NCD991278953_19920403_National Starch & Chemical Corp._FRBCERCLA SPD_Third Work Plan OU-3-OCR

J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
[i] INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR THE
THIRD OPERABLE UNIT
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD
SALISBURY,NORTHCAROLINA
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee
April 3, 1992
RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
rn INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Remedial Project Manager
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
April 6, 1992
IT Project No. 408668.60
Final RI/FS Work Plan for the Third Operable Unit
National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina
Dear Barbara:
On behalf of National Starch and Chemical Company (NSCC), IT Corporation (IT) is submitting
four bound copies and one unbound copy of the Final RI/FS Work Plan for the Third Operable
Unit. In addition copies have been forwarded directly to the State of North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), and EPA's oversight contractor
COM.
This work plan incorporates EPA's and NCDEHNR's comments to the Draft RI/FS Work Plan
submitted January 21, 1992. Responses to the agencies' review comments are enclosed.
Based on the telephone conference call on March 30, the phased approach to the field
investigation has been deleted from the Work Plan. However, as agreed by EPA, if the data
obtained by this investigation, as currently scoped in the Work Plan, does not adequately support
a Baseline Risk Assessment, additional characterization will follow before continuing with the
FS.
It is also worth noting that even with the deletion of the phased approach and conducting the
development of alternatives concurrently with the preparation of the RI report the project
schedule still shows the completion of the Record of Decision on April 17, 1993 instead of the
EPA proposed date of December 1992.
Regional Office
312 Directors Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37923, 615-690-3211
IT Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of International Technology Corporation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Barbara Benoy
Apri 1 6, 1992
Page 2
INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely, j
ff~ {u,/4 Tor
J;hael N. Sturdevant, PE
Project Manager
MS/
Enclosures
cc: Hank Graulich, NSCC
Alex Samson, NSCC
Ray Paradowski, NSCC
Jim Cole, CDM
Bruce Nicholson, NCDEHNR (2 copies)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Responses to U.S. EPA Comments (3/3/92) on the
Draft Work Plan for the Third Operable Unit,
National Starch and Chemical Company Site
(January 1992)
GENERAL COMMENTS
Comment No. 1:
The RI/FS for Operable Unit 3 at the site does not warrant a phased approach. Sufficient
data has been generated during the previous investigations to allow a focused investigation
that is designed to answer all questions that remain on this operable unit.
Response No.l:
References to a phased approach have been removed from the Work Plan.
The ultimate objective of the RI for the Northeast Tributary is to determine the location of the
source of contamination as well as the extent of the contamination. Previous investigations
have focused on in-stream characterization. The Data Evaluation report ( 10/02/90) added
characterization of shallow soil (up to 3.5 feet) between the plant operations area and the
stream. Analytical results indicated that the shallow soil was not a significant contributor of
contamination to the stream. No significant groundwater data has been generated along the
stream in order to characterize the hydrologic and contaminant relationship between the
stream and groundwater.
The proposed approach of the Work Plan is to sample surface water, sediment and groundwa-
ter along the stream. The analytical and water level data will be evaluated to determine if
contamination is migrating to the stream via the groundwater pathway. The data should also
aid in determining the location of the contamination pathway i.e., the point(s) along the
stream that migration is occurring; however, if the data are not sufficient to perform a
baseline risk assessment, then additional sampling of the media of concern will be necessary
(see Chapter 4.0).
Comment No. 2:
The focus of the report is clearly human health, and human risk assessment. There is no
apparent consideration of potential threat to "the environment" or non-human biota. Forth-
coming reports should contain some consideration or evaluation of environmental threat.
Although it would appear that the threat is minimal, the RI should contain a proper evaluation
with technically defendable conclusions. During the scoping meeting held at the site with a
North Carolina Superfund representative, it was stated that the Work Plan should contain an
ecological assessment approach, at a minimum.
KN/WPlOS.CR,Ol-06-91/02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response No. 2:
An ecological assessment will be performed and has been incorporated into the Work Plan
(see Section 5.5, Task 5 -Baseline Risk Assessment).
Comment No. 3:
Section 2.1. page 2-1 -Expand the Site Location and Description to include more information .
about the nature of Northeast Tributary (e.g., intermittent vs. permanent water body) and the
distance from the site-related contaminated area of Northeast Tributary to the nearest
downstream surface water body.
Response No. 3:
Additional information has been added to Section 2.1.
Comment No. 4:
Section 4.2, page 4-1 -Sediment samples should also be collected at each surface water
sample location, since high concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane have been found in both
media in the past. Additionally, surface water and sediment should also be collected at an
upstream background/control location, such as SW/SE-11 or between SW/SE-11 and SW/SE-
12.
Response No. 4:
Additional surface water/sediment sampling will be incorporated. (See Response No. 5).
Comment No. 5:
Section 5.2, Task 2 -Only groundwater sampling is discussed here. Task 2 will be expanded
to include groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Pertaining to the discussion regarding
the need to collect soil samples from the saturated zone (during installation of the temporary
well points), soils samples will not be required from the boreholes. The groundwater sample
should provide adequate data. Additional temporary well points will be included at both
upstream and downstream locations to provide data for comparison to background and to
downgradient and downstream conditions in the saturated zone.
Sufficient documentation needs to be provided regarding the parking lot. Since the site
scoping meeting, IT/NSCC has changed their original perspective and apparently no longer
consider the parking lot as a source of contamination to the tributary. Regardless of the dates
that the parking lot was installed, the parking lot may be a source. Provide the justification
and/or explanation for this change in the text and accompany this with the written documenta-
tion. Though not discussed during our 2/26/92 meeting, the parking lot may require sampling
to make a final determination regarding the source of contamination. The documentation and
KNJWP705.CR.<)4-06-91/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
justification will be reviewed to determine whether sampling of the parking lot will be
required.
Response No. 5:
The Work Plan will be revised to include two additional pairs of well points, one at each
upstream and downstream locations, and one background well point between SW /SE-11 and
SW/SE-12, bringing the total number of well points to thirteen. Surface water and sediment
samples will be collected at SW/SE-9, SW/SE-JO, SW/SE-11, SW,SE-12, SW/SE-13, SW/SE-
14 and SW/SE-16 (See Appendix A and Figure A-1). These are the same sample locations,
with the exception of SW/SE-15 and the new sample SW/SE-16, that were sampled during
the July 1990 and June 1991 events.
Additional correspondence between National Starch and the State of North Carolina has been
added (Appendix F) to provide information regarding the date the samples were collected and
analyzed. The justification for not sampling the parking lot has been incorporated (Section
4.2).
Comment No. 6:
Section 5.3 -Task 3 -Sample Analysis -Provide written explanation within the text (supple-
mented by existing appendix) regarding the limited list of analytes.
Response No. 6:
The justification for analyzing Target Compound List (TCL) volatile organic compounds
(VOC) only is presented in Section 3.2.
Comment No. 7:
Section 5.4 -Task 4 -RI Report. Section 6.8. Task 8 -FS Report -The Suggested RI Report
Format and the Suggested FS Report Format from the EPA guidance for Conducting Rl/FSs
Under CERCLA, 1988 are enclosed. These formats should be followed as closely as
reasonably possible. An additional task must be included within this Section of the Work
Plan identifying the Baseline Risk Assessment. The respective Report Format must be
included if the Risk Assessment document is to be separate from the RI.
Response No. 7:
The Rl/FS guidance will be followed. An additional task has been added to the Work Plan
(Section 5.5) that includes the Baseline Risk Assessment.
KN/WP705.CJW4-06-91JD2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment No. 8:
Section 5.4, page 5-2 -The preliminary risk evaluation (Appendix E) focused on human
health concerns with respect to contaminants associated with Northeast Tributary. The draft
RI will also need to address ecological concerns with respect to the contaminated surface
water and sediment found in Northeast Tributary.
In order to address the ecological concerns for OU3, it is recommended that Phase I be
expanded to include a characterization of the Northeast Tributary and its associated biota (as
receptors potentially affected by site-related contaminants). This information can be obtained
using one of USEPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers:
Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, May 1989 (EPN444/4-89-00l). (I have been informed
that IT does have this guidance in their possession.)
Based upon the information in my memorandum of November 25, 1991 concerning the
occurrence of 1,2-dichloroethane in Northeast Tributary and a possible concern with respect to
the compound's toxicity to aquatic biota, it is also recommended that chronic toxicity tests be
conducted for both surface water and sediment from Northeast Tributary. Surface water and
sediment samples for these toxicity tests should be collected at locations SW/SE-13 and
SW/SE-14 (the locations showing the highest levels of 1,2-dichloroethane in the past) and at
the background/control location. (If necessary, EPA can recommend appropriate toxicity tests
for the site.)
Response No. 8:
See Response No. 2
Comment No. 9:
Section 5.4 -Task 4 -Change "regulatory" to "EPA".
Response No. 9:
Corrected.
Comment No. 10:
Section 5.6 -Task 6 -Text states that this task will begin once enough data have been
collected to develop general response actions and to initiate the evaluation of potential
remedial technologies. Four specific elements of this task are identified. These elements can
be initiated based on existing data. Provide information on the reporting of these Remedial
Alternatives. It is suggested that the RI include a section that identifies and screens any
potential technologies.
KN,WP705.CR,<l4-06-91/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response No. 10:
The RI will include a section that identifies and screens potential technologies (see Section
5.6).
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN
Comment No. 11:
The investigation of the tributary should be expanded to include surface water and sediment
samples. Background and downstream sampling stations must be established. Additional
locations are needed along the area of known contamination. This RI should generate
sufficient data to develop a Record of Decision concerning this Operable Unit.
Response No. I I:
See Responses No. I and No. 5.
Comment No. 12:
All work will be conducted in compliance with Region IV EPA 's Environmental Compliance
Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, February I, 1991.
The Sampling and Analysis Plan and the Quality Assurance Project Plan must state this.
More specific infonnation should be included in the descriptions of sample collection,
shipment, decon, etc. This manual has been submitted to IT Corporation and to National
Starch.
Response No. 12:
A statement of compliance will be incorporated into the SAP and QAPP.
Comment No. 13:
The construction of the temporary well points has been discussed with Charlie Till with EPA-
ESD. Use of the sand packs was concurred with, bentonite was discussed, but Mr. Till
emphasizes the these (sic) well points are temporary and cannot be substituted for properly
installed monitoring wells.
KN/WP705.CR,,04-06-92/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response No. 13:
The State of North Carolina does not accept leaving the proposed temporary monitoring wells
in place (in order to perform additional sampling); therefore, a more simple design has been
incorporated into the Work Plan (Appendix A, Section A.4.2.2). Methods of construction
have been coordinated with Don Hunter of U.S. EPA/ESD and Steve Bograd of the State of
North Carolina's Department of Environmental Management.
Comment No. 14:
Why is the 11.7 eV probe being used? The 10.2 probe is much more stable thereby generat-
ing more reliable results.
Response No. 14:
Most of the chlorinated hydrocarbons which are present at the site have ionization potentials
(IP) greater than 10.2 eV. Specifically, 1,2-dichloroethane IP= 11.12 and 1,2-dichloropropane
IP= 10.87. However, after further review, the OVA will be used instead of the HNu since it is
a more reliable instrument and is capable of detecting a wider array of organic components.
Comment No. 15:
Section A.5.0 -Sampling Procedure -The first paragraph states "From review of metal
concentrations in soil and sediments, it is evident that metal concentrations in surface water in
the Northeast Tributary represent background levels found in site soils." This is a comparison
of two different media. Where were the site soils collected? Better substantiation of these
background levels is necessary to accept this approach.
Response No. 15:
The first paragraph of this section has been deleted. The justification for analyzing TCL
VOCs is presented in Section 3.2 of the Work Plan.
Comment No. 16:
Section A.2.0, page A-I -Sampling SW-16 was deleted from this section. Clarify the
number of surface water samples and their locations. Also include the additional surface
water and sediment samples recommended above.
The last sampling was in June 1991; the report is dated July 1991. Also, it can be deter-
mined whether a reduction in the concentrations of TCL compounds has occurred since then,
but it cannot be confirmed, since the June 1991 concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane at SW-
13, SE-13 and SE-14 actually increased from 1990 to 1991. Provide explanation and an
adequate approach for confinnation.
KN/WP?OS.CR.,0<!-06-92/02
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
Response No. 16:
Clarification of samples will be incorporated. (Also see Response No. S.)
Section A.2.0, second paragraph, will be corrected.
Comment No. 17:
Section A.5.0, page A-4 -Clarify how the determination was made that "metal concentrations
in surface water in the Northeast Tributary represent background levels found in site soils",
especially since this involves a comparison of two different media. (See above comment.)
This section indicates that samples will be analyzed only for volatile TCL compounds.
Section 4.2, page 4-1 implies that the analyses will include all TCL organic compounds.
Please clarify.
Response No. 17:
The determination is presented in Section 3.2.
Page 4-1 will be corrected to address TCL volatile organic compounds only.
Comment No. 18:
Section A.5.1, page A-4 -Again, clarify the surface water sample locations. Also, basic
water quality parameters (such as pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance,
etc.) should be measured in conjunction with the surface water sampling.
Next to the last sentence in the first paragraph of this section states that "review of data for
organic compounds in surface water shows that concentrations of semivolatile organic
compounds are below either detection limits or are below applicable or relevant and appropri-
ate requirements established for groundwater". Provide the data and the appropriate ARARs
to justify this statement.
Response No. 18:
Measurement of water quality parameters has been incorporated into the Work Plan (Appen-
dix A, Section A.5.1 ).
The first paragraph in this section has been deleted. Justification for sampling only TCL
voes is presented in Section 3.2.
KN/WP70S.CR.<)4.Q6.92/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
Comment No. 19:
The methods to be used must be defined with appropriate detection limits identified.
Response No. 19:
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) 2/88 SOW is the method to be followed. The
Contract Required Quantitation Limits are the same as the Contract Required Detection Limits
for the CLP method.
SCHEDULE
Comment No. 20:
The proposed schedule identified in Figure 6.1 incorporates at least two (2) phases for the
RI/FS. The length of this schedule is entirely too extensive. The Agency has this Operable
Unit scheduled for a Record of Decision (ROD) by December of 1992. The project schedule
should be modified to accommodate this schedule.
Response No. 20:
The phased approach has been deleted from Figure 6-1. Based on the revised schedule,
completion of the ROD cannot be accomplished by December 1992.
APPENDIX D
Comment No. 21:
Table 3e -Check the units for the sediment data for March and August, 1987 (i.e., ug/kg or
ug/g ?).
Response No. 21:
The units in Table 3e have been corrected to read "mg/kg".
Comment No. 22:
Tables 4-4 and 4-5 -Include the sampling data.
Response No. 22:
Sampling data have been added.
KN/WP705.CR,04-06-92/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Responses to State of North Carolina Comments (2/10/92)
on the Draft Work Plan for the Third Operable Unit,
National Starch and Chemical Company Site
(January 1992)
Comment No. 23:
Page 4-2, Section 4.3. The Work Plan states that one of the reasons the soils in the parking
lot area are not considered to be the source is because they were not in place at the time of
the Remedial Investigation for Operable Units I and 2. This is a very important point that is
well taken. Because no samples are planned for the parking lot area, we request some
additional clarification on this matter. Please provide a more detailed and specific timeline
for the critical events. What were the creek sampling dates and results versus the parking lot
expansion approval and construction?
Response No. 23:
Clarification has been incorporated (see Section 4.2).
Comment No. 24:
Page A-1. The Work Plan states that temporary well points will be used to collect groundwa-
ter samples. The NC Superfund Section supports this approach as a cost effective method of
gathering numerous groundwater samples. In Section Site Investigations the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) has requested that we notify them when well points are
being used. Therefore, the NC Superfund Section requests that National Starch notify the
Mooresville Regional Office of DEM about the planned use of well points at the National
Starch Site.
Response No. 24:
Notification has been made.
KN/WP705.CR.,04-06-92/D2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR THE
THIRD OPERABLE UNIT
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee
~ ,,/
Approved :/27,,,£ c 1~z_~,,,, -~
• J /
Mike Sturdevant
Project Manager, IT Corporation
Approved'._/ 3f'~a,,.,,,~
Steve Alvanas
Quality Assurance Officer, IT Corporation
, (' -
Approved: i)}g-1s-'0 ~l"\
Melissa Smith
Health and Safety Officer, IT Corporation
KN/WP645.COV/04-03-92/01
Date:
Date:
Date:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
'
FINAL WORK PLAN FOR THE
THIRD OPERABLE UNIT
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY SITE
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD
KN/WP645.COV/04-03-92/01
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee
April 3, 1992
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents'-----------------
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Acronyms
1.0 Introduction
1. 1 Administrative History
1.2 Work Plan Organization
2.0 Site Background
2.1 Site Location and Description
2.2 Site Background
3.0 Past Evaluations of the Northeast Tributary
3.1 Remedial Investigation Phase I
3.2 Supplemental Remedial Investigation
3.3 Additional Sampling of the Northeast Tributary, July 1990
3.4 Additional Sampling of the Northeast Tributary, June 1991
4.0 Remedial Investigation Approach/Data Quality Objectives
4.1 General
4.2 Remedial Investigation Approach
4.3 Data Quality Objectives
4.4 Data Users
5.0 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Tasks
5.1 Task 1 -Preparation of the Draft and Final Project Plans
5 .2 Task 2 -Field Investigation
5.3 Task 3 -Sample Analysis
5.4 Task 4 -Remedial Investigation Report
5.5 Task 5 -Baseline Risk Assessment
5.6 Task 6 -Remedial Alternatives Development/Scr~ning
5. 7 Task 7 -Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
5.8 Task 8 -Feasibility Study Report
5.9 Task 9 -Post-Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support
6.0 Project Schedule
7 .0 References
KN/WP64S.CON.<l4-03-91/DI I
iii
111
IV
1-1
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-3
3-4
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-2
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-3
5-3
5-3
5-3
6-1
7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents (Continued)'----------------
Appendix A -Field Sampling Plan
Appendix B -Quality Assurance Project Plan
Appendix C -Health and Safety Plan
Appendix D -Analytical Data from Past Evaluations
Appendix E -Data Evaluation of Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil of the Northeast
Tributary
Appendix F -Correspondence Between National Starch and Chemical Company and the State
of North Carolina
KNJWP645.CONi04-03-92,IDl ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Tables. _________________ _
Table
3-1
3-2
4-1
Title Follows Page
Summary of Detectable Concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane 3-1
Surface Water, Surface Sediment, and Soil Sampling of the
Northeast Tributary
Summary of TAL Metals Found in the Northeast Tributary 3-2
Summary of Data from Surface Water and Sediment 4-2
Samples SW/SE-13 and SW/SE-14 for 1,2-Dichloroethane
I List of Figures _________________ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure
2-1
3-1
6-1
Title
Site Location Map
Past Sampling Locations of the Northeast Tributary
Project Schedule
KN./WP64S.CONJ04-03-92/Dl l11
Follows Page
2-1
3-1
6-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
List of Acronyms ________________ _
CERCLA
CLP
DHS
DQO
FSP
HSP
IT
ITAS
NCP
NPDES
NPL
NSCC
OU3
ppb
PRE
PRG
POTW
QAPP
RI/FS
ROD
svoc
TAL
TCL
UAO
U.S. EPA
voe
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Contract Laboratory Program
Division of Health Services
Data Quality Objectives
Field Sampling Plan
Health and Safety Plan
IT Corporation
IT Analytical Services
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priority List
National Starch and Chemical Company
Operable Unit 3
parts per billion
preliminary risk evaluation
preliminary remediation goal
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance Project Plan
remedial investigation/feasibility study
Record of Decision
semivolatile organic compound
Target Analyte List
Target Compound List
Unilateral Administrative Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
volatile organic compound
KN/WP645.CON,IJ4-03-92/DJ iv
I
I
·•
I
I'
. I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I/
I:
I
I
I
I
1.0 Introduction
A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is an established U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) process that is used to identify and select a remedial action
plan for site mitigation. This Work Plan was prepared to present the tasks and procedures
required to accomplish the RI/FS for Operable Unit 3 (OU3). OU3 will address the contami-
nants in the Northeast Tributary at the National Starch and Chemical Company (NSCC) site
in Salisbury, North Carolina .
1. 1 Administrative History
The U.S. EPA proposed the NSCC site for inclusion on the National Priority List (NPL) in
April 1985 under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as Superfund. The site was officially placed
on the NPL on October 4, 1989 and ranked 257.
NSCC retained IT Corporation (IT) as their environmental consultant in 1984 and directed IT
to perform the RI/FS in accordance with an Administrative Order of Consent (U.S. EPA,
1986). IT completed the RI on June 21, 1988 (IT, 1988a) and the FS on September 8, 1988
(IT, 1988b).
Based on the RI/FS, the U.S. EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. EPA, 1988)
for the site on September 30, 1988. The ROD divided the site into two operable units. The
first operable unit consists of contaminated groundwater and the second operable unit consists
of trench area soils and surface water/sediments in surrounding tributaries. The selected
remedy in the ROD for the first operable unit includes a groundwater interception and
extraction system installed downgradient of the disposal area that is capable of effectively
containing and remediating the contaminated groundwater. The extracted groundwater will
then undergo pretreatment and discharge to the City of Salisbury Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).
In accordance with the first operable unit ROD, IT performed a Supplemental RI for the
second operable unit. IT completed the Supplemental RI in May 1990 (IT, 1990a). The U.S.
EPA issued the ROD for the second operable unit on September 30, 1990 (U.S. EPA, 1990).
No further action on the trench soils was the selected remedy because contaminants from the
KN/WP645.1 ("'4)-"4-0'.1-92/D2 1-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
trench area soils are released into the contaminated groundwater aquifer, which will undergo
remediation in accordance with the first operable unit ROD.
Surface water/sediment sampling was conducted during the first and the supplemental RI;
however, the source of contaminants detected in the Northeast Tributary was not determined.
The second operable unit ROD, therefore, established the Northeast Tributary as the third
operable unit. On December 4, 1991, the U.S. EPA issued written notification that an "RI/FS
must be conducted to determine the source, nature and extent of contamination entering the
Northeast Tributary" (U.S. EPA, 1991). The RI/FS for the third operable unit is to be
performed in accordance with the original Administrative Order on Consent No. 87-01-C.
1.2 Work Plan Organization
This work plan is organized to comply with U.S. EPA guidance documents. Chapter 1.0
provides an introduction and administrative history of how OU3 was created. Chapter 2.0
presents the site location and background. Chapter 3.0 presents a summary of past investiga-
tions and reports that have been performed on the Northeast Tributary. Chapter 4.0 presents
the investigative approach and Data Quality Objectives (DQO) based on past findings
presented in Section 3.0. The specific tasks planned for the RI/FS process are presented in
Chapter 5 .0. Chapter 6.0 presents the project schedule established to track the progress of the
RI/FS. Chapter 7 .0 contains the references.
The appendices provide the supporting documents required to complete the field activities.
Appendix A (Field Sampling Plan [FSP]) presents the specific activities planned to character-
ize the probable source of contamination. Appendix B (Quality Assurance Project Plan
[QAPP]) provides the procedures that will be undertaken to ensure the precision, accuracy,
and completeness of the data gathered. The FSP and QAPP make up the sampling and
analytical plan for the field operations. Appendix C (Health and Safety Plan [HSP]) describes
the procedures to be followed to provide a safe and healthful work environment. Appendix D
contains a collection of analytical data from past investigations. Appendix E contains a data
evaluation report by IT that presents the findings from the most recent sampling events
conducted on the Northeast Tributary. Appendix F contains correspondence between NSCC
and the State of North Carolina regarding the placement of fill material in a parking area
adjacent to the Northeast Tributary.
KN/WP645.I (084),<>4-03-92/02 1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 Site Location and Background
2. 1 Site Location and Description
The NSCC site is located in Rowan County, North.Carolina, approximately 5 miles south of
the City of Salisbury (Figure 2-1). Salisbury is located approximately 40 miles northeast of
Charlotte, North Carolina.
The NSCC site, also referred to as the Cedar Springs Road Plant, is approximately 500 acres
in size. The chemical plant is located in the southeastern portion of the property. The
disposal area, known as the trench area, is located southwest of the plant operations and is
surrounded by heavily wooded acreage to the north, west, and south.
The Northeast Tributary traverses the NSCC property paralleling Cedar Springs Road and
passes within 50 yards of the front of the operating facility. The headwaters of the tributary
receive runoff from an industrial complex on the east side of Cedar Springs Road, from Cedar
Springs Road itself, and from Southmark Industrial Park to the south. The stream continues
to receive runoff from areas on both sides of the stream throughout its progression across the
site. It should be noted that runoff from the plant operations are directed into sumps and
pumped to the wastewater lagoons. In addition to surface water runoff, the stream receives
discharge from the W.A. Brown Plant through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit point.
The Northeast Tributary is an intermittent stream that does not flow only during very dry
periods. From the plant area, the stream flows for approximately 6,000 feet before joining
with Grants Creek to the north. Grants Creek flows about 12 miles beyond NSCC property
where it joins with the Yadkin River approximately 2 miles downstream from the water
supply intake for the City of Salisbury.
Near the plant property, the stream has an average width of 3 to 4 feet and a flowing depth of
4 to 6 inches. Increased flow is noted during the spring while reduced flow is noted during
the summer. No stream gage data have been collected from the Northeast Tributary.
Presently, land use of the areas immediately adjacent to the site is a mixture of residential and
industrial developments. As shown in the RI Report (IT, 1988a), on the east and south sides
of the site, opposite of Cedar Springs Road, is an industrial park primarily consisting of light
KN/WP64S.2(084),<)4-0l-92/D4 2-1
ft
u ;:;
0 I
m
1 ro w ,o
<O <O ,o ro ro 0 0 v v N
0 0
I z z
0 ..; 0 ?: "' 0 0.
t; --....... D-11,, I ~ t (._ z '(' -< 0 t a "' Co ::, "',i,0-"' >-) j' V,
I V, " "-..; "' ii " .......,_"' 0 " >-a ·(
I E "" \ DAVIDSON ,:: 0.
0
COUNTY
u w :c ---I ';/ 0. 70 ---0
;.; ;.; m m I ,; "' u :c u
HIGH~
u :c t.tlll u
~ ii BRIDGE
" NATIO I z ROCK
0 w STARCH LAKE ~
I GRAtHS \
(.';
"' I >-;.; V, m ., .J
w ~
------~'
>--< "' 0 0
I COUNTY
N ----7 m KANNAPLOIS CABARRUS COUNTY I :c
N ~ I I I ~ -V>
J 0 J
-,: ·iii
0 ;.;
I g m
,= z SCALE:
~ ?: -< "' V> 0 0 8 16 MILES
I V, m
I E FIGURE 2-1 ~ v '!1 SITE LOCATION MAP
N m
I '-NATIONAL STARC/1 ;:;
'-ANO CHEMICAL COMPANY
0 SAL/BURY, NC
"' I ro Ill INTERNATIONAL
<O <O TECHNOLOGY
ro CORPORATION
0 •
I
I
0
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
industrial operations. Grants Creek forms the western boundary of the site. The Southmark
Industrial Park is located along the southern property line. The Little Acres Mobile Home
Subdivision adjoins the extreme southwestern comer of the site. A housing development,
Kings Forest, is adjacent to the north side of the site. The site actually forms the east, west,
and south boundaries of the development, and although the site is adjacent to the backyards of
a number of homes in the development, the nearest home is approximately 1,700 feet from
the trench area. A second development, Stonybrook, lies across Airport Road on the northern
side of the site.
The hydrogeologic framework at the site consist of two aquifers with distinctly different flow
characteristics. The uppermost aquifer consists of a clay rich soil (saprolite) formed from in
situ chemical weathering of the crystalline bedrock. The deeper aquifer consists of crystalline
bedrock. These two aquifers are interconnected, but because of the hydrogeologic characteris-
tics of the bedrock, the deeper aquifer produces a higher yield averaging 40 to 50 gallons per
minute, whereas wells in the saprolite yield 3 to 5 gallons per minute.
2.2 Site Background
Beginning in September 1968, Proctor Chemical Company purchased 465 acres along Cedar
Springs Road. Within the next year, Proctor Chemical was acquired by NSCC. Construction
of the Cedar Springs Road plant began in 1970. The NSCC facility is primarily a manufac-
turing plant for textile-finishing chemicals and custom specialty chemicals. Production takes
place on a batch basis and varies depending on demand.
From 1971 to I 978, NSCC continuously pumped reaction vessel wash waters from holding
lagoons into trenches within a 5-acre tract of land located behind the plant known as the
"trench area." The wash waters were disposed of in several trenches approximately 200 to
300 feet long and JO feet deep. Some trenches ran east to west, and others north to south.
Approximately 350,000 gallons of the reaction vessel wash waters (consisting primarily of
salt brine and sulfuric acid solutions) were disposed of in accordance with the standard
operating procedure for this time period. The wash waters also included trace amounts, based
on water solubilities, of sulfonating fats, oils, and solvents.
In 1978, the City of Salisbury and NSCC mutually agreed to connect NSCC's wastewater
lagoons to a sewer interceptor line that was under construction along NSCC's southwestern
boundary; therefore, since 1978, the production plant process waters have been directed to a
pretreatment facility located adjacent to and south of the production area. The waste stream
KN/WP645.2(084),IJ4-03-92/D4 2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
is directed through equalization and settling lagoons with surface aeration prior to controlled
discharge to the City of Salisbury POTW.
Numerous studies and reports were generated prior to the RI. These reports are summarized
in the RI Report (IT, 1988a). Currently the Remedial Design/Remedial Action of the first
operable unit (groundwater) is being performed in accordance with the U.S. EPA Unilateral
Administrative Order (UAO) effective July 27, 1989.
The second operable unit RI/FS concluded that the surrounding surface water tributaries are
not being impacted by contaminants from the trench area subsurface soils or the groundwater
plume. Volatile organic contaminants were detected in the Northeast Tributary from an
unknown source. The no-action alternative is currently being implemented under the second
operable unit ROD (U.S. EPA, 1990).
KN/WP645.2(084),ll4-0J.92/D4 2-3
D
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 Past Evaluations of the Northeast Tributary
Surface water, surface sediment, and soil sampling at the Northeast Tributary has been
conducted in several phases between March I 987 and June I 991. Table 3-1 presents a
summary of the sampling events. Concentrations of 1,2-dichloroethane are shown because
this is the most widespread contaminant found at the site. The findings and conclusions of
these sampling events are briefly summarized in the following sections. The reader may refer
to the reports referenced in Table 3-1 for details.
3.1 Remedial Investigation Phase I (IT, 1988a)
Initial sampling of the Northeast Tributary took place during Phase I activities in March 1987.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from various points along small streams
and tributaries on or near the NSCC property as well as from Grants Creek. Analytical
results have been extracted from the RI Report and are presented in Appendix D. The surface
water (SW)/sediment (SE) samples collected from the Northeast Tributary, SW/SE-01,
revealed the presence of 1,2-dichloroethane at 1,400 parts per billion (ppb) in water and 18
ppb in sediment. Subsequent sampling by the U.S. EPA in June 1987 verified the presence of
1,2-dichloroethane in both surface water and sediment at NS-W4 (water) and NS-S4 (sedi-
ment) (refer to.Appendix D); however, the U.S. EPA collected surface water and sediment
samples at two additional points downstream (NS-W2/NS-S2 and NS-WI/NS-SI) and did not
find any organics with the exception of low levels of three extractable organic compounds.
The RI concluded that 1,2-dichloroethane is not migrating off site and that there is no
inorganic contamination in the tributary.
3.2 Supplemental Remedial Investigation (IT, 1990)
The ROD for the groundwater operable unit (U.S. EPA, 1988) specified that additional
surface water, sediment, and soil sampling be conducted to investigate the potential migration
of contamination and the source of contamination. Surface water and sediment samples were
collected from across the site (duplicating previous sampling locations) and also from the
Northeast Tributary at sampling points SW/SE-09 through SW/SE-12 (see Figure 3-1).
It should be noted that between the Phase I RI activities and the Supplemental RI activities,
NSCC abandoned (by plugging) all storm water discharge lines that collected storm water
from the asphalt area between the main building and the Northeast Tributary. These lines
discharged surface water runoff from the asphalt area to the steep-sloped bank above the
Northeast Tributary.
KN/WP645 .3,<>4-03-92/04 3-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
/·
.111.0
.-. ~
/
Q ,.~\(.
1/7
O[NSE.
0
) ~ .110!>
,,.,.
f R[[S
N
LEGEND
-@ SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLING
POINTS
-SOIL SAMPLING TRANSECTS
PERPENDICULAR TO STREAM BED
S0-J SOIL SAMPLING TRANSECT NUMBER
SW/SE·l5 SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE NUMBER
6 EPA SURFACE WATER &
SEDl"ENT SAl,IPLE
SCALE
0 200 400 600 FEET
CQNTOUR INTERVAL 5 FEET
[[fl Corporation
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE
CONf/OINIIAl p10,11tT OJ 11 COIPOIATION
THIS DftOWW(. AHO AU llff'Oll>UTIOM TMl:ll[ON IS a:,,cnxwn,.I. N<O MUST N01
I[ )040( l'UIII.IC 011 ~o UNU:55 DUI.T .I.UTM0l!lt[tl, SHAU HOT a£ USlO
ucu•T roll 111[ "-lllf'OS( nllt WHICH fl' WAS SI.Pl'UUI. MD IS suan:a TO
ll£l\Jllfl Ofl Olou.NO. AU MC:Kn CA ..VCIITD'I OIi ll£Sll;N Ml[ 1IUUVOI
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL COMPANY
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD PLANT
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
PAST SAMPLING LOCATIONS.
OF THE NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY
JOB NO.
408668
DRAWING NO. , REV
408668-B-19 0
FIGURE 3-1
D
I
I
m
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-1
Summary of Detectable Concentrations of 1,2-Dichloroethane in Surface
Water, Surface Sediment, and Soil Sampling of the Northeast Tributary
Sample
Numbe,.a March 1987b June 1987c
Oct., Nov.
