NCD980840409_20040316_Charles Macon Lagoon Drum_FRBCERCLA RA_Groundwater Remediation System Suspension Request-OCR

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
liEGION 4
ATLANTA FEDEliAL CENTEfl
o1 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEOflGIA 30303-8960
4WD-SRSEB
Mr. Jimmy Gamertsfelder
Applied Earth Sciences
434 Copperfield Blvd
Suite B
Concord, North Carolina 28025
SUBJ: Macon/Dockery NPL Site
Cordova, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Gamertsfelder:
March 16, 2004
SUPERFUNO SECTION
In response to a February 11, 2004 letter from Applied Earth Sciences, the
request for suspension of the Lower Dockery groundwater remediation system at the
above referenced site is approved.
However, the Superfund Section of the NC DENR has the following requirement:
"Quarterly sampling ·01 groundwater monitoring wells MW-16 and MW-24 shall continue
until the Macon Dockery Site Group (MDSG) can demonstrate that the specified
cleanup goals for all constituents of concern have been maintained for four consecutive
quarterly groundwater sampling events. If the MDSG cannot make this demonstration
to the satisfaction of the NC DENR or the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA), the MDSG shall evaluate additional groundwater treatment options
in order to meet the specified cleanup goals. It is recognized that inorganics have
historically been detected above the performance standards at groundwater monitoring
wells MW-16 and MW-24. It is further recognized that these inorganic constituents are
likely due to natural background conditions as shown ori the North Carolina Geologic
Survey (NCGS) maps included as Appendix B and Appendix C of the Lower Dockery
Groundwater Remediation System Suspension Request. It is suggested that the
MDSG use alternative groundwater sample collection techniques, such as low flow
sampling, in order to minimize the turbidity of the groundwater samples. By minimizing
the interference from turbidity and suspended solids, it is likely that exceedances of
inorganics will be reduced: if not eliminated entirely." ·
Internet Addmss (URL)• ht1p://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Prinlod with Veyotahle Oil Based Inks on Recydod Papor (Minimum 30% Poslconsurnor)
• •
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 404-562-8824.
Sincere!
/
Gi lie S. Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
cc: David Mattison, NC DENR
Ken Gulledge, Crown, Cork & Seal
' • /P• ·,;,, ~. '\f
·~ ·~' i ~ ·., &·':?'A
.:.;;:;,;,;;;::;,,;~~"-~-~
•
NCDENR
!✓01·th Carolina Depa1·tment of Environment and t~atLffal Resources
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Branch
Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
61 Forsyth Street, I Ith Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Division of Waste Management
March I 5, 2004
RE: Lower Dockery Groundwater Remediation System Suspension Request
Macon/Dockery :NPL Site
Cordova, Richmond County, NC
Dear Ms. Bennett:
1,1iichael ~ . .'.:c:slc:y. Gow-:m:1:
\Niliia111 •~ ?-oss J1., S(:cr•3ia~y
The Superfund Section of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NC DENR) has received and reviewed the Lower Docke1)' Groundwater Remediation System
Suspension Request for the Macon/Dockery National Priority List (NPL) Site. The Superfund
Section offers the following comments.
LO\VER DOCKERY GROUND\VA TER REMEDIATION SYSTEM SUSPENSION
REQUEST
MACON/DOCKERY NPL SITE
The proposed suspension of groundwater remediation activities at the Lower Dockery portion of
the Macon/Dockery NPL Site is approved based on the information given in the request and
current NC DENR Division of Water Quality policy. Quarterly sampling of groundwater
monitoring wells MW-16 and MW-24 shall resume until the Macon Dockery Site Group
(MDSG) can demonstrate that the specified cleanup goals for all constituents of concern have
been maintained for four consecutive quarterly groundwater sampling events. If the MDSG
cannot make this demonstration to the satisfaction of the NC DEJ\1R or the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the MDSG shall evaluate additional groundwater
treatment options in order to meet the specified cleanup goals.
Furthermore, the State of North Carolina has approved the Lower Docke,y Groundwater
Remediation System Suspension Request for the Macon/Dockery NPL Site ("Site") subject to the
following conditions.
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
March 15, 2004
Page 2
• •
I. State concurrence on the Lower Dockery Groundwater Remediation System Suspension
Request is based solely on the information contained in the subject request. Should the State
receive new or additional information that significantly affects the conclusions contained in
the request, it may modify or withdraw this concurrence with written notice to the US EPA
Region IV.
2. State concurrence on this Lower Docke,y Groundwater Remediation System Suspension
Request in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State to
participate, financially or otherwise, in the clean up of the Site. The State reserves the right
to review, overview, comment, and make independent assessment of all future work relating
to this Site.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds I o-6, the State may
require deed recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual contamination and
possibly limit future use of the property as specified in NCGS 130A-3 I 0.8.
It is recognized that inorganics have historically been detected above the performance standards
at groundwater monitoring wells MW-I 6 and MW-24. It is further recognized that these
inorganic constituents are likely due to natural background conditions as shown on the North
Carolina Geologic Survey (NCGS) maps included as Appendix Band Appendix C of the Lower
Dockery Groundwater Remediation System Suspension Request. It is suggested that the MDSG
use alternative groundwater sample collection techniques, such as low flow sampling, in order to
minimize the turbidity of the groundwater samples. By minimizing the interference from
turbidity and suspended solids, it is likely that exceedances of inorganics will be reduced, if not
eliminated entirely.
The Superfund Section of the NC DENR appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (919) 733-
2801, extension 349.
Sincerely, ,
-~;--, -,-,1· 8 l/;11).~U 5 c-;-..: /,,:le .. -L•V L.. . I -?!
' , David B. Mattison, CHMM 'J
Environmental Engineer
NC Superfund Section
•
February 11, 2004
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
•
Re: Lower Dockery Groundwater Remediation System Suspension Request
Macon/Dockery NPL Site
Cordova, North Carolina
AES Project No.: I 90-00001-02
Dear Ms. Bennett:
On behalf of the Macon Dockery Site Group (MDSG), Applied Earth Sciences.
Inc. (AES) is pleased to submit this request for suspension of the Lower Dockery
groundwater remediation system at the Macon Dockery NPL site located in Cordova,
North Carolina. A portion of the United States Geological Survey topographic map of
the Laurinburg quadrangle showing the approximate location of the site is attached as
Figure 1 (Appendix A).
Macon Dockery Site History
Remediation at the Macon Dockery site was initiated on February 22, 1996, with
the start-up of a Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system and four separate groundwater
remediation systems. The SVE system was installed in the area of former Lagoon 7 to
remediate vadose zone soils beneath the former lagoon. Remediation goals for soils
beneath Lagoon 7 were met and the request for closure of the SVE system was approved
in a letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEP A) dated May
19, 2000. Abandonment of the SVE system began December 27, 2001, and was
completed on April 26, 2002. Abandonment of the SVE system is documented in the
"Soil Vapor Extraction Abandonment Report" dated November 8, 2002. The four
groundwater remediation systems are currently in operation.
Lower Dockery Groundwater Remediation System
The Lower Dockery remediation system is supplied with groundwater via five
extraction wells complete with jet pump assembly. A recirculation pump provides the
flow to extract water from the wells by the venturi effect. The water flows through a bag
filter, and into a feed tank. The bag filter assists with suspended solids and metals
434 Copperfield Blvd. N.E., Suite B • Concord, North Carolina 28025 • Tel: [phone] • fax: {704) 795-7076
www.oppliedearth.com
• • Ms. Giezelle Bennett
February 11, 2004
Page 2 of9
removal. A six-inch diameter PVC pipe flows water from the feed tank to the low-profile
air stripper. The air stripper aerates the groundwater to promote the volatilization of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and their subsequent removal through the offgas
stack of the air stripper. Other equipment accompanying the air stripper includes a
centrifugal blower, effluent holding sump, an inlet screen and damper, and a steel
demister. Treated water is pumped out of the effluent holding sump by a transfer pump
and sent to the infiltration gallery where it reenters the ground.
Lower Dockery Remediation System Performance
Since start-up in 1996, the system has maintained an average annual operational
percentage of approximately 70% and an average production rate of approximately
300,000 gallons of water per year. No modifications have been made to the system since
l 996. System downtime is attributed to necessary repair work as the result of
malfunctioning pumps and high sump water level alarms in the air stripper.
Lower Dockery Remediation System Effectiveness
Lower Dockery system influent and effluent samples were collected weekly for
the first month of system operation and monthly thereafter for the first year. In 1997, the
MDSG was allowed to begin quarterly system influent and effluent sampling, which was
conducted through November I 999. In June 2000, the MDSG was granted permission to
begin semi-annual sampling of system influents, but was still required to conduct
quarterly system effluent sampling. Lower Dockery groundwater remediation system
influent and effluent samples are presently collected semi-annually and quarterly,
respectively. A review of historical laboratory analytical results for system influent
samples indicates that since May 12, 1999, parameter concentrations have consistently
been below the Performance Standards specified in the "Performance Standards
Verification Plan" dated October 1994.
Groundwater samples for the Lower Dockery site are collected from groundwater
monitoring well MW-16 and sentinel well MW-24. A review of historical laboratory
analytical results for groundwater samples collected at the Lower Dockery site indicates
that concentrations of VOCs have not exceeded the Performance Standards (PS) since
August I, 1996, in sentinel well MW-24 and since July l l, 200 I, in groundwater
monitoring well MW-I 6. A chronological summary of the analytical groundwater
sample results is contained in Table 1 (Appendix B). There have been no exceedances
of PS's in concentrations of inorganics in groundwater samples collected from sentinel
well MW-24 since August 3, 2000, except for manganese. Laboratory analytical results
for groundwater monitoring well MW-16 reported consistent exceedances of PS's for
several inorganics such as chromium, nickel, manganese, and vanadium. Other
inorganics, which have exhibited less frequent PS exceedances, are cadmium and lead.
