NCD980557656_19921201_NC State University (Lot 86 Farm Unit 1)_FRCBERCLA FS_Draft RI FS Work Plan (2)-OCR

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I DRAFT RI/FS WORK PLAN
NORTH CAROLINA STA TE UNIVERSITY
I LOT 86 SITE
Raleigh, North Carolina
I December 1992
I
I
I
I
: I
,,
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rf f J Utt; 1 0 1992
WORK PLAN
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
LOT 86 SITE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
SUBMITTED TO
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
PREPARED BY
BROWN AND CALDWELL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... .
I. I General Background ........................................... .
1.2 RI/FS Goals ................................................. .
1.3 Status of Site Data ............................................ .
I .4 Scope of the Work Plan ......................................... .
1.5 Technical Approach ............................................ .
CHAPTER 2.0 SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING ...................... .
2.1 General .................................................... .
2.2 Site Description ............................................... .
2.3 Site History ................................................. .
2.4 Previous Studies .............................................. .
2.5 Environmental Setting .......................................... .
2.5.1 Regional Physiography and Climate ........................... .
2.5.2 Site Drainage Patterns .................................... .
2.5.3 Area Potable Water Supply Wells ............................ .
2.5.4 Flora and Fauna ......................................... .
2.5.5 Regional and Site Hydrogeology ............................. .
2.5.6 Migration Potential ...................................... .
CHAPTER 3.0 INITlAL EVALUATION ................................ .
3.1 Contaminants of Potential Concern ................................. .
3.2 Potential Migration Pathways ..................................... .
3.2.1 Source Areas ........................................... .
3.2.1.1 Chemical Waste Disposal Area ........................ .
3.2.1.2 LLRW Trenches .................................. .
3.2.2 Groundwater ........................................... .
3.3 Areas of Potential Concern and Data Needs ........................... .
3.3.1 Known Areas .......................................... .
3.3.2 Unknown Areas ......................................... .
3.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements .................... .
3.5 Response Objectives and Remedial Action Alternatives ................... .
3.5.1 Introduction ........................................... .
3.5.2 Identification of Remedial Alternatives ......................... .
3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative .............................. .
3.5.2.2 Containment ..................................... .
3.5.2.3 Treatment With Walk Away Potential ................... .
3.5.2.4 Treatment Reducing Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility
or Volume ...................................... .
3.5.3 Preliminary Identification and Screening of General Response Actions ... .
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-4
1-4
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-4
2-13
2-13
2-15
2-15
2-15
2-16
2-17
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-3
3-13
3-14
3-14
3-14
3-16
3-16
3-16
3-16
3-18
3-18
3-18
3-18
3-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
3.5.7
3.5.8
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Performance Criteria and Standards for General Response Actions ..... .
3.5.4.1 Environmental Protection ............................ .
3.5.4.2 Public Health .................................... .
3.5.4.3 Institutional ..................................... .
3.5.4.4 Cost .......................................... .
Approach to Alternative Evaluation ........................... .
Identification of Data Requirements ........................... .
Treatability Study ....................................... .
Feasibility Study ........................................ .
CHAPTER 4.0 WORK PLAN RATIONALE .............................. .
4.1 Data Quality Objectives ......................................... .
4.1.1 Approach to RI/FS Data Collection ........................... .
4.1.2 General Rationale for Sample Locations and
Analytical Parameters ..................................... .
4.2 Work Plan Approach ........................................... .
4.2.1 Chemical Waste Disposal Area .............................. .
4.2.2 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area .................... .
4.2.3 Groundwater Quality Investigation ............................ .
4.2.4 Site Specific Fate and Transport ............................. .
4.3 Analytical Program ............................................ .
CHAPTER 5.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS ...................... .
5.1 Field Investigation Tasks ........................................ .
5.1.1 Project Planning ........................................ .
5.1.2 Procurement of Subcontractors/Mobilization ..................... .
5.1.3 Community Relations ..................................... .
5.1.4 Determination of Sampling Locations .......................... .
5.1.4.1 Chemical Waste Disposal Area and Low Level Radioactive
Waste Area ..................................... .
5.1.4.2 Groundwater .................................... .
5.1.5 Coordination with EPA ................................... .
5.1.6 Field Investigation Tasks .................................. .
5.1.7 Surveying ............................................. .
5.2 Analytical Data Management and Validation ........................... .
5.2.1 Analytical Data Management ................................ .
5.2.2 Data Validation ......................................... .
5.3 Data Evaluation ............................................... .
11
3-19
3-19
3-21
3-21
3-22
3-23
3-23
3-24
3-24
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-9
4-10
4-10
4-10
4-12
4-13
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-7
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-8
5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONTENTS
(Continued)
5.4 Evaluate Remedial Alternatives Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.5 Remedial Investigation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.6 Propose Treatability Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
CHAPTER 6.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY TASKS............................. 6-1
6.1 Remedial Alternatives Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Remedial Alternatives Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.3 Detailed Analysis of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.4 Feasibility Study Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
CHAPTER 7.0 SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
lll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Number
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
2-6
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
5-1
5-2
LIST OF TABLES
Representative List of Chemicals Included in Waste Burials ............ .
Quantities of Buried Radionuclides at the LLRW Disposal Area,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina .............. .
Summary of Quantified Organic Contaminant Concentrations Based
on Groundwater Sampling, June 1983 to July 1986, NCSU, Lot 86,
Fann Unit #1 Site ......................................... .
Summary of Inorganic Contaminant Concentrations Based on
Groundwater Sampling, June I 983 to July 1986, NCSU, Lot 86,
Fann Unit #I Site ......................................... .
Peale Concentrations of Tetrachloroethene, Chloroform, and Carbon
Tetrachloride in Groundwater (March 1985 through July 1986) .......... .
Groundwater Radioactivity Survey Results (1985) for the LLRW
Disposal Area. North Carolina State University Site, Raleigh, NC ........ .
Typical Hazardous Waste Disposal Per Month ...................... .
Volatile Organic Analyses Results. June 2, 1983 Samples .............. .
Results of July 1984 Sampling, Organic Analyses ................... .
Analytical Results of July 1984 Sampling, Standard Drinking
Water Parameters .......................................... . Results of Volatile Organic Analyses Using Purge and Trap Method,
October 1984 through March I 985 .............................. . Results of Volatile Organic Analyses. June 4, 1985 Samples ............ . Federal and State ARARs Developed for the Lot 86 Site .............. . Summary of Potential General Response Actions and Associated
Remedial Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
Data Quality Objectives--Chemical Waste Disposal Area and
Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area ...................... .
Data Quality Objectives--Groundwater ........................... .
North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCLs/MCLGs ................................... .
Analytical Parameters (Contract Laboratory Program 3/90 SOW) ......... .
Summary of Analytical Levels Appropriate to Data Use ............... .
2-5
2-8
2-9
2-11
2-12
2-14
3-2
3-4
3-5
3-6
3.7
3-10
3-17
3-20
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-14
4-15
Estimated QNQC Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Proposed RI Repon Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
6-1 Proposed Format for Feasibility Study Repon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
IV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Number
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
7-1
Lot 86 Site, Site Plan
Phased RI/FS Process
LIST OF FIGURES
........................................
........................................
1-2
1-3
Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Site Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Chemical Waste Disposal Area Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area Conceptual Model . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Site Model for the Groundwater Operable Unit
North Carolina University Lot 86 Site RI/FS, Field Screening
Procedure for Surface/Subsurface Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
Lot 86 Site, Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Subsurface Soil Sample Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Monitoring System Layout and Test Boring Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Site,
Monitoring Well Locations and Waste Disposal Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Site RI/FS Summary Schedule . . . . . 7-2
W0RKPL\.N\7200TC.WP
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
I. I GENERAL BACKGROUND
This work plan describes the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (Rl/FS)
program to be conducted for the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, Lot Number 86 in ac-
cordance with the Administrative Order by Consent (USEPA, 1991), EPA Docket No. 91-24-C.
The site is located on the west side of Raleigh, near Carter-Finley Stadium, approximately
100 feet south of the southern right-of-way of the Wade Avenue extension. The Wade Avenue
extension connects with Interstate 40, a heavily travelled freeway carrying commuter traffic
between Raleigh and Research Triangle Park.
The site is approximately 1.45 acres (Figure 1-1) and is located on, as
well as surrounded by, state-owned property. North Carolina State University
(hereafter referred to as NCSU) selected Lot 86 (of farm unit number I) in
1969, as a burial site for hazardous chemical waste and low-level radioactive
waste generated in the University's educational and research laboratories. ■ In October 1984, the Lot 86 site was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). This determination was
reached based on prior sampling/inspections carried out by the USEPA and the North Carolina
Department of Health Services.
1.2 RI/FS GOALS
The goal of the RI/FS program is to assess the extent, magnitude, and impact of any
contamination, and to develop an appropriate remedy for the site if it is determined to pose a
threat to human health and/or the environmenL
The RI process serves as the mechanism for collecting data for source
and migration pathway characterization and for conducting the risk assessment
and testing necessary to aid in the FS process. The FS process uses the
information collected during the RI to develop, screen, and evaluate potential
remedial alternatives. The processes are conducted concurrently, with phased
data collection to provide only information relevant to the selection of a
remedial action. A schematic representation of this process is included as Figure 1-2.
1.3 STATUS OF SITE DATA
Previously collected data are referenced in this work plan and were used in developing
the scoping activities. Data are presented within this document as a summary of previous
BROWN ltND CALDWELL 1-1 W.tPfta.O.C---lWl
T]
lO
C --,
CD
U), -·o ,-+ r+ CD
7J co
-(J) 0
:::J U)
r+
CD
370'
0
fROM:
• Preliminary
Assessment
• Site
Inspection
• NPL Listing
BG Brown and Caldwell
rnn-e-1 ,lt,-,,nt<"'
- -
SCOPING OF
THE RI/FS
• Collect And
Analyze Existing
Data
• Identify Initial
Project, Likely
Responses
Scenarios, And
Remedial Action
Objectives
• lnillole Federal/
State ARAR
Identification
• Identify Initial
Dalo l)Jolily
Objectives (DQOs)
• Prepare Pro ~ct
Plans
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
• Conduct Field Investigation
• Define Nature And Extent
Of Coolominolioo (Waste
Twes, Concentrations,
Distributions)
• Identify f ederol/Slole
Chemical-And Location-
Specific ARARs
• Conduct Baseline Risk
Assessment
TREAT ABILITY
INVESTIGATIONS
• Perform Bench Or
Pilot Treotobility
Tests As Necessary
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING
or ALTERNATIVES
• Identify Potential Treatment
Technologies Containment/Disposal
Required For Residuals Or Untreated
Waste
• Screen Technologies And
Assemble T ethnologies
Into Alternatives
• Screen Alternatives As
Necessary To Reduce
Number Subject To
Detailed Anoly.;is
• Preserve An Appropriate
Range Of Options
• Identify Action-Specific
ARARs
DETAILED ANALYSIS or ALTERNATIVES
• Further Refine
Alternatives As
Necessary
• Analyze Alternatives
Against The Nine
Criteria
• Compare Alternatives
Against Each other
Figure 1-2 Phased RI/FS Process
-!
TO:
Conducting R1.:111cdi.JI
Investigations And
Feasibility StuJies llr1dt:r
CERCLA, Oclooer 19B6.
• Remedy Selection
• Record Of Decision
• Remedial Design
• Remedial Action
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
investigations and will be utilired as a part of the RI/FS study. Chemicals, as well as low-level
radioactive materials, have been detected in previous investigations and sampling events
conducted at the site; however, the precision and accuracy of the analytical results have not
been confirmed by Brown and Caldwell Consultants (BCC). The data to be collected during
this investigation are intended to characterire the site in a logical and focused manner.
1.4 SCOPE OF THE WORK PLAN
The RI/FS will evaluate the chemical and radioactive waste sources as a single unit
Groundwater quality and physical characteristics will be evaluated over the entire study area,
and is the media of chief concern. The results of these investigations will be incorporated into
one RI/FS report.
The RI/FS work plan is one of four plans being prepared to complete the RI/FS for the
site. The other plans include a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), Quality Assurance Project
Plan (QAPP), and the Site Health and Safety Plan (SHSP).
The purpose of this work plan is to summarize existing data, define the RI/FS objectives,
and propose methods and procedures to achieve those objectives. The work plan has been pre-
pared and organired in accordance with USEPA Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (October 1988).
1.5 TECHNICAL APPROACH
The technical approach to the execution of this project is governed by four guidelines:
• Previously completed work. A substantial amount of useful information
has been developed by the University and USEPA contractors. Most of
the waste characterization task and the groundwater quality monitoring
effort have been completed.
• Focus. All new project efforts will remain focused on the immediate
project goals; that is, the collection of a sufficient quantity of good
quality data needed to complete the site assessment, support the risk
assessment, and the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
• Phased work. If needed, the data collection and evaluation tasks may
be phased to maximire the potential economy of effort. In addition, this
approach makes it possible to halt further studies if it becomes apparent
that sufficient data has been collected, without the possible waste of
limited financial and schedule resources.
• Flexibility. A field screening subtask will be utilized to select media
samples for laboratory analysis, support the selection of monitoring well
BROWN AND CAllJWEU. 1-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
locations, and to make on-site decisions relative to the need for additional
test borings or surface soil sampling locations. This strategy makes it
possible to optimize the assessment task while operating in the field, thus
avoiding the time-consuming and costly need for a remobilization at a
later date.
WORKPLAN\7200CHI.WP
BROWN AND CALDWEJ.L 1-5 WftPftlll.~1"1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2.0
SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING
2.1 GENERAL
This section provides descriptive and historical information relative to the NCSU site
and summarires the environmental factors which may influence contaminant fate and migration.
The majority of the text presented in this chapter is extracted and compiled from previously
published information. This information was obtained from previous site investigation and
assessment reports, and from technical documents published by the United States and North
Carolina Geological Surveys. Sources of information are presented following Chapter 7.0.
2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The 1.5-acre site is located in Wake County; furthermore, 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 NCSU students,
faculty, 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 (Figure 2-1).
2.3 SITE HISTORY
NCSU selected Lot 86 of Farm Unit No. l in 1969 as a burial site for 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 2-2; the
western half to receive hazardous chemical waste, and the eastern half to receive low-level
radioactive waste (LLRW). Burial of waste was discontinued in November 1980 to comply
with regulations promulgated under the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) in October 1984, based on an
inspection completed earlier in June. The USEPA and North Carolina OHS (Division of Health
Services), Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, completed hazard ranking score sheets for the
site and determined the degree of contamination to warrant inclusion on the NPL. The types
BROWN AND CALDWELL 2-1 W.t Pia • o.a,.l,w lf'n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I RALEIGH, N.C.
I
I
I Figure 2-1 Vicinity Map
I BG~-:Scaldwell =
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•\ '·
ii
I " II .
Figure 2-2 North Carolina State University
Lot 86 Site Study Area
if
.. · .• ~ ,c.t\,
).,....-~
,:1 .. ···-
BG BrownandCaldw91
Coreuttana
Li.QI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2. SITE BACKGROUND AND SEIT/NG
of chemicals reported to have been buried at the site include solvents,
pesticides, inorganics, acids, and bases (Table 2-1).
The chemical wastes were placed in trenches located in the northwest
portion of the site. The trenches were approximately JO feet deep and varied
from 50 to 150 feet Jong. After filling, about 2 feet of native soil, which was
excavated during trench construction, was used as cover material. Later, the disturbed area was
seeded with grass. The University records show that approximately 22 trenches totalling
approximately 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.
NCSU reported on the CERCLA Section J03(c) Hazardous Waste Notification form filed
June 8, 1981, that it had disposed of approximately 300,000 cubic feet or about I 1,000 cubic
yards of waste at the site. NCSU maintains that this quantity includes lightly contaminated soil
and water as well as actual waste materials.
