NCD003200383_19920227_Koppers Co. Inc._FBRCERCLA RI_Revised Remedial Investigation Report - Chapters 1 and 2-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Baltimore Operations KEYSTONE
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES,):-,;'('.
Phone: 301 / 821-2900 8600 La Selle Road, Suihi 502, York Building, Tow110n, ,10 21204 -Fu: 301 / H2l-2919
February 27, 1992
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Barbara Benoy, Remedial Pr.oject Manager
US EPA, Region IV
NC/SC Site Management Unit
PROJECT #179280-08
·WfCt.UYJE/D
F£ijii/,;i 1)Ui,)J
-''-·•~ Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
345 Courtland St, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365 ~PBtmJl1DSfCJmm
Dear Barbara:
RE: Koppers Superfund Site ,.
Morrisville, North Carolina
Revised RI Report -Chapter 1 and 2
On behalf of Beazer East, Inc., enclosed please find five (5) copies of Chapters 1
and 2 of the revised RI report for the Koppers site. We have incorporated and
responded to EPA and North Carolina comments and have prepared Chapters 1
and 2 for your review. We have used the "strike through and underline" method
which should facilitate your review. By copy of this letter both Mr. Krasko of
Dynarnac and Ms. DeRosa at North Carolina are also receiving a copy of Chaflters 1
and 2. In order to meet the schedule to which we are working, a quick reVIew by
those involved is anticipated. We will be sending along remaining chapters as they
are completed.
If you require any further information, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
/~ -~ ~-v.
Jotiil C. Mitsak, P.E.
Manager, Baltimore Operations
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Shannon K. Craig -Beazer East, Inc.
Ms. Pat DeRosa -NC Dept. of Human Resources
Mr. Robert Krasco -Dynarnac Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Report
This report presents the results of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the wood
treating and laminating facility located in Morrisville, North Carolina, formerly
owned by the Koppers Company, Inc. (Koppers). This report was prepared by
Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. (Keystone), on behalf of Beazer East, Inc.,
(Beazer), the corporate successor to Koppers. The information in this report was
prepared pursuant to the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work· Plan
(Keystone November 1989) prepared by Keystone in accordance with the Consent
Order between Beazer and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV,
dated March 14, 1989 (U.S. EPA Docket No. 89-12-C). The RI/FS Work Plan was
prepared in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), and EPA guidance documents entitled Guidance for
Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(Interim Final, October 1988), and Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities. (March 1987). The report presents the methods, findings, and
conclusions of the Remedial Investigation.
In order to better fulfill the objectives of the RI, additions to the scope of the work
presented in the approved RI/FS Work Plan were proposed based on a preliminary
evaluation of data collected during the RI. These additional tasks are described in
the Field Sampling Plan Addendum (September 1990), Fish Sampling Plan
Addendum (November 1990) and the Pumping Test Work Plan (December 1990).
These documents and other correspondence are contained in Appendix A
The objectives of the Remedial Investigation as described in the work plan are as
follows:
■
■
Raleigh RI
characterize the former Cellon process area soils;
characterize the former lagoon area soils;
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 1 - 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■
■
■
■
■
characterize the former land treatment area soils;
characterize site wide soil quality;
characterize the surface water and sediment in the Fire Pond, Medlin
Pond, and drainage ditches around the site;
characterize the fish in Fire Pond and Medlin Pond;
characterize on-site groundwater quality;
■ characterize off site groundwater quality; and
■ determine the potential environmental and public health risk
associated with the "no action" alternative.
To achieve the objectives of the RI, sampling and analyses were conducted on the
following:
■
■
■
■
■
on-site surface soils;
on-site subsurface soils;
surface water and sediment of the Fire Pond;
surface water and sediment of the Medlin Pond;
surface water and sediment in the drainage ditches;
■ fish in the Fire Pond and Medlin Pond; and
■ groundwater.
On June 18. 1991. Beazer submitted the draft RI Report to U.S. EPA Region IV as
well as the State of North Carolina. On Aui:ust 19. comments from the U.S. EPA
were received regarding the RI Report, Discussions were held between Beazer. and
its consultants and U.S. EPA regarding the issues. These discussions resulted in the
decision to coHect additional field data,
Raleigh RI
I 79280--08 CC/DCC# RD280 2/92 1 -2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
Following submittals of appropriate scopes of work a,nd with U.S. EPA's approval.
the a,dditiona,l work wa,s completed a,t the site:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Surface soil sampling in the Former Lagoon a,nd Cellon Process Area,s
a,nd a,na,lyses for penta,chlorophenol a,nd polychlorina,ted dibenzo-p-
dioxins /polychlorina,ted dibenzofura,ns to complete the Baseline Risk
Assessment,
Collection of soil samples for determining site-specific para.meters to
develop soil cleanup goals.
Geophysical logging of select wells .
Packer testing of two monitoring wells a,nd three off-site domestic
wa,ter supply wells.
The experimental determination of the soil-wa,ter partition coefficient
(Kp) for penta,chlorophenol a,nd dioxin.
Development of Soil Cleanup Goa.ls protective of Groundwater
Oua,lity.
Derivation of health ba,sed cleanup levels .
A confirma,tiona,l groundwater sampling round of select monitoring
Copies of relevant correspondence rega.rding these a,dditiona,1 tasks a.re contained in
Appendix A
Results of the sampling and analyses have been used to determine the nature and
extent of constituents on-site and to perform a Pt:talie--Healtb-aad-~tal
Assessmeat--fJIH~ Baseline Risk Assessment of the "no action" alternative at the
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
site. The PJ.m.A Baseline Risk Assessment is a separate report and not part of this
document. The data also have been used to determine remetH1H-aetieH oejeetiYes
site-specific cleanup Koals protective of i:roundwater qyality, public health, and the
environment.
1.2 Site Background
1.2.1 Site Description
The site is located approximately one mile northwest of the Town of Morrisville, in
Wake County, North Carolina. It is located on Koppers Road, southwest of North
Carolina Route 54. The site is bounded by Church Street on the southwest and the
Southern Railway on the east. A portion of the site along Koppers Road and
Church Street is wooded and not developed.
The site encompasses approximately 52 acres. Figure 1-1 is a site location map of
the area, reproduced from a portion of the USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle map for Cary, NC. The site coordinates are latitude 35° 50' 49" and
longitude 78° 50' 19". Figure 1-2 is a general site map depicting the layout of plant
facilities and property boundaries.
The topography of the area is characterized by nearly flat bottomlands to gently
sloping upland, typical of the Piedmont physiographic province. Surface drainage
appears to be south to southeasterly toward Crabtree Creek, which in turn flows into
the Neuse River. Soils consist of silty clays, and clayey silts derived from claystone,
shale, and siltstone.
1.2.2 Site History
Prior to 1961, the site was owned and operated by the Cary Lumber Company who
originally occupied the site since 1896. On April 8, 1961, the directors and
shareholders of Cary Lumber Company consented to sell real estate and assets of
Cary Lumber Company to Unit Structures, Inc. In 1962, Unit Structures, Inc. sold
the real estate and assets to Koppers Company, Inc. Two acres of property located
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 1 -4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in the northeast portion of the Morrisville plant property were purchased by
Koppers Company, Inc. in 1971. In 1986, Koppers Company, Inc. sold the property
and assets to Unit Structures, Inc., a company unconnected with the previous Unit
Structures, Inc.
Since 1962, the plant has produced glued-laminated wood products. In 1968, a wood
treating plant using the Cellon process was constructed at the site to produce
treated wood for use as a raw material in the laminating process. The treatment
plant was located in the southeastern portion of the site, near the Fire Pond.
Treatment consisted of pressure injecting pentachlorophenol (penta), in a liquefied
butane carrier, into the wood. Because pentachlorophenol is not completely soluble
in liquified butane, a co-solvent, isopropyl ether (IPE), was used in the process. A
glycol-based co-solvent reportedly also was used for a short period of time.
Typical of other wood treating processes, Cellon treatment was conducted in
cylindrical retorts. One retort cylinder was used at the site. After the wood was
impregnated, the butane carrier was evaporated under reduced pressure, leaving a
residual of penta as a dry, crystalline salt. The carrier was recycled to the work
tanks, where it was cooled before use. After the carrier was removed from the
cylinder, a vacuum was pulled on the cylinder and IPE and the dissolved penta were
sent to a blowdown pit. The blowdown pit was vented to the atmosphere, allowing
evaporation to occur.
The penta residual on the treated wood was removed by steaming. Steam
condensate was pumped to an aboveground flocculation tank where flocculant was
added to separate the penta. After flocculation, the condensate was directed to a
sand filter to further remove the penta. Two settling lagoons were installed
approximately six months after start-up, to provide further removal of
pentachlorophenol from the steam condensate. These were the only laiioons known
to exist on the site.
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 1-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
0
There was a teepee burner located in the northern area of the site. The teepee
burner was a large metal structure which was used to burn wood shavings and other
wood products associated with the wood treating process.
The Cellon treatment process was discontinued and dismantled in 1975, after which
treated wood was received from other sources. In 1976, following shutdown of the
Cellon process, two samples were taken from the Fire Pond to determine water
quality. One sample was collected near the south ditch and the other near the
Cellon treatment lagoons; the penta concentrations were 0.0042 mg/I and 0.018
mg/I, respectively.
During 1976, Koppers Company, Environmental Services Section, Research
Department, recommended that the two lagoons be reclaimed by land treatment,
which was considered to be the best available technology at that time. Reclamation
took place between April and September of 1977. Two locations were chosen for
land treatment of the water from the lagoons. Both areas were near the steel shop
at the north end of the property. The areas were plowed and diked and received
two applications of water, followed by the addition of fertilizer and plowing.
Additionally, dikes were constructed to prevent run-off water from entering the Fire
Pond. +he-lagOOH-bet-tom-sltidges-w&Fe--r-emeYed-and-s~-t<Hiey-ov-eF-ll!e-lageens
aHd--atijaeefH--a£eftS-befer-e--r-eclaraatit>ft.-ef-4he-ftfea--ey--fe!:alii!iflg-aHd-5eeeing--was
OOfle\iefed: The lagoon bottom sludges were mixed with surroundini: soils and
spread to di:y over the former lagoon areas and adjacent areas before reclamation of
the area by fertilizing and seeding was conducted,
1.2.3 Previous Investigations
Investigations began in 1980 by Koppers to study the environmental quality of both
the groundwater and the soils in the plant vicinity. The investigations included the
installation of nine backhoe test pits, water sampling from five of the pits, sampling
of fifteen on-site wells (W-1 through W-15), and the sampling of three surface water
sources. Soil, sediment, groundwater, and surface water data generated from 1980
to 1989 were summarized in tabular form in Appendix C of the RI/FS Work Plan.
In addition, soil samples were taken for analyses from different areas of the plant on
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 1-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
B
u
I
various occasions. Based on the results of these efforts, approximately 220 cubic
yards of soil were removed during April and May 1980 from the former lagoon
areas. The soils were disposed in a permitted, commercial chemical waste disposal
facility.
In July 1980, after removal of impacted soils, a more extensive soil sampling and
analysis program was initiated. The soil sampling encompassed the former
treatment lagoon area, the former Cellon treatment area, and the former
warehouse area which had been used to store dry penta in bags. As part of this
program, seven monitoring wells (W-9 through W-15) were installed to provide a
ring of monitoring wells to encircle the plant. The depths of the wells were selected
such that the wells terminated at or above an upper confining layer, which was
identified through geophysical logging. Groundwater samples were drawn from
these wells in August, September, and October of 1980. In addition, on July 24,
1980, two off site wells (Medlin residence and Wilkerson Construction) and one on-
site well (W-6) were each sampled by Koppers and the North Carolina Gepa!'fffttlflf
Division of Health Services. Additionally, two off site sediment samples, one from
the east drainage ditch and one from the Medlin Pond were collected. Koppers
results indicated no penta in off site wells (Medlin or Wilkerson samples) at a
detection level of 0.0004 mg/L The sediment sample from the east discharge point
contained 0.674 mg/kg penta, and the sediment sample at the Medlin Pond
contained 0.114 mg/kg penta. based on Koppers analyses. Penta was detected by
both labs in on-site well W-6.
On September 11, 1980, water and soil samples were collected by Koppers from the
Fire Pond and selected test pits. Based on the results of this investigation, an
additional 240 cubic yards of soil were removed from the former lagoon area and
disposed in a permitted, commercial chemical waste disposal facility in November
1980.
On September 24, 1980, the U.S. EPA, Region IV, Surveillance and Analysis
Division, conducted a Hazardous Waste Site Investigation (HWSI) which included
the collection and analysis of water, sediment, and fish for purgeable and
extractable organic compounds. Surface water samples were collected from the Fire
Raleigh RI
1 '192!!0-al CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
Pond, Medlin Pond, and the east drainage ditch. Groundwater samples were
collected from three wells on the plant property and three private wells immediately
adjacent to the plant property. Sediment samples were also collected from the Fire
Pond, Medlin pond, and the ditch which drained the land treatment area. Fish were
collected for analysis from the Medlin Pond and the Fire Pond. A trace level of
diethyl phthalate was detected below quantification limits in one of the on-site wells,
No other constituents were detected in the on-site wells nor in the three private
~ Trace levels of several PAHs (values were reported below the detection
limits and were indicated by 'T'), common laboratory solvents (i.e. methylene
chloride. bis-2-ethylhexylphthalate), and petroleum product constituents (i.e.
hexadecanoic acid, as tentatively identified compounds) were detected in the
Medlin Pond and Fire Pond sediments. Fish samples in both ponds also had
petroleum product constituents below the detection limits, but there were several
compounds (i.e. octadecanoic acid) reported as estimated values, designated by "J".
Lastly, one sediment sample collected from the Fire Pond had penta present above
the detection limit at a level of 6,400 ug/kg.
A series of eight supply wells (W-1 through W-8) had been installed at the site to
support plant operations. Available records indicate the majority of the plant supply
wells were installed in 1971 or 1972 and the depths of wells range from 200 to 400
feet although results of geophysical logging indicated well depths ranged from 73 to
210 feet. Currently. only one of these supply wells is in use, This well, designated as
domestic well 7-K (see Appendix I}, is used by a truck leasing company to provide
water for truck washing, Bottled water is used for drinking water.
In June 1981, a detailed follow-up investigation was completed by Koppers in the
area of the former treatment lagoons which indicated that penta was present 1K in
soil and iuoundwater at some locations. Additional rounds of groundwater and soil
sampling were conducted-in July and December of 1984, confirming the results from
1981. Approximately 1100 cubic yards of soil were removed from the former lagoon
area in 1986. Additionally, 50 cubic yards of material were removed from the filter
bed area and 100 cubic yards from the blowdown pit area. The 1,250 cubic yards of
soils removed in 1986 by Koppers were disposed in a permitted, commercial
chemical waste disposal facility.
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'ll. 1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
An on-site hydrogeologic investigation was conducted by Keystone in 1986 to supply
additional data concerning the presence and movement of constituents in
groundwater and soil. The investigation included a magnetometer survey of the
former lagoon and Jandfarm areas to identify the presence of diabase dikes,
installation of additional monitoring wells, groundwater sampling, soil sampling, and
analyses.
A series of twelve monitoring wells (M-1 through M-12) were installed and Jogged
by Keystone in July and August 1986 and a total of 15 soil borings (B-1 through B-
15) were completed concurrently with the monitoring well installation work. Soil
borings were installed throughout the site, targeting potential penta source areas.
These areas included the former lagoons, the Cellon process area, the land
treatment areas, the penta warehouse area, and the sawdust storage area.
A magnetometer survey was conducted in the former lagoon and landfarrn areas to
confirm or deny the presence of a diabase dike which would act as a preferential
pathway for groundwater migration beneath the site. This investigation concluded
that a diabase dike is not present within 150 feet of the surface in these areas.
