NCD044447589_20170930_2017 Blue Ridge Plating FYR

Second Five-Year Review Report
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
US EPA ID: NCD 044 447 589
Prepared for
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
It PRO^l
SEPTEMBER 2017
Prepared by
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Raleigh, North Carolina
din E. Hill, Director
Superfund Division
Dfte
11070115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS............................................................................iii
I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.I
Site Background.........................................................................................................................1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM.................................................................................2
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY...............................................................................................3
Basis for Taking Action............................................................................................................3
Response Actions........................................................................................................................4
Status of Implementation.........................................................................................................8
IC Summary Table......................................................................................................................9
Systems Operations/Operation & Maintenance...................................................................10
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REVIEW..................................................................................11
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS...............................................................................................13
Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews...................................................13
Data Review..............................................................................................................................13
Site Inspection...........................................................................................................................17
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................................18
QUESTION A: Is THE REMEDY FUNCTIONING AS INTENDED BY THE DECISION DOCUMENTS?.........18
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels,
AND REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOS) USED AT THE TIME OF THE
REMEDY SELECTION STILL VALID?................................................................................... 18
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call
INTO QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY?...............................................20
VI. ISSUES.......................................... .20
Other Findings..........................................................................................................................21
VII. PROTECTIVNESS STATEMENT..............................................................................................22
VIII. NEXT REVIEW.........................................................................................................................22
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -
APPENDIX B -
APPENDIX C -
APPENDIX D -
APPENDIX E -
APPENDIX F -
APPENDIX G -
APPENDIX H -
APPENDIX I -
REFERENCE LIST
SITE CHRONOLOGY
SITE INPSECTION CHECKLIST
SITE MAPS/FIGURES
ARAR REVIEW
NEWSPAPER AD/INTERVIEWS
2016 ANNUAL DATA EVALUATION
2017 DECLARATION OF PERPETUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
2017 EPA MEMORANDUM-HYDROGEOLOGY REVIEW
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County. NC
TABLES
TABLE 1 Soil Remediation Levels as Specified in the 2004 ROD...........................................7
TABLE 2 Groundwater Remediation Levels as Specified in the 2004 ROD.............................7
TABLE 3 IC Summary Table................................................................................................10
TABLE 4 O&M Costs and Events Conducted for 2012-2016.................................................11
TABLE 5 Protectiveness Determination/Statement from 2012 FYR.......................................12
TABLE 6 Explanation and Discussion of Recommendations and Issues from 2012 FYR......12
TABLE 7 COCs Detected Above Remediation Levels and/or NC2L (2013-2016).................15
TABLE 8 Trend Evaluation of the Groundwater data from 2007 to 2016...............................16
TABLE 9 ARAR Comparison of Remediation Levels and Current Standards........................19
TABLE 10 Groundwater Standards for Compounds Not-Specified in the ROD and
Currently detected in Groundwater........................................................................20
TABLE 11 Issues and Recommendations.................. 21
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Site Location Map..............................................................................................D-1
FIGURE 2 General Site Plan................................................................................................D-2
FIGURE 3 Soil Sampling Grid Locations.............................................................................D-3
FIGURE 4 Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations............................................................D-4
FIGURES IC Overlay Map..................................................................................................D-5
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County, SC
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BHHRA Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
bis Below Land Surface
BRP Blue Ridge Plating
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
cis-l,2-DCE cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
COC Contaminant of Concern
1,1-DC A 1,1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-DCA 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-DCE 1,1 -Dichloroethene
ESD Explanation of Significant Difference
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FYR Five-Year Review
1C Institutional Controls
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
Mg/kg milligrams per kilograms
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
MW Monitoring Well
NC 2L North Carolina Groundwater Standard
NCAC North Carolina Administration Code
NC DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC DEQ North Carolina Department of Environment Quality
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PCE Tetrachloroethene
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RAWP Remedial Action Work Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SARA Superfiind Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SVOCs Semi Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-TCA 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethene
l^g/L micrograms per Liter
U.S.C.United States Code
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
yd^cubic yards
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a Five-Year Review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a
remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the
environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports. In
addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to
address them.
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) prepared this FYR for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and considering EPA policy.
This is the second FYR for the Blue Ridge Plating Site (BRP Site or Site). The triggering action for this
statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR, September 26, 2012. A FYR has been
prepared due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above
levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The Site consists of one operable unit
(OU), which is addressed in this FYR. The OU addressed both contaminated soil and groundwater.
The BRP Site FYR was led by NC DEQ. Participants included Stephanie Grubbs (NC DEQ
Hydrogeologist), Beth Hartzell (NC DEQ Environmental Engineer), Jon Bornholm (EPA Remedial
Project Manager [RPM]), and Angela Miller (EPA Community Involvement Coordinator). The review
began on January 1, 2017.
Site Background
The BRP Site is located at 171 Glenn Bridge Road, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina and
occupies 3.06 acres. No structures remain on the property due to an emergency response action initiated
in December 2014 by the EPA and completed in May 2015. The Site is bounded to the north by Glenn
Bridge Road, to the east by an uimamed dead-end road, and to the south and west by wooded wetland
areas. This wetland area has been designated as a wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
following figures can be found in Appendix D: Figure 1 is a Site Location Map and Figure 2 is a
General Site Layout Map.
The BRP Company was a metal plating company, which operated business from 1974 to 2014 and used
black oxide, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, tin, and zinc in the electroplating processes. From
1974 to 1985, electroplating wastes were collected in drums located in the basement where plating
sludges were filtered out and the wastewater was directed to a 70,000-gallon in-ground concrete lagoon
located behind the shop. Plating sludges were shipped off Site for disposal and the wastewater was
either sprayed on the ground or reused as process water.
Between 1985 and 1990 the wastewater was discharged to the local municipal sewer system. In
1990, the municipality suspended access to the sewer system because BRP was not meeting
pretreatment requirements. After that suspension, BRP employed a closed loop reclamation system,
which was located in the basement.
Second Five-Year Review-
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Land use around the Site is primarily rural to light industrial. The nearest school is 1.5 miles north and
the nearest residence is approximately 500 feet to the west. Site drainage enters an uimamed tributary
south of the former concrete lagoon area. The unnamed tributary flows from the Site through an area of
forested wetlands into another unnamed tributary. This tributary drains into Lake Julian which empties
into the French Board River. Both Lake Julian and the French Board River are classified and protected
by the State of North Carolina as water supplies suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agricultural. Lake Julian was created to store cooling water
for a power plant located on the lake's northeastern shore. Currently, the entire immediate area around
the Site is connected to a municipal water supply system.
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: Blue Ridge Plating Site
EPAID: NCD044447589
Region: 4 State: NC City/County: Arden, Buncombe County
SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs? No Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: US EPA
Author name (Federal or State Project Manager):
Beth Hartzell (NC DEQ-Engineer)/Stephanie Grubbs (NC DEQ-Hydrogeologist)/Jon
Bornholm (US EPA-RPM)
Author affiliation: NC DEQ and US EPA
Review period: 01/01/2017 - 09/26/2017
Date of site inspection: 02/09/2017
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 2 (second)
Triggering action datej: 09/26/2012
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09/26/2017
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County, NC
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action
Potential complete exposure pathways to human and ecological receptors were identified in the 2004
Record of Decision (ROD) based on data collected for the 2004 Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment (BHHRA). The exposure scenarios are discussed further in the following section, Response
Action-Summary of Pre-ROD Activities, of this FYR.
Contaminants found on the Site that warranted remedial action include:
For Soil -
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)
1.1.1 -Trichloroethane (1,1,1 -TCA)
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCsl:
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Inorganics:
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese.
For Groundwater -
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs):
Chloroform
1.1 -Dichloroethane (1,1 -DCA)
1 j 1 -Dichloroethene (1,1 -DCE)
Trichloroethene (TCE)
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCsl:
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Nickel.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Based on historical records, the following areas of the Site were identified as sources of
contamination:
• Contaminated soil at the backdoor of the workshop, an alleged location of illicit dumping,
• Contaminated soil behind the building near a broken pipe,
• Contaminated soil in the abandoned vat area, and
• Contaminated soil near the former concrete lagoon.
Response Actions
Summary of Pre-ROD Activities:
BRP has been the subject of numerous investigations, warnings, violations, and court orders from the
EPA and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR, currently
the NC Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ). In December 1980, NCDENR inspected the
facility under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Soil samples revealed the presence of
1,1,1-TCA, TCE, toluene, and cadmium. NCDENR sent BRP a compliance order in March 1987. In
June 1989, NCDENR RCRA inspectors determined the facility had not address numerous aspects of the
March 1987 compliance order. After 1990, BRP claimed the facility discontinued discharging
wastewater to the sewer system. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ascertained the facility
continued to discharge to the sewer system. In 1991, a federal court found BRP guilty of discharging
heavy metals in excess of legal limits to the sewer system.
In 1993, NCDENR served another injunction to BRP for not submitting a closure plan. In 1997,
NCDENR received a complaint that BRP was disposing of plating wastes by dumping them outside the
back door and through cracks in the floor. Consequently, NCDENR requested the EPA to collect
environmental samples at the facility. The April 1998 sampling effort found elevated levels of cadmium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, nickel, tin, and zinc in samples collected from inside and outside the BRP
building. As a result of this sampling effort, the facility was placed in Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System in October 1998.
NCDENR conducted the Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection in July 1999 and an Expanded Site
Investigation was conducted in September 2000. In an October 2002 correspondence, the NCDENR
RCRA Program deferred the Site to the Superfund Program.
From September 2002 through September 2004, a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was
conducted. The RI characterized the nature and probable extent of the hazardous waste at the Site in soil,
groundwater, and surface water/sediment. The major key points of the RI are summarized below:
• Thirteen of the twenty surface soil sample locations indicate inorganic contamination higher than
regulatory limits.
• Groundwater at the BRP Site contains inorganic and organic constituents at concentrations
greater than the lowest regulatory screening values.
• The most important fate and transport processes acting on contaminants in the groundwater at the
site are most likely: Adsorption and advection for inorganic contaminants; Biodegradation or
other transformation reactions for volatile organic contaminants; and Adsorption and
biodegradation for semi-volatile organic contaminants. Oxidizing conditions are likely to exist in
the groundwater at the BRP Site as evidenced by the high redox and dissolved oxygen values
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
recorded during groundwater sampling; therefore, constituents such as chromium, nickel, and
zinc may be the more susceptible inorganics to migrate in groundwater.
• Overall, inorganic contamination associated with the electroplating process is widespread
throughout the various environmental media at the BRP Site. Based on surface water and
sediment samples collected offsite, the only constituents that have appeared to migrate
considerably in these media are copper, cyanide, and zinc.
A BHHRA was conducted as part of the RI. The BHHRA evaluated the contaminants associate with
surface and subsurface soils; shallow and deep surficial groundwater, and surface water and sediment
along exposure pathways and receptors. Risks were evaluated for the following four scenarios; future
on-Site adult/child resident; on-Site industrial worker; construction worker; and adolescent trespasser.
The results concluded there were no current unacceptable carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic risk for any
of these four scenarios. None of these four scenarios resulted in an unacceptable future carcinogenic or
non-carcinogenic risk for an adolescent trespasser. However, hypothetical exposure scenarios resulted in
potential unacceptable risk for future construction worker and adult/child resident. The largest
contributor for the construction worker was ingestion of and dermal contact with metals in the soil as
well as metals ingestion in groundwater. The largest contributor to the future adult/child resident
included ingestion of and dermal contact with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and arsenic in the
surface soil as well as ingestion and dermal contact of VOCs in the groundwater. An ecological risk
assessment was also conducted and the area of concern for ecological risk coincides with the area of
concern for human health. The conclusion reached in the "Toxicity and Bioaccumulation Potential of
Sediment Samples from BRP Site ” (August 2006) was while it was unclear if sediments would be toxic
or bioaccumulate, the concentrations are above the alternative toxicity values, indicating a possible issue
on the south side of the unnamed tributary.
On September 14, 2005, the Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) established pursuant
to 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 9605(a)(8).
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs):
The ROD for the Site was signed on September 29, 2004. As stated in the 2004 ROD Section VllI:
RAOs, "CERCLA, as amended by Section 121(b) o/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA), requires the selection of remedial actions that attain a degree of cleanup which ensures
protection of human health and the environment, are cost effective, and use permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource technologies to the maximum extent practicable. To
satisfy CERCLA requirements, RAOs were developed for the Blue Ridge Plating Site. RAOs will be used
to develop general response actions for the Site that are protective of current and future construction
worker, future Site residents, and the environment.
The key contaminants of concern (COCs) are metals along with a number of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The soil/sediment cleanup goals
were derived from predominantly leachate models for the metals in order to be protective of the
underlying groundwater along a health based risk level for chromium. The groundwater cleanup goals
were based on Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) (North Carolina
Groundwater Classifications and Standards (ISA NCAC 2L) (NC 2L)) or background concentrations.
The following are Site-specific RAOs for each environmental medium:
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Surface Soil/Dry Sediment
• Prevent ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact with soil containing contaminants at
concentrations in excess of total hazard indices greater than I and/or a cumulative excess
lifetime cancer risk greater than one out of one ten thousand (1 out of10,000) for a future
construction worker use scenario.
• Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources. The presence of
the contaminants in the soil matrix presents a possible source for groundwater at the Site via
leaching and surface water/sediment contamination at the Site via surface runoff.
Groundwater
• Prevent ingestion or direct contact with groundwater containing constituents at concentrations
in excess of current NCAC 2L groundwater standards or federal regulatory drinking water
standards (Maximum Contaminant Levels) MCLs and total Hazard Indices greater than 1.
• Prevent migration of contaminants to prevent degradation of natural resources."
Table 1 is the Soil Remediation Levels as specified in the 2004 ROD along with the rationale for the
remediation goal. Table 2 is the Groundwater Remediation Levels as specified in the 2004 ROD as
modified by the 2008 Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) along with the rationale for the
remediation level. Appendix E presents a discussion of Site ARARs.
Remedy Components:
2004 ROD;
The 2004 ROD required the following cleanup activities:
• Excavation, treatment (if needed), and off-Site disposal for contaminated soils/sediments, which
exceed cleanup levels.
• Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) for contaminated groundwater. In the event MNA cannot
be substantiated after the removal of the contaminated soils, a groundwater contingency remedy
includes in-situ chemical oxidation/reduction/immobilization and long-term monitoring. The
decision to implement a contingent remedy will be made after three years of collecting
groundwater data following the completion of the soil cleanup.
• Installation of additional groundwater monitoring wells and conducting groundwater modeling to
assess MNA.
• Implementation of institutional controls (ICs).
• Conduct FYRs every five years until the levels of contaminants in the groundwater reach their
specific cleanup level.
2008 Explanation of Significant Difference fESD):
In June 2008, an ESD was issued for the Site to correct a transcription error in Table 18 of the 2004
ROD that listed the cleanup levels for COCs in the groundwater for 1,1-DCA. The cleanup goal for 1,1-
DCA in the ROD was stated to be 0.38 micrograms per liter (pg/L) when the actual concentration
should have been 700 pg/L, based on the 2004 NC 2L Groundwater Standard. This correction did not
change, alter, or modify the groundwater remediation strategy or the anticipated cleanup time frame for
the groundwater remedial action.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County, NC
Table 1: Soil Remediation Levels
Contaminant
Leachability of Soil
Contamination to
Groundwater
(mg/kg)
Remediation Level
(mg/kg)
Rationale for
Remediation
Level
VOCs
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)7.4 7.4 1
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)1,670 1,670 1
SVOCs
2-Methylnaphthalene 1,720 1,720 1
Naphthalene 585 585 1
Inorganics
Cadmium 2.7 2.7 1
Chromium -882 2
Cyanide 31.1 31.1 1
Iron 151 49,000 3
Manganese 65.2 772 4
NOTES:
1. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
2. Concentration of constituent that remain in soil without leachate adversely impacting
groundwater quality above the NC 2L Standard
3. Construction worker scenario from Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment
4. Regional soil concentration obtained from NCDENR (currently NCDEQ)
5. Site specific background concentration
Table 2: Groundwater Remediation Levels
Contaminant Remediation Level I Rationale for
(pg/L) 1 Remediation Level
vocChloroform 0.19 1
1,1 -Dichloroethane (1,1 -DCA)700*1
1,1 -Dichloroethene (1,1 -DCE)7 1
Tetrachloroethene (PCE)0.7 1
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (1,1,1 -TCA) 200 1
Trichloroethene (TCE)2.8 1
SVOC
2-Methylnaphthalene 14 1
Naphthalene 21 1
Pentachlorophenol 0.3 1
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Table 2: Groundwater Remediation Levels
Contaminant Remediation Level
(Hg/L)
Rationale for
Remediation Level
Inorganics
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
3,800
300
100 1
NOTES:
1. |ig/L = micrograms per liter
2. North Carolina Administrative Code 15 NCAC 02L
3. Site Specific background concentration
* 2008 ESD changed Remediation Level from 0.38 micrograms per Liter to
700 micrograms per Liter
Status of Implementation
Soil
Metals contamination appeared to be widespread in the surface soils and to a lesser extent in shallow
subsurface soils, primarily 2 to 4 feet below land surface (bis). The following contaminants were
identified as the BRP Site-specific COCs for soil media: PCE, 1,1,1-TCA, 2-methylnapthalene,
naphthalene, cadmium, chromium, cyanide, iron, and manganese. The majority of the soil contamination
was found within the top 1.5 feet. The remedial activities were conducted between December 2006 and
June 2007 and included subdividing the 1.6 acres to be excavated into 50 feet by 50 feet grids (perimeter
sampling expanded to approximately 2.1 acres). The remediated areas were backfilled, graded, and re­
seeded. A total of 13,105 tons (8,737 cubic yards [yd^]) of soil was removed and 6,105 tons (4,070 yd^)
of soil was backfilled and graded. Upon completion of soil remediation activities, analytical data
indicated that 39 grids and the perimeter grids had been remediated to below the action levels. However,
five grids were still slightly above action levels. Refer to Appendix D, Figure 3 for a map of the grid
locations.