According to available information, radiological wastes were buried in the eastern
portion of the site in trenches approximately 6 feet deep with 4 feet of cover material. The
waste thickness was reported to be 2 feet. Records concerning waste disposal in this area are
maintained by the NCSU Radiation Protection Office in complete conformance with applicable
AEC/NRC regulations. These records indicate that the wastes were properly disposed at the
~;I~!~~~1;,~§~2E~E~ ~
2.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES
Previous investigations by USEPA contractors and sampling by NCSU
researchers at the Lot 86 site have suggested that groundwater beneath the site
is contaminated with a number of organic and inorganic constituents.
Reportedly, contaminated groundwater has migrated at least JOO feet beyond
the site boundary in the residual soil aquifer. A summary of the results of
groundwater sampling and analyses performed between June 1983 and July
I 986 is presented in Tables 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. The highest concentrations have been reported
for chloroform [maximum 391,500 parts per billion (ppb)J, 1,1,2-trichloroethene (24,050 ppb),
benzene (128,500 ppb), 1,2-dichloropropane (142,450 ppb), diethylether (460,000 ppb), and
1,2-dibromomethane (25,850 ppb). The most frequently detected organic compounds in site
groundwater were halogenated volatile organic chemicals including chloroform,
tetrachloroethane, xylene, carbon tetrachloride, and 1,1,1-trichloromethane.
BROWN AND CALDWFLL 2-4 wn Pim.~ 1,n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1 Representative List of Chemicals Included in Waste Burials
Aliphatic Alcohols
1-butanol
2-chloroethanol
ethanol
dihydroxypropane
ethylene glycol
isopropanol (propyl alcohol)
methanol
2-methyl-1-propanol (propyl alcohol)
pentanol
2-pentanol
propanol (propyl alcohol)
2-propanol (propyl alcohol)
Miscellaneous Solvents
ethylbenzene
acetonitrile
benzene
cyclohexane
1,4-dioxane
ether
ethyl acetate
ethyl ether
heplalle
hexane
iso-octane (octane)
nitrobenzene
penlaile
pyridine
tetrahydrofuran (THF)
toluene
p-xylene
Inorganics
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
boron
bromine (bromide)
cadmium
chloride (chlorine)
cobalt
copper
chromium
cyanide
fluoride
Chemicals
Inorganics
iodine (iodide)
iron
lead
lithium (hydride)
magnesium (oxide)
manganese
mercury
molybdenum
nickel
phosphorus
potassium
selenium
silver
sodium
strontium
sulfur
thallium
tin
titanium
zinc
Ketones
acetone
2-butanone
methyl ethyl ketone
4-methyl 2-pentanone
2-pentanone
Aldehydes
acetaldehyde
benzaldehyde
formaldehyde
Bases
potassium hydroxide
sodium hydroxide
Oxidants
benzoyl peroxide
hydrogen peroxide
potassium permanganate
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1 Representative List of Chemicals Included in Waste Burials (continued)
Miscellaneous Organics
acenapthene
acroleio
acrylonitrile
2--chloroethyl ether
di-n-butylphthalale
2-methylbutane
4-methylpeot-1-ene
nitromethane
nitrotoluene
Acids
styrene
p-toluidine
trioxymethylene
diethyl ether
acetic acid
benzoic acid
boric acid
chloroacetic acid
chromic acid
2-5-dinitrobenwic acid
formic acid
hydrochloric acid
hydrofluoric acid
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
trifiuoroacetic acid
Phenols
p-chlorophenol
2,4-dinitrophenol
p-nitrophenol
phenol
Chemicals
Pesticides/Hemicides/Fungicides
airazioe
cart>ofuran
2.4-D
DDE
DDT
endrin
ethylene dibrcmide
malathion
methoxychlor
parathion
sevin
toxaphene
Amines
bisacrylamide
aniline
N-butylamine
dibutylamine
diethylamine
N,N-dimethyl formamide (DMF)
diphenylamine
N,N-diphenyl-p-phenylene-diamine
dipropylamine
etbylenediamine
N-propylamine
letraethylene diamine
tributylamine
triethylamine
trimethylamine
Halogenaled Hydrocarbons
bromobenzene
bromoethane
carbon lettachloride
chlorobemene
2--chloro-2-methylpropane
chloroform
1,2-dibromoethane
1,2-dichloroethane
dichloroethane
2,4-dinittochlorobenzene
ethylene bromide
methylene chloride
perchloroethylene
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-1 Representative List of Chemicals Included in Waste Burials (continued)
Halogenated Hydrocarbons
tetrachloroethane
tetrachloroetbylene
trichlorobenrene
trichloroetbylene
dichloromethane-1.2-dichloropropane
I, I, 1-trichlorethane (methyl chlorofOIIll)
Source: USEPA, 1987.
WORKPLAN\7200T'2-1. WP
Chemicals
PAHS (polyaromataic hydrocarbons
benzidioe
bipheoyl
bromonaphtbaleoe
chloronaphthaleoe
chrysene
oaptbaleoe
heoanthreoe
-------------------
Table 2-2 Quantities of Buried Radionuclides at the LLRW Disposal Area
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Documented on-site quantities (milliCuries or mCi) at burial date
Radioactive element Trenches
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 No. 8 No. 9
Burial period:
Begin: Apr-70 Jul-71 Aug-72 Oct-73 Nov-74 Mar-76 Mar-77 Jan-79 Pcb-80
End: Jun-71 Jul-72 Sep-73 Oct-74 Nov-76 Fcb-77 Dec-78 Jan-80 Peb-81
Mid-point: Nov-70 Jan-72 Mar-73 Apr-74 Nov-75 Aug-76 Jan-78 Jul-79 Aug-80
Cadmium-109 (Cd-109) 0.040 2.556 0.755 1.250 0.560 0.060 1.130 0.652
Calcium-45 (Ca-45) 0.955 0.090 0.115 0.005 0.050
Carbon-14 (C-14) 10.633 8.807 2.203 6.852 6.032 21.290 13.859 4.660 0.171
Cesium-137 (Cs-137) 0.210
Chlorine-36 Cl-36) 0.047 0.100 0.145 0.235 0.010 0.135 ---------------------------------t----------t----------t-----------------------------------------------------------Chromium-51 (Cr-51) 0.200 2.500 3.005
Cobalt-60 (Co-60) 0.010 0.150
Coppcr-64 (Cu-64) 0.100 0.400
Hydrogen-3 (H-3 or Tritium) 74.152 4.301 47.770 45.647 16.070 18.210 43.250 75.890 0.650
Iron-59 (Fe-59) 0.035 0.060 ----------------------------------t---------· t---------· t----------t--------------------------------------------------Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) 0.050 0.161 2.510 0.015
Nickel-63 (Ni-63) 0.040
Phosphorus-32 (P-32) 1.145 0.907 0.760 0.400 0.440 0.910
Sodium-22 (Na-22) 0.025
Sulfur-35 (S-35) 0.650 0.020 0.110 0.104 0.070 0.135 -----------------------------------------· -----·. --------· 1----------t---------· ---------t---------· r--------· t---------· Vanadium-48 (V-48) 0.008
Zinc-65 (Zn-65) 0.850 0.430 0.388 0.443 0.340 0.900 2.400 3.495 0.790
Natural uranium 0.011
(or 33g) ---------------------------------------------------------· --------t---------· --------1----------r---------· 1----------Total of all radioactive elements 88.472 14.776 56.627 54.487 26.957 41.710 60.724 88.380 2.481
Source: NCSU Radiation Protection Office, May 1987.
All
trenches
-----
-----
-----
7.003
1.215
74.507
0.210
0.672 ----------5.705
0.160
0.500
325.940
0.095 ----------2.736
0.040
4.562
0.025
1.089 ----------0.008
10.036
0.011
r-----------434.514
- - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - -
Table 2-3 Summary of Quantified Organic Contaminant Concentrations Based on Groundwater Sampling,
June 1983 to July 1986, NCSU, Lot 86, Farm Unit #1 Site
Range of Number of samples
Contaminant concentration, detectecV Location Date
µg/1 analyzed
Bromoform <10 -10,370 1/23 MW-I 6/83
· Ethylene dibromide 0.085 · 2,300 3/5 MW-I 7/84
Carbon tetrachloride 10 -2,665 9/23 MW-I 3/85
Chloroform 10-391,500 14/23 MW-I 3/85
[MW-2]'
Methylene chloride <10 -3,800 3/23 MW-I 7/86
I, I, I -Trichloroethane <10 -17,150 9/23 MW-I 3/85
I, I ,2-Trichloroethane 3,200 -8,930 1/23 MW-I 7/84"
I, I ,2-Trichloroethene IO -24,050 8/23 MW-I 3/85
Atrazine 83 1/23 MW-I 7/84'
Benzene 2 · 128,500 4/23 MW-I 3/85
Bro mo benzene 345 -840 1/23 MW-I 3/85
Bromochloroethane 110 -1,040 1/23 MW-I 3/85
Bromodichloroethane 18 -220 2/23 MW-I 10/84
Chlorobenzene 20 -365 2/23 MW-I 3/85
1,2-Dibromomethane <10 -25,850 5/23 MW-I 3/85
Dichloromethane 10-810 6/23 MW-I, MW-6 3/85, 12/84
1,2-Dichloropropane 23 -142,450 7/23 MW-I 3/85
1,3-Dichloropropane 400 -1,230 1/23 MW-I 3/85
Diethylether 38 -460,000 6/23 MW-I 3/85
[MW-2]'
Ethyl benzene 10 -3,935 4/23 MW-I 3/85
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 95 -8,530 3/23 MW-I, MW-6 3/85
1-Pentene <10 -80 2/23 MW-2 3/85
2-Propanone 185 -1,335 2/23 MW-I 2/85
Tetrachloroethene <10 -280 15/23 MW-2, MW-I 6,85, 7/86
Toluene <10 -16,850 7/23 MW-6, MW-I 12/84, 3/85
-------------------
Table 2-3 Summary of Quantified Organic Contaminant Concentrations Based on Groundwater Sampling,
June 1983 to July 1986, NCSU, Lot 86, Farm Unit #1 Site (continued)
Range of
Contaminant concentration,
µg/1
Xylene-A+B isomers <10 -10,200
Methyl benzene 500 -1,600
Tetrachloromethane 100 -1,400
2-Butanone 133
1,4-Dioxane 12 -242
' Analyzed by AAS.
' 10/84 samples saturated column for this compound. Analysis by NCSU.
DL
IEA
DHS
NCSU
=
=
=
=
detection limit.
Industrial and Environmental Analysts, Inc.
Department of Health Services (State of North Carolina).
North Carolina State University.
Number of samples
detected/ Location Date
analyzed
10/23 MW-I 3/85
1/23 MW-I 6/85
4/23 MW-I 6/85
1/23 MW-12 1/85
2/5 MW-10 7/84'
Note: Since the information needed for data validation is not available, all the above data should be interpreted as DQO Level II.
Source: USEPA, 1987.
72001'2-3.WP
- - - - ------------ -- -
Table 2-4 Summary of Inorganic Contaminant Concentrations Based on Groundwater Sampling,
June 1983 to July 1986, NCSU, Lot 86, Farm Unit #I Site
Range of Number of samples
Con1aminan1 concentration, dc1cc1ed/ Location
µg/1 analyzed
Aluminum 278 -114,350 11/11 MW-6
Barium 100 2/9 MW-I, MW-4
Bromine 12 -4,655 11/11 MW-I, MW-6
Chlorine 2,339 -59,301 11/1 I MW-I, MW-6
Iodine 2 -649 11/11 MW-6, MW-I, MW-8
Lead 14 -55 5/10 MW-14
Magnesium <200 -4,338 l(J/11 MW-6, MW-2, Carter-
Finley, Medlin, MW-3
Manganese 31 -12,863 11/11 MW-6, MW-I
Mercury 0.3 1/10 MW-I
Sodium 1,262 -13,019 11/ l l Medlin, Carter-Finley,
MW-I
Tilanium <500 -4,790 3/11 MW-6, MW-I
Vanadium I -20 7/8 MW-2
Zinc IO -2,324 8/11 Carter-Finley
Iron 50 -36,600 10/11 MW-I, MW-7
Total Phenols' 34 -81 0/5, 0/4 MW-I
• Although total phenols are organics, they were included in this table because the procedure used was colorimetric and not chromatographic.
DL
IEA
OHS
NCSU
Note:
Source:
detection limit.
Industrial and Environmental Analysts, Inc.
Department of Health Services (Stale of North Carolina).
North Carolina State University.
All analyses by the NCSU laboratory were performed by Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA).
USEPA, 1987.
\WOIU0Pl~7lOOT'2-4.WP
Dale
2/84
7/84
2/84 & 85, 2/84
2/84 & 85, 2/84
2/84
7/86
2/84
2/84
7/84
2/85
2/84
2/84
2/85
2/84
7/86. 7/83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2-5 Peak Concentrations of Tetrachloroethene, Chloroform, and
Carbon Tetrachloride in Groundwater (March 1985
through July 1986) (all concentrations in µg/L)
Well Tetrachloroethene
I 200 (6185)
2 280 (7/86)
3 10 ( 11/84)'
4 5 (11/84)"
5 100 (6185)
6 25 (12/84)'
7 4 (3/85)
8 210 (7/86)
9 5 (12/84)°
10 NR
11 I ( 1/85)'
12 NR
13 I ( 1/85)'
14 NR
15 14 (1/85)
16 100 (6185)°
17 NR (6185)'
18 NR (6185)°
19 NR (6185)°
20 NR (6185)°
NR = No level of contamination reported.
• Last analysis.
b Only time detected.
c Analyzed once.
Sources: USEPA, 1985.
USEPA, 1987.
\ WORKPLAN\72001'2•5. WP
Chloroform Carbon
tetrachloride
39 I ,500 (3/85) 2,665 (3/85)
20,450 (3/85) 2,000 (7/86)
50 (11/84)" 30 (11/84)"
15 ( l0/84)b 10 (10/84)'
3,600 (6185) 160 (7/86)
45,250 (3/85) 380 (3/85)
2,532 (3/85) 608 (3/86)
2,112 (3/85) 130 (7/86)
NR (12/84)° NR (12/84)°
NR NR
31 ( 1/85) NR
292 (1/85) 15 (3/85)
4 (1/85)' NR
NR NR
NR NR
200 (6185)° NR (6185)°
NR (6185)° NR (6185)°
NR (6185)° NR (6185)°
NR (6185)° NR (6185)°
NR (6185)° NR (6185)°
Total
394,365
22,730
90
30
3,860
45,655
3,144
2,452
5
NR
32
307
5
NR
14
300
NR
NR
NR
NR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2. SITE BACKGROUND A.ND SETTING
Table 2-5 presents the peak concentrations and frequency of occurrence for three of
these compounds (tetrachloroethene, chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride) in each of 20
monitoring wells sampled between March 1985 and July 1986.
Low levels of radionuclides were detected in some site monitoring
wells. The reported results are summarized in Table 2-6. These levels may
be indicative of natural background condition, however, this is unconfinned.
Direct exposure to ionizing radiation is not a public health threat (ATSDR,
1988).
Analyses of groundwater from the nearby Medlin residential well (November 1984)
revealed trace levels of xylene and tetrachloroethane, although the results may be due to
laboratory contamination, A TSDR, 1988. This will be resampled and analyzed for conformation
of the groundwater quality in the bedrock aquifer at this location. The Carter-Finley stadium
irrigation well located to the southwest of the site was analyzed for extractable compounds in
July 1984 with no detectable contamination. The irrigation well has not been analyzed for
organic compounds found at the NCSU Lot 86 site.
Soils contamination on-and off-site has not been established. Available soil analyses
are limited to samples collected from four wells during drilling and analyzed only for metals.
No soil samples have been collected for the purpose of confinning the presence of soil
contamination on-or off-site.
