NCD079044426_19940223_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA FS_Draft Work Plan - Remedial Investigation Feasbility Study Volume I-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL Si''I:. ,li'.l<:-c=e~,v;-;;;;E;;;D;..---i
Prepared for:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
FEB 2 5 1994
SUPERFUND SECTION
The data contained in all pages of this pro~I have been submitted in confidence and contain trade secrets and/or privileged or
confidential, commercial, or financial information, and such data shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation purposes provided that, if
a contract is awarded to this proposer as a result of or in connection with the submission of this proposal, the Government shall have the
right to use or disclose the data herein to the extent provided in the contract. This restriction docs not limit the Government's right to
use or disclose data obtained without restriction from any source, including the proposer.
Prepared By:
Approved By:
Approved By:
DRAFf WORK PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
VOLUME I
FEBRUARY 23, 1994
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 46-4XJG
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 7740-046-WP-BLCG
~I~ Mark D. Taylor, P.E.
Project Manager
Gary P. Clemons, Ph.D.
Program Manager
Rose,Mary Ellersick 1
Quality Assurance Director
Prepared by:
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
2030 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 490
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
ARCS REGION IV
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
'I
I
I
Section
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................ 1-1
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING ............. .
2.1 Site Description .................................... .
2.1.1 Location .................................... .
2.1.2 Physical Features ............................. .
2.1.3 Demography ................................. .
2.1.4 Surrounding Land/Water Use .................... .
2.2 Environmental Setting ............................... .
2.2.1 Physiography/Topography ....................... .
2.2.2 Climate/Meteorology .......................... .
2.2.3 Geology .................................... .
2.2.4 Hydrogeology ................................ .
2.2.5 Hydrology ................................... .
2.2.6 Wildlife Natural Resources ...................... .
2.3 Site History ....................................... .
2.3.1 Onsite Treatment/Storage/Disposal Activities ........ .
2.3.2 Previous Sampling Investigation Results ............. .
2.3.3 Previous Remediation Efforts .................... .
2.3.4 Site Regulatory Actions ......................... .
3.0 INITIAL EVALUATION ................................. .
3.1 Conceptual Site Model .............................. .
3.2 Potential Contaminants of Concern ..................... .
3.2.1 Inorganics ................................... .
3.2.2 Organics .................................... .
3.2.3 Summary ................................... .
3.3 Preliminary Identification of ARARs and Other Guidelines
11
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-11
2-13
2-14
2-16
2-17
2-19
2-20
2-26
2-54
2-56
3-1
3-1
3-4
3-6
3-10
3-20
3-20
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section
3.4 Preliminary Remedial Action Alternatives Development ..... .
3.5 Additional Site Data Requirements ..................... .
4.0 WORK PIAN RATIONALE .............................. .
4.1 Work Plan Approach ................................ .
4.2 Data Quality Objectives .............................. .
5.0 RI/FS SCOPE OF WORK ................................ .
5.1 Task 1 -Project Planning ............................. .
5.2 Task 2 -Community Relations Support .................. .
5.3 Task 3 -Field Investigation ........................... .
5.4 Task 4 -Sample Management ......................... .
5.5 Task 5 -Data Evaluation ............................. .
5.6 Task 6 -Baseline Risk Assessment ..................... .
5.7 Task 7 -Treatability Studies Planning ................... .
5.8 Task 8 -RI Reports ................................ .
5.9 Task 9 -Remedial Alternatives Development and Screening .. .
5.10 Task 10 -Detailed Analysis of Alternatives ............... .
5.11 Task 11 -FS Reports ................................ .
5.12 Task 12 -Post RI/FS Support ......................... .
5.13 Task 13 -Project Completion and Closeout ............... .
5.14 Task 14 -Quality Management ........................ .
5.15 Task 15 -Technical and Financial Management ............ .
6.0 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES AND DELIVERABLES .......... .
~
3-21
3~29
4-1
4-1
4-8
5-1
5-2
5-6
5-12
5-38
5-40
5-42
5-45
5-47
5-48
5-50
5-52
5-52
5-53
5-54
5-57
6-1
7.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7 .1 Project Organization ................................ .
7.2 Quality Assurance Organization ........................ .
7.3 Team Firms ...................................... .
7.4 Subcontractors ..................................... .
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES ..................... .
Ill
7-1
7-4
7-5
7-5
8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I·
1.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section
9.0 FIEID OPERATIONS
9.1 Data Collection .................................... .
9.2 Soil Sampling ..................................... .
9.3 Monitor Well Installation/Soil Borings ................... .
9.4 Groundwater Sampling .............................. .
9.5 Aquifer Testing and Measurement ...................... .
9.6 Surface Water/Sediment Sampling ...................... .
9.7 Ecological Sampling ................................ .
10.0 SAMPLE AND DOCUMENT CUSTODY PROCEDURES ....... .
10.1 Sample Custody .................................... .
10.2 Document Control .................................. .
11.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY ........... .
11.1 Laboratory Equipment ............................... .
11.2 Field Instrumentation ............................... .
12.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ............................ .
13.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING ....... .
13.1 Data Logging ..................................... .
13.2 Analyzing Samples and Procedural Detail ................ .
13.3 Validation of Data ................................. .
13.4 Final Reporting and Report Archival .................... .
14.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS ................. .
14.1 Duplicate Samples .................................. .
14.2 Split Samples ..................................... .
14.3 ESD Spiked Samples ................................ .
14.4 ESD Blank Samples ....................... ' ......... .
14.5 Trip Blanks ....................................... .
14.6 Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Samples ............. .
14.7 Equipment Rinseates ................................ .
14.8 Water Supply Sampling .............................. .
IV
Toge
9-1
9-1
9-9
9-18
9-26
9-31
9-34
9-39
10-1
10-1
10-10
11-1
11-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-1
14-1
14-2
14-2
14-3
14-3
14-3
14-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I, ,,
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section ~
14.9 Drilling Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-4
14.10 Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14-4
15.0 SYSTEM AND PERFORMANCE AUDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
15.1 Internal Auditing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
15.2 Audit Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1
15.3 Frequency of Audits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-2
15.4 External Audit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-2
16.0 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES 16-1
17.0 DATA MEASUREMENT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . 17-1
17.1 Precision .... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1
17.2 Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-1
17.3 Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-2
17.4 Representativeness and Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-2
18.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-1
19.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . 19-1
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A -BORING LOGS
APPENDIX B -EXISTING WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAMS
APPENDIX C -HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN
APPENDIX D -KEY STAFF RESUMES
V
I
I
I Figure
i 2-1
I 2-2
2-3
I 2-4
I 2-5
2-6
I 2-7
l1 2-8
2-9
I 2-10
I 2-11
2-12
I 2-13
I' 3-1
., 3-2
•• 5-1
I 5-2
I 5-3
5-4
I 5-5
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
~
Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
GE Subsite Features Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Shepherd Farm Subsite Features Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Seldon Clark Subsite Features Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
General Site Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
GE Subsite Groundwater Levels (May 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
GE Subsite UST Locations
GE Subsite Well Locations
2-24
2-27
Private Well Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
Tetrachloroethene Concentrations in Groundwater (May 1990) . . . . . . . 2-51
Trichloroethene Concentrations in Groundwater (May 1990)
Additional VOC Concentrations in Groundwater (May 1990)
2-52
2-53
Residential Areas Offered City Water Connections By GE . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
Conceptual Site Model Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Conceptual Site Model Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Private Well/Water Use Survey Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
Proposed Soil Sample Locations -GE Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
Proposed Soil Sample Locations -Seldon Clark Property . . . . . . . . . . . 5-19
Proposed Soil Sample Locations -Shepherd Farm Property . . . . . . . . . 5-20
Proposed Monitor Well Locations -GE Property 5-22
VI
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
LIST OF FIGURES (cont.)
Figure
5-6 Proposed Monitor Well Locations -Seldon Clark Property ......... .
5-7 Proposed Monitor Well Locations -Shepherd Farm Property ....... .
5-8 Shallow Monitor Well Construction Diagram ................... .
5-9 Intermediate Monitor Well Construction Diagram ............... .
5-10 Deep Monitor Well Construction Diagram ..................... .
5-11 Proposed Surface Water/Sediment Sample Locations -GE Property
5-12 Proposed Surface Water/Sediment Sample Locations -
Seldon Clark Property .................................... .
5-13 Proposed Surface Water/Sediment Sample Locations -
Shepherd Farm Property .................................. .
5-14 Proposed Fish Sample Locations -GE Property ................. .
5-15 Proposed Fish Sample Locations -Shepherd Farm Property ........ .
6-1 Anticipated Schedule of Activities ........................... .
6-2 Anticipated Schedule of Deliverables ......................... .
7-1 Project Organization ..................................... .
vii
fige
5-23
5-24
5-26
5-27
5-28
5-32
5-33
5-34
5-36
5-37
6-2
6-3
7-2
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
3-.1
3-2
3-3
LIST OF TABLES
Underground Storage Tank Data
Well Construction Details ................................. .
Private Well Data ....................................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Soil
at the GE Property ...................................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Sediments
at the GE Property ...................................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Surface Water
at the GE Property ...................................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Groundwater
at the GE Property ...................................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Soil
at the Shepherd Farm Property ............................. .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Sediment
at the Shepherd Farm Property ............................. .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Groundwater
at the Shepherd Farm Property ............................. .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Soil
at the Seldon Clark Property ............................... .
Maximum Contaminant Concentrations Detected in Sediment
at the Seldon Clark Property ............................... .
Potential Contaminants of Concern .......................... .
Preliminary Chemical-Specific ARARs, Criteria, and Guidance ...... .
Preliminary Location-Specific ARARs, Criteria, and Guidance ...... .
viii
~
2-25
2-28
2-31
2-34
2-36
2-38
2-39
2-41
2-42
2-43
2-44
2-45
3-5
3-22
3-23
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Table
3-4 Preliminary Action-Specific ARARs, Criteria, and Guidance
for Soil/Sediment ....................................... .
3-5 Preliminary Action-Specific ARARs, Criteria, and Guidance
for Water .......................................... .
3-6 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives, General Response Actions,
Technology Types, and Process Options for Soil/Sediment ........ .
3-7 Preliminary Remedial Action Objectives, General Response Actions,
Technology Types, and Process Options for Water .............. .
4-1 Data Quality Objectives ................................... .
5-1 Summary of Proposed Sample Collection ...................... .
3-24
3-25
3-27
3-28
4-10
5-39
9-1 Field Sample Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
9-2 Blank and Spike QC Samples ............................... .
12-1 Laboratory Analytical Methods ............................. .
16-1 Field Equipment Maintenance Schedule ....................... .
IX
9-8
12-2
16-2
0
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
QA PROJECT PLAN LOCATOR PAGE
Number
1. Project Description ...................................... .
2. Data Quality Objectives ................................... .
3. Sampling and Field Measurement Procedures ................... .
4. Project Organization Responsibility .......................... .
5. Sample Custody ......................................... .
6. Calibration Procedures .................................... .
7. Analytical Procedures .................................... .
8. Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting .................... .
9. Internal Quality Control Checks ............................. .
10. System and Performance Audits ............................. .
11. Preventative Maintenance Procedures ........................ .
12. Data Measurement Assessment Procedures .................... .
13. Corrective Action ....................................... .
14. Quality Assurance Reports to Management .................... .
X
fllge
1-1
4-8
9-1
7-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
15-1
16-1
17-1
18-1
19-1
m
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Giezelle Bennett, EPA Remedial Project Manager (7 copies)
Mark Taylor, COM Federal Project Manager (1 copy)
Norma Eichlin, COM Federal Field Operations Manager (1 copy)
RoseMary Ellersick, COM Federal ARCS IV QA Director (1 copy)
Field Personnel ( 1 copy each)
COM Federal ARCS IV Document Control (1 copy)
XI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This work plan was developed by CDM Federal Programs Corporation specifically to guide
the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to be conducted at the General
Electric/Shepherd Farm Site (hereinafter referred to as the "GE Site" or "the site"), in East
Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina. This document is submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with Work Assignment No. 046-
4XJG under Contract No. 68-W9-0056.
The GE Site consists of three non-contiguous disposal areas (subsites) known as the GE
property, the Shepherd Farm property, and the Seldon Clark property. Previous
investigations have indicated that the major sources of contamination on these properties are
related to the waste disposal, storage, and treatment practices performed by the GE plant
located on the GE property.
Since 1955, GE has manufactured several types of luminaire systems on its approximately
50-acre facility. Located on the GE property are a manufacturing plant, a warehouse, eight
plots formerly used for landspreading wastes, two unlined waste treatment ponds, a sludge
impoundment, two former landfills, and a recreation center. From approximately 1957 to
1970, wastes from the GE plant were disposed of on the plant property as well as in an old
dry pond on the Shepherd Farm property located approximately 1500 feet southwest of the
GE property. Wastes were brought to this approximately 3-acre disposal area at the
Shepherd Farm property and deposited, burned, and then bulldozed. A trailer park is now
located on a portion of the former Shepherd Farm dump site. GE wastes were also deposited
in an approximately 1-acre ravine on the Seldon Clark property located approximately 50 feet
northwest of the GE property.
Previous investigations at the three GE subsites have found:
ES-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
Soils contaminated primarily with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals
Sediments contaminated primarily with PCBs
Groundwater contaminated primarily with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals
• Surface waters contaminated primarily with voes
The GE site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1993, and in January 1994, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated this RI/FS to address the contamination
found at the site.
The purpose of the RI/FS process is to gather, as quickly and cost-effectively as possible,
enough information about the site to support an informed risk management decision regarding
which remedy appears to be most appropriate for the site. Given the information contained
in the existing database, the following list of specific data requirements was developed for
this RI/FS:
GE Property
• The nature and extent of soils contamination in the drain line and former ditch
areas, in the former landspreading plot areas, in the present and former landfill
areas, and under the former USTs
• The present nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
• The present extent of the floating product plume in the former UST No. 9 area
• The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the subsite
• The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around Bat
Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the subsite
ES-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
• Groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients on the southern and
eastern sides of Bat Fork Creek, and the groundwater/surface water interactive
flows along Bat Fork Creek
• The shallow aquifer system characteristics including hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities) and contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients)
• The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a I-
mile radius of the site
Shepherd Farm Property
• The nature and extent of waste disposal onsite
• The nature and extent of soils contamination
• The nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
•
•
•
•
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
the unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the
subsite
The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the
subsite
The shallow aquifer system characteristics including the groundwater flow
directions and hydraulic gradients onsite and off site, hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities), contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients), and the groundwater/surface water interactive flows along the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek
The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a I-
mile radius of the site
Seldon Clark Property
• The nature and extent of waste disposal onsite
ES-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The nature and extent of soils contamination
The nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
the storm drain on the eastern side of the site
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
Bat Fork Creek downstream of the subsite
The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around Bat
Fork Creek downstream of the subsite
The shallow aquifer system characteristics including the groundwater flow
directions and hydraulic gradients onsite and off site, hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities), contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients), and the groundwater/surface water interactive flows along the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek
The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a 1-
mile radius of the site
Once these data are obtained, a baseline risk assessment can be performed, and the
development of a technologically sound and cost-effective alternative for remediation of the
site can be a,:hieved.
The scope of work for the GE Site RI/FS is divided into the following 15 major tasks:
• Project Planning -initiation of the RI/FS including development of the Work
Plan, the Sampling and Analysis Plan, and the Health and Safety Plan
• Community Relations Support -development and implementation of the
Community Relations Plan
• Field Investigation -performance of all field activities including installation of
monitor wells; soil borings; sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and fish; aquifer testing and measurement; soil testing;
ground surveying; and a private well/water use survey
ES-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sample Management -monitoring and compiling of all field data and
laboratory sample data during and after the field investigation has been
completed and prior to data evaluation
Data Evaluation -analysis of data collected during the field investigation once
they have been verified for acceptable accuracy
Baseline Risk Assessment -assessment of the potential impacts on public
health, welfare, and the environment from actual contaminant releases
resulting from past activities at the site
Treatability Studies Planning -evaluation of candidate technologies and the
need for pilot-or bench-scale studies to determine the feasibility of these
technologies
Remedial Investigation Reports -presentation of the RI field and laboratory
data in a Site Characterization Summary Report and documentation of the RI
results and conclusions in an RI Report
Remedial Alternatives Development and Screening -assembly and selection of
appropriate remedial alternatives to undergo full evaluation
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives -full analysis and comparison of the
:screened alternatives
Feasibility Study Reports -documentation of the FS results in an FS Report
Post RI/FS Support -performance of activities required to support EPA in
preparation of the ROD after the RI/FS is completed
Project Completion and Closeout -performance of all activities required to
complete and closeout the work assignment for EPA
Quality Management -monitoring of the technical accuracy and quality of all
deliverables prepared during the RI/FS
Technical and Financial Management -management and reporting of all
activities conducted during the RI/FS
These tasks will be conducted and all deliverables will be prepared in accordance with
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(EPA, 1988), as well as other applicable EPA guidance documents.
ES-5
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site (hereinafter referred to as the "GE Site" or "the
site") consists of three non-contiguous disposal areas in East Flat Rock, Henderson County,
North Carolina. These disposal areas (subsites) are known as the GE property, the Shepherd
Farm property, and the Seldon Clark property. Previous investigations have indicated that
the major sources of contamination on these properties are related to the waste disposal,
storage, and treatment practices performed by the GE plant located on the GE property.
Since 1955, GE has manufactured several types of luminaire systems on its approximately
SO-acre facility. Located on the GE property are a manufacturing plant, a warehouse, eight
plots formerly used for landspreading wastes, two unlined waste treatment ponds, a sludge
impoundment, two former landfills, and a recreation center. From approximately 1957 to
1970, wastes from the GE plant were disposed of on the plant property as well as in an old
dry pond on the Shepherd Farm property located approximately 1500 feet southwest of the
GE property. Wastes were brought to this approximately 3-acre disposal area at the
Shepherd Farm property and deposited, burned, and then bulldozed. A trailer park is now
located on a portion of the former Shepherd Farm dump site. GE wastes were also deposited
in an approximately I-acre ravine on the Seldon Clark property located approximately 50 feet
northwest of the GE property.
Previous investigations at the three GE subsites have found:
•
•
•
•
Soils contaminated primarily with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and heavy metals
Sediments contaminated primarily with PCBs
Groundwater contaminated primarily with volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and heavy metals
Surface waters contaminated primarily with VOCs
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The GE site was placed on the National Priorities List in 1993, and in January 1994, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated this RI/PS to address the contamination
found at the sir.e.
The purpose of the RI/PS process is to gather, as quickly and cost-effectively as possible,
enough information about the site to support an informed risk management decision regarding
which remedy appears to be most appropriate for the site. The RI serves as the mechanism
for collecting data to characterize site conditions, determine the nature of the waste, assess
risk to human health and the environment, and conduct treatability testing as necessary to
evaluate the p,Jtential performance and cost of the treatment technologies being considered.
The PS serves, as the mechanism for development, screening, and detailed evaluation of
alternative remedial actions. The various steps, or phases, of the RI/PS process are briefly
described below:
• Scoping -the initial planning phase of the RI/PS, including the preliminary
assessment and site investigation
• Site Characterization -definition of the nature and extent of contamination,
identification of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
and development of the baseline risk assessment
•
•
•
Development and Screening of Alternatives -identification of potential treat-
ment technologies, screening of these technologies, assembly of the
technologies into alternatives, and screening of the alternatives
Treatability Investigations -bench-or pilot-scale testing to assess the feasibility
of a technology
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives -further refinement of the alternatives,
analysis of the alternatives with respect to nine evaluation criteria, and
comparison of the alternatives against each other.
The RI and FS are conducted concurrently so that data collected in the RI influence the
development of remedial alternatives in the PS, which in turn affects the data needs and
scope of the treatability studies and any additional field investigations (EPA, 1988).
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
R
I
I
I
The primary objective of this RI/FS is to collect the additional data needed to support a risk
assessment and provide a basis on which to recommend a subsequent remedial action plan for
the site. The specific goals of this RI/FS include the following:
• Determining the nature of, and the areal and vertical extent of contamination
(waste types, concentrations, and distributions) in soils, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and local biota at the three GE subsites.
• Identifying the source(s) of contamination associated with the three GE subsites
• Determining the hydraulic characteristics and contaminant transport
mechanisms of the under! ying aquifer at the site
• Evaluating the potential migration rates and pathways of site contaminants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Determining the potential receptors of groundwater contamination by
performing a well/water use survey within a I-mile radius of the site
Assessing public health risks and environmental impacts associated with the
site contamination (i.e., performing a Baseline Risk Assessment)
Identifying all current federal and state applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for site remediation
Determining the remediation levels for contaminants found at the site
Identifying technological options for cleaning up the site contamination and/or
preventing further migration of contaminants offsite
Performing bench or pilot scale treatability studies, as necessary to evaluate
the applicability of potential treatment technologies
Assembling the technologies into remedial action alternatives and screening the
alternatives to identify those which appear to be most promising with respect
to effectiveness, implementability, and cost
Evaluating the screened remedial action alternatives in a manner which is
consistent with the National Contingency Plan and other regulatory
requirements
Recommending a remedial action plan for the site that is technically and
environmentally sound, and cost-effective
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The scope of work for the GE Site RI/FS is divided into the following 15 major tasks:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project Planning -initiation of the RI/FS including development of the Work
Plan, the Sampling and Analysis Plan, and the Health and Safety Plan
Community Relations Support -development and implementation of the
Community Relations Plan
Field Investigation -performance of all field activities including installation of
monitor wells; soil boring; sampling and analysis of soil, sediments, surface
water, groundwater, and local biota; aquifer testing and measurement; soil
testing; topographic and ground surveying; and a private well/water use survey
Sample Management -monitoring and compiling of all field data and
laboratory sample data during and after the field investigation has been
completed and prior to data evaluation
Data Evaluation -analysis of data collected during the field investigation once
they have been verified for acceptable accuracy
Baseline Risk Assessment -assessment of the potential impacts on public
health, welfare, and the environment from actual contaminant releases
resulting from past activities at the site
Treatability Studies Planning - evaluation of candidate technologies and the
need for pilot-or bench-scale studies to determine the feasibility of these
technologies
Remedial Investigation Reports -presentation of the RI field and laboratory
data in a Site Characterization Summary Report and documentation of the RI
results and conclusions in an RI Report
Remedial Alternatives Development and Screening -assembly and selection of
appropriate remedial alternatives to undergo full evaluation
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives -full analysis and comparison of the
screened alternatives
Feasibility Study Reports -documentation of the FS results in an FS Report
Post RI/FS Support -performance of activities required to support EPA in
preparation of the ROD after the RI/FS is completed
1-4
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
Project Completion and Closeout -performance of all activities required to
complete and closeout the work assignment for EPA
Quality Management -monitoring of the technical accuracy and quality of all
deliverables prepared during the RI/FS
• Technical and Financial Management -management and reporting of all
activities conducted during the RI/FS
These tasks will be conducted and all deliverables will be prepared in accordance with
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(EPA, 1988), as well as other applicable EPA guidance documents.
1-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND PHYSICAL SETTING
Before th,e activities necessary to conduct an RI/FS can be planned, it is important to compile
the available data that have been previously collected for the site. These data can be used to
determine the additional work to be conducted and help avoid the duplication of previous
efforts. A more focused RI/FS can then be performed, which allows a more efficient use of
resources. This section briefly summarizes the available data with regard to the physical
setting of the site and past operations.
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 LOCATION
The GE subsite is located at the southeastern comer of Spartanburg Highway (U.S. 176) and
Tabor Road (S.R. 1809) in East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina (see Figure
2-1). Geographically, the center of the subsite is located at approximately 35°16'25" N
latitude and 82°24' 10· W longitude according to the Hendersonville, North Carolina, USGS
7.5 minute topographic map. This slightly hilly, approximately SO-acre subsite is bounded
on the west by Spartanburg Highway, on the north by Tabor Road, and on the east by Bat
Fork Creek (see Figure 2-2). The southern boundary is a fenceline south, east, and west of
the recreational facility. General Electric also owns the plot of land located southwest of
Spartanburg Highway, south of Bat Fork Creek, between the curved railroad tracks and the
highway.
The Shepherd Farm subsite is located on Roper Road, approximately 1200 feet west of
Spartanburg Highway and 2500 feet southwest of the GE subsite (see Figure 2-1).
Geographically, the center of the subsite is located at 35°16'!0" N latitude and 82°25'10" W
longitude according to the Hendersonville, North Carolina, USGS 7 .5 minute topographic
map. This hilly, approximately 31-acre subsite is bounded on the north by Roper Road, on
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~ .. " ..
•
. ' •
,•·
. . ' . 11• :==;9
II ~-II I II • •·
'I • -;Jr
. .
\
\
' ..
' ' . -~: ,~~-~
\ \
-\ i \ ',
\ ~ '1_.
i , ,,r~
, : · ra1ief-'
.. ; -·'-...:l.l~.JJlll\L\.l.lJ.J l : ....
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
t
N
' SCALE JN FEET
. \ -~
• I \ '
FIGURE NUMBER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
, : -·---,,~ ...
/ ---~~
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
GE SUBSITE FEATURES MAP
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
,
, , ,
, ,
' ,,
" '' ' ' ' ' ' '
FIGURE NUMBER
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the north-northwest by the Seldon Hill Farm, and on the west by Bat Fork Creek (see Figure
2-3).
The Seldon Clark subsite is located at the northeastern comer of Spartanburg Highway and
Tabor Road (see Figure 2-1). Geographically, the center of the subsite is located at
35°16'35" N latitude and 82°25'00" W longitude according to the Hendersonville, North
Carolina, USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. This open, unused, approximately I-acre field
is bounded on the west by Spartanburg Highway, on the south by Tabor Road, on the east by
Jones Street, and on the north by Second Avenue (see Figure 2-4).
2.1.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES
GE Property
The GE facility includes two major building structures: the manufacturing plant (350 by 700
feet) and the finished stock warehouse (700 by 300 feet). The buildings are separated by
paved parking areas and grassy lawns. The two buildings are situated on a relatively flat
hilltop, while the rest of the property is on a hillslope. A tall, barbed-wire, chain-link fence
surrounds the entire property with the exception of the landspreading plots (described below)
and the front of the facility where parking lots and manicured lawns exist. A guard is on
duty at all times to keep unauthorized personnel out of the plant and facility grounds (NUS,
1991a).
East of the plant is Demonstration Street, a paved, relatively flat strip of land. Along this
area, lighting fixture displays demonstrate the product line at GE. Several support facilities
are located along or near Demonstration Street, including a fork lift shop, a fabricating shop,
a reclamation yard, a boiler house, a chlorine building, a drum storage area, an outside
vendor (OV) storage area, and other fixtures and structures such as water tanks and pumps,
cryogenic tanks, gasoline pumps, and storage bins. A closed 0.5-acre landfill (Landfill A) is
now paved over by this street (NUS, 1991 a).
2-4
--en :I: m "tJ :I: m G> ;:u m m CJ )> -V> en ~ --< ,, :I: ~ m ;:u "tJ s: "' :I: 0 en n m C ;,; ;:u ID z CJ 0 en "' ~ ~ --< :r m n ;:u )> "T1 "' s: m 0 en )> !: z ~ -i )> C m ;:u m en s: )> "tJ "' I w -n a ;:: ,, m a m "' )> r )> "' n V> < ,, i5 C: "' m z C: ;:: m m "' I --~ ( 0 ~I II -lliil .. -------,.,. . 'li>1c. ~s FORK CREEK _0~1-- - --- -,,~:~:: £L~ ~ .,, ---'E:o ,,, .... C/rf: -.._f:,t , , ' 7~------~/ \\ ~ SPRltJG HAVEN TRAILER PARK ----~ f\l I _,., 0 ,,, "" e=: -SCALE IN FEET '' '' -~~
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f-w w a:
f-
"' i ;-w "' w w ; lJ.. z 0 :s -,
,i; 0
w / _J
<! u e (fl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h.~
I ,;
<! a:
I 0
2 a:
I 0
f-"'
I
1-z <r _J Q_ w (')
017 00'
&o017
✓
0::: w
2
0:::
0 <r
LL W
0::: Oq w I-_J
<r _J
21..L
I-
(J)
w
3nN3~11 ONOJ3S
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
SELDON CLARK SUBSITE FEATURES MAP
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
;:
<!
3: I Q
I
C) a: ::,
a:, z
<!
f-a: <!
CL ~
CD t:
"' :j
FIGURE NUMBER
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
East of Demonstration Street, beyond the paved lots, are approximately 26 acres of
landspreading plots which are blanketed by vegetation and slope eastward downhill toward
Bat Fork Creek. Southeast of Demonstration Street, beyond the drum storage area, is a dry,
3-acre, inactive sludge impoundment which currently has a thick cover of vegetation.
Southeast of the finished stock warehouse is a large (5-acre), active, wastewater treatment
pond. An underground drain line leading from the manufacturing plant to this wastewater
treatment pond is used to transport the wastewater and stormwater runoff to the treatment
ponds (NUS, 1991a). East of the large wastewater treatment pond is an small (I-acre),
active, landfill area where construction debris and excavated soils have been deposited or
stored. Southwest of the finished stock warehouse is a grassy lawn area which was also
previously used as a landspreading plot.
The area south of Bat Fork Creek also belongs to GE and includes a small (I-acre), active,
wastewater treatment pond, a recreational area with adjacent playground which was also
formerly used as a landspreading plot, and a closed I-acre landfill (Landfill B), parts of
which are currently paved over by a driveway leading to the recreation facility. GE reported
that 2 to 3 feet of clean fill soils were placed over the landspreading plot when developing
the recreation area in the late 1970s or early 1980s (ATSDR, 1993).
The tract of land on the western side of Spartanburg Highway which is owned by GE is
currently undeveloped (NUS, 1991a).
The unfenced Shepherd Farm property, formerly used for disposal of wastes from the GE
facility, is currently a sloping wooded area used for residential purposes. Mr. Shepherd still
maintains his residence on this property. In addition, a 22-acre trailer park (Spring Haven)
consisting of 125 lots (most with trailers on them) and a community center are present on the
southern portion of the subsite. A small unnamed intermittent creek runs through the middle
of the sub site before discharging into Bat Fork Creek (NUS, 1991 b).
2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The unfenced Seldon Clark property, formerly used for landfilling of wastes from the GE
facility, is presently a grass-covered field which slopes toward Jones Street which forms its
eastern boundary. The only facility located on the property is a small run-down shack which
was formerly used as a junk/antique shop (CDM Federal, 1993).
2.1.3 DEMOGRAPHY
The GE Site is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, which had a 1990 census
population of 69,285. The town of Hendersonville (the County Seat), the center of which is
located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the site, had a 1990 census population of about
7,300. The county population is about 79% white and 20% black, but in the GE Site
vicinity, the distribution is about 96% white and 2% black (ATSDR, 1993).
Based upon a house count from USGS topographic maps, the population within I mile of the
GE and Seldon Clark subsites (excluding the approximate I, 100 GE plant employees) is
estimated to be 1,010. The nearest residence is adjacent to the southeast property boundary.
The nearest school is about 2,500 feet northwest of the property and two others are located
about 5,000 feet to the west. No nursing homes or hospitals are presently located within 1
mile of the GE and Seldon Clark subsites (ATSDR, 1993).
Spring Haven Trailer Park at the Shepherd Farm subsite is a quality development of 90
homes of which approximately two-thirds are occupied year-round. Each unit has one or two
persons and the average age is 67. Children are not permitted to live in the development but
are present occasionally as visitors. Several of the Spring Haven units are located within the
subsite disposal area while most of the other units are located within 500 feet. Four other
residences on the south side of Roper Road (three at the Seldon Hill Farm and one at the
Shepherd Farm) are also within 500 feet of the subsite disposal area. Based upon a house
count from USGS topographic maps, the population within 1 mile of the Shepherd Farm
property is estimated to be 1,044. Two schools are located about 2,000 and 2,500 feet west
of the property, and another is located about 4,500 feet north of the property. No nursing
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
homes or hospitals are presently located within 1 mile of the Shepherd Farm subsite
(ATSDR, 1993).
2.1.4 SURROUNDING LAND/WATER USE
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity of the GE and Seldon Clark subsites is
residential. Some commercial and light industrial uses occur along Spartanburg Highway,
however, and a large plant is on the north side of Tabor Road, across from the GE plant and
east of the Seldon Clark property. A large power substation also adjoins the southeast
boundary of the GE property. Open spaces surrounding the subsites are generally
undeveloped or farmed land. Orchards are prominent to the northeast of the subsites
(ATSDR, 1993).
The Shepherd Farm subsite is located in a rural/agricultural area where land use is
principally residential, forest, or farmland. The nearest commercial and industrial activity is
along Spartanburg Highway, about 2000 feet to the north and east (ATSDR, 1993).
Land is lightly developed along Bat Fork Creek, both upstream and downstream of the GE
site, and also along Mud Creek into which Bat Fork Creek discharges approximately 6 miles
downstream of the GE subsite. Approximately 90% of the land along Bat Fork Creek is
used for agriculture and the remaining 10% supports urbanized land uses. Apple orchards
comprise 60% of the agricultural land use followed by vegetable farms, hayfields, and fallow
fields combining for 30 percent of the agricultural land use (Law Environmental, 1990c).
Major natural resources in the area include surface waters (including some wetlands) and
groundwater. While irrigation of agricultural lands along Bat Fork Creek is unlikely due to
the relatively low volume of flow, some livestock are likely to obtain water from the stream.
In addition, while the steep banks, dense undergrowth, and narrow width of Bat Fork Creek
may limit its utility for recreational fishing, some recreational fishing in this creek has been
reported by residents. Bat Fork Creek flows into Mud Creek (also used for recreational
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fishing) which in tum flows into the French Broad River. The French Broad River is used
for recreational fishing, swimming, and boating. However, there are no public water intakes
along any portion of the surface waters downstream of the GE subsite (ATSDR, 1993).
The He:ndersonville public water system obtains its raw water from three surface water
intakes which are outside the watersheds possibly affected by the GE site. The GE facility
has be(:n connected to this public water system since it began operations. In addition, the
majority of the residents within a 4-mile radius of the site are also connected to this system.
Many homes and businesses near the site have relied on private wells ( drilled in the shallow
aquifer and averaging about 120 feet deep) for potable water in the past, and some still rely
on private wells, but'increasing numbers are being connected to the public system. The GE
facility has provided bottled water to many residents in the vicinity of both the GE subsite
and the Shepherd Farm subsite, and has paid for connections to the public water system. A
few re:,idents near the GE and Seldon Clark subsites, however, have declined GE's assistance
(ATSDR, 1993).
At the Shepherd Farm subsite, the Spring Haven development has always been connected to
the public water system. The four residents at the Seldon Hill Farm and Shepherd Farm
once relied on private wells for potable water, but are now connected to the public water
system. The closest wells still being used for potable water_ are believed to be about 1500
feet e.,st of the subsite (ATSDR, 1993).
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY /TOPOGRAPHY
The GiE Site is located within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of the Appalachian
Highlands in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Topography in the area is characterized
as rugged with large hills and rounded mountains, and steep slopes and narrow valleys, but
also with some flat areas in a few small valleys. The Asheville-Hendersonville area is
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
characterized by a central plateau (the Asheville Plateau) with moderate relief of 500 to 600
feet, surrounded on all sides by mountains. Elevation of the Asheville Plateau is
approximately 2200 feet above mean sea level (ams!) (NUS, 1991a).
The region roughly corresponding to the present Appalachian Mountains was folded, faulted,
and uplifted into high mountains during the Appalachian orogeny, and subsequently eroded
into an essentially flat surface. The present mountains are the product of more recent
regional uplift and differential erosion of older structures. The regional trend of the
Appalachian structures is parallel to the regional strike of the folded rocks which is
northeast-southwest. A minor alignment of mountain surface corresponds to an eastward
trend as well, but this northeast-southwest trending rock controls the pathways of rivers and
creeks in the area. A major thrust fault called the Brevard Fault Zone occurs about 11 miles
to the northwest of the site (Trapp, 1970).
The gf:neral topographic relief over the site is presented in Figure 2-5. The area around the
site consists of gently rolling hills with elevations at about 2100 to 2500 feet ams!. The
slope at the GE subsite is generally to the southeast at about 2 percent. The slope at the
Seldon Clark subsite is generally to the northeast at about 4 percent. The slope at the
Sheph1!rd Farm subsite is generally to the northwest at about 10 percent.
2.2.2 CLIMATE/METEOROLOGY
The climate of the region is humid-continental. Average monthly temperatures range from
41° F in January to 77° Fin July (Wallingford, 1989). Mean annual precipitation is 38
inches and mean annual lake evaporation is 34 inches. Mean maximum 24-hour rainfall is
3. 7 ini;hes (NUS, 1991a).
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
GENERAL SITE TOPOGRAPHY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE.
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
' I
N
I
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE NUMBER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.3 GEOLOGY
Most soils in the Blue Ridge Province are residual soils derived from weathering of the
underlying bedrock. These soils may be shallow to deep and are typically clayey, although
locally they may be coarse-grained. Other soils are derived from alluvium along the
floodplains of major streams (Law Environmental, 1990b).
Based on several borings performed at the GE subsite, the soils at the site can generally be
described as brown, micaceous, sandy silt near the surface, grading downward to loose firm,
red-brown and dark brown, micaceous silty medium to coarse sand. The thickness of the
residual soil at the GE subsite ranged from less than I foot to 88 feet. The boundary
between soil and rock is a transition zone of very dense, partially weathered rock. The
partially weathered rock (PWR) at the GE subsite is generally between 2 and 15 feet thick
(Law Environmental, 1990b).
The residuum in the Hendersonville area (including the site) are underlain by fractured
crystalline bedrock of Pre-Cambrian age. The typical rock types are gneiss and mica-schist.
These metamorphic rocks are intruded by granites of Precambrian and Paleozoic ages.
Directly below the site is the Henderson Gneiss, a biotite gneiss unit that contains feldspar
porphyroblasts in a finer-grained biotite gneiss matrix. Coarse granite, biotite gneiss,
hornblende gneiss, and mica schist occur as local rock bodies within the Henderson Gneiss
(NUS, 1991a). Cores taken from the bedrock at the GE subsite ranged from severely
weathered to fresh. Numerous gently to moderately dipping fractures were observed in the
cores (Law Environmental, 1990b). In general, however, the size and frequency of fractures
decrease markedly with increasing depth. In this type of terrain, approximately 90% of the
fractures typically occur within the upper 100 feet of bedrock.
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.4 HYDROGEOLOGY
The shallow groundwater surface in the Blue Ridge Province generally occurs within the
residual and alluvial soils. Water occurs in the pore spaces of these soils and the PWR,
within the relict fractures of the PWR, and within the fractures and secondary openings of
the underlying bedrock. Although the soil/PWR zone (hereinafter referred to as the "porous
media" zone), and the bedrock zone (hereinafter referred to as the "fractured media" zone)
are sometimes referred to as different aquifers, they actually comprise one shallow
unconfined aquifer since the two zones are hydraulically connected as evidenced by the lack
of both a confining zone and significant head difference between the two zones.
Groundwater flow in the Blue Ridge Province generally follows the topography. Recharge
occurs from infiltration of precipitation on the hill and mountain slopes, while discharge
generally occurs at the streams and springs. Wells installed in the soils generally have low
yields but are adequate for domestic use. The amount of water produced from the deeper
water-bearing fractures depends on the number and size of fractures encountered by a well.
Average yield from private wells in the area is approximately 18 gallons per minute (gpm)
(NUS, 1991a).
The groundwater surface at the site has been observed in monitor wells at depths ranging
from 3 to 29 feet below ground surface (NUS, 1991a and 1991b). A potentiometric surface
map of the GE subsite is presented in Figure 2-6. As seen in this figure, groundwater at the ·
GE and Seldon Clark subsites generally flows from the northwest toward the south and east
before discharging into Bat Fork Creek. No water level measurements were collected at the
Shepherd Farm subsite, but based on the topography at this subsite, groundwater flow is
expected to be toward the west and north before discharging into Bat Fork Creek.
Due to the highly heterogeneous and anisotropic nature of the shallow aquifer system, the
hydraulic properties of the shallow aquifer are expected to vary greatly from one location to
another. Generally, however, from an area-wide perspective, the hydraulic conductivity of
2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• z " " • 2
0 z • 0
z 0
§ 2 ~ • i ~ ~
§ .., 0 g .., ' ~ ... ; , 0 ;a: " 0 w " .., ~ I ~ ii ~ .. ~o 0 u • "' 7 N a •9 I / § >N
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV FIGURE NUMBER
GE SUBSITE GROUNDWATER LEVELS (MAY 1990)
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the shallow aquifer in both the porous and upper fractured media zones is expected to range
from approximately I to 10 feet/day and average about 4 feet/day, based on the results of an
aquifer performance test performed at the GE subsite (Law Environmental, 1991a). Based
on this average hydraulic conductivity, a hydraulic gradient ranging from 0.01 to 0.05
feet/feet as shown in Figure 2-6, and assumed effective porosities of 0.20 for the porous
media and 0.10 for the upper fractured media, the horizontal groundwater velocities at the
GE and Seldon Clark subsites are estimated to range from about 0.2 to 1 feet/day in the
porous media zone and 0.4 to 2 feet/day in the upper fractured media zone. The hydraulic
gradient and hence the horizontal groundwater velocities at the Shepherd Farm subsite are
expected to be slightly higher due to the steeper topography at this subsite.
