NCD079044426_20090910_General Electric Co. Shepherd Farm_FRBCERCLA FYR_Second Five-Year Review Report-OCR

I i· I·
i
I
&itA
NCDEMR -c:.-o..-~-..,..,.. c,, .. _ .......... _,,_,.._..,.~ .... NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEi'ff OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
Superfund S.econd Five-Year Review Report
General Electric Co/Shepherd Farm L
East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina
EPA ID: NCD 079044426
Prepared for
US EPA Region 4
August 2009
111111111111111111111W ~! 1111 ll1! Ill ii
10685100
, l
-1 '
. I
1
I
' '
SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
GENERAL EL}!:CTRIC CO/SHEPHERD FARM
EPA ID: NCD 079044426
Prepared for the
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Prepared by the
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
_,.c_.. ..... ~..,.or-E ..... -M .... ...., .. __ --.c>v--C••
August 2009
I SECOND FIVE-YEAR REVlE\V REPORT
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO/SHEPHERD FARM
EPA ID: NCD 079044426
Prepared for the
US EPA Region 4
Prepared by the
North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Superfund Division
US EPA Region 4
Date
Table of Contents
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Sile
. East Flat Rock, NC
List of Acronyms ............ _. .......... : ................................................................................................. t ........ :: •••• iii
Executi".e Sumrnary ............................ : ............................................................. : ....... _. ............. :··········:.:.' .... · v
~~;e-Y e::1~:;l::0~~.~~~. ~ ~:·. ~~·.:~ :·. ~ ·.:·.: :·.:·. ~ ~ :~: .. ·.:·. ~ .. :·.:· ... :: : : : :: :: ·.:·.:: :::: ·.: ·.: ~:~ :: :~ :· ... ·.:.:: :::~ ·.: :: : :·. :: ·.:::::: :·.-.-:::: ::~-·.·.-:·.-.-.. ~ii
2.0 Site Chronology ........................................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Background ............ : ............................................................................................................ :: ......... 2
5.0
6.0
. 7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
3.1 Site Description .............................................................................................................. 2 ·
3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeology ..................................... _..: .......... 4
3.3 Land and Resource Use ............................................................ .-.............. , ........................ 4
3.4 History of Contamination ............................................................................. : ..... : ........... 5 ·
3S Initial Response ................ · .................................. : ....... : .................... : ....... :. 6
·3.6 Basis for Taking Action ............... : .... : ................... · ............................. ' ...... 7
Remedial Actions .................................................................................................................. : .... :. 8
4.1 Remedy Selection .. : ........................................................................ .-............................... 9
4.1.1 1995 Record ofDecision ................................. : ....................... : ...... 9
4.1.2 Explanation of Significant Difference ...................................... : ....... · .... 10
4.1.3. Second Explanation of Significant Difference .......................... : ... : ... :.: .... IO
4.2
:~~edy i:f~:;J~ti~~:::.::::·.:::·.: :.::::.:::.:·.::.:.:.·.:::·.·.:·.:.:·.:::::::::·::::::·.::°::::::: :::::::::·.::::::::.·:··.· : :
4.2.2 Groundwater Remedy .. :: .... , .............................................. : ....... · ....... 13
4.3 System Operation/Operation & Maintenance ................................................................... 14
Progress Since Last Five-Year Review .................. : .................................................................. : 16 ·
Five-Year Review Process ......................................... · ............................ :.: .......... : ... : ............. '.: . .' ... ·19
6.1 Administrative Components ..................................................... : ................... .'· ....... :: .. : ....... 19
· 6.2 Community Involvement. .................................................................................... : ... .' ........ 19·
6.3 Document Review ....................................................... : ................................................... : 19
6.4 ARAR Review .... : ........................................................................................................... 19
6.5 ·
6.6
6.7
6.4:i Original ARARs from the 1995 ROD ............................ · .............. : ...... 2.0.
6.4.2 Current Applicable ARARs ............................................................ : .. 21.
Data Review ................ · ........................................................ : ....... : ............................. : ...... 22
Site Inspection .............. : ... : .............. : ... : .......................................................... ,.: ................. 28
Inierviews ........................... : .............................................................. : ........................ : ... :. 29
Technical Assessment ................................................................. : ......... · ................................ : ........ 30
7.1 . Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ........ : .. : 30
7 .2 Question B: Arc the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and remedial
action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid? ........ ,: ...................... 33
7.3 Question C: Has any other inforrnation come to light that could call into question ..
the protectiveness of the remedy? ........................ :: .................................................. ::.' ..... 33
7.4 Technical Assessment Summary ........................................................................ : ............ 33
Issues ...... : .... : ........................ : ................................................................................... : ........... : ....... 34
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ............................................................. .' ..................... 34
Protectiveness Statement. .................................................. _. ....................................................... 34.
Next Review ..................... : .......... : ...................................................... :· .................... : .................. 35.
Tables
Table l:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Chronology of Site Events
Groundwater Remediation Goals as Stated in the 1995 ROD
Soil Remediation Goals as Stated in the l 995 ROD
Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs
Performance Monitoring Schedule
Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for VOCs
Summary of Mann-Kendall Trend Analysis for Metals
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Table 8: GE Subsite Performance Monitoring Well Analytical Results for September 2008
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Shepherd Fann Subsite Performance ·Monitoring Well Analytical Results for SeptCmber 2008
Historical Summary of Groundwater Influent and Effiuent Results Since GRS Start-Up
Summary of lnOuent and Effluent Air Results Since GRS Start-Up
Table 12: Summary of Surface Water Results Since GRS Start-Up
Table 13: Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Start-Up
Figures
Figure l:
Figure 2:
Fjgure 3:
Figure 4:
· Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Attachments
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4;
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Site Location Map
Location of the GE Subsite Features
Location of the Shepherd Farm Subsite Features
Hydraulic Containment at the GE Subsite on September 15, 2008
Hydraulic Containment at the Shepherd Fann Subsite on September 15, 2008
Location of Stream Flow Measurement Points
Location of Sediment Monitoring Stations
List of Documents Reviewed
Site Inspection Check List
Community Interviews
Complele Analytical Data Table for Groundwater
Vapor Intrusion Assessment
Contour Maps of the Site
II
I
I
AGRS
ARAR
CERCLA
CAA
CFR
coc
CWA
DCE
DSI
EPA
ESD
GAC
gpm
GRS
MCL
NCAC
NCDENR
NCSWQS
NCP
NPDES
NPL.
O&M.
· PCB
PCE
PCOR
ppm·
ppb
List of Acronyms
Accelerated Groundwater Remediation System
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Require!'Tlent
SeCond Five-.Year Review
GE/Shepherd farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Clean Air Act
Code of Fede'ral Regulations
Contaminant of Concern
Clean Water Act
1,2-Dichloroe~enc
·Dry.Sludge lmpoun~ment ·
United States Environf!iental ·Protection Agency
Explanation of Significant Difference
Granular Activated Carbon
Gallons per Minute
Groundwater Remediation System
Maximum Contaminant Level
North Carolina Administrative Code
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North. Carolina _Surface Water Quality Standards
National ·contingency Plan
National Pollut~nt Discharge Elimination System .
National Priorities List
Operation and Maintenance
Polychlorinated bipheny_l
Tetrachlorocthene
Preliminary Close-Out Report·
Parts per million
Parts per billion
Ill
POTW
RA
RAO
RCRA
RD
RI
ROD
RPM
RTC
SDWA
svoc
TCE
TSCA
µg/L
UST
voe
\
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Remedial Action
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Remediation Target Compound
Safe Drinking Water Act
Semi-Volatile Organic Compound
Trichloroethcne
Toxic Substance Control Act
Parts per billion or ppb
Underground Storage Tank
Volatile Organic Compound
IV
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
'' ' I
Executive S_ummary
Secoi-id Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site .
East Flat Rock, NC
: The GE manufacturing facility 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. Since I 955, this GE facility has been used to develop, design, and manufacture
complete high-intensity-discharge luminaire systems. GE also manufactured "constant-current"
transformers at ibis facility from 1955 to 1975. These transformers were filled with ·
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing oil.
. The GE/Shepherd Farm Site is divided into 2 subsites, the GE Subsi_te and the Shepherd
Farm Subsite. The former Seldon Clark Subsite was deleted by EPA from the GE/Shepherd
Farm Site in 1996. The GE Subsite is approximately 110 acres in size and includes the
manufacturing and distribution facilities for GE Lighting Systems. The 31-acre Shepherd Farm
Subsite is located on Roper Road, approximately 1,200 feet west of the Spartanburg Highway .
and southwest of the GE Subsite. It is comprised of both residential and agricultural land. Mr.
Shepherd's residence and a 22-acre manufactured housing community consisting of 125 lots and
·a community center are present on the southern portion of the Subsite.
. . . . . . ·. . . .· . . ...
GE disposed of waste within two landfills on the GE property. Landfill A received waste·
generated at the facility between 1955 and the I 960s. Landfill B operated during the 1970s but
the exact time is unknown. In the mid-l 970s, GE constructed the wastewater treatment facility
consisting of a lime treatment system to adjust the pH of the treated water prior to surface water
discharge. Two unlined wastewater treatment ponds were also constructed. Between 1977 and
1980, as part of the wastewater treatment process, wet and dry .sludges generated in the ·
wastewater treatment facility were landspread on several plots surrounding the facility buildings.
GE ~aste was also deposited _at the Shepherd Farm property where it was dumped, burned, and
· bulldozed in an approximate 3-acre area. ·
. The remedies in the Record of Decision (ROD) dated September 29, 1995 provided for
remediation of contaminated groundwater and soil. The remedy for groundwater included:
extraction of groundwater from the GE/Shepherd Farm Subsites that is contaminated above the
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or the North Carolina Groundwater Standards; on-site
treatmeni°ofthe extracted groundwater via air _stripping and carbon adsorption; in-situ
· bioremediation; discharge of treated groundwater to Bat Fork Creek; and, continued analytical .
monitoring for contaminants in groundwater and surface water. The remedy for soils at the GE.
Subsite included: placement of a multi-layer cap on the areas where the soil is_ contaminated
above the performance standards; continuous maintenance of the cap; and, usage restrictions on
the capped areas. The remedy for soil at the Shepherd Subsite included: excavation of the top
foot of soils contaminated above the performance standards; transportation of excavated soils to
· the Dry Sludge lmpoundmcnt (OSI) area on the GE property; and, backfilling, grading, and re-
. vegetation of the excavated areas. · ·
v.
Second Five• Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
The ROD was modified by an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
signed on September 25, 1998. The requirement to place a multi-layer cap on the areas
where the soil is contaminated above the performance standards was modified to:
excavate Landfill A and transport the contents to the OSI and backfill with .clean fill;
excavate Landfill B and transport the contents to the OSI and backfill with clean fill; and
place a multi-layer cap on the OSI.
The ROD was modified by a second ESD signed on July 27, 2000. The
modifications were: delete the requirement for the in-situ hioremediation of contaminated
groundwater across the entire Site; and change the discharge location of treated
groundwater from Bat Fork Creek to the GE operations facility.
This is the second Five-Year Review for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site. The
triggering action for this review is the signing date of the First Five-Year Review report,
August 6, 2004. This Five-Year Review for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site is a statutory
review.
According to documents, the site inspection, and interviews with the US EPA, the
exposure pathway to contaminated soil and groundwater has been mitigated. The
exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and RA Os used at the time of the
remedy are still valid for the contaminants of concern (COCs). There are no known
current exposure routes to the groundwater or soil.
The remedies at both Subsites currently protect human health and the
environment in the short-term because the main source of contamination has been
remediated through the source removal. Currently no human exposure pathways exist to
contaminated soil or groundwater. A current drinking water survey is being requested
which would verify that no new groundwater users have installed drinking water wells.
However, it is known that there are no residents between the GE property and Bat Fork
Creek, a gaining stream. Bat Fork Creek would intercept ·any contaminated groundwater
that should intersect the creek. Data has also confirmed that no VOCs have been found
in existing groundwater wells that exceeded the remediation goals for residents
downgradient of the GE property on the opposite side of Bat Fork Creek. At the
Shepherd Farm Subsite, the Spring Haven Community is supplied municipal water and
the few residents not within the subdivision are also supplied municipal water.
The Site currently is protective in the short-term; however, to ensure long-term
protectiveness; the following actions should be implemented. Impose institutional
controls at both subsites to preserve the integrity of the cap, prevent exposure to ·
contaminated soil or debris, and restrict the use of on-site groundwater. Conduct a
drinking well survey downgradient of the plume to assure no new drinking water wells
have been installed.
VI
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Sile
East Flat Rock, NC
Site name (from WasteLAN): General Electric Co/Shepherd Fann
EPA ID (/,om Wast,LAN): NCD 079044426
Region: 4 City/County: East Flat Rock/Henderson
NPL status: [8] Final D Deleted D Other (specify)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): D Under Construction [8] 0peiating
D Complete· /
Multiple OUs?• □· YES IBJ NO Construction completion date: 10 / 20 I 2000
(Final inspection of groundwater treabncnt system)
Has site been put into reuse? D YES 00 NO
' ' ' ·. · ii{~:v'1ENst.,TtJsl:".' · .. ' ' '' ' ' ,;._ .. ~11~,1•,.' .:\' , ·•1, ·. '' .. . ' " ., ' .
Lead agency: [8] EPA O State O Tribe □-Other
Author(s) name: David Mattison/Stephanie Grubbs
.
Author(s) title: Author(s) affiHation: NC DENR
Engineer/Hydrogeologist
Review period: 2/12/2009 to 8/6/2009
Date(s) of site inspe_ction_: 5 I 1412009
Type of rt:view: Statutory
Review number: DI (first) IBl 2 (second) D 3 (third) D Other
Triggering action:
D Actual RA 0nsite Construction at OU# □Actual RA Start --
0 Collstruction Comple~ion OOPrevi_ous Five-Year Review Report
· D 'Other (spe_cify) ·
Triggering action date (from WasieLAN): 8/6/2004
Due date (five years.after triggering action dale): 8 / 6 I 2009
Vil
\
' '
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont'd
Issues:
l. No institutional controls have been implemented at either of the Subsites.
2. No current drinking water well survey downgradient of the plume at the GE and
Shepherd Farrn Subsites has been conducted recently.
Recommendations and Foil ow-up Actions:
Major recommendations involve: Implement appropriate institutional controls at
both the Subsites, conduct a current drinking water well survey, and continue analytical
monitoring of both surface and groundwater.
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedies at both Subsites are protective of human health and the environment
in the short terrn because no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or
groundwater. The main source of contamination has been remediated through source
removal, and the groundwater is being address by the GW treatment system. There are
no known residents between the GE property and Bat Fork Creek (document plume area),
and data has confirmed that no VOCs have been found in existing groundwater wells that
exceeded the remediation goals for residents downgradient of Bat Fork Creek. The
Spring Haven community and the few surrounding residents are supplied drinking water
by a municipal well. ·
To ensure long-terrn protectiveness, the following actions should be implemented.
Impose institutional controls at both Subsites to preserve the integrity of the cap, prevent
exposure to contaminated soil or debris, and restrict the use of on-site groundwater.
Conduct a drinking well survey downgradient of the plume to assure no new drinking
water wells have been installed.
VIII
1.0 Introduction
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Sire
East Flat Rock, NC
· The purpose of conducting a Five-Year Review is to determine whether the remedy ·
implemented at a Site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, ·
findings, and conclusions of this· review are documented in the Five-Year Review report .. In
addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the-review, if any, and identify
recommendations to address them.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), ·
. Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section, on behalf of the United States ·
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Region IV, has conducted a Five-Year Review of
the remedial actions implemented at the GE/Shepherd Farm Site (Site) (US EPA ID# NCO .. ·
079044426) .. The Site is located in East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina. The
. review was conducted from December 2008 through June 2009 and the results of the review are
documented in !bi's report. The review was conducted in _accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and-Liability Act (CERCLA) § 121 and the National
·Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 statesl · ···
· If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
.· pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such re;,,ediai .
action no less ofte;, than each five years after the initiation of such remedial aciion to cissur~·
that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being ·
implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment of the President that action
is appropriate at such site in accordance with section {104) or {106), the President shall ·
· take or require ~uch action. The President shall report to the Congress a list of faciliiies for
which such review is required, the results of all such reviews, and any actions taken as ·a ·
result of such i·eviews.
· Th~ US EPA interpreted this requirement further in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); 40 CFR §300.430(!)( 4)(ii) states:• ·
1f a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited us_e and unrestricted
. exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every five yea~s afte; ·
the initiation of the selected remedial action.
The methods, findings, conclusions, and significant issues found during the review are
documented in .. this Five-Y car Review report. This Five-Year Review was performed in a.-_ .
manner consistent.with the latest US EPA Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (US_
EPA, 2001). ·
The Site co~sists of one operable unit; th~ remedial action provides remediation of : · .·
contaminated grp\lndwatcr. The remedy, as stated in the ROD, provided for remediation of
_;; :·: : :, _contaminated groundwater and soil. For groundwater the remedy stated: extractiori of
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
groundwater from the GE/Shepherd Farm Subsites that is contaminated above the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or the North Carolina Groundwater Standards; on-site treatment of ·
the extracted groundwater via air stripping and carbon adsorption; in-situ bioremediation;· ·
discharge of treated groundwater to Bat F ark Creek; and, continued analytical monitoring for
contaminants in groundwater and surface water. For soils at the GE Subsite the remedy ·stated:
placement of a multi-layer cap on the areas where the soil is contaminated above the
performance standards; continuous maintenance of the cap; and, usage restrictions on the capped
areas, For soil at the Shepherd Farm Subsite the remedy stated: excavation of the top foot of
soils contaminated above the performance standards; transportation of excavated soils to the dry
sludge impoundment area on the GE property; and, backfilling, grading, and re-vegetation of the.
excavated areas.
The triggering action for this review is the signing date of the First Five-Year Review
report, August 6, 2004. This Five-Year Review for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site is a statutory
review. A statutory review is conducted when "upon completion of the remedial action,
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure;' (US EPA, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
June 200 I, Section 1.3.1), In accordance with CERCLA § 121 and the NCP, a statutory review is
triggered by the initiation of the first remedial action that leaves hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure,
2.0. Site Chronology
Table I lists the site chronology for selected events for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site,
3.0 Background ·
3.1 Site Description
. The GE/Shepherd Farm site is divided into 2 subsites, the GE Subsite and the Shepherd
Farm Subsite. The former Seldon Clark Subsite was deleted by the US EPA from the
GE/Shepherd Farm Site in 1996, See Section 3.5 Initial Response for additional information on
the partial deletion of the Seldon Clark Property Subsite. ·
GE Subsite
The GE Subsiie 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, This slightly
hilly, approximately 110-acre tract of land is bound on the west by Spartanburg Highway, on the
north by Tabor Road, and on the east by Bat Fork Creek. The southern boundary is a fence line
south, east, and west of a recreational facility. GE also owns a plot of land located to the ·
southwest of Spartanburg Highway, south of Bat Fork Creek, between the curv.ed railroad tracks .
and the highway (Figure I).
2
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fanri Site
. East Flat Rock, NC
The GE Subsite includes the manufacturing and distribution facilities. Two major
_ building structures are present on site, the manufacturing plant and the finished stock warehouse.
A tall barbed wire, chain-link fence surrounds the entire property with the exception of the
landspreading plots and the froni of the facility. Security is maintained at all times (Figure 2), _
• East of the plant is Demonstration Street, which includes lighting fixture displays and _ ·
several support facilities such as the fork lift shop, fabricating shop, reclamation yard, boiler -
house, oil storage building, drum storage area, outside vendor storage area, water tanks and · -
pumps, cryogenic tanks, gasoline pumps, and storage bins. A closed 0.5 acre landfill (formerly
Landfill A) is now paved over by this street.
_ East of Demonstration Street, beyond.the paved plots, are approximately 26:acres of
open, grassy field that was formerly used for landspreading, which slope eastward downhill
toward Bat Fork Creek. Southeast of Demonstration Street, is the location of a properly capped _
_ landfill that was formerly a sludge impoundment. -Southeast of the finished stock warehouse is a _.
large 5-acre, active stormwater treatment pond. An underground drain Hne leading· from the._:.
manufacturing plant is used to transport the stormwater runoff to the_ treatment pond,
·The area south of Bat Fork Creek (GE property) includes a small, I-acre, active
stormwater treatmen_t pond, a recreational area with an adjacent playground that was formerly .
used as a landspreading plot, and a closed I-acre landfill (formerly Landfill B), parts ofwhid{
are paved over by a·driveway. GE reported that 2 to 3 feet of clean fill was placed over the · -
landspreading plot when constructing the recreation area. · · ·
-Shepherd Farm Subsite
The Shepherd Farm Subsite is located on Roper Road, approximately 1,200 feet west of ·
the Spartanburg Highway and southwest of the GE Subsite. This hilly, unfenced 31-acre subsite ·
is bounded on the north by Roper Road, on the north-northwest by the Hill Farm, and on thewest
·. by Bat Fork Creek. It is comprised of both residential and agricultural land. Mr. Shepherd ·
maintains a residence on the property. In addition to this residence, a 22-acre mariufacturcd
housing community, Spring Haven, consisting of 125 lots and a community center are present.on
· the southern portion of the Subsite. A small-unnamed intermittent tributary runs through-the.··
niiddle of the Subsite before discharging into Bat Fork Creek (FigureJ) .
. ---. .. Parmer SeMon Clar~ Subsite
The Seldon _Clark Subsite is located at the northeastern corner of the Spartanburg · , _ _ •, -
Highway and:Tabcir Road. This approximately I-acre field is bound on the west by Spartanburg · ·
· --Highway, on the south by Tabor Road, and on the cast by Jones Street, and on the north by•
Second A venue. --
: I ••
3
I,.
3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeology
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
The GE/Shepherd Farm Site is located within the Appalachian Highlands in the southern
Appalachian Mountains. Topography is characterized with large hills, rounded mountains, steep
slopes and narrow valleys. The Hendersonville area is within the central plateau with a relief of
500 to 600 feet. The area surrounding the site consists of gently rolling hills and an elevation of
approximately 2,100 to 2,500 feet. Most soils within the Blue Ridge Province are residual soils.
derived from weathering of the underlying bedrock. The soil at the site is generally described as
micaceous, sandy silt near the surface, grading downward to a micaceous, silty medium to coarse
sand.
Shallow groundwater in the area of the Site generally occurs within the residual and
alluvial soils. Water occurs within the pore spaces and within the relict fractures and secondary
openings of the underlying bedrock. These two zones comprise one shallow unconfined aquifer
since the two zones are hydraulically connected as evidence by the lack of both a confining zorie
and significant ·head differen.ce between two zones. Groundwater flow in the area generally ·
follows the topography. The groundwater surface at the site has been documented in monitoring
wells ranging from J to 29 feet below ground surface. The surface water features affected by the
Site are Bat Fork Creek, Mud Creek, and an unnamed tributary on the Shepherd Farm property.
Runoff, from both properties, discharges into Bat Fork Creek. Ai the Shepherd Farm property
the runoff discharges to an unnamed tributary which then discharges into the creek 400 feet to
the northwest.
The GE/Shepherd Farm Site contains two wetlands that could be impacted by the
groundwater plume. One wetland is small and supports a population of the federally and state
listed (endangered) bunched arrowhead (Sagit1ariafasciculate), the Bunched Arrowhead
Wetland. The other wetland of potential concern is a large wetland along Bat Fork Creek at the
eastern side of the GE Subsite, the Large GE Wetland. At the beginning of the monitoring
program, this type of system, the Large GE Wetland, historically may have supported the
bunched arrowhead, but no plants were known to exist. GE agreed to monitor these wetlands
during the Remedial Action (RA). 'Biological monitoring data and water level data can be
compared to baseline data to assess whether wetland and sensitive receptors are adversely
impacted by groundwater withdrawals. However, it is important to note that during the 2008
monitoring event, observations confirmed the bunched arrowhead continues to persist in the
Bunched Arrowhead Wetland as well as the Large GE Wetland.
3.3 Land and Resource Use
General Electric is currently operating at the facility. The general land use along
Spartanburg Highway is commercial and light industrial. The Shepherd Farm Subsite is mostly
rural, residential, and agricultural. The land is lightly developed along Bat Fork Creek, both
upstream and downstream of the site and along Mud Creek (which Bat Fork Creek discharges
into approximately 6 miles downstream of the GE property). The land use for the area has and
continues to be primarily agricultural, commercial, and residential. This is also the expected
future land use for the Site and the surrounding area.
4
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fa1m Site
East Flat Rock; NC
The· majority of the residents within the vicinity of the Site are connected to the City of
Henderson public water supply. The Hendersonville Water Treatment Plant draws water from
. the Mills River watershed. Two of these intakes, on Bradley Creek and the North Fork of the
Mins River, are locaied in the Pisgah National Forest and supply approximately 50 percent of the
water we use by gravity. The balance is pumped from the Main Stem of the Mills River. The GE
facility has been connected to this public water system since it began operations. Although,
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.
· 3.4 · History of Contamination
The General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site consists of three noncontiguous disposal areas·
in East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina. These disposal areas (the subsites) are ·
known as the GE property, the Shepherd Farm property, and the Seldon Clark property. The GE
Subsite is approximately 50 acres in size and located at the southeastern corner of Spartanburg· •
Highway and Tabor Road. The Shepherd Farm Subsite is approximately 31 acres in size and is .· •
located on Roper Road, approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the GE Subsite. The Seldon Claik •
Subsite is ,· acre in size and is located at the northeastern corner of Spartanburg Highway and·
Tabor Road, directly across the street from the GE Subsite. ·
.· Frnril 1955 to pre~ent the GE facility bas been used to develop, design, andmanufacnie ·
compleie high-intensity-discharge luminaire systems, which consist of the assembly of optical _,-. ·
components, ballasts, mountings, and high mast lowering devices. Also from 1955 to 1975, GE ·
manufactured "constant-current" transformers at this facility. The transformers were filled with
. PCB~containing oiL During this period, GE generated a substantial quantity of PCB waste, ...
Disposal of this waste prior to 1980 is not well documented, but in 1984, PCB waste was sent to · ·
Alabama for disposal. It is possible that PCB-containing electrical components were d_epositcd._
. along with other wastes, into the dry sludge impoundment or the waste treatment ponds.
Landfili.Aon· the GE Subsite received waste generated ai the facility between 1955 and·
the I 960s. No information is available concerning the types of waste, but it is assumed that tlie .··
wastes are. from the manufacturing process at the time of operation. Landfill B, also on the GE:
Subsite, is believed to have operated during the 1970s. Currently, the two former landfills have .
been excavated, backfilled, and restored with grassy vegetation and/or pavement. : '
. Wastewater,• generated as a result of the plant process, contains metals and so;•v~nts. · GE
constructed the wastewater treatment facility in the mid-l 970s consisting of a lime.treatment . · ·
. system to adjus_t the pH of the treated water prior to surface water discharge. Two·µnlined .
. · .·. wa_stewaier .treatment ponds were also constructed. These ponds were constructed bf.native clay_ .. : .·
and were approximately IO feet deep. The larger pond has a controlled exit valve at its discharge
point into the.smaller pond. Between 1977 and 1980, as part of the wastewater treatment . ·
process, wet and-dry sludges generated in the wastewater treatment facility were landspread on
several 'plots surrqunding the facility buildings. ·
5
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Underground storage tanks (USTs) at eighteen locations have been used by GE for
storage of fuels, liquid supplies (paints and varnishes), and liquid wastes. According to GE, all
USTs have been removed as of March 1991, and all liquid storage is now performed in above
ground storage tanks and drums.
From 1957 to 1970, GE contracted Mr. Shepherd to dispose of GE waste at the Shepherd
Farm property. The GE waste was dumped, burned, and bulldozed in an approximate 3-acre
area. Most of the waste was reportedly deposited into an old dry pond or ravine approximately
800 feet southwest of the Shepherd residence. At the time of the disposal, only the Shepherd
residence was located on the property. Since the 1970s, the Spring Haven manufactured housing
community has been constructed over the dumping area.
3.5 Initial Response
In 1980, the GE facility filed a Part A hazardous waste permit for storage under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In March 1982, GE petitioned to have its
electroplating sludge delisted as a hazardous waste. By April I 982, the US EPA issued a
preliminary decision to declare the electroplating waste as nonhazardous. The State of North
Carolina accepted the petition and delisted electroplating 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 19, 1988, the US EPA
formally recognized the state-approved delisting of electroplating sludge as a hazardous waste.
GE acquired an NPDES permit for the discharge of treated eftluent into Bat Fork Creek, which
became effective on May I, 1989. GE also acquired an air permit issued on February 25, 1988,
to operate several air emission sources or clean air devices. .
In 1988 and 1989, EPA conducted Site Inspections and Investigations into the
contamination at the GE facility, Shepherd Farm property, and the Seldon Clark property.
Results of analysis revealed the presence of PCBs in soil and volatile organic compounds in the
groundwater. The results indicate tetrachloroethene as the major contaminant present in
groundwater beneath the site and, as discovered before, the greatest contaminant concentrations
are present along the failed drain line (the underground drain line leading from the
manufacturing plant, which is used to transport the stormwater runoff to the treatment pond).
However, high concentrations ofVOCs 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.
After the US EPA Site Inspections and Listing Site Inspections 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 Co/Shepherd Farm Site". The Site was finalized on the NPL in
December 1994.
The Seldon Clark Property Subsite was deleted from the NPL on November 1, 1996.
Based on data gathered during the Remedial Investigation of all three Subsites in September
6
Second Five-'(ear Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
1994. Five soil samples were collected from two soil borings on the Seldon Clark Subsite.
Semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and PCBs were found, but all were at
concentrations under the soil cleanup levels determined in the feasibility study. One surface . ·
water/sediment sample was taken downgradient of this Subsite. Again, semivolatiles and PCBs
were found at concentrations below the soil cleanup levels. One groundwater sample was
collected down gradient of the suspected fill area at the Seldon Clark Subsite. This sample
· contained one semi-volatile compound at trace concentrations. The ROD for the Site was signed .
. . ori September 29, 1·995_ The ROD recommended soil and groundwater.remediation at the GE
·, Subsite and the Shepherd Farm.Subsite, but not for the Seldon Clark Subsite.
The EPA, community relations activities at the Site included a public meeting on August 3,
1995 to present to the public the Agency's Proposed Plan for remediation at the Site. Public
comments received during the 60-day public comment period were considered and addressed in
the Responsiveness Summary. This document was included as an appendix to the ROD. There
· are no institutional controls for the Seldon Clark Subsite. A fivO:year review will not be ·
conducied at the Subsite, due to the fact that soil and groundwater contaminants are below the ·
· soil cleanup· levels. The concentrations found in the samples taken do not present a ·current or
future threat_ to public health or the environment.
3.6 Basis for Taking Action
From 1986 through 1991, GE tasked Law Environmental to conduct sampling
investigations of soil and groundwater around the GE plant Site. In 1988 and 1989, as stated ·
above, the US EPA conducted Site Inspections and Investigations at the Site. 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 ·
. groundwate_r recovery and tteatrnent system was designed and installed at the GE subsite. The
· system consisted offour groundwater recovery wells, a I 0,000-gallon equalization tank,.an air
stripping tower, and associated piping and pumps with discharge going to Bat Fork Creek .. •
Seven observation wells were also constructed for measuring water levels during an aquifer.
'performance ·test. .
The US EPA completed the Rl/FS in July 1995. The ROD issued. in 1995 and Consent
De_cree filed with the U.S. District Court in 1996 defined the remediation goals and action for.
·. soil and groundwater. The Base]ine Risk Assessment, which quantified the associated Site. risk,
,~as completed in March of _1995. The ROD was issued September 1995... . .
As summatiied in the 1995 ROD, "Actual or thre~tened reieases of hazardous ....
substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action sel~cted in this
· R_QD, m_ay present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
:. enViroflrrient.
Th~ eip~sure assessment evaluates and identifies complete pathways oj exposure to· . · i human population on or near the Site. Current exposure pathways include exposure through .
. ,.. in_cidental ingestion of soil, inhalation of fugitive dusts from soils; dermal contact with soils.' ancl .. ' ' . . . ' . ' . . 7 . ';
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
ingestion of water from private wells. Land use assumptions include residential, commercial/
industrial and child visitor scenario. Future use scenarios consider construction of a water
supply well within the groundwater contaminant plume at GE and Shepherd Farm and ingestion
of soil, inhalation of dusts and dermal contact with soils al Shepherd Farms, as a worse case
scenario. Possible exposure pathways for groundwater include exposure to contaminants of
concern from the groundwater plume in drinking waler and through inhalation of volatiles
evolved from water through household water use. "
4.0 Remedial Actions
In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, the overriding goals for any remedial action
are protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. A number of
remedial alternatives were considered for the Site, and final seiection was made based on an
. evaluation of each alternative against nine evaluation criteria that are specified in Section
300.430(f)(5)(i) of the NCP. The nine criteria include:
I. Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment
2. Compliance with ARARs
3 .. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment
5. Short-term Effectiveness ·
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
The Assessment of the Site in the 1995 ROD, states, "Actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the Site, if not addresses by implementing the response action
selected in the Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment lo
public health, welfare, or the environment. " The Remedial Action Objectives (RA Os) as stated
in the 1995 ROD, Section 8 Remedial Action Objectives, "Considering the requirements for risk
reduction and the risk-based remediation levels derived in the Baseline Risk Assessment, and the
ARA Rs discussed previously, the remediation goals specifically developed for the soil in the
source areas of the GE/Shepherd Farm Sile are presented in Table 21. The remediation goals
for groundwater across the entire site are presented in Table 2 2. (See Table 2 and 3 of this
report for the Remediation Goals for groundwater and soil as stated in the ROD).
The remediation goals, presented in Tables 21 and 22 (as stated above, Tables 2 and 3 for
this report), were selected as the most conservative of the chemical specific ARARs, the health-
based risk goals, and the contract required quantitation limit (CRQL) that was attainable. The
background concentration would have been selected as the remediation goal if ii had exceeded
the risk-based goal, as is the normal procedure. Remediation goals were also selected based on
present and future land use at the site, assuming the GE Subsite would remain
commercial/industrial, and Shepherd Farm Subsite to be residential."
8
--------------·----··--·-·. ---· ··--····-
1:
· Second Five-Year ReView
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
As noted in the ROD, the goal of the selected groundwater remedy is to restore the
groundwater to its beneficial use. Because this remedy resulted in hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining on site above health-based levels that allow unlimited.use
·. and unrestricted exposure (i.e., contaminated soil consolidated beneath the cap) Five-Year ·
Reviews will be. ci:mducted after tommencement of the. remedial action to ensure that the remedy.
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
.4.1 . Remedy Selection
· 4.1.1 1995 Record of Decision
The remedies stated in the Record of Decision (ROD) dated September 29, 1995
provided for remediation of contaminated groundwater and soil. The description i:)f the selected
remedies in the ROD include:
Groundwater
Both Subsites
..
•
•
•
•
Extraction of groundwater from the GE/Shepherd Farm Subsites that is ·
contaminated above the MCLs or the North Carolina Groundwater Standards,
whichever are more protective for each particular contaminant.
On-site treatment of the extracted groundwater via air stripping and· carbon
adsorption. ' '
In-situ bioreinediation .
Discharge of treated groundwater to Bat Fork Creek, . ·
. Continued analytical monitoring for.contaminants in groundwater and surfacp' .
water.
GE Subsite ·
•
•
Placement of a inulti-layer cap on the area where the soil is containin~ted above•
. the performance standards.
Continuous maintenance of the cap .
Usage restrictions on the capped area .
Shepherd Subsite
•
•
Excavation of the top foot of soils contaminated above the pc~foi-mancc : .
. sta~dards. . • . . . . . . ..•. · ; ; .
Transportation of excavated soils to the Dry Sludge lmpoundment .(DSI) area on·
the GE property.
B~ckfilling, grading, and re-vegetation ·of the excavated areas .
9
4.1.2 Explanation of Significant Difference
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
The ROD was modified by an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) signed on
September 25, 1998. The requirement to place a multi-layer cap on the areas where the soil is .
contaminated above the performance standards was modified to:
•
•
•
Excavate Landfill A and transport the contents to the OSI and backfill with
clean fill.
Excavate Landfill B and transport the contents to the OSI and backfill with
clean fill.
Place a multi-layer cap on the DST .
4.1.3 Second Explanation of Significant Difference
The ROD was also modified by a second ESD signed on July 27, 2000. The
modifications were to the groundwater remedy and the activities were modified to:
•
•
Delete the requirement for the in-situ bioremediation for contaminated
groundwater across the entire Site.
Change the discharge location of treated groundwater from Bat Fork Creek to
the GE operations facility.
The remedies were selected to protect human health and the environment, comply with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the -
remedial action and be cost effective. The US EPA selected both a source control and
groundwater remedy for the site. At the completion of the remedy, the risk associated with this
Site has been calculated to be within the accepted risk range determined to be protective of
human health and the environment.
Because these remedies result in hazardous substances remaining on site above levels that
allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, Statutory Five-Year Reviews will be completed
to assess site conditions, contaminant distributions, and any other associated site hazards.
10
I
.
.
. ,·
4.2 Remedy Implementation •
Second Five• YeaiReview
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Fla/ Rock, NC
The US EPA completed the RI/FS in July 1995. The ROD issued in -1995 and Consent
. Decree filed with the U.S. District Court in 1996 defined tlie remediation goals and action for
soil and groundwater. After finalization of the Consent Decree, GE became the responsible party
for remediation of the Site. GE contracted HS!Geotrans as the primary remedial action ·
. contractor for the remedial action. In 2007, Geosyntec took.over as the contractor for GE_.·
The Remedial Design (RD) for soil and groundwater was initiated on September 30, 1996. ·.
The designs of the soil remediation activities were completed in April 1999, while the design for
the groundwater remediation activities identified in the ROD were completed in September 2000.. . . . .
4,2.1 Soil Remedy
Shepherd Farm Subsite
. . . . The remedial action for soils specified in the ROD for the Shepherd Farm Subsite .
· consisted of excavation of surficial soils (0 to I foot depth) containing greater than I part per-·.
million (ppm) total PCBs. The remedial activities required temporary relocation of 14 residential
families in the Spring Haven Community from October !4'tbrough November 8, 1997.-· . · · ..
