NCD980557656_19850826_NC State University (Lot 86 Farm Unit 1)_FRCBERCLA LTRA_Final Report - Forward Planning Study-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I ')
~~)
~~
/) -'-... la1
FINAL REPORT
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
FORWARD PLANNING STUDY
AUGUST 26, 1985
DOCUMENT CONTROL NUMBER
172-WPl-RT-BDPN-3
**Company Confidential**
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-6939. The material contained herein is not to be disclosed to, discussed with, or made available to any person or persons for any reason without the prior expressed approval of a responsible official of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CDM
environmental engineers, scienlisrs.
planners. & management consultants
August 26, 1985
Mr. Russell L. Wright
Regional Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Ms. Meredith L. Clarke
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
SUBJECT: Final Report for the
N.C. State University, Lot 86 Site
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO: 70-4LG7
EPA CONTRACT NO.: 68-01-6939
DOCUMENT NO.: 172-WPl-RT-BOPN-3
Dear Mr. Wright and Ms. Clarke:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
1945 The Exchange, N. W , Suite 290
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
404 952-8643
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM) is pleased to submit this Final Report
for the N.C. State University, Lot 86 site in accordance with Task 4 of
the Work Plan Memorandum. This report includes a description of the site
and its environmental setting, a summary of the history of operations at
the site, and a review of the data collected during previous site
investigations. Information deficiencies and data gaps are identified to
provide a basis for the development of subsequent remedial investigation
activities. Preliminary cost estimates for a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) are presenterl. A preliminary
evaluation of feasible remedial alternatives was conducted and cost
estimates are presented for each alternative.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Russell L. Wright
Ms. Meredith L. Clarke
August 26, 1985
Page Two
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
If you have any questions or comments concerning the report, please call
us.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Manager
JLR:RCJ/jmp
'
1c ar
Associate
Region IV Manager
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ••••.• ••. .•. .•.•.•••.••• ••••. .. •••.. .•. .•.•. 1-1
1.1 Site Location ••. .•.•.•. .. .• .•. . •• .•. ..•••.. .••.... 1-1
1.2 Site Status and Project Type •••••.•••••.•.•.••••.. 1-3
1.3 Overview . .. . .•.... ....•.••..... .. ......•.•.•...... 1-3
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION • • . . . • . . • • • . . . • • . . • . • . • . • • • • . . • . • 2-1
2 .1 Site Description ••.•.••.••...••.••.•.•.••.•...•••.
2.1.1 Environmental Setting •.•.••••••••.••.•••.••
2.1.2 Site History .............................. .
2.1.3 Review of Existing Database ••••.••••••.••••
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-11
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA REQUIREMENTS ••.••••••••••••••.••• 3-1
4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ••••••.•. 4-1
5 .0 REFERENCES •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 5-1
APPENDIX -Site History
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
LIST OF .TABLES
Normal Monthly and Annual Average Temperature and
Precipitation at N.C. State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina .•.•...•.••.....•......•..........•.•......
Representative List of Chemicals Included in Waste
Burials ................................................. .
Typical Hazardous Waste Collected per Month ••••••••...•.•
Approximate Well Installation Depths anrl Screened
Interval ................................................ .
Trace Elemental Concentrations in Groundwater Samples •••.
Volatile Organic Analyses Results June 2, 1983 Samples
Analytical Results of July 1984 Sampling Standard
Drinking Water Parameters ••.•.••••••.••.•••••••.•....••••
Results of July 1984 Sampling Organic Analyses •••...••••.
Results of Volatile Organic Analyses Using Purge
and Trap Method October 1984 -March 1985 •.•••..•••••••.•
Results of Volatile Organic Analyses -June 4, 1985
Samples ••.••••••••...•••••••.•••••••••••••..••••.•.•••••.
RI/FS Preliminary Cost Estimate •...••••.•••••••••.•...••.
Alternative 1 Cost Estimate ..............................
Alternative 2 Cost Estimate ..............................
A 1 ternat i ve 3 Cost Estimate ..............................
Alternative 4 Cost Estimate ..............................
Alternative 5 Cost Estimate ..............................
Remedial Action Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimate
Page
2-4
2-6
2-10
2-15
2-17
2-19
2-21
2-22
2-23
.2-29
3-5
4-5
4-6
4-8
4-9
4-10
Summary . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . • . • . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
I
I
I
I Figure
1-1
I 2-1
I 2-2
2-3
I 2-4
2-5
I 2-6
2-7
I 2-8
I 2-9
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows Page
Location Map...................................... 1-1
Waste Disposal Areas •..•.•.•...•••.•.••.••.••••..• 2-1
Geologic Section .•.••.•••.•...•..•••....•••••..••. 2-1
Monitor Well Locations ............................ 2-2
Water Level Contours -August 15, 1984 ••••••.••••. 2-2
Water Level Contours -February 23, 1985 • • • •• • •• •• 2-2
Private Well Locations ............................ 2-18
Location of VES and Dipole-Dipole Profiles ••••••.• 2-28
Vertical Electrical Sounding Results ••• .•••••••• •• 2-30
Dipole Sections ..................................
Wenner Survey Contour Map .........................
2-30
2-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Forward Planning Study (FPS) report has been prepared by Camp Dresser
& McKee Inc. (CDM) Region IV, REM II for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in response to Work Assignment 70-4LG5 issued February 5,
1985 •. The Work Plan Memorandum dated February 25, 1985 summarizes the
scope of work for this work assignment.
The purpose of the FPS is to provide a description of the current situation
at the site. This report includes a description of the site and its
environmental setting, a summary of the history of operations at the site,
and a review of the data collected during previous site investigations.
Information deficiencies and data gaps are identified to provide a basis
for the development of subsequent remedial investigation activities.
Preliminary cost estimates for the completion of a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) are provided. A preliminary
assessment of feasible remedial alternatives is included along with cost
estimates for each alternative.
This report has been organized into the following sections:
1.0 Introduction;
2.0 Initial Site Evaluation;
3.0 Identification of Data Requirements;
4.0 Preliminary Assessment of Remedial Alternatives; and
5.0 References
1.1 SITE LOCATION
As shown on Figure 1-1, the N.C. State University, Lot 86 site is located
on the west side of Raleigh, North Carolina near Carter-Finley Stadium,
approximately 100 feet south of the southern right-of-way of Wade Avenue
Extension. Wade Avenue Extension connects with Interstate Highway 40
(1-40) which is a heavily travelled thoroughfare carrying commuter traffic
between Raleigh and Research Triangle Park, as well as interstate traffic.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REM II
LOCATION MAP
N.C. ST A TE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The site cari be reached from Raleigh by travelling west on Wade Avenue
Extension to the Blue Ridge Road exit, then proceeding one-half mile south
on Blue Ridge Road to Old Trinity Road, and travelling 1500 feet west on
Old Trinity Road to a dirt road leading north to the site.
The site is located in Wake County, which is within the Piedmont
physiographic province. The topography is gently rolling with broad and
flat interstream areas. There are no prominent hills visible above the
general upland surface. As shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Raleigh West 7.5 minute quadrangle (Figure 1-1), the 1.5 acre site is
situated on a slight topographic rise at approximately 450 feet above mean
sea level (msl ). Land surface elevation decreases to the north and east of
the site are steeper than those to the west. Wade Avenue Extension lies
about 25 to 30 feet below the site. An unnamed tributary to Richland Creek
is·located about 400 feet east and 40 feet below the site. A small pond
feeding another unnamed tributary to Richland Creek lies approximately
2,000 feet west of the site. Richland Creek is located about 1.2 miles
northwest of the site.
The site is located on, and surrounded by, state owned property. A large
grass-covered open area west of the site and north of Carter-Finley Stadium
is used for parking during stadium events. The dirt road leading into this
area from Old Trinity Road is used as a jogging path by N.C. State
University students and area residents. Trees along the fence north of the
site screen the view from Wade Avenue Extension. A pine forest borders the
site to the east. The nearest water supply well is located approximately
2,000 feet southeast of the site fence at the Medlin residence (see Fi'gure
2-6).
Surficial drainage from the site flows to the northwest, north, and east.
Flows to the west and east eventually intercept unnamed tributaries that
drain to Richland Creek.
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE
In June 1984, Region IV EPA personnel and personnel from the North Carolina
Division of Health Services' (DHS) Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Branch conducted a physical inspection of the N.C. State University, Lot 86
site. Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score sheets and documentation were
completed in May dnd June 1984.
HRS scores are designed to take into account a standardized set of factors
related to risks from potential or actual migration of wastes via
groundwater, surface water, and the atmosphere. If a site receives a score
equal to or greater than 28.5, it is eligible for inclusion on the National
Priority List (NPL). The N.C. State University, Lot 86 site was proposed
for inclusion on the NPL in October 1984.
1.3 OVERVIEW
This FPS was conducted in parallel with efforts by university researchers
to monitor the migration of contaminated groundwater from the site. The
objectives of the FPS are to describe the current situation at the site;
and to identify information deficiencies and data gaps to be considered in
developing subsequent remedial investigation activities. Preliminary cost
estimates for the RI/FS are presented for EPA's use in budgeting future
fund allocations to this site. For similar reasons, a preliminary
evaluation of feasible remedial alternatives is presented along with cost
estimates for each alternative.
1-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
N.C. State University selected Lot 86 of Farm Unit No. 1 in 1969 as a
burial site for the hazardous chemical waste and low-level radioactive
waste generated in the university's educational and research laboratories.
The site was divided into two separate areas as shown on Figure 2-1; the
western half to receive hazardous chemical waste, and the eastern half to
receive low-level radioactive waste. This study is primarily concerned
with the hazardous chemical waste burial area.
2.1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Geology
The N.C. State University, Lot 86 site overlies a nort.h-south trenrling
felsic gneiss and schist belt. This belt consists primarily of
biotite-feldspar gneiss, quartzitic gneiss, garnetiferous biotite gneiss,
and interbedded gneiss and schists. Parker (1979) shows the portion of
western Wake County in which the site is located as a part of the western
limb of an anticlinal structure, dipping to the west at an angle of 35 to
40.degrees. The anticlinal structure is described as an asymmetrical fold
with low dips on the western flank.
According to Liddle (May 1984), the saprolite at the site is composed of
highly weathered muscovite-garnet schist and garnet gneiss. Using seismic
refraction and resistivity soundings, McDade et.al. (1984) have shown that
the transition from saprolite to bedrock begins at a depth of approximately
80 feet below the site. The transition zone may be as much as 100 feet
thick, and may be high in water content.
Figure 2-2 illustrates the lithologic nature of the material underlying the
site. The saprolite can be described as a mixture of sandy silt, clayey
silt and silty clay with occasional thin layers of silty sand. Seams of
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•16 •13
•10
•9
LEGEND
e MONITOR WELL
LOCATION
-~-PENCE
•12
(.) ~
h«~•2 •a e11
:i < )::: FORMER DRUM
!;! ~ I -"'"-. STORAGE AREA ~Mu: I "-« ~ <
0 a:
M Q :J
a: "' ~ I I LU < ~
MrJ:: _ _j / t ci < JIC
M@ !!JI
I! 1 I
•-~
« _FORMER CHEMICAL
"' a, "'
14
STORAGE DUMPSTER AREA
o eo 100 PS+••-I SCALE IN rEET
REM Ii FIGURE NO
WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
..I
..I w
:I:
0
I
I
0
«I
..I ..I w :I:
..