Excavation was terminated based on the fact that the results were near the remediation levels identified
for the Site and the grids would be backfilled with a minimum of 2 feet of clean compacted soil. This 2
feet minimum compacted layer of clean backfill material would minimize human exposure and the
threat to ecological receptors. On July 24, 2007, EPA personnel traveled to the Site to re-sample grid
EG-8, which had soils notably above the remediation levels (cadmium at 21 mg/kg and manganese at
2,700 mg/kg). After marking out the boundary of the grid, two five-point composite soil samples were
collected from this grid. To insure the soil cleanup effort was successful, this same sampling effort was
duplicated for grids EG-16 and EG-17. The 2inalytical results for all of the COCs for these soil samples
were below cleanup levels. EPA determined that grid EG-8 met the cleanup levels. The average
concentration of cadmium left on Site in all grids is approximately 1.2 mg/kg (omitting all non-detects),
8
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County. NC
which is below the cleanup level. In addition, the former pond, which had silted in over the years on the
adjacent downgradient property, was excavated to remove the contaminated sediment that had
accumulated in the pond basin. At the request of the property owner, this excavation was not backfilled
with clean fill. The property owner planned on repairing the earthen dike/dam and reforming the pond.
Groundwater
Volatile and semi-volatile organic contaminants were detected in isolated areas of the aquifer beneath
the BRP Site. COCs for groundwater include; chloroform; 1,1-DCA; 1,1-DCE; PCE; 1,1,1- TCA; TCE;
2-methylnapthalene; naphthalene; pentachlorophenol; arsenic; cadmium; cyanide; iron; manganese; and
nickel. Cadmium and manganese contamination delineate the boundaries of the plume. For the
groundwater cleanup phase, the ROD selected MNA as the Remedial Action. However, injecting a
reagent(s) in the underlying aquifer to oxidize/reduce/immobilize the contaminants in place along with
long-term monitoring was included as a contingent remedy for groundwater.
Surface Water and Sediment
The BHHRA concluded that surface water was not a media of concern for any scenario; therefore, no
COCs were selected. Cadmium, chromium, and iron were determined to be COCs in dry
sediment/surface soil.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
The ROD called for ICs in the form of land use restrictions or restrictive covenants. As part of the
negotiated agreement between EPA and the BRP Company, the BRP Company would place ICs on the
BRP property using the State’s Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions (DPLUR) process. ICs in
the form of Land Use Restrictions were signed on March 13, 2017. Appendix H contains a copy of the
DPLURs for the BRP property. Table 3 summarizes the ICs status and Figure 5 is an IC overlay map of
the property boundary.
Groundwater contamination has been detected in off-Site monitoring wells, southwest of the property,
above safe drinking water standards (NC 2Ls and/or MCLs). As stated previously, groundwater in the
vicinity is not being used as a drinking water source. However, there are no instruments in place to
prevent the installation of a drinking water well on the properties that have been impacted. ICs are
needed on the properties were groundwater contamination is detected above safe drinking water
standards.
Second Five-Year Re\ iew
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Table 3: IC Summary Table
Media
Groundwater
Soil
Groundwater
ICs
Needed
ICs Called for
in the Decision
Documents
IC Objective
ICs may include but not
limited to deed
restrictions or
covenants. To limit the
use of the property for
exclusively commercial
or industrial purposes
ICs may include but not
limited to deed
restrictions or
covenants or local
ordinances to prevent
installation of potable
wells into contaminated
groundwater.
Parcel and Deed
Book/ Page(s)
9644-91-4587-00000
Deed Book 5529
Deed Page 1745
Plat Book 0172
Plat Page 0150
9644-91-2501-00000
Deed Book 1395
Deed Page 0644
Plat Book 0000
Plat Page 0000
9644-91-0522-00000
Deed Book 1686
Deed Page 0571
Plat Book 0061
Plat Page 0184
9644-81-9812-00000
Deed Book 2092
Deed Page 0230
Plat Book 0047
Plat Page 0133
Instrument in
Place
Declaration of
Perpetual
Land Use
Restrictions
System Operation/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
The EPA tasked Versar (formerly J. M. Waller Associates) to collect aimual groundwater samples from
the Site’s monitoring well network and prepare an Annual Data Evaluation Report based on the
analytical data for each sampling event. The April 2017 Data Evaluation Report presents data and
information obtained during the annual sampling event in June 2016 and compares it to groundwater
data collected at the Site since 2007, the completion of the soil remediation action. The 2016 sampling
event included collection of samples from 27 of the 28 on-Site monitoring wells. Monitoring well MW-
19D, which is an off-Site well downgradient of the BRP property, was not sampled as the well was
destroyed by construction activities. Three additional monitoring wells owned and maintained by Duke
Energy were also sampled during the 2016 sampling event. These three wells are also downgradient of
the BRP property and close to Lake Julian.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
As provided by Versar, Table 4 below describes the O&M costs and the events conducted each year,
which clarifies the fluctuations in O&M costs.
ni. PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
This is the second FYR Report. This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements
from the 2012 FYR and the current status of those recommendations.
Table 5 provides the protectiveness statement included in the 2012 FYR and Table 6 summarizes the
issues and recommendations stated in the 2012 FYR report. Table 6 also provides the implementation
status and/or completion of these recommendations.
Table 4: O&M Costs and Events Conducted from 2012-2016
Year
Cost
(rounded off to
nearest $100)
Activities
2016 $34,300 Annual groundwater sampling event including sampling of the three
Duke Energy Wells. No MNA parameters collected.
2015 $49,200
Annual groundwater sampling event including sampling of the three
Duke Energy Wells. Eliminated MNA parameter analyses. Costs for
2014 annual report were incurred in 2015.
2014 $63,400
Annual groundwater sampling event plus a second mobilization to
sample three wells owned by Duke Energy. Costs for 2013 annual
report were incurred in 2014.
2013 $52,400
Annual groundwater sampling event including new wells installed in
2012 plus disposal of 73 investigative derived waste drums from
previous Site investigations.
2012 $88,100
Annual groundwater sampling event plus additional surface water and
sediment sampling for 5-year review. Installed 5 new monitoring wells
to further delineate downgradient groundwater contamination.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Table 5: Protectiveness Determination/Statement from 2012 FYR
Sitewide
Sitewide
Protectiveness
Determination
Short-term
Protective
Protectiveness Statement
The remedy at the Site currently protects human health and the environment
in the short term because 1) the soil contamination was remediated through
source removal and 2) currently, no human exposure pathways exist to
contaminated groundwater as municipal water is supplied at and surrounding
the Site. As this is the first FYR, MNA data is currently being gathered and
the appropriateness of MNA needs to be determined. However, in order for
the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the following actions need to
be taken to ensure long-term protectiveness: implement institutional
controls, complete delineation of the VOC plume, and issue an ESD to 1)
allow the collection of additional groundwater data to complete the
evaluation of monitored natural attenuation and 2) revise performance
standards for 1,1 -DCA and cyanide. _____
Table 6: Explanation and Discussion of Recommendations and Issues Highlighted 2012 FYR
Issues Recommendations Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date
(if applicable)
ICs have not been
implemented (i.e.,
NCDENR Perpetual
Land Use Restrictions)
Implement Perpetual
Land Use Restrictions Completed
Declaration of
Perpetual Land Use
Restrictions
March 13,
2017
Downgradient of the
Site needs additional
groundwater
investigation
Install additional
monitoring wells
downgradient to
complete plume
delineation
Completed Wells MW 15S and
MW15D installed
December 12,
2010
Completed Wells MW 16S and
MW16D installed
January 10,
2012
Completed
Wells MW 17, MW 18,
MW 19, MW20
installed
December 06,
2013
Additional data is
necessary in order to
determine if
implementing
contingent groundwater
remedy is necessary
Issue an ESD to allow
the collection of
additional groundwater
data to complete the
evaluation of monitored
natural attenuation
Ongoing
Adjust the three-year
MNA groundwater
monitoring sampling
schedule to begin after
the completion of the
2015 Emergency
Response Action
NA
Current performance
standards for 1,1-DC A
and cyanide are not
protective of human
health
Issue an ESD to revise
performance standards
for 1,1-DCA and cyanide
Ongoing ESD needed NA
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County. NC
In December 2013, the City of Asheville determined that the building on the BRP property was unsafe
and advised no entry into the building, which subsequently closed the facility. Because of the presence
of hazardous substances that remained on Site, the EPA initiated an emergency response action at the
property. Based on the EPA Action Memorandum dated November 18, 2014, the City of Asheville, the
EPA and the NCDEQ RCRA program documented building disrepair; numerous containers or vats of
highly corrosive materials in poor condition; and evidence of suspected plating waste solid residue on
the floor along the base of the plating line. The response action began in December 2014 and was
completed in May 2015. The response action included a pre-demolition asbestos inspection, demolition
of the building, removal of the concrete floor, removal of 3,950 tons of contaminated soil from under the
footprint of the building, and abandonment of an old supply well.
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Involvement, & Site Interviews
The NC DEQ Superfund Section performed the second FYR process for the BRP Site. Beth Hartzell
(Environmental Engineer) and Stephanie Grubbs (Hydrogeologist) from NC DEQ were responsible for
gathering and reviewing data for this review and compiling all the information into the FYR Report for
the EPA. Telephone and/or email discussions/interviews with Jon Bornholm (EPA RPM) were
conducted.
The community was notified via a public notice in the local newspaper. The Asheville Citizen Times, on
March 24, 2017 regarding the FYR process at the Site. A copy of the public notice is included in
Appendix F. Due to a low level of interest, no community interviews were conducted for this review.
This low community interest assessment was made by EPA during the emergency response action.
After the FYR has been approved and signed by the EPA, copies will be placed for the public to view at:
the EPA Record Center, 11* Floor, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303; the information
repository for the Site located at the Buncombe Skyland Library, 260 Overlook Road, Asheville, North
Carolina; and, on the EPA website (https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfimd-five-vear-
reviews).
Data Review
The annual Data Evaluation Reports by Versar were developed under an EPA task order for sampling
and analytical support at the Site. As stated in the report, “The goal is to collect groundwater and MNA
data to evaluate whether the ongoing MNA is a viable remedy for the groundwater at the Site. ”
Groundwater
Since the previous FYR, four annual sampling events have occurred, March 2013, August
2014, July 2015, and June 2016. During the most recent sampling event in June 2016, gromidwater
samples were collected from 27 of 28 monitoring wells. Monitoring wells located on the BRP property
include: MWOlS, MWOID, MW03S, MW04S, MW05S, MW06S, MW06D, MW07S, MW08S,
MW09S, MW09D, MWlOS, MWl IS, MW12S, AND MW12D. Monitoring wells located off Site
include: MW13S, MW13D, MW12S, MW14D, MW15S, MW15D, MW16S, MW16D, MW17S,
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County. NC
MW17D, MW18D, MW19D, AND MW20D. The “S” indicates a monitoring well screened in the
shallow region of the underlying aquifer and the “D” indicates a monitoring well screened in the deeper
zone of the underlying aquifer. MW19D, an off-Site well, was not sampled as the well was destroyed
during construction activities at the well location. In addition, three off-Site wells (AMW-3A, AMW-
3B, and MW-10), which are owned and maintained by Duke Energy, were sampled in the 2016
sampling event. See Appendi.\ D Figure 4 for a monitoring well location map. Appendix G, 2016 Data
Evaluation Report, Table 3-1 is a table of all the Groundwater Analytical Data Summary from
September 2007 through June 2016.
The following contaminants were detected above ROD cleanup levels during the 2016 sampling event:
• 1,1-DCE: MWOID, MW06S, MW08S, MWlOS, MWl IS, MW13D, MW15S, MW16D,
MW20D
• Chloroform: MW06S, MWl IS, MW12D, MW13D, MW16D, MW17S, MW20D
• PCE: MWOID, MW06D, MW06S, MW08S, MW09D/MW09S (upgradient wells), MWlOS,
MWl IS, MW12D, MW12S, MW13D, MW14D, MW15D, MW15S, MW16D, MW17D,
MW17S,MW20D
TCE: MW06S, MW08S, MWl IS, MW12D, MW12S, MW13D, MW16D, MW20D
Cadmium: MW03S, MW05S, MW12S
Iron: MWOID, MW04S
Manganese: MWOlS, MW03S, MW04S, MW05S, MW12S, MW16D, MW16S
The following contaminants were not detected above ROD cleanup goals but were detected above the
2013 amended North Carolina Groundwater Standards (NC 2L) during the 2016 sampling event:
• 1,1-DCA: MW06S,MW08S, MWlOS, MWl IS, MW12S,MW16D
• Cadmium: MWOlS, MW16S
• Iron: MWOlS, MW03S, MW13D, MW16S, MW17D, MW18D
• Manganese: MWOID, MWlOS, MWl IS, MW13S, MW15D, MW15S, MW17S, MW18D
In addition, the contaminants listed below were not detected during the Remedial Investigation and
therefore included in the ROD but have been detected in the groundwater during recent groundwater
sampling events above either current EPA MCLs or NC 2L:
• 1,4-Dioxane: MWOID, MW06D, MW06S, MW12D, MW13D, MW16D
• 1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA): MW6S, MWllS
• 1,2-DichIoroethane (1,2-DCA): MW6S
• Carbazole: MWOlS
• Chromium: MW06S, MWlOS
• Cobalt: MWOlS, MW05S, MW06S, MWlOS, MW12S, MW16S
Groundwater analytical results indicated that chlorinated VOCs were detected at concentrations above
the ROD cleanup levels in 21 of the 30 wells sampled. In the 2016 data, the highest VOC concentrations
were detected in MW06S. The metals cadmium, iron, and manganese were detected above ROD cleanup
levels, with exceedances of cadmium in four wells (MW03S, MW05S, MW07S, and MW12S), iron in
two wells (MWOID and MW04S), and manganese in eight wells (MWOlS, MW03S, MW04S, MW05S,
MW07S, MW12S, MW16D, and MW16S). Appendix G (Table 3-1) is a table of all the Gixjundwater
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
The Site Inspection Checklist notes that no vandalism was evident. All monitoring wells were located
and in good condition. However, MW-7S, MW-14S, and MW-14D were unlocked and new locks for
these wells are needed. The EPA said they would supply the new locks. Monitoring data is routinely
submitted and the MNA groundwater monitoring is conducted annually. Appendix C is the completed
Site Inspection Checklist.
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes. As stated in the 2016 Data Evaluation Report, Versar recommends continuing annual groundwater
monitoring in accordance with the recommendations of the First FYR. Groundwater concentrations,
based on statistical testing, suggest chlorinated VOC concentrations generally appear to be decreasing in
most shallow wells. However, in the deep wells, either an increasing trend, stable trend, or no trend is
evident. For inorganics, data indicates most wells display decreasing trend, stable trend, or no trend. The
only metals data set with an increasing trend was iron in MW04S.
One of the unresolved, carry-over issues from the First FYR was the need for an ESD to allow for the
collection of additional groundwater data to complete an evaluation of the MNA remedy. This issue as
stated in the previous FYR was recommended due to the ROD requiring a decision to potentially
implement a contingent remedy “w/7/ be made after three years of collecting groundwater data
following the completion of the soil cleanup However, as stated in the “Data Review” section,
EPA/NC DEQ concur it is appropriate to continue MNA groundwater monitoring and to start the three-
year MNA monitoring schedule from the completion of the 2015 Emergency Reponses Action. This
three-year monitoring period would run from May 2015 to May 2018. Following the collection of this
data, a decision on appropriateness of MNA at this site, using EPA’s guidance on MNA, will be made.
Currently, no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or groundwater. The remedy remains
protective in the short-term in that ICs are in place on the BRP property and MNA groundwater
monitoring is occurring annually. However, the groundwater plume has migrated off Site; therefore, it is
recommended to identify and evaluate potential ICs on properties within the vicinity of the site.
Question B: Are THE EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS, toxicity data, clean-up levels and
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES (RAOS) USED AT THE TIME OF THE REMEDYSTHL VALID?
No. The NC Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwater of North
Carolina, NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2L, on which some of the remedial levels are based, were last
amended on June 1, 2013. CERCLA requires that the remedy comply with any standard, requirement,
criteria, or limitation under any Federal environmental law (such as Federal MCLs here), as well as any
promulgated State standard that is more stringent than any federal standard. Currently, six compounds
have NC 2L standards more stringent than the ROD designated cleanup level. These compounds are 1,1-
DCA, naphthalene, cadmium, cyanide, iron, and manganese. It should be noted that naphthalene and
cyanide are currently not detected above the ROD cleanup levels or the new NC 2L. Table 9 presents a
comparison of the 2005 ROD, as modified, remediation levels to groundwater current standards.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Table 8: Trend Evaluation of the Groundwater Data from 2007 to 20
Contaminants
Naphthalene
Wells with Decreasing or
Probably Decreasing
Trend
None
Pentachlorophenol
Inorganics
Cadmium
Wells with
Increasing or
Probably
Increasing Trend
[None
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
None
MWOlS, MW06S, MW07S,
MW08S
MW06S None
MW07S
MWOlS, MW03S, MW05S,
MW06S, MW08S, MWlOS,
MW12D,MW13D,
MW14D, MW15S, MW16S,
MW16D, MW17S, MW17D,
MW20D
None
None
Wells with No Trend or
Stable Trend
MWOlS
None
MW04S
None
MWOlS
MW03S, MW05S, MW12S
MW03S, MW05S, MW08S
MW04S, MW07S, MW12S,
MW13S,MW18D
In June 2017, the US EPA reviewed the most recent groundwater data as part of the FYR. It was noted
that the recent remedial action (the Emergency Response Action which occurred from December 2014
through May 2015 and included the demolition of the on-Site dilapidated building and removal of 3,950
tons of contaminated soil from under the footprint of the building) appears to have caused a brief
increase in groundwater contaminant concentrations due to the increased groundwater recharge through
the contaminated areas as the soils were being excavated or disturbed. This soil disturbance would only
be reflected in the groundwater data from the most recent monitoring results, July 2015 and June 2016.