1989d July 19908 June 19911
SW/SE-01 1400/189
NS-W1/S1 NDh/ND
NS-W2/S2 ND/ND
NS-W3/S3 ND/ND
NS-W4/S4 4400i/3400i.j
SW/SE-09 350,76 160/980 77/23
SW/SE-10 1200/14 1600/ND 810/310
SW/SE-11 ND/ND ND/ND ND/ND
SW/SE-12 ND/ND NSk/ND NS/ND
SW/SE-13 880/3400 1800,7400
SW/SE-14 1700/1200 1200/4200
SW/SE-15 ND/ND ND/ND
SO-01 ND
SO-02 ND
SO-03 ND
SO-04 ND
SO-05 650
SO-06 57
SO-07 ND
aSW/SE: surface water/sediment; NS-W/S: water/sediment (U.S. EPA samples); SO: soil.
bRI Report, Phase I (IT, 1988a). See Appendix D.
cu.S. EPA (ROD, 1988). See Appendix D.
dsupplemental RI Report (IT, 1990a). See Appendix D.
8Data Evaluation Report. See Appendix E. I1T Memorandum (See Appendix E).
9Concentration of 1,2-dichloroethane in surface water/sediment (µg/L, µg/kg).
hMaterial was analyzed for but not detected.
'Estimated value.
iPresumptive evidence of presence of material.
kNot sampled (no water available).
K NIWP645 .3A( 064 )/04 -03-92/00
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition, concrete dikes, catch basins, sump pumps, and discharge lines were installed in
the asphalt area to collect and discharge the storm water to the existing pretreatment lagoons.
Contaminants of concern that were found in the surface water and sediment samples were
established in the Supplemental RI Report. A summary of the data is presented in Appendix
D. The surface water samples showed only 1,2-dichloroethane as an organic contaminant of
concern. This compound was found in samples SW-09 and SW-10, at 350 and 1,200 ppb,
respectively. The sediment samples had detectable organic contamination only at SE-09 and
SE-10 where 1,2-dichloroethane was found at 76 and 14 ppb, respectively. These were the
same locations in which surface water samples were impacted (Table 3-1).
The Supplemental RI Report shows that semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC) were not
present in any of the surface water samples collected from the Northeast Tributary (SW-09,
SW-10, SW-11, and SW-12) (Appendix D). The Supplemental RI (Appendix D) indicates the
presence of phthalates in all sediment samples along with hexachlorobutadiene, which was
present only in SE-10 at a concentration below the quantitation limit. No historical or site
information indicates that this chemical is present at the site. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was
present in the laboratory blank and it is recognized as a common laboratory contaminant. Di-
n-butylphthalate was present only in SE-11 (and SE-11 duplicate) at concentrations below the
quantitation limits and is also recognized as a common laboratory contaminant. Based on this
information, SVOCs are not a concern at the Northeast Tributary.
A summary of Target Analyte List (TAL) metal concentrations found in the Northeast
Tributary is presented in Table 3-2. Data from downstream samples SW /SE-09 and SW /SE-
10 are presented along with the range of detected background concentrations found in
upstream samples SW/SE-08, SW/SE-11, and SE-12. Sample SW/SE-08 was taken upstream
of the southwest tributary, located on the south side of the NSCC property. Samples SW/SE-
11 and SE-12 were collected from the upper reach of the Northeast Tributary. Water was not
available for sample collection at the SE-12 location.
The only metal with a concentration exceeding the background range in sediments was
calcium, which was detected in sample SE-09. Magnesium, sodium, and zinc concentrations
exceeded background ranges in surface water samples SW-09 and SW-10. Calcium,
magnesium, and sodium are all essential nutrients and are therefore not considered contami-
nants of concern. The concentration of zinc in SW-10 (499 ppb) was high but only fell
K.N/WP645.3i04-0J-92/D4 3-2
- - - - - - - ------!!!!! c::::;; iiii -l!!!!!I ==
Table 3-2
Summary of TAL Metals Found In the Northeast Tributary
Target Analyte Surface Water and Sediment Samples Range of Detected
List (Concentrations in µg/L for water, µg/kg for soil) Background Levels
Substances
SW-09 SE-09 SW-10 SE-10 swb SEC
Aluminum 113 9,970 418 9,790 116-7,040 11,000-28, 100
Antimony NDd ND ND ND ND ND
Arsenic ND ND ND 0.9 ND ND-0.9
Barium 26 44.5 26 50.1 22-61 51.8-79.4
Beryllium ND ND ND 0.1 ND ND-0.7
Cadmium ND ND ND ND ND ND-4.5
Calcium 13,200 2,380 11,400 794 7,830-13,700 1, 150-2,270
Chromium ND 39 ND 35 ND-17 35-51
Cobalt ND 8 ND 21 ND 18-38
Copper ND 29 ND 20 13-24 21-42
Iron 819 7,460 2,080 23,400 407-20,600 24,600-57 ,900
Lead ND 4.4 ND 10.9 ND 9.0-20.0
Magnesium 6,660 957 5,950 342 4,010-6,210 616-1,240
Manganese 185 113 566 1,520 44-766 293-1,680
Mercury ND ND ND ND ND ND-0.08
Nickel ND 6 ND 5 ND 7-12
Potassium ND ND ND ND ND ND-221
KNIWP645.38(084)/04-03-92100
- - - - - - - - --.. -11!!!1 == Ciiiiiil -11!!!1 !!Ill ;;a
Target Analyte
List
Substances SW-09
Selenium ND
Silver ND
Sodium 11,900
Thallium ND
Vanadium ND
Zinc 379
Table 3-2
(Page 2 of 2)
Surface Water and Sediment Samples
(Concentrations in µg/L for water, µg/kg for soil)
SE-09 SW-10
ND ND
ND ND
80 17,600
ND ND
131 ND
89.2 499
asource: Supplemental RI Report for the Second Operable Unit (IT, 1990a).
bFrom upstream samples SW-08 and SW-11.
cFrom upstream samples SE-08, SE-11, and SE-12.
dND: not detected.
KNIWP645.3B(084)t04-03-921DO
Range of Detected
Background Levels
SE-10 swb SEC
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
45 3,630-6, 760 56-122
ND ND ND
84 ND 88-154
23.6 41-329 58.1-8,490
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
slightly out of the range of background concentrations. Zinc is not a suspected site contami-
nant and is therefore not a contaminant of concern.
Based on the evaluation of metals found in the Northeast Tributary, metals do not appear to
be significant contaminants of concern.
3.3 Additional Sampling of the Northeast Tributary, July 1990
Based upon the presence of volatile organics found during the supplemental RI activities
(Section 3.2), a follow-up study was conducted in July 1990 on the Northeast Tributary
including sampling of surface water, surface sediment, and soil. Results of the study are
presented in "Data Evaluation of Surface Water, Sediment and Soil Sampling of the Northeast
Tributary" (IT, 1990b). The report is included in Appendix E.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from six locations, SW/SE-09 through
SW/SE-14 (Figure 3-1). Samples SW/SE-09 through SW/SE-12 were collected from the
same locations of samples collected during the Supplemental RI activities. Three additional
points, SW/SE-13, SW/SE-14, and SW/SE-15, were added to complete the study. Sample
number SW/SE-15, located at the northern boundary of the NSCC property, was analyzed to
evaluate the possibility of off-site migration of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Soil
samples were collected from three sampling points along seven sampling transects oriented
perpendicular to the tributary at depths of 0.5 to 3.5 feet. The surface water, sediment, and
soil samples were only analyzed for volatile Target Compound List (TCL) compounds
because the Supplemental RI Report for the soil operable unit concluded that metals do not
appear to be significant contaminants of concern.
The data evaluation report concluded that the contaminant of concern in surface water was
1,2-dichloroethane, which was found in concentrations ranging from 160 to 1,700 ppb (IT,
1990b, Appendix E of this report). Similar levels were found during the Supplemental RI
activities. Significant levels of 1,2-dichloroethane, up to 3,400 ppb, were detected in
sediment samples. Sample number SW/SE-15, located at the northern boundary of the NSCC
property where the stream exits the site, was found to contain no TCL contaminants. This
confirmed that there is no off-site migration of VOCs. The significant concentrations of 1,2-
dichloroethane in soil were found at SO-05B (0.5 to 1.0 foot) and the deep samples at SO-
06C and SO-07C. SO-05B appeared to have an isolated appearance of 1,2-dichloroethane
relative to the other samples collected along the steep-sloped bank next to the plant operations
area.
KN/WP645.3i04-03·92/D4 3-3
I
I
I
m
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The preliminary risk evaluation (PRE) was completed as part of the data evaluation report to
determine the current risks associated with potential human exposure to surface water,
sediments, and soils. The PRE is presented in the data evaluation report contained in Appen-
dix E. The exposure pathways that were identified were incidental ingestion of surface water,
sediments, and soils by children while playing in the stream and dermal contact with and
inhalation of contaminants (by children) in surface water, sediments, and soils. It was
assumed that a child receptor would be exposed to the stream outside of the fence of the main
plant operations area (near SW/SE-10) and that a child would not trespass beyond the chain-
link fence; therefore, the concentrations of contaminants found in samples SO-01 (soil) and
SW /SE-09 (surface water/sediment) were used to perform the PRE.
The PRE concluded that the concentrations detected in the surface waters, sediments, and
soils do not pose a substantial health risk to residents, mainly children, in the area of the
NSCC site. The summed 1,2-dichloroethane cancer risk for all pathways was determined to
be 2.2 x 10-6, which is well within the range of acceptable risks. Noncancer risks associated
with all chemicals and all pathways are well below unity, indicating that no toxics hazards are
associated with exposures to contaminants in and around the Northeast Tributary.
3.4 Additional Sampling of the Northeast Tributary, June 1991
At the request of NSCC, IT collected additional surface water and sediment samples from the
Northeast Tributary to evaluate levels of TCL organics relative to the levels found from the
July 1990 sampling event (Section 3.3). Samples were collected at the same locations as the
previous event using the same sample numbers. The analytical results are contained in
Appendix E in an interoffice memorandum, "Updated Risk Assessment Results for National
Starch Chemical Company, Northeast Tributary" (July 22, 1991), which supplements the Data
Evaluation Report and Preliminary Risk Assessment, also in Appendix E.
Significant levels of 1,2-dichloroethane, ranging from 77 to 1,800 ppb, appeared in four of the
six surface water samples (SW-12 was not collected). These levels were similar to those
found in July 1990. Significant levels of 1,2-dichloroethane ranging from 23 to 7,400 ppb
were also found in four of the seven sediment samples. There were no significant changes to
the original PRE results from incorporating the June 1991 sampling data.
KN/WP645.3,<l4-03-92ft)4 3-4
I
I
4.0 Remedial Investigation Approach/Data Quality Objec-
tives
4.1 General
Results of past sampling of the Northeast Tributary have confirmed surface water and
sediment contamination; therefore, this tributary was designated as the third operable unit in
the second operable unit ROD (U.S. EPA, 1990) for the NSCC site. The ROD for the second
operable unit requires that a source of contamination be defined. This Work Plan is designed
to implement sampling to address this requirement.
4.2 Remedial Investigation Approach
Twelve groundwater well points will be installed in pairs along the Northeast Tributary as
well as one background well point. The locations of the well points were determined by a
review of analytical.results and evaluations from past studies, presented in Chapter 3.0. In
addition, seven surface water samples and seven sediment samples will be collected. The
samples will be analyzed for TCL VOCs. Details of the sample locations, sample frequency,
equipment, etc., are addressed in the FSP contained in Appendix A.
One previously suspected source of contamination to the Northeast Tributary is the treated
soil used as fill material for the parking lot expansion located on the south side of the plant
entrance road near sample location SW/SE-14. Soil removed from the renovation of the
pretreatment lagoons was landfarmed on NSCC property to reduce the level of contaminants.
The North Carolina Department of Human Resources Division of Health Services (DHS)
approved the soil for use as fill material for expansion of the parking area. This is document-
ed as a letter, dated December 28, 1987, and is included in Appendix F. The letter contains
the analytical results that show that the only organic compound detected in the representative
soil sample was 1,2-dichloroethane at 533 µg/kg (ppb). The treated soil was subsequently
placed for parking lot construction in July 1988 (Smith, 1992). Construction included
installation of asphaltic pavement on top of the fill material.
IT collected the first surface water and sediment samples from the Northeast Tributary in
March 1987 followed by the U.S. EPA collecting samples in June 1987; both samplings
indicated the presence of contamination in the stream before the fill material was placed in
the parking area. In July 1990 and July 1991, surface water and sediment samples were again
collected from the Northeast Tributary near the parking area. A summary of the data is
KN/WP645.4,<l4-03-92/D4 4-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
presented in Table 4-1. Data from both sampling events show concentrations of 1,2-dichloro-
ethane in both surface water and sediment to be greater than the 533 ppb concentration in the
parking lot soil. This indicates that the soil in the parking area is an unlikely source of
contamination to the Northeast Tributary.
As part of this RI, the data from groundwater samples collected at the new well points near
the parking area will be evaluated to detennine if an area in or near the parking lot is a
source of contamination to the groundwater. If levels of contaminants in the groundwater
indicate that an upgradient source exists, then sampling of the parking lot fill soil will be
perfonned to detennine if it is a likely source.
4.3 Data Quality Objectives
DQOs are qualitative and quantitative statements that specify the quality of data required to
support decisions during remedial response activities (U.S. EPA, 1987). DQOs are deter-
mined based on the end uses of the data to be collected. The necessary levels of detail and E data quality vary based on the intended use of the data.
I Specific DQOs have been established for the RI activities. The objectives of this RI include:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Detennining if groundwater is the source of contamination in the Northeast
Tributary and evaluating the hydrologic relationship between the groundwater
and the stream.
• Developing a groundwater contamination profile along the stream and comparing
the levels of contamination in the groundwater to those of the stream.
The analytical and water level data will be evaluated to detennine if contamination is migra-
ting to the stream via the groundwater pathway thus detennining the location of the pathway
(i.e., the point[s] along the stream that migration is occurring). If the data are not sufficient
to perfonn a baseline risk assessment (RA), then additional sampling of the media of concern
will be necessary.
4.4 Data Users
Developing objectives for the RI requires involving data users during planning of remedial
activities. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of remedial activities, it is important to
identify the appropriate expertise.
KN/WP64S.4,ll4-03-92JD4 4-2
I
I
I
I
'I
·I
0
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
,I
I
Preliminary users of data obtained from the RI include hydrogeologists and risk assessors.
Hydrogeologists will use groundwater elevations obtained from the well points and surface
water and stream bed elevations obtained from the Northeast Tributary to develop hydrologic
maps. Hydrogeologists will also use analytical data to develop a groundwater/stream
contamination profile. Risk assessors will use data to establish the average and upper 95
percent contaminant concentrations for comparing the preliminary remediation goals (PRG).
KN/WP64S.4,04-03-92/D4 4-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
E
I
I
I
5.0 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Tasks
This chapter of the Work Plan presents the various tasks that will be performed to complete
the RJ/FS for the Northeast Tributary. The RI will be conducted so that sufficient data will
be gathered to support the FS. The objectives of the investigation were presented in Chapter
4.0. Following the completion of field activities, further investigative activities may be
initiated to fill any data gaps that exist. The activities associated with the RI and all tasks
associated with the FS are presented in the following sections.
5. 1 Task 1 • Preparation of the Draft and Final Project Plans
Preparation of draft and final project plans is the first task for successful completion of an
RI/FS. These plans describe the work that needs to be completed to satisfy the requirements
of a U.S. EPA-administered RI/FS. The project plans consist of this Work Plan as well as the
FSP, QAPP, and HSP.
The FSP defines the exact field methods and protocols to be used for the RI phase of the
RI/FS. All field work will be carried out in accordance with the FSP.
The QAPP documents the procedures that will be used to ensure the precision, accuracy, and
completeness of the data generated during the RI. The QAPP will be subjected to revision
and updating on an as-needed basis.
U.S. EPA Region IV will take the lead community relations role for all public relations
activities occurring in conjunction with this study. Upon U.S. EPA's request, NSCC/IT will
support U.S. EPA at public meetings and in the dissemination of public information as
necessary.
5.2 Task 2 • Field Investigation
Previous investigations have focused on surface water runoff as being the source of contami-
nation detected in the Northeast Tributary; however, sampling events after surface water
runoff controls (i.e., dikes, berms, sumps, etc.) were put into place indicate that the source of
contamination may not be due to surface water runoff. Groundwater may be a potential
source of contaminants entering the tributary; therefore, thirteen groundwater samples will be
collected from temporary well points. In addition to groundwater samples, seven surface
water/sediment samples will be collected from the stream. To assess whether subsurface soil
samples need to be collected from the parking area, well points directly downgradient of the
K.N,WP645.5J1)4.03-92/03 5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
u
parking area will be installed, sampled, and analyzed on an expedited basis. If significant
groundwater contamination exists, then two subsurface soil samples will be collected. The
sampling procedures are described in detail in the FSP. All samples will be preserved,
documented, and shipped in accordance with the guidelines established in the QAPP.
5.3 Task 3 -Sample Analysis
The groundwater and surface water/sediment samples will be analyzed for the volatile
organics parameters under the TCL in accordance with the U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory
Program (CLP) protocols. Analytical procedures and controls will abide to the requirements
of the QAPP. The samples will be analyzed at the IT Analytical Services (ITAS) laboratory
in Knoxville, Tennessee.
5.4 Task 4 -Remedial Investigation Report
A draft RI Report will be prepared to consolidate and summarize the data collected during the
RI. Included in this report will be a discussion of the procedures followed during the RI,
findings of the data evaluation, and recommendations for additional sampling if required. In
addition, screening of technologies and development of alternatives (Task 6) will be provided
as a separate section of the RI.
The draft RI Report will be submitted to the U.S. EPA for review. Regulatory review
comments will be incorporated into the final draft RI Report. Regulatory review comments to
the final draft RI will be incorporated into the final RI Report.
5.5 Task 5 -Baseline Risk Assessment
Upon completion of the RI field work, the baseline RA will be performed to evaluate
potential human health and environmental risk. The assessment will be performed using Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund (U.S. EPA, 1989a; 1989b). An ecological assessment
will be performed under guidance presented in Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Rivers (U.S. EPA, 1989c). During the RI field work, a qualified biologist will
perform a "Protocol I" assessment to determine whether biological impairment exists at the
Northeast Tributary. In addition, a literature search will be performed to determine contami-
nant concentrations (of 1,2-dichloroethane) below which the aquatic toxic effects are expected
to occur. If the rapid bioassessment and literature search indicate potential impairment,
surface water and sediment samples will be collected for toxicity testing. IT will coordinate
with U.S. EPA for determining the need for toxicity testing. The toxicity samples will be I collected during the surface water and sediment sampling event.
I KN./WP645.5J04-03-91JD3 5-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• a
I
I
5.6 Task 6 • Remedial Alternatives Development/Screening
As part of the RI/FS process, this task involves developing general response actions and
evaluating potential remedial technologies. The elements associated with this task are:
• Developing remedial action goals and objectives
• Identifying/screening potential technologies
• Assembling potential alternatives
• Evaluating alternatives based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
This task is complete once a final set of alternatives is chosen for detailed analysis.
5.7 Task 7 • Detailed Analysis of Remedial Alternatives
This task entails a detailed analysis and comparison of alternatives developed under Task 6.
The detailed analysis is performed by evaluating each alternative using the nine criteria as
specified by the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The task is complete with a comparison of alternatives that results in a recommended
alternative.
5.8 Task B • Feasibility Study Report
This task involves assembling the results of Tasks 6 and 7 in a reportable format for submittal
to the U.S. EPA. This task is complete when a final report is released to the public.
5.9 Task 9 • Post-Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Support
Task 9 includes the activities required to support the regulatory agencies after completing the
FS report, such as:
• Supporting ROD preparation and briefings
• Attending public meetings
• Preparing predesign report .
KN/WPl,!5.5,<>4-03-92/DJ 5-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
E
6.0 Project Schedule
The project schedule for OU3 is provided as Figure 6-1. The schedule was established based
on the estimated duration of each task and their interrelationships. The schedule will be
tracked using Primevera™ project scheduling software. The phase numbers on the schedule
are the task numbers presented in Chapter 5.0. Changes to the project schedule will be
performed in accordance with the Administrative Order on Consent Section XIII.
KN/WP64S.6JOl-21-92JD3 6-1
-------------------
ORIS EARLY EARLY I
ACTIVITY ID IUI START FINISH I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 7 7 -, I
6020 35 4DEC91A 21JAN92A Draft ~I/FS Work Plan
EPA! 30 23JAN92A 4MAR92A EPA Review of Draft Work Plans
6021 39 4MAR92A 6APR92 Task 1 Prepar~t!on of Final ·work Plans
EPA2 20 7APR92 26APR92 . DEPA Approv.al of Final Work Plans
6022 28 27APR92 24MAY92 c:::::JTask ~ Field Investigation
6023 29 25MAY92 22JUN92 c::::JT.ask 3 Sample Analysis
6024 121 22JUN92 210CT92 ' Task 4 Prep.are RI Report .
602420 43 22JUN92 4AU692 j : i•tnal Draft RI Report
EPA5 20 4AUG92 23AUG92 DEPA Review of Final Oran RI Repor~
602430 20 24AU692 12SEP92 c:JF!rial RI Report
EPA6 1 13SEP92 13SEP92 IEP~ Approval of ~lnal RI Report
EPA7 11 110CT92 210CT92 □EPA Public .Meeting
6025 30 23JUN92 23JUL92 c;::::::JTask 5 Baseline Risk Asse~sment
6026 20 16JUL92 4AU692 □Task 6 Remedial Alterna~lves Developmt/Screenlng
6027 44 24AUG92 60CT92 ' Task 7 Detall~d Analysis of 'Alternatives
6028 190 70CT92 17APR93 Task a Feas!b!ll\y Study Report'' " .
602810 30 70CT92 5NOV92 . c::::::JDraft FS.Report
EPAB 20 6NOV92 25NOV92 DEPA R~vlew of Draft 'FS
602820 20 26NOV92 15DEC92 □Final FS Report .
EPA9 20 16DEC92 6JAN93 Ei1A Review and Approval of Flna1 FS Report c::::i
EPA!O 30 7JAN93 5FEB93 c::::::JEPA Prepare Draft ROD
EPA!! 11 BMAR93 1BMAR93 □EPA Public Meeting
EPA12 30 19MAR93 17APR93 c::::'.::JEPA Prepare.Final ROD
6029 123 13DEC92 17APR93 'Task 9 Post RilFS support ' · • •
-
~--.. Sllnt t of t llllld1al Dlliln/rlaldlll Artton acthttr llr/&rlJ Dita Figura 6.1 OU3 Northeast Tributary RI/FS Schedule == Qottt.cal Actirity _ ...
National Starch and Chemical Co.
PriMYlrl Syate-. Inc. ISIIHSl8t ~J!:~ ~!t~..: :<?':~ 2!~! ~t:: ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 References
IT Corporation, 1990a, "Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report for the Second
Operable Unit, National Starch and Chemical Company Site."
IT Corporation, 1990b, "Data Evaluation of Surface Water, Sediment, and Soil Sampling of
the Northwest Tributary."
IT Corporation, 1988a, "Remedial Investigation Report, National Starch and Chemical
Corporation Site," Revision No. 2.
IT Corporation, 1988b, "Feasibility Study Report, National Starch and Chemical Corporation
Site."
Smith, J., National Starch and Chemical Company, with K. Pack, IT Corporation. Personal
Communication, March 18, 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991, Letter to Alex Samson, National Starch and
Chemical Company, from Barbara H. Benoy, U.S. EPA Region IV.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990, Enforcement, Record of Decision, Remedial
Alternative Selection for National Starch and Chemical Corporation Site, Operable Unit 2.
Prepared by U.S. EPA Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989a, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), U.S. EPA Office of Emergency
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C., EPA/540/1-89/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989b, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Vol. II, Environmental Manual (Interim Final), U.S. EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Washington, D.C., EPN540-l-89/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1989c, Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Rivers, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, U.S. EPA Office of Water,
EPN440/4-89/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, Enforcement, Record of Decision, Remedial
Alternative Selection for National Starch and Chemical Corporation Site. Prepared by U.S.
EPA Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, "Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities." Prepared by the U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, Washington, D.C., EPA 540/G-8/003,
OSWER Directive 9355.0-7B.
KN/WP645.7,()4-06-92/D2 7-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Administrative Consent Order No. 87-01-C for
National Starch and Chemical Corporation Site, U.S. District Coun.
KN/WP645.7~06-92/D2 7-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
D
fl
ti
I KN.WP645.CrN/04-03-92/01
APPENDIX A
FIELD SAMPLING PLAN
I
I
I.
I
I
••
I
.I
I
• u
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents, _______________ _
A.LO Introduction A-1
A.2.0 Sample Location and Frequency A-1
A.3.0 Sample Designation A-2
A.4.0 Sampling Equipment A-2
A.4.1 Protective Clothing and Monitoring Equipment A-2
A.4.2 Installation of Temporary Well Points A-2
A.4.2.1 Well Point Locations A-2
A.4.2.2 Well Point Construction A-3
A.4.3 Sampling Equipment A-3
A.5.0 Sampling Procedures A-3
A.5.1 Surface Water Sampling A-4
A.5.2 Sediment Sampling A-4
A.5.3 Groundwater Sampling A-4
A.5.4 Soil Sampling A-5
A.5.5 Quality Control Sampling A-5
A.5.6 Sample Handling and Documentation A-5
A.5.7 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment A-6
KN/WP645.APA.A)4-03-92/03 a-1
I
11
I,
I
I
•• ,,
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a a: < a, a, ::,
I
-;
>' a,
,,;, u I u
t;: < a: a
"' u .. a.
,,;,
>' a,
,,;, u I u
"' " z w
NS-12
■
-·--···· ..
~,., . -i_ '-"' <::>\'~'·· ...... E-t.6 .
~
I.
N
LEGEND:
/ @ PROPOSED SURFACE WATER AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLING POINTS
0 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING POINT
■ EXISTING SAPROLITE r· MONITORING WELL
! • EXISTING BEDROCK
MONITORING WELL
0 200 400 FEET
· .. FIGURE A-1
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
1.
I
I
I
I
I
1:
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
List of Tables. _________________ _
Table Title
A-1 Sample to be Collected from the Northwe~t Tributary
Follows Page
A-3
List of Figures _________________ _
Figure
A-1 Sample Location Map
KN/WP645 .AP A,,04-03-92/D)
Title
a-11
Follows Page
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,.
I
I
I
'I
I
I
A.1.0 Introduction _______________ _
As a result of the findings from previous investigations as described in Chapter 1.0 of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RJ/FS) Work Plan for Operable Unit 3 (OU3), the
groundwater in the vicinity of the Northeast Tributary should be characterized. This
document presents the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) for this investigation. The Data Quality
Objectives (DQO) for this investigation are discussed in Chapter 4.0 of the Work Plan. This
FSP, along with the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), constitute the sampling and
analytical protocols that will be followed for the Phase I field investigation. The methods and
procedures described herein comply with U.S. EPA Region IV Environmental Compliance
Branch Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual (February 1991).
Sampling for this investigation will include installation of well points along the Northeast
Tributary for groundwater sample collection, and collection of surface water, and sediment
samples at points in the Northeast Tributary.
A.2.0 Sample Location and Frequency _______ _
Thirteen well points will be installed along the Northeast Tributary near the locations shown
in Figure A-1. Approximate locations for groundwater sampling points were determined from
the results of previous sampling events, and are located where the highest concentrations of
Target Compound List (TeL) compounds were found in surface soil, surface water, and
sediment samples. These points are intended to establish whether groundwater is contributing
to the concentration levels observed in surface water and sediment samples, to determine if
there is any impact on groundwater east of the tributary, and to establish groundwater
gradient profiles across the stream. Locations of the well points shown in Figure A-1 are
approximate and will be finalized in the field.
Seven surface water and sediment sample pairs will be collected from points shown in Figure
A-1, at both previously sampled and new locations. Surface water samples will be collected
and analyzed for TeL volatile organic compounds (VOe) and compared to previous data
from samples collected in July 1990 and June 1991. The TCL voe data will also be used to
evaluate the relationship between surface water and groundwater contaminant concentrations.
The justification for analysis of only TCL voes is presented in Section 3.2 of the Work
Plan.
KN/WP64SAPA!J4·03·92/D3 A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Based on groundwater and surface water sample results, a maximum of two soil samples will
be collected at the parking area shown in Figure A-1.
Samples will be collected once from each sampling point for this investigation.
A.3.0 Sample Designatio ,_ ___________ _
Water samples collected will be designated by unique labels indicating the sample location.
Well points will be designated as lWP-1 through 1WP-13; the surface water and sediment
samples will be designated as SW/SE-09 through SW/SE-14 and SW/SE-16.
A.4.0 Sampling Equipmen~-----------
Selection and handling of sampling equipment shall follow the procedures described herein
and will comply with the QAPP, included as Appendix B of the Work Plan, and with the
Health and Safety Plan, included as Appendix C of the Work Plan.
A.4. 1 Protective Clothing and Monitoring Equipment
Personnel protective clothing shall comply with the Health and Safety Plan and the Work
Plan. During sampling, if Level D protection is being observed, the members of the sampling
team shall wear latex gloves or latex inner gloves and nitrile outer gloves. Gloves will be
changed to reduce the risk of exposure and cross contamination. This applies to sampling
activities carried out under this RI/FS only. Sampling associated with other operable units
shall comply with sampling plans established for those units.
During all sampling operations, air quality will be monitored using an organic vapor analyzer
(OVA). Calibration of air monitoring equipment must be completed and noted daily, prior to
its use. Calibration procedures shall comply with the QAPP (Appendix B) of the Work Plan.
A.4.2 Installation of Temporary Well Points
A.4.2. 1 Well Point Locations
Twelve well points will be installed in pairs along the Northeast Tributary. One additional
well point sample will be collected at an upgradient location to serve as a background control
sample. Figure A-1 shows the approximate locations of the thirteen well points. Well points
are paired to provide hydraulic gradient data around the stream bed and chemical data for
characterization of groundwater in that area. Well point pairs are to be located approximately
KN/WP64S.APMl4·03·92/D3 A-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
30 to 50 feet from the edge of the stream bank, so that a line between the well points of the
pair is as perpendicular to the stream as possible.
The well point located near sample point SW/SE-14 (Figure A-1) will be installed first.
Samples will be analyzed on a quick turnaround basis. If significant volatile organic
concentrations in the groundwater downgradient of the parking area are detected, then the
shallow soil sampling activity at the parking area will be initiated (see Section A.5.4).
A.4.2.2 Well Point Construction
Well points will be installed to a depth of about 8 feet below grade and will intersect the
water table so that the bottom of the screen is 2 to 3 feet below the water table. Well points
will be manually or pneumatically driven to the appropriate depth. The well points will be
constructed of steel no larger than 1-1/2 inches in diameter. The bottom of the well points
will have I to 2 feet of stainless steel screen or will have a retractable tip used to expose the
screen. Each well point will be sampled, and a water level measurement will be taken in
reference to depth below ground surface. After these activities, the well points will be
removed, decontaminated, and disposed of properly.
A.4.3 Sampling Equipment
Samples will be collected from groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling points
using equipment that is either dedicated or decontaminated. Bailers or sampling ladles may
be decontaminated and re-used at the discretion of the field supervisor. Groundwater will be
sampled using clean Teflon® tubing. Surface water shall be collected using either a clean
Teflon bailer, decontaminated 500 mL sample jar, or clean pyrex™ sampling ladle or beaker.
Sediment samples will be collected with a stainless steel bucket auger or scoop. Soil
samples, if collected, will be taken using a stainless steel bucket auger.
All sampling equipment will be decontaminated prior to use. Sampling equipment will be
wrapped in aluminum foil instead of plastic sheeting.
A.5.0 Sampling Procedures ____________ _
All samples collected during these activities will be shipped to the IT Analytical Services
(ITAS) laboratory in Knoxville, Tennessee. Each sample will be analyzed for VOCs on the
Target Compound List (TCL) in accordance with U.S. EPA Contract Laboratory Program
(CLP) protocol. A summary of the number of samples to be collected and the associated
analyses is shown in Table A-1.
KN/WP645APM>4-03-92/D3 A-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A.5. 1 Surface Water Sampling
Surface water samples will be collected at the locations indicated on Figure A-I and labeled
with the actual sample location. Only samples for VOCs on the TCL will be collected; these
will be placed in three 40-mL glass containers with Teflon lids. Certain locations have been
sampled in previous investigations, and are flagged in the field. Samples will be collected by
submerging a glass sampling device or Teflon bailer in the stream so as to minimize
disturbance as much as possible. The sample will be poured into the sample bottles so as to
prevent turbulence and agitation during container filling, and will be properly capped to
prevent headspace. Sample containers will be preserved with 1 mL hydrochloric acid (Hel).
Samples will be collected from the middle of the stream with the sampler facing upstream to
collect a sample to minimize the possibility of disturbance. After sampling, field measure-
ments of pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and specific conductance will be collected at
each location.
A.5.2 Sediment Sampling
Sediment samples will be collected at the same locations as surface water samples. The
surface water samples will be collected first to minimize the amount of fine particles in the
water samples. Sediment samples will be positioned as near as possible to the middle of the
stream. Samples will be collected as the sampler is facing upstream with a stainless steel
scoop or bucket auger. The sample material will be immediately transferred to the 60 or 120
mL glass sample containers. Samples will be analyzed for voes on the TeL. Sediment
material will be placed in the containers so as to minimize airspace in the container.
Surface water and sediment sampling will begin at sample location SW/SE-09 and continue in
an upstream order.
A.5.3 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater samples will be collected from the temporary well points at locations as
indicated on Figure A-1. As in the case of surface water, only samples for voes on the TeL
will be collected. A total of 13 field samples will be collected from the temporary well
points. The samples will be labeled with the well point identification number.
