ .. ' "~. .. .,.. -·-. . -.
< 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500
0.0406 0.0648 0.0235 ¢--~. -~ = -"'""--"""~ ---.-.. ~·· 0.051 0.078 0.036
0.46 1.11 2.0
171.3 135.8 220
5.27 5.19 4.7
23.05 22.06 23.30
0.97 20.1 7
Parameter
IAcetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dieth, lene Dioxide
Ethvlbenzene
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone
Stvrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahvdrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethene
"Im 1 chloride
Xvlenes, Total . ' --""' ·--.
1, 1 '-Biohenvl
Biohenvl Ether
Result
Type
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit K-28 K-58 M-44 0-25 0-59
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
11n/L 1030 4.18 J < 5.00 ..
"n/L 9.06 3.40 0.670 J ..
"n/L 457 < 5.00 < 5.00 UJ ..
"n/L <4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -..
11n/L <4.00 < 1.00 <1.00UJ -..
11n/L <4.00 < 1.00 0.620 J -..
11□/L <4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 --
""/L <4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 ..
""/L <4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 ..
11n/L 924 553 78.3 ..
"n/L 0.530 J 2.06 < 1.00
11n/L 2.60 J < 5.00 < 5.00
11n/L 0.560 J < 1.00 < 1.00 ---
11n/L < 4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -..
1m/L 2461 J 195 J 32.4J -..
u□/L 1.84 J < 1.00 < 1.00 -..
""/L < 4.00 < 1.00 1.72
""/L < 4.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 8.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 .. --~"-----.. ,:. --·-. . .• ---~-. . . ,._ -·-.. -"' --
TRG 11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 33.5 --
TRG 11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 148 -I --
P-58 Q-33 T-17
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
< 5.00 .. < 5.00
< 1.00 .. < 1.00
< 5.00 UJ < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
<1.00UJ -< 1.00
< 1.00 .. < 1.00
< 1.00 -< 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
230 43.6
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 UJ < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 0.970 J
1.37 J -< 5 UJ
< 1.00 .. < 1.00
< 1.00 1.63
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 .. < 2.00 .. ~• -.. . -~--------"---.
< 10.0 < 10.0
4.59J --5.53 J
"'"'' """" -~ •••, •--C _,m, • :... _,,_ '> • -. . ... , '"" .. •-" --~ -" --·' '-·-·--·"'"''-"'"" "-' .. " --·•----• c·.:.· .• ..,__ -~ ·'-'·---_,_,_ r·,. -Ethvlene Glvcol TRG I moil 603 < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 I < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00
' . . " ·-" .. ,.,...-.. -,..,._ --. . --. . . ---'--. . ·-__,,.__,----:--'""· ··" -,,, .. ~" . "-~' ,,,,.. ,,_-,,--,<Jli,,s<> ""-"" '
Benzeneacetic acid TIC "n/L 326.1 J ------
Benzeneorooanoic acid. TIC 11n/L 430.3 J --------
Benzoic acid TIC un/L 226.5 J ---------
Bromacil -TIC , i,-,/L -·
Butanoic acid TIC ""/L 3749.8 J
1-Butanol TIC "n/L --
Butvl acetate TIC "n/L ---
2-Chloroohenol TRG "n/L 392 < 10.0 < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 < 10.0
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC 11n/L --
4 of 27
Parameter Result
Type
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethvl ohthalate TRG
Diethvlene olvcol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,41Dioxinol2,3-bl-1 A-dioxin, ... TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethyl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naphthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitroohenol TIC
Hexameth\ lcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methyl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methyl-2-butanone TIC
Methvl Cvclooctane TIC
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-centanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Propanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methylproovl acetate TIC
2-Methylprocvl)-cyclopentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit K-28 K-58 M-44 0-25 0-59
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
un/L -- - - -
un/L < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0 -..
ua/L < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0 -..
""/L
""/L 68.3 J < 10.0 < 10.0
1in/L 3.6 J 2.6 J ..
r1n/L ..
"n/L .. .. . .
"n/L -2.6 J ..
"n/L -- - -
un/L 2390.8 J - - -
..
11n/L - - - --
ua/L -.. - -
..
""il .. 32.1 J ..
""/L .. ..
"n/L ..
"n/L ..
"n/L ..
"n/L -.. -
un/L -.. 2,5 J -..
un/L 368.2 J .. -- -
ua/L 1734.2 J .. - - -
""/L -
""/L -
"n/L 15.5 J
"n/L -..
"n/L 679.6 J -..
"□/L 848.4 J - - -
..
ua/L 81 J - - --
ua/L 1270 J < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ - -
""/L
""/L -
5 of 27
P-58 Q-33 T-17
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
- --
< 10.0 .. < 10.0
< 10.0 .. < 10.0
4.1 J .. 3.1 J
< 10.0 < 10.0
4.6 J
..
9J .. 3J
..
.. -
-.. -
-.. -
-.. -
..
..
..
.. -
-.. -
-- -
..
-
- - -
< 10.0 UJ -< 10.0 UJ
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
Parameter Result Unit Type
N-Methylbenzenesulfonamide TIC ""il
N-methv I-n-( 1-oxododecvl)-GI, TIC ua/L
Octanoic acid TIC uo/L
Pentanoic acid TIC ""il
Phenol TRG ""il
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC ""il
4-Phenoxv Phenol TIC ""il
Sulfur, mol. TIC ""il
Trimethvloxirane TIC o,n/L
~· ~-,,_ ..,..,,, . . .• ----~,.-,,,, ___ .,,.,,-~ ,'#, ..
Arsenic
Manoanese ,-..... -_,_., __ 0../4 -~--~-..;;.-<ffl.ffi.
Conductivity
DissolvedOxvoen
OxidationRP
oH
Temoerature
Turbiditv
Notes:
µg/l • micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
TRG mail
TRG mail
"-""'·""'----.. ..----., -----
FIELD mS/cm
FIELD moil
FIELD mV
FIELD SU
FIELD C
FIELD NTU
--
.,,,_,,
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG -target compound
AECOM Project No. 60135442
K-28 K-58 M-44 0-25 0-59
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
--
---- ---
- - - ---
295.5 J
< 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
----
--->" ------'C .. '"'; -... ··---,..., .. .,,,,
0,0200 0.0371 < 0.00500 ---
66,3 0,346 0.361 --I
« -k-' .• P•.• ·•·=·•->~ "-"'--,;:,, .• '-'• ""=-"--"' -. -----. -,.__,;,,
6.789 0.451 0.326 0.897 0.650
0.04 0.29 0.42 0.99 0.46
-138. 7 -90.1 133.2 -89.3 -66.0
7.26 7.60 6.36 6.80 6.78
28.77 24.80 22.14 22.18 20.28
19.2 22.6 22.8 17.6 21.2
6 of 27
P-58 Q-33 T-17
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
- - -
- - -
< 10.0 < 10.0
---
----
< 0.00500 I .. I < 0.00500 I
0.721· I -I 1.66 I .. --,..,.,. ______ -. ... . -0.675 0.613 0.424
1.31 0.92 0.61
-24.2 91.4 178.0
6.74 6.55 5.36
20.68 19.01 19.60
1.04 10.1 2.5
Parameter
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Diethylene Dioxide
Ethyl benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Stvrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethene
1\/inyl chloride
Xylenes, Total ..-.--, __ ... ---". "" -1, 1 '-BiohenYI
Biohenyl Ether -. -. --~ " " ;;:;;-
Ethylene Glycol
""'· .. ·------~---Benzeneacetic acid
Benzeneorooanoic acid
Benzoic acid
Bromacil -
Butanoic acid
1-Butanol
Butyl acetate
2-Chlorophenol
2,5-Cyclohexadiene-1,4-dione,
Result
Type
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG . -
TRG
TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit T-35 T-58 V-23 V-65 W-23
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
"n/L 3.05 J · < 5.00 < 50.0 16.2 J < 5.00
"n/L < 1.00 0.760 J 20.5 2.44 < 1.00
"n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 50.0 UJ 7.80 J < 5.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 UJ <1.00UJ < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L 0.620 J 1.82 < 10.0 0.900 J < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L 61.0 69.1 732 511 133
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 2.70 J < 1.00 < 1.00
1m/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 50.0 < 5.00 < 5.00
1m/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
1m/L 0.850 J < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 5 UJ < 5 UJ 10735 J 1316 J <5 UJ
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 16.7 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L 1.80 < 1.00 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 10.0UJ < 1.00 < 1.00
µq/L < 2.00 <2.00 10.6 J < 2.00 < 2.00 . --. . ~-. -----C. -· ------... -,. ---· -..
11n/L I < 10.0 < 10.0 < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0 I
"n/L I 39.8 138 I < 200 < 10.0 13.2 I -____ . ..,, -. -_,,,,. __ _., __ ; _____ ,. ""·-·" , .. -,.a "' " --,,..,..,c--··-•==--"---""---·--------------
TRG mo/L < 7.00 < 7.00 3210 < 7.00 < 7.00 -. ·-.,. --. ------• ~7' --
TIC "n/L
TIC 11n/L ---- -
..
TIC "n/L - -1150 J - -
TIC 11n/L -----..
TIC 110/L - - - - -
TIC ua/L -.. - -
..
TIC ua/L - -967.9 J - -
TRG ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 200 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0
TIC uo/L --- --
7 of 27
W-23 DUP 2-78 AA-54
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 < 5.00 UJ < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 UJ < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
131 157 215
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 <5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5 UJ < 5 UJ 1.17 J
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 -------~ -·· ,. . --------< 10.0 I < 10.0 I < 10.0 I
12.1 I < 10.0 I < 10.0 ., ___ , ---,.--. "".CC:-C -. •o,_,,.,,., '~---=~ -., ____ . .,,. ··"" < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00
. --. .. -. --· .
-·--
- - -
----
- - -
-.. -
- --
< 10.0 < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
- - -
Parameter Result
Type
1,1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethvl ohthalate TRG
Diethvlene olvcol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,4lDioxinol2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naohthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitroohenol TIC
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methyl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methyl-2-butanone TIC
Methvl Cvclooctane TIC
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methvloroovl acetate TIC
2-Methvloronvl)-cvclooentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit T-35 T-58 V-23 V-65 W-23
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 · 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
"n/L" --
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
m/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
"n/L 2.9 J --
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 200 < 10.0 < 10.0
"n/L 2.1 J 4.4 J 530.2 J - -
"n/L - - - ---
"n/L - - - ---
11n/L -------
11n/L --- - -
11n/L ----6.5 J --
11n/L - -466.8 J - -
11n/L ---- ---
11n/L - - - ---
110/L -------
110/L - ----
uo/L ---- - -
uo/L - -423.7 J - -
uo/L --- - -
uo/L ---- - -
uo/L ---- --
uo/L --349.2 J - -
uo/L ---- - -
1rn/L --
"n/L ---8.3 J -
11n/L --- ---
11n/L ---- - -
11n/L -------
11n/L - -
---
11n/L < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ 154 J < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
11n/L - -252 J - -
uo/L ---- - -
8 of 27
W-23 DUP Z-78 AA-54
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
- -
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
- - -
----
---
----
- - -
----
- - -
----
- --
- - -
4.4 J - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
---- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
----
----
- - -
< 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
- - --- -
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010. First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
Parameter Result Unit Type
N-Methv lbenzenesulfonam ide TIC "n/L
N-methv l-n-I1-oxododecvll-Gb TIC ,m/L
Octanoic acid TIC "n/L
Pentanoic acid TIC ,m/L
Phenol TRG un/L
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC uoil
4-Phenoxy Phenol TIC "nil
Sulfur, mol. TIC "nil
Trimethyloxirane TIC "nil -, -------·= .,,~ -,c:. ,.,.,, __ --· M ;.--,,.. ,,-,,.=, " h ""-,1t1
Arsenic I
Manaanese ____ ,,,. .. . ,._.,._ ---· &,~-"'
Conductivity
DissolvedOxvoen
OxidationRP
oH
Temperature
Turbiditv
Notes:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
mS!cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg!L -milligrams per liter
mV • millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelomelric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
TRG moil
TRG moil
. . . . -~ .. .. ~--FIELD mSicm
FIELD moil
FIELD mV
FIELD SU
FIELD C
FIELD NTU
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP. sample duplicate
TIC. tentatively identified compound
TRG. target compound
T-35
9/23/2010
-
-
-
-
< 10.0
-
.
< 0.00500
0.795 . . " .
0.520
0.71
132.4
5.53
22.74
13.0
AECOM Project No. 60135442
T-58 V-23 V-65 W-23
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/23/2010
.. - -
.. -19.9 J -
.. - - -
.. 3675.7 J - -
< 10.0 35.8 J < 10.0 < 10.0
.. - -
..
..
.. ..
..
•. . ,.,-,~-~ ,--. . . ·~ ..
< 0.00500 0.00930 0.00580 < 0.00500
0.643 728 1.31 0.165 . .. '• •C ·---~-::-~ •• ..;.;.-c-~ _,,,__ -. ..
0.466 1.002 1.005 0.542
0.61 0.22 0.38 1.47
-37.8 53.5 -120.6 121.9
6.19 6.41 6.81 6.02
22.82 26.01 25.81 21.27
2.7 18.2 10.3 0.90
9 of 27
W-23 DUP Z-78 AA-54
9/23/2010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
-
-
- - -
-.. -
< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
-.. -
•·
..
.. . . ---... . .. .
< 0.00500 I < 0.00500 I < 0.00500 I
0.160 I 0.161 I 0.112 I
'-'---'-__ :..,.,·. '-=-·~ . .. -•-'' -0.162 0.331
-0.83 0.72
-19.1 219.4
-6.56 4.98
-25.35 18.31
-6.0 8
Parameter Result
Type
Acetone TRG
Benzene TRG
2-Butanone TRG
Carbon Disulfide TRG
Carbon Tetrachloride TRG
Chlorobenzene TRG
Chloroform TRG
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene TRG
1,2-Dichloroethane TRG
Diethvlene Dioxide TRG
Ethvlbenzene TRG
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone TRG
Styrene TRG
Tetrachloroethene TRG
Tetrahvdrofuran TRG
Toluene TRG
Trichloroethene TRG
,linvl chloride TRG
Xvlenes, Total TRG -, --~,.., ;.. . ,,__ -·· ---
1, 1 '-Biohenvl TRG
Biphenvl Ether TRG "'"· .. ,...,,, .• _.~,+ ·'"--·• ;.,.-,,;(-, ·"""'''·=· ·s:c•. e<r..,
Ethylene Glvcol I TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit BB-18 CC-33 CC-64 DD-58R GG-39
9/2212010 9/2212010 9/2212010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
11n/L < 5.00 <5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
110/L < 1.00 1.48 1.48 < 1.00 < 1.00
uo/L < 5.00 <5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
uo/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
,1n/L < 1.00 2.01 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 4.05 3.96 0.850 J < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L 7.38 80.9 132 78.7 38.1
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
uo/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
uo/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L 37.4 J 2.12 J 32 J < 5 UJ < 5 UJ
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 3.59 35.7 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 2.00 <2.00 < 2.00 <2.00 < 2.00 -_ _,,..-,_ --·-· . --__ , ____ ,_ .. _..aa,.., -• ----,.
ua/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 --
uo/L -3.11 J < 10.0 ----= ,,;o;·w,.=-,.., .•. ,-~.=c -----,. -~ ___ , "-·-s«s --~-""-c;., _____ ._2 .,-.w-'" ".,""'-""' ---,.__,._ --.,-.. ..
ma/L I < 7.00 I < 35.0 < 7.00 I < 7.00 < 7.00 ... ,,-~ ~ ------~,.---"'""'' .. -'. -" . ,., -. -. -~ -, __ ~ -.. ·--· . ~--." -·cc. ·• .. -
Benzeneacetic acid TIC 11n/L ----..
Benzeneorooanoic acid TIC 11n/L -----
Benzoic acid TIC 1m/L -----
Bromacil -TIC 1m/L ----..
Butanoic acid TIC un/L · ----..
1-Butanol TIC ua/L -----
Butyl acetate TIC ua/L -----
2-Chlorophenol TRG ua/L -< 10.0 UJ < 10.0 --
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC ua/L -----
10 of 27
GG-61 HH-48 HH-77
9/24/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 20.0
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 20.0
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 0.850 J
< 1.00 < 1.00 1.06 J
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
46.2 1.68 J 3.41
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 20.0
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 5 UJ < 5 UJ <20 UJ
< 1.00 < 1.00 <4.00
< 1.00 90.7 323
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 4.00
< 2.00 <2.00 < 8.00 . . . _ _. ·------, --... ,
-.. -
-.. -. -. -. . ' < 7.00 < 7.00 I < 7.00 I •. ' -' . -----.. ---·' -.. -
-.. -
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
.
Parameter Result
Type
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-0ichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Dieth;I phthalate TRG
Dieth; lene Qlycol TIC
Dieth,ltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,41Dioxinol2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, ... TIC
Oodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4,Eth1I-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Eth\ I-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenyl Naphthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitroohenol TIC
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methvl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methvl-2-butanone TIC
Methyl Cyclooctane TIC
2-Methyl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methyl-2-pentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methvloronvl acetate TIC
2-Methvloronvl)-cvclooentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010. First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit 88-18 CC-33 CC-64 DD-58R GG-39
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
"n/L -.. --
"n/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 -..
"n/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 -..
11n/L -.. - - -
ua/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 --
"n/L ..
""IL .. ..
"n/L .. ..
"n/L ..
"n/L --- -
"n/L -.. - --
· 11n/L - - - --
110/L -.. - -
..
11n/L
"n/L
"n/L
"n/L ..
"n/L .. ..
"n/L -.. ..
"n/L -.. - -
..
11n/L -.. - --
11n/L · -.. -- -
110/L -5.3 J - - -
,1n/L -.. ..
"n/L .. ..
""IL .. ..
"n/L .. ..
"n/L ..
"n/L . ..
"n/L < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
"n/L .. ..
Hn/L
11 of 27
GG-61 HH-48 HH-77
9/24/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
-
- - -
-- -
- -
-
..
.. -
- - -
- --
-- -
..
-
- - -
- -
-
-.. -
..
.. .. -
..
-.. -
Parameter Result
Type
N-Meth\ lbenzenesulfonamide TIC
N-methv l-n-I1-oxododecvll-Gh TIC
Octanoic acid TIC
Pentanoic acid TIC
Phenol TRG
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC
4-Phenoxv Phenol TIC
Sulfur, mol. TIC
Trimethvloxirane TIC ,..,, '~-,.~----'·"" ~" -·" .,-=. -· """''" """"" ~rsenic TRG
Manaanese TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit 88-18 CC-33 CC-64 DD-58R GG-39
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010 9/24/2010
""/L
""il --
""il ..
"nil --
11niL < 10.0 UJ < 10.0
"nil -..
"nil -----
11nil -.. ----
,mil -9J ---
GG-61
9/24/2010
-
-" .. ,,. __ ,_ ------"' ,,. ~· ~ ,. . ., '--~ ...... ,..,. ·----.. "'-"' ,c·,c,, -, -=~ -·· .. -~,.
___ ,
_,-'"""·,." . .
moil I 0.00630 I < 0.00500 I I
mail I -3.50 I 0.00590 ---
HH-48 HH-77
9/21/2010 9/21/2010
..
..
.. -
.. -
--.. ., __ . , .. ·-· ' .. 7
.. -7 .. -~--::,--=-~~-~"'' _,.,.,_.,.,,_ ---~-~'"-"'·---., -.,,, """' ~_,_" ~~""""--=-"'""-'"~--•=-·•,= ~ --"' -.-r---= . _,,.--.,._,,., "-'<¥"-'"-•~ -"°"'" . .. ---~--,=,., ~-«c; •• .,,~,,-/ • "'"'"'"'"'
Conductivity
DissolvedOxvaen
Oxidation RP
oH
Tem□erature
Turbiditv
Notes:
µg/l -micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mgfl -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
FIELD mSicm
FIELD mail
FIELD mV
FIELD SU
FIELD C
FIELD NTU
UJ -analyte was not detected: the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG -target compound
0.103 0.305 0.043
0.22 0.84 4.89
258.0 -6.5 120.7
4.50 7.11 6.01
19.83 21.73 23.32
4.06 7.89 1.86
12 of 27
0.542 0.191 0.174 0.064 0.078
1.40 3.35 1.93 5.8 5.2
-24 120.4 109.9 136 106
6.11 6.43 6.47 5.97 6.21
20.1 16.86 15.95 23.46 19.60
121 6.4 9.8 7 7
Parameter
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Diethvlene Dioxide
Ethvlbenzene
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethene
\/invl chloride
Xvlenes, Total ., , -----~--,. ...
1, 1 '-Biphenvl
Biphenyl Ether .
',.:: -~. --
Ethvlene Glvcol --. -... --~ ,.--
Benzeneacetic acid
Benzenepropanoic acid
Benzoic acid
Bromacll -
Butanoic acid
1-Butanol
Butvl acetate
2-Chloroohenol
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione,
Result
Type
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit 11-65 11-112 KK-55 LL-110 LL-175
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010
11n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 2.71 J
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
tm/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L 288 24.2 128 8.70 J 33.3
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 .< 1.00
uo/L 2.83J < 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 5 UJ
11n/L < 1.00 1.16. < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
1rn/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 2.00 0.860 J < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 ·--------~. '" . _,,_ ~ .-,,,;;,,,,---------·-. ---=-•--~~~ -,,,.._,.,_ __ .,__,, -· .... __ ,,.
TRG ua/L < 10.0 -< 10.0 -.I -
TRG uo/L I < 10.0 -I < 10.0 -I --. 0. ..,_ • --=c.."""''-•-"' °" . ~-.. "-. -"'--'""· ~= "'--··: ;.·. .. --'· -· ---" --· :c . .-"" --" .,,._,., ·"'· _,.. --
TRG mail I < 7.00 < 7.00 I < 7.00 < 7.00 I < 7.00
LL-295 MM-128
9/28/2010 9/24/2010
2.84J < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
<5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
10.9 13.2
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 5 UJ < 5 UJ
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 <2.00 -"'---~, -. ...
I -I -
I -I -. ' =··-~ ..,_ -¥ -. " ..
I < 7.00 <7.00 -. -.. ----=-_,,. --. .._,_ -"'-------~-~-.,. ------_,_,.. ,,. ~ --""· ·-·--------·--
TIC ua/L ---- - ----
TIC uo/L --- - - - -
TIC 11n/L ------
TIC 11n/L --- - ---
TIC 11n/L ---- - - - -
TIC 11n/L - - - - ---
TIC 11n/L - -- - - - -
TRG 11n/L < 10.0 -< 10.0 UJ - - - -
TIC 11n/L - - - - - --
13 of 27
MM-170
9/28/2010
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
66.1
< 1.00
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 5 UJ
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 2.00 --"''~ ..
-
---~ . .., -,..._ ' ,. ,r I
< 7.00 . -=_...,,.,_,_,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Parameter Result
Type
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Dieth1 I ohthalate TRG
Dieth1 lene qlycol TIC
Dieth\ ltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,4] Dioxinol2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naphthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitrophenol TIC
Hexamethv lcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methvl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methvl-2-butanone TIC
Methvl Cvclooctane TIC
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-pentanal TIC
4-Methyl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYlPHENOl TRG
2-Methvloroovl acetate TIC
2-Methvloronvl)-cvclooentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit 11-65 11-112 KK-55 LL-110 LL-175
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/24/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010
""/l
"nil < 10.0 --< 10.0 --
"nil < 10.0 < 10.0
"nil ---
"nil < 10.0 --< 10.0 ---.
11nll 2.8 J ----
,mil 2.2 J -----
"nil --
"nil
"nil --
"nil -
"nil ----
"nil -----
11nll -----
11nll ------
uoll -----
"nil
"nil
11n/L
"nil
"nil ---
"nil ---
unll ------
unll ----, --
uall -----
"nil
11n/L ----
im/L --
"nil --
"nil < 10.0UJ < 10.0UJ
"nil ---
"nil ----
14 of 27
LL-295 MM-128 MM-170
9/28/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010 -
---
------
---
---
---
---
----
-
-
---
---
---
Parameter Result
Type
N-Methvlbenzenesulfonamide TIC
N-methvl-n-( 1-oxododecvl)-GI, TIC
Octanoic acid TIC
Pentanoic acid TIC
Phenol TRG
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC
4-Phenoxv Phenol TIC
Sulfur, mol. TIC
Trimethvloxirane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc. I Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit 11-65 11-112 KK-55 LL-110 LL-175
912212010 9122/2010 9/24/2010 912412010 9128/2010
11n/L ------
11n/L -.. --..
ua/L -.. ---
ua/L -------
ua/L < 10.0 --< 10.0 --
"n/L ----
"n/L ---
"nil -------
11nll ------
LL-295
9128/2010
-
-
-
-
-
-
-. .,. r·~,,. _,.,,. ... .. -~-~-~«--· -~·· --. ,_,, ~~ .. -• ~ rnr w·,, .• ,_. _,,., ~ > • -·""' .. --·. ~ ·~-~-"""' ... ---~-.,_ ..-,,.· "....,,,._,,,,.,.,,
Arsenic
Manqanese -__ ,,_. ·';>A,~---' ·•--.
Conductivitv
DissolvedOxvnen
OxidationRP
nH
Temperature
Turbidity
Notes:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
TRG mqll
TRG mall
. ·""'"'" "-~~ '-·" . ~ -----~ ..
FIELD mS/cm
FIELD moll
FIELD mV
FIELD SU
FIELD C
FIELD NTU
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG -target compound
< 0.00500
0.00210
·-·~ ·-.c. -. -·
0.169
2.39
129
5.81
21.95
6
-< 0.00500 ---
--0.126 ---I -I -. ---. ---' -"'--'"'" -~-..... _._ -~-----·.
0.123 0.443 0.149 0.649 0.446
1.31 0.20 0.62 0.80 2.8
74.4 -51 20.1 -13 18
6.67 6.1 7.14 8.76 8.46
25.28 18.7 17.33 19.20 19.20
3 5 19 39 92
15 of 27
MM-128 MM-170
912412010 912812010
--
---
---
---
--
--
---
---
--..-,~-~=~----~----' ---
----... ,._ --. .. -"'~"''-·"'',-"'
0.205 0.688
0.60 0.40
-61.4 -4
7.03 8.72
17.65 18.40
1.4 18
Parameter
c.cetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dieth, lene Dioxide
Ethvlbenzene
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone
Stvrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrahvdrofuran
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xvlenes, Total ---. -~--. •-'
1, 1'-Biohenvl
Biohenvl Ether , __ -,_--'""·•--
Ethvlene Glvcol
Result
Type
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit MM-280 NN-105 NN-240 PP-70 IT-1
9/28/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010 9/23/2010 9/22/2010
"n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 27.4
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 0.860 J
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
""il < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L 11.5 172 45.6 62.3 < 2.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
11n/L < 5 UJ 25,9 J < 5 UJ -17.8J.
11n/L 0.810 J < 1.00 < 1.00 -< 1.00
11n/L < 1.00 0.580 J < 1.00 < 1.00
""il < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
1rn/L <2.00 <2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00
:,,,,c.c· ~ ---,----,..;,,.._ ___ -----· -~, ~ .,._ ... _-C-0..X __ ;;, •• ,~ •• ~ ., -~ .. ,..,-~--.. . ___ ..__,,
TRG 11n/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 -< 10.0
TRG 11n/L -6.43 J < 10.0 -I < 10.0 I
. ""' -,-,-.,----_,c _,,.,_ ___ ,: • .=. ----"----··cc..·, -"-""""'::Z.'"''
TRG mail I <7.00 < 7.00 I < 7.00 -< 70.0 I
IT-2 IT-3 IT-4
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010
< 5.00 4.53 J 4.66 J
1.44 0.620 J 1.35
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
7.30 < 2.00 64.4
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
41.7 J <5 UJ 21.4 J
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 <2.00 < 2.00 ,,,._,.._ ----_,,, "-""-~-------.,.-.,.. _----::-----;-::;-,4
< 10.0 < 10.0
2.71 J -< 10.0
p~• . .:c::c.:. .• 'Co -.. -7 --••<--=·, ----·-·--•
< 7.00 <7.00 < 7.00 ------, ,._,,,,.,._~,,.,~-----. . --... ~-""--~=-··· --. ,_,,,,-,:C,* • "' -· -· --,.. _..,._ . .., ' ... ". . •e· * A <Z,S -. -~-~ .,,,,.1'1< ~--""'/4 ---~ ,,,, ' •,c;,•.,
Benzeneacetic acid TIC "n/L ------
Benzeneorooanoic acid TIC 11n/L --------
Benzoic acid TIC 11n/L --------
Bromacil -TIC ua/L --------
Butanoic acid TIC 11n/L
1-Butanol TIC ""il
Butvl acetate TIC 11n/L ---
2-Chloroohenol TRG "n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 < 10.0 UJ --< 10.0
2, 5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC "n/L -
16 of 27
Parameter Result
Type
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethvl phthalate TRG
Diethvlene alvcol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,41Dioxinol2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naphthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitrophenol TIC
Hexameth\ lcyclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methvl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methvl-2-butanone TIC
Methyl Cvclooctane TIC
2-Methyl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methvloron, I acetate TIC
2-Methylproovl)-cvclopentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit MM-280 NN-105 NN-240 PP-70 IT-1
9/28/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010 9/23/2010 9/22/2010
110/L ---- - -
11a/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 -< 10.0
ua/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 -< 10.0
"n/L --
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
"n/L SJ 3,6 J
"n/L --
"n/L --
"n/L --
"n/L 49.2 J
"n/L -----
"n/L ------
110/L -4.1 J - - -
110/L ------
110/L ---- ---
"n/L ----
"n/L ----
"n/L --
"n/L ----
"n/L ---
"n/L -------
11n/L - - - --
110/L ------
"n/L
"n/L --
"n/L
"n/L ----
"n/L -
"n/L ---
11n/L -< 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ -< 10.0 UJ
11n/L - - - ---
110/L --- - -
17 of 27
IT-2 IT-3 IT-4
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010
----
< 10.0 --< 10.0
< 10.0 -< 10.0
< 10.0 --< 10.0
--3.6 J
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
----
----
--
--
--
--
--
- - -
- - -
---
--
< 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ
-- -
- - -
Parameter Result
Type
N-Meth, lbenzenesulfonamide TIC
N-meth, l-n-11-oxododecvll-GII TIC
Octanoic acid TIC
Pentanoic acid TIC
Phenol TRG
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC
4-Phenoxv Phenol TIC
Sulfur, mol. TIC
Trimethvloxirane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit MM-280 NN-105 NN-240 PP-70 IT-1
9/28/2010 9/24/2010 9/28/2010 9/23/2010 9/22/2010
11n/L ----
,on/L
,on/L --
,on/L --
,on/L -< 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
,on/L --
,on/L ----
,on/L ---
,on/L -9.6 J
IT-2
9/22/2010
< 10.0 UJ
. ,.·, ' ---''"'""''" . '""·"' """"" ; , . -~ ---,,,h~~ ,c "->~,.,.._,_ . '"'""' .. --~ ..~ --"""-.c.,-. --~----,:;.. -~ _. ,>¾<_,.._,..._ ___ ,,. ,...,.. •• -,,.,,-.---"-'= , =·-• • e.·
!Arsenic TRG moil -0.00470 < 0.00500 -0.0195 I < 0.00500
Manqanese TRG mq/L -0.00980 0.0162 -I 1.36 I 23.9
IT-3
9/22/2010
-
-
.. ''"""' -
-. ... ··--------" ~-•·--~----~--=~ -•-"-= "·""''' -~--~ --· ----.;. -..... ---~---"-"" -. --;,~. .. -. ~ ' --. ---·--. ---~"""-----. _,,, . -.-'-4
Conductivitv
DissolvedOxvnen
OxidationRP
nH
Temoerature
Turbiditv
Notes:
µg/l -micrograms per liter
mSfcm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU. Nephelometric Turbidlty Units
J . estimated concentration
FIELD mS/cm
FIELD mail
FIELD mV
FIELD SU
FIELD C
FIELD NTU
UJ • analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP • sample duplicate
TIC• tentatively identified compound
TRG • target compound
0.193
0.60
-81
10.53
18.50
19
0.423 0.304 0.419 0.365 0.570 0.399
1.14 1.10 3.70 0.99 0.19 0.10
-31.0 21 80 -4.8 -28.9 -135.9
9.46 8.65 7.20 7.26 6.29 6.98
18.39 16.9 18.9 22.37 20.84 21.29
2.9 7 17 20.9 5.7 22.0
18 of 27
IT-4
9/22/2010
< 10.0
·~·"'' .. " 0.00530
2.39 --~------· ., -0.260
0.06
-107.7
6.81
23.67
49
Parameter Result
Type
Acetone TRG
Benzene TRG
2-Butanone TRG
Carbon Disulfide TRG
Carbon Tetrachloride TRG
Chlorobenzene TRG
Chloroform TRG
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene TRG
1,2-Dichloroethane TRG
Diethylene Dioxide TRG
Ethylbenzene TRG
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone TRG
Styrene TRG
Tetrachloroethene TRG
Tetrahydrofuran TRG
Toluene TRG
Trichloroethene TRG
,tinvl chloride TRG
Xvlenes, Total TRG -~-·-..,.. ~ ·-..... ' ~ • --* ._, -"' -" ---· --1, 1 '-Biohenyl TRG
Biohenyl Ether TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit IT-5 IT-6 IT-7 IT-SR IT-9
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010
,rn/L 244 < 50.0 56.6 56.4 2.94J
,rn/L 5.83 J 11.3 44.8 2.12 < 1.00
,rn/L 452 < 50.0 < 5.00 5.16 < 5.00
,rn/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
1Ja/L < 10.0 < 10.0 41.6 5.45 2.34
11a/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 1.18
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 1.03 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L 1450 2690 484 1100 571
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L 6.19 J 151 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L 15116J 9229 J 2412 J 45.7 J 5.9 J
ua/L 1.81 J 4.07 J 20.7 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 1.00 < 1.00 1.33
"n/L < 20.0 2.96 J 2.50 < 2.00 < 2.00
~· -,. ----.. . ---------. ·-·-
I 11n/L -I -< 10.0 - -
I 11n/L ---3.42 J - -
c.,u,,.;, -'~------""'"" -',,C: ·""' -• __ ,..,.,_~,, -c. .. ,~ ~·--· '""---'' --. . -.,,,.,. ·, . -___ ,, . ~-,-,,-__ , '-"' ,,.----. --.
