NCD981021157_19901130_New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit_FRBCERCLA RISK_Final Risk Assessment Feasibility Study Work Plan-OCR

D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES FOR EPA REGION IV
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
FINAL
RISK ASSESSMENT/FEASIBILITY STUDY
WORK PLAN
FOR THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT
BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
VOLUME I
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 05-4L5Q
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO.
7740-005-WP-BCCS
November 30. 1990
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared By:
CDM Federal Programs Corporation
2030 Powers Ferry Road. Suite 490
Atlanta. Georgia 30339
**COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL**
This document has been prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-W9-0056. The material contained herein is not to be
disclosed to. discussed with. or made available to any person or persons for
any reason without the prior expressed approval of a responsible official of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
COM ARCS IV
Atlanta, Georgia
742/9
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS
November 30, 1990
Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Project: EPA Contract No. 68-W9-0056
Document Control No.: 7740~005-EP-BCCT
Subject: Transmittal of Final Risk Assessment and
Feasibility study work Plan
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site
Wilmington, North Carolina
Work Assignment No. 05-4L5Q, Revision .01
Dear Mr. Bornholm:
CORPORATION
COM Federal Programs Corporation (FPC) is pleased to submit five (5)
copies of the final Risk Assessment/Feasibility Study (RA,IFS) Work Plan
for the New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit Site in Wilmington, North
Carolina. This document has been prepared in accordance with the
revised work assignment and EPA national and Region IV guidance and
procedures.
The Work Plan is presented in two volumes. Volume I contains the
technical approach and Volume II presents the cost proposal. As shown
in Volume II, the work will be completed using a combination of COM
Federal Programs Corporation ·(FPC) and COM personnel. All subcontract-
ing will be performed by COM FPC.
The total projected cost of the RA,IFS, as described in the work Plan, is
$248,801. The total professional level of effort (LOE) is 2696;
support/clerical LOE is 534 for a total of 3230. These costs and LOE
specifically address the project approach described in Volume I which
reflects the change in scope as described in Revision .01 of the work
assignment.
Briefly, FPC activities will be limited to RI support (ESQ Work Plan and
RI Report Review, an endangered species survey, treatability study
testing, and land surveying), preparing the risk assessment and
conducting the feasibility study.
701 Scarboro Road, Suite 3005 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 615 482-1065
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jon K. Bornholm
November 30, 1990
Page Two
COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION
The project schedule has not been defined herein due to uncertainties in
the PRP and EPA schedules. A schedule will be developed and submitted
for approval at a later date when the necessary information is
available.
Please don't hesitate to contact me with your questions or comments. I
would be pleased to meet with you to discuss and review these documents at your convenience.
Sincerely,
COM Federal Programs Corporation
Mary Lesli
Associate
"ojec, 7";,1 /)°' 1 J6~sr.,~.G.
dent
Program ager
ML:RCJ/vd
cc: Keith Mills, EPA Region IV Contracting Specialist
Abel B. Dunning, F&A Manager
Document Control
Attachments
Final RA,IFS Work Plan, Volumes I and II: 7740-005-WP-BCCS
D
E
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Approved by:
REMEDIAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES AT SELECTED
UNCONTROLLED HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DISPOSAL
SITES FOR EPA REGION IV
U.S. EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0056
FINAL
RISK ASSESSMENT/FEASIBILITY STUDY
WORK PLAN
FOR THE
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT
BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
VOLUME I
WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 05-4L5Q
DOCUMENT CONTROL NO. 7740-005-WP-BCCS
Date: ll-d{9-9o
Date:
Date:
Finance and Administration Manager
742/9
D
0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
E Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION I -I • I. I Work Plan Overview 1-1
1.2 Site Status and Project ype 1-3
I 2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION 2-1
I 2.1 Site Description 2-1
2.1.1 Location 2-1
2.1.2 History 2-1
I 2.1.3 Physical Features 2-4
2.2 Geolop 2-5
2.3 Hydro ogy 2-7
I 2.3.1 Surface Water 2-7
2.3.2 Groundwater 2-11
I 2.4 Previous Investigations 2-15
2.4.1 Groundwater Data 2-15
I 2.4.2 Surface Water/Sediment Data 2-16
2.4.3 Soil Data 2-16
2.4.4 Tank and Burn Pit Contents 2-16
I 2.5 Project Objectives 2-21
I 3.0 PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 3-1
I 3. I Data Requirements 3-2
3.2 Existing Data Base 3-4
3.3 Data Gaps 3-5
I 4.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPE OF WORK 4-1
4. I Task 1.0 -Project Planning 4-1
I 4.2 Task 2.0 -Subcontractor Procurement 4-2
4.3 Task 3.0 -RI Support Activities 4-2
I 4.3.1 Subtask 3.1 -Review of EPA"s Remedial
Investigation Work Plan 4-2
4.3.2 Subtask 3. 2 -Surveying and Mapping
of the Site 4-2
I 4.3.3 Subtask 3.3 -Endangered Species Survey 4-3
I 742/ I I
I
u
0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
m Section Page
4.4 Task 4.0 -Risk Assessment 4-3
I 4.4.1 Subtask 4.1 -Contaminant Identification 4-3
4.4.2 Subtask 4.2 -Exposure Assessment 4-4
4.4.3 Subtask 4.3 -Toxicity Assessment 4-4
I 4.4.4 Subtask 4 .4 -Risk Characterization 4-4
4.4.5 Subtask 4. 5 -Endangered Species Assessment 4-5
I
4.5 Task 5.0 -Treatability Study/Pilot Testing · 4-5
4.6 Task 6.0 -Remedial Investigation Report Review 4-5
I 5.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK 5-1
5.1 Task 7.0 -Remedial Alternatives Development 5-1
I 5.1.1 Subtask 7. I -Preliminary Remedial
Alternative Development 5-1
5.1.2 Subtask 7.2 -Initial Screening of
I Remedial Alternatives 5-2
5.1.3 Subtask 7. 3 -Remedial Aiternauves Analysts 5-3
5.1.4 Subtask 7.4 -Comparative Ranking of
Remedial Alternatives 5-7
I 5.2 Task 8.0 -Feasibility Study Report 5-7
I 5.2.1 Subtask 8. I -Public Meeting 5-7
5.2.2 Subtask 8.2 -Final Feasibility Study 5-8
5.3 Task 9.0 -Quality Assurance 5-8
I 5.4 Task 10.0 -Technical and Financial Management 5-9
5.5 Task 11.0 -Community Relations Support 5-9
I 6.0 SCHEDULE 6-1
I 7.0 STAFFING PLAN 7-1
7. I Project Organization 7-1
7.2 Quality Assurance Organization 7-4
I 7.3 Team Firms 7-6
7.4 Subcontractors 7-6
I 8.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN 8-1
I REFERENCES
I II
742/11
I
D
0 LIST OF FIGURES
E Figure Page
1-1 Site Location Map 1-2
I 2-1 Site Features Map 2-6
2-2 Stratigraphic Section 2-8
I 2-3 Physiographic Features 2-10
2-4 Generalized Hydrogeologic Section 2-12
I 2-5 Approximate Soil and Waste Sample Locations -1986 2-18
7-1 Project Organization 7-2 I 7-2 ARCS Region IV QA Organization 7-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ill I 742/11
I
0
u LIST OF TABLES
E Table Page
2-1 Results of 1986 Bum Pit Soil Analyses 2-17
I 2-2 Results of 1985 Bum Pit Sludge Analyses 2-19
2-3 Results of 1986 Bum Pit Sludge Analyses 2-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I IV
742/11
I
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The New Hanover County Airport Bum Pit Site (New Hanover Site). is located in
New Hanover County, Wilmington, North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The bum pit was
constructed around 1968 and used until 1979 by the Cape Fear Technical
Institute and the Wilmington Fire Department for fire training purposes. Jet
fuel (JP-4), drainage from petroleum fuel storage tanks. kerosene. and oil were
used to fuel the fires. and water. carbon dioxide, and dry chemicals used to
extinguish the fires. Sorbent materials from river spill cleanups were also
disposed of in the pit sometime prior to 1982. The U.S. Customs Service also
burned confiscated drugs in the pit on occasion.
In 1985, the County applied for a pem,it for land application of oil sludge and
water from the bum pit. but the application was denied. The New Hanover
County Department of Engineering conducted sampling in 1985 that revealed heavy
metals and volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) in the pit sludge. In 1986.
the North Carolina Division of Health Services sampled the bottom sludge layer
of the pit and soil outside the pit. The State's sampling effort detected
heavy metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and VOCs. This site
was subsequently proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL).
In accordance with Work Assignment Number 05-4L5Q. Revision .0 I. issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 8, 1990, COM Federal Programs
Corporation (FPC) has developed this work plan for conducting a risk assessment
(RA) and feasibility study (FS) for the New Hanover Site. The work will be
perfom,ed with funds set aside by the Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). otherwise known as Superfund. The
remedial investigation (RI) will be conducted by EPA Environmental Services
Division (ESD) and will address the nature and extent of the contamination
problem in sufficient detail to support then RA and the FS of remedial
alternatives to be performed by FPC.
I. I WORK PLAN OVERVIEW
This work plan addresses appropriate sections of the RI/FS guidance outlined by
1-1
742/2
8
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I /
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1700 "'00
-◊~r4
~~
i!>.11.
-/e11 -... E / .:··-,~t, , f';-i-.•I ".lo J ; 'Jlt-.·_.,..,_ .,,,, . , ,,/'<t ,·';,
• ;, •£-~(Dy ~ .
\•""'II/°'\.· l,s\/
--,.ucuu.a c1
. ~~ '{(' .......
~II !O ..
, .
"""
AV.
i !
-6
:;~\ .
~i ~-,\ .
a.
NEW HANOVER SITE I /
:~M LtertiN "':.'-, .• :;~•~. :t·~
i
9
-~~;
CRH~liOOO,_.l~" ,,
NORTHlie,k,_j~ _ z~
.''"ousu, .. l -•~._/'-; \' ,a: c BARCLAY,~: .. _,.. .