Well points will be purged for IO minutes, or until the well point is evacuated of all water,
whichever is shorter. A peristaltic pump with tygon tubing will be used for purging. Purge
water will be allowed to run into the Northeast Tributary. The water level will be allowed to
recover to within 90 percent of its original level. A sample will be collected by inserting
KN/WP645.APM)4-03-91.JD3 A-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table A-1
Samples to be Collected and Analyzed from
Northeast Tributary, NSCC
Matrix
Field Spike/Matrix
Sample Type Samplesa Duplicate Spike Duplicate
Groundwater 13 2 1
Surface water 7 1 1
Sediment 7 1 1
Soilc 2 0 0
asamples will be collected for TCL volatile organic compounds only.
bu.s. EPA Contract Laboratory Program.
csoil samples will be collected as an option. See Section A.5.4.
KN/WP645.A 1/01-20-92/01
Analytical
Method
U.S. EPA CLPb
U.S. EPA CLP
U.S. EPA CLP
U.S. EPA CLP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
clean Teflon tubing into the well point, covering the exposed end of the tubing, and bringing
the tubing filled with water to the surface to fill the sample bottles. When the water level has
stabilized after sampling, a water level measurement will be taken. The sample will be
poured into the sample container so as to prevent turbulence and agitation during container
filling. The container will be properly capped to prevent headspace. Sample containers will
be preserved with 1 mL HCI. Tubing used for well point sampling will be used once,
cleaned, and disposed of properly.
A.5.4 Soil Sampling
If the analytical results from the groundwater samples show significant concentrations of
VOCs, then two soil samples will be collected from the parking lot (Figure A-1) to determine
if the area is a potential source of contamination to the Northeast Tributary. This option will
be exercised at the discretion of the Project Manager and the Principal Investigator and in
consultation with the U.S. EPA. If initiated, sampling locations will be positioned in the
parking area that received fill material that originated from the lagoons. Once located, the
asphalt will be breached so that the underlying soil is exposed. A stainless steel bucket auger
will be used to advance the boring to a depth of 3 or 4 feet. A soil sample will be collected
at this depth using the hand auger. Soil material will be transferred directly to the 60 mL or
120 mL glass sample container. The containers will be filled so as to minimize the amount
of air trapped in the jars. Each sample will be analyzed for VOCs on the TCL. Soil samples
collected from the parking lot will be labeled as PLS-1 and PLS-2.
A.5.5 Quality Control Sampling
From a randomly selected field sampling point, one field duplicate will be collected for every
ten samples collected from each medium sampled One matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate
sample pair will be collected from each medium sampled. In addition to the field samples, a
rinsate equipment blank will be collected. A rinsate sample will be collected during every
other sampling day. Sampling equipment will be decontaminated according to standard
operating procedures (Section 4.5.7). Then sufficient organic-free, deionized water will be
poured over the equipment to obtain a sample for analysis. The rinsate sample will be labeled
as RW-X. Trip blanks will be included with each shipment of samples. Each trip blank will
be uniquely identified with "TB" and the date of shipment.
A.5.6 Sample Handling and Documentation
Samples will be prepared for shipment following procedures outlined in Appendix B (QAPP)
of this Work Plan. Each sample will be recorded on the IT Analysis Request/Chain-of-
KN/WP64S.APMJ4-03-92JD3 A-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Custody (RFA/COC) form promptly after collection. Samples will be transported to the Field
Trailer where the RFNCOC forms will be checked and samples prepared for shipment.
Samples will be packed with bubble wrap, Blue Ice™, and vermiculite. Samples will be
shipped within 24 hours of sample collection. Sample collection logs will be completed for
each field sample collected and will include, at a minimum:
• Sample identifier
• Date and time of sampling
• Sample depth (if applicable)
• Sample type
• Containers used
• Chemical preservatives used
• Sample analytical parameters
• Any unusual sampling event.
A.5.7 Decontamination of Sampling Equipment
All equipment used for sampling must be cleaned before and between use. Materials will be
cleaned at the decontamination facility on site. The following procedures will be used:
• Wash with a stiff brush in liquinox detergent solution
• Rinse with distilled water
• Rinse with deionized, organic-free water from a noninterfering dispenser
• Rinse twice with pesticide grade isopropanol
• Air dry
• Wrap equipment with aluminum foil.
Stainless steel well points will be scrubbed in a liquinox detergent solution, rinsed with
distilled water, and allowed to air dry before being wrapped in plastic sheeting or aluminum
foil for transport to the well point location.
Tubing used for purging and sampling well points will be cleaned before use and before
disposal.
KN/WP645APMl4-03-92/ll3 A-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
KNIWP645.CfNI04-03-92/01
I
I Table of Contents
I B.1.0 Introduction 1
I B.1.1 Project Description 1
B.1.2 Project Objectives 1
I B.2.0 Project Organization and Responsibility 2
B.2.1 Project Manager 2
B.2.2 Quality Assurance Officer 2
I B.2.3 Health and Safety Officer 3
B.2.4 Laboratory Project Coordinator 3
I B.2.5 QA Reports to Management 3
B.3.0 Project-Specific QA and QC Procedures 5
I B.3.1 Detection Limits 5
B.3.2 Data Precision and Evaluation 6
I B.3.3 Data Accuracy and Evaluation 6
B.3.4 Completeness of Data 6
I B.3.5 Comparability 6
B.4.0 Sampling Procedures 7
B.5.0 Sample Custody 9
I B.5.1 Chain-of-Custody Procedures 9
B.5.2 Sample Labeling 10
I B.6.0 Equipment Calibration 11
B.6.1 General Calibration Procedures 11
I B.6.2 Calibration Failures 11
B.7.0 Analytical Procedures 12
I B.7.1 Overview of Standard Laboratory Operating Procedures 12
B.7.2 Organic Compounds 12
B.8.0 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting 13
I B.9.0 Quality Control Procedures 14
B.9.1 Field Quality Control Procedures 14
I B.9.2 Laboratory Quality Control Procedures 14
B.10.0 Performance and Systems Audits and Frequency 16
I B.11.0 Preventive Maintenance 17
B.11.1 Routine Maintenance Activities 17
I B.11.2 Preventive Maintenance Documentation 17
I KN/WP645.APB,(ll-17-921DO b-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents (Continued)
B.11.3 Contingency Plans
B.12.0 Specific Routine Procedures Used to Assess Data Precision, Accuracy,
and Completeness
B.12.1 Laboratory Quality Control Checks
B.12.2 Trip (Travel) Blank Analyses
B.12.3 Method Blank Analyses
B.12.4 Reagent Blank Analyses
B.12.5 Duplicate Sample Analyses
B.12.6 Check Standard Analyses
B.12.7 Surrogate Standard Analyses
B.12.8 Matrix Spike Analyses
B.12.9 Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyses
B.12.10 Verification/Reference Standard Analyses
B.12.11 Blank Spike Analyses
B.12.12 Laboratory Control Samples
B.12.13 Standard Addition Spike Analyses
B.12.14 Internal Standard Spike Analyses
B.13.0 Routine Methods to Assess Precision and Accuracy
B.14.0 Nonconformance/Corrective Action Procedures
B.15.0 Quality Assurance Audits and Reports
KN/WP645.APB.(ll-17-92/DO b-ii
18
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
22
23
26
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
List of Tables'--------------------
Table
B-3-1
B-6-1
B-11-1
B-13-1
Title
Target Compound List (TCL) and Contract Required
Quantitation Limits (CRQL)
Summary of Operational Calibration Requirements
Summary of Periodic Calibration Requirements
QC Samples Used to Generate Precision and Accuracy
Follows Page
B-5
B-11
B-17
B-23
List of Figures _________________ _
Figure
B-2-1
B-4-1
B-4-2
B-5-1
RI Project Organization Chart
Field Activity Daily Log
Title
Visual Classification of Soil Log
Analysis Request and Chain-of-Custody Record Form
KN/WP645.APB~I-17-92,IDO b-iii
Follows Page
B-2
B-7
B-7
B-9
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. 1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) is to document the procedures
that will be undertaken to provide the precision, accuracy, and completeness of the data
gathered during the remedial investigation (RI) process for the third operable unit of the
National Starch and Chemical Company (NSCC), Cedar Springs Road site in Salisbury, North
Carolina.
This QAPP documents the measures that will be undertaken by IT Corporation (IT) and its
subcontractors to ensure that the work performed will be of proper quality for accomplishing
project objectives and for responding to requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). The plan addresses:
• The quality assurance (QA) objectives of the project
• Staff organization and responsibility
• Specific QA and quality control (QC) procedures that will be implemented to
achieve these objectives.
The U.S. EPA 's requirements with regard to QA focus on the acquisition of environmental
data of known and acceptable quality. The methods and procedures described herein comply
with U.S. EPA Region IV Environmental Compliance Branch Standard Operating Procedures
and Quality Assurance Manual (February 199 I). Other aspects of the project, such as
engineering analysis and report preparation, will be controlled by the internal requirements of
IT's QA Program. The program is documented in the IT Engineering Operations Quality
Assurance Manual, Revision No. 1 (!TEO QAM). The policies and procedures specified in
the manual define acceptable practices to be employed by personnel engaged in any particular
project. The ITEO QAM is a controlled document that is considered proprietary information;
however, it may be supplied to regulatory agencies upon request.
B. 1. 1 Project Description
This QAPP supplements the Work Plan for the third operable unit at NSCC. A description of
the project can be found in the Work Plan.
B. 1.2 Project Objectives
The objective of the RI process for the third operable unit is to collect and evaluate the data
needed to achieve the objectives outlined in the Work Plan.
KN/WP645.AP8/0l-17-92/DO B-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.2.0 Project Organization and Responsibility
The principal IT personnel assigned to this project are Mike Sturdevant (Project Manager
[PM]}, Steve Alvanas (Quality Assurance Officer [QAO]), Melissa Smith (Health and Safety
Officer [HSO]), and Kim Laisy (Laboratory Project Coordinator), as shown in Figure B-2-1.
Other personnel will be assigned as deemed necessary. Their responsibilities are described in
the following sections.
B.2. 1 Project Manager
The PM will be the point of contact with NSCC and will have primary responsibility for
technical, financial, and scheduling matters. His duties will include:
• Assignment of duties to the project staff and orientation of the staff to the needs
and requirements of the project
• Supervision of the performance of project team members
• Budget and schedule control
• Review of subcontractor work and approval of subcontract invoices
• Establishment of a project record keeping system
• Assurance that all major project deliverables are reviewed for technical accuracy
and completeness before their release
• Assurance that the specific requirements of the QAPP are satisfied
• Project closeout.
B.2.2 Quality Assurance Officer
The QAO is in charge of audits and monitors adherence to the project QA objectives. The
QAO reports directly to the PM.
The QAO is responsible for determining that project work undergoes adequate quality review.
The QAO' s responsibilities will include:
• Contacting the analytical laboratories receiving samples to determine if samples
are properly prepared, packaged, and identified
KN,WP645APB,ut-17-92/DO B-2
- --· --- - - --- - - - - - - - -
Project Coordinator, NSCC
Hank Graulich
(Alex Samson)
IT Project Management NSCC Regional
Director Operations Manager
Cliff Vaughan Ray Paradowski
Contract Administrator/ Project Manager Quality Assurance Officer
Purchasing Manager Steve Alvanas
Molly Dunnellan Mike Sturdevant
Health & Safety Officer
Melissa Smith
Project Engineer Principal Investigator Analytical Services Risk Assessment Manager
Kevin Pack Jonathan Shireman Kim Liasy Samantha Pack
FIGURE 8-2-1 RI PROJECT ORGANIZATION CHART
FI00-1/ta'np/ORW/p,;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Conducting field audi~ of sampling episodes to provide that sample identifica-
tion and chain-of-custody procedures are being followed
• Contacting the PM to detennine whether personnel assigned to field sampling
episodes are properly trained in sample identification and chain-of-custody
procedures
• Reviewing work products.
B.2.3 Health and Safety Officer
The HSO will be responsible for seeing that all team members adhere to the site safety
requirements. Additional responsibilities are as follows:
• Updating the equipment or procedures based upon new infonnation gathered
during the site inspection
• Modifying the levels of protection based upon site observations
• Detennining and posting locations and routes to medical facilities, including
poison control centers, and arranging for emergency transportation to medical
facilities
• Notifying local public emergency officers, i.e., police and fire departments, of
the nature of the team's operations and posting their telephone numbers
• Examining work party members for symptoms of exposure or stress
• Providing emergency medical care and fust aid as necessary on site; the HSO
has the ultimate responsibility to stop any operation that threatens the health or
safety of the team or surrounding populace.
B.2.4 Laboratory Project Coordinator
The Laboratory Project Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating laboratory services
and will ensure that analytical data meet the objectives discussed in the applicable sections of
the QAPP.
B.2.5 QA Reports to Management
Fundamental to the success of any QAPP is the active participation of management in the
project. Management will be aware of project activities and will participate in development,
review, and operation of the project.
KN/WP645APB,ut-t 7-92/DO B-3
E
I
I
I
I
I
,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Management will be informed of QA activities through the receipt, review, and/or approval
of:
• Project-specific QAPPs
• Corporate and project-specific QA/QC plans and procedures
• Postaudit repons and audit closures
• Corrective action overdue notices
• Nonconfonnance repons.
KN/WP64S.APB.Kll-I 7-921DO B-4
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
i
I
B.3.0 Project-Specific QA and QC Procedures
This project will be performed in conformance with IT's QA Program requirements, and
applicable federal, state, and contract requirements. Project QA objectives are as follows:
• The scientific data generated will be of sufficient or greater quality to stand up
to scientific and legal scrutiny
• The data will be gathered or developed in accordance with procedures and
appropriate for the intended use of the data
• The data will be of known and acceptable precision, accuracy, and completeness.
This QAPP has been prepared in direct response to these goals. This plan describes the QA
Program to be implemented and the QC procedures to be followed by IT and its subcontrac-
tors during the course of the project These procedures will:
• Maintain the necessary level of quality of each aspect of the analytical program
by providing the appropriate level of verification testing, checking, and statistical
analysis of laboratory program procedures
• Assist in the early recognition of factors that may adversely affect the quality of
data, and provide for the implementation of procedures to correct these adverse
effects
• Enhance the utility of data produced by the laboratory for decision-making
purposes by requiring sufficient documentation of the testing process. This
provides information on the limitations of the analytical results.
In this regard, the QAPP will provide for the definition and evaluation of the following
parameters:
• Detection limits
• Data precision
• Data accuracy
• Completeness of data.
B.3. 1 Detection Limits
The detection limit for a given parameter is defined as the minimum concentration that can be
determined from an instrument signal that is three times the background noise. Table B-3-1
KN/WP645.APBi01• l 7-92.JDO B-5
I
:j
I'
I
I
.1,
I
II
I
·• ,I
I
.I
1l1
1.
I
I
••
I
Table B-3-1
Target Compound List (TCL) and Contract Required
Quantltation Limits (CRQL)8
(Volatiles)
(Page 1 of 2)
Quantitation Limitsb
Parameter CAS Number Water (µg/L)
Chloromethane 74-87-3 10
Bromomethane 74-83-9 10
Vinyl chloride 75-01-4 10
Chloroethane 75-00-3 10
Methylene chloride 75-09-2 5
Acetone 67-64-1 10
Carbon disulfide 75-15-0 5
1, 1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4 5
1, 1-Dichloroethane 75-35-3 5
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) 156-60-5 5
Chloroform 67-66-3 5
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 5
2-Butanone 78-93-3 10
1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 5
Carbon tetrachloride 56-23-5 5
Vinyl acetate 108-05-4 10
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4 5
1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5 5
1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5 5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6 5
KNIWP645.A/2-10-92/F2
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I ,,
·I
I·
11:
I
,1
Parameter
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1 , 1,2-Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
2-Hexanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Styrene
Total xylenes
Table B-3-1
(Page 2 of 2)
CAS Number
79-01-6
124-48-1
79-00-5
71-43-2
10061-01-5
591-78-6
108-10-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
108-90-7
100-41-4
100-42-5
Quantitation Limitsb
Water (µg/L)
5
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
aspecific quantitation limits are highly matrix dependent. The quantitation limits listed herein
are provided for guidance and may not always be achievable.
KNIWP645.Al2-10-92if2
I
,I
I,
II ,,
I
I
I
I
.t .,
I
·I
,I
(/
provides a listing of the estimated detection limits for Target Compound List (TCL) pollut-
ants.
B.3.2 Data Precision and Evaluation
Precision is a measure of the mutual agreement among individual measurements of the
the same property, usually under prescribed similar conditions. Relative percent difference
(RPD) will be used to define the precision between replicate analyses. RPD is defined in
Chapter B.13.0. The precision objectives for the TCL analyses will be the same as those
estimated by the methodology. Nonhomogeneous constituents in the soil samples may
produce poor precision in the results. QA objectives for precision are less than 15 percent
(average RPD).
B.3.3 Data Accuracy and Evaluation
Accuracy is defined as the degree of agreement of a measurement with an accepted reference
or true value. The percent recovery (%R), determined by sample spiking, is typically used to
determine the accuracy of the instrumentation and is defined in Chapter B.13.0. The accuracy
objectives for the TCL and Target Analyte List (T AL) analyses will be the same as those
established by the U.S. EPA for its Contract Laboratory Program (CLP). QA objectives for
accuracy will be in accordance with U.S. EPA CLP 2/88 Statement of Work (SOW).
B.3.4 Completeness of Data
Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data obtained from a measurement system
compared to the amount that was expected to be obtained under correct normal conditions.
More than 90 percent of all data obtained on this project should be valid based upon
evaluation of the QC data.
B.3.5 Comparability
To provide the comparability of the data to similar data sets, only U.S. EPA-approved
analytical methods will be used. For Hazardous Substance List (HSL) compounds, these
methods will be from current U.S. EPA CLP protocols. For miscellaneous parameters, these
methods will be from current U.S. EPA 600-series methods.
KN/WP645.APB.K>l-l 7-921DO B-6
t
f
'I
B.4.0 Sampling Procedures
Any sample obtained during the course of a field investigation should be representative of the
site and free of contaminants from sources other than the immediate environment being
sampled.
Information obtained from site exploration activities will be recorded and documented.
Required documentation field investigation and testing includes a daily log of project
activities, appropriate subsurface logs, and test data forms. Examples of this documentation
are shown in Figures B-4-1 and B-4-2.
The Field Sampling Plan (Appendix A of Work Plan) describes the numbers and types of
samples to be collected; sampling equipment, procedures, and locations; sample containers;
methods of sample preservation; shipping and packaging methods; analytical tests to be
performed; sampling personnel; and sampling schedule.
Drill Rig and Equipment Decontamination Procedures. Before being brought on site,
any portion for the drill rig, backhoe, etc. that is over the borehole (Kelly bar, mast, backhoe
buckets, drilling platform, mudtub, hoist, or chain pulldowns and/or cathead, etc.) must be
steam-cleaned and wire-brushed to remove rust, soil, and other material that may have come
from other sites. The drill rig will then be inspected to determine that oil, grease, hydraulic
fluid, etc. has been removed, that seals and gaskets are intact, and that no fluids are leaking.
Steam cleaning of the drill rig will then occur before drilling each borehole. In addition,
downhole drilling, sampling, and associated equipment that will come into contact with the
downhole equipment and sample medium shall be decontaminated by the following proce-
dure:
• The mud tub and downhole augering, drilling, and sampling equipment shall be
sandblasted if there is a buildup of rust, hard or caked matter, and/or painted
equipment. Sandblasting shall be performed before arrival on site.
• Clean with tap water and laboratory-grade detergent, using a brush, if necessary,
to remove particulate matter and surface films. Steam cleaning may be neces-
sary to remove matter that is difficult to remove with the brush.
• Rinse thoroughly with tap water.
• Rinse thoroughly with deionized water.
KN,WP645 .APB.Kil• l 7-92.JDO B-7
I ,, ,,
I
i,
I
,j
[i] INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
PROJECT NAME
FIELD ACTIVITY SUBJECT:
FIGURE B-4-1
8 J
► J c
FIELD ACTIVITY DAILY LOG Q
I PROJECT NO.
DATE
NO.
SHEET
DESCRIPTION OF DAILY ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS:
... -----.. --·--·· . --·-·· -.. . . ... --------
. ··------··· -·-· --·-· --.. ------. ------· -..
.. ·-. --·---------· . --•-·
.. . .... ----..•
. .. . .
.. -· ----·----·
..
..
..
VISITORS ON SITE: CHANGES FROM PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND
OTHER SPECIAL ORDERS AND IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
WEATHER CONDITIONS: IMPORTANT TELEPHONE CALLS:
IT PERSONNEL ON SITE·
SIGNATURE DATE:
OF
.
327A-7-86
I
I
It
1
I
I
1.
I
I
PROJECT NUMBER
BORING NUMBER.
ELEVATION:
ENGINEE A/GEOLOGIST
DRILLING METHODS
C C z w -
% -w z c .. --! .. ~; .. w w C .. -.. > ; ! --..
• •
.
-.
-
--
.. .
•
.
•
--
• •
\UTI-S
FIGURE B-4-2
VISUAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS
PROJECT NAME.
COORDINATES. DATE
GWL, ()eptl'I Q1t1/Timt OATE STARTED
0.Pth O.tt/Timt DATE COMPLETED
PAGE OF
> ->
C cu
C -I ~z
w Cw-> a-~ REMARKS C OESCRIPTION > .... .. C ijj:: " -w .. ~z
C ~ le
"
.
-
.
-
.
-
-
.
I
.I
1
I
:t
:1
R
1l
m
1
I
• Rinse twice with solvent (pesticide-grade isopropanol).
• Rinse thoroughly with organic-free water and allow to air dry as long as possi-
ble. If organic-free water is not available, allow the equipment to air dry as long
as possible. Do not rinse with deionized or distilled water.
NOTE: Organic-free water can be processed on site by purchasing or leasing a
mobile deionization-organic filtration system.
NOTE: Tap water may be applied with a pump sprayer. Other decontamination
liquids (deionized water, organic-free water, and solvents), however, must be
applied using noninterfering containers. These containers will be made of glass,
Teflon®, or stainless steel. No plastic containers or pump sprayers will be
allowed.
• Wrap with aluminum foil, if appropriate, to prevent contamination if equipment
is going to be stored or transported. Clean plastic can be used to wrap augers,
drill stems, casings, etc. if they have been air-dried.
NOTE: Well casing and screen shall be cleaned according to these procedures.
Before cleaning, however, it may be necessary to sand off printing inks, if
present, on these materials. If any of these materials are of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) construction, the solvent rinse step should be omitted. No glued joints
are allowed.
Decontamination rinse waters will be discharged into NSCC's wastewater treatment system.
KN/WP645.APB,ut-17•rnt00 B-8
I
I
' I
'I
I
I
I
I ,,
I
. I
I
I .,
B.5.0 Sample Custody
8.5. 1 Chain-of-Custody Procedures
Chain-of-custody procedures are intended to document sample possession from the time of
collection to disposal, in accordance with federal guidelines. A copy of IT' s Analysis
Request and Chain-of-Custody Record form is included in Figure B-5-1. For the purpose of
these procedures, a sample is considered in custody if it is:
• In one's actual possession
• In view, after being in physical possession
• Locked so that no one can tamper with it, after having been in physical custody
• In a secured area, restricted to authorized personnel.
These procedures will be followed for samples subject to chemical analysis for this project:
• Sample containers will be sealed in the field. Any samples that do not arrive at
the laboratory with seals intact will not be considered to have been in valid
custody. In the event that the laboratory sample custodian judges the sample
custody to be invalid (i.e., samples arrive with seals broken), nonconformance
documentation will be initiated. The PM will then be notified. The decision
will be made by the PM as to the fate of the sample(s) in question. The
sample(s) will either be processed "as is" with custody failure noted along with
the analytical data, or rejected with the resampling scheduled if necessary.
• A chain-of-custody record will be initiated in the field for each sample. A copy
of this record will accompany each sample.
• Each time responsibility for custody of the sample changes, the new custodian
will sign the record and note the date.
• Upon sample destruction or disposal, the custodian responsible for the disposal
will complete the chain-of-custody record, file a copy, and send a copy to the
PM or to his designated representative for record keeping.
• The custody of individual sample containers will be documented by recording
each container's identification on an appropriate Analysis Request and Chain-of-
Custody Record form .
• Analyses for each sample will also be recorded on an IT Analysis Request and
Chain-of-Custody Record form.
KN/WP645.APB.4ll-l 7•92/DO B-9
----..
rn INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION
Project Name/No. _1_
Sample Team Members _2 ___________________ _
Profit Center No. ~-___ _
Project Manager4 _____ _
Purchase Order No. 6
Required Report Date.11 ___________ _
fijil, --111111 -
FIGURE B-5-1
ANALYSIS REQUEST AND
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD*
Samples Shipment Date !_ ___ _
Lab Destination 8 _____ _
Lab Contact _9 __
Project Contact/Phone ~2 __ _
Carrier /Waybill No. _1_3 _______ _
ONE CONTAINER PER
Reference Document No. 3 5 8 1 0 6
Page 1 of __
Bill to:5 _
Report to: ,_o _______________________ _
LINE -. ---·------·-·-----· CD m
Sample 14 Sample 15 Date/Time 16 Container 1 SampleH Pre-19 Requested Testing 20 Condition on 21 Disposal 22
servative Receipt Record No. Number Description/T.,...e Collected T-Volume Prnnram -< "-a
. ~
/! ' . . -'. ,, ., -iii ,. .. ,..,..\ ,.,.,, ,,,, -. . . ,,. ., . a. ',.. . f, ' -.. n 0 "O
" 1J .• ~, q:: 1, f :; ~· ~ .
i,l '} ....-,'1 L_ .. '.-i i-.!t ~ -. ;
;1• ~:.,~-• ,. en ., ,,. ro ro
0 w n ~
g_
a
Special Instructions: 23 3
Possible Hazard Identification: 24 I Sample Disposal: 25 a 7
Non-hazard _J Flammable 'J Skin Irritant l_j Poison B 'J Unknown !_J Return to Client 1 _j Disposal by Lab' _j Archive ·----·· .. ___ (mos.]~
Turnaround Time Required: 26 I QC Level: 27 C "-
Normal '_J Rush'J LIJ IL1J 111.IJ Proiect S□ecific [s□ecifv): -----.. 3 m
1. Relinquished by 28 Date: 1. Received by 28 Date: q
----------------------C
[Signature/Affiliation] Time: (Signature/ Affifiet.ioo) Time: g
0 0
Date: 2. Received by Date: 2. Relinquished by -----~-----·---------·--. ·-"
!Signeture/AffilietionJ Time: [Srgnature/ Aff1liationJ Time;··
3. Relinquished by Date: ----------· -3. Received by Date: -
(Signature/ Affiliation I Time: [Signature/ AffiliatiOfl) Time:
Comments: 29
MCA311Y31
..
I
I
I
I ,,,
·1
I ,,
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
• The following documentation will supplement the chain-of-custody records:
-Sample label on each sample
-Sample seal on each sample
-Field Daily Activity Log.
B.5.2 Sample Labeling
Sample labels must contain sufficient information to uniquely identify the sample in the
absence of other documentation. Labels will include as minimum:
• Project number
• Unique sample number
• Sample location
• Sampling date and time
• Individual collecting the sample
• Preservation method employed
• Analysis required.
The sample label will always be directly affixed to the sample container and will always be
completed using indelible ink.
In addition, IT custody seal tape will be used on each sample container to prevent the
unauthorized tampering or removal of each aliquot. This tape will be affixed across the
container lid so as to show visible evidence of tearing when the lid is ultimately removed.
KN,M'P645APBm-t 7-!'2/DO B-10
I
.I
I
I ,,
·1
I
:1
\I
'I
'I
·1
·I
I
I
B.6.0 Equipment Calibration
B.6.1 General Cslibratlon Procedures
Laboratory and field testing equipment used for analytical determinations will be inspected
and calibrated periodically. Equipment calibration will be conducted in accordance with
Section 5.5 of the ITEO QAM.
Measuring and test equipment and reference standards will be calibrated at prescribed
intervals and/or before use. Frequency will be based on the type of equipment, inherent
stability, manufacturer's recommendations, values given in national standards, intended use,
and experience. A summary of calibration requirements for certain laboratory instruments is
included in Table B-6-L
Calibrated equipment shall be uniquely identified by using either the manufacturer's serial
number or other means. A label with the identification number and the date when the next
calibration is due will be attached to the equipment. If this is not possible, records traceable
to the equipment will be readily available for reference.
Scheduled periodic calibration of testing equipment does not relieve field or laboratory
personnel of the responsibility of employing properly functioning equipment. If an individual
suspects an equipment malfunction, he shall remove the device from service, tag it so it is not
inadvertently used, and notify the PM so that recalibration can be performed or substitute
equipment can be obtained.
B.6.2 Calibration Failures
Equipment that fails calibration or becomes inoperable during use will be removed from
service and either segregated to prevent inadvertent use, or tagged to indicate it is out of
calibration. Such equipment will be repaired and recalibrated or replaced as appropriate.
Results of activities performed using equipment that has failed recalibration will be evaluated
by the PM. If the activity results are adversely affected, the results of the evaluation will be I documented and the appropriate personnel notified.
I
I
I KN/WP64S.AP8.(II-17-91JDO B-11
------lllii -
Table B-6-1
Summary of Operational Calibration Requirements
(Page 1 of 3)
Calibration Standards Used lnrtially
Instrument and Daily Acceptance Limrts Corrective Actions Documentation
Atomic absorption lnrtial: 5 levels and blank Correlation coefficient ,!:0.995 Make new standards and/or Instrument data file
spectrophotometer establish new calibration curve
Daily: 1 check standard (mid-range) Daily check standard 90-110%
per 10 samples recovery
Inductively coupled plasma lnrtial: high standard and blank NIA Establish new curve. Repeat twice Instrument data file
emission spedrophotometer (daily check); if outside control
Daily: Check standard (mid-range) Check standard ± 10% limrt, then recalibrate making new
and calibration blank every 10 standards tt necessary
samples
GC/MS Mass scale calibration every 12 U.S. EPA CLP criteria Retune: system maintenance Instrument calibration file
hours: BFB/DFTPP and/or GC/MS project file
lnrtial: 5 levels and blank RF¾RSD <30% Make new standards; recalibrate
Daily: 1 level (low-range) ±25% of inrtial curve (CCC). Make new standards; recalibrate
Retention time ±30 sec for internal
standards
Gas chromatograph Initial: 3-5 levels and blank Response factor ¾RSD <20% or Make new standards or establish Calibration chart file or
use curve new calibration curve GC project file
Daily: 1 level of check standards Check standard ± 15% of predicted Make new standards or establish
(mid-range) response new calibration curve
Standard check every 10 samples RF <± 15% of daily calibration Reanalyze samples that were GC project file
(mid-range) (<±20% for confirmation column). analyzed after standard that failed
Retention times within retention crrteria and before the next
time windows (for methods using standard that passes crrteria
retention time windows)
KNJWP645.Bt2-10-92/01
----
Instrument
UV-visible
spectrophotometer
pH meter
Specific conductance
Total organic carbon
Total organic halogens
HPLC
Ion Chromatograph
KNIWP645.Bf2-10-92/01
--·--· ------
Calibration Standards Used Initially
and Daily
lnttial: 3-5 levels and blank
Daily: 1 check standard (mid-range)
Quarterly: Wavelength accuracy
and photometric lineartty
Daily: 2 levels (4.0-7.0)
Daily: Check calibration (10.0)
Daily: KCI check standard
Daily: 3 levels and blank
Daily: check standard (mid-range)
Daily: 2 levels; check standard
every 20. Blank every 1 o.
lnttial: 3-4 levels and blank
Daily: Check standard every 1 o
samples (mid-range)
lnttial: 3 levels and blank
Daily: 1 level of check standards
every 10 samples (mid-range)
Table 8-6-1
(Page 2 of 3)
Acceptance Limtts
Graph curve
Daily check standard 90-110%
recovery
Manufacturer specifications
±0.05 pH unit
± 10% of true value
± 1 O"/o of expected response
¾RSD of RFs < 20%
RF + 15%D from calibration curve
15% of true value and recalibrate
Graph curve or RF ¾RSD <20%
15% of original curve
Graph curve
Daily: ±10% of original curve
Corrective Actions
Recalibrate, making new standards
ff necessary
Recalibrate
Service
(1) Clean or replace electrode
(2) Recalibrate
(3) Service
Repeat test
Make new standards and
recalibrate
Reanalyze affected samples
Make new standards
Make new standards and/or
establish a new calibration curve
Reanalyze affected samples
Make new standards and
recalibrate
Reanalyze affected samples
-
Documentation
Calibration file/logbook
Logbook
Project file
Project file
Project file
Project file
Project file
--------
Calibration Standards Used Initially
Instrument and Daily
GC/MS -Dioxins and furans Mass scale calibration: PFTBA
lnttial: 5 levels and blank
Daily: 1 level (low level)
KNIWP645.8l2• 10-92/D1
Table B-6-1
(Page 3 of 3)
Acceptance limtts
Method 8280 criteria
RSD <15%
±30% of predicted response
Corrective Actions Documentation
System maintenance GC/MS project file
Recalibration
Repeal daily check and recalibrate
if necessary
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B. 7.0 Analytical Procedures
B.7.1 Overview of Standard Laboratory Operating Procedures
Procedures that are to be routinely followed when analyzing samples include the following:
• Holding times and the amount of sample available will be reviewed and the
analyses prioritized.
• Analyses will be performed within holding times according to accepted proce-
dures.
• A calibration curve consisting of at least three standards and a reagent blank will
be prepared as specified in the methodology.
• Preparation and analysis of at least one procedural blank will be completed for
each group of samples analyzed.
• At least one spiked sample will be analyzed for every 20 samples processed to
monitor the %R and accuracy of the analytical procedure.
• One sample in duplicate will be analyzed for every 20 samples processed.
B. 7.2 Organic Compounds
The analyses for volatiles will be performed by IT's Analytical Services Laboratory in
Knoxville, Tennessee (IT AS). The instrumental techniques employed will be gas chromatog-
raphy/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gas chromatography with electron capture detector
(GC/ECD). The Knoxville Laboratory is certified under CLP for organic analyses. Proce-
dures instituted by the CLP will be adhered to during appropriate organic analyses pertaining
to the RI at the Cedar Springs Road facility. The analyses for organic compounds will be
based on the U.S. EPA CLP 2/88 SOW.
