NCD095458527_20090424_FCX Inc. (Statesville)_FRBCERCLA RA_Soil Vapor Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan OU-3-OCR

URS
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
115 Water Street, Suite 3
Hallowell, Maine 04347
TO DWM Central Office
1646 Mail Service Center
Raleigh. NC 27699
Attn: Mr. Nile Testerman
Re: FCX (Statesville) Supcrfund Site (OU3)
We are sending you via ] hand carry [ ] USPS
the following items:
[ X] Work Plan
[ ] Test Results
Item Copies
[ I Specifications
r I Propp,sal Request .. _.
Date
Project No: 39460365
Reference: FCX Statesville Supcrfund Site
Date: April 24 2009
[ X ] Fed Ex
[ .J Reports
[ I Estimate
l I Prints I l Calculations/Data
l l Copy of Letter/Transmittal
Dcscrir,tion
I I April 24, 2009 Soil Vanor/Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
[ X l For your approval
[ ] For your use
] For your review & comments [ ] For your information [ ] For your signature
[ l Returned
[ ]
I .I For your quotation
I l Executed
[ l Approval/comments as noted r l As requested
l ] Response requested l I Please return
---------------------------------------
Remarks: This work is scheduled to begin in mid May.
By: Larry Fitzgerald Title Project Manager
TransmittalLctter. DOC
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
,g
D
Soil Vapor/Soil Gas Assessment
Work Plan
April 24, 2009
. FCX (Statesville) Superfund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Prepared For:
El Paso Natural Gas Company
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, TX 77252-2511
Prepared By:
URS
URS Corporation
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 400
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560-8421
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
.I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background and Site Location ................................................................. 1
1.2 Conceptual Site Model .. ,.. .. ............. ....... . ................................. 1
1.3 Previous Soil Gas and VI Investigations................. . .... .4
1.3.1 On-Site Buildings....... . ................ .4
1 .3.2 N,B. Mills Elementary School......................................... .. .. 5
1.3.3 Residential Buildings to the North and East of Burlington Industries Property ....... 7
1.3.4 Residential Buildings along West Front Street..... . ............................. 8
2.0 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK ....................................... 9
3.0 SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT PLAN .............................................. 11
3. 1 Warehouse Building....................................................................... . ........... 11
3.2 Passive Sampling Study ........... 11
3.3 Follow-Up Testing.................... . ....... 12
3.4 Long-Term Soil-Gas Sampling............................................................. .. ................... 12
3.4.1 Phoenix Street.......... .. ............................................. 12
3.4.2 N.B, Mills Elementary School. .. , .... , .. , .. , .. , .... , .. , .. , ... ,, .... ,.... .. .. , .. 13
4.0 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM AND FIELD OPERATIONS .............. 16
4.1 Analytical Program........................... . ... 16
4.1.1 Data Quality Objectives... .16
4.1.2 Target Analytes... . .............................. 17
4.1.3 Analytical Methods ...................................... 17
4.1.4 Quality Control Samples ................................................ 18
4.2 Field Operations .. , .... , .. ,, ... , ........... , .. , .. ,, .... , .. , ........... , .. , , ................................ 18
4.2.1 Project Team. . .... 19
4,2.2 Sample Handling and ManagemenL ............................... ,....... . ....................... 19
4.2.3 Recordkeeping.................... .. ............ 19
4.2.4 Sample Designation ........................... 21
4.3 Anticipated Schedule ............ 22 I 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................ 24
I
I
I
.1
I
URS Corporation Page i April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
.I
:I
I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Target Analyte List
Summary of Analytical Information by Sample Type
Estimated Schedule
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location
Proposed Sampling Locations for Passive Soil Gas Survey
Proposed Long-Term Monitoring Locations
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4 Proposed Long-Term Monitoring Locations near N.B. Mills Elementary School
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Proposed Locations for Passive Soil Gas Sampling by Address
URS Corporation Page ii April 24, 2009
I
I
I
,1
I
:I:
I
I
I
·1.
i
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AS Air Sparging
ATL Air Toxics Ltd
bgs Below Ground Surface
BC Brown and Caldwell
BIP Burlington Industries Property
CAS Chemical Abstract Service
coc Chain of Custody
CSM Conceptual Site Model
DCE Dichloroethylene
DCP Dichloropropane
DQO Data Quality Objective
EPNG El Paso Natural Gas Corporation
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCX Farmer's Cooperative Exchange
ft Feet
GC/MS Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ID
NCDENR
ND
OU
PCE
ppb
ppm
QA
QAPP
QC
RI
SG
Identification
North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources
Not Detected
Operable Unit
T etrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
Parts per billion
Parts per million
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Quality Control
Remedial Investigation
Soil Gas
SIM Selective Ion Mode
SOP
SVE
TCA
TCE
tel
URS Corporation
Standard Operating Procedure
Soil Vapor Extraction
Trichloroethane
T richloroethylene
Tetrachloride
Page iii April 24, 2009
I
,I
I ,,
' :I,
I
I
I·
I
TO
µg/m3
URS
us
vc
VI
voes
URS Corporation
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Slalesville, North Carolina
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (continued)
Toxic Organic
micrograms per cubic meter
URS Corporation
United States
Vinyl Chloride
Vapor Intrusion
Volatile Organic Compounds
Page iv April 24, 2009
' ,I
"
I
·1
I
I
I·
I . ,
I,
I
I.
I ,.
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background and Site Location
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
URS Corporation (URS) has been retained by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG) to manage and
provide assistance with the remedy that has been implemented at the Farmers Cooperative Exchange
(FCX) Superfund Site for Operable Unit (OU) 3, hereafter referred to as "the Site". The Site is located
along Phoenix Street in the City of Statesville, North Carolina (Figure 1). OU3 consists of groundwater that
has been impacted by releases of tetrachloroethylene or perchloroethylene ("PCE"), and other volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) from historical manufacturing operations at the former Burlington Industries
Facility (textile plant) located at 201 Phoenix Street. Textile manufacturing operations at the facility have
ceased and the equipment used in these operations has been dismantled.
EPNG is responsible for remediation of OU3 under the direction of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). VOCs can volatilize out of groundwater and can slowly migrate upwards as a soil
gas (also called soil vapor) through the spaces between soil particles. If buildings are present, it is possible
for these vapors to enter the building through cracks (if present) and penetrations (if not properly sealed) in
the basement or building slab. This process is called Vapor Intrusion (VI). EPNG is evaluating the extent
of soil gas at the Site to understanil if VI is an issue that warrants further consideration. This soil gas
assessment work is ongoing with US EPA's concurrence .
This work plan provides the general procedures and proposed schedule for the remaining soil gas
assessment activities.