Groundwater samples were collected by Keystone during September 1986 from the
twelve newly installed monitoring wells (M-1 to M-12) and also 13 of the 15 existing
wells (W-1 to W-8, W-10, W-12 to W-15).
In addition to on-site monitoring, Beazer initiated a domestic well sampling
program of potentially affected off site wells. Off site wells were sampled by
Keystone in September 1986, November 1986 and January 1987. In December
1986, the NC Division of Health Services, Superfund Branch, began sampling off
site wells around this site. In March 1987, Beazer released the results of the three
rounds of sampling. The Beazer results were questionable due to detectable blank
concentrations and problems with Jab contamination. They were also inconsistent
with results obtained by the State laboratory. Representatives of Beazer, Keystone,
the Wake County Health Department and the State met and decided to resample
Raleigh RI
1= CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 1-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
R
immediately. At that time, Beazer began off site well sampling in conjunction with
the State and the Wake County Health Department.
Samples were collected by Keystone in March 1987, November 1987, September
1988, and October 1988. Beazer initiated the ongoing quarterly monitoring of
selected domestic wells in February 1989. In addition to off site well sampling, an
extensive domestic well survey of the adjacent Morrisville area was conducted
during October to December 1988.
1.2.4 Interim Corrective Measures
As indicated above, interim corrective measures have been implemented at the
Morrisville site based on data from previous investigations. In summary, the interim
corrective measures implemented at the site included:
■
■
Removal of approximately 220 cubic yards of soil from the former
lagoon area in April 1980,
Removal of an additional 240 cubic yards of soil from the former
lagoon area on November 1980, and
■ Removal of 1,100 cubic yards from the former lagoon area and Cellon
treatment area, 50 cubic yards of material from the filter bed area,
and 100 cubic yards of material from the blowdown pit area in 1986.
All removed material was disposed of in a permitted, commercial chemical waste
disposal facility.
Soil boring and shallow monitoring wells were installed in 1986 to further identify
groundwater conditions and areas where penta was present in the soil. In August
1987, Keystone, at the request of Beazer, prepared a report entitled, "Summary of
Existing Data for Previously Operated Property, Koppers Company Inc., Raleigh,
North Carolina Site." This report, including a recommendation for future work, was
submitted to NC OHR.
Raleigh RI
17928()..(1! CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 1-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
I
m
As described previously, a quarterly monitoring program of domestic wells has been
initiated. Beazer provided bottled water at off site well locations where
pentachlorophenol and/or IPE was detected. In cases where results indicate invalid
data for any reason ( e.g., blank contamination), bottled water is and will be supplied
to these residents as a precautionary measure, until resampling and valid data is
obtained. The resampled and valid data will then be reviewed to determine the
future course of action for these individual cases.
In November 1988, a fence was installed by Beazer around the Medlin Pond to
discourage unwarranted use. Permission was received from the owner prior to
erection of the fence and a Beazer representative was on-site to accommodate the
property owner's wishes during installation.
In February 1989, Beazer, in cooperation with the town of Morrisville, agreed to
install municipal water lines around the site and to provide service to area
residences. Beazer and EPA Region IV entered into negotiations concerning a
Consent Order for the construction of the water line. An agreement was reached
and the Order became effective May 15, 1989. Through several phases of
construction, over four miles of water mains have been installed and over 80
residences have been connected to the municipal water supply. Figure 1-3 depicts
the location of the water mains installed by Beazer.
1.3 Report Organization
The organization and content of this report (Volume I) are described below. The
Appendices are provided in Volumes II and III.
•
Raleigh RI
Section 1.0, Introduction
Section 1.0 summarizes the scope and objectives of the RI.
Included is a description of the site history and relevant
background information.
I~ CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 1 -11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
n
■
■
■
Section 2.0. Description of Site Investigations
This section summarizes the chronology and methodology of
the RI field activities, including the hydrogeologic investigation
and the soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and fish
sampling activities.
Section 3,0. Site Physical Characteristics
Section 3.0 describes the site features, demography and land
use, climate, soils, geology, hydrogeology, and surface water
hydrology. It is based upon historical information and data
obtained from the RI.
Section 4.0. Nature and Extent of Potential Constituent Impact
Included in Section 4.0 is a presentation of the results of the RI
environmental sampling and analysis program. Included are
data on the nature and extent of constituents detected in soil,
groundwater, sediments, surface water, and fishes during the
RI.
-----;Se!,E!etion-S:G;-ldeiitifK!llt¼OO-a-nd-Sereel-Hflg-ef-+eehBolegies
·-------~S1>ee<ffien--S~ j!re¥iaes--a--fKeliffiinai:y--ideatifieatieB--ef--ffffltl6ial
teehBolegies--tl!at--may--be--usee--*--t=ernediate--si-t&--reff!.t~
t1011Stitttents,----+he---pFelirn-iflary---list--of--~tiai---t=ernedial
teehBolegies-will-be--ttSed-as-a-basi!.-fOF-the--IleasibHity-Sffidy
Reper+.
■
Raleigh RI
Section 5.0, Environmental Fate and Transport of Site Constituents
Section 5.0 provides information on the physical and chemical
properties of constituents of interest. A summary of the site-
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 1 -12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
•
Raleigh RI
specific cleanul) goals, l)rotective of groundwater quality, is
also included,
Section 6,0. Summaiy
This Section summarizes the findings of the RI.
1 '79280--al CC/DCC# R0280 2/9'2 1 -13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure
1-1
1-2
1-3
Raleigh RI
CHAPTER 1
LIST OF FIGURES
Site Location Map
General Site Map
Municipal Water Supply Mains Installed by Beazer East, Inc.
179280-0! BM/DCC#R0280 2/'12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
~-
Reference: t
U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map -N-
eary, North Carolina, 1973 Photo Revised 1987 I
Scale 1 • a 2000'
FIGURE 1 -1
SITE LOCATION MAP
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o ..
\\
\ \
MER LAND FARM AREA
TWO ACRE ACClUIRED IN
1971
/ I __ -/JJ □
I F-,, 1
I L_jJ I
I
PROPERTY Olt'NED BY BEAZER EAST. INC.
TWO ACRES ACGIJIREO IN 1971
SCALE (FEE1J
100 0 100 200 300
-----
Cl
MEDLIN POND
FIGURE 1-2
6ENERAL SITE HAP
0
FORNER KOPPERS COHPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
HORRISVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
2/21/92 A106688
11111 --111111 1!!!!!!!!1 08 .. 81 1!!!!!!!!1 -Ell ._ 1111111 1111 -._ 1iii1 iiiii11 liiiiiil
41 -
I
I
- - - -l+'A TER MAIN INSTALLED
BY /+'AKE COUNTY.
--,,,.,..----~-----~
. ,,..-.,./ -'><'.'.....__ _____ _ "----.._ LAKE
<:Jo'<'~ ~ ."
-1 H
-H
H
os-2.2.-
os-n-os-
s-2.0--os-19 o 1v-
6K -" -2.K
X/91 SITE
BOUNDARY
SCALE (FEET) ------0 550 1100 1650
..... __ -
'D .
<:f:;,'<'~ ~ I
'3:. ~
Ro. I
J ru
I
ru o lD lD
...
"' ...
I I
37J --3BJ
39J -""J 40J -41J -42J
·-------52J
FIGURE 1-3
MUNICIPAL l+'A TER SUPPLY
MAINS INSTALLED
BY BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NC
2/27/92 8513151
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE INVESTIGATIONS
This chapter describes the scope of work and procedures utilized in completion of
the RI hydrogeologic investigation, field sampling, and laboratory analysis program.
In order to reduce redundancy in the discussions below, Section 2.8 is devoted to
describing the procedures inherent to many of the activities completed during the
RI. Procedures discussed in Section 2.8 include decontamination of drilling and
sampling equipment, sample chain-of-custody protocol, collection of field duplicate
and blank samples, and surveying techniques.
Following review of the Draft RI Report. it was necessazy to obtain additional site
data to further characterize the extent of the constituents of interest in surficial soils
and groundwater and to determine site-specific parameters to develop
~oats, The additional work is described in the following relevant sections.
2.1 Soils Investigation
cleanup
The scope of work and the methods utilized to chemically and physically
characterize site soils are described in this section.
2.1.1 Soil Sampling and Chemical Analysis
Soil samples were collected for chemical analysis from 60 soil boring locations (X-2
through X-61) and two surface soil sample locations (SS-1 to SS-2) within the
former Koppers site. The primary objective of the soil investigation was to evaluate
soil quality within the former lagoon, former Cellon process area, and former
landfarm areas as evidenced by the relatively large number of borings completed in
these areas. However, several borings were completed in areas other than those
listed above in order to provide site-wide characterization of soil quality. In
addition, soil samples collected at four off site boring locations (X-1, C-3A, C-9A
and C-llA) were submitted for chemical analysis to characterize background soil
quality data. Soil samples collected in the former lagoon area and former Cellon
process area were also used to determine several physical parameters necessazy to
develop site-specific cleanup goals. Soil sampling locations are shown on Figure 2-1.
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'12 2 - 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
• I
I
The soil sampling program was completed in twe three phases. The first phase of
soil sampling was conducted between April and June 1990 and included completion
of the sampling and analysis program described in Section 5.3.2 of the approved
RI/FS Work Plan. This program required the completion of 51 soil borings (X-1
through X-48, C-3A, C-9A and C-1 lA) and the collection of two surface soil
samples (SS-1 and SS-2) in the former teepee burner area. Two additional soil
borings were added to this program at the request of EPA. These borings,
designated as X-49 and X-50, were located within the former Cellon process and
former lagoon areas, respectively.
Following review of the first round of soil analytical results, Beazer proposed
additional soil characterization activities within the former Cellon process and
former lagoon areas. The scope of work for the second phase of soil investigation
was proposed in the Field Sampling Plan Addendum (September 1990). Following
EPA approval of the Field Sampling Addendum, the additional soil sampling
activities, which included completion of eleven borings (X-51 through X-61), were
performed in October 1990.
Following EPA's review of the Draft RI Report and discussion with EPA personnel,
Beazer proposed additional soil sampling activities at six (6} locations within the
former Cellon process area and at twelve (12) locations in the former lagoon area.
One purpose of the sampling was to further characterize surface soils. Additional
soil samples in these two areas were also taken in order to obtain site-specific
·parameters for development of cleanup goals. The scope of work for the third
phase of the soil investigation was outlined in Keystone's September 20. 1991 letter
to EPA. After EPA's approval. the additional sampling was performed in October
1921..
All soil borings were advanced using small diameter hollow stem augers. Split-
spoon soil samples were collected continuously in two-foot increments from the
ground surface to the bottom of the boring. The termination depth of the soil
borings was determined by split-spoon refusal, which was indicated by greater than
fifty blow counts in a six-inch interval. The depth of the soil borings completed
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'12 2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
during the RI ranged from four to twenty feet and varied depending on the depth to
bedrock.
All downhole drilling and sampling equipment ( e.g. augers, split-spoons, drill rods)
were decontaminated between boring locations using the procedure described in
Section 2.8. Decontamination of the drilling equipment was performed on a sloped
cement-lined and berrned pad with a water collection sump. Split-spoon soil
samplers were cleaned between uses in accordance with the procedure described in
Section 2.8. All soil cuttings were placed in Department of Transportation (DOT)
approved 55-gallon steel drums with removable lids. The contents of the drum,
boring location, and date were marked on all drums. All drums were transported to
an on-site staging area where they were placed on wooden pallets. All soil borings
were sealed following completion using a cement/bentonite grout mixture. Boring
locations were marked with a labelled wooden stake for surveying purposes.
The physical characteristics of the soils were described in the field by the supervising
hydrogeologist in accordance with the Burmeister Soil Classification System. Soil
sample head space readings were obtained at several boring locations using an HNu
photoionization detector. HNu head space readings were not conducted for all soil
samples due to weather conditions (high humidity or rain) or equipment failure.
Additional head space measurements were obtained for IPE at several locations
using Draeger tubes. Head space readings, odors and any physical indications of the
constituents of interest are noted on the boring logs. Soil boring logs prepared from
these field descriptions are presented in Appendix B.
In accordance with Section 5.2.3 of the approved RI/FS Work Plan, the selection of
soil samples to be submitted for analysis was based primarily on field observations
indicating the potential presence of the constituents of interest. At boring locations
where no physical evidence of the constituents of interest was observed, the soil
sample collected near the mid-point of the boring and the deepest sample collected
were submitted for chemical analysis. At boring locations where physical evidence
of the compounds of interest was observed, one soil sample collected from the
interval exhibiting indications of the compounds of interest and the first sample
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
collected from below that interval ( i.e. the first apparently "clean" sample) were
submitted for chemical analyses.
Surface soils samples obtained during the third phase of sampling were collected by
advancing a decontaminated bucket auger to a depth of two feet adjacent to the
i:rout plui: of the previously completed borini:, Soil from the two foot interval was
placed into a stainless steel pan and thoroughly mixed prior to placini: the soil
sample into glass jars. The sampling equipment (e.g. auger. pan. and spoon} were
prepared according to the procedures listed in Section 2.8. Soil boring locations
were verified in the field or reestablished by a licensed surveyor.
A summary of the soil analytical program for purposes of determining the extent of
the constituents of interest is presented as Table 2-1. A summary of the soil
analytical program for purposes of determining site-specific parameters for the
development of soil cleanup goals is presented in Table 2-2. A minimum of two soil
samples from each boring were submitted for chemical analysis. All soil samples
submitted to the laboratory were analyzed for acid extractable phenolic compounds
using EPA Method 8040. In addition, select samples were also analyzed for IPE,
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), and polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDFs) and constituents on the Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte
List (T AL) during the first phase of the soil investigation. Ten percent of the soil
samples collected from the former lagoon and Cellon process areas, all samples
collected in the former teepee burner area and one background soil sample were
submitted for PCDD/PCDF analysis. Addttiooally, Six samples (X-53 through X-
58) collected from the 2 to 4 foot depth interval during the second phase of soil
investigation were analyzed for PCDDs and PCDFs. Approximately ten percent of
the samples collected for analysis site-wide were analyzed for IPE. Fifteen percent
of the samples collected for analysis site-wide were analyzed for TCL/T AL
constituents.
In the third phase of soil sampling. surface samples were submitted for laboratory
analysis for acid extractable phenolics by EPA Method 8040. with the exception of
one sample point (X-23} which had been analyzed during the RI for these
constituents. Four samples were submitted for analysis of PCDDs/ PCDFs by EPA
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Method 1613. Soil samples were also collected and analyzed for pH <EPA Method
9045) and total organic carbon (TOC. EPA Method 9060). These data were used as
input parameters in the analytical solutions which were used to determine site-
specific soil cleanup goals. Soil samples were also collected at five locations, X-21,
X-23, X-48, X-50 and X-57. in order to experimentally derive soil-water partition
coefficients (Kp) for pentachlorophenol. The samples were composited in
Keystone's Treatability Laboratory prior to soil desorption testing. Soil sampling
modeling parameters are listed in Table 2-2.
Sample handling, and transport, chain-of-custody protocol and collection of
duplicate and blank samples are discussed in Section 2.8.
In addition to the physical classification of the soil samples performed in the field,
laboratory testing was completed on selected soil to provide additional information
regarding physical characteristics of the soil. Selected samples collected from the
former lagoon, former Cellon process, and former landfarm areas were submitted
for physical testing. Tests completed on these samples included grain size (ASTM
D-422) and Atterberg Limits (ASTM Methods D-423 and D-434). These tests were
completed by GAi Consultants, Inc. of Monroeville, Pennsylvania.
