NCD079044426_19950501_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA RI_Draft Remedial Investigation Report-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I I l GE/Shepherd Fai:n NPL Site
Remedial Investig1fion Report
Draft May, 199::
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
I. I Purpose of Report
1.2 Report Orginization
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
3.0
2.1
2.1. l
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Site Description
Location
2. I. 2 Physical Features
Site History
2.2. l Onsite Treatment/Storage/Disposal Activitiys
Previous Sampling Investigation Results
Site Regulatory Actions
Demography
Surround Land/Water Use
Environmental Setting
2.7. l Physiography/Topography
2. 7. 2 Climate/Meteorology
2.7.3 Geology
2.7.4 Hydrogeology
2.7.5 Hydrology
2. 7.6 Wildlife Natural Resources
SAMPLING STRATEGY
3. I Sample Collection
3.2 · Sample Identification·
3.3 Soil Sampling
3.3. l GE Property
3. 3. 2 Seldon Clark Prope1ty
3.3.3 Shepherd Farm Property
NOl103S ONn.:Jl:J3dns
S66! S 6 A'v'W
03Nf9eJ3c,
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-13
2-26
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-29
2-30
2-30
2-32
2-34
2-35
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-5
3-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION EA.GE
3-8
3-8
3-14
3-14
3-14
3-14
3-17
3-17
3.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
3.5 Temporary Well Installation and Sampling
3.6 Monitor Well Sampling
3. 7 Potable Well Sampling
3. 8 Analytical Procedures
3. 9 Field Instmmentation
3. IO Sample Containers
3 .11 Field Sampling Equipment Cleaning Procecdures
4.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 4-1
4.1 Soil Sampling
4.1.1 GE Property
4.1.2 Seldon Clark Property
4.1.3 Shepherd Fann Property
4.2 Sediment and Surface Water Sampling
4.3 Temporary Monitor Well Installation and Sampling
4.4 On Site Pennanent Monitor Well Sampling
4.5 Potable Well Sampling
4.6 Well Survey
4-1
4-2
4-18
4-22
4-33
4-46
4-53
4-75
4-84
5.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT 5-1
5.1
6.0
Contamiant Migration 5-1
5. I. I Air Migration 5-1
5.1.2 Surface Water Migration 5-2
5 .1.3 Soil Migration 5-2
5.1.4 Ground Water Migration 5-3
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1
6.1 Soil Investigation
6.1.1 General Electric
II
6-1
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
a
g
I
n
D
SECTION
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.1.2 Seldon Clark
6.1.3 Shepherd Fann
6.2 Surface Water
6.3 Sediment
6.4 Temporary Monitor Wells
6.5 GE On Site Permanent Monitor Wells
6.6 Private Well Sampling
6. 7 Recommendations
UGE
6-1
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-2
6-3
6-3
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
111
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
LIST OF FIGURES
EI.G.URE
2.1 Site Location Map
2.2
2. 3 Shepherd Fann Subsite Features Map
2.4 Seldon Clark Subsite Features Map
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2-13
3.1 GE Property Soil Sampling Locations
3.2 Seldon Clark Property Soil, Su1t'ace Water and Sediment Sampling
Locations
3.3 Shepherd Fann Property Soil Sampling Locations
3.4 -' GE Property Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-11
2-14
2-18
2-21
2-23
2-24
2-25
2-31
2-33
3-4
3-6
3-7
3-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
LIST OF FIGURES
EIGURE
.
3.5 Shepherd Fann Property Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Locations
3.6 GE Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
3.7 Seldon Clark Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
3.8 Shepherd Farm Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
3.9 GE Property On Site Monitor Well Locations
3. 10 Potable Well Locations
4.1 GE Property Soil Sampling Locations
4.2 Seldon Clark Property Soil, Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Locations
4.3 Shepherd Fann Property Soil Sampling Locations
4.4 GE Property Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
4.5 Shepherd Fann Property Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Locations
4.6 GE Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
4.7 Seldon Clark Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
4. 8 Shepherd Farm Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations
4.9 GE Property On Site Monitor Well Locations
4.10' Cis-1,2-dichloroethenc Shallow Well Isopleth
V
£AGE
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-15
3-16
4-3
4-19
4-23
4-34
4-35
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-56
4-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
g
I
D
D
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
LIST OF FIGURES
ElGURE EAGE
4.11 eis-1,2-dichloroethene Deep Well Isopleth 4-67
4.12 Trichloroethene Shallow Well Isopleth 4-68
4.13 Trichloroethene Deep Well Isopleth 4-69
4.14 Tetrachloroethene Shallow Well Isopleth 4-70
4.15 Tetrachloroethene Deep Well Isopleth 4-71
4. 16 Total voe Shallow Well Isopleth 4-72
4.17 Total voe Deep Well Isopleth 4-73
4.18 4-
4.19 4-
4.20 GE Property Potentiometric Surface Map 4-78
4.21 Potable Well Locations 4-80
vi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
u
I
I
B
I
I
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Repo1t
Draft May, 1995
LIST OF TABLES
IABLE
2.1
2.2
Underground Storage Tank Data
Well Constrnction Details
3.1 Sample Container and Preservative Requirements
4.1 General Electric Soil Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.2 Seldon Clark Soil Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.3 Shepherd Fann Soil Sampling Analytical Data Smmary
4.4 Shepherd Fann Soil Sampling Location Summary
4.5 Surface Water Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.6 Sediment Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.7 Surface Water Sampling Field Parameters
4.8 Temporary Well Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.9 Temporary Well Sampling Field Parameters
4.10 Generaal Electric Monitor Well Constrnction Information
4.11 General Electric Monitor Well Sampling Analytical Data Summary
4.12 General Electric Monitor Well Sampling Field Parametei-s·
4.13 General Electric Ground Water Elevation Summary
4.14 Potable Well Samples Residential Names and Addresses
Vil
EA.GE
2-12
2-25
3-18
4-4
4-20
4-24
4-30
4-36
4-40
4-45
4-50
4-52
4-54
4-57
4-63
4-76
4-79
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May, 1995
LIST OF TABLES
4.15 Potable Well Samples Analytical data Summary
4.16 Potable Well Samples Field Parameters
.eAGE
4-81
4-83
viii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
The General Electric/Shepherd Fann 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.
One of the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for this Site, General Electric Lighting
Systems, declined to enter into an Administrative Order by Consent with EPA to conduct the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. Therefore, this study was conducted using
Superfund monies, and is therefore, classified as a fund-lead site.
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of this RI report is to present and evaluate data gathered during the field
investigation. The main focus of the RI is to determine source areas, and delineate the nature
and extent of contamination. Field data collected included chemical analyses of soil,
groundwater, surface water and sediment. The risk posed by the contamination is evaluated
in a Risk Assessment and will be used to support EPA's selection of a remedial action
alternative that will eliminate or sufficiently reduce the risk posed by the GE site to public
health and the environment.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This RI report contains six major sections:
*
*
Section 1 -Introduction
Section 2 -Site Information and Physical Characteristics of Study Area -Site
History and Previous Investigations; addresses demography, surrounding
land/water use, topography, meteorology, hydrogeology, geology, and wildlife
Natural Resources.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
*
*
*
*
*
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
Section 3 -Sampling Investigation (addresses soil, surface water/sediment, and
groundwater sampling strategy).
Section 4 -Nature and Extent of Contamination (addresses investigation
findings).
Section 5 -Contaminant Fate and Transport (addresses potential routes of
migration and contaminant migration).
Section 6 -Summary and Conclusions.
Appendix A -Ecological Investigation.
Appendix B -Analytical Data.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 SITE INFORMATION
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
This section provides information on the history of the site and investigations conducted prior
to the RI. This section also describes the regional and site-specific characteristics of the
study area including: demography, surrounding land/water use; and environmental setting.
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1.1 LOCATION
The GE subsite is located at the southeastern corner 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 50-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 southwest of the GE subsite (see Figure 2-1). Geographically, the
center of the subsite is located at 35°16'10" 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
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 corner of Spartanburg Highway and
Tabor Road (see Figure 2-1)~ Geogiaphically, the ~~nter.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 approximately 1-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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
._;
""" ~ \\•.
~ .... ,
0 • ,•
.
• JI-• : '
. 11• ·=
II • :/i.t
II ---!.]/._ II
1 :J:
_,,, 0 :la IT.I
SCALE IN FtET
' I ar , \ . II
\ \\ • \I
\~,_~•~v}• •
•~. I
'~\ ~~: ~-.. ~'
---:::::,.,__.:<·~~~=·/ ,' J i
..;;.~ii..:--, (..
, . ..
'
SITE LOCATION MAP
,-------------------------1 FIGURE -2.1 I "Q/7EnA GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
~ ~ Fam\ EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA i.._ ____________ --1...-_ ___J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.1.2 PHYSICAL FEATURES
GE Property
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May 1995
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, 1991a).
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 a small (1-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 land spreading plot. · · · · · ·
The area south of Bat Fork Creek also belongs to GE and includes a small (1-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
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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) and a community center are present on the southern
portion of the subsite. A small unnamed intermittent creek runs through the middle of the
subsite before discharging into Bat Fork Creek (NUS, 1991b).
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 that forms its
eastern boundary. The only facility located on the property is a small shack which was
formerly used as a junk/antique shop (EPA, 1993).
2.2 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 devices. 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
spiri 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).
2-7
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
u
I
I
I
D\ I
I
I
I
I
I
z -w <z ·-~J
GE SUBSITE FEATURES MAP
I I I I\
~ ~ J ~
i!a < X
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 2.2
~ ~/7-EnA GENERAL ELECTR1c suPERFUND s1TE
~ ~ Fl'\. EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA D ~ ..... _______________________________ _,_ _____ ...J
I
--·· I
! / I i
/ / i
/ !
/ ; ;
i
i , / i / . i / ./ / ,
\
\ '--------·-·-··
SHEPHERD FARM SUBSITE FEATURES MAP
------------------------t FIGURE 2.3 &EPA. GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERlY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
/ /'
--HJ] _b
w
0:: I-VJ
0 0 VJ w z 0 -,
t;;
L,J u..
0 ,!;
L,J ..J < ()
U1
0 0
~
I
i
1'7
z
I :;:;:
0::
0
::;,
I
0::
0 I-VJ
f-z :s 0... w C)
3nN3/\V
0::: w
2
0::: <( Ow . LL 0:::
0 <(
W-1 ~ _j
2 LL
f-
(f) w
ON0::)3S
, SELDON CLARK SUBSITE FEATURES MAP
~ ~ 3: I
(_')
I
(_')
0:: :::,
Ill z ~
0:: <l'. Q_
VJ
~
<D r--
VJ
:::,
------------------------1 FIGURE 2.4
~EPA GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
B
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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,
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 are first manufactured by a lamination punching
process. Copper wire that has been coated with a protective varnish at the facility is drawn
and wound irito 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
(EPA, 1993).
2.2.1 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. 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 (EPA,
1993).
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
B
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 processes, 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 po·nd 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 from 1976 to 1980 (NUS, 1991a).
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. t:andspreading of
sludge ended in 1980 with the prnmulgation 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).
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May 1995
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 (NC DEM) on January 21, 1983, by GE. An estimated 1,400
gallons of the #2 fuel oil was accidently lost on January 19, 1983, 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 (NUS, 1991a). Another accidental #2 oil spill was reported to NC DEM on
January 10, 1995. An estimated 6,500 gallons of fuel oil were spilled on January 6, 1995
from a day tank located adjacent to a boiler house. GE used oil collecting booms to stop the
spread of the oil (Bush, 1995).
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). 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 irnpoundment 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, 1991a).
Underground storage tanks (USTs) at eighteen locations (see Figure 2-5) 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
2-10
I
I
:C I ~ D' r I I!/ I
z i ~~ I 25:J ~
GE SUBSITE UST LOCATIONS
I I I I I
I
I . / I . ;,,<;:<._ ...
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
H
I
I
I
I ~-----------------------....! FIGURE 2.5
ii &EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
=::t r:;;;;:i 11iii11i11 1iiiii1 liiillil 11111 1iiii1ii1 ii1i1 · iiii1 iiiii1 -------.. -
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
2 112 Fuel Oil 1990+ 6@30,000 Under Demonstration Street NA 1969
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 1966
7 Kerosene 1989 1,000 Northwest of north wing 7/83 1966
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'Coa!'. 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
b (NA) -Information Not Available
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 icy, 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. Additionally, 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).
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. PREVIOUS SAMPLING INVESTIGATION RESULTS
Several 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. The quality of the data collected during the GE-conducted events,
however, is unknown. These studies have included monitor well installation and groundwater
sampling, soil sampling, surface water/sediment sampling, and offsite private well sampling.
Figure 2-6 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· inte·rval in 'the deeper fractured ·rock zone. Alrwells
with an "R" extension (e.g., MW-36R) are replacement wells for wells which were
inadvertently damaged or destroyed. The replacement wells are reported by GE to be
constructed similarly and in the same location as the original wells.
2-13
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
I
!&EPA
GE SUBSITE WELL LOCATIONS
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2.6
~.._ __________________________ __,_ ____ ___,
I
I TABLE2-2
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
I GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORm CAROLINA
I Measuring Ground Auger Screened Survey Coordinates
Point Surface Refusal Interval
Elevation Elevation Depth Depth Northing Easting
I Well No. (feet ams!) (feet ams!) (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
MW-02A 2153.10 2150.0 29.7 38.3 -48.3 3912.4 10547.0
MW-03 2143.62 2140.8 23.S 12.5 -22.S 3683.9 10238.8 I MW-04 2146.46 2143.S 13.8 8.2 -13.2 3856.S 10171.3
MW-OS 2182.72 2180.1 37.S 42.7 -52.7 4467.3 10229.4
MW-06 2178.69 2175.6 22.S 30.S -40.S 4373.4 10223.5
I MW-07 2178.28 2178.4 37.3 26.8 -36.8 4478.7 10134.5
MW-08 2186.47 2183.7 31.S 31.S -48.3 OH 4573.9 10239.9
MW-09 2177.57 2177.7 37.4 27.4 -37.4 4462.5 10330.S
m MW-10 2189.15 2187.1 88.0 78.0 -88.0 5505.6 10531.1
MW-11 2178.76 2178.9 58.S 48.5 -58.S 4993.6 10119.5
MW-12 2168.96 2166.4 40.S 30.S -40.S 4738.3 9935.1 • MW-12A 2168.77 2166.4 43.S 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.S
MW-13A 2141.00 2138.5 8.0 31.0 -41.0 4587.3 11160.8
I MW-14 2144.63 2142.0 37.4 27.3 -37.3 4184.1 10875.3
MW-14A 2144.56 2142.1 37.S 42.3 -58.3 4180.8 10878.6
MW-14B 2143.30 2142.3 40.0 83.0 -110.0 OH 4187.7 10872.0
I MW-JSR NA NA 18.0 7.5 -17.S NA · NA
M:W-16R NA NA 38.S 28.S -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
:r.iW-20 2179.09 2179.4 65.6 55.3 -65.3 5388.3 10072.6
MW-20B 2179.31 2179.5 52.0 115.0-125.0 OH 5384.1 10072.1
I 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
MW-23 2160.80 2160.0 60.0 49.8 -59.8 4277.6 9818.7 n 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.S 21.5 -31.5 4080.3 11112.3
MW-28 2155.00 2154.7 36.0 25.5 -35.5 4455.3 9049.4
MW-29 2160.16 2157.9 41.0 31.0 -41.0 5153.9 11054.7
D
H 2-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
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
IITS l(P-4)*
IITS 2(P-5)*
!ITS 3(P-7)*
IITS 4(P-8)*
Sources:
NOTES: •
OH
NA
TABLE 2-2 (cont.)
WELL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EASI' FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Measuring Ground Auger Screened Survey Coordinates
Point Surface Refusal Interval
Elevation Elevation Depth Depth Northing
(feet ams!) (feet ams!) (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 5384.1
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 -48.1 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 II-ll 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 hole in rock
Nat determined
Not available
2-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
n
I
n
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
During the sludge landspreading 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).
Figure 2-7 shows the locations of the private wells sampled.
In 1986, four monitor wells (MW-1 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 Il, 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. The sediment samples from
Bat Fork Creek and the small wastewater pond were found to be contaminated with PCBs
(NUS, 1989).
F-rom 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 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 previously ruptured drain line, thus indicating that this drain line was the
primary source_ of contamination (NUS, 1991a).
2-17
== i=i == r,;;;; a;! ---.. liiiil liiil -iiiiil -- - ---lBU0l0
[Tl C) .
)>l"'l
VJZ --1 [Tl
:::0
,i)> rr )> --1 [Tl r :::0 fT1 oo 0 --1 A :::0
. 0
ZVl Oc
:::0 -0 --1 [Tl
I :::0
0 '1 ► c :::0 z 00
r Vl z-
)>~
'1
C)
C
:::0
[Tl
N
'-..J
-0
:::0
~
[Tl
::;E
[Tl r r
r 0
0 ~
0 z
(/)
KING ST. 085
e 86
1st
I ·• I
-1l0 1lO
=•nu
9 14
O 79
956
057
058
see e59
960
510 849 s2e ,..__... 48
25 042
47
46
26
94
."'1-..!!!.~.::.:l.~l-64.
65
66
3~ 53 93
6
36
0 73 6 .
e 71 7
33 38 Oe, • • 40
37
C?I 72 ~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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):
Large wastewater pond -17,400 tons (14,500 cubic yards)
Small wastewater pond -3,300 tons (2,700 cubic yards)
Dry sludge irnpoundment -4,500 tons (3,300 cubic yards)
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, MW-30, MW-30a) 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-27 A) 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-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and methylene chloride. The results
also again indicated that the groundwater plume had reached the GE property boundaries.
Low levels of these contaminants and a few other 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). GE reported that closure
procedures were 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 ~xcavation 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 Joca'tio·ns:. In April 1990, GE installed ·and s-ampled ·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).
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
n
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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
the data necessary for a subsequent scoring of the site, using the revised 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), the formerly ruptured drain line area, Landfill B, and
background locations. Extensive organic and inorganic contamination was found at the sludge
impoundment and the two wastewater treatment ponds. PCB-1248 and various extractable
organics were detected at elevated concentrations in these three source areas, PCB-1248 was
also found at Landfill B. Six onsite monitoring wells (MW-1 through MW-6) were also
sampled during this investigation and found to contain tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene,
1,2-dichloroethane, and trichloroethene at elevated concentrations. In addition, five sediment
samples were collected along Bat Fork Creek, including one sample upgradient of the GE
subsite (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. 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 elevated
levels of tetrachloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, trichloroethene, and lead (see
Figure 2-8) (NUS, 1991 b ).
During the EPA Listing Site Inspection, -Phase II, for the GE facility, one soil samp-le ·arid 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, bu.t only lead was detected at an elevated concentration in the sediment sample
(NUS, 1991a).
2-20
1111i! -111111 llllill !ail lliilil liiil liii iiiiil liiil liii --------
, ,
,{oFFSITE )
' SF-TW-01
43PB
1:.EGEND
~ PRIVATE WELL
,/
8' ,le-I
~ "-SF-PW-03 J 7.6APCE
, 7PB
4PB
3,8J PCE
-PW-04 +
A_ 140 PCE, 6PB
/ '~ 73PB, 511,2DCE,
S0TCE, 170PCE,
,,/ , , -~~ / 140Bi5(2ETHYLPHENYL)PHTHALATE
"-.. 8~-TW-08 26PCE, 27/ ~
~~,, SF-TW-02 0 ) r--::::::::.
'-...._ ./SF.;.TW-04 88JTCE,2.6J 1,2DCE, (j {J 'ff '. 3.2JVC
8F-TW-03ND
190PB
D
"' +TEMPORARY WELL
)2 1-----------------------....--------------r------...;.N..;;.O.;.;TE;;.: ;.;.NO;.;T_T..;;.O..;;.SC;.;.A..;;.LE~
"' 0 ~ CONCENTRATIONS IN PPB SH~~l~gJ~.RM
f::J LSI, PHASE II HENDERSON COUNTY ~EPA FIGURE 2.8
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE
LOCATION MAP u'i MAY, 1990 NORTH CAROLINA ~L..-----------....1.. __________ ..i_ ____________ ..1-__________ __.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•--
1
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May 1995
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 MW014A 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 2-9 through 2-11. 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 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
hydro·carooii contamination (benzene,-ethylbenzene, and xylenesj was -found in-both these
monitor wells with the highest concentrations in MW-46 (Law Engineering, 1991c).