Ethylene Glycol TRG mq/L 467 669 36.2 I 514 < 7.00
OT-1R OT-2R OT-3
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
0.680 J < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 UJ
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 UJ
1.63 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
1.79 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
92.3 101 64.0
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
<5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 5 UJ < 5 UJ < 5 UJ
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 .. --. -__ ,_ •------..
-< 10.0 -
-5.10 J --.. -_ "' . . --.,, ~~ _.,.,_
< 7.00 I < 7.00 I < 7.00 ... __ , ___ ---=---~-'--~-• . "·'"'-' C"-• ,-•<. --~--,. .. .... ,----=·-. -----_,.,_._,.,,_,s_ •• -..-•=-. -~""'-= -_, .-,,,,~,-~ -~·-< ----~ "'$ --'=·-----~-,,.-~-.
Benzeneacetic acid TIC "n/L ---- - - ----
Benzeneorooanoic acid TIC 11n/L - -213 J - - ---
Benzoic acid TIC 11n/L -.. ---- -
-
Bromacil -TIC 11n/L ---- ---- - -
Butanoic acid TIC ua/L ------ --
1-Butanol TIC ua/L ---170.7 J -------
Butyl acetate TIC ua/L - - - ---- - -
2-Chloroohenal TRG "n/L < 10.0 < 10.0UJ
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC "n/L 4J
19 of 27
'
-·
-,
Parameter ·Result
Type
1, 1-0ibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethvl ohthalate TRG
Diethvlene alvcol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,4IDioxinaf2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethvl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenvl Naohthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitroohenol TIC
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanoic acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
I ado benzene TIC
4-Methyl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methyl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methyl-2-butanone TIC
Methyl Cyclooctane TIC
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methvloronvl acetate TIC
2-Methvloronvl)-cvclooentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010: First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit IT-5 IT-6 IT-7 IT-SR IT-9
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010
ua/L -----
ua/L -.. 2.36 J --
ua/L --4.77 J --
""il ..
""/L .. < 10.0
""/L ..
""/L
"n/L -.. -
"n/L -.. 84.SJ --
11n/L -.. --..
11n/L -.. ---
11n/L -----
11n/L ------
11n/L ----·-
11n/L -----
11n/L -----
un/L -----
un/L -.. --..
ua/L ------
ua/L -----
ua/L --55.1 J --
ua/L -.. 48J --
ua/L -.. ---
ua/L -----
ua/L -----
""/L
11n/L
11n/L ..
11n/L --
11n/L --61.8 J --
11n/L -----
11n/L --158.2 J --
20 of 27
OT-1R OT-2R OT-3
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010
---
-< 10.0 -
-< 10.0 -
..
< 10.0
..
---
---
---
-.. -
-.. -
---
------
-.. -
-.. -
---
------
----
---
---
< 10.0 UJ
--
--
Parameter
N-Methylbenzenesulfonamide
N-methvl-n-/ 1-oxododecvll-Glv
Octanoic acid
Pentanoic acid
Phenol
2-Phenoxv Ethanol
4-Phenoxv Phenol
Sulfur. mol.
Trimethvloxirane
'"'. ,. -.,, -·,
Arsenic
Manaanese ··-.. ..• . .
Conductivity
DissolvedOxvaen
OxidationRP
oH
Temperature
Turbidity
Notes:
µg/l -micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/L . milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometrlc Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
. --··
I
I
-·"'-
Result
Type
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC
TRG
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit IT-5 IT-6 IT-7 IT-BR IT-9
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/22/2010
"n/L ..
"n/L
"n/L .. ---
11n/L -.. ---
11n/L --< 10.0 --
1m/L -.. 161.5 J --
lln/L -.. ----
ua/L -.. ---
ua/L -.. ---""-~-·-"'"'· . .. . . -----"" -~ ----=·-· ~~ --.. .
TRG moll -I .. < 0.00500 I --
TRG mall -I .. 95.1 I --.. '-"------_ ..... .. . . . __ ,,. .. .·.-ffc . ·"'-"'·" --~-~--.
FIELD mS/cm 5.022 6.600 1.537 3.722 0.993
FIELD mall 0.24. 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.19
FIELD mV -45.6 53.1 -84.0 32.1 44.1
FIELD SU 5.85 4.77 6.31 5.26 5.46
FIELD C 24.87 25.14 25.15 26.00 24.00
FIELD NTU 16 16 17 16 9.2
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate m
OUP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG -target compound
21 of 27
OT-1R OT-2R OT-3
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/23/2010
.. -
.. -
---
-.. -
-< 10.0 UJ -
-.. -
-.. -
---
---. .. ... • S"'-, .. -"'~ . ---,. -< 0.00500 I -I
-I 0.600 I -I . . ----· . __ ".., . -----~ -· -•
0.483 0.566 0.309
6.55 1.08 0.47
-278 -84 -95.9
6.53 6.95 7.06
18.63 18.69 19.75
6 7 9
Parameter Result
Type
Acetone TRG
Benzene TRG
2-Butanone TRG
Carbon Disulfide TRG
Carbon Tetrachloride TRG
Chlorobenzene TRG
Chloroform TRG
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene TRG
1,2-Dichlaroethane TRG
Diethvlene Dioxide TRG
Ethvlbenzene TRG
4-Methvl-2-Pentanone TRG
Stvrene TRG
Tetrachloroethene TRG
Tetrahvdrofuran TRG
Toluene TRG
Trichloroethene TRG
Vinvl chloride TRG
Xvlenes, Total TRG ---"-~ ,._. .. __ , __ ,_ -' ___ _.,
1, 1 '-Biohenvl TRG
Biohenvl Ether TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit OT-5 PZ-12 PEW-1 PEW-3 PEW-3 DUP
9/23/2010 9/24/2010 9/22/2010 9/29/2010 9/29/2010
ua/L < 5.00 < 5.00 4.65J < 5.00 < 5.00
""il < 1.00 < 1.00 1.02 < 1.00 < 1.00
""/L < 5.00 UJ < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
11n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
,,n/L <1.00UJ < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
,,n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
,m/L < 1.00 < 1.00 0.690 J < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 4.45 < 1.00 < 1.00
uo/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
""/L 12.3 214 24.5 < 2.00 <2.00
""/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
""'L < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00 < 5.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
"n/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
un/L < 5 UJ < 5 UJ 148 J < 5 UJ < 5 UJ
un/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 12.5 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00 < 1.00
ua/L < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00 < 2.00
-· .... ~ .... --____ . .-,;...,,., ~, ----.... '" -~--· -··-_,-,... -.
11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 I < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 I < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
PEW-4
9/22/2010
< 5.00
0.550 J
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
0.770 J
0.500 J
< 1.00
81.2
< 1.00
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
7.59 J
< 1.00
15.1
< 1.00
< 2.00
~~~ ..
I < 10.0
I 13.9
'"'-"'"·'""='-··""·"·==="'=~c-,;,,,.=t=;';·_= .. ·c·,;--;.-,--·~ ::r. " .. _., ~-~ -, " ---~"'';.-~,,_ ____ """'·'"''="='-~-~""'.'ff y~-___ .........,,,.-,.,:;=. ,.-;O"'" ·µ '" ,_.,,..,.,,_,,_,,,_,,_s,_s,_-~..,,,.
Ethvlene Glvcol TRG mail < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00
PEW-4 DUP TD-2
9/22/2010 9/21/2010
< 5.00 8.60
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
0.770 J < 1.00
0.610 J < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
83.6 < 2.00
< 1.00. < 1.00
<5.00 < 5.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
7.19 J 4.91 J
< 1.00 < 1.00
15.5 < 1.00
< 1.00 < 1.00
< 2.00 < 2.00 --... . ----·-.,
< 10.0 -
14.9 -
;::~---°"k1 •=,.a.,;-:;c ,;;,.,,,;c·· . ·;,.;·, ---~
< 7.00 < 7.00 .,,. .-. ~--~' -, . ~ .,.,.,,.. , ------0' --~--.,.,,,. .,,,.._.., ~-,,. '"" "'""·"'="·. __ _,,, -"' '"'~, -_,,, "'=" , "---~ ""' -.. , -........ _.,_ ,,.,.,,,,. '~~ .. =s==·•,,;,z;,,,c-·""'· ·: •,-•. · ~--~ _ . .__., •• -.x.c-=--,
Benzeneacetic acid TIC 11n/L ----
Benzeneorooanoic acid TIC ""IL ----
Benzoic acid TIC ""/L ----
Bromacil -TIC "n/L ------
Butanoic acid TIC "n/L ---- - - - -
1-Butanol TIC "n/L --- -·-- -
Butvl acetate TIC "n/L - - - - - - - -
2-Chloroohenol TRG "n/L <.10.0 < 10.0UJ < 10.0 < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ -
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1,4-dione, TIC "nil - - - -- -- -
22 of 27
Parameter Result
Type
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG
Dichloroiodomethane TIC
Diethyl phthalate TRG
Diethylene qlycol TIC
Diethvltoluamide TIC
1,2-Diiodoethane TIC
1,4lDioxinol2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC
Dodecanoic Acid TIC
Ethyl Benzoic acid TIC
4-Ethyl-Benzenemethanol TIC
2-Ethyl-1-hexanol TIC
2-Ethenyl Naphthalene TIC
2-Fluoro-6-nitrophenol TIC
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC
Hexanal TIC
Hexanolc acid TIC
1-Hexanol TIC
lodobenzene TIC
4-Methyl Benzoic acid TIC
3-Methyl Butanoic acid TIC
3-Methyl-2-butanone TIC
Methyl Cyclooctane TIC
2-Methyl-1,3-dioxolane TIC
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC
2-Methvl Prooanoic acid TIC
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG
2-Methvloronvl acetate TIC
2-Methvloronvll-cvcloPentane TIC
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit OT-5 PZ-12 PEW-1 PEW-3 PEW-3 DUP
9/23/2010 9/24/2010 9/22/2010 9/29/2010 9/29/2010
"n/L ------
"n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
uo/L ---- - -
ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
ua/L 2.3 J --SJ ---
"n/L -
"n/L ---- ---
"n/L ---- --
11n/L -- - - -
11n/L - - ---
ua/L ----- -
ua/L - - - - -
ua/L ----- -
"n/L --
"n/L --
"n/L ---- ---
"n/L ------
11n/L ----- -
11n/L ---- ---
11n/L ----- -
ua/L - - - ---
ua/L ---- ---
ua/L - --- -
"n/L ----
11n/L ----
"n/L --- - -
"n/L ---- ---
"n/L - - - -
-
"n/L < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0UJ < 10.0 UJ < 10.0UJ
11n/L ---- - -
11n/L - - - - -
23 of 27
PEW-4 PEW-4 DUP TD-2
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/21/2010
- - -
< 10.0 < 10.0 -
< 10.0 < 10.0 -
- --
< 10.0 < 10.0 -
3.1 J - -
- - -
- ---- -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- --- - -
2.3 J 2.7 J
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
----
----
----
----
- - ---
- - -
- - -
----
---
< 10.0UJ < 10.0UJ -
- - -
- - -
Parameter
N-Methvlbenzenesulfonamide
N-methvl-n-( 1-oxododecvll-Glv
Octanoic acid
Pentanoic acid
Phenol
2-Phenoxy Ethanol
4-Phenoxy Phenol
Sulfur, mol.
Trimethvloxirane .. ··~ '• -. ·-".
Arsenic
Manoanese ·---~.,_ -~--""""'"'"""~"""'-
Conductivitv
DissolvedOx\lnen
Oxidation RP
nH
Temoerature
Turbidity
Notes:
µg/L -micrograms per liter
mS/cm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
c -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
Result
Type
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC
TRG
TIC
TIC
TIC
TIC .
TRG
TRG
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 ~ First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Unit OT-5 PZ-12 PEW-1 PEW-3 PEW-3 DUP
9/23/2010 9/24/2010 9/22/2010 9/29/2010 9/29/2010
11n/L -----
11n/L -.. --..
11n/L ----..
11a/L ----..
uo/L < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0 < 10.0
ua/L ----..
"n/L ..
"n/L 20,3 J 10.3 J ..
"n/L --
'. . . " .. . ~-. .. ~-·-.. .. -. ·-·--· .---~--'-
mall < 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500 < 0.00500
mall 0,153 0.184 0.0255 0.120 0.139 .•. --· ---•-¥'"" ~·· . ----~-""-'"' -~-' _..,_.....,. __ .,,,.,~.;-~;.,;,; -·---....... ......
FIELD mSlcm 0.118 0.445 0.082 0.077 ·-
FIELD mall 0.25 0.89 0.47 2.4 ..
FIELD mV -517 -72.8 146.2 33 ..
FIELD SU 7.09 7.36 5.76 8.58 -
FIELD C 18.24 20.50 21.57 21.20 -
FIELD NTU 8 2 5 8 -
UJ . analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP -sample duplicate
TIC• tentatively identified compound
TRG • target compound
24 of 27
PEW-4 PEW-4 DUP TD-2
9/22/2010 9/22/2010 9/21/2010
---
---
-.. -
---
< 10.0UJ < 10.0 UJ -
---
---
---. --'". --' < 0.00500 < 0.00500 -
0.932 0.942 -
~-------"'""""'·•"-', -· . -'--------,.
0.081 .. 0.097
0.34 -0.97
127 -226.2
5.36 -4.64
21.74 -23.28
3 -8.5
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010. First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Parameter Result Unit TD-3 TD-4 Tl-2
Type 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
Acetone TRG o,n/L 8.07 < 250 < 5.00
Benzene TRG o,n/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
2-Butanone TRG lln/L < 5.00 < 250 < 5.00
Carbon Disulfide TRG lln/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Carbon Tetrachloride TRG ,,nfL < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Chlorobenzene TRG ,,nfL < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Chloroform . TRG ,,nfL 1.20 15.4 J 6.03
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene TRG o,n/L 1.87 < 50.0 < 1.00
1,2-Dichloroethane TRG o,n/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Diethvlene Dioxide TRG lln/L 1.24 J < 2.00 3.94
Eth; !benzene TRG lln/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
4-Meth; I-2-Pentanone TRG lln/L < 5.00 < 250 < 5.00
Styrene TRG ,,nJL < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Tetrachloroethene TRG "n/L < 1.00 < 50.0 4.86
Tetrahvdrofuran TRG .. n/L < 25 UJ < 250 UJ < 5 UJ
Toluene TRG r1n/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Trichloroethene TRG o,n/L 41.2 4280 7.79
Vinvl chloride TRG o,n/L < 1.00 < 50.0 < 1.00
Xvlenes, Total TRG o,n/L < 2.00 < 100 <2.00
. -, __ --. -----,._ .. --. " ·-..,.._._.._ __ ,
1, 1 '-Biohenv I TRG lln/L I 4.48 J < 10.0 -
Biphenvl Ether TRG "n/L I 31.2 < 10.0
Tl-2 DUP
9/21/2010
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 5.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
< 1.00
6.14
< 1.00
< 1.00
3.21
< 1.00
< 5.00
< 1.00
4.80
< 5 UJ
< 1.00
7.71
< 1.00
<2.00 ,._. -_,... '-" -
I -
I ... " -~ ... .. -. ·-= ---, ---"--"""'-'-... •. ----,~'-' ,s"". " -. -" .. .. . ----·'"· --·'"""-= -···""'
Ethv Jene Glvcol TRG ma/L I < 7.00 < 7.00 < 7.00 <7.00 --·• .. = ,,----~---, .. ,,,. .-' ..... ~ """"'"'" __ ,,,_ ~~ __ ,,_ . .__ ___ ., ___ ,_. .. ~""---~ . . .-u.-------=·'"" ___ ,..,..,
Benzeneacetic acid TIC lln/L - - - -
Benzenepropanoic acid TIC "n/L --
Benzoic acid TIC ,,nfL
Bromacil -TIC ,,nfL
Butanoic acid TIC "n/L
1-Butanol TIC o,n/L
B utv I acetate TIC o,n/L
2-Chlaroohenol TRG o,n/L < 10.0 < 10.0
2,5-Cvclohexadiene-1, 4-dione, TIC lln/L - - -
25 of 27
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Parameter Result Unit TD-3 TD-4 Tl-2
Type 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
1, 1-Dibutoxv Butane TIC IJ□/L - ---
1,2-dichlorobenzene TRG ua/L < 10,0 < 10,0 --
1,4-Dichlorobenzene TRG ua/L < 10.0 < 10.0 -
Dichloroiodomethane TIC 11n/L
Diethvl ohthalate. TRG 11n/L < 10.0 < 10.0 --
Diethvlene alvcol TIC 1rn/L 4.4 J 7.59 J --
Dielhvltaluamide TIC IJ□/L - - -
1.2-Diiodoethane TIC ll□/L ---
1,41Dioxinof2,3-bl-1 ,4-dioxin, .. TIC IJ□/L - - -
Dodecanoic Acid TIC ua/L - - -
Ethyl Benzoic acid TIC ua/L --. -
4-Ethvl-Benzenemethanol TIC 11n/L
2-Ethvl-1-hexanol TIC IJ□/L
2-Ethenvl Naohthalene TIC IJ□/L -
2-Fluoro-6-nitroohenol TIC IJ□/L - - -
Hexamethvlcvclotrisiloxane TIC IJ□/L - - -
Hexanal TIC IJ□/L ---
Hexanoic acid TIC IJ□/L - - -
1-Hexanol TIC ua/L . - - -
lodobenzene TIC ua/L - - -
4-Methvl Benzoic acid TIC IJ□/L --
3-Methvl Butanoic acid TIC IJ□/L . --
3-Methvl-2-butanone TIC IJ□/L
Methvl Cvclooclane TIC IJ□/L - - -
2-Methvl-1,3-dioxolane TIC IJ□/L - - -
2-Methvl-2-oentanal TIC IJ□/L - ---
4-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC ua/L - - -
2-Methvl Pentanoic acid TIC ua/L - - -
2-Melhyl Propanoic acid . TIC uo/L - - -
3&4-METHYLPHENOL TRG IJ□/L < 10.0 UJ < 10.0 UJ -
2-Methvloro□vl acetate TIC IJ□/L
2-Methvloronvl)-cvclooentane TIC "n/L
26 of 27
Tl-2 DUP
9/21/2010
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Parameter Result Unit TD-3 TD-4
Type 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
N-Methylbenzenesulfonamide TIC 11a/L 11.2 J -
N-methyl-n-( 1-oxododecvl)-Gly TIC ua/L --
Octanoic acid TIC uo/L - -
Pentanoic acid TIC r1n/L
Phenol TRG "n/L < 10.0 < 10.0
2-Phenoxv Ethanol TIC "n/L. --
4-Phenoxv Phenol TIC "n/L - -
Sulfur, mol. TIC 11n/L - -
Trimethvloxirane TIC 11□/L 10.2 J BJ
-.,,-·-~· "'• ,.,_ . "'· ""'~"' -· ---~-,-·-=~-,----.. -~•·c _,, •· ~--~ .,_. --' .. , ~ .-, -o ~ C
Arsenic TRG I moil < o.00500 I < 0.00500
Manaanese TRG I . '-"'•--~, -. ------~-CM,__..c,,
Conductivity
DissolvedOxvaen
OxidationRP
DH
Temoerature
Turbiditv
Notes:
µg/L ·-micrograms per liter
mSfcm -milliseimens per centimeter
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolts
SU -Standard Units
C -Celsius
NTU -Nephelometric Turbidity Units
J -estimated concentration
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
FIELD
mail -·-.,.,, ___
mS/cm
moll
mV
SU
C
NTU
UJ -analyte was not detected; the reporting detection is inaccurate 01
DUP -sample duplicate
TIC -tentatively identified compound
TRG. target compound
0.136 ------A•
0.266
2.60
148.9
5.34
27.15
20.4
27 of 27
I 0.0656 ... --~--
0.046
0.58
84.3
6.64
28.40
40
Tl-2
9/21/2010
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
-'. . --
-
~ --~ -. -
0.048
4.38
124.1
6.01
22.20
19
Tl-2 DUP
9/21/2010
-
-
-
-
-
-
-... -• a
-
---~ -~ ...
-
-
-
--
-
Parameter
Diethvlene Dioxide ,. . -Conductivity
Dissolved Oxvaen
ORP
JH
Temoerature
Turbidity
Table 3
CNA_ Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Surface Water Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5
Unit 9/20/2010 9/20/2010 9/21/2010 9/20/2010 9/20/2010
mq/L 0.0104 0.0684 0.0276 0.0224 0.00827
., ·--. .. . · .. ·. --· ·-· --. ,. ... .
mS/cm 0.204 0.515 0.281 0.223 0.356
mg/L 5.69 7.84 6.21 --2.08
mV 71.1 55.9 63.9 69.7 82.8
SU 7.70 7.12 8.27 7.19 7.25
C 19.41 21.39 19.19 21.39 20.40
NTU 1.4 1.3 1.8 2.0 1.8
1 of 2
SW-6 SW-7
9/21/2010 9/21/2010
0.00303 0.022 . .. -, .. "µ• ' 0.085 0.216
5.75 6.9
71 79.9
7.84 8.14
19.86 19.70
-24.0
Parameter
Diethylene Dioxide
~s:c::~:· ·· ''«~/;"£""' , .• 's•.,¼i. .
Conductivity
Dissolved Oxvnen
ORP
nH
Temperature
Turbiditv
Table 3
CNA Holdings Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Surface Water Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
SW-8 SW-9 SW-10 SW-10 DUP SW-11
Unit 9/20/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010 9/21/2010
mQ/L 0.00355 0.0218 0.0135 0.0137 0.0151
SW-12
9/21/2010
0.0171
~e2 -1«,"~E""""'">:v;: -···o.JI '--' . ~""¼:le·;;;'"""''". F·iX'i'-'"""-· ... •··.··~ ' _:,:,i~"-f.;::"'C~ ";[-'·~,+•--, . ,,,,..,-,k-~· ,. '',e. "" ----:ti'"''""'""' .
mS/cm 0.069 0.200 0.166 --0.181 0.191
mail 6.00 7.71 7.30 -6.8 6.9
mV 56.9 90 77 -64 79
SU 7.73 7.82 7.90 --8.00 7.66
C 21.88 20.30 22.10 --21.90 20.7
NTU 2.6 --2.40 --6 5
2 of 2
SW-13
9/20/2010
<0.002
::,;,y~.-'.c•,~i"
0.154
-
-73.4
7.84
22.50
45.0
Well ID
A-39
AA-41
AA-54
B-34
BB-18
CC-33
CC-64
D-27
D-35
D-56
D-88
DD-58R
EE-58
F-55
FF-23
FF-34
FF-62
G-50
G-88
GG-25
GG-39
GG-61
H-59
H-79
HH-48
HH-77
1-57
11-112
11-40
11-65
IT-1
IT-2
IT-3
IT-4
IT-5
IT-6
IT-7
IT-8R
IT-9
J-29
J-59
JJ-40
JJ-65
K-28
K-58
KK-27
KK-55
Table 4
CNA Holdings, Inc./ Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Second Half 2010 -First Expanded Characterization Event
Groundwater Elevation Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Groundwater Groundwater
Date Elevation Well ID Date Elevation Well ID Date
9/20/2010 803.68 LL-110 9/2012010 762.978 Q-33 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 750.397 LL-175 9/20/2010 754.962 R-17 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 750.108 LL-295 9/20/2010 733.93 R-42 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 773.904 M-28 9/2012010 778.449 S-1 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 762.884 M-44 9/20/2010 779.924 S-50 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 792.822 MM-128 9/20/2010 752.72 SW-13 9/2012010
9/20/2010 793.685 MM-170 9/20/2010 753.988 T-1 9/21/2010
9/21/2010 823.955 MM-280 9/20/2010 761.073 T-17 9/20/2010
9/21/2010 823.704 N-29 9/20/2010 788.556 T-2 9/21/2010
9/21/2010 823.521 N-53 9/21/2010 787.32 T-35 9/20/2010
9/21/2010 823.733 NN-105 9/20/2010 764.203 T-58 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 762.58 NN-280 9/20/2010 759.44 TD-1 9/21/2010
9/21/2010 758.92 0-25 9/20/2010 792.824 TD-2 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 812.907 0-59 9/20/2010 792.985 TD-3 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 760.552 00-150 9/20/2010 760.74 TD-4 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 760.659 00-218 9/20/2010 760.026 Tl-1 9/2012010
9/20/2010 760.14 00-95 9/20/2010 759.643 Tl-2 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 815.297 OT-10 9120/2010 779.928 U-38 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 814.754 OT-1R 9/20/2010 767.51 V-23 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 751.993 OT-2R 9/20/2010 770.3 V-65 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 752.16 OT-3 9/20/2010 766.25 W-23 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 752.33 OT-4 9/20/2010 766.96 X-32 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 804.751 OT-5 9/20/2010 761.1 Y-38 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 803.4 OT-6 9120/2010 752.73 Y-74 9/20/2010
9/20/2010 714.531 OT-6A. 9/20/2010 765.03 Z-78 9/20/2010
9/2012010 714.404 OT-7 9/20/2010 753.78
9/20/2010 807.364 OT-7A 9/20/2010 775.08
9/20/2010 732.92 OT-8 9/20/2010 772.85
9/20/2010 731.745 P-31 9/20/2010 770.082
9/20/2010 732.05 P-58 9/20/2010 767.225
9/20/2010 795.472 PEW-1 9120/2010 802.943
9/20/2010 798.07 PEW-3 9/21/2010 812.023
9/20/2010 796.96 PEW-4 9/20/2010 814.622
9/20/2010 797.259 PP-70 9/20/2010 726.38
9/20/2010 798.514 PZ-1 9/20/2010 756.722
9/20/2010 799.315 PZ-10 9/20/2010 746.393
9/2012010 799.363 PZ-11 9/20/2010 752.922
9/20/2010 798.015 PZ-12 9/20/2010 746.382
9/20/2010 796.78 PZ-2 9/20/2010 759.957
9/20/2010 805.614 PZ-5A 9/20/2010 756.096
9/20/2010 804.888 PZ-5B 9/20/2010 755.486
9120/2010 717.555 PZ-6A 9/20/2010 764.809
9/20/2010 717.396 PZ-6B 9120/2010 764
9/20/2010 793.329 PZ-7A 9/20/2010 752.989
9/20/2010 792.514 PZ-7B 9/20/2010 779.445
9/20/2010 738.242 PZ-8 9/21/2010 759.311
9/20/2010 738.444 PZ-9 9/20/2010 754.744
1 of 1
Groundwater
Elevation
765.887
769.048
769.563
806.91
801.463
802.82
830.611
765.72
830.377
765.663
770.499
804.751
808.058
818.001
816.538
809.448
807.848
806.641
799.81
799.84
787.305
782.658
774.77
776.917
776.811
D
\
T-2
)
PRODUCTION
AREA
S SI " -SI
~.:8.
ea--... ,
DD-58RO I
SW-8
"
z.
-6 ,es
.... tt
.0. .J,L
Z-6A J1,
\
\
\
I
SW-7 I
I
I
LEGEND
@ MONITORING WELL
-$-EXTRACTION WELL
181 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
A PIEZOMETER
A:COM
®sw-10
Sl-14♦ S.16 ® ♦Sl-17
Sl-13 ♦ SW-11 ♦ S1-15
Sl-10♦ Sl♦1 ♦• Sl-190 Sl-12 s1--0a.:,'-09♦
SW-12t8:I Sl-18D
o· 500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 1
WELL LOCATIONS
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./ CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2011 60135442
u
\--~,"--\---+--
\--+---
\_+---\--+---
\-1----\----1--
i
!
□=
LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
,& PIEZOMETER
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
' ·"·, ~te \ ee8..__, ,
... □□JsaR W<7.00
I
.------.1
I
I
,,•-~-~-
760 75 __ _
\
I
I
\
\
I
A:COM
O' 500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 2
ETHYLENE GLYCOL
SEPTEMBER 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./ CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2011 60135442
\-------,"-\---+--
\--+--i-+---
\-+---
i-+----\-+----i---lc---
\ ;
LEGEND
Cl) MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
A PIEZOMETER
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
"""
~
'
' . <"
• 4
. 01
•" •
M•
<O.
;is'r--,t\·~ ---=-.~
I
I
I
\
I
\
\
I
,,•-~---
"' .
. ''"' 7{8 \
~ ' ..,.oo\ssR
V'<:0.001
I
.. ----...J
"" ,,
AS'COM
O' 500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 3
TCE
SEPTEMBER 2010
CNA HOLDINGS. INC. I CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2011 60135442
'i'i
D
LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
A PIEZOMETER
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
,., . ~.
' \
I ' ' I
_____ __J
·----.../ "·~----~-,,·-~-~-
""' 75 __ _
I
I
\
I
I
\
\
I
A:COM
O' 500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 4
BIPHENYL ETHER
SEPTEMBER 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./ CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2011 60135442
Cl
0
;
LEGEND
8 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
A PIEZOMETER
0 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
.,
;,:8 \
~ . A□□laSR W0.0787
\ 9PR-70 . ____ _(?E523
W-7
22
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
I
G]sw-12
0.0171
o· 500'
SCALE
(8Jsw-10
0.0135
ISJsw-11
0.0151
1000'
FIGURE 5
DIETHYLENE DIOXIDE
SEPTEMBER 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./ CELANESE FIBERS OPERATIONS SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2011 60135442
A:COM AECOM 404.965.9600 tel
One Midtown Plaza
1360 Peachtree St. N.E.
Suite 500
404.965.9605 fax
September 27, 2010
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
Atlanta, GA 30309
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Subject: Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
OU-1 Semiannual Report
January 2010 -June 2010
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Document Control Number: 026SB-296
Dear Ms. Walden,
Please find attached the analytical data associated with sampling event completed at the Former
Celanese Fibers Operations site during the first half of 2010. Data were collected under the
approved interim sampling plan.
EP 2 '8 t0/0
UNosEcr,o
The samples were collected during March 2010. A summary of the groundwater data is presented
in Table 1. A summary of the surface water data is presented in Table 2. Only those parameters
detected in at least one sample are included in the summary tables. The sample locations are
presented on Figure 1.
Ethylene glycol results are presented in Figure 2. The data shown in Figure 2 is consistent with
previously presented assessments. The concentration at well F-55 was 3,550 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). Concentrations at this well have been between 3,000 and 4,250 mg/L since the second half
of 2008. Ethylene glycol concentration increases were first noted at this well in 2004. The
concentrations at well F-55 have declined since reaching a peak of 11,500 in 2006.
Ethylene glycol concentrations remain stable in the former GRUB disposal area. Detections
continue to only be noted at wells V-23 and IT-6, with concentrations fluctuating within stable
ranges. The results downgradient of the former GRUB disposal area are non-detect, as has been
the case for the past few years.
AECOM 2
Trichloroethene data collected in March are presented in Figure 3. Concentrations are near or
below the detection limit in most samples. The highest detections remain at wells TD-3 and TD-4 in
the central plant area. The concentration at these wells remain within the ranges observed in
recent years with results ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/Lat the shallower TD-3 well and ranging from
2.1 to 3.9 mg/Lat the deeper TD-4 well. Lower concentrations of TCE were noted at wells G-50,
PEW-1, PEW-4, T-35,.and Tl-2. All other locations were below the reporting limit.
Biphenyl ether data is presented in Figure 4. Biphenyl ether is the more prevalent component of
Dow Therm A TM. Biphenyl ether is primarily present at well F-55 and free product is removed when
observed at this location. One liter of free product was removed from well F-55 in March 2010.
1, 1-Biphenyl is the less prevalent component of Dow Therm A TM and was only detected at well F-55.
Diethylene dioxide data collected in March 2010 are presented in Figure 5. Routine sampling for
diethylene dioxide has now been in place for three semiannual events. No clear trends have been
observed, and additional data may be required before long term trends, if any exist, become
apparent.
Semiannual monitoring will continue in the second half of 2010. The sampling event scheduled for
September 2010 will be the first of two expanded characterization events as described in the site
work plan Work Plan and Field Sampling Plan for Supplemental Investigation and Long-Term
Groundwater Monitoring, Celanese Fibers Operations Site, Shelby, NC, AECOM, June 2010).
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further information. You may reach Everett
Glover at 404-965-9687 or Bryon Dahlgren at 404-965-9657.
