The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNCD003188844_19910529_Carolina Transformer_FRBCERCLA SAP QAPP_Analytical and Sampling Results 1989 - 2001-OCR4WD-NSMB Mr. Ed Hicks Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. I I 45 Sanctuary Parkway Suite 475 Alpharetta, GA 30004 SUBJ: Approval of April 20, 200 I Final Sampling & Analysis Plan for Groundwater for the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site in Fayetteville, North Carolina Dear Mr. Hicks: The Agency received numerous copies of the abo.ve referenced docuinent. At the request of the Agency, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation (B&V) sent a copy to North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). This document includes Volume I -Quality Assurance Project Plan and Volume 2 -Field Sampling Plan. The document read well and provided the necessary information. EPA's and NCDENR's comments on the Pre-Final version of this document were adequately addressed. Therefore, the North Site Management Branch gives approval of the April 20, 200 I Final Sampling & Analysis Plan for groundwater remediation efforts at the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site. If you have any questions, please contact me at 404-562-8820. ( cc: Charles Hayes, EPA Nile Testerman, NCDENR Jon K Bornholm Remedial Project Manager • ~ ;~® • BLACK & VEATCH 1145 Sanctuary Parkway Suite 475 Alpharetta, Georgia 30004 USA Tel: 1770) 751-7517 Fax: [770) 751-8311 US EPA Region IV Cape Fear Wood Preserving Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. ~---"BVSr.C--1'roject.!1~128.0143 !! ' 011)' 8, 2001 [l_; ['' [l_; ~ 1w [ ~MSPC File Mr. Charles Hayes, Contracting Officer MAY 9 2001 US Environmental Protection Agency, Regio'n 4 61 Forsyth Street, 1 Ith Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I SUPERFUND SECTION Sut:iect: Submittal of fjinal Sampling and Analysis Plan, EPA WA No. 028-RARA-04O2, Cape Fear Wood Preserving RA, Fayetteville, NC Dear Mr. Hayes: Enclosed please find 3 original copies of the' Final Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) prepared for the Cape Fear Wood Pr~serving Site Remedial Action. This Final SAP incorporates comments on the Draft SAP from the Agency, USEP A Scienc';: & Ecosystem Support Division (SESD), and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NVDENR). At the request of the EPA RPM, Mr. Jon Bornholm, a copy of this report has been forwarded to Mr. Nile Testerman ofNCDENR. Please don't hesitate to contact me at (770) 521-8141 with any questions or comments. Enclosure cc: Robert Stern, EPA PO Jon Bornholm, EPA RPM fNileTesterman, NCDENRJ Harvey Coppage, BVSPC w/l> enclosure Sincerely, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. ~ 6)//4 Edward C. Hicks, P.E. Project Manager the imagine• build company™ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO.NT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WASTE MANA~ENT MICHAEL F. EASLEY, GOVERNOR William G. Ross Jr., SECRETARY WILLIAM L. MEYER, DIRECTOR Mr. Jon Bornholm 22 February 2001 Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division US EPA Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, SW . Atlanta, Georgia 30303 • SUBJECT: Review of Draft Sampli!]g ?Jld Analysi~ e1an_volumes.Land 2. Cape Fear Wood Preserving (Ground Water) Fayetteville, Cumberland County Dear Mr. Bornholm: The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Draft Sampling and Analysis Plans dated .January 29 and 30, 2001 and received by the Division on 2 February 2001. The following comments are offered: l. Volume 1, Section 3.0, page 15 of 21: Please explain where the allowable decision error rates came from. Please explain in greater detail how the decision maker (Mr. Jon Bornholm) will decide thaf'the acceptable probability of recommending additional action is high enough to warrant additional action. 2. Volume 2, Figure 2-1: Please correct the figure as the ground water performance standards have changed. 3. Volume 2, Table 5-1: The method of analysis for many parameters is to be determined. Please complete this table or state when the TBD will be determined. 4. Volume 2, Table 5-2: Please correct the table as the clean-up goals have changed. 5. Volume 2, Section 5, page 17: If the soil is placed directly on the ground and determined to contain soil above the cleanup goals, confirmatory samples will be required ofthe clean soil that came in contact with the "dirty" soil. 1546 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1646 401 OBERLIN ROAD, SUITE 150, RALEIGH, NC 27605. PHONE: 919-733-4996 \ FAX: 919-715-3605 AN EQUAL OPP0RTUN1TY/AFF!RMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER -50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER 6. Vo. 2, Table 6-1: The method of analysi.r many parameters is to be determined. Please complete this table or state when the TBD will be determined. Jfyou have any questions, please call me at 919-733-2801 ext. 350. Sincerely, Nile P. Testerman, P.E. Environmental Engineer · UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 4WD-NSMB Mr. Nile Testerman ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 May 30, 2000 State ofNorth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources/Superfund Section Rl:C£t\lFI) . JUN 02 2000 SUPERFUNo SEcnoN 40 I Oberlin Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 SUBJ: Transmittal of the Final Data Evaluation Report and Groundwater Characterization and Hydrogeologic Investigation Report for the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina Dear Mr. Testerman: Enclosed for State's information and file are copies of the above referenced documents, dated May 23, 2000. These documents