2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The environmental setting summary is presented in this section on both regional and site
scales. This information has been obtained from USEPA sources (1987, 1988). The major
features that are covered include, but are not limited to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regional physiography and climate
Site drainage patterns
Area potable water supply wells
Rora and fauna
Regional and site hydrogeology
Site contaminant migration potential
2.5.1 Regional Physiography and Climate
The site 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 topographic quadrangle, the 1.5-acre site is situated on a slight topographic rise at
approximately 450 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Land surface elevation
decreases to the north and east of the site, where slopes are steeper than those on the west
BROWN AND ClWWEU 2-13
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Location
Well #02
Well #08
Well #11
Table 2-6 Groundwater Radioactivity Survey Results (1985)
for the LLRW Disposal Area
North Carolina State University Site, Raleigh, NC
Gross radiation of groundwater (pCi/ml")
Gross alpha Gross beta Ra-226
------------
0.9±1 4.1±1.3 49±7
2.2±1.3 4.5±1.3 15±3
Well #14 (background) ------------
Well #20 --------42±7
' pCi/mi = picoCuries per milliliter of sample.
K-40
104±31
107±25
----
65±25
207±34
Note: The number immediately after the sign "±" signifies one standard deviation of all of the
measurements taken at a sampling location or well.
Source: NCSU Radiation Protection Office, May 1987.
\WORKPLAN\7200TI-6.WP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2. SITE BACKGROUND AND SEIT/NG
Climatic data recorded at the NCSU Method Road station, which is about 1.5 miles
southeast of the site, indicate that the average annual precipitation is 46 inches with July and
August being the wettest months. Average monthly temperatures range from a low of 2.02
degrees Fahrenheit (F) in January to a high of 78.8 degrees F in July. The warm summer
temperatures combined with heavier precipitation in these months serve to maintain a typically
humid environment
2.5.2 Site Drainage Patterns
Surface drainage from the site intercepts unnamed tributaries of Richard Creek to the
east and west. The tributary to the east is approximately 400 feet from the site and 40 feet
lower in elevation. A small pond feeding another unnamed tributary lies approximately 1,600
feet west of the site.
Surface drainage from the site generally flows east or west; however, a gentle slope to
the south exists in the vicinity of the former chemical storage dumpster area (Figure 2-1 ). The
land slope on-and off-site is generally uniform except for several drainageways located along
the northern fenceline on-and off-site to the east, west, and north.
2.5.3 Area Potable Water Supply Wells
Two subdivisions exist near the site: Westover, located 3,200 feet to the south-
southwest, and Meredith Woods, located about 5,400 feet to the north-northwest.
Approximately 360 homes are located within I mile of the site, of which about 90
percent are located northeast, east, and south of the site. Commercial and residential land use
to the east, southeast, and northeast is continually expanding to the west. Nearby residences
south of I-40 and along Old Trinity Road including the Medlin residence, utilize the bedrock
aquifer for the water supply. Further to the south, east, and northeast, residents utilize city
water.
2.5.4 Flora and Fauna
The North Carolina State University Lot 86 site is located in an upland coniferous
woodlands dominated by pine trees with deciduous and evergreen broad leaf understory. The
landfill and some surrounding area have been cleared and planted with grass. The adjacent
properties are developed and include residential properties, the University football stadium,
grassed parking lots, and the Interstate 40 extension. The fauna in the area is most likely
limited to avian populations because of surrounding development No endangered or threatened
species are known to exist near the site, but the investigation will include contacting local
and/or state authorities to determine if any may be present.
BROWN AND CAWWF,U 2-15 Wft n-. ~ 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2 SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING
2.5.5 Regional and Site Hydrogeology
The site is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province where modem soils and
topography have developed as a result of the weathering and erosion of the underlying
crystalline metamorphic bedrock. The site topography consists of gently rolling land with broad
and flat interstream areas. There are no prominent hills visible above the general upland
surface. As shown in Figure 2-1, the site is situated on a slight topographic rise (surface water
divide) at approximately 450 feet, NGVD. The slope of the land surface is steeper to the north
and east than the slope west of the site. The elevation of Wade A venue Extension is about 25
to 30 feet lower than the site elevation.
The site overlies a north-south trending felsic gneiss and schist belt. This belt consists
primarily of biotite-feldspar gneiss, quartzitic gneiss, gametiferous biotite gneiss, and
interbedded gneiss and schists. The site is located on the western limb of an anticlinal
structure, and the limb dips to the west (approximately 75 degrees northwest) at an angle of 35
to 40 degrees (Parker, I 979). Joints and fractures are abundant in the metamorphic rocks in
the area; however, their orientation, length, and sire vary widely even over small areas,
according to Parker (1979). These joints and fractures, as well as the bedding or foliation
planes, allow migration of groundwater in the saturated and unsaturated zones. The nearest
known fault is located approximately 5 miles west of the site and trends north-south.
The saprolite at the site is composed of highly-weathered muscovite-garnet schist and
garnet gneiss (Liddle, 1984). This saprolite is the weathered product of the metamorphic
bedrock and retains the relief structure (i.e., joints, fractures, bedding planes, and layers of
resistant minerals). The transition from saprolite to competent bedrock is approximately 50 to
75 feet below the surface in the site area. This transition zone consists of approximately 5 to
IO feet of stiff, dense soil with rock fragments increasing in sire and quantity as the top of the
bedrock is approached. This zone may be of higher permeability than the overlying saprolite.
The saprolite is composed of plastic sandy silt, clayey silt, and silty clay with occasional thin
layers of silty sand. Seams of quartz and bands of ferromagnesian minerals reflecting the
original metamorphic foliation may be present.
Groundwater occurs in the lower saprolite/residuum and in the fractured, faulted,
weathered, or fissured bedrock (Hamed, 1988). The saprolite is a distinct water-bearing zone;
groundwater occurs in it under water table (unconfined) conditions. Groundwater also occurs
under unconfined, semi-confined or confined conditions in the bedrock hydrogeology unit. The
two water-bearing units may be separated locally. Piedmont groundwater conditions must be
studied and interpreted on a site-specific basis.
Typically, saprolite/residuum groundwater levels are reported to be approximately 30 feet
below ground surface. Bedrock water levels are estimated to be 50 to 60 feet below grade.
BROWN AND CALDWEU. 2-16 Wft Pia -~ Jin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2 SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING
Since 1982, NCSU has installed 33 monitoring wells at the site. Laboratory
permeability tests and field bail tests were performed to determine the hydraulic conductivity
of the shallow aquifer material. Laboratory tests performed on undisturbed Shelby tube samples
showed ranges of vertical hydraulic conductivity values between 5 x 10·5 centimeters per second
(cm/sec) and 2 x 10◄ cm/sec. The results of the field (bail) tests indicated horizontal hydraulic
conductivity values between 8.4 x 10◄ cm/sec at Well 4 and 1.89 x 10·3 cm/sec at Well 1.
Water levels in the shallow saprolite aquifer measured on-site fluctuate an average of
2 to 4 feet during the course of a year and are approximately 40 feet below the land surface.
The gradient of the groundwater is to the west-northwest and is in the same general direction
as the structural dip of the bedding planes (USEPA, 1987). Assuming an effective porosity of
30 percent, a hydraulic gradient of 0.014 foot per foot (ft/ft), and an average hydraulic
conductivity of 1.36 x 10·3 cm/sec (bail test), the linear groundwater velocity in the saprolite
is 67 feet per year (ft/yr) (McDade, et al., 1984). This rate may be an overestimate for the
entire section of the saprolite as the hydraulic conductivity may decrease with depth. None of
the existing monitoring wells penetrates the bedrock beneath the site. Permeability of the
bedrock and groundwater flow direction in the bedrock are not known for this area.
2.5.6 Migration Potential
Previous investigations have suggested that groundwater quality beneath the site is
effected by a number of organic and inorganic constituents, and that groundwater of diminished
quality has migrated at least JOO feet beyond the trench limits. Water level measurements
obtained from monitoring wells indicate that the main groundwater flow direction in the
saprolite is westward from the highest elevation of the site. There are, however, localized
variations in the general groundwater flow pattern. There is no substantive information
available describing the possible vertical movement of groundwater at the site.
The nearest private residence, the Medlin property (Figure 2-1), is located approximately
2,000 feet southeast of the site, which is hydraulically upgradient of the trenches. The Medlin
water supply well, analyzed in July 1984 by DHS, showed no detectable levels of contamination
by organics. Analyses of the well in November 1984 revealed trace levels of xylene and
tetrachloroethene, although these results are believed to be due to laboratory contamination
(ATSDR, 1988).
Three residences have been identified within a distance of approximately 3,000 to 4,000
feet to the west-southwest of the site on Old Trinity Road. These residences are not connected
to water supplies of the city of Raleigh but are served by private wells. Based on available data
indicating groundwater flow to the west of the vicinity of the site, these residences are not
hydraulically downgradient.
BROWN AND CALDWEIL 2-17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER L SITE B!.CKGROUND !.ND SETTING
The nearest surface water is a small intennittent tributary to Richland Creek located
approximately 400 feet east of the site. Because the stream is up gradient of the site, the poten-
tial for impact by contaminated groundwater from the site is improbable. A small pond, feeding
another unnamed tributary to Richland Creek, lies approximately 2,000 feet west of the site.
The potential for contaminated groundwater from the site to discharge into the pond or the
tributary is unknown.
BROWN AND CALDWE/.L 2-18 Wert Pfa. 0.---, lffl
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 2. SITE BACKGROUND AND SETTING
REFERENCES
ATSDR, 1988. Preliminary Health Assessment, North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Wake
County, Raleigh, North Carolina. Office of Health Assessment, Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
USEPA, 1985. Forward Planning Study, North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Site. Fmal
Report.
USEPA, 1991. Administrative Order by Consent (AOC). EPA Docket No. 91-24-C.
USEP A. 1987. REM III Program Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Draft Work
Plan. North Carolina State University Lot 86 Site, Raleigh, North Carolina.
USEPA, 1988. REM V Program Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study Work Plan
Amendment No. 01 (Final). Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area. North
Carolina State University Lot 86 Site, Raleigh, North Carolina.
US EPA, 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA. EPN540/G-87/003.
USEPA, 1991. Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures
and Quality Assurance Manual (ECB SOPQAM). Athens, Georgia.
Harned, D.A., 1989. The Hydrogeologic Framework and a Reconnaissance of Ground Water
Quality in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Investigations Report 88-4130.
Liddle, S., 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, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina.
McDade, J.A., I.J. Won, and C.W. Welby, 1984. Application of Surface Geophysical Methods
to the Hydrogeological Evaluation of Waste Disposal Sites in North Carolina. Fmal
Report. Prepared for North Carolina Board of Science and Technology.
Parker, J.M., m, 1979. Geology and Mineral Resources of Wake County. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Division of Land
Resources, Geological Survey Section. Raleigh, North Carolina.
WORKPL\N\7200CH2. WP
BROWN AND CALDWF.LJ... 2-19 wn Pita.~ 1m
I
I.
I
I
i
I ,.
I
1·,
,.
I.
I
,1
I
I
I
I
~I
I
CHAPTER 3.0
INITIAL EVALUATION
The initial site evaluation presented in this chapter is intended to provide an understanding
of the potential pathways of chemical migration, and identify preliminary remedial action
alternatives. Conceptual models will be used to represent hypotheses on the pathways of
chemical migration from the sources to potential receptors. The models identify the sources,
pathway, and receptor elements, and describes the relationship between these elements. The
models are designed to answer the following questions, as appropriate, to a specific site.
The source: Does it exist?
Can it be contained?
Can it be removed and disposed of?
Can it be treated?
The pathway: Does it exist?
Can it be interrupted?
Can it be eliminated?
The receptors: Are they impacted by migration of chemicals?
Are they impacted by the presence of chemicals
in the source material itself if direct contact occurs?
Can institutional controls be applied?
Can receptors be protected?
The particular pathways identified in the models direct the initial considerations for
potential remedial actions. Remediation alternatives will be developed and screened based upon
the need to control the exposure pathways and the characteristics of the sources.
The scoping activities for the NCSU site focus on the evaluation of chemicals present,
likely migration pathways, and finally, consideration of initial remedial action alternatives. The
scoping process includes a review of existing data and development of conceptual site models
so that data collection efforts can be designed to specifically address the chemicals and pathways
of concern. Once actual constituents and potential pathways have been identified, the exposure
routes and the potential receptors can be identified. This information will then be used to update
the NCSU site models to support the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
3.1 CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Table 3-1 displays an "average" monthly waste deposition report derived
from records maintained by NCSU. Based on the results of previous investiga-
tions, organic compounds and radioactive materials appear to be of chief
concern. Halogenated volatile organic compounds that have displayed
BROWN AND CALDWELL 3.J
ii
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I V
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1 Typical Hazardous Waste Disposal Per Month
Hazardous waste
Laboratory sol vents
Nonchlorinated solvents--acetones, alcohols,
benzene, ethers, carbon disulfide, collodion,
hexane, pentone, toluene, xylene, kerosene,
methyl ethyl ketone
Chlorinated solvents--trichloroethylene,
I, 1,2-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 leftover and unused chemicals (250
bottles and cans/month; less than I gallon per
container)
Mercury
Sodium and other pyroforic metals
Pesticides (agricultural chemical)
Compressed gas cylinders (abandoned)
Carcinogens
Spill residues
Total
Waste quantity, lb
800
80
440
200
320
440
120
120
600
10
5
500
0.22
25
3,660.22
Note: The above figures are monthly averages and there are wide fluctuations in both
waste types and amounts in any given month.
Source: NCSU records.
\WORKPI..AN\7200T3-I.WP
I
I ,,
" I,
I
I
' I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
~~~£t~!~~£!~:1;~1~iriI[~i r~
1985, and June 1985 are displayed as Tables 3-3 through 3-6 and can be found
in Appendix A.
Results from groundwater sampling done from June 1983 to July 1986 suggest corre-
lations between monitoring well location and the chemical waste trenches. As an example,
monitoring well number 1, situated down slope from the chemical waste trenches, displays
elevated chemical concentrations (see Tables 2-3 through 2-5 in Chapter 2). The soil and
groundwater sampling done by NCSU and the North Carolina Department of Health Services
does not confirm the presence of radioactivity above probable background levels.
3,2 POTENTIAL MIGRATION PATHWAYS
[;~;f Er~!~!~:;~;~:~{~~~?.~~ i
of effected groundwater. The human exposure pathways of concern are inges-
tion, dermal contact and adsorption, and inhalation of volatile components in groundwater.
3.2.1 Source Areas
Potential contaminant migration concerns are discussed below, relative to their likely
source areas.
3.2.1.l Chemical Waste Disposal Area
The contaminants identified in the soil and groundwater at the Lot 86 site may be the
result of repeated rainfall events percolating into the disposed wastes. Although most of the
chemical waste was containerized in glass or metal, it is possible that leakage has occurred. The
primary pathway of concern is contaminants reaching and possibly migrating in the groundwater.
3.2.1.2 LLRW Trenches
At the Lot 86 site, LLRW is present primarily in the form of biological materials, mostly
animal carcasses which were buried after laboratory experimentation was complete. These car-
casses were usually frozen when buried, and were not containerized. It is reported, however,
based on prior sampling results, that no radiation levels above normal background have been
confirmed. Further, the half-life of many of the disposed wastes are so short many have
BROWN AND CALDWllL 3-3
I
I
I
I ,·
I
I
I
. ,
'.~
I '(··
I
I
I ,,
I
·1,
I
I ,,
iJ
I
Table 3-2 Volatile Organic Analyses Results
June 2, 1983 Samples
Compound Well I, Well 2, Well 3,
µg/1 µg/1 µg/1
Bromofonn 10,370 ND ND
Carbon tetrachloride 643 986 12
Chlorofonn 46,910 2,792 6
Methylene chloride 922 63 5
I, I, I-Trichloroethane 3,526 237 ND
l, 1,2-Trichloroethane 7,557 ND ND
ND = Not detected.