The address for IT's Knoxville Analytical Laboratory is as follows:
IT Analytical Services, Inc.
5815 Middlebrook Pike
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921
KN/WP645 .APB,<ll-1 7-92/1)() B-12
I
I
u
ti
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.8.0 Data Reduction, Validation, and Reporting
The final report will include, but not be limited to the following:
• Completed Analysis Request and Chain-of-Custody Record fonn
• Report data
• Method detection limits
• Method blank results
• Matrix spike results
• Duplicate results
• A presentation of the accuracy and precision data.
• Trend analysis
Procedures for assessing these aspects of the data are described in Chapter B.13.0. When
data are reduced, the method of reduction will be identified and described. Laboratory data
validation will follow the procedures as described in the ITAS QA manual.
Calculations included in the final report will be checked by a person of appropriate technical
expertise who will verify a minimum of 20 percent of the data. Errors will be identified with
a red pen. The originator will then review the changes recommended by the checker. If the
originator disagrees with the checker, the two will confer until their differences are resolved.
If errors are identified, the associated data will be checked.
KN.iWP645 .APB,()I -l 7-921DO B-13
I
I
I
D
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.9.0 Quality Control Procedures
B.9.1 Field Quality Control Procedures
To check the quality of data from field sampling_efforts, blank (water) and duplicate samples
will be submitted to IT's Analytical Laboratory. Blank samples will be analyzed to check for
container contamination. Duplicate samples will be analyzed to check for sampling and
analytical error causing data scatter. The confidence limits and percent level of uncertainty
will be calculated and reported in the RI report. One duplicate will be prepared for every 10
borings made and one blank will be prepared for every 20 samples (including duplicates)
submitted for analysis.
Water used for the analysis of trace metals will be purified by reverse osmosis/deionization to
no less than 10 Mn/cm. Water for organics determinations will be deionized and then further
purified with activated carbon.
Standard IT AS sampling equipment and procedures will be used for blank sampling as
described in the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP). All blank (water) and duplicate samples
will be treated as separate samples for identification, logging, and shipping.
B.9.2 Laboratory Quality Control Procedures
Volatile Organics. Samples for volatile organics analysis will be analyzed according to the
U.S. EPA CLP 2/88 SOW. An initial calibration curve will be prepared using a mixture of
standards at five different concentrations and a mixture of three internal standards. Each
GC/MS tune will be verified every 12 hours to provide that its performance on bromofluoro-
benzene (BFB) meets the applicable U.S. EPA criteria. The continuous calibration is also
verified prior to sample analysis by re-analysis of the midrange standard.
Standards, method blanks, and samples will be spiked before analysis with surrogate standards
as specified in CLP procedures. Surrogate standards are defined as non-TCL compounds used
to monitor the %R efficiencies of the analytical procedures on a sample-by-sample basis.
Samples exhibiting surrogate standard responses outside the contract required control limits
will be re-analyzed.
KN,WP645AP8,()I-l7-92/00 B-14
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
At least one method blank for every twenty samples will be purged and analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOC). Volatile organics analysis requires a method blank consisting of
5 milliliters (mL) of organic free water spiked with the appropriate surrogate standards.
Results of the method blank analysis will be maintained with the corresponding sample
analyses.
Matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) analyses will be performed on one of
every twenty samples per matrix analyzed. A separate aliquot of the sample will be spiked
with the appropriate TCL compounds and will then be calculated. Should the %R values fall
outside the appropriate QC limits, the other QC parameters will be evaluated to determine
whether an error in spiking occurred or whether the entire set of samples requires re-analysis.
The relative percent error for each parameter will then be calculated from these MS/MSD
analyses. Should the average relative percent error fall outside the appropriate QC limits, the
other QC parameters will be evaluated to determine whether the duplicate sample should be
re-analyzed or whether the entire set of samples must be re-purged and analyzed.
KN/WP645.APBm-t 7-92/DO B-15
I
I
I
B
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.10.0 Performance and Systems Audits and Frequency
Audits may be conducted periodically to verify compliance with IT and specific project
QNQ<2 program requirements. Audits consist of evaluations of QNQC procedures and the
effectiveness of their implementation, an evaluation of work areas and activities, and a review
of project documentation as appropriate.
Audits may cover both field activities and report preparation and will be conducted by trained
and qualified IT personnel.
The records of field operations may be reviewed to verify that field-related activities have
been performed in accordance with appropriate project procedures. Items reviewed may
include, but not be limited to: calibration records of field equipment; daily field activity logs;
photographs; and data, Jogs, and checkprints resulting from the field operations.
Audits may also examine, as appropriate, the documentation and verification of field and
laboratory data and results; performance, documentation, and verification of analyses;
preparation and verification of drawings, logs, and tables; content, consistency, and conclu-
sions of the final report; compliance with IT and project requirements; and maintenance and
filing of project records. ·
Audit results are transmitted to the PM for information and corrective action as appropriate.
KN/W'P645.APB,(ll-17-92/DO B-16
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.11.0 Preventive Maintenance
Periodic preventive maintenance is required for equipment whose performance can affect
results. Instrument manuals are kept on file for reference if equipment needs repair.
Troubleshooting sections of manuals are often useful in assisting personnel in performing
maintenance tasks.
Any equipment that requires routine maintenance will be included in the laboratory preventive
maintenance program. Information pertaining to life histories of equipment maintenance will
be kept in individual equipment logs with each instrument. Appropriate and sufficient
replacement parts or backup equipment will be available so that sampling and monitoring
tasks are not substantially impeded or delayed.
B.11.1 Routine Maintenance Activities
Depending on the parameters to be analyzed and the intended purpose of the data, a wide
variety of instrumentation and equipment is available for analytical activities. Because of the
reliance placed on such equipment to assist in evaluating the appropriate level of protection
for field personnel and because of the use of environmental measurements to support
enforcement cases, all analytical equipment will be maintained at its proper functional status.
Analytical instrumentation and equipment used to prepare and analyze groundwater and
surface water samples will be maintained to manufacturers' specifications and in operational
condition. Routine preventive maintenance will be conducted to verify proper operation of
the various pieces of equipment. The objective of the preventive maintenance program for
analytical equipment is to avoid generating spurious environmental measurements that could
endanger site personnel or lead to inappropriate remedial responses. Table B-11-1 summariz-
es ITAS's preventive maintenance program for laboratory instrumentation and equipment.
B.11.2 Preventative Maintenance Documentation
Laboratory instrument logs are used to record maintenance and service procedures and to
document instrument problems and steps taken to resolve problems. It is the responsibility of
the person performing the maintenance activity or repair to provide documentation in the
instrument log. These records are kept with the instrument or filed in the respective instru-
ment laboratory according to laboratory standard operating procedures. Instrument logs are
subject to QC audit.
KN/WP645APBm-t7-92JDO B-17
Table B-11-1
Summary of Periodic Calibration Requirements
Instrument Calibration Standards/Frequency Acceptance Limits Corrective Actions
Analytical balance Daily: Sensitivity (with a Class Acceptance criteria based on Adjust sensitivity ·s· weight) ±1% of Certttied Weight Value
Quarterly: Reproducibility All balances are checked and
Quarterly: Consistency serviced quarterly by an outside
Quarterly: Class ·s· weights service contractor
check
Thermometers Annually: Calibrate in constant ±0.5°C Discard thermometer
temperature baths at two
temperatures against precision
thermometers certttied by NBS
Pipettors Quarterly: Gravimetric check High volume (>100 µL): :;:1.0% Service or replace
relative error and RSD
Low volume (<100 µL): :,:2.0%
relative error and RSD
Refrigerators Daily: Temperature checked 4±2°C Notfy quality control
and recorded coordinator; service
KNIWP645.O/01-20-92/00
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
0
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.11.3 Contln~ency Plans
IT AS maintains an inventory of spare parts and equipment to be used in the case of equip-
ment failure. In addition, backup instrumentation is available to minimize the effects of
instrument downtime. Manufacturer service contracts have been purchased for some
equipment to ensure prompt response for needed repairs. And finally, the ITAS network of
11 laboratories provides a means for completing analyses within holding times and with a
standard QA program when the other contingency plans for equipment failure do not succeed.
(The other IT AS laboratories will only be used with a client's permission.)
KN/WP645.APB,Ol-l 7-92JDO B-18
I
I
I
g
0
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.12.0 Specific Routine Procedures Used to Assess Data
Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness
QC checks are needed to demonstrate that the laboratory is operating within prescribed
requirements for accuracy and precision. This section describes (I) the type and frequency of
quality control checks performed by ITAS, (2) the procedures ITAS will use to determine the
precision and accuracy targets listed in Chapter B.3.0, and (3) the procedures used to calculate
method detection limits.
B.12.1 Laboratory Quality Control Checks
The IT AS QA program was designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the analytical
methods employed. The type and frequency of QC checks is discussed in the following
sections. Specific acceptance criteria for these checks are provided in Chapters B.3.0 and
B.13.0.
B.12.2 Trip (Travel) Blank Analyses
Volatile organics samples are susceptible to contamination by diffusion of organic contami-
nants through the Teflon-faced silicone rubber septum of the sample vial; therefore, trip
blanks are analyzed to monitor for possible sample contamination during shipment. Trip
blanks are prepared in the laboratory by filling two volatile organic analysis vials (40 mL)
with organic-free water and shipping the blanks with the field kit. Trip blanks accompany
each set of sample bottles through collection and shipment to the laboratory and are stored
with the samples.
B.12.3 Method Blank Analyses
A method blank is a volume of deionized, distilled laboratory water for water samples, or a
purified solid matrix for soil/sediment samples carried through the entire analytical procedure.
The volume or weight of the blank is approximately equal to the sample volume or sample
weight processed. A method blank is performed with each batch of samples. Analysis of the
blank verifies that method interferences caused by contaminants in solvents, reagents,
glassware, and other sample processing hardware are known and minimized.
KN/WP64S.APB/Ol• l 7-92/DO B-19
D
D
u
D
0
I
I
I
B.12.4 Reagent Blank Analyses
A reagent blank is composed of the materials that will be added to samples during preparation
(e.g., solvents, acids, adsorptive materials). It is run prior to the use of the materials on "real"
samples to verify that no contaminants are present at levels that would affect sample results.
B.12.5 Duplicate Sample Analyses
Duplicate analyses are performed to evaluate the precision of an analysis. Results of the
duplicate analyses are used to determine the RPD between replicate samples. Duplicate
samples are analyzed at a frequency of 10 percent for inorganic and general chemistry tests.
B.12.6 Check Standard Analyses
Because standards and calibration curves are subject to change and can vary from day to day,
a midpoint standard or check standard is analyzed at the beginning of each run, after every 10
or 20 samples, depending on the method, and at the end of each run. Analysis of this
standard is necessary to verify the calibration curve.
B.12.7 Surrogate Standard Analyses
Surrogate standard determinations are performed on all samples and blanks for GC/MS
analyses and for most GC analyses. All samples and blanks are fortified with surrogate
spiking compounds before purging or extraction to monitor preparation and analysis of
samples.
B.12.8 Matrix Spike Analyses
To evaluate the effect of the sample matrix upon analytical methodology, a separate aliquot of
sample is spiked with the analyte of interest and analyzed with the sample. The %R for the
respective compound is then calculated and results evaluated. Matrix spikes are prepared and
analyzed at a frequency of one per twenty samples.
B.12.9 Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyses
Similar in concept to the matrix spike sample above, it is a separate aliquot of sample that is
spiked with the analyte(s) of interest and analyzed with the associated sample and matrix
spike. A comparison of the recoveries of the spiked compounds in the MS/MSD samples is
made to determine the RPD between the MS/MSD samples. Matrix spike duplicates are
prepared and analyzed with each group of 20 samples for all organic tests.
KN/WP645.APB,ot-11-92/DO B-20
I
D
u
B
0
g
a
g
g
B
B
B.12.10 Verification/Reference Standard Analyses
On a quanerly basis, the Quality Control Coordinator introduces a group of prepared
verification samples, or standard reference materials, into the analytical testing regime. The
concentrations are unknown to laboratory personnel. Results of these data are summarized,
evaluated, and presented to laboratory management for review and corrective actions, if
appropriate. (Refer to Chapter B.14.0.)
B. 12. 11 Blank Spike Analyses
A blank spike is a volume of deionized, distilled laboratory water for aqueous samples, or a
purified solid matrix for soiVsediment samples that is spiked with parameters of interest and
carried through the entire analytical procedure. Analysis of this sample with acceptable
recoveries of spike materials demonstrates that the laboratory techniques for this method are
in control. This sample is generally analyzed with MS/MSDs on those sample matrices that
are anticipated to cause analytical difficulties due to matrix interferences. If the MS/MSD
pair shows poor recoveries due to interferences, yet the blank spike sample is acceptable, this
is strong evidence that the method has been performed correctly by the laboratory for these
samples, but matrix interferences have affected the results.
B.12.12 Laboratory Control Samples
A laboratory control sample (LCS) is a blank spike analyzed for inorganic or general chemis-
try parameters. The LCS spiking solution is a certified material from U.S. EPA, Environmen-
tal Regulatory Agency (ERA), or National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST),
and represents a source of material independent from that used for calibration. The LCS is
carried through the entire sample preparation/analysis procedure with each batch of 20
samples and is used to determine whether the laboratory techniques are in control for the
method employed.
B.12.13 Standard Addition Spike Analyses
This is a sample created by spiking target analytes into a prepared portion of a sample just
prior to analysis. It only provides information on matrix effects encountered during analysis,
i.e., suppression or enhancement of instrument signal levels. It is most often encountered
with elemental analyses, and is analyzed with each sample digestate during graphite furnace
and cold vapor atomic absorption analyses.
KN/WP645.APB.KU-17-92/DO B-21
I
I
D
0
fl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.12.14 Internal Standard Spike Analyses
This is an analyte that has the same characteristics as the surrogate, but is added to a sample
just prior to analysis. It provides a short-term indication of instrument performance, but it
may also be an integral part of the analytical method in a non-QC sense, e.g., to normalize
data for quantitation purposes. Internal standards are spiked into all GC/MS standards,
blanks, and samples.
KN/WP64S.APBm•l7·92/DO B-22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
D
0
u
B.13.0 Routine Methods to Assess Precision and Accuracy
When the analysis of a sample set is completed, the QC data generated will be reviewed, and
calculated accuracy and precision will be evaluated against the goals identified in Chapter
B .3.0 to validate the sample set. The specific methods used to generate precision and
accuracy data are described in Table B-13-1.
Accuracy. Accuracy is the nearness of a result or the mean of a set of results to the true
value, and is calculated as follows:
Percent Recovery (%R)
where:
A =
B =
T =
%R
%R = (A-8) x 100
T
Concentration determined in unspiked aliquot
Concentration determined in spiked aliquot
Known value of the spike
=Percent recovery.
Precision. Precision is the measurement of agreement of a set of replicate results among
themselves without assumption of any prior information as to the true results. A measure of
the agreement in the reported values for the two portions is obtained by calculating the RPD
in the concentration level of each constituent, where ~ and Bi are the concentrations of
constituents A and B.
IA; -B) RPO;= ~-~-X 100 (A; + 8;)/2
I Control Charts. The control chart program currently in use at the Knoxville laboratory
calculates upper and lower control and warning limits as follows:
I
I
I
Upper Control Limit = ji+ 3s
Lower Control Limit = ji-3s
Upper Warning Limit= ji+2s
Lower Warning Limit= ji-2s
KN/WP64S.APB,ut-17-92/DO B-23
Table B-13-1
QC Samples Used to Generate Precision and Accuracy
QC Sample Purpose Concentration Level Method References
Matrix spike/matrix spike Precision and accuracy Low-level a 8240, 8270, 608,8080,
duplicate 8010/8020, CLP SOW 2/88,
504,8090
Mid-levelb 415.1, 9060
High-levef 610, 8310
Matrix spike Accuracy Low-level 7470, 7471, CLP ILM01.0 for
Hg and cyanide
Mid-level General chemistry methodsd, all
methods tor graphtte furnace
atomic absorption and ICP
Duplicate Precision NIA All inorganic methods and
general chemistry methods
TCLP matrix spike Accuracy Low-to high-level8 1311, 8240,8270,8080, 8150,
6010, 7470, 7471
Surrogate spike Accuracy Low-level 8240, CLP sow 2/88 for VOA
Mid-level 8270, CLP SOW 2/88 for BNA
High-level 8080, CLP SOW 2/88 lor Pest.,
8010/8020, 8090
Laboratory control sample Accuracy Mid-level CLP ILM01.0
8Low-level is defined as concentrations from the method detection limtt to 1 O times the MDL.
bMid-level is defined as the mean level between the method detection limtt and the upper end of the linear range.
cHigh-level is defined as concentrations at the upper end of the linear range.
dMatrix spike/matrix spike duplicates may be analyzed tor general chemistry parameters in lieu of matrix spikes and duplicates.
8Spike level depends on the concentration of the original sample. The level ranges from live times the method detection limit to the TCLP
regulatory limtt.
KNIWP645.E/0 1-20-92/D0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
where:
ji = average percent recovery
s = standard deviation of percent recovery
Currently, generation of these in-house limits requires re-entry of data points into a computer
system separate from that used to collect and process raw data. Thus, the list of parameters
and analyses for which control charts are generated is limited to those that would provide the
most needed information. A major project to develop a new Laboratory Information
Management System (LIMS) is currently underway within ITAS. With the development and
implementation of the new LIMS, control limits for matrix spikes, duplicates, and surrogates
for most analyses will easily be generated (without re-entry of data) on a real-time basis.
Detection Limits. All analytical methodologies have an associated method detection limit
below which an analyte present in the sample cannot be accurately measured.
Organic Analyses. The practical quantitation limit (PQL) is defined by U.S. EPA as the
lowest level that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy
during routine laboratory operating conditions. PQLs are specified by the U.S. EPA SW-846
and CLP methodology.
Results for organics analyses are reported using U.S. EPA PQLs, i.e., a detection limit
quantity is reported as a value flagged with "U." This less than value does not indicate that
an analyte is not present in a sample, but instead, that it is not present at levels above the
PQL. For results produced by U.S. EPA CLP GC/MS methods, values that are below
required PQLs, but can still be quantified, are flagged with a "J" as "estimated concentra-
tions." The laboratory verifies the U.S. EPA PQLs by analysis of a low calibration standard
at or near the detection limit, with each calibration range.
The method detection limit (MDL) is defined by U.S. EPA as the minimum concentration of
a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte
concentration is greater than zero. The MDL is determined from analysis of a sample in a
given matrix type containing the analyte.
For operational purposes, when it is necessary to determine the MDL in the matrix, the MDL
shall be determined by multiplying the appropriate one-sided 99 percent I-statistic by the
standard deviation obtained from a minimum of three analyses of a matrix spike containing
KNM'P64S.APBm•l7-921DO B-24
H
u
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the analyte of interest at a concentration three to five times the estimated MDL.
statistic is obtained from the following table:
No. of samples:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
The MDL shall be estimated as follows:
t-statistic
6.96
4.54
3.75
3.36
3.14
3.00
2.90
2.82
The t-
• The concentration value that corresponds to one of the following shall be deter-
mined:
a. an instrument signal/noise ratio within the range of 2.5 to 5.0, or
b. the region of the standard curve where there is a significant change in sensi-
tivity (i.e., a break in the slope of the standard curve).
• The variance (S2) for each analyte shall be determined as follows:
52 = _1_ [ E (x;-xi2 ] n-1 • 1 I=
where xi = the ith measurement of the xanable x and x = the average value of x;
- 1 ~ X = -L, Xj
n i=1
• The standard deviation (s) for each analyte shall be determined as follows:
• The MDL for each analyte shall be determined as follows:
MDL = \n-1, ex= .99/s)
where t(n-l, ex= _99) is the one-sided t-statistic appropriate for the number of
samples used to determine (s), at the 99 percent level.
KN/WP645.APBm-t 7-91JOO B-25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.14.0 Nonconformance/Corrective Action Procedures
Nonconforming items and activities are those that do not meet the project requirements,
procurement document criteria, or approved wor~j>rocedures. Nonconformances may be
detected and identified by:
• Project staff -During the performance of field investigation and testing, supervi-
sion of subcontractors, and performance of audits and verification of numerical
analyses
• Laboratory staff -During the preparation for and performance of laboratory
testing, calibration of equipment, and QC activities
• Quality Assurance Staff -During the performance of audits.
Each nonconformance will be documented by the person identifying or originating it. For this
purpose, a Nonconformance Report, Testing Procedure Record, Notice of Equipment
Calibration Failure, results of laboratory analysis control tests, post audit report, internal
memorandum, or letter will be used as appropriate. Documentation shall, when necessary,
include:
• Name of the individual identifying or originating the nonconformance
• Description of the nonconformance
• Any required approval signatures
• Method for correcting the nonconformance
• Schedule for completing corrective action.
Documentation will be made available to project, laboratory, and/or QA management.
Appropriate personnel will be notified by the management of any significant nonconformance
detected by the project, laboratory, or QA staff. Implementation of corrective actions will be
the responsibility of the PM or the laboratory director. In addition, the PM will notify NSCC
of significant nonconformances that could impact the results of the work and will indicate the
corrective action taken or planned.
The PM will be responsible for approving corrective actions. Completion of corrective
actions for significant nonconformances will be verified by the PM.
Any significant recurring nonconformance will be evaluated by the project or laboratory
personnel to determine its cause. Appropriate changes will then be instituted in project
KN/WP645APBJ01-17•92/DO B-26
I
I
I
I
m
E
I
D
0
D
u
n
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
requirements and procedures to prevent future recurrence.
performed, the results will be documented.
KN/WP64S.APB,Ul-17•921DO B-27
When such an evaluation is
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B.15.0 Quality Assurance Audits and Reports
To verify compliance with IT and specific project QNQC program requirements, audits are
conducted in accordance with the applicable requirements of Section 11.0 of the ITEO QAM,
Revision No. 1. Audits consist of: evaluations of QNQC procedures and the effectiveness
of their implementation; evaluations of work areas and activities; and reviews of project
documentation. Audits are performed in accordance with written check lists by trained
personnel. Audit results are formally documented and sent to project management
Audits may include, but not be limited to, the following areas:
• Field operations records
• Laboratory testing and records
• Equipment calibration and records
• Identification and control of samples
• Numerical analyses
• Computer program documentation and verification
• Transmittal of information
• Record control and retention.
K.N/WP645.APB~l-17-92/DO B-28
I .
. I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
i
I' APPENDIX C
.I, HEAL TH AND SAFETY PLAN
I
-1.
I
I
,i,
I
i
·1 KNIWP645.COVI04-03-92/01
,.
,I Table of Contents
I C.1.0 Introduction C-1
.I C.1.1 Scope of Work C-1
C.1.2 Health and Safety Policy C-1
I C.1.3 References C-2
C.2.0 Responsibilities C-2
I C.2.1 Project Manager C-3
C.2.2 Project Health and Safety Consultant C-3
C.2.3 Field Operations Coordinator C-3
Ii C.2.4 All Other Project Personnel C-4
C.3.0 Hazard Assessment C-4
I C.3.1 Chemical Hazards C-4
C.3.2 Exposure Standards C-4
I C.3.3 Physical Hazards C-6
C.4.0 Safety Program C-6
I C.4.1 General Practices C-6
C.4.2 Heat and Cold Illness Prevention C-8
C.4.2.1 Heat Stress C-8
I C.4.2.2 Cold Stress C-9
C.4.3 Hearing Conservation C-11
I C.4.4 Confined Space Entry C-11
C.4.5 Sanitation C-11
I C.5.0 Personal Protective Equipment C-12
C.5.1 Respirator Program C-12
m
C.5.2 Levels of Protection C-13
C.5.2.1 Level D Protection C-13
C.5.2.2 Level C Protection C-13
1ft C.6.0 Site Control C-14
C.6.1 Authorization to Enter C-14
,o C.6.2 Hazard Briefing C-14
JD
a ., KN/WP645.APCft)l-21-921'Fl C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
Table of Contents (Continued)
C.6.3 Documentation of Certification
C.6.4. Entry Log
C.6.5 Contamination Control Zones
C.6.6 Entry Requirements
C.6.7 Emergency Entry and Exit
C.7.0 Decontamination
C.7.1 Personnel Decontamination
C.7.2 Equipment Decontamination
C.8.0 Site Monitoring
C.8.1 Air Monitoring
C.8.2 Noise Monitoring
C.8.3 Monitoring Records
C.8.4 Notification
C.9.0 Employee Training
C.10.0 Medical Surveillance
C.11.0 Emergency Response Plan
C.11.1 Employee Injury
C.11.1.1 Chemical Inhalation
C.11.1.2 Eye Irritation
C.11.1.3 Skin Contact
C.11.1.4 Personal Injury Accident
C.11.2 Emergency Medical Facility
C.11.3 Fire
C.11.4 Emergency Information
C.11.4.1 Key Personnel
KSM'P645.APC11"11·21-92/Fl c-n
C-14
C-15
C-15
C-15
C-15
C-16
C-16
C-16
C-17
C-17
C-17
C-17
C-18
C-18
C-18
C-19
C-19
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-20
C-21
C-21
C-21
C-21
,.
I
I
i
I
11
I
I
fl,
'll
.o.
B
B
u
Ii.
,j
I
1.
1 ..
C.1.0 lntroductio ._ _______________ _
This Health and Safety Plan (HSP) establishes the work practices necessary to help ensure
protection of IT Corporation (IT) personnel during sampling activities at the National Starch
and Chemical Company (NSCC) site for Operable Unit 3.
The objective of this plan is to provide a mechanism for the establishment of safe working
conditions at the site. The safety procedures have been established following an analysis of
potential hazards at the site, and procedures have been developed to minimize the potential of
accident or injury.
All site operations will be performed in accordance with applicable state, local and IT
regulations and procedures, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) require-
ments, and any client requirements. All IT employees and subcontractors shall comply with
the requirements of this plan.
C. 1. 1 Scope of Work
Work at this site will involve employees taking surface water and sediment samples from the
Northeast Tributary as well as groundwater samples along the Northeast Tributary. The
groundwater monitoring points will be constructed using manual methods (drill rig not
necessary).
C. 1.2 Health and Safety Policy
It is the policy of IT to provide a safe and healthful work environment for all its employees.
IT considers no phase of operations or administration to be of greater importance than injury
or illness prevention. Safety takes precedence over expediency or shortcuts. At IT, we
believe every accident and every injury is preventable. We will take every reasonable step to
reduce the possibility of injury, illness, or accident.
This HSP prescribes the procedures that must be followed during the activities at the NSCC
~ site. Operational changes which could affect the health or safety of personnel, the com-
munity, or the environment will not be made without the prior approval of IT Project
Manager and the Project Health and Safety Consultant.
The provisions of this HSP are mandatory for all IT personnel and subcontractors assigned to
the project. IT requires all visitors to the work site to abide by the requirements of the plan.
KN/WP64l .APC<ll • 21-92/FI C-1
. I
t ,,,
I
.I
I
I
I ,,
i
1
.i,"
I
C.1.3 References
This HSP complies with applicable OSHA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) regulations. This follows the guidelines established in the following:
• Standard Operating Safety Guidelines, U.S. EPA, November 1984
• Occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), pg.
86-116
• Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, (CFR) Part 1910.120, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor/OSHA .
ITC 9030.lA Employee and Contractor Training Requirements
ITC 9001 Respiratory Protection Devices: Wearer Fit Policy
ITC 9410.2B Periodic/Update Medical Examinations
ITC 9420.lB
ITC 9531.B
ITC 9462.A
ITC 9532.SB
ITC 9420.2
Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records
Confined Spaces, Industrial
Work-Related Illnesses and Injuries
Emergency Response Operations
Maintenance of Employee Monitoring and Medical Records
These policies and their implementation are central to IT's accident prevention program.
C.2.0 Responsibilities. ______________ _
C.2. 1 Project Manager
The Project Manager for this project is Mike Sturdevant. As Project Manager, Mr. Sturdevant
has overall responsibility for the health and safety of all personnel assigned to the project.
He will perform at least one site safety audit during project field activities and will ensure
that any accidents or incidents are investigated. He will also perform an on-site investigation
of any accidents involving lost time, hospitalization, or fatalities. Any modifications of the
HSP must be approved in writing by the Project Manager. Mr. Sturdevant's work telephone
number is [phone].
KN/WP645.APC,f01-2 l -92JF1 C-2
fi,
n
D
n
'ft,
B
I
I
-I
I
I
1
I
I
11
I
,1
I
I
C.2.2 Project Health and Safety Consultant
The project Health and Safety Consultant is responsible for the preparation of and any
modifications to this HSP. The H&S Consultant will advise the Project Manager on health
and safety issues, establish and oversee the project air monitoring program, and perform at
least one comprehensive health and safety audit during the project.
C.2.3 Field Operations Coordinator
The Field Operations Coordinator will be responsible for field implementation of the HSP.
This will include communicating site requirements to all on-site project personnel (both IT
and subcontractor personnel) and consultation with the Project Health and Safety Consultant.
As required by IT Policy Procedure 9021.1 A, the Field Operations Coordinator will be
responsible for informing the Project Health and Safety Consultant and the Project Manager
of any changes in the work plan, so that those changes may be properly addressed. Other
responsibilities include:
• Enforcing the requirements of the HSP, including the performance of daily safety
inspections of the work site.
• Stopping work as required to ensure personal safety and protection of property, or
when life or property threatening noncompliance with safety requirements is
found.
• Determining and posting emergency telephone numbers and routes to emergency
medical facilities, including poison control facilities, and arranging emergency
transportation to medical facilities.
• Notifying local public emergency officers of the nature of the site operations, and
the posting of their telephone numbers in an appropriate location.
• Observing on-site project personnel for signs of chemical or physical trauma.
• Ensuring that all site personnel have been given the proper medical clearance,
ensuring that all site personnel have met appropriate training requirements, and
have the appropriate training documentation on-site, and monitoring all team
members to ensure compliance with the HSP.
C.2.4 All Other Project Personnel
All IT and subcontractor personnel are required to read and acknowledge their understanding
of this HSP. All site project personnel are expected to abide by the requirements of this plan
KN/WP64S.APC,ll1·21•92/FI C-3
fl
'ii
D
u
·n
fl
B
a
D
D
B
'U
H
I ,,
fl
"I
I.
I
I
and cooperate with site supervision in ensuring a safe and healthful work site. Site personnel
are required to immediately report any of the following to the Field Operations Coordinator:
• Accidents or injuries, no matter how minor
• Unexpected or uncontrolled release of chemical substances
• Any symptoms of chemical exposure
• Any unsafe or malfunctioning equipment
• Any changes in site conditions which may affect the health and safety of project
personnel.
C.3.0 Hazard Assessmen.._ ___________ _
All IT personnel shall be familiar with the chemical, physical, and biological hazards at the
site, and strictly adhere to the appropriate safety procedures. The potential hazards and the
appropriate controls shall be presented to project personnel during daily Tailgate Safety
Meetings.
C.3. 1 Chemical Hazards
The potential chemical hazards involved at the NSCC site include the following contaminants:
• 1,2-dichloroethane
• 2-butanone
• 1,2-dichloropropane
• Toluene
• Ethyl benzene
• Xylenes .
C.3.2 Exposure Standards
Currently, exposure guidelines to chemical substances are regulated by the OSHA. These
exposures are based upon the time-weighted average (TWA) concentration for a normal 8-
hour workday work week. Several chemical substances have short-term exposure limits or
ceiling values which allow a maximum concentration to which workers can be exposed
continuously for a short period of time without suffering from (1) irritation, (2) chronic or
irreversible tissue damage, (3) narcosis of a sufficient degree to result in accidental injury,
impair self rescuer, or substantially reduce work efficiency.
KN/WP64S.APC.<>1•21-92/Fl C-4
,.
\I
' i';
I
I l1
I ,1
I I I I .. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I\
I
I
I
I
'\\
Threshold Limit Values (1L Vs) refer to airborne concentration of substances which represent
conditions that nearly all employees may be repeatedly exposed to day after day without
adverse effect These threshold limits are prescribed by the American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). They are based upon the best available
information from industrial experience and animal or human studies. Because of the wide
variation in individual susceptibility, a small percentage of workers may experience discom-
fort from some substances at concentrations below the recommended values. It has been
policy to use these guidelines for good hygienic practices; however, whenever applicable,
stricter guidelines may be utiliz.ed.
The short-term exposure limit (STEL) is defined by the American Conference of Governmen-
tal Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and federal OSHA as a IS-minute time-weighted-average
exposure which should not be exceeded during a workday even the 8-hour time weighted
average is within applicable limits. Federal OSHA required that a 15 minute "Ceiling"
concentration never be exceeded for that chemical constituent. This notation appears as the
letter "C" after the chemical name.
Under certain chemical substance listings, there may appear a "skin" notation. This refers to
the potential contribution to the overall exposure by the cutaneous route, including mucous
membranes and eye, either airborne or direct contact. Little quantitative data are available
describing absorption as a function of the concentration to which the skin is exposed.
Biological monitoring may be considered to determine the relative contribution of dermal
exposure to the total dose.
The ACGIH and federal OSHA have recognized that certain chemical substances may have
the potential to be carcinogenic in humans from epidemiological studies, toxicology studies
and, to a lesser extent, case histories.
Because of the long latency period for many carcinogens, it is often impossible to base timely
risk management decisions on the results of such information. Two categories of carcinogens
are designated based upon the most current literature and information. These include
confirmed human carcinogens and suspected human carcinogens. These chemical categories
are based on either I) limited epidemiologic evidence, experience of clinical reports of single
assays, or 2) demonstration of carcinogens in one or more animal species by appropriate
methods. The worker potentially exposed to a known human carcinogen must be properly
equipped to insure virtually no contact with the chemical constituents. In the case of a
KN/WP645.APC<)!-21-92/FI C-5
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
u
1l
u
m
1
11:::,
·I
I
I
suspected human carcinogen, worker exposure by all routes must be carefully controlled by
the use of personal and respiratory protection, and administrative or engineering controls.
The following table represents the strictest set of guidelines currently established by either the
ACGIH or federal OSHA for the site contaminants.