were revised by EPA's RACS contractor, Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. (B& V), based on comments authored by both EPA and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 404-562-8820 .. Enclosures (2) I. May 2000 Final Data Evaluation Report Sincerely, Jon K. Bomholm • Remedial Project Manager 2. May 2000 Final Groundwater Characterization and Hydrogeologic Investigation Report ·,. • UNITC:D ST ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV MEMORANDUM 34, COURTLAND STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30315, DATE: AU6 1 6 1990 SUBJECT: FROM: Evaluation of Dioxin Data for the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site 4~~· Joo K. Bornholm Remedial Project Manager TO: Elmer Akin Health Assessment Officer tttl;t.lVED AUG 28 1990 SUPERRIND SECTION Attached are the the analytical results for the resarnpling effort for dioxin at the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site located in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Additional samples for dioxin analysis were collected in May 1990 as part of the Remedial Design field effort. These samples were collected approximately at the same location as the dioxin samples were collected for during the Remedial Investigation (RI). This resampling effort was necessary due to the recent allegations of dereliction against the laboratory that analyzed the initial dioxin samples collected during the R!. The laboratory, MetaTrace, Inc., has been accused of falsifying data. The Agency signed the Record of Decision on June 30, 1989 identifying soil washing as the preferred remedial alternative for addressing soil contamination. As soil washing is a volume reduction process, the Agency is still evaluating what to do with the contaminated waste streams coming off of the soil washing process. Presently, biodegradation is the preferred route with either low thermal desorption and/or soil fixation/solidification as alternatives. A question that now needs to be addressed is, do the levels and/or species of dioxin identified in the attached data sheets present a significant risk at the Cape Fear site? The Risk Assessment develo.ped during the RI/FS did not address dioxin as a site specific contaminant of concern because it was not detected. Now that dioxin has been detected, does the Agency need to re-evaluate the Risk Assessment and therefore, the selected remedy? A timely response would be appreciated as the Agency's contractor, Camp, Dresser & McKee (COM), has recently submitted the 90% remedial design for review with September 17, 1990 the selected date for submitting the final remedial design. Comments on the 90% design are to be sent to CDM by September 1, 1990. If you have any questions, please contact me at x-7791. Attachment • • UNITED STATES ENVIRONHENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV COLLEGE STATION RD. ATHENS, GA. 30613 *****HEMORANDUM****** DATE: 08/07/90 TO: TOM DUFFY Attached are the results of analysis of samples collected as part of the subject project. If you have any questions please contact me. ATTACHMENT SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS, GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... •• •• •• .. .. PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47247 SAMPLE •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: DD020603 •• CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 5386D .. •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NG/KG 2.6U 2.6UJ 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13U 13UJ 13U 13UJ 450U 2.6U 2.6UJ 13U ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.3. 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1 ,2,3. 7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN( TOTAL·) 1.2.3,4,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1,2,3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1 ,2,3, 7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEPTACHLOROD!BENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINCTOTALJ 2,3. 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3,7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TYPE: SOIL PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE CITY: FAYETTEVIL · ST: NC COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 n NUMBER: 03 • • • • • NG/KG 13U --t380J 13U 13U 13U 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13UJ 40U 7120J •••••••••••••••••••••• ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,4, 7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3.4. 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,7.8,9 HEXACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN 2.3,4,6.7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 ,2.3.4,6,7.8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,4.7,8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN!TOTAL) OCTACIILORODIB[NZOFURAN(TOTALJ TEO( TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE. FROM !-TEF/89) 22 % MOISTURE .. • ••• ••• •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE. •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD, ATHENS, GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ... •• .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• ... .. .. .. PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47248 SAMPLE TYPE: PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE CITY: FAYETTEVIL ST: NC SOURCE: .. .. .. STATION ID: DD020604 CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 5386D ••• • • • NG/KG 3. 1 U --'>5, 4J 15U 15UJ 15U ->14J ➔18J ->85J -> 460J ~940J --'>2600J ::l. 1 U -', 24J 15U . .. ,. ................ . ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3, 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1 ,2,3, 7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN PENTACHLORODJBENZODJOXIN(TOTAcl 1,2,3,4.7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODJOXIN 1 ,2,3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODJBENZODIOXIN 1,2,3,7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALl 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINCTOTAL) 2,3, 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 ,2.3,7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 n NUMBER: 04 • • • • • • • • • • • • NG/KG 15U 15UJ 15U 15U 15U 15U -:, 42J -95J 15UJ ➔ 240J 60UJ ➔ 11J ............................. ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,4, 7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLDRODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 ,2,3,4, 7,8 HEXACHLORODJBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3, 7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2,3,4,6. 7.8 HEXACHLORODJBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 ,2,3.4,6, 7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,4. 7,8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) OCTACIILOROD JO[NZOF URAN( TOTAL) TEO( TOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89) 38 :1: MOISTURE • ••• • • .. ... •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U--MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTJTATION LIMIT. •R--QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47249 SAMPLE •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: DD020605 5386D •• CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: .. ••• • • • NG/KG 2.2U 2.2UJ 11U 11 UJ 11 u 11 u 11 U 11 UJ -220J -580J -> 21DOJ 2.2U 2.2UJ 11 u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN TETRACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN(TOTAL) 1,2,3,7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN PENTACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN( TOTAL·) 1,2,3.4,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1,2.3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN 1 ,2,3, 7,8,9 HEXACHLOROD!BENZODIOXIN HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALl 1,2,3,4,6, 7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINCTOTALl 2,3. 7,8 TETRACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN!TOTALl 1 .2.3, 7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TYPE: SOIL PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE CITY: FAYETTEVIL . ST: NC COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 n NUMBER: OS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NG/KG 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 11 u 11 U 11 U 11 UJ --) 25J 11 U -120J 90U ~4.6J ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,4,7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3,4, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1 ,2,3,6, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1.2,3, 7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2,3,4,6, 7,8 HEXACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3,4,6, 7.8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN{TOTAL) OCTACIILOROD!BCNZOFURAN( TOTAL l TEQ( IDXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89) 12 'X MOISTURE • • • • •• •• •• .. • • ••• •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION JV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47250 SAMPLE TYPE: SOIL •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: DD020606 •• CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 5386D PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE CITY: FAYETTEVIL ST: NC COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 ' STOP: 00/00/00 n NIIMBER: 06 •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • ....................... NG/KG ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.2U 2.3.7.8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 2.2UJ TETRACHLORODIBENZODJOXIN(TOTALJ 11U 1.2.3.7.8 PENTACHLOROOIBENZODIOXIN 11UJ PENTACHLORODIBENZODJOXIN(TOTALJ 11U 1.2.3.4. 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN 11U 1 .2,3,6. 7.8 HEXACHLORODJBENZODJOXIN 11U 1,2,3,7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZODJOXIN 11UJ HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 11U 1.2.3,4,6,7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 11UJ HEPTACHLORODIBENZOD!OXIN(TOTAL) 230U OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 2.2U 2.3,7,8 TETRACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN 2.2UJ TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTALJ 11U 1 ,2,3, 7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN NG/KG 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 U 11 UJ 11 U 11 U 11 UJ 22U ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,4,7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 ,2.3.4, 7.8 HEXACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN 1 ,2,3,6, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3, 7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2,3,4,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTALJ 1,2.3.4,6.7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,4, 7,8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) OCTACI ILOROD I BCNZOF URAN( TOTAL J TEQ(TOXIC. EQUIV. VA_LUE. FROM I-TEF/89) 12 1' MOISTURE •• •• •• .. .. • • • • ••• •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TD BE GR[ATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• •• •• •• •• •• •• PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47251 SAMPLE TYPE: SOIL PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE CITY: FAYETTEVIL ST: NC •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: 00020607 •• 'CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 53860 •• ••• • • • NG/KG 2.8U 2.8UJ 14U 14UJ 14U 14U 14U 14UJ 14U 14UJ 60UJ 2.BU 2.8UJ 14U • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.3.7.8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3.7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINCTOTAl) 1,2.3.4. 