..I ..I w •
0
'
0
.
0 ,
0
e
7
0 ...
.. _, _,
Ill •
0 .
0
e
0
s
E
~i
~;~
0 •
000 -~-!n
o-,.
;1 ~:;:;
!!:i § •00
~ ::;~; il~:~
,o
l!i :~E. 3~J
~~i E&~
=--e ~~~ ae; .
0 ...
I
-
'. 0 . .. '0
l~~ :E~ ·--,_, •-o ··-i ~~ l~"'
• 0 ··-...
' -·-· : a::
'-o ' ..
\~i ·:.!_~ l~~~ j~;;;j!
:.:.;~~i::
'◄ .... .... '◄
-o ·-•o ~; ~;
~!I ;◄.,
C
' --i E
IH
l ~:s l!H
t 113M J.V 3:>V:lllllS ONOOIIO M0138 J.33~ NI H.J.d30
7 I I I
2 i ~ S
. REM II
.GEOLOGIC SECTION
o-..
I i
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
0 ...
I
I
0 ...
FIGURE NO .
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
quartz and bands of ferromagnesian minerals reflecting the original
metamorphic foliation were also found. The quartz seams and some of the
ferromagnesian-rich bands provide pathways for relatively easy movement of
the water through saprolite.
Hydrogeology
Since 1982, researchers at N.C. State University have installed 24 monitor
wells at the site. These are shown on Figure 2-3. Monitor well
construction, installation, and sampling are discussed further in Section
2.1.3. In this section the results of laboratory permeameter tests run on
Shelby tube samples, and bailing tests to measure field hydraulic
conductivity are discussed. All of the results discussed here were
obtained in 1982 and 1983 using monitor wells 1, 2, 3, and 4. Other tests
have been done since then, but have not been summarized for publication.
Estimates of horizontal groundwater flow velocities were made using weekly
water level measurements recorded for each of the four wells.
According to Welby (1983), laboratory measurements showed ranges of
hydraulic conductivity in the samples from the Shelby tubes of between
Sx10-5cm/sec and 2xlo-4cm/sec. The results of field hydraulic conductivity
tests performed in· February and August 1983 are summarized in Liddle
(1984). The geometric mean of four calculated values for each well ranged
from 8.4xl0-4 cm/sec at well 4 to l.89x10-3cm/sec at well l.
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show groundwater level contours on two different dates.
Monitor wells 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are not shown on Figure 2-4 because
they had not yet been installed at the time these water levels were
measured. Wells lA, 1B, SA, 5B, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are not shown on
either figure because they had not yet been installed. These dates were
selected to show the range of fluctuation in the water levels over an
annual period. Water levels fluctuate an average of two to four feet
during the course of a year. Over the site the depth to groundwater ranges
from about 15 to 40 feet below ground surface.
2-2
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•16 •13
LEGEND
•
•10
•9
MONITOR WELL
LOCATION
---11,--FENCE
•12
REM II
•
"' a, ..,
14
MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
0 00 i--.w_-
SCALE 1N FEET
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
100
I
FIGURE NO.
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
e MONITOR Wl!LL
LOCATION
42'--WATl!II LIVl!L IN
P'l!l!T Bl!LOW 811OUND
BURP'ACI! AT Wl!LL 4
P'INCI!
o eo Nw
SCALE IN f'EET
REM II
WATER LEVEL CONTOURS -AUGUST 16, 1984
N.C. ST ATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
100
I
FIGURE NO
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
R
m
I
I
I
LEGEND
e MONITOII WILL
LOCATION
42--WATIII LIVIL IN
PIIT IIILOW 9llOUND
8UIIP'ACI AT WELL 4
-AEM II
•
ii,
"' "'
14
WATER LEVEL CONTOURS -FEBRUARY 23, 1986
N.C. ST ATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO
2-6
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
Water level measurements indicate that the main groundwater flow direction
in the saprolite is westward from the topographic highest portion of the
site. However, as shown on Figures 2-4 and 2-5, there are localized
variations in the general groundwater flow pattern. Using an average
hydraulic conductivity of l.36xlo-3cm/sec (bail tests) and a hydraulic
gradient of 0.014 ft/ft, McDade et.al. (1984) calculated a Darcian flow
velocity of about 20 ft/year. Assuming an effective porosity of 30
percent, McDade et.al. obtained a linear groundwater velocity of 67
ft/year.
Little is known about groundwater flow in the fractured bedrock.· All of
the wells are shallow wells, screened approximately 5 to 10 feet below the
groundwater table. Well clusters at locations 1 and 5 sample grounrlwater
in. the saprolite at depths between 5 and 20 feet below the water table.
Climate
Climatic data recorded at the N.C. State University, Method Road station
which is about 1.5 miles southeast of the site, are summarized in Table
2-1. An onsite rain gage was installed by university researchers on March
18, 1984. For the period of record from 1951 to 1980 at the Method Road
station, the average annual precipitation is 46 inches with July and August
being the wettest months. The fall months of October through December are
· generally drier than the spring and summer months.
Over an annual period, average monthly temperatures range from a low of
40.2 degrees Fahrenheit in January to a high of 78.8 degrees Fahrenheit in
July. The warm summer temperatures combined with heavier precipitation in
these months serve to maintain a typically humid environment.
2.1.2 SITE HISTORY
Burial of hazardous chemical waste and low-level radioactive waste began at
the N.C. State University site in 1969. Burial of waste was discontinued
in November 1980 in order to comply with regulations promulgated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1
NORMAL MONTHLY AND ANNUAL AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION
AT N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Month Average Temperature (•Fl Average Precipitation ( in. )
January 40.2 3.84
February 42.l 3.75
March 50.l 4.09
April 60.4 3.31
May 68. l 4.22
June 74.9 3.73
July 78.8 4.84
August 78.0 4.52
September 72.l 3.85
October 60.9 3.28
November. 51. 7 3.24
December 42.9 3.33
Ann·ual Average 60. 0 46.00
Source: National Climatic Data Center, Climatography of the United States No. 20.
2-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The university maintained a listing of the types and quantity of materials
buried at the site. From these records a list of typical chemicals
reported in the burials was compiled and is shown in Table 2-2. The
chemicals listed include solvents, pesticides, heavy metals, acids anrl
bases. Chemical and biochemical degradation processes in the soil and
groundwater regime affect the quantities present and form of the chemicals
remaining at the site.
The wastes were placed in trenches located in the northwest portion of the
site. The trenches were approximately 10 feet deep, and 50 to 150 feet
long. After filling, about two feet of cover material excavated from the
trenches was used to close the trenches. Later, the disturbed area was
seeded with grass. The university estimates that approximately 22 trenches
totaling less than 2,000 linear feet were used. Although some of the
liquid chemicals disposed of during the initial site operations were poured
into the trenches, both liquid and solid chemicals were generally buried in
metal, glass, or plastic containers. Assuming that voids between
containers, cushioning material, and non-hazardous material account for 25
percent of the total volume in the trenches, the university estimates the
volume of buried hazardous waste at 890 cubic yards.
During this study, the solid and liquid waste quantities listed in disposal
records were totaled. The liquid wastes were assumed to be divided evenly
between compounds lighter than water and compounds heavier than water.
Consequently, a factor of 8.34 was used to convert quantities reported in
gallons to pounds. In some instances, the volume occupied by a particular
group of solid waste chemicals ~as listed in the disposal record~. The
weight of material per unit volume ranged from 70 to 90 pounds per cubic
yard. Assuming conversion factors for the waste quantities of 8.34 pounds
per gallon and 90 pounds per cubic yard the total quantity of buried
chemical waste was estimated at 945 cubic yards. If a factor of 70 pounds
per cubic yard is assumed, the total waste quantity is 1,208 cubic yards.
The University reported on the CERCLA 103c Hazardous Waste Notification
form filed on June 8, 1981 that it had disposed of 300,000 cubic feet or
about 11,000 cubic yards of waste at the site. The University maintains
' 2-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-2
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CHEMICALS
INCLUDED IN WASTE BURIALS
Pesticides/Herbicides/Fungicides Phenols Amines
atrazine
carbofuran
2, 4-D
DOE
DDT
Endrin
ethylene dibromide
malathion
me thoxy ch l or
parathion
se,.,in
toxaphene
PAHs (polyaromatic hydrocarbons)
benzidine
bi phenyl
bromonapthalene
chloronaphthalene
chrysene ·
na·p tha l ene
phenanthrene
p-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
p-n i tropheno l
phenol
phenolphthalein
bi sacryl amide
aniline
N-butylamine
dibutylamine
diethylamine
N,N-dimethyl formamide
(DMF)
diphenylamine
N,N-diphenyl-p-
phenylene-diamine
dipropylamine
ethylenediamine
N-propyl amine
tetraethylene diamine
tributylamine
triethylamine
trimethylamine
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
bromobenzene
bromoethane
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
2-chloro-2-methylpropane
chloroform
1,2-dibromoethane
1,2-dichloroethane
dichloroethane
2,4-dinitrochlorobenzene
ethylene bromide
methylene chloride
perchloroethylene
2-6
te trachl oroethane
te trach l oroethyl ene
trichlorobenzene
trichloroethylene
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
I
I
I
Aliphatic Alcohols
1-butanol
2-chloroethanol
ethanol
dihydroxypropane
ethylene glycol
i sopropa no 1
methanol
2-methyl-l-propanol
pen tano 1
2-pentanol
propanol
2-propanol
Miscellaneous Solvents
acetoni trile
benzene
cyclohexane
1,4-dioxane
ether
ethyl acetate
ethyl ether
heptane
hexane
i so-octane
n i trobenzene
pentane
pyridine
tetrahydrofuran (THF)
toluene
p-xylene
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Boron
Bromine (Bromide)
Cadmium
Chloride
Caba 1 t
Copper
TABLE 2-2
(CONTINUED)
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CHEMICALS
INCLUDED IN WAST£ BURIALS
Ke tones
acetone
2-butanone
methyl ethyl ketone
4-methyl pentanone
2-pentanone
A 1 dehyde s
ace ta ldehyde
benza 1 dehyde
formaldehyde
Miscellaneous Organics
2-7
acenapthene
acrolein
acryloni trile
2-chloroethyl ether
d i-n-butyl phtha late
2-methyl butane
4-methylpent-1-ene
n i trome thane
ni trotol uene
styrene
p-toluidine
trioxymethylene
Acids
Acetic acid
Benzoic acid
Boric acid
Chloroacetic acid
Chromic acid
2-5-Dinitrobenzoic acid
Formic acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
I
I
I
I
I
I lnorganics
Chromium
Cyanide
I Fluoride
Iodine (Iodide)
Iron
I Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
I Me·rcury
Molybdenum
Nickel
I Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
I S i1 ver
Sodium
Strontium
Sul fur
I Tha 11 i um
Tin
Titanium
I Zinc
Ox'i dants
I Benzoyl peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide
Potassium permanganate
I
I
I
n
n
TABLE 2-2
(CONTINUED)
REPRESENTATIVE LIST OF CHEMICALS
INCLUDED IN WASTE BURIALS
Acids
Mercaptoacetic acid
Mercaptoproprionic acid
Nitric acid
Osmic acid
Perchloric acid
Phosphoric acid
Picric acid
Proprionic acid
Succinic acid
Sulfuric acid
Thioacetic acid
Thioproprionic acid
Tribromoacetic acid
Trichloroacetic acid
Trifluoroacetic acid
Bases
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
that this quantity includes contaminated soil and water as well as waste
material. Table 2-3 summarizes the typical hazardous waste quantities
disposed of each month during operation of the landfill. Assuming 10 years
of operation, a total of 3,660 pounds per month and 70 pounds per cubic
yard, the total waste quantity disposed of at the site is 6,275 cubic
yards. If a factor of 90 pounds per cubic yard is assumed, the total
quantity is 4,880 cubic yards. However, as noted in Table 2-3 the figures
listed are monthly averages and are not necessarily representative of the
total quantities disposed during the life of the facility. At this point
in the site investigation, it appears that between 900 and 1,200 cubic
yards of hazardous chemical waste is buried at the site. The quantity of
contaminated soil and water has not been confirmed.