. 1.2 Conceptual Site Model
An overall conceptual site model (CSM) has been prepared to pull together the large amount of relevant
information that has been collected at the Site (URS, 2008a). Various VOCs were released (or formed)
beneath the former textile plant during the years in which textiles were manufactured there. These VOCs -
the most prevalent of which is PCE, a dry cleaning fluid -migrated to the groundwater beneath the Site and
have formed a groundwater plume, i.e , the PCE has dissolved in the groundwater and flows with the
groundwater. The primary groundwater plume containing the highest concentrations of PCE is located
beneath and to the north of the former textile plant. Based upon data presented in the CSM, it appears that
URS Corporation Page 1 April 24, 2009
I
,j
I
I
,I
. I,
I
I \I
I
I
I,
I
1.
I
' I
I
a
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
historical wastewater discharges to the sewer system may have contributed voes to this plume, A second
plume containing lower concentrations of PeE is located south of the former textile plant.
A review of the eSM and related documents was performed by URS in May 2008 to develop a eSM
specific to the soil gas and the VI pathway. At that time, general observations relevant to both soil gas and
VI were made, including the following:
• The VI pathway is of potential interest for both on-site and off-site buildings .
• The 16-acre Burlington Industries Property includes an approximate 20,000 m2 (216,000 ft2)
building (i.e., Former Textile Plant) that is now used by several businesses including a distributor of
doors and windows, a carpentry shop for building cabinets, and for storage of NASeAR
memorabilia sold at NASeAR events. The building includes a basement in its northwest corner. A
warehouse also is present on adjacent property formerly owned by Burlington Industries/Beaunit
that is now used by a sporting goods company (i.e., Badger Sportswear) and a manufacturer of
adhesives (i.e., Elmer's Products).
• The off-site buildings of interest (see Figures 1 and 2) can be divided into four groups
o Single-family residential buildings near the intersection of Phoenix Street and Yadkin
Street and along Phoenix Street between Yadkin Street and Melviney Street.
o Single-family residential buildings along West Front Street.
o N.B, Mills Elementary School at 1410 Pearl Street.
o Industrial and residential properties near Waverly Place to the northwest of the Burlington
Industries Property.
• The primary voe of interest is PeE. Typical breakdown products of PeE, such as
trichloroethylene (TeE), cis-1,2-dichloroethylene (cis-DeE), and vinyl chloride (Ve), also may be of
interest.
• An air sparging (AS)/soil vapor extraction (SVE) system has been in continuous operation at the
Site for some time. About two-dozen extraction points are located 40 to 60 ft. below ground
surface (bgs).
• A large amount of site characterization data has been collected.
URS Corporation Page 2 April 24, 2009
I
I
I ,,
1·
l
I
'I ,,
a,
p
a
'I
:I.
I
I ,,, ,,
Ii
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Slalesville, North Carolina
• Most of the mass of PCE released to the subsurface appears to have remained on site.
• The subsurface transport of liquid-phase PCE is unusually complex, It appears that groundwater
flows off-site in two directions. City storm water sewer lines also appear to be a potential
preferential pathway for vapor transport
• Soil vapor data has been collected at various times from both shallow and deeper layers within the
vadose zone. The 2007/2008 data is considered to be more representative than some of the older
soil vapor data collected during the remedial investigation (RI) as these older data were collected
beneath the Burlington Industries Property in the source area, an area that has been significantly
affected by the AS/SVE system.
These observations are still believed to hold true. The general CSM for soil gas is that a contaminated
groundwater plume exists at the Site both beneath and beyond the boundaries of the Burlington Industries
Property. For buildings on the property, soil vapors containing VOCs may be present due to a combination
of contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. For buildings outside the Burlington Industries
Property, contaminated groundwater would be the source of vapors. Therefore, the highest groundwater
concentrations and the greatest potential soil gas impacts should occur on the Burlington Industries
Property and to a lesser extent at parcels of land closest to the Burlington Industries Property. The VOC
concentrations in groundwater, and thus soil vapor concentrations should decrease with distance from the
original release. Furthermore, a vertical concentration profile should exist in the soil column above the
groundwater, with the highest soil vapor concentrations occurring just above the water table and
concentrations decreasing with increasing distance above the groundwater source (i.e., the soil-gas
concentration is positively correlated with the distance below the ground surface),
Once released into groundwater, the rate of degradation of PCE is controlled by several factors including
the presence or absence of dissolved oxygen and the presence or absence of microorganisms that have
adapted to break down PCE. Typically in the presence of significant amounts of dissolved oxygen (i.e.,
several milligrams per liter (mg/I) and small to non-existent populations of dehalococcoides bacteria, which
characterize the natural conditions at this Site, the rate of degradation of PCE to TCE, cis-DCE, then VC is
very slow. Consequently, the dissolved groundwater plume consists largely of PCE with substantially
lesser amounts of degradation products (e.g., TCE, cis-DCE, and VC), With the exception of VC (which is
not widespread within the groundwater plume), these compounds are not rapidly degraded under aerobic
URS Corporation Page 3 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
. ', I,
l1
l
I
I
I,
I '·
i
I
:Ii
I
I
j
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
conditions. Therefore, soil vapor samples collected near building slabs should be comparable to soil vapor
directly beneath building slabs. While the above general trends are expected to be observed at the Site,
the subsurface is heterogeneous and variations may occur .
1.3 Previous Soil Gas and VI Investigations
Previous work has been performed to address soil gas and/or the VI pathway. Extensive work has
previously been performed in three general locations: 1) On-site buildings; 2) N.B. Mills Elementary
School; and 3) residential buildings to the north and east of Burlington Industries Property (i.e., near the
intersection of Phoenix Street and Yadkin Street and along Phoenix Street between Yadkin Street and
Melviney Street). In addition, some data has been collected from near the residential buildings along West
Front Street. This previous work is very briefly described below.
1.3.1 On-Site Buildings
The investigation to date has included collection of both deep and shallow soil vapor data on the Burlington
Industries Property and collection of indoor air data. This previous work has previously been reported to
EPA and the NCDENR (Brown & Caldwell, April 2008; URS, 2008b).
Relatively high PCE concentrations have been measured in soil gas at some locations on the Burlington
Industries Property. For example, the PCE at location SG-71 was found to be 110,000 flg/m3 at 3 to 5 ft.
bgs and 1,000,000 ,1g/m3 at 22 to 24 ft. bgs in samples collected during December 2007. These data
suggest that the VI pathway could potentially be significant on-site. Existing VI guidance, however, does
not adequately address large buildings with localized subsurface contamination and any estimates of
indoor air concentrations at this property based on maximum soil vapor concentrations will certainly be
biased high and grossly over-predicted.
Indoor air samples were collected during October 2007 and February 2008, and these data provide the
best indication as to whether current levels of vapor intrusion represent a problem.
During February 2008, indoor air samples were collected at five locations within the former textile plant and
two locations within the boiler house. All of the measured values for PCE, TCE, and other compounds of
interest were well below indoor air screening levels based on a 1 E-05 risk and a worker exposure scenario.