OSHA OSHA
Contaminants PEL STEL
1,2-dichloroethane 1 ppm 2 ppm
2-butanone 200 ppm 300 ppm
1,2-dichloropropane 75 ppm 110ppm
Toluene 100 ppm 150 ppm
Ethyl benzene 100 ppm 125 ppm
Xylenes 100 ppm 150 ppm
C.3.3 Physical Hazards
The potential physical hazards involved at the NSCC site may include:
• Noise
• Heat Stress
• Vehicle Traffic
• Lifting hazards
• Slip/frip/Fall
• Groundwater well construction activities.
All IT employees shall be aware of these hazards, and utilize protective equipment and proper
work procedures.
C.4.0 Safety Program _____________ _
C.4. 1 General Practices
The following work practices will be observed during all site activities.
• At least one copy of this HSP shall be available at the project site in a location
readily available to all personnel.
KN/WP645.APC,<ll·21·92/Fl C-6
I
I
I
I ,,
I
I
I
I
I
u
n
ti
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Contaminated protective equipment such as respirators, hoses, boots, etc., shall
not be removed from the regulated area until it has been cleaned or properly
packaged and labeled.
• Legible and understandable precautionary labels which comply with Hazard
Communication Standard shall be affixed prominently to containers of contami-
nated scrap, waste, debris, and clothing.
• Removal of contaminated soil from protective clothing or equipment by blowing,
shaking or any other mean that disperses contaminants in the air is prohibited.
• No food or beverages shall be present or consumed in the regulated area.
• No tobacco products shall be present or used in the regulated area.
• Cosmetics shall not be applied within the regulated area.
• Contaminated materials shall be stored in tightly closed containers in well
ventilated areas.
• Containers shall be moved only with the proper equipment, and shall be secured
to prevent dropping or loss of control during transport.
• Emergency equipment shall be located outside storage areas in readily accessible
locations that will remain minimally contaminated in an emergency.
• All areas that have been determined to be uncontaminated inside the regulated
area will be clearly marked as such. No personnel, equipment etc., shall be in
these areas until they have been decontaminated.
• All crew personnel on-site shall use the buddy system (working in pairs or
teams). If protective equipment or noise levels impair communications, pre-
arranged hand signals shall be used for communications. Visual contact shall be
maintained between crew members at all times and crew members must observe
each other for signs of toxic exposure. Indication of adverse effects include, but
are not limited to:
• Changes in complexion and skin coloration
• Changes in coordination
• Changes in demeanor
• Excessive salivation and pupillary response
• Changes in speech pattern.
KN/WP645~1-21-92/Fl C-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
ti
m
(,
I
I
I I
Employees shall inform their partners or fellow team members of nonvisible effects of
overexposure to toxic materials. The symptoms of such overexposure include headaches,
dizziness, nausea, blurred vision, cramps, and irritation of the eyes, skin or respiratory tract.
Visitors to the site shall abide by the following:
• All visitors shall be instructed to stay outside the exclusion zone and remain
within the support zone during the extent of their stay. Visitors shall be
cautioned to avoid skin contact with contaminated or suspected contaminated
surfaces.
• Visitors requesting to observe work conducted in the exclusion wne must wear
all appropriate PPE prior to entry into that zone. If respiratory protection devices
are necessary, visitors who wish to enter the exclusion zone must produce
evidence that they have had a complete physical examination, respirator training,
and have been fit tested for a respirator within the past 12 months.
• Visitor inspection of the contaminated area shall be at the discretion of the Field
Operations Coordinator.
C.4.2 Heat and Cold Illness Prevention
C.4.2. 1 Heat Stress
One or more of the following control measures can be used to help control heat stress. These
measures are mandatory if any site worker has a heart rate in excess of 115 beats per minute.
Heart rates shall be measured immediately prior to each rest period.
• Site workers shall be encouraged to drink plenty of water throughout the day.
They shall be advised to slightly increase their salt intake by lightly salting their
food.
• On-site drinking water will be kept cool (50°F -60°F) to encourage personnel to
drink frequently.
• A work regimen that will provide adequate rest periods for cooling down shall be
established, as required.
• All personnel shall be advised of the dangers and symptoms of heat stroke, heat
exhaustion and heat cramps.
• Cooling devices such as vortex tubes or cooling vests shall be used when
personnel must wear impermeable clothing in conditions of extreme heat.
KN/W'P645.APCIJ1-21-92/Fl C-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
0
0
u
IE
I .
1•
I
I
I
I
• Employees shall be instructed to monitor themselves and co-workers for signs of
heat stress and to take additional breaks as necessary.
• A shaded rest area shall be provided. All breaks shall take place in the shaded
rest area.
• Employees shall not be assigned to other tasks during breaks.
• Employees shall remove impermeable garments during rest periods. This
includes white Tyvek-type garments.
• All employees shall be informed of the importance of adequate rest, acclimation,
and proper diet in the prevention of heat stress disorders.
The sign of heat stress disorders are given below:
Heat Rash
Heat Cramps
Heat Exhaustion
Heat Stroke
C.4.2.2 Cold Stress
This is caused by continuous exposure to heat and humid air,
and is aggravated by chaffing clothes. Heat rash decreases a
person's ability to tolerate heat.
Heat cramps are caused by heavy sweating and inadequate
electrolyte replacement. Signs and symptoms include muscle
spasms and pain in the hands, feet and abdomen.
Heat exhaustion occurs from increased stress on various body
organs, including inadequate blood circulation due to cardio-
vascular insufficiency or dehydration. Signs and symptoms
include: pale, cool, moist skin; heavy sweating; dizziness and
nausea; and fainting.
Heat stroke is the most serious form of heat stress. Temperature
regulation fails and the body temperature rises to critical levels.
Immediate action must be taken to cool the body before serious
injury or death occurs. Competent medical help must be
obtained immediately. This is a true medical emergency. Signs
and symptoms include: red, hot, usually dry skin; lack of or
reduced perspiration; nausea, dizziness and confusion; an initial
strong, rapid pulse; and coma.
Most cold-related worker fatalities have resulted from a failure to escape low environmental
air temperatures or from immersion in low temperature water. The single most important
aspect of life-threatening hypothermia is a fall in the deep core temperature of the body.
KN/WP645.APC<ll-21-92/Fl C-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
g
8
D
D
I
m
II
I
I
Site workers shall be protected from exposure to cold so that the deep core temperature does
not fall below 36°C. Lower body temperatures will very likely result in reduced mental
alertness, reduction in rational decision making or loss of consciousness with the threat of
fatal consequences. To prevent such occurrences, the following measures shall be
implemented.
• Site workers shall be provided with warm clothing such as mittens, heavy socks,
etc., when the air temperature is below 45°F. Protective clothing, such as Tyvek
or other disposable coveralls shall be used to shield employees from the wind.
• When the air temperature is below 35°F, clothing for warmth in addition to
chemical protective clothing shall be provided to employees. This shall include:
• Insulated suits such as whole-body thermal underwear
• Wool socks or polypropylene socks to keep moisture off the feet
• Insulated gloves
• Insulated boots
• Insulated head cover such as hard hat, winter liner, or knit cap
• Insulated jacket with wind and water-resistant outer layer.
At air temperature below 35°F, the following work practices shall be implemented:
• If the clothing of a site worker might become wet on the job site, the outer layer
of clothing must be water-permeable.
• If a site worker's underclothing becomes wet in any way, the employee shall
change into dry clothing immediately. If the clothing becomes wet from sweat-
ing, and the employee is not comfortable, he may finish the task at hand prior to
changing into dry clothing.
• Site workers shall be provided with a warm (65°F or above) break area.
• Hot liquids such as soups and warm, sweet drinks shall be provided in the break
area. The intake of coffee and tea shall be limited due to their circulatory and
diuretic effects.
• The buddy system shall be practiced at all times on-site. Any site-worker
observed with severe shivering shall leave the work area immediately.
KN/WP645.APC<l1·21·92/FI C-10
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
0
0
n
u
m
I
I
• Site workers shall dress in layers, with thinner, lighter clothing worn next to the
body.
• Site workers shall avoid overdressing when going into wann areas or when
performing strenuous activities.
• Employees handling liquids with a high vapor pressure such as gasoline,
methanol or hexane shall take precautions to avoid soaking of gloves and
clothing with those materials.
C.4.3 Hearing Conservation
All on-site personnel shall wear hearing protection with a U.S. EPA Noise Reduction Rating
(NRR) of at least 20 dBA when noise levels exceed 85 dBA. All personnel required to wear
hearing protection shall receive baseline and annual audiograms and training as to the cause
and prevention of noise-induced hearing loss.
Noise monitoring shall be conducted if deeded necessary by the Project Health and Safety
Consultant. Monitoring will be conducted using an ANSI Type I or Type 2 sound level
meter. Dosimetry may be conducted at the discretion of the Health and Safety Consultant.
C.4.4 Confined Space Entry
No confined and space entries are anticipated for this project.
C.4.5 Sanitation
Toilet and personal hygiene facilities shall be provided and maintained. As a minimum, the
following practices shall be followed:
• Toilet and personal hygiene facilities shall be provided and maintained in
sufficient numbers for the use of all on-site personnel. Such facilities shall be
properly screened from public observation. All such facilities will comply with
state and local requirements.
• Ponable toilets and personal hygiene facilities shall be emptied periodically.
• When no longer required, portable toilets and personal hygiene facilities shall be
removed from the site and the contents disposed of in a legal manner.
• Local sanitary regulations shall be enforced. Precautions shall be taken to
prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
• Trash collection shall be provided.
KN/WP64S~l-21-92/Fl C-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C.5.0 Personal Protective Equipmen......_ _______ _
Based upon the Job Hazard Analysis, it is expected that project personnel will not need
extensive protective clothing, and that the on-site work can be completed in Level D
protective clothing. Level C protective clothing will be worn initially at all new sampling
locations until monitoring indicates a downgrade to Level D is warranted.
C.5. 1 Respirator Program
The site respiratory protection program will consist of the following:
• All site personnel shall have an assigned respirator.
• All site personnel shall have been fit tested and qualified in the use of a half-
mask-air-purifying respirator within the past 12 months. Fit test and respirator
qualifications cards must be provided
• All site personnel shall have been medically certified within the past year as
being capable of wearing a respirator. Documentation of the medical certification
must be provided to the Field Operations Coordinator prior to commencement of
site work.
• Only properly cleaned, maintained, NIOSH-approved respirators are to be used
on this site.
• If respirators are used, the respirator cartridge is to be disposed of at the end of
each workshift or when loadup or breakthrough occurs.
• Contact lenses are not to be worn.
• All site personnel shall be clean shaven. Mustaches and sideburns are permitted,
but they must not tough the sealing surface of the respirator.
• Respirators will be inspected and a positive-negative pressure test shall be
performed prior to each use.
• After each use, the respirator shall be wiped with a disinfecting, cleansing wipe
and stored in a clean plastic bag.
KN/WP645.APC<ll • 21-92il'I C-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
in
I
'
C.5.2 Levels of Protection
C.5.2. 1 Level D Protection
The minimum level of protective equipment to be worn on-site in the support zone during this
project is:
• Hard hat
• Safety glasses
• Steel-toed boots or shoes
• Long pants and a long-sleeved shirt.
Within the decontamination zone, the following protective equipment is required:
• Hard hat
• Safety glasses
• Steel-toed neoprene boots
• Nitrile gloves
• Uncoated Tyvek coveralls
• Long pants and a long-sleeved shirt.
If noise levels exceed 85 dBA, hearing protection with an NRR of at least 20 dBA shall be
used.
C.5.2.2 Level C Protection
Level C Protection for this project will consist of the following:
• Hard hat
• Safety glasses
• NIOSH-approved half-mask or full face air-purifying respirator with NIOSH-
approved cartridges for dust, mist, fume and organic vapors
• Steel-toed neoprene boots
• Nitrile gloves
• Uncoated Tyvek coveralls
• Long pants and a long-sleeved shirt.
K.N/\VP645.APC()I-21-92/Fl C-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
Action Limits
Level D --------> Level C
Level C --------> Level B
Required when the airborne concentration of suspected contami-
nants are known to be one half the lowest OSHA PEL in Table
3-2.
Required if airborne concentrations of toxic contaminants exceed
twice the lowest permissible exposure level in Table 3-2 as
determined by personnel monitoring.
No one is permitted to downgrade levels of PPE without authorization of the Health and
Safety Manager.
C.6.0 Site Contra,_ ______________ _
Site control requires the establishment of specific measures to prevent unauthorized entry onto
the site and to protect all personnel entering the site from recognized safety and health
hazards.
C.6.1 Authorization to Enter
Only personnel authorized by the Project Manager, Field Operations Coordinator, or the
Health and Safety Consultant shall be permitted to enter the IT work area. Regulatory
personnel will be permitted to enter the work area at any time during business hours for the
purpose of conducting a site inspection. News media and other personnel shall not be
allowed within the IT work area without the written permission of the Client and IT local
business unit manager.
C.6.2 Hazard Briefing
All personnel entering the IT work area shall be informed of potential site health and safety
hazards. This briefing shall be documented on daily Tailgate Safety Meeting records. The
site visitor must sign the Tailgate Safety Meeting record.
C.6.3 Documentation of Certification
Personnel entering the site for the purpose of work shall have completed training in
accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120 and this HSP. All personnel entering the IT work area
shall have had a medical examination meeting the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120 within
the last 12 months. Certificates of training and medical examinations for on-site personnel
(including subcontractors) shall be maintained on-site. At the completion of the project, these
KN/WP645.APCJ01·21-92/FI C-14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
records shall be placed in the project file. Personnel not meeting these requirements may
observe the work from outside of the delineated work area.
C.6.4 Entry Log
Access to contaminated work areas shall be restricted to authorized personnel. The IT Field
Operations Coordinator shall be responsible for maintaining a daily Jog of all on-site
personnel. The log should include the length of time each person was in the contaminated
area. This log shall be placed in the project file at the completion of the project.
C.6.5 Contamination Control Zones
The project area will be divided into three work zones: an exclusion zone, a decontamination
zone, and a support zone. The Field Operations Coordinator will be responsible for designa-
tion of the work zones.
The exclusion zone will exist only during sampling operations and include the area around the
sample hole. Only IT personnel and authorized visitors who have completed 40-hour
hazardous waste training and are wearing the required PPE shall be allowed within this zone.
A decontamination zone for personnel and equipment decontamination will be established
immediately adjacent to the exclusion zone. This area will be delineated with traffic cones
and/or barrier tape.
The remainder of the IT project area will be designated as the support zone. No special
markings or warning labels are required for this area.
C.6.6 Entry Requirements
All personnel entering the support, decontamination or exclusion zones shall wear the required
PPE. All personnel entering the exclusion zone will enter and depart through the decontami-
nation zone. Decontamination procedures are mandatory.
C.6.7 Emergency Entry and Exit
During emergencies, decontamination will be conducted to the extent that it is possible
without endangering personnel.
K.N/W'P645.APC.IJ1·21-92/Fl C-15
I
I
I
I
I
D
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C.7.0 Decontaminatio ,_ _____________ _
C. 7. 1 Personnel Decontamination
All personnel working in the exclusion zone must undergo personal decontamination prior to
entering the support zone. The personnel decontamination area shall consist of the following
stations:
Station 1
Station 2
Station 3
Personnel leaving the exclusion zone shall
remove the gross contamination from their
outer clothing and boots at Station 1.
Station 2 will contain a plastic-lined waste
receptacle, chairs, plastic bags, and clean, damp
cloths or paper towels. Personnel shall remove
their Tyvek coveralls and gloves and deposit
them in the lined waste receptacles. Personnel
shall wipe their respirators (if used), hard hats,
and boots with clean, damp cloths and then
remove those items, which are then hand car-
ried to Station 3.
Station 3 will contain a wash basin with soap
and water and a respirator sanitation area. At
this station, personnel will thoroughly wash
their hands and face before leaving the decon-
tamination zone. Respirators shall be sanitized
and placed in a clean plastic Ziploc® bag.
C.7.2 Equipment Decontamination
Any equipment used in the exclusion zone shall be decontaminated prior to leaving the
decontamination zone. Since the level of contamination anticipated is low, decontamination
for vehicles will be limited to rinsing the tires with water. The sampling equipment will be
decontaminated in accordance with procedures in the work plan and the quality assurance
project plan. All decontamination of equipment used in the exclusion zone shall be conducted
at the NSCC site decontamination facility.
//
KN/WP645.APC.(ll-21-921Fl C-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C.8.0 Site Monitorin,~---------------
C.8. 1 Air Monitoring
During all sampling operations, regular air monitoring shall be carried out using real time
instrumentation. Prior to the start of sampling operations, and continuously thereafter as the
sampling progresses, the air in the breathing zone of the sampler(s) shall be monitored with a
organic vapor analyzer (OVA) for the presence of volatile organics.
The OVA shall be calibrated on a daily basis and the calibration data recorded in the project
calibration log book. OVA readings shall be recorded at least every 1/2-hour and logged on
the Field Activity Daily Log.
At the discretion of the Project Health and Safety Consultant, integrated samples may be
collected for volatile organics. Such sampling shall be carried out in accordance with NIOSH
or OSHA methods by a health and safety professional.
C.8.2 Noise Monitoring
During the initial phase of sampling operations, the noise exposure of all site personnel shall
be determined through the use of noise dosimeters and a sound level meter. All noise
monitoring equipment shall be calibrated against a known sound source, both before and after
use. The noise monitoring shall be carried out by a health and safety professional.
C.8.3 Monitoring Records
The IT field Operations Coordinator is responsible for recording all OVA monitoring records
in their Field Activity Daily Log, along with daily calibration records. At the conclusion of
the project, these records shall be placed in the permanent project file.
Recordkeeping for any integrated sampling is the responsibility of the Field Operations
Coordinator, who will ensure that the monitoring records include:
• Worker name and social security number
• Sample data, time, task information and exposure information
• Description of the analytical methods, equipment used and calibration data
• Type of personal protective equipment used
• Engineering controls used to reduce exposure.
KN,WP645.APC.K>l-21-92JF1 C-17
I
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
I
D
The Project Health and Safety Consultant shall ensure that complete sampling records are
placed in the project file and in the health and safety files at the completion of the project.
C.8.4 Notification
The Project Health and Safety Consultant shall ensure that any employee whose exposure was
assessed using industrial hygiene sampling techniques is advised in writing of their exposure
within five working clays of receipt of the sample results. Any employees working in the
immediate vicinity of the sampled employee are also entitled to notice of exposure.
If any worker has been overexposed to monitored substances, their written notification shall
include an explanation from their manager of measures which will be taken to prevent further
overexposure.
C.9.0 Employee Trainin~-------------
All on-site project personnel shall have completed at least 40 hours of hazardous waste
operations-related training as required by 29 CFR 1910.120. Those personnel who completed
the 40-hour training more than 12 months prior to the start of the project shall have com-
pleted an 8-hour refresher course within the past 12 months. The Field Operations Coordi-
nator shall have completed an additional eight hours of relevant health and safety training and
shall have a current first aid/cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) certificate.
Prior to the start of the project, all personnel shall participate in a daily Tailgate Safety
Meeting. During the Tailgate Safety Meeting, the HSP will be discussed. The Field
Operations Coordinator shall ensure that the anticipated site hazards are summarized and
explained to all personnel, and that those personnel are aware of the precautions they must
take to minimize their exposure to these hazards. Tailgate Safety Meetings shall be held at
the start of each workshift. All personnel shall acknowledge having read and understood this
HSP by signing Figure C-1.
C.10.0 Medical Surveillance ___________ _
All on-site project personnel shall have completed within the last 12 months a comprehensive
medical examination which meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.120. The annual medical
exam includes the following elements:
KN,WP645 .APC<ll • 21-91/FI C-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Medical and occupational history questionnaire
• Physical examination
• Complete blood count with differential
• Liver enzyme profile
• Chest x-ray, once every three years for non-asbestos workers
• Pulmonary function test
• Audiogram
• Electrocardiogram for persons older than 35 years of age, or if indicated during
the physical examination
• Illegal drug screening
• Visual acuity
• Follow-up exams, at the discretion of the examining physician or the corporate
medical director.
All employee medical records are maintained by the Health and Safety Group within the
worker's home profit center or, for subcontractors, at the subcontractor's office. The
examining physician provides the employee with a letter summarizing his findings and
recommendations. Each employee has the right to inspect and obtain a copy of their medical
records.
The examining physician provides the employer with a letter confirming the worker's fitness
for work, and his ability to wear a respirator. A copy of this letter for all project workers
shall be kept on-site during all project site work.
C.11.0 Emergency Response Pia ,_ ________ _
C.11.1 Employee Injury
All employees injuries must be promptly reported to the Field Operations Coordinator, who in
turn shall:
KN/WP645.APC.m-2I-92JF1 C-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
n
D
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Ensure that the injured employee receives prompt first aid and medical attention
• Ensure that the Project Manager and the General Manager are promptly notified
of the incident
• Initiate an investigation of the accident.
C. 11. 1.1 Chemical Inhalation
Any employee complaining of symptoms of chemical overexposure as described in Section 3
of this HSP shall be removed from the work area and transported to the designated medical
facility for examination and treatment. It is highly unlikely that the chemicals anticipated as
being on-site in the concentrations anticipated will cause situations which are immediately
dangerous to life and health.
C. 11. 1.2 Eye Irritation
Project personnel who have contaminants splashed in their eyes or who experience eye
irritation while in the exclusion zone shall immediately proceed to the eyewash station set up
on the decontamination zone. Do not decontaminate prior to using the eyewash. Remove
any and all protective clothing necessary to use the eyewash. Flush the eye with clean
running water for at least 15 minutes. Arrange to promptly transport the employee to the
designated medical facility .
C.11.1.3 Skin Contact
Project personnel who have skin contact with contaminants shall, unless the contact is severe,
proceed through the decontamination zone to the support zone. Personnel shall remove any
contaminated clothing and wash the effected area with water for at least 15 minutes. The
worker shall be transported to the designated medical facility if they show any sign of skin
reddening or irritation, or if they request a medical examination.
C.11.1.4 Personal Injury Accident
In the event of a personal injury accident, the Field Operations Coordinator shall assess the
nature and seriousness of the injury. In the case of serious or life-threatening injuries, normal
decontamination procedures may be ignored. Less serious injuries such as strains, sprains,
and minor cuts may be treated only after the employee has been decontaminated.
KN/WP645.APC(ll-21-92/F1 C-20
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
D
Following decontamination, an IT project team member qualified in first aid and CPR shall
administer appropriate first aid. The Field Operations Coordinator shall then arrange transport
to the designated medical facility, if necessary.
C.11.2 Emergency Medical Facility
The designated emergency medical facilities (Figure C-1) for this project are:
Rowan Memorial Hospital
Salisbury, N.C.
[phone]
C.11.3 Fire
In the case of a fire on-site, the Field Operations Coordinator shall assess the situation and
direct firefighting activities. The Field Operations Coordinator shall ensure that the Client is
immediately notified of any fire. IT personnel shall attempt to extinguish the fire with
available extinguishers if safe to do so. IT shall call the local fire department (911) which IT
is unable to safely extinguish.
C.11.4 Emergency Information
C. 11.4.1 Key Personnel
Project Manager -Mike Sturdevant [phone]
Responsible Program Manager -Cliff Vaughan [phone]
KN/WP64S.APC,<H-21-92/Fl C-21
I
...,
I 0 u
I a,
I
<D <D
I <D <D
<D <D
<D <D oo ......
0 0 I z z .. ~ z u
i w
~ C 0 "' "' I 0 ..
I >->-zz
"""" >> w w
I oo a: a: :::, :::, >->-1/) 1/)
:E:E
I "' "' 0 ..
~ " :! .;
~ 0 i "' I ..
z No a, 1/)
I >-"' a: w
N ID .. o . a: > .
I w " "'u
~ ► ~ C .. .., z w " I ~ C C ~ 0
z
00
I a,~
I a: CDW
N ID 10
::-a::
'I w " ~ .
i~
~ ► :!' ..
~ z I " " C C
~ "' ~ 0
I -= I -.., =o =(') "' _ ... N g ..,
N I :.: r---"' z -z :::,
a: I a,
-.... v.\ ·~ . · . : . . 1 1 / t -... ., ~ -. V.\ (i! .} . '-i:_· ~
v---, l~ --· -3 ·ra· , ,, . owe (,,~ .. .. .. t ~~<.:. •-oJ L,Ji:a:...,;;.-',\ ·,/-,;;:;~ ~;;;;;s;~_..,:• .. -• / ;'o. ,..o,}.' ·, I~ · __ ... A~7t_t:~·:·•/·•
• ~ ~ J ~\~ . p
/ "'"\_';:,:;?:'.:,;::.:__ 1---:::::::~• ,->',:,,..:.:t-i,H~;••--~, ~.,, __ ..:_',,::.':.:'~:~:~:jl . . \,·-~ :~$-
' 1f)
,:--1· \
., . J.~D\./
... '
. , .~\ -; ,,_; /r(?\:\
. ' ( '
) ~;::"i--r-0'~~:5;.:~ '; r ~ \
l~---J -I, , , ,·1
: ; rr· '";:'-···· ..
LEGEND=
EMERGENCY ROUTE
----PROPERTY LINE (APPROX)
SCALE p---@7
0 1/2 MILE
FIGURE C 1
HOSPITAL ROUTE MAP
NATIONAL STARCH &: CHEMICAL COMPANY
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD PLANT
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL DATA FROM PAST EVALUATION
KN!WP645.COV/04·03·92/01
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TA!!.£ 2 ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMARY• SEDIMENT SA.'il'LES N,<.TI ONAL STARCH >SD CHE.'H CAL
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD SITE
ROllA.N COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 17, 1987
·INORGAfiIC ELEMENT/COMPOL-:<:D
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
STRONTit:7!
TITANIUM
VANADIU:-!
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ALUM I ~1,"M
M.A_>;GAl:Es E
CALCIUM
MAGNESIUM
IRON
EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOu-:SDS
HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE
BE.>:ZOIC ACID
PETRO!.£UM PRODUCT
2 UNIDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS
BIPHENYL
BIS(PHE."ITIBETHYL)BENZENEMETHA.NAMINE
DIPHENYLETHANEDIONE
HEXADECANOIC ACID
OXYBISBENZJ::NE
?L"RGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS '
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
• "*FOOTNOTES***
J ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESUl'!PTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESENCE OF MATERIAL MATERIAL ~AS >-,;ALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
-12-
Data from RI Report' IT 1987
NS-S3
CONTROL
06/17/87
1700
NG/J<G
40
31
34
7.5
14
520
140
16
18
11000
150
1300
610
22000·
UG/J<G
520J
N
lOOOJN
UC/KG
NS-S4
FENCE
06/17 /87
1735
NG/KG
49
71
62
13
860
240
7.8
43
22000
640
1300
1000
61000
UC/KG
400J
3000J
lOOJN
700JN
200JN
900JN
200JN
UC/KG
j 3400JN\
NS-S2
AIRPORT
ROAD.··
06/17/87
1545
MG/KG
37
58
30
17
590
140
6.8
22
10000
470
3900
2200
34000
UC/KG
UC/KG
'
NS-Sl
NE.',S!ER
PROPE?.:':
06/17 /6i
1420
MG/KG
52
44
21
13
550
98
5.7
23
8500
490
2500
1900
25000
UC/KG
UG/KG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABU: 2 (continue::'.
ANALYTICAL DAT.~ s=.ARY • IIATER SA.'iPU:S
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHE.'iICAL
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD SITE
RO\:AN COUNTY, NORTH CAROUNA
JUNE 17, 1987
!NORC.llS'! C ELE!"!E~! ICC~!?O{!;:!) -
BARIUM
STRONTIUM
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
CALCI:.~
MAG!\ES IL~
IRON
SODIL,1
::XTR.>.CTASLE ORGA.'lIC COMPOL,:Ds
ETHYUlEXANOIC ACID
PHOSPHORIC ACID,TRIETHYI. ESTER
(DI~ETHYLETHYL) PROPE:;_!_~IDE
(DIMETHYLETHYL)PROPENAMIDE (2 ISOMERS)
1 l)!;'lDE.~TIFIED COMPOUND
c'JRGEASLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
1,2-DICHLOROET!IANE
H-*FOOTNOTESH-*
J -ESTIMATED VALUE
N PRESU!1PTIVE EVIDENCE OF PRESE.~CE OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL IIAS ANALYZED FOR BUT NOT DETECTED
-13-
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
NS-113 NS-114
CONTROL FE.'ICE
06/17/87 06/17/87
1655 1730
UG/L UG/L
32 21
63 110
40
15
3100 230
200 160
MG/L MG/L
6.8 13
3.3 5.4
3.5 1.1
4.2 13
UG/L UG/L
4JN
25JN
3JK
lOOJ
UG/L UG/L
4400J
NS•\J2 ',
-·· AIRPORT
ROAD
0611.7/Si
1539
UG/L
46
310
200
MG/L
31
13
0.39
9.6
UG/L
20JN
50J
UG/L
NS -\.il
PROPERTY
06/i7/E7
1402
t'G/:.
47
280
210
MG/L
28
12 o.:n
9.2
UG/L
20JN
40J
UG/L
.. l!!!!V .. --(c -·11111>-------·---·-e • Tablt Ja Surhce Water ,nei ·"""' Rev. 2 NATIIJ<Al STARCH and 0£"1CJII. COOf!JlATIOI D,c. 1'187 YOUTILES Sediaent ISEI Natrh lugH9 dry weight! Surface Mater ISNI ltatrix turjllited ltarch 1997 " " : 11£TECT1°" ums " SLl'<FNl' NATER / 5£DltENT 5Alf'LES " aJl'llMS I : :-----------------------------------------------I Surlu:t : : :Sediaent : Maler /: SE-01 511-01 SE-0~ : 9Hl2 : SE-01 : SW-01 / 5£~ : SE -OS I SE --06 : 511-06 I :: ' ------' " " Olloroeethine 18 I 10 " NO NDI NO NO NO ND NO NO ND NO " Broaoaethane 18 10 " NO NOi ND ND : ND ND ND ND ND NO " Vinyl chloride 18 10 " ND NOi ND ND I NO ND : NO Nil NO ND " Chloroethane 18 10 " Nil Nill NO NO ' NO NO ND NO ND Nil " ' 11ethylene chloride 9 5 " ND NOi 8 NO ND ND NO NO ND ND " Acetooe 1 10 " '' Nill 65 ND I ND ND 42 • 33 50 ND " Cubm disulfide 9 5 " ND NOi ND NO NO NO NO NO NO NO " I, 1-dichlorethene 9 5 " ND NDI ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND " 1, 1-dichlorethine 9 5 " ND NOi ND ND NO NO ND NO NO NO " Trms-11 2--dichloroethene 9 5 " NO NOi NO ND NO ND NO NO ' NO NO " Chlorotor■ 9 5 " ND NOi NO NO NO NO I NO NO NO NO " l, 2-dichloroethme 9 5 " 18 1100 ND NO NO ND ND ND NO ND " 2-butanone 18 10 :: NO NOi NO NO NO ND ND NO NO NO I, I, 1-trichloroethant 9 5 " ND NOi ND I ND NO NO NO ND NO NO " Cirbcri tetrachloride 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO NO ND NO NO ND " Vinyl acehh 18 10 " ND NOi NO NO ND ND ND ND ND NO " Broaod ich lor011ethillt 9 I 5 " NO NOi ND NO ND ND NO ND ND NO " I, 2-dichloropropane 9 5 " NO NOi NO ND NO NO NO NO NO I NO " 1 rans-I, 3-d ich loropropene 9 5 " NO NOi ' NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO " Trichloroetheoe 9 : 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO I NO NO NO NO : NO " D ibrmoch l oroee thane 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO NO NO ND NO NO " I, t, 2-trich loroethane 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO Ill NO NO NO I NO " Btnzene 9 5 " NO NOi NO ND NO NO NO NO NO NO " Cis-l I l-dichloropropene 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO " 2-ch loroethyl v inylether 18 10 " NO NOi NO NO NO NO NO NO I NO NO " Bra.of or■ 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO NO NO NO I NO NO " 4-■ethyl-2-pentilnone 18 10 " ND NOi NO NO Ill NO NO ND ' . NO NO " ' 2--tleunone 18 10 " NO NOi ND NO NO NO NO . NO NO NO " Tetr•chloroethene 9 5 " NO NOi NO NO NO ND NO NO ' NO NO " ' I, t, 2121 -tetr•chloroeth,111e 9 5 " NO NOi NO ND ND NO NO NO NO NO " Toluene 9 5 " ND NOi NO NO NO NO NO NO ' ND NO " ' Dllordlenzene 9 5 " NO . NOi NO ND NO NO NO . NO I NO NO " ' Ethylbenzene I 9 5 " NO ' NOi Ill NO NO NO NO NO ' II) : NO " ' ' Styrene 9 5 " NO I NOi NO NO I ND II) ND NO I NO I NO " ~ohl :icylene1 I 9 5 " NO : 11)1 II) NO : NI) NO II) NO ' Ill ' NO " '
I
,I Table Ja Surface water and Sedi1111t tccntinuedl RPI, 2
NATIOIII. ST..ACH and D£111CAL Cle'IJ!ATJ(lj Dec. 1987
I V 0 L A T I L E S
Sedioent (5El Matrix tug/kg dry ,..ightl .. Surface water tSlll Matrix (ug/literl
,I August 1'187
" " OETECT!(lj Ll~ITS " SIJU'rcE NATER / SEDl1£111' 5Ao'F1.ES "
'
" " Surface " " /Sediaent water SE-10 511-10 SE-11 SIi-! 1 SE-12 51ir1-,
I Oilormethane 18 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
9rooo,ethane :8 10 ND ND ND ND ND Nil
I Vinyl chloride 18 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND
a, I orcethane 18 10 ' ND Nil ND ND ND ND "
Nethylene chloride q s " 8 ND ND ND ND ND "
I Acetone 7 10 " 2'I • ND 116 • ND 18 + ND
"
!:Arton disulfide q s :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,1-<!ichlorethene q 5 :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
.·1
1,1-<!ichlorethane q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Trans-1,2-<!ichlorcethene 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Oilorcforo q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
:,:-<!ichlorcethane 9 s :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
I 2-butanane 18 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
1,1,1-trichlorcethane 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Carten tetrachloride 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Vinyl acetate 18 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND
I
"
Brcacdi~hlorcaethane 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
i 12""1'.!i:::hloropropane q 5 " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Trans-1,3-<!ichloM)!)Mll)ene 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
I Trichlcrcethene 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Dibl'OIICChlorooethane 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
l,l,2-tr1chlorcethane 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Benzene 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
I;
"
Cis-i,3--dichlDrolJnJPene q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
:--chlorcethylvinylether 18 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Bro1MJforffl q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
I A...,.thyl-2-pentancne 18 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Z-hexane11e 18 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
Tetrachlorcethene q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
t,1,2,2,-tetracnlorcethane q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
I
"
Toluene 9 • :: ND ND ND ND ND ND ,
Ch!orcbenzene 9 s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Ethylben,ene q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
I Styrene q s :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
Total r.yleoes q s " ND ND ND ND ND ND
" " "
I Data from RI Report, IT 1987
ND -Nan-detectable
NDX -For this Slll!lle, the detection li1it was aoorcxioately 10 tioes higher than
j the statea detection limit.
t Concentration corrected tor analyte tn ,,ethod blank.