The low-level radioactive waste disposal area is regulated at the Federal
level by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and at the State level by the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Facility
Services, Radiation Protection Section. There is also a university
Radiation Protection Commission.
According to Mr. D.W. Morgan of the N.C. State University Radiation
Protection Office, radiological wastes were buried in trenches
approximately .6 feet deep with 4 feet of cover material. The trenches have
been mapped and waste disposal records are available. Most of the waste is
i~ a solid form, primarily animal carcasses. These range in size from rats
to whole sheep. The carcasses were frozen when buried and were not
containerized. The most abundant radionuclide in the buried material is
tritium which has a half-life of 12.26 years. For this half-life, after 5
years, 75 percent of the original radioactivity remains. After 10 years,
57 percent remains. Other radionuclides include carbon-14, iron-59,
phosphorus-30, and phosphorus-32. These four isotopes have half-lives of
5,730 years, 45.1 days, 2.5 minutes, and 14 days, respectively. Of all
these isotopes, the ones of greatest concern are tritium and carbon-14
because of their longer half-lives. No fission products were buried at the
site.
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-3
TYPICAL HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTED PER MONTH*
Hazardous Waste
Laboratory Solvents
Non-chlorinated solvents -acetones,
alcohols, benzene, ethers, carbon disulfide,
collodion, hexane, pentone, toluene,
xylene, kerosene, methyl ethyl ketone
Chlorinated solvents -trichloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride
Varnish stripper
Acids (including glass cleaning solution)
Waste reaction products (mostly organic)
No. 6 fuel oil wastes
Vacuum pump oil wastes
Formaldehyde (Formalin)
Miscellaneous left over and unused chemicals
250 bottles and cans/month (Less than 1 gallon
per container)
Mercury
Sodium and other pyroforic metals
Pesticides (agricultural chemical)
Compressed gas cylinders (abandoned)
Carcinogens
Spi 11 residues
TOTAL
Waste Quantity
(lbs)
800
80
440
200
320
440
120
120
600
10
5
500
0.22
25
3,660.22
* The above figures are monthly averages and there are wide
fluctuations in both waste types and amounts in any given month.
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The site is monitored by the university's Radiation Protection Office.
Gross beta and gross gamma measurements have been made on the soil adjacent
to the site fence.
Researchers at N.C. State University have been conducting investigations at
the site since August 1982. The results of these investigations; which
include both geophysical and geochemical studies, have been presented in
the three papers and two masters theses listed below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Evaluation of the Geologic Parameters of a Hazardous Waste Site in the
Piedmont of North Carolina, Welby, Charles W., presented at the
Triangle Conference on Environmental Technology, April 1983.
Application of Surfac G physical ·Methods to the Hydrogeological
·on of Was in North Carolina, McDade, J.A.,
., and We eport to the orth Carolina Board of
Science and Technology, January 30, 1984.
Trace Element Analysis of the Groundwater Around a Hazardous Waste
Landfill in the Piedmont of North Carolina, Liddle, Susan K., presented
at the triangle Conference on lechnology, April 1984.
McDade, J., 1983, Apblication of Surface Geothysical Methods to the
Evaluation of Waste 1sposal Sites in North arolina: M.S. Thesis,
Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, N.C. State
University, December.
Liddle, S. 1984, Trace Element Analysis of the Groundwater at a
Hazardous Waste Landfil 1 in the Piedmont of North Carolina: M.S.
Thesis, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, N.C.
State University, May.
Table A-1 in the Appendix to this report summarizes the history of
operations and the chronology of sampling events at the site.
2.1.3 REVIEW OF EXISTING DATABASE
In the fall of 1982, N.C. State University's Department of Marine, Earth,
and Atmospheric Sciences in cooperation with the Office of Public Safety,
and the Chemistry Department began a program of monitor well installation,
soil sampling, and groundwater sampling at the site. In conjunction with
this program, several geophysical techniques were tested as tools for
evaluating potential hazardous waste sites.
2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Monitor Well Installation
In August 1982, wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 were installed. The Geotechnical llnit
of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) provided the
equipment and the l~bor for the drilling operations. Figure 2°3 shows the
location of monitor wells at the site. Well 1 is situated on the northwest
corner and downslope of the site, along the suspected groundwater flow
path. Well 4 is placed upslope of the chemical burial pits for the
determination of background water quality. Wells 2 and 3 are located to
the northeast and west, respectively, of the burial pits to provide lateral
control.
Each well was drilled to a depth of about 10 feet below the local water
table with eight-inch hollow stem augers. Split spoon samples along with
blow counts were obtained at five-foot intervals during the drilling of
wells 1, 2, and 3, and at ten-foot intervals during the drilling of well 4.
Shelby tuhe cores were collected from wells 2, 3, and 4.
Three-inch inside diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Schedule 40 casing was
installed with five-foot closed-end slotted well screens. The PVC casing
was
cut
cement jointed.
the slots. The
The well screens were homemade, with a hacksaw used to
slot size is approximately 0.010 inch.
The borehole around each well was backfilled with clean sand to a point
about two feet above the top of the screen. A foot of bentonite pellets
was then placed on the sand. Drill cuttings were backfilled into the
annulus around the PVC casing to a point about 25 feet below the ground
surface. A sand-cement grout was then poured into the annulus to fill it
to the surface. A protective six-inch PVC casing was placed around the
well casing and a locking cap was installed.
The boring logs for wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 were shown in Figure 2-2. Odors
were noted at depths of 24.5 to 34.5 feet, and 39.5 to 49.5 feet below
ground surface at well location 1. At well location 2, an odor was noted
2-12
I
I
u
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
at a depth of 19.7 to 24.7 feet below the grounrl surface at this location.
No odors were noted at well locations 3 and 4.
Monitor wells 5, 6, 7, and 8 were installed in December 1983. Well 5 is
located west of the burial area between wells land 3. Well 6'is
approximately 25 feet downgradient from well 1. Well 7 is about 30 feet
north of the burial area between wells land 2. Well 8 is approximately 20
feet north of the burial area and 40 feet east of well 2. These wells are
of the same construction as wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 (C.W. Welby, pers. comm.,
4-18-85). Split•spoon and Shelby tube samples were taken at various rlepths
for laboratory study.
Monitor wells 9 and 10 were installed in May 1984. Both these wells were
1 ocated about 160 feet west of the site. We 11 _10 is approximately 50 feet
north of well 9. At these two locations, four-inch inside diameter PVC,
Schedule 40 casing was installed. The casing joints on these wells were
flush-threaded rather than cemented. All other construction was the same
as for wells l through 8. Split spoon and Shelby tube samples were
collected at various depths.
Monitor wells 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were installed in December 1984.
Wells 11 and 12 are located in the NCDOT right-of-way about 100 feet north
of the site. Wells 13 and 15 are located west of the site in the main
groundwater flow direction. Well 14 is a background well located about 590
feet upgradient of well 4. These wells are of the same construction as
wells 9 and 10. Split spoon and Shelby tube samples were collected from
wells 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Monitor wells lA, 18, 5A, 58, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 were installed in May
1985. Wells lA, 18, 5A, and 5B are located next to the existing wells l
and 5. Wells 16 and 17 are located north of the site between wells 11 and
12, and 12 and 13, respectively. Wells 18, 19, and 20 are located in the
1-40 median strip. Al 1 of the wells except number 16 have 2-inch inside
diameter Schedule 40 PVC casings. Well 16 has a 3-inch inside diameter
casing. All the wells have five-foot 0.010 inch slotted screens. The
borehole around each of these wells was backfilled with clean sand to a
2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
point about two feet above the top of the screen. Bentonite was then
poured into the annulus to a depth of 10 feet below land surface. Concrete
was poured into the remaining 10 feet of the annulus to fill it to the
surface. This construction procedure meets the N.C. DEM grounrtwater
monitoring standards as modified by a variance for use of bentonite to
within 10 feet of the surface.
Shelby tube samples were taken at the bottom of holes lA, 1B, 5B, 18, and
19. A split spoon sample was taken at the bottom of hole 5A. Well 20
encountered auger refusal at about 33 feet. Odors were noted at rtepths of
23 to 28 feet in hole lA. At location 1B, odors were detected at depths of
18 to 23 feet and 33 to 38 feet. No odor was noted at any of the other
well locations.
Table 2-4 summarizes the total depths for each well and the depths to the
top of the screened interval.
Groundwater Sampling And Analytical Results
Prior to this study, the history of groundwater sampling and analysis at
the N.C. State University site had not been summarized in written form.
Table A~l in the Appendix to this report is a chronology of site sampling
events reconstructed from the laboratory notes of researchers at N.C. State
Un·iversity, conversations with researchers, papers published by the
researchers, DHS files, and EPA files.
The sampling program conducted by N.C. State University researchers has had
four objectives:
1. Characterize the groundwater quality in the immediate vicinity of
the site based on the trace element chemistry of the groundwater,
and by comparison with the saprolite trace elemental composition,
determine the probable pollutant migration paths.
2-14
I
I
I TABLE 2-4
WELL INSTALLATION DEPTHS AND SCREENED INTERVAL
I Total Depth Depth Below Ground Surface
Below Ground to Top of Screened I We 11 Number Surface (feet) Interval (feet)
1 42.2 37.2
I lA 45.7 40.7
lB 55.5 50.5
I 2 47.7 42.7
3 37.4 32.4
I 4 52.0 47.D
5 44 .0 39.0
I SA 51.0 46.0
SB 61.0 56.0
6 38.5 33.5
I 7 43.8 38.8
8 53.0 48.0
I 9 44.0 39.0
10 42.0 37.0
I 11 29.0 24.0
12 34.0 29.0
I 13 34 .o 29.0
14 42.0 37.0
15 39.0 34.0
I 16 33.0 28.0
17 31.0 26.0
I 18 33.0 28.0
19 34.0 29.0
I 20 30.0 25.0
I Source: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Well
Construction Recorcts
m
a
2-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Determine the extent to which organic compounds have migrated to
the groundwater system.·
3. Develop the site for an understanding of pollutant behavior through
a time-series study of water quality.