These results are generally consistent with those obtained for samples collected at eight locations during
October 2007. Based on the available data, the indoor air quality within the former textile plant building is
acceptable.
URS Corporation Page 4 April 24, 2009
I ·.·
'!
' . i ,,
1,
I ,,
.I
I
a.
I
I
11
I
I
1,
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slatesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Indoor air samples were collected at four locations within the FeX building during February 2008. All of the
measured values for PeE and TeE are below the site-specific indoor air screening levels. Based on the
available data, the indoor air quality within this building is acceptable .
Indoor air samples also were collected at six locations within the warehouse (i.e., Property 20) located
adjacent to the west side of the Burlington Industries Property. Little or no PeE was detected in the
samples and values for most other voes also were negligible. Trichloroethylene, however, was detected.
A great deal of spatial variability was observed, with 130 and 8.9 pg/m3 being the highest readings. The
agreement among results for the pair of duplicate samples was relatively poor, with the duplicate samples
at one location having 8.9 and 0.22 ~Lgim3, respectively (relative percent difference of 190 percent).
Overall, the indoor air results at Property 20 merit further attention to better understand the extent to which
VI and indoor emission sources each contributed to these readings.
1.3.2 N.B. Mills Elementary School
An extensive monitoring program was undertaken during the Summer of 2008 to address potential VI at
this property. A report has been prepared and submitted to the EPA and ~ENR (URS, 2008c).
A measurement program was performed at the school building that involved collection of indoor air, "sub-
slab" soil vapor from immediately beneath the building, and ambient air from immediately outside of the
building. A survey of potential indoor emission sources was performed prior to the collection of indoor air
samples. A large number of potential sources were identified during the survey, including various cleaning
products, paints, insecticides, personal hygiene products, and school supplies. None of these potential
indoor emission sources, however, were found to contain the target analytes for the indoor air testing. The
building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAe) system was reported to maintain the building
under positive pressure relative to the outside.
The various air samples were analyzed for ten chlorinated voes that are the primary constituents of
concern for OU3. The most sensitive analytical option was used and extremely low detection limits were
achieved. For certain compounds, concentrations as low as 0.000009 parts-per-million (ppm) were
achieved (i.e., 9 parts-per-trillion). At this sensitivity, it was expected that voes would be detected in most
or all of the samples, even if no vapor intrusion were occurring, because of trace levels of voes present
from background sources.
URS Corporation Page 5 April 24, 2009
I '· ,.
1.
,· I/
I·
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
The primary chemical of concern at OU3 is PeE due to its widespread occurrence and concentration in
groundwater, though TeE and ve also may be important from a risk standpoint. For each of the voes, the
measured concentrations were all quite low, with all detected values less than 0.5 part-per-billion (ppbv).
For comparison, the 1x10·5 risk levels in indoor air for PeE and TeE are 0.6 ppbv and 2.2 ppbv,
respectively, assuming a residential exposure scenario.
PeE, TeE, and the other voes were detected at about the same frequency and concentration whether the
samples were collected indoors, beneath the building slab, or outdoors. This suggests that the measured
values represent background concentrations. Based on the available data, there is no evidence of vapor
intrusion of site-related voes at the N.B. Mills Elementary School.
A review of the indoor air data was conducted, using standard EPA risk assessment protocols, to evaluate
whether the measured air concentrations of chlorinated voes inside the school are present at health-
protective levels, or could pose an unacceptable risk. Based on the indoor air concentrations measured
during the June 2008 indoor air sampling event, potential cancer risks to students, faculty, or other
individuals at N.B. Mills Elementary School are very low, and within the acceptable range. None of the
chemicals are present at concentrations that would pose a non-cancer hazard.
Over sixty external soil-gas samples were colle·cted on or near the school property along with six
groundwater samples to evaluate whether vapor intrusion may become an issue in the future. The soil
vapor was relatively clean. Only PeE, TeE, and chloroform were detected in more than 10% of the shallow
or deep sets of samples. Only PeE and chloroform were detected in any of the samples at concentrations
above 5 ppbv. The groundwater had few or none of the target analytes and met EPA drinking water
standards and NeDENR drinking water standards for these compounds (see URS, 2008c for specific
sampling locations).
The soil vapor and groundwater data collected external to the school building indicates that the current
situation is stable and will continue for the foreseeable future. There is no evidence of a mass of voes
present on or migrating towards the school property sufficient to be a future VI concern. In fact, the school
is located cross-gradient of the Site and there is no groundwater plume migrating from the Site towards the
school. In conclusion, intrusion of the voes tested from the subsurface soil gas to the school does not
appear to be occurring and does not appear to create a risk to the population (students, teachers, and staf0
of the school under current or foreseeable future conditions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are called
for or necessary.
URS Corporation Page 6 April 24, 2009
I
-Ii
'I/ ,, ,,
I
'i
I
I
I
,I
I.
I
I
!j
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
1.3.3 Residential Buildings to the North and East of Burlington Industries Property
The soil gas VI investigations conducted on residential properties to date has included collection of both
deep and shallow soil vapor data on various parcels of land and collection of crawl space and/or indoor air
samples at several buildings. Work has been performed by previous consultants to characterize the levels
of PCE and other compounds in the groundwater and soil vapor at these properties (Brown & Caldwell,
April 2008). Additional soil gas VI investigation activities occurred in the winter months of December 2007
and February/March 2008 (URS, 2008b).
During the most recent investigations, temporary piezometers were installed and groundwater samples
were collected for off-site laboratory analysis of VOCs by SW-846 Method 8260B. Shallow soil vapor
samples were collected in 1 liter (L) or 6L canisters for off-sitelaboratory analysis of VOCs by EPA Method
TO-15. Indoor air samples were collected from several buildings for off-site analysis of VOCs by EPA
Method TO-15, using selective ion mode (SIM).
A very large data set was generated. Results were obtained for over 50 individual VOCs in each of about
30 groundwater samples, along with results for more than 60 individual VOCs in about 100 deep soil vapor
samples, about 100 shallow soil vapor samples, and over two dozen indoor air samples. The total data set
contains about 15,000 measured concentrations.
The measurement results demonstrate that relatively high levels of PCE are present in the groundwater or
deep soil vapor beneath a few of the residential properties as discussed in the report (URS, 2008b). There
is no evidence, however, of any unacceptable levels of VI at these properties at this time. The subsurface
concentrations at most of the properties were either non detect (ND) or too low to pose a concern.
Two houses at properties exhibiting higher levels of PCE in soil vapor (i.e., houses at 501 and 505 Phoenix
Street) have been vacated and demolished; therefore, they are no longer of interest in terms of VI.
Based on the soil vapor data set, the building at 1540 Yadkin Street has the most potential for VI of any of
the remaining buildings in the area north and east of the Burlington Industries Property. The available data,
however, demonstrate that there is not a VI problem at this time. This is discussed in more detail in the
following paragraphs.