Undisturbed Shelby tube soil samples were collected from locations in the former
landfarm area (ST-1), the former blowdown pit area (ST-2), and the former gravel
filter area (ST-3) for laboratory vertical permeability testing. Shelby tube samples
were collected from the interval from 2 to 4 feet in boring ST-1, and the interval
from 4 to 6 feet in borings ST-2 and ST-3. Borings ST-1, ST-2 and ST-3 were drilled
immediately adjacent to previously completed soil borings X-5, X-37 and X-25,
respectively. Additionally. during the third phase of sampling. undisturbed Shelby
tubes were taken over three depth intervals for laboratory permeability testing at
previously completed boring locations X-30 and X-59, Vertical permeability
laboratory testing was completed by Trigon Engineering Consultants. Inc. (Trigon)
of Greensboro. North Carolina using ASTM Method D-2434-65T. These six Shelby
tubes, as well as six additional µndisturbed tube samples taken at boring locations
X-27 and X-28 (3 tubes at each boring), were submitted for measurement of
gravimetric soil properties (e.g. natural and dry bulk density, natural and saturated
Raleigh RI
I i928IJ.-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water content), These parameters were used in calculating volumetric properties of
the soil samples {e.g. porosity, volumetric water content). All Shelby tubes were
sealed at the time of collection with plastic caps and stored temporarily in a vertical
position, Following extraction of a small amount of soil from the top of the Shelby
tube for pH and TOC samples, · the tubes were prepared for shipment to the
laboratory by sealing the tube ends with paraffin.
Natural and dry bulk density, and natural moisture content was determined by
Trigon using ASTM Method D-2937. Saturated water content was measured
gravimetrically following the saturation of the samples as required for permeability
testing,
2.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation
The procedures utilized to complete the scope of work for the RI hydrogeologic
investigation are summarized in the following sections.
2.2.1 Drilling and Monitoring Well Installations
Prior to presenting the discussion of the monitoring well installation program, it
should be noted that data generated following approval of the RI/FS Work Plan
and hydrogeologic conditions observed in the field necessitated modifications to
some of the proposed well locations and well depths presented in the RI/FS work
plan. Discussions of these modifications are presented below.
Modification of several of the proposed off site well locations was necessitated
based on domestic well analytical data obtained following approval of the RI/FS
Work Plan and access to drilling equipment. Beazer requested EPA approval to
relocate some of the off site monitoring wells in a letter dated May 18, 1990.
Approval of the proposed relocation of off site monitoring wells, with the exception
of well C-21C, was granted by EPA in a letter dated May 30, 1990. This letter and
other correspondence pertaining to modifications to the field program are contained
in Appendix A
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
As proposed in the RI/FS Work Plan, intermediate depth wells were to be installed
with six-inch diameter steel casing set and grouted to 50 feet and a screened section
extending from 60 to 70 feet. Observations made at intermediate depth well C-278
indicated a water bearing zone producing approximately five gallons per minute at a
depth of about 35 feet. No water producing zone was encountered at this location in
the interval below 35 feet to the maximum depth of investigation at this location of
160 feet.
In order to allow for groundwater monitoring in the higher permeability zones
within the bedrock beneath the site, modifications to the proposed intermediate
well construction were requested. The proposed modifications included installation
of the six-inch steel surface casings to a depth of three feet below the bottom of the
adjacent shallow well and installation of a ten-foot screened section within the first
encountered water bearing zone beneath the adjacent shallow well.
For similar reasons, a modification to the off site deep monitoring well construction
was proposed. The only modification requested, with regard to these wells, was to
install the six-inch steel surface casing to a depth approximately three feet into
competent bedrock (approximately 25 to 30 feet) rather than 50 feet below ground
surface as originally proposed. The remainder of the well was completed as
originally proposed as a six-inch open hole to the depth of the nearest domestic well.
These modifications were verbally approved by EPA during a June 4, 1990
telephone conference. Keystone submitted a confirmation letter to EPA
, summarizing the conclusions of the June 4, 1990 conversation on June 11, 1990
(Appendix A).
Lastly, proposed monitoring well C-15C was eliminated from the well installation
program based on hydrogeologic conditions observed during the drilling of the
intermediate well at that location (C-158) and the reported depth of the nearest
domestic well (OS-1). A water bearing zone was encountered during drilling at a
depth of 23 feet at shallow well location C-15A. As a result this well was set to a
depth of 33 feet. In accordance with the modification to intermediate well
installations discussed above, six-inch steel surface casing was set and grouted to a
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
depth of 36 feet. This boring was advanced below 36 feet in ten foot increments at
which time drilling was suspended for a period of fifteen to thirty minutes to allow
for a determination of whether any water producing zones had been encountered.
Air was then injected into the borehole and the return to the surface was checked
for water.
In the boring drilled for well C-15B, the first water producing zone below the depth
of the adjacent shallow well was encountered at a depth of 98 feet. Well C-15B was
then installed to a depth of 108 feet. Information obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Water Resources, Division of Groundwater Well Records for the
domestic well inventory completed by Keystone in 1988 indicate the depth of the
lltijeeeflt--shallow domestic well to be approximately 125 feet. Based on the
similarity in elevations of domestic well OS-1 and monitoring well C-15B,
elimination of monitoring well C-15C was proposed.
The request to eliminate well C-15C was made by Keystone on behalf of Beazer
during a telephone conference with EPA on June 29, 1990 at which time EPA
approval was granted. Keystone submitted a letter confirming EPA approval of this
request on July 9, 1990 (Appendix A).
Descriptions of drilling and monitoring well construction techniques are presented
below.
2.2.1.1 On-site and Near Off Site Monitoring Well
Installations
The locations of the on-site and near off site monitoring wells installed during the
RI are shown on Figure 2-2. Boring logs and monitoring well construction details
are presented in Appendix B.
The borings drilled for monitoring well installation at all but three of the 38
monitoring well locations as shown on Figure 2-2 were advanced by rotary or
percussion methods using air as the drilling fluid. Lithologic descriptions presented
on the boring logs were obtained through examination of the rock cuttings removed
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
former lagoon and Cellon process areas were completed using six-inch inside
diameter hollow. stem augers because groundwater was encountered within the
weathered bedrock zone. However, after encountering auger refusal prior to
reaching the water table at location C-30, and based on anticipated depths to water
and information regarding depth to bedrock from soil borings drilled throughout the
site, a decision was made to complete remaining well installation borings using air
rotary or air percussion methods. All air compressors used during the drilling
activities were equipped with an in-line organic air filter to inhibit introduction of
foreign material into the borehole. In order to gather more detailed geologic
information, rock cores were obtained in the interval from the top of competent
rock to a depth of 180 feet below ground surface at well locations C-12C and C-9C.
Competent rock was encountered at depths of 20 feet and 29 feet at locations C-12C
and C-9C.
At most shallow ("A" Series) monitoring well locations, a six-inch diameter boring
was advanced using air rotary drilling techniques through the soil and weathered
bedrock zones. Once competent bedrock was encountered, air percussion
techniques were utilized. Shallow. monitoring wells were installed to communicate
with the uppermost water-bearing unit beneath the site. Borings for shallow
monitoring well installations were terminated approximately eight to ten feet below
the depth where water was first encountered.
Borings for intermediate depth ("B" Series) monitoring well installations were
advanced using a combination of air rotary and air percussion drilling techniques as
described above. At these locations, an eight-inch diameter boring was advanced to
a depth approximately three feet below the base of the adjacent shallow well to
allow for the installation of six-inch steel surface casing. The casing was installed
and grouted in place to prevent communication of the upper water bearing zone
with deeper units during drilling and well installation activities.
The casing was grouted using a cement/bentonite mixture via the trernie tube
method. A sufficient length of one-inch diameter steel pipe was lowered to a depth
slightly above the bottom of the boring. A packer was placed around the trernie line
and inside the casing to prevent the grout from filling the inside of the casing.
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
During the grouting procedure the casing was suspended so that the bottom of the
casing was approximately one foot above the base of the borehole. When undiluted
grout was observed at the ground surface, the casing was lowered to the bottom of
the borehole and the tremie line and packer were removed.
After allowing the grout to set a minimum of 24 hours, a six-inch diameter boring
was completed using air percussion methods. Borings drilled for intermediate depth
well installations were terminated at a depth of approximately eight feet below the
zone where water was first encountered beneath the adjacent shallow well.
The corehole at location C-12 was not utilized for well installation and was
abandoned upon completion by tremie grouting using a cement/bentonite mixture.
The borehole for well C-12C was completed by the same methods as those
employed for intermediate depth wells. Adjacent intermediate depth monitoring
well C-12B was completed at a depth of 63 feet and therefore, the six-inch diameter
steel surface casing for well C-12C was set and grouted to a depth of 70 feet at this
location. Because no distinguishable water producing zone was observed below the
depth of the steel casing, 1he--bofelw~-a1-1his-ieeaao&-was--adwneee-40--a-Elepth-~
~4°eef-f)Hf'-st1-111H-i0-the-RJ/-FS-WOF~.P~a&. monitoring well C-12C was installed at
a depth of 200 feet in accordance with the approved RI/FS Work Plan.
The corehole at location C-9C was first advanced to a depth of 80 feet. This boring
was then reamed to a diameter of eight-inches to allow for the installation of a six-
inch diameter surface casing. Once the grout surrounding the casing had set, coring
of the bedrock continued to a depth of 180 feet. Packer tests were completed in this
corehole to evaluate the water producing capabilities of the different zones at this
location to allow for screen placement in a zone most likely to produce the greatest
amount of water. Based on the results of the packer tests, the screened section for
monitoring well C-9C was placed in the interval from 86 to 106 feet below ground
surface. Prior to well installation, the corehole at location C-9C was sealed in the
interval from 115 to 180 feet below ground surface using a cement/bentonite grout
mixture.
Raleigh RI
I 79280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The initial bedrock borehole at location C-27 was not utilized for installation of
monitoring well C-27B, since no distinguishable water producing zone was
encountered after surface casing was set at 40 feet to total depth of 158 feet.
Because a water-bearing fracture had been encountered at 38 feet, another
borehole was advanced for monitoring well C-27B and the screen interval set across
this fracture, The initial borehole was left as an open hole for potential future
investigation purposes,
On-site and Near Off Site Monitoring Well Construction
On-site and near off site monitoring wells were constructed of two-inch inside
diameter flush joint and threaded stainless steel screen and riser with the exception
of well C-10B. Well C-10B was left as a six-inch open hole well, to a depth of 160
feet, since a water producing zone was not distinguishable and the hole appeared to
be dry over its entire length. The well screen slot size of 0.010 inch was chosen for
all intermediate and several shallow wells since these wells were installed in
competent bedrock. In most instances, the well screen was generally ten feet in
length; however, monitoring wells C-8A and C-9C were constructed with 20 foot
screen lengths. The selection of the screen slot size was based on the fact that all
intermediate and several shallow wells were installed in competent bedrock. This
slot size was also used for shallow monitoring well installations within the weathered
bedrock zone based on the fine grained nature of this material. The weathered
bedrock is comprised primarily of silt and clay sized particles based on field
observations. The riser pipe for each monitoring well extends to an elevation
approximately two feet above ground surface.
All stainless steel well pipe was cleaned by the manufacturer at the factory. The
well pipe was stored on-site in plastic sleeves inside closed cardboard tubes until
needed. Prior to installation, the well pipe was cleaned using the procedure for
decontamination of drilling equipment described in Section 2.8.
A filter pack of coarse silica sand was placed in the annular space surrounding the
well screen. The sand pack extends to an elevation approximately two feet above
the top of the well screen. A pelletized bentonite seal at least two feet thick was
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
B
placed above the sand pack. Where necessary, potable water was added to permit
hydration of the bentonite. Potable water was obtained from the municipal water
supply. The bentonite seal was allowed to hydrate for a minimum of eight hours
before the remainder of the annular space was sealed with a cement/bentonite
grout mixture. The grout was placed in the annulus using the tremie tube method.
Pursuant to the Field Sampling Plan, samples of well construction materials ( e.g.
sand, bentonite and cement) were collected for analysis for the compounds of
interest at the beginning, middle and end of the well installation project. Also, a
sample of the municipal water supply was collected at the beginning of the field
program and was analyzed for the constituents of interest. The results of these
analyses are presented in Appendix G.
Wells C-llA, C-118 and C-31A were completed flush with the ground surface to
prevent damage from vehicular traffic. At all remaining well locations, a five foot
section of steel protective casing with a lockable cap was placed around the riser
pipe at the surface. The steel protective casing extends from a depth of
approximately 2.5 feet below grade to approximately 2.5 feet above grade. To
complete each well installation, a three foot by three foot by four-inch thick
concrete anti-percolation pad was constructed around all wells.
2.2.1.2 OIT Site Deep Monitoring Well Installations
The locations of the off site deep monitoring wells installed during the RI are shown
on Figure 2-3. Boring logs and monitoring well construction details are presented in
Appendix B.
Drilling methods and surface casmg procedures employed at , the off site deep
monitoring well locations were the same as those described previously. The surface
casings at these locations were set at a depth approximately three feet into
competent bedrock. At these locations, a six-inch diameter boring was advanced to
the reported depth of the nearest domestic well. If no information regarding depths
of the nearby domestic wells was available, then the boreholes were terminated at a
depth of 200 feet. Construction of off site deep monitoring wells was completed as
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
D
I
m
I
open holes similar to domestic wells in the area. This construction was selected for
these wells to provide access to all discrete flow zones penetrated by nearby
domestic wells.
2.2.1.3 Pumping Test Well Installation
Pursuant to the Pumping Test Work Plan dated December 1990, and EPA's
conditional approval letter dated January 25, 1991 (Appendix A) one pumping test
well (well PW-1) was installed in the area east of the former lagoons and adjacent to
well C-29B, as shown on Figure 2-2. This location was selected based on the RI
groundwater analytical results, the water producing capabilities observed in well C-
29B and information obtained from the surface geophysical program completed in
this area.
Drilling methods employed in completion of this well were similar to those
described above for the intermediate depth monitoring wells. A six-inch steel
surface casing was set and grouted at a depth of 32 feet below the ground surface.
Rock cores were obtained in the interval between 34 feet and 49 feet. The pumping
well was completed as a six-inch open hole to a depth of 49 feet.
2.2.1.4 Well Development and Survey
Development of the monitoring wells was completed to remove any foreign material
that may have been introduced during drilling and well installation activities. All
wells were developed using air-lifting techniques. Wells completed as six-inch open
hole wells were developed using compressed air injected through the drill rods. At
the remaining well locations, development was accomplished by injecting
compressed air into the well through a one-inch diameter dedicated PVC hose. All
air compressors utilized during well development were equipped with an in-line
organic air filter.
Measurements of pH, conductivity and temperature were obtained throughout well
development. In the relatively higher yielding wells (i.e. wells that maintained a
steady discharge of one gallon per minute without going dry), development
Raleigh RI
17928()..G! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
continued until a turbid free discharge was obtained and pH, conductivity and
temperature had stabilized. In the relatively low yielding wells (i.e. wells that went
dry during development), development continued until pH, conductivity and
temperature had stabilized.
As described in Section 2.8.5, surveys were performed to determine the plan
location, top of casing elevation and ground surface elevation of each monitoring
well installed during the RI and pumping well PW-1.
2.2.1.5 Containerization or Drill Water and Rock Cuttings
Rock cuttings brought to the surface at all on-site and near off site monitoring wells
were collected and containerized in new DOT approved 55-gallon steel drums with
removable lids. Drums were taken to the on-site staging area and stored on wooden
pallets. All water returned to the surface during drilling and well development
water obtained from all on-site and near off site monitoring wells and well C-16C
were collected in drums. Drums were taken to the on-site staging area. Liquids
from these drums were later transferred to the on-site storage tanks for
characterization to evaluate appropriate disposal alternatives.
2.2.2 Aquifer Characterization
An aquifer testing program was conducted to evaluate the characteristics ( i.e.
hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storage coefficients, specific yield and
direction of groundwater movement) of the aquifers beneath the site. Data
obtained from the characterization program will be used to evaluate potential
remedial alternatives during the Feasibility Study. Tasks completed during the RI
include slug tests, a pumping test and groundwater elevation determinations. The
results of these investigations are discussed in Section 3.6.2.