Exc_avation began on October 14, 1997. The excavation of the area was determined based on.·
. nearly 400. soil ·samples collected on a 25-foot grid. The excavation area was approximately 4-. :
. : acres in ·size.· Surface soil removal consisted of excavating the soil; moving the:excavated soil to'. ·
: a stock-pile; transporting the soil via dump truck to the DSI at the GE Subsite; and, confirmation
· .· surveying to verify that excavation was greater than or equal to one foot in depth. The
excavation of the upper one-foot of soil was confirmed using pre-excavation and post-excavation
topographical survey·s·. 1n conjunction with the soil excavation in the residential area, a 30-m_il : :.
_ liner was !'laced in _the crawl space under each house within the excavation zone. · · · · . . . . . .
. A total of735 cubic yards of landscaping debris (including tree trunks and root balls)·
Were transported from the Shepherd Farm property to the DSI at the GE property. A total of
7,034 cubic yards of contaminated soil was transported from the Shepherd Farm property.to the· .
GE property. . . . . . .
GE Suhsite
: . .' \. ··., < .. : . · .. : . . . . . . . . ·.: . '"
·\ . c . . The remedial. action for soils specified in.the ROD for Landfill A, Landfill B, arid the DSI • · ··· < .. :corisisted of a multilayercap in areas that exceed the total PCB concentration .of 10 ppm. Based· ·
. . mi findings of investigations completed for th_e Preliminary Design and additional d_ata collection _.·.
· · activities for the Intermediate Design Investigation, the ROD remedy for the landfills were ·
.. modified to replace the capping with removal, consolidation, and on-site contairirrient. The US. . ··'
· EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) in 1998 describing the · ·
• ; inodifi~ations to tlie ROD for the Landfill A and Landfill B. The 1998 ESD states that if the·
. : ; . material within the landfills is above the clean-up levels of IO ppm for PCBs, it will be
. ,., consolidated i_n the DSI _and one cap will be designed, constructed and maintai_ned.
1.1
I
Landfill A
Second Five-Year Review
G£/Shephercl Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Excavation at Landfill A began on May 24, 1999. Surficial soil removal consisted of
excavating the soil from the landfill; sampling to confirm if remediation goals were met and if
goals were not met, continued excavatin·g until remediation goals were achieved; backfilling and
re-vegetating the excavated area; surveying the excavated conditions; and, disposing the .
· excavated materials in the OSI. The average PCB concentration from the pre-removal soil
samples within the estimated extent of the landfill was 107 ppm with maximum concentrations
reaching 870 ppm. During the excavation activities, four separate bum trenches were excavated.
The bum trenches were constructed by GE and used for the disposal and partial incineration of
debris. Post-removal confirmation samples were collected and the cleanup criteria of 10 ppm
total PCBs was achieved or further sampling and excavation was conducted within these areas.·
A tot_al of 11,698 cubic yards of material was excavated from Landfill A. An additional
1,053 cubic yards of material was excavated from areas near the landfill and adjacent to the OSI;
these areas were referred to as satellite areas. The excavated soils were transported from the
landfill to the OSI.
Landfill B
Excavation at Landfill B began on.June 1, 1999 after completion of the majority of the
Landfill A ·excavation. Surficial soil removal consisted of excavating the soil from the landfill;
sampling to confirm if remediation goals were met and if goals were not met, continued
excavating until remediation goals were achieved; backfilling and re-vegetating the excavated
area; surveying the excavated conditions; and, disposing the excavated materials in the OSI. The
average PCB concentration from the pre-removal soil samples within the estimated extent of the
landfill was 28 ppm. Excavation for Landfill B was complicated due to the presence of a gas
line in the southern portion of the excavation area and the unknown exact extent of the
contamination. The volume of the soils excavated from this landfill was ten times the initial
estimate. Post-removal confirmation samples were collected and the cleanup criteria of 10 ppm
total PCBs was achieved or further sampling and excavation was conducted within these areas.
A total of 20,676 cubic yards of material was excavated from Landfill B. The excavated
soils were transported from the landfill to the OSI.
Dry Sludge Jmpoundment CDS!)
In addition to soil excavated from the Shepherd Farm Subsite, all excavated materials
from Landfill A and Landfill B were placed in the OSI prior to the construction ofa multi-layer
cap. Th·e multi-layer cap included a composite liner consisting of 18 inches of clay, a flexible ·
membrane liner, and a gcocomposite drainage layer. Vegetative soil and topsoil were placed
over the multi-layer cap. The area was seeded and fenced around the entire perimeter.
12
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC .
The OSI was designed to accommodate approximately I 9,000 cubic yards of material.
Ultimately, 33,427 cubic yards of material were placed in the OSI. The additional material was ··
placed in such a manner as to increase tlie vertical extent of the OSI while maintaining the ·
proposed aerial extent. ·
4.2.2 Groundwater Remedy
The remedial action for groundwater specified in the ROD for the GE/Shepherd Farm
. Site consists of extraction of groundwater from the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites that is
contaminated above MCLs or the NC Groundwater Standards; on-site treatment ·of the extracted· ·
groundwater via air stripping and carbon adsorption; in-situ bioreinediation; discharge of treated
groundwater to Bat Fork Creek; and, continued analytical monitoring for contaminants in
groundwater and surface water. In July 2000, the US EPA modified the ROD with an ESD
. based on information generated during the development of tpc Remedial Design. The-
modifications were to delete the requirement for in-situ groundwater bioremediation for
contaminated groundwater across the entire Site and to change the discharge location of treated .
groundwater from Bat.Fork Creek to the GE operational facility.
. In 1997, GE constructed and began operations of an accelerated groundwater remediation ·
. system (AGRS). The AGRS operated from July 1997 tci September 2000 to initiate mass ·
removal and provide performance data to support the final design. The AGRS consisted of four-
recovery wells, a treatment system, an outfall, associated pumps, piping and controls. Extracted
. groundwater from the recovery wells was treated for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a ·
· .. · lo.w profile 'tray air stripper. Off gases from the air stripper were treated using a vapor phase ·
granulated adivated _carbon system. The final groundwater remediation system con~tructiori ·
began July I 0, 2000 and concluded with a final inspection on October 20, 2000. A total of nine .
·. rec_overy wells are installed at the· Site, five at the· GE Subsite and four wells ai the Shepherd
. Farm Subsite.. The recovery wells are connected to the treatment system by buried waterlines
and powered and controlled by buried electrical iines. The treatment system consists o'r two bag ..
filters that are changed out on a regular basis and arc monitored by a differential pressure switch;
a 4-tray air-stripper to remove VOCs and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs); and a
granular activated carbon unit to remove and contain VOCs and SVOCs for _later disposal.
. Effluent (treated groundwater) from the system is pre-treated for metals and then discharged to
the Hendersonville Waste Water Treatment Plant or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
This effluent is sampled quarterly for remediation target compounds (RTCs) before discharge to
, tlii, POTW. -Effluent air is also sampled during operations to ensure proper function of the ak.,
: stripper and to ensure remediation goals are met. · · · '.•
. '-:.
. : . , Based on Groundwater Monitoring Reports from· March 2.00 i through December. 2002,
·influent and effluent' air data indicated poor performance of the granular activated carbon unit.
Fr9111 March through September 200 I, the carbon unit began to accumulate condensate water and:"·
some carbon was released through the screen within the unit. This release of carbon may have
... : contributed0to elevated concentrations of the RTCs in .the treatment system effluent air samples ..
·•• : .· '~ftcr each inspection,' the screens were fixed, all accumulated water was drained froin tb9 unit,
13
Second Five-Vear Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
and precautionary measures were taken to reduce water accumulation in the carbon unit ·
(changing the controls on the air stripper, raising the height of the piping so that splashing-water
would fall into-the air stripper and not the carbon unit, and installing a knock-out tank). Poor
performance of the granular activated carbon unit for the treatment of the air stripper effluent air
was again noted from September 2001 through.September 2002. In September 2002, a duct
heater was installed between the moisture separator and the carbon unit to increase the
temperature of the influent air and reduce moisture of the unit. Based on the December 2002 · .. ,
inspection, these changes within the unit have drastically improved the unit performance ·and
demonstrated significant improvements in reduction efficiency. ·
When the AGRS was operational, July 1997 to September 2000, a total of 31.7 million
gallons of contaminated groundwater was extracted and treated. A total of 20.6 million gallons
of treated water was discharged to Bat Fork Creek. The remaining 10.9 million gallons was used
as process water in the manufacturing facility, treated for metals, and then discharged to the
POTW. The AGRS removed an estimated 311 pounds of VOCs from the groundwater at the GE
Subsite.
Performance data from the AGRS was used to support the design of the GRS.
Construction of the GRS was completed in September 2000 in accordance with the Final Design
and Remedial Action Work Plan for groundwater. It consists of five recovery wells at the GE. _
subsite, four recovery wells· at the Shepherd Farm Subsite, a treatment system, associated pumps, ·
piping, and controls. The GRS includes two bag filters, a 4-tray low-profile air stripper to
remove VOCs from the extracted groundwater, and a GAC unit to remove and contain any
VOCs from the air stripper emissions. Water effluent (treated groundwater) is discharged to
Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department Plant or POTW. Water effluent is sampled
· quarterly for the RTCs upstream of its discharge to the POTW. Since November 2004 and in
agreement with the Hendersonville Water and Sewer Department, metals pre-treatment has not
been required by the POTW. The water eflluent meet the Industrial Use permit #1 held by GE in
an agreement with the POTW.
The GRS has been operational since October 2000. As of September 29, 2008, the
volume of groundwater extracted and treated was I 06, I 87,570 gallons. Groundwater was
extracted_ at an average rate of 30.2 gallons per minute for pumping year 2007 to 2008.
4.3 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance
As stated by Geosyntec (Environmental Consultants of GE Lighting Systems) regarding"
the O&M at the Site in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring
Report:2008 (submitted December 2008), "As a consequence of the operational issues during
pumping year 2006 ·and 2007 and the age of the GRS, GE budgeted for four quarterly O&M
events to conduct the recommended O&Mtasks outlined in the O&M manual; these tasks
include air stripper cleaning, recovery well diagnosis, well pump cleaning.flow meter cleaning,
etc. To date, three of these quarterly O&M events have been conducted. Additionally,
Geosyntec performed at least eight separate "troubleshooting and repair" events throughout the
year to address unexpected shutdowns and operational issues. Collectively, these efforts have
14
I·•••
.. -: \"-
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site .
East Flat Rock, NC.
resulted in a vast impro.vement in the uptime and productivity of the GRS, as evident by its 53%
increase in total flow compared to the last year. In addition to the numerous repairs conducted .
. on various system components, several modifications were made to the GRS that directly
. · improved its reliability. and performance: · · . . . .
• Relays and other electronic components were relocated from below grade vaults
to above grade vaults at R W-5, -6, and -7; this step has eliminated the potential
for shorting and failure of relays which were the most common cause for recovery
well shutdown and subsequent GRS shutdown. ·
• ·surge protection was incorporated in the above ground electronics vaults at the
four Shepherd Farm recovery wells and R W-5, -6, and -7; this task has reduced
the potential for a programmable logic controller (PLC) input card failure. .
• The PLC software was re-programmed to avoid a GRS shutdow~ due to i1 singie ·
motor overload; this step vastly improved the uptime of the GRS overall.
• Waterproof disc.onnect switches were installed at each recovery well to.reduce the
· potential for shorts due to surface water infiltration into the· wel/'vaults; th.is task
eliminated a safety hazard as well,
• · A relay was installed above the Shepherd Farm PLC input card to improve the
quality and consistency of the voltage and protect the input card. ' · · ·
• The Sensphone Autodialer was updated and re-programmed to provide Geosyntec
.. with daily status faxes of six primary alarm conditions and.alarm alerts when ·
· triggered. " · · · ·
. . . . . The original cost estimate to implement the groundwater and soil remedial. actions, as
·. described in the ROD, was $4,578,440 and $855,297, respectively, with a total remedy cost of
$5,433,737, The ROD estimated the O&M at the Site to be $3,200,440 over the 15 years oftlie ·
. estimated operation time. No othe.r estimated annual O&M was calculated in the ROD,· More
. detailed cost estimate documentation can be found in the Feasibility Study. The PRP reported
costs for groundwater and soil were $1,350,000 and $2,200,000, respectively, (with present ·
worth O&M not included) with a total cost of$3,550,000. Annual O&M cost as submitted by
Geosyntec are shown by below: . .
Year O&M External Costs Total Costs
2002 $36,000 $36,000
2003 $7.000** · ~$40.000
2004 $26,478 $26,478
2005 $4,287** ~$40,000
2006 $4,172** ~$40,000
2007 $39,659 $39,569
.2008 $83,660 $83,660
.
. . ·.· Jhe •• indicate years when GE performed the majority of the O&M internally and .
.. _therefore only represents parts and labor provided on a limited basis by external sources .. GE did .
. ·• not trac.ktheir internal costs, but estimated that the typical average cost for these years _,.;as: ..
15
: I
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
$40,000. Since Geosyntec's involvement in 2007, an estimate of the proponion·ofthe total .
. O&M costs into regular, preventative maintenance-type tasks conducted quarterly compared.to
tasks for troubleshooting/repairs, modifications and upgrades. A further breakdown of these
· .. proportions for 2007 and 2008 is below:
Year Quarterly O&M and Troubleshooting/repairs,
preventive maintenance modifications, um•rades ·
2007 $20,000 $19,569
2008 $35,000 $48,650
5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review
This is the Second Five-Year Review Report. The Protectiveness Statement for ihe first
five-year review in 2004 expressed.the protectiveness of the remedial actions and that the site ·
was protective of human health and the environment. The protectiveness statement, as written in
the 2004 Five-Year Review, stated:
"The remedies at both subsites currently protect human health and the environment in
the short-tenn because the main source of contamination was remediated through the
source removal. Currently no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or
groundwater. Howe~er, in order for the remedies to be protective in the long-tenn, the '·
following actions need to be taken to ensure long-tenn protectiveness: Proposal of
Institutional Controls and continued optimization of the groundwater remedial system. "
16
SeCond Five-Ye8r Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
The followi.ng table is a copy of the Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions that were
recommended for the Five-Year Review in 2004.
· Recommend"ations/ Party Oversight Milestone Affects
Issues Follow-up Actions Responsible Agency Date Protectiveness?
(YIN)
Current Future
Implement institutional Implement Institutional GE with EPA& Before N N
controls for the capped controls and review agreement & State next five-
a_rea·as p_er the ROD impleme!)tation in next cooperation year
five-year review of land review
owners
Large volume of Continued optimization GE EPA& Before .Y .Y
contaminated of the GRS. State n~xt five-
groundwater versus year·
hydrological reyiew
requirements o"r"the
burlched arrowhead
aro:undwater dean-up ROD needs to be EPA & State . EPA& Before N N
goals should reflect new modified to refleCt new State next five-
lowCr quantitation limits goals. year
review
Deteimine if tre"atment Evaluate levels of GE EPA&. Before N N
of extracted groundwater metals in groundwater State next five-
for metals is _necessary to determine if year
treatment is necessary review
for discharge to the
POTW.
Unsecured monitoring · Properly abandon the GE with . EPA& Before N .N
well and residential well residential well.at,the agreement & . State next five-
at former Womack former Womack cooperation year . ·•
residence. residence and of land review
determine if the owners
monitoring well on the
property is ne·cessary.
17
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site _
East Flat Rock, NC
The following are the explanations or discussions in response to the five issues stated
. during the first five-year review report:
Status (Ongoing,
. Complete, Considered Completion Date (if Recommendation and Not Implemented, Status Comment applicable) or Carried over to this
FYR)
Implement I Cs on the Carried over to th is Five-Not completed as of Planned by August 31,
capped area Year Review and retained Second Five-Year Review 2010
as a recommendation
Continued optimizatio_n of Ongoing Geosyntec has made NIA
the GRS. several modifications to
the GRS, which has
resulted in a vast
improvement in the uptime
and productivity of the
GRS.
ROD needs to be modified Not implement.ed The US EPA determined NIA
to reflect new goals. that although the
quantitation limits for two
of the COCs at the Site
have been lowered; the
protectiveness of the
numbers used as the
remediation goals are
orotective of human health
Evaluate levels of metals Not Implemented Since November 2004 and NIA.
in groundwater to in agreement with the
determine if treatment is Hendersonville Water and
necessary for discharge to Sewer Department, metals
the POTW. pre-treatmen,t has not been
required by the POTW.
The water effiuent meets
the Industrial Use Permit
#1 held by GE in an
agreement with the
POTW.
Properly abandon the Completed Gcosyntec personnel· July 2008
residential well at the · visited this property and a
fonncr .Womack residence small electronics store is
and determine if the now located at the
monitoring well on the property. ·The property
property is necessary. owner indicated that he
recalled the presence of
the water well in his
driveway, but that he had
backfilled it with fill
material and paved o\ler it
with asphalt in 2004 or
2005.
18
i '
. f -!_;·,-.:·:
' I ~ ..
,, .
. '
,.., '
, .. '
'·
6.0 Five-Year Review Process
6.1.. Administrative Components
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
_The NC DENR, Superfund Section, completed the five-year review process for the
qE/Shepher(I farm site. David_Matiison (Envirimmental Engineer) and Stephanie Grubbs
(Hydrogeologist) from NC DEN!l were responsible for ga_thering ~d reviewing data for this
review. Telephone or emaildiscussi_ons/interviews with Michael Townsend; US EPA Remedial
Project'Manager (RPM) were conducted. Other activities conducted for this review include
document review, site inspection/site meeting on Miiy 14, 20.09; community involvement
interviews (coi:iducted by Angela Miller, US EPA), and the Five-Year Report preparation.
6.2 Community Involvement
The US EPA. conducts all community involvement activities regarding th~ remedial
activiti~s f~r the Site. The US EPA inierviewed several members of the community by
telephone, as part of the Five Year Review for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site. All
in~ividµals that were interviewed were notified that the Five Y car Review was being conducted
at the Site and that a final report will be placed in the local information repository located at the
Henderson County Public Library, 310 N. Washington Street in Hendersonville, North Carolina,
for.the public to review. Summariei ofthose·interview's are included in Attachment 3. After the
· five-year ·review· has been approved and signed by the US EPA, a notice will be placed in the
local newspaper announcing the rele·ase of the final Five-Year Review report and copies will be
.. placed for the public to view at: the US EPA Record Center, I I th Floor, 6 I Forsyth Street, SW,
Atlanta, G.Ai 30303; the information repository located at the Henderson County Public Library, . .
310 N. Washington Street in Hendersonville, North Carolina; and, on the US EPA website
(http://www.epa.gov/suoerfund/index.htm).
6.3 Document Review
This five-year review corisisted of a review of relevant ·documents including the signed . . ,
ROD and ESDs, RI Report, Remedial Action Reports, Annual Groundwater Remedial Action
Performance Monitoring Report, the previous Fivc-Y car Review Report.· Applicable
groundwater and soil clean-up standards and other ARARs, as listed in the ROD, were also
reviewed and_ checked for updates. See Attachment I for a complete list of documents reviewed.
6.4 ARAR Review
Section ,I 2_ I (d) (2) (A) of CERCLA specifies that Supcrfund remedial actions must meet
any federal standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). ARARs arc those standards.
criteria, or limit~tions promulgated under federal or state law that specifically address a
hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other cii-cumstancc at a
19
Second Five-Year Review
GE!Shopherd Fann. Site
East Flat Rock, NC
CERCLA site. To-Be-Considered criteria (TBCs) are nonpromulgated advisories and guidance
that are not legally binding, but should be considered in determining the necessary level of
cleanup for protection of human health or the environment. While TBCs do not have the status
of ARARS, the US EP A's approach to determining if a remedial action is protective of human
health and the environment involves consideration of TBCs along with ARARs. ·
Chemical-specific ARARs are specific numerical quantity restrictions on individually
listed contaminants in specific media. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs include the MCLs
specified under the Safe Drinking Water Act as well as the ambient water quality criteria that are
enumerated under the Clean Water Act. Because there are usually numerous contaminants of
, potential concern for any Site, various numerical quantity requirements can be ARARs. The ·
final remedies selected· for this Site were designed to meet or exceed all chemical-specific
. ARARs and meet location-and action-specific ARARs. ·
Chemical-specific ARARs identified in the selected remedy within the ROD for the
groundwater at this Site and considered for this five-year review for continued groundwater
treatment and monitoring are listed in Table 4. The review of ARARs for the groundwater ·
contaminants identified with cleanup goals in the 1995 ROD suggests that federal standards (i.e.,
MCLs) and state standards for three of the contaminants have changed; however, the changes are
less conservative and therefore the remediation goals set forth in the ROD are still applicable.
In performing the Five-Year Review for compliance with ARARs, only those ARARs
addressing risk posed to human health and the environment (i.e., addressing the protectiveness of
the remedy) were reviewed. This is in keeping with current US EPA guidance on five-year
reviews.
6.4.1 Original ARARs from the 199S ROD
Federal ARARs
• 40 CFR Parts 261, 263, 264, and 268 promulgated under the authority of the ·
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and RCRA as amended (40
USC Section 6901 ct. seq.)
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (40 CFR 700-789)
• PCB Spill Cleanup Policy ( 40 CFR 76 I)
•
•
•
•
• ..
•
Guidance on Remedial Actions for Superfund Sites with PCB Contamination
(OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-01, Chapter 3)
Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC
1801)
Clean Water Act (CWA 33 USC Section 1251-1376, 40 CFR Part 121, 122,
125,131)
Clean Air Act ( 40 CFR Part 50, Part 60, Subpart A and Subpart B, and Part 61)
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910, Part 120)
Safe Drinking Water Act (40 USC Section 300; 40 CFR Part 141,143)
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 USC 2901 et. seq.)
20
·•
•
•
State ARA.Rs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Floodpiain Management Executi~e Order (Executive Order l 1988; 40 CFR ·
6.302)
Endangered Species Act (16 USC I 53 I)
Wetlands Management Executive Order (Executive Order 119990; 40 CFR
. 6.302j
Regulations for the Managen1ent of Hazardous Waste promuigated under the •
authority of the NC Waste Management Act (North Carolina Administrative.
· Code (NCAC) Title I SA, Chapter 13A)
Regulations for the disposal of Solid Waste promulgated under the authority of
the NC Hazardous Waste Commission Act (NCAC Title ISA, Chapter 138)
. NC Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards; Groundwater Classifications
and Standards (NCAC Title 15 Chapter 2L)
NC Surface Water Quality Standards (NCSWQS) Classification and Water ·
Quality Standards (NCAC Title I SA Chapter 28)
NCSWQS Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (NCAC Title I SA Chapter 2,
. Subchapter 28.0400)
NC Drinking Water Act (NCDW A) (General Statutes Chapter 130A, Article I 0)
. NC Sedimentation Control R~les (NCAC Title I SA Chapter 4) . .
NC Air Pollution Control Regulations (NCAC Title. ISA Chapter. 2D) .. ·
NC Water Pollution Control Regulation (NCWPCR) Wastewater Discharge to • ·
Surface Water (NCAC Title 15, Chapter 2, Subchapter 2H) · ·
6.4.2 Current Applicable ARARs
For the c.urrent groundwater remedy, site-specific ARARs. are identified as follows: ·
Contract Required Quan\itation Limit (CRQL), US EPA. Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum·
.Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and groundwater standards speci.fied in NCAC 2Lare ARARs for
· Site groundwater. At the time the ROD was prepared, a baseline risk assessment was ·conducted.
The current NC 2L Groundwater Standards, the US EPA CRQLs and MCLs for volatile and
inorganic compounds are still valid for .the groundwater remedial action objectives as ·siated in
the ROD. Refer to Table 4 for the COCs and the associated ARARs identified in the 1995 ROD.
At the time the· ROD for soil was prepared, a baseline risk assessment was ~onduited.
· The soil clean-up go~ls as stated in the ROD are still applicable. The ROD specified remediation .
. goalsfor PCBs is 10 mg/kg at the GE Subsite and I mg/kg at the Shepherd Farm Subsite. .
21
.. 1-
. : ·: ,:; .
' : ~ .. :, ; . . .
6.5 Data Review
Soil
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
As stated in the previous Five-Year Review and Section 4.2.1 of this Five-Year Review
Report, the soil remedy was completed in 1999. Soil data since the completion of the soil
remedy is limited due to the nature of the remedial action which was comprised of removal of
the top one foot of contaminated soil at the Shepherd Farm Subsite and excavating and capping.
the soil at the GE Subsite. No soil sampling has been conducted since the last Five-Year
Review.
Groundwater·
Groundwater quality data is collected annually from performance monitoring well_
networks at the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites and a subset of nearby residential wells. See
Table 5 for the Performance Monitoring Schedule. The most current data was collected and
reported in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2008 by
Geosyntec Consultants. The following information is a summary of the data found in the Annual
Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report-2008 by Geosyntec Consultants.
As reported in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring
Report-2008 by Geosyntec Consultants, significant modifications to the GRS within the last year
resulted in a dramatic increase in uptime and performance. As a result, mass removal for
pumping year 2007-2008 reflects similar amounts of water volume and VOC mass removal as
duri_ng the first three years of operation. After eight full years of pumping, the GRS has
extracted and treated over I 06 million gallons of groundwater, of which 15.5 million gallons
occurred in pumping year 2007-2008. Groundwater was extracted at an average rate of 30. 7
gallons per minute in 2007-2208 and resulted in a removal of33.6 pounds ofVOCs. The flow
rate was close to the design flow rate of 32 gallons per minute.
A target hydraulic containment zone was established for each Subsite during the RD
through the development of a numerical groundwater model. The model was used to select all
well locations and extraction rates that maximize plume containment while minimizing negative
impacts to the wetlands. Figures 4 and 5 depict the observed hydraulic containment zones
located around the recovery wells at the GE and-Shepherd Farm Subsites, respectively. The
hydraulic containment zones were determined by drawing groundwater flow lines perpendicular
to the equipotential lines that define the potentiomelric surface. Both figures reveal that the
capture zones of each individual recovery well merge upgradient into to a single hydraulic ·
containment zone that encompasses much of the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites.
A statistical analysis of the performance well data was completed using data from the
annual performance monitoring data and reported on in the Annual Groundwater Remedial
Action Performance Monitoring Report-2008. This report stated that, the Mann-Kendall non-
parametric test was performed on each performance monitoring well for each remedial target
22
I
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
compounds. This test was utilized to determine ·if the concentrations ohbe remedial taigct · ·
compounds exhibit a statistically significant upward or downward trend at a given confidence
interval (for this assessment a confidence interval of 95% was applied). Care must be .taken
when assessing the historical results since reporting limits have generally decre.ased since the
inception of the GRS in 2000. When an analytical result is non-detect, a concentration value of
half the reporting limit has been established as an input for VOCs and half the ins~ent'
· detection limit for metals. This is done to prevent false upward or downward trends through
changing reporting limits. Furthermore, compounds with two or fewer detections at a given well.
during the historical record cannot be analyzed for trend. · ·
Table 6 and Table 7 present the results of the trend analysis for VOCs and metals,
respectively. This analysis was performed on data collected since the GRS start-up in September
· · iOOO. Only two of the 47 trends analyzed for VOC concentrations (1,2-DCA in MW-27A and
cis,J,2-DCE in MW-12) and one of 18 trends analyzed for metals concentrations (manganese in
MW-27) demonstrated an increasing concentration trend. Other important trends stated in the
December 2008 Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report are;
• The increasing trend in PCE concentrations at MW-22A and MW-66 observed in
2007 has diminished.such that no significant trend (with 95% confidence) exists
at these two locations. . ·
• • The PCE concentration at MW-29 along the northern boundary of the GE Subsitc
has.been showing a steady decline since September 2004 andwas reported af2.0
·. ppb, only slightly higher than the remediation of I ppb. . •· · ·.
• .PCE at MW-16 (downgradient ofRW-5) has decfo,ed from concentraticiiis,
exceeding its remediation goals since September 2006. • . . · . . .
• Remediation goal exceedances of PCE and TCE at MW-3 have <;liminished since
December 2002 and VOCs have not been reported in this well since. September
.. 2006 .. · . ' .
'° ... :_ ·. J.he predominance of downward trends, particularly at the, GE s.ubsitewhere higher VOC.
conceniraticms were fmirid historically, ·suggest an overaH improvement to the water quality at·•
the GE arid Shepherd Fann Subsites. . . . . . . . .
•'· ' . ' . .
The locations of the p~iformance monitoring and recovery weBs for the GE and' Shepherd
·. Farm Subsites are shown in Figures 2 arid 3, respecdvely. Performance monitoring wells'were ..
. ·, selecte~ within each of the three hydrologic units, saprolite, upper bedrock, and l~.wer bedrock.' .·.·
23
,
GE Subsite
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Sita
East Flat Rock, NC
The performance monitoring network consists of 16 wells. Sampling was last conducted
between September 16 and 18, 2008. The results revealed the following:
voes
• PCE was detected above the remediation goals (RGs) of I ppb at .13 of 16
performance well locations. The highest PCE concentration was 260 ppb at MW-
14.
• TCE was detected above RGs of 2.8 ppb at 9 of 16 performance well locations.
The highest TCE concentration was 95 ppb at MW-27A.
• Chloroform was detected above the remediation goals (RGs) of 1 ppb at 2 of 16
performance well locations, MW-12 at 11 ppb and MW-l 2A at 12 ppb
• 1,2-DCA was detected above the remediation goals (RGs) of I ppb at 1 of 16
performance well locations, MW-27A at 3 ppb.
• Benzene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), trans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride were
not detected above their respective RGs at any of the performance well locations.
Metals
• Manganese was detected above its RG of 50 ppb at 7 of 16 performance well
locations. The highest manganese concentration detected was 1,500 ppb at MW-
15. Note that the RG for manganese is a secondary Federal Drinking Water
Standard that is based upon characteristics other than human health risk, such as
taste and odor.
• Lead and Nickel were not detected above RGs at any of the 16 performance well
locations.
Table 8 is the summary of the performance well analytical results for the GE Subsite
September 2008 sampling event. See Attachment 4 for a complete table that shows all the
performance well analytical results since September 2000 to present.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
The four performance monitoring wells, two saprolite monitoring wells (MW-66 and
MW-64) near Bat Fork Creek and two shallow bedrock monitoring wells (MW-64A and RWSF-
1, an active recovery well that is sampled as a performance monitoring well) at the Shepherd
Farm Subsite were sampled on September 17, 2008. The results revealed the following:·
voes
• PCE was detected above RGs of I ppb in all four performance well locations.
PCE concentrations ranged from 11 to 60 ppb.
• No other VOCs were detected above their RGs at any of the performance
monitoring well locations.
24
Metals
Second Five-Year ReView
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
• No metals were detected above their respective remediation goals at ani of the·
· four performance well locati.ons.
These September 2008 results did not differ appreciable from those measllfed in
September 2007. Table 9 is the summary of the performance well analytical results for the
Shepherd Farm Subsite September 2008 sampling event See Attachment 4 for a complete table
that shows all the performance well analytical results since September 2000 to present.
Residential Well Monitoring
Seven off-site residential wells were selected for annual sampling based on their location,
depths, and end-uses of the water. The intention of the sampling was to evaluate the extent of
groundwater contamination, if any, outside the sampling boundary of the GE Subsite. Four of·
the seven residential wells have been part of the annual residential well sampling program that
· began in 1997 as part of the AGRs; three residential wells were added in 2000 whe.ri the GRS ·
was constructed. Residents rely on well water at two of the residences (WW-33 and WW-34)-for
potable purposes. As stated in the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance ·
Monitoring Report-2008, all others reportedly are connected to city water or are provided bottled
water by GE.
The off-site residential wells network has required two modifications since 2005. First,
. the property containing WW-17 was sold in April 2006, and since then GE's contractors have
.· been unable to receive.permission to sample WW-17. The new owner indicated in2007 that the. ·
·. well was buried in his front yard. S~cond, it was learned by Geosyntec in 2007 during the ah~ual ..
sampling event, the owner ofWW-82 had a second well on his property that is a deep bedrock
well .. Prior to 2007, it had been reported that WW-82 was a deep bedrock well and was sampling'
. via an exterior spigot. However, during the 2007 sampling event that the residentialwell· ·
.. historically sampled at this residence was a shallow well, which was used for a pot~ble source .
. As such, it appears that the deep bedrock well has not been inonitored and has not 'been used by .
the residences hisiorically during the operation of the GRs: The residerit in.dicated that he ·
. intended to u~e .the d_eep well, which Geosyntec assigned WW-82B in 2007, for irrigation; · ,
however, the pump h.as been brokeri since 2007 and the well has not been used according to the -~-. . .·
On September 17 and 18, 2008, Geosyntec collecieci sainples from seven residential
wells: WW-5, WW-28, WW-33, WW-34, WW-73, WW-82, and WW-82B. The results
revealed the following.:
I
• voes w~re not detected above reporting limits or RGs in any of th~ sc~en ..
residential wells. These wells ha.ve been non-detect since sampling began in
September 2000. ·
• . Manganese·was detected above its RG of 50 ppb at one residential well location
· (WW-82),.where it was detected ata concentration of 120 ppb. Note thatthe RG
fo.rmanganese .is a secondary Federal Drinking Water Standard that is based upon·
25
•
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
characterist.ics other than .human health risk, such as taste and odor.
Lead was detected above the RG of 15 ppb at WW-82 at 24 ppb and WW-82B at
160 ppb. Because these wells are located hydraulically upgradient of the Site,
these detections are likely to be related to plumbing or piping issues associated
with each well. ·
.See Attachment 4 for a complete table that shows all the performance well analytical
results since September 2000 to present.
As stated in the protectiveness statement, a CUITent drinking water survey is being
requested which would verify that no new groundwater users have installed drinking water wells.
However, it is known that there are no residents between the GE property and Bat Fork Creek, a
gaining stream. Bat Fork Creek would intercept any contaminated groundwater that should
intersect the creek. Data has also confirmed that no VOCs have been found in existing
groundwater wells that exceeded the remediation goals for residents downgradient of the GE
property on the opposite side of Bat Fork Creek. At the Shepherd Farm Subsite, the Spring
Haven Community is supplied municipal water and the few residents not within the subdivision
are also supplied municipal water. 1
Treatment System Influent/Effluent Monitoring
Extracted groundwater is treated for VOCs using a 4-tray air stripper. Treated
groundwater is piped to the GE facility ad discharge to the POTW. The air effluent from the
stripper is directed through a granular activated carbon {GAC) unit prior to discharge to the
atmosphere. The treatment system water and air effluent are sampled routinely during operations
to ensure proper function of the air stripper and carbon unit, to ensure remediation goals are met
and to ensure POTW and air emission requirements are met.
Influent and effluent groundwater samples from the treatment system were collected
approximately quarterly through June 2008, and monthly during July,' August and September
2008. Effluent groundwater samples for VOCs and metal were collected within the treatment
building after treatment by the air stripper. Benzene, Chloroform, 1,2-DCA, PCE, and TCE were
detected in the influent sample above their respective remediation goals during the past five
years. However, these four VOCs were not detected above their respective reporting limits in
the corresponding effluent sample, indicating effective groundwater treatment by the air stripper.
Table 10 is a historical summary of the groundwater influent/effluent results since GRS start-up.
Treatment system influent arid effluent water analytical results between December 2000
and September 2008 are Table 11. Unlike other years, additional samples·werc collected during
July and August 2008 to verify the unexpected PCE "breakthrough" in the effluent sample from
June 24, .2008. · It has been hypothesized that the June sample was collected at a time of higher
than normal discharge (approximately 40 gpm), which may have influenced the result. However,
the July and August samples were collected during periods of lower than normal discharge (20.3
gpm) and higher than normal discharge (46.7 pgm), respectively, and the VOCs were not
detected in either effluent sample. Because of these findings and the recognition that the influent
26
",\.
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
·sample concentrations have been reasonably consistent during the year, the June 2008 effiuent
results are deemed anomalous .
. Air influent and effluent samples from the vapor stream were collected three times in
20.04, once in 2005, once i~ 2006, twice in 2007, and twice in 2008. The results revealed that the
GAC effectively removes the bulk mass of the VOCs, which is composed primarily of PCE. For
. the September 15, 2008 sampling event, the overall VOC removal rate was found to be 85%
(96% for PCE). . .
Surface Water and Sediment
Six surface water monitoring stations (SW-I through sw:6) are sampled annually to
assess surface water quality in Bat Fork Creek. Background surface water quality in Bat .Fork
Creek is .evaluated at SW-I due to its upstream location of both the GE facility and the Shepherd
Farm Subsite. SW-2 is located between these locations. SW-3 lies immediately do.wnstream of
the GE Subsite at the intersection of Bat Fork Creek and Ta.bor Creek and provides insights into
. creek water quality as it exist the Site. Figure 6 is a location map for all surface water sample
locations.
Samples SW-I, SW-2, and SW-3 are analyzed for the eleven contaminants and PCBs .
. Three additional surface water locations (SW-4, SW-5, and SW-6) in Bat Fork Creek at the GE
. Subsite are sampled for VOCs only to increase the spatial resolution of VOCs. The results have
been screened against the NC DENR's Division of Water Quality Standards per 15ANCAC 2B ·
(e.g., the."2B Standard"). The results from the surface water samples collected on September 16,
2008 reveal the following: · ·
•· PCE was detected in only one of six samples (SW-2) and was reported at a.
concentration of 1.0 ppb, which is below the 2B Standard.of 3.3 ppb.
• Lead and total PCBs were not detected above their respective reporting limits. ·
• Manganese was detected in two samples; however, there is no 2B Standard for .
this constituent: · ·
.Table 12 is a summary of surface water results since the GRS start-up. Although PCE.
has been the only organic remedial target compound detected historically in the·surface water · , .
samples, it has not been reported at concentrations above its 2B Standard during any event. The
2008 results also provide additional evidence that !'CE discharged to Bat Fork Creek has be.en
greatly reduced since 2003 based on, the reduction in the· number or' detections in the creek water
·.,. . a.n.d ·t.herelated concentration declines. This trend.is noteworthy, in the context of persistent·
dro·~ght conditions since·2003. . . . ..