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
2-22
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C, -< 0 __,
N "' z
-------20
TETRACHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS
I I I I II
I
I \
I
. o/~ li .
/
'-.. , .. ............
IN GROUNDWATER (MAY 1990)
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 2.9
~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I I I I I
I
I
u
n
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I I I I I I
!· ,.✓---------~
I i'•
I \
I
I
g
'~ .. ~ .. ..............
~/ ---~-~==~
t J ~! fs
I , , -
TRICHLOROETHENE CONCENTRATIONS
IN GROUNDWATER (MAY 1990)
1---------,--------------------IFIGURE 2.10
~ ~/7EnA GENERAL ELECTR1c suPERFuNo s1TE
I ,-::: ~ r""'JF!\ EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA ~.___-----------------L------1
I
l&EPA
I
I I
------------------------lFIGURE 2.y2
ADDITIONAL voe CONCENTRATIONS
IN GROUNDWATER (MAY 1990)
GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
'I
GE/Shepherd Farm NFL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
been removed. City water mains have been extended to areas near GE, and GE has paid for
connections to these water mains and/or provided bottled water for some households (EPA,
1993).
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.
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, recommendations were made and a
conceptual design was prepared for a permanent groundwater recovery and treatment system
(Law Environmental, 1991a, b, and c). However, this system was never 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. ·
2.4 srrE REGULATORY ACTIONS
The GE facility filed Part A of a hazardous waste permit for storage in 1980 under the
J!Zesource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 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-(9", 1988,--EPA for~ally---
. 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
2-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
became effective on May 1, 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.
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". The Site was
finalized on the NPL in December 1994.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 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).
2.5 DEMOGRAPHY
The GE Site is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, which had a 1990 census
p·opulation 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 aboui 79% white and 20% black, but in the site vicinity, the
distribution is about 96% white and 2% black (ATSDR, 1993).
. Based upon a house count from USGS topographic maps, the popuiation-~iiliin \ rnile--of the
GE and Seldon Clark subsites (excluding the approximate 1,100 GE plant employees) is
estimated to be 1,010. The nearest residence is adjacent to the southeast property boundary.
The nearest school (currently not in use) 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
2-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
•--.
I-
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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. Approximately two-thirds of these homes 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 I 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. No nursing homes or hospitals are presently located mthin 1
mile of the Shepherd Fann subsite (ATSDR, 1993).
2.6 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 followecl b·y ve1i°etable farrru;, 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
2-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Repo1t
Draft/ May 1995
the relatively low volume of flow, residents have reportedly used the creek for watering
gardens. In addition, some livestock are likely to obtain water from the stream.
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 fishing) which in
turn 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 Henderson.ville 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 been 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 some connections to the public water system.
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 east of
the subsite (ATSDR, 1993).
2.7 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2,7.1 PHYSIOGRAPHYn'OPOGRAPHY
The GE 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 rnountains, and steep slopes and narrow valleys, but also
· · -·with some flat .areas in a few small valleys~ The· Asheville=Henderso-nville area ·is · ·
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).
2-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
u
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 general topographic relief over the site is presented in Figure 2-12. 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 Shepherd Farm
subsite is generally to the northwest at about 10 percent.
2.7.2 CLIMATE/METEOROLOGY
The climate of the region is humid-continental. Average monthly temperatures range from
41 ° F in January to 77° F in 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
inches (NUS, 1991a).
2.7.3 . 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 1 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
2-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I SOURCE: USGS 7.5' QUADRANGLE MAP (HENDERSONVILLE, NC)-1990
11-----------------,-------,
• 1 &2EPA
GENERAL SITE TOPOGRAPHY
GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
/.)--
Fl GU RE. 2.j)
nL __________________________________ .,_ _____ ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
R
I
I
Environmental, 1990b).
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 ). 1n general, however, the size and frequency of fractures
decrease markedly with increasing depth. 1n this type of terrain, approximately 90% of the
fractures typically occur within the upper 100 feet of bedrock.
2.7.4 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 2-13. As seeidn.this figure, groundwater at the
GE and Seldon Clark subsites generally flows from the northwest toward the south and east
2-32
~ ~5 i ~~ . -i ~ i\ :i i ~ I;; !!~ ~ os; ~ ~ . " (';I I >t,/ ~ ~ I~~ ~ -4 I I -;. h /' ,. ~~ •• I I ~ o\ ·\ '¼-,c" I II I i \
I \
I
, GE SUBSITE GROUNDWATER LEVELS (MAY 1990) /3
------------------------1 FIGURE 2.fo
~EPA GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 the
shallow aquifer in both the porous and upper fractured media zones is expected to range from
approximately 1 to 10 feei/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 rang(ffrom 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.
2.7.5 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, \vhich ii;' the· oasic water qu·ality 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
Fork and Mud Creeks, but their locations are not evident on the USGS topographic maps
(NUS, 1991a).
2-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 (A TSDR, 1993). As of the date of this report, this event
has not yet occurred.
Bat Fork Creek is a perennial surface water body which, from visual observation, appears to·
be about 10 feet wide and less than l· 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 tril;mtaries contribute flow to Bat Fork Creek, primarily during wet weather (Law
Environmental, 1990c).
2.7.6 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
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 according to
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists due to the small size of
the stream. However, -a study conducted by Law (1990) conch1ded 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,
2-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
n
D
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
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 (6.:.
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 (Urocyon 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
(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).
2-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
D
I
I
I
3.0 SAMPLING STRATEGY
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft I May, 1995
This remedial investigation included the collection of soil, sediment, surface water and
ground water samples specified in the Project Operations Plan (POP), August, 1994. The
sampling investigation was conducted during September, 1994. All samples collected were
analyzed for volatile and extractable organic compounds, pesticides, PCB's and metals.
3.1 Sample Collection
All samples were collected in accordance with Section 4 of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Environmental Compliance
Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, Febrnary I, 1991 (3).
The quality assurance and quality control procedures described in this manual insure that
representative samples are collected from the various media sampled. A copy of the manual,
in addition to the Work Plan and Field Sampling and Analysis Plan, was maintained at the
field office/command post for reference during all phases of the field sampling activities.
Any deviations in sampling procedures were recorded in the field log books.
Replicate and variability samples were collected for 5 percent of the soil samples. Split
sediment, surface water and ground water samples were also collected. This provided a
check for sampling techniques. In addition, water trip blanks were prepared with organic
free water by the Analytical Support Branch (ASB). The trip blanks were transported to the
field, handled and stored with the samples collected from the site. This provided a check to
detennine if samples may have been contaminated during handling and storage.
3.2 Sample Identification
Samples collected during the project were designated using an eight digit alphanumeric code
in the fonn of: GE-XXX-YYY. The prefix "GE" (for General Electric) was used on all
· sample designations. The "XXX" represents a three digit alphanumeric sample number
corresponding to the sample collection location. The sample collection locations are
specified on the Figures presented in Section 4. In general, the samples were numbered as
follows:
00 I -199 Nonna! grab or composite sample ·
401 -499 -Replicate (split) sample
501 -599 -Soil co-located (variability) sample
701 -799 QA/QC samples
,
The last two digits of the replicate and/or the co-located samples will, in general, correspond
to the sample collection location. For example, sample GE-425-GW is a replicate of sample
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
H
I
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May, 1995
GE-025-GW, and sample GE-530-SLA is a sample co-located to sample GE-030-SLA. Co-
located samples were collected I foot due north of the sample collection location. If the
sample was a composite, then aliquots were collected I foot due north from each aliquot
collection location.
The "YYY" represents the next two or three letters which indicate the sample matrix as
specified below:
SW -
GW -
SD
SL -
Surface Water
Ground Water
Sediment
Soil
A third letter was used with the "SL" designation and represented the depth from which the
sample was collected as specified below:
SLA -0-6 inches ELS
SLE 3-4 feet ELS
SLC -6-8 feet ELS
Other third letter designations were assigned as conditions warranted.
When discussing the analytical results in this report, the "GE''. and any preceding O's will be
eliminated. For example, sample GE-001-SLA will be referred to as sample 1-SLA.
3.3 Soil Sampling
Thirty four surface soil samples and 41 subsurface soil samples were collected during this
investigation. In general, the surface soil sampling interval was O to 6 inches ELS and the
· subsurface soil sampling intervals were three feet to four feet ELS and 6 to eight feet ELS.
3.3.1 GE Property
Twenty surface soil samples and 21 subsurface soil samples were collected from the
la11dspreading ·areas, along -the drain ·urie arid fonnei' ditch;· alo-ng the railroad track and frcim
the present and two fonner landfills. These numbers include replicate and co-located
samples.
Landspreading Areas A and E were divided into eight sub-areas as indicated on Figure 3.1.
One composite surface soil sample was collected from each of these sub-areas. Each
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE1Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May, 1995
composite sample consisted of five aliquots. One sample aliquot was collected from the
center of each area at a depth of Oto 6 inches below land surface (BLS). The VOA sample
container was filled from this aliquot. Also, four additional aliquots of soil were collected
from each area from a depth of 0 to 6 inches BLS and composited with the soil sample
collected from the center of the area to generate one sample for extractable organic
compound, pesticide, PCB's and metals analyses. The four additional sampling locations in
each area were located approximately 75 feet from the center of each area at angles of 45°,
135°, 225° and 315° from north. A grab subsurface soil sample was collected from the
center of each sub-area at a depth of three feet to four feet BLS.
Lanclspreacling area C, which is currently a recreation area, was cliviclecl into two sub-areas.
The five aliquots for each surface soil sample (0-6 inches BLS) were randomly spaced
around the buildings in one sub-area and around the baseball field in the other sub-area. A
grab subsurface soil sample was collected from the each sub-area at a depth of three feet to
four feet BLS.
One composite surface soil sample (0-6 inch BLS) consisting of five aliquots was collected
from lanclspreading area D. One aliquot was collected from the center of the area. The four
additional sampling locations were located approximately 75 feet from the center of the area
at angles of 45°, 135°, 225° and 315° from north. A grab subsurface soil sample was be
collected from the center of the area at a depth of three feet to four.feet BLS.
A total of 11 surface soil samples and 11 subsurface soil samples were collected from the
lanclspreading areas.
Three landfills, designated A, Band C, exist on site. Grab surface soil and grab subsurface
soil samples were collected from landfill A. L111clfill A.is currently paved over with asphalt.
Consequently, the surface soil sampling interval was 6 inches to 12 inches BLS, to lessen the
impact of the asphalt on the sample. The subsurface samples were collected from three feet
· to four feet BLS and six to eight feet ELS. The surface and subsurface soil sampling
intervals for landfills Band C were Oto 6 inches BLS and three feet to four feet BLS,
respectively.
Four subsurface soil samples were collected from two locations beneath the drain line/fom1er
-. clitcff . . One loc,itioii was. off the east comer of the· 1i1ain plant and tlie other-was clue west of
the OV Stores building. The sampling intervals were three to four feet BLS and six to eight
feet BLS.
3-3
-== 382L01CT ,--ijt m j r7~ J> z (() r7 -{ ;;o 77 J> rr J> r7 -ir ;;o r7 □~ n;;o ;,;:,_. ' n z (() □c ;;o cl -{ r7 :c ;;o n77 J>c ;;oz □ t::J r vl ............ z -{ J> r7 77 ...... C\ C ;;o r7 w >---C\ r7 cl ;;o D cl r7 ;;o -{ -< (() D ...... r (/) J> 3: cl r ...... z C\ r D n J> -{ ...... D z (() liiiilil llilii1 -liiiii liiiii iiii iiii -------SL-Cl 9 ,-----"-=-,---mAIN LINE: \J\ " //~ // "\'.:::::c,.==----// ~ ... ~~~. ·, // :'('"-:,.,, ,'\., -.:\~~,:,_\''-~'."'-'/ /..Z:::..:>-::~~:~t--.:.;,~--:-,..~\~·,~::::,:~. ' (<-{\~?:ilt\~t.i~\t.l\\\:~.='-..... ~.... ~~~---~~-~~~\~,~.lD:::'~-~'('(,~~~:;z,:. y SPRING res--:~~~ ----.:::z-:, .. "'-.\l\t~>\\\·1'i:~t~\~~\*\~}~~\: \' ~"~'--.:s., ... ~ .... ,.... -....'"-':-,,'., ·-,:,~,·-....,:-..'-··~\''-'\\:::'-'..'..•_. \ z_-.;-,,~-..:'-;,~;-,':_:~~ ,.:::.:::,, ~'-:-,_-';._":~.,,-00~,<--.;"-'.~~,,~-,·,,-z,~, . ~}'" /~i.~f~\\i\~1~~~\~~.. '<~.:::", ·,·'='\~\~~\\~~\~~\~\\\~~~ · ,_,..~ I) _,,,-, :,,"-,>,·..:· ,_,,,,-.,-:,.;, '' ~' ,_,, '· ''SI.~..:.:' ·'-:s...,,,,-.;s:,.. ....,_ (:Q,..__ fi,<~tt,\\~\~~~. '{,}~f.:~\\~\~~-'--',~:,.' ~~~}~?.~~\~\~~~~'\~;;\, .... ~ :-;_,,.,,,\_,-,,,~~'Si.;':.~~~"-'•).'.~'-'-'-. '•\•'-..""· :·' .. "¼:.'¾~t'\'•·/::"">-~~ I -\\'Ss~\\~1~\\)i.1}i~\\t.~~.--~~w ~" ~\~it}zt~ . ~"~>,'¢:~\\~~~~\;f~ ~\~~\~~~~' , "~~,\\~~oaf-JV \.'-~\~'-::.\~· r--_ ""---.,.-.;,.: •"'-.~'.\i>-SLUDGE -\'.'>.•..;,~',,,~,: --.....,.. __ I\._ IHPCJJNDKENT t·•>.·-....:;__\~~ -.-..:-._'-~ ... ,_,~ K''~\'--:-.· i,·~•::--,,~'-' /-..--...;~'.&---_.::.~':: ~:--... ~"'\.'\,.,1 ~~'-""-~,.\ R"'-'S-~"':-1 l,\-.:·.,.•.:>) '~i-~'\) MAIN PLANT ... WAREHOUSE "' -~, -SCALE IN FEET Willlll ~ -.ASDIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS ~ L.ANDSPREADIHG PL□TS ~ FDRHER LAHDFILL RE:CREATION FACILITY '· '· '· □ L------l k SPARTANBLRG HYY --1 . \ II ~········ ~ A~-"""-· ~--~ I -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
I
R
I
R
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Rcpo,1
Draft / May, 1995
Two subsurface soil samples were collected along the railroad track. One location was off
the east comer of the main plant and the other was west of the warehouse building. The
samples were collected just below the railroad gravel bed.
Soil borings were completed at three former UST areas. One soil sample was collected at a
depth of 12 feet BLS or just above the water table interface at two of the borings locations.
Location 20 was in the grassy area northeast of tanks one, four and five; location 22 was in
the area of tanks I 0, 11 and 15. Location 19 was in the parking lot south of tanks one,
six, seven, eight. This sa111ple was collected by O'Brien and Gere Inc. personnel, fro111 just
below the asphalt. Figure 3.1 indicates the locations of the under ground storage tanks.
3.3.2 Seldon Clark Property
Soil borings were drilled at three locations, as indicated on Figure 3.2. Locations 30 and 3 I
were in the fill area on the Seldon Clark property and location 32, which is considered a
background location, is west across Spartanburg Highway. The fill material sample, 31-SLE
was collected from a depth of 12 to 14 feet BLS. Samples 30-SLF and 31-SLF were
collected from native soil immediately below the fill material at depths of 30 to 32 feet BLS
and 38 to 40 feet BLS, respectively. Three samples were collected·.from location 32 at
depths of 6 to 18 inches BLS, 3 to 4 feet BLS and 6.5 to 7.5 feet BLS. They are identified
as 32-SLA, 32-SLB and 32-SLC, respectively.
3.3.3 Shepherd Farm Property
Thirteen composite surface soil samples and 15 subsurface grab samples were collected from
the Shepherd Fann property. The surface soil sample interval was Oto 6 inches BLS and the
subsurface soil sampling intervals were three feet to four feet BLS and six to eight feet BLS.
Eight surface and eight subsurface samples were collected from yards in the Spring Haven
· trailer Park. Section 4, Table 4.4 presents the address for each residence sampled and
Figure 3.3 indicates the locations. Each surface soil composite sample consisted of three to
six aliquots selected from random locations in the front and back yards. The VOA container
was filled from the first aliquot of soil collected. The subsurface soil sampling intervals and
collection locations are discussed in Section 4. The three samples collected from location 50
are considered control sari1ples for the-study.
The fill area located behind and west of the Shepherd house and north of the Spring Haven
trailer park was divided into five areas as illustrated on Figure 3.3. One composite surface
soil sample, each consisting of five aliquots, was collected from each area. The surface soil
sample interval was Oto 6 inches BLS. One aliquot was collected from the center of the
grid.
3-5
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
u
I
I
f-z s CL w C) .... z w :;
i5 w "' D z <
QC
Ot,.-0&
w .... i
&o~ w
~ ~ ~ a! QC O=>
0 "'V, .., I I 0 • ·*
0::
0 w .., 2 ~ 0
* ..t. i 0:: <( ~ H:Jll w Ow a::: LL 0:: I f-S2 V) o<C
0 -I
0 V) I-w_J w ~_J (.'.) z a:::
0 ~ :;,;LL ::::, -, m
z f-;;; z
I (f) 0 i'.5 t:; <( • .., a::: w a::: u_ 0 <(
/ 0 ;;; o._
:::, V) .., ~
-' a::: <) 0 <O ./' u, f-r--. V) ~
V)
0 ::::,
0
I ... 3nN3Al;I 0N0:)3S ..,
0 • ... ----.. ------.
SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 3.2
I ~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA o.__ _________________________ ...J... ____ __J
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
g
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
!
//
I
i
/
! i i I ' i I
/ // ' / i i ; ; j ./ !
\ \
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
' \ -,
\ _______ , _____ _
u, z 0 ~
" z :J a. ~:
~I •
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 3.3
!~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
OL...----------------------------L------.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
u
D
D
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Repo11
Draft/ May, 1995
The four additional sampling locations were located approximately 45 feet from the center of
the area at angles of 45°, 135°, 225° and 315° from north. A grab subsurface soil sample
was collected from the center of each area at a depth of three feet to four feet BLS. Also,
grab subsurface soil samples were collected from locations 57 and 59 at a depth of six feet to
eight feet BLS.
3.4 Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Thirteen surface water and sediment samples were collected from 12 locations during this
investigation including five samples from the GE property, one from the Seldon Clark
property and five from the Shepherd Fann property. The locations are indicated on Figures
3.4 and 3.5. The sediment samples were collected from the bottom of the creek using a zero
to three inch interval below the water-sediment interface. The water samples were collected
several inches below the air-water interface. In addition, one spring water sample and an
associated soil/sediment sample was collected from the GE propetty. The spring is located
on the east edge of landspreading area D. The spring discharges to Bat Fork creek.
3.5 Temporary :Monitor Well Installation and Sampling
Nine temporary wells were installed at the locations specified on Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8.
Eight of the wells were installed using conventional hollow stem auguring techniques. One
well was installed using direct push techniques. The direct push technique was attempted at
each location initially since this method is less disrnptive and produces no drill cuttings.
The wells installed using the hollow stem auguring were constrncted of 2 inch stainless steel
casing and screen. The screens have a 0.01 inch slot size. The wells were installed to a
depth approximately five to ten feet below the water table. Well constrnction details are
presented in Section 4.
All drill cuttings, development water and purge water generated while installing and sampling
· the wells was discharged to the ground. The abandoned hollow stem auger boreholes were
back filled with the drill cutting to approximately five feet BLS. Several feet of bentonite
grout or pellets were placed in the borehole and hydrated with tap or deionized water. The
top one foot was backfilled with native material.
The wells were purged and sampled in ·such a iriariner ·i"is ·to ininimize turbidity.· The· field
parameters of temperature, pH, specific conductance and turbidity were measured.