2.2.2.1 Slug Tests
Slug tests were conducted in select wells located within the former lagoon area (well
C-14A and well C-13A), the former Cellon process area (well C-28A and well C-
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
B
I
I
I
288), the former teepee burner area (well C-4A), the former Iandfarm area (well C-
30A) and near off site areas to the north, east and south of the site (wells C-9C, C-
118 and C-15A, respectively). Water level changes were induced in all tested wells,
except wells C-4A and C-13A, by lowering a ten foot length of stainless steel slugs
into the well. Water level recovery in these wells were measured electronically
using a data logger and pressure transducer assembly (Hermit Environmental Data
Logger Model SElOOOB). Water level changes were induced in wells C-4A and C-
138 by removing water using dedicated stainless steel bailers. Water level recovery
in these wells were measured manually using an electric water level indicator.
Rising head slug tests were completed in wells in which the recovery of the water
level was expected to be relatively slow.
Water levels and _time elapsed since slug injection or removal were recorded. The
resultant data were analyzed to estimate hydraulic conductivity values for the
formation materials immediately adjacent to the screen intervals of the wells tested.
Slug test data, obtained from wells C-4A, C-13A, C-14A, C-15A and C-28A were
analyzed using the method developed for unconfined aquifers (Bouwer and Rice,
1976). Slug test data obtained from the remaining wells were analyzed using a curve
matching method applicable only to confined aquifers (Cooper et. al., 1967). Slug
test results are presented and discussed in Section 3.6.2; field data is included in
Appendix D.
2.2.2.2 Pumping Test
A pumping test was conducted in well PW-1 to estimate aquifer coefficients for the
fractured bedrock zone, to evaluate the hydraulic connection between the water
producing zone in the pumping well and zones monitored by other site monitoring
wells, and to estimate the area influenced by short term groundwater withdrawal
from the fractured bedrock zone.
Prior to the initiation of the pumping test, a study was completed to evaluate the
effect of changes in barometric pressure on static water levels at the site. This
information was necessary since changes in barometric pressure will affect water
levels in confined aquifers and; therefore, data obtained during the pumping test
Raleigh RI
17'J280.08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
0
D
I
I
I
I
would have to be adjusted to account for these effects. Pressure transducers were
placed in wells C-27A, C-27B, C-28A and C-28B. The data logger was programmed
to obtain water level readings at 30 minute intervals. The barometric study was
completed over a 48 hour period from February 2 to February 4, 1991.
Meteorological data from the weather station at nearby Raleigh-Durham Airport
for the same period was also obtained.
Prior to the pumping test, a step drawdown test was conducted to select an
appropriate discharge rate for the pumping test. During this step test, the pumping
rate was varied from three gallons per minute (gpm) to approximately ten gallons
per minute. The step test was completed over an eight hour period on February 5,
1991. Throughout the step test water levels were measured in pumping well PW-1
and observation wells C-27A, C-27B, and C-29B using the pressure transducer and
data logger assembly. Water removed during the step test as well as during the
pumping test was discharged to the on-site storage tanks for characterization prior
to disposal.
During the initial stages of the step test, a discharge rate from the pumping well of
three gallons per minute was maintained. Flow was manually controlled by
adjusting a gate valve installed in the discharge line. After approximately one hour,
the flow rate was increased incrementally. Initially, an increase of two gpm was
proposed for each step; however, due to the sensitivity of the flow control valve
increases for each step ranged from 1.5 to 3 gpm. Flow rates were measured using
an in-line flow meter and stop watch.
While pumping at a discharge rate of 9.9 gpm the water level in the pumping well
approached the pump intake. As a result, flow was decreased to 7.9 gpm. Because
water levels continued to drop at this flow rate, the pump discharge was further
reduced to 5.8 gpm. While at this rate, stabilization of the water level in the
pumping well was observed. As a result, a flow rate of approximately 5.8 gpm was
selected for the pumping test. The pumping well and observation wells were
allowed to recover for approximately 41 hours to allow water levels to return to
static conditions prior to beginning the pump test.
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
The pumping test was completed during a 30-hour period over February 7 and
February 8, 1991. Prior to the pumping test, static water levels were measured in
the pumping well and the fifteen wells (C-lOA, C-llA, C-llB, C-12A, C-12B, C-
13A, C-13B, C-14A, C-14B, C-27A, C-27B, C-28A, C-28B, M-4, and C-29B) which
were utilized as observation wells throughout the entire pumping test. Based on
observations made during the step test, modifications to the water level
measurement schedule presented in the Pumping Test Work Plan dated December
1990, were necessitated during the first two hours of the pumping test. Because a
more rapid response to pumping than initially expected in wells C-14A and C-14B
was observed, water levels in these wells were measured more frequently than
proposed. Conversely, because of the lack of response to pumping, water levels in
other observation wells (M-4, C-llA, C-llB, C-12A, C-12B, C-13A, C-13B, C-28A
and C-28B) were measured less frequently than proposed during the initial stages of
the pumping test. This allowed the collection of more frequent water level
measurements from wells C-14A and C-14B. After two hours, water levels were
measured in these wells in accordance with the scheduled intervals presented in the
pumping test workplan. Water level measurements from PW-1 and observations
wells C-27A, C-27B and C-29B were collected in accordance with the work plan
measurement schedule.
In order to evaluate pumping effects at greater distances from the pumping well,
water level measurements were obtained from an additional eleven observation
wells (C-lA, C-3A, C-3B, C-9A, C-9B, C-9C, C-ISA, C-26A, C-26B, C-30A and
C-31A) after 24, 26, and 28 hours.
Throughout the pumping test water levels were measured in pumping well PW-1
and observation wells C-27A, C-27B, and C-29B using the pressure transducer data
· logger assembly. Water levels in the remaining observation wells were measured
using an electric water level indicator.
Throughout the pumping test discharge rates varied between five and six gpm;
however, for undetermined reasons, discharge from the pumping well decreased to a
rate of 3.5 gpm for a short period of time approximately eleven hours into the test.
Discharge rate measurements were taken periodically ( at approximate one hour
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
I
I
intervals) throughout the test. Water was pumped using a 1/2 horsepower stainless
steel submersible pump set at a depth of approximately 45 feet below ground
surface. Water was discharged through one-inch inside diameter PVC hose to the
on-site storage tanks. At the completion of the pumping test, water level recovery
was monitored for a period of 21 hours in the pumping well and observation wells
C-27A, C-27B and C-29.
The pumping test data was analyzed using a method developed for fractured
bedrock aquifers (Moench, 1984). Aquifer parameters hydraulic conductivity and
specific storage were evaluated for both the fractured and unfractured rock using
this model. Results of the pumping test are discussed in Section 3.6.2.
2.2.2.3 Packer Testing
Packer testing was performed at two wells installed during the RI, C-19C and C-
20C. and at two (2} former domestic water supply wells, OS-8 and 14-K and at one
well presently used, 7-K The objective of the packer testing was to isolate the
interval beneath an inflated packer to determine the degree which the isolated zone
in the well accepted water under injection pressure as a function of depth, Packer
testing was conducted in conjunction with borehole geophysical logging. The
geophysical data was necessazy to provide appropriate depth to set the packer in
relation to observed fracture locations.
Prior to initiating packer testing, well OS-8 was purged and sampled on October 15,
1991. The groundwater sample was analyzed for penta by EPA Method 8040,
Purged water was collected and taken to the on-site storage tanks for storage prior
to treatment; Packer tests were initially attempted on October 18 through 20,
however. no packer tests were be completed either due to the packer being too large
to be inserted through slight constrictions in the borehole or due to an inadequate
seal, Packer testing of the five wells resumed on October 29 and was completed on
November 1. 1991,
Prior to packer testing, water level measurements were taken at nearby wells for
comparison to water level fluctuations after the injection testing, Pressure
Raleigh RI
J '792!1()-0) CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
transducers were set in the wells closest to the injection test well for documenting
whether hydraulic connection existed between the test well and observation well.
Water level measurements were recorded by a data logger at one minute intervals.
The injection testing was accomplished by lowering an inflatable packer at the end
of a pipe string to a zone above observed fractures. The packer was inflated in a
zone of apparent uniform diameter within the borehole and tested to determine
whether the packer was properly seated, The initial depth to water in the well being
tested was measured for comparison to depth to water measurements during the
injection test to determine whether the packer was effectively isolating the zone
beneath the packer, Water was pumped through the pipe string to the well; the
volume of water pumped over time was recorded to provide a rate of injection.
Flow rates were measured using an in-line flow meter and a stopwatch, The
pressure maintained during the injection testing was also recorded,
Water injected during packer testing was obtained from the Morrisville municipal
water supply from the fire hydrant located at Church Street and the northernmost
entry road to the Unit Structures facility. All packer testing equipment was
decontaminated between tests as described in Section 2,8,
2.2.3 Surface Geophysical Investigations
Two surface geophysical techniques were utilized to supplement the hydrogeologic
information obtained from the drilling program. The surface geophysical
investigations included a magnetometer survey and a vertical electrical resistivity
investigation. The surface geophysical investigations were completed by Geophex,
Ltd. of Raleigh, North Carolina. Descriptions of the methods utilized and areas
covered during these investigations are provided in the following sections.
2.2.3.1 Magnetometer Survey
The objective of the magnetometer survey was to determine if diabase dikes exist in
the study area. Diabase dikes are narrow igneous intrusions within the Triassic
sedimentary rocks and are important from a hydrogeologic standpoint in that if they
Raleigh RI
179280-<I! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-19
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
n
D
D
D
H
n
D
D
I
are fractured they can act as preferential pathways for groundwater migration.
8eeftl:!Se-4e Where diabase dikes contain a high percentage of ferro-magnesian
minerals, they possess a magnetic field much greater than the surrounding
sedimentary rocks. Although some diabase dikes in North Carolina have no
magnetic expression. diabase dikes in Triassic basins have contact metamorphism of
the surrounding argillaceous sediments that has produced magnetite through the
process of dehydration and reduction of iron (Burt et al., 1978, p.6}. The baked
sedimentaiy rock surrounding the dike would have a magnetic signature if the
intrusive diabase did not. A5--a-r-esuk The locations of diabase dikes which contain
ferro-magnesian minerals can be accurately located by a magnetometer survey.
The 1991 magnetometer survey was completed in an area extending from
approximately 1,200 feet west of Church Street to an area approximately 1,700 feet
east of Highway 54. In the north-south direction, the survey covered an area from
approximately 300 feet north of Watkins Road to approximately 2,300 feet south of
Koppers Road. This area was considerably larger than the two areas previously
investigated in 1986. In the earlier investigation. Area 1 was located at the
northeast comer of the former Koppers facility adjacent to the railroad tracks. Area
2 was located on the eastern edge of the former Koppers facility to the north of the
Fire Pond to encompass the former lagoon area and the northern portion of the
Cellon process area,
Based on regional geologic data, diabase dikes are known to trend roughly in a
north-south direction. Therefore, survey lines were oriented in a east-west
direction. However, two north-south trending survey lines were completed in order
to evaluate the presence of any smaller dikes which might be associated with the
larger north-south oriented dikes.
The 1991 magnetometer survey was completed using a Geometrics G-846 Proton
Procession Magnetometer. Magnetic field strength was measured at 20 foot
intervals along each survey line. The 1986 magnetometer survey was completed
using a GEMS Systems Model 18 Proton Precision Magnetometer at 10 foot
intervals along each traverse line, The results of magnetometer suFVey surveys are
discussed in Section 3.5.2.
Raleigh RI
l 79280-0J CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-20
I
I
I
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.2.3.2 Vertical Electrical Sounding (VES) Investigation
The objective of this study was to obtain resistivity readings with depth to evaluate
the depths and lateral extent of water producing zones within the bedrock in the
vicinity of the former lagoon area. Water producing zones are indicated by low
apparent resistivity readings. This data was also considered in the placement of
pumping test well PW-I. A description of the methods employed during this
investigation are presented below.
The YES method employed during this study was the Schlumberger array method.
Using this method, the operator expands the electrode spacing by increasing the
distance between the current electrodes or that between the potential electrodes
during the course of measurements. The apparent resistivity, plotted as a function
of the current-electrode spacing, becomes the basic data for interpretation. The
end-product of this method is a graph showing the vertical variation of resistivity at
the center of the electrode array.
YES data were interpreted using a model of multi-layered earth, for which the
forward mathematical description is rather complex. Accordingly, the YES data
interpretation is computerized, commonly using the algorithm developed by Zohdy
(Zohdy, AAR., 1975, Automatic Interpretation of Schlumberger Sounding Curves
Using Modified Dar Zarrouk Functions, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1313-E).
An interpreted YES profile typically indicates approximate depth and thickness of
the groundwater producing zone as well as lithologic variations as a function of
depth.
Field data were collected during this investigation using an ABEM Terrameter SAS
300B Resistivity Meter; and a multi-conductor electrode cable with current
electrode spacing up to 200 feet, corresponding to an approximate depth of
investigation of 100 feet. YES data were collected at 36 locations within the site as
shown on Figure 2-4. As seen from this figure, the major survey lines are oriented
approximately north-south and are located as follows:
Raleigh RI
I~ CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 2 -21
0
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
YES-1 through YES-7 are located between the Fire Pond and the
railroad tracks;
YES-8 through YES-19 are located between the railroad tracks and
Highway 54;
YES-20 through YES-29 are located east of Highway 54, and
YES-30 through YES-33 are located between the Fire Pond and the
Unit Structures main office.
The three remaining soundings, YES-34 through VES-36, were placed near existing
monitoring wells (C-27B, C-10B and C-11B, respectively) so that the YES results
can be compared with the geologic well-logs. At each sounding location, the
electrode spacing was expanded along the survey line out to the maximum current
electrode spacing. The results of the YES study are discussed in Section 3.6.2.
Appendix C includes, for each YES location, the raw data and interpreted earth
resistivity structure that is presented both numerically and graphically.
2.2.4 Borehole Geophysics
The first suite of geophysical logs were~ completed in Februazy 1991 to assist in
determination and correlation of bedrock lithologies. The geophysical logs which
were utilized and their functions are described below. Geophysical logging was
conducted in all off site deep monitoring wells (wells C-16C through C-24C and well
C-32C). The initial borehole geophysical logging was completed by Geophex Ltd. of
Raleigh, North Carolina. A second suite of geophysical loils was completed by
Appalachian Geophysical Surveys <AG$) of Apollo, Pennsylvania in October 1991
to determine the location of fractures in selected wells, Figure 2-5 shows the
locations of the deep boreholes and wells where iJeophysical logging was conducted,
Individual well logs are presented in Appendix C.
Single point resistivity (resistance) logs, which record the electrical resistance from
po_ints within the borehole to an electrical ground at land surface, are useful in the
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
determination of lithology, water quality and the location of fracture zones. In
general, resistance increases with grain size and decreases with borehole diameter,
density of water-bearing fractures, and the dissolved solids concentration in
groundwater (Keys and McCary 1971).
The self-potential or spontaneous (SP) curve is a measurement of the naturally
occurring differences between a surface (ground) electrode and an electrode being
raised or lowered in the borehole fluid. SP logs are useful for general lithological
differentiation and correlation of material of varying porosities. For example, an SP
log would record potentials or voltages that develop between clay or shale beds and
a sand aquifer. SP logs are recorded in millivolts per inch.
Gamma logs record the amount of naturally occurring gamma radiation emitted by
the rocks surrounding the borehole. In water bearing rocks the most significant
naturally occurring radioisotopes are potassium-40 and daughter products of the
uranium and thorium decay series. Fine-grained detrital sediments that contain
abundant clay tend to be more radioactive than quartz, sand and sandstones.
Gamma-ray logs are recorded in counts per second (cps).
Wenner resistivity logs measure the apparent resistivity of undisturbed rocks.
