NCD980840409_19941001_Charles Macon Lagoon & Drum_FRBCERCLA RD_Pre-Final Final Remedial Design Report Volume 1-OCR

I;~IIll :~r):~::·· .....
::: ·_:·r;: -_ _ -IJBll-) ~, .. IJ,1! fo;J[ll'lt,t:,:::::Sll!Q~ .~. ::_,.;:?.':/~
,:.
?<:'.,'.,,,.;~::::,;:c::, ....
;•,·-,-.i . .s;•. ··->-:•'•
I
I
I
PREFINAL/FINAL REMEDIAL
I DESIGN REPORT
I For Ground Water
I
I
I
I'
I
I
.1
I
,I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CJ
INC.
RECIEl'-1~0
NOV O 41994
SUPERFUND SECTION ,
PREFINAL/FINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
FOR
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
October 1 994
VOLUME 1
Mar A. Petermann, P.G.
Proj ct Hydrogeologist
David S. Shaw, P.E.
Project Engineer
Project Manager
RMT, INC. -GREENVILLE, SC
l 00 VEROAE BOULEVARD • 29607-3825
P.O. Box 16778 • 29606-6778
803/281-0030 • 803/281-0288 FAX
I
I
I
I'
I
Ii
I
I
I
1·
8
I
I
'
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY PREFACE
PREFACE
This Prefinal/Final Design report for ground water remediation has been published as a two volume set.
Volume 1 contains Text and Appendices, Volume 2 contains Drawings. The Prefinal/Final Design
submittal also includes the Final Remedial Action Workplan, Construction Health and Safety Plan,
Performance Standards Verification Plan, and the draft Operations and Maintenance Plan submitted
under separate cover. A Final Design report for Soil Vapor Extraction was submitted in June 1994.
1:\Wf'l.1Cft7001 721. PFDlcdl94
f
' RMT PREFINALJFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1-1
1 .1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1 .2 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1.4 Description of Sne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1 .5 Sne History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
2. RESULTS OF DATA ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES .............................. 2-1
2.1 Supplemental Ground Water Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.1.1 Ground Water Screening Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.1.2 Monitoring Well Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
2.1.3 Aquifer Pumping Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
2.1.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
2.2 Surface Soil, Surface Water, and Sediment Testing Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
2.2.1 Surface Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
2.2.2 Surface Water and Sediment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
2.3 Ecological Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
2.3.1 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
2.3.2 Surface Soil Elutriate Bioassays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-51
2.3.3 Pond Surface Water Bioassays and Pond Sediment
Elutriate Bioassays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
2.3.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
2.4 Bioremediation Treatabilny Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-54
2.4.1 · Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
2.4.2 Soil Physical and Chemical Characterizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
2.4.3 Enumeration of Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-58
2.4.4 Biodegradation Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60
2.4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-71
2.5 Property Surveying ............................................. 2-74
2. 6 In Situ Infiltration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 4
2.6.1 Test Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-74
2.6.2 Test Procedures ......................................... 2-77
2.6.3 Infiltration Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-77
2.6.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79
2.7 Additional Ground Water Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-79
2.7.1 Well Installation .......................................... 2-79
2.7.2 Well Development and Hydraulic Conductivny Testing .............. 2-81
2.7.3 Ground Water Sampling and Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82
2.7.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-85
2.8 Bench-Scale Metals Treatment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-85
2.8.1 Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-85
2.8.2 Bench-Scale Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-86
2.8.3 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-88
I :\WP\ 70\7001721.PFD'cdt94
I'
,,,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .,
' i
I
1·
I
I
I
I ,.
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
3,
4.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2.9 Lagoon 1 0 Waste Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-89
2.9.1 Sample Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-89
2.9.2 Waste Physical and Chemical Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-89
2.9.3 Evaluation of Biodegradation Potential and Requirements
for Waste Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-98
2.9.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-99
PREFINAL/FINAL DESIGN , , ...... , ....... , ............................ , 3-1
3.1 Process Descriptions/Design Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.1 Ground Water Recovery and Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.2 Remediation of Lagoon 1 O Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.2 Design Criteria Report for the Ground Water Recovery
and Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.3 Project Delivery Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
3.4 Plan for Satisfying Permitting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
3.4.1 Ground Water Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24
3.4.2 Air Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25
3.5 Plans and Specttications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3.5.1 Drawing List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
3.5.2 Specttication List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE REMEDIAL ACTION ............................ , ........ , .. , 4-1
5. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ....................................... 5-1
List of Tables
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
Table 2-4
Table 2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table 2-8
Summary of Macon/Dockery Analytical Results: Comparison of
Ground Water Field Screening and Confirmation Samples (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Comparison of Ground Water Field Screening and Monitoring Well Results -
Upper Macon ................................................. 2-10
Comparison of Ground Water Field Screening and Monitoring Well Results -
Lower Macon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Comparison of Ground Water Field Screening and Monitoring Well Results -
Upper Dockery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Comparison of Ground Water Field Screening and Monitoring Well Results -
Lower Dockery ................................................ 2-13
Contaminants of Concern for Laboratory Analysis Macon/Dockery Site
Monitoring Well System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22
Summary of Upper Macon Analytical Results for Ground Water
(March 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Summary of Indicator Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30
I :\WP\70\7001721. PFD/edl94 ii
I ,,
1: .,
I
/I
1·
' ,,,
i .,
I
11
I
I
I
I!
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
List of Tables (Continued)
Table 2-9 Summary of Lower Macon Analytical Results for Ground Water
Table 2-10
Table 2-11
Table 2-12
Table 2-13
Table 2-14
Table 2-15
Table 2-16
Table 2-17
Table 2-18
Table 2-19
Table 2-20
Table 2-21
Table 2-22
Table 2-23
Table 2-24
Table 2-25
Table 2-26
Table 2-27
Table 2-28
Table 2-29
Table 2-30
Table 2-31
Table 2-32
Table 2-33
Table 2-34
Table 2-35
Table 2-36
Table 2-37
Table 2-38
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
(March 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Summary of Upper Dockery Analytical Results for Ground Water
(March 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
Summary of Lower Dockery Analytical Results for Ground Water
(March 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
Summary of Indicator Parameters Measured During Aquifer
Pump Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
Summary of Recovery Well Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-43
Summary of Aquifer Pumping Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
Summary of Affected Ground Water Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 7
Surface Soil Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-50
Vegetation Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-52
Bioassay Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
Physical and Chemical Analyses of Total Compostte Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
Average Number of Total Aerobic Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59
Average Number of PAH-Degrading Microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60
Results of Nutrttional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61
Bioreactor Condttions for Treatabiltty Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-62
Analytical Results of Total PAHs and Carcinogenic PAHs (cPAHs)
in Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-65
Analytical Results of PAHs in Bioreactors: Presented
by Molecular Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-66
Results of pH Analysis of Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-68
Results of Moisture Content Analysis of Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-68
Results of Nttrogen Analysis of Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69
Results of Phosphorous Analysis of Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-69
Results of Slug Test Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-82
Summary of Analytical Results for MW21 and Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-84
Bench-Scale Metals Treatment Evaluation Analytical Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-87
Lagoon 10 Waste and Soil Analyses and Test Methods ................... 2-90
TCL Compounds Present in the November 9, 1993 Sample of
Lagoon 10 Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-91
TCLP Analytical Results for the November 9, 1993 Sample of
Lagoon 1 o Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-93
TAL Analytes Present in the November 9, 1993 Sample of
Lagoon 1 o Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-95
Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of the Lagoon 1 0
Waste Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-96
Results of Physical and Chemical Analyses of the Surface Soil
Sample Collected Near Lagoon 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-97
Horizontal and Vertical Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Macon/Dockery Recovery Wells .................................... 3-14
HWP..70\7001721.PFO1cdf94 iii
I
I ,,I
I
I
8
Ii
I
ti
I ,,
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Stte Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Figure 1-2 Stte Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Figure 2-1 Aquifer Pumping Test-Pumping Well and Observation Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
Figure 2-2 Location of Ecological Samples .................................... '2-49
Figure 2-3 Lagoon 10 Bioremediation Test Pit Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56
Figure 2-4 Bioreactor Configuration for the Bioremediation
Figure 2-5
Figure 2-6
Figure 2-7
Figure 3-1
Figure 4-1
List of Plates
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Treatability Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63
lnfiltrometer Test Locations -Macon Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-75
lnfiltrometer Test Locations -Dockery Stte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-76
Infiltration Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-78
Typical Recovery Well Construction Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18
Construction Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Monitoring Well and Well Point Location Map -December 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Field Screening Locations -July 1993 ................................ 2-16
Ground Water Concentrations Exceeding Performance Standards -
Macon Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
Ground Water Concentrations Exceeding Performance Standards -
Dockery Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Configuration of Water Table -May 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
List of Drawings (Bound Separately)
7001721-X01 Title Sheet
7001721-X02 Existing Site & Legend
7001721-K01 Macon Stte Process and Instrument Diagram
7001721-K02 Lower Dockery Site Process and Instrument Diagram
7001721-K03 Upper Dockery Site Process and Instrument Diagram
7001721-C01 General Arrangement
7001721-C02 Dockery Grading Plan
7001721-C03 Macon Grading Plan
7001721-C04 Dockery Underground Piping Plan
7001721-C05 Macon Underground Piping Plan
7001721-C06 Infiltration Gallery Section Jet Pump and Manhole Details
7001721-C07 Concrete Pad Details and Notes
7001721-C08 Submersible Pump Details
7001721-C09 Miscellaneous Details
7001721-C10 Conceptual Layout Source Area Extraction and Treatment System
7001721-E01 Macon Stte 480v Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
7001721-E02 Macon Site Ladder Diagram
7001721-E03 Macon Stte Ladder Diagram
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721.PF01cdf94 iv
I
I
I'
f, --·
I
I
I
I ,,
,1
I
II
.,f
,I
I
j,
,I,
I
11
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Drawings (Continued)
7001721-E04 Macon Stte Power and Instrument Plans
7001721-E0S Macon Stte Grounding Plan
7001721-E0S Macon Stte Electrical Stte Plan
7001721-E11 Lower Dockery Site 480V Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
7001721-E12 Lower Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
7001721-E13 Lower Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
7001721-E14 Lower Dockery Site Power and Instrument Plans
7001721-E15 Lower Dockery Site Grounding Plan
7001721-E16 Lower Dockery Site Electrical Stte Plan
7001721-E21 Upper Dockery Site 480V Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
7001721-E22 Upper Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
7001721-E23 Upper Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
7001721-E24 Upper Dockery Site Power and Instrument Plans
7001721-E25 Upper Dockery Site Grounding Plan
7001721-E26 Upper Dockery Site Electrical Stte Plan
7001721-M01 Above Ground Equipment General Arrangement -Macon/Dockery
7001721-P01 Macon Site Above Ground Piping Plan
7001721-P02 Lower Dockery Site Above Ground Piping Plan
7001721-P03 Upper Dockery Site Above Ground Piping Plan
List of Appendices
Appendix A Piezocone Test Data
Appendix B Geocone Sample Location and Total Organic Carbon Data
Appendix C Hydraulic Conductivtty Data from Hydrocone Sample
Appendix D Well Construction Details and Diagrams and Ground Water Elevation Measurements
Appendix E Laboratory AnalY1ical Results
Appendix F Field Screening AnalY1ical Results
Appendix G Summary of Aquifer Pumping Test
Appendix H Time Drawdown Tables
Appendix I Bioassay Bench Data and Statistical Analyses
Appendix J Bioremediation Evaluation Media
Appendix K Bioremediation Treatabiltty Study Data
Appendix L Design Calculations
Appendix M Well Boring Logs (MW21 and MW21A) and Well Construction Diagram
Appendix N Summary of Indicator Parameter Measurements for MW21
Appendix O Hydraulic Conductivtty Test Results for MW21, UMPZ01, UMPZ02
Appendix P Details of Flow Path Modeling Grids, Boundary Condttions, and Calibration
Appendix Q Process Controls Narrative
Appendix R Agency Comments and MDSG Responses for Remedial Design Submitlals
Appendix S Specttications
l:\WP\ 7017001721.PFD1cdl94 V
I ,,
.,
I
I
' .,
I
1
I
j1
I
I
11
.11
I
.I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY
1.1 Background
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 1
On September 30, 1991, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued the
Record of Decision for the Macon/Dockery Site. The Record of Decision was subsequently reissued on
April 21, 1992. This document set forth the remedy selected to address remaining vessels, vessel
contents, and affected soils and ground water identttied at the site. US EPA issued a Unilateral
Administrative Order and Statement of Work for Remedial Design and Remedial Action (the "Order').
The effective date of the Order was June 30, 1992. The Order for the Macon/Dockery Site is one of
the primary reference documents that will be used during both Remedial Design (RD) and Remedial
Action (RA). The Statement of Work lists the requirements for implementing the remedy as described
in the Record of Decision and for achieving the Performance Standards set forth in the Record of
Decision and the Statement of Work. The following remedial actions and work elements were specified
for the Macon/Dockery Site by US EPA:
Ground Water Control. Ground water with concentrations of contaminants of concern greater
than the Performance Standards specttied in the Statement of Work must be extracted from the
ground, treated on-site via air-stripping, and discharged either to Solomons Creek or to an
infiltration gallery.
Source Control. Two areas of contaminated soils and related materials must be addressed.
Vadose zone soils underlying Lagoon 7 must be treated via soil vapor extraction to remove
tetrachloroethene to levels below the performance standard of 3 ppm. The feasibility of treating
sludges and soils from Lagoon 1 O using indigenous microbial populations to degrade
polynuclear aromatic compounds must be evaluated. The Statement of Work requires removal
and treatment of Lagoon 1 O wastes and affected soil to achieve a 2 ppm Performance
Standard for total carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs). The Record of
• Decision anticipated that ex-situ bioremediation of Lagoon 10 wastes could achieve the
Performance Standard, and the Statement of Work requires a Treatability Study to demonstrate
the feasibility of bioremediation. Implementation of bioremediation technology is subject to the
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFOledf94 1-1
,,
''/ ,,i ,,
I,
I
I
11
I,
Ii
,1
I,
·1
I
I
I
I
I
,I;
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SECTION 1
results of this treatabiltty study to determine whether bioremediation can achieve the specttied
reduction of PAH compounds wtthin 100 days after treatment begins.
Vessel Removal. Hazardous materials remaining in tanks and vats at the site must be
properly disposed of at a RCRA-approved faciltty. Non-hazardous vessel contents will be
recycled or properly disposed of. The vessels will be recycled or decommissioned. Also, ff
evidence of leakage is noted after the vessels are removed, the remedial action will include
cleanup of the affected soil.
A Final Remedial Design Report for Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) was submitted on June 14, 1994. The
ground water remedy design was separated frqm the SVE design to allow the Macon/Dockery Stte
Group (MDSG) to conduct studies of the applicability of bioreinediating volatile organic constituents in
source area ground water.
In March 1994, US EPA amended the Record of Decision to allow excavation and off-site disposal of
Lagoon 10 materials. The MDSG undertook the waste removal phase of the Remedial Action
beginning in June 1994. The waste removal phase included removal of Lagoon 10 wastes, various
process and storage vessels associated wtth previous operations, and wastes generated during
previous investigation activities. Waste removal activities were largely completed in October 1994.
This Prefinal/Final Remedial Design Report is the last project deliverable called for under the RD
project schedule that was included in the Remedial Design Workplan. The Statement of Work outlines
specttic US EPA technical requirements concerning the content of this document. This Prefinal/Final
Remedial Design submittal has been prepared in accordance wtth the requirements of the
Macon/Dockery Site Record of Decision, Unilateral Administrative Order, Statement of Work, and RD
Workplan.
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this document is to present a continuation and expansion of the intermediate design
concepts and basis for the ground water remediation systems at the Macon/Dockery Stte. This
document also presents the results of supplemental data acquisttion activtties and contains process flow
diagrams, process narratives, general arrangement drawings, sections, details, drawing lists, and
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD!cdls.4 1-2
I
·11
,I
I
I/
I
I
I
.,.
I
I ,.
I
I:
I
I
I
I
1.
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SECTION 1
specttication lists. Following review and revision of the Prefinal Design Submittal and approval of the
Final Design submttted by the US EPA, the Remedial Action phase for the soil and ground water
remediation will commence.
1.3 Regulatory Requirements
Section IX.G (page 20) of the Order and Section IV. Task I1.D "Prefinal/Final Design" (page 15). of the
Statement of Work (Appendix 2 to the Order) requires that the Prefinal/Final Design submittal consist of
the following elements:
1. Complete Design Analyses
2. Complete Plans and Specttications
3. Final Construction Schedule
4. Construction Cost Estimate
This Prefinal/Final Design contains each of these elements.
In addition to the Prefinal/Final Design report, the Order and Statement of Work require that the
Operation and Maintenance Plan and Operation and Maintenance Manual be submitted concurrent with
the Prefinal/Final Design submittal. These plans have been submitted under separate cover.
1.4 Description of Site
The Macon/Dockery Site is located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of Cordova in Richmond County,
North Carolina. The site is bounded to the east by State Road (SR) 1103 and to the north, west, and
south by woods and farmland. The site is officially described as comprising a 16-acre tract owned by
relatives and heirs of Charles Macon, and a one-acre tract owned by John Dockery. The Dockery
property is located approximately 2,600 feet north of the Macon property and is non-contiguous wtth tt.
The area potentially affected by stte activtties and therefore subject to stte remedial action is larger than
the official stte description. The tract owned by the relatives and heirs of Charles Macon comprises 40
acres, most of which have been affected by site activtties. The tract is bordered to the south and west
by property owned by Federal Paper Board Corporation and to the north by property owned by Dewey
M. Thompson. Ground water plumes originating from lagoons on the Macon property extend to
l:IWP\70\7001721. PFD/cdf94 1-3
I
I
11 ,,
I
I
I
I ,,
I
'I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SECTION 1
adjoining properties. Some proposed recovery well locations presented in the FS and in the
Preliminary Design Submittal are on adjoining properties. The tract owned by John Dockery is
comprised of 570 acres. The affected area, including the modeled plume locations, fall within the
borders of this tract. Figure 1-1 is a site location map that shows the locations of the Macon and
Dockery properties.
The Macon property is approximately 60 percent wooded. The cleared areas include the waste
processing area near SR 1103, eleven waste storage lagoons. and three unused lagoons. Four
buildings, two truck tankers, one box trailer, and fourteen tanks remain on the site. Affected portions of
the Macon Site are designated as the Upper Macon area {Lagoons 1 through 9 and the processing
area), and the Lower Macon area {Lagoons 10 and 11).
The Dockery property is almost entirely wooded. An unpaved road provides access from SR 1.103 and
connects the Upper Dockery area, where several drum storage areas are located, to the Lower Dockery
area, where Lagoon 12 is located. Figure 1-2 is a site plan showing the areas within the
Macon/Dockery Site.
The Macon/Dockery Site slopes westward toward the Pee Dee River from an approximate elevation of
275 feet MSL at SR 1103 to 160 feet MSL at the western boundary of the site. The ground water
surtace elevation decreases to 120 feet MSL at the Pee Dee River, which passes about 3,000 feet to
the west of the site. The nearest downgradient surtace water body, Solomons Creek, is located
approximately 1,000 feet west of the site and parallels the Pee Dee River as it passes the site.
Current land use in the vicinity of the site is primarily agricultural with limited residential use along SR
1103. Residential use increases toward the northeast in the direction of the community of Cordova.
Four residences are located near the site along SR 1103. These residences are hydrogeologically
upgradient of the waste management areas. Hunting is the primary activity at the site.
1.5 Site History
Past Site Waste Management Practices
The following description of site history and past site waste management practices is summarized from
the Record of Decision.
l:IWP..70\7001 n1 ,PFO/cdf94 1-4
I
'• I
I
I
I
I
I
D ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
ROCKINGHAM QUAD.
.,..,..~70017.06 •I!!!.!. 0892
FIGURE 1-1
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
1-5
MACON/DOCKERY
RICHMOND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SECTION 1
One of the five tracts of the Macon Stte was purchased in 1964. The remaining four
tracts were purchased in 1972.
In May 1979, Mr. Macon incorporated Macon Farms Trucking, Inc:, and Macon Machine
Company, Inc. From May 1979 through May 1981, he operated the stte as a waste oil
recycling plant, wtth Macon Farms Trucking transporting the waste to the stte and
Macon Machine Company treating the waste.
In June 1980, Mr. Macon sold Macon Farms Trucking to several individuals who
subsequently moved the company to South Carolina.
In May 1981, Mr. Macon leased the Macon Machine facility and five acres of land to
C&M Oil Distributors, who operated the recycling plant until March 1982.
Mr. Macon's waste management operations included storage and disposal of
hazardous substances on the nearby property owned by John Dockery.
Previous Regulatory and Response Actions
The following description of previous regulatory and response actions at the site is summarized from
the Record of Decision.
In June 1979, Mr. Macon notified the North Carolina Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Man:;g'.Jment (DEM) that Macon
Machine Company was installing a large boiler to reclaim waste oil.
In December 1979, Mr. Macon applied for a permtt to construct and operate an air
pollution abatement facility to control sulfur dioxide emissions from the waste oil
recycling process. DEM granted the permit in February 1980, and requested that the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Branch (DHR) conduct an investigation of the Macon operation because
the faciltty did not have a permtt to recycle waste oil.
DHR inspected the stte in October 1980, and concluded that hazardous wastes, as
defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), were being
generated, transported, and stored at the stte. DHR reinspected the site in May 1981
and noted that condttions at the stte were unchanged from the previous inspection.
In July 1981, US EPA conducted a RCRA Compliance Inspection following referral to
the stte by DHR. Ten violations of RCRA regulations were ctted, in addition to failure to
apply for interim status.
In March 1982, DHR sued Mr. Macon's estate, Dorothy Macon, and C&M Oil
Distributors to inttiate cleanup of the Macon Site.
In November 1982, an engineering firm was hired by Mr. Macon's estate to remove
drums and install two ground water monitoring wells. More than 2,100 55-gallon
t:\WP\70\7001721.PFD/ed!94 1-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SECTION; 1
drums, approximately 1 O bulk tanks, and 11 surface impoundments were found on the
stte. The contents of one lagoon and 300 drums were removed from the site.
Once the estate funds were depleted, DHR enlisted the assistance of US EPA to
continue cleanup operations at the stte. During the removal, 3,123 tons of waste and
137,000 gallons of oil were removed from the stte. The water from ten of the lagoons
was land-disposed on stte. Reusable oil was recycled at an oil reclaiming faciltty.
Sludges from the lagoons (except Lagoon 10) were solidttied and disposed in an off-
stte RCRA landfill. The lagoons were backfilled. The waste in Lagoon 10,
approximately 940 tons containing creosote, was left in place. The lagoon was
backfilled wtth solidttied soil from Lagoon 7, two truckloads of boiler fly ash, 43 crushed
empty drums, and an unknown quanttty of contaminated soil from the drum staging
area. The lagoon was then capped wtth a synthetic liner and three feet of clay.
Removal operations on the Dockery Stte began in 1984. Site materials were handled
in the same manner as on the Macon Site. Approximately 709 tons of waste were
removed from the site.
In February 1985, US EPA began a Stte Inspection to provide data for applying the
Hazard Ranking System to the site. Four ground water monitoring wells were installed,
and ground water, surface water, and sediment samples were collected.
In January 1987, the stte, then known as the Cha~es Macon Lagoon and Drum Storage
site, was proposed for inclusion on for the National Priortties List (NPL). The stte was
formally placed on the NPL in July 1987.
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) were inttiated in September
1989. The Record of Decision (ROD) establishing site remediation requirements was
formally adopted on April 15, 1992. The Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) for
Remedial Design and Remedial Action was signed by US EPA on June 18, 1992.
l:\WP\ 70\7001721. PF□lcd!94 1-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Section 2
RESULTS OF DATA ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES
Results of data acquisition activities conducted in March and April 1993 were reported in the
Preliminary Design report submttted to US EPA on August 26, 1993. Results of supplemental data
acquisition activtties conducted in November 1993 were reported in the Intermediate Design report
submttted to US EPA on December 21, 1993. A summary of the activtties and results of the
March/April 1993 fieldwork and the November 1993 field work is included in Sections 2.1 through 2.9.
2.1 Supplemental Ground Water Characterization
As required by the Statement of Work, a Technical Memorandum (October 9, 1992) was submitted to
US EPA describing additional geological and analytical data necessary to proceed wtth the remedial
design. Additional geological and analytical data were collected to:
provide plume definition. i.e., location and extent of affected ground water downgradient
of the lagoons and storage areas at the stte;
provide physical aquifer characteristics in the vicinity of the areas where potential
ground water extraction will occur; and
provide chemical aqutter characteristics to aid in preliminary design.
These data were collected in March 1993 through the following supplemental field activtties:
A Ground Water Field Screening Survey was performed by collecting ground water
samples using the "Direct Push" technique by In-Situ Technology, Inc. During the
screening survey, ground water samples were collected from the Upper and Lower
Macon and Dockery areas. These samples were tested in the field for volatile organic
compounds using a portable gas chromatograph. Seventeen of these samples were
split for off-stte laboratory analysis.
Ground water samples were collected from stte monttoring wells in March 1993.
Samples were collected from existing monttoring wells located on both the Macon and
Dockery areas. Ground water samples from each well location were analyzed for the
volatile organic compounds and the inorganic parameters identified in the Record of
Decision as contaminants of concern (COCs).
An aqutter test was conducted following installation of a pumping well and two
piezometers on the Upper Macon portion of the stte downgradient from former Lagoons
1, 2, and 3. Following pumping well and piezometer installation and development,
water level measurements were collected over a 50-hour pumping and 12-hour
l:\WP\701700l 721.PFD/cd!94 2-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
recovery period from the newly installed wells and the existing site wells. The data was
used to calculate hydraulic characteristics of the stte's surficial aqutter.
2.1.1 Ground Water Screening Survey
Field Screening Proposed Program
Six areas of affected ground water were identttied by ground water sampling and hydrogeologic
contaminant transport modeling during the Remedial Investigation (RI): two areas in each of
Upper and Lower Macon portions of the site, and one area in each of Upper and Lower
Dockery portions of the stte. Ground water data collected during the RI was limited to the
downgradient edge of the source area, which corresponds to the upgradient end of the
modeled plumes. The field screening program was planned to determine the extent of ground
water wtth contaminants of concern at concentrations exceeding the Performance Standards
established in the Statement of Wor1<.
Samples were to be collected at approximate 50 foot intervals along lines generally
perpendicular to the estimated ground water flow directions near the existing monttoring wells
that are located at the upgradient end of the six affected areas identttied in the RI. Within
each of the six areas identttied in the RI, samples were to be collected along a line that was
generally parallel to the estimated ground water flow directions, and were to be spaced at
approximately 200 foot intervals. The plan included collection of water samples from two
depths at each sampling location for analysis on-site by a portable gas chromatograph,
collection of ground water for off-stte laboratory confirmation, and collection of soil for Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) analysis.
Plezocone. Twenty-seven piezocones, In Sttu Technology's analogue of the (Dutch)
Cone Penetrometer, were completed in order to locate conductive zones and to
determine the depth of push refusal. Piezocones also provided data on water table
depth that allowed for better selection of depths for hydrocone samples. Piezocone
data is presented in Appendix A.
Geocone. The geocone is similar to a standard split spoon device used to collect
subsurface soil samples. The soil samples collected wtth the geocone were used for
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) analyses and ltthologic observation. Eleven soil samples
I :\WP\70\7001 n, . PFD1cdf94 2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
were collected, and eight of these were sent for TOG analysis. Subsurface soil sampl~
locations, depths, and TOG data are given in Appendix B.
Hydrocone. The hydrocone was used to collect ground water samples. One hundred
ground water samples were collected during the screening program. The hydrocone
samples are identttied with six character labels (three letters, two numbers, and a final
letter: LLL##L). The first two characters of the sample location refer to one of the four
study areas: UM refers to Upper Macon, LM refers to Lower Macon, UD refers to Upper
Dockery, and LD refers to Lower Dockery. The third letter designates the purpose of
the ground water sample, and is either an "A" or a "G." The "A" designates that the
sample was not preserved wtth hydrochloric acid and was to be used for field screening
purposes only, while the "G" designates that the sample was preserved with
hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory confirmation of field screening
results. Seventeen of the "G"-designated samples were sent for confirmation analysis.
The fourth and fifth characters of the sample location identifier are numbers that refer to
the chronological order of the sample wtthin each area. The final letter designates a
relative depth of hydrocone sample(s) at the location. If the final character is an "A,"
then it corresponds to either the shallower of two ground water samples or the only
ground water sample collected at that location. If the final character is a "B," then it
corresponds to the deeper of two ground water samples collected at that location.
Measurements of the rate of change of water level wtthin the hydrocone yield hydraulic
conductivity data. The hydraulic conductivtties were calculated using the Bower and
Rice method, as presented in Appendix G. The geometric means of the hydraulic
conductivity data were calculated for each area of the stte, and range from 3.7 x 10·'
cm/sec at Lower Dockery to 7.3 x 10-5 cm/sec at Lower Macon.
A statistical comparison of the geometric means of hydraulic conductivtty (k) values for.
each area was conducted using the Student's I-test (see Appendix G for the results).
At the 90 percent confidence level, no significant differences were found between the
mean k values for the four areas of the stte. Therefore, a single aquifer pumping test
was considered sufficient for the stte. The aquifer pumping test is discussed in Section
2.1.3 of this report.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD,'cdf94 2-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
The screening program was planned to collect ground water from two depths at each
location -the first from the saprolite near the screened interval of existing wells, and a
second from just above bedrock. At many locations, only one sample was collected.
The direct push tools often could not be pushed to the depths that existing well boring,
logs indicated was the top of bedrock. The vertical distance between the water table
and push refusal was often small enough that one sample was sufficient to characterize
the area. Sample collection depths were selected in the field by considering proximal
piezocone data, well boring data from the RI, proximal well screen intervals, water table
elevations from the piezocone, and maximum feasible push depth.
Several field screening analyses reported samples from the Upper Macon, Lower
Macon, and Lower Dockery plumes to have methylene chloride above the Performance
Standard. Verbal communication wtth the off-stte laboratory staff during the field
program indicated that the analytical results of confirmation samples did not confirm the
presence of methylene chloride. Therefore, the field screening program was modified
so that no additional samples were collected beyond locations where only methylene
chloride had been detected in field screening samples.
Well Points. Direct push well points were installed in order to obtain water level data
to better describe ground water flow direction. Fttteen well points were installed across
the Macon and Dockery sites as shown in Plate 1. Well point construction diagrams
and details are included in Appendix D.
Field Screening Analytical Data
Samples were screened in the field wtth a Photovac 1 OSSO portable gas chromatograph (GC)
using a photoionization detector.
The results of the seventeen ground water samples sent to the laboratory for confirmation
analysis via US EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) protocols are presented in Appendix
E. A comparison of screening data and confirmation data is given in Table 2-1. A comparison
of the field screening data and laboratory data from March 1993 ground water samples from
monitoring wells proximal to the hydrocone locations is given in Tables 2-2 through 2-5. Wtth
the exception of methylene chloride and chloroform, and considering the differences in the two
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFOJcdf94 2-4
----------------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF MACON/DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RES UL TS
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLES (1993)
tiifI+•• cc-I .
Vinyl chloride (0.001) 0.538 0.23E 0.270 <0.005 <0.010 <0.020 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) 0.0511 0.002J 0.003DJ 0.3281 <0.010 <0.001DJu 0.4041 <0.010 0.0261 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.005 <0.010 <0.020 <0.005 <0.010 <0.016BDJu <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <O.00GBJu
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) <0.005 0.002J 0.002DJ <0.005 0.012 0.012DJ 0.019 0.013 <0.005 <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) 0.448 0.11 0.12D <0.005 0.015 0.016DJ <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) <0.005 0.025 0.028D <0.005 0.040 0.042D <0.005 <0.010 0.007 <0.010
Chloroform (0.001) 1.3771 <0.010 <O.000GDJu <0.005 <0.003Ju <0.003DJu <0.005 <0.0006Ju <0.005 <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.20) <0.005 0.0008J 0.001DJ <0.005 0.009J 0.009DJ <0.005 0.017 <0.005 <0.010
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.005 0.004J 0.004DJ 0.141 0.27E 0.28D <0.005 0.002J 0.005 <0.010
Benzene (0.001) 0.015 0.009J 0.010DJ <0.001 <0.010 <0.020 <0.005 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) 0.008 0.OOSJ 0.OOGDJ <0.005 0.0005J 0.0008DJ <0.005 0.001J <0.005 <0.010
Toluene (1.0) <0.001 <0.010 <0.020 <0.001 <0.010 <0.020 <0.001 <0.010 0.027 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) 0.020 0.00GJ 0.007DJ 0.008 <0.010 <0.020 <0.001 <0.010 0.084 <0.010
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
f Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
D,OL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
< {organics} Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than reported Detection Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character from the left: MA• designates that the sample was used for field screening and was not preserved with
hydrochloric acid; Mc• designates that the sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid and could be used tor laboratory confirmation.
I :IWP\7017001 n 1.PF0tedf94
--.. --------------
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF MACON/DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLES (1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.001) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.005 <0.007BJu <0.005 0.010 <0.005 0.0468 0.0478 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010Bu
1. 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.006 0.002J <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.036 0.010 0.010
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.027 0.015 0.014
Chloroform (0.001) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.20) <0.005 0.0004J <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 <0.005 0.001J 0.001J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) <0.005 0.0005J <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.015 0.013 0.012
Benzene (0.001) <0.001 <0.010 0.001 <0.010 <0.001 0.0007J 0.0006J 0.001 0.001J 0.001J
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.010 0.006 0.006J 0.006J
Toluene (1.0) <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 0.002 0.002J 0.002J 0.002 0.001J 0.001J
Xylenes (total) (0.40) <0.001 <0.010 0.006 <0.010 <0.001 0.002J 0.002J <0.001 <0.010 <0.010
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
f Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
D,DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
< (organics) Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than reported Detection Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character from the left: MA" designates that the sample was used for field screening and was not preserved with
hydrochloric acid; •c" designates that the sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory confirmation.
I :\WP\70\7001721.PFD/cdl94
------------- -----
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF MACON/DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLES (1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.000015) «J.005 «l.010 «J.005 <0.010 «J.005 <0.010 «J.005 «l.010 «J.005 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) 0.8921 «J.010 «J.005 0.0005J <0.005 0.001J «J.005 «J.010 0.3221 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.005 «J.010 «J.005 «J.0108u «J.005 «J.0058Ju «J.005 «l.008Ju «J.005 «J.006Ju
1, 1-0ichloroethene (0.007) <0.005 0.019 0.009 0.002J 0.076 0.036 «J.005 «J.010 0.012 0.OOSJ
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) «J.005 0.025 0.054 0.015 «J.005 0.027 «J.005 «J.010 «J.005 0.002J
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) «l.005 0.004J 0.028 0.012 «J.005 «l.010 «J.005 «l.010 «J.005 «J.010
Chloroform (0.00019) 0.0321 «J.0OOSJu «J.005 «J.0OOSJu «J.005 «J.010 «l.005 «J.010 «l.005 <D.010
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (0.20) «J.005 0.058 <0.005 0.007J 0.007 0.041 «J.005 «J.010 «J.005 0.003J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.006 0.006J 0.021 0.012 <0.005 0.003J <0.005 «J.010 0.024 «J.010
Benzene (0.001) «J.001 «J.010 «J.001 «l.010u «J.001 0.0003J «l.001 <0.010 <0.001 «J.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.0007) «l.005 0.002J 0.014 0.004J «J.005 «l.010 «J.005 «J.010 «J.005 «J.010
Toluene (1.0) «J.001 <0.010 «J.001 «J.010 «J.001 «l.010 «J.001 «J.010 «J.001 «J.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) «J.001 «l.010 «J.001 «J.010 «J.001 <0.010 0.063 «J.010 0.004 «J.010
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, perfonnance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
f Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
J Estimated concentration.
B {organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
D,DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
< (organics) Concentration less than the Contract Required Ouantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than reported Detection Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character from the left: MA-designates that the sample was used for field screening and was not preserved with
hydrochloric acid; ~c~ designates that the sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory confirmation.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFDtc:df94
-- --------------
TABLE 2-1 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF MACON/DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND CONFIRMATION SAMPLES (1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.001) «l.005 «l.010 «l.005 «l.20 «l.25 «l.005 «l.010 «l.005 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) 0.0241 «l.010 <0.005 0.013J 0.016DJ «l.005 «l.010 0.1081 «l.010
Acetone (3.5) «l.005 «l.003Ju «l.005 «l.20 «l.25 «l.005 «l.0028Ju «l.005 <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) «l.005 0.004J 3.0 4.2E 3.0D «l.005 0.0008J «l.005 «l.010
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) «l.005 0.001J «l.005 0.028J 0.026DJ «l.005 «l.010 «l.005 <0.010
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) «l.005 «l.010 «l.005 «l.20 «l.25 «l.005 0.001J «l.005 «l.010
Chloroform (0.001) «l.005 «l.0004Ju «l.005 «l.010Ju <0.25 «l.005 «l.010 «l.005 <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.20) «l.005 0.006J 0.359 1.4 1.1D «l.005 «l.00068Ju «l.005 «l.010
Trichloroethene (0.0028) «l.005 0.002J 0.006 0.011J «l.25 «l.005 0.006J «l.005 <0.010
Benzene (0.001) «l.001 «l.010 «l.001 «l.20 «l.25 «l.001 «l.010 «l.001 «l.0t0
T etrachloroethene (0 .001) «l.005 0.002J «l.005 «l.20 «l.25 «l.005 0.002J «l.005 <0.010
Toluene (1.0) «l.001 «l.010 «l.001 «l.20 «l.25 «l.001 «l.010 0.001 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) 0.001 «l.010 0.008 «l.20 «l.25 0.001 «l.010 «l.001 <0.010
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
f Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
D,DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
< {organics) Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than reported Detection Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character from the left: ·N designates that the sample was used for field screening and was not preserved with
hydrochloric acid; •c~ designates that the sample was preserved with hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory confirmation.