3-8
-- - -3s~cr a~ m (/) C ;i :;(I ...,., ]> n l"TJ l"TJ Q :c ]> ]> l"TJ -I (/) z l"TJ -I l"TJ :;(I :;(I ...,., ]> ]> rr z ]> l"TJ t:! -Ir (/)Q :;(I l"TJ l"TJ l"TJ on t:! --0 n-1 7' :;ci ::,:: :;(I ->--< ,__. D n ::,:: --0 z (/) l"TJ l"TJ z :;(I De -I -1 :;(I --0 (/)-< -I l"TJ :r: :;(I ]> n...,., ::,:: --0 J>c r :;(I z >--< D t:! z r Vl Q >--< z >--< r ]>"-I D T'l n ]> -I >--< D z (/) ....__ ...,., >--< Q C Al l"TJ w -1'--l!l!!I l!!!l!!I DRAIN LIN£ -== == llliil -lilll iiiii "•,,,, ,, " " y // -....,~,~~ I I ~~~~"-'\.:,.:_,,:,.:.::::,_~'\.~ ' // ,:s_"',:',._\,\\~\"-\\\\'Z"--'-"-~~~\\\ '· ' SPRING -,,;,, ~\\'\cf,\\\\\*\\\\~~~~\\\\%lt~ .. ,, K" ,,-",,,,,, ,,,.,., ,,,, .. ,,_,,,,\\;,,:; (S,,, '\~':.\\s.\;;\\s\\: ,,\\\\,\;;\\\~\; ~ ,,_~---'''"-"'"-\~'"'"'"'""'""''"'""''~s,-~., ...__ .....,11~, ,-,._ ~ ',, ', '''-',, '.,,,."''-"'"''\,,> ''"'-..___ ~""k @:'/ii«',,-,,,~ ">loc\\>"""'"'"~\\¾,,' , , ~ 0 f~\\\%12_ \\\~-~~-;;~,~~~~,, ~\~ii~g',;;l\~~\\\'(~\~1:c", r, '""'"-''''""-'-'~1>\,\_,,,."...,___ ',', ~--~'--"'"'-,\, -~~·'-,\.\¢\\,.,~f''''•'-"'','·""'-~', r-"-~;.__~..:__-''"'''·"\\~'.:~>-',, ,~\\\--\\\) ~ ~\\1 • ~:...~'i-.~'S:::t~A,>_:,__\\~11 S\.UOGUNE~ \ \\t:,\"'-.\~j -~~->\, IMPO '°'''•'"'-'-' -,,_ "'-"'"'-"-" □ ----~\\\~"i_ci t':~~-;;;__~, ~~--... ,, \--,~\\~-~~~'y MAIN PLANT \/'AREHOUSE -~~ ,, ---SCALE IN FEET l.EWil! --~ ... .6, SURF°,ACE \/ATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATION @LANDSPREADING PLOTS RECREATION fAC!LITY ' -, 7 'f I "I ~~,,_,. /"''"''<I'"'' I I ~ L_J \ \ ,-.,,------/ I ·~~ill~~~\'(, ~ -,_ SPARTANBURG HVY. . :... _ __...------·k 1.1 ~~-....:.. -"= ------
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
• •
I
I
I
I
I
n
a fil ~-0 ii: i a '
1--z uJ " 1Sui ~~5 ,-"' !;, uJ (.) !;, 0 3' _, uJ "' (.);; ~it ~~
•
p (j ff
"" ""
/ / i
/ i
f /
I , / i i i / i i / i i i i / i / / / / i ; ! !
[)
0•0~ dYD 3Nll'I
~\
0 '\_
\ \
''-··-··-··-··-··-··
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0 "' 0 ·--·-··-·-··-~-·-··---
n0~0J::~:::·:E::::A:'-_A·:::::GE:N:E:RA:L::E:LE:C:TR:l:C:S:U:P:E:RF:U:N:D:S:l:TE::::::~..__FI-GU_R_E_
3
·-
5
~ -~ _ '/JE\. EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e, ---i 0 ._,
ru "'
I
,
&EPA
GE PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
GENERAL ELECTRIC
EAST FLAT ROCK,
SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH CAROLINA
I /
FIGURE 3.6
r,._ ______________________________________ .._ ______ __,
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•---
I
(/) z 0 ;:;: u 0 _J _J _J f-w z 3' s 0: 0 >= Q_ z 0 ,. w Ii: (.'.) ~ 0 0. cl ,_
•
Op,O
()' (Y,
• 00p, 0 n -.,:
0
I ct: w
t-
--i:r~Tt ..w w
0:: t-(/)
0 (/) 0 w z
0 --,
2 ~
i ct: <{ ~ Ow ;;::
LL ct: I
o<t: ~ -I
I-W_i Cl ~_J 0:: ~ 2LL :::,
(D
t;; w ...
/0
'=
w _J <(
(.) ./' V)
z f-z
I < (f) ~
0:: w 0::
0 <(
(L
::; (/)
~
I 0::
0 <O t-" (/)
(/)
0 :::,
0
I 3nN3/iv' ONO::l3S ;;;
0 • .. ---------·--·-----.---. --. -------...
SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 3.7
I
I
I
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA ! &EPA n.__ __________________________ ----1. ____ __J
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f " 0 >= ~ ~6~ ::,;o -4-0• I~ a a.-' ::,; -' a wW
' >-l<
•
f ' J
/ / i / / / ,/ / / , I / / I ' i !
./ i I I
\ \ ·\. ~· \
\
CJ C )
\ \ ·,
\ \,
'-*-••-··-·-··--
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
1-------------------------1 FIGURE 3.8
!~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA .., .__ ____________________________ .__ ____ __.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.6 Monitor Well Sampling
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Repo1t
Draft / May, 1995
Twenty four of the existing pennanent monitor wells located on the GE property were
sampled. Section 4, Table 4.10 presents the well constmction infonnation and Figure 3.9
indicates their locations. The wells were sampled in such a manner as to minimize turbidity
to a minimum. All purge water was discharged to the ground.
3.7 Potable Well Sampling
Eleven potable well samples were collected during this investigation. Section 4, Table 4.14
presents the owner's name and address, and Figure 3.10 indicates the well locations.
3.8 Analytical Procedures
All of the samples were analyzed for volatile and extractable organic compounds, pesticides,
PCB's and metals. All analyses were conducted according to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division, Laboratory
Operations and Quality Control Manual, September, 1990 (4), or the CLP Statement of
Work (SOW). This SOW describes chain of custody, calibration procedures, routine QC
checks, and data validation and reporting; it also describes the laboratory's routine
procedures for assessing precision and accuracy. The soil samples ,:ollected for analysis
were booked into the Contract L1boratory Program (CLP) laboratu1ie·s· through· W. R.
Bo key, the sample control manager.
3.9 Field Instrumentation
The following instnnnents were used during the remedial investigation at the GE Site:
I. pH meter
2. thennometer
3. specific conductivity meter
4. photoionization detector
5. radiation survey meter
6. organic vapor analyzer
7. water level indicator
8. turbidity meter
3-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CJ
i
-400 0 400
SCALE IN FEET
GE PROPERTY ON SITE MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
~~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
~
FIGURE 3.9
~L...-----------------------------------------"-----------1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-:
(/)
e .,,
N
f--__ 0"'
~ ~ e-§
""
POTABLE WELL LOCATIONS
.,,& .,,
i1!
0
~
Ii! ..
~
1--------------------------1 FIGURE 3. 1 0 1 ~ ~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
O> I L----------------..,L__ _ _..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May, 1995
All calibration procedures utilized for these instnnnents were pe1fonned in accordance with
Appendix D of the ECBSOPQAM (?) or the manufacturer's specifications. All calibrations
were recorded in the field log books.
3.10 Sample Containers
Sample containers used were in accordance with the requirements specified in Appendix A of
the ECBSOPQAM(?). Table 3.1 is extracted from the manual and provides a description of
the analysis, preservatives, and types of containers that were used during this sampling
investigation.
3.11 Field Sampling Equipment Cleaning Procedures
All samples were collected with sampling equipment specified and cleaned in accordance
with Appendix B of the ECBSOPQAM (?). Any deviations from this were justified and
recorded in the field log book.
3-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3.1
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft / May, 1995
Sample Container and Preservative Requirements
Analyses
Purgeable Organics
Extractable Organic
Pesticides, PCB's
Metals
Analyses
Purgeable Organic
Extractable Organic
Pesticides, PCB' s
Metals
Soil/Sediment Analysis
Container Preservative
I - 2 oz. glass iced, 4°C
I - 8 oz. glass iced, 4°C
I - 8 oz. glass iced, 4 °C
Water Analysis
Container Preservative
3 -40 ml. glass HCI, iced, 4 ° C
I - 1 gallon glass iced, 4°C
I - I liter plastic HNO3, iced, 4°C
· (All containers used for organic samples have Teflon lined caps, and all containers for I purgeable organic sample have septum lids.)
I
I
I
I
I
3-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
During the Remedial Investigation, surface and subsurface soil, sedin,ent and surface water
samples were collected, temporary monitor wells were installed and sampled and pennanent
monitor and potable wells were sampled as specified in Section 3. The analytical results for
the individual samples are provided in the Data Summary Tables in the following subsections.
The laboratory data sheets, which indicate all of the compounds for which each sample was
analyzed and their respective detection limits are provided in Appendix A.
In this report certain abbreviations are used when discussing the analytical results. The
abbreviations and their meanings are as follows:
ug/1 -microgram per liter
mg/I -milligram per liter
ug/kg -microgram per kilogram
mg/kg -milligram per kilogram
MCL -Safe Drinking Water Act, Maximum Contaminant Level
NA -Not Analyzed
J -Estimated Value
N -Presumptive Evidence of Presence of Material
-Material Was Analyzed for but Not Detected
U -Material Was Analyzed for but Not Detected. The
Number Is the Minimum Quantitation Limit
PCB's -Polychlorinated biphenyls
C -Confinned by GC/MS
Sample identification methodology was discussed in Section 3.2. When discussing the
· analytical results in this report, the "GE" and any preceding O's will be eliminated. For
example, sample GE-001-SLA will be referred to as sample 1-SLA. In general surface soil
samples were collected from zero to six inches BLS. The subsurface samples were collected
from three feet to four feet BLS, designated "SLB" and six to eight feet BLS designated
_"SLC".
4.1 Soil..Sampling
Thirty four surface soil samples and 41 subsurface soil samples were collected during this
inve~tigation. In general, the surface soil sampling interval was Oto 6 inches BLS and the
subsurface soil sampling intervals were three feet to four feet BLS and six to eight feet ELS.
4-1
--382LOlU ij[?) m :a ~ rrl ~ J> z (/) rrl -i ;;o "T"j J> ,' J> rrl -i, ;;o rrl □Cl n ;;o ?' >-< n z (/.) DC ;;o -0 -i rrl :r: ;;o n -ri J>c ;;o z D t::J ' V! >-< z >-< ]> -i rrl "T"j >-< Q C ;;o rrl ~ ,_. --Q rrl ""CJ ;;o D ""CJ rrl ;;o -i -< V! D >-< ' (/.) J> ::;:: ""CJ ' >-< z Q ' D n J> -i >-< D z (/.) - - -- - - - --------SL-Ol9 " ,(~ ,'/ ;;;...,~,:-::--,~t-\~., ---i:; // ~"-"~'-'''''""'-'"'"~~'' ,,/ (~},\\~\\\\\t\~,\~~it~ ,, %],,,,,,,_,,~' -''·''C,~J:1,,,,_,,,,,,,,,, (S;,~,, ''~(\::\~t,~<\\t~~\~\\\~\\\\~; ~ "' --~~~--"\\,\\\'>\f.St\l's't\\\\\\i'\ ~.,,, ~~ -\ii,:,\~~\~," . --~~~~--~,t~\~\'i.\\S~-t-,'i:\\\t\-"',,,:-, , ~ ~~tt~~\\t\\i. i?:fu-, --~:-,, ''§:\,>_~~\'t,~\\\\f\~\.',\~~~'\._ -. ! ,, .,,,,,,,,, ,~,,-,,_.,' '''''\~',', ~~'"'·'""'''\\~ \~itli~.i.i.t}.t.\r.}t.~~.~)~ ~,\~\1{i\;: '· ",'," ,,,,,,,,,,,,~.,,,,,":.:·-,".:J'.1 ,, -,,,-_'i-,?/i •1.-~'~'-~":..,,,l ·.','\..,_:'\~-' ... . ,,<,'>~\,,,..,;,i, . ' '" ~,,,,, ~~""'''.""' ',,,,. r--y SPRING ~ DRAIN LINE MAIN PLANT LJ .. WMEHOUSE -~ ,~, -SCALE IN FEET LW2m ~ -A.SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS t~LANDSPREADING PLOTS ~ fDRHER LANDFILL ·-.,-:,~:?: ,, :8 . ' ',; ,. -0~".:.: ... \ ~~~; :--..'>,'.;~ ~\ : ..... ..:,, ~\"':,.:"' -~ ~\;:-.'\,.,_::,,,". RECREATION f"oliCtLITY ' ·,_ ' ·,_ ~ SPARTANB=-::-:::-LRG HVY.-1 0--, Ir '\t" "'--. . -. . -'"' . )':_,~-· -~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.1.1 GE Property
GE Superfund Site
RJ Report
Draft May 1995
Twenty surface soil samples and 21 subsurface soil samples were collected from the
landspreading areas, along the drain line and former ditch, along the railroad track and from
the present and two fonner landfills. Also, one replicate and two colocated samples were
collected.
Landspreading Areas
Twenty four samples were collected from l l locations in landspreading areas A, B, C and D.
The locations are indicated on Figure 4.1. Analytical results are presented in Table 4.1.
Sample 401-SLA is a replicate of sample 1-SLA and sample 501-SI.A was co located to
sample l-SLA.
Yolatile_Organic_Compounds
A single volatile organic compound was detected in the landspreading areas. The presumptive
evidence of acetone was detected in samples 4-SLA, 4-SLB and 11-SLB at concentrations of
either 17N ug/kg or l 8N ug/kg.
Extractable_Organic_Cornpounds
With the exception of sample 3-SLA, few identified extractable organic compounds were
detected in the landspreading area samples. Sample 3-SLA contained 16 extractable organic
compounds which ranged in concentration from 601 ug/kg of dibenzo(A,H)anthracene to l 000
ug/kg of pentachlorophenol. Fluoranthene was detected in samples 3-SLA, 5-SLA and 6-SLA
at concentrations ranging between 78J ug/kg and 660 ug/kg. Pyrene was detected in samples
· 3-SLA and 5-SLA at concentrations of 640 ug/kg and 11 OJ ug/kg, respectively. The
presumptive evidence of dioctadecylester phosphonic acid, hexadecenoic acid and
penadecylphenol was detected in several samples. All of the surface soil samples except 9-
SLA and 11-SLA contained unidentified compounds.
I'.esticides_and_P.CB~s
PCB' s were detected in one sample. Sample 11-SLA, the surface soil sample from
landspreading area D, contained 60 ug/kg of PCB-1260. Pesticides were detected in all of the
surf<Jce soil samples collected from the land spreading areas, except sample 11-SLA.
4-2
-- -- - - - -- ---.. ------Table 4.1
Soil Analytical Data SurTITiary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1-SLA 401-SLA 501-SLA 1-SLB 2-SLA 2-SLB 3-SLA 3-SLB 4-SLA 4-SLB 5-SLA 5-SLB
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94
09/16/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 23 25 24 13 36 48 52 73 40 21 50 130
COBALT 6.7 8.5 8.3 13 12
CHROMIUM 17 22 15 36 63 30 60 5.8 16 27 11
COPPER 11 J 13J 12J 15J 29J 24J 48J 36J 16J 25J 21J 35J
MOLYBDENUM 4.6
NICKEL 12 14 16 23 55 16 31
LEAD 17 22 24 17 32 66 53 39 26 30 36 32
STRONT !UM 3.4 6.5
TITANIUM 260 270 260 470 730 1100 710 670 370 890 290 830
VANAD !UM 31 33 30 58 92 67 70 22 41 110 32 24
YTTRIUM 7.9 4.7 9.0
ZINC 20 24 25 8. 1 40 40 43 32 30 14 40 64
MERCURY D.06 D.11 0.060 0.070
ALUMINUM 32000 32000 29000 56000 44000 68000 34000 39000 41000 93000 34000 49000
MANGANESE 64 74 71 50 180 280 390 330 150 110 190 280
CALCIUM 990 1200 1300 1400 5200 510 1200 1500
MAGNESIUM 420 450 440 280 810 2000 1900 2400 640 600 740 3100
IRON 14000 15000 13000 27000 32000 33000 29000 23000 17000 43000 14000 20000
POTASSIUM 1800 2100 2000 2700
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-4
liiiiii iiiii iiii - - - - - ----Table 4.1 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
09/16/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACETONE
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
AN THRACE NE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUDRANTHENE
BENZO-A-PYRENE
INDENO (1,2,3-CD) PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
CARBAZOLE
5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
METHYLPHENANTHRENE
BENZOFLUORENE
BENZOPYRENE (NOT Al
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS,
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND l
PHOSPHONIC ACID, DIOCTADECYLESTER
PESTIClOE/PCB COMPOUNDS
DIELDRIN
4,41-DDT (P,P 1·DDT)
4,41 -DDE (P,P'-ODE)
ENDRIN
ENDOSULFAN I I (BETA)
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
TOXAPHENE
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
METHOXYCHLOR
ENDRIN KETONE
1-SLA 401-SLA
D9/13/94 09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
3DDDJ
UG/KG
68N
43DC
250
84
140
22
UG/KG
UG/KG
500J
UG/KG
460C
220
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
501-SLA
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
3000J
UG/KG
86
450C
220
220
J ESTIMATED VALUE N · PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
· MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED C · CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
1-SLB
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
7.6
4-5
2-SLA
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
600J
UG/KG
50
710C
2·SLB
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
26N
3-SLA
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
?SJ
79J
83J
680
150J
660
640
360J
360J
520J
280J
190J
60J
220J
1000
11 OJ
100JN
300JN
300JN
lOOOJ
UG/KG
43
350C
190
58N
- -
3-SLB 4-SLA
09/13/94 09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
15
7.8
UG/KG
18N
UG/KG
3000J
UG/KG
25
18
4-SLB
09/16/94
UG/KG
17N
UG/KG
400J
UG/KG
..