Source: North Carolina DHS .
\WORKPLAN\72001'3-2. WP
Well 4,
µg/1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
i,
I,
I
I
I
Table 3-3 Results of July 1984 Sampling
Organic Analyses
Parameter
Volatile organic analyses
Bromofonn
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
I, 1, I -Trichloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
l, 1,2-Trichloroethylene
Base/neutral extractables
Acid extractables
Source: North Carolina DHS.
ND = Not detected.
NA= Not analyzed.
Well 1, Well 4, Well 10,
µg/1 µg/1 µg/1
4 ND ND
290 ND ND
51,100 ND ND
1,260 ND ND
ND ND ND
8,930 ND ND
3,700 ND ND
a ND" ND
C ND" ND
• Atrazine @ 83 µg/1, phthalates, four unidentified peaks.
• Unidentified peaks.
' Methyl carbonate, benaldehyde, six unidentified peaks.
\WORKPI.AN\7200D•3.WP
Carter-Finley
irrigation well,
µg/1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
Medlin
residence well,
µg/1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
------ -- ----
Table 3-4 Analytical Results of July 1984 Sampling
Standard Drinking Water Parameters
Well I
Parameter
NCSU OHS
Arsenic NA <0.01
Barium NA 0.1
Cadmium BOL <0.005
Chromium NA <0.01
Lead BOL <0.03
Mercury NA 0.0003
Selenium NA <0.005
Silver NA <0.05
Endrin NA <0.0001
Lindane NA <0.0004
Methoxychlor NA <0.001
Toxaphene NA <0.002
2,4-0 NA <0.001
2.4,5-TP (Silvex) NA <0.001
Fluoride NA <0.10
Nitrate (as N) 1.90 1.70
Chloride 11.4 11.0
Iron 0.63 1.48
Manganese 1.02 1.55
Sodium 7.70 NA
Sulfate NA 10.0
Copper BOL <0.05
Zinc 0.13 0.10
Source: North Carolina OHS.
Note: All concentrations expressed in lll:ll-
BOL = Not detected.
NA = Not analyzed.
Well 4
NCSU OHS
NA <0.01
NA 0.1
BOL <0.005
NA <0.01
BOL <0.03
NA <0.0002
NA <0.005
NA <0.05
NA <0.0001
NA <0.0004
NA <0.001
NA <0.002
NA <0.001
NA <0.001
NA <0.10
0.56 <1.0
3.4 3.0
0.13 1.63
0.06 0.13
2.20 NA
NA 5.0
BDL <0.05
0.13 0.13
Well 10 Carter-Finley
irrigation well
NCSU OHS NCSU OHS
NA <0.01 NA NA
NA <0.1 NA NA
BDL <0.005 BOL NA
NA <0.01 NA NA
DOL <0.03 DDL NA
NA <0.0002 NA NA
NA <0.005 NA NA
NA <0.05 NA NA
NA <0.0001 NA <0.0001
NA <0.0004 NA <0.0004
NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA <0.002 NA <0.002
NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA <0.001 NA <0.001
NA <0.10 NA NA
1.70 0.70 DDL NA
5.0 5.0 3.0 NA
0.38 0.43 0.63 NA
0.06 0.12 0.06 NA
4.90 NA 8.70 NA
NA 1.0 NA NA
BOL <0.05 BOL NA
0.14 <0.05 3.22 NA
.. ---
Medlin
residence well
NCSU OHS
NA NA
NA NA
DOL NA
NA NA
BOL NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA NA
NA <0.0001
NA <0.0004
NA <0.001
NA <0.002
NA <0.001
NA <0.001
NA NA
BOL NA
2.7 NA
BOL NA
0.01 NA
7.50 NA
NA NA
DOL NA
0.56 NA
- - - - - - --·-- --· -- - - - - -
Compound
Benzene
Dromobenzene
Dromochloroethane
Dromodichloromelhane
Carbon 1e1rachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
Dielhylclhcr
Elhylbenzene
4-Melhyl-2-penianone
1-Penlene
2-Propanone
Tetrachloroclhene
Toluene
I, I, I-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylene -Isomer A
Xylene -Isomer B
Table 3-5 Results or Volatile Organic Analyses Using Purge and Trap Method
October 1984 through March 1985
Well I Well 2 Well 3 Well 4 Well 5
1CY24/84 2/19/85 3/19/85 3/28/85 1CY24/84 3/28/85 11/30/84 ICY24/84 2/19/85 12/3/84
3,010 7,205 36,700 36,500 ND 3,765 ND ND ND ND
390 345 405 840 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND 110 1,040 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
220 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
470 1,250 1,635 2,665 1,150 1,695 30 IO ND 20
160 265 365 200 20 35 ND ND ND ND
• 113,550 297,000 391,5008 • 20,450 50 15 ND 280
8,860 12,050 25,850 11,150 ND IO ND ND ND ND
320 ND 810 330 3IO 365 ND IO ND ND
20,700 14,700 82,200 142,4508 ND 185 ND ND ND ND
400 ND 1,230 685 ND ND ND ND ND ND
• 40,100 460,000 362,500' 3,550 7,790 ND ND ND ND
1,700 1,805 3,935 2,590 30 70 ND ND ND ND
360 ND 8,530 4,775 ND 95 ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND 75 80 ND ND ND ND
ND 1,335 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND 50 125 185 IO 5 ND <IO
3,640 6,355 14,600 l0,730 2,900 5,460 ND 5 ND ND
6,530 7,310 17,150 9,730 <IO ND ND ND ND ND
3,120 6,390 13,050 24,050 220 410 ND ND ND 20
4,230 5,260 l0,200 6,295 110 530 IO ND ND <10
2,320 2,830 5,430 3,260 80 135 ND ND ND ND
Well 6
12/3/84 3/28/85
985 128,500
ND NO
ND ND
ND ND
195 385
ND ND
315 45,250
2,800 2,550
500 100
4,150 9,795
ND ND
10,650 22,800
160 145
330 1,880
ND ND
ND ND
25 ND
16,850 14,900
225 265
1,000 1,620
370 305
200 185
-------------------
Compound
Benzene
Dromobenzene
Dromochloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
I .3-Dichloropropane
Diethylether
Ethyl benzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1-Pentene
2-Propanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Xylene -Isomer A
Xylene -Isomer D
Table 3-5 Results of Volatile Organic Analyses Using Purge and Trap Method
October 1984 through March 1985 (continued)
Well 7 Well 8 Well 9 Well 10
11/30/84 3n8/85 10/24/84 3119185 3n8/85 12/3/84 12/3/84 3n8/85 ln4/85
ND 2 ND ND 62 ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
380 608 175 104 124 ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
520 2,532 2,530 1,712 2,112 ND ND ND 31
ND 14 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
25 45 50 ND ND ND ND ND ND
130 206 ND ND 23 ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND 394 120 38 76 ND ND ND ND
ND ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND 8 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND 184 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
<10 4 120 136 92 5 ND ND 1
ND 20 35 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND 6 15 ND ND ND ND ND 2
ND ND 265 205 249 ND <10 ND ND
<10 ND 25 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Well 11
2/19/85 3n8/85
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
15 24
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
-------------~-----
Compound
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromochloroelhane
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chlorofonn
1,2-Dibromoelhane
Dichloromelhane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropane
Diethylether
Ethylbenzene
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
1-Pentene
2-Propanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
I, I, 1-Trichloroelhane
Trichloroethene
Xylene -Isomer A
Xylene -Isomer D
Table 3-5 Results of Volatile Organic Analyses Using Purge and Trap Method
October 1984 through March 1985 (continued)
Well 12 Well 13 Well 14
1/24185 2/19/85 3/28/85 1/24185 2/19/85 3/28/85 1/22/85 2/19/85 3/28/85
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
12 12 15 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
292 105 206 4 ND ND ND ND ND
15 6 12 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
487 68 308 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
403 41 152 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND
132 38 82 2 ND ND ND ND ND
ND 22 34 ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND I ND ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Source: Nonh Carolina State University.
Well 15
1/22/85 2/19/85
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
14 4
ND ND
3 ND
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
Note: All concentrations expressed in µg/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 sample volumes.
• Saturated column.
ND = Not detected.
3/28/85
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-------------------
Table 3-6 Results of Volatile Organic Analyses
June 4, 1985 Samples
Compound Well I Well IA Well 1B
Benzene --• --1,900
Chlorobenzene 200 100 ux1•
Chloroform 38,400 34,000 10,100
1,2-Dichloropropane 23,500 10,600 1,900
Ethyl benzene 700 300 100•
MeU1ylbenzene 1,600 800 500
Tetrachloroethene ----200
Tetrachloromethane --1,400 1,000
Trichloroethene 7,800 1,600 400
Xylene 3,200 1,300 300
Source: North Carolina OHS.
• " --" indicates less than 10 µg/1 or none detected.
h Identified but less than 100 µg/1.
\WORKPLAN\7200T3-6.WP
Well 5 Well 5A Well 5B Well 12 Well 16
---- ---- --
-- --------
100 3,600
--100•
----------
-- ---- -- --
----100• --100•
100• 100 200 100• 200
100• 300 100• 100• 100•
----------
Well 17 Well 18 Well 19 Well 20
--------
--------
--------
-- ------
--------
--------
--------
-- -- --
--
-------------------
Primary
Source
' Chemical
Waste
Trenches
.•. ,.,. ·.-.:00-1
BG Brown and Caldwell
.:::I Consultants
Primary
Release
Mechanism
Pathway
Expuswe
Receptor( s)
Human Biota
Area Site
Infiltration Route Residents Visitors Terrestrial ·•-Aquatic~
Percolation Groundwater Ingestion
.. .. . , .• ·,·~· ., ·.'a Inhalation -. -.. _. .. 1
Dermal
Figure 3-1 Chemical Waste Disposal Area
Conceptual Model
• •
• •
• •
i
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -·----
Primary
Source
r.
t L L R w
j Trenches ' ~ i~----•· '
BG Brown and Caldwell
Consultants
:G
Primary
Release
Mechanism
Pathway Receptor( s)
Human
Exposure Areo Site
~ Infiltration Route Residents Visitors
Percolation Groundwater Ingestion •
'! ;, .• lnhololion •
Dermal •
Figure 3-2 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area
Conceptual Model
Biota
Terrestrial
• •
•
A11ualic
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIA.L EVALUATION
undergone considerable decay, so that they pose no threat Also, A TSDR (1988) reported that
direct exposure to ionizing radiation is not a public health threat
A possible migration pathway for contamination that may still exist is through leaching
to the groundwater. It should be noted that most radioisotopes are selected for research and
experimentation due to their affinity for biological processes. Therefore, most, if not all,
remaining radioisotopes are probably bound up in bacteria, macroinvertebrates, micro-
invertebrates, bones and teeth remains on-site.
3.2.2 Groundwater
Although a number of potential contaminant migration pathways may exist at any given
waste disposal site, groundwater has been shown to be the most significant at the Lot 86 site by
past studies (USEPA, 1987 and I 988; ATSDR, I 988). In addition, a number of site physical
conditions are significant and relevant to this finding:
• The most significant quantities of chemical wastes were disposed in
containers. All the wastes were physically placed into trenches excavated
several feet below ground surface for the express purpose of controlled
waste disposal. The wastes were then covered by at least 2 feet of clean,
compacted cover material. Therefore, aerial and surface contaminant
migration routes are excluded from consideration. Most of the radiological
wastes were buried in a similar manner. ATSDR (1988) has ruled out
direct exposure to ionizing radiation as a public health threat
• The general soil classifications for the residual soil identified at the site
(wells 30 to 33) are stiff to hard low plasticity clays and stiff to very stiff
high plasticity silts. These cohesive materials, if relatively homogeneous,
tend to limit lateral migration scenarios for most common organic
compounds driven by intermittent saturation due to waste field capacity
exceedance. It is most reasonable to expect that the vertical migration
route directly to the water table will be the prevailing pathway.
• The residual soil aquifer's water level was measured by the USEPA
contractor (USEPA, 1987) at 29 feet below grade or 19 feet below the
chemical waste disposal trenches at well number 5. While the separation
distance between the buried waste and the water table is significant, it is
not a very great dimension when compared to the lateral distance
contaminants would be required to travel through undisturbed site native
soils in order to reach ground surface. It is reasonable to expect that, all
physical factors being equal, contaminant migration typically follows the
shortest pathway. In this case, the shortest pathway available is from the
source (trench bottoms) to the receptor (shallow groundwater) via the
relatively thin unsaturated zone.
BROWN AND CA.WWELL 3-13 wn Pka. D«fl#kr Jffl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
The primary migration pathway from the site to the potential receptors is through water
wells used for potable service or irrigation. No streams. ponds, or other surface water bodies are
evident in the immediate vicinity of the NCSU Lot 86 site. The nearest wells used for potable
water are reported to be situated hydraulically upgradient from the contaminated areas.
There are several factors that influence the fate and transport of compounds in ground-
water. These include physical attributes unique to each compound (i.e., volatility, hydrolysis,
solubility), mechanisms that control the concentration and migration of these compounds (i.e.,
sorption, biodegradation, hydrolysis). and variables in the environment that affect mechanistic
rates (i.e., total organic carbon, pH, eH, particle size distribution). In combination, these
processes control the eventual distribution and form of the migrating contaminant
The principal factors reported to effect the mobility in the groundwater of the constituents
of concern at the NCSU site are (I) solubility due to oxidation state, (2) sorption to the aquifer
matrix, and (3) colloidal transport (USEPA, 1987).
3.3 AREAS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN AND DATA NEEDS
3.3.1 Known Areas
The known areas of potential concern are the two discrete, well documented waste
sources: the chemical waste disposal area and the low level radioactive waste disposal area. A
good inventory of the wastes disposed into each area is available. A number of on-site studies
and off-site samplings have been performed. The study area's general geology has been
described, shallow aquifer characteristics identified, and shallow aquifer groundwater quality has
been reported. A substantial amount of useful information has been assembled and is available
for utilization in the following Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
The available file information, including that body of data developed by USEPA and its
contractors, indicates that there is no reason to suspect the existence of satellite waste disposal
areas associated with the Lot 86 site.
3.3.2 Unknown Areas
While the amount and quality of the data collected to date is substantial, a number of
unresolved issues remain and confirmation of the earlier studies is needed in order to meet.RI/FS
data quality objectives. The following issues remain to be resolved:
•
•
The site's waste disposal area physical dimensions, the number of trenches,
size, etc. have not been confirmed. This may be accomplished through the
use of geophysical methods.
The site's waste characterization remains incomplete. This loop may be
closed by compiling, validating, and reviewing existing data and by
BROWN AND CAUJWFLL 3-14 w .. ,,,,,,. -,___._. ,m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
utilizing geophysical methods to assess the waste disposal areas, waste
consistency, and other characterization parameters.
• The site's geology and associated waste migration potential have been
partially described. These aspects of the study must be examined in
greater detail in order to meet the data quality objectives and required level
of knowledge required to support a Remedial Investigation. These
important site-specific characteristics may be further studied by advancing
test borings to obtain lithologic samples at strategic locations and may be
supported by geophysical techniques, especially electrical resistivity.
• The site's shallow aquifer groundwater quality has been thoroughly
investigated by the installation and sampling of 33 monitoring wells. This
quantity of groundwater quality information has provided an adequate
database describing the shallow unit's apparent contamination within close
proximity to the site. However, the current data must be updated and
confirmed. In addition, the current database must be expanded to meet
RI/FS data quality objectives. Therefore, the installation of two stainless
steel shallow wells, complemented by the resampling of some existing
wells, will meet these requirements.