Air samples were collected at two locations within the crawl space beneath the building in August 2007 and
again in February 2008. PCE was detected at trace levels in the building crawl space. It is likely that
ambient air contributed at least some of the PCE that was detected in the crawl space. No indoor air
URS Corporation Page 7 April 24, 2009
I
I ,,
,I,
,I
' I
1
I
t
I
' I
I
I
!I
I
i
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
samples were collected, but a conservative assumption is that the indoor air concentrations due to VI are
equal to the concentrations measured in the crawl space. In other words, a conservative assumption is that
there is no attenuation (reduction in concentration) between the crawl space and the overlying living space.
In reality, the crawl space is ventilated and some attenuation will occur. Even using this conservative
assumption, the estimated indoor air concentration is well below the EPA screening level. Based on the
available information, VI of PCE is either not occurring or is not significant at 1540 Yadkin Street.
TCE was detected in the groundwater at this parcel of land, but at levels below the EPA drinking water
standard of 5 ,1g/L. TCE also was detected in the soil vapor, but at very low concentrations. The measured
concentrations in the crawl space samples were similar or larger than the concentrations measured in the
deep soil vapor. This suggests that vertical movement of TCE is not occurring. In any event, the crawl
space concentrations are less than the applicable screening level. Based on the available information, VI
of TCE is not occurring at 1540 Yadkin Street.
Based on the available soil vapor data, VI is not an issue at other houses in this area at this time. The
CSM indicates, however, that the PCE groundwater plume may extend into areas located northwest of the
area that has previously been investigated. This work plan includes additional field sampling to address
this data gap.
1.3.4 Residential Buildings along West Front Street
Soil vapor data has been collected from parcels of land along West Front Street. Based on the available
soil vapor data, VI is not an issue at the houses in this area at this time. It is noted, however, that the data
set is limited in size and that no soil vapor data are reported for the Western portion of the parcel of land
containing the FCX building. This work plan includes additional field sampling to address this data gap.
URS Corporation Page 8 April 24, 2009
I
I/
,a
\I
:I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
,I
I
I
I
2.0 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF WORK
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
The overall objective of the soil gas assessment presented in this work plan is to 1) identify those portions
of the Site where soil gas may create a potential VI issue, 2) conduct sampling and analysis to determine if
soil gas is a potential problem for a given building in the area of interest, 3) install control systems or other
mitigation measures at buildings where VI cannot be ruled out, and 4) perform long-term monitoring to
ensure that any change in conditions will be identified in a timely manner.
The most direct approach to address vapor intrusion is to measure the concentrations of the chemicals of
interest in indoor air. The difficulty with this approach is that at the low-or sub-part-per-billion
concentrations that are of interest, other sources may be significant, including indoor emission sources and
outdoor air that enters the building. With indoor air data alone, it is not possible to determine the relative
contribution from each source.
The general strategy will be to investigate VI in a logical, stepwise manner. This may involve initial
screening of soil vapor concentrations outside of buildings using semi-quantitative approaches. Where the
screening level results or groundwater data indicate potential for a VI issue, further soil vapor sampling will
be performed. This may involve coUection of soil vapor at multiple depths below the ground surface. If the
soil vapor data suggest a potential VI issue, testing may be performed inside the buildings of interest. This
testing may consist of collection of indoor air and/or sub-slab soil vapor.
Further investigations related to assessing VI will include the following:
• · Collecting sub-slab soil vapor and additional indoor air samples at the warehouse building to
follow-up the previous testing which yielded some elevated results for TCE;
• Collecting screening level soil vapor data using passive sampling approaches at various locations
to the south and west of the Burlington Industries Property (e.g., along Front Street) as well as
to the north and west of the Burlington Industries Property;
• Collecting soil vapor, sub-slab soil vapor, and indoor air data, as appropriate, to follow-up the
screening level study;
• Collecting soil vapor data at a limited number of locations to monitor conditions along Phoenix
Street and at the N.8. Mills Elementary School to verify that the existing conditions are maintained.
URS Corporation Page 9 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
The soil vapor monitoring will be completed in phases with locations closer to the original source area
sampled first (Phase 1) and more distant locations sampling in a subsequent Phase 2 if the Phase 1 results
indicate that this is warranted.
A parallel investigation of the sewer system in the area also is planned, which includes some soil vapor
monitoring. The sewer system investigation is addressed in a separate Work Plan. The sewer system is a
potential preferential pathway for contamination to be transported at the site. The findings of the sewer
investigation will be taken into account when deciding which areas merit further investigation for soil gas
assessment.
The proposed investigations are described in Section 3.0.
URS Corporation Page 10 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
-I
B
I
I
. ' I
I
3.0 SOIL GAS ASSESSMENT PLAN
3.1 Warehouse Building
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Slalesville, North Carolina
The warehouse building (sometimes referred to in previous project documents as Property 20) is located at
1735 Weinig Street. It is a working warehouse facility with only intermittent occupancy by workers. The
building is believed to be slab-on-grade construction with a footprint of roughly 350 ft by 225 ft (79,000 ft2 or
7,300 m2). Six indoor air samples were collected within this building during late February 2008 with an
anomalously elevated concentration of TeE at one sample location.
To better understand the potential for VI at this building, the following three activities will be undertaken.
One, a survey of potential emission sources of chlorinated voes within the building will be performed.
Potential emission sources will be removed from the building to the extent feasible. The survey will also
serve to identify potential air monitoring locations and will be performed at least 24 hours prior to the start of
any indoor air sampling. The areas with greatest potential for human exposure will be identified and the
number of separate zones within the building space will be estimated, based on the presence of internal
walls and the design & operation of any HVAe system. Two, 8-hr time-integrated indoor air samples will be
collected in canisters at four to six locations within the building. The sampling locations will include the
main zones within the building and the areas with the greatest potential for human exposure. Three, sub-
slab soil vapor samples will be collected concurrently with the indoor air samples at six locations that
represent roughly equal areas of the building slab (and associated sub-slab soil vapor). Sampling
procedures are described in the URS QAPP that is in production.
3.2 Passive Sampling Study
Shallow soil vapor samples will be taken using a passive sampling approach to provide initial data about
the distribution of voes in off-site areas that have not previously been extensively characterized. The work
will be performed in two phases. During the first phase, samples will be collected at 15 locations along
West Front Street to the south and west of the Burlington Industries Property and at nine locations to the
north and west of the property. Depending on the results of the first phase of sampling, additional passive
• samples will be collection at !!QJQ 19 locations to the south and west of the Burlington Industries Property
and \J_QJQ 51 locations to the north and west of the property. The proposed locations are shown in Figure 2
and are listed in Attachment One. The number and locations of the Phase II sampling will be based upon
URS Corporation Page 11 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
the Phase -I sampling data, results of additional assessments completed under separate work plans, and
the CSM. The data will be considered to be semi-quantitative and used only for screening purposes and
will not be used directly in any human health risk assessment.