5-SLA
09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
140J
11 OJ
2000J
UG/KG
13
98
53
460
5-SLB
UG/KG
UG/KG
200JN
UG/KG
---iiiil iiiiil --- - ---- - -
lllil -lliiil iiiil
Table 4.1
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
6-SLA 6-SLB 7-SLA 7-SLB 8-SLA 8-SLB 9-SLA 9·SL8 10-SLA 10-SLB
09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 38 49 19 34 25 34 66 96 60 86
COBALT 5. 1 3.2 5.5
CHROMIUM 18 28 9.3 32 14 50 18 17 15 25
COPPER 25J 22J 12J 13J 12J 15J 28J 39J 23J 27 J
MOLYBDENUM 5.9
NICKEL 38 10 28 18 7.8 7.2
LEAD 34 39 20 16 17 21 24 16 24 20
STRONTIUM 5.9 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.6
TITANIUM 280 360 130 430 200 440 450 570 360 650
VANADIUM 28 63 13 60 22 76 32 18 26 43
YTTRIUM 3.3 2. 1 2.2 4.6 4.3 5.2
ZINC 44 26 32 12 27 12 91 25 43 26
MERCURY 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.06 0.23 0.06
ALUMINUM 28000 52000 14000 67000 19000 64000 31000 45000 29000 33000
MANGANESE 140 210 47 58 54 28 160 120 110 270
CALCIUM 3500 770 1600 360 1200 1100 1100
MAGNESIUM 800 770 260 530 380 500 1500 1400 1200 2200
IRON 14000 32000 5900 32000 9400 29000 15000 7300 12000 21000
POTASSIUM 780 1200 1200 980 2600
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
' · MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-6
liiill
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
liiiil
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS·
FLUORANTHENE
HEXADECENOIC ACID
HEXADECENDIC ACID (2 ISOMERS)
HEXADECENOIC ACID
PENTADECYLPHENOL
iiiiil
PHOSPHONIC ACID, DIOCTADECYLESTER
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
5 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PESTlCIOE/PCB COMPOUNDS
DIELORIN
4,4'-DDT (P,P 1-0DT)
4,4 1-0DE (P,P'-DDE)
TOXAPHENE
- - - --.. Table 4.1 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Sunrnary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
6-SLA 6-SLB 7-SLA 7-SLB
09/16/94
8-SLA 8-SLB
09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
?BJ
300JN
2000J
UG/KG
41
200
130
2500C
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
300JN
3000J
UG/KG
56
230
140
2600C
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
09/16/94 09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
300JN
100JN
2000J
UG/KG
9.2
90
45
710
UG/KG
UG/KG
400J
UG/KG
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT.NOT DETECTED
C CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
4-7
9-SLA 9-SLB
09/16/94 09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
400JN
UG/KG
22
27
27
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
10-SLA
09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
900JN
2000J
UG/KG
35
220
45
330
lllil
10-SLB
09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
14
19
9.5
iiiil iiiil
----liiii - - - - -----lliiiill --iiiil iiiil
Table 4.1 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
ll·SLA 11-SLB 12-SLA 512-SLA 12-SLB 13-SLA 13-SLB 13-SLC 14-SLA 14-SLB
09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/22/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 64 19 72 64 75 36 1.8 18 71 89
COBALT 8.5 13 12 8.2 12 9.8
CHROMIUM 41 9.9 72 46 32 120 4. 1 30 48 36
COPPER 35J 4.6J lOOJ 70 18J 1100 19 97 25 20
MOLYBDENUM 5.9
NICKEL 28 25 15 11 71 13 14
LEAD 33 7.7 45 26 26 130 15 61 29 27
TIN 41 18
STRONTIUM 7.6 4. 1 4.9 15
TJTANIUM 840 160 940 990 610 430 12 510 700 1000
VANADIUM 67 16 76 65 42 31 40 56 50
YTTRIUM 3.9 2. 1 7.2 7.3 5.2 6.8 8.4
ZINC 41 8.4 120 120 27 1200 19 68 28 31
MERCURY 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06
ALUMINUM 31000 14000 52000 32000 41000 120000 560 62000 59000 69000
MANGANESE 500 30 580 860 220 330 7.6 80 240 260
CALCIUM 880 140 3400 2900 900 2000
MAGNESIUM 3100 360 9700 3700 2100 2400 70 510 2000 2900
IRON 30000 6700 36000 32000 19000 18000 1300 28000 25000 26000
POTASSIUM 3200 3200 3700 1800 1700 2700
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-8
liiiil liiiiil --- -------liill -.. -iiiil liiil lilliil
Table 4. 1 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
11-SLA 11-SLB 12-SLA 512-SLA 12-SLB 13-SLA 13-SLB 13-SLC 14-SLA 14-SLB
09/16/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/22/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
ACETONE 17N 23N
1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 27
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 16000
CHLOROBENZENE 21
ETHYL BENZENE 1600J
TOTAL XYLENES 4400
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 80J 290J
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 2800J
ACENAPHTHENE 11 OJ
D!BENZOFURAN 92J
FLUORENE 90J
PHENANTHRENE 91J 150J 210J
ANTHRACENE 330J
FLUORANTHENE 650 150J 120J 230J 190J
PYRENE 340J 130J 95J 160J 130J
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE 200J 110J
CHRYSENE 250J 95J 150J
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUORANTHENE 350J 170J 310J
BENZO-A-PYRENE 160J ?OJ 130J
INOENO (1,2,3-CO) PYRENE 95J
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE 94J
OICHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 3000JN
TRICHLOROB!PHENYL (4 ISOMERS) 6000JN
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (4 ISOMERS) 4000JN
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 3000JN
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL (6 ISOMERS) 8000JN
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (10 ISOMERS) 8000JN
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 2000JN
6 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 8000J 100000J
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (5 ISO°MERS) 20000JN
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL (4 ISOMERS) ' 20000JN
OCTACHLOROBIPHENYL ' 4000JN
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL (2 ISOMERS) 30000JN
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (5 I SOMERS) 40000JN
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL (9 I SOMERS) 90000JN
OCTACHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 20000JN
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL 7000JN 2000JN 100JN
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 300JN
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL 200JN 100JN
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL (2 ISOMERS) ZOOJN
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J -ESTIMATED VALUE.
N -PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL.
-MATERIAL UAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED.
C -CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
4-9
-liiii iiiiii -- - ----.. .. -11111
Table 4.1 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
11-SLA
09/16/94
PEST IC !OE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KG
4,4' -DOT (P,P1 -DDT)
4,4 1 -DDE (P,P'-DOE)
4,4 1 -DDD (P,P'-D0D)
PCB-1242 (AROCLOR 1242)
PCB-1254 {AROCLOR 1254)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260) 60
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J -ESTIMATED VALUE.
N -PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL.
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED.
C -CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
11-SLB
09/16/94
UG/KG
3_2J
3_6J
4_5
12-SLA 512-SLA 12-SLB 13-SLA 13-SLB
09/1_6/94 09/22/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/20/94
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
22000C
3500c 1200c 110 9300C 18000C
9700C 220
1300C 820C 68 26000C 62000C
4-10
11111 ---iiiil
13-SLC 14-SLA 14-SLB
09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
36000C 240 160
150 96
120000C 540 370
iiilii ---- - ------- ----.. liill iilil
Table4.1
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
15-SLA 15-SLB 16-SLB 17-SLB 18-SLA 18-SLB 19-SLA 20-SLD 22-SLD
09/20/94 09/20/94 09/19/94 09/19/94 1D/19/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/20/94 09/21/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 70 54 110 58 82 90 46 130 200
COBALT 9.9 24 13 20 8.5 6.0 11
CHROMIUM 44 74 27 170 39 49 53 12
COPPER 23 19 140 39 50J 58J 27J 21 35
NICKEL 18 24 24 12 20 9.4 10
LEAD 24 22 15 24 29 33 18 52 11
STRONTIUM 29 7.3 6.6
TITANIUM 870 520 1300 1100 1200 1200 820 69 1300
VANADIUM 64 100 54 99 78 61 68 56
YTTR !UM 7.2 11 7. 1 8.9 13 3.8 8.7
ZINC 32 24 55 47 63 120 29 10 39
MERCURY 0.06 0.09 0.06
ALUMINUM 56000 60000 77000 44000 42000 32000 33000 42000 54000
MANGANESE 320 65 180 770 540 820 340 300 370
CALCIUM 400 1200 1000 2000 2200 530
MAGNES !UM 2300 1700 4900 4500 5700 4400 2200 490 5400
IRON 29000 32000 23000 39000 32000 30000 30000 2000 29000
POTASSIUM 2000 3800 3800 4800 4600 2500 5200
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT, NOT DETECTED
4-1 1
liliil iiii liiili
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
ACETONE
-
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC CDMPOUN□S-,
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHENE
DIBENZOFURAN
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUDRANTHENE
BENZO-A-PYRENE
INDENO (1,2,3·CD) PYRENE,
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE
CARBAZOLE
DECAHYDROMETHYLNAPHTHALENE
OCTAHYDROHEXAMETHYLINDENE
METHYLPHENANTHRENE
CYCLOPENTAPHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENED I ONE
BENZOFLUORENE (2 ISOMERS)
BENZONAPHTHOTH!OPHENE
BENZOPYRENE (NOT A)
HEXADECENOlC ACID
PENTACHLOROBIPHENYL
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
'
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS'
"UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS.
6 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
- - ----- --Table4.1
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
15·SLA 15-SLB 16·SLB
09/20/94 09/20/94 09/19/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
91J
800J
UG/KG
UG/KG
5ZN
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
19DOJ
21DOJ
1000DJ
3200J
16000
12000
6100J
5600J
7600J
3400J
1500J
4000JN
6000JN
90000J
UG/KG
53
46
17-SLB
09/19/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
18-SLA
10/19/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
180J
130J
90JN
1000J
UG/KG
18-SLB 19-SLA
09/16/94 09/16/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
110J
400
130J
350J
1300
320J
1600
1400
1000
1100
1700J
780
280J
130J
240J
430
200JN
300JN
200JN
900JN
400JN
600JN
5000J
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
6.0
25
21
DIELDRIN
4,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDE
PCB·1254
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
(P,P'-DDT)
(P,P 1-DDE)
(AROCLOR 1254)
(AROCLOR 1248)
(ARDCLOR 1260) ' ****************************************************************
64 58
220
160
450
70
76
***FOOTNOTES***
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESnJCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL \./AS ANALYZED FOR BUT .NOT DETECTED
4-12
- -
20-SLO 22-SLD
09/20/94 09/21/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
1000JN
1000J
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
liiil liiil liiil
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
GE Superfuncl Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Dieldrin was detected in 12 of the surface soil samples and ranged in concentration from 9.2
ug/kg in sample 8-SLA to 86 ug/kg in sample 501-SLA. 4,4'-DDT was detected in all of the
surface soil samples except 11-SLA. The concentrations ranged between 25 ug/kg in sample
4-SLA and 710C ug/kg in sample 2-SLA. 4,4'-DDE was detected in 11 surface soil samples
at concentrations ranging from 18 ug/kg in sample 4-SLA to 250 ug/kg in sample 1-SLA.
Toxaphene was detected in five surface soil sample at concentrations between 330 ug/kg in
samplel0-SLA and 2600C ug/kg in sample 7-SLA. Four of the samples in which toxaphene
was detected are located in landspreading area B. Sample 1-SLA also contained 140 ug/kg of
endosulfan II and 22 ug/kg of endrin ketone. Sample 501-SLA contained 220 ug/kg of
endosulfan ketone. Sample 11-SLB contained 4.5 ug/kg of 4,4'-DDD. The presumptive of
endrin aldehyde and methoxychlor was detected in samples 3-SLA and 2-SLB, respectively.
Dieldrin was detected in one subsurface soil sample. Sample 10-SLB contained 14 ug/kg of
dieldrin. 4-4'-DDT was detected in four subsurface soil samples at C,)11centrations up to 19
ug/kg in sample 10-SLB. 4,4'-DDE was detected in sample 10 SLB at a concentration of 9.5
ug/kg.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese.
Barium was detected in every sample. The concentrations ranged between I. 8 mg/kg in
sample 13-SLB and 13 mg/kg in sample 1-SLB. Chromium was detected in every sample
except 5-SLB. The concentrations in these remaining samples ranged from 9. 3 mg/kg in
sample 7-SLA to 63 mg/kg in sample 2-SLA. Lead was detected in all the samples. The
· concentrations ranged up to 66 mg/kg in sample 2-SLB. Manganese was detected in sample at
an elevated concentration in sample 11-SLA.
Mercury was detected in five samples including 4-SLA, 4-SLB, 5-SLA, 5-SLB and 11-SLA.
_ The_ concentrations ranged from 0.06 mg/kg to 0.11 mg/kg. _ _ _____ .
Landfills
Three landfills, designated A, B and C, exist on site. Eight samples were collected from six
locayons in the three landfills. The locations are indicated on Figure 4.1. Analytical results
arc presented in Table 4.1. Sample 512-SLA is colocated to sample 12-SLA.
4-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Superli.111d Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
One grab surface soil and 2 grab subsurface soil samples were collected from landfill A. One
composite surface and one grab subsurface soil sample were collected from landfill B and from
landfill C.
j[olati le_O.rgan ic_Compounds
Samples 13-SLA and 13-SLC collected from landfill A contained volatile organic compounds.
Sample 13-SLA contained 27 ug/kg of 1,2-dichloroethene, 21 ug/kg of chlorobenzene and
23N ug/kg of acetone. Sample 13-SLC contained 16,000 ug/kg of tetrachloroethene, l ,600J
ug/kg of ethyl benzene and 4,400 ug/kg of xylenes. Landfill B and C contained no detectable
volatile organic compounds.
Extractable_Organic__Compounds
Extractable organic compounds were detected in all of the samples collected in the landfills.
Samples 13-SLA, 13-SLB and 13-SLC from landfill A contained several unidentified
compounds and the presumptive evidence of several compounds. Sample 13-SLC also
contained 2, 800J. ug/kg of 1,2 ,4-trichlorobenzene.
Samples 12-SLA, landfill B, contained anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(A)anthracene,
chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene and benzo-A-pyrene at concentrations up to 650 .
ug/kg. The presumptive evidence of several compounds was detected as were several
unidentified compounds. Sample 512-SLA contained fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene,
benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene and benzo-A-pyrene at concentrations up to 170 ug/kg. The
presumptive evidence of several compounds was also detected. Sample 12-SLB contained
phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene at concentrations up to 120 ug/kg.
· Sample 18-SLA, landfill C, contained 180J ug/kg of fluoranthene, 130J ug/kg of pyrene, 90JN
of pentachlorobiphenyl and two unidentified compounds. Sample 18-SLB contained
naphthalene, acenaphthene, dibenzofuran, fluorene,phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(A)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene,
indeno(l ,2,3-CD) pyrene, dibenzo(A,H)anthracene, ben2:o(GHI)peryle!Jeand carbaz,ole at
concentrations up to I, 700J ug/kg. The presumptive evidence of several compounds was
detected as were several unidentified compounds.
I'.esticide.s_and.J'.CB.'..s
Pesticides were not detected in any of the landfill samples. PCB's were detected in all the
4-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
landfill samples. PCB-I 242 was detected in sample 12-SLA, landfill B, at a concentration of
22,000C ug/kg. PCB-I 254 was detected in all the samples at concentrations up to 36,000C
ug/kg.
PCB-1248 was detected in samples 512-SLA and 12-SLB, landfill A, and 18-SLA, landfill C,
at concentrations up to 9,700C ug/kg. PCB-1260 was detected in all the samples at
concentrations up to 120,000C ug/kg in sample 13-SLC.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese. Sample 21-SLA and 512-SLA contained elevated
concentrations of manganese. Sample 13-SLA contained elevated concentrations of chromium,
copper, lead and zinc.
Drain Line/l<ormer Ditch
Four soil samples were collected from two locations beneath the drain line/fonner ditch .
Location 14 was off the east corner of the main plant and location 15 was due west of the OV
Stores building. The locations are indicated on Figure 4.1. Analytical results are presented
in Table 4.1.
y_olatile_Organic._Comµounds
The presumptive evidence of a single volatile organic compound, acetone, was detected in
sample 15-SLB.
· Extractable_Organic_CQIJ1pounds
Sample 14-SLA contained 2-methylnaphthalene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(A)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene,
indeno(l ,2,3-CD) pyrene and benzo(GHI)perylene. The concentrations ranged up to 31 OJ
····ug/kg .. The presumptive evidence of several-co111p0LllldS was also-detected: Sample 14-SLB.
contained 2-methylnaphthalene, acenaphthene, dibenzofuran, fluorenc, phenanthrene,
fluoranthene and pyrene. The concentrations ranged up to 2901 ug/kg. The presumptive
evidence of several compounds was also detected.
4-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Sample 15-SLA contained 9 IJ ug/kg of fluoranthene and two unidentified compounds.
Sample 15-SLB contained no detectable extractable organic compounds.
Eesticides_andJ".CB~s
Pesticides were not detected in any of the samples. Sample 14-SLA and 14-SLB contained
PCB-1254 at concentrations of240 ug/kg and 160 ug/kg. PCB 1248 at concentrations of 150
ug/kg and 96 ug/kg, and PCB-1260 at concentrations of 540 ug/kg and 370 ug/kg,
respectively. Sample 15-SLA contained PCB-1260 at a concentration of 64 ug/kg. Sample
15-SLB contained no detectable PCB's.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese.
Railroad Track
Two subsurface soil samples were collected along the railroad track. Location 16 was off the
east comer of the main plant and location 17 was west of the warehouse building. The
samples were collected just below the railroad gravel bed. The locations are indicated on
Figure 4.1. Analytical results are presented in Table 4.1.
Yolatile_Organic__Crnnpounds
No volatile organic compounds were detected ..
· Extractahle_Organic_Compounds
Sample 16-SLB contained acenaphthene, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthcne,
pyrene bcnzo(A)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrenc, and
carbazole. The concentrations ranged up to I 0,00OJ ug/kg. Several unidentified compounds
were also detected.-Sample 17-SLB cc.irifairied no· detectable extractable-organic compoui1ds.
Eesticicles_and__Il_CB~
Pesticides were not detected in either of the samples. Sample 16-SLB contained PCB-1254 at
a concentration of 53 ug/kg and PCB 1248 at a concentration of 46 ug/kg. Sample 17-SLB
4-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
contained PCB-1260 at concentration of 58 ug/kg.
Metals
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese. Sample 17-SLB contained an elevated concentration of
chromium and manganese.
Underground Storage Tank Locations
Three subsurface soil samples were collected from locations near former underground storage
tank locations. The locations are indicated on Figure 4.1. Analytical results are presented in
Table 4.1.
Yolatile_Qrganic_Compounds
No volatile organic compounds were detected ..
Extractable_Organic_Cornpounds
Sample 20-SLD contained.1,000JN ug/kg of hexadecenoic acid and one unidentified
compound. Samples 19-SLA and 22-SLD contained no detectable extractable organic
compounds.
Eesticides._and_I>_CB'..s
Sample 19-SLA contained 6.0 ug/kg of deildrin, 25 ug/kg of 4,4'-DDT and 21 ug/kg of 4,4'-
. DDE. Pesticides were not detected in samples 20-SLD or 22-SLD. PCB's were not detected
in any of the samples.
Metals
-··----.---· --. -···------·-----·
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium,"chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese. Sample 22-SLD contained an elevated concentration of
barium. · -
4-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I • ·-
I
I
I
I
4.1.2 Seldon Clark Property
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Soil borings were drilled at three locations, as indicated on Figure 4.2 .. Analytical results are
presented in Table 4.2. Locations 30 and 31 were in the fill area on the Seldon Clark
property and location 32 is west across Spartanburg Highway.
.'lolatile_Organic..Comp_ounds
Sample 31-SLE collected from the fill material contained acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, 1,2-
dichloroethene and methyl hexanone at concentrations of 160 ug/kg, I 90 ug/kg, 4J ug/kg
and30JN ug/kg, respectively. Samples 30-SLF and 31-SLF, collected from native soil
beneath the fill material, contained no detectable volatile organic compounds. Ten ug/kg of
methyl ethyl ketone was detected in sample 32-SLB. Acetone was detected in samples 32-
SLB and 32-SLC at concentrations of 57N ug/kg and 24N ug/kg, respectively.
Extractable_O.rganic_Compounds
Sample 31-SLE contained acenaphthylene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene, indeno(l ,2,3-CD)pyrene,
dibenzo(A,H)anthracene and 14 unidentified compounds. The concentrations of the identified
compounds ranged between 82J ug/kg and I, IOOJ ug/kg.
Samples 30-SLF and 31-SLF contained the presumptive evidence of extractable organic
compounds, and sample 30-SLF contained unidentified compounds. Samples 32-SLA, 32-SLB
and 32-SLC contained the presumptive evidence of extractable organic compounds. Samples
32-SLB and 32-SLC contained unidentified compounds .
. Eesticides_ancl.E.CB,'__s
Pesticides were detected in samples 31-SLE, 32-SLB and 32-SLC. Sample 31-SLE contained
4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'--DDD at concentrations of 11 ug/kg, 15 ug/kg and 76 ug/kg,
. ___ respe_ct~yely 0 _ Sample 3_2~S_LB co11tai11~cl 4:,4' -J?DD, gamn1a_-chlordap~ ~nc_l alp~a~chlordane at
concentrations of 18 ug/kg, IS ug/kg and 15 ug/kg, respectively. Sample 32-SLC contained
4.3 ug/kg of 4,4'-DDT, 8.8 ug/kg of 4,4'DDE and 3.3J ug/kg of 4,4'-DDD.
4-18
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 0
g
I
g
0
* f-~ --i=roii ~ I
f-
(/) -(/) w z 0 ---,
I-~
I
I
z
&
0
::e a::
0 tii
f-z 5 0... w C)
Op-O<!r
<!ro<9 b:;
0 .,,
0 •
0:: w
2
0:: <1'. Ow LL 0::
0 <1'.
W_i
1:;:;: _)
2LL
f-(/) w
3nN3/\V 0N0:)3S
SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
,,,
0 •
I
I
(.?