The use of geophysical methods is also expected to provide useful
information relative to the likely or apparent migration of contaminants
within the shallow aquifer.
• The site's deep (bedrock) aquifer's physical characterization is incomplete.
This characterization may be completed by advancing three strategically
located test borings around the site to permit the lithological sampling of
residual soils (overburden) and the underlying bedrock by rock coring
techniques. In addition, valuable bedrock characterization information can
be obtained from geophysical methods, especially electrical resistivity.
• The groundwater quality of the bedrock aquifer has not been the subject
of previously completed studies. Therefore, it is necessary to install two
monitoring wells into the bedrock unit in order to obtain both physical data
(water levels) and quality data describing the absence or presence of site-
related contamination.
• Site-specific fate and transport of contaminants is a significant Remedial
Investigation task that has not been addressed by previously conducted
studies. The waste characterization, physical conditions studies, and
environmental quality monitoring tasks described above must be assimi-
lated in order to attain this goal.
BROWN AND CALJJWE:lL 3-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER J. INITIAL EVALUATION
3.4 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
require that remedial actions at CERCLA sites comply with requirements or
standards under federal and state environmental laws that are "applicable" or
"relevant and appropriate" to the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contami-
nants at a site or to the circumstances of the release. These are referred to as
ARARs. Table 3-7 lists ARARs which have been initially identified.
3.5 RESPONSE OBJECTIVES AND REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
3.5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to discuss potential remedial approaches and associated data
that may be needed to evaluate alternatives during the Feasibility Study. As information is
gathered during the Remedial Investigation, potential remedial approaches will be reconsidered.
Under SARA, remedy selection is based upon four generalized concepts which are:
• The remedy must protect human health and the environment
• The remedy must be cost-effective.
•
•
The remedy must utilize treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
The remedy must meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs).
A detailed risk and/or health assessment must be conducted for any remedy selected.
3.5.2 Identification of Remedial Alternatives
For each identified threat to human health or the environment, a remedial alternative will
be identified as necessary in each of the broad categories:
•
•
•
•
No action
Containment
Treatment with walk away potential
Treatment reducing contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume
A brief overview of each broad category is provided in the following subsections.
BROWN AND CALDWELL 3-16 wn n-. ~ 1wz
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-7 Federal and State ARARs Developed ror the Lot 86 Site
CONTAMINANT-SPECIFIC ARARs
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Maximum Contaminant Levels Goals (MCLGs)
State Water Quality Standards
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs
RCRA location requirements
ACTION--SPECIFlC ARARs AND TBCs
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Clean Water Act (CW A)
Clean Air Act (CAA)
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
7200TI-7. WP
Description
MCLs are enforceable drinking water standards for public water
supplies developed under the SDW A. MCLs are based on health
considerations, best available technology, best treatment tech-
niques, and other factors (including cost).
MCLGs are nonenfon:eable health-based goals for drinking water
developed under the SDW A. MCLGs are entirely health-based
and as&IJre that even sensitive populations would experience no
adverse health effects. Current EPA guidance considers MCI.Ga
as potential ARARs.
Safe drinking water MCLs at the source are North Carolina State
Standards. State water quality standards supersede local (county)
standards.
Mandates that hazardous waste treatment. storage, or disposal
facilities located within a 200-year floodplain must be designed,
constructed, operated and maintained to avoid wasboul
The provisions of RCRA pertinent to the Lot 86 site have been
promulgated under 40 CFR Parts 257, 260, 261. 262, 263, 264,
269, and 280. EPA bas determined that the above regulations are
"applicable" to RCRA characterized or listed hazardous wastea
(40 CFR Part 260) wbicb either. (1) were disposed at a site after
November 19, 1980: or (2) the CERCLA remedial action conailll
of treatmen~ storage, or disposal as defined by RCRA (40 CFR
Part 264). In addition, these regulations are "relevant and
ap~priate" to RCRA hazardous wastes disposed at a site prior
to November 19, 1980.
Examples of RCRA requirements include minimum technology
standards, treatment standards, monitoring requirements, and
storage and disposal prohibitions.
The CW A requirements would affect alternatives that involve the
discharge of groundwater or !'=sing waterl. Clean Water Act
requin:m.eota are ARARs.
The CAA requirements may be applicable in cases where on-site
thermal destruction is considered. Under CERCLA. a permit is
not required because this is an on-site action. However, the
substantive requirements of the permit will be treated as ARARa.
The LDRs are applicable to the waste on-site if the soils are
excavated and removed or excavated and treated. Io alternatives
wbere the LDRs are applicable, the soil must be treated to the
designated treatment levels prior to land disposal.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
3.5.2.1 No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the site would not receive any further remedial action.
Before this alternative can be selected, the extent and rate of migration of contamination must
be determined and projected into the future. The No Action Alternative could be viable if a
baseline risk assessment demonstrates that the site is not a threat to human health or the
environment
3.5.2.2 Containment
Containment usually consists of site capping and the installation of barrier walls to
preclude surface water infiltration, leachate generation, groundwater underflow, and waste con-
taminant migration into the receiving environment. Containment may be synonymous with isola-
tion, as the site is theoretically separated from its environmental setting by the barrier system.
The data required to evaluate this alternative might include a description of disposed
waste materials, and the delineation of site-related contamination in the adjacent receiving
environment.
3.5.2.3 Treatment With Walk Away Potential
Treatment with walk away potential, i.e., the use of alternative(s) rendering the site inert
or harmless, may involve several technologies. A few technologies identified here may also be
applicable, with some differences, to a discussion of treatment reducing contaminant toxicity,
mobility, or volume, described in Section 3.5.2.4 which follows. This type of treatment may be
performed on-site or off-site. A possible approach is to apply conventional processes such as
biological treatment, physicaVchemical treatment or solidification/stabilization. All of these
approaches require that site waste materials be mixed with agents that render them harmless or
inert, preferably in situ. Biological and physicaVchemical treatment processes may reduce
toxicity, but not mobility or volume. Solidification/stabilization techniques may reduce mobility,
but usually will not address toxicity due to technology limitations. Fixation techniques may also
increase contaminant volumes by the addition of the stabilization material(s) to the waste
materials.
The site data required to evaluate these candidate methodologies include environmental
setting, contaminant concentrations, and extent, waste treatability studies.
3.5.2.4 Treatment Reducing Contaminant Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
Thermal destruction and incineration are two potential remedial alternatives that could
possibly reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility or volume. Thermal destruction methods may be
utilized to destroy organic contaminants in gaseous, liquid, and solid waste. The purpose is to
degrade a substance into relatively inert or easily managed materials. Technologies associated
with thermal destruction include molten salt, wet air oxidation, plasma arc, circulating bed, high
BROWN AND CAWWEU. 3-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
temperature fluid wall, pyrolysis, etc. Incineration technologies generally considered applicable
include liquid injection, rotary kiln, fluidi:zed bed, and multiple hearth. Incinerators require
combustion temperatures on the order of 1,300 to 3,000 degrees F; residence times are highly
variable.
In addition to thennal destruction and incineration, more conventional approaches such
as biological treatment, physicaVchemical treatment or solidification/stabilization may be utilired.
These techniques may be applied singly or in conjunction with other techniques to obtain the
desired results.
The site data required to evaluate this candidate methodology include waste characteriza-
tion, BTU content, water content, viscosity, halogen content, and ash content. Pilot-scale tests
may be needed to establish start-up conditions, maintenance requirements, and operating parame-
ters.
3.5.3 Preliminary Identification and Screening of General Response Actions
This section provides a preliminary identification and screening of
general response actions and associated technologies potentially useful for the
Lot 86 site. The actions and technologies considered address site remediation
with respect to suspected site conditions and anticipated contaminant migration
pathways. Each action and associated technology is briefly described in Table
3-8. Significant capabilities and limitations are listed, based upon the incom-
plete data presently available and numerous assumptions. This procedure is used to begin the
process of technology screening so that remedial alternatives can be developed as the Rl/FS
process proceeds. A total of six general response actions have been initially recogni:zed for
application at the Lot 86 site.
3.5.4 Perfonnance Criteria and Standards for General Response Actions
The perfonnance criteria and standards which must be considered for the previously
described actions are outlined below, based on environmental, public health, institutional, and
cost considerations.
3.5.4.1 Environmental Protection
Alternatives posing significant adverse environmental effects will be excluded from further
consideration. Only those alternatives that satisfy the RI objectives and contribute to the
protection of the environment will be considered further. Environmental criteria which must be
considered include:
• Impact of construction on flora, fauna, and the natural drainage system.
• Impact of treatment system's operation on ambient air quality.
BROWN A.ND CALDWF.LL 3-19 W.t Pia.~ Jffl
---
General
response
actions
No Action
Containment
Pumping
On-Site
Treatment
Off-Site
Treatment
Off-Site
Disposal
72001'3-8.WP
- -- ----- - ----
Table 3-8 Summary or Potential General Response Actions and Associated Remedial Technologies
Associated technology
Site monitoring
Capping and barrier walls.
Groundwater withdrawal
removal.
Incineration, solidification,
biological, chemical and/or
physical treatment.
Incineration, bioloSical,
chemical and/or physical
treatment.
Remove wastes to a se-
cure landfill. Withdraw
contaminated water for
treatment.
Description
A no action alternative. Cunent site
conditions meel ARARs. Monitor site
by periodic environmental sampling and
analysis, per SARA.
Isolates the site from its environs,
precluding leachate generation and
migra1ion. Capping controls infil-
tration, while baniers prevent leachate
leakage and underflow. In some
scenarios, containment can be desig-
nated to facilitate leachate collection
and treatment.
Remove contaminated 8roundwater by
pumping to treatment systems.
Indicates some form of treatment per-
formed at the site which renders the
material nonhazanJous. Includes on-site
incineration, biological, chemica1 and
physical treatment and solidification.
Same as above, except that wastes are
excavated and transported to an off-site
facility.
Includes the excavation of contaminated
soils with subsequent landfill in a
secure landfill.
Benefits
Simplest, least costly option.
A demonstrated conventional pro-
cedure.
A demonstrated, conventional
approach.
A voids transportation hazards.
Treatment helps ensure reduction
in future liability. Chemical/
physical on-site treatment would
be lower cost options suitable for
inorganic contaminants found on
the site. On-site treatment of
groundwater by physical/chemical
means is a practical alternative.
Same as above.
Landfill presents a proven, eco-
nomic means of safely disposing
of hazardous special solid wastes
containing no free liquid.
Limitations
May not adequately address site problems.
Potential for contaminant migration. May
be objectionable to the community.
Contaminants remain in p)ace. Oependent
on site geology. Dependent on climate.
Dependent on waste compatibility.
Dependent on site geology. Dependent on
waste character. Long-tenn operation and
maintenance required. Existing aquifer
will be affected.
Incineration is a more costly alternative.
Solidification and/or on-site landfill could
result in future contamination. On-site
solidification with subsequent off-site
disposal may be acceptable. Biological
treatment would not be effective on inor-
ganics.
Same as above.
LandfilJ of contaminated wastes could
result in future contamination al the new
site. May result in increased rislc.
-- -
Media
Groundwater
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
• Destruction of flora and wildlife habitat or natural drainage systems during
contaminated soils excavation process.
•
•
•
Impact of pollutant release to downgradient surface waters, groundwaters,
and/or sensitive habitats.
Criteria for effluent discharge to surface waters, through off-site disposal
of contaminated groundwater options.
Potential for off-site contaminant spills during transportation of soils or
groundwater, for off-site treatment and disposal options.
3.5.4.2 Public Health
Only those alternatives which will minimize or mitigate the threat of harm to public health
and the environment will be considered. Specific consideration will be given to:
•
•
•
•
•
Guidelines for allowable chemical concentrations in an underground source
of drinking water for migration management options.
Assessment of long-term risk to downgradient receptors for migration
management options.
The potential for continued release of pollutants from the source into the
groundwater for all options.
Assessment of risk through air emissions from on-site treatment options
and excavation of contaminated soils.
Assessment of risk through off-site transport options .
3.5.4.3 Institutional
An alternative that does not meet technical requirements of the applicable environmental
laws (e.g., RCRA, CW A, CAA, TSCA, SOW A, UIC) will usually be excluded from ,further
evaluation. Specific consideration will be given to:
•
•
Department of Transportation (state and federal) requirements and
restrictions for hazardous waste transport for off-site treatment and disposal
options.
Pretreatment standards for discharge into publicly-owned treatment works,
for off-site treatment and disposal options.
BROWN AND CALDWP.LL 3-21 WffNtm-~lffl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER J. INITIA.L EVALUATION
•
•
•
NPDES permitting requirements for off-site discharge of groundwater or
effluent options.
Clean Air Act permitting requirements for on-site treatment options.
State and local land use zoning restrictions for construction and operation
of on-site treatment systems, pipelines, and wells.
3.5.4.4 Cost
An alternative whose cost significantly exceeds that of other alternatives and does not
provide substantially greater public health or environmental benefits will usually be eliminated.
Total cost of an alternative should be considered and will include the cost of implementing the
alternative and the cost of operation and maintenance. Costs will be presented in terms of
present w orth to provide for comparison among alternatives having different useful lives.
Specific considerations could include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transportation costs for off-site disposal or treatment options .
Disposal fees for hazardous waste landfilling for off-site disposal options .
Treatment costs and/or acceptance fees for off-site treatment options .
Pipeline costs based on size, length, and construction constraints for off-
site discharge of contaminated groundwater.
Well construction costs for contaminated groundwater recovery systems
and deep well injection options.
Operation and maintenance costs for groundwater recovery and treatment
options.
Facilities construction and operating costs for on-site treatment options.
Excavation, filling, and grading costs for source removal options .
Permitting fees for off-site discharge (NPDES) and deep well disposal
(RCRA) options.
Engineering design fees for recovery, treatment, and off-site discharge
options.
BROWN AND CALDWFLL 3-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
3.5.5 Approach to Alternative Evaluation
The results of the screening of remedial alternatives will depend on factors selected for
making comparisons and how they are applied. Alternatives will be evaluated and ranked in
terms of cost-effectiveness, technological feasibility and reliability, and ability to provide
adequate protection of human health, and the environment The detailed evaluation of selected
alternatives will consider the following factors:
• Description of appropriate treatment and disposal technologies.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Special engineering considerations required to implement the alternatives
(e.g., pilot treatment facilities, additional studies needed to proceed with
final remedial design).
Environmental impacts and proposed methods and costs for mitigating any
adverse effects.
Operation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements of the remedy .
Off-site disposal needs and transportation plans .
Temporary storage requirements .
Safety requirements for remedial implementation, including both on-site
and off-site health and safety considerations.
A description of how the alternatives could be phased into operable units,
including a discussion of how various operable units of the total remedy
could be implemented individually or in groups, resulting in a significant
improvement in the environmental protection or savings in costs.
A review of any national off-site treatment and disposal facilities to
consider compliance with applicable RCRA requirements, both current and
proposed.
3.5.6 Identification of Data Requirements
Additional data are required to formulate cost-effective remediation concepts. These data
requirements are based on a review of existing data, possible remedial alternatives, and predicted
performance. The requirements are as follows:
BROWN ,tND CALDWELL 3-23 WftPla-~JWl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
CHAPTER 3. INITIAL EVALUATION
• Source Control
Volume (area and depth) of material to be considered
Chemical nature of the material
Soil and subsoil characteristics
• Groundwater-Related Migration
Volume of water involved (area, depth)
Aquifer characteristics
Background information
Current groundwater use
3.5.7 Treatability Study
Treatability studies are conducted to achieve the following:
• Provide sufficient data to support the treatment alternatives analysis and
subsequent design.
• Reduce costs and performance uncertainties of the altemative(s) to
acceptable levels.