I :\WP\ 70\7001 n1 .PF01odf94
--------------
TABLE 2 .. 2
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND MONITORING WELL RESULTS
Upper Macon
1;;,
Vinyl chloride <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005 0.14 0.538 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
Methylene chloride <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 0.1551 0.4971 0.003 J 0.0511 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
Acetone <0.010 <0.005 <0.018u <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.002 Ju 1.7 <0.010 <0.005
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0.024 0.055 0.004 J <0.005 <0.005 0.015 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 0.018 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
·1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.007 J <0.005 0.018 <0.005 <0.005 0.11 0.448 <0.0006 J <0.005 0.005 J <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
1,2-Dichloroethene 0.045 <0.005 0.001 J <0.005 <0.005 0.078 <0.005 0.002 <0.005 0.020 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
(total)
Chloroform <0.010 1.31 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 1.3771 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.016 <0.005 0.006 J <0.005 <0.005 0.013 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 0.011 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005
Trichloroethane 0.016 0.037 0.007 J 0.010 0.048 0.024 0.005 0.010 <0.005 0.086 0.036 <0.010 <0.005
Benzene <0.010 0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 J 0.015 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001
Tetrachloroethene 0.022 0.035 0.014 0.008 0.033 0.021 0.008 <0.010 <0.005 0.027 0.009 <0.010 <0.005
Toluene <0.010 0.003 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001
Xylenes (total) <0.010 0.016 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 J 0.020 <0.010 0.031 <0.010 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million.
I Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
< (organics) Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Umi1 for CLP data; roncentration fess than Reported Delection Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prelixes were added ta the sample labels as the third character from the lelt: 'A" designales thal the sample was used for field screening and was no! preserved with hydrochloric acid; ·c·
designates that the sample was preserved with hydrochloric add and could be used for laboratory confirmation.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFOicdl94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-3
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND MONITORING WELL RESULTS.
Lower Macon
II;;;;) >f Pl:ii)(i,iffgfi§t
Vinyl chloride <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
Methylene chloride <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
Acetone <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1, 1-Dichloroethene <0.010 0.010 <0.005
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.009 J <0.005 <0.005
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 0.008 J 0.019 0.011
Chloroform <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.003 J <0.005 <0.005
Trichloroethene 0.009 J 0.017 0.007
Benzene <0.010 <0.001 <0.001
Tetrachloroethene 0.003 J 0.007 <0.005
Toluene <0.010 <0.001 0.001
Xylenes (total) <0.010 0.003 <0.001
Analytical results are reponed in parts per million. a
f
J
Detection considered to be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
Estimated concentration.
B (organics)
u
Analyte present in analytical method blank.
laboratory reported deleciion not validated during data validation process.
<0.010 <0.005
<0.010 0.8921
<0.002BJu <0.005
0.037 <0.005
0.056 <0.005
0.004 J <0.005
<0.010 0.0321
0.12 B <0.005
0.026 0.006
<0.010 <0.001
0.002 J <0.005
<0.010 <0.001
<0.010 <0.001
< {organics) Concentralion less than the Contract Required Quantita1ion Limit lor CLP data: concentration less than Reported Detection
limit lor field screening data.
NOie: The loUowing prelixes were added to 1he sample labels as the third character from the lefi: "A" designates that the sample was
used lor field screening and was not preserved wilh hydrochloric acid; ·c· designa1es thal the sample was preserved with
hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory conlirma1ion.
l:\WP\70\7001721.Pl=D/~94 2-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-4
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING AND MONITORING WELL RESULTS
Vinyl chloride <0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
Methylene chloride 0.005 J <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 0.0241
Acetone <0.006BJu <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0.68 D 0.181 1.62 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.023 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 0.002 J 0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005 .
Chloroform <0.010 <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.26 BD 0.019 0.404 0.0002 J <0.005 <0.005
Trichloroethene 0.004 J 0.007 0.010 <0.010 <0.005 <0.005
Benzene 0.010 J 0.008 <0.001 <0.010 <0.001 <0.001
Tetrachloroethene 0.0007 J <0.005 <0.005 <0.010 <0.005 0.013
Toluene 0.002 J 0.299 0.002 <0.010 0.002 <0.001
Xylenes (total) 0.031 0.060 <0.001 <0.010 . <0.001 0.166
a Analytical results are reponed in pans per million.
I Delection considered to be unreliable and lherefore treated as a lalse posi!Jve.
J Estimated ooncentration.
B {organics) Analyte present in analytical method blank.
u Laboratory reponed de1ee1ion not validated during data validalion process.
< (OJganics) Concentration less ihan the Contract Required Quantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than Reported Detection
Limit for field screening data.
Note: The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character lrom the lelt: "A" designates that the sample was
used for field screening and was not preserved with hydrochloric acid; •c· designates that the sample was preserved with
hydrochloric acid and could be used tor laboratory oonfirmation.
1:\WP\70\ 7001721. PFD/ed!94 2-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
a
I
J
B {organics)
u
< (organics)
Nole:
TABLE 2-5
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER FIELD SCREENING
AND MONITORING WELL RESULTS
Lower Dockery
Vinyl chloride <0.010
Methylene chloride <0.010
Acetone <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene 0.024
1, 1-Dichloroethane 0.053
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) <0.D10
Chloroform <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 0.061
Trichloroethene 0.005 J
Benzene <0.010
Tetrachloroethene <0.010
Toluene <0.010
Xylenes (total) <0.010
Analytical results are reported in parts per million.
Deteclion considered 10 be unreliable and therefore treated as a false positive.
Eslimated concentration.
Analyte present in analytical method blank.
Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
0.080
<0.005
0.010
<0.005
0.128
<0.005
<0.001
<0.005
<0.001
<0.001
Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit for CLP data; concentration less than Reported Detection
Limit for field screening data.
The following prefixes were added to the sample labels as the third character from the left: "A" designates that the sample was
used for lie!d screening and was no1 preserved with hydrochloric acid: •c· designates that the sample was preserved wi1h
hydrochloric acid and could be used for laboratory conlirma1ion.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDlcdl94 2-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
analytical methods and data qualrty objectives, the field screening data is generally comparable
with laboratory results, based on analytical comparisons presented in the October 15, 1993
Group responses to Agency comments on the Preliminary Design report. The field screening
results were found to be reasonable to use in comparing ground water qualrty to performance
standards, except as discussed below.
Comparison of ground water qualrty to pertormance standards was accomplished using both
Data Quality Objective (DQO) Level 4 data (CLP confirmation samples) and DQO Level 2 data"
(field screening data). These two DQO Levels have different reporting limrts, as well as
different data quality. The higher quality DQO Level 4 data was used to evaluate ground water
quality where available. Estimated concentrations (i.e., 'J' qualified data) in DQO Level 4 data
were included in data tables but were not used to compare ground water quality to performance
standards.
Field screening data has reported detection limrts of 0.005 ppm for chlorinated volatile aliphatic
compounds and 0.001 ppm for volatile aromatic compounds. A unttorm quantitation limit of
0.005 ppm was applied to field screening data before comparison to pertormance standards.
This was done in order to minimize using possible false positive detections at low
concentrations (e.g., UMA31A is reported to contain 0.001 ppm benzene which was not
confirmed by CLP laboratory data; Table 2-1 ), and to establish a consistent quantrtation limit
within the screening analytical method analogous to the CLP analytical method. Estimated
concentrations (i.e., 'J' qualified data) in field screening data were treated as non-detects in
summary tables and during comparison of ground water quality to pertormance standards
because the field analyses are DOO Level 2 data.
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721.PFD/cdf94 2-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I·
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
[Note: The reporting limtts tor both field screening and laboratory confirmation analyses used
during the predesign investigations were greater than the original Performance Standards
established in the ROD tor several of the volatile organic analytes. Analytical methods capable
of measuring some of the concentrations set forth in the original Pertormance Standards do not
exist. Therefore, the extent of impacted ground water above the original Performance
Standards could not be fully determined tor all analytes. In March 1993, US EPA amended the
ROD to modify the Performance Standards tor vinyl chloride, chloroform, and tetrachloroethene
to the detection limtts obtainable using Contract Laboratory Program methods tor low
concentration organics analysis.]
Discussion of Results
The delineation of the extent of ground water that exceeds pertormance standards is based on
both laboratory and field analytical results of samples collected from hydrocones as discussed
in the Field Screening Analytical Data section. Hydrocone sample point locations are shown
in Plate 2. The field screening analytical results are presented in Appendix F.
Plates 3 and 4 show contaminants of concern exceeding Performance Standards at each field
screening sampling point in the Macon and Dockery areas, respectively, based on March 1993
sampling data. Plates 3 and 4 also show the approximate extent of ground water that has at
least one VOC contaminant of concern above its Performance Standard. The following
discussions of the tour field screening areas refer to these plates and data.
Upper Macon. Forty-two ground water samples were collected within the Upper
Macon area. Two plumes had been inferred in the RI at Upper Macon. Field
screening results indicate that the two plumes merge near the lagoons. Difficulty was
encountered in establishing the southern boundary of affected ground water at Upper
Macon because a hard layer of material was encountered above the water table that
could not be penetrated using the direct push technology. Ground water samples could
not be obtained in this area. Benzene, vinyl chloride, 1, 1-dichloroethene (1, 1-DCE),·
trichloroethene (TCE), and tetrachloroethene (PCE) were detected above the
Performance Standards.
I :\WP\7ffi 7001721.PFOJcdl94 2-15
)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Lower Macon. Twenty-three ground water samples were collected wtthin the Lower
Macon area. The RI represented two plumes, originating near Lagoons 10 and 11, that
were narrow and elongated west to Solomons Creek. The investigation indicated that·
the plumes were wider than shown in the Feasibiltty Study, and join before reaching the
vicintty of Solomons Creek. A ground water sample was collected at LM15 to evaluate
water qualtty north of Lagoons 10 and 11. No constttuents were found at LM15 above·
the Performance Standards. Three compounds, 1, 1-DCE, TCE and PCE, were
detected above the Performance Standards on the Lower Macon stte.
Upper Dockery. Twenty-one ground water samples were collected wtthin the Upper
Dockery area. The plume at Upper Dockery is approximately the same size as
presented in the Feasibility Study, although the area of affected ground water extends
further north than was previously indicated. The plume extends between 200 and 400
feet downgradient of MW15. Benzene, 1,1-DCE, TCE, PCE, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1, 1, 1-TCA) exceeded Performance Standards in at least one sample from the Upper
Dockery area.
Lower Dockery. Fourteen ground water samples were collected within the Lower
Dockery area. Field screening results determined a more expanded area of affected
ground water than was presented in the Feasibiltty Study. There is a 20 to 30 foot
deep ravine immediately north of Lower Dockery containing a small flowing stream at
tts base. Ground water was collected on the north side of the stream at location LD11.
Ground water at LD11 was not affected above Performance Standards. Two
compounds, 1, 1-DCE and TCE, were detected above the Performance Standards on
the Lower Dockery site.
Ground Water Flow Conditions
Ground water at the Macon/Dockery stte occurs in the unconsolidated soil zones overlying
bedrock under water table condttions. Depending on topographic location, the water table is
encountered at depths ranging from approximately four feet below surface grade (Lower Macon,
LMWP0S) to more than 40 feet below surface grade (Upper Macon, MW09, and Lower Macon,
MW13). A summary of ground water elevations is included in Appendix D. Ground water
elevation measurements (May 18 to 19, 1993) from water table wells were used to construct a
I :\WP\ 70\7001 n1 . PFD1edf94 2-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
water table map for the stte (Plate 5). Generally the ground water flow direction at the site is
toward the west. Local variations across the Macon and Dockery areas are believed to be
reflections of topography. A water table divide is located in the upper portion of the Upper
Macon area. East of this divide, ground water flow is toward the east.
Horizontal hydraulic gradients at the site vary from 0.03 feet per foot at Lower Dockery to 0.08
feet per foot at the upgradient portion of Upper Macon. The horizontal hydraulic gradient
calculated for Upper Dockery is 0.07 feet per foot, as is the hydraulic gradient calculated for
Lower Macon. The horizontal hydraulic gradient at Upper Macon varies from 0.08 feet per foot
near the lagoons to 0.05 feet per foot in the downgradient portions of this area.
2.1.2 Monitoring Well Sampling
Ground water samples were collected from twenty-three monttoring wells at the locations shown
on Plate 1 using procedures and protocols specified in the Macon/Dockery Field Sampling and
Analysis Plan (FSAP, revised January 1993).
All samples were analyzed in accordance wtth applicable Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
protocols (with the exception of total suspended solids). Ground water samples were analyzed
for the contaminants of concern specttied in the Statement of Work. These constttuents are
listed in Table 2-6. Aliquots for both total and dissolved metals sample fractions were collected
at all monttoring well locations. Dissolved inorganic constttuent analyses were obtained to
provide a better representation of ground water that will be extracted and treated. Based on
observations during the pumping test, extracted ground water is expected to be free of
suspended solids after a short period of time during inttial start-up activtties. Table E-1 of
Appendix E includes a list of monitoring wells by area, well type, and depth of screened interval.
Form 1 laboratory reports and data validation notes are also included in Appendix E.
Constituents Detected In Ground Water Monitoring Wells
Upper Macon -Volatile and Semlvolatlle Organics. Table 2-7 summarizes the analy1ical
results for Upper Macon ground water samples. The constttuents vinyl chloride, 1, 1-
dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene (total), trichloroethene, benzene, and tetrachloroethene were
detected at several Upper Macon monttoring well locations at concentrations above the
Per1ormance Standards.
l:\WP'\70\7001 721. PFD1cd!94 2-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
t:\WPl.70\7001721. PFD1cdl94
TABLE 2-6
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS
MACON/DOCKERY SITE MONITORING WELL SYSTEM
Antimony
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 , 1, 1.-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (total)
lsophorone
2-22
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
- ------- ---------TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.0028Ju <0.010 <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) <0.010 <0.010 0.006J
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) <0.010 0.0006J 0.002J
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.07) <0.010 0.002 0.002J
Chloroform (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <O.0OOSJu
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.20) <0.0038Ju <0.010 0.003J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) <0.010 0.010 0.017
Benzene (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 0.0004J
Toluene (1.0) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Antimony (total) (0.06) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Antimony (dissolved) <0.0100 <0.0600 <0.0600
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are
included in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
8 (Organics) -Anafyte present in analytical method blank.
8 (lnorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit.
0, DL Results from diluted sample.► -
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PF01cdl94
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.002J
<0.001 BJu <0.010 <0.002Ju <0.010 <0.018u <0.0048Ju
<0.010 0.024 0.018 <0.010 0.004J 0.010
<0.010 0.007J 0.00SJ <0.010 0.018 0.026
<0.010 0.045 0.020 <0.010 0.001J 0.015
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.010 0.016 0.011 <0.010 0.006J 0.004J
<0.010 0.016 0.086 <0.010 0.007J 0.022
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.010 0.022 0.027 <0.010 0.014 0.009J
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
<0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0600 <0.0600 <0.0100 <0.0100
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics) -Concentration less than .the Instrument Detection Limit.
Well MW11A (P-11A) is constructed of 2-inch PVC. The remaining wells are
constructed of 2· or 4-inch stainless steel.
-
--- --------------TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
.,
.-~ Ii
Barium (total) (1.0) 0.07848 0.07408 0.1788 0.373 0.375 0.1878 0.1108 0.253 0.204
Barium (dissolved} «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200 «l.200
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050
Beryllium (dissolved) «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050
Cadmium (total) (0.005) «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050
Cadmium {dissolved) «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050
Chromium (total) (0.05) «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 0.0797 0.152 <0.0100 «l.0100 0.0195 0.0107
Chromium (dissolved} «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100
Iron (total) 3.10 1.50 7.50 28.0 44.0 5.00 4.30 5.60 1.50
Iron (dissolved) «l.100 «l.100 «l.100 <0.100 0.252 <0.100 «l.100 «l.100 «l.100
Lead (total) (0.015) «l.0030 «l.0030 0.0036 0.0088 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030
Lead (dissolved) «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030
Manganese (total)(0.05) 0.0339 0.0366 0.206 0.445 1.440 0.164 0.0982 0.0470 0.0495
Manganese (dissolved) 0.0150 0.0182 «l.0150 «l.0150 0.915 «l.0150 «l.0150 0.0338 0.0369
Mercury (total) (0.0011) «l.00020 <0.00020 «l.00020 0.00029 0.0013 «l.00020 «l.00020 0.00053 0.00020
Mercury (dissolved) «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 0.00020 «l.00020
Nickel (total) (0.10) «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 0.149 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400
Nickel ( dissolved) «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, perfonnance standards are u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
included in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
8 (Organics) -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (lnorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit.
D. DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
l:\wP\70\7001721.PFO/cdf94
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Well MWllA (P-11Af is constructed of 2-inch P·vc. The remaining wells are
constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
-
----- -- -- ------TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vanadium (total) (0.05) «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500
Vanadium (dissolved) «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500
Zinc (total) (5.0) «l.0200 <0.0200 «l.0483u
Zinc (dissolved) «l.0200 «l.0200 0.0234
Cyanide (0.154) «l.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million. pertonnance standards are
included in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
8 (Organics} -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (lnorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit
D. DL Results from diluted sample. -
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD1cdl94
•it·;..w;;ar•-· /ii . .wilflAii
0.0539 0.0557 «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500
«J.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500 «l.0500
<0.0709u «l.0770u «l.0318u «l.0200 «l.0200 <0.0200
0.0251 0.0557 «l.0200 «l.0200 «l.0200 «l.0200
<0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 «l.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) . Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics). Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Well MW11A (P-11A} is-·constl'Ucted of 2-inch PVC." The remaining wells are
constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
-
-- ---- --- ----- - --TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.001) 0.35E 0.36D 0.32E
Methylene chloride (0.005) 0.004BJ <0.025 <0.003BJu
Acetone (3.5) <0.028u <0.025 0.026
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) 0.012 0.016DJ 0.015
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) 0.16 0.14D 0.14
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.07) 0.034 0.032D 0.033
Chlorofonn (0.001) <0.010 <0.025 <0.010
1, 1, I -Trichloroethane (0.20) 0.011 0.013DJ 0.012
Trichloroethane (0.0028) 0.028 0.031D 0.030
Benzene (0.001) 0.006J 0.006DJ 0.005J
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) 0.025 0.031 D 0.026
Toluene (1.0) 0.003J <0.025 0.002J
Xylenes (total) (0.40) 0.018 0.017J 0.016
Antimony (total) (0.06) <0.0100 NA <0.0100
Antimony (dissolved) <0.0600 NA <0.0600
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are
induded in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
B (Organics) -Anatyte present in analytical method blank.
B (lnorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit.
D, DL Results-from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
1:\WP\70\7001721. PF Olodf94
0.36D <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.14
0.003DJ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.003J
<0.025 <0.012u <0.003BJu <0.005BJu <0.010
0.015DJ 0.002J 0.004J <0.010 0.015
0.16D <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.11
0.036D <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.078
<0.025 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
0.012DJ 0.002J <0.001 BJu <0.001 BJu 0.013
0.030D <0.010 0.006J 0.0006J 0.024
0.006DJ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.001J
0.028D <0.010 <0.010 0.0005J 0.021
<0.025 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
0.018DJ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 0.001J
NA <0.010 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
NA <0.0600 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Well MW11A (P-11A) is constructed of 2-inch PVC: The remaining wells are
constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
-
---- - -------------TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
-) I•••·qi1ii2II \(pup of !.1'1'109)
...
.. ·.
Barium (total) (1.0) o.no NA 1.05
Barium (dissolved) 0.333 NA 0.345
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050 NA <0.0050
Beryllium (dissolved) <0.0050 NA <0.0050
Cadmium (total) (0.005) <0.0050 NA «l.0050
Cadmium (dissolved) <0.0050 NA «l.0050
Chromium (total) (0.05) 0.106 NA 0.162
Chromium ( dissolved) <0.0100 NA «l.0100
Iron (total) 27.0 NA 48.0
Iron (dissolved) 1.37 NA 1.53
Lead (total) (0.015) «l.0030 NA 0.0031
Lead (dissolved) «l.0030 NA «l.0030
Manganese (total) (0.05) 2.06 NA 2.22
Manganese {dissolved) 1.76 NA 1.78
Mercury (total) (0.0011) <0.00020 NA <0.00020
Mercury (dissolved) <0.00020 NA «l.00020
Nickel (total) (0.1) 0.137 NA 0.184
Nickel ( dissolved) «l.0400 NA «l.0400
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are
included in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
B (Organics) -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (lnorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than cir equal to Instrument Detection Limit.
D, DL Results fr0m diluted simple." -.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
I :IWP\7017001721. PFO1odf94
.. ,,,,,,,·:;
1\I ~Ii-t ,,,ouo2ou,,· ··• :n~w~, 1.1Woili
ii]li.... •.•.•·
NA 1.66 0.1018 0.530 0.205
NA 1.69 <0.0200 0.495 <0.0200
NA <0.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050
NA <0.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050 «l.0050
NA <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
NA «l.0050 «l.0050 <0.0050 «l.0050
NA <0.0100 <0.0100 «l.0100 0.0184
NA «l.0100 <0.0100 «l.0100 «l.0100
NA 0.630 3.10 2.10 4.20
NA <0.100 «l.100 <0.100 <0.100
NA «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 <0.0030
NA <0.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030 «l.0030
NA 0.258 0.0318 0.0314 3.01
NA 0.253 <0.0150 «l.0150 2.96
NA «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020
NA «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020 «l.00020
NA <0.0400 <0.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400
<0.0400 <0.0400 «l.0400 «l.0400
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Ouantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection.Limit.
Well MW11A (P-11A) is constructed of 2-inch PVC. The remaining wells are
constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
--- - -- - ----- -- -- --TABLE 2-7 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vanadium (total) (0.05) <0.0500 NA 0.0591
Vanadium (dissolved) <0.0500 NA <0.0500
Zinc (total) (5.0) <0.0521u NA <0.0768u
Zinc (dissolved) dl.0200 NA <0.0200
Cyanide (0.154) <0.0100 NA <0.0100
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are
induded in parentheses after parameter name.
J Estimated concentration.
B (Organics) -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (lnorganics) • Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but
greater than or equal to lnstruf!}ent Detection Limit.
D, DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
l:\wP\70\7001721.PFDlcdf94
NA <0.0500 dl.0500 dl.0500 <0.0500
dl.0500 dl.0050 dl.0050 <0.0050
NA dl.0857u dl.0200 dl.0200 <0.0200
0.0898 0.0224 dl.0200 dl.0200
NA <0.0100 dl.0100 dl.0100 dl.0100
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
W Post digestion spike out of control limits.
N (Inorganic) -Spiked sample recovery not within control limits.
< (Organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
< (lnorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Well MW11A (P-11A) is constructed of 2-inch PVC. The remaining wells are
constructed of 2-or 4•inch stainless steel.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Upper Macon -lnorganlcs. Table 2-7 is a summary of analytical results from Upper Macon 1
total and dissolved fraction inorganic ground water samples. Totals fraction barium, chromium,
iron, manganese, mercury, nickel, and vanadium concentrations were detected at some Upper
Macon well locations above Performance Standards. Dissolved fraction barium, iron, and
manganese were also detected at several locations above Performance Standards.
Table 2-8 contains the results obtained from analyzing upper Macon ground water samples for
total suspended solids concentration. Sample results range from below the instrument detection
limit (<25 ppm) at MW06 to 640 ppm at water table location MW05.
Lower Macon -Volatile and Semlvolatlle Organics. Table 2-9 is a summary of analytical
results obtained from samples collected from the Lower Macon area. The constituents 1, 1-
dichloroethene, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene were detected at several Lower Macon
monitoring well locations at concentrations above the Performance Standards.
Lower Macon -lnorganlcs. Table 2-9 is a summary of analytical results for Lower Macon total
and dissolved fraction inorganic ground water samples. The inorganic constituents chromium,
iron, and manganese (totals fractions) were detected in several Lower Macon ground water
samples above performance standards. Table 2-8 contains the results obtained from analyzing
Lower Macon ground water samples for total suspended solids. Sample results range from 38
ppm at MW04 to 750 ppm at MW13.
Upper Dockery -Volatile and Semlvolatlle Organics. Table 2-10 is a summary of analytical
results for Upper Dockery ground water samples. The constttuents methylene chloride, 1, 1-
dichloroethene, 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, benzene, and tetrachloroethene were
detected at several Upper Dockery monitoring well locations at concentrations above the
Performance Standards.
Upper Dockery -lnorganlcs. Table 2-10 is a summary of analytical results for Upper Dockery
total and dissolved fraction inorganic ground water samples. The inorganic constttuents iron,
manganese, and mercury (totals fraction) were detected in several Upper Dockery ground water
samples above performance standards. Dissolved fraction iron and manganese were also
I :\WP\ 7017001721. PFD/cd!94 2-29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Upper Macon
MW01
MW02
MW02A
MW03
MW05
MW06
MW07
MW08
MW08A
MW09
DU02
(Duplicate of
MW09)
MW10
MW11
MW11A
MW19
77
22
110
430
640
<25
120
210
42
250
61
19
120
32
52
TSS Total Suspended Solids
mg/L Parts per million
TABLE 2-8
SUMMARY OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS
(MARCH 1993)
16.8 5.12 34.92
19.1 5.15 44.7
17.3 5.95 86.6
18.1 5.21 45.5
17.4 5.38 103.7
17.3 5.31 57.7
17.3 5.59 28.7
18.2 5.17 56.8
18.2 6.02 147.7
18.3 6.37 294.8
18.3 6.37 294.8
17.3 4.83 334.7
18.1 5.47 45.5
19.6 11.30 66.5
17.3 5.74 300.0
NTUs Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
NR Not recorded.
l:\WPi70\7001721.PFDledt94 2-30
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
10.8 59.3
7.5 NR
7.1 NR
7.4 >199.9
2.8 > 199.9
8.9 >199.9
8.2 > 199.9
6.2 122.1
4.9 29.6
2.8 >199.9
2.8 >199.9
2.4 102.6
7.6 157
6.1 135.3
2.8 >199.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Lower Macon
MW04 38
MW12 130
MW13 750
MW14R 110
Upper Dockery
MW15 41
DU01
(duplicate of
MW15) 30
MW15A <10
MW18 100
MW20 120
Lower Dockery
MW16 I 220 I
TSS Total Suspended Solids
mg/L Parts per million
TABLE 2-8 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS
(MARCH 1993)
19 5.75 67.2
16.6 4.82 35.0
15.5 5.51 107.1
16.8 4.87 34.9
16.1 4.94 70.7
16.1 4.94 70.7
15.5 6.14 101.2
15.1 5.15 41.9
13.9 6.01 73.3
15.3 I 5.01 I 191.0 I
NTUs Nephelometric Turbidity Units.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PF01cdf94 2-31
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
6.7 4.1
8.6 20.7
3.8 >199.9
7.4 22.7
4.0 136.3
4.0 136.3
7.2 104.3
8.1 121.2
12.6 181.6
3.5 I 122.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-9
SUMMARY OF LOWER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vinyl Chloride (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Methylene Chloride (0.005) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.010 <0.0028Ju <0.0028Ju <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) <0.010 <0.010 0.037 <0.0t0
1, 1-0ichloroethane (3.5) <0.010 0.002J 0.056 0.009J
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.07) <0.010 <0.010 0.004J 0.00BJ
Chloroform (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane(0.20) <0.00078Ju 0.001J 0.128 0.003J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.003 0.001J 0.026 0.009J
Benzene (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) <0.010 0.0005J 0.002J 0.003J
Toluene (1.0) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Antimony (total) (0.060) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Antimony (dissolved) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Barium (total) (1.0) 0.05278 <0.0500 0.259 <0.0500
Barium (dissolved) <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are induded in parentheses after
parameter name.
J Estimated concentration
B (organics) • Analyte present in analytical method blank
8 (inorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to
Instrument Detection Limit
W Post digestion spike out of control limits
N (inorganic) -Spiked Sample recovery not within control limits
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process
< (organics) • Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit
< (inorganics) • Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit
Wells are constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PFDicdf94 2-32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-9 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF LOWER MACON ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
-· {( {
Beryllium (dissolved) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Cadmium (total) (0.005) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Cadmium (dissolved) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Chromium (total) (0.050) <0.0100 0.178 0.0214 <0.0100
Chromium (dissolved) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Iron (total) 2.60 2.60 14.0 4.20
Iron (dissolved) <0.100 <D.100 <0.100 <0.100
Lead (total) (0.015) 0.0036 0.0032 0.0057 <0.0030
Lead (dissolved) <0.0030 <0.0030 0.0051 <0.0030
Manganese (total) (0.050) 0.0477 0.0300 0.508 0.0485
Manganese (dissolved) <0.0150 0.0153 0.251 <0.0150
Mercury (total) (0.0011 I 0.00021 <0.00020 0.00035 <0.00020
Mercury (dissolved) <0.00020 <D.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020
Nickel (total) (0.10) <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0406u <0.0420u
Nickel (dissolved) <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400
Vanadium (total) (0.050) <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500
Vanadium (dissolved) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Zinc (total) (5.0) <0.0200 <0.0200 0.0619 <0.0200
Zinc (dissolved) <0.0200 <0.0200 <0.0200 <0.0200
Cyanide (0.154) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses after
parameter name.
J Estimated concentration
B (organics) • Analyte present in analytical method blank
B (inorganics) • Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to
Instrument Detection Limit
W Post digestion spike out of control limits
N (inorganic) • Spiked Sample recovery not within control limits
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process
< (organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit
< (inorganics) • Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit
Wells are constructed of 2· or 4-inch stainless steel.
l:\WP\ 7017001721. Pl=Dlcdl94 2-33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-10
SUMMARY OF UPPER DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
BJJ}6t
I \(dupAF
':::,:::::::::::::,:::::::::::::c:::\\::"? \MW15)••·••••
Vinyl chloride (0.001) <0.010 <0.050 <0.010 <0.062 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) 0.005J 0.011DJ 0.006J 0.00SDJ 0.0007J <0.010 0.000SJ
Acetone (3.5) <0.0068Ju <0.0218DJu <0.00SBJu <0.062 <0.003BJu <0.010 <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) 0.52E 0.68D 0.65E 0.63D 0.026 <0.010 0.009J
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) 0.023 0.027DJ 0.027 0.023DJ 0.002J <0.010 <0.010
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) 0.002J <0.050 0.003J <0.062 0.0OOSJ <0.010 <0.010
Chloroform (0.001) <0.010 <0.050 <0.001Ju <0.062 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
t,1,1-Trichloroethane (0.20) 0.26E 0.268D 0.27BE 0.28D 0.021 0.0002J 0.007J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.004J 0.005DJ 0.004J 0.005DJ 0.007J <0.010 <0.010
Benzene (0.001) 0.010J 0.010DJ 0.010 0.010DJ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) 0.0007J <0.050 0.0005J <0.062 <0.ot0 <0.010 0.002J
Toluene (1.0) 0.002J <0.050 0.002J <0,062 <0.0t0 <0.010 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) 0.031 0.029DJ 0.030 0.029DJ <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
' Antimony (total) (0.060) <0.0100 NA <0.0100 NA <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Antimony (dissolved) <0.0100 NA <0.0100 NA <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Barium (total) (1.0) 0.1408 NA 0.1248 NA 0.06758 0.07508 0.07048
Barium (dissolved) <0.0200 NA <0.0200 NA <0.0200 <0.0200 <0.0200
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050 NA <0.0050 NA <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, perlorrnance standards are induded in parentheses after parameter name .
• J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (inorganics} · Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit
ll,DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
LI Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
< (organics) • Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit.
<" (inorganics) • Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Wells are constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
I :\WPI 70\7001721. PF01cdf94 2-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-10 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF UPPER DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
11 ·•1&;· -
,I\\'•\i:\-·-· ,. ·,. .,,
Beryllium (dissolved) &0050 NA &0050 NA <0.0050 &0050 <0,0050
Cadmium (total) (0,005) &0050 NA &0050 NA <0.0050 &0050 &0050
Cadmium (dissolved) <0.0050 NA <0,0050 NA <0.0050 <0.0050 &0050
Chromium (total) (0,050) 0.0334 NA 0.0213 NA 0.0112 0.0149 0,0271
Chromium (dissolved) <0.0100 NA &0100 NA &0100 &0100 &0100
Iron (total) 4.70 NA 3.10 NA 0.680 6.20 8.20
Iron (dissolved) &100 NA <0.100 NA <0.100 0.462 0.243
Lead (total) (0.015) <0.0030 NA &0030 NA <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030
Lead (dissolved) <0.0030 NA <0.0030 NA &0030 <0.0030 <0.0030
Manganese (total) (0.050) 0.212 NA 0.197 NA 0.0210 0.114 0.113
Manganese (dissolved) 0.157 NA 0.163 NA 0.0158 0.0165 <0.0150
Mercury (total) (0.0011) 0.0018 NA 0.0016 NA <0.00020 <0.00020 &00020
Mercury (dissolved) &00020 NA &00020 NA <0.00020 <0.00020 &00020
Nickel (total) (0.10) <0.0408u NA <0.0400 NA &0400 &0400 &0525u
Nickel (dissolved) <0.0400 NA <0.0400 NA <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400
Vanadium (total) (0.050) <0.0500 NA <0.0500 NA <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500
Vanadium (dissolved) <0.0500 NA &0500 NA <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500
Zinc (total) (5.0) 0.0433 NA 0.0291 NA <0.0200 0.0333 0.0413
Zinc (dissolved) 0.0244 NA 0.0328 NA &0200 0.0665 <0.0200
Cyanide (0.154) <0.0100 NA <0.0100 NA <0.0100 &0100 <0.0100
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
,J Estimated concentration.
B (organics) -Analyte present in analytical method blank.
B (inorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or equal to Instrument Detection Limit
D,DL Results from diluted sample.
E Concentration exceeds instrument calibration range.
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during da1a validation process.
NA Not analyzed.
~: (organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit
< (inorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit.
Wells are constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PF□lcdf94 2-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
detected above performance standards in several Upper Dockery ground water samples. Table 2-8
contains the results obtained from analyzing Upper Dockery ground water samples for total
suspended solids. Sample results range from below the instrument detection limtt (<10 ppm) at
MW15A to 120 ppm at MW20.
Lower Dockery -Volatile and Semlvolatlle Organics. Table 2-11 is a summary of analytical
results for Lower Dockery ground water samples. The constttuents 1, 1-dichloroethene, and
trichloroethene were detected at concentrations above the Performance Standards.
Lower Dockery -lnorganlcs. Table 2-11 is a summary of analytical results for total and dissolved
fraction ground water samples for Lower Dockery. Totals concentrations of iron and manganese
were detected in Lower Dockery ground water samples at concentrations above the Performance
Standards. Table 2-8 contains the results obtained from analyzing the ground water sample from
Lower Dockery location MW16 for total suspended solids (TSS). TSS at MW16 was 220 ppm.
2.1.3 Aquifer Pumping Test
An aquifer pumping test was performed to obtain aquifer data in support of the preliminary design.
Based on hydraulic conductivity data collected during the field screening survey, aquifer conditions
across the stte are sufficiently similar to be represented by a single aquifer pumping test. The
pumping test was conducted in March 1993 according to the procedure approved by US EPA, wtth
minor modifications that are presented in the detailed summary of the test contained in Appendix G.
A six-inch pumping well designated UMRW01 and two-inch piezometers designated UMPZ01 and
UMPZ02 were installed for the aquifer pumping test. The wells were screened from the top of
bedrock to the water table, the saturated thickness of the saprolite aquifer, to avoid the effects of
partial penetration during the test. The piezometers were installed to collect water level
measurements during the aquifer pumping test. The pumping well was pumped to create a
hydraulic stress on the aquifer. Ground water samples were collected from the pumping well at
periodic intervals during the aquifer pumping test. Analytical results from the pumping well ground
water samples were used to support the preliminary and intermediate design.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFDlcdf94 2-36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF LOWER DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
Vinyl chloride (0.001) <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) 0.024
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) 0.053
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.070) <0.010
Chloroform (0.001) <0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.20) 0.061
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.005J
Benzene (0.001) <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) <0.010
Toluene (1.0) <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) <0.010
Antimony (total) (0.060) <0.010
Antimony (dissolved) <0.010
Barium (total) (1.0) 0.0837B
Barium (dissolved) <0.20
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, per1ormance standards are inciuded in
parenthesis after parameter name.
8 (inorganics) • Concentration less than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or
equal to Instrument Detection Limit
J Estimated concentration
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process
< (organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit
< (inorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit
Wells are constructed of 2-or 4-inch stainless steel.
I :IWP\7017001721. PFD/cdt94 2-37
I
I
Ii
I
I
' I
I
t
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF LOWER DOCKERY ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND WATER (MARCH 1993)
I ;
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050
Beryllium (dissolved) <0.0050
Cadmium (total) (0.005) <0.0050
Cadmium (dissolved) <0.0050
Chromium (total) (0.050) 0.0128
Chromium (dissolved) <0.010
Iron (total) 14.0
Iron (dissolved) <0.100
Lead (total) (0.015) <0.0030
Lead (dissolved) <0.0030
Manganese (total) (0.050) 0.332
Manganese (dissolved) 0.0894
Mercury (total) (0.0011) <0.00020
Mercury (dissolved) <0.00020
Nickel (total) (0.10) <0.0480 u
Nickel (dissolved) <0.040
Vanadium (total) (0.050) <0.0500
Vanadium (dissolved) <0.0500
Zinc (total) (5.0) 0.0333
Zinc (dissolved) <0.020
Cyanide (0.154) <0.0100
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million, performance standards are induded in
parenthesis after parameter name.