4. Develop the site to study climatological effects on pollutant
movement and distribution patterns.
The analytical techniques used to meet the first objective included atomic
absorption spectroscopy (AAS) and neutron activation analysis (NAA).
Samples collected for organic compound analysis were analyzed using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The earlier organic compound
analyses used an ether extraction procedure to concentrate the samples.
Analyses conducted since-September 1984 focused on volatile organics only,
and used a purge and trap apparatus in conjunction with the GC/MS system.
The university's AAS and NAA laboratories are State and EPA certified
facilities; the GC/MS laboratory is not.
Groundwater samples were collected from wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 on December
18, 1982, February 13, 1983, March 13, 1983, and May 3, 1983 for analysis
using AAS and NAA. Table 2-5 shows partial results of the February, March,
and May analyses. According to Liddle {May 1984), the observed
trace-element distribution in the groundwater samples suggests that
contaminants are not being contained by the saprolite at the site, and are
being transported in a northwesterly direction away from the site.
Liddle (May 1984) further notes that the distribution of the trace elements
sodium, cobalt, chlorine, and manganese shows concentration increases which
coincide with the dominant groundwater flow direction. However, little
lateral dispersion of these elements was evident. Liddle concludes that
this may indicate that the northwesterly fracture pattern in the area is a
controlling factor in the transport of contaminants.
2-16
l!!!I -== ;;a iiiii ----- - - - - - -l!!!l!!!!l!I 1!11!!!1 --
TABLE 2-5
TRACE ELEMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
Anal_yzed b_y NAA Analyzed h_y AAS
Sampling Well Na Co Zn Br Na c1l K Mn Zn
Date Number (ppm) (ppb) (pph) (ppb) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (pph) (pph)
2-18-83 1 6.3 42.6 73 122. 0 5.6 8.8 1.0 590 50
2 1.5 ND 40 5.0 1.2 3.9 1.1 390 25
3 2.1 ND 48 7. 0 2.3 4.3 2.2 340 40
4 3.6 ND ND 9.0 2.8 4.7 1.2 110 30
3-13-83 1 1.9 3.3 ND 530.0 5.3 NA 0.5 770 15
"' 2 0.9 ND ND 21.0 1.2 NA 0.6 160 ND I -__, 3 2 .1 ND ND 55.0 1. 6 NA 1.0 150 ND
4 2 .1 ND 1400 34.0 2.6 . NA 0.8 110 ND
5-3-83 1 3.2 5.0 200 695.0 5.5 8.5 0.9 690 NA
2 2.6 ND 600 45.0 1.1 2.6 0.9 85 NA
3 1.9 ND ND 29.0 2 .1 2.9 1.5 35 NA
4 3.6 ND ND 30.0 2.7 3.1 0.6 20 NA
ND = Not detected.
NA= Not analyzed.
1. Analyzed by standard colorimetric methods.
Source: Liddle (May 1984).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
D
On June 2, 1983, groundwater samples were collected from wells 1, 2, 3, and
4 by the North Carolina OHS for pesticid~, herbicide, and volatile organic
analyses. No pesticides or herbicides were confirmed in the samples. The
results of the volatile organic analyses by the purge and trap method using
the Hall detector are summarized in Table 2-6. No volatile compounds were
detected in the sample from well 4. Carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and
methylene chloride were found in wells 1, 2, and 3. 1,1,l-trichloroethane
was detected in wells 1 and 2. Bromoform and 1,1,2-trichloroethane were
found in well 1. Based on the results of these analyses, the North
Carolina OHS recommended to EPA that the site's status change from "no
investigation needed" to ''site investigation needed''.
Researchers at N.C. State University collected groundwater samples from
we]ls 1 through 8 on February 14, 1984 and May 9, 1984 for analyses using
AAS and NAA. Although the analyses were completed, the results have not
yet been published by the researchers.
Groundwater samples were also collected from wells 1 through 10 at various
times during the period from February 1984 to May 1984 for organic compound
analysis using GC/MS. An ether extraction procedure was used to
concentrate these samples prior to GC/MS analysis. Compound
identifications were qualitative only, using the relative indicator levels
trace, present, common, and abundant. These analyses were part of a
reconnaissance approach, and the computer-stored data requires further
interpretation.
In July 1984, the North Carolina OHS conducted a site inspection.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 4, and 10 were split with N.C.
State University. Groundwater samples were also collected from the
Carter-Finley Stadium irrigation well and the Medlin residence well. As
shown on Figure 2-6, the Medlin residence is located 2,000 feet southeast
of the site on Old Trinity Road. The Carter-Finley irrigation well is
located 1,600 feet southwest of the site in the northeastern portion of the
stadium near the Finley fieldhouse. Both N.C. State University and the
State Laboratory of Public Health conducted inorganic analyses of these
samples. The state laboratory also analyzed the samples for pesticides,
2-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
m
D
11
REM II
PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONS
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-6
VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES RESULTS 1
JUNE 2, 1983 SAMPLES
Well 1 Well 2 Well 3 Well 4
Compound ( u g/ l ) (ug/1) (ug/l) (ug/1)
Bromoform 10,370 ND ND ND
Carbon tetrachloride 643 986 12 ND
Chloroform 46,910 2,792 6 ND
Methylene chloride 922 63 5 ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 3,526 237 ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 7,557 ND ND ND
ND= Not detected.
1. Sample collection and analysis done by North Carolina OHS personnel.
2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
herbicides, volatile organics, base/neutral extractable organics, and acid
extractable organics. The results of all analyses are summarized in Tables
2-7 and 2-8.
No extractable compound contamination was detected in either the
Carter-Finley irrigation well or the Medlin residence well. No volatile
organics were found in the Medlin well.
sample was not analyzed for volatiles.
The Carter-Finley irrigation well
The Medlin well is topographically
upgradient of the site; the Carter-Finley well is not. Well 1 continued to
show significant organic compound contamination.
In September 1984, N.C. State University acquired the capability of
performing volatile organic analyses on a routine
trap method·. Table 2-9 summarizes the results of
basis using the purge and
volatile
conducted since September 1984 at the first fifteen wells.
organic analyses
Wells 1, 2, 6,
7, 8, and 12 show the greatest number of contaminants. Contaminant
concentrations are highest in wells 1 and 6. There also appears to be a
pattern of increasing contaminant concentrations in these two wells over
the six-month period from October 1984 to March 1985. The most frequently
detected compounds include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform,
1,2-dibromoethane, dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, diethylether,
ethylbenzene, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, and xylene.
The Medlin residence well and the 208 Marsh Avenue well were sampled for
volatile organics analyses on November 29, 1984. As shown on Figure 2-6,
the Marsh Avenue well is in the Westover subdivision. This subdivision
relies on groundwater for potable water. Tetrachloroethene and xylene were
detected in both wells at a level of 10 ug/1. University researchers
believe the presence of these compounds is the result of laboratory
contamination. These same compounds were also detected in the blank run
with the samples. Without knowing more details regarding well construction
and use at these locations, it is difficult to correlate the analytical
results with results obtained at the site. Furthermore, these wells are
topographically upgradient from the site.
2-20
-------------------
TABLE 2-7
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF JULY 1984· SAMPLING*
STANDARD DRINKING WATER PARAMETERS
Carter-Finley
Stadium Irrigation Medlin
We 11 1 Well 4 Well 10 Well Resirlence Well
NCSU DHS NCSII OHS NCSII OHS NCSU OHS NCSII DHS
Arsenic NA <0.01 NA <0.01 NA <0.01 NA NA NA NA
Barium NA 0.1 NA 0.1 -NA <0.1 NA NA NA NA
Cadmium BDL <0.005 BDL <0.005 BDL <0.005 BDL NA BDL NA
Chromium NA <0.01 NA <0.01 NA <0.01 NA NA NA NA
Lead BDL <0.03 BDL <0 .03 BDL <0.03 BDL NA BDL NA
Mercury NA 0.0003 NA <0.0002 NA <0.0002 NA NA NA NA
Selenium NA <0.005 NA <0.005 NA <0.005 NA NA NA NA
Si 1 ver NA <0.05 NA <0.05 NA <0.05 NA NA NA NA
.N Endrin NA <0.0001 NA <0.0001 NA <0.0001 NA <0.0001 NA <0.0001 I Lindane NA <0.0004 NA <0.0004 NA <0.0004 NA <0.0004 NA <0.0004 N ,_. Methoxychlor NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
Toxaphene NA <0.002 NA <0.002 NA <0.002 NA <0.002 NA <0.002
2,4-D NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001 NA <0.001
Fluoride NA <0.10 NA <0 .10 NA <0 .10 NA NA NA NA
Nitrate (as N) 1.90 1. 70 0.56 <1.0 1. 70 0.70 RDL NA RDL NA
Chloride 11.4 11.0 3.4 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 NA 2.7 NA
Iron 0.63 1.48 0.13 1.63 0.38 0.43 0.63 NA ROL NA
Manganese 1.02 1.55 0.06 0 .13 0.06 0 .12 0.06 NA 0.01 NA
Sodium 7.70 NA 2.20 NA 4.90 NA 8. 70 NA 7.5n NA
Sulfate NA 10.0 NA 5.0 NA 1.0 NA NA NA NA
Copper BDL <0.05 BDL <0.05 BDL <0.05 BDL NA RDL NA
Zinc 0 .13 0 .10 0.13 0.13 0 .14 <0.05 3.22 NA 0.56 NA
*All results in mg/1.
BDL = Below detection l i mi t.
NA= Not analyzed.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
· TABLE 2-8
RESULTS OF JULY 1984 SAMPLING*
ORGANIC ANALYSES
Carter-Finley
Parameter We 11 1 We 11 4 Well 10 Irrigation Well
Volatile Organic Analyses
Bromoform 4 NO ND
Carbon tetrachloride 290 ND ND
Chloroform 51,100 ND ND
Methylene chloride 1,260 ND ND.
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 8,930 ND ND
1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 3,700 ND ND
Base/Neutral Extractables ( 1) No2 ND
Acid Extractables ( 3) ND2 ND
* All results in ug/1. Analysis by North Carolina OHS.
ND= Not detected.
NA·= Not analyzed.
1. Atrazine@ 83 ug/1, phthalates,
four unidentified peaks.
2. Unidentified peaks.
3. Methyl carbonate, benaldehyde, six
unidentified peaks.