•
Background Concentrations
• Ms. Giezelle Bennett
February 11, 2004
Page 3 of9
Inorganic concentrations greater than the PS and reported in groundwater samples
collected from wells MW-16 and MW-24 are consistent with background concentrations
reported in the North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS) Open-File Report 93-19 dated
July 1993. This report lists the concentrations of variables of stream sediment for the
Laurinburg and Florence 30 x 60 -Minute Quadrangles. The current concentrations of
inorganics for groundwater monitoring wells MW-16 and MW-24 are compared to
background concentrations in Table 2 (Appendix B).
The NCGS has compiled geochemistry maps, which indicate naturally occurring
high concentrations of inorganics in stream sediment samples collected in the site area.
Copies of the NCGS geochemistry maps of inorganics concentrations in stream sediment
for the site area are provided in Appendix C. Inorganic concentrations for groundwater
in wells MW-16 and MW-24 are lower than the inorganic concentrations indicated on the
geochemistry maps by 90% or more.
Effect of Suspended Solids
The MDSG prepared comparison charts, which reveal trends associated with
concentrations of inorganics and suspended solids. The charts are provided in Appendix
D. The charts indicate that high concentrations of suspended solids correlate with high
concentrations of inorganics. To confirm the trends identified in the charts, one filtered
groundwater sample was collected from groundwater monitoring well MW-16 following
USEPA Region 4 protocol for collecting field filtered samples. The laboratory analytical
results of the field filtered sample reported concentrations of inorganic compounds below
the PS's and a low concentration of suspended solids. A copy of the laboratory analytical
report and chain-of-custody are contained in Appendix E. The results of the field
filtered sample are summarized in Table I (Appendix B). This data demonstrates that
high concentrations of inorganic compounds are associated with high suspended sediment
concentrations occurring naturally in groundwater at the Lower Dockery Site.
Sufficient technical justification to warrant the suspension of the Lower Dockery
groundwater pump and treat system is summarized in the list below.
• V OC concentrations have not exceeded the PS' s since 200 I in well
MW-16 and since 1999 in well MW-24;
• Inorganic concentrations for groundwater in wells MW-I 6 and MW-24
are below the background concentrations for stream sediment listed in the
NCGS, 1993 report;
• Inorganic concentrations for groundwater in wells MW-16 and MW-24
are below the inorganic concentrations for stream sediment indicated on
the NCGS geochemistry maps; and,
• Laboratory analytical results and comparison charts demonstrate a
• • Ms. Giezelle Bennett
February I I , 2004
Page 4 of9
correlation between high concentrations of suspended sediment and high
concentrations of inorganics in well MW-16.
The M DSG appreciates your assistance on this matter. Should you have any ·
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at [phone].
Sincerely,
A 1../ED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
teven E. Irminger, P.E.
Project Senior Engineer
JCL
Cc: Mr. Ken Gulledge -Crown, Cork, & Seal Company
Ms. Gretchen Digby-Ingersoll-Rand Company, Inc.
Attachments
0
0
FIGURE I
Topographic Location Map
•
Macon Dockery Site -Cordova, North Carolina
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Map center is UTM 17 606 I 88E 3862309N (WGS84/NAD83)
Rockingham quadrangle -TopoZone Pro elevation display
Projection is UTM Zone 17 NAD83 Datum
M=-7.681
G=0.665
OUP -OuOUcate
ug/l.-m,c.rograms per hter
NA -Not An.alyzed
Fi!1er~d -Water sample f,eld f.ltered
We!IIO
MW 16
<DUP)
MWH
iDUP)
Dale
2/l:ill996
5/211½1~
7;3!/1996
I ln/1996
ll/711½16
M/l<l97
5/!311997
816,'!997
ll/12/]\l',7
21~/1'1'93
5161199K
Si6119'J!
!]/311998
2111119'J'J
5:12/1999
~/611999
11/111999
2/17/2\)lHI
.l181201JO
813/2()()()
!IJ~(.!UOI
7111/2001
1/16120()2
7/3Ull002
l/21!/2003
712➔/'200]
PS
l/!3119%
2113/19%
5121!9%
~/111996
llf7/J9Y6
215/1997
5/!311997
~IS.'IW7
I 1/J21l'J'J7
2/5/1998
5/611998
8/b/WJ~
1113119<Jg
2l!J/19<J9
5ll211S'J9
&,'6/!999
I lfVl\1'19
2117/lllOU
51'.FlllOU
8131'..':tlOO
!IHl/2001
7/Jl12fl01
l/16/2002
7!Jl/2U02
l12S/2003
7/lll.'2003
ChlorofOffil
ugll
-cl o
<1.U
<=J.11
<l,O <'" <IO
<I,(/
<2 0 ,, "
<,0
<=l.U
-:J.O
'" <Io
"2 0
<1.0
<Ill
<J.U
<l.(I
-<l.O
'" <1.0 ,, "
<UI
<,0
<!.U
<!.O
<1.0
<I,()
<1.0
<J ()
-cl.(I
<I.U
<1.0
<l,O
"' '" <l,O
'" ,, "
<,0
<,0
<1.0
<1.U
<Io
<1.U
1, 1-D•Wloroethane 1, 1-Dichloroettiene
ogll "''
" " ,, " " " )7 " " " " " ,s " '" '" " " .. " 20 " " 5,i
" 13
" .. ,
" JA
" " ,, " '" ' Well
Well
Well
,0 " No>
No,
l'-ol
" "
J~IU
" <:1.0
" <1.0
1.J <l.O
'' " '·' <1.0
26 <LO
" <:J.O
" <l.O
" <l.O
3' <1.0
" <1.0
'" <!.O
" <1.0
" ,, "
" ,, "
" <l.O
" <1.0 ,, <J.O
" <l.O
" <!.0 n <LO
" <,0
" <I 0
" <=l.ll
'" '" " <J.O
TABLE 1
Lower Dockery
Groundwater Analytical Results
Page 1
, .. eu,)'\ene
t .2-Dichloroethene Chtonde Tetroci11oroethene
owL ugll owl
<,0 -:2,0 <<0
<1.0 <2" <Ill ,, " <,0 <I.I)
<IO <2.0 <l.0
<'" <'O <IO
-<UI ,, " <!.O ,, " <'" <I.()
''" <,0 <2 0
<LU <2 0 <1 lJ
<!.0 <2 ll <1.0
<l.U <:2 0 <l.O
<,0 <2 0 <LO
<1.0 <2.0 <IO
<1.0 <'.2 0 <1.0
<2 0 <,O <2 0
<l.0 <2 0 <1.0
<I.IJ <2 0 <l ll
<1.0 <2 0 <,0
Not Sampled Due To
Nol Sampled DL>CTo
Not Sampled Due To
<J.O <:2 0 ,, "
S""'plcd Well w~,
s.:un.,1~ Wdl Wenl
Sampled \.\'ell Went
<lo "'2.0 ,, "
,, s
,, " <2 0 <,0 ,, " <2.0 <,0
<1.0 <2" <1.0
" <1" " <1.0 '" <1.0
<I.I) <l 0 <UI
<l.11 <:}_ (I <l.ll
<l.U <:2 U <'"
<!.0 <:2.0 -'l.O
<Io <2.U <1.0
<1.0 <:2 0 <J 0
<,0 <2,0 ,, "
<1.U <2 0 <Ill
<l.O -:2 0 <l.O
<l.U <2.0 <1.0
<1,0 <;o <1,0
<!.0 <2,0 <1.0
<l,O <2 0 ,, "
<,0 <2.0 ,, "
<,0 <2' ,, "
<IO <2.0 <,0
<LO ,,, <'" <,0 ,, " <'" <1.U <:2 0 <I.O
<l.U <2" ,, " ,, " """ 0 <l.O