' . . . . . .
.. · ··• .•. ·. Three sedi~enlsampling stations (SEO-I, SED-2, and SED-3) in BatFork Creek have , ·.·.·
been sampled annually since September 200'0 to evaluate the potentialp~esenc~·of cilhtaniination
iiihin streainbed sediment; theselocations.coincide with the th,ee surface water saillpling ' .
· locations SW-I, SW-2; and SW-3 .. The first sediment sampling location·is a background ... •
location as it is l~cated in Bat Fork Creek upstream of both the GE facility and the Shepherd •: · ' . . . . . ' . . .' . . . . ' .. · . . ..
27.
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Sile
East Flat Rock, NC
Farm Subsite. SW-2 is located between these locations and SW-3 lies immediately downstream
of the GE Subsite. Figure 7 is a location map for the sediment sample locations.
Sediment samples are analyzed for eleven contaminants and PCBs. Only PCBs have
relevant North Carolina sediment screening criteria (e.g., 1,000 mg/kg total PCBs). The
_September 2008 sediment sample results are summarized as follows:
• VOCs were not detected above reporting limits in any of the sediment samples.
• Total PCBs were detected at 53 ppb at both SED-2 and SED-3; however, these
concentrations are well below the NC Sediment Standard of 1,000 ppb or total
PCBs.
• Lead and manganese were detected in all three sample locations, although no state
standards currently exist for these constituents.
• Nickel was not detected in any of the three sediment samples.
Table 13 is a summary of sediment results since the GRS start-up. During the 8 years
sampling history presented in Table 11, VOCs have only been detected twice: Tetrachloroethene
was detected at 7.7 ug/kg in September 2003 and 11.8 ug/kg in September 2004 at sample
location SED-2. Tetrachloroethene was not detected in sediment samples collected in 2005-
2008. Additionally PCBs have been detected historically at SED-2 location and occasionally at
the SED-3 location, the downstream-most location, none of the PCB detections have exceeded
the NC Sediment Standard.
6.6 Site Inspection
The site inspection of the GE/Shepherd Farm site was conducted on May 14, 2009.
Attending the site visit were:
• Michael Townsend, RPM, US EPA
• David Mattison, Environmental Engineer, NC DENR, Superfund Section
• John Franklin, GE Lighting Systems
• Tracy Martinez, GE Lighting Systems
• Barry Hallock, GE Consumer and Industrial
• Tod Hagemeyer, Geosyntec Consultants
• Todd Kafka, Geosyntec Consultants
The Site Inspection team met on site to inspect the former landfills at the GE Subsite, the
areas excavated at the Shepherd Farm Subsite, the capped former landfill, the groundwater
remediation system, the areas surrounding the system for security and safety, and interview the
subcontractor operating the system. All participants agreed that the remedies at the Site arc
functioning as designed and continued optimization of the system is important to the continued
performance of the remedy. This rationale was agreed upon due to the fact that system
performance increased significantly based mi improvements to the GRS within the last year. It
was also noted during the site inspection that O&M costs increased during this time; however,
the benefits of the increased extraction rate due to the improvements were positive.
28
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
During the inspection, all groundwater treatment system monitoring records were noted .
· as readily available and up-to-date. The treatment system was noted as being in good condition,
all chemicals and equipment properly stored, and the system is operating and functioning
properly. The Site is fenced and secured with lo_cks. The monitoring wells were properly
secured, locked, functioning and in good condition, and all wells were easily located.
The landfill cap was also inspected and. in good condition with no erosion, signs of stress
and no bulges observed. Cover penetrations, passive gas vents were properly secured and
locked. ·
6. 7 Interviews
The US EPA conducted all the community interviews, by telephone, as part of. the Five
· · Year Review for the General Electric/Shepherd _Farm site located in East Flat Rock, North
Carolina. All individuals that were interviewed were notified that the Five Year Review was
being conducted at the Site and that a final report will be placed in the information repository·
.located at the Henderson County Public Library, 310 N. Washington Street in Hendersonville,
North Caroli_na, for the public to review. ·
Interviews were conducted with citizens that live in the area or own property in the area
and were impacted by the cleanup at the Site. Most of the citizens interviewed were pleased with
the cleanup and think that since the area has been remediated that people are pleased. Most
stated that people do not even talk about it anymore. However, one citizen that was interviewed·.·
.is still very unhappy. This citizen does not live there anymore, but still owns the property. Sec
· Attachment 3 for the complete interview. ·
29
. '1
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
7.0 Technical Assessment
7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
Groundwater
Y cs, the remedial action continues to be operating as designed. However, institutional
controls as part of the remedy have not been implemented to date.
Based on the current annual progress report, several modifications and improvements by
Geosyntec to the GRS has increased performance and significantly improved the uptime and
productivity of the system within the past year. This is evident by its 53% increase in total flow
compared to the last year. The monitoring data indicates that the contaminated groundwater
plume is being contained and that the levels are decreasing.
In the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action Performance Monitoring Report, several
recommendations were made by Geosyntec regarding monitoring performance modifications.
The recommendations were made in advance of this upcoming Five-Year Review and are
provided in this report for consideration; however, have not been reported as major
recommendations and issues for the Site for this Five-Y car Review (i.e. Sections 8.0 Issues and
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions). These "Recommended Performance Monitoring
Modifications" will need to be address by the US EPA and the NC DENR, not by this Five-Year
Review Report. The recommendations are as follows:
• Modification to the RTC list and performance well network. A preliminary
examination of the historical RG exceedances at each performance monitoring
well for each of the RTCs has been performed. It has been suggested by GE and
Geosyntec I.hat several RTCs could be removed from the subsequent performance
monitoring events. Five organics (1,2-DCA, benzene, chloroform, cDCE, and
tDCE) meet the Remedial Goals Verification Plan (RGVP) criteria for requesting
removal from the list.· Three metals (lead, nickel, and manganese) will be further
evaluated to support the removal of these metals from the RTC list.
• Modifications to residential water well network and analytical suite. Geosyntec
has reported that VOCs have not been detected in any of the residential water
wells. since the inception of the GRS in 2000. Historic detections have been ' . limited to manganese having the greatest frequency of RG exceedances .
. Geosyntec considers it prudent to pursue an examination of the historical total
metals results at the residential wells in conjunction with the. total metals results in
the performance monitoring wells in relation to groundwater flow direction to
determine if the residential well network need to be modified.
• Modification of the GRS effluent analysis. The GRS effluent is piped to the GE
facility and is mixed with other effluent from the plant. A portion of the GRS
effluent can be reused in the plant as process water, sent through a metals
pretreatment process, and discharged to the POTW. GE performs water quality
monitoring of the plant effluent per the POTW permit. Since the GRS does not
30
'· :-, i .,.•· .:-,.-:
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC:
actually perform any metals treatment, and GE monitors the plarit effluent per the
permit requirements of the POTW, Geosytec stated that the GRS effluent
sampling is redundant to the plant effluent sampling. Therefore, they
recommended that the dissolved metals analyses from the quarterly
influent/effluent samples be eliminated. GE would continue to conduct sampling
of the plant effluent per the permit with the POTW. . .
• Evaluation of the GAC in treatment train. The effluent from the air stripper has
had. VOC concentrations at least three orders of magnitude below the NC Air
Standards per I SA NCAC 2Q.07 l l. GE will examine its _air permitting ·
obligations in greater detail to determine the feasibility of removing the GAC tank
from the treatment train, subject lo the US EPA and NC DENR approval.
• Modification of the bunch arrowhead monitoring program. It was recommended
to make modifications to the wetland monitoring. When the wetland monitoring
methods were first developed as part the performance monitoring program, it was
understood that the bunched arrowhead was present in the Bunched Arrowhead .
wetland and not in the Large GE Wetland. However, since the inception of the·
moriitoring, several bunched arrowhead populations have been discovered in· the
Large.GE Wetland and the Bunched Arrowhead Wetland. It is recommended by
GE and Geosytec that the methods used to.monitor the B_unched Arrowhead
Wetland be used to monitor the Large GE Wetland, with some slight
modifications to account for Site conditioris observed since the inception of the ....
monitoring program. In addition, it is being recommended that the monitormg of
the Bunched Arrowhead. Wetland he discontinuel. ·
The remedial action objectives (RA Os) for soils were developed to prevent direct contact
exposure to soils containing levels of contaminants that produce unacceptable risk levels. AH .. ·
remediation goals were achieved during the remedial action for soil. However, no institutional
controls or appropriate land use restrictions have been implemented.
31
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fa11n Site
East Flat Rock, NC
As stated above, Institutional controls for the Site have not been implemented, below is
an Institutional Controls Evaluation Table.
ICs Called
1cs .:for fn the IC. · .. ·,t
M.;aia . ,lns_t_r~ni~Ot.in · Notes ... N~ede,d, · :_-t~:l~::ts"-°' · .· Ohj_fC.tive .p1ace·
" '.
GE Subsite
. I
Restrict
Ground Yes No installation of None None Water ground water
wells. .
Restrict land
and soil use to
Soils Yes Yes protect the None None long term
in~egrity of the
cap.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Restrict
Ground Yes No installation of None None water ground water
wells
Soil Yes No Restrict land None None and soil use
32
Second Five-Ye'ar Review
GE/Shepherd Ff]rrri Site
East Flat Rock, NC .
-7.2 Question B: Are ihe exposure assumptio;,s; toxicity data, clean-up levels.and .
remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid?.
_ Y~s, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleim-up levels, and RAOs used at the time · ·
of the remedy are still valid for the _COCs. Some of the chemical-specific ARARs (i.e., CRQLs, ·
MCLs, a;,d the State Groundwater Standards) have changed for the COCs from the Remediation
Goals given in the ROD. However,the.changes in general, are less stringen·t than the . . .
remediation goals establi_shed in the ROD. The GRS is operating as intended and _no new.human· .
health or ecological routes of exposure have been identified or modified in any1way that would.
_change the protect_iven_ess of the remedy .
. A vapor intrusion assessments has been pc~formed b)I the US EPA and based on the risk
range for residential properties, the Site is well within the acceptable risk levels .. See Attachment
5 for the_ Vapor Intrusion Assessment. · · · . '
·_. -· A current drinking waier suryey is being requested which'wciuld confirm th~t no new ·-_• ·
grciundw_ater risers have installed drinking water wells .. However, it is knmvn th_at there are no .. •
,i~sidents between the GE property and Bat Fork Creek, a_gainin·g stream·. Bat For~ Creek would_,, . -
intercept any contaminaied groundwater that should iil.terseci the creek. Qata lias also confirmed.•
. that. no VO Cs have been found in existing groundwater wells that exceeded the _remediation ..... .
. goals for ieside11ts downgradieni of the GE property on the opposite side of Bat Fo_rk Creek. At
. • the Shepherd Farin Subsiie, the Spring Haven Community is supplied municipai water and the
few residents not within the subdivision arc_ also supplied municipal water. · · ·
There have been no changes in the physical condiiion~ of the Site that would negatively
· affect the protectiveness of the remedy. · · · ·
. . . . ' . . . . .
. 7 .3 · Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call i~to .
. :question the pfotective'ness of the remedy?_.· · · ·
No_additional information lias come to light thatcould call into question the
· _ protectiveness of the remedy ..
' ' '
· 7.4 Technical Ass'essment Summary
' ·_' Acc~;ding to documenis, the site inspection, and interviews with_ the us EJ A: ~e :
exposure pathway to contaminated soil and groundwater.has been mitigated. The exposure' ._. _ .
_ assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and RA Os used at the time of the remedy ·are still'
· · ~ valid for the COCs._ There are no_ known current exposure routes to the groundwater cir s_ciil iu_1d _
foe remedy remains effective.·· _A recent vapor intrusion assessment has been performed and the
Site is ~iihin the acceptable risk range for residential properties. Howe~er, a current _well survey.·-.
. is needed. Permanent land use restrictions or either appropriate institutional controls also need to
-· be implemented_at the Site._ · · ·
33
8.0 Issues
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
There are two main issues that have been identified during this review. Each is discussed
further in theTecommendation section of this report.
I. No institutional controls have been implemented at either of the Subsites.
2. No current drinking water well survey downgradient of the plume at the GE and
Shepherd Farm Suhsites has been conducted recently.
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
The Recommendations and Follow-up Actions for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site are as
follows:
· Recommendations/ Party Oversight Milestone Affects
Issues Protectiveness? Follow-up Actions Responsible Agency Date (YIN)
Current Future
Implement Implement GE with EPA& August 31, N y
institutional controls Institutional controls agreerrient & State 2012
at both Subsites. and review cooperation
implementation in of land
next five-year review owners
No current drinking A current well GE EPA& August 3 I, N y
water well survey has survey should be State 2012
been completed. completed to
document that no
new drinking water
wells exists .
.
10.0 Protectiveness Statement
The remedies at both Subsites are protective of human health and the environment in the
short term because no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or groundwater. The
main source of contamination has been remediated through source removal, and the groundwater
is being address by the GW treatment system. Th,rc are no known residents between the GE
property and Bat Fork Creek (document plume area), and data has confirmed that no VOCs have
been found in existing groundwater wells that exceeded the remediation goals for residents
downgradient of Bat Fork Creek. The Spring Haven community and the few surrounding
residents are_ supplied drinking water by a municipal well.
To ensure long-term protectiveness, the following actions should be implemented.
Impose institutional controls at both Subsites to preserve the integrity of the cap, prevent
exposure to contaminated soil or debris, and restrict the use of on-site groundwater. Conduct a
34
1 ·.··
Second Five-Year Review :
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
· drinking well survey downgradient of the plume to assure no new drinking water wells h~ve
·been installed. · ·
11.0 Next Review
The next Five-Year Review for the GE/Shepherd Farm site is required to be completed
within five years froni the EPA Region 4 Superfund Division Director's (or his designee)
signature/approval date of this document.
35
TABLES
Second Fivs-Year Rev;ew '
GE/Shepherd Form Silo
East Flot Rock, NC
· SeCofld Fivo-YearRevlew
GE/Shepherd Farm Sile
East Flat Rock. NC
Table 1 -Chronology of Site Events
Event Date
ciE facility develops, designs, and manufactures complete high-intensity-discharge 1955 to present
• 1. luminaire systems.
GE manufactured PCB contnining "constant cur'rent'' transformers 3t the facility. 1955-1975
Landfill A received waste from the facility's operations. . 1955-1960
GE disposed of waste on the Shepherd Farm property where it was dumped, burned, and 1955-1970
bulldozed in an approximate 3-acre area.
GE disposed of waste on the Seldon Clark prope~ ori an approximate 0.3 acre area. 1960-1970
.Laudf.ill B is co~slructed and ~perated for GE waste. 1970s
Wastewater treatment facility was constructed to adjust pH of treated water prior to mid-1970s
surface water discharge using lime treatment. l\vo unlined wastewater treatment ponds
were also constructed.
Wet/dry sludges from the treatment plarit were land applied on se~eral plots surrounding 1977-1980
the facility.
Site discovery. August l, 1980
_Prelimirlary Assessment completed. November l, 1984
EPA conducted a Site Screening Inspection, Phase II of the groundwater. Monitoring November 1988
wells contained Trichloroethene (TCE), 1-2 Dichloroethene (DCE), and PCE. Sediment
samples from Bat Fork Creek and the small wastewater pond were found to contain
PCBs.
GE conducted Phase !IA Contamination Assessment of Groundwater and several studies August 1988-·
of sediments in Bat Fork Creek, both wastewater treatment ponds, and dried sludge December 1989 ..
impoundments .. · ·
·.
GE obtains National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System {NPDES) penTiit issueihy May 1, 1989
NC DENR for discharge into Bat Fork Creek.
GE sampled 57 additional private resi_dential wells near the facility. November 1989·
January .1990
EPA conducted Listing Site Inspection, Phase II on the GE and Shepherd Farm January 1991
properties to obtain data necessary for scoring the site for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL). One soil and one sediment s~mp!e were collected_ from the Scld~n
Clark properly.
. .
EPA proposed the site for inclusion on the NPL. Feb;uary 7, 1992
Removal assessment completed. December 31, I 992
ATS OR completed a Preliminary.Public Health Assessment. July 8, 1994
Combined Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study completed. June 30, 1994
Second Five-Yoar Review
GE/Shepherd Fenn Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Site finalized on the NPL. December 16, I 994
Remedial Investigation (RI) report complete and received by NC DENR. July 14, 1995
ROD signed. September 29, I 995
Bas~d oC1 results of RI data, a Notice of Intent to delete the Seldon Clark .property fr0m · September 3, ·1996
the GE/Shepherd Farm site is published in Federal Register.
Consent Decree signed between GE and the EPA regarding rernediaiion of the site. September 19, I 996
Seldon Clark Property partial deletion completed. November 11, 1996
Remedial Action began with soil excavation activities at the Shepherd Farm Subsite. October I 4, 1997
Treatibility Study and Natu~al Attenuation Evaluation Final Report. May 6, 1998
ROD modified by an Explanati~n of SignifiCant DitrCrCnce (ESD). for s0il contamination September 25, 1998 . .
at the site. Modifications include: excavate Landfills A and B, transport contents to the
OSI, and backfill with clean fill.
Shepherd Ferm Buried Drum lnvestigation Report subrilitted to EPA. Actual field October 19, 1998
investigation of the properly from August 17-21, 1998.
Pump and Treat Performance Evaluation for-the GE/Shepherd Farm Site. November 4, I 998
and April 15, 1999
Enh~nced Biodegrndation Tre~tabilit)' Study and_Nahlral Att~nuatiQn Eva!uatio11 Final November 17, 1998
Repoi-t complete.
Remedial Action of the Shepherd Fann Final Report completed. December 29, 1998
Final Remedial Design (100% c_omplete) for the soil al lhe GE Subsite. March 29, 1999
Final Remedial Action for soil contamination at the GE Subsite completed. December 23, 1999
ROD modified by a second ESD for groundwater treatment and discharge.
~odif1cations include: delete in-situ groundwater reinediation and Change the discharge ·
July 27, 2000 ·
location of treated groundwater from Bat Fork Creek to the GE operational facility.
Superfund Preliminary Close-Out Report complete. September 2000
Construction of the GRS was completed. September 28, 2000
Final inspection of the groundwater remediation system at both subsites. October 20, 2000
Final Remedial Act_ion Rep?rt complete for groundwater at tl~e GE/Shepherd Farm Site. April 5,200 I
First Five-Year Rev·iew completed. August 6, 2004
Not<s:
Table 2
Remediation Goals for RT Cs in Groundwater
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Contamhlanf Remediation Basis Goai (112/L)
Organics
'
Volatile Organic Compounds
Vinyl Chloride ) CRQL (NC MCL -0.0 l 5 Jig/L)
I .2-Dichloroethcne1 70 NCMCL
Chloroform ) CRQL (NC MCL -0.!9 µg/L)
1.2-DichloroCthane ·. ) CRQL (NC MCL -. 0._38 µg/L)
T richloroethene 2.8 NCMCL
Benzene l NCMCL
Tetrnchloro~thene l CRQL (NC MCL -0.7 Jtg/L)
Metals
Nickel 100 FEDMCL
J.ead )5 FEDERAL ACTION LEVEL
Manganese 50 NCMCL
1 1,1-0ichlorotlht'rl( rncompassf's cis-l,2-Di<:hlo1oe1hrnc :md 1rans-t,2-Dichlororihrnr
Ill== Hazmd lndf'x
NC c North Carolina
Fl:U = ff'deral S:ife Drink in~ Wa1r1 Act
CRQL u ConlmC1 Rtquimt Quantita\ion Li mil
t.-lCL = t,.l;'.1.'linium Comamiiu111 l.r\·el
µgll. <>. mir10~ram5 pt:1 Jiu·,
Table 3
Remediation Goal for Soil
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock,_ North Carolina
Contaminant Remediation Goal
PCB I oob
Second Five• Year Review
GE/Shophcni Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Table 4: Previous.arid Current ARARs for
Groundwater COCs
coc
Vinyl Chloride
1,2-dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichlorocthene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Nitrobenzene
Barium·
Beryllium
Nickel
Lead
Manganese
Notes:
1995ROD
groundwater
remediation
· goal (ug/L)
I •
70b
I'
I'
2.8b
lb
·I•
10'
2,000b
4d
100d
15 e
50'
Current
MCL(Asof
April 14,
2009) ( ug/L)
2
70
5
5
4
100
Current 2L
(As of April
14, 2009)
(ug/L)
0,015
70
70
0.38
2.8
1
0,7
2,000
100
15 so
'USEPA CROL °Ne 2L . c Hazard lndex d Federal MCL c Federal Action Level
ARAR
change?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No.
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Table 5
Perfonnance Monitoring Schedule
GE Lighdng Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East Flat Rock, North' Carolina
December-02
March-03
June-03 .
December-OJ
March-04
· )une-04
X
·s~p,t~'i~'t>~t(~4 _.; :'_ \:.x•
Dcccmbcr-04
March-05
June-OS
X
. ·, Scpt;;;;i;;;,,os, ' i.X ..
December-OS
.~farch:06
June-06 .
X
X
' · s~1i'ii4iWi~~ :S :"cX> ': .<JX'
Dccember-06
March-07
June-07 · · s;piciil~i,:iit ::sO'x: .,<sx· :,·J.X'
Dccembcr-07
Marth-OS
.June-o·s
\L'S.~P'f~~~ef~~) \/-X
December-08
March-09
June-09
· .-iJ~Pt~-~~~~\~~fi \i'f
X
X
x<:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
iX' ,\X/'
Noto: General Ekcrric (GE) $hllll 5C'Ck writlt'n authoriution from the_ Unirtd S1atr"s Environmentnl Pm1-:e1ion Agency (US EPA) 3nd lhc
~•c DENR for all chengts !n ~oundw111.-r rr.oni1orin1; frcquenq•. -·
\JA08066!l11-l moni;chcdulc.:du
-Sublett of !hit . ·
rcporl
Table 6
Summary of Mann-Kendall Trrnd Analysis f0r VOCs
GE Lighrin& Systems Annual Performance l\loni1oring
· . Easl Flat Rork, North Carolina
Parameter l,2-DCA Bcuzen'e Chloroform cis-1,2-
DCE PCE
GF. Subsile
MW-14
MW-14A
MW-16
MW-16A
MW-22A
MW-27A
MW-29
W-64
MW-64A
\V-66
WSF-1
otal ]ncreasin
6 7
Notts:
All ln:-mfs arc rtponeri al 9~'1. conli1kncc-.
Shaded cells ha,·e uo more than 2 dtltclions of th£ COIJlpollml over time ;in,! 1hus n lrt11d c3m101 be :is~ssC'd.
Blank Cells reprC'sc111 :i lack ofsignific:int incrNsing or li("('rc:,sing lrt"nil :it 95o/.conlidcncc.
1,7-JX'A"' 1,2-Dichlof()('lh.mt'
cis-1,2-0CE"' cis-1,2-'Dichlorocthrnt
PC'E "'Telr.n:hlOJoelbcnt'
lrans-1,2-0CE • lr"ans-l)-Dichloroe1~t;1e
TrE"' Trichlo10f:thcnc
GA.08066813-4 & 3-5 f,.IK ~1:i1u:I~.,
trans~J,2-
DCE
Vinyl
Chloride
Table 7
Sumnrnry ofl\leun-Ke~dall Trend Analysis for Metals
GE Lighting Syslcms A.i·mual Performance I\·l~nitoring_
Easl Flat Rock, NoJ"lh Carolina
I Parnmeler I Lend I · i\Jangnnese I Nickel
I GE Subsi°le
MW-3 Decreasing Decreasine
MW-8 Decreasin2
MW-12
MW-12A DecrCasine
MW-12D Dccrensim!.
MW-13 Decreasing
MW-l3A Decrcasim!
rvtW-14
MW-14A
MIV-15 Decreasing Decreasine.
MW-16 Decreasing
MW-16A Decrc.tsin2 Decreasin2.
MW-22A
MW-27 . lncreasine
IW-27A Decrcasine Decreasing
1\V-29
I Shepherd Farm Subsite
MW-64
MW-64A Decreasim!:
lW-66 Decreasine Decreasing
•WSF-1
~·otal lncreasillg I 0 I I I 0
·01a) Decreasing I 10 6
iYoUJ:
1\II \rtnds aJC' Jepor'lt"d :ii 951/• conritknct-.
Bl:inl-cells ~prC'Rnl a bd, ofsii:nilicanl inctr;'lsing or <lccreasing lttnd at 95%
confidence.
1,2-UC-A • 1,2-DichlorMlhanC'
cis-1,2-D(T" cis-l,i-Dichlo1oe1lm~ _
PC'E-.. TC'trachloroclhent
1,ans.) ,2-1.X'E = lrans-1,2-Dkhloroethenr
TC'E = Trithlornctlirnt
I I
I
I
Table 8
GE-Subsite. Performance \.Veil Analytical Results for September 2008
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
Ea!ot Flat Rock. North Carolina
Remediation MW-3 MW-8 MW-12 MW-12A MW-12B MW-13
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/L)
i .2.nichloro,;th;1nc :-io ,1.n) NO rl.0l i,.'() (I 0) NO(I.0) ND(Un ND nm
8cn1,enc ND fl .0) ND(l.O) ND(I 0) ND {l.0) ND(l.O) ND(l.0)
Chlcir1'lfom1 1','.0(1.CJ) ND(I.0l 11.0 • 12.0 • ND(I.O) !',10(1.0}
• Cis-1.2-0ichlom~them~ 70 ND(l.O) ).0 9.0 • ,.o 1.0 2.0 •
Te:r:::chlorocthenc ND(l.O) 40,0 • 73,0 • ,~.n 44Jl • 14.0 •
Trms-1.2-Dichlr,roe!hcnc 70 r-.o c1 O) ND(I 0) ND(l.fl) ND (1 0) ND(J.0) ND(l .n)
Tnch!0rl"Cthcnc 2.1: NO·() O) ND/1 0) 4.0 , J.n J.0 In .
Yir.YI C'hlnrid~ ND(I.Ol ND O.~) NDfl.<11 NO(I.0J ND(l.0) NO(I.0l
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Lc;d 15 ND(l5.0) ND f15.0) ND f15.fll ND (15.0l KO (15.(l) ND nsm
:-v1:mg:mcsc 50 390.0 . ND(S0.O) ND (511.0) ND (50.0) NO(lO.Ol ND(~0.O)
Kid;d IOO NO (H)('1,0) ND.(100.0) ND(l00.0) ND (100.0) ND (100.0) l'ID (100.0)
Notes:
U.NO • "°t detoctod
BoldOO v::alucs indic::a\c cnm::enmti(ln.\ gr~tcr than rcrricdi:.1i(ln g(l::als
J. detoc;tod, ntimatod result
UJ. not dc,h1c;ud, detttciion l!mlt approximato
8. VOC\SVOC-detectod In blank: Metals ..estlm.&tod
R. rejected duo to lnslficlo111 matr1x apiko r11co~rlH, ·
NA. not 1nalyztd ·
MW-13A .MW-14
ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
NDfl.0) ~D{I.O)
NO(Ul) ND (1,0)
4.0. 36.0
1J0Jl. UiO,O •
ND (1.0) ND(l.O)
4,0 • ~1.0
NDfl.0) ND (1.0)
ND(l5,0l ND (I S.0)
ND(S0.0) 300.0 •
ND(IOO.O) ND (100.0)
Table 8
GE-Subsitc -Performance \Veil Analytical Results for September 2008. {continued)
GE Lighting Systems Annu:al Performance Monitoring
Easl Flat Rock. North Carolina
Remediation MW-14A MW-15 MW-15 MW-16 MW-16A MW-llA
· Par:1meter Goal Duplie:tte
voes (µg/L)
1.2-Dichlorocth;mc NO {l.0) ND{l.Ol ND (1.0) NOC!.0) · ND fl.0} ND{I.O)
Rc.nzcnc ND (I.Cl) ND(l.0) NDil.O_) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.O)
'Chh1rofom, ND (1.0) ND ( 1.0) ND{l.0) ND/ 1.0) ND(Ul) ND (1 0)
Cis-1.2-DichlN0ethcnc 10 lll.0 ND(l.O) !'-1D(l.0) ND!l.Ol 32.0 . 1.0 .
T ctr:ichl0rocd1cnc IOO.O , NO(I fl) ND(I.Ol ND(I 0) 1~0.0 · 21.0 •
Tr:it,5• \ .J.-D1chlnrf'Clh.cnr 10 i-:o n 01 NO(l.0) ND fl Ol ND(I.0l · t,;D(l.Ol i-;'0 ( 1.0)
T11ch!Nr.c1h~nc " 16.0 • NDO 0) NDfl.0) ND!I.Ol 5.0 ND Cl 0)
Vinyl ChlC">ridc ND(l,r}J ND(\.l'l) ND0.0) ND(l.0) :-I_D(I.Ol ND(l.(l}
'VIETALS TOTAL (µg/L)
L<,d I 5 1'0(15.0) ND(l5.0) NO(IS.0) NO(lS.0) NO(l5.0l ND(l5.0l
Manglncsc lO ND (SO.Cl) 15!'10.0 •. 1300.0 • !iJO.O • 60.0 · ND (50.0)
t--:1ckcl 100 NDn00.0l ND (100 OJ ND (100.0J ND(l00.o) ~0(100.01 ND (100.0l
Notes: Bolrlcd v;iluc~ inc!i~tc ccnccntr:ition~ grc:itcr lh;:n rcmi:diaticm ~o:.ls.
U.NO • no! detected
J -dotoctlXI. 05tim.3ted rr.;ult
UJ • not detectvd. dotoctiori limit approxlmato
B. VOC\SVOC-detected in blank; Moul5·· ntlf"rWltod
. ~-. rojocte-d duo to lnslficierrt mzt:rlx spike recowrios.
NA 0
-not analy:i:e-d
MW-ll
Duplicate
ND(!.0l
ND {1.0)
ND (1.0)
1.0 •
21.D •
t-n (I 0)
. ND/1.0)
ND fl.Cl)
N0(15.o)
NO (50.0)
ND (100.0l
MW-27 MW-l7A MW-l9
NO Cl.0} J.0 • ND r1:o)
NO(l,O) ND(l.O) ND(\.0)
ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.0)
6.0 22.0 ND(l.0)
Ul.O • ,.o :?.0.
ND (LO) ND (1.Cl) NO(l.0l
!1.0 . 9:c;.o ND(I.O)
ND(l.0) ND(l.O) ND(l.Ol"
ND (15.0) ND (IS 0) NO (15.0)
610.0 • 190.0. ND (50.0)
ND (JOO.OJ ND(I00.0) ND(I00.0)
.Table 9
Shepherd Farm Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results for September 2008
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring.
East Flat Rock. North Carolina
Remediation RWSF-1 MW-64 MW-64A MW-66
Parameter Goal.
VOCs (µg/L)
1.2-Dich/llmcth;mc ND(l.0J NDO.nl ND (I.fl) ND(l.Ol
ND (\JI) ND (1.0) ND(\ 0) ND{l.0)
ChlorClform ND(l.Ol NDCl.0) ND(U)) N'D { LO)
70 ND(I.Cll ND(LOJ ND (1.fl) ND(l.OJ
Ttlr.::chloroe:hcnc 6{1,0 • 11.0 · -11.0 • 44.0 •
T :-an~-1.~-Dich!moctr.cnc 70 ,m 11.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND 11.0)
Trichlr,mcthcnc 2.8 ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(.l.O) ND (1.0).
Vin~·! Chloride NDfl.0) ND 0.0) ND(l,0) NO 11.0)
METALS TOTAL (µi/L)
15 ND (I S.O) ND(l5.0) ND(l5.0)
5(1 NDfSO.O) NDf:'iO.Q) ND {50 0) NDCSO.o)
Nickel 100 ND(I00.0) ND/ 100.0) ND(IOO.O) NO (I00Jl)
Notn; Boldcd v;iluCJ indic;itc concCnt~tiC1ns.f:fCiltcr th'Jll remcdi:iticin £,OO!~.
U,NO • ncit detcictcd
J. dt:tlltet•d, o,timatod r85ult
UJ. not detected, dttecUon llmit lpproJ1!m~I)
B. VOC\SVOC-de-tec;;tcd In blank; Mttlls.. est!m.attd
R. rt:tj•ctcd dut to ln1ifli;.lent matrix $pike rtcovarlua .
NA• not ;an.ilyicd
llrn1tdio1io11 THttl Compcmnd1 R,mr~i•1io11 c .... 1 {u~LJ
v<>1,11i/c o,,~nfr c°'"""''""'
\lrn,.:H< ' o,~ofoom ' 1.! DichlO<tirlh.inc ' ~i,-!.2 Ol<Chlo,001l«n• 70
1•-"•S-1.2 DichTorvclhcue 70
T r1rochloroc1h,nc: ' Trichlo,0e1hcnc '' Vini·I L1,lo,idc ' ..
'i,mi-l'Hllril.-O,z,mk c,.,,,f'",,,Js
INiuol,,;nz~"" " u,r .. 11'
~ulwn 7000
lc,ylli~n• • ,..., " 1'1M&IU>ClC ,0
i<lcl "'
•••L•-""M"pnO.,, • ,,._N__,....._...,,~ ..... ,,....,1~,-oc,_.~,·oc,,.,....,,...,.,
, ... ~-...... <;< ........ .......
." ..,,...,,,"""""""' ...,.~'""--•P•<ol~,w,,r..,_,,.,.,_.,
......... u: ................. _.., ~,., ___ , .. _, ... ,,, .. ,_<,( -··-
, .. ~~---,..,-.. ....., ,_,..,;.. .. ,,_.,,...~, ~ ....... ,,.....,.,.,...
J-, .,.,~,. :""' _.,.,.,,.,,.,..,.,., ,,,,.. ,m"""' ..,.,, .. , ..,. '""°"'"'
• , ..... ,.-wJ ,.., ,. .. ..., ~••a'••<•I-,,. ,_.,_ .._ __ ,.,. .,..,.w,r.
,,._, ~ ........ .,.~.,.,~-~ .... -, .. -~ .,_,..,...,,.,d .................. :....,:, , .................. -.. ...
umaoo
lnnunr· F.ffiuuot' .,, 1 .... 11.,
O.UJ ND!ll
.IJJ ND(2J . ., ND(2)
41.7 NO(ll
I.I J ND(2)
m NDUl ,., ND{2)
ND(I) NO(IJ
NU(5) Nil (5)
. 61.5 J 1.6 J .nu . nu
2.2U uu
JOA l.4U
.10 U .10 \J
Table 10
llb1oric~I S11m~1ary of G,o,md,.·tln 1,,0urnr Hd Emurnt R,-1ullJ,Sinn GRS S1 ■n-11p
GE Ucbli■t S)lltllll A,111111111 p.,, ..... ,. ... Mesflorinc
Ent fl•I R.ck, r,:enb Cuoliu"
}11~1?001 "6/lOOI ,r.111.011 10/11/lDOI
lnfln,111 Emunt loOHnl r.m ..... 1 ln010rnl EffiH.-1 lnflurnl r.,nt1rn1
'"-" , •• ,,.1 ru..Jl.1 •··-JI. 'a . '" 'u-/L' •u-11.
Nor,1 ND(I) '-' l'([)(IJ , .. ND(IJ ND(Sl NOCI) ,., ND(2J ._ UJ 1'(0(2J ... ND(ll ND(lt)I NO(1J ,., ND{2J ,., ND(21 ,., ND(l) ND(IOI NU(1J
" ND Pl 61.1 NDU) 95.7 NU(l) 29.2 ND(l)
·ND(IO) N0(2J IAJ ND(2) ,.. NDC2) ND1IO) ND(lJ
m 1'(0(2) m ND{2) '" ND tl) "' NO(!}
"" NlJ{JJ m ND(2) "·' NO (Z) ,,. NOO!
ND(S.0) ND(IJ ,., ND(ll ,.. N0(11 Nll(S) ND(I)
NLJ (S.~} NI)()) ND!.S.31 ND(5) 2.1 NU(j)· ND(SJ ND(5l
95.ll ~.4fl C.UD . 0.94B "' II.I J 90.4 I 157 J
0.68\J 0.17U 0.22U o.nu I.IU 0.22 U 0.17 u. O.J6U
J.9U l.6U i.,a l.lU '' ,·.11,1· 1.9 J ,.,
"' JI.I '" uo 12)(1 J "" "" 1-llG
12.JJ 1.6U l.08 0 IOU ]2.lJ l.O"J 17.2 J }I,] J
lofJ •
U/1111001 l/Ullotl! '111/2002 9/l~lOOl
Jnnurnl Emu,.,1' lullurnl t:!Onrnl lnnncnl (!Oucnr lnOurnl Effiuui1
•••/LI lu•ILI 111•/Ll .,.11,1 ,,..n_, .. -•1. lpl\,\ •u-•t:
ND\S.O) NLJ(I) ND/j_O) NO!I.Ol NO(S.O) ND(l.0) ND(S.0) NO(l.0)
ND(IOJ NU(ll UJ NO(l.01 NIJ(lll.0) NU(2.0I NIJ((0.01 ND(I.0)
r,JD(IO) NOW 7.7J NO[l.01 UJ f'JD(l.01 ND(IO.O) ND(l.Ol
JJ.7 1"D12) }9.9 N0(2.0\ H.7 .ND(l.0) 17.J I'll) (2.0)
Nl}(lnl ND(2) NDtt0.0) ND (2.0) NDtlO.O) NOil.OJ NOtl0.0) ND (2.0J
"' NDl2) "' ND[2.0J "' l'<ID!l.Ol m NtJ {2.0)
11., ND(l) 19.7 ND(2.0) ?JS i-011.01 10.7 NDU.O)
NDU.O! NO(II ND(.i.01 ND\I.Ol NDC5.0) NO(I.Ol ND(l.OJ ND(l.Ol
ND(jJ NIJ(S) NA N, NA NA NO(S.OJ 1.21
71A J "' 112 J ).SJ '" 0 . .!.9U 14.9 J 0.-!9 U
0.22 U 0.22 ·u 0.61 J . o.nu 0.Ib U 016 U o.u,u 0.2,,11
HU 1s., ?.3J 1.61 2.1 J l.2LJ J.5U 2.4 U ..... 2B.2J U9D H.6 '" IS.2 ... ll.9J
10.2 J 2.JJ 20.4 J ll.7J 16.-1 J I.I U 16 .. H I.IJ -
R,n,rdi•tion T•r&•I Corn pounds K,nudi~lion Cul (11~/I.)