Appendix I is a copy of the 2017 EPA Memorandum-Hydrogeology Review.
As stated in the ROD, the decision to implement a potential contingent remedy "'will be made after three
years of collecting groundwater data following the completion of the soil cleanup ”. Based on the 2014-
2015 Emergency Response Action, which is a component of the soil cleanup as well as the assessment
of increased groundwater recharge and subsequent increase in groundwater contaminant concentration,
it would be appropriate to continue MNA groundwater monitoring for the three years as called for in the
ROD and to start the three-year monitoring MNA schedule from the completion of the 2015 Emergency
Reponses Action.
Site Inspection
The inspection of the Site was conducted on February 02, 2017. In attendance were Jon Bornholm
(EPA), and Beth Hartzell (NC DEQ). The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of
the remedy.
17
Second Five- Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County, NC
As stated within the 2016 Data Evaluation Report, 25 wells had enough data sets that qualified for
statistical calculations. From these 25 wells, 100 data sets were analyzed to determine trends in
concentrations of contaminants of concern over time. The data sets analyzed primarily were limited to
those containing constituents exceeding the ROD cleanup levels. The Maim-Kendall statistical test was
used to identify statistically significant trends in the groundwater contaminant concentrations generated
from the sampling events that have occurred from September 2007 through June 2016. The Mann-
Kendall test is a nonparametric test that can help identify changes in contaminant concentrations over
time, for a minimum of four samples. This test cannot verify the rate at which concentrations are
changing. Results of the trend evaluation are summarized in Table 8.
In the Conclusions and Recommendations for the 2016 Data Evaluation Report, it was noted that,
“Based on analysis of groundwater concentration trends at the Site using the Mann-Kendall statistical
test, chlorinated VOC concentrations generally appear to be exhibiting a decreasing trend in most
shallow wells but either an increasing trend, stable trend, or no trend in most deep wells. For metals,
the Mann-Kendall test indicated that most wells display decreasing trend, stable trend, or no trend.
The only metals data set with an increasing trend was iron in MW04S.
Based on groundwater monitoring data collected from 2007 through 2016, Versar recommends
continuing annual groundwater monitoring in accordance with the recommendations of the First Five
Year Review. ”
Table 8: Trend Evaluation of the Groundwater Data from 2007 to 2(116
Contaminants
Wells with Decreasing or
Probably Decreasing
Trend
1
Wells with
Increasing or
Probably
Increasing Trend
Wells with No Trend or
Stable Trend
1
VOCs
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane MW06S,MW10S,MW11S None None
1,1 -Dichloroethane MW06S, MW08S, MWlOS,
MW18D MW12D,MW13D
MWOID, MW06D, MWl IS,
MW12D, MW16D, MW17S,
MW20D
1,1-Dichloroethene MW06S, MW08S, MWlOS,
MW18D
MWOID, MW06D, MWl IS,
MW16D, MW17S, MW20D
Chloroform MWOlS, MW05S, MW06S,
MW08S,MW12D MWllS MWOID, MW12S, MW13D,
MW15D,MW16D
T etrachloroethene MW08S, MWlOS MW12D,
MW13D,MW15D
MWOlD, MW06D, MW06S,
MW09S, MWl IS, MW13S,
MW14D, MW15S, MW16D,
MW17S, MW17D, MW20D
Trichloroethene MW08S, MWlOS MW13D
MW06S, MWl IS, MW12S,
MW12D, MW13S, MW15S,
MW16D, MW17S, MW20D
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Analytical Data Summary from September 2007 through June 2016. Table 7 lists the COCs detected
above remedial levels and/or NC 2Ls between the following years: 2013-2016.
Table 7: COCs Detected Above Bremedial 1.evels and/or NC 2Ls (2013-2016)
COC
ROD
Remedial
Level
(pg/L)
2013
NC 2L
(pg/L)
Maximum Detected Concentration
(pg/L)
2013 2014 2015 2016
Trichloroethene
Cadmium
2,400 2,700Manganese
1,1-Dioxane
Inorganics
VOCs
Contaminants not Specified in the ROD
Cyanide
18,000
Chloroform
T etrachloroethene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vanadium_________ NE 0.3 _____17_____| 16 | 12
r~~] Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Levels are shaded
Bold Print - Analytical results exceeding the NC 2L Groundwater Standard are Bold Print
pg/L - micrograms per Liter_________________________________________________
Vinyl Chloride
Carbazole
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.68J
0.25J
0.57J
Three nested wells located northwest of the BRP Site near the southern end of Lake Julian (AMW-3A,
AMW-3B, and MW-10) are owned and maintained by Duke Energy. These wells have been sampled
annually with the permission of Duke Energy since November 2014 to support monitoring of the Site.
MW-10 is completed across the water table in the upper part of the saprolite aquifer, AMW-3A is
completed to the top of bedrock at the base of the saprolite aquifer, and AMW-3B is completed in the
bedrock aquifer. The only exceedances of ROD cleanup levels in these wells in June 2016 were the
chloroform concentrations in AMW-3A (estimated 0.44 pg/L) and AMW-3B (estimated 0.32 pg/L).
Additionally, chromium (59 pg/L) and vanadium (6.2 pg/L) exceeded NC 2L in AMW-3A, and
manganese (190 pg/L) exceeded the standard in MW-10.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County. NC
In addition to the compounds with amended NC 2Ls, there are nine compounds, which were not
specified in the ROD as COCs, which do not have cleanup levels. These nine compounds (1,4-dioxane,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, carbazole, barium, chromium, cobalt, and
vanadium) have been detected above either the NC 2L or federal MCLs in one or more wells. Table 10
lists these nine contaminants along with their current MCL and/or NC 2L groundwater standard.
Table 9: ARAR Comparison of Remed iation Levels and Current Standards
Contaminant
Cleanup
Level
(Pg/L)
Current NC 2L (As
of June 1,2013)
(Jig/L)
Current Federal
MCL
(Pg/L)
Change in
ARAR?
Yes/No
\OC
Chloroform 0.19 70 -Yes
1,1 -Dichloroethane 700 6 -Yes
1,1 -Dichloroethene 7 350'7 Yes
T etrachloroethene 0.7 0.7 5 No
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane 200 200 200 No
Trichloroethene 2.8 3 5 Yes
SVOC
2-Methylnaphthalene 14 30 -Yes
Naphthalene 21 6 -Yes
Pentachlorophenol 0.3 0.3 1 No
Metals
Arsenic 10 10 10 No
Cadmium 5 2 5 Yes
Cyanide 154 70 200 Yes
Iron 3,800 300 300^Yes
Manganese 300 50 50^Yes
Nickel Too 100 -No
' This is the federal MCL. Where private drinking water well or public water supply system is impacted, the
applicable standard is 7, 15ANCAC 02L .0202
- Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
BOLD indicated the new standard is more stringent than the ROD Cleanup Goal
(ug/L)- micrograms per Liter __________________________________________________
The EPA emergency response action left the BRP property as a vacant parcel. In March 2017, the BRP
property was sold. Currently, there have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site that
would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, RAOs used at
the time of the remedy are still protective of human health and the environment and land use restrictions
have been implemented on the property.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County. NC
Question C: Has any other informa tion come to light tha t could call into
QUESTION THE PROTECTIVENESS OF THE REMEDY?
No additional information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the
remedy.
Table 10: Groundwater Standards for Compounds Not-Specified in the
ROD and Currently Detected in Groundwater
Contaminant
Current NC 2L
(As of June 1,2013)
(micrograms per Liter)
Current Federal MCL
(micrograms per Liter)
VOC
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.4 5
1,4-Dioxane 3 -
1,1,2-Trichloroethane -5
Vinyl Chloride 0.03 2
svoc
Carbazole --
Metals
Barium 700 2,000
Chromium 10 100
Cobalt --
Vanadium --
VI. ISSUES
Two issues have been identified during this review. These two issues are summarized below and are
included in Table 11 which captures the issues and recommendations specified in this FYR.
• The NC 2L groundwater standards, on which several of the cleanup levels are based, were
amended on June 1, 2013. Several ROD designated COCs currently have standards more
stringent than the ROD cleanup levels. In addition, nine compounds, which were not specified in
the ROD as COCs, do not have cleanup levels. An ESD is needed to amend the cleanup levels
for the Site.
• Groundwater contamination has migrated off of the Site at concentrations that exceed either
MCLs and/or NC 2Ls standards. It is recommended to identify and evaluate potential ICs on
properties within the vicinity of the Site.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Table 11: 2017 Issues and Recommendations
Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s): Sitewide
Groundwater
Issue Category: Monitoring
Issue: NC 2L Groundwater Standards were amended in 2013 and some of
these new standards are more stringent than the cleanup levels specified in the
2005 ROD, as modified. As well, nine additional COCs have been detected in
groundwater and cleanup standards for these COCs need to be specified.
Recommendation: A decision document is needed to amend the cleanup
levels for the Site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes EP A/State EP A/State 09/26/2018
OU(s): Sitewide
Groundwater
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Groundwater contamination has migrated off of the Site at
concentrations that exceed either MCLs and/or NC 2Ls standards.
Recommendation: Identify and evaluate potential ICs on properties within
the vicinity of the site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes EP A/State EP A/State 09/26/2019
Other Findings
An additional recommendation was identified during the FYR. This recommendation does not affect
current and/or future protectiveness.
• Determine if a Groundwater Remedy Completion Strategy evaluation is warranted. This
evaluation will help ensure a good strategy is in place to address potential, future groundwater
issues (i.e., if MNA is a viable alternative for groundwater at the site (refer to the following
website for guidance: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-groundwater-groundwater-
response-completion).
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Sitewide Proteetiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination: Short-Term Protective Addendum Due: NA
Protectiveness Statement:
The EPA and the State of North Carolina have determined that all of the remedial action construction
activities were performed in accordance to specifications. The remedy at the Site currently protects
human health and the environment in the short term as there are no human exposure pathways to
contaminated soil or groundwater. ICs in the form of Land Use Restrictions have been implemented
on the BRP property and the groundwater is being monitored on a regular basis. However, in order for
the remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions need to be taken; identify the
appropriate ICs to be implemented for the properties within the vicinity of the Site where groundwater
contamination has migrated to and modify the groundwater cleanup levels to reflect the revised NC 2L
standards and the additional contaminants being detected in the groundwater.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR for the Blue Ridge Plating Site is required five years from completion date of this review.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX A
Reference List
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX A
Reference List
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 2004. Feasibility Study, Blue Ridge
Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 2004. Remedial Investigation
Report, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North CaroUna.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. September 29, 2004. Record of Decision,
Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. September 26, 2012. First Five-Year Review
Report, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
NC DEQ, April 1, 2013, NCAC Title 15A, Subchapter 2L section. Classifications and Water
Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwaters of North Carolina.
JM Waller Associates, February 2014. Draft 2013 Data Evaluation Report. Blue Ridge Plating
Site, Arden, North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region fV. November 18, 2014. Action Memorandum,
Request for a Time-Critical Removal Action. Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
Crossroads Environmental, January 2, 2015. Comprehensive Asbestos Inspection Report. Blue
Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
JM Waller Associates, December 2015. Draft 2014 Data Evaluation Report. Blue Ridge Plating
Site, Arden, North Carolina.
Versar, July 2016. Draft 2015 Data Evaluation Report. Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North
Carolina.
Versar, December 2016. Draft 2016 Data Evaluation Report. Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden,
North Carolina.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. June 19, 2017. Memorandum Hydrogeology
Review, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina.
A-1
Arden, Buncombe County,
^PENDIX B
Site Chronology
APPENDIX B
Second Five-Year Rex’iew
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Event Date
Initial Site discovery December 17, 1998
Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection completed January 25, 2000
Expanded Site Inspection completed March 15,2001
Approval of Remedial Investigation (RI)/Feasibility Study (FS)
Work Plan (Final Sampling and Analysis Plan)April 2003
RI Report August 2004
RI and FS completed September 29, 2004
ROD signed September 29, 2004
Proposal to the National Priories List (NPL)April 27, 2005
Final Listing on NPL completed September 14, 2005
Remedial Design completed March 14, 2006
Remedial Action initiated November 2006
First Groundwater sampling event for MNA September 2007
PCOR signed September 27, 2007
Second Groundwater sampling event January 2008
Remedial Action Report completed March 31, 2008
Third Groundwater sampling event June 2008
ESD signed June 27, 2008
Fourth Groundwater sampling event January 2009
Annual Groundwater sampling event January 2010
Annual Groundwater sampling event January 2011
Annual Grormdwater sampling event January 2012
Annual Groundwater sampling event March 2013
City of Asheville determined the BRP building was unsafe and
advised no entry into the building.December 2013
Annual Groimdwater sampling event August 2014
EPA Action Memorandum dated 11/8/2014 to document disrepair
and evidence of improper storage.November 18, 2004
Response Action for pre-asbestos inspection, demolition, removal of
concrete floor, removal of 3,950 tons of contaminated soil,
abandonment of old supply well.
December 2014- May
2015
Annual Groundwater sampling event July 2015
Aimual Groundwater sampling event June 2016
B-1
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX C
Site Inspection Checklist
C-1
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: Blue Ridge Platying Site
Location and Region: Concord NC, US EPA Region
4
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: NC DEO
Date of Inspection: February 09, 2017
EPA ID: NCD044447589
Weather/Temperature: Not recorded
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
□ Landfill cover/containment
□ Access controls
^ Institutional controls
□ Ground water pump and treatment
Q Surface water collection and treatment
□ Other:
^ Monitored natural attenuation
HU Ground water containment
□ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: ^ Inspection team roster attached r~l Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Name Title
Interviewed Q at site □ at office □ by phone : ____
Problems, suggestions O Report attached:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name
Interviewed □ at site □ at office □ by phone
Problems/suggestions □ Report attached:
Title Date
4. Other Interviews (optional) [H Report attached:,
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1.O&M Documents
^ O&M manual ^ Readily available ^ Up to date □ n/a
□ As-built drawings □ Readily available Q Up to date ^N/A
□ Maintenance logs □ Readily available □ Up to date Sn/a
Remarks: In office/off-site
C-2
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
2.Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
□ Contingency plan/emergency response plan
Remarks: In office/off-site
Q Readily available
□ Readily available
□ Up to date
□ Up to date
E1n/a
3n/a
3.O&M and OSHA Training Records [3 Readily available □ Up to date.□ n/a
Remarks; In office/off-site
4.Permits and Service Agreements
Q Air discharge permit □ Readily available □ Up to date 3n/a
□ Effluent discharge □ Readily available □ Up to date KIn/a
□ Waste disposal, POTW □ Readily available □ Up to date 3 N/A
n Other oermits:□ Readily available □ Up to date 3 n/a
Remarks:
5.Gas Generation Records □ Readily available □ Up to date 3n/a
Remarks:
6.Settlement Monument Records □ Readily available □ Up to date 3n/a
Remarks:
7.Ground Water Monitoring Records 13 Readily available 3 Up to date □ n/a
Remarks: In office/off-site
8.Leachate Extraction Records □ Readily available □ Up to date 3 n/a
Remarks;
9.Discharge Compliance Records
Q Air □ Readily available □ Up to date 3n/a
□ Water (effluent) □ Readily available □ Up to date 3In/a
Remarks:
10.Daily Access/Security Logs □ Readily available n Up to date □ n/a
Remarks:
C-3
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
TV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
□ State in-house
O PRP in-house
l~l Federal facility in-house
□ __
n Contractor for state
□ Contractor for PRP
13 Contractor for Federal facility
2.O&M Cost Records
3 Readily available 3 Up to date
r~| Funding mechanism/agreement in place [H Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: O Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: 2012 To:$88,147 nH Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: 2013 To:$52,357 CH Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: 2014 To:$63,409 O Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: 2015 To:$49,172 nH Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: 2016 To:$34,348 □ Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3.Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: NA
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS 3 Applicable □ n/a
A. Fencing
1.Fencing Damaged □ Location shown on site map □ Gates secured
Remarks:
13 N/A
B. Other Access Restrictions
1.Signs and Other Security Measures □ Location shown on site map ^ N/A
Remarks:
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
1.Implementation and Enforcement*
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
Site conditions imply ICs not being flilly enforced
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by: annual certification
Frequency: Annual
Responsible party/agency: Havwood Vocational opportunities
Contact George Marchall
□ Yes Kl No □ N/A
□ Yes ^ No □ N/A
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up to date Kl Yes □ No □n/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency Kl Yes □ No □ n/a
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met lEl Yes □ No □ n/a
Violations have been reported □ Yes □ No □ n/a
Other problems or suggestions: □ Report attached
2.Adequacy □ ICs are adequate □ ICs are inadequate
Remarks: Institutional controls signed and recorded Marchl3, 2017
□ n/a
D. General
1.V andalism/T respassing □ Location shown on site map □ No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2.Land Use Changes On Site □ N/A
Remarks: None
3.Land Use Changes Off Site □ N/A
Remarks: None
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads □ Applicable □ N/A
1.Roads Damaged □ Location shown on site map □ Roads adequate □ n/a
Remarks:
B. Other Site Conditions
Remarks: NA
C-5
Second Five-Year Re\>iew
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
VII. LANDFILL COVERS □ Applicable ^ N/A
A. LandflU Surface
1.Settlement (low spots)
Arial extent:
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map P Settlement not evident
Deoth:
2.Cracks
Lengths:
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map
Widths:
P Cracking not evident
Depths:
3.Erosion
Arial extent:
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map P Erosion not evident
Depth:
4.Holes
Arial extent:
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map P Holes not evident
Deoth:
5.Vegetative Cover
P No signs of stress
Remarks:
P Grass P Cover properly established
P Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
6.Alternative Cover (e.g., armored rock, concrete)
Remarks:
Pn/a
7.Bulges
Arial extent:
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map P Bulges not evident
Height:
Wet AreasAVater Damage □ Wet areas/water damage not evident
Q Wet areas
P Ponding
P Seeps
P Soft subgrade
Remarks:
P Location shown on site map Arial extent:.