•••• ...J • ~s-1~ J ·!HI LL~ _;!..__. __ .
l!],·,, ·; 7', r, I" l. ;l:-;-. ~ ·:-: ,;·£
1_ 1 1 •_jj I I Je••KJO'~ -~ , ~:(~f~.;~;t~ i :.: FAIRLA#N
ARCS IV
s .. o • .:::•
"· A,, 0~ £ •IN'_~(~S
SITE LOCATION MAP
71 u ... ••·
I ~g~ -~:-'. '"'"·· '.-"--:· .' ~ ,,r-
. :•
_ ...... -, ·.~
• ,-l '• _, I • __,,
URCH IL
SIS .•
-~ ~
/ k=~i \~
•-..,,__:"\ l -:,_ s{,l•~ . ---";\ ~" \
~,;.-..,. '.· ---, ~I \01
. : ~LGN\i.L
... ~Pµ,q . ?tR~E Fi
'!,·~:.: .~; ... hf:.U'
~ '
FIGURE NO.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
1-1
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CERCLA for investigation of an NPL site. Specifically, this document is
organized as follows:
o Section 1.0 -The New Hanover Site is introduced. and the project's
status and type are outlined.
o Section 2.0 -The site's history is summarized. and the site is
descnbed m terms of onsite conditions. geology ,and hydrogeology.
Existing data are summarized and evaluated.
o Section 3.0 - A brief description of applicable remedial alternatives is
presented, and the data necessary to evaluate each alternative on a
site-specific basis are summarized. A list of data gaps is then
obtained by comparing the existing data base to the level of knowledge
necessary to implement each of these remedial alternatives. The
objective of the RI is to obtain the data necessary to fill the data
gaps.
o Section 4.0 -The scope of work for the RA is presented. The RA tasks
are designed to identify migration pathways. such as surface or
groundwater routes. The RA will also address ecological
effects/impacts. This section also addresses RI support activities.
treatability study testing. and previous FPC RI activities.
o Section 5.0 -The scope of work for the FS is described. The objectives
of the FS are to I) identify remedial action alternatives that address
both the current and potential contamination problems. 2) evaluate these
alternatives in terms of relevant cost and non-cost criteria. and 3)
recommend cleanup. alternatives for contamination. This section also
contains the scope of work for the RA.
The remaining sections describe the RA and FS schedules. the staffing plan, and
the status of subcontracting completed to date. Volume 11 of this work plan
outlines the costs and budget for implementing the work described in Volume I.
The overall approach has been described as specific task areas that correspond
directly to the task areas presented in the spreadsheets showing costs
presented in Volume II of the Work Plan.
1.2 SITE STATUS AND PROJECT TYPE
The New Hanover Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL on June 24.
finalized on March 30. 1989 and therefore is a fund-lead site. According to
CERCLA. EPA must. when feasible. identify potentially responsible parties
1-3
1988 and
742/2
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(PRPs) who may be liable for future site cleanup. The following PRPs have been
identified:
o New Hanover County (owner of the airport)
o City of Wilmington (trained firefighters at the site)
o Cape Fear Technical Institute (trained firefighters at the site)
o Army Corps of Engineers (constructed the site)
EPA successfully negotiated a consent order with the PRPs for a surface cleanup
of a portion of the site on May I I, 1990. The cleanup/removal was initiated
the week of November 12, 1990. EPA ESD is currently preparing a work plan for
conducting the RI. Following completion of the RI Work Plan. ESD will conduct
the RI.
Because the ESD work plan had not been completed at the time of writing/
revising this work plan, all details concerning the project scope and schedule
are not available for inclusion herein.
Following completion of the ESD RI and RI report. FPC will prepare a risk
assessment and feasibility study. FPC may also provide some additional support
to EPA during the RI. such as obtaining services of a surveyor. conducting an
endangered species survey, and preparing a statement of work for conducting
treatability studies.
1-4
742/2
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 INITIAL SITE EVALUATION
2. 1 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1. I LOCATION
The New Hanover Site is located on Gardner Road 500 feet west of the New
Hanover County Airport in New Hanover County. approximately 1.5 miles north of
Wilmington. North Carolina at 34° 16"29" latitude and 77°54"55" longitude.
An approximately 1.500-square foot pit was located in the center of a 4-acre
plot. Land use near the New Hanover Site is both commercial and residential.
Commercial establishments include the airport (immediately east of the site).
rental car maintenance facilities (also to the east). a closed lumberyard and
sawmill (to the north), a trucking company (southwest), and a small industrial
plant presumed to manufacture relay switches (north). The closest residential
community, referred to by homeowners as the "Sedgefield Area," is located
approximately .25 miles to the west. separated by a dense forest which
surrounds the site on two sides, railroad tracks. and Blue Clay Road. The
Sedgefield Area consists of four primary residential streets: Fairfield Drive,
Bermuda Drive. Jamaica Drive, and Spring Road. These streets run perpendicular
to Blue Clay Road; Nassau Road. a smaller street. is parallel' to Blue Clay
Road. intersecting several of the neighborhood"s main streets.
2.1.2
!NOTE:
HISTORY
Site reference documents used in preparation of this work plan are
included in the reference section. I
The airport was built in the 1920s as a civil air facility owned by New Hanover
County. In 1942. the Department of Defense requisitioned the airport for the
U.S. Army Air Corps. In 194 7 and 1948. the Army deeded the airport back to the
County. It was called Bluthenthal Airport until around 1970 when it was
renamed the New Hanover County Airport. The bum pit was constructed in 1968
and used until 1982 by the Air Force. Cape Fear Technical Institute, and local
industries for firefighter training purposes. Prior to this period the site
had been used as a military hospital. The Wilmington Fire Department also used
2-1
742/3
D
0
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the burn pit for firefighter training purposes during the years 1968 to 1976.
Jet fuel. gasoline. petroleum storage tank hottoms. fuel oil. kerosene. and
sorbent materials from oil spill cleanups were burned in the pit. Water was
the primary fire extinguishing agent: however. carbon dioxide and dry chemicals
were also used.
Some of the flammable materials at the site were received from a number of
sources. Jet fuel (JP-4) and airplane engine oil were received from the
airport. Fuel oil tank bottoms were received from local industries. Tank
bottoms were shipped to the site by local pumping services and septic tank
services.
Cleanup materials from oil spills were disposed of at the site on a number of
occasions. although a review of documentation provided evidence for only two
spills. The first was a spill by the United States Customs Service on June 16.
1982. According to the oil spill investigation report regarding this incident.
the cleanup material from the spill was transported to the site by 0. E.
Durant, Inc. The second.spill was by Seaboard Coastline Railroad on December
21. 1982.
While most of the petroleum products burned in the pit were trucked to the
site. an above ground storage tank and underground piping network also provided
fuel for burning on the site. No fuel or other ignitables were burned in the
smoke house. which contained only wet, smoldering hay.
In the late 1970s. training activities at the site were curtailed because the
flash point of the material in the pit increased such that effective burning
could not take place.
In 1985. sampling by the New Hanover County Department of Engineering showed
heavy metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the pit sludge. On May
21. 1985. New Hanover County filed a Non-Discharge Permit application to close
out the fire-training burn pit. Originally. efforts had been made to dispose
of the pit material by incineration or recycling. These efforts were
unsuccessful because of the high solids content. high water content and low BTU
value of the material. and because of an inability to pump the sludge. The
2-2
742/3
0
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
procedure suggested by New Hanover County was to land apply the sludge. The
permit was granted by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Management
(DEM)-Wilmington District, because the statutory time allowed for review
comments had expired. The DEM suggested that New Hanover County not begin
land application because of high lead. decane. and halogen concentrations. In
November I 985, the Groundwater Section of the Division of Environmental
Management recommended that issuance of the permit be denied.
In 1986, the North Carolina Division of Health Services sampled the bottom
sludge layer of the pit and soil outside the pit and detected heavy metals.
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). and VOCs.
A survey for hazard ranking purposes was conducted at the site on January 9.
1987. Based on results of the hazard ranking system (HRS) score. the New
Hanover Site was proposed for inclusion on the N PL on June 24. 1988 and
finalized on March 30, 1989.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted a
preliminary health assessment of the New Hanover Site in March I 989. The
Preliminary Health Assessment concluded that the site is of potential public
concern because of risk to human health resulting from possible exposure to
hazardous substances at concentrations that may result in adverse human health
effects.
EPA conducted soil and groundwater sampling in April 1990. in preparation for
an emergency removal action. The investigation focused primarily on waste
sludges contained in the bum pit and supply tank. The results of the 1990 ESD
investigation will be presented and discussed in detail in the ESD RI Work
Plan.
Enforcement activities are currently ongoing between EPA Region IV and the
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). EPA contacted the PRPs on October 7.
1989. seeking information concerning the identity and/or quantity of materials
• generated, treated, stored. disposed of. or transported to the New Hanover
Site. Consent order negotiations were initiated at that time. The PRPs
finally signed a Consent Order with EPA Region IV on May 11, 1990. agreeing to
2-3
742/3
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
perform a removal action and surface cleanup of the bum pit and fuel supply
tank within I RO days, or by Novemher I I. 1990. After signing the Consent
Order, the PRPs elected to expand their removal activities to include removal
of all of the fire-training area facilities onsite and the underground fuel-
dispensing pipeline. thereby amending the Consent Order by letter agreement.
The RPRs were to submit a removal action plan (RAP) to EPA by August 30. 1990.
The plan was finally submitted to EPA in October 1990. The removal was
initiated the week of November 12, 1990. EPA has delayed initiation of the
Rl/FS until after the PRPs have completed the removal activities.
2.1.3 PHYSICAL FEATURES
The bum pit was of earthen construction. 30 feet by 50 feet in dimension.
surrounded by a 3-foot berm: it reportedly did not extend below land surface.