3.3 Follow-Up Testing
Additional testing may be performed on-or off-property on an as-needed basis. Testing will be performed
to follow up the passive sampling study described above if the passive data suggest a potential VI issue at
a given parcel of land. Other potential triggers for further investigation include the results of the sewer
survey being ~erformed by URS, significant increases in groundwater or soil vapor concentrations at
locations where long-term monitoring is underway, and requests from property owners or community
leaders.
The general strategy will be to collect one or more shallow soil vapor samples from those properties where
passive sampling results suggest a potential VI issue in order to generate defensible data suitable for use
in a human health risk assessment (e.g., collection of soil vapor samples in canisters for subsequent
analysis by US EPA Method TO-15). The default sampling depth will be five ft. bgs for buildings with slab-
on-grade or pier-and-beam construction, and 10 ft. bgs for buildings with basements or other subterranean
spaces. If the shallow soil vapor data do not resolve the issue, subsequent testing involving crawl space
samples may be perfo_rmed for buildings with pier-and-beam construction. For other types of construction,
subsequent testing involving sub-slab soil vapor and/or indoor air may be performed. For residential sized
buildings, one to three samples of a given type (i.e., sub-slab soil vapor, indoor air) generally will be
collected. Any crawl space, sub-slab or indoor air testing will involve one round of sample collection taken
under reasonably worst-case conditions.
3.4 Long-Term Soil-Gas Sampling
Extensive characterization work has previously been performed along Phoenix Street and at the N.B. Mills
Elementary School to address vapor intrusion. Soil vapor data will continue to be collected at a limited
number of locations to monitor conditions and verify that the existing conditions are maintained as
described in the following sections.
3.4.1 Phoenix Street
Elevated soil vapor concentrations have been measured at properties immediately adjacent to the
Burlington Industries Property. The concentrations were found to drop off quickly with lateral distance from
URS Corporation Page 12 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
the former textile plant. If the groundwater plume expands, there is the potential for groundwater
concentrations at down gradient locations to increase with time. If so, the deep soil vapor above the
groundwater also would be expected to increase in concentration. Given sufficient time, the shallow soil
vapor concentrations also would be expected to increase. URS is evaluating the stability of the
groundwater plume through statistical analysis, which is described in a separate work plan
It is recommended that certain soil vapor monitoring points installed during 2008 be sampled on a regular
basis to verify that the current conditions are maintained. To ensure that any change in the situation is
identified in a timely manner, it is recommended that soil vapor samples be collected semi-annually at the
following locations (also see Figure 3 which shows these locations):
Sampling Depth Specific Monitoring Locations
Shallow SG-81
VP-05N
YP-22 (E or S)
Deep YP-0 IS
VP-0\N
SG-81
If these specific locations are not available for any reason, other nearby locations can be sampled to
achieve the same result (e.g., shallow wells at SG-85, VP-07S, VP-21 E or S; deep wells at SG-85). The
soil vapor testing should take place for the next two years (i.e., four rounds of monitoring). If the data show
no significant changes over that time, discontinuation of any further monitoring should be considered.
Groundwater monitoring at the site also is being performed semi-annually. The results for any groundwater
wells that lie in the general vicinity of the soil vapor monitoring locations will be used along· with the results
of the soil vapor testing described above to evaluate the potential for future VI.
3.4.2 N.B. Mills Elementary School
Environmental testing was performed within and near the N.B. Mills Elementary School during the summer
of 2008 as a precaution to provide data for evaluating whether VI is occ~rring at the school building. No
evidence of VI was found and no additional testing within the school building is planned.
URS Corporation Page 13 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
The soil vapor data collected external to the school building suggests that the current situation will continue
for the foreseeable, future. The groundwater beneath the school had minimal levels of voes and the soil
vapor also had relatively low voe levels. There is no evidence of a mass of voes present on the school
property sufficient to be a future VI concern and impacted groundwater from the Site is not migrating
towards the school.
It is recommended that certain soil vapor monitoring wells be sampled on a regular basis to verify that the
current conditions are maintained. To ensure that any change in the situation is identified in a timely
manner, it is recommended that soil vapor samples be collected semi-annually at two depths at six
locations. Three of these locations should be along N. Miller Street (i.e., SG-99, SG-100, and SG-101) and
three locations should be immediately adjacent to the school building (i.e., SG-134, SG-140, and SG-160).
These long term monitoring locations also are shown in Figure 4.
The soil vapor testing should take place for the next two years (i.e., four rounds of monitoring). If the data
show no significant changes over that time, discontinuation of any further monitoring should be considered.
Groundwater monitoring at the Site is being performed semi-annually. The results for any groundwater
wells that lie between the Site and the school property will be used along with the results of the soil vapor
testing described above to evaluate the potential for future VI.
El Paso has expressed an interest in closing wells in an area once they are no longer needed. In addition
to the six locations where continued monitoring is recommended, there are 39 additional vapor monitoring
wells at the school property. The vast majority of these wells have both shallow and deep intervals that can
be monitored. At 21 of these locations, no sample could be collected from the shallow and/or deep
intervals during the July 2008 field sampling effort. It is recommended that these 21 vapor monitoring wells
be taken out of service (i.e., plugged and abandoned).
The remaining 18 vapor monitoring wells also could be taken out of service now, but it is recommended
that the decision about these wells be postponed until after the next two rounds of soil vapor data are
available. If the semi-annual monitoring yields unexpected or ambiguous results, it might be helpful to have
additional monitoring locations readily available for testing. The specific vapor monitoring wells in each
category are summarized below.
URS Corporation Page 14 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Category of Vapor
Monitoring Wells
Used For Testing
(n =6)
Closed Immediately
(n = 21)
To 13c Closed in the Future
(n = 18)
URS Corporation
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Specific Monitoring Locations
SG-99, 100, IOI, 134, 140, 160
SG-125, 130,131,135,138,139,142,143,144,145,147,
SG-148, 149,150,152,153,154,156,157,162,166
SG-126, 127,128,129,132,133,136,137,141,146,151,
155,158,159,161,163,164,165
Page 15 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
4.0 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM AND FIELD OPERATIONS
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the FCX Statesville OU3 Site is currently in preparation by
URS and will supersede the existing QAPP (Brown and Caldwell, February 2004). The site-specific QAPP
provides detailed information concerning the organization, activities, and quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) protocols needed to achieve project data quality objectives (DQOs). The information provided in
this section of this Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan is not intended to duplicate the content or
information/procedures presented in the QAPP. Information provided in this section is intended to
supplement the QAPP with specific information or procedures directly related to the assessment of VI. For
topics not specifically included in this section, the reader is directed to the QAPP.