I
(.? a:: ::,
CD z ~ a::
ct: (/) ._,
SOIL, SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
... ...,
0 •
... z w "' 0 w V)
0 z <(
c,: w ,-i
w ~ ~ =! c,: o::,
V) (/)
I I
·*
1---------------------------1 FIGURE 4.2
~ ~EPA ~
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA .__ __________________________ __._ ____ ___,
I Table 4.2
Soil Analytical Data Surrroary
General Electric-Seldon Clark
I
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
31-SLE 31-SLF 30-SLF 32-SLA 32-SLB 32-SLC
09/22/94 09/22/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94
I INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 96 97 41 43 68 34
I COBALT 32 2.9 7.6 5.2 6.8
CHROMIUM 210 7.2 95 33 34 13
COPPER 40 15 31 20 7.2
NICKEL 34 13 8.4 12
LEAD 43 11 12 3D 39 13
I TIN 14
STRONTIUM 8.7 4.6 2.9 5.0 5.5
TITANIUM 10DO 31D 450 5DO 980 170
VANADIUM 140 15 47 46 44 22
I YTTRIUM 9.6 3.6 6.4 5. 7 7. 1
ZINC 56 26 17 47 56 14
MERCURY 0.12 D.D6 O.D5 D.D5
ALUMINUM 5DDDD 130DD 19000 26000 36000 31000
I MANGANESE 630 250 170 190 240 54
CALCIUM 1200 420 510 1400 1600
MAGNESIUM 2000 1500 1000 2200 3500 550
IRON 41000 11000 14000 18000 21000 9800
POTASSIUM 1100 1200 700 1600 3900 820
I ****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
I · MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4-20
I
I Table 4.2 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric-Seldon Clark
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
I 31-SLE 31-SLF 30-SLF 32-SLA 32-SLB 32-SLC
09/22/94 09/22/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94 09/21/94
I PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
ACETONE 160 57N 24N
METHYL ETHYL KETONE 190 lOJ
I 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 4J
METHYLHEXANONE 30JN
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
I ACENAPHTHYLENE 270J
PHENANTHRENE 150J
ANTHRACENE 90J
I FLUORANTHENE 400J
PYRENE 400J
CHRYSENE 380J
BENZO(B ANO/OR K)FLUORANTHENE 1100J
BENZO-A·PYRENE 440J
I INOENO (1,2,3-CD) PYRENE 270J
OIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 82J
14 UNIOENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 20000J
OIETHYLBIPHENYL 80JN
I OCTAHYDROTRIMETHYL(METHYLETHYL)PHENANTHRENOL 200JN
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 1000J
10 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 6000J
OCTAHYOROOIMETHYL(METHYLETHYL)
I PHENANTHRENECARBOXYLIC ACID 200JN
TETRAHYDRODIMETHYL(METHYLETHYL)NAPHTHALENE 80JN
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 3000J
OCTADECANOIC ACID 200JN
I PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
4,4 1 ·DDT (P,P'·DDT) 11 4.3
4,4'-0DE (P,P'·OOE) 15 8.8
I 4,4'-DDD (P,P'·DDD) 76 18 3.3J
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254) 220 86
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) 420
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260) 36
I
GAMMA-CHLORDANE /2 15
ALPHA-CHLORDANE /2 15
****************************************************************
I ***FOOTNOTES***
ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
I MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
I
H
I 4-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Supcrrund Site
RI Repo,i
Draft May 1995
PCE;'s were detected in two samples. Sample 32-SLA contained 220 ug/kg of PCE-1254,
420 ug/kg of PCE-1248 and 36 ug/kg of PCE-1260. Sample 32-SLB contained 86 ug/kg of
PCE-1254.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, mercury and manganese. Sample 31-SLE contained elevated concentrations of
chromium and manganese.
4.1.3 Shepherd Farm Property
Thirteen composite surface soil samples and 15 subsurface grab samples were collected from
the Shepherd Fann property. The locations are indicated on Figure 4.3. The analytical
results are presented in Table 4. 3 .
Eight surface and eight subsurface samples were collected from yards in the Spring Haven
trailer Park. These locations are designated 50 through 55. Table 4.fpresents the address
for each residence sampled and the location of the subsurface soil sample. The three samples
collected from location 50 are considered control samples for the study.
The fill area located behind and west of the Shepherd house and north of the Spring Haven
trailer park was divided into five areas as illustrated on Figure 4.3. These locations are
designated 56 through 60. One composite surface soil sample and a grab subsurface soil
sample were collected from the center of each area at a depth of three feet to four feet ELS.
Also, grab subsurface soil samples were collected from locations 57 and 59 at a depth of six
feet to eight feet ELS.
:\1:ulatile__O.rganic_Cump.ounds
Volatile organic compounds were detected in two samples. Sample 53-SLE contained 6J
ug/kg of tetrachloroethene and 2J ug/kg of xylencs. Sample 56-SLA contained 2J ug/kg of
icfrachforoethene. ···· -· -· · -·· ·--· -· · · -· --· ·
4-22
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
p I / ;
f I !
/
, ,,/ / /" , i / ! i , ! / / I i /
- · avo~ ~ 3N1~
\\
\
\ ... ____ ··-··-··
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
<I) z 0 ~ ()
3
'-' z :::; a. ~;
•
....--------------------------1 FIGURE 4.3
n I wEPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I "L----------------------------'-----___.
- -
1!!!!!111!!1 I!!!!! 11111111 iiiii - ------liiil
Table 4.3
Soil Analytical Data SUITITiary
General Electric-Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
50-SLA 450-SLA 550-SLA 50-SLB 50-SLC 51-SLA 51-SLB 52-SLA 52-SLB 53-SLA 53-SLB
09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/20/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 110 99 110 70 63 72 78 62 83 99 120
CADMIUM 4.4 9.7
COBALT 9.9 8.4 9.3 5.3 5.9 6.6 7.6 5.8 6.6 12 12
CHROMIUM 15 13 18 3 .9 25 33 37 31 47 73
COPPER 30J 25J 29J 15J 120A 69J 24J 44J 1300A 1600J
MOLYBDENUM 5.7 5.4 6.8 11 27
NICKEL 8.4 8.8 13 10 14 29 65
LEAD 17 15 19 15 9.6 100 57 23 27 240 1100
TIN 15 28 520
STRONT !UM 4.8 3. 1 3. 1 3.0 6.5 5.9 8.9 33
TELLURIUM
TITANIUM 2000 1800 2000 1000 790 910 1300 1400 1500 760 320
VANADIUM 43 37 39 16 10 42 56 70 57 40 26
YTTRIUM 27 24 26 17 20 12 13 9.5 9.5 12
ZINC 67 55 64 43 32 180 120 38 58 1000 3200
MERCURY 0. 11 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.13
ALUMINUM 36000 31000 33000 22000 22000 37000 46000 49000 48000 49000 47000
MANGANESE 530 480 500 380 330 380 240 190 380 390 610
CALCIUM 560 430 620 160 1400 740 460 1200 3800
MAGNESIUM 8800 7600 8500 5600 3800 2800 3800 2900 5600 2300 1400
IRON 24000 21000 29000 13000 9300 23000 30000 34000 30000 29000 68000
POTASSIUM 8100 7000 7900 4700 4000 2300 3700 2900 5400 1700
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-24
- --iiiii -----lilil iiiil
Table 4.3 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric-Shepherd farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
50-SLA 450-SLA 550-SLA 50-SLB 50-SLC 51-SLA 51-SLB 52-SLA 52-SLB 53-SLA 53-SLB
09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/20/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 6J
TOTAL XYLENES 2J
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
DIETHYL PHTHALATE 980
PHENANTHRENE 11 OJ
DI-N-BUTYLPHTHALATE 130000
FLUORANTHENE 120J
PYRENE 110J
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE· 680
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 3000
HEXACHLOR08IPHENYL (2 ISOMERS): 300JN
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS) 2000JN
TETRACHLOR081PHENYL(8 ISOMERS): 4000JN
PHTHALICANHYDRIDE 2000JN
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL 2000JN
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (4 iSOMERSi 7000JN
BENZENEDICARBOXYLIC ACID,
BUTYLHEXYLESTER 8000JN
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL 2000JN
PHOSPHORIC ACID, (ETHYLHEXYL)ESTER 700JN 20000JN
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 1000J
7 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 20000J
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KC UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) 1700C 540C 100N 11000C
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260) 1700C ?SOC 24JN 3300c
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
A AVERAGE VALUE
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
C CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
4-25
llllil iiiii iiiii - - --.. liiil liiiil
Table 4.3 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric-Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
54-SLA 54-SLB 54-SLC 55-SLA 55-SLB 56-SLA 56-SLB 57-SLA 57-SLB 57-SLC
09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
SILVER 6.3A
BARIUM 62 65 99 57 57 110 81 190 380 230
BERYLLIUM 7.4
CADMIUM 6. 1 10
COBALT 9.3 7.0 4.0 11 18 13 20 35
CHROMIUM 30 29 14 38 30 60 39 62 130 32
COPPER 130J 35J 12J 32J 20J 20000A 63J 640A 56A 20J
MOLYBDENUM 9.4 14 50
NICKEL 14 18 12 10 47 13 63 140 56
LEAD 73 29 16 22 24 9600A 25 270 68 54
TIN 25 2400A 26
STRONT !UM 7.8 4.2 4.0 15 69 140 100
TELLURIUM
TITANIUM 830 1100 1300 960 700 840 1200 1100 3100 1100
VANADIUM 50 62 32 64 47 52 38 70 130 48
YTTRIUM 10 8.5 17 13 12 13 30 30 78 41
ZINC 160 29 30 49 45 730 54 590 110 50
MERCURY 0. 10 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.10
ALUMINUM 46000 64000 67000 36000 33000 46000 50000 53000 77000 72000
MANGANESE 250 100 130 300 150 370 570 470 380 790
CALCIUM 450 480 830 470 2100 2300 1000
MAGNESIUM 2500 1000 2500 2000 1000 3000 3800 3500 12000 2700
IRON 27000 39000 24000 31000 21000 38000 24000 51000 66000 22000
POT ASS !UM 2300 2700 1600 950 1200 1900 1500 6800 2700
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J ESTIMATED VALUE
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-26
--- -
l!!!!!l!I 111111
54-SLA
09/12/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE)
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL (4 ISOMERS) 3000JN
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (9 ISOMERS) ?OOOJN
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL (3 ISOMERS)
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL
TRICHLOROBIPHENYL (2 ISOMERS)
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL (7 ISOMERS)
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
7 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KG
GAMMA·BHC (LINDANE)
4,41 -001 (P,P1 -DDT)
4,4' ·ODE (P,P 1 ·DDE)
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
PCB-1248 (AROCLDR 1248) 3900C
PCB-1260 (AROCLDR 1260) 980C
ENDRIN ALDEHYDE
ENDRJN KETONE
' **~*************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
A AVERAGE VALUE
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
C CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
iiiil - - -.. liiiil
Table 4.3
Soil Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric-Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
' 54-SLB 54-SLC 55-SLA 55-SLB 56-SLA 56-SLB 57-SLA 57-SLB 57-SLC
09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
2J
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
1000JN
400JN
1000JN
4000JN 4000JN
500JN
2000J
6000J
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
110
48 130 29N
130
7300C
130 9400c 7500N
220N 31J 41N 4000C
92
8.4
4-27
-- ----1!!!!!!!11 I!!!!!! lllil llliiiil iiiil ----
Table 4.3 {cont)
Soil Analytical Data SuTTll1ary
General Electric·Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
58-SLA 58-SL8 59-SLA 59-SLB 59-SLC 60-SLA 60-SLB
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 89 83 67 64 65 98 44
CADMIUM 3.2
COBALT 4.4 5.2
CHROMIUM 45 45 41 23 29 42 48
COPPER 300A ZZJ 130J 14J 29J 250J 29J
MOLYBDENUM 5.4
NICKEL 24 18 16 11 18 13
LEAD 140 44 85 26 46 160. 27
TIN 19 12 17
STRONTIUM 14 14 11 14 19 12
TITANIUM 900 730 680 410 630 720 1400
VANADIUM 62 60 52 39 56 51 88
YTTRIUM 13 16 9.5 5.6 10 13
ZINC 320 38 120 28 29 340 32
MERCURY 0.10 0.08 0. 10 0, 13 0.06
ALUMINUM 43000 49000 39000 41000 100000 35000 55000
MANGANESE 230 320 160 210 zoo 240 120
CALCIUM 1100 740 310 2900
MAGNESIUM 1600 1200 890 820 1200 2000 1200
IRON 30000 27000 24000 18000 29000 26000 43000
POTASSIUM 1500
' ' ****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J ESTIMATED VALUE
MATERIAL ~AS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-28
---111!!!!1 l!!l!!I liiilil lliilill liiiii iiiiil --
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FLUORANTHENE
PYRENE
CHRYSENE
METHYLCHRYSENE
HYOROXYNAPHTHALENEDJONE
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL
HEPTACHLOROBIPHENYL
HYDROXYNAPHTHALENEDIONE
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
4 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
8 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
ENDOSULFAN I (ALPHA)
4,41-DDE (P,P 1 -DDE)
PCB-1254 (AROCLOR 1254)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248)
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260)
58-SLA
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
67J
200J
300JN
SOOOJ
UG/KG
19P
3800C
4900C
********.~*******************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
A AVERAGE VALUE
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL YAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
C CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
Table 4.3 (cont)
Soil Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric-Shepherd farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
58-SLB 59-SLA 59-SLB
09/13/94
59-SLC 60-SLA
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
130J
150J
500JN
100JN
100JN
700JN
1000J
3000J
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
34
2100C
4-29
-
60-SLB
09/13/94
UG/KG
UG/KG
UG/KG
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•---
1
I
I
I
·--. -·
TABLE 4.4
GE Superfuncl Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
SOIL SAfvIPLING LOCATION SUMMARY
SPRING HA VEN TRAILER PARK/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number Address/Subsurface Soil Sample Location
GE-050-SLA Vacant Lot
GE-050-SLB Vacant Lot
GE-050-SLC Vacant Lot
GE-051-SLA I 06 Spring Haven I Rd
GE-051-SLB Front Yard
GE-052-SLA 110 Spring Haven Rd
GE-052-SLB Front Yard
GE-053-SLA I 07 Spring Haven Rd
GE-053-SLB Back Yard
GE-054-SLA 111 Spring Haven Rd
GE-054-SLB Back Yard
GE-054-SLC Back Yard
GE-055-SLA 115 Spring Haven Rd
GE-055-SLB Back Yard
GE-060-SLA Grid 60
GE-060-SLB Center
GE-056-SLA Grid 56
----• + •
GE-056-SLB Center
GE-057-SLA Grid 57
GE-057-SLB Center
GE-057-SLC Center
4-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
H
I
•-
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4.4 (cont)
GE Superfund Site
RI Rep0!1
Draft May 1995
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION SUMMARY
SPRING HA VEN TRAILER PARK/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Number Address/Subsurface Soil Sample Location
GE-058-SLA Grid 58
GE-058-SLB Center
GE-059-SLA Grid 59
GE-059-SLB Center
GE-059-SLC Center
4-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
Extractahle...Diganic_Compounds
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Extractable organic compounds were detected in eight surface soil samples and one subsu1face
soil sample. Samples 51-SLA, 54-SLA, 56-SLA, 57-SLA and 59-SLA contained only the
presumptive evidence of, or unidentified extractable organic compounds. In addition to
unidentified and the presumptive evidence of extractable organic compounds, samples 53-SLA,
58-SLA and 60-SLA contained pyrene at concentrations of 120J ug/kg, 671 ug/kg and 150
ug/kg, respectively. Fluoranthene was detected in sample 53-SLA at 120J ug/kg and sample
60-SLA at I 30J ug/kg. Sample 53-SLA contained I OJ ug/kg of phenanthrene.
Sample 53-SLB contained 980 ug/kg of diethyl phthalate, 130,000 ugikg of di-N-
butylphthalate, 680 ug/kg of benzyl butyl phthalate and 3,000 ug/kg of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate. The presumptive evidence of several compounds was detected as were
several unidentified compounds.
Eesti c ides.andJ>.CB'.s
Lindane was detected in sample 56-SLA at a concentration of 110 ug/kg. 4,4'-DDT was
detected in samples 55-SLA, 55-SLB and 57-SLB at concentrations ranging up to I 30 ug/kg.
4,4'DDE was detected in samples 55-SLB and 60-SLA at concentrations up to 130 ug/kg.
Sample 57-SLA contained 92 ug/kg of endrin aldehyde and 8.4 ug/kg of endrin ketone.
Sample 58-SLA contained 19P ug/kg of endosulfan.
PCB's were detected in nine surface soil samples and three subsurface soil samples.
Concentrations of total PCB's which exceeded 5,000 ug/kg were detected in samples 53-SLA,
56-SLA, 57-SLA and 58-SLA. Total PCB's concentrations which exceeded 1,000 ug/kg ( but
less than 5,000 ug/kg) were detected in samples 51-SLA, 51-SLB, 54-SLA and 60-SLA.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zi_ns, mercury i!.ndmangan~se, An elev_at_ed concentrati_on12f cl~ro1nium \Vas_ detec_ted in
sample 57-SLB. Samples 57-SLB and 57-SLC contained elevated concentrations of barium.
Elevated concentrations of lead were detected in samples 51-SLA, 53-SLB, 56-SLA, 58-SLA
and 60-SLA. ·
Elevated concentrations of copper were detected in samples 53-SLA, 53-SLB and 56-SLA.
Sam'p!es 53-SLA and 53-SLB contained elevated concentrations of zinc and samples 50-SLA,
4-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
550-SLA, 53-SLB,56-SLB and 57-SLC contained elevated concentrations of manganese.
ICLE
Sample 59-SLC was analyzed for eleven TCLP metals including silver, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, nickel, antimony, beryllium and thallium. Barium was
the only compound detected. The concentration was 0.39 mg/I.
4.2 Surface_Water_and_SeclimenLSampling
Thirteen surface water and sediment samples were collected from 12 locations during this
investigation. Six samples, locations one through six, were collected from the GE property.
Location 4 is a spring which flows into the adjacent creek. One sample was collected from
the Seldon Clark property, location 30; and six samples were collected from the Shepherd
Fann property, locations 50 through 54. Sample location 452 is a duplicate of sample location
52. The locations are indicated on Figures 4.4, 4.2 and 4.5, respectively. The surface water
analytical results are presented in Table 4.5 and the sediment analytical results are presented in
Table 4.6.
Surface Water
YJ:llatiJe__Qrganic_C.QmJJ.Qunds
Tetrachloroethene was detected in all six samples collected from the GE property and from
samples 51-SW and 54-SW. The concentrations ranged between 0.53 ug/1 and 3.5 ug/l.
Sample 4-SW contained 6. Sug/1 of cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 0. 7!J ug/1 of 1, l, !-trichloroethane
and l .9J ug/1 of trichloroethene. Sample 6-SW contained 7.41 ug/1 of carbondisulfide.
· Samples 52-SW and 452-SW contained 3.0J and 3.2J ug/1 of toluene.
Extractahle .. .Drganic__CompGunds
Sample 30-SW contained 20JN ug/1 of hydroxynaphthalenedione and sample 52-SW contained
20JN Lig/1 of hexadecanoic acid. -----•---
Ecsticides .. and...l'.CB~s
No pesticides or PCB's were detected in the surface water samples.
4-33
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
"' _,
0 '-J ~
I I
GE PROPERTY
SURFACE WATER AND SEDMIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1----------------------------iFIGURE
&EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC
EAST FLAT ROCK,
SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH CAROLINA
4,4
"'L...--------------------------------------.L.---------1
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
R
m
I
I
,
/
/ / ; ! / I , / , ; ;
i ,'
! ; ;
!
/
i ; i i i / i i
~\
0 \.