Volntil~ o,,,,,,;, Co111P4'1,itd~
Benz«,.: I
a,Jotulcrm ' 1,2 Ditl1lctuc1twl<: ' cl>•U [>it·hkl,oe1hrn~ " ltun,-1,Z Oichlotuclhone " T(ltacldomc1'1<,nc ' ·r,;ohlc,0<1hcnc , ..
Vinyl Cht,.,riok ... ' 1'>rmi.f'alarilr 011ft11/c: Comp~u11d•
N;uobcn~c,,c 10
.llrtal<
Buiur11 >000
9<'<} Uiun, ' t,·:id ,;
/.-1::on~:inci..• " icld 100
.,,_ ... ~ .... --, ... , ...
, n.......,.,...., • ..., .. .., •• .., ..... ..,.. ... ,·oc,....,»c,--,,A,,,.n,1,
,,. • .,.~,.. • .._fic....,,,.,ffl,~,,
: .,~., ...... ~--••••~--•-••n<c,ok,,..r._,_,.,..~,,.
"'"'"' ... C,t ,.._ d,O., •..J,,-,, ....... ,.,,./m,_<,[ _....,,n.m ,.,.,..,_.~,~•,..••«•• ,_,,,.,., .. cu ..... ,,,,.,,,_,,,_...,.,_. ... ,
S-,A.,. .... -..00._.,r•p••••-...... • ....................... .... . s-""•"''""''"" ''""'"..., ,._.,,.,_,.,,~ • ...,....., ,.,.,...,,.,,._.,J,..,
><A-1<.o,o..,,..r , .. .,_,._ ... ._..,, ............ -
<J,a"UN~,ou.......-.~,,_..,,,,.r,
I ZII0.12001
Inn .. ,., Emu,nt •
'11-/1." tu ILi
Nf>/S.O) NO!l.01
ND(IO.OJ NO (2.01
Jj J N0t2.0l
21.7 ND(Z.0)
ND(IOO) NU t1.0) ,,. NO c?.O)
20.0 NO{?.Ol
Nll(S.OJ NO{l.01
.. -
S'>.2 J 17 . ./ J
0.l(,11 0.26 U
l.2U l.l u
"' UJ
4,2 J l.lU
Table 10
llblotk•I Su1nn•~•y o(Cn<1111huhr lnflutnl ud t:ffiucn1 R.,wlu Sin<~ CKS Sllt1•11p·
CJ; 1.;,1,1;•1 Syu•m• ,\no11•I Pulerm1111n fll1111l1•ri11c
l:ul ~lU \lock. Nonb Cnroll1H.
311moo3 '11 ?11003 9/!lnOGJ .mnoo~ ')/161200~
1nnu••1 rmu,111 111nu,111 i,:m.,,., 1110.col ~:fllutlll I laOunl Efflu,111 • 1 .. 0 .... , F:tu11cnl 1
<u•l!.I (u•'L' . n.• .. •• ... " ···-". ·, IL' ,.,.:fl.... L• ".
NDtl.O} NDCI.Ol NO/U) NDjl.0) NOjS.O) ND(l._0) ND_r;.OJ ND(l.01 Nil (I.OJ ND(l.0)
I.I J N0{2.0) ND/10.0) Nl)\2.0\ Nll(I0.0) ND(2.0) NU(I0.01 ND (1.0) 1.9 J ND(20)
u ND(l.O) ,., Nl)IZ.0) 26 ND(2.0\ NU(IO.OJ ND{2.0) 2., ND{"2.0l
" ND(2.0) NA N0t2.0) JOA ND(2.0) " ND(2.0J 1•.1 N0f2.0}
'·' ND{2.0J Nll(\0.0) NDU.OJ ND(IO-OJ ND(l.0) ND (IO.O) ND (2.01 NO (2.0) N0(2.0)
.1a, N0(2.0) '" 0.HJ "' N0(2 0) "' N0\2.0) '" N0{2.0)
rS.7 NOC2.0J 16.9 ND(2.0J 2U ND(l.01 >5.J ND (1.0) Jl.9 NO (2_0) ,., ND(l.0) ND (S.0) t,;Utl.01 NO(S.OJ M)(l.0) ND(S.OJ NU(l.0) OJ,-1 J ND(l.0)
N• NA N, N• ND(S.OJ ND(S.0) NA N• NO(j.01 NO{j.lJ
54J J OA9U 6'5J J :S.7 J 60.4 J I.SJ 70.1 J l.9J 71.4 B un
0.26 U 0.26U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U 0.26 U JO ll 0.JO U O.JOU O.lO U
J.}J l.2U l.2U I.HJ t.9U uu ; t.6U uu 1.2 U
'" -l.2J IOlO '" '" " .,,. 21.1 '"' U.6
1'5.lJ I.I u 18.jJ 2.2 J IHJ LI ll 20.61 2.1 J 18.l!J ..
1 nf•I
11/16/Z.00~ .ll1'>1l005 •nmoo~
l110nn1 Ullu1n1 1"n11,n1 Efflurnl lonu,nt Efflla,nt
•u•f\.' •u•ILI ,.,.,1., ,.,.,,., •u1/L' •u•IL·
ND{l.01 NO(I.Ol Nf>tlO) NI.Jlf.01 ND(I.OJ ND(l.0) ,., ND (2.0l ,., Nf>(l.01 ,., ND{I.Ol
'-' l'ID!l-01 ,., NO{L.01 2.8 t,IU(\.OJ
'' N0(2.0) 9.1 NU(LO) 15.7 .ND(l.0)
ND(2.01 N0(2.0) Nlltl.0) t,/O(LO! ,., ND(I.O)
"' N0\2.0) '" NDtl.Ol '" ND(l.0)
" NU(2.0l ,., ND(I.Ol ., NO(I.OJ
1'10{1.0l ND(l.0) NncLOl NO(l.01 ND(l.01 ND{l.0)
"' NA "' "'' NA N,,
71.} J 1.1!,l "' NA N• "' I.SJ .I U NA NA N,, NA
UJ 2.9U ~.o 1:1 }_) B J.O 0 l.2U
I.HO JUJ "" 46.4 '"' lj.2
"' I.I J .29.3 B l.S B )8.211 "u
R,mr~i11io11 Tor,rl <.:ompound1 llffl1tdi1tion Goal (11&/LJ
Voltr,11, Orto1tic c,,,~pomufs
Brn= ' Chloa,Coron ' 1.2 l)ichk>mc11\->n< I
ci,-1,! DicMorocchcne 10
l~ru.!.2 Dichkl,o,1h,.,c " T<l""-'hlcroeth<ne ' Trichlo,uc1hc1>c ,,
Vinyl Chlorid~ ' r~,,,;.v.,1aiil~ O'Jl•"i" c;;,,,P<>,,,,,i,
i1,ol.icnltnc " '""'', 3rium "'° locrylli1,11n • Lc~d " .~1•ns~••~ " Nickel '"
l. ,_ ........ _ ... ....., ......... ""'.,,,.,·oc,~"-oc-r""'-"' _,..M ... (,{ .... { ... ~,b
: ... ..; ..... .._.,.,,:,n:; ................. .,.,.. .................. ¥ ......... ...
,_,,.,.,,_..,_....,,~, • .,,..,.. .. cu,.,..,.....,.,._..., ......
,,..,,.....,,,,,,. . ..,.,. ..... ,_,.,.,.,,.,,r...,..,,.._, ...... ,.,
• S-,ta ................ , ."to,,_,...,.,.....,,.,.....,,_,_,...,. •••-"•">~"..r,N,
r-.-.. ,-... ,.~,---··""·-·""''" .... ~.-. ....,. ... "...,,,, ..... , ... ,.,. ... ,~,
IZ!'J/l0:05
111nu,111 Emu..,,
•u·'L' l~•n.1
ND(l.0) ND/1.0)
NO(l.0) NO(J.OJ
NO{l.0) f',11)(1.0) ,., t,1O(1.0)
ND(1.0l NO!I.O)
"·' ND(I.Ol ,., NO(I.Ol
Nnc1.01 NO(I.Ol
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
" 2.0 D
"" w
70.4 II .H.711
Table 10
llbloriul San,m•ry o(Cr•11111ln-,1,, lnnu,nl 1nd £fflut11I R1111IH Slnt• CRS Sl1r1·11p
CE Uihib1c S)'Jlu11i ,.,·,..,.,., Pnformanto Alonil•rinC
Ea,1 rlal .Rork, Nonh C1roliu
.llH/%006-"17ncti,• . 9/lt/200' JJi,1100,
111011<111 ism ... .,, la0U<UI £.rn .... , l110unl El'llu .. 1 h,nu,n1 [fflu,,.1
111.11,1 l!!•II.! ln•/L '11-'L· '11 II.' ... -'u-'L' . 'u-'L'
ND4I.O) NO(I.OJ NOr5.0) NDrl.Ol NO(l.0) N0/1.0l NO cl.OJ ND(l.0) ,., ND(l.0) u NO[l.01 ,., ND!I.OJ I ND(l.0)
1., ND(l.0) ,., Nlljl.Ol J.I 0.84 J ' NO(l.Ol
19.4 t,/0(1.0) " Nll(l.0) ,., ,., . 20 NU(I.OJ
0.6l NO(I.O) NI} (5.01 NO{l.01 0.6? r NOii.DJ <I NDCI.O)
"' NO{l.Ol "' NDtl.01 "' ,., '"' J,,1D1LO)
H.J ND(l.0) ''-' .NO{l.01 '' NDCI.Ol ,., l
NOtl.Ol ND(l.0) ND{S.01 NOtl.01 ND(l.0) ND(l.01 <I NIJ0.0)
NA NA NA • NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA · NA NA N,, NA' NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA. NA
l.7fl l.2U 2.2B J7.l ).:!A ~.on Nll(IS1· NO(Ul
1430 }I.) 13'0 IJI "'' "' " " 21.8 R Hll JO.? 8 . Jl.18 41.6 9.J B ND'IOOl .NO•lOO)
, ..
-
'115/2011 9119/2007 1w11noo1 l/281?003
1 .. na .... , Em ... 111 lnll11<11l Emu111 loll,unl i:.:mur111 lnllutnl EIT11anl
fu•/LI . . h!PILI •11~\ f11•/LI lu•IL\ lu-'L' 'u·IL' 'u-fL'
l'IDfLOl NDCI.OJ NOii.OJ NIJ(I.Ol NO(l.0) NIJ(l.0) ' NU(l.0)
ND\1.0) >l00.0) 1 ND ti.OJ ' ND(l.0) ' NO(l.0)
J NDCI.O) J ND(l.01 J NO(l.01 Nl}(l.01 NDCl.0)
12 NOil.OJ " NO(l.0) " ND{l.0) " NO(l.0)
ND42.0) NO!l.0) NO(LO) NO(l.0) Nr>tl.O) Nll(l.0\ NUCLOJ ND(l.0)
"' J,,IQ{I.OJ uo NDtl.Ol '" t-,:0(1.Dl '" ND(I.OJ
11.0 NDC2.0) JS Nl}\f_.Ol " NOP.OJ " NO!LO)
NIJ(I.Ol NO(l.0} ND(J.0) NDtl.0) ND(I.OJ NOCI.O) NDILO) NO(l.0)
NA NA N,, NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
ND(1.0J I NDtm NIJ[IS) N0(15) ND((Sl ND{I.IJ ND(t)l
·110 '" ,,,. "" J,700 '·"' l,(i()O , ....
" Nl)IS.0) NO•IOOI NO•IOOI ND(IOO) Nll'IOOI ND'IOO!_ NO'IOO
~ll-lllOOI
Rr,ntdi•tlon T111:r1 Comrou•d• n,11,r,1i,1ion !Joalfui)LJ lnOunt Etnut11I ,,--' , .. -H.'
l'olalilr Or1011i<: Ca,11pQui,,f1
Bcnune ' O.:UJ, Nf>//.0)
Lhlo,ofo,m ' 0.7-IJ NDil.O)
J.2 Dichlo,0•1h-1nc ' ' 1-fD(l.th
ciJ-U Dichlorncllu:!Le 70 " ND(l.0)
!r~n,-1.2 Dichlo1Mllw;r,c 70 0.29) NO(l.OJ
l(112"hlon><1hc11< ' , .. " Tnchlo,or1hrnc ,_, " 0.61 J
Vin) I Cl!Wfidc -· ' ND(l.0) Nll.(1.01
<"",,.U-1',,J,,,;J,. Or,:d11ic Ct111rpan,r,IJ
1Ni1mbrn,1e1>< " "' N,
1,,,,.1,'
8:rriuni 2000 NA NA
a,.,rUir,m ,, H,, HA
. '"' " NO(l5l NOIIS)
MQnt:ti= " '·"' '-'" idcl '" NI) '100) No •1001
.. l-,.•-,......,.. , ,,,._..,...,,..........,., ....... .-.,,,-0,-,-.,,n,.·-.1 ••• ....,,
....... -. ...... 0, ..... ,.. ...... . ' ................. --~~ ... _,_, ................. _,,,. ... ..
......... ,;, ............. _,.,,. ... __ ........... c.E .. , ..... ,._ ,......,,,...,,.,._ .......... ......, .. ou-u,,~.,..,..,._,.....,_.
, .. , ........ .n.. ............ ._,...,...,,fl!_...,~·"'"''-'"" _.,.-,,,;11,,.,._ .... ,., ............................... ~ ............... -
,,._,.., ...... J., ....... , ....... .,..,.,.. ... ~ -~ .... .., ...... ,,.,,~ ....... ,. ...... -~ ...
• n.1 ... ., .. ,.._,J,-.;... ................ , .......... ,,, ... ,..._..,_,,,, ... -.............. , .... .
Table 10 ,
lli110riul S•111m1ry o{ Cu111•d~alrr l•llu•11I nd r.m...,111 lhoult, Siner CRS Slut-up
GE L'1hll111 s,..11.,, An.,ul l'•rfarman« Muilori111
Ea,1 t"t,1 R1rk,'N0rth C1uli111
1111/01 SJ?,W·. ,115ro&
lnflutnt F.ffiuut1 h11l1UI [ffi11r111' lnflatlll Etnu,111'
•--•v. 'L'" v· -•c, L>
Nl>!I.IJt NUii.OJ o.z; J ND(/.0) 0.16} ND/!.0)
' NO(l,0) ' ND(l.01 ' ND(l.0)
' NO(l.0) ' ND(l.01 ' NO(l.0)
" NO(l.0) " -NO(l.0) " ND(I.OJ
NDU.0) NO{LO) 1m,1.oi NO(l.0) 0.29) ND(l.0)
BO NOCl.0) "' ND!l.0) "' ND(l.01 • ND/1.0) " i-lllt!.OJ " ND(l.0)
NOll.01 ND(l.0) )<JD (I.OJ N011.01 Nl}(l.0) Nl}(t.Ol
NA HA NA NA NA NA
HA NA HA NA NA NA
NA NA N,, NA H• NA
N, H, H,> HA ND{Ul ND(IS)
NA NA HA HA 1.100 1.100
HA NA NA HA . ND(lOOl NDllOOI
' • ! fl ft l I l l ; i ! q I ' : l l l ~ ~ -~ t ~; q I i ! ! if n: t . I l l i n..: tn i ' ' J :. i I ' . ' ., •. ,
f • l f
I j
' ' l l
t ' • i
~-
f ••§a"••·i,
1-------1---1•
"' .. .:.. ... <> 0,:, <> i: !l: s----:::r!:o·:; ..
11------+-H~
<>:'.:!:iL'::;'.:::o4. §
,:, 0 <> 0 ,._, <> 0 .. ■, ,.,
;-----+-<1
;;~;~;;;~!.
·z
~:.~_f:;'.~;,~if
.,,..~ ... 0000 ;;:= =::.=.:~::ir:~=·~ ~
z z i ~s=~~-=;.;~f..,
~~~;~~;;lf
i~t~~~~:; i.~
oo=;--0,:>f'.>Oji f~';&:::::s:te ~ ~
!:::::::•;;~~i
c,,:,0,-0000 ~i
!:! i:: '::: ~:::::; e .-~
.,. ~ t::::; !'" ~..,; r., .
(,.."'8"''" D-~-~
;;~~;;~;l!!~
~~S=!t:e:;: lj
;;~~;~;~~!!
"•"•"·"".;_ .... .,. 0 .. "'"' .... ~ '· i" I-----+-<,
? ... t:.'-<>OOf'> i:I! c::" f;::; 2 fi: I::::::.;-~ ~ . I
~:;:r;:~;;;;::;~is
' ~;;~~~~;~I!
·----·---~ e-=-:s,....,E:ll .•
1------+-J•
oo,..o"':c>:c><> e:i ei;.:5::-.:ei~e-:: ie
z I
t :tj§}}t~.=11 •. ;::;~~~~~:i_
o.,~:--z.-?o ~t
'r:t:~S>::::¥:S-:; !
Z 7. Z Z Z ,i; l; 2g~~}2;';' f
E:::t:~ §£!; 1
~s;e~e;~.j-.
: • ~ oH c: 1.
; ;s~;ee;e!-~
I-. -----++.j~
::&:~;;;~-~ !,.., -
1------H~
0., '::: .. 0"' 0 0 g !. ~':::ii;::=2lSQ ·~
-~t:"'z,_,,.,., i ... a: :is :s:::, .. "' 'O z-~
0 :" e:.;; z -0 <> i1; !.
~-~ 8 'I:: ►,8?::: -~ . i
~=~~~;;:;i, -1------i .., ... :;;ozoo·o if!.
~ t:: e Zl > ~.::::: ·:
~fZ~:;,~~i-
1-----<>-<'
<;>~~;'-<><>OC> ~i :::8~~f~::e·~ j
;:,;Coa:f)
1------+-<r
e>,.~,_.o,:,op it!!
2 $; !: ;: ~ ,t;;:-::
~:i§~~;;~ ... J_
f------+-J' ;~gi~;;;ji t!
z z z z i ~g:;:~~'.!~i ;:;: ~ .e .. ! ~
~;;;~~e~Ji
. ,.__·u£:,;K
P~r11ml."ICI" owri. ~:,ws1
V1>larik ()r:::~nk Compm111d~ (ui:fl..)
1.:-Dith!Mo~thane ].7
lscn;,.e11~ " r,..'.hlnmfnrn1 170
io:1~ 1 . .?-Ditl•lorC'\Crilcl\C 4.Ql'lO
f;-ti rncl•l11 roe1hc nc .. ,,;t
ram,-I .l•Oi,hlrirroc1h1:ne 10.ocn
rTriel\lnns:thcnc 30
Vmy\ chhindc :.•
~cmi,\'nl;ililc Or:anic C11mnnunlh: {ui:fL)
tt1e1hcn/..tnc '°
I mk/ui:/i~l 2on.ooo ~ariurn
~ciyllim\l '' "' 25
~an~1t1c~c NL
h-Jk~d 8S
PClh Tollll (uPILl -
NCOt:NK
r~r11mcrer own~w:,;:1
'nl:llilt Or,:.~n!c Cnmpnuntl~ (uwl,)
1.2-D,ehlnr(\clh:inc _,,
laen1.cnc , 1
lcl-Jnrofr,mi f'O
ci~-1.2-Dic11l0rocthc11e J.<lOO IT ctr~chlornc 1hcnc ),;
11ra11~-l . 2-D1cl1l nrr>e:then<' 10.non
l'rrich!NnclhCn<' Jll
Vinvl chlNiclc 2.4
"""")
~~'-• l!'llct<"l:fllt'I' pU Lno<
• .~\\'.1 ""-'""' ,o,,.pl•d "'" ,., """ cnad,11,.,,~
• UJ<D .,.,..I dctcclt<I
1...-.,cc1cd, t<ll~1'll« rc,uh w .... ~ d~1oci«1. Do<~""" Lu":111 •~l'f"~•:i-:llr
D-C1hniM1.,,,plc •
SW-\
ND {2 0\
ND 11.<l)
ND f.?.(1)
ND (2.01
KO {Z l'1l ,n (.2.0l
:,.;:o 12.n1
ND /1.0l
NO (t-.0)
\6,7 J
O.S U
1.2 u
4l(', .l
2 0 J
NO /OJ)
5W.J
'" f:?.ol ,n I I n1
ND (2.01 ,,, (2.l'l)
o., ' ND !1.0i
NO· !2.0l
ND /\.01
Table 12
Summary nf Surf;lcc W:uc:r Results Since ·c.RS S1.1rt l 1p
GE Li;:htin~ .Systcrns Annual Pcr(n,,.;,ancc·.,1nnitnrin:: ·
F.ut Flat Rnck. Nnrth (:au1lin.t
Mnlember ?000 Scntcmhcr 201'II
SW-l SW-J SW-1 :--w-i SVI.J
ND <:!.0) ND CO) ND !.?.OJ NO 12.11} ND I.? 0)
ND (1.0) ,TI ! 1.0) ND II.OJ NO (1.n} ND ,1.01
NO (:U>) ,,, 1:.0) ND la.th ''□ (1,0·1 ND (2,0)
ND r: m Nil r::.01 NI) 11.0) ND ,:.ni ND <:!.0)
2.6 ~.o ·ND c::ni I I J I' .I
ND (2.01 NO r.!O) ND (2.0) ND \\Jill !Vll .NO 12 rn
ND (2.0) NO C..n) ~1) (2,0\ ND {2.Dl ND /2 0)
ND (1.0) NU (I 0) ,n 11.<11 NT) (1/Jl (1.0) ND (1.0)
NO (:S.0) ND ($.Ol ND 1$.01 ND 15.$\ NO 15.$1
l IS.Cl J :!4: J U.2J :?UJ ::o.o J
OJ> U o.,. [J 0.22 U n.nu 0.22 U
4.3J 1.2 u !_I) u 1.J u 1.4 U
l 1.4 .I 71\.fi J 2S.1 J 1.0 131
\9.2 J 2 II U o.xo tj 0.110 U O.SO U
NO /0.5) NO f0.S\ · STI ro.:si ND 10 !iSl NO ro.:s1
S<:nltmbcr 2000 5c:;,1tmbcr !001
5W-5 SW-6 SW..4 !-W-5 SW.J.
S'O (2.01 ND IYt\ J,;!) (:?Jl) ND /~.01 NO (2.0\
NO c I OJ ND !I 0) ND 11.01 NO ,1.oi ND Cl 01
:S:D (2.01 ND (:?{)) NO 12.0) NO (2.01 ND {2.0l
~D (2.ll) ND ,:::.n) ND f:?.Ol ND ,2.01 ND (2.0l
2 . .1 •:,.;o r:.Cn 040 ., n n.li7 .I
ND ND :,.'l) ,::.01· ND l:?.01 '1) (2.0) ND (2.0l
1'1) ND Sl) (::!.0) ND (2.ll) ND {2.01 ND [2.01
ND ND ~D (1.01 ND {I.OJ NO 11.m ND fl.Ol
SW-1"
.SV.'..4
ND c:.fll
1'D Cl.OJ
ND {2.0)
>JI) C2.fll
NO {2 fl)
ND 1:::.01
ND 0.0)
NO 11.01
E""'......!ulibrn11M.l1m11
B-i"""d ia ,1~~
'~., 1~4 ~CAl :8 (,a ...,It.I. f.., VO<,. 1h 11Md.,d, ;:~I~ rcOcCI k'""1UI )l.c&ld1 OsH) <"IC'NI Then~..-M HH <Ille!\& far lud ar llickcl Md lhrccfr-,: !hi:if fn:,,.),.,..1.,-~,t..::1ic Mc cu ten, ~c !,ca, u,~
!r,/_I
~cnlemhcr ~002 sw.z SW•)
ND r:m (1 0\ ND
ND CLO\ (I.{'}) ND ,,, {2.0) (2.0\ ND
SD 1::.oi {!.O) ND 0" J I_; J
ND f.? 0) {2.01 ND
ND (:!.O) /2.0) NO
NO /1.tll (I Ol S'O
ND 1$.ll NO {$.0)
27 I .1 277 J
0.2(1 U ,;"l,2J> \J
HJ 2.''.l)
64.4 40'
1.11; l ! \J
0.27 } ,-o fO.Sl
S<'nlembcr 2002
SW-5 SW../i
NO (2.0l NO f2.o)
ND (I I)) ND Cl.O)
ND [2.0) ND [2.0)
ND (2.rl) ND (2,0)
2.fi 0.61 J
S'D (2.0) NO (2.0)
ND C.O) NO (2,0)
~D fl.0l ND {1.01
NCOl:.'"NH.
"11~rnctcr nwnsws• SW•I
111:illle Orp11it Ct1mpo11nd, (11c/L) •
r ,2-D,chlr>rl'IClh~ne ,, :,;o <2 Ol
tB,nzcnc " ~D (1.01
r("hlor11fon11 "' so (2.0)
I~ 1.2-!1ith\{lfl'>Clhc"c 4.llOO ,n (2.lll ·
ctnichlnr('lclhcnc :u ,n (2.01
mir.s-1.2-Dich!cimcthtn~ . 10.000 ,n {2.0)
nchlnrne:hcnc ;n ,n (2,0)
Viriyl chloride .: . .: ,n (I 0)
',cmi-VoL-itilc Or,::ink Comp11unds {ui:/Ll
'"'itrobenzcr.c :;o ND IS.Jl
,,,ct.ii.I (uc/L)
B:itium 200.000 31.:l J
8,:ryllitrrr, (,.5 o.::-\J·
iu,d " ,.o J
1M·~11~:inc~ NL J1.('i
rt,'1cl.c:l " ).2 J
P('.8~ Tat:11 fn,.,l,l -ND (0.S?l
Nl.Ut./llR
r:>r:>m~lc-r nwo.-;w.,1 SW~
Vnbtl_lt Or,::inic Compnunds. (uc/L}
I .2-Dic11101,:,c1h~nc )7 ND (2.0l
Benzene " ND /101
!Chloroform '" NO {2.0l
)ci.v l .?-D1chlor,:,c:llc11e ,.ooo ND {2,0)
h" ctr,1chl oroethe ne 3.3 1.2 J
1r.ms-I .!-Diehle1roc:henc 10.000 NO (2.01 ·
T"1iehle1rocihcnc 30 ND f2.0)
Vinvl ehlClrid~ 2.4-ND (1.01
·"""~~-
"l,!"1 •• ,,., .. , .... ,.-,,.,.1'<, i.,.,
.'-1 ... -<lN ,.,m.~1<'11. d,~rf"'d ft Ml \t<I I"' 1/~f.r/\ >nd Nf"l)E"-111.
1 • .. -..:n -nn\ d~l<tlod
i:J...,., lktl.Cltd. 1'<1c<UM L•r.,n np~•~"~,n/ .·
D-<!ol\lUM .amr,I:
E..-..c.e~d t.>l•~•~•~n Ir""'
l',.(,,.S\d "'N""l
Table 12
Summary <>(Surfat"c·Watcr Rc.,;ulu Since GRS Srart {Ip
GE Li~htiai Systems Annual Performance Monitorini:=
Eu:t Flat Rock. Narth Carolina
.
S,ntcmhcr ?O0J ~----;;-fcmbcr20(),.$
SW-l SW-J SW-1 ~-2 ..
ND ,2.01 ND r:.o) ND 12.ni ND (:?.0)
NO fl.Ol ND CI.O) ND fl.0) ND {1.01
ND (2.0) ND C.O) SD (2,0) ND f?.0) ,n (2.1'11 NO (2.(1) ,n ,2 0) ND fl.0l n., J I.J J ND (2.0) ND {2.01
ND {2.0l ND {2.0) ND (2,0) ND 12.0)
ND (2.0) ND (1.rl) ''D r2.o) ND (2.0J
. ND (1.0) ND (1.01 ,n (1.0) ND I I.Cl)
NO lS.J\ ND 15.21 ND (!i. I) ND IS. I J
20.fl J JI)_,' J 21.2 B 26.8 B
0.) u o.;:. u 0.3 u 0.) u
1.2 u -U u 1.2 u 1.2 u
)4' '" '" ll flO.I
I.I u I.I u 0.8 B 13 B
ND /0.S:!1 ND 10.rn "° 10 SJ l ND (0.51)
Se1mmbcr 2003 Stntcrnbcr :f)().j
SW-~ SW~ SW-4 SW-~
NO. f2.fll ND (2.0\ ND . (?.0) ND C?.Ol
ND (I.OJ ND (I.0l NO ( 1.0) ND (1.0}
,n !2.0) ND {:?.01 ND . !2.0) ND (2.01
ND {2.01 ND no1 ND (2.0) ND <l.0) ,., J 0,6 J ND (2.0) '·' J ,n ·1!.0) ND 1:.r.) ND (2.0) ND {!.OJ
ND [2.0) ,n (~.0} ND !2.0} ND 12.01
'-'D 11.0) :--:o fl.OJ ND II.OJ SD 11.01
SW-J S\¥-1
NO /:?.OJ ND Cl.OJ
NO nm ND fl.OJ
NO (2.0) NO fl.OJ
NO (2.()) NO (1.0\
I.I J NO fl.OJ
:-:o {2,0J ND fl.OJ
ND (2.0) ND fl,O)
ND {1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (S. JJ NA
)9J B NA
0.3 u NA
1.2 u 1.1 B
'" 21.6 ,., B I.I \J
NO ro.sn ND (O.JR)
sw .. SW-4
ND (?.OJ ND {1.0\
NO {!.0) ND {1.0}
ND · {2.01 ND ·n 01
ND (2.0, ND (I.Ol
'·' J ND {1.0)
ND no, ND 11.0)
ND (! 0} ND (1.01
NO n.Ol ND (1.01
'ro, :•.\ >W,\r' !!\ 1,~ ui:-1.\. r~, VI)(",. 11,.c 11,,,d:,d. ;:cncraU,· ,cnw 1>u•1,a11 hull~ cHH'l ,,.ic,.,~ T1•c"= "'" ""H1'I crllCf!~ f~•lo.,6,., "tdc1 ,,n~ ,t,c,cfNe ,t,c,i ,,.,,~,..,.,., ~w.c•c hf, .,.,w,~ ~_.,.._ ),,Nr,.1,1od
Sent cm bcr 200:t sw., SW-J
ND 1\,0) ND (1.0)
ND Cl.()) ND {1.0)
NO (1.0) NO {J.0)
NO (1.n) ND (].Q)
0,74 J O.SI J
ND (\.0) NO (1.0)
ND r1 __ 0) ND (1.0)
ND (Ul) ND 11.0)
NA NA
NA i"A
NA ~~
2,8 B 4. I B
S\.4 5?.0
1.2 B I.I I!
0.7 ''D /0.4&1
Sct11cmhcr ?OM
SW-~ SW-6
NO (1.0) ND. (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
NO (l.0) ND ·c1.01
ND (1.0) ND fl.0)
I.I ND (1.0)
ND [I.OJ NO . {1.0) ,n (1.0) ND (LO)
ND {1.0l N::) {1.01
,,...;Ot:;NR
1":,r:imcf~r own.sws1 SW-1
Volitilc Orr;ank Comrnnnds (ui:{L)
\.2-Did1IN!'.ICThn;ic J7 ND (1.0)
Bcnz~n~ 51 ND (I.OJ
\,lorr>fl'lnn 110 ND {1.0)
lei~-l .2-Dichloroc1hcroc '·""' ND {1,{J}
~c!n:chlorocttlenc J.J ND {1.01
traiu-1.2-Dich!Nc>clhcne 10.000 ND (1.0)
~rich1or~1he11c, JO ND n.m
Vinyl ehlondc ;!A ND (I .0)
MC'!~I• (u::IL)
,<:old " 1.8 • M.in{:.lnc.~c NL 37. l
~u;:kcl !tit o., 1,
PCB, TotJl fv .. fLl -ND W.¢01
,-...cul:::NH
Pnr11mrtrr DWOSWS' SW-4
Vol11tilc Or:rmir \.001pnnn1b (ui:/L)
1.1-Dichlorocth:inc 37 ND (1.01
Bc-11;,;c11c 51 ND (1.01
1-hl,:,rMorn1 170 ND (10)
i~-1.2-Dlchlr-rr,cthcnc J,9{)0 NO (1 OJ IT ctr;:c hlnrncthcnc 3.3 0.61 I
r:1n~-l .:!-D1chlnmcihenc I0.000 NO (1,0)
tTrich!orro~thcnc " NO {I 0)
Vmvl chlriridc " NO (l,Oj
,V,,,o:
SA-,1n1 ,amplo,d, d•~l'f'<'d r,...,, lu! pc, l_lSEPA ,,,d SCDO.li;
11,-;n ..,,n•ikl=l<'CI
J..,fc,1e<1od, ,.,,n~,,...i ..... ur,
11_1.M•I ~c,wcd. n.<«1,..,, l ,n•t1 ,pr""•~•arc
tl-ti:rn,nn ,oo,:,Jc
E-r,uc,l '-,1,1,.,,,.,.., hm,,
B-f,•,md 1n '";.,L
Table 12
Summary of Surface Water R~ults Since GRS Start lfp
GE Lizhtin~ Systems Annu1ill Performance Monitorin«:
Ea~t Flat _Rock, Ncu1h C:arnlii:ia
Scntcmllcr 2006 Sentcmbcr 2007
SW-2 I SW-J SW-I .!-W-2 SW-J
SD CI.OJ NO fl.0) ND Cl.OJ ND (.!.OJ ND 11.0)
ND r 1.0l NO ( 1.0) ,-o {1.01 ND ,1:01 ND CJ.0)
}:0 {1.0) ND C 1.0) NO {1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND {1.01 ND rr.01 ND II.OJ ND rl.0) ND {1,0)
0.91 J \.2 ND (1.0) NO Cl.o) ND (I.OJ
ND (l.Ol ND (!.0) NO fl.OJ ,-o fl.OJ ND {1.0l
ND run ND fl.fl) ND rl.O) "' n .O) ND (1.0)
ND · (I.Ol ND (1.o) ND ·,1.01 ND (1.0) NO (1.0)
1.7 u ,., u ND (1 SJ NO (151 ND 115)
Ui.J ltJ 2 NO (50) ND !SO) ,0 (50)
o., \J " \J ND /lt'tn) ND ! 100} NO {IO!'ll
ND /0.rn NO {0.50} ~D {1.0) ND 11.0) NO Cl.OJ
Scrltmbcr:?006 Sc•1tcmbcr 2007
SW-5 SW~ $.W-4 sw.5 SW-<
ND (1.0) ,-o (1.0) ND 11.0) NO I 1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.01 ND /l.01 ND (\,0) ND (1.o\ NO /U'I)
ND (1.0) ND 1UI) ND (1.0) ND Cl.OJ ND (1.01
ND r1.01 ND (1.01 ND (1.0} ND Cl.Ol ,-o IU'll
'·' 0,(,~ J NO (1.01 .i,O rim ,-o (1.tH
NO (1,0) ND (1.0) ND (\,0) NO 11 OJ XO {1.Cl)
ND r 1.01 ND fl.OJ ND fl,O} ND ll O) NO C 1.01
ND (\.0) NO fl.0) ,-o f !.OJ NO 11m ,-o 11.01
SW-I
ND (l.0)
ND (1.0)
ND (l.o)
ND (1.ll) ,.,, (l.0}
ND {I.OJ ,-o (I.Ol
ND (1.0)
ND 115)
ND {SO)
NO (1001
ND (1.0)
SW-l
ND (Ul)
NO fl.Ol
NO {1.0)
NO {1.0)
ND (1.0\
ND (1 0)
ND fl 0)
ND fl.O)
'rtr l.'A N< Al" :A r,~ "f•1.l. fn• voe, 1ho ,1:,r,dal'rl, ~.-,.o,,tt,-nn..c, hrrn'-'n hc,!1h (HI-fl cn1.,-r, Th<l'I: •n "" HH cn1tn, Ir,, lo•cl r, n,cL" .,....i '"•11:fnrc ~,.,, t,ulm·•••• i,..111r.1,c Irk Q>I<"' ,.,,,..1-een Ul'Od
Sentcrnbcr :mos
SW-2 sw.,
ND (\,Ql ND I 1.0)
ND rl,OJ ND ( 1.0)
ND Cl.Ill ND (1.0)
ND (l.fll ND ll.Ol
ND (I.Ol ND (l:O)
ND (1.0) NO (/.0)
ND (1.0) NO {1.0)
ND (1.0} ND .. (l.o)
ND ( 151 ND /l!i)
6-0 (50) ,0 {SO)
ND pno1 NO (100)
ND Cl.OJ };D fl.OJ
St•llcmbtr ?008 sw.~ SW_.
ND (1.0) ND /1.l'l)
NO { 1.0) ND rt.OJ
ND {l.0) ND /I.OJ
ND (1.0) ND rl.Ol
I (1,0) ND (1.01
ND (1.0\ ND (1.0l
NO fl.M NO [I OJ
ND fl.OJ ND (1.0)
r-:C•Stdimenl
Table 13
Summary.of Sediment Results Since GRS Start Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Perfonna·nce MOnitoring
East Flat Rock. North.Carolina
Seotember.2000 Seo tern ber 200 I
P:ior!lmtltr S1,1ndardi SEO-I SED-2 ·. SE.0-J SEO-I SE0-2 SED-l
Vnlatilc Or~11nic Cnmpnuntl~ (uc/k~}" ·
I .2-01ch\nrN:1h;mc NL
Bcnzr:n( NL
Chlnrc,form NL
ci~ 1.2-Dichlor~chcnc NL
· 1ctrach!C1mc1hcnc NL
tr~ns-1.2-Oichlor('IC!hcnc NL
i nchkrr,ethcnc NL
Vinyl chlciridc NL
Stmi-\'ol:uilc Or~:1nic Com11ounds (ui;/k:::)
N ilrc11'icrucnc
.Ylctr.l.\ Cmcll.i::.l
RJrium
Rcrylliun,
LeJd
;\font=Jnc~c
Nickel
?CBffOTA L (ui:fk:l
~;!I..&:• m~r!",:r•rn pc, k,lc,p-~rn
mif.~•"'tll;~r:,m p,,,r k1l<lf-='
NL
.t-:L
NL
NL
NL
NL
1000
V.ND • lsot Oc1N::cd (n:pllt!,nJ; l~l .-1,nwr, ;" p.1n:NhQi.,\
ND (7j) ND rHn
ND O.S) ND (Hl).