Note that although the general direction of groundwater flow at all three subsites is toward
Bat Fork Creek, the actual direction of groundwater flow in the fractured media zone at any
given location may vary substantially from the general direction of flow, due to the
extremely anisotropic and heterogeneous nature of fractured rock aquifers. Groundwater
flow in the fractured media zone is controlled by the geometry, orientation, and
interconnections within the bedrock fractures. Because these properties are usually quite
variable in fractured rock aquifers, a complex three-dimensional flow field most likely exists
at this site.
2.2.5 HYDROLOGY
The surface water features potentially affected by the GE and Seldon Clark subsites include
Bat Fork Creek and Mud Creek. The surface water features potentially affected by the
Shepherd Farm subsite include the unnamed intermittent creek running through the subsite
and into Bat Fork Creek, Bat Fork Creek, and Mud Creek. These surface waters have been
classified as "Class C" by the State, which is the basic water quality classification for all
surface waters in the State of North Carolina, and protects freshwaters for secondary
recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. Wetland areas are also known to be located along Bat
2-16
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fork and Mud Creeks, but their locations are not evident on the USGS topographic maps
(NUS, 1991a).
Runoff from all three subsites discharges into Bat Fork Creek. At the Shepherd Farm
subsite, runoff also discharges into the unnamed tributary which then discharges into Bat
Fork Creek approximately 400 feet to the northwest. At the GE facility, a natural spring
which also discharges into Bat Fork Creek is located in a swampy area between Bat Fork
Creek and the easternmost landspreading plots. In addition, GE has an NPDES permit to
discharge treated industrial effluent into Bat Fork Creek from the GE facility surface
impoundments (NUS, 1991a). GE has reported that their discharge accounts for
approximately 40% of the flow at that location. GE also reported, however, that by the end
of 1993, they would cease discharging their industrial effluent into Bat Fork Creek and
instead route the effluent to the public wastewater treatment system (ATSDR, 1993).
Bat Fork Creek is a perennial surface water body which, from visual observation, appears to
be about 10 feet wide and less than I foot deep at the site under normal flow conditions.
The average gradient of Bat Fork Creek at the site is approximately 24 feet per mile. The
stream lies within the French Broad River basin which is part of the Tennessee River Valley
drainage system. Bat Fork Creek is basically unaltered from its headwaters to a point about
200 feet downgradient of Tabor Road. Extensive channel alteration by dredging, however,
has occurred throughout the remaining portion of the stream basin. Numerous unnamed
ditches and tributaries contribute flow to Bat Fork Creek, primarily during wet weather (Law
Environmental, 1990c).
2.2.6 WILDLIFE NATURAL RESOURCES
As indicated above, agricultural lands comprised primarily of apple orchards are the primary
land use along Bat Fork Creek. These lands also provide limited opportunities for hunting of
bobwhite quail (Colinius virginianus) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), with access
2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
controlled by private landowners. Gray squirrel and fox squirrel are also hunted in adjacent
hardwood forest borders (Law Environmental, 1990c).
Recreational fishing opportunities in Bat Fork Creek are essentially nonexistent in Bat Fork
Creek according to North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists due
to the small size of the stream. However, a study conducted by Law (1990) concluded that
Bat Fork Creek, though small, supports a fish population that is relatively diverse and
composed of edible and harvestable size fish at a level of abundance that could potentially
sustain a limited, yet low pressure fishery for Centrarchid sunfishes. Eleven species of fish
totaling 117 individuals were collected at three sampling stations in Bat Fork Creek in this
study. In addition, according to NCWRC biologists, a fishery for bullhead catfish,
largemouth bass, and various sunfishes exists in Mud Creek, the receiving stream for Bat
Fork Creek, approximately three to four miles downstream of the site (Law Environmental,
1990c).
A historically important waterfowl hunting area and currently important wood duck (Aix
sponsa) nesting area is located approximately four to five miles downstream of the site.
Other waterfowl species known to use this wetland site include Canada goose (Branta
canadensis). American black duck (Anas rubripes}, gadwall (A. strepera), mallard (&
platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (A. discors}, green-winged teal (A. crecca). and common
pintail (A. acuta). Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) have also been observed in the area by
NCWRC biologists, but reported bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) sightings have been
unconfirmed. Several small mammals are also known to inhabit the wetland area, as well as
the adjacent stream systems, including beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra
zibethica), gray fox Q.[rocyon cinereoargenteus}, and raccoon (Procyon lotor) (Law
Environmental, 1990c).
The French Broad River Basin and Henderson/ Asheville areas are the site of three federally
listed endangered plant species. These species include the swamp pink plant {Helonias
bullata), mountain sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii), and the bunched arrowhead plant
2-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
m
m
m
g
g
(Sagittaria fasciculata). The bunched arrowhead plant exists on the GE property west of
Spartanburg Highway and is one of only two known locations in North Carolina where the
species occurs. GE cooperates with the Nature Conservancy in Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
to protect this plant (Law Environmental, 1990c).
The bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) is designated as a state endangered species by North
Carolina. This reptile is known to exist in bog habitats within the French Broad River Basin.
No federal threatened or endangered terrestrial or aquatic animal species or critical habitats
are known to exist, however, along Bat Fork Creek (Law Environmental, 1990c).
2.3 SITE HISTORY
From 1955 to present, the GE facility has been used to develop, design, and manufacture
complete high-intensity-discharge luminaire systems, which consists of the assembly of
optical components, ballasts, mountings, and high mast lowering device_s. The luminaire
systems produced at the facility use several light sources including sodium and mercury.
These lighting systems have many uses which include the illumination of roadways, sports
arenas and related buildings and/or parking lots, indoor industrial and/or commercial
complexes, and hazardous or dangerous location applications (NUS, 1991a).
Operations at the facility are comprised of several manufacturing processes. Raw aluminum
is smelted and die-cast into molds of light fixture housings. Strip aluminum is machined by
a spin and die process into reflectors that are attached to the housings. These reflectors are
finished in a metal finishing, polishing, or coating process to yield a highly machined,
polished or satin surface, as desired (NUS, 1991a).
The aluminum light fixture housings and parts go through mechanical, chemical, and/or
electrochemical metal cleaning and finishing processes. GE's metal cleaning processes utilize
26 fiberglass and metal tanks or cells filled with a variety of washes and chemical treatment
solutions including soaps, phosphoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, sodium hydroxide bath,
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water, and deionized water. A voltage drop is applied across many of these cells (tanks).
Two systems are used for metal finishing at the facility after chemical metal cleaning in the
fiberglass tanks is completed. The systems are the AL V AC system and the BELKE system.
The AL V AC system involves aluminum anodizing and oxidizing the outer layers of the
surface of the aluminum to clean the surface and give it a matte or frosted appearance. The
BELKE system uses a silicate solution into which metal aluminum parts are dipped. This
forms a thin glass-like coating on the aluminum part. Metal finishing and coatings are used
to polish, brighten, and create a noncorrodible surface on the outdoor aluminum fixtures
(NUS, 1991a).
Ballasts used in the light fixture housings is first manufactured by a lamination punching
process. Copper wire that has been coated with a protective varnish at the facility is drawn
and wound into coils for use in the ballasts. A plastic known as Valox is also injection-or
compression-molded into parts which are then used for various purposes inside of the
luminaire systems (NUS, 1991a).
From about 1955 until 1975, GE also manufactured "constant-current" transformers at this
facility. These transformers were filled with PCB-containing oil, which were delivered to
the facility in railroad tank cars (NUS, 1991a). GE has reported that PCBs are no longer
used in their product line (ATSDR, 1993).
Prior to GE's purchase of the property in 1955, the GE subsite was used as an apple orchard
(CDM Federal, 1993).
2.3.1 ONSITE TREATMENT/STORAGE/DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES
Waste streams generated by GE's facility from the beginning of plant operations have
included construction wastes, buffing compound, epoxy compound, phenolic residue, paint
sludges, PCB capacitors, solvents, transformer oil, electrical insulators/capacitors, waste
acids, dye cast mold released hydrocarbons, heavy petroleum greases, and varnish residues.
2-20
I
i
I
I
m
m
g
a
D
u
m
-I
I
I
I'
I
I
II
These waste streams contain many VOCs, heavy metals, acids, and PCBs. Current waste
streams include solvents, cadmium-contaminated baghouse dust, waste oils, and lab packs
(CDM Federal, 1993).
Waste disposal activities carried out by GE during the 1950s and 1960s have been poorly
documented. Recent information from a former GE employee, however, indicates that at
least two former landfills (Landfills A and B) were operated during this time period.
Landfill A received waste generated by the facility between 1955 and the 1960s. No
information is available concerning the types of wastes, but it is assumed that the wastes are
from the manufacturing process utilized during this time of operation. Landfill B is believed
to have been operated during the 1970s, and presumably received only construction debris.
No other wastes were given approval by GE or the State of North Carolina to be disposed of
at Landfill B. These unregulated practices of the 1950s and the 1960s were ceased by GE
with the promulgation of state and federal legislation to control pollution to the environment
during the 1970s (NUS, 1991a). As these two former landfills have been paved over, there
is no physical evidence of waste at the landfill locations.
Wastewater generated as a result of plant process, contains metals and solvents typically used
during lighting system manufacture. GE implemented a wastewater treatment facility in the
mid-1970s consisting of a lime treatment system to adjust the pH of treated waters prior to
surface water discharge. They also constructed the two wastewater treatment ponds
described previously. The unlined ponds were constructed of native clay and are
approximately 10 feet deep. The larger pond has a controlled exit valve at its discharge
point to the smaller pond. The valve has a primary pH meter and a back-up meter which is
set to automatically shut off if pH fluctuates above 9 or below 6. The large pond also has a
spill containment tank and a baffle to control retention time of water. This pond is used for
sedimentation as well as to control BOD, dissolved oxygen, pH, and phosphates. The
smaller pond is used as an oxygenation process of wastewater by aeration and periodically
received an unknown amount of sludge during 1976 to 1980 (NUS, 1991a).
2-21
As part of the waste treatment process, wet and dry sludges generated in the wastewater
treatment facility were landspread on several plots surrounding the facility buildings between
1977 and 1980. These landspreading plots, totaling 26 acres, were delineated for disposal of
wet and dry sludges that contained water, lime, and about 0.07 to 2.85 percent nickel
typically used in plant processes. The nickel was used as a polishing agent or as a coating
on finished aluminum products (light fixtures) during the 1970s. The use of nickel was
concurrent with the landspreading activities and continued until 1986. Landspreading of
sludge ended in 1980 with the promulgation of RCRA regulations. Sludge filter cake was
also sold at some time in the past to local merchants as a fertilizer or shipped for burial to
the local landfill (Henderson County Landfill) in Hendersonville (NUS, 1991a).
From 1955 until 1975, GE also generated a substantial quantity of PCB wastes as a result of
transformer production. Disposal of these wastes prior to 1980 is not well documented, but
in 1984, PCB wastes were sent to Emelle, Alabama, for disposal. It is possible that PCB-
containing electrical components were deposited along with other wastes, into the dried
sludge impoundment or the waste treatment ponds (NUS, 1991a).
A written notification of a spill of #2 fuel oil was sent to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management on January 21, 1983, by GE. An estimated 1400 gallons of the
#2 fuel oil was accidently lost on January 19, 1993, via a ruptured fuel transfer line. The oil
made its way to the large wastewater treatment pond, where sorbent pads were used to
remove it. Because of this effort by GE, there was no evidence of a release to Bat Fork
Creek. No other records exist concerning releases which may have occurred since the
beginning of operations in 1955 (NUS, 1991a).
Cutting and grinding fluid wastes presently generated at the facility (approximately 900
gallons/year) are transported to SCA Services in Pinewood, South Carolina. Solvents
presently used in the plant include methyl ethyl ketone, used in a paint sprayer to clean parts,
and tetrachloroethene (approximately 10 gallons/year), also used to clean various parts (NUS,
1991a).
2-22
I.
I
I
.-• a
ft
0
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
i
I
Waste quantities generated over the duration of operation of the facility are unknown. As
already discussed, a substantial quantity of sludge was spread over the landspreading plots
from 1977 to 1980. An unknown quantity of plant-generated sludges (primarily sediment
accumulated in the wastewater treatment ponds) was disposed of in the dried sludge
impoundment area from 1976 to 1977. This older impoundment was taken out of service
when landspreading activities began along with the implementation of the lime water
treatment system in 1977 (NUS, 199 la).
Underground storage tanks (USTs) at eighteen locations (see Figure 2-7) have been used by
GE in the past to store fuels, liquid supplies (paints and varnishes), and liquid wastes. Table
2-1 presents details regarding each of the USTs. All of these USTs are reported by GE to
have been removed by March 1991, and all liquid storage is now performed in above ground
storage tanks and drums. GE's drum storage facility, constructed in 1970, has spill-
containment features (ATSDR, 1993).
From approximately 1957 to 1970, GE wastes were also deposited at the Shepherd Farm
property where it was dumped, burned, and bulldozed in an approximate 3-acre area onsite.
At the time of the dumping, the only other use of the property was for the Shepherd's
residence. The trailer park was later constructed over part of the dumping area. Most of the
waste was reportedly deposited into an old dry pond or ravine approximately 800 feet
southwest of the Shepherd residence. When the path leading to the ravine was icey,
however, the waste was placed along the path. According to Mr. Shepherd, the waste
consisted of cardboard, wood, office paper, and buffing compound. Occasionally, electrical
"insulators" were taken to the site and broken to salvage copper. These might have been
capacitors as insulators do not contain copper. Additional! y, according to GE
representatives, waste solvents were also probably disposed of at Shepherd Farm. Two local
residents reported that during construction of the trailer park, drums were dug up and
reburied. During a recent site visit, drums and electrical-type wastes were observed onsite
(NUS, 1991b).
2-23
B
I
I
D
g
m
m
I!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/ /
0 • •
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
GE SUBSITE UST LOCATIONS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
\
\
FIGURE NUMBER
TABLE 2-1
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK DATA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Tank Date Last
Location Year Volume Contained Year
No. Contents Removed (gal) Approximate Location Material Installed
1 Diesel Fuel 1990+' 30,000 North of boiler house NA. 1970
2 #2 Fuel Oil 1990+ 6@ 30,000 Under Demonstration Street NA 1%9
3 Unleaded Gas 1990+ 20,000 Between Demonstration and tracks NA 1985
4 Waste Oil 1989 10,000 North of boiler house 11/89 1956
5 Hydraulic Oil 1990+ 10,000 East of facilities building NA 1982
6 Ethylene Glycol 1990 10,000 Northwest of north wing NA 1%6
7 Kerosene 1989 1,000 Northwest of north wing 7/83 1%6
8 Insul Varnish 1990+ 10,000 Northwest of north wing NA 1980
9 Leaded Gas 1989 2,000 North of warehouse 4/85 1976
10 Leaded Gas 1989 2@ 1,000 Reclamation yard 6/85 1974
11 Unleaded Gas 1989 3@500 Reclamation yard 11/89 1974
12 Leaded Gas 1989 1,000 Northwest of garage 4/85 1976
13 Scrap Oil 1983 1,000 Northeast of lime treatment 3/83 1970
14 Drum Spill Cont. 1990+ 1,000 South of drum storage NA 1985
15 Diesel 1989 500 Reclamation yard 12/84 1974
16 White E'Coat 1990 7,500 Mini factory 6/88 1978
17 Gray E'Coat 1990+ 7,500 Northwest of north wing NA 1978
18 Kerosene late 70s 200 Alzak late 70s 1956
Source: Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Company (NUS, 1991a)
Key:
a (1990+) -Sometime After 1990
h (NA) -Information Not Available
I
0
I
i
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
During the 1960s and early 1970s, GE wastes were also dumped in an approximate 0.3-acre
ravine on the Seldon Clark property. GE reported that the property was used for the
disposal of construction rubble only, but according to Mr. Clark, the ravine was also filled in
with drums of aluminum paint and drums of cleaning fluid from dye-casting machinery. Old
transformers are also reported to have been deposited in the ravine. The suspected disposal
area is located in the southwestern half of the property but there is presently no physical
evidence of a landfill (ATSDR, 1993).
2.3.2 PREVIOUS SAMPLING INVF.STIGATION RF.SULTS
Several recent sampling investigations have been conducted at the site, especially at the GE
facility. The major sampling investigations, briefly described below, were conducted
independently by both GE and EPA. These studies have included monitor well installation
and groundwater sampling, soil sampling, surface water/sediment sampling, and offsite
private well sampling. Figure 2-8 shows the locations of all the permanent monitor wells
installed at the GE subsite and Table 2-2 presents available well construction details for these
monitor wells. All wells without a letter extension (e.g., MW-12) were installed with the
screen interval in the porous media zone. All wells with an "A" extension (e.g., MW-12A)
were installed with the screen interval in the shallow fractured rock zone. All wells with a
"B" extension (e.g., MW-12B) were installed with the screen or open interval in the deeper
fractured rock zone. All wells with an "R" extension (e.g., MW-36R) are replacement wells
for wells which inadvertently damaged or destroyed. The replacement wells are reported by
GE to be constructed similarly and in the same location as the original wells. Available
boring logs and well construction diagrams for the monitor wells are provided in Appendices
A and B, respectively. Figure 2-9 shows the locations of the private wells sampled and
Table 2-3 lists the owners and other available details for these private wells. Summaries of
the maximum contaminant concentrations measured to date (broken down by media and by
subsite) are presented in Tables 2-4 through 2-12.
2-26
0
I
I
,
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
GE SUBSITE WELL LOCATIONS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
s
~ > ' • ; , ~
0 • 0 ! • < • ~
FIGURE NUMBER
0
D TABLE 2-2
II WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
a Measuring Ground Auger Screened Survey Coordinates
Point Surface Refusal Interval
I Elevation Elevation Depth Depth Northing Easting
Well No. (feet ams!) (feet amsl) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet)
I MW--01 2183.33 2180.5 28.4 23.0 -28.0 4472.3 10232.3
MW--02 2153.45 2150.2 27.2 14.5 -24.5 3912.0 10547.1
I MW--02A 2153.10 2150.0 29.7 38.3 -48.3 3912.4 10547.0
MW--03 2143.62 2140.8 23.5 12.5 -22.5 3683.9 10238.8
MW--04 2146.46 2143.5 13.8 8.2 -13.2 3856.5 10171.3
MW--05 2182.72 2180.1 37.5 42.7 -52.7 4467.3 10229.4
I MW--06 2178.69 2175.6 22.5 30.5 -40.5 4373.4 10223.5
MW--07 2178.28 2178.4 37.3 26.8 -36.8 4478.7 10134.5
MW--08 2186.47 2183. 7 31.5 31.5 -48.3 OH 4573.9 10239.9
I MW--09 2177.57 2177.7 37.4 27.4 -37.4 4462.5 10330.5
MW-10 2189. 15 2187.1 88.0 78.0 -88.0 5505.6 10531.1
MW-11 2178.76 2178.9 58.5 48.5 -58.5 4993.6 10119.5
MW-12 2168.96 2166.4 40.5 30.5 -40.5 4738.3 9935.1 I MW-12A 2168.77 2166.4 43.5 48.0 -58.0 4738.3 9930.4
MW-12B 2168.20 2166.7 36.0 91.0 -125.0 OH 4739.8 9923.5
MW-13 2140.46 2138.8 14.2 9.2 -14.2 4582.2 11157.5
I MW-13A 2141.00 2138.5 8.0 31.0-41.0 4587.3 11160.8
MW-14 2144.63 2142.0 37.4 27.3 -37.3 4184.1 10875.3
MW-14A 2144.56 2142.1 37.5 42.3 -58.3 4180.8 10878.6
I MW-14B 2143.30 2142.3 40.0 83.0 -110.0 OH 4187.7 10872.0
MW-15R NA NA 18.0 7.5 -17.5 NA NA
MW-16R NA NA 38.5 28.5 -38.5 NA NA
MW-17 2182.41 2180.0 43.0 33.0 -43.0 4741.3 10683.8
I MW-18 2167.32 2164.7 43.7 33.6 -43.6 4668.3 9711.5
MW-19 2177.86 2178.2 42.3 32.3 -42.3 4976.2 9873.8
MW-20 2179.09 2179.4 65.6 55.3 -65.3 5388.3 10072.6
I MW-20B 2179.31 2179.5 52.0 115.0-125.0 OH 5384.1 10072.1
MW-21 2177.81 2178.0 82.4 71.8 -81.8 5746.0 10082.3
MW-22A 2126.30 2126.5 0.7 13.0 -23.0 4873.2 11421.3
I MW-23 2160.80 2160.0 60.0 49.8 -59.8 4277.6 9818.7
MW-24 2183.10 2183.3 72.1 61.9 -71.9 5750.3 9233.8
MW-25 2157.70 2157.8 41.5 31.5 -41.5 4560.0 9200.7
MW-26 2173.80 2171.4 58.5 47.8 -57.8 4983.5 9187.2
I MW-27 2134.70 2133.2 15.0 4.0 -14.0 4080.3 11109.7
MW-27A 2135.30 2133.2 13.5 21.5 -31.5 4080.3 11112.3
MW-28 2155.00 2154.7 36.0 25.5 -35.5 4455.3 9049.4
I) MW-29 2160.16 2157.9 41.0 31.0 -41.0 5153.9 11054.7
I 2-28
I
0
0
m
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well No.
MW-30
MW-30A
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34
MW-35
MW-36R
MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
MW-41
MW-42
MW-43
MW-44
MW-45
MW-46
RW-1
RW-2
RW-3
RW-4
ETS l(P-4)*
ETS 2(P-5)*
ETS 3(P-7)*
ETS 4(P-8)*
Sources:
NOTES:
OH
NA
TABLE 2-2 (cont.)
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Measuring Ground Auger Screened Survey Coordinates
Point Surface Refusal Interval
Elevation Elevation Depth Depth Northing
(feet amsl) (feet amsl) (feet) (feet) (feet)
2156.81 2156.9 47.5 37.5-47.5 2927.8
2156.24 2156.3 46.5 51.5 -61.5 2926.8
2157.91 2158.2 6.4 -16.4 3748.8
2154.92 2155.2 6.7 -16.7 3705.1
2179.93 2179.5 6.5 -16.5 5384. I
2162.86 2163.0 3.5 -13.5 4662.6
2183.00 2183.2 8.5 -18.5 5574.4
2181.72 2182.1 3.5 -13.5 6064.0
2155.57 2152.5 36.5 26.1 -36.1 4200.2
2178.03 2178.4 65.2 43.0 -63.0 5569.9
2179.64 2179.9 56.8 35.0 -55.0 5261.0
2177.73 2177.9 54.3 33.0 -53.0 5237.6
2178.54 2178.8 48.6 28.1 -48.J 4898.4
2173.99 2174.4 39.7 17.9 -37.9 4876.3
2168.68 2169.3 40.5 20.0 -40.0 4717.0
2159.06 2159.4 34.2 13.1 -33.1 4633.9
2160.62 2160.9 2.6 -12.6 4619.8
2159.56 2160.0 2.6 -12.6 4619.4
2179.26 2178.5 9.3 -78.9 5265.1
2176.74 2175.9 7.9 -77.5 4916.4
2168.74 2168.1 9.3 -78.9 4754.7
2163.35 2162.0 8.7 -78.3 4668.7
2167.3 2166.4
2154.9 2154. 1
2178.4 2177.7
2189.7 2188.8
Report of Phase II-A Contamination Assessment (Law Engineering, 1989a)
Report of Phase 11-B Contamination Assessment (Law Engineering, 1989c)
Easting
(feet)
9885.8
9894.0
9673.1
9689.7
10072.0
9801.9
10181.1
9496.5
10699.7
10089.4
10171.6
10125.3
10162.1
10072.9
9985.8
9860.9
9775.2
9813.7
10128.0
10105.6
9965.4
9843.0
Report of Phase IIIA Groundwater Quality Assessment Activities (Law Environmental, 1990b)
Report of Phase IIIA Aquifer Characterization and Groundwater Treatment System (Law
Environmental, 1991a)
Phase II Environmental Assessment, Former UST Number 9 Area (Law Engineering, 1991c)
Well abandoned
Open bole in rock
Not determined
Not available
2-29
D
0
D
I
D
0
I
I
I
a
I
I
a
I
I
I
KING ST. e85
l
~ I N
\ ~ _,,,, 0 J~ 7~
SCALE IN FEET
SOURCE, LAW ENGINEERING, 199"
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
\
e86
.....
\ 26 / 'v
94
FIGURE NUMBER
2-9
I
I TABLE 2-3
I PRIVATE WELL DATA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
I
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Aquifer Intake Interval
Well Label Owner Zone Depth (feet)
I WW-1 Marshall Bedrock 21 -85
WW-2 Dimsdale Bedrock NA
I WW-3 Morgan Bedrock 57 -180
WW-4 Ward Soil 0 -20
WW-5 Mintz Bedrock 75 -58
I WW-6 Capps Bedrock NA
WW-7 Willis Bedrock NA
WW-8 Warren Bedrock NA
I WW-9 Prince Bedrock NA
WW-10 Jones Bedrock 38 -145
WW-11 Blackburn Bedrock NA
I WW-12 Bragg Bedrock NA
WW-13 Roper Soil NA
WW-14 Mintz Bedrock 76 -208
I WW-15 Lively Bedrock NA -250
WW-16 Nichols Bedrock NA -165
WW-17 Oliver Bedrock NA -160
I WW-18 Delozier Bedrock NA
WW-19 Peters Bedrock 41 -66
WW-20 Piercy Bedrock NA
I WW-21 Sherman Bedrock NA -165
WW-22 Swain Bedrock NA
WW-23 Barton Bedrock NA I WW-24 Gordon Bedrock 40 -108
WW-25 Hill Bedrock NA
I WW-26 Crisp Bedrock 52 -NA
WW-27 Scott Bedrock NA
WW-28 J. Patterson Bedrock NA
I WW-29 Stepp Bedrock 50 -350
WW-30 Mcfaddin Bedrock NA
WW-31 N. Patterson NA NA
I WW-32 Durham Bedrock 40 -80
WW-33 Barnett NA NA
WW-34 Pitillo Bedrock 54 -305
I WW-35 Womack NA NA
I 2-31
I
I TABLE 2-3 (cont.)
I PRIVATE WELL DATA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
I EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Aquifer Intake Interval
Well Label Owner Zone Depth (feet)
I WW-36 Nix NA NA
WW-37 Haynes NA 85 -145
I WW-38 Calvo NA NA
WW-39 NA NA NA
WW-40 Rhodes NA NA
I WW-41 Hoyle NA NA
WW-42 G.Hill NA NA
WW-43 Gloves NA NA
I WW-44 Cannon NA NA
WW-45 Lively NA NA
WW-46 Moore NA NA
I WW-47 Crisilis NA NA
WW-48 Jones NA NA
WW-49 Goodman NA NA
I WW-50 Cunningham NA NA
WW-51 Holbert NA NA
WW-52 Com NA NA
I WW-53 Bishop NA NA
WW-54 NA NA NA
WW-55 King NA NA
I WW-56 Pressley NA NA
WW-57 Stepp NA NA
WW-58 Howard NA NA
I WW-59 Lydia NA NA
WW-60 Kuykendal NA NA
WW-61 Gilliam NA NA I WW-62 Rivers NA NA
WW-63 Randolph NA NA
WW-64 L.M. Ingle NA NA I WW-65 Pack NA NA
WW-66 B. Freeman NA NA
I WW-67 P.G. Gilliam NA NA
WW-68 Morgan NA NA
WW-69 Morgan NA NA
I WW-70 Nix NA NA
I 2-32
I
I TABLE 2-3 (cont.)
I PRIVATE WELL DATA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
I EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Aquifer Intake Interval
Well Label Owner Zone Depth (feet)
I WW-71 M. Nix NA NA
WW-72 J. Nix NA NA
I WW-73 Frisbee NA NA
WW-74 Osterland NA NA
WW-75 K.T. Henton NA NA
I WW-76 R. Burell NA NA
WW-77 Woodard NA NA
WW-78 Manus NA NA
I WW-79 E. Justice NA NA
WW-80 S. Walker NA NA
WW-81 C. Cable NA NA
I WW-82 G. Stepp NA NA
WW-83 J. Stepp NA NA
WW-84 J. Stepp NA NA
I WW-85 V.Hill NA NA
WW-86 S. Hill NA NA
WW-87 Kim NA NA
I WW-88 Osteen NA NA
WW-89 F. Crawford NA NA
WW-90 F.R. Crawford NA NA
I WW-91 Jackson NA NA
WW-92 Bridges NA NA
WW-93 Jennings NA NA
I WW-94 D. Justice NA NA
WW-95 MacGruder NA NA
WW-96 R. Presley NA NA I WW-97 Pressley NA NA
WW-98 Guise NA NA
I Sources: Report of Phase II-A Contamination Assessment (Law Engineering, 1989b)
I Residential Well Sampling Analytical Data (Law Engineering, 1994)
NQTES;
I NA -Not available
I 2-33
I
I TABLE 2-4
I MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SOIL
AT THE GE PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE I EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (mg/kg) Location Year
I ORGANICS
I acenaphthene 0.21 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
acetone 0.36 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
I benzo(a)anthracene 1.7 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
benzo(b or k)fluoranthene 6.6 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
benzo(a)pyrene 2.0 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
I benzyl butyl phthalate 0.72 Drain Line Area 1990
bis(2-eth y !hex y I )phthalate 9.2 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
carbon disulfide 0.017 Landspreading Plot A 1990
I chloroform 0.001 Drain Line Area 1989
chloromethane 0.001 Drain Line Area 1989
chrysene 2.1 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
I 1,2-dichloroethane 27 Drain Line Area 1989
1,2-trans-dichloroethene 0.004 Drain Line Area 1989
dichlormethane 0.025 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
I 1,3-cis-dichloropropene 0.004 Drain Line Area 1989
4,4-DDE 0.052 Landspreading Plot A 1990
4,4-DDT 0.059 Landspreading Plot A 1990
I dieldrin 0.077 Landspreading Plot A 1990
eth y I benzene 0.002 Landspreading Plots A, B, and C 1989
fluoranthene 0.78 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990 I fluorene 0.18 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
methylene chloride 0.41 Drain Line Area 1989
pentachlorophenol 0.45 Landspreading Plot A 1989 I phenanthrene 1.6 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
PCB-1248 2400 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
I pyrene 5.8 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
tetrachloroethene 0.008 Drain Line Area 1989
trichloroethene 0.052 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
I toluene 3.5 Landspreading Plot A 1989
I 2-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-4 (cont.)
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SOIL
AT THE GE PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (mg/kg) Location Year
toxaphene 4.9 Landspreading Plot A 1989
vinyl chloride 0.003 Drain Line Area 1989
INORGANICS
aluminum
arsenic
barium
beryllium
cadmium
calcium
chromium
cobalt
copper
cyanide
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
mercury
nickel
potassium
selenium
sulfide
vanadium
zinc
Sources:
80,000 Landspreading Plot A 1990
2.1 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
150 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
2.4 Landspreading Plot A 1989
18 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
2,500 Landfill B 1990
270 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
25 Landspreading Plot D 1990
330 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
22 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
57,000 Landspreading Plot D 1990
410 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
16,000 Landspreading Plot B 1990
2,000 Landspreading Plot B 1990
0.43 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
82 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
3,900 Landspreading Plot D 1990
2.8 Landspreading Plot C 1989
120 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1989
140 Landspreading Plot D 1990
520 Dry Sludge Impoundment 1990
Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1991a)
Final Report, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1989)
Report of Phase 11-B Contamination Assessment, GE Facility (Law Engineering,
1989c)
Report of PCB-Contaminated Sediment Assessment (Law Environmental, 1990a)
2-35
I
I TABLE 2-5
I MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT
AT THE GE PROPERTY
I GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Maximum
Concentration
I Contaminant (mg/kg) Location Year
I ORGANICS
benzo(a)anthracene 2.2 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
I benzo(b or k)fluoranthene 3.3 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
benro(a)pyrene 0.44 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 23 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
I carbon disulfide 0.037 Bat Fork Creek 1990
chrysene 2.3 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
chloroform 0.002 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
I dibenzofuran 0.13 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
1,2-dichloroethene (total) 0.003 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
dichloromethane 0.048 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
I di-n-octylphthalate 2.9 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
ethyl benzene 0.004 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
fluoranthene 4.6 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
I fluorene 0.31 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
gamma-bhc(lindane) 0.079 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.59 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990 I phenanthrene 3.7 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
phenol 0.57 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
phenolics 4.1 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989 I PCB-1242 0.14 Bat Fork Creek 1989
PCB-1248 1700 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
I PCB-1260 0.59 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
pyrene 3.3 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
tetrachloroethene 0.084 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
I toluene 0.092 Bat Fork Creek 1989
trichloroethene 0.002 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
trichloromethane 0.003 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
I xylenes (total) 0.087 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
I 2-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-5 {cont.)
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT
AT THE GE PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (mg/kg) Location Year
INORGANICS
aluminum
arsenic
barium
cadmium
calcium
chromium
cobalt
copper
cyanide
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
mercury
nickel
potassium
selenium
silver
sodium
sulfide
vanadium
zinc
Sources:
49,000 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
3.6 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
130 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
11 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
6100 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
140 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
7.7 Bat Fork Creek 1990
860 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
7.1 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
22,000 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
360 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
2000 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
440 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
0.001 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
85 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
2000 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
0.79 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
14 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
850 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
890 Small Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
52 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1989
450 Large Wastewater Treatment Pond 1990
Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1991a)
Final Report, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1989)
Report of PCB-Contaminated Sediment Assessment (Law Environmental, 1990a)
Report of Sediment Sampling, GE Facility (Law Engineering, 1989b)
2-37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-6
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SURFACE WATER
AT THE GE PROPERIT
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
ORGANICS
bromodichloromethane
chloroform
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,3-cis-dichloropropene
1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
2.4
24
0.4
0.3
2.5
0.3
8.9
6.3
0.8
Location
Bat Fork Creek
Bat Fork Creek
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Swamp Spring
Year
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
Source: Report of a Phase II-A Contamination Assessment, GE Facility (Law
Engineering, 1989a)
2-38
I
I TABLE 2-7
I MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
AT THE GE PROPER'IY
I GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (ug/1) Location Year
I ORGANICS
I benzene 165 MW-46 1991
benzyl butyl phthalate 910 MW-14 1989
I bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 42 MW-36 1990
2-chloroethylvinyl ether 1.4 MW-6 1990
chlorobenzene 2.2 RW-3 1990
I chloroform 10 MW-10 1989
chloromethane 0.3 MW-12A 1988
dibromochloromethane 2.1 MW-34 1990
I 1,2-dibromomethane 0.1 RW-3 1990
1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.8 MW-4 1988
dichlorobromomethane 5.5 MW-14B 1989
I 1, 1-dichloroethane 2 MW-35 1990
1,2-dichloroethane 620 MW-12A 1988
1, 1-dichloroethene 1.2 MW-2A 1990
I 1,2-dichloroethene (total) 830 MW-11 1990
1,2-cis-dichloroethene 160 MW-12 1988
1,2-trans-dichloroethene 40 MW-12 1988
I 1,2-dichloropropane 4.0 MW-4 1988
di-n-octyl phthalate 17 MW-36 1990
ethylbenzene 17 MW-33 1990 I methylene chloride 140 MW-12A 1989
2-methylnaphthalene 4 MW-11 1990
I naphthalene 160 MW-34 1990
phenolics 110 MW-11 1990
sulfate 96,000 MW-4 1988
I 1, 1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 120 MW-9 1988
tetrachloroethene 4,500 MW-11 1990
tetrachloromethane 0.3 MW-25 1989
I toluene 29 MW-33 1990
I 2-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-7 (cont.)
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER
AT THE GE PROPER1Y
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (ug/1) Location Year
1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 15 RW-1 1990
1, 1,2-trichloroethane 1.1 MW-34 1990
1,2,4-trichlorbenzene 6 MW-11 1990
trichloroethene 140 MW-14 1988
trichloromethane 33 MW-34 1990
vinyl chloride 21 RW-3 1990
xylenes ( total) 210 MW-46 1991
INORGANICS
aluminum 110,000 MW-2 1988
barium 420 MW-35 1990
cadmium 6 MW-10 1990
calcium 47,000 MW-12 1990
chloride 31,000 MW-2 1988
chromium 56 MW-4 1988
cobalt 120 MW-23 1990
copper 300 MW-4 1988
iron 8,600 MW-15 1990
lead 340 MW-9 1988
magnesium 26,000 MW-12 1990
manganese 1200 MW-14 1989
nickel 29 MW-14 1990
potassium 5100 MW-11 1990
selenium 1 MW-35 1990
sodium 13,000 MW-11 1990
zinc 220 MW-10 1989
Sources: Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1991a)
Final Report, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1989)
Addendum to the Phase IIIA Aquifer Characterization and Groundwater
Treatment System Report, GE Company (Law Environmental, 1991b)
2-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-8
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SOIL
AT THE SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
Contaminant
ORGANICS
benzoic acid
1,2-cis-dichloroethene
4,4-DDE
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
INORGANICS
aluminum
arsenic
barium
beryllium
cadmium
calcium
chromium
cobalt
copper
cyanide
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
mercury
nickel
potassium
vanadium
zinc
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.51
0.029
0.035
27
17
21
2.0
0.099
100,000
5.4
210
3.3
20
2,400
110
22
1,400
0.95
59,000
1,300
8,700
580
0.22
60
8,400
120
1400
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
Source: Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, Shepherd Farm Site (NUS,
1991b)
2-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-9
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT
AT THE SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
Contaminant
ORGANICS
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
tetrachloroethene
toluene
INORGANICS
aluminum
barium
calcium
chromium
cobalt
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
nickel
potassium
vanadium
zinc
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)
0.38
0.30
0.009
0.42
17,000
45
400
21
6.5
13,000
11
1,800
290
9.1
1,800
27
44
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
Source: Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, Shepherd Farm Site (NUS,
1991b)
2-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-10
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN GROUNDWATER"
AT THE SHEPHERD FARM PROPER'IY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
ORGANICS
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-dichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethene
vinyl chloride
INORGANICS
aluminum
barium
beryllium
cadmium
calcium
chromium
cobalt
copper
iron
lead
magnesium
manganese
mercury
nickel
potassium
silver
sodium
vanadium
zinc
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
140
51
170
50
3.2
290,000
1,200
9
30
56,000
330
75
4,500
210,000
2,500
21,000
5,900
1.7
200
14,000
13
8,400
270
6,900
Year
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
Source: Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, Shepherd Farm Site (NUS,
1991b)
Note: a -Based on analytical data for samples collected from temporary monitor
wells
2-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-11
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SOIL
AT THE SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (mg/kg) Year
ORGANICS
PCB-1248 0.28 1990
PCB-1260 0.32 1990
INORGANICS
aluminum 53,000 1990
barium 94 1990
beryllium 1.6 1990
calcium 870 1990
chromium 280 1990
cobalt 52 1990
copper 50 1990
iron 54,000 1990
lead 33 1990
magnesium 3,100 1990
manganese 1,000 1990
nickel 52 1990
potassium 2,000 1990
vanadium 180 1990
zinc 47 1990
Source: Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1991a)
2-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
m
g
g
D
I
0
0
0
TABLE 2-12
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED IN SEDIMENT
AT TIIE SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTII CAROLINA
Maximum
Concentration
Contaminant (mg/kg) Year
INORGANICS
aluminum 28,000 1990
barium 41 1990
calcium 360 1990
chromium 52 1990
cobalt 2.9 1990
iron 5,300 1990
lead 28 1990
magnesium 1,100 1990
manganese 53 1990
nickel 7.4 1990
vanadium 54 1990
zinc 17 1990
Source: Interim Final Report, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, GE Site (NUS, 1991a)
2-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
During the sludge land spreading operations, four nests of "Environmental Test Site (ETS)"
wells (three wells per nest) were installed and sampled by GE. The ETS wells were
constructed at depths between 20 and 40 feet below land surface (bis) so that GE could
monitor the effects of landspreading on groundwater. Chemical analyses of samples
collected from the wells revealed only low levels of zinc (NUS, 1991a).
In 1986, four monitor wells (MW-I through MW-4) were installed by GE around the dried
sludge impoundment to monitor the effects of sludge disposal in this impoundment. High
levels of trichloroethene were discovered in MW-1 which is near an area of suspected drain
line rupture. A Phase I Contamination Assessment was initiated in December 1987 by GE as
a result of this newly discovered contamination. Five additional monitor wells (MW-5
through MW-9) were installed around MW-1 to determine if soil and groundwater
surrounding the well had become contaminated by chlorinated hydrocarbons. Analysis of the
samples collected from these wells revealed that the contaminant plume extended throughout
the area of these wells. In May 1988, all wells installed at the GE facility up to that point
(including the ETS wells) were sampled again by GE. The results indicated that the
trichloroethene plume was increasing in size laterally (NUS, 1991a).
In November 1988, EPA conducted a Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, at the GE subsite.
A total of 14 surface soil, subsurface soil, sediment, and groundwater samples were collected
during this investigation. Samples from the monitor wells were found to be contaminated
with trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethene. Nickel, chromium, copper,
and lead were detected at elevated concentrations in the soil samples. The sediment samples
from Bat Fork Creek and the small wastewater pond were found to be contaminated with
PCBs (NUS, 1991a).