7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1 .2.3.6. 7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1 .2.3,7.8.9 HEXACHLOROD!BENZODIOXIN HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 1.2.3.4.6,7.8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEPTACHLORODJBENZODJOXIN(TOTAL) OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXINCTOTALJ 2,3. 7.8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTALJ 1 .2.3.7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 n NUMBER: 07 • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • NG/KG 14U ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.3.4.7.8 PENTACHLORODJBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 14UJ 14U 14U 14U 14U 14UJ 14U 14U 14UJ 28U 1 .2.3.4.7.8 HEXACHLOROO!BENZOFURAN 1 .2.3.6. 7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1.2.3.7.8.9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2.3.4.6.7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3.4.6. 7.8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1.2.3.4.7.8,9 HEPTACHLOROOJBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLOROOJBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) OCTACIILORODIDENZOFURANCTOTAL) TEQ(IOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE. FROM J-TEF/89) 30 'I: MOISTURE * ••• ... •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTJMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE JS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERJAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VER!FlCATJON. • • DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT SAMPLE .AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 08/06/90 •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••••• •• •• •• •• • • •• PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: DD020608 NO. 47252 SAMPLE TYPE: SOIL PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE •• CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 5386D •• ... . . . . . . . •· ............... . NG/KG ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.6U 2,3,7.8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 2.6UJ TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 13U 1.2.3.7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 13UJ PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 13U 1 .2.3.4. 7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 13U 1,2,3.6.7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 13U 1 .2.3. 7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 13UJ HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 13U 1,2.3.4.6. 7.8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 13UJ HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ SOU OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALJ 2.6U 2,3,7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2.6UJ TETACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTALJ 13U 1 ,2.3.7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN •••FOOTNOTES••• CITY: FAYETTEVIL ST: NC COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 n NUMBER: 08 • • • • • • • • • • • • NG/KG 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13U 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13UJ sou • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2.3.4. 7.8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTALJ 1 ,2.3,4. 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2.3.6. 7.8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1.2.3. 7.8.9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2,3.4.6.7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3.4,6, 7,B HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1.2.3.4.7.8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPT ACHLOROD IBENZOF URAN( TOTAL) OCT ACI ILOROD !BENZOF URAN( TOTAL) lfQ(lOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89) 24 "MOISTURE • • • • • •• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE Of MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GR[ATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-QC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • SAMPLE AND ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EPA-REGION IV ESD. ATHENS. GA. 08/06/90 DIOXIN/FURAN DATA REPORT ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• PROJECT NO. 90-521 SAMPLE NO. 47253 SAMPLE TYPE: SOIL •• SOURCE: CAPE FEAR WOOD PRES •• STATION ID: DD020609 •• CASE NUMBER: 0 SAS NUMBER: 5386D •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• PROG ELEM: SSF COLLECTED BY: J CLAYPOOLE •• CITY: FAYETTEVIL ST: NC •• COLLECTION START: 05/14/90 STOP: 00/00/00 •• n NUMBER: 09 • • •• ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• NG/KG 2.6U 2.6UJ 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13U 13UJ 13U 13UJ 100UJ 2.6U 2.6UJ 13U ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3. 