P Location shown on site map Arial extent:.
P Location shown on site map Arial extent:.
P Location shown on site map Arial extent:.
Slope Instability P Slides
P No evidence of slope instability
P Location shown on site map
C-6
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Anal extent:.
Remarks;
B. Benches □ Applicable □ N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in
order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1.Flows Bypass Bench Q Location shown on site map n N/A or okay
Remarks;
2.Bench Breached O Location shown on site map □ N/A or okay
Remarks:
3.Bench Overtopped Q Location shown on site map O N/A or okay
Remarks:
C. Letdown Channels □ Applicable ^ N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the steep side
slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move off of the landfill
cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.Settlement (Low spots)□ Location shown on site map □ No evidence of settlement
Arial extent:Denth;
Remarks;
2.Material Degradation □ Location shown on site map □ No evidence of degradation
Material tvne:Arial extent;
Remarks:
3.Erosion □ Location shown on site map Q No evidence of erosion
Arial extent:Denth:
Remarks;
4.Undercutting □ Location shown on site map □ No evidence of undercutting
Arial extent:Denth;
Remarks:
5.Obstructions Type:□ No obstructions
□ Location shown on site map Arial extent:
Size:
Remarks:
Excessive Vegetative Growth Type:.
C-7
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
□ No evidence of excessive growth
□ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
|~) I,ocation shown on site map Arial extent;
Remarks:
D.Cover Penetrations □ Applicable ^ N/A
1.Gas Vents □ Active im Passive
l~l Properly secured/locked O Functioning n Routinely sampled n Good condition
r~l Evidence of leakage at penetration D Needs maintenance □ n/a
Remarks:
2.Gas Monitoring Probes
n Properly secured/locked Q Functioning n Routinely sampled n Good condition
n Evidence of leakage at penetration n Needs maintenance □ n/a
Remarks:
3.Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill)
□ Properly secured/locked Q Functioning n Routinely sampled □ Good condition
O Evidence of leakage at penetration n Needs maintenance □ n/a
Remarks:
4.Extraction Wells Leachate
n Properly secured/locked Q Functioning n Routinely sampled □ Good condition
n Evidence of leakage at penetration □ Needs maintenance □ n/a
Remarks:
5.Settlement Monuments O Located l~l Routinely surveyed □ n/a
Remarks:
E.Gas Collection and Treatment □ Applicable lElN/A
1.Gas Treatment Facilities
□ Flaring □ Thermal destruction □ Collection for reuse
n Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
O Good condition O Needs maintenance
Remarks:
C-8
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
n Good condition CH Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks;
F. Cover Drainage Layer □ Applicable □ N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected O Functioning d N/A
Remarks;
2. Outlet Rock Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks;
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds □ Applicable d N/A
1. Siltadon Area extent; Depth; FI N/A
D Siltation not evident
Remarks;
2. Erosion Area extent; Depth;
□ Erosion not evident
Remarks;
3. Outlet Works O Functioning □ N/A
Remarks;
4. Dam d Functioning d N/A
Remarks;
H. Retaining Walls d Applicable ^ N/A
1. Deformations d Location shown on site map d Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement; Vertical displacement;
Rotational disolacement;
Remarks;
2. Degradation d Location shown on site map d Degradation not evident
Remarks;
I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge d Applicable d N/A
1. Siltation d Location shown on site map d Siltation not evident
Area extent; Depth;
Remarks;
C-9
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden. Buncombe County, NC
3.Erosion
Area extent:
Remarks:
n Location shown on site map □ Erosion not evident
Depth:
4.Discharge Structure
Remarks:
|~| Functioning □ n/a
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS □ Applicable ^N/A
1.Settlement
Area extent:
Remarks:
[I Location shown on site map Q Settlement not evident
Depth:
2.Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring:
2. Vegetative Growth H] Location shown on site map C] N/A
□ Vegetation does not impede flow
Area extent:____ Type:
Remarks:
n Performance not monitored
Frequency:
Head differential:
Remarks:
□ Evidence of breaching
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES □ Applicable ^ N/A
A. Ground Water Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines □ Applicable ^ N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
□ Good condition □ All required wells properly operating [II Needs maintenance □ N/A
Remarks:
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
□ Good condition D Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Eqiupment
n Readily available [I Good condition
Remarks:
r~l Requires upgrade [I Needs to be provided
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines □ Applicable ^ N/A
C-10
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
1. Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical
□ Good condition CH Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
n Good condition O Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3. Spare Parts and Equipment
O Readily available □ Good condition
Remarks:
|~| Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
C. Treatment System □ Applicable N/A
1. Treatment Train (check components that apply)
n Metals removal O Oil/water separation
r~| Air stripping CH Carbon adsorbers
□ Filters:
l~l Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent):
□ Others:
l~l Good condition CH Needs maintenance
l~| Sampling ports properly marked and functional
n Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
□ Equipment properly identified
□ Quantity of ground water treated annually:
n Quantity of surface water treated annually:
Remarks:
r~l Bioremediation*
I~1 In-situ chemical oxidation*
|~l Monitored natural attenuation*
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
n N/A Q Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
l~l N/A n Good condition O Proper secondary containment
Remarks:
l~] Needs maintenance
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
□ N/A Q Good condition Q Needs maintenance
C-11
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Remarks:
5. Treatment Building(s)
□ N/A □ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) CH Needs repair
l~l Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Q Properly secured/locked □ Functioning □ Routinely sampled □ Good condition
r~l All required wells located O Needs maintenance [U N/A
Remarks:
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
K Is routinely submitted on time ^ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
l~l Ground water plume is effectively contained ^ Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation*
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
(~~| Properly secured/locked ^ Functioning ^ Routinely sampled ^ Good condition
□ All required wells located □ Needs maintenance □ N/A
Remarks: MW-7S. MW-14S. and MW-14D need new locks-thev were not locked durine the Site
Insoection. EPA has said thev will orovide new locks.
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XL OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed.
Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant
plume, minimize infiltration and gas emissions).
B. Adequacy of O&M
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In
particular, discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
O&M orocedures are adeauate for current and lone-term nrotectiveness of the remedv.
C-12
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high
frequency of unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised
in the future.
Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
Site Inspection Participants
Jon Bornholm, US EPA Remedial Project Manager
Nile Testerman, NC DEQ Superfund Section Environmental Engineer (Retired 2/28/2017)
Beth Hartzell, NC DEQ Superfund Section Environmental Engineer
C-13
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX D
Figures
.......................................... . ,
.»^i,4^.-....k-.,^^v.., ■ ;4:. :■>:.. ..' - 4;* ..............-1,^ ^ i, - *.«s • v, '■ = ■ ■■•^4 ' '
.a- -a- ' • -■ :.
' ‘■' 4. ''i;'?'a^aaF a-a'-4"''a t «.', .: :;a a..- . - ^
‘m
-a; ■
r-
i Featuring MspFttint'’ ITecSnolcigy
a.
a;;;
S' . **■ ¥■ ■,4';:-’ a ■ -''Slf a,. .'
5Ss;;¥%
■> %■
r '¥r ■ :-H'
tfeywood
11 ■^7;Ro)w^Pine*^-, ___
'' ^ II I
"a '^162.'7
rC315^
' ■ ' a? a
. a.s 3524;
4- -■
7
aa' a
•i
.'.;h
Blue Ridge Plating Company Site i;J621
,.-¥
■t
m
, V'3553':' \
171 Glenn Bricicje Rtl,
Arden, NC, 28704
iS)
' »r ^(r
y/'
Arderts^
/ j/'-----Vt)ls <3:Ji:‘:
"%. '3541)
H;U!_ -S-S/a)) ,-:“^t(Ka
.. at
\' h. ' ' - ““1:=^7;^
pS 7% ^^!!»■
'• .r
3^-
• -,>■
Q2002 Mcrcsoft Coip ©^909 MauTech. GOT. Inc. and/or Compusearch
Blue Ridge Plating Company
Atlen, Buncombe County, NC
SaeeningLevel Ecological Risk Assessment
Figure 1
Site Looatioit
D-1
;-: :',^.4a,-.:-
i^-' r.
'.V‘..' - • K
WiiOM ' •¥;^ ■ 4-‘.
h-v\ X
•’■- 5?, .■
my'1 - ^
•W»i;
^ ^ %
: JII?[Blu?Rid^Rlatingi
IV' -s.
iii?
tf' %
■J/'t'.; .1f ir-sy«“'
S»
&i|5
w ^
s/^ m mmm
VEUimron 0^
1=13
Legend
' Property Line
Streams
Former Building
(Demolished)
Lake/Pond
Feet
0 62.5 125 250
NAD83 US State Plane
North Carolina, Feet
OH
WV MD
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Blue Ridge Plating
USEPA ID#: NCD044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Figure 2
Site Location Map
VE RS AR
r \ ’
>:•" r'
■ • ".' V' .:•-
,V«'.'" xf|l
■■'#::
•UNMMBe OCXJKTt. MOtr>» CiWOUMA aurae kak
fiONTOtmiHnRMli; 4*
lom Ai«e naxnvK 10 MMi wkiMu
fr-iQot=J»f-----1-
f-^M; Jj'Jl,;/';-'';
■-•i' ■ V*'
sfer' V
> •
V- V'Ir.-4*
y'. C=3'
„r_-' ^ ^ %; * Jf **■ >1 *JV>
V '
S - k' ^1 !
5 --
-'/y a*;,;'^''.. ,,;'■ y.v'. ,:' 'rv;^'-■ ^ "'^4'
.■:: r-'= -.
.. «-
V;1 ‘
. -V-
■y-y
" ...-y
s- -■■«■ ;
il
g:>-
4
;t:'.
';., .’A -Ayr.
V ■ .
¥i*t|;Cii'
V -1 ;■ y*-
.y-' p-‘
fr|^:i i.
"msiAm
EPG-l
i:
.^'4
" J'-: '"I .
K
.*»4;V
,V"-
. 'f
P r3*
■;;v
■ /' , '
.......'M4' -'Ar:1'
'r.»^i;J"''Va.;n^‘,' "'jy.'. ,
V , ---------------- .JJORNERNOTSei .
SMH' . KWER MANHOUE
MW WONnORINGWEU.
■ '
;'K
AS&e,...
Figure 3
Aerial Extent of Soil
Excavation
D-3
'-0 rF
X-s :'
■■■■■ '-'P. -^'■, -y«r''"!V--'*'
3.:-^ %■'.
'«r:':yy. :Sy,
W-." " '"' ^
rp ■/yy ,, .':';^'T.i/--:
*■ ^ N
^,: \
^-»*>. .1
i^: i .
7^
Legend
■«► Deep
Shallow
Nested Well
Bedrock
«r
♦
Former Building (Demolished)
Lake/Pond
Property Line
Streams
Nested WeH includes deep and shallow
wells in the same casing.
Feet
0 SO 100 200
NA083 US State Plane
North CaroBna, Feet
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Blue Ridge Plating
USEPAID#: NCD044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Figure 4
Monitoring Well
Locations
^ VERSAR
i\- '■ r-^WK v-;’E»|SK,^' ^sT^JfeP^;^
Im
LEGEND
ffec
0tlM
mmvV\«#
Sis*
«e:™MMV »
4-
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
DEEP MONDORING WELL
NESTED MONITORING WELL
Boundary o Blue Ridge Property
Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines
within the map are approximate and subject
to change. The map is not a survey. The
map is for informotionol purposes only
regarding the EPA’s response octions at the
Site end is not intended for any other purpose.
GRAPHIC SCALE
!00‘ 200'
r = 200'
r>.
tn
0
ui
2 §
£
0
LO
&s
a
z
g g
0
5
cs
0
s ili33
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX E
ARAR List
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX E
ARAR Review
Section 121 (d)(2)(A) of CERCLA specifies that Superfund remedial actions must meet any federal
standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determined to be legally ARARs. Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements are those standards, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site. To-Be-Considered criteria (TBCs) are non-
promulgated advisories and guidance that are not legally binding, but should be considered in
determining the necessary level of cleanup for protection of human health or the environment. While
TBCs do not have the status of ARARs, EPA's approach to determining if a remedial action is protective
of human health and the environment involves consideration of TBCs along with ARARs. Chemical-
specific ARARs are specific numerical quantity restrictions on individually listed contaminants in
specific media. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs include the MCLs specified under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as well as the ambient water quality criteria that are enumerated under the
Clean Water Act. Because there are usually numerous contaminants of potential concern for any site,
various numerical quantity requirements can be ARARs.
In performing the FYR for compliance with ARARs, only those ARARs that address the protectiveness
of the remedy are reviewed. Because the remedy at the Site currently addresses only groimdwater
contamination, this FYR will discuss compliance with chemical-specific groundwater ARARs only.
The 2004 ROD identified the following Federal and State chemical-specific ARARs:
Federal ARARs
• 40 CFR Parts 262 promulgated under the authority of RCRA, Standards Applicable to
Generators and Transporters of Hazardous Waste
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Regulations (49 CFR USC Sect 1801 -1813; 49 CFR 107,
171-177)
• Clean Air Act (42 USC Section 7401 -7642)
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR Part 50; 40 CFR Part 53; 40 CFR Part 61)
• Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531; 50 CFR 200 and 402)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 2901 et seq)
• Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC Sect. 4901 et seq)
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470; 40 CFR 6.301(b); 36 CFR 800)
• Archeological and Historic Preservation (16 USC 469; 40 CFR 6 301(c))
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703)
• Executive Order No. 11,990 40 CFR 6.302(a) and Appendix A
• Clean Water Act (Part 301 (b))
• National Primary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR Part 141)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Requirements (CWA Part 402, 40 CFR
Part 122)
E-1
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
State ARARs
• Regulations for the Management of Hazardous Waste promulgated imder the authority of the NC
Waste Management Act (North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15 A, Chapter 13 A)
• NC Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards; Groundwater Classifications and Standards
(NCAC Title 15 Chapter 2L)
• NC Surface Water Quality Standards Classification and Water Quality Standards (NCAC
Title 15A Chapter 2B)
• Well Construction Standards (NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2C 0100)
• NC Air Pollution Control Regulations (NCAC Title 15A Chapter 2D, 2H, and 2Q)
• Inactive Hazardous Program Guidelines for Assessment and Cleanup, NC, Superfund
Section, Jan 2003
• NC Solid Waste Management Regulations (15A NCAC 4B)
• NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Rules (NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 4B)
It is the EPA's policy that ARARs are generally "frozen" at the time of the ROD signature unless a "new
or modified requirement calls into question the protectiveness of the selected remedy", 55 Fed. Reg.
8757 (March 8, 1990). The NC Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the
Groundwater of North Carolina, NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2L, (NC 2L) on which several of the
remedial levels are based were last amended on June 2013.
coc
ROD
Remedial
Goal
2013
NC 2L
Maximum Detectet
(pg/1
d Concentration
L)
2013 2014 2015 2016
VOCs
1,1 -Dichloroethene 7 7 160 120 190J 120
Chloroform 0.19 70 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7
T etrachloroethene 0.7 0.7 100 130 140J 150
Trichloroethene 2.8 3 35 38 33 26
Metals
Cadmium 5 2 37 14 12 19
Cyanide 154 70 110 no 36 41
Iron 3,800 300 6,200 18,000 10,000 10,000
Manganese 300 50 2,400 2 700 2,400 2.900
Contaminants not Specified in the ROD
1,1-Dioxane NE 3 -iO 26 42
1,1,2-T richloroethane NE 0.6 2.3 0.94 6.7 2.7
1,2-Dichloroethane NE 0.4 0.68J 0.54 2.3 0.57J
Vinyl Chloride NE 0.03 0.5 0.25J --Carbazole NE 2 -11 6.9 3.5
Barium NE 700 860 940 690 560
E-2
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
coc
ROD
Remedial
Goal
2013
NC 2L
Maximum Detected Concentration
(4g/L)
2013 2014 2015 2016
Chromium NE 230
Cobalt NE 1
Vanadium NE
IBT I Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded
Red Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red
As stated previously the performance standards for the soil remediation has been completed based upon
the cleanup levels established within the ROD.
The 2004 ROD stated, "CERCLA, as amended by Section 121(b) of SARA, requires the selection of
remedial actions that attain a degree of cleanup which ensures protection of human health and the
environment, are cost effective, and use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource technologies to the maximum extent practicable. To satisfy CERCLA requirements, RAOs were
developed for the Blue Ridge Plating site. RAOs will be used to develop general response actions for the
Site that are protective of current and future construction worker, future Site residents, and the
environment.
The key contaminants of concern (COCs) are metals along with a number of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and semi- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). The soil/sediment cleanup
goals were derived from predominantly leachate models for the metals in order to be protective
of the underlying groundwater along a health based risk level for chromium. The groundwater
cleanup goals were based on ARARs (North Carolina Groundwater Classifications and
Standards (ISA NCAC 2L) (NC2L)) or background concentrations.
E-3
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX F
Newspaper Ad and Interviews
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX F
Newspapers Ad and Interviews
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Announces a Five-Year Review for the Blue
Ridge Plating Site in Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting its second Five-Year Review of the remedy
for the Blue Ridge Plating Site located in Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina. The purpose of the
Five-Year Review is to ensure that the selected cleanup actions effectively protect human health and the
environment.
The soil cleanup phase occurred between December 2006 and June 2007. Approximately 8,737 cubic
yards of contaminated soil were excavated and transported to an off-site facility for disposal.