Yours sincerely,
Bryon Dahlgren, PE
Project Engineer
~w.~-~
Everett W. Glover, Jr., PE
Project Manager
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/L
benzene mg/L
2-butanone mg/L
carbon disulfide mg/L
carbon tetrachloride mg/L
chlorobenzene mg/L
chloroform mg/L
cis-1,2-dlchloroethene mg/L
1,2-dichloroethane mg/L
diethylene dioxide mg/L
ethyl benzene mg/L
methylene chloride mg/L
tetrachloroethene mg/L
toluene mg/L
trichlorethene mg/L
xylenes mg/L
1, 1-biphenyl mg/L
biphenyl ether mg/L
ethylene glycol mg/L
total organic carbon mg/L
ferrous iron mg/L
ORP mV
dissolved oxygen mg/L
pH SU
specific conductance mS/cm
temperature DegC
turbidity NTU
ORP -oxid3tion-reduetaon potenbal
mg/L -miU1grams per liter
mV-milivolt
su -standard umt
mSJcm -miQisiemens per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometnc turbidity unit
NA-not analy~ed
J -estimated value
C-49 F-55
3/16/2010 3/17/2010
<0.005 <0.1
<0.005 <0.1
<0.001 0.0424
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 <0.02
<0.002 0.319
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 0.0355
<0.001 <0.02
<0.001 0.0226
<0.001 <0.02
<0.002 <0.04
NA 1.73
NA 4.68
NA 3550
NA NA
0.200 6.30
379.0 -107
5.81 1.64
4.70 5.18
0.0220 3.47
15.1 20.3
1.00 133
G-50 1-57
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facility
First Half 2010
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
K-28 T-35 V-23 V-65
3/17/2010. 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010
0.00715 <0.005 0.476 <0.005 <0,005 0.0071
<0.005 <0.005 0.252 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 0.00796 <0.001 0.0178 0.00239
0.00673 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.0053 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00131 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.573 0.509 0.41 0.0493 2.5 0.396
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.00304 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 0.00732 <0.001 <0.001 <0.00107
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.005 <0.001 0.0107 <0.001
0.00155 <0.001 <0.005 0.00156 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.01 <0.002 0.0107 <0.002
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA -
<7 < 7.00 < 7.00 NA 4560 < 7.00
NA NA NA NA NA NA
2.30 0.200 3.50 0.500 5.00 5.00
-46 216.0 -88 163.0 45.6 -143
0.60 4.00 0.48 0.90 0.41 0.42
5.83 5.04 6.45 5.62 5.07 6.70
0.360 0.0330 1.76 0.556 5.96 0.878
20.5 19.0 15.1 14.9 14.0 15.5
17.0 6.00 4.12 5.62 4.10 5.83
AA-54 CC-33 DD-58R GG-61 11-65 11-112
3/16/2010 3/16/2010 3/17-18/2010 3/18/2010 3/18/2010 3/18/2010
<0.0109 0.00832 0.0117 <0.005 <0.00685 <0.005
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 0.00147 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00274 0.00142 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0025 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.00323 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.21 0.0894 0.0852 0.0416 0.301 0.00504
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA <0.01 NA NA NA
NA NA 0.0641 NA NA NA
<7.00 NA <7.00 NA < 7.00 <7.00
NA NA 6.93 NA NA NA
0.200 2.00 2.40 0.200 0.200 0.600
239.0 -71 86.0 132.0 196.0 48.0
0.32 1.70 2.98 3.00 2.60 1.30
5.01 6.04 6.98 6.55 5.81 6.83
0.345 0.295 0.603 0.170 0.172 0.130
17.8 15.9 15.6 14.3 15.4 16.0
2.99 8.00 17.0 1.00 1.00 2.00
Page 1 of 2
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/l
benzene mg/l
2-bulanone mg/l
carbon disulfide mg/l
carbon tetrachloride mg/l
chlorobenzene mg/l
chloroform mg/l
cis-1,2-dichloroethene mg/l
1,2-dichloroethane mg/l
diethylene dioxide mg/l
ethylbenzene mg/l
methylene chloride mg/l
etrachloroethene mg/l
oluene mg/l
richlorethene mg/l
xylenes mg/l
1, 1-biphenyl mg/l
biphenyl ether mg/l
ethylene glycol mg/l
,
otal organic carbon mg/l
,
ferrous iron mg/l
ORP mV
dissolved oxygen mg/l
pH SU
specific conductance mS/cm
temperature OegC
turbidity NTU
ORP -oxidation-red1,1cbon potential
mgft. -m,Digrams per liter
mV-millivolt
s1,1 -standard unit
mS/cm • miUisiernens per cenhmeter
degrees C. degrees Cfllsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
NA-not analyzed ·
J -estimated value
KK-55 IT-5
3/17/2010 3/16/2010
<0.005 0.201
<0.005 0.182
<0.001 0.00543
0.00'1 <0.002
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 <0.002
0.121 0.907
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 <0.00275
<0.001 <0.002
<0.001 0.00357
<0.001 <0.002
<0.002 <0.004
NA NA
NA NA
< 7.00 < 7.00
NA NA ,,
2.00 3.00
,7 -104
0.20 0.71
6.36 6.41
0.468 2.73
16.9 15.1
8.00 15.1
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facility
First Half 2010
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
IT-6 IT-7 OT-2R PEW-1 PEW-3
3/16/2010 3/16/2010 3/16/2010 3/17/2010 3/16/2010
<0.005 0.11 <0.00712 <0.005 <0.005
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
0.0148 0.0705 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.00369 <0.001 <0.001· <0.001 0.00105
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0484 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00464 <0.001
<0.001 0.00236 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
2.43 0.452 0.101 0.0344 <0.002
0.0011 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.00511 0.0272 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0142 <0.001
0.00399 0.00295 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA NA <0.01 <0.01
1370 < 7.00 < 7.00 NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
7.00 3.00 0.200 0.200 0.200
-84 43 80.0 114.0 355.0
0.80 0.70 0.54 0.50 4.10
4.93 6.04 6.93 6.09 6.24
6.13 1.77 0.592 0.209 0.0570
14.0 15.2 14.7 18.1 21.0
22.4 19.0 3.01 3.10 1.00
PEW-4 TD-2 TD-3 TD-4 Tl-2
3/16/2010 3/18/2010 3/17/2010 3/17/2010 3/18/2010
0.0288 <0.00968 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00507 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 0.0011 <0.001 0.0017
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00333 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.00138 <0.001 0.00147 0.00936 0.00587
<0.001 <0.001 0.00252 0:00646 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.0569 0.0022 <0.002 <0.002 0.00285
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.00202 <0.001 <0.001 0.00245
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.00579
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.0429 <0.001 0.375 3.56 0.0083
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
<0.01 NA NA NA NA
0.0117 NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA < 7.00
NA NA NA NA NA
1.00 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
153.0 251.0 170 121.0 200
0.80 2.94 3.90 1.30 5.00
5.30 5.31 5.00 5.82 5.94
0.0680 0.105 0.216 0.0380 0.0470
21.5 19.4 17.8 17.8 20.2
1.00 19.3 6.00 57.0 35.0
Page 2 of 2
Table 2
Surface Water Analytical Summary
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facility
First Half 2010
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 60135442
Parameter Unit
acetone mg/L
diethylene dioxide mg/L
methylene chloride mg/L
ferrous iron mg/L
ORP mV
dissolved oxygen mg/L
pH SU
specific conductance mS/cm
temperature DegC
turbidity NTU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
mS/cm -millisiemens per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
NA -not analyi:ed
J -estimated value
SW-4
3/16/2010
0.0281
0.0127
0.00144
0.600
171.0
8.10
6.13
0.152
13.4
7.10
SW-7
3/16/2010
0.0261
0.00374
0.0015
0.200
129.0
9.60
7.30
0.0930
139
6.70
Page 1 of 1
0
)
"'
,/e \
' '
DD-58RQ \
I
.------l
\
\
I
I
SW-7 I
I
I
I
I
II
LEGEND
@ MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
131 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
AS'COM
O'
AUGUST 2010
500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
60135442
0
0
\ -------,,----=--41/ \--~,,__-
\ ---'---/---
\ ---+---
I ---+------
\ -+----
\--+----
1 _\c--__
I
-tel===,-, \--f-
\
\ ----+--
\ \-+--
\ ------\-"=,-----,
\
□=
PRODUCTION
AREA F-5@ 355
0
\ 08L
! 0Ll
DD-58RQ \
<7
\
A:COM
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
·--·:--.
I
~i
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 2
ETHYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS
MARCH 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.ff!CONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2010
800'
60135442
0
0
~ = " ~ 0 0 ~ ~ = ~
\ ---,I-----\--+---
\--+---
\--1----
I -i-+---
PRODUCTION
AREA
q
L.:-:__-.-=---==-~---
"' "' s
\ ;
\
DD-58R$ <0.001
\ 08L
I
790
A:COM
SW-7
<0.001
I
I
I
I
\
\
\
I
I
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 3
TRICHLOROETHENE RESULTS
MARCH 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./flCONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST2010
800'
60135442
0
0
\ \----,L----\ __ __,__ __
\---+---
\_-+---\-+----
\-+----1-1----
1
;
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
--·-
I
I
\
?0"0
D'~D ~
·-·,m □ D~-____ J::o ---\
-·7
~'==c/J ~~~=·_;, 0
D
!
,~
J O"'
"'"'
<>"'"
0SL
0LL I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
.,_____________'~
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
DD-SBR(i) \
0.0641
AS'COM
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mgn..
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 4
Bl PHENYL ETHER RESULTS
MARCH 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./flCONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2010
800'
60135442
\ ;
PRODUCTION
AREA
□
~~
\
\
\
I
SW-7 o 00374 I
I
I
' I .,,.----~
•'
8 \
i
I
~ .
e81al!l
\
_____ ..J
4
10
~ •
08l
Oll
LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
-$-EXTRACTION WELL
ISi SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
A:COM
-0' 500' 1000'
SCALE
FIGURE 5
DIETHYLENE DIOXIDE RESULTS
MARCH 2010
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fflCONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST2010 60135442
AECOM
1360 Peachtree Street, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30309
T 404.965.9600 F 404.965.9606 www.aecom.com
September 30, 2009
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
SUPERFUND SECTION
Subject: Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
OU-1 Semiannual Report
January 2009 -June 2009
AECOM Project No. 79750
Document Control Number: 026SB-286
Dear Ms. Walden:
AECOM
Please find attached the analytical data associated with sampling event completed at the Former Celanese
Fibers Operations site during the first half of 2009. Data were collected under the approved interim
sampling plan.
The samples were collected during March 2009. A summary of the data is presented in Table 1. Only
those parameters detected in at least one sample are included in the summary tables. The sample
locations are presented on Figure 1.
Ethylene glycol results are presented in Figure 2. The data shown in Figure 2 is consistent with previously
presented assessments. Ethylene glycol concentrations remain consistent with the results observed during
2008. The concentrations at well F-55 remain elevated but are lower than those observed at this well
between 2004 and 2007. Ethylene glycol concentrations remain stable in the former GRUB disposal area.
The concentration in the sample from well V-23 was significantly decreased, with a result of 653 mg/L and
the concentration at nearby well lT-6 was slightly higher than the results observed in 2008 with a
concentration of 1,830 mg/L. The results downgradient of the former GRUB disposal area are non-detect,
as has been the case for the past few years.
Trichloroethene data collected in March are presented in Figure 3. Concentrations are near or below the
detection limit in most samples. The highest detections remain at wells TD-3 and TD-4 in the central plant
area. Lower concentrations of TCE were noted at wells PEW-1, PEW-4, K-28, and Tl-2. All other locations
were below the reporting limit
Wells F-55, PEW-1, PEW-3, and PEW-4 were analyzed for DowTherm ATM components (biphenyl ether and
1, 1-biphenyl) in March. Biphenyl ether is the more prevalent component and data for this parameter are
presented in Figure 4. Biphenyl ether is primarily present at well F-55 and free product is removed when
observed at this location. Free product was observed in the bottom of the well in March 2009, but was
below the reach of the bailer. Therefore no product was removed during this event.
Diethylene dioxide data collected in March 2009 are presented in Figure 5. The March 2009 sampling was
the first event which included diethylene dioxide as a routine site parameter. Diethylene dioxide will be
included in the next expanded event in late 2009 and will also be included on the long term monitoring plan
to be established. In addition, other activities are underway at the site to evaluate diethylene dioxide. A
detailed review of these events will be submitted in future deliverables.
L:\work\Projects\79750\WordProc\07 1 H
2009\Final 1H 2009 memo.doc
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2 of 2
The second half of 2009 monitoring event will be completed in the coming weeks. The two expanded
characterization events will be scheduled once the plan details are resolved. A long term plan will be
established based on the results of the expanded events.
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further information. You may reach Everett Glover at
404-965-9687 or Bryon Dahlgren at 404-965-9657.
Yours sincerely,
,!i,1!::;-
Project Engineer
L:lwork\Projects\79750\WordProc\07 1H
2009\Final 1H 2009 memo.doc
~~~.J~·~
Project Manager
I AECOM
Parameter Unit
acetone m!=IL
benzene mc/L
2-butanone mg/L
carbon disulfide mc/L
carbon tetrachloride mc/L
chlorobenzene m~/L
chloroform mg/L
1, 1-dichloroethene mc/L
cis-1,2-dichloroethene mgll
dieth\ lene dioxide mgll
eth) !benzene mc/L
methylene chloride me IL
tetrachloroethene me IL
toluene mcll
trichloroethene mc/L
X) lenes mgll
1, 1-biphenyl mg/L
biphenvl ether mg/L
ohenol mcll .
ethvlene alvcol mc/L
ferrous iron mcfl
ORP mV
dissolved oxv1 en mgfl -
IPH '" specific conductance mS/cm
temperature dearees C
turbidity NlU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
umhosfcm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
C-49 F-55 G-50
3/17/2009 3/20/2009 3/17/2009
<0.005 0.9 <0.005
<0.001 0.0568 <0.001
<0.005 <0.025 <0.005
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.002 0.276 0.73
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 0.0219 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.001 0.0121 <0.001
<0.001 <0.005 <0.001
<0.002 <0.01 <0.002 .
NA 38.6 NA
NA 119 NA
NA 2.13 NA
NA 4250 <7
<0.2 6.4 1.6
202 -27.4 -10.5
5.6 0.65 1
5.3 6.7 6.1
0.018 2.7 0.37
18.2 20.6 21.4
3 54 14
1-57
3/18/2009
<0.005
<0.001
<0.005
<0.0023
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.359
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
NA
NA
NA
<7
<0.2
826
3.5
5.1
0.032
19.3
5
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facility
First Half 2009
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
K-28 T-35 V-23 V-65
3/24/2009 3/17/2009 3/24/2009 3/24/2009
0.343 <0.005 <0.005 <0.0263
0.0089 <0.001 0.0131 0.0021
0.148 <0.005 <0.005 0.017
<0.005 <0.001 0.0026 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 0.0011 <0.001
0.25 0.0417 1.03 0.322
<0.005 <0.001 0.002 <0.001
0.0083 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.0014 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.001 0.0055 <0.001
0.0126 <0.0015 <0.001 <0.001
<0.01 <0.002 0.0073 <0.002
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
·~•½" ..•
<7 NA 653 <7
3.4 0.6 3.1 <0.2
-326 76 109.5 -59.6
0.4 0.9 0.3 1.1
6.1 5.6 5 6.6
2.2 0.51 3 0,92
15,2 17 16.7 16.9
20 9 13.1 3.1
1 of 2
AA-54 CC-33 CC-33 Oup DD-58R GG-61 ,, ... ~I 3/18/2009 3/18/2009 3/18/2009 3/20/2009 3/17/2009 3/20/2009 ·rn
<0.005 <0.005 <0.0067 <0.0072 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.002 <0.0021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.002 <0.0021 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0106 0.0104 <0.0012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.226 0.08 0.0826 0.115 0.0492 0.27 0.142
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0034 <0.001 <0.0026 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.0047 <0.0045 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 . "~ ,·~ ~
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA .. ~•-. .. . .
<7 NA NA <7 NA <7 NA .
<0.2 1 1 1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8
165 -69 -69 -126 156 90 -13.5
0,96 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.6 2.7 0.47
5.1 6.4 6.4 7.2 6.1 6 6.4
0.3 0.28 0.28 0.57 0.18 0.14 0.49
18.6 16.7 16.7 19.1 16 16.4 15.2
5 1.3 1.3 41 <1 59 5
Parameter Unit
acetone mall
benzene moll
2-butanone mg/l
carbon disulfide mqll
carbon tetrachloride moll
chlorobenzene mall
chloroform moll
1, 1-dlchloroethene mgll
cis-1,2-dichloroethene mqll
diethvlene dioxide mall
ethv1benzene mall
meth\ilene chloride mall
tetrachloroethene mg/l
toluene mQll
trichloroethene moll
xvlenes moll ...
1, 1-biphem I mall
biohen\il ether mall
!phenol mgll
ethylene glycol mgll
ferrous iron mQll
ORP mV
dissolved oxvgen mall
oH SU
specific conductance mS/cm
temperature degrees C
turbidity NTU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mgll -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
umhos/cm -micromhos per centimetet
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J • estimated value
NA -not analyzed
KK-55 IT-5 IT-6
3/30/2009 3124/2009 3/2412009
NA <0.0312 <0.005
NA 0.0038 0.0168
NA 0.0219 <0.005
NA <0.001 0.0064
NA <0.001 <0.001
NA <0.001 0.0011
NA <0.001 <0.001
NA <0.001 <0.001
NA <0.001 0.0013
NA 0.453 2.45
NA <0.001 0.0013
NA <0.001 0.0011
NA <0.001 <0.001
NA 0.0013 0.0053
NA <0.001 <0.001
NA <0.002 0.0047
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA . -
<7 <7 1830 -0.6 1.2 5
-16 -85.2 79
0.51 0.3 0.3
6.5 6.5 4.9
0.48 1.5 6.2
15.4 14 15.8
5 22 20
IT-7
3/24/2009
0.122
0.0576
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
0.0464
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.366
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.0163
<0.001
0.0036
NA
NA
NA
<7
2.4
10.7
0.3
6.3
1.8
16.3
17
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facllity
First Half 2009
Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
OT-2R PEW-1 PEW-3 PEW-4
3/17/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009
<0.005 <0.007 <0.005 <0.0089
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0022
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.0011 <0.001 <0.0016
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.0041 <0.001 <0.0019
0.09 0.028 <0.002 0.0655
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.0024 <0.0021
<0.001 <0,001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0128 <0.001 0.0524
<0.002 <0.002 <0,002 <0.002
NA <0.01 0.0352 <0.01
NA <0.01 0,08 0.0109
NA <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 . ·••-
<7 NA NA NA
1.6 <0.2 <0.2 0.8
.71 94 116 87
0.6 0.3 3.2 0.5
6.7 5.9 6.9 5.4
0.55 0.099 0.066 0.069
16 20 21 21
6 <1 1 1
2of 2
TD-2 TD-3 TD-4 Tl-2 Tl-2 Dup SW-4 SW-7
3/19/2009 3/20/2009 3/2012009 3/19/2009 3/19/2009 3119/2009 3/19/2009
<0.005 <0.009 <0.005 <0.0065 <0.0081 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 0.0054 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0012 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0019 0.0093 <0.0046 <0.0046 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0,001 0.0011 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.0055 0.0062 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 0.0097 0.0044
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.0023 <0.0023 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.0055 0.0056 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 0.208 3.74 0.0072 0.0073 <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA ·--· -" -NA NA NA <7 <7 NA NA
<0.2 <0.2 <0,2 0.8 0.8 <0.2 <0.2
137 201 146 103 103 138 81
3.5 5.6 0.55 5 5 6.9 8.3
5 6.7 6.9 5.9 5.9 7.1 7.2
0.1 0.23 0,042 0.046 0.046 0.15 0.11
19 19.7 19.4 19.3 19.3 16.2 17
11 12 32 68 68 31 37
I
I
0
0
\---+--
\ __ -,L----\-----1---
\ ---'---
i--1--
( \ ---'--
\ _+--
\ --I----
'-----=======;----~~~~~-
PRODUCTION
AREA
,_
□
]\ •Je
I \._~~-P
I 7 I .,0~01
I .5/
i
i
08L
\~-',-~~
N~ I -23 I -a ,osO al F-s~jt~~I-( J -$1 -~,oso ~ir. ______ j
,-laffl"3 ♦1E -i r•-•7ro \ 0 ~
'
kw-4 I I/ L._,_..i~n \
I ( ,J[·-·-·-{0G'3 ~~-~~' bO
0 D~ .~ :~~_·0 ·w -.
[_ _______ ~ ,~~\\_ LJ o[C a rJ \ ~ U J]
·-840 ·;:s; " u 800
e,30 ·~ . ~
\ '~ pQ:-1
C I
,-"'--''-'" :,;,.__
•"' 08/J~
..,
"' ' ·~
' ·,
? \
800
DD-58RO
\ \
------\
·-----~
80•~ ~~----
AECOM
SW-7
I
I
0
♦
C!il
AUGUST 2009
\
I
I
\
I
LEGEND
·---·::-.
I
~i
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS, INCJTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
800'
79750
D
!}
\ ___ ~-='111
\---,'----
\ ".----,"--~
'£ \--/----
\ _ ___,___ __ !
\ I I -i-----\---~
0 \----+--
( ------+-
\ -----+--
\ --+-~
\-+--
\--"'=!,-~
\
\
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
08l
0Ll
I
DD-58RO \
<7
\
I
AECOM
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
·-·:::---.
I
~i
e
♦
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 2
ETHYLENE GLYCOL RES UL TS
MARCH 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fflCONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2009
800'
79750
, c) . <Oto\----
D
fl
\\--+--
'£ \--+---
\ L
I I
\ ~ li-=--".7
i\-~-r
\ _+--\-+--
\ _ _,_ ~-----,
I i.__ _____ _
)
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
C---0
~ ~ ;;?',::::-~=-==--7/t ,? ~ Bee -~-'
\ 800
DD-58R@
<0.001
\
!
~~'
08l
0Ll
AECOM
I
SW-7
<0.001 I
\
I
\
I
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
0' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 3
TRICHLOROETHENE RESULTS
MARCH 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INCJTICONA
SHELBY. NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2009
800'
79750
0
[J
\
)
PRODUCTION
AREA
(
08l
0Ll I
. ____ ___,
780-------------
. 11•-----_,.
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
~" .. .~~;~~~A::
\
0
♦
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/l.
AECOM
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 4
Bl PHENYL ETHER RESULTS
MARCH 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
AUGUST 2009
800'
79750
0
I}
0
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
DD-58R$
0.115 I
\
~1) ),,/
;
08L
I
I
e
\
\
I
I
LEGEND
I
~i
MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
121 SURFACE WATER SAMPLE
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400' 800'
.-r---=-"-'-"'"-~--l----------,------------_;S~C!_A:!:;L!:_E ___ _j
FIGURE 5
AECOM DI ETHYLENE DIOXIDE RESULTS
MARCH 2009
AUGUST 2009
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
79750
AECOM
1455 Old Alabama Road, Roswell, GA 30076
T 770.990.1400 F 770.649.8721 www.aecom.com
March 30, 2009
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
rrw .[_re ~ ~ w ~ ~ if1l ----e
U MAR 3 I 2009
SUPEHFUNO SECTION
Subject: Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
OU-1 Semi-Annual Report
July 2008 -December 2008
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
Document Control Number: 026SB-276
Dear Ms. Walden,
Please find attached the analytical data associated with sampling events completed at the
Former Celanese Fibers Operations site during the second half of 2008. Data was
collected under the existing Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) monitoring program, as well as the monitored natural attenuation
(MNA) Demonstration program.
A summary of data collected during July 2008 is presented in Table 1. A summary of
October 2008 data is presented in Table 2. Only those parameters detected in at least
one sample are included in the summary tables. The sample locations are presented on
Figure 1.
Ethylene glycol results collected during July are presented in Figure 2. Ethylene glycol
results from October are presented in Figure 3. The data shown in Figures 2 and 3 are
comparable and are consistent with previously presented assessments. Ethylene glycol
concentrations are elevated but declining at the well F-55 location. During the second half
of 2008 the concentration was slightly above 3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L). This
continues the declining trend observed since the concentration peaked at 11,500 mg/L in
2006. Ethylene glycol concentrations remain stable in the former GRUB disposal area,
with the maximum concentrations of approximately 6,800 mg/L noted at well V-23. The
results downgradient of the former GRUB disposal area are non-detect.
Trichloroethene data collected in July and October are presented in Figure 4 and 5.
Concentrations are near or below the detection limit in most samples. The highest
detections remain at wells TD-3 and TD-4 in the central plant area. Concentrations of
TCE continue to be reported at wells HH-48 and HH-77 located off-site. Wells TD-3 and
TD-4 were the only locations analyzed for TCE in October under the sampling plan.
Wells F-55, PEW-1, PEW-3, and PEW-4 were analyzed for DowTherm A™ components
(bi phenyl ether and 1, 1-biphenyl) in July and October. Biphenyl ether is the more
prevalent component and data for this parameter are presented in Figure 6 and 7.
Biphenyl ether is primarily present at well F-55 and free product is removed when
observed at this location.
Final 2H 2008 memo.doc
AECOM
The data presented in the attached tables and figures were collected prior to the
December 5, 2008, meeting to review strategy for the site. Revised sampling plans have
been proposed and are anticipated for future monitoring events. The proposed sampling
plans have been submitted as part of the site work plan and an interim sampling plan was
implemented in March 2009. Expanded characterization sampling events are planned for
the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010. After these data are available, the long-
term-plan will be developed for initiation in the second half of 2010.
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further information. You may reach
Everett Glover at 770-990-1410 or Bryon Dahlgren at 770-990-1420.
Yo/ncerely, -,,~ fe~o~~. J~ ~
Project Engineer Project Manager
Final 2H 2008 memo.doc
I AECOM
Parameter Unit
acetone moll
benzene mall
2-butanone mqll
carbon disulfide mall
chlorobenzene mall
chloroform mq/l
1,2-dichloroethane mall
cis-1, 2-dichloroethene mall
rans-1,2-dichloroethene mq/l
ethvlbenzene mall
2-hexanone mall
methvlene chloride mqll
oluene moll
richloroethene mall
invl chloride moll
vvlenes mall
1,1-bioheml moll
biohenvl ether mn/l ·-··--·---
ethvlene olvcol mq/l . ... -
iron mall
manaanese mall - -. -'" ----. -acetate moll
alkalinitv mall
dissolved ownen mall
ethvl alcohol mn/l
errous iron mall
methane mall
nitrate nitroaen mn/L
ORP mV
loH SU
soecific conductance umhos/cm
sulfate moll
emoerature decrees C
1total oroanic carbon mall
urbiditv NTU
ORP -ox1dat1on-reduct1on potential
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
umhos/cm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
C-49 F-55
7/22/2008 7/24/2008
<0,005 0.838
<0.001 0.0594
<0.005 <0.025
0.00078 J 0.0022 J
<0.001 0.001 J
0.00054 J <0,005
<0.001 0.0017 J
<0.001 <0.005
<0.001 <0.005
<0.001 <0.005
<0.005 0.0026 J
<0.0012 <0.005
0.00051 J 0,012
<0.001 0.0028 J
<0.001 <0.005
<0.002 <0.01 --NA 8.04
NA 24
NA 3010
NA 548
NA 182
NA 2950
NA 1020
8.22 4.2
NA 471
0 5.6
NA 0.029
NA 0.04 J
293 -66
4.77 5.1
22 2640
NA <0.5
28.1 22.6
NA 2410
4.5 31
G-50
7/24/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<7 . -
18.3
15 --<10
48.5
0,61
<5
4
0.85
<0.1
-72
5.73
442
1.4
24.65
2.5
4.1
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 3 2008
G-50 Dup
7/24/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<7
18.3
14.8
<10
51
NA
<5
NA
0.9
0.02 J
NA
NA
NA
1.7
NA
2.4
NA
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
G-88 J-29 K-28 K-28 Dup
7/24/2008 7/23/2008 7/23/2008 7/23/2008
NA NA 1.15 1.15
NA NA 0.0074 J 0.0076 J
NA NA <0.05 0.484
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.05 <0.05
NA NA <0,0107 <0.015
NA NA 0.0018 J <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.01 <0.01
NA NA <0.02 <0.02
NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA
<7 <7 <7 <7
3.1 0.093 2270 2330
0.053 0.062 53.3 55.1 ..