Most of the liquid in the pit was water. There were two valves at the bottom
of the pit on the north side: one for draining water and the other for adding
fuel to the pit. However. both of the valves were concealed beneath new fill
material. Some water was allowed to flow onto the land surface. As observed
during the site reconnaissance of May 1990. the pit and soil immediately
surrounding the pit were black with characteristics similar to tar. Soil 30
feet west of the pit and soil 50 feet north of the pit was dry. but show
evidence of prolonged periods of standing water. The apparent source of the
water was overflow from the pit.
On March 19, 1990. the County repaired a break in the berm around the bum pit.
The height of the berm was increased with soil removed from an area
approximately 50 feet northeast of the pit. The burn pit was located near the
center of a 4-acre open field. In addition to the bum pit. there were other
areas where training occurred and/or where contamination may be present and
which will be subject to the Rl/FS. including:
o An old automobile
o A railroad tank car
o An aircraft mock-up (55 gallon drums)
o The supply tank
2-4
742/3
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o The pipeline from the supply tank to each burn area
o Two stained soil areas adjacent to the burn pit
Reportedly, most of the firefighter training activities were conducted at the
burn pit. Major site features are shown in Figure 2-1.
The fuel distribution system for the training exercises consists of an above
ground storage tank and a pipeline system, buried approximately I foot below
land surface. The pipeline extended from the storage tank northwest to a pipe
junction. The valve controlling flow to the burn pit was located at the
approximate midpoint along this segment of the pipeline. At the junction,
valves controlled flow to three additional lines, one to each of the other
three firefighter training areas.
Several concrete block buildings (constructed for the military hospital), are
located onsite. Only the building used as the smoke house was included in the
training exercises.
2.2 GEOLOGY
The New Hanover Site is located in the northwest portion of New Hanover County,
north of Wilmington, North Carolina. New Hanover County is within the Coastal
Plain Physiographic Province. The major geomorphic features associated with
the county include beaches and barrier islands along the Atlantic Ocean, the
eastern boundary of the county. low relief beach terraces, and dune hills lying
east of the coast, and the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers, which
jointly mark the approximate county boundaries.
Generally, the sequence of rock types beneath New Hanover County consists of
unconsolidated and consolidated sedimentary rock of predominantly coastal and
marine origin that begin at land surface and unconformably overlie crystalline
rock at depth. Potable water supplies are obtained from the relatively shallow
sedimentary formations. Groundwater occurring at greater depths is undeveloped
due to saline conditions. Groundwater flow associated with the fresh water
aquifers beneath New Hanover County are largely effected by topography, surface
water features. and the geologic structure (Bain. 1970).
2-5
742/3
.. -z m ~ I )> z 0 < =Em -:IJ ~o zo ~c Oz .z -I z -< 0 :D )> -i -:I: :IJ 0 -0 )> 0 :D :IJ ~ -I ! m C :IJ z J! -I ~ -I m I\) I .... -~ -I m "Tl m ► ~ ~ C Cll :IJ < m (/) s::: )> -0 ,, G) C :D m z 0 - --- -- - --i -N-~ 0 100 200 300 SCALE lN fEET , " I ... -I/ or [NGIN[(RS ,, usr fARM ,, I I ,, I/ I I ,, ,, ~ // " " " ~--:::::::-===--:;;,:;:: :::::.----r ' I AIRCRAFT BURN AREA ufi} BU~~" 1 R;-AREA ~', I \\ r/' TANK CAR 11 BURN AREA JJNCTION \~\ ~ ' , BOX ~ ---=--',~ -0 ' "/~\ B~l~N 0' II /--1/ /1 II " \\ ,, ,, ,, \\ \\ ~ TO 1'<1LMINGTON UST f,t,RW D I ---APPRQ)(lMA T[ SITE BOUNDARY ,1-,'-":· (3.:t / h <t -D !§ ~ PIPELINE BERM/ROAD I!!!!!! l!!!!!9 DUST Cl 0 ,LGt ir 0 ~ ~ == D UST FARM UST fARM □ fiiiiii1I
u
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A deep well drilled between Smith ·s Creek and the Northeast Cape Fear River
penetrated 1.109 feet of sedimentary rock prior to encountering a granite
rock-type associated with the crystalline rock. Other drilling activities in
the county document the crystalline rock as lying at depths as great as 1,540 ·
feet. The crystalline rocks consist of schist. gneiss. granite, and
metamorphosed volcanic rocks. all of which are typical of the rocks exposed at
land surface further to the west in North Carolina ·s Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The top of the crystalline rock is a weathering surface. Above this
erosional surface, a discontinuity in structure occurs. The crystalline rock
is estimated to date from the Precambrian to possibly the Mississippian Age.
The sediments that overlie the contact are of late Cretaceous Age. Sediments
older than those of the late Cretaceous are absent beneath New Hanover County,
although the sediments of the Tuscaloosa Formation and Lower Cretaceous
Formations are prominent in other Coastal Plain areas of North Carolina.
The geologic time units represented by the sedimentary rocks of New Hanover
County include. in order of decreasing age. the Cretaceous System, the Tertiary
System, and the Quaternary System. Figure 2-2 presents a stratigraphic section
that demonstrates the sequential occurrence of the various formations
associated with these geologic systems.
2.3 HYDROLOGY
2.3.1 SURFACE WATER
The Coastal Plain Physiographic Province is characterized by low relief land
forms consisting of rolling sand hills. salt marshes. tidal flats. shallow
sounds, barrier islands/beaches. and narrow inlets of geologically recent age.
Elevations in New Hanover County range from approximately 80 feet above mean
sea level (ms!) at the dune system lying east-southeast of Greenfield Lake to
sea level along the Atlantic Coast. Overall. the land surface slopes slightly
toward the Atlantic Coast. the Cape Fear River. and the No11heast Cape Fear
River. A drainage divide. that generally runs northeast. directs surface water
flow to either the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers. which discharge to
2-7
742/3
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HYDROGEOLOGIC SYSTEM SERIES FORMATION TlilCKNESS CHARACTERISTICS
Quaternary Undifferentiated Clay, sand, and mart, moderate to high Racant-Pllocana Su rt ace DepoaHa 20· 60 yield aquifer
Unconfonnlty
Miocene-Undifferentiated Phosphatlc sands, silts, clays, and
DeposHa 0-70 llmaatonaa, Includes aqulcludaa and Oligocene low to moderate yield aquifers Tertiary
Eocene Castle Hayne 0 • 80 Shall, mart, sand and llmaatone, Llmaatona productive aqulfrr Unconfonnlty
Unconsolidated slH, sand and clay
lntarlleddad with consolidated Pee Dee -700 calcareous sandatona and Impure Formation llmaatona, slH and clay faclea act as
aqulcludas, uppermost sandstone la an aqulfar, lower water bearing zones
are saline. Cretaceous
Upper
Cratacaoua
Black Creek
-380 Sedimentary rock containing Formation saline water
Unconfonnlty ------·~ .. , _______
Ml88188IP,
Crystalline Various types of metamorphic and plan Unknown Unknown ? Rock Igneous rock
SOURCE: BAIN, 19 70
ARCS IV FIGURE NO. STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE 2-2
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
u
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the Atlantic Ocean in south New Hanover County. or directly toward the Atlantic
Ocean through systems of creeks. sounds. and inlets (see Figure 2-3). Other
surface water features include small shallow sinkholes formed by dissolving
near surface limestone and coquina beds. where present. These features are
most common in the vicinity of the town of Castle Hayne and south of
Wilmington.
The higher elevations in New Hanover County represent the locations of "fossil
dunes" or "sand hills," generally located from Fort Fisher northward toward
Wilmington, and continuing to the Pender County line. These sand hills
represent previous beach sands that have been shifted by the wind to form sand
dunes. Because the process of dune formation tends to result in the sorting
and accumulation of rapidly permeable surficial sand deposits. most of these
areas do not promote overland drainage or sheet runoff (Bain, 1970).
The study area of the New Hanover Site is topographically and hydraulically
bounded by Smith ·s Creek to the south and southwest. small tributaries to the
Northeast Cape Fear River to the no11h and northeast. and the Northeast Cape
Fear River to the west. Essentially, all overland drainage that occurs within
this area is toward the west to the Northeast Cape Fear River, which combines
flow with the Cape Fear River and eventually discharges to the Atlantic Ocean.
From the site. it is approximately 4. 800 feet to the nearest topographically
downgradient perennial surface water feature. Smith·s Creek. From this point.
Smith ·s Creek meanders to the Northeast Cape Fear River for an overland
distance of approximately two miles. From the point of its confluence with
Smith's Creek. the Northeast Cape Fear River flows southward for approximately
two miles and combines with the Cape Fear River. Flow continues southward for
approximately 20 miles until t_he Cape Fear River discharges to the Atlantic
Ocean.
The intermittent surface water features in the immediate vicinity of the site
consist mainly of stormwater ditches that typically terminate in nearby swales.
and topographic depressions ihat apparently lose water through rapid
infiltration and evapotranspiration. as opposed to overland flow to perennial
surface water features.
2-9
742/3
u
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
-.
I I I
.I . ' fr, ' ·/ Ii .. ;-
' ' I • /
' I
I
ARCS IV
PHYSIOGRAPHIC FEATURES
I j,\ .,
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: BAIN, 1970
FIGURE NO.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
2-3
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The New Hanover Site is completely surrounded by elevated roads which form a
berm around the site. Although perimeter ditches are present on either side of
the road, drainage from the site is contained and either infiltrates or
evaporates. There is no offsite surface water drainage.
2.3.2 GROUNDWATER
The occurrence, movement. and quality of groundwater beneath New Hanover County
is well documented for those aquifers that do not contain saline water. These
aquifers are restricted to the upper portion of the Pee Dee Formation, the
Castle Hayne Limestone. and the two series of undifferentiated deposits.