Four additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in August-September 2007. EPA issued the
Preliminary Closeout Report in September 2007. Groundwater was last sampled in March 2012 and the
next aimual ground water sampling event will occur in 2013. Due to Site related contaminants being
detected in the furthest downgradient monitoring wells, two additional monitoring wells (one shallow
and one deep) were installed in April 2011 and were initially sampled in June 2011. These wells were
last sampled in July 2016.
In December 2013, the City of Asheville determined that the building on the Blue Ridge property was
unsafe and advised occupants to stay out which basically closed the business. Because of the presence of
hazardous substances remained onsite, EPA initiated an emergency response action at the property. The
response action began in December 2014 and was completed in May 2015. The response action included
talking down the building, removing the concrete floor, removing 3,950 tons of contaminated soil from
under the footprint of the building, and abandoning an old supply well.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure be reviewed every five years to ensure the protection of human health and the
environment. The Five-Year Reviews for the site will be completed by September 2017.
A copy of the final report will be placed in the information repository located at the Skyland South
Buncombe Branch Library, 260 Overlook Road in Asheville, for the public to review.
For further information, please contact Jon Bornholm, EPA Remedial Project Manager via email
at [e-mail] or Angela Miller, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator via email
[e-mail] or directly at [phone].
F-1
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
EPA ID; NCD044447589
Second Five-Year Review Report
Interview Questionnaire
Completed by Jon Bornholm, EPA RPM
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment)
The cleanup has been slow but positive progress is being made. The structure was recently
removed as part of the emergency response EPA conducted at the Site in 2015.
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community?
To the best of my knowledge, recent Site related activities have not had any effect of the
surrounding community.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration?
If so, please give details.
No
4. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office?
No
5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress?
Yes
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management
or operation?
No
7. What is the current status of construction (e.g., budget and schedule?
All planned remedial activities have been completed at the site. The only activity occurring is the
annual groundwater monitoring event.
8. Have any problems been encountered which required, or will require, changes to this remedial
design or this ROD?
No
F-2
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
9. Have any problems or difficulties been encountered which have impacted construction progress
or implementability?
No. Remedial action activities were reported in the July 2007 Remedial Action Report and the
September 2007 Preliminary Close-Out Report.
10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project (i.e., design,
construction documents, constructability, management, regulatory agencies, etc.)?
No
11. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing?
Yes, groundwater quality in the vicinity of where the building use to stand may be adversely
impacted due to the recent soil disturbance that occurred during the 2015 Emergency response
Action.
12. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing?
The following text comes from the July 2016 2015 Data Evaluation Report,
Groundwater analytical results from July 2015 indicated that chlorinated VOCs were detected at
concentrations above the ROD cleanup goals in 24 of the 30 wells sampled. The highest VOC
concentrations were detected in MWl 1S. No SVOCs were detected in excess of the cleanup
goals. The metals cadmium, iron, and manganese were detected above ROD cleanup goals, with
exceedances of cadmium in four wells (MW03S, MW05S, MW07S, and MW12S), iron in one
well (MW04S), and manganese in eight wells (MWOlS, MW03S, MW04S, MW05S, MW07S,
MW12S, MW16D, and MW16S).
In addition to the site contaminants with cleanup goals established by the 2004 ROD and 2008
Explanation of Significant Difference, there were several other constituents detected in site
groundwater in July 2015 at concentrations exceeding current EPA MCLs or North Carolina
groundwater standards. These constituents are: 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-
dioxane, carbazole, chromium, cobalt, and vanadium.
Based on analysis of groundwater concentration trends at the site using the Mann-Kendall
statistical test, chlorinated VOC concentrations generally appear to be exhibiting a decreasing
trend in most shallow wells but either an increasing trend, stable trend, or no trend in most deep
wells. For metals, the Marm-Kendall test indicated that most wells display decreasing trend,
stable trend, or no trend. The only metals data set with an increasing trend was iron in MW04S.
The Mann-Kendall test indicated no trend for the SVOCs pentachlorophenol and naphthalene in
MWOlS, although concentrations of these constituents did not exceed ROD cleanup levels in
MWOlS during the July 2015 sampling event.
F-3
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
13. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there
is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities.
No, groundwater samples are collected from the groundwater monitoring network on an annual
basis.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
EPA ID; NCD 044 447 589
Second Superfund Five-Year Review Report
Interview Questionnaire
Completed by Nile Testerman, (Former/Retired) NC DEQ RPM
1. What is your overall impression of the project? (general sentiment) The site is in good
condition.
2. What effects have site operations had on the surrounding community? No impact with the
current remedy of MNA.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and administration?
If so, please give details. None.
4. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site requiring a
response by your office? No.
5. Do you feel well informed about the site’s activities and progress? Yes.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site’s management
or operation? None.
7. What is the current status of construction {e.g., budget and schedule? Construction is complete.
8. Have any problems been encountered which required, or will require, changes to this remedial
design or this ROD? No.
9. Have any problems or difficulties been encountered which have impacted construction progress
or implementability? No problems after building was demolished.
10. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the project (i.e., design,
construction documents, constructability, management, regulatory agencies, etc.)? None.
11. Is the remedy functioning as expected? How well is the remedy performing? The gw remedy of
MNA is functioning,
12. What does the monitoring data show? Are there any trends that show contaminant levels are
decreasing? Most contaminant levels are decreasing or not increasing.
F-5
13.
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff and activities. If there
is not a continuous on-site presence, describe staff and frequency of site inspections and
activities. GW is being monitored on an annual basis.
F-6
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX G
2016 Annual Data Evaluation Report
G-1
DRAFT
2016 DATA EVALUATION REPORT
BLUE RIDGE PLATING SITE
ARDEN, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCD044447589
PREPARED FOR:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REMEDIAL ACTION CONTRACT II LITE
REGION 4
EPA CONTRACT NO. EP-S4-08-03
TASK ORDER 008
DCN 008DER122316-DRAFT
PREPARED BY:
VERSAR
December 2016
DRAFT
2016 DATA EVALUATION REPORT
BLUE RIDGE PLATING SITE
ARDEN, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCD044447589
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Remedial Action Contract II Lite
Region 4
Contract No. EP-S4-08-03
Task Order 008
Prepared by:
Versar, Inc.
December 2016
\y Jane Traylor
Versar Project Manager
12/23/16
Date Arnold Ostrofsky, P.E.
Versar Program Manager
12/23/16
Date
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Scope..................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Site Background................. 1-1
1.3 Previous Investigations............................................................................................1-2
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES.....................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Water Level Measurements.....................................................................................2-1
2.2 Groundwater Sampling............................................................................................2-1
2.3 Sampling Quality Control.........................................................................................2-2
3.0 RESULTS..................................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Groundwater Elevations and Gradient.....................................................................3-1
3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results...............................................................................3-1
3.3 Statistical Analysis of Trends...................................................................................3-7
3.4 Quality Assurance Summary..................................................................................3-10
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................4-1
5.0 REFERENCES............................................................. 5-1
TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
FIGURES
Figure 1-1:
Figure 2-1:
Figure 3-1:
Figure 3-2:
Groundwater Elevation Summary: June 21, 2016
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary: September 2007 - June 2016
Field Parameters: January 2010 - June 2016
Summary of Mann-Kendall Statistical Calculations: September 2007 - June 2016
Groundwater Duplicates Relative Percent Difference (RPD): June 2016
Site Location Map
Monitoring Well Locations
Groundwater Elevation Contour Map - Shallow
Groundwater Elevation Contour Map - Deep
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mann-Kendall Statistics
Appendix B: Analytical Data Reports
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineering Center
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System
CF Confidence Factor
CLP Contract Laboratory Program
COV Coefficient of Variation
°C Degrees Celsius
DER Data Evaluation Report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Expianation of Significant Difference
ESI Expanded Site Investigation
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
IDW Investigation Derived Waste
J. M. Waller J. M. Waller Associates, Inc.
MAROS Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System
MCL Maximum Contaminant Limit
Mg/L Micrograms per Liter
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MNA Monitored Natural Attenuation
mV Millivolt
n Number of Sampling Events
NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NPL National Priorities List
ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential
P Probability
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
PARCC Precision, Accuracy, Representativeness, Comparability, and
Completeness
PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RPM Remedial Project Manager
S Mann-Kendall Statistic
SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan
SVOCs Semivolatile Organic Compounds
TAL Target Analyte List
TCL Target Compound List
TOC Total Organic Carbon
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Data Evaluation Report (DER) has been developed by Versar, Inc. (Versar) for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Contract Number EP-S4-08-03, Task
Order 08, for sampling and analytical support at the Blue Ridge Plating Site in Arden,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. The purpose of this task order is to provide support for
overall planning, coordination, and the collection of groundwater samples for analysis of volatile
and semivolatile organic compounds, metals, cyanide, and monitored natural attenuation (MNA)
parameters. The goal is to collect groundwater data to evaluate whether MNA is a viable
remedy for the groundwater at the site.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This DER presents data and information obtained during the annual sampling event conducted
by Versar in June 2016 and compares it to groundwater data collected at the site since
September 2007. The collected information is presented in summary form and includes the
following:
• Field measurements including groundwater water quality parameters and water levels;
• Analytical results summary tables and full data validation laboratory reports;
• Trend analysis using Mann-Kendall statistics.
1.2 Site Background
The Blue Ridge Plating Site occupies 3.06 acres located at 171 Glenn Bridge Road in Arden,
Buncombe County, North Carolina. EPA is the lead agency for this site and the Site
Identification Number is NCD 044 447 589. The southern portion of the site lies within the
boundary of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designated wetland. A site location map is shown
as Figure 1-1.
Blue Ridge Plating started business in 1974 and has used raw materials such as cadmium,
chromium, copper, cyanide, tin, and zinc. There is one building on the site and part of this
building is in a state of disrepair. To the west of the building were formerly a number of old
plating vats and several 55-gallon drums associated with Blue Ridge Plating operations, and
other miscellaneous debris that were removed and disposed of as part of the soil cleanup
completed in 2006 and 2007.
1-1
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
From 1974 to 1985, electroplating wastes were collected in drums stored in the basement of the
building. Plating sludges were filtered out of the wastes and the resulting wastewater was
directed to a 70,000 gallon in-ground concrete lagoon formerly located immediately south of the
building. Plating sludges were shipped offsite for disposal, and the wastewater was either
sprayed on the ground or reused as process water. Between 1985 and 1990, the wastewater
was discharged to the local municipal sewer system. In 1990, the municipality suspended
access to the sewer system because Blue Ridge Plating was not meeting pretreatment
requirements. Blue Ridge Plating claimed the facility discontinued discharging wastewater to the
sewer system and was using a “closed loop” treatment system; however, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) discovered that the facility continued to discharge to the sewer system. In
1991, a federal court found Blue Ridge Plating guilty of discharging heavy metals in excess of
legal limits to the sewer system, discharging to a sewer without a permit, and lying to federal
investigators.
In 1993, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
served an injunction to Blue Ridge Plating to produce site information and implement a closure
plan or further site investigation. As a result. Blue Ridge Plating proposed a groundwater
monitoring schedule in 1994, and submitted a closure plan in 1996. In 1997, NCDENR received
a complaint that Blue Ridge Plating was disposing of plating wastes by dumping them outside
the back door and through the cracks in the floor. Consequently, NCDENR requested that EPA
collect environmental samples at the facility. The EPA sampling effort, conducted in April 1998,
found elevated levels of cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, nickel, tin, and zinc in samples
collected from inside and outside the Blue Ridge Plating building. Because of these sampling
results, the facility was placed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) in October 1998. The 70,000-gallon lagoon was
closed under EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 2000.
1.3 Previous Investigations
NCDENR conducted a Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection (PA/SI) in July 1999, which
documented a release of cadmium, chromium, copper, and nickel to soils at the site. An
Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) was conducted in September 2000. This investigation
confirmed the presence of elevated levels of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, and zinc in the site soils. A Remedial
Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was conducted between 2002 and 2004, and the site
1-2
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) in September 2004. A Record of Decision (ROD)
for the site was issued in October 2004.
The 2004 ROD called for excavation of contaminated soil/sediment and off-site disposal at a
RCRA Subtitle D landfill, along with backfilling, re-grading, and re-seeding the disturbed areas.
The soil cleanup phase was conducted between December 2006 and June 2007. A total of
13,105 tons (8,737 cubic yards) of soil was removed and 6,105 tons (4,070 cubic yards) of soil
was backfilled and graded. A former pond, which had silted in over the years on the adjacent
downgradient property, was excavated to remove the contaminated sediment that had
accumulated in the pond basin. At the request of the property owner, this excavation was not
backfilled with clean fill since the property owner planned on repairing the earthen dike/dam and
reforming the pond. In February 2008, the breach in the earthen dike/dam was repaired, an
overflow pipe was installed, and the pond has since refilled.
For the groundwater cleanup phase, the ROD selected MNA as the remedy. However, injecting
a reagent(s) in the underlying aquifer to oxidize, reduce, or immobilize the contaminants in place
along with long-term monitoring was included as a contingent remedy for groundwater. The
decision to implement the contingency was to be made after monitoring the changes in
contaminant concentrations in the groundwater for five years after the soil remediation phase
was completed.
The groundwater monitoring program was implemented at the site in September 2007, and is
currently conducted on an annual schedule. To date, there has not been a consistent trend
indicating that the groundwater contamination is attenuating to below ROD cleanup levels.
ERA and NCDENR completed a Five Year Review for the site in September 2012. The Five
Year Review concluded that the current remedy at Blue Ridge Plating is protective of human
health and the environment, and that collection of additional groundwater data is needed to
determine if MNA is an effective groundwater remedy. The review recommended issuing an
Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to allow more time for collection of groundwater data
for evaluation of MNA. Other recommendations of the Five Year Review were to implement
perpetual land use restrictions, to install additional downgradient monitoring wells to complete
the groundwater plume delineation, and to issue an ESD revising groundwater cleanup goals for
1,1-dichloroethane and cyanide to meet current North Carolina groundwater standards.
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
EPA completed a removal action at the site in December 2014 and January 2015 to remove and
properly dispose of hazardous substances, including acids, cyanide, and heavy metals such as
hexavalent chromium, that were stored in deteriorating containers inside the former process
building. The removal action was the result of a joint EPA and NCDENR inspection conducted in
April 2013, and a follow-up inspection by the City of Asheville in October 2013, which identified
leaking and unlabeled containers of hazardous waste. The removal action also included
demolition of the former process building, which was deemed unsafe and condemned by the
City of Asheville in December 2013.
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
2.0 FIELD ACTIVITIES
Field activities summarized in this DER include completing an annual groundwater sampling
event in June 2016. The following subsections describe the field tasks completed.
2.1 Water Level Measurements
On June 21, 2016, water level elevation measurements were collected from 27 of the 28
monitoring wells at the Blue Ridge Plating Site and from three offsite wells owned and
maintained by Duke Energy. Well MW19D was destroyed between the August 2014 and July
2015 sampling events by construction activities and data can no longer be collected from this
well. Water levels were measured from the top of casing of each monitoring well to the nearest
0.01-foot using an electronic water level indicator. Locations of the monitoring wells at the site
are shown on Figure 2-1. The measured groundwater elevations, in addition to weil construction
information for each of the monitoring wells, are presented in Table 2-1.
2.2 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater samples were collected from 27 of the 28 monitoring wells at the site. Monitoring
well MW19D was not sampled since the well has apparently been destroyed by construction
activities. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of the monitoring wells. Prior to sampling, each well
was purged by pumping a minimum of three weil volumes or until field parameters (pH, turbidity,
specific conductance, oxidation reduction potential [ORP], dissolved oxygen, and temperature)
stabilized to within 10% of the prior reading, in accordance with EPA Region 4 field sampling
protocols. The groundwater samples were collected using either peristaltic pumps or
submersible pumps with Teflon tubing. The approved Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) for the
Blue Ridge Plating Sampiing and Analytical Support provides details of sampling protocols
used, field quality assurance/quality control (CWQC), and data validation/evaluation.
All groundwater samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of Target Compound List (TCL)
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), TCL semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), target
analyte list (TAL) metals, and cyanide. All analyses were performed by the EPA Region 4
laboratory except cyanide which was submitted to and analyzed by Chemtech Consulting Group
laboratory in Mountainside, NJ. Sampling events prior to 2015 also included the MNA
parameters of ferrous iron, sulfate, sulfide, chloride, alkalinity, total organic carbon, nitrate,
methane, ethane, ethene, and Dehalococcoides bacteria; however, these parameters were
2-1
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
discontinued after the 2014 sampling event based on the recommendations of the EPA Region
4 Technical Services Section.
2.3 Sampling Quality Control
In accordance with the approved SAP, field quality control samples, such as field duplicates, trip
blanks, rinsate blanks and temperature blanks, were collected and evaluated as a method to
assess the sample handling procedures. During sampling activities, instruments used for field
measurements were routinely calibrated and recorded to ensure the accuracy of readings.
2-2
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
3.0 RESULTS
The following subsections present the results of the June 2016 sampling event.
3.1 Groundwater Elevations and Gradient
Groundwater elevations measured on June 21, 2016 (listed in Table 2-1) were used to create
groundwater elevation contour maps for the shallow and deep zones of the saprolite aquifer.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the groundwater elevation contours for the shallow and deep zones,
respectively. Groundwater flow direction in June 2016 was to the west-southwest in both zones.
Horizontal groundwater gradients in the shallow and deep zones were approximately 0.033 and
0.029, respectively. Vertical gradients, as evaluated by comparing groundwater elevations at
paired shallow and deep well locations, were downward from the shallow zone to the deep zone
at seven of the ten nested well pairs (at all except the MW01, MW09, and MW12 pairs).
Groundwater flow directions, horizontal gradients, and vertical gradients observed in June 2016
were consistent with those observed during previous sampling events.