<10 <10 7130 6990
35.4 505 2460 2810
2.22 5.2 3,85 NA
<5 <5 <5 <5
2.2 0 8.6 NA
0.011 0.0031 12 10
0.54 0.9 0.59 0.61
183 151 -202 NA
6.15 6.67 5.97 NA
88 865 6260 NA
0.19 J 28.2 1 0.6
25.32 20.7 23.57 NA
0.81 J 1.4 2270 2470
23 6 17.4 NA
1 of 3
N-29 0-25 P-58 Q-33 T-35 U-38 V-23
7/23/2008 7/24/2008 7/22/2008 7/23/2008 7/22/2008 7/23/2008 7/23/2008
NA NA <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0,005
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.0202
NA NA <0,005 NA <0.005 NA <0.005
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.007
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA NA <0,001 NA <0,001 NA <0.001
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0,001
NA NA <0.001 NA 0.00055 J NA <0.001
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA 0.0034
NA NA <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0.005
NA NA <0.0013 NA <0.0013 NA <0.0015
NA NA 0,00068 J NA <0.001 NA 0.0112
NA NA <0.001 NA 0.0015 NA <0.001
NA NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA NA <0.002 NA <0.002 NA 0.0135
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
<7 <7 NA <7 NA <7 6040
0.018 J 34.1 NA 0.25 NA 0.25 1820
0,21 0.26 NA 0.11 NA 0,079 707
<10 <10 NA <10 NA <10 11300
5.1 40.4 NA 67.7 NA 2.5 2160
2.7 0 3.5 0 4 3.96 0.84
<5 <5 NA <5 NA <5 3100
0 0 3.8 0.4 0.6 0 8
0.28 2.3 NA 0.11 NA 0.0023 14
0.69 <0.1 NA <0.1 NA 1.5 0.52
552 -182 -206 124 164 356 -11
4.76 6.46 6.17 5.49 5.16 4.42 4.97
61 759 744 900 4950 111 5960
1.5 140 NA 58.6 NA 0.55 66.5
19.9 18.42 32.1 22.5 22.1 24.7 21.49
0.91 J 13.2 NA 1.7 NA 0.63 J 7700
1 151 0.2 6.5 14 5.5 115
Parameter Unit
acetone mall
benzene mall
2-butanone mQll
carbon disulfide mall
chlorobenzene mall
chloroform mQll
1,2-dichloroethane moll
cis-1,2-dichloroethene moll
trans-1,2-dichloroethene mQ/l
ethvlbenzene moll
2-hexanone moll
methvlene chloride moll
toluene mall
1richloroethene moll
invl chloride mall
lenes mall
1, 1-biohen., I mall
biohenvl ether mall --
ethvlene alvcol mall - -
iron mall
manaanese mall
acetate mall
alkaHnitv mall
dissolved oxvaen mall
ethvl alcohol mall
ferrous iron moll
methane mall
nitrate nitrooen moll
ORP mV
loH SU
soecific conductance umhos/cm
sulfate moll
temoerature dearees C
total oraanic carbon moll
turbiditv NTU
ORP -ox1dat1on-reduct1on potential
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
umhos/cm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
V-65 W-23 X-32
7/2312008 712412008 7/24/2008
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
<7 <7 <7
30.9 0.042 J NA
1 0.33 NA
<10 <10 <10
350 128 NA
0.2 0.51 4.82
<5 <5 <5
7 0 0
22 0.4 NA
0.03 J 0.23 NA
-174 179 222
6.5 5.92 5.14
654 610 200
0.25 J 61.9 NA
19.85 22.5 21.21
5.9 3.8 NA
56 100 49.1
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 3 2008
AA-54
7/22/2008
<0.005
<0.001
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.0012
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
4.86
273
NA
20.52
NA
40
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
CC-33 EE-58 FF-34
712312008 7/22/2008 7/23/2008
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005
0.0012 <0.001 <0.001
<0.005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.00099 J <0.001 <0.001
<0.001 <0,001 <0.001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.0156 <0.001 <0.001
0.0011 <0.001 <0,001
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
<0,005 <0.005 <0.005
<0.0012 <0.0013 <0.0018
<0.001 <0.001 <0.001
0.0115 <0.001 <0.001
0.00079 J <0.001 <0.001
<0.002 <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
<7 NA NA
43.3 NA NA
2.9 NA NA
<10 NA NA
35.9 NA NA
2.71 0.34 5.4
<5 NA NA
3 NA 0
0.57 NA NA
0.09 J NA NA
-66 1 295
5.61 6,69 5.21
274 78 61
4.1 NA NA
20.5 26.28 19.4
1.4 NA NA
3.7 48 1.2
2 of 3
FF-62
7/23/2008
<0.005
<0.001
<0.005
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0,0051
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.2
NA
0
NA
NA
133
5.91
91
NA
22
NA
1.8
GG-61 HH-48 HH-77 IT-1 IT-2 IT-3
7122/2008 7/23/2008 7/23/2008 7/22/2008 7/22/2008 7/23/2008
<0.005 <0.005 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.005 0.00057 J <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.001 0.00098 J 0.006 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 0.00083 J NA NA NA
<0,001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 0.00078 J NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.005 <0.005 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.0016 <0.0052 <0.0059 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.001 0.0655 0.32 NA NA NA
<0.001 <0.001 <0.004 NA NA NA
<0.002 <0.002 <0.008 NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA 25.8 <7 <7
NA NA NA 195 47.6 31.6
NA NA NA 1.7 9.9 0.33
NA NA NA 141 <10 <10
NA NA NA 218 212 152
1.17 9.44 5.11 3.5 3.3 0
NA NA NA 24.7 <5 <5
0 0 0 3.2 2 4
NA NA NA 10 8.4 19
NA NA NA <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
125 224 117 -114 -77 -220
6.16 5.11 5.92 6.3 6.2 6.8
179 76 98 707 747 362
NA NA NA 0.52 0.45J 0.81
22.71 21.21 19.31 23.4 26.1 21.86
NA NA NA 98.6 7.6 3.6
2.6 30 22 19 6 38
Parameter Unit
acetone mall
benzene mall
2-butanone mQll
carbon disulfide mall
chlorobenzene moll
chloroform mnll
1,2-dichloroethane mall
cis-1,2-dichtoroethene moll
trans-1.2-dichloroethene mnll
ethvlbenzene mall
2-hexanone mall
methvlene chloride mall
toluene mall
trichloroethene mall
vimi I chloride mall
1"'·Ienes mall
1.1-biohenvl mall
biohenvl ether mall -----
ethvlene alvcol mall
iron mall
manaanese mall
acetate mall
alkalinitv mall
dissolved ovv, en mall
eth\ I alcohol mall
ferrous iron mall
methane mall
nitrate nitrnrien mall
ORP mV
,nH SU
S""'cific conductance umhos/cm
sulfate mall
temperature decrees C
total oraanic carbon mall
turbiditv NTU
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mgll -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
umhoslcm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
IT-4 IT-5 IT-6
7/23/2008 712212008 7/22/2008
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
<7 <7 794
34.7 275 1450
2.2 72.8 970
<10 1310 13700
69.7 1520 1860
0 1.39 2.19
<5 <5 1380
4 5.2 5.2
6.2 14 8
<0.1 0.04 J 0.15
-191 -194 21
6.64 6.37 4.57
250 3250 6270
0.22 J 0.51 10.2
22.8 25.66 27
2.6 577 4880
76.2 19 11
IT-7
Table 1
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 3 2008
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
IT-SR IT-9 PEW-1 PEW-3
7/22/2008 7/22/2008 7/22/2008 7/24/2008 7/24/2008
NA NA NA <0.005 <0.0056
NA NA NA 0.00064 J <0.001
NA NA NA 0.0037 J <0.005
NA NA NA 0.0065 0.0023
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA 0.00099 J <0.001
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA 0.0031 <0.001
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA <0.005 <0.005
NA NA NA <0.003 <0.0033
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA 0.0109 <0.001
NA NA NA <0.001 <0.001
NA NA NA <0.002 <0.002
NA NA NA <0.01 0.0291
NA NA NA <0.01 0.0885
<7 <7 <7 NA NA
227 601 36.8 NA NA
128 76.2 15.4 NA NA
957 2020 <10 NA NA
642 719 42.4 NA NA
3.33 3.29 3.27 3.13 5.61
88.3 10.8 <5 NA NA
7 5.4 1. 7 0.2 0.2
5.7 15 8.9 NA NA
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 NA NA
-180 -193 -176 171 122
5.78 5.77 5.77 5.08 7.02
1940 2180 361 88 85
2.9 1.4 0.51 NA NA
30.3 25.6 26.1 23.5 21.9
547 739 7.6 NA NA
23.4 33.5 29 0.2 8.4
3 of3
PEW-4 S-1 TD-3 TD-4 Tl-1 Tl-1 Dup Tl-2
7/2412008 7/22/2008 7124/2008 7124/2008 7/2312008 7/2312008 7/23/2008
<0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA NA NA
0.00077 J NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.005 NA 0.0012J <0.1 NA NA NA
<0.001 NA 0.00053 J 0.0034 J NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
0.0015 NA 0.0016 0.0079 J NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
0.0013 NA 0.0052 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.005 NA <0.005 <0.1 NA NA NA
<0.0033 NA 0.0053 0.0359 NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
0.0469 NA 0.0974 2.95 NA NA NA
<0.001 NA <0.001 <0.02 NA NA NA
<0.002 NA <0.002 <0.04 NA NA NA
0.0026 J NA NA NA NA NA NA
0.017 NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA <7 NA NA <7 <7 <7
NA NA NA NA 0.16 0.17 0.95
NA NA NA NA 0.025 0.025 0.026
NA <10 NA NA <10 <10 <10
NA NA NA NA 10.1 9.6 15.2
5.5 3.36 3.62 0.32 0.47 NA 6.32
NA <5 NA NA <5 <5 <5
2 0 0 0 0 NA 0
NA NA NA NA 0.14 0.14 0.0014
NA NA NA NA 3.3 3.2 0.91
138 371 266 85 127 NA 185
4.97 4.47 4.75 6.16 5.1 NA 5.48
69 187 222 58 80 NA 58
NA NA NA NA 0.95 <0.5 0.44 J
21.4 29.64 21.49 22.15 25.35 NA 24.46
NA 1.1 NA NA 0.63 J <1 1
1.1 6.3 12 17 3.1 NA 12
Parameter
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethene
-----1, 1-binhen\ I
biohenvl ether --. -
ethvlene alvcol -
iron
manaanese ------acetate
alkalinitv
dissolved oxvaen
ethvl alcohol
ferrous iron
methane
nitrate nitroaen
ORP
nH
soecific conductance
sulfate
temnerature
total oraanic carbon
turbiditv
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/l -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
Unit
mall
mall
mq/l
mall
moll
mq/l
mqll
mall
mall
mall
mall ..
mall
mg/l
mq/l
mall
mgll
mQll
mall
mV
SU
umhoslcm
mall
decrees C
mall
NTU
umhoslcm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
F-55 J-29
10/16/2008 10/15/2008
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
68.1 NA
165 NA
3140 <7
728 <0.05
205 0.009
3650 <10
1190 581
6.35 4,56
751 <5
4.2 0
1.9 0.00029
1.9 1.6
-9 178
4.9 6.75
2920 1200
2.6 31.6
22.79 21.79
2890 3.4
281 65
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc./ Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 4 2008
J-29 Dup
10/15/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<7
<0.05
0.006
<10
580
NA
<5
NA
0.00021
1.6
NA
NA
NA
32.1
NA
2.9
NA
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
K-28 N-29 0-25
10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/1512008
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
·---
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
<7 <7 <7 -
3270 NA 33.8
82.1 NA 0,24
9060 NA <10
3370 NA 43.8
1.1 1.46 5.2
<5 NA <5
6 0 2
10 NA 0.54
0.14 NA <0.1
-140 551 -121
5.86 4.9 6.56
7240 69 803
1.1 NA 162
22.53 19.32 20.4
3810 1.1 11,8
36 2.3 3.8
1 of 3
Q-33
10/15/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.47
NA
0
NA
NA
85
5.79
658
NA
19.7
NA
0.8
U-38 V-23 V-65 W-23 X-32 CC-33
10/16/2008 10/1612008 10/16/2008 10/1612008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
<7 6770 <7 <7 <7 NA
0.27 1910 34.3 0.039 0.11 NA
0.073 714 1.2 0.42 0.043 NA -
<10 13500 62.7 <10 <10 NA
2.1 2060 402 106 3.1 NA
6.82 0 4 0.64 7 0
<5 4250 <5 <5 <5 NA
0 8 2.8 0 0.2 3
0.0032 15 25 0.026 0.00025 NA
1.7 0,22 <0.1 0.18 1 NA
306 45 -116 249 285 -85
4.61 4.62 6.51 5.41 4.96 5.82
82 6160 744 916 246 451
0.8 46.1 2.1 71.6 5 NA
20,3 18.64 18.6 20.23 20.5 21.49
0.97 8610 34.6 4.2 0.88 NA
14 4.3 19 2.52 1.7 2
Parameter
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethene
1, 1-biohenvl
biphenyl ether
ethylene alycol -
iron
manaanese -
acetate
alkalinitv
dissolved o en
ethyl alcohol
ferrous iron
methane
nitrate nitrogen
ORP
oH
specific conductance
sulfate
temoerature
total organic carbon
turbidity
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mgll -milligrams per liter
mV-millivolt
su -standard unit
Unit
moll
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
moll
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mall
mQ/l
mv
SU
umhos/cm
mall
dearees C
moll
NTU
umhos/cm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
IT-1 IT-2
10/15/2008 10/15/2008
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
11.7 <7
734 52.4
6.3 9
1600 <10
762 317
5,5 0
198 <5
6.5 1.6
6.6 6.4
<0.1 <0.1
-71 -60
5.71 5.05
2480 1030
0.89 1. 1
20.5 21.6
833 7.1
42 10
IT-3
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc. I Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 4 2008
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
IT-3 Cup IT-4 IT-5 IT-6 IT-7
10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
<7 <7 <7 <7 514 <7
18.1 18.2 34.6 107 1620 157
0.26 0.25 1.9 23.6 1100 97
<10 <10 <10 377 14900 642
151 150 63.S 1140 1990 714
0 NA 0 5.54 5.8 6.63
<5 <5 <5 2.7 2410 43
1,6 NA 2 2.8 5.1 3.1
14 11 4.9 21 12 12
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.21 <0.1
-113 NA -101 -144 51 -81
5.13 NA 5.31 6.63 4.48 5.81
580 NA 390 2480 6580 1760
12.1 12.5 0.79 1.7 13 0.22
21.1 NA 19.8 18.73 20.73 22.71
4.3 4.1 3 234 5830 357
30 NA 56 22.3 8.7 11.22
2 of3
IT-SR IT-9 PEW-1 PEW-3 PEW-4
10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10115/2008
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA <0.01 0.01 0.0045
NA NA <0.01 0.026 0.0242
<7 <7 NA NA NA
325 35.4 NA NA NA
31.7 17 NA NA NA
365 <10 NA NA NA
518 43.5 NA NA NA
5.48 1.29 4.24 9.99 6.57
<5 <5 NA NA NA
4.2 2 0 0 0
18 11 NA NA NA
<0.1 <0.1 NA NA NA
-144 -155 160 150 141
6.01 6.08 5.48 6.31 5.16
1360 365 76 58 69
0.44 0.88 NA NA NA
20.6 19.01 21.2 21.4 22
185 3.5 NA NA NA
21 24 0.29 6.4 1
Table 2
CNA Holdings Inc. J Ticona Shelby Facility
Quarter 4 2008
Groundwater Analytical Summary
AECOM Project No. 79750
TD-3 TD-4 Tl-1
Parameter Unit 10/16/2008 1011612008 1011612008
acetone
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethene -1, 1-biohenvl
biphenyl ether
-
ethylene Qlycol .. -
iron
manaanese
acetate
alkalinitv
dissolved oxvaen
ethyl alcohol
ferrous iron
methane
nitrate nitroqen
ORP
IDH
specific conductance
sulfate
temoerature
total orQanic carbon
turbidity
ORP -oxidation-reduction potential
mg/L -milligrams per liter
mV -millivolt
su -standard unit
mQ/l
mall
mall
mq/L
ma/L
ma/L
mg/L
mq/l
mQ/l
mq/l
mall
mall
mall
mQ/l
mall
mall
mq/L
mall
mV
SU
umhos/cm
ma/L
degrees C
moll
NTU
umhos/cm -micromhos per centimeter
degrees C -degrees Celsius
NTU -nephelometric turbidity unit
J -estimated value
NA -not analyzed
0.0069
<0.001
<0.001
0.0016
0.005
0.202
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.11
NA
0.2
NA
NA
319
4.45
252
NA
20.64
NA
7.3
3 of 3
0.0096 NA
0.0036 NA
0.0025 NA
0.0071 NA
0.0045 NA
2.76 NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA <7
NA 1.4
NA 0.052
NA <10
NA 15.5
7.08 5.31
NA <5
0 0
NA 0.033
NA 3
148 290
5.95 5.04
47 76
NA 0.47
20.32 20.78
NA 0.8
10 28.4
Tl-2
10/16/2008
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<7
--
0.18
0.008
<10
14
6.49
<5
0
0.0054
0.84
191
5.55
53
0.56
23.51
<1
21
fJ
\ \ -~-
\ ---+--
\
\ --+--
\ ----\-"=',----,
q
□=
PRODUCTION
AREA
L.~-.-=--.~.-=---.----~=:.=~nr=~~
)
\
- 3
~-
i
W-23 j . ·-·-·-·
½.
,,------·790
I
I
08L
0Ll
0
AECOM
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
MARCH 2009
LEGEND
0 MONITORING WELL
♦ EXTRACTION WELL
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 1
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
800'
79750
0
D
\---------,,--=--lll
\----+--
\~---+-~-
I ---+-----
\ --+-----
l-1----1-+----
I
;
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
D
!l O"'
"'"' \
f>Qt-10 I "'~"
08L
~ i
~---790
AECOM
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
·--·:::--.
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 2
ETHYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS
JULY 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2009
800'
79750
0
0
\--~,<-----\----+--
\--+---\ _ _,_ __
\-+----
\-+----1-,.-----
·1
\---+-
(
\ ----+---
\ \---1---
\ -----',-"=!a--.
PROOUCTION
AREA
q
L._:::_-.-=-.~.-=-----.~~=:::::=inr~~
)
\
,osO
D
I
I
\
\
\
i
if o,,,
"""'
.,,,c
08£
0ll
AECOM
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
·--·::--.
e
♦
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 3
ETHYLENE GLYCOL RESULTS
OCTOBER 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INC.fflCONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH2009
800'
79750
0
0
\ __ _,,__ __
\--1------
\ -----'s:----
!
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
\
\ 08l
i 0ll
790
800
AECOM
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 4
TRICHLOROETHENE RESULTS
JULY 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INCJTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2009
800'
79750
0
0
\----+--\ __ _,,_ __
\----+---\ ___ _
\--+---
1--t----
\ i-----
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
--
I
I
\
I
q,;
"'
"'"'"
0Bl
I
0Ll I
~·~
AECOM
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
e
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 5
TRICHLOROETHENE RESULTS
OCTOBER 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
MARCH 2009
800'
79750
0
0
\ ------,'--
\ -------,~-
\ ----+---
\--+----\--+---
\-1---------
\ --'sc-----
1
PRODUCTION
AREA
q ~qD
L.2=-.==-.==.~~-.-~ ,-'.::::'._o_b,-,o-<>--';o/?~;=~~==-r-'~7 •-•
1-=. ~
)
\
\
i
790
"---~ "--------
AECOM
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
• ♦
MARCH 2009
·--·::--.
I
~i
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 6
BIPHENYL ETHER RESULTS
JULY 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INCJTICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
800'
79750
0
0
\----+---
\ _ ___,~-\---+---
\_-+---\---+---
i-+---
\
\ )
\
PRODUCTION
AREA
,o"'
\
\
\
i
(l O"' "'"'
.,..,c
08L
0LL
I
I
I
I
~·~
AECOM
MARCH 2009
I
\
\
I
I
I
~i
LEGEND
MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
ALL CONCENTRATIONS IN mg/L.
O' 400'
SCALE
FIGURE 7
BIPHENYL ETHER RESULTS
OCTOBER 2008
CNA HOLDINGS, INC./TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
800'
79750
....:;;&;;;:;;.;'~iih
MCDEMR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
Division of Waste Management
November 20, 2008
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, 1 Ith Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Operable Unit #1 -Semiannual Report, January 2008 ~ June 2008
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Shelby, Cleveland County, NC
Dear Ms. Walden:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section ha·s received the Operable Unit # I -Semiannual Report, January 2008 -June 2008 for
the Celanese Corporation National Priorities List (NPL) Site. The Superfund Section has
reviewed this document and offers the following attached comments.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Attachment
Sincerely,
-1)~'1&-.,&{~
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] \ FAX [phone]\ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmatlve Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Ms. Beth Walden
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Operable Unit# I -Semiannual Report,
January 2008 -June 2008
November 20, 2008
Page I
Operable Unit #1-Semiannual Report
January 2008-June 2008
CELANESE CORPORATION NPL SITE
Table 3 Quarter I -2008 -Groundwater Analytical Suminary
I. According to the laboratory analytical data submitted in Appendix A, the detections of
acetone in groundwater at monitoring wells P-58, FF-34 and FF-62 are incorrectly
reported in Table 3. Please correct these oversights.
2. According to the laboratory analytical data subinitted in Appendix A, the detections of
methylene chloride in groundwater at monitoring wells P-58, V-23, FF-34, FF-62 and
GG-61 are incorrectly reported in Table 3. Please correct these oversights.
3. According to Table 3, the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well CC-33
contained 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total organic carbon. However, no
documentation of this analytical result could be located in Appendix A. Please correi::t
this oversight.
Table 4 PEW Related Analytical Summary
4. Table 4 provides the laboratory analytical results for 1,1-biphenyl and biphenyl ether for
the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well F-55 in January 2008. However,
no documentation of this analytical result could be located in Appendix A. Please correct
this oversight.
Table 6 MNA Data -Quarter I -2008
5. . Table 6 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well CC-33 had
a turbidity value of0 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). However, the Well Purging
and Sample Collection form included in Appendix A indicates that this value inay be
erroneous as the water samples contained turbidity values of24.l NTU, 6.10 NTU and
6.40 NTU prior to achieving "0 NTU". Please review this data to ensure Table.6's
accuracy.
Ms. Beth Walden
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Operable Unit #1 -Semiannual Report,
January 2008 -June 2008
November 20, 2008
Page 2
6. Table 6 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from former extraction well IT-!
contained an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) value of -36 millivolts (mV).
However, the Well Purging and Sample Collection for included in Appendix A indicates
that the groundwater sample collected from extraction well IT-I contained an ORP value
of -88 mV. Please clarify this discrepancy.
7. Table 6 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from former extraction well IT-3
contained a ferrous iron content of 5.5 mg/L. However, the Well Purging and Sample
Collection forms included in Appendix A indicate that the ferrous iron content was not
measured. Please clarify this discrepancy.
8. Table 6 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well Q-33 had a
pH of 4. However, the Well Purging and Sample Collection forms included in Appendix
A indicate that the pH was 5.61. Please clarify this discrepancy.
9. Table 6 indicates that the groundwater sample collected from monitoring well V-23
contained 42.4 mg/L sulfate. However, no documentation of this analytical result could
be located in Appendix A. Please correct this oversight.
Table 7 MNA Data -Quarter 2 -2008
10. Table 7 indicates that the ferrous iron content of some of the groundwater samples is
zero. However the Well Purging and Sample Collection forms included in Appendix A
for those same groundwater samples indicate that the ferrous iron content is< 0.2 mg/L.
Please revise Table 7 to accurately reflect the ferrous iron content.
RA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dexter R. Matthews
Director
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
RE: Revised Final Independent Design Review
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Shelby, Cleveland County
Dear Ms. Walden:
February 17, 2009
Dee Freeman
Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Revised Final Independent Design Review for the Celanese Corporation
National Priority List (NPL) Site. The NC DENR Superfund Section has reviewed this
document and offers the following attached comments.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions, please
feel free to call me at [phone].
Attachment
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Em~oyer
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
OnehC 1· Nort aroma
)Vatura//!f
Ms. Beth Walden
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Revised Final Independent Design Review
February 1 7, 2009
Page I
Revised Final Independent Design Review
CELANESE CORPORATION NPL SITE
Section 1.2 Team Composition
I. Please correct Section 1.2 to state "The IDR team consists of the following:"
Section 1.4 Persons Contacted
2. Please complete the table included in Section 1.4
Section 2.2 Findings Related to Existing Remedy
Remedy Effectiveness
3. Please correct the last sentence of this section to state "It is unclear if aerobic degradation
of ethylene glycol could lead to reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations ... "
&i,!'A
.-:;;.::;;.'~ .. ,"-~-~-
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management
February 2, 2009
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Proposed Long-Term Sampling Plan
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Shelby, Cleveland County, NC
Dear Ms. Walden:
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Proposed Long-Term Sampling Plan for the Celanese Corporation
National Priorities List (NPL) Site. The Superfund Section has reviewed this document and
offers the following attached comment.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Attachment
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] I Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action Employer-50 % Recycled\ i0 % Post Consumer Paper
0~1..c 1· N 01 u1 aro 1na
/Vaturall!f
Ms. Beth Walden
Proposed Long-Term Sampling Plan
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
February 2, 2009
Page 1
Proposed Long-Term Sampling Plan
CELANESE CORPORATION NPL SITE
Figure 1 Proposed Long-Term Monitoring Locations
1. Figure 1 indicates that monitoring well LL-175 is a proposed expanded monitoring
location. However, Table I indicates that monitoring well LL-191 is a proposed
expanded monitoring location. Please clarify this discrepancy.
AECOM
1455 Old Alabama Rd., Ste. 170, Roswell, GA 30076
T 770.990.1400 F 770.649.8721 www.aecom.com
January 26, 2009
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Subject: Proposed Long-term Sampling Plan
~ ~ re r~ u ~ ~.fnl
JAN 2 7 2009 ~I
SUPERFUNO SECTION
Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
Document Control -026SB-269
Dear Ms. Walden:
AECOM
Attached is the proposed long-term monitoring plan for the Shelby facility. The plan is detailed in
Table 1 and the monitoring locations are presented on Figure 1. This plan was developed based
on a review of current data and in response to the discussions held on December 5, 2008, at the
facility, as well as subsequent conversation between Doug Sutton and Bryon Dahlgren.
A summary of the key analytical methods and target parameter lists is presented in Table 2.
The proposed long-term monitoring plan will be initiated with the sampling event scheduled for
March 2009. The sampling plan will be continued on a semiannual basis with future events
targeted for the third quarter of 2009 and the first and third quarters of subsequent years.
The plan also includes a list of locations and parameters identified for expanded site
characterization. As discussed in the teleconference of January 15, 2009, the third quarter 2009
and first quarter 2010 sampling event will be expanded to include these locations in addition to the
normal long-term locations.
The sampling plan will be reviewed from time to time and will be revised as appropriate.
In addition to the sampling list, several additional surface water locations will be sampled during
the first quarter 2009 event. These samples will be analyzed for diethylene oxide. Most of these
locations are located off-site and collection will be contingent of completion of an access
agreement. The approximate locations of these samples are presented in Figure 2. The precise
number of samples and their locations will be established in the field based on accessibility.
The data gathered from these samples will be used to support the understanding of diethylene
oxide discharge from groundwater. Additional diethylene oxide surface water and groundwater
Shelby_ doc_ 269 _trans_ 1-26-09.doc 1/26/2009
Ms. Beth Walden
January 26, 2009
Page 2
sampling events in the near future will be planned to supplement the data gathered in early 2009
and fill data gaps that are observed.
Please contact us if you would like to discuss this plan in more detail or if you require additional
information.
Sincerely,
AECOM
CptwvJfw, ~. ~
Everett W. Glover, Jr. P.E.
Project Manager
Attachments
cc: Dave Mattison, NCDENR
QuickPlace Project Site
Theresa Purdy, Ticona
PEM Carter, Ticona
Steve Simpson, for Celanese
AECOM project file
Shelby_ doc_ 269 _trans_ 1-26-09.doc
Bryon Dahlgren
Project Engineer
1/26/2009
I AECOM
Table 1
Proposed Long-Term Sampling Plan
CNA Holdings/Ticona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
Proposed Long-term 2009 I 2010 Expanded
Monitorina Proaram2
0)
C ~ 0) >-~ 0 2 .c ~ <J <{ 0) i >-E 0 E t5 ro ~ 0) ~ + 0) ro .c C Cl. ,,, 0) f-0) (.) u ,: >-u
0 x 0 .c ID --;o 0 [i ii:
C-49 X X
F-55 X X X X
G-50 X X X
1-57 X X X
K-28 X X X
0-25 X X X
T-35 X X
V-23 X X X
V-65 X X X
AA-54 X X X
DD-58R X X X
EE-58 X X
GG-61 X X
11-65 X X X
KK-55 X X X
IT-1 X X X
IT-5 X X X
IT-6 X X X
IT-7 X X X
OT-2R X X X
PEW-1 X X X
PEW-3 X X X
PEW-4 X X X
TD-2 X X
TD-3 X X
TD-4 X X
Tl-2 X X X
SW-4 X
SW-7 X
1 · Field Parameters -depth to groundwater,
dissolved oxygen, oxidation-reduction potential,
pH, specific conductance, temperature, turbidity
2-Long Term plan will be reviewed and updated
annually. Any new wells will be added to the long
term program for a minimum of one year.
Characterization
0)
C 0) >-0 .c <J
ai ~
0 (.')
0) + C
,,, 0) ~ (.) u >-
Q 5 .c [i
P-58 X X
M-44 X X
Z-78 X X
W-23 X X
BB-18 X X
GG-39 X X
MM-128 X X
MM-170 X X
MM-280 X X
NN-105 X X
NN-240 X X
LL-110 X X
LL-191 X X
LL-295 X X
IT-2 X X
IT-3 X X
IT-4 X X
IT-BR X X
IT-9 X X
OT-1R X X
OT-3 X X
OT-5 X X
PZ-12 X X
HH-48 X
HH-77 X
New wells are anticipated at the II cluster area and in the TD well vicinity.
,,,
~ 2 0)
E ro ~ ro
Cl.
u
ID
ii:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2
Monitoring Parameters
CNA Holdings/Ticona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
SW8015B
ethylene glycol
SW8260B
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane
1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1, 1 ,2-trichloroethane
1, 1-dichloroethane
1, 1-dichloroethene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropane
2-butanone
2-hexanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
acetone
benzene
bromodichloromethane
bromoform
bromomethane
carbon disulfide
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chloroethane
chloroform
chloromethane
cis-1,2-dichloroethene
cis-1,3-dichloropropene
dibromochloromethane
diethylene oxide
ethylbenzene
methylene chloride
styrene
tetrachloroethene
toluene
trans-1,2-dichloroethene
trans-1,3-dichloropropene
trichloroethene
vinyl acetate
vinyl chloride
xylenes
SW8270C
1, 1-biphenyl
biphenyl ether
-8'
I
i
0
SW-70
AECOM
I
I
\
\
I
79750
AECOM
1455 Old Alabama Rd., Ste. 170, Roswell, GA 30076
T 770.990.1400 F 770.649.8721 www.aecom.com
January 26, 2009
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Subject: Revised IDR Implementation Schedule
Celanese Fibers Operations Site -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
Document Control -026SB-268
Dear Ms. Walden:
AECOM
Attached is the revised implementation schedule for the future activities at the Shelby, North
Carolina Celanese site. This schedule incorporates comments received during the January 15,
2009, teleconference.
If you have questions, please contact us.
Yours sincerely,
Everett W. Glover, Jr., PE
Project Manager
cc: Dave Mattison, NCDENR
QuickPlace project site
Theresa Purdy, Ticona
PEM Carter, Ticona
Steve Simpson, representing Celanese
AECOM file
Shelby_ doc_ 268 _trans_ 1-26-09.doc 1/26/2009
Shelby timeline output of 120508 mtg with EPA and NCDENR
ID I Field I Task Name I Duration I Start I Finish I Cost Details 2009 12010 12011 12012 0 Otr 1 I Otr2 I Otr 3 I Otr4 I Otr 1 I Qtr 2 I Otr 3 . I Otr 4 Otr 1 I Otr 2 I Otr 3 I Otr4 I Otr 1
0 Shelby timeline output of 120508 mtgwith EPA 748 days Thu 1/1/09 Mon 11/14/11 $929,500 Cost $187,165: $124,933 $150,451 $71,951 . $148,665 $32,058 $71,076 $17,701 $7,500 $92,.5.Q0 $.23,000 .. $.2 .. 5.00
1 l!3 Project Management 522 days Thu 1/1/09 Fri 12/31/10 $80,000 Cost ... $9;1i6il : . $9,962 .. ho.'1i5 . · '$'10:115 . .. $.9,8.08 $9,962° .. $10,115 . $10: ns· .. .. ...
l!3 : : $1;:isi,: : : Jt.-it1 · · · ·$t:ssli · · · Jt.:sail ... ..
$7,586:
... ---------------------.. ... ... ----2 Other Support 522 days Thu 1/1/09 Fri 12/31/10 $60,000 Cost . . . $.7.,35.6 .. $7.47.1. ... $7,586 .
3 Routine Reports 393 days Tue 3/31/09 Thu 9/30/10 $40,000 Cost $10,000: · · ·s,o.'dcio ..
.. $.1.o,o.oo $10,000 ... ---------------------.. ... ... --------
l!3 ---------------------------------------------------------------.. ------------4 July -December 2008 Semiannual Report 1 day Tue 3/31/09 Tue 3/31/09 $10,000 Cost $16;000::: .
5 l!3 January -June 2009 Semiannual Report 1 day Wed 9/30/09 Wed 9/30/09 $10,000 Cost -----: : }10.:000
-----------------------------.. -----.. ----------------------
------------------------.. .. ----------------.. ---------------6 l!3 July -December 2009 Semiannual Report 1 day Wed 3/31/10 Wed 3/31/10 $10,000 Cost .. $.10,000
7 l!3 January -June 2010 Semiannual Report 1 day Thu 9/30/10 Thu 9/30/10 $10,000 Cost ... ------,· .. ..... ·····-···--------------------·
::$wooo -········· ···-..... --·-
8 Submit monitoring plan (field sampling plan for grour 1 day Thu 1/15/09 Thu 1/15/09 $2,500 Cost
.. $2,500·: ..... ... ----------·······-·· ... .. ---···· ........ -··-
9 8 Long Term Plan 1 day Thu 1/15/09 Thu 1/15/09 $1,250 Cost
..
$Uso: ··-··--.......... ... ....... .. ·--·-... ------·-· .......... ·--··-· ....... .....
------··· ····----------· ·······-.. .... ... ......... -·-······· ... ....... ....... .. .. ....... 10 l!3 2009 Characterization (includes existing surface watE 1 day Thu 1/15/09 Thu 1/15/09 $1,250 Cost : )1;250
11 Submit initial work plan 37 days Mon 2/16/09 Tue 4/7/09 $30,500 Cost $30,500: ···-·· ...... ... ... -····· ·------· ... ... ... ······--·-······· ... .. ... ....... .. .. .. ....
12 l!3 GRUB DPT plan 1 day Mon 2/16/09 Mon 2/16/09 $8,000 Cost :::$a;oao, : : : : : : :: :
...... ... .. ...... .. ------· -·-· ... .... ---·-····· ... ···----....... .. .. ...
13 l!3 Surface water preliminary investigation 1 day Mon 2/16/09 Mon 2/16/09 $2,000 Cost $2,000: ....... .. .... ...... ... -----·-··· --·--·-···· ... .. ........ ..
14 l!3 II deep well installation 1 day Mon 2/16/09 Mon 2/16/09 $500 _Cost · .. $500·:--.. · .. .. ........ .... ...... .. .. -----·-.. ... ----···· .......... ..
15 l!3 Health and Safety Plan 1 day Mon 2/16/09 Mon 2/16/09 $7,500 Cost : : :$1;500:, : : : · · · .. .......... ..... ... ... .... -------... ---······ ........ .
16 l!3 Quality Assurance Poject Plan 1 day Mon 2/16/09 Mon 2/16/09 $10,000 Cost .~10,000., ....
.. .. .......... .......... ····-· ... -----·-.. --------·· .......... ..
17 EPA comments/ approval (work plan, HASP, QAPPJ 14 days Tue 2/17/09 Fri 3/6/09 $0 Cost ... .......... ·····-···· ..... ------·· ... .......... ..
18 response to EPA comments 1 day Mon 3/23/09 Mon 3/23/09 $2,500 Cost :$2;500: : : :
.. .......... ......... ····-·--------------------------.......... ..
19 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Tue 4/7/09 Tue 4/7/09 $0 Cost ... .......... .... ...... ····-... .. -----·-.......... ..
20 8 FIELD Install Deep well at II location 5 days Wed 5/6/09 Tue 5/12/09 $45,000 Cost · · · · · · · --:· · ·s-is:ooo .......... ..... .. ..... .. ····-------···· ---······· ..
21 Monitoring Events 386 days Mon 3/2/09 Mon 8/23/10 $220,000 Cost · s<io:ooo·,· · · · · · · · · · : : }io.:ooo
.. .. ...
::~76,006 )<10;000 ------···· ......... ..
22 l!3 FIELD Q1 2009 Monitoring Event 10 days Mon 3/2/09 Fri 3/13/09 $40,000 Cost .$.io;dOO::·· ..... .. .... ... .......... ..