2-22
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
Medlin
Residence
We 11
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
I
I TARLE 2-9
RESULTS Cl' VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES USING PURGE AND TRAP METHOD*
I OCTOBER 1984 -MARCH 1985
I We 11 1 Well 2 Coopound Hl-2-l-84 2-19-85 3-19-85 3-28-85 rn-2~-~ 3-28-85
I Benzene 3,010 7,205 36,700 36,500 ND 3,765
B roroobenzene 390 345 405 840 ND ND I Broroochloroethane ND llO 1,040 ND ND ND
Broroodichloromethane 220 ND ND ND ND ND
I Carbon tetrachloride 470 1,250 1,635 2,665 1,150 1,695
Chlorobenzene 160 265 365 200 20 35
I Chloroform ** 113,550 297,000 391, 500** ** 20,450
1,2-Dibrorooethane 8,860 12,050 25,850 ll, 150 ND 10
I Dichloromethane 320 ND 810 330 310 365
1,2-Dichloropropane 20,700 14,700 82,200 142,450** ND 185
1,3-0ichloropropane 41)0 ND 1,230 685 ND ND
I Di ethyl ether ** 40,100 460,000 362,500** 3,550 7,790
Ethyl benzene 1,700 1,805 3,935 2,590 30 70
I 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 360 ND 8,530 4,775 ND 95
1-Pentene ND ND ND ND 75 80
I 2-Propanone ND 1,335 ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene ND ND ND 50 125 185
I Toluene 3,640 6,355 14,600 10,730 2,900 5,460
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 6,530 7,310 17,150 9,730 <10 ND
Trichloroethene 3,120 6,390 13,050 24,050 220 410 I Xylene -Isomer A 4,23D 5,260 10,200 6,295 llO 530
J<.llene -Isomer B 2,320 2,830 5,430 3,260 80 135
I * All concentrations expressed as ug/1 based on calculations relative to the base peak of internal
standards, as described in EPA Method 624. Values listed are the average result from two sarrple
I volurres.
** Saturated colu1111.
m ND= Not detected.
g
2.-23
I
I
I TABLE 2-9 (CONTINUEO)
RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES USING PURGE AND TRAP METHOD*
I OCTOBER 1984 -MARCH 1985
I Well 3 Well 4 Well 5 Well 6
Coopound 11-:l0-84 10-24-84 2-19-85 I2-'.l-84 12-:l-84 '.l-2S-ss
I Benzene ND ND ND ND 985 128,500
Bromobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Bromochloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Carbon tetrachloride 30 10 ND 20 195 385
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorofonn 50 15 ND 280 315 45,250 I 1,2-Dibromoethane ND ND ND ND 2,800 2,550
Dichloromethane ND 10 ND ND 500 100
I 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND 4,150 9,795
1,3-0ichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Diethyl ether ND ND ND ND 10,650 22,800
Ethyl benzene ND ND ND ND 160 145
,1 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND ND 330 1,880
1-Pentene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 2-Propanone ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachlqroethene 10 5 ND <10 25 ND
Toluene ND 5 ND ND 16,850 14,900
I 1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND ND 225 265
Trichloroethene ND ND ND 20 1,000 1,620
I Xylene -Isomer A 10 ND ND <10 370 305
~lene -Isomer 8 ND ND ND ND 200 185
I * All concentrations expressed as ug/1 based on calculations relative to the base peak of internal
standards, as described in EPA Method 624. Values listed are the average result from two sarrple
I volumes.
** Saturated colu1t11.
I ND= Not detected.
I 2-24
I
I
I TABLE 2-9 {CONTINUED)
RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES USING PURGE AND TRAP METHOD*
I OCTOBER 1984 -MARCH l 9f\5
I Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 We 11 10
Coopound 11-30-84 3-28-85 Io-24-84 3-19-85 3-28-85 I2-3-84 I2-3-84 3-28-85
I Benzene ND 2 ND ND 62 ND NO NI)
Brorrobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Brorrochloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Brorrodichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I ·Carbon tetrachloride 380 608 · 175 104 124 ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Ch l orofonii 520 2,532 2,530 1,712 2,112 ND ND ND
1,2-Dibrorroethane ND 14 ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Dichlor01rethane 25 45 50 ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 130 206 ND ND 23 ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO
I Diethyl ether ND 394 120 38 76 ND ND ND
Ethyl benzene ND ND 10 ND ND NO ND ND
I 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1-Pentene ND 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 2-Propanone ND 184 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachlor-oethene <10 4 120 136 92 5 ND ND
I Toluene ND 20 35 ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 6 15 ND ND ND ND ND
Tri ch l oroethene ND ND 265 205 249 ND <10 ND
I Xylene -lsO!rer A <10 ND 25 ND ND ND ND ND
Xtlene -Isomer B ND ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND
I * All concentrations expressed as ug/1 based on calculations relative to the base peak of internal
standards, as described in EPA Method 624. Values listed are the average result from two sarrple
I volumes.
** Saturated colurm.
I ND= Not detected.
I
2-25
I
I
I TABLE 2-9 (CONTINUED)
RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES USING PURGE AND TRAP METHOD*
I OCTOBER 1984 -MARCH 1985
I Well 11 We 11 12
Coopound I-221-!lS 2-I<l-!l5 3-2!l-!l5 I-221-!lS 2-El-!l5 3-2!l-!l5
I Benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
Broirobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I BromJchloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND
BromJdichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Caron tetrachloride ND ND ND 12 12 15
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorofonn 31 15 24 292 105 206 I 1,2-DibromJethane ND ND ND 15 6 12
Dichloromethane ND ND ND ND Nfl ND
I 1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND 487 68 308
1,3-0ichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Diethyl ether ND ND ND 403 41 152
Ethyl benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND ND ND ND
1-Pentene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 2-Propanone ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 1 ND ND ND ND ND
Toluene ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2 ND ND 132 38 82
Trichloroethene ND ND ND ND 22 34
I Xylene -Isomer A ND ND ND ND ND ND
Xtlene -Isomer B ND ND ND ND ND ND
I * All concentrations expressed as ug/1 based on calculations relative to the base peak of internal
standards, as described in EPA Method 624. Values listed are the average result from two sarrple
I volumes.
** Saturated column.
I ND= Not detected.
I 2-26
I
I
I TABLE 2-9 (CONTINUED)
RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES USING PURGE AND.TRAP METHOD*
I OCTOBER 1984 -MARCH 19~5
I Well 13 We 11 14 We 11 15
Conpound 1-24-85 2-19-85 3-28-85 1-22-85 2-19-85 3-28-85 1-22-85 2-19-85 3-28-85
I Benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
B rom:ibenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Brom:ichloroethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Brom:idichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Ch l orofof1!1 4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dibrom:iethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND
I Dichloromethane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-Dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Diethyl ether ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Ethyl benzene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 4-Methyl-2-pentanone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND
1-Pentene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 2-Propanone . ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethene 1 ND ND ND ND ND 14 4 ND
I Toluene 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2 ND ND ND ND ND 3 ND ND
Trichloroethene ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I Xylene -Isomer A 1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Xx l ene -Isomer B ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
I * All concentrations expressed as ug/1 based on calculations relative to the base peak of internal
standards, as described in EPA Method 624. Values listed are the average result from two sarrple
I volumes.
** Saturated colum.
I ND= Not detected.
I 2-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Samples were collected from wells 1, lA, 18, 5, SA, 58, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19,
and 20 on June 4, 1985 for volatile organics analyses by the N.C. DHS
laboratory. The results listed in Tahle 2-10 for well location 1 indicate
a general decrease in concentrations of the identified chemicals with
depth. However, this pattern is not as evident ~t well location 5. At
present, there is insufficient data to substantiate the statement that
chemical concentrations decrease with depth.
Geophysical Surveys
The site was used by researchers at N.C. State University to test several
geophysical techniques as tools for evaluating potential hazardous waste
sites. The results of these studies are summarized in a report to the
North Carolina Board of Science and Technology entitled "Application of
Surface Geophysical Methods to the Hydrogeological Evaluation of Waste
Disposal Sites in North Carolina" by J.A. McDade, I.J. ·won, and C.W. Welby.
The following sub-paragraphs detail the findings of the studies.
Seismic Refraction. A seismic refraction survey was undertaken to
determine the depth to bedrock. Four profile locations were selected.
Profile 1 was aligned in a north-south direction approximately 150 feet
west of the site fence. Profile 2 was also aligned in a north-south.
direction passing through the site between the chemical disposal area and
the low-level radioactive disposal area. Profile 3 was aligned in a
north-south direction approximately 125 feet east of the site. Profile 4
was aligned in a northwest-southeast direction parallel to and outside of
the northern edge of the site fence.
The results of this survey indicate that the transition from saprolite to
bedrock begins at a depth of approximately 80 feet below the site. The
transition zone may be as much as 100 feet thick.
Schlumberger Vertical Electrical Soundings. The Schlumberger electro~e
arrangement was used to obtain vertical electrical soundings (VES). As
shown on Figure 2-7, VES were obtained near wells 1, 2, 4, and
approximately 80 feet southwest from well 3. Two additional soundings were
2-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
F
VES 3
V
v VES 2 = vertical electrical
sounding
ow 2 = monitor well
chemical
"'ostes
I
VES 4 ·····' .--" ..... Vo W4
0 25 50 75 100
FEET
B
N
SOURCE: McDADE ET AL. ( 1984)
REM II
LOCATION OF VES AND DIPOLE-DIPOLE PROFILES
N.C. ST ATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2-7
liiiil
.N
I
N
'°
liiii liiiiii ----liiiill -----------
Well I We 11 IA Well 18
Compound (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)
Benzene I, 900
Chlorobenzene 200 100 100*
Chloroform 38,400 34,000 10,100
1,2-Dichloropropane 23,500 10,600 1,900
Ethyl benzene 700 300 100*
Methyl benzene 1,600 800 500
Tetrachloroethene 200
Tetrachloromethane 1,400 1,000
Trichloroethene 7,800 1,600 400
X lene 2,100 1,300 300
I. Analyses by North Carolina OHS.
less than 10 ug/1 or none detected.
* = identified but less than 100 ug/1.
TARLE 2-10
RESULTS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC ANALYSES!
JUNE 4, l98S SAMPLES
Well 5 We 11 5A We 11 5R We 11 12 Well 16 Well 1 7 Wel 1 18 We 11 19 Wel 1 20
( ug/1 ) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (uq/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)
100 3,600 400 100 200
100* 200
100* 100*
100* 100 200 100* 200
100* 300 100* 100* 100*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
obtained along Interstate Highway 40. Two basic trends were noterl in the
results of this study:
• A low value of resistivity corresponding to the upper layer of silty
clay; and
• A gradual decrease in resistivity with depth.
Figure 2-8 shows the VES results. Resistivity was highest within the
unsaturated zone and decreased with depth as the water table was
approached. For the VES obtained near wells 2 and 4, resistivity continued
to decrease even after the water table was reached to a depth of 80 to 100
feet below ground surface, suggesting a layer of high water content within
th,e transition zone from saprolite to bedrock.
Dipole-dipole Profiles. The dipole-dipole arrangement was used to obtain
three sections of apparent resistivity at selected locations •. These
locations are shown on Figure 2-7. Dipole section 1 traversed the site
from its northwestern corner to the southeastern corner. Dipole section 2
was outside and parallel to the northern edge of the site fence. Dipole
section 3 was perpendicular to dipole section 2 and 100 to 225 feet west of
the site.
A> shown on Figure 2-9, dipole section 1 showed an anomalously low
resistivity at its northwestern end. This position corresponded to the
location of the chemical burial trenches. Although the actual trenches
were only about 10 feet deep, the anomaly extended downward and was
centered at a depth of forty feet. McDade et.al. (1984) interpreted this
to be the combined result of increasing water content as the water table
was approached and the movement of contaminants downward from the trenches.