B {inorganics) • Concentration le5s than Contract Required Detection Limit, but greater than or
equal to Instrument Detection Limit
J Estimated concentration
u Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process
< (organics) • Concentration less than the Contract Required Quantitation Limit
< {inorganics) • Concentration less than the Instrument Detection Limit
Wells are constructed of 2· or 4-inch stainless steel.
I :\WP\ 7017001721. PFD1cdf94 2-38
,I -..
I
I
,I! ,.i
I
I ' -
I .,
I
I
I
I
I',
I ,,
11
I,
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Dr/I/Ing and Well Installation
Figure 2-1 illustrates the locations of UMRW01, UMPZ01, and UMPZ02. Pumping well
UMRW01 was located approximately 30 feet south southeast of existing sne well pair
MW02/MW02A. Piezometers UMPZ01 and UMPZ02 were located approximately 50 and 70
feet east northeast of location UMRW01, respectively. Well construction details are included in
Appendix D.
Aquifer Test Field Procedures
Following installation and development of the recovery well and two piezometers, an aqutter
pumping test was conducted using UMRW01 as the pumping well. The test consisted of
collecting and recording water level measurements from the recovery well and nearby
observation wells prior to, and over a 50-hour pumping period and a 12-hour recovery period.
The aqutter pump test was conducted in accordance to the procedures specttied in the
US EPA-approved Aqutter Test Procedure Document Prior to beginning the 50-hour pump
test, a step-drawdown test was performed to determine the optimum pumping rate for the longer
duration pumping test
The aqutter pumping test was performed by temporarily installing a submersible pump in
recovery well UMRW01 and pumping at a constant rate. Water level measurements were
collected from two piezometers and three nearby monnoring wells. Water level measurements
were recorded during both the 50-hour pumping period and 12-hour recovery period at timed
intervals. Pressure transducers were installed at locations UMRW01, UMPZ01, UMPZ02,
MW02, MW02A, and MW07. Water level measurements were collected and recorded manually
at well locations MW06, MW08, and MW0BA.
A flow meter totalizer connected to the pump discharge was used to monitor the total quantity of
water pumped and the production rate of UMRW01 during the aqutter pumping test Periodic
manual measurements of pump discharge were also recorded to check well flow volume.
Cumulative pumping rates (total volume of water pumped divided by elapsed time) during the
test ranged from 3.1 gpm to 3.4 gpm, with an average overall discharge rate of 3.1 gpm.
l:\WP'\70\7001721. PFD!cdl94 2-39
' ,,
I
rl,
I
' I
I
I" --
1 ,,,
' I
I
I
LEGEND
OUMRWOI RECOVERY WELL (PUMPING WELLl
□ UMPZOI PIEZOMETER COBSERVA TION LOCATION)
..ltLMW-02 ~ EXISTING MONITORING WELL <LOCATION ONL Yl
70017.14
6-30-93
0 100 200 -_, '
-•-I'
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE No. 2-1
AQUIFIER PUMPING TEST
PUMPING WELL AND
OBSERVATION LOCATIONS
2-40
300
usr4/hydro/70017h/70017h06. flQ
MACON DOCKERY
RICHMOND CO., N.C.
I
I
I,
I
I
II
V
'I I I ,,
I
' ,I
,·
I
! I
I ,,
t
I
I
I -..
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
During the pumping test, samples of discharge water were periodically collected for analytical
testing to support the preliminary design. Table 2-12 contains a listing of the collected
discharge samples and indicator parameter measurements. These samples were analyzed for
the contaminants of concern and iron. Table 2-13 is a summary of pumping analytical results.
The discharge water produced during the aquifer pumping test was treated and stored on-site in
a portable tank. This water was removed off-stte after obtaining verbal and written (permtt
application approval) permission from North Carolina DEHNR and the Rockingham POTW.
The Pump and Haul Permtt was issued on July 7, 1993, and pump test water was disposed at
the Rockingham POTW on July 28, 1993.
Aquifer Test Analysis
Water level measurements were recorded for wells UMRW01, UMPZ01, UMPZ02, MW02,
MW02A, MW07, MW06, MW08, and MW0SA to determine the magnttude of the drawdown at
each location. Maximum drawdowns at the latter three locations were on the order of 0.2 feet
and were not sufficient to warrant graphing and subsequent interpretation. Therefore, water
level measurements from observation wells UMPZ01, UMPZ02, MW02, MW02A, and MW07
were used in the aqutter test interpretation.
Elapsed time and drawdown values were calculated for wells UMPZ01, UMPZ02, MW02,
MW02A, and MW07. Time drawdown tables are included as Appendix H of this report. Time
versus drawdown graphs were plotted on a logartthmic scale for each of these wells using data
collected during the drawdown phase of the aquifer pumping test. Curve-matching techniques
were used to generate estimates of aqutter transmissivtty and storativity at each of the
observation well locations (Table 2-14) based on the Theis (1935) and Neuman (1975) methods
as implemented in the computer program AQTESOLV (Geraghty & Miller, 1991). Hydraulic
conductivtty values were calculated from the aqutter test transmissivity results using a saturated
saproltte thickness of 50 feet. Results of the aqutter pumping test were used in the capture
zone analysis conducted for the Preliminary Design, wtth consideration of the in-situ hydraulic
conductivtty results from the field screening survey and monttoring well slug test results
presented in the Remedial Investigation Report.
I :IWP\70\7001721. PFDlcd/94 2-41
I
I .. -
11
/I
I
' :1
I ~-:,,
-9,
,,,
I
I
I,
,1·
,I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-12
SUMMARY OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS MEASURED
DURING AQUIFER PUMP TEST
UMRW01A End of Step 343 gallons
Drawdown
Test
UMRW01B After 12 hours 2266 gallons
of pumping
UMRW01C After 24 hours 4721 gallons
of pumping
UMRW01 D After 36 hours 7122 gallons
of pumping
UMRW01 E After 51,75 9720 gallons
hours of
pumping
t\WP\ 70\7001721.PF0tcdf94
18,8 6,76 118,02
19,1 6,44 100,62
17,3 6,83 94,63
18,6 6,69 101,52
16,7 6,82 89,78
2-42
I
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
1,17
1, 17
1, 17
1, 17
1, 17
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-13
SUMMARY OF RECOVERY WELL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Vinyl chloride (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Methylene chloride (0.005) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Acetone (3.5) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
1, 1-Dichloroethene (0.007) 0.004J 0.007 J 0.006J 0.006 J 0.007J
1, 1-Dichloroethane (3.5) 0.003 J 0.003 J 0.003 J 0.003 J 0.003 J
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.07) 0.010 0.011 0.009 J 0.010 0.010
Chloroform (0.001) <0.002 Ju <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
1,1,l•Trichloroethane (0.20) 0.002 J 0.003 J 0.003 J 0.003J 0.004 J
Trichloroethane (0.0028) 0.022 0.027 0.025 0.028 0.031
Benzene (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) <0.010 <0.010 0.0004 J <0.010 0.0005 J
Toluene (1.0) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Xylenes (total) (0.40) <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
<0.010
.I
Antimony (total) (0.06) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
I Antimony (dissolved) <0.0600 <0.0600 <0.0600 <0.0600 <0.0600
Barium (total) (1.0) 0.0882 B 0.0729 B 0.0647B 0.0695B 0.0749 B
Barium (dissolved) <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200 <0.200
Beryllium (total) (0.001) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Beryllium (dissolved) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
a Ana~icaJ results are reported in parts pet million, performance standards are included in parentheses after parameter name.
B (inorganics) -Concentration lass than Contrad Required Detadion limit, but greater than 01 equal to Instrument Detadion limit
J Estimated amcentration
" Laboratory reported detection not validated during data validation process
< (organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Ouantrtation limrt
< (inorganics) -Concentration less than the Instrument Oeiedion Limrt
NA Nol Analyzed
I I :\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PFDlc:ct!94 2-43
I ,,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I ' I
I
' I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-13 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF RECOVERY WELL ANALYTICAL RES UL TS ,_ /ut.iiiWiiilk JJ;,;~wi;cat t ui..kWhlic't .:-:=:-:-:,:::,:-:,.,::-:-::··':-:-::=:::-:,•,: :::;:::,,,,:,::,,:,::::::,,:,::-:::·::;:::;:;:.:,:;:,: fU~ RW01 ,ot \U.M.111110.1\E. )!
JI -::
Cadmium (total) (0.005) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Cadmium (dissolved) <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050 <0.0050
Chromium (total) (0.05) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Chromium (dissolved) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Iron (total) 0.366 1.03 <0.100 0.102 0.108
Iron (dissolved) <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100 <0.100
Lead (total) (0.015) <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030
Lead (dissolved) <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030 <0.0030
Manganese (total) (0.05) 0.369 0.201 0.142 0.128 0.123
Manganese (dissolved) 0.382 0.191 0.152 0.135 0.123
Mercury (total) (0.0011) <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020
Mercury (dissolved) <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020 <0.00020
Nickel (total) (0.10) &0400 <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400
Nickel (dissolved) <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400 <0.0400
Vanadium (total) (0.05) <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500
Vanadium (dissolved) <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500 <0.0500
Zinc (total) (5.0) 0.0288 0.0209 &0200 <0.0200 &0200
Zinc (dissolved) 0.256 0.0292 <0.0200 0.0201 <0.0200
'
Cyanide (0.154) <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100 <0.0100
Hardness (as CaCO3) 33 25 23 23 23
Total Suspended Solids <10 21 <10 <10 <10
a AnalyticaJ resulls are repor1ed in parts per million, performance standards are included in parentheses afte1 parameter name.
B (inorganic::s) • Concentration less than Contraci Required Detection Limit, but greater lhan or equal to Instrument Detection Limit
J Estimated concentration
u Laboratory repor1ed detection not validated during data validation process
< {organics) -Concentration less than the Contract Required Ouanti1ation Limi1
< (inorganics) -Concent1ation less than the Instrument Detection Limil
NA Not Analyzed
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD1cd!94 2-44
-I
I
I ,,
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-14
SUMMARY OF AQUIFER PUMPING TEST RESULTS
Pumping Well: UMRW01
Maximum drawdown 32.9 feet
Theis Method with correction for Unconfined Conditions
UMPZ01 49.3 253 1.1 X 10-4 5.06
UMPZ02 69.6 282 7.7 X 10.3 5.64
MW2 33.8 285 3.1 X 10"3 5.70
MW2A 30.9 378 2 X 10·3 7.56
MW7 106.9 NA' NA NA
Neuman Method
UMPZ01 49.3 112 2 X 10·4 2.22
UMPZ02 69.6 164 1.2x10·• 3.28
MW2 33.8 169 3.1 X 10·3 3.38
MW2A 30.9 172 2.3 X 10·3 3.44
MW7 106.9 NA NA NA
a Calculated based on a SO-foot aquifer thickness.
b NA = Not analyzed.
l:\WPl7017001721.PFD1cd194 2-45
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
2.9x10·3
3.3x1 o·'
3.3x1 o·'
4.4x10-3
1.3x10-3
1.9x10·'
2x10·'
2x10·'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
I
-
I
I
~··,
I
I
I
=-
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.1.4 Conclusions
Supplemental ground water characterization was carried out during the Preliminary Design
phase to provide a basis for designing the ground water pump and treat system required by th~
Unilateral Administrative Order. Three major activities comprised the supplemental
characterization: a ground water field screening survey, ground water monitoring well sampling,
and an aqutter pumping test.
Plume definition was provided by the field screening survey. Four plumes were identttied: one
each at the Upper Macon, Lower Macon, Upper Dockery, and Lower Dockery areas of the site.
The horizontal extent of ground water exceeding the Performance Standard for at least one
constituent is illustrated on Plates 3 and 4.
Table 2-15 summarizes the constituents in each area of affected ground water that exceed
Performance Standards. The data on Table 2-15 includes both the field screening survey and
the monitoring well sampling.
The field screening survey provided in-situ hydraulic conductivity measurements throughout the
areas of affected ground water. The geometric means of hydraulic conductivity for each area of
the site ranged from 3. 7 x 10·5 cm/sec at Lower Dockery to 7.3 x 10'5 cm/sec at Lower Macon.
A statistical comparison of the hydraulic conductivity data demonstrated that the values for each
area were statistically similar, thus a single aquifer pumping test would be sufficient for design
of the ground water remediation system .
Analytical results of water quality samples from the March 1993 monitoring well sampling event
were similar to those reported in the RI, which confirms the list of contaminants of concern.
Observations during well development activities and during the aquifer pump test indicate that
suspended solids will not be present in extracted ground water once the system has been in
operation for a few hours. Therefore, dissolved inorganics results from the March 1993
sampling episode are more applicable than total constituent concentrations for predicting
influent concentrations for the ground water treatment system. The designed treatment
l:\WP\7017001721.PFD1edl94 2-46
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
F1MT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-15
SUMMARY OF AFFECTED GROUND WATER AREAS
Upper Macon Benzene 7/56 0.014
Vinyl chloride 5/56 0.391
1, 1-Dichloroethene 15/56 0.058
Trichloroethene 33/56 0.28
Tetrachloroethene 24/56 0.063
Chromium 6/14 0.162
Manganese 14/14 3.01
Lower Macon 1, 1-Dichloroethene 11/27 0.101
Trichloroethene 8/27 0.026
Tetrachloroethene 4/27 0.007
Chromium 2/4 0.178
Manganese 4/4 0.508
Upper Dockery Benzene 2/25 0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethene 8/21 1.4
1, 1-Dichloroethene 10/21 3.0
Trichloroethene 8/21 0.015
Tetrachloroethene 4/21 0.013
Manganese 4/4 0.212
Mercury 1/4 0.0018
Lower Dockery 1 , 1-Dichloroethene 8/15 0.21
Trichloroethene 2/15 0.033
Manganese 1/1 0.332
l:\WPo.70\ 7001721.P FD1cdl94 2-47
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.0028
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.007
0.0028
0.001
0.05
0.05
0.001
0.20
0.007
0.0028
0.001
0.05
0.0011
0.007
0.0028
0.05
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.2
systems, however, will have sufficient capacity and capability to address suspended solids as
well as dissolved inorganic constituents.
The results for dissolved inorganic constttuents indicate that manganese is the only inorganic
contaminant of concern that may potentially require treatment to achieve Perfonnance
Standards. Manganese is not thought to be a constituent related to past disposal practices at
the stte because tt is commonly present at relatively high levels in local area ground water. It is
possible, however, that the higher concentrations of dissolved manganese detected in
monitoring wells near the source areas may indicate that manganese is solubilized from the
geologic formations by naturally occurring biological degradation of other site-related
constttuents. Dissolved manganese exceeds the Performance Standards at all four areas in at
least one monttoring well sample.
Dissolved manganese concentrations are not well defined at the extraction well locations
proposed for the ground water remedy due to the lack of monttoring wells and the resultant
analytical data at these locations. It is likely that dissolved manganese will be below the
Performance Standards following start-up of the recovery systems. Subsequent testing of
influent ground water concentrations will determine the need for continued treatment of
dissolved manganese.
Surface Soll, Surface Water, and Sediment Testing Results
2.2.1 Surface Soll
Surface soil samples were collected at the Upper and Lower Macon areas to conduct elutriate
bioassay testing to assess potential surface soil contaminant transport to surface water
ecosystems. The biological testing of these samples is discussed in Section 2.3 of this report.
These samples were also analyzed for contaminants of concern specttied in the US EPA-
approved Field Sampling and Analysis Plan. Four compostte samples were collected to
represent the study area (SS01 and SS03) and background (SS02 and SS04) for both the
Upper and Lower Macon areas. Figure 2-2 shows the locations of discrete samples that
comprised the compostte samples. Samples collected for toluene analyses were not
compostted; the laboratory randomly selected a discrete sample from each sample set for
analysis. Analytical results from the surface soil sampling are presented in Table 2-16. The
CLP Form 1 data summaries are included in Appendix E.
I .\WP\ 70\ 70) 1721. PFD/cdf94 2-48
I
I
·I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...,.Vl"J<Tot1ocm,1100lfhl~ --~
g
I
)
-· ... , ...
)NS CREEK
~~ --
~
~ 0 ~--•GOONKl -
LOWER MACON
AREA -"o
~
;-l
I rt-" q.:;, rr
\. ~/Ir
--=j
•
•
----------------., , I -----c _, I ----o
0. 0 ~:~
t:JO
-:::::._ • 0
0
ECOLOGICAL DISCRETE SAMPLES
(I)
(I)
3
0
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SAMPLES SSOI AND VO1
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SAMPLES SSO2 AND VO2 <BACKGROUND)
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SAMPLES SSO3 AND VO3
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SAMPLES SSO4 AND VO4 (BACKGROUND>
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SURFACE WATER SAMPLE SWO/
SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR COMPOSITE SEDIMENT SAMPLE SOI
sc,u • ri::n
~Cl-•u.<1,111'0
""V"'lll lY, e.o __ ..
ta•• I'!, e,_-,,1.""9Cl.l
oc ........ to..l•--~ •.ll.8o•IITTI Gr_.. .... SC l!II.Oli ·-~ °""'"' LOCA HON OF ECOLOCIC.1.L SAMPLES
IIACONl'DOCKERY STE
lnCHIIOICI CO~ NORTM CAIIOUIA
2-49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-16
SURFACE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Manganese (mg/kg)
Toluene (µg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Cyanide (mg/kg) 3.0 2.7
Shaded areas: Constituent not analyzed for that sample.
Elevated concentrations of barium and manganese were observed in the Upper Macon study
area when compared to site background levels. Toluene was not detected in either the study
area or background sample. For the Lower Macon area, cadmium and cyanide levels in the
study area and background were similar.
2.2.2 Surface Water and Sediment
Surface water and sediment samples were collected in the Lower Macon Pond. The samples
were composites of four discrete samples collected in quadrants of the pond as shown in Figure
2-2. The contaminant of concern specttied in the US EPA-approved Field Sampling and
Analysis Plan, zinc, was not detected at detection levels of 0.02 mg/L for the surface water and
8.2 mg/kg for the pond sediment. The surface water sample was also analyzed for hardness
(32 mg/L), alkalinity (12 mg/L), and pH (6.3).
The chronic fresh water toxicity for zinc, at a hardness of 32 mg/L, is 0.04 mg/L. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) ER-L level for zinc in sediments is 120 mg/kg.
An ER-L represents the concentration above which adverse effects are predicted among
sensitive species. Based upon this information, zinc in the Lower Macon Pond will not present
adverse ecological effects.
I.\WP\70\7001 n1 .Pi=Dlcd!94 2-50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.3 Ecologlcal Assessment
Several dijferent studies were conducted to assess potential adverse ecological effects in the Upper
and Lower Macon areas:
composttional analysis of vegetation was conducted to address potential food-chain
effects;
surface soil elutriate bioassays were conducted to address potential contaminant
transport to surface water systems;
Lower Macon Pond surface water was evaluated with bioassays; and
Lower Macon Pond sediments were evaluated wtth elutriate bioassays.
The methods described in detail in the US EPA-approved Field Sampling and Analysis Plan were
followed.
2.3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation samples were collected from the Upper and Lower Macon areas and compared to
background for each area to address food-chain concerns. Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) was
field-selected as the vegetation species most representative of the stte.
Table 2-17 summarizes the results of vegetation composttional analysis for contaminants of
concern. Barium, cadmium, and cyanide were not detected in etther the Upper or Lower Macon
study area samples or the background samples. In the Upper Macon area, manganese and
toluene were detected in vegetation samples, but no difference was observed between study
area and background samples.
2.3.2 Surface Soll Elutrlate Bloassays
The possibiltty of surface soil contaminant transport to surface water systems was addressed by
conducting elutriate bioassays on surface soil samples. The elutriates were prepared and the
bioassays were conducted in accordance wtth the methods described in the US EPA-approved
Field Sampling and Analysis Plan. The data was evaluated using interpolative statistics (ICp
Bootstrap) aimed at defining the no effect concentration/low effect concentration (NOEC/LOEC).
The NOEC/LOEC is the highest test solution concentration at which no or minimal effect on
organism reproduction is observed.
I.\WP\70\ 7001721. PF=DJcdl94 2-51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Barium (mg/kg)
Manganese (mg/kg)
Toluene (µg/kg)
Cadmium (mg/kg)
Cyanide (mg/kg)
TABLE 2-17
VEGETATION ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Shaded areas: Constituent not analyzed for that sample.
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
<2.3
Summary results of the sur1ace soil elutriate bioassays are given in Table 2-18. Bench data
and statistical analyses (included in Appendix I) indicate that constituents have not affected the
ability of organisms to survive. Table 2-18 shows that elutriates from soils collected from the
Upper Macon study and background areas had no statistically significant effect on organism
reproduction at 100 percent concentration (NOEC/LOEC >100%, i.e., contaminants would have
to be at higher concentrations to provide a statistically signtticant effect). For the Lower Macon
study area and background area elutriates, the no-effect levels were observed at 6 and 15
percent dilutions, respectively (NOEC/LOEC = 6 and 15 percent). Based on overlap of the
95% confidence intervals, no difference between the study area and background was observed
in the Lower Macon area.
The most probable explanation for a reduction in the reproductive efficiency of organisms
reared in the Lower Macon area (both study and background) soil elutriates is the physical
rather than chemical nature of the elutriates produced from these soils. By method definttion,
elutriate solids removal is limited to centrttugation; the Lower Macon elutriates, unlike the other
elutriates, remained cloudy after the centrttugation process. Microscopic observation of the
Lower Macon test organisms revealed nutrttional deficiencies (low lipid counts, delayed
maturation, rapid filter feeding). These characteristics are typical for filter feeding organisms
l:\WP\ 70\7001721. PFDlcdf94 2-52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Upper Macon Affected -SS01
Upper Macon Background -SS02
Lower Macon Affected -8S03
Lower Macon Background • S$04
Lower Macon Pond Surface Water -SW01
Lower Macon Pond Sediment -8D01
TABLE 2-18
BIOASSAY RESULTS
0 36 (41)'
0 38 (42)
20 20 (31)
10 24 (41)
0 32 (35)
0 21 (27)
The numbers in parentheses indicate control offspring.
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
>100 N/A
>100 N/A
6 4-11
15 6-55
>100 N/A
>100 N/A
reared in water with excess levels of inert fine solids materials. The organisms are incapable of
distinguishing the inert solids from food sources and cannot obtain the necessary nutrition for
nonnal maturation and reproduction. The Lower Macon test organisms showed reduced
reproductive efficiency when compared to control organisms, but no dttference was observed
between Lower Macon study organisms and Lower Macon background organisms. This
indicates a causative characteristic common to both the study area and background area, such
as soil particle size and resultant elutriate solids content.
2.3.3 Pond Surface Water Bloassays and Pond Sediment Elutrlate Bloassays
Sur1ace water bioassays and sediment elutriate bioassays were conducted on Lower Macon
Pond samples to assess Its ecological status. As shown in Table 2-18, no effect on
reproductive efficiency was observed when comparing test organisms reared in pond water or
sediment elutriates to control organisms reared in laboratory control water (NOEC/LOEC
>100%).
2.3.4 Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the ecological assessment:
l:\WP\ 7017001721.P FO/cdl94 2-53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Compositional analysis of vegetation samples indicates that contaminants of
concern in surface soil are not accumulating in stte vegetation. By direct
correlation, it can be assumed that the food-chain has not been adversely
affected by surface soils at the stte.
Surface soil elutriate bioassays show no acute or chronic effects related to
contaminants of concern for organisms reared in soil elutriates. No adverse
ecological effects related to surface soil contaminant transport to surface water
systems were observed or are suspected.
Pond surface water bioassays and pond sediment elutriate bioassays show no
acute or chronic effects on organisms reared in pond surface water or pond
sediment elutriates. No adverse ecological affects to the Lower Macon Pond
related to stte activtty were observed or are suspected.
2.4 Bloremedlatlon Treatablllty Evaluation
In accordance with the Remedial Design Workplan and specifically the Bioremediation Treatability
Study Workplan (as approved by US EPA), the feasibiltty of bioremediating the materials contained
within the former Lagoon 1 O area was to be evaluated in the Preliminary Design. Lagoon 1 O is located
in the Lower Macon area of the Stte. During the RI/FS, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
were detected in sample TR-10, which was collected within former Lagoon 10. The remediation
Performance Standard established in the Statement of Work for PAHs in Lagoon 1 O soils is 2 mg/kg
(total) of benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene,
dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, and indenopyrene.
A laboratory bioremediation study was conducted to assess: the presence of microorganisms in former
Lagoon 1 o subsurface materials; the nutrttional needs of the microorganisms to potentially degrade
PAHs in the sludge and soil; the efficiency of the biodegradation of PAHs, thus the potential for meeting
Performance Standards wtth this technology; and, releases of volatile organic compounds during the
bioremediation process. This section of the Preliminary Remedial Design Report describes the
laboratory bioremediation treatabiltty study and the information that was obtained from the test.
The general methodology used to assess the above parameters involved the use of bench-scale
bioreactors. Bench-scale bioreactors are commercially the most convenient and accurate method
available for the assessment of bioremediation potential in unsaturated soils and have the following
advantages:
l:IWP\70\7001721.PFDlcdl94 2-54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
the abiltty to simulate field conditions to obtain data that can be reliably translated to
field remediation,
the ability to use replicate bioreactors and collect data for statistical evaluation,
a microcosm environment is created that allows in-depth analysis of crttical field
parameters (e.g., nutrient attenuation, oxygen transport, microbial species); and
the ability to assess multiple condttions for microbiological degradation of target
constttuents, which can aid in developing a more optimum design.
Although the bench-scale technique does have inherent limitations such as degrees of variabiltty in the
matrix stabiltty and the effects of sampling, a bioreactor study will reliably produce a definttive "yes" or
"no" answer to the question of whether or not bioremediation is a viable technology for a given
sttuation.
2.4.1 Sample Collection
Two subsur1ace soil/waste samples were collected from Lagoon 10 on February 18, 1993. The
locations of the soil samples are illustrated in Figure 2-3. The soil/waste samples were
collected from trenches using a backhoe.
The first pit was excavated south-to-north in the south side of Lagoon 10. During excavation of
this pit, a plastic liner was encountered at a depth of about 2 to 2.5 feet. Beneath the liner was
a black material that was hard, peeled up in sheets, and had a creosote-like odor. The depth of
the black material was approximately 5.5 feet below the lagoon surface.
A second ptt was excavated west-to-east in the north portion of the lagoon. Again at about 2.5
to 3 feet below the lagoon surface a plastic liner was encountered. The material excavated just
below the liner was also black but not as hard as was observed in the first ptt. In addition, this
material had an odor that was different than the creosote odor observed in the first ptt and
resembled a petroleum sludge odor. This material was not as solidified as that observed in
Ptt 1. After about 2 to 3 feet of this softer material, the black hardened material with a creosote
odor was again encountered. The hard material extended to about 8.5 to 9 feet below the
lagoon surface. The description of the materials beneath the liner is consistent with findings
contained in the RI Report.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFD1cdf94 2-55
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/usr4/hydro/70017h/70017h02.srt
Jrb 6-30-93
··-··-···•·--
., ------< _:--:~ ... , -·=·--..__;:I,._
.,,.,..,,,,.
5.;:" ,-~
, ' ,_,.,,.
' \
\
\ \ \
\
\
\
\ ' ' \ \
LOWER MACON SITE BOUNDARY
70017.09
0793
' \ \ ' \
\
\
\
\ \ \
0 50
\ \
\
' \ \ \
\
\ \
IOO
SCALE IN FEET
\ \
LAGOON 10
150
I
,,,
LOWER
MACON
SITE
200
\
'
\
\
j
/ / I
/
/
,/
,,
i
I
f
I ! ;
I I / /
j
!
i !
!
i '
/ (
I
/
FIGURE 2-3
{
I
I
/
j ;
I
i
I
LAGOON 10
BIOREMEDIATION TEST
PIT LOCATIONS
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
RICHMOND CO., NORTH CAROLINA
2-56
/ f
i
I I
! !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
The soil/waste mixture from each pit was placed into sample containers, transported to the RMT
laboratory, and stored at approximately 20°C. At the laboratory, each soil/waste sample was
mixed using sterile, stainless steel scoops and placed in individual sterile glass jars. The mixed
soil/waste sample obtained from the northern portion of Lagoon 1 O was designated as
Composite 1 and the soil/waste from the southern portion was designated as Composite 2. A
total composite was aseptically prepared by combining equal portions of Composite 1 and
Composite 2 and placing the soil/waste in sterile glass jars. Composited samples were stored
at approximately 20°c.
2.4.2 Soll Physical and Chemical Characterizations
The total composite sample obtained from Lagoon 1 o was evaluated for specttic physical and
chemical parameters to provide information relative to materials handling issues. The total
composite sample was analyzed for moisture content {ASTM D2216) and for Atterberg limits
(ASTM D4318) to allow for the comparison of lagoon material to known soil types. In addition,
the total composite sample was analyzed for total organic carbon {TOC), total nitrogen, soluble
organic phosphorous, and pH. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2-19.
TABLE 2-19
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF
TOT AL COMPOSITE SAMPLE
Moisture Content 17.8%
Unified Soil Classttication Low Plasticity Clay
Total Organic Carbon 5400 ppm
Total Nitrogen {nitrate + nitrite) 0.58 ppm
Soluble Organic Phosphorous 170 ppm
pH 5.8
I :IWP\70\7001721. PF01cdf94 2-57
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
The initial pH of the compostte sample was wtthin an acceptable range for biological activity.
Therefore, no pH adjustment of the lagoon material was necessary prior to inttiation of the
treatability study. The results of the carbon, nttrogen, and phosphorous analyses indicated the
need to supplement the bioreactors wtth nitrogen to achieve a C:N:P ratio of approximately
100:10:1. The ratio was used as a guide to provide nutrients in the bioreactors, but it was not
intended to be a rigid standard. After nttrogen addttion, the approximate ratio was 100:4:4,
which provided sufficient nttrogen to ensure that nitrogen did not limit degradation.
2.4.3 Enumeration of Microorganisms
Total Viable Microorganisms
Soil/waste from Compostte 1 and Composite 2 were individually analyzed to evaluate the total
number of viable aerobic microorganisms present per gram by a modification of the standard
dilution plate count method. Half strength nutrient agar plates were spread-plated in duplicate
with a dilution series prepared from 10 grams of each compostte soil/waste sample. Dilutions
were prepared and sampled from 1 x 10·1 to 1 x 1 O-', using Bushnell-Haas media (BHM,
Appendix J) as the diluent. Plates were incubated at 20°C, and total colony-forming untts
(CFUs), which are an estimation of the viable bacteria present in the soil/waste, were
enumerated after 72 hours of incubation. Uninoculated control plates were used to provide
quality control. The results of this enumeration are presented in Table 2-20. These results
indicate the presence of a typical number of microorganisms per soil/waste sample and the
absence of toxic effects upon the indigenous microbial populations.
The enumeration of total aerobic microorganisms was repeated during the evaluation of the
solid-phase bioreactors on Days 23, 50, 70, and 100 following incubation. The enumeration
was pertormed as described above with the exception that the inttial dilution series was
prepared wtth soil/waste from each of the nine solid-phase bioreactors. The results of these
analyses are also presented in Table 2-20. The results of this enumeration indicate an increase
in the microbial populations following oxygen and nutrient addttions in the solid-phase
bioreactors.
l:\WP\70\7001 n1 .PFO1cdf94 2-58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-20
AVERAGE NUMBER OF TOTAL AEROBIC MICROORGANISMS
(CFUs/g dry weight soil/waste)"
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
Control 1. 72x1 o• (2) 1.59x107 (2) 1.10x107 (2) 5.86x10' (2) 4.40x107 (2)
Nutrient Amended 1.72x1 o' (2) 1.39x107 (5)' 3.49x107 (5)' 5.08x1 0' (5)' 4.04x1 o• (5)'
Surtactant 1.72x106 (2) 3.15x1 o' (2) 2.25x107 (2) 2.20x1010 (2) 3.10x108 (2)
Mean value, with number of replicates in parenthesis
b Enumeration of Total Composite Samples
Because Fenton's Reagent bioreactors have not received Fenton's Reagent, the enumeration data are included as a
Nutrient-Amended Bioreactor.
d Day 70 microbial counts were invalidated due to microbial contamination. The counts wee repeated on Day 91, and the
results were substituted for Day 70.
PAH-Degradlng Microorganisms
Composite 1 and Composite 2 soil/waste samples were also analyzed to assess the total
number of viable aerobic microorganisms capable of degrading polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) present per gram by a modttication of the standard dilution count method using
Bushnell-Haas media. Bushnell-Haas agar (SHA, Appendix J) plates containing 250 ppm
naphthalene as the sole carbon source were spread-plated in duplicate with a dilution series
prepared from 1 0 grams of each individual soil/waste sample. Dilutions were prepared and
sampled from 1x10-1 to 1x10-8 using BHM as the diluent. Inoculated plates were incubated at
20°C, and total CFUs were enumerated atter 96 hours. Duplicate uninoculated BHA plates
supplemented with 250 ppm naphthalene were used to provide quallty control. The results of
this enumeration are presented in Table 2-21. These results indicate the presence of a
population of microorganisms capable of growing on naphthalene, which represents PAH-
degrading microorganisms. The PAH-degrading microorganisms are approximately 11 to 41
percent of the total microbial population existing in Lagoon 1 0 soils.
The enumeration of total aerobic microorganisms capable of degrading PAHs was repeated
during the evaluation of the solid-phase bioreactors on Days 23, 50, 70, and 100 following
incubation. The enumeration was pertormed as described above with the exception that the
inltial dilution series was prepared with soil/waste from each of the nine solid-phase bioreactors.
The results of these analyses are also presented in Table 2-21. The increase in the microbial
t:\WPI 70\7001721. PF01cdl94 2-59
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-21
AVERAGE NUMBER OF PAH-DEGRADING MICROORGANISMS
(CFUs/g dry weight soll/waste)"
Control 8.24x105 (2) 1.72x106 (2) 4.60x106 (2)
Nutrient Amended 8.24x105 (2) 2.51x106 (5)' 5.56x106 (5)'
Surfactant 8.24x105 (2) 6.85x1 o' (2) 4.80x1 o• (2)
Mean value, with number of replicates in parentheses
Enumeration of Total Composite Samples
8.78x106 (2)
3.36x107 (5)'
6.95x1 o' (2)
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
4.55x1 o• (2)
1.43x1 o' (5)'
1.12x107 (2)
Because Fenton's Reagent bioreactors have not received Fenton·s Reagent, the enumeration data are included as a
Nutrient-Amended Bioreactor
Day 70 microbial counts were invalidated due to microbial contamination. The counts were repeated on Day 91, and the
results were substituted tor Day 70.
population following nutrient amendment and oxygen addition indicate the potential for
stimulation of naturally-occurring PAH-degrader organisms.
2.4.4 Blodegradatlon Evaluation
The purpose of this phase of the laboratory-scale evaluation was to assess the potential for
biodegradation of PAHs in the Lagoon 1 0 soil/waste mixture to a level sufficient to meet the
performance standards for constituents specttied in the Statement of Work. This phase was
conducted because the results of the first phase evaluations (i.e., microbial enumeration),
indicated that bioremediation of the polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the Lagoon 10 soil/waste was
potentially feasible (i.e., microorganisms are present in the soil/waste mixture). However, the
presence of microorganisms does not guarantee that microbiological degradation of all
compounds present in the sample will occur. The abiltty of site microorganisms to degrade the
specific compounds specttied by the Performance Standards, wtthin the stated remedy selection
constraints, can not be guaranteed and, therefore, was evaluated using bench-scale bioreactors
in this study.
Nutritional Analysis
A nutrttional evaluation to assess the inorganic nutrients required for enhanced biodegradation
of the PAHs in the lagoon soil/waste mixture was performed. Aliquots approximating 0.4 grams
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD.lcdf94 2-60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
of total composite were placed in individual growth tubes containing 7.5 ml of Bushnell-Haas
media wtth various concentrations of supplemental nutrients and trace minerals (Appendix J).
The tubes were incubated under aerobic conditions and observed daily to assess microbial
growth. Microbial growth was measured by visual assessments of increases in turbidtty. The
results of the nutritional analysis are presented in Table 2-22. The nutritional evaluations
performed on total compostte Lagoon 1 0 soil/waste samples indicate that microbial growth could
be achieved with the addttion of phosphates. The phosphate solution that was added increased
the total phosphorous present by approximately fifteen percent.
The qualitative nutrition analysis turbidtty test was conducted to perform a biological-based
assay, even though the value of this test was questioned. The results of the test suggested
that only phosphates were necessary for amendment to the soil/waste mixture. Later, tt was
determined from soil sampling that phosphorous levels were in excess of the generally accepted
requirements, and that the soils may have been nttrogen limtted. This biologically based
turbidity test appeared to give incorrect results as to what nutrient amendments were needed,
and the decreased nitrogen levels may have hampered the degradation rates during the initial
phase of the treatability study. However, the rapid degradation of three-and four-ring PAHs
between Day 0 and Day 23, as shown in Table 2-25 indicated that the levels of nitrogen in the
soils during the first 23 days did not hamper the results observed during this treatability study.
TABLE 2-22
RESULTS OF NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS
1:: . H~±ijttl§&~G~NViij@lgNt
Phosphates 4/4' 4/4
Nitrates 0/4 0/4
Phosphates + Nttrates 0/4 0/4
Minerals 0/4 0/4
Nitrates + Minerals 0/4 0/4
Phosphates + Minerals 0/4 0/4
Phosphates + Nttrates + Minerals 0/4 0/4
Deionized Water 0/4 0/4
• Number of. positive results/number of growth tubes
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721.PFDledl94 2-61
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
So/Id-Phase Bloreactors
Bench-scale bioreactors were used to assess the potential to biodegrade the PAHs under the
condttions and within the constraints of the remedy specttied in the Record of Decision and
Statement of Work. Aerobic degradation of PAHs was assessed in multiple bench-scale solid-
phase reactors containing approximately 5 kg each of total composite soil/waste mixture from
Lagoon 10. Bench-scale solid-phase bioreactors were incubated at approximately 20°C for 100
days. The evaluation condttions for the bioreactors and the number of replicate bioreactors for
each treatment are presented in Table 2-23. The solid-phase bioreactor configuration is shown
in Figure 2-4.