Resistance, SP and gamma logs were obtained using a EG&G Geometrics -Mount
Sopris Instruments Division, Model 1000-C Portable Borehole Logger using the
standard (G375/A) combination probe. The resistivity log is~ collected using an
ABEM Terrameter SAS 300B resistivity meter and four electrode downhole probe
with electrode spacing of 16 inches.
In October 1991. an additional set of geophysical logs was completed in seven wells
to correlate geophysical parameters with drilling logs, to identify fractures and /or
water-bearing fractures, and potentially determine whether patterns of vertical flow
exist, Geophysical logging was conducted at wells C-19C. C-20C, C-27C, PW-1.
OS-8, 7-K, 14-K and 7-K. Following the procurement of the necessary eqµipment.
an acoustic televiewer CATV} log was completed on wells PW-1. C-19C, C-20C. C-
27C. OS-8, and 14-K, The equipment used by AGS for borehole logging included a
Raleigh RI
l mso-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well Reconnaissance Model 8903 metering system and hoist hardware system
connected to a personal computer, The interface system and data recording
software, Lo~log Acquire. are products of Colog, Inc.
Various logging sondes were used to produce six suites of logs from these wells, The
standard lithology suite includes the combination of the caliper, natural gamma,
neutron, and resistance logs. The porosity suite includes caliper, natural gamma,
neutron, and resistance logs, Porosity is calculated based upon the neutron log
corrected for shale content determined by natural gamma ray logging, The
groundwater suite includes temperature, spontaneous potential (SP}, single-point
resistivity, and fluid conductivity logs, The groundwater analysis suite is an
interpretive log which includes thermal gradient, anomalously low density
occurrences, and high clay content zones as determined by natural gamma log, Full
wave sonic logs were run to aid in the interpretation of the acoustic televiewer log,
Two sonic logs were prepared for each borehole. These logs are included as
Appendix C.
Temperature logging was conducted first in order to measure an undisturbed
thermal gradient in each borehole, The temperature probe used measures the
change in temperature as a function of the change in frequency of pulses generated
by the tool. A thermistor at the bottom of the tool that is highly sensitive to
temperature change alters the frequency of pulses, Temperature logs are useful in
delineation of water bearing fractures and identification of zones of vertical flow,
Water flowing vertically in a borehole will show no temperature change, If there is
no flow in or adjacent to the borehole, the temperature will gradually increase with
depth, as a function of the natural geothermal gradient,
The density sonde, or gamma-gamma tool, is a geophysical instrument that is
effective in locating fractures, The gamma-gamma density tool is electronically
similar to the natural gamma log described above, as both contain scintillometers
which count gamma rays and other isotopes to generate a log, Rather than
measuring natural radioactivity, the gamma-gamma tool contains a small radioactive
source (americium 241} located below the detector which is exposed to the borehole
wall, Emitted gamma rays are reflected by the material opposite the source at a
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC#R0280 2/'12 2 -24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rate inversely proportional to the density of the material. Dense materials, such as
lead or consolidated bedrock, tend to not reflect gamma rays, but absorb the
radiation. Less dense materials, such as water filled fractures, tend to reflect the
gamma radiation. Calibration is achieved by placing a material of known standard
density over the tool prior to logging,
The third logging tool useful in locating fractures and other borehole size anomalies
is the caliper sonde, The caliper tool used is a three-arm bridge type, which
generates a log of hole size by measuring the change in resistance across a variable
resistor, Changes in resistance are proportional to averai:e borehole diameter,
The neutron sonde uses scintillometer electronics similar to the gamma tools, A
neutron generator exposes the rocks in the borehole to neutrons. These neutrons
are readily absorbed by water, since most hydrogen is neutron deficient. Neutrons
not absorbed are reflected back to the detector, Porosity may be inferred from the
frequency of reflected neutrons by measuring water content as water filled porosity.
Resistance log measures the fluid resistance (conductivity) by continually drawini:
small volumes of water into an isolated chamber in the tool. The water completes a
circuit between two electrodes . in the chamber: the log is generated by measuring
chani:es in the resistance of the circuit.
The sonic sonde used is a dual transducer receiver type which measures the "P" wave
transit time emitted from a transmitter near the bottom of the tool. The acoustic
energy is transmitted through the fluid in the borehole and through the surrounding
rocks at a velocity that is related to the matrix mineralogy and porosity of the rocks.
The dual receivers, located at the center of the tool, measure the difference in
arrival time of each seismic wave to generate a log.
The acoustic televiewer (A TV) records a magnetically oriented photographic image
of the acoustic reflectivity of the borehole wall, from which the location and strike
and dip of fractures may be derived, The acoustic televiewer logs were recorded on
videocassette recorder. from which the data may be processed to derive a dii:itally
synthesized log with enhanced differentiation of acoustic reflection. A TV logs show
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
dense bedrock areas as light areas due to the high reflectivity, and areas of low
reflectivity as dark areas that indicate fractures or openings, Dipping fractures may
be observed on the A TV log as sinusoidal patterns: the fracture's dip direction is the
nadir of the curve and the amount of dip is determined from the amplitude of the
sinusoidal wave,
2.3 Groundwater Investigation
Groundwater monitoring objectives, as described in the project approved RI/FS
Work Plan, are to assess:
■
■
■
■
Groundwater quality and flow characteristics in shallow groundwater
zones ( shallow wells).
Vertical migration of constituents of interest (intermediate depth
wells).
Horizontal migration of constituents of interest ( off site monitoring
wells, located within and beyond areas where constituents of interest
have previously been found).
Flow mechanisms which may have influenced deep domestic wells
(monitoring wells, 200( +) feet deep).
Two rounds of groundwater sampling were performed on the 48 monitoring wells
installed during the RI and two previously existing monitoring wells (M-4 and M-9).
A summary of the round one and round two groundwater sampling programs is
presented in '.l'ebles-2--il-&Hd-2~ Tables 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. Table 2-5 presents
a sumrnazy of the groundwater confirmational sampling program conducted on 20
monitoring wells selected based upon past analytical data obtained during rounds
one and two of the RI, This supplemental round was conducted to confirm round
one and round two analytical results, Figures 2-2 and 2-3 present the locations of
monitoring wells.
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In order to allow for evaluation of first round analytical results for selecting
analytical parameters for the second round of groundwater sampling, the first round
of groundwater sampling was conducted concurrent with the monitoring well
installation program. Groundwater purging and sampling were completed following
well development and a recovery and stabilization period. Groundwater samples
for most wells were collected approximately one < 1) week following well
development. In most hydroi:eoloi:ic settini:s, one week is sufficient time for well
recovery/stabilization. However. due to the low permeability of the strata in some
locations. adequate well recovery and stabilization could not occur within this time
frame. Therefore. full recovery of those wells in the less permeable strata was not
realized during the Round One sampling. First round sampling began on May 30,
1990 and concluded on July 14, 1990. Round two sampling began October 2nd and
concluded on October 25th. The supplemental groundwater sampling began
January 6, and concluded on January 10. 1992.
The materials and procedures utilized during the groundwater sampling conformed
to EPA Region IV Engineering Support Branch (ESB) Standard Operating
Procedures Quality Assurance Manual (SOPQAM) requirements. An overview of
the groundwater sampling techniques are presented herein.
2.3.1 Sampling Activities
Prior to each sampling event, all monitoring wells included in the RI sampling
program were measured for water level. An electric probe was used for this task.
To determine the volume of water to be purged from each well, the information
from water level measurements and known well depth were used to calculate the
volume of water in the well casing. Each well was purged to remove at least three
casing volumes of water (plus five bails to ensure adequate purge volume), or, until
the pH, conductivity, and temperature stabilized to within 10% on consecutive
readings. If a well was purged to dryness, it was considered adequately purged.
Most wells were purged with a dedicated stainless steel bailer from the upper
portion of the water column. However, those wells purged with a bladder pump
were purged from the upper mid-portion of the water column, to allow for draw
Raleigh RI
11'J280.08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
down. Bladder pump setups consisted of silicon bladder, Teflon tubing leader
(submerged line), and high density polyethylene tubing (dry line). This--!ietu!l
~-t&-4he-miA--Regioa--lV-ESB--sGPOAM-FetJUtFem61HS, The method of
well purging with bladder pumps was apprnved by the EPA Region IV as described
in the June 29. 1990 correspondence included in Appendix A,
Per the project requirements, all purge water from on-site monitoring wells was
containerized for eventual disposition. Purge water from off site monitoring wells
was discharged onto the ground, away from the well head except for weY--ffeSt-G-9
wells C-9A C-9B and C-9C and monitoring w&U--G-H wells C-llA and C-11B,
whose purge water was drummed and stored on-site in accordance with the RI/FS
Work Plan.
During round one, all groundwater samples were analyzed for acid extractable
phenols, pentachlorophenol, isopropyl ether, pH, conductivity, and temperature.
Additionally, wells G-4 C-4A, C-27A, C-28A, and G~ C-30A were sampled for
PCDDs/PCDFs and wells G-4 C-4A, C-25A, C-26A, C-27A, C-28A, and G-3Q C-30A
were sampled for the TCL/TAL constituents.
Sampling for geochemical characterization was carried out on all wells during round
one only. Major cations, such as sodium, magnesium, potassium, and calcium, and
anions ( chloride, sulfate, bicarbonate, and carbonate) were analyzed to evaluate
mixing relationships between groundwaters of differing chemical composition.
All wells were sampled using dedicated laboratory-cleaned stainless steel bottom
filling hailers. Wells with special sampling considerations are indicated in the
comments column on '.J'aeles-;!.-2-9:Bd-;!.-J Tables 2-3 9:Bd through 2-5. A discussion
of the analytical data generated from the groundwater sampling events is presented
in Section 4.0. Sample handling, preservation and chain-of-custody protocol are
described in Section 2.8.
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'12 2-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4 Surface Water Investigation
As proposed in the RI/FS Work Plan,-two rounds of surface water sampling were
performed during the RI. One round of surface water sampling was to be
completed following a rain event to evaluate surface water quality at periods of
higher flow and to allow for collection of samples at all proposed locations. The
first round began May 1, 1990 and concluded on May 7, 1990. The first round of
surface water sampling preceded sediment sampling of the ponds and ditches. In
addition, the first round of sampling was completed following a rain event. Round
two began on October 9, 1990 and .concluded on October 24, 1990. The areas of
investigation were the drainage ditches, Medlin Pond, and the Fire Pond. Sample
locations in these areas are shown on Figure 2-6. Each sample location was marked
and surveyed to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System as discussed in
Section 2.8.5.
+1191es--2-4--an4-~S Tables 2-6 and 2-7 summarize the surface water sampling
program for the first and second round, respectively, performed for the RI. All
locations were sampled for acid extractable phenols, pentachlorophenol, isopropyl
ether (first round only), pH, conductivity, and temperature. Additionally, select
locations were sampled during t.he first round for the T AL/TCL list of compounds.
In addition to the above, sampling occurred in the ponds and ditches at selected
locations for various surface water quality parameters. During round one, total
organic carbon, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, and total
suspended solids were analyzed. Samples for the above parameters were collected
at the following pond locations: SW-1, SW-10, SW-20, and SW-22 (at both near
surface and two-thirds depth). The following ditch locations were sampled: SW-
16A, SW-16B, SW-17, SW-23, SW-28, SW-32, and SW-33.
Field Quality Assurance (QA) samples were also collected which consisted of
rinsate blanks, trip blanks, and field duplicates. A description of the field QA
sampling program is presented in Section 2.8. Sample labeling, handling and chain-
of-custody procedures are also described in Section 2.8.
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
Concurrent with the surface water sampling events, flow measurements were taken
at the outflow of the Fire Pond and the outflow from Medlin Pond. The Fire Pond
discharge rate was measured using a bucket and stop watch at the discharge pipe
located near Koppers Road. Medlin Pond was measured for flow based on the
overflow pipe in the pond. A computation of the head over the pipe and the
diameter of the discharge pipe allowed calculation of the discharge rate for Medlin
Pond.
2.4.1 Drainage Ditch Surface Water Sampling
Drainage ditch surface water sampling occurred in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
the ditch connecting the Fire Pond to Medlin Pond;
the outflow ditch from Medlin Pond;
the eastern drainage ditch, and
the western drainage ditch .
For each drainage area sampled, sampling was initiated at the furthest downstream
location and proceeded upstream in order to prevent agitation of upstream
sediments from affecting the downstream samples. Additionally, while sampling,
care was taken to avoid agitating sediments near the sample location. Samples were
taken at mid-depth, mid-stream, or, from the deepest flow cha_nnel at the sampling
location.
Sampling was accomplished by either directly filling the sample containers from the
source, or, in the case of low water conditions, a controlled speed peristaltic pump
and dedicated tubing was utilized. Pump speed was controlled to avoid the
possibility of volatilization of VOAs, if present, or inadvertent suctioning of
sediments into the sample.
Raleigh RI
l 7'J280..a! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.4.2 Pond Surface Water Sampling
Medlin Pond and the Fire Pond were sampled at the locations shown on Figure i-s
2-6. Particulars of sample handling, preserving, and chain-of-custody procedures are
described in Section 2.8. A summary of the pond sampling events is presented
herein.
Sampling on the ponds was conducted from a row boat. The near surface samples
were collect by directly filling the containers. The two-thirds depth samples were
collected with a controlled speed peristaltic pump and tubing dedicated to each
sample location. The speed of the pump was regulated to reduce the potential for
volatilization of VOA samples, if VOAs were required for that location. Sample
locations were mar~ed with weighted bobbers in order to locate these points for
surveying, second round sampling, and for later placement of the collocated
sediment sampling points.
2.5 Sediment Investigation
Sediment sampling was conducted in the following areas:
•
•
Fire Pond;
Medlin Pond;
■ the Eastern drainage ditch;
■ the Western drainage ditch;
■ the ditch between Medlin Pond and the Fire Pond, and
■ the outflow ditch from Medlin Pond.
Figure 'kl illustrates the sediment sampling locations in the above areas of interest.
The RI/FS Work Plan required that one round of sediment sampling be completed
in conjunction with the first round of surface water sampling. However, based on
the results of the sediment sampling, it was determined that further characterization
was needed in some of the drainage ditches. Therefore, a second round of drainage
ditch sediment sampling was performed at select locations to address potential data
Raleigh RI
17928()..(1! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
gaps. Additionally. following review of the draft RI Report, additional sediment
sampling was performed in the Fire Pond and Medlin Pond, These additional
sediment samples were to obtain parameters to be used to determine site-specific
cleanup goals,
+eeles-;l.4-afKl.-2-.'.7 Tables 2-8 and 2-9 present a summary of the fiFst--afKl.-seooHd
mllftd sampling and analysis programs for the sediment investigation. For the round
one pond sediment sampling, all locations were sampled for acid extractable
phenolic compounds. Additionally, select locations were sampled for total organic
carbon, the TAL/TCL constituents and PCDD/PCDF. For round two, the select
locations were sampled for acid extractable phenolic compounds and for
) PCDD/PCDF. During the third round, select locations were sampled for total
organic carbon and pH, Samples S-37, S-38, S-39 and S-40 were collected around
the perimeter of the Fire Pond and samples S-41 and S-42 were collected around
the perimeter of Medlin Pond.
Pond sampling began on May 30th and was completed on June 1, 1990. The first
round of drainage ditch sediment sampling began on May 8, 1990 and concluded on
May 9th. Round two sampling began October 11, 1990 and was concluded on
October 18th. The third round of pond sediment samplin~ commenced on October
17, and was completed on October 19, 1991.
Sample handling followed procedures described in Section 2.8.
2.5.1 Drainage Ditch Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling in the drainage-ways occurred at those sample points indicated
on Figure 2-7. _ Note that for the second round, two additional locations were added
sample locations S-35 and S-36.
At each ditch sample location, the sediment was sampled to the required depth at
three points across the ditch. A specially cleaned stainless steel trowel was utilized.