ND (7.5) ND (7 0)
ND (7.j) ND (70)
ND O.S) ND 170)
ND (7.5) ND (7.0) .
ND {7 5) ND /7.0)
ND (7.51 ND 17.0)
ND (4$0.0) ND {JRO 0)
23..~ .I 32.7
OJIJ u 04 J
u J j.] ) .
13.0 J 7J.9 )
2.3 J J.I J.
NDI {4!1.0J 23R.D
.l • O(reucd but rc,.uh ,. ~" c.•tim..itc "-' it II hctwccn 1hc '!'l<thr,d dcleCllM hm1t o"d the rc-rcimn~ lirn,1
l.'1-.-..:r,i Detce-,d. r<p<"r:1n; hn,n ~;:,,,,r1>~1m,1c
fl.VQC"/SVO('. fn11~d I~ hb"~· "'eUIJ c,;t,n1..11cd
N.\ · NN :.n.1)yuO: pc,-,..,,,M,,,.. 11' 1-C-.VP ,,. ~00$
N'"._ • ~"' 1,,icd
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
!9.5
0, 17
H
l:iO 0
1.7
90.7
{6J) 'ND(l).1) n.sl ND!\Jn [7 0) ND (UJ} ff, 3)
(fd) NO (UJ) {7.5) ND(tln (7.0) NO(UJ) (6.J)
(6 ]) ND(UJ) (7.5) NO(lJJ) f7 0) ND (l!J) ((i 3)
16.l) ND (VJ) (7.ll ND(UJ) {7.o) ND ({)J) (II 3)
f(d) Nonm· [7 $). ND (IJJ) {7.0) NDfUJ) {(i 3)
(bJ) ND (UJ) {7.S) ND(tll) (7.0) ND(UJl Ud)
(6.J) ND {UJ) {7.5) ND {UJ)_ f7.0) NDfU)) Ui.3)
(6.3) NO(UJ) (7.5) ND (UJ) /7.m NO{UJ) {6.3)
(470.0) ND (j60.0) ND (510.0) ND (440.0)
J jS.2 111.5 u 25.()
\J 0.34 u Ol \J o.·23 \J
J S.4 J 2.2 J ,.n J
J 105.0 44,4 233 J
) J_(, ) 2.0 ) H u
ND W,.OJ )46 87,2
I ofJ
Seotember 2002
SED-1 SED-2 SEO.;;
ND {(, (,) ND 15.S) ND (6,9)
ND (6.1'1) ND (ll) ND (6_{})
ND ((, 6) ND (5j) ND 16 9)
ND f(,J,) ND (5.5) 1'D [0.9)
ND f(,_G) ND .. !5.5) ND (o 9)
ND fM,) ND (S.Sl No (l'i.<>1
ND {6 Ci) ND {.'i.5) ND f/\.9)
ND (fdl) ND (5.51 ND (6.9)
ND (J61l0) ND (2.00.0) ·ND {2I0.0)
to.3 J \3.1 J 14.3 .I
0.027 ··u 0.033 u 0.0)2 u
2.3 ) ,., J 2.4 J
37.9 ) Jjj J l02.0 )
u ) I.) J 1.6 ,I
ND (42,0l 217 32. !
NC &dimcnl
Panmclcr Sr:rndardi.
Volatile: O.-ganit Compoundi (ug!ki:l
1.2-01chlorf1Ctl-.anc NL
Benzene NL·
Chlorcifo:m NL
ci~-l .2-Dii:hloroctl1cnc NL
Tctr,,,chk•rnc:hcr.c NL
tr.:ms-1.2°Dichk1ro.:thcnc NL
Trichlnrcic:thcnc NL
Vinyl chloride NL
Semi-Vnl::itilc Or;::anic CnmJW>Un<l5 (agll.c,)
fN1tr\'lhenzCT1c
Mual~ (mi:/k~)
B::riuni
Beryllium
Lead
Manganese
h-Jickcl
PCB~TOTAL (unlLn)
/Vn1a:
"~i-. micr~~~m pc, ~il~m
ms:/ki: -mrll•i:•~m per lc,lnp-~•"
NL
1'L"
NL
NL
NL
NL
1000
l 1.l••'D • Nnt D<1cc1cd frq:,,,r.int: lcwl ,~o-;,. p:,m11he$i,l
.1 -Dc•cclc4 Ina ,t.t,ulr" .,n co11rn~••,.. •!,. ktwccn the n1c!
UJ • 1'1"' Dcicctcd. repC>!1in.: hm" •w~.,m~!c
8-VOCISVO(' r.,u11d ;n blan'r, m,;tok umuo1cd
NA • J,1n1 o,uly,£4 ""' re'<isirir.,·:o RC.Vi' in :oo,.
SL. i,lo1 l1<ted
Table 13
Summary of Sediment Results Since G.RS Start Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
East flat R0ck. North Carolina · ·
September 2003 Se tember 2004
SEO-I SED-1 SED-3 SW-I SW-2 SW-3
..
ND (7.2) ND (9.)) NO (7.l) ~D (8.7) NO (12.0) NO (16.0)
1'0 (7.2) ND (9.)) ND (7.2) ND (R.7) ND ((2.0) NO (ll'i.O'
ND (7.2) ND (9.Jl NO (7.2) ND {S.7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0)
NO (7.2) NO (9.)) NO. (7.2) NO (R.7) ND ((2.0) ND ((6.0)
ND (7.l) 1.iJ NO (7.2) ·. KO {R.7) 11.S J ND (16 0)
1'0 (7.2) NO (q_J) ND {7.21 ND , •. 7) ND (12.0) ND (16.0)
ND !i.2) ND fq_J) ND (7.2) ND (S.7) ND / 12 0) ND I 1(,.0)
NO (7 2) ND (C).3)· KO (1.1) NO (/1.7) ND (12,0) ND (ll,.O)
ND (2400) ND (2 JO 0) ND f:?.40 01 ND (210.0) ND (100.0) ND {220.0)
\7.3 J 14.0 I 17.2 J 17.0 8 23.S 8 37.6
oms II 0.035 J 0.037 II o. \4 eu· 0.22 8 0.31 8
2.6 u '' J 3.i.6 J.O 8 2' B 25.5
32,5 J 49.4 J 124 J 47.7 68,1 169
(.R J 0,9 J 2.5 ) (.9 8 (.8 8 4.6 B
ND n4.0i J74 52..t NO (21.0) 113 59.9
2 of J
Se >!ember 2005
SED-1 SED-2 SED-3
NO (S.8) ND (5.21 ND (6,6)
ND (5.R) NO (5.2) ND (6.6)
NO (5.8} ND {5.2) ND (6.6)
ND (5.!) NO (5.2) ND (6.6)
NO (5 ~) ND (5.2) ND (6.6)
ND (5,iq ND {S.:!) ND (6.6)
NO. ($.8)· NO (5.2) ND (6.6)
ND • (5.R) ND (5.2) ND {6.is)
NA l'A NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
2.1 8 (.4 8 3.4 8
56.J 33.4 \ 89.0
(.6 8 LI 8 (.9 8
NO (21.0) 97,9 ) 47,7 J
NC Scdimcnl
P~ramclcr ·stand,rd,
Volatilt Ori:::,nk Crimpnund.~ (ui:fk~
1.2-Dichlnrnc:hanc NL
8cn7.cnc NL
Chloroform NL
, cis-1.2-Dichlorocthcnc NL
: ~ ctrac hlriroc thcnc NL
1 tr:ms-1.2-D:chlnrocthenc NL
ITnchl<'lrr>cthcnc Nl,
VinYI chlnridc NL
emi-\'o\:iitilc Or::111ic Compourid~ ('ili:/k;!)
NrtmN:n7.cnc
Met.:ib (mel\:s:.)
B:irium
!Beryl I iuni
ILcod Ma_ng.:1nC$C t''" PCB~TOTA L (u1?lk1?)
Nfllt!.t:
<Jp\f! • m<i•r>~•~m per k1l<>i:r=
m~!I.~. ,n,lli►ram ~• ~,lc,;:r,11,
NL
NC
NL
Nl,
Nl,
NL
. 1·000
O.s:> • ~ Oct~e:f !«poninl' i..~cl J'h('\Oj!\ in ~he<i~I
J • rk1cc1~d bu: rnauh •s )II ,:.orim~!e ~ it (S ~~ the ,net
UJ · N~1 Oc1«10.,I. rq,11'1in& tirni1 tl'?l"'xi,Nl!c
B--VOCISVOC round ,n l>~l. me1~1s e,nm~e~
NA· Neu ~n,lyz;d ~• rcvi,ion., ti' RGVP ii' !DOS
:>,.'1... f'k>1 l,s1ed
Table 13
Summary of Sediment Results Since GRS Stan Up
GE Lighting Systems Annual Performance Monitoring
_EaSt Flat Rock, Nonh Carolina
Set tern ber 2006 Se >tember 2007
SEO-I SED-2. SED-J SEO-I SED-2 · SED-l
ND (6 ~) ND (l 7l .ND C5. ll ND (7.3) ND f6.5) ND {S.n
ND (6.5) ND (5.7) ND (5.1) ND (1.3) ND (6-5) ND (S.7)
ND (l'i.5) ND (:0.1) ND {5 I l ND (''IJ) ND (6.5) ND (5.7)
ND r•.ll ND (5. 7) ND (5, I l ND (7.ll ND (6.S) ND (S.7)
ND (6.51 ND ($ 7) NO (5 I 1 ND {7.3) ND ((i,S) ND {5.7)
ND (fi . .5) ND (5.71 ND rs 11 ND (7.J) ND: (6.5) ND (l.7)
ND (6.5) ND (5.7) ND rs n ND {7.3) ND (65) ND rS.7)
ND (0 5) NO (5 7) ND rs.n ND ( 15} ND (Ill ND ( 11)
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA
1.9 8 0 . .5 B. 2.! B 6.l j_4 2.~
jS_ l 12.2 57.0 95.0 57.0 J .10,0
1.7 B n.6 A 0.Q B 4.j l.3 1.7
ND (HO) 20.2 J 42.1 J ND (571 280 NO !4Sl
J of3
Sen tern ber 2008
SED-1 SE.D-2 SE0-3
ND (6.<1) ND (l.71 ND (6 I)
ND {6.9) ND (5.7) ND (6_ 1)
ND ff,9) ND (l.71 ND (6.1)
ND (69) ND . (l.7) ND (6. ll
ND (6 9) ND (5.7) ND {6 I l
ND (6.IJ) ND (l.71 ND (6.ll
ND (6.9) ND (5.7) ND ((,.1)
NO (14) ND (Ill ND (12)
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
5 4 6
47 47 170
ND (J.11 ND (2.S} ND {2.7)
ND rs 11 5J s.•
I
I
FIGURES
Second Fiva·-Year Review
GEJSllepiierrJFenii .Site.
East Flat Rock, NC
,,' _.,__ __ . //'.:._-: '.I'. J", . .-• .:..,, Geosyn.:tecC> Loca;i~nofttie_GEandShepherdFarmSubsites 1 i So~~ce~,_,..,;lie NC "2<.000 Topograpluc East Flat Roel<. NC .. ~ He,...,e,.......... · copsultar;ts ~ Quadrangle, USGS, 1990
· KeMesaw. GA 10-NOV-2007
Legend
0 . P!ez=:ring well 9 Site ·toling well Bedrock moo,
0 Recover, weU weU
: Inactive Recove\ I weu
❖ Sampled Residen a D Wetlands
, •.·
C> Geosyntec
consultants
KeMesaw,GA 21--NOV-2008
. 1 .-
•
·. -. -_ . . . Features . · · . -e GE Subst!e .· Location of~ -R~ NC
· ·_ ~ East Flat ......._, ·
Figure
2
--.
:,.:......_ , .
. :, .l:.,:-~;·;•-::. __ ;;.?-;_ ..• :• •• -"-'.· . :: -·":'; :-. , ... : . . . -·---..... _ __..__,__, __ _:;_ _____ .. -.1--~ :. ,. :.
Geosyntec t> .
. consultants
Kennesaw. GA : -21-NOV-2008
....... # --__ ..
300 · 150
Bunched
Arrowhead
Community
0
LocatiOn of the Shepherd. Fann Subs~ Features
East Flat Rock; NC
Figure
3
N
. ~ ~ ':-\ '= . i,\~ :1 _.,. . ""~ .,~~-~~~--~.~ --_ ~ 1-
' -.
I
,\.(%-.) j'i7.~~ . . ~ -' "'.'l,
' ·,\ '·,
~
-:214-0
~ ~ <1~~
;--=~~----==-=====~~=~-r= ~
. c:on!Ou<(2ft ~~~~ :;:..-,.:
. urlace elevauon ._ "< __ Potentiometnc s . . !Our (0 S ft m~) ~--.,,
. url ce elevation con -' ·'!""' __ Potentiome!f'c s . a -. • · • · •
0 Pie_?ometer
• Site monitoring well
♦ Recovery weO.
♦ Inactive recovery well (9/1512008) CJ Estimated Hydraulic . Containment Zone
, I I I I
I> Geosyntec . . •. · .. ment.atthe GE Subsite
500 0 consul ran-rs "' ... , ~'-=:::;-;~T=~~~-
Hydraulic contam · be 15 2008
on Septem ,r _'_ __.
0,-0Ec-2aos Kennesaw. GA
East Flat Rock. "!C
Figure
4
JOO
•
--'':f .••• ~,r .-,. . ....; . . -.--· -~ -·,
l .
Potenoometnc surface elevation contour (2 ft nisl) ·
PQte51tiOJ'.T!etric surface elevation contour (0.5 ft msl)
$~ monitoring well
Recovery wen
CJ Estimated Hydraulic Containment Zone (9/15/2008)
I
"' 0 "" '""'
.,,..-. ..
Geosyntec <>
consultants
KeMeS3W, GA i2-NOV-2008
Hydraulic containment at ttie·Shepherd Farm Subsite
on September 15, 2008
East Flat Rock. NC .
Figure
5
1.000 500 0
Legend fl me-3.suremen o Stream ow 1 point D Wetlands
..:._ _____ _
Geosyntec
Kerinesav., GA
consultants
,z-NOV-2008
. . nt Points . - . Measureme . . Stream Flow
. Location of .. East Flat Rock. NC .
N
t
Figure
6
I •. .. r-
500 0
Legend 0 p· -o iezometer Site mon· . 0 R . itonng well
+ ~covert well
,--:--c, . W mpled Residential L.:.......J etlands well
-'
-·~·--·-...
Geosyntece>
consultants
Kennesaw, GA 12-NOV-2008
, __
~--:: ..,. . __ ,. . ~-.~·---:--·
Location of ~ed· -. iment Moilitori -
. • --·East Flat Rock ng Stations -
' -,_NC
N
i
Figure
7
ATTACHMENT 1
List of Documents Reviewed
Second Five~ Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Roe~, NC
List of Documents Reviewed
GE/Shepherd Farm Site Five-Year Review
Second Five• Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
US EPA. May 1995. Remedial Investigation Report, GE/Shepherd Fann NPL Site, East Flat
Rock, North Carolina.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. September 29, 1995. Record Of Decision,
General Electric/Shepherd Fann National Priorities List Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. September 25, 1998. Explanation of
Significant Differences to the Remedial Action, Ge_neral Electric/Shepherd Fann National
Priorities List Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. July 27, 2000. Second Explanation of
SignificanfDifferences to the Remedial Action, General Electric/Shepherd Fann National
Priorities List Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
HSI GeoTrans, Inc. September 18, 1998. Remedial Action of the Shepherd Fann Soil, Revised
Final Report. General Electric/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
HSI GeoTrans, Inc. December 23, 1999. Final Remedial Action for Soil at the GE Subsitc,
Final Report. General Electric/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
HSI Geo Trans, Inc. April 5, 200 I. Final Remedial Action for Groundwater. General
Electric/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
Geosytec Consultants. December 2008. Annual Groundwater Remedial Perfonnance Action
Monitoring Report-2008. General Electric/Shepherd Fann Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina.
ATTACHMENT 2
Site Inspection Checklist
Second Five~ Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Please note that "O&M,,is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Tenn
Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations"
since these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the
Superfund program.
Five-Year Review Site Inspection Checklist
(Working document for site inspection. Infonnation may be completed by hand and attached to
the Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation of site status. "NIA" refers to "not
applicable.")
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: GE/Shei,herd Farm Date of inspection: 5/14/2009
Location and Region: Raleigh, NC Region 4 EPA ID: 079044426
Agency, office, or company leading the five-year Weather/temperature: overcast, 80°
review: NC DENR
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
IXI Landfill cover/containment 0 Monitored natural allenuation
[X] Access controls [X] Groundwater containment
IXI Institutional controls D Vertical barrier walls
[X) Groundwater pump and treatment
0 Surface waler collection and treatment
□ Other
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
l. O&M site managers Todd Hagemeyer/Todd Kafka Geosyntec Ma~ 14, 2009
Name Title Date
Interviewed IXI at site D at office D by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; D Report attached
2. O&M staff Mav 14 2000
Name Title Date
Interviewed □ at site D at office D by phone Phone no.
Problems, suggestions; D Report attached
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response
office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply.
Agency
Contact
Name Title Date Phone no.
Problems; SUQl!cstions; D Renart attached
I
4.
Agency
Contact
Na me Title
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Date Phone no.
Proble111s; suggestions; D Report attached --~------------------
Agency
Contact
Na me Title Dale Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; 0 Report attached ____________________ _
Agency
Contact
Na me Title Date Phone no.
Problems; suggestions; D Report attached ____________________ _
Other inten>iews (opt ional) 0 Report attached,
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Ill. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
O&M Documents
181 O&M manual [X) Readily available 181 Up to date □NIA·
1X1 As-built drawings 181 Readily available 181 Up to date □NIA
□[SJ Maintenance logs [X) Readily available 181 Up to date □NIA
Remarks
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan [X) Readily available [XI Up to date □ NIA
[XI Contingency plan/emergency response plan [X) Readily available 181 Up to date □NIA
Remarks
O&M and OSHA Training Records [Bl Readily available 181 Up to date □NIA
Remarks: Maintained in lhe office
Permits and Service Agreements
D Air discharge permit D Readily available D Up to date □NIA
tBl Effiuent discharge [E] Readily available .181 Up to date □NIA
□ Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available D Up to date □ NIA
D Other permits D Readily available □ Up to date □NIA
Remarks
Gas Generation Records D Readily available D Up to date. 181 NIA
Remarks
Settlement Monument Records D Readily available D Up to date 181 NIA
Remarks
Groundwater Mon_itoring Records IXl Readily available 181 Up to date □ NIA
Remarks
Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date ll!INIA
Remarks
Discharge Compliance Records
181 Air [Bl Readily available 181Up to date □ NIA
IX] Water (effluent) IXl Readily available ll!I Up to dat.e □ NIA
Remarks
Daily Access/Security Logs IXI Readily ayailable 181 Up to date □ NIA
Remarks
I.
2.
3.
A.
I.
B.
I.
.
O&M Organization
□ State in-house
□ PRP in-house
IV. O&M COSTS
□ Contractor for State
IX] Contractor for PRP
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
□ Federal Facility in-house □ Contractor for Federal Facility
D Other
O&M Cost Records
IXJ Readily available ll!I Up to date
□ Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate IXI Breakdown discussed in 5 yr review report
Total annual cost by·year for review period if available
From To D Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From To D Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From To D Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From To □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From To D Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
Describe costs and reasons:
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ll!I Applicable □ NIA
Fencing
Fencing damaged □ Location shown on site map [&) Gates secured □NIA
Remarks
Other Access Restrictions
Signs and other security measures D Location shown on site map □ NIA
Remarks: signage
c.
I.
2,
D.
I.
2.
3 ..
Institutional Controls (ICs)
Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply JCs not properly implemented
Site c~nditions imply lCs not being fully enforced
Type of monitOring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by)
Frequency
Responsible party/agency
Contact
Name Title
. Reporting is up-to-date '
Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: D Report attached
D Yes
D Yes
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
ll!I No □NIA
ll!J. No □NIA
Date Phone no.
D Yes ll!I No . 0 N/A
D Yes ll!I No .• ON/A
□ Yes ll!I No 0 NIA
D Yes □No ll!I N/A
Adequacy D ICs are adequate IXI ICs are inadequate QNIA_
Remarks: However. JCs arc in progress.
General
Vandalism/trespassing □ Location shown on site map IXl No vandalism evident
Remarks .
Land use changes on site □NIA
Remarks: no
. Land use changes off site □NIA
Remarks: no
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads ll!I Applicable D N/A
I. Roads damaged D Location shown on site rriap IXl Roads adequate □NIA
Remarks
B.
A.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
B.
I.
2.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks
VII. LANDFILL COVERS IBJ Applicable
Landfill Surface
Settlement (Low spots) 0 Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Cracks 0 Location shown on site map
Lengths Widths Depths
Remarks
Erosion 0 Location shown on site map
Areal extent· Depth
Remarks
Holes 0 Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Vegetative Cover D Grass IXJ Cover prope_rly established
D Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
Remarks
Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) IBJ NIA
Remarks
Bulges □Location shown on site map
Areal extent Height
Remarks
□NIA
Second Five-Yeai Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
IXJ Settlement not evident
IXJ Cracking not evident
[XI Erosion not evident
[XI Holes not evident
[Z] No signs of stress
[Z] Bulges not evident
Wet Areas/Water Damage IXJ Wet areas/water damage not evident
D Wet areas 0 Location shown on site map Areal extent
D Ponding □ Location shown on site map Areal extent
D Seeps □ Location shown on site map Areal extent
D Soft subgrade D Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
Slope lnstab~lity D Slides 0 Location shown on site map IX) No evidence of slope instability
Areal extent
Remarks
Benches D Applicable IBJ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to· intemipt the slope
in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined
channel.)
Flows Bypass Bench □ Location shown on site map 1B1 NIA or okay
Remarks
Bench Breached D Location shown on site map IBl NIA or okay
Remarks
3.
C.
I.
'
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
D.
I.
2.
Bench Overtopped □ Location shown on site map
Remarks
Second Five-Year. Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock NC
IX) N/A or okay
Letdown Channels □ Applicable IX) N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags, or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
Settlement □ Location shown on site map D No evidence of settlement
Areal extent Depth
/ Remarks
Material Degradation D Location shown on site map D No evidence of degradation
Material type Arcaf extent
Remarks
Erosion D Location show_n on site map D No evidence of erosion
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Undercutting D Location shown on site map D No evidence of undercutting
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Obstructions Type D No obstructions
D Location shown on site map Areal extent
Size
Remarks
Excessive Vegetative Growlh Type
D No evidence of excessive growth
□ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
D Location shown on site map Areal extent
Remarks
Cover Penetrations IX) Applicable □NIA
Gas Vents D Active IX] Passive
00 Properly secured/locked D Functioning D Routinely.sampled [XI Good condition
D Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs Maintenance
□NIA
Remarks
Gas Monitoring Probes
D Properly secured/locked D Functioning D Routinely sampled 0 Good condition
D Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs Maintenance IX) NIA
Remarks
___ _J
3.
4.
5.
E.
I.
2.
3.
F.
I.
2.
G.
I.
2.
3.
4.
'
Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
D Properly secured/locked D Functioning
0 Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
Leachate Extraction Wells
D Properly secured/locked D Functioning
□ Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks
Settlement Monuments D Located·
Remarks
Gas Collection and Treatment 0 Applicable
Gas Treatment Facilities
D Flaring D Thermal destruction
□ Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Pipin~
D Good condition □ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
D Routinely sampled
D Needs Maintenance
0 Routinely sampled
D Needs Maintenance
D Routinely surveyed
llD NIA
D Collection for reuse
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock NC
D Good condition
llD NIA
□ Good condition
llD NIA
llD NIA
Gas Moniloring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
□ Good condition □ Needs Maintenance □NIA
Remarks
Cover Drainage Layer □ Applicable llD NIA
Outlet Pipes Inspected D Functioning □NIA
Remarks
Outlet Rock Inspected D Functioning □NIA
Remarks
Detention/Sedimentation Ponds □ Applicable. llD N/A
Siltation Areal ex tent Depth □ NIA
D Siltation not evident
Remarks
Erosion Areal extent Depth
D Erosion not evident
Remarks
Outlet Works D Functioning □ NIA
Remarks
Dam □Functioning □ NIA
Remarks
H.
I.
2.
I.
I.
2.
3.
4.
I.
2.
Retaining Walls 0 Applicable ll!I NIA
Deformations 0 Location shown on site map
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
D Deformation nol evident
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement
Rotational displacement
Remarks
Degradation 0 Location shown on site map D Degradation not evident
Remarks
Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge 0 Applicable ll!I NIA
Siltation D Location shown on site map D Siltation not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Vegetative Growth D Location shown on site map □NIA
l Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks
Erosion D Location shown on site map D Erosion not evident
Areal extent Depth
Remarks
Discharge Structure D Functioning □ NIA
Remarks
Vlll. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS □ Applicable ll!I NIA
Settlement D Location shown on site map D Settlement not evident
Areal extent Depth
. Remarks
Perforffiance Monitoring Type of monitoring
D Performance not monitored
Frequency D Ev.idcncc of breaching
Head differential
Remarks
~----------------~-------------------------------------------
A.
I.
2.
3.
8.
I.
2.
3.
C.
I.
2.
3.
4.
Second Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES IXI Applicable □ NIA
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines IXI Applicable □NIA
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
IX] Good condition [XJ All required wells properly operating □ Needs Maintenance D N/A
Remarks
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
[X) Good condition □ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Spare Parts and Equipment
[X] Readily available CK] Good condition D Requires upgrade □Needs to be provided
Remarks
Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines □ Applicable IX) NIA
Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
□ Good condition □ Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves! Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
q Good condition D Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Spare Parts and Equipment
□Readily available □ Good condition □ Requires upgrade □ Needs to be provided
Remarks
Treatment System IXI Applicable □NIA
Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
D Metals removal 0 Oil/water separation □ Bioremediation
[X) Air stripping· IXI Carbon adsorbers
[X) Filters: bag
□ Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent)
□ Others
(Bl Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance
(Bl Sampling ports properly marked and functional
(Bl Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
[XI Equipment properly identified
[X) Quantity of groundwater treiited annually: ~30 gallofls per minute
Remarks
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
□ NIA IX! Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
IXI N/A D Good condition CK] Proper secondary containment D Needs Maintenance
Remarks
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
· IX) NIA D Good condition 0 Needs Maintenance
5.
6.
Remarks
Treatment Building(s)
□NIA [E] Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
181 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks
Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Second Five• Year Review
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock NC
□ Needs repair
181 Properly secured/locked IX] Functioning IX] Routinely sampled [!] Good condition
IX] All required wells located D Needs Maintenance □NIA
Remarks
D. Monitoring Data
I. Monitoring Data
IX] Is routinely submitted on time [E] Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring data suggests:
[HJ Groundwater plume is effectively contained 0 Contaminant concentrations are declining
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation
I. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
□ Properly secured/locked 0 Functioning 0 Routinely sampled 0 Good condition
0 All required wells located □ Needs Maintenance ll!l NIA
Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there ·are remedies applied at the site. which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. lmplementalion of the Remedy
Describe i~sues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of whal the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume,
minin:i,ize infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
B. Adequacy or O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular. discuss their relationship.to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M costs more last year, bu·t got results in extraction rate.
C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope ofO&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs, which suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be
compromised in the futun,•.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
ATTACHMENT 3
Complete Interviews
Seconcf Five-Year Review
GE/Shepherd Fann Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Second Five-"fear Review.
GE/Sliephefd Farm Site
· · East Flat Rock NC ·
Five Year Review -2009
General Electric/Shepherd Farm. East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Community Interviews
Community Interviews were conducted, by telephone, as part of the Five
Year Review.for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm site located in East Flat
Rock, North Carolina. All individuals that were interviewed were notified that the
Five Year Review was being conducted at the Site and that a final report will be
placed in the information repository located at the Henderson County Public
Library, 310 N. Washington Street in Hendersonville, North Carolina, for the
public to review.
. . .
·. Interviews were conducted with citizens that live in the area or own property ·
in the area and was impacted by the cleanup at the site. Most of the citizens
interviewed were pleased with the cleanup and think that since the area has been
remediated that people are_pleased. Most stated that people do not even talk about
it anymore. However, one citizen that was intcrvie.wed is still very unhappy. This
citizen does not live there anymore, but still owns the property. The concerns
addressed are as follows: EPA needs to abandon the wells and get off the property,.
this project has been a pain in the butt that should have never happened in the first
place, an access agreement was signed 10 years ago and that has expired so what
happens now, does not have a high opinion of EPA and GE for they did and did
not do, during the remediation this resident ·was "never compensated for anything,
requests a letter indicating projection date of vacating property, as stated earlier
does not live there, but is still paying taxes, is getting older and does not want to
. hand so~ething like this off to the. children. · ·
Community Interviews were conducted by:
Angela R. Miller, Public Affairs Specialist
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office ofSuperfund Public Affairs and Outreach
61 Forsyth Street, SW · ·
Atlanta, GA 30303
[phone] or toll free [phone]
[e-mail]
ATTACHMENT 4
Complete Analytical Data for·Groundwater
September 2000 to September 2008
Second Five-Year Review .
GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
ATTACHMENT 5
Vapor Intrusion Assessment Memo
Second Five-Year Review
· GE/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, NC
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results.
MW-12
Rei:nediation
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec--00. Mar-OJ Juo--01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar--02 · Juo--02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voes (µg/LJ
l ,'.?-Dich!oro,;:th:ini: ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND(\0.0) ND (4.0) 0.94J ND (4.0) ND (10.0) ND (10,0)
Ben=, ND(l.0) ND (S.0) ND(\.O) ND (5.0) ND (S.O) ND (2.0) ND (LO) ND (2.0) ND (S.O) ND (S.0)
-----··----. •-------~----··-··---·------···--·---·------------·--·---
Cblornform 7.J 7.9 J 5.0 7.6 J 7.6 J S.8 s., 6.6 7.6J 5,,U
cis-1.2-Dichlorocthenc 70 16.S 12.7 8.1 ll.6 12.3 12.3 16.0 14.8 14,6 18.7
Tctrachloroc:thdle 313 300 180 219 283 186 148 223 270 247
tr:in3· l .2-Dichlo~enc 70 NO (2.0) ND (10.0) ND(2.0) ND{IO.O) NO(l0.0) ND (4.0) ND (2.0) ND (4,0) ND (10.0) ND(\0.0)
Trichloroethenc 2.8 9.1 8.9 J 5.2 7.0 J 8.2 J 6.8 6.1· 8.9 11.l 9.7 J
Vinyl ch!orido: ND (1.0) ND(5.0) ND(\.O) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND(2.0) ND (\.0) ND(2.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0)
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitroberu-J:m~ JO . ND (5.0) ND (5.01 ND (S.O) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5.0) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
Bmum 2000 55.3 J St.OJ 56.0 J 53.9 J 56.6 J 51.0 J 61.lJ 53.4 J -59.7 J 125 J
&rylli'..1m 4 0.12 ND 0.2S ND 0.8 ND 0.64ND 0.76 ND 0.26 J 0.22 ND 0.26 ND . 0.26 ND. 0.26 ND
Le,d 15 1.2 ND l.5 ND 1.2 NO 12ND l.2ND 3.2 ND 2.0J l.2ND 3.2 ND !0.5
Manl,':lne:$C: 50 0.9i J O.i-4 UJ 1.3 J 0.32 ND o.44 UJ 0.41 J 3.4J 0.16 ND 0.16ND 109
t-,'id.el 10_0 . 2.4 J 0.8 ND l.8ND O.SND 0.8 ND 0.SND l.J J I.I ND I.I ND ·LIND
Notos: Boldi:d v:i.lucs indic:11..:· d~c:1:tcd concentr:i.tion:1 grc:itc thun rancdiation goal$.
U.ND • not detoct&<I
J -detoc:ted, estimato<I result
UJ • not det8cted, IKtimated rosult
O • dilution sample
E • e.xceed calibration limit
B • found In bl.UIII;
NA • not an31ymd
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
MW-12
Remediation
Parameter Goal Mar-03 Jun--03 . sep--03 Mar-04 Sep--04_. · .Mar--0s·
voe, ()lg/L)
l .1-Dichlorocthane ND(!O.O) 9.3 J ... , 18.S J 3,0 25.4
Benz~e I. ND [5.D) ND (S.0) ND(5.D) ND (10.0) ND (I.OJ ND (10.0}
Chloroform ND (10.0) J.9 J 5.0 J NO (20.0) 4.0 ND (10.0)
cis-I .2-Dich!oroethenc 70 11.7 43.7 64.D 57.2 40.0 56.0
Tctruchlorocthcne 173. 377 216 332 336 270
trans-J 2-Dichlo~hcne 70 ND(I0.0) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND (20.0) l.l J ND [1_0.0)
--~----·-----·----····· . -------·-·---------·· .. . ---------' -..
Trichlorocthem: 2.8 12.5 43.1 46.6 60.0 28.0 54.3
Vinyl chloride -ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND(S.O) ND(IO.O) ND (I.O) ND (10.0)
svoc, ()lg/L)
Nitroberu.e11e 10 NA . No (S.O) ND(S.0)
METALS TOTAL ()lg/L)
Buium 2000 6S.7 J 97.S J 113 J 132 J 103 B
Ekrylli~m 4 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 !-fD 0.3 ND
I.=! 15 2.JND l.2ND l.2ND 1.3 J 1.2·ND 1.2 ?:-lD
M!!.ngan~i= 50 0.16ND 3.4 J 3.9 J 11.!J 7.6 B 25.4
Nickd 100 l.l ND I.I ND 1.1 ND LI ND I.I ND 2.08
Notc,s; Boldc:d valu~ indicat,: dc:1.:ct~ concc:ntr.itions i;r.:at.:r th:in rnmcdia.tion goo.ls.
U,ND. not dotoctod
J • dotocted, estimated result
UJ • not detectttd, estimated n,sutt
0 • dilution s:unple -
E • exc,ood c:al!bration limit
B • found In blank
NA~ not analyz.Dd
Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep--07 . Sep-08
·o.94 J ND (O.S) ND(l.0) I.ONO
ND(I.O) ND (0.5) NO(I.0) l.OND
3.6 ... s.o Il.O
20.8 13.9 l!i.0 9.0
129 106 100.0 73.0
ND (1.0) ND [0.5) ND (I.0) I.ONO
10.3 ·. 6.0 5.0 4.0
"ND(l.0) ND (0.S) ND (l.O) LON□
2.4 B 3.6 B ND(J5,0) 15.0 ND
2.5 B I.SND ~D(:50.0) S0.0 ND
l.2 8 0.8ND NO(IO0.0) 100.0ND
. --.
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-12A
Paramefer Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 ·s.p-02 Dtt-02
voe, (µg/L)
. J .2-Dichlorocthanc 2.0 ND(20.0) NO (10.0) NO(IO.O) '1D·(IO.O) ND (l0.0) J.9 ND (2.0) 1.9 J ND (10.0) .
Benzene: ND(J.O) ND(l0.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (S,O) ND (J.0) ND(l.O) ND(2.0) ND (S.O)
Chloroform ,.., ND (20.0) ,~ J UJ 7.4J 4.6J ND (2.0) 4.0 6.7 4.9 J
ds-! .::!-Diebloroc:thene 70 21.7 15.2 J 20,! 13.5 13.0 ! L7 3.7 l2.3 14.9 15,S
Tetr:u::hlorodhenc 3,0 300 3'3 212 299 203 ••• 147 257 283
trans-! .2.-Oichloroc:th~c 70 ND (2.0) ND (20.0) ND (10,0) ND(l0.0) ND {10.0) ND(I0.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(4.~) ND (10.0)
Trichloroethcnt' 2.S J0.7 ND (20.0) 9.8 J 6.1 J 8.7J S.9 J ND(2.0) 4.9 9.1 8.1 J
Vinyl chloride ND (LO) ND (10.0) ND (5.0) ND(S.O) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) 2.S ND (I.OJ ND (2.0) ND (5,0)
svoc, (µg/L)
t,;itrobt!n7.t'f\~ 10 ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NO (S.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) .. ND (5.0} NA NA ND (5,0) NA
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
&riu:n 2000 71.6 J 61.2 J 77.2 J '61.6 J 51.6 J SS.5 J 9.9 J 58.0 J 41.6 J 12.5 J
Bcryllium 4 0.22 ND 0.23 ND 0.75 ND 0.65 ND 0.6.S ND. 0.28 J 0.29 J 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
L<,d IS 1.2 :-.in 1.2NO J.JNO t.2 ND 1.2 NO 2.4NJ:? l.2ND l.2ND 2.4 ND J.2ND
M:uii:;:inc,c: so lAJ 3.5 UJ :?.lJ 0.63 ND 0.58 UJ LI J LI J 6.16 ND 0.28 J 102
Nickel 100 3.0 J :?.2ND 2.6 ;'10 !.2ND 0.98 J 2.4J 14.l J I.I ND 4,3 J 11.2 J
Notos: Bolded valu<.-S indiot..: d.d«ud con!Xfllration:i: gtd.ttr dun it:medi:ition goo.l:J.
U,ND -not dot&et&d
J • dotectod, ostlmated rosult
UJ • oO't det.ectad, Htimatod rosult
D • dllution s:1mple
• E -exceed 61ibratlon limit
B • found In blank
NA • not analy.tod
Table E-1. _GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/L)
l .2•Dicblor0dh:i.nc:
&n:lenc:
Chlorofom,
cii-! ,2-Dichloroc:theni.!
Tc:trachloroethcnc:
tr.ms-1.2-Dichloroc:thenl!.
Trichlorocth<."tll!
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (µg/L)
>lit:olxnzcnc:
METALS.TOTAL (µg/L)
8;:irium
Beryllium
t..,,d
M:i.nc:mes,:
Nickd
Notes:
U,NO. not dotocted
J • doti:cted, ltStlmatod rnult ·
UJ • not dotoetcd, ostim:m:td nisult
O -dllutlon sample e -e:u:eed calibration llmlt
B • found in blank
NA. not analyz.ad
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
so .