The need for a Treatability Study will be established. If required, the Treatability Study
will be scoped, planned, and executed in conformance with Task 4, Scope of the Work for the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study, Attachment I to the Administrative Order by
Consent.
3.5.8 Feasibility Study
Following the data collection phases of the Remedial Investigation, the information
obtained will be used in the Feasibility Study to evaluate and cost those remedial alternatives
deemed appropriate.
\WORICPI..AN\7200Cll3.WP
BROWN AND CAWWF.U. 3-24 W.t Pia . ~ lffl
,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 4.0
WORK PIAN RATIONALE
4.1 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the RI is to provide the data necessary for source, migration pathway, and
potential receptor characterization, as discussed in Chapter 3, in sufficient detail to determine the
potential for adverse effects on human health or the environment If remedial action is needed,
then the data collected during the RI must be of sufficient quality to evaluate potential remedial
alternatives through the FS process. The development of Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to
meet these needs is essential to the process of selecting the proper sampling and analysis
program.
4.1.1 Approach to RI/FS Data Collection
The data collection procedure has been designed to characterize the site in a logical and
focused manner. Historical information review and field reconnaissance have been used to
determine potential areas of concern, the usefulness of existing data. and information gaps that
must be filled in order to characterize the site. Field data collection will be conducted in a
focused manner to characterize potential source areas and migration pathways, and to support an
evaluation of remedial alternatives, if needed.
4.1.2 General Rationale for Sampling Locations and Analytical Parameters
The following criteria were used to determine the sample locations and analytical
parameters:
Current information; including both the quantity and quality of the data
Study area locations from which currently available data was obtained
Study area locations where needed data is lacking
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study data quality objectives
anticipated remedial activities
BROWN A.!{0 CAJ.DWEIL 4-1 W.t Pftlll • D«-'-lffl
I
I
I ,,
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
Table 4-1 Data Quality Objectives--Chemical Waste Disposal Area
and Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area
Activity
Objective
Data Use
Appropriate analytical levels
Contaminants of concern
Level of concern
Other parameters
Critical samples
WORKPLAN\7200T4-l. WP
Soil
Soil samples will be collected and analyzed to
detennine the nature and extent of contaminants,
and provide data necessary to develop a risk
assessment and assess remedial alternatives
Risk assessment. remedial alternatives evaluation
Field screening: 100% Level II
Sample analysis: 75% Level III, 25% Level IV
Radiation samples: 100% Level V
Target Analyte List, Target Compound List,
gross alpha, beta, and gamma radiation;
tritium and carbon-14 content
To be detennined during risk assessment
Physical parameters that may effect contaminant
fate and transport will be evaluated, as required
All samples
I
I
I'
I
I.
I
' I
I
Table 4-2 Data Quality Objectives-Groundwater
Activity
Objective
Data use
Appropriate analytical levels
Contaminants of concern
Level of concern
Other parameters
Critical Samples
WORKPLAN\7200T4-2. WP
Groundwater
Groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed to
determine horizontal and vertical extent of contamination,
and provide data necessary to develop a risk assessment
and assess remedial alternatives.
Risk assessment, remedial alternatives evaluation
Field screening: I 00% Level II
Sample analysis: 75% Level III, 25% Level IV
Radiation samples: I 00% Level V
Target Analyte List, Target Compound List; gross alpha,
beta, and gamma radiation; tritium and carbon-14 content
To be determined during risk assessment
Physical parameters that may effect contaminant fate and
transport will be evaluated, as required
All samples
I
I
I
I ,-
1
I
1.·
I
I
I,
~ 1:
1;
'I
I
I
I
Table 4-3 North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCLs/MCLGs
NC Standards: Federal Standards:
Proposed
Contaminant Primary Secondary MCL MCL MCLG
Aluminum ----50 -200+ ----
Antimony ------10/5 --
Arsenic. total 50 --50 ----
Barium, total 1,000 --1,000 ----
Beryllium ------I --
Cadmium, total 5 --5 --5
Chloride 250.000 .. 250,000+ ·-·-
Chromium, total 50 ·-100 ·-100
Color (color units) 15 --15+ ·-·-
Copper, total 1.000 ·-1,000+ .. --
Corrosivity non-non-----
corrosive corrosive
Cyanide ·-·- ·-200 ·-
Fluoride 2.000 --4,000/ ·---
2,000+
Foaming agents 500 .. 500+ ·---
Iron. total 300 ·-300+ ·-·-
Lead. total 50 ·-50 ----
Manganese. total 50 --50+ ----
Mercury, inorganic I.I ·-2 --2
Nickel 150 --·-100 ·-
Nitrate-N · 10,000 --10,000 --10,000
Nitrite-N 1,000 --1.000 ·-1,000
Odor (threshold odor number) ----3+ --·-
pH (standard units) 6.5 to 8.5 --6.5 to 8.5 --·-
Selenium. total 10 --50 ·-50
Silver, total 50 ·-100 --·-
Proposed
MCLG
--
5
50
1,500
0
--
--
·-
--
1.300
--
200
--
--
--
20
--
--
100
--
--
--
--
·-
--
I ,,
V
t "
I
-I
I'
I "
I
I
a:
I -,.
,_
I:
Table 4-3 North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCLs/MCLGs (continued)
NC Standards: Federal Standards:
Proposed
Contaminant Primary Secondary MCL MCL MCLG
Sodium .. .. . . .. ..
Sulfate 250,000 .. 250,000+ 400,000/ ..
500,000
IDS 500,000 .. 500,000+ .. --
Thallium .. .. . . 2/1 --
Tolal-N .. .. 10,000 .. 10.000
Zinc. tolal 5.000 .. 5,000 .. ..
1,1, I-Trichloroethane 200 .. 200* .. 200
I, 1,2-Trichloroethane .. .. . . 5 ..
1, 1-Dichloroethene 7 --7* .. 7
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene .. --.. 9 . .
1,2-Dichloroethane .38 .. 5* .. 0
1,2-Dichloropropane .56 .. 5 .. 0
2.3,7,8-TCDD 7 .. .. 0.05 ..
2,4,5 -TP IO --50 .. 50
2.4-D 70 .. 70 -· 70
Acrylamide O.Ql .. .. .. ..
Adipaies .. .. .. 500 ..
Alachlor .. .. 2 .. 0
Atrazine .. .. 3 . . 3
Benzene 1 .. 5* .. 0
Bromoform 0.19 .. .. .. ..
Carbofuran .. .. 40 .. 40
Carbon tetrachloride .3 .. 5* .. 0
Chlordane 0.027 .. 2 .. 0
Chlorobenzene 300 .. .. .. ..
Proposed
MCLG
-·
400,000/
500,000
..
0.5
. .
..
..
3
..
9
..
..
0
..
..
..
500
..
..
..
. .
..
..
..
. .
t
I
I
I ~
1.
I
'I
I ,,
t
I'
I
Table 4-3 North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCL.s/MCLGs (continued)
NC Standards: Federal Standards:
Proposed
Contaminant Primary Secondary MCL MCL MCLG
Chloroform 0.19 --------
2-Chloropbenol 0.1 --------
cis-1,2-Dichloroetbylene 70 --70 --70
Dalapon ------200 --
DBCP ----0.2 --0
l ,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane 0.025 --------
Dichlorodifluorometbane 0.19 --------
Dinoseb ----------
Dioxin 0.00000022 --------
Diquat ------20 --
EDB .0005 --0.06 --0
Endotball ------100 --
Endrin 0.2 --0.2 2 --
Epichlorohydrin 3.54 --------
Ethyl benzene 29 --70 --70
Ethylene glycol 7,000 --------
Fluoride 2.000 --------
Foaming agents 500 --------
Glyphosate ------70 --
Heplacblor 0.076 --0.4 --0
Heplachlor Epoxide 0.038 --0.2 --0
Hexachlorobenzene 0.02 ----I --
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene ------50/8+ --
Lindane 0.0265 --0.2 --0.2
Meladichlorobenzene 620 --------
Proposed
MCLG
--
--
--
200
--
--
--
7
--
20
--
100
2
--
--
--
--
--
70
--
-
0
50
--
--
I
' t
I
ii
I'
11'
,I
lb
I
I .. .,
,I
'l1
t
I
Table 4-3 North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCLs/MCLGs (continued)
NC Standards: Federal Standards:
Proposed
Contaminant Primary Secondary MCL MCL MCLG
Methoxychlor 100 .. 40 .. 40
Methylene chloride 5 .. .. .. ..
Methyl ethyl ketone 170 .. .. .. ..
Monochlorobenzeue .. .. 100 .. 100
n-Hexane 14,300 .. .. .. ..
o -Dichlorobenzene 620 .. 500 .. 500
Oxamyl (Vydate) 175 .. .. 200 . .
p -Dichlorobenerene 1.8 .. 75 5 0
PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene) .. .. .. 0.2 . .
Paradichlorobenzene 1.8 .. .. .. ..
PCBs .. .. 0.5 .. 0
Pemachlorophenol 220 .. .. .. ..
Phlhalates .. .. .. 4 ..
Pichloram .. .. .. 500 . .
Simazine .. .. .. 1 . .
Styrene 0.014 .. 100 .. 100
T etrachlorethene 0.7 .. 5• .. . .
Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 .. 5 .. 0
Toluene 1,000 .. 1,000 .. 1,000
Toxaphene .031 .. 3 .. 0
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 .. 100 .. 100
I, 1,1-Trichloroelhaoe 200 .. .. .. ..
Trichloroethene 2.8 .. 5 .. 0
T rihalomelhaoes --.. I OO(i) .. ..
Vinyl chloride 0.015 .. 2• ·-0
Proposed
MCLG
..
. .
. .
..
..
. .
200
..
0
. .
. .
. .
0
500
1
..
0
..
. .
. .
..
--
--
--
--
,, II
,,_
I
I /
_,
I'
I
I
I ,,,
,.
I_
,,-
' 1-
1'
Table 4-3 North Carolina Drinking Water Standards Criteria
and USEPA MCLs/MCLGs (continued)
NC Standards:
Contaminant Primary Secondary
Xylenes (!Dial) 400 ..
Microbiologicals, average .. ..
Microbiologicals, maximum one per ..
100 mL
Ra-226 and Ra-228 (pCi/L) 5 ..
Gross alpha (pCi/L) 15 ..
Note: All units in micrograms per liter unless otherwise noted.
Sources:
Federal Standards:
Proposed
MCL MCL MCLG
10,000 .. 10,000
one per --..
100 mL
(avg)
four per ----
100 mL
(max)
5 .. ..
15 .. ..
Proposed
MCLG
..
--
--
--
. .
Tille 15, North Carolina Administration Code Subcbapter 2L, Section ,0202, Water Quality Slandards, Class GA
groundwater, December 14, 1989,
40 CFR 141 and 143, Maximum Contaminant Levels,
40 CFR 141-5, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals,
50 FR 46936, Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals.
55 FR 30371, Proposed MCLs and MCLGs, July, 1990,
58 FR 3528, MCLs and MCLGs, January, 199L
• MCL as established in FR 52 25690,
+ Secondary MCL,
Based on the standard for total tribal om ethanes at 100 µgit
WORKPUN\TIOOT4-3.WP
I' ,_.
I
I -·
I\
' .
I
D ;
I
I
ft
I·
,1:
I. ., ..
I
I
CHAPTER 4. WORK Pl.AN RATIONALE
areas of concern identified through historic process and aerial photograph review,
review of data from previous investigations, and field reconnaissance
uncertainty of chemical characteristics
potential migration pathways
4.2 WORK PLAN APPROACH
This work plan and the associated supporting documents have been prepared in order to
facilitate the rapid investigation of the subject site and the identification and evaluation of
appropriate remedial action alternatives. A substantial body of site specific information has been
developed by both University and USEPA contractor investigations. It is firmly understood that
two discrete, well documented waste sources exist: the chemical waste disposal area and the
low level radioactive waste disposal area. A good inventory of the wastes disposed in each area
is available. A number of site studies and off site sampling efforts have been performed. The
study area's general geology has been described, shallow aquifer characteristics identified and
shallow unit groundwater quality has been reported. A significant amount of useful information
has been assembled and is available for use in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
The Work Pian and associated documents focus on the types and quality of data that is
not available and must be obtained in order to meet RI/FS objectives. The approach to data
collection focuses on the following:
I. Confirmation of the findings reported by previously conducted studies. These
findings include descriptions of waste materials disposed, site environmental
setting and environmental quality summaries based on the various parameters for
which analyses were performed.
2. Expand the investigation by adding new sampling points and the range of parame-
ters for which analyses must be conducted. This expansion is designed to attain
compliance with the RI/FS data quality objectives, support the performance of the
risk assessment and to optimize the range of available remedial action alternatives.
3. Upgrade the quality of data collection and evaluation effort to the currently
accepted state of the art for such studies. The upgrading in data collection efforts
is also designed to achieve compliance with RI/FS data quality objectives.
4. Obtain waste characterization and environmental setting data critical to the
understanding of the site-specific fate and transport of contaminants, should they
be determined to be following the pathway of concern, groundwater, identified for
the Lot 86 site. This type of information was briefly examined in previously
conducted studies, but was not evaluated in sufficient detail to support a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study.
BROWN AND CALDWEIL 4-9 Wd Pia -~ 1992
I
' t
I:
11.
I'
I\ t
I
I' ..
I,
I ,.
I
,I , ,,
i, ,,
I
. ,·.
,,
j I
CHAPTER 4. WORK PLAN RATIONALE
4.2.1 Chemical Waste Disposal Area
An on-site field gas chromatograph will be used to expedite and focus
the assessment of surface and subsurface soil quality relative to the chemical
waste disposal area. The screening process will be utilized to select individual
soil samples for laboratory analyses and to choose additional sampling loca-
tions, as indicated. A flow chart. Figure 4-1, illustrates the manner in which
the screening process will be implemented during field data collection activities.
Selected samples will be analyred for Target Analyte List/farget Compound List (TAUfCL)
constituents and radiation parameters (see 4.2.2, below).
Subsurface environmental quality soil samples will be obtained from soil test borings
advanced a total of three locations: two topographically down slope with respect to the site to
establish potential contaminant migration conditions and one located in order to collect soil
samples representative of background subsurface quality.
~
The chemical waste characterization task will be supported by uses of surface geophysical
study techniques in order to evaluate waste disposal site limits, trench depths and approximate
dimensions, trench geometries, and general waste consistency .
4.2.2 Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area
Soil test borings will be advanced and sampled to provide detailed environmental quality
data relative to the potential migration of contamination from the low level radioactive waste
(LLRW) disposal area. Background samples will also be collected in order to complete the
characterization effort. An on-site radiation survey meter capable of beta and gamma radiation
detention will be utilired to screen all samples and to expedite and focus the assessment
activities, relative to the low level radioactive waste disposal area. . Soil samples exhibiting
radiation levels ten times the established background values will be shipped to the laboratory for
analysis. LLRW samples will be analyred for gross alpha, beta, and gamma radiation and for
tritium and carbon-14 content
The low level radioactive waste disposal area investigation will be supported by the use
of surface geophysical techniques, as described above.
4.2.3 Groundwater Quality Investigation
Four new groundwater quality monitoring wells will be installed at selected locations to
complete well nests as two-well clusters (55 feet and 75 feet depths). The shallow wells will be
utilired to assess the soil aquifer water quality and the deeper wells will be installed into bedrock
in order to evaluate the bedrock aquifer's quality. In addition, another round of sampling will
be performed using 11 existing monitoring wells. The wells to be sampled will be chosen based
on their locations with respect to the site and well construction details (i.e., compatibility with
currently established data quality objectives) .