TABLE 2-23
BIOREACTOR CONDITIONS FOR TREATABILITY EVALUATIONS
I ~!QR~A~IQR!P~~Q!;rl◊~~ l l ::I
Control 8/oreactors
Unamended Lagoon 1 O Wastes (2 replicates)
Experimental Bloreactors
Nutrient Amended (3 replicates)
Nutrient Amended + Surtactant (2 replicates)
Nutrient Amended + Fenton's Reagent (2 replicates)'
• Fenton's Reagent to be added when biodegradation of low molecular weight PAHs stops.
The soil/waste mixture in each of the experimental bioreactors was amended with approximately
25 ml of a double-strength phosphate solution (Appendix J) as indicated by the results of the
nutritional evaluation. Unamended reactors were used to provide qualtty control. The use of
control bioreactors allowed for the comparison of the removal of PAHs under growth-enhancing
versus untreated conditions.
Sodium dodecyl suttate (SOS) was added to duplicate experimental bioreactors to assess the
abiltty of a surtactant to increase the availability of the PAH compounds for microbiological
degradation. Surtactants increase the water solubiltty of compounds that have limtted water
solubility. By increasing the solubiltty, the PAH compounds may be more readily degraded by
the microorganisms. Approximately 50 ml of a sterile 0.1% SOS solution were added to each of
I :IWP\70\7001721. PF01cdf94 2-62
-------------------
N gi
I
Humidified
Air Supply
,awr;~
W-lliiilliiiiliiiliiiille JCffl
Absorbant Volatile and Semivolatlle
Organic Compound Trap
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ...... ,,,, .. ,,, .. , .... ,1---,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. .. ' ' ' .. .. .. ' .. ' .. .. .. ' ' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .. ' .. .. .. ' .. .. ' .. ' .. ' ' .. ' , ,
FIGURE 2-4
Bioreactor Configuration for the
Bioremediation Treatability Evaluation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
the duplicate bioreactors on Day 23 of the treatability evaluation, after receiving analytical data
regarding the organic carbon content of the bioreactors. Appreciable degradation of three-and
four-ringed PAHs occurred between Day O and Day 23, as shown in Table 2-25. The addition
of the SDS solution did not seem to signtticantly enhance the removal of four-, five-, and six-
ringed PAHs during the 77 days after tts addition; however, the delay of adding the SDS
solution to the bioreactors may have affected the degradation of the higher molecular weight
PAHs.
Compressed air (breathing qualtty) was delivered to the soil/waste mixture present in the
experimental bioreactors at a flow rate of approximately 1 ltter per day through a sterile 0.22 µm
filter. The air was humidttied downstream of the filter by passage through sterile water. An
inert gas, nitrogen, was delivered to the soil/waste mixture in the control bioreactors in the same
manner. Gas flow into the bioreactors was assessed, typically on a daily basis, by examining
rotameters, which measured flow into the reactors, and by observation of gas bubbles in the
flasks containing sterile water. On Day 29, gas flow was not detected at the extt ports of the
bioreactors. Gas was flowing through the seals of reactors, which were tightened. The gas
pressure was increased, and flow through the reactors was then observed. In addition, the soils
in each experimental bioreactor were manually stirred to ensure adequate mixing, beginning on
Day 30. Stirring of the experimental bioreactor soils continued on a weekly basis for the
duration of the evaluation. Measurements of oxygen in the bioreactors indicated it was typically
20.9 percent, typical of atmospheric levels. However, there is some concern about whether
adequate oxygen was present in the bioreactors because of the lack of air flow through the exit
ports or stirring prior to day 29. Significant degradation of PAHs was observed between Day 0
and Day 23 (Tables 2-24 and 2-25). The effects of more frequent stirring or different stirring
methods were not assessed during this treatability study, thus their impacts on the rate of
biodegradation of these PAHs is not known and could be of concern.
The experimental and control bioreactors were each fitted wtth a volatile and semivolatile
organic compound trap on Day O and the traps were replaced at Day 23, 71, and 100. The
expended sorbent traps were submitted for PAH and benzene soluble constttuents analyses on
Day 28 and Day 71. Blank sorbent traps were submttted for analysis to provide qualtty control.
t:\WP\70\7001721. PFDJcdf94 2-64
-------------------
a
b
C
TABLE 2-24
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF TOTAL PAHS AND CARCINOGENIC PAHs (cPAHs)
IN BIOREACTORS (mg/kg dry wgt)"
Control <144.9 <55.3 29.8(2) 6.67(2) 42.75(2) 13.74(2) <35.48(2) 11.60(2)
Nutrient-<144.9 <55.3 <49.6(5)' <10.75(5)' <22.3(5)' 8.29(5)' <53.62(5)' 12.60(5)'
Amended
Surfactant <144.9 <55.3 <34.4(2) 6.50(2) <22.5(2) 8.51 (2) <17.77(2) 6.19(2)
Mean value, with number of replicates in parentheses
From composite sample; US EPA Method 8100 used.
US EPA Method 8310 used.
<15.621 (2)
<34.840(5)'
<16.035(2)
d Because Fenton's Reagent bioreactors have not received Fenton's Reagent, the enumeration data are included as a Nutrient-Amended Bioreactor.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFO/cdl94
<5.437(2)
<9.400(5)'
<5.678(2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-25
ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PAHS IN BIOREACTORS:
PRESENTED BY MOLECULAR STRUCTURE"
(mg/kg dry weight)
1.;t ' II ,:::::::::,:::::::::::::,:=:::,:,::,:::::: I iOAYOf! ;B.tv~ tt!II li.tt;~
ii)I•••••••••• litvrii
TWO RINGS (1-methyl naphthalene, 2-methyl naphthalene, naphthalene)
Unamended NA 2.15 (2) 2.31 (2) <1.48 (2)
Nutrient-Amended NA 6.57 (5) 1.39 (5) <16.17 (5)
Surfactant NA 2.65 (2) 1.41 (2) <1.00 (2)
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
fl i:i'.~+.fo; II
<0.88 (2)
<4.86 (5)
<1.02 (2)
THREE RINGS (acenaphthalene, acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluorene, phenanthrene)
Unamended 47.5 9.59 (2) 10.57 (2) <6.76 (2) <2.41 (2)
Nutrient-Amended 47.5 <16.79 (5) <3.28 (5) <16.30 (5) <11.46 (5)
Surfactant 47.5 <13.55 (2) <8.49 (2) <2.69 (2) <3.61 (2)
FOUR RINGS (benzo(a)anthracene•, chrysene", fluoranthene, pyrene)
Unamended 33.0 13.74 (2) 21.01 (2) 20.02 (2) 8.96 (2)
Nutrient-Amended 33.0 21.38 (5) 10.56 (5) 17.94 (5) 12.58 (5)
Surfactant 33.0 14.31 (2) 11.69 (2) 9.44 (2) 7.46 (2)
FIVE RINGS (benzo(a)pyrene•, benzo(b )I luoranthene•, benzo(k)fluoranthene•,
dlbenzo(a,h)anthracene•)
Unamended <36.8 2.90 (2) 5.88 (2) 5.04 (2) <2.62 (2)
Nutrient-Amended <36.8 4.72 (5) 4.44 (5) 6.09 (5) <4.68 (5)
Surfactant <36.8 2.64 (2) 3.43 (2) 3.08 (2) <3.02 (2)
SIX RINGS (benzo(g,h,l)perylene and lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene•)
Unamended <9.2 0.74 (2) 1.49 (2) 1.22 (2) 0.38 (2)
Nutrient-Amended <9.2 1.09 (5) 1.00 (5) 1.50 (5) 0.83 (5)
Surfactant <9.2 0.62 (2) 0.92 (2) 0.79 (2) 0.48 (2)
NA Not Analyzed.
a Mean value, with number of replicates in parentheses.
b Carcinogenic PAHs.
I :\WP\70\7001721.PFD/cdf94 2-66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Results of the analysis of off-gas collected by these sorbent traps from the individual bioreactors
are presented in Appendix J.
Soil/waste samples were removed from the experimental and control solid-phase bioreactors
and submitted tor chemical analysis. Table 2-24 summarizes the analytical resutts tor total
PAHs and carcinogenic PAHs. Data tables of individual PAH constttuents are presented in
Appendix K. On Day 0, the samples were analyzed by gas chromatography using US EPA
Method 8100. Because lower detection limits were necessary, samples from Days 23, 50, 70,
and 100 were analyzed by high-pe11ormance liquid chromatography using US EPA Method
8310. Day 0 samples, therefore, have results wtth a "less than" denotation that should be
considered when comparing removals on subsequent days. Samples were collected at various
time intervals to assess values of PAH constituents at several points during the treatability
study. By evaluating these data in this manner, observations were made about the general
preferential degradation of low molecular weight constttuents followed by only partial
degradation of the higher molecular weight constituents. However, by collecting samples on
days O and 100 only, more data would have been generated given a fixed number of samples.
Because PAH constituents range in complexity from two to six aromatic rings and the microbial
degradation of these compounds varies, Table 2-25 presents a summary of the analytical data
with the constttuents grouped by number of aromatic rings. This table shows that, in general,
microbiological degradation of the PAHs with two and three aromatic rings is occurring more
readily than the PAHs wtth four to six aromatic rings. The results for microbial removal of
carcinogenic PAHs indicate that, while some degradation is occurring, tt is not sufficient for the
constttuents of concern to meet the Performance Standards contained in the Statement of
Work. Rates of biodegradation were not calculated because of the "less than" values.
In addition, samples collected on Day 0, 23, 50, 70, and 100 from each of the experimental and
control bioreactors were evaluated tor pH, moisture content, soluble nttrogen, and soluble
organic phosphorous. The resutts of these analyses are presented in Tables 2-26, 2-27, 2-28,
and 2-29.
I :\WP\70\7001721. Pmtcdl94 2-67
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-26
RES UL TS OF pH ANALYSIS OF BIOREACTORS
(standard units)
Nutrient Amended
Nutrient Amended +
Surfactants
Nutrient Amended +
Fenton's Reagent
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
5.8
6.1
6.0
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
TABLE 2-27
5.8 6.1
5.7 6.1
4.8 8.9
4.9 5.3
4.7 5.1
4.7 5.1
4.6 4.9
RESULTS OF MOISTURE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF BIOREACTORS
Nutrient Amended 17.8 15.2 19.0 17.0
17.8 14.6 18.0 18.0
17.8 14.3 22.4 17.9
Nutrient Amended + 17.8 16.6 19.1 18.8
Surfactants 17.8 17.6 20.9 19.0
Nutrient Amended + 17.8 15.3 21.1 17.7
Fenton's Reagent 17.8 15.4 18.9 17.7
• percent moisture.
I :\WP\ 7017001121. PFO1cdf94 2-68
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
6.3
6.2
9.0
5.3
5.1
5.0
5.0
16.9
18.4
15.6
29.8
17.6
15.9
16.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-28
RE SUL TS OF NITROGEN ANALYSIS OF BIOREACTORS
(ppm/dry weight)
Nutrient Amended
Nutrient Amended +
Surtactants
Nutrient Amended +
Fenton's Reagent
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
5.1
<2.9
3.7
4.8
5.8
5.1
8.5
TABLE 2-29
238 180
118 180
306 220
262 200
266 170
279 190
178 170
RE SUL TS OF PHOSPHOROUS ANALYSIS OF BIOREACTORS
(ppm, dry weight)
Nutrient Amended 200 150 214 230
200 172 177 240
200 137 220 190
Nutrient Amended + 200 163 191 200
Su rt actants 200 118 181 210
Nutrient Amended + 200 161 266 170
Fenton·s Reagent 200 162 202 170
I :IWP\70\7001721.PFDlcdf94 2-69
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
190
180
230
200
180
180
170
180
220
130
170
170
170
170
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Analysis of soil indicated the pH fell below acceptable pH ranges in five of the nine bioreactors
on Day 50. A sterile 0.1 percent sodium hydroxide solution was utilized to adjust the pH of the
bioreactor soils. The high soil moisture content at the time of pH adjustment limtted the volume
of water that could be added to the soils because the soil tended to clump. The 0.1 percent
sodium hydroxide solution was added to adjust the soil pH to approximately 6. The acidic
nature of these soils resisted an appreciable change in pH. wtth the exception of one bioreactor.
Assessment of soil pH values suggests that it was suboptimal during the treatabiltty study. The
pH range of 6 to 8 standard units is generally accepted for microbiological systems. The inttial
soil pH was 5.8 and tended to decrease during the treatability study. Even wtth adjustment. the
pH was not maintained above the value of 6.0. Thus, tt is possible that suboptimal
biodegradation rates were measured during the treatabiltty study.
Moisture analysis of the bioreactor soils indicated an initial moisture content appropriate for the
grow1h of microorganisms. Moisture was added to the bioreactors periodically throughout the
biodegradation evaluation, based on the results of the soil moisture analysis. The experimental
bioreactors were supplemented with moisture by the addttion of sterile BHM. The control
bioreactors were supplemented with moisture in the same manner by the addttion of sterile
deionized water. The water present in the 0.1 % SDS solution provided additional moisture to
the Nutrient Amended + Surfactant Bioreactors.
Nitrogen analysis indicated insufficient nttrogen in the bioreactor soils to achieve the C:N:P ratio
of 100:10:1. Therefore. 2 grams ammonium nttrate were added to the soil/waste material in
each of the experimental bioreactors on Day 30 to increase the nttrogen content. No nttrogen
amendments were made to the control bioreactors.
Analysis of bioreactor soils at Day 0 indicated a phosphorous content elevated approximately
three to four fold above the concentration required to achieve a C:N:P ratio of 100:10:1.
Phosphate solution (Appendix J) was also added to the soils in each of the experimental
bioreactors at Day 0 to stimulate microbial grow1h as indicated by the results of the nutritional
evaluation. This additional phosphate increased the total phosphorous by approximately 15
percent.
t:\WPI 70\7001721. PFDlcdt94 2-70
I
1.
I
11
I
' I
' ,.I
I
I
I
J:
I
I
I
I
I
m
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.4.5 Conclusions
The Bioremediation Treatabiltty Study assessed the presence of microorganisms in the
soil/waste mixture, evaluated the chemical/physical soil parameters of the soil/waste mixture,
and assessed the rate of removal of constttuents to provide biodegradation kinetics, which
would be used to estimate project treatment cycles. The Statement of Work requires that a
Performance Standard of 2.0 ppm total carcinogenic PAHs be reached prior to replacing any
residual material back into the former Lagoon 10 area. These specttic PAHs are composed of
four to six rings, have limtted water solubility, and are typically difficult to biodegrade.
The use of bioreactors allowed an examination of the parameters critical to successful microbial
degradation of these specttic PAH. Overall, the experimental configuration was specttically
designed to provide adequate condttions for PAH degradation, which included maintaining
adequate soil moisture and nutrient availability for PAH-degrading microorganisms. Replicate
bioreactors were also constructed so that the heterogenetties of soil structure and contaminant
distribution were accounted for to eliminate skewed data. The microcosm environments as
designed in this study may not have maintained conditions during which PAH constttuents were
optimally degraded in comparison to anticipated field conditions and, therefore, provided a
conservative evaluation of bioremediation for the sludge/soil material. However, the bioreactor
configuration and experimental design were able to provide usable data on the anticipated
performance of bioremediation at the Lagoon 10 stte, though concerns about the lowered
nitrogen levels and decreasing pH values have resulted in questions as to whether the
treatability evaluation was an assessment of optimum conditions.
As evaluated in this treatabiltty study, samples of soil/waste mixtures from former Lagoon 10
contained total aerobic microorganisms in a range from 1x106 to 5x107 CFUs/g dry weight. The
population of total aerobic microorganisms present in the soil/waste/mixture is in the range
typical for most soils. Of this number of microorganisms, 1 O to 40 percent were capable of
growing on naphthalene, which was used to evaluate the presence of PAH-degrading
microorganisms. The presence of PAH-degrading microorganisms does not necessarily ensure
microbial degradation of PAHs, but does provide an indication of the presence of
microorganisms that could potentially be stimulated to do so.
l:'IWP\7017001721 .PFDlcdf94 2-71
I
I
I
1·
I
I
:i
11
,,-,,,
I
I
i
I'
111
I\
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
The PAH-containing material present in Lagoon 10 is hard and monollthic. The requirement for
amending the waste material to convert It from Its present form to one amenable to biological
treatment in a greenhouse would be significantly different than assumed during the Feasibility
Study and restated in the Record of Decision, Substantial amounts of soil and soil bulking
agents would have to be added to provide a proper environment for the microorganisms and to
maintain adequate nutrients, soil moisture, pH, and oxygen, Tables 2-19 and 2-26 through 2-29
present the physical/chemical data for the soil/water mixture and show the environmental
parameters typical of a proper microbiological habitat, These addltional soils and soil bulking
agents would increase the volume to be treated and potentially placed into Lagoon 1 O by
factors of at least three to five to provide this proper environment, This would necessitate the
disposal of excess material that could not be physically placed back into the Lagoon 1 O
excavation, The soil/waste mixture used for the bioremediation study was, in fact, mostly soil in
order to achieve the proper microbial environment, The lab resutts have not been compared to
the hard PAH material originally excavated from the lagoon. Substantially lower degradation
rates would be expected from those observed in this study tt the lower soil amendment ratios,
and therefore lower soil volumes (only 1000 cubic yards to treat) as stated in the Record of
Decision were used,
In general, the rate of microbial degradation decreases as the molecular weight increases,
which may be due to the fact that, as the number of aromatic rings increases, the water
solubility of the PAH decreases, The higher molecular weight PAHs are less bioavailable to the
microorganisms and, therefore, are not degraded as well as are the lower molecular weight
PAHs. The carcinogenic PAHs have four to six aromatic rings, have a higher molecular weight,
and degrade at a much slower rate than the lower molecular weight PAHs. The carcinogenic
PAHs are the constituent of concern at Lagoon 10, A Pertormance Standard of 2.0 ppm (total)
was established in the Statement of Worl< for these constituents.
In this study, the PAH compounds that have lower molecular weight, such as acenaphthalene,
anthracene, and phenanthrene, showed signtticant microbiological removal in the bioreactors.
Intermediate molecular weight PAHs, such as pyrene, fluoranthene, and fluorene, also showed
considerable microbiological removal, but not typically to the extent as observed for the lower
molecular weight PAHs. Generally, the extent of removal for the carcinogenic PAHs was less
I :\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PFO/cdl94 2-72
11
I
I
I
I
11'
·i
I
I
I
; I
.I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
than about 50 percent, with the exception of dibenzo(a,h)anthracene which showed an
approximate 10-fold removal. These patterns of microbiological removals are consistent with
other studies.
The microbiological PAH removals observed in this study, however, did not meet the
Performance Standard of 2.0 ppm total carcinogenic PAHs as specttied in the Statement of
Work. The total concentrations observed at day 100 tor the carcinogenic PAHs ranged from
approximately 5 to approximately 10 ppm. As discussed previously, this represented a
microbiological removal, typically, of less than hatt of the carcinogenic PAHs present in the
amended soil/waste mixture present in the bioreactors. Addition of acclimated microorganisms
would probably not affect the removal observed because of the decreased bioavailability of the
carcinogenic PAHs. Based on this laboratory evaluation, it is unknown whether the microbial
degradation of the carcinogenic PAHs had reached its asymptotic limit or would continue, and
assuming the 2.0 ppm Performance Standard could, in tact, be reached, the length of time
required to meet the standard cannot be predicted by extrapolating from these data. If, in tact,
the 2.0 ppm total carcinogenic PAH Performance Standard could be reached, the time required
to do so, and the soil amendments required to reach this criteria would be much greater than
the assumptions stated in the Feasibility Study and the Record of Decision.
The bioreactors represented three possible treatments that did not show significant dttterence in
removal of the PAHs. Stimulation of microbiological removal of hydrocarbons can occur with
the addition of oxygen only, which apparently occurred in this evaluation.
In summary, aerobic microorganisms were present in this soil/waste mixture in samples
collected from former Lagoon 10. Within this population were PAH-degrading microorganisms
that could degrade many of the two and three ring-PAHs present to approximately 1 ppm levels
after 100 days of incubation. Biodegradation of the constituents of concern to 80 to 90 percent
of the original concentrations, as was expected in the Feasibility Study, did in fact occur.
However, under laboratory conditions, the final concentrations of carcinogenic PAHs still
exceeded the Performance Standard of 2.0 ppm after 100 days of incubation. The
Performance Standard will not likely be met without substantial additional soil amendment
procedures and an extended treatment time, in excess of 100 days. Therefore, the
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFDlc:df94 2-73
,,
.I
'I
I
11
I
..
I
I'
1
' ,,
I
/I
a
1·
iJ
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.5
biodegradation of the constttuents of concern to the Performance Standards stated in the
Record of Decision, within the time frame stated in the Record of Decision, is not possible
based on the results of this study. For this reason, bioremediation of the soil/waste mixture
from former Lagoon 1 O is not recommended.
Property Survey
During the preliminary design, a boundary survey was conducted for the Macon property. The survey
was conducted in accordance with standards for the practice of Land Surveying in North Carolina. A
plat was prepared by a registered land surveyor and the property corners were retraced in the field .
The property corners were then located in relationship to the site datum and are indicated on Drawing
7001714-C01. Based on the results of the survey, it may be necessary to obtain easements for the
Thompson and Federal Paperboard properties for \mplementation of the ground water remedy.
2.6 In-Situ lnflltratlon Testing
A workplan for supplemental work activtty to support the Intermediate Design was submitted to the US
EPA on November 2, 1993, describing addttional geologic and analY1ical data necessary to proceed
with the Remedial Design. One aspect of the supplemental fieldwork was conducted to determine
whether soils in the vicinity of planned locations of ground water treatment systems have sufficient
infiltration rates to support infiltration galleries at those locations. In order to make this determination,
infiltration testing was performed at several locations on-stte on November 9, 10, and 11, 1993. The
results have been used as a basis for design of infiltration galleries to be constructed at each treatment
stte for infiltration of treated ground water.
2.6.1 Test Locations
Double-ring infiltrometer testing was conducted at five potential gallery trench locations to
determine whether infiltration rates at the proposed test locations are sufficient to allow the use
of infiltration galleries for disposal of treated ground water. The five infiltration test locations are
illustrated on Figures 2-5 and 2-6. Infiltration gallery test (IGT) 1 was located at the Upper
Macon stte approximately 400 feet east of the MW02/02A well pair and approximately 150 feet
west of N.C. State Route 1003 (Figure 2-5). IGT-2 was located at Lower Macon, approximately
400 feet east of MW12 and approximately 400 feet west of MW04 (Figure 2-5). Locations IGT-
3, IGT-4, and IGT-4A are located at the Dockery stte (Figure 2-6). IGT-3 was located at Upper
Dockery approximately 250 feet east of MW1 SA and approximately 150 feet south of MW20.
IGT-4 was located approximately 165 feet east of MW16 at Lower Dockery, and IGT-4A was
l:\WPl70\7001721. PFDlcdt94 2-74
I
I·
I\
1·
i
I
I·
,!
I·
I
I
I,
,,...,.,1117Gron1JaVflGJ_. .,, ,..,
..:-:".,;-
·,~>,-•.-~ /
·:".
I
I
I
: ti I
I
I
I
\
:'. \
'-
~
@IGT-2
•
•
Ii
(1t ;, ~ /' I
\
\
I
\
\
LEGEND
LOCATION OF DOUBLE-RING !NFILTROMETER TEST
MONITORING WELL
FORMER LAGOON
PIEZOMETER
RECOVERY WELL
.. ... ,.
I
·•
\ •:..;;
\
\
I
ww-1 ~«
l t
~ 0 /)
J~--AGOON'i3'---
"•\\ r>,~.}) ~
t~I H,, 0,Q /q,,,
_)--._ ~;ii I
~ ~ ---
0
1'110.(CI-,.ia~TD
l'ltt,JIE)fl'r, c.o.-.u,
DI!•• rr, C. !Wll[lt&IJ. ao.Gl'til
O<OOIH,
~··· t
D..&IL otrc.DI '9ll ,,,,.
Ol ;,co JOO CIO
$(.lil.[. ra:1
LNFIL TROUElER T(S T LDC.A TIONS
MACON SITE
MACONIDOU:EAY lfTI
RICIWOJC> CO., NOA'™ CUOUIA
SCltl.£ tlUI./D.
iStlOIUI ..
2-75
I
:11,
I
,1, .• , ,,
·I
I
I
.11
I
.I
I ,,
,I
/,,-
• i
'\ ,., LEGEND
@ IGT-4 LOCATION OF INF!LTROMETEDOUBLE-RING R TEST
MONITORING WELL
FORMER LAGOON
A /50WER DOCKER
/ SITE
---, = ,,___. ' -, --=--=--=---=-~ __.;"'----=
'· I '~r' ' ______ !
ii ,,
I
)
I
'--<.
~d
II : o' ~ '---o 1'0 0 ~
-7 , <>
,-' I .
,::P
,f
; #
. _,,, II Cl @IGTJ
I Cl
' "¾,. /. ,_
~TIIClli Po.J.fl,IITO
PIID'-'IIDIT, t.1).-0lj
PRll•n, e__,-,1,a,ani_
RY
00
INFIL TROI,£ 1aOJ1 m-oo,o odffr}f5~T~OCA TIONS
MACOII/DOC RICtWONO CO ICERY SITI
AS~ ~NORTH CAROI.U
2-76
I
I
I
I
I;
I
.I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
,I
rl
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
placed approximately 160 feet due east of IGT-4. Infiltration testing at the IGT-1 test location
was conducted to evaluate the Upper Macon area as an optional site for disposal of effluent
from the Macon Site ground water treatment system.
2.6.2 Test Procedures
The testing was conducted using ASTM D3885, Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of
Soils in Field Using Double Ring lnfiltrometers. The double-ring infiltrometer method consists of
driving two open cylinders, one inside the other, into the ground. The rings are partially filled
with water, and the water level is then maintained at a constant level. The volume of liquid
added to the inner ring to maintain a constant level is the measure of liquid infiltration into the
soil. The volume of liquid added is recorded at timed intervals. An incremental infiltration
velocity is plotted versus elapsed time. The infiltration rate for the test-site soils is assumed to
be the maximum steady-state infiltration velocity indicated by the plot.
The ASTM standard includes the step-by-step process proposed for field measurement of the
rate of infiltration of water into soils at the designated test locations. The procedure for the
Macon/Dockery site tests utilized graduated cylinders for the calibrated head tanks. Liquid level
within the rings were maintained manually and measured with a ~le. The duration of each test
depended upon the permeability of test site soils. The frequency of measurement
' intervals were in accordance with the ASTM Standard. Measurements were taken at
15-minute intervals for the first hour, 30-minute intervals for the second hour, and 60-
minute intervals for the remainder of the test. The volume of liquid used in any one
reading interval was not less than approximately 25 cm3•
2.6.3 Test Results
Results of the infiltrometer testing are indicated in Figure 2-7. These results indicate that IGT-1,
IGT-2, IGT-3, and IGT-4A test sites have infiltration rates ranging from 0.5 to 3.5 inches per
hour. The majority of the soils encountered in the testing were silty sands or sandy silts. Test
pit IGT-4 did not allow infiltration during the testing period. The infiltrometer rings were
relocated to the IGT-4A test location, and the infiltrometer test was repeated with satisfactory
results.
I :\WP\70\7001721. PFD1cdf94 2-77
s~------------------------------
4 --"-------------
1
oa--A--A-i1Hli----,j~-..1r--------...-------A-----.&---------=;ii-----f=i---__J
0 2 4 6
TIME FROM BEGINNING OF TEST (hours)
FIGURE 2-7
INFILTRATION RATES (INCHES PER HOUR)
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
8
IGT-1
□
IGT-2
6
IGT-3
IGT-4 ...
IGT-4A
I.
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
ii
:I ,,
I ,,
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.6.4 Conclusions
Design calculations, included in Appendix L, were performed to determine the dimensions of
infiltration galleries needed to adequately dispose of treated ground water from each of the
three planned treatment systems. Based on loading rates of 28 gpm at Lower Dockery, 6 gpm
at Upper Dockery, and 50 gpm at the Macon site, the IGT-2, IGT-3, and IGT-4A test sites
exhibited adequate infiltration rates to support infiltration galleries at those locations.
2.7 Additional Ground Water Characterization
The workplan for supplemental work activity to support the lntem,ediate Design also described
additional ground water characterization data necessary to proceed with the Remedial Design.
Additional ground water and aqutter data were collected to:
further define aquifer characteristics in the vicinity of the planned ground water
extraction system in the Upper Macon area; and
confirm ground water quality downgradient of the plume.
These data were collected through the following supplemental field activities:
A monitoring well, designated MW21, was installed and developed in the Upper Macon
area west (downgradient) of the estimated plume boundary.
Ground water samples were collected from MW21 on November 12, 1993, after well
development and analyzed for the volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and
inorganic parameters identified in the list of Performance Standards contained in the
Record of Decision as contaminants of concern (COCs).
In situ hydraulic conductivity testing was performed in well MW21 and two nearby
piezometers, UMPZ01 and UMPZ02.
2.7.1 Well Installation
A single monitoring well designated MW21 was installed at the Upper Macon Site location
illustrated on Plate 1. To further define aqutter conditions, determine depth to bedrock, and
confirm ground water quallty downgradient of the plume, monitoring well MW21 was located
approximately 200 feet west of the field screening sampling location designated UM31. The
well was designed and constructed to serve as a future compliance monitoring point.
The drill rig and downhole tools, including samplers, bits, drill rods, and augers, were
decontaminated prior to beginning drilling operations as specified in the Macon/Dockery Field
Sampling and Analysis Plan (FSAP). This equipment was decontaminated through a six-step
I .\WP\ 70\7001721.PFDlcdl94 2-79
I
I
I
I
I
I·
:I ·-
I
I
'I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
decon procedure using potable water from an on-site source. Following steam cleaning and
rinsing with potable water, the drilling equipment was further cleaned and decontaminated using
deionized water, pesticide-grade isopropanol, and organic-free water as specttied by the
ECBSOPQAM. The monitoring well riser, screen, and centralizer materials were also
decontaminated using this procedure.
The MW21 borehole was drilled using a combination of hollow-stem auger and pneumatic air-
hammer drilling methods. This boring was completed through resid_ual soils and saprollte to
auger refusal at 39 feet below surface grade using a 6 ¼-inch I.D./10 ¼-inch O.D. hollow-stem
auger. A 5 7/8-inch O.D. pneumatic air hammer activated by filtered, cooled air was then used
to advance the borehole into competent bedrock. The top of competent bedrock surface was
encountered at 59.1 feet below surface grade.
From surface grade to approximately 25 feet below grade, residual soils were poorly graded
sands to clayey sands, to lean clays of the Middendorf Formation. The water table was
encountered approximately 14 feet below surface grade at the MW21 location. A silty-sand,
saprolite-origin soil was encountered from 25 to 39 feet below grade. Over the 39 to 59-foot
interval, drilling returns transitioned from saprolite to highly weathered rock, to more competent
rock. Fresh (unweathered) biottte granite of the Lilesville Granite was encountered at 59.1 feet
below surface grade.
Appendix M contains the boring logs for MW21 and MW21 A. MW21 A is a second borehole
located approximately 68 feet north of the MW21 location. The MW21A borehole, which was
drilled to 53 feet below surface grade using hollow-stem augers, was abandoned following a
request from the property owner to move the well further into the woods to allow clearing and
plowing of the original location for agricultural purposes. MW21A was abandoned by pumping
neat cement grout through a tremie pipe from the bottom of the borehole to within 3 feet of
grade. The remaining open borehole was filled with a bentonite, sand, and cuttings mixture.
Following completion of borehole drilling, 2-inch I.D. type 304 stainless steel well screen and
riser was used to construct MW21. Well screen and risers were new, threaded, flush-jointed
Schedule 5 stainless steel. The well screen was wire-wrapped 0.010-inch slotted screen.
MW21 was completed with a nominal length 10-foot screen, which was installed at the top'of
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721.P FD/cdl94 2-80
I
I
ii
I .,
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
bedrock surface. Stainless steel centralizers were used to center the well screen and riser in
the borehole. Appendix M contains the well construction diagram.
After the screen and riser were posttioned inside the borehole, clean, washed, silica sand filter
pack was tremied into place around the well screen. The sand pack in MW21 extended 3.4 feet
above the top of the well screen. A 3.9-foot thick bentontte pellet seal was emplaced on top of
the filter pack and hydrated overnight for the minimum 8-hour period. The remaining open
annular space was filled to ground surface with a neat cement grout mixture pumped downhole
via a tremie pipe. The grout seal was emplaced into the borehole while maintaining the bottom
of the tremie pipe at the bottom of the green cement grout volume. MW21 was completed by
installing a 5-foot long, 4-inch square, locking steel security cover in a 3 x 3 foot sloping cement
pad.
2.7.2 Well Development and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
Following installation, MW21 was developed using an air-activated positive displacement pump.
The intake of the pump was moved to different locations along the well casing and screen
during the development process to ensure optimum well development. The indicator
parameters temperature, pH, and conductivity were monitored and recorded. The final
development water produced from MW21 was sediment free and had stable indicator
parameters. Appendix N is a summary of indicator parameter measurements recorded during
well development.
Following development, an in-situ estimate of aqutter hydraulic conductivtty was determined by
slug testing MW21. Existing piezometers UMPZ01 and UMPZ02 were also slug tested to obtain
estimates of aqutter hydraulic conductivity.
An automatic data logger was used to collect water level data at each well location. A PVC
cylinder was used to simulate the instantaneous removal of a volume of water and pressure
transducers were used to measure level differences. Etther rising or falling lead tests were
performed at each location, depending on the relationship of the screen to the observed water
table surface. Test results were analyzed by the standard methods described by Bouwer and
Rice (1976) and Bouwer (1989). Appendix O contains the slug test results used to calculate
hydraulic conductivtties.
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721.PFO/cdf94 2-81
I
I ,,
'I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Table 2-30 presents the results of the slug test analysis. Aqutter tests show that the horizontal
hydraulic conductivtty (K) of the surficial aqutter at the UMPZ01 and UMPZ02 locations is
4.9x10·3 cm/sec and 2.1x10·3 cm/sec, respectively. The hydraulic conductivtty at MW21 is
7.0x10·3 cm/sec.
Following installation, MW21 was surveyed to establish the horizontal and vertical coordinates
of the well location. This survey was performed relative to the State Plane Coordinate System
and mean sea level (MSL).
UMPZ01
UMPZ02
MW21
TABLE 2-30
RE SUL TS OF SLUG TEST ANALYSIS
MACON/DOCKERY, CORDOVA, NC
4.9x10·'
2.1x10-3
7.0x10·3
NOTE: Test data were analyzed using the modified Bouwer and Rice method (1976).
2.7.3 Ground Water Sampling and Analytical Results
13.8
6.0
19.8
During the November 1993 field work, samples were collected for analytical testing from several
sources. These samples included potable water and well construction materials samples and a
ground water sample from MW21.
During the well drilling and installation process, a sample of the potable water supply used for
cleaning and equipment decontamination was collected from the drilling subcontractor's steam
cleaner for analysis. Samples of the materials used for well construction (filter pack sand,
bentontte powder, bentonite pellets, and portland cement) were collected and archived for
analysis, if needed. The potable water sample, designated WS0S, was analyzed for the. volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds and inorganic analytes (total) on the Performance
Standard list, and for total suspended solids (TSS), according to the methods specified in the
FSAP.
A ground water sample was collected from monttoring well MW21 using a bottom-loading,
closed-top Teflon® bailer. MW21 was sampled immediately following the completion of the well
I :\WP\ 70\7001721. PFD1cdf94 2-82
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
development process. The MW21 ground water sample was analyzed for inorganic and organic
compounds on the Pertormance Standards list. Both total and dissolved inorganic sample
fractions were collected and analyzed. The water sample from MW21 was analyzed for the
volatile organic compounds using a Contract Laboratory Program Statement of Worl< Method for
low concentration organics analysis (CLP-SOW OLC01.0). Other parameters on the
Pertormance Standards list were analyzed according to methods specttied in the FSAP.
Table 2-31 contains the results of analyses of a ground water sample from MW21 and the
potable water supply sample. Several contaminants of concern were detected in both samples.
The sample from MW21 contained 1 , 1-dichloroethane, 1 ,2-dichloroethene, 1, 1 , 1-trichloroethane,
tetrachloroethene, chromium, and zinc at concentrations that were less than Pertormance
Standards. Given the accuracy range under CLP protocol for the US EPA Supertund Analy1ical
Methods for Low Concentration Water for Organics Analysis (6/91) is approximately +/-0.0002
mg/L, the concentrations of chloroform and trichloroethene that were detected can be
considered to be at levels approximately equal to Pertormance Standards. The public water
supply sample, used to decontaminate the well drilling tools and equipment contained
chloroform at a concentration of 0.01 O mg/L, which exceeds the 0.00019 mg/L Pertormance
Standard.