However, the observed results are more likely due to variations in
lithology and topography rather than variations in water quality.
Comparison of dipole sections 2 and 3 which lie perpendicular to.one
another suggested another feature within the saprolite layer. Relatively
speaking, Figure 2-9 shows greater variability in resistivity in section 2
2-30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
"
100
"
10
VES 3
' "
'
VES 4
' ,o
VES 5
' ,0
L
. ,o
• ,o
. ,o
.
.
V(S I
' "
VES 2
' ,o
VES 6
I
. ,o
.
•C
'
SOURCE: McDADE ET AL. ( 11184)
REM II
VERTICAL ELECTRICAL SOUNDING RESULTS
N.C. ST ATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
" ,n,-
X ,-
~ ., ,-~ w 0 ~ ,-
E
C
X ~ ~ w 0
X ~ ~ w 0
:000 XlOO "000 )000 6000
NW DISTANCE ( FEET) SE
"
"
~
E
A
?O ~ ~ ~ ~ <W 1001~ J•O NO
/_/.;::< !:~:'.' .:,.-' ' ,;;-:<>;•.' .•.
··:·11 ····:·~:"' ,. ,:, .... ·,' · ....... ··.·,
::\::·:.'
SECTION 1
JOOO )000 40Cll ~ .ooJ ~ o till m . !n · mi: ~ ~
LEGE MO
CHM -F[[T
DISTb.NCE ( FEET)
'
NO NO JOO UO UO MO :,eo
/, .. ,. :
" .,
~
E
::. •: um,uu 1
·.---:•• : "'""'"'' -:-::.:,,: 11:1umr
'
i/ "j,,,,, , .. , -;,>'
SECTION 2
,ooo :ooo
LEGE MO
01-iM-FEET
DISTANCE ( FEET)
t0 40 _, al ,00 ,zo ,,o 1t0 ..0 100 no 1<10 NO tlO JOO
n•• -·-,-
•-,-,-
'
SECTION 3
D
aOUIICll: MIDOADE ET AL. (1884)
REM It
DIPOLE SECTIONS
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGtR NO.
2-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
D
D
than in section 3 suggesting a dependence upon section orientation.
Resistivity is expected to be most variable when moving across the
lithologic strike. Therefore, the orientation of section 3 appea~s to be
parallel to the strike of the residual foliation of the saprolite.
Wenner Survey. A Wenner survey was used to study the horizontal
distribution of apparent resistivity. The survey consisted of 155 sampling
points in a 25-foot grid. An electrode separation of 35 feet was chosen to
provide a depth of investigation roughly corresponding to the average water
table depth.
The Wenner contour map shown in Figure 2-10 strongly correlated with
surface topography, with high apparent resistivity occurring where
topography was also high. Exceptions to this correlation occurred in the
vicinity of wells 1 and 3 where topographically low areas di"splayed
relatively high apparent resistivity.
The northwest corner of the site containing the chemical burial trenches
was outlined by the 2,500 ohm-foot contour. The Wenner survey contours
were interpreted to indicate that groundwater leaving the burial trenches
could flow to the west, and could bypass the high resistivity zone near
well 1 which was thought to represent relatively impenetrable rock.
Eventually, the groundwater would turn north and flow down the embankment
to~ard Wade Avenue Extension. These contours also indicated that
groundwater would flow through the low-level rad.ioactive waste disposal
area in a northeasterly direction.
These conclusions are not confirmed by the data collected during subsequent
site investigations. Chemical analyses of groundwater samples from well l
revealed the presence of several organic contaminants. These contaminants
were not bypassing the apparent high resistivity zone near well 1. The
Wenner survey resistivity data were influenced by the water content
distribution across the site. In general, the observed resistivity
variations were the result of a variably thick unsaturated zone, and
lithologic variations rather than contaminant migration.
2-31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
A A
" "Q c:::J Q 0 "
I J
i---100 FEET -
N
r
I
j
SOURCE: McDADE ET AL. ( 1884)
REM II
WENNER SURVEY CONTOUR MAP
N.C. ST ATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
• RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
2-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA REQUIREMENTS
In order to conduct a feasibility study of remedial alternatives,
additional site-specific data on the types and extent of contamination of
soils and groundwater, and the sources and pathways for contaminant
migration, must be collected. The following are descriptions of specific
data requirements for the N.C. State University, Lot 86 site.
• The extent of the observed groundwater contamination is limited to
wells 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, all of which lie within 100
feet of the site fence. If the contamination has not migrated to the
bedrock, then the existing volume of contaminated groundwater may be
recoverable. Specific capacity tests performed at existing well
locations or at new well installations are needed to define the yield
of flow from the saprolite. According to existing information
obtained by university researchers, the expected saprolite yield is
less than 3 gpm. Yields from the underlying crystalline bedrock are
not expected to be similar to those in the saprolite.
• In order to further define the flow characteristics of the
groundwater system, a fracture trace analysis of the,site vicinity
should be conducted. Preliminary examination of the orientation and
alignment of streambeds in the site vicinity suggests that at least
two fracture lines may pass directly through the site in a
northwesterly and westerly direction. A field survey of rock
outcroppings in the site vicinity should also be included in the
analysis.
• In conjunction with the investigation of fracture patterns in the
bedrock underlying the site, stainless steel deep wells should be
installed at two locations northwest and downgradient of the site
along the suspected fracture lines and at one location upgradient of
the _site. These wells will be used to help define the fracture flow
system in the site vicinity. Additional deep wells may be necessary
3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
if the downgradient wells should detect contamination. The deep
wells should be located partly on fracture-trace evidence, and partly
on directional trends in the water quality of the upper saprolite.
• Development of geologic cross-sections in north-south and east-west
orientations is recommended to further define the saprolite
lithology. Most important is the determination of the attitude of
the strata, because of the suspected influence this has on
groundwater movement. Thus far, information regarding the saprolite
foliation has been derived from indirect evidence. Split-spoon
samples brought to the surface carefully may provide more direct
evidence.
• Additional shallow stainless steel monitor wells in the saprolite
north, east, and south of the low-level radioactive burial area are
recommended to better define the groundwater flow pattern in this
area.
• Future groundwater sampling should include analyses for the
radionuclide tritium, reportedly the most abundant radioactive
isotope in the material buried at the low-level radioactive site.
This isotope is fairly persistent having a half-life of 12.26 years.
• An inventory of private residential well water supplies within a 1
mile radius of the site should be conducted to determine the depth at
which water is being withdrawn, any well construction features that
may affect water quality, and any use practices affecting water
quality.
• The boundaries of the hazardous chemicals burial area should be more
clearly defined. An EM survey is recommended.
• In order to implement remedial alternatives involving material
excavation and offsite disposal, the volume of contaminated material
must be defined as well as the types of contaminants. Soil samples
should be collected from the perimeter of the hazardous chemicals
3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
burial area for organic compound analyses. The objective of this
task is to define the horizontal and vertical extent of the
contaminated soils. Sampling locations and depths should he selected
with this objective in mind. For cost estimating purposes, 7
sampling locations were assumed with samples collecterl from 3
different depths at each location for priority pollutant analyses.
• All of the wells installed to date have PVC casings. This material
is non-standard for monitoring groundwater potentially contaminated
with organic compounds. In addition, the joints in the first eight
wells installed were cemented rather than flush-threaded, adding
another potential source of sample contamination. The screens in
each of the wells are homemade with slots cut out using a hacksaw.
North Carolina DEM monitor well construction standards require that
grout be placed in the annular space between the casing and the
borehole wall from land surface to a depth within two feet above the
top of the well screen. Grout was placed to a depth of about 25 feet
below ground surface in wells 1 through 15. The remaining 20 feet of
annular space was backfilled with drill cuttings. Two reasons were
cited for this type of construction: 1) reduction of well
installation cost, and 2) preservation of natural materials in the
column above the well screen. Wells lA, 18, 5A, 58, 16, 17, 18, 19,
and 20 were constructed according to North Carolina DEM standards as
modified by a variance for use of bentonite to within 10 feet of the
surface.
Because of quality control concerns regarding the existing monitor
well construction at well locations 1 through 8, additional stainless
steel monitor wells are recommended both at locations where
contaminated groundwater has been detected and at locations currently
free of observed contamination. Suggested locations include wells 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
• Groundwater sampling and analysis has concentrated on the trace
elements and volatile organics. A full priority pollutant scan at
10 selected wells including a background well and 2 deep wells is
3-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
g
n
R
m
I
I
I
recommended to establish the level of contamination by base/neutral
and acid extractable compounds and to confirm existing patterns of
contaminant detection. Volatile organic analyses should be conducted
at the remaining 26 wells.
• Selection of an indicator compound for future rounds of well sampling
is recommended. Chloroform is one of the indicators currently being
used. However, this compound is extremely volatile and may not.
accurately represent conditions in wells where only small
concentrations are present. Other suggested inrlicator compounds
include benzene, methanol, and acrolein.
• Because the site is situated on a slight topographic rise between two
unnamed tributaries to Richland Creek, surface water and sediment
samples are recommended. The tributary flowing into the pond west of
the site originates in the drainage ditch located downslope and north
of the site adjacent to Wade Avenue Extension. Surface water and
sediment samples taken at 2 locations in this drainageway for
priority pollutant analyses are suggested. It is important to
recognize that runoff from Wade Avenue Extension must be considered
when interpreting the results of these analyses. The slope from the
northern portion of the site down to 1-40 should be visually
inspected following wet weather to determine if there are any
evidences of seeps or leachate production.
• Information in the waste disposal records indicates that three
55-gallon drums of transformer oil possibly containing PCB may have
been stored at the site prior to offsite disposal. The transformer
itself was scrapped and no records are available to confirm where it
was disposed. A preliminary round of testing for PCB in the soil
from the drum storage area is recommended.
Table 3-1 summarizes the preliminary cost estimate for the Rl/FS at the
N.C. State University site. Included in the estimate are itemized costs
for well installation, sampling, specific capacity testing, fracture trace
analysis, an EM survey, and a well inventory. The costs for preparation of
3-4
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
D
m
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3-1
Rl/FS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Work Plan Preparation, Project Operations
Plan Preparation, Remedial Investigation Report
Well Installation
Mobilization (within 150 miles, at $20/mile)
Test drilling, well construction, field
testing {9, 50-ft. wells with
2-inch casing, at $40/foot)
Test drilling, well construction, field
testing (3, 150-ft wells with
2-inch casing at $40/foot)
Well Construction Materials
(Stainless steel well casings
and 2-foot screen, fittings, well
protectors, cement, sand, and bentonite
for 9, 50-ft. wells and 3, 150 ft.
wells)
Level C Contingency
Subtotal Well Installation
Sampling
Groundwater Sampling
{Full priority pollutant scan
$ 3,000
18,000
18,000
8,000
23,500
1985
Cost
$105,000
$ 70,500 $ 70,500
at 10 wells, VOA analyses at 26 wells) $ 21,000
Soil Sampling
(Full priority pollutant scan of 3 samples
from 7 locations, PCB analyses in former
drum storage area) 34,000
Level C Contingency
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
(Full priority pollutant scan at
2 locations, inspection for seeps/
evidence of leachate)
Subtotal Sampling
3-5
27,500
6,500
$ 89,000 $ 89,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
0
D
D
I
I
TABLE 3-1
(CONTINUED)
RI/FS PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
Specific Capacity Testing, Permeability Testing
Fracture Trace Analysis, Field Survey of Rock
Outcroppings
EM Survey of Burial Area
We 11 Inventory
Feasibility Study
3-6
TOTAL
SAY
Cost
1985
$ 15,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 3,000
$ 85,000
$377,500
$380,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
D
m
•
I
I
I
the Work Plan, Project Operations Plan (POP), the Remedial Investigation
report, and the Feasibility Study are also shown. The estimated total cost
for completion of the RI/FS is $380,000.