From August 1988 to April 1989, GE conducted a Phase IIA Contamination Assessment to
further characterize the extent of groundwater contamination. Twenty-six newly installed
monitor wells (MW-10 to MW-28) and 42 private wells (WW-1 through WW-42) located
between 200 feet and 0.5 mile from the GE property were sampled. Results indicated that
2-46
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the primary contaminants in groundwater are tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,2-
dichloroethane, methyl chloride, and chloroform. The results also indicated that the plume
had spread out over most of the GE subsite and possible beyond the site boundaries into
GE's neighbors' wells. The highest concentrations, however, were detected in the monitor
wells placed near the previous! y ruptured drain line, thus indicating that this drain line was
the primary source of contamination (NUS, 1991a).
From April to December of 1989, GE conducted contamination studies of the sediments in
Bat Fork Creek, the two wastewater ponds, and the dried sludge impoundment. Analysis of
the sediment samples collected from these ponds revealed that both wastewater treatment
ponds and the dried sludge impoundment were contaminated with high levels of PCBs. No
PCBs were found in Bat Fork Creek. GE estimated the quantity of sediment/soil
contaminated with PCBs above 50 ppm in each impoundment to be (Law Environmental,
1990a):
0 Large wastewater pond -17,400 tons
0 Small wastewater pond -3,300 tons
0 Dry sludge impoundment -4,500 tons
From May until August 1989, GE conducted a Phase IIB Contamination Assessment to
further characterize the extent of groundwater contamination and to assess the extent of soil
contamination along the previously ruptured drain line. Three additional monitor wells
(MW-29 to MW-30) were installed along the perimeter of the site and sampled during this
phase. Four existing monitor wells (MW-9, MW-12A, MW-14B, and MW-27A) were also
resampled. In addition, soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals from two soil test
borings (SB-11 and SB-12) drilled next to monitor wells MW-11 and MW-12. The sampling
results again indicated that the primary contaminants in groundwater are tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and methyl chloride, but no chloroform was found in
any of the wells sampled. The results also again indicated that the groundwater plume had
reached the GE property boundaries. Low levels of these contaminants and a few other
2-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
halogenated organics were also found in some of the soil samples collected below the water
table (Law Engineering, 1989c).
Between November 1989 and January 1990, GE removed ten petroleum product USTs from
seven locations (UST Location Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15). Closure procedures were
reported by GE to have been performed in compliance with applicable Federal and State
requirements found in Part 280 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Samples
were collected in the tank excavation zones as well as beneath each UST until groundwater
was encountered. One groundwater sample was also collected from the open excavation zone
at each location. Chemical analysis of the samples detected petroleum hydrocarbon
contamination in the soils and/or groundwater at several locations. In April 1990, GE
installed and sampled six monitor wells (MW-31 through MW-36) adjacent to the subject
USTs to help define the extent of any petroleum hydrocarbon contamination present.
Benzene was detected in the water sample from MW-33 at 8 micrograms/liter (ug/1) and
naphthalene was detected in the water sample from MW-34 at 160 ug/1 (Law Engineering,
1990a).
From November 1989 to January 1990, GE also sampled 57 additional private residential
wells located near the GE property. Tetrachloroethene was found in some of these wells but
at very low concentrations (Bush, 1990).
In May 1990, EPA conducted a Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, at the GE facility to obtain
data necessary for a subsequent scoring of the site, using the Hazard Ranking System, for
inclusion on the NPL. A geophysical survey was conducted at Landfill B in an attempt to
define the extent of landfilled material. Soil/sediment samples were collected from the
sludge impoundment, the two wastewater treatment ponds, the landspreading plots (including
the recreation area), in the formerly ruptured drain line area, and Landfill B, as well as from
background locations. Extensive organic and inorganic contamination was found at the
sludge impoundment and the two wastewater treatment ponds. Contaminants such as PCB-
1248, carbon disulfide, various extractable organics, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, and
2-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cyanide were detected at elevated concentrations in these three source areas. PCB-1248 was
also found at Landfill B. Several inorganic contaminants including lead, vanadium, cobalt,
magnesium, and manganese were also found at elevated concentrations in the landspreading
plots. No hazardous constituents were identified at elevated concentrations in the soil sample
collected near the drain line. Six onsite monitoring wells were also sampled during this
investigation and found to contain tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane,
trichloroethene, and magnesium at elevated concentrations. In addition, five sediment
samples were collected along Bat Fork Creek, including one sample upgradient of the GE
subsite. Only carbon disulfide was identified at an elevated concentration in any of the
downstream samples (NUS, 1991a).
During the EPA Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, for the GE facility, a Listing Site
Inspection, Phase II, was also conducted at the Shepherd Farm property. A geophysical
survey was conducted at this subsite in an attempt to delineate the waste disposal area (See
Figure 2-3). Thirty-three soil samples were then collected from the suspected waste disposal
area and from background locations. Extensive PCB and metals contamination was found in
the soils onsite. Halogenated organic contamination was also found in two of the soil
samples. A leachate sample taken from disposed drums found onsite also contained PCB and
metals contamination. In addition, PCB and toluene contamination was found in sediment
samples collected from the unnamed creek and Bat Fork Creek. Groundwater samples
collected from four private wells located near the subsite and five temporary monitor wells
installed along the banks of the unnamed creek and Bat Fork Creek indicated halogenated
organic and metals contamination at the subsite (NUS, 1991b).
During the EPA Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, for the GE facility, one soil sample and
one sediment sample were also collected at the Seldon Clark property. PCB-1248 and 1260,
lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and chromium were detected at elevated concentrations
in the soil sample, but only lead was detected at an elevated concentration in the sediment
sample (NUS, 1991a).
2-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
From May until August 1990, GE conducted a Phase IIIA Groundwater Quality Assessment
at the GE facility in preparation for performing groundwater remediation. Monitor well
MW-37 was installed downgradient of the sludge impoundment and sampled to determine if
the relatively high concentrations of voes found in MW-14 and MW-14A were originating
from the sludge impoundment. Thirty-one existing monitor wells were also sampled to
determine the present extent of contamination at the time. The results of this sampling event
were generally consistent with the results from previous sampling events. Groundwater voe
concentration maps prepared by GE based on the results of this sampling event are presented
in Figures 2-10 through 2-12. The results indicate tetrachloroethene is the major
contaminant present in groundwater beneath the site and, as discovered before, the greatest
contaminant concentrations are present along the failed drain line. However, high
concentrations of voes were also found along the railroad line southwest of the failed drain
line area, indicating that a preferential flow path may be present along the railroad, or that
another source of contamination is present in this area. One possible source identified in this
investigation was an old drainage ditch which existed prior to construction of the drain line.
The concentrations of voes in MW-37 were found to be well below those found in MW-14
and MW-14A thus indicating that the sludge impoundment is probably not a major source of
voe contamination (Law Environmental, 1990b).
In August 1990 and November 1990, GE conducted quarterly groundwater sampling of the
monitor wells around former UST areas (MW-31 through MW-36). During both events,
MW-34 was found to have a thin layer (approximately 0.1 feet) of separate phase
hydrocarbons and therefore was not sampled. In the other monitor wells, as before,
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (ethylbenzene and xylenes) was only found in MW-33
and at low levels. Other voe contamination was found in MW-33 and some of the other
wells sampled, but this contamination is believed to related to the failed drain line (Law
Engineering, 1990b and 1991a).
From January through February 1991, GE conducted a Phase II Environmental Assessment
at the former UST #9 area, to further assess the horizontal extent of groundwater
2-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
TETRACHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER MAY1990
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
/
,•
FIGURE NUMBER
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .......... ____ ...... -i-
~ •
s .
' N ;~ ;:
...... ~. .. ........... ..--------. ~ ~ 0~ ------20-------
:;:; '( N <r
.!? ! !2
s
~ " ~ ~------·ON-----::::J.u• -----
•
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
TRICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER MAY1990
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NUMBER
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ !
~ ii
! w 0 w a ~ ~ / • w 5 ~ ,
4 u 0 ~ a
/ ! :;; ii / ~
s
< <g., g" g
~"' ~
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
ADDITIONAL voe CONCENTRATIONS IN
GROUNDWATER MAY 1990
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
< g
: s , ~ ~ ! ' I, • , g
~
\
\
\
I
I I
j~ !II ~ ·1 ~ / ' ,si ~ I .
/ ·-
► ; r 0 ' 0 • 0 m ! • • ~
FIGURE NUMBER
2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
contamination by petroleum hydrocarbons resulting from UST #9 leakage. Two additional
monitor wells (MW-45 and MW-46) were installed downgradient of the UST and sampled.
Petroleum hydrocarbon contamination (benzene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) were found in
both these monitor wells with the highest concentrations in MW-46 (Law Engineering,
1991c).
2.3.3 PREVIOUS REMEDIATION EFFORTS
GE has conducted or prepared for several remediation and/or removal actions at the GE
subsite. GE reports that all USTs and contaminated soils associated with these USTs have
been removed. GE also reports that contaminated soil associated with the ruptured drain line
have been removed. City water mains have been extended to all areas showing groundwater
contamination based on private well sampling, and GE has paid for connections to these
water mains and/or provided bottled water for all households so desiring such action (CDM
Federal, 1993). Figure 2-13 shows the areas near the GE property where residents were
offered city water connections.
In 1990, GE also conducted a Phase IIIA Aquifer Characterization and Groundwater
Treatment Study at the GE facility in preparation for performing groundwater remediation.
In this study, a pilot groundwater recovery and treatment system was designed and installed
at the GE subsite. The system consisted of four groundwater recovery wells (RW-1 through
RW-4), a 10,000-gallon equalization tank, an air stripping tower, and associated piping and
pumps with discharge going to Bat Fork Creek. Seven observation wells (MW-38 through
MW-44) were also constructed for measuring water levels during an aquifer performance
test. Figure 2-8 shows the locations of all the recovery and observation wells and Table 2-2
presents the well construction details and present status of these wells. Boring logs and well
construction diagrams for the recovery wells and the observation wells are provided in
Appendices A and B, respectively. Step-drawdown tests, an aquifer performance test, and
groundwater modeling were performed to determine the optimum recovery well system
configuration and flow rates to capture the contaminant plume. Based on the study results,
2-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
RESIDENTIAL AREAS OFFERED CITY
WATERC NNECTION BYGE
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK NORTH CAROLINA
< 1:l <
Q '" C :.,
Gj
'i' z 0 z
,\
\\
\~
-~.
FIGURE NUMBER
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
d
0
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recommendations were made and a conceptual design was prepared for a permanent
groundwater recovery and treatment system (Law Environmental, 1991a, b, and c).
According to recent conversations with GE, however, this system has not yet been
implemented.
GE has also worked to reduce the amount of process wastewater discharged to Bat Fork
Creek, having reduced it by 75 % over the past 15 years. In addition, GE reported that by
the end of 1993, they would cease discharging their process wastewater into Bat Fork Creek
and instead route the effluent to the public wastewater treatment system (ATSDR, 1993).
According to recent conversations with GE, however, this change has not yet been
implemented.
2.3.4 SITE REGULATORY ACTIONS
Currently, the GE facility is listed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) as a generator of hazardous waste. The facility filed Part A of a hazardous waste
permit for storage in 1980. In March 1982, GE petitioned to have its F006 electroplating
sludge delisted as a hazardous waste. By April 1982, EPA issued a preliminary decision to
declare the F006 waste as nonhazardous. The state of North Carolina accepted the petition
and delisted F006 waste in October 1982. In 1984, GE elected to dispose of accumulated
wastes offsite and therefore withdrew the Part A hazardous waste permit application and
related interim status. On September I 9, 1988, EPA formally recognized the state-approved
delisting of F006 electroplating sludge as a hazardous waste (NUS, 1991a).
GE has an NPDES permit for the discharge of treated effluent into Bat Fork Creek which
became effective on May I, 1989. GE also has an air permit issued on February 25, 1988,
to operate several air emission sources or clean air devices (NUS, 1991a). No permits were
issued for waste disposal at the Shepherd Farm or Seldon Clark properties, as the final
disposition of all waste material occurred prior to the enactment of RCRA.
2-56
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
m
g
D
D
D
0
D
I
u
D
After the EPA Screening Site Inspections and Listing Site Inspections described above were
completed, the GE, Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark properties were proposed for inclusion
on the NPL on February 7, 1992, as the "General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site". Much
controversy arose regarding aggregation of the Shepherd Farm and Seldon Clark disposal
areas with the GE property for listing on the NPL, and GE has maintained that as an active
RCRA generator, this listing contradicts CERCLA policy. EPA, however, determined that
aggregation of the additional disposal areas under CERCLA will provide the most effective
remedial solution (CDM Federal, 1993).
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A TSDR) completed a Preliminary
Public Health Assessment in March 1993. Based on this assessment, ATSDR concluded the
following:
"ATSDR considers the site to be an indeterminate public health hazard. The limited
available data do not indicate that individuals are being exposed to contamination at
levels that would be expected to cause adverse health effects at the present time.
However, there is insufficient environmental data (air, biota, water, and soil data) to
evaluate all the past pathways of exposure to which humans may have been exposed."
ATSDR recommended that the exposure to contaminants in private wells be further reduced,
and that media and biota potentially contaminated by site-related constituents be further
characterized (ATSDR, 1993).
The site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL on February 7, 1992.
2-57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
g
I
D
I
3.0 INITIAL EVALUATION
The information collected during the previous investigations and summarized in Section 2.0
was used to develop a conceptual site model, identify potential ARARs, and identify potential
remedial technologies and appropriate response actions for the GE Site. The results of these
activities are described below.
3.1 CONCEYI'UAL SITE MODEL
The purpose of the conceptual site model is to assist in the identification of additional
sampling and/or data collection needs, and to also assist in the identification of potential
remedial technologies. Information on the waste sources, pathways, and receptors at the site
are used to develop a conceptual understanding of the site to evaluate potential risks to
human health and the environment. The conceptual site model includes known and suspected
sources of contamination, types of contaminants and affected media, known and potential
routes of migration, and known or potential human and environmental receptors (EPA,
1988).
The conceptual site model developed for the GE Site is depicted in Figures 3-1 and 3-2.
Figure 3-1 provides a schematic cross-section of the site showing the observed and potential
pollutant migration routes and the associated exposure mechanisms. Figure 3-2 presents a
detailed flow diagram of the known or potential transport pathways and receptors. As
depicted in Figures 3-1 and 3-2, the primary transport pathways associated with the GE Site
include the following:
•
•
Horizontal contaminant migration in the shallow aquifer to downgradient
receptors which include private drinking water wells, surface water, springs
and wetlands.
Migration of contaminants from surface soil via volatilization and dust
generation.
3-1
1!!!!!11! 1!!!!!11! 1!!!!!11! 1111 == == --iiiii liiiiiil lllil ---
C') INGESTION, INHALATION,
0 DERMAL ABSORPTION
z INGESTION, INHALATION, VOLATILIZATION,
C') DERMAL ABSORPTION OUST GENERATION
m
V CONTAMINATED SOILS t v ~ m G) "ti INGESTION, DERMAL ABSORPTION )>
(/J m -I □ D (HUMAN ANO ECOLOGICAL RECEPTORS) --i -C
"T1 en )> 0 □n□ v s :c C
m r s:
~I 1111 1111
11
~-er, "T1 ;u "1J m 0 :c -I C ~~~jJ1-...... SL_ -·-· -·-···-·------·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· --------···---·--·-·-'v --·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· 0 m m m
?' ;u ;:a :i: )> z 0 ,..
0 0 )> ! ;u "TI C ;u --i )> 0 • ::c ;:a m (/J AQUIFER CONNECTION
0 r < TO SURFACE WATERS/
)> :i: WETLANDS ;u Ul LEACHING
0 en C') PRIVATE WATER SURFICIAL AQUIFER
!: ~ :c z SUPPLY WELL
)> m m
:i: )>
::! C')
CONTAMINATED • GROUNDWATER
EXTRACTION
~
LEGEND
..,
ci Ill C RELEASE MECHANISM w ,,
m =C> EXPOSURE ROUTE I z
..Ji. C ;;:
"' _____ ,:;,____ WATER TABLE m ,,
-------I!!!!!!!! 11!!1 iiii ----
PRIMARY
(") RECEPTOR/
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT AFFECTED EXPOSURE EXPOSURE PRIMARY SECONDARY 0 SOURCE MECHANISM MEDIA POINT ROUTE RECEPTOR RECEPTOR z
(") m
m G) "C
)> m -I (/J C --i -"11 en ► 0 s :r: r 0 m s: Residents
"C en .,, Volatilization, ;;u :r: ::j m Oust Generation Air Site Inhalation
0 0
0 m m m Workers
.A ;o s ;;u
)> z a 0 r
0 )> Ingestion ;;u "Tl CJ ;;u Residents
--i ► m 0 Soil Site :r ;o r (/J
0 s < Dermal Workers )> ,, ;;u en r Absorption
0 0 r -I z :i: )> m
CJ Ingestion Residents
)> Industrial
G) Waste Leaching Groundwater Private Inhalation Workers Discharge Wells ~ Dermal s Absorption
Ingestion Residents
Aquifer Surface Water/ Streams, Dermal Connection
to Surface Sediment Wetlands Absorption Visitors
Waters/Wetlands
Uptake
(Aquatic Plants Fish Fishermen .., and Animals)
i;i
C w ;;u m
I z
I'.) C ;;:
"' m ;;u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site conditions and the transport pathways for the GE Site provide numerous potential
exposure pathways for human and environmental receptors including:
• Ingestion of contaminated groundwater, surface water, surface soils and
sediments
• Inhalation of volatile organics evolved from contaminated groundwater and
surface soils
• Inhalation of dust released from contaminated surface soils
• Direct contact with contaminated groundwater, surface water, surface soils and
sediments
The primary and secondary receptors for these potential exposures are further identified in
Figure 3-2.
3.2 POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
Based on the results of previous sampling investigations at the GE Site, the primary potential
contaminants of concern (PCOCs) for the site appear to include the organic and inorganic
compounds shown in Table 3-1. Selection of PCOCs was based on comparison of the
maximum detected concentrations of contaminants reported in Section 2.0 to EPA's
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and risk-based concentrations for soil published by
EPA Region III (EPA 1993). Contaminants which exceeded one or both of these criteria
were included in Table 3-1. Note that many other organic and inorganic contaminants were
identified in previous sampling investigations, but they did not satisfy the criteria used in this
screening and were not therefore considered pri mazy PCOCs at this time. However, since
there is evidence that additional contaminants are present, complete TCL/TAL analyses will
be performed on all samples collected and shipped to ESD or a CLP laboratory in this RI/FS
(see Section 4.1). The results of these analyses will be used in the final determination of the
contaminants of concern for the site. All contaminants found in this investigation will be
evaluated in the baseline risk assessment and feasibility study as appropriate. General
3-4
m!1 1111:!1 == ml! 1111111 1iiiii liiiiiii 1iiii liiiii liiiEI --_.. ------
Barium
Benzene
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
Cadmium
Chromium
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene
Dichloropropane
Lead
Methylene Chloride
Nickel·
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
TABLE 3-1
POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Benzo(a)anthracene Tetrachloroethene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene Trichloroethene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
1,2-Dichloroethane
Lead
Manganese
PCBs
Tetrachloroethene
Toxaphene
(1) Maximum concentration exceeds MCL
PCBs
(2) Maximum concentration exceeds EPA Region Ill Risk-based concentration for soil. (U.S. EPA. 1993. "Risk-Based
Concentration Table, Fourth Quarter 1993," Roy L Smith, PhD, EPA Region Ill Senior Toxicologist, October 15).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
g
D
D
D
u
D
physical, chemical, and toxicity characteristics of the PCOCs identified in Table 3-1 are
presented briefly in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 below.
3.2.1 INORGANICS
Barium -Humans exposed to acute levels of barium have shown respiratory, gastrointestinal,
cardiovascular, renal, and neurological effects. Respiratory effects of benign
pneumonoconiosis have been observed in workers exposed occupationally by inhalation to
barium. Respiratory weakness and paralysis were seen in humans following ingestion of
barium. Acute ingestion of barium has also lead to cardiovascular effects of increased blood
pressure, changes in heart rhythm, myocardial damage, and changes in heart physiology and
metabolism and gastrointestinal effects of hemorrhaging, pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. Renal
effects of degeneration and failure and neurological effects of numbness and tingling of the
mouth and neck, partial and complete paralysis, and brain congestion and edema were
reported in the human case studies. Barium has not been evaluated by EPA for human
carcinogenic potential.
Beryllium -The respiratory tract in humans and animals is the primary target of inhalation
exposure to beryllium and its compounds. Inhalation of some forms of beryllium can cause
obstructive and restrictive diseases of the lung, known as chronic beryllium disease
(berylliosis); inhalation of high concentrations can cause chemical pneumonitis. The heart is
an indirect target organ for beryllium in humans, monkeys, and dogs, with effects probably
secondary to the respiratory effects. Renal effects have been observed in animals inhaling
low concentrations of beryllium oxide, as indicated by proteinuria. Hepatic effects were not
observed in humans or animals, unless the concentrations were high enough to be lethal.
Dermal exposure causes the formation of skin granulomas in the intact skin of sensitized
individuals.
Epidemiology studies suggest an increased risk of lung cancer due to occupational exposure
to beryllium. Increased incidences of Jung cancer were observed among workers at
3-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
m
I
D
D
beryllium extraction, processing, and fabrication facilities. Human and animal data suggest
that beryllium is considered carcinogenic in animals and is a suspect or probable human
carcinogen.
Cadmium -The target organs for cadmium exposure are the gastrointestinal tract and the
kidneys. Gastrointestinal tract effects after ingestion are nausea, vomiting, and abdominal
pain. An interconnection exists between renal effects and musculoskeletal effects when
examining cadmium exposure to humans. Evidence from both human and animal studies
suggests that lower level chronic exposure to cadmium causes alterations in renal metabolism
of vitamin D which may then cause mild bone effects. Cadmium exposure may also lead to
respiratory effects resulting in the destruction of lung epithelial cells, pulmonary edema,
tracheobronchitis, and pneumonitis, and hematological effects causing anemia.
The evidence that cadmium exposure can cause lung cancer in humans is weak, but strong
evidence exists that cadmium inhalation can cause lung cancer in rats. Animal studies have
also shown that injection of cadmium into the skin or muscle causes tumors in rats at the site
of injection and in the testes. EPA has classified cadmium as a probable human carcinogen
(Group Bl) by inhalation based on the positive responses in humans and rats.
Cadmium is more mobile in aquatic environments than most heavy metals, such as lead.
Precipitation and sorption to mineral surfaces and organic materials are the most important
removal processes for cadmium compounds. Cadmium in soils may leach into water,
especially under acidic conditions. The data indicate that cadmium bioaccumulates in all
levels of the food chain, a fact that has important implications for human exposure to
cadmium.
Chromium -Chromium is more toxic in the Cr+• state than as cr+3• Present site data do
not indicate what state the chromium contamination is in, as only total chromium analyses
were performed previously.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
g
D
D
D
u
ii
Inhalation exposures to cr•6 compounds have been associated with nasal damage such as
perforated septa, nosebleeds and inflamed mucosa. Skin contact has been reported to
produce an eczema-like condition. cr•6 is suspected of being responsible for mutagenic and
cell transforming effects of chromates in various test systems. cr•6 is classified in Group A,
known human carcinogen via the inhalation exposure route.
cr+3 must be ingested at high levels before toxic symptoms occur which include irritative
and ulcerative dermatitis. cr+3 is, however, toxic to aquatic organisms. cr+3 is weakly
water soluble and strongly absorbed to soil particulates and thus is not highly mobile. cr+3
is also very persistent in the environment.
Most of the chromium released into water will ultimately be deposited in the sediment. Once
deposited, chromium is not highly mobile in soil. A very small percentage of chromium can
be present in water in both soluble and insoluble forms. Soluble forms and suspended
chromium can undergo intramedia transport. Chromium is not expected to biomagnify in the
aquatic food chain nor is chromium expected to bioaccumulate from soil to above-ground
portions of plants.
I&rul -Inorganic lead compounds are generally weakly water soluble and strongly absorbed
to soil particulates, and thus are not highly mobile. Inorganic lead compounds are also very
persistent in the environment. They are poorly absorbed dermally and the primary exposure
potentials are through ingestion and inhalation. In humans, the toxic effects from lead
exposure include injury to the central and peripheral nervous systems, kidneys and red blood
cells. Children are more sensitive than adults.
The occurrence of lead contamination in residential areas is a major concern associated with
this site. Human health could be impacted by exposure through use of contaminated
groundwater for household purposes and through recreational use of surface waters
contaminated through groundwater influx.
3-8
I
I
I
I
• g
n
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lead is also toxic to animals and aquatic organisms. The general literature contains several
reported instances of lead poisoning to cattle, horses, monkeys, dogs and cats. The general
literature also reports that fish, minnows, algae and other aquatic organisms have suffered
lethal effects from exposures as low as I ppm in water. In addition, plants and aquatic
organisms are known to assimilate and bioaccumulate lead from contaminated sediments and
waters .
Manganese -Most studies in humans and animals indicate that manganese exposure does not
cause significant injury to the heart, stomach, blood, muscle, bone, liver, kidney, skin, or
eyes However, if manganese is in the Mn ( + 7) valence state (as in potassium permanganate),
then ingestion or dermal contact may lead to severe corrosion at the point of contact.
Inhalation exposure to manganese dusts often leads to an inflammatory response in lung in
both humans and animals. This generally leads to increased incidence of cough and
bronchitis, and can lead to mild to moderate injury to lung tissue, along with minor decreases
in lung function. In addition, susceptibility to infectious lung disease may be increased,
leading to increased prevalence of pneumonia.
Information on the carcinogenic potential of manganese is limited, and the results are
difficult to interpret with certainty. Inhalation exposure of humans to manganese dusts has
not been identified as a risk factor for lung cancer, although intraperitoneal injection of mice
with manganese sulfate led to an increased incidence of lung tumors. Preliminary data
indicate that chronic oral exposure of rats to manganese sulfate may lead to increased
incidence of pancreatic tumors (adenomas plus carcinomas). These data are not adequate to
reach a firm conclusion regarding the carcinogenicity of manganese, but suggest that the
potential for carcinogenic effects in humans is small.
Nickel -Nickel is weakly water soluble and strongly absorbed to soil particulates, and thus is
not highly mobile. Nickel is also persistent in the environment. Nickel exposure routes of
concern are through ingestion or inhalation. Dermal absorption is possible but not fully
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
m
a
D
u
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
understood or toxicologically characterized. Acute nickel exposure causes severe
inflammation of the stomach and intestines. Nervous system damage can also occur and
death can result due to heart failure. Chronic exposure leads to degeneration of numerous
organs including the heart, brain, liver, lungs, and kidneys. Carcinogenic effects from
insoluble forms of nickel are also reported.
Nickel is also known to be more highly toxic to aquatic life than to higher mammals, and
therefore can pose significant threats to aquatic life at lower concentrations than those
associated with human health effects via ingestion.
3.2.2 ORGANICS
Benzene -Benzene exposure affects the CNS, blood, and skin. Neurological effects from
exposure are seen in symptoms of drowsiness, dizziness, headache, vertigo, tremor,
delirium, and loss of consciousness. Abnormalities in motor conduction velocity are often
seen in workers exposed to benzene.
The most noted systemic effect resulting from intermediate and chronic benzene exposure is
hematotoxicity. A common clinical finding in benzene hematotoxicity is cytopenia, which is
a decrease in various cellular elements of the circulating blood manifested as anemia,
leukopenia, or thrombocytopenia in humans. Furthermore, a causal relationship exists
between benzene exposure and aplastic anemia in humans. This disorder is characterized by
reduction of all cellular elements in the peripheral blood and in bone marrow. Aplastic
anemia that results from benzene exposure is also associated with an increased risk of
developing acute nonlymphocytic leukemia.
Benzene is considered to be a human carcinogen by EPA, OSHA, the World Health
Organization (WHO), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). EPA
has verified the weight-of-evidence classification for carcinogenicity of benzene as EPA
Group A, based on a sufficient level of human evidence supported by a sufficient level of
3-10
I
a
I
I
I '
I
I
I
m
q
D
D
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
animal evidence. It is established that exposure to commercial benzene or benzene-
containing mixtures can cause damage to the hematopoietic system including pancytopenia
with subsequent manifestation of leukemia.
Bis/2-ethylhexyl}phthalate {Di/2-ethylhexyl}phthalate) -There is currently no evidence of
adverse health effects in humans, but animal data show that bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (di(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate DEHP) can have effects on the liver, testes, kidney, thyroid, and
pancreas. Fertility of both males and females can be affected; gestational exposure to DEHP
may cause birth defects.
It is possible that exposure to DEHP through dialysis has an adverse effect on the human
kidney. An increase in polycystic kidney disease has been reported in long-term
hemodialysis patients. Although it is not possible to confirm a causative role for DEHP in
this effect, data from animal studies indicate that DEHP may be toxic to the kidneys. Acute
exposures of rats to DEHP can cause an increase in kidney weight and enlarged lysosomes in
the tubules.
No studies were located regarding cancer in humans after exposure to DEHP. However,
long-term exposure of rodents to DEHP causes cancer of the liver in both rats and mice.
There is also a proliferation of preneoplastic nodules in the liver of rats even when no
carcinomas are present. As a result of these studies, DEHP has been classified in EPA
Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
1,2-Dichloroethane -Based upon the limited amount of data in humans, the primary health
effects observed following exposure to 1,2-dichloroethane are similar in both humans and
animals. Adverse effects on the central nervous system, gastrointestinal tract and respiratory
tract are often the first responses observed after acute exposure to a high concentration. In
instances where 1,2-dichloroethane exposure has resulted in death, the cause has usually been
attributed to kidney failure in animals. Death resulting from cardiac arrhythmia and
hepatotoxicity has been documented in humans. Gross and histopathological examination of
3-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
0
m
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
autopsied tissue taken from humans and animals that have died following high-level acute
exposure to 1,2-dichloroethane generally revealed congestion, degeneration, narcosis, and/or
hemorrhagic lesions of most internal organs (e.g., liver, kidneys, lungs and respiratory tract,
heat, and gastrointestinal tract). The primary target organs for 1,2,-dichloroethane-induced
toxicity are the lungs, the liver, and the kidneys.
1,2-Dichloroethane is considered a probable human carcinogen based on the induction of
several tumor types in rats and mice dosed by gavage. Tumors have been induced by 1,2,-
dichloroethane in rats and mice following oral, dermal, and intraperitoneal exposure. Based
on these studies, EPA has classified 1,2-dichloroethane as a probable human carcinogen,
Class B2.
1,2-Dichloroethene -Clinical symptoms that have been reported in humans exposed to 1,2-
dichloroethene (DCE) in air include nausea, drowsiness, fatigue, intracranial pressure and
ocular irritation. One fatality has been reported. No information is available on the toxicity
of ingested DCE in humans. No information is available on the relative toxicities of the cis-
and trans-isomers of DCE in humans. Symptoms described in animals exposed to DCE
include pathological lesions in the heart, liver, and lung. However, evidence for serious
adverse effects in these organs consists of only one study, seriously constraining any
conclusions that can be drawn about the relevance of these effects to humans. Ataxia and
respiratory depression occur in the terminal stages prior to death in animals. Since these
symptoms have not been observed in humans, their relevance to public health is not known.
To date, cancer effects of cis-and trans-1,2-dichloroethene have not been studied in humans
or animals.
1,2-Dichloropropane -Systemic effects of 1,2-dichloropropane include respiratory effects
due to irritation of the respiratory tract, hematological effects, and hepatic and renal
alterations manifested primarily as fatty degeneration.
3-12
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
&,
D
u
I
I
I
I
' ,,
I
I
I
Respiratory effects, including chest discomfort, dyspnea and cough, have occurred in humans
as a consequence of inhalation exposure to 1,2-dichloropropane, but respiratory effects have
not been observed in humans following oral or dermal exposure. Similarly, respiratory
effects in animals were seen only as a result of inhalation exposure.
Chronic oral exposure to 1,2-dichloropropane produced significantly increased incidences of
hepatocellular neoplasms in male and female mice and mammary gland adenocarcinomas in
female rats. NTP regarded the increased incidences of mammary gland adenocarcinoma in
female rats as equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity. Based on the available animal data,
1,2-dichloropropane is reasonably anticipated to be a carcinogen. EPA has classified 1,2-
dichloropropane in Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
Methylene chloride -Methylene chloride has been widely used in industrial process, food
preparation, agriculture, and consumer products; consequently, there have been numerous
studies describing its effects in a variety of animal species. Humans have not been as
extensively studied. Although its uses in agricultural goods and consumer products have
declined in recent years, there is still potential public health concern due to its continued use
in industrial processes and there have been releases to the environment.
The central nervous system (CNS) is a potential target in humans and animals at exposure
levels of 800 ppm or higher. Effects have also been reported on the liver and kidney at
concentrations of 25 ppm or greater and on the cardiovascular system, but at extremely high
exposures. Methylene chloride (500 ppm or greater) increased tumors in some animals, but
there were no teratogenic or reproductive effects. Since inhalation is the principal route of
exposure to methylene chloride, most of these effects have been tested for or observed by
this route. Data on effects observed after oral and dermal exposure are more limited.
Studies in animals exposed via inhalation have demonstrated that methylene chloride is
probably carcinogenic. Concentrations of 500 ppm or greater increased the incidence of
benign mammary gland tumors in female and male rats. The incidence of liver tumors
3-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
D
D
ti
m
increased over control levels in male mice and female rats administered methylene chloride
(50 to 250 mg/kg/day) in drinking water; however, the incidence of lesions in treated groups
were within the historical range of control values and showed no dose response relationship.
Based on these findings, the EPA has ranked methylene chloride as a Group B2 carcinogen
(probable human carcinogen).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBsl
• Humans -Hepatic, dermal, and ocular effects are relatively well-established in
case studies of PCB exposure. There are also reports of respiratory,
gastrointestinal, hematological, muscular and skeletal, developmental, and
neurological effects related to PCB exposure, but the effects can not be
positively attributed to PCBs.
Hepatic effects include an increase in serum levels of enzymes and cholesterol,
hepatocellular damage, neurosis, and lipid accumulation in humans and
animals. Dermal lesions including skin irritation, chloracne, and pigmentation
of nails and skin have been observed in humans following occupational
exposure to relatively low-levels of PCB. Eye irritation, burning sensation,
conjunctivitis, and eye discharge were also reported by occupationally exposed
individuals.
Case studies of exposed workers have reported respiratory effects of tightness
in the chest, impaired lung function and upper respiratory tract irritation;
gastrointestinal effects of loss of appetite, nausea, epigastric distress and pain
and intolerance to fatty foods; and neurological effects of dizziness, headaches,
depression and fatigue. Human developmental effects are seen in lower birth
weights and a shortened gestational age. Evaluations of blood samples from
women who aborted, miscarried, or delivered prematurely showed associations
between those effects and concentrations of PCBs.
Occupational studies suggest possible PCB-related liver, gastrointestinal tract,
hematopoietic system, and skin carcinogenicity. In animal studies, PCB
exposure caused cancerous liver tumors. PCBs as a group have been classified
as probable human carcinogens by IARC and by EPA. These classifications
are based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, and as evaluated
by IARC, limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. NTP has concluded
that PCBs are reasonably anticipated to be carcinogenic in humans based on
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in animals. Because there is insufficient
information about which constituents of the PCB mixtures are carcinogenic, it
is assumed that PCB mixtures of any composition are potentially carcinogenic.
3-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
II
a
g
This assumption has uncertainty since it can not be verified with present
knowledge.
Aquatic Organisms -Bioconcentration of Aroclor 1254 from freshwater
ranges from 60 to 47000 for invertebrates. Bioaccumulation reported in one
tropical freshwater fish ranged from 164 in muscle tissue to 1862 in the
spleen. The maximum acceptable toxicant concentration values for Aroclor
1254 are 0. 7 to 1.2 µg/L for brook trout and range from 0.1 µg/L (Aroclor
1248) to 15 µg/L (Aroclor 1242) for fathead minnows.
Decreased growth of aquatic organisms during exposure to PCBs is well
documented. Concentrations as low as 0.1 µg/L produced growth reductions
in freshwater algae. Reproductive toxicity is also commonly associated with
PCB toxicity. Rainbow trout with whole body residues of 0.4 mg Aroclor
1242/kg fresh weight produced eggs with low survival and numerous fry
deformities.
Birds -Among sensitive avian species, PCBs disrupt normal patterns of
growth, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior. Concentrations in liver were
highest in birds that fed on fish, followed by species that feed on small birds
and mammals, worms, and insects. Courtship behavior and reproductive
effort have been reported as adversely impacted in mourning doves exposed to
10 ppm Aroclor 1254 in their diet. Hatchability of chicken eggs was reduced
when hens were fed diets containing 20 ppm of various Aroclor PCBs.
Mammals -Mink is the most sensitive mammalian species. Signs of PCB
poisoning in mink include anorexia, weight loss, lethargy, and prior to death,
dark fecal stools indicative of the presence of blood from the upper
gastrointestinal tract. Enlarged livers are also typical of PCB exposure. Diets
supplemented with as little as 2 ppm Aroclor 1254 for 8 months resulted in a
high death rate of kits. Reproduction did not appear to be affected at dietary
levels of 1 ppm. The European ferret was significantly more resistant to PCBs
than the mink. Reproductive failure was seen after 9 months exposure to 20
ppm Aroclor 1242, and Aroclor 1016 had no effect on reproduction at 20
ppm. This comparison demonstrates that interspecies sensitivity to PCBs
varies widely, even among taxonomically close species.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) -Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are generally categorized into two groups: carcinogens and noncarcinogens. Those that have
been shown to be carcinogenic to animals by the oral route are: benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene. Benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene,
3-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I\
I
I
I
I,
I
I
i
I
I
m
m
benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l ,2,3-
cd)pyrene have been shown to be carcinogenic by the dermal route. For many of the
carcinogenic PAHs, it would appear that the site of tumor induction is generally the point of
first contact, i.e., stomach tumors are observed following ingestion, and skin tumors
following dermal exposure.
Evidence exists to indicate that certain PAHs are carcinogenic in humans. PAHs express
their carcinogenic activity through biotransformation to chemically reactive intermediates
which then covalently bind to cellular macromolecules (i.e., DNA) leading to mutation and
tumor initiation. The evidence of carcinogenicity in humans comes primarily from
occupational studies where workers involved in such processes as coke production, roofing,
oil refining or coal gasification are exposed to mixtures containing P AHs (e.g., coal tar,
roofing tar, soot, coke oven emissions, soot, and crude oil). PAHs have not been clearly
identified as the causative agent, however. Cancer associated with exposure to PAH-
containing mixtures in humans occurs predominantly in the lung and skin following
inhalation and dermal exposure, respectively. Some ingestion of PAHs is likely due to
swallowing of particles containing PAHs subsequent to mucociliary clearance of these
particulates from the lung.
Noncancer adverse health effects associated with noncarcinogenic PAHs (acenaphthene,
acenanaphthylene, anthracene, fluoranthene, fluorene, phenanthrene,and pyrene) exposure
have been observed in animals, but (with the exception of adverse hematological and dermal
effects) generally not in humans. Animals studies demonstrate that PAHs tend to affect
proliferating tissues such as bone marrow, lymphoid organs, gonads and intestinal
epithelium. Thus, although PAHs are distributed extensively throughout the body, their
major target organs appear to be the hematopoietic and lymphoid systems in animals.
The skin is susceptible to PAR-induced toxicity in humans. Regressive verrucae were
reported following subchronic application of benzo(a)pyrene to human skin. Although
reversible and apparently benign, these changes were seen to represent neoplastic
3-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
m
d
D
D
proliferation. Benzo(a)pyrene application also apparently exacerbated skin lesions in patients
with pre-existing skin conditions (pemphigus vulgaris and xeroderma pigmentosum).
Workers exposed to substances that contain PAHs (e.g., coal tar) experienced chronic
dermatitis and hyperkeratosis.
Tetrachloroethene -The major routes of exposure to tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene, ·
PCE) are the inhalation and oral routes. The brain, liver, and kidney have been identified as
target organs for adverse effects of PCE exposure. In addition, there is a suggestion that
reproductive effects may also be induced in women. Humans exposed acutely to high
concentrations of PCE had headache, dizziness, and drowsiness; nonspecific hepatotoxicity;
reversible kidney damage; and upper respiratory tract irritation.
The carcinogenicity of PCE has been documented in animals exposed by inhalation or oral
routes. Despite some indication of human risk of leukemia from solvent exposure, the
relevance to human health of elevated incidences of cancer in laboratory animals is unclear.
As of November 1992, EPA had not taken a final position on the weight-of-evidence
classification for PCE. It is proposed for consideration as a Group B2 (probable human
carcinogen) based on evidence of cancer in animals and equivocal evidence in humans.
Toxaphene -The clinical signs common to both humans and animals following acute
intoxication with toxaphene (e.g., salivation, hyperexcitability, behavioral changes, muscle
spasms, convulsions, and death) point to the nervous system as the major target of toxicity.
This system also appears to be affected, though to a lesser extent, following longer-term
exposure in humans and animals. Other toxic manifestations of toxaphene exposure observed
in humans and animals include adverse respiratory effects following inhalation exposure.
Target organs of toxaphene toxicity identified in experimental animals but not humans
include the liver, kidney, and to a lesser extent, the heart and immune system.
No conclusive evidence is available to link cancer with toxaphene exposure in humans.
However, two conclusive positive cancer bioassays were found for toxaphene in feed. A
3-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
D
I
I
statistically increased incidence of thyroid tumors was observed in rats, and the incidence of
hepatocellular tumors was significantly increased in mice. Based on these findings, EPA has
classified toxaphene as a B2, probable human carcinogen.
Trichloroethene -The central nervous system (CNS) is the principal target for
trichloroethene (TCE) toxicity in humans. Human experimental studies revealed mild effects
on motor coordination, visual perception, and cognition. Nonspecific neurological effects
from TCE exposure in the workplace are dizziness and drowsiness. Acute and chronic
inhalation exposure, as well as chronic oral exposure have lead to dysfunction of cranial
nerves V and VII. The available evidence suggests that humans may be at risk for
neurological effects from exposure to TCE in the air and water, however, there is no
information for the levels at which these effects might occur.
Workers who have been exposed to TCE in the workplace show no higher incidences of
cancer than controls. This has been shown in numerous historical prospective studies. The
few studies that did show some association were complicated by exposures to known human
carcinogens.
Animal studies have shown increases in cancers of various types following inhalation or oral
exposure to TCE. Due to various flaws in the study designs, the significance of these studies
for humans cannot be determined. The EPA withdrew the IRIS carcinogenicity file for TCE
in July 1989 and as of November 1992 has not adopted a current position on the weight-of-
evidence classification.
Vinyl Chloride -The effects that have been reported in humans in response to vinyl chloride
exposure come almost exclusive! y from studies of workers exposed by inhalation in the
workplace. Because women have not been traditionally employed in PVC-manufacturing
positions in North America and Western Europe, most of the data on humans from these
areas concerns effects in males. Also, virtually all of the epidemiological studies are limited
by the absence of data on the actual levels to which workers were exposed. However,
3-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
g
D
I
I
I
I
studies in animals by the inhalation and oral routes provide an indication of the doses of
vinyl chloride that may be associated with these effects.
Long term exposure of humans in occupational settings has been associated with the
development of a number of other toxic effects. However, exposure levels in these studies
are generally not quantified, and thresholds for the effects have not been quantified.
Histopathological changes characteristic of vinyl chloride exposure have been reported to take
place in the liver. These changes include extensive fibrosis and hypertrophy and hyperplasia
of both hepatocytes and sinusoidal cells. These changes in liver structure develop in the
absence of overt symptoms of liver toxicity, and standard biochemical measures of liver
function have been of little value in detecting them. Reports also indicate that peripheral
neuropathy may also develop in some workers occupationally exposed to vinyl chloride.
Also, toxic effects on male reproductive function may occur. Studies in animals indicate that
vinyl chloride may cause fetal resorptions, delayed development, and an increased incidence
of the soft tissue anomaly, dilated ureter. When animals were exposed in utero, some
changes in liver function were observed during adolescence.
Studies in both humans and animals indicate that vinyl chloride is carcinogenic. Hepatic
angiosarcoma has been identified in workers exposed to vinyl chloride by the inhalation
route. Also, there are some studies that indicate that cancers of the central nervous system,
respiratory tract, lymphatic and hematopoietic systems may occur in humans following
inhalation exposure. Studies in a variety of animal species exposed by both inhalation and
oral routes show an increased incidence of hepatic angiosarcoma. Based on these findings,
the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that sufficient
evidence for carcinogenicity in humans and animals exists and has placed vinyl chloride in
category I, carcinogenic to humans. EPA has concluded that sufficient evidence for
carcinogenicity exists in humans and animals and has classified vinyl chloride according to its
classification scheme as a Group A carcinogen, human carcinogen.
3-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
3.2.3 SUMMARY
The major contaminants of concern for the GE Site are fairly well-defined from the
environmental data collected in previous sampling investigations. VOCs and heavy metals
are presently the major contaminants of concern in groundwater; VOCs are presently the
major contaminants of concern in surface waters; PCBs, heavy metals, and PAHs are
presently the major contaminants of concern in soils; and PCBs are presently the major
contaminants of concern in sediments at the site.
However, because the previous investigations did not fully define the nature and extent of the
contamination, further site characterization is required to identify and assess the health and
environmental concerns related to the action exposure routes substantiated through the
previous investigations. These exposure routes include primarily direct contact and ingestion
of contaminated soils, sediments, surface waters, and groundwater. Inhalation of volatiles
from groundwater and dust from surface soil may also serve as an exposure route.
Potential receptors include terrestrial and/or aquatic biota, local residents and workers,
recreational users of surface waters in the area, and people who consume fish, wildlife, and
agricultural products exposed to site contaminants.
3.3 PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF ARARs AND OTIIER
GUIDELINES
CERCLA compliance policy requires that any Superfund remedial action comply with
all Federal standards, requirements, criteria or limitations that are determined to be legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Also, state ARARs must be
met should they be more stringent. Preliminary identification of potential ARARs and other
guidelines helps to initially identify remedial alternatives and thus allows better planning of
field data collection activities. Due to the iterative nature of the RI/FS process, ARAR
3-20
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
I
I
identification proceeds throughout the entire RI/FS as the conceptual site model and remedial
action alternatives are refined. ARARs may be categorized as follows (EPA, 1988):
• Chemical-specific requirements that define acceptable exposure levels and
therefore can be used in establishing preliminary remediation goals
• Location-specific requirements that set restrictions on activities within specific
locations such as floodplains or wetlands.
• Action-specific controls or restrictions for particular treatment and disposal
activities related to the management of hazardous wastes.
As part of development of this work plan, federal and state ARARs were identified in
relation to the results of previous sampling investigations at the site. These ARARs are
provided in Tables 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, and 3-5 which include state and federal ARARs classified
respectively as chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific for soil/sediment and
water. These ARAR lists will be updated as appropriate to new criteria, site characteristics,
and response activities as this RI/FS proceeds.
3.4 PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
DEVELOPMENT
Preliminary remedial action objectives and general response actions have been developed to
assist in the identification of remedial technologies potentially appropriate for site
remediation. The purpose of identifying potential remedial technologies at this stage is to
help ensure that the data needed to evaluate them are collected as early as possible. In
addition, the early identification of technologies will allow early analysis as to the need for
treatability studies. This identification is not meant to be a detailed investigation of
alternatives. Rather it is intended to be a more general classification of potential remedial
actions based upon the initially identified routes of exposure and associated receptors.
Technologies that may be appropriate for treating or disposing of wastes are identified. In
addition, to the extent practicable, a preliminary list of broadly defined alternatives are
developed that reflects the goal of presenting a range of distinct, viable options to the
3-21
== == -
FEDERAL
Safe Drinking Water Act
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
Clean Water Act
Water Quality Criteria
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
as amended
RCRA Groundwater Protection
Solid Waste Disposal Act
Land Disposal
Clean Air Act
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standards
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs)
Occupational Safety and Heallh Administration
North Carolina Drinking Water Act
North Carolina Drinking Water and Groundwater
Standards
---- -- -
TABLE 3-2
PRELIMINARY CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
--- -- -
40 USC Section 300
40 CFR Part 141
40CFR 143
Establishes health-based standards for public water systems (maximum contaminant levels). Applicable
Publication L. N1 99-399, 100
Stal. 642 (1986)
33 USC Section 1251-1376
40 CFR Part 131
42 USC 6905, 6912, 6924,
6925
40 CFR Part 264
42 USC 6901 et. seq.
40 CFR Part 268
40 USC 1857
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 61
29 CFR 1910 Part 120
130A NCAC 3 I 1-327
15A NCAC Chapter 2L
Establishes welfare-based standards for public water systems (secondary maximum To Be Considaed
contaminanl levels).
Establishes drinking water qualily goals set at levels of no known or anlicipated adverse
health effects.
Sels criteria for water quality based on toxicity to aquatic organisms and human heallh.
Provides for groundwater protection standards, general monitoring requirements, and
technical requirements.
Establishes a limet.able for restriction of land disposal of hazardous materials.
Se1s primary and secondary air standards al levels to protect public health and public
welfare.
Provides emissions standard for hazardous air pollutants for which no ambient air quality
standard exisls.
Provides safety rules for handling specific chemicals for site workers during remedial
activities.
Regulates water systems within the state that supply drinking water that may affect the
public health.
Establishes groundwater classification and water quality standards.
groundwater at the site.
Applicable to
Applicable
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Applicable
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevanl & Appropriate
Applicable
Applicable
Applicable
- --
FEDERAL
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended
RCRA Location Standards
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Floodplain Management
Executive Order
Endangered Species Act
Clean Water Act
Dredge or Fill Requirements
(Section 404)
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1889
(Section 10 Permit)
Wilderness Act
National Wildlife Refuge System
STATE
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
------ ---- -
TABLE 3-3
PRELIMINARY LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARAR,, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
42 USC 6901
40 CFR 264. I 8(b)
16 use 661-666
Executive Order 11988;
40 CFR 6.302
J6USC 1531
33 use Section 125 I
40 CFR 230
33 USC Section 403
16 USC 1311
16 USC 688
50 CFR 27
General Statistics of
North Carolina,
Chap1er I 13A. Anicle 4
A TSD facility must be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained Relevant & Appropriate
to avoid washout on a IOO•year floodplain.
This regulation requires that any federal agency that proposes 10 modify Relevant & Appropriate
a body of water must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
This requirement is addressed under CWA Section 404 Requirements.
Actions that are 10 occur in floodplain should avoid adverse effects,
minimize potential harm, res1ore and preserve na1ural and beneficial
value.
Requires action to conserve endangered species or threatened species,
including consultation with the Department of Interior.
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Requires permit for discharge of dredged or fill material inlo aquatic Relevant & Appropriate
environment.
Requires permit for siructures or work in or affecling navigable waters. Relevant & Appropriate
Area must be administered in such a way as will leave it un-impaired as
wilderness and will preserve it as a wilderness.
Restricts activities within National Wildlife Refuges.
Establishes mandatory standards for control of sedimentation and erosion
in streams and lakes.
Relevant & Appropriate
Rckvant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
- -
- --
Disposal -(Onsite or OffsiteJ
- -- ------TABLE 3-4
PRELIMINARY ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR SOJUSEDIMENT
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
- -
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended
Classification of Hazardous Waste
42 USC Section 6901 ct. seq.
40 CFR 261 Federal requirements for classification and identification of hazardous wastes.
---
Relevant & Appropriate
Land Disposal Restrictions 40 CFR 268.10-12 Disposal of contaminated soil and debris resulting from CERCLA response Relevant & Appropriale
Department of Transportation (DO1) Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
Soil Tream,ent
Resource Conser,;ation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended
Identification of Hazardous Waste
Treatmenl of Hazardous Wastes in a Unit
Requirements for Generation, Storage, Transportation, and
Disposal of Hazardous Waste
Waste Piles
Tank Systems
Use and Management of Containers
Land Disposal Restrictions
Clean Air Act
Air Use Approval
Particulate Discharge Limitations and Performance Testing
STATE
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules
North Carolina Solid Waste Managcmcn1 Rules
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Requircmen1s
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Rules
40 CFR 268 (Subpart D)
49USC 1801
40 USC Section 6901 et. seq.
40 CFR 261
40 CFR 264.601
40 CFR 264
40 CFR 264 (Subpart L)
40 CFR 264 (Subpart J)
40 CFR 264 (Subpart I)
40 CFR 268. I0-12
40 CFR 268 (Subpart D)
40 CFR 60 (Subpart A)
40 CFR 60 (Subpart 8)
NCAC -15A-J3A
NCAC -ISA-138
NCAC -15A-2O
NCAC • 15A-4
actions are subject to federal and disposal prohibitions.
Regulates offsite transporta1ion of specific hazardous chemicals and wastes.
Federal requircmenls for classification and identification of hazardous wastes.
Rules and requirements for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Regulates storage, transportation. and operation of hazardous waste generators.
Regulales storage and treatment of hazardous waste in piles
Regulates storage and treatment of hazardous waste in tank systems
Regulates storage of containers of hazardous waste
Establishes treatment standards for hazardous wastes.
Requires no1ifica1ion and performance testing by owner or operator.
Defines limitations for particulate emissions, test methods, and monitoring
requirements for incinerators.
Siting and design requirements for hazardous waste TSDs.
Siting and design requirements for disposal sites.
Air pollution control, air quality, and emissions control standards.
Requirements for prevention of sedimentation pollution.
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriah!
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Rdevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriale
Relevant & Appropriate
-- - --- - -- --- --- ---TABLE 3-5
PRELIMINARY ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR WATER
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
FEDERAL
Groundwarer E"t:traction and Trearmem
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as
amended
Identification of Hazardous Waste
Trealment of Hazardous Wastes in a Unit
Rcquiremen1s for Generation, Storage, Transportation,
and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Restrictions
Disposal -Discharge to Surface Warer/POTW
Clean Water Act
Requires use of Best Available Treatment Technology
Requires Use of B<!st Management Practices
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
Regulations
Discharge must be consistent with the requirements of a
Water Quality Management Plan approved by EPA
Discharge must not increase contaminant concentralions
in off site surface water.
STATE
North Carolina Water Quality Standards
North Carolina Groundwater Standards
Wastewater Discharge to Surface Waters
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Requiremenls
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
42 USC Section 6901 cl. seq.
40 CFR 261
40 CFR 264.601
40 CFR 265.400
40 CFR 263
40 CFR 264
40 CFR 268
33 USC Section 1351-1376
40 CFR 122
40 CFR 125
40 CFR 122 Subpart C
40CFR 122
Section 121 (d)(2)(B)(iii)
NCAC - 1 IA-2B
NCAC -15A-2L
NCAC -15A-2H
NCAC -I 5A-2D
Federal requirements for classification and identification of hazardous Relevant & Appropriate
wastes.
Rules and requirements for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Regulates storage, transportation, and operation of hazardous waste
generators.
Prohibits dilution of as a substitu1e for treatment.
Use of best available technology economically achievable is required to
control discharge of toxic pollutants to POTW.
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Requires development and implementation of a Best Management Relevant & Appropriate
Practices program to prevent the rekase of toxic constituents to surface
water.
Use of best available technology economically achievable for toxic Relevant & Appropriate
pollutants discharged to surface waters.
Discharge must comply wilh EPA-approved Water Qualily Management Relevant & Appropriate
Plan.
Selected remedial action must establish a standard of control to maintain Relevant & Appropriate
surface water quality.
Surface water quality standards.
Groundwater quality standards, regulates injection wells.
Regulates surface water discharge and discharges to PGTW.
Air pollution control air quality and emissions standards.
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
Relevant & Appropriate
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
decision-maker for remedial action at the site (EPA, 1988). Note, however, that the
remedial technologies and alternatives identified in this section may not be all inclusive. As
additional information is gathered during the RI, this list may be modified or expanded upon.
Tables 3-6 and 3-7 presents the preliminary remedial action objectives, general response
actions, technology types, and process options which are applicable to the GE Site for
soil/sediment and water, respectively. Preliminary remedial action objectives are based on
protecting human health and the environment. General response actions stem from the
remedial action objectives. Technologies are based on the response actions and comprise the
preliminary remedial action alternatives. The alternatives developed at this stage will be
refined throughout the RI/FS process.
It is possible to eliminate technologies and alternatives during this preliminary screening
based on technical implementability or cost reasons. Alternatives which are potentially
viable at this stage in the investigation are discussed below.
Groundwater/Surface Water:
• The no action alternative consisting of periodic monitoring of the groundwater
and surface water
• Institutional controls to prevent use of contaminated water coupled with
provision of an alternate water supply to those residents impacted by site
contamination
•
•
Institutional controls and alternate water supplies combined with containment
(e.g. vertical or hydraulic barriers) of the water contamination
Extraction and onsite treatment of contaminated groundwater and surface water
combined with either onsite or offsite disposal of treated water
Soil/Sediment;
• The no action alternative consisting of periodic monitoring of all affected
media (e.g. soil and water)
3-26
-- - -- - -- --- --- - -- -
TABLE 3-6
PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES, GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS, TECHNOLOGY TYPES, AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
For Human Health: No Action
Prevent ingestion/direct contact with soil Institutional Actions
having carcinogens in excess of MCLs and
a total excess cancer risk (for all
contaminants) of greater than 10·• to 10·•.
Prevent ingestion/ direct contact with soil Containment
having non-carcinogens in excess of
health-based remediation levels.
For Environmental Protection:
Prevent migration of contaminants that
would result in groundwater and surface
water contamination in excess of MCLs
and water quality standards. Excavation
Treatment
Disposal
None
Access restrictions
Monitoring
Capping
Vertical barriers
Horizontal barriers
Surface controls
Sediment control barriers
Excavation
Not applicable
Deed restrictions
Fencing
Monitoring
Clay, soil, asphalt, concrete, multi-layer
Slurry wall, grout curtain, vibrating beam, sheet piling
Grout injection, block displacement
Diversion/collection, grading
Coffer dams, curtain barriers
Solids excavation, dredging, dewatering
Physical/chemical treatment Soil washing, dechlorination, chemical extraction,
dehalogenation, stabilization/solidification, solvent extraction
Biological treatment
Thermal destruction
In situ treatment
Off site
Onsite/offsite
Composting, slurry-phase treatment
Thermal desorption, fluidized bed, rotary kiln
Soil vapor extraction, soil flushing, bioremediation, vitrification,
chemical reduction
Hazardous waste landfill
Landfill, encapsulation, backfill
--- --- - - -- - - - - - ---
TABLE 3-7
PRELIMINARY REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES, GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS, TECHNOLOGY TYPES, AND PROCESS OPTIONS FOR WATER
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
For Human Health:
Prevent ingestion/inhalation/direct
contact of water having carcinogens in
excess of MCLs and a total excess cancer
risk (for all contaminants) of greater than
10~ to 10·'.
Prevent ingestion/inhalation/direct
contact of water having non-carcinogens
in excess of MCLs or health-based
remediation levels.
For Environmental Protection:
Restore groundwater aquifer and surface
water to acceptable concentrations for
contaminants.
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
No Action None
Institutional Actions Access restrictions
Alternate water supply
Monitoring
Containment Capping
V crtical barriers
Horizontal barriers
Collection Extraction
Subsurface drains
Treatment Physical treatment
Chemical treatment
Biological treatment
Thermal destruction
In situ treatment
Discharge Onsite/offsite
Not applicable
Deed restrictions
Bottled water, city water, individual home treatment units
Monitoring
Clay, soil, asphalt, concrete, multi-layer
Slurry wall, grout curtain, vibrating hcam, sheet piling
Grout injection, block displacement
Extraction wells, extraction/injection wells
Interceptor trenches
Coagulation/flocculation, oil-water separation, air stripping,
activated carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis, liquid/liquid
extraction, ion exchange, media filtration
Neutralization, precipitation, photolysis, oxidation/reduction
Aerobic, anaerobic
Rotary kiln, fluidized bed
Bioreclamation, aeration, chemical reaction, permeable
treatment beds
Surface water, POTW
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
3.5
Institutional controls to prevent direct contact with contaminated soil/sediment
which consists of fencing and deed restrictions
Institutional controls combined with containment of the contaminated soil
Excavation and onsite treatment of contaminated soil/sediment combined with
either onsite or offsite disposal of treated material
Excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil/sediment to a hazardous
waste landfill
ADDffiONAL SITE DATA REQUIREMENTS
To develop a better conceptual understanding of the site, better define the ARARs, and
narrow the range of remedial alternatives that have been identified, additional site-specific
data on the nature and extent of contamination, the pathways for contaminant migration, and
potential receptors must be collected. Given the information contained in the existing
database, the following list of specific data requirements was developed for this RI/FS:
GE Property
• The nature and extent of soils contamination in the drain line and former ditch
areas, in the former landspreading plot areas, in the present and former landfill
areas, and under the former USTs
• The present nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
• The present extent of the floating product plume in the former UST No. 9 area
• The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the subsite
• The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around Bat
Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the subsite
• Groundwater flow directions and hydraulic gradients on the southern and
eastern sides of Bat Fork Creek, and the groundwater/surface water interactive
flows along Bat Fork Creek
3-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
The shallow aquifer system characteristics including hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities) and contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients)
The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a 1-
mile radius of the site
Shepherd Farm Property
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The nature and extent of waste disposal onsite
The nature and extent of soils contamination
The nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
the unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the
subsite
The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek adjacent to and downstream of the
subsite
The shallow aquifer system characteristics including the groundwater flow
directions and hydraulic gradients onsite and off site, hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities), contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients), and the groundwater/surface water interactive flows along the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek
The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a 1-
mile radius of the site
Seldon Clark Property
• The nature and extent of waste disposal onsite
• The nature and extent of soils contamination
• The nature and extent of groundwater contamination onsite and offsite
3-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
the storm drain on the eastern side of the site
The present nature and extent of surface water and sediment contamination in
Bat Fork Creek downstream of the subsite '
The present nature and extent of ecological contamination in and around Bat
Fork Creek downstream of the subsite
The shallow aquifer system characteristics including the groundwater flow
directions and hydraulic gradients onsite and off site, hydraulic properties (i.e.,
hydraulic conductivities), contaminant transport properties (i.e., distribution
coefficients), and the groundwater/surface water interactive flows along the
unnamed tributary and Bat Fork Creek
The population at risk through the groundwater exposure pathway within a !-
mile radius of the site
3-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 WORK PLAN RATIONALE
4.1 WORK PLAN APPROACH
To collect the additional data required to complete this GE Site RI/FS in a cost-effective
manner, a one-phase comprehensive data collection program was developed. The general
elements of this comprehensive data collection program are described below. Detailed
descriptions of each data collection activity in this program are described in Section 5.0
(RI/FS Scope of Work). A second phase of ecological sampling is also outlined below for
consideration depending on the results of the first phase of sampling.
One of the first field activities to be conducted is a private well/water use survey within an
approximate one-mile radius of the site (from the center of each of the subsites). The intent
of this survey is (1) to quickly identify the people most at risk through the groundwater
pathway from the site, so that appropriate sampling of private residential and industrial wells
can be made during the field investigation, and (2) to identify and evaluate current exposure
routes for the risk assessment.
For the purposes of characterizing the soil exposure pathway and for estimating the
horizontal and vertical extent of soil contamination, soil samples will be collected at all three
subsites and shipped to EPA Region IV Environmental Services Division (ESD) or a contract
laboratory program (CLP) laboratory for full Target Compound List/Target Analyte List
(TCL/TAL) analysis. At the GE subsite, soil samples will be collected in the landspreading
areas, along the drain line and former ditch, from the existing landfill area, and from the two
former landfills according to the following protocol:
• Landwreading Areas -surface soil samples will be collected uniformly over
the areas at an approximate 100-to 200-foot spacing. Due to the large size of
the areas, the surface soil samples will be collected by compositing five
samples collected within a 5-foot radius of the actual sampling point. Soil
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
borings will also be drilled at an approximate 200-to 300-foot spacing down
the center of the landspreading areas (at the same location as a surface soil
sample). At each soil boring location in all but landspreading area C, one
sample will be collected just below the landspread material and one sample
will be collected just above the water table interface. At the soil boring
locations in landspreading area C, due to the approximate 3-foot layer of
"clean" soil placed over the area, one sample will be collected in the
landspread material, one sample will be collected just below the landspread
material, and one sample will be collected just above the water table interface.
A total of 52 surface soil samples and 31 subsurface soil samples will be
collected from the landspreading areas.
Drain Line/Former Ditch -soil borings will be drilled at an approximate 300-
foot spacing along these potential source pathways. At each soil boring
location along the drain line, one sample will be collected at the surface, one
sample will be collected just below the drain line, and one sample will be
collected just above the water table interface. At each soil boring location
along the former ditch, one sample will be collected at the surface, one sample
will be collected approximately 10 feet below land surface, and one sample
will be collected just above the water table interface. A total of 8 surface soil
samples and 16 subsurface soil samples will be collected from the drain line
and former ditch area.
Existing Landfill Area -surface soil samples will be collected uniformly over
the area at an approximate 100-foot spacing. Due to the large size of the area,
the surface soil samples will be collected by compositing five samples
collected within a 5-foot radius of the actual sampling point. One soil boring
will also be drilled at the center of the area (at the same location as the center
surface soil sample) with one sample collected approximately 10 feet below
land surface and one sample above the water table interface in this boring. A
total of 4 surface soil samples and 2 subsurface soil samples will be collected
from the existing landfill area.
Former Landfill A -soil borings will be drilled at an approximate 100-foot
spacing down the center of this former landfill area. At each soil boring
location, one sample will be collected approximately 5 feet below land surface
(within the fill material), and one sample will be collected just above the water
table interface. Because this landfill has been completely paved over, no
surface soil samples will be collected. A total of 6 subsurface soil samples
will be collected from the former landfill A area.
Former Landfill B -soil borings will be drilled at an approximate 100-foot
spacing down the center of this former landfill area, just off the paved
roadway. At each soil boring location, one sample will be collected at the
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
surface, one sample will be collected approximately 5 feet below land surface
(within the fill material), and one sample will be collected just above the water
table interface. A total of 3 surface soil samples and 6 subsurface soil samples
will be collected from the former landfill B area.
At the GE subsite, soil borings will also be drilled at five former UST areas, and one soil
sample will be collected just above the water table interface in each of these five borings. A
total of 67 surface soil samples and 66 subsurface soil samples will thus be collected and
analyzed to characterize the soil exposure pathway and estimate the extent of soil
contamination at the GE subsite.
At the Seldon Clark subsite, four surface soil samples will be collected at an approximate
200-foot spacing. Five test pits will also be excavated at this subsite in attempt to define the
area of waste disposal. One soil sample will be collected from each test pit. Three soil
borings will also be drilled within the waste disposal area, down to the bedrock surface to
determine the depth of waste. The locations of these borings will be determined in the field
depending on the visual results of the test pit excavations. Two soil samples will also be
collected from each of these borings (from within the waste material and just below the waste
material). A total of 4 surface soil samples and 11 subsurface soil samples will thus be
collected and analyzed to characterize the soil exposure pathway and estimate the extent of
soil contamination at the Seldon Clark subsite.
At the Shepherd Farm subsite, a rectangular grid will be constructed over the potential
disposal area with the nodes spaced approximately 100 feet apart, and one surface soil
sample will be collected at each node point. Due to the large size of the area, the surface
soil samples will be collected by compositing five samples collected within a 5-foot radius of
the actual sampling point. Soil borings will also be drilled at 5 center node locations of the
grid. At each soil boring location, one sample will be collected approximately 5 feet below
land surface and one sample will be collected just above the water table interface. Five
contingency samples are also proposed for sampling of soil below visually identifiable waste
sources such as drums. A total of 25 surface soil samples and IO subsurface soil samples
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will thus be collected and analyzed to characterize the soil exposure pathway and estimate the
extent of soil contamination at the Shepherd Farm subsite.
Six background surface soil samples and six background subsurface soil samples (from three
soil borings) will also be collected to define background soil concentrations for the site. The
locations of these background samples will be determined in the field but will generally be
located in areas which appear to be undisturbed. Each background soil boring will be drilled
at the same location as a background surface soil sample. At each soil boring location, one
sample will be collected approximate! y 5 feet below land surface and one sample will be
collected just above the water table interface.
For the purposes of characterizing the groundwater exposure pathway and for estimating the
extent of groundwater contamination in the surficial aquifer, new permanent monitor wells
will be constructed at all three subsites, and groundwater samples will be collected from
these new monitor wells, as well as all of the existing monitor wells at the GE subsite
(except for MW-38 through MW-44 which were not constructed for groundwater sampling
purposes). These groundwater samples will be shipped to EPA Region IV ESD or a CLP
laboratory for full TCUTAL analysis. At the GE subsite, six new permanent monitor wells
will be installed as follows:
•
•
Two 2-well clusters ( one screened in the upper bedrock and one screened in
the lower bedrock) will be installed on the eastern side of Bat Fork Creek to
identify and characterize any contamination which may have migrated under
Bat Fork Creek.
One 2-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed between Bat Fork Creek and
landspreading area C to identify and characterize any contamination which
may have migrated from this landspreading area.
At the Seldon Clark subsite, seven new permanent monitor wells will be installed as follows:
4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
One monitor well screened in the upper bedrock will be installed in the center
of the suspected waste disposal area to identify and characterize any
contamination which may have emanated from this disposal area.
One 2-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed downgradient of the suspected waste
disposal area to identify and characterize any contamination which may have
migrated from this disposal area.
Two 2-well clusters (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed upgradient of the suspected waste
disposal area to define background groundwater concentrations for both the GE
and Seldon Clark subsites.
At the Shepherd Farm subsite, eleven new permanent monitor wells will be installed as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
One 2-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed in the center of the suspected waste
disposal area to identify and characterize any contamination which may have
emanated from this disposal area.
One 3-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface, one screened in
the upper bedrock, and one screened in the lower bedrock) will be installed
west of the suspected waste disposal area to identify and characterize any
contamination which may have migrated from this disposal area in this
direction.
One 2-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed northwest of the suspected waste
disposal area and adjacent to Bat Fork Creek to identify and characterize any
contamination which may have migrated from this disposal area in this
direction.
One 2-well cluster (one screened one screened in the upper bedrock and one
screened in the lower bedrock) will be installed northeast of the suspected
waste disposal area to identify and characterize any contamination which may
have migrated from this disposal area in this direction.
One 2-well cluster (one screened at the water table interface and one screened
in the upper bedrock) will be installed upgradient of the suspected waste
disposal area to define background groundwater concentrations for the
Shepherd Farm subsite.
4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Groundwater samples will also be collected from up to 10 private wells near the site. The
selection of the private wells to be sampled will be made in consultation with EPA, and will
be based on the results of the monitor well/water use survey, with the intent being to sample
the wells closest to and most likely impacted by the site. These samples will also be shipped
to EPA Region IV ESD or a CLP laboratory for full TCL/TAL analysis. A total of 82
groundwater samples will thus be collected and analyzed to characterize the groundwater
exposure pathway and estimate the extent of groundwater contamination.
To provide additional data on the contaminant transport properties of the aquifer system, in
situ hydraulic conductivity tests (slug tests) will be conducted in each new monitor well
installed. In addition, during drilling of six soil borings at the GE subsite and three soil
borings at the Shepherd Farm subsite, one Shelby tube sample will be collected from the
unsaturated soils in each boring. These nine Shelby tube samples will be sent to a
geotechnical/ geochemical laboratory and tested for grain size, specific gravity, moisture
content, bulk density, porosity, pH, and total organic carbon content.
After construction of the new monitor wells is completed, each new well will be surveyed
vertically and horiwntally to determine their precise locations and elevations. One round of
water level measurements will also be collected at each new and existing monitor well, and
at five staff gages to be installed in Bat Fork Creek. Baseflow measurements will also be
taken at the five staff gage locations in Bat Fork Creek at this time. These water level
measurements and flow data will be used to construct groundwater contour maps which
indicate the principal directions of groundwater flow, and also help evaluate the
groundwater/surface water interaction.
For the purposes of characterizing the surface water exposure pathway and for estimating the
extent of surface water and sediment contamination, surface water and sediment samples will
be collected (in pairs) from Bat Fork Creek, the Unnamed Creek, from the GE subsite
spring, and from the Seldon Clark drain. Nine surface water/sediment samples will be
collected from Bat Fork Creek and the Unnamed Creek, at locations both upstream and
4-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
downstream of the site, as well as adjacent to the site. One surface water/sediment sample
will also be collected from the GE spring and one will be collected from the Seldon Clark
drain. A total of 11 surface water and 11 sediment samples will thus be collected and
analyzed to characterize the surface water exposure pathway and estimate the extent of
surface water and sediment contamination at the site. These surface water and sediment
samples will be shipped to EPA Region IV ESD or a CLP laboratory for full TCL/T AL
analysis. All samples will be collected in depositional areas where possible.
The last data collection activity will be a Phase I ecological survey and sampling of the site.
The information obtained in this Phase I survey and sampling will be used to:
• Ecologically characterize the site
• Identify potential ecological receptors of concern
• Identify the presence of threatened or endangered species
• Construct a representative foodweb for the site
These data are necessary for developing an understanding of exposure pathways, contaminant
transfer in the local foodweb, and biomagnification of lipophile compounds such PCBs. An
inventory of the biological community in the area will first be conducted to identify the
vegetative communities, habitat types, physical and chemical characteristics of the aquatic
environment, the occurrence of terrestrial and aquatic animals, and any obvious zones of
chemical contamination that could result in ecological effects. Fish tissue samples will then
be collected from seven stations in Bat Fork Creek and shipped to EPA Region IV ESD or a
CLP laboratory for PCB analysis. These sample results will be used perform a preliminary
evaluation of risk to fish in Bat Fork Creek.
Should the results of the above described field investigation indicate that a Phase II ecological
assessment is needed, a detailed plan for a Phase II ecological field investigation will be
prepared for EPA approval. This Phase II field investigation may include:
•
•
Macroinvertebrate assays at the sites of fish sampling ·
Earthworm bioassays
4-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• •
•
Earthworm tissue analysis
Hylella sediment toxicity tests
Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Studies
The schedule and costs for this Phase II ecological field investigation will be included in the
detailed plan. A work assignment amendment will be required, however, for the
performance of this work, as costs for preparation of the detailed Phase II sampling plan and
for conducting the Phase II ecological field investigation are not included in this work plan.
4.2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Data quality objectives (DQOs) are qualitative and quantitative statements which specify the
quality of the data required to support EPA decisions during remedial response activities.
DQOs are based on the concept that different data uses may require different data quality.
DQOs are therefore determined based on the end uses of the data to be collected. DQOs
' need to be established prior to data collection and integrated with the project planning
process, so that sufficient data of known quality are collected to support sound decisions
' concerning the remedial action selection.
For assistance in defining data quality objectives, EPA has established the following five
levels of data quality (EPA, 1987):
•
•
•
Level I -field screening or analysis using portable instruments. Results are
often not compound specific and not quantitative but results are available in
real-time.
Level II -field analyses using I more sophisticated portable analytical
instruments; in some cases, the instruments may be set up in a mobile
laboratory onsite. Results are available in real-time or several hours.
Level III -all analyses are petformed in an offsite analytical laboratory. Level
III analyses may or may not use Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
procedures, but do not usually utilize the validation or documentation
procedures required of CLP Level IV analysis.
, 4-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
Level IV -CLP routine analytical services. All analyses are performed in an
offsite CLP analytical laboratory following CLP protocols. Level IV is
characterized by rigorous QA/QC protocols and documentation.
Level V -analysis by non-standard methods. All analyses are performed in an
offsite analytical laboratory which may or may not be a CLP laboratory.
Method development or method modification may be required for specific
constituents or detection limits.
Based on the types and intended uses of the data to be collected during this GE RI/FS,
categories of data to be collected were developed and DQO levels were established for each
category. These categories and DQO levels are presented in Table 4-1.
4-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-1
DATA QUALI'IY OBJECTIVES
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
DATA CATEGORY DQOLEVEL
Groundwater sample TCL/T AL analyses
Surface water sample TCL/TAL analyses
Soil sample TCL/TAL analyses
Sediment sample TCL/T AL analyses
Fish Tissue sample PCB analyses
Soil sample geochemical/geotechnical' analyses
Water level measurements
Streamflow measurements
Health and safety equipment measurements (HNu, OVA, etc.)
Other field measurements (pH, temperature, etc.)
Grain size, specific gravity, moisture content, bulk density, porosity,
pH, total organic carbon
4-10
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 RI/FS SCOPE OF WORK
The primary objective of this RI/FS is to collect the additional data needed to support a risk
assessment and provide a basis on which to recommend a remedial action plan for the site.
The specific goals of this RI/FS include the following:
• Determining the nature of, and the areal and vertical extent of
contamination (waste types, concentrations, and distributions) in soils,
sediments, surface water, groundwater, and local biota at the three GE
subsites.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identifying the source(s) of contamination associated with the three GE
subsites
Determining the hydraulic characteristics and contaminant transport
mechanisms of the underlying aquifer at the site
Evaluating the potential migration rates and pathways of site contaminants
Determining the potential receptors of groundwater contamination by
performing a well/water use survey within a 1-mile radius of the site
Assessing public health risks and environmental impacts associated with the
site contamination (i.e., performing a Baseline Risk Assessment)
Identifying all current federal and state applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) for site remediation
Determining the remediation levels for contaminants found at the site
Identifying technological options for cleaning up the site contamination
and/ or preventing further migration of contaminants offsite
Performing bench or pilot scale treatability studies, as necessary to evaluate
the applicability of potential treatment technologies
Assembling the technologies into remedial action alternatives and
screening the alternatives to identify those which appear to be most
promising with respect to effectiveness, implementability, and cost
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Evaluating the screened remedial action alternatives in a manner which is
consistent with the National Contingency Plan and other regulatory
requirements
• Recommending a remedial action plan for the site that is technically and
environmentally sound, and cost-effective
The following sections describe in detail each of the tasks to be completed to fulfill these
goals.
5.1 TASK 1 -PROJECT PLANNING
5.1.1 REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS/DATA
COM Federal will compile and review existing documents/data such as the EPA
Screening Site Inspection and Listing Site Inspection Reports, the PRP Search Report,
the Preliminary Public Health Assessment, the PRP sampling investigation reports,
topographic maps, and aerial photographs. These documents/data will be reviewed and
used to help prepare the planning documents for this RI/FS work assignment.
5.1.2 SITE VISIT
COM Federal will conduct an initial site visit to familiarize key staff with conditions at
the site. This site visit will be conducted prior to preparation of the project plans, and
will serve as an opportunity for COM Federal to observe site-specific details that may
influence the RI/FS approach. Consideration will be given to factors which may affect
installation of groundwater wells, drilling of borings, conducting site surveys, and
collection of soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples during the RI. The
site reconnaissance team will include the project manager and the field manager.
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.3 BACKGROUND SUMMARY
Based on the review of existing documents/data, a background information summary will
be prepared. This summary will include as a minimum, the following components:
•
•
•
Site Description -This component will include a summary of the location
and physical features of the site, as well as the demography and land/water
use in the general vicinity of the site.
Environmental Setting -This component will provide a description of the
physiography, topography, climate/ meteorology, geology /hydrogeology,
hydrology, and wildlife/natural resources of the site and its general area.
Site Histocy -This component will describe the general nature and history
of the contamination problem to the extent possible. Previous onsite
disposal activities, site regulatory actions, and previous sampling
investigation results will be summarized.
This background summary will be presented in the RI/FS Work Plan.
5.1.4 INITIAL EVALUATION
Based on the documents/data collected for the site, CDM Federal will prepare an initial
evaluation of the site to be included in the RI/FS Work Plan. This initial evaluation will
include development of the conceptual site model, identification of the potential
contaminants of concern, refinement of the site objectives, preliminary determination of
ARARs that might apply to remedial investigation or remedial action activities at the
site, preliminary development of remedial action alternatives, and identification of
additional site data requirements.
5.1.5 INITIAL SCOPING
CDM Federal, together with EPA and other interested parties in a half-day meeting, will
scope out the work to be conducted to collect the additional data needed and fulfill the
5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
goals of the RI/FS. A field investigation approach will be developed in this meeting
which will be held prior to commencing with work plan preparation. In addition, initial
DQOs will be established to ensure that the data to be collected shall be of adequate
quality and appropriate for their intended uses.
5.1.6 WORK PLAN PREPARATION
After completing the above subtasks, CDM Federal will prepare a Work Plan for the GE
Site RI/FS, incorporating the results of the above subtasks. The Work Plan will provide
a project description, outline the overall technical approach, define the scope of work,
and identify key personnel, the level of effort, costs, and schedule to conduct the RI/FS.
A draft Work Plan will be prepared first. Seven copies (one unbound) of the draft Work
Plan will be delivered to EPA within 45 days after receipt of the work assignment
amendment. Within 14 days after receipt of EPA comments on the draft Work Plan,
CDM Federal will respond to EPA's comments in a letter, indicating how the comments
will be incorporated or addressed in the final Work Plan. Within 14 days after EPA
approval of the draft Work Plan comment response letter, CDM Federal will prepare
and deliver seven copies (one unbound) of the final Work Plan addressing EPA's
comments.
5.1.7 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN PREPARATION
While preparing the Work Plan for the GE Site RI/FS, CDM Federal will also prepare
the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the field investigation. This plan will be used
to ensure that all sample collection and analytical activities are conducted in accordance
with technically accepted protocols, and that the data generated will meet the DQOs
established. The SAP will consist of a detailed site-specific Field Sampling and Analysis
Plan (FSAP) and a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). To save time and money,
5-4
&1!11!11 a ww1 A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
the SAP will be incorporated in the Work Plan so that only one integrated project
planning document is prepared for the project.
The FSAP will describe in detail the various field activities scoped for the RI including
the collection and analysis of soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples, as
appropriate, to determine the nature and extent of contamination for the baseline risk
assessment and for FS technology evaluation. The FSAP will state clearly the sampling
objectives; identify the location, number of samples, sample types, and analyses necessary
to define site contamination; and list the necessary equipment for performing the field
sampling activities. This plan will guide all field work, identify the individuals
responsible for site work activities, and provide detailed procedures for conducting all
field activities.
The QAPP will be prepared in accordance with CDM Federal and EPA Region IV
guidelines, for all site sampling activities. The QAPP will specify the procedures that
must be implemented to ensure that data gathered at the site are consistent with specific
quality goals of accuracy, precision, and completeness.
5.1.8 HEALTH AND SAFE1Y PLAN PREPARATION
While preparing the Work Plan and the SAP, the site-specific Health and Safety Plan
(HSP) will also be prepared to protect personnel involved in site activities and the
surrounding community. This plan will be developed in accordance with the CDM
Federal Corporate Health and Safety Plan and all applicable regulatory requirements
contained in 20 CFR 1910.120 (1) (2) -Occupational, Health, and Safety Administration,
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, Interim Rule, December 19,
1986; U.S. EPA Orders 1440.2 and 1440.3; and U.S. EPA Interim Standard Operating
Procedures (September, 1982). The HSP will provide health and safety requirements for
all CDM Federal personnel working at the site for each task identified in the Work Plan.
The HSP will describe personnel monitoring and decontamination procedures in detail,
I
5-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
and also address health and safety training procedures and requirements for all onsite
personnel. The plan will also identify problems or hazards that may be encountered and
how these are to be addressed. In addition, procedures for protecting third parties, such
as visitors or the surrounding community, will also be provided. Standard operating
procedures for ensuring worker safety will be referenced and not duplicated in the HSP.
Like the SAP, the HSP will be included as a component of the Work Plan so that only
one integrated project planning document is prepared for the project.
5.2 TASK 2 -COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT
CDM Federal's approach to community relations support planning and implementation
at the GE Site is based on program requirements specified in Community Relations in
Superfund: A Handbook (EPA/540/R-92/009), January, 1992, and on discussions with
EPA Region IV staff. CDM Federal will provide personnel, services, material, and
equipment to support EPA in implementing a community relations program. This
program will be integrated closely with all remedial activities to ensure community
understanding of actions being taken and to obtain community input regarding the
remedial activities. CDM Federal will assist EPA in performing any or all of the
activities described below which are needed to implement the community relations
program.
5.2.1 COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS
Background Data Review
CDM Federal will coordinate with the EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM) and EPA
Community Relations Coordinator (CRC) to discuss site history, particularly the
community's history and past involvement with the site, and to obtain identified and
suggested contacts at the state and local level for community interviews.
5-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Initiate Telephone Contact and Develop Interview List
CDM Federal will assist EPA in contacting appropriate personnel by telephone to gather
additional background information on the area, solicit recommendations on interview
participants, and advise them that in-person community interviews will be conducted as
part of the development of the Community Relations Plan for the GE Site. CDM
Federal will also assist EPA in preparing and having printed in the local newspaper a
public notice announcing EPA's intention to conduct interviews in the community.
CDM Federal will work with EPA to contact interview participants and schedule
interviews to be conducted on the week of the RPM's choosing. CDM Federal will assist
EPA with coordinating the meetings/interviews with state and local governments. COM
Federal will also submit a list of participants and a tentative schedule to EPA for
approval 10 days before interviews begin. A copy of the Superfund Fact Sheet:
Community Interviews and a thank you letter reconfirming the interview date and time
will be sent to all who agree to participate in the interviews.
Conduct Interviews
CDM Federal will send one community relations professional to the local area who will
assist EPA in conducting interviews in the community for three days.
Identify Public Meeting Location
During the interview trip, CDM Federal will assist EPA in gathering information
concerning possible public meeting locations which are convenient to the community and
large enough to handle a sizable crowd. CDM Federal will determine if the facility is
accessible to the handicapped, seating capacity, and audiovisual equipment availability.
5-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
For cost estimating purposes, 64 technical LOE hours have been designated for this
community interviews subtask.
5.2.2 COMMUNIIT RELATIONS PLAN DEVELOPMENT
CDM Federal will develop a draft Community Relations Plan (CRP) based upon all
available background information, discussions with EPA staff, and the concerns identified
in the community interviews. The draft CRP will present the community interview
results and selected techniques for communication between EPA and the site community
that will permit regular opportunities for public participation. The draft CRP also will
present information on community background and describe resources to be used in the
community relations program. In addition, the draft CRP will identify key information
contacts for the community and any areas of special sensitivity to be considered during
community relations activities.
CDM Federal will submit 5 copies (one unbound) of the draft CRP to EPA for review
and comment within 14 days after the completion of the community interviews. Within
10 days after receipt of EPA comments, 5 copies (one unbound) of the final CRP will be
submitted to EPA. The final CRP will be used to implement the community relations
activities. CDM Federal will also prepare and submit a draft revised CRP within 21 days
after receipt of the draft RI report, if requested by the RPM. A final revised CRP will
be submitted to EPA within 10 days after receipt of EPA's comments, if needed.
As part of this subtask, CDM Federal will assist EPA in establishing and maintaining an
information repository in the site community. This assistance will include suggesting
potential locations for the repository, establishing the EPA selected repository,
identifying the necessary materials and documents for inclusion in the repository,
preparing introductory and transmittal letters for EPA for the forwarding of documents
to the repository, and mailing documents to the repository. The information repository
will be established 5 days after the receipt of EPA comments on the Draft CRP. CDM
5-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
Federal will also assist EPA with preparing and updating the site mailing list, as
necessary.
5.2.3 PUBLIC MEETING SUPPORT AND PUBLIC NOTICE PREPARATION
Public Meeting Support
CDM Federal will provide administrative and logistical support to EPA in preparation
for three public meetings. The first public meeting will be an informal availability
session or kickoff meeting at which EPA will present details of the upcoming remedial
investigation/feasibility study and elicit community involvement and support. The second
meeting is planned as a workshop to introduce the community to the Superfund process
and the opportunities for community involvement. The third public meeting will be held
after the completion of the FS. At this meeting, EPA will present their proposed
remedial action plan for cleanup at the site and will respond to verbal comments and
questions from the community. Support activities for the three meetings will include the
following activities, as directed by EPA:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Arranging the meeting location
Arranging meeting logistics (rental and delivery of audio-visual
equipment, set-up, takedown, room fees, etc.)
Preparing a meeting agenda, sign-in sheets, name tags, cards for
participants, response cards or envelopes, and visual aids
Preparing and reproducing handouts
Coordinating a dry run of the meeting
Preparing and arranging for publication of a public notice to announce the
meeting
• Arranging for a court reporter to record the meeting proceedings
• Preparing a simple sign (not requiring outside vendors) for the meeting
5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Participating in the meeting
CDM Federal anticipates that the CDM Federal project manager will attend the
proposed plan meeting only.
Prepare Public Notices
CDM Federal will assist EPA in preparing four public notices for publication as
advertisements in the local newspaper to allow the general public to receive accurate and
timely information about community interviews, public meetings, public comment
periods, and the proposed remedial action plan. Upon EPA approval of each public
notice, CD M Federal will coordinate the publication of the notice in the local
newspaper. At EPA's request, the notices will also be mailed to all interested parties on
the mailing list.
For cost estimating purposes, 72 technical LOE hours have been designated for this
public meeting support and public notice preparation subtask.
5.2.4 FACT SHEET PREPARATION
CDM Federal will assist EPA in preparing one fact sheet. This fact sheet will outline
the history of the site, the Superfund process, and the designated work for the RI. At
EP A's request, CDM Federal will also mail the fact sheet to all interested parties on the
mailing !is t.
For cost estimating purposes, 15 technical LOE hours have been designated for this fact
sheet preparation subtask.
5-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2.5 PROPOSED PLAN PREPARATION ASSISTANCE
CDM Federal will assist EPA in preparing the proposed remedial action plan, on an "as
needed" basis as determined by the EPA RPM. CDM Federal technical staff responsible
for the RI and FS reports and the risk assessment will assist EPA in drafting the
technical portions of the proposed plan. CDM Federal will also prepare figures, tables,
and graphs, as necessary, assist with the community involvement information, and will
format and print sufficient copies of the proposed plan for distribution as directed by
EPA. The schedule for the completion of any support activities and delivery of the
appropriate documents will be established by the EPA RPM after conferring with the
CDM Federal Project Manager.
For cost estimating purposes, 54 technical LOE hours have been designated for this
proposed plan preparation assistance subtask.
5.2.6 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY PREPARATION ASSISTANCE
CDM Federal, at the completion of the public comment period and in consultation with
the EPA RPM, will assist EPA in preparing the responsiveness summary that will
accompany the EPA ROD. The summary will consist of an overview of the selected
remedy for the site and/ or changes in the remedy and any alternatives suggested by the
public which the agency had not previously considered, background on community
involvement, and a summary of comments received and Agency responses. CDM
Federal will assist EPA in formulating responses to comments of a highly technical
nature, but will rely on EPA to respond to legal questions or comments. The draft
responsiveness summary will be submitted to EPA within 21 days after receipt of
comments on the proposed plan, and the final responsiveness summary will be submitted
to EPA 14 days after receipt of EPA comments on the draft.
5-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For cost estimating purposes, 124 technical LOE hours have been designated for this
responsiveness summary preparation assistance subtask.
5.3 TASK 3 -FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation activities for the GE Site will be performed in one comprehensive
phase of field data collection efforts. The field investigation activities are divided into
the following subtasks:
• Subtask 1 -Subcontractor Procurement
• Subtask 2 -Mobilization/Demobilization
• Subtask 3 -Air Monitoring
• Subtask 4 -Private Well/Water Use Survey
• Subtask 5 -Soil Sampling
• Subtask 6 -Monitor Well Installation
• Subtask 7 -Groundwater Sampling
• Subtask 8 -Surface Water/Sediment Sampling
• Subtask 9 -Aquifer Testing and Measurement
• Subtask 10 -Ecological Survey /Sampling
All activities at the site have been planned and costed assuming Level D personnel
protection with level C contingency. A health and safety officer will be onsite at all
times during intrusive activities, providing air monitoring and site control.
Each of these subtasks is described in more detail below.
5.3.1 SUBCONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
Subcontractors will be procured for the following activities:
•
•
Groundwater monitor well installation, soil test pits, and soil borings
Ground surveying
5-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A drilling subcontractor will be selected to complete monitor well installation, excavate
test pits, conduct soil borings, grade accessways as necessary, and install a temporary
security fence for storing field equipment during the field crew's absence. A surveying
subcontractor will be selected to survey the elevations and locations of all new monitor
wells, surface water staff gages, and possibly some of the existing monitor wells that have
been replaced at the GE Site.
CDM Federal will prepare a list of bidders for each subcontract area that includes local
companies to the greatest extent possible. Statements of work describing the detailed
requirements for each service area will be prepared and combined with the contractual
language and bid sheets to form an invitation for bid (IFB). Every effort will be made to
identify at least three potential bidders for each type of service. In addition, each
solicitation will be evaluated to determine if the potential exists for award to Small
Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB).
The lowest cost, qualified, and responsive bidder will be selected for contract award.
Due to the nature of the site and its physical characteristics, only experienced
subcontractors will be considered for contract award.
5.3.2 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION
Prior to the collection of any environmental samples at the GE Site, appropriate site
facilities will be established. These facilities will consist of an office trailer and
decontamination facilities. A trailer-type office will be leased and setup onsite. This
trailer will serve as the site office for the field manager and site workers while in the
field. Sample collection equipment, coolers, site files, and a small office area will be
maintained in the trailer. Temporary utilities including telephone, electricity, and water
will also be setup for the trailer. A portable toilet will also be leased for the duration of
the RI.
5-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Temporary decontamination pads will be constructed for each of the three areas under
investigation. The temporary decontamination pads will be sloped to drain to one side
so that contaminated wash water can be easily pumped to drums.
Major routes leading to the decon areas may require crushed gravel beds. In addition,
gravel will be layed where roads are unstable. This will reduce the chance of
contaminants being transported offsite by vehicle tires.
Mobilization will also include travel to and from the site, and the procurement and
proper return of all unused sampling supplies and equipment needed to perform the
field investigation.
5.3.3 AIR MONITORING
During the field investigation, CDM Federal personnel will perform air monitoring for
health and safety purposes using an OVA and/ or HNu, dustmeter, and explosimeter.
During all intrusive activities, continuous air monitoring will occur to ensure worker
safety. The potential risk from airborne contaminants will be associated with the
occurrence of organic vapors from contaminated groundwater and respirable dust
generated from contaminated surface soil. Local climatic data (wind speed, wind
direction, etc.) will be used to guide the monitoring program.
5.3.4 PRIVATE WELL/WATER USE SURVEY
At the beginning of the field investigation, CDM Federal will perform a private
well/water use survey within an approximate one-mile radius of the site (from the center
of each of the subsites). This area is shown in Figure 5-1. An estimated 1,000
residences will be surveyed during this task. The intent of this survey is ( 1) to quickly
identify the people most at risk through the groundwater pathway from the site, so that
appropriate sampling of private residential and industrial wells can be made, and (2) to
5-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE MAP (HENDERSONVILLE. NC) 1990
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PRIVATEWELL/WATERUSESURVEYAREA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
~ i-w ~ w ....
0 ~
w ...J -,: u
V1
FIGURE NUMBER
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
identify and evaluate exposure routes for the risk assessment. A short questionnaire will
be prepared by CDM Federal for EPA approval, prior to conducting the survey. This
questionnaire will be completed by CDM Federal staff for each household or business
contacted during the survey. For those residences or businesses in which contact could
not be made on the initial visit, the questionnaire will be left ( along with a stamped
CDM Federal return envelope) for the resident to complete and return.
A letter report which summarizes the results of the private well/water use survey will be
submitted to EPA after all the information from the questionnaires have been compiled.
This will aid in the selection of residential and industrial wells to be sampled.
5.3.5 SOIL SAMPLING
To help characterize and determine the extent of waste disposal and soils contamination,
and to help determine the potential for contaminated soil to be entrained and
transported by the air pathway, both surface and subsurface soil samples will be collected
at each of the subsites in this RI/FS. The general approach to soil sampling is described
in Section 4.1 (Work Plan Approach}.
A maximum total of 102 surface soil samples and 93 subsurface soil samples will be
collected from the subsites and sent to ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete
TCL/T AL analyses at DQO Level IV.
To provide data concerning the local chemical quality of the soils at the site, background
soil samples will be collected from six locations near the GE Site. Surface soil samples
will be collected at each of the six locations from O to 1 foot below land surface. At
three of the background locations soil borings will be drilled with samples collected at
approximately 5 feet below land surface and just above the water table interface. These
background locations will be determined in the field, from areas that appear to be
unaffected by site operations or other development. A maximum total of 12 background
5-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
soil samples will be collected. Samples collected from the background locations will be
used to establish the typical chemical quality of both surface and subsurface soil at the
site.
The proposed locations for the surface soil samples ( not including the contingency or
background samples) are shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-4 for the GE, Seldon Clark,
and Shepherd Fann subsites, respectively. Note that these sample locations are
approximate. Actual locations will be determined in the field based on the actual
physical characteristics of the subsites, observed evidence of contamination, and
accessibility to the sampling locations. All surface soil samples will be collected from 0
to 1 foot below land surface.
The proposed locations for the soil borings at each subsite are also shown in Figures 5-2
through 5-4 (not including the three background locations and the three locations at the
Seldon Clark subsite ). Note again that these sample locations are approximate, and that
actual locations will be determined in the field based on the actual physical
characteristics of the subsites and accessibility to the sample locations. The soil borings
will be drilled at each subsite only after the surface soil samples have been collected
from those locations. Continuous split spoon samples will be collected down to the
water table interface and will be geologically logged to define the lithology of the
geologic units. All borings will be terminated just above the water table interface, where
the last sample will be collected. Hollow stem augering will be used to drill the soil
borings.
As shown in Figure 5-3, five test pits will be excavated at the Seldon Clark subsite. The
locations of these test pits will be determined in the field. Excavation of the pits will be
performed with either a backhoe or trackhoe. The excavated material will be stockpiled
adjacent to each test pit, and if necessary, will be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent
wind and water erosion. A soil sample will be collected from the bucket of the
5-17
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
'
/
·' , _ .... ,," ...
,
-_,, ·--:::--'
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
EPROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
' ,, " '' ' ' ' ' ' '
! \
► ' . ' ~ '
0 ' ~ ' :A/ I-' y ,
FIGURE NUMBER
5-2
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f-w w a:
f-
<f)
<f) w z
0 --,
I
I
I
I
I •
I
I
~
I f ~
I ~
I •
1-z <( _J 0...
er:: •w
§<("
LLW er:: 0<(
w I-_J <( _J
2.LL
1-
(f) • w
3nN3A\1 ONOJ3S
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
"' Cl'. :J "' z <!
f-
Cl'.
<! (l_
<f)
<f)
:J
z 0 ;:: ., u 0 ---' w ---' CL ~ ~ "'~ d 3 00 "'---' w~ ~1 ~ ~ w ~ ~ c::,
w •I ...J
FIGURE NUMBER
5-3
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7'
/
0 0 N ~ 0 ~
Q-'
Q-'
~ w w lL ;,: w _, <! u "'
I
I
;I w WI " u,
<
'5' ~,
41 "' I
j ' /,,' I I ,/ I
<! WJ cc<! "~ oO w~ ~~ <6
~l,. :;;o w
" '
w ~ =,
0 "
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
§ ; V 0 J ~ • , < -d ~ w V 01 ~ z " w " "' -~ •◄
' '
FIGURE NUMBER
5-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
I
backhoe/trackhoe when waste material is encountered in the pit. Once the sample has
been collected, the stockpiled soil will be used to backfill the pit.
5.3.6 MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
For the purposes of cost-effectively estimating the extent of groundwater contamination,
up to 24 new monitor wells (in 10 two-well clusters, 1 three-well cluster, and 1 single
well} will be installed at the GE Site. The proposed general location for these wells
within the GE, Seldon Clark, and Shepherd Farm subsites are shown in Figures 5-5
through 5-7, respectively. The actual locations will be determined in the field based on
accessibility. All wells will be located at least 50 feet from any significant surface water
feature.
Shallow wells will be screened to monitor groundwater at the water table interface.
Intermediate wells will be screened to monitor groundwater in the bedrock 10 to 20 feet
below the soil/bedrock interface and deep wells will be screened to monitor groundwater
in the bedrock 60 to 70 feet below the soil/bedrock interface.
All monitor wells will be installed according to EPA standards specified in the
Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
Manual, U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services Division, February 1, 1991. Any
permanent monitor well that is installed on private property will either be constructed
with a flush mount or with stick-up casing, depending on which type of construction is
preferred by the property owner. Procedures for drilling, constructing, and developing
the wells, and decontaminating the equipment are described in detail in Section 9 .0. All
decontamination by-products, all drill cuttings, all well development water, and all purge
water will be handled as follows:
• All alcohol decontamination by-products will be containerized in 55-
gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE Facility for future
disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation.
5-21
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
GE PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
" w
' & ' " •
: J / 1/\1 ' , ' , ' ,' 1,.,, ....
FIGURE NUMBER
5-5
I ~ i f-z I <[ 0 _J -' -' Q_ w -' ,. ~ .., a: I w 0 w ,. ~ (.'.) "' z 0 0 ~ :E z w 0 ~ ·1 :E "' e< c □i3 l .. z i ~ w :c -I rJ3 Ot,-~ 08
00'
I &o I &t,-.(
I
I I 0::: w
I I 2
0:::
I
0 <[
LL W
0:::
I >-
I
o <[ e w w w
0:: f-_J >-
Cf) I <t _J )-
i f-<t
! I w Cf) 21.L ;: w w :i:
~ lJ... z ~ f-C) 0 (f) 'i: rJ3 z -,
~ 0 w C)
0:: / w ::, I ...J Cil <l: <! z u 0:: <t i U1 I 0 ~
0:: 2 <! I 0:: D..
I 0 ::: >-
Cf) lJ)
c:::
I I ui
:::,
3nN3/\'1 ONOJ3S
I rJ3
I
I CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV FIGURE NUMBER
PROPOSED MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
d SELDON CLARK PROPERTY 5-6 GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
B EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
a
D
I
I
I
0 ~ ~ w 0 w , u. 0 :;; w _, <! u ~ "'
~,
w \;JI
" I ~ \5 I w,
:;,
"' I
l
I
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
I I I ◄
PROPOSED MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
J J J ~ ~ " 0 • • J " J ~ w 0 • • ~ " 0 2 w , • ~ 0 • • • w 0 ~ 0 , , 01 j " • ~ z <I I..; w <:: ~ @J@~
FIGURE NUMBER
5-7
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
-
D
I
I
I
I
•
0
•
All rinsate decontamination by-products will be contained in a small
hand-dug decontamination pit away from the borehole, and allowed
to infiltrate into the subsurface.
All drill cuttings will be containerized in 55-gallon drums, labeled,
and stored at the GE Facility for future disposal during the RD/RA
phase of site remediation.
All development water and purge water will be containerized in 55-
gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE Facility for future
disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation.
Note that these procedures will apply to all field investigation activities.
The drilling, construction, and development of all wells will be performed under the
continuous supervision of an experienced hydrogeologist. All wells will be installed in a
manner that will minimize the chances of cross-contamination.
Typical well construction details for the monitor wells are shown in Figures 5-8 through
5-10 for a shallow, intermediate, and deep well, respectively. All shallow and
intermediate monitor wells will be composed of 2-inch diameter, type 316 stainless steel
well casing and screen. Deep wells will be composed of 2-inch diameter, type 316
stainless steel well casing and constructed as open-hole wells. The length of the open-
hole portion of the well will be determined in the field, with the minimum length being
10 feet. However, the length will depend on the number of water-bearing fractures
encountered during drilling. The intermediate wells will have a surface casing installed
through the soil and at least 3 feet into competent bedrock. The deep wells will have a
surface casing installed through the soil and into competent bedrock to a depth of
approximately 10 feet above the total depth of the well. This casing will be at least 6
inches in diameter and constructed of carbon steel. Screen lengths will generally be 10
feet, and slot sizes in the screens will be 0.010-inch. Every effort will be made to prevent
heaving of the formation materials during construction of the wells. If heaving of the
formation materials does not occur during construction of the well, clean quartz sand,
5-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROTECTIVE STEEL
CASING -
co~~jm ~ .. c;:==::::;::i,
-CAP WITH LOCK
-PROTECTIVE POST
2" STAINL1/SS
/ PROTECTIVE COVER
CONCRETE\
r STEEL CASING FLUSH MOUNTED \
PAD \
t---.hra-:::-~ ,/ ' '
II :1 L{1 I IWIN
'-~ 7'---""-"'tm
,,
:.•
·::.
II 11
IWI
'-~
BENTONITE
SEAL
2" DIA. STAINLESS --
STEEL SCREEN
·!: ·,'.. ·"--~ --SAND PACK-------L
.,,_ __ : :::.:_._:.-·.:-:·:'
SOIL
BEDROCK
CAP WITH LOCK
.,. ~-·::,! /N :·~
':_;·:
·.-· 0
" '
NOT TO SCALE
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV FIGURE NUMBER
SHALLOW MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE 5-8
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCRETE PAD
PROTECTIVE
POSTS-\
'o
/
CAP WITH LOCK
/
PROTECTIVE
STEEL CASING
c;=::::::::::;:
/
II 11
IWI
~J
14" BOREHOLE
CARBON STEEL
CASING
2" STAINLESS STEEL
CASING
2" OIA.-~-
STAINL[SS STEEL
SCREEN
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
CONCRETE PAO
FLUSH MOUNTED
PROTECTIVE COV[R
INTERNAL CAP
WITH LOCK
,I,
SOIL
B[OROCK
'o
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE NUMBER
INTERMEDIATE MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE 5-9
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"! N
"' "'
PROTECTIVE POST CAP WITH LOCK
II II
IUI
SOIL
PROTECTIVE
CASING
BEDROCK
II II
IUI
~~
CONCRETE
PAD
14"
BOREHOLE
10" DIA.
CARBON STEEL
CASING
BENTONITE/
CEMENT
GROUT
4" STAINLESS
STEEL CASING
8" BOREHOLE
____,---,-t DIA. OPEN HOLE
_,.,-----BEDROCK WELL
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
FLUSH MOUNTED
PROTECTIVE COVER
14"
BOREHOLE
10" DIA.
CARBON STEEL
CASING
BENTONITE/
CEMENT
GROUT
4" STAINLESS
STEEL CASING
8'' BOREHOLE
____,---,-2" DIA. OPEN HOLE _,.,-----BEDROCK WELL
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE NUMBER
DEEP MONITOR WELL CONSTRUCTION DIAGRAM
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE 5-10
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
graded to a larger particle size than the screen slots, will be used to pack the annular
space adjacent to the screen. However, if heaving of the formation materials cannot be
prevented, the filter pack will be constructed with a mixture of the formation materials
and the clean quartz sands described above. The filter pack will extend at least 2 feet
above the top of the screen. A 2-foot thick bentonite seal will be placed above the sand
pack. The annular space above the bentonite will be grouted to the surface. All stick-up
casing monitor wells will be finished with concrete pads at the ground surface, locking
protective casings, and bumper posts surrounding the well. All flush mount monitor
wells will be finished with concrete pads constructed level with the ground surface and
locking flush mounted protective covers.
Hollow-stem auger and air rotary are anticipated for use on this project. All the shallow
aquifer monitor wells will be drilled using hollow-stem augering. Intermediate and deep
wells will be drilled using air rotary methods.
5.3.7 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
After completion of monitor well installation, groundwater samples will be collected
from each newly installed monitor well, each existing monitor well (except for MW-38
through MW-44 which were not constructed for groundwater sampling purposes), and up
to ten private wells affected by the site. The selection of the private wells will be based
on the results of the private well/water use survey conducted under Subtask 4, and will
be made in consultation with EPA. The groundwater samples will be sent to ESD or a
CLP laboratory for complete TCL/TAL analyses.
As part of this subtask, five staff gages will also be installed in the adjacent surface
waters. Three will be placed in Bat Fork Creek (upstream, at the effluent outfall, and
downstream) at the GE subsite, as shown in Figure 5-5, and two in Bat Fork Creek
(upstream and downstream) at the Shepherd Farm subsite, as shown in Figure 5-7. The
elevation of each staff gage will be surveyed and the surface water elevation ( during a
5-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
baseflow time period) will be recorded based on the staff gage reading. At the same
time the surface water elevations are recorded, groundwater level measurements will also
be collected from each new and existing monitor well. In addition, baseflow
measurements will be taken at the staff gage locations. These data will provide
information on the groundwater flow directions and velocities at the site, and also help
evaluate the groundwater surface water interaction.
5.3.8 AQUIFER TESTING AND MEASUREMENT
To provide additional data on the contaminant transport properties of the aquifer
system, the tests described below will be conducted on the aquifer system materials. The
results of these tests will be used to help evaluate the fate and transport of the
contaminants within the aquifer system.
During drilling of six soil borings at the GE subsite and three soil borings at the
Shepherd Farm subsite, one Shelby tube soil sample will be collected from unsaturated
soils in each boring. These nine Shelby tube samples will be sent to a
geotechnical/geochemical laboratory and tested for the following parameters:
• Specific gravity
• Moisture content
• Bulk density
• Porosity
• pH
• Total organic carbon content
• Grain size
After the permanent monitor wells have been constructed and sampled, in situ hydraulic
conductivity tests (slug tests) will be conducted in each new monitor well constructed in
the surficial aquifer to estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer
media. The slug tests will be performed by causing an instantaneous change in the water
5-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
''
I
I
I
level in the well, and continuously logging the change in water level as it recovers until
the well water has stabilized again.
As part of this subtask, each new monitor well will be surveyed vertically and
horizontally by a surveying subcontractor. In addition, monitor wells that have been
replaced by GE on their property may be surveyed. One round of groundwater level
measurements will then be collected from each new and each existing monitor well.
These water level measurements will be used to construct groundwater contour maps
which indicate the principal directions of groundwater flow at the site.
5.3.9 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
Samples of surface water and bottom sediments will be collected both onsite and offsite
at the GE Site. This will help determine and evaluate surface water contaminant
migration pathways, potential ecological impacts from groundwater contamination
through groundwater discharge to surface waters, and the extent of surface
water/sediment contamination. The proposed general sample locations for eleven
surface water/sediment samples are shown in Figures 5-11 through 5-13 for the GE,
Seldon Clark, and Shepherd Farm subsites, respectively. Surface water/sediment
samples will be collected from four locations along Bat Fork Creek and one location
from the spring at the GE subsite. One surface water/sediment sample will be collected
from the storm drain at the Seldon Clark subsite. Finally, surface water /sediment
samples will be collected from three locations along Bat Fork Creek and from two
locations along the Unnamed Creek at the Shepherd Farm subsite.
Note that three upstream locations are indicated in Figures 5-9 and 5-11: one in Bat
Fork Creek upgradient of the GE subsite and one each in Bat Fork Creek and the
Unnamed Creek upgradient of the Shepherd Farm subsite. Samples collected from these
locations will be used to establish the background quality of surface water and sediment.
5-31
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
·~----------~_j ... :--,_c---_ / .... _,, ~,.,
/5 1/
r{ _l1
i..,
0
_,
1 I I I //1/ /JJ_1.iJ_1.iJ_1.iJ_I.IJ.lji ~ :; __ ,,' II
::2 0
,;'' /1'/t/'1'/1'!1'/,i'/,'i/J ) •
,, I I I,' I 1" /, r" /,r" I.I" 11" II" 1 '
I
I
• I
~ I ~ 01
~ I
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED SURFACE WATER/
EDIMENT AMPLE L CATIONS - E PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
' ,, " ,,
'
' ' ' ' " ' . ' " ' -' . ' ~ '
0 ' . ' :~·: ' ' ' , ' , ' ,
FIGURE NUMBER
s·-11
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.... w w a: ....
f-ti) i w ti) w w
/ LL z
0 z --, ~ 0
/ w
_J
<!
0 u
0 <n
f-..,.~
I ~ <( c::
I 0
:a: a:
I 0 ....
ti)
I
r-z <r _J c_ w (.'.)
0:: w
2
0:: o<r
u_W
0:: O<r w r-_J <r _J
2LL
r-
(fl
w
3nN31117 ONOJ3S
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
;:
"' " I
Q
C) a: :::,
CD z
"' .... a:
<(
Q. ~
"' !:::
ui
:::,
PROPOSED SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLE
CATIONS -ELD N CLARK PR PERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NUMBER
5-12
-------"ti ;;o r-0 ~;g I J G) ~! / ~ m enc (/) -;;o ... en , ~ :c en~ o ... m :Co ~ ,, "ti mm .,, O :C "ti m o m :c:E o >< ;;o m 6 C ~~ ~ :: -n cm ;:; " ,. ~;o 01 0 q () ::o ► en ~ 0 °" ~ :!: ::om < Q q ~ en ::=c 0 '" z -"ti::: I )> -I ::0 m m Oz "ti -I I II , men , ::0 )> , ' ~::: "ti r-m I ij ~ I 4 ; .,, ci 01 C: ,, I m z ~ C: w 3: m m ,, ------------~-f 1,1 a ,S,,s, . ; -250 0 125 250 BA1 fQRK CREEK - - - --·---~"'"'"' m.' )~ --.....J HILL HOUSE ,, , i\i,..,4,t," -'0 --[R~Cff ESllMATED AREA OF DISPOSAL ---I, ---;~,_ Q\~ 0 0 SPRING HAVEN TRAILER PARK LEGEND -11\ SURFACE WATER/SEOIMENI ~ SAMPLE LOCAllON
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
Surface water samples will be collected from the middle of the standing water column
and will be collected directly into the sample container, where possible. The sediment
samples will be collected at the same locations as the surface water samples. The
sediment samples will be collected from the upper foot of sediment in depositional areas,
when possible, using decontaminated stainless steel sampling devices.
All the above surface water and sediment samples will be sent to ESD or a CLP
laboratory for complete TCL/TAL analyses.
5.3.10 ECOLOGICAL SURVEY/SAMPLING
The ecological effort at the GE Site requires an evaluation of the environmental setting
by a field biologist. This inventory of the biological community in the area will include a
description of the vegetative communities, identification of habitat types, physical and
chemical characteristics of the aquatic environment, occurrence of terrestrial and aquatic
animals, and any obvious zones of chemical contamination that could result in ecological
exposure.
The preliminary ecological survey/ sampling study will also include the collection of fish
tissue from Bat Fork Creek and analysis for PCBs. A total of seven stations will be
established. Four stations will be associated with the GE subsite (see Figure 5-14) and
three stations will be associated with the Shepherd Farm subsite (see Figure 5-15).
These locations will be in the same general area as the surface water/ sediment sample
collected under Subtask 9. At each station, fish will be collected by electroshocking, and
the tissue will be analyzed for PCBs. At least five fish tissue samples will be collected at
each sample station. The standard sample weight is 100 grams.
If possible, creek chub are the recommended species for tissue collection. Creek chub
are carnivorous as adults, and diet is a major route of PCB uptake in many species of
fish. Therefore, a carnivorous fish would have the highest probability of biomagnifying
5-35
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
r
J
' , , ___ ... ,, '
' '
,, ~ ....... . --~
.,, , ... ',.'• •. ;,r·, l/!!'./1'/1''/";1' ' , .
_I ,,' ,, ,j //////l/,1;;;;•;;;;1
;, ,l/////1'///1'/l/,I///I
COM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROPOSED FISH SAMPLE LOCATIONS
GE PROPERTY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK. NORTH CAROLINA
' '
' ' ' '
FIGURE NUMBER
5-14
----""D ;:u m G) ~~ I) )> !!! ~ en -um :,,-~ :::c :::C C ~ m m"'T'I o :0 ""D ::o-0 0 :::c C en ;:: R m "'T'I :::c ;;1 . ::0 >en ~ 6 C ::0 > :0 ~ "'T'I s: s: '/! :,:: > ""D ""D ~ ~ ::0 ::o' 0 2! s: !il~ ~I c: en z -mO )> -I ::0 0 m ::;! ~ CJ1 I .Jr. CJ1 0 z en .., c;i C: :u m z C: 3: m m :u ■ ---0 q /? Q q b '" " ~ II , , - ----~ X B.0.1 fQRK CREEK --- - ---,, ,,., -, U,v'v4 ---.J Hlll HOUSE -,-t1co ' C, ---"i'.-9. ,.~ 4c-rs -[;;;; SPRING HAVEN TRAILER PARK --- -~ 1,1 ' -?50 O 125 2'.,0 SCALE IN FEET ·~~ -. -~, LEGEND -0 f!S!I SAMPLE LOCA IION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PCBs, allowing for detection of PCBs in an area where the medium concentration may
be less than the detection limit. A sample size of five will serve adequately to assess
individual variability in fat content, but will not be a large enough sample size to
evaluate statistical differences between sites. The fish tissue samples will be shipped to
ESD or a CLP laboratory for PCB analysis.
Table 5-1 presents a numerical summary of all proposed samples (maximum) to be
collected for laboratory analysis for the GE Site remedial investigation.
5.4 TASK 4 -SAMPLE MANAGEMENT
CDM Federal will develop and implement a site-specific data management system that
includes maintaining field logs, sample management and tracking procedures, and
document control and inventory procedures for both laboratory data and field
measurements to ensure that the data collected during the investigation are of adequate
quality and quantity to support the risk assessment and the feasibility study. All sample
management procedures used in this investigation will be in accordance with the
standards specified in the Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, February 1, 1991. Collected data will be validated at the appropriate field or
laboratory QC level (see Table 4-1) to determine if it is appropriate for its intended use.
All subcontracted laboratory analyses and quality assurance procedures used will be in
accordance with the applicable EPA methodologies for sample storage, preparation,
analyses, and data interpretation. CDM Federal assumes that validation of any analytical
laboratory data received from the CLP laboratories or the subcontracted laboratories will
be performed by the Environmental Services Division of EPA. The analysis and
validation results of this task will be incorporated in the RI report.
5-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPLE TYPE
Soil
Surface
Subsurface
Groundwater
Surface Water
Sediment
Fish Tissue
Subtotal
QA/QC SAMPLES
Duplicates
Rinsates
Water Supply
Organic-Free System
Sand
Bentonite
Grout
ESD Blanks (soil & water) <•>
ESD Spikes (soil & water) Cb>
ESD ICS (water only) '''
Trip Blanks (water only) "'
MS/MSD <•>
Subtotal
TOTAL SAMPLES
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SAMPLE COLLECTION
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER
ESD/CLP Geotechnical/Geochemical Laboratory
TCL TAL PCBs Specific gravity, moisture content, bulk density,
porosity, pH, total organic carbon, grain size
102 102
93 93 9
82 82
11 11
11 11
7
299 299 7 9
30 30
4 4
3 3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
20 20
20 10
0 10
10 0
60 60
91 81
390 380 7 9
(o) Based on a 10-week field schedule. One set per week for each medium (soil and water) will be sent to lab for TCL and
T AL analysis.
,,,
(d)
,.,
Based on a 10-week field schedule. One set per week for each medium (soil and water) will be sent to lab for TCL
analysis. There are no spikes made for TAL soil analysis.
Based on a 10-week field schedule. One set per week for water will be sent to lab for T AL analysis. There are no ICS
made for TCL water analysis.
Based on a 10-week field schedule. One trip blank will be sent per shipment.
Not counted as a separate sarn pie.
5-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-1 presents a numerical summary of all proposed samples (maximum) to be
collected for laboratory analysis for the GE Site RI/FS. Descriptions of the QA/QC
samples are provided in Section 14.0.
5.5 TASK 5 -DATA EVALUATION
5.5.1 DATA REDUCTION AND TABULATION
CDM Federal will analyze all site investigation data and present the results of the
analyses in an organized and logical manner so that the relationships between site
investigation results are apparent. The data evaluated will include well construction
details, water level measurements, water quality measurements, aquifer test data, etc.
The data evaluation process may include tabulation, computer analysis, graphic
representation, or other methods that aid in the evaluation of the data and
conceptualization of the results. The results of this data evaluation subtask will be
presented in the Site Characterization Summary report and the RI report (see Task 8).
5.5.2 GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
As part of data evaluation, a three-dimensional groundwater flow and contaminant
transport model will be developed and used to help evaluate extent and concentrations
of contaminants, predict future dispersion and migration patterns, and to help analyze
alternative remedial actions for groundwater at the site. The model codes to be used in
this analysis are the DYNFLOW (DYNamic groundwater FLOW simulation) and
DYNTRACK (DYNamic particle TRACKing) computer programs developed by CDM in
1982. These codes have been peer reviewed and validated by the International
Groundwater Modeling Center at the Holcomb Research Institute, and have been
accepted for use on Superfund sites by EPA.
5-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The groundwater model will be setup and calibrated to the extent possible using the data
collected during this remedial investigation, as well as data collected in previous studies.
These data may include hydrostratigraphic data, hydraulic and contaminant transport
properties, stresses (pumping and rainfall recharge), water levels, water quality data, etc.
Once the model is calibrated, it will be used to predict the ultimate fate of the
contaminants under various potential remedial action alternatives. These potential
remedial action alternatives may include:
• Natural flushing (no action)
• Plume containment by hydraulic measures, such as pumping
• Plume containment by physical measures, such as slurry walls
• Plume extraction by pumping
For each of the remedial alternatives addressed, the model will be used to predict the
future extent and migration of contaminants and the potential interaction with sensitive
receptors. The effectiveness of each remedial alternative will then be evaluated based
on the model results.
A modeling summary describing model development and calibration will be prepared
and included in the RI report (see Task 11). The model analysis results for the no
action alternative simulation will also be included in the RI report. The model analysis
results for the other remedial action alternative simulations will be included in the FS
report. Water level contour maps will be prepared for each remedial alternative
scenario analyzed indicating the impacts of the alternative on the aquifer system. Maps
depicting the extent of contamination and its movement for the various scenarios will
also be prepared. The results of this modeling analysis will then be evaluated in
conjunction with different treatment alternatives to recommend a preferred groundwater
remedial action alternative.
5-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.6 TASK 6 -BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
5.6.1 DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION
COM Federal will tabulate the data collected during the RI to show the frequency of
detection, the arithmetic mean (using only samples with detected contamination "hits"),
the range of detects, the range of background concentrations, and the sample collection
dates. Estimated ("J" values) will be included. Tentatively identified compounds ("N"
values) will be included on the list of chemicals of potential concern if there is reason to
believe that the chemicals may be linked to past site use.
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) will be selected from this list of positively identified
chemicals detected in at least one sample. The criteria used to select the COCs will
include toxicity, concentration, and frequency of occurrence.
5.6.2 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND DOCUMENTATION
COM Federal will identify actual and potential exposure points and contaminants
migration pathways as part of the exposure assessment. Reasonable maximum estimates
of exposure will be developed for both current and future land-use assumptions.
Exposure factors will be taken from EP A's Standard Default Exposure Factors, OSWER
Directive 9285.6-03. COM Federal will identify exposure pathways based on the sources,
release types and locations of chemicals at the site; the likely environmental fates of
these chemicals; and the locations and activities of the at-risk populations. Exposure
points and route of exposure (e.g., ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact) will be
identified for each exposure pathway.
5-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.6.3 TOXICI1Y ASSESSMENT AND DOCUMENTATION
CDM Federal will produce a toxicity assessment of the COCs using data derived from
IRIS and HEAST for inclusion in the baseline risk assessment report. Where
information is not available in IRIS or HEAST, other reputable data sources will be
searched.
The assessment will summarize the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposure; the relationships between the magnitude of exposure and adverse
effects; and the uncertainties concerning contaminants toxicity ( e.g., weight of evidence
for chemical's carcinogenicity). Toxicity information for each chemical will be
summarized in the baseline risk assessment (BRA) report with a reference to IRIS.
5.6.4 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
CDM Federal will combine the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
characterize the current and potential risks to human health posed by contamination at
the site. The risk characterization will identify uncertainties associated with the selection
of COCs, toxicity information, and the exposure assessment. CDM Federal will calculate
Remediation Goal Options based on site-specific information. The media, COCs,
exposure scenarios, and exposure assumptions will be the same as those used in the
baseline risk assessment. The analysis will include exposures under both current and
future use conditions. For carcinogens, concentrations corresponding to lE-6, lE-5 and
lE-4 risk levels will be presented. For noncarcinogens, concentrations that correspond to
Hazard Indices of 0.1, 1, and 10 will be presented for each exposure scenario evaluated
in the baseline risk assessment.
5-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
CDM Federal will assess the risks to the environment posed by the COCs. The
assessment will include a statement of the goals and scope of the ecological assessment;
identification of the contaminants of ecological concern; identification of all potential
and existing exposure pathways; the identification of dominant species of fauna and flora;
identification of possible habitats of endangered and threatened species; estimation of
the receptors' exposure to the site contaminants; estimation of the ecological effects of
the contaminants using literature reviews and computer databases; and an estimation of
the nature and extent of ecological risk or threat and environmental impact resulting
from the contamination at the site. Appropriate federal, state, and local agencies will be
contacted for information concerning threatened and endangered species, and critical or
sensitive habitats. This assessment will include the site and immediately surrounding
areas which could potentially be affected.
The environmental assessment will also include a Tier I assessment of risk to fish bases
on the RI sampling results. The Tier I evaluation of risk to fish will compare fish tissue
concentrations of PCBs to existing toxicological literature to evaluate potential risk to the
species sampled. As discussed in Section 3, interspecies sensitivity to PCBs varies widely,
even among taxonomically related species. Therefore, comparisons of creek chub tissue
concentrations to acceptable toxicant concentrations reported in the literature for brook
trout and fathead minnows can give a general indication of the potential risks to creek
chub, but such comparisons are associated with a large amount of uncertainty. In
addition, analysis of individual tissue samples from field collected fish may be difficult to
interpret, since factors such as age, life stage, fat content, and actual exposure cannot be
controlled. Therefore, the results of the Tier I evaluation will only indicate whether
contaminants in the aquatic ecosystem are bioconcentrating and biomagnifying in the
individuals collected. The Tier I assessment will also a review of the analytical data
from the environmental media and evaluate qualitatively whether PCOCs other than
5-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PCBs may be present at concentrations that could present an ecological risk to
passerines or to terrestrial species that may be of value.
The environmental assessment will be included in the BRA Report.
5.6.6 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
Following completion of the various risk assessment tasks, COM Federal will prepare a
draft BRA report for the GE Site. The BRA report will document in detail the results
of the baseline risk assessment and the conclusions drawn from these results. All
supporting data, information, and calculations will be included in the report and all
documents and publications used in its preparation will be properly referenced. CDM
Federal will deliver 7 copies ( one unbound) of the draft BRA report within 30 days after
submittal of the Site Characterization Report (see Task 8). Within 14 days after receipt
of EPA comments on the draft BRA Report, CDM Federal will respond to EPA's
comments in a letter, indicating how the comments will be incorporated or addressed in
the final BRA Report. Within 14 days after EPA approval of the draft BRA Report
comment response letter, CDM Federal will prepare and deliver 7 copies (one unbound)
of the final BRA Report addressing EP A's comments.
5.7 TASK 7 -TREATABILI1Y STUDIES PLANNING
CDM Federal will conduct bench and/or pilot studies as necessary to determine the
suitability of remedial technologies to site conditions and problems. Technologies that
may be suitable to the site will be identified and a literature survey to identify applicable
treatability data will be conducted as early as possible to determine if there is a need to
conduct treatability studies to better estimate costs and performance capabilities. The
results will be presented in a technical memorandum to EPA. This memorandum will
discuss the need for treatability studies, and if necessary, candidate technologies will be
5-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
listed along with the data and technology requirements. This memorandum will be
submitted to EPA within 14 days after receipt of EPA comments on the remedial
alternatives screening memorandum.
Should treatability studies be required, a treatability study work plan, SAP, and HSP will
be prepared. The work plan will identify the types and goals of the studies, the level of
effort needed, a schedule for completion, estimated costs, and the data management
guidelines to be submitted to EPA for review and approval. The SAP will consist of a
detailed site-specific FSAP and QAPP for collecting the samples needed to perform the
treatability studies. The HSP will provide the health and safety requirements for all
COM Federal personnel working at the site for each task identified in the Treatability
Studies Work Plan. These submittals will be made in the time frame required to
maintain steady progress of the overall feasibility study. Upon EPA approval, a test
facility and any necessary equipment, vendors, and analytical services will be procured by
COM Federal.
Upon completion of the testing, COM Federal will evaluate the results to assess the
technologies with respect to the goals identified in the treatability study work plan. A
report summarizing the testing program and its results will be prepared by COM Federal
and submitted to EPA as identified in the treatability study work plan. COM Federal
will implement all management and QC review activities for this task.
Note that the level of effort, schedule, and costs included in this work plan for this task
are for conducting the literature survey and for preparing the technical memorandum
discussing the need for treatability studies only. Should treatability studies be required,
an amendment to the work assignment will be required to prepare the work plan, SAP,
HSP, and to perform the treatability studies.
5-46
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.8 TASK 8 -RI REPORTS
Following compilation of the data collected during the field investigation and from the
analytical laboratories, CDM Federal will prepare a Site Characterization Summary
Report for submission to EPA. This document will present all the field and analytical
laboratory data in an organized and logical manner so that the relationships between site
investigation results for each medium are apparent. At a minimum, the data presented
will include well construction details, sample and well location maps, water level contour
maps, tabulated analytical data, and aquifer testing results. CDM Federal will submit 7
copies (one unbound) of the Site Characterization Summary Report to EPA within 14
days after receipt of all ESD/CLP data.
Following completion of the data evaluation task (excluding the modeling of
groundwater remedial action alternatives), CDM Federal will prepare an RI report for
presenting the RI results. The report will document in detail the activities conducted
during the remedial investigation, present the results of each remedial investigation
activity, and discuss the conclusions drawn from the remedial investigation results. All
supporting data, information, and calculations will be included in appendices to the
report, and all documents and publications used in preparing the report will be properly
referenced.
CDM Federal will first prepare a draft RI Report and submit 7 copies (one unbound) of
the draft report to EPA for review within 30 days after submittal of the Site
Characterization Report. Within 14 days after receipt of EPA comments on the draft RI
Report, CDM Federal will respond to EPA's comments in a letter, indicating how the
comments will be incorporated or addressed in the final RI Report. Within 14 days after
EPA approval of the draft RI Report comment response letter, CDM Federal will
prepare and deliver 7 copies (one unbound) of the final RI Report addressing EPA's
comments.
5-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.9 TASK 9 -REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND
SCREENING
CDM Federal will develop a range of distinct hazardous waste management alternatives
that will remediate or control any contamination at the site, as deemed necessary, based
on the remedial investigation results, to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment. The potential alternatives will encompass, as appropriate, the
following:
•
•
•
A range of alternatives in which treatment is used to reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of wastes. The range will vary in the types of
treatment, the amount treated, and the manner in which long-term
residuals or untreated wastes are managed.
Alternatives involving both containment and treatment components
Alternatives involving containment with little or no treatment
• A no-action alternative
Alternatives that involve minimal efforts to reduce potential exposures ( e.g., site fencing,
deed restrictions) will be presented as "limited action" alternatives.
The subtasks described below will be performed in sequential order to determine the
appropriate range of alternatives for the site. The results of the following subtasks will
be summarized in a technical memorandum to EPA. This technical memorandum will
include an alternatives array summary which may be modified by EPA to ensure
evaluation of a complete and appropriate range of viable alternatives during the detailed
analysis phase (see Task 10). The technical memorandum will document the methods,
rationale, and results of the alternatives screening process. This memorandum will be
submitted to EPA within 30 days after receipt of comments from EPA on the draft BRA
Report.
5-48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I r
' I
I
I
I
I
I
5.9.1 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES ESTABLISHMENT
Based on the information collected during the RI, COM Federal will review and, if
necessary, refine the remedial action objectives that were established in the project
planning phase (see Section 3.4). These objectives will specify the contaminants found
and media of concern, exposure pathways and receptors, and an acceptable contaminant
level or range of levels for each exposure route ( i.e., remediation goal options).
COM Federal will also develop the general response actions, defining contaminant
containment, treatment, excavation, pumping, or other actions, singly or in combination,
to satisfy the remedial action objectives. Areas and volumes of media to which general
response actions may apply will be identified, taking into account the requirements for
protectiveness as identified in the remedial action objectives. The chemical and physical
characteristics of the site and the baseline risk assessment and remediation goals will
also be taken into account.
5.9.2 TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING
COM Federal will identify and evaluate those technologies applicable to each general
response action to eliminate those that cannot be implemented at the site. Based on the
developed general response actions, hazardous waste treatment technologies will be
identified and screened to ensure that only those technologies applicable to the
contaminants present, their physical matrix, and other site characteristics will be
considered. This screening will be based primarily on a technology's ability to effectively
address the contaminants at the site, but will also take into account the implementability
and cost of the technology. Technologies which are innovative, or reduce the mobility,
toxicity, or volume, or lead to a permanent remedy will be emphasized in the
alternatives. COM Federal will select representative process options, as appropriate, to
carry forward into alternative development. COM Federal will identify the need for
5-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
treatability testing ( as described in Task 7) for those technologies that are probable
candidates for consideration during the detailed analysis (Task 10).
5.9.3 ALTERNATIVES CONFIGURATION AND SCREENING
Selected technologies and process options retained in this FS will be combined into
media-specific or site-wide alternatives. The developed alternatives will be defined with
respect to size and configuration of the representative process options, relative time for .
remediation, rates of flow or treatment, spatial requirements, distances for disposal,
required permits, imposed limitations, and other factors necessary to evaluate the
alternatives. If many distinct, viable options are available and developed, a screening of
alternatives will be conducted to limit the number of alternatives that undergo the
detailed analysis, and to provide consideration of the most promising process options.
The alternatives will be screened on a general basis with respect to their effectiveness,
implementability, and cost. As appropriate, the screening shall preserve the range of
treatment and containment alternatives that was initially developed. The action-specific
ARARS will be also updated as the remedial action alternatives are refined.
5.10 TASK 10 -DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
CDM Federal will perform a detailed analysis of the alternatives that passed through the
development and screening process of Task 9. Each alternative will be analyzed with
respect to the set of nine EPA-mandated evaluation criteria described below:
•
•
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment -addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how
risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls
Compliance with ARARS -addresses whether or not a remedy will meet
all of the ARARS of federal and state environmental statutes and/or
provide grounds for provoking a waiver
5-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence -refers to the ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume -refers to the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies used in a remedy
Short-Term Effectiveness -addresses the effects on human health and the
environment during the implementation of a remedy and until cleanup
goals are achieved
Implementability -refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to
implement a particular option
.Ql.s1 -includes estimated capital, and operation and maintenance costs,
and net present worth costs
State Acceptance -addresses the technical or administrative issues and
concerns the state support agency may have regarding a remedy (Note:
This criterion will be addressed in the ROD after comments on the FS
report and proposed plan have been received and will not be included in
the FS report)
Community Acceptance -addresses the issues and concerns the public may
have regarding a remedy (Note: This criterion will be addressed in the
ROD after comments on the FS report and proposed plan have been
received and will not be included in the FS report)
The individual analyses will include: (1) a technical description of each alternative that
outlines the waste management strategy and identifies the key ARARS associated with
the alternative, and (2) a discussion that profiles the performance of the alternative with
respect to each of the evaluation criteria. A table summarizing the results of the
analyses will be prepared and included in the FS report (see Task 11). Once the
individual analyses are completed, the alternatives will be compared and contrasted to
one another with respect to each of the evaluation criteria. Note that the last two
criteria (state acceptance and community acceptance) will be addressed by EPA, and
therefore, will not be addressed by CDM Federal.
5-51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For cost estimating purposes, up to 10 remedial action alternatives (not including the no
action alternative) will be analyzed in detail for this task. If more than 10 alternatives
are requested by EPA to be included in this task, a work assignment amendment may be
required to account for the additional LOE needed.
5.11 TASK 11 -FS REPORTS
Following completion of the detailed analysis of alternatives, COM Federal will prepare
an FS report for submission to EPA The report will document the results of the
remedial alternatives development and screening task (Task 9), and the detailed analysis
of alternatives task (Task 10). All supporting data, information, and calculations will be
included in appendices to the report, and all documents and publications used in
preparing the report will be properly referenced.
COM Federal will first prepare a draft FS Report and submit 7 copies (one unbound) of
the draft report to EPA for review within 30 days after receipt of comments from EPA
on the remedial alternatives screening memorandum. Within 14 days after receipt of
EPA comments on the draft FS Report, COM Federal will respond to EPA's comments
in a letter, indicating how the comments will be incorporated or addressed in the final
FS Report. Within 14 days after EPA approval of the draft FS Report comment
response letter, COM Federal will prepare and deliver 7 copies (one unbound) of the
final FS Report addressing EPA's comments.
5.12 TASK 12 -POST RI/FS SUPPORT
COM Federal will provide post RI/FS technical and graphical support for the
preparation of briefings, presentations, and various documents as identified by EPA.
This support will be provided on an "as needed" basis as determined by the EPA RPM.
The schedule for the completion of any post RI/FS support activities and delivery of the
appropriate documents will be established by the EPA RPM after conferring with the
5-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM Federal Project Manager. For cost estimating purposes, 50 technical LOE hours
have been designated for this subtask.
5.13 TASK 13 -PROJECT COMPLETION AND CLOSEOUT
Project closeout procedures will be promptly implemented upon completion of the work
assignment. Closeout of the work assignment will be divided into two major activities:
technical/financial activities, and work assignment file closeout and transfer activities.
The technical/financial activities will include, as appropriate:
• Closeout of any outstanding subcontracts and completion of subcontractor
evaluations
• Closeout of purchase order accounts
• Property identification, inventory, and turnover
• Review and reconciliation of work assignment accounting status
• Review and reconciliation of work plan and work plan amendment
approval status
• Technology transfer database update
• Completion of the Work Assignment Completion Report
• Finalization and invoicing of the award fee
• Submission of final invoice
The work assignment file closeout and transfer activities will include:
• Collection and organization of work assignment files
• File microfiching
• File inventory and shipping
5-53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Quality control review
• File duplication and disposition
Project closeout will be completed within 6 months of EPA's approval of the Final FS
Report.
5.14 TASK 14 -OUALI1Y MANAGEMENT
All work performed by CDM Federal on this work assignment will be performed in
accordance with the following guidance documents:
• Overall QA/QC requirements -Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of CDM Federal
Programs Corporation Quality Assurance Manual, Revision 0, August 15,
1988.
• Overall QA/QC requirements -ARCS W Quality Assurance Management
Plan, Revision 1, Document Control No. 7740-999-QA-BGDS, June 15,
1992, as amended May 5, 1993, Document No. 7740-999-QA-BHZQ.
• Data quality objective levels used in field operations -Data Quality
Objectives for Remedial Response Activities, Development Process, EPA
540/G-87 /003; Example Scenario, EPA 540/G-87 /004.
• Standard operating procedures for conducting field activities -
Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and
Quality Assurance Manual, U.S. EPA Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, February 1, 1991.
• Preparation of the QAPP -Interim Guidelines and Specifications for
Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans, QAMS-005/80, EPA-600/4-83-
004. U.S. EPA 1983.
Tony Isolda, CDM Federal's Regional QA Coordinator has reviewed this work plan for
QA requirements and will maintain QA oversight for the duration of the work
assignment. It has been determined that a QAPP is required for the field work
described in Task 3. The QAPP has been incorporated as part of this document. This
5-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QAPP has also been subject to QA review by Tony Isolda, as required by the ARCS W
Quality Assurance Management Plan.
Reports prepared under this RI/FS work assignment which present measurement data
generated during the assignment will include a QA section addressing the quality of data
and its limitations. The measurement reports will be submitted to the Regional QA
Coordinator for review prior to submission to EPA. The QA review requirements
presented in Section 4.5 of the ARCS W Quality Assurance Management Plan will be
followed on this work assignment.
Technical Review Requirements
The technical review requirements presented in Section 5.2 and Appendix B of the
ARCS W Quality Assurance Management Plan will be followed on this RI/FS work
assignment. Required deliverables and technical reviewers, milestones at which TRC
meetings will be held, and TRC members are presented in Figure 6-2 of this work plan.
Project File Maintenance and Storage
The project manager is responsible for proper project file maintenance and storage for
the RI/FS tasks. Project files will be established for each RI/FS task of this project with
subfiles created as needed. Project files will be maintained in the COM Federal Atlanta
office throughout the project duration. The ARCS management information system
(ARMIS) will be used to track documents through the use of the document control
system. The document control system and ARMIS are described in detail in Section 3.5
of the ARCS Final Management Plan (Document Control No. 7740-999-0P-BBCH).
During project closeout, the project files will be microfiched and submitted to EPA in
accordance with the ARCS contract requirements.
5-55
I
I
u
I
I
m
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Additional Quality Control Measures
No additional QC measures besides those which have been specified are anticipated.
Quality Assurance Review Requirements
All COM Federal ARCS IV work assignment work plans, sampling and analysis plans,
and/ or quality assurance project plans ( stand-alone or as part of a project operations or
field operations plan) will be reviewed by the QA staff prior to submission to EPA
Reports that present measurement data, procurement documents and responses, and
purchase requisitions for measurement and testing items will also receive a QA review.
Quality Assurance Audits
The ARCS QA Program includes both performance and system audits as independent
checks on the quality of data generated during this work assignment. Performance audits
are quantitative checks most appropriate to sampling, field measurements, and laboratory
analysis activities. System audits are qualitative reviews of project activity to check that
the overall quality program is functioning and that the appropriate QC measures are
being implemented. System audits may be conducted in the office, field, or laboratory.
The ARCS W Quality Assurance Management Plan, Revision 1, requires the following
audit frequency:
• One office system audit per year of work assignment activity
• One field system audit per five weeks of active field work
The ARCS IV Regional QA Coordinator will conduct or coordinate audits for this
RI/FS as directed by the ARCS IV QA Director. In addition, the COM Federal team
will cooperate fully in any performance or system audits conducted or arranged by EPA.
5-56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This RI/FS work assignment is currently planned as an approximate 2-year project
including approximately 16 weeks of field activity. Two office system audits and three
field system audits are therefore required to meet ARCS IV QA Management Plan
requirements. The level of effort for QA audits on this work assignment is thus based
on two office system audits and three field system audits.
5.15 TASK 15 -TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
CDM Federal will provide technical and financial management throughout all phases of
this work assignment. Technical and financial management involves:
• Project coordination and day-to-day project guidance
• Monitoring budgets, schedules, and financial performance
• Managing key technical resources
• Maintaining quality control
Part of technical and financial management involves preparing and submitting monthly
progress reports and monthly invoices to EPA. These reports will be used to track
progress of the work assignment and to inform EPA of the project status. Budget
information will be included in the monthly status reports along with any unexpected
technical difficulties encountered, and recommendations for corrective action. The
format of these monthly reports will be as described in the ARCS IV contract.
Project meetings with EPA will also be held throughout the project to discuss any RI/FS
issues and to keep EPA abreast of project concerns. Meeting participants will generally
include the EPA RPM, the CDM Federal project manager, and other CDM Federal and
EPA personnel, as necessary. At EPA's request, meeting summaries will be prepared by
CDM Federal and submitted to EPA within 3 days after the meeting. Level of effort for
5-57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
this task is based on one CDM Federal staff member attending five half-day meetings at
EPA's Region IV office and two full-day meetings (including travel time) at the site.
5-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES AND DELIVERABLES
The anticipated schedule of activities for this RI/FS is presented in Figure 6-1. The duration
of each activity in this schedule corresponds to the level of effort described in Section 5.0.
The expected overall project duration for the work assignment is 30 months. This schedule
includes time for planning activities prior to commencement of the RI, and project closeout
activities after completion of the FS Report. Note that this schedule is based on the
following assumptions:
•
•
•
•
•
EPA review periods as indicated in Figure 6-1
No delays in field activities due to circumstances beyond the control of CDM
Federal (e.g., adverse weather conditions, site access problems, hazardous
subsurface conditions, natural disasters, acts of God)
All EPA Region IV ESD and/or CLP analytical results are received by CDM
Federal within eight weeks after sample shipment to the laboratory
Access to all properties needed to perform the field investigation will be
obtained by EPA prior to initiation of the field work. CDM Federal,
however, will coordinate sampling activity dates with the property owners.
No subcontractor procurement complications due to circumstances beyond the
control of CDM Federal (e.g., scope revisions, protested bids, re-bids, sole
source justifications, etc.)
• At least one bid out of all the bids received, for each subcontract, will be
responsive and will be less than or equal to the cost estimate presented in this
work plan
• Any analytical data validation requirements beyond those performed by the
laboratories themselves, will be performed by EPA ESD (i.e., CDM Federal
will not perform any data validation)
The anticipated schedule of deliverables for this work assignment with QA/QC requirements
and deliverable milestones is presented in Figure 6-2. The anticipated deliverables include
---- ---- - -·-- ----
YEAR 1993 1994 1995 1996
TASK MONTH OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
,,, ,r
1.0 PROJECT PLANNING
2.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT -·----... --·---As Needed -... 1-... -·-----I--lo ' -3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 Subcontractor Procurement
3.2 Mobilization/Demobilization • )I ■Ongoing• ■ la
3.3 Air Monitoring I I
• )I ■ Ongoing I • la
3.4 Private 11\/elll\Nater Use Survey •
3.5 Soil Sampling
3.6 Monitor VIJell Installation
3.7 Groundwater Sampling ■
3.8 Surface Vvater/Sediment Sampling -3.9 Aquifer Testing/Measurement 111
3.10 Ecological Survey/Sampling •
I a
4.0 SAMPLE MANAGEMENT
5.0 DATA EVALUATION
'" 61l ,r
6.0 BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT ~ 7.0 TREATABILITY STUDIES PLANNING I '7 In "' i,r
8.0 RI REPORTS ,,,
9.0 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
10.0 DETAILED ANALYSIS -=•
11.0 FS REPORTS
12.0 POST RI/FS SUPPORT I, •• lo As Needed, .. '
13.0 PROJECT CLOSEOUT -14.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT --,_ .. ----... 1----· Ongoing --.... -... --· _._ ----'-'--• ·-I I
15.0 TECHNICAUFINANCIAL MANAGEMENT -+-,_ .. '--. '---.... -----Ongoing '---.... , __ ----------'--• ·'--
KEY
-Activity In Progress
C=:::J EPA Review Period COM FEDERAL ARCS IV FIGURE NUMBER
® Technical Memorandum/Letter ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES 'v Draft Document 6-1 ... Final Document GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE IZI All ESD/CLP Results Received
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
--- -- -- -- - -- -- ---
TECHNICAL REVIEW APPROVAL SIGNATURE
REQUIRED REVIEW DUE DATE
DELIVERABLE ACTIVITY DATE TO REVIEWERS PM QAD HSM FAM DATE TO EPA
)> Oran IM>rk Plan B.2 2/17194 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2/18194 2/23194 z -t Comment Response Letter A.2 4113194 ✓ 4114194 4115194 0
~ Final IM>rk Plan B.2 5/3194 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 514194 5/6194
G') -t rn [!! m ✓ :,, C Draft CRP A.2 3/14194 3/15194 3/17194 VI en .... .., :::c en n ✓ ~ m (") 0 Final CRP A.2 4121194 4122194 4125194
"lJ :::c ;:
;o :::c m .., ✓ ✓ 0 rn Site Charactertzation A.2 2/13195 n m C 0 Summary Report 2/13195 2/14195
?' ::0 C rn
z C I'"" ~ ✓ 0 r Treatability Studies Memorandum A.2 6/12195 6/13195 6/14195 ;o "Tl m :,, .... 0 ;o I )> n ✓ ✓ n ::0 "Tl VI Oran RI Report B.1 319195 3/10195 3/16195 :,, < ;o s: C 0 en m ✓ r Oran BRA Report A.2 319195 3/10195 3/17195 z :::j I'"" :,, < ✓ m m Comment Response Letter A.2 4125195 4126195 4127195
::0 ✓ ✓ )> Final RI Report B.2 5115195 5116195 5118195 llJ
I'"" ✓ m Final BRA Report A.2 5115195 5116/95 5118195 en
RA Screening Memorandum A.2 519195 ✓ 5110195 5112195
Oran FS Report B.1 6/22195 ✓ 6/23195 6/30195
Comment Response Letter A.2 8/10195 ✓ 8/11/95 8/14195
Final FS Report B.2 8/29195 ✓ 8/30195 9/4195 .,,
ci C: ACTIVITY CODES APPROVAL SIGNATURES en ;JI rn A-Single Person Revk!w and Signoff B-Committee Review and Signoff PM -Program Manager I z 1-Supervisor 2-Peer Review & Signoff 1-Assembted Committee QAD -Quamy Assurance Director I\.) C: .::: a-Program Manager 2-Blind Committee HSM -Health & Safety Manager "' b-Quallty Assurance Director FAM -Finance & Administration Manager rn ;JI C-Health & Safety Manager
d-Finance & Administration Manager
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the CDM Federal project planning documents, as well as the RI and FS reports, letters, and
memorandums. Note that the anticipated deliverable schedule indicated in Figure 6-2 is also
based on the above assumptions. Note also that, if necessary, the schedules in Figures 6-1
and 6-2 will be updated and resubmitted to EPA after all ESD/CLP sampling data are
received.
6-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
7.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The project organization for the GE Site RI/FS is depicted in Figure 7-1. For the most part,
project control is centered around the CDM Federal project manager. This organizational
structure acts a control mechanism to:
•
•
•
Identify appropriate lines of communication and coordination
Monitor overall project quality control, budgets, and schedules
Oversee and manage technical resources
• Monitor health and safety
The following is a list of the key personnel assigned to this project and their areas of
responsibility:
NAME
Gary P. Clemons, Ph.D.
James Ransone
Mark D. Taylor, P.E.
Norma Eichlin
Anne Bolling
RoseMary Ellersick
Tony Isolda
Program Manager
LEVEL
P4
P4
P3
P2
P2
P4
P3
ROLE
Program Manager
Finance and Administration Manager
Project Manager
Field Operations Manager
Regional Health and Safety Coordinator
Quality Assurance Director
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator
The ARCS Region IV program manager, Gary P. Clemons, Ph.D., is responsible for the
overall technical and administrative performance of the ARCS contract. Dr. Clemons will
7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. EPA REGION IV
Project Officer
Rob Stem
U.S. EPA REGION IV
Remedial Project Manager
Giezelle Bennett
COM FEDERAL
Project Support COM FEDERAL
Finance & Administration Project Manager
Quality Assurance Mark D. Taylor, P.E.
Health & Safety
Community Relations
COM FEDERAL
Field Operations Manager
Nonna Eichlin
Field Technicians
SUBCONTRACTORS
Monitor Well Drilling/
Soil Boring
Surveying Services
CDM FEDERAL ARCS IV
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
COM FEDERAL
Program Manager
Gary Clemons, Ph.D.
COM INC.
GEOTECHNICAU
GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
FIGURE NO.
7:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
assign resources in support of all technical work products and has final sign-off responsibility
on all technical and cost documents. He will work directly with COM Federal ARCS
support staff to arrange and ensure critical quality assurance activities and will work to
facilitate project implementation.
Finance and Administration Manager
The finance and administration manager, James Ransone, will be responsible for adherence
to all contract requirements, preparation and presentation of financial reports, project
invoicing, and all contract accounting. Additionally, Mr. Ransone is responsible for
monitoring the financial aspects, maintaining the management information system budgets
and schedules, and controlling and monitoring the use of all government-owned property for
this work assignment.
Project Manager
The project manager, Mark D. Taylor, is responsible for day-to-day work assignment
management, including staffing, schedule, and costs. Mr. Taylor will work closely with the
EPA Remedial Project Manager to ensure timely completion of project activities, and with
the regional health and safety coordinator, the field operations manager, technical support
staff, and the regional quality assurance coordinator to assure that all aspects of the project
proceed as planned. Mr. Taylor is also responsible for assisting in the technical activities
conducted during this work assignment.
Field Operations Manager
The field operations manager, Norma Eichlin, is responsible for day-to-day operations at the
site during all field activities. She is directly responsible for controlling site access,
maintaining logs of all site activities and personnel entering the site, coordinating locations
7-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for well installation and sample location, and ensuring that field operations are conducted in
a timely manner and in accordance with the project plans.
Regional Health and Safety Coordinator
The regional health and safety coordinator, Anne Bolling, is responsible for preparing and
implementing the site-specific CDM Federal health and safety plan, and coordinating day-to-
day health and safety matters pertinent to this project.
7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
CDM Federal's organization of the QA program for ARCS Region IV is designed to ensure
that appropriate QA/QC procedures are implemented during all phases of this work
assignment. The ARCS Region IV QA organization and responsibilities are discussed in
detail in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the ARCS IV Quality Assurance Management Plan.
Highlights of the QA organization and responsibilities applicable to this project are provided
below.
Quality Assurance Director
The quality assurance director, RoseMary Ellersick, is responsible for all aspects of the
ARCS IV Quality Assurance Management Plan. Responsibilities include approving QA
procedures, conducting system and performance audits, and ensuring that QA personnel are
trained. Ms. Ellersick will provide guidance and direction to the regional quality assurance
coordinator, and will interface with EPA on QA matters.
Regional Quality Assurance Coordinator
The regional quality assurance coordinator, Tony Isolda, is responsible for all procedures and
tasks pertaining to QA for this assignment, and reports directly to the quality assurance
7-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
director. Mr. Isolda will provide QA on all technical document deliverables for this project
and will assist the quality assurance director in conducting system and performance audits.
7.3 TEAM FIRMS
CDM Federal anticipates the need for Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. to complete the
geotechnical/ geochemical analyses of soil samples collected during the field investigation task
of this work assignment. CDM Federal does not anticipate the need for any other team firm
assistance during this work assignment, however.
7.4 SUBCONTRACTORS
CDM Federal plans to subcontract the following portions of this work assignment:
• Monitor well installation/soil boring/test pit services
• Surveying services
Subcontractor personnel will be required to perform all work in strict compliance with the
appropriate contract specifications. Subcontractors have the option of either adopting the
site-specific CDM Federal health and safety plan or submitting their own plan for CDM
Federal review. Regardless of which option is chosen, responsibility for the health and
safety of all subcontractor personnel will rest with the subcontractor. The field operations
manager will ensure the field work performed by subcontractors is consistent with all aspects
of the relevant specifications including health and safety. Any observed significant variance
in performance that is not expeditiously corrected by subcontractors will be brought to the
attention of the project manager.
7-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES
Quality assurance objectives for data measurement are usually expressed in terms of
accuracy, precision, completeness, representativeness, and comparability. Definitions of
these characteristics are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Accuracy -the degree of agreement of a measurement (or an average of
measurements of the same thing), with an accepted reference or true value, T,
usually expressed as the difference between the two values, X-T, or the
difference as a percentage of the reference or true value, 100 (X-T)/T, and
sometimes expressed as a ratio, X/T. Accuracy is a measure of the bias in a
system.
Precision -a measure of mutual agreement among individual measurements of
the same property, usual! y under prescribed similar conditions. Precision is
best expressed in terms of the standard deviation. Various measures of
precision exist depending upon the "prescribed similar conditions."
Completeness -a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a
measurement system compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained
under correct normal conditions.
Representativeness -expresses the degree to which data accurately and
precisely represent a characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a
sampling point, a process condition, or an environmental condition.
Comparability -expresses the confidence with which one data set can be
compared to another.
To ensure that reliable data continue to be produced, systematic checks must show that test
results remain reproducible and that the methodology is actually measuring the quantity in
each sample. Quality assurance must begin with the design of the sample collection and not
end until the resulting data have been reported.
Field measurement accuracy will be established by taking random multiple measurements.
Variation in data that exceeds 10 percent will be cause for repeat measurements. Accuracy
8-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
for laboratory measurements will be in accordance with CLP statement of work (SOW)
requirements or guidance stated in specific testing methods as appropriate.
Field and laboratory measurement precision will be established by the collection and analysis
of field and laboratory duplicate samples. Approximately 10 percent of the field samples
will be collected in duplicate. Laboratory duplicates will be prepared in accordance with
CLP SOW requirements or guidance stated in specific testing methods as appropriate.
Completeness will be ensured by collecting an adequate number of samples to meet project·
objectives. A completeness goal of 95 percent will be established for chemical results.
Representativeness will be ensured by collection of samples from locations designated in the
sampling plan prepared for this work assignment. Comparability will be ensured by the use
of standardized analytical or measurement procedures and reporting in like units for all
sample locations.
8-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 FIELD OPERATIONS
9.1 DATA COLLECTION
The RI field investigation activities for the GE Site will be divided into a series of field data
collection efforts, each composed of several individual tasks. The specific data collection
efforts for the GE Site RI include:
•
• •
•
•
•
Soil Sampling
Monitor Well Installation
Groundwater Sampling
Aquifer Testing and Measurement
Surface Water/Sediment Sampling
Ecological Sampling
All activities at the site will be performed in Level D personnel protection with Level C
contingency. For detailed descriptions of these tasks see Section 5.3.
9.1.1 FIELD QUALITY PLANNING
Planning sessions will be held before field activities commence for each phase of the field
investigation. The meetings will be commensurate in scope and detail with the field activities
to be conducted. At a minimum, the project manager, the field manager, the site health and
safety officer, the field staff, and a QA staff member will attend.
The purposes of the meetings are to discuss and clarify:
•
• •
•
• •
Objectives of the field work
Equipment and training needs
Field operating procedures
Required QC measures
Documents governing field work which must be onsite
Health and safety requirements and contingencies
9-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The types of documents governing field work which must be onsite and available to the field
crew include, but are not limited to: the CDM Federal Health and Safety Assurance Manual;
the site-specific HSP; the site-specific SAP; the EPA Region IV ESD Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual; full text of measurement procedures and/or
sample collection procedures to be used; and full text of operating, calibration, and
maintenance procedures for equipment to be used.
Field quality planning responsibilities are as follows:
• The project manager is responsible for:
-scheduling the planning session
-preparing and/or obtaining the documents governing field work
-implementing recommendations of the planning session
• The field manager is responsible for:
-any responsibilities delegated by the project manager
-attending the planning session
-maintaining onsite hard copy of the documents governing actual
field work in progress
-requiring field crew to comply with governing documents
9.1.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION
All sample collection, preservation and chain-of-custody procedures used during this
investigation will be in accordance with the standard operating procedures specified in
Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IV, Environmental Services Division, Athens, Georgia, February 1, 1991.
9.1.3 ONSITE FACILITIES
The following major facilities will be provided at the site:
9-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
• • • •
• •
Office trailer with electric power
Fenced storage area
Organic-free water system
Portable telephone
Potable water supply
Two-way radios
Onsite Portajohns
Electric hookup
Potable water needed during field investigations at hazardous waste sites is typically supplied
via the local city or county water system.
9.1.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY OBJECTIVES
Health and safety procedures will be implemented during scheduled field activities as
specified in this work plan. Specific criteria used to develop the HSP are based upon
guidelines provided by the following documents:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NIOSH/OSHA Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards, A.D .
Little, Inc., January 1981.
Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Sax, 1979 .
Toxic and Hazardous Industrial Chemicals Safety Manual, The International
Technical Information Institute, 1979.
American National Standard Practices for Respiratory Protection, ZZ88.2-180,
May 22, 1980.
Respiratory Protection: A Manual and Guideline, American Industrial
Hygiene Association, 1st edition, 1980.
NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards, NIOSH, June 1990 .
Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices for 1989-90,
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, 1989.
Standard Operating Safety Guidelines, EPA, Environmental Response Branch,
Hazardous Response Support Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, 1984.
9-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
OSHA Safety and Health Standards 29 CFR 1910 <General Industry). U.S .
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 1983.
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 Haµrrlous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response: Interim Final Rule, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, December 1986.
The levels of personnel protection specified in the HSP requires protective clothing, levels of
respiratory protection, and ambient air monitoring, which are all in conformance with the
CDM Federal ARCS Health and Safety Assurance Manual and appropriate federal
regulations.
9.1.5 AIR MONITORING
During the field investigation, CDM Federal personnel will perform air monitoring using an
OVA and/or HNu, respirable dust meter, and explosimeter. During all intrusive activities,
continuous air monitoring will occur to ensure worker safety. The potential risk from
airborne contaminants will be associated with the occurrence of organic vapors from
contaminated groundwater and respirable dust generated from contaminated soils. Both
sources pose the greatest risk to site workers. Local climatic data (wind speed, wind
direction, etc.) will be used to guide the monitoring program.
9.1.6 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION
Decontamination procedures will be performed at or near the subsites. The decontamination
area will be selected on the basis of the following criteria:
• Accessibility to heavy equipment
• Fate of water and soap solutions used during decontamination
The following decontamination procedures will be used for all nonplastic equipment that may
potentially contact the environmental media to be sampled. All equipment will be
appropriately decontaminated prior to sample collection. Examples of such equipment
9-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
include hailers, spoons and augers, Pyrex bowls, downhole drilling equipment, etc. The
decontamination procedure is given below:
1. Remove gross contamination and particulates by brushing with a potable
water/phosphate-free, laboratory grade soap solution. Heavy equipment (drill
rigs, tools, backhoe, etc.) will also be steam cleaned or cleaned with a high-
pressure washer.
2. Rinse thoroughly using potable water.
3. Rinse thoroughly with deionized water (Note: A higher grade can be
substituted).
4.
5.
6.
7.
Inspect thoroughly for visible particulates and/or contamination. Repeat steps
1 and 2, if necessary.
Rinse twice with pesticide-grade isopropanol and allow to air dry.
Rinse twice with organic-free water (stored in a glass or stainless steel
container) and allow to air dry.
Wrap equipment with aluminum foil to prevent contamination during transport
and storage. Polyethylene sheeting may be used for large items such as drill
pipe.
Sensitive and/or plastic equipment, if used, will be subject to the procedure described above,
except for step 5, which is not performed.
All downhole drilling equipment that will be used directly over the boreholes that have a
protective coating such as paint will be sandblasted before arriving at the site. All drilling
equipment will then be decontaminated at the site before drilling each new boring. In
addition, the backhoe or trackhoe used for test pit sampling will be decontaminated at the site
before excavating each test pit.
All alcohol decontamination by-products will be containerized in 55-gallon drums, labeled,
and stored at the GE Plant for future disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation.
All rinsate decontamination by-products that are alcohol free will be contained in a
9-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
decontamination pit located away from the borehole, and allowed to infiltrate into the
subsurface.
9.1.7 SAMPLE CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION, AND HOLDING TIMFS
A summary of samples to be collected according to media and analytical parameter is
presented in Table 9-1. Table 9-2 summarizes the quality control samples to be collected
during the RI field investigation. For planning purposes and documenting the required
considerations associated with sample containers, preservation, and holding times, the sample
media are placed in the following categories:
• Aqueous Environmental Media -Surface water, groundwater, and aqueous
quality assurance/quality control samples
• Solid Environmental Media -Sediment, soil, and solid QA/QC samples
Tables 9-1 and 9-2 provide a comprehensive listing of the considerations, according to the
analyses to be performed, required for each of these categories. The tables are based on the
Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
Manual, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, Athens, Georgia, February I, 1991; and "Samples Collected for Purgeable
(Volatile) Organic Compound Analyses (VOAs)" Memorandum from M.D. Lair, Chief,
August 29, 1989.
Properly prepared sample containers cleaned according to EPA standards (certified clean)
will be obtained from a supplier. VOA containers for aqueous samples will be preserved
prior to entering the field with four drops of hydrochloric acid. Other aqueous sample
containers will be preserved in the field with nitric acid (for metals) and sodium hydroxide
(for cyanide) as required and checked with pH paper to ensure that the proper pH is attained.
9-6
----· ------· ------· -1111, -TABLE 9-1
FIELD SAMPLE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Analysis Sample Analytical Sample Holding Containers
Matrix Method (a) Preservation Time
VOA Soil Ref. 1 Cool to 4"C 14 days 2-2 oz glass Teflon-
lined septum vials
Base Neutral Acid (BNA)
& Pesticide/PCB Soil Ref. 1 Cool to 4°C 14 days to 1-Soz glass jar
extraction, 40 (wide mouth)
days to analysis
Metals & Cyanide Soil Ref. 2 Cool to 4"C 6 months 1-8 oz glass
(wide mouth)
VOA Aqueous Ref. 1 Cool to 4°C 14 days 3-40 ml glass Teflon-
see below (b) lined septum vials
BNA & Pesticide/PCB (c) Aqueous Ref. 1 Cool to 4"C 7 days to extrac-4-1 liter amber
tion, 40 days to glass bottles with
analysis Teflon-lined caps
Metals (c) Aqueous Ref. 2 Cool to 4°C 6 months 1-1 liter poly with
HNO3 to pH<2 Hg-28 days poly-lined closure
Cyanide (c) Aqueous Ref. 2 Cool to 4°C 14 days 1-1 liter poly with
NaOH to pH> 12 (d) poly-lined closure
PCBs Fish Ref. 1 Pack in dry ice 14 days Wrap in aluminum foil
a References are listed at the end of Table 9-2.
b Adjust pH of aqueous VOA samples to <2 by the drop-wise addition, to the two 40ml VOA vials, of 1:1 HCI (made with demonstrated organic-free water)
prior to filling with sample. Determine the number of acid drops required on a third sample aliquot (of equal volume)--do not acidify sample if
effervescence is observed and indicate on sample that no acid preservative has been added.
c One field sample must be collected in double volume for matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate analyses.
d Check for residual chlorine before preservation. Chlorine: Test a drop of sample on Kl starch paper. If blue, add ascorbic acid crystals until a
drop of sample produces no color on indicator paper. Then add an additional O.6g ascorbic acid/L sample volume.
-- ---.. , -·-·-
Analysis Matrix
VOA Soil
BNA & Pesticide/PCB Soil
Metals & Cyanide Soil
VOA Aqueous
BNA & Pesticide/PCB Aqueous
Metals Aqueous
Cyanide Aqueous
--·----TABLE 9-2
BLANK AND SPIKE QC SAMPLES
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
ESD QC Samples•
(Blanks/Spikes)
1 per week
1 per week
1 per week
1 per week
1 per week
1 per week
1 per week
Trip Blanks
NA
NA
NA
1 per shipment
NA
NA
NA
• One set of ESD blanks/spikes will be sent to a CLP laboratory if CLP is used for sample analysis .
Notes:
1) All QC samples will be analyzed for the same constituents as field samples except for trip blanks, which will be analyzed for VOAs only.
2) In addition to the above QC analyses, matrix spike analysis will be performed as part of the CLP laboratory QC This analysis will be done in duplicate once
per 20 samples or less of similar matrix and concentration range (i.e. "low", "medium" of "high"). One aqueous BNA/Pesticide/PCB and Metals/Cyanide
field sample per 20 or less of each concentration range must be collected in triple volume for the matrix spike analyses.
References:
1) "Statement of Work for Organic Analysis, Multi-Concentration." Doc. No, 0LM0l.0, U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program, revised 6/91.
2) "Statement of Work for Inorganic Analysis, Multi-Concentration." Doc. No. ILM02.0, U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program, revised 3/90.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.2 SOIL SAMPLING
9.2.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
To help characterize and determine the extent of waste disposal and soils contamination, and
to help determine the potential for contaminated soil to be entrained and transported by the
air pathway, both surface and subsurface soil samples will be collected at each of the subsites
in this RI/FS. The general approach to soil sampling is described in Section 4.0 (Work Plan
Rationale) and Section 5.3.5 (Soil Sampling).
A maximum total of 102 surface soil samples and 93 subsurface soil samples will be
collected from the subsites and sent to ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete TCL/TAL
analyses at DQO Level IV.
To provide data concerning the local chemical quality of the soils at the site, background soil
samples will be collected from six locations on the GE property. Surface soil samples will
be collected at each of the six locations. At three of the background locations soil borings
will be drilled with samples collected at approximately 5 feet below land surface and just
above the water table interface. These background locations will be determined in the field,
from areas that appear to be unaffected by site operations or other development. A
maximum total of 12 background soil samples will be collected and sent to ESD or a CLP
laboratory for complete TCL/TAL analyses at DQO Level IV.
The proposed locations for the surface and subsurface soil samples (not including the
contingency or background samples) are shown in Figures 5-2 through 5-4 for the GE,
Seldon Clark, and Shepherd Farm subsites, respectively. Note that these sample locations
are approximate. Actual locations will be determined in the field based on the actual
physical characteristics of the subsites, observed evidence of contamination, and accessibility
to the sampling locations. All surface soil samples will be collected from a depth of O to 1
foot below land surface.
9-9
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The soil borings will be drilled at each subsite only after the surface soil samples have been
collected from those locations. Continuous split spoon samples will be collected down to the
water table interface and will be geologically logged to define the lithology of the geologic
units. All borings will be terminated just above the water table interface, where the last
sample will be collected. The moisture content of the soil samples will determine the water
table interface. Hollow stem augering will be used to drill the soil borings.
Five test pits will be excavated at the Seldon Clark subsite. The locations of these test pits
will be determined in the field. Excavation of the pits will be performed with either a
backhoe or trackhoe. The excavated material will be stockpiled adjacent to each test pit, and
if necessary, will be covered with plastic sheeting to prevent wind and water erosion. A soil
sample will be collected from the bucket of the backhoe/trackhoe when waste material is
encountered in the pit. Once the sample has been collected, the stockpiled soil will be used
to backfill the pit.
In addition, during the drilling of six soil borings at the GE subsite and three soil borings at
the Shepherd Farm subsite, one Shelby tube soil sample will be collected from unsaturated
soils in each boring. These nine Shelby tube samples will be sent to a
geotechnical/ geochemical laboratory and tested for the following parameters:
• Specific gravity
• Moisture content
• Bulk density
• Porosity
• pH
• Organic carbon content
• Grain size
9.2.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
The following codes refer to the identification of the surface and subsurface soil samples.
Site code: GE GE Site
9-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.2.3
Sample media code:
Number of samples:
Depth code:
ss
SB
TP
ST
RS
216
9
5
WT
surface soil samples
soil boring samples (subsurface soil)
Test pit soil samples
Shelby tube samples
rinsate sample
ESD/CLP (includes twenty duplicate
samples and one rinsate sample)
Geotechnical/geochemical analysis
5 feet bis
water table
Example: GE-SB-01-WT
GE
SB
01
WT
=
=
=
=
GE Site
soil boring subsurface sample
sample number/location
water table
FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following field equipment and supplies will be used in support of this task:
• • •
• • • • • • • • •
•
•
• • •
•
Field logbook
Drill rig with hollow stem augers and split spoon samplers
Stainless steel split spoons
Tape measure
Coolers with ice
Polyethylene bags
Black vinyl tape
Soil color chart
Boring Jogs
Sample containers
Sample packaging and shipment equipment
Sample document control forms
Stainless steel spoons
Pyrex bowls
Sampling shipping material
Sample seal
Sample tags
Miniram respirable dust meter
9-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • •
9.2.4
OVA flame ionization detector and/or HNu photoionization detector
LEL indicator
Field sample sheets
Chain-of-custody forms
Federal Express shipping forms
Decontamination solutions and equipment
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Disposable gloves
Camera/film
TASK TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Field Manager Planning and technical management of field personnel and/or
drilling subcontractor, sampling location identification, and
laboratory coordination.
Geologist
Sampling Personnel -
Subcontractor
Provide geologic descriptions and direct drilling activities, and
sample collection support.
Sample collection, handling, shipment, and documentation.
All drilling activities and access to the drilling locations.
9.2.5 PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES
Prior to sampling, the field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate
sampling equipment, supplies, containers, and laboratory space are available and that the
drilling subcontractor has mobilized all necessary equipment onsite. The site health and
safety officer will ensure that the proper safety equipment is available for field personnel and
that monitoring occurs at an appropriate frequency.
9.2.6 LABORATORY/SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for general coordination with the drilling subcontractor
as well as the laboratories to schedule sample bottle and QC sample receipt and shipment of
samples to the appropriate laboratory. The CDM Federal geologist will also coordinate with
9-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the drilling subcontractor concerning soil sample locations and collection of Shelby tube
samples.
9.2.7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples collected during this activity will be classified as environmental samples. Samples
will be collected in appropriate containers and packed in coolers for shipment to the
designated laboratory. No precautionary labels will be required on container exteriors.
Samples will be shipped to the designated laboratory within the appropriate time after
collection so that maximum holding times for all parameters will not be exceeded.
9.2.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS
Surface Soil Samples
1. Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of surface soil sample collection.
2. Do not disturb the sample collection point prior to sample collection.
3. With a Pyrex bowl and sampling equipment immediately available, don
uncontaminated gloves.
4. Collect soil sample with a stainless steel spoon. Surface cover will be removed prior
to sampling.
5. Transfer the VOA sample to a sample jar so that there is no head space and apply
specified closure.
6. Homogenize the remaining soil in a pyrex bowl with a decontaminated spoon.
7. Transfer soil to sample containers and identify samples with completed sample tags.
8. Attach custody seals and place samples in a polyethylene bag.
9. Identify, package, and ice samples for shipment.
10. Maintain chain-of-custody.
9-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.
12.
Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
The entire sampling process should be documented in the field logbook.
Note: At locations where an areal composite is to be taken, individual grab samples will be
collected on an areal or cross-sectional basis. Areal composites shall be made up of
equal volumes of grab samples.
Subsurface Soil Samples
1. Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of subsurface soil sample
collection.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Do not disturb the sample collection point prior to sample collection.
With a Pyrex bowl and sampling equipment immediately available, don
uncontaminated gloves.
Collect soil sample with a stainless steel split-spoon. Surface cover will be removed
prior to sampling.
Transfer the VOA sample to a sample jar so that there is no head space and apply
specified closure.
Homogenize the remaining soil in a pyrex bowl with a decontaminated spoon.
Transfer soil to sample containers and identify samples with completed sample tags.
Attach custody seals and place samples in a polyethylene bag.
9. Identify, package, and ice samples for shipment.
10.
11.
12.
Maintain chain-of-custody.
Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
The entire sampling process should be documented in the field logbook.
9-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Split Spoon Sampling
1. The split spoon will conform to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)
D-1586. The drive shoe will be of hardened steel and will be replaced or repaired if
it becomes dented or distorted. The split spoon sampler will be 27 inches in length of
which 18 inches will be split barrel stainless steel construction.
2. The subcontractor will collect split spoon samples as requested by the CDM Federal
geologist. The drill rods and all associated equipment will be decontaminated
between each drill location. The split spoon sampler will be decontaminated between
each sample.
3.
The subcontractor will clean out the borehole to the sampling elevation using
equipment that will ensure that material to be sampled is not disturbed by the
operation.
With the sampler resting at the bottom of the borehole, the subcontractor will drive
the sampler with blows using the 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches until either 18
inches have been penetrated or 100 blows have been applied.
The subcontractor will record the number of blows required to affect each 6 inches of
penetration or fraction thereof. The first 6 inches is considered the seating drive.
The number of blows required for the second and third 6 inches of penetration added
is termed the penetration resistance, N.
If the sampler is driven less than 18 inches, the penetration resistance is that for the
last foot of penetration. If less than one foot is penetrated, the logs will state the
number of blows and fraction of one foot penetrated. Additional driving of the split
spoon sampler may be required using a 300-pound hammer to fulfill the CDM
Federal geologist's sample volume requirements.
Standard penetration testing for purposes of collecting split spoon samples will be
performed in accordance with the applicable (ASTM) protocols, as amended by the
objectives of this task. These protocols are described below. Drilling and sampling
equipment will be decontaminated in accordance with procedures stated in Section
9.1.6.
Note: Five-foot continuous samplers may be used in place of the three-foot split spoons,
depending on the drilling conditions at the various soil boring locations. If split spoons
cannot be driven into the bottom of the borehole, the augers will be removed and a sample
will be collected off the flighting.
9-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Excavation of Test Pits
1. Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of subsurface soil sample
collection.
2. Mobilize backhoe/trackhoe to test pit area after deconning.
3. Remove soil until waste material is encountered or maximum depth is reached in
which shoring is not required. Stockpile the soil next to the excavated area.
4. With a Pyrex bowl and sampling equipment immediately available, don
uncontaminated gloves.
5. Collect a sample of the waste material with a stainless steel split-spoon from the
bucket of the backhoe/trackhoe.
6. Transfer the VOA sample to a sample jar so that there is no head space and apply
specified closure.
7. Homogenize the remaining soil in a pyrex bowl with a decontaminated spoon.
8. Transfer soil to sample containers and identify samples with completed sample tags.
9. Attach custody seals and place samples in a polyethylene bag.
10. Identify, package, and ice samples for shipment.
11. Maintain chain-of-custody.
12. Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
13. The entire sampling process should be documented in the field logbook.
14.
15.
Backfill the excavated area with the stockpiled soil and grade area to its original state.
Decontaminate backhoe/trackhoe and mobilize to next test pit location.
Shelby Tube Sampling
1. The Shelby tube will conform to ASTM D-1587. The sample tube will be made of
stainless steel, 3 inches in diameter, and 30 inches long.
9-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Clean out the borehole to the sampling elevation using equipment that will ensure that
material to be sampled is not disturbed by the operation.
With the sampler resting at the bottom of the borehole, push the Shelby tube with
even pressure for a maximum of 30 inches.
Rotate the tube two full turns, and then extract the tube from the borehole.
Seal both ends of tube with wax and cap with a plastic cover.
Mark the top and bottom of the tube.
Sample Handling
The samples will be collected and handled in a manner consistent with the Engineering
Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Athens,
Georgia, February 1, 1991.
Boring Log
The purpose of a boring log is to provide EPA with a record of the dimensions of the hole,
drilling methods used, any drilling problems encountered, and the general character of the
subsurface material penetrated. The boring log will include the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name and address of the drilling company.
Dates and times of starting, stopping, and completion of the boring.
Name of driller.
Diameter and depth of boring.
Make and type of equipment used, including methods of advancing the hole and
obtaining samples.
Data for any split spoon sample required, including blows.
9-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7. Descriptions of all soil and rock strata encountered with the driller's best estimate of
the depths at which changes in material occur.
8. Descriptions of water levels and behavior of drilling fluid, if used.
9. Observations of any unusual drill tool behavior.
10. Dates, times, and depths of groundwater observations.
I 1. All information specified in the driller's bid specification.
9.3 MONITOR WELL INSTALLATION
9.3.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
For the purposes of cost-effectively estimating the extent of groundwater contamination and
evaluating the groundwater transport pathways, up to 24 permanent monitor wells (in 10 two-
well clusters, 1 three-well cluster, and 1 single well) will be installed at the site. Shallow
wells will be screened to monitor groundwater at the water table interface. Intermediate
wells will be screened to monitor groundwater in the bedrock 10 to 20 feet below the
soil/bedrock interface and deep wells will be screened to monitor groundwater in the bedrock
60 to 70 feet below the soil/bedrock interface.
9.3.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
The following codes refer to the identification of the samples to be collected.
Site code:
Sample media code:
GE
RS
ws
OF
DM
9-18
GE Site
rinsate sample (from well construction
materials, i.e., stainless-steel screen/pipe)
water supply
organic-free water system
drilling material
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Number/location
of samples: 8 ESD/CLP (includes one rinsate, three
water supplies, one organic-free system,
one sand pack, one bentonite, and one
grout)
Example: GE-RS-01
GE
RS
01
=
=
=
GE Site
Rinsate sample
Sample number/location
Note: Trip blanks will accompany each cooler shipment of aqueous VOA samples.
9.3.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following equipment or supplies will be used in support of this task:
• • • •
•
• •
•
•
• • • • •
•
• •
•
• • • •
Stainless steel spoons
Sampling shipping material
Sample seals
Sample tags
Field sample sheets
Chain-of-custody forms
Tape measure
Cooler with ice
Polyethylene bags
Black vinyl tape (bags only)
Federal Express shipping forms
Decontamination equipment and solutions
Pyrex bowls
OVA flame ionization detector and/or HNu photoionization detector
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Soil color chart
Miniram respirable dust meter
Disposable gloves
Aluminum foil/plastic for wrapping casing
Clean sand/bentonite
Permanent well casing/screens
Camera/film
Note: All drilling equipment will be supplied by the subcontracted drilling firm.
9-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.3.4 TASK TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Field Manager
Geologist
Sampling Personnel -
Planning and technical management of monitor well installation,
and coordination of the drilling subcontractor and CDM Federal
personnel.
Direct drilling activities, and provide lithologic descriptions.
Sample collection, equipment decontamination, and sample
documentation.
9.3.5 PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES
Prior to sampling, the field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate I sampling equipment, supplies, and containers are available and that the drilling subcontractor
has mobilized all necessary equipment onsite. The equipment decontamination pad for the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
drilling must be complete and operational. The project manager will ensure that all access
forms are obtained through EPA Region IV. The site health and safety officer will ensure
that the proper safety equipment is available and that all subcontractor personnel meet health
and safety monitoring requirements.
9.3.6 LABORATORY/SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for general coordination with the drilling subcontractor
as well as the laboratories to schedule sample bottle and QC sample receipt and shipment of
samples to the appropriate laboratory. The CDM Federal geologist will also coordinate with
the drilling subcontractor concerning well depth and construction details.
9.3.7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples collected during this activity will be classified as environmental samples. Samples
will be collected in appropriate containers and packed in coolers for shipment to the
designated laboratory. No precautionary labels will be required on container exteriors.
9-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Samples will be shipped to the designated laboratory within the appropriate time after
collection so that maximum holding times for all parameters will not be exceeded.
9.3.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOIS
All drilling will be performed in accordance with the applicable ASTM protocols and the
Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance
Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services
Division, Athens, Georgia, February I, 1991. The drilling and sampling equipment will be
decontaminated prior to drilling each borehole in accordance with the procedures stated in
Section 9.1.6. The shallow and intermediate/deep permanent monitor wells will be installed
as described below.
Shallow Pennanent Monitor Well
1. To install the shallow well, a hole using 4.25-inch ID hollow stem augers will be
drilled to a depth 10 feet below the water table interface. Split spoon samples will be
collected every 5 feet in order to determine when the water table interface is reached.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Install a 2-inch stainless steel (grade 316) casing and screen (JO-foot length) through
the 4.25-inch ID hollow stem augers to the bottom of the well bore. Backfill the
screen annuli with a sand or gravel pack that is rounded, well-sorted, washed, and
uniformly sized. The sand pack is to be extended at least 2 feet above the top of the
well screen.
Seal permanent monitor wells with a pure grout slurry placed by tremmie pipe.
The slurry will be allowed to set for 24 hours before continuing work on the well.
Set a 4-inch protective steel casing with locking cap into a poured concrete pad
graded away from the casing ( 4 feet x 4 feet x 6 inches deep). Insert drain holes in
protective casing immediately above concrete pad.
Install protective bumper posts filled with concrete as shown in Figure 5-8.
9-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intermediate Permanent Monitor Well
1. Drill to auger refusal with 8.25-inch hollow stem augers.
2. Begin coring inside the hollow stem augers using a 2-inch core barrel until 3 feet of
competent bedrock is removed from the hole.
3. Remove the coring tools from the hole and lower an 8-inch air rotary bit inside the
augers and ream the hole to the depth previously cored.
4. Remove the air rotary tools from the hole and lower a 6-inch carbon steel surface
casing into the hole and grout it into place using the tremmie method with a
cement/bentonite mixture.
5. Allow the casing and grout to set for a minimum of 24 hours before continuing work
on the hole.
6. Lower a 6-inch air hammer inside the surface casing until it rests on the bottom of the
hole. Begin air rotary work inside the hole with low volume air until the bit is 3 feet
below the bottom of the surface casing. Drill the hole to a depth equal to 20 feet
below the top of bedrock.
7. Install a 2-inch diameter stainless steel casing (316 stainless) and screen in the bottom
10 feet of the borehole and backfill the screen annulus with a sand pack (tremmie
method).
8. Seal annulus above the sand pack with a pure bentonite slurry. The slurry will extend
up to within 2.5 feet of land surface.
9. Allow the slurry to set for a minimum of 24 hours before continuing work on the
well.
10. Set a protective steel casing with locking cap into a poured concrete pad graded away
from the casing ( 4 feet x 4 feet x 6 inches deep). Insert drain holes in protective
casing immediately above concrete pad.
11. Install protective bumper posts filled with concrete as shown in Figure 5-9.
Deep Permanent Monitor Well
1. Drill a 14-inch hole down to refusal.
9-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Enter the hole with rock coring tools and begin coring until 3 feet of competent rock
is removed from the hole.
3. Reain the cored hole to 14 inches and install a 10-inch surface casing in the hole and
grout it into place.
4. Allow the grout and casing to set for a minimum of 24 hours before continuing work
on the hole.
5. Begin coring again using a 2-inch core barrel and make runs of 10 feet until 70 feet
of rock has been retrieved from the hole.
6. Once the rock is removed from the hole, a determination will be made as to how
much of the cored hole will be reained to 8 inches (The amount to be reained will
depend on the quantity and location of the water bearing fractures in the hole). It is
assumed that 55 feet of the cored hole will be reamed to 8 inches.
7. Once the hole is reained to 8 inches, a 4-inch stainless steel casing will be installed in
the hole and grouted into place. The grout will be allowed to set for 24 hours before
continuing work on the well.
8. Begin reaming the hole with a 4-inch air hammer down to the desired depth.
9. Once the hole is reamed, the well will be completed as an open 4-inch rock well.
10. Set a protective steel casing with locking cap into a poured concrete pad graded away
from the casing ( 4 feet x 4 feet x 6 inches deep). Insert drain holes in protective
casing immediately above concrete pad.
1 I. Install protective bumper posts filled with concrete as shown in Figure 5-10.
Sample Handling
The samples will be collected and handled in a manner consistent with the Environmental
Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Athens,
Georgia, February l, 1991.
9-23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
Well Construction Log
The purpose of a well construction log is to provide EPA with a record of the dimensions of
the hole, drilling methods used, any drilling problems encountered, and the general character
of the subsurface material penetrated. The log will include the following:
I. Name of the drilling company.
2. Dates and times of starting, stopping, and completion of the well.
3. Name of driller.
4. Diameter and depth of well and record of casing.
5. Make and type of equipment used, including methods of advancing the hole.
6. Descriptions of all soil and rock strata encountered with the driller's best estimate of
the depths at which changes in material occur.
7. Descriptions of water levels and behavior of drilling fluid, if used.
8. Observations of any unusual drill tool behavior.
9. Dates, times, and depths of groundwater observations.
10. All information specified in the driller's bid specification.
The driller will also keep a record of the construction design, materials, and amounts of
materials used in each monitor well. This record will include diameter of casing, depths and
lengths of all well screens, type of screen pack, and location of screen packs. Other
data may be requested by EPA. This record will be due at the completion of the drilling
project.
9-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Monitor Well Development
All installed wells will be adequately developed prior to sampling. Permanent wells will not
be developed for at least 24 hours after installation of the protective casing and pad.
Adequate development should eliminate all fine material from the area of the well screen and
allow for the collection of a sample that is free of suspended materials and is visibly clear.
Depending on the nature of the soils, wells may not develop to absolute clarity; slight
turbidity will be allowed if the driller can demonstrate that the development method chosen is
suitable for the conditions and turbidity readings have stabilized with development efforts.
Various methods may be used to develop wells at the site. These methods may consist of
pumping, bailing, lifting the water column with compressed air, plunging, surging, etc. The
exact development method will be left to the driller's discretion, with approval by the CDM
Federal geologist and EPA, as required. CDM Federal will periodically measure the pH,
temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity of water removed during well development
to evaluate the adequacy of development. This information will be recorded in a log. All
materials introduced into the wells during development, such as air lines, pumps, etc., will
be subject to decontamination procedures. All development water will be containerized in
55-gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE Plant for future disposal during the RD/RA
phase of site remediation.
Miscellaneous Drilling Protocols
All drill cuttings will be containerized in 55-gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE
Plant for future disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation.
The driller will supply a holding container (truck or trailer mounted) of at least 1,000-gallon
capacity for potable water used for drilling, mixing grout, tremmied sand, equipment
decontamination, etc. This holding container will be clean and free of all foreign matter and
9-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
will be subject to the onsite decontamination procedures and QC protocols. The driller will
be responsible for making arrangements to obtain potable water for drilling.
All grout will be mixed in a manner to assure a uniform product. Suitable methods include
commercially available grout mixers and stock tanks with high pressure/high volume
circulation systems (trash pumps or diaphragm pumps). Other methods will be considered
for approval by the COM Federal geologist and EPA.
If any boreholes are deemed unsuitable for monitor well installation by the COM Federal
geologist, the driller will abandon the borehole as required by the state and local regulations.
In addition, the driller will abandon any existing monitor wells determined to be poorly
constructed, damaged, or significantly deteriorated, according to state and local regulations.
In general, unless prohibited by regulations, the driller will make an attempt to removed the
well assembly. As the well assembly is being removed, a grout mixture will be pressure
injected from the bottom of the well bore to land surface. If, however, the well assembly
cannot be removed, a grout mixture will be pressure injected from the bottom of the well to
land surface.
9.4 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
9.4.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
For the purposes of cost-effectively estimating the extent of groundwater contamination in the
aquifer, and evaluating the groundwater transport pathways, groundwater sampling will be
performed. After completion of monitor well installation, groundwater samples will be
collected from each newly installed monitor well, each existing monitor well (except for
MW-38 through MW-44 which were not constructed for groundwater sampling purposes),
and up to ten private wells affected by the site. See sections 5.3. 7 for details.
9-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.4.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
The following codes refer to groundwater sample collection locations:
Site code:
Sample media code:
Number/Location
of samples:
Depth code:
Example: GE-GW-02-D
GE =
GW =
02 =
D =
GE
GW
MW -
1W
PW
RS
91
s
I
D
GE Site
GE Site
new monitor well samples
existing monitor well samples
industrial well samples
private residential well samples
rinsate sample
ESD/CLP (includes eight duplicates and
one rinsate sample)
shallow well
intermediate well
deep well
New monitor well groundwater sample
Sample\well number
Deep well
Note: Trip blanks will accompany each cooler shipment of VOA samples.
9.4.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following equipment or supplies will be used in support of this task:
• pH/temperature/conductivity meter and calibration standards
• Turbidimeter and calibration standards
• Calculator
• Weighted line
• Tape measure
• Water level indicator
• Submersible pump
• Peristaltic pump
9-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
9.4.4
•
• •
• •
•
• • •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
Generator
Closed top hailers -stainless steel, Teflon
Rope, nylon, 1/8 inch and 1/4 inch diameter
Teflon leaders
Tubing: Teflon, silicon rubber
Pipe wrench, 18 inch
Sample containers
Sample packaging and shipping equipment
Sample document control forms
Field logbook
Decontamination solutions and equipment
OVA flame ionization detector and/or HNu photoionization detector
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Disposable gloves
Camera/film
55-gallon containers (development and purge water)
TASK TEAM RFSPONSIBILITIFS
Field Manager Planning and technical management of groundwater sample
collection, sample handling and shipment; coordination with
laboratory and following specific health and safety procedures
for well opening.
Sampling Personnel -Assist in well development, purging, and sample collection,
handling and documentation.
9.4.S PREPARATORY ACTIVITIFS
The field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate sampling
equipment, supplies, and laboratory space are available. The site health and safety officer
will ensure that the proper safety equipment is available for field personnel and that the field
manager is aware of and follows the well head opening procedures specified in the Health
and Safety Plan.
9-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.4.6 LABO RA TORY /SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for coordinating with the laboratories to schedule
sample bottle and QC sample receipt and shipment of samples to the appropriate laboratory.
9.4. 7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples collected in this activity are classified as environmental samples. Samples will be
collected in appropriate containers and packed in coolers for shipment to the designated
laboratory. No precautionary labels will be required on container exteriors.
Samples will be shipped to the analytical laboratory within the appropriate time after
collection, so that maximum holding times for all parameters will not be exceeded.
9.4.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS
Monitor Well Purging and Sampling
I. Detailed instructions of the sample collection procedure and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager onsite prior to initiation of groundwater sampling.
The samples will be collected and handled in a manner consistent with the
Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality
Assurance Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
Environmental Services Division, Athens, Georgia, February 1, 1991.
2. Obtain the following measurements:
Total length of well, L, (in feet)
Length to the static water level in the well, L., (in feet to the nearest
0.01 inch)
Diameter of the well, d (in feet)
L, will be measured directly using a decontaminated weighted line.
9-29
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
L., may tie obtained from documentation or measured directly using a
water level indicator.
d will be measured directly using a tape measure.
All measurements are to be recorded in feet and decimals. All
measurements instruments will be decontaminated per standard
operating procedures.
Using the formula below, determine the volume of water in the well.
Volume = 0. 785 (d2) (L, -L.,) = cubic feet
Cubic feet x 7 .5 = gallons
A minimum of three well volumes will be purged (using low volume pumping or
bailing) from the well or until the well is pumped dry. Each well will be purged until
pH, temperature and specific conductance stabilize. These parameters will be
measured on a periodic basis until stabilization is attained. Well purging is typically
accomplished by the time five volumes are purged. All purge water will be
contained.
Determine the required duration of purging by dividing the purge volume by flow
rate.
The measurements required prior, during, and after the purge process will be
recorded on the well purge record.
After the well has been purged and the pump removed, collect the sample with the
bailer. The sample containers will be filled directly from the bailer starting with the
volatile container first.
Add chemical preservatives to the samples. Note that the VOA containers will be
preserved prior to sample collection. Check the pH of the metals and cyanide
samples.
Document the process.
Measure and record in logbook the pH, temperature, specific conductance, and
turbidity of the sample. These measurements may be taken from a sample collected
in an additional container. All instrument calibrations will also be recorded.
Complete documentation for the sample.
Place samples in a polyethylene bag.
9-30
I
m
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13. Identify, package, and ice samples for shipment.
14. Maintain chain-of-custody.
15. Ship samples to analytical laboratories.
All purge water will be containerized in 55-gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE Plant
for future disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation.
9.S AQUIFER TESTING AND MEASUREMENT
9.S.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
In situ hydraulic conductivity tests (slug test) will be conducted in each new monitor well to
estimate the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer media. In addition, each new
monitor well will be surveyed vertically and horizontally by a surveying subcontractor. One
round of groundwater level measurements will then be collected from each new and each
existing monitor well to evaluate the groundwater flow pathways. See Section 5.3.8 for
details.
In addition, five staff gages will also be installed in the adjacent surface waters. Three will
be placed in Bat Fork Creek (upstream, at the effluent outfall, and downstream) at the GE
subsite and two in Bat Fork Creek (upstream and downstream) at the Shepherd Farm subsite.
The elevation of each staff gage will be surveyed and the surface water elevation ( during a
baseflow time period) will be recorded based on the staff gage reading. Surface water
elevations will be recorded at the same time as groundwater level measurements are
collected. In addition, baseflow measurements will be taken at the staff gage locations.
9.S.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
No samples will be collected under this activity.
9-31
m
D
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.5.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following equipment or supplies will be used in support of this task:
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
9.5.4
Two-channel data logger with pressure sensitive water level transducers
Lap-top field computer with printer
Aquifer test data reduction software
Water flow meter
Steel measuring tape
Pipe wrench 18"
Field logbook
Solid slug of known volume
Decontamination solutions and equipment
Calculator
OVA flame ionization detector and/or HNu photoionization detector
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Disposable gloves
Camera/film
TASK TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Field Manager Planning, coordinating, and conducting the aquifer slug tests and
water level measurements
Field Personnel Assisting the field manager in performing the aquifer slug tests
and water level measurements, equipment decontamination, and
documentation
9.5.5 PREPARATORY ACTIVITIFS
The field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate equipment and
supplies are available. The site health and safety officer will ensure that the proper safety
equipment is available for field personnel.
9.5.6 LABORATORY/SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for coordinating with the surveying subcontractor.
9-32
I
I
I
D'
D
I
m
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
9.5.7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples will not be collected during this activity.
9.5.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS
In-Situ Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Record static water levels.
Install water level transducer in monitor well.
Introduce slug into well.
Allow water level to stabilize.
Set reference on data logger.
Instantaneously remove slug and activate data logger.
Allow water level to stabilize.
Record data.
Decontaminate equipment and mobilize to next well.
Surface Water Flow Measurements
l. The basic principal of this method is that the flow in a stream is equal to the average
velocity times the cross sectional area of the stream.
2. The velocity of the water is determined with a current meter. Measure velocity at .6
depth (from the top) and use this as the mean.
3. The area of the stream can be either measured or calculated using an approximation
technique in conjunction with a series of velocity measurements.
Monitor Well Surveying
The site surveyor will survey the elevation and location (top of casing and ground surface) of
the newly installed monitor wells. The surveying subcontractor will use the registered U. S.
Geological Survey benchmark nearest the site. Survey points will be referenced to the state
planar coordinates and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum, 1929.
9-33
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Level Measurements
Water levels will be permitted to stabilize a minimum of 24 hours prior to recording water
level measurements. All water level measuring activities will be performed within the
shortest period of time possible so that levels will be relative! y comparable. Each
measurement will be made from a known point of elevation marked on the well casing, as
surveyed by a licensed surveyor. The following steps will be taken:
9.6
I.
2.
3.
4.
Calibrate and decontaminate equipment and mobilize to first location.
Measure static water level and reference to the surveyed point.
Decontaminate equipment.
Proceed to next location.
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING
9.6.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Samples of surface water and bottom sediments will be collected both onsite and offsite at the
GE Site to help determine and evaluate surface water contaminant migration pathways,
potential ecological impacts from groundwater contamination through groundwater discharge
to surface waters, and the extent of surface water/sediment contamination. Surface
water/sediment samples will be collected from four locations along Bat Fork Creek and one
location from the spring at the GE subsite. One surface water/sediment sample will be
collected from the storm drain at the Seldon Clark subsite. Finally, surface water/sediment
samples will be collected from three locations along Bat Fork Creek and from two locations
along the Unnamed Creek at the Shepherd Farm subsite. Note that three upstream locations
will be sampled: one in Bat Fork Creek upgradient of the GE subsite and one each in Bat
Fork Creek and the Unnamed Creek upgradient of the Shepherd Farm subsite. Samples
collected from these locations will be used to establish background quality surface water and
sediment conditions.
9-34
0
D
0
D
0
U'
D
D
I
D
D
Surface water samples will be collected from the middle of the standing water column and
will be collected directly into the sample container where possible. The sediment samples
will be collected at the same locations as the surface water samples. All the sediment
samples will be collected from the upper foot of sediment in depositional areas, when
possible, using decontaminated stainless steel sampling devices. All the surface water and
sediment samples will be shipped to ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete T AL/TCL
parameter analyses at DQO Level IV.
9.6.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
The following codes refer to the identification of the surface water samples and sediment
samples to be collected:
Site code:
Sample location code:
Number of samples:
Example: GE-SD-01
GE =
SD =
03 =
GE
SW
SD
RS
25
GE Site
GE Site
surface water samples
sediment samples
rinsate sample
ESD/CLP (including 2 duplicate samples
and one rinsate sample)
sediment sample
sample number/location
Note: Trip blanks shall accompany each cooler/shipment of aqueous VOA samples.
9.6.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following field equipment and supplies will be used and/or available onsite:
• Field logbook
• Sample containers
9-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
•
• • • • • •
•
9.6.4
Sample packaging and shipment equipment
Sample document control forms
Stainless steel spoons
Pyrex bowls
pH/temperature/conductivity meter
Dissolved oxygen meter
Sampling shipping material
Sample seals
Sample tags
Field sample sheets
Chain-of-custody forms
Federal Express shipping forms
Decontamination solutions and equipment
OVA flame ionization detector and/or HNu photoionization detector
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Waders
Disposable gloves
Camera/film
TASK TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Field Manager Technical planning and management of field activities; sample
collection and handling; sampling location identification.
Sampling Personnel -Sample collection, handling, documentation and shipment.
9.6.5 PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES
The field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate sampling
equipment, supplies, containers, and laboratory space are available. The site health and
safety officer will ensure that the proper safety equipment is available for field personnel and
that monitoring occurs at an appropriate frequency.
9-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.6.6 LABORATORY/SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for general coordination with the laboratories to
schedule sample bottle and QC sample receipt and shipment of samples to the appropriate
laboratory.
9.6.7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples collected during this activity will be classified as environmental samples. Samples
will be collected in appropriate containers and packed in coolers for shipment to the
designated laboratory. No precautionary labels will be required on container exteriors.
Samples will be shipped to the designated laboratory within the appropriate time after
collection so that maximum holding times for all parameters will not be exceeded.
9.6.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS
Surface Water Samples
I.
2.
3.
4.
Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of surface water sample collection.
With sample bottles immediately available, don uncontaminated gloves .
The following guidelines will be considered in selecting representative sampling
points:
• Avoid collecting samples immediately above or below the confluence of
streams.
• The most downstream location should be sampled first and the most
upstream location last.
If it is necessary to wade into the water, the team member will be careful not to
disturb bottom sediments at the sample collection point. Subsequently, the team
member should approach the sample collection area from downstream.
9-37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Samples will be collected and placed directly into the sample containers with the
sample bottles oriented with the opening facing upstream.
Measure and record the pH, conductivity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen of the
surface water in the logbook. These measurements may be taken from the water body
itself or from a sample collected in an additional container, if necessary. All
instrument calibration will also be recorded in the logbook.
Add chemical preservative to metals and cyanide sample containers. Note that the
aqueous VOA containers will be pre-preserved before sampling.
Complete documentation for the sample.
Attach custody seals and place samples in a plastic bag.
Identify, package and ice samples for shipment.
Maintain chain-of-custody.
Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
The entire sampling process should be documented in the field logbook.
Sediment Samples
I.
2.
Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of sediment sample collection.
The following guidelines will be considered in selecting representative sampling
points:
• In flowing water, sediment deposition typically occurs inside river
bends on point bars, downstream of islands or other obstructions.
• Avoid collecting samples immediately above or below the confluence of
streams. Allow sufficient distance for the sediments to mix.
•
•
Sediment samples will be collected from depositional areas as opposed
to scoured areas as practical.
The most downstream location should be sampled first and the most
upstream location last.
9-38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3. If it is necessary to wade into the water, the team member will be careful not to
disturb bottom sediments at the sample collection point. Subsequently, the team
member should approach the sample collection area from downstream.
4. Depending on the character and accessibility of the sediments, a shovel, spoon,
dredge, or hand auger will be used to collect the samples.
5. With Pyrex bowl and sampling equipment immediately available, don uncontaminated
gloves.
6. Collect sediment samples while facing upstream and deposit the sediments into a
Pyrex bowl.
7. Transfer VOA samples to sample jars and apply specified closure.
8. Homogenize the sediments in the Pyrex bowl with a stainless steel spoon.
9. Transfer sediment to sample containers and identify samples with completed sample
tags.
10. Attach custody seals and place samples in a polyethylene bag.
11. Identify, package, and ice samples for shipment.
12. Maintain chain-of-custody.
13. Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
14. The entire sampling process should be documented in field logbook.
9.7 ECOLOGICAL SAMPLING
9.7.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The ecological sampling study will include the collection of fish from Bat Fork Creek and
analysis for PCBs. A total of seven stations will be established. Four stations will be
associated with the GE subsite and three stations will be associated with the Shepherd Farm
subsite. These locations will be in the same general area as a surface water/sediment sample
9-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
collected. At each station, fish will be collected by electroshocking, and the tissue will be
analyzed for PCBs. At least five fish tissue samples will be collected at each sample station.
9.7.2 SAMPLE CONTROL
The following codes refer to the identification of the ecological samples to be collected in Bat
Fork Creek.
Site code:
Sample location code:
Number of samples:
Example: GE-Ff-01
=
GE
Ff
7
GE Site
GE Site
fish tissue samples
ESD/CLP (no duplicates anticipated)
GE
Ff
01
=
=
fish tissue sample
sample number/station
9.7.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT
The following field equipment and supplies will be used and/or available onsite:
• Field logbook
• Sample containers
• Backpack electroshocker
• Pasola scales
Minnow seines
Calipers
Aluminum pans
•
•
• •
•
• • •
• •
•
Sample packaging and shipment equipment
Sample document control forms
Sampling shipping material
Sample seals
Sample tags
Field sample sheets
Chain-of-custody forms
Federal Express shipping forms
9-40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• • •
• •
Decontamination solutions and equipment
Air purifying respirator with Type GMC-H cartridge
Waders
Disposable gloves
Camera/film
9.7.4 TASK TEAM AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Field Manager
Sampling Personnel -
Technical planning and management of field activities; sample
collection and handling; sampling location identification.
Sample collection, handling, documentation and shipment.
9.7.5 PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES
The field manager or other designated personnel will ensure that adequate sampling
equipment, supplies, containers, and laboratory space are available. The site health and
safety officer will ensure that the proper safety equipment is available for field personnel and
that monitoring occurs at an appropriate frequency.
9.7.6 LABORATORY /SUBCONTRACTOR COORDINATION
The field manager will be responsible for general coordination with the laboratories to
schedule sample bottle and QC sample receipt and shipment of samples to the appropriate
laboratory.
9.7.7 SAMPLE TRAFFIC CONTROL
Samples collected during this activity will be classified as environmental samples. Samples
will be collected in appropriate containers and packed in coolers for shipment to the
designated laboratory. No precautionary labels will be required on container exteriors.
Samples will be shipped to the designated laboratory within the appropriate time after
collection so that maximum holding times for all parameters will not be exceeded.
9-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.7.8 SPECIFIC PROTOCOLS
1. Detailed instructions on the sample collection procedures and sequence will be
reviewed with the field manager prior to initiation of fish tissue sample collection.
The most efficient way to collect fish uses a three person team: one person to
electroshock, one person to collect the fish, and one person to record the information.
2. First person: Using a backpack electroshocking unit, walk in an upstream direction,
with the shocking wands in the water to stun the fish encountered. As fish are
stunned, they will float to the surface and begin to float downstream. The
electroshocking will be done in stream habitats that are most likely to support fish
populations (i.e., pools, eddies, and shaded overhangs).
3. Second person: Wearing latex gloves, walk downstream of the electroshocker and
collect all fish that surface within the field. An attempt will be made to collect both
bottom dwellers and predatory fish.
4. Third person: Located on the shore of the stream (and also wearing gloves), collect
the fish from the second person. Place the fish in a large stainless steel or enamel
pan for measurement and observation. For those fish that are kept for analysis, the
taxonomic identification, length, weight (using a Pesola or similar spring scale), and
condition of the fish will be recorded. Observations of conditions will include such
things as abnormalities (e.g., papillomas, fungus, diseases, tumors, missing fins),
gravid females, etc.
5. For fish to be released, record taxonomic identification in the logbook. Quickly give
fish to second person, standing in the stream, who will hold the fish under water,
facing upstream, until it recovers, then release it.
6. Identify each fish with a completed sample tag.
7. Wrap each fish tightly in hexane-rinsed aluminum foil and attach custody seal.
8. Identify, package, and dry ice samples for shipment.
9. Maintain chain-of-custody.
10. Ship samples to analytical laboratories and advise the EPA Sample Management
Office of sample shipment.
11. The entire sampling process should be documented in field logbook.
9-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 SAMPLE AND DOCUMENT CUSTODY PROCEDURES
Each sample received by the analytical laboratory for processing must be properly
documented to ensure complete and accurate analysis for all parameters requested, and most
importantly, to support the use of sample data in potential enforcement actions concerning a
site. The Region IV EPA system of documentation provides the means for tracking each
sample from the time of collection through final data reporting. In this work plan, a sample
is defined as a representative specimen collected from a specific location at an exact point in
time for a particular analysis, and is referenced to field samples, duplicates, replicates, splits,
spikes, or blanks that are shipped from the field to an analytical laboratory.
10.l SAMPLE CUSTODY
10.1.l FIELD LOGBOOK ENTRY PROCEDURES
The field logbook is a Controlled Evidentiary Document and will be maintained accordingly.
Logbooks will be made available by the field operations manager. Each logbook will be
assigned a document control number prior to use.
Field logbooks provide a means for recording all data collection activities performed at a
site. Entries will be as descriptive and detailed as possible, so that a particular situation
could be reconstructed without reliance on the collector's memory.
All measurements made and a detailed description of each sample collected are recorded.
All logbook entries will be made with indelible ink and legibly written. The language will
be factual and objective. No erasures are permitted. If an incorrect entry is made, the data
will be crossed out with a single strike mark, initialed, and dated. Entries will be organized
into tables if possible. The following guidelines will be implemented for all logbooks:
10-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
D
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Each page will be signed, dated, and numbered
Blank pages will be marked as such
Each entry will be identified with the time (24 hour clock)
Logbook extensions (field sheets, purge records, etc.) will be recorded in the
logbook
Logbooks will be returned to the field operations manager upon completion,
during periods of absence, and at the end of the investigation
At the beginning of each entry, the following information is recorded: the
date, start time, weather, all field personnel present, level of personnel
protection in use on site, and the signature of the person making the entry
In addition to sample description information, the logbook should also contain
full equipment data including field equipment used, serial numbers, calibration
information, and pertinent observations
Deviations from this Work Plan or other plans will be noted
Communications with coordinating officials will be recorded
• All logic behind field decisions will be supported in the logbook
Documentation for samples collected will include the following at a minimum:
•
•
•
• • •
•
• •
Description of sample location
Names of samplers
Time and date of sample collection
Intended analyses, containers, and preservatives
CLP traffic report sample numbers, if applicable
Laboratory destination
Sample tag numbers
Pertinent observations
Field measurements
In addition, photographs of each different sampling event will be recorded. The photograph
selection will be determined by the field operations manager during the sampling event. At
10-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the time of sample packaging and shipment, the shipper's airbill number and chain-of-custody
number will be recorded in the field logbook.
10.1.2 CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY-RECORDS
A chain-of-custody record will be completed for all samples requiring laboratory analysis.
The laboratory will designate the project number, and the field operations manager will
maintain it. The following guidelines will be implemented to complete the record:
•
•
•
•
Enter the project name
Sample collector signs the form
Record the station number (sample code) for each sample
Record the date and time of sample collection
• Indicate whether the sample was a grab or composite
•
•
•
Give a brief verbal description of the sample collection station
Indicate the total number of containers
Enter the individual number of each type of container under the corresponding
analysis
• Record the tag numbers
•
•
Relinquish the sample to the laboratory or shipper. If hand-delivered, request
the recipient sign. Because shipping companies will not sign-off, the name of
the shipping company should be recorded under "received by"
Enter the airbill number under remarks, if applicable
The serial number for each chain-of-custody form will be recorded in the field logbook.
If samples are sent to CLP laboratories, a sample identification number will be written in
indelible ink on each sample container collected for analysis. A Sample Traffic
10-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
u
I
D
m
•
I
I
Report/Chain-of-Custody Form will then be completed for each cooler of samples for each
designated laboratory. The information that must be entered on the form is detailed in the
User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program, December, 1988. A copy of this guide
will be onsite. The Traffic Report/Chain-of-Custody Form must be secured to the inside of
the shipping cooler prior to shipment. Shipping coolers will be secured with fiber tape, and
custody seals will be placed across cooler openings. A copy of the custody record will be
retained in the CDM Federal project file.
Each time the samples are transferred to another person, signatures of the persons
relinquishing and receiving them, as well as the time and date of transfer will be completed
in the appropriate spaces on the Traffic Report/Chain-of Custody Forms. This will complete
sample transfer.
It will be the CLP laboratory's responsibility to maintain internal logbooks and records that
provide a custody record throughout sample preparation and analysis. To track field samples
through data handling, CDM Federal will maintain photocopies of all traffic reports and
chain-of-custody records.
If samples are sent to ESD for analyses, a CDM Federal chain-of-custody form will be used
in place of the Traffic Report/Chain-of-Custody Form.
10.1.3 SAMPLE CONTAINER LABELING
For each sample to be analyzed, a separate sample tag will be completed and secured to the
sample bottle. The following guidelines will be used to complete each sample tag:
1. Project code refers to the case number designated by the laboratory for each
project. This code may be obtained from the field operations manager.
2. Station number refers to the sample code .
3. Record the month, day, and year.
10-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.1.4
4.
5.
Record the sample time.
Designate the sample as grab or composite (X).
6. Give a verbal description of the sample location.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Both samplers must sign the tag.
Indicate (X) if preservatives are in the sample.
Indicate (X) the type of analyses to be performed on the sample.
Under remarks, enter HWSI (Hazardous Waste Site Investigation), water or
soil, depending on the type.
The sequential number from the tag should be entered on the sampling field
sheet.
The sample number label from the inorganic or organic traffic report must be
stapled to the back of the tag.
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
A coding system is used to identify each sample taken during the sampling program. This
coding system will provide a tracking procedure to allow retrieval of information concerning
a particular sample and assure that each sample is uniquely identified.
A listing of the project and sample identification numbers has been developed and is provided
in Section 9.0 of this document. Each sample identification number is composed of four
components which are described as follows:
• Site Code - A two-letter designation is used to identify the sample collection
site. The designation for this site will be as follows:
•
GE -General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site
Sample Media Code - A two-letter designation is used to identify the specific
type of sample media being taken. The sample media which will be collected
during this remedial site investigation are:
10-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
\
•
Packaging
SS -Surface Soil
SB -Soil Boring (Subsurface Soil)
TP -Test Pit Soil
SW -Surface Water
SD -Sediment
Fr -Fish Tissue
GW -New Monitor Well Groundwater
MW -Existing Monitor Well Groundwater
1W -Industrial Well Groundwater
PW -Private Residential Well Groundwater
RS -Equipment Rinseate
WS -Water Supply
OF -Organic-Free Water
DM -Drilling Materials
Sample Number - A multi-number designation is used to number the sample
according to sample location. Samples are numbered consecutively within the
sample type and are not related to the date of collection (i.e., 01, 02, etc.).
Sample Depth Code - A one or two-letter designation used to identify the
depth of the sample if more than one depth is to be sampled at the same
location.
Samples are collected in glass and polyethylene bottles with non-metallic, Teflon-lined screw
caps. Sufficient ullage (10% by volume) is allowed. If air space in the container cannot be
tolerated in order to maintain sample integrity, the sample is placed within a second container
to provide the required air space.
In collecting a solid material, the container plus contents must not exceed one pound net
weight. Large quantities of material, up to one gallon, may be collected if the flash point of
the sample can be determined to be 73 °F or higher. If this is the case, this information
should be marked on the outside container with 10 percent air space. Shipping papers are
required to state that the "flash point" is 73 °F or higher.
10-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Each sample container is sealed and placed in a separate polyethylene bag. Each bag must
be placed inside an appropriately sized metal can or other DOT-approved container with
enough noncombustible, absorbent, cushioning material (e.g., bentonite, vermiculite, or
diatomaceous earth) to prevent breakage and provide for absorption of liquid. Only one bag
is placed in each can. The can is pressure closed and clips, tape, or other positive means are
used to hold the lid securely in place during shipment.
The metal cans or other DOT-approved containers are placed in a strong outside container
and surrounded with noncombustible, absorbing packaging material for stability during
transport.
Marking and Labeling
The following information must be placed on each metal can or other DOT approved
container, or one-gallon bottle:
• Laboratory name and address
• Flammable Liquid, n.o.s. UN1992 or
• Flammable Solid, n.o.s. UN1325
• n.o.s. (not otherwise specified) is not used if the flammable liquid or other
solid is identified
"LABORATORY SUPPLIES" and "THIS SIDE UP" or "THIS END UP" should also be
marked on the top and/or front of the outside container and upward pointing arrows should
be placed on all four sides of the exterior container.
Shipping Papers
The bill of lading supplied by the carrier should be completed and the certification statement
signed with the following information in the order listed:
10-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• "Flammable Liquid, n.o.s. UN1933" or "Flammable Solid, n.o.s. UN1325"
• "Cargo Aircraft Only," "Limited Quantity" or "Ltd. Qty"
• "Laboratory Samples," "Net Weight ___ ," or "Net Volume ___ " of
hazardous contents, by items if more than one metal can is inside of exterior
container.
The net weight or net volume must be placed just before or just after the "Flammable Liquid,
n.o.s. • or "Flammable Solid, n.o.s." description.
A complete chain-of-custody record, enclosed in an envelope, is included with the sample
container.
Transportation
All samples should be shipped by Federal Express. "Cargo Only" aircraft may be used, but
hazardous samples must not be transported by CDM Federal personnel in private vehicles.
10.1.5 SAMPLE SHIPMENT COORDINATION
If CLP laboratories are used, to enable the Sample Management Office (SMO) to track the
shipment of samples from the field to the laboratory and ensure timely laboratory receipt of
samples, CDM Federal will notify the SMO immediately upon shipment. The SMO contact
for Special Analytical Services (SAS) for Region IV is Nina Woodgate (phone: 703-519-
1233) and the SMO contact for Routine Analytical Services (RAS) is Roger Nowakowski
(phone: [phone]). Following all CLP sample shipments, the following information will
be provided to the SAS or RAS contact:
• • •
•
•
Sampler name and phone number
CLP Case (RAS) number and/or SAS number
Site name
Total number of samples of each matrix and concentration level shipped
Batch numbers (dioxin only)
10-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
• • • •
•
•
Laboratory(ies) to which samples were shipped
Carrier and airbill number(s) for shipment
Method (i.e., overnight)
Date of shipment
Any irregularities or anticipated problems with the samples, including special
handling instructions or deviations from established sampling procedures
Suspected hazards associated with the samples or site
Status of the sampling project (e.g., final shipment, update of future shipping
schedule, etc.)
If ESD is used, samples will be shipped directly to Debbie Colquitt at ESD in Athens,
Georgia.
10.1.6 SAMPLE TRIP REPORTS
If CLP laboratories are used, a sample trip report must be completed for each site per case
number, and must contain all the information as shown below:
• Site number
• Sampling date
• EPA Case (RAS) or SAS number
• Site location
• Sample description
• Names, addresses of laboratories receiving samples and sample types going to
those laboratories
• Sample dispatch data (e.g., Federal Express airbill number(s))
• Names, affiliation, and duties of onsite sampling personnel
• Additional comments (sample types, totals, blanks, etc.)
• Name of preparer and date of report
All blanks, spikes, and MS/MSD samples must be clearly indicated. This trip report will be
sent directly to Debbie Colquitt, Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC), within 10 days of
final sample shipment with a copy to the CDM Federal project file.
10-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.2 DOCUMENT CONTROL
Document control procedures cover all project deliverable documents, project
correspondence, and internal memoranda under this work assignment. Field logbooks will be
assigned document control numbers. The document control system provides a mechanism for
tracking all documents generated during execution of the project.
10-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
11.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
The purpose of this section is to provide the specific maintenance/calibration procedures for
all equipment related to the collection of data either in the field or through laboratory
analysis of samples.
11.1 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
All CLP laboratories shall have an in-place program for equipment calibration procedures
and frequency that meets standards established by the EPA Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP). CDM Federal assumes that EPA will be responsible for monitoring CLP laboratory
performance and compliance with the CLP contract requirements.
Laboratories responding to the solicitations for laboratory services will be required to submit
a QAPP with detailed procedures for equipment calibration and frequency. The contents of
this submittal will be reviewed by CDM Federal and will be used as a partial basis for
award. If requested, CDM Federal will deliver a copy of the subcontracted laboratory's
QAPP to EPA for review.
11.2 FIELD INSTRUMENTATION
Field instrumentation will be required to provide data concerning health and safety
considerations and as a method for field screening samples.
HNu Photoionization Detector
Calibration of the instrument will be performed with a factory supplied calibration kit
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Calibration will be performed each day of
11-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
use as a part of routine instrument maintenance, with a calibration record being maintained in
the field operation manager's logbook.
OVA Flame Ionization Detector
Calibration of the instrument will be performed with a factory supplied calibration kit
according to the manufacturer's specifications. Calibration will be performed each day of
use as a part of routine instrument maintenance, with a calibration record being maintained in
the field operation manager's logbook.
YSI 3300 Series Conductivity/Temperature Probe
The YSI 3300 cannot be calibrated in the field. The instrument should be standardized
against a known conductivity standard or against the reading of a laboratory conductivity
meter once per month, or each time it is released for field work, and on return for storage.
Percent variation should be recorded.
To operate the probe, the temperature of a solution is read and checked against an NBS
traceable thermometer. The percent variance of the meter is then noted.
HMX271
Calibration of the instrument will be performed according to the manufacturer's
specifications. Calibration will be performed each day of use as a part of routine instrument
maintenance, with a calibration record being maintained in the field operations manager's
logbook. This instrument is used to determine the presence of explosive atmospheres and
will give a readout of the explosion hazard from 0 to 100 percent of the lower explosive limit
(LEL), oxygen concentration in percent, and hydrogen sulfide concentration in ppm.
11-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pH Meter
Calibrations will be performed according to the manufacturer's specifications. The electrode
is rinsed with distilled water, placed in pH 7 buffer solution, and allowed to stabilize. The
pH 7 control is adjusted until the meter reads the correct value for the buffer temperature as
outlined below:
Temp {°C)
10
20
25
30
40
pH 7
7.06
7.01
7.00
6.98
6.97
pH 4
4.00
4.00
4.01
4.02
4.04
The electrode is then rinsed in distilled water, placed in pH 4 buffer solution, and allowed to
stabilize. The slope control is adjusted until the meter reads the correct value. The process
is then repeated. pH meter calibration will be performed at the start of each day of use as a
part of routine instrument maintenance, and after each use.
DRT Turbidimeter
Calibration of the instrument will be performed according to the manufacturer's
specifications using standard Formazin solutions. Calibration will be performed each day of
use as a part of routine instrument maintenance, with a calibration record being maintained in
the field operations manager's logbook. This instrument is used to determine the turbidity of
a water sample in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs).
MINIRAM Respirable Dust Monitor
Calibration of the instrument will be performed according to the manufacturer's
specifications. Calibration will be performed each day of use as part of routine instrument
11-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
maintenance, with a calibration record being maintained in the field operation manager's
logbook as listed: 1) battery check, 2) zero check. A field zero will be conducted as needed
by placing the monitor in a zero bag and purging the bag three times with filtered air. After
the bag has been purged, the monitor zeroing sequence may be started. The monitor will be
removed upon completion and a functional check will be made.
11-4
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The purpose of this section is to provide the analytical procedures required for each sample
matrix and type. Sample matrices and types to be collected and analyzed for the GE Site are
specified in Section 9.0. Analytical services will be obtained from two sources: internal
CDM Inc. laboratories and a CLP laboratory or the EPA ESD Laboratory in Athens,
Georgia. These laboratories will be used to obtain enforcement, litigation, and/or evidentiary
data.
A list of the sample types, parameters, and methods to be used by all laboratories supporting
this RI/FS is provided in Table 12-1.
12-1
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
MATRIX
TABLE 12-1
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
PARAMETER METHOD REFERENCE
All media -ESD/CLP TCL chemicals
T AL chemicals
CLP SOW #OLM0l.1-8
CLP SOW #ILM02.0
(dated 3/19/90)
Subsurface Soil
Notes:
Grain Size
Specific Gravity
Moisture Content
Bulk Density
Porosity
pH
Total Organic Carbon
ASTM D422
ASTM D854
ASTM D2216
ASTM C357
Calculated*
EPA 9045
EPA 9060
* Based on specific gravity, moisture content, and bulk density
12-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!1
13.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION, AND REPORTING
13.1 DATA LOGGING
Upon receipt of samples for analysis (accompanied by a completed request for analysis form
and/or chain-of-custody materials detailing requested analysis), the laboratory supervisor or
his delegate will:
•
•
•
• •
Verify all paperwork, chain-of-custody forms, etc .
Log in samples, assign unique log numbers, and attach numbers to the sample
container(s)
Open project file and enter data on laboratory computer
Assign priority and hazard rating criteria
Store samples in refrigerated sample bank .
13.2 ANALYZING SAMPLES AND PROCEDURAL DETAIL
The sample will be analyzed by chemists and/or technicians using approved analytical
procedures presented in Section 12.0. The chemist/technician will then record the results of
analyses and detail all procedural modifications, deviations, or problems associated with the
analyses in a parameter workbook.
13.3 VALIDATION OF DATA
For all laboratory analyses, upon completion of an analytical procedure and prior to official
reporting, a QA/QC review will be performed to validate the results. CDM Federal assumes
that EPA Region IV ESD will review and validate all laboratory data obtained in this RI/FS.
The QA representative for ESD will review all data for:
13-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Completeness of Analytical Data -This criterion is a measure of the amount of
valid data obtained from the measurement system compared with the amount
that was expected under normal conditions.
Correctness of Analytical Data -This criterion is simply a check on all
mathematical calculations, data transpositions, units of measure, significant
figures, etc.
Accuracy -This criterion compares reported values to known values.
Precision -This criterion measures the reproducibility of a measurement.
Representativeness -In a laboratory setting, this criterion is usually evaluated
according to the data's credibility, based on the QA representative's past
experience with similar samples.
CDM Federal will be responsible for reviewing all field data for completeness,
representativeness, accuracy, and precision.
13.4 FINAL REPORTING AND REPORT ARCHIVAL
Upon successful completion of the QA/QC process, data will be submitted in final report
form. Laboratory analytical data will be submitted in standard CLP format. This format
consists of all pertinent sample and project information as originally provided in the sample
log, and all analytical notes and references. All field measurements will also be compiled
and evaluated for inclusion in the RI/FS report.
The RI/FS report will include a QA section addressing the quality of the data and its
limitations. The QA section will address:
• Adherence to the document(s) governing the measurement work (e,g., the
Work Plan). Deviations will be noted and explained.
• Precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data reported, in quantitative
terms. The precision, accuracy, and completeness actually achieved will be
compared with the respective objectives set in the document(s) governing the
measurement work.
13-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Additional information which will be provided includes, as appropriate:
• Representativeness and comparability of the data in qualitative terms as
compared with the objectives set for these parameters.
•
•
•
•
Changes/revisions to the document(s) governing the measurement work .
A summary of QC activities, including development of Standard Operating
Procedures and QC procedures.
A summary of QA activities.
Results of performance and/or system audits
Description of quality problems found
Description of corrective actions taken
Specific information required by the client.
Laboratory reporting and archival of information will be in accordance with the CLP contract
requirements for CLP analytical data. Copies of all internal and/or subcontracted laboratory
analytical data and/or final reports will be retained in the laboratory files and, at the
discretion of the laboratory, data will be stored on computer disks for a minimum of one
year. After one year, or whenever that data becomes inactive, the files will be transferred to
archives in accordance with Standard Laboratory Procedure. Data may be retrieved from
archives upon request. All field measurements recorded in the field logbooks will be
maintained in the project files through project closeout.
13-3
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
Internal quality control procedures are designed to assure the consistency and continuity of
data. The frequency of quality control checks is based on the type of quality control
analysis. Standard field sample quality control analyses include but are not limited to
duplicate samples, blank samples, split samples, spiked samples, and equipment rinseate
samples. Each of these types of quality control samples is explained below along with the
additional quality control samples (e.g., water supply) to be collected and analyzed in this
RI/FS.
In addition to analyzing the standard field QC samples described below, the laboratory will
also prepare and analyze its own set of internal QC samples. These internal laboratory QC
samples will be prepared and analyzed in accordance with the CLP SOW requirements or
guidance stated in specific testing methods as appropriate.
14.1 DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Duplicate samples are collected as a measure of the precision of the sample collection
process. Duplicates will be collected at the same time, using the same procedures, the same
equipment, and the same type of containers as the required samples. They will be preserved
in the same manner and submitted for the same analyses as the required samples. Duplicate
samples will be given a distinctive code and will not be identified as duplicates.
Approximately 10% percent of all samples will be collected in duplicate.
14.2 SPLIT SAMPLES
A representative subsample from the collected sample is removed and both are analyzed for
the pollutants of interest. The samples may be analyzed by two different laboratories for a
check of the analytical procedures. In this RI/FS, split samples will only be collected if an
14-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EPA-approved request by an outside party associated with this RI/FS is received. The split
samples will be collected and immediately turned over to the outside party at the site.
14.3 ESD SPIKED SAMPLES
Known amounts of a particular constituent are added to an actual sample or to blanks at
concentrations at which the accuracy of the test method is satisfactory. This method provides
a proficiency check for the accuracy of the analytical procedures. CDM Federal assumes
that the spiked samples will be prepared at the EPA Region IV ESD laboratory, Chemistry
Section, located in Athens, Georgia. Spiked samples will be requested from EPA on a
weekly basis for each week that includes sample collection and analyses. The laboratory that
will conduct the analyses will be required to provide full CLP documentation for spiked
sample analyses. Spiked samples will be submitted for each environmental matrix (liquid or
solid) represented during the subject week of sample collection. The samples will be
transported to the GE Site and then delivered to the CLP or subcontract laboratory for the
same analyses as the field samples. ESD spiked samples will be given a distinctive code and
will not be identified as spikes.
14.4 ESD BLANK SAMPLES
Contaminant free samples are prepared as a proficiency check for the accuracy of the
analytical procedures. CDM Federal assumes that the blank samples will be prepared at the
EPA Region IV ESD laboratory, Chemistry Section, located in Athens, Georgia. Blank
samples will be requested from EPA on a weekly basis for each week that includes sample
collection and analyses. The laboratory that will conduct the analyses will be required to
provide full CLP documentation for blank sample analyses. Blank samples will be submitted
for each environmental matrix (liquid or solid) represented during the subject week of sample
collection. The samples will be transported to the GE Site and then delivered to the CLP or
subcontract laboratory for the same analyses as the field samples. ESD blank samples will
be given a distinctive code and will not be identified as blanks.
14-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.S TRIP BLANKS
Trip blanks are used to monitor the effectiveness of sample handling techniques during the
investigation. The trip blanks will be prepared prior to the sampling event and will be kept
with the investigative samples throughout the sampling event. They will be packaged for
shipment with the other samples. The samples will be transported to the ESD or CLP
laboratory for the same VOC analyses as the field samples. These samples will not under
any circumstances be opened prior to reaching the laboratory. Trip blank samples will be
given a distinctive code.
14.6 MATRIX SPIKE/MATRIX SPIKE DUPLICATE SAMPLES
Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) samples are collected to evaluate the
precision of the laboratory analysis. For aqueous samples, a double volume of a designated
field sample is collected, and shipped to the laboratory instead of the normal volume for the
sample. The designated field sample is one which is expected to be relatively free from
contamination, since it will be used for laboratory control purposes. Approximately, 5 % of
the field samples will be collected in sufficient volume to perform the MS/MSD analyses.
14.7 EQUIPMENT RINSEATES
Equipment rinseate samples are required if sampling equipment is cleaned in the field. These
"blanks" are used to determine the effectiveness of field cleaning procedures. Equipment
rinseate samples are collected from the final organic-free water rinse during the
decontamination of sampling equipment. Rinseate samples are analyzed for the same
parameters as the environmental samples collected during a particular sampling event.
Equipment rinseate samples will be collected to represent each type of sample collection
equipment as necessary for each environmental matrix. Equipment rinseate samples will be
collected from the following sources:
14-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Drilling Equipment
• Groundwater Sampling Equipment
• Soil Sampling Equipment
• Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Equipment
Each of the four equipment categories listed above that require rinseate samples will be
composited to represent a single equipment set based on category (i.e., drilling equipment
rinseates will be composited into one sample). Generally, one rinseate sample will be
collected per sampling event per equipment category. Each rinseate sample will be analyzed
by ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete TCL/T AL parameters .
14.8 WATER SUPPLY SAMPLING
Two water supply samples will be collected directly from the water storage tanks and one
sample will be collected from the organic-free water supply during the field investigation. In
addition, one sample will be collected from the steam jenny used for cleaning equipment.
These samples will be analyzed by ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete TCL/TAL
parameters. If the source of water changes or is considered potentially variable, then
additional samples will be collected from each batch.
14.9 DRILLING MATERIALS
One sample each of the filter pack sand, bentonite, and grout used in the construction of the
permanent monitor wells will be collected during the drilling investigation. These samples
will be analyzed by ESD or a CLP laboratory for complete TCL/TAL parameters.
14.10 FREQUENCY
The frequency of quality control checks is based on the type of analysis. EPA Region IV
requires that at least one blind blank and one blind spiked sample be submitted to each
laboratory each week for each type of analysis (extractables, volatiles, etc.), and for each
14-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
medium sampled. Duplicate samples are to be collected at a frequency of 10%. Trip blanks
are to be submitted with each shipment of VOC samples. MS/MSD samples are to be
collected at a frequency of 5 % . The QC samples for this project are summarized in Table
5-1.
14-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15.0 SYSTEM AND PERFORMANCE AUDITS
15.1 INTERNAL AUDITING SYSTEM
The ARCS QA program will include both performance and system audits as independent
checks on the quality of data obtained from sampling, analysis, and other data gathering
activities. Every effort will be made to have the audit assess a measurement process in
normal operation. Either type of audit may show the need for corrective action. Specific
details covering QA audit procedures are addressed in Section 6.0 of the ARCS Quality
Assurance Management Plan (COM Federal, 1992).
SYSTEM AUDITS are qualitative reviews of project activity to check that the overall quality
program is functioning and that the appropriate QC measures are being implemented. The
use of the internal QC measures identified in this work plan will be checked in system audits.
PERFORMANCE AUDITS are quantitative checks on different segments of project activity
and are most appropriate to sampling, field measurements, and laboratory analysis activities.
Performance audit techniques include checks on sampling equipment, volume measurements,
and the analysis of QC samples.
15.2 AUDIT REPORTS
An audit report in memo format will be written by the auditor within ten working days of the
audit and submitted to the Regional QA Coordinator. Following review and _approval of the
report by the Regional QA Coordinator, it will be distributed to the QA Director (QAD), the
ARCS Program Manager, the project manager, and the audited party.
15-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15.3 FREQUENCY OF AUDITS
During this project two field system audits and two office system audits win be conducted.
The QAD, or an auditor designated by the QAD, will conduct the audits.
15.4 · EXTERNAL AUDIT
CDM Federal will cooperate fully in any performance or system audits conducted or
arranged by EPA.
15-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16.0 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES AND SCHEDULES
An inventory control system including all equipment and instrumentation used by CDM
Federal's field personnel is maintained by the equipment manager as the basis for
maintenance and calibration control. The inventory control documentation includes the
following:
• Description of item
• Manufacturer, model number, and serial number
• CDM Federal's identification number
• Name, address, and telephone number of the company which services the item
• Type of service policy
• Timing and frequency of routine maintenance, servicing, and calibration
A schedule of field equipment maintenance is presented in Table 16-1. There are no critical
spare parts required for equipment used during field activities identified for this project at
this time.
16-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
TABLE 16-1
FIELD EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
GE SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Equipment Maintenance Task Frequency
Foxboro Organic Vapor Start-Up Procedure Prior to each use
Analyzer 128 Operational Check Prior to each use
Pumping System Check Prior to each use
Shut-Down Procedure After each use
Battery Charging After each use
Field Calibration Check Prior to each use
Hydrogen Refilling As needed
Clean Particle Filters Daily or weekly
HMX271 LEL Start-Up Procedure Prior to each use
Oxygen & Hydrogen Operational Check Prior to each use
Sulfide Monitor Calibration Check Prior to each use
Combustible Range Calibration Monthly
Oxygen Range Calibration Monthly
Hydrogen Sulfide Range Calibration Monthly
Combustible Alarm Adjustment Monthly
Oxygen Alarm Adjustment Monthly
Combustible Detector Replacement As needed
Oxygen Sensor Replacement As needed
Meter Replacement As needed
Buzzer Replacement As needed
Battery Replacement As needed
Filter Replacement As needed
Model PDM-3 Miniature Zero Check Prior to each use
Real-Time Aerosol Start-Up Procedure Prior to each use
Dust, Smoke, & Mist Shut-Down Procedure After' each use
Monitor (MINIRAM) Battery Pack Replacement As needed
Cleaning Sensing Chamber As needed
16-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 16-1 (continued)
FIELD EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE
GE SITE
Equipment
HNu Photoionization
Detector
Submersible Pump
YSI 3300 CIT Meter
pH Meter
DRT Turbidimeter
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Maintenance Task
Calibration with known span gas
General Maintenance per
Manufacturers Instructions
Calibration
Cleaning the Probe
Re-Platinizing
Calibration with 2 pH standards
Cleaning/Checking the Probe
Calibration with Standard
Formazin Solution
Battery Charging
Battery Replacement
Lamp Replacement
16-3
Frequency
Daily
Regular intervals
Monthly
Monthly or as
needed
As needed
Prior to each use
Daily
Daily
As needed
As needed
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
17.0 DATA MEASUREMENT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
The assessment of data measurements is an activity that affects data quality. Data quality
objectives and required QC measures are discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of the ARCS
Quality Assurance Management Plan (CDM Federal, 1992). The following sections describe
the procedures that will be used for calculating precision, accuracy, completeness, and
representativeness and comparability.
17.1 PRECISION
Precision will be estimated by the analysis of duplicate samples and will be expressed (if
three or more values are determined) as the standard deviation. Relative standard deviation
may also be reported. Precision will be estimated by calculation of relative percent
difference (RPD) if only two values are determined. For duplicate analytical results D1 and
D2:
RPD =
(D1 -D2)
(D1 + D/2)
17.2 ACCURACY
X 100
Accuracy will be estimated from the analysis of QC samples whose true values are known,
or from surrogate or matrix spike recoveries. Accuracy will be expressed as percent
recovery (R), which will be calculated as follows:
% R =
C,
C,
X 100
17-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
where,
C, = measured spike sample concentration (or amount)
= true spiked concentration (or amount)
17.3 COMPLETENESS
Completeness (C) will be reported as the percentage of all measurements made whose results
are judged to be valid. Completeness will be estimated using the following formula:
V
C = X 100
T
where,
V = number of valid measurements
T = total number of measurements
17.4 REPRESENTATIVENESS AND COMPARABILITY
Representativeness expresses the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population, parameter variations at a sampling point, a process condition,
or an environmental condition. Comparability expresses the confidence with which one data
set can be compared to another.
To ensure that reliable data continue to be produced, systematic checks must show that test
results remain reproducible and that the methodology is actually measuring the quantity of
constituents in each sample. Quality assurance begins with sample collection and continues
until resulting data have been reported.
17-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Representativeness and comparability are generally not quantifiable. Qualitative guidelines
and procedures are used to assess these parameters.
Specific laboratory quality assurance requirements for precision and accuracy are described
in detail in the EPA Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch, Standard Operating
Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (1991). Laboratory data objectives for precision,
accuracy, and detection limits are described in the CLP contract and are monitored directly
by EPA.
17-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
18.0 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Perhaps the single most important part of any quality assurance program is a well defined,
effective policy for correcting quality problems. COM Federal maintains a closed-loop
corrective action system under the direction of the QA director, with full management
support. COM Federal's corrective action system operates to prevent problems, but it is also
designed to ensure that if there is a problem, it is reported to a person responsible for
correcting it who is part of the closed-loop action and follow-up plan. COM Federal's
corrective action procedures are discussed in detail in Section 7.0 of the ARCS Quality
Assurance Management Plan (CDM Federal, 1992).
The essential steps in the COM Federal corrective action system are:
• Identify and define the problem
• Assign responsibility for investigating the problem
• Determine a corrective action to eliminate the problem
• Assign and accept responsibility for implementing the corrective action
• Implement the corrective action
• Verify that the corrective action has eliminated the problem
• Document the problem identified, the corrective action taken, and its
effectiveness in eliminating the problem
Whenever possible, predetermined limits for data acceptability will be established for
measurement systems. Corrective action will be initiated whenever QC limits (e.g.,
calibration acceptance criteria) or QA objectives (e.g., precision as determined by analysis of
duplicate samples) for a particular type of measurement are not being met. COM Federal is
required to use a Corrective Action Request (CAR) Form which documents the deficiency,
18-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
requests corrective action by a specified date and requires follow-up on completion of the
corrective action.
All CDM Federal staff members are responsible for notifying the project manager, program
manager, QA coordinator, or the QA director when they discover a condition that may
impair the quality of the work being performed. In most cases, corrective action will be
implemented as part of normal operating procedures by project staff. If normal procedures
do not solve the problem, an individual may initiate a CAR form and forward the form to the
QA director. The QA director is re~ponsible for investigating .the problem and following up
on resolution of the problem. The project manager is responsible for completion of
appropriate corrective action.
18-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
19.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS TO MANAGEMENT
The CDM Federal Regional QA coordinator will submit a monthly report of QA/QC
activities on this project to the CDM Federal ARCS QA manager. These reports will detail
the use of QC procedures, describe audits conducted, problems uncovered, and corrective
actions taken. The CDM Federal ARCS QA manager will then prepare a monthly summary
of overall QA activity on the contract for submittal to the QA director.
Individual work assignment reports of work requiring a measurement activity will include a
QA section or appendix that discusses the quality of the data collected. Measurement activity
includes, but is not limited to:
• Acceptance in the field of samples collected by others
• Collection of samples
• Geotechnical, meteorological, or analytical measurements
• Bench scale treatability studies
• Laboratory measurements
Content requirements for these QA sections are provided in Section 3.8 of the CDM Federal
Quality Assurance Manual (1991).
19-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 1993. Preliminary Public
Health Assessment for General Electric Company LSD/Shepherd Farm, East Flat
Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina. CERCLIS NO. NCD079044426.
Bush, M.J., 1990. Letter from General Electric addressed to Mr. Robert Morris of the U.S.
EPA dated February 28, 1990.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1991. Quality Assurance Manual.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1992. Quality Assurance Management Plan,
Revision 1.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation, 1993. Draft Final Report, Responsible Party Search
for General Electric Co/Shepherd Farms Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
Prepared for U.S. EPA. Document Control No. TES7-C04100-RT-DMHG-2.
Law Engineering, 1989a. Report of a Phase II-A Contamination Assessment, General
Electric Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for General Electric
Lighting Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1989b. Report of Sediment Sampling, General Electric Facility,
Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems
Department.
Law Engineering, 1989c. Report of a Phase JJ-B Contamination Assessment, General
Electric Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for General Electric
Lighting Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1990a. Phase I Contamination Assessment of Underground Storage Tank
Excavations, General Electric Lighting Systems Facility, Hendersonville, North
Carolina. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1990b. Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Monitoring Report, August
I990, Monitoring Wells Around Former Underground Storage Tank Areas, General
Electric Lighting Systems Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for
General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1991a. Quarterly Groundwater Sampling Monitoring Report, November
1990, Monitoring Wells Around Former Underground Storage Tank Areas, General
Electric Lighting Systems Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for
General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES (cont.)
Law Engineering, 1991b. Repon of Soil Sample Collection and Laboratory,Analyses,
Underground Storage Tank Number 8 Excavation, General Electric Lighting Systems
Facility, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for General Electric Lighting
Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1991c. Phase II Environmental Assessment, Former Underground Storage
Tank Number 9 Area, General Electric Lighting Systems Facility, Hendersonville,
Nonh Carolina. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Engineering, 1994. Residential Well Sampling Analytical Data, General Electric
Lighting Systems Facility, Hendersonville, Nonh Carolina. Prepared'. for General
Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1990a. Report of PCB-Contaminated Sediment Assessment, General
Electric Company, Hendersonville, North Carolina. Prepared for General Electric
Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1990b. Repon of Phase II/A Groundwater Quality Assessment
Activities, General Electric Company, Hendersonville, Nonh Carolina Facility.
Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1990c. Risk Assessment Related to Groundwater Contamination at the
General Electric Company Lighting Systems Department, Hendersonville, Nonh
Carolina Facility. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1991a. Repon of the Phase IIIA Aquifer Characterizati<;n and
Groundwater Treatment System, General Electric Company, Henderso,nvil/e, Nonh
Carolina Facility. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1991b. Addendum to the Phase I/IA Aquifer Characterization and
Groundwater Treatment System Report, General Electric Company, Hendersonville,
Nonh Carolina Facility. Prepared for General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
Law Environmental, 1991c. Groundwater Recovery and Treatment System Process Design,
General Electric Company, Hendersonville, Nonh Carolina Facility. Prepared for
General Electric Lighting Systems Department.
NUS Corporation, 1989. Final Repon, Screening Site Inspection, Phase II, General Electric
Corporation Lighting Service Division, East Flat Rock, Henderson County, Nonh
Carolina. Prepared for U.S. EPA. Document Control No. R-586-6-9-20.
I
0
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
1·
REFERENCES (cont.)
NUS Corporation, 1991a. Interim Final Repon, Listing Site Inspection, Phase II, General
Electric Company Lighting Systems Depanment, East Flat Rock, Henderson County,
Nonh Carolina. Prepared for U.S.'EPA. Document Control No. R-586-1-1-7.
NUS Corporation, 1991b. Final Repon, Limited Scope Listing Site Inspection, Phase 11,
Shepherd Farm, Flat Rock, Henderson County, Nonh Carolina. Prepared for U.S.
EPA. Document Control No. R-586-2-1-17.
Trapp, H., 1970. Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Asheville Area, Nonh
Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey. Groundwater Bulletin No. 16.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1987. Data Quality Objectives for
Remedial Response Activities, Development Process. EPA/540/G-87/003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final.
EPA/540/G-89/004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1991. Environmental Compliance Branch
Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual.
Wallingford, E., 1989. Shepherd Farm Preliminary Assessment. North Carolina Department
of Human Resources, Superfund Branch, Solid Waste Management Section.
I
I
m
n
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
Monitor Well Development
All installed wells will be adequately developed prior to sampling. Permanent wells will not
be developed for at least 24 hours after installation of the protective casing and pad.
Adequate development should eliminate all fine material from the area of t.he well screen and
allow for the collection of a sample that is free of suspended materials and is visibly clear.
Depending on the nature of the soils, wells may not develop to absolute clarity; slight
turbidity will be allowed if the driller can demonstrate that the development method chosen is
suitable for the conditions and turbidity readings have stabilized with development efforts.
Various methods may be used to develop wells at the site. These methods may consist of
pumping, bailing, lifting the water column with compressed air, plunging, surging, etc. The
exact development method will be left to the driller's discretion, with approval by the CDM
Federal geologist and EPA, as required. CDM Federal will periodically measure the pH,
temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity of water removed during well development
to evaluate the adequacy of development. This information will be recorded in a log. All
materials introduced into the wells during development, such as air lines, pumps, etc., will
be subject to decontamination procedures. All development water will be containerized in
55-gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE Plant for future disposal during the RD/RA
phase of site remediation.
Miscellaneous Drilling Protocols
All drill cuttings will be containerized in 55-gallon drums, labeled, and stored at the GE
Plant for future disposal during the RD/RA phase of site remediation .
The driller will supply a holding container (truck or trailer mounted) of at least 1,000-gallon
capacity for potable water used for drilling, mixing grout, tremmied sand, equipment
decontamination, etc. This holding container will be clean and free of all foreign matter and
9-25