Two inorganic analy1es, manganese and nickel, were detected in an unfiltered ground water
sample from MW21 at concentrations exceeding the Pertormance Standards. However, these
two analy1es were either not detected or detected well below Pertormance Standards in a field-
filtered sample from MW21, indicating that these metals are associated with suspended
sediment. It is anticipated that the dissolved manganese concentration detected in ground
water at MW21 will be more representative of influent concentrations of manganese to the
proposed Macon stte ground water extraction system than concentrations obtained from source
area monttoring wells during the Preliminary Design field sampling activtties. This provides
additional evidence that manganese removal equipment and media will likely be unnecessary
after the ground water extraction and treatment systems have been property started up and
operated. This should occur as the influent suspended solids and turbidtty levels drop due to
either continuous or long-term operation of the extraction wells. The lack of turbidtty and
suspended solids from properly developed and operated monttoring wells was observed during
the aqutter pump test.
l:\WP..70\7001721.PFO/cdlS4 2-83
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-31
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS· MW21 AND WATER SUPPLY SAMPLES
(November 1993)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1, 1-dichloroethane (3.5) 0.002
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (0.07) 0.0005J
Chloroform (0.001) 0.0004J 0.010
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane (0.2) 0.0002J
Trichloroethene (0.0028) 0.003
Tetrachloroethene (0.001) 0.0005J
Acetone (3.5) 0.004BJ
Toluene (1.0) 0.00009J
SEMIVOLA TILE ORGANICS ND ND
INORGANICS
Chromium (total) (0.050) 0.0286
Manganese (total (0.050) 0.0904' 0.0219'
Manganese (dissolved) 0.0069B'
Nickel (total (0.10) 0.121"
Nickel (dissolved) <0.040
Zinc (total) (5.0) 0.0334 0.107
a Analytical results are reported in parts per million (mg/L); Perfonnance Standards are included in parentheses
after parameter name. A blank indicates the compound was not detected above the Instrument Detection Limit.
J Estimated concentration
B (organics) • Analyte present in analytical method blank
B (inorganics) -Concentration less than Contract Required Detection limit, but greater than or equal to Instrument
Detection Limit.
ND Compounds not detected.
< (inorganics) -Concentration less than the indicated Instrument Detection Limit.
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
I :\WP\70\7001721. PFOtcdl94 2-84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
I
I
1·
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.7.4 Conclusions
The analytical resutts obtained from the MW21 ground water sample did not confirm the
absence of affected ground water in this area of the aqutter, since several compounds
previously detected in the source area at Upper Macon were also detected in the new well.
However, the constttuents were detected at or below Pertormance Standards concentrations.
For this reason, use of MW21 as a compliance monttoring point is still proposed, since
continued monttoring at this location should demonstrate rapid attenuation of the detected
constttuents once ground water extraction and treatment commences. The hydrogeologic data
obtained during well construction and subsequent testing was incorporated in the numerical
modeling of the Upper Macon aqutter to refine the design basis for the ground water extraction
system.
2.8 Bench-Scale Metals Treatment Evaluation
A bench-scale metals treatment evaluation was pertormed during the Intermediate Design to assess
manganese removal efficiencies of three metals removal media and to select an appropriate metals
treatment process for Intermediate Design. Mobile Process Technology (MPT) of Memphis, Tennessee
was selected to pertorm the bench-scale tests based on tts experience wtth similar projects.
2.8.1 Sample Collection
MW09, at the Upper Macon site, was selected as the source well for the bench-scale
evaluation. This well was selected because tt consistently exhibited one of the highest
manganese concentrations of all monitoring wells at the Macon/Dockery site. On November 8,
1993, RMT field personnel collected approximately six gallons of ground water from MW09.
Prior to sampling, MW09 was hand-purged using a bottom-loading, closed-top Teflon® bailer.
One portion of the ground water collected from MW09 was analyzed for the COG list of
inorganic parameters (total and dissolved), alkalinity, hardness (total and dissolved), iron
(dissolved), and total suspended solids. A further portion of the MW09 ground water was used
to conduct bench-scale sample testing to determine an appropriate method of manganese
removal.
I :\WP\70\ 7001721. PFD1cdl94 2-85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.8.2 Bench-Scale Testing Evaluation
Five one-gallon samples from MW09 were shipped unpreserved by overnight courier to MPT for
bench-scale testing of potentially applicable manganese removal media. MPT performed an
inttial screening of the sample to determine a treatment strategy. Based on this analysis, MPT
selected three media for bench-scale evaluation. These media were MPT-oxidation media,
MPT-BIRM (Burgess Iron Removal Media), and MPT-ion selective resin. Chromatographic
columns of each media were prepared and the sample added after filtration through a 25-
micron filter for gross particulate removal. Duplicate samples were collected from each column
and analyzed for total manganese. Confirmation samples were shipped by overnight courier to
the RMT laboratory at the conclusion of the bench-scale testing.
The resultant analytical data are summarized in Table 2-32. All three media yielded effluent
total and dissolved manganese concentrations of less than 5 µg/L, which is well below the 50
µg/L performance standard established in the Statement of Work. In addttion to removing
manganese, the MPT-ion selective resin also removed the hardness to less than 5 mg/L, which
renders this media economically unfeasible for long-term operation. For the planned Macon site
treatment system, treatment of ground water at 50 gpm to remove manganese will require
regeneration or replacement of a column of MPT-ion selective resin every 3.5 days. The MPT-
oxidation media removed manganese as efficiently as the MPT-BIRM, but the media is slightly
more expensive and also results in an increased concentration of chromium in the effluent.
MPT recommended the BIRM media for use at the Macon/Dockery stte for long-term application
based on performance and economics. In addition, MPT recommended the following treatment
process modttications to enhance metals removal performance:
Influent aeration to increase the ground water pH for improved metals removal,
and
Solids removal to protect the media and reduce backwash frequency.
The Remedial Design incorporates metals removal columns containing an appropriate media to
meet the Performance Standard for manganese. The columns will be designed to allow the use
of etther ion exchange resin or BIRM media. During startup of the ground water extraction and
treatment systems, the columns will contain ion exchange resin. Ion exchange is preferred
l:IWP\70\7001721,PFO1edf94 2-86
I
I RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
I TABLE 2-32
I BENCH-SCALE METALS TREATMENT EVALUATION
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
I
I Antimony (T)' <0.01 <0.01 0.012 <0.01
{D) <0.01 0.017 <0.01 <0.01
Barium (T) 0.57 <0.05 0.17 <0.05
I {D) 0.34 <0.05 0.12 <0.05
Beryllium (T) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
I {D) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
Cadmium {T) <0.003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.003
{D) <0.003 <0.0003 <0.0003 <0.003
I Chromium {T) 0.038 0.055 <0.01 <0.01
{D) <0.01 0.14 <0.01 <0.01
I Iron (T) 1.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1
{D) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Lead {T) <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
I {D) <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
Manganese {T) 1.2 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
{D) 1.1 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 I Mercury {T) <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002
{D) <0.0002 C C C
I Nickel {T) 0.044 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
{D) <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04
I Vanadium {T) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
{D) <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05
Zinc {T) 0.044 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
I {D) <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02
Alkalinity {T) 64 72 90 210
I Hardness, (T) 48 110 94 <5
as caco, {D) 42 67 66 <5
TSS 190 <10 <10 <10
I • Analytical results are reported in parts per million.
b T = lotal, D = dissolved.
I ' Inadequate sample volume received to perform analysis
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDlcdf94 2-87
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
initially because tt offers effective removal of manganese wtthout requiring backwash pumps
and settling tanks. It is anticipated that manganese concentrations in extracted ground water
will already be below the Performance Standard, as indicated by the MW21 sample results.
For each treatment system, samples will be collected frequently during system startup from a
location upstream of the metals removal columns and analyzed for manganese to evaluate tt
manganese removal is necessary to meet the Performance Standard. If manganese removal is
not necessary, the metals removal columns will be disconnected from the treatment system.
Discharge from the air strippers will be piped directly to the infiltration galleries.
BIRM is a granular filter media commonly used for the removal of iron and manganese from
well water supplies. Under the proper conditions, no chemicals are required for maintenance.
Unlike manganese greensand media, regeneration is not required. Periodic backwashing of the
media is required in response to a predetermined pressure drop across the media. Because
BIRM is not consumed in the manganese/iron removal process, it offers an economic
advantage over ion exchange and other metals removal methods for permanent applications.
The design service flow rate for BIRM is 3.5 gpm/sq.ft. to 5.0 gpm/sq.ft. at a minimum bed
depth of 30 inches. The required backwash rate is 1 0 gpm/sq.ft., with a backwash bed
expansion of 35 percent to 50 percent. The proposed metals treatment system will be skid-
mounted for use as either a permanent or temporary treatment process.
2.8.3 Conclusions
Removal of manganese from extracted ground water to below Performance Standards is
achievable using etther ion exchange resin or conventional oxidation catalyst media (MPT-
BIRM). Influent aeration prior to metals removal can be achieved, ff needed, by placing the
metals treatment system downstream of the shallow tray air stripper. During system startup,
solids removal can be accomplished, ff needed, using temporary filters or by installing a baffled
settling tank between the air stripper and the metals treatment system.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDlcdf94 2-88
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.9 Lagoon 1 O Waste Characterization
RMT resampled Lagoon 10 creosote material to evaluate and document the feasibillty of biormediating
the creosote material in a full-scale application. A comprehensive list of testing parameters was
developed in order to obtain the information required to support this evaluation. Tests conducted on
the addltional sample of creosote material allowed a better estimation of the amount and nature of
amendment required for the creosote waste to potentially achieve an acceptable matrix for application
of bioremediation as envisioned in the Macon/Dockery Site Record of Decision.
The· analytical results and information was used to estimate a volume for amendments to the creosote
material, such as bulking agents, nutrients, and pH buffers, that would be necessary to allow the
potential bioremediation of the excavated creosote materials from Lagoon 10. The volume estimate
can be used to evaluate whether the creosote materials may be more appropriately managed by an
alternative method, such as off-site disposal.
2.9.1 Sample Collectlon
A decontaminated backhoe bucket was used to excavate a trench into Lagoon 1 O to collect
samples for validation of the results of the bioremediation treatability study described in the
Preliminary Remedial Design Report (August 1993), and to provide additional information on the
creosote material quality. The November 1993 trench was excavated adjacent to the location
where the first bioremediation treatabillty study sample was collected in February 1993.
Samples were collected from the backhoe bucket using stainless steel utensils. After collection,
the samples were thoroughly mixed, as per the ECBSOPQAM, in a stainless steel container.
Samples collected for volatile organics analysis were not composited, but were collected as
discrete samples. Table 2-33 contains a listing of the sampling parameters and test methods.
Waste sample analytes listed on Table 2-33 include the TAL (inorganics and cyanide) and the
TCL (volatile and semivolatile) compounds, RCRA hazardous waste characterization, suttate,
total organic carbon, oil and grease, bulk density, total ash, and paint filter test.
2.9.2 Waste Physical and Chemical Characterization
As shown in Table 2-34, the sample of lagoon waste contained high concentrations of
mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in addition to the PAHs. The CLP Form 1 data summaries
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PFD1cctl94 2-89
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-33
LAGOON 10 WASTE AND SOIL ANALYSES AND TEST METHODS
T AL metals and c anide US EPA CLP 90W ILM02.0
C anide amendable to chlorination SW846 9012
Sulfate ASTM D240-87, EPA 600 376.2
TCL volatiles US EPA CLP SOW OLM01.0-.8
TCL semivolatiles US EPA CLO SOW OLM01.0-.8
Total or anic carbon as NPOC SW846 9080
SW846 9071
Conventional bottle extraction SW846 1311
Metals SW846 6010, 7060, 7740, 7470
Pesticides SW846 8080
Herbicides SW848 8150
Semivolatiles SW846 8270
Zero heads ace extraction SW846 1311
Volatiles SW846 8240
Corrosivit SW846 9045
I nitabilit SW846 1020
C anide, reactive SW846 7.3.3.2
Sulfide, reactive SW846 7.3.4.1
Bulk denstt Ph sical Measurement: Wei hi/Volume
Total ash US EPA 600 160.4
Paint filter test SW846 9065
Total or anic carbon US EPA 415.1 -SW846 9060
Grain size distribution ASTM D422
Atterberg limtt ASTM D4318
1:\WP\70\7001721.PFDlcdf94 2-90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-34
TARGET COMPOUND LIST (TCL) COMPOUNDS
PRESENT IN THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993 SAMPLE OF LAGOON 10 WASTE"
1, 1-Dichloroethane 2.5 (J)
Benzene 840
Toluene 1,400
Ethylbenzene 170
Styrene 810
Xylenes (Total) 970
Naphthalene 10,000 (E)
2-Methylnaphthalene 4,200
Acenaphthytene 1,900
Acenaphthene 170 (J)
Ftuorene 1,100
Phenanthrene 4,200
Anthracene 1 ;000
Fluoranthene 1,200
Pyrene 2,100
Benzo(a)anthracene' 740
Chrysene' 830
Benzo(b)fluoranthene' 310 (J)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene' 450 (J)
Benzo(a)pyrene' 740
3Only detected constituents are reported.
bData qualifiers: J = estimated value (less than the sample quantitation limit but greater than zero).
E = concentration exceeds the calibration range of the GC/MS instrument.
cCarcinogenic PAHs
1:\WP\70\ 7001721. PFDlcdt94 2-91
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
are included in Appendix E. Total PAHs present in the sample from Lagoon 1 O are 28,940
mg/kg. Mononuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are present in the sample at a concentration of
4,190 mg/kg. The concentration of carcinogenic PAHs is 3,070 mg/kg.
Table 2-35 provides data from a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) evaluation
of the Lagoon 10 waste material. The only parameter present in a concentration greater than
the TCLP limtt is benzene, which has a limtt of 0.5 mg/L but is present at 18 mg/L. The metals
and cyanide of the Target Analyte List (TAL) are presented in Table 2-36. Calcium, iron,
aluminum, and potassium are the metals present at the highest concentrations. No inorganic
constttuents exceed the TCLP limtts. Information presented in Table 2-37 indicates that the
lagoon waste sludge material is not a hazardous waste due to reactivtty, corrosivtty, or
ignttability. The waste does not have a detectable concentration of cyanide. This material has
no free liquids present and is approximately 73 percent total solids. The Total Organic Carbon
as Non-Purgeable Organic Carbon is estimated to be > 16,000 mg/kg.
Results of physical testing of the creosote waste (Table 2-37) showed it to be a dense, stttf
waste. Penetrometer readings of the waste ranged from 1 to greater than 4.5 tons per square
foot, indicating the waste is rigid and difficutt to shear. The bulk denstty of the waste is 104
pounds per cubic foot, which is approximately as dense as common asphalt.
A surface soil sample was also collected adjacent to Lagoon 10 in order to assess the potential
for use of on-stte soil as an amendment to the lagoon waste for potential bioremediation
scenarios. Table 2-38 provides data about this soil sample. The soil is a clayey sand as
indicated by grain size analysis. The Atterberg Limtt evaluation indicates that the soil is clayey
and plastic and that this fine-graded material would be slow to yield water.
I :IWP\70\7001721. PFD1cdf94 2-92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-35
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP) ANALYTICAL RES UL TS
FOR THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993 SAMPLE OF LAGOON 10 WASTE.
Vinyl chloride <0.050 0.2
1.1-Dichloroethene <0.10 0.7
Chloroform <0.10 6.0
1 ,2-Dichloroethane 0.30 0.5
2-Butanone <0.20 200.0
Carbon tetrachloride <0.10 0.5
Trichloroethene <0.10 0.5
Benzene 18 0.5
Tetrachloroethene <0.10 0.7
Chlorobenzene <0.10 100.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene <0.10 7.5
Pyridine <0.12 5.0
Cresol, total <0.075 200.0
Hexachloroethane <0.025 3.0
Nitrobenzene <0.025 2.0
Hexachlorobutadiene <0.025 0.5
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol <0.025 2.0
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol <0.12 400.0
2,4-Dinttrotoluene <0.025 0.13
Hexachlorobenzene <0.025 0.13
Pentachlorophenol <0.12 100.0
2,4-D <0.01 10.0
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) <0.002 1.0
t:\WP\70\7001721.PFDled!94 2-93
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-35 (CONTINUED)
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP) ANAL VTICAL RESULTS
FOR THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993, SAMPLE OF LAGOON 10 WASTE
gamma-BHC (Lindane) <0.0005 0.4
Heptachlor and tts epoxide <0.0005 0.008
Chlordane <0.005 0.03
Endrin <0.001 0.02
Methoxychlor <0.005 10.0
Toxaphene <0.05 0.5
Mercury <0.00040 0.2
Arsenic <0.0060 5.0
Selenium <0.012 1.0
Silver <0.010 5.0
Barium 0.34 100.0
Lead <0.20 5.0
Chromium 0.049 5.0
Cadmium <0.010 1.0
I :\WP\ 70\7001721. PFDlcdf94 2-94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-36
TARGET ANALYTE LIST (TAL) ANALYTES PRESENT IN THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993
SAMPLE OF LAGOON 10 WASTE•
Aluminum 9,660
Arsenic 8.6 (NS)
Barium 91.8
Calcium 81,100
Chromium 27.7
Copper 17.1
Iron 15,600
Lead 150 n
Manganese 85.5
Nickel 13.5
Potassium 3,260
Selenium 4.5 (N")
Vanadium 41.3
Zinc 127
Cyanide 123
• Only detected constituents are reported.
b Data qualifiers: N = Spiked sample recovery not within Control limits.
S = The reported value was determined by the Method of Standard Additions.
Duplicate analysis not within control limits.
l:\WP\70\ 7001721.PF01cdl94 2-95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
TABLE 2-37
RES UL TS OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF
THE LAGOON 10 WASTE SAMPLE'
Bulk density 104
Pocket penetometer reading 1 to >4.5 tons per square foot (various readings)
Total ash 76.6 percent
Cyanide, amendable to chlorination None detected
Free liquids No free liquids present
Solids, total 73.4%
Suttate, soluble 830 mg/kg
Total organic carbon as NPOC >16,000 mg/kg (estimated)
Cyanide, reactive <2.5 mg/kg (P)b
Flashpoint >21 o degrees F
Oil and grease 9.3%
Sulfide, reactive <10 mg/kg (N)'
pH, laboratory (in Ca Cl2) 10.1 (h-19)'
8Sample collected November 9, 1993.
bDigested spike recovery failed accuracy criteria; post digestion spike recovery accepted.
cSpiked sample recovery not within control imites.
dAnalysis performed ·n· days past holding time based on Good Laboratory Practices.
l:\WP\7017001721.PFO/cdl94 2-96
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
TABLE 2-38
RES UL TS OF CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSES
OF THE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTED NEAR LAGOON 10"
Grain size distribution
Atterberg limt
liquid limit
plasticity index
Total organic carbon as NPOC
a Sample collected November 9, 1993.
l:\WP\70\ 7001721. PFDlcdfS4
Clayey Sand: 0.1% gravel; 56.1% sand; 15.0%
silt; 28.8% clay
30
12
1,600 mg/kg (dry weight basis)
2-97
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
2.9.3 Evaluation of Blodegredatlon Potential and Requirements for Waste Amendments
The collection of Lagoon 10 waste material provides addttional information about the nature of
the material, which is an almost pure, creosote-like waste. This information directly relates to
the potential for bioremediation of the PAHs present. The high concentrations of simple
hydrocarbons and PAHs present in the lagoon waste would necessttate the addttion of
considerable soil amendments to make this waste amenable to biological treatment for materials
handling considerations. Substantial dilution wtth bulking agents would be required to reduce
the toxictty of the waste matrix, since creosote in this relatively pure form is toxic to most
microorganisms.
Based on the new sampling information, the potential for bioremediation to remove the
carcinogenic and other high molecular weight PAHs from the creosote waste material in Lagoon
10 is practically non-existent wtthout substantial dilution. The inttial materials handling would
require a high degree of mixing in equipment such as a pug mill located on-stte. The site
surface soil is a clayey sand that binds water tightly and would, therefore, be inappropriate to
use as an amendment to the lagoon waste. The combined clayey sand and the hard lagoon
waste would be ditticutt to maintain in a condition that allows oxygen to be available to the
microorganisms. Additionally, the clayey nature of the soil would tend to result in the high
molecular weight PAHs sorbing tightly to these finely graded materials and, thus, not being
available tor microbiological degradation. All soil bulking agents added to the waste material
would need to be shipped in from ott-stte.
As estimated in the Remedial Investigation report and confirmed by the physical dimensions of
the lagoon and depth of waste materials, the volume of material that would have to be treated
by bioremediation is approximately 1,000 cubic yards. The soil/waste mixture utilized for the
laboratory treatability evaluation had an inttial concentration of less than 200 mg/kg total PAHs.
The creosote sample collected on November 9, 1993, had a total PAH concentration of 30,000
mg/kg. Thus, the treatabiltty evaluation material represented an approximate dilution factor of
150:1 over actual waste material condttions. The amount of soil collected with the creosote
material tor the laboratory evaluation was thought to be sufficient to reduce toxictty to
microorganisms, improve the water-retaining capactty of the mixture, and provide sufficient
oxygenation. It did not, however, present an accurate depiction of the creosote in tts pure form
l:\WP\ 70\ 7001721. PFDlcdl94 2-98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PAEFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
and, because of the limttations involved wtth the approved test protocol, tt did not allow proper
estimations of the amount of amendments that would be required for treatment of undiluted
waste material.
The previous laboratory evaluation perfonmed under the Bioremediation Treatabiltty Study
utilized soil from the site for dilution of the waste material. Use of a loamy soil (high organic
content, low clay content) or other suttable material available from off-stte sources would likely
achieve similar results at a lower dilution ratio. Similar studies have reported loading rates of
waste-to-bulking agent of 0.3 to 3.0 percent, resulting in dilution factors of 33 to 300 (McGinnis,
et al. 1991, EPA Report 600/2-91/019). Assuming that we obtained the desired mixture
qualtties at a 3.0 percent loading rate, the volume of soil-enhanced creosote waste requiring
treatment would be at least 30,000 cubic yards. This volume of treatment material would result
in a conical pile 200 feet in diameter and 75 feet high.
Treatment of this volume of waste/soil is estimated to require each batch to remain in the
treatment cell for 500 days or more to meet the Performance Standard of 2 mg/kg total
carcinogenic PAHs specttied in the Record of Decision. This estimate is based on the
estimated hatt-lives of degradation of high molecular weight PAHs, when they appeared to
degrade, of between 100 and 1000 days (McGinnis). The concentration of total carcinogenic
PAHs in the creosote sample collected on November 9, 1993 is approximately 3,070 mg/kg. If
mixed with bulking agents to achieve a concentration below 3.0 percent, the concentration of
total carcinogenic PAHs would be approximately 92 mg/kg. To achieve a cPAH concentration
of 2 ppm, the waste would require treatment for at least 5 hatt-lives. Optimistically assuming a
half-life of 100 days, biodegradation of the creosote waste to achieve a 2 ppm cPAH
Performance Standard would require a minimum of 500 days, if in fact the standard could be
achieved. These biodegradation half-lives reported from laboratory evaluations would most
likely be longer under field conditions.
2.9.4 Conclusions
The resampling of Lagoon 1 O waste was conducted to document the feasibility of
bioremediating the creosote material. All previous samples collected from Lagoon 10 were
either composited from several different areas and, therefore, did not accurately represent the
t:\WP\70\7001721.PFDlcd!94 2-99
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
creosote material or were not analyzed for all the chemical and physical parameters necessary
to assess the material's bioremediation potential in a full-scale application. The recent sampling
effort provided this information.
Assuming that the waste/soil mixture was treated in 1,000 cubic yard lifts (requiring an area 165
feet by 165 feet and a depth of 1 foot), the treatment of Lagoon 10 creosote wastes would
require approximately 41 years (30,000 cu yds + 1,000 cu yd/batch, x 500 days/batch = 15,000
days = 41 years). Obviously, increasing the volume treated per lift would decrease the duration
of remediation activities, but the size of the treatment area calculated above is considered to be
the practical limits for the size of an enclosed treatment system at the Macon/Dockery Site. If
bioremediation were attempted to treat the soil/waste mixture in 10,000 cubic yard batches, it
would require a minimum of 4 years to complete the Lagoon 1 O remediation.
Off-site disposal of the original volume of Lagoon 1 O waste (1,000 cu yd) would require
approximately 50 truckloads, assuming 20-cubic-yard dump trucks. If bioremediation is
unsuccessful and a decision is made to dispose of the amended waste off-site, the disposal
effort would require 1,500 truckloads to transport 30,000 cubic yards.
Landfarming is another potential method of treating biodegradable wastes and has been used
at other sites to address area and volume considerations. However, landfarming of the Lagoon
10 waste at the Macon/Dockery Site is not appropriate for the following reasons:
landfarming would result in the spread of nondegradable waste constituents
over a large area, increasing rather than decreasing the volume of waste;
landfarming would result in an increase in the number of potential receptors
and the likelihood of direct contact with the waste; and
the creosote material has been shown to exceed TCLP limits for benzene, and
application of this material to otherwise unaffected soils at this site is
inadvisable.
In conclusion, the results of the additional physical and chemical analyses of the creosote waste
in Lagoon 1 O indicates that the resulting volume and overall treatment duration for
bioremediation of Lagoon 10 material is prohibttive.
l:\WP.i70\7001721.P FD1cdf94 2-100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• n
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 2
Based on the results of RMT's Lagoon 1 O Waste Characterization Sampling and the
bioremediation treatability study, the US EPA issued a ROD Amendment (March 1994)
modifying the remedy requirements for Lagoon 1 O wastes. The ROD amendment included
excavation of Lagoon 1 O area waste and contaminated soils and disposal of excavated
materials in an approved off-stte disposal faciltty.
The MDSG commenced the waste removal phase of the Remedial Action in June 1994 and
completed the removal and disposal of Lagoon 1 O wastes in September 1994.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFO/cdfS4 2-101
I'
I
I
I
I
' I
a
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
3.1
Section 3
PREFINAL/FINAL DESIGN
Process Descriptions/Design Analysis
3.1.1 Ground Water Recovery and Treatment Systems
Ground Water Recovery
The ground water recovery system will consist of a series of ground water recovery wells
located to provide hydraulic containment and to capture ground water that exceeds the
pertormance standards established in the Statement of Work. Previous field investigations were
conducted at the Macon and Dockery sites to delineate plume boundaries. Ground water
capture zone analysis, using conservative assumptions, was conducted during the Preliminary
Design to estimate well locations necessary to provide efficient interception of the plume. More
precise numerical modeling was conducted during the Intermediate Design to refine the number
and proposed locations of extraction wells.
An evaluation was done to compare the cost-effectiveness of two types of recovery systems:
1) submersible pump systems, and 2) jet pump systems. The intent of etther type of system is
to lower the water table along the line of wells in order to promote flow into the wells and
capture ground water before it can leave the delineated plume areas. A jet pump system is well
sutted for this purpose because a constant withdrawal and therefore a constant water level can
be maintained in the recovery wells. Installation costs for this system are slightly higher than for
submersibles and overall useage of electricity is typically greater. However, long-term
maintenance costs for a jet pump system are much less than those for a submersible pump
system due to their reliabiltty and lack of mechanical components that are subject to failure.
Based upon the evaluations, a submersible pump system will be used at the Upper Dockery
stte. It is anticipated that flow rates at each Upper Dockery ex1raction well may be as low as
1.0 gallon per minute. Because of these low flow rates, a submersible pump system was
utilized at this location. Submersible pumps will minimize power and capttal costs and their use
should be completed before excessive maintenance costs are incurred due to the need to
replace equipment at the end of its operational life cycle. The two Dockery sttes will have
independent recovery and treatment systems.
l:\WPo.7017001721.PFDlcdf94 3-1
·, ,,
I
I
=1
I
I
I
11. UJ
D
I
11
f,
I
I
I
' I'
i
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
The ground water extraction system at the Upper Dockery Stte will consist of a series of
extraction wells equipped wtth submersible turbine pumps and the associated piping. A
submersible pump will be installed at the bottom of each recovery well. The pump and motor
assemblies for each well has been designed using performance curves based on the total
estimated static and dynamic head and the desired flow rate from the well. Drawing K03
provides a detailed view of the extraction and treatment systems and piping designed for the
Upper Dockery site.
Because of their inherent flow delivery rates, submersible pumps typically must be operated in
on and off cycles. Since each pump will be operated independently, each must be equipped
with level sensors to prevent the pump from operating under dry conditions. The ground water
removed from the wells will be pumped to an air stripping system.
In order to achieve and maintain the maximum drawdown possible, the Lower Dockery site·
design has been modttied from the submersible pumps system described in the Intermediate
Design submtttal to a jet pump. The anticipated flow at Lower Dockery, estimated to be
approximately 7 gallons per minute at each well, was projected to require rapid cycling of each
submersible pump, causing excessive wear. A jet pump system can reliably achieve and
maintain maximum drawdown, even under dry condttions, thereby maintaining the intended
plume capture efficiency without increasing maintenance requirements.
Jet pump systems will be used for extracting ground water at the two Macon areas. Based
upon numerical modeling projections tt is anticipated that the recovery systems at the Macon
sttes will remain in operation for over 10 years. Because of the high maintenance costs of
submersible pump systems over this extended period of time, a jet pump system will provide
the most economical long-term operation. Each area (Upper and Lower Macon) will have
independently functioning jet pump systems. Each system will direct recovered ground water to
a centrally located treatment faciltty. The Macon stte process and instrument diagram is
presented in Drawing K01.
A jet pump recovery system consists of a centrttugal pump (prime mover), jet pump ejectors,
and the associated piping. A jet pump ejector is installed in the bottom of each recovery well.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFO/cdl94 3-2
11
I
I
ff1
I
1:
,j
I;
.,
~
' I
i
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
The prime mover supplies a flow of water to the ejector at a specified pressure. The ejector's
venturi assembly imparts a vacuum of sufficient strength to induce flow into the ejector, out of
the well, and into the collection piping. Drawing K01 provides a detailed view of the extraction
and treatment system and piping proposed for the Macon Site. Drawing K02 provides a
detailed view of the extraction and treatment systems and piping proposed for the Lower
Dockery Stte.
Since the jet pump can operate under "dry" conditions, tt allows the maximum level of
drawdown to be obtained from the extraction well. Each well will have flow meters and valves
to facilitate system flexibility and allow monttoring of operation. Both the lower and upper
Macon systems and the Lower Dockery system will have independent prime movers that will
each utilize an independent feed tank as a water source. The ground water removed from the
wells will be pumped to feed tanks and overflow by gravtty to a low-profile air stripping system.
Du Pont Environmental Remediation Services, Inc. (DERS) is conducting a field demonstration
of DERS' microbial reductive dehalogenation technology for in situ remediation of organic
contaminants in source area ground water. This field demonstration is being conducted in
anticipation of full-scale application of this technology at each source area. Bench-scale studies
have already demonstrated that the process is viable for the Upper Macon source area.
However, should this technology not be applicable at the Stte, the MDSG will prepare and
submit a supplemental remedial design incorporating source area extraction of ground water for
ex situ treatment. Drawing C09 provides a conceptual layout of the proposed extraction wells
for each source area, as well as one additional treatment system dedicated to the Upper Macon
source area. The extraction wells conceptualized for the Lower Macon, Lower Dockery, and
Upper Dockery source areas would be incorporated into the treatment systems already
designed for those areas.
Ground Water Treatment
Metals treatment at the Macon, Upper Dockery, and Lower Dockery areas may be inttially
required for manganese removal, based on a review of dissolved metals concentrations
detected in site monitoring wells. This data is not, however, from areas on the stte where
groundwater will be extracted during the remedial action. It is also noted that manganese is
1.\WP\70\7001721.PF01edf94 3.3
,.
l1
.t
I
I
I
.&
·I:. ~-
I
I (,,
.,
I I
1)
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
naturally occurring at relatively high concentrations in stte ground water. As discussed in
Section 2.1.4 of the Preliminary Design report, tt is theorized that naturally occurring manganese
may be solubilized by naturally occurring biological activtty in the source areas. Manganese
concentrations in the areas from which ground water will be extracted for remediation are not
known, but are not likely to exceed Performance Standards in the extracted ground water. As
shown in Table 2-31, the dissolved manganese concentration in well MW-21 was well below the
Performance Standard. The influent to the metals treatment system will be monttored during
system start-up to determine the continued necesstty for metals treatment once influent
concentrations have stabilized. Columns will be skid-mounted wtth flexible couplings, where
appropriate, to facilitate their removal if metals treatment becomes unnecessary after startup.
The metals treatment columns will be designed wtth sufficient flexibility to allow the use of etther
cation selective resins or conventional iron/manganese removal media, tt required.
The jet pump extraction systems at the Upper and Lower Macon sttes will convey ground water
to their respective recirculation tanks, which will overflow by gravity to a single shallow tray air
stripper. The Upper Dockery and Lower Dockery sites will have separate ground water
treatment systems. The extraction well system at the Upper Dockery site will be equipped with
submersible pumps. The extraction system at Lower Dockery will be a jet pump system.
Extracted ground water will be conveyed directly to a feed tank at each site. At Lower Dockery,
the feed tank will serve as a recirculation tank. Each feed tank will overflow by gravtty into a
shallow-tray air stripper. The shallow-tray strippers utilize forced draft, countercurrent air
stripping through baffled aeration trays to remove volatile organic compounds from the extracted
ground water. Ground water is directed into the inlet chamber and flows over a distribution weir
and along a baffled aeration tray. An air stream is discharged upward through holes in the
aeration tray. This action forms a froth of air bubbles that generates a large mass transfer
surface area and induces transfer of VOCs from the ground water into the air stream. Treated
ground water from each air stripper will be pumped to the top inlet of the metals treatment
columns, distributed across the media, and discharged through the bottom outlet to the
infiltration gallery constructed adjacent to each treatment system.
I .\WP\70\7001721. PF01cdl94 3-4
I
I
I
I ,
t
I
' ,,
I
t
I .. ~ .,
' ,I
.I .,
if
t
'I
J)
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
The metals treatment system will consist of two columns in series operated in a down-flow
configuration and containing an ion exchange resin. For each ground water treatment system.
the treated effluent will be discharged to a nearby infittration gallery.
The metals treatment columns will require periodic regeneration or replacement of the resin.
The resin and metals treatment columns will be leased from a vendor. Spent columns will be
shipped off-stte to the vendor for regeneration. Replacement columns will be inserted as spent
columns are removed. Assuming the ion exchange resin removes approximately 60 mg of
dissolved metals per ltter (based on the bench-scale test). 30 cubic feet of resin will last
approximately 3.5 days. Each column is designed to hold approximately 30 cubic feet of resin
material.
The relatively short (3.5-day) service ltte capactty provided for the metals removal units is
determined by the projected short-term service requirements during start-up. The 3.5-day
service life was calculated using a nominal flow rate of 50 gpm for the Macon Stte treatment
system and a dissolved metals removal of 60 mg/L (mostly hardness) across the ion exchange
system. The length of calculated service ltte will increase at the lower flow rates anticipated for
Upper Dockery and Lower Dockery. It is anticipated that elimination of the metals removal units
soon after start-up will be possible, as tt is projected that manganese concentrations in the
influent of each treatment system will meet the Perfonmance Standards wtthout treatment. The
metals removal unit vendor will be required to provide an uninterrupted supply of replacement
units to allow continued operation of the treatment systems, should this be necessary. If
extracted ground water exceeds Performance Standard for manganese after the inttial startup
period, an alternative metals removal system. which utilizes a different medium, may be
implemented to achieve longer service lives for the columns.
3.1.2 Remediation of Lagoon 1 O Waste
The Unilateral Administrative Order -Statement of Work for the Macon/Dockery Stte required
that the feasibility of biological treatment of the organic materials from Lagoon 10 be
investigated. If feasible, the materials would be treated in a lined waste treatment cell to reach
performance standards for specttied compounds. A treatabiltty study was performed to evaluate
whether bioremediation can achieve the Performance Standard of 2.0 ppm total carcinogenic
l:\WP.70\7001721. PFDJcdf94 3-5
I
' I
!I
,I
I
.t
I\
I
I
:I·
:i
I
I .,
I
l.1
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
3.2
PAHs wtthin a reasonable treatment cycle timeframe of 100 days. The treatabiltty study
indicates that a decrease of total carcinogenic PAHs to Pertormance Standard concentrations
did not occur wtthin 100 days, and also that the Pertormance Standard would be difficult (tt
possible at all) to achieve in any reasonable time period.
Based on Treatabiltty Study findings that bioremediation was not capable of meeting the
pertormance standards for Lagoon 10 wtthin the constraints of the selected remedy stated in the
Record of Decision, and based on a subsequent waste characterization study that indicated a
thirty-fold increase in waste volume is likely to result from bioremediation, the Record of
Decision was amended to require source remediation through excavation of the Lagoon 1 0
materials that exceed the Pertormance Standard and transport of the material off-site for
disposal. The excavated materials were required to be stockpiled, sampled, characterized, and
transported for off-stte disposal at a permitted disposal faciltty.
The Macon/Dockery Stte Group initiated waste removal activities in June 1994 for Lagoon 1 o
waste, the vessel contents, and the vessel pieces as required in the Statement of Work. Waste
removal activtties were completed for Lagoon 10 wastes in August 1994, for vessel pieces and
vessel contents in September 1994, and for contaminated soils associated wtth vessel leakage
in November 1994. Approximately 2,705 tons of waste and affected soil were excavated from
Lagoon 10 and shipped off-stte for disposal, including 1,262 tons of hazardous waste (D018)
accepted by Laidlaw's Pinewood, SC, Subtitle C landfill and 1,443 tons of nonhazardous
waste/soil accepted by BFl's Harrisburg, NC, Subtttle D landfill.
Vats and tanks abandoned at the stte were cleaned and dismantled. Scrap metal was shipped
off-site for recycle. Vessel solids were consolidated and stabilized using Quicklime to prevent
separation of free liquid. Vessel solids were shipped to Laidlaw's Pinewood, SC, faciltty for
disposal as a nonhazardous waste. Oil contained in several tanks on-stte was consolidated and
shipped to Heritage's Charlotte, NC, reclamation facility for fuels blending and/or oil reclamation.