23 Receive Q1 2009 data 1 day Mon 4/13/09 Mon 4/13/09 $0 Cost
.......... ... ·······-.......... -------·--········-
24 l!3 FIELD Q3 2009 Monitoring Event (incl. expanded characteri: 10 days Mon 7/13/09 Fri 7/24/09 $70,000 Cost -------··•--: : }76,666 ---------· .......... -········· -----··-------···-......... ----·····-
·-----'--25 Receive Q3 2009 data 1 day Mon 8/24/09 Mon 8/24/09 $0 Cost ---------· .......... .......... ... ---··· .......... .. .........
l!3 01 ···-· .. ----.... .... ..... .......... .. .. ......... --·· 26 FIELD 2010 Monitoring Event (incl. expanded characteri: 10 days Mon 1/11/10 Fri 1/22/10 $70,000 Cost .. Fo,oa:o
27 Receive Q1 2010 data 1 day Mon 2/22/10 Mon 2/22/10 $0 Cost
..... ·-·· ------···· .......... ... ...... ... .. ....... ·-·· ...... -------··
28 l!3 FIELD Q3 2010 Monitoring Event 10 days Mon 7/12/10 Fri 7/23/10 $40,000 Cost
...... ------.. -------··· HMbO: ... .... ... ..... ....... ···-··· .... ... :
29 Receive Q3 2010 data 1 day Mon 8/23/10 Mon 8/23/10 $0 Cost
..... ----,--·-·· .. --------·· ........ ....... .. .......... ···-···· ..... -------··-
30 GRUB area 520 days Mon 1/5/09 Fri 12/31/10 $155,000 Cost ::)s:ooo . $56,666 .. $34,751) }<12,jso : : • $8,000 )11;il2s: .. $3;:i75 ---···-...... .. ---······· .. .. .... ...... -----·····
31 FIELD GRUB area investigation 15 days Wed 5/20/09 Tue 6/9/09 $50,000 Cost ::: : $56,666
.. ... -----·· ... ······-------···· .......... ....... ·---·····
32 Receive lab data 1 day Wed 7/8/09 Wed 7/8/09 $0 c~ ····-··· ...... ·-··· ----------···------····· ····---········ .......... ........ .. .......
33 containment analysis 520 days Mon 1/5/09 Fri 12/31/10 $67,500 Cost · · ·ss:ooo· · · --· · · · · ::}:i4,iso : : }27,!50
.. ----------···-----······ ... --········ .... .. ........ .. .......
34 l!3 review existing data 5 days Mon 1/5/09 Fri 1 /9/09 $5,000 -cost :::ss:ooo::::::::::
... ---------------------··· .. -----····· .... .. ......... --········
35 develop work plan for activity 5 days Thu 7/9/09 Wed 7/15/09 $5,000 c~ : : : :~5.ooo ---······· ... -------··· -----· .... .... . ........ -······ ...
36 EPA approve work plan update 10 days Thu 7/16/09 Wed 7/29/09 $0 -cost ........ ·'··-······· ...... ... -------· ------· ... .... .. ........ -······ ...
37 response to EPA comments 1 day Thu 8/13/09 Thu 8/13/09 $2,500 Cost ··········,·········· : : : :~2.sd6
.......... ... ---------· -----· .... .... .. ..... .. -······ ...
38 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Fri 8/28/09 Fri 8/28/09 $0 Cost
.......... , .......... .... -···· .. --·-··· ... ... ----....... .. -····· . ...
··········'·········· 39 implement field work, if needed 20 days Mon 8/31/09 Fri 9/25/09 $25,000 Cost · · ·s25:ooo ·-····· .. ----······ .... .... ...... .. -····· ----
40 capture zone analysis 20 days Mon 9/28/09 Fri 10/23/09 $15,000 Cost ··········,·-···· ...
:: : :~2.256 · · $·12.'iso .. ... -----····· ····-...... ... -····· ----
41 containment system design 20 days Mon 10/26/09 Fri 11/20/09 $15,000 Cost
........ , .... .. ..
: : $)5,666 ····------····· ····-...... ....... ..
········'···-42 FIELD containment system installation 25 days Mon 11 /23/09 Fri 12/25/09 $0 Cost .......... ····-... .. ... ... -----· ... -----· .... ....... .. .
43 FIELD containment system O&M 265 days Mon 12/28/09 Fri 12/31/10 $0 Cost ........ , .. -.......... .......... .... ..... ... ..... .. .... .. -----..... ..... ....
44 GRUB remediation work plan 40 days Mon 11 /23/09 Fri 1/15/10 $20,000 Cost ---····· ..... ....
: : $14,500 :::fs.sa:o
... .... .. .. ....... ·-··· ----.. ... ..
---------· ... ...... .... .. . .. ........ ........ ---·-· .. 45 EPA review I approve work plan 15 days Mon 1/18/10 Fri 2/5/10 $0 Cost :
46 response to EPA comments 1 day Mon 2/22/10 Mon 2/22/10 $2,500 Cost ------,--... ----------·· · s:z.sa·o -········· .... .. ... ------··· ··----·· ........ ...
47 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Tue 3/9/10 Tue 3/9/10 $0 I-cost ··----•--... ------·-·· .... ···-------···· .. .. .... ........ :
48 GRUB Area remediation preparation 30 days Wed 3/10/10 Tue 4/20/10 $0 1--cosr-... ·-----------· .... ······---------·· ----... ------·-·· ... ...... .......... ·---··
49 FIELD GRUB area remediation 20 days Wed 4/21/10 Tue 5/18/10 $0 Cost
....... ··,--.... .... -----·-------.. ....... ........ ··--·-... ...... ...
50 GRUB remediation report 40 days Wed 5/19/10 Tue 7/13/10 $15,000 Cost
........ ., ..... ... ..... -------·· $11,i;is' • $:i;/rs
···-·· ----······ ... .. ... ..
51 TCE 580 days Tue 8/25/09 Mon 11/14/11 $133,500 Cost
............... .. .. .. $i,sdo ... .... ..
$3,sb6 . •: s:i;ooa:
. . -····· Jt:soo : : }92,!i66
..
~2:i,ti66 }f566 ......
52 Review Q3 2009 TCE data 25 days Tue 8/25/09 Mon 9/28/09 $1,500 Cost .......... , ... ..
:::hsdd
.. . .... ... .. . ...... .. .. ----······
53 ReviewQ1 2010 TCE data 25 days Tue 2/23/10 Mon 3/29/10 $1,500 Cost ··········'···-.... ..... ... $1,500 ....... .. .... -------··· -----....... ----······
54 Submit TCE HH wells memo 5 days Tue 3/30/10 Mon 4/5/10 $5,000 Cost ··········,··-.......... .... .... ...
: : : $3))00
... ·····----------· ---···· .... ..
... gooo
55 Develop TO area work plan 40 days Mon 1/17/11 Fri 3/11/11 $7,500 Cost ··········•··-.......... .......... ... ......
$'/;566
...... .. .... .. .
56 EPA approve work plan 10 days Mon 3/14/11 Fri 3/25/11 $0 Cost ··········'··-.......... .......... ... ·-·· ... .... ·------·-·····--------....... ..... ..
57 l!3 response to EPA comments 1 day Mon 4/11/11 Mon 4/11/11 $2,500 Cost ··········,··-.......... .......... ... ..... .... ·------·--... ...
: : • $2,!i66 -······ --···· ...
58 l!3 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Tue 4/26/11 Tue 4/26/11 $0 Cost .......... , .. -·········-.......... ... ... ..... -··· -------·--.. .... ········-.... ...
······'··-59 FIELD TD area investigation (MIPw and Geoprobe®) 20 days Wed 5/11/11 Tue 6/7/11 $35,000 Cost ----.......... .......... .. .. ... ··-·· -------·--.... ··s:is.ooo ....... ---·······
60 FIELD two deep (bedrock) wells in TD area 15 days Wed 6/8/11 Tue 6/28/11 $55,000 Cost ......... ,---·········-... ...... ... ··-···· .. .. -··· -------·--·····-·· $_s5,tiq6 ········---····· ..
61 Receive lab data 1 day Wed 7/27/11 Wed 7/27/11 $3,000 Cost ...... -········--··---... .......... .......... ··-----·---····---.. .. $3,066 -········ ...... ...
62 TD remediation work plan (possibly MNA) 40 days Thu 7/28/11 Wed 9/21/11 $20,000 Cost -·--·-------·· ------· ···-··· .. ---··· ...... .. ----..... ....... .. .. .....
: : $20,000 --······· ····-
63 EPA approve work plan update 15 days Thu 9/22/11 Wed 10/12/11 $0 Cost ··----,--.... ... ···-------· ·-·-· ······----······· ···-
64 response to EPA comments 1 day Thu 10/27 /11 Thu 10/27/11 $2,500 Cost --··· ····•------···· ...... ... ···-.. ... ··----·--· -··-..... -----····· ·---·-}2,:500
...
65 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Fri 11/11/11 Fri 11/11/11 $0 Cost
...... ... .. ·-·-....... ..... ---······· .. ---· . -···· .... .. ------· .. ·-····· ...
66 FIELD Start TD remediation (assume MNA for cost estimate 1 day Mon 11/14/11 Mon 11/14/11 $0 Cost
........ .... . ...... ... ... ------.. ·--·-----..... ---·· ---· ... ---··· ........ .. .. ..
67 Dietheylene Oxide 183 days Fri 1/30/09 Tue 10/13/09 $83,000 Cost • }i2;0◊0:::: }12.~0IJ (16,566 }12,666
... ------.... .. .. ... ... ----··---·· ---·· ... .... ...... ...
68 l!3 Property Access Agreement 1 day Fri 1/30/09 Fri 1/30/09 $5,000 1-Cost $5,000: .. ... ---·-· .... ... --·-· .. .. ... --·····-·· .... ... ...... ...
69 FIELD 01 2009 surface water supplemental sampling 3 days Mon 3/2/09 Wed 3/4/09 $5,000 ,_Cost :: :ss:ooo:: : : : : : :: ::
----..... .. -···· ... .. ---·-.... .. .. ... ·--· ... ... --··-·-.. .... ... ...... ..
70 ReviewQ1 2009 data 25 days Tue 4/14/09 Mon 5/18/09 $2,500 1-Cost .......... : .... g~qo
... .. .... -···· ··-· --·-... .... ... ... .. .. -----···---····-. ..... ...
71 ©-FIELD Install new survey points for surface water elevation r 3 days Thu 3/5/09 Mon 3/9/09 $25,000 Cost $25,000: ... .. ··-·-... .. ... ---·-.... ... ...... . .. .. ···-.... ... ...... ..
72 FIELD Survev new surface water elevation reference ooints 5 davs Tue 3/24/09 Mon 3/30/09 $7,000 1-Cost · · ·$;:ooo·:· · · .. ... .. --··--··· ----· ... --·-··-··· . ----·--·-·-. ..... ...
'
Page 1
Shelby timeline output of 120508 mtg with EPA and NCDENR ID I Field j Task Name I Duration I Start I Finish I Cost Details 2009 12010 12011 12012 6 Qtr 1 I Qtr2 I Qtr3 I Qtr4 I Qtr 1 I Qtr 2 I Qtr3 I Qtr4 : Qtr 1 I Qtr2 I Qtr 3 I Qtr4 : Qtr 1 73 Submit work plan update for 03 2009 event (for PDB 1 day Tue 6/16/09 Tue 6/16/09 $10,000 vast ... : ... $10,.000 .................. 74 EPA Approve work plan update 1 day Wed 7/1/09 Wed 7/1/09 $0 Cost ---------------------------- ----------------------------------75 response to EPA comments 1 day Thu 7/16/09 Thu 7/16/09 $2,500 Cost ::::::: :: Jts66 :: ::: ::: ::: :: : · --------... -------· -------------------------76 EPA approval of revised plans 1 day Fri 7/31/09 Fri 7/31/09 $0 Cost -------· ... . .. -----------------------77 FIELD Q3 2009 sampling 3 days Mon 8/3/09 Wed 8/5/09 $10,000 Cost ·:····· ....... s1a:ooa ·· ·· ·· · ··· · ····· --------... --- - ---- ----------·----------78 Review 03 2009 data 25 days Tue 8/25/09 Mon 9/28/09 $4,000 Cost .......... ::::~.666. ------ ------------------------------------------------------79 Submit diethylene oxide discharge assessment mem 1 day Tue 10/13/09 Tue 10/13/09 $12,000 Cost $12,060 ---------------------------------------.. ----------·------· ........ 80 EPA Costs 262 day,; Thu 1/15/09 Fri 1/15/10 $80,000 Cost $46:666 :·. . ..... ........ ........... M6,bci6 .............. ······ ...... .. . ........ ....... ······ Page 2
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW
CELANESE FIBER OPERATIONS SUPERFUND SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
Revised Report
January 21, 2009
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by GeoTrans, Inc. (GeoTrans) for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. E.P.A). Work conducted by GeoTrans, including preparation of this report, was
performed under Work Assignment #58 of EPA contract EP-W-07-078 with Tetra Tech EM, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
PREFACE
This report was prepared part of a pilot project conducted by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency Office ofSuperfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (U.S. EPA OSRTI). The objective
of this pilot project is to conduct independent, expert reviews of soil and ground water remedies that are
jointly funded by EPA and the associated State agency. The reviews are ideally conducted during the pre-
design, design, or re-design stage so that independent perspectives on the remedy are provided before
costs are incurred for implementing and operating the remedies. The project contacts are as follows:
Organization . Key Contact Contact Information
U.S. EPA Office ofSuperfund Kathy Yager USEPA Region I -New England
Remediation and Technology Regional Laboratory
Innovation 11 Technology Drive
(OSRTI) Mail Code: ECA
North Chelmsford, MA 01863-2431
phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Carla B uriks Tetra Tech EM Inc.
(Contractor to EPA) 188 I Campus Commons Drive, Suite 200
Reston, VA 20191
phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
GeoTrans, Inc. Doug Sutton GeoTrans, Inc.
(Contractor to Tetra Tech EM, Inc.) 2 Paragon Way
Freehold, NJ 07728
phone: [phone]
dsutton(@geotransinc.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................... i
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
l .O INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. l
l. l PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ I
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION .......................................................................................................... 2
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................................................................... 2
1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED .....................................................................................•....••.•......... 3
1.5 BASIC SITE INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF !DR .................................................................. 3
2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 FINDINGS RELATED TO SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL ..•........................................................ 5
2.2 FINDINGS RELATED TO EXISTING REMEDY ....................................................................... 9
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 15
3.1 SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CHARACTERIZATION .........................................•..•.................. 15
3.2 SUGGESTED REMEDIAL STRATEGY {FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE) ..........•.•............. 18
3.3 SUGGESTED TESTING AND STUDY ................................................................................... I 9
Figures
Figure I.
Figure 2.
Attachment A
Migration Pathways Based on Diethylene Oxide Concentrations > 70 ug/L
Flow chart Illustrating Potential Process for Arriving at a Remedy for Diethylene
Oxide
Figure 3-l of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 6 of the Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007
Figure 4-2 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 4-3 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 4-4 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 3-3 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Table I of the Semi-Annual Reports
Table 2 of the Semi-Annual Reports
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
During fiscal years 2000 and 200 I independent reviews called Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs)
were conducted at 20 operating Fund-lead pump and treat (P&T) sites (i.e., those sites with pump and
treat systems funded and managed by Superfund and the States). Due to the opportunities for system
optimization that arose from those RS Es, EPA OSR TI has incorporated RS Es into a larger post-
construction complete strategy for Fund-lead remedies as documented in OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-
25, Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization. OSRTI has since commissioned RSEs at
additional Fund-lead sites with P&T systems.
Lessons learned from the RSEs conducted to date indicated potential value in conducting independent
reviews during the pre-design, design, or re-design stage of a remedy so that the independent perspective
can be considered before a remedy is implemented and operated. In addition, there is potential for the
same type of process to benefit Responsible Party (RP) sites. As a result, the EPA OSRTI Technology
Innovation and Field Services Division is conducting pilot Independent Design Reviews (IDRs) at Fund-
lead and RP sites that are nominated by the EPA Regions. These sites are typically at one of the
following stages:
• Pre-design -The Region is in the process of determining the remedy for the site. The Remedial
Investigation is typically completed and the site team is evaluating the feasibility of several
remedial options.
• Design Stage -The Region has selected a remedy and documented it in a Record of Decision
(ROD). The Region is at any phase of the Remedial Design stage.
• Re-Design Stage -The Region has selected, designed, and may have implemented a remedy but
the remedy is being reconsidered. Based on data collected to date, the Region is considering new
remedial options or is designing a new remedy for the site.
An !DR involves a team of expert hydrogeologists and engineers that are independent of the site,
conducting a third-party evaluation of remedy selection or remedy design. It is a broad evaluation that
considers the goals of the remedy, site conceptual model, available site data, performance considerations,
protectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and closure strategy. The evaluation includes reviewing site
documents, potentially visiting the site for one day, and compiling a report that includes
recommendations. Recommendations with cost and cost savings estimates are provided in the following
categories:
• Site strategy
• Initial recommendations
• Next-step recommendations
The recommendations are intended to help the site team identify opportunities for improvements. In
many cases, further analysis of a recommendation, beyond that provided in this report, may be needed
prior to implementation of the recommendation. Note that the recommendations are based on an
independent evaluation by the !DR team, and represent the opinions of the !DR team. These
recommendations do not constitute requirements for future action, but rather are provided for
consideration by the Region and other site stakeholders.
The Celanese Fiber Operations Superfund site·(the "Celanese site", or "site") was selected by EPA
OSRTI based on a nomination from EPA Region 4. The Celanese site is located in Shelby, North
Carolina. Operation of the P&T system was discontinued on a trial basis for two years to evaluate
monitored natural attenuation as a potential ground water remedy. The system has not been restarted.
EPA Region 4 is requesting a third-party review to help determine if the system should be restarted, ifa
modified system should be restarted, or if another type of ground water remedial approach is warranted.
This report provides a brief background on the site, a summary of observations made from the document
review, and recommendations regarding future modifications to the existing remediation system
(including associated investigation activities). The cost impacts of the recommendations are also
discussed.
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION
The team IDR team consists of the following individuals:
Name Affiliation Phone Email
Doug Sutton GeoTrans, Inc. 732-409-0344 [e-mail]
Kathy Yager• U.S. EPA OSRTI 617-918-8362 Yagcr.kath [e-mail] ( not present)
• Project coordinator(s)
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents were reviewed during the JDR process. The reader is directed to these
documents for additional site information that is not provided in this IDR report.
• 3'' Five-Year Review -August 200 I
• 4lh Five-Year Review-August 2006
• Explanation of Significant Differences -April 2004
• OU I Semi-Annual Report January 2007 to June 2007 -September 2007
• OU! Semi-Annual Report July 2007 to December 2007 -March 2008
• Institutional Controls/Watering Agreements
• Conceptual Site Model Report -September 2007
• Risk Assessment -August 2007
• Access Database through April I 7, 2008
• June 4, 2007 Region 4 Comments on OU! Semi-Annual Report
• September 2007 Draft Region 4 Response to Comments Dated August 14, 2007
• August 9, 2007 Region 4 Comments to Status Update and Conceptual Path Forward
• September 19, 2007 NCDENR Comments to Draft Risk Assessment
2
• December 5, 2007 NCDENR Comments to Conceptual Site Model Report
• April 14, 2008 NCDENR Comments to OU! Semi-Annual Report July 2007 to December 2007
1.4 PERSONS CONT ACTED
The following individuals associated with the site were present for the visit:
Name Affiliation Phone Email
Beth Walden U.S. EPA Region 4 (RPM) 404-562-8814 [e-mail]
David Jenkins U.S. EPA Region 4 (Hydro.)
David Mattison N.C. Dept. of Environment
& Natural Resources
Steve Simpson Celanese
Everett Glover AECOM (Celanese
Contractor)
Bryon Dahlgren AECOM
Joe Harrigan AECOM
1.5 BASIC SITE INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF IDR
The Celanese site began operation in 1960 and currently operates as a polyester and engineering plastics
production facility. CNA Holdings, Inc. (CNA), a subsidiary of Celanese, retains management of
environmental matters for the corporation and is responsible for environmental work regarding the site.
The Celanese site is approximately 450 acres located six miles south of Shelby, North Carolina in south-
central Cleveland County. The site is bordered to the west by Highway 198 and Lavender Road to the
south. The site consists of a main plant production area, wastewater treatment area, former waste disposal
areas, and recreational/wooded areas. The plant production area is covered with buildings and paved or
graveled areas. Toward the wastewater treatment area, the site consists of grassy areas and roads. The
recreation area is wooded and has no structures present. The site is currently fenced and has controlled
access points. Current land use surrounding the site includes mainly rural residential areas and
agricultural. A site location map is presented in Figure 3-1 of the Conceptual Site Model Report (see
Attachment A).
The site has been divided into two Operable Units: OU! addresses contaminated ground water and OU2
addresses contaminated soil and source materials. This independent review focuses on ground water
contamination associated with OU I and only considers impacted soils as they would potentially affect
OU I as a continuing source of contamination for ground water. The OU I remedy consists of two pump
and treat systems. The inner tier (IT) system addresses contamination in the immediate vicinity of the
former source areas and was shutdown on a trial basis in accordance with a 2004 Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) to evaluate monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the absence of remedy
pumping. The outer tier (OT) system addresses the plume near the downgradient property boundary and
was shutdown in accordance with the National Priority List delisting process in 1998.
3
This independent review aims to determine if the IT pump and treat system should be restarted, if a
modified system should be restarted, or if another type of ground water remedial approach is warranted.
4
2.0 FINDINGS
The !DR team reports the following findings from the document review that are pertinent for the
recommendations that have been developed as part of the !DR process and described in Section 3.0 of this
report.
2.1 FINDINGS RELATED TO SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Hydrogeology
Site geology consists primarily of low permeable saprolite overlying bedrock. The saprolite is generally
thickest beneath the plant and thins toward the east and in the vicinity of the adjacent streams. In some
locations the saprolite has pinched out and the creeks flow across the bedrock. Ground water occurs in the
saprolite under water table conditions and in fractures in the bedrock. The direction of groundwater
movement in the shallow saprolite zone is to the east, northeast, and southeast from upgradient areas
along NC 198 toward discharge areas along unnamed tributaries of Buffalo Creek and is shown on Figure
3 of the Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007 (see Attachment A). Direction of groundwater
movement in the deeper saprolite and upper bedrock zone is in the same general direction. Figure 6 of the
Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007 and Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 of the Conceptual Site Model
Report (see Attachment A) present cross-sections of the site prepared by the site contractor. The figures
·from the two reports generally agree, but there are a few discrepancies, including the zone in which
monitoring well 0-59 is screened and the presence of a transition zone between the saprolite and bedrock.
The Site Conceptual Model Report indicates that this transition zone likely has a higher hydraulic
conductivity than the saprolite or bedrock.
The bedrock fracturing reportedly decreases in intensity with depth below the top of rock. In the saprolite,
groundwater generally parallels the ground surface slope. This is also the case in shallow bedrock. In the
deeper bedrock, below the elevation oflocal creek bottoms, groundwater flow becomes more regional,
although discharge to the major creeks appears still dominant. The potentiometric surface in the saprolitic
aquifer slopes to the northeast, east, and southeast toward Buffalo Creek. Based on a generalized
hydraulic gradient of 0.036 feet/foot, an average hydraulic conductivity of 5.13 x 10 .. centimeters per
second (cm/sec) from slug tests, and an effective porosity of0.3, the groundwater seepage velocity was
calculated by the site team at 0.17 feet/day ( 63 feet/year) in the saprolite. The hydraulic conductivity at
some locations is as high as IO feet per day based on slug tests and pumping tests.
Extent of Contamination
The site investigation began in 1981 and determined that the bum pits and Glycol Recovery Unit
distillation bottoms (GRUB) disposal areas located near the center of the property were the probable
source of groundwater contamination. These areas are shown in Figure 3-3 of the Conceptual Site Model
Report. The groundwater contaminants include ethylene glycol, trichloroethene (TCE), diethylene oxide,
DOWTHERM™A constituents (1,1-biphenyl and biphenyl ether), and others (several VOCs, metals, and
phenols in much less extent).
5
The remedial action objective for the former GRUB disposal pits was reportedly to remove the GRUB
plus 1 foot of soil on aJI sides, and was not intended to be a clean closure in the disposal area. This
resulted in leaving contaminated soil in place above the groundwater table. Approximately 4,549 tons of
GRUB sludges, stained soils, and associated contaminated soils were excavated and incinerated from the
source areas in 1991. AdditionaJly, approximately 3,259 tons of bum pit materials and plastic chips and
39 cubic yards of stream sediment were excavated. The incinerator ash, bum pit material, plastic chips,
and stream sediments were solidified with I 0% to 20% by weight of cement and backfilled into the
excavated former GRUB and bum pit areas. OU-2 was delisted in April 1998.
After OU! was operational, localized areas of impact were identified at well F-55 (ethylene
glycol and DOWTHERM™A) and at wells TD-3frD-4 (TCE). The Conceptual Site Model Report states
that these are interpreted as localized issues not related to the source area identified for remediation under
OU! and OU2. These locations are located in the downgradient portion of the process area, upgradient of
the waste disposal areas addressed by OU! and OU2.
Ground water contaminants with ongoing detections at the site include but are not limited to the
following:
• Ethylene glycol
• Diethylene oxide (i.e., 1,4-Dioxane)
• l, 1-biphenyl
• Biphenyl ether
• TCE
In addition, iron, manganese, and arsenic are found in elevated concentrations, presumably due to the
reducing ground water conditions at the site caused by the presence of ethylene glycol. ·
In July 2007, ethylene glycol was detected above the standard of 14,000 ug/L at the following three wells:
• F-55 at 6,680,000 ug/L
• IT-6 at 1,011,000 ug/L (average between two samples)
• V-23 at 8,280,000 ug/L
IT-6 and V-23 are located in the vicinity of the former bum pits and GRUB disposal area. F-55 is located
in the saprolite up gradient of these locations in the downgradient portion of the process area. Ethylene
glycol is not detected in downgradient weJls HH-48 and HH-77. Ethylene glycol has a very low organic
carbon partitioning coefficient; therefore, sorption to soil and associated transport retardation is expected
to be negligible. Ethylene glycol degrades rapidly in aerobic environments and can also degrade in
anaerobic environments.
Data from 2006 and 2007 indicate that diethylene oxide is present in many of the site monitoring wells
above the standard of 7 ug/L with the highest concentrations occurring in monitoring wells in the saprolite
in the vicinity of the former bum pits and GRUB disposal area at a maximum concentration of
approximately 3,120 ug/L. From this location, it appears that the plume may split into two or three arms
with·contamination migrating to the northeast near monitoring wells M-54, KK-55, P-58, PZ-12, to the
east near monitoring wells 11-65, and to the southeast near monitoring wells OT-2R, OT-3, NN-105, and
T-58. In aJI three areas, it appears that concentrations are the highest in deep saprolite or shallow
bedrock. The pathways to the northeast and east may be one larger plume, but it is difficult to tell given
ihe absence of monitoring points between these two pathways in the deep saprolite or shallow bedrock. A
separate diethylene oxide plume appears to originate from the F-55 and G-50 area that migrates south
toward 1-57. Diethylene oxide is not detected in downgradient wells HH-48 and HH-77. Figure I
illustrates the apparent diethylene oxide migration pathways. Diethylene oxide has a very low organic
6
carbon partitioning coefficient; therefore, sorption to soil and associated transport retardation is expected
to be negligible. In addition, diethylene oxide does not readily degrade; therefore, diethylene oxide is
expected to behave essentially as a conservative tracer with no sorption or degradation.
Diethylene oxide appears to be present in the bedrock and deep bedrock based on sampling results for the
LL, MM, and NN clusters between 2004 and 2006. However, these detections of diethylene oxide in
these clusters may be the result of pulling down contamination while installing the wells. Each of these
three well clusters was installed in February 2004 through shallower zones with elevated diethylene oxide
concentrations, and the first round of sampling was conducted in June 2004. Another round of sampling
was conducted in August 2004 and a third round of sampling was conducted in September 2006. For all
three clusters, all wells (with the exception ofNN-105) have shown consistent and substantial declines
that are much faster than would be expected from an established plume at this distance from the source
area at this site. Based on the reported slow recovery of these wells during sampling, it is apparent that
these wells have limited flow of water through them and it is reasonable that contamination brought down
during the drilling process is slowly being flushed from the vicinity of the well screen.
Sampling for 1,1-biphenyl and biphenyl ether appears to be limited to F-55 and wells and the PEW wells,
which are in the general vicinity of F-55. The concentrations for 1,1-biphenyl are highest in F-55 and are
approximately one order of magnitude above the standard.
TCE is primarily detected in two different locations: a presumed but unidentified source area near
monitoring wells TD-3 and TD-4 in the process area and approximately 1,000 feet downgradient of the
site at HH-48 (saprolite) and HH-77 (shallow bedrock). The concentrations at TD-3 and TD-4 in July
2007 were 416 ug/L and 2,280 ug/L, respectively. TCE in TD-3 has been generally declining since it was
first detected in 1998, and TCE concentrations in TD-4 generally increased since 200 I and appear to have
begun declining since 2006. The concentrations at HH-48 and HH-77 in July 2007 were 85.9 ug/L and
360 ug/L, respectively. TCE has been present in HH-48 at comparable concentrations since 1989, and
TCE concentrations have generally increased at HH-77 to the present value since 1989. TCE at other site
monitoring wells was not detected (at an appropriate detection limit), was detected below standards, or
was detected slightly above standards. For example, TCE was detected at PEW-4 and CC-33 at 15.7 ug/L
and 3.8 ug/L, respectively, relative to a standard of2.8 ug/L. TD-4 is screened near the bottom of the
saprolite and has a higher TCE concentration than TD-3, which is screened approximately 30 feet above
TD-4. TCE is not vertically delineated in this area. TCE degradation products (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
and vinyl chloride) are either not detected or are detected at very low concentrations at both the TD-3/4
cluster and the HH cluster indicating that there is little or no TCE degradation occurring in or upgradient
of these areas.
Potential Receptors
Potential complete exposure pathways for humans to contaminated ground water identified in RI/FS
included ingestion of contaminated groundwater downgradient of the site. In 1996, I 00% of adjacent off-
site residents considered to be potentially at risk were connected to the Cleveland County water system
and all individual domestic wells were abandoned. Although this might eliminate current ground water
receptors, a potential pathway for future ground water receptors might still exist.
Potential ecological receptors for contaminated ground water are the unnamed tributaries to Buffalo
Creek that run along the northern and southern portions of the site.
7
Remedy Objectives
The ROD objectives of the ground water remedy are to
o Control migration of contaminated water
o Remove contaminated water
o Treat and discharge the extracted water
o Attain North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standards
The following table presents the North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standards for constituents
identified in the ROD and for constituents identified subsequent to the ROD.
Constituent Standard
Inorganics:
Barium 2,000 u 'L
Chromium 50 ul!/
Iron 300u 'I
Lead 15 UQ L
Marnrnnese 50uo L
Nickel I00uo L
Selenium 50u11,L
Ore:anics
Acetone 700 uo11
Benzene lul!iL
I, 1-Biphenyl 350 ul!/L
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 2.5 ul!/L
Carbon tetrachloride 0.269 ul!iL
Chlordane 0.1 u, L
Chlorobenzene 50 UQ L
Chloroform 70 uo L
Chloromethane 2.6m L
Diethvlene oxide (1,4-dioxane) 7 UOI
I, 1-Dichloroethane 70uo;L
I, 1-Dichloroethene 7ul!iL
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 ul!iL
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 ul!iL
Ethvlene olvcol 14,000 ul!iL
Methvlene chloride 4.6 UI IL
2-Methvlnaohthalene 14 u, L
Naohthalene 21 uo/1
Phenol 300 ul!iL
Tetrachloroethvlene (PCE) 0.7 ul!iL
Trichloroethene (TCE) 2.8 ug/L
Vinvl chloride 0.015 ul!/l
Additionally, a Class C surface water standard for secondary recreation of 110 ug/L of diethylene oxide
has been established by NCDENR for streams adjacent to the site.
8
Description of Remedy
The ground water remedy consists of two pump and treat systems: an inner tier (IT) system designed to
address contamination near the former GRUB disposal area and burn pits and an outer tier (OT) system
designed to control plume migration near the downgradient property boundary.
The IT system consists of nine extraction wells that are each 2 inches in diameter and completed in the
shallow saprolite. The extracted water is pumped to an equalization tank and is then treated by an
activated sludge sequencing bioreactor, air stripping, and carbon adsorption. The treated water is
discharged to the facility's water treatment plant NPDES permitted outfall. The IT system was
temporarily shutdown in April 2004, in accordance with an ESD, to evaluate the potential for MNA in the
absence of remedy pumping.
The OT system consists of 10 extraction wells that are each 6 inches in diameter and completed in the
deep saprolite and shallow bedrock. The extracted water is pumped to an equalization tank and is then
treated by air stripping and carbon adsorption. The treated water is discharged to the facility's water
treatment plant NPDES permitted outfall. The OT system was shutdown in accordance with the National
Priority List delisting process in 1998.
Monitoring Program
The ground water monitoring program includes quarterly sampling from several wells for constituents of
concern and for MNA parameters. Results are reported semi-annually. Tables I and 2 from the semi-
annual reports outline the monitoring program. These tables are included in Attachment A of this report
for reference.
2.2 FINDINGS RELATED TO EXISTING REMEDY
Contaminant Fate and Transport
The contaminant fate and transport for three pertinent site contaminants ( ethylene glycol, TCE, and
diethylene oxide) are discussed in this section. The discussion is limited to these parameters because they
are the likely drivers for site remediation. Understanding the fate and transport of these contaminants
depends heavily on an understanding of the ground water flow at the site. The site contractor prepared a
ground water model to help understand ground water flow at the site. Findings regarding hydraulic data
and this numerical model are discussed first.
Hydraulic Data and Ground Water Flow Model
The ground water flow model was calibrated using the water level data from October 2005. This data set
for the shallow saprolite indicates a hydraulic head gradient of 0.015 feet per foot below the process
building, 0.03 feet per foot from the treatment ponds to the downgradient edge of the property (and also
on the northern and southern edges of the process area), and 0.023 feet per foot from the western
boundary to the eastern boundary. Ground water beneath the process area and immediately to the east of
the process area appears to flow to the north, east, and south. The hydraulic head gradient for the deep
saprolite is relatively similar, and the hydraulic head gradient for the shallow bedrock is relatively
uniform at 0.017 feet per foot. Vertical ground water flow seems to be downward from the saprolite to
the bedrock near the process building and is almost absent at downgradient locations.