100
Mar-03
ND(\0,0)
ND(S.0)
s.s J
21.5
264
ND(I0.0)
21.0
ND (S.0)
NA
51.0 J
0.26 ND
1.7 ND
0.16 ND
1.4 J
MW-12A
Juo--03 Sep--03 · Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
I.OJ 0.97 J ND(l0.0) 1.8 NO (l.0)
ND(!.O) ND(I.O) ND (S.O) ND(l.0) NO (LO)
ND (2.0) 3.2 3.0J 2.9 ·ND (LO)
6.S 3 !.! 28.6 35.7 O.S? J
20.3 239 217 234· 10.1
ND (2.0) 0.58 J ND(IO.O) 0.74 J ND (1.0)
1.1 J 13.7 17.1 20.1 0.53 J
4.2 ND (1.0) ND (S.O) ND (1.0) ND (l.0)
ND (5.0) 'NO (10.0)
8.8 J 75.3 J 81".2 J 81.7 B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
!.2 ND 1.2 NO l.:Z ND !.:!ND 1.2 ND
0.16 ND 0.16 ND 1.2 J 11.9 8 0.16 No·
19.3 J I.I ND UJ . 3,7 B 17.6 8
Boldcd v-.ilucs indicate d1.'1ect...-d conttntr.itions g~t,:r than ~~iution .~!Xi!:I.
Sep--05 Sep-06· Sep-07 Sep-08
0.53 J ND (0.5) ND (1,0) I.ONO
ND{l.O) ND (0.5). ND(l.0) I.ONO
NO (1.0) 8.4 3.0 12.0
2.5 13:1 7.0 9.0
16.8 108 .. 71.0 75.0
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) l.0ND
1.0 , .. J.0 J.0
2.4 ND(O.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
:?.I B 2.5 B ND (15.0) 15.0 ND
0.2 ND 1.5 ND ND (50.0) 50.0 ND
23.88 2.8 8 ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
,-------------------------------~----
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation · MW-12B
Paramfter Goal Sep--00 Dec-00 Mar--01 Jun-01 Sep--01 Dec--01 Mar--02 Jon-02 Sep--02 Dec-02
voes ()lg/L)
1,2-DichloroctMlli: ND (2.0) ND (10.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO{4.0) ND (2.0) ND{4.0) ND (4,0) 1.3 J
lknz<nc I ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) NO(l.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0) .. N0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Chloroform NO (2.0) ND(I0.0) 0.9 J 1.3 J 1.1 J' ND (4,0) 1.2 J UJ. 1,7 J ND (4.01
cis--1,2-Dich\orocthcnc 70 7.8 7.0 J 7.1 S.I 6.4 5.7 5.4 ,., 5.0 7.1
Tctr.l.Chlo!'O<!'thcne 188 "' · 128 '108 J 112 119 141 119 104 192
tr.an~-1.2-Dichloroclhrne 70 ND (2.0) ND {!0.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(4.0) NO(2.0) ND {4.0) ND (4.0) ND (4.0)
Trichloroctbcnc: l.S .. 11.-1 11.3 9.2 10.6 ID.I 9.3 9.3 9.9 8.2 12.9
Vinyl ch!orid.: ND (1.0) ND(S.0) ND(I.O) NO (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(2.0) ND(l.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobcn:«'!le 10 ND(5.0) ND (5.0) NO (5.0) NO (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) . NA NA ND (5.1) NA·
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Bariu.Di. 2000 12.6J 13.7 J 15.7 J IS.OJ 16.3 J I 5.8 J 18.4 J 16.7 J 18,4 J 54.0 J
Beryllium 4 0.22 ND O.SND 0.87 ND . 022ND 0.2ZND 0.22 ND 0.39 J 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
Lead 15 1.2 ND 1.2 ND t.5ND 1.2 ND !.4ND 3.l ND 1.2 ND 1.2 ND 2.8 ND l.2 ND
Manganese 50 2.7 J 2.2 ND 8.6 J 6.0 J 1.8 ND 0.26 ND 0.5 I J 0.16ND O.i6ND 0.16 ND
~ick.d 100 1.6 J 0.8 ND 3.1 ND 0.8 ND 0.8 ND 0.8 ND 0,93 J !,! ND I.I ND I.I ND
N~; Bold<:d v-.ilue:. indicati: detected concentntiuns !;JGiC~r than n::m<di::atioo grub.
U,ND • not del;octed
J -dotoct&d, ostlmate<I result
W • net ~ estimated result
D • dilution sample
E -axceed cailbraticn limit
8 • fcK.lnd in blank
NA-not anaJyzed
------------·---·--
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/L)
1.2-Dichloroethane
&nu,"
Chlot'Ofonn
c:i~• I .2-Dic:hlorocthene 70
Tctnehloro,.."thene
tr:IJIS-1..2-0ichlorocthene 70
Trich\oroc.-then,: 2.8
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrob<!nz.:nc 10
METALS TO_TAL (µg/L)
BJ.rium 2000 .
Beryllium
wd
· M:rng::uu:sc
Nickel ·
Notas:
U,NO • not d11tocted
J -·datectod, ostim3.tod result
UJ -not detnctod, estimated result
0 -dilution sample
E • exceed c:illbratlon llmlt
B • found In blank
NA-not ana~d
4
15
so
100·
Mar-03
ND C:?.0)
NO (1.0)
I.OJ
2.9
100.0
ND (2.0)
6.2
ND(l.0)
NA
l8.4J
0,26 ND
1.2 ND
0.19 J
I.I NO
MW-12B
Jitn-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (1.0)
NO(l.0) NO (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(i.O) NO (1.0)
1.1 J l.l J I.DJ 0.81 J 0.63 J
3.2 3.8 2.7 2.4 1.6
855 77.1 89.6 82,6 73.7
ND (2.0} ND(:!.O) ND (2.U) ND (2.0) ND(l.0)
l.5 ••• ... 6.1 53
ND(I.O) SD (1.0) ND(I.U) NO(I.O) ND (1.0)
ND [l.Oj NO (l.l)
I 8.2 J 74.1 J 19 . .5 J 17.6B ·
0.26 ND 0.26 NO 0.3 ND -0.3 ND ·
1.2 ND 1.2 ND 1.2 ND l.2ND 4.S B
0.16 NO 0.16 ND 0.16 ND .8.88 0.16 ND
2.9 J I.I NO I.I NO I.I NO I.I NO
Boldcd values indie:.t.l! di:tccted c:Qni:cnt~tioru i;r:-.1t~ th::ui n:ml!C!i:i.tion gOD.h;.
. ·--.
Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
NO (1.0) ND (O.l) NO (1.0) L0NO
NO(I.O) NO (0.l) NO (1.0) 1.0ND
0.57 1 NO (O.l) NO (1.0) I.ONO
1.9 1.4 1.0 1.0
71.0 72.5 48.0 -14.0
ND (LO) NO (0.5) ND{l.0) I.ONO
4.7 ••• 3.0 3.0
ND (1.0) Nb (0.5) ND (l.0) I.ONO
L2ND .1.7 ND ND (1.5,0) 15.0ND
0.2 ND 1.SND ND (50.0) 50.0 NO
1.1 ND 0.8 ND ND(l00.0) 100.0SD
Table E-1. GE. Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-13
Parameter Goal Sep-DO Dec-00 Mar-01. Juo~)l Sep-DI Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 · Sep-02 Dec-02
VOCs()1g/L)
1,2.Dichloroelbane ND('.?.O) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0) ND (2.0) . ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
Benzene ND(I.O) ND(I.O) !'ID (!.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND{l.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.O)
Chloroform ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND ('.LO) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
c~ 1,2-Dich!orocthe-:l,: 70 3,9 ND (2.0) 2.3 1.4 J ND (2.0) ND('.!.0) 0.97 J 1.3 J 2.7 0.94 J
T ctr.1::hlonxthl!Jl.: 64.6 39.5 255 63AJ 11.2 S.l Sl.7 so.a 13.1 46.8
tr.ins-1,2-Dichlorocthcnc 70 ND (2,0) ND{2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND{2.0) . "0(2.0)
Trich!orocthenc 2.8 L4 J ND (:!.O) 5.3 I.I J ND (2.0) ND(2.0) 0.7S J I.I J I.I J 0.79 J
Vinyl chloride '.',l'Q (1.0) ND (1.0) ND ( 1.0} ND (\.0) NO (1.0) ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND(I.O) ND (1.0) "o (LO)
svoc, ()1g/L)
Nitrobcnzene 10 ND(S.5) ND (5.0) ND (5.5) ND (5.5) NO (S.0) ND(S,O) NA NA ND (S.0) NA
METAL.S TOT AL ()1g/L)
Barium 2000 45,5 J 29.4 J 15.8 J 128 J 43,l J 72.4 J 20.S J 12.S J 18.7 J 10.6 J
Beryllium 4 0.22 ND . 0.8 ND 0.97 ND . I.J J 0.99 ND 0.92 J 0.41 J 0.26 NO 0.16 NO 0.26 ND
L,"1 I 5 7.7 2.2 ND l.4ND 26.6 5.S 11.SND 2.3 J l.9ND 1.7 NO l.2ND
Manganese: ,-0 61.0 '26.0 11.2 J !68° 41.2 J · 80.5 J 21.0 39.4 !OS 3l.9
Nickel 100 14,1 J O.SND :to NO 7.9 J· 3.0 J 4.6 J 2.2 J I.IND I.I NO I.I NO
Notos: Botdcd values indicate dl."t~tt!d conc~tratioru. gtQtcr th:ln n::mcdiWon goo.ls,
U,NO • not doteeted
J • detnctod, estimated result
UJ -not dct&Ctod, estimated result
D -dlh.rtlon =pie
E -.uceed c:a!ibration limit
B -found in blank
NA-notan~d
Table E-1. GE Subsi.te. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes ()lg/L)
I J.-Dichloroethme
Bcnrene
Chloroform
ci:i-1,2-Dichloro<thene
Tctr.1chlor0t"1h~e
tr:ins-! ,2-Dichlorocthmc
Trich.lor~1hc~e
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs ()lg/L)
Nitrobcnune
METALS TOT AL ()lg/L)
B:irium
Beryllium
l=d
M:l.Cl83Jles.e
Nicki:!
Notu:
U,ND • not dot&Cted
J • detected, estlmat&d result
UJ • not dot!K:ttH:t, estimated rosult
D • dllutJon i..amplo
E • ei:COQd calibration limlt
B -found In bl.ink ·
NA • not analyuid
70
70
2.!I
IO
2000
4
15
so
100
Mar-03
ND (1.0)
ND (LO)
ND (2.0)
0.71 J
25.9
ND{2.0)
0.95 J
ND(l.0)
NA
20.1 J
0.25·:-,.:o
4.5 J
39-4
I.I ND
. MW-13
Jun--03 Sep-03 Mar--04 Sep--04 Mar-OS
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND {2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(l,OJ .. SD(l.0) NO (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) NO (LO)
O.TSJ 0,9j J o.s~ 1 ,., I.I
Ul.8 14.7 2U 6.8 10.6
ND'{2.0) :-.ID (1.0) NO t2.0), ND{2.0) ND (1.0)
0.66 J 0.58 J 0.S5 J l.S J 1.0
ND(l.0) ND {I.OJ ND Cl.OJ ND (LO) NO (1.0)
ND (S.0)_ ND (5.0)
11.2 J 10.:? J 21.5 J ~0.3 B
0.'.!6ND 0.26 ND 03 ND 0.3 ND
1.2 ND J.2ND :2.8 ND 2.9 B 3.1 B
48.2 26.6 50.1 108 93.4
I.I ND 1.1 ND I.I J I.SB I.I ND.
Bo!ded. v:ilues indic:ik: dd~1ed concentrations greater !fun rancdfation goals.
Sep-05 Sep--06 Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (I.OJ ND(O.l) . ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (l.0) ND (0.5) . ND (LO) l.ONO
ND(I.0) ND (0,S) r-.p(I.O) I.ONO
1.3 2.2 1.0 2.0
23.3 19.3 16,0 H,0
ND (I.OJ ND (0.5) ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (I.OJ 1.0 ND (1.0} 1.0
ND (J.0) ND (O.SJ N_D (1.0) I.ONO
,., l2.4 ND (15.0) 15.0SD
.... 7 89.S ND (SO.OJ 50.0 NO
UB :2.6B SD (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance WeH Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-13A
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dee..00_ Mar~Ol Juo..01 Sep-01 Dec..01 Mar..02 Juo-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
VOCs()lg/L)
1,2-DichlorocthMlC: ND (10.0) ND(IO.O) ND(2:0) ND(I0.0) ND (l0.0) ND(l0.0) ND(IO.O) ND (10.0) ND (1_0.0) ND(l0.0)
8!!nze:1e ND (l,0) ND(5,0) ·NO(I.0) ND (l.O) . ND (5.0) ND(l.O) ND (l.0) ND(l.0) NO (5.0) ND (5.0)
Chloroform. I NO (l0.0) ND (10.0) NO (2.0) ND(lO.O) NO (10.0) ND(IO.O) ND (10,0} ND (10.0) ND(lO.O) ND (10.0)
cis-1,2-Dich.loroc:thenc: 70 ND (10.0) ND (10.0) NO (2.0} 2..6 J 3,l J SD (10.0) 5.3 J 3.4 J 3,7 J 3.2 J
T etrach !oro<:1 hi:ne ' I 270 338 25.5 236 329 J 246 310 176. 3D7 345
UUJ\$· l .'.!-O\thlorocthc:m: 70 ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND(:?.0) ND(l0.0) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) NO (lO.U} ND (10.0) ND (10.0) NO (IU.0)
.. Trichlorodbcnc: 2.8 7.1 J 7.6J ND (2,0) ~-8 J 6.9 J SJ J 7JJ 6.SJ 6.9 J 6.8 J
Vinyl chloric!c: ND (5.0) XO (5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0) ND (S,0) ND {S.0) ND {S.0) N,O (5.0) ND (S.0) ND (5.0)
SVOCs ()lg/L)
Nitrobcnzen.: IO ND (5.0) l<D (S.O) ND (S,5) ND (5.0) ND (l.0) ND (5,0) NA NA ND (S.0) ·NA
METALS TOT AL (J,g/L)
B3.riwn 2000 12.0 J 13.6 J 37.9 J 14,0J !3.4 J 14.2 J 14.0 J 12.4 J 1:2.7 J JO.OJ
B~llium 4 1.1 J 0.22 ND 0.67 ND 0.22 ND 0.42 ND 0.12 ND 0.26J 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0,26 ND
wd ll 1.5 J !.SND 5.4 ~D l.2ND 2.l ND 2.3 ND J.2 ND l.:!ND 1.S ND l.2ND
,\.1:ing:incse so 10.2 J 8,9 J 30.6 10.9 J ·11.4 J 13.7 J 11.S J 9.5 J 9.3 J · 7.6 1
Nickel 100 2.3 J 0.8 ND .2.6NO O.B NO 0.8 ND 1.2ND 0.87 J 1.l ND I.I ND !.\ ND
Notes: Bo!ded V:Uuo. indic;ite d.:tected concc:ntr:i.tions gf'C:3t<:r than n:mcd.i:uion goals.
U,ND • not dotoct9CI
J • d•locted, e$timatad result
UJ. not dateet-.d, estl~tad rHUlt
D • dilution sample e -exceed c:allbrat.lon limit
8 • found in bl;mk
NA· not analyud
Table E'1. GE Subsite, Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/LJ
l,'.!•Dichloroeth::uit ·. I
Bcnz,:nr:
Chlorofortn
ds• l.:?•Dichloroethcn.:-
Tetr.lch.lorodhene
w.lns-1,2•□ichlorocthcne
Trichloroethcno:
Vinyl chloride:
. svoc, (µg/L).
Nitrohc:nz:i:ne
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
Barium
Beryllium
wd
M:ing.an,=se
Niclc.~1
Notbs;
U,ND -not detectod
J • det&Ctctd, estimated result
W • not detDctod, estlm.atod ms.ult
D • dUution sample
E • exCHd calibration limit
B • fo\lnd In blank
NA-not an31yud
I
70
70
.2.S
·I
10
2000
•
lS
50
100
Mar-03
ND (2.0)
ND (I.OJ
NO (2.0)
2.5
312
ND (2,0J
6.4
ND (1.0)
NA
13.3 J
0.26 ND
3.5 J
9.2 J
I.IND
MW-13A
Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND (10.0) ND{l0.0) ND (10.0) ND {2_.0) ND (5.0)
ND (5.0) NO (5.0) ND(5.0J ND (LO) ND (5.0J
ND(IO.O) ND (10.0J NO(I0.0) ND(2.0) ND (5.0)
2.7 J 4.8 J 3.6 J 2.7 ND (5.0J
326 224 220 223 175
ND (10.0) . ND (IQ.OJ ND (10.0J ND(2.0) ND (5.0J
6.5 J . S.7·J 6.0 J 4.4 3.7 J
ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND(S,O)
ND (5.0) ND(S.0)
11.S J 13. I J \j.9 J 16.6B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND OJ ND O.JND
1.2ND l.2ND 2.0ND J.2ND 12ND
6.9 J S.2 J 8.6 J 18.3 8.5 B
3,5 J-I.I ND Ll ND 2.1 B 1.1 ~D
Boldi:d v.:1lues indic.11i: dc1ee1~-d concentr.1tion~ gre:atcr than remediation goals.
Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
NO (J.O) ND(0.5) ND(LO) l.OND
ND (I.OJ ND (0,5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (I.OJ ND (0.5J ND (1.0) I.ONO
2.9 3.6 3.0. 4,0
195 171 2SO 130
ND (I.OJ ND (0.5) ND(l.0) I.ONO
u 5.9 6.0 4.0
ND(I.O) ND (0.5) ND (I.DJ . l.0ND
2,1 B 1.9 B ND (15.0) IS.ONO
10.0 B 8.8 B ND (50.0) so.a ND
I.I ND 0.8 ND ND (100.0) · 100.0 NO
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-14
Parameter Goal Sep-W Dec--00 Mar-01 Jun--01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun--02 Sep-02 Dec--02
voe; (µg/L)
1.2-Dichloro.:th:ule ND (20.0} ND(l0.0) ND (20.0) ND (2.0) ND(JO.O) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) NO(4.0)
Benz,:ne ND{l0.0) ND(S.0) ND(IO.O) ND (1.0) . ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (S.D) ND(S.O) ND (5.0) ND(2,0)
Chloroform ND(20.0) ND (10.0) ND 120.0) ND (2,0) ND {10,0) NO (10.0) NO (10.0) ND{lO.O) ND (10.0) ND (4.0)
cis-1.2-0ichloroe~DC 70 94,4 8-1.2 5 I.I 333 27.5 23,6 44.◄ 30.7 33.2 26.7 -
T etraehlo roethene . 576 J 493 32' 241 J 253 227 382 283 ' 285 294
tr.i.ru-l .2-Dich\o~thcne 70 ND (20.0) ND(I0.0) ND (20.0) l'-!D(2.0) ND (!0.0) "ND (10.0) ND(lO.O) · . ND{\0.0) ND (10.0) ND (4.0)
Trichlorocthcnc 2.8 203 201 103 69.2 67.7 66.1 126 93.0 93.2 85.5
Vinyl chloride ND (10,0) ND (5.0) ND(lO.O) ND (LO) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND(5.0) ND (5.0) ND(S.O) ND (2.0)
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrobt:nZl:tlc 10 ND(S.O) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND(5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5.1) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
Barium 2000 33. l J 29.5 J 25.S J 19.9 J 19.S J 20.1 J 19.61 17.5 J 18.3 J 0.49 NO
Ikrylli.um ' 022ND I.OUJ l.3 ND 0:38 ND O.SS NO 0.22 ND 0.49 J 0.26 ND 0.26 NO 0.26 ND
Le,d 15 1.2 ND t.S UJ 2.1 NO 1.2 ND 9.0 3.7•ND. l.2ND 1.2 ND 1.2ND 1.2 ND
Mm&3ne:;:e 50 683 638 J SIJ 372 356J ·.JJSJ 350 290 272 3.1 J
Nickel 100 l.2J O.SUJ 0.94.ND I.ONO 0,8ND 0.99 J O.SND l.l ND ·1.1 '.'tD I.IND
Notes: Bo!ded values indic:i.tc detected conci.:ntrations srotC11h:m ~cdi:u:ion 1;:oals.
U,NO • not dotEJCted
J • detected, estimated result
UJ • not dotectad, estll1\:lted rnutt
0 • dilution sample
E • oxcood calibr.lilon llmlt
B • found In blank
NA• not analyzod
Table E-1. GE Subslte -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
: Remediation
Pant.meter Goal
voe, (f'g/LJ
1.2-Dichlor~hane
Bcnttne
Ch.L~rofomi
cis:4 I .24 Dichloroethene
T err:u:hloroc:tbenc
tr:uu--1.2-Dichlorocthem:
Trichloro<!U'.e~c
Vinyl chloride.
SVOCs (µg/LJ
Nirro~c
METALS .TOTAL (µg/L)
Barium
Bc-ry!.lium
L=I
M.o.ng:incsc
Nickel
Notes;
U,NO • not detected
J • dctocted, ostlmatod result
W • not dotoctod, es.dmat&d rosult
0 • dllution s.ampla
E • ex.coed calibration llmlt
B • found in blank
NA• no1 analyzod
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
,0
100
MW-14
M·ar-03 . Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND (10.0} ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND (4.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
ND (S.OJ · ND (5,0) ND (S.OJ ND (2,0) ND(l.0) ND (l.OJ
ND"(l0,0) ,ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ~D {4.0} ND (2.0) ND (2.0J
16.2 26~ 2!.7 17.6 13.2 39.0
m 243 168 158 126 , ...
ND(I0.0) .. ND(I0.0) ND (10.0) ND (4.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0)
Sl.4_ 79.2 53.0 -38.7 31.4 225
ND (S.OJ ND (S,OJ ND(S.O) NO (2.0) ND (I.OJ ND (2.0)
NA SD (S.OJ ND (S.OJ
44.1 J . ·r6.6 J 17.6 J 19.S J 19.3 B
· 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND. 0.3 ND 0,3ND
l.SND l.2•ND 1.2 ND 2,0ND 1.2ND l.2ND
, .. 206. · 195 170 192 487
I.I NO l.l ND l.l~D l.l ND. I.I ND 12B
Bold,:d valu~ iodic-.dc detected concen1rations gre:Uer ~ rt:m~i:uion so:tls.
· Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08 ..
ND(l.O) ND (0.5) ND (l.O) I.ONO
. ND {LO) ND (O.S) ND (I.OJ l.OND
N_D (1.0) ND (0.5) ND (I.OJ I.ONO
17.8 43.3 49.0 36.0
140 455 380 260
ND (I.OJ 0.$4J ND(l.OJ I.ONO
. 81.4 225 130 51.0
ND (I.OJ 2.0 N_D (1,0) I.ONO
2.0 8 1.7.ND ND (15.0) IS.ONO.
609 · 675 410 300
I.I ND 0,8SD ND (100.0) · 100,0ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite·• Performance Well Analytical Results.:(continued)
Remediation MW-14A
Parameter Goal Sep--00 . Dec--00 Mar-01 .. Juo--01 Sep--01 Dec--01 Mar-02 Jun-02. Sep-02 Dec--02
voe, (µg/L)
1.1-Dichloroctlune ND (10.0) ND(I0.0) ND(I0.0) · .. 1.1 J ND (10.0) ND (4.0) 1.3 J NO (4.0) · l.4J 1.2 J
lknun, ND(5.0) ND (5.0) ND(S,0} ND {1.0) ND (5.0) ND (2;0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) -ND (:1:.0) ND(2.0)
Chloroform ND (!0.0) ND(lO.O) ND (10.0) ND('.?.O) ND (10.0) ND (4.0) ND (4.0) ND (4.0) ND (4.0) ND(4,0)
cis-1.2-Dichlorocthcoc 70 31.9 32.1 33.6 35.4 28.4 3 l.0 . 26.8 29.8 3S.6 23.2
Tclr.lch\oroethcnc 154 J 212 205 17.7 J 172 166 . 183 200 232 m
trans-l .2•Dichlot'tX'lhcne 70 ND (:0.0) ND (10.0) ND {JO.O) ND(2.0) ND (!0.0) ND (4.0) ND(4.0) ND (4.0) ND(4,0) NO (4.0)
Trichloroc:thenc 2,8 36.5 46.5 42.9 49.1 42.4 42.7. 42.l 51.7 59.2 42.5
Vinyl chloride ND (5.0)_ ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (1.0) ND(S.0) ND (2.0} ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobc:nzenc 10 · NO (S.O) ND (5.0} ND (5,5) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5.0) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
B:uiwn 2000 4.5 J 5.9 J 9.3 J 4.2 J 5.4 J 5.5 J 6.3 J 3.9 J 3.5 J 82.4 J
Ekryllium 4 0.22·ND 0.98 VJ 0.97 NO 0.32 ND l.3ND 0.22 ND 0.22 ND 026ND 026ND 0.26ND
u,,d 15 l.2ND 2.0 VJ 3.2 ND 12ND l.2N'D 3.8 ND 1.8 J 1.2ND 1.4ND 3.7 J
Mangw~e so 53.4 54.J J 6'1.8 45.0 41.0 J 49.2 J 30.0 40.6 42.0 273
Nickd 100 1.9 ! 0.93.J l.4ND 1.4 ND I.SJ 1.5 J 1.8 J I.I ND l.l ND 1.lND
. Noto$: Boldc:d v:iluc:~ indicate: dc:t«ted concl!nU'lltiorui greater thun n:mc:di~ion goo!$.
U,NC • not dotocted
J. doto<:t&d, ostfmatud result
UJ • not detected, estimated result
0 • dilution s.iimplo
E. exceed calibration llmlt
B • found in blatik
NA • not analyz.od
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Reniediatioo
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/L)
1.2-Dichloroeth:ir.c -· Chloroform
ds-1,2-D:chlo~thcnc
Tctr.lchloroethenc
lr.lll.S-1 ,2-Dichlorocthcnc
Trichlorocthcm:
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrobcnzeru:-
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Barium
Bi:ryllium
L<,d
Y.:i.nga.nes<!
~ickd
Notes:
U,NO -not dotectod
J -deted:ltCI, ostim'ated result
UJ -not d1Jtec:t.od, estimated r9SUlt
O -dilution sample
E -axc:.ood calitmrtion limit
B -found Ir, blank
NA• not analyz&d
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
. "
50
JOO
Mar-03
ND (I0.0)
ND {5.0)
:,.JD (J0,0)
12.9
160
NO (10.0)
32.7
ND(S.0}
NA
3.6 J
0.26 NO
6.0ND
42.S
I.I ND
MW-14A
Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND(I0.0) ND (2.0) ND (4.0) · ·0.51 J ND (2:01
ND(S,O) NO(I.0) . NO (2.0) NO(I.O) NO (2 .. 0)
ND (10.0) ND (2.0) .. ND (4.0) ND (2.0) !'10(2.0)
19.J 23.4 -21.6 16.1 11.6
182 177 200 169 95.5
NO (I0.0) 0.65 J ND (4.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.D)
39.2 40.7 4:Z.1 28.◄ )7.0
ND(S.0) ND{l.0) ND (2,0) ND(l.0) ND(2,0)
NO (5.0) ND (5.1)
2.2 J 3,1 J 4.9 J 4.9 B
0.:Z6ND 0.26 ND. 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
1.2 ND 1.2 ND s.O ND J.2ND 3.8 B
42.7 44,J 42.3 53.9 47.S
1.1 ND 1.1 ND !.7 J LS B . l.l ND
Boldcd v:i.lu~ indic:i.tc dc:tected conccntr.n.ioru sra1..:r th:i.n remcdhuion go:,.\s.
Sep-OS Sep-06· Se~7 Sep-08
ND(l.O) 0.53 J ND (1.0} I.ONO
NO(I.0) NO (0.5) NO (1.0) l,0ND
Nb {1.0) ND (0.5) NO (LO) L0~D
31.1 . 19.3 22.0 14.0
97.7 .... 97.0 100.0
ND (1.0) NO (0.S) ND (1,0) I.ONO
·21.0 16.6 15.0 16.0
ND (1.0) ND(0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
4.S 8 3.7 B ND(IS.O)_ IS.ONO
68.l 47.0 60.0 so.a ND
J.8 B I.I B NO (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued). ·
Remediation MW-15
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Juo-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voes ()lg/L)
1,2-Dichlorocdunc ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (~.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Benzen< ND (1.0) ND(l,0) ND (1.0) ND(l.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (i.O) ND (1.0)
Chloroform ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0)
d:,-1,2-0ichloroethcn.: 70 ND (2.0) ND(2:0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (.'.!:.O) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO{2.0)
Tetrachloroelhcnc ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) 0.52 J 0.51 J
tr:ms-l .2•Dichlorocdiai~ 70 ND (2.0) ND'(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
Trichloroethene 2.8 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) :"/0 (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(:?.O) .
Vinyl chloride ND(J.0) ND(I.O) ND (1.0). ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.O) ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ
svocs (/lg/L)
Nitro!xn:u:m: 10 ND(5.0J · NO(5.0) ND (5.5) ND (5.0) ND (53J) ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5.2) NA
METALS TOTAL ()lg/L)
~l!m 2000 192 J 146 J 235 232 113 J 114 J 53.4 J. 47.2 J 53.0 J 32.4 J
Beryllium 4 0.42 ND 0.22 ND 2.7 ND 1.5 J 0.69 ND 0.57 J 0.22 NO 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
L=l 15 2.6 J 1.2 NO 15.2 ll.9 l.2NO 5.9NO 2.1 J l.2NO l.5ND l.2ND
Manga:u:se 50 1590 2650 2490 3730 4600 J 4770J 4450J 371!0 2510 529
:-Jidccl 100 16.S J 0.8 ND 4.9 ND 4,1 J 0.8 NO IAJ 0.8ND l.l ND !.I NO I.! ND
Notes: Boldcd valu~ indic:ite do::t...-ctcd concxntl":l!ion,; gre-:uc:r ih::i.n r.:mcdia1ion goals.
U,ND • 'not dotCJCted
J -del9Ct&d, estimated re5utt
UJ -not det:Dctod, estimated result
0 -dilution s.ampla
E • oxc:oed calibration limit
B • found in bl:i.nk
NA -not analy.tod
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediacion
Parameter Goal
voe, <µg/L)
l .2-Di-,hlo~hane
Bcnzcr.c
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dich!oroctht!nc _ 70
Tctndilorocchcne 1.
traru-I .2-Dich.lorocth1."flC 70
Trichloroether\.e 2.,
\'.inyl c~!oridc
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobcnzcn< JO
METALS_TOTAL (µg/L)
Barium
BCryllilJl!l
Lo>d
M:mg:i.nde
· Nickd
Notn:
U,ND • not dotDCtcd
J . det&Ct9d, ostimatad result
W • not diitoctod, ost.imatod rosult
0 • dilution s.amplo
E • exceed calibratio11 limit
B • found In blank ·
. NA • not afla1yzo<l
2000
4
15
,o
100
MW-15
Mar-03· Jun-03 Sep--03 Mar-04 · ·Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0). ND'('.2.0} ND(l.O)
ND (1.0) ND (l.O) ND (1.0) ND (l.0) ND (I.OJ ND{I.O)
ND{.2.0) ND (2.0) ND{2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
_ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (:!.O) ND(2.0) ND (l.0)
ND(2.0) ND(2.0) 0.73 J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND(2.0} ND(2.0) ND ('.?.O} ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) , ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) . ND (I.O) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0)
NA ND (5.0) Ni:r(S.O)
31.1 J 28,2 J 36,2 J 29.5 J 37:5 B
0.26 ND -0.26ND 0.26 ND 0,3 ND 0,3 ND
1.6 J 1.2ND J.2 ND 1.4 ND l.2ND l.2ND
3270 lTIO 1860 1300 2670 . 2450
1.1 ND I.I ND I.I ND I.I ND LI 8 0,97 8
Boldcd v::ilu~ indic:ite dc-tCCti:d eonc..-nli.ltion:i g:t\.":lt1tr 1hun n:mtdi:ition go:11$,
Sep--05 Sep--06 Sep-07 . Sep-08
ND(l.0) ND(0.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND_(l.0). SD (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND(I.O) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO ..
ND (l.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) ·J.0 ND
ND (1.0) . ND (O.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND(l.O) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (1.0) Noco·_5j ND (1.0) 1.0 ND
3.7 B 1.7:ND ND (15.0) IS.ONO
890 1510 2400 1500
1.4 B 0.8 ND ND (100.0) -100.0 NO
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-16
Param"eler Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 · Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec,02'
voe, (Jig/LJ
1.2-Dichlor~th:ine ND {2.0) ND{2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
B<n=,, ND (l.0) ND(I.O) NO (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (1.0) · ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0)
Chlorofonn 0.89 J !'10(2,0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0) N0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
cis-1,2-0ich!o!(l('thcn~ 70 ND l2.0) 1.4 J 2.3 J.8 J 1.8 J 1.7 J 1,2 J 0.86 J 0.91 J 0,95 J
Tetr:i.chlorocthd\c 45.4 21.8 24.J 13~· 24.7 20,9 15.8 11.4 9.1 9.3
troru-l .2-Dichk1rocthcnc 70 NDC?.O) ND l2.0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Trich\oro.::thcir.e-2.S ND(l.O) l.4 J 1.0 J 0.72 J 0.9 J ND (2.0) o.s J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0)
Vinyl chloride ND(l.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0} ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.O) NO (1.0) ND {I.OJ ND (1.0)
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrob.:ru:tnc 10 ND (S.O) ND (5.0) ND(S.S} ND (5S) ND(S.O} ND (S.O} NA NA ND (S.O} NA
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Barium 2000 33,5 J 33.2 J 37.4·1 32.l J 33.9 J 33.5 J 34.S J 31.0 J 33.9 J 73.1 J
Beryllium ' 0.73 ~□ I.I UJ O.Sl ND 0.22 ND 0.29 ND 022ND o·.s J. 0.26 NO 0.38 J 0.26 ND
L=d 15 1.2 ND 2.2 UJ 1..2 ND 1.2ND 2.2 ND 2.2 ND j.l J l.2ND 3.2 ND 1.2 ND
M:mg:ines~ so 667 629 J 678 585 618 590 591 546 566 6"4
Nickel IOO 2.l J 0.95 J 0.8 ND, 0.8ND O.SND 0.8 XO O.SND I.I ND I.I ND 1.1 ND
Notas: Sotded v:i.\uc:1 indic:ite: dct«1~ i:onc:,:nto.tioru greater than rem,:di:i.tion gO:W.
U,ND. not dotoctod
J • dotoctoc:I, O'Stlm:rtvd result
UJ • not dffletod, ostlm;rtod re$\Jl1:
0 • dilution samplo
E. oxcood c:,llbr.ition limit
B • found In blank
NA· not an31yud
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, ()Lg/L)
l ,2-Dichlorocth:lne
B=en,
Cblorofonn
cis-1.2-Dichlorocthc~
Tett:ichloroc:thcnc
o·:mj-1.2-Dichlorocthi:nc
Trich!oroc:th~c
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs ()Lg/L)
Sitrobcnzi:n,:
METALS TOTAL ()tg/L)
B:irium
Beryllium
L<>d
Manganesi:
Nickel
Notes:
U,NO • not detect&d
J -det:oct04, estimated result
UJ. not datectnd, astlm.ntad ntsult
O. dilution sample
E • axco«:I ~l\br.stion limit
B • found In blank
NA • nDt analyzed
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
50
100
Mar-03
ND (2.0)
ND(l.OJ
ND (1.0J
ND (2.0)
5.1'
ND(2.0)
ND (2.0}
ND (1.0)
NA
32.3 J.
0.26 ND
L! ND
482
I.I ND
MW-16
Jun-03 Sep--03 Mar-04 Sep--04 Mar--05
ND (2.0) NO(l.O) NO (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (I.OJ
ND (I.OJ ND(I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ
ND (2.0) ND_(2:0J ND(2.0J ND(2.0J . ND (I.OJ
ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
2.9 1.4 J ND(2.0) t.7 J . 0.93 J
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) NO(2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0J ND (2.0) ND (I.OJ
Nb(J.0) ND {1.0) ND(I.O) ND (I.OJ · ND(I.Q)
ND.(5.0) ND(S.0)
· 30.5 J 34.S J. 36.1 J 39.08
0.26 ND 0.26 NO 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
1.2 ND 1.1 ND UNO l.!SD l.2NO
523 529 482 609 ; 573
I.IND I.IND I.I ND I.I ND I.I ND
Bolded v:ilui:, indic:ite d("t~ted concentr:i.tion, grw~r than remediation goals.