Design Criteria Report for the Ground Water Recovery and Treatment Systems
This section outlines and describes the basis for design of the ground water systems. These design
crtteria provide the foundation for development of the facilities and equipment necessary for
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDlcdt94 3-6
' ' t
I .,
,,!
I,
t
I
I
t
ii
I ,,
, __ / .,
' I ,,,
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
implementation of the remedy. The design crtteria set forth in this section may be modttied, as needed,
in response to technical considerations arising from additional data collection activtties, changes in
observed hydrogeological characteristics, and observed deviations from pre,viously defined stte
condttions.
Applicable Codes, Standards, and Regulations
All faciltties described in this document are designed and will be constructed in accordance with
applicable regulations set forth by the NC DEHNR, and affected Richmond County Agencies.
Furthermore, all design work will be conducted in accordance wtth requirements set forth in the
Statement of Work in the Unilateral Administrative Order.
Horizontal and Vertical Controls
Horizontal and vertical controls for the site were set during the course of generating the
topographic map used during the RI/FS. Survey monuments used during the Intermediate
Design will also be used for lay-out and construction of the new facilities. These survey
monuments are listed in Table 3-1.
TABLE 3-1
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL CONTROLS
Monument Description
51 -Property corner rebar
1 -Nail in edge of road
2 -Nail in edge of road
Earthwork
Northing
416790.08
416357,19
417278.13
Coordinates
Easting
1747919.73
1748774.28
1749095.76
Elevation (ft above MSLJ
The major source of earthwork for this project will be grading around the pump pads,
excavation/backfill for underground piping and valve pit installations, and road construction as
needed. Earthwork will be implemented as follows:
t:\WP\70\7001721. PF□lcdf94
Earthwork around the pump pad will be completed to provide a proper
foundation for the slab and to ensure posttive drainage away from the facility.
3-7
f ,_,
' I
ii\
I
11
i
'I
~-,,
')
'I
I
·,,
jI
t
I:
'I,
a
I:
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
Trenching activtties will be conducted in accordance wtth OSHA requirements.
Bedding materials will be sand or washed stone compatible wtth the selected
pipe material.
Trench backfill will be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent standard proctor
at optimum moisture content.
Eros/an Control
Stte activtties will be designed and conducted in accordance wtth Richmond County erosion
control ordinances and regulations, and will meet the following requirements:
Temporary erosion control measures will be employed during construction and
may consist of filter fabric silt fences placed downhill of construction activtties,
rock check dams spaced evenly in newly constructed diversions, and hay bales
(wherever specified).
Permanent erosion controls, tt needed, may consist of an erosion control mat
placed, as necessary, on a slope or in a dttch to hold soil in place until a
suitable vegetative root system can be established that will hold the soils in
place. This mat may consist of etther wood fiber or geosynthetic materials.
Ground Water Characterization
During the Preliminary Design phase, ground water samples were collected using existing.
monitoring wells and field screening techniques (Hydrocone). Analytical results for organic and
inorganic constttuents from monttoring well samples are provided in Tables 2-7 through 2-10.
Analytical results for organic constttuents from the Hydrocone samples are included in
Appendix E.
These data are discussed in Section 2.1 Supplemental Ground Water Characterization. Areas
exceeding Pertormance Standards are shown on Plates 3 and 4.
Pretreatment Requirements
No permanent pretreatment processes are proposed for the ground water treatment systems.
Bag filters will be used during system start-up to remove suspended solids.
Volume at Ground Water Requiring Treatment
The volume of ground water requiring treatment is defined by the horizontal and vertical extent
of the affected ground water plumes. A single pore volume of ground water exceeding
1:\WP\70\7001721. PFD/cdt94 3-8
I
·I'
:I
·t
.i
ti
•• II
,,,
I
II
I
'.t
l1
i' (j.
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
Performance Standards is calculated to be 108 million gallons. This volume was calculated
assuming a saturated thickness of 45 feet and a porosity of 0.25 for the aqutter, and measuring
the areal extent of ground water exceeding the Performance Standard on all four areas of the
Site. The area of the affected ground water plume at each portion of the site is as follows:
Upper Macon, 790,000 square feet; Lower Macon, 255,000 square feet; Upper Dockery,
161,000 square feet; Lower Dockery, 80,000 square feet.
Because of sorption and retardation of the constituents present in the ground water,
remediation of the ground water will require the removal of multiple pore volumes of water from
the aqutter. Thus, the actual volume of water to be pumped is expected to be greater than one
calculated pore volume of ground water.
Treatment Scheme
Air stripping and manganese removal are proposed for treatment of affected ground water
underlying the Macon and Dockery Sites to meet Performance Standards. Air stripping was
selected as the treatment process for removal of volatile constituents above Performance
Standards from ground water. Coagulation/filtration was identttied in the Statement of Work as
the selected treatment for metals concentrations above remediation levels. However, during
the Preliminary Design, coagulation/filtration was eliminated from this design for the following
reasons:
The only inorganic contaminant of concern that may potentially exceed its
Performance Standard in the extracted ground water is manganese. A
statistical analysis of monitoring well data within the plume areas indicates that
the concentrations of other inorganic contaminants of concern in the combined
waste stream are expected to be at or below Performance Standards.
Coagulation/filtration is not efficient for dilute waste stream applications.
Conventional manganese removal technology, such as substitution or catalytic
media filter, is more effective and requires less automated control.
Manganese concentrations in treatment system influent are expected to meet the Performance
Standard without treatment. However, manganese removal will be 'incorporated in the
Remedial Design and Remedial Action until the M DSG can demonstrate that manganese
removal is not required.
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD1cdt94 3-9
I ,,,
I
ii
. I
'I
•• (I
1,1
-.,·~'
t
·1
ri
:,,
.I
' l1
I,
I
II
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
The air strippers chosen for the Macon/Dockery stte are low profile tray air strippers. Some of
the advantages of low profile tray air strippers over random packed tower air strippers include:
Tray air strippers are short. With a maximum height of 6 feet, tt is feasible to
provide a gravtty flow feed to the untt .
As the name implies, tray air strippers are constructed of several trays. These
trays are stacked one on top of the other and can be easily disassembled for
inspection and maintenance.
The bottom of each tray is perforated and is called a sieve plate. Air flows
upward through each sieve plate and through the water on top of each plate .
The size of the holes in the sieve tray are relatively large (3/8-inch) but the
upward air movement keeps the water from weeping through the holes -short
lengths of pipe, called downcomers, are provided to allow the water to cascade
downward from tray to tray. This internal arrangement encourages sediment
and precipttants to be washed through the untt, as opposed to the random
packed tower air stripper which tends to collect sediment and precipttants over
time. The vendor recommends pretreatment of the air stripper's influent tt:
total hardness exceeds 250 mg/L
dissolved iron exceeds 25 mg/L
dissolved manganese exceeds 25 mg/L
For influent conditions less than the values stated above, any potential fouling
is best addressed through system maintenance. The plume containment
system currently incorporated in the Remedial Design is not expected to
exceed the crtteria described above for pretreatment. However, tt the results of
the Anaerobic Bioremediation Pilot Study indicate that enhanced bioremediation
of source-area ground water is not feasible, installation of extraction wells in
these areas will be proposed. In this case, pretreatment of etther the isolated
source area influent stream(s) or the entire influent stream to each treatment
untt will be evaluated and, if needed, incorporated in the subsequent design
submtttal.
The internal arrangement of the tray air stripper allows for variable influent flow
from 0 gallons per minute to the untt's rated maximum capactty. At lower flow
rates the retention time of the water on the sieve plate actually increases, so
that removal efficiencies will increase.
At the Macon Site, the tray air stripper's inlluent stream is provided by gravtty overflow
from the two feed tanks T-1001 and T-1002. Likewise, the Lower Dockery feed tank
T-2001 overflows by gravtty to the tray air stripper. Treatment is not indicated prior to
the air stripper, since anticipated influent hardness, manganese, and iron levels are
below the maximum acceptable levels given by the vendor. The following table
summarizes the resutts of ground water sampling from MW-09 (worst case) and vendor
requirements.
l:\WP\ 70\7001721. PFD/cd!94 3-10
I
II ,, ,,
i
·t, ,,
' ,I
jl
t
I
. -, ,,,
I·
11 ,,-,
(i ,.
I ,,
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
INORGANIC ANALYSIS
I••· I i p~~~Miifijl ·······························•·1••· M~t@ii!'.) J I••·••I·•··· y~ij~if~~M~~{aj~)~j ····••I
Total hardness 42 250
Dissolved iron 25
Dissolved manganese 1.1 25
At the Upper Dockery site, electric submersible pumps in each recovery well will pump ground
water to the air stripper feed tank. Manganese removal is not considered a necessary
pretreatment step for the air strippers, since anticipated influent conditions are less than the
maximum acceptable levels.
Adverse effects of air stripper fouling, tt it should occur, are minimized by the tray design.
Severe effects may include an increase in pressure drop throughout the system, which could
reduce the maximum rated capacity of the system and increase the load on the air stripper's
fan motor.
Drawing Numbers K01, K02, and K03 show a pressure indicator at each air stripper sump for
measuring pressure drop in the units. Provisions for periodic inspection and cleaning of the air
strippers has been included in the Operation and Maintenance Plan, which includes detailed
instructions for disassembly, cleaning, and reassembly .
Jet pump collection systems will be used for the Macon Site and the Lower Dockery Site. A
submersible pump system will be used for the Upper Dockery Site. The three systems are
intended to function independently. A total of 21 extraction wells will be installed based on
numerical modeling conducted during the Intermediate Design.
Independent jet pump recirculation systems will be used for the Upper Macon and Lower
Macon sites. The two independent recirculation tanks will provide for equalization of the
extracted ground water. Each recirculation tank will overflow by gravity to a common air
stripper inlet. A recirculation tank is also required for the Lower Dockery ground water
extraction system, since this system is also a jet pump system. A feed tank has been
l:\WP\ 70\7001721.PFO/cdfS-1 3-11
!I\
\I
!I
I
.i
ti
.I
i
,I
I
t
I
--:1 ,,
-
:I
i
I
\I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
incorporated into the Upper Dockery system to address concerns that influent rates will vary
sporadically and should be equalized to the extent possible.
The ground water will be conveyed to the shallow tray air stripper. The air stripper will remove
voes from the ground water. A minimum safety factor of 25 percent will be used in the air
stripper design. Off-gas from the air stripper will be discharged to the atmosphere without
controls, since calculations of voe emission rates, using the Airstrip'.B) model output, show that
combined emissions from the proposed treatment systems will be well below the minimum
emission rate requiring control under North Carolina regulations. The air stripper effluent will be
pumped through the metals treatment system.
Sampling ports consisting of copper tubing, a needle valve, and brass compression fittings will
be added to the air strippers and SVE discharge stacks. The copper tubing will enter the stack
through the sidewall and will have a 90-degree turn facing downward so that air flowing through
the stack will enter the copper tube.
At startup, the air stripper and the SVE untt will be monttored by sampling the discharge stacks.
For the air strippers, the analytical results will be compared wtth the results of ground water
analysis and mass balance calculations, and will be used to vertty modeling assumptions.
During the first month of operation, tt the weekly analytical results vertty the mass balance
calculations based on influent and effluent water qualtty data, then mass balance calculations
will be used thereafter to monitor air stripper emissions.
Air monttoring using adsorbing charcoal tubes and laboratory analysis will be conducted by
sampling at the Macon property line during the first week of start up, since this is when the
highest concentrations may potentially be recovered. Based on preliminary modeling results, tt
is not expected that any constttuents will be detected at the property line. The results of the
inttial property line monttoring will be correlated wtth air stripper and SVE emission monitoring
data. If future emission monttoring events for the air stripper and SVE systems indicate a
substantial increase in emission, then the necessity for addttional property line monttoring will
be evaluated.
1:\WPI 7017001721. PFD1cdf94 3-12
I: •,:_,; ,, ,,
I
. I ,,
I ,,
' I ,,
11 ,,
Ill -
I ,,
i
I
,I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
Skid-mounted columns containing ion exchange media will be utilized to reduce manganese
concentrations to meet pertormance standards. These columns will be operated wtth two
columns in series. The effluent from the metals treatment system will be discharged to an on-
stte infiltration gallery under a Non-Discharge Permtt issued by the NC DEHNR .
Input/Output Rates
The numerical ground water flow model Flowpath (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Software) was used
during Intermediate Design to refine recovery well locations proposed in the Preliminary Design.
Flowpath is a two-dimensional steady-state flow model which uses a block-centered fintte
difference scheme to solve the ground water flow equations. The model computes hydraulic
heads, ground water flow velocities, pathlines, and time-related capture zones under steady-
state conditions.
For the Intermediate Design, the Upper and Lower Dockery sites were represented in a single
model having 89 columns and 84 rows. The Upper and Lower Macon sites were represented
in a single model having 71 columns and 94 rows. The model grid in each case was variably
spaced, wtth a smaller grid spacing used in area of the recovery well locations. Each model
was calibrated to water levels observed at the stte in May 1993. Model calibration consisted of
adjusting model input parameters (boundary conditions, hydraulic conductivtty, infiltration rates)
until the calculated head distribution was similar to the observed May 1993 head distribution.
Details of the model grids, boundary conditions, and calibration are presented in Appendix P.
Based on the numerical ground water modeling and steady-state capture zone evaluation
during the Intermediate Design phase, a total of 27 recovery wells were predicted to be needed
at the Macon/Dockery stte. Addttional field work conducted by DuPont Environmental
Remediation Services (DERS) in July-August 1994 indicates that the partially weathered rock
zone at the base of the saproltte immediately above the top of competent bedrock may have a
greater transmissivtty than the overlying saprolite. Adjustments in model hydraulic conductivity
values based on DERS' findings resulted in model predictions of individual recovery well flow
rates as high as 10 to 12 gallons per minute at the Upper Macon plume perimeter and 5 to 10
gallons per minute at the Lower Macon plume perimeter. Higher hydraulic conductivtty
condttions were not evaluated at the Upper Dockery plume perimeter. Higher flow rates of 7
l:\WP\70\ 7001721. PFO!cdf94 3-13
I .
. ,
a
I
I
t ,.
' I
I
.•·· ,,.
11
I
ii,
I ,,
'I
' ,I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 3
gpm per well had already been anticipated in the model during Intermediate Design at the
Lower Dockery plume perimeter. The predicted flow rates were included in a revised steady-
state capture zone evaluation, resulting in a total of 21 recovery wells predicted to achieve
plume containment for the Macon and Dockery sites. The revised number of wells in each area
and anticipated pumping rates are presented in Table 3-2.
Lower Dockery
Upper Dockery
Lower Macon
Upper Macon
TOTAL
TABLE 3-2
MACON/DOCKERY RECOVERY WELLS
4 12-15
6 1
4 12-15
7 12-15
21
48-60
6
48-60
84-105
No signtticant residuals disposal from the treatment systems, other than the potential for off-site
disposal of dewatered manganese solids, is anticipated. A flow measuring device and recorder
are provided on each system for hydraulic balance and potential permit compliance
considerations.
Influent/Effluent Quality
Representative influent VOC concentrations were estimated during Intermediate Design by
evaluating constituent concentration data obtained from nearby ground water sampling points
during the Preliminary Design phase (see Appendix P). The VOC concentrations were used as
data input for the Shallow Tray® model. Based on modeling, voes will be reduced to
concentrations below their respective Method Detection Limits by the planned shallow-tray air
strippers. Manganese concentrations will be reduced below Pertormance Standards by the
manganese removal columns, tt found to be needed. There are no inorganic constituent data
in the proposed extraction well areas, with the exception of the Upper Macon area, where
monitoring well MW-21 was found to contain manganese at 7 ppb. It is expected that the
l:\WP\70'!7001721.PFDlcdl94 3-14
I
I
I
I
,I
[i t
I
I
I,
I ,,
I
I
'I
I .,
i
' 11
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
concentrations of manganese and other inorganics at the periphery of each plume will be
sufficiently low to allow elimination of metals treatment shortly after system start-up.
Materials and Equipment
f!Q!_Qg
Piping for the ground water extraction system at the Macon Site and the Lower Dockery
Stte will consist of a circulating system that will convey water to/from jet pumps that will
be installed wtthin each ground water extraction well. Piping for the Upper Dockery
system will convey water from submersible pumps that will be installed within each
ground water extraction well. Design calculations are included in Appendix L. Piping
systems were designed as follows:
Recovery Well Design
Piping has been sized to minimize friction losses.
The piping main has been sized to accommodate the potential
installation of additional extraction wells, tt required in the future.
Trenching, bedding, and backfilling requirements will be met as outlined
in the Earthwork subsection of this report.
Underground pipes shall have a minimum of three feet of cover.
Pipe materials from the pump pads/treatment systems to the extraction
wells shall be Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC).
Piping materials wtthin the pumping wells will be PVC and an industrial
hose material. The industrial hose material shall be PVC wtth a
synthetic, high tensile cord reinforcement, similar to Thermo-GPX as
manufactured by Gates.
Exposed piping, pumps, and valves shall be heat traced and insulated
to minimize freezing during winter operations.
Piping taps will be installed at appropriate locations to facilttate
temporary clean-outs.
Pttless adapters, as manufactured by Dickens, will be used to connect
interior well piping wtth supply/return piping outside each well.
Each recovery well will be constructed of new six-inch I.D., flush-jointed, threaded Schedule 40
PVC screen and riser. No glues will be used in well construction. The wells will be completed
l:\WP\70\7001 721. PFD/edf94 3-15
I ,,
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I,
\,,
I
.I ,,
a
9
I
B
I',
,I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
so that the screens are set extending approximately from the observed water table surface to
the top of bedrock. Well screens will be wire-wrapped wtth a slot size selected based on grain-
size analysis of the aqutter materials at each area.
Grain-size distributions of the aqutter formation materials, determined during extraction well
installation, will be used as a guide for selecting appropriate filter pack and well screen slot
sizes for use in the recovery wells. Generally, a filter pack is selected to retain most of the
formation material, and the well screen opening is selected to retain about 90 percent of the
filter pack after development. For recovery well UMRW01, a screen slot opening of 0.01 o
inches was used successfully, and tt is anticipated that the proposed recovery wells will be
constructed with similar screen openings. The filter pack and screen slot sizes will be selected
so as not to inhibtt the yield at each well.
PVC is proposed for the recovery wells since these wells are not proposed for compliance
and/or ground water qualtty monitoring. PVC is a reliable and effective material and is also
more cost-effective than stainless steel. The concentrations of chlorinated organic compounds
previously detected on-stte do not require the use of special materials, even for source area
wells. Based on RMT's experience with PVC piping in similar applications, no loss of service
life is anticipated for PVC materials where organic constituent concentrations are less than one
percent.
The annular space around the well screens will be packed wtth clean washed silica sand
having a grain size appropriate to the screen slot size. The sand pack will be emplaced by
tremie pipe and will extend approximately two feet above the top of the screen. A bentontte
seal having a minimum thickness of approximately two feet will be placed above the sand pack.
If the top of the sand is less than 50 feet below land surface, bentontte pellets will be dropped
down the annular space. The bentontte pellets will be added a few at a time to minimize the
chance of bridging. If the top of the sand pack is greater than 50 feet below land surface, the
bentontte pellets may be placed via tremie pipe, or a bentontte slurry may be mixed using
potable waer and bentonite powder. If a bentontte slurry is employed as a seal, this slurry will
be placed via a tremie pipe set near the top of the filter pack.
l:IWP\70\7001721.P F01cdf94 3-16
It
It
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I\
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
The remaining open annular space will be grouted to approximately two feet below land sur1ace
with a cement-bentonite-grout slurry emplaced from the bottom up through a tremie pipe. The
bentontte seal on top of the fitter pack will be allowed to hydrate for a minimum of eight hours
prior to the addttion of grout. The cement-bentontte-grout slurry will be mixed using a ratio of
94 pounds Portland cement, seven gallons of water, and one to two pounds of bentonite. A
3x3-foot square, sloping concrete pad will be framed and poured around each well. A
schematic recovery well construction diagram is provided in Figure 3-1.
Jet Pumps
Jet pumps are sized to extract the desired flow from each of the ground
water extraction wells. The pressure required at each jet pump shall be
controlled to produce the desired ground water recovery rate. The
pressure required for the Upper Macon system is 140 psi. The
pressure required at the Lower Macon system is 160 psi. The pressure
required at the Lower Dockery system is 14.0 psi. Design calculations
are included in Appendix L.
The jet-pump assembly will be installed at a point 2 feet above the
bottom of the well.
The required design flow for each jet pump venturi was be established
as a result of ground water modeling efforts. The modeling yielded a
maximum flow rate of 15 gallons per minute per well for the Macon
sttes and 15 gallons per minute for the Lower Dockery Stte. These
flows were increased to allow for potential variance in flow rates after
recovery well installation. A flow rate of 15 gallons per minute per well
was used for Upper and Lower Macon and a flow rate of 15 gallons per
minute was used for Lower Dockery.
Submersible Pumps
I :\WP\70\7001721. PFD/cdt94
Submersible pumps will be sized to extract the required flow from each
of the pumping wells. The ground water modeling indicated that the
Upper Dockery wells would yield only 1.0 to 1.5 gallons per minute per
well. The Upper Dockery flow was increased to 3 gallons per minute
per well to allow for potential variance from the model's flow rate.
Submersible pumps are designed to deliver the design flow from the
respective submersible pump location to the air stripper.
Submersible pumps will be installed at a point 2 feet above the bottom
of the well.
3-17
I
I .. ,
I
I
I
-/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I ,,
.I
I
VJ 0 0 0 0 0 ;: a: ,,
0
I ...,
uJ ;:
TOP OF OPEN
CASING POINT
(MEASURING ELEV. IS
NORTH SIDE TOP
OF CASING)
FIGURE 3-1
RECOVERY WELL SCHEMATIC
Not To Scale
3-18
VENTED CAP
WELL CASING
CONCRETE PAD
LAND SURFACE
BOREHOLE
SAND PACK
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
.--,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
Operation controls will be installed wtth each submersible pump
to sense water level and prevent the pump from operating
under dry condttions.
Valves and Meters
Valves and meters shall be rated for the maximum pressures
anticipated for the extraction systems. For the Dockery systems, the
maximum pressure will be 150 psi. For the Macon systems, the
maximum pressure will be 200 psi.
Butterfly valves will be used for those applications requiring flow control.
Ball valves will be used for those applications requiring system
isolation.
Meters shall be located a minimum of five pipe diameters upstream
from the nearest valve or ten pipe diameters downstream.
Valve and meter ptts shall be sized to facilitate construction and/or
maintenance activities.
Centrifugal Pumps
!:\WP\ 7017001721. PF0lcdt94
A separate pumping system is used to operate each of the ground
water extraction systems (Upper Macon, Lower Macon, Lower
Dockery).
The individual pumps (prime movers) for the Upper and Lower Macon
and Lower Dockery jet pump systems consist of horizontal centrttugal
pumps rated for continuous service.
All three of the pumps are sized to pump the total flow required to
achieve the desired ground water extraction rate, any addttional
incremental flow recovered from each well, and a minimum circulating
flow. Refer to Appendix L for the Design Calculations.
The static and dynamic head for the systems have been calculated for
peak flow condttions to determine the total head each pump must
overcome to deliver the required flow at the required pressure.
Centrttugal pump discharge flow rate will not be throttled. The pump
will come on/off in response to levels in the feed tank; however, the·
system is designed so that the level in the feed tank is static, and the
pump should therefore operate continuously at a constant discharge
rate. A control narrative is included in Appendix G to detail pump
operations.
3-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Tanks
Pump Pad
SECTION 3
If manganese treatment is required after system startup, a separate
backwash pumping system will be installed at each metals treatment
system, providing 10 gpm per square foot of column area.
The tanks supplying the recirculation water for the Macon site and
Lower Dockery site jet pumps will be sized to hold the total volume of
main header piping anticipated to be in service for each system.
Tanks will be constructed of carbon steel or other suitable material.
Tanks will have tops and will be opaque to limtt algal growth.
If manganese treatment is required after system startup, a backwash
tank will be installed and sized to hold 150 percent of the required
backwash cycle volume. The tank will have a dish bottom for sludge
withdrawal. Backwash tanks and facilities associated wtth a backwash
system are not required for the ion exchange system. A different
treatment medium will be included as an alternative installation in a
future design submittal if the anaerobic bioremediation of source area
ground water contaminants proves to be infeasible and extraction of
ground water in the Upper Macon source area becomes necessary.
Pumps and tanks will be located on concrete pads.
The pads have been sized to accommodate potential future expansion
or equipment additions.
Pads are designed using an appropriate soil bearing pressure.
Concrete will have reinforcing steel of -adequate size and spacing for
the specttied loading condttions and soil strength.
Pad will be surrounded by a six-foot security fence topped wtth three-
strands of barbed wire.
Metals Removal Columns
I :\WP\70\7001721.PFD1cd!94
The metals removal columns will be of the downflow type using
appropriate ion exchange resin for manganese removal. Column
dimensions have been sized to be capable of utilizing catalytic media tt
required.
3-20
I
I,
I
I·
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
The columns will be skid-mounted to facilitate removal tt rt is
demonstrated that the air stripper effluent meets Performance
Standards for metals.
SECTION 3
The columns will be provided wtth isolation valves and associated
· piping to allow continuous system operation when one column is
removed for servicing.
The columns will be capable of treating water at the design flow rate
and temperature.
The columns will be designed for outdoor service.
The columns will be provided wtth all necessary process connections
and appurtenances including, but not limited to, the following:
water inlet
water discharge
pressure indicator
The sizing of the columns has been based on the required removal
efficiency for manganese at the design flow rates of each treatment
system.
Shallow Tray Air Stripping Unit
1.\WP\ 70\7001721. PFD1cdf94
The shallow tray untts will use forced draft, countercurrent air stripping
through baffled aeration trays to remove volatile organic compounds
from the ground water.
The shallow tray untts have been designed to be capable of treating
water at a minimum of 125 percent of the design flow rates. Incoming
extracted ground water will be at a temperature of 16 to 18°C. The
preliminary dimensions have been determined as a result of ground
water modeling efforts.
The air stripping untts are designed for outdoors installation.
The air stripping untts will be prepiped and prewired to the degree most
practical for ease of installation.
A demister will be located beneath the air exhaust nozzle located on
the top cover of the untt.
The air stripping untts will be provided wtth all necessary process
connections including, but not limtted to, the following:
water inlet
water discharge
3-21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Instrumentation
I :\WP\70\7001721. PFD/cdl94
stripping air inlet
level transmitter
level swttch
centrttugal air blower
air flow transmitter
SECTION 3
Water will enter the top of each air stripping untt through an inlet, travel
over a flow distribution weir, and be distributed across the baffled
aeration tray.
One centrttugal air blower is required to provide air to each air stripping
untt. The blowers have been sized appropriately. Each blower will be
direct or belt driven by an electric motor suttable for the available power
supply.
The air blowers will be provided wtth all guards necessary to shield belt
and/or drive from operator.
A low air flow swttch will be provided on the blower discharge housing.
The sizing of the shallow tray untts have been based on removal
efficiency analysis using the Shallow Tray® model and influent ground
water voe concentrations.
Provisions for cleaning the air stripper include:
Specttications for a tray air stripper that can be readily
disassembled and reassembled.
Two cleaning ports per tray
A wash wand to insert through the cleaning ports to wash the
trays
A pressure indicator to monitor internal pressure
Detailed instructions for disassembly, cleaning, and reassembly
in the O&M Manual.
Instrumentation panels will be designed for outdoor service (NEMA 4
or higher).
Totalizing of discharges to infiltration galleries will be provided using a
totalizing meter at the inlet of each air stripper untt.
Low/high level interlocks will be installed for tanks and treatment
equipment.
3-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
3.3
Performance Standards
The ground water treatment system has been designed to meet performance standards
specttied in the Statement of Work and anticipated NC DEHNR Non-Discharge Permit
limitations.
Long-Term Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring of the ground water extraction, treatment, and discharge systems are addressed in . .
the Performance Standards Verification Plan submitted with the Intermediate Remedial Design
and further delineated in the Operations and Maintenance Plan submitted with the Prefinal
Remedial Design. The monitoring program will be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with
the applicable standards and conditions.
Project Delivery Strategy
The schedule for the Macon/Dockery Site Remedial Design was presented in Section 5 of the US EPA-
approved Remedial Design Workplan. The Macon/Dockery Site Group requested a 30-day extension
for submittal of the Preliminary Design deliverable, which was granted by the US EPA on July 20, 1993. ·
A revised schedule incorporating this extension was included in Section 5 of the Preliminary Design
submittal. This schedule provided the time frames anticipated for the various remaining design
elements required in the Unilateral Administrative Order. It also reflected the preparation of the
Remedial Action Workplan concurrent with the Intermediate Design. The Project Delivery Strategy is a
required deliverable with the Remedial Action Workplan.
The Remedial Design schedule was revised in February 1994 to allow for testing and development of
an anaerobic biodegradation technology by DuPont Environmental Remediation Systems for
remediation of source area ground water. By agreement with US EPA, the Remedial Design submittal
schedule was revised as follows.
SVE SYSTEM
Preliminary Design
Intermediate Design
Prefinal Design
Final Design .
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFOiedf94
8-26-93
12-21-93
4-22-94
6-14-94
3-23
GROUND WATER
EXTRACTION!TREATMENT SYSTEM
Preliminary Design 8-26-93
Intermediate Design 12-21-93
Prefinal Design
Final Design
11-1-94
12-22-94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
US EPA, NC DEHNR, and other regulatory agencies have provided comments on each submittal. The
comments, and the MDSG's responses, are included as Appendix R.
A Final Construction Schedule has been developed and is included in Section 4. The construction
schedule is also included in the Remedial Action Workplan.
At the present time the Macon/Dockery Site Group is considering procurement of a prime contractor for
construction activities through a competitive bidding process. It is also anticipated that a Construction
Manager will be procured to observe and document remedial activities on the Group's behalf and will
be responsible for supervising the prime contractor's work for installation and start-up of the remediation
systems.
The prime contractor may subcontract through a series of individual contracts for specnic work
elements, such as the drilling and installation of ground water extraction wells, installation of piping
systems, construction of the above-ground treatment systems, installation of the SVE system, and site
grading. The decision as to the type and number of subcontracts will be determined by the prime
contractor and will be required for delineation in his competitive bid package.
Similarly, the Macon/Dockery Site Group will select an Operations and Maintenance Contractor to
conduct the required treatment operations. The O&M Contractor is likely t~ be an independent
contractor with extensive experience in industrial maintenance. The selection of the O&M Contractor
will occur by the fall of 1995, and training for required O&M tasks will occur in late 1995. The O&M
Contractor will likely be selected through competitive bidding, based on qualnications and projected
costs. See Section 4 for further information on the projected schedule for remedy start-up and
operation.
3.4 Plan for Satisfying Permitting Requirements
3.4.1 Ground Water Discharge
The Statement of Work prescribes discharge of treated ground water to either Solomons Creek
or an infiltration gallery. The selected method of treated ground water discharge is horizontal
infiltration galleries located at the Macon and Dockery areas. Infiltration tests conducted at
each location of the planned ground water extraction and treatment systems indicated that
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFD1cdl94 3-24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
0
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
infiltration rates in native soils at the stte were satisfactory for direct discharge of treated ground
water. Planned discharge locations are shown on Drawing No. C04 and C05.
The infiltration galleries are designed to distribute treatment system effluent to surface soils via
buried permeable pipelines. The size of each gallery has been designed based on projected
effluent flow rates and infiltrometer test results. Infiltration galleries were specttied rather than
surface (NPDES) discharges to minimize drainage/erosion problems and, at the Dockery sttes,
to increase the hydraulic gradient and potentially decrease the total remedy duration.
Ground water remediation systems that do not discharge to surface waters are required to
obtain a non-discharge permtt from the NC DEHNR Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section. Application form Ground Water Remediation Systems will be completed
during the Final Design phase of the project for review by NC DEHNR. NC DEHNR (Water
Quality Section, Division of Environmental Management), has stated that review of draft
applications is not appropriate and not in accordance with their standard policy.
Compliance with the substantive permitting requirements for storm water, erosion control, and
system installation will be performed by the construction contractor. The design drawings will
include design features addressing these needs for use in obtaining ,these permtts. However,
since this stte is a CERCLA response action, actual permtts are not required. The construction
contractor will supply the necessary information to permitting agencies to meet the substantive
requirements for permits and will consult with these agencies as necessary.
3.4.2 Air Discharge
The Macon/Dockery site is located in Richmond County, North Carolina. This county is, as of
June 1993, in compliance or attainment wtth ozone (03) Air Qualtty Standards. Since this
facility is in attainment for ozone, no pollution control equipment will be required for the Soil
Vacuum Extraction untt or the Air Stripper/Shallow Tray unit.
Based on telephone conversations wtth personnel from the North Carolina DEHNR Air Quality
Division, North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 2 -Environmental Management,
Subchapter 2D -Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section 0.0202 -Registration of Air
Pollution Sources, Subsection (b) applies to this stte. This section lists ten requirements that
I.IWP\7017001721.PFD1cdt94 3-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I
I
I
D
-I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
3.5
must be futtilled for registration of an emission source. These requirements include the
following:
1. the name of the person, company, or corporation operating sources;
2. the address, location, and county;
3. principal officer of the company;
4. quantities and kinds of raw materials used;
5. process flow sheets;
6. operating schedules;
7. total weights and kinds of air pollution released;
8. types and quanttties of fuels used;
9. stack heights; and
10. other information considered essential in evaluating the potential of the source
to cause air pollution.
Registration of emission sources to be constructed during the Macon/Dockery Stte Remedial
Action will be the responsibility of the Remedial Action contractor.
North Carolina also enforces Subchapter 2D -Air Pollution Control Requirements, Section
0.0518 -Miscellaneous Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, Subsection (d}, which allows up
to 40 pounds of VOC emissions per day (24 hours) from each site. Emissions were calculated
for each of the units involved. The sum of emissions from the three ground water treatment
untts and the SVE unit is not expected to approach 40 pounds per day. The SVE untt
emissions are calculated to be 1.6 pounds of VOC per day, and the air stripper emissions are
calculated, using the Airstrip® model output, to be 0.6 pounds of voe per day. Therefore, the
total calculated emission rate is approximately 2.2 pounds of VOC per day, and no air pollution
control equipment will be required for the proposed remediation systems.
Plans and Specifications
3.5.1 Drawing List
The following drawings are provided for the Macon/Dockery Stte Remedial Design Report,
along wtth sections and details of various elements of the treatment systems.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDlcdf94 3-26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
0
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
DRAWING NUMBER
7001721-X01
7001721-X02
7001721-K01
7001721-K02
7001721-K03
7001721-C01
7001721-C02
7001721-C03
7001721-C04
7001721-C0S
7001721-C0S
7001721-C0?
7001721-C0S
7001721-C09
7001721-C10
7001721-E01
7001721-E02
7001721-E03
7001721-E04
7001721-E0S
7001721-E0S
7001721-E11
7001721-E12
7001721-E13
7001721-E14
7001721-E15
7001721-E16
7001721-E21
7001721-E22
7001721-E23
7001721-E24
7001721-E25
7001721-E26
7001721-M01
7001721-P01
7001721-P02
7001721-P03
I .\WP'\70\7001721. PFD1cdl94
DRAWING TITLE
Title Sheet
Existing Site & Legend
Macon Site Process and Instrument Diagram
Lower Dockery Site Process and Instrument Diagram
Upper Dockery Site Process and Instrument Diagram
General Arrangement
Dockery Grading Plan
Macon Grading Plan
Dockery Underground Piping Plan
Macon Underground Piping Plan
Infiltration Gallery Section Jet Pump and Manhole Details
Concrete Pad Details and Notes
Submersible Pump Details
Miscellaneous Details
SECTION 3
Conceptual Layout Source Area Extraction and Treatment SYSTEM
Macon Site 480V Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
Macon Site Ladder Diagram
Macon Site Ladder Diagram
Macon Site Power and Instrumentation Plans
Macon Site Grounding Plan
Macon Site Site Plan
Lower Dockery Site 480V Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
Lower Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
Lower Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
Lower Dockery Site Power and Instrumentation Plans
Lower Dockery Site Grounding Plan
Lower Dockery Site Site Plan
Upper Dockery Site 480V Main Distribution Single Line Diagram
Upper Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
Upper Dockery Site Ladder Diagram
Upper Dockery Site Power and Instrumentation Plans
Upper Dockery Site Grounding Plan
Upper Dockery Site Site Plan
Above Ground Equipment General Arrangement -Macon/Dockery
Macon Site Above Ground Piping Plan
Lower Dockery Site Above Ground Piping Plan
Upper Dockery Site Above Ground Piping Plan
3-27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
u
u
I
•
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 3
3.5.2 Specification List
The following specttications are provided for the Macon/Dockery Stte Remedial Design. Each
specttication has been categorized by Division and number as per CSI specttication standards.
Specttication details are included as Appendix S.