\ \
\ .. ·--·-·-··-··-··
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY ATER SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0 "' 0 ·-· ·-.. -·-··-.-··-··---
·.!~~:a:~:1:E::::A::~:-::::GE:N:E:R:AL::E:LE:C:T:Rl:C:S:U:P:E:RF:U:N:D::Sl:TE::::::~--FI-GU_R_E_
4
·-
5
~ ~ _ ~ EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I Table 4.5
Surface Water Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina I 1-SW 2-SW 3-SW 4-SW 5-SW 6-SW 30-SW
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/12/94
I
I
I
I
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
COBALT
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
ZINC
ALUM! NUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
POTASSIUM
UG/L
28
22
39
6.4
1100
42
MG/L
2.8 ·
1. 5
1 .4
2.8
0.85
**************************************************************** I ***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
I
I
H
u
I
I
UG/L
25
3.0
25
6.0
11
270
83
MG/L
3.5
1. 7
0.64
4.6
1.2
I 4-36
I
UG/L
25
3.8
3.3
25
8.6
14
440
130
MG/L
4.0
1.6
0.73
16
2.0
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
71 24 25 56
3.6
2.6
21 26 26 140
22 8.6 19 13
11 8.1 12 73
1400 360 690 350
940 62 79 940
MG;L MG/L MG/L MG/L
3.6 3.8 4.0 76
1. 7 1.6 1.7 14
2. 1 0.71 1.0 7.3
3.1 7. 1 7.6 3. 1
1 . 1 1.3 3.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
Table 4.5 (cont)
Surface Water Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1-SW 2-SW
09/13/94 09/13/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/L
CARBON OISULFIOE
CIS-1,2-0ICHLOROETHENE
1 , 1 , 1-TR I CHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 1.3J 3.5J
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/L
HYDROXYNAPHTHALENEDIONE
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/L
NONE DETECTED
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
N
ESTIMATED VALUE
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE Of MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-37
3-SW
09/13/94
UG/L
1. 9J
UG/L
UG/l
4-SW 5-sw 6-SW 30-SW
09/13/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/12/94
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
7.4J
6.8
0. 71J
1.9J
0.53J 2.6J 1. 9J
UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/l
20JN
UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
D
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
STRONT !UM
TITANIUM
ZINC
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SODIUM
POTASSIUM
Table 4.5 (cont)
Surface Water Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric-Shepherd farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
50-SW 51-SW 52-SW
09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
1700 0840 0920
UG/L UG/L UG/L
20 18 9.8
18 20 8.2
32 13 14
18 8.5 4.2
640 420 380
31 25 33
MG/l MG/l MG/l
2.6 3.2 1 . 2
1.3 1.4 0.66
0.78 0.47 0.87
2.2 2.8 1. 9
0.52 0.82 0.51
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-38
53-SW 54-SW 452-SW
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
1120 1100 0935
UG/L UG/L UG/L
14 18 9.6
12 14 8.2
9.0 12 14
5. 1 5.8 5.2
280 330 380
30 41 33
MG/L MG/l MG/l
1.8 2.2 1 . 2
0.83 1 . 1 0.66
0.86 0.85 0.86
2.1 2.4 1.8
0.53 0.69 0.54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4.5 '(cont)
Surface Water Analytical Data Suninary
General Electric·Shepherd farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
50-SW 51-SW 52-SW 53-SW 54-SW
09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE)
TOLUENE
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
HEXADECANOIC ACID
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
1. SJ
UG/L
UG/L
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J
N
ESTIMATED VALUE
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-39
UG/L
3.0J
UG/L
ZOJN
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
0.66J
UG/L
UG/L
452·SW
09/13/94
UG/L
3.ZJ
UG/L
UG/L
I
I Table 4.6
Sediment Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
I 1-SD 2-SD 3-SD 4-SD 5-SD 6-SD 30-SD
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/12/94
I INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM· 9.5 35 9.7 18 12 20 18
CADMIUM 0.77
I COBALT 3.0 1.2 1. 5 4.4
CHROMIUM 14 28 3.8 1.3 6.5 7.4 14
COPPER 2.3J 13J 2.8J 3.2J 6.6J 16A
NICKEL 6.2 2.6 4.1
LEAD 10 6.3 96A
TIN 2.8
STRONTIUM 1.4 2.3 1.4 1.7 4.1
TITAIJIUM 120 540 130 82 110 220 310
VANADIUM 7.6 24 4.8 1.6 5.6 7.2 15
I YTTRIUM 1.4 4.4 1.4 2. 1 4.9
ZINC 6.6 36 7.7 5. 1 9. 1 22 83
ALUMINUM 3000 12000 3600 2000 4600 6100 5700
MANGANESE 33 110 23 240 48 93 250
I CALCIUM 66 190 79 200 91 180 3700
MAGNESIUM 260 1600 320 67 230 610 2300
IRON 4000 13000 3100 780 3000 4200 10000
POTASSIUM 1400 290 280 440 840
I ****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
I -MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
R
I
I
I
I
I
I 4-40
I
I
I Table 4.6 (cont)
Sediment Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric
I East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1-SD 2-SD 3-SD 4-SD 5-SD 6-SD 30-SD
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/16/94 09/16/94 09/12/94
I PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
NONE DETECTED
I EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
PHENANTHRENE 80J
FLUORANTHENE 150J
PYRENE 140J
I CHRYSENE 87J
BENZO(B AND/OR K) FLUORANTHENE 120J
BENZO·A·PYRENE 70J
INDENO (1,2,3-CD) PYRENE 73J
I DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE 96J
BENZO(GHl)PERYLENE 73J
3 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 3000J
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS 3000J
I PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
R
4,41 -DDT (P,P 1·DDT) 6.2
4,4 1-DDE (P,P 1-DDE) 7.8
PCB· 1254 (AROCLOR 1254) 85 49
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) 430 170C 54 85
PCB-1260 (AROCLOR 1260) 34J
I ENORIN ALOEHYOE 5.6
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
I A AVERAGE VALUE
ESTIMATED VALUE
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
C CONFIRMED BY GC/MS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4-41
I
I
I Table 4.6 (cont)
Sediment Analytical Data Surm1ary
General Electric·Shcpherd farm
I
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
so-so 51 ·SD 52-SD 452-SD 53-SO 54-SD
09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
I INORGANIC ELEMENTS MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG MG/KG
BARIUM 51 66 63 50 13 8.2
BERYLLIUM 0.58
I COBALT 4.8 5.8 5.0 3.7 2.0
CHROMIUM 14 12 47 47 6.6 13
COPPER 7.SJ 11 J 14J 12J 6.SJ 3.0J
NICKEL 6.5 4.6 9.2 7.8
LEAD 5 .8 12 16 13
I STRONT !UM 2.1 3.6 4.2 2.4
TITANIUM 680 610 810 660 160 110
VANADIUM 21 20 46 38 6.4 7.6
YTTRIUM 6.3 8.1 8.6 6.8 1.3
I ZINC 26 65 58 46 7.9 5.9
ALUMINUM 10000 14000 20000 15000 3600 2600
MANGANESE 99 360 92 70 70 30
CALCIUM 230 340 380 300 55
I MAGNES !UM 1300 1800 1700 1300 330 290
IRON 9900 13000 16000 13000 2800 2800
POTASSIUM 1100 1400 1300 1000 230
I ****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
u · MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4.6 (cont)
Sediment Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric-Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
50-SD 51-SD 52-SD
09/12/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
NONE DETECTED
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
FLUORANTHENE 73J
PYRENE 59J
BIS(2·ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 1800
(3-AND/OR 4-)METHYLPHENOL 1400
22 UNIDENTIFIEO COMPOUNDS 600000J
PHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
4,4 1-DDT (P,P1-DDT)
PCB-1248 (AROCLOR 1248) 73N
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
N
ESTIMATED VALUE
PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-43
452-SD 53-SD 54-SD
09/13/94 09/13/94 09/13/94
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
1300
760
500000J
100JN 300JN
400J
UG/KG UG/KG UG/KG
5.0N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Metals
GE Supc,fund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Metals were detected in all of the surface water samples. The SMCL of 50-200 ug/1 of
aluminum was exceeded in all the samples collected. The SMCL of 0.3 mg/I of iron was
exceeded in all the samples collected. The SMCL of 50 ug/1 of manganese was exceeded in
samples 2-SW, 3-SW, 4-SW, 5-SW, 6-SW and 30-SW.
EielcLEarameter.s
The field parameters of temperature, pH and specific conductance were measured. The
results are presented in Table 4. 7. The pH of the surface water samples were all slightly basic
and ranged between 7.2 SU in sample I-SW to 8.1 SU in sample 53-SW. The specific
conductance ranged between 20 umhos/cm and 40 umhos/cm. The temperatures ranged
between 6.5 and 8.0 degrees centigrade (these measurements were obtained in Febrnary 1995).
Sediment
Y.ulatile....ili.gani.c_C.QITIµll.UlldS
No volatile organic compounds were detected in the sediment samples
Extractahle_Organic_Compouncl.s
Extractable organic compounds were detected in eight sediment samples,. Sample 2-SD
contained 3,000J ug/kg of three unidentified compounds and sample J-SD contained 3,000J
ug/kg of 2 unidentified compounds.
· Sample 30-SD contained phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or
K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene, indeno(l ,2,3-CD) pyrene, dibenzo(A,H)anthracene and
benzo(GHI)perylene. The concentrations ranged between 70J ug/kg and 1501 ug/kg. Sample
51-SD contained 73J ug/kg of fluoranthene and 59J ug/kg of pyrene. Sample 52-SD contained
1,800 ug/kg of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,400 ug/kg of 3-and/or 4-methylphenol and
6o6;oooj ug/kg of 22 unidentified CCHi1p0t1ncts: The-restilts fro,n sample 452-SD ai-e similar to.
those of 52-SD. Samples 53-SD and 54-SD contained the presumptive evidence of phthalic
anhydride.· Sample 54-SD contained 4001 ug/kg of one unidentified compound.
4-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
B
I
I
I
I
I
Location1 Sample
Number Number
I GE-001-SW
2 GE-002-SW
" GE-003-SW ·'
4 GE-004-SW
5 GE-005-SW
6 GE-006-SW
50 GE-050-SW
51 GE-051-SW
52 GE-052-SW
53 GE-053-SW
Table 4.7
Surface Water Field Parameters
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
pH Conductivity
(SU) (umhos/cm)
7.2 40
NM' NM
NM NM
NM NM
NM NM
7.3 220
7.4 40
7.6 40
7.8 20
8.1 20
I. Closest Sample collection location. Measurements collected 2-14-95.
2. NM -Parameter not measured
4-45
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Temperature
( C)
8.0
NM
NM
NM
NM
7.0
8.5
7.5
6.5
7.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
Eesticides_and__ECB.'.s
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Samples I-SD and 54-SD contained 4,4'-DDT at concentrations of 6.2 ug/kg and 5.0N ug/kg.
Sample 2-SD contained 7.8 ug/kg of 4,4-'DDE and 5.6 ug/kg of endrin aldehyde.
Six samples contained PCB's. PCB-1248 was detected in samples 2-SD, 3-SD, 5-SD, 6-SD
and 5 I-SD. The concentrations ranged between 54 ug/kg and 430 ug/kg. Sample 6-SD also
contained 85 ug/kg of PCB-1254 and 34J ug/kg of PCB-1260. Sample 30-SD contained 49
ug/kg of PCB-1254.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in the sediment samples including: barium, chromium,
copper, lead, zinc, and maganese. No elevated concentration were detected.
4.3 · Temporary Monitor Well Installation and Sampling
Nine temporary wells were installed at the locations specified on Figures 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8.
The analytical results are presented in Table 4.8. The field parameters of temperature, pH,
specific conductance and turbidity were measured. The results are presented in Table 4.9.
Sample 551-TW is a duplicate of sample 51-TW. Location 50 is considered background for
the sites
Y.olatile.ilrganic_Cnmp_Qunds
Volatile organic compound were detected in six samples from five locations. Sample 2-TW
contained 0.59J ug/l of 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 0.80J ug/l of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and 0. 71.J
· ug/l of 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene. Sample 30-TW contained 0.067 AJ ug/l of p-isopropyltoluene.
Sample 50-TW contained l. lJ ug/I of chlorofonn. Sample 51-TW contained 1. lJ ug/l of
vinyl chloride, 1.2J ug/I of cis-1,2-dichloroethene, 0. 98J ug/l of trichloroethene and 29 ug/l of
tetrachloroethene. Sample 551-TW contained similar compounds and concentrations. Sample
53-TW contained 32 ug/l of tetrachloroethene.
·---··--·--·-· -------·---------------------------., .
Extractable_Qrganic_Compounds
Extractable organic compounds were detected in one sample. Sample 53-TW contained 29
ug/l of benzylbutyl phthalate and the presumptive evidence of petroleum product. ,
4-46
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
H
I
I
I t, -I 0 " f\)
CD &EPA
~ ~
,1_
:a
z ~ :;:!;!
!\~
GE PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
GENERAL ELECTRIC
EAST FLAT ROCK,
SUPERFUND SITE
NORTH CAROLINA
► ~
~ g
~ z < ~ ~ < ~ ~
FIGURE 4.6
'"L-------------------------------------------''--------.J
I I I I • I
I
I
I
n
n 0 0
u
B /0
/'
I 0 0
I
I
I
I
1-z :s 0.. w (_')
0:: w
2
--if:iii J:j_ i w 0:: <{ Ow
t;; ~
,;
w. _,
<( u V)
ac: J-(f) -LL 0::
0 <{
(f) I-w z
0 "1 --,
W_J ~ _J
:;;,LL
I
z
<( ac: 0
I-
VJ w
::;; ac:
0 J-(f)
::JnN3/\'v' ONO::l3S
SELDON CLARK PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
~ ~ s: I
(_')
I
(_') ac: ::::,
CD z ;:;
ac: <{
I)_
(f)
~
<D
I'-
(f)
::::,
;:;
0 •
V) z 0 ~ g _, G:l "' , 0: g z 0 ::,
•
I ~---------------------------1 FIGURE 4.7
"l tnll EnA GENERAL ELECTR1c suPERFuNo s1TE g ~ FA EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA I "
I I I I I
I
I
• n
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti 0: 0 I:: ~ ~5~ ::liO _._oJ5 i~ a 0 _, 0.. _, ::li _, a ..,.., .... ,. ' •
p I ,., ,.,
/ !
I ! I
i '-r'
\ ' \ \ -\
... ---ovo~ cJVt>-3N111
--_ .. +-----
B
C )
SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
1--------------------------1 FIGURE 4.8
!~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA .,, '-----------------,------------....L..------l
------- --11!!1!1 --liiiil
Table 4.8
Temporary Well Analytical Data Su1T111ary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1·TW 2-TW 30-TW 31-TW 50-TW 51-TW 551-TW 52-TW 53-TW 54-TW
09/21/94 09/21/94 09/22/94 09/21/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/13/94 09/21/94
09/20/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS UG/l UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/L UG/l
BARIUM 96 60 36 72 40 46 42 47 59 760
BERYLLIUM 1.6
COBALT 3.4 95 14 2.3 4.5 4.2 4.8 5.2
CHROMIUM 7 .5 2.3 3.0 2.6
COPPER 3.0 4.2 2.6 2.3 8. 1 3.9 2.3
NICKEL 190 36 4.3 8.5
STRONTIUM 58 9.9 35 14 28 28 29 5.9 26 62
TITANIUM 32 40 6.2 27 29 59 33 4.4 75 65
VANADIUM 2.9 3.5 9. 1
YTTRIUM 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.5 10
ZINC 15 10 18 25 4.5 67 35 2.8 12 19
MERCURY 0.28
ALUMINUM 1600 3200 410 820 540 1500 760 240 3600 2100
MANGANESE 160 38 2600 390 170 570 590 30 210 1500
MG/l MG/l MG/l MG/l MG/l MG/L MG/l MG/l MG/l MG/l
CALCIUM 5.2 0.88 7.0 2.2 3.2 4.8 4.9 0.20 3. 1 13
MAGNESIUM 2.2 0.64 14 1.5 1.6 2.3 2.3 0.31 1.4 6.2
IRON 0.76 2.5 3.4 1.0 0.4 3.2 1.8 2.7 1.0 4.5
SODIUM 5.0 16 4.5 2.3 4.4 7.2 7 .5 1. 2 3.5 13
POTASSIUM 1.6 0.48 0.96 1.1 2.6 1.4 1.3 1.4 6.9
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-50
- -- --
09/20/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
VINYL CHLORIDE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE)
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE
P-!SOPROPYLTOLUENE
CHLOROFORM
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
BENZYL BUTYL PHTHALATE
PETROLEUM PRODUCT
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED I
I
I
l!!!l!!l!!!I !!!!I 1!11!1
Table 4.8 {cont)
Temporary \./ell Analytical Data Sunmary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1-TW
09/21/94
UG/l
UG/l
UG/l
2-TW 30-TW
09/21/94 09/22/94
UG/l UG/l
0.59J
0.B0J
0.71J
0.067AJ
UG/l UG/l
UG/l
31-TW
09/21/94
UG/l
UG/l
UG/l
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL \./AS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-51
iiii
50-TW 51-TW 551-TW 52-TW
09/20/94 09/20/94 09/20/94 09/13/94
UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l
1. 1 J
1.2J 0.87J
0.98J 0.98J
29 34
1. 1 J
UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l
UG/l UG/l UG/l
liiil
53-TW
09/21/94
54-TW
UG/l UG/l
32
UG/l UG/l
29
N
UG/l UG/l
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
D
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well
Number
TW-1
TW-2
TW-30
TW-3 I
TW-50
TW-51
TW-52
TW-53
TW-54
Sample
Number
GE-001-TW
GE-002-TW
GE-030-TW
GE-031-TW
GE-050-TW
GE-051-TW
GE-052-TW
GE-053-TW
GE-054-TW
Table 4.9
Tempora1y Well Field Parameters
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
pH Conductivity Temperature
(SU) (umhos/cm) ( C)
5.89 92 18.2
5.91 8.5 I 17 5
5.9 196.4 14.6
5.9 45.8 17.2
6.2 60.5 15.9
6.4 91.2 I 9.2
4.72 20.8 22.7
5.91 53.1 6.1
5.5 258 I 5.2
4-52
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Turbidity
(NTU)
7.39
0.21
0.13
0.11
6.8
6.28
0.15
7.64
1.97
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'esticides_ancLECB~
No pesticides or PCB's were detected in the temporary well samples.
Metals
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Metals were detected in all of the temporary well sa111ples. Sample 30-TW contained 0.28 ug/1
of mercury. The MCL for mercury is 2 ug/1. Also, the SMCL for nickel was exceeded in
sample 30-TW. The SMCL's for aluminum and iron were exceeded in all the samples
including the background sample. The SMCL of 50 ug/1 for manganese was exceeded in all
the samples except 2-TW and 52-TW.
EielcLEarameters
The field parameters of temperature, pH, specific conductance and turbidity were measured.
The results are presented in Table 4.9. The pH of the ground water samples were all slightly
acidic and ranged between 4.7 SU in sample 52-TW to 6.4 SU in sample 51-TW. The
specific conductance ranged from 8.51 umhos/cm in sample 2-TW to 258 umhos/cm in sample
54-TW. The temperatures ranged between 14.6 and 22.7 degrees centrigrade. The turbidity
of the samples ranged from 0.11 NTU in sample 31-TW to 7. 64 in sample 53-TW.
4.4 Qn_Siie.J'ermanenLMoniioi:..WelLSampling
Twenty four of the existing pennanent monitor wells located on the GE property were
sampled. Table 4.10 presents the well construction infonnation and Figure 4.9 indicates their
locations. Analytical data are presented in Table 4.11. Field parameters are presented in
Table 4.12.
Y:olatile_.Or_ganic__Compounds
Volatile organic compounds were detected in 21 of the 24 wells sampled. To facilitate the
data presentation and discussion, the compounds cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene and
tetrachloroetheiie -were clicise,i as indicator cimipoiinds. -·Thesecoiiipounds were-·detected a·t the
greatest frequency in the wells. Cis-1,2-dichloroethene was detected in 18 wells at
concentrations between 0.72] ug/1 in well MW-22A to 380J ug/1 in well MW-I 1.
4-53
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
I
m
u
D
D
D
I
1--..
I
I
I
I
TABLE4_10
GE Superfund Site
RI Repo11
Draft May 1995
ON SITE MONITOR WELL SAMPLE COLLECTION SUMMARY
GE PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Well Sample Total Screen Northing
Number Number Depth Length
Number
MW-I GE-001-MW 28 5 572045
MW-2 GE-002-MW 24.5 10 571678.6
MW-2A GE-02A-MW 48.3 10 571683
MW-4 GE-004-MW 13.2 10 571354.1
MW-9 GE-009-MW 37.4 10 572093.9
MW-I I GE-01 I-MW 58.5 10 572384.1
MW-12 GE-012-MW 40.5 10 572116.3
MW-12A GE-12A-MW 58 10 572121
MW-12B GE-12B-MW 125 34 572126
MW-14 GE-014-MW 37.3 10 572207.5
MW-14A GE-14A-MW 58.3 16 572212
MW-14B GE-14B-MW I I 0 27 572217
MW-17 GE-017-MW 43 10 572544.3
MW-19 GE-019-MW 42.3 10 572273.6
Total depth and screen length measurements are in feet
OH -Open Hole
All well casings and screen are constructed of PVC
4-54
Easting Top Of
Casing
(ft ms!)