'I
---.. ...
Table 3b Surface Water and Sedioent Rev. 2
NAIIIJIW. STARCH and DEKICAL C!JlPORAIIIJl Dec. 1'187
BASE NEUTRAL EITRACTABI.ES
Sed1oent ISEI Katrix lu9/t9 dry •eight)
Surface Water 1510 Katri• luglliterl
H~rch 1 1987
" " l DETECTl!Jl LIKITS ,, 5 U R F A C E W A T E R / 5 E D I K E N T SAKPLES
"
COttPOUIDS " ---------, I -------------
: Surface : :
:Sedi ■ent Water " SE-01 Sll-01 SHl2 SW-02 SE-03 SW-03 SE-04 SE-05 SE-Ob 611-06
" " "
8isl2-chloroethyllether bOO 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,3-dichlorobenzene 600 ' 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND • ND ND ND
1,4-dichlorobenzene bOO 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzyl alcohol 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
1,2-dichlorobenzene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Bisl2-chloroisopropyllether 6110 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
N-nitroso-di-n-propyla ■ine bOO 10 ' tlD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
He~achlaroethane 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Ni trobenzen 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
lsophorone 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Bisl2-chloroethoxyl ■ethane 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 600 10 " NO ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Naphthalene 6M 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
4-chloroani I ine 600 10 " NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Hexachlorobutadiene bOO 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
2-■ethylnapthalene 60t) 10 " ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene bOO 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
2-chloronapthalene b(N) IO " ND tlD ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
2-n i troani I ine 2,900 50 . " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Oioethyl phthalate 60t) 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Acenaphythylene bOO 10 :: NO ND ND ND ND ND • ND ND ND ND
. '
3--fli troani I ine 2,900 50 " NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Acenaphthene bOO 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Dibenzofuran b/Jtl 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
2,4-dinitrotoluene bOO 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
ND -Non-delectable
Ill -Detected as diphenyla ■ine
,.. _____ , .. 1: ________ ,,._. ,,._ ,.,.~,.,•o in 111PH1nti hLml. Data from RI Report, IT 1987
----
Table 3b Surface Water and Sedi ■ent !cootinuedl Rev. 2
NATl!N\l. STARCH and OEHICAL CffiPOOATION Dec. 1987
BASE NEUTRAL EITRACTABlES
Sedi ■ent !SEI Hatri, lug/kg dry IEightl
Surface Water !SIii Hatrix lug/Ji tel')
l'larch, 19B7
" " : DflECTIII! LIHITS " SURFACE W A T E R / S E D I H E N T S A H P L E S
"
CllHPLlNDS :---1:
-------------:
: Surface : I
ISediaent : Water " SE-01 SW-01 SE-02 SW-02 SE-03 SW-03 SE-04 SE-05 SE-06 511-06
" " " ii
216-dinitrataluene 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Diethylphthalate 600 10 :1 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-chlaraphenyl phenyl ether 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
Fluarene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-n i traani line 2,900 • 50 • ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
N-nitrasadiphenyla ■ine !II • 60/J IO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO ND
4-bra■aphenyl phenyl ether 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
He,achlarabenzene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO NO
Phenan threne 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Anthracene 6(J{J 10 ND ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND
Di-n-butylphthalate 600 10 " ND• • ND ND ND ND• ND ND• ND ND• ND
Fluaranthene 600 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
•
Pyrene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Buthylbenzylphthalate 600 10 ND NO ND ND 1,0001 ND l ,SOOt NO 1,000• Mil
3-3'-dichlarabenzidine 1,200 20 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzalalanthracene 600 10 ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
• Bisl2-ethylhe,yllphthalate 600 10 ND ND ND ND 3,200 ND 3,400 ND 2,700 ND
Chrysene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Di-n-actyl phthalate 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benza!bllluaranthene 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND NO ND ND NO ND
Benza!kllluaranthene 600 10 ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benza!alpyrene 600 10 ND ND ND ND NO NO NO ND NO Mil
lndena!l,2,3-cdlpyrene · 600 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND NO
Dibenzola,h)anthracene 600 10 • • NO NO ND ND NO ND NO NO ' NO ND
Benza(g,h,ilperylene 600 10 ND ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND ND
ND Hoo-detectable
Ill -llPter:ted as diohenvla■ine Data from Rt Report. IT 1987
I
I
,,
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
Table 3b Surface Water and Sedioent (ca,\inuedl
NATIONAi. STAROi and 0£!11CAL CIR'!WITIIJI
BASE N£llTRAL EXTAACTAIII..ES
Sedioent (SE) llatrix (ug/kg dry ""ightl
Surface water (SIil llatri, (ug/literl
August, 1'197
" " DETECTIIJI LIKITS " SlJIFACE "
C!llflO!JNl)S " " Surface " "
/Sediaent water :: SE-10 511-10
" " " "
8is(2-chlaroethyllether 470 II " ND ND "
1,3-dichlarabenzene 470 11 ::· ND Nil
1,4-dichlarabenzene 470 11 " ND ND "
Benzyl akiitol 470 II " ND ND "
1,=-dichlcrobenzene 470 II :: ND ND
8is(2-chloraiSDl'r!ll'Yllether 470 II " ND Nil "
M-n i troso-d i -n41rapy laine 470 II " ND ND "
Hexachloraethane 470 II " ND ND "
Ni tral>enzen 470 II " ND ND "
!5011harane 470 II :: ND ND
is(2-chloraethoxyl•thane 470 11 " ND ND "
1,2!4-trichlorooenzene 470 11 :: ND ND
Naphthalene 470 11 " ND ND "
4-chloraani line 470 11 " ND ND "
Hexachlorabutadiene 470 II " ND ND "
2-athy!nai,thalene 470 57 " ND ND "
l'exachloroc:yc!opentad1ene 470 11 :: ND ND
2-ch!oronaothalene 470 11 " ND ND "
2-fiitroaniline 2,400 57 " ND ND "
0ioethyl chthalate 470 11 :: ND ND
J\c:enaphythy l ene 470 11 " ND ND "
3-nitrcaniline 2,400 57 " ND ND "
l\tenai,n thene 740 11 :: ND ND
Dibenzafuran 740 II " ND ND "
2,4-dinitrotoluene 740 11 " ND ND "
ND . Nan4letectable
(I) . Detected as diphenylaine
• . Ca,centration corrected far analyte in ■ethad blank •
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
Rl!Y. 2
!let. 1'18i
WATER I 5£Dil£NT SIW'l.E5
SE-11 511-11 SE-12 ~12
ND ND ND ND
ND Nil ND Mil
ND Nil ND ND
ND ND ND Nil
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND Nil
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND. ND ND Nil
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND Nil
ND ND ND ND
I
I
I
I ,, ,,
I
I,
I
·1
I
I
I
I
t:
i
t
i
I
Table 3b Surface water and Sediment (continued)
~ STMOi and 0£11Iu'L CIJRl'!llATION
BASE >SliRl1L EXTRACTABLES
Sediment tSEl llatr1x tuq/kg dry IO!lghtl
Surface water (SWI llatrix lug/liter)
August, 1987
" " : DrnCTJIJI L!Nll'S :: SUlFACE
::
: Surface : :
:Sediaent : liater " SE-10 SIHO " " " " "
2,b-dinitrotoluene 470 11 " ND ND "
Diethylphthalate 740 11 " ND ND "
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether 740 11 :: ND ND
Fluorene 740 11 " ND ND "
4-nitroaniline 2,400 ':ii " ND ND "
l+-nitrosodiphenylaaine 111 740 6 :: ND ND
4-tlr<JlROl'henyi phenyl ether 740 11 :: ND ND
Hexachlorobenzene 740 11 " ND ND "
?henanthrene 740 11 " ND ND "
/vlthracene 740 II " ND ND " o-t,utylohthalate 430 11 " 449 t ND "
Jranthene 740 11 :: ND ND
Pyrene 740 11 :: ND ND
Buthylbenzylphthalate 740 II " ND ND "
3•3'-dichlcrobenzidine 940 Zl " ND ND "
Benzolalanthracene 740 II " ND ND "
Bisi2~thy!hexy!lphthalate 430 11 " ND ND "
Chrysene 740 11 " ND ND "
Oi-e-::ctyl phthalate 740 II " ND ND "
Benzo(blfluoranthene 740 11 " ND ND "
9enzo(klfluoranthene 740 11 :: ND ND
Benzo(alpyrene 740 11 :: ND ND
!ndeno(1,2,3-cdlpyrene 740 11 " ND ND "
Dibenzo(a,hlanthracene 740 11 :: ND ND
Senzo!g,r., ilperylene 740 11 " ND ND "
ND -Non-detectable
( l l -Detected as diphenylaaine
t -•:oncentration corrected for anilyte in oethod blank.
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
Rev, 2
Ul!t, 1987
WATER I SEDIIENT Slffl.ES
SE-II 511-11 SE-12 SW-12
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND Nil
ND Nil ND ND
ND ND ND ND
Nil ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
Phenol
2-ch loropheno I
2-oethylphenol
4-oethylphenol
2-nitrophenol
2,4-dioethylphenol
Benzoic acid
2,4-dichlorophenol
4-chloro-3-eethylphenol
2 4 6-trichlorophenol ' ' . 2,4,S-trichlorophenol
2,4-dintrophenol
4-n i trophenol
4,6-dinitro"2-oethylphenol
Pentachlorophenol
ND -Hoo-detectable
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
Table 3c Surface Water and Sediaent
NATIIIW. STARCH and CHfNICAI. Cffil'!JlATION
ACID EX TRACT ABLES
Sediaent lSEl Hatri, lug/kg dry ""ightl
Surface Water lSWl Hatri, lug/liter!
Harch, )987
" " w A T E R / S E D I H E N T S U R F A C E " : DETECTIIJI LIHITS " " ------------:----" : Surface:: SW--03 SE--04 SE-02 S\l-02 SE--03 Nater " SE-01 Sll-01 :Sediaent " " " " " ND ND ND ND ND 600 10 " ND ND " ND NO NO 10 " NO NO ND NO 600 " NO ND ND
10 " ND ND ND ND 600 " ND ND ND NO ND ND 10 " ND 600 " 600 10 1: ND NO ND NO ND ND ND
NO ND ND NO ND ND 10 " ND 600 " ND ND ND
2,900 50 " ND ND ND NO
" ND NO ND NO
10 " ND ND ND 600 " ND ND ND
10 " ND ND ND ND
600 " ND HD ND
" ND ND ND ND 600 10 . " NO ND ND ND so " ND ND ND 2,900 " ND NO ND ND HD HD
50 " ND 2,900 " ND NO ND
50 " ND ND ND ND 2,900 " ND ND ND
50 " ND ND ND ND 2,900 " ND ND ND ND ND HD
2,900 50 " ND "
Rev. 2
Dec. 1987
SAHPLES
' --,
SE--05 SE--06 Sil-Ob
ND ND ND
NO ND ND
NO ND NO
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
NO NO NO
NO ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
NO ND ND
ND tin ND
ND ~D ND
ND ND NO
,,
I Tabie3c Surface lialer and 5edimont !ccntinued) Rev. 2
NATIIJW. STAROi and 0£lllcrt. ·llllP!IIATlllN Dec. 1987
I
ACID EXTRtCTABLES
Sediaent (SE) llatru lug/kg dry 111!1ght)
Surface lialer iSW) :latrix lug/literl
I
August, 1987
" "
'
: OETECTIOI Ll"ITS " Slff.U IIATER I SEDUENT 5Alf'\.ES " " " : Surface i:
:Sediaent : ltater :: SE-10 511-10 ' SE-II 511-11 SE-12 511-12 '. ,, " " " "
Phenol 470 II " ND ND NI) ND ND ND "
I 2-.:hlorophenol 470 11 " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
2-.ielhylphenol 470 ll :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-.ethylphenol 470 II " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
I
:-nitrDl)henol 470 11 :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
2,4-dimethylphenol 470 11 :: ND ND ND ND ND ND
Benzo1c acid 2,400 so " ND ND ND ND NI) ND "
2,4-dichloroohenol 470 II " ND ND ND ND ND ND "
I 4-thlonr-3-melhylphenol 470 ll 1: ND NO NO ND ND ND
:,4,o-trichlorophenol 470 II :: ND NO NO NO NO ND
~,4,5-trichloroohenol 2.400 ~ " NO NO ND ND ND NO "
I 2,4-din,trophenol 2,400 ~ " ND ND NO ND NO ND "
4-ni troohenol 2,400 ~ " ND . ' ND NO NO ND ND " '
4,o-dinitnr-2-.ethyphenol 2,400 ~ " ND NO NO ND NO ND "
Pentach lorooheno l 2,400 ~ " ND NO NO NO NO ND "
I ND -Ncn-detectable
I
I 0
I
1
I
1 Data from RI Report, IT 1987
I
I
________ .' _______ _
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
Table 3d Surface Water and Sedioent Rev. '1
NATIOO\I. STN!CH and CIENICAL CCllP()1J\Tl!Jl Dec. 19B7
PESTICIDES and f'C&'s
Sedi ■ent ISEI Natri, lug/kg dry lll!ightl
Surfa<e-Water ISWI Natrix lug/liter)
Narch, 1987
" " : DETECTl!Jl LINITS " S U R F A C E W A T E R / S E D I N E N T SANPLES
" :----:: ---------------
Surface :I
ISediaent Water " SE-01 511-01 SE-02 SW-02 "
• SE-OJ 511-01 SE-04 SE--05 SE-06 SW-06
" " " "
-Bl£ 15 0.05 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
"
• -llllC 15 0,05 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
•
-BIC 15 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ' ND ND ND
-111£ llindanel 15 0,05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Heptachlor 15 0,05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aldrin 15 0.05 ND ND ND ' ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Heptachlor epoxide 15 0,05 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND . ND '
Endosu If an I 15 0.05 ND ND ND ND ND ND • ND ND ND ND
Dieldrin 29 0.10 .. ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
•
4,4 '-ODE 29 0, 11) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Endrin 29 0.10 ND • ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Endosulf an II 29 o. 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
4,4'-DDD 29 0, IO • ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ..
Endosulfan sulfate 29 0, 10 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND II)
•
4,4 '-DDT 29 0.10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Nethoxychlor 150 0.50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Endrin jetone 29 0. 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Chlordane 15') 0,50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND • ND
Toxaphene ;:><10 1.0 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aroc lor 1016 150 0.50 ND ' ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aroc lor 1221 150 0.50 ' ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aroclor 1212 150 0.50 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Aroclor 1242 150 0.50 • ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ..
Aroclor 1248 150 0.50 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 'Nil
"
Aroclor 1254 290 1.0 " ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
" ,. ___ , __ ,-,Ll'I 290 1.(1 " ND ND ND ND tm ND ND ND ND ND
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3e Surface llater and Sedioent
NAT!IJW. STM01 and OEIICAL ~TJ[lj
1£TAI.S, CYANIDE, ?l£N(J..5 am! General Che11istry
Sediment ISEl llatri, I m,/Kg dry ll!ightl
Surface llater ISWl llatrix lug/liter) unless othen,ise Sl)etified
llarch, 1987
S U R F A C E W A T E R / S E D I " E N T 5 A " P L E S
I),
::---------------------------------------
::
" " "
Sll--02 SE-03 SIH)l SE--04 SE~:>5 : SE--06
---------------' , ___ ------------____ , ____ --------
Aluainua
~ti"°"Y
Arsenic
Bariua
Berylliua
Cadmiua
Calciua
Chroaiua
Cabal t
Copper
Maqnes1ua
!1angat1ese
Mercury
'lickel
'otassium
~eleniua
3ilver
5odiUII
Thalliua
'JanadiUI
Zinc
pH (std. uni ts)
loecific Conductance (Ulhosic■l
chloride 119/ll
iota! Dissolved Solids laq/ll
Total Suspended Solids l■q/ll
Cyanide
?henols
· Non-<letectable
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ::
::
8, 1120
< O.b
13
:l'1
< a.a
< 0.3
1,710
sq
1q
58
: : 32,100
8.8 " " " " " " " " " " ::
5.9
31,7
0.05
4,4
107
" " < f),3
:: < 0.03
2!8 " " " " " " " " " " " " ::
::
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
< 0.3
150
4-0
< 0.7
< 1.2
208
< 2
< I
38
( 2
< I
14,700
< 10
< 5
3.7
;,1q
2.1
5,no
213
0.2
( 10
1,070
( 1
< 0,1
b,b70
( 1
( 20
13
7.17
132
lb
16c
4
< 0.01
< 0.01
3, r..o
( 0.5
2,1
6c
( 0,5
< l).J
1, 1::.0
21
8
13
14,000
4,5
8'14
410
0,05
< 3
32'1
< 0,3
i 0.03
bl
( 0,5
52
11
< 0.b
< 1.3
3,no
< I
75
( 2
< 1
b, 150
< 10
< 5
J.9
1,400
:.o
1,no
54
< 0.2
( 10
1124
< I
< 0.2
4,bJO
( 2
< 20
10
b.42
b3,7
2.5
81
7
< 0.01
0.01
2,400
( 0.5
3.2
23
< 0.5
< 0.3
715
18
8.0
q, I
12,500
b.b
3Qq
311
< 0.3
( J
b3
< 0.3
< 0.03
234
< 0.3
4q
15
< 1.2
( 1.2
( 50
( 2
<. I
29
( 2
< l
23,bOO
< 10
( 5
2.9
:11
1,8
q,oso
b7
< 0.2
< 10
l, 1&0
< 2•
< 0,1
18,300
( l
< 20
4,2
8.07
311
:is
184
8
< 0.01
0.01
q,qbo
< 0.6
20
b5
< O,b
< 0.3
1, '100
274
41
'[/
25,bOO
14
803
b7b
< 0.3
( 3
1q4
< o.::;
.< o.o:
2B7
< o.:;
12B
43
< 0.9
q,oeo
< 0.7
0.8'1
108
< 0.7
'. 0,4
m
TI
25
25
3B,800
9.9
4'18
1,230
<l,Ob
('4
188
, 0.4
< 0.04
74
< 0.7
141
21
< o,q
< 1.8
·2,950
< 0.5
3.8
25
< 0.5
< 0.2
752
36
q,3
8.3
15,bOO
7. l
41,6
2B5
0.02
< 2
127
< 1).2
< 0.02
!Sb
< Q.2
6c
22
< 1.:
I
I Table 3e Surface Water and Sedioent !continued! Rev. 2
NATIONAL 51ARCH and CIENICAL CORl'alATl!Jl Dec. 1997
I ~I\LS. CYANIDE, Pl£llJL.S and General Cheo1stry
Sediment ISEI Matrix (mg/Kg dry ""ightl
Surface Water iSWl Matrix lug/liter!
I Hugust, [',87
" " " SlllFACE WAlcR I SEDIIENT 5rffl.E5 " I CDPf'OLtlDS " " ::
" SE-10 511-10 SE-II 511-11 SE-l2 S11-12 " " I " " "
Aluminum " l,SbO 7SO 1,200 850 1,3'20 4'.10 "
Antimony :: 8 • :o f 8 • 30 • 8.5 30 •
I Arsenic " 0.b I t o. 7 I • 0,9 l • "
8ari1111 21.6 :;3 11.2 34 12,4 30
Bery l l i 1111 " 0.2 t I t 0.3 • I • 0.3• I • "
Cadmium " l • 5 • I • 5 • I • 5 •
I "
Calcium :: 302 10,500 3l: l0,700 2bo 10,800
Chromium . : : 15 10 • 10.4 lO • 5.7 10 •
Ccbal t " 5 • 20 • 5 • 20 • b • 20 • " I Coi,per " b,4 lO • :.o !O • 3 • 10 • "
ron " 7,070 13,700 4, 5'10 l,44(, 3.:70 I, 110 "
1,,.ead " 5. 9 I t -. 2 + 3.1 l t " .;.,J
Magnesi1111 " '/.'/7 3.480 232 :.550 205 3,570
I " Manganese " 12b 230 M,9 Zl6 134 172 "
Mercury " 0.05 • o.:z t 0.05 • 0.2 • 0.06 • 0.2 • "
Nic,el " 5 • 20 • 5 • 20 • b • 20 + "
I PotaSSlUJI " 'l:il • 2,670 261 2,860 283 • 2.350 "
Seieniua " 0,3 • I • 0.3 t I t 0.3 t I • "
Silver " I • 5 • l • 5 • l • 5 • "
'Jodiua " -::'SI• 13,600 :35 15, lOO 226 14,200
I "
Thalliuo " 0.5 • 2 • 0.5 • l • 0.4 • :! • "
\/ar,adiut1 :: 20.b 10 t l4.: 10 • 9.9 lO •
Zinc " II, b 5 • 3.9 5 • 2.8 5 • " ,, ::
pH !std. uni ts) " 7.01 7.04 7.2: "
·Jpeci fie Ccnduc:t. " 142 150 l46 " luohos/col " I "
Chloride :: 13 13 13
Total Diss. Solids :: 106 112 132
" "
9 Cyanide " ( 1,2 < 0.02 < 1.2 < 0.02 3.1 < 0,02 " " " "
Phenols " < I .3 0.01 l.3 < 1),01 ( 1.4 < 0,01
I "
• Coooound •as analyzed for but not detected • The number is the detection
I for the SiJIOie.
Data from RI Report, IT 1987
I
I
-- -
iiill ----- --- - - - - --TABLE 3-1: NATIONAL STARCH: ORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED OCTOBER 1989 -·
TARGET COMPCJ.JND
LI ST SUBSTANCES
VOLATILE ORGANICS
QUANTITATION
LIMITS8
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethene (total)
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
2-butanone
1, 1,1-trichloroethane
Branodichloromethane
Tri ch l orethene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
Dt-n-butylphthalate
Bis(Z-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Hexachlorobutadiene
511-01
D1267
SIi-OZ
D1263
120
SW-03
D1269
SURFACE WATER AND SAMPLE NUMBERS
Sll-04
D1249
511-05
D1251
SW-06
D1261
210
SW-07
D1271
5<
(Concentrations are in ug/kl (ppb))
Sll-08
D1279
Sll-09
D1265
6c
350
Sll-10
D1255
1200
sw-11
D1275
DUP
511-1~1:l
D1276 D1273
TRIP
TW-15
D1281
TRIP
Tll-15A
D1ZS9
1<Z
8 Quantitation limits are not reported for surface water saq:,les due to their variability. Applicable limits are available on the Certificates of Analysts.
b --Indicates organic corrpot.nds that were not detected.
c Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
NA Not applicable.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water an<l 8eriiment Samples.
Pas• l of l
RINSATE
D11-16
D1260
30
34
5
5
NA
NA
NA
---· --- - - ---- - - --·-
TABLE 3-2: NATIONAL STARCH: INORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SURFACE WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED NOVEMBER 1989
TARGET ANALTTE DETECTION
LIST SUBSTANCES LINITS8 SW-D1
D1299
Ah.,.irua 149
Ant iinony b
Arsenic
Baril.m 35
Beryl l i 1.n
Cadniun
Ca Lehn 9n0
Chromiun
Cobalt
Copper 14
Iron 100012c
Lead
Megnesiua 3480
Manganese 130
Mercury
Nickel
Potassiun 1600
Seleniln
Silver
Sodhn 7350
Thalliun
Vanadiua
Zinc 339
SW-02
D1292
566
35
10,000
20
26
111012
3950
·;40
1810
5890
969
SURFACE WATER AND SAMPLE Nl.148ERS
sw-03 sw-04
D1293 D1297
65 104
30 34
20,500 9540
14 15
35912 103012
9310 3640
63 142
1230
9620 5640
319 429
SW-05
D1298
274
47
8900
10
79812
3980
86
5110
239
SW-06
D1296
224
n
8980
13
454012
4220
930
4220
329
(Concentrations are in ppb)
SW-07
D1294
78
31
24,800
18
43612
11,200
100
11,200
409
sw-oa
D1295
116
22
13,700
13
40712
6210
44
6760
329
SW-09
D1301
113
26
13,200
81912
6660
185
11,900
379
DUP
SW-09A SW-10
D1302 D1300
430 418
29 26
14,200 11,400
26
123012 208012
7160 5950
193 566
12,800 17,600
479 499
sw-11
D1303
7040
61
7830
17
24
20,600
4010
766
3630
46
41
a Detection limits not reported for surface water saq,les due to the variability. Detection limits are available on the Certificates of Analysis.
b ·-Indicates inorganic cotrpOU"lds that were not detected.
C CotrpOU"ld is also present in the laboratory blank. The superscript nurber is the lab blank concentration.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water an<l Sediment Samples
-
----

-
-----------TABLE 3-3: NATIONAL STARCH: ORGANIC ANALY~IS RESULTS FROM SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED OCTOBER 1989
SEDIMENT AND SAMPLE NUMBERS (Concentrations are in ug/kg (ppb))
TARGET COMPOUND QUANT IT A Tl ON
LIST SUBSTANCES LIMITS8 SE-01 SE-02 SE·03 SE·04 SE-05 SE-06 SE-07 SE-08 SE·09 SE· 10 SE-11 SE·11A SE·12
01268 01264 01270 D1250 01252 01262 012n 01280 D1266 D1256 D1277 D1278 D1274
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Methylene chloride 5d2C ,2 92 102 112 82 62c 82 102 102 92c 102c 132
Acetone 26 8c 8c 40 15 10C 24 41 46 49 24
1,2-dichloroethene (total) 12
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane 76 14
2-butanone
6c
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Trichlorethene
3C
Tetrachloroethene 3c
1,1,2,2·tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Ethyl benzene 6c 4C
SEM!VDbAT!LE ORGAN('S
Di·n·butylphthalate 150° 160° 250°
Bis(2·ethylhexyl)phthalate 400120c 540120 780120 390120c 310120c 520120 780 120c 660 120 290120c 520120 s10 120c no 120c 980·120
Hexachlorobutadiene 100°
8 Quantitation limits are not reported for soil s~les ciJe to their variability. Applicable limits are available on the Certificates of Analysis.
b --Indicates organic corrpounds that were not detected.
c Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
d CClfll)OUOd is also present in the laboratory blank. The superscripted nurber is the lab blank concentration.
NA Not applicable.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water and Serlirnent Samples
--

-
Page 1 of 1
TRIP TRIP RINSATE
TW-15 TW-15A 0W-16
D1281 D1259 D1260
30
34
5
5
NA
NA
NA
--- - - - -- - - - - - - - - -
TABLE 3-4: NATIONAL STARCH: INORGANIC ANALYSIS RESULTS FROM SEDIMENT SAMPLES COLLECTED OCTOBER 1989
SEDIMENT AND SAMPLE NUIIBERS (Concentrations are in ppn)
TARGET ANALYTE DETECTIOM
LIST SUBSTANCES LINITS8 SE·01 SE·D2 SE·03 SE·04 SE·05 SE·06 SE·D7 SE·08 SE·D9 SE·10 SE·11 SE·11A SE·12
D1268 D1264 D1270 D1250 D1252 D1262 D1272 D1280 D1266 D1256 012n D12711 D1274
Aluairu1 3190 2900 6480 12,300 7270 9380 680D 11,000 9970 9790 15,600 10,300 28,100
Antimony b
Arsenic 0.3 0.5 1.6 ,. 1 0.7 1 .2 0.9 0.9 0.6 o.a
Bari1.n 32. 1 23.9 26.7 72.0 52.8 73 28.5 51.8 44.5 50. 1 79.4 70.8 65. 1
Beryl l i LID 0.2 0.2 0.4 0. 1 0.2 0.2 D. 1 D.3 D.7
Ca<hil.an 4.5
Cal ch.in 389 381 1280 1620 1060 883 1110 190D 2380 794 2270 1970 1150
Chromiun 9 14 62 29 37 39 30 41 39 35 35 26 51
Cobalt 5 5 13 12 12 15 13 18 8 21 19 16 38
ccwer 7 6 14 27 14 20 13 21 29 2D 42 35 42
Iron 67801.4c 66501•4 24 70o1•4 18 2001.4 18 7001.4 24 8001.4 18 5001.4 24 6001.4 74601.4 23 4001.4 25 1001.4 20 30D1.4 57 9001.4 • • • • • • • • • • Lead 2.0 1.9 8 6.1 4.0 7.6 11.6 10.0 4.4 10.9 9.0 7.7 20.0
Magnesi1.n 497 579-935 2400 965 1000 1110 1240 957 342 901 747 616
Manganese 253 145 296 265 271 360 311 444 113 1520 293 259 1680
Mercury o.oa
Nickel 4 6 8 5 6 5 7 6 5 12 10 12
Potaasiun 146169 221169
Selenhn
Silver
Sodiua 33 37 78 74 49 33 67 122 80 45 104 56 56
Thall fun
VanadiLII 18 18 82 66 58 88 60 88 131 84 99 82 154
Zinc 32.8 22.9 118 40.4 20.8 n 45.9 58. 1 89.2 23.6 8490 80.2 129
• Detection limits not reported for soil aeq:,les QJe to the variability. Detection limits are available on the Certificates of Analysis.
b --Indicates inorganic cotr'f)OlM'lds that were not detected.
C Cotr'f)OlM'ld is also present in the laboratory blank. The superscript nurber is the lab blank concentration.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water an<l Sediment Samples
iiii iiii ----

-
------------
Table 4-4. Significant Analytical Results -Surface Water Samples
SW-01 sw-02• SW-OJ SW-04 SW-05 SW-06 SW-07 sw-09• SW-09 SW-09A SW-10 SW-I I SW-I IA sw-12•
TCL -Organics (µg/1)
b 350 NAc 1,200
1,2-dichloroethane -
TAL -lnorganics ( ~g/ I )
Aluminum 566 430 418 7,040 NA NA
Barium 35 35 30 34 47 12 JI 29 61 NA NA
Calcium 20,500 24,800 13.700 13,200 14,200 NA NA
Chromium 20 26 17 NA NA
Copper 26 24 NA NA
Iron 1,000 1,100 1,030 798 4,540 819 1,230 2,080 20,600 NA NA
Magnesium 9,310 11,200 6,210 6,660 7,160 5,950 NA NA
Manganese 130 140 142 930 100 185 193 566 766 NA NA
Potassium 1,600 ! ,810 NA NA
Sodium 7,350 9,620 11,200 6,760 11,900 12,800 17,600 NA NA
Zinc 969 NA NA
aBackground/upstream sample.
bl-) means result Is nondetect or nonsignlflcant.
CNA • This sample not analyzed for this parameter.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water and Sediment Samples
iii ----------------
Table 4-5, Significant Analytical Results -Sediment Samples
SE-01 SE-02• SE-OJ SE-04 SE-05 SE-06 SE-07 sE 05• SE-09 SE-10 SE-11 SE-1 lA SE-12•
TCL -Organics (µg/kg)
I ,2-dlchloroethane -b 76 14
TAL -lnorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
15,600 28,100
Arsenic 1.6 1.1 0. 7 1,2 0.9 0.9 0,6 0.8
Barium 72,0 52.8 73 51.8 50. I 79.4 70,8 65, I
Beryl I ium 0,4
o. 7
Calcium 1,280 1,620 1,900 2,380 2,270 1,970 1,150
Chromium 62 J7 39 41 J9 51
Copper 27 29 42 j<; 42
Iron
57,900
Magnesium 935 2,400 965 1,000 I, 110 1,240 957 901
Manganese
1,520 1,680
Nickel 8 12 10 12
Sodium 78 74 122 80 104
Vanadium
88 88 IJI 99 154
Zinc 118 77 89.2 8 ,490c 80,2 129
8eackground/upstream sample.
b(-) means result is nondetect or Insignificant.
cResult Is suspect.
Results from Supplemental RI, Surface Water and Sediment Samples
V1 I I-' I-'
Methylene
chloride
SEl
SWl
SE2 8(7)
SW2
SE3
SW3
SE4
SE5
SE6
SW6
SE10 8(6)
SW10
SE 11
SWl 1
SE12
SW12
Table 5-1. Surface Water/Sediment Organic Analytical Data Summary
National Starch and Chemical Corporation RI/FS
Date of Sampling -March 1987
1,2-dichloro-Butylbenzil-Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
Acetone ethane phthalate phthalatea
44(7) 18(7)
1400(50)
65( 7)
1800(440) 3200( 440)
42(8) 1500(520) 3400(520)
33( 9)
50(6) 1000(410) 2700( 410)
29(6)
116 ( 6)
18(7)
aSuspected of representing sampling error.