DIVISION 1
01010
01025
01060
01070
01200
01300
01400
01500
01560
01563
01600
01650
01700
DIVISION 2
02071
02102
02220
02273
02444
02511
02565
02615
02620
02673
02674
02730
02921
02931
02935
DIVISION 3
Summary of Work
Measurement & Payment
Regulatory Requirements
Abbreviations, Definitions, & Symbols
Project Meetings
Submtttals
Qualtty Control
Temporary Faciltties & Controls
Temporary Control
Temporary Water Control
Material & Equipment
Starting of Systems
Project Closeout
Monitoring Well Protection
Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation and Backfill
Riprap
Chain Link Fence
Aggregate Base Course
Concrete Manholes
PVC Pressure Pipe
Jet Pump Systems
Drilling, Sampling, & Extraction Well Installation
Drilling, Sampling, & Multi-Level Well Installation
Gravtty Pipe
Topsoil
Seeding
Fertilizing
(will be addressed by notes on drawings)
i.JIVISION 11
09900
11300
11361
11512
I :\WP\ 70\7001721.PFD/cd!94
Surtace Preparation & Painting
Steel Storage Tanks
Centrifugal Pumps
Submersible Pumps
3-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
I
ID
m
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
DIVISION 13
13235
13236
DIVISION 15
15061
15075
15076
15112
15260
15263
15563
DIVISION 16
16010
16011
16111
16123
16130
16141
16160
16170
16190
16195
16421
16461
16470
16476
16481
16855
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFD/cd!94
Air Stripping Tower
Metals Treatment System
Carbon Steel Piping
PVC Piping Fabrication, Erection, Inspection & Testing
PVC Schedule 80, Solvent Welded
Liquid Bag Filters
Pipe Insulation
General Insulation Requirements
Carbon Steel Holding Tanks
Basic Electrical Requirements
Tests -Motor & Motor Circuijs
Conduit
Building Wire and Cable
Boxes
Wiring Devices
Cabinets & Enclosures
Grounding and Bonding
Supporting Devices
Electrical ldentttication
Utility Service Entrance
Dry Type, Transformers
Panelboards
Enclosed Circuij Breakers
Enclosed Motor Controllers
Heating Cables
3-29
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 4
Section 4
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REMEDIAL ACTION
The schedule for the Macon/Dockery Stte Remedial Action is presented in Figure 4-1. This
construction schedule is also included in the Remedial Action Work Plan.
Provided that construction activities occur wtthout delay, Remedial Action activtties should occur as
follows:
Contractor Selection Process 1-1-94 to 3-21-95
Pre-Construction Conference 4-3-95
Initial Sitework Construction 4_3:95 to 6-12-95
Well Installation 4-10-95 to 5-22-95
Construction of SVE Treatment System 6-5-95 to 9-22-95
Construction of GW Treatment Systems 6-5-95 to 1 0-20-95
Equipment Operational Testing 10-23-95 to 12-1-95
Prefinal Construction Inspection 12-11-95
Final Inspection 1-15-96
O&M Training 11-13-95 to 3-9-96
System Start Up and Balancing 12-4-95 to 3-9-96
lnttiate O&M Program 3-9-96
Submtt Prefinal Inspection Report 1-8-96
Submit Final Construction Report 2-12-96
The overall schedule for construction activities is approximately one year, wtth an addttional two months
anticipated to balance the ground water extraction systems for optimal production.
The equipment specttied for this Remedial Action is commercially available through several vendors.
Communications wtth representative vendors indicate that the construction contractor will be able to
procure the needed equipment wtthin the allotted timeframes. Likewise, the earthmoving and trenching
l:\WP\70\7001721.PFDlcdf94 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT OCTOBER 1994
MACON/DOCKERY SITE SECTION 4
equipment and drilling rigs anticipated for the prescribed construction tasks are readily obtainable from
a multttude of sources. Therefore, no schedule delays are anticipated as a result of material or
equipment shortages.
The schedule also includes sufficient allowance for typical weather-related interruptions. The
construction contractor will submit a detailed construction schedule indicating the critical path for project
completion, the amount of float in each task, and any opportunities to shorten the overall schedule.
l:\WPl.70\7001721. PFDlcdl94 4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
D
•
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RMT PREFINAUFINAL REMEDIAL DESIGN REPORT
MACON/DOCKERY SITE
Section 5
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
OCTOBER 1994
SECTION 5
The construction cost estimate for the ground water extraction and treatment system contained in this
Remedial Design submittal is shown on the following table. Untt costs were obtained from the 1994
Means Construction Cost Guide and vendors' and consuttants' cost estimates. A construction cost
estimate for the SVE system was included in the Final Remedial Design Report for Soil Vapor
Extraction submitted to US EPA in June 1994. The total projected cost for the SVE system
construction is approximately $68,700.
l:\WP\70\7001721. PFDtcdl94 5-1
I
I
I
I
g
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Upper Macon Jet Pump System
'':.No:·:, ,, .. ··,,,-.,-::-,:-,,:.:::,-. __ ,, ... ,_(\:'::"\/./\).)/ . ,,._.,._,=,·.:>
1 Mobilization/Demobilization
2 Bond/Insurance
3 Clearing & Grubbing
4 Site Prep (Access Roads, Slit Fence)
S Revegetation
6 Well Installation (Ba to bedrock)
7 Jet Pump installation (inctuding valves, etc.)
B BN Dual PVC Pipe In Trench, Misc Fittings
9 Concrete Pad, 40' x 40.5' x 1'
10 Tank (T-1002, 8000 gal)
11 Pump (P-1003, 305 gpm, 30 Hp)
12 Bag Filter (BF-1002, 400 gpm)
13 Air Stripper (AS-1001, 160 gpm)
14 Pump (P-1002, 160 gpm, 20 Hp)
15 Bag Filter (BF-1003, 200 gpm)
16 Piping/Mechanical
17 Electrical, Instrumentation
16 Infiltration Gallery
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
TOTAL
Lower Macon Jet Pump System
ITEM • I c.11/1 I
Mobijizatior\/Oernobillzation
2 Bond/Insurance
3 Clearing & Grubbing
4 Site Prep (Access Roads, Silt Fence)
5 Revegetation
6 Well Installation (60' to bedrock)
7 Jet Pump Installation (Including valves, etc.)
8 8" Dual PVC Pipe In Trench, Misc Fittings
g Tank(T-1001, 7000gal)
10 Pump (P-1001, 200 gpm, 26 Hp)
11 Bag Filter (BF-1001, 300 gpm)
12 Piping/Mechanical
13 Infiltration Gallery
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
TOTAL
LS
LS
AC
LS
AC
LF
EA
LF
CY
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
EA
LS
LS
SF
LS
LS
AC
LS
AC
LF
EA
LF
EA
EA
EA
LS
SF
$33,000 5% of consuuc:tion costs $33,000
$46,000 7%ofC<JnSlruclloncosts 46,000
$6,200 Meens 3 18,600
$32,000 Consullan1 32,000
$2,600 Means 3 7,800
$145 Consullan1. Price -cost 560 81,200
of TCLP and eulllngs disposal.
$6,800 Consullan1 7 47,600
$35 Meens 1000 35,000
$300 Consullan1 63 18,900
$22,000 Consullan1 22,000
$2,400 Vendor, Consullan1 2,400
$3,700 Vendor 3,700
$30,000 Vendor 30,000
$1,800 Vendor, Consultant 1,800
$3,100 Vendor 3,100
$126,000 2 times equipment cost 126,000
$126,000 2 times eaulpment cost 126,000
$12 Consultant 8,000 00,000
$730,000
150,000
$880,000
'UNIT-.COST-S ::>% :•::,f,:{iCOST-tH>::: QUAN-••· •,:;·TOT-AL··• ,si::c•·· · JGsnF',c11noiS J ) •+,+vi t•·•tis\r?
$16,000 5%ofconstn<:tioncosts $16,000
$23,000 7%ofccnstnJctioncosts 23,000
$6,200 Meens 2 12,400
$32,000 Consullan1 32,000
$2,600 Meens 2,600
$145 Consullan1. Price Includes -240 34,800
ofTCLP and cuttings disposal.
$6,800 Consullan1 4 27,200
$35 Meens 1,100 38,500
$22,000 ConsullBn1 22,000
$2,100 Vendor, Consullan1 2,100
$3,200 Vendor 3,200
$54,600 2 times equipment cost 54,600
$12 Consullan1 8,000 00,000
$360,000
70,000
. $430,000
5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
g
I
0
D
I
I
I
I
Lower Dockery Jet Pump System
•:'8M. • !!\ 11 •>•·
'. JN11~: ,UNITCOSTS .. ·····••cosr •• ·: ·•,,,::.:, ' \ , ... ' i <··•··•,s1 })If::: ••·••· llusfii!ic/4fJON°•·•· • ..
1 Moblllzation!Demobilization LS $19,000 5% of construction costs
2 Bond/Insurance LS $27,000 7'11,ofccnstruc:tioncosts
3 Clearing & Grubbing AC $6,200 -ns 4 Site Prep (Access Roads, Silt Fence) LS $32,000 Consultant
5 Revegetation AC $2,600 Means
6 Well Installation (6a to bedrock) LF $145 Consultant. Price Includes cost
of TCLP and cullines disposal.
7 Jet Pump installation (including valves, etc.) EA $6,800 Consultant
8 6" Dual PVC Pipe in Trench, Misc Fittings LF $30 -ns 9 Concrete Pad, 19' x41.S'x 1' CY $300 Consultant
10 Tank (T-2001, 3800 gal) EA $13,000 Consultant
11 Pump (P-2001, 190 gpm, 25 Hp) EA $2,100 Vendor, Consultant
12 Bag FIiter (BF-2001, 300 gpm) EA $3,200 Vendor
13 Air Stripper (AS-2001, 60 gpm) EA $14,500 Vendor
14 Pump (P-2002, 60 gpm, 10 Hp) EA $1,200 Vendor, Consultant
15 Bag FIiter (BF-2002, 100 gpm) EA $1,400 Vendor
16 Piping/Mechantcal LS $70,B00 2 tlmes equipment cost
17 Electrical, Instrumentation LS $70,B00 2 times equipment cost
18 Infiltration Gallery SF S12 Consultant
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20'11,)
TOTAL
Upper Dockery Submersible Pump System
ITEM I•; .. I' . . " : I.',.-....... ,, UNITCOSTs·· ,q0 ~T<i :No> ·, '"'· •. .............. ., '.-·_< (:-; <isl :(/ • .... ····••····· •··JUSTIFICATION. ••••
1 Mobilization/Demobilization LS $19,000 5% of construction costs
2 Bond/Insurance LS $26,000 7'11, of c:onstruc:tlon costs
3 Clearing & Grubbing AC $6,200 Means
4 Site Prep (Access Roads, Sin Fence) LS $32,000 Consultant
5 Revegetation AC $2,600 -ns 6 Well I-llation (80' to bedrock) LF $145 Consultant. Price includes cost
of TCLP and cuttl"9S disposal.
7 Submersible Pump Installation (plus valves, etc EA $8,400 Consultant
8 Z' PVC Pipe In Trench, Misc Fittings LF $7 -ns 9 Concrete Pad, 18' x 38' x ,. CY $300 Consultant
10 Tank (T-3001, 3800 gaQ EA $13,000 Vendor
11 Bag FIiier (BF-3001, 50 gprn) EA $1,200 Vendor
12 Air Stripper (AS-3001, 30 gprn) EA $16,500 Vendor
13 Pump (P-3002, 30 gprn, 5 Hp) EA $800 Vendo<, Consultant
14 Bag FIiier (BF-3002, 50 gprn) EA $1,200 ve.-
15 Piping/Mechanical LS $65,400 2 times equipment cost
16 Electrical, Instrumentation LS $65,400 2 times equipment cost
17 lnfihratlon Gallery SF $12 Consultant
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20'1(,)
TOTAL
5-3
>>QUANC· rr+ITY· .. :'\TOTAL•• ·•:: i$\i'·•···
1 $19,000
1 27,000
2 12,400
1 32,000
2 5,200
240 34,B00
4 27,200
350 10,500
31 9,300
1 13,000
1 2,100
1 3,200
1 14,500
1 1,200
1 1,400
1 70,B00
1 70,B00
6,000 72,000
$430,000
90,000
$520,000
:au~w• , '\/ .uJ !'{\ t•Lfirr•·•:: ., ..
1 $19,000
1 26,000
2 12,400
2 64,000
2 5,200
480 69,600
6 50,400
650 4,550
27 8,100
1 13,000
1 1,200
1 16,500
1 BOO
1 1,200
1· 65,400
1 65,400
624 7,488
$430,000
90,000
$520,000
I j
I
I
~
I
,.
1 '
0 ~ "' 0 f= 0
0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~N ' "' 0 d,
L -U' >, D! .c ' .,.
t;; .c
<8'
'•
= z
• ' ,.
•· M
, .. ,
'>••e~, ' :~o's
' '"1o.
'"i \
.,
'l
l I
l
Cl z w l9 w __J ♦ w _J fr >-f--_J -f-:::, •
\ l '
<.?Z zo --a: f--u :::, .. 0 W_J a:< -(I) Cl zw o:s ow (.? a: .. _JU -a: L,_ w-::;u a:w on. "-en ..,.....,..._
.-_:;:>
,.,,,,~>:: ,-' ,.
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,,,,,,·
.-,,,,---•'
,. ..
0 0 a, 0 0 "' 8 .,. 8 N 0 ---------.-~ r u ul --, 0 c,: Cl.. ;,: "' 0 !l! "" -o=----w c,: Cl..
,.
/
;,: "' ~-"" c,: 0 z <I: ...J 0.. w I-V) c,: w J c,: "" "' . < z ::i WO ... II: -< 00 ► :c N -'-II: ... w II: ~or--, Oz 0 . Q" ,o zO Oc Oz <o :I! :I :c 0 ii: w J "" u Vl :;i !!l c,: w !.!I tj w 0 0 w r §i1 Vl ""
·-·----------·------
/usr4/hydro/70017h/70017h36.dot cgh 12-20-93 -,,.._,.~ .:::: ~" ~~ ..:,:'°;,,; "\ ) I ..:~ ..:-~ / I ..:~;.. I .:;" .. ..:~ .:.~ / \1 . ·\ ~c~ I[ I ... 1 .. I . \ I \ .:,::: . ----------~ ---· -----~---. I \ \~; 1 / I 1 / .\1\ 1!1111// / // / / / // I . I I • " I I I I 1/l J j ' ,, I I I // I b 7/1//.,, I. I l/1/;~//// ¼ (@// // ~;:rJ 1/~1 k/ ;/ \~'"?';, oD -. ' I I I I I 1// -1/ /// I I if ;/0 ' ,/ 9 ~ \ ... )l\1\1 . / / tJ;, -I~ I IC/ ~!! i . (fa/ I J \ //Jr /,ff")' Ar~ , / ( /, ~ 1 1 ) ) . ; ); 1 l.11-:iJ'--N"II G c/"" )1 · ~ / ; ( 1//1·11 I ~ ""~ I /1 I I I ;'I /!;1//, I /; I , '1/:{2 /2,/ ' I i /11 ~~ I ~~~~~~~ --I I . / I I I I I . ' ~,I,,; / ! 1 u,1. 1 .1 , 1 1 \ \ . • "':: , ~ c-1 \ \ 1 , . . 1/ !//$///;!!)///1/1/; >c -_-/~ 1 ( /✓ . fl; ---~ •• I )f/; I ~ '/111////1)! / 1 1 ~r ~ / // / / / / / I . /. . I I -/ · . / / 1 / I I/// ///1 ll I/ I ;~rt I mo' V / -"~~" . r ' I · ~7// --~ "" ~ -\ • \_...J) ~r;----\ I; /If 1(( !~---( ______, ----I.I ~~ -~~~ ~/ 0 ,\~ . ;;;; '"-I I 11/2 r / a / r; );L./4 -9~v /4 \ \ \ '"--...V-~ ~ ·• -•• 1WJ/'. / / / _ _ / / ~~ il~Jmv'~MWl'-12 . 1// ,,, /P/// ~ I\ f ~~~ · . •'~Jv~~,½/!::~ 1/". I / I I I ~· -';:::--\ 1 \ \'.___ ~-. 11-/ ~ --------------~ . --1""/c--... __ q \); \. -• ·r fl 1 / , / / 1 / -~ ~ lff/h'f-M"l ~ " " , / " //), \ ' . ...c;..· / 0 / I i r---;: ---'----:~~,----= ---:::::--: ~~'./ I J 0<2 ~~----~ //, l;__j / \ I ~ / ,-------~ II \, (' .. ,'.';..: :..c;.~•c~ ·-~ /•i I;; ~'--' 1/ ~:::"'/ -~----~~~ ~G0 (~ ' / . ~"''--.._ l~o // i ~--I~--•' .-f--~ \ \ ~ ( ' C--: 1 · . ~ -1-· " • 1 \ \'1 ' ~---: \ \ \ I I // ~ I, I i ~\ ::.-----L!MWJ,';,1S ½-OiWi ) \ /~/1 1,,'Cc ~· /; 1 I 11 ~\ \ C\ D -----:?1/ ~ . 1 ( \II I/\ IA ,~' ·/ · . . 1 , . " ~· ,~m -. IA 11 , 1/ " " • I/ I ,, , \ I ·' ' \ '/' I ;, /1 ) ' '\\ . __::-°'1 JI}§;~ ,~ :__o 0;/ioo f:3 '\:'( IJ\. YI . I _ ~~~ 1 IM/fJr lf'H 11 ~R--,_ ;:~~ ~ ,;,? -... ./,' y;I · · ~ ~t I 1/ .1 ~11 I , . i _ 1/1 , r\1 )1/1-:¾ih~ 0 ill II ( I (!..\L \ I {J I I 1/ j I I! 7ff'!//;i'V/; I '"""-II" I\ ~K~I{; l)~ ·"· ~\: \ ~~~I\ \ \i(~::~1 \ \' I! 1/ 1/ I// \ ';~)~j~1\ I :::~=:_~, • \ ,\ I I \, \ \G WP-' c:._ /2 1) ' , I I " I \'0 ,:::~/I ' ~~, ·~~-------1/ ..:.:~ .:~ ,7.10 .::t";._-1 • ~ \ , , ~ _ I; (; ~ \ \ s ~.... , -, • //' ,~o, ~~ \, \ ( \\ \; ti -~___,.. ¼ I I \ \ I I I I I / \ ', ; \ I O /1/;v .·. • ~~\ ,L¥~P-~i, \1 ;.~ ~ 111 '. \ ,~\\I \ I 11 I I \ ···. \ \1 . "'·' 8 1r ( i I ~2':'.: ",., , \; // \ ---------\\ \~ 1 I,~ p i'~ -------~ ,\\\1~ \ \,,~ ~ ~ \ 1, \1 \ \ I I\ \\ (' . 1 ;;;~c~~~;,1, 1\ ''.. 1:11:~ I 1 \ \~~ ~~~~ \\\1 \\ ((/l!)/111,'! ••" /TN/./\ ~(/7\1\ I ~ 0/ 0 \~ ) ) ~\ \\ \ ~/~I, Ii i /)///Ji I \ I • I \'1, I '1'11\\'i\11 \ \ \ \ i\1111/ ( 1t{ f~ ~// ~~ / 1\\ I JI I '1///i,1 \ \ I ,I l 11 ·,,, \1\\\11\\ '1 1\\ 1 ~ '"''1111 ~~~~ 111 I~• , '-\, ·,~Ii, . , /1!1 ;v/f ;, (\1 \ \\ _ I ,11, • ,/4 I ( \\\, ) -;:;) ::, ';\11\'\1'~\\I \,\ " i 1. /~ \IV;)\,~~~~~: ~~~~\~~i~\ \~i\ l \\ \\ \ 1 11 11-\ 1 , ,, , ,. ,, ,, ,~ ~ , ,, .~11\\>.',, ,I. \ \ \ \ \ (1 \ \ \'1 ~ / ,-._=.<: 1/ ~ ~ ~ ~// ,, \ I PROJECT MGR: P.A. FURTICK ' PHEPARED BY: C.D. ROWAN DRAWN BY: C. G. HAMBERG CilECKED BY: Cb. APPROVED BY: P..J a_ :}w.,1ij_ APPROVED BY: ' APPROVED BY: DATE: JOB NO: DECEMBER 1993 700!7.17 a ~MW-20 • UMWP-11 ■ UMPZ-02 • UMRW-01 200 LEGEND MONITORING WELL LOCATION WELL POINT LOCATION -PIEZOMETER (OBSERVATION WELL) LOCATION AQUIFER PUMP TEST WELL CPUMP!NG WELL) LOCATION 400 600 SCALE IN FEET INC. 800 100 VerdCle Boulevard P.O. Box 16778 111e. SC 29606 Greenvrn 1803) 281-0030 MONITORING WELL AND WELL POINT LOCATION MAP SCALE AS NOTED JULY 1993 MACON/DOCKERY SITE RICHMOND CO., NORTH CAROLINA PLATE NO. c-J ~ ·-0 b QJ. I Ii::: ~ ~ l;_l ,_, . -; 1!-l~j d ,; -:-! ., p, 2~ ::, t:;;.. r;J (l J :,~, "·· 1F < ,;::, 1'-"l l~ ' 1t-· _e R, ~ I} 1¥-
r---~-.......___, /usr4/hydro/70017h/70017h37.dat Jrb 8-25-93 ""--~ ---·-,.-_ / / / ,-, / !L / ' / __ ,-, =11---------t-------------------------~----------------------------------""8----------------"-, j .• -_,. , ''.J ·-l '=,1 . '-,' ,] ,~-'-' ' .. '.i I I I r _ii; , ' .-,-:,,.., .. F '""'."!,· f ,_...,_, --·~ .. , ,, '<"-~ .--,.. ,____ -~' 11. ',, •\ "-·O.K , ·, .. , ' '-;; .'! __ ,,,, ""' ,M,.-._ -----J ' i / i / "' .. , "·" ,,/ i i j u \ '·,, ·»··"" i, •' f ii ,,1 ,: ,; i ,, '\ 1 -' \ '. \ \. 1 ( ; f I ' -c, \ ' \ ·, ' ' i ;/ -,;l -'"' ' -, ' --•i;" --------,_ ··,,----y ------•·--.. ,-------.... , ....... .. ii,;;,._ '\_ ----,.~ \ . ,, . :s, I /-e"'·" ;;!J. ' --, .. ., .. / _,,,, \ ' C \ 't \ f : j j: ;. l f '' " \ ': \ > ::.,;; • j f i r , r ' 1 ' i \ ' \ \ . \ \ ' i \ ,\, ' \ . ,, ' ' \ \ ' ' ' \ s \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ I / \ ' // , If .' / / / _/ / IZJL0111 ', \ j / ./ -i ' \ \ \ \ ' ' \ I / / ' \\ -,, IZl,bp06 I:; \ 7·:·7::~/;~·-, ., , ,_ ,L0050 0~D --·. I t. /;/// ""-· -.c ,> . ..,!-,,, \ 1Z1 C:D09 t 1 -.-,/ >i'J, :;.' \ iij'LD04 "-, __ ';._ •• I 1 , • ,.-, ·L002.l2l• ; LD10~ •• I, /i.;.'' ·,.-,J1l,LD01 ' ,·· .• / / __ / \ ' / ' / / • _/_,/ i LD'O?t2V/,,~,,:1--_-_._: =;,;,,,.->;-,;;·t!r< \2 \-,~\ --\.. APPRoit\MATE aR£AK IN sL~PE __ -,-;,:/ • L'D03~-L·DJ ✓~_y'• -·. ~ 'r,l:2if "i~~ ·• 1:' 1' ': · ·. ': :'t ;:c-ii "":·:: it . ; .! ---fi i ! if -, '-,.--_; ;--r J -/ _.: __ ; j I \ ' ' ' \ \ , , ,_ . / '• / -~ " ' ' ;; \ \ ' \ -\ -;----1 ·--! ! ! ! , ' ; ' I / , : ✓ -/ i ' I ' ' ' ' ' / / -/ ' I I / ! / /,/ -I ,.,_.,,-)' _,,,, ·, / / /-/ / -,-...., ' i ' -; ' ! f /// / / > /. // i ' I / // ! / ' ' / I . .i I -; f/ / / ' ' • / / _,,/ / ; / ._..! ' " "> i ! i / ,/-/ ' / , , 1· _,,/ / ]i;. ; ; ' / / / \ \ ' -\ t _I // / ! .--,, ' \ f'. ' ' ! ' ' \\ / " ' ' I ' I / -, \ \ • \ / • -)! / / / ' / / ' / / /,,/ -/ / ' / ·:// // /,//_// ::: , ~-UD09 /' / / \ _/ / /'/ /' // /· / -0.UDf3 / fuo'oos ,-' ; I/ /-7i~l 6' : ,~~rDl 0 UD121ZI • 1 , // ,/// ' _./" )l:!QO.il /0(;)D04 .,. < --_,_er i 0UD06-,-/ J ' ' ! , / / .f ,_ i / • ' ' fj "' itiJDdsk '1/0 \Jpoi UD1-1~ ' ' ! ,i ,/ / / ' / ' ' " ' .· "' '·-..:-(;.. / \ziutlo;-_,/ ';•-~ ;-• y i "_,: ¥JiUD02 / \ ! I I ,/ \ / • <:·· i / /_/ / ,/ / / /' /' / ·/·i> _,.----, ' w"""" ,; / ~------~~---~;,·---~-_,~,-·· ,'_/ .. _'''.,// ,,~,,-,, -/ -/ ' ' f ///' -;.,, / • // / ;;-,, •:'"· / / --< ; ! ,"'" >" \._,., ;,e'" "'''. (' '"< ~.,, ·,, ~ ',, ,,,.-· \, 1 ... ,! ·1 0UM29 -,,, ---.. ,, '"•·--'•, / -/ / -✓ / / dA --~-"',;-I· /···z:· '.5--s·,"°·· 12l,UM26' \ \ . i I -------/---"' ,,-_,;:,_ , 1Zl/UM28 '" ---~-.. 0 IJM2S i ,, · .. :: :--:::::.:::">·; 1'. IZI U!,'.32' ---' 1Z1 UM35 1 // , ' / -' ' ' ---, ,' / :: ,/ _,,/-· .;;:<;,,,. . IZlUM23 .. 1 ,(© i . N.OT ,SAMPLED jUM2j~:,/--v:/~;'.;~·/"'-/.// .,;:f . '.c.a•/ '' n; i --0llM3!.' . -, 0·UW?< . .,__v._ . -., ... .-.,.--' _,,_ .. .:(""·>-/" l';" ' ,-.. i< /i/>/i ' NO_T//SA-MPL::.D,, _-_ .t:J~rG9 n;UM-. ~, ... r -,_.· / / / / _ c', ,_; · .UM1-4ey-0 i.'.thJ01>-SAMD:t.,Pf) r ! ,;1/;UM4~;;r/~~M16 ~,,;:-,~7, , "· ,. / 0--·-__ ',,,,,_ ... ·, SPRING .. ....... --1/f/i! I h ,, -: ; : ,--.IZlUM27 ·:eu0M20," ' // --, ,;, /_,. ---~·c-""'"" ' :>./~1£; /, '121uMd~':i,li .... _'""o" ,., ;' \ }:, ' \ __ __,,,;; '" ,·;;+~ ,,._, ", ", ,,, '"i ------, .·.';::::o.-.. '"+•·--,-' / g '""'"'""'''-'"'" ! .. ! i .. _ ,' -/ ; ' ,./ ;--• ,:.___. --'/ ' :_ ----,,)._ ". •···0llM34, ......... ...,,., ,.-,r··· f , c;, :;'" -------··:srv--... , .. _ \ J \l?JLM/$ ~ --·" . ...... ,·"' "'-''~-"-:::-,,,....~" ' -i ,12)~MlS ;\ lZI LM08 -LM040 -IZI LMi'4 ' ' 0LM07 ,: -'•--. i : i ' \-.'<,/ -/ ----<:::<i: ,·_•;.: \\';l-~'i_/ 1Z1 LM11 \ · ,.-, ,··<''---, IZlLM05 IZl 6,Ml 2 IZJLM03 ' 'NOT SAMPLED \:'-.. : I \ ----.. "~---'\'=---,,-_ ... , "--'-c--,' \-' ,-,,, ··;;:.:.., ,, •, ' \ 'f ,_../ \ \ IZl LM.1 o ' ! 121 LM01 -------'t \ IZILM09 LM1 Ei0 ' i LMl 30 LMJ 712:r ,,,, \\ ·, \ ' . ';l@LM02 \ ', \ '\ ·,0 LM06 ,j!i ! \_\ it ~-::·-~~,,,.,~,-,,, -0t.'r.1 e ---------.... --> '" ., -~-.. , .... ___ ! . , .. __ ___ "• .. , ..... ,..--,.c'" [?IUM2 t, ,.-' ,:,..--,-,· .. -----,_.,,.,.--'_,---' -uM36 0 ,_ ----'NDT SAMPLED /i.07T,1rii j ·-;0uM065 ;:'-;<•'JO,'/'. ' _,,_._'(·,,:'.">:tz_-\ ( i i' ·---. .. , .. --~-',,, ''--'· ' c' \' ,_ f i: /IZluM19, ,' >~/ t: "/ _",,'. j ,iv;;:;J;:1// ,0:/' i · -;--, IJM1 7 IZI l2l <NOT "SAMPLED ' ' t', \~\ , '\, i /_ -/. \ \_ ; .... -, ' liii ---0· .,.~ ----· " -,,.,, ...,. .. ----r-, "-, .. -., ---..... " ,/ ' ' i \ \ ,,,, , __ .. , <, ! J---::< __ /' <~--~:: · "'" ' ., .. ,.-"' __ ,.,... .. i ' fr' .. : ;;· ----·"" ' .... ~ '.$ 1~1U~} ,9/i<'ft'.;h" IZl!JMQ? ',', '/ -F ,:_,-/l -~u1.1.1:1 ,IZIW93 , ; /cif/t<":{' 0UM\i!>I ,---;-•I -f-,-'--,~J: ~" , IZl 1JM05 ' }. 0l.lM13 i · ri /-/ ,.-_,.-_,-/ , -1.JMoO. /12";_//i -' ' : \ ,., .. , -C \,.---------, "--.. ! ', '! ·, e; J! ' /!! j ' ' ' ,, ,;' ;; ;:-, ' -\ \ -,--' ,-" -' ,~:-+ ''"o~,, , ~;., ;,: ··+ \j ;\ J,., )! "i , ... _,,-.-. ; ; '" "•'--.., ;'.: ',,. ,-,.,.'"' .. i".'C ; ' \ i ·,r.:c----, , . ., ,-.}:, -, .... --\ ! f_; ! \ ' _,.,-_,,, ... ' '-·-f ';: ., ,, i ~----~/ _ __,/ / '.,,, _>· I ' _jj '---"\-,. y . ; ' < -· --'·"ii\• .,-,,· --~; '"-~--,----..... , ___ ,,,, . ' \ \ ">-' j \' 't---.. "j --~---\ -¼ \ \\ ,_, ;<, \' \ i \ ,\ , ---"''' --, ... -"'' --,_ '-,> ' s! --\ --'~ , ... , .... " ' -.. / .----"""'"••.-~---•.-=--.. /_. ...... -:1,:,-", -... ____ , ---;_,, ., ,,_ ' .-_./ '•·.,.,__ \ -~ ''--. ' }, ,-., ... , ,.,, );, __ _ <--· "-.---_,.. // /I/ ~•+' ----,~ / =-=~--,,,...,-,--~-,~,=--, ,,, ' . -:· ~___,_j f I ! ,,_ ' ·"J' ''·--L / / f :/ -/ : ! ' ' / ---. -' •!· " -,' --:,;-' /./ ! -.. ,"_ "· ' ' ;:, ' •---~/ -------,. f i / \J ,.:,-;f· '=. \ i ' I' ' J -~--i. ,;! PROJECT MGR: PAUL FURTICK PREP:,,R£D BY: C.D. ROWAN_.--, DRAWN BY: ~ .HAMBERG/J/BAGWELL CHECl<.ED BY: {i/D,J:· .1:Z --l.L ,,:·.._ .. D1,,--' :;___:; 0 // I ;1: ' : -/ 0c -! ,./ ___ , __ _ 1Z1 UM26 .:~ 200 f -LEGEND UPPER/LOWER MACON/DOCKERY FJELD SCREENING LOCATION . ~-0-------"'---, _____ . ___ _ 400 600 800 ------SCALE IN FEET INC. -100 Verdae Boulevard P.O. Box 16778 Gr-eenvilie. SC 29606 (8031 28!-0030 1,-I )! • ,,,,-,, DO_ t:". y, •.."/,, ,.........,.--t·~--·--IA,' ROV .... D B .• 1.~'.'.,_14 ,_,.., !:" ~/,:-lf1,:,-~ APPR1()VED BY: ("'-. FIELD SCREENING LOCATIONS JULY 1993 i i o r: ,(.)1 '· ,.,. _,.;,,/, APPR©VED BY: DATE, AUGUST 1993 JOB NO: 70017.14 I • {; .1i½;XL· SCALE AS NOTED MACON/DOCKERY SITE RICHMOND CO., NORTH CAROLINA r" --~-, PLATE NO. 2 ,. -.:: [., ~-·-'-'I -· :01 ,,: -Ir-;:, ! f I' ,I I 11.; I' , I! I II I t' ii, I lk 'i '7 ' I .l ,! q Cf)I ii ~ 05 s