3-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
11
a
I
D
D
I
I
I
I
4.0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment of remedial alternatives
is to identify alternative approaches for site remediation, to establish
criteria for evaluating the alternative approaches under consideration, and
to relate the alternatives to the data requirements outlined in Section 3.
Initial screening of the identified alternatives is performed based upon
the following criteria: cost, availability of acceptable engineering
technology, and the effectiveness of each alternative in mitigating
subsequent harm to public health and welfare, and the environment. The
costs shown in this section are preliminary figures that should be used for
planning purposes only.
According to the most recent draft of the National Contingency Plan (NCP),
Section 300.68(f) Development of Alternatives, at least one site-specific
alternative from each of the five categories of remedial alternatives must
be evaluated.
The remedial alternatives examined in this report are liste.d below by their
respective category:
· 1. Offsite treatment or disposal
Under this alternative contaminated soils in the study area
would be excavated, removed, and disposed of offsite at an EPA
approved RCRA landfill. The contaminated groundwater would be
left in its present state. A 30-year groundwater monitoring
program is included to track any migration of the remaining
contaminated groundwater.
4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
m
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Comply with all applicable and/or relevant Federal public health or
environmental standards
A possible alternative under this categrory is the excavation
of a limited volume of contaminated soils with offsite
disposal, extraction of contaminated groundwater, treatment of
the contaminated groundwater to Federal standards, injection of
the treated water, installation of a surface seal,
revegetation, and groundwater monitoring for a 30-year period.
3. Exceeds requirements of all applicable and/or relevant Federal
public health or environmental standards
This alternative includes the excavation of all contaminated
soils with offsite disposal, extracti·on of contaminated
groundwater, treatment to completely remove all contaminants,
injection of the treated water, and· groundwater monitoring for
a 30-year period.
4. Does not comply with applicable or relevant Federal public health
standards, but will reduce the likelihood of present or future
threat from hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants
A possible alternative under this category is surface sealing
with a clay cap, gas migration control, revegetation, and
groundwater monitoring for a 30-year period. Under this
alternative the groundwater is left in its present state.
5. No action
Under this category no action would be taken either on or off
the site other than continued groundwater monitoring at the
existing wells for a 30-year period.
Alternative 1 includes the excavation and offsite disposal of a volume of
the most heavily contaminated material. The limits of this volume of
4-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
-)
I
I
I
I
I
I
material are the depth to seasonal high water table {35 ft); anrl the area
outlined by the location of wells 3, 6, 7, and 8, and the eastern and
southern boundaries of the hazardous chemicals burial area.
Alternative 2 also includes the excavation and offsite disposal of a volume
of the most heavily contaminated material. In addition, the existing
volume of contaminated groundwater would be extracted, treated to meet
Federal standards, and returned to the aquifer via injection wells. A
surface seal would be installed to limit infiltration to any remaining
contaminated material. A 30-year groundwater monitoring program is
included to track any residual contamination.
Alternative 3 includes the excavation and offsite disposal of all the
contaminated soil. The volume of contaminated soil is defined by the depth
to seasonal high water table {35 ft), and the area outlined by the location
of wells 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 8, and the southern boundary of the waste
chemicals disposal area. The existing volume of contaminated groundwater
would be extracted, treated to completely remove all contaminants, and
returned to the aquifer via injection wells. A 30-year groundwater
monitoring program is included to track any residual contamination.
The clay cap installed in Alternative 4 would be designed to reduce
infiltration into the waste burial area and thus reduce the leaching of
material into the soil and groundwater beneath the site. Because of the
large number of volatile compounds buried at the site, a gas migration
control system is also included in the design. Revegetation of the layer
of topsoil and loam placed over the clay layer is included to stabilize the
soil and reduce surface runoff rates. A 30-year groundwater monitoring
program is recommended to track any migration of the existing volume of
contaminated groundwater.
Under Alternative 5, a program of groundwater sampling and analysis would
be maintained at the site for a 30-year period. Groundwater samples would
be collected on a quarterly basis from all 24 existing monitor well
4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
u
D
D
D
m
m
I
I
locations. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that a total
organic priority pollutant scan would be performed on each sample.
The costs for each alternative are summarized in Tables 4-1 through 4-5.
Table 4-6 is a summary table showing the total capital, annual operation
and maintenance, and present worth ·costs for all the alternatives. All the
costs were developed using information in the 1982 EPA publication
"Handbook for Remedial Action at Waste Disposal Sites." An exception is
the groundwater monitoring program costs which were developed from CDM's
analytical services price list. The Engineering Construction Cost Index
was used to update these values to 1985 dollars. An interest rate of 10
percent and a 30-year life was assumed for the present worth analysis •
. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 involve the removal and offsite disposal of source
material and contaminated soils. Alternative 3 assumes a worst case
scenario where all the contaminated material is removed. Alternatives 1
and 2 limit material removal to those areas most heavily contaminated.
Alternative 1 has the disadvantage of leaving the contaminated groundwater
in place, while Alternatives 2 and 3 include the recovery and treatment of
the contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives 4 and 5 involve about the same level of investment. In each
of these alternatives the source material and the contaminated groundwater
remain in place. Alternative 4 has the advantage of reducing the flow of
contaminated leachate to the groundwater system. However, the source of
the problem is not eliminated by these alternatives.
Without further information it is difficult to recommend any alternative
that would allow the contaminated groundwater to remain in place.
Currently, it appears there are no potential receptors downgradient of the
site. However, the bedrock system and fracture patterns in the vicinity of
the site must be studied to confirm this. Similarly, the contaminated
groundwater in the saprolite does not seem to be migrating rapidly away
from the site. If during the remedial investigation it is discovered that
the saprolite is hydraulically connected to a fracture system in the site
4-4
I
I
I
I
I Alternative Corrponent
I Excavation of 34,000 yd3
of source material and
contaminated soil
I Material transport to
disposal facility
I Disposal costs
I 30-year grounct.later
monitoring program
I SU3TOTAL
I Engineering (15% of
capital investment)
TOTAL u
g
u
D
m
m
I
I
TABLE 4-1
ALTERNATIVE 1
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
$50,360-$107,915
$2,532,950-
$5,445,595
$3,038,540-
$6,514,730
$5,621,850-
$12,068,240
$843,280-$1,810,240
$6,465,130-
$13,878,480
4-5
Annual
O&M Cost
$112,000-$240,000
$112,000-$240,000
$112,000-$240,000
Total Present
Worth Cost
$50,360-$107,915
$2,532,950-
$5,445,595
$3,038,540-
$6,514,730
$1,055,900-$2,262,500
$6,677,750-
$14,330,740
$843,280-$1,810,240
$7,521, 030-
$16,140,980
I
I
I
I
I Alternative Corrponent
I Excavation of 34,000 yd3
of source material and
contaminated soil
I Material transport to
disposal facility
I Disposal costs
I Extraction/Injection
Well System (4, 6-i"nch
diameter 45-feet deep
I wells; 4, 4-inch sub-
mersible purrps; 1,500
feet of 6-inch steel
I piping)
Ground..later Treatment
I (0.06 MGD modular
treatment system with
carbon adsorption, ion
exchange)
I Surfa~e sealing (1.5
acre site with 3 feet
m
of topsoil, 2 feet of
clay, and 3 feet silt
and sand buffer)
g Revegetation (capital
outlays include hydro-
seeding, lime, fertili-
D zer, seed, and hay
mulching; O&M costs
include mowing, refer-
D
t il izati on)
D
I
TABLE 4-2
ALTER NATI VE 2
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
$50,360-$107,915
$2,532,950-
$5,445,595
$3,038,540-
$6,514,730
$57,500-$123,000
$84,000-$180,000
$228,000-$490,000
$1,300-$2,850
4-6
Annual
O&M Cost
$1,150-$2,460
$12,000-$25,500
$560-$1,200
Total Present
Worth Cost
$50,360-$107,915
$2,532,950-
$5,445,595
$3,038,540-
$6,514,730
$68,500-$146,000
$198,000-$420,400
$228,000-$490,000
$6, 580-$14, 200
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative Conponent
30-year groundwater
rronitoring program
SUlTOTAL
Engineering (15% of
capital investment)
TOTAL
TABLE 4-2 (CONTINUED)
ALTER NATI VE 2
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
$5,992,650-
$12,864,090
$898,900-$1,929,615
$6,891,550-
$14, 793,705
4-7
Annual Total Present
O&M Cost Worth Cost
$112,000-$240,000 $1,055,900-$2,262,500
$125,710-$269,160 $7,178,830-
$15, 401,340
$898,900-1,929,615
$8,077, 730-
$125, 710-$269, 160 $17,330,955
'J
]
r1
I
I Alternative C~onent
I E xca vat ion of 68,000 yd 3
of source material and
I contaminated soil
Materia 1 transport to
disposal facility
I Disposal costs
I Extraction/Injection
Well System (4, 6-inch
I
diameter 45-feet deep
wells; 4, 4-inch sub-
mersible pumps; 1,500
feet of 6-inch steel
I piping)
Groundwater Treatment
I (0.06 MGD modular
treatment system with
carbon adsorption, ion
exchange)
I 30-ye3r groundwater
monitoring program
I SUBTOTAL
I Engineering (15% of
capital investment)
I TOTAL
I
I
I
TARLE 4-3
ALTERNATIVE 3
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
$100,800-$216,000
$5,070,000-
$10,900,000
$/i,082,000-
$13,040,000
$57,500-$123,000
$84,000-$180,000
$11,394, 300-
$24,459,000
$1, 710,000-
$3,670,000
$13,104, 300-
$28; 129,000
4-8
Annual
O&M Cost
$2,300-$4,920
$12,000-$25,500
$112,000-$240,000
$126,300-$270,420
$126,300-$270,420
Total Present
Worth Cost
$100,800-$216,000
$5,070,000-
$10,900,000
$6,082,000-
$13,040,000
$79,200-$170,000
$198,000-$420,400
$1,055,900-$2,262,500
$12,585,900-
$27, 008, 900
$1,710,000-
$3,670,000
$14,295,900-
$30,678,900
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative Cooponent
Surface sealing (1.5
acre site with 3 feet
of topsoil, 2 feet of
clay, and 3 feet silt
and sand buffer)
TABLE 4-4
ALTERNATIVE 4
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
$228,000-$490,000
Annual
O&M Cost
Total Present
Worth Cost
$228,000-$490,000
Revegetation (capital $1,300-$2,850 $560-$1,200 $6,580-$14,200
outlays include hydro-
seeding, lime, fertili-
zer, seed, and hay
rrulch'ing; O&M costs
include mowing, refer-
tilization)
Gas migration control $16,500-$35,400 $1,120-$2,400 $27,100-$58,100
(24 pipe vents, 6-feet
in length, 4-inch diameter
pipe with 6-inch PVC
casing, rrushroom tops and
fan for each)
30-year groundwater $112,000-$240,000 $1,055,900-$2,262,500
100nitori ng program
SLeTOJAL $245,800-$528,250 $113,680-$243,600 $1,317,580-$2,824,800
Engineering (15% of $37,000-$80,000 $37,000-$80,000
capital investment)
TOTAL $282,800-$608,250 $113,680-$243,600 $1,354,580-$2,904,800
4-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• a
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alternative Conponent
30-year groundwater
rronitoring program
including quarterly
samples at 24 wells
and full priority
po 11 utant scan
TOTAL
TABLE 4-5
ALTERNATIVE 5
COST ESTIMATE
Capital Cost
Annual
O&M Cost
Total Present
Worth Cost
$112,000-$240,000 $1,055,900-$2,262,500
$112,000-$240,000 $1,055,900-$2,262,500
\
4-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4-6
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE SlfflARY
Annual
Alternative Description Capital Cost O&M Cost
1 Excavation and $6,465,130-$112,000-$240,000
offsite disp~sal $13,878,480
of 34,000 yd of
contaminated
material, 30-year
groundwater moni-
tori ng program
2 Excavation and $6,891,550-$125,710-$269,160
offsite disp~sal $14,793,705
of 34,000 yd
of contaminated
material, recovery
and treatrrent of
contaminated
groundwater, sur-
face sealing and
revegetat ion,
30-year ground-
water monitoring
program
3 Excavation and $13,104,300-$126,300-$270,420
offsite disp~sal $28,129,000
of 68,000 yd of
contaminated
material, recovery
and t reatrrent of
contaminated
groundwater, 30-
year groundwater
monitoring program
4 Surface sealing, $282,800-$608,250 $113,680-$243,600
revegetati on,
gas migration
control, 30-year
groundwater moni--
tori ng program
5 No action, 30-$112,000-$240,000
year groundwater
monitoring program
4-11
Total Present
Worth Cost
$7,521,030-
$16,140,980
$8,077,730-
$17,330,955
$14,295,900-
$30,678,900
$1,354,580-$2,904,800
$1,055,900-$2,262,500
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
vicinity, contaminated groundwater may in fact be rapidly migrating away
from the site.