Figure 2-4 presents a generalized hydrogeologic section across New Hanover
County that includes the subsurface features relevant to potable groundwater
supplies.
The deepest geologic unit of significance is the silt and clay aquiclude
situated between the uppermost saline aquifer and the Sandstone Aquifer, all
contained in the Pee Dee Formation. This aquiclude, which is approximately 150
feet thick, is present throughout New Hanover County. It is an unconsolidated
greenish-gray to dark gray. clayey, sandy silt containing glauconite, which is
responsible for a characteristic "salt and pepper" appearance.
Lying above the silt and clay aquiclude is the Sandstone Aquifer. the principal
freshwater aquifer in New Hanover County. The Sandstone Aquifer, which is
laterally persistent throughout the central and eastern portions of the county,
is approximately 35 feet thick. except in locations where the unit is truncated
by erosional contacts with the undifferentiated sand deposits. The Sandstone
Aquifer generally dips to the southeast at approximately 14 feet per mile. The
aquifer is quartz sand with calcareous cement.
,
Lying above the Sandstone Aquifer is a clay aquiclude which marks the top of
the Pee Dee Formation in New Hanover County. As a result of erosion on its
upper surface, the clay aquiclude varies in thickness from absent to more than
50 feet. Where present. the clay aquiclude confines the Sandstone Aquifer. and
artesian conditions prevail: where absent. the Sandstone Aquifer is under water
table conditions. The clay aquiclude is typically black and massive. However.
2-l I
742/3
- - - - - - - --- - - -l!!!!!!!!I l!!!!I == ;;;;;a liiii -
z m :E
I
)> z
0 <
:f; m
:D ~ 0 z 0 G>
d C z ~ -I z -< 0 ;o )> --i :c :D
() "ti )> 0 ;o
0 :D
C -I z
)> CD
C
:D z
"ti
-I
(/)
-I m
Ci) m z
9:1
)>
C
N m
CJ
I -< CJ
:D
0
Ci) m 0
' 0
Ci)
0
(/) m
0
-I
0 z
)> ;o
()
(JJ
<
"Tl
i5
C ;o m
z
0
NORTH t • WEST ..
50' t ,t
~
• • K
~i =~ > ~
>w I-1-z ;;;
:, l-o _
(.) ..
a: z w a: > :, 0 ID z I-.. a:
:i: 0
:C .. = w a: & z<J
a " Lf~tL-'==--✓.::::=--:'.---::-_ -::::.:.::._-_ _ _ _____ ""'_ ...L:c: _______ To_oie ____ _
,,,,,,EIEITlllll llll u111ur
50'
100·
150'
20C1
250'
, ( ( I ( (
SILT ANO CLAY A0UICLUDE
SILT AND CLAY A0UICLUDE
oc=~===ci2 __ .;'<====•.;..._...;5 M,ies
V[RllCAl SCALE CiR[AfLY [lAGG[RAT[O
, I .' I I. ·r. T Y N E ___, -c.::.:._ --::r: L I 1,f E
LU DE
I T I
SOUTH
[AST
-A :o ,1; jii:R, -:-.. : ..
•::. ::-:·::: . __ :: .::
SOURCE: BAIN, 1970
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
because recharge to the Sandstone Aquifer probably occurs through downward
migration. and the areas of greatest recharge coincide with high elevations of
the potentiometric surface. the clay aquiclude is likely to be semi-containing
in these high recharge zones.
The Castle Hayne Limestone ranges in thickness from absent to 80 feet. and is
believed to be absent for some of the northwest portions of New Hanover County.
including the vicinity of the site. Where present. the Castle Hayne Limestone
Formation is typically represented by a discontinuous, basal sandy shell
conglomerate occupying channels cut into the Pee Dee Formation. overlain by a
glauconitic shell limestone with interbedded sand. which are in tum. overlain
by a "cap rock" consisting of a dense. chalk-white siliceous limestone
containing phosphate al its base. The upper-mos! lithology associated with the
Castle Hayne Limestone is a light-green. glauconitic mixture of shell fragments
containing bryozoans. The sandy shell portions of the Castle Hayne Limestone
are the most productive in terms of water supply; however. aquifer yields
depend on the degree to which the permeability has been increased by
solutioning.
The sediments of each of the undifferentiated deposits vary greatly both
laterally and vertically. Along the coast. these sediments include
fine-grained deposits that act as an aquiclude and confine the Castle Hayne
Limestone. To the west. the Castle Hayne Limestone. where present,
communicates with the undifferentiated deposits and the aquifer is under water
table conditions. The contact between the undifferentiated deposits and the
underlying formations is erosional. The lower portion of the undifferentiated
deposits may occupy former stream channels and may contain reworked materials
from underlying formations.
The undifferentiated deposits of late Tertiary Age are phosphatic sands. silts.
clays. and phosphatic limestones. In north central New Hanover County. these
Tertiary deposits include an intervening gray 10 blue dense clay that thickens
from approximately 5 to 20 feet eastward. Small water supplies may be
developed from sands within the undifferentiated Tertiary deposits and moderate
supplies from localized occurrences of coquina.
2-13
742/3
I
I
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The undifferentiated surface deposits also rest on an erosional contact and
consist of clay, sand, and marl. Although ahsent in the towns of Wilmington
and Castle Hayne, the deposits are as much as 70 feet thick at other locations.
In the northwestern one-third of New Hanover County. where the Castle Hayne
Limestone is absent, the undifferentiated surface deposits rest unconformably
on the Pee Dee Formation. Within these areas, the deposits typically include a
basal sand that is coarse and well sorted. occurs from sea level to
approximately 30 feet below sea level (bsl) and occupies channels cut into the
Pee Dee Formation. The coarse sand is overlain by less permeable,
finer-grained sediments. such as silts and clays. At and near land surface, a
thin veneer of sands may be present in the form of terraces. related beach
sands, and sand dunes (Bain. 1970).
Groundwater in the undifferentiated deposits is under water table conditions;
the water table surface approximates topography. Recharge occurs from
rainfall, predominantly in the broad areas between streams. It is estimated
that 90 percent of the precipitation effectively recharges the undifferentiated
deposits.
Shallow boring logs are available for the New Hanover County Airport,
immediately east of the site. These logs, combined with the information
obtained from regional literature, are used to define a range of hydrogeologic
conditions that may exist beneath the New Hanover Site.
Figure 2-4 indicates that either the Sandstone Aquifer or the clay aquiclude
could subcrop beneath the undifferentiated deposits at the site. Data are
insufficient. however. to detem1ine whether the clay aquiclude is present
beneath the New Hanover Site.
If the clay aquiclude is present. the Sandstone Aquifer would he confined;
where absent. the Sandstone Aquifer and the undifferentiated deposits would be
hydraulically connected and both would be under water table conditions. Given
this uncertainty. it is also possible that the clay aquiclude could pinch out
. in the vicinity of the site. creating a transition near the site from water
table conditions to confined conditions within the Sandstone Aquifer. Under
2-14
742/3 ·
I
0
D
n
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
either condition, vertical groundwater between the Sandstone Aquifer and the
overlying aquifers flows upward.
Boring logs to depths up to 73 feet bis are available for the airport. These
borings indicate the presence of predominantly fine-grained sands and silts, to
depths of approximately 25 to 30 feet bis. From approximately 30 to 50 feet
bis, a fine-to medium-grained sand occurs in most borings that reach these
depths. The log from the deepest boring conducted indicates that a very dense,
gray limestone occurs from 67.5 feet to the total drilled depth of 73.5 feet
bis and is overlain by approximately 15 feet of dark gray silty. fine-grained
sand. Based on this description. the limestone does not appear to be
characteristic of the Castle Hayne Fom1ation which is almost invariably very
light-colored and, with the exception of the chalk-white "cap-rock" strata, is
not as well indurated as the limestone reported for the deep airport boring.
It is likely that this limestone is part of the Pee Dee Formation, which is
reported to contain impure limestone lenses within the clay aquiclude portion.
Twenty-four water level measurements obtained from the open boring report the
static water levels as ranging from 2.5 to 6 feet bis.
2.4 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Previous sampling investigations performed at the site include various studies
performed by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. Division of
Health Services. and the New Hanover County Department of Engineering. EPA
collected samples in April. 1990. in preparation of an emergency removal
action. This investigation focused primarily on water and sludges contained in
the bum pit and sludge from the supply tank.
2.4.1 GROUNDWATER DATA
Groundwater samples were collected from a well near the site during the 1985
investigation. no contamination was detected. The well is located in a grassy
area located approximately 100 feet southeast of the site. There are
essentially no existing groundwater quality data for this site. Based on the
2-15
742/3
n
D
ffl
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
literature, the direction of groundwater flow appears to be to the
west-southwest; however, there are no specific data to verify this hypothesis.
2.4.2 SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT DATA
There are no existing surface water or sediment quality data for the site. As
previously noted, there are no onsite surface waters other than periodic wet
areas. The perimeter drainage ditch is not a surface water feature and does
not flow offsite to other surface waters.
2.4.3 SOIL DATA
Results of analysis of soil samples collected in 1986 are summarized in
Table 2-1. Inorganics in the Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP)
extract of selected samples were all below the limit of detection and are not
presented herein. A map of approximate sample locations is presented in
Figure 2-5. With one exception all samples were collected within three inches
of ground su,face. Sample location nine was augered to a depth of 12 feet.
Barium, chromium and lead occurred in the highest concentration for inorganics.
Fluoranthene, pyrene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene occur in the
greatest concentrations of organics, with concentrations of diethyl-and
dibutyl-phthate occurring at lower levels.
2.4.4 TANK AND BURN PIT CONTENTS
Sludge and liquid samples have been collected from the supply lank and burn
pit. Sludge samples from the burn pit were collected in 1985 for inorganic
analyses; results are presented in Table 2-2. Total lead levels were measured
at 182 mg/kg and total halogens were reported in whole and were measured at 545
mg/kg. In 1986. sludge samples were again collected from the burn pit.
Resulting data is presented in Table 2-3. Several types of organics occurred
at elevated concentrations. lnorganics in TCLP extract of sludge samples were
all below the limit of detection. lnorganics detected at greater
concentrations or frequency include: arsenic. barium, cadmium. chromium and
lead. Figure 2-5 shows the approximate location of samples.
2-16
742/3
n
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-1
RESULTS OF 1986 BURN PIT SOIL ANALYSES NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
ARCS IV
Sample Location
I 2 3 4 5 6 Soil Depth Tm. Tm. Tin. Tm. Tm. Tm.
Organics (mg/kg)
Fluoranthene I 1 I
1.0 3.75 1.5 2.0 ND ND Pyrene 4.5 I 21 14.0 10.5 12.5 ND ND Hydrocarbons + + + + + ND MethJ.'ene Chloride 5.47 ND ND ND ND ND Trich oroethylene 0.4 ND 0.26 ND 0.008 0.016
lnorganics (mg/kg)
Barium 59 70 74 60 9 10 Chromium 5.0 80 4.0 4.5 2.3 7.0 Lead 133 170 143 174 23 70
NOTES:
I 1 I Fluoranthene found in hlank at the detection limit of 30.000 µg/kg. I 2 I + Positive for presence of petroleum hydrocarbon ions in liquid extract. ND= Not Detected.
2-17
9 rrrr.
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<5
ND
ND
742/21
z m :E
-0
:::j
Cl)
--t m
I\)
I
01
"T1
i;i
C :n m
z 0
i
-N-
~
0 100 200 = SCALE IN FEET
ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS
UST FARM
300
LEGEND
•
PIPELINE
BERM/ROAD
SAMPLE LOCATION
w
ff
ti
D
'll
0
n
I
it
,m
.I
m,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sludge
TABLE 2-2
RESULTS OF 1985 BURN PIT SLUDGE ANALYSES
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
ARCS IV
Burn Pit
Inorganics (mg/kg)
Cadmium 0.36
445
2.73
13.6
182
40
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Zinc
2-19
1.82
28.5
25
58.2
742/22
I
I
I"
I
I
I
I
·t
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2-3
RESULTS OF 1986 BURN PIT SLUDGE ANALYSES
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA
ARCS IV
Sample Locations
ill 712) 7(3) 8111 812)
Sludge Units mg7Kg mg7Kg mg7T mg7Kg mg7Kg
Organics
Anthracene 73 20 114 109 33
Benzene .44 .03 ND ND .15
2-Butanone .35 ND 49.094 ND ND
Ethyl Benzene .97 1.47 ND 3.43 .32
Fluorene ND ND 56 45 16
Hydrocarbons I 4 l + + + + + 2-Methylnaphthalene 35 116.5 62 143 102
Naphthalene 12 85 18 66 46.5
Pyrene 9 13.5 ND 79.5 11.33
Toluene 1.87 .02 ND 2.73 .03
Trichloroethylene ND .38 ND 1.81 .02
o-Xylene 4.0 38.23 841 16.66 7. 71
lnorganics
Arsenic 15 9.0 .09 8.4 6.6
Barium 60 120 .4 42 55
Cadmium 2.5 5.5 ND 2.2 6.0
Chromium 51 104 .23 26 43
Lead 670 730 2.0 360 1.300
Mercury ND .5 ND ND I. I
Selenium ND ND .05 ND ND
Silver ND ND .05 ND ND
NOTES:
I 1 l Sample from top sludge layer. I 2 l
I 3 l Sample from bottom sludge layer.
I 4 I Sample from liquid layer under crust.
All values approximate.
ND = Not Detected.
+ Positive for presence of petroleum hydrocarbon ions in liquid extract.
2-20
813)
mg7T
114
ND
41.230
ND
67
+
92
10
ND
ND
ND
ND
.36
.6
ND
. 71
17.8
ND
ND
ND
742/23
0
d
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
During the most recent sampling in April 1990 (EPA). water and sediment samples
from the bum pit and a sludge sample from the supply tank were collected and
analyzed.
Briefly, the water sample from the bum pit contained three metals listed in
the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), two extractable
organic compounds, and one purgeable organic compound. Pesticides and PCBs
were not detected. The bum pit ~ediment sample contained six NPDWR metals and
five purgeable organics. Extractable organics. pesticides and PCBs were not
detected. For the tank sludge sample, six metals were detected, fifteen
extractable organics, and five purgeable organics; pesticides and PCBs were
also not detected.
The bum pit sediment and tank sludge samples were also subjected to toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) testing. The results of these
analyses and further details concerning the specific compounds detected in all
samples will be presented in ESD's RI work plan.
2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project objectives are to provide support to EPA/ESD during the RI, perform
a risk assessment to identifying contaminants of concern. migration pathways
and potential receptors. and prepare a feasibility study to develop and
evaluate remedial alternatives.
2-21
742/3
g
n
tl
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
3.0 PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a preliminary discussion of the various remedial
alternatives that may be considered for use at the New Hanover Site. Inclusion
of an alternative at this time does not necessarily constitute viability.
Following receipt of the ESD RI report. candidate alternatives will be
evaluated on a more definitive basis. Treatability testing may be conducted to
assess viability and effectiveness.
Remedial action technologies consider the following general categories:
o No action
o Treatment
o Containment
o Disposal
Remedial alternatives may. therefore, be evaluated over a complete range of
cost-versus-benefit categories. The performance criteria and applicable
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are described in Section 5.
As summarized in Section 2.4, both organic and inorganic contaminants were
identified in tank and pit sludge. soil, and bum pit water. Potential
remedial technologies to be considered in developing remedial alternatives
include the following:
Sludge/Soil
o Thermal treatment (low temperature and incineration)
o Biodegradation (in site and reactor)
o Soil washing
o Solidification
Bum Pit Water/Groundwater
o Precipitation
3-1
742/ I 7
D
11
•
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
o Flocculation, sedimentation, filtration
o Air stripping
o Activated carbon
o Offsite treatment
o Biological treatment
Groundwater remediation options will require consideration of contaminants
present and appropriate methods of groundwater extraction.
3.1 DATA REQUIREMENTS
Remedial alternatives that will be scoped for the New Hanover Site are a
combination of remedial technologies to address both organic and inorganic
contamination within a given media (e.g .. thermal treatment followed by
solidification for sludge or soil. precipitation and activated carbon for burn
pit water). The remedial technologies will be evaluated using the RI data
base, and non-applicable technologies will be eliminated. Treatability testing
will be conducted to evaluate the potential effectiveness of remedial
alternatives.
The data needs for the various remedial technologies may be divided into the
following general categories:
o Site conditions
o Nature of contamination
o Extent of contamination
o Site geology
o Soil/sediment characteristics
o Groundwater characteristics
o Burn pit surface water and sludge characteristics
o Air quality data
o Climatology
3-2
742/ I 7
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Site conditions, such as accessibility, topography, site structures, and native
vegetation, may limit or_ promote the use of a partic11lar remedial technology.
This is particularly important for technologies involving onsite treatment.
The nature of contamination at the site is important in determining the
feasibility and potential effectiveness of the selected remedial alternatives.
These characteristics include the chemical composition of contaminated media.
Preliminary sampling has identified both organic and inorganic contaminants.
Contaminant characteristics affect the applicability of in site treatment,
direct treatment methods. and onsite or offsite land disposal.
The extent of contamination is required for all technologies involving
treatment. containment. or removal. The horizontal and vertical extent of
contamination must be measured for soil. groundwater. bum pit water. sludge.
and sediment. The extent of contamination. together with site cleanup goals.
are used to determine the volume of soil to be removed from all sources.
Knowledge of the site geology is necessary to identify conditions that may
limit or promote certain remedial technologies. Geological parameters include
depth to confining layer and its permeability. subsurface profile. and
structural strength. Geology plays a major role in determining the feasibility
of groundwater control and removal technologies. For instance. these data are
required to effectively design a groundwater extraction system. if necessary.
Soil/sediment characteristics include type and texture. permeability/porosity,
engineering properties, soil chemistry. erosion potential. contaminant
profiles, and moisture content. Soil characteristics affect the applicability
of in site treatment as well as treatment and removal. The presence of low
permeability soils would generally preclude the use of in site methods due to
inadequate dispersion of treatment reagents.
Groundwater characteristics include groundwater chemistry. seasonal
potentiometric surfaces. aquifer profile. aquifer characteristics. groundwater
velocity and direction of flow. groundwater discharge and recharge areas. and
contaminant profiles. These parameters greatly affect groundwater removal and
control technologies. Groundwater removal and treatment requires either
3-3
742/ I 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pumping or the use of subsurface drains to extract groundwater for treatment or
disposal. The use of barriers to control groundwater consists of installing
low permeable walls underground to divert groundwater flow or minimize leachate
generation and plume movement by dewatering and hydraulic head reduction.
Air quality data are necessary to evaluate baseline conditions and potential
volatile emissions at the site perimeter. Meteorological data from the nearby
airport station will be collected in combination with air quality monitoring.
General factors, including evapotranspiration parameters, wind speed and
direction, temperature. precipitation. and local and regional air movement.
will be considered.
3.2 EXISTING DATA BASE
Compared to the information required to effectively evaluate the various
remedial technologies, the existing data base is limited. Three sampling
events have been conducted (January I 985. May 1986. and April 1990). The
present data base consists of the following:
o One groundwater sample and burn pit sludge was analyzed in January I 985.
o Soils around the burn pit and sludge in the burn pit were sampled in May
1986.
o Bum pit surface water and sludge as well as tank sludge were sampled in
April 1990.
o Site photographs were taken in April 1990.
o Aerial photographs were taken between April 1969 to April 1990.
o A site inspection report was issued in February 1987.
o A preliminary health assessment was conducted in November 1989.
General site conditions and lorn! climatology for the site are adeq11ately
defined by the existing data base. Local ambient air quality data will be
monitored by background perimeter sampling. Local precipitation map.
evapotranspiration map. and temperature ranges will describe the climatology to
the extent necessary to evaluate the candidate remedial technologies.
3-4
742/ I 7
ll
I
I
I
I
ft,
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
The horizontal and vertical extent of soil contamination is unknown. The
presence of soil contaminants has heen documented around lhe hum pil. hut no
data exist for soil surrounding the underground pipeline. Insufficient data
exists to evaluate possible groundwater contamination. Several volatile
organics, PAHs, and metals were identified in soils. but contamination was not
detected in the one groundwater well sampled. Surface water and sludge from
the bum pit were sampled and the presence of contaminants was confirmed. No
data exist regarding the nature or extent of contamination for the three
training areas and the supply tank. Additionally. the onsite septic tank has
never been sampled.
Site-specific data regarding soil characteristics. geologic conditions. and
groundwater patterns are only approximately known based on regional data, and
are not adequate as a base for an FS.
3.3 DATA GAPS
Before FPC can perform a comprehensive site analysis, ESD should determine the
following.
o Site surface contour mapping through a new aerial photograph.
o Typical onsite soil background concentrations.
o The horizontal and vertical exlent of soil contamination in the central
bum pit, three bum training areas (aircrafl. auto. and tank car), and
supply tank area. Soil data should be collected both above and below
the groundwater table, if necessary.
o The presence or absence of soil contamination associated with
underground fuel piping.
o The specific subsurface hydrogeologic data.
o The presence or absence of groundwater contamination and contaminant
types if present.
o The velocity and flow direction of the groundwater.
o The horizontal and vertical extent of sediment contamination in culverts
and perimeter ditches.
o Background air quality data from site perimeter locations.
3-5
742/ I 7
I
•
11
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o The existence of endangered species or habitat for endangered species in
the area.
o The location of private and commercial wells in use within a 1 /4-and
l /2-mile radius of the site.
3-6
742/17
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
•
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
4.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SCOPE OF WORK
The remedial investigation of the New Hanover Site will be performed by EPA
ESD. CDM FPC will play a minor role which may include: reviewing the ESD RI
Work Plan and RI Report: procuring subcontractors: conducting an endangered
species survey; and planning and conducting treatability studies.
Remedial investigation related tasks that were accomplished prior to EPA ·s
decision to perform the RI in-house are described briefly herein. along with
other identified and/or potential areas of RI support.
4.1 TASK 1.0 -PROJECT PLANNING
Draft project plans were prepared and submitted according to the original
statement of work (SOW). including a Draft Work Plan. Sampling and Analysis
Plan. Health and Safety Plan. and Community Relations Plan. The Draft Work
Plan is being modified to reflect the changes in the SOW. The Sampling and
Analysis Plan will not be updated because FPC is no longer performing field
activities. Likewise. the Draft Health and Safety Plan will not be modified.
The Community Relations Plan was prepared in final form in August 1990 and will
be implemented as planned .
CDM conducted interviews with several community representatives and leaders and
prepared a draft and final Community Relations Plan (CRP) to provide a
mechanism for citizen involvement in the RI/FS process. The CRP identifies
information repositories and the opportunities for public participation.
Development of the CRP has been closely coordinated with the EPA community
relations staff and the former RPM. Mr. Steve Sandler. Mr. Sandler was present
during the interviews conducted on May 15-16. 1990.
All of the above activities associated with project planning and/or preparation
of this work plan, correspond to the costs presented under Task I in the Work
Plan. Volume II.
4-1
742/18
I
I
I
I
a
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.2 TASK 2.0 -SUBCONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
Subcontractor bid packages were prepared during the project planning phase for
distribution to qualified subcontractors. However. because EPA has elected to
perform the RI in-house, subcontractor support in all areas will not be
necessary; surveying services may be requested.
Bid packages were prepared for the following services:
4.3
o Drillin~ -temporary piezometer. permanent monitor well installation.
and soil borings for soil characterization
o Laboratory -onsite laboratory and fixed facility
o Survey -aerial topographic survey and elevations of piezometers.
monitor wells and sampling locat10ns
o Security -local security agency for after hours protection
TASK 3.0 -RI SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
4.3.1 SUBTASK 3.1 -REVIEW OF EPA'S REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION WORK PLAN
FPC will review the EPA RI Work Plan. prepare comments. and work with EPA
Atlanta and ESD to resolve any issues related to obtaining adequate data to
support the risk assessment and feasibility study. One meeting in Atlanta has
been planned for this activity.
4.3.2 SUBTASK 3.2 -SURVEYING AND MAPPING
OF THE SITE
Upon approval by the RPM. FPC will conduct a site survey. which will consist of
a ground survey and an aerial reconnaissance. The ground survey will locate
the proposed temporary piezometers, pe1manent wells. and soil sampling grid.
All surveyed points will be referenced to the state planar coordinates and the
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). 1929. Top of well casing. ground
elevations and other vertical and horizontal controls will be addressed. The
subcontractor will provide CDM with three aerial photographs of the site. The
4-2
742/18
I
I
I
m
0
u
m
•
I
I
I
I
g
D
I
I
I
I
I
aerial photographs of the site will be at the following scales: I) I ":20'; 2)
1 ":50'; 3) I": 100'. A topographic map will be produced at a scale of I ":SO'
and a contour interval of I foot.
4.3.3 SUBTASK 3.3 -ENDANGERED SPECIES SURVEY
Upon approval by the RPM, a qualified FPC professional will perform an
endangered species survey of the forested area adjacent to the site to
determine if rare, threatened or endangered species are present. This effort
will also involve a literature review and discussions with local, state and
federal entities with knowledge of and jurisdiction over endangered species.
Preliminary indications are that an endangered species of carivorous plant and
tree frog may be present near the site. If endangered species are present,
this information will be factored into the RA .
4.4 TASK 4 -RISK ASSESSMENT
This work plan allows for the development of a baseline risk assessment for the
New Hanover Site which incorporates the data collected previously and the data
obtained during the RI. The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS),
( I 989) will be used as a starting point for preparation of the RA for the site.
The RA proposed is an analysis of the potential adverse health effects (current
and future) caused by hazardous substance releases from the site in the absence
of any actions to control or mitigate these releases. The baseline RA will
contribute to the site characterization and subsequent development, evaluation,
and selection of appropriate response alternatives and will assist in
development of the ROD.
4.4.1 SUBTASK 4.1 -CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
All available information on the hazardous substances present at the site will
be reviewed and the major contaminants of concern will be selected based on
toxicological properties, frequency of occurrence and concentrations. and/or
because they are currently in. or potentially may migrate into critical
exposure pathways.
4-3
742/18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
•
D
II
4.4.2 SUBTASK 4.2 -EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
An exposure assessment will be conducted to estimate the magnitude of actual
and/or potential human exposures. the frequency and duration of these
exposures. and the pathways by which humans may be exposed. In addition to
collecting soil and groundwater samples. an air monitoring station will be
assembled. The information obtained will allow the assessment of various
exposure pathways, primarily inhalation. This assessment will involve
analyzing contaminant releases, identifying exposed populations, identifying
all complete potential pathways of exposure, estimating exposure point
concentrations, and estimating contaminant intakes for specific pathways.
4.4.3 SUBTASK 4.3 -TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
A toxicity assessment will be provided for each of those chemicals found to be
of concern. This evaluation will include assessing the types of adverse health
or environmental effects associated with chemical exposures, the relationship
between magnitude of exposure and adverse effects. and related uncertainties
such as weight by evidence of a particular chemical"s carcinogenicity
potential.
4.4.4 SUBTASK 4.4 -RISK CHARACTERJZATION
All information developed during the exposure and toxicity assessments will be
integrated to characterize the current or potential risk to human health and/or
the environment posed by the site. This characterization will identify the
potential for adverse health or environmental effects for the contaminants of
concern and identify any uncertainties associated with the contaminants, their
toxicities, and/or exposure assumptions. The risk characterization will
summarize and combine the outputs of exposure and toxicity to characterize the
baseline risk.
4-4
742/18
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
o,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.4.5 SUBTASK 4.5 -ENDANGERED SPECIES ASSESSMENT
Upon approval by the RPM. CDM will perform an endangered species assessment if
endangered species are identified on or near the site. The following
endangered plant and animal species have been identified near the New Hanover
Site:
o Alligators
o Lelaeopsis Carolinusus
o Seminal bat
o Tracy·s Beakrush
o Stylisma Pickeringii
4.5 TASK 5.0 -TREATABILITY STUDY/PILOT TESTING
During the field investigation it is recommended that samples be taken for
treatability testing for all feasible remedial technologies. The number of
applicable technologies is finite enough and the technologies proven enough to
allow for testing early on in the RI/FS process. Early treatability testing
will also allow for focusing the feasibility study within the constraints of
examining all applicable technologies. This approach should save time and
money. Early testing will depend upon coordination with ESD during the RI.
The budget presented for Task 5 covers planning for sample collection and
preparation of a statement of work for actually executing the studies/testing
at a future date. It is not feasible at this time to estimate the cost for
vendor testing, etc.
4.6 TASK 6.0 -REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT REVIEW
Draft and final RI reports will be prepared by EPA. FPC will review the draft
RI report to ensure that sufficient information is contained in the RI to allow
for preparation of the RA and FS.
4-5
742/ 18
I
I
I
I
I
m
D
I
I
I
I
I I
u
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY SCOPE OF WORK
5.1 TASK 7.0 -REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The feasibility study will be performed concurrently with the RI to the
greatest extent possible to provide a mechanism whereby remedial alternatives
will be developed, screened. and evaluated in a systematic manner. The
objectives of the FS. as specified in 40 CFR Part 300.68 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), are to develop and evaluate the remedial action
alternatives with respect to technical, public health. environmental.
institutional, and cost considerations. The following provides an overview of
the FS approach. All subtasks related to remedial alternative development and
analysis. which in essence constituent the feasibility study, are summarized
under Task 11 in the cost proposal. Separate costs for each subtask have not
been presented.
5. I. I SUBTASK 7.1 -PRELIMINARY
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
This task will identify remedial alternatives to control contamination at the
New Hanover Site based on the data generated by the RI. The list of remedial
alternatives will be structured in four categories:
o No action
o Treatment
o Containment
o Disposal
Each remedial alternative will consist of one or more specific technologies,
such as incineration, waste disposal. solidification. etc.
5-1
742/8
I
I
I
0
D
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.2 SUBTASK 7.2 -INITIAL SCREENING OF
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Each alternative identified in Task I will be screened for technical
feasibility (implementability). relative cost effectiveness. and environmental
impact (effectiveness).
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY SCREENING
Technical feasibility is primarily focused upon issues related to
implementability, petformance, and reliability of the proposed remedial
alternative. Implementability relates to whether the system can be built on
the intended site. performance relates to whether the alternative will be
effective over its useful life. and reliability is concerned with previous
favorable experience with the system under comparable operating situations and
whether there will be excessive or frequent downtime.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH SCREENING
Environmental and public health screening relates to several factors. Specific
areas of interest include existing conditions and their impacts (baseline risk
assessment). environmental and public health impacts during implementation and
operation of the remedial alternative. and impacts during decommissioning of
remedial systems.
COST SCREENING
The costs of each remedial alternative will be examined to identify any gross
variations in anticipated capital, annual operating or net present value costs.
This preliminary screening is employed to identify any cost consideration that
would compromise the viability of one technology relative to others.
The preliminary remedial alternatives will be screened by each of the
previously identified criteria. and ranked relative to their potential for
implementation at the New Hanover Site. Those alternatives that can be
5-2
742/8
I
I
m
u
w
g
D
E
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
technically implemented at the site, are environmentally acceptable, and are
cost effective will be retained for more detailed analysis.
5.1.3 SUBTASK 7.3 -REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The objective of the remedial alternatives analysis is to complete a detailed
evaluation of those remedial actions that have passed the initial screening.
The detailed evaluation of each remedial alternative will include consideration
of the following:
o Overall protectiveness
o Compliance with ARARs
o Long-tenn effectiveness and perfonnance
o Reductions in mobility. toxicity. and volume
o Short-tenn effectiveness
o Implementability
o Cost Effectiveness Analysis
OVERALL PROTECTIVENESS
The baseline public health evaluation perfonned under the RI constitutes an
assessment of the no-action alternative, that is, if nothing is done to
mitigate the effects of the contaminants of concern. The three tasks outlined
below, which address the development and evaluation of additional proposed
remedial alternatives. will be perfonned under the FS.
Establish Protective Remedial Action Objectives
To aid in the design of remedial altemntives. target chemical concentratinns
in affected media will be developed based on public health considerations.
Specifically, this will involve a detennination of the concentrations of
chemicals of concern in environmental media that would be considered to pose a
substantial risk to public health or the environment. These preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs). established during project scoping or can be
5-3
742/8
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
ii
I
concurrent with initial RI activities, are typically based on readily available
chemical-specific ARARs (e.g .. maximum contaminant lines for drinking water).
PRGs will be refined or confirmed at the conclusion of the baseline risk
assessment.
. Preliminary Screening of Alternatives Based on the Likely Effects on Public
Health and the Environment
A preliminary set of remedial alternatives will be screened qualitatively for
public health and environmental impacts by considering the incremental risk
reductions generally associated with each alternative, as well as the increased
risk frequently stemming from the application of the specific technologies
associated with remediation. The engineering data required for a quantitative
assessment will also be identified for each alternative that passes the
screening procedures and requires more detailed evaluation.
Detailed Screening of Remedial Alternatives
Subject to the extent of the engineering information provided for each
alternative, incremental risk reduction factors will be developed for each
alternative to be evaluated in detail so that the relative benefit of
implementing each one can be compared quantitatively.
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
The feasible remedial alternatives will be evaluated. on the basis of compliance
with ARARs that may impact implementation. Compliance with federal, state.
county and local standards. where they exist. will be considered in the
evaluation of alternatives.
The following institutional factors will be aduressecl in the evaluation of
alternatives:
o Onsite re uirements. Permit and regulatory requirements applicable to onslte reme ta activities including current EPA policy and guidance on compliance of CERCLA actions with other environmental laws will be considered. Activities must meet RCRA 40 CFR 264 Standards and the technical requirements of applicable state and federal laws.
5-4
742/8
I
I
I
g
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
I
0
m
o Offsite requirements. Consider permit and regulatory req11irements
applicable to olfs1te remedial actions. including the EPA proposed
ground water strategy.
o Worker Safety and Health. Requirements and policies, such as OSHA
standards, tor protecting the safety and health of onsite workers and
the local populace during alternative implementation will be reviewed.
o The National Environmental Polic Act (NEPA . Procedures and
requirements w1 e rev1ewe to ensure t e remedial actions will
achieve functional equivalency with NEPA actions.
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
The feasible remedial alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of long-term
effectiveness and permanence. The evaluation will include the following:
o Reduction in direct contact risk and contaminant leaching to surface and
groundwater
o Reduction of offsite migration
o Cleanup goals derived for protectiveness of human health and the
environment
REDUCTION IN MOBILITY. TOXICITY OR VOLUME
Each of the feasible remedial alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of
reductions in mobility. toxicity or volume.
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
The feasible remedial alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of short-term
effectiveness. The evaluation will include the following:
o Possible dust release from construction activities
o Volatilization of contaminants and other potentially ha1mful air
emissions
5-5
742/8
I
I
I
0
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IMPLEMENT ABILITY
The feasible remedial alternatives will be evaluated on the basis of
implementability. The implementahility of a particular remedial alternative
can be measured in terms of the relative ease of installation and the time
required to achieve a specified level of "cleanup" or response. Ease of
installation can be measured in terms of the physical conditions at the site
(topography. geology. hydrology) that influence the ability to building the
remedial system.
Time 10 implement must include provision for pilot testing. availability of
specialized construction equipment severe weather conditions. and unanticipated
site conditions. Finally. time 10 achieve beneficial results is a criterion of
implementability.
COST ANALYSIS
The cost of each feasible remedial action alternative remaining after initial
screening will be evaluated. The cost of each alternative will be presented as
a present worth cost and will include the total capital cost of implementing
the alternative and the present value of annual operating and maintenance
costs. A table showing cost information for each alternative will be prepared.
In developing detailed cost estimates. the following steps will be taken:
o Estimation of Costs -Determining capital and annual operating costs for
remedial alternauves.
o Cost Analysis -Using estimated costs to calculate the stream of
payments and present worth for each remedial alternative.
o Sensitivity Analysis -Evaluating risks and uncertainties in cost
estimates: cost estimates should be within + 50 and -50 percent of the
actual cost. ·
5-6
742/8
I
0
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.1.4 SUBTASK 7.4 -COMPARATIVE RANKING
OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Once the initial list of remedial alternatives has been screened, this task
will complete a final comparative analysis of the remaining acceptable remedial
alternatives according to the criteria outlined in Section 5.1.3.
The detailed screening will be accompanied by a series of presentations
containing the information on each of the comparative evaluation
considerations.
The acceptable remedial alternatives will then be summarized according to the
individual attributes previously identified. These summaries can be used by
the regulatory agencies to assist in selecting the most cost-effective,
technically feasible, and environmentally sound remedial alternative for the
New Hanover Site.
5.2 TASK 8.0 -FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT
The purpose of this task is to describe the FS and present the results of the
analysis.
A preliminary draft FS report will be prepared presenting the results of
Subtasks 7.1 through 7.4. Subsequently, comments from EPA and other regulatory
agencies will be incorporated into a second draft. which will present the
results of the RI/FS to the public.
5.2.1 SUBTASK 8.1 -PUBLIC MEETING
Upon review of the draft report. a public meeting will be held to present the
results of the study and identify public health and community issues. A fact
sheet may be released in conjunction with the meeting.
5-7
742/8
I
0
0
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.2.2 SUBTASK 8.2 -FINAL FEASIBILITY STUDY
Comments and questions raised during the public meetings will be addressed
during development of the final FS.
The deliverables from Task 8 include two draft FS reports and a final report.
5.3 TASK 9.0 -QUALITY ASSURANCE
All work by FPC on this work assignment will be performed in accordance with
the FPC ARCS Region IV QA Program Plan. Revision I. April 1990 (QAPP),
and the EPA work assignment no 05-4L5Q. Revision .0 I.
This work plan has been reviewed by the FPC Regional QA Coordinator, Terry
Pagano, who will maintain oversight for the duration of the work assignment. It
has been determined that a Sampling and Analysis Plan is no longer required.
The work assignment manager. Mary Leslie, is responsible for implementing
appropriate QC measures on this work assignment. Such QC responsibilities
include:
o Implementing QC requirements referenced or defined in this work plan.
o Following the ARMIS document control system.
o Organizing and maintaining work assignment files.
Quality assurance audits ensure the technical and procedural accuracy of
hazardous waste management work efforts. Two types of QA audits will be
completed:
o Performance Audit -This audit will entail checking the project files
to ensure that the required documents have heen approved and signed
indicating that the required project QA activities have been performed.
o System Audit -This audit will be conducted by an audit team to ensure
that the work is being performed using appropriate QA protocol.
It is anticipated that a QA performance audit will be conducted or arranged by
FPC QA staff. An audit report will be prepared and distributed to the audited
5-8
742/8
I
g
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
group and to FPC management. EPA may choose to conduct or arrange a system or
perforrnance audit, as well.
A technical review committee (TRC) meeting will be convened to perforrn internal
review of the draft feasibility study report. The TRC will include Richard
Johnson, Program Manager; Mary Leslie. Project Manager; William Kashak; and Tom
Clark, Feasibility Study Manager. The purpose of the TRC is to provide senior
technical review of the document. At least one member of the TRC. Mr. Kashak,
has no prior involvement with project and will provide a purely objective
overview.
5.4 TASK 10.0 -TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
This task is to assure that the necessary technical and financial reports,
document control procedures, review processes. and meetings with EPA are held
to insure the successful completion of the FS. Deliverables for this task
include monthly progress reports. which outline the technical and financial
progress during the course of the FS.
Upon conclusion of work at the New Hanover Site. a work assignment completion
report (WACR) will be completed. This report will review the scope of work and
ARCS IV team's perforrnance including project planning, technical competence and
innovation, schedule and cost control. reporting, resource utilization and
effort.
The closeout task includes all work efforts related to concluding the work
assignment. The closeout task will include preparation of a Stop Work Order,
reconciling site charges, closing all subcontracts, and compiling and
microfilming appropriate project files.
5.5 TASK 11.0 -COMMUNITY RELATIONS SUPPORT
CDM community relations specialists will provide community relations
implementation support as requested by EPA. Activities are expected to include
development of a community relations plan. fact sheets. a transcript of the
public meeting, and other public meeting support. This includes attendance at
5-9
742/8
I
n
0
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
m
I
I
D
the public meeting. All activities will be coordinated with the EPA RPM and
the Community Relations Coordinator.
5-10
742/8
g
u
0
D
E
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
1•
1D
0
6.0 SCHEDULE
A project schedule for FPC"s portion of the Rl/FS work is not included at this
time due to uncertainties in EPA ·s schedule for completion of the RI.
6-1
742/19
I
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
7.0 STAFFING PLAN
7.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The project organization for the New Hanover Site FS is depicted in Figure 7-1.
For the most part, project control is centered around the FPC project manager.
This organizational structure acts as a control mechanism to:
o Identify appropriate lines of communication and coordination
o Monitor overall project quality control, budgets, and schedules
o Oversee and manage technical resources
The following is a list of the personnel assigned to this project and their
areas of responsibility:
Name
Richard C. Johnson, Sr.
Abel B. Dunning
Mary Leslie
Nelson Langub
Patricia V. Billig
Gilda Knowles
R. Tom Clark
Program Manager
Role
Program Manager
Finance and Administration Manager
Project Manager
Health and Safety Manager
Endangered Species Assessment Specialist
Communitv Relations Coordinator
Feasibility "study Coordinator
The ARCS Region IV program manager (PM), Richard C. Johnson, Sr., is
responsible for the overall technical and administrative performance of the
ARCS contract. Mr. Johnson will assign resources in support of all technical
work products and has final sign-off responsibility on all technical and cost
documents. He will work directly with FPC ARCS support staff to arrange and
ensure critical quality assurance acti\'ities and will work to facilitate
project implementation.
7-1
742/20
0
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
D
U.S. EPA REGION IV
Douglas Thompson
Profect Officer
U.S. EPA REGION IV COM
Jon K. Bornholm Richard C. Johnson, Sr.
Ramsd/a/ Pro/act Msnsgsr Program Msnsgsr
COM COM ·-ec2l!it'1 ~!dRR5U:l Mary Leslie
Flnsncs & Admlnlstrstlon Pro/act Msnsgsr
Has/th & Ssfaty
Community Rs/al/ans
Endangarsd Spsclas Survey
. ',. w .
I
COM
SUBCONTRACTORS
feastbmtv study
Surveying Fesslblllty Study
Coordlnstor
R. Tom Clark
ARCS IV FIGURE NO.
PROJECT ORGANIZATION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE 7-1
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
0
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Finance and Administration Manager
The finance and administration manager (FAM). Abel B. Dunning. will be
responsible for adherence to all contract requirements. procurement and
subcontracting in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
preparation and presentation of financial reports, project invoicing, and all
contract accounting. Additionally, Mr. Dunning is responsible for monitoring
the financial aspects. maintaining the management information system budgets
and schedules, controlling and monitoring the use of subcontracts, and
controlling and monitoring the use of all government-owned property for this
work assignment.
Project Manager
The project manager (PJM), Mary Leslie. is responsible for day-to-day work
assignment management, including staffing, schedule, and costs. Ms. Leslie
will work closely with the EPA regional project manager (RPM) to ensure timely
completion of project activities. Ms. Leslie will work closely with the field
operations manager, the health and safety manager. project specialists, and
quality assurance manager to assure that all aspects of the project proceed as
planned.
Health and Safety Manager
The project health and safety manager (HSM). Nelson Langub. is responsible for
preparing and implementing the site-specific CDM health and safety plan, and
coordinating day-to-day health and safety matters pertinent to this project.
Endangered Species Assessment Specialist
The endangered species assessment specialist. Patricia V. Billig. is
responsible for preparing an endangered species survey for various plant and
animal life at the site considered to be endangered.
7-3
742/20
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Community Relations Coordinator
The community relations coordinator. Gilda Knowles. is responsible for
preparing the Rl/FS Community Relations Plan (CRP), and investigating recent
community relations issues. Ms. Knowles will also be in charge of preparing
community relations fact sheets for use during the RI/FS.
Feasibility Study Coordinator
The feasibility study coordinator, Tom Clark. is responsible for planning and
conducting the alternatives development and preparing the FS reports. Mr.
Clark will also be heavily involved in planning for treatability studies, if
necessary.
7.2 QUALITY ASSURANCE ORGANIZATION
FPC's organization of the QA program for ARCS Region IV is designed to ensure
that appropriate QA/QC procedures are implemented during all stages of this
work assignment. The ARCS Region IV quality assurance organization and
responsibilities are discussed in detail in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the ARCS
Quality Assurance Management Plan (Document Control No. 7740-999-QA-BBCL). A
quality assurance organizational chart appears as Figure 7-2.
Quality Assurance Director
The quality assurance director (QAD). RoseMary Ellersick, is responsible for
all aspects of the ARCS Quality Assurance Program Plan. Responsibilities
include approving quality assurance procedures. conducting system and
performance audits, and ensuring that quality assurance personnel are trained.
Ms. Ellersick will provide guidance and direction to the project QA manager and
team firm QA coordinators, and will interface with EPA on quality assurance
matters.
7-4 742/20
u
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN
R.C. Marini
T.D. Furman
CHIEF TECHNICAL
OFFICER
A.W. Saarinen
QA DIRECTOR
R.M. Ellersick
ARCS IV QA MANAGER
W.H. McKenzie
TEAM FIRM QA COORDINATORS t
1------------------------------l•t
S&ME, Inc. Project Management Associates, inc.
Lee Wan & Associates, Inc. ICAIR/Life Systems, Inc.
C.C. Johnson & Malhotra Chiles Communications, !·;c.
ARCS IV
ARCS REGION IV QA ORGANIZATION
NEW HANOVER COUNTY AIRPORT BURN PIT SITE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
· 7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Quality Assurance Manager
The quality assurance manager (QAM), William H. McKenzie. Jr.. is responsible
for all procedures and tasks pertaining to quality assurance for this work
assignment, and reports directly to the QAD. Mr. McKenzie will monitor project
activity to verify compliance with quality assurance plans. review appropriate
sections of the work plan for approval, provide quality assurance on all
technical document deliverables for this project. and assist the QAD in
conducting system audits.
7.3 TEAM FIRMS
No team firms are proposed for this work assignment.
7.4 SUBCONTRACTORS
Upon approval by the RPM. FPC will obtain the services of a subcontractor to
perform survey work.
Subcontractor personnel will be required to perform all work in strict
compliance with the appropriate contract specifications. Subcontractors have
the option of either adopting the site-specific FPC health and safety plan or
submitting their own plan for FPC approval. Regardless of which option is
chosen. responsibility for the health and safety of all subcontractor personnel
rests with the subcontractor. Any observed significant variance in performance
that is not expeditiously corrected by subcontractors will be brought to the
immediate attention of the project manager.
7-6
742/20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN
Subcontract support will be provided by the ARCS IV subcontract administrator,
Mr. Abel Dunning. The subcontractor manager, Ms. Mary Leslie, will prepare and
issue the subcontracting requirements package, which integrates the
subcontracting needs with a planned method of procurement. Each solicitation
will be reviewed to determine if the potential exists for award to a small
disadvantaged business (SDB).
Subcontractor bid packages were prepared for drilling, surveying. laboratory
services and site security by FPC prior to notification that EPA would perform
the RI in-house. As currently planned, FPC may be requested to obtain a
subcontractor to provide surveying services in conjunction with the EPA RI.
The scope of the survey services is currently unknown. All or a portion of the
existing bid package for surveying will be used and/or modified to obtain these
services.
8-1
742/10
D
D
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Health Assessment for
the New Hanover County Bum Pit, Wilmington, North Carolina. CERCLIS No.
NC D981021157, November 1989.
Bain. George L. Geology and Groundwater Resources of New Hanover County, North
· Carolina. North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources.
Groundwater Bulletin, November 17. 1970.
McMorris. Cheryl A .. Department of Human Resources. Hazard Ranking System
Report. June 26, 1986.
McMorris. Cheryl A .. Department of Human Resources. Site Inspection Report.
New Hanover County Airport Burn Pit. EPA ID# NC D981021157. February 6;
1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Quality Assurance Management Staff. 1984.
Calculation of Precision. Bias and Method Detection Limits for Chemical and
Physical Measurements (QAMS Chapter 5). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region IV. Statement of Work for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the New Hanover County Airport
Bum Pit Superfund Site in Wilmington. New Hanover County, North Carolina.
January 22. 1990.
Additional Sources Consulted:
Geology and Groundwater Resources of New Hanover County. North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources, 1970.
EPA Summary Trip Report, May 1986.
Site Inspection Report, February 6, 1987.
Miscellaneous Correspondence between RPRs and EPA. 1988.
Hazard Ranking System Report.
Health Assessment for New Hanover County Bum Pit. November 1989.
Aerial Photographs -April 1969 and April 1990.
Site Photographs -April 1990.
742/4