9
The ground water flow model appears to generally simulate these ground water flow patterns in the
shallow saprolite, deep saprolite, and shallow bedrock. The model calibration statistics are reasonable,
and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. However, there are some limitations to the model development
that might affect how it is used for forecasting and/or understanding ground water flow at the site.
• Hydraulic conductivity zones and values appear to vary significantly over relatively small
distances. Furthermore, the hydraulic conductivity zones and values do not appear to agree with
the slug or pump test results. For example, in the shallow saprolite, the area among the ponds
was assigned a hydraulic conductivity of0.3 feet per day, but the slug test results for 0-25, N-29,
and W-33 (which are in this area) were l foot per day, 2 feet per day, and 8 feet per day,
respectively. Therefore, one would expect the model to have a higher hydraulic conductivity in
this area. Similarly, in the deep saprolite hydraulic conductivities of 5.3 feet per day (OT-I pump
test) and JO feet per day (Q-33 slug test) are located in model zones with a hydraulic conductivity
of 1.6 feet per day.
• The low hydraulic conductivity from the IT wells may be the result of well fouling or well
construction. These wells operated as 2-inch extraction wells that had a relatively low yield. It is
likely that they had some degree of iron fouling given the high levels of iron in the aquifer in that
vicinity. In addition, extraction wells are typically larger in diameter, so the small diameter calls
into question the quality of the well construction. If significant well fouling is present, the aquifer
hydraulic conductivity in this area may be higher than that measured by the slug tests,
• The simulated contours appear to be substantially more complex than the contours interpreted
from actual measurements suggesting that the use of many hydraulic conductivity zones in a
single layer with large ranges in hydraulic conductivity (e.g., 0.2 feet per day to 50 feet per day),
are complicating the contours in an attempt to match water levels at individual wells.
• The conceptual model includes a transition zone between the saprolite and bedrock that is likely
higher in hydraulic conductivity than the saprolite or bedrock. This zone could therefore be
considered a preferential pathway for contamination. The zone is observed in several monitoring
wells and is depicted as continuous across the site, but the hydraulic conductivity of the zone has
not been tested, and the zone is included in the deep saprolite zone in the model rather than as a
distinct zone that may have a higher hydraulic conductivity.
• The model was only calibrated against the water levels from October 2005 using recharge and
stream discharge as the primary stresses. A ground water flow model would ideally be calibrated
under multiple stresses (e.g., pumping and non-pumping conditions). Given that a pump and treat
system was active at this site, it would seem feasible to also calibrate the model against a set of
water levels from a time when the system was operating to demonstrate that the chosen
parameters also apply under a different pumping scenario. It would also be appropriate to
conduct extended aquifer tests using system extraction wells to refine hydraulic conductivity
estimates.
• The model report does not discuss the conductances used for the river and drain boundary
conditions in the model. These parameters can significantly change how much water is
discharged from the aquifer to the rivers and drains, and combined with recharge and the constant
head boundaries, are the only parameters in the absence of pumping that help determine the
calibrated value of the hydraulic conductivity. The conductances of the streams close to the site
relative to that of the other streams and Buffalo Creek could control how much of the ground
water from the site discharges to the tributaries that are close to the site versus Buffalo Creek.
Given that the rivers are the ultimate discharge point for all water in the model, which river
receives the majority of the water and contamination will control how far the plume spreads
before discharging to surface water.
• The model report cites that optimal parameter settings for some hydraulic conductivity zones
were not selected because it caused the simulated values for the layers 4 and 5 to deviate from
actual values. However, in another part of the report, it is stated that the measured values,
particularly in layer 5, may not be reliable.
In summary, based on the model developed, it is difficult to accept the modeling results without some
reservation. For example, although the calibrated value for a wide portion of the modeling domain is 2
feet per day and this parameter is relatively sensitive to change in this value, this hydraulic conductivity
value is dependent on the value of the recharge selected and the conductance of the river/stream beds. A
different recharge rate and/or a different riverbed conductance could result in a reasonable change in this
calibrated parameter.
Diethylene Oxide
Based on water level measurements and stream gauge measurements it is readily apparent that the core
interval of diethylene oxide migrating in the deep saprolite/shallow bedrock discharges to the stream that
runs north/south through the eastern edge of the Celanese property. The elevations of the screen intervals
for contaminated wells M-54, PZ-12, and P-58 are over 720 feet above mean sea level, and the screen
interval for contaminated well 11-65 is between 700 and 705 feet above mean sea level. The stream
elevation is approximately 700 feet above mean sea level near 11-65 and diethylene oxide is consistently
observed in surface water where the diethylene oxide plume is expected to discharge. Diethylene oxide
concentrations in surface water have been as high as 67.5 ug/L, which is below the surface water standard
for the site of l IO ug/L. There is a general upward gradient from bedrock to saprolite at the MM/ M
cluster, location, and there is generally an upward gradient from shallow bedrock to saprolite at the II
cluster. There is a downward gradient in bedrock at the LL cluster, so additional information at this
location or downgradient of this location would be beneficial to demonstrate ultimate discharge of the
plume to the stream. Additional monitoring over time is likely needed to confirm decreasing
concentrations in bedrock wells to support the case that the observed bedrock contamination is associated
with well installation.
To the southeast of the site, the highest diethylene oxide concentrations suggest migration toward and
along the stream the runs through residential area with ground water restrictions. It is unclear how far the
di ethylene oxide migrates before discharging to the stream and if the plume is still present on the far side
of the ground water restriction area. Sampling results indicate that di ethylene oxide contamination has
not migrated to HH-48 and HH-47 suggesting that these wells are not in a primary migration pathway for
contaminants migrating from the GRUB area.
Ethylene Glycol
In contrast to the diethylene oxide, ethylene glycol appears to be relatively localized in the source area.
This is likely due to the relatively rapid degradation of ethylene glycol; however, it may also be due, in
part, to the extent of the sampling for ethylene glycol. Ten of the monitoring wells along the preferential
pathway for diethylene oxide have not been sampled for ethylene glycol.
11
TCE
The interpreted TCE plume also differs from that of diethylene oxide plume. With the exception ofHH-
48 and HH-77, the presence ofTCE appears limited compared to that of diethylene oxide. Unlike
ethylene glycol, this is not likely due to TCE degradation because TCE degradation products are not
present in significant concentrations at any of the sampled monitoring wells. The apparent limited extent
ofTCE may partially be due to retardation ofTCE since it has the potential to adsorb to soil more
strongly than diethylene oxide, but it would be unlikely for the TCE retardation factor to be more than a
factor of 2 at this site given the expected low organic carbon fraction of the soil. The relatively limited
sampling for TCE may be a factor. Seven of the wells sampled along the preferential pathway marked by
diethylene oxide have not been sampled for TCE, and another four were sampled as far back as 2001 or
earlier. It is unclear when the TCE release occurred. TCE was first detected in a sample collected from
TD-3 in 1998 but was not detected in TD-4 until 2001. By contrast diethylene oxide was present in some
downgradient locations by 1998. The limited extent of the TCE plume, may be, in part, due to a
relatively later release compared to that for diethylene oxide.
It is unclear if the TCE identified at HH-48 and HH-77 result from a release to ground water from the
Celanese process area. The following are arguments for and against the TCE at HH-48 and HH-77 being
linked to the Celanese process area.
Arguments against a link
The TCE detected at HH-48 was detected as early as 1988. It is unclear when or where the TCE
release occurred that resulted in the contamination at TD-3. The first sample collected from TD-3
was collected in 1998. Evidence for a relatively late release is that TCE was not detected in TD-4
in I 998. It was first detected in TD-4 in 200 I. Therefore, TCE contamination was identified far
down gradient of the site IO years prior to the first TCE samples on site and before detections
were present in TD-4.
Diethylene oxide, which is more mobile than TCE and likely released in greater quantities has not
been detected in HH-48 and HH-77. These two wells appear to straddle the general vertical zone
where diethylene oxide would be detected if it was migrating in this direction. The absence of
diethylene oxide in these two wells suggests that these wells are not along the preferred path for
contaminant transport at this site and that the TCE might be better explained by a local source.
Given that the TCE source is up gradient of the diethylene oxide source, it is expected that TCE
would follow the same migration pathways as the diethylene oxide. Based on diethylene oxide
sample results, the deep saprolite/shallow bedrock/transition zone is likely the preferential
pathway for contaminant transport at the site. As such, it is unlikely that TCE would have
migrated vertically into and through bedrock to the HH wells faster than it would through the
transition zone. In addition, TCE concentrations at the HH wells first appeared the HH-48 in the
saprolite before appearing in HH-77 in the bedrock, lending further evidence for a localized TCE
source at the surface that migrated deeper over time rather than migrating upward from bedrock.
Potential Data Gaps or Uncertainties
There are concentrations on site that are high enough to explain the observed concentrations at
HH-48 and HH-77. Although the detected TCE concentrations in TD-3 and TD-4 are on the
order of I to 2 _mg/L, these wells are not necessarily at the source area, and areas on site with
higher concentrations are likely.
12
There are very few, if any, samples collected from the transition zone between the source area
and HH-48 and HH-77.
A set of realistic transport parameters for the site can result in sufficiently fast transport times for
TCE to have reached HH-48 by 1988. For example, a hydraulic gradient of0.02, a hydraulic
conductivity as low as 5 feet per day in the transition zone, and a porosity of0.2 would yield an
unretarded transport velocity of approximately 180 feet per year. This would allow TCE to reach
from the TD-3ffD-4 location to the HH-48/HH-77 location within 20 years. The facility began
operation in 1960.
Remedy Effectiveness
The IT system appears to have had minimal effectiveness when operating. The wells were small diameter
and had very low yield relative to the estimated amount of water flowing through that portion of the
aquifer. As a result, the mass recovery and source control offered by the system were likely negligible.
The Fourth Five-Year Review indicated that the IT system pumped approximately 1.6 million gallons
over a three year period, which translates to an average extraction rate of I gallon per minute. By
contrast, using a hydraulic conductivity of 2 feet per day (global hydraulic conductivity value from the
model), a hydraulic gradient of0.02, a saturated thickness of approximately 50 feet, and a source area
width of at least 500 feet, the amount of water flowing through the system would be approximately 5
gallons per minute. Typically, extraction should exceed this flow rate by a factor of two or more, and in
this case, the extraction is lower by a factor of five.
It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the OT system because little water quality data and system
operational parameters are available to evaluate the hydraulic control it provided. The diethylene oxide
plume has migrated beyond the OT system, but this may have occurred prior to system installation and
operation. The OT system was apparently sufficiently effective to be delisted in 1998, but this is before
diethylene oxide was identified as a potential contaminant of concern.
The evaluation of an MNA remedy depends on the constituent of concern being evaluated. With respect
to diethylene oxide, MNA does not appear to be a viable remedy because the contaminant does not
readily degrade and has demonstrated the ability to migrate over 1,000 feet from the source area at
concentrations that are 50 times greater than the cleanup standard.
With respect to TCE, there is insufficient information to evaluate MNA because many of the critical
monitoring wells (i.e., those marked by diethylene oxide transport and along ground water flow paths)
have not been sampled for TCE. Finally, there is a lack of information regarding TCE distribution in the
source area and between HH-48 and HH-77. The concentrations at TD-3 have declined and the
concentrations at TD-4 appear to have peaked, but little is known about the locations of these wells
relative to the source of TCE. A shift in the ground water flow direction may be the cause for the change
in concentrations in these wells. Alternatively, the TCE source may have attenuated and the TCE at these
wells is migrating from these points to locations downgradient. Regardless, there is little evidence for
degradation of TCE near TD-3ffD-4 and at HH-48/HH-77. If additional sampling of key wells
substantially increases the known TCE plume extent, then it is likely that MNA would not be a suitable
remedy for TCE. On the other hand, if sampling confirms a limited TCE extent, then MNA may be
appropriate for the TD-3ffD-4 TCE plume once the source has been addressed.
With respect to ethylene glycol, it is likely that MNA is an appropriate remedy due to the potential for this
compound to degrade; however, sampling of key monitoring wells is lacking. It is unclear if aerobic
13
degradation of ethylene glycol could lead reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations in nearby streams
and/or if increased metals concentrations from reducing conditions caused by ethylene glycol degradation
could lead to metals exceeding surface water standards.
14
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CHARACTERIZATION
Diethylene oxide has migrated further and at higher levels above standards than any other contaminant
on-site, and the plume is not delineated horizontally. The ground water flow model suggests that all
ground water discharges to streams in the vicinity of the site, but given the limitations to model
calibration at this complex site, additional information is needed to confirm this fate of the diethylene
oxide and consequently delineate the extent of the plume. Additionally, the southeastern portion of the
diethylene oxide plume appears to run parallel with a stream running through a residential area. It is
likely that diethylene oxide is discharging to this stream, but additional information is needed to help
confirm the extent of the plume along this stream. Based on the results, it may be necessary to expand the
restrictions regarding ground water use in the area, particularly if it is found that the diethylene oxide
continues to migrate in the subsurface further downstream than the area currently covered by ground
water use restrictions.
Suggested Characterization Efforts to the Northeast to Delineate Diethylene Oxide
The north/south running stream (gauged at locations SW-3 and SW-7) is the likely discharge point for
diethylene oxide migrating to the north and east of the site. However, the steep topography and thick
brush leading down to the stream and up the valley on the opposite side make it impractical to install
monitoring wells to delineate the plume with water quality data alone. Therefore, it is practical to attempt
to delineate the plume by demonstrating that it discharges to this stream and therefore does not continue
migrating through the subsurface to another discharge point further downgradient. Sufficient evidence is
discussed in section 2.2 of this report to demonstrate that this stream is the discharge point for the
diethylene oxide; however, a few data gaps remain. The following is suggested:
• Continue sampling bedrock wells in the LL, MM, and NN clusters to confirm continued
decreasing trends and supporting evidence that observed contamination in bedrock is associated
with well installation rather than significant vertical migration. If continued monitoring cannot
support this hypothesis, then additional data will be needed to determine the fate of diethylene
oxide observed in deep bedrock because some of these deep wells are almost 200 feet deeper than
the stream bed.
• Install a bedrock monitoring well at the II cluster location to vertically delineate the plume and to
demonstrate an upward gradient within bedrock at this location given that there appears to be a
downward gradient at the LL cluster. To the degree possible, measures should be taken to
minimize the potential for pulling down contamination while drilling. A telescoping well may be
appropriate with a total depth of approximately 120 feet below ground surface. The well should
be sampled and analyzed for site contaminants and water levels should be measured and
compared with other locations to evaluate the vertical hydraulic gradient. The cost for installing
this well might be $45,000, including work plans and contractor oversight.
15
• Install one or two new stream gauges upstream of SW-3 and include stream gauge measurements
from existing and new stream gauges in development of potentiometric surface maps and
potentiometric surface cross•sections.
Suggested Characterization Efforts to the Southeast
The diethylene oxide plume to the southeast (i.e., near OT-2R) would be best delineated by several
monitoring wells placed within and potentially downgradient of the residential area with restricted ground
water use. Given that ground water in this area is expected to discharge to the stream, an alternative
approach to delineation could be to collect and analyze samples from ground water along the stream bank
to determine where diethylene oxide is discharging to the stream and at what distance downstream the
diethylene oxide concentrations become undetectable. A sampling methodology should be developed to
ensure that ground water, and not surface water, is sampled. If the results are inconclusive, delineation
with monitoring wells would be needed. In addition, if the plume extends beyond the current ground
water restriction area, potable well sampling and use restrictions would likely need to be expanded
downgradient.
Assuming ground water sampling at 10 stream bank locations and surface water sampling at 5 locations,
the cost for delineation activities might be approximately $25,000, including planning.
Suggested Sampling for Delineation of Other Constituents
The distributions of TCE and ethylene glycol at the site are not well understood due to a lack of sampling
from appropriate locations. The diethylene oxide plume helps highlight preferential pathways for
contaminant migration, and many of the wells with elevated di ethylene oxide concentrations have not
been sampled for TCE or ethylene glycol. The following existing monitoring wells should be sampled
and analyzed for TCE (and volatile organic compounds), DOWTHERM™ A, ethylene glycol, dissolved
oxygen, oxygen demand, and metals because elevated diethylene oxide concentrations are present or
because they are transition zone wells.
F-55
G-50
-1-57
-M-44
-P-58
-Z-78
-W-23
-AA-54
BB-18
DD-58R
GG-39
11-65
-KK-55
LL-110
LL-175
-LL-295
-MM-128
MM-170
16
MM-280
-NN-105
NN-240
-PZ-3
PZ-4
-PZ-12
PZ-13
OT-IR
OT-2R
OT-3
-The new deep well installed at the II cluster.
Assuming six wells can be sampled by a two person crew for $2,000 per day and analysis costs of $250
per sample, this additional sampling could likely be accomplished for under $25,000 per event. A
minimum of two events would be suggested.
Suggested Characterization for the TCE Source Zone
The TCE source zone has not been identified, and the plume is not vertically delineated beneath TD-4. A
source zone investigation utilizing existing information and direct-push sampling is recommended to
identify the source area and determine if it is practical to remove. It is also recommended that two new
bedrock monitoring wells ( one below and one approximately I 00 feet downgradient and deeper than TD-
4) be installed and sampled to vertically delineate TCE in this area. The TRIAD approach with dynamic
work planning and field-based decisions should be considered when planning and executing the all
aspects of this characterization to minimize the number of field events and to provide for timely
characterization. Assuming a file review, three-day direct-push event, plus installation and sampling of
two monitoring wells, the cost for this activities would likely be approximately $50,000, including
planning.
Based on the results from the above activities, the site team should revisit the site conceptual model and
evaluate if additional important data gaps are missing with respect to the TCE source and migration
pathways. If additional data gaps are missing, additional characterization may be required prior to
selecting an appropriate remedial measure.
A number of limitations were mentioned with regard to the ground water flow model, but it is unclear if
these limitations should be addressed to reliably use the model for evaluating contaminant fate and
transport. Some of the limitations are fundamental, including the presence, extent, and parameters of the
transition zone as well as the conductances of the river and drain boundary conditions. It is unclear if
sufficient information is present to help accurately adjust the model accordingly. Additional information
would likely be required, and even if the model were updated, it is likely that ultimate decisions regarding
contaminant fate and transport and site remedy would be based on continuing water quality data. An
updated model may be appropriate for evaluating a pump and treat capture zone or to design and
extraction system, but this is not an immediate concern for the site.
17
3.2 SUGGESTED REMEDIAL STRATEGY (FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE)
Selecting an appropriate remedial measure for the site is highly dependent on the results of the
recommended characterization, on the interpretation ofregulations by the site team, and on the
development of appropriate standards for diethylene oxide. Remedy selection is discussed in context of
each of the three primary contaminants, beginning with diethylene oxide.
Diethylene Oxide
Diethylene oxide is a difficult contaminant to address. It cannot readily be removed via air stripping or
carbon adsorption and is generally resistant to bioremediation in typical subsurface conditions or in
typical bioreactors. To date, the discharge of diethylene oxide plume to nearby streams has not resulted
in an exceedance of the surface water criteria, but diethylene oxide remains in the subsurface above the 7
ug/L ground water criteria which serves as an ARAR for this site. There are two predominant remediation
options for this constituent. One is to identify and remove the remaining source material and allow the
existing plume to attenuate. The other is to declare source removal impractical and to capture the core of
the plume, allowing the toe of the plume to attenuate. Some combination of source removal and ground
water extraction may also be appropriate to allow aquifer restoration in a timely manner.
The GRUB area was reportedly used as far back as the mid to late I 960s, and the earliest diethylene oxide
sampling (in 1998) suggests that plume had migrated at least as far as the OT system. Assuming
diethylene oxide reached ground water in 1970 and the plume reached it's current extent by 1998,
suggests that transport took less than 30 years. It is reasonable to conclude that in the absence of a
continuing source cleanup via natural flushing and dispersion will take substantially longer than initial
plume transport.
Figure 2 provides a flow chart to illustrate the potential process for arriving at a remedy for diethylene
oxide. Consistent with current findings in literature, this flow chart assumes that in-situ remediation will
not be appropriate for providing reliable plume control. Source removal, source control, and active plume
remediation are considered as is the potential need to expand institutional controls for ground water usage
in the vicinity of the site is also indicated.
Long-term source control or active plume remediation with ground water extraction and treatment has the
limitation of needing to provide cost-effective treatment. The facility's activated sludge treatment plant
provides some treatment of diethylene oxide through cometabolism with tetrahydrofuran, which is
reportedly present in the facility's waste water. However, it is unclear if this degree of treatment would
be sufficient to meet standards. In addition, use of the facility's activated sludge system would require
the system to continue operating for the duration of the source control remedy, which would very likely
be longer than 30 years. If additional treatment for diethylene oxide is needed, the most successful and
reliable currently available treatment process is advanced oxidation. This is typically implemented with
UV /oxidation or with oxidation from reacting ozone and hydrogen peroxide. The implementation of
either of these approaches would highly depend on the quality of the extracted water. The performance of
these technologies is greatly influenced by the presence of iron and solids, pH, total organic carbon, and
other parameters. In addition, if bromide is present then there is potential to create bromate (a
carcinogen) as a byproduct. These complications associated with long-term water treatment are further
motivating factors for identifying and removing tlie source material in an attempt to avoid ground water
extraction and treatment.
18
Additional sampling for TCE may indicate that it has an attenuating source and a plume of limited extent
that is controlled by degradation associated with reducing conditions from the ethylene glycol plume.
Alternatively, additional sampling may indicate a continuing source and preferential pathways that allow
TCE to migrate from the site. If the former is true, then TCE may be appropriately addressed by
continued monitoring to document the declining source and the controlled plume. If the latter is true, then
source area remediation or some form of plume control may be appropriate. The form of plume control
would depend on how the site team chooses to address the other contaminants. For example, if the site
team chooses to control diethylene oxide migration with a pump and treat system, then the TCE could
likely also be controlled with the same system.
Regardless of the source, the TCE in the vicinity of the HH cluster should be delineated as it may extend
downgradient of the restricted ground water use area. However, if the source is determined to be local to
the HH cluster (rather than site-related), these delineation activities would presumably not be the
responsibility of Celanese. The results from the suggested sampling of existing wells and from the TCE
source investigation should provide adequate information to conclude if the source is site-related or local
to the HH cluster.
Ethylene Glycol
Additional sampling for ethylene glycol may confirm that this constituent is degrading sufficiently to
limit plume migration. Further sampling may also indicate that the reducing conditions fostered by the
ethylene glycol are instrumental in controlling or helping to control the TCE plume. Alternatively,
additional monitoring may suggest that degradation of the organic carbon associated with the ethylene
glycol may eventually adversely affect the dissolved oxygen content or metals concentrations in nearby
streams.
3.3 POTENTIAL SCHEDULE
It is recommended that additional testing and study for potential remedies be postponed until the results
from the above-noted sampling are available and the site conceptual model updated. The following
schedule might apply:
Conduct the suooested characterization Bv 12/31/09
Renort findings and uodate site concentua1 model Bv 3/1/10
Uodate/exoand institutional controls as needed Bv 3/31/10
Select a ground water remedy (source remediation, source By 6/30/IO
control, and the ootential the need for active plume remediation)
Desion and plan for the wound water remedy Bv 12/30/10
Implement the wound water remedy Be•in bv 3/31/1 I
Evaluate effectiveness and modify remedv accordim!lv Ommim!
19
J ,,--...:
Ii-~--~ J' /€1 -....;:
'I'-II '
a t
•
I~ ~. iii
II /I Ii! // .,
i
I
.•
/ I
\
' ' ' ' \ ' ' \ '
Legend
DIETHYL.ENE OXIDEs 0.007
• DI ETHYLENE OXIDE> 0.007
SURFACE WATER LOCATION
e MONITORING WELL
,.; EXTRACTION WELL
,, PEWWELL
PIEZOMETER
~ PARCEL WITH WATER RESTRICTION
~-CREEK
D INDUSTRIAL POND
-RECREATION POW D BUILDING/STRUCTURE
C) PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N
I
500 250 0
NOTES: (1) CCNCENTRATION UNIT:rrg'l
(2) BOLD-FACED FONT: DETEtTED
500
Feet
CONCENTRATOOABOVE NC 21.. STANOAAO
(3) &r~Niso~O~ STANDARD FOR
(4) HH AND EWOT WELL DATA IS FOOMAPRJL2007
SAMPLING EVENT
Figure 1 -Migration Pathways Based on
Diethylene Oxide Concentrations > 70 ug/L
Update/expand institutional
controls for ground water
usage in the vicinity of the
site as needed
Design, implement, and operate an appropriate
pre-or post-treatment system to address
diethylene oxide prior to discharge to faciity
water treatment plant
Deline81e plume
No
Characterize source area and determine practicability
of source removal
Is active ground water
treatment required for
source control, plume
control, or accelerated
plume remediation?
Determine target capture zone and design
an appropriate extraction system to
provide control, estimate influent
concentrations
Does existing treatment
process have adequate
hydraulic capacity to accept
water from the new treatment
system?
Yu
Operate new extraction system with existing
treatment components with mlnOr modifications
recognizing that an alternative wiU be needed If
operation of the existing treatment faciity is
discontinued or modified
No
No
Estimate time frame for plume attenuation in the
absence of a continuing source
Proceed with an approved
passive remedy and evatuate
performance
Yes
Design, imptement, and operate an appropriate
treatment system to address all contaminants of
concern at the required hydraulic capacity
Develop standard for discharge to surface water
from treatment plant
Figure 2. Flow Chart Illustrating Potential
Process for Arriving at a Remedy for
Diethylene Oxide
SOURCE: USGS 7.6 MIN. QUADRANGLE&
BLACKSBURG NORTH, NC -1971
GROVER, NC· 1993
© EarthTech
A Tyco International Ltd. Company
SCALE
FIGURE 3-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS, INC. /TICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 2007 79750
850 A Plant Area ·-----------------
840
830
820
810
800
790
780
no
760
750
740
730
720
710
700
690
680
670
--Line of equal fluid potential (1 msl)
(dashed where inferred)
• Potentiometric Surface
__. Inferred direction of groundwater
movement
DIIIIDD Screen
l'°,''/\I Saprolite
~~.~:.··~I Bedrock
Wastewater Treatment Area
1 inch equals 500 feet
@EarthTech
A Tyco International Ltd. Company
A' 850
840
830
820
810
800
790
780
:::;-
<f) ~no
t;:
·-
FIGURE 6
HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION A-A'
JANUARY 2007
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
760
750
740
730
720
710
700
690
680
670
SEPTEMBER 2007 Shelby, North Carolina 79750
800
750
-' VI :;;
i 700
IL
.E
C 0 iii > .s, 650 w
600
550
500
A (West)
"' '7 C
Ground Surface
Casing
Sep Screen
Deep Sap Screen
TZ Screen
ShaDow BR Scm
lntermed BR San.
Deep BR San. x· TopofTZ ... Top of BR
i Fracture Locations .. Shallow Sap GW Elev . .. Deep Sap GW Elev .
.-TZGWElev.
T ShaDow BR GW Elev ..
shallow Sap I_,,~---
shallow BR
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater elevations measured in January 2007
(2) TD-3, TD-4, Tl-1, and Tl-2 weU screen intervals not
identified
-23 0-25
EARTH®TEC
A 'b/CD INTERNATTONAL LTD. COMPANY
I
i
A' (East)
FIGURE4-2
CROSS SECTION A-A'
CNA Holdings, lnc,/Ticona
Shelby, North Carolina
September 2007 79750
B (South)
...I "'
850
800
750
::0 -58 g 700
"-= C ~ m ~ w 650
600
550
X ...
i
T •
X ...
i
T
T
LEGEND
Ground Surface
Casing
ShaDow Sap Screen
Deep Sap Screen
TZ Screen
Shallow BR Scm
lntermed BR 5cm.
Deep BR 5cm.
Top ofTZ
Top of BR
Fracture Locations
Sap GWElev.
Deep Sap GW Elev.
T T TZGWElev.
• .-Shallow BR GW Elev
T lntenned BR GW Elev.
-.., Deep BR GW Elev.
B' (North)
Bedrock
00-218
--------------------------------------------"'"---_, ·2. _ .... -
500 J----_,.-=---;;c-~---_-_-_-_-_.-_-_ .. _-_-_-_-~-.:..-~---_-_--"----_-.f._ ____________ -.--_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_. ;..-___ ·.;.•_-__ -_.,.-_-_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-....;°";.~~:.;~_-_-_-_-__ . _:.:.;·~--.L..--1
shallow Sap r _,, __ ..
shallow BR
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater Elevations measured in January 2007
E A R T H 0 T E C
A 'tf/CD INTERNAnONAl LTD. COMPANY
I
1
FIGURE4-3
CROSS SECTION B-B'
CNA Holdings, lnc.fTicona
Shelby, North Carolina
5eptember 2007 79750
C (South)
850 ---------------------
800
..J ~
j700
"-
-= C 0 ~
~650
600
550
500
LEGEND
Ground Surface
Casing
ShaDow Sap Screen
Deep Sap Screen
TZ Screen
Shallow BR Scrn
lntenned BR Scm.
Deep BR 5cm.
X X TopofTZ
+ • TopofBR
i-'i, Fracture Locations .. .. .. .. .. ..
T Shallow Sap GW Elev .
T Deep Sap GW Ele11 .
T TZGWElev .
T ShaDow BR GW Bev
.,-lntermed BR GWEtev .
T OeepBRGWElev.
shallow Sap I~""•-·
shallow BR
NN-240 __ , _ · _ __: _____ _
'-'
NN-28_0
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater Elevations measured in January 2007
E A R T H O T E C
A tJ/CD INTERNAnONAL LTD. COMPANY
LL-195
I
i
C' (North)
MM-128
MM-190
t,,M-280
Figure 4-4
CROSS SECTION C-C'
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
Shelby, North Carolina
September 2007 79750
"" " -, -" "· /
"·' "
.,-. . . .
~~··•~ ..
·.: ·~·!\::Z'.-'.\\· . ---:,;,c•,~•••• :~•• -~;.
0 Ii ® EarthTech
A Tyco International ltd. Company
Legend
e WELL LOCATION
[~:] PROPERTY BOUNDARY
~/({:,;I OU1 BURN AREA
~ OU1 GRUB AREA
N
100 50 0 100 •-==---•Feet
FIGURE 3-3
CONTAMINATION SOURCE LOCATIONS
AND OU-2 EXCAVATION EXTENT MAP
CNA Holdings, lncJTicona
Shelby, North Carolina
SEPTEMBER 2007 79750
Table 1
Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Plan -CERCLA Parameters
CNA HoldingsfTlcona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
January 2007 Aprll 2007
-~ -.,
~ ~ ~ E <1) E <1)
e! a. e! a. ., "' E ., "' E ., (.) 0.. "' ., (.) 0.. "' (.) (.) 0 "C "' (.) (.) 0 :>! "' fl Q ~ .; ~ Q Q ~ <1) ~ Li" ;,-
C-49 X X
F-55 X X X MS/D X DUP
J-29 X X X
K-28 X X X DUP X X
P-58 X X
T-35 X X
V-23 X X X DUP, MS/D X X
AA-54 X X
CC-33 X X
EE-58 X X
FF-34 X X
FF-62 X X
GG-61 X X
HH-48 X X EB
HH-77 X X
TD-3 X X X X
TD-4 X X X X
PEW-1 X X X X
PEW-3 X X X FB X
PEW-4 X X X X
ITCI Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
ITEF Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
OTCI Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
OTEF Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
1 • Field Parameters -depth to groundwater, dissolved oxygen,
oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance,
temperature, turbidity
Tables 1H 2007 Report.xis Page 1 of 1
(.)