4.1 Analytical Program
4.1.1 Data Quality Objectives
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that specify the quality of the data required to support
decisions made during field activities and are based on the end uses of the data. Varying data uses may
require varying levels of data quality. DQO levels address various data uses and the QA/QC effort and
methods that are required to achieve the desired level of quality. These levels include:
• Field Screening (DQO Level I): This level is characterized by the use of portable instruments
which can provide real-time data to assist in the optimization of sampling locations and health and
safety support. Data can be generated regarding the presence or absence of certain contaminants
at sampling locations.
• Field Analyses (DQO Level II): This level is characterized by the use of portable analytical
instruments which can be used on site, or in a mobile laboratory stationed near a site. Depending
upon the types of contaminants, sample matrix, and personnel skills, qualitative and quantitative
data can be obtained.
• Screening Data with Definitive Confirmation (DQO Level Ill): These data are generated by
rapid, less precise methods of analysis with less rigorous sample preparation. Sample preparation
steps may be restricted to simple procedures such as dilution with a solvent, instead of elaborate
extraction/digestion and cleanup. Screening data provides analyte identification and quantification,
although the quantification may be relatively imprecise. At least 10% of the screening data should
be confirmed using appropriate analytical methods and QA/QC procedures and criteria associated
URS Corporation Page 16 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
with definitive data. Screening data without associated confirmation data are not considered to be
data of known quality.
• Definitive Data (DQO Level IV): These data are generated using rigorous analytical methods,
such as approved EPA reference methods. Data are analyte-specific, with confirmation of analyte
identity and concentration. These methods produce tangible raw data (e.g., chromatograms,
spectra, or digital values) in the form of paper printouts or computer-generated electronic files.
Data may be generated at the site or at an off-site location, as long as the QA/QC requirements are
satisfied. To be definitive, either the analytical or total measurement error must be determined.
4.1.2 Target Analytes
Samples will be analyzed for the target analytes listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Target Analyte List
Compound CAS Number Synonyms Gas-Phase Conversion
Factor
Tetrachloroethylene 127-18-4 PCE I ppb = 6.78 ftg/1111
Trichloroethylene 79-0 I -6 TCE I ppb = 5 .3 7 pg/nr1
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 156-59-2 cis-1.2-DCE I ppb = 3.97 ftg/1111
I, 1-Dichlorocthylenc 75-35-4 I, 1-DCE I ppb = 3. 97 ftg/1111
1,2-Dichloropropanc 78-87-5 1,2-DCI' I ppb = 4 .62 ftg/1111
I) 1,2-Trichloroethane 79-00-5 I, 1,2-TCA I ppb = 5.46 pg/1111
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4 vc I ppb = 2.56 pg/nr1
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5 Carbon tct I ppb = 6.29 ftg/1111
Chloroform 67-66-3 None I ppb = 4.88 ftg/11r1
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 None I ppb = 3.47 ~Lg/m 3
4.1.3 Analytical Methods
The analytical laboratories expected to be employed and the analytical methods for each type of sample
are listed in Table 2.
Any soil vapor, indoor air and ambient air samples collected during the proposed assessment and used for
human health risk assessments will be analyzed by Air Toxics Ltd (ATL), or an equivalent certified
analytical laboratory. ATL analyzed the large set of soil vapor samples collected at the N.B. Mills
URS Corporation Page 17 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Slalesville, North Carolina
Elementary School. ATL has a quality control program in place that is comparable to the EPA Contract
Laboratory Program to ensure the reliability and validity of the analyses performed. Analytical procedures
are documented as standard operating procedures which include the minimum requirements for each
procedure. A laboratory-specific QAPP is available for review upon request. Data generated by ATL will be
considered as Definitive Data (DQO Level IV).
Table 2. Summary of Analytical Information by Sample Type
Sample Type Lahoratory Approach Method
Indoor Air
Sub-slab Soil vapor Air Toxics GC/MS, SIM US EPA Method T0-15
Ambient Air
Soil vapor (canister) Air Toxics GC/MS. foll scan US EPA Method T0-15
Soil vapor (passive Gore™ GC/MS US EPA Method 8260
sampler)
Passive soil vapor samples used for screening purposes will be analyzed by the vendor of the
sampling media (e.g., Gore™). Given that the samples will not be subject to confirmation (e.g.,
through mass spectroscopy), the data generated from passive sampling will be considered as
screening level data (DQO Level Ill).
4.1.4 Quality Control Samples
Field and laboratory quality control samples are collected to validate the precision, accuracy,
representativeness, comparability, and completeness of assessment data. Duplicate (collocated) samples
will be collected at a frequency of at least 10% of the regular samples. Blank samples will be collected at a
frequency of at least 10% of the regular passive samples. No blank samples will be collected for canister
sampling; instead the canisters will be individually checked after cleaning prior to being deployed to the
, field (rather than one sample per batch being checked).
4.2 Field Operations
Field operations will be conducted in accordance with the specifications and procedures provided in the
QAPP (URS, in preparation) with certain modifications/enhancements described in this section.
URS Corporation Page 18 April 24, 2009
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
11
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Slatesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
4.2.1 Project Team
URS Corporation has been selected and authorized by EPNG to implement soil gas assessment activities
at the Site. Key project team personnel include:
• EPNG Project Coordinator -Brian Johnson (Houston, TX-713.420.3425)
• URS Program Manager-Larry Fitzgerald, PG (Hallowell, ME -207.623.9188)
• URS Deputy Program Manager-Conan Fitzgerald, PE (Morrisville, NC -919.461.1100)
• URS Field Operations Manager/Site Health and Safety Officer -Amanda Taylor, PG (Charlotte,
NC -704.522.0330)
• URS Soil Gas and Vapor Intrusion Practice Leader -Bart Eklund (Austin, TX -512.419.5436)
• URS QA Leader -Martha Meyers-Lee (Morrisville, NC -919.461.1519)
• URS Senior Hydrologist-Jeff Hansen, PH (Hallowell, ME -207.623.9188)
• URS Senior Geologist-Jerry Wylie, PG (Greenville, SC -864.609.9111)
4.2.2 Sample Handling and Management
Sample handling, tracking, and chain-of-custody procedures are documented in the QAPP and will be
consistent with EPA recommended procedures.
4.2.3 Recordkeeping
Documentation of an investigative team's field activities serves as a basis for technical Site evaluation and
report preparation. It is essential that field documentation provide a clear, unbiased picture of field
activities. Aspects of sample collection, sample handling, and observations will be documented in field
books or applicable field form. Bound field books will be used on work assignments requiring field activities.
Entries into field books will be legibly written in indelible ink and provide a clear record of all field activities.
The following information will be provided on the inside front cover or the first page of the field book:
• Project Name and Project Manager,
• Site Location,
• Job Number,
• Date,
• Individual to whom the field notebook is assigned.
URS Corporation Page 19 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Instructions and procedures relating to the format and technique in which notebook entries are made area
as follows:
1. Leave the first two pages blank. They will provide space for a table of contents to be added when
the field notes are complete.