Sep--05 Sei>-06 Sep--07 Sep--08
ND(l,O) ND(O.lJ ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (I.OJ ND (0.5J ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (I.OJ _ND.(O.lJ ND (1.0) i.OND
ND (I.OJ . ND (0.5J ND(l.OJ I.ONO
I.I 0,56 J ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (I.OJ ND (O.lJ ND(l.O) I.ONO
ND (LO) ND (0.5) ND (I.OJ l.0ND
ND(l.0) ND(0.5) ND(I.O) I.ONO
2.4 B '.UB ND (lS.O) 15.0ND
728 620 540 510
I.I ND · 0.8 ND ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subs~•. Performance Well Analytical Results. (.continued)
Remediation MW-16A
Par~meter .Goal Sep--00 De<--00 Mar-01 Jun--01 Sep--01 Dec--01 Mar--02 Jun-02 · Sep--02 Dec--02
voes (µg/LJ
! ,2-Dich\oro1:t!'l.ane ND (10.0) ND(I0.0) ND (4.0) ND (2.0) 0.49 J ND(4.0) ND(4.0) ND (4.0): l.l J 1.3 J
Benzene :-.:0(5,0) ND (5.0) ND(2.0) 0-~~ J ·1.1 1.3 J ND(2.0) ND (2.0) . ND(2.0) ND(2.0)
Chlorofonn NO (10.0) NO (10.D) ND (4.0}. ND (2.0) 0.55 J ND (4.0) ND (4,0) ND (4.0) · ND (4.0) ND (4.0)
ci:,:-! .2-Dich\or~U'.cm: 70 12.9 il.8 !2.S 13.2 J 14.0 29,\ 146 . 67.1 68.4 56.5
Tetr3chloroethdl.c 194 127 94.4 ·89.B J 102 ISi 58.6 llO ISi 18l
tr.U\S-I ,2-Dich!orocrhc:nc 70 ND (10.0) ND (10.0) ND (4.0) NO (2.0) 0.57 J ND(4.0) ND(4.0) ND (4,0) · NO (4,0) ND(4.0)
Trichlorocthi:nc 2.S 6.9 J . 6.2 J S.l 5.4 J S.6 .7.2 .. 4.1 6.4 7.1 7.0
Vinyl chloride: ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (2.0) ND'(i.0) NO (LO) ND (2,0) . ND(2.0) ND (2.0). ND (2.0) ND (2.0)·
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrobcr\7.J:m: 10 ND(5.0) ND (5,0) ND (5.5) NO (5.5) ND (5.0) N~ (5.0) NA NA :-.ID (5.1) NA
.METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
-8:itium 2000 9.8 J 1"0.6 J 16.3 J 15.9 J 16.9 J ,16.3 J 13.0 J 14.9 J 13.2 J 3.3 J
Beryllium 4 0.59 ND 0.92 UJ. 0.48 NO o.22_ND 0."?2ND 0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0,26 ND 0.26 NO 0.26 ND
L,3d 15 1.2:ND · 1.6 UJ 2.7ND 1.2 NO 1.2 NO 2.0ND I.2ND 1.2 ND I.2 ND 1.2 ND
M:ing311C$t: 50 167 192 J . 192 166 258 24l 3l8 138 132 47.B
Nickd 100 32.1 J· 30.6J 27.5 ND 16.1! J 27.6 J 15.3 J 10.2 J 15.?"J 17.J J l.l ~D
N«es: Bo!ded _-..-;iluo:~ indic:i.to: dc:tectc:d conci:nu:i.tions };.'Il::ltl:r than remi:di:i.tion goal&,
U,NO • not debfCUtd
J • datRCtDd, astimatod rosult ·
UJ • not dot&etod, ostimatod rosult
0 • dllution sample
E • oxeeqd calibration limit
B • found In blank
-NA.• not analyu<I -
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Perfonnance.Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/L)
1.2-Dichlom.!th:in.:
Ben=<
Chlorofonn
ci:>-1.2-Dichlorot:tl-~.:
TetrJChlorocthdl!c'
a=s-L ,2-Dichloroethcnc
Trichloro<thdlc
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitroh¢nz,:ne
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
·Buium
Be-ryl!ium
lc1d
Mt111g:uies.:
Nickel
Notos:
U,ND -not detoctad
J • d~. ostlmatad rf»ult
UJ • not esotodod, estin1-iltvd rosult
D -dUutlon s:unple
E • excood g.llbr.rt!on limit
B • found In bla11k
· NA • no« 3n3lyzed
70
70
2.S
10
2000
4
. ! 5
50
100
Mar-03
ND (10.0)
ND (S.O)
ND(I0.0}
66.2
228
ND(I0.0)
8.8 J
ND (5.0)
NA
l2.7 J
0.26 ND
l.6ND
68.4
9.0 J
MW-16A
'. Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 . Sep-04 Mar:.05
l.1 J 1.2 J l.7J 1.2 J ND (2.0)
NO (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(2:0) ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
0.73 J 0.71 J NO (4.0) 0.65 J ND (2.0)
56.4 60.4 65.1 . 50.3 42.4
183 201 160 162 119
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (4.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0)
5.7 ••• 63 s.o •••
ND (LO} ND(l.0) NO (2.0) ND (1.0) ND (2.0)
'10 (S.O) ND (5.0)
11.6 J 1J:2J 14.S J 15.0 B
0.26 ND o.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
!.2 ND· 1.2 ND UNO 1.2 ND 1.2 ND.
87.S 3 l.7 23.! 79.5 16.7
8.7 J 7._7 J 12.S j 8.1 8 2.7 8
Boldcd va.lud indiote ~kcected concentrations greater th:m ri:medi:ition gool:i.
Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
0.96 J ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ !.ONO
ND (I.OJ ND(I.O) . ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND(I.O) ND (I.OJ ND.(1.0) I.ONO
52.7 37.8 %.0 32.0
159 140 "'' !SO
ND(J.0) ND(I.O) ND (I.OJ I.ONO
6.2 ... s.o s.o
ND(I.O) NO (LO) ND (1.0) 1.0 ND
1.2 ND 1.8 B ND(lS.0) ·1s.o ND
17.3 6.3 B 110 60.0
·2.9 B 3.0 B ND llOO.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-22A
Parameter Goal Sep-00 · Dec--00 Mar--01 Jun--01_ Sej>-01 Dec--01 Mar--02 Juo--02 Sep--02 Dec--02
voes ()lg/LJ
l ,2-Dichloro,=th:uie ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2,0_) N0(2.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0} NO ('.!.O} ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Bi:nzm,: ND(I.O) ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND (I.OJ ND(l.0) · ND(I.O) ND(l.0) ND (1,0) ND(I.O)
Chlorofonn ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0). ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ><D (2.0) ND{:!.O)
cis-1.2-Dichlorodhene 70 0.95 J N~ (2.0) ~0(2.0) 1.3 J 0.61! J ND (2.0) 0.82J I.I J l.l J. L3 J
Tc:trxhloroethcnc ...... 40.2 40.6 41.4 31.8 36.8 30.2 31.S 32.J 42.9
tr.ms-1,2-Dichlorocthcne 70 ND (2.0) _ND(2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND ('.!.O} ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)' ND (2.0)
Trichlor01--thcm: 2.8 0.82 J ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)· 0.36 J ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Vinyl chloride ND(I.O) ND(l.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND {LO) ND(I.O} ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (LO)
SVOCs ()lg/L)
Nitrobcnzcnc IO ND (S.O) ND (5.0} ND (:5,0) ND (5.5) ND(5.0) ND(S,O) NA NA ND (5.0) NA
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
Darh:m 2000 13.2 J 13.S 1 21.1 J 12.3 J 14.S J 13.9 J 11.7 J ll.2 J 13.J J 12.S J
Beryllium • 0.54 ND 0.67 ND 0.3S ND 0.22 ND 0.5; ND 0.12 ND 0.45J 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
Lc>d 15 1.2 ND i'.3 ND 2.4ND 1..2 ND l.2ND 3.5 ND 1.2ND 1.2 ND l.2ND l.2ND
Mangan~ so 6,5 ND 4.0 ND 6.8 J 5.3 J S.9 J 6. I J s.s J 3.3 J 4.2 J 3.9 J
Niclcel 100 · 2.3 ND 0.8 ND 0.8 ND 0.6 XD O.~ND 0.8ND O.S ND I.I ND I.IND 1,1 ND
Notes: Bolded vo.h.1e:i: indic11.te detected concentt:1.tions i;n:::1.ter th:in remediation g03Ls.
U,ND -not dete<:t:od
J • detact&d, estimated rasult
UJ • not detecad, estlmatod rosult
D -dllutlon umplo
E • ex.coed calibration limit
a-found In blank.
NA-not an:ityzod
Table E•1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Resul_ts. (continued)
Remedi.ation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/L)
l ,2-Dic.hloro<!thani:
· Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichlorocchaic 70
Tctr.lchloroc:thc:nc 1
trans-1.2:oichlorocthent 70
Trichloroethcnc 2.8
Vinyl c.blorick
SVOCs (µg/L)
~•lilrobcnunc 10
METALS TOTAL (µg/L) ·
B:iriu.m 2000
Ikrylliwn 4
L,,d 15
.Man~ese . ,o
Nickel
Note:.:
U,ND. not detactod
J • det&cted, estimated rosuh
UJ • not dotitcted, estimated re$Ult
D • dilution ~pl•
E. e:xceod calibralfon limit
B • found In blank
• _NA • not analyr:ed
JOO
Mar--03
ND (2.0)
:-.1D(l.O)
ND (2.0)
1.4 J
43.8
ND (2.0)
ND (2.0)
ND (LO)
NA
11.8 J
0.16 ND
1.7 J
4.l J
I.I ND
MW•22A
Juo--03 Sep--03 Mor--04 Sep--04 Mar--05
ND (2.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0) ND (2,0} ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND{I.O) NO(J.0) NO (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND_(2.0) :,.ioc2.0J ND (2.0) ND(l.O)
!.8 J 2.4 2.! 2.4 2.9
46.7 59.6 52.1 77.7 84.6
NO(2.0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (LO)
1.6 J 0.98 J 0.55 J 0.67 J ·o.98 J
NO (1.0) NQ(l.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0} ND(l.0)
ND(S.0) ND{5.0)
13.0 J 14.9 J 14.6 J 17.5 B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
1.2ND 1.2ND 2.0 ND l.2ND s.o
4.6 J 6.4 J 4.6 J 16.7 7.4 B
I.I ND I.I ND 1.1 ND 1.1 ND I.I ND
Boldcd valuc:s indie!it,: detect~ com::entrar.iow greater than rancdi:uion g0:1l1.
Se~S Sep-06 Sep--07 Sep-08
NO(l,O) _ND(O.l) ND (J.0) l.ONO
ND{l.0) _ ND (0.5) ND(I.O) I.ONO
ND (LO) ND-(0.l) ND (1.0) I.ONO
1.6· 1.9 1.0 1.0
64.8 -63.6 29.0 21.0
-ND(l.O) ND (O.l) ND (LO} I.ONO
ND (1.0) ·ci.ss·1 ND (1.0) I.ONO
NO(I.0) ND (0.5) ND (I.OJ -1.0 ND
2.6 B 2.9 B ND (15.0) 15.~ND
5.9 B 8.48 ND (SO.OJ 50.0 ND
I.I ND O.SND ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. ( continued)
Remediation MW-27
Parameter G_oal ~p-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jwi-01 ~p-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voe, ()lg/L)
! .2-Dichlorocihanc ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND p:,O) ND (2.0) ·f':ID{2.0}
!knm, ND (LO) ND(l.0) ND (LO) ND(I.O) ND (l_.0). ND(I.O) ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND(LO) ND (1.0)
Ciloroform ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0) NO(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND {2.0) _ND (2.0)
ci~-J .2-Dichlorocthen,; 70 56.4 50.6 39.7 39.4 25.3 18.5 16.3 16.7 14.6 11.4
Tc~hloroethenc 42.l J 36.S 27.4 35.S 24.S 22.9 19.0 23.1 22.S 16.9
trans-I .2-Dichloroethi:ne 70 ND (2.0). ND (2.0} ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0). ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 0.91 J ND(2.0)
Trichlorocthcme 2.8 15.7 14.1 10.6 ll.3 1.8 6.9 6.9 7.3 7.0 4.7
Vinyl chloride ,<D (LO) ND (LO) 2.S 2.6 2.7 1.6 1.1 2.6 ,., 2.0
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobmz.enc JO ,<D (5.0) ND (5,0) ND (5.0) ND(S.0) ND (5.0) ,<D (5.0) NA NA ND (5.2) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L) .
BMiurn 2000 89.0 J 82.0 J 85.4J 83.8 J 85.5 J · 78.8 J 92.8 J 90.1 J 93.7 J 20,9 J
Berylliwn 4 022ND 0.36 ND 1.3 ND· OJ6 ND 0.83 ND 0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0.26 ND I.SJ 0.26 ND
wd 15 1.2ND l.2ND 2.2 ND 1.2 ND 1.2 ND 3.1 ND 3.S J 1,2 ND 4.4 ND l.2ND
M~g;inesc:-,o 143 2J4 J 498 323 261 J 34JJ '20J 691 474 574
Nickel JOO 1.4 J I.I ND l.7NO 1.8 NO 0.8 ND 1.4 J 0.86 J I.I ND l.6 J I.I ND
Notes: . Bolded value1 indicate detect~ concc:nl1':ltions gn::i.ter th:tn ~mi:di:i.tion go:i.ls.
U,NO -not deto-<;tOC!
J -detectad, estimated result
UJ • not dat»cted, ostim:illtd result
D • dilution $ample
E. exc:oed calibration limit
B • four,d ln blank
NA •.noton3}yud
~
Table E-1 •. GE Subsite • Performance.Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter-Goal
voe, (,ug/LJ
1,2-D:ichloroeth:in,:
Senz.en~
Chloroform
cis-1.2-Dich!oroethenc
T ,:tr.ichloroclh~e
tra.,s-! .1-Dichlorocthenc
Trichloroechenc
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs,(/lg/L)
Nia-obenzcnc
METALS TOTAL ()lg/L)
. Barium
Bcryl!iwn
Le,d
Mmg:indC
~ickcl
· ·Notes:
U,t-1D • not detectod
J • dot"eet&d, eatfmatad rosult
W • not detm;;bld, estimated re5ult
0 -dilution 5amp'8
E-exceed calibration limit
·e •found in blank
NA : not analyzod
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
so
100
Mar-03
ND(2.D)
NO(I.O)
ND (2.0)
9.3
18.6
1.2 J
5.6
1.7
NA
64.S J
0.26 ND
7.0ND
717
LI ND
MW-27
Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 · Mac-05
ND.(2.0). ND (2.0) NO (2.0) · ND(2.0) ND(l.O)
ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.O) ND (1.0) 0.58 J
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0)
13,3 17.2 10.l 6.7 !l.4
16.4 16.6 10.S 9.2 13.0
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND{2.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0)
8.8 7.4 5.0 4.3 7.7
3.2 3.2 1.9 1.6 2,4
ND (5.1) ND (5.0)
80,9 J 82.4-J 76.S J 86.6 B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
l.2ND f.2 ND 2.3 ND l.2ND 12ND
647 593 646 732 726
I.I ND I.I ND · l.l ND 1.98 1.6 B
Boldi:d va!Ues in.dic:itc det«ti:d concentr3tions grc::itcr th:tn rcmcdia1ion goals..
Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-os·
NO (1.0) ND (0.5) ND(l.0) J.0 NO
0.62 J 0.64 J ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (1.0} ND {0.5) ND (LO) I.ONO
.14.9 11.6 11.0 6,0
12.4 26.◄ 34.0 18.0
ND (LO) ND (0.5) ND (1.0} I.ONO
12.1 14.3 16.0 8.0
2.3 1.a· . 1.0 1.0 ND-
1.9 B l.7ND ND(ll.O). 15.0 ND
6SI 693 680 610
J.6 B 0.SND ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation --MW~27A
Paumeter Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voes (p.g/L)
I .,2-Dich.lcroeth1111e 2.8 3.0 i 2.5 JJ 3.8J 2.9 3.6 ,., 5.0 ,.,
Benzene NO(l.0) NO°(::?.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (2.0) ND (1.0) ND.(1.0) ND (2,0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0)
Chloroform NO (2.0) ND (4,0) ND(2.0) r-.o (2.0) ND(4,0) ND ('.!:.O) ND (2.0} ND (4.0) ND (4.0) ND(4.0)
cis-1.2-Dichloroeth.enc 70 38.3 42.2 34.7 44.7 47.5 36.6 46.5 44.9 46.4 48.3
T ctr.ichloroctho::nc ND (2.0) SD (4.0) 5.2 ND (2.0) NO (4,0) N_D(2.0) NO(2.0J I.OJ ND (4.0) ND (4.0)
1Im$• l ,2-0ichloroctbc:ne 70 ND (2.0J NO (4.0J ND (2.0) NO (2.0) NO (4.0J ND_(2.0J ND (2.0J ND (4,0) 1.7 J N0(4.0J
Triehloroet...'i.ene 2.8 114 114 80.6 JOO.OJ Jl4 86.4 108 108 106 119
Vinyl chloride NO (1.0) ND(2.0) ND{l.O) ND (I.OJ 0.88 J ND (I.OJ O.?J J ND (2.0J NO (2.0J ND (2.0J
svocs (p.g/L)
Nitrobenzcn.:: 10 ND (5.0) ND(5.0) ND (5.0) NO (5.0J ND (5.0) NO (5.0) NA _NA ND (5.2) NA
METALS TOT AL (p.g/L)
B;,irium 2000 122 J 91.4 J 97.0 J 88.7 J 82,9 J 8S.4J 87.7 J 80.2 J 86.0 J 16.9 J
Beryllium 4 0.53 J 0.41 ND I.SND 0.27 ND . 0.4S ND 0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0.26 NO 0.44 J 0.26ND
'-""' 15 1.6 J 1.2ND 2.4 ND 12ND 2.1 ND 2.7 ND 1.6 J 1.2ND 3.3 ND l.2ND
M::mg:w:si: 50 295 276 J 301 ND 293 284 J 2?9J 174 J · 273 301 0.16 ND
Nickel 100 6.1 J . 3.8 ND J.,ND 3.4 ND 2.7 J 2.7 J 1.n I.IND 2.7 J I.IND
. Notes: Bold~ Y.Lluc:s indic:ue de1ectcd eon~tr.1tions ~h!r th:m rt:medi:cion goals.
U ,ND • not dolecilKI
J • detoct&d, estimau-d result
UJ -not dotocted, estlmatad ro$ull
0 • dilution umplo
E. CL1:CHCI ca/ibnrtlon limit
B • found in blank
KA • not analy:z:od
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/L) ·
l .2-Dichloroecham:
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloroethenc
Tctr:LehloroethCDe
rr.ms-1.2•Dichloroethene
Trichlorocthcne
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (µg/L)
NilJ'Obcnzcm:
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
B.:iriwn
BerylEwn
"""'
Manganese
Nickd
Notos:
U,ND • not detectod
J -d11Dcted., cstlm.rtod result
UJ • not dotuctod, o-stimated result
0 • dilutloo 5ample
E • e.xCUl!ld calibr;uion lim!t
B • found In blank
NA· not an.alyz.od
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
.IS
so
100
Mar-03
3.9
:--1o·c1.o}
ND(2-~)
40.8
ND (2,0)
0,68J
101
0.76J
NA··
85.0 J
0.26ND
4.5 ND
278
I.I NO
MW-27A
.. Juo-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04
4.7 4.3 4.3 s.1
N(? (1.0) ND (1.0) ND _(1.0). ND (1.0)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0), ND (2.0)
43.7. 37.1 34.7 33.1
1.s·J 2,9 J.1 .. 2.3
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)
113 90.S 84.1 145
1.3 0.96 J 0,65 J 0.77 J
ND (5.0) ND (S.O)
77.2J .· 75.S I 75.9 J 73.5 B
0.26 ND 0,26 ND 0.3 NO 0.3ND
l.2ND 1.2 No· 8.2 ND 3.1 B
292 281 27l 288
1.1 ND I.I ND . 1.8 J 2.9 8
Mar-05 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
3.6 S.3 S.l ND (1.0) 3.0
ND(L.0) ND(I.O) ND(O.S) · ND(I.O) I.ONO
ND(i.0) ND (1.0) ND (0.5) . ND (1.0} l.OND
31.5 '4.4 20.8 13.0 22.0
2.8 3,1 · 1.9 3.0 2.0
NO(l.0) ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND(l,0) I.ONO
109 99.0 70.3 89.0 95.0
0.82J ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND(J.O) I.ONO
4.S B 5.0 t.7 ND NO (15.0) IS.ONO
252 257 275 260 190
2.0 B l.7·8· 1.48 ND (100.0) 100.0 NO
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well An_alytical Results. ·(continued)
Remediation MW-29
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec..00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep--01 Dee-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voe, (Jlg/L)
1.2-Dichloroc:th:inc I. ND (2.0) ND (2.0) N0.(2.0J ND (2.0) 0_.56 J NO (2.0) ND (2.0) N0(2.0) o.ss J ND(2.0)
Bm2cn.: ND {1,0) NO (1.0) ND {1.0) NO (1.0) NO(l.O) ND (LO) NO (I.O) ND (I.OJ .~D (LO} ND(i.0)
Chlorofonn ND (2.0) !'-ID (2.0). ND {2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ?11.D (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
d~-1 ,2-Dichlo~ihcne 70 2.5 2.1 4.1 1.9 J 2.5 4.7 3.4 3.4 ,., ).9
T ctnchlorocthenc 16.3 23.1 42.0 17.l 30.2 55.6 34.l 36.7 36.6 50.7
tr.uu-1,2-Dichlotoahenc 70 ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) ND(2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
Trichloroct~c 2.8 ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) 0.49 J Q.541 ND (2.0) 0.51 J
Vinyl chloride . ND (1.0) ND (1.0) NO (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.0) NO (I.OJ ND (1.0) NO (1.0) ND (1.0)
SVOCs (Jlg/L)
Nitrobcriz,;ne IO ND(5.0) ND (5.0) NO (5.S) NO (5.SJ NO(5.0) NO (5.0) NA NA ND (S.4) NA
· · METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
· Barium 2000-67.8 J 68.1 J 73.3 J 69.4 J 72,4"J 68,2 J 77.1 J 69.9 J 70.2 J 60.SJ
Beryllium 4 9.22 ND 0.92 ND 0.S7 ND 0.22 ND .1.0 J 027ND 0.58 J 0.26 ND 0.26 ~D 0.26 ND
· 1.,,,d 15 1.2 ND 2.l ND 1.2 ND 12ND 1·.2 ND l.9 ND 1.6} l.lND 12ND 1.2 l\'D
MangAllc;..: 50 23.0 NO 20.'7 20.1 21.2 ·22.s J 17.5 22.8 18.0. 19.1 15.S
Nidcd 100 13.9 J 0.8 ND 0.8 ND 4.9 J 0.8ND 0.8 ND 0.SND I.I ND. LI ND J.l ND
Noto~: Boldl!d va.lu~ indicate dctc-.:tl!d concentr-.itioru gre:iti:r than n:mediation g~!s.
U,ND • not detected
J • dotoct.Dd, o.stlmated result
UJ • not dotecud, estimared result
0 • dilution u.mple
E • oxeeed catlbration limit
B • found in blotnk
NA • not analyzed
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal.
voe, (µg/LJ
1,2-Dichloroct.h:i.ne
11=,
ChJorofonn
cis-l ,2-Dichlorocthcnc:
Tctrachloroethenc
tr.ms-1,2-DichlorOdhcnc
:£"richloroethen,:
Vinyl chloride:
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobenzi:ne
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
B:irium
Betyl!ium
L<od
M:in~~
Nid::d
Not:o-s:
U,ND • not d11tod.oc:I
J -det&cted, estimated result
UJ -not thttoc:tDCI, estitn3ted rosult
0 -dilution sample
E • OJ.Coocl callbrat!on limit
B -fo,md In blank
· NA • not an.ilyud
70
70
2.8
I -
JO ..
2000
4.
15
50
100
Mar~3
ND (2.0)
ND(J.0)
ND (2.0)_
3.5
48.5
NO {2.0)
0.58 1
ND (1.0)
~A
71.2 J
0.26 ND
2.8 J
19.6
I.IND
MW-29
Jun~3 Sep-03 Mar~4 Sep-04 Mar~S
ND (2.0) 0.98 J 0.88J 0.86 J ND (1.0)
ND(J.0) ND (1.0) ND (l.O) ND (LO) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(J.0).
5.8 13.l 8.9 9.8 4.4
57.J 141 90.6 ll3 48.0
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(l.O)
0,&6 J 2.0 1.2 J I.S 1 0.67 J
ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND{l.O) ND (LO)
ND (5.0) "ND(S.O)
72.6J 66.4 J 80.9 J ·. 72.6B
0.26 ND 0,26.ND 0.3 ND 0.3 NO
· 1.2 ND 1.2·ND l.6ND \.2 ND 35 a
l9.7 13.2 J 23.2. n.:s .. 22.6
I.I ND I.I ND 1.1)· 1.2 B 1.1 ND
Bol<kd vu.luc:s-indicate dctecled conccntr.1.t:ions p-ctcr dun n:rm:di:i.iion go:ili.
Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep~S
ND (LO) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) 1.0ND
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) .J .. OND
ND (1.0) ND (05) ND (1.0) i.OND
4.0 0.69J ND (J.0) I.ONO
4-1.0 .. , 4.0 2.0
ND (1.0) · · ND (O~S) ND (I.OJ L0NO
0.68 J ND(q.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (,:0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) 1.0ND
2.2 B . 1.9 B ND(lS.O) JS.O ND
19.S · 19.0 ND(50.0) 50.0 ND
I.I ND 0.8 ND ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-3
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec--00 Mar--01 Jun--01 Sep-01 Dec--01. Mar-02 Juo-02 Sep-02 Dec--02
voe, ()lg/LJ
'-t.2-0ichlorocih.unc ND('.l.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (l.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)
Benzene ND (1.0) . ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND(I.O) ND(l.0) NO (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND(l.O)
Chloroform ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0)
c:ii.-1.2-Dich\orocthenc 70 2.5 3.0 4.1 3.8 2.2 2.5 •. , 4.0 4.6 4.9
T ecr:i.chlorocthaic I.SJ ,., 6.l 3.4 IJ J I.SJ 3J 2.4 2.0 1.6 J
cran1-l ,2-Dichlorodhene 70 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
TrichlOroethem: 2.8 1.9 J 4.2 , .. 4.4 I.SJ 2j ,., 3.4 3.7 ,-__ ,
Vinyl chloride ND(l.O) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.OJ ND (1.0) 0.78 J ND(l.O) 0.57 J ND (1.0)
svoc, (Jlg/L)
:,.litrobenur.e 10 ND(S.O) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND(S.OJ ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5.1) NA
METALS TOTAL (/lg/L)
83.riwn 2000 22.9 J 45,9 J 42.4 J 34.5 J 31.S J 44.! J 34,0J 26.8 J 26.3 J 17.2 J
&ryllium ' D.22 NO· 0.76 UJ 1.JND 0.22 NO 0.3 ND 0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
,.,,, IS 1.2 ND LS UJ 2.8 No· l.2ND 2.6 ND i.9ND 2.4 J 1.9 J 1.2~0 l.2ND
Mani;:in~,: so 3(,l 595 J 663 S65 460 S21 639J 630 494 248
Nicl;.cl 100 !4.0 J 1.3 J 1.7 NO 1.0 J 0.86 J 0.8 ND 0.8 ND J.I ND I.I ND 1.1 ND
Notes: Bolded V".ilue:i indic::it.:: daect.:d concentrations ~l!r than n:mcdi.iri.on goal:..
U,NO -not dotoctbd
J • dome~, ostfmated r1tSult
UJ -n.ot dGtect:Dd, ostim:xted result
0 -dilution $8mplo
E • exceed ialibration limit
B -found In bl:ink
NA -not analyzed
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/LJ
1.2-Dichlo!'O<:th:ll\e
&-nzcne
Ch.lorofonn
cil>-l ,2-Dichloro,:th,::ne 70
TetrJchtorocthcne
tr.ins-I ,2-Dichloroc:tlu:m: 70
Trichlorocihc:nc 2.8
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrob<nzer.i: 10
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
B::uiwn
Beryllium.
wd
Mangam.:>i:
Nickd
Not&s:
U,NO • net det.9d.ad
J • detected. o,tlmatod rOSult
W • not cSetilctod, estlmat»d rosult
D • dllutJcn samplo
E • Dllceod calibration llmlt
B • found In blank
NA. not an:tlyzed
2000
4
15
50
100
Mar-03
ND (2.0)
NO (l.O)
ND (2.0)
3.9
0.55 J
ND(2.0)
l.2 J
NO(l.0)
NA
18.8 J
0.26 ND
2.9NO
528
I.I SD
MW-3
Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND l2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0}
NO (I.OJ ND{l.O) ND(l.0) NO (1.0) ND (LO)
ND (2.0) NO (1.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (1.0)
5.9 5.6 6.8 4.5 . 2.7
ND (2.0) 0.55 J ND (2.0) NO (1.0) NO(I.O)
NO (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND(2.0} ND (1.0)
I. I J 1.3 J 1.0 J 0.1 I ND(l.0)
ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(J.0) ND(l.0) ND(l.O)
NO (5.0) NO (5.0)
18.1 J 21.4 J 24.8 J 24.3 B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
l.2ND 1.2ND 2.4 ND l.2ND 1.2 ND
493 465 439 404 370
1.1 ND !.! ND · I.I ND I.I NO 1.0 B
Bold.c:d val\l~ indic-.itc d1:tcc1cd concentrations gt'QleT than remediation ga:al$.
Sep-OS Se~6 Sep-07 Se~8
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) NO (1.0) I.ONO
NO(I.O) NO (0.5) NO (1.0) I.ONO
ND (1.0) N0(0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
2.1· 3.3 NO (1.0) !.ONO
NO (1.0) 0.56J NO (1.0) I.ONO
NO (l.0) NO (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND(I.0) o.9 J ND (LO) I.ONO
ND {1.0) ND (0.5} ND (1.0) t.ONO
3.3 B 2.8 B NO(l5.0) IS.ONO
303 301 600 390
I.I ND 0.8 ND ND(\00.0) !00.0 ND
Table E-1. GE Subsite. Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-8
Parameter Goal Se!H!O Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02· Jun-02 Se!Hl2 Dec-02
voe, ()lg/L)
1.2-Dichlorocth:ine 10.0 ND (20.0) ND (10.0) ND (10.0) 1.7 J ND(2.D) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (4.0) Nb (4.0)
8¢n:t,..'I\I! ND (5.0) ND (10.0) ND (5.0) ND (l.O) ND (!.O) ND(I.O) ND(I.0) ND {1.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0)
Chloroform !-{0(10.0} ND (20.0) ND (10.0) ND {\0.0) ND (2.0) ND (:2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(4.0) ND (4.0)
cis-l ,2-Dichlorocthcne 70 16.2 6.6 J 7.6 J 7.0 J 4,4 J.7 7.0 4,4 4,6 6.1
To:rracttlortXthenc 528 275 208 225 198 134 214 88.7 130 141
tr:in.s• l ,2-Dichlotodhl!lle 70 ND (10,0) ND(:W.o) ND (I0.0) NO(iO.O) 0,S2 J 0.57 J 0.93 J 0.59 J ND (4.0) ND (4.0)
Trichlorocthene 2.8 15.0 10.l J 5.9J 6.1 J 4.4 2,8 4.3 l.9 . 3.3 J 3.lJ
Vinyl chloride ND(5.0) · NO (10.0) ND (l.O) ND (5.0) ND(l.O) ND(I.O) ND {I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0)
svoc, ()lg/L)
Nic-olxm.cne 10 ND (5.0) ND {5,0} NO (5.0) ND(U) ~D (5.0) ND (5.0) NA NA ND (5,1) NA
METALS TOT AL (}lg/L)
Barium 1000 28.i J 26.4 J 26.7 J 22.0J 23.7 J 17.6 J 17.2 J 21.6 J 18.3 J !7JtJ
Ekryllium 4 0.43 J 0.6ND 0.93 NO 0..21 ND 0.22 ND 0,22 ND 0.22 NO 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
L,,d 15 L2 ND 2.1 ND 1.7 so 1.2 ND l.4ND 2.4 ND 3.S J .,. 1.2 NO 4.S ND 1.2ND
Mansanek: 50 29.0 llt? lS.7 ll.SJ 16.S S.5 J 2.6J 4.3 J s,o J 0.!6ND
Nickd 100 S51 0.S_No-l.2ND 0.87 J l.6J . 0.8 ND 0.8 ND I.I ND I.I ND 1.1 ND
Notas: 8-0\ded values indicate d1.1.:cted con~ntr:uions gn::u.:r th:in n:media1ion i;o:J.lll.
U,ND • not det•ctod
J • <ietv,cwd, estimated r~t
UJ • not detectod, as.tlm.atod r11sult
0 • dilution sample
E -exceed C3libration limit
B • found in blank
NA-not :,naly.r:od
Table E-1. GE Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (11g/L)
1.2-DichlorOOhane
Bc:nzcm::
Chlorofonn
ci:i:-I ,2-Dichlotoctht!ne
Tctrnchloroct.hene
tr.i.r.s-1.2• Dichlorocthen.:"
Trich!oro:Ulcne
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs {Jlg/L)
Nitrobenzc(I..:
METALS TOT AL {Jlg/L)
B>rlwn
Bery!lit.:m
L,,d
M;;ing_:mesc:
Nickd
Noto-s:
U,NO • not d•tedod
· J -dotactod, estimated result
UJ • not detoetDd, estimated rosult
0 -dilution S3nlP1•
E -oxceed callbratlon limit
B -found 111 blank
NA-not anntyn<I
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
50
100
Mar--03
NO (10.0)
ND (5.0)
ND (10.0)
6.2 J
154
ND(IO.O)
3SJ
ND (5.0)
NA
IS.I J
0.26 ND
1.2 ND
3.4 J
I.I ND
MW-8
Jun--03 Sep--03 Mar--04 Sep--04 Mar--05
ND(IO.O) .ND (2,0) ND(IO.O) J.l J NO (S.O)
NO (5.0) ND (I.OJ ND(5.0) ND (1.0) ND (5.0)
ND (10,0) ND (2.0) ND (10.0) NO('.!.0) ND (S,O)
16.7 15.6 12.8 19.1 13.1
363 230 -131 336 210
ND {!0.0) 1.6 J ND (10.0) I.S 1 ND(5.0)
7.0 J 7.0 5.7 J ••• ◄.9J
ND(5.0) ND(l.OJ ND (5,0) ND(l.O) ND(5,0)
. ND (5.0) ND (5.0)
21.5 J 23.4 J 25.7 J 24.9 B
0.26 ND 0.26 ND OJ ND 0.3 ND
l.2ND 1.2 ND 5.9 1,2 ND j,4 8
2.0 J 2.4 J 3.5 J 19.7 3.1 B
I.IND I.I ND t.l ND I.I ND I.I ND
Boldt!d v:i.lues indic;;i.tc dct«ted conccntr-.1lions greater lh:ui n:mcdi:ition gO!lb:.
Sep--05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (2.0) NO (0.5) NO (1.0) I.ONO
ND (2.0) ND (0.5) ND.(l.0) I.ONO
ND('.!.O) ND (O.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
12.3 6.2 7.0 3.0
140 83.7 93.0 40.0
ND (2.0) ND (0,5) ND (i .0) I.ONO
3.J 2.3 2.0 I.ONO
ND (2.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO"
1.2 ND 1,7 ND ND(l5,0) 15.0 ND
2.68 3.3 B ND{50.0) 50,0 ND
LI ND 0.88B ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
Table E-2. Shepherd Farm Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results.
Remediation MW-64
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec--00 Mar--01 Juo:.01 Sep-01 Dec--01
voes ()lg/L)
1.2-Dich!orOdh:i.n~ N0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0J ND(2.0) ND (2.0J
Ba\zcnc: ND(I.O) ND (1.0)" ND (I.DJ ND (I.OJ ND(l.O) NO (l.0)
Chlorofonn l.OJ ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)
cis-! ,2-Dicll!o~ih~nt: 70 ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0).
Tctr.:1clilornctheni.: 3.6 2.8 0.83 J 1.9 J 5.0 3.0
trans-! .2 -Oichloroetheni: 70 ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2,0) NO (2.0) ----·--·------·-·· ····---... -·
Trichloroethent: 2., ND (2.0J ND.(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)
Vinyl chloride ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND(\,0) ND{l.O) ND {1.0) ND (1.0)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitroben=.: to ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.5) ND {5.0) ND{S.0) ND (5.0J
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
Barium 2000 37.9 B 53.0 J 20.1 J 22.0 J 37.9 J 34.5 J
Beryllium 4 0.63 J 0.68 ND 0.51 ND 0.75 ND 0.67 ND 0.4SJ
l=d l5 1.5 J 12.7 3.4 NO 1.3 ND l.2ND 4.7 ND
M3ng:lll1:se so 6.4 J 27.7 2.7 UJ 2.7 NO 3.4 UJ 7.0 J
Nickel 100 5.4NO 0.3 NO 1.2 J 0,8NO 0.8ND 0.8 ND
Notes: 80\ded v:i!ues indic:i.te detected concentr.1.ti0n$ {;r'l:':lt<:r lhan n:medfation s:,o:ihl.
U,NO • not detftet2d
J • date-cted, estfmatod result
UJ • not doteded, e~mated result
D • dilution samplo
E. oxceed c::allbratlon llmlt
B 41xmd In blank
NA• not anal)'md
Mar-02 Juo--02 Sep--02 Dec--02
NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) . ND (2.0)
ND (I.OJ ND(I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND(I .. O)
ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2,0)
O.S4J 1.2 J ••• ND (2.0)
NO (2.0J ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND ('.!.OJ
.. -·-·-·-·-·-----··--
N0(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0J
ND (1.0) ND{l.0) NO(l.0) ND {1.0)
NA NA ND(5.0) NA
36.8 J 25.6 J 55.S J !6,8 J
0.2'.!NO 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND
8.8 2.8 J 7.9" 1.2.No
16.3 J 4.7 J 16.7 6.4 J
1.5 J I.I ND . u :,,.io I.I NO
Table E-2. Shepherd Fann Subsite -Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/L)
1,2-Dich!orocth~c
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-l .2-Dichlorocthcnc 70
Tcrr:i.chloroo:th,mr:
~ns-1.2-Dichloroethenc 70
Trichloroethfflc 2.8
Vinyl chloride
. svoc, (µg/L)
Nitr0bcnzcn<: 10
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
B::uium
Beryllium
'-'"'
Manp.nc:sc
Nickd
Notes;
U,ND • not dotoctod
J -detected, estlmatud result
UJ • not dirtoctod, e-stimatod ros.ult
D • dilution sample
E. oxeoed calibration limlt
B .found In blank
NA • not analyzod
2000
4
15
50
100
MW-64
Mar--03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar--04 Sep-04 Mar-OS
ND (2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND {2.0) ND (I.OJ
ND(I.OJ ND (1.0) NO (1.0) ND {l.O). ND(l.0) ND(l.0)
ND (2.0} ND (2,0} ND(2.0J ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND(I.O)
>ID (2.0) ~D (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(I.OJ
ND (:?.O) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(l.O)
ND ('.LO) '.'lD (2.0) NO (2,0) ND {2.U)_ ND(2,0) ND (1.0)
ND {2.0) ND(2.0) NO (2.0)_ ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (l.OJ
ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (J.0) ?:-'D (~ .0) ND (1.0) ND(I.OJ
~A NO (S.OJ ND(S.I)
lS.2 J 18.9 J 61.0 J 23.1 J 97.5 8
!.4 J 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
4,7 ND L2ND 15.7 4.3 J 12.1 11.7
3.4 J 1.6 J 36.S 8.0 J 37.6 ::no
I.I ND I.I ND 11.0 J 1.1·1 5.8 B 2.S B
Bolded v:llud indicate dct~ted concentratiOns great~ th!U1 mncdfalion goals.