<
.1n1,
1, 1, 1-TnChloroelhane Tnch!oroelhene Chlonde Benzene Toluene
"'" ogll ugll "'" "~' .. ' -CJ_(I -:J 0 -:!(I
" H -cl U <l.11 '" '" u <=!O -cl.II <,0
'" 2 1) <Ill <l.(J u
" ' <1.(1 <I,() ' ,., " <l.O ,, " "I U 7' 3 2 <!,O <l.O <1,U
" 2,1 <2 \) <1 lJ <2 lJ
'" ,,, <1,0 <Io <CJ u
" " <I.O <'" <l.O
" '' <1.0 <IO .:!_O
" " -<1.0 <J.O <,0
" <!.D .ct() -.J H ,, "
" ,,o '" <I.() -cJ,O
" <2" <2 0 <2 (I <2 o
20 ,, " <I.II ,, " <l.lJ • " <J.() <111 ,, " <I.II
'" <'" <-Ill <! II <.:! u
Dlmrucuon
Obilr\1Ct1on
Obstru..:t<oo
" H <-1.11 <Ill <I.O
"" "" Do ., u ,, " <1.0 <l.O
JlljMJ
€,J.0 <:1.0 '" ,;l,(J '" ,, " ,, " ,Ju <'" ..:J(I ,, " <J.U <I 0 <1.0 <Lil
" '" ,, " '" "" '" <l.U <Io <:] 0 " <IO <!.O <l.0 <Io <1 0
<IO <l,U <1.0 <l 0 -<J ()
<Ill <l.U <IO ,, " <] l/
<1.0 <1.U ,, " ,, " <\.()
<J.O <Ju <J.U <I,() -c!,()
<1.0 -cl.U <IO ,, " <! 0
<l.U <l.U ,;!,l) <J.U <1.0
<:[ 0 '" <lo <l.U <1.0
<,0 <!.O <,0 <!.O <l.U • <1,0 <:J.U ,, " <1.0 <l.0
<J.O "" .:J 0 ,, " <l.O
<1.0 <.:1.0 <1.U <1.0 '" -c].U <J.O "" ,, " <l.O
<l.U <,0 <l.O ,, " <'" <IO <LO <1.0 <l.U .-1,u
-'l,O -c].U <I lJ <LO <J ()
<!.0 <!.U <,0 <! u <'" <1.0 <'" <'" <I 0 <l u ,, " <l 0 <:I,() -c[.O <!.0
<J () <'" <I 0 ,:10 ''" <J 0 <'" <I II <'" ,, "
]()(10
DUP -Duphcate
ug/L-mIero11rams per Iller
NA· Not Anilyzed
F1l1ered -Water sample field f1l1ered
Wel!IO
MW 16
(DUPJ
f-i/lu,ul
~lW 2~
(DUP)
101~•
Xylenu
Date ,.,
211311996 <Ju
5f'..J]996 <) 0
](Jl/19% <J,O
l tn/1996 <JO
!1/7/1'1% <J.O
Z.,S/IW7 ,:Ju
5/lJ/)'J',17 <J.O
H,'6Jl\l'J7 <6.0
I l/!2119':17 <)"
2,~1199g <J,(l
Sit,il\l<I~ «J,tl
816.'l',"Jg ,:J 0
ll/311998 <JO
-VI l/1999 <30
S/!}!199\1 <60
816119<19 <J 0
llr>JIM <3 0
211712UOO <JO
)18/21XlU
BIJ/2000
lil8fl001
7/11/20\ll <3 (I
1/16/2002
7/.30f.!.ll02
JnB/2003
]/24,200) <] 0
gnu:2003
PS 400
1/!31l9'J6 <JO
2/1311996 <J ()
512119')6 •<3,0
8/J/1996 <,0
l10/l996 <:1.U
2/5119'}7 <J 0
~/13ll997 <JO
~/,tl~7 -.c)(I
lllllil9'1:; <,0
;!n/]9'15 .:J 0
j161l'J98 <JO
816/!9')~ <JO
l l/Jl]9'J8 ..;J 0
2111/19')') <,0
5/J2/J9'/9 <JO
8/6119')<) <3"
l J/211999 ..c) 0
2.11muoo <) 0
YJf.'(l()() <30
8/Jf.'UIJU <JO
1/18/l!llJ! ''" 7/tlr.>001 <JO
11\6/2002 <J,0
7/3lfl002 <JO
112812003 <J"
7/JO!WOJ <JO
Aeetone Chromium Barium ,,, ,,, ,.,
<,0 " 270
<IO ,; llO
<IO "" HOO
<IO " gJo
<IO 89 no
<,0 " liO
<,0 33 190
<W ,., ~')0
«I() "'" 633
<IO <,0 <SU
<W " ''" ..c/0 H BO
<W " .. ,
<00 " "' «20 ~3 '"' <W "" ,00
<,0 ,, "' <IO HO )90
<,0 110 "'
<IO 320 "' <,0 <~O
<IO " "' <W " 370
<,0 <10 1;5
«Ill <W " <,0 <W " <!O <,0 " <IO <IO " <W <,0 9!
<IO <W "" <,0 <,0 N
<,0 <W "' <W <W HO
"' JS JlU
<W " 1911
<W <W l!O
<,0 ''" U[J
<W '" '"' <W <,0 "' <W H 160
<W ,. 15()
<IO <W "" <W <,0
'" <10 ,.
<IO <IO llU
<IO <:JO " <W H Ha
J~IHI HHMI
TABLE 1
Lower Dockery
Groundwater Analytical Results
Page 2
Beryllium Mangariese Nickel Variadium
"" ug/L ug/L ,.,
<~.a '""' " ,oo
«1.U BOO . '" 120
<5.0 ~100 "" 4~U
<SO llOO '" 270
«5 0 2~ll() '"' !SO
<.5,0 6'0 H 61
<SU ''" " n
6 2 HOO NU <,0
<5 0 31911 15.l 21,j
<S.0 '6 <'" <,0
-.cs 0 2➔00 ''" llO
<5 0 "" ol " <S.0 '"' " " <5,0 HOO .. " <5.U '300 " ''" ,, 3'00 210 330
<~ 0 ""' '" 230
<~ 0 '"" "" '" Wdl Not Sampled Due To
Well Not S=pled Due To
Well Not Sampled Due To
<'" '" <,0 " "" Sampled Well Wcru
No< Sampled Well Wan
Not Sucplcd Well w~,
.:I.() "' "" ,oo
<1.0 IO <•O <!O
11~1 < "
"'~.o 3500 " DO
<,0 3700 <.0 '" <.I() 240(1 <411 <IO
<SO 2500 "" <,0
<5,0 :non <,0 <,0 ..:,.u 1'00 <,0 .:,u
<,.o 2500 <,O <,0
<,0 .c'i,O <,0 <!O
<,0 2450 <'O <,0
<~ 0 2300 <,O <~0
<,0 rn,u ''" <50
<,0 ""' <'O <W
<.I 0 '""' "" " «.1,0 2800 <,0 <5(1
<5 () 2~00 <'O <;a
<5,0 2~00 <'O <'"
<,0 HOO <,0 <,0
.:~ 0 2)00 ''" <,0
<lO rnlO <,0 <50
<,0 2500 <'O <50
<~.o HOO <,0 <,0
..cs 0 2200 <,0 «so
<,0 HOO ~, <~O
.:5,0 2200 <,0 <50
'" ·= <,0 <,0
'" 2300 <,0 <,0
Cadmium Mercury Cyamde Suspended
Z111c ug/L ,., Lead ug/L ,., oWL Solids
"" ..:OJU H 1'A ..cJO "'"" ]50 ..cOJU " NA dO lHl)D "" '" " :,.,,, NA llOO
"' "' 38 NA >A ""' "" U.45 " NA NA NA "" <UJO ,., NA NA ''" " <0 30 H NA NA ,,.
"" <II.JU H SA KA 2~llt)
3"2 <' " NA NA !'JOO " ..;U_Jo n NA NA 5~0
JOO <.(I J() " KA NA l<>tJU ]20 <OJ(I H NA 1-:A "'" % <OJU " NA KA "' "' <:U)O '" NA ~A '"' ,w V '' NA NA HO • "" <ll.JO ]JO NA ,S:A '"" "" scUJO 200 1','A NA IJllO :uo 037 '" NA NA HOO
ObslnlCllOll
Ob,rruction
Ob,tructmn
"" " " NA N:\ 1600
Do
Do
Do
""' "' 120.0 <0.20 NA ,<JO
" "" ''" <0 20 NA '"
231) <OJO " NA ..:10 HOO
'" .:o_Ju " NA " lUUll
dO <U.JII «Ju NA <111 " " <() )0 ..,3 II NA NA ,,
<'.20 <030 <)" NA NA " <20 <OJO <J.O NA :-,"A " <20 s:uJu ,J.O SA :,.;A " '" <0)0 <) (I N . .\ NA '" 48.! ,, n NA NA '" ...:20 .:oJu ,., NA :,.A " JO <.lUO u NA NA " <20 <O JU " NA KA " "' u " NA NA '\'JU
" «o ;o "' NA NA 1(,(1 • " <030 <JO NA NA "' " <OJO ~-5 NA NA 13<)
" «030 " NA NA '" «2IJ <UJ() <3 0 NA NA " H "'JO <JO NA NA "" " <OJO " NA NA '" dO "llJO <JO NA NA "' <W "'" <JO NA :-:A " <W "' <a" NA NA " <lO "" <:J 0 NA NA H
''" <(130 <] 0 NA "' • <lO '" <JO NA NA " u
• TABLE 2
Lower Dockery • Site Inorganic Concentrations Compared to Background Concentrations
Well ID Date
MW-16
7/24/2003
Filtered sample 8/20/2003
Background ConanJratums (pph):
Per/Ormance Standard (ugll):
Well ID Date
MW-24 7/10/2003
Rackgrowul Co11cefllratio11s (pph) :
Performance Standard (ugll):
ug/L -micrograms per liter
ppb -parts per billion
i.;aammm
(ug/L)
60
0.57
100,000
5
1.;nromIum
(ug/L)
320
<10
10,000
50
Manganese (ug/L)
2,300
200,000
50
Lead
(u11/L)
120
<3.0
10,000
15
Manganese
(ug/L)
790
10
200,000
50
Nickel
(ug/L)
160
<40
5,000
100
vanamum
(ug/L)
100
<50
45,000
50
Note: Background Concentrations are based on concentrations present in stream sediment compiled by the
NCGS.
Chromium in Stream Sediment
Ii] 2.5
Ii] 5
Ii] 10
0 15
Ii] 20
Grid Cell Interpolated Thematic
Grid Cell = 1.5 miles
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1999
0
L
-~ '
·,
\ s--~~, ~~ \ \ \"--, L,-;i~j
--. ,. ......,_. i;1v:J \ J . "' .