SE -µg/kg
SW -µg/1
( ) represents detection limit
Results from 9~1 RI Report
Di-n-butyl-
phthalatea
449(430)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
a
APPENDIX E
DATA EVALUATION OF SURFACE WATER, SEDIMENT, AND
SOIL OF THE NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY
KN..WP645.COYID4-03-92/01
D
fl
m
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
DATA EVALUATION OF SURFACE WATER,
SEDIMENT, AND SOIL SAMPLING OF THE
NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY
NATIONAL STARCH AND CHEMICAL
COMPANY SITE
CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD
SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA
OCTOBER 2, 1990
D
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
g
D
ENGR103.cov
09/24/90 F2
DATA EVALUATION OF SURFACE WATER,
SEDIMENT, AND SOIL SAMPLING OF THE
NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY
National Starch and Chemical Company Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant
Salisbury, North Carolina
Prepared by:
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville, Tennessee 37923
October 2, 1990
Date: 10/2-,/ ~o
I l
Date:/~~
m
0
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
0
u
m
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
CONTENTS
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
4.0 EVALUATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
4.1 Surface Water
4.2 Surface Sediment
4.3 Soil
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
5.1 Exposure Assessment
5.1.1 Characterization of the Physical Setting
5.1.2 Identification of Exposure Pathways
5.1.3 Quantification of Exposure
5.1.3.1 Exposure Point Concentration
5.1.3.2 Modeling Results
5.2 Toxicity Assessment
5.3 Risk Characterization
5.4 Uncertainties
5.5 Risk Assessment Conclusions
6.0 REFERENCES
ENGR103.CON
09/24/90 F3
11
lll
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-2
5-2
5-5
5-6
5-6
5-7
5-8
6-1
E
I TABLES
I Follows
Number Page
2-1 National Starch: Organic Analysis Results 2-1 I From Surface Water Samples Collected
July 10, 1990
I 2-2 National Starch: Organic Analysis Results 2-1
From Surface Sediment Samples Collected
July 10, 1990
I 2-3 National Starch: Organic Analysis Results 2-1
From Soil Samples Collected July 11 to
I 13, 1990
3-1 Chemicals Identified in Water, Sediment, 3-1
I and Soil
4-1 Significant Analytical Results -Surface 4-1
I 4-2
Water Samples
Significant Analytical Results -Sediment 4-1
Samples
I 4-3 Significant _Analytical Results -Soil Samples 4-1
I 5-1 Potential Exposure Pathways at NSCC 5-2
5-2 Chemicals and Associated Concentrations Used to 5-2
I Evaluate Current Risk Conditions for the Northeast
Tributary
5-3 Parameters Used to Describe Exposure to Site-Related 5-5
I Chemicals of Potential Concern
5-4 Exposure Estimated Results 5-5 • 5-5 Summary of Potential Carcinogenic Effects 5-6
g 5-6 Summary of Noncarcinogenic Health Effects 5-6
5-7 Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices Associated with 5-7
D Potential Exposures at NSCC Site
m
I
ENGR103.CON
I 09/24/90 F3 11
D
m FIGURES
I Follows
Number Page
I 1-1 Supplemental Remedial Investigation 1-1
NE Tributary Characterization
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
u
m
I
I
ENGR103.CON
09/24/90 F3 lll
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of an investigation of the surface water/sediment
and soil in and adjacent to the northeast tributary at the National Starch and
Chemical Company (NSCC) site. This investigation was performed as a follow-up
study reco=ended in the ''Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report for
the Second Operable Unit" (IT, 1990). Groundwater investigations were not part
of this study because they were conducted under the remedial investigation and
remedial design for the first operable unit. Currently, remedial design and
remedial action activities are being conducted for the first operable unit.
Surface water, surface sediment, and soil samples were collected from sampling
points as shown in Figure 1-1 from July 10 through July 13, 1990. These samples
were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on the Target Compound List
(TCL) because the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report for the
Second Operable Unit (IT, 1990) concluded that volatile organics were the only
parameters of concern.
Surface water and sediment samples were collected from six locations, SW/SE-09
through SW/SE-14. Sample Location 12 was considered to be a background
sampling point; however, no water was available for collection. Surface water
samples were collected with a Pyrex™ measuring cup, and sediment samples were
collected with a stainless steel spoon.
Soil samples were collected from three sampling points along seven sampling
transects oriented perpendicular to the creek. Two soil samples were collected at
each soil sampling point, from 0.5 to 1.0 foot and 3.0 to 3.5 feet, using a stainless
steel hand auger. The samples were screened for VOCs using an HNu
photoionization detector. The sample that showed the higher screening value was
collected for analysis. If the samples exhibited the same screening value, the
following procedure was employed:
• The 0.5-to 1.0-foot (shallow) sample was taken from the sampling
point nearest the plant, point A on Figure 1-1.
ENGR103.l
1&02/90 F4
1-1
: r I
/1;
/; ,,, , _,_
,;J
c~ s~~~ I
i
'
•• ; Iii' ~ I I ·•11 §Ii ". ; ~ir-li,' ~ • ··! H' ~ . ~ ,,1j ~ hg I~ ' I s• ; l!i .,1 ; • I If ·I. • li'I -• !!~ ! " •dj i ! -~ l;a ,., " il ., ~ ,. •1 I
i ~ 111: I•
••• t ~ •
i •
i . ~ • • ~ 8
: 8
~
---=r-~
/
• n I~ • • " " • ~ ~-! • I! .. I !
i
·. \~ ...
---. ' <';.. ,·:_ <~f-
,,,,,.--...,_,_· _-, ''_:··
, '
'··--._
~
-·-•
\ \C::
! -=:...,~~~ ,·-.::,,: "" --' \ ·. -.
• J -.9:·:::::?-
! ~ I •Ii ... -.. u" ij ~ ~;3 = ... 'I: fi~! :~ a., IC .a::: "'
I!;! ~Sa I : ii=• : s • ,•i . .
.. ~ ~:;i .
"' "' ··1 ii i ~ ,.i
3 I i111S ~ -¢-'I::= -:a; : •• 1 " I ~ ~ ;
i •
.I
I
I
I
I
g
D
D
m
--"
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
• The deep and shallow samples were collected alternately from the
intermediary point (point B) in Figure 1-1.
Only the deep samples adjacent to the stream exhibited positive screening values.
In two cases, to confirm findings of the sampling procedure, a sample was
submitted for analysis from both the deep and shallow samples.
ENGR103.l
l<Y0'2/90 F4
1-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
g
0.
m
I
I
I
2.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The analytical results of this sampling program are summarized in Tables 2-1
through 2-3. VOCs of concern found in the surface water and surface sediments
were 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) and toluene. Acetone and methylene chloride
were detected in surface water samples but are also reported in the applicable
method blank. 1,2-DCA was detected in four of the six water samples and in
three of seven sediment samples. Toluene was found in only one water and
sediment sample. DCA ranges from 160 to 1,700 parts per billion (ppb) in surface
water and 980 to 3,400 ppb in sediment. Toluene occurs in surface water at 9 ppb
and in sediment at 5 ppb. Methylene chloride was detected in the surface
sediments (4 to 11 ppb) and also in the method blank (3 ppb) applicable to sample
SE-15.
Soil samples were collected to establish the level of VOCs in the soil column and
to provide a preliminary concentration profile in the vadose zone. Groundwater
was encountered in the sampling points adjacent to the stream channel at
approximately 2.5 feet. A much larger suite of VOCs was detected in the soil than
appeared in the surface waters and sediments. Compounds detected but not found
in the method blanks included vinyl chloride, 1,2-DCA, 2-butanone, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene. Although vinyl chloride was detected in two samples, it was
not present at a quantifiable level. The presence of acetone and methylene
chloride at levels above the detection limits in a number of samples suggests that
these compounds are occurring in the soil and are not necessarily laboratory
contaminants. 1,2-DCA was found in 3 of the 23 samples analyzed ranging from
57 to 1,700 (duplicate) ppb. Toluene occurred in 19 of the samples ranging from 2
to 170 ppb.
Distribution of 1.2-DCA
Distribution of 1,2-DCA in surface water, sediment, and soil is of particular
concern because its widespread appearance has been well documented. The
highest levels and widest distribution of 1,2-DCA is in surface water and
sediments. There appears to be no correlation between the level of 1,2-DCA in the
channel sediment sample and corresponding surface water sample.
ENGR103.2
10/02/90 F4
2-1
l!!!!!!!!I I!!!!!!. -------
Table 2-1. National Starch: Organic Analysis Results
From Surface Watar Samples Collectad July 10, 1990
Identified
Target
Compound List
Substances
Samele Number [Concentrations in 1::!~ {eehiJ
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Quantitation
Limits
Date
5
10
10
5
5
SW-09 SW-10
7/10 7/10
--·
6'"
160 1,600
9
"Method blank VBLK2 7/16 applies to SW-09 through SW-14.
Method blank VBLK2 7/19 applies to SW-14 duplicata.
Method blank VBLKl 7/16 applies to SW-15.
"--Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
cNA -Not applicable; no water available for collection.
dReported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
'"Compound is also present in the method blank.
ENGl!I0:l.2A
09/13/90 i,~2
SW-11
7/10
5'"
Back-
ground Duplicate
SW-12 SW-13 SW-14 SW-14 SW-15 SW-R
7/10 7/10 7/10 7/11 7/13 7/10
NA' 2'" 2'" 2'"
NA 4'"
NA 880 1,700 1,000
NA
NA
-) -
SW-Trip EB0716" EB07192" VB0716"
Blank VBLK2 VBLK2 VBLKl
7/10 7/16 7/19 7/16
2'" 2' 2' l'
4'
l'
Table 2-2. National Starch: Organic Analysis Results
From Surface Sediment Samples Collected July 10, 1990
Sample Number
[Concentrations in µg/kg (ppb) on a dry weight basis]
Identified Back-
Target ground
Compound List Quantitation SE-09 SE-10 SE-11 SE-12
Substances Limits• 7/10/90 7/10/90 7/10/90 7/10/90
Percent moisture 36 34 65 25
Methylene chloride 6 9 8 llb 10
Acetone 10 12b 66
1,2-dichloroethane 10 980
2-Butanone 10 2b 9b
Toluene 5 5b
Chloroform
"Quantitation limits are based on wet weights of the samples.
bReported concentration is below the quantitation limit, adjusted for moisture content.
•--Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
SE-13 SE-14
7/10/90 7/10/90
30 28
--• 4b
3,400 1,200
'Method blank VBLK2 7/16 applies to SE-15; method blank VBLKl 7/16 apples to SE-09 through SE-14.
ENGH!03.2B
09/24/90 F3
SE-15
7/13/90
26
6b
VBLKl' VBLK2'
VB0713 EB07162
7/16/90 7/16/90
3b
ft
lb
----·-- --!!E! == ·liiiiiii iiii
Table 2-3. National Starch: Organic Analysis Results
From Soil Samples Collected July 11 to 13, 1990
Sample Number/Depth Interval
[Concentrations in µg/kg (ppb) on a dry weight basis]
Identified
Target SO-OW SO-01B/ SO-0IC/ SO-02A/
Compound Quantita-0.5-1.0 3.0-3.6 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0
List Substances tion Limits-7/13/90 7/13/90 7/13/90 7/13/90
Percent moisture 16 25 15 15
Vinyl chloride 10 ...
Methylene chloride 5 8" 10' 6' 6'
Acetone 10 6"' 7"' 6"' 4"'
Carbon disulfide 5
1,2-dichloroethene 5
Chloroform 5 1"' 1"' l"' 1"'
1,2-dichloroethane 10
2-Butanone 10
Toluene 5 25 16 8
Ethyl benzene 5 4' 7 4'
Xylenes (Total) 5 15 37 25 2•
•Quantitation limits are baaed on wet weights of the samples . • --Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
·compound is also found in the method blank.
"Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit adjusted for moisture content.
ENGRI03.2C
09/24/90 F3
SO-02B/ SO-02C/ SO-03A/ SO-03B/
0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5
7/13/90 7/13/90 7/13/90 7/13/90
17 35 26 34
4'
6"' 8' 7' 8'
25' 87' 5"' 89'
3'
3'
1"'
30
29 170 58
3' 8 4'
12 33 2• 15
- ---
SO-03C/ SO-03C/
0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5
7/13/90 7/13/90
31 28
7'
8"' 7'
35' 56'
7'
8
2"'
11' 9"
13 14
2'
2' 3•
~. -iiii -----·------I!!!!
Table 2-3. (Continued)
Sample Number/Depth Interval
[Concentrations in µglkg (ppb) on a dry weight basis]
Identified Duplicate
Target SO-04A/ SO-04B/ SO-04C/ SO-05A/ SO-05B/ SO-05C/ SO-05C/ SO-06A/ SO-06B/ SO-06C/ SO-07A/
Compound Quantita-0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0
List Substances tion Limits• 1l12J90 7/12/90 7/11/90 7/12/90 7/12/90 7/11/90 7/11/90 7/12/90 7/12/90 7/11/90 7/12/90
Percent moisture 26 20 8 22 19 1 7 24 22 23 21
Vinyl chloride 10 --'
Methylene chloride 5 67' 38' 4"' 31' 37' 8' 6' 9' 6"' 16' 7'
Acetone 10 8' 8' 8' 11' 2' 3' 5' 30 · 12'
Carbon disulfide 5 2"' 2"' 2"' 2"'
1,2-dichloroethene 5
Chloroform 5
1,2-dichloroethane 10 650 57
2-Butanone 10
Toluene 5 2' 6 64 29 13 16 13 7 41 22
Ethyl benzene 5 6' 3' 2' 4'
Xylenes (Total) 5 2' 3' S' 26 10 14 10 3' 6" 18 11
•Quantitation limits are based on wet weights of the samples.
•--Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
'Compound is also found in the method blank.
"Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit adjusted for moisture content.
ENGH103.2C
09/24/90 F3
==
SO-07B/
3.0-3.5
7/12/90
18
6"'
6'
2'
25
9
- --iiii ---
Table 2-3. (Continued)
Sample Number/Depth Interval
[Concentrations in µg/kg (ppb) on a dry weight basis]
Identified
Target
Compound Quantita-
Liet Substances tion Limits
Percent moisture
Vinyl chloride 10
Methylene chloride 5
Acetone 10
Carbon disulfide 5
112-dichloroethene 5
Chloroform 5
1,2-dichloroethane 10
2-Butanone 10
Toluene 5
Ethyl benzene 5
Xylene• (Total) 5
SO-07C/
0.5-1.0
7/11/90
42
!()"
Duplicate
SO-07C/
3.0-3.5
7/11/90
35
69'
47•
10 ..
1,200
Trip
SO-07C/
3.0-3.5
7/11/90
35
56'
37'
1,700
1s· 21·
·VBLKl 7/16/90 applies to R-11 and trip blank 7/13/90.
3a.
2·
Blank
LL2919
7/12/90
VBLK2 7/16/90 applies to SO-lA, B, and C through SO-03A, B, and C, and SE-15.
VBLKl 7/17/90 applies to R-10 and trip blank 7/12/90.
VBLKl 7/19/90 applies to SO-04C, 05C, 06C, and 07C.
•Quantitation limits are based on wet weights of the samples.
•--Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
'Compound is also reported in the app1icable method blank.
•Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit adjusted for moisture cont.ent.
ENGRI03.2C
09/07/90 Fl
Trip
R-10
7/12190
1 ..
24
Blank
LL2968
7/13/90
R-11
7/13/90
3•
11
VBLK.1"
VB0716
7/16/90
I"
---
VBLK2
EB07162
7/16/90
3•
6"
I"
VBLKl
EB0717
7/17/90
2·
-
VBLKI
VB0719
7/19/90
I"
3•
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
m
g
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
1,2-DCA was detected in the deep samples at SO-07C, SO-06C, and from the
shallciw sample at SO-05B. The level of 1,2-DCA at 3.0-to 3.5-foot depth in the
soil at SO-07C is comparable to the levels found in the stream sediments and
surface water at the adjacent point, SW/SE-14. Generally, levels of 1,2-DCA found
in surface water and surface sediments in the stream channel are far in excess of
the levels of 1,2-DCA found in the soil samples, except for the deep sample at
SO-07C.
One surface water and sediment sampling point, SW/SE-15, was added to the
sampling program to evaluate the possibility of off-site migration of VOCs. This
point is located at the northern boundary of the NSCC property (Figure 1-1) where
the northeast tributary exits. the site. As seen from Tables 2-1 and 2-2, none of
the TCL compounds were detected at this location.
ENGR103.2
10/02/90 F4
2-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Before analysis of the sampling data, all results were checked for consistency
between duplicates and for results of the field laboratory blank analyses.
Duplicate samples were compared to the corresponding field samples to determine
the validity of environmental analysis results. Rinsate blanks, field blanks, trip
blanks, and laboratory blanks were also included in the quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) procedures for the site. These blanks were evaluated to determine
if contaminants seen in field data could have been introduced in the sample
collection and analysis process.
From the results, a preliminary list of chemicals of potential concern to human
health and the environment was determined for surface water, sediment, and soil
samples. A chemical found during the sampling effort was eliminated from the list
of chemicals of potential concern for the following reasons (EPA, 1989):
• If the chemical was detected only once in the surface water, sediment,
or soil samples
• If all positive hits were below the highest blank multiplied by ten for
common laboratory contaminants, or five for other chemicals
• If the mean site-influenced value was equal to or less than the mean
background value; one background sample was available for sediment
data (SE-12).
Each chemical found in a particular medium that recorded at least one positive hit
(above the quantitation limit) was included on the pTeliroinary list of chemicals of
potential concern for that medium (Table 3-1). Also included for each chemical
was the range and arithmetic mean for the sample values and the frequency of
detection.
Because of the omnipresence of several common laboratory contaminants in
virtually all environmental sampling efforts, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has developed new guidance for eliminating these contaminants from
potential concern (EPA 1989). The guidance states that for all co=on laboratory
contaminants such as acetone, methylene chloride, and phthalates, sample results
should be considered positive only if the concentration in the sample exceeds ten
ENGR103.3
09/13/90 F2
3-1
-------------------
Chemical
Water (µg/1)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Sediment (µg/kg)
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Toluene
Soil ( µg/kg)
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,2-dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Toluene
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes (total)
ENGR103.3A
09/24190 Fl
Table 3-1. Chemicals Identified in Water, Sediment, and Soil
Range of
Frequency of Highest Detected
Detection Blank' Concentrationsb
216 2(20) 2
216 4(40) 5-6
4/6 --. 160-1700
1/6 9
016
6/7 3(30) 4-11
217 6(60) 12-66
3/7 980-3400
217 2-9
1/7 5
2123 4-7
22123 3(30) 4-69
21/23 6(60) 2-89
6123 3(15) 2-10
2123 3-8
6123 1(5) 1-2
3123 57-1200
4/23 2-30
19123 2-170
8123 2-8
22123 2-37
Range of
Detected Average
Background Detected
Levels' Concentrations'
NIA 4
NIA 9
NIA 726
NIA 6
NIA 5
10 8
18
803
9
5
NA 6
NA 16
NA 21
NA 5
NA 5
NA 4
NA 92
NA 11
NA 26
NA 5
NA 11
- ----- -- - - - ----- --
Table 3-1. (Continued)
•EPA (1989) guidance states that for common laboratory contaminants such as acetone, methylene chloride, and the phthalates, sample
results should be considered as positive results only if the concentration in the sample exceeds ten times the maximum amount detected
in any blank. If the blank contains detectable levels of chemicals that are not common contaminants, consider the site sample
results only if the sample exceeds five times the maximum amount detected in any sample. Parentheses reflect these multipliers.
'From 21 sampling locations, 23 samples: S0-0lA, S0-01B, and SO-0lC through S0-07A, SO-07B, and SO-07C (SO-03C and
SO-07C included two depths at each sampling location.
'NIA -Not applicable (no water available for collection at SW-12).
NA -Not available.
'Nondetects were assumed to be at the detection limit for the purpose of determining the average concentrations of the sample
population. In some cases, the arithmetic mean may be lower than the minimum detected sample concentration where the data set
is made up of a large number of values assumed to be at the detection limit.
'(--) Indicates the chemical was not detected in the sample medium.
ENGH103.3A
09tl4190 Fl
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
times the maximum amount detected in any blank. If the blank contains levels of
chemicals that are not common laboratory contaminants, the site sample results
should be considered positive only if the sample exceeds five times the maximum
amount detected in any blank.
Table 3-1 summarizes the results of environmental sampling for each media.
Chemicals detected in each medium are listed in this table. This table presents
the frequency of detection for each chemical, the highest blank sample
concentration, and the range and mean of sample concentrations. Samples that
were below the quantitation limits for all or some chemicals are assumed to be at
the detection limit for the purpose of determining the mean concentration. The
detection limit values are shown in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. In some cases where
a data set is made up of a large number of detection limit values, the mean
concentration may be lower than the lowest detected concentration.
ENGR103.3
09/13/90 F2
3-2
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 EVALUATION OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
Application of the numerical analyses in Section 3.0 to the data presented in
Tables 2-1 through 2-3 allows the identification of significant chemical
concentrations (i.e., those not due to background levels or laboratory sampling
contamination). Results are presented in Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3.
4.1 SURFACE WATER
The surface water samples (Figure 1-1, Table 4-1) show only 1,2-DCA as an
organic contaminant of concern. This is seen in samples SW-09, SW-10, SW-13,
and SW-14 at 160, 1,600, 880, and 1,700 ppb, respectively. SW-09 and SW-10 also
revealed similar levels of 1,2-DCA during the Supplemental Remedial Investigation
Report for the Second Operable Unit (IT, 1990).
4.2 SURFACE SEDIMENT
The sediment samples (Figure 1-1, Table 4-2) have significant levels of 1,2-DCA at
SE-09, SE-13, and SE-14 at 980, 3,400, and 1,200 ppb, respectively. Acetone
appears significantly only in SE-11 at 66 ppb; acetone was below the quantification
limit in SE-09 at 12 ppb. Most of the sediment samples contain relatively low
levels of methylene chloride. SE-11 and SE-14, at 11 and 4 ppb, respectively, were
below quantification limits. Both hits of 2-butanone were also below quantification
limits.
4.3 SOIL
Levels of methylene chloride and acetone in the soil are relatively low, yet
significant, due to frequency of detection and exceeding values over the blanks.
There appears to be no pattern of appearance in the samples except that there are
no significant levels evident in the soil sample farthest downstream, SO-01, or in
the surface water sediment sample, SW/SE-09. It has been well documented that
methylene chloride and acetone have appeared consistently in samples of all media
during investigations at NSCC and are highly suspected to be common laboratory
contaminants.
ENGR103.4
10/02/90 F4
4-1
Table 4-1. Significant Analytical Results -Surface Water Samples
SW-09 SW-11
1,2-dichloroethane (ug/1) 160 1,600
'Background/upstream sample (no water available for collection).
'(--) Result is nondetect or insignificant.
SW-12' SW-13
NA 880
Table 4-2. Significant Analytical Results -Sediment Samples
SE-09 SE-10 SE-11 SE-12 SE-13
Methylene chloride 9 8 11• 10 --·
Acetone 12• 66
SW-14
1,700
SE-14
4'
1,2-dichloroethane 980 3,400 1,200
2-Butanone 2'
'(--) Result is nondetect or insignificant.
'Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGR103.4A
09/24/90 i,~3
9•
SW-15
SE-15
Table 4-3. Significant Analytical Results -Soil Samples
SO-0lA SO-01B SO-0lC SO-02A Depth Interval (ft) 0.6-1.0 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Carbon disulfide
1,2-dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Toluene 25 16 8
Ethyl benzene 4• 7 4•
Xylenes (total) 15 37 25 2·
"Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGH103.4C
09f24/90 F3
SO-02B SO-02C SO-03A
0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0
4'
87
3•
3•
30
29 170
3• 8
12 33 2·
SO-03B SO-03C SO-03C
3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5
7•
89
7•
8
11· 9•
58 13 14
4• 2·
15 2· 3•
--!!!!!I 1B1 !Bl 111111 l!IIS 111111 Cillll ;;;a liiiil liiiili 1iii ------
Table 4-3. (Continued)
SO-04A SO-04B SO-04C
Depth Interval (ft) 0.5-1.0 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.6
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride 67 38
Acetone 8' 8'
Carbon disulfide
1,2-dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane
2-Butanone
Toluene 2· 6
Ethyl benzene
Xylenes 2· 3' 5•
'Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGH103.4C
09/'24190 F3
SO-06A SO-05B SO-05C
0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 3.0-3.6
31 37
8' 11· 2·
650
64 29 13
6' 3•
26 10 14
- --- - - - - - - ---11!!!!1 l!!i!!!I 1111 --==
Table 4-3. (Continued)
SO-06A SO-06B SO-06C SO-07A
Depth Interval (ft) 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5 3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0
Vinyl chloride
Methylene chloride 16
Acetone 3• 5• 30 12·
Carbon disulfide
1,2-dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2-dichloroethane 57
2-Butanone
Toluene 13 7 41 22
Ethyl benzene 4•
Xylenes (total) 3• 6" 18 11
"Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGR103.4C
09!24/90 F3
SO-07B SO-07C SO-07C
3.0-3.5 0.5-1.0 3.0-3.5
69
6" 47•
1,200
2·
25 15"
9 2·
n
D
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The aromatic hydrocarbons, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes appear at
relatively low but significant levels throughout all samples, both shallow and deep.
The highest level was toluene at 170 ppb appearing in SO-02C at the 3-to 3.5-
foot depth. Toluene was detected in the adjacent surface water and sediment
samples of SW/SE-10 at low levels of 9 and 5 ppb, respectively; however, this
contaminant was detected only once in each medium. Therefore, it was eliminated
from the list of chemicals of concern.
The concentration of the hydrocarbons (toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes) can be
assessed under the State of North Carolina soil cleanup levels for petroleum
hydrocarbons. Although this regulation may not be a definitive applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR), it remains to be relevant and
appropriate by definition (EPA, 1988). The soil cleanup level for total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPHs) is 10 parts per million (ppm) (North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, 1990). The soil samples were not
analyzed for TPH; however, the specific components of toluene, ethyl benzene, and
xylenes combined for each sample are well below the established limits. The
highest combined hydrocarbon concentration of all samples is 0.211 ppm in SO-2C
(3.0 to 3.5 feet).
1,2-DCA was not detected in transects SO-01, SO-02, SO-03, and SO-04, which are
farthest downgradient from the r"maining soil samples. As mentioned earlier, the
significant concentrations of 1,2-DCA in soil were found at SO-05B (0.5 to 1.0 foot)
and the deep samples at SO-06C and SO-07C. S0-05B appears to have an
isolated appearance of 1,2-DCA because this was the only positive detection of all
A and B transect points (refer to Figure 1-1), which are located along the steep--
sloped bank next to the plant operations area.
ENGR103.4
10/02/90 F4
4-2
D
n
D
n
D
D
I
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT
To determine the potential health risks associated with contaminants of concern
identified during the sampling of the northeast tributary, a baseline risk
assessment was performed to determine the current risks associated with potential
human exposures to surface water, sediments, and soils. This risk assessment
follows guidance for performing risk assessments at Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites. Aside from the
determination of chemicals of concern, the risk assessment evaluates human
exposures to chemicals, summarizes the toxic characteristics of the chemicals, and
provides a quantified human health risk associated with current site conditions.
5.1 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
A human exposure assessment was performed to determine the potential for
human receptors to be exposed to the above-background concentrations of chemicals
of concern identified in and around the northeast tributary (Section 4.0). The
exposure assessment involves three major steps:
• Characterize the physical setting and identify human receptors.
• Identify potential exposure pathways.
• Quantify intakes.
5.1.1 Characterization of the Physical Setting
Salisbury, North Carolina is located 40 miles northeast of Charlotte, North
Carolina. The NSCC property is in the southwest part of Salisbury. The
topography of the NSCC property is gently sloping uplands intercut by several
small tributaries to Grants Creek, one of which is the northeast tributary (IT,
1988) (Figure 1-1). In the vicinity of the plant, the elevation changes from 790
feet above mean sea level (ms!) to 700 feet ms! where the northeast tributary exits
the property.
The spring-fed northeast tributary begins near the plant operations and runs
northwest to Grants Creek. It receives runoff from an industrial park to the east
across Cedar Springs Road and from the NSCC facility. The W. H. Brown plant
has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted
ENGR103.5
09/24/90 F3
5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
discharge into the northeast tributary. A detailed characterization of the
hydrogeology of the site can be found in the NSCC "Remedial Investigation Report"
(IT, 1988). The creek bed appears to consist of sands and clays (IT, 1990).
The climate in the area is characterized by mild winters and humid summers.
Average annual rainfall is 45.3 inches, distributed fairly evenly throughout the
year. During some months evaporation occurs at a greater rate than rainfall.
Southwest of the facility lies a trailor park. The southeast is an industrial park.
Approximate one-half mile to the northwest of the facility is a residential, single-
family dwelling subdivision of approximately 40 homes. The backyards of several
of these homes border the site. Across Airport Road, which borders the northern
property boundary, are more residences. A chain-linked, barbed-wire fence
surrounds the plant facility. Thick grasses cover the land between the fence and
the property boundary along the northeast tributary.
5.1.2 Identification of Exposure Pathways
Table 5-1 provides a summary of pathways by which a human receptor may come
into contact with the chemicals found in the surface water, sediments, and soils of
the northeast tributary.
5.1.3 Quantification of Exposure
This section describes the quantitative estimate of intake by human receptors.
This process involves:
• Determining the concentration of each chemical in the environmental
media at the point of assumed human contact
• Identifying applicable exposure models and input parameters
• Quantifying human intake.
5.1.3.1 Exposure Point Concentration
The chemical concentrations to which a receptor may be exposed are listed in
Table 5-2. As explained in this table, the justification for selecting these exposure
point concentrations is that they represent concentrations at the point accessible by
ENGR103.5
09/24/90 F3
5-2
I
I
I
m
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
Receptor
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Adults
ENGR103.5A
09/24190 Fl
Table 5-1. Potential Exposure Pathways at NSCC
Exposure Evaluated in Reason for Inclusion/
Pathway Risk Assessment Exclusion
Incidental ingestion yes No institutional controls
of sediments/soils prevent access to creek;
while playing in residential area nearby.
stream
Incidental yes No institutional controls
ingestion prevent access to creek;
of water while residential area nearby.
playing in stream
Dermal yes No institutional controls
contact with prevent access to creek;
chemicals in residential area nearby.
water
Dermal yes No institutional controls
contact with prevent access to creek;
chemicals in residential area nearby.
water
Inhalation of yes Detected chemicals may
chemicals while volatilize into air.
playing in stream
All pathways no Adults are not expected
to swim or play in the
creek.
D
I
I
I
D ., ·,
I
D
I
o.
ii
D
D
D
I
Table 5-2. Chemicals and Associated Concentrations Used
to Evaluate Current Risk Conditions for the
Northeast Tributary
Chemical
Surface Water
1,2-Dichloroethane
Sediment
Acetone
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Toluene
Xylenes
Air
1,2-Dichloroethane
0
ENGR!03.5B
10/02/90 F2
Concentration at
Receptor Location
(ppm)
0.160
0.012
0.009
0.98
0.025
0.015
0.00277 (mg/m')
Justification
Highest detected concentration at
location accessible to children outside
of plant fence (SW-09).
Highest detected concentrations in
sediment at location accessible to
children outside of plant fence
(SE/09).
Highest detected concentrations
in soil from 0.5 to 1.0 ft deep at
location accessible to children outside
of plant fence (SO-01).
Calculated from highest detected
concentration in water at location
accessible to children outside of plant
fence (SW-09), using volatilization rate
and dispersion models (GRI, 1988).
I
I
I
point concentrations is that they represent concentrations at the point accessible by
children, which is just outside the NSCC plant fence. Detectable concentrations
were· found at this point. No chemicals were detected in any medium at the plant
property boundary near Airport Road (SW/SE-15). Therefore, the child receptor
would have to trespass on NSCC land to be exposed to any site-related chemicals.
It is assumed that the child would not trespass beyond the chain-linked fence
surrounding the main plant operations.
For this exposure, it is assumed that a child would play in the creek for 143 days
of the year. To arrive at this number, the year was divided into four 13-week
subunits: daylight savings time (DST) during school, during which a child would
play in the creek 3 days/week; DST during summer vacation, during which a child
would play 5 days/week; eastern standard time (EST) during school and winter,
during which a child would play 1 day/week; and EST during school in the fall
and spring, during which a child would play 2 days/week. It was assumed that
DST and EST are each six months long. It was assumed that the total incidental
ingestion of 100 mg soil/day (EPA, 1989b) occurred at the site.
The model for incidental ingestion of water is similar (EPA, 1989):
I ~•" = (Cw)(CR)(ET)(EF)(ED)l(BW)(AT)
where:
I....,, = intake from water (mg/kg/day)
Cw = chemical concentration in water mg/L
ET = exposure time (hours/event)
EF = exposure frequency (events/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
BW = body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days).
Models for dermal contact with chemicals in water and sediments/soil are also
taken from (EPA, 1989):
and,
ENGR103.5
HY02/90 F4
AD ~u = (Cs)(CF)(SA)(AF)(ABS)(EF)(ED)/(BW)(AT)
5-3
I
11
o·
·.D
I
-
.I!
I
I!
;I
I
I ,,
. 1
I r?
,I ,,
,I
'·1
"'
AD ...,., = (Cw)(Sa)(PC)(ET)(ED)(CF.)/(BW)(AT)
where:
AD ~u = absorbed dose from sediments/soil (mg/kg/day)
SA = skin surface area available for contact (cm2/event)
AF = soil to skin adherence factor (mg/cm2)
ABS = absorption factor (unitless)
and,
AD war.er = absorbed dose from water (mg/kg/day)
PC = chemical-specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
CF. = volumetric conversion factor for water (1 liter/1,000 cm')
Dermal absorption is not well quantified for most chemicals. In lieu of chemical-
specific absorption values, ABS was assumed to be 100 percent. The skin
permeability constant (PC) for 1,2-DCA was determined using the results of
regression modeling of skin permeability, water diffusion, and octanol water
partition coefficients (K,,wl (Murphy, 1987).
Calculation of intake of chemicals that may volatilize from the stream requires
three stages:
• Calculate the flux rate
• Calculate air concentration
• Calculate intake .
The flux rate is determined by models presented in the Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual (EPA, 1988b):
where:
Q = 18 x 10 .. (K,,.)(A)(C,)
K,,. = overall mass transfer coefficient (1.417 x 10 .. mol/cm2/sec)
A = water surface area (10,000 cm2
)
C, = concentration of chemical in water (mg/L, chemical-specific)
ENGR103.5 5-4
10/02/90 F4
I
,I ,.