3.2 Groundwater Analytical Results
The following summary of analytical results is organized by monitoring well and discusses
results of the 2016 annual sampling event for each monitoring well. Table 3-1 summarizes
results for constituents that have been detected at concentrations above the 2004 ROD and the
2008 ESD groundwater cleanup levels, plus current ERA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
and North Carolina’s groundwater standards, between 2007 and 2016. Groundwater results are
presented in Table 3-1 from all sampling events conducted since the soil remediation activities
were completed, and include samples collected in September 2007, January 2008, June 2008,
January 2009, January 2010, January/February 2011, February 2012, March 2013, August
2014, July 2015, and June 2016. Table 3-2 provides the final readings of field water quality
parameters measured during the January 2010, January/February 2011, February 2012, March
2013, August 2014, July 2015, and June 2016 sampling events. A complete set of the analytical
data reports from the June 2016 sampling event is presented in Appendix A.
The following contaminants were detected above ROD cleanup goals in the June 2016
sampling event: 1,1-dichloroethene, chloroform, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, cadmium,
iron, and manganese. In addition, other contaminants that were detected in June 2016 above
either current ERA MCLs or North Carolina groundwater standards were: 1,4-dioxane, 1,1,2-
3-1
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, carbazole, chromium, cobalt, and
vanadium (in offsite well AMA-3A only).
MW01D had three ROD cleanup goal exceedances, which were 1,1-dichIoroethene (9.1 ng/L),
tetrachloroethene (18 pg/L), and iron (5,900 pg/L). Additionally, 1,4-dioxane (5.4 pg/L) and
manganese (140 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards. Most concentrations in
MW01D increased slightly in June 2016 as compared to July 2015, with 1,1-dichloroethene and
iron increasing above cleanup goals. However, VOC concentrations in this well have remained
relatively stable since 2007.
MW01S had only one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was manganese at a
concentration of 440 pg/L. Carbazole (3.5 pg/L), cadmium (2.8 pg/L), cobalt (6.2 pg/L), and iron
(2,800 pg/L) also exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards. Contaminant concentrations
in this well have generally shown a decreasing trend over the last seven sampling events, with
concentrations of chloroform, naphthalene, pentachlorophenol, and cadmium dropping to below
ROD cleanup goals.
MW03S had two exceedances of ROD cleanup goals, which were cadmium at 6.3 pg/L and
manganese at 730 pg/L. Additionally, the concentration of iron (1,400 pg/L) exceeded North
Carolina groundwater standards. Metals concentrations have historically fluctuated in this well,
but VOCs and SVOCs have not been detected above ROD cleanup goals.
MW04S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for iron (10,000 pg/L) and manganese (2,900
pg/L), consistent with previous sampling events. VOCs and SVOCs have not historically been
detected in this well above ROD cleanup goals.
MW05S had exceedances of ROD cleanup goals for cadmium (6.3 pg/L) and manganese
(1,500 pg/L). Additionally, cobalt (18 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards.
Metals concentrations remained stable as compared to the July 2015 sampling event as has
been the case historically.
MW06D had one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was tetrachloroethene at 11 pg/L.
Additionally, 1,4-dioxane (4.4 pg/L) exceeded the North Carolina groundwater standard.
Contaminant concentrations in MW06D have historically remained relatively stable.
3-2
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
MW06S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for 1,1-dichloroethene (120 pg/L), chloroform
(0.63 pg/L), tetrachloroethene (150 pg/L), and trichloroethene (26 pg/L). In addition, the
following constituents also exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards: 1,1,2-
trichloroethane (2.7 pg/L), 1,1-dichloroethane (61 pg/L), 1,2-dichloroethane (0.56 pg/L), 1,4-
dioxane (41 pg/L), chromium (45 pg/L), and cobalt (10 pg/L). The VOCs 1,1-dichloroethene,
chloroform, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene have historically fluctuated in this well, while
other constituents have displayed a general decreasing trend. Concentrations of 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, iron, and manganese formerly exceeded ROD
cleanup goals in MW06S, but have decreased to below the cleanup goals.
MW07S equaled or exceeded ROD cleanup goal for chloroform (estimated at 0.19 pg/L),
tetrachloroethene (1 pg/L), trichloroethene (13 pg/L), cadmium (19 pg/L) and manganese (2,200
pg/L). Cobalt (28 pg/L) was also detected at a concentration exceeding the North Carolina
groundwater standard. June 2016 was the first sampling event since 2009 in which VOCs were
detected in MW07S above ROD cleanup goals. Cadmium concentrations have historically
fluctuated with a general decreasing trend.
MW08S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for 1,1-dichloroethene (23 pg/L),
tetrachloroethene (21 pg/L), and trichloroethene (4.8 pg/L). The concentration of 1,1-
dichloroethane (9.7 pg/L) also exceeded the North Carolina groundwater standard. Most
contaminants in this well remained stable or decreased marginally as compared to the July
2015 sampling event but have historically displayed a general trend of decreasing
concentrations since 2007.
MW09D had one exceedance of ROD cleanup goals, which was tetrachloroethene at a
concentration of 1.5 pg/L. June 2016 was the second consecutive sampling event in which
tetrachloroethene was detected above the ROD cleanup goal in this upgradient well, although
very low concentrations of several VOCs have historically been detected. No other detections
exceeded the ROD cleanup goals, ERA MCLs, or North Carolina groundwater standards.
MW09S, which is also an upgradient well, also had a detection of tetrachloroethene at a
concentration of 1.0 pg/L, exceeding the ROD cleanup goal. Tetrachloroethene has
occasionally exceeded the ROD cleanup goal in this well during some previous sampling
events, with concentrations of up to 1.6 pg/L. No other detections exceeded the ROD cleanup
goals, ERA MCLs, or North Carolina groundwater standards.
3-3
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
MW10S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for 1,1-dichloroethene (29 pg/L) and
tetrachloroethene (69 pg/L). In addition, the concentrations of 1,1-dichloroethane (6.7 pg/L),
chromium (19 pg/L), cobalt (9.8 pg/L), and manganese (190 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina
groundwater standards. Despite the increases in VOC concentrations in this well as compared
to the 2015 sampling event, historical concentrations in this well have displayed a strong
decreasing trend, with 1,1,-trichloroethane, chloroform, trichloroethene, and manganese
decreasing to below ROD cleanup goals.
MW11S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for 1,1-dichloroethene (79 pg/L), chloroform (1.7
pg/L), tetrachloroethene (83 pg/L), and trichloroethene (21 pg/L). Constituents that also
exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards were 1,1,2-trichloroethane (0.8 pg/L) 1,1-
dichloroethane (46 pg/L), and manganese (120 pg/L). No clear overall trend can be determined
in the contaminant levels. Some contaminants have a decreasing trend (1,1,1-trichloroethane),
some have an increasing trend (chloroform), while others have been relatively stable (1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene).
MW12D had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for chloroform (estimated at 0.21 pg/L),
tetrachloroethene (15 pg/L) and trichloroethene (4 pg/L). Additionally, 1,4-dioxane (4 pg/L)
exceeded the North Carolina groundwater standard. Most metals in this well have shown a
decreasing trend in concentrations; however, concentrations of VOCs have remained relatively
stable or increased slightly.
MW12S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances for tetrachloroethene (4.9 pg/L), trichloroethene
(25 pg/L), cadmium (26 pg/L) and manganese (1,800 pg/L). Additionally, 1,1-dichloroethane
(9.8 pg/L) and cobalt (47 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards. June 2016
was the first time since 2011 that trichloroethene, and the first time since 2010 that
tetrachloroethene, has been detected above its ROD cleanup goal. The concentrations of
tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene detected in June 2016 were historical highs for this well.
Chloroform previously exceeded the ROD cleanup goal, but concentrations have decreased to
below the cleanup goal. Concentrations of metals have historically fluctuated with no
discernable trend.
MW13D had four ROD cleanup goal exceedances, which were 1,1-dichloroethene (13 pg/L),
chloroform (estimated 0.29 pg/L), tetrachloroethene (19 pg/L), and trichloroethene (6.9 pg/L).
Additionally, 1,4-dioxane (5.1 pg/L) and iron (370 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina groundwater
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
standards. Concentrations of 1,1-dichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene have
generally increased over time while chloroform has remained relatively stable.
MW13S had no ROD cleanup goal exceedances: however, the concentration of manganese
(150 pg/L) exceeded the North Carolina groundwater standard.
MW14D had one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was tetrachloroethene at 1.2 pg/L.
Tetrachloroethene has been consistently detected in this well since September 2007 at
relatively low concentrations ranging from 0.99 to 7.1 pg/L. Concentrations in MW14D have
remained relatively stable over time.
MW14S had no constituents exceeding the ROD cleanup goals, ERA MCLs or North Carolina
groundwater standards. There have been no exceedances of cleanup goals in this well since
September 2007.
MW15D had one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was tetrachloroethene at 6.7 pg/L. This
concentration was the highest level of tetrachloroethene detected in MW15D since sampling
began in January 2010. Additionally, manganese (110 pg/L) exceeded the North Carolina
groundwater standards. Concentrations of tetrachloroethene in MW15D have shown an
increasing trend over time.
MW15S had ROD cleanup goal exceedances of 1,1-dichloroethene (12 pg/L) and
tetrachloroethene (2.7 pg/L). Additionally, the concentration of manganese (110 pg/L) exceeded
the North Carolina groundwater standard. After observing historically high VOC concentrations
in this well during the July 2015 sampling event, VOCs decreased in June 2016, returning to
levels more consistent with historical data.
MW16D had ROD cleanup goal exceedances of 1,1-dichloroethene (40 pg/L), chloroform (3.2
pg/L), tetrachloroethene (7.4 pg/L), trichloroethene (64 pg/L), and manganese (790 pg/L).
Concentrations of 1,1-dichloroethane (12 pg/L) and 1,4-dioxane (4.4 pg/L) also exceeded North
Carolina groundwater standards. Most concentrations in this well have remained generally
stable since sampling began in February 2012.
MW16S had one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was manganese at 440 pg/L. Cadmium
(3.6 pg/L), cobalt (29 pg/L), and iron (1,100 pg/L) also exceeded North Carolina groundwater
standards. Historically, no VOCs have been detected above ROD cleanup goals in this well.
3-5
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
MW17D had only one ROD cleanup goal exceedance, which was tetrachloroethene at 3.4 pg/L.
Additionally, iron (320 pg/L) exceeded the North Carolina groundwater standard. The June 2016
concentration of tetrachloroethene was slightly higher than during the 2014 and 2015 sampling
events, and was the highest detected since sampling of this well began in March 2013.
MW17S had two ROD cleanup goal exceedances, chloroform at an estimated 0.19 pg/L and
tetrachloroethene at 1.8 pg/L. Manganese (85 pg/L) also exceeded the North Carolina
groundwater standard. Most constituents in this well have decreased since its initial sampling in
March 2013, with 1,1-dichloroethene and trichloroethene decreasing to below ROD cleanup-
goals.
MW18D had no exceedances of ROD cleanup goals. Iron (2,700 pg/L) and manganese (74
pg/L) exceeded North Carolina groundwater standards.
MW19D was destroyed sometime between the August 2014 and the July 2015 sampling events,
and therefore no current data is available from this well.
MW20D had ROD cleanup goal exceedances of 1,1-dichloroethene (9.7 pg/L), chloroform (0.92
pg/L), tetrachloroethene (4 pg/L), and trichloroethene (11 pg/L). Most VOC concentrations in
this well have displayed an increasing trend, while manganese concentrations have decreased
to below the ROD cleanup goal.
AMW-3A, AMW-3B, and MW-10 are three clustered wells located northwest of the Blue Ridge
Plating site near the southern end of Lake Julian (see Figure 2-1), that are owned and
maintained by Duke Energy. These wells have been sampled annually with the permission of
Duke Energy since November 2014 to support characterization of the Blue Ridge Plating site.
MW-10 is completed across the water table in the upper part of the saprolite aquifer, AMW-3A is
completed to the top of bedrock at the base of the saprolite aquifer, and AMW-3B is completed
in the bedrock aquifer. The only exceedances of ROD cleanup goals in these wells in June 2016
were the chloroform concentrations in AMW-3A (estimated 0.44 pg/L) and AMW-3B (estimated
0.32 pg/L). Additionally, chromium (59 pg/L) and vanadium (6.2 pg/L) exceeded North Carolina
groundwater standards in AMW-3A, and manganese (190 pg/L) exceeded the North Carolina
groundwater standard in MW-10.
3-6
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
3.3 Statistical Analysis of Trends
The Mann-Kendall statistical test was used to identify statistically significant trends in the
groundwater contaminant concentrations generated from the sampling events that have
occurred from September 2007 through June 2016. The Mann-Kendall test is a nonparametric
test that can help identify changes in contaminant concentrations over time, for a minimum of
four samples. This test cannot verify the rate at which concentrations are changing.
The Mann-Kendall statistical calculations were performed using the GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit
(GSI Environmental, 2012). This spreadsheet-based software follows the Mann-Kendall
methodology developed by GSI Environmental, Inc. for the Air Force Civil Engineering Center
(AFCEC) in its Monitoring and Remediation Optimization System (MAROS) software. This
software relies on three statistical metrics, as follows:
• The Mann-Kendall Statistic, or S Statistic, indicates whether the concentration trend
versus time is generally decreasing (negative S value) or increasing (positive S value).
• The Confidence Factor, or CF, which modifies the S Statistic calculation to indicate the
degree of confidence in the trend result. Also, if the CF is low, it is used to apply a
preliminary “No Trend” classification pending consideration of the Coefficient of
Variation.
• The Coefficient of Variation, or COV, is used to distinguish between a “No Trend” result
and a “Stable” result for datasets with no significant increasing or decreasing trend (e.g.,
a low CF).
The S Statistic is calculated by comparing the data sequentially. For a given number of
sampling events (n), the contaminant concentration from Event 1 is compared to the
concentration from Events 2 through n, the concentration from Event 2 is compared to the
concentrations from Events 3 through n, and the concentration from Event 3 is compared to the
concentrations from Events 4 through n, and so on. If the contaminant concentration increases
between two events, then a value of +1 is given. A value of -1 is given if the contaminant
concentration decreases between two events and a value of 0 is given if the concentration does
not change. The values representing the changes between the concentration from Event 1 and
the other events are summed, then the changes between Event 2 and other events, and so on.
The sums are added together to get one value, which is the S Statistic. A value of S greater
than zero indicates an increasing trend, while a value of S less than zero indicates a decreasing
3-7
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
trend, subject to further modification based on the CF and the COV. The S statistic indicates the
direction of the trend (increasing or decreasing), while the strength of the trend is characterized
by the CF, as described below. Furthermore, if the degree of confidence regarding an
increasing or decreasing trend is insufficient (due to either variability in concentrations versus
time or little change in concentrations versus time), the S Statistic result is re-classified as “No
Trend.”
The CF is the measure of confidence for rejecting the null hypothesis of “no trend” versus time.
The null hypothesis states that the dataset shows no distinct linear trend over time. The Mann-
Kendall method tests the null hypothesis against the alternative hypothesis, which is that the
data do show a trend over the specified time period. The probability (p) of accepting the null
hypothesis is determined from the Mann-Kendall table of probabilities, which are based on the
number of sample events (n, for 4 < n < 40) and the absolute value of S. Specifically, p is the
probability of obtaining a value of S equal to or greater than the calculated value for n events
when no trend is present. The null hypothesis is rejected when p < 0.1.
The CF is defined as (1 - p)%. When CF > 95% (p < 0.05), the data demonstrate a strong trend,
either “Increasing” or “Decreasing” trends. When the CF falls between 90 and 95% (0.1 > p >
0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected and a trend is indicated; however, due to the lower
confidence in the trend, the qualifier “Probably” is applied, as in “Probably Increasing" or
“Probably Decreasing.” If the CF is less than 90% (p > 0.1), the null hypothesis is accepted and
either a “No Trend” condition or a “Stable” condition is indicated, depending on the COV.
The COV for the dataset is the standard deviation divided by the mean. The COV provides a
general indicator of the degree of variability in the concentrations at a particular monitoring
location over time. The COV is used to distinguish between a “Stable" plume condition
(relatively constant concentration in the well versus time) and a “No Trend” condition (highly
variable concentrations versus time) for datasets with no significant increasing or decreasing
trend. Depending on the values of the S Statistic and the COV, sampling locations that exhibit a
low CF (CF < 90%) are designated as either “Stable” (S < 0 and COV < 1) or “No Trend”
(COVai).
The following table summarizes the statistical metrics used by the GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit to
evaluate trend;
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
S Statistic Confidence in Trend Trend
S>0 CF > 95%Increasing
S>0 95% > CF > 90%Probably Increasing
S>0 CF < 90%No Trend
S<0 CF < 90% and COV > 1 No Trend
S<0 CF < 90% and COV < 1 Stable
S<0 95% > CF > 90%Probably Decreasing
S<0 CF > 95%Decreasing
Of the 30 wells sampled in June 2016, 25 wells had enough data sets that qualified for statistical
calculations. From these 25 wells, 100 data sets were analyzed to determine trends in
concentrations of contaminants of concern over time. The data sets analyzed primarily were
limited to those containing constituents exceeding the ROD cleanup goals. The results of the
Mann-Kendall statistical analysis are listed in Table 3-3, and the outputs from the GSI Mann-
Kendall Toolkit are included in Appendix B. Results of the trend evaluation are summarized in
the table below:
Contaminant of
Concern
Wells with
Decreasing or
Probably Decreasing
Trend
Wells with
Increasing or
Probably Increasing
Trend
Wells with No Trend or
Stable Trend
VOCs
1,1,1-Trichloroethane MW06S, MW10S,
MW11S
None None
1,1-Dichloroethane MW06S, MW08S,
M\A/10S, MW18D
MW12D, MW13D MW01D, MW06D, MW11S,
MW12D, MW16D, MW17S,
MW20D
1,1-Dichloroethene MW06S, MW08S,
MVyiOS, MW18D
MW01D, MW06D, MW11S,
MW16D, MW17S, MW20D
Chloroform MW01S, MW05S,
MW06S, MW08S,
MW12D
MW11S MW01D, MW12S, MW13D,
MW15D, MW16D
Tetrachloroethene MW08S, MW10S MW12D, MW13D,
MW15D
MW01D, MW06D, MW06S,
MW09S, MW11S, MW13S,
MW14D, MW15S, MW16D,
MW17S, MW17D, MW20D
Trichloroethene MW08S, MW10S MW13D MW06S, MW11S, MW12S,
MW12D, MW13S, MW15S,
MW16D, MW17S, MW20D
SVOCs
Naphthalene None None MW01S
Pentachlorophenol None None MW01S
Metals
Cadmium MW01S, MW06S,
MW07S, MW08S
None MW03S, MW05S, MW12S
3-9
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
Contaminant of
Concern
Cyanide
Iron
Manganese
Wells with
Decreasing or
Probably Decreasing
Trend
MW06S
MW07S
MW01S,
MW05S,
MW08S,
MW12D,
MW14D,
MW16S,
MW17S,
MW20D
MW03S,
MW06S.