. ';_>-:}>--y
._,\ I
·~ i.J1/ ~ /'V ~
S'.)
miles
100
I
* I Aooroximate Site Location
•
•
Lead in Stream Sediment
Inflection Point
Pb (ppm)
■ 5
Ill 10
■ 15
0 20
111 25
Grid Cell Interpolated Thematic
Grid Cell =1.5 miles
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1999
0
L
Sl
miles
100
I
* I Approximate Site Location I
•
•
Manganese in Groundwater
Inflection Point
Mn (ppb)
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1999
Iii 12.5
Ill . 25
[I] 50
□ 100
I] 200
Grid Cell Interpolated Thematic
Grid Cell = 1.5 miles
0
I m:les
100
I
* I Approximate Site Location j
•
•
Nickel in Stream Sediment
~-) ..C::: _ _, -A . . . .:-.
t __ (__:z_,\ \)j \ ,-1\ 1. )_ ~----~'-L._ _______ \:---·--'"
Inflection Point
Ni (ppm)
Iii 2
Ill 5
Iii 10
0 20
Iii 40
Grid Cell Interpolated Thematic
Grid Cell =1.5 miles
North Carolina Geological Survey, I 999
0
L
SJ 100
I
miles
* I Approximate Site Location I
•
•
Vanadium in Stream Sediment
Inflection Point
V (ppm)
Iii <11.25
Ii] 22.5
Iii 45
0 90
111 >1so
Grid Cell Interpolated Thematic
Grid Cell =1.5 miles
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1999
0
I
SJ
miles
100
I
* J Approxima1e Si1e Location
•
•
• •
APPENDIXD
Inorganic/Suspended Solids Trend
MW-16 -Cadmium ~I ~c_a_d_m_iu_m_ --ss~I
3000 ~-------------~
5 2500 -t-----~----------t-"r--------1
·-~ - 2 000 --+-------sc--7"'-+---+-------~----f--\-----------------l
I■• .J c m 1 500 -+------------+----+-----\-------+-----+-+-~-------------l
(1) :::::s g -1 000 -t-----1-----_____,__-~--------+----+---+-+-------+-----l
8 500 -+----------=---+----,..-Z-----/--------\c--_,________~,IC------------+--~-----------l
o~-----------~-
1996-2003
*Inorganic results were multiplied by a factor of 1000.
•
•
lnorganics/Suspended Solids Trend
MW-16 -Chromium
C:
0 ·-...
I-Chromium -Suspended Solids I
~ ::::i 2000 ... _
C: C) B 2. 1 o o o --l--------------------\-------l-l-----'\-------\----l-------\---------1-1-~=-------\--\-------------l
C:
0 u
1996-2003
*Inorganic results were multiplied by a factor of ten.
•
•
Inorganic/Suspended Solids Trend
MW=16 -Lead
I-Lead -ssj
5000 ~--------------
5 4000 _,_ ___ -+--\------------·-.....,
~ :::i 3000 _,_ ___ __,_-------+-------l---4-----....., .._
C: C> B 2. 2 o o o --+------,._~..L\-----+-+-~\----~---+-----------+----------;
C: 8 1000 +==~------\r='f---W-1-~~~==1-;(__~~--¥~
o~-------------~
1996-2003
*Inorganic results were multiplied by a factor of 100.
•
•
lnorganics/Suspended Solids Trend
MW--16 -Manganese
c 5000 --+----IA-----------------
0
+i 4000 --+--------i/----+\---+-\-------------
cu -... ...J c m 3000 ----1--------__,,--------+-1~____,-1------------__,____,._----
a, ::::s g -2 0 0 0 ---+------c--H-------lr+-----t--cl--------"'----+------+-'-----f----------'-c---~
0
0 1000 -+-=--------\-\------i+-------\--f--\~~-----/--------=--\-\-------------j
0 --"-----------'---------~
1996 -2003
I-Manganese -Suspended Solids I
•
•
Inorganic/Suspended Solids Trend
MW=16 -Nickel
I -Nickel -SS I
3000 --.------------------,
5 2500 -t------~--------------------1 ·-~ :::::r 2000 c m 1 500 +------A+----1----\--\----A--------f---P'--:t-=-.~\-------1
Q) ::::s g -1 0 00 -j-----f----tt---,---tt---H'-------r-------tt---------\----\---------J
8 500 -+-----\--=-""c___---41-_~~'--------------\-~,--------l
o~---------------"---'
1996-2003
*Inorganic results were multiplied by a factor of ten.
•
•
C:
0 ·-...,
n,-
Inorganic/Suspended Solids Trend
MW-16 -Vanadium
I-Vanadium -SS I
4000
3000
"-...I cm 2000
(I) ::::s
(J -C: 1000 0
(.)
0
1996-2003
*Inorganic results were multiplied by a factor of ten.
•
•
• •
APPENDIXE
Client
•
Report to:
STL Log #
Client Project#
Project Description
Report Date
STL Savannah
5102 LaRoche Ave
Savannah, Ga 31404
Ms. Jill Lemacks
Applied Earth Sciences
•
434 Copperfield Blvd. NE Suite B Concord, NC 28025
5386624
Macon Dockery/1900000101y
09-08-03
Page 1 of 6
STL
• •
STL
STL Savannah Client Applied Earth Sciences
Work Order ID Macon Dockery/1900000101y
Laboratory ID S386624*1
Sample ID MW-16 UNFILTERED
Matrix LI Sampled : 08-20-2003
Percent Solids Received: 08-22-2003
RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT
Parameter Method Batch Prep Analysis Analyst Result Qual Units OF RL r-DL
Date Date
Barium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 50 < ug/1 1 50 1.0
Beryllium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 1.0 < ug/1 1 1.0 0.40
Chromium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 19 ug/l l 10 1.1
Manganese 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB Jl ug/l l 5.0 1.0
Ni eke l 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 40 < ug/1 1 40 2.2
Lead 7421 0826N 08-26-03 09-03-03 Nr-D 3.0 < ug/1 1 3.0 0.68
Vanadium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 50 < ug/1 1 50 0.70
Zinc 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 40 ug/l 1 20 1.3
Cacinium 7131 0826N 08-26-03 09-02-03 Nt,D 2.3 ug/l l 0.30 0.21
Antimony 7041 0825G 08-25-03 09-03-03 Nr-D 10 < ug/1 1 10 3.0
Suspended Sol ids 160.2 08268 08-26-03 08-26-03 ITH 270 mg/1 l 5.0
Mercury 7470 0904S 09-04-03 09-05-03 DRB 0.20 < ug/1 1 0.20 0.078
Page 2 of 6
• •
STL
$TL Savannah
Client Applied Earth Sciences
Work Order ID Macon Dockery/19000001011/
Laboratory ID S386624*2
Sample ID MW-16 FILTERED
Matrix LI Sampled : 08-20-2003
Percent Solids Received: 08-22-2003
RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT
Parameter Method Batch Prep Analysis Analyst Result Qual Units OF RL
Date Date
Barium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 50 < ug/1 1 50 1.0
Beryllium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 1.0 < ug/1 1 1.0 0.40
Chromium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 10 < ug/1 1 10 1.1
Manganese 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 10 ug/1 l 5.0 1.0
Nickel 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 40 < ug/1 1 40 2.2
Lead 7421 0826N 08-26-03 09-03-03 N1-ll 3.0 < ug/1 1 3.0 0.68
Vanadium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 50 < ug/1 l 50 0.70
Zinc 6010 08ZSG 08-25-03 08-27-03 BB 25 ug/1 1 20 1.3
Cadnium 7131 0826N 08-26-03 09-02-03 ,NJ 0.57 ug/1 1 0.30 0.21
Antirony 7041 0825G 08-25-03 09-03-03 Nfll 10 < ug/1 1 10 3.0
Suspended Solids 160.2 08268 08-26-03 08-26-03 WI 10 mg/1 1 5.0
Mercury 7470 0904S 09-04-03 09-05-03 ORB 0.20 < ug/1 1 0.20 0.078
Page 3 of G
• •
STL
STL Savannah
Client Applied Earth Sciences
Work Order ID Macon Dockery/19000001011/
Laboratory ID S386624*3
Sample ID Method Blank
Matrix LI Sampled ' Percent Solids Received:
RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT
Parameter Method Batch Prep Analysis Analyst Result Qual Units OF RL ,Ol
Date Date
Barium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB 50 < ug/1 1 50 1.0
Beryllium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB 1.0 < ug/1 1 1.0 0.40
Chromium 6010 0825G OB-25-03 08-26-03 BB 10 < ug/1 1 10 1.1
Manganese 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB s.o < ug/1 1 5 .o 1.0
Nickel 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB 40 < ug/7 1 40 2.2
Lead 7421 0826N 08-26-03 09-03-03 N,O 3.0 < u9/l 1 3.0 0.68
Vanadium 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB so < ug/1 1 50 0.70
Zinc 6010 0825G 08-25-03 08-26-03 BB 20 < ug/1 1 20 1. 3
CaO"llium 7131 0826N 08-26-03 09-02-03 N,O 0.30 < ug/1 1 0. JO 0.21
Antimony 7041 0825G 08-25-03 09-03-03 N,O 10 < ug/1 1 10 3.0
Mercury 7470 0904S 09-04-03 09-0S-OJ ORB 0.20 < ug/1 1 0.20 0.078
Suspended Solids 160.2 08268 08-26-03 08-26-03 CON s.o < mg/1 1 s.o
Page 4 of 6
. ' ' • •
STL
STL Savannah Client Applied Earth Sciences
Work Order ID Macon Dockery/1900000101Y
Laboratory ID S386624*5
Sample ID Lab Control Standard Result
Matrix LI Sampled ' Percent Solids Received:
LCS RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT
Parameter Method Batch Spike Expected Units Spike % Accuracy