Sep:-05 Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (1.0} ND (O.SJ NO (LO) I.ONO
ND(I.O) ND(O.SJ ND {1.0) · I.ONO
ND (1.0} ND (0.5} ND(l.0) 1.0 ND
ND (I.OJ ND (0.SJ ND (1.0) I.ONO
0.74 J ND (O.SJ s.o 11.0
ND (I.OJ ND (0.5) ND(I.O) 1.0ND
ND(I.OJ . ND (O.SJ ND(l.O) I.ONO
ND (1.0} ND (0.S) ND (l.O) 1.0 ND
8.7 3.3 8 ND (15.0) !5.0ND
19.2· 12.2 S ND {50.0) 50,0 ND
1·.s B-2.98 ND (100.0J 100.0 ND
Table E-2. Shepherd Farm Substte • Performance Well Analytical Resutts. (continued)
Remediation MW-64A
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep--02 Dec--02
VOCs(µg/L)
1.2-Dichloroeth:anc ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND'{2.0} N0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0) . ND (2.0)
86=n, ,-,D (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) 'ND (1.0} ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ~D(l.O)
Chloroform . ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 0.68 J 0.613 J ND (2.0) 0.77 J 0.75 J 0.74J o.8J
ci!l• l .2•Dich.loro::thcne 70 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) :-ID (2.0) NO('.!.0) ND(2.0) Ni? (2.0) ND (2.0) :-ID (2.0)
T c:tmchloroethl!l'lc 50..2 46.7 43.1 41.8 42.S 41.8 43.8 37.2 36.3 29,S
tr:ll\S•\ ,2.Dich\croc1hcnc 70 ND (2.0) ND (:LO) ND (2.0) ND(1.0} ND(2.0) NO (2.0). N0(2.0) ND(l.O} ND (2.0) ND(!.O)
Trichloroeth.:n,: 2.s ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0}
Vinyl chloride: ND (LO) ND(l.O) ND{l.O} ND (I.OJ "ND(I.O} ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND (LO)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitro benz.em:: 10 ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) NO (5.0) ND(S.0) NA NA ND (5.0) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
&riurn 2000 34.0 J 33.6 J 36.0J 32.7 J 29.7 J . 30.2 J 31.8 J 32.1 J 32.4 J 42.S J
Beryllium 4 0.79 ND 0,86 UJ 0,76 ND 0.83 ND 0.6ND 0.22 ND 0.2.lND 0,26 ND 0.26 ND 0.2:6 ND
Load \5 1.2ND 1.7 UJ 2.:5 ND l.4NO 1.2 J' 4.4 ND 2.7 J l.2ND 1,SND l.2ND
Mangan= so 90.7 76.9~ 92.4J 70.8 51.4J 50.4 54.0J 93.4 99.5 216
Nickel 100 l.9ND 0.8 UJ 0,97 J 0,8 ND 0.8ND 0.8 ND O.SND LI ND l.l NO I.I ND
·-----·-----·· -·----·-·· . -••,•---·------· .. ·-. ··------------· ·----·-·-
NotM.: Boldcd V3li.:o::, Uldic:itc-dc1cc1ed concentr:uions ~ lh:m remcdi:ition goal:i.
U,ND -not ratected
J -det&cw(I, estlm:atocl rosult
UJ • not dlltttcted, estimated re~uft
D. dilution umpl•
E -exceed c:alihn:itlon limit
8 .found 1n blank
NA -not analyzed
Table E-2. Shepherd _Farm Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-64A
Parameter Goal Mar-03 Jun-03 Sep-03 Mar-04 Se~4 Mar-OS Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
voes (µglL)
!,2-Dichlorodhane ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(l.OJ ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND(l.0) I.ONO
lknzon, 1· ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) . ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(0.5) ND(I.O) .I.ONO
Chloroform I. 0.65 J 0.63 J 0.51 J 0,661 . 0.6SJ 0.57 J 0.56 J NO(O.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
cis-1,2-Dichloroffi\=n= 70 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND('.!.O) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (I.OJ ND(l.0) ND(0.5) ND(l.0) i.o ND
Tctr;iChloroethcne H.9 33.7 38.0. 40.9 41.7 36.2 45.7 52.0 36.0 41.0
tr.lni-1,2-Dichlorocthc:nc 70. ND (2,0J NO (2.0) ND (:?.O) ND(2.0) ND (2.~) ND (I.OJ ND(I.O)_ ND (0.5} ND (1.0) !,ONO
Trichlor~rhc:nc: 2.8 ND (2.0) _ND (2.0} ND {2.0) ND(2.0) . ~D (2.0) ND(l.0) 0.55 J ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
Vinyl chloride ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (l.O) ND {LO) ND(I.0) ND(J.0) ND(0.5) ND (1.0) L0ND
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitro~C 10 NA ND (5.0) ND (5.0)
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
B:iriwn 2000 35.7 J 36.SJ 37.4 J 35.6 J 33.4 8
Bcrylliu.-n 4 0,26 NO 0.26 NO 0.26 ND O.J NO · 0.3 ND
'-"'' ll · 1,3 ND 1.2NO 1.2 ND 11J 1.2 ND 1.2 ND 1.2 ND; . 1.7 ND ND(IS.0) 15.0~D
M:Lnganc.c so 137 , ... 167 126 81.S 72.5 91.2 IOI ND (S0.0) so.a ND
Nick.cl 100 \,IND l'.l ND I.I ND Ll 1''0. 1.1 ND I.I ND J0.7 8 0.8 ND ND{!OO.O) 100.0ND
---· --· -··-· -___ ... ·--·--·--·-· ······----··-·--··.
Notes: Bolded v.llue. in~caci: dctc:ctcd conccauations grc:itC"I' thnn rcmcdi.ition go:i.l.$.
U,ND • not dutKted
J • detDCtDd, csUm:rtoo result
UJ • not dorected, estimated resutt
0. dllutlon s.;imple
E • ex.coed c:allbra.tion limit
B .found In blank
NA • not atial)'Zed
Table E•2. Shepherd Farm Subsite • Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (conllnued)
Remediation MW-66
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-DI Jun--01 Sep-01. Dec--01 Mar--02 ·Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02
voe, (Jlg/L)
1.2-Dichlorocth:inc ND {2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) !',10(2.0) . ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
Benzene ND(l.0) NO (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND(l.0) l'ID(I.O) ND(l.O) NO (J.0) ND.(1.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.O)
Chlorofonn ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 0.81 J ND (2.0) 0.77 J ND (2,0) 0.85 J 0.65 J 0.69 J 0.7 J
cis-1.2-Dichlonxthenc 70 1.6 J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0} ND (2.0) ND(2.0) O.S:2 J 0.55 J ND (2.0)
T ettachlof"O<!lhenc 23.l J 45.ll 53.4 54.5 6S.7 58.5 61.1 64.ll 71.3 76.6
trlns-1,2-Dicb\oro~hcni: 70 ·No (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
Trich!orocthcnc 2.8 0.94 J ND(2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0} ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2;0)
Vinyl chloride ND (l.O) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND{l.O) ND (LO) ~D {1.0)
svoc, (Jlg/L)
Nitrobd!U:nC: 10 ND (5.0) ND{S,0) ND (5.5) ND {S.O) ND (S.O) ND(S.O) NA NA ND (5.0) NA
METALS TOTAL (Jlg/L)
Bari:..im 2000 52.3 J 36.1 J 39.6 J 26.0J 40.0J 39.2 J 2S.O J 26.51 30.8 J -i8.9"J
B-."l)'!!ium 4 I.SND 0.87 UJ 0.8ND ·o.94 ND O.SI ND 0.22ND 0.22ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26ND
L<arl 15 4.2 J l.6Ul ·3.8 ND l.6ND 1.9 J 63 ND 2.5 J l.2ND 1.S ND 1.2 ND
M3n~nc:sc: 50 223 57.3 J 81.2 20.4 119.0J 98.9 16.4 J 2S.9 45.0 38.8
Nickd 100 S.3 ND I.SJ 1.8-ND 0.8 NO 1.2 J 1.9 J 0,8 ND l.LND I.I ND 1.1 ND .,., _____
--· ·-··---·--
Notes: Boldcd values indic:ui: detected conccntr.ltions ~tcr tMn ~rru.-diotion goals.
U,ND • not detl7Ctod
J. clatectod, estim.3tocl result
UJ • not doteeted, ·&Stlmated rosult
C • d.llutlon sample
E • exceed calibration llm!t
B -found in blank
NA • not analymcl
Table E-2. Shepherd Farm Subsite • Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation MW-66
Parameter Goal Mar--03 Jun~OJ Sep-03 Mar-04 Sep--04 Mar-OS Sep-OS · Sep--06 .. Sep-07 Sep-08
VOCs_(!'g/L)
l.2•Dichloroc:thanc ND (2.0)' ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0) ND.(1.0) ND(O.S) ND (1.0) \.0 SD
!k=e · ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) . ND (l.0) NO ll.O) NO (l.O) NO(l.0) ND(0.5) ND (1.0) \.ONO
· Chloroform 0.66 J 0.59 J 0.69 J ND('.!.O) NO(2.0) : ND (1.0) NO(l.O) ND (0.5} NO(I.O) °J.OXD
c is• 1,2 • Diehl oroethene 10 0.89 J 0.79 J 0.97 J.. OJ!l J I.OJ 0.7 J 0.59 J ND (O.S) ND (1.0) 1.0 ND.
Tetrachlorocth!.!nc 80.2 83.0 76.6 80.4 82.l 69.4 50.9 49.4 40.0 44.0
tr.ms-1.2-Dichlorocthenc 70 . NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0} ND(2.0J ND(2.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.O) ND(0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
Trichlo~hcne 2.8 ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) NO (2.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) .ND (0.S) ND(l.O) I.ONO·
Vinyl cbloridc ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND(l.O) ND(l.0) ~O (LO}_ ND(I.O) ND (l.O) ND (0.5} NO(l.O) t.OND
SVOCs (!'g/L)
Nitrolx~c LO-.. NA ND (S.0) ND(5.0)
METALS TOT AL ()1g/L)
B:i.rium 2000 22.5 J 2~.8 J 22.7 J 24.6 J 23.6 B
fkrylliurn 4 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 NO 0.3 ND
..,., 15 . l.4ND l.2ND ·1..2ND l.3J L2ND 2.9 B 4.4 B 4.S B ND (1S.O) 15,0ND
Ma.nsanesc 50 6,6J 14.1 J S.9 J 4.S J 15.9 8.5 B 18.9 ZS.6 ND (50.0) 50.0 ND
Nickd 100 l.l ND I.I ND I.IND I.I ND I.I ND l.J ND I.I ND 0.8ND ND(IOO.O) JOO.ONO
--------------·-----···· .. ----··-----·. . ·---------·-· -·-· ·-··· -----------···----.
Notos: Bold,:d valu<$ indic:ltc dctc:ctcd cuncc:ntr.1tions i;r,::ucr tMn rcmediatior. go.ii:..
U,NO • not detoctod
J • detoct:ed, Htirnated f8SLllt
UJ -not dtltected, estimatod rnult
0 • dilution s.ampt•
E • exceed calibr.ttlon llmlt
B -found In blank
NA -not analyzed
···-
.
Table E-2. Shepherd Fann Subsite -' Perfonnance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation RWSF-1
Parameter Goal Sep-00 Dec--00 Mar--01 Jun--01 Sep-01 Dec--01 Mar--02 Jun-02 · Sep-02 Dec--02
voes ()lg/L)
1,2-Dichloroeth::im.! ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)-ND (2.0) ND (2.0) . ND(2.0). ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0)
Benzene ND(LO) ND (1.0) NO(I.O) ND(l.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.O) ND(l.O)· ND (1.0)
Chloroform ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) N0(2.0) O.S:?J ND(2.0). 0.52J ND (2.0)
cis-1.2-Dichloroc!thene 70 NO (2.0) NO (2.0) N0(2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) · NO (2.0) NO (2.0) NO (2.0) _NO (2.0) NO (2.0)
Tetr.ichloroeth~e 34.0 51.4 43.2 "40.4 46.3 S2.6 56.3 56.4 43.l 63.6
trans.-1.2-Dichloroethen~ 70 ND (2.0) ND (2.0) N0(2.0) NO (2.0) N0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
Trichloroc1hcne 2-~ ND(2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) No c2.01 ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0}
Vinyl ch\oridi: NO(I.O) ND(l.0) :,,10 (1.0) NO(I.O) ND (1.0) ND (LO) ND(l.0) ND(LO) N!)(l.0) ND (1.0)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitto~e 10 ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.5) NO (5.S) ND (5.0) ND(S.O) NA NA NO (5.0) NA
METALS TOT AL (µg/L)
B~um 2000 161.0 J 193.0 J 290 242.0 254.0 J 153.0 J . 156.0 J (42.0J 134.0 J 61.3 J
Beryllium. 4 0.3 ND 2.6 UJ 2.2 ND 2.3 ND I.I J 1.2 J 0.22 ND 0.26 ND 0.26ND 0.26 ND
Le,d 1 S 1.s·J 50.6 J 49.S · 21.4 24.3 10.4 No·. 26.1 22.7 18.4 l,2NO·
M3ngan= so 65.6 42.6 J 109.0 J :·100.0 90.1 J 71.8 J 98.1 J IOS .· 77.6 0.16 ND
Nickel 100 13.7 J l.4J 6.5 J 0.8 NO 3.5 J 1.8 J 4.2 J I.IND I.I ND 1.1 ND
. --·-·------·· .. ·-·----.... ------· .. ····-··-----·-·-·-. --. -·····-·
NQtas-: Bold.:d v:i.lue.-indkatc dctecried concentration:.: gn:iter than ~mcl~ion g~s-
U,NO • not detected
J • detvcted, esti.n-lat&d rosult
W • not dotocnid, estimated result
0 • dllution sample
E -excoed calibration Hmlt
B-found In blank·
NA-notana~
Table E-2. Shepherd Farm Subsite -Performance Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation . RWSF-1
P&rameter Goal Mar--03 Jun--03 Sep--03 . Mar--04 Sep--04 Mar.--05 Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
voes ()-lg/L)
l .2-D!chloroclh:1n,:: ND(2.0) NO(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
Benzene ND (l.O) .·• ND(l.0) ND (1.0)' ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND {0.5) ND (LO) I.ONO
Chloroform ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ~D (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0) ND (LO) ND(0.5) ND (I.OJ J.0ND
cis-! 2-Dichlorocthcnc 70 ND (2.0) NO (2,0) 3.5 ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0) 0.54 J ND(0.5) ND (1.0) !.ONO
Tctr:i.chlor0c:thi:nc 32.2 38.1 37,7 44.3 36.8 Sl.6 69,9 43.2 41.0 60.0
tran:>· ! .2-Dich!oro,.1hc:ne 70 ND (2.0) · . ND (2.0) ND{2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND{l.0) ND(I.O) ND (0.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
Trichloroclhi:nc 2.8 NO (2.0) · ND(:LO) 0.91 J ND (2.0) ND (2,0) ND (1.0) ND {1.0)' 0.54 J ND{l.0) I.ONO
Vinyl chloride ND (1.0) .: ND{l.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND{l.0) ND(I.O) ND{I.O) ND(0.S) NO (1.0} J.0ND
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitwbcnzi::nc: 10 NA ND(S.O) _ NO (S.0)
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
B:uiwn 2000 28.3 J 47.6 J 152.0:J \41.0J 132.08
Beryllium 4 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND 0.3 ND
Ind 15 30.5 106 7.9 14.0 13.8 14.S 17.0 41.1 ND (15.0) JS.0 ND
M:ing:i.m:sc 50 11.S J 126 64.5 55.7 106 152 97.3 22.4 ND cso,o) 50.0 ND
Nickd 100 lll . 100.0 l.8 J 40.8 J 10.7 B 21.4 B 8.5 B 177 ND (100.0) 100.0 ND
··--·--···-·--•"-
Notcts: Bolda! v::ilud indiC3.te d1."f.ectcd coru;cntr.itions ~1cr th.o.n i'cmcdi::ition i;Ollls.
U,NO • not det2Cted
J. dttocted, -stlmatod res1Jlt
UJ -not detocted. ntlrnatod ros-ult
D -dilution umpt.o
E • exceed callbr.idoo lirnh
B -found In blank
NA -not :inaly.tod
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results: {continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (µg/L)
\ ,l.£Achlorocth:lne
Benzene
Chloroform
ci::1-1.2-Dichloroelhc:ne
Tc::trachlorixthenc:
lnllS· I .2-Dichloroi:rhc:nc:
Trich!oro,:11\c:nc:
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobenzcne
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
8:uium
Beryllium
Lc,d
M31lg:in~i:
Nickel
Notes:
U,NO -not detoctlKI
J • detectod, estimated result
UJ -not d.Oteetll'd, eatimatod reault
D -dilution sample
E -oxceod calibration Umil
B -found in b\::mll.
NA • not Mal~
70
70
2.8
IO
2000
4
IS
so
100
WW•S
S<p-00 S<p--01 S<p--02 . Sep--03 Sep-04
ND (2.0) NO (2,0) ND{2.0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0)
ND (LO) ND {LO) ND {1.0). ND (l.O) NO (1.0)
ND.(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) 0.53 J ND (2.0)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) .SD ('.!..0) ND(2.0)
NO(2.0) SD {2.0) ND{2.0) !'-JD (2.0) ND(2.0)
NO(:!..0) !'1O(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) N'D (2.0)
ND(2.0} . ND (2.0) ND (2.0) .ND('.!.O) ND(2.0)
ND(l.0) ?-l"D{l.0) ND{l.0) .!'>ID(I.O) ND {1.0)
ND(S.0) ND{:S.O) ND(5.0) ND(5,0) ND{l.O)
94.7 J 101.0J IOI.OJ l 19.0J 2l9
0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0.26 ND 0,'.!6 NO 0.3 NO
3.2 J . 4.2 J 3.0ND 2.9NO 3.4 8
45.0 50.4 J 134 ·58.7 177
11.2 J · 0.8 ND l.t ND I.I ND I.IND
Bolded v-..tluc::; indic:i~ design concentr.ition:!!i p-c!lC:r than remediation goals.
\VW-82 sampled in Sepkmber 2007, but not 3n::,.\yz~ in favor of WW-828.
S<p-05 S<p--06 Sep-07 Sep--08
ND(l.0) ND{O.S) ND(I.0) I.ONO
ND(I.O) ND(0.5) ND(I.O) ·1.0ND
NO (l.O} 0.52 J ND {1.0) I.ONO
ND(l.0) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
· ND(I.O) ND(0.5) ND{I.O) I.ONO
ND {1.0) ND(0.5) ND (J.0} l.0ND
ND (1.0) ND {O.l) ND {1.0) 1.0 ND
NO(l.0) ND(O,l) ND {1.0) J.O ND
10.7 10.7 NO {ll.O) IS.ONO
109 .... 120 70.0
I.I ND 0.8 ND ND (100.0) 100.0ND
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results.
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voes (Jlg/L)
1.2-Dichlonxth:m~ I.
Bcnzcn,
Chloroform
cis-l ,2-Dichlorocthcne 70
Tetr.lehlorocthenc
lr.l.Ils.-1,2-Dichlorocth01C 70
Trich!orocthen~ 2.8
Vinyl ehlori~
svocs (Jlg/L)
:-:itro~ lO
METALS TOT AL (Jlg/L)
Buium 2000
Beryl!iuai
L<od
M:in~CSC
~ickel
Notes:
U,NO. not dfltoi:tod
J • det&Ctad, 0$dmated r.s.uh
1JJ • not detectsd, ~dmated ro,;ult
O • dilution s:ample ·
E • exceed e:11libration limit
B -found In bl.ank
NA • not 1m::ilyz&c1
4
IS
50
100
WW-17• .
Sep--00 Sep-Ill Sep--Ol Sep--03 Sep--04
· ND (2.0) · ND (2.0} ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0)
ND (l.O) :~D {1.0) ND(l.0) ND (1.0) ND(I.O)
ND(2.0) NO (2.0) ND {2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2,0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0J NO (2.0)
ND (2.0) . ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO(2.0) ND (2.0)
NO(l.0) ND (I.OJ ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND(l.0J
ND (S.0) ·. ND (:S.0) ND (S.O) ND(5.0J ~D (5.0)
58.9J . 66.6 J 65.7 J 67.9 J n.oe
0,22 ND 0,22 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND
l.2ND l.6ND l.6 ND 1.2 NO • 1.2 NO
59.4 76.0 68.2 89.7 113
11.7 J' ·o.s ND I.IND !.(ND UNO
Boldcd v.i.lu~ indic:th~ d~ign concc:ntrotionj gra1~r th3Jl n:mediation s~l:o.
WW-82 $:Un.Pkd in Scptcmoc:r 2007, but not :in;i;l)_'Zed in favor ofWW-~28.
Sep-0? Sep--06 Sep--07 Sep--08
ND (1.0)
ND (1.0)
ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ·
IS
ND (LO)
ND(l.O)
ND (1.0) .
2.1 B
95.9
l.t NO
Ta_ble E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, (l'g/L)
1.2-Dichloroeth:mc
&nun,
Chloroform
Cis-1.2-0ichloroctt\e~
T elrach lorocthale
Tnns-l .2-Dichlo~1hcnc
Trichlorocthc-n,:
Vinyl chloride
svoc, (/lg/L)
Nitro~i.:
METALS TOT AL (/lg/L)
&rium
Beryllium
Leoo
M:itif;ll0t'.$C:
Nickel·
·---------···----·
Notes:
U,NO -not detl)Cted
J -d11tac:Ud, ostimated rusult
UJ. not detl!Ct&d, est!mawd result
D • dilution sample
E • oxcoed calibration limit
B .found ln blank
NA • not 1m1tyz.ed
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
15
so
100
WW-28
Sep-00 Sep--01 Sep-02 . Sep--03 . · Sep--04 Sep-05
ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (I.OJ
ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(l.OJ
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) t-,'D (2 .. 0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
NO (2.0) ND ~2.0) ND (2.0} ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (I.OJ
NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(l.O)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) NO (l.0)
ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ. ND(l.O) · NO (1.0) ND(l.O)
ND (S.0) ND(5.0J ND (5.0) ND(S.OJ ND(5,0J
46.4 J 58.S J 60.8 J 43.S J 56.1 8
0.22 ND 0.22 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 NO
l.2NO 9.J 10.1 ND 11.0 6.0 8.5
135 21.6 21.7 26,7 25.S 23.2
8.4 J 0.92 J I.I ND I.I ND I.I ND 1.1 ND
--·------·-· ·-·--··-· ········-·--·-
Bolded value:; indic.::i.tc d1::1ign conci:ntnllio,u grc:itcrtMn remcdi:uion goo.ls.
WW-S2 sarr:pkd in _Sept~mba 2007. ':nit not :1.m..lyzed in fa.,·or orWW-828.
Sep--06 Sep-07 Sep--08
ND (0.5) ND (1.0) 1.0 ?,,,'D
ND (Oj) ND (1.0) I.ONO·
ND (O~J ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (Oj) ND(l.OJ \.ONO
ND (0.5) ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (Oj) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (0.SJ ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND (Oj) ND (LO) I.ONO
8.6 ND(IS.O) IS.ONO
:i5.3 ND (S0.0) SO.O ND
0.8 ND ·· ND(I00.0) 100.0 ND
..... ---------------------·--...
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, ()lg/LJ
1,2-Dichloructhanc
Beru:01c
Ch.Iorofo:m I
ci:i-I ,2-Dic!'Lloroc1h~c 70
Tctr.ichlo~1hcnc
~s, l .2-Dichlotoe\hcnc 70
Trichlorocthcne 2.$
Vinyl chloride
svoc, ()lg/L)
Nitro~c 10
METALS TOT AL ()lg/L)
Barium 2000
Bcry!)iwn 4
"""' IS
M:ir.r;:uicsc so
:-lid:.cl 100 ··--·-··--·-_____ ,., __ -··----·--
. Notes:
U,NO •·not det:ocUCI
J • detected, estlmatD<l result
UJ • not detected, e-s:tim:tt&d result
0 • dllution sample
E -e.xcee-d calibration limit
B -found In blank
NA • not analyz.ed
WW-33
Sep-00 Sep-01 Sep-02 Sep-03 Sep-04 Sep-OS Sep-06 Sep-07
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0) ND(0.5) ND (1.0)
ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (0.5) ND(l.0)
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ~D (2.0) ·· ND (2.0) ND(l.0) ND(O.S) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0)-ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(l.O) ND(0.5) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND{2.0) ND (2.0} ND(2.0) ND(l.O) ND (O.S) ND (1.0)
ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND{l.O) ND(O.S) ND (1.0}
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND{:):.O) NO(l.0) ND (O.S) ND (1.0)
ND (1.0) ND (LO) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) NO (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(O.)) ND (1.0)
ND (S.0) ND (5.0) NO (S.0) ND (S.0)-ND (5.0)
8.2 J 9.1 J J0.7 J 22.7 J 9.4 B
0.44 J 0,71 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND 0.3 ND
l.2ND 1.2.ND . l.2ND 3,2 ND 1.2 ND 11.2 3.4 B ND(l5.0)
1.2 J 0.57 UJ 0.\6 ND 2.0 J i0.0 0.74 B l~ND ND (50.0)
2. I J 0.8 ND l.l ND 1.41 I.I ND I.I ND 0.8 ND ND(l00.0)
----··----···-··-·-·---·-·-··-----·-··
Boldcd ,-.ilui:s indic:i.1c d~gn ~oncen1r.::11iollS gterikr ihJ.n n:m<!di:ition go:i.ls.
WVv-82 smlplcd in Scptanbi:T 2007. but not :inalyzc!d in favor ofWW-828.
Sep-08
l.0NO
I.ONO
I.ONO
I.ONO
I.ONO
l.OND
I.ONO
I.ONO
15.0ND
50,0 ND
100.0ND
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued).
Remediation
Paraffleter Goal
voe, ()lg/L)
1,2.-Dichloroc:th:ine
Bcnzmc
Chloroform
cis-1,2-Dichloi:xthcm:
Tccrachto~rhcnc
o-:i.ns-J ,2-Dichloroethrnc
Trichloro,:thim.:
Vinyl chloride:
svoc, (µg/L)
Nitrobcn.zcm:
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
B;uium
Beryllium
L=l
Mang:mcse
Nicko::!
--· -·--------...... --·---·--
N0tes:
U,NO • not domctcd .
J • dotoctod, ostlm3t(td ra5Ult
UJ • not dotoctod, tstimated result
0 • dilutlon sample
I:; • exceod calibration limit
El -tound in blank
NA • not analyzed
70
70
2.S
10
2000
4
lS
,0
100
VNJ-34
Sep-00 Sep-OJ Sep-02 Sep-03 ·sep-04 Sep-OS
ND (2.0) ND(2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0J ND (I.OJ
ND (I.OJ ND (l.O) ND(I.O) ND(I.O) ND (1.0) ND (LO}
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) . ~0(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND {LO)
ND (2.0) NO (2.0) ND(2.0) ND c:?.O) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (:Z.0) ND(2,0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0), NO (2.0) NP (LO)
ND (:?.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0J ND (2.0) ND (2.0J ND (I.OJ
ND (\.0) ND (1.0) ND (\.0) ND (1.0) ND (l.O) ND {1.0)
ND (5.0J ND {5.0J ND (l.l) ND(l.OJ ND(l.l)
16.6J 14.7 J 15.9 J · I0.6J 16.68
0,7 ND 0.$4 ND 0.26 ND 0.26 ND· -0.3 :-ID
1.2 ND l.l$J l.9ND ➔.6 J 1,2 ND 1.S B
9.S J 4.6 J 6.5 J 1.2 J 10.6B 5.2 B
4'.1 ND O.S ND LI ND I.I ND I.I !'ID LI ND
.. ·------·•··
Bo!ded v:ilud indicittc di:sign conc~tration, .i;:rc:i.tcr 1tun ren:ediation ;oals.
WW-82 sampled in Scptem~'f 2007, bu1 not analyzed in favor ofWW-82B.
Sep-06 Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (0.5J ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (O.S) ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND(O.S) ND (1.0) I.ONO
r-.'D (0.5) ND (1.0} l.OND
ND(O.S) ND {1.0) I.ONO
NO (0.S) ND (J.0) I.ONO
ND (O.SJ ND (1.0) -I.ONO
ND (O.l) ND {1.0) l.OND
4.2 B ND (lS.O) IS.Ol'm
. 3.1 8 ND (l0.0) so.a ND
0.8ND ND(l00.0) 100.0 ND
. --·--··-····-·---·· ---------
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter. Goal
voe, ()'g/L)
1.2-Dichlorocth:ine
Ber.z.enc
Chloroform
cis-1 .2-Dich\o~thenc
Tctr.1chloruc1hcnc
tr:ms-1,2-Dict:torocthale
Trichloro.!thale
Vinyl chloride
svoc, ()'g/L)
~itrobc:12:cfl~
METALS TOTAL ()'g/L)
B:uium
BCT)'llium
l.c>d
M:uig::anese
Nicb!
Notes;
U,ND-notdotoctod
J • dotDCttld, estimated result
UJ • not datecte<f. estimztl:ld rnutt
O -dilution ~pl•
E. P:Coed calibration limlt
B -found In blink
MA,nolan;a~
I.
70
70
2.8
10
2000
4
" ,o
100
WW-73
Sep-00 Sep-DI Sep-02 Sep-03 Sep-04
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND.(2.0) ND (2.0J ND(2.o)
. ND (1.0) ND(l.O) · _ND (I.U) ND (1.0) ND{I.U)
ND(2.0) ND (2,0) ND(2.0) ND (2,0) ND (2.0)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) N[?(2.0) ND ('.!.0) ND(2,0)
ND(2.0) ND (2.0) . ND (2,0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0)
ND(2.0) ~D (2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0}
NO (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) N0{2.0) ND(2.0)
ND{l.0) ND(l.O) · ND (LO) ND(l.O) ND(l.OJ
ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND {5.0) NO (5.2)
65.9 J 6SAJ 45.5 J 39.4 J 41,08
I.I ND 0.86 ND 0.26 NO 0.26 ND 0.3 ND
5.5 3.9 J 5.9 ND 3.4 ND ll.J
!8.3 14.S J l 1.4 J · 0.16ND 31.3
5.3 ND ·0.8 ND !.I ND I.I ND l.l ND
Boldcd vo.tucs indic:i.ti: design concentrations gtc:3.tcr than rt:mcd.i:ition goals..
WVl/·82 s:impled in ~tcmbcr 2007, but not analyzed in favor of WW-828.
Sep-OS Sep-06 ·Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND tt.0) I.ONO
ND(l.O) ND(0.5) ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND(LO) ND (0.5) ND (1.0) \,ONO
ND (1.0) ND {0.5) . :--1.Dll.0) l.OND
ND (1.0) ND (0.5) ND(l.O) I.ONO
ND (1.0) ND (O.S) ND (1.0) !,ONO
ND (I.OJ "° (0.5) ND (1,0) l.OND
ND (I.OJ ND (O.SJ ND (1.0) 1.0 ND
4.8 B 72 ND(IS.0) 15.0ND
12.5 B 7.1 B ND (50.0) 50.0 ND
4.2 8 O.SND ND(t00.o) 100,0 ND
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Remediation
Parameter Goal
voe, (µg/L)
1.2-Dichlorocth:i.n~
. 8,:n:zenc
Chloroform
cis-! .2-Dichloro..:1henc 70
T c1rachloroeth.:nc
tnlnS· l ,2-Dicnlorocthc:n.: 70
Trichloroclhcn,: 2.8
Vinyl chloride
SVOCs (µg/L)
Nitrobcnzem: 10
METALS TOTAL (µg/L)
8:irium ,ooo
Berylli= 4
L<,d 15
M:ingwc~ 50
Nickd 100 --·----··-· ---·-----------~------
Not.o5:
U,ND -m)t detected
J • dotoctod, RSturultad result
W • not dotectad, estlm:sted result
D • dilution sample
E • exceed calibration limit
B -loond In blank
·NA• llOt analyzed
ww-a2
_Sep-00 Sep--01 Sep--02 Sep-OJ Sep--04 Sep-05
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) •ND (2,0)" NO {2.0) ND(I.O)
ND (1.0) ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND (I.OJ ND(l.OJ , ND(l.O)
ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0J ND{2.0) ND(2.0) ND(l.O)
ND {2.0) ND(2,0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0)· ND (2,0) _ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (:!.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND (1.0)
ND (2.0) ND (2.0) ND {2.0) ND (2.0) ND(2.0) ND (1.0)
ND(l,0) ND (1.0) ND (1.0) ND(l.0) ND(I.O) ND (LO)
ND (5,0) ND (5.5) ND (5.0) ND (5.0) ND (I.I)
259 371 618 367 305
0.71 B 1.5 ND o::H J ·o.26 ND 0.3 ND
S.7 2.2 J 3.6ND 7.1 1.2 ND ...
251 566.0 J 656 812 1170 1090
12.0 B 2.4 J ·J.OJ 7.6 J 4.9 8 7.5 B
. ···------------.. ---· -·-· ··--------------·---
Bo\ded va.lu.cs indiC3!.c dcsip, cor.centratio~ grc:sld' th!!.n rcm~iation goals.
WW-82 s:unpled in Sq)tembct 2007. but not :inalyzcd in f:ivo~ of WW-UB:
Sep--06 -Sep-07 Sep-08
ND (O.S) I.ONO
ND (0.5J I.ONO
ND(0.5) l.0ND
:-ID (0.5) J,0 ND
ND (0.5) I.ONO
ND (0.5) I.ONO
ND (0.5) I.ONO
ND (0.5) I.ONO
9.'.! 14.0
1200 1200
S,68 100.0 ND
. --·------------------------------
Table E-3. Residential Well Analytical Results. (continued)
Parameter
Reniediation
Goal
voe, (l'g/LJ
! .2•Dichlorocthane
Chloroform
cis-1,2-0ichloroelhffle
T etrnc:b\oroethene
traru-1.1-Dichloroethcne-
Tric:hlorocthatc
Vinyl Chloride
METALS TOTAL (l'g/L)
Mangane>C ·
Nickc:l
Hotos:
U,ND • not Clotoetod
J -dotDCted, Ktlm.itod result
W • not detactad, e.stlmatod r0$ull ti • diludon :i,ampkt
E -exceed calibration limit ·
B .found In blank
NA• not an.aly:ed
10
10
2.8
15
so
JOO
WW-82B
Sep-01 Sep--02 Sep-03 Sep-04
Bold,:d ,·aluc-J indicnti: dc;ign conccntr.ation.s grelld' IMn n:mcdiarion go:ils.
'WW-82 ·$:llilp:lc:d in Sq,t~b'-T 2007, but nol :mal~ in faVorofWW-828.
Sep-OS Sep-06 . Sep-07_ Sep-08
NO (1.0) J.OND
ND (LO) . 1.0 ND
ND (I.OJ I.ONO
ND(l.OJ I.ONO
~D(l.OJ· I.ONO
ND(l:0) I.ONO
ND (1.0) I.ONO
ND (I.OJ I.ONO
310 160
ND {50.0) 50.0 ND
ND (100,0) 100.0 ND
Unit~d States En~o!lmental P.rotection Agency
Region 4
Atlant1 Fc:Jc:ral Center
61 Forsyth St. SW. Atlant2.. Georgia 30303-8960
June 26, 2009
4S50-TSS
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Vapor Intrusion evaluation of data associated with the GE Shepherd Farin Site Five Year
Review, East Flat Rock, NC ·. · ·
·,
Ben Bentkowski, P. G., Hydrologist,
Technical;Services Section
Superfund Division
THROUGH: Glenn Adams, Chief
Technical Services Section
Superfund Division
TO: Michael Townsend
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Division
The GE Shepherd Farm site is located approximately 25 miles south of Ashville, NC in the piedmont
. physiographic province. The site is comprised of two main parts. The main part is the location of the GE
Lighting Systems manufa'cturing and ":arehousing operations. Southwest across the Spartanburg Highway
is Shepherd Farm subsite which appears to niore rural/ undeveloped in nature. This region is typified by
saprolite soil overlying weathered and fractured bedrock. The site has a mixture of shallow wells
completed i!' the saprolite and deeper well installed in the bedrock. The;e is an ongoing groundwater
pump and treat system with a series of extraction wells strategically located on the site. As part of the Five
Yea~ Review process, the RPM requested a Vapor Intrusion Evaluation for this site. Documents review for
this evaluation include the Quarterly Groundwater Remedial Action Second Quarter 2008 GRS Influent
and Effluent Sampling Results (August 20, 2008) and the Annual Groundwater Remedial Action · ·
Performance Report -2008 (December 18, 2008).
Vapor Intrusion Evaluation
The Annual report contained time series VOC data from select monitoring wells onsite as well as sampling
data sheets which allowed, the calculation of depth to water below land surface. Additionally, enough of
the well construction information could be discerned from the sampling data sheets to determine which
wells were shallow water-table wells (the appropriate type of well for a vapor intrusion evaluation). The
following table provides the analytical result for the detected volatile organic compounds by well, the
depth to water below land surface and the estimated additional risk provided by compound.
r ·-.,.;-:-er:-···\ .. .,,..,r-,.r fi ... , ... ,,:q • •· .. ,.,,~.
' ' ' • •. ~ • . 1' • ••
If you have any questions, please contact me.
·Ben Bentkowski, P.G.
Technical Services Section
Bentkowski.Ben@epa:gov
404-562-8507
2
!
I I '