2. Entries will be made in waterproof ink.
3. Entries will be made in language that is objective, factual, and free of personal feelings or other
terminology which might appear unclear or inappropriate.
4. Entries will be printed as neatly as possible.
5. Entries will be logged in military time format.
6. Errors in the field notes will be indicated by drawing a single line through the text, ensuring the text
is still legible, and initialing and dating the errors.
7. A new page will be started at the beginning of each day's field activities and the remaining clear
page at day's end will be marked out with a single initialed line at the day's end.
8. The person taking notes shall sign, number and date each page.
9. Later additions, clarifications, or corrections must be dated and signed.
Instructions and procedures providing guidance on the information to be recorded on field activities are
provided below:
1. A new page will be used at the start of each day's activities. The date, time, on-site personnel, and
observed weather conditions will be noted. Significant changes in weather conditions will be noted
as they occur.
2. If field sampling equipment is used, the instrument type, manufacturer, model number and serial
number will be recorded in the field notebook along with calibration data (e.g., the lamp intensity of
the probe for a photoionization detector, calibration standard type and concentration, instrument
settings, date and time of calibration, and results of drift checks). All field instruments will be
calibrated prior to use and checked for drift at least once during each day of use (typically at the
end of monitoring).
3. Sketches or maps to identify photo and/or sample locations will be included in the field book.
Landmarks and/or direction of north will be included.
URS Corporation Page 20 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. On-site health and safety meetings or will be documented.
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
5. As part of the chain-of-custody procedure, in-situ sampling information will include sample number,
date, time, sampling personnel, sample type, designation of sample as a grab or composite, and
any preservative used. Sample locations will be referenced to sample numbers on a Site sketch or
map.
6. Information for in-situ measurements will include a sample ID number, date, time, and personnel
taking measurements.
7. If on-site interviews occur, relevant information obtained will be recorded. Names of persons
interviewed, the interest group represented (if applicable), address, and phone number will be
recorded.
8. Any other relevant information, which would be difficult to acquire at a later date, will be recorded.
Copies of field notes and original field data sheets will be presented to the field operations manager as
soon as practicable and will be maintained in the project file.
4.2.4 Sample Designation
Samples collected for specific field analyses or measurement data will be recorded directly in bound
logbooks (field books) and on field forms (as appropriate) using a designated sample identification.
Standard sample labels will be attached to the sample containers and the labels will carry the designated
sample identification and requested sample analysis.
All samples collected for analysis will be assigned a unique sample identifier. The identifier will link specific
samples to the location and, if applicable, the depth from which the sample was collected, sample media,
and sample type. The sample identifiers will be recorded on the sample label that is attached to the sample
container, in a project field book and/or sample log, on sample chain-of-custody forms, and in the project
database. Identification for the samples follows the protocols listed below:
URS Corporation Page 21 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Where:
URS-xxx-01-MMDDYY-R-001
URS
XXX
Identifies the sampling as a URS project
Identifies the sample type (SG)
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
01
MMDDYY
R
Identifies the site location (01 through xx)
Month, Day, Year
001
Sample typc-R for routine, D for duplicate, B for blank
Sequential sample number starting at I and continuing through the
project.
The chain-of-custody form must be filled out for all samples in the shipment with the top copy of the three-
part form included with the sample, while the pink and yellow copies are archived on-site.
The preferred method of shipment is via FedEx standard overnight service to ensure proper integrity of the
media. T0-15 samples along with the chain-of-custody forms will be shipped to the off-site analytical
laboratory.
Sampling information will be recorded directly in bound logbooks (field books) and/or referenced field forms
using designated sample identification nomenclature. Standard sample labels will be attached directly onto
sample bottleware/containers immediately before or after sample collection. Information on sample labels
will include:
• Unique sample designation;
• Date and time that the sample was collected;
• Laboratory analyses that will be conducted on the sample; and
• Initials of person collecting the sample.
4.3 Anticipated Schedule
Upon approval, site activities will commence within eight weeks, provided that all access issues can be
addressed. It is anticipated that proposed investigation work tasks will be accomplished following !he
general timeframes presented in the schedule in Table 3 below.
URS Corporation Page 22 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Assessment
Warehouse
Building
Passive
Sampling Study
Follow-Up
Testing
Long-Term
Soil-Gas
Sampling
URS Corporation
Soil Gas Assessment Work Plan
FCX (Statesville) Supertund Site (OU3)
Statesville, North Carolina
Table 3. Estimated Schedule
Key M ilcstonc Schedule Estimated Date
Complete Sample Collection X March 13, 2008
Complete Analysis X + 3 weeks April 3, 2008
Complete Data Review & lntcrpretalion X + 6 weeks April 24, 2008
Complete Sample Collection (I" Round) y March 13,2008
Complete Analysis Y + 4 weeks April I 0, 2008
Complete Data Review & Interpretation Y + 8 weeks May 8, 2008
Shallmv Soil Gas Testing As needed NIA
Sub-Slab Soil vapor Testing As needed NIA
Indoor Air Testing As needed NIA
Complete Semi-Annual Sample z March 13, 2008 Collection (I" Round)
Complete Analysis Z + 3 weeks April 3, 2008
Complete Data Review & Interpretation Z + 6 weeks April 24, 2008
Page 23 April 24, 2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 REFERENCES
Soil Gas Evaluation Work Plan
FCX (Slalesville) Supertund Sile (OU3)
Slatesville, North Carolina
Brown and Caldwell (2004). Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), Statesville OU3 Site, Statesville, NC.
2004.
Brown and Caldwell (2008). DRAFT Drainage Evaluation and Vapor Screening Results of On-Site Sewer
Lines and Manholes -Technical Memorandum. August 2008
URS (2008a). Conceptual Site Model and Data Gap Analysis, Statesville Superfund Site, Operable Unit 3
(OU3), Statesville, North Carolina. April 4, 2008.
URS (2008b). Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality and the Vapor Intrusion Pathway. N.B. Mills Elementary
School, Statesville, North Carolina. October 21, 2008.
URS (2008c). DRAFT Vapor Intrusion Assessment Report, FCX-Statesville Superfund Site OU3.
December 1, 2008.
URS Corporation Page 24 April 24, 2009
---
UR
---
URS Corporation
115 Water S\reet, Suite 3
Hollowell. ME 04J47
Tel: [phone] Fo~: 207.622.6085
www.urscorp.com
--
PROJECT NO 39460238
DESIGN· LJF
APPROVED: GAK
DRAWN: LRH
--
SCAI.£: AS SHOWN
DATE: 01/16/09
~ILE NO· xxxx
---
CLIENT: EL PASO NATURAL GAS CORPORATION TITLE:
PROJECO:
FCX SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
-----
FIGURE NO:
SITE LOCATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~rt, ~I~ . i, '·.~ . -;:: ·= .... □· ·-!I-If! =~~ □
< <. TOZY........__/? ,·
. . ------.> ,~< ?.-_ ~, ~1 C
~ c:::
" ~
) Is§ ~ $_ -,hr J ~I::=:: D ~ ,. ~-~ r
' ~ 11 --
-; ••·. "-==--~~_,,,' J.~~/1] 7trr\Ctfrr§ifr5~(fr~iri~~~i~~~I~~) n~~\~=t~ ' ~
\ ·~ . " ( '.) \ I• '----' ·, '•1 • ·· ~~-~--1-7r~-1-(+17J$~kJ~~~~
I ~I @ $ f?~$ ~ .~••-,-:1:::::L;':l-. }ij;ft:il:;:;~ ~~~
RLY PL. $
Ii U6£3 ..