9
X
X
July 2007 October 2007
-~ -~
~ ~ E <1) E j! e! a. e! C. ., "' E ., "' E ., (.) 0.. "' ., (.) 0.. "' (.) 0 :>! "' (.) (.) 0 :>! "' Q ~ <1) ~ Q Q ~ <1) ~ ;,-i':""
X X
X X X X
X X DUP X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X EB
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X MS/D X
X X X X
X X X X
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
TOC -total organic carbon
voes -volatile organic oompounds
SVOCs -semi-volatile organic compounds
QC -quality control
DUP -duplicate
EB -equipment blank ·
FB -field blank
MS/D -matrixspikelmatrix spike duplicate
9/25/2007
Table 2
Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Plan -MNA Parameters
CNA Holdlngs/Tlcona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
January 2007 Aprli 2007
-I!! N -I!! N
0 I!! I!! $ * 8 * * 0 ., 2!::-E E ., 2!::-E E ., (!) I!! I!! C. (!) I!! I!! C. ., .. .. E ., .. .. E C: a.. a.. .. C: a.. a.. .. ~ .,
u >-<( "C (/) u >, <( :s! (/)
e .c ~ .; g ~ .c ~ ., ~ w u iti i7
IT-1 X X X X X X X X
IT-2 X X X X X X X X
IT-3 X X X X X X X X
IT-4 X X X X X X X X
IT-5 X X X X X X X X
IT-6 X X X X X X X X
IT-7 X X X X X X X X
IT-BR X X X X X X X X
IT-9 X X X X X X X X
F-55 X X X X X X X X DUP
G-50 X X X X
G-88 X X X X
J-29 X X X X X X X X DUP
K-28 X X X X X X X DUP
N-29 X X X X X X X
0-25 X X X X X X X X
Q-33 X X X X X X X X
S-1 X X X
Tl-1 X X X X X X X X
Tl-2 X X X X X X X X
U-38 X X X X X X X X
V-23 X X X DUP X X X X
V-65 X X X X X X X X
W-23 X X X X X X X X
X-32 X X X X X X
CC-33 X X X X X X X X
ITCI Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
ITEF Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
OTCI Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
OTEF Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
1 -MNA Parameters -methane, total iron. total manganese,
total alkalinity, nitrate,.nitrogen, sulfate, ethyl alcohol, acetate
2 -Field Parameters -depth to groundwater, dissolved oxygen,
oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance,
temperaturte, turbidity
Tables 1H 2007 Report.xis Page 1 of 1
u 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
July 2007 October 2007
-I!! N -I!! N
8 I!! I!! $ * 0 $ * ., 0 .,
2!::-E E ~ 2!::-E E ., (!) I!! I!! a. (!) I!! I!! C. ., .. .. E ., .. .. E C: a.. a.. .. C: a.. a.. .. ~ ~ <( "C (/) u >-<( "C (/)
.c ~ .; ~ 0 .c ~ .; g "" ,-"' ·-X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X DUP X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X MS/D X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X FB X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
TOC -total organic carbon
QC -quality control
DUP -duplicate
FB -field blank
MS/D -matrixspike/matrix spike duplicate
9/2512007
AECOM
1455 Old Alabama Rd., Ste. 170, Roswell, GA 30076
T 770.990.1400 F 770.649.8721 www.aecom.com
Teleconference Minutes
Independent Design Review (IDR) Report Groundwater Modeling Comments
CFO Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Attendees:
November 13, 2008, 3:00 PM EST to Approximately 4:00 PM EST
Doug Sutton, GeoTrans
Steve Simpson, Celanese
Joe Harrigan, AECOM
Bryon Dahlgren, AECOM
Everett Glover, AECOM
AECOM
Objective: To begin a dialog between Doug Sutton who prepared the IDR that included the
comments to the groundwater modeling used in support of the site remedial approach and Joe
Harrigan who prepared the groundwater model. The intent of the conversation was to discuss
the comments prior to the face-to-face meeting on December 5 so that the meeting time could
focus on the broader approach issues rather than specific modeling technical questions and
facilitate keeping the meeting as productive as practical.
The following are the writer's interpretations of the key points of the telecon. If there are
corrections or additions to the minutes, please contact the writer.
• There was considerable discussion about what permeability values should be used in the
model, whether the transition zone that can be present in this geologic setting should be
represented as an independent layer in the model, and how the wastewater ponds were
represented in the model. The discussion presented information that the identification of
the transition zone was based. depictions in the Site Conceptual Model Report, and
AECOM felt that it could not be interpreted as being uniformly present across the site
despite its representation as such in these figures. Thus, AECOM constructed the model
with a "deep saprolite" layer and a "shallow bedrock" layer, but did not include a distinct
transition zone that could have a higher hydraulic conductivity. Mr. Harrigan pointed out
that any transition zone present at the site would most likely exist over the top of the
bedrock which has a definite undulatory morphology similar to the ground surface. This
morphology has elongate valley-like lows paralleling the creek and stream valleys, most
likely due to fracture zones and highs associated with less-fractured ridges. The flow in
the potential transition zone would be influenced by the top ofbedrock morphology. Also,
the permeability of the transition zone would be influenced by the parent rock which
varies across the site. With respect to the wastewater ponds, Mr. Harrigan discussed that
the wastewater ponds were not lined, but there was several feet of separation in the water
levels measured between the ponds and the pond bottoms. Thus, it was his
interpretation that they were not leaking significantly and directly connected to the water
table. Mr. Sutton presented that this is not necessarily evidence of low hydraulic
conductivity unless more is known about potential seepage losses fr om the ponds and the
amount of mounding observed beneath the ponds.
Shelby_telecon_record_r1 _ 11-21-08.doc 11/21/2008
Teleconference Minutes
Independent Design Review (IDR) Report Groundwater Modeling Comments
CFO Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Page2
• Mr. Sutton mentioned that one of his primary concerns is. that the model had not been
calibrated using an external stress condition such as when the wells were pumping. As a
result, Mr. Harrigan will validate or refine the model calibration against available data from
two groundwater monitoring events. One set of water levels was collected in November
1997 when both the inner and outer tier wells were pumping. The second set of water
levels was collected in October 2002 when the only the inner tier was pumping.
Subsequent to the teleconference, the groundwater flow as-reviewed model was tested
by importing the water levels from November 1997 and October 2002 into separate model
runs and pumping the wells that were operational during those events at the average
monthly pumping rates for the months represented by the water level data. The model
output heads were compared to the measured heads and the model statistics were
calculated. The as-reviewed model has absolute residual mean (ARM) values ranging
between 1.69% and 5.59% for the various model layers with the higher ARM in layer 5
where there were fewer data points. Similar information was generated for the verification
runs on the 1997 and 2002 data. The run representing the 1997 data has ARM values
ranging from 2.32% to 3.43% when the pumping wells were excluded from the analysis.
The run representing the 2002 data has ARM values ranging between 2.48% and 3.91 %
when the pumping wells are excluded from the analysis.
In addition to the model simulations performed under pumping conditions, the overall flow
mass balance for the model was reviewed using the stream conductance values in the
as-reviewed model. For all three events, the percent difference between the inflows and
outflows was less than 0.01 % .
Since the calibration statistics for the runs when the system was under an external stress
(pumping) are within the range of those of the as-reviewed model, and there is good
agreement in the flow mass balance for each of the three events modeled, it is AECOM's
opinion that the as-reviewed model adequately represents the site hydraulic system for
use as a predictive tool in the site evaluation.
• The modeling report describes a small spring that occurs on site and that Mr. Sutton had
questioned in his report. The occurrence of the spring was discussed and the physical
location described. This included a discussion of how the spring was collected and
handled by the site, and how it was represented in the model.
• The overall hydraulics of the groundwater system were discussed as they relate to the
potential for contaminants to migrate across some of the smaller streams as
demonstrated by the presence of diethylene oxide in wells KK-27 and KK-55 to the north
of a small stream that heads up on site. What is referred to as the "LeGrand Model" was
discussed as a hydraulic condition that limits the potential for flow under the streams. In
this, LeGrand describes what he calls "slope aquifers" or "groundwater compartments"
where the groundwater flow is topographically controlled and drains from both ridges
toward the valleys where it largely discharges as base flow to the streams. In this setting,
if water crosses under a stream, it is restricted by the higher hydraulic head that exists in
the groundwater on the opposite valley wall and under flow stays in the lower hydraulic
head areas in or near the alluvial areas near the stream. Migration in this condition is
more or less parallel or subparallel to the stream and control led by areas of higher
hydraulic head in the aquifer.
Shelby_telecon_record_r1 _ 11-21-08.doc 11/21/2008
\AECOM
Teleconference Minutes
Independent Design Review (IDR) Report Groundwater Modeling Comments
CFO Site, Shelby, North Carolina
Page 3
An example was provided where Celanese has good monitoring history on another of
their sites approximately 80 miles northeast of Shelby in the same geologic setting. At
this site, the data show that diethylene oxide has migrated beneath a somewhat larger
stream in the upper fractured bedrock, but its lateral extent is limited by the hydraulic
control exerted by the higher topography, and thus, the higher hydraulic head, on the
other side of the valley.
• There was some limited discussion on the well locations proposed in the IDR for plume
delineation given the discussion outlined in the preceding bullet. Mr. Glover expressed
reservations of going off property into the neighborhoods to provide monitoring data
where there is a strong technical argument for knowing the general extent of migration
based on an understanding of hydraulic behavior in similar site settings. This is
particularly the case since restrictions against potable groundwater use already exist on
each of the properties in the direction of potential off-site migration, and the site-specific
risk assessment that was performed for other potential exposure pathways (agricultural
use or surface water contact) indicated that the site was not expected to adversely affect
human health or ecological receptors. Mr. Sutton indicated that he would review -his
recommendations.
• The call was concluded with a commitment from AECOM to review the model elements
as described above. AECOM requested Mr. Sutton's advice on improving the model as a
predictive tool for the site, and Mr. Sutton indicated that he would consider potential
improvements but was concerned about the inherent uncertainty in the model and sees
benefits in collecting additional field data. The results of the additional work will be
provided to Mr. Sutton for further review and comment as appropriate.
The preceding bullets present the writer's interpretation of the key points discussed in the call. If
any of these are in error, or if there needs to be additional information added, please contact the
writer.
Submitted by:
Everett Glover
[e-mail]
November 21, 2008
Shelby_telecon_record_r1_ 11-21-08.doc 11/21/2008
I AECOM
&,ffA
.:;;;:;;~~ .. .,"-~-~-
N CDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management
Ms. Beth Walden
Remedial Project Manager
September I 0, 2008
Superfund Remedial & Site Evaluation Branch
Waste Management Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Sam Nunn -Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RE: Independent Design Review
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Shelby, Cleveland County, NC
Dear Ms. Walden:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Superfund
Section has received the Independent Design Review for the Celanese Corporation National
Priorities List (NPL) Site. The Superfund Section has reviewed this document and offers the
following attached comments.
The NC DENR Superfund Section appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. If
you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at [phone].
Attachment
Sincerely,
David B. Mattison
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR Superfund Section
1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646
Phone [phone] I FAX [phone]\ Internet http://wastenotnc.org
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer-Printed on Dual Purpose Recycled Paper
Ms. Beth Walden
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Independent Design Review
September 10, 2008
Page 1
Independent Design Review
CELANESE CORPORATION NPL SITE
Section 1.2 Team Composition
1. Please correct Section 1.2 to state "The IDR team consists of the following:"
Section 1.4 Persons Contacted
2. Please revise Section 1.4 to include my contact information as follows:
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Section 2.1 Findings Related To Site Conceptual Model
Potential Receptors
3. The Risk Assessment (Earth Tech, August 2007) conducted for the Celanese Corporation
NPL Site had numerous issues that have not been resolved (please see NC DENR
comments dated September 19, 2007 and EPA comments dated October 2, 2007 and
January 7, 2008). Amongst these, one issue was that all pathways have not been
evaluated, including the current potential receptor scenarios of construction worker,
trespasser, fish ingestion, and surface water contact and ingestion. Therefore, the last
sentence of the first paragraph is incorrect in stating that all current receptors have been
eliminated. Please revise Section 2.1 accordingly.
Section 3.2 Suggested Remedial Strategy (From A Technical Perspective)
4. Please strike the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3 .2. Monitored
discharge to local streams is an unacceptable remedy for the Site.
5. Please revise the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 3.2 to reflect that
regardless of the surface water standard for diethylene oxide, some form of treatment
would be required as it is unacceptable to simply transfer contaminants from one medium
to another by taking advantage of absent or relatively high surface water standards.
6. Please strike the last sentence of the third paragraph as active remediation of the
diethylene oxide plume will be required to prevent the contamination from spreading
farther out laterally and into adjacent surface water bodies.
Ms. Beth Walden
Celanese Corporation NPL Site
Independent Design Review
September 10, 2008
Page 2
Section 3.3 Suggested Testing and Study
6. Please delete the third and fourth sentences of Section 3.3 because, as inefficient as the
groundwater extraction system was, it d'!es provide some element of hydraulic control
over the contaminated groundwater plume .. Active remediation will be required
regardless of the outcome of the proposed additional investigative activities to prevent
plume expansion and eventual surface water discharge. Delaying implementation of
groundwater extraction is simply delaying the inevitable. In the meantime, as well as the .
proposed investigative activities, additional remedial design work can proceed in order to
design a treatment system capable of handling all contaminants of concern.
Fw: Celanese Independent Design Review
Subject: Fw: Celanese Independent Design Review
From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:07:51 -0400
[Io: Yager.Kathleen@~pamail.epa.gov, david.mattison@<=n=c=m=a=i=l.=n=et:_ __________________________ __J
1 of 3
Here are Dave Jenkins comments - I have not forwarded these to GeoTrans
yet, b/c I thought the 3 of us as regulators should discuss a few of
Dave Jenkins's comments first - I think you will know what I mean when
you read Dave J's comments.
·r don't have a problem recommending to the PRP that the wells can remain
off if we are in technical agreement. For our call with GeoTrans and
Dave, I would like to stick to the technical issues. As the RPM, I
would obviously take care of the adminstrative parts.
Forwarded by Beth Walden/R4/USEPA/US on 08/26/2008 09,31 AM
Hi Beth,
Dave
Jenkins/R4/USEPA
/US To
08/25/2008 03,11
PM
Beth Walden/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
cc
Dave Jenkins/R4/USEPA/US@EPA,
Glenn Adams/R4/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject
Celanese Independent Design
Review
I read the GeoTrans review of the Celanese site this morning. Overall
this.is an excellent summary of what is known about this site with some
good suggestions for what needs to be done. Some of the observations
about the sort comings of the groundwater were interesting and went
beyond my own evaluations of this model.
I have a few observations and comments which yoU may consider before
releasing this document to the PRP.
First, regarding the recommendation for additional wells, the text in
9/10/2008 I 0:41 AM
Fw: Celanese Independent Design Review
2 of3
Section 3 .1 (page 17 /31) recommends " ... that two new bedrock monitoring
wells (one below and one approximately 100 feet downgradient and deeper
than TD-4) be installed and sampled to vertically delineate TCE in this
area." Later in this section the text mentions "A two-day TCE source
area investigation with direct-push technology might cost $10,000."
However, the design review report makes no link between the two new
bedrock monitoring wells and the direct-push investigation. Further,
the design review report makes no reference to using the Color-Tech
method to analyze direct-push samples for chlorinated solvents. Before
the next work plan for this site is prepared, EPA should discuss a
schedule of activities which would include a direct-push investigation
with Color-Tech sampling for cVOCs prior to installation of any
additional monitoring wells and Color-Tec_h sampling during the
installation of the new monitoring wells to insure that the wells
screens are located at the appropriate depths.
Second, the statement in Section 3.2 that "If diethylene oxide does not
require active remediation, then the TCE plume may best be controlled by'
fostering in-situ bioremediationu seem premature before the extent of
either contaminant has been delineated.
Similarly the statement in Section 3.3 that the IDR team sees
little or no benefit in restarting either of the pump and treat systems.
The IT system appears to provide negligible mass removal and plume
control, arid little information is available to evaluate the
effectiveness of the OT system and the appropriateness of the OT system
extraction wells11 probably should not be shared with the PRP. This
statement has nothing with the title of this section which is "Suggested
Testing and Study11 • While the opinions in Section 3 are clearly
presented as being from a technical perspective, the recommendations of
the review team have no effect on an existing ROD. Section 3.3 should
be removed from the report. I do not agree that the pumping system
should be left off for another 12 months, which would realistically
become 18-24 months. The pumping system however inefficient did reduce
the hydraulic gradient in the area and did contribute to diminishing the
rate of contaminant migration.
The PRP pumped the system for 15 years and s.hould have known it was less
that fully effective during that time. The PRP agreed to restart the
wells after the investigation of MNA potential, but reneged on this
obligation. The PRP has had decades to design an effective remedy for
this site, but has failed to do so. Now after decades of investigation,
this independent design review team determines that the extent of
groundwater contamination has not been defined in any of the plumes on
site. The ROD specified the operation of a P&T system, a stipulation
which should not be set aside by an independent review team. The P&T
system should be restarted and supplemented as needed to capture the
plumes. Further, the review team makes many recommendation for
additional investigations and measures to fill gaps in the available
9/10/2008 I 0:4 I AM
Fw: Celanese Independent Design Review
•
3 of3
data. These measures should be implemented as soon as possible.
David N.Jenkins
Hydrogeologist
Technical Support Section
Superfund Division
U.S. EPA Region 4, Atlanta
404-562-8462
9/10/2008 10:41 AM
DRAFT
INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW
CELANESE FIBER OPERA TIO NS SUPERFUND SITE
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
Draft Report
August 5, 2008
DRAFT
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by Geo Trans, Inc. (Geo Trans) for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. E.P.A). Work conducted by GeoTrans, including preparation of this report, was
performed under Work Assignment #58 of EPA contract EP-W-07-078 with Tetra·Tech EM, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
DRAFT
PREFACE
This report was prepared part of a pilot project conducted by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency Office ofSuperfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (U.S. EPA OSRTI). The objective
of this pilot project is to conduct independent, expert reviews of soil and ground water remedies that are
jointly funded by EPA and the associated State agency. The reviews are ideally conducted during the pre-
design, design, or re-design stage so that independent perspectives on the remedy are provided before
costs are incurred for implementing and operating the remedies. The project contacts are as follows:
Onrnnization Kev Contact Contact Information
U.S. EPA Office ofSuperfund Kathy Yager USEPA Region 1 -New England
Remediation and Technology Regional Laboratory
Innovation 11 Technology Drive
(OSRTI) Mail Code: ECA
North Chelmsford, MA 01863-2431
phone: [phone]
yager. kath leen (a)e12a. gov
Tetra Tech EM, Inc. Carla Buriks Tetra Tech EM Inc.
(Contractor to EPA) 1881 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 200
Reston, VA 20191
phone: [phone]
Carla. buriksialttemi. com
GeoTrans, Inc. Doug Sutton GeoTrans, Inc.
(Contractor to Tetra Tech EM, Inc.) 2 Paragon Way
Freehold, NJ 07728
phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE ........................................................................................................................................... i
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 4
I. I PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION .......................................................................................................... 5
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED .................................................................................................... 5
1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED ....................................................................................................... 6
1.5 BASIC SITE INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF !DR .................................................................. 6
2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 FINDINGS RELATED TO SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL ........................................................... 7
2.2 FINDINGS RELATED TO EXISTING REMEDY ..................................................................... 11
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16
3.1 SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................... 16
3.2 SUGGESTED REMEDIAL STRATEGY {FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE) .......................... 17
3.3 SUGGESTED TESTING AND STUDY ................................................................................... 18
Figures
Figure I.
Figure 2.
Attachment A
Migration Pathways Based on Diethylene Oxide Concentrations> 70 ug/L
Suggested Monitoring Locations in Deep Saprolite and Shallow Bedrock to
Delineate Diethylene Oxide
Figure 3-1 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 6 of the Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007
Figure 4-2 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 4-3 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 4-4 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Figure 3-3 of the Site Conceptual Model Report
Table I of the Semi-Annual Reports
Table 2 of the Semi-Annual Reports
DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
During fiscal years 2000 and 2001 independent reviews called Remediation System Evaluations (RSEs)
were conducted at 20 operating Fund-lead pump and treat (P&T) sites (i.e., those sites with pump and
treat systems funded and managed by Superfund and the States). Due to the opportunities for system
optimization that arose from those RSEs, EPA OSRTI has incorporated RSEs into a larger post-
construction complete strategy for Fund-lead remedies as documented in OSWER Directive No. 9283./-
25, Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization. OSRTI has since commissioned RSEs at
additional Fund-lead sites with P&T systems.
Lessons learned from the RS Es conducted to date indicated potential value in conducting independent
reviews during the pre-design, design, or re-design stage of a remedy so that the independent perspective
can be considered before a remedy is implemented and operated. In addition, there is potential for the
same type of process to benefit Responsible Party (RP) sites. As a result, the EPA OSRTI Technology
Innovation and Field Services Division is conducting pilot Independent Design Reviews (ID Rs) at Fund-
lead and RP sites that are nominated by the EPA Regions. These sites are typically at one of the
following stages:
• Pre-design -The Region is in the process of determining the remedy for the site. The Remedial
Investigation is typically completed and the site team is evaluating the feasibility of several
remedial options.
• Design Stage -The Region has selected a remedy and documented it in a Record of Decision
(ROD). The Region is at any phase of the Remedial Design stage.
• Re-Design Stage -The Region has selected, designed, and may have implemented a remedy but
the remedy is being reconsidered. Based on data collected to date, the Region is considering new
remedial options or is designing a new remedy for the site.
An !DR involves a team of expert hydrogeologists and engineers that are independent of the site,
conducting a third-party evaluation ofremedy selection or remedy design. It is a broad evaluation that
considers the goals of the remedy, site conceptual model, available site data, performance considerations,
protectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and closure strategy. The evaluation includes reviewing site
documents, potentially visiting the site for one day, and compiling a report that includes
recommendations. Recommendations with cost and cost savings estimates are provided in the following
categories:
• Site strategy
• Initial recommendations
• Next-step recommendations
The recommendations are intended to help the site team identify opportunities for improvements. In
many cases, further analysis of a recommendation, beyond that provided in this report, may be needed
prior to implementation of the recommendation. Note that the recommendations are based on an
independent evaluation by the !DR team, and represent the opinions of the !DR team. These
DRAFT
recommendations do not constitute requirements for future action, but rather are provided for the
consideration by the Region and other site stakeholders.
The Celanese Fiber Operations Superfund site (the "Celanese site", or "site") was selected by EPA
OSRTI based on a nomination from EPA Region 4. The Celanese site is located in Shelby, North
Carolina. Operation of the P&T system was discontinued on a trial basis for two years to evaluate
monitored natural attenuation as a potential ground water remedy. The system has not been restarted.
EPA Region 4 is requesting a third-party review to help determine if the system should be restarted, ifa
modified system should be restarted, or if another type of ground water remedial approach is warranted.
This report provides a brief background on the site, a summary of observations made from the document
review, and recommendations regarding future modifications to the existing remediation system
(including associated investigation activities). The cost impacts of the recommendations are also
discussed.
1.2 TEAM COMPOSITION
The team !DR team consists of the following individuals:
Name Affiliation Phone Email
Doug Sutton GeoTrans, Inc. 732-409-0344 [e-mail]
Kathy Yager• U.S. EPA OSRTI 617-918-8362 [e-mail] ( not oresent)
• Project coordinator(s)
1.3 DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
The following documents were reviewed during the !DR process. The reader is directed to these
documents for additional site information that is not provided in this !DR report.
• 3'' Five-Year Review -August 2001
• 4th Five-Year Review-August 2006
• Explanation of Significant Differences -April 2004
• OU I Semi-Annual Report January 2007 to June 2007 -September 2007
• OU I Semi-Annual Report July 2007 to December 2007 -March 2008
• Institutional Controls/Watering Agreements
• Conceptual Site Model Report -September 2007
• Risk Assessment -August 2007
• Access Database through April 17, 2008
• June 4, 2007 Region 4 Comments on OUI Semi-Annual Report
• September 2007 Draft Region 4 Response to Comments Dated August 14, 2007
• August 9, 2007 Region 4 Comments to Status Update and Conceptual Path Forward
• September 19, 2007 NCDENR Comments to Draft Risk Assessment
DRAFT
• December 5, 2007 NCDENR Comments to Conceptual Site Model Report
• April 14, 2008 NCDENR Comments to OUI Semi-Annual Report July 2007 to December 2007
1.4 PERSONS CONTACTED
The following individuals associated with the site were present for the visit:
Name Affiliation Phone Email
Beth Walden U.S. EPA Region 4 (RPM) 404-562-8814 [e-mail]
David Jenkins U.S. EPA Region 4 (Hydro.)
David Mattison N.C. Dept. of Environment
& Natural Resources
1.5 BASIC SITE INFORMATION AND SCOPE OF IDR
The Celanese site began operation in 1960 and currently operates as a polyester and engineering plastics
production facility. CNA Holdings, Inc. (CNA), a subsidiary of Celanese, retains management of
environmental matters for the corporation and is responsible for environmental work regarding the site.
The Celanese site is approximately 450 acres located six miles south of Shelby, North Carolina in south-
central Cleveland County. The site is bordered to the west by Highway 198 and Lavender Road to the
south. The site consists of a main plant production area, wastewater treatment area, former waste disposal
areas, and recreational/wooded areas. The plant production area is covered with buildings and paved or
graveled areas. Toward the wastewater treatment area, the site consists of grassy areas and roads. The
recreation area is wooded and has no structures present. The Site is currently fenced and has controlled
access points. Current land use surrounding the Site includes mainly rural residential areas and
agricultural. A site location map is presented in Figure 3-1 of the Conceptual Site Model Report (see
Attachment A).
The site has been divided into two Operable Units: OUI addresses contaminated ground water and OU2
addresses contaminated soil and source materials. This independent review focuses on ground water
contamination associated with OU! and only considers impacted soils as they would potentially affect
OU I as a continuing source of contamination for ground water. The OU I remedy consists of two pump
and treat systems. The inner tier (IT) system addresses contamination in the immediate vicinity of the
former source areas and was shutdown on a trial basis in accordance with a 2004 Explanation of
Significant Differences (ESD) to evaluate monitored natural attenuation (MNA) in the absence of remedy
pumping. The outer tier (OT) system addresses the plume near the downgradient property boundary and
was shutdown in accordance with the National Priority List delisting process in 1998.
This independent review aims to determine if the IT pump and treat system should be restarted, if a
modified system should be restarted, or if another type of ground water remedial approach is warranted.
DRAFT
2.0 FINDINGS
The IDR team reports the following findings from the document review that are pertinent for the
recommendations that have been developed as part of the IDR process and described in Section 3.0 of this
report.
2.1 FINDINGS RELATED TO SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Hydrogeology
Site geology consists primarily of low permeable saprolite overlying bedrock. The saprolite is generally
thickest beneath the plant and thins toward the east and in the vicinity of the adjacent streams. In some
locations the saprolite has pinched out and the creeks flow across the bedrock. Ground water occurs in the
saprolite under water table conditions and in fractures in the bedrock. The direction of groundwater
movement in the shallow saprolite zone is to the east, northeast, and southeast from upgradient areas
along NC 198 toward discharge areas along unnamed tributaries of Buffalo Creek and is shown on Figure
3 of the Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007 (see Attachment A). Direction of groundwater
movement in the deeper saprolite and upper bedrock zone is in the same general direction. Figure 6 of the
Semi-Annual Report January to June 2007 and Figures 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 of the Conceptual Site Model
Report (see Attachment A) present cross-sections of the site prepared by the site contractor. The figures
from the two reports generally agree, but there are a few discrepancies, including the zone in which
monitoring well 0-59 is screened and the presence of a transition zone between the saprolite and bedrock.
The Site Conceptual Model Report indicates that this transition zone likely has a higher hydraulic
conductivity than the saprolite or bedrock.
The bedrock fracturing reportedly decreases in intensity with depth below the top of rock. In the saprolite,
groundwater generally parallels the ground surface slope. This is also the case in shallow bedrock. In the
deeper bedrock, below the elevation of local creek bottoms, groundwater flow becomes more regional,
although discharge to the major creeks appears still dominant. The potentiometric surface in the saprolitic
aquifer slopes to the northeast, east, and southeast toward Buffalo Creek. Based on a generalized
hydraulic gradient of 0.036 feet/foot, an average hydraulic conductivity of 5. 13 x 10_. centimeters per
second (cm/sec) from slug tests, and an effective porosity of0.3, the groundwater seepage velocity was
calculated by the site team at 0.17 feet/day (63 feet/year) in the saprolite. The hydraulic conductivity at
some locations is as high as 10 feet per day based on slug tests and pumping tests.
Extent of Contamination
The site investigation began in 1981 and determined that the burn pits and Glycol Recovery Unit
distillation bottoms (GRUB) disposal areas located near the center of the property were the probable
source of groundwater contamination. These areas are shown in Figure 3-3 of the Conceptual Site Model
Report. The groundwater contaminants include ethylene glycol, trichloroethene (TCE), diethylene oxide,
OOWTHERM™A constituents (1,1-biphenyl and biphenyl ether), and others (several VOCs, metals, and
phenols in much less extent).
DRAFT
The remedial action objective for the former GRUB disposal pits was reportedly to remove the GRUB
plus I foot of soil on all sides, and was not intended to be a clean closure in the disposal area. This
resulted in leaving contaminated soil in place above the groundwater table. Approximately 4,549 tons of
GRUB sludges, stained soils, and associated contaminated soils were excavated and incinerated from the
source areas in 1991. Additionally, approximately 3,259 tons of burn pit materials and plastic chips and
39 cubic yards of stream sediment were excavated. The incinerator ash, burn pit material, plastic chips,
and stream sediments were solidified with I 0% to 20% by weight of cement and backfilled into the
excavated former GRUB and burn pit areas. OU-2 was delisted in April 1998.
After OUI was operational, localized areas of impact were identified at well F-55 (ethylene
glycol and DOWTHERM™A) and at wells TD-3ffD-4 (TCE). The Conceptual Site Model Report states
that these are interpreted as localized issues not related to the source area identified for remediation under
OU! and OU2. These locations are located in the downgradient portion of the process area, upgradient of
the waste disposal areas addressed by OU I and OU2.
Ground water contaminants with ongoing detections at the site include but are not limited to the
following: ·
• Ethylene glycol
• Diethylene oxide (i.e., 1,4-Dioxane)
• 1,1-biphenyl
• Biphenyl ether
• TCE
In addition, iron, manganese, and arsenic are found in elevated concentrations, presumably due to the
reducing ground water conditions at the site caused by the presence of ethylene glycol.
In July 2007, ethylene glycol was detected above the standard of 14,000 ug/L at the following three wells:
• F-55 at 6,680,000 ug/L
• IT-6 at 1,011,000 ug/L (average between two samples)
• V-23 at 8,280,000 ug/L
IT-6 and V-23 are located in the vicinity of the former burn pits and GRUB disposal area. F-55 is located
in the saprolite up gradient of these locations in the downgradient portion of the process area. Ethylene
glycol is not detected in downgradient wells HH-48 and HH-77. Ethylene glycol has a very low organic
carbon partitioning coefficient; therefore, sorption to soil and associated transport retardation is expected
to be negligible. Ethylene glycol degrades rapidly in aerobic environments and can also degrade in
anaerobic environments.
Data from 2006 and 2007 indicate that diethylene oxide is present in many of the site monitoring wells
above the standard of 7 ug/L with the highest concentrations occurring in monitoring wells in the saprolite
in the vicinity of the former burn pits and GRUB disposal area at a maximum concentration of
approximately 3,120 ug/L. From this location, it appears that the plume may split into two or three arms
with contamination migrating to the northeast near monitoring wells AA-54, KK-55, P-58, PZ-12, to the
east near monitoring wells 11-65, and to the south near monitoring wells OT-2R, OT-3, NN-105, and T-
58. In all three areas, it appears that concentrations are the highest in deep saprolite or shallow bedrock.
The pathways to the northeast and east may be one larger plume, but it is difficult to tell given the
absence of monitoring points between these two pathways in the deep saprolite or shallow bedrock. A
separate diethylene oxide plume appears to originate from the F-55 and G-50 area that migrates south
toward 1-57. Diethylene oxide is not detected in downgradient wells HH-48 and HH-77. Figure I
illustrates the diethylene oxide migration pathways. Diethylene oxide has a very low organic carbon
DRAFT
partitioning coefficient; therefore, sorption to soil and associated transport retardation is expected to be
negligible. In addition, diethylene oxide does not readily degrade; therefore, diethylene oxide is expected
to behave as a conservative tracer with no sorption or degradation.
Sampling for 1,1-biphenyl and biphenyl ether appears to be limited to F-55 and wells and the PEW wells,
which are in the general vicinity ofF-55. The concentrations for 1,1-biphenyl are highest in F-55 and are
approximately one order of magnitude above the standard.
TCE is primarily detected in two different locations: a presumed but unidentified source area near
monitoring wells TD-3 and TD-4 in the process area and approximately 1,0_00 feet downgradient of the
site at HH-48 (saprolite) and HH-77 (shallow bedrock). The concentrations at TD-3 and TD-4 in July
2007 were 416 ug/L and 2,280 ug/L, respectively. TCE in TD-3 has been generally declining since it was
first detected in 1998, and TCE concentrations in TD-4 generally increased since 2001 and appear to have
begun declining since 2006. The concentrations at HH-48 and HH-77 in July 2007 were 85.9 ug/L and
360 ug/L, respectively. TCE has been present in HH-48 at comparable concentrations since 1989, and
TCE concentrations have generally increased at HH-77 to the present value since 1989. TCE at other site
monitoring wells was not detected (at an appropriate detection limit), was detected below standards, or
was detected slightly above standards. For example, TCE was detected at PEW-4 and CC-33 at 15.7 ug/L
and 3.8 ug/L, respectively, relative to a standard of 2.8 ug/L. TD-4 is screened near the bottom of the
saprolite and has a higher TCE concentration than TD-3, which is screened approximately 30 feet above
TD-4. TCE is not vertically delineated in this area. TCE degradation products (cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
and vinyl chloride) are either not detected or are detected at very low concentrations at both the TD-3/4
cluster and the HH cluster indicating that there is little or no TCE degradation occurring in or upgradient
of these areas.
Potential Receptors
Potential complete exposure pathways for humans to contaminated ground water identified in RI/FS
included ingestion of contaminated groundwater downgradient of the site. In 1996, I 00% of adjacent off-
site residents considered to be potentially at risk were connected to the Cleveland County water system
and all individual domestic wells were abandoned. Although this eliminates current recepto_rs, a potential
pathway for future receptors for the site still exists.
Potential ecological receptors for contaminated ground water are the unnamed tributaries to Buffalo
Creek that run along the northern and southern portions of the site.