.I
Ii
I
I,
j1
I
It
I
:I:
The concentration in the air (Ca) can then be estimated by a box diffusion model
(GRI, 1988):
where:
Ca = Q/(HbXWbXUm)
Hb = height of box (1 m)
Wb = Width of box (1 m)
Um= Wind speed (0.685 mis)
The wind speed is the average wind speed for the Charlotte, North Carolina area
(GRI, 1988). Using the above equations, Ca = 2.77 x lo-" mg/m3•
The model used to determine inhalation of airborne (vapor-phase) chemicals (EPA
1989b) is:
I .1r = (Ca)(IRXETXEFXED)/(BWXAT)
where:
I .,, = intake from air (mg/kg/day)
I R = inhalation rate (m3/hour)
FI = fraction of time child at volatilization point source location (unitless)
ET = exposure time (hours/day)
EF = exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = exposure duration (years)
BW = body weight (kg)
AT = averaging time (days)
The specific parameters used to model site-specific intakes at the NSCC site are
listed in Table 5-3.
5.1.3.2 Modeling Results
The results of the exposure modeling effort are presented in Table 5-4. In
summary, modeling results show that the estimated chronic daily intake levels for
all chemicals and all pathways are very low. This is not surprising for several
reasons. First, dermal exposures tend to be very low due to low passage of a
chemical from the soil or water to the child and through the skin. Second, unlike
ENGR103.5
10/02/90 F4
5-5
I
.I Table 5-3. Parameters Used to Describe Exposure
to Site-Related Chemicals of Potential Concern
1· Concentration
.~ Exposure of Chemical Exposure
1. Pathway in Media Assumptions• Source
Incidental Maximum IR = 10 mg/day EPA, 1989b
I ingestion of concentration FI= 1
sediments/soils EF = 143 days/year See text
ED= 8 years See text
1-BW = 25 kg EPA, 1989a
AT = 2,290 days
AT (carcinogen)
I = 25,550 days
Incidental Maximum CR = 25 ml/hours EPA, 1989a
ingestion of concentration ET = 2 hours/day
I water EF = 143 days/year See text
ED= 8 years See text
BW = 25 kg EPA, 1989a ,, AT (carcinogen)
= 25,550 days
Dermal contact Maximum SA= 48.2 cm' EPA, 1989a 1~\ with sediments concentration AF = 2.77 mg/kg EPA, 1989b
soils ABS= 100 percent See text
EF = 143 days/year See text
I ED= 8 years See text
BW = 25 kg EPA 1989a
AT = 2,290 days
I
AT (carcinogen)
= 25,550 days
Dermal contact Maximum SA= 48.2 cm' EPA 1989a ,., '/\, with water concentration PC= 0.00003 See text
ET = 2 hours/day
EF = 143 days/year See text
.11
ED= 8 years See text
BW = 25,550 kg EPA 1989a
AT (carcinogen)
= 25,550 days rJ Inhalation Modeled from lR = 2m'/hour EPA, 1989a
maximum ET = 2 hours/day
-1 concentration FI= .50
in water EF = 143 days/year See text
ED= 8 years See text
I /7
BW = 25 kg EPA, 1989a
AT (carcinogen)
= 25,550 days
.I Definition of these parameters can be found in Section 5.1.3.2.
ENGR103.5C
09/24/90 Fl ::;;; ,~ 1
I
0 ,,
ft,
11·
I
I
11'
I
m
I
'I
'.; ,,,-
; I
I,
·.1
.1,
11
,i,
1
Exposed
Population
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
ENGR103.5D
09/25/90 Fl
Table 5-4.
Exposure
Pathway
Ingestion of
soil of
sediments
C
Ingestion of
water
Dermal
contact
with soil
Dermal
Contact
with water
Inhalation
Exposure Estimated Results
Concentration
at receptor Estimated
location Chronic
(mg/I -water) Daily
(mg/kg -soil) Intake
Chemical (mg/m' -air) (mg/kg/day)
1,2-DCA 0.98 l.8E-7
Methylene 0.009 l.6E-9
chloride
Acetone 0.012 l.9E-8
Toluene 0.007 3.9E-8
Xylenes 0.015 2.4x10 ..
1,2-DCA 0.16 l.43E-5
1,2-DCA 0.98 2.3E-7
Methylene 0.009 2.2E-9
chloride
Acetone 0.012 2.5E-8
Toluene 0.007 5.2E-8
Xylenes 0.015 3.lE-8
1,2-DCA 0.16 8.3E-10
1,2-DCA .00277 9.9E-6
a
i
II
g,
'I
I
I
1·
i
I
I
I ,,,
,,/
I
I
I
.I
1
direct ingestion of drinking water at a substantial rate, rates for soil ingestion and
incidental ingestion of water while playing are very low (EPA, 1989).
The specific parameters used to model site-specific conditions at the NSCC site are
listed in Table 5-3.
5.2 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
This section summarizes the toxicity of the chemicals of concern in the northeast
tributary. The major chemical of concern is 1,2-DCA because it is found in both
the surface water and the sediments/soils and it is a carcinogen, is 1,2-dichloroethane
(DCA). The toxicity of 1,2-DCA is presented in some detail and the toxicities of
the remaining chemicals are summarized in Tables 5-5 and 5-6.
1,2-DCA is classified as a Class B2 carcinogen (EPA, 1990c), which means it is
considered a probable human carcinogen. Cancer potency factors are available for
both the oral and inhalation routes, even though two chronic inhalation studies
found no significant increases in tumors (Spencer et al., 1951; Maltoni et al.,
1980). Chronic studies via the oral route resulted in the induction of several
tumor types in both rats and mice, including forestomach carcinomas, circulatory
sarcomas, and liver carcinomas (NCI, 1978). The NCI dose response data were
used to develop an oral slope factor (SF) of 0.091 mg/kg/day·1 (EPA, 1990a).
Assuming 100 percent absorption and metabolism at the low doses, the inhalation
SF was assumed to be equivalent to the oral SF.
5.3 RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Using estimated human intake results and dose-response toxicity information, it is
possible to estimate the potential health hazards associated with estimated intakes.
Risks are estimated differently for carcinogens and noncarcinogens. For
carcinogenic chemicals, risk is expressed in terms of the probability of contracting
cancer over a lifetime, in addition to background cancer risk or incremental
lifetime cancer risk (ILCR). This risk is estimated using the following formula:
ENGR103,5
lOI02/90 F4
ILCR = (l)(SF)
5-6
'I.
i
I
I
I
I,
11,
f I
I
II
I
t
Table 5-5. Summary of Potential Carcinogenic Effects
Slope Factor
Weight of (SF) Type of SF Basis/
Chemical Evidence (mg/kg/day) Cancer SF Source
1,2-Dichloroethane B2 0.091 Circulatory Gavage/
system, IRIS'
forestomach,
liver
Methylene chloride B2 0.0075 Liver Gavage/
0 HEAST"
Inhalation
1,2-Dichloroethane B2 0.091 -· Gavage,
intra route
extrapolation/
IRIS
'Integrated Risk Information System (EPA, 1990a).
•Health Effects Assessment Summary Table, Third Quarter FY-1990 (EPA, 1990)b.
"No statistically significant amounts of tumors were noted in inhalation experiments.
ENGR103.5E
09125/90 Fl
I
I
-al ,, ,,
I
I
1
I
I
I
' ff,
I
II
I ,,
I
1
Table 5-6, Summary of Noncarcinogenic Health Effects
Chemical
Source
Oral
Acetone
Methylene chloride
Toluene
Xylenes
Inhalation
Toluene
Xylenes
ENGR103.5F
09125/90 Draft 1
Chronic RID
(mg/kg/day)
0,1
0,06
0,3
2,0
2.0
0.3
Critical Effect Uncertainty
or Target Organ Factor
Kidney toxicity 1000
Liver toxicity 100
CNS effects 100
Hyperactivity 100
CNS effects 100
CNS effects 100
I,
I ,,
g
a
I
I
u
I
D
I
111
where:
I = chemical intake (mg/kg/day)
SF = chemical-specific slope factor (mg/kg/day )"1
Noncarcinogenic hazards are determined by evaluating estimated intakes in terms
of allowable intakes or reference doses (RfDs). In this case, the ratio of the
estimated intake to the RID indicates whether the exposure is greater than or less
than the allowable limit. If the ratio is greater than unity, the exposure is greater
than the allowable intake.
Risk characterization results for estimated intakes at the NSCC site are listed in
Table 5-7. Note that carcinogenic risks are in the acceptable range of 1 x 10-' to 1
x lo-" (EPA, 1990). Noncarcinogenic hazard indices are much less than one. The
su=ation of carcinogenic risks does not result in levels of concern, nor does the
total hazard index for exposure to all chemicals by all pathways cause concern.
5.4 UNCERTAINTIES
In accordance with methods described in EPA (1989b), a health-protective approach
that is likely to overestimate rather than underestimate the risk has been used.
Also, in accordance with EPA guidance, exposure scenarios have been made
"'reasonable"' without being too conservative.
Examples of conservative parameters used in the exposure modeling include the
use of the maximum chemical concentration detected outside of the site fence, an
eight-year exposure period, 100 percent absorption for dermal contact, and the
assumption that all of the estimated 100 mg soil/day intake that children older
than six years receive comes from the NSCC site. Other parameters have been
made more reasonable, such as the 143 days/year exposure frequency and the 2
hours/day exposure time.
Uncertainties associated with dose-response data are well documented (EPA,
1990a), but usually err on the side of overestimating the risk.
ENGR103.5
10/02/90 F4
5-7
,,
I Table 5-7. Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices Associated
with Potential Exposures at NSCC Site
·I Chronic Slope
Daily Factor/mg/kg/day)·' ILCR/
11 Exposure Intake Reference Hazard
Pathway Chemical (mg/kg/day) Dose Index
Ingestion of Carcinogens
I soil or sediments
1,2-DCA 1.8E-7 0.091 1.0E-8
Methylene 1.6E-9 0.0075 1.2E-ll
I chloride
Noncarcinogens
I Acetone 1.9E-8 0.1 1.9E-7
Methylene 1.6E-9 0.06 2.4E-7
chloride
1 Toluene 3.9E-8 0.3 1.3E-7
Xylenes 2.4E-8 2.0 1.2E-8
I Ingestion of Carcinogens
water
1,2-DCA 2.9E-5 0.091 1.3E-6
I Dermal Carcinogens
I contact
with soil 1,2-DCA 2.3E-7 0.091 2.0E-8
Methylene 2.2E-9 0.0075 2.8E-ll
chloride
I N oncarcinogens
Acetone 2.5E-8 0.1 2.5E-7
I Methylene 2.2E-9 0.06 3.lE-7
chloride
Toluene 5.2E-8 0.3 1.7E-7
Xylenes 3.lE-8 2.0 1.6E-8 \I Dermal Carcinogens
contact
I with water 1,2-DCA 8.3E-10 0.091 7.5E-ll
Inhalation Carcinogens
I 1,2-DCA 9.9E-6 0.091 9.0E-7
RID units (mg/kg-day)
·1 Slope units (mg/kg-day)"'
ENGR103.5G
I 09/25190 Draft 1
1 ---
ff
,.
I ,,
I
I
'11,
I
I
I
I
1
'I
I
··m
:I
I ,,
.I
t
5,5 RISK ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
Based on the exposure pathways analyzed, it appears that concentrations detected
in the surface water, sediments, and soils do not pose a substantial health risk to
residents, mainly children, in the area of the NSCC site. The cancer risk
associated with methylene chloride is negligible for all pathways. The summed
1,2-DCA cancer risk for all pathways is 2.2 x lo-", which is well within the range
of acceptable risks (EPA, 1990). Keep in mind that conservative assumptions used
in the modeling tend to overestimate the time risk at the site.
Noncancer risks associated with all chemicals and all pathways are well below
unity, indicating the no toxic hazards appear to be associated with exposures to
chemicals in and around the northeast tributary.
ENGR103.5
HY02/90 F4
5-8
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 REFERENCES
Gas Research Institute (GRD, 1988, Management of Manufactured Gas Plant Sites,
Volume III, Risk Assessment, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, GRI-
87/0260.3.
IT Corporation, 1990, "Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report for the
Second Operable Unit", National Starch and Chemical Company Site, Cedar
Springs Road, Salisbury, North Carolina.
IT Corporation, 1988, "Remedial Investigation Report," National Starch and
Chemical Corporation Site, Cedar Springs Road Plant, Salisbury, North Carolina.
Maltoni, C. L. Valgimigli and C. Scarnato, 1980, "Long-term carcinogenic bioassays
on ethylene dichloride administered by inhalation by rats and mice," Ethylene
Dichloride: A Potential Health Risk?, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring
Harbor, New York, p. 3-33.
Murphy, B. L., 1987, "Total Exposure from Contaminated Tap Water," Paper
presented at the 80th annual meeting of APCA, New York, New York.
National Cancer Institute (NCI), 1978, "Bioassay of 1,2-Dichloroethane for Possible
Carcinogenicity," NCI Carcinogenesis Technical Report Series No. 55, DHEW
Publication No. (NIH) 78-1361, Washington, D.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, 1990, Guidelines for Remediation of Soil
Contaminated by Petroleum.
Spencer, H. C., V. K Adams, E. M. McCollister, and D. D. Irish, 1951, "Vapor
toxicity of ethylene dichloride determined by experiments on laboratory animals,"
Ind. Hyg. Occup. Med. 4: 482-493.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), September 1990a, Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), July 1990b, Health Effects
Assessment Summary Tables, Third Quarter, FY 1990. OERR 9200.6-303 (90-3).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1990c, National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution ContiugP.ncy Plan, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part
300 (40CFR300).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), July 1989a, Exposure Factors
Handbook, EP A/600/8-89/043.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), December 1989b, Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. Human Health Evaluation Manual, (Part A), Interim
Final, EPA540/1-89/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988a, CERCLA Compliance with
Other Laws Manual, Interim Final.
ENGR103.6
10/02/90 Fl
6-1
11
D
1:
I
I
I
I,
I
11
I
I
I
I
i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1988b, Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual, EPA/540/1-88/001.
ENGR103.6
10/02/90 Fl
6-2
I
II
,,; I,
I
a
1
I
I
I
I
I
,1
.
I
I'
I
I
t
[D INTERNATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION Memorandum
To:
From:
Subject:
Mike Sturdevant Date: July 22, 1991
Mary Swanson 408668.60.10
UPDATED RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NATIONAL STARCH
CHEMICAL CO., NORTHEAST TRIBUTARY
Additional analytical data from the June, 1991 sampling of sediment and surface water
has been used to update the risk assessment for the NSCC Northeast Tributary. The
original risk assessment is documented in the October 2, 1990 report to NSCC. All
changes to the risk assessment resulting from the additional data are described in this
memo. Overall, the June, 1991 sampling results do not significantly change the results
or conclusions of the original risk assessment.
Analytical results from surface water samples, field blanks and associated laboratory
blanks are in Table 1. Sediment samples and associated laboratory blanks are in Table
2. Tables 3 and 4 present the sample concentrations that remained after taking possible
blank contamination into account.
Table 5 lists the chemicals and their concentrations used to evaluate risk. The acetone
concentration in sediments was increased due to the additional data, and 2-butanone was
added to the list of compounds evaluated in the sediments. All other chemicals and
concentrations are the same as in the October 2, 1990 report.
Table 6 presents results of the exposure assessment, with estimated chronic daily intakes
listed for all pathways and all chemicals that were evaluated.
Table 7 gives a summary of noncarcinogenic health effects for the chemicals of interest.
with 2-butanone added to the table. Also, the RFD for toluene has changed from 0.3
to 0.2 mg/kg/day. It should be noted that no new carcinogens were added from the
June, 1991 sampling results.
The results of the exposure and risk assessment calculations are presented in Table 8.
Chronic daily intakes and Hazard Indices for acetone, 2-butanone and toluene have been
44-8-85
I
,I ,,
·I
I
I
I
U
I
II
I
I
I
·I
I ,,
I
I ,,
changed or added since the October 2, 1990 report. The updated Hazard Indices are still
well below any level that would be of concern. .
There are a few tables in the original risk assessment that were not included in this
memo, because the additional data did not change the content of those tables.
Printouts of the Quattro spreadsheets used to calculate exposure and risk are also
attached.
--'l!!!!!9 -
Table I. National Starch: Organic Analysis Results
From Surface Water Samples Collected June, 1991
Target
Compound
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,2-dichloroethane
Toluene
Chloroform
Quantitation
Limitd
5
10
5
5
5
SW-09 SW-10
--·
77 810
•Method blank VBLKl applies to SW-09 through SW-13.
Method blank VBLK2 applies to SW-13 DL through SW-15.
b __ Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
•Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGHJ03.2A
07/22/91 F5
SW-11
Sample Number (Concentrations in µg/L)
Rinsate Trip
SW-13 SW-14 SW-15 Blank Blank
5
1,800 1,200
2'
2'
WB0612 WB0613
VBLKl" VBLK2"
-
Rinsate
Blank 2
4'
2'
DI Water
Blank
2'
2'
-
-~-----------------{/
Target Quantitation
Compound Limits
Acetone 10-21
2-Butanone 10-21
1,2-dichloroethane 5-11
1,2--dichloroethylene 6-11
Ethylbenzene 6-11
Methylene chloride 6-11
Styrene 6-11
Tetrachloroethylene 6-11
Toluene 6-11
Total x:ylenes 6-11
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 6-11
Table 2. National Starch: Organic Analysis Results
From Surface Sediment Samples Collected June, 1991
SE-09
17
23
6'
Sample Number
(Concentrations in µg/kg on a dry weight basis)
Back-
ground
SE-10 SE-11 SE-12 SE-13 SE-14
__ b 68 66 16
7• 4'
310 7,400 4,200
6'
3•
7' 7' 4' 15 7
2'
2'
8
3•
"Method blank VBLKl apples to SE-09 and SE-10. Method blank VBLK2 applies to SE-11 through SE-15.
•--Indicates organic compounds that were not detected.
'Reported concentration is below the quantitation limit.
ENGR!03.2B
07/22/91 F6
WB06102 VB0611
SE-15 VBLKl" VBLK2"
43
20
5' l' l'
2'
Target Compound
1,2-dichloroethane
• Not analyzed in 1991
Table 3. Significant Analytical Results From Surface Water Samples
(Sampled June, 1991)
Sample Number (Concentrations in µg/L)
SW-09 SW-12' SW-13
77 8IO b NA 1800
• Target compound was not detected
SW-14 SW-15
1200
-------------------
Target Compound
acetone
2-butanone
1,2-dichloroethylene
1,2-dichloroethane
ethyl benzene
methylene chloride
styrene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
1, 1,2-trichloroethane
Table 4. Significant Analytical Results From Sediment Samples
(Sampled June, 1991)
Sample Number (Concentrations in µg/kg)
SE-09 SE-10
17 --•
6
23 310
3
2
SE-11 SE-12
58
7
,,
SE-13
56
4
7400
2
3
SE-14
15
4200
SE-15
43
20
• Target compound was not detected; was within lOX the associated blank concentration for acetone, methylene chloride, 2-butanone and
toluene; or was within 5X the associated blank concentration for all other compounds.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
Chemical
Surface Water
1,2-Dichloroethane
Sediment
Acetone *
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone *
Toluene
Xylenes
1,2-Dichloroethane
Table 5. Chemicals and Associated Concentrations Used to
Evaluate Current Risk Conditions for the Northeast Tributary
Concentration at
Receptor Location
(ppm)
0.16
0.043
0.009
0.98
0.020
0.025
0.037
0.00277 (mg/m 3)
Justification
Highest detected concentration
at location accessible to
children outside of plant fence
(SW-09).
Highest detected concentration
in sediment at location accessible
to children outside of plant
fence (SE-09,SE-15)
Highest detected concentration
in soil from 0.5 to 1.0 ft deep
at location accessible to
children outside of plant fence
(SO-01).
Calculated from highest detected
concentration in water at location
accessible to children outside of plant
fence (SW-09), using volatilization rate
and dispersion models (GRI, 1988).
* Changed or added since 10/2/90 Report.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
Table 6. Exposure Estimated Results
Exposed
Population
Children
Children
Children
Children
Children
Exposure
Pathway
Ingestion of
soil or
sediments
Ingestion of
water
Dermal
contact
with soil or
sediments
Dermal
Contact
with water
Inhalation
Chemical
1,2-DCA
Methylene chloride
Acetone *
Toluene
Xylenes
2-Butanone *
1,2-DCA
1,2-DCA
Methylene chloride
Acetone *
Toluene
Xylenes
2-Butanone *
1,2-DCA
1,2-DCA
* Changed or added since 10/2/90 report
Concentration
at receptor
location
(mg/I -water)
(mg/kg -soil)
(mg/m 3 -air)
0.98
0.009
0.043
0.007
0.015
0.020 .
0.16
0.98
0.009
0.043
0.007
0.015
0.020
0.16
0.00277
Estimated
Chronic
Daily
Intake
(mg/kg/day)
l.8E-7
l.6E-9
6.7E-8
3.9E-8
2.4E-8
3. lE-8
l.43E-5
2.3E-7
2.2E-9
9.0E-8
5.2E-8
3. lE-8
4.2E-8
8.3E-10
9.9E-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
Table 7. Summary of N oncarcinogenic Health Effects
Chronic RID Critical Effect Uncertainty
Chemical (mg/kg/day)' or Target Organ Factor
Oral
Acetone 0.1 Kidney toxicity 1000
Methylene chloride 0.06 Liver toxicity 100
Toluene * 0.2 CNS effects 100
Xylenes 2.0 Hyperactivity 100
2-Butanone * 0.05 Fetotoxicity 1000
Inhalation
Toluene 2.0 CNS effects 100
Xylenes 0.3 CNS effects 100
* Changed or added since 10/2/90 report
' U.S. EPA, 1991. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST).
I
I Table 8. Cancer Risk and Hazard Indices Associated
with Potential Exposures at NSCC Site
I Chronic
Daily ILCR '/
Exposure Intake Slope Factor'/ Hazard
I Pathway Chemical (mg/kg/day) Reference Dose ' Index
I Ingestion of Carcinogens
soil or
I sediments 1,2-DCA 1.SE-7 0.091 1.0E-8
Methylene Chloride 1.6E-9 0.0075 1.2E-11
I Noncarcinogens
Acetone* 6.7E-8 0.1 6.7E-9
I Methylene chloride 1.6E-9 0.06 2.4E-7
Toluene * 3.9E-8 0.2 2.0E-7
Xylenes 2.4E-8 2.0 1.2E-8
I 2-Butanone * 3.lE-8 0.05 6.3E-7
Ingestion of Carcinogens
I water
1,2-DCA 2.9E-5 0.091 1.3E-6
I Dermal Carcinogens
contact
with soil 1,2-DCA 2.3E-7 0.091 2.0E-8
I Methylene chloride 2.2E-9 0.0075 2.SE-11
Noncarcinol!ens
I Acetone * 9.0E-8 0.1 9.0E-7
Methylene chloride 2.2E-9 0.06 3. lE-7
I Toluene * 5.2E-8 0.2 2.6E-7
Xylenes 3. lE-8 2.0 1.6E-8
2-Butanone * 4.2E-8 0.05 8.4E-7
I Dermal Carcinogens
I contact
with water 1,2-DCA 8.3E-10 0.091 7.5E-ll
I Inhalation Carcinogens
1,2-DCA 9.9E-6 0.091 9.0E-7
I I ' Slope FaclOr units in (mg/kg/day) ·1
• Reference Dose Units in (mg/kg/day)
' Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risk
I • Change or added since 10/2/90 Repon
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPOSURE CALCUAL TIONS/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
1. DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS IN SURFACE WATER
constants:
SA= 48.2 cm2
ET= 2 hr/day
EF= 143 days/year
ED= 8 years
CF= 0.001
BW= 25 kg
ATC= 25550 days
chemical-specific parameters:
Cw
Chemical (mg/I)
1,2-DCA 0.16
PC, pem,.
constant
3E-05
(6-9 year old; EFH)
(1 year excluding winter)
(5 -12 years)
(1 U1000 cm3)
(age 6-9;EFH)
absorbed slope lifetime
dose factor cancer
( mg/kg/d2.v'-'-)--"-( mc:.sg/k"'""'g/.:..::d.;:;.ay'--1'-'-)---'n.:..::· s.:..::k __
8.29E-10 0.091 7.54E-11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPOSURE CALCUAL TIONS/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
2. INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF WATER WHILE PLAYING IN CREEK
constants:
CR= 50 ml/hr
ET= 2 hr/day
EF= 143 days/year
ED= 8 years
BW= 25 kg
ATC= 25550 days
chemical-specific parameters:
Cw
Chemical (mg/1)
1,2-DCA 0.16
Intake
( mg/kg/day)
2.87E-05
HHEM
(1 year excluding winter)
(5 -12 years)
(age 6-9; EFH)
slope
factor
(mg/kg/day-1)
lifetime
cancer
risk
0.091 2.61 E-06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPOSURE CALCUALTIONS/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
3. INCIDENTAL INGESTION OF SEDIMENTS OR SOIL WHILE PLAYING IN CREEK
constants:
IR= 100 mg soiVday (over 6 years old;HHEM)
CF= 1E-06 (1 E-06 kg/mg)
Fl= 1 (Total intake from source)
EF= 143 days/year (1 year excluding winter)
ED= B years (5 -12 years)
BW= 25 kg (age 6-9; EFH)
AT= 2920 days
ATC= 25550 days
chemical-specific parameters:
slope
factor ILCR or
cs Intake (mg/kg/day-1) hazard
(mg/kg) (mg/kg/day) or RfD index
CARCINOGENS
1,2-DCA 0.9800 1.76E-07 0.091 1.60E-08
METHYLENE 0.0090 1.61 E-09 0.0075 1.21 E-11
CHLORIDE
NONCARCINOGENS
ACETONE* 0.0430 6.74E-08 0.1 6.74E-07
TOLUENE* 0.0250 3.92E-08 0.2 1.96E-07
ETHYLBENZENE ND 0.00E+O0 0.1 0.00E+O0
XYLENES 0.0150 2.35E-08 2 1.18E-08
METHYLENE 0.0090 1.41 E-08 0.06 2.35E-07
CHLORIDE
2-BUTANONE * 0.0200 3.13E-08 0.05 6.27E-07
* UPDATE SINCE 1990
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPOSURE CALCUAL TIONS/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
4. DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS IN SOIUSEDIMENTS
constants:
CF= 1E-06 (1 e-6mglkg)
SA= 48.2 cm2 (6-9 year old; EFH)
AF= 2.77 mg/kg (clay; HHEM)
EF= 143 days/year (1 year excluding winter)
ED= 8 years (5 -12 years)
Fl= 1 (total intake from source)
BW= 25 kg (age 6-9; EFH)
AT= 2920 days
ATC= 25550 days
chemical-specific parameters: slope
absorbed factor cs Absorption dose (mg/kg/day-1)
Chemical (mg/kg) Factor (mg/kg/day) or RID
CARCINOGENS
1,2-DCA 0.98 1 2.34E-07 0.091
METHYLENE 0.009 1 2.15E-09 0.0075
CHLORIDE
NONCARCINOGENS
ACETONE* 0.043 1 9.00E-08 0.1
METHYLENE 0.009 1 1.88E-08 0.06
CHLORIDE
TOLUENE* 0.025 1 5.23E-08 0.2
ETHYLBENZENE ND 1 0.00E+O0 0.1
XYLENES 0.015 1 3.14E-08 2
2-BUTANONE * 0.02 1 4.18E-08 0.05
* UPDATE SINCE 1990
ILCR or
hazard
index
2.13E-08
1.61 E-11
9.00E-07
3.14E-07
2.62E-07
0.00E+00
1.57E-08
8.37E-07
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPOSURE CALCUAL TIONS/RISK CHARACTERIZATION
5. INHALATION OF CHEMICALS WHILE PLAYING IN STREAM
constants:
IR=
ET=
EF=
ED=
BW=
ATC=
2 m3/hour
2 hr/day
143 days/year
8 years
25 kg
25550 days
(EFH;age 6, mod. activity)
(1 year excluding winter)
(5 -12 years)
(age 6-9; EFH)
chemical-specific parameters:
1,2-DCA
(a)
Cw
(mg/I)
H (a) C air Intake
(atm-m3/mol) (mg/m3) (mg/kg/day)
0.16 0.00109 0.00596
Mackay and Shiu,1981
converted from .11 kPa m3/mol
4.27E-05
slope lifetime
factor cancer
(mg/kg/day-1) risk
0.091 3.89E-06
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX F
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN NATIONAL STARCH AND
CHEMICAL COMPANY AND THE STATE OF
NORTH CAROLINA
KNIWP645.COV/04-03-92/01
I
I
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Division of Health Services
P.O. Box 2091 • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-2091
James G. Martin, Governor
David T. Flaherty, Secretary
Ronald H. Levine, M.D., M.P.H.
Mr. Jerry Smith
Ehvironmental Technologist
December 28, 1987
National Starch and Oiemical Corporation
Limber Street
Post Office Box 399
Salisbury, OC 28144
Dear Mr. Smith:
State Health Director
As you requested, we are appr011ing use of the soil removed during a renovation
of the effluent system at the Cedar Springs Road Plant, and subsequently
aerated for use as fill material to be covered with bib.11DU10l:S concrete in a
proposed parkiilg lot expansion. It is understood thst the soil will be
utilized as described in your letter of December 8, 1987.
Please disregard my letter of December 11, 1987 'Which referred to Lumber
Street as the location of the effluent system.
Slould you have further questions, please call.
rn-
Juli M. Foscue, III, Western Mea &ipervisor
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management: Branch
Ehvironmental Health Section
JMF:ssj
cc: Steve Phibbs
C. Richard Doby, Sr.
P<.:P.
D.F
r;/)_,J
Tl.).
T. V.: 1,.,,.;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICES SOLID AND IIAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH
Chain of Custody Record
Hazardous Waste Materials
Location of Sampling: VGenerator __ Transporter Treatment Faci:
_._Disposal Facility _Landfill · _Storage Facility
Other: ____________________
...;..__
C..pa•y' •~~-/,,.,~/ S/a,c6, Teleph=e( _ ___,) ______ _
Address ~ ~Jl-1,v5,5 /Y..) . ~M~ J 4 {?
· Collector's Name ~Nt. PA;bbs Telephone( ,f/7) 7/,/-ol3')lJ signature
Date Sampled · /l[IWJ ·; 31 /7zf1 Time Sampled JtJ:.:k.) /-l . .171.
Type of Process Generating Waste __ CJ, ___ .;.~'"""'/""CA-'-'-')-1-,a .......... ,,,.,.c.;;;ess.;._·..;./,.V,_·_:J_,_A_~ ....... d .... TC,._ _____ _
Field Sample ·No. tJ2q93'if OtJo??O
@939
Chain of Posse~:-•
1.~I~
signature
Wllf();vrw~de.,, 5/r3/e7-sf. t le inclusive dates
fw1C\ai,, ,t1~ r\-::: tit e
3. ~ , fltia tyal: title inclusive dates
.Results reported
signature title date
Instructions: Complete all applicable infoTl!lation including signatures, and submit with analysis request forms.
· :'ddS dtlCTJ) · 113!-'J S HJc!tllS 7, J.t1,1 S2: S, 25, 90 fJtlf
STATE l.MORATORY Of PUBLIC IEALTH
1·
I
DIVISION Of HEAi.TH SERVICES. N.C. IIEPAATIENl Of HUMII RESa.lCES P.O. BOX 28047 -l06 N. WILN[NGTON, ST., RALEIGH, N.C. Zlr.11
CJICNI IC nifft[CAI. AHAL YSIS
PtllGEAalf IXlllPOUNOS LAB HO 71)/Ll...LJ.7 '7f) I LI l -~ ? I") I I.J I..JJ.L
FIELD I q 5.,-'-f3 1¥-tl
<XJll'0lJj(I TYPE ( 2. • . I ::,, I ...3 \ ( I
IJIITS .... ,1ru o/lcQ • un/1 A1a/k<t UtJ/1: uAIIHw >uff/ 1 un/kq I orariet"'1ne /0 r,,. A Io
ran:methaM /,1
dlehlonxllfluoranethane :.'It}
~l Chloride 'I)
loroethaM 0 ' •thvlene clllorl de "I
1 rlChloroflU01"11111!thane ~10
then@ 1 1-cllc:hloro ,,-
thane. L 1-d1dllo,o..
,2-tranwldllOl'Clet!iene
lorofoN · •/
thlM. 1 '-"ldlloro-53-,., •thane. 1. 1. 1-tl'lcllloro-1 1. -lrachlOl'lde
l'Clllldl ell 1Cll'Cnttllane
1.2...Sldlloro-
l:3-tNns...tldll
lclll 1-
dlloradlb1 WUl4thlne
I --... -..
_.,._ 1. 1.2-tl'lc:hloro-
3-cts-.llc:111
E I •l-1 fthel' ID ,.,-
1.1.2.2-tetl'adllOl'O-
~-tnraclllorct-11-lordletlmne , -...... , ben:rene . ,. ' ,, ~ '-bu~ ,,.. I, , ' I .
10 I 111riland I SU 1 fl de .,
I '-M-. 10
l~~t.a!IOM J;J
' st-.,
' I .... , ICl!t.ate /(} , I nlenes ,u..i..11 .,... ., I ,1
I
Jil;IIJ/
u,Jti
-al1111..,,, va1ue. ' -· -Actu.l ••hi& Is known to be less than value 9lven •.
( I ( ' ua/ 1 u<t/kn .... , 1 ., •Iii•
L -Actu.l v.alue· Is 1r,-., to be 9f"'!IU!I' than value given. 1-lllterl.al -was .analyzed fOf' but not detected. TIW! ntl!t><ir Is tlW! "lnl111n Detection Ll111lt.= />'J.,t!?e:..... -Hat analyzed. ----Tent.atlve Identification.
_ -On HROC List of Prlo,-1 ty Pollutants. ,.c. Division of Health Services
-HS 3068-0 (4/86 Laboratory) "':lddS d>:!G3J · tJ:3H:i ~ H'.Ji-::1:11::; 7,, !--lf-..1 !='? :-':T ::-c,. ,=i;;i llf-'( L . '"