' 6 1/
\ --------
,°I !_d
~-=---....:::: ;----...... \~~ ............ q
,,, '-Q~
LEGEND
-0-UTILITY POLE
0,0 LIGHT POLE
---4-l<--FENCE
==±== RAILROAD
a
10 --TETRACHLOROETHENE ISOCONCENTRATION
CONTOUR MICROGRAMS PER LITER
(DASHED WHERE INFERRED)
BASED ON MARCH 2007 SAMPLING EVENT
? EXTENT OF CONTOUR NOT KNOWN
S ROUND ONE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
\
$ POTENTIAL ROUND TWO SAMPLING LOCATIONS
- -voe PLUME AREA
PRMCl NO:
URS Corpora!ioo 39460238 Ct.OH: EL PASO NATURAL GAS CORPORATION m1.c FlGURf NO.: u 115 Water Street. Suite 3
Hol!owelt, Moine 04347-9998
Tel: [phone]
fox: 207.522.6085
www.urscorp.com
0 250 500
SCALE, FEET
D£SIGN. JSH
Af'f'R0\'£0, LJF
DRA'M-l· LRH
scm: AS SHOWN PP:o.£n
0.1£ 02/09 /09
flLE NO: STATESVILLE
FCX SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
PROPOSED SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR
PASSIVE SOIL GAS SURVEY 2
--
,.
I
l!!!!I
URS Corporation
l 15 Woter Street, Suite 3
Hollowell, ME 04347
Tel; 207.623.9188
Fo~, 207.622.6085
LJF
APPROV£D: GAK
DRAWN; LRH
.. .. --
DATE:
FILE NO
.'~;-'f ;--. -
•· 7 ....
AS SHOWN
02/10/09
xxxx
, -!/
C ,• ,:,7 t;i
" 0
PROJECT:
FCX SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
- ----
LEGEND
EXISTING MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE NO·
PROPOSED LONG-TERM
MONITORING LOCATIONS 3
..
liiiilil Ii& -
~ URS Corporation
1 15 Weter Street, Suite 3
Hctlowell, ME 04347
Tel: [phone]
Fcx: 207.622.6085
www.wrscorp.com
ea ----
•.. -:-T,f .· •
-~ ► ·,,. '
t f
CU£N1:
-- ----
LEGEND
EXISTING MONITORING
WELL LOCATIONS
PROJECT t.:O: 39460238 El PASO NATURAL GAS CORPORATION TITLE:
PROPOSED LONG-TERM
MONITORING LOCATIONS
NEAR N.B. MILLS
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
FIGURE NO:
DESIGN: LJF SCALE:
APPROVED: GAK O,\TE:
DRAWN: LRH FILE NO:
AS SHOWN
02/10/09
xxxx
PROJECT:
FCX SUPERFUND SITE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 4
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-1. Proposed Locations for Passive Soil Gas Sampling
South & West of Site
Round of
Sampling Street Address Owner
West Front Street 1611 Evans Eller & Associates
1st (South side) 1623 Henry Elton Moore/ Stephanie Davis
(T)
Every lot on the 1625 Vernon & Catherine Keaton (T) South side of West
Front Street 1627 Joyce Brown and Lee Allen Woods
between Phoenix No address Keaton Living Trust and Woodlawn [-1629]
1631 Lee Allen Woods & Keaton Living
Trust
1633 Mary Rankin Derr
1635 Virginia Houpe
1637 Ezra Mauney
1715 Beverly Jean Moore
' 1740 Jerry Carl Chambers
West Front Street 1500/ 1512 Diamond Hill Coal Co.
(North side) 1620 FCX
Newton 1514 Dane Campbell & Chad Stewart
West Front Street 1801 Jeffrey Benfield & Susan Triplett
2'"' (South side) 190_1 --unknown --
1909* Ray Sherrill
West Front Street 1700 Carnation
Newton 1415 Mitchell Alan Corbett
1514 Dane Campbell & Chad Stewart
1614 JSK Properties LLC
1648 Michael & Drum et al.
1752 Brent & Cynthia Adkins
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Round of
Sampling Street Address Owner
Woodlawn No address Jerry Carl Chambers
2"'' [~ 127]
(Cont.) 135 Norman & Terry Hope
Security (Park) 201 Norman & Terry Hope
Weinig St. 1821 L.R. & Nancy Wooten
* This is not the location shown in the proposal. It is the next lot to the West of the proposal
location.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-2. Proposed Locations for Passive Soil Gas Sampling
North & West of Site
Round of
Sampling Street Address Comments
Weinig St. 1846 EPNG Property/ Gilbert Lambert
I st 1852
Wendover Road 863 Scott & Kathy Raymer
Weinig St. 1856 / 1860 / L.R. Wooten
2"d 1902 / 1904
1846 / 1852 EPNG Prope11y
Meachem Dr. 606 Slane OW Glass Company
Flintstone Dr. 1920 --unknown --
1950 --unknown --
Hilton Dr. 1956 Troutman Family Limited Part.
Waverly Pl. 706 Robert & Debra Bradburn
712 Todd & Stacy Martin
716 John & Melinda Manning
899 Carl Brittan
707 Robin & Gregory Wilson
717 Trent & Tammy Holbrook
729 Leigh Ann Darty .
735 James & Rebecca Henderson
737 Clifford Batten
Birchcrest Dr. 850 Joe Parlier
No address William Brian & Shelley Arthur
[~842]
Wendover Road 898 Sarah Baker
No address Daniel .Ir. & .lames Busby
[~890]
889 .loan Fox
870 Christopher & Suzane Canipe
885 Susan West
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Round of
Sampling
2nd
(Cont.)
Street
Wendover Road
(Cont.)
Ferndale Dr.
Address Comments
869 Camillia Rogers & William
Cothren, Jr.
863 Scott & Kathy Raymer
857 Debbie Page, Shane & Paige Fox
853 Chad & Diane Woodside
845 Jill Tolbert
No address Pearl Rossier
[~833]
821 Pearl Rossier
No address Robert & Catherine Moleta
[~809]
745 Robert & Catherine Moleta
754 Ronald & Cheryl Matthews
No address Douglas & Richard Mchargue
[-736]
718 Warren Winthrop