Samples were composited in a stainless steel pan and then placed in the appropriate
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sample containers. Samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds were sampled
and composited with minimal disturbance to prevent possible volatilization.
All sample locations were staked for future surveying. Section 4.3 contains a
summary of the analytical data generated from the sediment sampling program.
2.5.2 Pond Sediment Sampling
Sediment sampling in the Fire Pond and Medlin Pond was performed at those
locations illustrated on Figure ~ 2'7. Table ~ 2-8 summarizes the depths
samples were collected at each sample location. All pond sediment samples were
collected during the first and third sediment sampling rounds.
A floating barge was used as a platform for sampliftg collecting a majority of the
sediment samples from the ponds. At the specified locations, a specially cleaned
ponar sampler was used to collect surficial pond sediments. For further depth
samples, a tripod mounted 140 pound hammer was used to advance a split-spoon
sampler to the required sample depth. The split-spoon sampler was cleaned
between samples and locations, similarly as the ponar sampler. The third round
sediment samples, (S-37 through S-42) were collected using a stainless steel bucket
auger from locations along the perimeter of the ponds. Field sampling equipment
cleaning procedures are described in Section 2.8. The sediments were removed
from the ponar, Of split-spoon sampler, or bucket auger and composited in a
stainless steel tray and then placed in the appropriate sample containers. The VOA
samples were collected in such a manner to avoid any possible volatilization. All
sample locations were staked for future surveying.
2.6 Fish Investigation
From November 27 through December 1, 1990, fish were collected for tissue
analysis from the Fire Pond, Medlin Pond, and an unnamed control pond. The
location of the ponds are shown on Figure 2,-.'7 2-8. Prior to sampling, Keystone
obtained a scientific fish collecting license from the State of North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. This license is contained in Appendix H. A combination of
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'12 2-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
collection techniques was used including gill netting, electroschocking, rod and reel,
and baited line. A description of the collection effort made at each pond is given
below.
Control Pond
On November 27, 1990, fish sampling was initiated by Keystone in the control pond.
This pond was chosen because of its remote location, size, and relatively close
proximity to the site. An initial survey was performed prior to the collection of fish
for tissue analysis to determine species composition and approximate numbers
present. The survey consisted of a series of three passes (lengthwise, one along each
shore and one in the center) using a boat mounted electroschocking device. The
results of this survey indicated that the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirns) was the
dominant fish in the pond. After reviewing the initial data from the survey it was
then determined that this pond would be sufficient for use as a control since it
contained a dominance of bluegill which were also believed to be in the Fire and
Medlin Ponds as well. Other species of fish observed in the pond are presented in
:.aele-2-8 Table 2-10.
Starting in the afternoon and continuing until approximately 11 PM on November
27th, fish sampling from the control pond was performed. First, an effort was made
to electroshock fish using a boat mounted electroshocking device. Twelve
lengthwise passes were made in the pond using 440 volts AC. This voltage was
found to be the most effective due to the low conductivity of the water (50 umhos).
DC voltage was also used, but was found to be much less effective. Although the
electroshocking method worked very well, the fish were too hard to see due to glare
from the sun and high turbidity. Also, the fish were reviving before they could be
netted or identified to species. It was then decided to wait until nightfall to continue
electroshocking. Prior to sunset, two 100 foot experimental (varied mesh sizes) gill
nets were placed in the pond. One gill net was placed at a 45 degree angle along the
west shore, the other was placed at a 90 degree angle from the southern shore.
These nets, once in place, were checked for fish every hour while other fishing·
methods were employed. Also, during the remaining daylight hours, a baited line
was prepared using an assortment of hook sizes. The line was 350 feet long and was
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
made of plastic coated 1/4 inch steel multi-strand cable. Stainless steel
hook/leaders were attached approximately every two feet. After nightfall,
electroshocking commenced with much better results. Flood lights aided in the
sighting of fish. The absence of sun glare allowed for the sighting and collection of
nearly every fish stunned by the electroshocker. Only adult bluegills (21 total) from
5.5 to 8.5 inches were kept for samples. Other fish were released unharmed. Fish to
be used for samples were immediately placed on wet ice.
Compared to electroshocking, fewer fish were caught in the gill nets and the species
caught were the same as those that were electroshocked. Prior to leaving the pond
on the night of November 27th, the hooked lines were baited with night crawlers
and redworms and placed at various locations in the pond and left overnight. The
baited lines were placed on the bottom and marked with a buoy. Gill nets were also
left overnight.
On the morning of November 28th, the baited lines were checked and five catfish
were obtained. These fish were kept alive in a plastic tub until the next day when
enough were collected for· sampling. In the morning, another attempt was made at
electroshocking and enough bluegills were collected to make up the remainder of
the sample.
To obtain the remaining catfish samples, another baited line was set overnight on
November 30th. Seven catfish were caught on the lines and were collected on the
morning of December 1st. Since only four catfish were needed to make up the
sample, four were kept and three released. These four catfish, combined with the
five others from the first baited line and six others obtained from electroshocking,
made up the three samples (five fish each) that were taken for whole body analysis
from the control pond.
The catfish collected from the control pond ranged in size from 8.5 to 10.0 inches
and weighed from 120 to 220 grams.
On November 30th, after advise from EPA, an attempt was also made to obtain 15
largemouth bass for sampling. Since large mouth bass were also present in the
Raleigh Rl
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Medlin Pond, this species would have been more suitable for sampling. However,
only eight were caught. Since not enough bass were obtained, the bluegills were
used for samples.
· Medlin Pond
On November 28th, fish collection activities were initiated at Medlin Pond. Two,
100-foot experimental gill nets were set and the pond was electroshocked during the
day. Gill nets were checked hourly until the evening. Three largemouth bass
(Micro_pterus sa/moides) and one bluegill (Leoomis macrochirus) were caught during
the day in the gill nets. Electroshocking for the targeted fish species (bluegill) was
not very successful in this pond. Most likely this was due to the clear water and the
fish, therefore, could more easily see the sampling equipment and were scared away.
Sampling, collection and identification of bluegills, two largemouth bass, and
hundreds of mosquito fish (Bambusia qffinis) were completed using electroshocking
methods. The gill nets were left in the pond overnight. On the morning of
November 29th, the nets were checked and found to contain enough largemouth
bass to make up the remainder of the samples. The fish from the previous day were
kept on wet ice overnight. A total of 15 largemouth bass were retained for fillet
samples (five per sample).
To obtain enough bluegills for whole body analysis, the rod and reel method was
employed with much success. Redworms were used for bait and enough fish were
obtained (15) for samples within two hours. Five fish were used per whole body
sample. A few pumpkinseed (Lepomis ~bbosus) were also observed during rod and
reel fishing, but were not as abundant as bluegills, and, therefore, not sampled.
Fire Pond
For the remainder of the day on November 29th, the Fire Pond was electroshocked
without good results. Once again, as in the control pond, visual identification and
collection was inhibited due to the turbidity and the sun glare. Therefore,
electroshocking was abandoned and two gill nets were set and checked hourly. This
produced 20 very small pumpkinseeds and six bluegills. Night electroshocking
Raleigh RI
119280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
proved to be the best method for fishing. During the night, thousands of
pumpkinseed were observed in the pond and a few hundred bluegills. These were
the only two species of fish observed in the pond.
The hook and line method was also utilized for fish sampling. A total or 47
pumpkinseeds and three bluegills were caught using this method. Since
pumpkinseeds were dominant, they were used for samples. Each of the three
samples contained seven fish. These fish were used for reconstructed analysis (fillet
and body remains). Bluegills were also collected, frozen and archived for whole-
body analysis.
Sample Preparation
On December 2nd, all samples were prepared in the field for analysis (see Appendix
H). Fillets were removed from those fish to assess potential health effects to
humans. Whole body samples were prepared to characterize potential effects on
wildlife.
Prior to tissue collection, the fish were first rinsed with organic-free water to remove
detritus, vegetation or other debris. A stainless steel fillet knife, cleaned with
isopropanol before and after each sample, was used to remove the fillets. Each
fillet was removed beginning at the mid dorsal line from each side of the fish, ending
at the caudal fin in the anterior portion of the fish. Disposable gloves were used
when handling each sample. No internal organs were punctured when filleting.
· Cutting boards, measuring boards, and scales were covered with new aluminum foil
prior to the placement of any sample upon them. All foil was rinsed with
isopropano~ then organic-free water prior to use.
Samples were weighed to the nearest gram. The samples were then wrapped in
aluminum foil (dull side towards fish), placed in ziplock freezer bags (air squeezed
out) and tagged with sample number, pond sampled, date or location and the
lengths and weights of each fish making up the sample. On December 3rd the
samples were prepared in the Jab (see Appendix H) using the methodology outlined
in EPA Method OB 10/90 "Extraction and Analysis of Organics in Biological
Raleigh RI
I~ CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 2-37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tissue." Samples for PCDDs and PCDFs were prepared at Triangle Labs by EPA
Method 3550 and analyzed by Method 8290. Percent lipids were determined for
each sample. Extract cleanup was by gel permeation chromatography (Method
3640) and silica gel chromatography. Extract analysis was performed using GC/MS
following the current "CLP Statement of Work for Multimedia, Multiconcentration
Organic Analysis." Pentachlorophenol and pentachloroanosole (PCA) were
analyzed using Method 8270. Samples of the Fire Pond pumpkinseeds (both fillets
and whole body remains) were split with the EPA Also split were largemouth bass
fillet samples taken from Medlin Pond.
2.7 Analytical Data Validation
Validation of the analytical data was performed for sediment, soil, groundwater,
surface water, fish and field QA/QC samples. An internal data validation was
initially completed by the manager of each analytical laboratory. Full data packages
were then submitted to the quality assurance officer of A WD Technologies,
Pittsburgh, PA for data validation.
Appendix G presents a summary of the outcome and results of the data validation
process as well as an overview of the analytical laboratory's QA/QC.
2.8 General Field Procedures
This section describes methods and materials pertinent to all field sampling and
data collection performed for the RI. All methods and materials utilized adhered to
those specifics as described in the EPA approved FSP and associated SOPs or the
EPA Region IV SOPQAM.
2.8.1 Sample Container and Equipment Preparation
The following procedures were followed for sample container and equipment
preparation (and decontamination) during all phases of the RI. To ensure the
cleanliness of the containers and equipment, quality assurance measures were
employed. New nalgene and Teflon bottles were used in the laboratory and the
Raleigh RI
179280--08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
field to contain and dispense all solvents, acids, and tap and organic free water. All
bottles were dedicated for use as a container for the designated solution only.
Sample Container Preparation
All jars and bottles used to contain the samples analyzed for the project specific
parameters were cleaned and prepared in Keystone's Monroeville, PA preparation
laboratory, according to the procedures outlined in '.faele-~-9 Table 2-11. The
containers used to collect the surface water and groundwater samples required
specific cleaning procedures depending on the parameters of interest. The
containers used to collect soil samples did not require special cleaning procedures.
All sample containers required for this project were new. All sample container lids
were lined with Teflon.
The cleanliness of a batch of precleaned 40 ml vials used to collect samples analyzed
for VOAs was verified by the use of a trip blank. The trip blank was prepared by
filling a batch of precleaned 40 ml vials with organic free water. Any constituents
found in the trip blank could be attributed to a) interaction between the sample and
the container, b) contaminated organic free water, or c) a handling procedure which
alters the sample. One trip blank was placed in each cooler that contained samples
for volatile organics.
Laboratoo: Equipment Cleanini: Procedures
Dedicated sampling equipment prepared in Keystone's preparation laboratory were
cleaned following the procedures outlined below.
Bailer Preparation
1. All stainless steel hailers were laboratory cleaned and prepared for use by
following the procedures outlined below:
A) Wash with non phosphate detergent.
8) Rinse with tap water three times.
Raleigh RI
I 79280,-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
C) Soak for five minutes in a 10% nitric acid solution.
D) Rinse with organic free water four times.
E) Rinse with pesticide grade isopropanol.
F) Dry using pure nitrogen.
G) Heat for one hour at 800 degrees Fahrenheit.
H) Wrap in aluminum foil.
All miscellaneous equipment such as shovels, soil trowels, and stainless steel
parts of other pieces of equipment were cleaned using the procedures A)
through F) outlined above, and wrapped with aluminum foil and
polyethylene.
Field Equipment Cleanini: Procedures
Cleaning and/or decontamination performed in the field complied with the protocol
specified in the Region IV SOPQAM, as outlined below:
A) Wash with non phosphate detergent solution.
B) Rinse with potable water.
C) Rinse with organic free water.
D) Rinse with pesticide grade isopropanol.
E) Rinse with organic free water.
F) Wrap in aluminum foil until next use.
This procedure was used in the field to clean all reusable sample collection,
handling and mixing equipment (e.g. split-spoons, ponar dredges, trowels and mixing
bowls).
All spent cleaning solution generated in the field was collected in 5-gallon buckets,
discharged in the on-site decontamination area and pumped into on-site storage
tanks.
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2 -40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l-'o-wrify-tha-t--flO-~eets--weFe--Hl.trodHeed--iflto-&-sa~e--from--the--sampHHg
etjttt!ffReHt;·&-fielo-(-etjHif)lfteat-}-Nank--was--eoUee¼ed-by-filliftg-0¼'-ptHnf)Hlg-aistillee
e¼'garae-free--wateF-tbFoogh--a--ele&eed-s&mpltag-de¥iee-and-&Halyzing--#te-wa-ter--ffif
the--tiOfBjJt)l:lfids-of-inter-est,---One--fteld-(-etjtiipFReRt-}-blaAA-wa!HJ<~Ueeted--eaeh--tlay
S&mpltag-wll5--J'l6Ae¼'FRe&.
To verify that no constituents were introduced into a sample from the sampling
equipment, a rinsate blank was collected and analyzed. Rinsate blanks were
collected each day for each type of sampling equipment used that day. Rinsate
blanks for each we of sampling equipment were analyzed for the same list of
parameters as the samples collected using that equipment that day and were.
collected by filling or pumping distilled organic free water through a cleaned
sampling device.
Drilling Equipment Cleaning Procedures
Cleaning and/or decontamination of drilling equipment complied with the protocol
specified in the Region IV SOPQAM, as outlined below:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
Steam clean usinia potable water source.
Rinse twice with organic free water.
Rinse with pesticide grade isopropanol.
Rinse with organic free water.
Wrap in polyethylene until next use.
This procedure was utilized to clean all downhole drilling equipment ( e.g. augers,
drill bits, rods etc.). All cleaning of drilling equipment was performed at the on-site,
concrete-lined and bermed decontamination area. The pad was sloped and a
concrete-lined sump was installed at the low end to allow for collection of the decon
water.
Raleigh RI
J 7928().-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All water generated during the drilling equipment cleaning process was pumped
into on-site storage tanks for later characterization and proper disposal.
2.8.2 Sample Designation
This section presents the sample identification system used for the Morrisville site.
Sample locations were marked on the sample jars and identified on the chain of
custody sheets and analytical reports by the designations shown below. Sample
matrix were identified by the prefix of the sample location designation as presented
below.
Prefix
SW
X
ss
s
C
M
Matrix
Surface Water
Soil Boring
Surface Soil
Sediment
Groundwater (proposed well)
Groundwater (existing well)
At well nest locations a suffix was added to the well location designation to signify
the intended depth of the well as specified in the RI/FS Work Plan.
Sumx
A
B
C
Well Depth (Proposed)
Shallow ( approx. 40 feet)
Intermediate (approx. 70 feet)
Deep (approx. 200 feet)
As discussed in Section 2.2.1, hydrogeologic conditions necessitated modifications in
the approved monitoring well installation program with respect to well depths.
Nevertheless, the suffix to the monitoring well designation indicates relative well
depth at nested locations. For example, at a three well nest, the well designated
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
with an "A" suffIX is the shallowest of the three; a "C" suffIX indicates the deepest
well in the nest.