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN TETRACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1,2,3, 7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN PENTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1 .2.3,4, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1,2,3,6,7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN 1 ,2,3,7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEXACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) 1.2.3,4,6,7,8 HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN HEPTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTAL) OCTACHLORODIBENZODIOXIN(TOTALl 20 3, 7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN TtTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1,2.3,7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN NG/KG 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13U 13U 13UJ 13U 13U 13UJ 26U ANALYTICAL RESULTS 2,3,4, 7,8 PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1.2.3,4, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,6, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 1,2,3,7,8,9 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN 2,3,4,6, 7,8 HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HEPTACHLOROD!BENZOFURAN 1,2.3.4,7,8,9 HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN(TOTAL) OCTACIILORODIOENZOFURAN( TOTAL) TEQ(IOXIC. EQUIV. VALUE, FROM I-TEF/89) 24 i MOISTURE •••FOOTNOTES••• •A-AVERAGE VALUE •NA-NOT ANALYZED •NAI-INTERFERENCES •J-ESTIMATED VALUE •N-PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL •K-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE LESS THAN VALUE GIVEN •L-ACTUAL VALUE IS KNOWN TO BE GREATER THAN VALUE GIVEN •U-MATERIAL WAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED. THE NUMBER IS THE MINIMUM QUANTITATION LIMIT. •R-OC INDICATES THAT DATA UNUSABLE. COMPOUND MAY OR MAY NOT BE PRESENT. RESAMPLING AND REANALYSIS IS NECESSARY FOR VERIFICATION. • • • • North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Health Services P.O. Box 2091 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2091 James G. Martin, Governor David T. Flaherty, Secretary Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 3, 1989 John I. Freeman, D.V.M., M.P.H., Head Environmental Epidemiology Branch Ted Taylor, Ph.D., Toxicologist Environmental Epidemiology Branch Kenneth Rudo, Ph.D. , Toxicologist /{(,t//l Environmental Epidemiology Branch Arsenic Levels at Cape Fear Wood Preserving Site Fayetteville, Cwnberland County State Health Director The following information and recommendations on the cleanup goals at the Cape Fear Wood .Preserving site concern levels of arsenic in the groundwater, soil, and sediment. The ideas and opinions presented here are based on the information provided to our Branch in the package and memo from·Lee Crosby on December 6, 1988 and from my literature readings of various documents and papers on arsenic. Groundwater: The cleanup goals provide no set levels for arsenic (and compounds) in groundwater. If the soil levels are to be left as listed in this· report, there is a possibility that arsenic will leach through the soil to the groundwater level over a period of time. This is dependent on several factors such as the clay, iron, and calcium content of the soil and sediment and the presence of red and yellow podzols, latosols, arid, and limestone soils. All these soil types and minerals assist in rendering the arsenic insoluble and holding it in the soil. pH changes, especially a rise in high iron soil or a pH drop in lime soil, may resolubilize fixed arsenic. Although EPA reports. that arsenic leaching is usually only effective in the top 30-90 cm of soil, sandy soil may carry arsenic deeper, especially over time and if an inordinate amount of rainfall occurs, saturating the soil ( as i.s currently the case). If the groundwater level is extremely deep, arsenic contamination should not be a problem, but monitoring for it if the soil and sediment levels for arsenic are set at the recommended level (> 1500 times greater than the MCL for drinking water) may be well-advised. Freeman & Taylor Page 2 May 3, 1989 • Soil and Sediment: The levels set in soil and sediment (94 ppm) are 18 times higher than the average levels of natural arsenic in virgin soil (5-6 ppm -Walsh and Keenly, 1975). In addition, normal levels found in agricultural environments are 40 ppm and lower. The human health based remediation criteria data for arsenic also does not adequately cover the estimated upper bound human cancer risk level of 10-4 -10-·, .· Since it only goes up to 10-6 , the assumptions of average case and plausible maximum case exposure are too high. In Table 3 of their report, there is about a 12.5 fold difference in the values in their table between arsenic and carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) in the soil for the residential scenario and a 16 fold difference for the worker scenario. If these values translate into daily exposure limits for these two carcinogens based on their calculations of acceptable daily dose based on risk level and potency factor, then the soil level of arsenic is at least twice the level.it should be. PAH soil levels are 2.5 ppm (X 12.5 or 16 = 31.3 ppm and 40 ppm, respectively for arsenic). This also holds true for sediment levels. The comparative data must however, take into account the differences in acceptable daily dose and risk potency factors for PAH's and arsenic while not forgetting that both are potent carcinogens. (I also question the values they use for "PAH's". They treat these compounds as a class, but the various compounds have a wide divergence of carcinogenic potency and I could not find evidence that they took this into consideration in their calculations). This comparative data, along with the underestimation of the target risk level, soil content (unknown), pH, and extent of groundwater saturation in the soil and sediment would make it advisable to lower the limit of arsenic to at least 40 ppm from the current 94 ppm. This puts it in the upper range of the agricultural levels while not being too low to be unreasonable as a cleanup goal. Any comments on these opinions would be greatly appreciated. KR:lp I