BROWN AND CAWWFLL 4-10 w .. ,.,_ -~ 1992
I
I
I
I
·t ,I
-t
ft
j
1·
I,
1·
I ,,
,,·
I,
1:
I ,t
1·
I
MOBILIZE
I
i ' ' COLLECT
SAMPLES
FIELD GC AND
RADIATION SCREENING
Figure 4-i
YES
INCREASING
SAMPLING
DEPTH OR AREA
NO
ADD A BORING
OR
SAMPLING POINT
NO
YES
STOP
SAMPLING
STOP
SAMPLING
NC State University Lot 86 Site
RI/FS Field Screening Procedure for
Surface/Subsurface Samples
I'
I,
I
1·
I,
11' ,,
CHAPTER 4. WORK PL4N RATIONALE
This monitoring well network will be used to assess contaminant plume character and
extent Water table elevations will be determined several times over the course of the
investigation to determine the water table gradient under varying conditions. In addition,
groundwater now direction and velocity will be determined by the use of real-time, in situ
measurement.
As part of the groundwater quality investigation, a domestic well inventory will be
performed. This inventory will include the following components:
1. Development records will be checked for an area within a 1/2-mile radius of the
site to verify that all residents are being served by a municipal water supply.
2. A door to door survey will be conducted to the east, west, and north. The survey
will be limited to a maximum of two contact attempts per structure.
The well inventory survey will collect the following information:
I. Which homes have wells.
2. Well water uses.
3. Well construction,
4. Number and age of users,
5. Rate of water use.
4.2.4 Site Specific Fate and Transport
Analyses of total inorganic contaminants in groundwater are required from a risk-
assessment standpoint; however, total values include the insoluble fraction bound in the
particulate fraction of the aquifer matrix as well as the dissolved fraction. The particulate
fraction is not mobile, and not expected to migrate. Consequently, determinations must be made
between dissolved and insoluble forms of the metals of concern.
The potential for and rate of contaminant migration may be profoundly effected by
conditions that are specific to a particular location and hydrogeologic system. Specific physical
and geochemical analytical methods will be determined based on the results of chemical analysis.
Aquifer physical characteristics information needed to support the evaluation of fate and transport
mechanisms will be obtained by performing soil sample identification and permeability testing,
in situ hydraulic conductivity testing, and packer testing of the bedrock water bearing unit at two
locations.
BROWN AND CALDWELL -1-12 Wori-p,--Dtt ..... 1991
I ,,
,f
I·
I
,I·'
/
f1
.
I
I
I,
1·
•11
I
I'
l1
II
II,
f
t
CHAPTER 4. WORK PLAN RA110NALE
4.3 ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
The analytical parameters are proposed based upon the Target Analyte
List (TAL) for inorganic parameters and Target Compound List (TCL) for
organic chemicals. A list of these analytes as defined in the 3/90 Contract
Laboratory Program Statement of Work (3/90 SOW) are presented as Table 4-4.
Table 4-5, taken from Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities (EPA/540/g-87/003), defines the analytical levels. Approximately 25
percent of all characterization samples will be analyzed at Level IV. The remainder of the
characterization samples will be analyzed at Level III. Field screening activities will be
conducted at Level IL The radioactive sample analyses will be conducted at Level V.
WORKPLAN\ 7200CH4. WP
BROWN A.ND CALDWELL .J-13 Wort p,a,. -~ 199'2
I,
I Table 4-4
I, Inorganic
AJumimnn
Antimony
Arsenic ,, Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
l1 Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt ,,, Copper
Iron
Lead
fr Magnesium
Mercury
'o Nickel
1_ Potassium
Selenium
Silver
I' Sodium
'lballium
Vanadium
I, Zinc
Cyanide
I Organic -Volatile
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
_, Vinyl Chloride 11 Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
I\ Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
l, l-Dichloroethylene ,, l. l-Dichloroethane
l ,2-Dichloroethylene
Chloroform
t l,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butenone (MEK)
l, l,l-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride I Bromodichloromethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
I cis-l ,3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroethylene
Dibromochloromethane
1-l.2-Trichloroethane II WORKPUN\7200T4-'
I
Analytical Parameters (Contract Laboratory Program 3/90 SOW)
Benzene
trans-1.3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK)
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Xylenes (Tolal)
Organic -Semivolatiles
Phenol
bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
2-Chlorophenol
l.3-Dichlorobenzene
l ,4-Dichlorobenzene
l ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylpbenol
2,2' -oxybis( 1-Chloropropane)
4-Methylphenol
n-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isopherone
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
bis(2-chloroethoxy) Methane
2-4-dichloropbenol
1,2,4-T richlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroanaline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2.4,5-Trichloropbenol
2-Chloronapbthalene
2-Nitroanaline
Dimethyl Phthalate
Acenaphthylene
2,4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitropbenol
Dibenzofuran
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Diethyl Phlhalate
4-Cblorophenyl phenyl Ether
Fluorene
4-Nitroanaline
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitropbenol
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
4-Bromophenyl phenyl Ether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthreoe
Anlhracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butyl benzyl Phthalate
3.3-Dichlorobenzidine
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl) Pbthalate
Di-n-octyl Phthalate
Benzo(b )fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno( l ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Dibenzo(a.Ji )anlhracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Organic -Pesticides and PCBs
a-BHC
b-BHC
d-BHC
g-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxide
Endosulfan I
Dieldrio
4,4'-DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
4,4'-DDD
Endosulfan Sulfate
4,4'-DDT
Methox ychlor
Endrin Ketone
Endrin Aldehyde
a-Chlordane
g-Chlordane
Toxaphene
PCB-1016
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1242
PCB-1248
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
-IIIIJ ~ .. , .. ---...... -
Table 4-5 Summary of Analytical Levels Appropriate to Data Use
Data Use Analytical Type of Analysis Limitations Data Quality
Level
-Site Characterization Level I -Total Organicflnorganic -Inslrumenis Respond to -If Inslruments Calibrated and
-Monitoring During -Vapor Detection Using Portable Naturally Occurring Data Interpreted Correctly,
Implementation lns1ruments Compounds Can Provide Indication of
-Field Test Kiis Contamination
-Site Charncterization Level II · Variety of Organics by GC; -Tentative ID -Dependent on QA/QC Steps
-Evaluation of Alternatives Inorganics by AA; XRF -Techniques/Instruments Employed
-Engineering Design -Tentative ID; Analyte-Specific Limited most to Volatiles. -Data Typically Reported in
-Monitoring During -Detection Limits Vary From Low Metals Concentiation Ranges
Implementation ppm to Low ppb
-Risk Assessment Level III -Organics/Inorganics Using EPA -Tentative ID in Some Cases -Similar Detection Limits H>
-PRP Determination Procedures Other n,an CLP Can -Can Provide Data of Same CLP
-Site Characterization De Analyte-Specific Quality as Level IV, NS -Less Rigorous QA/QC
-Evaluation of Alternatives -RCRA Characteristics Tests
-Engineering Design
-Monitoring During
Implementation
-Risk Assessment Level IV -IISL Organics/lnorganics By -Tentative Identification of -Goal is Data of Known
-PRP Determination GC/MS; AA; ICP Non-HSL Parameters Quality
-Site Characterization -Low ppb Detection Limit -Some Time May be Required -Rigorous QA/QC
-Evaluation of Alternatives for Validation of Packages
-Engineering Design
-Risk Assessment Level V -Non-Conventional Parameters -May Require Metl1od -Method Specific
-PRP Dctenninatiun -Method-Specific Detection Limits Development/Modification
-Modification of Existing Methods -Mechanism to Obtain Services
-Appendix 8 Parameters Requires Special Lead Time
\WORKPLAN\7200T -4-S.WP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5.0
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS
This section describes the tasks that will be implemented during the performance of the
RI at the Lot 86 site. These tasks include:
5.1
Task !--Field Investigation
Task 2--Laboratory Sample Analysis/Validation
Task 3--Compilation of Data and Data Base Management
Task 4--Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives Planning
Task 5--Treatability Studies
Task 6--RI Report
FIELD INVESTIGATION TASKS
5.1.1 Project Planning
Prior to the field investigation activities, a series of preparation steps will be taken. These
steps include:
•
•
procurement of subcontractors/mobilization
determination of sampling locations
• coordination with EPA prior to initiation of any sampling and laboratory
analysis
• underground utilities clearance survey
5.1.2 Procurement of Subcontractors/Mobilization
Prior to initiation of field activities, various mobilization tasks must be completed to
ensure an efficient field sampling program. Immediately following USEPA acceptance of this
work plan and associated plans, subcontractor activities will be scheduled.
5.1.3 Community Relations
Assistance will be provided to the EPA in conducting the community relations program
for the site.
5.1.4 Determination of Sample Locations
To characterize the nature and extent of contamination, sample locations must be selected
to optimize the data collection process. Sample locations for this study are discussed by disposal
area. A radiation survey and a geophysical study will be performed prior to the collection of on-
BROWN AND CALDWELL 5-1 Wont Pia,, • ~ 199'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
~HAPTER 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGAI1ON TASKS
,ite media samples. The geophysical study wiil be utilized to obtain information confirming site
,;onslr\lction and operation. lhe waste characterization. geologic conditions. and supponing the
hydrogeoiogic investigation. The locations or special conditions such as anomalies wiil be staked
in the tield to permit prompt and accurate reexamination.
5. l.4. l Chemical Waste Disposal Area and Low Level Radioactive Waste Area
A review or historical operational and North Carolina State University
rile information indicates lhat the chemical waste disposal area and the low
level radioactive waste area were operated as individual landfills by the trench
:ind cover method (Figure 2-2). An interpretive cross section. Figure 5-l, illus-
trates general site conditions relative to the study area. Based upon this infor-
mation. a total of 12 sun·ace soil sampiing locations will be established in drainage swales or low
,rreas at locations shown on Figure 5-2. Two surface soil sampling locations will be established
;n unaffected areas in order to obtain background quality data. Surface soil samples will be
collected at three depth inlervals: 0 to 1, 1 to 2. and 2 to 3 feet below existing ground sun·ace.
The 36 collected samples will be subjected to a field GC and radiation screening. Twelve
,amples will be shipped to the laboratory for analyses. The samples shipped to the laboratory
will be analyzed for TAUTCL and radiation parameters. The sun·ace soil sampling etfon may
be expanded either laterally or venically if the field screening indicates such a need.
Subsurface soil samples will be collected during the drilling of three soil
test borings at the locations shown on Figure 5-3. Two soil test borings have
been tentatively located, based upon the known extent of migrating contamina-
tion and proximity to probable sources (trenches). The location selection will
be confirmed by information collected during the geophysical study. Subsur-
face soil samples will be collecled on a continuous basis above the water table in 2-foot incre-
ments and subjected to field screening. Field screening will be used to determine the need for
additional borings. An additional soil test boring wiil be localed in an unaffected area in order
lo collect background subsurface soil quality samples. The soil borings will be extended to
bedrock. and soil sampling will be pen·ormed at 5-foot intervals below the level at which ground-
waler is encountered.
5.1.4.2 Groundwater
Four new monitoring wells will be conslr\lcted at two new well locations
to provide two well depths (55 and 75 feet). Monitoring well locations are
presented on Figure 5-4. A total of l I existing wells will be resampled to
suppon the Remedial Investigation.
5.1.5 Coordination with EPA
EPA will be informed 2 weeks prior to initiation or any activities on the site.
JROWN AND CALDWELL 5-2 Wonl-Plan • lkcr,..,, 1992
- ------------------
RtD QAI'
SUY ClAY TO
Q.A'([Y l,ffiY flN[
SANDY SILT, REO
8RO'Ml 10 TAN
9...TY ',-£RY RN[
S,IJr(}, IROWN 10
UGH TAN UICACl:U.IS
rct..1A Tm W[A Iltf.RED
QIOSS
SI.TY \mY fN:
SAIi) TAN/IJW"'
IICACCOOS fQJA TID
ID MRID QIEJSS
Wini OOAAT1 \"EINS
SI.TY >O!Y mt
SNI> TAN 'IOlOW TO
'ftll[ MlCACCCXJS
FII.JA 1lD wt.A IHER£D
GIIOSS
EN!.JM RED 'iOlY
fff: <lAITT SJOO
WTH ~ IDJDE
Sl"'S
LEGEND
'SZ_ -WATER TABt.£
WELL 5B
0
20'
JO' sz.
40'
50'
110·
62'
NOllc IIFOll!IA TIOII ~ TAKEN FT!(II
• CHEMICAL WAS1£ TRENCHES
GROJNO SURFACE
-NCSU FUS. Al() CROSS-S£CTICNAI..
REPRCID4TATI(Jr(S ARE Fill: COKIPlUAL
MPOSES CH..Y.
Figure 5-1 Site Cross-Sectic,
Watertable and B
Source: Brown and Coldwell
• LLRW TRENCHES WELL 31
0
10·
20'
JO'
,,,.
110· er
II 58 to Well 31, West to East
RfD Sil TY a Al'
ORANGE: FINE SANO)'
U'ICAC[OUS SIL l {Ml I)
TAN Rm Cl..AY
IOCACEOOS Sill ("-D
R!D (lAY
.,CACEOOS Sil T (Mt D
G<XOOl-
"CACEOOS SL! ("-D
ROO(-~
QUARTZ AGal!GA TE
a Taken from Individual Boring Logs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEGEND
* 01 SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION
AND NUMBER
-x-FENCE
FORMER CHEMICAL
STORAGE DUMPSTER AREA
0 50 100 -----SCALE IN FEET
Figure 5-2 Surface Soil Sample Locations
Source: Modified from
US EPA, 1987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• 15 .13
•5A 5o
• 5B
3A • •3 38 •
27 •
27A •
.12
• 32
LEGEND
Source:
• MONITORING W[LL
LOCATION
FENCE 14 0 so 100 ------SCAlE IN ffil
Figure 5-4 North Carolina State University, Lot 86 Site
Monitoring Well Locations and Waste
Disposal Areas
Modified from
US EPA, 1987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS
5.1.6 Field Investigation Tasks
The field investigation tasks include a domestic well survey and the collection and
analyses of soil and groundwater samples. Information from these efforts will be used to characterize site conditions. All field activities will be conducted in accordance with USEPA
Region IV Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (SOPQAM, 1991).
Table 5-1 Estimated QA/QC Samples
Unit Duplicates Field Equipment Trip
blanks blanks blanks"
Chemical waste disposal 5 3 3 15
area and LLRW
Groundwater I I I 6
• Volatile constituents only.
5.1.7 Surveying
All monitoring wells. soil borings, and surface soil sampling locations will be surveyed
for location (areal) and elevation by a registered North Carolina surveyor. Surveying support will be performed in conformance with SOPQAM (1991) Section 7-2, Horizontal Control and 7.3, Vertical Control.
5.2 ANALYTICAL DATA MANAGEMENT AND VALIDATION
This task includes efforts relating to the management and validation of analytical data.
The management of the analytical data begins upon receipt of the data from the laboratory and
continues through the data validation process. Validation procedures verify that analytical results
are correctly transcribed from instrument readouts and calculations, and reported in units
according to industry standards. In addition, environmental samples associated with out-of-
control QC samples or calibration criteria are identified by data qualifiers.
BROWN AND CALDWF.IL 5-7 Wort Pia . ~ 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS
5.2.1 Analytical Data Management
Work elements included in the analytical data management subtasks are coordination with
the laboratory, data acquisition and filing, completion of a sample identification matrix, and
compilation of laboratory data for data entry. Laboratory coordination, from procurement, to
preparation of laboratory requests, to day-to-day correspondence, add to the quality of data
analyses. The field personnel will designate a contact for the lab and this contact will be
available to answer any lab concern.
Data will be stored in a computer data base with hard copy backup in laboratory
notebooks. Laboratory data, correspondence, and data validation reports will be organized and
filed by sample matrix and sample date. A sample identification matrix will be completed for
each matrix type. The matrix types include:
•
•
•
Groundwater
Soils
QA/Qt::. samples
This can be used as an inventory of the field sampling, sample analyses, and data
validation status. It may also be expanded to inventory data entry.