An abbreviation indicating the specific area of the site where samples were
collected was also included as part of the sample identification system. The
following designations were used to reference specific areas of the site:
Abbreviation
FP
MP
CP
FL
LF
OS
TP
EA
WA
Site Areas
Fire Pond
Medlin Pond
Cell on Plant Area ( former Treating Plant)
Former Lagoons
Landfarm
Off site (North, South, East, West)
Tee Pee Burner Area
Eastern Area of Site
Western Area of Site
The following examples combine each component of the sample identification
system for the specific sample matrices.
Groundwater sample from well C-30A =
Soil boring sample from Tee Pee Burner Area =
Surface water sample from the Fire Pond =
C-30A-LF
X-10-TP
SW-1-FP
Other information that was marked on sample jars and the chain of custody sheet
included the site name, date and time of sample collection, depth of sample and
parameters to be analyzed. A copy of the chain of custody sheets is included with
the analytical reports.
Analytical results received from the laboratory are presented in tabular form
(Appendix F). Samples are identified in these reports by location, depth of sample
Raleigh RI
179280-0! CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-43
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
if applicable and date collected. This information is also reported using the "Export
Protocol for Toxics Compliance Monitoring Data," as requested by EPA Region IV.
2.8.3 Sample Handling and Analysis
2.8.3.1 Parameters of Interest and Sample Container
Requirements
'.J'abl&-i-9 Table 2-11 lists the preservation methods and sample container cleaning
procedures utilized throughout the RI field sampling program for the parameters of
interest. The EPA specified holding times for each parameter are listed on '.fable
il-lQ Table 2-12. This information was used by the analytical laboratories and the
field team members to ensure proper communication regarding the collection and
arrival of samples.
All of the sampling, handling, and chain of custody procedures were performed as
outlined in the FSP and in accordance with the U.S. EPA Region IV SOPQAM.
2.8.3.2 Sample Handling
At the conclusion of each sampling day, all of the collected samples were organized
and re-checked for the proper labeling, sample location, and specific parameters of
interest. During this process the samples were carefully packaged in secure ice
chests for shipment to the laboratory for analysis. Each ice chest containing samples
was packed with ice to chill the samples to approximately 4°Celsius.
2.8.3.3 Chain-of-Custody and Shipment of Samples
During the packaging of the samples, specific chain-of-custody procedures were
followed. These procedure included:
• Sample Labeling
■ Chain-of-Custody Form
• Chain-of-Custody Tag
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/92 2-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample Labelini:
Each sample container was marked with a color coded label identifying the specific
parameters of interest. The label contained the date of sample collection, sample
location, site abbreviation, parameters to be analyzed, and preservatives, as
applicable.
Chain-of-Custody Form
A chain-of-custody form was prepared for each ice chest containing samples. The
chain of custody form contained all of the necessary information pertaining to the
specific samples in that individual ice chest. This information included: date and
time of sample collection, sample location, parameters to be analyzed, and notes
specific to the laboratory. When complete, the chain-of-custody forms were signed
and relinquished by the designated field team member. The original copy was sent
with the specific ice chest to the laboratory performing the analyses.
Chain-of-Custody Tai:
After each ice chest containing samples was properly sealed, a metal chain-of-
custody tag was fastened to the cooler opening to prevent potential sample
tampering. The metal tag is numbered, and this number and the ice chest number
were written on the chain-of-custody form to document the sealing of the cooler.
Evidence tape was used to seal the opening of ice chests that were not equipped
with straps to hold the metal chain-of-custody tags. These procedures were
performed to document and ensure the integrity of the samples as they were shipped
from the project site to the laboratory performing the analyses. Upon receipt at the
lab, the integrity of each cooler was examined and the chain-of-custody forms were
reviewed.
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'l2 2-45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample Shipment
The samples were shipped via a commercial carrier if the laboratory performing the
analyses was not in the vicinity of the project site. The shipping carrier and the
determination to ship air freight, overnight or 2-day air, was made by the field team
designee. The decision was based on the sample holding times.
2.8.3.4 Sample Analysis
The analytical laboratories utilized during the RI for the various analyses are
presented herein.
Laboratory
Keystone-Monroeville
Chester LabNet
Houston
Triangle Laboratories, Inc.
Keystone -NEA
Type or Analysis
Non-CLP Analyses
CLP T AL Analyses
CLP TCL Analyses
PCDD/PCDF Analyses
PCDD/PCDF Analyses
These laboratories were chosen based on their qualifications to perform the type of
analyses indicated.
2.8.4 Field Quality Assurance Samples
For the various sampling events, in addition to the regular list of parameters, field
QA samples were taken. The QA samples consisted of; rinsate blanks, trip blanks,
and field duplicates. Rinsate blanks consisted of pouring the organic free water into
or onto a cleaned piece of sampling equipment and filling one set of bottles for the
parameters sampled that day. One rinsate blank was taken for every day of
sampling. Trip blanks were collected once per day per cooler for volatile samples
Raleigh RI
179280-08 CC/DCC#R0280 2/92 2-46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
only. The trip blank consisted of filling (from the organic free water system) and
preserving, one set of VOA vials to accompany each ice chest containing vials. The
blanks were handled and analyzed similarly as the samples. At least one field
duplicate sample was collected per every twenty samples submitted for analysis. For
water matrices, the duplicate was collected at the same time as the sample and for
soil matrices the duplicate was taken from a composite container split between the
duplicate and the sample.
As requested by EPA Region IV SOPQAM, an organic free water system was
utilized for the decontamination of sampling equipment and to generate the water
necessary for the above mentioned blank samples. Sampling and analysis of the
water generated by the system at the beginning, middle and end· of the field
sampling program was required to ensure that constituents of interest were not
present in this system. For similar reasons, preservation blanks, samples of the
potable water supply used, and samples of well construction materials (sand,
bentonite pellets and grout mix) were analyzed for the compounds of interest.
2.8.5 Surveying
Plan locations and ground surface elevations of all RI sampling locations were
determined by survey. Plan locations were determined with respect to the North
Carolina State Plane Coordinate System. In addition, the elevation of the
measuring point established at the top the of well casing of all monitoring wells used
during the RI was determined by survey. The elevations of the staff gauges placed
-in Medlin and the Fire Ponds were also surveyed to allow for groundwater to
surface water correlations. All elevations were determined in feet above mean sea
level to an accuracy of 0.01 feet. Surveying was completed by Murphy Yelle, Inc.,
Chapel Hill, NC, a professional surveyor licensed in the State of North Carolina.
Raleigh RI
I 79280-08 CC/DCC# R0280 2/'12 2-47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
2-9
Title
CHAPTER 2
LIST OF TABLES
Soil Sample Analytical Summary
Soil Sample Modelling Parameters
Round One Groundwater Sample Summary
Round Two Groundwater Sample Summary
Confirmational Groundwater Sample Summary
Round One Surface Water Sampling Summary
Round Two Surface Water Sampling Summary
Sediment Sampling Summary -Fire Pond and Medlin Pond
Round One and Two Drainage Ditch Sediment Sampling Summary
2-10 Control Pond Fish Species Observed and Sampled
2-11
2-12
Raleigh RI
Sample Container Cleaning Procedures and Preservation
Sample Holding Times
179280-08 BM/DCC#R0280 2/92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Samplel.D.
Background
X-1--0SN
C-11--0SE
C-3--0SW
C-9C--OSN
Former Lagoon Arca
X-15-FL
X-16-FL
X-17-FL
X-18-FL
X-19-FL
X-20-FL
TABLE 2-1
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Phcocllca (IPE) PCDD/PCDF
Depth (ft) (8040) (8020) (8290)
0-2.0 X X
6.0-8.0 X X
0-2.0 X
4.()-4.5 X
4-6.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
12.0-14.0 X
2.()-4.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
l0.0-12.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
10-12.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
4.0-6.0 X X
6.0-8.0 X X
2.()-4.0 X X
0.0-2.0 X
2.()-4.0 X X
4.0-6.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
8.o-9.5 X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2192 Page I of7
TCUTAL
(CLP)
X
X
X
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Samplel.D.
X-21-FL
X-22-FL
X-23-FL
X-24-FL
X-25-FL
X-26-FL
X-27-FL
X-50-FL
X-54-FL
X-56-FL
TABLE 2-1 (Cootioucd)
SOll. SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Pbeaolica (!PE) PCOD/PCDF
Depth (ft) (8040) (8020) (8290)
0.0-2.0 X
2.o-4.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.o-4.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
0-2.0 X X (I)
6.0-8.0 X
2.o-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.o-4.0 X X
6.0-8.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.o-4.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
10.0 -12.0 X
0.0-2.0 X X (I)
4.0-8.0 X X X
2.o-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
10-12 X
2.o-4.0 X X
6.0-8.0 X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 2 of 7
TCUTAL
(CLP)
X
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample I.D.
X-57-FL
X-58-FL
X-59-FL
X-(i()-FL
X-61-FL
Cdlon Proc:aa Aral
X-28-CP
X-29-cP
X-3D-CP
X-3D-CP
X-32-CP
X-32-CP
TABLE 2-1 (Cootinucd)
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Pbcoolica (!PE) PCDD/PCDF
Dq,lh(ft) (8040) (8020) (8290)
0.0-2.0 X X (I)
2.D-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
0.0-1.5 X
2.D-4.0 X X
4.CHi.0 X
2.D-4.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
2.D-4.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
2.D-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
12.0-14.0 X
2.D-4.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
4.CHi.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 3 of7
TCUTAL
(CLP)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample I.D.
X-33-CP
X-34-CP
X-35-CP
X-36-cP
X-37-CP
X-48-CP
X-49-CP
X-S1-CP
X-52-CP
X-S3-CP
X-5S-CP
TABLE 2-1 (Cootioucd)
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Phcoolica (!PE) PCDD/PCDF
Depth (ft) (8040) (8020) (8290)
4.<Hi.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
10-12.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.0-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
4.<Hi.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
2.0-4.0 X X
6.0-8.0 X
0.0-2.0 X X(l)
2.0-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
0.0-4.0 X X X
4.<Hi.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
2.0-4.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
10.0-12.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.0-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
0.0-2.0 X
2.0-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 4 of 7
TCUTAL
(CLP)
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Samplcl.D.
Former Land Farm An,o
X-2-LF
X-3-LF
X-4-LF
X-5-LF.
X+LF
X-7-LF
X-8-LF
X-9-LF
Eutem An,o Surface Soila
SS-1-TP
SS-2-TP
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Pbeoollco (!PE) PCDD/PCDF
Depth (ft) (8040) (8020) (8290)
0-2.0 X
2.<>-4.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
0-2.0 X
2.<>-4.0 X X
0-2.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
0-2.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
0-2.0 X
3.0-5.0 X
5.0-7.0 X X
0-2.0 X
2.<>-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
0-2.0 X
4.o-6.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
2.<>-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
12.0-14.0 X
0-0.5 X X
0-0.5 X X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 5 of7
TCUTAL
(CLP)
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample 1.D.
X-10-TP
X-12-EA
X-38-EA
X-39-EA
X-40-EA
Wcatan An:a Soila
X-11-WA
X-13-WA
X-14-WA
X-41-WA
X-42-WA
X-43-WA
TABLE 2-1 (Cootinucd)
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Pbcnolica (!PE) PCDD/PCDF
Depth (ft) (8040) (SOW) (8290)
0-2.0 X X
2.Q-4.0 X X
4,(Hj,0 X X
8.0-10.0 X X
2.Q-4.0 X X
8.0-10.0 X
4.0-6.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
0-2.0 X
4,(Hj,0 X
10.0-12.0 X
2.Q-4.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
4,(Hj,0 X
10-12.0 X
4-6.0 X
10-12.0 X
8.0 -10.0 X
16.0-18.0 X X
2.Q-4.0 X
8.0-10 X
2.Q-4.0 X
12.0-14.0 X
18.0-20.0 X
6.0-8.0 X
12.0-14.0 X
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 6 of 7
TCUl'AL
(CLP)
X
X
X
X
'
X
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SOIL SAMPLE ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
-(IPE) PCDD/PCDF
Samplcl.D. Depth (II) (8040) (80'l0) (8290)
X--44-WA 4.o-6.0 X
8.0-10.0 X
X-45-WA 2.0-4.0 X
4.o-6.0 X X
X-46-WA 0-2.0 X X
4.0-4.8 X
X-47-WA 4.o-6.0 X
14-16.0 X
NOTES:
(I) -PCDD/PCDF by EPA Method 1613
RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92 Page 7 of7
TCL/TAL
(CLP)
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample I.D. Depth (ft)
X-S9 0.0 -2.S
X-S9 2.0 -4.S
X-S9 6.0 -8.S
X-30 0.0 -2.S
X-30 2.S -S.0
X-30 8.0 -10.S
X-27 0.0 -2.S
X-27 2.S -S.0
X-27 6.0 -8.S
X-28 0.0 -2.S
X-28 2.S -S.0
X-28 6.0 -8.S
X-23 0.0 -2.0
X-48 0.0 -2.0
X-48 2.0 -4.0
x-so 4.0 -8.0
TABLE 2-2
SOIL SAMPLE MODELLING PARAMETERS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Natural
TOC pH Dry Bulk Wet Bulk Water
(90<,()) (904S) Density Density Content
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
Saturated
Water Hydraulic
Content Conductivity
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------------------
SAMPLE
LOCATION
C-1 thru C-32,
M-4, M-9
C-4A, C-27A,
C-28A and C-30A
C-4A, C-25A,
C-26A, C-27A, C-28A
and C-30A
~ ~~ gen
icl
SAMPLES
PER
LOCATION
I
I
~z
~t'I1 RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
TABLE 2-3
ROUND ONE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLE SUMMARY
NO.OF
SAMPLES
(per round) PARAMETER
46 Acid Extractable Phenolics
46 Pentachlorophenol
46 lsopropyl Ether(+)
46 pH
46 Specific Conductance
46 Temperature
4 PCDD/PCDF
6 T AL/TCL lists
ANALYTICAL
METHOD COMMENTS
EPA-8040 Wells C-10B, C-2B, C-12C and C-17C
EPA-515 purged dry; did not recover;
EPA-8020 no sample taken.
EPA-150.1
EPA-120.1
EPA-170.1
EPA-8290
EPA-CLP
- - --·------ - --- - - - - -
TABLE 2-4
ROUND TWO GROUNDWATER SAMPLE SUMMARY
SAMPLES NO.OF
SAMPLE PER SAMPLES ANALYTICAL
LOCATION LOCATION (per round) PARAMETER METHOD COMMENTS
All Wells I 48 Acid Extractable Pbenolics EPA-8040 Wells C-12C and C-18
I 48 Pentacbloropbenol EPA-515 purged dry; poor recovery;
I 50 lsopropyl Ether EPA-8020 sampled for !PE only.
I 48 pH EPA-150.1
I 48 Specific Conductance EPA-120.1
I 48 Temperature EPA-170.1
C-13A, C-15B, I 10 PCDD/PCDF EPA-8290
C-29B, C-16C, C-19C,
C-20C, C-21C, C-30A,
C-4A, C-28A "
BM/DCCR0280 2/92
-------------------
f
io....i ~z
SAMPLE
LOCATION
C-IA, C-5A, C-7A
C-8A, C-IIA, C-l3A
C-27A
C-3B, C-10B, C-13B
C-15B, C-25B, C-28B
C-20C, C-21C, C-22C
C-23C, C-24C, C-33C
C-34C
SAMPLES
PER
LOCATION
I
I
I
I
~tT1 RALEIGH LM/DCCR0280 2/92
TABLE 2-S
CONFIRMATIONAL GROUNDWATER SAMPLE SUMMARY
NO.OF
SAMPLES ANALYTICAL
(per round) PARAMETER METHOD COMMENTS
Acid Extractable Phenolics EPA-8270 Wells C-IB purged dry;
Pentachlorophenol EPA-515 no recovery and not sampled.
pH EPA-150.1 C-IB only well not sampled.