MW10S.
MW13D,
MW15S.
MW16D,
MW17D,
Wells with
Increasing or
Probably Increasing
Trend
None
MW04S
None
Wells with No Trend or
Stable Trend
None
MW03S, MW05S, MW08S
MW04S, MW07S, MW12S,
MW13S, MW18D
3.4 Quality Assurance Summary
Data quality objectives for the Blue Ridge Plating Site were developed during the preparation of
the SAP. Data quality indicators (DQIs) are used to interpret the degree of acceptability or
usability of data collected. The principal DQIs are precision, accuracy (or bias),
representativeness, comparability, and completeness (PARCC). As discussed in the SAP, an
EPA Region 4 contractor provides data validation of analytical results. The data validators
review all method procedures, internal spikes, calibrations, matrix spike, matrix spike duplicate,
performance evaluation samples among other tasks performed by the laboratories for the
sample set. The case narratives included in the data deliverables and the qualifiers placed on
the data are reflective of the data validation review. Other data quality review is performed by
the sampling contractor including evaluation of precision and completeness, and discussion of
the analytical results of field prepared blanks or equipment rinsate blanks. Field and laboratory
completeness goals for this project are greater than 90 percent, as established in the SAP.
To determine completeness, the number of usable, valid results for each sample type and
analyte were counted and compared to the completeness objectives. The percent completeness
was calculated using the following equation:
% Completeness = (DO/DP) * 100
Where: DO = Data Obtained and usable.
DP = Data Planned to be obtained
3-10
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
The VOC, SVOC, and metals data for the June 2016 sampling event were qualified without any
rejected, not analyzed, or not reported data. However, three SVOC samples (MW06D, MW13D,
and MW13D duplicate) did arrive at the laboratory in excess of 6 °C and were flagged in the
data set for temperature exceedances. The only constituent detected in these three samples
was 1,4-dioxane at levels anticipated from trends from previous sampling events. Therefore, the
percent completeness is 100% for these data packages and the overall completeness of this
field event exceeded the DQI of 90%.
For precision of duplicate samples, the Relative Percent Difference (RPD) goal established in
the SAP is less than 35 percent for water sample results and less than 50 percent for sediment
or soil sample results. The RPD between a sample (Sample 1) and its duplicate (Sample 2) was
calculated using the following formula.
Relative Percent Difference = ((S-D) / [(S+D)/2J) * 100
Where: S = First sample value (original value), and
D = Second sample value (duplicate value).
A summary of the RPD calculations is presented in Table 3-4. Three duplicate groundwater
samples were collected during this field event. Each sample and its duplicate had enough
detection of contaminants to perform the RPD calculations. The average RPDs calculated for
the groundwater duplicate pairs on detected constituents were 3.7% for MW06S, 3.3% for
MW13D, and 5.4% for MW16D. The precision criterion for the groundwater samples was met as
less than 35%.
In addition to the duplicates, other field quality control samples, including trip blanks, rinsate
blanks and temperature blanks, were collected and evaluated to assess the data quality.
Aqueous trip blanks were collected for monitoring of the ambient conditions during collection of
VOCs. For this sampling field event, two aqueous trip blanks was prepared, handled, and
analyzed along with the field samples. The trip blanks were ordered and received along with the
other bottle ware purchased for this sampling project. No VOCs were detected in the trip blanks.
A rinsate blank was collected and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, and metals to check procedural
decontamination and/or sample container contamination at the site that may cause sample
contamination. Chloroform was detected in the rinsate blank at estimated concentrations 0.12
3-11
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
jjg/L. Chloroform is a contaminant of concern at the site; however, chloroform regularly appears
as a laboratory contaminant as well. Additionally, the estimated value was below the reporting
limit but above the minimum detection limit therefore the accuracy of the value is in doubt. Since
no other site COCs were detected in the rinse blank sample it is possible that the chloroform is
a laboratory artifact. This result should not affect the overall quality of the data of field samples
from monitoring wells.
Samples were packed into coolers with ice and a two-ounce bottle of water was included in
each cooler as a temperature indicator. Upon receipt of samples at the laboratory, the sample
custodian measured the temperature of the temperature indicators. If the temperature was
outside the range of 4 degrees Centigrade plus or minus 2 degrees Centigrade, the sample
custodian informed EPA sample management. Data qualifiers may be placed on the data for
temperature exceedances. Notifications and qualifiers were placed on three of the June 2016
results (1,4-dioxane results for MW06D, MW13D, and MW13D duplicate) to reflect sample
temperature exceedances. Historical data confirmed that the 1,4-dioxane levels were within
expected ranges; therefore, the confidence in the data quality for these three samples is high.
In summary, the sample results received for this sampling event are useable and met quality
assurance and quality control criteria and objectives. Minor data qualifiers were applied to the
data which should be reviewed and may require consideration depending on intended use and
decisions to be made.
3-12
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Versar completed an annual groundwater monitoring event at the Blue Ridge Plating site in
June 2016. This was the seventh annual sampling event completed under this task order. The
2016 sampling also included collection of samples from three monitoring wells that are owned
and maintained by Duke Energy.
Groundwater analytical results from June 2016 indicated that VOCs (1,1-dichloroethene,
chloroform, tetrachloroethene, or trichloroethene) were detected at concentrations above the
ROD cleanup goals in 21 of the 30 wells sampled. The highest VOC concentrations were
detected in MW06S. No SVOCs were detected in excess of the cleanup goals. The metals
cadmium, iron, and manganese were detected above ROD cleanup goals, with exceedances of
cadmium in four wells (MW03S, MW05S, MW07S, and MW12S), iron in two wells (MW01D and
MW04S), and manganese in eight wells (MW01S, MW03S, MW04S, MW05S, MW07S,
MW12S, MW16D, and MW16S).
In addition to the site contaminants with cleanup goals established by the 2004 ROD and 2008
ESD, there were several other constituents detected in site groundwater in June 2016 at
concentrations exceeding current EPA MCLs or North Carolina groundwater standards. These
constituents are; 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,4-dioxane,
carbazole, chromium, cobalt, and vanadium.
Based on analysis of groundwater concentration trends at the site using the Mann-Kendall
statistical test, chlorinated VOC concentrations generally appear to be exhibiting a decreasing
trend in most shallow wells but either an increasing trend, stable trend, or no trend in most deep
wells. For metals, the Mann-Kendall test indicated that most wells display decreasing trend,
stable trend, or no trend. The only metals data set with an increasing trend was iron in MW04S.
Based on groundwater monitoring data collected from 2007 through 2016, Versar recommends
continuing annual groundwater monitoring in accordance with the recommendations of the First
Five Year Review.
4-1
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
5.0 REFERENCES
Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation (Black & Veatch) 2004, Remedial Investigation
Report, Blue Ridge Plating Company Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina, August
19, 2004.
Black & Veatch 2009, Revised Data Evaluation/Cleanup Status Report Based on Groundwater
Data Collected between September 2007 and January 2009, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, May 2009.
GSI Environmental Inc., 2012, Software User’s Manual GSI Mann-Kendall Toolkit for
Constituent Trend Analysis Version 1, November 2012.
J. M. Waller, 2010, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Sampling and Analytical Support, Blue
Ridge Plating Superfund Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina, January 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2004. Record of Decision Summary of Remedial
Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina,
September 29, 2004.
EPA 2008, Explanation of Significant Difference to the Remedial Action; Blue Ridge Plating
Superfund Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina, June 27, 2008.
EPA 2009, Review of Revised Data Evaluation/Cleanup Status Report on Groundwater Data
Collected between September 2007 and January 2009 (Black & Veatch), Blue Ridge Plating
Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina. July 16, 2009.
EPA 2012, First Five-Year Review Report, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County,
North Carolina, September 26, 2012.
5-1
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
TABLES
Table 2-1
Groundwater Elevation Summary
June 21,2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Screened Water Level
Total Depth interval TOC Elevation Depth to Water Elevation
Well Number (feet bgs)(feet bgs)(feet) (ft below TOC) (feet)
MW01D 73 63-73 2213.70 11.13 2202.57
MW01S 22 *2212.87 11.46 2201.41
MW03S 13 2.5-12.5 2204.13 2.98 2201.15
MW04S 15 5.0-15.0 2205.60 3.49 2202.11
MW05S 15 5.0-15.0 2206.11 4.87 2201.24
MW06D 78 68-78 2217.65 19.37 2198.28
MW06S 36 16-26 2216.23 17.77 2198.46
MW07S 15.5 5.5-15.5 2204.34 5.73 2198.61
MW08S 26.5 16.5-26.5 2214.42 18.11 2196.31
MW09D 78 68-78 2222.57 13.74 2208.83
MW09S 27.5 17.5-27.5 2223.09 15.69 2207.40
MW10S 30 20-30 2215.98 17.15 2198.83
MW11S 32.5 22.5-32.5 2218.80 18.40 2200.40
MW12D 60 50-60 2206.19 8.30 2197.89
MW12S 19 *2207.25 9.43 2197.82
MW13D 89 79-89 2211.58 18.56 2193.02
MW13S 30 20-30 2211.74 18.21 2193.53
MW14D 90 80-90 2220.17 21.32 2198.85
MW14S 40 30-40 2220.09 20.14 2199.95
MW15D 80 70-80 2212.06 21.95 2190.11
MW15S 26 16-26 2212.26 21.64 2190.62
MW16D 63.5 53.5-63.5 2185.99 6.08 2179.91
MW16S 15 5-15 2185.96 4.59 2181.37
MW17D 109.5 99.5-109.5 2212.95 24.82 2188.13
MW17S 34.5 24.5-34.5 2213.01 22.34 2190.67
MW18D 25.5 15.5-25.5 2181.28 4.66 2176.62
MW19D 62.5 52.2-62.5 2189.75 destroyed -MW20D 52.75 42.75-52.75 2178.01 4.91 2173.10
MW-10 8 3-8 2171.20 6.26 2164.94
AMW-3A 72 62-72 2173.37 8.46 2164.91
AMW-3B 98 88-98 2173.00 8.56 2164.44
Notes
bgs = below ground surface
TOC = top of casing
* = Data not available
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Andyte
ROD
Cleanup EPA NCAC 2L u„«. I I I
}unds
1,1,1-Trichloro6thane 200 200 200 pgA 42 4.4 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.4 1.3 2.4 1.9 1.6 3.4
1,1,2-TrichlorDelhane NE S 0.6 na/L 0.13 J 0.13 J 0.064 J1.1'Dichloroethane 700 NE 6 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.4 4.2 1,7 3.2 2.9 2 5 2.7 0.0080 J1,1-Dichioroethene 7 7 7 ug/L 3.2 12 ».8 _14 12 15 5.9 J 9.8 6.1 J 9.1 8.2
t,2-0ichloroethane NE 5 0.4 0.31 J 0.28 J 0.33 J 0.19 J 0.30 J 0.17 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 pgA.
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 Mg/L 0.2 J 0.46 J 0.19 J 0.25 J 0.24 J 0.29 J 0.22 J 0.17 J 0.45 J 0.52 0.17 J 0.49 J 0.18 J 0.25 J T:25J 0.13 0.17 J 0.09 JChloromethaneNE NE 3 mil
T etrad>k>roether>e 0.7 S 0.7 23 25 14 I 25 26 32 11 24 16J 18 19
Trichioroethene 2.8 5 3 pg/L 062 0.75 062 0.88 0.96 1.1 0.44 J 11 0.99 0.77 0.56
NE 2 0.03 A ■Hj1,4-Oioxane NE NE 3 pg/L 6.7 J 13 7.4 J 7.4 5.4
14 NE 30 pg/L 0.03 J 6 10 7.9 26 1.1J
NE 6 3 pg/L 15
Carbazoie NE NE 2 pg/L 8.8 ,9,6 9.1 6.0 11 6.9 3.5
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 pg/L 0.09 J 61 70 51 14 1.3 JPentachlofophenol0.3 1 0.3 pg«-1 J 1.4 J 0.54 N 2.1 1.9 2.0
Metals 1AntimonyNE6 '1 pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 pgfl-5.9 JBariumNE2000700M9/L 25 45 16 24 19 17 53 16 11 11 13 14 15 11 22
Cadmium '5 5 2 pg/u 3.0 J 20 9.0 17 19 12 :8.0 7.9 3.9 3.8 3 6 3.3 28
Chromium !NE 100 10 pg/L 6.8 7.7 I 6.7
Cobalt NE NE 1 pg/L 23 14 14 9 1 7.1 5,5 6.2
Cyanide 154 200 70 pg/L 1.3 J 72 45 20 6.6 JIron3800NE300pg/L 1600 1100 190 340 2200 4800 540 1900 730 440 5900 37 J 2800
Manganese 300 NE 50 pg/L 51 34 7.6 45 56 110 16 46 19 14 140 1600 820 1400 j 1800 1400 510 910 490 510 STO 400 440
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 1 5 J 6.5 J 12 15J
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 _P3rt^5.5
Bold
Notes
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals, EPA MCLs, or NCAC 2L standards.
' Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 1SA, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards, ISA NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1,2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA - United Stales Environmental ProtecBon Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pgA. - micfograms per liter
Blank' no data available: or results are non-detect
NE - not established
* - denc^es duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J • The identificatjon of the analyte is acceptaMe; the reported value is an estimate.
N * There Is presumptive evidence that the analyte Is present: the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in ax)lerwith temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 1 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Cleanup
Goal' '
EPA
MCL^NCAC 2L Standard^Units MW03S 1 MW04S |
Vnlatilu Onjami; Com|i lliuts
1.1,1 -Trichtofoethane 200 200 200 pg/L
1,1,2-Trichlofoethane NE 5 06 tig/L
1.1-Dichlorc}emane 700 NE 6 iig/L 0.08 J 0.025 0.16 J 0.091 1
1,1-Dichioroethene 7 7 '7 tia/L 0.25 J 0.10 J1.2-Dichloroethane NE ,5 0.4 (ig/L
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 Mg/L
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 ligrt.0.047
Chloromethane NE NE 1 3 gg/L
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 ggrt.0,15 J 0.19 JTrichloroethene2.8 1 5 3 M9/L 050 0.60 0.75 0.53 0.16 J 0.14 J
Vinvl chloride NE '2 0.03 Pfi/L
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pgA.1.2 J2-Methyinaphthalene 14 NE 30 0,10
6is<2-ethy4he](yt) phihatate NE 6 3 Ud/L
Carbazole NE NE 2 pgrt.
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 pgrt.0,09 J 0.08 JPentachlorophenol0.3 1 0.3 pg/L 0.042 J
Antimony NE 6 1 pg^
Arsenic 10 10 10 pgA.24 JBariumNE2000700uo/L 49 50 31 55 50 78 62 58 54 43 39 43 36 32 34
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L 7,8 48 7.8 8.2 2,7 30 1.1 6.1 8.3
Chromium NE 100 10 pg/L 16 17 18 35 15 12 9.5 6.3
Cobalt NE NE 1 pgA.
Cyanide 154 200 70 pg/L 59 42 16 55 40
Iron 3800 NE 300 pg/L 12000 190 3000 2600 580 570 330 140 570 1400 400 1400 2300 570 2800 110 8800 11000 7800 6200 16000 10000 10000
300 NE 50 pg/L 7800 870 1400 2000 840 840 390 31 84 820 320 730 3400 1^0 34(K}3400 2400 2(XH)2000 24m 2700 2400 2900
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 19J 10 11
Seienium NE 50 20 pg/L
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 pg/L
Red
Table presents results for constituents that currently or hisloncatly exceed ROD cleanup goals, EPA MCLs. or NCAC 2L standards.