Result Value Recovery Limit
Barium 6010 0825G 2210 2000 ug/1 110 75-125
Beryllium 6010 0825G 52.2 50.0 ug/1 104 75-125
O,romium 6010 0825G 220 200 ug/1 110 75-125
Manganese 6010 0825G 548 500 ug/1 110 75-125
Nickel 6010 0825G 527 500 ug/1 105 75-125
Lead 7421 0826N 44.7 50.0 ug/1 89 80-120
Vanadium 6010 0825G 533 500 ug/1 107 75-125
Zinc 6010 0825G 538 500 ug/1 108 75-125
Cadmium 7131 0826N 5.39 5.00 ug/1 108 80-120
Antimony 7041 0825G 483 500 ug/1 97 80-120
Mercury 7470 09045 2.68 2.50 ug/1 107 80-120
Suspended Solids 160.2 08268 95.0 100 mg/1 95 80-120
Page S of 6
f, I l • • •
STL
STL Savannah Client Applied Earth Sciences
Work Order ID Macon Dockery/19000001011/
Laboratory ID S386624*6
Sample ID Lab Control Standard Duplicate Result
Matrix LI Sampled
Percent Solids Received:
LCS RESULTS SUMMARY REPORT
Parameter Method Batch Spike Expected Units Spike% Accuracy
Result Value Recovery Limit
Barium 6010 0825G 2180 2000 ug/1 109 75-125
Beryllium 6010 0825G 51. 7 50.0 ug/1 103 75-125
Chromium 6010 0825G 217 200 ug/1 109 75-125
Manganese 6010 0825G 543 500 ug/1 109 75-125
Nickel 6010 0825G 520 500 ug/1 104 75-125
Lead 7421 0826N 46.3 50.0 ug/1 93 80-120
Vanadium 6010 0825G 529 500 ug/1 106 75-125
Zinc 6010 0825G 534 500 ug/1 107 75-125
Cadmium 7131 0826N 5 .23 5.00 ug/1 105 80-120
Antimony 7041 0825G 474 500 ug/1 95 80-120
Mercury 7470 09045 2.76 2.50 ug/1 110 80-120
Suspended Solids 160.2 0826B 97.0 100 mg/7 97 80-120
Page 6 of 6
.. ANALYSIS REQUEST AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
"'T·R E -N T,;: , -. . ~ , .. STL
I
Serial Number . Q 9 1 Q 1
0 STL Savannah
• 5102 LaRoche Avenue
Savannah, GA 31404
0 Alternate Laboratory Name;Location
Website: W\'l'W.st!-inc.com
Phone: [phone]· 7858
Fax: 19121352·0165
Phone:
Fax:
PROJECT REFERENCE v PROJECT NO. PROJECT LOCATION MATRIX PAGE I
1 r i 111 )i rY-:I 1 :) 1 r:-'ui r [jV Cf< r I t ,1 1sTATE) /Jc, TYPE REQUIRED ANALYs1s 1
NUMSER OF CONTAINERS SUBMITTED
('{\ \); · I lo (, L Trilt () .I
RELl~QUIS'D BY: 1srnrRD __ OATE TIME RELINQUISHED BY: ISIGNATUREI DATE TIME RELINQUISHED SY: ISIGNATUREI DATE
ls lJ·P; 4 · 1'\ lll [ (" :. /[mt 1(: ,VJ · Dli
RECElVE,9.SY:' {SlGNATURE) DATE TIME RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATUREl DATE TIME RECEIVED BY: (SIGNATURE! DATE
F.·!;:·•·r 1"' 'l:q ;.!-Y:·:fl~·.
•
OF I
I
REMARKS
Tll~E
TIME
STL82.!0-680 t! 2/0:
• •
July 16, 2003
Mr. David Mattison , _ SUPERFUNO SECT10~1
North Carolina Division of Waste Management
Superfund Division
401 Oberlin Road -Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
RE: Macon/Dockery Site -Cordova, Richmond County, North Carolina
Request for Modification to Analytical List for Groundwater
Dear Mr. Mattison:
------··--------·
Please find attached one copy of the above-mentioned request for the
Macon/Dockery Site. Applied Earth Sciences, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to assist
the Macon Dockery Site Group on this project.
Sincerely,
APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
~~OUUJ)
Project Geologist
JCL
Attachment
434 Copperfield Blvd. N.E., Suite B • Concord, North Carolina 28025 • Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www .appl iedearth. com
• •
July 15, 2003
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Re: Macon/Dockery Site -Cordova, North Carolina
•
Request for Modification of Analytical List for Groundwater
Dear Ms. Bennett:
The remedial systems at the Macon/Dockery Superfund Site have been operating
since 1996. During this time the remedial systems have consistently operated as designed
with few problems. For this reason, the Macon/Dockery Site Group (MDSG) is
requesting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider a request for a
modification to the analytical requirements of the remedial action.
BACKGROUND
The sampling of the monitoring wells, system influents, and system effluents
began in February of 1996 (start-up). From 1996 through 1999 the monitoring wells and
system influents were sampled quarterly and the system effluents sampled monthly. In
September of 2000, the EPA granted permission to modify the sampling schedule as
documented in the Five -Year Review Report dated September 2000. Since the
approval for a new sampling schedule, the monitoring wells and system influcnts have
been sampled semi-annually and the system effluents sampled quarterly.
In May of 2000, the MDSG requested the EPA consider a modification to the
analytical requirements of the remedial action by eliminating certain parameters from the
groundwater sample analysis program. The EPA denied this request in September 2000.
434 Copperfield Blvd. N.E., Suite B • Concord, North Carolina 28025 • Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.appliedeurth.com ..
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
July 15, 2003
Page 2
• •
DISCUSSION OF PARAMETERS BELOW PERFORMANCE STANDARD
Many of the parameters have been reported by the laboratory as being below the
detection limit for several years. In addition, several years of groundwater sample
analysis indicate that concentrations for some parameters have consistently been below
the performance standards (PS) established for the site. Parameters proposed for
eliminated in certain monitoring wells were determined by looking for trends in the
records of analytical results, which indicated that parameter concentrations had never
been above the PS. The MDSG has prepared a summary of the parameters proposed for
elimination. The summary of the historical analytical results for each sample location is
attached as Table 1.
ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION REDUCTION
Concentrations of certain parameters were above the PS during the earlier
sampling events, but steadily decreased to or below the performance standard. To
illustrate that analytical results for several parameters fit a decay curve, the MDSG used
the Mathcad© Asymptocity Test. This computer program fits an exponential decay
curve to time versus concentration data. The time (elapsed days since start-up) and the
concentration data ( concentration of the contaminant in micrograms per liter) are entered
into the corresponding matrix (array of numbers). The concentrations for duplicate
samples collected during the sampling events were not used for the asymptocity tests.
Only one concentration is allowed for a single day in order for the test to perform
accurately. Less than symbols(<) were also not used and are not recognized by the
Mathcad program for the asymptocity tests. For example, if the laboratory reported
concentration was <3.0, then 3.0 was entered into the matrix.
The general equation used for exponential decay is:
Concentration : = A· e -B· 1 + C
Mathcad© determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A,
B, and C. Variable A is defined as the concentration on day one. Variable B is the decay
constant and variable C is defined as the concentration that the data is approaching
asymptotically. The resulting concentration is that of which the data is asymptotically
approaching based on the regression. All asymptocity tests are included as Appendix A.
RESULTS AND REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF ANALYTICAL
REQUIREMENTS
The attached Table 1 summarizes, by sample location, the results of parameters
that have always been below the PS and parameters that appear to have reached an
asymptotic level that is below the PS. Each result details the parameters requested to be
eliminated from the corresponding sample location.
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
July 15, 2003
Page 3
• •
The MDSG appreciates the EPA's consideration of the documented requests.
Should you have any questions regarding these requests, please do not hesitate to contact
us at [phone].
'H SCIENCES, INC.
Jill C.
Project Geologist
Thomas W. Witner, P.O.