Specific Conductance EPA-120.1
Temperature EPA-170.1
-------------------TABLE 2---6
ROUND ONE SURFACE WATER SAMPLING SUMMARY
r!!!!!! No. of Samples
Sample Locations per Location No. of Samples Parameter Analytical Method Comments
SW-I, SW-10, SW-12, 2 12 Acid Extractsble EPA 8040 Samples collected at near surface and
SW-18, SW-20, SW-22 Phenols 213rd depths.
12 Pentachlorophenol EPA 515
12 lsopropyl Ether EPA 8020 This analysis for first round only.
12 pH EPA 150.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
12 Conductivity EPA 120.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
12 Temperature EPA 170.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
SW-12, SW-18 I 2 T ALrrCL Compounds EPA CLP These samples were collected at 213rd depth.
SW-10, SW-12 2 4 PCDD/PCDF EPA 8290 Samples were both filtered and unfiltered.
SW-I, SW-10, SW-20, 2 8 Tots! Organic EPA 415.1
SW-22 Carbon
These locations were randomly selected
8. Biochemical Oxygen EPA 405.1 and sampled at both near surface and
Demand 213rd depths for these parameters.
8 Chemical Oxygen EPA 410.4
Demand
8 Tots! Suspended EPA 160.2
Solids
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
-------------------TABLE 2-6 (Continued)
ROUND ONE SURFACE WATER SAMPLING SUMMARY
Ditch No.of Samples
Sample Locations per Location No. of Samples Parameter Analytical Method Comments
SW-16A, SW-16B I 14 Acid Extractable EPA 8040
SW-17, SW-23 thru Pheools
SW-26, SW-28 thru
SW-34 14 Pentschlorophenol EPA 515
14 lsopropyl Ether EPA 8020
14 pH EPA 150.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
14 Conductivity EPA 120.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
14 Temperature EPA 170.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
SW-24, SW-26, 1 3 T ALrTCL Compounds EPA CLP First round only.
SW-34
SW-16A, SW-16B, 1 7 T otsl Organic EPA 415.1
SW-17, SW-23, SW-28 Carbon
SW-32, SW-33
7 Biochemical Oxygen EPA 405.1 These locations were randomly selected
Demand and sampled for these parameters.
7 Chemical Oxygen EPA 410.4
Demand
7 T otsl Suspended EPA 160.2
Solids
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
-------------------TABLE 2-7
ROUND TWO SURFACE WATER SAMPLING SUMMARY
f!!!!!!! No. of Samples
Sample Locatioos per Location No. of Samples Parameter Analytical Method Comments
SW-I, SW-10, SW-12, 2 12 Acid Extractable EPA 8040 Samples were taken at near surface
SW-18, SW-20, SW-22 Phenols and 213rd depths.
12 Pentachlorophenol EPA 515
12 pH EPA 150.J This analysis was performed in the field.
12 Conductivity EPA 120.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
12 Temperature EPA 170.1 This analysis was performed in the field.
SW-18, SW-22 I 2 PCDD/PCDF EPA 8290 Samples taken at 213rd depth,
unfiltered only.
Ditches
SW-16A, SW-16B, I 16 Acid Extractable EPA 8040
SW-17, SW-23 thru SW-26, Phenols
SW-28 thru SW-36
16 Pentachlorophenol EPA 515
16 pH EPA 150.J This analysis was performed in the field ..
16 Conductivity EPA 120.J This analysis was performed in the field.
16 Temperature EPA 170.I This analysis was performed in the field.
SW-30 I I PCDD/PCDF EPA 8290 Sampled unfiltered only.
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
-- ------
FIRE POND& NUMBER OF
MEDLIN POND SAMPLES PER NUMBER
LOCATIONS LOCATION OF SAMPLES
S-2, S-4, S-5, S-7 2 20
S-10, S-12, S-13A
S-14, S-19, S-21
S-4, S-10, S-13A 2 6
S-4, S-10, S-13A 2 6
S-4, S-10, S-13A 2 6
S-10, S-13A 2 4
S-1. S-3, S-6, S-8, 2 22
S--9, S-11, S-13, S-15
S-18, S-20, S-22
S-1. S-15, S-18, S-22 2 8
S-1. S-15, S-18, S-22 2 8
S-1. S-22 2 4
S-18 2 4
S-37, S-38, S-39, 2 12
@ S-40, S-41, S-42
Sec Comments <10 tr1 i~
~,--J ;Q "Z j;; ~m
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
----TABLE 2-8
SEDIMENT SAMPLING SUMMARY
FIRE POND AND MEDLIN POND
PARAMETER
Acid Extractable Phcnolics
PCDD/PCDF
Total Organic Carbon
Isopropyl Ether
T AL/TCL Compounds
Acid Extractable Phcnolics
PCDD/PCDF
Total Organic Camon
lsopropyl Ether
T AL/TCL Compounds
Total Organic Camon
pH
-Grain Size
-Moisture
-Sieve hydrometer
-Attcrberg Limits
ANALYTICAL
METHOD
EPA-8040
EPA-8290
EPA--9060
EPA-8020
EPA-CLP
EPA-8040
EPA-8290
EPA--9060
EPA-8020
EPA-CLP
EPA--9060
EPA--9045
------
COMMENTS
Depending on field conditions,
samples were collected from
0 to 2.5 feet and 2.5 to 5 feet,
or, surface and 2.S to S feet.
Section 4.3 discu85C8 sediment
sampling incremcnta.
These analysis were performed
at select locations.
-- ------------l!!!!!9 -TABLE 2-JJ
ROUND ONE AND TWO
DRAINAGE DITCH SEDIMENT SAMPLING SUMMARY
ROUND I
DRAINAGEWAY
SAMPLE NO. OF SAMPLES TOTAL NO.
LOCATIONS PER LOCATION OF SAMPLES PARAMETER ANALYTICAL METHOD COMMENTS
S-16A, S-16B, S-17, I 16 Acid Extractable Phenols EPA-8040 Samples were composites of 3
S-23 thru S-27, points across the drainagcway
S-27A, S-28 thru S-34 from o-6·.
S-16B, S-23 I 2 Total Organic Carbon EPA--9060
S-16, S-23 I 2 PCDDIPCDF EPA-8290
S-23, S-25, S-26, I 6 T ALITCL Compounds EPA-CLP VOA compounds were sampled
S-27A, S-31, S-24 discretely.
ROUND2
S-16A, S-16B, S-17A I 4 Acid Extractable Phenols EPA-8040 Sam.pies were taken from 12-1s·.
S-23
S-35, S-36, S-30 I 3 Samples were taken from o--6•.
S-16A, S-16B, _I 4 PCDDIPCDF EPA-8290 Samples were taken from 12-18".
S-17A, S-23
S-30, S-35, S-36 I 3 Samples were taken from G-6".
RALEIGH BM/DCCR0280 2/92
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Common Name
White Crappie
Largemouth Bass
Golden Shiner
Green Sunfish
Pumpkinseed
American Eel
Warmouth
Rock Bass
Common Name
Bluegill
Catfish
Raleigh RI
I~ BM/DCC#R0280 2/92
TABLE 2-10
CONTROLPOND
FISH SPECIES OBSERVED
Specific Name Sizes {Inches}
Poroxis annularis 4 1/2 -8 1/2
Mieropterus salmoides 5-193/4
Notemigonus crysoleucas 71/2
Lepomis cyanellus 2 -5 1/2
Lepomis gibbosus 3 -

6

3/4
Anguilla rostrata 19 1/2
Lepomis gulosis 3 1/4 -5
Ambloplites rupestris 9
CONTROL POND
FISH SPECIES SAMPLED
Specific Name Sizes (Inches}
Lepomis macrochirus 5 1/2 -8 1/2
Ictalurus natalis 8 1/2 -10
Quantity
10
9
2
2
44
1
5
1
Quantity
Sampled
21
15
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE2-ll
SAMPLE CONTAINER CLEANING PROCEDURES AND PRESERVATION
Parameter Matrix Preservative Sample Container ••
Extractable Organics water cool to 4°C 1 liter glass ~amber~ Pentachlorophenol(515) water cool to4°C 1 liter glass amber Metals water HNO3 to pH <2 1 liter plastic Isopropl' Ether,
40 ml glass with teflon septum Volati e Organics water 4 drops 1:1 HCL Total Organic Carbon water HCl to pH <2 250 ml glass with teflon septum BOD.5,Suspended
cool to 4°C 1 liter glass Sohds water
COD water NaHSO4• tog,H <2 500 ml glass All Parameters soil/sediment cool to 4 C 1 liter glass
1.
2.
Use new bottle; rinse with (pesticide grade) isopropanol, dry with pure nitrogen.
Use new bottle; rinse with 1:1 nitric acid and drain; rinse with D.I. water; rinse with 1:1 hydrochloric acid and drain; rinse with D.I. water and drain thoroughly.
3.
4.
•
••
Wash containers and closure with pre-filtered hot tap water using non-phosphate detergent. Rinse three times with pre-filtered tap water. Rinse again with ASTM Type 1 deionized water. Oven dry containers and closures at 105°C for one hour.
No cleaning required. Use new bottle.
NaHSO4 is the salt form or H2SO4 which is formed upon the addition or water to act as the preservative.
Lids for all containers will be lined with Teflon •
Cleaning
Procedure
1
1
2
3
3
4
4
4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division. Engineering Support Branch, Standard Operatini= Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. April 1, 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluatini: Solid Waste. 2nd ed.SW-846.
Raleigh I 179280-0! BM/DCC#Rll280 2/n
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Parameter
Suspended Solids
TABLE 2-12
SAMPLE HOLDING TIMES
Holdini: Time
Isopropyl Ether, Volatile Organics
Phenols, Pentachlorophenol,
Semivolatiles
Within 7 days of collection
Within 14 days of collection
Within 7 days of collection (for extraction)
Within 40 days of extraction (for analysis)
BOD5 Within 48 hours of collection
TOC, COD, Mercury
PCDDs/PCDFs
Within 28 days of collection
Within 30 days of collection (for extraction)
Within 40 days of extraction (for analysis)
Metals Within 180 days of collection
Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 29, 1984, p43260
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Environmental Services Division. Engineering Suf port Branch, Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual. April , 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. 2nd ed. SW-846.
Raleigh, RI
I~ LM/DCC#R0280 2/92
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fi&Jlre
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
2-7
2-8
Raleigh RI
Title
CHAPTER 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Soil Sampling Locations
Onsite and Near Offsite Monitoring Well Location
Offsite Deep Monitoring Well Location ·
Vertical Electrical Sounding Locations
Borehole Geophysical Logging Locations
Surface Water Sample Locations
Sediment Sampling Locations
Fish Sampling Location Map
179280-0! BM/DCC# R0280 2/92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
CSA
I z __ 1,.c--z_..1.
I
0
LJ
....
L). C3A
I
I
I
I
A CUA
------·----::::
LESEND
f::, SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING LOCATION
A SOIL BORING LOCATION
L). BACKGROUND.SOIL BORING LOCATION
•---BEAZER EAST, INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
----UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
SCALE (FEET)
0 100 200
c::J
0
FIGURE 2-1
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE, NC
2 19 92 A105950
g
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
=
LEGEND
-----
□
MONITORING h'ELL LOCATION
BEAZER EAST, INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
NOTE: lt'ELL Ph'J lt'AS UTILIZED AS
A PUMPING TEST h'ELL.
a
0
a
)
□
•
0
0 0
LJ
.. C3B
C3A
lb
I
I
I
I
CUB I
. CUA
1+
,/,/J
SCALE (FEET) ----- -O 150 300 450
FIGURE 2-2
ON SITE AND NEAR OFF SITE
MONITORING h'ELL LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE. NC
2/19/92 ,.,105949
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·
I
=
LEBEND
+ OFF-SITE DEEP MONITORING WELL LOCATION
---BEAZER EAST. INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
----UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY + C21C
D a
• .., [l
~19C
SCALE (FEET) - -·-_, __ _
0 300 600 900
+ + C23C C24C
~ Ii!
;I,! + R ,;::
~ C16C
.,
L]
D
..
0 Q
C20C
BARBEE ROAD +
CHURCH STREET!
I
. '
FIGURE 2-3
OFF-SITE DEEP MONITORING
h'ELL LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE. NC
4/29/91 A10594B
I·
D
a.
I
I
n
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c=z
LEGEND + MONITORING lrELL LOCATION
27e VES LOCATION
LJ
I
I
I
I
I
----BEAZER EAST, INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY I
----UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Q
D
~---1
/''
10A /,,
3q./ ,, ,
1/. C10B1/ \
1/1/ ~,,
1/ ~~ \
1/1/ ,,,,/ V \, )
1/ ( \ /
1/..i,,1_ C iB ___"1._ C30A \ ,,
1/~ ,T \/
1/ C 1 A '\ ___"1._ A
.1/1/ ,,.-/\ D T C4
\ / \ SCALE (FEET)
-11-·-----0 70 140 210
FIRE
POND
'
C31A
FIBURE 2-4
VERTICAL ELECTRICAL SOUNDING
LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY, INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE, NC
5/8/91 A106679
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
=
LESEND
+ ON-SITE PUMPING WELL LOCATION
+ ON-SITE DEEP BORING LOCATION
+ OFF-SITE OEEP MOfHTORING WELL LOCATION
--$-DOMESTIC WELL LOCATION
---BEAZER EAST, INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
----UNIT STRUCTURES INC. PROPERTY BOUNDARY
4 c1:zc
+ C21C
□ •
• .., 0
C19C
SCALE (FEET) .. ----\-·-
D
0 300 600 900
+ + C23C C24C
+ C16C
•• LI
D
• = = =
'I;,
0
C20C
BARBEE ROAD +
. ..
CHURCH STREET
-'
FIGURE 2-5
BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL
LOGGING LOCATIONS
FORMER KOPPERS COMPANY. INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST. INC.
MORRISVILLE. NC
2 19 92 A107412
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-_Ji
LJ
SW28 r
I
•
SCALE (FEEi) ---. --0 120 2-40 360
LEIEIII
• SURFACE WATER SAMPLE LOCATIONS
•--BEAZER EAST I -, NC . PROPER
---UNIT STRUCTU TY BOUNDARY
t>------==~~RE:S:.:'.IN~C:... ~P:RO~P~ER:T:Y~B~OU~ND~A~R~Y
SW36
APPROX
BOO'SOUTHEAST
MEDLIN POND > ~~~~~g~r~f+~~ _.fa
.\.___ SW23 __ .. ...--_,,.)'s"35
-~SW2-4 0
/Slf33
I
:s: .
:s: L
\
/
. WESTERDN DRAINAGE
ITCH
. (APPROXIMATE)
SW32 ¢ .,,,,,::::::-1/
1.. (} •
Slf3~./ ~ :s: \ 0 ◊
I '
FIGURE 2-6
SURFACE KATER FORMER KOPPERS ;AMPLE LOCATIONS rlMPANY. BEAZER EAST. .. INC. SITE
MORRISVILLE .. INC.
2 11 92 ' NORTH CAROLINA
A105979
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
D
)
=
□
:==' I I
°" 0 ------==·
/IJ
L]
CJ ~
\
829
__.--· *
t-
i
I
I
I
I
I
SCALE (FEET) - -----0 120 240 360
MEDLIN POND
Cl
saa
APPROX BOO'SOUTHEAST
FI6URE 2-7
SEDIMENT SAMA FORMER KOPPER'S 'LING LOCATIONS COMPANY. INC BEAZER EAST. ' · SITE
MORRISVILLE, NORTHI;~ROLINA
2 11 92 A!0595!
D
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reference:
U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Cary, North Carolina Quadrangle
1973 Photorevised 1987
t
--N-
I
FIGURE 2-8
FISH SAMPLING LOCATION MAP
FORMER KOPPERS CO., INC. SITE
BEAZER EAST, INC.
MORRISVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA