NCD980843346_20130801_Aberdeen Pesticides Dump_FRBCERCLA _FYR_Draft Five-Year Review OU-3-OCR

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
SECOND SUPERFUND FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
ABERDEEN PESTICIDE DUMP SUPERFUND SITE
FOR OPERABLE UNIT #3
ABERDEEN, MOORE, COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
EPA JD: NCD 980 843 346
~
• e • • • • • • • • • = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Executive Summary
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Site Superfund Site in Aberdeen, North Carolina was listed on the
National Priorities List in 1989 and included five different properties: Farm Chemicals Area,
Twin Sites Area, Fairway Six Area, Mciver Dump Area, and Route 211 Area. Contamination
related to industrial activity resulted in contamination of soil and groundwater. The soil remedy,
which was designated as Operable Units #I (OU #1) and #4 (OU #4), was completed in 1998 by
excavation and the successful on-site thennal treatment of approximately 124,000 tons of soil
and the disposal of approximately 4,000 tons of soil/debris at a Sub~jtlt!ZC'landfill. The
OU#l/OU#4 remedy was included in the first five-year review,butiiW:considered complete and
will not be reviewed in this or future reviews. ,~' .
. ~~ ~
The remedy for Operable Unit #3 (OU #3) was originall½§iPgr~ved in th~~ptember 1993
Record of Decision (ROD) and included groundwater re'#;'edrntion by pump"¾/ta;1r. eat across the /«/ ''/////r' entire plumes at Fann Chemicals, Twin Sites, and Fairway Six.Areas. The l 993JROD/,was $/,///h ,~ ~_,~,z? subsequently modified by Explanation of Significaritl!J?LfferenceJl(ESDs) in 1994 i!nd'l 997 to
. I d dd. . I . f (COC ) ~df'Z·h ;m,/4d. . fffh h . me u ea 11Iona contammants o concern s an ;p ytoreme ial!on, among-ot er t mgs.
·@:1/.·/{9' In 2003, EPA issued an Amendment to the OU #3 ROD wliidi further modified the remedy to
include institutional controls and monitored natural attenuati~of contaminated groundwater,
h. h I d d d. .o/~"'h fi fi '%W;,. fi OU #3 fi d w 1c rep ace pump an treat reme iat1on~,• e irst 1ve-year review or was per onne
. 2008 d h I . fi d h h-w:~.=,d,. '"W,';a'i,,,,,.-f:d . . d m , an t e ana ys1s con 1rme t at t e;reme ~was constructe ,an operatmg m accor ance
with the requirements of the ~003 ROD A1n'i,,~~~f" f"/
Th. h ,,,w,,,,d fi ., ;fi O ~u #3~h-h. I d h d 1s report represents t ~~,ecQ,1,tJ)Ve-year rev1e,r or ;W 1c me u est e groun water at
the Farm Chemical/Twifi"Sites K{g'as (FCTS) as well as the Fairway Six (FX) Site. ~ ~ %
Th. d fi ., ... fi!iW' h h 1-"'d':f-. b fu . . d . d 1s secon 1ve-year rev1ew,zcon mns t at t e reme y contmues to e nct1omng as es1gne
d . . f·-=-, -~,---d . h».:h . Th 2013 "' d an _ remams ~~~,;J,.M.~e o rec~$Jl:S asso.£),~~~J. _ t e site. e sunace water an
sediment results{gontmue to sfiow&1mproved cond1t1ons compared to the prev10us sample data ,;zy -•9•~;h _ '//4rff.•, collectediin 2004; as we,!Jlas, hist6rjja[ data collected in 1989/90 and in 2000. These 2013
1 «'£ 'f h ··=fi P ~i, k' h d t· h . d fi resu ts',,ven y t e protect10n1 or agesJi'-'a e, t e groun water receptor or t e site, an con mn .-, ,,,.,*/,Z '///@. ',:W
the remecii~tion approach of;source removal, natural attenuation. and phytoremediation protect ''=', . ~ ,, . surface water,and .sednnents. ~ .,,;,w;: %ii
·~ ;/ff
Th I . f 0li~ 3 g,d . . I d h. . I h bl I e ana ys1s o t e,201 groun water momtonng resu ts an 1stonc resu ts s ows sta e p umes
. h 1· h d Yff/4-. d-,;,. . . II h . fl wit s 1g t ecreasmg;tren s m momtonng we st at are represental!ve o ong-tenn post-
. d" %,'{RWff 'fi d b d A h' . h . fr excavat10n con 1t1ons. ;i eceptors are ven 1e to e protecte . t t 1s l!me, t e time ame to
reach perfonnance stan<lards has uncertainties since down gradient site conditions have not yet
reached a post-remediation equilibrium reflecting the removal of the source and attenuation of
groundwater. As discussed in the review, although several wells within the immediate site area
are indicative of post-remediation conditions and have positive overall trends supporting a
successful site remedy, at this time, there is no technical basis to revise the remedial timeframes
estimated in the ROD. The proposed technical approach is to wait until the next review when the
majority if not all of the monitoring network will reflect long-term post-excavation conditions,
providing a larger dataset for evaluation. The surface water and sediment data continue to
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
indicate a positive remedial response, and the receptor is protected .
The phytoremediation trees are robust and thriving. Five stands are present across FCTS (Stands
I through 5) and two additional stands (Stands 6 and 7) are located at the FX site area.
Phytoremediation monitoring was conducted in July of 2013, which included sap flow
monitoring and tree root excavation. The objective was to evaluate the phytoremediation system
capacity to remove potentially contaminated groundwater from the capillary fringe. The
observed site results continue to indicate the success of the vegetative remediation remedy
components. Nutrient management methods, understory control, and removal of dead or
damaged trees are proving effective in maintaining tree vigor. Nutri,s.n'i~ai_tion will be critical
going forward as the trees have depleted whatever was available infthe local soils. Low nutrient
I I ·11 k h "bl d. d d . 0-w«,%.. h 2013 . eves w1 ma et e trees suscepl! ~ to 1sease an pre al!onA,,' un~_~;.J,,,, e growmg season_
the FCTS phytoremedrnt10n system 1s expected to remove approxnnatelyi3.35 milhon gallons of
f h d D . h . . .,.I o·,~71 ·11 · ~-II d water rom t e groun . unng t e same time, approximate y :·,. m1 10n,ga ons are expecte
ff,//"' 0, . ··CW, to be removed from the FX site area. g,-,, ~., .
~
/• ;~
,_/,@.; \, ,~ ,//
The institutional controls called for in the ROD A'iffi!li'dment areJin place. The Potgftially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) continue to monitor and e;fSW,'.~"thatff~iitutional contrcif; are in place
d I d h . . Add. . 11~1-,@,7'.l d . k. . "d db an proper y execute on t e site properties. 1l!ona y;1 _ _pca rm mg water 1s prov1 e y
the City of Aberdeen. Off-site, the PRPsi~ork with the Cit~ftAberdeen and Moore County to
provide protection through the wellhead ~factjpn program, cciifm½peqnit process, review of
C. d 'f II lie, w.-&,0,. . II d d"';,i,,,.,,,l· . f . d d 1ty water recor s to ven y no new we s ave ueel}1msta e an comp et10n o an m epen ent
Y/4, ''E-7'/~ "W,// survey and verification process. The City of'Aberdeen:owns the Twin Sites property. The PRPs
d I . I . . C I Pl ''h.. {{£""ct'?:~,---. ".. . . h h . d are eve opmg an nsl!tut10n ontro an cons1stent,an m(conJunct10n wit ot er area sites an "//}'" ,~ /ff/ ·•,9@ will include institutional coi1tr6Itveri fication elements. <If' ,1··· --,,-~ 'f,,_ 4" I , 17~-, ~ ,,,;~!'
~%'-%, ;;¥' -~ '.-J;:;. .. '.",f;,v,•-~~ .,; : ;4·:;,,7-,,-,,, ~ ,,,f,,y '»3/;
'"'l#~
"lf
-.;;,/~,
,;✓/.~ ,/;
• •
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
EPA Five-Year Review Signature Cover
NPL Status: ~ Final O Deleted D Other (Specify)
Site Lead: 0 Fund ~ PRP
.,,
Remediation status (choose all that apply): D Under constructil ~~Operating D Complete (/////. ~_u,,;,,
Multiple OUs?: 0 Yes ~ No -~ 'o/,%@, Construction .£-i!J}_pletjon date:~leptember 30, 2003
LTRA: 0 Yes ~ No
,,-J:Y ., ~71@'//,, □ Has site been;put into reuse? 161 ·,,y~~/, No
P f h E,q Ch . I I h b'"%½,. . art o t e, ,aim em1ca parce as eernput<Into reuse ~---,,,~mr;, ·<",, yq..,/;,, as commercial~arehousing. ~ '¥/#&, //// ,,,_ . .
-REVIEW ST A TUS ,, -----------. ---... ------
~ EPA D State 1/~?i"iTribe ·-~.,_ Lead Agency: D Other<Eederal Agency .,,,W"///Q✓;. -~✓///ff.,.
Review Period: "0;"'~, :I -W--ef March 2013 to July 2013¾_ · -R.!te(s) of Sit~lnspection: XXX, 2013
% 7(~1'0z ft' Who conducted the review (EPA Region, state, FederalITl'.gencies or contractor):
, . ·•·· w, /,({/ ·•0,,,.r,(~/ EPA-Region 4, North Carolm~Department of Environment ~Natural Resources and
. ,((/..f'///.¥,@7~-.. . "-«{ • ff Representatives from the,Potentially Respons1blejPart1es
////, ''1///4,/ 0
,,;·----·, -~ --~
Type of Review: /t§j~S_tatutor~ ~ Policy ~/4' ~ Post-SARA '~,Jpr~Sj\RA D NJGRemoval only □ Regional Discretion . ., w,,, W«h(/. . 0 Non-~]/!i;,/~5J]_edrnl AsJ).2}1 S1te 0 -jg]JNPL State/Tnbe-lead
~,,,.,,, •. .,.,,.,,,,.-&7L'''"', -,~,.
Revie\\:~umber: -,~u,}),(_first)· \~ 2 (second) 0 3 (third) D Other (specify) __
--#ff&. . '•'.(4~ • '~# . , -Triggef!ngAction: -:;~ W □ '1/,t,,h. ~ % 0 Actual RA Start at OU# __ Actua!iWA Onsite Construction a(OU #
"'W/:'9,-, . -~ --~ Previous Five-Year Review Report D Construct10n Comple!Ion~scptcmbcr JO. 2001 PCOR)
'W,(A. %ffi D Other (Specify,), Jt! .,.,,'/4. ,,,
R r -,~,,., lgp . ~ Yes 0 No (only the Fann Chemicals property) ecvc mg, reuse, re eve opment site: ... "0'////////
~ September 30, 2013 Due Date (five years aftcr,triggcring action date): •/
Issues: Refer to Section I 0.0 -Issues.
Recommendations: Refer to Section 11.0 -Recommendations and Follow-up Actions.
Protectiveness Statement for Operable Unit 3:
The remedy at the Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Site OU #3 is protective of human health and the
environment in the short term, because all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable
risks are being controlled. Exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks are being
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
addressed through implementation of the natural attenuation selected remedy. Institutional
controls are in place in the fonn of covenants on the property deeds restricting groundwater use
on all properties controlled by the PRP Group at the time the OU #3 2003 ROD Amendment was
issued that had groundwater detections of COCs above groundwater performance standards
which were selected in the 1993 ROD as modified by the 1994 ESD .
Pages Lake is the primary receptor of groundwater flow from FCTS. The 2013 surface water
and sediment results continue to show improved conditions compared to the previous sample
data collected in 2004; as well as, historical data collected in 1989/90 aff'd,in 2000. The 20 I 3 /4:{f-"•,,;:,
results verify the protection for Pages Lake, the 6,roundwater receptor for the site, and confinn
h d. . h f I I . ~, h d' . t e reme 1ation approac o source remova , natura attenuat10n,,an';fJP,., ytoreme iat1on protect
surface water and sediments. Long-tenn protectiveness ofth€ifemldi~haction will continue to
b ·fi db h · · d ·b d · h oo··w41P " ·-~-s d d e ven 1e y t e momtonng program as escn e m t e 2 )_, er1orma!},£e tan ar s
Verification Plan (PSVP) for the Site. As discussed in t!i'ffl'vie{v, althoug~everal wells within
the immediate site area are indicative ofpost-remediati'bn conditions and hal~ositive overall
trends supporting a successful site remedy, at thi~tilfre,.there is'no technical ba;(§'ii~revise the
remedial timeframes estimated in the ROD. The'°pr;;"j'f~ed techrii't:a! approach is t~ait until the
. h h . . 'f II f h . :~. ,;wk .,,,,.11 fl I " next review w en t e maJonty 1 not a o t e momtonngm·etwor w1 re ect ong-term post-
excavation conditions, providing a larger dataset for eva]~X((gi,n,. The surface water and sediment . . . . . o/,~---~, . data contmue to md1cate a positive remediahresponse, and thereceptor 1s protected.
-~-· -~
The phytoremediation trees are robust and tfuiving~BhY,toremediation monitoring was
conducted in July of 20 I 3, which included s~,;flow ';l'oWficfring ancf'tree root excavation. The
b. . I h h d' . "' ,.w-.,,%'-"~-.@'/ . II o Jective was to eva uate t ~P, )'.\oreme iat10n,system capac1tyto remove potentJa y
. d d -~fit.:/4?'~;h,. · 11 " ·-c;;;,-Th b;;, d . I . contammate groun water om;t e capt ary ,nnge. e o serve site resu ts contmue to '7✓1/ "<W"/1fi; '•½ indicate the success ofithe vegetative remediationfremedy components. Nutrient management
_/41///~½, -~ '1;,., • . . • methods, understory control, and removal of dead or,damaged trees 1s provmg effecl!ve m
maintaining tree vigor. Nff!flent aifJition,will be criti~al going forward as the trees have depleted
. . . '/,ff,f/{p_4$ .• ,.,,,.4'(-"~~///Nhf''"/. . . whatever w~~;,ava.tlable m thdocal smls:••Ifo.wmutnent levels wt!! make the trees suscepl!ble to
. ~ff./{r'/-(~-. ',Y/~ ·:8-r,• • . • disease and:predation~0unng tlie,2013 growmg season the FCTS phytoremediat10n system 1s -'V? ~-,;!9,?-:0 expected,to remove approximate]y·3}35 million gallons of water from the ground. During the /':'«a'h, . ''/9"/q?,. . • ·.rW-P,'f9'!" . same·time;,approxnnately 0"7;1 mtlhon,gallons are expected to be removed from the FX site area. • .,,,~;.: y~ ft ~ ~ ,
The institutic5ffithcontrols call~ for in the ROD Amendment are in place. The PRPs continue to
monitor and e;~~that instiifilional controls are in place and properly executed on the site
properties. Addititf'ifiilly, loc'iil drinking water is provided by the City of Aberdeen. Off-site, the
'/////4;,9,,,.#? PRPs work with the CiJ~of Aberdeen and Moore County to provide protection through the
wellhead protection program, county permit process, review of City water records to verify no
new wells have been installed and completion of an independent survey and verification process .
The City of Aberdeen owns the Twin Sites property. The PRPs are developing an Institution
Control Plan consistent and in conjunction with other area sites and will include institutional
control verification elements .
Long-Term Protectiveness:
Long-term protectiveness of the remedial action continues to be verified by the monitoring
program as described in the 2004 PSVP for the Site which includes obtaining groundwater
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
samples to confirm the stability and trends of the contaminant plumes. Current data indicate that
the plume delineation remains the same as measured in 2008, contaminant concentrations in
surface water, sediment, and groundwater have shown improvements, and the remedy is
functioning as required to achieve groundwater performance standards selected in the 1993 OU
#3 ROD as modified by the 1994 ESD .
Other Comments:
Approved by:
None
Signature
::r;;://,
;-f'
Date
• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "
Table of Contents
Section# Section Page#
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... /.1 •..........•.........••.•...•....•. 1 , .. ,,.,
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ...................................................... : .............................. 3
3.0 BACKGROUND ................................................. #'~:-, ...................................... 6
3.1 Site Description .......................................................... ~ ..... .-~, ................................... 6
311 S. D .. F Ch . l /T. s· (·Fw;,TS)A-~ . . 1te escnpt10n arm em1ca s wm 1tes '-". rea.,,-o/,· ............................... 6
3.1.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area .............................. ~?, •.. ~ ............... ~, .......................... 7
3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeolo~· ................................ :~, ..................... 7
3.3 Land and Resource Use ........................... ~, .............. :', ........................ :JWi1':,~'. ............. 7
3.3.1 Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites (FCTS) Xf~•,, ........ ~, ....................... :~ ................ 7
3.3.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area ............................. :-~4,#7. ...... · ..................... ~~ ..................... 8 ·~ 3.4 History of Contamination ....................................... ~'.-~: ................................................... 8
3.4.1 Farm Chemicals/ Twin Si~fil~CTS) Area ....... :.,,,, .............................................. 8
3.4.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area ........ ·~~-,, .................... :'.-~'"'-?.' ..................................... 9
3.5 Initial Response ............................ ~ ... '.~/4?!~{•:, ................ JP. ........................................ 9
3.6 Basis for Taking Action .................. J, ........ ~:?:•:: ..... /''. ............................................ 9
.%, I "-w.9" 4.0 REMEDIAL A<2IDI0NS ............. ~ •................ : ................................................. 11 ,,.,. --~ . .'½ ,, 4.1 Remedy Selection ....... ~ .................. ~, ................................................................ 11
4.1.1 Surface"Water.. ....... ~ .................... .-'*.,, .................................................................... 16
4.1.2 Sedi1.;;ent·"~, ......... {(f ....................... :~· .............................................................. 16 ..~ ,~ :P 4.1.3 Ecological ..... ,~"·"··::':'..~(-~-"·'.''·····'1: ..................................................................... 16 4 2 R ,d'J?ifj-✓///, W!@,,.. .. .. ,✓"%?'---. eme y, mplementahon,, ............................................................................................... 17
4.2. 11P'' Soil.::~-'.~-........ :·~, ........................................................................................... 17 /-rll ---~ "'/Y1ffi. . ,fi?t3.¼. Groundwate~.iz··········::zEt;f.'. .................................................................................. 18
4 3 ·s•· em O r . ri/o"· . ?'"'d M . . yst pe at10 perat10n.an amtenance .............................................................. 19 '•.~§,p:--0 .. z... ,y
5.0 PROGRESS SINGE THE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW .......................... 21
6.0 FIVE:\,;,EAR RE¥fEW PROCESS ................................................................ 21 6 I Ad .. ·,w/·p. C :,'// . mm1str<t_}J.){ .£JPP.onents ........................................................................................... 21
6.2 Commumty'~J)fication and Involvement .................................................................... 22
6.3 Document R~VJew .......................................................................................................... 23
6.4 Data Review and Evaluation .......................................................................................... 23
6.4.1 Forage Fish, Surface Water, and Sediment Monitoring Pages Lake ....... 23
6.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring .................................................................................. 30
6.4.3 Vegetative Remediation Program ...................................................................... 54
6.5 Site Inspection ................................................................................................................ 54
6.6 Site Interviews ................................................................................................................ 55
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 56
7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? .......... 56
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
7.2 Question B Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial
action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid? ..................................... 57
7.2.1 Changes in Standards, To Be Considered, and Remedial Action Objectives .............. 57
7.2.1.1 Pesticides ................................................................................................................... 61
7.2.1.2 Volatiles .................................................................................................................... 63
7.2.1.3 Semivolatiles ............................................................................................................. 64
7.2.1.4 Metals ........................................................................................................................ 65
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant Characteristics ... 66
7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? .............................................................. 0-: .................................. 66
7.3.1 Technical Assessment Summary .................................. :~~:," ............................ 67 . A 7.2.3 Changes in Risk Assessment Methods .......................... .1!!1:-, ........................................ 67
8.0 ISSUES ................................................................. L.~~ .................................. 68
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW.l.JR.ACTI0NS .......................... 68
10.0 PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT~, .. :· ............ :~ ........................ 68
ill NEXT REVIEW .................................. :ff.: .............................. :~ •................... 69
~. ~-\. ··y· ·~!%z-,,,, ?' ~, ,,
List of Table~
¾ ·~
~!! ~/, ,j,"1~,t,., ~;;~-Table 1 Chronology of Site Events for O,l.Js #1~#3,,and #4 9'• ~ /47,:'fJ/4'{}'.✓-~/ Table 2 Current Groundwater Performance Standardsfand Original Groundwater performance ·¾. €'✓'';~ff~-/. Standards for OU #3 from 1993 Otl,#~3 ROD and~l'994 OU #3 ESD ✓,$,% '{;,ffe,'/ '',!W Table 3 O&M Activitiesff.a. '1-,,@ jY
,,ff)'/ ~(½: '& ,, Table 4 Annual System Operations/O&M Costs Estimated in ROD Amendment :;,f{(//4;; -~ ·w, Table 5 Maximum~Detected Concentrations in Surface Water (Pages Lake), µg/L . ''-?"Y~ W' 1/@';d/ Table 6
Table 7
Maximum Detected Concentrations in S.ediment Samples (Pages Lake), mg/kg . 'W/& ~b/· ., // . . • . Maximum Detecteg,Concentrat10ns,at,Farm Chemicals/ Twm Site (Apnl 2013
G""=a'"-¼-,t. S . ..,,,,!'!'""' C .... ,,-w.-f)p roun wa er. amp mg•, ampmgn w $r "",cy'(//2$~ .,,.,,~ Table 8/;)fMaximum'·Qe'tected cciifcentrations at Fairway Six Site (April 2013 Groundwater
//lf , ··=· -~-/, /'' ::,. .. Sampling Campaign) ~/f
Table 9 :q-i9.anges in Gro{i1W,.water f~formance Standards Specified in 1993 OU #3 ROD/1994
0@j#3 ESD Compiil-ed with Current North Carolina Groundwater Classifications and '',;f!:Z!:· /.//j Standards (15A N0AC 2L) and National MCLs
. "'?(~;'.( /@' . Table IO Tox1c1ty}Factor Clianges Smee ROD Amendment (September 2003)
..... ff ..,
:'
Figure I. Site Location Map
Figure 2. FCTS Site Plan
Figure 3. FX Site Plan
List of Figures (Appendix A)
Figure 4. Groundwater Potentiometric Contours for Farm Chemicals/Twin Sites
Figure 5. Groundwater Potentiometric Contours for Fairway Six
Figure 6. Excavated Areas, Phyto-Plantings, and the Well Network at the Farm Chemicals/Twin Sites
Figure 7. Excavated Areas, Phyto-Plantings, and the Well Network at the Fairway Six
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 8. Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Pages Lake
Figure 9. Surface Water Results for Alpha BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure I 0. Surface Water Results for Beta BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 11. Surface Water Results for Delta BHC at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 12. Surface Water Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Farm Chemicals/
Twin Sites
Figure 13. Surface Water Results for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) at Farm Chemicals/ Twin
Sites
Figure 14. Surface Water Results for Barium at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 15. Surface Water Results for Copper at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Site¾ . ]ti . /. ,-%7//4_,, Figure 16. Surface Water Resu ts or Iron at Fann Chemicals Twm Sites "···
Figure 17. Surface JWater Results for Manganese at Fann Chemicals~'fftin Sites
Figure 18. Surface Water Results for Zinc at Fann Chemicals/ T%j)f Si'
Figure 19. Sediment Results for Alpha BHC at Farm ChemicaJs l''Rwin Sit~~
Figure 20. Sediment Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, B_st~~b.~,lta; Gamma)~J;;,Farm Chemicals/
Twin Sites . . / . . , .
Figure 21. Sednnent Results for 4,4·DDD at Farm Cherri1cals / Twm Sites · ,".-·
. S d' I ti 4 4'DDE F Ch.#"/41':'@l / T . ·~s· ·,,w-,"-5 F11,,'llre 22. e 1ment Resu ts or , at arm em1ca s w1gj 1tes /f'/ 'o/./~ ~///,,, f/ Figure 23. Sediment Results for 4,4'DDT at Farm Chemicals~Twin Sites
Figure 24. Sediment Results for Carbon Disulfide at Farm Chl°'fiiifals / Twin Sites
Figure 25. Sediment Results for Cadmium ailEann Chemicals /r$Ih.Sites
• • • o/(.(//{0-h, • "lo/(~ • Figure 26. Sediment Results for Chromium al'Farm,Chem1cals / Twm1S1tes % 'W//~, •=piiW'f" Figure 27. Sediment Results for Copper at FamijChemicals / Twin Sitesw
-~ .,.~(/✓Hv_, W Figure 28. Sediment Results for Iron at Farm Chemicals'(,fEwiq;,Sites ,;-~ w, ,.,.,,/,,}!(~1-.,,./4' Figure 29. Sediment Results for Lead at Fann Chemicals/ TwimSites . . /,/f/://~o/;";:,,. -%,,%(7 :~ . Figure 30. Sednnent Result§;,for-<N1_5;Jfol at Fann Chew1cals / Twm Sites
F. 31 S d' R 1§0ti z· ~-F Ch ""· 1 /T . s· Il,,'llre . e nnent esu ts or mcmt< ann em1ca s wm 1tes
.#'~{'~ 'W;m w, Figure 32. Current Extent o'f;,Groundwater Contamination for all COCs that Exceed Performance '%(,1'• ,,~ ,__~ Standards at Farm Chemicals<//,i'T-.win Site§"" w "W:'0! /f//(,{/f'¢-4:P,,N;., Figure 33. Groundwater Results0fqrjAlplia'BHGiat:farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites ~~~/,,,,, ·-·~f'(-',, .. ,,,/,W:'./@' Figure 34. GrotindwateoResults for-meta BHC at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites .,,0f/ ••.q4$@,'., .,,h,::?0",
Figure 35. Groundwater Results for Delti;BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
,I!///, 'o/!~ --~.. // Figure 361'.QJl}~ndwater Restil~~9,r Gam~/~)BHC (Lindane) at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 37. Gro)Jndwater Results(t.6r Total)BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Fann Chemicals/
Twin Sites ·\'~ . ~
Figure 38 -I. Groif«&water Resuiir for Sodium Tracer and Total BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites ·w~ 7-« Figure 38 -2. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and Total BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites . '"o/:'-'%-. ff#'" • • • • • Figure 39. Groundwater Results for D1eldnn at Farm Chemicals/ Twm Sites
Figure 40. Groundwater R~lts for Endrin Ketone at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites ,,,
Figure 41. Groundwater Results for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) at Farm Chemicals/ Twin
Sites
Figure 42. Groundwater Results for Tetrachloroethene (PCE) at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 43. Groundwater Results for 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 44. Groundwater Results for 2-Methylnaphthalene at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 45. Groundwater Results for Ethylbenzene at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 46. Groundwater Results for Naphthalene at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 47. Groundwater Results for Total Xylenes at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 48. Groundwater Results for Disulfoton at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Q
Figure 49, Groundwater Results for Cadmium at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Fi!,'llre 50. Groundwater Results for Chromium at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 51. Groundwater Results for Iron at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 52. Groundwater Results for Manganese at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 53. Groundwater Results for Nickel at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Figure 54, Groundwater Results for Zinc at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
Fi!,'llre 55. Current Extent of Groundwater Contamination for all COCs that Exceed Perfonnance
Standards at Fairway Six Site
Figure 56, Groundwater Results for Alpha BHC at Fairway Six Site
Figure 57, Groundwater Results for Beta BHC at Fairway Six Site ~
Figure 58. Groundwater Results for Delta BHC at Fairway Six Site ,L _¾,,
Figure 59, Groundwater Results for Gamma BHC (Lindane) at Fairway;Six Site
'#.~-Figure 60, Groundwater Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta,10elta;l_Gamma) at Fairway Six Site
F. 61 G d R I ti S d' T d T I BH'%' F .'=,,, s· s· 1gure . roun water esu ts or o mm racer an ota ,,,, ""¾at mrw~~ 1x 1te
Figure 62. Groundwater Results for D1eldnn at Fairway S1x,S1te_., ,,,, '
Figure 63. Groundwater Results for Endrin Ketone at Fat~Y Si;''Site "',
Figure 64. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and10ieldrin ahFairway Six Sit~"
/7/~ ''c ··• Figure 65. Groundwater Results for Heptachlor Epoxide-at!Eairway;,Six Site ·;g,,
'o/!'//~ 4W'//4_, /. Figure 66. Groundwater Results for Chromium at Fairway Sii&SiteP' ,,_,_
Figure 67. Groundwater Results for Iron at Fairway Six Site-.
Figure 68. Groundwater Results for Mangan~~-~! Fairway Six Si~"'
Appendix A
Appendix B
~&} ,ff?, '% --✓-~-,
\, ~d,~wz-/ . ,;,;; . ,.;ppen ices W
/J'#),'f" ~ '
Figures ,,r/f( ' I, ',\_
Analyticai7~ults from~pril 2013 Gr6imdwater Sampling Campaign with CD ROM of ·-= ffZ-'ff}" electronic delivefitble~,,--. ) _
Appendix C 201J1Sap Flow Mm1itoring'arfchRhizon'ie Excavation Summary Report . //~)/,;-%,. :~-. ",Y-:'«w . . . . Appendix D ,,;@ommumtyjlnterv1ew;,~uesl!onnaire and Public Notice m The Pilot c/ ·--~~ ~~-
.,,, . 0',9;,, -~--).1/'· -'iZ'A,%,,. -~~ .. ,,;,/{/;,, -~ % ,:;,,;., / >u:. . '-W-~-~ ~
o/%,, ~
1'ii,1r:, :7•4 --~-/g ~i/. -'0'
: .•
-9
lllt"~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =
List of Acronyms
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Superfund Site
Aberdeen, NC
APDS Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Site
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BHC benzene hexachloride
CD Consent Decree
COCs Contaminants of Concern
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensa}\!?}} and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations L ,,,,,
CLP Contract Laboratory Program y.~ .
CTF Central Treatment Facility tl7 ·'
CWA Clean Water Act 0;, , .
DBCP 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane ''""'•, ·,, '
DDD Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane ,· '
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethy~U~ •~ ,.,
DDT Dichlorodiphenyhrichloroethane '" >,,,_ '19
EPA Umted States Envtronmental Protect10n?Agency · -~· ESD Explanation of Significance Difference '
FCTS Fairway Chemical/T~ifoSite '
FR Federal Register -~, ,, ,
FS Feasibility Study \, ~~ ,
FX Fairway Six Site \ -~ if,.'
HI Hazard lIJj$},,.,,, \_it'' ·V
HRS Hazard\Rariking-.System "f ,/ {@ ·,✓1-/;&. -:t~ HRC Hydrogen-Releasmg Compouno
~././9'/(1/,,-.,.,, -~ . % LECR bfet11n~,Exces~€ancer Risk •i%~w/,
MCL M . =,, C %. . L 1 '# ax1muml ontammant eve .··
mg/kg /~Jl)1J!~rarrif$,.Jkki!ZW'-/
mg/I ,,#'(ff'///. ~1J,~-~Jj,I_11S peq~~ .
MNA /f/. Momtored NaturaltAttenuat1on ' /4 ',ti'(@ 'ffl· // MW/?1'~77 Monitoripg,Well ~
NC •,, North Cif'§Jjpa J'
NCAC ' North Cartlina Administrative Code
NCDENR -~North Car6lina Department of Environment and Natural Resources ·~.(..,,.,,~., ff(. . NCGWQS North Carolma Groundwater Quahty Standards .,,,aw~ /.(r". NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
N PL Natfgf;'al Priorities List 1/ O&M Operation and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PCOR Preliminary Closeout Report
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PSVP Performance Standards Verification Plan
RA Remedial Action
• • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =
RAO
RCRA
RD
RD/RA
RrD
RI
RI/FS
ROD
SARA
SOWA
TBC
UAO
uulue
µg/L
USC
voe
Remedial Action Objectives
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
List of Acronyms
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Supcrfund Site
Aberdeen, NC
Remedial Design
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Reference Dose /4'~
Remedial Investigation I "'❖,,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ,:,A
Record of Decision I. 1'
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorizaticih Act ~£,
/
~ '❖ ·-~,m,
Safe Drinking Water Act ,,,.¼r!Y.0❖,, ,. '•·
To Be Considered 1// -.~
Unilateral Administrative Order-'•, '~J;· /
unlimited use and unrestrictedr;;xp6'f.¥[e '\·~ ~>,❖,, f;,
micrograms per liter ~L ·
Umted States Code ,. . ·,
Volatile Organic Compqt1qd -~t: ~~, ,,,,,
,,,,{, ·,~,,. ,,
1' "i%&;;; " '%. ,#'" ~.;,.•N1, ·,z:, ;, ,!? ' •
S'<;Y/,&. ,,.,
,41' •:· ',
/~ ·~ \ Z, /.1/ ✓,-Yy,z .y..
'$"~ JI. *7/ '~-$i@c, 0" ?~, /21/0'%'~¥k,;, ·, ,, ~jt{ 1/{,, .. /_,,~'y d,
,:,~ ,•4(/,;;,,(y "'~· ,,,, -,,,
,,.,,_:,,,
;/~-; ,,,
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remcdy Review
September 2013
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump Site Superfund Site
Aberdeen, North Carolina
Second Five-Year Review Report
for
Operable Unit #3
1.0 INTRODUCTION ~-,,,,
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Regi~4, conducted the first five-
year review for the remedial actions implemented at the Aberde&h Pf§ticide Dump Site (APDS) /////, .,//,9'✓//.
Superfund Site in Aberdeen, Moore County, North Carolina (NC) in 2008_\,,This is the second ,&, ;.-,. .. ,,-o/&-·
five-year review for the Site, which has been performe4;Jiy\N9.,rth Carolina~~jmartment of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). The,PRPs have provided tliis';report to support o/ ,.,,,,,,9';,,,. -
the_ regulatory review and document the results o(J.lliJ{J.evie~ fo{,, Operable U_nit·(ilj).,,Three (#3 ) .
This report was prepared with the assistance of URS,'<NewF1elds;Zand demax1mus on·behalf of . . , .,.,.~ $,,/''✓-'¼. • /," the PRPs for the Site. Whtie the PRP and PRP s contract9,t,Bi;9v1ded data for th1s·five-year
review, EPA, as the lead agency overseeing Site activities~~egated the preparation of the Five-
Year Review to NCDENR, who perfonned,the review, prep{#qfthe protectiveness statement, 'if/c!/1////,, ·,,,-~ and finalized the Five-Year Review. The BRB~Jfor the APDS Superfund Site include Syngenta . • "'% .,,,,,,W,-4,;@,,._ -~/;'// . . Crop Protect10n (successor to Novartis CropjProtect10n.successor to;€1ba-Ge1gy Corporat10n),
E I d P d N d C ~01· ·c""=-"--. U .w C b'd C . Inc., . . u ont e emours an ompany;<, m O]l)Orat10n, mon ar 1 e orporalton, . . W.-/.,,.,..,,. • ·•.rq,,.,..-~w..$. . . Shell Otl Company, Bayer Co]l)oralton, ExxonMootl Otl Corporalton, Katser Alummum &
Ch . 1 C . d~"';,,¼,,,_ S . C '¼'/4Y . F. ¥;,;--. d . d em1ca orporat1on, an -orower ervtce orporat10n. tve-year review ocuments assoctate . . ~ ··wa-0,,. ~ with OU #5 are submitted separately. ~ p~ 'f@ ~ . -~-. I . ~ . . . The purpose of the five-year;rev1e..yJ1~;to determme;whether the remedy at a Site 1s protective '<;:'(;'%✓,._$'/,W~("1/~.,,,, ,.,.,.Q' • • • of human health,ang,,t.he environment. '·Tiie,methoos, findmgs, and conclus10ns of reviews are f(~;'//f~.:',,,.·,,.. ··r~,-.,,.w~'."" . . . . . . documented,m·F1vec;'¥.ear Rev1e":7&reports. In add1t10n, Five-Year Review reports 1denltfy . fi ,w-d· d . ,.h,~--.f·:m,,,,, d 'd 'fy d . dd h issues )?£1n unng t e·r$.Y,J~W, 1 aI)y;._an .:-1 enlt recommen altons to a ress t em. :-,, .,[ "'9
This is tn~econd five-year· &view of;the APDS site since the site was identified as requiring a
"policy" r~f(fw,,, EPA must 'fl'Wp!eme.nt five-year reviews consistent with the Comprehensive
Environment.;FResponse, Cofiliiensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and
d b ··-w.i,0, .%! ) 2() dd Hazar ous Su stance,Contmgency Plan (NCP . CERCLA § I I c , as amen e , states: -~L
{{ the PresidenJfielects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such
remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial
action to assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the
remedial action being implemented. In addition, if upon such review it is the judgment
of the President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section
{/04) or {/06), the President shall take or require such action. The President shall
report to the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results
of all such reviews, and any actions taken as a result of such reviews .
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
The Agency interpreted this requirement further in the NCP; 40 CFR §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow.for unlimited use and
unrestricted e.\posure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than eve,y
five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
Although not required by statute, this review is being conducted in accordance with EPA policy .
EPA conducts five-year reviews as a matter of policy at: (I) sites where,no hazardous substances
will remain above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted e;j;p'~e;,(uu/ue) after
completion of remedial actions, but the cleanup levels specified i;J;.tlf{ RODs will require five or
. ) . dd d b " S fu d a=· d R h . . A more years to attam; (2 sites a resse e1ore uper n Amen men~J,,an eaut onzat10n ct
R ) h. h h d . . f I I ~,,,,. ·1'1'~-. II 1· . d (SA A at w 1c I e reme y, upon attamment o c eanup eve,✓,;,5, w1 n<?,\:l/ ow un 1m1te use
d . d d (3) I I . h ' h ~ d &@, . . an unrestncte exposure; an remova -on y sites w ere, azar ous suustances remam on-site
/4'(,1,"N/~ . "9"/ij'q7, at levels that will not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. This sitajhas been reviewed /✓,y 1/,,'//:;:,')✓, because cleanup levels for contaminants in the grounawater will require more tlian-,five years to
attain. ~, ~~-,1 .• ,
' ~-,, y h . . . " h t· fi . h-~-P.l · f · T e tnggenng act10n 1or t e 1rst 1ve-year review wast e,.comp et10n o construction as
designated by the Agency's issuance of the Preliminary c1;r(tf0ut Report (POCR) on September
0 003 F. . 'o/.&,.. fi ft ~,, I . f . ·1 3 , 2 . 1ve-year reviews must occur evecy_g 1ve years a er comp ellon o construction unt1
I I I . h ROD . d .• ,f"",;.,~, .. d. h C ·'?'v,;,,,,.h,;, . F' Y R . c eanup eve s set mt e s are attame 1ncccor mg tot e ompre ens1ve 1ve-ear ev1ew
Guidance, subsequent reviews are required ~ithi;{""fff~years of corn1\'fetion of the initial review .
The initial five-year review was conducted in1'200~2jfoff~fivecy~ar review report dated
S b 2008 Th. d ,,,,,..,,.. h % $ d fi ·= . eptem er . 1s ocumenLserves as t e secon 1ve-year review. L ..... ,, \ ,,
The Site involves five7different prferties which $ere divided into five operable units (OUs) . ,:, .,//~,. ~-w ',,% ✓h
The five properties are tlie),Farm Cliemicals Area, tlie'.--Twin Sites Area, the Fairway Six Area, the
~:"'"·:-~///{?~-• ., ,o/' . . Mciver Dump Area, and theiRoute--2·MfArea,;,,,The,text below summanzes which area and · dr~:0-/ij,.. 1 '~a· · ,,,.,_..,,.,,.~:-0;,w.drr . h h' h OU contammate ,env1ronmenta me ,a 1s associate wit w 1c : ;p·· "-=-e,.. --~-, ${z, .~ 7// .,4,0,, ~
OU'#! and OU #4 ' Gontamiriateg,;s6ils at all five areas (Fann Chemicals Area, Twin Sites
W/~~ 1/,U}½ •~ ,1",.. A'f}i~, Fairw,_ay Six Area, Mciver Dump Area, and Route 211 Area)
'?'~ incllraing the stockpile at Fairway Six ,ii». ·~
·?7,'f !$ OU #2 · /'f*. C,g_ntaminated ~oil stockpiled adjacent to Fairway Six, in 1989 the
:f,g.Agency re-designated this OU as OU #4
OU#3
OU#5
..
Groundwater at Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites, and Fairway Six Areas
Groundwater, surface water and sediment at Mciver Dump and Route
211 Areas .
The first five-year review conducted in 2008 included Operable Units #1, #3, #4, and #5 ..
Several removal and remedial actions were completed to address OU #I and OU#4, which
focused primarily on soils and are considered complete. Groundwater remediation and
monitoring activities are ongoing for OU #3 and OU #5 .. However, since OU #5 has been
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
managed separately throughout the remedial process, the review process and associated
documents will remain separate for the OU #5 remedy .
This review will be placed in the EPA site files and local repository for the APDS site. The local
repository is located at the Page Memorial Library, I 00 South Poplar Street, Aberdeen, NC
28315 and EPA's, Region IV Information Center at 61 Forsyth Street, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, Atlanta, Georgia .
2.0 SITE CHRONOLOGY ~'-
Table I provides a list of activities relevant to OU #I/OU #4 and,00#3 . ., .. ,
, .
Table l -Chronolo<>y of Site Events for OUs #1, #3. and .. #4'% . •• First disoosal area discovered at the Twin Sites ~---•,, -,~--Jul 1984
Second disoosal area found Twin Sites Area j"' ., '''Y;@;.Au<> 1984
Fairwav Six disnosal area discovered ,:~,. ,,,_ '"WAug,J 984 .,,,.
Discoverv ofMclver Dumn Area ~,,.,. "<e,.. ~--Nov I 984
Emergency response action under State issued Administrativef0rdei'fai Area A at ,j'
the Mciver Dumn Area ·--Jan 1985
EPA snonsored an emernencv resnonse action-.at the Fairwav Six Area,. Jun 1985
EPA snonsored ememencv resnonse action alfeJ'ea,B.at the Mciver Dumn,Area Jun 1985
EPA snonsored an emen>encv resnonse action 'adlie,l;w'in-.Sites Area -~ Jun/ Aug 1985
EPA snonsored emen,encv resnonse action at Route 21 J'<IAt'ea½,,._ y Jun 1986
EPA Emergency Response Team conducted a test<bum ofccintamirfated soil at
the Fairwav Six Area .~,. ·i; -~ Dec 1986
OU #2 Remedial Investi<>aiion/Feasioilitv Studv ~--. Jun 1987 -Jun 1989
OU #1 Remedial Investigation/Feasioility Study -Site~wide characterization • • ,.,,, ,,,...«:'¼ u,,z . ·-'."~. /-Jun 1987 -Apr 1991 mcluded sampling of surficiahand subsurface soils, sediments, surface water and -~ ~ .P' l!roundwater ~--,.~,,.... .
EPA discoveredciiithird.disposaliai'ea betweenf°disf:,osa!' Areas A and B at Twin
Sites Area.,..,...~_ ·,. ,.,,,, Oct 1987
EPA SP,onsored another emergency response action at the Fairway Six Area. Aug 1988 ,,,~¥":'½ ,,.-0,;m ~w.,,,r.·v# · resultecJ:i1fa.stocknile of contaminated soil,(afmroximatelv 22,000 cubic vards)
The stock'piled.soil at Fairway"Six was designated as OU #2 within the overall Mar 1989 '"'W -~ site strate<n• fodhe Site ~
EPA snonsored'emer<>encv resnonse action at Area Cat the Mc Iver Dumn Area Mar 1989
EPA snonsored emefp'encv response action at Route 211 Area Mar 1989
OU#2 ROD ·-.,,1 Jun 30, 1989
OU #4 Remedial Investii,aiion/Feasibilitv Studv Jan-Sen 1991
EPA nublished OU #1 Pfonosed Plan Mav 23, 1991
ROD for OU #1 -Contaminated Surface and Subsurface Soils Sent 30, 1991
Amendment to ROD for Operable Unit #4 (formerly OU #2) for contaminated Sept 30, 1991 soils stockniled adiacent to Fairwav Six
Comprehensive data collection, including deep soil samples to define the extent 1992-1995 of contaminated soil reauiring remediation
OU #3 Remedial Investigation/Feasibilitv Studv Jul 1992 -Oct 1993
OU #1/#4 ROD -Explanation of Significant Different -Established cleanup Dec I, 1992 levels for each contaminant of concem in soil at a risk rarn,e of I x I 0'6
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Sill'
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
Table 1 -Chronoloov of Site Events for OUs #1, #3, and #4
EPA split the groundwater remediation approach into two OUs; OU #3 will
focus on Farm Chemical Area, Twin Sites Area, and Fairway Six Area; and OU May 1993
#5 will focus on Mciver Dumo Area and Route 211 Area
EPA oublished OU #3 Prooosed Plan Mav 10, 1993
EPA issued Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to numerous PRPs to May 20, 1993 imolement OU #1/#4 Remedial Desi<rn/Remedial Action
OU #3 ROD for contaminated groundwater at Fam1 Chemicals Area, Twin Sites Oct 7, 1993 Area, and Fairwav Six Area
Two PRPs entered in Administrative Order on Consent with EPA to cond,9!,'.),,
#5 Remedial Investigation/Feasibilitv Studv ,I ~,,, Mar 21, 1994
OU #5 Remedial Investigation/Feasibilitv Studv ~, Mar 1994 -Seo 1997
OU #3 ROD -Explanation of Si1,,'Ilificant Difference -Added chemicals of~
concern to OU #3 ROD Table 22 ~ ~ ._ Jun 6, 1994
EPA issued UAO to numerous PRPs to implement OU #3 Remedial ·• ...
Design/Remedial Action .if!JP' .,,,,, ·-q ~ Jun 22, 1994
~@Dec 26, 1995
EPA amended several of the OU #3 related UAOs ~ .,_ .,_,,Dec 22,.1995
Sunnlemental soil and groundwater data collection /7✓.,.,. ~✓--,~1995
EPA amended several of the Mav 20, 1993 UAOs . ,?'a, . ff//'"•• .. Dec 22, 1995
OU #1/#4 Soil Remedial Action Desi<rn ,~ 1995
OU #1 /#4 ROD -Explanation of Significant-.Oifferent -Revised''cleanup level -~ -~ for arsenic in soil .,,,,. ., May 31, 1996
OU #3 30% Remedial Design -Groundwater Ti'eataoility and Data Acquisition
Renart -~-,,~,,, ·'W' Mar 28, 1996
OU #3 30% Remedial Desi= -Design Criteria Renart ff'~,,,,/,,." Mar 28, 1996
ROD for OU #3 -Explanation,o&Significant Differences -modifiearf<,mediation Sep 15, 1997 0 . . . . ,.«"'7//./J/&,,A-. 1vt, 'W/ . . j'/ h1losoohv mcludmg the 1mblemental!on of oh oremediat10n v
Interim Action ROD fori0U #5 for Route 211 Area "'¾ ¼ Seo 16, 1997
RA Initiated with the Demolition of Buildim, at Farm Chemical Area 1997
Groundwater Hot Soot Pumof&Hreatll)esign Criteria Report 1997
Initiation of low,flow/auiesceniroro1J11dwaief!sampling'\echnique 1997
OU #1/#4 Sciil'-Remeiliali?Action/Clean,uo "''//// 1997-1998
OU #3 final Remedial ActioiI,Work'Blan, Feb 18, 1998
OU #3tGfoundwater I 00% Remedial Aciiofi<Design Feb 18, 1998
OU #3 FinaliPerformance Standards Verification Plan -Groundwater 100% Feb 18, 1998 . 'o//-<'¼'.-. . -~ ,
Remedial Ac!Ion,Desi<m
OU #3 Final Fielc!fSampling & Analysis Plan -Groundwater 100% Remedial Feb 18, 1998 ,~ ~ Action Desi1m ~,. ,,,f
OU #3 Final Operationf&,Mainienance plan for Farm Chemicals/Twin Sites ~ . Feb 18, 1998 Area Groundwater Recovery, Treatment & Discharge Systems -Groundwater ,,,,-9'
1 00% Remedial Action Desiim
OU #3 Final Operation & Maintenance plan for Fairway Six Area Groundwater
Recovery, Treatment & Discharge Systems -Groundwater 100% Remedial Feb 18, 1998
Action Desi on
OU #1/#4 Route 211 Area Pre-Final Inspection Feb 19, 1998
OU #1/#4 Fairway Six Area and Stocknile Pre-Final Inspection Feb 19, 1998
Partial Consent Decree entered that suoersedes orevious UAOs Mar 2, 1998
OU #1/#4 Route 211 Area Final lnsoection Aor 2, 1998
OU #1/#4 Mclver Area Pre-Final Insoection Apr 16, 1998
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Y car Remedy Review
September 2013
Table I -Chronolor,y of Site Events for OUs #1, #3, and #4
OU# I /#4 Twin Sites Area Pre-Final Inspection Aor 16, 1998
OU #1/#4 Mciver Area Final Inspection Jun 24, 1998
OU #1/#4 Fairwav Six Area and Stocknile Final Inspection June 24, 1998
OU #1/#4 Twin Sites Area Final Inspection Jun 24, I 998;
OU #1/#4 Fann Chemicals Area Pre-Final Inspection Jul 20, 1998
OU #1/#4 Fann Chemicals Area Final lnsnection Jul 2L 1998
OU #3 Final Performance Standards Verification Plan -Groundwater I 00% Oct 2, 1998 Remedial Action Desi1m
Groundwater Remedy Phytoremediation/ Perfonnance Standards Verification~
Plan initiated ,I · ,,, 1998
OU #3 Perfom1ance Standard Verification Plan -Groundwater Sampling~
Proµram ,# .,_ 1998 -2003
OU#5 Final ROD ,, -~ -~,. Jun 4, I 999
OU #3 Second Look Proposal -effectiveness of monitored natufal-,~tienuation 'q 'Jun I I, 1999 versus expected pumn and treat technolo<>v I ,, ~,aW,,;,,
OU #3 Surface Water Sampling confirms water qualitv,imorovement, ,,,,.2000
Two Year Review Reoort ..,,,,,._,_
~, -,~2000
OU #3 Hydrogen-Releasing Compound (HRC) Corrective Action Performance //
2000 (CAP) Installed .,.,.,
OU #5 Mciver Area Pre-Final ~/,._
,,.., Mar 28, 2000
OU #3 Draft Final Start-Un Monitoring Evenif.4)Renort -~-April 14, 2000
OU #5 Mciver Area Final lnsnection 'Zi"'~ ½. '1//h. -,~)W'' Mav I I, 2000
OU #3 Draft Final Start-Un Monitoring Event 6'l(July 2000)\Report JY Nov 2000
OU #5 Route 211 Area Final Inspection -~ ~-§""~//$ , Mar I, 2001
OU #3 Draft Final October 2000;,;March 200 I Groundwater Moilitofing Reoort Mav 2001
OU #3 Draft Final April 200f'~'Sepiefuber 200 I Groundwater Monitoring ~ ,~ .<g Renort ~, ~ %J, . Nov 2001
OU #3 HRC CAP Cofnplefea~, WJ / ~$ 2002
OU #3 Draft Final October 2001,,, Aofili-2002.,Groundwaier Monitoring Renort Aug 2002
OU #3 Draft FinalrJuly,2002 -(iciober 2·002,Groundwater Monitoring Renort Feb 2003
OU #3 Revised'Famf1Gneinical/Twin1Sites Comprehensive Report ( 1982
throu!!h 2002) "-W-6,, ,,, , Jun 9, 2003
OU #3fRevised Fairway Six'Goinprehensive',Report (I 982 through 2002\ Jun 20, 2003
OU #3 Di'aft\final Januarv 2003f;April 2003 Groundwater Monitoring Renort Jul2003
OU #3 ROD'"Arriendment -changed groundwater remedy from pump & treat to Sep 30, 2003 . ·-:w:0-, . 1/, t . . momtored naturahattenuallon andfphytoremedial!on
Preliminarv Closure\Report for-{entire Site Sent30,2003
OU #3 Revised Perfcii'ma~Sfandard Verification Plan -Post ROD
Amendment ·y-2003
OU #3 Draft Final July 2003 Groundwater Monitoring Report Jan 2004
Deed Restriction Institutional Controls for Groundwater Use at Farrn 2004 Chemicals/Twin Sites
Redevelopment of Fann Chemicals Site with Mini-storage Warehouse 2004 Commercial Units
Monitoring of Forage Fish, Surface Water, Sediment and Groundwater post OU 2004 #3 ROD Amendment baseline monitorin!! camnaign
OU #3 Final Performance Standards Verification Plan for Monitored Natural May2004 Attenuation Groundwater Remedv Lon!!-Tenn Monitoring
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
Table I -Chronolo!!v of Site Events for OUs #1, #3, and #4
OU #3 Post ROD Amendment Groundwater Sampling Program -Annual 2004-present Groundwater Samnling
OU #3 Draft Groundwater, Surface Water, Sediment, and Forage Fish Sep 17, 2004 MonitorinQ Renort
OU #3 Draft Final September 2005 Groundwater Monitoring Report Sep 2005
OU #3 Draft Final Groundwater Monitoring Report Jul2006
2008 OU #3 Groundwater Monitoring Camoaiim and First 5 Year Review Apr/ Sep 2008
OU #3 2010 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report Nov2010
OU #3 2012 Biennial Groundwater MonitorinQ Report ~ Oct 2012
2013 OU #3 Groundwater, Surface, Sediment Monitoring Campaign and.Second .,,,_
5 Year Review ,A,, Apr I Sep 2013
.,, ~/' , ¼ ~-
3.0 BACKGROUND ~---,,__ '"
Th Ab d P . 'd D s· . I d. Ab /rd . M C ~N?3%,. h C 1· e er een esltc1 e umps 1te 1s ocate m er een m oore ounty, ort aro ma.
• • • • ~/., .,'l,,, • • '/(/,W,'.'·,d// As ment10ned, the Site mcludes five geograph1cally,s,~parated a~tl¾s, ofwhtch mcl1;1ae·the Farm
Chemicals Twin Sites Area (FCTS) and Fairway Six Af~,(FX)~he subiect ofthiJfeview . '•-'@1~/43 , J Figure I presents the site location map. ·v-
''i'-,-.. ~ . ~ -~-·--V'~-3.1 Site Description '¾c•'~ ·@.ly•' % ,. ~,
'-!, ~--p 3.1.1 Site Description Farm Chemicals .!6§1'winiSites•(FCTS) Area
. '%Z07,. . -~-g . :"@;'ff . . . . The Fann Chemicals (FS)fAre.i),;Y,.J2's the locat1011,1pf a pesl!cu,le blendmg fac1hty which was
demolished in Febru<1;rf[April of,1;_&97. The FC A;_rea is located on flat terrain on the south side
of NC Highway 5 (Pilrflfurst Road)~bout 0.5 mills1west of the intersection with U.S. Highway I • .,,,,~(*-', . ;gf-"W#,$ . . (See Figure 2). The FC ArJa 1s on1h,~1/,westem corp,orate hm1t of the Town of Aberdeen. The
I d h h d -~,-.&.'1.'Z:d~''"--.• · I J'gh . d . I . R 'd . I an to I e sout .an west 1s-occup1e '-uy;,commercia or 1 t m ustna properties. es1 enl!a . ,,.-£:'M/"~,--·•--~,:'-,.~ ,,,,,..,,./-¥,0%-(",W,-. . . property boundsttne;Farm Chemicals Area to tlie east with the nearest residence approximately #7". ---✓4%":.,,✓.:· -w~. . , . , .
200 fee,!;.:,way. North of,t,!;I;-_FC ArtiJlf N~ Highway 5 and directly across NC Highway 5 1s the
Twm,S1tes Area. ,ffip;,, -%{3//,1/ ,,,,,. -~ ~ ~ --~ ."
The Twin sifts,(TS) Area is l~ated north of NC Highway 5, at the western corporate limit of the '"1"6//, ~(,,, Town of Aberdeen.and west of0Pages Lake (See Figure 2). The TS Area consisted of three
d. I --~,1 -~-wh. d d d h . 'd J'k . I 1sposa areas ope1\,uUJnps wit m a woo e area an an area w ere pest1c1 e-1 e matena s were
buried. The TS Ariifil~sini1ted on moderately sloping terrain (5%) which slopes in a north-by-
northeast direction to~{fcfs Pages Lake. Pages Lake is a man-made lake and is used for fishing
and general recreation·. Page's Lake is the primary receptor of groundwater flow from FCTS. A
municipal sewer line, several groundwater seeps, and standing water pools are located in a wet
area between the disposal areas and Page's Lake. In 2003-2004 the Town of Aberdeen installed
an exercise/nature path around part of the lake including a walkway across the middle of the
lake. Page's Lake is fed and drained by Aberdeen Creek .
The Twin sites Area is bounded on the east by woods, on the north by Pages Lake, on the south
by NC Highway 5, and on the west by the corporate limits of the Town of Aberdeen and several
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
residential properties. The nearest residents live about 350 feet to the west. An active Boy Scout
Camp and former Jaycees Hut are located 350 feet downgradient of the Twin Sites Area .
3.1.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area
The Fairway Six (FX) Area is situated off of NC Highway 5 approximately 1.6 miles west-
northwest of the Aberdeen corporate limits (See Figure 3). The general area is rural and sparsely
populated. The FX Area is located on the southern end of the fonner "Pits Golf Links" golf
course. This former golf course is currently overgrown and in an abandoned state, although the
land has been purchased by the owners of the nearby Pinehurst No. 9 golf course for possible
(future) expansion of that facility. To the east and west lies woodect,{fcf~n:y that is privately
owned and was once planned for residential development; howevef;1residential townhomes have
. . £?""~///!'~· only been constructed to the east of the site, located approximately I00QJeet from the FX Area
$$. -~ . along the entrance road to the former golf course. The FX Area 1s s1tuated,on terrain gently a .,, -,~ sloping northeast towards the unnamed golf course lake andt<;reek. ' , ,,,__ -~-
½~ ~· ' ,,,, ""' _./ 3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and1Hyq~¥eoffi!lY,_ . _,.,,
The FCTS and FX Sites are located within the Aberdeen<€teek'.![;.amage basm. Aberdeen Creek
. h h fl . .b h . . D ·~%%""' k . 1 7 ·1 h 1s a nort -soul owmg tn utary t at emplles mto rowmng,tree approximate y m1 es soul . • • '?-·:,. • ¼'"///.h., • • of Pages Lake. Pages Lake 1s 1mmediatelv;,adJacent to the FCT~Js1te area and 1s a protected ~ -~ receptor under this remedy. ~-' ,,
\ ~--V There are three regional hydrostratagraphic iffi.its that~ifaer!i.~OU #3. They are the Sand Hills '% #//. ,,,,«@hf#ff( Aquifer, the Cape Fear confining zone, and thefcrystalline roclc,o'fthe Carolina Slate Belt. The
primary aquifer in the Ab@a°~~jcinity is the S~d Hills aqiiifer, which is comprised of both the
·ctct d f d h ,;fP' ,~ I . . ""h F . Th I . h C F M1 en or an , w JJ-:$.Jl),J.esent, t,,$.,,Jver ymg Pm~0• urst. ormallons. e c ay-nc . ape ear
Format10n acts as an "aq!_ltlard" angfseparates the o~erlymg aqmfer from the crystalline rock
.ti Th S d H·11 'JlW",.ti ;J½,.. f ~f ·ct db II h. h aqm er. e an 1 s aqqJ er S9'lJJ,~t$Ao a_system,o n ges separate y stream va eys w 1c
generally a.re inciseg;,into th.P.-ii"nd~rlyi#"f'fffe{ifafdf"°The thickness of the aquifer varies from a few . ~?.,.%-.,. '1//~f.,. ..,,.,,.,,#/ . . feet in the"stream valleys;,to 300·foetat the crest of the higher ndges . w .,,.. ··;
i;ip~ ~~-, ;
h., "'' f h d "ii&, ·.¥, . .,,, I . 1 b ct· . . . h Rec arge,o t e groun watterJ.reserv01r;1s' a most entire y y 1rect prec1p1tallon. T e ,;h//@.,, -~ W . unconsolidated sands and gravels oftlie Pinehurst Formation allow rapid infiltration of '-e,o/@ -~ precipitation'tqjthe water tablej Groundwater flow is generally in a northerly to northeasterly
direction acro;~~~;,Farm Chf#;icals, Twin Sites and Fairway Six site areas and discharges into --~ .;,-g:: the nearest surface·water body, Pages Lake for FCTS and the golf course lake and creek at
-,;,~~ /¥/ Fairway Six Figures 4_l,'a"rid"5 present the groundwater potentiometric contours for FCTS and FX, W0" respectively, based on)lie 2013 groundwater sampling campaign .
3.3 Land and Resource Use
3.3.1 Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites (FCTS) Area
The Farm Chemicals Area has historically supported industrial activities from the 1930's to the
present. From 1930 until 1987, this area supported pesticide formulation and blending activity .
The FC current land use is commercial/light industrial with mini-warehouse rental storage units
e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
and warehousing/distribution facility for a coffee shop chain. The groundwater at this site is not
used .
The Twin Sites Area was historically used for disposal of pesticide related waste from 1945 until
1971. The TS current land use is recreational, supporting a municipal walking trail and fishing
in Pages Lake. The Jaycees Hut is unused but formerly operated as a day center by a drug
rehabilitation 6,youp. The Boy Scout camp is not used for camping; however it is used once per
week for meetings. Groundwater at this site is not used .
3.3.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area '4,.,
The Fairway Six Area was used for disposal of dusts and ),'Tanul3Ji:~Sticide waste as well as . . . /.ij',, -w.~,,, techmcal bags and contamers from 1950 through 1971. Pnor t,9;1ts abandonment, the FX land
. d f -f-· · use was recreat10nal, use as a go! course. Currently the former go! course 1s overgrown with
/}::, '"/, W///~ volunteer growth. Residential structures, built adjacent toi.the former golf.course, are located
approximately 1,000 feet east of FX, outside of the de!ilfeati~ri' of impacteci'W'ttmdwater.
Groundwater at this site is not used. ~ •,,, ""' ✓,
. . . "·,. A,. . 'V The pnmary recreal!on of the Aberdeen area 1s golf. W1tfim a1I0-m1le radius of Aberdeen there ''¥#)'//ff.// are 36 championship golf courses. A large seasonal flux of,visitors to the numerous golf courses
in the area occurs in the spring and the fa_~Most of these vfff(%s are elderly and stay for a week
or two at a time. ~ ' ~ ' ,., 3.4 History of Contamination \ 7~~-Y <?/2 ,., ,~
/4;f!{P'h,, 0, .,,;,. ",f,#Jfe,-
3.4.1 Farm Chemicals?/f.&Twin Sites (Fq,TS) Area;r ,,fY . .,,._ "% ,
Frnm at least the mi~~J,?'s thrm~J\J 1987, three'l~ccessive companies blended or fonnulated
millions of pounds ofpesllc1des at;tfie Farm Chemicals•,Area. Those compames were Taylor
• • '/o/.(/""•· ' m:. . ~ . . Chemical Company (m1d0·1930 s,untihl-964), Grower Service Corporal!on (1964-71), and Fann • •,;,~. w,.,,,~//h.,1o.. ,¢' , . Chemicals, Inc:,('1'!,72-1987).4;.Those compameE/Jfonnulated, blended, or diluted techmcal grade . . d ( ,@,?@,0""1"1~-'w.e:1''· ,,,,,.,.,,,, ) . . 1 d fi . h d . . d pestle, e~ genera y,pure or near &pure pesl!c1ues mto commercrn gra e, ,ms e pesl!c1 e
productifor agricultui"'f(ftfse. Th~ te';;ticide fonnulation or blending process generated wastes
contailfii'rg-,pesticides-lac[d~sidue. 'sg'°~ of the pesticides handled during this timeframe were:
dichlorndipti'enyltrichloroetTfa'Re (DDT), Drins (aldrin. dieldrin, endrin, endrin ketone), BHC, .,.~, -~ ,
lindane, chlorclane, heptachlor,1Sevin, and toxaphene . -~ ~
T I Ch . ·1~c~--~d h T . s· A • d' 1 fd b d ay or em,ca ··ompan~use t e wm 1tes rea ,or 1sposa o usts, wastes, ags, an
other used pesticide-~sfttaiffers from 1945 through 1949. The technical grade ingredients for the '1%".(/ dusts formulated by Taylor Chemical Company during those years included DDT, (BHC) ,,
isomers and copper. Significant concentrations of DDT and BHC were found at the Twin Sites
Area. Grower Service Corporation continued to use the Twin Sites Area during the years from
1964 through 1971 for disposal of dusts and granular finished products, as well as liquid
pesticides and pesticide constituents, including xylenes and other pesticides wastes. Geigy
Chemical (a separate Superfund Site in Aberdeen, NC) used the Twin Sites Area in 1949 for
disposal of dusts and pesticides wastes including DDT, BHC, and toxaphene .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
3.4.2 Fairway Six (FX) Area
From 1950 through 1971, the Fairway Six Area was used for disposal of dusts and granular
pesticide wastes as well as technical bags and containers. The bags were transported from the
Farm Chemicals Area by truck up NC Highway 5 to the Fairway Six Area and spread over an
undeveloped field about an acre in size or buried in trenches. This was also the area where
contaminated soils excavated as part of EPA 's emergency response action in the mid-l 980's
were stockpiled .
3.5 Initial Response A"
The 1985 PRP search identified a number of PRPs. On May 15, 1985 and September 30, 1985,
EPA notified the identified PRPs of the conditions at the Site ang(~ir,potential liability for the
f d. . h d' . C . . fi . -ff;! .,%a,,,,_ d f h PRP costs o reme iatmg sue con t!Jons. ertam m ormat10n W<J1;,a so reqY,este o t ese s .
The notified PRPs were also invited to participate in the remo~l actio~the Site. No PRPs
/~ .,. . came forward to take action at the Site. ~"-. · '
-~
Investigations conducted by the EPA and NC perso~el between.1984 and 198~~icated the
potential for contaminated material disposed at th~ fif~Chemi~ls, the Twin Sit?f(and the "'0.W· e. . ✓ Fairway Six Areas. Between 1985 and 1989, EPA conductedrn number of emergency response .,.W'(/, actions at these APDS Areas. In June and August 1985, theiERA initiated an emergency
response cleanup at the Twin Sites Area·~~total of 221 truckl~os of contaminated soil and
. 'd d fi V&"~ ... d B d h. -,~d3/¼,. th S b . I C L dfill pestJct e wastes were excavate rom Areas'n.,an . an s 1ppe Hgj e' u tJt e an 1 at
the GSX facility in Pinewood, South Caroli%a (<f~ft'#,osal. Also iiZ'tfffne 1985, an unknown . . Y". . ---~(.,,-"'",;,,,,_ ,,_., . . amount of contammated surface matenals anchsotl from"Trenches,No. I and 2 at Fairway Six -1/,-;. ,,gr,:. ·-✓-w_!'//~ Area were excavated and transported to the GSX,facility in Pinewood, South Carolina for
. ~)$.;ffe, "Wff . ff disposal. In 1988, anotper emergzncy response ",xcavat10n sponsored by EPA occurred at the
F . s· A Th'w . . =1·•. d .% d k ·1· 22 000 b' d f airway 1x rea. .,.,,}~actJon mv9 :ve excavatmg an stoc pt mg , cu 1c yar s o
contaminated soil ntxt"dlf_eits Li~GolfCourse abvay six. This stockpile was covered and ~;'..,.~ w1_,,, ~.., fenced with a 6-foot chain°1inked,fence),with a lockeo gate. The final EPA sponsored emergency '//~_d'f' "N//~(~•w✓•. •//"7 response occurreg],J_t,the MclverJDump 'Area<,iniMarch of 1989 at Area C. Since Area C was , , ~##/✓~,,, ·,i;-1/-U,. ..,.,,,,,,,,, .
w1thm 5~feet of an Un.J_H},med tnoB,,tary to Aberdeen Creek, the emergency response mcluded the
excavati6n and stockpili/fjffof app~1mately 3,200 cubic yards of pesticide wastes and
contaiif(filhed soil. This stfffl<'pile w;;'gfff~ covered and fenced . . ,,, -~-?
On April 13,'+987, EPA sent~ecial notice letters to four identified PRPs and requested
voluntary perf6~ance ofa Re'fnedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS). None of the . -,,~~ ~ . notJfied PRPs agreed,to perform the requested work. Therefore, EPA issued a Rl/FS Work
Assignment to its RE~jffontractor, COM Federal Programs Corporation under EPA's contract
number 68-W9-0004,_to conduct a RI/FS .
3.6 Basis for Taking Action
APDS was proposed for the National Priority List (NPL) in January 1987 and was finalized on
the list via 54 Federal Register 13301 (March 31, 1989). The NPL is a list of priority releases for
long-term evaluation and remedial response, and was promulgated pursuant to Section I 05 of
CERCLA, as amended. The NPL list is found in the NCP (Appendix 8 of 40 CFR part 300) .
The groundwater COCs identified in the ROD include:
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Fivc-Y car Remedy Review
September 2013
• Volatile Organics: carbon disulfide, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-dichloroethane,
ethyl benzene, tetrachloroethene, toluene, I, I, I -trichloroethane, trichloroethene, and
xylenes .
• Pesticides: aldrin, BHC isomers (alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, and gamma-BHC
(more commonly called lindane)), chlordane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP),
dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (ODD), I, l-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene
(DOE), DDT, dieldrin, endrin, endrin ketone, heptachlor, Sevin;itoxaphene, dasanit
(fensulfothion), disyston (disulfoton), guthion (azinphos meJh1f)';'~eptachlor epoxide, and
malathion.~,, ~ ,,
• Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds: 2,4-dimethyl~hfr(?l, 2-mlffinaphthalene,
naphthalene, and 1,2,4-tnchlorobenzene. ~,, '•.. ' ,l, .. ~
"' I . b . b 11· d .:ff h . . ~1-d • meta s: an!Imony, anum. ery mm, ca mrnm, c romrnm, copper, iron:, ea ,"
manganese, nickel, silver ;nd zinc. ✓/, ~-· '?'' -~✓-·. ,fl'
The 1991 Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) provided the r,for taking action and outlined the
exposure pathways that needed to be addressed in the Risk ~tssment (RA). The BRA served
h b I. fi . d. . . k h w:1'~f<>,... 'f . ·= k h . as t e ase me or m 1catmg ns s t at cou u;ex1st I no ac!Ion wa~ta en at t e site . . . ,:,,,,~«¾-·y-
The following exposure pathways were 1denl!~ed f~tlii,;tqueous,, media present at or near the
Site (groundwater and surfa~.a'¾ater): \✓/ ., ~-. \ ,
I · f Id: ~ " ,;,.. d d . k. • ngesl!on o groun water Olj,Sur1ace watenuse as nn mg water;
I .d I . ~¼>. f f'#;l h'l '%. . . • nc1 enta mgest10n,o sur,ace water w I e sw1mmmg; .,,,:¥,,~, t'(C, %[f' . • Denna! contact w1tJ-ifgrouncJ,;):l~ei;,,or surface;water dunng household use or summer
activities;1and ,.;: %?'~ ,/.-W.W,/,#,Wf'~, . . '¾t0. . fP . . • Inhalat10n ofwolal!hzed cliem1cals from groundwater while showenng . # .,, ·,,~~ /
F .,:~,. .d .fi a"ffe• h' h. -~-f . f . h I'd d . our-rout"'~" were I enl! 1e l'-'.Yz w 1c exposure to contaminants o concern m t e so I me ia . .,,.(~~-,,~~ %' (soil, sediment, dust, or fish),could occur:
''1"~ W&
I 'd ~If,. . ( J . . h ·1 d h d ) • nc1 enta ,mgest10n e,g., eating wit soi e an s ;
• Dermal co'iftitt;. .J "'/@i({~~/ • Inhalation of aitoorne vapor or dust; and ·~ • Ingestion of fish .
The main media of concern were surface soil, surface water, groundwater and sediments .
Exposures to groundwater were associated with significant human health risks, due to
exceedances of EPA 's risk management criteria for either the average or the reasonable
maximum exposure scenarios. Under the future residential scenario, a summary of the total
lifetime excess cancer risks (LECR) and hazard indices (HI) for each area fell outside the lower
end ofEPA's acceptable risk range. DBCP was the major contributor to risk at the Farm
• a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
Chemicals/Twin Sites Area via ingestion of groundwater. Inhalation of volatiles from
groundwater was also a significant exposure pathway at the Twin Sites Area. Dermal exposure
to pesticides in groundwater was the major source of carcinogenic risk at the Fairway Six Area .
The HI values at the Farm Chemicals/Twin Sites Area greatly exceeded one while the non-
carcinogenic risk at the Fairway Six Area did not exceed one .
An ecological risk assessment was conducted by EPA to determine if residual pesticide
contaminants would pose a risk to wildlife. In general, the anticipated levels of contaminants
which may remain at the Site are not expected to pose a severe ecological threat to wildlife
·1· . h s· Th I h . f . I I d . -,,,,,,Ii~-k uh 1zmg t e 1te. e arge ome range sizes o amma s eva uate 1mt ens assessment
compared to the relatively small area of the Site indicate that expos~ to pe~ticides is limited by
h f . h . I Id b d h' :?/<~-f h . h t e amount o !Ime t e amma s wou e expecte to use t 1s _portion;~! e1r ome range.
'I' ' The excavation and treatment of approximately 124000 cubic yards of soilfc'ompleted in 1998 • • . • ,,@'/.r✓,r//,1_,,. • • ""W"@,,, ehmmated the threat or nsk posed by soils and also removed the contammantffource to
,'~ '✓..9'////,., groundwater. The soil excavation criteria were baseg,,on residential standards (-1'1;;.6). The ROD . &'~ ~---~~----9' Amendment issued in September 2003, documented·-reinoval ofimpacted soils and,,eliminated
h . ti d . d ·,,w0-; d ·="'-d . ~d,, h f t e requirement or groun water extraction an treatmenti'an ,,mstea , incorporate t e use o
. d I . (MNA) d h d' ··,@'-"v!F h d d " h momtore natura attenuation an p ytoreme 1at10n,as t e groun water reme y ,or t e ·,.;,v~ FCTS and FX areas. '¾a · ' • ' 4.0 REMEDIAL ACTIONS '.\✓-', ~,
In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, tlfo overri~W'g,goals for any remedial action are -~ ./.(,Y ,;._,~ protection of human health ang,the_ environment and compliance with ARARs. A number of
~({?, '//.@" w: remedial alternatives were considered for the Site, and final selection was made based on an
evaluation of each alte~tive agiiilTht nine evalufil!on criteria that are specified in Section
W#.(///,h '?f/'% •~ 300.430(f)(5)(i) oftne'N€P,. The nine criteria include:1 ·-,~ ff%, 'fffe
. -~,,~'% ., ,/.. . I. Overa_ll:,l,lrotect1veness~fiHuman'Healtlifand the Environment /${-'.'"~;',:, '.ru~ . .,,,,,,,,4P 2. c_ omphance,w1th1_ARARs~ ,ff!' ,,,,,,,,@"//~ ~-. 3. .Eong-Term Effectiv,eness andJRermanence ,;W/4,_; .,-o/,,,~,. .,✓,,-0~,ef
4{' •Reduction of Toxicity,-. Mobilit½,ior Volume of Contaminants through Treatment
5. sillff'I,,term Effectivti'~s p' q= -~ 6. Implem,JJtability ~
7. Cost ~-J
8. State Acceptance -tJ·
9 C . ·Av%t>, _,r,,,, . ommumty cceptance
Ji 4.1 Remedy Selection
The original 1993 Record of Decision defined the operable units for APDS. OU #3 focused on
groundwater concerns at all five areas. However, following the completion of the OU #3
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (Rl/FS) in May 1993, EPA elected to split APDS
groundwater into two OUs. OU #3 would address contaminated groundwater issues at FCTS
and FX Areas, which are the subject of this review while OU #5 was created to address
contaminated groundwater, surface water and sediment concerns at the Mciver Dump and Route
2 I I Areas .
• 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
The OU #3 RA Os were developed as a result of data collected during the Remedial Investigation
(RI) to aid in the development and screening of remedial alternatives to be considered for the
ROD. The RAOs for OU #3 are as follows:
• Prevent human exposure (via ingestion and inhalation during showering) to groundwater
containing total carcinogens at levels above the acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 1 o-6 .
• Prevent human exposure (via ingestion and inhalation during showering) to groundwater
having a total level of non-carcinogens causing the HI to exceed the acceptable level of
Rl.Od. d . 1 1 h . ~f~* . • e uce groun water contammants to eves t at are protechve·o t11e environment as
specified in the ARARs. ,A .
• Control future releases of contaminants to ensure protection of,human health and the . . '7$ .,,,,~
environment (SARA Sect10n 12l(d)). . . ,)f'q.. ,. ,. . .
• Permanently and s1gmficantly reduce mob1hty, tox1c1ty, or volume·oftcharactenshc ,fi!!{ ,. •• hazardous waste with treatment (SARA Section'121(d)). ~f,:, .
/~ .,, . ~ -~ ~ The groundwater clean-up levels (Table 2) for OU #3~re base9Jon residual lifetime-excess '",Y!/% ,ffff/OF✓//. ?/ cancer risk as well as federal and state groundwater applicable,or relevant and appropriate ·=--requirements (ARARs), The 1993 OU #3 ROD required groundwater remediation through pump ,,. •,'-w-;/, .. and treat across the entire plumes at the Earm Chemical/Twin'Sites Area and at the Fairway Six ..,W.:'~--"'%":#, Area, EPA modified the 1993 R?D throul\!,i'i!Jj~~s,1;1ance of two,E,,~~Jnd one R_OD .
Amendment. The first ESD was issued on June 6~1'~2,4. This ESD~orrected om1ss10ns m '?'--. .,,.~$0 74' identified the performance standards for the €OCs in,tliel'gtoundwater for the OU #3 Areas % $ ·✓..,:;r/~wP:· adding . seven COCs ( chlordane, endrin, hepta'chlor epoxide;itrichloroethene, carbon
_¢.'///~~• '',h0Y,/ •?'/ tetrachloride, cadmium"'and1irotj]tbat were inad¼ertently omitted. The second ESD was issued
on September 15: l 9tJl:.d prirri~J_y modified t!f~~groundwater e_xtraction philosophy from_
captunng the entJre'groundwater plume usmg extract10n wells to mstalhng extraction wells m the
areas having the highest -~o'ftcentratibns.of contami~ts and implementing phytoremediation to ''W,'{z, &''~ # address the periphery of the pluines. ~ ,~, -,, , w
Based ori\the informati~gathered~ii.ce the issuance of the 1993 OU #3 ROD, the Agency
electect'!f~change the ouV{$Jgi-ound.W'iifer-femediation alternative from a pump and treat
1 ., :·-w,;%. MNA 1 -~_,._ Th iw,. . h h . f h S b 30 2003 OU #3 a ternat1veJma a ternahve. ereiore, wit t e issuance o t e eptem er , '"'.«!-@;,: ·,~ ROD Amendm'ent, construction at the APDS Superfund Site was deemed complete . ''Wi& ~ .,. ~
The September 200~O~,#ROD Amendment incorporated the following changes to the 1993
ROD: -~,
• eliminates the requirement to install and operate the two groundwater extraction and
treatment systems: one for Farm Chemicals/Twin Sites and one for Fairway Six,
• incorporates the use of monitored natural attenuation (MNA) for the three Areas specified
above,
• mandates the delineation of the Fann Chemicals' southern groundwater plume,
• requires additional sampling of Pages Lake (and potentially Aberdeen Creek),
• necessitates the revision of the existing February 1998 PSVP, based on the requirements
of this ROD Amendment,
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
• implement institutional control through a perpetual restrictive covenant on property
currently under the control of the PRPs to prevent the installation ofa potable well. The
restrictive covenant could be removed when groundwater performance standards are
reached under the property,
• contact owners of property that overlie the plumes emanating from these three Areas and
notify them of the situation, and
• acknowledge the requirement specified in North Carolina groundwater standard North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC), Title 15, Subchapter 02L. 0106(o) which states:
]'I . I D" d · I I !A,. ·1 bl al any tzme t ze zrector eternnnes t wt a new tee 1110 ogy· ,s,avaz a e ,,;{ff . that would remediate the contaminated groundwatl?;fit'llthe standards ·r, d. R I 0202 f I. S b I h D. /4Wif~,. · I speq ,e zn LI e . CJ t 11s u c 1apter, t e ,J/;,ector<1!Jff!, requzre t 1e
"bl I I · d;wl I ""'0t,'l,, ·b·1· " responsz e par(y to eva Llate t 1e economzc an lef 1110 ogz<:;,!J, 1,easz I z(Y OJ
. I . I I I · ·4 · "·d ""-';.i,,, · zmp ement111g t ze new tee 1110 ogy 111 an act1ve,gz;_oL111 water correctzve 4(ff_. .,....,_ 4/,1/@
action plan in accordance with a schedu/e,established by the Director. The
D . ' d . . ·1· ,::,--r-I I . · 1,~ zrector s eterm111atwn to Litz zze ne.y;,tec 1110 ogy, at anv site or 1or,,.any
. . lll·t ~--d -~'"h·., ·-'~, parlicL1lar constztuent s ,a 111c ude·a COf!;Jk e1:~1z;1?/4.,f e.1actors 111 ?JP'
Paragraph (h) ofthzs Rule. ~~ ·• .
As noted above, the 2003 ROD Amendrrijm!)nstituted MN~thJ long-term remedy for OU #3
d I I d fi d h I. W'd'>,.. I . =ai . I groun water. ta so e me t e samp mg;uequency. ocation an ,representatlve ana ytes to
'/~ •,,:r.W~ ' 'o//f}/////./ detennine progress toward the OU #3 RAO§, Tlie,fequired institutional controls include . . .% .,.,~·W:~ .. YQ"' • • restncttve covenants on the deeds of propertyicontrolledibyithe PRPs that prevent the mstallatton . . . ~ ff/ '""'-0~.(~';,..,.,,,,,W of potable wells; as well as, notificat10n ofC1tyiand,County,Managers, the Moore County Health
. ..//~{*.;-~/$"' ·,w;· Department, nearby res1dents,<ll,),.i:_ljproperty owne,rs, and current and future owners, that the
. . d b ,ff: .%-;h.d d ,e., h d f h . . property 1s 1mpacte ~contamm~te_ groun wat<ef, t e nature an extent o t e contammat10n, . k .. &/®·h fff0. . d h,.., . d f f . . act10ns ta en to m1ttgate,Jt e contammatlon, an t e_; ocat10n an requency o momtonng . . . . • -~,.,,. • Y/,f ?z'P// acttv1t1es. In add1t1on, upon,rece1P,1{of,an order fromiNCDENR, the PRPs must record a survey
• -,.~~✓-;,,.}~;~:~:~//,'®".-,..,. . .v plat for propert1~~,,under thelf,,control. ~;n;e,restncttve covenant for the property controlled by the
,.,_.,-~~--'l//~, .,,,.,,q~ . . . . PRPs at t~~tJme·tJie,2003 RODfAlnendment was issued 1s registered with the Town of £ff: .,,,-$9.'(1/.""!'¼-. ---~ Aberderp; and recordediJJJ}Jge Moor,~County Registry of Deeds.
,,~fr • ·~ . ~-.~ ~/ Table 2 presents the groundwater perfonnance standards for OU #3 from the 1993 ROD, ESDs, 'o/('///,._ '1/9'//2 , and 2003 ROQj-Amendment. \i;'The table also reflects the updated criteria based on updates to the ·,~ /% NCDENR 2L groundwater criteria . . , $ ,/
Table 2 -Current Groundwater Performance Standards and Original Groundwater //
performance Standards for OU #3 from 1993 OU #3 ROD and 1994 OU #3 ESD
Chemical of Current Basis for Previous Basis for Federal
Concern Performance Performance Performance Performance Maximum
Standard Standard Standard Standard Contaminant
(iw/1) (110/)l Level (µg/1)
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Pesticides
Aldrin 0.01
alpha-BHC 0.02*
beta-BHC 0.02*
delta-BHC 0.02*
gamma-BHC 0.03
(Lindane)
Chlordane 0.1
Dasanit 0.8
(Fensulfothion)
1,2-Dibromo-3-0.04
Chlaropropane
Dieldrin 0.002
Disyston 0.3
(Disulfoton)
/,)#ffk.#h.
4,4'-DDE 0,<it""Wf,".
--~--~
4,4'-DDD /
o&.11& I ~.,A
4,4'-D,,.~ §" ,4
~0.1 ~
.,
~;,,,,
EndriIT. '**'•70, .,1/fl.
2 -~ ·1;
,.?"..Y#~ ,: .;,.
-~-/~
, -~~h ?:#h .
Endrin Ketone 2** '3/;f"t -~ ~q:., W,Y
v.-%.,-.,. 37,
Guthion o/,~ I /ff ·q:
(Azinphos ·~ V,.
methvl) '"'" Heptachlor 0.008
Heptachlor 0.004
Eooxide
Malathion 1.1
Sevin (carbaryl) 10
CLP Contract
Required QL
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
CLP Estimated
QL '
/~
NC2L ., '"'%
,.
NGr2L.
~"-
NC2L "'-o/'. ~/ ·\ .ti '1;, #"
CLP Contract .,.ij.
Required QL
NC2L J# ..,.b,., .
/
NC:120".,
iNC,2L
~/
'NC 2L
CLP Estimated
QL
NC 2L
NC2L
CLP Estimated
QL
CLP Estimated
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
0.01 CLP Contract NIA
Reauired OL
0.01 CLP Contract NIA
Reauired QL
0.01 CLP Contract NIA
Reauired OL
0.01 CLP Contract NIA
, 1Reauired QL
00265 A NC'·WQS for 0.2 .. A. Groundwater
0.0271 -~ }NC WQS for 2 '-i ~ ~/,:,
ll, ;,, . ·Groundwater
on~w.~, ·,, crn~ NIA ~ .. Et' ~'d s nna e
-~,;.,,,_ OL -~ ~-
·~ CLP ? 0.2 io,02s ~ ~~~ ·,, Estimated •• nL
0.02 'o/,~ CLP Contract NIA -~ ;,Reauired OL .//2:
,0.1 T CLP NIA
-V ~ Estimated
OL
0.02/' CLP Contract NIA
Reauired nL
'0.02 CLP Contract NIA
Required OL
0.02 CLP Contract NIA
Reauired QL
0.2 NC WQS for 2
Grnundwater
0.02 CLP Contract NIA
Reauired OL
I CLP NIA
Estimated
OL
0.076 NC WQS for 0.4
Groundwater
0.038 NC WQS for 0.2
Groundwater
I.I CLP NIA
Estimated
OL
10 CLP NIA
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Toxaphene 0.03
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon Disulfide 700
Carbon 0.3
Tetrachloride
1,2-0.4
Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene 600
Tetrachloroethene 0.7
Toluene 600
I, I , I -200
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene 3
Xylenes (total) 500
_,,,,,,..
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
2,4-j, ~!'00 -~ ' Dimethvlnhenol .,'½, ~-
2-30~~ Methvlnaohthalene, ~-. -~,,.
N aphthal e'lle' .... ,,,,,,,v,~ f~ ',:YU~
ff . (~ '•'-"'~--~ ~---~
QL
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
NC2L
,,j
NC2L .A
0.031
I
0.3
Aberdeen PL'Sticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
Septcmbcr2013
Estimated
OL
NC WQS for 3
Groundwater
CLP Contract NIA
Reauired QL
NC WQS for 5
,, (Groundwater
0.38 ~ NC'·WQS for 5
Groundwater
29 I ·~ ~NC WQS for 700 ~ -~ w,,~
//1'_ •❖ • ·Gicrnndwater
0·~7~,,.. .,,, NG&WQS for 5 ~· ,. ,;,~-·~ . Grounowater
,1000 "·\,, MCL -~ 1000 ,. j,✓,
NC2L -~ i200✓-,. --~~ •.
MCL y 200
])iC2L 2.s·,. NC WQS for 5 ~ .,, Groundwater ~,,
NGf2~ ,400 .,_,,, "NC WQS for 10000 ' . ~ f Groundwater \/ -~
NC2L -~ 5 CLP Contract NIA ¾ ~ Required QL W:H.6 ,
,NC 2L ff' 5 CLP Contract NIA ~/ Reauired QL
NC2L 5 CLP Contract NIA
%,,.,,,/. Required QL
I 21/'4'f~. '' -~~--7(ff~
~-
"'iNC 2L . /, 70 MCL 70
Trichlorolienzene @. "'
lnorganicslMetals
Antimony •• ·/%&, 6 ff .w MCL 6 MCL 6
Barium ~~ ~ ?:;zoo·r-
~//// NC2L 1000 MCL 2000
Beryllium f4' MCL 4 MCL 4
Cadmium 2 NC2L 5 MCL 5
Chromium IO NC2L 50 NC WQS for 100
Groundwater
Copper 1000 NC2L 1000 NC WQS for 1300
Groundwater
Iron 300 NC2L 300 NC WQS for 300
Groundwater
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
Lead 15 NC2L 15 EPA Action 15
Level
OSWER
Cleanup
Level
Manganese 50 NC2L 50 SMCL 50
Nickel 100 NC2L 100 MCL NIA
Silver 20 NC2L 50 MCL 100 /,.
Zinc 1000 NC2L 5000 ~ ifSMCL 5000 .,,
µg/1 -micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) A,,
CLP Contract Required QL -Contract Laboratory PrograITJ.i,§,onff~!iJiequired Quantitation Limit
CLP Estimated QL -Contract Laboratory Program ContracfiEstimaiedf~uantitation Limit ////,, -❖• •✓,,,,,,,.,;,,,_
MCL-National Drinking Water Regulation ,,,%,,,, ., .,,.~ ·• SMCL -Secondary National Drinking Water Regulation , .. 1////, ,,,,, -~ •... //
NI A -Not applicable <"'"'. ~--~
~/, ·v
NC WQS for Groundwater-North Carolina Water Qu%J,i,!J;iS!andard for Groundwater
* The 2L standards lists the BHC isomers standard as H°exachlorocyclohexane isomers (technical
''% ·-~ ITTade) ._._ ·.~ •
** The 2L standards lists the Endrin stanciardfas,Endrin total (includes Endrin, Endrin aldehyde and -~ --. ·y Endrin Ketone) i. · .,,.,.
. \~ ~-,,.~p' ~-%, ~'
4.1.1 Surface Water7 ·' •i ·,
Th T . s· /%. h ~I d '¾. d I I f . k fr h b' d e wm Iles seep;arei!,twas I e on y area etermme to pose a eve o ns om I e com me / ·,~"., w,?" • '%,.✓,. -6 . oral and dermal pathways,16,humans at a nsk level of9 x IO . The seeps were contammated by "-v/,W, ///.//k/h¼. ,W groundwater associated witfothe-FG'liSJ°A'rea,:,,Th,t;:;remedy acknowledged that remediation of the
~"¥////,. fu . --~-. .,,,,.,w~a1/f'~ . . d . h h fi plumes would,reduce): lure contammat10n an iuealth nsks associate wit the seeps. T ere ore /,l}ff",,_.. -----❖-///,"//@.:::,, .,.~-• • •
the_ surf~e waters oftli~f~eeps W,SJ,S,,cleaned up by source remed1at10n. No other remedial
act10n,was selected w1thmHhe 1993 ©~)#_ 3 as amended by the 2003 OU #3 ROD Amendment. //.,.✓,, '~ ~·
41 2s~·. t ~ 7 . . eu1men ~
I h h :~1 . )~ d d . d' 1 . 1 . d A I oug mm1ma ,contammat10n was etecte m se 1ment samp es, any potenl!a associate
health risks havlm?en addre~d through natural attenuation following soil cleanup activities in --~--.//,{-' the FCTS Area. Thei.0~#3'risk assessment determined that human health risks were within
bl fi ·•@',w-/ . . . FX A d' 1 accepta e ranges or ~qntammat10n m rea se 1ment samp es .
4.1.3 Ecological
As noted within the 1993 OU #3 ROD, in general, the anticipated levels of contaminants which
may remain at the Site are not expected to pose an ecological threat to wildlife utilizing the Site .
The large home range sizes of animals evaluated in the ecological risk assessment compared to
the relatively small area of the Site indicate that exposure to pesticides is limited by the amount
of time the animals would be expected to use this portion of their home range .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pcsticidt: Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
As noted in the 1993 OU #3 ROD, of the surface waters which were sampled during the RI at the
FCTS Areas, only those associated with the seep area downgradient of the Twin Sites Area were
detennined to pose a potential level of unacceptable risk to humans. The ROD noted that the
contamination present in the waters of the seeps is a manifestation of the surface discharge of the
contaminated groundwater associated with plumes from the FCTS Areas, and since remediation
of these plumes will reduce future contamination of the seeps, the risk posed by them is minimal.
Therefore, the surface waters of these seeps would be cleaned up by source remediation .
Remedial goals for the surface water at OU #3 are to be protective of~oth human health risk and
environmental risks to ecological receptors. ~'-·
~
"'' 4.2 Remedy Implementation , ;' ' A,. ~
4.2.1 Soil #"' ,,,,, '
Th d ti Ou #3 I. h ·1 I ,a,:. h I ·d<>/4,i-,,.," h OU e reme y or re 1es on t e SOI remova acl!v1t1es t ah:were comp ete ·unuerJ e ,$./.~~-1/,, '1//./1"(//« #1/#4 remedy, which removed the source of contaniination for tnessite. The OU #F/#4 remedy
·-~~ /o///-0-; .Y/ for contaminated soils pennanently removed the contaminantsJ,fi'om'the soil through treatment
. h I d . Th ti II . .. . -,~1· h d f h' I . via t erma esorpl!on. e o owmg actJv1t1es were accomP, 1s e as part o t 1s a temal!ve: ,, .,,,~
?<-~~,; .,
• Demolition of former buildings locatedfatihe.Fann Chemical~rea;p
•~ •J'✓~h. "'/,17//f}':i/
• Construction of a Central Treatment Fac.Uity·(~]f;).off of NC H;ignway 5 near the Fairway
S. k '] d '] . I d' ,. d "'· . 'W~b .. b 'Id' h' '] h d 1x sloe p1 e soi s me u mg a 1 ee preparat10n storage, UI mg, SOI oppers. an a
portable Thermal Desorption Unit· '1,. /" , .. ,.,.., ·
U . ·1 d fi1~h-~'F , Ch .'%/:l¥'7 A ·11/" f h Th ID . • smg soi excavate , om·t ~.£,;.arm em1ca s rea, a p1 ot test o t e erma esorpt10n ,10 ·-✓,w,a:·.' % Unit was completeij§in October,1997; ~
$#~--. ~ 'I> • All known contammated SOI! that was excavatecl,from all five areas was transported to and
from the CTF for treitl~rit; ~;,-,,; f/ ,-d ']~ff'0. ~~'>'.'o,,,,/<• · dfi]] C d' • 1,647 ton_§JOdreate soi W~!!/transportea;toJa'SubtJtle C Lan 1 1or 1sposal due to elevated ✓-'=--"W.~ --~ "«0 levels.ofarseriic;-6 -~
V .$' d b . -~-.:,;-%0,. d d . f k . I d • anous e ns, eqmpment, structures, rums an contamers o un nown matena s, an /.,..~#,,. . . ..,-0"'.@Z. -~:f#' . . . asoestos contammg mat~pals from,;the Farm Chemicals Area were sampled, contamenzed,
=,,fil d h' d =a· d' ffd f ff. . . d . h I I d,. d I waste pro 1 e , s 1ppe an • 1spose o o -site 111 accor ance wit oca , state, an 1e era
I . '«=,, -~ regu al!ons;i ~
• During exca?i'iion and scrfening of soils prior to treatment in the CTF, a total of 2,195 tons
of additional Jfb'ti,§,Jronf'the 5 areas was transported off-site to a Subtitle C Landfill;
C fi . .,<fffll~#/f' d I . h d' . I I . d • on 1rmal!on samp mg an ana ys1s to ensure t at reme iat10n eve s were attame ;
• Following confirmffbon testing, excavated areas were backfilled using treated soil taken from
that particular Area;
• All areas were re-graded and re-vegetated; and
• Inspections by EPA and NCDENR personnel confirmed Site restoration activities were
completed in accordance to the ROD and RD .
After confirmatory sampling, it was determined that over 98% of the contaminant mass was
removed from the sites and the soils achieved the l .0E-6 residential clean up criteria .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
4.2.2 Groundwater
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Fivt>YL"ar Remedy Review
September 2013
The groundwater Remedial Design (RD) was conducted in conformance with the 1993 ROD as
modified by the ESDs and the 2003 ROD Amendment. The groundwater Remedial Action (RA)
took place in two phases. The first phase involved pilot-scale testing ofin situ technologies and
conducting MNA sampling and analyses. The results of these efforts were used to develop the
final RD reflected in the ROD Amendment. Specific efforts included:
• Pilot-scale planting and measurement of hybrid poplar trees,
• Pilot-scale in situ treatment using hydrogen-releasing compound (HRC) in an effort to
reduce the level of contaminants in seeps between the Twin Sitesldisposal areas and $'/';;,.,_,&, Pages Lake by creating an anaerobic condition in the groundwater tci'promote
dechlorination, _ _ _ ,A,
• Quarterly samplmg events testmg for natural attenuat10n parameters . -~ -~
Th d h ·1 d. I . h . . A. ¾d, d-~,~. . . Th e secon p ase entai e nnp ementmg t e remammg.approve reme rn ·acl!v11Ies. ese
. . . . I d d " II I d I d . ,;w f. h h b 'd ·,/,I~ act1v11Ies me u e ,u -sea e eve opment an mamtenance o t e y n pop ar,trees
(phytoremediation zones), groundwater monitorin~urface water, sediment, arililforag'e fish 7· --~n,, ~ -~1 tissue sampling from Page's Lake as described in the·-2.'tg3 ~~llJ,endment and ~evised 2004
Performance Standards Verification Plan (PSVP). ~L ·
I dd.. h 1· . . . 'h. . ~-1 d h d d n a 11Ion tot e samp mg act1v11Ies, restncl!ve covenants were;,p ace on t e property ee s .-~«-:",,.,¼ . . :',U1(0-. under control of the PRPs to prevent the mstallat10n of a potable welLand contact with the %, -w~_,.,_ .,,,,.~ . . groundwater. The PRPs also contacted proptrty ow!1Z,J;~~;t were is:cated m areas overlymg
groundwater with any detect10. ns of COCs attnbutable'toitlis,.~•S1te and were mformed of the
.,,,,,,~ -✓/~ presence of these detectio2~--\,#' ~-
J,;%0 -~ . ¾ 1/
Th . h' d ,ff . -~, . ~ h h P 1· . Cl O R e site ac 1eve construcl!on comP. el!on status w en t e re 1mmary ose-ut eport was ,/////,/////,,. 'fU ~ signed on September 2003~EPA and NCDENR determined that all RA construction activities,
· 1 d. h · 1 ·<0'00. f · ,%. · 1 '1'fY " d d' me u mg t e imp emental!on\o msl!tul!ona contra s, were per,orme accor mg to • • ,.,,.,_.,~_.@" ··•M//~f~WN,N,;#' • • . . spec1ficat1ons_~Intorder for tlie,remedy to,J5e;protecl!ve m the long term, however, restncl!ve
~~~ff,.(1/u,. -~~~--. ",'//# • • covenan~or other enf9J~~ble m~J}Jt!10nal controls that prevent the mstallal!on of a potable well
must be,1mplemented at·propert1es impacted by contammated groundwater that were not under £~ "✓.9'/.,.;-_%,, ·,-0,,-;:,"/./.,Y("// the coii.trohofthe PRPs at tliejtime the'iROD Amendment was issued. The institutional controls
"'o/.~-"',;??~. ,f':' • . called for•m\the ROD Amenoment are m place. The PRPs contmue to monitor and ensure that
institutionaf~ntrols are in pl~e and properly executed on the site properties. Additionally,
local drinking ~ei:_,.is providWc'i by the City of Aberdeen. Off-site, the PRPs work with the City
of Aberdeen and M~re CoJffty to provide protection through the wellhead protection program,
. ~.,/4.-f c· d "f II h b . II d county perm!l process,-,rev1ew o 1ty water recor s to ven y no new we s ave een msta e
and completion of an \~ependent survey and verification process. The PRPs are developing an
Institution Control Plan consistent and in conjunction with other area sites and will include
institutional control verification elements .
The analysis of the 2013 groundwater monitoring results and historic results shows stable plumes
with slight decreasing trends in monitoring wells that are representative oflong-term post-
excavation conditions. Receptors are verified to be protected. At this time, the timeframe to
reach performance standards has uncertainties since down gradient site conditions have not yet
reached a post-remediation equilibrium reflecting the removal of the source and attenuation of
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Ahcnk:en Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
groundwater. As discussed in the review, although several wells within the immediate site area
are indicative of post-remediation conditions and have positive overall trends supporting a
successful site remedy, at this time, there is no technical basis to revise the remedial timeframes
estimated in the ROD. The proposed technical approach is to wait until the next review when the
majority if not all of the monitoring network will reflect long-term post-excavation conditions,
providing a larger dataset for evaluation. The surface water and sediment data continue to
indicate a positive remedial response, and the receptor is protected .
After groundwater performance standards set within the 1993 OU #3 R0D as modified by
the June 1994 ESD have been met, EPA will issue a Final Close-Out,Rfffe;rt .
4 3 S O t. .10 . d M . £ . ystem pera ton,, perat,on an a,nteryance~
Th PRP d . l . . d . -~ (O&M~)~ . . . d . e s are con uctmg ong-term momtonng an mamtsnanse , 1act1v1t1es accor mg to
the Revised PSVP that was approved by EPA in May 29,,ll,41'%1,:Jie primary~,kvities associated
with O&M include the following: .. # · "'· . . . 4.. ·•,,0,, . -~ • Visual mspect10n of the trees, treatment for pests;,and mowmg of the planting area, . . . 1,r-7;&. ,,,fff,,,,.,,,,,.❖, ,,.{"
• Inspection of the cond1t10n of groundwater momtonng·,wells:· and
• Biennial monitoring of groundwater shifting to fi;Wyi!ar mo~itoring frequency after the
%, w second five -year review. ~ -~ ,..,~ "/ The primary active remediation took place during,tli~soils removal-,pliase of the RA.
Phytopumping and natural attenuation of gr~ndwatit"tfi\rcontinuf as the primary mechanisms . . ·w_ #'/7. .. ,.,.,W--4@,'~@' . . . of remedrnhon for OU #3, i\~,1the source of groundwater contamination m soil has been removed.
Th . O&M . . r=li~'b d -~ d -"-1' . d . . e pnmary achv1tJes· ave) een geare towar s momtonng groun water, mspect10ns, f,(/ ·w✓P~ -~ and maintenance of the),trees. Talil_\:J3 below presents the O&M activities that have occurred on ,.((q"~ ~ ·~ the site. There have'bee~h,9 unexp,,ected O&M pro~Jems at the site, and due to the
standardization of the reqiiif?ed ma1~tenance at the si~ as given in Table 3, no O&M reports have
been preparJ_%foJgt~,$;,site. ., . .,,,~ ~· Y,. . "· Table 3 O&M Activities
O&MEvent Date ·,. ~ y Non-Routine . ii&
Replace<:(~drop pipe immediately above the July I 999 V,P,%, ff?? • pump (du.~;19, corr2.s10n) m 2EX-06
Abandon and rer,lace,3MWD-Ol with December 2000 ~ 3MWD-01 R,,due to construction damage
Pulled damaged surface casing and placed a April 2003
temporary cover over 3 MWS-21
( destroyed by mowing equipment); pull
and repair submersible pump in 2EX-04;
remove obstruction from 2MWS-09
Removed controller at 3EX-02 (defective), April 2006
sampled using a rental unit
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Site locks (Yale) rusted, difficult to open;
replaced all site locks with brass locks
(Wilson Bohannon, key blank 65334)
Removed controllers at 2EX04 and 3EX-0l
(both defective), sampled using a rental
unit
Pull submersible pumps and piping from
1 EX-01, 2EX-03, and 2EX-04 ( all
inoperative), and rewire controller at
2EX-05
Pull submersible pumps and piping from
2EX-05, 2EX-06, and 3EX-0l (all
inoperative); pull and repair bladder
pumps in 1 MWD-07 and 1 MWD-08, -~
Pull submersible pumps and piping from ,,., -,~
1 EX-02 and 3EX-02 (both inoperative);
clean, repair, and redevelop 2~WMS-04;
1 b d d .W:,,,. II permanent y a an one momto1$we -~-
3MWS-2 l because of further darn,!lge •
April 2007
April 2008
April 2010
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
r•,
gJ
May 20(2 .,,
~~ :" ~"'-, ,.
-~ ;,,.., ''½, &,,,,,1·
?A: ril 20 Jj• '?' -~~7,
' -~ ~~-
,, •✓
~,Rouff[(.,,, ,r ,
Touchup identification.on wells, lubricate/ 1995E20'cio· (January, April, July,
-:P.1fi"~« ''i'-·iw. locks on wells,;h.i15ricat~hinges on welk October) , ,ff# --~ -~ houses, tnm1vegetat10n around all wells~ .
,)'/"'~ ·~ ~h. f' and well houses~trim patliways to SWMSJ
locati9_12§ ,,~,,,,,/
TouchUJ}:fOe'Ilfffication OnfWells, lubriCate-v 2000-2002 (April, July) ,o/' ---,,~_ ~-:'·locks on wells~lubricate1Jijhges on well
.-/:~ . ·~. ~·~ ·'·,,houses, tnm vegetatlon arouni:l-all wells
-~ 'W?'~ w an,~well houses, tf\gi pathways to SWMS
I ~., I ocal_!9JJ;i ,%
Repaint identification on wells, lubricate 2000-2008 (April) '%'2'· .1£ locks on wel~(replace as necessary), -~/ lubricate hinges on well houses, trim
vegetation a';ound all wells and well
houses, cut pathways to SWMS locations
Spray (insecticide and fungicide), fertilize, 1999-2008 (March, June, September,
and mow phytoremediation areas December)
Touchup identification on wells, lubricate 2010, 2012, 2013 (April, May)
locks on wells, lubricate hinges on well
houses, trim vegetation around all wells
• a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
and well houses, trim pathways to SWMS
locations
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Y car Remedy Review
September 2013
Spray (insecticide and fungicide), fertilize, 2009-2013 (March, June, September,
and mow phytoremediation areas December)
2SWMS03 monitoring well casing repaired 2013 (April)
and well redeveloped after damages by
City mowing equipment..
~,,,
Figures 6 and 7 present the areas of the phyto-plants and the w~X}$_.\,:,VOrks at the FCTS and FX
sites, respectively. The monitoring well networks for the FC"I;,S~nd'-F,X,sites include plume
. . 11 . 1 . . 11 d h b ~ 'o/M. . 11 h F momtonng we s, sentme momtonng we s, an sout em~ OUIJi'ary mOIJJJgnng we s at t e arm
Chemicals/Twin Sites Area site only. /,A,, 0•,, ~
,,;,ff'' ' •
0 M . 1 d . . 1· d/u; . . f"' ~, 11 & costs me u e site mamtenance, samp mg an ,momtonng-.e ,orts, momtonng,we . . #/#'#£:-~, 't,,., ·,·,i${W . mamtenance, and tree mamtenance. The O&M costsffor)he past;fiv_ e years are consistent with
-~ ////,?-'/,}. r the originally estimated annual costs of $120,000 per yearJ(s~ee'ffable 4). · -~~ ~ ,.
Table 4 -Annual System Operations/O&M Costs Estima(ed"iin ROD Amendment
SITE CAPITAL COSTS ANNUAL O&M COSTS
Farm Chemicalfrwin sites "%$ lo0T00b% ,,,, . ,,,,,,~//,,
,,.,
$85,000
Fairwav Six -~ 0 ~,,, ,{' $35,000
Total .-,./././/o $!'60,000 ,,~ $120,000
,$' ~ i L;P'ff.%'~~ ""f F
A ~ ~ 5.0 PROGRESS[SINCgjTHE LAS~FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ~~-. t,fh,,,,,,_ . w . . . The 2013 surface water and,sedimentfresul~§"Contmue to show improved conditlons compared to /////," -~.a: ,,,,.,,.,,//4"/o/~~(/ the previous,sampl?Jdata collected.in 200'1; as,well as, historical data collected in 1989/90 and in ff#//W" •✓~:~ • '',W(;?2 .. 2000. T,hese 2013 resi.j],tsy,;erify tli,~protection for Pages Lake, the groundwater receptor for the
. d~ fi h lfifo:d,. . 0""''· h f I I . d site, an"';,con ,rm t e reme iat10n approac o source remova , natura attenuat10n, an J,W$#,u, . . •~-. -,~ . phytoremed1atlon protect surface water,and sediments. ,, ~ If'
-~, ~
The analysis ofithe 2013 !,>Toundwater monitoring results and historic results shows stable plumes
with slight dec;;f~hg trend;l[ monitoring wells that are representative oflong-term post-
excavation conditicfnst~._''J,d;~ '? I'
6.0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
6.1 Administrative Components
Components of the Five-Year Review include:
• Community Notification/Involvement;
• Document Review;
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• Data Review and Evaluation;
• Other Community Involvement Activities;
• Site Inspection;
• Site Interviews; and
• Five-Year Review Report Development and Review .
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Fivc-Y car Remedy Review
September 2013
The following individuals were team members for the second Five-Year Review:
• Jon Bomholm, Remedial Project Manager, EPA ·'"'"·
• Doug Rumford, NCDENR, Superfund Section ~
• Dale Voykin, URS .A.~
• Bennie Underwood, demaximus .r -~~
• William Odle, Newfields A ~\ ' ,,~,. ~
The review team established the following schedul;,,ifor execution of the seco!,iFive-Y ear
Review: A '··,"-' -~
• A y ,,. ,,
Action Item Scheduled Dat'effe" Actual Date
Site Insoection •; ,, . ..,
Submittal of Draft First Five-Year Draft ~ ·,,0 ~ P.✓•• 1
Reoort ~
EPA Comments on Draft Report \,7' y
Revised Draft Report with embedded ~
comments ~-tw ~
Submittal of Revised _!;,ive-Y eaf<Report "' .,
~ "'% ~ ~ Response to comments~. ~ ~ . ., , ~ ,,I w/v ,,, ' ,~·,= ? 6 2 C .,/#,W/,•t"• N t·~-~t-~f3,• I t . ommun, 'Vd . o 1t1ca ion anu · nvo vemen . .;w· .,~ -~
D . li-w~R d. I I~. . . ""'l''E» .. _ ·b·1· S d (RI/FS) R d' ID . (RD) d unng t e eme ia nvestigat1on .eas1 1 1ty tu y , eme 1a es1gn , an
R d1'"-'.i'. A . (RA) 'n'=;,, h 'w,&,,, ... #. I d . h EPA NCDENR h eme ia •. ct1on p ases, t e commurnty was strong y engage wit , , t e
1 ·,w.,r::-'9'.9'/-q, W( PRPs, and1Site related activities. A Technical Assistant Grant (TAG) was issued by EPA. With ·~ '@}.? .,
the assistancefoJathe PRPs, th~j;T AG group was able to form a Community Liaison Panel that met
on a monthly lf'~l·s, Member~f this panel included citizens, local news reports, local elected ·'07,f,. //1' and professional officials of,tli'e Town of Aberdeen. the TAG consultant, representatives from '~-//// , the PRPs, NCDENR,,andiEPA. The Community Liaison Panel disbanded in 2004 after all
construction activities-'Wfre completed and the Site moved into long-term operation and
maintenance (O&M) phase .
This five-year review will be placed in the EPA site files and local repository for the APDS site .
The local repository is located at the Page Memorial Library, I 00 South Poplar Street, Aberdeen,
NC 28315 and EP A's, Region IV Information Center at 61 Forsyth Street, Sam Nunn Atlanta
Federal Center, Atlanta, Georgia .
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
Activities to involve the community in the first Five-Year Review process were initiated with
EPA posting a notice in the March 5, 2008 edition of The Pilot, the local newspaper. The notice
informed the public of the following:
--
• the Agency was initiating a first Five-Year Review for the APDS SuperfundSite which
was to be concluded by September 30, 2008;
• within thirty (30) calendar days of finalizing the first Five-Year Review Report, a second
notice will be published in The Pilot announcing that the review is complete; and
• the results of the review and the report will be available to the public at the informaticm .
repository which is located at the Page Memorial Library, I 00 South Poplar Street,
Aberdeen, NC 28315 and that the report will also be placed in the administrative file in
the EPA Region 4 office and on the U.S. EPA website.,,., · ·
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/index.htm). z 7
( '
. J~,,,, ,,,. ' 6.3 Document Review rJf' · '
Th. fi . . d f . f I ,d d ,. . I d. o·&-~M~z-· d d 1s 1ve-year review cons1ste o a review o re evant. ocuments me u mg ,reccir s an
,y/••1~./.,, .,,~ ' ·~ monitoring data. Applicable groundwater ARARs, as,Iisted in tne:,il 993 ROD, were-reviewed --~·"/ ... , . ,@'.( .,,.,._ // and compared to updated NCDENR standards as well asst.J~r,erfonriance standards for the COCs
in the groundwater (chemical specific A_fARs)(Table 2). ' ~ ~ 6.4 Data Review and Eva/uatioq.~ ",,/'
I A ·1 2013 d " ""·d dw:'ii%,,,. . . • " d n pn , groun water, sur,ace water an se 1ment;momtonng;,were per,onne to assess .,,,,." ;.W,;"~~ ,.-current conditions and trends at FCTS and FX-i, Groundwatehsamples were collected from •/-1: ,,av .,.,,.////~
monitoring wells defined i!};,th_\:J,/3,er.formance Standards Verification Plan (PSVP) for the site . .,,,w'#~/.0 w.q 4" Surface water and sediment monitoring was perfonned in Pages Lake at locations historically ,%r. -~ ·<:< monitored. .z. I \
. ~ ~ ~
Th I . f h 2013 '~-d d1k,,,,,. · . . W'.l d h' . I h bl I e ana ys1s o t e groun water1momtonng resu ts an ,stone resu ts s ows sta e p umes
with slight decreasing,trend;i14f'fuonii;;';Zffir"~lff111at are representative of long-term post-
excavatior(~;dit'ftfitf~Receptc{m'are verified t~ be protected. At this time, the timeframe to
h &,: zdww,,d,. h ··-=-. . . d d. . d. . h reac r,enonnance stan ar s. as uncertamties smce own gra 1ent site con 1tlons ave not yet
t!';""azW<-d. · '@ ·1·b . ·,=·fl . h I f h d . f reacue ·a;r,ost-reme ia!Ion-~,qy1 1 rIUtJ:_Hre ectmg t e remova o t e source an attenuat10n o
d .,,w-0 A d. d .,-;,r.h .v I h h I II . h. h . d. . groun water~ s 1scusse m) e review, at oug severa we s wit mt e 1mme iate site area
are indicati;~r,ost-remedi~i:m conditions and have positive overall trends supporting a
successful site rffifedy, at thi_i'.ftime, there is no technical basis to revise the remedial timeframes ,,,,,,g✓,,,. #/
estimated in the ROD~Th_~;proposed technical approach is to wait until the next review when the
. . 'f II f-~#ff . . k ·11 fl I . d .. maJonty 1 not a o tu~,momtonng networ w1 re ect ong-term post-excavat10n con 1tions,
providing a larger datafet for evaluation. The surface water and sediment data continue to
indicate a positive remedial response, and the receptor is protected .
6.4.1 Forage Fish, Surface Water, and Sediment Monitoring Pages Lake
Pages Lake is the primary receptor of groundwater flow from FCTS. The protectiveness of the
receptor and performance of the remedy can be evaluated by the surface water and sediment
trends in Pages Lake and augment the fact that Pages Lake was never considered to have levels
indicating unacceptable risk to any media .
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
During the 2008 5-year review, Pages Lake had been drained for repairs of the dam and levee .
Therefore the last surface water, sediment, and forage fish monitoring was performed in 2004 .
In the 2004 forage fish monitoring campaign, the concentration of pesticide COCs in all forage
fish samples from Pages Lake were well below screening levels (Groundwater, Surface Water,
Sediment, and Forage Fish Monitoring Report, Newfields, 2004f Based on the results of the
2004 forage fish monitoring campaign, as well as completion of the source removal activities,
additional forage fish sampling was not warranted .
In support of this review, surface water and sediment samples were co~fed from Pages Lake
from 5 locations fonning a transect aligned upstream to downstreaff n the l~ke. Surface water
and sediment samples were spatially biased toward the westem;,sid~f1Pages Lake, adjacent to
T . s· d fl ct· h Th " '-'ti' ct· '¼#,,, I wm 1tes groun water ow 1sc arge. e sur,ace water anu'se 1mentsamp es were
collocated at historic monitoring locations within Pages Lake, ,SW! thr~J'~_~WS (SED I through 4{1?/HN/.q_ . ,~
SEDS), allowing trend evaluation. The trend evaluation-perfohned on surface;water and
d. h. . I . " d . I I .lf f d b 1'W$" 4 1· se 1ment 1stonc resu ts 1s ,ocuse on v1sua eva uat10n o tren s ecause on Y'"-,t~ samp mg
campaigns (typically 3) are available with analys~h,e cocl;ilimiting the dat~J@PFigure 8
presents the surface water and sediment sampling locatiWn\,,_,,,,, ,P ,,
The 2013 surface water and sediment results continue to sh~11nproved conditions compared to
the previous sample data collected in 2oofiffasiwell as, historiclffdata collected in 1989/90 and in . . '¼:-'////~_.,,,_ -,~.,,,,/.,,, 2000. The 2013 results venfy the protect10n forJRages Lake, the groundwater receptor for the
• • • -~: ., .... ✓,,,,~.,,,, W.' . site, and confirm the remediat10n approach o£source-.remg,val, natural attenuat10n, and ~ /.@''I'////.~/. , ., phytoremediation protect surface water and seoiments. The,resulfs support that conditions
. . h . ''=@· h h h°"'I &'1 f . k·-=-. d . h h . . I . continue to improve at t e,s1te,,even t oug t et eve o ns associate wit t e ongma site ;p,r-., -~-~ ,,-conditions had not be~,J),,JConsidered\unacceptableft ,/, 'I \h /
6.4.1.1 Surface water results and!frends ~-. . --~-~m-,,,,,, j7 . . . Appendix B contains the full<-201,3 surface1water,momtonng results. Table 5 summanzes the . /~_;'•,,,. :-"o/~, . ---,.~~& 2013 max11num,result~lassociated;,w1th the surface water samples compared to the North
////" --✓-w.r~ --~" Carolin.~J.2B surface wat5;flcriteria o.5t,North, Carolina 2 L, which is the groundwater standards for
d . k. g;y . . P=,_ L k .:$, d." . d ·ct d Cl B " nn mg',water cntena. ages a e 1s1use ,or recreat10n an was cons1 ere a ass water ,or u· -~ .;)¾. 1/!"@" this review!'~The surface water~results,indicate decreasing trends and demonstrate that the -,~ "o/,:'-½ ;/ remedy is su~ssful for the sjf and continues to be protective of Pages Lake, the primary
receptor. ' J
~?,,, ,$
'',0"//,¼ --~; Table 5 -Maximum Detected-Concentrations in Surface Water (Pages Lake), µg/L
p
NCDENR
l\1aximum 2B NCDENR Concentration Location of Surface Analyte Detected in 2013 :Maximum \\'ater 2L Criteria
(µg/L) Criteria (µg/L)
(µg/L)
Pesticides
Aldrin Non-Detect
• ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
alpha-BHC 0.084
beta-BHC 0.11
delta-BHC 0.092
gamma-BHC Non-Detect
Total BHC 0.286
Chlordane (alpha) Non-Detect
Chlordane (gamma) Non-Detect
Chlordane (technical) Non-Detect
Dasanit (Fensulfothion) Non-Detect
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 0.78
Dieldrin Non-Detect
Disyston (Disulfoton) Non-Detect
4,4--DDD Non-Detect
4,4--DDE Non-Detect
4,4'-DDT Non-Detect
Endrin Non-Detect
Endrin ketone Non-Det~ct
Guthion (Azinphos-methyl) ·q///1'; Non-Deteg.,,,
Heptachlor Non-Dete~'fi'"~
Heptachlor epoxide "' Non-Detect ~-
Malathion Non-Detect "%
, '1////,;,,. ~
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
SW2
I
~h. -,,_
I '"❖,,,
A. ''1-,.
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
-~-, .,,,.,.,,,6
0.04 ,, ,.._,
.,'<% 1;i ~-
~ ~✓-,,A'
~-·,, ~ ·y
--,...;✓ .,, ,, ··,,
Y~. ~-.
~ .,.,,, ··1r
'"BJ ~--l7
I --~ ;,'l. ,.1/
Toxaphene , '@"~foin-Detect ~ 9' ff' ' %,,
Volatile Organic ComP,t@i~s / Semit:'9J~tile Organic C'~~1pounds
Carbon disulfide
., -w~ ,.-,.-/h W' "~ ,, N.!?D_-Detect
Carbon tetrachlori_<jg __ '✓1; ~.,d~TO~Q[fi~!~:Wh /
•'0'//,V~ 1,2-Dichlorg_~thane . D,,,_ --~Non-Detect'.,,¥~ @,.,n,,
//✓F .. ,,., ,.,.,.,.Q//,, Ethylbe_n_~ene ~w» NqD}R_eteq
//;',(''1//h. ''?'£: T etrachl9r,9,~then e ~
,,
~-'o/.-'✓,r/✓,1// Non°Q,~tect
Toluene
,, ~ Non'Detect
'✓,1//,Vt'/, -~ 1,1,1-Trichloroethi!D!" ~ Non-Detect
Trichloroethylene,. fff ff' Non-Detect
Xylenes (total) "¥~ ~,, ·,&,.,$ Non-Detect
2,4-Dimethylphenol -~ fy Non-Detect
2-Methylnaphthalene 0.54 30
Naphthalene 0.66 6
1,2,4-Trichloroben zene Non-Detect
lnorganics
Antimony Non-Detect
Barium 910 SWS (Upstream) 700
Beryllium Non-Detect
• • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pt.-sticidc Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
Cadmium Non-Detect
Chromium 2 10
Copper 9.8 SW5 (Upstream) 7 1000
Iron 12000 SW5 (Upstream) 1000 300
Lead 3.2 15
Manganese 1900 SW5 (Upstream) 50
Nickel 5.2 100
Silver Non-Detect A,
Zinc 77 SW5 (Upstream) 50 1000
h 2013 c: 1· I h d 10 I . h ~-d . b h T e sur,ace water samp mg resu ts a ana ytes wit .,,1vTax1mu.!_J}.,,_,~tect1ons a ove t e
North Carolina 2B or 2L screening criteria. These analytes aretdiscussedjoelow . -~------, ' ,:_ ~-• BHCs: alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, al}d)otal BHC '--
Figures 9 to 12 present the 2013 results andi'fiiarts of historical surface wat~'r:iresults for . . //" ... ~,. ~-. -~ . . the exceeding BHC isomers. NCDENR does notihave establtshed surface ,water cntena '0}"[:;¼ ///// ,,,., ,y
for total BHC or the BHC isomers. Alpha-BHC;·oet!!2BHC, delta-BHC, and total BHC
• ·•~h exceeded the groundwater 2L standards m surface wateEsamples. Gamma BHC was
b I 2 C . h . ·%-,. . c:·~,. . h e ow L. BH isomers s ow nnprovements m sur1aceiwater concentrations w en ~--. ·"• compared to the 2004 surface water,momtonng campatgn./ ,-✓~ , __
The measured upstream (SW5) total BHC conceritratio!1was 0.023 µg/L. which is
3//4 //:9' ·-,~@:1/ , equivalent to the 2L-standard (0.02 µg/10).o&JSurface water concentrations adjacent to the
~~/////h _-,,~ '.'-7 • groundwater pl);_we at S~J),2,nd SW2 dtspJay decreasing trends. Location SW2 had the
highest total BHC result of;0:286 µg/L, a 63% reduct10n from the 2004 result, which was /1-',,...,..r~-;--~ 'o/, 0.792 µg/L. Tlie(downstream total BHC concentration was 0.0537 µg/L, practically
. I h --~.,. &""· 1 d 2L ~a' d 'd . h d . 1· . f h eqmva ent tot e upstream·,resli t,an stan ar canst enng t e etect10n 1m1t o eac -~/,//.· .. ,,,,,.,,✓.,,11',,.q',,~,..-w~ BHC,isorri~J;,is 0.024 µg(L. Additiomillyrmany of the BHC isomer surface water ,W/;"'Q///~~ -~;''-. ··•o.. . . . • . analyt,cal resultsiwere qualtfied by the laboratory as esttmated detect10ns md1catmg a ~ ''.1//~. . • .,.$:'~,. . . ,result less than tlie,quantttat1omhm1t but greater than zero. :z,._ -1-~ 'V
,f,.0,-"" ~ w • 1,2-oiofomo-3-chloropropane (0BCP) . "'4$1':'--?}:-,\ . • F1guret{~?,1:>resents the~0 13 results and charts ofhtstoncal surface water results for
DBCP. NGDENR does not have established surface water criteria for DCBP. DBCP ··w.:~ ,....@ was detectediftbove;tlie groundwater 2L standard (0.04 µg/L) in one surface water '~h-0¢; . sample, SW2. '-?Tlie SW2 location had an increase from 0.62 to 0.78 µg/L between 2008 w and 2013. The,upstream and downstream locations from SW2 were either non-detect or
below 2L. For groundwater adjacent to SW2, the sentinel and plume monitoring wells
continue to display decreasing groundwater trends for DBCP since the source
excavations. Monitoring well SWMS03, which is the closest monitoring well to SW2,
shows significant decreases in DBCP concentration since the soil excavations were
completed. The groundwater trend for SWMS03 is also presented on Figure 13 .
• Inorganics: barium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc
• a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
Figures 14 to 18 present the 2013 results and charts of historical surface water results for
barium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc. Barium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc
exceeded the 2L (groundwater) or 28 (surface water) standards; however, for all metals,
the highest surface water concentration was measured at the upstream sample location,
SW5. There are only two surface water campaigns which analyzed metals from
corresponding locations, 2004 and 2013, which limits trend evaluation. However, all
downstream surface water locations are below upstream (SW5) concentrations for metals,
and all locations except SW5 had decreases in concentrations since the 2004 monitoring
campaign, indicating that the presence of or increase in metals concentrations at SW5 is
not site related. ~,,,
d
/'
. ~ ' ~,,·,,, ' fif'"r W,i%., --~ ~ ~\, -:,c~/ '& ''•. ~ y
,, ~-~~». ~ -~ -~ ~-.'
\ ""' ''V . \~~(-'
/~.. ~ /t
;fl! • ~ ,:• I ~ ~ ~ ~/ '~-ff/,Jf~p,, . ff"' }~-~,'•'%~
,4' ~ ~-•/ ·._,,.?,,,_ .,,,_ ,, .
'Pf• ·. xm,_ '70,X.·7 ~ ,,,;,,✓,/ /,½:
"-';~--~ 7
'•-¥& i 7;,f@,,, 1/f' ,~ #,
·~-ff %&, ,1ff -~.,.,
W' /
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
6.4.1.2 Sediment results and trends
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Sl-cond Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
Appendix B contains the full 2013 sediment monitoring results. Table 6 summarizes the 20 I 3
maximum results associated with sediment samples collected at Pages Lake compared to the
USEPA Region 3 BT AG (Biological Technical Assistance Group) and the NOAA LEL (Lowest
Effect Level) screening criteria for fresh water sediment.
Table 6 -Maximum Detected Concentrations in Sediment Samples (Pages Lake), mg/kg
_;ti ~,,,,
,4 ~ NOAA LEL , ~ ~-:Maximum ~ 'E~~f3 BTAG Screening
Concentration LOCatilh of -criteria Freshwater Analyte f Mfiimu";,,
''7/////4,. Detected in 2013 (209.,~),¾ Sediments
(mg/kg) ~< (mg/kg)~ (SQuiRTs) A ~-·1 1/~ ~(mg/kg) %. ' '✓""· ) ~
~ ........ -~-
Pesticides ~,. ' ~ ... ,i'
Aldrin Non'.0:~tect,. ~,,.,_ ·~ ~ ~
alpha-BHC 0.0078 SED3 0.006 0.006
beta-BHC /#~/, Non-Det~J&" y 0.005 0.005
delta-BHC ,. ·-,,,~ ij "' ~ 0.054 '%, ~ SED3 6.4 NE
/~,. ~ '½ gamma-BHC Non-Detect ~-,,,
Total BHC 0.0618 SED3 0.003 NE
Chlordane (alp_~_~)=,,,,,,
,,,.
1?K .
,,,,,,,4"/47,-'"q//✓,7:'',.,,.,__ p ·Non;,Detect
Chlordane,.((e"chnicaTi~, -9~ a ~ ~ ... Non-Detect
Chlordarf{(gamma) •///'l'~✓,.: ,,'/;;;,,, -~ '-~f'j,9,~'Detect
Dasa~Tt(ife'risulfothion) ,,,y~ ·•.W . .,fNOn-Detect
Dieldrin -~ ~ .,
~;;, ~ Non-Detect
Disulfoton -~-WI Non-Detect
4,4'-DDD 0.066 SED3 0.00488 0.008
4,4'-DDE 0.055 SED3 0.00316 0.005
4,4'-DDT 0.035 SED3 0.00416 0.008
Endrin Non-Detect
Endrin ketone Non-Detect
Guthion (Azinphos-methyl) I Non-Detect
Heptachlor Non-Detect
Heptachlor epoxide Non-Detect
Malathion Non-Detect
Toxaphene Non-Detect
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon disulfide** 0.34
Carbon tetrachloride Non-Detect
1,2-Dichloroethane* 0.017
Ethylbenzene Non-Detect
Tetrachloroethene Non-Detect
Toluene 0.0098
1, 1,1-Trichloroethane Non-Detect
Trichloroethylene Non-Detect
Xylenes (total) Non-Detect
SED2
SED2
SED3
d-
~
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Fivc-Y car Remedy Review
September 20 13
0.000851 NE
NE NE
NE NE
,£,,
7,. ... ~.,,
,.
~-
Semivolatile Organic Compounds ~-·,, .
2,4-Di methyl phenol Non-Detect ,A,, '-'/4-/,,;. -,,,
2-Methylnaphthalene ,.~
.,, ,,,
Non-Detect
Naphthalene Non-Detect -~ ,. -:-.. ~. -~ % ;,:,,,.#'
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Non-Detect .,,, 1m ,A.,, .. 1 P' -~,, " Inorganics ,,,.I/
Antimony NQ!),:Detect . .. W;,.,_
Barium -~/,'u>;( ~,?-~~--SED4.,,, ,. NE NE
Beryllium Hz"'~ ;;,..,,._ SED2 ,~ ~ p NE NE
Cadmium 1.5 SED2 0.99 0.6
Chromium 34 SED2 43.4 26
Copper 29 SED3 31.6 16
Iron 83000 SED2 20000 2%
Lead 49 SED4 35.8 31
Manganese //~//h, .di .,,,~3,;>~ 460 460
Nickel 21 SED2 22.7 16
Silver ,I ·,07~ x~ .. W.4@l't~O!)_,Detect
Zinc 680 SED2 121 120
., ,
NOTES: ~ ~ '
~, . ~ . . *The DUTCH Target/or 1,2-dichloroethane Is 0.02 mg/kg and for toluene Is 0.010 mg/kg
~-t'4 **The USEPA residential soil criteria for Total BHC is 0.270 mg/kg and for carbon disulfide is 670 mg/kg . -~ .",•'
NE = not established. ~, '
The 2013 sediment sampling results reflected 12 analytes with maximum detections above one
or both (yellow highlight) of the screening criteria. These exceeding analytes are discussed
below:
• BHC isomers: alpha-BHC, total BHC
Figures 19 and 20 present the 2013 results and charts of historical sediment results for
alpha BHC and total BHC. The sediment trends are decreasing for BHC isomers .
Although BHC isomers are the primary groundwater contaminants, there was only one
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
exceedance of BHC isomers, alpha-BHC, in sediment samples in 2013 above the
screening criteria. The 2013 maximum detection ofBHC isomers in sediments is 0.0078
mg/kg of alpha-BHC, which is above the screening criteria (0.006 mg/kg). This is also
considerably less compared to the 1989/90 pre-excavation sediment results, which
previously exhibited a maximum BHC isomer detection of 6.1 mg/kg and average of
0.965 mg/kg for sediment sampling locations SEDl, SED2, and SED3 .
• 4,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-DDT
Figures 21 to 23 present the 2013 results and charts ofhistorical,sediment results for the
DDT . S d. h d d . d d /@%':,. " 111 . isomers. e 1ments s owe ecreasmg tren s or non-etect1ons ,or a ocat1ons
/Q./
except SED3, which had an increase in concentrations of ODE and DDT. The increase
of DOE to 0.055 mg/kg and of DDT 0.035 mg/kg is no!:(<53~iilered significant 4& --w.~-considering DD~ was detected at more_ than 3 mgl½g atJSED3 in}J1b~9/_I 990. The DOE
and DDT detect10ns are near the detec!Jon hm1t ~fi_,0:039·-mg/kg. Kdd1t10nally, ,,@.'/JhJf//;, •~
groundwater is not a source for DDT isomers since aJr'groundwater results were non-
detect in 2013 and there have only been trac~oncentrations detected {if"1foundwater
since low flow sampling was first instituted\~l-997✓✓✓~,i'i Y • ~-%"' ~r-• Carbon disulfide ' W-~.,.
Figure 24 presents the 2013 results.and charts ofhistoiic"al sediment results for carbon '/@'/.-,,. ..,/////.//,
disulfide. Detections of carbon disulfid~;,at SED2 and SED_J,.are,,offshore of a shallow ·.,.-,-; --,..//~. ·~:w ..... o,,· boggy marsh area of Pages Lake. Caroon<disulfide can be released by natural microbial -~ .,,.-0}"/,./~ w~
activity in marshes. Carbon disulfide)has nofoeen;detected;in groundwater since trace
d . ( 2 2 g/L) . 2002 d "% IM' "~'1'~,,,,,u d f " FCTS P . etect10ns < . µ , m an wa~&n.zJ;a soi cou;ip,oun o concern ,or . nor
2013 h ,,-/A':J~' h .. d ,;;_., f b~,..,d. lfid. d. . Id" to , t ere wa~on y,orte _ 1stonc etect10n o car on 1su 1 e m se 1ment, me u mg
sediment samr,J,~olleZfff]?;rior to the s6il excavations. The carbon disulfide detections
in SED2 and'SEQ_1 are considered likely related to natural microbial activity . ·• ~ r I . d . ,h.dr@1?{"" ., I d . k I d . • norgan1cs;;zca m1um,~c ro1n1um,1copP,erfiron, ea , n1c e, an zinc . /~(/(/-'~•·, w~1,. ,,,..,..:,q ~ . . . F1gures•QS,to1-3,_ltP,resent;tli_~/,2013 results and charts of.h1stoncal sednnent results for ,,,,;// "''~::,/~ .,,,,,,~ -~~ceeding metal~J5xceeda9.jes for metals were observed at SED2, SED3, and SED4
,;1t·cations. As previ\Tusly disf@sed, these locations are adjacent to a marsh area of Pages
.L"&.'ck"-"· h" h "'!'%@. w.:l, d. . I . . h" h I . a -:?-kl'! 1c may SUPP,£rt natu,ra con 1!Jons resu tmg m 1g er meta s concentrallons .
His&fu53,sediment treiffi~ at these locations show variability in sediment trends for metals . .,. , ,. ,. .
6.4.2 Groundwate~Momtormg
Groundwater monitori~as been conducted at the APDS Site since 1989. However, in 1997, a //
shift to quiescent sampling of a synoptic network of monitoring wells was made, which provided
more comparative sampling events. Groundwater field and analytical parameters are reviewed to
continue evaluation of the natural attenuation processes at the Site. The program continues to
use the following indicators:
• Demonstrate that natural attenuation is occurring according to expectations;
• Detect changes in environmental conditions that may reduce the efficacy of the natural
attenuation processes;
• Identify any potentially toxic or mobile transformation products; and
• (ij • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
• Verify that the plume is not expanding either downgradient, laterally, or vertically .
Natural attenuation of groundwater contamination includes a variety of processes that act to
reduce contaminant concentrations. Where natural attenuation is a part of a groundwater
remedial action, the progress of natural attenuation and the geochemical conditions that
contribute to or inhibit natural attenuation are monitored .
The results from the initial MNA evaluation were previously reported in the Second Look
Proposal Report (Newfields, 1999). The results established the feasibility of meeting OU #3
remedial action objectives using MNA. The results from the 2013 a~fsampling are
consistent with previously recorded results, indicating that the envil11Ynmental conditions remain
conducive to natural attenuation. ,,,,
(' ' No potentially toxic or mobile transformation products ha{e1be"~n identifi~fduring sampling ,-,?// ,, ,,,✓,,~. .,«'%fe
events that were not already present at the time of the ROD. A'.dditionally, tlie,first five-year
review concluded that further analysis of the potential'for vapor intrusion was'"'if6~'warranted.
Th I. I d . d" . d-"@»-%,. d" ·-;,. . . "TMo/4' . e current samp mg resu ts an site con 1!Jons o notm 1cate any mcrease m vapor mtrus1on risk. ,,,, ,0,,,, ;ff' .,
The analysis of the 2013 groundwater monitoring results an~n;toric results shows stable plumes
. h 1· h d . d . . --~"·11 h "'"-=·-. fl wit s 1g t ecreasmg tren s m momtonng~we st at are representative o ong-term post-. . . . ·-''i,'"/,,"o/#f.r~,. "'o/,/,r{1-,,½,.(," • excavat10n cond1t10ns. Receptors are venfied to'd:5~protected. At tliis,!Jme, the tlmeframe to
reach performance standards has uncertaintiftsinZf1lI('¾J11gi:adientjite conditions have not yet
h d d. . ·1·b. fl "' ligy @,;&-l"'·f'h d . f reac e a post-reme 1at10n eqm 1 num re ectmg t e remova ,o ,t e source an attenuation o
• ::;:-1/)q'(·,;,,,. • % 1/,{? 'W,:✓---• • • • • groundwater. As d1scussedimit);ie,rev1ew, althollgn several 'Yells w1thm the immediate site area
. d. . f gyd_ -~ d.. d'.h . . II d . are m 1cahve o post-reme rnt10n,5qp 1tlons an i,,,,ave pos1t1ve overa tren s supportmg a
successful site remed~,!j,this tim~here is no tecl%,iical basis to revise the remedial timeframes
. d . h ROD Th% ~ hn. I =~h . . ·1 h . h h estimate mt e . ~proposeu.tec 1ca approac 1s to wait un!J t e next review w en t e
. . "f II f h ,,.,,.£,,. -~"'"k ·11 %:fl" I . d .. maJonty 1 not a,,,,o t e momtonng networ ,,w1,,Jre eel ong-term post-excavation con 1tlons, • • ,/~{10-,h, •~•• • "'•✓///~ • • prov1dmg a,largerfdataset for evaluat10n. The surface water and sediment data contmue to
. d. ",@!, . . .,,~d'", I '-=:,,, d h . d m 1cate.a,pos1!Jve reme rn .response;-,an t e receptor 1s protecte .
;f'.% -·/,1~ -~zf / »,.. .• ✓.;,.,-
~ -~ .?
6 4 2 1 F ~"'h ' I IT ~ S' :f'A G d R I A I ' . . . arm~.:o em1ca s wm• 1tes rea roun water esu ts na ys1s '"ffi-, @4. . . . The PSVP presc)0,g,Jd the safl}plmg frequency, locahons, and analytes required for site
groundwater moniti5hng. Appendix B contains the full 2013 groundwater monitoring results .
Table 2 presents th;f°fi'fixirifu'm detection in the groundwater for each COC at the FCTS Area and
',W,W a summary of the obser,ved trends. Within the FCTS Area, a total of 14 organic compounds and
six inorganic compoufids exceeded the performance standards in one or more samples. Figure
32 presents the current extent of groundwater contamination for all COCs that exceed
performance standards. The extent of groundwater contamination remains the same as
measured in 2008 for the first 5-year review. Overall, the trends can be summarized as:
• Slight decreases for the pesticides;
• Stable trends for the VOCs, although exceedances are now limited to one or two
monitoring wells; and,
• Sporadic detections of metals, although trends in the sentinel wells are declining .
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remt'dy Review
September 2013
Each of the compounds with concentrations exceeding the current criteria is discussed below:
• BHC Isomers: alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC, total BHC
Figures 33 to 3 7 present the 2013 results and charts of historical groundwater results for
BHC isomers and total BHC exceeding performance standards in groundwater at FCTS .
The BHC isomers are the primary contaminant exceeding performance standards on the
site considering both the spatial extent of the detections, the magnitude of exceedances,
and the likely timeframe required to reach performance standards. Although decreases in
BHC . d . h I ft h ~-·1 . concentrat10ns were measure m t e p ume a er t e source area s01 excavations,
the 2013 groundwater results show little change in BHC iscffiier concentrations compared
to the results from the 2008 sampling campaign. //' ~ ~
Th d. 1· I "d . . h 1'· ~, I . ~f h BHC . e so mm tracer samp mg resu ts prov1 e ms1g tjmto eva uat10n,0_0;,t e isomers w.,.---,,0: -~ trends. As a consequence of treatment, the soil\Used as"backfill at the,s6urce area
. h d I d d. d hi .d//4' . Th I ,=-f h excavations a e evate so mm an c on f,concentralions. e p acement o t e
d · 1 . I d . d . f .:W&:% h "''d b h ·=-,,,-,b,;,l Th treate soi s1mu ate mtro ucl!on o a tracer'-m;( e groun a ove t e waterJta e. e
d. b I d . d-~, d ,«-fff?.•,. fil . -fY A so mm was su sequent y measure m groun water, u$.'to m i tratmg ram;water. s a
relatively conservative species, the presence of s;·aTfW:in groundwater has provided a
means to monitor the dir_ection ah~k;}.ocity of grourili~\JJr flow from the excavation
area, while conductmg simultaneous1measurements of BHG]concentralions m
• ·~-q{'~· ~-• •lj"~///# groundwater. The highest concentralion<ofisodmm as baclcgr.ound was observed to be '/0 .,.,..,..,.,,..~ W
approximately 5.0 mg/Lat the FCTSfsite. Tli~passage of the elevated sodium
concentrations through the aquifer rep'fesents?i'h;;"tftr°fifion"~ftime for the initial rainfall
4H.:'1Zt··,, · "% ,(('7 · ·,'W# · · events to flush througli(tli_c,;,excavat10ns ano migrate downgrad1ent It provides a /,1"// ... ,,,,.~ '.-.?! .,
representation ohhe time,rC:quired for contaminated material liberated by excavation to
//~--. '%@½ • "%. . . pass through-tlieJagmfer system. Followmg,th~;Passage of this post-excavation . '-{~///',. fffi. ~!?) . . . disturbance, the posJgexcavat10n steady stateJcondit10ns would be established. BHC
I i. _.,,@Y.,,. --=1"1,w.-"",, . h h v.d h d. h h h 11 samp e§,,1rom momtonng:we s,tuati av,£;, a t e so mm tracer move t roug t ewe
~h., ·•-w//.4'.,-., ·•••//Q,W"~,"'.'.r and,tlien·-refum;to bacKground concentralion levels would consequently more accurately "-o/' ·-,~:00:' . .,,,,..1-f@ reflect the long0terin trends~{igure 38 (38-1 and 38-2) shows the sodium tracer results
llhd total BHC r:f'if(~,for th{W'ells"discussed below. In review of Figure 38, it should be "'-W?-,.dh h h·,z&, h~--I. h . k .. note ,t at t e grap s,may ave,varymg sea es smce t e maximum pea concentration m
·w@,,, II b = "1 h h . d. . b d . some;we s may e greater or ess t an t e maxnnum so mm concentration o serve m '=· w other wells. J
-~ ;
The time seftrdatffur 1 EX0 1 and I EX02, both located within the FC excavations, ·,@w show the sodium-tracer arrival and then return to near background concentrations. The
total BHC concSentrations in I EX0I and I EX02 both exhibit a moderate decline since
2008 (I EX0 1 total BHC concentrations decreased from 11. 1 µg/L to 8.1 µg/L from 2008
to 2013; while, 1EX02 total BHC concentrations decreased from 10 µg/L to 3.2 µg/L
from 2008 to 2013.) .
Further downgradient at TS, the time series data for 2EX04 and 2EX05 show that the
sodium tracer has passed, although sodium remains above background in 2EX05 and
total BHC concentrations show a modest decline .
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
At the sentinel wells, 2MWD08 measured the passage of the sodium tracer and has a
stable concentration of approximately I µg/L of Total BHC since 2008. 2MWS07 shows
that the sodium tracer has passed and has a slight decline in concentrations since 2008,
also near lµg/L of Total BHC. The other sentinel wells south of2MWS07, such as
I SWMS02 and I SWMS03, still have elevated sodium concentrations indicating the
sodium tracer has not fully passed and that post-excavation steady state conditions have
not likely yet been achieved. The concentration trends for these wells indicate flat or
slightly increasing BHC isomer concentrations . ~---Trends in the southern-most downgradient wells with BH9_,;detections, 2MWS 12 and
. . ~@/¼-, . 1 MWD08 show the sodmm tracer concentrat10n has resently,peaked or has yet to peak.
Th BHC · . . bl -?W h ·=11 I h e isomer concentrations appear more vana ean t esewe s. t appears t at post-
excavation steady state conditions have not yet beefoesThblished 'r6¥fihese southern
~,,h/'/;. .;,-%1/q;;
monitoring wells. At this time, the timeframe to-reac11'performance standards has . . . d d. . d .. &-h h d·=-d. . uncertainties smce own gra 1ent site con 1t10ns ave not yet reac e a·-post-reme tallon .. . . .~•-''0-.-.. '//~# eqmhbnum reflecting the removal of the sour~91and atten~~t10n of ground~ater. As
d. d . h . I h h I II ~--h. ~"-d. · w 1scusse m t e review. a t oug severa we s wit 1~tue 1mme iate site area are
indicative of post-remediation conditions and ha:~i:&"itive overall trends supporting a
successful site remedy, at this time,. there is no tech1~"f~hbasis to revise the remedial
timeframes estimated in the Roolfn~proposed tech~~happroach is to wait until the
next review when the majority if nci"(;ffff.ff::thf,.monitoring~twifrk will reflect long-term . . . . . ¾, --/,,~{I'.-. -~:/ . post-excavat10n cond1tlons, prov1dmg;a large~idataset for evaluation. The surface water . . . . % .~9"''7~ ..... ,·/ . and sediment data continue to md1ca1era positive remedial"response, and the receptor 1s
protected. L~-V w~,,
.ff! ~ '~ . . -~--~ '% Dnns: d1eldnn,and endnn .Jcetone i, ,,.
• ''h'~ 'l$f ~$ Figures 39 and 40,.pfesent tn_\\2013 groundwater results and the time series charts for the
I d · 1 =·. &'t=,11· " d" ·'1'/d . d d . k h . 'd p ume an sentme momtonng,.we SJ,q!";, 1e nn an en nn etone, t e two pest1c1 es ,/,/(~,,. -~.,,.. ---~--.,,-427(-m,f'°(// . . . • exceedmg,performance·standards m the>Dnns pesticides group. The maximum #7 ... ,.~-W4, 'W.(~, . . . . . concentrat10n detected for·ooth d1eldnn and endnn ketone m the 2013 samphng event
% 2 4 g/L ·✓-=-,,. . h~'-., II 1 EX02 b h d . . f0 002 7-iWas . µ occumng m t e,same we , a ove t e groun water cntena o .
;1@.P.t· -~//. ''//ff' µW,B,and 0.02 µg/L,,respectively. The updated 2L groundwater standard for dieldrin is ..,,..,,.q"'l/,,,. • • ,,,,.,@ ~ . . . 0.002;µ,g/L, which 1s l5elow the laboratory reporting hm1t of0.012 µg/L. Although plume -:,7,,7g. //{';,:' concentrations in 20l~have increased when compared to 2008, the overall trend for
endrin kct&'ff~;,shows $'historic decline in the plume and sentinel wells, For the plume
. . ·=1'1· hd»'d. Id . . h d . d .. momtonng we s,,t e 1e rm concentrat10ns ave returne to pre-excavat10n con 11ions;
h h .,<W&V 1 1 b . fd. Id . d d . k dd owever, t e eis;reme y ow pp concentrat1ons o 1e nn an en nn etone a s
uncertainty and complicates trend evaluation. BHC behaves similarly to Drins
compounds (both chlorinated pesticides which have strong sorption tendencies), and
since BHC isomers are at much higher concentrations at FCTS, BHC is the focus of trend
evaluations and estimation for the time to reach performance standards. The 2013
concentration increases in dieldrin and endrin ketone are primarily due to well 1 EX02
shown in Figure 39. Along the sentinel wells, the increase is not significant considering
the mean dieldrin concentration is very low, 0.04 µg/L. Although dieldrin and endrin
ketone show a slight increase in groundwater concentrations in 2013, dieldrin and endrin
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
ketone were not detected in surface water or sediment samples .
• 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
Figure 41 presents the 2013 groundwater results and the time series charts for the plume
and sentinel monitoring wells for DBCP. DBCP has reduced significantly since the soil
excavations were completed in 1998. Since the 2008 first 5 year review, the plume mean
for DBCP decreased by 35% from 41 to 22 ppb and the sentinel wells showed similar
decreases .
• Tetrachloroethene (PCE) and 1,2-dichloroethane (DCA) ,-,,.,_
Figures 42 and 43 present the 2013 groundwater results ~\!,9.J:.\..2,~ time series charts for the
plume and sentinel monitoring wells for PCE and DCAjPCE}J,iad slight exceedances of
the 0. 7 µg/L performance standard, with observed co~entraticl"~tanging from 0. 72 µg/L
/, -,,,,.,_ -~
to 2. 7 µg/L in monitoring wells scattered across J;©'FS. DCA exceeoances were observed ,;,ff/', ,.,,,;. ''7////ll
at 2SWMS03 as well as 2EX04, located immediately ujJ!,>Tadient of2SM-WS03. There /,'// 'o/.!~ has been little change in concentration sincgj'2008 but exceedances are clo~the
performance standards. ~' >, ·y ~,;_-•,
During the April 2008 monitoring campaign, PCE~Idetected in the upgradient
background well I MWD0 I above,;the performance s{~dards. Historically, chlorinated ~-'%'?.',.,· solvents have been detected in upgrfl[JJkki:ckground we!t§d.t,,J,:}e~e chlorinated solvent
detections are the result ofh1stonc upgrachent,sources that nave migrated downgrad1ent • • -q,,,, .• ,0W'::'f@Z,,,, w . to the sites, attenuated, and the residual detect10nsiare now measured at the sentmel wells . l ,,,~/
#~ .. ,: -~-I ·~Jw. . • V_OC/SVOCs: 2:&-J1etliy~!]hthalene, etn,?I,lbenzene, naphthalene, total _xylenes
Figures 44 to 4J&present tli$t,2013 ground~Jter results and the time sen es charts for the
I d ffi.>-',,,I · "'"" ll " 2 °· h I h h l h lb p ume an sentme,;momtonng we s ,or -met y nap t a ene, et y enzene,
'/49'@',;., ,W" "o/%Y/7 . • . naphthalene, and toti!J,;xylenes0!'-These compounds are associated with the wet blendmg of
. 'd d h ;•=,. :::<¾W;P,,,,.. . "("' d 11) h FC . h' h pestJc1 e_~;,an t e ,ormt;J1 soa ... -awaytp1_\~ 1.e., ry we at t e site, w 1c was ,,4#&.3/.~-. . --w~ -----✓---0-;,ap,., . . excavateo,to,afs1gmficant,oepth (approx. 25 feet). The constituents are only exceedmg .if?" .• .,-%?-~--·wr-0. . . . . . the performance,standards·forJthese constituents m one or two momtonng wells m the ,$;_ • 'ij/W,f: ',¼:1////4, ,,,; • • '·,core of the site. No.&,\.;OCs/SVOGs exceed the performance standards m the sentmel 'WP':''· ~(~ '74'/ wellb Xylenes have:oeen monitored in the biennial campaigns and are documented ''@.% ~ ., showi.i£l-J.t,able trendsJJrends for these VOCs exhibited a decrease_ after the excavations
followedio), stable sul5sequent trends. Despite these compounds bemg mobile -~.@"• 1%::' constituentsf(particulafly, ethylbenzene and xylenes), the concentrations are not
d. h",-'#0-fi&Y d d . h . I 11 d l d d excee mg t e;per ormance stan ar s m t e sentme we s an xy enes are non-etecte .
Since there hasffffen adequate time for migration downgradient since the excavations,
verified by the'measurement of the sodium tracer in the sentinel wells, it is believed that
the natural attenuation processes are providing downgradient reductions in concentrations
and providing plume stability .
• Disulfoton
Figure 48 presents the 2013 groundwater results and the time series charts for the plume
and sentinel monitoring wells for disulfoton. Two monitoring wells, 2EX04 and
2SMWS03, exhibited concentrations slightly exceeding the performance standard. The
• • • • • • • • • • • ti • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
maximum concentration of disulfoton was 0.57 µg/L compared to the 0.3 µg/L
perfonnance standard. These two wells, as well as the plume and sentinel monitoring
wells, all indicate significant decreases in disulfoton concentration since the 1997/8
excavations .
• lnorganics: cadmium, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, zinc
Figures 49 to 54 present the 2013 results and charts of historic groundwater results for
metals exceeding performance standards in groundwater at FCTS. In general, metals
concentrations show significant variability in concentration at monitoring wells within
the excavated areas but the sentinel wells are typically non-detffi'r,.below performance
standards. The elevated concentrations of these metals ma{ife related to the low pH at
h . h. h . I d" . "' h . d g,, '-!'fl¼'. h. h d. I d I e site, w 1c 1s a natura con 11lon 1or t e site an can,;resu Hm 1g er 1sso ve _,1f/.9' '-'1;'////,,., concentrations of metals. The pH at the Farm Chen:iicalJ!Twin'S\fes,,ranged from 3.76 to
5.45. Low pH values of 4.18 and 4.07 were foun9J,ifl,th~0upgradi.ffitfand southern side-w_,,,,.,.,.,,~ -o/,w.,:
gradient wells, which are outside of the FCTS groundwater flow footprint . ✓,:/!' ·t~ -~ '•-~-·~0 7' The metals detections are summarized as-,follo,wing: ~ ~ 'if."/~ /§#.' ~ Cadmium was detected at concentrations exceediri'g,th\!J,Performance standards at two
-✓~·;@-/.(ff locations, I EX0 I and I EX02, which are both witfiin-,the former excavation areas .
'///~ Cadmium was not detected at an'y;,5.)f the sentinel wellslt . ,,
Ch . h d . . z:~,, .. h 2013@<-"JI II d FCTS rom1um s owe an mcrease m concentrat10n m I e ,samp es co ecte at , . . . ~ .,,,.,.,,.,,.,.,,.,,.,,.,,.,,,...,_ ;, . w . . . due to a large mcrease at momtonng '¾ell 2EXQ§J}p,the TS._area. 2EX06 1s located w1thm
d Th h. . h "'· -M' "'a=•,,,,, ___ ,/, I "' 2EX06 . I d d . an excavate area. e 1stonc c rommm groun watetresu ts 1or are me u e m
Figure 50. The 2QF3%'fil'omium detectiJnfof 4700 µg/i'.in 2EX06 is not consistent with ?'//" .• .,.,,#',,~ ¥, historic samples!( ex: 20.3;gg/L in 2008). ',This sample may not reflect actual conditions. ~,,. :a-~ . h. .% . hr . d d Other meta]s,were,also elevated mt 1s campmgn at 2EX06. C ommm was not etecte ,✓,,-;.w ~ -1/_!N,,.. at any of the sentineJJwellsf[except in 2SWMS03 at a concentration of 110 µg/L .
,~,. -~~f . . .
lron,concentrallons have,lfoen stable w1tlim the plume momtonng wells. The sentmel //.?": . ··,w:.,,~·,:,. "~-. . . . momtonng wells,have showma decline m iron concentrat10ns. i& '(~-.,,,~/
Ji<k. irffe, h '¼':b· d 1· . . h. h I . . 11 Manganese concentrallons ave een ec mmg wit m I e p ume momtonng we sat
Fc?fs~Sentinel monTm'nng ~~lls reflect similar conditions measured after excavations
but h~fifcteclined sin(f2008 .
,,~ ~
Nickel con/!ftati~ave increased in two wells 2EX06 and I EX02. 2EX06 is the -~r~ same well wit1?Jelevated chromium. These measurements may not be representative
considering tha't the reported nickel concentrations found in all other monitoring wells are
less than the performance standard, including all the sentinel wells .
Zinc concentrations exceeded the performance standard in one monitoring well, 1 EX02,
located within the former excavation area .
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,.
Table 7 -Maximum Detected Concentrations at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Site (April 2013 Groundwater Sampling Campaign)
Updated
Maximum Performance Number of Current trend, subsequent to Concentration Standard Detects Percent Analyte Detected (µg/1) (red font Compliance (out of 22 Detected decreases measured after Comment
excavations 2013 represents Samples)
nodated)
1,2-Dibromo-3-390 0.04 No 16 73% Decreasing chloropropane
4,4'-DDD 0 0.1 Yes 0 0%
4,4'-DDE 0 0.02 Yes 0 0%
4,4'-DDT 0 0.1 Yes 0 0%
Aldrin 0 0.01 Yes 0 0%
alpha-BHC 13 0.02 No 20 91% Decreasing Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that
have had the sodium tracer pass
beta-BHC 4 0.02 No 18 82% Decreasing Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that
have had the sodium tracer pass
Carbary! 0 10 Yes 0 0%
Chlordane 0 0.1 Yes 0 0% (technical)
Dasanit 0 0.8 Yes 0 0%
delta-BHC 7.8 0.02 No 20 91% Decreasing Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that
have had the sodium tracer pass
Dieldrin 2.4 0.002 No 14 64% Increasing Very low concentrations increase primarily
driven by one monitoring well, 1EX02.
Disulfoton 0.57 0.3 No 4 18% Decreasing Close to performance standards
Endrin 0 2 Yes 0 0% .4,
Endrin ketone 2.4 0.02 No 13 59% Decreasing overall, increase Very low concentrations compared to 2008
gamma-BHC 3.5 0.03 No 15 68% Decreasing Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that
have had the sodium tracer pass
Guthion 0 I Yes 0 0% ~,-~~, ; ' .,~
Heptachlor 0 0.008 Yes 0 0%,~%._~ ~' " ":! ~· ~:~-.. \\. ~
Heptachlor ., i,f'''''\ ,.
0 0.004 Yes 0 0% ;
eooxide '\\~
Malathion 0.77 I.I Yes 2 "'-' 9% ,.
'-:: ~-
Toxaphene 0 0.03 Yes 0 'I~~:,. ~ ~--~
1, 1, 1-0 200 Yes 0 ~">\~ ~ ~~· Trichloroethane \. 0%~ ' ~-&'\"'"' 8
1,2,4-,, . ,.-,~~ ..
0.52 70 Yes 5 23% ,j .. -~~•' Trichlorobenzene ,• ,,. "c .,~ ,~ ,'
1,2-17 0.4 No 7 32% Flat Near performance standards. Likely related to
Dichloroethane historic upgradient source.
2,4-.:~!-._'l::-~ ~~" ~ 30 100 ' Yes~ ~3)
Dimethvlohenol ,~--14% ~$--~~-~ " ' 2-Only 1 exceeding monitoring well, sentinel wells Methylnaphthalen 43 30 No 4 18% Flat below performance standards e
Carbon disulfide 0 Afl6o Y"-Y~:' es_~.,~, __ "'o~ .~--,.• 0%
Carbon ·•'"'~ '~ "\~' 0 ' 08' Yes --~ t 0 ~ 0% tetrachloride ~ l\. ,'
Ethylbenzene 16000 600 No 7 32% Flat Only 2 exceeding monitoring wells, sentinel wells
below performance standards
Naphthalene 73 6 No 5 23% Flat Only 1 exceeding monitoring well, sentinel wells
below performance standards
Tetrachloroethene 2.7 0.7 No 6 27% Flat Near performance standards. Likely related to
historic upgradient source.
Toluene 530 600 Yes 3 14%
Total Xylenes 88000 500 No 7 32% Flat Only 2 exceeding monitoring wells, sentinel wells
below performance standards
Trichloroethene 0.84 3 Yes I 5%
Antimony 0.77 6 Yes I 5% Elevated metals are primarily associated with
Barium 61 700 Yes 22 100% detections from 2EX06 and 1EX02 which have
Beryllium 2.3 4 Yes 2 9%
potentially anomalous results in 2013 based on
historic.trends. Sentinel trends are generally
Cadmium 22 2 No 3 14% Sporadic detections, decreasing for metals. The elevated
decreasing sentinel trends concentrations of these metals may be related to
Chromium 4700 10 No 7 32% Sporadic detections, the site's low pH which is similar to background
decreasing sentinel trends conditions. Low pHs of 4.18 and 4.07 were found
Copper 610 1000 Yes 9 41% in the upgradient and southern side-gradient
300 No 31 141% Sporadic detections, wells, which are outside of the FCTS
Iron 67000 decreasing sentinel trends groundwater flow. In addition, marsh areas in TS
Lead 12 15 Yes 10 45% may affect water chemistry and metals
Sporadic detections, concentrations The anomalous results in these
Manganese 530 50 No 22 100% decreasing sentinel trends two extraction wells may also be due to the
Sporadic detections, removal of the dedicated inoperative
Nickel 830 100 No 9 41% decreasing sentinel trends submersible pumps in these wells, and the
Silver 0 20 Yes 0 0%
subsequent change to the use of a portable
submersible pump for sampling. Clays in the
bottom of these wells may have been disturbed
Zinc 8700 1000 No 15 68% Sporadic detections, during the pump removal operation and the
decreasing sentinel trends increased metal exceedances may be reflected in
the unfiltered total metals analysis.
= • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~
6.4.2.2 Fairway Six Groundwater Results Analysis
The PSYP prescribed the sampling frequency, locations and analytes. Appendix 8 contains the
full 2013 groundwater monitoring results. Table 8 presents the maximum detection in the
groundwater for each COC at the FX Area and a summary of the observed trends. Within the
FX Area, a total of 8 organic compounds and 3 inorganic compounds exceeded the performance
standards in one or more samples. Figure 55 presents the current extent of groundwater
contamination for all COCs that exceed perfonnance standards at FX. Overall, the trends can
be summarized as:
• Slight decreases for the pesticides;
• No exceedances ofYOCs; and,
• Sporadic detections for the metals, all of which are considered likely within the range of
natural conditions .
Each of the exceeding compounds are discussed below(P' •. -,~
6. \.. ~~ • BHC Isomers: alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta0BHC, gammaaBHC, total BHGiP°' . '",%'"97,-.,. /(1"P44,. .7/ Figures 56 to 60 present the 20 I 3 results and chart§J,ofd'iistoncal groundwater results for --~ BHC isomers and total BHC exceeding performance1standards in groundwater at FX. ~ "'1'..'W'. Monitoring wells 3MWL27 and 3MWL28 are not incluaed in the trend charts for FX ·,,,,w~ ·--~(.,,. because these two monitoring wells;,.which are located inttli'e.middle of the plume and . • ··0-, ··,~.. '//,,}#,/.//;ff. have the highest BHC concentrations, werefadded to the momtonng network after the ",,_,; ''//.%"-:'?'.!•· . ff establishment of the synoptic networlciand wouldil:iias trend•evaluation. Monitoring wells .,,,1:: ,,{/// ·-.l,,~!~--,,,.4,,., 3MWL27 and 3MWL28 are included in,;~Ji'discussionil:ielow . ~ '7ft ~ .
Decreases in BHC isomerl&ncentrations~ere measured in the plume after excavations,
b h O 3~-·w;,; 1 h 1· ·1%. h d h 1· ut t e 2 I •groundwater resu ts s ow 1tt e;c ange compare tot e 2008 samp mg . -~-.'W . r,,~ . campaign. The concentr. at10n_§;,Observe_ d m the 20 I 3 sampling event confirm that
• "1q'////h.,.,W'U~:"'~ ,,. . ,-f/ . . . concentrallons for BHG;.1somersimftn~Jsentmel wells remam similar when compared to /~//,fffY.Wf,-,.,,,, :--~ . .,..,,,,,/,@"/(/ the,momtonng(campmgnsJsmce excavatJons .
$' ·:· • . A . . •.. ~"'(/ . . ... .-fAs,prev10usly discussed for F©TS, the sodium tracer samplmg results can provide msight
:'<%,0:--~ w~ . . mto_Jtransport and trends evaluation for the BH C isomers. The highest background
'&W-. . f d:= . . d b d b . 1 0 g/L concentration o so mm m groun water was o serve to e approximate y I. m at
-~-f-'.'//~ FX; loweJ;i,than the sodium background at FCTS. The passage of the elevated sodium
concentr~if§ti:~throughthe aquifer represents the duration of time for the initial rainfall
events to fl;f~,![,oITgh the excavations, the backfilled material, and then mi1,,rate
downgradientjflie sodium tracer provides a representation of the minimum time
required for c<intaminated material liberated by excavation to pass through the aquifer
system. Following the passage of this post-excavation disturbance, steady state
conditions would be established for the residual pesticides .
BHC samples from monitoring wells that have had the elevated sodium concentrations
move through the well and then return to background concentrations would therefore
more accurately reflect the long-term trends. Figure 61 shows the sodium tracer results
and total BHC results at FX for the wells discussed below. The monitoring wells selected
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • =
•
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
form a transect along the primary groundwater flow path from the excavated area to the
sentinel wells. Monitoring wells 3EX0I and 3EX02, located downgradient of the
excavations, show the passage of the sodium tracer in groundwater and the return to near
background sodium concentrations. The total BHC concentrations in 3EX0I and 3EX02
show a slight decline in BHC concentrations .
Approximately I 000 feet downgradient at FX, wells 3MWL27 and 3MWL28 have the
highest BHC concentrations. These wells also show that the sodium tracer is still passing
through and steady state conditions have not yet reestablished. The BHC concentrations
remain elevated at both wells although concentrations have dei:Ti~d._since excavations
and backfilling. ~ .
In monitoring well 3MWL29 located 1800 feet down~ient ~in sentinel monitoring
well 3MWL23, the elevated sodium concentrationstar/p"'assing ;ffc[ffuay not have peaked
f½Y//".1'//,', -~. yet. At monitoring well 3MWL29, concentrations ofBHC are decreasing while at . . w ~. sentmel well 3MWL23 BHC concentrat10ns,are stable.,, Therefore, these,wells and other
II h h d. . h ~-0d'·, b k d 1''®w.•1&-d" . we s w ere t e so IUm concentrations ave notreturne-,;,t. o ac groun eve s, m 1catmg "'9-"f".(..,,., $:'~ W steady state conditions have not yet been reestablishe9_,;and inay not be representative for
I . I d lh hhd .,,'=@' . b d. h eva uatmg ong-term tren s; a t oug t e ecreasmg,eoncentrat10ns o serve smce t e
excavations suggest the conditiohs.,are improving. ' -~ ~ . ·w.,,. , ~---# . The analysis of the 20 I 3 groundwat~J moii,1,t\!Q~_g results an9Jhlstonc results shows stable
I . h 1 · h d . d '"· W.<'@.,,, II h •3/ . f I p umes wit s 1g t ecreasmg tren s m momtonn·g,we st at are representahve o ong-. . . -~-,,,;}P'',,/4_,-,/.iJ.':/'•,,-,, _,,, ·~ . • term post-excavat10n cond11!ons. ReceP,tor~are venfied'Jo be protected. At this time, the
· fr h ,✓p,z;;,,,, d .zd ,(;Ii'"' Y,# · · d d · · hme ame to reac~pe1-1ormance stan ar S' as uncertamt1es smce own gra 1ent site
conditions have:ifot y~t-=hed a post-r~'fhediation equilibrium reflecting the removal of "fP"· ''%(;'' -~ the source and,atfenuation ofigroundwater.~As discussed in the review, although several
wells withi~ the''ffffmediat~te area are indi~tive of post-remediation conditions and
h . . .,,.1,,.1~-d•~---. 17 ful . d h. . h . ave pos11!ve overa ,tren s supportmg,a.success site reme y, at t 1s hme. t ere 1s no ..-01"':'"(/~:·,.,, :~-~-,,.,,,{~f"f,,,;~ • . , techmcahlfas1~jto rev1sei.tlif/,remedial hmeframes eslimated m the ROD. The proposed ,,.,.7'., .• ,.,,~. ··w.r❖ technical approac!ilis to waiDuntil the next review when the majority if not all of the z» . · "0.i'fq?,. ·11 fl··=··1 " . d. . .d. I . ,-momtonng networK',Wl. re ectl ong-term post-excavat10n con 11ions, prov1 mg a arger ·w~ -~ .,,,,..,,£f'., dataset for evaluation:',-/The surface water and sediment data continue to indicate a positive "~("· 'c11'? / remeaial response, and,the receptor is protected. ,,, f
D . d~I"'d·,.. d .$.k nns: 1e nn, en nn etone .,.,w.'[',-,@Y Figures 62 anoJ63,gpresent the 2013 results and charts of historical groundwater results for
dieldrin and ei{cliih ketone exceeding performance standards in groundwater at FX .
Following pre◊ious discussion, the sodium tracer is only just arriving at the sentinel wells
at FX. The 2013 groundwater results show a slight increase in dieldrin and endrin ketone
concentrations. Following the discussion on BHC isomers, the slight increases in Drins
are the result of downgradient wells which are still affected by the passage of
groundwater originating from the timeframe occurring during/soon after excavations .
Dieldrin and endrin ketone exhibit similar trends at FX, and this discussion is focused on
dieldrin as representative of Drins compounds. Figure 64 shows the sodium tracer results
and dieldrin results for a transect of monitoring wells, each discussed below .
ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
The wells shown in Figure 64 create a transect along the dominant groundwater flow path
from the site. Dieldrin shows slight decreases in wells at or near the source area ( 1 EX0 1
and 1 EX02) where the sodium tracer has passed. In the downgradient wells, dieldrin has
slightly increased or remained the same and the sodium tracer is still passing. The far
downgradient well 3MWL29 and sentinel well 3MWL23 show that the sodium
concentrations may not have yet peaked. Based on this, it may be up to 10 years before
groundwater will be representative oflong-term post excavation conditions and reflect
the natural attenuation occurring with exhibited decreasing concentrations of dieldrin in
downgradient and sentinel monitoring wells. A~"·, .
6 Heptachlor epoxide ,,, , .
Heptachlor epoxide is a biological conversion product*fheptachlor, which is a , '0 -~ll. compound present in Chlordane {A TSDR 2007),,,:i.~.hJprdane is repri9x1ted by a group of
approximately 26 individual compounds (IPC$2l984).''Chlordane andHfeptachlor were
d d . h d . h 2013 ff/' . h d d 2L·%u-. d not etecte m t e groun water in t e -,,5..3,unpmgn. '( e up ate gr,5,iun water
d d " h hl 'd . 0 004 1!i,~ h' h . l.'.· I h 1 b Wf@'$' . stan ar 1or eptac or epox1 e 1s . µ& "',~w 1c 1s ue ow t e a oratocy;,reportmg W~, /,(//~ -; -1/ limit of0.012 µg/L. There were some trace detec,jions,o'flieptachlor epoxide at
concentrations between 0.016 to 0.077 µg/L durinWf'J2013 monitoring campaign .
Figure 65 presents the 2013 grouudwater results for ~achlor epoxide exceeding
c d d . d =0 .. FX H hliw.',,.. 'd h h d d' per1ormance stan ar s m groun water/at . eptac or;epox1 e as a spora 1c trace . . . '1½.,,..~:-,,_ -❖,,w,w,:,,,,,#" . detechons at FX, but not in consistent spahahand temporal patterns as seen with BHC
. d d' Id . f' 65 1 "% "'""/4Y.~,,, . . o/'.fh hi 'd . isomers an 1e nn.. 1gure a so P,Jesents,w,.$),J:JWJ;.,Se_1;_~s o eptac_ or epox1 e m
well I EX0l, located 1mmed1ately down6>Tadient oftliefformer excavat10n area . . ~ v,,(f' T
lnorgamcs: chrommm, 1ronf,manganese 'i ,,r;_,,,.,,,11-·-wz %: . Figures 66 to'68,present the"2013 results ana charts of historic groundwater results for • •/•.;,W0,_ *Jf . -~/# metals exceeding peiformancs..;standards in groundwater at FX. Metals no longer appear
b . ..,.f,~. ~-o/~'"FX . "'S ffi . d . d h to e conshtuents o -concern aHu~ .' ·,site. u 1c1ent ata exists to emonstrate t at ,,/./~'1'f 'W.'¼¼. ;--· '4',{/////£1,%/ • • • exceedances,o r2L standards are inconsequential and are probably within natural
ff.N • • _.,//'7~,._ 'o/.%,-• • • vanab1hty. Tlie,metals detect10ns are summanzed as following: % .,.~ 'o/~ j~t ~ ··~1 Clrromium was detected above,the 10 µg/L performance standard at 16 µg/L at 3 EX0 1, ·wM.-·-v,m ., locatecl)immediately dQwngradient of the excavated area. Chromium was not detected in
'/1'°/~ •W/4:'. any of tlie'rsentinel wells . . ,.,. ff
I b.,, d §15~ h c d d b I . h . I 11 Th' ron was o se~e >-a ove t e per,ormance stan ar s ut on y m t e sentme we s. 1s
suggests a pot~filff1 association to natural conditions near the creek and golf course lake .
&'
Manganese was detected above the 50 µg/L performance standard at 66 µg/L at
3MWL27, which is located in the middle of the site. Manganese was not detected in any
of the sentinel wells .
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Table 8 -Maximum Detected Concentrations at Fairway Six Site (April 2013 Groundwater Sampling Campaign)
Updated
Maximum Performance Number of Trend, subsequent
Analyte Concentration Standard Compliance Detects Percent to decreases Comment Detected (µg/1) (red font (outofll Detected measured after
2013 represents Samples) excavations
updated)
1,2-Dibromo-3-0.12 0.04 I 9% chloroorooane Yes
4,4'-DDD Not Detected 0.1 Yes 0 0%
4,4'-DDE Not Detected 0.02 Yes 0 0%
4,4'-DDT Not Detected 0.1 Yes 0 0%
Aldrin Not Detected 0.01 Yes 0 0%
alpha-BHC 0.38 0.02 No II 100% Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that have had
Slight decrease/flat the sodium tracer pass
beta-BHC 7.8 0.02 No 11 100% Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that have had
Slight decrease/flat the sodium tracer pass
Carbaryl Not Detected 10 Yes 0 0%
Chlordane 0.1 0% (technical) Not Detected Yes 0
Dasanit Not Detected 0.8 Yes 0 0% ,:'~~
delta-BHC 12 0.02 No 11 100% Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that have had
Slight decrease/tlat the sodium tracer pass
Dieldrin 0.44 0.002 No IO 91% Evaluated considering dieldrin in wells that have had the
Slight decrease/flat sodium tracer pass
0% ~~ ' ~ ~ Disulfoton Not Detected 0.3 Yes 0 ,$. ~ ~ ~--
Endrin Not Detected 2 Yes 0 ~-· ·,. 0%~· '"'''' "
Endrin ketone 0.47 0.02 No IO 91% Evaluated considering wells that have had the sodium
Slight decrease/flat tracer pass
gamma-BHC 0.13 0.03 No 10 91% Evaluated considering total BHC in wells that have had
Slight decrease/flat the sodium tracer pass
Guthion Not Detected I Yes ~ o~~ ,. 0% ,.
Heptachlor Not Detected 0.008 Yes 0 ~~ ".;.~ ~~, .. ,,.,··· ~~-
Heptachlor epoxide 0.077 0.004 No 5 45% Sporadic detections
Malathion Not Detected I.I Yesz.::-::. 0 ~ 9ft -~"','ii''
;,_:,,><-~~~~--•,' -~9% ,.
Toxaphene Not Detected 0.03 _.·Yes·~\~ ~ 0
I, I, 1-:;&"-., ~
200 -~~~ 0% Trichloroethane Not Detected ,, ··~ es ~-0 ~ --~--·~
1,2,4-,, -~---0.32 70 Ye~.J ,,~,t,~, 9% Trichlorobenzene '-A"-'-"'$''
,,,.o~~,-;-_~ ~: Yes•~ ~ 6
,,,., ~---55% 1,2-Dichloroethane 2.7 0-,._, "" 2,4-Dimethylphenol ~~-100 '"$:''\.'' ' 0% Not Detected '\$-Yes ',~.~o
2-~ ~ ~~ --~~i~--/'' ~"'\i&(o ''* 0% Methylnaphthalene Not Detected .. -,,;, ves~-~ i·o
Carbon disulfide Not Detected ~100--" '''~-Yes~ 0 0%
Carbon tetrachloride Not Detected ·~ 0.3 ~~-~~ ~-Yes~ 0 0%
Ethylbenzene 600 --~ ~" :~' 0 0% Not Detected '"' Yes
Naphthalene 2.9 6 -~~ _;Yes 6 55%
' Tetrachloroethene Not Detected 0.7 Yes 0 0%
Toluene Not Detected 600 Yes 0 0%
Total Xylenes Not Detected 500 Yes 0 0%
Trichloroethene Not Detected 3 Yes 0 0%
Antimony Not Detected 6 Yes 0 0%
Barium 67 700 Yes II 100%
Beryllium Not Detected 4 Yes 0 0%
Cadmium Not Detected 2 Yes 0 0%
Chromium 16 IO No 2 18% Flat Only I exceedance
Copper 15 l000 Yes 2 18%
Iron 4300 300 No 9 82% Exceedance only in sentinel wells near creek/golf course
Flat lake. Likely natural conditions
Lead Not Detected 15 Yes 0 0%
Manganese 66 50 No 11 100% Flat Only I exceedance
Nickel II 100 Yes I 9%
Silver Not Detected 20 Yes 0 0%
Zinc 120 1000 Yes 7 64%
• " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
6.4.3 Vegetative Remediation Program
A pilot phytoremediation planting was installed in May 1997 to gather data in support of
effective design, installation, operation, and maintenance of a full-scale phytoremediation system
at the site. The pilot was also designed to facilitate the assessment of phytoremediation system
performance. The primary performance criterion was the potential of the phytoremediation
systems at APDS to function as effective evapotranspiration-based groundwater extraction tools .
The pilot was very successful and the full scale planting was performed by TC! in March and
April 1998. Five stands are present across FCTS (Stands I through 5) and two additional stands
(Stands 6 and 7) are located at the FX site area. L,//49,,,,,,_
Phytoremediation monitoring was conducted in July of 2013, w~ifcluded sap flow
monitoring and tree root excavation. The objective was to,,ev1\(Gate th~~):!oremediation system
capacity to remove potentially contaminated groundwatt,,Jfro.J11"the capillfr~fringe. The . . /$· '°"4~ W"&. vegetative system typically removes water from the ground from above the saturated zone by
alternately drying out the capillary fiinge during tte'<l~y and all9wing it to rec~g~a,,with
. f b I ( b ) 'gh G' ,y~,-d .,, ·1 h PDs·vk<//W( 90 m01sture rom e ow or a ove at m t. 1ven t11e ver.y,san y soi s at t e A site over . . . --~/&·, /f"1"'/4✓, ,p percent sand as established pnor to plantmg) the deeply,planted,trees are forced to consume
groundwater during much of the year. Also, once the inili1ff~ring moisture from percolating
. . . h b d h P S d ·11"",;E., d f prec1p1tat10n as een consume , t e A 0 tree stan s w1 consume groun water out o
necessity due to the low water holding c;~HY1of the local soilf~'Fhe observed site results are '% .,,,,,~:'@ ~w.f' very encouraging. Nutrient management methoos[understory contrci]fand removal of dead or
damaged trees is proving effective in maintJhing tif{,f~gor. Nutri~t addition will be critical 'o/,,; $/ ••,.;,a/,..,,a:,{'l' .,,. going forward as the trees have depleted whatever,was available"in the local soils. Low nutrient . /~--. ~.#.#. . ,,~ levels will make the tre~susceP,!Ible to d1sease·and predation .
L • ' -D . h 2013 ,ff'ffi¾ ~FCTS h ~-d. . . d unng t e growmg,season ti1~) p ytorepe ia!Ion system 1s expecte to remove
. I 3 35 ·11'~ II ~f fr ~ d D . h . approximate y . m1 10n,ga onsm ,water om t11e [,>roun . unng t e same time,
. I O 71 ·11· ·•,,,;&l·l &'~,✓,,_ d .F.b d fr h . Th . approxnnate Y,,, ··;;, ,1m 10n ga ons are,ex11ecte ;:,1to e remove om t e FX site area. e site
~~(,w///(7/h. •~,,, , -/r//(~~ • data and full,evaluat10mhave been\mcluded m J\:ppend1x C.
, "0'._,,, -~/,
"ti'& '<,)(y '~/,/ ;,-~ . ~-:W:--/
6.5 Sitejlnspection '~ !ft
. W&-~. -2%
An inspection of all APDS areas and OUs was performed by the team members on April 2, 2008 .
EPA, NCDENR, and J>RP representatives attending the inspection included:
.. -,,, ,;#' -
• Jon Bomholm and Luis Flores, Remedial Project Managers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4 .
• Elizabeth Hartzell, Federal Remediation Branch, Superfund Section, NCDENR .
• Doug Rumford, Federal Remediation Branch, Superfund Section, NCDENR .
• Dale Voykin, URS
• The purpose of the OU #1/#4 and OU #3 Site inspection was to visually evaluate the
general condition of the monitoring wells, piezometers, vegetative cover and clean soil
cover, seeps, phytoremediation zones, redevelopment, and to perform a reconnaissance of
downgradient areas to assess land use changes where site-related pesticides are present in
groundwater.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
2
. .
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
S1.."Cond Five-Y car Remedy Review
September 2013
The Areas of the APDS were visited in the following order: Farm Chemicals, Twin Sites, and
Fairway Six. The team ~alked each Area to inspect the former source _area and groundwater
monitoring points,
--. The inspection found the following:
❖ Farm Chemicals Area:
► monitoring wells/piezometers/extraction well structures were in good condition
► the proper\)' was purchased_by_1!_ d_c,veloper wh_Q]:i_a§. jl~e11 subdiviq<'!d into a number of
parcels £"''7<, ....
► a road with a cul-de-sac has been built on the property,,
► two new buildingslbu_sinesses have been construc!;,d/' '
• a self-storage busmess and . . ~ '
• a coffee shop (which had not opened yet)~. '·· , . ► no_visible signs of erosion on the property,.#" -~.@, ► bmldmgs served by the local mumc1pal water system. ·Jr· .-Q'✓''✓-. ~ ''F' .. ~>•s ;J" ❖ Twm Sites Area: ..,.,. ... "'
► monitoring wells/piezometers/extraction well structures were in good condition,
► other than the exercise/nature walk, no redevelopment has o_ccurred at the Twin Sites
Area, _ _ ... @-.0... . . .,"W.' ► the phytoremediation zones appeared to be in good health,r
► seep areas remain heavily vegetated, --·~,,a, ... _ _ . ,%'
► no visible signs of erosion of the past _disposal areas}"'
-,.. '"' Jf' ❖ Fairway Six Area: ~ %
► monitoring wells/piezometers/extraction well structures were in good condition,
► no redevelopment of the Fairway Six Area, however, properties adjacent to the Pit_
Links Golf Course Clubhouse parking lot are currently being developed as residential
'-"properties, Fairway Six Area is approximately 1,700 feet east of the this development,
► the Clubhouse and this residential devel_opment is being served by the local municipal
.,h½< •~ ·•q,,~y-· --~~z.water system, ·B.,_ :WJ ·-_
► the phytoremediation zones appeared to be in good health, and
► no visible signs of erosion on the property . ' , 6. 6 Site lnter-Uiews J --'•,W&f¼.. H -
Parties impacted by the Site, including regulatory agencies and nearby residents involved in and
aware of the Site were contacted for interviews. The purpose of the interviews was to document
Site status and any issues or successes with the current progress with the remedy. Linda Starks,
Community Involvement Coordinator for EPA, conducted six (6) telephone interviews between
June 4 -13, 2008. These interviews included 2 Town of Aberdeen officials, an individual from
the NCDENR, and 3 community members. A copy of the questionnaire used during the
telephone interview is provided in Appendix D of this report .
Since the issuance of the ROD and the implementation of the remedy, there seems to be minimal
community interest. The citizens that were interviewed were very pleased with the outcome of
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
3
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
-------the remedial activities that were conducted to remove the contamination from the site and had no
complaints. The Site is monitored regularly and the community seems pleased with the outcome .
The city officials say that there had not been any complaints from the citizens._
7.0 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
A primary purpose of the Five-Year Review is to detennine the effectiveness and protectiveness
of the remedy. Per the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, June 2001), the
review should address the following three questions as part of this dete~ination:
Q . A I h d fu ... ddb hA,D<. .. ,,D,. ? • uest10n : s t e reme y nct10mng as mien e y t e' · ec1s10n ocuments. ~ ,,
Q . B A h . . .. d ""· I ~1"· I d RAO d • uest10n : re t e exposure assump!tons, IOXICit?:§ ata, C eanup,sve S, an S use
the time of remedy selection still valid? L~~.,,,, , ,, .
&'7 •
Q . C h . ti . ~---1· h ',. Id II. ~h,:i h • uest10n : Has any ot er m ormat10n come,t9-' 1g~t that cou ca mto questton t e
-~ ~-~ ··w protectiveness of the remedy? "-·,#%____ t-7 ~: An assessment of the remedy's intended;function (Question ~J,is presented in Section 7. I. An
assessment of changes in exposure assu~ions, toxicity data,:.gftanup levels, and RA Os used at . . . 'l'!(~/4z.,,. , . 'o/:"/f;-.. ~ the ttme of remedy selectton (Questton B) 1~presented m Sect10n 7~2fr,An assessment of other
information that could call into question th~1')rot;c'ff~ness of the r{~~dy (Question C) is
presented in Section 7.3. \ _ _ff' ~ "" ,.,@~ /,"
/~ V. ,
7.1 Question A:)s the reinedy functioning as intended by the
~ -~✓-9,: "¼ decision documents?!$ \ , . -~ ~ ~/ The analysis of the 2013 surface water,,sediment, ancl groundwater monitoring results and
h. . l . f h "'W-@,, _,r,,40[,/<f/4'~//N, J.. ,:-.8 h. h . h d d 1stonc resu ts;,ven y t e protect10n or'r.agesJ..-:a .. e, w 1c ts t e groun water receptor, an 4////1'~.,,~-·we!-._ . ""//,//&/~' . confirm the;efficacy,_ofahe remediation approach of source removal, natural attenuat1on, and /,y,/. . . '-'/,Wf'~., "/1W%-. . . phytoreJ11ediat1on protectsurface Wf!Jer,and sediments. The 2013 surface water and sediment
I kh%. . h .w.w,.. d ~--. .,(, d h . I d ll d . resu tsicontmue to s ow improve conu1t10ns compare to t e prev10us samp e ala co ecte m •; --~Z::w,-.. -W,/,,. 1/@'. 2004; as we!Las. historical data collected in 1989/90 and in 2000 . '-1/,q"~y. -~ -~-1/, ~ The well networJsJ~ovides syJjicient data to assess the progress of natural attenuation within and
downgradient ofthe;,plum~The 2013 groundwater sampling results verify stable plumes with
slight decreasing tre'ifJ't}fofp·"esticides in monitoring wells that are representative oflong-term . _·.,,,::@? post-excavation cond11tons . ,,
Operation and maintenance of the phyto-planting areas has been effective. The hybrid poplar
trees are thriving and continue to support phytoremediation as expected. Nutrient management
methods, understory control, and removal of dead or damaged trees is proving effective in
maintaining tree vigor. Nutrient addition will be critical going forward as the trees have depleted
whatever was available in the local soils. Low nutrient levels will make the trees susceptible to
disease and predation. The O&M annual costs are consistent with the estimates and there are no
indications of any difficulties with the remedy .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
4
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
There were no opportunities for system optimization observed during this review. The
monitoring well network provides sufficient data to assess the progress of MNA within the
plume .
The institutional controls that are in place include restrictive covenants placed on the property
deeds under the control of the PRP Group at the time 2003 OU #3 ROD Amendment was issued
to prevent the installation of a potable well and contact with the groundwater until groundwater
performance standards set within the 1993 OU #3 ROD as modified b~the 1994 ESD. No
. . . b d h Id h . l d h . . . l /✓~✓-!%, N f actJVities were o serve t at wou ave v10 ate t e mslltut10na contro s.•, o use o
groundwater was observed. . . . A,_
Inslltullonal Controls are needed m the form ofrestncllve covenants on,tli~;,deeds ofnon-PRP . h . b _$,., -.,~~ -~Z!' properties that ave groundwater detect10ns of COCs a ,iveigr,01indwater pe,J;JgWmance standards
identified in the 1993 ROD's selected remedy as modified by the 1994 ESD.'lfSuch covenants . . ,10' . -~ would prevent the mstallat10n of a potable well and,contact with the groundwater~· ✓, ~ ·p"
Th . . . l l 11 d" . h ROD A d~' ~-1 Th PRP/ . e msl!tut10na contro s ca e ,or mt e men ment are mp ace. e ' s contmue to ·~r monitor and ensure that institutional controls are in place anitJwoperly executed on the site
properties. AdditionaUy, local drinking 'iJ.J;,!s provided by't~$;ity of Aberdeen. Off-site, the
PRPs work with the City of Aberdeen andiMoo~~County to provide-protect10n through the . '".'~;, --,~, . :·~-;_my . wellhead protecllon program, county permiLproce~s;ireview of Citydiwater records to venfy no
11 h b . 11 d d I ;,._ f '•;✓,,:#,rad,'"' d w d "fi . new we s ave een msta e , an comp et10,~ o al)}m --~Jin ent survey an ven icat10n
Th PRP d I . I . ·'-'-C &Y 1 •p· I~✓,-"' • d . . . . h process. e s are eve opmg an nslltut10n ontro an;cons1stent an m con1unct10n wit . . . ,,/.:"M·@:,h . . ·~,,;,,p . '';1},'/ other area sites and will mclude,mslltut10nal control venficallon elements . K q. ~-• I '% ,/-~-~ ~,# 7.2 Question B Are~he exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup
levels, anqt,r:emediaT'f'c{r;,'?trfilecti.tits used at the time of the remedy . -~q-,,,~,-. .,. . . .,,,,_,,_
selection stt/lvaltd? •
A -·,,-;i "~-~ •• , -~;-,/7 7.2,1·Glianges in Standards, To>Be Considered, and Remedial Action
Ob. t;-w=,. -~ y Jee 1ve_~ -~
The OU #3 ~lindwater RA~as discussed in Section 4.1 are still relevant and appropriate .
ARAR h h -~15,"· I ""'d d . d . l d h S " D . k" W A s t at ave! een eva uate an are reqmre me u e: t e a,e nn mg ater ct ·,.r,r'f/·-/{/ (SDW A) ( 40 CFR 14•1"-'l ,!,;;,1'41.16) and North Carolina 2L groundwater standards. Table 9 lists ''-W»J...W the groundwater perfoTil)a"nce standards (clean-up goals) specified in the 1983 OU #3 ROD and
the 1994 ESD and thecifurrent chemical specific ARARs for the same COCs. As can be seen in
Table 9, a number of the standards have changed with time. Specifically, the North Carolina 2L
standards were recently amended with changes effective April 1, 2013 1• The changes effecting
site COCs are highlighted below in Table 9 with brown shading indicating newly established 2L
1 North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources. (2013). 2L Groundwater Standards Table. Accessed
July 25, 2013 from http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid-336fb0ce-0786-4164-8729-
82c345065a lS&gro up ld=38364
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
5
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
standards, green shading indicating an increase in the 2L standard, and rose shading indicating a
decrease in the 2L standard when compared to the 1993 ROD criteria .
Considering the recent revisions to the standards, it can be stated that none of the new standards
call into question the protectiveness of the remedy at this time .
Table 9 -Changes in Groundwater Performance Standards Specified in 1993 OU #3 ROD/1994 OU #3
ESD Compared with Current North Carolina Groundwater Classifications and Standards (ISA NCAC
2L) and National MCLs >,,,
Chemical of Performance Standard From NCAC 2L Standards (µg/.L MCL (µg/L)
Concern 1993 OU #3 ROD/1994 OU ✓-, #3 ESD ,,~ ~ ~✓-
Performance Basis for At At tifne, 'Current '-?'Afoime At time Current
Standard Performance time
N,yr--~».:;_
NCAC ,,,,,.q/,,0' .. of last 5-MCL (no of•last ·, of th'¼
(µg/L) Standard oftheA 1"!" 2L RO~ , Year changes ?-5-Year
ROD~ ~✓-.,.~ 'f.!i ??·.,,#. from }Review ~ ~ ~Review ·, . ~,,,,, , p 2008)
-1993 -200&. '-2013 -1993 -2008 -2013
, .. -~ -~--
Pesticides ·-o/~ -~~ ~J&:-.: •. ,. :i.,., .
Aldrin 0.01 CLP ".?, '"Y.?'~ ---_:y:· ---
Contract -~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~"' Required ~ 1 :,, ,I', ,, ,y ,:,'/]? ~ !(>Io '•-'.,. }j
L/,;:r~ ~M--' ),,:, " , 'i.,,
alpha-BHC 0.01/@,, CLPI ',?,-0.02 ---'l'~ ------
1/ 1/¢/(~, Cont#;ct ~ # ~ l .z,z;if&, ~ -~ >Requtreo~· ,?
i&,;,;a,,,. ~(///. :M :;."ft ~F /2:.fJ ~lt10. 1/,,, ;;y
beta-BHC 7, 0. 01 .. ,,,,✓c ', ·,, CLP~ --- ---0.02 ----::1' . :·-, ;,; ::, ~-... ,, . Contrac~ .. .,.1/_J~ "/#, " '¼'¥' ''~. '-,~ ~Required'·
'7,?'fl, ~-½ ,, , .1/: iQL
delta-BHC ro101 l'GLP ------0.02 ---
'"{%:: ~( -!~~-. {Contract ·,.~ Required ~ QL
gamma-BHC 0.0265"° NCWQS 0.0265 0.2 0.03 0.2 0.2
(Lindane) for
Groundwate
r
Chlordane 0.027 NCWQS 0.027 0.1 0.1 2 2
for
Groundwate
r
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Dasanit
(Fensulfothion)
1,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane
Dieldrin
Disyston
(Disulfoton)
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDT
Endrin
Guthion
(Azinphos
methvl)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
0.8
0.025
0.02
0.7
0.02
0.02
0.02
CLP
Estimated
QL
CLP
Estimated
QL
CLP
Contract
Required
QL
CLP
Estimated
QL
CLP
Contract
Required
QL
CLP
0.076 "''ffP NC WQS
for
Groundwate
r
0.038 NCWQS
for
Groundwate
r
6
0.025 0.04
0.0022 0.002
2
2. I" 2
0.076 0.0078 0.008
0.038 0.0038 0.004
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
0.2 0.2
2 2
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Malathion
Sevin ( carbaryl)
Toxaphene
I.I
10
0.031
CLP
Estimated
QL
CLP
Estimated
QL
NCWQS
for
Groundwate
r
Volatile Organic Compounds
Carbon Disulfide I CLP
Contract
Required QL
Carbon
Tetrachloride
1,2-
Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1-
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
0.3
0.38
29
0.7
2.8 "
NC WQS for
Groundwater
Semivolatile'Q"fg,nic Compouff'."1fa ''ff'
2 4-Y 7i ,5 "€LP '. 'J; ~ ;,p1; D1methylphenol tt,,,, Gontract ,,,,,~ '1//,'.'
'''.':ti... {Required QL
2-5 ''WiJ:--r,ft 'CLP %!~-Methylnaphthalene -'' · Contract
Naphthalene 5
1,2,4-70
Trichlorobenzene
lnorganics/Metals
Antimony 6
Required QL
CLP
Contract
Required QL
MCL
MCL
7
0.031 0.031 0.03
3
530 500
140 100
14 30
21 6
70
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Si1c
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
3 3
5
5
700 700
' 5 5
1000 1000 1000
200 200 200
5 5
10000 10000
70 70 70
6 6
• a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Si1e
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
8
Barium 1000 MCL ---2000 700 1000 2000 2000
Beryllium 4 MCL --- ---4 4 4
Cadmium 5 MCL ---I. 75 2 5 5 5
Chromium 50 NC WQS for 50 50 10 100 100
Groundwater
Copper 1000 NC WQS for 1000 1000 1000 1300"" 1300##
Groundwater
Iron 300 NC WQS for 3000 300 30~ • ---300*
Groundwater ~ ~1'. ,,.,,,
Lead 15 EPA Action ---15 IS~ 15"" 15##
Level ~ ~-,
OSWER ij ~ <I " ' Cleanup ~, ',,, ~~ ~ Level gf' 1ii& t,,
Manganese 50 SMCL A ~so '•, ,.50 50 •, z. 50* ---"?..9.i,w/ ?,,o,
Nickel 100 MCL ,, «:foo ~100 100 _Y1',J' ---'u,,'.fi'_,_ / ~--.;,. //
Silver 50 MCL ---17:5~.i 20 ., 50 100* 100*
Zinc 5000 SMCL '/h, . ---1050·• JOOO 5000 5000 5000*
Shading: Brown= Newly established 2L standarch~Green = lncrease'Jifr,2L standard compared to the ROD
. . . W#i~ . : .. ef' cntena /Rose= Decrease m 2L standard comoarei:hoJ.tbe,ROD cntena ~df
µg/L -micrograms per liter or parts per billion (pp_\J) "~ .. ffP'
CLP Contract Required QL -Contract Laboratory J/rogr,~m Confffs!},R'equired Quantitation Limit
CLP Estimated QL -Contract_ifaoo'.'@19IY Pro6,ram qfniract Estim,aied Quantitation Limit
MCL -National Drinking )Yffor Regul~fo:m •✓,,,:,,. ~-
SMCL -Secondary National\!;?_rj_nking W,ater Regulatioffa.,x?
NI A -Not applicable --~ A ~--1/~/,,,, . .?
NC WQS for Grqg!!£!.~:~1!efa,;;;: NortnfGlr,olina'WatefJ,Qffality Standard for Groundwater
NCAC 2L -Norin Carcilina{Groundwaier,Standards (Title 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) ,&Y ,.~~ ·•.rq/,rll, 2L0202) Amended Effective Anni 1, 20B)?',,,,,,,J ,, .. ,,, Wfi!J y· -,., ~
7 2 1 1 P "'t"·, "d ~ . . . es 1c1 es ;W -~ '(fg
Updates to Nortli[€arolina,2L Groundwater Standards
As indicated above'Zff}]ablif-9, North Carolina raised the groundwater standards for nine
pesticide COCs inclua\vf:' alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, delta-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane),
chlordane, 4-4'-DDDA-4'-DDT, endrin, and endrin ketone. North Carolina lowered the
standards for five pesticide COCs including: dieldrin, disulfoton, heptachlor, heptachlor
epoxide, and toxaphene .
EPA Established Regional Screening Levels
In 2008, the EPA harmonized different preliminary remedial goals (PRGs), which were available
from several different regional headquarters (not including Region 4) into a single set of
• " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
9
Regional Screening Levels. Several differences in methodology, including the use of more recent
toxicity values, resulted in higher numbers than previous PRGs.2
For six of the pesticide COCs where there is no established MCL, there is an EPA Regional
Screening Level (RSL) for Tap Water. These screening levels are normally more conservative
than an MCL, and are not promulgated cleanup standards, but can be used as initial cleanup
goals when applicable.3 In all six cases, the RSL from the November 2012 RSL table was higher
than the curre f. d d f. APDS 4 nt per onnance stan ar or
APDS RSL fo[$,Tap
performance ff;~/Q/,. Water:(µg/L')
standard ( u g/L) A,
4,4'-DDE 0.02 ,, t0'~2 ·,,
4,4'-DDD 0.02 . (0.2 -,~
h, .,, .• ,
4,4'-DDT 0.02 . ,/.,1//q,, . o·:2 ··~ ~-
Guthion I L 43 '~Jb ., . ~'
Malathion I.I .f'W .. -~, 300 ✓,,,,,,,,,, . ·~
Sevin 10 -,~
~A f1'400·· ('
., • "" ~ Toxicological Profile/Other Regulatory;,Updates '~
. ~ ~ Guth10n . . \ • 'f7.. 'Y. . . . The Agency for Toxic Substance and D1seases,;Reg1stry((-'.%]SDJ~) released its first tox1colog1cal
profile for guthion in 2008.,The A TSDR deri~d afPa:cute-dff'fiilion oral minimal risk level ~~✓-o/,"/r' :,7p (MRL) of0.01 mg/kg/dayfiin'intehnediate-duration MRL of;0.003 mg/kg/day, and a chronic-
d . RL f0 003~ g/kg/d·-~'T1.. TSDR-~d-d d . I "" d 5 urat10n M o . .,,,.~~-ay§?J ue A . .Jz.. not en_ve an ora reierence ose .
At the tJme of the last fiv~year review, guth10n was;s!Jll registered for use on apples,
bl b . h . "<-13//4,, d f%.. I ~006 T{f}ff'EPA Offi f P . .d P d . d ue emes, c emes, pars ey;1an ,pears" n L. , 11e ice o estJc1 e rograms enve .,,,i'///,~ ..,,,,~(//~/. ,,.,.. 6 an acute dietary;dose.of 0.0033Jmg!kg/day,andfafchronic dietary dose of 0.00149 mg/kg/day . . $;',/-@"(//✓///#/w -~,,./, • ·•ao-/-9Y • • . • On February·20, 2008~he EPApubhshed a rule cancelling the remammg uses of guth1on
. ,,{"// ·•¼'////~ ··~;:w.. . . effec!Jv_ ei_September 201,2'.i?'An Augusty201_ 2 amendment gave 6,rowers an add1t10nal year to phase ///",(fl, 7 .,✓,..,.,.:%~ .,,,'//%,'?--//
out gu'tlii6_ n. · ~ WW· ,,,.,..,w,-,;,r,m W · ~-,~ / ,¥$,, ~
''o/@?, @! 2 DTSC (2012). http://www.dtsc.ca,gov/AssessingRisk/upload/HHRA-Note-3.pdf
3 EPA (2012). Risk-Based,Screening,Table FAQ. Accessed April 21", 2013 from ·,w,,,v,.~ ,,.~,,
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/iisk/human/rb-concentration table/fag.htm#FAQ3.
Y/////."'/ th 4 EPA (2012). Regional Screening Levels. Accessed April 17 , 2013 from w· http://www.epa.gov/regiori9/superfund/prg/ .
5 ATSDR (2008). Toxicological Profile for Guthion. Atlanta, Ga.: Dept. of Health and Human Services. Accessed April
16", 2013 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1037&tid=207
6 EPA (July 31, 2006). Finalization of Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and Interim Tolerance
Reassessment and Risk Management Decisions for the organophosphate Pesticides, and Completion of the
Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration Eligibility Process for the Organophosphate Pesticides. Accessed April
lih, 2013 from http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/REDs/azinphosmethyl ired.pd[ .
7 EPA (Aug 30, 2012). Pesticide News Story: Azinphos-Methyl Uses Cancellation September 30, 2012; Use of
Existing Stocks Allowed through September 2013. Accessed April 17'h, 2013 at
http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/cb/csb page/updates/2012/azinphos-methyl.html .
• • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
10
7 .2.1.2 Volatiles
Updated to North Carolina 2L groundwater standards
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 20 13
As indicated above in Table 9, North Carolina raised the groundwater standards for five volatile
COCs including: carbon disulfide8, 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, ethylbenzene, and
total xylenes. North Carolina lowered the standards for one volatile COC, toluene .
~-Updates in IRIS ,I . •.
Three volatile COCs have been updated in IRIS since the last 5-yea'treview. IRIS information
and risk levels are further discussed below for tetrachloroethent(tri°thffiroethene, and carbon
tetrachloride. ,4f, -~ ·,
~, ,,, ~.,
Tetrachloroethene ,4/:' -c.'~ .
During the 2013 revisions of the NC 2L standards,,North Carolina did not chang~he.standard /, ,,,,,,,,f{P -~ y·
for tetrachloroeth~ne. However, in 2012, the EPA did•~~icolggic:~.I review of. ;,r" .
tetrachloroethene. The EPA revised the RID from 0.01 to;0.006 mg/kg/day. Th1s·1s eqmvalent to 'W a drinking water concentration of210 µg/L. • -~ . ~, . Previously, a slope factor was not availableJfo1tetrachloroethenei{{Eh~✓,newly established oral
I " . 0 0021 g/k d Th d0
"· .k,,,:=,,. ·-w,w-'fi . k 1 1 s ope ,actor 1s . perm g-ay. e nn mg;,water concentrat10ns at spec1 1c ns eve s .,,, .,,~ 7
are: ,. ,.,{%.'¥,'
Risk Level Lower,Bound on C<illcentration Estimate
~4. 'W, :p
E-4 (I in I 0,000) 4'2000 µ~Jt· \. ;r,
E-5 (I in 100,000) /~200 µg/~ '\ .
. ,, 1/'f'~,,,,. ~ ~z?.l
E-6 (Im 1,000,000) 2QJµ,g/~~,~.iii;; :"ft •·A w~~-,,,,d"
. /~~---,. ~~
Tnchloro_ ethylene -,,;D ~;, ✓,
,,-p//.-: fm".%, ~✓• /,,r,:, th I 0 The,)Rl§fJ;.Jtry for trichlorq,~!,llene watfpoated on September 28 , 2011. There had not
previously,oeen an RfD for 'F,<?E; the,.EPA established an RfD of 0.0005 mg/kg/day, and -✓~:"·. • .. ,,,,.,,*-' established adirst time slope factor for trichloroethylene of 0.046. The slope factor-based
d . k' -~-. ~ d'f"' . k 1 I 1· db 1 nn mg water concentrat1on~at 1 ,erent ns eve s are 1ste e ow: -~ ff% Risk Level -~ Low~r Bound on Concentration Estimate
~,/;%/ E-4 ( I in I 0,000) . •uf:50 µg/L
E-5 (I in 100,000) ' 5 µg/L
8 http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file ?u uid;336fb0ce-0786-4164-8729-
82c34506Sa18&groupld;38364
9 EPA (Feb. 11, 2013). IRIS listing for Tetrachloroethene. Accessed April I 7'h from
http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/Ol 06tr.pdf .
10 EPA (Sept. 28th, 2011). IRIS listing for trichloroethylene. Accessed April 17th, 2013 from
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0199.htm .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E-6 (I in 1,000,000) .5 µg/L
Carbon Tetrachloride
I I
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Five-Year Remedy Review
September 2013
In 2010, EPA updated the IRIS entry for carbon tetrachloride.11 EPA raised the RID from 0.0007
mg/kg/day to 0.004 mg/kg/day, and lowered the slope factor from 0.13 to 0.07. The slope factor-
based drinking water concentrations at different risk levels are listed below:
Risk Level Lower Bound on Concentration Estimate
50 µg/L
5 g/L ~-,,
.5µµg/L ~ .,
E-4 (I in I 0,000)
E-5 (I in 100,000)
E-6 (1 in 1.000,000) ✓-,
Toxicological Profile/Other Regulatory Updates ~ '
The ATSDR has released a new toxicological pro~fil✓e fre,ofthc volatild;¢i~s at the site,
ethyl benzene. gy' -~-'
~'-o/~. /, W& ,,,,~ -~
Ethylbenzene ' ' ~{;, _ ~
A new toxicological profile was released for ethylbenze~in.Sfpte(nbcr of 20 I 0.12 The A TSDR
derived an intermediate-duration oral M,~L of OA mgikg!<lf',Ihe EPA oral reference dose,
which has not changed smce 1991, 1s O. lfmg.ikgiday. -~;P,.,
~--~-?f/~. ~,, ¾ .,,_ ~
7.2.1.3 Semivolatiles ·-'t ~*" ,, r
-~i-, "1wr? 1• Updated to North Carolina 2~roundwater standards .f" //1{,:' ,,,;'&: w, As indicated above in3Table 9, North Carolina raised the groundwater standards for three semi-
/,/,,.~ 'W!' ·~ volatile COCs including:~2,4-dimetliylphenol, 2-methylnaphthalene. and naphthalene . -~~ ~ 'z ✓w . . . ·•,.,,#'~-,-,, .. w· Established Reg10nal Screenmg Levels~)¾'.(~ . ${~¼ -u,7/~, ,,./4:·-~ . , /47' In cases m,wnicli there1was no North Carolma standard, federal MCLs were used as the standard Q,{/ ··&}-/~ -,,,.-~,w-for the,,site. For two oftheisemivolatil~,COCs. an EPA Regional Screening Level (RSL) for Tap
.,(£0%,, . ·~(1;,. -~-, . . Waterw3§1avmlable where,tliere was no•cstabhshed MCL. These screenmg levels are normally
-,~ ',W//2', ;z/ more consei;,vative than an MGL, and,are not promulgated cleanup standards, but can be used as
-~ W:'" 13 initial cleanup/goals when ap]'.\licable. In both cases, the RSL from the current table, last
. .,;./_//4-. ;.,;t;z • 14 updated m November 2012, was higher than the current performance standard for APDS .
-~-'jtl &, I I -~ I APDS I RSL for Tap-I
11 EPA (April 1", 2010). IRIS listing for carbon tetrachloride. Accessed April 17th, 2013 from
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0020.htm
12 ATSDR (2010). Toxicological Profile for Ethylbenzene. Atlanta, Ga.: Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Accessed April 17',, 2013 from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tpl10.pdf
13 EPA (2012). Risk-Based Screening Table FAQ. Accessed April 21st, 2013 from
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration table/fag.htm#FAQ3.
14 EPA (2012). Regional Screening Levels. Accessed April 17'", 2013 from
http:l/www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/prg/ .
• • • = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
12
performance
standard (11g/L)
2,4-Dimethylphenol 5
2-Methylnapthalene 5
Toxicological Profile/Other Regulatory Updates
Water
270
27
Aberdeen Pesticide Dump CERCLA Site
Second Fivc-Y car Remedy Review
September 20 13
The ATSDR has released a new toxicological profile for one of the semivolatile COCs at the
site, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene . >,,,,
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ,4, . ·
A TSDR released the Toxicological Profile for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenz~:fuin September 2010.
ATSDR derived an Intermediate-duration oral exposure MRl.f:-8f O. i""i'1fg!kg/day. The chronic
-~ -;,{(w✓ duration oral exposure MRL of 0.1 mg/kg/day. The IRIS RID ~as last up.gated November 1,
1996, and is 0.01 mg/kg/day. _,,0,,,,_ ·· ,, 4· ,, . /2
~ 'i -~
7.2.1.4 Metals ' ,-.... .'fl' ~ Updated to North Carolina 2L ground,)\'ater standards '
As indicated above in Table 9, North Ca~1pa-.Iowered the groi'iftdwater standards for five metal
Coe . 1 d' b . d . hr w.~.l d . ~ , . s me u mg: anum, ca mmm, c 01mum,,s1 ver, an zmc. ~ ·i ---~ ?
Toxicological Profile/Other Regulatory U~,11te~t.;t·
A toxicological profile updatefwas released for't'oi4 metal CO<ilat the site, cadmium . IP"'~ '~ (' .tr ~ ~-Cadmium ,,,.i'&. · -~ ti _
In October of 2012, the EBAupdatcil the toxicologicafprofile for cadmium and established
MRLs for the first time. T~esta'b!i§li'edian.intemfediate duration oral MRL of0.5 µg/kg/day
and a chronicidtffitiion,MRL ~6'?-1 µg/k .. ,,~d~y1-Wfhe IRIS listing for cadmium has not been
~/1--····•-,'/,0{////.jf{(~•. -~~ E,I updated since 1994; tne'iRfD for ca"dmium in water matched the ATSDR's intermediate duration /,1//✓ "(%$ ·-'/"0;: oral MRL. 16 /;/,t\ •'l{~;,-J
✓-✓-·_,If£"'· . -~:, '%-, '•,0_;~_-, ff-',:j .~ ~ .,.4,,., ~ ✓-~ {-% . <:0-, ~
·. :/24-) Yr ··:*~/1
15 ATSDR (2012). Toxicological Profile for Cadmium, Accessed April 23, 2013 from
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp5-c2.pdf .
16 IRIS listing for cadmium, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0141.htm .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
7.2.2 Changes in Exposure Pathways, Toxicity, and Other Contaminant
Characteristics
The exposure assumptions used to develop the Human Health Risk Assessment included both
current exposures ( older child trespasser, adult trespasser) and potential future exposures (young
and older future child resident, future adult resident and future adult worker). The exposure
assumptions for the three OU #3 Areas remain the same. The following exposure pathways were
identified for the aqueous media present at or near the Site (groundwater and surface water):
A • Ingestion of groundwater or surface water used as drinking water; '';
• Incidental ingestion of surface water while swimming; A
• Dermal contact with groundwater or surface water during ho~hold use or summer ~ ,~ activities; and f;!I) "%,,, ~
• Inhalation of volatilized chemicals from grounqwa~;-wJ-iile showefi\fg1 w -~
Of h . I d h d" d;d . ,, d h"A. . . t ese scenanos eva uate , t e !feet contact an Jmgest1on groun water pat ways,are
. • . ,ft'". ''/.ef'.:·,~.. . W,,., . ';)Y/4, mcomplete and hypothettcal as the underlymg grouno'-%~r 1s n9-trc9,_rrently bemg ysed as a
source of potable water. ~L ·
'>,., "-· Changes in the toxicity factors for the COG.~)hat were used in'tJi'.~,1baseline risk assessment were
d .b d b Th . ·=-{c:,, d b ·=-d bl . escn e a ove. ese assumpt10ns are cons1uere to e conservattve;an reasona e m
• , • • V/:::,, ·•,-'//4tff.{f¼-h. ·wgp17 • evaluatmg nsk and developmg nsk-based cleanup,]e¼els. No change:to these assumpt10ns or the
d I I I d I d f 'l'h' .,d,~'", . h'' h 1993 OU #3 ROD groun water c eanup eve s eve ope rom t em an ,were,set. wit mt e as . . -~ /,/4' .,.,~!«(??" . . modified by the 1994 ESD,;1~_,warranted. Thereihas•been no cliange to the standardized nsk _,. ~;,-:-, ZZ?'/ . ff. . assessment methodolo.?~tliat CO!;_!Jt~ffect the prC?tect1veness-ofthe remedy. The remedy 1s
progressmg as expecteafand remail;¾ protective ofiall receptors . ,,.,,,. ~ -~~ ' ' ~ ~ . -,,~:,,, ,,,,J" . .
7.3 QueJJJ/i:!JJJ}di;!~s a.a~other,Hn.fgrmat,on come to ltght that could
cal/ltnto question therprotect,veness of the remedy?
,;ff --~. '"'~-. . . . . . . There;have been no substanttal chang~~Jm'S1te cond1t10ns dunng the remedy review penod that
'l'''~jj; -.-~ '[{//4' coulo pose]increased risk to,p&tential ecological receptors. The Site has not been affected by
I d. --~--d . h ~:i:: d ,,. . . d Add. . II h h b b . I natura 1sasters unng t e reme y review peno . 11tona y, t ere ave een no su stant1a
h . .--~-d. . ( ~ . h . I c anges m s1te,con 1t10ns e.g.~ contammant types, exposure pat ways, potentta receptors,
d I ·=,,. . u-, ) h Id d h . "bl . I eve opment, vegetative cover. etc. t at cou ren er t e site more suscept1 e to potentta '/.ft'-@'.'· ~ , natural disaster relatedlimP,acts ( e.g., flooding, erosion, fire, wind damage) . ·y·
The institutional controls called for in the ROD Amendment are in place. The PRPs continue to
monitor and ensure that institutional controls are in place and properly executed on the site
properties. Additionally, local drinking water is provided by the City of Aberdeen. Off-site, the
PRPs work with the City of Aberdeen and Moore County to provide protection through the
wellhead protection program, county permit process, review of City water records to verify no
new wells have been installed, and completion of an independent survey and verification
process. The PRPs are developing an Institution Control Plan consistent and in conjunction with
other area sites and will include institutional control verification elements. There is no other
information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy .
• • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
7.3.1 Technical Assessment Summary
According to the data reviewed, the site inspection, and the interviews, the remedy is functioning
as intended by the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and ROD Amendment. There have been no
changes in the physical conditions of the site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy .
Table IO presents the changes in the soil and groundwater toxicity factors for the COCs since the
September 2003 ROD amendment. Changes in the toxicity factors for the COCs that were used
in the baseline risk assessment do not adversely impact the remedy, angjthere has been no /✓@'.;@-change to the standardized risk assessment methodology that could affect the protectiveness of
the remedy. A
. .
Table IO -Soil and Groundwater Toxicity Factor Changes SinceiROD Amendment
(September 2003) · .A. '\ ··,,
Compound Date of Change Original Oral RrD New Oral RrD Comment
2-methvlnaphthalene 12/22/2003 &. 4.0E-03 mg/kg-day --~--j• 1'°". ~~·-lnsuffiCie'I1t data for
I, I, I-Trichloroethane 9/28/2007 ' W/ chroni_c'oral RrD; only " .{).
sub-chronic available
Barium 7/11/2005 7.0E-02 mQ/kQ-dav 2'0E?01 mQ/kg-dav
Carbon tetrachloride 4/1/2010 7.0E\04.mg/kg-day 4.0Ei03img/kg-dav
-~ ·w Discussion change only, Lead 7/8/2004 ~;,·-~,, ..,,/ no value change
Tetrachloroethene 2/11/2013 1.0E-02.mg!kg'.':'davm ~.6.0E-03 mg/kg-day
Toluene 9/23/2005 2.0E-0 ffing/kg(day .,, *8'0E,02'mg/kg-dav
T richloroethene 9/28/20hh.. %-AP 5.0E'04 me/kg-dav Recentlv established
Xylenes /2/21/2003~. 7.0E-02 mg/kg-day 2.0E-01 mg/kg-dav
~:. -~ '1%_ Oral R,D remained the
Zinc ,,½~1312005 I % same, but new studies ··,~@ .,I, ~' evaluated for derivation ·,,~/,', ~ .,/ho ,1/ . . "-'4.W,d:1/ .,.,.,W,WM h
. ./@'/4f.ai(;-,,-,,_ . ~--. '."~-. There 1s n9_.otner mforinat10n tlfat;calls mto question the protectiveness of the remedy. ~, "":?"ff~ 'o/,~ .Y• >4,i'~ •~ r// P,'~ ,~f,:: , 7.2._3,Changes in Risl(ffAssessment Methods --"-'{{ffe< ·wa '{@' ~--r. . There has,been no change to,;the standardized human health nsk assessment methodology that
could affe~ftife,r,rotectivenef°~fthe remedy. In 1997, EPA published the Ecological Risk
'#.·,;lo'~# W.-1 • . • Assessment Gmda:nce. If thefAPDS Site ecologtcal nsk assessment were to be conducted today
the evaluation w~ldiincluj.pgnificantly more detail than what was provided as part of the RI.
-,~
In 2004, to address concfms raised by EPA and the local community regarding potential impacts ,,
on surface water/sediments and fish, the PRPs collected samples to evaluate these media. In the
2004 forage fish monitoring campaign, the concentration of pesticide COCs in all forage fish
samples from Pages Lake were below screening levels (Groundwater, Surface Water, Sediment,
and Forage Fish Monitoring Report, Newfields, 2004). Based on the results of the 2004 forage
fish monitoring campaign, as well as completion of the source removal activities, additional
forage fish sampling was not warranted .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
8.0 ISSUES
The following table summarizes the issues identified during this second five-year review effort .
Currently Affects Affects Future
Issue Protectiveness Protectiveness
(YIN) (YIN)
,~% .
I ,~ ..
. , ~ w,' ./4 '%,,, ~ ,,(~ ,, '1».&,,
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND F91ZL:OW-UP AQljJ,f)NS
,# "'~ ~ '•,, ~ • .f
Th d . fu . . I d h' . . .. ~~ . ,.. . f !1%2'· e reme y 1s nct1onmg as p anne at t 1s time anuiremams r,rotective o receptors. -~1rrL~f!P"/«,,,_ p ~· ·~ 10.0 PROTECTIVENESS Sit:~TE_ MENT '
~/,, ·-~ The following is the Protective Statement for10llj#3. ~-· .,7 "'%~',:,, ~/
The remedy at the Aberdeen Pesticide Dump'Site QW,#3!isfprotective of human health and the ·12 ,.w .,,,,,;,£q({~ environment in the short term;jbecause all exp<faure pathway~;,tnat could result in unacceptable
. k b . 11 d&TEw,:,;~.. h ''i!"' Id Y.l . bl . k b . ns s are emg contro e . xposure pat ways taat cou resu t m unaccepta e ns s are emg
addressed through implfmentati;~f the natural ?ttenuation selected remedy. Institutional . ✓".: W:'@,.., -q#z '% .-. . . controls are m place m tli.$1$grm 0.142!:'venants on th9Jproperty deeds restnctmg ground water use
on all properties controlleatoy;theiRRPJGroup at the'time the OU #3 2003 ROD Amendment was ~ ... /M#"' ·,~.,..,..~~/,,.,. -«hv/.f:!:-,, issued that had(gfoimdwater detections of€0€s,above groundwater performance standards ~~--. 4'/4??':''f•'."-''.0"2✓• .,..,,,,..//ij. .,,.,,.,, which were'selected•inrthe I 993'·R0D as modified by the 1994 ESD .
;,;Z," --~-$\ -,,;;~,., ;ii,, -~ -~ Pages· I3ake .. is the primary receptor of groundwater flow from FCTS. The 2013 surface water
and sedirrim1'firesults contimNf:fo shoefimproved conditions compared to the previous sample .,,,,n;r._,,,, w~ data collectedtin,,.2004; as welhas, historical data collected in 1989/90 and in 2000. The 2013
I 'f h-,~-. ,.,wp I k h d ,. h . d fi h resu ts ven y t e,protect10n ,or ages a e, t e groun water receptor ,or t e site, an con mn t e
d. . %"'&, f a I 1 . d h d' . reme iat10n approac,~o source remova , natura attenuat10n, an p ytoreme iat10n protect
,. d d-,~~;,ff// L . f h d' 1 . ·11 b 'ti d sur,ace water an se 1ments. ong-term protectiveness o t e reme 1a action w1 even 1e
by the monitoring prog%m as described in the 2004 Performance Standards Verification Plan for
the Site .
The analysis of the 2013 groundwater monitoring results and historic results shows stable plumes
with slight decreasing trends in monitoring wells that are representative oflong-term post-
excavation conditions. Receptors are verified to be protected. At this time, the timeframe to
reach performance standards has uncertainties since down gradient site conditions have not yet
reached a post-remediation equilibrium reflecting the removal of the source and attenuation of
groundwater. As discussed in the review, although several wells within the immediate site area
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
are indicative of post-remediation conditions and have positive overall trends supporting a
successful site remedy, at this time, there is no technical basis to revise the remedial timeframes
estimated in the ROD. The proposed technical approach is to wait until the next review when the
majority if not all of the monitoring network will reflect long-term post-excavation conditions,
providing a larger dataset for evaluation. The surface water and sediment data continue to
indicate a positive remedial response, and the receptor is protected .
The phytoremediation trees are robust and thriving. During the 2013 !,'fOWing season the FCTS
phytoremediation system is expected to remove approximately 3.35 million gallons of water
from the ground. During the same time, approximately 0.71 million.~llftns,are expected to be
removed from the FX site area. Site results continue to indicate thluccess of the vegetative
d. . d d . . f ,%'.fZ!//4, d reme iat10n reme y components an support protecl!veness o ,tue reme y. ~ ,,
The institutional controls called for in the ROD Amendment,a~•in place~The PRPs continue to
monitor and ensure that institutional controls are in plactf;;-;J"properly exe.?'Gttcton the site
properties. Additionally, local drinking water is p.roviaed by the City of Abe;dggij_" Off-site, the ,//~ . .,,,,,. ·--o/~~ PRPs work with the City of Aberdeen and Moore·Coufity to provide protection through the ·..-,w.,,,.,, /.(//¼ W wellhead protection program, county permit process, review ofiCity·.water records1to verify no
II h b . II d d I . f . d-~,~d,,,. d .fi . new we s ave een msta e , an comp ellon o an m epen ent survey an ven 1cat10n
process. The PRPs are developing an lristitution Control PI1f~onsistent and in conjunction with
h . d ·11 . I d . . . =1-~-I "fi . -~l-ot er area sites an w1 me u e msl!tut10na ,contro ven 1cat10n,e ements. ·i;/,{... -~1/
i ·~ '?
11.0 NEXT REVIEW ~%. -ff~~"'
. ,~dze •i~ .. -~ .. The next five-year rev1ew:,for tne,APDS Superfund Site 1s reqmred w1thm five years of the :ff!!' --i-/~/~ -~ approval of this report~The third--five-year reviewtwill need to be completed in September 2018 . fa'/,.@%,, .'W,) ¾
0'_%7, '>% it / if4%:. @ ~ ·->¼>, ~-I,@,. ;,;-(;i;? ,,wdfl.~ -,, /~,,;~
--~;. .
~ .;: .pit·,_.,, •//h.' ;y-
/
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Appendix A
Figures
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure I. Site Location Map
Legend 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 -321-325 -326-330 -331-335 -336-345 Io 250 500 1.000 ,.500 2 ~~et 1 Figure 4. Groundwater Potentiometric Contours for Farm Chemicalsffwin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
2013 Groundwater Potenliometric Surface
Bevation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
-371-375
-376-385
-386-395 I o--2-=50==500----,-ooe:::o===e:::,::::i~ee, I
Figure 5. Groundwater Potentiometric Contours for Fairway Six
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
.& Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites Sentinel Monitoring Wells
.A Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites Plume and Upgradient/Sidegradient Background Monitoring Wells
.& Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites Southern Boundary Monitoring Wells
C Phyto-Planting Area
~ Excavated Area
I --======---====---Feet I 0 250 500 1 000 1.500 2 000 _
Figure 6. Excavated Areas, Phyto-Plantings, and the Well Network at the Fann
Chemicals/Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
A Fairway Six Plume and Upgradient/Sidegradient Background Monitoring Wells
A Fairway Six Sentinel Monitoring Wells
Excavated Area
Phyto-Planting Area
I ---====------======Feet I 0 250 500 1,000 1 500 _
Figure 7. Excavated Areas, Phyto-Plantings, and the Well Network at the Fairway Six
• = • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Surface Water Figures
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
Q, Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations
Figure 8. Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Locations at Pages Lake
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
alpha-BHC, ug/L
.A Non-Detect
e <0.02 2L Standard
0 .02 -0.04
0.04 -0.08
• >0.08
alpha-BHC Trends in SWS (Upstream)
001
0008 •
~ • ~ 0006
: Ill
"0004 l .. 0002 t
o I ♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 2Dal 2010 2012
Year
alpha-BHC Trends in SW4
003
0025 • ..,
: 002
i. 0 015 .. ! 001
0005 •
0
2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2Dal 2010 2012
Ye1r
alpha-BHC Trends in SW3
004
0035
~ 003 •
"0025 v i 002 · •
_: 0015 a. ;; 0 01
0.005
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2Dal 2010 2012
Veer
alpha-BHC Trends in SW2
02
0.18
0 16
~ 014 • ♦
• 0 12 u'
i 01
• 008 l 006 , • . .
004
002 I
0
2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2Dal 2010 2012
Ye■r
alpha-BHC Trends in SWl
002
.., 0015 '.a .. • .;
0.01 ' : Ill i ,. 0005
0 ♦
2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2Dal 2010 2012
Ytar
Figure 9. Surface Water Results for Alpha BHC at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
• 2014
•
2014
•
2014
•
2014
•
2014
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
beta-BHC, ug/L
• Non-Detect
e <0.02 2L Standard
•· 0.02 -0.05
0.05 - 1
->1
beta-BHC Trends in SWS (Upstream)
003
0025 ..,
: 002 • ♦ .. ,-i 0015 •
~ j 0.01 r
0005
0
2000
006 • 0.05 ..,
'i:1 004 • .
'i,0.03 CD .. j 002
0.01
0
2000
006 •
0.05 ..,
:o.04
u i 0.03
4 j 0.02 I
0.01
0 •
2000
0.4
035
03
i o25
' 02 ! 0.15 J 01
005
0
•
•
2002 2004 2006 200B 2010 2012
Year
beta -BHC Trends in SW4
♦
2002 20()4 2006 200B 2010 2012
Year
beta-BHC Trends in SW3
♦
2002 2004 2006 200B 2010 2012
Ye-,r
beta-BHC Trends in SW2
•
•
2014
♦
2014
2014
+
2000 2002 2004 2006 20Cll 2010 2012 2014
Ye,r
beta-BHC Trends in SWl
005 •
0045
004
~ 0035 ♦
• 003
i orus •
,. 0.02 ·
_8 0015
001
0005
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Figure I 0. Surface Water Results for Beta BHC at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
delta-BHC, ug/L
• Non-Detect
e <0.02 2L Standard
4t 0.02-0.05
0 .05 - 0.08
->0.08
delta-BHC Trends in SWS (Upstream)
003
0025 I ...
: 002 l • .., i O 015 •
" • 001 '--8 I
0005 • I
0 ...
2000 2002 200d 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
delta-BHC Trends in SW4
005 r
0045 ♦
004 I
~ 0035 ! ~ 003 l u i O 025 1
.; 002 i 0015 I •
001 •
0005 l
0 •
2000 2002 200d 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
delta-BHC Trends in SW3
006
0.05 • ♦ ... :004 •
,.; i 0.03
/,
"'i; 0.02 ..,
001 I
0
2000 2002 2()()1 2006 2008 2010 2012
Yeu
delta-BHC Trends in SW2
0.4
0.35 ♦
03 ...
: 025
,J :z: 0.2 • ..
: 0.15 II ,,
0 1 •
0.05 · ♦
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
delta-BHC Trends in SWl
005
0045
004 •
~ 0.035 ♦ . 003 • v· i 0.025 •
/, 002 "" " .., 0.015 •
001
0005
0
2000 2002 200d 2006 2008 2010 2012
Veer
Figure 11. Surface Water Results for Delta BHC at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
♦
2014
♦
2014
♦
2014
♦
2014
♦
2014
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
Total BHC, ug/L
.A Non-Detect • -· •
<0.02 2L Standard BHC isomers technical grade
0.02 -0.05
0.05 - 0.1
• 0.1 -0.25
• >0.25
Total BHC Trends in SWS (Upstream)
006
005
'ti 004 j i 003
i O 02 --. ..
001 ·
o I
♦
♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 20(8 2010 2012 2014
02
0 18
016
~ o 14 I
• 0 12 ♦ ,.; Ii 01
-008 j 0.06 I
004 1 002
0
Total BHC Trends in SW4
♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 20(8 2010 2012 2014
02
0 18 •
0 16 I
~ 014 ♦
~ 0.12
S O l ·
-008 j 006 I
004 ,
002 •
0 •
Year
Total BHC Trends in SW3
•
♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 20(8 2010 2012 2014
Veer
Total BHC Trends in SW2
09
08 ♦
~ 07
• 0.6 ,.; i 0.5
i 04 t
~~-.
02 ♦
01
0 I
2000 2002 2004 2006 20(8 2010 2012 2014
Year
Total BHC Trends in SWl
0 l ♦
..,, 008
~
"., 006 ♦ ~ ♦
~ 004 .. 0 .. 002
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 20(8 2010 2012 2014
Year
Figure 12. Surface Water Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
~
• 140 i a 120
l 100 e 1 80
a 60 j 40
N 20
"
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
in Groundwater, 2SWMS03
•
♦
f
0 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ • ♦
1998 2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
250 500
Legend
-$-Groundwater Well
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane, ug/L
.A Non-Detect
e <0.04 2L Standard
• 0.04-0.1
-0.1 -0.5
• >0.5
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
~ in SWS (Upstream)
i 002
a l 0015 -e ! 001
~ 0005 •
•oe 0 I ♦
:) 2000 2002
♦
2()()4 2006
Year
2008 2010 2012
♦
2014
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
i inSW4
i 001 a e 0008 a. .i 0006 • t
ii\ 0004
J 0002 I
N o ♦
♦
♦
-' 2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
i inSW3
a 02 i l o 15 e
JI i 01
i 005 I rt O ♦
♦
♦
,. 2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
inSW2
.., 0 8
: 07
i 0 6 a o 5 t o 4 i 03
i 02
ii\ 0 1 ~ 0 • .. 1 2000 0 :l
2002
♦
2()()4 2006 2008 2010 2012
1,2-0ibromo-3-chloropropane Trends
i in SWl
i 04 a 035 l o 3 j O 25
~ o 2 I b O 15 •
! 01 ' I 005
N o ♦ ♦ ♦
2014
-' 2000 2002 2()()4 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Figure 13. Surface Water Results for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
Barium, ug/L
.& Non-Detect
e <700 2L Standard
-· 700-800
-800-900
• >900
1000
900
800
-' 700
: 600
Barium Trends in SWS (Upstream)
e soo i
~ 400
I 300 I
200
100 l
0 •
-+
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20U 2014
Year
Barium Trends in SW4
20 ♦
16
-' 14 , :12
! 10 • -! B •
I 6
2
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20U 2014
20
18
16
_. 14 :12 .
! 10 I
,! B
I 6
4
2 I
0
Barium Trends in SW3
♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
YNr
20
1B I
16 I
_, 14 ll :12
Barium Trends in SW2
♦
♦
! 10 +----------------! B
I 6 j
: I
o I
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 20U 2014
Veer
20
1B
16
-' 14
: 12
i 10
~ 8 I 6
2 •
0
2002
...LJj
Barium Trends in SWl
♦
♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Figure 14. Surface Water Results for Barium at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
Copper, ug/L
• Non-Detect
e <7 (28 Standard = 7)
7 -1000 (2 L Standard = 1000)
• >1 000
Copper Trends in SWS {Upstream)
10
9 '
8
... 7
: 6 ,: s ' I 4
8 3
2 '
1
0
2002
005
0045 •
004
__. 0035
: 003
10025
0 02
8 0015
0 01 •
0 005
0
2002
25
... ',;a ., 2 !
.._ .. 1 S I I 8 1
0 5 I
0 '
2002
25
... ',;a 2 .
.: 1 S l 8 1
OS
0
2002
0 4
0 35 f
o 3 I ~ 0 25 , . .: o 2 I
j O IS I
0 1
0 OS I
0 I
2002
..
• 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Copper Trends in SW4
♦ ♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Copper Trends in SW3
♦
♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Y~ar
Copper Trends in SW2
♦
♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Copper Trends in SWl
♦ ♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
Figure 15. Surface Water Results for Copper at Farm Chemicals I Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
0 250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
Iron, ug/L
A Non-Detect
e <300 (2L Standard = 300)
•· 300-1000 (28 Standard= 1000)
1000 -5000
• >5000
14000
12000
10000
i 8000
• 6000 _g
4000
Iron Trends in SWS (Upstream)
2000 ♦
0
♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Iron Trends in SW4
2000
1800 ♦
1600 '
1400 ·
~ 1200
·-1000 · . _g 800
600
400
200
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
v,a,
1600
1400
1200
~ 1000
·-800
_g 600 •
400
200
0
Iron Trends in SW3
•
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Veer
Iron Trends in SW2
2500 •
2000
i 1500 .
_g 1000
500
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Year
1400
1200
~ 1000
~ 800 ,;
_g 600
400
200
0
Iron Trends in SWl
♦
♦
2014
•
2014
♦
2014
♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Figure 16. Surface Water Results for Iron at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results
Manganese, ug/L
.& Non-Detect • <50 2L Standard
50 -100
100-1000 • >1000
Manganese Trends in SWS (Upstream)
2000
1800
_, 1600
'.i 1400 .
.,-1200 i 1000
I:\ 800 i 600
400
200
0 •
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Manganese Trends in SW4
40
35 •
~ 30
: 25 i 20 t 15
f 10
5
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Manganese Trends in SW3
• 14
_, 12
: 10 I
{ 8 . I:\ 6 . ! •
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Veer
Manganese Trends in SW2
40 • 35
... 30
: 25 >
i 20 . t IS
f 10
s
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Manganese Trends in SWl
14 ,
12 ~ 10 • •
i 8 •
I:\ 6 . f 4
2 .
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
v .. ,
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
Figure 17. Surface Water Results for Manganese at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
•
2014
♦
2014
•
2014
•
2014
•
2014
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Zinc Trends in SWS (Upstream)
100
90
80 • 70 -ri 60
:r S0 I t 40
30
20
10
0 ♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Y•ar
Zinc Trends in SW4
10
9
8
7 • -ta 6
" 5 i 4 N
3
I I
0 ♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Y•ar
Zinc Trends in SW3
04 -
0 35
0 3 •
-ta O 25
" 0 2
1 015 1
01
0.05
0 , . ♦
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Y•ar
Zinc Trends in SW2
10
9 I
8 •. •
7
-ta 6 ♦
". 5 ! 4
3
I
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
250 500
Zinc Trends in SWl
Legend 0 4
0 35
03
2013 Pages Lake Surface Water Results ~ 025
•• 0 2
Zinc, ug/L ! 015
0 I • Non-Detect 0 OS
0 • • 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 • <50 (28 Standard = 50) Year •· 50 -1000 (2L Standard = 1000)
> 1000
Figure 18. Surface Water Results for Zinc at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sediment Figures
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lab Sediment Results
alpha-BHC, ug/kg
• • Non-Detect
<6 EPA R3 Standard
6-7
>7
100
90 '
80
i :
,J !>O i ~ 40 t 30
20
10
0 ♦
2000
800
700 ♦
.:, 600 :soo
i 400 ! 300
• 200
100
0
2000
1800
1600
1400 i 1200
V 1000
i 800 ! 600 •
400
200
0
1985
7000
6000
.:, !>000
~ • 4000 u
i 3000 t 2000
1000
0
1985
----·
70
60
.:, 50
: 40 ,J ~ 30 Lo
10
0
1985
alpha-BHC Trends in SEOS
♦
2002 2()()1 2006 20(11 2010
Y~u
alpha-BHC Trends in SED4
♦
2002 200• 2006 2008 2010
Year
alpha-BHC Trends in SED3
♦
♦
♦
1990 1995 2000 200S
YHf
alpha-BHC Trends in SED2
•
♦
♦
1990 1995 2000 200S
Year
--
alpha-BHC Trends in SEDl
♦
♦ ♦
1990 19~ 2000 2005
Year
Figure 19. Sediment Results for Alpha BHC at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
♦
2012 2014
♦
2012 201•
♦
2010 2015
♦
2010 2015
♦
2010 2015
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Total BHC, ug/kg
.A Non-Detect
• <270 Residential Soil EPA
• >270
Total BHC Trends in SEDS
25
11 2 ;I •
~H
-a 1 s
OS
0 ♦
2000 2002 200• 2006 2008 2010 y,.,
Total BHC Trends in SED4
1100
1600 •
1400
~ 1200
~ 1000 •
iii 800
] s 600
400 I
200
0 • 2000 2002 200• 2006 2008 2010
Yu,
Total BHC Trends in SED3
sooo •
~•ooo
~ !000
i
! 2000 s
1000
0
• •
♦
2012 2014
• 201} 201'
•
191S 1990 199S 2000 200S 2010 201S
Total BHC Trends in SED2
12000
10000 •
~ 1000
~ 6000
2000 • 0 • •
198S 1990 199S 2000 200S 2010 201S
Total BHC Trends in SEDl
2SO
200
11
;I ISO
,J
iii -; 100
~
so
0 ♦
191S 1990 199S
•
•
2000 200S
Year
• 2010 201S
Figure 20. Sediment Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
4,4-000, ug/kg
A Non-Detect
• <4.88 EPA R3 Sta ndard
· · 4.88 -50
• >50
14
12
JI 10 :
§ 8
~ 6 ..
0
1998
120
100 ..
~ 80 . § 60 •
~ 40
20
O I
2000
3000
JI 2500
: 2000
§ 1500
'l ,. 1000
500
4,4-DDD Trends in SEDS
♦
• 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
v ...
4,4-DDD Trends in SED4
• 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
v .. ,
4,4-DDD Trends in SED3
•
•• 0 • •
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
4,4-00D Trends in SED2
•oo
350 ♦
300 ,
JI : 250 ,
§ 200 •
, 150 .,
100
50
1985
250
♦
1990 1995
♦
2000 2005
4,4-DDD Trends in SEDl
200 ♦
50
0
1985
•
1990 1995
♦
2000
v .. ,
2005
♦
2010 2015
• 2010 2015
Figure 21. Sedi ment Results for 4,4' DOD at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
4,4-DDE Trends in SEDS
•
~·
~l
~2
l I
0 • 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yu,
4,4-DDE Trends in SED4
40
lS ♦
l0
~ 25
~ 20
~ 15 ..
10
s '
0 ♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
4,4-DDE Trends in SE03
60 • so '
~•o .
~ lO
:-20
10 • 0 •• 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Yu,
4,4-0DE Trends in SED2
'10
9
JI 7
;I 6
~ 5
. 4 ~ ..
2 '
0 •• ♦ ♦
250 500 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Yu,
Legend 4,4-DDE Trends in SEDl
04
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results 0 lS
03
JI 4,4-DDE, ug/kg ;10 25
~ 0 2 • Non-Detect ~ 0 IS ..
0 I • <3.16 EPA R3 Standard 005
0 ♦ • • •· 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 3.16 -50 Year • >50
Figure 22. Sediment Results fo r 4,4'DDE at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
4,4-DDT, ug/kg
A Non-Detect
• <4.16 EPA R3 Standard
4.16 -30
• >30
100
90
so '
JI 70
: 60
~"' SQ I ~ 40 ' .. 30 •
20
10
0 • 2000
10
9
8
i : 8 5
' 4 ' ..
0 • 2000
40
35
30 J 25 g 20
,I_ 15 ..
10
0
1985
10
9
JI 7
'-1 6 .
~ : "-..
0
1985
04
0 35
03
~ 025 . g 02
, 0 15 ..
0 1
0 05
0
1985
4,4-0DT Trends in SEDS
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
4,4-DDT Trends in SED4
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Yu,
4,4-DDT Trends in SED3
•• ♦
1990 1995 2000 2005
Yu,
4,4-DDT Trends in SED2
•• ♦
1990 1995 2000 2005
't'ea,
4,4-DDT Trends in SEDl
♦ ♦
1990 1995 2000 2005
Yea,
Figure 23. Sediment Results for 4,4'DDT at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
• 2012 2014
♦
2012 2014
•
2010 2015
♦
2010 2015
♦
2010 2015
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Carbon Disulfide, ug/kg
A Non-Detect
• <0.851 EPA R3 Standa rd
• 0.851 -100
>100
100
90
JI 80
: 70 !. 60
• so
l! 40 ! 30
0 20
10
Carbon Disulfide Trends in SEDS
0 ♦ ♦ •
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
v .. ,
Carbon Disulfide Trends in SED4
so
•s •
0 • ♦-♦
2000 2002 2004 2006 2001 2010 2012 2014
80
70 •
~60
i so .
!j 40
l! • 30
J 3 20
10
0
198S
400
3SO I 300
f :: ' !
• 150 ! 100
so .
0
191S
04
0 3S
~ 03
• 0 2S I 02 ~ 0 IS
J 3 o,
OOS
v .. ,
Carbon Disulfide Trends in SED3
♦♦ ·• ♦ 1990 199S 2000 200S 2010
Carbon Disulfide Trends in SED2
•• 1990 1995 • 2000 • 200S 2010
Carbon Disulfide Trends in SEDl
o I ♦
♦
2015
•
201S
♦
198S 1990 1995 2000 200S 2010 2015
Figure 24. Sediment Results for Carbon Disulfide at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Cadmium, ug/kg
• Non-Detect
• <600 NOAA LEL Sta ndard
• 600-900
>900
Cadmium Trends in SEDS
100
90
10
JI 70
: 60
i so .. e •o ~ 30 •
20
10 •
0 • 2002 200• 2006 2001 2010
Yu,
Cadmium Trends in SED4
10
9
8
~ 7
• 6
i 5 .. e 4 ~ 3
0 • 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Year
Cadmium Trends in SED3
o•
0 35
03 JI ':a 025 .
i .. 0 2
~ 0 15
0 I
0 OS
0 • 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Yeo,
Cadmium Trends in SED2
1500
1•00
1200
JI
: 1000 •
i 800 .. e 600 ~
400
200
0 • 2002 2004 2006 zoos 2010
Vea,
-....................... .... --
Cadmium Trends in SED1
04
0 35
0 l i 025 ,-02 .. ! 0 15
0 I
0 05
0 ♦
zooz zoo• 2006 2008 2010 .. ,.,
Figure 25. Sediment Results fo r Cadmium at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
• ZOil 2014
• 2012 201•
• 2012 201,
•
ZOil 2014
♦
ZOIZ 2014
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Chromium Trends in SEDS
• : I •
• •
~35
! l J 2 S
! 2 e
i, 1: I
OS
0
2002 zoo• 2006 2008 ZOIO ZOIZ 2014
Yeot
Chromium Trends in SED4
ZS •
20
JI ~ ! IS
! .. I 10 • e
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 .. .,
Chromium Trends in SED3
•o
lS •
JI l0 • ) ZS • j 20
I IS
e 10 • •
0
1915 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Veer
Chromium Trends in SED2
100
90
80 •
JI 70 ',> • ! 60
! so ' .. ! 40 e • ~ 30
20
10 • 0
198S 1990 1995 2000 zoos 2010 2015 250 500 ....
Chromium Trends in SEDl Legend 20
18
16 2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results t 14 • • ! 12
Chromium, mg/kg ! 10
! 8 e • Non-Detect e s
• <26 NOAA LEL Standa rd 0
2002 2004 2006 zoos 2010 2012 2014 •· 26 -30
....
• >30
Figure 26. Sediment Results for Chromium at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Copper Trends in SEDS
3 5 •
3
~B e ♦
.., 2
l 1 5 8
05
0
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yu,
Copper Trends in SED4
20 •
( 15
e
1 10
8
•
0
2002 200-2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yu,
Copper Trends in SED3
100 • 90
80 •
JI 70
':a 50 e .: 50 l •o 8 30 ..
20
10
0 • ...
1985 1990 1995 zooo 2005 2010 2015
Yur
Copper Trends in SED2
70 •
60 I
f o
e •o I 30 t
8 20 •
10
0 ' •
0 250 500 1985 1990 1995 2000 zoos 2010 2015
Year
Legend Copper Trends in SEDl
30
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results 25
JI 20 •
Copper, mg/kg l .: 15
l • Non-Detect 8 10 ♦
• <16 NOAA LEL Standard 0 • 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 • 16 -20 Yu,
>20
Figure 27. Sediment Results for Copper at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Iron, mg/kg
A Non-Detect
• <20000 EPA R3 Standard •· -20000 -40000
40000 -60000
->60000
2000
1800
1600
1400 j
~1200
e_ 1000
_g 800
600 I
400
200 I
0
2002
12000
10000
JI 8000
~ f 6000
! 4000
2000
0
2002
30000
25000
JI 20000
~ e_ 1sooo e
-10000
sooo
0
2002
100000
80000
~ 60000
e. ! 40000
20000
0
2002
20000
16000
~ 12000
! 1 8000
4000
0
2002
Figure 28. Sediment Results for Iron at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
Iron Trends in SEDS
•
•
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
YcAr
Iron Trends in SED4
•
•
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
v .. ,
Iron Trends in SED3
•
♦
200• 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
v .. ,
Iron Trends in SED2
♦
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Yee,
Iron Trends in SEDl
•
•
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Lead Trends in SEDS
10
9 I
8 ♦
7 ♦ ~ 6
e 5 l 4
2 '
0
2002 200< 2006 20CI! 2010 2012 2014
v .. ,
Lead Trends in SED4
60
so ♦
.It 40
';;i e 30
j
!I 20
10 •
0
2002 2004 2006 20CI! 2010 2012 2014
Year
Lead Trends in SED3
50
45 ♦
40
35
{3o 1
e 25 • j 20 !I ♦ 15 I
10
0 ♦
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20l5
YHr
Lead Trends in SED2
100
90 ♦
80
70
~ 60
e_ so •
] 40 ♦
30 I
20 ' ♦
10
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 250 500 YN,
, -~ -------
Lead Trends in SEDl
Legend 40
♦ 35
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results 30
~ 25
Lead, mg/kg e 20 l 15 • Non-Detect 10
5 I -<31 NOAA LEL Standard 0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 20l5
Y~•r -· 31 -40
>40
Figure 29. Sediment Results for Lead at Farm Chemicals I Twin Sites
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Nickel, mg/kg
• Non-Detect
• <16 NOAA LEL Standard
16 -20
ft 20-25
->25
2 0
JI ~ ~ 10
Jj ... z
00
2002
100
80
~ 60 e
i 4 o I z
2 0 •
00
2002
300
25 0
JI 20 0
~ 11so I
.II Z 100 •
so
00
1985
800
700
600
~ 500
~ 400 ! 300 I
20 0
100
00
1985
60
so
~•o
~ 3 0
JI ... Z 2 O
I 0
00
1985
Figure 30. Sediment Results fo r Nickel at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
Nickel Trends in SEDS
•
♦
2004 l006 2008 2010 l012 2014
Yelf
Nickel Trends in SED4
♦
•
2004 2006 2008 2010 201l 2014
Yea,
Nickel Trends in SED3
•
•
+-•
1990 1995 1000 2005 1010 2015
v .. ,
Nickel Trends in SED2
•
•
• • 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Ye•r
Nickel Trends in SEDl
♦ •
• 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Yelf
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
250 500
Legend
2013 Pages Lake Sediment Results
Zinc, mg/kg
~ Non-Detect
-<1 20 NOAA LEL Standard
120 -400
->400
10
9
8
7
~ 6
! 5 •
i 4 '
3
2 '
0 .
2002
60
50
J 40 ·
':a
! 30
i 20
10 •
0 '
2002
300
250
J 200
',)
! 150 s 100
50
0
1985
5000 '
4000 ~ 3000 I
! 2000
1000
0
1985
70
60
50
:, ':a 40 ! ! 30 '
20
10
0
1985
Figure 31. Sediment Results for Z inc at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
Zinc Trends in SEDS
•
•
20()1 2006 2008 2010 IOU 2014
Ye•r
Zinc Trends in SED4
•
•
200' 2006 2008 2010 IOU 2014
Yeu
Zinc Trends in SED3
♦
•
..
• •
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
Zinc Trends in SED2
..
•
♦
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Veer
Zinc Trends in SEDl
♦
♦
♦
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Ye•,
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Groundwater Figures
Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites Plume Extent above Performance Standards
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336-345
I ---====-----======----Feet I
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 .
Figure 32. Current Extent of Groundwater Contamination for all COCs that Exceed
Performance Standards at Fann Chemicals I Twin Sites
FCTS 2013 alpha-8HC Groundwater, ppb A Non-Detect • <0.02 Perfomance Standard 0.02 • 1 _ 1-5 • >5 2013 GroundwaterPotentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 321 • 325 --326 -330 -331 .335 -336-345 I o 250 500 1 000 1 500 2 ~et 1 alpha-BHC Plume Mean Concen1rationa with 90% Confidence Interval 7 s I (X) "' "' H g-C: a. :a-!/) ... ,:, .e C) c., 4 ~ % a. 111(1 E ~ 8 t, I 11111it1 f 2l I t 1 .1000 2002 t t 2004 2006 Legend 2008 Upper 90¾ Confidence Interval • Mean alpha-8HC Corunua&,on Lower 90¾ Coi,f,dtnce Interval 2010 2012 alpha-BHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90'/• Confidence Interval 8 7 6 :.;-1 s c., % 111(1 .. i4 .. 3 2 0 ◄ ◄► • ◄ ◄► ◄• ◄► ◄► .. ◄► 0 f ◄► 0 ◄► ◄ ◄ 201..i ◄ 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201-4 0-Figure 33. Groundwater Results for Alpha BHC at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
FCTS 2013 beta-BHC Groundwater, ppb • Non-Detect • <0.02 Performance Standard 0.02 • 1 _ 1 • 5 • >5 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 321 . 325 326 · 330 1-331-335 -336-345 I,) 250 500 1 000 1 500 ,Feet] 2 000 8 7 6 I (I) a, ~ ~ 5 g' ... ;:: s Cl. en beta-8HC Plume Mean Concentrations with go•t. Confidence Interval Legend Vpptr~% CodKlem;e .,,erv~ • Mean belrBHC Concentr.l!Jon Lower 90' CodKMnee lnte,vaJ u .., I:: I t l t 1t t t t t t t t t t t E ... <r 0 en t O+----,---.--~--.--~-~--~---.------.----~--~-_,..--,--~ 1998 1959 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 35 30 25 ~ a. s ~ 2 0 Qi' .. $ ... 1 5 1 0 05 beta-8HC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval t t t 2014 00+--"""T"----,,--~---.---.----,.--.,......-"""T"--r--~-----.----,---,--~---, 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dete Figure 34. Groundwater Results for Beta BHC at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 delta-BHC Groundwater. ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.02 Performance Standard
0.02 -1
1 -5
• >5
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336-345
delta-8HC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90o/o Confidence Interval
12
Legend
lJJ)per 90,.. Confidence lnter,al
10 ♦ Mean delta-81-tC Concentr.ruon 00 a,
~ L-90~ Conf,denc• Inter.al
O> C
D 8 C Q. a. II) .e ~ u "' ::c .; a;, Q. .. E i 6 0 ... (.)
C
4 it tf ftt t 1 f t t t t t 2
0 +---,----.---r-----,.---..--,----r----,----.---r----..-------,--..----,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
delta-8HCMean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence lnterval
50
4 5
40
35
D ... .e 30
u ::c m ~ 25 ii ...
I o--2soc::=soo=----1•000====1=soo---•1-~et I 20
1 5 t 1 0
05
00 +---.---r---r----.-----.--......... ----,....---..------....----"""T""---..---,.---,---,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20 U
Date
Figure 35. Groundwater Results for Delta BHC at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 gamma-BHC Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.03 Performance Standard
0.03 -1
1 -2
• >2
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
326 -330
-331 -335
-336-345
gamma-8HC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
"
legtnd
Upper 90% Confidence lrrterval
co + ~lean g.1mma-8HC ConcenlratlOn
"' ~ Lowtt 90% Confidence lnltc'Val
J 0, C: ~ er,
u .,
~ .;
Q. a. 5 E u 0
~ 2
0
C: 0 .. .;; E 0
E -c( .. ;;
t
CII -5 .,
E .,
Q'.
0
(/)
t tt t t t j t
0 +-----~-~--....--~-----r------.--....--~--.-~-,---,-----,----,---,-----,
1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
gamma.SHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
1 0 •
0 9 -
0 8 ·
0 7 -
I 0--2-=so==soo=----•1 ooo-=====1=soo----~-~et I
0 J •
0 2 -
0 I • t t oo --~-~-----.-----------------'-~----.------------. 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
O.te
Figure 36. Groundwater Results for Gamma BHC {Lindane) at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
FCTS 2013 Total BHC Groundwater, ppb • Non-Detect • <0.02 (2013 NC 2L for technical BHC isomers. gamma 0.03) 0.02 • 1 _ 1. 5 • 5-10 • >10 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 321 • 325 326. 330 -331-335 '-336-345 ---===---~===~~-~~Fe~ 1000 0 250 500 1 000 1 500 22 20 18 16 ~ ~ Q) C) C -14 ~ ~ (/) Total BHC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidenc.e Interval Legenb Upper 90"'-Confidence Intern! ! I.tun Total BHC Concentrabon Lower 90, Confidence lnteNal .s -0 r:J i1111ittt t t f t t f E C, -H ~ 0 (/) 2 0 .... ----.---....-----.---.-----....---.---.---.....----.-----.----.------.-----.-----....---.----, 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 20U Total BHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wens with 90% Confidence Interval 16 14 12 D° a. 10 .e (.J X CD s 8 0 ... 6 I TI 1 I I I I I I I 4 ~ I I I I I I I I I I f 2 ' I I I I 4 0 +----.----r---ir----.-----.----r----.---.-----.----.-----.--.---,--......... ----,-----, 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ~i. Figure 37. Groundwater Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
FCTS2013T-IIHC~ ppb ·-· • c002 201JNC1l lartechniicalSf<IICf'I~ P'""'•0Oll
• ~OJ.'
• ,.s
• ,. ,o
• .>10
2013 ~ p--•-.c 5"rfac:e
-.ft MSl
l20
.121.m
-126-l.lO
-1.11-m
-336-:l<~
SOdium Sodium
600000 ----180000
160000 • 500000 • 140000 • • • 400000 120000
c! • ], 100000 • ~ 300000 t 200000 I 80000 • • • 60000 • 0 V, V,
40000 • 100000 • • 20000 ----■--• •• 0 a 0
1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013
Year Year
Total BHC TotalBHC
25 45
40 --.·· 20 35 --• • • • 30
11s ----1 2s •• --. • i 10 ~ ~ 20 • • ----• • • I ~ 15 ■---• • 1i • .---------
! • • ! 10 • ·-5 • 5 •
0 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year Year
1EX02 20<05
Sodium Sodium
900000 70000 ---
800000 ---• 60000
700000 • 50000 • 600000 .. • • 1 500000 • i 40000 • f 400000 • ·----e ::, 30000 -;: I :;; • ~ 300000 • 0 20000 --■ V,
200000 •--• ,# • 100000 10000 • .--• • • 0 --0
1998 2003 2008 2013 1998 2003 2008 2013
Year Year
Total BHC Total BHC
40 30 • .. 35 -----• 25 ,II■
30 • 20 • c! 25 ~ • • • .. •• ~ 20 •• ---<i 15 • • i 15 • • X • • • • • ~ 10 I 1i • • • • ,! 10 .. ,! • • 5 5 • • I • • 0 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year Year
Figure 38 -1. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and Total BHC at Farm Chemicals I Twin Sites
Sodium
400000
350000 •
300000 ..
c! 250000
~ 2obooo E "' i 150000 ... 0
v, 100000 • 50000 • • • • • ..... . 0 • --... 1998 2003 2008 2013
Year
Total BHC
50
45 • • 40 • 35 • • c! 30 ·-.. ~ 25 0 5 20 -1 15 • • • ,_ 10 • • 5 • • 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Year
IMWOOB
Sodium
80000
70000 • • 60000
50000 --c! .. = 40000 -----• e = • • :;; 30000
0 V, 20000 •--• • • 10000
0 •
1998 2003 2008 2013
Year
Total BHC
4
35 •·--------
3 •
c!2 5 = • ~ 2 • 0 • 5 1 5 .. --• ;. ·--! 1 • I • • 05 • • • • 0
1994 1999 2004 2009 2014
Yea,
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
FCTS 2013 T-IIHC ~. ppt, ·-• <O 02 (,013 Ni: 2l to, t~ OHC -,men lJ6f""ffl• 0 031
• 001-1
• 1-~
• ~-10
• >10
2013Grounow... Pt-.ecw,,..1c:Surtace
E1eYa11on, ft MSL
J20
)21 32!,
-)21;.)JO
-JJI 136
-l)b.l,4~
2MWUUU
30000
25000
20000
1 15000
Sodium
•
• • "''------------• 4 10000 -----------------------fl)
5000
6
5
0
1998
•
2003
• •
• •
• • • • •
2008 2013
Year
Total BMC
4 ------·---
0
1994
2"'4WS07
i
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000 f 15000
"' 10000
5000
•• •
1999
• • • •
2004
Year
SOdium
• -■----------■
2009 2014
--------■-------------•
• -■----·'---·----·--.-~--------• • ---■
0
1998 2003 2008 2013
12
10
8
2
0
1994
Year
ToUIBHC
•
------------------
•
----••------------• •• • • •• -----■ --.-•-------.-
1999 2004
Year
2009 2014
SOdlum
50000
45000
40000
35000 ----------.-• . 1 30000
25000 I 20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1998
04
0 35 .--•
2003
Year
Total BHC
• •• •
----.
---•--•
2008 2013
_. 03
J 25
~02
j 15
_L■-■,-____ • .;.;._ ___ _
•• •
1i
!0 1
0 05
0
1994
2SWMS02
50000
45000
40000
35000 1 30000
25000
20000
.-~------
----------·
•---1999 2004 2009 2014
Year
SOdium
• I 15000
10000
5000
-·---------------~·------
40
35
30
} 25
• 20 ~ 15
0
1998
• • • --. -·. . ... •• • • •
2003 2008
Year
ToblBHC
• •
•
ii ! 10 ~--------------
5
0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2008
2013
2010 2012 2014
Figure 38 -2. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and Total BHC at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
250000
200000
} 150000
i 100000
ell
SOd1um
---------·--------• • • -_____ ,, ______ . _______ _
•
50000
___ "'1 ----------•--~--
20
18
16
14
0
1998
•
2003
•
•
2008 2013
Year
Total BHC
i 12
~ 10
m 8
1i 6
! 4
Y._.■ •-------~ • • • ---■
----LJ'a....!. •
2
0
1998
2SWMS0◄
180000
160000
140000
120000
j 100000 I ::~::
40000
20000
2000 2002 2004
-•
2006
Year
SOdlum
------■----• • • • •
• • • •
0
1998
,,
2003
7
6
5
0
1998
Year
Total BHC
_ _.
• • •·---------_. . ,,._ . . .. ~-• •
2000 2002 2004
•
2006
Year
•--------
2008 2010 2012 2014
• •
2008 2013
• • •
2008 2010 2012 2014
J
Oieldrin Trends in Groundwater Well 1EX02 ? s j ? • i 1 5 • ! ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ ♦ t. ... ♦ ♦ ♦ OS ♦ 0 lfli 2000 2005 2010 YU< FCTS 2013 Dieldnn Groundwater. ppb .A Non-Detect e <0.02 Performance Standard 0.02 -0.1 -0.1 -1 • 1 -5 • >5 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation. ft MSL 320 321 -325 -326-330 -331-335 -336-345 ♦ 2015 lo 250 500 1000 1~ ~~etl 0 70 0 60 0~ :ii ... .e ~ 0JO ... 1l 0 0 )0 0 20 0 10 0 00 1996 0 08 0 07 0 06 0 05 :ii a. .e -E 0 OJ ... • 0 0 0) 0 02 0 01 0 00 1997 Dieldrin Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval ~ ~ j -0 .. .; Q. E 0 u C ! tf t Legend Upper 90'\ Conftdence lnterv;IJ ♦ Mun T olal O,eldnn Concentnt,on • LoNer 90, Confidence lnterv;IJ 19'.16 1999 2000 2001 2002 200) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Oieldrin Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90o/o Confidence Interval 0 0 ◄• ◄ ◄t ◄ 0 ◄ I◄► I◄► 0 ◄"o ◄ ◄► 0 ◄► ◄► 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2(05 2006 2007 2008 200'3 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dace Figure 39. Groundwater Results for Dieldrin at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Endlin ketone Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.02 Performance Standard
0.02-0 1
0 1 -0.25
• >0.25
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331 -335
-336-345
250 500 1 000 1 500
Endrin Ketone Plume Mean Concentrations with 90°k Confidence Interval
1.6
Legend
1.4
t
Uppe<9W.Confidence Interval
Mean T olal Endnn ketone Concertrallon
1.2
~ LOWfl' 9Wo Confidence Interval
a. .s 1 G)
C: 0 -♦ GI • .lll: 0.8 C: -.: •• ·I "O
C:
I w 0.6 ♦ ♦
♦ ♦
l I I 0.4 ♦
♦
I ♦
0.2
r 0 +---,---...---..----..---..---..---,---,---.--~.----,....::•--,----,---...----...---..,...J..---,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20)8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Endrin Ketone Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90•1. Confidence Interval
0.3 ·
0 25 J
1i" Q. ~ 0.2 1
G> C 0 -G> ..lll: C O 15 a .:::
'0 C w
0.1 ~
005 1
• •
•
• •
• •
•
•
•
•
0 _., -..;. .I.. .I.. r T
I • _l
1997 1998 1999 20CX> 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 40. Groundwater Results for Endrin Ketone at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 1.2-0ibromo-3-dlloropropane Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.0-i Perfonnance Standard
0.04 • 2 5
2.5 • 25
• >25
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 · 325
326 · 330
-331 -335 ---===-----c:::::====-----Feel -336-345 0 250 500 1 000 1 500 2000
1,2-0lbromo-3-chloropropane (D8CP) Plume Mean Concentrations with 00•1. Confidence Intervals
2000
Le<J(lfld
1800 , Upper ~ Conlldonce lnteMII
1600 Mean TOlal BHC Concentration
D° _e 1400
• C ~ 1200 e ~ Q. ii 0 ~ 1000 ~ ~ .,
y
<? 0 E e D q
~
u ..
r,oo 6
"' I 600
T t o---~-+-'~----~---~--~--------...,........-~ ________ ,........_,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
40 •
10
1.2-0lbromo-3-chloropropane (D8CP) Mean Concentrations of Sentlnel Wells with OOo/. Confidence
Intervals
I ♦
t 0 ---~ ........ ~..__,,..__ __ ,........_~~----~----,_...-_________ --•--
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 ?003 2004 2005 2006 2007 :1008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 41. Groundwater Results for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Tetrachloroethene Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <O. 7 Performance Standard
0.7. 7
7 -10
• >10
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
326 -330
-331 -335
-336 -345
I o--2-=50==500=----,•oo-==o===, =-500----2-~et 1
4.5
4
1.5
1
0.5
0
Tetrachloroethene Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
♦ ♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
l
i
Legend
t
Upper 9()0 o Con fiderlCe Interval
Mean Total Tetrachloroethene Conceroat100
Lower90°.Coofldence Interval
T ♦
i ♦ I
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Tetrachloroethene Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
3 l
:C 25 j
Q. i 2 j = G) ! 151 •
I C,)
C'O ~ -t!.
. .
1
1 • • • ·r ♦• ! i •
0.5 • I . j • • •
0 -,----,---.----~--,---.---'---.----.--~---,--~-'-----.-----r----.-~-~~--,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200G 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 42. Groundwater Results for Tetrachloroethene (PCE) at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 1,2-0ichloroethane Groundwater, ppb
.A lfon-Detect
• <0.4 Performance Standard
0.4 • 4
4 • 10
• >10
2013 Qoundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 · 325
-326-330
-331 .335
-336-345
I 0 ~50 500 1 000 1 500 Feet I 2 000
1,2-0ichloroethane Plume Mean ConcentratioM with 90% Confidence Interval
25
Legend
20
jS" t
Upper90°oConfidence Interval
MeanTOOll 1 2-DtchloroettaieConcenlrauon
lower 90°0 Confidence ~terval ~ e
QI
fi ,, j 15 I • • I 0 ... 0 :c c.,
~ 10 .) ♦: ...
-.0
ci ci -4)
C "' .s: -8 ...
.2 .s: u
0 I N ....
•
5
1 r 1
0 4----.---.---...----.---.----'--..;.....,..i --.----.--.----,.......__· --.--------.----.--------.--......-1----,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201'
1,2-Dichloroethane Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
30 ,
25 ~
20 1 I
15 1
•
10 • • • • •
•
5 ◄ • •
•• r I •
0 ....--~--'--,1--'-..L...J...,.._"--,,:.._~----.--'~------,------~---r----r----r--~----r--'~
1997 ·998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 43. Groundwater Results for 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA) at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 2-Methylnaphthalene Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <30 Performance Standard
30 -40
.W -50
• >50
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surfa:e
Elevation. ft MSL
320
321 -325
326 -330
-331 -335
-336 -345
-.0 Q.
Q. -Q)
C: .S!
"' .&: ... .&:
Q.
"' C: >,
&: ... Q)
~ N
2-Methylnaphthalene Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
30
25
•
• ••
5
•
• •
• •
• I
0 I
Legend
t
Upper90•oConfidence lntE!fVal
Mean Tot.al 2-Methylnai;hhalene Concentrabor
Lower 9()0 • Con fidEnee Interval
• i
• I
1997 1998 1999 2000 200 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 200 7 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201 •
2-Methylnaphthalene Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
1 6 ,
1 4 i
1 2 ◄
1 •
0.8 1
0 6 • • • •
0.4 1 • •
• • • 02 • • •
0 --~-...---,'----,,....._ -.--~ ~-~--.--~-~ -~-~-~-~-~-~
1997 1998 1999 2000 20(1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 44. Groundwater Results for 2-Methylnaphthalene at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1• ,. I. • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Elhylbenzene Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
e <600 Perfo,mance Standard
600 -10000
10000 -15000
• >15000
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336-345
Q
Q. s
! Cl>
N C Cl> .a '5, s w
~ C. C. -G)
C
G)
N C G)
~ >, .c -w
lo--2~-==soo---•1•000-====,=soo---•~-~~,
4000
3500
3000
2500 j
2000 j
1500 J
1000 J
500 ~
0 I
Ethylbenzene Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
♦
♦ ♦
♦ ••
Legend
Uppet' ~-Conhdenee Interval
• MeanTolal ElhytbenzeneConcenlrabcn
Lower~. Conf1denee lnleMtl
• • •
♦
•
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Ethyl benzene Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
• 100 ·I • • I ·
so 1 •
0 + _J...L..-.'--_.__--.L-~ ~ "'T'"" ~-T ♦ -.
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 45. Groundwater Results for Ethyl benzene at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Naphthalene Groundwater, ppb
.A. Non-Detect
• <6 Performance Standard
6 • 25
25 -50
• >50
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 · 325
326 • 330
--331 -335
-336-345
I o--250-===500----1•000-=====,=500----~-~et 1
100
90
80
30
20
10
0
Naphthalene Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
Legend
Upper 90•.., Confidence tn1erval
♦ Mean Total Naphthalene Ccncertrabcri
• Lower goo. Conlidenc:e lntefVal
♦
♦
l ♦ r ♦
l ♦
♦
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ~ 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Naphthalene Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
20 7
181
16
:0-14 ~ ~ -CII C 12
.st ~ 10 ... .s= ~
(,s z 8 •
6
4
2 1
••• • ♦
• •
• .. 0 ~---+---.................. _.,..__~-.--------.----,-------.-......... J.----.------~----
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 46. Groundwater Results for Naphthalene at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
FCTS 2013 Xylenes (Total) Groundwater, ppb • Non-Detect e <500 PerfOfmance Standard 500 -5000 _ 5000 -10000 • >10000 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 321 -325 -326-330 -331-335 -336-345 I O 250 500 1 000 1 500 2 ~~et I Total Xylenes Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Conflde■ce Interval )0000 25000 20000 :.;-Q. 5 I 1sooo ;;. >C ;; ~ 10000 5,000 o:) Cl> Cl> 0, C: B. I/') -0 ., .. a. E It 1Jtijr ~ · 0 (/) O ,QQO -,n, 1998 1999 2000 2001 • ◄ ◄ 2002 2003 2004 • • ◄ 2005 2006 2007 Legend • Upper 90-,_ Conf,d.ence Interval ♦ Mun Total Xyltnts Concen1ra1ton Lowe, 'JO"lo Confodence Interval ◄ • 2008 200~ 2010 2011 2012 • 2013 201J "Tne 2006 ,,'ef'es ()l..,me e.,tmol<in ,·.~ made "s "9 Ire 2005 xy1-.r,oi;tca. -es~:rs 'o, , . ....,, 1EX01 uoor.tcry OAQC l)!OOetn -e,ected me ,-) ·-s rao·,s.3 •= ,-.e,I 1EX01 'Of rne Apr' 2006 mon,ton,,g c-~"g" The 2006 ~.'i11Cer mi.,/: 'or XfVt"fl$ ,..,.. "$~ l0t the '9$1 of rne .'ll(ll't to,,ng -11$ ,1'1 lfle 1c,t,g /em, n,on,/o,,i,g tN!t-,l<Orl< 1i Q. 5 1800 1600 1400 1200 I 1000 g ;;. )C ;; 800 ~ 600 400 200 Total Xylenes Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval 0 I I 11 I I I 11 I I 11 I I I I • 1 ♦ 1 ♦ 1 t I Y I t I t 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Dale Figure 47. Groundwater Results for Total Xylenes at Fann Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Oisulfoton Groundwater. ppb
.A Non-Detect
e <0.3 Performa nce Standard
0.3 -0.5
>0.5
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation. ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336 -345 I ◊--2-=so=soo=---,-000===, =-500---2-~et I
Disulfoton Tr ends in Groundwater Well 2EX04
8
7
6
c 4 0 -,! ~ 3
JO
0 2 •
1
0
1998
♦
2000 2002 2004 2006
Yea:r
♦
2008 2010
DisU'lfoton Trends in Groundwater Well 2SWMS03
10
9
8
..J 7
~ 6 ~
r:' s
0 -i 4 ♦ ··-♦ JOO 3 +-r-...._ ♦ ♦♦ -.-~. . • .. ♦ ♦
2 ----·♦~-._
1 --
0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
--
♦
2008
-
2010
Figure 48. Groundwater Results for Disulfoton at Fann Chemicals / Twin Sites
♦
2012 2014
♦
2012 2014
FCTS 2013 Cadmium Groundwater, ppb A Non-Detect e <2 Performance Standard C 2-10 • 10 -20 • >20 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 320 321 -325 -326-330 -331-335 -336-345 Io 250 500 1.000 1.500 2 o6;e, 1 Figure 49. Groundwater Results for Cadmium at Farm Chemicals/ Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Chromium Trends in Groundwater Well
2EX06
~
4500
4000
~ 3SOO • ! }000 .. E 2500
2 e 2000
1500
1000
soo
0
199:S
• ---·· 2000 200S • 2010
FCTS 2013 Chromium Groundwater. ppb
• Non-Detect
e <10 Performance Standard
10 · 250
• 250 • 500
• >500
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation. ft MSL
320
321 • 325
-326 -330
-331 -335
-336-345
•
201S
lo--~-==50 =500=----1•00=0===,=500---•-_,o6oeet l
1000
900
800
E" 700 ~ S,
E 600 :, e
0 500 .. i:::. u
400
300
200
100
0
1997
Chromium Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
r _.t ~
1998 1999 2000 2001
r ♦ ♦ ' l ~
2002 2003 2004 2005
Legend I Upper 90°. ConhdEnce lnteNal I MeanTolaJ ChromunConcercrabon
Lowe, oo•. Confidence 1nte,va1
•
' I
2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 2011 ' 2012
I •
' I
2013
Chromium Mean Concentrations of Sentlnel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
100 ·
90
80 , -~ 70 -i a. a. -E 60 ◄
:::, ·e 50 ~ 0 ... .r:. (.) 40 ;
• 30 ..
• 20 ..
•
10 r • • 0 I ... • • . I
201 4
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 50. Groundwater Results for Chromium at Farm Chemicals I Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Iron Groundwater, ppb
.A Non-Detect
• <300 Performance Standard
300 • 3000
• 3000 · 30000
• >30000
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
32 1 · 325
-326-330
-331-335
-336-345
250 500
Iron Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
20000
Legend
18000 Upper goo. Coofidenee Interval
16000 ♦ MeanTocal Iron CoocentratJa,
• Lower 90°. Conhd81CE! Interval
~ 14000
12. .s 12000 C: • 0 = 10000
♦
8000
6000 I
•
4000
2000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201.e
Iron Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
30000 7
25000 •
-20000 i
.0 Q.
Q. -C: 15000 • • 0 ..
•
1 000 I 500 Feet I
:? 000
♦ • ♦
♦ •• ♦
10000 1 ♦ ♦ • ♦
♦
5000 ◄ 11
0 .L-. ---~ --~ --~ ---~---------,-----~--
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201 4
Date
Figure 51. Groundwater Results for Iron at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Manganese Groundwater, ppb
• Non-Detect
• <50 Performance Standard
50 · 250
250 · 500
• >500
2013 Qoundwater Potentiometrtc Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336 -345
I o--2-=50==500=----,•ooo====, soo=----2 ~et 1
400
350
300
150
100
50
Manganese Plume Mean Concentrations with 90¾ Confidence Interval
Legend
Uwer go.. Conlldenee Interval
♦ Mean Total Manganese GoocentratJai
Lower 90". Confldenee Interval
l l i I
•
•
j
0 +--..---.---------,---r----.---~---,---,----,---r----,--.---.,..-~
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 ?006 2007 2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Manganese Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90¾ Confidence Interval
300 ,
250 ◄ l egend
Upper 90'll. Conf1dErce Interval -• MeanTOlalManoarese:: __ . __ _ .0
Q. .9:200 ◄ Lowe< 90"JI. Confidence hteMII
G,) 1,/j
G,) ♦ C •
~ 150 ◄ .J ♦
I
C
IV
~ ♦ • • ♦
100 ◄ • • •
50 1
l •
0 --.---.---.---..--------.-------,------,----,----.----.----.-------,
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 52. Groundwater Results for Manganese at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Nickel Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <100 Perfor mance Standard
100 • 200
200 -500
• >500
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 · 325
--326 -330
-331 -335
-336 -345
I --c:==----c:====---•2-000Feet I 0 250 500 1 000 I 500 _
250
200
100
50
Nickel Plume Mean Concentrations w ith 90% Confidence Interval
l ♦ . . ,. ~ T ♦ • 1
r ♦
l
T ♦
I
Legend
• Upper 90°0 Confidence Interval
• l\.1ean Total Nickel Concertrabon
l LO\ver904oConlidence Interval
♦
♦
·tH!;! 0 --l-------=--=----=--'--,.--------------.----1---~--------'--~
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 2013 2014
Nickel Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
60
50
_ 40 j
.t2
Q.
Q. -~ 30 u z
20
I •
10 j
' • • I • 0 +----~ ••••• •
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 53. Groundwater Results for Nickel at Farm Chemicals / Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
FCTS 2013 Zinc Groundwater, ppb
..& Non-Detect
e <1000 Performance Standard
1000 -5000
• >5000
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
320
321 -325
-326-330
-331-335
-336-345 1
--r:==----====----Feet I 0 250 500 1 000 1.500 2.000 .
Figure 54. Groundwater Results for Zinc at Farm Chemicals I Twin Sites
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Groundwater Figures
Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • 1• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Legend
Fairway Six Site Plume Extent above Performance Standards
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
-371-375
-376-385
-386-395
I 0--2-=so==soo=----•, .-=oo=o===,=.so-o ___ 2•.o~~et I
Figure 55. Current Extent of Groundwater Contamination for all COCs that Exceed
Performance Standards at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 alpha-8HC Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <O 02 Performance Standard
>0.02
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
36 1 · 370
-371-375
-376 -385 ---==~------======------Feet -386 .395 0 250 50) 1 000 1 500 2 000
0 5
0 45
04
035
i 0 3
S:
0 ~ 025
Ill .t:. i 02
0 15
0 1
0 05
alpha-BHC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
l
i l
i
T
f
i l
i
Legend
Upper 90"1. Coo'odence lnter,al
l
i
0 +--...----..........-----,---.----r---r----r---r----•-...--....---,----r-----.---.---,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
alpha-BHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
0 4
0 35
03
:0 025
Q. .s
0 :c O 2 ~ · l I l Ill .t:.
Q.
ii O 15 ♦
♦ lI!d . i I l 0 1
f l l f
♦ l 0 05 ♦ ♦
i r ♦ ♦ l ♦
0 +---.----_._-.-----,--......--~----.,,__---.-_._--.--...._--.-----.---~--------,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 56. Groundwater Results for Alpha BHC at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 beta-BHC Groundwater. ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.02 Performance Standard
0.02 • 1
1 • 5
• >5
2013 Groundwater Potenliometric Surface
EJevation, ft MSL
360
361 · 370
37 1 · 375
-376-385 ---====-------======------Feet -386-395 0 250 500 1 JOO I 500 2 000
6
5
I
~ E
-J C.
.0 "' Q. ..,
.e: .. .;
0 ii
::r: E 0 13 u
C
0 !:.'
.0 Ji
~ .., e 2 .. c,:
,:
0 "'
0
1998
.I
)5
3
:ii" 25 Q. .e:
0 I: CQ 2
fll 0 .0
1 5
05
-l · 1 l
ii
1m 2000
beta-SHC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval
legtnd
Upper 90'\ Conhdence lnter~al
• Mun beta-8HC Concentnnon
Lower 90"-Confidence lnter,aJ
I I •
1 l r
• • I I l r l r • • ♦ l l • • l • l l l
2001 2002 200J 200,I 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
bet.a-SHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
l l I
I i I
r 1
201.l
0 -'----~-l....--.--......,.-~--....... ---....... ----r----.---~---,.,----....-~
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200,I 2005 200( 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201"
Figure 57. Groundwater Results for Beta BHC at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 gamma-8HC Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <:0.03 Performance Standard
~0.03
2013 Groundwater Potenliometric Surface
Bevation, ft MSL
360
36 1 -370
371 · 375
-376 -385 ---==:::::::11------======------Feet -386 -395 0 500 1 000 1 500 :: 000
02
018
016
0 14 ;
~ 0
~ 012 : ;;
U) 0 .,
I ..
a) 0 1 5!
"'
0. E E 0
E (.)
C ~ 008 2 ~ ..
0 06 -0 .. E .. a::
0 04 0 V)
0 02
0
1998
02
0 18
0 16
0 14
~ Cl. 0 12 .s
0 al O 1
'° E
E o OB "' Cl
0 06
0 04
0 02
gamma-SHC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90"1. Confidence Interval
•
Ll'gend
Upper 90~ Confidence lnter,al
• i.i.an gamm.1-6HC Concen1ra110n
Lo-90'-Conhdtt1ce lnttl",al
l l
r • l
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
gamma-SHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
l I • I . • •
!· i I I I l • • • l •
0 -I------L-,l--""T"-.....L....--~-----.-----,------.----'----,--+-~--'-----.--'----.-~~----.---...,........---,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
D~e
Figure 59. Groundwater Results fo r Gamma BHC (Lindane) at Fairway Six Site
Fairway Six 2013 Total BHC Groundwater. ppb ~ Non-Detect • <0.02 (2013 NC 2L for technical 8HC isomers. gamma 0.03) 0.02 • 1 _ 1 • 5 • 5-10 • >10 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 360 361 -370 371-375 1-376-385 -386-395 0 250 500 1 000 I 500 Feet I ::'000 TotalBHC Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence Interval 10 I r L~IKl<l 9 ~ -T I Uppe, 90.._ Confidence werv aJ • Mean Total BHC Concefllrat10n 8 ~ ' I I I I I LOYo'8( 90, Confidence lnler,aJ D 7 ~ [ "' ., '.D's .. ! 1111 .; I 0. a. .e r;; 0 0 <.> l :::r 5 C: al ~ u ;a < ~ 4 ,i .; • .. ♦ l E I [ .. I j c:: H~ r r IJ) • l ♦ • I 2 ~ l I I I • ♦ • l l j 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200-t 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total BHC Mean Concentrations of Sentinel We Us with 90% Confidence Interval 8 7 6 '.D" 5 :, ~,I if 1 t I I t I l l I I l • I • I i i I j 1 . 0 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200-t 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201) 2014 O..te Figure 60. Groundwater Results for Total BHC (sum Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma) at Fairway Six Site
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
. egend
'airway Six 2013 Total BHC Groundwater, ppb
• Non-Detect
• <0.02 (2013 NC 2L f<>< technocal BHC ,somers. gamma 0.03)
0.02 -1 • 1-5 • 5-10 • >10
:013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
:levation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
--371 -375
-376-385
-386-395
J:\fWl.13 (se■ri .. O
10000 .,
"' ::, 5000 e ::, ---·· :;;
0 0 .,
1998 2000
10 •
• •
2002
i -L9~• t $ •
11 ! 0
1996 1998 2000 2002
Sodium
• • .. • • • •
200J Yu, 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
Totat8HC
• • • • I • •
2QO.I Yu, 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
J[XOI (uca,·,t~ uu)
100000 Soc1J11m .,
"' ~ $0000 ..
E -• ::, • • • :;; • • • 0 0 • • • • .,
1998 2000 2002 2004 ., ... , 2006 2008
3 Total BHC
j 2 •
~1 ~-• • • • • 11 • • • ! 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 v.!006 2008
JEXOZ
1$0000 Sodium ., • ~00000 • • ~ 50000 • • .,,.. • • :;; • • • 0 0 • • • .,
1998 2000 2002 2004 y.., 2006 2008
20 Total BHC
l .,
ro' •• • • .... • • • • • 11 • • ! 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 .... 2006 2008
nnn.2s
30000 Sodium
~ 20000 • • ::, • ~ 10000 • :;; • • 0 0 • • ., 2001 2003 2005 2991 2009
20 Total 81:(C
j • • • • ro • • • •
11 ! 0
2001 2003 200$ 2007 , ... 2009
J:\1'\1.17
30000 Sodium
i 20000 • ~ 10000 :;; ,. .. • • 0 ., 0
2001 2003 2005 2007 , .. ., 2009
60 Total BHC
}40 • II •
~20 • • • • • • •
11 11 0 .,_ 2000 2002 2004 2006 .... 2008
J:\1'\1.29
6000 Sodium
~ ::, 4000 • • e • • 2000 I :, • • :;; • 0 0 ., 2001 2003 2005 290.Z 2009
6 Total BHC
}4 • • I ~ • • • 2 •
11 11 0 ... 2001 2002 2003 2004 ~ 2006
Figure 6 1. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and Total BHC at Fairway Six Site
• 2010 2012 20
•
2010 2012 20
• 2010 2012 20
•
2010 2012 20
•
2011 2013 20
•
2011 2013 20
•
2011 2013 20
•
2010 2012 20
•
2011 2013 20
• •
2007 2008 20<
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 Oieldrin Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <0.02 Performance Standard
0.02-0 I
>O I
2013 Groundwater Potentiomebic Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
36 1 • 370
371 · 375
-376-385 ---==:::::::11------======------Feet -386-395 0 250 500 1000 1 500 2 000
0 35
03
-025 D
Q. .s .s -o O 2
G> 0
0 15
0 ,
0 05
0 § <> ..,, ., .. ..
ci e 0 u
C: !!
i
0 (/)
Oieldrin Plume Mean Concentrations with 90% Confidence lntarval
♦
• • ♦
l
LegMd
U~pe< 90, ConlidfflC1! lnt..-,al
♦ MtanTotaJ D,eldnn Conu,mat,on
lOIOier 90'-Conftdence ~1..-,a1
I
1
l
0 --~----.-.........----.----.---.----~-~----.---.-....._--.---.---.----~-~--.-.........----,
1996 1997 1998 1999 20)0 2001 2002 200) 200.J 2005 2006 2007 2008 200'1 2010 2011 2012 2013 201J
02
018
016
0 14
Ji" 0 12 Q. .s
E o 1 '6
ti o 008
006
0 04
002
Oleldrin Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90"/o Conftdence Interval
I l l]Jl-.♦ •
•
I ! l •
• • 1 + l
0 _ ___._........, ........ ...,_ .......... --.----.----.---,----.---.--+----,----.----.----.----.--.......... ---.---,
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Date
Figure 62. Groundwater Results for Dieldrin at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 Endrin ketone Groundwater. ppb
• Non-Detect
• <0.02 Performance Standard
0.02 • 0.1
0.1 • 0 25
• >0.25
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
361-370
371 -375
-376 -385 ---======-------======~-----Feet -386 .395 0 500 , 000 I 500 ~000
0.6
0.5
E"
Q. s, ! 0.4
£ Q)
~
C ~ 0.3
w
.0 Q.
0.2
0.1
0
1997
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
~ 0.12
0 C ~ • 0.1 ~
C .: -g 0.08 w
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Endrln ketone Plume Mean Concentratlons with 90% Confidence Interval
♦
111 l 1 • t° J • I l I I I
1
Legend
I Upper 90•. Confidence Interval
MeanT01aI EndnnketoneConcEfl(rauon
Lower 90°. Confidence Interval
i •
I • I
1998 1999 2000 2001 ?002 2003 200-l 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Endrin ketone Mean Concentrations of Sentinel Wells with 90% Confidence Interval
• l
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 201 4
Date
Figure 63. Groundwater Results for Endrin Ketone at Fairway Six Site
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
3EX0I (uunted aru)
100000 Sodlvm
" ~ 50000 .. --• :, • • • ;, • • • • • 0 0 • • • "' 1998 2000 2002 2004 Y•• 2006 2008 2010 2012 20
OJ Oleldrln ..,
'to2 •
c ... .,, .. • ~o 1 • • • • • ll • 2i 0 • 1998 2000 2002 2004 , .. 2006 2008 2010 2012 20
3EX02
150000 Sodlum
~00000 • • •
{ 50000 • • -.. • ;, • • • 0 0 • • • • .,
1998 2000 2002 2004 , .. 2006 2008 2010 2012 20
oteldrln .., .. I
:,
,£0 5 ........ • ,: • • • • " • • ll • • • 2i 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 , .. , 2006 2008 2010 2012 20
3~1'\U8
30000 Sodium .., • • } 20000 • • { 10000 • ;, • • 0 0 • • .,
2001 2003 2005 291>.! 2009 2011 2013 20
0 4 Dleldrln
'a, • • • • ::, • • c 0 2 ... ,:
" ll 2i 0 • • 2001 200) 2005 2007 .... 2009 2011 2013 20·
3~1Wl.27
.egend )0000 Sodium
airway Six 2013 Dleldnn Groundwater, ppb i 20000 ._ • • • ~ 10000
• • .. Non-De1ee1
'u .... • II • <0 02 Performance Standard 0 "' 0
002-0 1 2001 2003 2005 2001,_ 2009 2011 2013 20
• >0 1 06 Dleldrln
0 13 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface °t 04 • • .. • Jevation, ft MSL . . • • ! 02 • •
360 1i 2i 0 • • 361 -370 2001 2003 2005 2007 , .. 2009 2011 2013 20
-371-375 3~1"1.13 (uari■el) nrn1.19
-376-385 10000 Sodlvm 6000 Sodium
-386-395 ~ ~ • :, • :, 4000 • • e 5000 • • e • • :, • :, 2000 ......... • • • 'u • • ;,
0 0 0 0 .. 1998 2000 2002 2004 , ... 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 ., 2001 2003 2005 2VO.! 2009 2011 2013 20
0 15 Dieldrln 0 1 Oteldrln
'a, 0 1 'a. • • • • • • • :, • • I :, • • c • I .,i) 05 I ~05 • • • ,:
" ll ll 2i 0 -· • • 2i 0 • • 1998 2000 2002 2004 .,.,,, 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2001 2003 2005 2007 ,, .. 2009 2011 2013 20·
Figure 64. Groundwater Results for Sodium Tracer and Dieldrin at Fairway Six Site
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Heptachlor Epoxide Tr e n ds in
Groundwate1rWe H 3EX01
0 .02 ' .,
:g 0.015 -)C ! 001 ..
Ji 0.005 .c: ~ 0 !-1995
%
-----
llllllt••·· I
2000 2005
♦ I
2010 2015
Fairway Six 2013 Heptachlor Epoxide Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
e <0.004 Per1ormance Standard
• 0.004 ~ 0.01
• 0.01 -0.05
• >0.05
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
-371 -375
--376 -385 ---====-------======:::::::a-----•Feet --386-395 0 250 500 1.000 1.500 2.000
Figure 65. Groundwater Results for Heptachlor Epoxide at Fairway Six Site
Fairway Six 2013 Chromium Groundwater, ppb A Non-Detect • <10 Performance Standard C 10 - 50 ROD PS • >50 2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface Elevation, ft MSL 360 361 -370 -371 -375 -376-385 -386-395 0 ~-~~=~~----~======------Feet 2.000 250 500 1.000 1 500 Figure 66. Groundwater Results for Chromium at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 Iron Groundwater, ppb
£ Non-Detect
• <300 Performance Standard
300 -3000
• >3000
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
-371 -375
-376-385
-386 -395 ---====------=======------Feet 0 250 500 1.000 1,500 2.000
Figure 67. Groundwater Results for Iron at Fairway Six Site
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fairway Six 2013 Manganese Groundwater, ppb
A Non-Detect
• <50 Performance Standard
50 -250
• >250
2013 Groundwater Potentiometric Surface
Elevation, ft MSL
360
361 -370
-371 -375
-376-385 ---====------=======------Feet -386 -395 0 250 1.000 1.500 2 000
Figure 68. Groundwater Results for Manganese at Fairway Six Site
• e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
APPENDIX B
2013 Analytical Results (CDROM)
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
APPENDIX C
2013 Sap Flow and Rhizome Excavation Report
• • • • • e: • • • ■:,--. ~:,
=71~' •B· -~·.,! -~----~ •· ... ---. --:·,
-✓ ••. ~-. ~~-.. -z:~--•I .'·. . ~ . • I • . ..,. -· ., .
h, •" •
I
•---,..,.-. • . ' ---· ."":: e-s---_. ■· .. : I -~:'· ·~ •-F-'--1 •----• • •
Thomas Consultants, Inc.
2013 SAP FLOW MONITOIUNG
·-• -----~ --
AND RmWME EXCAVATION
SUMMARY.REPORT
1·. •· , . :~ . -· . .
ABERDEEN, NORTH CAROLI~A
AUGUST2013
Prepared for:
.URS
Prepared by:
THOMAS CONSULTANTS, INC •
. P.O. Box 54924
Cincinnati, Ohio 45254
pthomas@thomas-co~uhanis.com
www.tlioni~-consultants.com
I
•. -. ,. ' \ ·-. .
• 1 L •_ • -. :., .•
...--... . ..
N:TS, INC ..
08/Zll/3
THOMAs°CONSULTANTS, INC., P.O .. BOX 54924, CINCINNATI, OH .45254-· .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Introduction
The information presented in this document is in support of a vegetative remediation
(phytoremediation) program at the Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps Site (APDS) in, or near,
Aberdeen, North Carolina. Thomas Consultants, Inc. (TCI) installed Phytoremediation
systems at both the Twin Sites and Fairway Six areas within Operable Unit Three of the
APDS .
A pilot phytoremediation planting was installed in May 1997 to gather data in support of
effective design, installation, operation, and maintenance of a fu ll-scale phytoremediation
system at Twin Sites and Fairway Six. The pilot was also designed to facilitate the
assessment of phytoremediation system performance. The primary performance criterion
was the potential of the phytoremediation systems at APDS to function as effective
evapotranspiration-based groundwater extraction tools. The pilot was very successfu l and
the full scale planting was perfonned by TCI in March and April 1998 .
Photograph I -Pilot P lanting at Twin Sites -May 1997
Photograph 2 -Twin Sites Planting -Stand 4 -1998
Thomas Consultants. Inc. 2 0812 III 3
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Photograph 3 -Fairway Six Planting -Stand 6 -1998
Photograph 4 -Twin Sites -Stand 4 -20 I 0
Thomas Consulta111s. Inc. 3 0812 I If 3
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Photograph 5 -Twin Sites -Stand 2 -2013
Planting activities and subsequent tree condition are presented in Photographs I through 5
above. The five stands that comprise the Twin Sites (TS) portion of the system are shown
in Figure 1. Two additional stands (Stands 6 and 7) are located at the fonner Pit Golf
Course (referred to typically as Fairway Six or FX) located approximately one half mile
north (see Figure 2 below) .
Thomas Consultants. Inc. 4 ()8/21113
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Thomas Consullants. Inc.
Figure I -Twin Sites Tree Stands
Figure 2 -Fairway Six Tree Stands
5 08/21113
• • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
TCI conducted phytoremediation monitoring at Twin Sites (TS) and Fairway Six (FX) in
July of 2013. Activities included sap flow monitoring and tree root excavation. Reported
herein are preliminary findings based on these data collection activities. The sap flow data
are considered in context with previous monitoring work performed at the APDS site in
I 998 and 1999 .
-Methodologv
The phytoremediation system as applied at the APDS consists of trees that aggressively
root into and extract water from the lower limit of unsaturated soil. This portion of the
soil column is in hydraulic equilibrium with the underlying saturated conditions and is
typically referred to as the capillary fringe. Sap flow monitoring is intended to assess the
degree to which the phytoremediation systems are able to extract potentially contaminated
groundwater that would otherwise be available for downgradient transport .
The TS and FX phytoremediation systems were divided into discrete stands based on areal
dimensions and exposure characteristics. Table I presents the stand identification along
with 2013 tree biometric data and acreage. Trees were carefully measured in order to
allow normalization of data and predictive scaling .
On average, rainfall is abundant (an average of 49.36 inches per year) and is uniformly
distributed throughout the year (average range: 2.83 inches in November to 5.5 inches in
July). However, precipitation in unusually dry months can dip below I inch. It has also
been observed that many summer storms are high-volume/short duration events that result
in substantial runoff. Typical growing seasons arc about 200 days long. 1 For this study,
data from a fixed meteorological station were used to establish seasonal variations (both
long and short-tenn) in meteorological conditions in the immediate vicinity of the
phytoremediation systems. Data from the fixed station were recorded over a period of
two years from the spring of 1998 through 2000. Long tem1 photosynthetically active
solar radiation (PAR) data from the fixed weather station was used to adjust for variations
in sap flow resulting from variations in solar intensity over the growing season. PAR is
the single most sensitive weather variable affecting sap flow in hybrid poplar trees and can
be used, once calibrated, to quantify sap flow per unit of leaf area. In addition to this
historical solar intensity data, a portable PAR sensor was set up in an open area adjacent
to the July, 2013 monitoring. This sensor logged solar intensity data throughout the
monitoring period (July 16 through 19, 2013). Graphic data from the PAR sensor are
presented in Figure 3 below. Irregularities in the PAR plots are due to intermittent cloud
cover .
1 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Sur\'ey of Moore County. December I 995 .
Thomas Consultants, Inc. 6 08/21/13
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I 0 E 2-
" .. 0.
PAR
2000
7/16/2013 7/17/2013 7/18/2013 7/19/2013
1800
1600 . -
1400 J
#
1200 •
1000
800
ll,llll 600
400
200
0
1'11 ,
' .,
1 ..
\.'\ ' 'h .. . i J ' ,,#,,~,,#,,~,,,#$$$$$# ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Time
Figure 3 -PAR Measured Before, During and After Sap Flow Monitoring
Sap flow was measured using trunk gauge type sensors (see Figure 4). Trunk gauges
measure induced heat carried by the sap and convert data to real-time sap flow in
kilograms per hour. The gauges have pairs of differential temperature sensors that are
spaced around the trunk or stem. Trunk gauges function on trunk/stem diameters up to
about 5-inches and are well suited to the smooth bark and straight stems of the hybrid
poplars used at APDS .
Thomas Consultants, Inc . 7 08/2///3
e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 4 -Installing a Sap Flow Sensor
Each stand was characterized by measuring representative trees for size and leaf area.
Two specific poplar hybrids were used for the 1998 planting:
• Popu/11s maximowiczii x. P. trichocarpa (NE Clone 41) referred to here as 510
• P. charcowiensis x P. incrassata (NE Clone 308) referred to here as 308
(see Table I below for tree biometric data). The 308s have a more colunmar growth habit
and were used· primarily in the trench-planted rows in Stands 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (see
Photograph 5 above). The 51 Os were used in the more widely spaced and deeply planted
Stands 2 and 4 (see Photograph 4 above). Sensors placed on the trees allowed sap flow to
be measured in response to a range of ambient weather conditions. It also allowed very
accurate detennination of sap flow rates per unit area of leaf
Stand 1 Stand 2 Stand 3 Stand 4 Stand 5 Stand 6 Stand 7
Acres 0.44 0.30 0.62 1.25 0.34 0.44 0.921
i
Avg Heig~(m) 18.29 10.67 15.24 18.29 19.81 15.24' 15.24
Avg DBH (cm) 14.61 12.95 12.07 14.73 13.21 11.43 11.43
A1.9 Leaf Count (308) 2200 3000 2100 3500 2200 1800 1700
A1.9 Leaf Size (308) m2
~ 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073 0.0073
Total 308 trees 156 43 148 69 61 138 184
~'-9 Leaf Count (510) 3500 4200 5500 4300 5100 4800 4500
A1.9 Leaf Size (510) m2
~ 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162 0.0162
Total 510 trees 12 81 66 198 28 3 38
Total leaf area (m2) J, 185.76 6,452.94 8,149.44 15,555.63 J,293.02 2,046.60 5,053.64i
*DBH-d1ameter at breast height
Table I -APDS Stand Biometric Data (July 2013)
Thomas Consullanls, Inc. 8 08/21/J 3
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Xylem sap flow was measured using Dynamax stem gauges placed on hybrid poplars
within TS Stand 4 and FX Stand 7 (see Figure 3 above). Total water uptake for each of
two complete monitoring days was computed by normalizing the individual sap flow
measurements by leaf area. Leaf area determination for hybrid poplars using traditional
indexing techniques is difficult and often inaccurate. For this project, every leaf on each
monitored tree was counted and characterized. Leaf aspect ratios were recorded for each
-hybrid-across the range of leafsize._Leaves were collected that rep~esented the range of
size on the trees, then accurately measured and used to scale total leaf area for the stands .
In addition to the monitored trees, over I 00 additional trees were subjected to the same
measurement techniques in order to achieve high statistical accuracy .
Sensors were placed on five trees in Stand 4 at Twin Sites (three 51 Os and two 308s) and
on three trees in Stand 7 at Fairway Six (a total of eight sensors). Two of the sensors
malfunctioned (one at Twin Sites and one at Fairway Six), but the other six sensors
perfonned well and provided sufficient data at each stand for the purposes of this
investigation. The leaf area above where each sensor was attached was carefully
measured in order to establish the measured volume of sap flow per unit area of leaf The
relationship between sap flow rate, leaf area, and PAR are used to get a snapshot of
conditions on a particular day in the growing season. Historical variability of PAR
intensity and duration are used to extrapolate the data for the remainder of the growing
season. Summary data are presented in Table 2 below .
Note that the average PAR value for July 17 is 9,051 µmols per m' while the average
value for July 18 is 8,051 µmols per m". PAR can vary because of cloud cover or from
seasonal variations in the length of the day. The historical average PAR over the entire
growing season (as measured at the fixed base weather station between 1998 and 2000) is
8,367 µmols per m'. This is the number used to estimate water consumption over the
course of the growing season .
Also note that sap flow rates are mostly higher on July I 8'h when the PAR value over the
course of the day was somewhat lower (9,051 µmols per m' on July 17'" versus 8,051
µmols per m' on the I S'h). Sap flow rates can vary considerably from sensor to sensor
depending on where the sensor is placed in the canopy. In addition to cloud cover, the
solar intensity is variable due to shading from other trees or :from other leaves/branches on
the same tree. Sensors placed on different sides or at different heights in the same tree can
give very different results. The objective here was to monitor a range of conditions in
order to get a canopy average .
Thomas Consu/iants, Inc. 9 08/21/13
• • • • • • • • • • -. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Sensor #2 19 mm Water
Stand 4 sap flow leaf area Use PAR
Tree Type -510 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 676.7 0.441 1534.467 9051
18-Jul 688.9 0.441 1562.132 8051
Sensor #3 19 mm Water
Stand 4 sap flow leaf_area Use PAR
Tree Type -510 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 1122.8 0.732 1533.880 9051
18-Jul 706.0 0.732 964.481 8051
Sensor #4 25mm Water
Stand 4 sap flow leaf area Use PAR
Tree Type -308 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 2463.6 1.366 1803.514 9051
18-Jul 3082.0 1.366 2256.223 8051
Sensor #5 35 mm Water
Stand 4 sap flow leaf area Use PAR
Tree T,:pe -510 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 17040.0 8.132 2095.425 9051
18-Jul 24700.0 8.132 3037.383 8051
Sensor #6 25mm Water
Stand 7 sap flow leaf area Use PAR
Tree Type -308 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 2296.4 1.021 2249.167 9051
18-Jul 2317.1 1.021 2269.442 8051
Sensor #8 19 mm Water
Stand 7 sap flow leaf area Use PAR
Tree Type -308 grams/day m2 g/m2/d umol/m2
17-Jul 1453. 7 0.711 2044.585 9051
18-Jul 1067.2 0.711 1500.985 8051
Table 2 -Sap Flow Sensor Data Summary
Thomas Consultants, Inc. I 0 08121/13
• • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Fall Spring Summer Summer
1998 Leaf 1999 Leaf 1999 Leaf 2013 Leaf
Stand Acreage Area (m2) Area (m 2) Area (m 2) Area (m2)
Twin Sites
1 0.44 3,259 3,486 6,531 3,186
2 0.30 3,770 2,727 5,109 6,453
3 0.62 1,338 4,090 7;662 8,149
4 1.25 1,972 5,958 11,162 15,556
5 0.34 4,442 4,942 9,258 3,293
Fairway Six
6 0.44 4,112 2,629 4,926 2,047
7 0.92 3,076 5,825 10,914 5,054
' Totals 4.31 21,969 29,657 55,562 43,738
Table 3 -Historical Leaf Area Data
Fall Spring Summer Summer
1998 1999 1999 2013
Water Water Water Water
Uptake Uptake Uptake Uptake
Stand Acreag!.__ gpm/year gpm/year 1-gpm/year gpm/year -·--·-Twin Sites
1 0.44 0.14 0.57 1.07 0.61
2 0.30 0.11 0.45 0.84 1.24
3 0.62 0.07 0.67 1.26 1.56
4 1.25 0.24 0.98 1.84 2.98
5 0.34 0.15 0.81 1.52 0.63
subtotal 2.95 0.71 3.48 6.53 7.02
Fairway Six
6 0.44 0.18 0.43 0.81 0.39
7 0.92 0.28 0.96 1.80 0.97
subtotal 1.36 0.46 1.39 2.61 1.36
Totals 4.31 1.17 4.87 9.14 8.38
Table 4 -Historical Annualized Water Consumption Data
--------~
Stand 3 I Stand 4 -Stand 6 I Stand 7 ; , Stand 1 Stand 2 Stand 5 Totals I : Acres1 0.44 0.30 0.62 1.25 0.341 0.44 0.921 4.31
:____ __ g/m2/dayl 1,904 1,904 1,904 1,904 1,9041 1,904 1,904,
I -___ g/stand/day.i..§,065,687 12,286,3981 15,516,534 29,617,920 6,269,910' 3,896,72619,622,131' 83,275:~
' Ustand/dayi 6,066 12,286 15,5171 29,618 6,270: 3,897 9,622' 83,275
gal/stand/day I 1,603 3,246 4,0991 7,825 1,6571 1,030 2,5421 22,001
I gpml 1.1 2.3 2.81 5.4 1 21 0.7 1.81 15.3
f--_gallons per 200 day.+--
320,5111 649,2131
' _growing season· -819,8941 1,565,011 331,302' 205,903 508,433 4,400,267
-_ gpm annualized, -~----1.241 1.561 2.98 0.63j _ 0.39 ~ -8.37
Table 5 -Summary of Water Consumption Based on 2013 Measurements
Thomas Consultants, Inc. II 08/21/13
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e
Discussion of Findings
Our objective is to establish the extent to which the phytoremediation systems have the
capacity to remove potentially contaminated groundwater from the capillary fringe. The
_obvious comparison is with a pumIJing _well that penetrates the saturated zone and extracts
water by moving it toward the well bore with negative pressure. Trees, however, remove
water from the ground differently than mechanical wells. Trees typically remove water
from above the saturated zone by alternately drying out the capillary fringe during the day
and allowing it to recharge with moisture from below ( or above) at night. Given the very
sandy soils at the APDS site ( over 90 percent sand as established prior to planting) the
deeply planted trees are forced to consume groundwater during much of the year. The
sand does not retain moisture well and dries out early in the summer. In order to establish
the tree roots near the capillary fringe, planting depths ranged from 4 feet in Stands I, 5, 6
and 7 to 12 feet deep in Stands 2, 3 and 4. Tree root excavation in Stand 4 confinns that
rhizomes continue to obtain water from as deep as 12 feet below the ground surface (see
Figure 5) .
The deep planted trees in stands 2 and 4 were installed using a 12-inch diameter auger
attached to an all-terrain drill rig. The trees in these stands were planted up to 12 feet
deep depending on how far up-slope they were located. All except the uppermost limbs
were removed from· the bare root trees to be '·pole planted" in this manner. The trees
planted using this method were approximately 14 feet tall. After planting, only 2 to 4 feet
of the tree remained above ground. As you can see in the photograph below of an
excavated 12-foot deep planting, root mass fills the 12-inch drill hole and the tree is
obtaining water from the capillary fringe. Poplars planted at the surface, 12 to 14 feet
above the water table, would not have survived the first growing season without
irrigation. No irrigation was used on any of the APDS trees. The excavation seen below
was performed on May 27, 2013. Note in Figure 5 that the bottom of the 12-inch planting
hole is visible just above the base of the trench at a depth of 12.5 feet.
Thomas Consultants, inc. 12 08121113
• • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e
Figure 5 -Excavated Tree in APDS Stand 2
(The excavation trench is approximately 13 feet deep)
As you can see from Tables 3 and 4 above, historical water consumption has largely been
a function of leaf area. Early growth was influenced by favorable sun exposure and
abundant nutrients introduced during planting. Leaf area production in 1998 and 1999
exceeded expectations. The fact that leaf area in some stands is less in 2013 than that
observed in 1999 is the result of lack of nutrients and mature canopy conditions .
Sap flow data indicate that just over four million gallons of water will be consumed by the
APDS phytoremediation system in 2013. This is consistent as compared with accepted
estimates that trees of this type have the potential to consume up to four acre feet of water
annually (approximately 5.5 million gallons for 4.31 acres). It should be noted that water
consumption by the APDS trees reported here includes percolating precipitation .
The values in Table 5 were calculated using the sap flow volume per square meter of leaf
area determined by the 2013 measurements (reported under the "water use" column in
Table 2). An average of the sap flow rates observed in all six sensors over the two days of
monitoring was used (1,904 grams per square meter of leaf area per day). The seasonal
Thomas Consultants, Inc. 13 08/2 Ill 3
• • • • • • • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e
mean daily PAR value of 8,367 µmols perm' was within the range of daily PAR values
during the July 2013 observations (8,051 to 9,051 µmols per 111') confinning the
representativeness of the monitoring period .
The transmissivity of the capillary fringe will limit the volume of groundwater the trees in
the phytoremediation stands can extract. Continuously increasing leaf area and PAR have
likely exceeded the ability of the capillary fringe to recharge overnight when the trees are
not actively transpiring. Leaf area has not changed appreciably in the last fourteen years .
Groundwater consumption estimates were reported previously for this site in 1998 and
1999. These data are presented above in Tables 3 and 4. The reduction of water
consumption in some tree stands is due to the very rapid production of leaf area by the
young hybrid poplars (very large leaves in open canopy) and the fact that the current trees
have much smaller leaves and a closed canopy. The young trees came on-line faster than
expected and recent leaf area production has been influenced by low nutrient levels in the
site soils. This effect is confirmed by data from other sites. Nutrients were added to the
site soils in 2012 .
Once the initial spring moisture from percolating precipitation has been consumed, the
APDS tree stands will consume groundwater out of necessity due to the low water-
holding capacity of the local soils. The results of this sap flow monitoring are very
encouraging. Nutrient management methods, understory control, and removal of dead or
damaged trees have the potential to be effective in maintaining tree vigor. Nutrient
addition will be critical going forward as the trees have depleted whatever nutrients were
available in the local soils. Low nutrient levels will make the trees susceptible to disease
and predation resulting in less leaf area .
During the 20 I 3 growing season the Twin Sites Phytoremediation system is expected to
remove approximately 3.69 million gallons of water from the ground. During the same
time, approximately 0. 71 million gallons are expected to be removed from Fairway Six .
Thomas Consultants, Inc. 14 08121/13
• • • C • • • • • •• •• • , . • • • • • • • e APPENDIX D
• Community Interview Questionnaire and Public Notice • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e