Senior Geologist
Cc: Macon/Dockery Site Group Members
Mike Profit, COM Federal Programs
David Mattison, NC Superfund Section
• •
/
I
J
/
✓
Sample
Location Analysis
MW-2A Metals
MW-11 Purgeble Aromatics
MW-13 Purgeble Aromatics
J
Metals
MW-16 Purgeble Aromatics
MW-19 Metals
MW-21 Purgeble Aromatics
Metals
PS= Performance Standard
ug/L= Micrograms per liter
1Always Below PS: See Table 2
Method
EPA 7000
EPA 8020
EPA 8020
EPA 7000
EPA 8020
EPA 7000
EPA8020
EPA 7000
2Passed Asymptocity Test: See Appendix I
TABLE 1
Summary of the Parameters Proposed for Elimination
Macon/Dockery -Cordova, North Carolina
Page 1
'Number of
Previous Performance Reason for Elimination
Sampling Standard 1Always Below 2Passed Asymptocity
Parameters Events (ug/L) PS Test
Cadmium 22 5 X
Lead 22 15 X
Benzene 21 1 X
Toluene 21 1000 X
Total Xylenes 21 400 X
Acetone 21 3500 X
Benzene 22 1 X
Toluene 22 1000 X
Total Xylenes 22 400 X
Acetone 22 3500 X
Cadmium 21 5 X
Lead 21 15 X
Benzene 19 1 X
Toluene 19 1000 X
Total Xylenes 19 400 X
Acetone 19 3500 X
Cadmium 22 5 X
Lead 22 15 X
Benzene 23 1 X
Toluene 23 1000 X
Total Xylenes 23 400 X
Acetone 23 3500 X
Cadmium 23 5 X
Lead 23 15 X
3Number of samples analyzed from startup to December 2001
•
•
I
J
Sample
Location Analysis
MW-22 Metals
MW-23 Purgeble Aromatics
Metals
MW-24 Purgeble Halocarbons
Purgeble Aromatics
Metals
PS= Performance Standard
ug/L= Micrograms per liter
1Always Below PS: See Table 2
Method
EPA 7000
EPA 8020
EPA 7000
EPA 8010
EPA 8020
EPA 7000
2Passed Asymptocity Test: See Appendix I
TABLE 1
Summary of the Parameters Proposed for Elimination
Macon/Dockery -Cordova, North Carolina
Page 2
'Number of
Previous Performance Reason for Elimination
Sampling Standard 1Always Below 2 Passed Asymptocity
Parameters Events (ug/L) PS Test
Cadmium 21 5 X
Lead 21 15 X
Benzene 22 1 X
Toluene 22 1000 X
Total Xylenes 22 400 X
Acetone 22 3500 X
Cadmium 22 5 X
Lead 22 15 X
Chloroform 22 1 X
1, 1-Dichloroethane 22 3500 X
1, 1-Dichloroethene 22 7 X
1,2-Dichloroethene 22 70 X
Methylene Chloride 22 5 X
Tetrachloroethane 22 1 X
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 22 200 X
Trichloroethylene 22 2.8 X
Vinyl Chloride 22 1 X
Benzene 22 1 X
Toluene 22 1000 X
Total Xylenes 22 400 X
Acetone 22 3500 X
Cadmium 22 5 X
Lead 22 15 X
3Number of samples analyzed from startup to December 2001
•
•
I
Sample
Location Analysis
MW-25 Purgeble Halocarbons
Purgeble Aromatics
PS= Performance Standard
ug/L= Micrograms per liter
1Always Below PS: See Table 2
Method
EPA 8010
EPA 8020
'Passed Asymptocity Test: See Appendix I
TABLE 1
Summary of the Parameters Proposed for Elimination
Macon/Dockery -Cordova, North Carolina
Page 3
'Number of
Previous Performance Reason for Elimination
Sampling Standard 1Always Below 12 Passed Asymptocity
Parameters Events (ug/L) PS Test
Chlorform 22 1 X
1, 1-Dichloroethane 22 3500 X
1, 1-Dichloroethene 22 7 X
1,2-Dichloroethene 22 70 X
Methylene Chloride 22 5 X
Tetrachloroethane 22 1 X
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 22 200 X
Trichloroethylene 22 2.8 X
Vinyl Chloride 22 1 X
Benzene 22 1 X
Toluene 22 1000 X
Total Xylenes 22 400 X
Acetone 22 3500 X
3Number of samples analyzed from startup to December 2001
•
•
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Well ID
MW2A
(DUP)
(DUP2)
(DUP 2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
(DUP-2)
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page I
•
PARAMETERS
Cadmium Lead
Date (ug/L) (ug/L)
2/13/1996 <0.30 <3.0
5/2/1996 <0.30 <3.0
5/2/1996 <0.30 <3.0
7/31/1996 <0.30 <3.0
11/6/1996 <0.30 <3.0
2/4/1997 <0.30 <3.0
5/12/1997 <0.30 <3.0
8/6/1997 <0.30 <3.0
11/12/1997 <1 <3.0
11/12/1997 <I <3.0
2/5/1998 <0.30 8.8
5/6/1998 <0.30 <3.0
5/6/1998 <0.30 <3.0
8/7/1998 <0.30 <3.0
8/7/1998 <0.30 <3.0
11/4/1998 <0.30 <3.0
11/4/1998 <0.30 <3.0
2/10/1999 <0.30 <3.0
2/10/1999 <0.30 <3.0
5/13/1999 <0.30 <3.0
5/13/1999 <0.30 <3.0
8/6/1999 <0.30 9.1
8/6/1999 <03.0 6.9
11/3/1999 I. I <3.0
11/3/1999 <0.30 <3.0
2/17/2000 <0.30 <3.0
2/17/2000 <0.30 <3.0
5/8/2000 <0.30 <3.0
5/8/2000 <0.30 <3.0
8/2/2000 <0.30 <3.0
8/2/2000 <0.30 <3.0
1/17/2001 <0.30 <3.0
1/17/2001 <0.30 <3.0
7/11/2001 <0.30 <3.0
7/11/200 I <0.30 <3.0
1/16/2002 0.85 7.4
I /16/2002 0.38 6.2
PS 5 15
Well ID
MW-I I
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Date
2/14/1996
5/2/1996
7/30/1996
I I /6/1996
2/4/1997
5/12/1997
8/6/1997
11/13/1997
2/5/1998
5/6/1998
8/7/1998
I 1/4/1998
2/10/1999
5/12/1999
8/5/1999
11/2/1999
2/17/2000
5/8/2000
8/3/2000
1/17/2001
7/11/2001
Iii 6/2002
PS
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page2
•
PARAMETERS
Benzene Toluene Total Xylenes
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
I 1000 400
Acetone
(ug/L)
<IO
<10
<IO
<IO
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<IO
<10
<IO
<IO
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
3500
Well ID Date
MWl3 2/14/ I 996
(DL) 2/14/1996
5/2/1996
7/30/1996
I I /6/1996
2/4/1997
5/12/1997
8/6/1997
11/11/1997
2/5/1998
5/6/1998
8/7/1998
I 1/4/1998
2/1 Oil 999
5/13/1999
8/5/1999
11/3/1999
2/16/2000
5/8/2000
8/2/2000
1/17/2001
7/11/2001
1/16/2002
PS
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Benzene
(ug/L)
1.2
<1.0
<1.0
2.5
1.4
1.2
<2.0
<2.0
<5
<1.0
<2.0
I
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Not
Not
I
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 3
•
PARAMETERS
Toluene Total Xylene Acetone
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<2.0 <6.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<2.0 <6.0 <20
<2.0 <6.0 <20
<5 <15 <50
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<2.0 <6.0 <20
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
Sampled Dry
Sampled Dry
1000 400 3500
Cadmium Lead
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<3.0 17
<3.0 <3.0
<3.0 20
<6.0 33
<3.0 13
<3.0 16
<6.0 6.2
<6.0 8.7
<15 5.5
<3.0 7.3
<6.0 <3.0
<3.0 <3.0
<3.0 7.1
<3.0 27
<3.0 16
<3.0 28
<3.0 14
<3.0 <3.0
<3.0 7.8
<3.0 I 1.0
<3.0 8.1
Conditions
Conditions
400 15
Well ID
MW 16
(DUI')
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Date
2/13/1996
5/2/1996
7/31/1996
11/7/1996
11/7/1996
2/5/1997
5/13/1997
8/6/1997
11/12/1997
2/5/1998
5/6/ l 998
8/6/1998
11/3/1998
2/1 1/1999
5/12/1999
8/6/1999
I l /2/1999
2/17/2000
7/11/2001
J/16/2002
PS
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page4
•
PARAMETERS
Benzene Toluene Total Xylene
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 I.I <3.0
<1.0 2 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<2.0 <2.0 <6.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<2.0 <2.0 <6.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <1.0 <3.0
Not Sampled Well
I 1000 400
Acetone
(ug/L)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<JO
<IO
<20
<JO
<JO
<JO
<JO
<10
<JO
<20
<JO
<JO
<JO
<JO
Dry
3500
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Well ID
MW-19
(DL)
(DL)
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 5
•
PARAMETERS
Cadmium Lead
Date (ug/L) (ug/L)
2/13/1996 <0.30 <3.0
2/13/1996 <0.30 <3.0
5/2/1996 <0.30 <3.0
5/2/1996 <0.30 <3.0
7/31/1996 <0.30 <3.0
11/6/1996 <0.30 <3.0
2/5/1997 <0.30 <3.0
5/12/1997 <0.30 <3.0
8/6/1997 <0.30 <3.0
11/12/1997 <1.0 <3.0
2/5/1998 <0.30 <3.0
5/6/1998 <0.30 <3.0
8/7/1998 <0.30 <3.0
I I /3/1998 <0.30 <3.0
2/10/1999 <0.30 <3.0
5/13/1999 0.30 <3.0
8/5/1999 <0.30 8.8
11/2/1999 <0.30 4.8
2/17/2000 <0.30 <3.0
5/8/2000 <0.30 <3.0
8/3/2000 0.85 9.2
1/18/2001 0.66 9.4
7/11/2001 Dry Conditions
1/16/2002 Dry Conditions
PS 5 15
Well ID Date
MW-21 2/14/1996
5/2/1996
7/30/1996
11/7/1996
2/4/1997
5/12/1997
8/6/1997
11/11/1997
2/6/1998
5/5/1998
8/6/1998
11/3/1998
2/11/1999
5/12/1999
8/6/1999
11/3/1999
2/17/2000
5/9/2000
8/2/2000
1/18/200 I
7/11/2001
1/16/2002
PS
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Benzene
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
I
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 6
•
PARAMETERS
Toluene Total Xylene Acetone
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
1.4 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
1000 400 3500
Cadmium Lead
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 20
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 3.3
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
<0.30 <3.0
5 15
•
Well ID
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
MW22
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 7
•
PARAMETERS
Cadmium Lead
Date (ug/L) (ug/L)
2/14/1996 <0.30 39
5/2/1996 <0.30 15
7/30/1996 <0.30 15
11/6/1996 <0.30 4.3
2/4/1997 <0.30 12
5/12/1997 <0.30 9.3
8/7/1997 <0.30 7.6
11/11/1997 <1.0 <3.0
2/5/1998 <0.3 10
5/6/1998 <0.3 10
8/6/1998 <0.30 10
11/4/1998 <0.30 <3.0
2/10/1999 <0.30 7.1
5/13/1999 <0.30 8.0
8/5/1999 <0.30 8.1
11/3/1999 <0.30 7.4
2/16/2000 <0.30 <3.0
5/8/2000 <0.30 13.0
8/2/2000 <0.30 24.0
1/17/2001 <0.30 4.5
7/20/200 I <0.30 <3.0
1/16/2002 <0.30 7.1
PS 5 l 5
Well ID Date
MW23 2/15/1996
5/3/1996
(DUP) 5/3/1996
7/30/1996
11/6/1996
2/4/1997
5/12/1997
8/6/1997
l l/11/1997
2/5/1998
5/5/1998
8/6/1998
I 1/4/1998
2/10/1999
5/13/1999
8/5/1999
I 1/3/1999
2/17/2000
5/8/2000
8/2/2000
1/18/200 I
7/11/2001
Ill 6/2002
PS
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
•
Benzene
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<J.O
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<J.O
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
I
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrgrams per liter
TABLE2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 8
PARAMETERS
Toluene Total Xylene
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
I <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
<1.0 <3.0
1000 400
•
Acetone Cadmium Lead
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
20 <0.30 28
<10 <0.30 21
<IO <0.30 <3.0
<20 <0.30 3.5
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 4.7 470
<10 <1.0 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<1.0 <0.30 6.2
<IO <0.30 3.6
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<IO <0.30 4.0
<10 <0.30 <3.0
<10 <0.30 5.1
<10 <0.30 <3.0
3500 5 15
Well ID
MW24
(DUP)
. .