Copies of the original data sheets will be organized into a notebook for data entry.
Copies will be used so that data entry personnel can highlight, make notes, or verify data entry
with a signature and date. The notebook will be organized by matrix and by station number.
5.2.2 Data Validation
The data validation task verifies the quality of data for use in the data evaluation task.
This defines the useability of the data, based upon independent review of laboratory results by
BC personnel. The data validation procedures are performed by non-laboratory personnel, in
addition to the standard laboratory QA/Qt::. review. All data (once validated) will be compiled
into a relational database (Paradox).
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) data validation packages will be generated for this
RI/FS. The data generated from this site will be validated per CLP criteria, as outlined in the
following documents:
USEPA, 1985, Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating
Organic Analyses. R-582-5-5-01, Hazardous Site Control Division, May 28.
USEPA, 1985, Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating
Inorganic Analyses. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
USEPA, 1991, Region IV Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual.
BROWN ,tND CALDWELL 5-8 wn n-. ~ 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS
Additional infonnation regarding data validation is included in the Sampling and Analysis
Plan (BCC, 1992).
5.3 DATA EVALUATION
The data evaluation task includes effons related to the analysis of data once it has been
validated. This task involves reviewing the data in terms of comparability, representativeness,
and completeness per requirements in the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The task
begins on the date that the first set of validated data is received by BCC and ends during
preparation of the RI report when it is deemed that no additional data are required.
Sampling data will be evaluated to identify the vertical and areal extent of contamination,
chemical concentrations, and chemical transport mechanisms. Field QNQC samples, such as
blind duplicates, equipment blanks and field blanks, will be reviewed to determine field sampling
precision and to detennine if contamination is being introduced by sampling equipment or the
sampling environment.
The site-specific groundwater flow conditions will be studied using two lines of investi-
gation:
• NCGS and USGS WRD publications and file data, and
• Site well water levels.
Groundwater elevation data will be collected during both wet and dry season conditions to detennine possible seasonal variation.
Chemical fate and transport evaluations may use partitioning calculations and chemical
transport calculations to assess the chemical migration potentials. The chemical migration
potential from identified source areas will be determined based on site-specific and literature data.
Chemical transport directions and velocities will be calculated for chemicals identified in the
groundwater. The data evaluation results will be summarized in a Preliminary Site Characteri-
zation Report for submittal to the USEP A.
5.4 EVALUATE REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES PLANNING
There are three major subtasks associated with this task. They are:
•
•
•
Development of Remedial Alternatives
Screening of Alternatives
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives
This evaluation task provides the opportunity to review planned feasibility study tasks.
The tasks will be reviewed in consideration of infonnation obtained during the RI. Modifications
and refinement of existing tasks may be required to ensure original FS objectives are maintained.
BROWN AND CALDWELL 5-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 5. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TASKS
5.5 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
This RI task includes documentation of all RI activities, analytical results, and data
evaluation results. The RI repon is used in preparing the final RA and to serve as documentation
of data collection and analyses in suppon of the FS. A draft final RI repon will be submitted
to North Carolina State University. All review comments will be evaluated and incorporated
following review of the draft final. The final RI repon will be submitted to the USEP A
following review by North Carolina State University.
Table 5-2 is a proposed fonnat for the RI repon.
5.6 PROPOSE TREATABILITY STUDIES
If required, treatability study(ies) will be proposed, in confonnance with the AOC
following submittal of the Draft RI Repon. This task involves identification of suitable
treatability studies, scoping of the studies, and preparation of a work plan to address studies
which may be necessary to evaluate remedial alternatives development, screening, or analysis.
Components of a treatability study work plan generally address test facility and equipment
procurement, equipment operations and testing, sample analysis and validation, evaluation of
results, repon preparation, task management, and quality control.
7200CH5.WP
BROWN AND CAWWELL 5-10 W.tl'IDI.O.C..,,.,1#1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-2 Proposed RI Report Format
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
I. l Purpose of Report
1.2 Site Background
1.2. l Site Description
1.2.2 Site History
1.2.3 Previous Investigations
1.3 Report Orga.niz.ation
2. Study Area Investigation
2.1 Includes field activities associated with site characterization. These may include
physical and chemical monitoring of some, but not necessarily all, of the following:
2.1.l Surface Features (topographic mapping, etc.) (natural and manmade features)
2.1.2 Contaminant Source Investigations
2.1.3 Meteorological Investigations
2.1.4 Surface-Water and Sediment Investigations
2.1.5 Geological Investigations
2.1.6 Soil and Vadose Zone Investigations
2.1. 7 Groundwater Investigations
2.1.8 Human Population Surveys
2. 1.9 Ecological Investigations
2.2 If technical memoranda documenting field activities were prepared, they may be
included in an appendix and summariz.ed in this report chapter.
3. Physical Characteristics of the Study Area
3.1 Includes results of field activities to determine physical characteristics. These may
include some, but not necessarily all, of the following:
3.1. l Surface Features
3.1.2 Meteorology
3.1.3 Surface-Water Hydrology
3.1.4 Geology
3.1.5 Soils
3.1.6 Hydrogeology
3.1.7 Demography and Land Use
3.1.8 Ecology
4. Nature and Extent of Contamination
4.1 Presents the results of site characterization, both natural chemical components and
contaminants in some, but not necessarily all, of the following media:
4.1. l Sources (lagoons, sludges, tanks, etc.)
4.1.2 Soils and Vadose Zone
4.1.3 Groundwater
4.1.4 Surface Water and Sediments
4.1.5 Air
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 5-2 Proposed RI Report Format (continued)
5. Contaminant Fate and Transport
5.1 Potential Routes of Migration (i.e., air, groundwater, etc.)
5.2 Contaminant Persistence
5.2. l If they are applicable (i.e, for organic cootaminants), describe estimated
persistence in the study area environment and physical, chemical, and/or
biological factors of importance for the media of interesL
5.3 Contaminant Migration
5.3.1 Discuss factors affecting contaminant migration for the media of importance
(e.g., sorption onto soils, solubility in water, movement of groundwater, etc.)
5.3.2 Discuss modeling methods and results, if applicable.
6. Baseline Risk AMeMment
6.1 Human Health Evaluation
6.1.1 Exposure AMeMment
6.1.2 Toxicity Assessment
6.1.3 Risk Characterization
6.2 Environmental Evaluation
7. Summary and Conclusions
7. l Summary
7.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination
7 .1.2 Fate and Transport
7.1.3 Risk AMeMment
7.2 Conclusions
7.2.1 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work
7.2.2 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives
Appendices
A. Technical Memoranda on Field Activities (if available)
B. Analytical Data and QNcy::, Evaluation Results
C. Risk AMeMment Methods
IWORKPU.N\7200n-2. WP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 6.0
FEASIBIUTY STUDY TASKS
The objective of the Feasibility Study (FS) is to develop and evaluate remedial action
alternatives leading to the selection of the preferred alternative for the Lot 86 site. The FS
process occurs in phases: (I) the development of alternatives, (2) the screening of the alterna-
tives, (3) the detailed evaluation of the alternatives, (4) treatability studies, if needed, (5) pilot
tests, if needed, and (6) interim remediation, if needed.
6.1 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The purpose of developing remedial action alternatives is to satisfy the response objectives
described in Chapter 3. The first step in this process is the identification of general response
actions for each environmental medium (e.g., soil, groundwater) that can be taken to satisfy the
response objectives for the site. These general response actions can consist of such actions as
groundwater pumping and treatment waste excavation, containment, or others, singly or in
combination.
Once the general response actions are developed, potential treatments, resource recovery,
and containment technologies will be identified for the various environmental media. The
technologies will then be screened based upon their effectiveness, implementability, and cost
The technologies that pass the screening process will be assembled into remedial action
alternatives for the contaminated media at the site. The alternatives can be developed to
address a contaminated medium (e.g., groundwater), a specific area of the site, or the entire site.
A secondary objective in the development of the remedial action alternatives is to develop
a range of alternatives that achieve varying degrees of treatment and/or control of contaminated
areas as specified in the NCP.
6.2 REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
Once the remedial action alternatives are developed, they will be screened to reduce the
number of alternatives that will be analyred in detail. The need for the screening will depend
upon the number of alternatives initially developed for a site. Screening of the alternatives will
be based upon their effectiveness, implementability, and cost, as specified in the NCP. Cost
estimation developed for the alternatives in the screening process will be of order-of-magnitude
accuracy, and the screening of the alternatives will be performed on a general basis. The
information necessary to fully evaluate the alternatives may not be complete at this point in the
FS process.
BROWN .4ND CALDWEIL 6-1 wn ,,,_. o.n... IWJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 6. FEASIBILITY STUDY TASKS
6.3 DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial action alternatives that pass the screening process will be analyred in detail.
Nine evaluation criteria will be used in the detailed analysis as listed below:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Overall protection of human health and the environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness and permanence
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State acceptance
Community acceptance
The detailed analysis of the alternatives will consist of the following components:
• Further definition of each alternative, if necessary, with respect to the
volumes or areas of contaminated media to be addressed, the technologies
to be used, and any performance requirements associated with those
technologies.
• An assessment and a summary profile of each alternative against the
evaluation criteria.
• A comparative analysis among the alternatives to assess the relative
performance of each alternative with respect to each evaluation criterion.
The results of the detailed analysis provide the basis for identifying the preferred alternative.
6.4 FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
Upon completion of the detailed analysis of the remedial action alterna-
tives, the FS report will be prepared. Table 6-1 presents the proposed format
for the FS report. A draft FS report will be submitted to North Carolina State
University for review and comment The FS report will be submitted to the
USEPA following review by North Carolina State University.
\WORICPI.AN\7200CH6.WP
BROWN AND CALDWF.IL 6-2 wn ,.,_. o.e..,,. 1,n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-1 Proposed Format for Feasibility Study Report
EXECITTIVE SUMMARY
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Organizatioo of Repon
1.2 Background Infonnation
1.2.1 Site Desaiptioo
1.2.2 Site Hisu:w-y
1.2.3 Nature and Extent of Contaminati-On
1.2.4 Covraroinaot Fate and Traospon
1.2.5 Baseline Risk Assessment
2. IDENilFlCATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES
3.
4.
2.1 lntroductioo
2.2 Remedial Action Objectives
2.3 General Response Actioos
2.4 Identification and Screening of Technology Types and Process Options
2.4.1 Identification and Screening of Technologies
2.4.2 Evaluation of Technologies and Selection of Representative Technologies
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Development of Alternative
3.2 Screening of Alternatives (if conducted)
3.2.1 lntroductioo
3.2.2 Alternative 1
3.2.2.1 Description
3.2.2.2 Evaluation
3.2.3 Alternative 2
3.2.3.1 Description
3.2.3.2 Evaluation
3.2.N Alternative N
3.2.N.l Desaiption
3.2.N.2 Evaluation
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Individual Analysis of Alternative
4.2.1 Alternative I
4.2.1.1 Description
4.2.1.2 Assessment
4.2.2 Alternative 2
4.2.2.l Description
4.2.2.2 Assessment
4.2.N Alternative N
4.2.N. l Desaiption
4.2.N.2 Assessment
4.3 Comparative Analysis
References
Bibliography
Appendices
\WORKPLAN\72001'~1.WP
I
' I
I
I
I
I ··-
' 11
I
I ,.
I
I
I
I,
I
I
CHAPTER 7.0
SCHEDULE
The schedule for the Lot 86 site RI/FS is presented on Figure 7-1. The IZ:,;J:g ~€i~·;~~~::;:~!ff.;~;g~~E!. L,
of the RA from the USEP A. ::=Wllil
7200CH7.WP
BROWN AND CALDWELL 7-1 Worl Pia.~ lWl
-- ---.. --(--- - -- --
-------
ACTlV!lY !992 I 1993 I 1994
OESCHIPl I □rl SEP I OCT I NOV I DEC I JAN I FEB I MAR I APR I HAY I ,llltl I JUL I AUG I SEP I OCT I rmv I DEC I ,JAfJ I FEB I MAR I APfl
' . ' . ' ---------' ' ' ' ' ' AOC ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---,-------··--· --' ' --' ' IJHAF f _ HI~ ~IORK f1L AN ArlLl ASSUCl>TFO OOCIIMF:fllS ' ' ' ' ' --·---' ' ' PREPARE DRAFT WORK PLAN ANO ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS I ' --' ' ' ' CL Inn -REV JEW_---------------------------·-----.. ---I ' ' ' ' ' ' REVISE_ORAFT_WORK EL~!! ------.... -----·----... ---.. -···· -a ' ' ' EPA REVIEW ~ -' ' rrn:.L H('FS_ \/Otik:_PL.UI _At/U -~SSUL.:IATF.il OOL.:llt-1F.JlTS -.. ----' --' .... ' ' _PREPAAE_FINAL WORK PLAN_ AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ' = ' ----' ' _CLIENT _REVIEW ----· ' CJ ' ' ' REVISE _FINAL _ _i,'OAK_ PLAN __ -, ' CJ ' EPA REVIEW ' = ' ---· --··---···-· --·----------, ------. ---,---' FIELO_ WUflK _ ____ ·--------------------·------·---· ----·-----' ' ' MOBJLLIZATION ' CJ -' FIELD OATA COLLECTION ' = . -. -.... -·----······--.. ------··-· .. -·-· --------.. t,'!lcL!l•L SI fE CHARACTEHIZA TI or I/ fHEA r ABIL IT'/ STllll'f i
' -EVALUATE SITE CHARACTERISTICS ' c:::;=
PERFORM TREAT ABILITY STUOY c=:;::i
PREPARE PRELIMINARY REPORTS ·= ~U~NT REVIEW ' CJ ' ' ' REVISE_ PRELIMINARY REPORTS ' C:J ' --' ' _EPA_REVIEW_ ··---------.... .•.. -.. ------------. ---' ---~ ·-flEMFUIAL !ll'lfST!GA T!Otl HEPOHT ' ' PREPARE DRAFT RI REPORT = CLIENT REVIEW ________________ ------:c:i
REVISE __ DRAFT __ RI __ AEPORT ___________ ' CJ -~-----------' EPA __ REVIEW _____ --·· _______ -------··-·· _______ ,. ____ .. = PAEl-'AAE FHJAL RI _REPORT ________ . ' c::::,q . --' ---Ill SK _AS~"ifSSMFtlT ________ ' ' ····-···--·· ·--. ' ' PHEPAAE. DRAFT __ R !SK ASSESSMEtlT . ' = ' CLIENT_/1EVJEW ' ' c::J ' ----------··· .. -··----' ' c:::::d PllEPAAE FINAL_ HJSK_ ASSESSMEfll_. . _ ' ' f:.fJ.~Hil[.IT'f 'n!IOY AtlD lHEAU,bHJJl...~I!.!!l(. Hf!.JJ!:!LL. ' ' ' ' ' _PflEPARE_OAAFT REPORTS _____ ' ' ' •c=====• ' --' ' ' ' = ~u~~! REVIEW ______ ---------------------' ' ' ' 8~Yrn~ ORAFT_AEPORTS __ ' ' ' ' = --------------------. ' ' ' ' ~W~t1E. TO _EPA ________ --•-' I _, -~ ---------------------.. --------I ---.. ·-----. -· .. -·· I ' I . --··· ' ·-· i ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Plot Date 20tlOV92 51\trt ' " ' Data Date 23NDV92 f IIHUIIGI ar,.d ~IIG.lyl NORTH CAROLINA STATE UN IVERS! fY BG Brown Prolect Start 6SEP92 I I •cthlll llr'
Pro eel Flnisn t3APR94 • 0 ,.,...,, .. a.. LOT 86 SI TE RI/FS "nd Caldwell IIJ)uton, Acll•llJ
SUMMARY SCHEDULE Id Primavera Systems. Inc.