Remedy Objectives
The ROD objectives of the ground water remedy are to
o Control migration of contaminated water
o Remove contaminated water
o Treat and discharge the extracted water
o Attain North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standards
The following table presents the North Carolina 2L Ground Water Quality Standards for constituents
identified in the ROD and for constituents identified subsequent to the ROD.
DRAFT
Constituent Standard
Inonzanics:
Barium 2,000 uo/1
Chromium 50Ul!IL
· Iron 300 u ,/1
Lead 15 UO L
Mammnese 50uo L
Nickel IOOuidL
Selenium 50 uo/L
Onzanics
Acetone 700 uo/L
Benzene I uo/L
I 1-Biohenvl 350 uo/L
bis/2-ethvlhexvl\ ohthalate 2.5 uo/L
Carbon tetrachloride 0.269 uo/L
Chlordane 0.1 uo/L
Chlorobenzene 50 uo/L
Chloroform 70 uo/L
Chloromethane 2.6 uo/L
Diethvlene oxide 11,4-dioxane) 7 uo/L
1,1-Dichloroethane 70 uo/L
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 uo/L
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 70 uo/L
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 100 uo/L
Ethvlene olvcol 14,000 uo/L
Methvlene chloride 4.6 uo/L
2-Methvlnaohthalene 14 uo/L
Naohthalene 21 uo/L
Phenol 300 "" L
Tetrachloroethvlene /PCE) 0.7 uo L
Trichloroethene /TCEl 2.8 uo L
Vinvl chloride 0.015 uo/L
Description of Remedy
The ground water remedy consists of two pump and treat systems: an inner tier (IT) system designed to
address contamination near the former GRUB disposal area and bum pits and an outer tier (OT) system
designed to control plume migration near the downgradient property boundary.
The IT system consists of nine extraction wells that are each 2 inches in diameter and completed in the
shallow saprolite. The extracted water is pumped to an equalization tank and is then treated by an
activated sludge sequencing bioreactor, air stripping, and carbon adsorption. The treated water is
discharged to the facility's water treatment plant NPDES permitted outfall. The IT system was
temporarily shutdown in April 2004, in accordance with an ESD,to evaluate the potential for MNA in the
absence of remedy pumping.
The OT system consists of IO extraction wells that are each 6 inches in diameter and completed in the
deep saprolite and shallow bedrock. The extracted water is pumped to an equalization tank and is then
treated by air stripping and carbon adsorption. The treated water is discharged to the facility's water
DRAFT
treatment plant NPDES permitted outfall. The OT system was shutdown in accordance with the National
Priority List delisting process in 1998.
Monitoring Program
The ground water monitoring program includes quarterly sampling from several wells for constituents of
concern and for MNA parameters. Results are reported semi-annually. Tables l and 2 from the semi-
annual reports outline the monitoring program. These tables are included in Attachment A of this report
for reference.
2.2 FINDINGS RELATED TO EXISTING REMEDY
Contaminant Fate and Transport
The contaminant fate and transport for three pertinent site contaminants (ethylene glycol, TCE, and
diethylene oxide) are discussed in this section. The discussion is limited to these parameters because they
are the likely drivers for site remediation. Understanding the fate and transport of these contaminants
depends heavily on an understanding of the ground water flow at the site. The site contractor prepared a
ground water model to help understand ground water flow at the site. Findings regarding hydraulic data
and this numerical model are discussed first.
Hydraulic Data and Ground Water Flow Model
The ground water flow model was calibrated using the water level data from October 2005. This data set
for the shallow saprolite indicates a hydraulic head gradient of 0.015 feet per foot below the process
building, 0.03 feet per foot from the treatment ponds to the downgradient edge of the property (and also
on the northern and southern edges of the process area), and 0.023 feet per foot from the western
boundary to the eastern boundary. Ground water beneath the process area and immediately to the east of
the process area appears to flow to the north, east, and south. The hydraulic head gradient for the deep
saprolite is relatively similar, and the hydraulic head gradient for the shallow bedrock is relatively
uniform at 0.017 feet per foot. Vertical ground water flow seems to be downward from the saprolite to
the bedrock near the process-building and is almost absent at downgradient locations.
The ground water flow model appears to generally simulate these ground water flow patterns in the
shallow saprolite, deep saprolite, and shallow bedrock. The model calibration statistics are reasonable,
and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. However, there are some limitations to the model development
that might affect how it is used for forecasting and/or understanding ground water flow at the site.
• Hydraulic conductivity zones and values appear to vary significantly over relatively small
distances. Furthermore, the hydraulic conductivity zones and values do not appear to agree with
the slug or pump test results. For example, in the shallow saprolite, the area among the ponds
was assigned a hydraulic conductivity of0.3 feet per day, but the slug test results for 0-25, N-29,
and W-33 (which are in this area) were l foot per day, 2 feet per day, and 8 feet per day,
respectively. Therefore, one would expect the model to have a higher hydraulic conductivity in
this area. Similarly, in the deep saprolite hydraulic conductivities of5.3 feet per day (OT-1 pump
test) and 10 feet per day (Q-33 slug test) are located in model zones with a hydraulic conductivi_ty
of l.6 feet per day.
DRAFT
• The low hydraulic conductivity from the IT wells may be the result of well fouling or well
construction. These wells operated as 2-inch extraction wells that had a relatively low yield. It is
likely that they had some degree of iron fouling given the high levels of iron in the aquifer in that
vicinity. In addition, extraction wells are typically larger in diameter, so the small diameter calls
into question the quality of the well construction. If significant well fouling is present, the aquifer
hydraulic conductivity in this area may be higher than that measured by the slug tests.
• The simulated contours appear to be substantially more complex that the contours interpreted
from actual measurements suggesting that the use of many hydraulic conductivity zones in a
single layer with large ranges in hydraulic conductivity (e.g., 0.2 feet per day to 50 feet per day),
are complicating the contours in an attempt to match water levels at individual wells.
• The conceptual model includes a transition zone between the saprolite and bedrock that is likely
higher in hydraulic conductivity than the saprolite or bedrock. This zone could therefore be
considered a preferential pathway for contamination. The zone is observed in several monitoring
wells and is depicted as continuous across the site, but the hydraulic conductivity of the zone has
not been tested, and the zone is included in the deep saprolite zone in the model rather than as a
distinct zone that may have a higher hydraulic conductivity.
• The model was only calibrated against the water levels from October 2005 using recharge and
stream discharge as the primary stresses. A ground water flow model would ideally be calibrated
under multiple stresses (e.g., pumping and non-pumping conditions). Given that a pump and treat
system was active at this site, it would seem feasible to also calibrate the model against a set of
water levels from a time when the system was operating to demonstrate that the chosen
parameters also apply under a different pumping scenario.
• The model report does not discuss the conductances used for the river and drain boundary
conditions in the model. These parameters can significantly change how much water is
discharged from the aquifer to the rivers and drains, and combined with recharge and the constant
head boundaries, are the only parameters in the absence of pumping that help determine the
calibrated value of the hydraulic conductivity. The conductances of the streams close to the site
relative to that of the other streams and Buffalo Creek could control how much of the ground
water from the site discharges to the tributaries that are close to the site versus Buffalo Creek.
Given that the rivers are the ultimate discharge point for all water in the model, which river
receives the majority of the water and contamination will control how far the plume spreads
before discharging to surface water. In addition, it does not seem appropriate that all water in the
bedrock should discharge to the local streams. Ground water in these layers may be part of a
more regional flow pattern.
• The model report cites that optimal parameter settings for some hydraulic conductivity zones
were not selected because it caused the simulated values for the layers 4 and 5 to deviate from
actual values. However, in another part of the report, it is stated that the measured values,
particularly in layer 5, may not be reliable.
• The modeling report indicates that a spring is present that discharges beneath the site from a
manhole that is 60 feet deep. However, the conceptual model and the numerical model do not
indicate artesian conditions at a depth of 60 feet. It is unclear where this water is coming from
and if additional water from depth is discharging to shallow ground water. If it is, it is not
correctly accounted for in the model.
DRAFT
In summary, based on the model developed, it is difficult to accept the modeling results without some
reservation. For example, although the calibrated value for a wide portion of the modeling domain is 2
feet per day and this parameter is relatively sensitive to change in this value, this hydraulic conductivity
value is dependent on the value of the recharge selected and the conductance of the river/stream beds. A
different recharge rate and/or a different riverbed conductance could result in a reasonable change in this
calibrated parameter.
Diethylene Oxide
Diethylene oxide is wide spread at the site above the standard of 7 ug/L. Because of its prevalence at the
site and its chemical properties (i.e., very little sorption or decay), its distribution provides a reasonable
indicator of the primary contaminant transport pathways at the site. For contamination that originates
near the former bum pits and GRUB disposal areas, it seems reasonable to assume based on the hydraulic
head gradient and the diethylene oxide distribution that contamination will migrate in two or three
preferential pathways to the northeast, east, and south/southeast. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to
assume that the preferential path is through the deep saprolite or shallow bedrock. The transition zone·
between the saprolite and the shallow bedrock may play a key role in this transport, but the wells that are
screened in the transition zone have apparently not been sampled for diethylene oxide. The
contamination does not appear to migrate toward HH-48 and HH-47 at nearly the same rate.
Some of the monitoring wells with diethylene oxide contamination are located near streams or on the
opposite side of the streams from the source area with contamination in deep saprolite or shallow
bedrock. For example, well KK-55 is located on the far side of the stream from the source area and has a
diethylene oxide col)centration of 192 ug/L. The shallow well in this location has a diethylene oxide
concentration below 7 ug/L. Therefore, it is unclear if the contamination in KK-55 will discharge to that
stream or will continue toward another discharge point. It is noted that some of the contamination is
discharging to the streams on site as is evidenced by the presence of diethylene oxide in surface water.
Diethylene oxide contamination in any of the three pathways does not appear to be delineated
horizontally.
Ethylene Glycol
In contrast to the diethylene oxide, ethylene glycol appears to be relatively localized in the source area.
This is likely due to the relatively rapid degradation of ethylene glycol; however, it may also be due, in
part, to the extent of the sampling for ethylene glycol. Ten of the monitoring wells along the preferential
pathway for diethylene oxide have not been sampled for ethylene glycol.
TCE
The interpreted TCE plume also differs from that of di ethylene oxide plume. With the exception of HH-
48 and HH, 77, the presence ofTCE appears limited compared to that of diethylene oxide. Unlike
ethylene glycol, this is not likely due to TCE degradation because TCE degradation products are not
present in significant concentrations at any of the sampled monitoring wells. The apparent limited extent
ofTCE may partially be due to retardation ofTCE since it has the potential to adsorb to soil more
strongly than diethylene oxide, but it would be unlikely for the TCE retardation factor to be more than a
factor of 2 at this site given the expected low organic carbon fraction of the soil. The relatively limited
sampling for TCE may be a factor. Seven of the wells sampled along the preferential pathway marked by
diethylene oxide have not been sampled for TCE, and another four were sampled as far back as 2001 or
DRAFT
earlier. It is unclear when the TCE release occurred. TCE was first detected in the first sample collected
from TD-3 in 1998 but was not detected in TD-4 until 2001. By contrast diethylene oxide was present in
some downgradient locations by 1998. The limited extent of the TCE plume, may be, in part, due to a
relatively later release compared to that for diethylene oxide.
It is unclear if the TCE identified at HH-48 and HH-77 result from a release to ground water from the
Celanese process area. The following are arguments for and against the TCE at HH-48 and HH-77 being
linked to the Celanese process area.
Arguments against a link
The TCE detected at HH-48 was detected as early as 1988. It is unclear when or where the TCE
release occurred that resulted in the contamination at TD-3. The first sample collected from TD-3
was collected in 1998. Evidence for a relatively late release is that TCE was not detected in TD-4
in 1998. It was first detected in TD-4 in 200 I. Therefore, TCE contamination was identified far
down gradient of the site IO years prior to the first TCE samples on site.
Diethylene oxide, which is more mobile than TCE and likely released in greater quantities has not
been detected in HH-48 and HH-77. These two wells appear to straddle the general vertical zone
where diethylene oxide would be detected if it was migrating in this direction. The absence of
diethylene oxide in these two wells suggests that these wells are not along the preferred path for
contaminant transport at this site and that the TCE might be better explained by a local source.
Arguments for a link
There are concentrations on site that are high enough to explain the observed concentrations at
HH-48 and HH-77. Although the detected TCE concentrations in TD-3 and TD-4 are on the
order of I to 2 mg/L, these wells are not necessarily at the source area, and areas on site with
higher concentrations are likely.
The TCE release is in a different location than the diethylene oxide release and therefore may
follow a different set of transport pathways. This could explain why TCE but not di ethylene
oxide is present at HH-48 and HH-77. There are very few, if any, samples collected from the
transition zone between the source area and HH-48 and HH-77.
A set of realistic transport parameters for the site can result in sufficiently fast transport times for
TCE to have reached HH-48 by 1988. For example, a hydraulic gradient of0.02, a hydraulic
conductivity as low as 5 feet per day in the transition zone, and a porosity of0.2 would yield an
unretarded transport velocity of approximately 180 feet per year. This would allow TCE to reach
from the TD-3ffD-4 location to the HH-48/HH-77 location within 20 years. The facility began
operation in 1960.
Remedy Effectiveness
The IT system appears to have had minimal effectiveness when operating. The wells were small diameter
and had very low yield relative to the estimated amount of water flowing through that portion of the
aquifer. As a result, the mass recovery and source control offered by the system were likely negligible.
The Fourth Five-Year Review indicated that the IT system pumped approximately 1.6 milliQn gallons
over a three year period, which translates to an average extraction rate of I gallon per minute. By
contrast, using a hydraulic conductivity of_2 feet per day (global hydraulic conductivity value from the
DRAFT
model), a hydraulic gradient of 0.02, a saturated thickness of approximately 50 feet, and a source area
width of at least 500 feet, the amount of water flowing through the system would be approximately 5
gallons per minute. TypicaBy, extraction should exceed this flow rate by a factor of two or more, and in
this case, the extraction is lower by a factor of five.
It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of the OT system because little water quality data and system
operational parameters are available to evaluate the hydraulic control it provided. The diethylene oxide
plume has migrated beyond the OT system, but this may have occurred prior to system installation and
operation. The OT system was apparently sufficiently effective to be delisted in 1998, but this is before
diethylene oxide was identified as a potential contaminant of concern.
The evaluation of an MNA remedy depends on the constituent of concern being evaluated. With respect
to diethylene oxide, MNA does not appear to be a viable remedy because the contaminant does not
readily degrade and has demonstrated the ability to migrate over 1,000 feet from the source area at
concentrations that are 50 times greater than the cleanup standard.
With respect to TCE, there is insufficient information to evaluate MNA because many of the critical
monitoring wells (i.e., those marked by diethylene oxide transport and along ground water flow paths)
have not been sampled for TCE. Finally, there is a lack of information regarding TCE distribution in the
source area and between HH-48 and HH-77. The concentrations at TD-3 have declined and the
concentrations at TD-4 appear to have peaked, but little is known about the locations of these wells
relative to the source ofTCE. A shift in the ground water flow direction may be the cause for the change
in concentrations in these wells. Alternatively, the TCE source may have attenuated and the TCE at these
wells is migrating from these points to locations downgradient. Regardless, there is little evidence for
degradation ofTCE near TD-3fTD-4 and at HH-48/HH-77. If additional sampling of key wells links the
TCE at HH-48 and HH-77 to the TD-3fTD-4 then it is clear that MNA would not be a suitable remedy for
TCE because it would have been demonstrated that TCE could migrate 3,600 feet at concentrations two
orders of magnitude above the standard. On the other hand, if sampling cannot link the two areas ofTCE,
then MNA may be appropriate for the TD-3fTD-4 TCE plume if it can be demonstrated that the source
has been removed, that the TCE will migrate through the area ofreducing conditions (perhaps caused by
the ethylene glycol), and that TCE degradation will be complete.
With respect to ethylene glycol, it is likely that MNA is an appropriate remedy due to the potential for this
compound to degrade; however, sampling of key monitoring wells is lacking. However, it is unclear if
aerobic degradation of ethylene glycol could lead reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations in nearby
streams and/or if increased metals concentrations from reducing conditions caused by ethylene glycol
degradation could lead to metals exceeding surface water standards.
DRAFT
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL CHARACTERIZATION
Diethylene oxide has migrated further and at higher levels above standards than any other contaminant
on-site, and the plume is not delineated horizontally. Although the ground water flow model suggests
that all ground water discharges to streams in the vicinity of the site, it is unclear how accurate this
finding is and how far the plume will migrate before discharging to surface water. Additional monitoring
wells in the deep saprolite, transition zone, or shallow bedrock should be installed as indicated in Figure 2
in an attempt to horizontally delineate the diethylene oxide plume and determine if it is migrating under
the nearby streams. Based on the results, it may be necessary to expand the restrictions regarding ground
water use in the area, particularly if it is found that the diethylene oxide continues to migrate under these
streams to another discharge point.
The distributions ofTCE and ethylene glycol at the site are not well understood due to a lack of sampling
from appropriate locations. The diethylene oxide plume helps highlight preferential pathways for
contaminant migration, and many of the wells with elevated di ethylene oxide concentrations have not
been sampled for TCE or ethylene glycol. The following existing monitoring wells should be sampled
and analyzed for TCE, ethylene glycol, dissolved oxygen, oxygen demand, and metals because elevated
diethylene oxide concentrations are present or because they are transition zone wells.
1-57
F-55
G-50
P-58
-KK-55
-PZ-12
AA-54
MM-128
11-65
W-23
NN-105
OT-IR
OT-2R
-M-44
-Z-78
-BB-18
-GG-39
Based on the results of this sampling, it may be appropriate to sample the new monitoring wells that are
suggested for diethylene oxide delineation. The TCE plume is also not vertically delineated beneath TD-
4. Vertical delineation in this area could help determine if the TCE is migrating through a preferential
pathway within bedrock. It is recommended that two new bedrock monitoring wells ( one below and one
approximately 100 feet downgradient and deeper than TD-4) be installed and sampled to vertically
DRAFT
delineate TCE in this area. The site team might consider a source area investigation for TCE. The
declining TCE concentrations may be the result of a change in ground water flow patterns at the site or
may be the result of a declining source. Without additional information, it is difficult fo determine which
is correct. An appropriate source investigation would consider above ground structures, historical
locations and timeframes ofTCE usage, and consideration of past ground water flow and water quality
data.
Based on the results from the above sampling, the site team should revisit the site conceptual model and
evaluate if additional important data gaps are missing. If additional data gaps are missing, additional
characterization may be required prior to selecting an appropriate remedial measure.
A number of concerns were mentioned with regard to the ground water flow model, but it is unclear if
these concerns can be adequately addressed to reliably use the model for evaluating contaminant fate and
transport. Some of the concerns are fundamental, including the presence, extent, and parameters of the
transiiion zone as well as the conductances of the river and drain boundary conditions. It is unclear if
sufficient information is present to help accurately adjust the model accordingly. Additional information
would likely be required, and even if the model were updated, it is likely that ultimate decisions regarding
contaminant fate and transport and site remedy would be based on continuing water quality data.
Assuming an average cost of $10,000 per well, the above monitoring well installations should cost
approximately $80,000. Assuming six wells can be sampled per day with a two-person crew for $2,000
per day and that sample analysis costs approximately $100 per well, the above sampling could be
conducted for approximately $8,000. A two-day TCE source area investigation with direct-push
technology might cost $10,000. Work planning and reporting for this effort might cost an additional
$25,000. Therefore, the above-mentioned recommendations should cost approximately $125,000 to
implement.
3.2 SUGGESTED REMEDIAL STRATEGY (FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE)
Selecting an appropriate remedial measure for the site is highly dependent on the results of the
recommended sampling and on the interpretation ofregulations by the site team. Remedy selection is
discussed in context of each of the three primary contaminants.
Diethylene oxide is a difficult contaminant to address because it is difficult to remove via air stripping or
carbon adsorption and is generally resistant to bioremediation. Given the concentrations and what
appears to be absent or relatively high surface water criteria for this contaminant, the site team may find
monitored discharge to local streams a suitable remedy for this contaminant. However, if the contaminant
plume is found to extend beyond the closest streams, it may impact water quality along Lavendar or
Roseborough Roads, and additional measures may be required to restrict water usage or control the
plume. Whatever the extent of the di ethylene oxide plume, it is likely that the contamination will persist
because material left in place near the former bum pits and GRUB disposal areas can serve as a
continuing source. Active remediation for the purpose of complete aquifer restoration is likely pointless
unless the soil contamination left in place is removed. Active remediation for the purpose of controlling
plume migration would likely need to involve pump and treat with advanced oxidation technologies used
to treat the extracted water, unless the discharge criteria for diethylene oxide is sufficiently high that
treatment of this compound is not required.
Additional sampling for TCE may indicate that it has an attenuating source and a plume of limited extent
that is controlled by degradation associated with reducing conditions from the ethylene glycol plume.
DRAFT
Alternatively, additional sampling may indicate a continuing source and preferential pathways that allow
TCE to migrate from the site. If the former is true, then TCE may be appropriately addressed by
continued monitoring lei document the declining source and the controlled plume. If the latter is true, then
source area remediation followed by some form of plume control may be appropriate. The form of plume
control would depend on how the site team chooses to address the other contaminants. For example, if
the site team chooses to control diethylene oxide migration with a pump and treat system, then the TCE
could likely also be controlled with the same system. If diethylene oxide does not require active
remediation, then the TCE plume may best be controlled by fostering in-situ bioremediation.
Additional sampling for ethylene glycol may confirm that this constituent is degrading sufficiently to
limit plume migration. Further sampling may also indicate that the reducing conditions fostered by the
ethylene glycol is instrumental in controlling or helping to control the TCE plume. Alternatively,
additional monitoring may suggest that degradation of the organic carbon associated with the ethylene
glycol may eventually adversely affect the dissolved oxygen content or metals concentrations in nearby
streams.
3.3 SUGGESTED TESTING AND STUDY
It is recommended that additional testing and study for potential remedies be postponed until the results
from the above-noted sampling are available and the site conceptual model updated. The sampling and
update should be available within 6 months, and a decision on remedy selection within 6 months of the
update. In the mean time, the !DR team sees little or no benefit in restarting either of the pump and treat
systems. The IT system appears to provide negligible mass removal and plume control, and little
information is available to evaluate the effectiveness of the OT system and the appropriateness of the OT
system extraction wells. Furthermore, the contaminant that would most readily require some form of
control ( di ethylene oxide) is not amenable to the treatment technologies of either pump and treat system.
Effective above-ground treatment of diethylene oxide would likely require advanced oxidation
technologies, and neither pump and treat system utilized this technology.
' \
Legend
OJETHYLENE OXIDE s 0.007
• DI ETHYLENE OXIDE> 0.007
"' SURFACE WATER LOCATION
0 MONITORING WELL
EXTRACTION WELL
,) PEWWELL
PIEZOMETER
c==i PARCEL WITH WATER RESTRICTION
--CREEK
D INDUSTRIAL POOD
-RECREATION POMJ
~ BUII..OING!STRUC"TURE
CJ PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N
i
500 --==----Feet 500 250 0
@ Suggested monitoring well location
for delineating diethylene oxide
' ' \
'
' \
Legend
O!ETHYLENE OXIDE s 0.007
• DI ETHYLENE OXIDE> 0.007
:;; SURFACE WATER LOCATION
e MJNITORING WELL
.:, EXTRACTION WELL
•• PEWWELL
PJEZOMETER
~ PARCEL WITH WATER RESTRICTION
--CREEK
D INDUSTRIAL POOO
-RECREATION POND D BUILDlt-Kl/STRUCTURE
[=1 PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N
l
500 --==----Feet
500 250 0
NOTES;
(1) ca-cENTRAlJON UNIT: rr'{Jl
(2) BOLD-FACED FONT: DETECTED
COt,CENTRATOOABOVE NC a STAK>ARO
(3) 0.007 rng.'\. AS NC 2LSTANOAAD FOR
DIETHYCENE OXIDE
(4) HH ANO EU.IOT 'NEU. DATA IS FROMAPRJL2007
SAMPUN; EVENT
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MIN. QUADRANGLES
BLACKSBURG NORTH, NC -1971
GROVER, NC -1993
© EarthTech
A Tyco International Ltd. Company
O'
SCALE
FIGURE 3-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
CNA HOLDINGS, INC. ITICONA
SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 2007 79750
850 A Plant Area .------------....
-•!'--...,....,........,...,....,...-:-:-".""7'-7"~7b-....
840
830 V
820
810
800
790
780
no
760
750
740
730
720
710
700
690
680
670
--Line of equal fluid potential (1 msl)
(dashed where inferred}
" • Potentiometric Surface
__. Inferred direction of groundwater
movement
G-50 · 813.65.
DIIIIDD Screen
l:;/\I Saprolite
H,~~--~1 Bedrock
Wastewater Treatment Area
J-29 •
805.08
1 inch equals 500 feet
® EarthTech
A Tyco International ltd. Company
A' 850
840
830
820
810
800
790
780 ::,
<f) ~no
t;:
·-
FIGURE 6
HYDROGEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION A-A'
JANUARY 2007
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
760
750
740
730
720
710
700
690
680
670
SEPTEMBER 2007 Shelby, North Carolina 79750
850
800
750
-' U)
:i;;
~ 700 g ...
-= C 0 ., .. > !/!. 650 w
600
550
500
A (West)
-27-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TD-3
V·--------------T-----1'---.,
'? 0
Ground Surface
Casing
Sap Screen
Deep Sap Screen
TZ Screen
ShaDow BR Scm
lntenned BR Scrn.
Deep BR San.
X Top ofTZ ... Top of BR
~ Fracture locations ., ShaDow Sap GW Elev . .. Deep Sap GW Elev •
T TZGWElev .
.., ShaDow BR GW Elev
T lntermed BR GW Elev.
shallow Sap I_,,,. __ _
shallow BR
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater elevations measured in January 2007
(2) T~3. TD-4. Tl-1, and Tl-2 wen screen intervals not
identified
E AR·TH@T EC
A ti/CO INTERNATTONAL LTD .. COMPANY
I
i
A' (East)
FIGURE4-2
CROSS SECTION A-A'
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
Shelby, North Carolina
September 2007 79750
850
800
750
..J ; g 700 ...
-= C 0 ~ jii 650
600
550
500
B (South) B' (North)
M-28 CC-33 IT-S IT-8R IT-7 V-23 IT-6 IT-5 IT -4 IT-3 K-28
N-29
T-17
I~
,.
Saprolite
I I ~ I ________ -"
.,
Jf'ansltlon Zc;,,ne
00-9
LEGEND BedroCk
Ground Surface
Casing
ShaDow Sap Screen
Deep Sap Screen 00-150 ·
TZ Screen
Shallow BR Seen
lntermed BR Scm. --------------------------------------------------------------Deep BR Scm.
X X Top ofTZ
-+-... Top of BR
$ $ Fracture Locations .. .. Sap GWElev . 00-218 .. .. Deep Sap GW Elev . .. .. TZGWElev .
• • Shailow BR GW Elev .. .. lntermed BR GW Elev . ,, ,, Deep BR GW Elev.
---'--,------------'·,. ____ ,· :----' ' ,, .
shallow Sap I_,,~---
shallow BR
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater Elevations measured in January 2007
E A R T H O T E C
A 'fl/CD INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMf'A!"Y
I
1
FIGURE4-3
CROSS SECTION B-B'
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
Shelby, North Carolina
September 2007 79750
C (South)
850 ------------
C 0 ::, m >
~650
600
LEGEND
Ground Surface
Casing
Shallow Sap Screen
Deep Sap Screen
TZScreen
Shallow BR 5cm
lntermed BR 5cm.
Deep BR Scrn.
X X TopofTZ
+ + TopofBR
i, i, Fracture Locations
C' (North)
Z-12
MM-128
Bedrock MM-190
LL-195
550
.., .. T Shallow Sap GW Elev . T Deep Sap GW Bev. · - ---- - ---- - -NN-240 ..... - - - -------____ ~ _____________ .,... ________________ _
500
., ., TZ GW Elev.
-,, 'Y ShaDow BR GW Elev .. .. 'Y lntermed BR GW Elev .
T Deep BR GW Elev.
shallow Sap I~"'"·-
shal ow BR
NN-280
NOTES:
(1) Groundwater Elevations measured in January 2007
----------•. LL-295
E A R T H O T E C
A 'tqca INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMPANY
I
i
MM-280
Figure 4-4
CROSS SECTION C-C'
CNA Holdings, lnc./Ticona
Shelby, North Carolina
September 2007 79750
/
~ ~,-';ii·t'
•• " = -~:
" "'
"
"
,~;;-,._
ClARIFIER J
\__, ' r
..
"
I
;'.?:r,:_,:--· _:,:':
• ,";•.:~;.":-'·:. ;,(, C
® EarthTech
A Tyco International Ud. Company
Legend
9 WELL LOCATION
[_"~_~] PROPERTY BOUNDARY
(/L'I OU1 BURN AREA
~ OU1 GRUB AREA
N
100 50 0 100
Feet
FIGURE 3--3
CONTAMINATION SOURCE LOCATIONS
AND OU-2 EXCAVATION EXTENT MAP
CNA Holdings, lncJTicona
Shelby, North Carolina
SEPTEMBER 2007 79750
Table 1
Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Plan -CERCLA Parameters
CNA HoldingsfTlcona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
January 2007 April 2007
-~ -~
~ Q) ;;
E Q) E Q)
!!! C. !!! C.
"' Cll E "' Cll E
"' u 0.. Cll "' u 0.. Cll
u u 0 ,::, en u u 0 ,::, en e e ~ .; g p ~ ;;; .; g u u
C-49 X X
F-55 X X X MS/D X DUP
J-29 X X X
K-28 X X X DUP X X
P-58 X X
T-35 X X
V-23 X X X DUP, MS/D X X
AA-54 X X
CC-33 X X
EE-58 X X
FF-34 X X
FF-62 X X
GG-61 X X
HH-48 X X EB
HH-77 X X
TD-3 X X X X
TD-4 X X X X
PEW-1 X X X X
PEW-3 X X X FB X
PEW-4 X X X X
ITCI Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
ITEF Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
OTCI Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
OTEF Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
1 " Field Parameters -depth to groundwater, dissolved oxygen,
oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance,
temperature, turbidity
Tables 1H 2007 Report.xis Page 1 of 1
u e
X
X
July 2007 October 2007
-.,, -~ ~ ~ ~ E Q) E t !!! C. !!!
"' Cll E "' Cll E
"' u 0.. Cll "' u 0.. Cll
u 0 ,::, en u u 0 :!! en
~ ;;; .; g p e ;;; Q) g u ,,..
X X
X X X X
X X DUP X X
X X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X EB
X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X MS/D X
X X X X
X X X X
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
TOC -total organic carbon
voes -volatile organic compounds
SVOCs -semi-volatile organic compounds
QC -quality control
DUP -duplicate
EB -equipment blank
FB -field blank
MS/D -matrixspike/matrix spike duplicate
9125/2007
Table2
Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Plan -MNA Parameters
CNA Holdlngs!Tlcona Facility -Shelby, North Carolina
Earth Tech Project No. 79750
January 2007 Aprll 2007
-e N -e N
8 e e
¾l $ 8 $ ¾l ~ a, ~ a,
E E a, E E a, C) e e C. C) e e C. a, "' "' E a, "' "' E C: Q. Q. "' C: Q. Q. "' a, a,
u >, -,: " (/) u >, -,: l2 (/)
e .c ~ qj g e .c ~ a, g w u "" ;,-
IT-1 X X X X X X X X
IT-2 X X X X X X X X
IT-3 X X X X X X X X
IT-4 X X X X X X X X
IT-5 X X X X X X X X
IT-6 X X X X X X X ·x
IT-7 X X X X X X X X
IT-BR X X X X X X X X
IT-9 X X X X X X X X
F-55 X X X X X X X X DUP
G-50 X X X X
G-88 X X X X
J-29 X X X X X X X X DUP
K-28 X X X X X X X DUP
N-29 X X X X X X X
0-25 X X X X X X X X
Q-33 X X X X X X X X
S-1 X X X
Tl-1 X X X X X X X X
Tl-2 X X X X X X X X
U-38 X X X X X X X X
V-23 X X X DUP X X X X
V-65 X X X X X X X X
W-23 X X X X X X X X
X-32 X X X X X X
CC-33 X X X X X X X X
ITCI Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
ITEF Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
OTCI Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
OTEF Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
1 -MNA Parameters -methane, total iron, total manganese,
total alkalinity. nitrate-nitrogen, sulfate, ethyl alcohol, acetate
2 -Field Parameters. depth to groundwater, dissolved oxygen,
oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance,
temperaturte, turbidity
Tables 1H 2007 Report.xis Page 1 of 1
u e
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
July 2007 October 2007
-e N -e N e e 8 ¾l a, 8 $ ¾l ~ qj ~ a, E E a, E E a, C) e e C. C) e e C. a, "' "' E a, "' "' E C: Q. Q. "' C: Q. Q. "' .S! a,
>, -,: " (/) u >, -,: il (/)
.c :ii qj g e .c :ii ~ iii ;-;-iii j';""
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X DUP X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X MS/D X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X
X X X FB X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Inner Tier Shut Off Inner Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
Outer Tier Shut Off Outer Tier Shut Off
TOC -total organic carbon
QC -quality control
DUP -duplicate
FB -field blank
MSID -matrixspike/matrix spike duplicate
9125/2007