Given the size of the site and the limited volume of source material, it
seems that excavation of this material and the most heavily contaminated
soils is a feasible remedial alternative for the site. Although the sit~
is currently isolated from the population, alternatives leaving the waste
and contaminated groundwater in place may not be acceptable because they
could limit future development of the area.
4-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
5. 0 REFERENCES
Liddle, S. K. April 1984. Trace Element Analysis of the Groundwater
Around a Hazardous Waste Landfill 1n the Piedmont of North Carolina,
presented at the Triangle Conference on Technology.
Liddle, S.K. May 1984. Trace Element Analysis of the Groundwater at a
Hazardous Waste Landfill in the Piedmont of North Carolina: M.S. Thesis,
Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, N.C. State
University.
McDade, J.A. December 1983. A al Methods to -+C..,..~-~--n-,.,-~--'-~-'-'-"--''-i--,-...,..::..;...,.....:..:....,..c.._~~ the Evaluation of Waste Disposa hesis,
Department of Marine, Earth, and mosp er1c c1ences, . • ate
University.
McDade, J.A., Won, I.J., and Welby, C.W. January 30, 1984. Application of
Surface Geophysical Methods to the Hydrogeological Evaluation of Waste
Disposal Sites in North Carolina, Final Report to the North Carolina Board
of Science and Technology.
Parker, J.M. II. 1979. Geology and Mineral Resources of W :
North Carolina De artment of Natural Resources and Commun1t ment
u 1 et in
Welby, C. W. and Wilson, T. M. August 1982.
Yield Data from Ground Water Based Communit
round Water lanning and Management.
Use of Geologic and Water
Water S stems as a Guide for
Welby, C. W. April 1983. Evaluation of the Geolotic Parameters of a
Hazardous Waste Site in the Piedmont of North Caro 1na, presented at the
Triangle Conference on Environmental Technology.
5-1
I
D
I
m
E
I
I
I
I APPENDIX
I Site History
I
I
I
;I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
n
I
I
I
I
I
Date
1969
November 1980
June B, 1981
February 7, 1982
August 24-25, 1982
August 30, 1982
December 18, 1982
February 1983
February 13, 1983
TABLE A-1
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE HISTORY
Event
N.C. State University selected Lot 86, Farm Unit
Number 1 as a burial site for laboratory wastes.
The site was divided into two separate areas for
the disposal of hazardous chemicals and low-level
radioactive wastes.
Burial of waste discontinued at the site in order
to comply with the regulations promulgated by EPA
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
To comply with Section 103c of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), a Notification of a Hazardous
Waste Site form was filed.
Soil samples numbered 3-10 and 4-10 collected at
the burial site. A headspace analysis was done.
Trace toluene detected.
Monitor wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 installed. Split
ipoon samples were taken at 5-foot intervals along
with blow counts (10-foot intervals used at well
location 4). Split spoon samples analyzed in
laboratory using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA).
Split spoon samples from wells 1 and 2 extracted
and analyzed using GC/MS. Shelby tube cores
collected from well locations 2, 3, and 4 for
permeability determinations.
Weekly water level measurements at wells 1, 2, 3,
and 4 began.
Duplicate samples collected from all four wells for
analysis using atomic absorption spectrophotometry
(AAS) •
Bailing test performed on wells 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 2, 3,
and 4 for analysis using AAS and NAA.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
D
I
I
I
Date
March 13, 1983
April 1983
May 3, 1983
June 2, 1983
August 1983
October 31, 1983
December 19-20, 1983
January 30, 1984
February 14, 1984
February 18, 1984
TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
S !TE HI STORY
Event
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 2, 3,
and 4 for analysis using AAS and NAA.
nr. Charles W. Welby presented the paper
"Evaluation of the Geologic Parameters of a
Hazardous Waste Site in the Piedmont of North
Carolina" at the 1983 Triangle Conference on
Environmental Technology held at Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
Groundwater samples collecterl from wells 1, 2, 3,
and 4 for analysis using AAS and NAA.
EPA Preliminary Assessment form completed by a
respresentative of the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Branch of the North Carolina Division of Health
Services. Groundwater samples were collected from
wells 1, 2, 3, and 4 and submitted to the
Division's Occupational Health Laboratory for GC/MS
analysis.
Bailing test performed on wells 1, 2, 3, and·4.
Weekly measurement of pH and specific conductivity
begins at wells 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Monitor wells 5, 6, 7, and 8 installed. Split
spoon samples from various depths analyzed for
volatile organics using GC/MS. Also used in NAA
analyses.
McDade, J.A., Won, 1.J., and Welby, C.W. publish
"Application of Surface Geophysical Methods to the
Hydrogeological Evaluation of Waste Disposal Sites
in North Carolina". This was the final report to
the North Carolina Board of Science and Technology
for work done under Grant No. 3113.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1 through
8 for analysis using AAS and NAA.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 2, 4, and
8 for GC/MS analyses.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
n
D
D
I I
I
I
Date
March 1, 1984
March 22, 1984
April 1984
April 13, 1984
May 9, 1984
May 15, 1984
May 17, 1984
May/June 1984
June 1, 1984
June 8, 1984
July 16, 1984
TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
S !TE HISTORY
Event
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1 and 6
for GC/MS analyses.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 3, 5, and
7 for GC/MS analyses.
Susan K. Liddle presenterl the paper "Trace Element
Analysis of the Groundwater Around a Hazardous
Waste Landfill in the Piedmont of North Carolina"
at the 1984 Triangle Conference on Environmental
Technology held at Duke University.
Groundwater samples collected from well 3 for GC/MS
analyses.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1 through
8 for AAS and NAA analyses.
Monitor wells 9 and 10 installed. Split spoon
samples from various depths analyzed for volatile
organics using GC/MS. Also used in NAA analyses.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 6, 9 and
10 for GC/MS, AAS, and NAA analyses.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score sheets and docu-
mentation records completed.
Site inspection by EPA and North Carolina Division
of Health Services' {OHS) Solid and Hazardous Waste
Branch. No samples collected.
Bailing tests, wells 9 and 10.
Groundwater samples collected from the Carter-
Finley Stadium irrigation well and the Medlin
residence well for analysis using AAS and NAA.
These samples were also submitted to the State
Laboratory of Public Health for GC/MS analyses.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
July 18, 1984
October 1984
October 24, 1984
November 29-30, 1984
December 3, 1984
De~ember 19-20, 1984
January 22, 1985
January 24, 1985
February 5, 1985
February 19, 1985
February 22, 1985
TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE HISTORY
Event
Site inspection by North Carolina DHS. Groundwater
samples collected from wells 1, 4, and 10. These
samples were split between NCSU and DHS. NCSU
analyzed samples using AAS and NAA. DHS conducted
inorganic analyses as well as GC/MS analysis on
these samples.
EPA selected the N.C. State University, Lot 86 site
for inclusion on the proposed expansion of National
Priorities List (NPL) sites.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 2, 4,
and 8 for VOA analyses using GC/MS.
Groundwater samples collected from monitor wells 3
and 7, the Medlin residence well, and the 208 Marsh
Ave. well. A sample of Raleigh city water was
taken from the North Hills area. All samples were
analyzed for volatile organics using GC/MS.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 5, 6, 9,
and 10 for volatile organic analyse~ (VOA) using
GC/MS.
Monitor wells 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 installed.
Groundwater sample collected from wells 14 and 15
for VOA analyses using GC/MS.
Groundwater sample collected from wells 11, 12, and
13 for VOA analyses using GC/MS.
EPA issues Work Assignment to Camp Dresser & McKee
(CDM) for Forward Planning Study.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 4, 11,
12, 13, 14, and 15 for AAS, NAA, and VOA analyses.
Bailing test performed on wells 11, 12, and 13.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Date
March 19, 1985
March 28, 1985
April 1, 1985
Apri 1 16, 1985
April 22, 1985.
May 1985
TABLE A-1 (CONTINUED)
N.C. STATE UNIVERSITY, LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
SITE HISTORY
Event
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1 anrl 8
for VOA analyses using GC/MS, and for enrichment
experiments for heavier compounds.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 2, 6,
7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 for VOA analyses
using GC/MS.
Groundwater samples collected from wells 1, 2, and
8 for use in QA/QC check on GC/MS analyses.
Site visit by EPA and CDM.
Bailing tests, wells 14 and 15.
Monitor wells lA, 18, 5A, 58, 16, 17, 18, 19, and
20 installed.
5