982278 2183.33
983044.7 2153.45
983049 2 I 53. I
982724.8 2146.46 -
982369 2177.57
981894.6 2178.76
9S1910.1 2168.96
981915 2 I 68. 77
981920 2168.2
982976.6 2144.63
982981 2144.56
982986 2143.3
982489.7 2182.41
981730.3 2177.86
Depth Water
to Water Surface
(ft) Elevation
27.7 2 I 55.63
16.78 2136.67
16.24 2136.86
4.25 2142.21
22 2 I 55.57
15.88 2162.88
9.53 2159.43
9.5 2159.27
8.65 2159.55
9.46 2135.17
6.28 2138.28
3.78 2139.52
28.8 2153.61
10.7 2167.16
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
n
n
D
D
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4.10 (cont)
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
ON SITE MONITOR WELL SAMPLE COLLECTION SUMMARY
GE PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Well Sample Total Screen Northing
Number Number Depth Length
MW-21 GE-021-MW 81.8 10 572970.2
MW-22A GE-22A-MW 23 10 573068.3
MW-25 GE-025-MW 41.5 10 571495.7
MW-26 GE-026-MW 57.8 10 571805.3
MW-29 GE-029-MW 41 10 573174.1
MW-30 GE-030-MW 47.5 10 570458.6
MW-30A GE-30A-MW 61.5 10 570463
MW-32 GE-032-MW 16.7 10 571088.5
MW-35 GE-035-MW 18.5 10 572923
MW-38 GE-038-MW 63 20 572828
Total depth and screen length measurements are in feet
OH -Open Hole
All well casings and screen are constructed of PVC
4-55
Easting Top Of
Casing
(ft ms!)
981388.1 2177.81
983007.9 2126.3
981426.8 2157.7
981209.4 2173.8
982544.3 2160.16
983162.9 2156.81
983167 2156.24
982306.8 2154.92
981577.7 2183
981503 2i78.03
Depth Water
to Water Surface
(ft) Elevation
4.26 2173.55
1.85 2124.45
3.6 2154.1
13.3 2160.5
24.8 2135.36
4.9 2151.91
4.5 2151.74
8.33 2146.59
12.18 2170.82
6.93 2171.1
l!!l!!I l!!!!l!I l!!!!I 1!1111!1 liillliil IEliil liiiiil iiiil iiii1 liiiil
0
Table 4.11
Monitor Well Analytical Data SuTTJTiary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
l·MW 2-MW 2A·MW 4-MW 9-MW 11-MW 12-MW 12A·MW 12B·MW 14-MW 14A-MW 14B·MW
09/21/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/21/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
BARIUM 40 30 5.6 55 87 270 190 230 66 41 7.4 620
COBALT 4.0 4.8
CHROMIUM 4.8
COPPER 2.1 18 3.6 8.3 110
MOLYBDENUM 25
LEAD 8.0 15
STRONTIUM 10 7.3 260 190 29 560 470 590 530 72 110 8000
TITANIUM 26 4.7 17 7.0 6.8 7.8 15 29
ZINC 29 3.2 8.0 8.6 12 28 8.9 9. 1 3. 1 7 .0
MERCURY 0.22 0.22 0.62
ALUMINUM 1200 87 210 59 260 91 99 170 520 1300
MANGANESE 37 120 87 770 81 67 65 30 40 810 49
MG/l MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/l MG/L MG/L MG/L. MG/L MG/L
CALCIUM 1.9 1.9 32 6.5 2.9 74 65 79 44 7.0 12 260
MAGNESIUM 1 .3 ,. 1 3.0 1. 8 2.0 35 39 44 12 2. 1 3.2 0.26
IRON 0.44 0.17 0.20 0.42 0.36 2.3 0.12
SOD !UM 1.9 4.3 8.3 37 4.8 16 14 16 9.6 6.3 4.7 25
POTASSIUM 0.60 3.3 2.2 1.0 4.7 4.2 7.3 4.9 ,. 1 2.7 21
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
ESTIMATED VALUE ' -MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-57
l!!l!I -== liiiiill liiil llilil liiii1 iiiil liiiil
Table 4.11 {cont)
Monitor Well" Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
1-MW 2-MW 2A-MW 4-MW 9-MW 11-MW 12-MW 12A-MW 128-MW 14-MW 14A-MW 148-MW
09/21/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/21/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/14/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
VINYL CHLORIDE 2.BJ 0.69AJ
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 210 0.91J 2.BJ 11 J 140 380J 160J 150 16 43J 17 3.5AJ
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 33J 14J 1.9J 1 .6J
1,2-0ICHLOROETHANE 4.0J 63J 130J 130 15J 2.0J 6.3A
1,2-DJCHLOROPROPANE o_53J
TRICHLOROETHENE{TRICHLOROETHYLENE) 60 0.94J 0.98J 18J 71J 34J 29J 4.0J 130 24 3.2AJ
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 160 4.3J 2.8J 75 410 1600 1200 1200 67 380 180 11A
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 13J 2.9J
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE 1.8J 5. 1 J
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 3.2J 3.0J 3.2J
NAPHTHALENE 4. 7J 37 2.BJ
DIBENZOFURAN 2.3J
FLUORENE 1. 1 J
PHENANTHRENE 1.3J
PHENOL 2.3J
2,4-DINITROPHENOL 3.3J
TRI(CHLOROETHANOL)PHOSPHATE 40JN
TRICHLOROBENZENE (NOT 1,2,4-) 20JN
(METHOXYMETHYLETHOXY)PROPANOL 10JN
(METHOXYMETHYLETHOXY)PROPANOL (2 I SOMERS) 30JN
TETRACHLOROBENZENE 10JN lOJN
1 UNJDENTIFIED COMPOUND 20J
METHYLNITROSOPRDPANAMINE 30JN
BENZOIC ACID lOJ
TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL 60JN
HYDRDXYMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE 60JN
PETROLEUM PRODUCT N t,
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L
NONE DETECTED
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
A AVERAGE VALUE
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL ~AS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-58
!11!1 == == 111111'1 lliiiil liiiiiil 1111111 lliiiiiil liiiil iiiiil iiii liiil
Table 4.11 (cont)
Monitor Well Analytical Data Surrmary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
17-MW 19-MW 21-MW 22A-MW 25-MW 26-MW 29-MW 30-MW 30A-MW 32-MW
09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/22/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94
INORGANIC ELEMENTS UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
BARIUM 58 84 120 14 34 40 110 11 4_2 25
CADMIUM 1.3
COBALT 2.4 4.8 3.0
CHROMIUM 6. 1 17 2.2 7.3
COPPER 6.9 7.6 16 7.0 31
NICKEL 7.7
LEAD 8.9
TIN 16
STRONTIUM 12 230 33 9.8 44 140 440 21 29 22
TITANIUM 20 41 1100 14 98 6. 1
VANADIUM 24 3.0
YTTRIUM 3.6
ZINC 14 32 66 4.6 2.4 13 48
ALUMINUM 870 980 15000 250 4200 170 180
MANGANESE 280 160 440 5.2 12 8.5 88 4.9
MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/l MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L
CALCIUM 1.2 34 4.4 ,. 2 6.4 24 6.0 3.1 5.5 2.0
MAGNESIUM 1.0 22 6.4 0.81 4.4 11 1.6 0.66 1.5 0.90
IRON 0.40 18 0. 016 0.29 2.3 0.021 0. 10
SOOIUM 2.2 11 8.1 2.5 4. 1 11 3.0 4.3 6.2 3. 1
POTASSIUM 0.92 2.3 7.6 0.46 1.4 2.5 2.6 0.54 2.2 0.59
****************************************************************
*** f:_1QTNOTES***
ESTIMATED VALUE
-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT nor DETECTED
4-59
iiiil &ill iiiiil liiiiiil liiil liiiiil liiiii iiiil liliiiiiiil iiiilil iiiil iiiil iiiil liiiiil iiiil -
Table 4.11 (cont)
Mani tor Welt Analytical Data Surrrnary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
17-MW 19-MW 21-MW 22A·MW 25-MW 26-MW 29-MW 30-MW 30A·MW 32-MW
09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/22/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94 09/14/94 09/14/94 09/15/94
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/L UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L UG/L
CHLOROMETHANE 0.64J
1, 1·DICHLOROETHENE(1, 1-DICHLOROETHYLENE) 0.79J
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 0.82J
CIS-1,2-DICHLORDETHENE 0.86AJ 28 0. 72J 3. 1 J 10
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE 0.80J
CHLOROFORM 9.4
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 0.60AJ 24
1, 1, 1-TRICHLOROETHANE 1.8J 2.0J
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.66J
TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE) 7.3 0.93J 2.9J 16
BENZENE 2.?J
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE) 34A 290 1.5J 73A 120 29 3.6AJ
TOLUENE 0.88AJ 0.60AJ
0-XYLENE 0.76J
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE 0.53J
1,2,3-TRICHLOROBENZENE 1. 7 J
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L
[(METHOXYMETHYLETHOXY)METHYLETHOXYJPROPANOL 10JN
(METHOXYMETHYLETHOXY)PROPANOL 20JN
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L UG/l UG/L UG/L UG/l UG/L
NONE DETECTED
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
A AVERAGE VALUE
J EST !MATED VALUE
N PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BU/ NOT DETECTED
4-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INORGANIC ELEMENTS
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
COBALT
NICKEL
STRONT !UM
TITANIUM
YTTR !UM
ZINC
MERCURY
ALUM! NUM
MANGANESE
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
SOD !UM
POTASSIUM
Table 4.11 (cont)
Monitor Well Analytical Data Surmiary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
35-MW
09/14/94
1615
UG/L
28
160
7.3
0.26
120
1400
MG/L
74
14
2.2
1.4
38-MW
09/15/94
1110
UG/L
4000
15
31
19
590
25
18
120
1300
5000
MG/L
47
82
0.50
100
13
430-MWA
09/14/94
1130
UG/L
4. 7
29
MG/L
5 .3
1.4
5.9
1.5
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
· MATERIAL WAS ANALY2EO FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-61
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
R
I
I
I
I
I
•-
I
I
I
I
Table 4.11 (cont)
Monitor Well Analytical Data SuIDnary
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE(TRICHLOROETHYLENE)
BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE(TETRACHLOROETHYLENE)
ETHYL BENZENE
(M-AND/OR P-)XYLENE
0-XYLENE
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
NI TROBENZENE
2-NITROPHENOL
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
4-NITROPHENOL
(METHYOXYMETHYLETHDXY)PROPANOL (4 ISOMERS)
METHYLNITROBENZENE
PHENOXYETHANOL
[(METHOXYMETHYLETHOXY)METHYLETHOXYJPROPANOL
BUTOXYETHANOL
PHENOXYACETIC ACID
PHENOXYPROPANOIC ACID
METHYLBENZOPYRANONE
ETHYLMETHYLBENZENAMINE
1 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUND
PESTICIDE/PCB COMPOUNDS
NONE DETECTED
35-MW
09/14/94
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
38-MW 430-MWA
09/15/94 09/14/94
UG/L
2.4J
5. 1
56J
0.75J
6.6
5.7
0.64J
21
0.52J
370
0. 78J
3.SJ
2.7J
0.83J
O.SOJ
0.99J
UG/L
36
9.2J
10J
45
60JN
70JN
7DJN
SOJN
20JN
20JN
20JN
10JN
20JN
60J
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
UG/L
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES***
J -ESTIMATED VALUE
N -PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL
-.MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
4-62
I
I
I
,1
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
•
I
I
Well
Number
MW-I
MW-2
MW-2A
l\1W-4
MW-9
MW-II
MW-12
MW-l2A
MW-l2B
MW-14
M\V-14A
MW-l4B
MW-17
Sample
Number
GE-001-MW
GE-002-MW
GE-02A-MW
GE-004-MW
GE-009-MW
GE-011-MW
GE-012-MW
GE-l2A-MW
GE-12B-MW
GE-014-tvfW
GE-l4A-MW
GE-14B-MW
GE-017-MW
Table 4.12
Monitor Well Field parameters
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
pH Conductivity
(SU) (umhos/cm)
5.85 35
5.56 50
8.06 225
5.82 250
5.3 63
5.7 874
5.76 849
5.89 1024
7.56 373
6.4 100
6.6 I I 5
12.2 3000
5.6 35
4-63
GE Superfund Site
Rl Report
Draft May I 995
Temperature Turbidity
( C) (NTU)
16.9 0.07
15.8 0.03
I 5. I 0.03
I 6.1 0.04
20.2 0.05
18.7 0.02
18 0.02
17.7 0.03
17.8 0.8
15.9 0.01
15.9 0.07
15.4 0.05
154 0.03
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
u
e
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
Well
Number
MW-19
MW-21
MW-22A
MW-25
MW-26
MW-29
MW-30
MW-JOA
MW-32
MW-35
MW-38
Sample.
Number
GE-019-MW
GE-021-M\V
GE-22A-MW
GE-025-MW
GE-026-MW
GE-029-MW
GE-030-l'VIW
GE-30A-lv!W
GE-032-MW
GE-035-MW
GE-038-MW
Table 4.12 (cont)
Monitor Well Field parameters
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
pH Conductivity
(SU) (umhos/cm)
6.2 444
7. l l 70
5.59 30
5.8 12 l
6.l 280
5.5 36
6.4 50
6.9 74
5.5 42.3
6.8 280
5 1670
4-64
GE Superfuncl Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Temperature Turbidity
( C) (NTU)
20.4 -
19.l 5.2
14.4 0.02
18.6 0.02
l 6.8 0.06
l 5.1
16 0.02
14.8 0.04
16.4
21.l 0.03
20.5 0.64
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Trichloroethene was detected in 16 wells at concentrations between 0. 93J ug/1 in well 22A-
MW to 130 ug/1 in well 14-MW. Tetrachloroethene was detected in 20 wells at concentrations
between 1.51 ug/1 in well 21-MW and 1,600 ug/1 in well 11-MW.
Concentration isopleth maps for these compounds were developed using an exponential kriging
algorithm and Golden Software's SURFER modeling program. A concentration of 0.05 ug/1
was used in the model for samples in which cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene and
tetrachloroethene were reported as not detected. These maps visually delineate the horizontal
and vertical extent of contamination in the ground water under the site.
All the wells sampled are screened in the surficial aquifer underlying the site. In order to
better define the vertical extent of contamination underlying the site, the wells were divided
into two groups based on the total depth of the well. One group, labeled shallow wells,
contains the wells 50 feet or less deep. The other group, labeled deep wells, contains those
greater than 50 feet deep. The well depths are presented in Table 4-13.
The results are presented as Figures 4.10, through 4. 15. Figures 4.16 and 4.17 present the
isopleth maps for the total volatile organic compound concentration detected in each well.
This number was de1ived by summing the concentrations of all volatile.organic compounds
detected in a well.
As indicated on the Figures, the area with the highest contamination lies along the drain
line/fom1er ditch in the vicinity of wells MW-11, MW-12, MW-12A and MW-12B. The total
VOC concentration in the shallow and deep wells in this area is roughly equivalent. The
concentration gradient drops gradually toward the northeast, which is the direction of ground
water flow, and more abmptly to the northwest and southeast.
· Monitor well MW-14 contained high concentrations of all three compounds. This well is east-
northeast of the fonner leaking underground storage tank located between the railroad track
and the northwest side of the warehouse.
4-65
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
•-
I
CJ L
~
I
-400 0 400
SCALE IN FEET
GE PROPERTY ON SITE MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4.9 I : ~En,. ~A. GENERAL ELECTRIC suPERFuNo s1TE
~ ~ Fez\ EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
·~L-------------L----.J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
i
. -
-400 0 400 ~'====~=~ SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE SHALLOW WELL ISOPLETH
_JL
FIGURE 4.10 I a EnA GENERAL ELECTRIc suPERFuNo sITE i ~ _ lf""".fi-\ EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA I ~'--------------------------------L------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
-400 0 400
E==!!'!:liiiiE!Eii~=~
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE DEEP WELL ISOPLETH
FIGURE 4.11 I a EnA GENERAL ELEcTRIc suPERFuNo sITE ~ ~ lf"'K EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA I i,.._ ______________________________ ...... ______ ..J
I
I
I
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
-400
~=~~miiii!~
0 400
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
.---::::.=:~-=------\ •,
TRICHLOROETHENE SHALLOW WELL ISOPLETH I
I
11 ~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 4.12
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I SCALE IN FEIT
ND -NOT DETECTED
I
I ~&EPA
TRICHLOROETHENE DEEP WELL ISOPLETH
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
JL.
FIGURE 4.13
I~ oL------------------------------------'-------....1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
D
I
I
I
TW-
t-fn
i
-400 0 400
E'!!='!"SiiiE:liiii~miiiiil"""!!!'I
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
TETRACHLOROETHENE SHALLOW WELL ISOPLETH
~-----------------------1 FIGURE 4.14 I
11 &EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
g
D
D
R
I
i
-400 0 400
~~E!!!!iiil~=~
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT .DETECTED
TETRACHLOROETHENE DEEP WELL ISOPLETH
_IL_
FIGURE 4.15
I! ~EPA c,;~~R~~~L~g~~~ Nsi:,~R~A~~LT~'; I~ ..... __________________________________ .._ ______ _.
I
I
I
I
a
n
I
D
H
I
I
I
I
i
-400 ---------0 -400 ~~l!!!!liii~=~
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
-30, 00-CONCENTRATIONS IN ug/1
&EPA
TOTAL voe SHALLOW WELL ISOPLETH
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
,00
FIGURE 4.16
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
a
I
n
D
I
D
R
I
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
TOTAL voe DEEP WELL ISOPLETH
:1&EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 4.17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Superfi.md Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Two individual compounds detected which merit discussion are benzene and vinyl chloride.
Benzene was detected in well 19-MW at a concentration of 2.71 ug/1 and in well 38-MW at a
concentration of 0.521 ug/1. Vinyl chloride was detected in wells 4-MW, 14B-IvIW and 38-
MW at concentrations of 2.81 ug/1, 0.69AJ ug/1 and 2.4J ug/1, respectively. Vinyl chloride is
a degradation product of tetrachloroethene.
Extractable Organic Compounds
Extractable organic compounds were detected in five samples. Three additional samples
contained the presumptive evidence of extractable organic compounds. Sample I I-MW
contained I.SJ ug/1 of 2-methyl naphthalene, 3.21 ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 4.7J ug/1 of
naphthalene and 3.31 ug/1 of 2,4-dinitrophenol. Sample 12-MW contained 5. IJ ug/1 of 2-
methyl naphthalene, 3.0J ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 371 ug/1 of naphthalene, 2.31 ug/1 of
dibenzofuran, J. IJ ug/1 of fluorene, 1.31 ug/1 of phenanthrene and the presumptive evidence of
two compounds. Sample 12A-MW contained 3.2J ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 2.81 ug/1 of
naphthalene, one unidentified compound and the presumptive evidence of two compounds.
Sample 14B-MW contained 2.31 ug/1 of phenol, !OJ ug/1 of benzoic acid and the presumptive
evidence of three compounds and petroleum product. Sample 38-MW contained 36 ug/1 of
nitrobenzene, 9.21 ug/1 of 2-nitrophenol, !OJ ug/1 of 2,4-dinitrophenol, 45 ug/1 of 4-
nitrophenol, one unidentified compound and the presumptive evidence of nine compounds.
samples2A-MW, 9-MW and 19-MW contained only the presumptive evidence of extractable
organic compounds.
Four of the monitor wells in which extractable organic compounds were detected are along the
drain line/fonner ditch. Several of the compounds detected in the well samples were also
detected in the drain line/fonner ditch soil samples. The fifth well in which extractable
organic compounds were detected, well 14B-MW, contained two compounds and the
· presumptive evidence of three others. None of these compounds were detected in any other
well sample.
£esticides_and_.E.CB..'.s
No pesticides· or PCB's were detected in-the monitor well sa,ii"ples:
Metals
Metals were detected in all of the monitor well samples. Primary MCL's for barium and
berytlium were exceeded in sample 38-MW, which contained 4,000 ug/1 of barium and 15 ug/1 of
4-74
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
beryllium. The MCL's are 2,000 ug/1 and 4 ug/1, respectively. Secondary MCL's for aluminum,
manganese, and calcium were exceeded in one or more samples. Aluminum was detected in
nineteen samples and ranged in concentration from 59 ug/1 in sample 4-MW to 15,000 ug/1 in
sample 21-MW. The secondary MCL for aluminum is 50 -200 ug/L Eleven of the samples
contained aluminum at a concentration above 200 ug/L Maganese was detected in 21 samples at
concentai1ions ranging between 4.9 ug/1 in sample 32-MW to 5,000 ug/1 in sample 38-MW.
Thirteen samples contained concentrations above the secondary MCL of 50 ug/L Iron was
detected in 15 samples. The secondary MCL of 0.3 mg/I was exceeded in eight samples.
Mercury was detected in samples 4-MW, 12-MW, 14-MW and 35-MW, at a concentrations
ranging between of 0.22 ug/1 and 0.62 ug/L The MCL for mercury is 2 ug/L
Field Parameters
The field parameters of temperature, pH, specific conductance and turbidity were measured.
The results are presented in Table 4.12. The pH of the ground water samples ranged from
slightly acidic to slightly basic, with the exception of sample 14B-MW which had a pH of 12.2.
The reason for this high pH is unknown; however it may be due to leaching of the cement grout
due in part to improper well construction. The specific conductance ranged from 30 umhos/cm in
sample 22A-MW to 3000 umhos/cm in sample l 4B-MW. In general the specific conductance
was less than 500 umhos/cm in the wells. The temperatures ranged between 14.4 and 20.4
degrees centigrade. The turbidity of the samples was less than 0.1 NTU with the exception of
sample 21-tvIW which had a turbidity of5.2 NTU and sample 12B-MW which had a turbidity of
0.8 NTU.
Potentiometric Surface Map
Table 4.13 presents the ground water elevations measured during this investigation. A
, potentiometric surface map was developed using this data and is presented as Figure 4.18. In
general the ground water flows to the northeast with some mounding under the main building.
4.5 Potable Well Sampling
· Eleven potable wells were sampled during this investigation. Table 4, 14 presents owner's
name and the well construction infonnation, if available, and Figure 4. 19 indicates the well
locations. Analytical results are presented in Table 4.15. Sample 469-PW is a duplicate of
sample 69-PW.
4-75
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well
Number
MW-I
MW-2
MW-2A
MW-4
MW-9
MW-II
MW-12
MW-12A
MW-12B
MW-14
MW-l4A
MW-14B
MW-17
MW-19
MW-21
MW-22A -
MW-25
Table 4.13
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Permanent Monitor Well Ground Water Elevation Survey
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Caroliiia
Sample Total Screen Top of casing Depth to Water
Number Depth (ft) Length (ft msl) Water (ft) Surface
Elevation
GE-001-MW 28 5 2183.33 27.7 2155.63
GE-002-MW 24.5 10 2153.45 1678 2136.67
GE-02A-MW 48.3 10 2153.1 16.24 2136.86
GE-004-MW 13.2 10 2146.46 4.25 2142.21
GE-009-MW 37.4 10 2177.57 22 2155.57
GE-01 I-MW 58.5 10 2178.76 15.88 2162.88
GE-012-MW 40.5 10 2168.96 9.53 2 I 59.43
GE-l2A-MW 58 10 2168.77 9.5 2159.27
GE-l2B-MW 125 34 2168.2 8.65 2159.55
GE-014-MW 373 10 2144.63 9.46 2135. I 7
GE-l4A-M\V 58.3 16 2144.56 6.28 2138.28
GE-l4B-MW I I 0 27 2143.3 3.78 2139.52
GE-017-MW 43 10 2182.41 28.8 2153.61
GE-019-MW 42.3 10 2177.86 10.7 2167.16
GE-021-MW 81:8 10 2177.81 4.26 2173.55
GE-22A-MW. 23 I 0-· ·-·2126.3 .. 1.85 -2124.-45 --.
GE-025-MW 41.5 10 2157.7 3.6 2154.1
4-76
I
I
m
I
I
g
u
R
6
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well
Number
MW-26
MW-29
MW-30
MW-30A
MW-32
MW-35
MW-38
Table 4.13 (cont)
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Permanent Monitor Well Ground Water Elevation Survey
General Electric, East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Sample Total Screen Top of casing Depth to Water
Number Depth Length (ft ms!) Water (ft) Surface
(ft) Elevation
GE-026-MW 57.8 IO 2173.8 13.3 2160.5
GE-029-MW 41 10 2160.16 14 8 . t .:.-_ • • 2135.36
GE-030-MW 47.5 10 2156.81 4.9 2151.91
GE-30A-MW 61.5 10 2156.24 4.5 2151.74
GE-032-MW 16.7 10 2154.92 8.33 2146.59
GE-035-MW 18.5 10 2183 12.18 2170.82
GE-038-MW 63 20 2178.03 6.93 2171.1
4-77
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---l ---
i
-400 0 400
~!"'5.i,~-;;;;;;;;;;.'!~
SCALE IN FEET
ND -NOT DETECTED
-30, 00-WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS
GE PROPERTY POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
~-----------------------1 FIGURE 4.20
~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
H
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -
2 -
*
TABLE4.14
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
GENERAL ELECTRIC SITE POT ABLE WELL SAi\1PLES
RESIDENTIAL NAMES AND ADDRESSES
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
Saml)le Number Owner Address'
PW-83 Mr. Joseph Stepp I st Av
PW-73 Mr. L Frisbee 143A Oak Grove Rd
PW-33 Mr. Herman Barnett I 15 Barncrr·St
PW-75 Mr. Heaton 603 Oak Grove Rd
PW-23 Mr. Harold Barton 712 Tabor Rd
PW-91 Mr. D. Jackson 108 S King St
PW-69 Mr. B. Morgan 453 Oak Grove Rd
PW-22 Mr. Dimsdale I I 6 Fork Creek
* PW-15 Mr. l T. Lively 404 Tabor Rd
* PW-6 Mr. D. Capps 521 Paradise Av
* PW-43 Mr. M. Gardner 5 I I Oak Grove Rd.
The city for all residences is East Flat Rock.
The Dimsdale's do not drink the water but use it for all other purposes
-Do Not use the well for potable water.
4-79
I
I
a
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-:
VJ
e .,.,
N
0 .,., ..,.
~ ~
ft
8 ~
.,.,o .,.,
il
~-c,
~
Ill -~
POTABLE WELL LOCATIONS 21
--------------------~FIGURE 4.-1-
I; ~EPA GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA ·-.__ _________________________ ___,__ ____ __J
I
Potable
East
MCL SMCL PW-2 PW-83 PW-15
Dimsdale Stepp Lively
INORGANIC ELEMENTS UG/l UG/L UG/l UG/l UG/L
BARIUM 2000 66 12 6.3
BERYLLIUM 4
CAOMIUM 5
CHROMIUM 100 2.4
COPPER TT 12 38 5.8
STRONTIUM 46 48 36
TITANIUM 18 17
VANADIUM 6.9
MG/l, MG/l MG/L MG/l MG/l
CALCIUM 4. 1 5.8 7. 1
SODIUM 4.6 4.5 6.5
POTASSIUM 1.2 1.7 2.5
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS UG/l UG/L UG/l UG/l UG/L
1, 1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE 200
TETRACHLOROETHENE 5 1. 1J
****************************************************************
***FOOTNOTES FOR COLUMNS 1 AND 2***
MCL Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level
SMCL Safe Drinking Water Act Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TT Treatment Technology Based level
The Action Level For Lead Is 15 ug/l
No MCL or SMCL Specified 1
' ***FOOTNOTES FOR COLUMNS 2 THROUGH 14***
J · ESTIMATED VALUE
MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
: · Sample PW·469 is a duplicate of sample PW·69
Tabte4.15
Wet t Analytical Data Sulllllary
Flat Rock, North Carolina
PW-73 PW-33 PW-75
Frisbee Barnett Heaton
UG/l UG/l UG/l
43 7.7 5.1
2.2
64 55 25
40 28 40
MG/l MG/l MG/l
11 5. 1 4.0
1. 0
2.2 5.4 6.4
0.68 2.0 0.41
UG/l UG/L UG/l
4-8 I
I!!!!!! !!!!I l!!l!I 1111111:1 liliiil liliiil lilliil --
PW-23 PW-91 PW-69
Barton Jackson Morgan
UG/l UG/l UG/l
16 18 55
19 120 23
45 61 28
3.1
MG/L MG/l MG/l
4.6 5.9 1.8
7
4.7 4.8 2.5
0.81 2.0 0. 71
UG/l UG/L UG/L
0.58J
- - -
PW·4692 PW-6
Capps
UG/l UG/L
54 39
21 41
27 42
MG/l MG/L
1.8 5.6
2.4 9.0
0.90 1.3
UG/l UG/L
- -
PW-43
Gardner
UG/l
590
1. 1
16
60
47
MG/L
7.7
2.7
UG/l
- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
YQlatikDJ:gani_c....C.o.mp_Qunds
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Volatile organic compounds were detected in two samples. Sample 83-P contained I. lJ
ug/1 of tetrachloroethene and sample 91-PW contained 0.58J ug/l of I, I, I-trichloroethane.
Neither of these concentrations are above their respective MCL's.
Extractable...Organic...Cornµow1ds
No extractable organic compounds were detected in the potable well samples.
:ees.ti c i des_ancl..E.CB.'.s
No pesticides or PCB' s were detected in the potable well samples.
Metals
A variety of metals was detected in all of the potable well samples. Samples 73-PW and 91-
PW contained 24 ug/l and 19 ug/1 of lead, respectively. Sample 9i--PW contained 550 ug/1
of zinc. The SMCL for zinc is 500 ug/1. Six samples contained aluminum. Samples 83-PW,
15-PW and 43-PW were above 200 ug/1. Samples 73-PW and 91-PW were above 50 ug/1.
The SMCL for aluminum is 50-200 ug/1. The SMCL of 50 ug/1 for manganese was exceeded
in samples 2-PW, 15-PW, 6-PW and 43-PW. The SMCL of 0.3 mg/I for iron was exceeded
in samples 83-PW, 15-PW, and 6-PW.
Field Parameters
The field parameters of temperature, pH, specific conductance and turbidity were measured.
· The results are presented in Table 4.16.
The pH of the well samples ranged from acidic, 4.7 SU in well PW-43, to basic, 8.7 in well
PW-23. The specific conductance ranged from <20 umhos/cm in well PW-83 to 149.8
umhos/cm in well PW-43. The temperatures ranged between 14.7 and 19.7 degrees centigrade.
-The turbidity in five of the wells was ,neasured and ranged between 0.03NTU aiid 0.18 NTU.
4-82
I
I
•
I
I
H
R
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
Well Sample
Number Number
PW-2 GE-002-PW
PW-6 GE-006-PW
PW-15 GE-015-PW
PW-23 GE-023-PW
PW-33 GE-033-PW
PW-43 GE-043-PW
PW-69 GE-069-PW
PW-73 GE-073-PW
PW-75 GE-075-PW
PW-83 GE-083-PW
PW-91 GE-091-PW
nm -Not measured
Table 4.16
Potable Well Field Parameters
General Electric
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
pH Conductivity
(SU) (umhos/cm)
5.9 70
5.5 112.9
7.1 100
8.7 71.4
6.4 87.5
4.7 149.8
5.9 37.4
6.1 104.5
6.8 69.1
6.8 <20
6.4 91
4-83
GE Superfund Site
RI Report
Draft May 1995
Temperature Turbidity
( C) (NTU)
17.5 nm
153 0.18
16.7 nm
19.7 11111
16.8 0.03
14.7 0.03
I 6.5 0.03
17.2 nm
I 8.6 0.03
14.9 nm
15.2 nm
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
4 4 WELL SURVEY
In July and August 1994, EPA mailed out 990 private well/water
use surveys to residents living within a one-mile radius of the
GE plant subsite. Approximately 109 or 11% were returned by the
post office for various reasons (person moved, no forwarding
address, post office box closed, etc).
Only 309 residents, or 35% of residents who received the survey,
completed the questionnaire, and returned it. to EPA. Of those,
224, or 72.5% were currently receiving city water. Eighty-five
(85) of those responding to the survey or 27.5% indicated that
they were currently using their well for drinking or other
household purposes.
I
D
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Fam1 NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
5.0 CONTAMINANT FATE AND TRANSPORT
An evaluation of the environmental fate and transport of site-related contaminants is important in determining the potential for exposure to the contaminants. There are several mechanisms by which contaminants may migrate. Migration into air can occur via volatilization or dust generation. Migration into groundwater can occur by percolation of infiltrating rainwater or groundwater flow through waste materials or contaminated soils. Transport to streams in the area can occur via surface water runoff and through groundwater discharge. The mechanisms of migration for the main contaminants detected at the site (VOCs for groundwater and PCBs for soil) are discussed below.
5.1 CONTAMINANT MIGRATION
5.1.1 AIR MIGRATION
Generally, volatilization from soil and/or water into air may be an important transport mechanism for the organic chemicals with Henry's Law Constants greater than 10·5 ,atm-m3/mole and the molecular weights less than 200 g/mole. The volatile organics detected in groundwater at the site meet these criteria, and therefore, if groundwater is brought to the surface, volatilization of these chemicals of concern could be an important release mechanism. However, even though the PCBs detected in the surface soils meet one of these criteria, PCBs in the environment are usually associated with particulate matter, and do not enter the gaseous phase. For this reason, volatilization is not expected to be an important release mechanism for the organic chemicals at the site.
Fugitive dust emissions from wind or mechanical disturbances may occur from unpaved or unvegetated areas of the site. The environmental factors that influence wind erosion are wind speed, moisture content, vegetative cover, and soil composition. Because the environmental factors at this site are at times and places conducive to wind erosion, each of the chemicals detected in surface soil is susceptible to-migration via fugitive· dust genera-tio1i. ·· ·
5-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.2 SURF ACE WATER MIGRATION
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
Contaminant migration into swface waters at the site may occur through swface water runoff
and/or through groundwater discharge. Upon reaching swface water, the contaminants may
remain in the water column, volatilize, or sorb to bottom or suspended sediments. Volatile
organic contaminants tend to quickly volatilize into the atmosphere upon reaching surface
water and for this reason are rarely observed at detectable concentrations in surface water
samples. However, volatile organics were found in some of the swface water samples,
though at concentrations much lower than was found in the groundwater. The semi-volatile
organics with low water solubilities such as the PCBs, will tend to associate with sediments.
PCBs were detected in sediments collected from Bat Fork Creek, therefore evidence exists
that surface water migration is occurring.
5.1.3 SOIL MIGRATION
·contaminants present in surface and subsurface soils may leach to the underlying aquifer.
Many factors influence the rate of contaminant movement through soils. These include the
physical/chemical properties of the contaminants (e.g., solubility, density, viscosity), and the
physicaVchemical properties of the environment (e.g. rainfall percolation rate, soil
permeability, porosity, particle size distribution, organic carbon content). Because all these
factors can affect the rate of contaminant movement through soils, it is very difficult to
predict such movement. However, based on the dated collected in this RI, generalizations can
be made.
Sorption of the. chemical to soil particles is the only significant hinderance of contaminant
migration in soils at this site. If it were not for sorption, rainfall recharge and soil
permeability are high enough such that all the contaminants would readily move through the
· soils. This is evident by the movement of the volatile organic chemicals in the soils.
Sorption of these contaminants is small at this site, as indicated by their low K., values, and
thus they have been observed at significant concentrations and over significant areas in
groundwater. Even though the PCBs have been observed in the soils at significant
concentrations, they have not been observed in the groundwater. Sorption of these
contaminants to the soils at the site has apparently prevented them from migrating into
groundwater.
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.4 GROUNDWATER MIGRATION
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft/ May 1995
Once the contaminants of concern reach groundwater, they will generally move as the
groundwater moves, through the process of advection. However, the process of dispersion
will also cause the contaminants to spread both horizontally and vertically, and the process of
sorption as described above will retard the movement of the contaminants.
The fact that widespread (both upgradient and downgradient from the main theorized source,
the drainline) contamination has been observed in groundwater at the site indicates that the
sources (primary or secondary) must also be widespread. Future migration of the volatile
organics in groundwater may extend as far downgradient as the surface water features
intercepting groundwater flow will allow, if the sources are strong enough to overcome
dilution effects.
5-3
I
I
I
g
g
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May 1995
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In June 1994, EPA initiated this Remedial Investigation to address the potential source areas
and the groundwater contamination at the General Electric/Shepherd Fann Site. The primary
objective of the RI was to assess the nature and distribution of contaminants at the three
subsites; GE, Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark.
EPA sampled soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish tissue to meet the RI
objectives. The details of each of these studies are presented in Sections 3 and 4 of this
report and should be consulted for a full understanding of the results of the RI. The major
conclusions reached and future recommendations are provided below.
6.1 SOIL INVESTIGATION
Thirty four surface soil and 41 subsurface soil samples were collected during this
investigation.
6.1.1 General Electric
The analyses of soil samples collected at the GE facility can be discussed by source area.
The Landspreading Areas primarily contained PAHs, pesticides, and metals. PCBs were
detected in one sample from Landspreading Area D. The landfills onsite contained VOCs,
PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Landfill A was the only landfill where VOCs were found. PCBs
were detected in all three landfills. The drain line/fonner ditch area, which is considered to
be the main source of groundwater contamination, and was the subject of a removal by GE,
contained low levels of PAHs and PCBs, along with a variety of metals. Samples taken
· along the railroad track showed PAHs aiid low levels of PCBs. One sample revealed the
presence of elevated concentrations of chromium and manganese. Three underground
storage tank locations were sampled. No VOCs or PCBs were detected. Low levels of
PAHs and pesticides were detected.
6.1.2. Seldon. Clark .
The soil samples collected from the Seldon Clark property contained low levels of VOCs,
PAHs, and pesticides. Chromium and manganese were also present at elevated levels.
,
6-1
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii
I
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Repo1t
Draft May 1995
6.1.3 Shepherd Farm
Two of the soil samples collected from the Shepherd Fann property contained trace levels of
PCE. P AHs and pesticides were also detected. PCBs at elevated concentrations were
prevalent in su1face soil samples. In addition, elevated levels of copper, zinc, and
manganese were also found. One TCLP sample was analyzed. Barium was the only
compound detected.
6.2 SURFACE WATER
Thirteen surface water samples were collected. Six were near the GE property, six were
near the Shepherd Fann property, and one was located near the Seldon Clark property. PCE
was detected in all six GE surface water samples. PAHs were detected near the Shepherd
Farm property. No pesticides or PCBs were detected. Metals were detected in all surface
water samples. Of particular interest were manganese, aluminum, and iron.
6.3 SEDTh'IENT
Thirteen sediment samples were collected. No VOCs were detected. PAHs were detected in
eight of the sediment samples. PCBs were detected in four samples near the GE property,
one near the Shepherd Fann property, and one near the Seldon Clark property. No elevated
concentrations of metals were detected.
6.4 TEMl'ORARY MONITOR WELLS
Nine temporary wells were installed; two near the GE facility, two near the Seldon Clark
property, and five near the Shepherd Farm property. Two samples near the Shepherd Fann
property contained elevated levels of VOCs. PAHs were detected in one sample near the
Shepherd Fann property. No pesticides or PCBs were detected. Metals were detected in all
of the samples. Mercury, nickel, aluminum, and manganese were detected in elevated
concentrations.
6.5 GE ONSITE PERMANENT MONITOR WELLS
Twenty four· of the existing pennanent monitor wells located on the GE property were
sampled. VOCs were detected in 21 of the 24 wells sampled. Tridlloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethene were the most prevalent. Concentration isopleth
maps indicate that the area with the highest contamination lies along the drain line/former
6-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site
Remedial Investigation Report
Draft May 1995
ditch area. One well, located east-northeast of a fonner leaking underground storage tank
also contained high concentrations of these three compounds. P AHs were detected in five
samples. No PCBs or pesticides were detected. Metals were detected in all of the monitor
well samples. Of particular concern are the metals barium, beryllium, and manganese.
6.6 PRIVATE WELL SAMPLING
Eleven private wells were sampled. Low levels of VOCs were detected in two samples. No
PAHs, pesticides, or PCBs were detected in any of the samples. A variety of metals were
detected. Lead, zinc, aluminum, manganese, and iron are noteworthy.
6.7 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for future sampling at the site to further define the extent
of contamination:
*
*
*
*
Additional soil samples should be collected in Landfill A. This was the only area on
the GE plant site that exhibited PCE contamination.
Additional soil samples should be collected in the vicinity of monitoring wells MW-14
and MW-25. These areas appear to have an independent source other than the drain
line and should be investigated.
Additional monitoring wells should be placed: I) east of Bat Fork Creek between
temporary well TW-1 and TW-2; 2) west of Spartanburg Hwy across from MW-25
and MW-26; and 3) north of Tabor Road across from Landspreading Area A.
Periodic sampling of private wells in the area that are used for drinking water
purposes.
6-3