-__ .
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
Date
2/13/1996
2/13/1996
5/2/1996
8/1/1996
11/7/1996
2/5/1997
5/13/1997
S/5/1997
11/12/1997
2/5/1998
5/6/1998
8/6/1998
11/3/1998
2/11/1999
5/12/1999
8/6/1999
11/2/1999
2/17/2000
5/9/2000
8/3/2000
1/18/2001
7/11/2001
1/16/2002
-f" _PS'
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = microgram per liter
Chloroform
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
; J .-.
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 9
PARAMETERS
I, 1-Dichlorocthane 11 I-Dichlorocthenc 1,2-Dichloroethenc
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
8.4 <1.0 <1.0
8.5 <1.0 <1.0
7.5 <1.0 <1.0
3.7 4.8 14
7.1 <1.0 <1.0
26 <1.0 <1.0
16 <1.0 <1.0
17 <1.0 <1.0
19 <1.0 <1.0
32 <1.0 <1.0
24 <1.0 <1.0
30 <1.0 <1.0
33 <1.0 <1.0
24 <1.0 <1.0
29 <1.0 <1.0
27 <1.0 <1.0
16 <1.0 <1.0
33 <1.0 <1.0
28 <1.0 <1.0
16 <1.0 <1.0
23 <1.0 <1.0
14 <1.0 <1.0
24 <1.0 <1.0
:3500. ---.: --.-r " ' . -~ · 70 . ..
. --
i\'lcthylcne Chloride Tctrachlororthanc
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 5.2
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0 • <2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0 • <2.0 <1.0 . 5 • -· ; I . . .
" . " " .
I, I 1 1-TrichloroL·thanc
Well ID Date
MW24 2/13/1996
(DUP) 2/13/1996
5/2/1996
8/1/1996
11/7/1996
2/5/1997
5/13/1997
8/5/1997
11/12/1997
2/5/1998
5/6/1998
S/6/1998
I I /3/1998
2/11/1999
5/12/1999
8/6/1999
11/2/1999
2/17/2000
5/9/2000
8/3/2000
1/18/2001
7/11/2001
1/16/2002 . ' P,S:,
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = microgram per liter
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.7
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
200 ' .
Trichlorocthylenc
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
20
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
2.8 . '
TABLE2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page 10
PARAMETERS
Vinyl Chloride Benzene Toluene
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 1.2
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
. .I' -1.:. ·' . 1000
' . ..
Total Xylene.· An·tonc Cadmium Lead
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<3.0 <10 <0.30 32
<3.0 <10 <0.30 28
<3.0 <10 <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <10 <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0 • <3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <10 <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <I 4.3
<3.0 <IO <0.30 3.8
<3.0 <IO <0.30 4.7
<3.0 <IO <0.30 4.5
<3.0 <IO 1.3 14
<3.0 <10 <0.30 8.1
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <0.30 5.5
<3.0 <IO <0.30 4.5
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO <0.30 6.2
<3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0 • <3.0 <IO <0.30 <3.0
<3.0 <IO 0.91 <3.0
' ' ;100, . ·. 3500 ~ . ·.5 e:· . 15 '
Chloroform
Well ID Date
iVl \V 25 2/13/1996
5/2/1996
7/31/1996
11/7/1996
2/5/1997
5/13/1997
8/5/1997
11/12/1997
2/5/1998
5/7/1998
8/6/1998
I I /3/1998
2/11/1999
5/12/ I 999
8/5/1999
I I /2/1999
2/17/2000
5/9/2000
8/3/2000
1/18/200 I
7/20/2001
1/16/2002
-PS:
NA= Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
-
PS = Perfonnance Standard
ug/L = microgram per liter
(ug/L)
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
F-
I: 1-Dichlorocthanc
(ug/L)
4.2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
3500 > -
TABLE2
Groundwater Quality Summary
Macon/Dockery
Page II
PARAMETERS
I 1 1-Dich loroct hcnc 1,2-dichlorocthcnc
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
1.2 <!.O
1.6 <1.0
I.I <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
LI <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
2.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0
·7 . -70 -----_
Methylene Chloride Tetrach lorocthcnc
(ug/L) (ug/L)
<2.0 <!.O
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0 • <2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
<2.0 <1.0
5_ -.J -. ~s •
Well ID Date
Mll'25 2/13/1996
5/2/1996
7/31/1996
11/7/1996
2/5/1997
5/13/1997
8/5/1997
11/12/1997
'.
NA = Not Analyzed
DL = Dilution
DUP = Duplicate
2/5/1998
5/7/1998
8/6/1998
I 1/3/1998
2/11/1999
5/12/1999
S/5/ 1999
I 1/2/1999
2/17/2000
5/9/2000
8/3/2000
1/18/2001
7/20/2001
1/16/2002
PS:
PS = Performance Standard
ug/L = micrograms per liter
I: I~ I -Trichloroethane
(ug/L)
I.I
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0 . 200 . . .
TABLE 2
Groundwater Quality Summary
l\.hcon/Dockery
Page 12
PARAMETERS
Triclorocthylene Vinyl Chloride Benzene
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
<1.0 <1.0 <1.0
,2.3·· ' . ., . I '_: -i'.' . ~", I •
Toluene Total Xylene Acetone
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10 • <1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <10
<1.0 <3.0 <IO
<1.0 <3.0 <IO • • 1000. s· .400. . . 3500
• •
APPENDIX A
• Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 06/09/03
Well: MW-13
Contaminant: Benzene
•
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration::::: A-e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
These are elapsed
days from start-up: vx ::::
76
167
264
353
450
536
634
718
808
901
990
1087
I 186
1271
1360
1465
1553
1639
1746
These are concentration
of the contaminant in
micrograms per Liter:
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
Concentration vy
vx
Time in Days
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.4
1.2
2.0
2.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
vy:=
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
vy
efit(vx)
•
exp := exp fit( vx, vy, guess)
[
1.407 l
exp= -4.325x ,o-4
0.464
•
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
exp1·X efit(x) := exp0-e + exp2
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
I 4 I
I I
3
2 ........
-----------------------------------
I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 0.464 micrograms per liter.
• Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 06/09/03
Well: MW-13
Contaminant: Lead
•
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration := A e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
These are elapsed
days from start-up: YX :=
76
166
264
353
450
536
634
718
808
901
990
1087
1186
1271
1360
1465
1553
1639
1746
These are concentration
of the contaminant in
micrograms per Liter:
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
Concentration vy
vx
17
20
33
13
16
6.2
8.7
5.5
7.3
3.0
'I'/:= 3.0
7.1
27
16
28
14
3.0
7.8
11
8.1
vy
efit(vx)
exp:= expfit(vx, vy,guess)
[
12.258 l
exp= -3.926 x ,o-3
10,631
30
25
20
15
10
5
•
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
0 ---------------------~--~--~ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = I 0.631 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 06/09/03
Well: MW-16
Contaminant: Benzene
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW16 Benzene.med
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration:= Ae + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
These are elapsed
days from start-up: vx:=
76
166
264
353
450
536
634
718
808
901
990
1087
I I 86
1271
1360
1465
1805
These are concentration
of the contaminant in
micrograms per Liter: vy:=
2
2
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
Concentration vy
2
1.5 f-
I 0
The semilog graph looks like this:
C .g e c u u § vy u
~ 0
on 3
VY1s
vx,
exp:; expfit(vx, vy,guess)
I I
I I
500 l000
vx
Time in Days
vx
Time in days
I
-
I
1500 2000
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW16 Benzene.med
vy
cfit(vx)
•
[
0.944 :
exp= 3.209 x IO-5
0.142
l.8 -
1.6 ,-
1.4 ,-
1.2 I-
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW16 Benzene.med
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
-
-
-
-
............................. -----.......................... -----
I~-----~'-~----~'-~-~---~'-----~
0 500 1000 1500 2000
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 0.142 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11103
Well: MW-21
Contaminant: Lead
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW 21 Lead.med
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration:= A•e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on· a user estimate of A B and C.