_,-..~-,;_, -----·---...;.-· ---/usr4/hydro/70017h/70017m20.rem .,/ j cgh 10°26-94 ~'"" ,L .. ·:,L ,-.✓! 'it "\_ \_ .--.+;, .,w. """-·-·~. .. ,b _,,,-. ' --./ j i ~ \ \ / \ ' --s;-·" .,,+" ... .k: \ \ .-,k, ... -0' 1 \ 1· -,:~-/ / ,, ' ' .i -\ / , ' , / ; I ', -'"'" ! .--.,.../ _,,,. -~·· t20.-5 ._,. , .. _:,k; / // -l ,.-/ -· ; ; ' /', ' / I j I \ \ '\ l \,: . i , I I ' ; -\ / ·, ,, '··--..,_. ·-., ' • ... '· ' "·-\ \ '•. '-, ' '•, ·", ',,._,_ . ' . ,_..._ --------/-.. ' f """'4, ., "···' "· -oS<---/ J \ >-\ / ; ; ,cc., \ .. ', --\ ---,..__ '· '", ..._,,__,, ; ... , \ \ \ .. --_.,-' )( "''"""'"· ..... ,,, .... \. '-,, ( ,-/ • ' ; \ \ \_ ( / . · -~----~--·----·----·1 . I! ----------------· ----·----·-----,---'----.. - --& !/-! / " " I/ /f ' / \\ ._, 1 ' ; • \ • ; • \ ' " I /e-; ; -"·· 0 )·-' \' _/ ! I / I ! ! ! \ ! I ' ' , ' I ' ; • ; / /' ,.,~-.. ••"" I / / ; / .✓/ // / // / j, _/// / / // / " / // ,/ / \ . . -~-~ "" __ _ / / " ' " / / I f / If ,,i / I ,//' i / I --\ / I / If. ,j,"' _.,../ / 1i' '• / / ' II I / I /,/ ' / f /· / "·--------., '" y "-~ .. ----'•,.,. / -; ' / ·\' -,i"" X ... ' ' ,. / I ·--.....·-· I f , f / '¼S'"v..,, / / ! J . ,,r "-,. ---•,. "'"" / __ ._., .-,~!. ., ·;.; / / I I/ I I ·~---'-.,._.__,,,~~-•~•W" ' -.. / I <;)) ---,-,,• ~-u••··• /-'•\ f ', I f \ \ ! \\ ·-·--.. _ ··-,, .. , '-.,-,,, \ ·,,,___ ' f -·-_,;,_ MW· 21, --'l"K. 0.003' j i . , .... / f / . ' ·' f f . -/ / -\ ! / ! I ··'------.... ! ! f \,, ,,,_ .... . ' / \ • • \ -.. , '•,. ·,, ' 'Y :! . \ ' ""'-,, I \ / I ; I t I -, __ / //'/ _/ l -f ; '· ·--........ 1\ i~r ci~?2SAl ' ,.___ ~---~ .... ,. .. ·,,, ···UM35 --~-.... '""-,'o___ -..,.,...._____ BPS .. ·~l1"5"''"r-· "'""'"' >-.,:·•-gp-5-... (35') --..... ""· ·,. • _""·"-•-""'¼. '""-,....._ __ ---"-.,{ '""'------·,-.,~ ... ------I -UM240 . · "''' ·-@ •.... • · ... A-b o· 02 c12·-"• . ·-' ._ ... ,,,,-.... ":~-. ,,-,--. "·· . . -. )•,,._' • · ,. _. -...... UM31 (UMC3fl6'<,,• BPS (UMC24BX3'3' ·· .,_BP-5,(33') _ .. . " / / / ,/ ,./'/ / ' / i ' --¼ --.. ~----. ~~~1~c';;~Rl~G~E ADJ. _, ,/" _., .... --__ ,, / / / ·/ / 1' ' / / / ; I ! / j ~.-•"" ,---"'" ______ ... _ _,... _.,.,. .... -" -~-_,-_ .. ,.~;.::<.~-'·" ,' _., /]JM'21·1 .--"BPS CH'l _.0 / /' /" ,-/ --,. jilf' f /UM36 NOT SAMPLED , ,, / // X '";' -~••" \ l ' I • i / ' leuM25 / -H-0,013 C20') f _, '\ f I ; f ' ' i . / f / i ;· I I I f i f ' " / / ./ / / / ' I / ! , j / / • ' / .-' f ! / i I /j/ / / / / --/ / / / J\ \\\\,\ -'.L{1~ }\Y;1;, / L,v::.>· __ --• .. --~ .. o--•-~>\1:--~;< __ /:/?",. / \\\\'\ ,'-?,l,;;n·,2 ;::: --, '~,, _,.,,.,. __ _.,-_.: .. / /, /_.-.-. . ··,,\·, ,, ", ,-, ,=,, r•,/ /j"' ,. , ,· ,• / ,--•_-·, \,,, ,\(--J,:_:,..,,,j -✓ __ , ,,¾,--.._/ /,' ,..,,. .... , /: /· )' / / / / ! ( ·,, \. \;-\ \ '--"""-----~.l-:J,-' ,,-.,-···fac -',, "'/j __,. (.,J ,./ ,,--! / ' "-l \ '\\\.'-.__ --~·-"""', ,'/ / /'(( ,-(.-/'// ✓ ✓ _,, _,/ / / / ,,,; -f y,,_,·.·""' ,,z_"----/Ji') .,, -✓ !" -· / /) ,;__/;; ., _/ '•,i•~\:::, ... ,':>x.~·-/ , //:.,)-[/" _ _,-);---✓ ,./ , / /' / ')·" / '-.,-., •: •, /' /' --1: i/ ✓-,,--d ./--/ / /-/ :,.· ' /--~-.. >''.-:."''o._ __ ,,L ' 1' ;,,,.;.>,;-:,-_,/· __ ,.:f.,...-✓" __ ,--·· /' ,./ / / _/ .' / i / ~, .... _/ "'·/-~"''.' .......... ,.!. . .__.,,,</ /,,.-/J/' ,../ ,/ ,/ _....• / _/ ,I / ) / ; / /,-,•' ,/· ..... 7;,..,~·/"""'":"'""·:··---/--:---·;Jji/" ,: / ,... ./ /·' _,,..--·· ___ ,./ // _/ -.... _, _/ ;' ' ..,. /,-;-//I__, l· / .. j /_;:; .·,.;.._,., __. /' . / , L, / _--/r/·· .--.-'-i' •. /' / _,. /·// / / / ,; _____ ,-----// /..--_..../</0~'.'.~;:!;>:::/>' _/-''-' / _//~-<>/ _./.,,---,--/ // li / / / ----// _1,--~ / _(/ ./ / / / / / / ,/ , / ,/ ,✓ /' i" / : ' ,/ / / / ----' .._J. _/ ~ _,.,.,-/ ,,' ' / _,, ,' ' / ' '/,/ ,,,~,,,,_._. / , .. ,' ' / / ~, /f ./ ,/ /' , / J-----'' /""'--•y: , .... r" _ _,..,,,,. ,/ / ., .. f ·/. / ////.,,' / / ..,_,,,., / ,_,, /. )_/ / /////'/ ,./ "'_,/<•<-,.:> _/ /~/ /-:;,:~✓·"· P,.,..·: {_-/ -· _. , ( / .--/ '.-·· / / -· I /; . //-/(·'' ,-./-;.-/./ ; / ,// . ; ' __ ,-. ,,~ / J __. / / ,~ / ·" J; / , /I· / __.; -/ : ' / / /_-,-.,._;//,// .,.-, -·f'·" ; / (,y--,J ,/ >/// / /// ); ",/., . ,· ; / / / .. / / "-' / ' :>!':--. / '// • '; / i / ,,, :/ ' . '/,: \ / / ; / . ' -; • ; / ' _/ ., / ,-/ / / , ·' .• ' _,. ,·. ' , . ( / / ' _, -"' ,_ / / ' / / .'' ,/ / ./ ./ / / / _,~i ,./ /<~-,1,,;;,-------/ .. ·· . ·' _; i / / / // _;: J / /~;, .'/ \c -/ / / / ,/ ,/ J ; / _,/ / _/· _,/ / . ·' /~(./ ,/ _. .. / . _/ ,./ /' ; / / / :'r1 \ / / / -' ,_,,;, v-,,. , / .i0UM23; / _/.., // /· ·-..r -·' /,, / ,.,--_,./ .-' / ,, , ; ---_, / ;_/ ,-"//; ,/ ' V. > ·J / / NOT /S·AMP-.LED/., /. ;-//' /'>(· / . / /' _,..,/ _/ _, / 1 i // .,. ;,A/,-: / r ··;,; ..... ., , ; / / 1 __ ,-.--/ _ .. • ./ 1,r1 _; / /' .·· /' ; /' ; / l f / ; / / ' ; /. , '1 1 ' , / / .iUM32 / / I " 1K 0:006 (23')/ ; _, J / / ( • ' ' . ' -, , j !/ / ,·; j ; I . /_ ; ! ; , . l"~-. .J r f . / ! ';:_/ , , ... / ,... .. " .. / _../ /·";-/' / /' -"'.,-_.. _:/ /' J / .-' l / / _/ ,,.., I -' _/ / ,_,.,,,,..~UM2_,, ; / / / ,.., ✓·,.--/~f--" / / /( / ~-/ ,· · / .1 _, : ; , , ;/ _, .,.c,' 1·" ,c / ,_.· _-•~ • _., , _, __ ,-" , . /T•-< / i i / / / ' , • ,•' ' .c ·' -/ -; -]•:.f'(},T""·,s'AMf'-L£D-<·_.,),:,..--,~,--~/ /MW--,-.,L / / ' / / ;· / / ,-j / ( / />,{ / / " / ,-_.-. -.. -,. -·•· .. , _,_ , ' E 0 01 ,. .,_ 1 1 .~/ . -' / ,. / ,/ .. -'--/ / / . i • /' ,-/ _i , I j ! / ::------. .( / ,. _,UMO! ( /H/0-.0-27/ •'o'/'--/ / -/ , ; ' , , . ;-c 1 -·; PS . K. 0""6. • --·, 'X . · , ·, · f / ,"_,'.,_,.' / _i(3~' i ,, _,;v . .,.. / '," ..-/'"'~•/ I '1 , ,,-/' _/ .1 --, ~,. , -, _, -a --f?S -,,. . NCkT:" SAMP:UED , / / , , , · ./ / / • / / / .-~< ' ' I / /,/ /~,/0/>l]B Cf7'> ) MW_~--b7/-~/ · .,.~/ ,~.k:-JM15'--.... ",.....<~ , / <~ <>/ , / r·,:' ;/ UM0'7/ (UMC07A/DLi ' • r , uM·o~,--',,I!/ }'$_ ' > ,/ , ', E O·O.,, ;·· _--_/ , /' ~ ,/ ,' /"! ::' /,' //~,.' ,,, I . ,., 1,;C47ll; /~'--",·•.,,,,; 1 /H 0.009<'48.'Y</' \1<~// / <J/ ., ; ,; j ! / ! // / ! /-' } ! / .i / / • ; -' / .-, • ! • UM27! ' ' ' / / -1. H 0.006, C15'), / / i i /K:l'.).2'8,[)(47') ! .,; _/M•w·' 0-·2/ ~, .. /' K/0'·036''<'"'8'l..-,/<, ..,//'·:>. _,.,-., ,.-// i ... ; ) ! f ! / " • • ' · / / / ' . 7 J/X/ / / / .. ' c~)~4;'57C47~l11•1{.,~$~0a1o;/ H)~ 2~~~;f1;~/:~;//; >"":/' ! / •, •' ' ,• ·'MW O"'A· .r ·· ·· ·· /Iv 0'.013•(,4·8'' <'.' -' > , / · , ~ ,_, ; / ./ j · -_. .2. ·· · .---RW-01 ./ ,.. / ·· • / -/? ;· · ..-/ -<u / -' / " , .. · // / / / / / _ ... ...--I 2 'J :.:-. :·: Jj I c:-1 ,K 0'.013 C15t! '•// ' , , /:,if '·' . , ; ' I( jj 0r11 ; •K· n' 03.. /!/··' / , /,,-·,r / / ' r '''/ \J ' . ' / / ./ '·/ // ~;{_"'/ ' / '.-, 1 .,.., '>' '( __ / /<i.i/, _ _.,-··:.)\,/ ,/ / / ' / ,, ./ / ,. , -,. .. /-.--. __ .,_ , • i./1/ _0.MJ4, .-,y• _,, .. ··-.;/ ;' ,• , , / ,, / .· ' , ,. .. / . -"'"·'· -· . . . ,, _.--'.'-•".· _, .... / .-,.-/' _, .. ' l/1--/ · , f'-,/_/.f'E-····'Or:02s &4:B'•r·:::;;;-::-/ / ,/ ./, / i' ,, . / . . ' ,·· -!' ' , ' / UM20 -, ;K 0.024 C1Yl 1 I / / ; / f ' ) .. ,-; UM18 _::;.,. / K .0,02:4C25'j... / /__./ .'• J ~/''if _// ! E 0,056' C24~; K 0.049/24') /: .·· / ;:-.· / / . y ,-',./ ,-.,-(,,;,--/'" 1 -'V ,' •• ,. <>:/ ,/ // -,-c/ ' ,, ., / f / /' ,,-,.J,,,fh.ii /f/--:;-· '71 0.0,19 /t4-8,';.J,;'.' / / ----, _,-.· >;, ,: j'. · :r'• '/' I"' .!''/ ,K -0.0-70 (4'$-'1,,J/~"'<o-:· /'. ,,./!' /~J.~~riw <48') '-•''"' _ -,.. 1 // // >/,./,,_,~f'/' :/ •• \,; , // . _,K/P.,01.0/ (48> -~ -<:>,>.::~tf,, ~ >:~/_. ' / , ), ---.,~.------;, /' "f _... SR'S' // (641 /euMoa<.tuMAOSAl.:,. f -/>/:,.----/-?>··· /" ,-,\ // / MW-08 H D.,l.lQ·r\4,8'};;·,:· ///, r // /· / !' ' f,i -' : 'ii'_;,• ... ;'._· ·-./'i ,' ,, / l"'./H ... jQ.p.~:~," ,, , -;:;:>t~;,z:, ~::??~r(_.,s~~\),f :. , ✓ <;"'>t.,,/ / ,1 ,_ ,J .... ,-\·-.. ,., ... 1 , ; , I -~"\. .' ,-.!·If' ,; !QM10" ";,_ ir,\; -" /"•" i ,... i / ,. . 1 r ' ; ! "j'/l/{4'.:_,4/•· :; _, /. _., ;<-., ''\.,. ,·_;', c / '·~,t ,. :,.°"' ·i MW-08A ' · · ·· .· ·, , , ; H •0"03· 3 (• o,) --;, '•'/ ; I ; , , • '" _ ,, ,_, ,1.c ., ,"·, ... s .-...... ---7 _,. , _. ,-_.a , ~-.,._. , , I --·= , ff ,=· .. ' ' ' /-' ·-< :----,;1 -'/ / f., .. :;,--·._. ' ·, · -' i 'i, 'o,.,_;,__ i : ' ) ---· ,J ,. ,,,.,.,, ·K'ooos'~o·'.---~" ;•··+--__; -... ,,~~ A.,,~,,_ , ~·--/ .r--· ,/ ,,.--· / :/ -.-,---, , .. ' -_! / ! I .C:.·' { ,.,, 2 ... __,., .. -/ ''>--; ,. 1/ ? / --~ .. e,· ' ' . --~~-',._.-·--,· .f / I } •, /, .. ---·, ~•--.;,, .... , __ _'-{ '• '; ~;;., ; -. m, ' ,,,, , .• .. ''" -/ ,.., -< I , 1? /"/ •E'0,010 • I :/'/ "1 !> i '.•i•K.'0 0481(48'), i '"'j· " . ' //', • ~ 0.022 <,. / ·;,•---<.(.1·1_Y ,/,''.:-.. 1·, .• --H .. ;OJOO~ {?70'lf····-,--:::::-c,, •. -.. :.. ---,:,:, ___ ,.---~, // ·:--..-' / · ''5,),~ .. ---,4,,_,f;p· .!-/ / ,.--/,;._,' ;\I _,Ji /i / ","'i--.,; ,~~ .. ,_,,., ,' ,-"~"~,'---'' ,,r ' / ' -~~--' cl ::, "'L''~; ,·,-'·-:< ._:' _.--!//\ I / / ii Ir UM02/ ' f' 1,-... -'-~ -, '~-w .:'"« ·:c~·;....:::.'::c~,,;.c;:,:".' .. ,4 ~-/ ! MW-05 i; !uM11!, /'./'..:; :: ~tP-Q5'5/c48'l),1 >'"-'!.. /!'''"/''~ \!. .,-,.~""" ·~--.. '"-----~·-~··"""' \ -~--\ "'-• '"''o'"· / / ... __ ,,,,w""' ,,.,·· ---,,.~" ···-'o, ,,,~ :; -",~----'"~ "·•· ' \\~ [ \?--¾-..~"-'"', ., '• ,/ "~, ···, ,.-.,~;. ... ~-~" I ,/ ! ! I / / ,/ I -f / I ; ' ; j j f ; / I -· ; f ; ,",, .......... -----~,, ~-, .. _-,, ' ',; .. :--·•; ~:--'t\ ,\ \ ''--\ .~LT e<:iM34··'it)1.,tl:,j411) \,, -rK 0\013\c:i?', { \. { \ \ \ l ,•; ·,\ \ ; I -c--;-,,c ; ' i ', ,, ~·-\ -~. ,,J_ '· ··-.,., -----""-i ; ·, .-\ -,-,-' LM15 0 ·BPS't15'l " !.// g /, \ \ ; ' / I ;, \< ~~ ,. MW,12 · "··· .. .. •/'·'BPS (!); .. .--. 1>.. ,,,_ ; '· _,,,:,,.;.,._ . . _ t:M08 . __ ---------·"-.. :..----.. 0.~--..... _ .. ,_ .. ,#/' -'-.. \. '•,,)'{ "' '1""" .-/ _ .. '--7Vf' ~1~,c ' .. , ,.~. --· --BP--5-,. (;\l',~-__,,., ... --~'"",-...__ / _.J ; ; ; . ,. \ \ \ ) \ . -----·-,/.;-~~fJtJ~~:17~::;:;;~,I;~ ,~ , -.,_ .~MW-14 t-M04•-'-••-·--. · ' / • \ ..... ,, •. ,., ... , ........ ,. MW-14 • -•.-.· · , .. ,,. E O 010 (4o'l "·-...... ·,, "· ~. ,, BPS;;··;·, y',, lf•"O:llOiT45")'·•--,:·--"·<'•,., i,/ • .-..__ , ' ,.._ ' ' '· ,,., -.. " ,, ' ,, '' \ ~: /// ' \ ·, •,., ••. ,, 1 , \ ~j ",. ' · K Os.Ol7'"'(4·5'·)~ -"'·"" ,,. "· ..-/! , ·, LM14 CLMC114Alll ; i . ···•·,_ ,:,,/ k. 0:012. (CMC04Bl t58'l ...... /_ .. ,::,~ LM20 . -. f ; I ---:· ! ; f/ \ 1-~-! ·1 J -, ! ~ ;C ; I , 6 / .' 1_•.;/i .· ,l_fl, _ ,· UM17 ;/ I EI O 024 ~ . . '.007' '>18'•) :! ,'I Jt 0;035 C48')i; /• j, /, . " •' · ·· ·"··•-· ' ·Ko·o37 -·i· A • /I Hi 0,022 i!A-L0,014 ;(48'l'.' , i ". -(.48'XJ / / r, / / -. .. / t Ki 0.016 / v!Kl 0.0,19/ (,fS,) / ' .. ;A 0,005 ,(6a:r1 I I ! · 1 ·-SAMPliEDI "• l/f;-Q,915, ....... /<!\i',D:j911f48'l/ / ... ,Hp.063;C66'l/ "1.! .· '. ,, 1 / /,/ I ~if \:::1,<u~t~~~;, ;oT /' . i<DM;./:a3" T 1-,.;( ,1, j (!/J6Mo3 1(UMCd3~DU j~,,g1gg5 rn~:i . '1~.f -'/ · ---' I · Jr i.wJwWA-<tLl ;n ")7r, ,r:;JJ•,' ,~ .. ,! ! fl. ... , i' • , ' \ '-, ~-" /'") ';-' •-. /--<,,: :'..~/'"i' --,--• I ,,. .,-,. _.-·/-r ~¥,(2"#~}7+· } / A' ;-. . f 1· J-'•<; / . / i ' / ( ,{ . / j _;:;.:, ,· / (' ,· 'I·• -J!' ,, /) ·/ I , I ' , -/ J-' ; I /// / _; ' i f , ! ! f / / *--; . -/ ; ! /~,-8•8~~ A 0.005 (50'J t:.' iMlffV:2 -.,/ , " · 1 t: 0 ·14--. ~-o.Oo7 cso-1 _ k• lf\ ,_-0,035()#·,,E'.c 0.,023,)69'' 1, , / ' • .K 0,016 (50:l , '• ,H:. 0',031, D ,H 0;027, _C69>J,// /. ' N 2-.96 /A 0,014 (67'); ' I I -K D,03\'0-K: 0.008");(69:,PJ '_; I H 0.0,7 .(67') > / .L) 0.36[)\ , i /// / J' K p,012 ,c67'J" , . I ; N 1.,76 \ . mJ'/ / / , I , I! , r · ; , ;/ / /MW.:--10 .. / I ,1 • f / ,. / i _! -' / •• / 1--": .,/ , _,, N/Q''>ii;,''Zr> ff ;f.C_-· !_; f.; /• ,· ·" ,•' >i •~-.,;,J' i f .' ;~: ! !i ; i ; . { ---✓/"---:/..--_/" i -·>'''' >'1:f.'f,,",'/_;.r(J /,/\ , ;L /" ! / ; -, , _, . ,_ ' . . I ;.-," .. ;• ;,_..-' .;· t. , ,• ·' .· ." --.. _,.-' .,.~ £'50')/ /./ /' /(; !'./ 0,013 !cuMC13Bll51{·" / . '' ,/-/' i.1}_iff •f . . . . . / -i' .12lAJM3Cl>,. ••• BPS!.{58•) i-i ':,-' .. ; ; ,_ ' ,•" ,. ' '"( '~->-'"'°' ; ( --; f , I ,. i , ' f ; ' \ • < ; / ' ,, '\ ). ....... ,,. ,:------.,. ' --~--.. , ,,.:.:: .. .. , .. , ____ _ ,•-....A .,. ,,,·.=-• ,. . ' \ \ ,\;.' ; ' . MW-11 BPS <D CDMW-11A. --,-f.-' BPS i 1 ''cc s-; -,--'---•."' '-i , ! ; I /; < , -::r -.. ; '"70 / // ,.:/ /-,; 'I' ,y' ,, \ / 7C c.; _.,, // /' ,,,,.,_ / J / f ' _,.-· ,-MW·0,1,t]) i" BPS/,-' ;! ,,.-" -/'" ' / ! / '?. , .. , , .. _..,,="' X ,_.,,, ... --~--··. -.. , .... '""·~---.......... .. ,.-::. ,,,"' "~---'""~,~~ ~•w;"•-•·•·~---" --------... ,,_, ., . -~-c·-• ,-"•" .... • • ..._ c"--' _-'<• •., "·'o~. // "·,.'o , .. ~·'"' \ / / / ( _/<;. / /"' • .. --,-.,·· ·---. \ \ f \ ·-,,, 275 3 '\, I // / // i / f / . //' / I 2 ~: '••·,A ' --,,. \ \, '\ ', ', ; ·,•,.,____ ;c;; '? 0 ,. -"" \ • ' ,.) ,, '"' ''.). 4 , __ , ' w··"'" " ... ,.,,,. ·-·;·~--.. .. ·~ •. ""I'' i -✓ ,_...,. '·--... . ; f ,-../ _.,.,,.--· ''i'. ,:; --'•""·· \ \ / ;,:: 2 b .. : ti \ \ /" / -----~ ... -"'-·--,, ---,,, / / ,, ,. , / I \ f \ I :.( i'.>5,9 I_. /_. ' '• , ____ _,..-! -/ / "< ·----, ··, ·-,. ___ ,. -~'.,,. Cd ,,.➔ .. ~--ll''""' _; X --,,. ·:r .] / \ °''--........._ ' )L,, \{ ,,,,._ ,., , . . --... , \ ';---, -\ \ \\ ---.',, '-, , ... "'·,.,_ ✓.-. X -···-·"~· / \, \ ' \ ; ' • .. \ \ \ \ ---.., .. \ ,(,/ '· 'f..,. .~ \ \ \ ·--... ,,, -.. "''-'o ,. BPS,.•(25') . i ; · "-LMQ7r/',:i(' / ' ::,,,_ "··---·K 0,()08 137'1 ·,, I • • , 0~8 (2Q') ; . ,, ' .• "" , '· , " , . ·-_ ,, ,, BPS (39 l n ' . ,,_ , f Q.008 > 5;) / · • -•• --------,,,,.: "•-\ / ----.. .,, \,_\ f ',,, ' .. b\ --\ ·..., .,~•·-., '·-.;.._, "-"-.,_% LEGEND 0 UM10 .LM10 ~MW-9 (D MW-12 ----~ ,., -· ' -' ... ;;.. ,;.,, '-----~-~¾ ·'""•--~;-.------,_;.,," '' .. ·,,'.-~';--, --.. ·:: -~, .. .;.c;: ' ~•W •~·-m••-• • • "-"' -~-->----" ----,..., ' ¥""'" '"~-\ \ _,.--~------•"' ...... _ --.... _,// UPPER/LOWER MACON WHERE PERFORMANCE ,/' -,., ... -,-\ / ,,,----__ ., ....... ~ .. FIELD SCREENING LOCATION STANDARD NOT EXCEEDED. ... __ UPPER/LOWER MACON FIELD SCREENING LOCATIONS WHERE GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDED PERFORMANCE STANDARD UPPER/LOWER MACON MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS WHERE GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDED PERFORMANCE STANDARD UPPER/LOWER MACON WHERE PERFORMANCE WELL LOCATION EXCEEDED. MONITORING STANDARD NOT AP-PROXIMATE LIMIT OF GROUND WATER EXCEEDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CLINE IS DASHED WHERE INFERRED) --,#'" .\ ·,-...,,, \ --.. , ''··• ...... \ ' '''o,..J, ... -4 = .. ;)<c. -.-<--.--'x \' '· '-'\, ; -'\, \ '•,, f f \ \, ' '· _.,._,_._ \ ., \ \ \ / \ \ \ \ ; ' -,--....;.c.c)?. \ \ \ Br:S (4() \ \ \~\., t","1·----./ ~-.. -. ...._ - 1 =-_,_ .-.,:..... \~ -\ --\-•·--"", "~ :\): \-.:0·\ .. ,::r-•-----.. ~~ ---·,,,_ ... < : \ \. ·-'':::.. ~\) •"\ \ l i'·•-.~. "'~• · ~: '•--.., + I •,o'½ ,0. ' ! ,,,~ :\ " LM16 BPS \ \ \ ~""!""\).,_\ \ \ \ ---""--· ~\.. • • \ E 0,0!1C55•J\', \~· ... MW.·04c-,,, ' 1 ' ' " ', • "' K. ·00····9·3·' . ; ' ' • ; w.:J '. ' ... . \LM12 ; ._ i \ \ \ LM0:3 ,_\. : i 'f· ... ·/; \\F J0,070. C25'l . \ \ NOT\SAMPLfDi/.\l \F:o.101·\c41') \ \ '; 1~1•ri wt("J . l ' . \ ' ._ • J'., _. ,_, ~--.. _ ' . \ , ·. !i,-f E 0,037 \ 1 I i L K 0:))2 \~ ' 1 '" . .. " i. -~->-, () \ .. "-'~•-"' ~ r-r1 r,.4r,,1,:,,r ··¥_.,;r f' 12.(471) \ \ .. ;\0\LM02 /""<""' . \ LM09. CLMC09A) ! ! , BPS (53') . ,.,"; ; ; -1. \~ \ I \ . \ \ \ \ \ \' \ ' ' \ . . '·E 0'036 C'9'l. · ' , --.»-·· \ 'c ,• ' • ·, ,.J \ \ ... --:::"°'; ,,._,'W"'' \,\ \,\\ \\ \\ LMOfi ,. ... :::;:-~~i,,,~:=·'·=~"--:: __ ~~., " \ \ '\'< \ \E .. 0.1);18 C5'5 ", .• ,, ----,, \ \ ' \ '· \.-.. ,.. ·--·--..... ·~ • ' ' ,, '-' ' -.__ ~/~ . . --.. i ' .... -., -----. .. .. , ' \ E \O.Q23 (4.p'l ''•0., ... _ _ \ \., \ \ . . LM18 ---........ ,_ . . . BPS C46'l .. ',, ' . \ ' '· .. _,_ "· .. _ _,.,, -{-.:. .. '0 LMW CCMC_17Al · BPS (45') ·,, ,,'o., ~--~ .\ ' \\ ' . .. ' '".:::::-::~~:·,, ~--•-~>-\ ,., ,,,, \ ·,., ··.,, \ ',,,_" ·•,,. \, '• ""•~-, -~ .. ·--., " J:-· .... ·~-. '•-. .... ,, eh,,"""-; \ \'i f \, I ! I "----. \ \ ,/ ,.c' ; .. ··-.., \ \ / \ ...... __ I'" ·:> ~ .... .,.,_ ---. ., .• , ,,,_" ,-.. ., __ -----···~-----.. , , i' / ' ; ; -~ \ L , I ' / . · ...... '"-. .. ----~ ... ",~ ''¾,_, '••----"'-, .... ~. -; i ' { ! ; .\ \ ; j ; ; . \ I -l '• \ I ' ; ,.-, .• 1-\ ; ; ',· \ \ \ ; :1 "\•, .• ;------\ ; ' ' .. \.. \ f <" ~---_i ; ·>.'o--' ....... "•~----....... ""'-·~·-'·--, .,, __ _______ ... , .. __ ,,..,, .. ~------" ---~-----\ • • ... ,,, .. ,. _____ _ --------~.-,· ,..~ ~----.. --· _,, .. ,c ... ,/ ~·" ., .. --,-··----,.., ... --· ,/ ,, ., ' ,,,,.----\ ___ ,.,, --_.,~ .. .. ---..,_ .... , ,-~--' .. -.. ------·" --~·· ~--,,.--~---........ , -..__ __ w-'•·•• ......... ___ " --.. , ..... ,.,.-• , .. ---,,_., .... ·------,~ .• ,.., .• -· "•·---. .. \ '-""--f ' )\ '{\ c,,,.; . I \ .. _,..----., ___ __ ' \ NOTES: 1. \ ' \ BENZENE AT .m sh / WAS 35') AND ,// / f ,.,.--//,' __ .. .,-.... .. ,-.. ~---_,,,,., .. ·--<"· ,. .... ___ , __ __ ·--,-... ,..,_ ---,-.,. ·----~ '·'o'o ,--... __ ---,. / '· ......... ,.,•· ........ ___ .,. ... · ·, PARAMETER LIST A -BENZENE B -ACETONE C -CHLOROFORM / D -1, 1-DICHLOROETHANE E -1,1-DICHLOROETHENE ,,·· " ,,.-• _,_ ..... FIELD SCREENING MONITORING WELL \ ,,, .. --•·' ( SAMPLE OR LOCATION ! ---!--'----~,\-. '· >-·., .. -------:>-,. •-~--<" \ \ (.'.> -' \ \ ; '\ ,-\, \ \ \ ! i' . ' DESCRIPTION \ ', ' ---"·-' ; \-/ ·-,,:,,,. ,.,\,''-..,_ '\ ''--; -\. / / \. \ ~v~ \ \ ; f • ;_ \ > l , '-l l '-' \_ \ \ \ ,. ;,;, <' • ,( \5 "'< ~--X . -l ,_, .. ,) ✓ <· / ~-1\ -i; s ; j (, .. 1) l ~:i i ... Xi \ i/ 'I' ' Ii I; -/ / ' / I !· <')(:";·' ::a \ ... ____ .. ..__ ···~ ·•, ··so / )( \ '· -~-~---~--»•' \, -~""' LM04 CLMC04B,._ __ LABORATORY CONFIRMATION SAMPLE ID . ~' / ; f ,;; ,._,. ,.,, ,,, '.c ! \ i I J \ -\ ·J. I ,------~-!~ \ \ \ _f -; \ \ .... ,. ; . i ' f --/. j -t-f-\ ''"",--" ) ! ; ~,,..y"'. .,-/ / ' ; ' ! I / t ' ' ! (_ \ f \ -'-,--·---~ -....... __ / ' ; ; , ' '-f / f _,...-,'/_.-· ;1 i .. c= '''"' "" c',1'~ \\-,_ '•-.._., '---~ ... ,. ,_\ / \ -' \ ; 0 ·2•,, / ·.-;--.. , ' \ ,\ ·---· "\ , ,," ''·"' 100 ; ; ;-\ ~ iw,. ts .. :-\ __ ,,,.., .... ,, \ 200 \. ', f \ \· .. ' '·t \ ! \ I ; -' ·1 300 ; ; < '_I -., __ :, \ , ... ·,, J,, i • .,, i • . 400 -------SCALE IN FEET ·-------· ' U--2 -s ·x ·•( --'--,, t . ,...-"-' i •! / // ----./ / .,0'" ---~,,... . ... """ ,-.% // ·-_.,.,,. ·•,., ETHYL C0.077 ppm AT 48'), NO DETECTED AT UM04 UM14 (0,031 ppm PERFORMANCE STANDARD F -1,2-DICHLOROETHENE CTOT AU G -METHYLENE CHLORIDE PARAMETER FROM PARAMETER LISl"--E H K K 0,010 0.007 (45') (45') HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PARAMETER. i 2,1 MW-14 WAS NOT SAMPLED. H -TETRACHLOROETHENE I -TOLUENE J -1, 1, 1· TRICHLOROETHANE K -TRICHLOROETHENE L -VINYL CHLORIDE M -XYLENES N -MANGANESE CDISSOL VED) NOT SAMPLED ·LOCATION SAMPLED SAMPLING TOOL PUSH REFUSAL NOT DUE TO BPS DEPTH FROM <FEET BELOW DILUTED SURFACE SAMPLE GRADE) 0.017 C45'l-SAMPLE 0.012 D C58'l \ --, __ :_RESULTS 100 Verdae Boulevard '"' PREPARED BY, C, 0, ROWAN ~ P.O. Bo_x 16778 ,,,,,••1\~ :.-, ; :., Greenville, SC 29606 PROJECT MGR1 P, A FURTICK INC. \__ PARAMETER CONCENTRATION PER LITER Cmg/U, OR PARTS IN MILLIGRAMS PER MILLION ,•••\,9-'\~,.~f.':; _Dli}l•'(N BY, ® [phone] ... ~ .• -' ~ ,,-,_t -._, ·--(ppml-f / .·" · CHECKED BY• · GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS : f Sc • />PPROVED BY· . EXCEEDING PERFORMANCE ST AND ARDS PARAMETER LIST ANAL YTES ALL BELOW PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (CLP "J" VALUES NOT CONSIDERED FOR CONFIRMATION SAMPLES OR MONITORING FIELD SCREENING SAMPLES LESS THAN CONSIDERED-' LABORATORY WELL SAMPLES, 0.005 ppm NOT ' . ' b ! · ~ r MACON SITE "., -~:'£.·~r-, APPROVED BY• MACON/DOCKERY SITE <--~' . .. ~'PROVED BY• RICHMOND CO., NORTH CAROLINA -~,..M., DATE• AUGUST 1993 SCALE PLATE NO, I JOB NO• 70017.21 PS NOTED 3 ·, ' I ! Tl ~I "".;, ..__, ~ -;,< <:§3
l
j
I
/
E ~
~
0 N " ,-... -0 0 ,-...
' ,:_ ,-... -o.., 0"' ,-... ' '-0 o,,,
"• "a >--.c ' ...
"
I I _/ ) / I I ' / I
I/ I / /; I I
........ , ...
""'"",,,
"·\-~,
' ¼¼...__ .,,...,
\
I
\ ·,
\
\ I
\
\ '\
\
\
\
\ \
\ • • ·a .· ,\ .
\
..... ,i. . • "'"""'"··-i--
,.,, .. ' ,.,.
;
/
/
\ \ ! \ \ ' \
WWW
• \ \ \ \ \ '··-,.,'>-_ '"'-, \ I" ·"·· I
'"o --~~--
''"• -"" ·· ...... ,
\ \ \ \ \ • \ \ I \ \
\
\
\
\
\ \
\ \ •. \ \ J \ • ·--,"-.. ~, .. ,-/ / /
• •
\
z
0
>--0..
Q:'. u
V) w
0
>--V)
_J
Q:'. w >--w ~
!le
0..
V) w >--0 z
0 z w 0 w _,
g ... 0 0 N 0
'
g
w _J a. ~
(/)
4. z 0 (j
l !!! ..J
"' w ,_
w ~
!1i a.
"' 0 "' ...
"' w ,_
w ~
!1i a.
ii: c., "'
w ~
4. "' ::,
(/)
3: 0 ..J w ID ,_
w w ...
"' w ::i ' "' ci u ,.. ID
w ..J a. ~
(/)
0 w ,_
::,
=' 0
lZ .J ~ . ";, 'er ',,_ ~'-~ -,-. ~ . \ :,: "'' :½'
(/)
!Ii
<CDUOW.1.i... c, ::c _ -:,~ _. ::E z CL
0 w ,_
0 z
0 i ::,
!SI
I
I
0 -"' ..J •
"' ' 3: "' ♦
0 w
_J a. ~
V)
s z
N -' 3: "' e
w ,t, (.) (/) ... 0 w ,_ ~ !12 -N ,.-: 5 0 ,-.
l j I C ~-1 I " ] . / ~ \\; J:\ CAD\ GRAPHIC\ 70017\ 7001 7SCH.DWG cgh 10-30-94 . ,,, .. ,X·. -·-~ ~ , . .........,_ ___ ~--~--'\, BIDDING DOCUMENTS DEVELOPMENT ISSUE BIDDING DOCUMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS BIDDERS REVIEW BIDDING DOCUMENTS PRE-BID CONFERENCE SUBMIT COMPETITIVE BIDS REVIEW AND EVALUATE BIDS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARD AND NOTICE TO PROCEED PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE SITE PREPARATION -CLEARING, GRADING, ACCESS ROADS CONSTRUCTION OF INFILTRATION GALLERIES VAPOR EXTRACTION SYSTEM PUMPS MISCELLANEOUS_ EQUIPMENT AND TANKS INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS " INSTALLATION OF VAPOR RECOVERY AND GROUND WATER EQUIPMENT 'AND TANKS TRENCHING, INSTALLATION, AND TESTING OF UNDERGROUND HEAQER flPING UPPER DOCKERY LOWER DOC.KERY MA~ON 'c! ·1NSTALLATION OF VAPOR 'RECOVERY SYSTEM -HEADERS; 'PIPINGtVALVE, ETC. C COMPLETE PIPING, VALVES TO EQUIPMENT AND. GROUND JI/ATER RECOVERY ··-. WELLS ;~ II ' COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF GROUND WATER RECOVERY WELLS (PLACEMENT OF PUMPS ~ . . . ' ' IN, WELLS) INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL/ INSTRUMENTATION/ CONTROLS EQUIPMENT -OP(RA}iOt,JAL TESTING PRELIMINARY PROJECT CbMPL_ETION PREFINAL CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION RUNCHLIST WORK COMPLETION FINAL INSPECTION SITE. RESTORATION/ DEMOBILIZATION/ ·coNTRACT. 'CLOSEOUT EPA OEMONSTRATION APPROVAL DEMO SYsTEM. CONSTRUCTION · SYSTEM STARTUP ·ic ' SYSTEM EVALUATION AND OPTIMIZATION . INTERIM REPORT FULL SCALE DESIGN FULL SCALE DESIGN_ TO USEPA USEPA DESIGN APPROVAL FULL SCALE CONSTRUCTION ·sTART · 0 & M .TRAJNING· SYSTEMS START UP AND BALANCING INITIATE O & M PROGRAM SUBMIT PREFINAL INSPECTION REPORT TO us· EP~ FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO US -EPA DEVEcOP RECORD .( "AS •·BUil l") DRAWINGS SUBMIT FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT TO US EPA SVE COMPLETION REPORT TO US EPA ,,,,,-;_1· ,,: ,r ',-"; 2/3/95 2/4/95 3/3/95 3/3/95 3/3/95 3/1Y95 ;oc·~ 12/~/94 I _ ,,q ;,-,-I..._.. ,-I J, -·=!----. _, __ , 'AC:
'. '·"'I-;;_ • / -'"~~-· -"J 3/11/95 4/3/95 4/7/95 4/29/95 6/12V9s 4/10/95 4/10/951 6/26 95 . . '95 6/26 . 4/\9/95.L 6/2~/95 6/26/95] •A5/9 _'6/3?/95, 7A3/9 7(2)/~5 ;.a>, -~ • I. 7/2_4/95 9{?~/95 7/2,4/'951 .,; ,._,,.,.,. ..,.,, "" 9/-15/95 7/2,4/95., s/15/95 7/24/95· 8/14/95 ' rn'/2~/95 4/!'7/95!,; 4/f779s ~/1/9 0/?9/95 0/2<;>/95 ~I. '\,. d ii' ' T l · ' j. :I f ' 1i: ·i . I 1,, .ji !12/11/95 I•·., A !I I I ~ --:cs --'·:; 1 .II,. I, ·' ~0 , ;.-;_ -· I .12111h5 1/12/96 I --½--"·'"""" ~1➔··,c _ ' -,';-'"c" -FUTUREII . .. 1 ::~~~~:~::7~N:E:~~~~u:R:::RTIFICATioN iNsPEcTioN ··• · . . _. . . . ·· •· •· , .• -I I II I ! I 111 I I I II I I I I II I I I II I I I II I I I I II I I l 111 I 1-11 I :I l. I II I I I II I I ;~t~::11 ~ -'i I· . LEGEND CJ PLANNED SCHEDULE • ,1 . EZ:21 COMPLETED ITEM 6 MILESTONE .. ,. .,; ' " --~------~~-,.,.,,, -. -·-,-~-~~ -------,--.. -,....,---~-----~ --,....,,--.-.---~----~ ·,c PROJECT MGR: P. A. FURTICK PREPARED BY: S.K.G_./F.R.EI. J)llAWILB'l': KJ.~L,,LC.G.H CHECKED BY: £A. r:,,_-1,J_ APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: APPROVED BY: DATE: OCTOBER 1994 JOB NO: 7901 Z,ZJ =---·-------INC. roo Verdae Bou!evarc PO Box 16778 Gfeenville, SC 29606 (8D3)281-0030 REMEDIAL ACTION WORK PLAN CONSTRUCTION· SCHEDULE MACON/DOCKERY SITE ROCKINGHAM, NC•-SCALE NONE_ SHEET PLATE NO. FIGURE 4-1 .. ~ ~-q cQ .Y ~ ~