I 3~
76 20
166 3.0
264 3.0
353 3.0
450 3.0
536 .3.0
634 3.0
718 3.0
808 3.0
901 These are concentration 3.0
These are elapsed 990 of the contaminant in 3.0 days from start-up: vx:= micrograms per Liter: vy:= 1087 3.0
1186 3.3
1271 3.0
1360 3.0
1465 3.0
1553 3.0
1639 3.0
1746 3.0
1805 3.0
1992 3.0
2195 3.0
2377 3.0
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
20 ~---i----i---i----i---
Concentration vy -
' ' ' ' 0 '------'------L-----'----'----'
0 500 IO00 1500 2000 2500
vx
Time in Days
The semilog graph looks like this:
C 0
·~
c u u
100
§ vy 10 u __ ...
0
g/'
..J
I
--, -,
I
500
exp := exp fit( vx, vy, guess)
IO00
vx
Time in days
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW 21 Lead.med
•
[
6.375 l
exp= -3.661 x 10-3
2.791
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW 21 Lead.med
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
20 ~~----,I~-----.--,-----~,-----,--I-----,
15
vy
10 clit( vx)
• • • •
5 -
' I
500 1000
-
-
-
I ' 1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 2.791 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11 /03
Well: MW-22
Contaminant: Lead
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW 22 Lead.med
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration:::: A.e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a-user estimate of A B and C.
I 39
76 15
166 15
264 4.3
353 12
450 9.3
536 7.6
634 3.0
718 10
808 JO
901 These are concentration JO
These are elapsed 990 of the contaminant in 3.0 days from start-up: vx:::: micrograms per Liter: vy:= 1087 7.1
1186 8.0
1271 8.1
1360 7.4
1465 3.0
1553 13
1639 24
1746 4.5
1805 3.0
1992 7.1
2195 3.0
2377 3.0
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
Concentration vy 20
The semilog graph looks like this:
= .g
f; = u u
§ "Y u __
~ 0
00 0 ...l
10
JOO
-/ _\. /
V
I
~
500
exp:= expfit(vx, vy,guess)
500 1000 1500
vx
Time in Days
I
l000
vx
Time in days
2000 2500
\
\
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW 22 Lead.med
•
[
31.375]
exp= -0.016
30
vy
20 efil( vx)
10
7.754
500
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW 22 Lead.med
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
l000 1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 7.754 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11/03
Well: MW-23
Contaminant: Lead
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW23 Lead.med
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration := A e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
I 28
76 21
166 3.5
264 3.0
353 3.0
450 3.0
536 470
634 3.0
718 3.0
808 3.0
901 These are concentration 3.0
These are elapsed 990 of the contaminant in 3.0 days from start-up: vx:= micrograms per Liter: vy:= 1087 3.0
1186 3.0
1271 6.2
1360 3.6
1465 3.0
1553 3.0
1639 4.0
1746 3.0
1805 5.1
1992 3.0
2195 4.3
2377 3.0
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
600
400 -
Concentration vy
200 ~
~ 0 0
The semilog graph looks like this:
C 0 ·g
c ~ u
100
g vy 10 (.) __
~ 0
"" 3
\
-I -I.....
i
500
guess:= [-o.~~o,]
3.0
exp:= expfit(vx, vy,guess)
I I I
I I I
500 1000 1500
vx
Time in Days
1000
vx
Time in days
I
I
I
-
-
I
2000 2500
·-' ' '--/
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW23 Lead.med
vy
efit(vx)
•
[
48.988 l
exp= -8.52x 10-4
3.009
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW23 Lead. med
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
500~----~,------,------,-------,----~
400 --
300 --
200 --
100 --
----...... I
-------------------------~--------------r-------------~-----------
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 3.009 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11/03
Well: MW-24
Contaminant: Trichloroethylene
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 TCE.mcd
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-B-t Concentration := A e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
These are elapsed
days from start-up: vx:=
76
166
264
353
450
536
634
718
808
901
990
1087
1186
1271
1360
1465
1553
1639
1746
1805
1992
2195
2377
These are concentration
of the contaminant in
micrograms per Liter: vy:=
1.0
1.0
20
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
20 ----,----,---,----,---
Concentration vy
The semilog graph looks like this:
C .9 ~ C
1:l g vy u __
~ 0
g/'
...J
10
0.1
-
-
-
' I
I
500
exp:; expfit(vx, vy,guess)
500 1000 1500
vx
Time in Days
-
I
: . --
i
:
!
I
1000
vx
Time in days
-
2000 2500
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 TCE.mcd
vy
efit( vx)
•
[
4.644 l
exp= -l.864x 10-J
0.591
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 TCE.mcd
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
20 ~~---.,-----.,-----~,-----~,----,
I 5 >-
.. ..
-
.................. ........................
I I
500 1000
-
-
-
I------------•,··---------
1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 0.591 micrograms per liter.
•
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11/03
Well: MW-24
Contaminant: Lead
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 Lead.med
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-8-t Concentration := A•e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
32
76 3.0
166 3,0
264 3.0
353 3.0
450 3.0
536 3.0
634 4.3
718 3.8
808 4.7
901 These are concentration 4.5
These are elapsed 990 of the contaminant in 14 days from start-up: vx := micrograms per Liter: vy:~ 1087 8.1
I 186 3.0
1271 5.5
1360 4.5
1465 3.0
1553 3.0
1639 6.2
1746 3.0
1805 3.0
1992 3.0
2195 3.0
2377 3.0
• •
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
Concentration vy
vx
Time in Days
The semilog graph looks like this:
I
\ A I
~
500
exp := expfit(vx, vy ,guess)
I
1000
vx
Time in days
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 Lead.med
•
[
40.26 l
exp= -0.372
4.243
35
30
25
vy 20
cfit(vx)
15
10
5
0 0 500
•
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW24 Lead.med
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
1000 1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 4.243 micrograms per liter.
• •
Test For Asymptocity
Project Name: Macon Dockery
Project Location: Cordova, NC
Project Number: 190-00001-01
Date: 6/11 /03
Well: MW-24
Contaminant: Tetrachloroethene
• Page No. 1 of 3
6/20/03
MW 24 Tetrachloroethene.mcd
This program fits an exponential decay curve to time versus concentration data. The general
equation for exponential decay is:
-ll-t Concentration := A e + C
Mathcad determines the best fit for the general equation based on a user estimate of A B and C.
These are elapsed
days from start-up: vx:=
76
166
264
353
450
536
634
718
808
901
990
1087
1186
1271
1360
1465
1553
1639
1746
1805
1992
2195
2377
These are concentration
of the contaminant in
micrograms per Liter: vy:=
1.0
1.0
5.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
• • Page No. 2 of 3
6/20/03
MW 24 Tetrachloroethene.mcd
The linear graph of the data looks like this:
6
4 -
Concentration vy
2
0 0
The semilog graph looks like this:
C 0
·~
c ~ u
§ vy u __
~ 0
"' 0 ....l
IO
0.1
-· I -
\ -\
[
5.0 l guess:= -0.
1
00 I
500
exp := expfit(vx, vy, guess)
I I I I
-
-
I I I I
500 1000 1500
vx
Time in Days
I
-i-··
i.
I
I
I
!
I
IOOO
vx
Time in days
2000 2500
1500
This is the user provided best guess for the
constants A, B, C, respectively.
This is Mathcad's solver routine
•
vy
cfit( vx)
•
[
1.023 l
exp= -1.852 x 10-3
0.911
3-
• Page No. 3 of 3
6/20/03
MW 24 Tetrachloroethene.mcd
These are the Mathcad determined
A, B, and C values.
This equation sets up a graph of the Mathcad
regression curve.
-
-
-
-
...............
I >-
.............. ................
---------------------
' I I I
500 l000 1500 2000 2500
vx
The graphs above are linear plots of the regression equation superimposed on the actual data. The
user should check to make sure the plot looks reasonable.
Based on the regression, the data is asymptotically approaching a concentration of:
exp2 = 0.91 I micrograms per liter.
•
March 23, 2004
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
•
Re: Macon/Dockery Site -Cordova, North Carolina
Acknowledgement of Lower Dockery Suspension Approval
Dear Ms. Bennett:
In a letter from the Environmenta\ Protection Agency (EPA) dated March 16,
2004, the Macon/Dockery Site Group (MDSG) \va_s granted permission to suspend the
operation of the Lower Dockery groundwater remediation system at the above mentioned
site. The suspension request was approved on the condition that groundwater monitoring
wells MW-16 and MW-24 will be sampled on a quarterly basis until the MDSG can
demonstrate that the cleanup goals for all constituents of concern have been maintained
for four consecutive quarterly sampling events.
The MDSG intends to initiate the sampling of groundwater monitoring wells
MW-16 and MW-24 on a quarterly basis stai1ing in April, 2004. The groundwater
samples will be obtained using low flow sampling techniques and field filtration with the
intention of minimizing turbidity. Groundwater samples collected from monitoring weils
MW-16 and MW-24 will be analyzed for volatile organic compounds by EPA methods
80 I 0/8020, total Chromium. Manganese, Cadmium, and Lead, by EPA method 60 I 0, and
total suspended sediment by EPA method 160.2.
It is our understanding that if the analytical results demonstrate that
concentrations of the analyzed parameters remain below the performance standards for
the four quarterly events, then the MDSG may request system closure (including
equipment removal and well plugging) from the EPA.
434 Copperfield Blvd. N.E., Suite B • Concord, North Curolino 28025 • Tel: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.oppliedenrth.co m
•
The MDSG appreciates the EPA 's consideration of the documented request.
Should you have any questions regarding these requests, please do not hesitate to contact
us at [phone].
Sincerely,
APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES, INC
.,;/ / , ,; ·; . ~
,/;lMn A tt1tci,v:J---
1aies S. Gk1hertsfelder
Project Geologist
~~ 1/
Thomas W. Witner, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Cc: Macon/Dockery Site Group Members
Mike Profit, CDM Federal Programs
David Mattison, NC Supcrfund Section