' Record of Dedsic^ Summary of R^edial Alternative Selection. Blue Ridge Piating SKe, Arden, Bunccmibe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at SuperfufKl Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards. ISA NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1, 2013)
Analytkal results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are ^aded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg^ • micrograms per liter
Blank - no data available; or results are nomdetect
NE • not established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J - The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N • There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 2 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 • June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Anaivts
ROD
Cleanup EPA NCAC 2L UnHs MW05S MW06D
Volatile Organic Compounds1.1,1-TrichlorDethan®200 200 200 Mg/L 0.27 J 1.9 J 2.2 2.0 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.1
1.1.2-Trichk>roethane NE 5 0.6 Mg/L 0.16 J1,1-Dichloroe^ane 700 NE 6 (ig/L 0.042 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2 1 1.6 1.6
1.1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 Pfl/L 0.08 J 0.25 J 0.39 J 5.1 5.2 f.S 7.6 7.6 8.5 8.1J 6.3 5.1 J 6.0
NE 5 0.4 Pfl/L 0,21 J 0.18 J 0.17 J 0.11 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 Mg/L 0.34 JChloroform0.19 80 70 gg/L 0.71 0.52 0.40 J 0.27 J 0.17 J 0.18 J 0.19 0.08 J 0.10 J 0.11J 0.16 J 0,16 J 0.15J 0.21 0.14 J 0.22 J 0.15 JChloromethane NE NE 3 pg/L 0.96
T etrachkrroe^ene 0.7 5 0,7 pg/L 0.07 J 0.21 J 0.22 J 12 13 11 16 18 18 19 14 14 9.1J 11
Trichloroethene 28 5 3 mq/l 0.10 J 0.13 J 0.36 J 0.38 J 0 30 J 0,60 0.60 0.63 0.72 0.54 0.82 0.58 0.50
NE 2 0 03 ua/L II■|H1.4-Dioxane NE pg/L 4.8 J 8.2 J 5.6 J 4.0 4.4 T-12'Methvtnaphthalene 14 NE 30 pg/L 0.45 0.15 0.17
Bls(2-ethylhexv4} phthalaie NE 6 3 pg/L 11
Carbazoie NE NE 2 gg/L
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 gg/L 1.8 1.8 0.76 0.08 JPanlachlorophenol0310,3 gg/L 0.15J
Metals 161
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L 4.5 J 2.8
Barium NE 2000 700 36 33 34 33 23 28 15 19 16 14 16 16 15
Cadmium 5 5 2 gg/L 14 9.S 12 24 8.6 8.4 9.3 5.1 6.3
Chrmnlum NE 100 10 gq/L 5,1 5 1CobaltNENE1gg/L 28 25 19 23 14 18
154 200 70 pg/L 77 59 24 24 22 18 19 13 1.6 JIron3800NE300pg/L 450 26 J 230 100 460 350 260 180 210 92 J 300 700 460 200 320 130
Manganese 300 NE 50 gg/L 4100 1800 3^2800 4000 3100 2500 3200 1500 1500 8.4 J 21 8.4 J 9.9 15 14 9.6 9.0
Nickel 100 NE 100 5.3 J 12
Selenium NE 50 20 gg/L 6.2
Vanadium NE NE 0,3 li3^
Not0«
Table presents results for constituents that cumntty or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. EPA MCLs, or NCAC 2L star>dards.
’ Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Sdection. Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County. North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ North CaroRna Administrative Code Title ISA. North Carrriina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards. 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013)
[Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Bold lAnatytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Red lAnalytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD • Record of Decision
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Mawmum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank • no data available: or results are non-detect
NE • not established
* • denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier DefInHIons
J • The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative kjentification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 3 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyt*
ROD
Cleanup
Goal'
EPA
MCL^NCAC 2L Slanclard'
9/26/07 [ V30/08 I 6/11/08 I 1/28/09 T 1^/10 T 2/2/11 I' 2/9/12 I 2/9/12’ I 3/28/13 I 3/28/13’I 8/13/14 I 8/13/14'I 7/13/15 1 7/13/15‘f 6/19/16 I 6/19/16*
1,1,1-Trichloroelhane 200 I 200 200 Mfl/U 370 310 400 240 160 120 120 no 140 140 65 75 140 !110 92 87
1.1,2*T richkKoethane NE 5 0.6 MflA-1.3 0 82 J 1 2 J 1.0 J 1 5 2.3 0.77 094 2.6 22 27 2.6
1.1-Dichloroethane 700 NE 6 pg/L 95 92 100 76 40 27 24 21 '39 45 15 19 56 36 61 60
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 pg/L 300 J 220 320 180 1 140 110 110 98 1 150 J 160 67 79 ISO J no J 120 110
1.2-Dichloroethane NE 5 0.4 pg/L 0.28 J 0 74 054 0.56 0 57
Cartion Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 pg/L
Chioroform 0.19 60 70 pg/L 1.1 0.86 1.1 0.76 J 1 0.32 J 0 26 J 0.33 0.35 i 0.16 J 0.23 J 0.54 0.47 J 063 0.59
Chloromettiane NE NE 3 pg/L 9 3
1
Tetrachloroetirane 0.7 5 07 pg/L 87 84 J 92 54 37 35 52 45 :64 78 j 54 :65 140 J ;100 J 150 140
Trichtoroethene 2.8 5 3 pg/L 21 19 J 31 31 8.8 9.0 4.5 4 3 ;6,9 10 6.3 7.6 30 16 26 26
Vinyt chloride NE 2 0.03 pg/L
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pg/L
H 4 29 37 74 ■
13 24 ?e 41 42
2-Methvlnai:^thalene 14
NP
NE 30 -Ha/L,
Carbazole
iVt
NE NE 2
gg/L
ng/LNaphthalene21NE6h?/l 0.19
Pentachlorophenol 0.3 1 0.3 pg/L 0.27 JMetals
Antimony NE 6 1 ng/LArsenic101010pg/L 56 14 14
Barium NE 2000 700 |/fl/L 9.8 18 28 28 33 33 20 20 25 27 23 23
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L 46 21 46 45 17 7.0 4.3 3.3 1,6 1,5
Chromium NE 100 10 ggn-110 130 190 180 220 230 60 59 55 56 45 42
Cobalt NE NE 1 pg/L 76 40 28 28 30 30 9.2 9.2 11 11 10 9.9
Cyanide 154 200 70 260 250 280 J 250 230 120 NA-4 NA-4 110 110 36 28 41 37 31 36
Iron 3800 NE 300 Mfl/L 160 160 140 61 J 160 110 120
Marrganese 300 NE SO pg/L 1200 670 2000 2300 1000 570 200 170 180 190 13 14 39 42 40 40
Nickel 100 NE 100 pgfl-9.5 J 25 26 J 12
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 24 18 IS 15 40 38 6.2 6.4 B.O 8.0 8.2 J 8.0 JVanadiumNENE03,1^.
TsMe presents results for constituente that currently or histork»tly exceed ROD deanup goals. EPA MCLs. or NCAC 21. dandaRis.
' Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site. Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminante at Superfund Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Watw Qua%.
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards. 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1.2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceedirtg the NCAC Groundwater Stendard we red.
ROD • Record of Decision
EPA • United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - microhms per liter
Blank > no data availaUe; or results are non-datect
NE • not established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definftiona
J • The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N > There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the anatyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T*1 • Sample re<»ived In cooler vrith temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page4of 13
Table 3>1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD MW07S
I mSmm [gij jujj wBEroa wrmm mn^nm mmtu minm wmm wmmt wismm w^imi mmmui mn^^kim mhul^alm em3 Kana
1,1,1-Trichloroelhane 200 200 200 lig/L 0.14 J 0.30 J 170 ISO 63 100 12 87 30 19 16 27 16
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NE 5 0.6 pg/L 0.14 J 1.3 0.29 J 0.27 J 0.24 J 0.42 J1,1-Dichioroethane 700 NE 6 pg/L 0.48 J 0.16 J 0,12 J 0.063 0.60 62 55 23 48 7.4 23 10 7.4 4.9 10 9.7
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 pg/L 0.82 J 0.05 J 0 36J 0.060 J 0.22 J 0.64 190 J 140 73 110 17 80 14 27 J 19 27 J 23
1,2-Oic^loroethane NE 5 0.4 pg/L 0.36 J 0.13 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 pg/L
Chloroform 0.19 60 70 pg/L 1.6 0.23 J 0.4 J 1.4 0 13 J 0.095 0.090 J 0.19J 0.79 0.63 0.24 J 0.64 0.32 J 0,17 0.10 JChloromethaneNE NE 3 pg/L 0.93
T etrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 pg/L 0.24 J 0.09 J 0.31 J 0.12 J 0,23 J 0.29 J 1 0 65 61 20 41 4 6 26 13 9.2 12 22 J 21
Trichloroethene 2.8 5 3 pg/L 19 1.9 0.95 11 J 0,29 J 0.14 J 0.45 J 0.21 J 1.7 1.6 !13 34 33 18 50 11 15 7.8 5.8 2.6 5.2 4 8
Vinyl chloride NE 2 0.03
Semivolatile Otg3mIc Compound3
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pg/L 22 5.5 J !2.6 J 33 1.9 J14NE30pg/L 0.05 J 0.12
8is(2-e1hy^xyl) phthalate NE 6 3 pg/L
Carbazole NE NE 2 :pg/L
21 NE 6 pg/L 0.17 1.4 0.64 4.4 0.11
Penlachlorophenol 0.3 1 0.3 pg/L 0.16 J
Metals 1/Vntimonv 6 1 pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L 1.3
Barium NE 2000 700 pg/L 63 28 36 65 31 27 54 25 76 37 34 14 17 12
Cadmium 5 5 2 pgA-53 37 42 !44 38 15 18 37 14 12 19 65 26 11 51 4,5 18 2 6.8 2.1 34 0.78
Chromium NE 100 10 pg/L 10 5.9 6.7 6.5
CobaH NE NE 1 pg/L 23 14 28 56 22 80 9.3
Cyanide 154 200 70 pg/L 35 55 25 J 16 28 28 17 20 31 33 64 48 37 '19 51 NA-4 25 15 26
Iron 3800 NE 300 pgrt.4200 650 '1500 1600 340 700 510 410 490 110 170 5100 95 J 220 430 450 450 130
Manganese 300 NE 50 pgg.9600 2700 :2100 930 420 140 230 .380 1800 1400 2200 1000 430 400 900 99 330 59 180 51 95 21
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 73 29 J 46 47 47 23 26 42 18 14 20 40 15J 14 31J
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 2.6 2-6 5.8 3.7 5.6 2.9 5.4 2.0
Vanadium NE NE 0.3
Bold
Red
Notes
TaUe ixesents results for constituents that currently or histork»IIy exceed ROD cleanup goals, EPA MCU. w NCAC 2L standards.
' Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection. Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncx>mbe County. North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
’ Norfo Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A, Nordi Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Subchapter 2L, Groundvrater Quality Standards. ISA NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD • Record of Decision
EPA - United Stat^ Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Cartriina Administrative Code
pg/L - mioograms per liter
Blank - no data available; or results are non-d^ect
NE • r>ot established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J - The idenhfication of the analyte is acceptable: the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 5 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 • June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte j
ROD
Cleartup
Goal'
ERA
MCL*NCAC 2L Standard^Units MW09D 1 MW09S
1.1.1-Trichloroelhane 200 200 200 pg/L 0.08 J 0.10 J 0.23 J 0 29 J 0.28 J 0.10 J1,1,2-TricNoroelhane NE 5 0.6 M?/L
1,1-Dichtoroethane 700 NE 6 li?/u 0.09 J 0.11 J 0.12 J 0.14 0.0054 J1,1-Dichioroethene 7 7 7 mqa.0.12 J 0.28 J 0 21 J 0.24 J 0.27 J 0.39 J 0.30 J 0.42 J 0.31 J 0.61 0.22 J 0.64 0.29 J 0.55 J 0.45 J1,2-Dichloroethane NE 5 0.4
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 M9/L
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 pgA 0.047 0.07 J 0.15J 0.010 J 0.10 JChloromethaneNENE3pg/L 0.82
T etrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 pgA-0.1BJ 0.37 J 0.37 J 0.36 J 0.23 J 0.45 J 0.64 1.0 J 1.5 0.64 !1.4 1.1 1.5 0.55 1.6 0.90 0.99 1.0J 1.0Trichloroethene2.8 5 3 Mgrt.0.31 JNE2003
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pg/L
2-Methylnaphlhalene 14 NE 30 .jig'i-0.03 J :0.12
Bis(2-e4h)eiexyl) phth^te NE 6 3 pgA.
Carbazole NE NE 2 MS'!-
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 M?/L 0.20 0.21
0.08 JPentachlorophenol0.3 1 0.3 pg/L
0.089 J■■■■I■■■■■■■■BB|Antimony NE 6 1
Arsenic 10 10 10 ggA.
Barium NE 2000 700 Mg'!-17 28 IS 15 16 18 14 20 16 14 15 14 16 16Cadmium55 2 gg'i-
Chromium NE 100 10 Mg'!-50 60
Cobalt NE NE 1 M9/L
Cyanide 154 200 70 ..HirE,36 10
Iron 3600 NE 300 1200 340 230 39 J 660 2300 100 360 600 1300 220 200 300 270 220
300 NE 50 300 98 160 70 82 120 12 10 13 11 12 J 7 J 14 19 28 11 9.6 11 7 3 13 9.4Nickel100NE100..gg/E 92 17 J 15 25 33
Selenium NE SO 20 pgA.
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 W'E
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals, ERA MCLs, or NCAC 2L standards.
’ Record of Dedsion Summary of Remedial Alternative Seledion, Blue Ridge Plating Site. Arden. Buncombe County, Nwlh Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ Norttt Carolina Administrative Code Title ISA. North Carolina Department of Enwronment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards. ISA NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1,2013)
[Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goats are shaded.
Bold [Analytical results exceeding the ERA MCL are bold.
Red [Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are rad.
ROD - Record of Decision
ERA - United States Enviror il Protection Agency
MCL • ^teximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank - r>o data available; or results are non-detect
NE - not established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitiona
J - The identification of the analyte is acceptable: the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte Is present: the analyte is reported as a t«
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample recced in cooler wibi temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 6 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Anaivta
ROD
! Cleanup
EPA NCAC 2L Unito MW1QS MW11S
Volatile Organic Compounds1,1,1-TnchloroBthane 200 200 200 2800 3000 2100 1700 270 91 70 42 16 15 39 260 J 440 370 400 240 130 no 96 46
1,1,2-Trichloroelhane NE 5 0.6 Mg/L 2 0.40 J 0.27 J 2.0 J 1 6 J 1.8 1.2 1,4 0.80
1,1-Dichi(m}ethane 700 NE 6 mo/l 110 120 94 82 13 3.3 3,5 3.2 0.91 1,2 67 45 75 J 59 74 58 68 52 71 63 46
1.1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 pg/L 1400 J ■isoo 1300 910 190 56 47 31 J 12 12 J 29 190 J 310 210 2S0 180 190 110 120 110 J 79
1.2'Oichloroethane NE 5 0.4 uo/u 0,68 J 0 80 J 0 68 J 0.54 0 57 0.32 J
Carbon Tetradilohde NE 5 0.3 pg/L
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 pg/L 2.5 J 1.8 2.4 0.12 0,11 J 0.80 J 1.4 1.2 J 1.4 J 0 95 J 1.7 1-8 1.9 18 1.7
Chloromethane NE NE 3 pg/L 77 3 8Tetrachloroethena0.7 5 0.7 gg/L 570 660 430 320 55 30 28 20 14 15 J 69 95 160 120 160 140 160 100 130 100 J 83
Tnchloroethene 2.8 5 3 pg/L 57 66 60 43 7.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.46 J 0.56 27 25 37 J 31 33 28 32 35 38 33 21
V/mi/1 rtht/viflA
NE 2 0.03 II II
yiHyi _______________pfadBHi HH ■■■■■■1,4-Oioxane NE 3 pg/L 2.5 J 3.4 J ,1.3 J 1.5 J 1.2 J2-Methvlnaphthalene 14 NE 30 pg/L 0.05 J
Bls(2-ett)yeiexyl} pMhalate NE 6 3 pgA.
Carbazole NE NE 2 pgrt.
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 pg/L 0.12 0.47 0.18 0.12 1Pentachlorophenol0.3 1 0.3 ggfl-0.24 1
Metals 1Antimony61pgA.
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L 1.5
NE 2000 700 pgrt.12 11 11 12 9.0 8.4 9.7 0.28 J 120 110 130 120 110 85 77
Cadmium 5 1 5 2 pg/L 4.2 5.6 3.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.0 0,78 0.62 0.66 0.61 0.69 0.58
NE i 100 10 pgfl.5,0 17 22 19
Cobalt NE NE 1 pgrt-62 28 20 15 12 10 98 5.0
154 200 70 van-37 82 57 53 68 7.2 J3800NE 300 gg/L 290 84 J
110 110 130 110 1100
Manganese 300 NE 50 pg/L 1200 720 1400 1800 1200 520 370 320 280 220 190 180 190 150 190 190 190 180 190 140 120
Nickel 100 NE 100 gg/L 12 J 21 24 J 17 23 15 J 19 22 19 21 17 14 11
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 12 4.9 3.5 4.1 3.6
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 _12tJ
T^e presents results for constituents foal currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. EPA MCLs, or NCAC 2L stondards.
’ Record of D«xsion Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County. North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Lev^s for Chemical Contaminants at Superfurnl Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 1^, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards. 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical faults exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
Bold
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA - United Stales Environmental Protection Ag^tcy
MCL - Majdmum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank - no data available: or restAs are non<deteet
NE - not established
* • dentrfes duplicate sample
Qualifier DefinKione
J • The identification of the analyte Is acceptable: the reported value is an estimate.
N • There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present: the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees CPage7of13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Cleanup
Goal'
EPA
MCL^NCAC 2L Standard^Units MW12D MW12S
1/5/10 I 2/1/11 I 2/10/12 I 3/28/13 I 8/14/14 1 7/16/15 I 6/19/16 9/27/07 [ 1729/08] 6/127081 1/28/09 1 1/5/10 I 1/31/11 I 2/10/12 I 3/28/13 I 8/13/14 1 7/16/15 1 6/19/16r/OEiiiiseizrEniraifQnit]>unds
1,1,1 -T richloroethane 200 200 200 1.3 1.5 J 0.89 0.99 069 1.2 1.2 0.21 J 0.67 0.60 0.23 J 0.18 J 0.14 J 1.1
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NE 5 0.8 MSn-
1,1-Oichloroethane 700 NE 6 pgfl. 1.7 1.6 2.0 22 2.0 2.6 2.9 0 34 J 0.17 J 1.2 1.1 0.51 0.30 J 0.42 0.35 J 0.30 J 98
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 mq/l 4.9 5.1 5.2 4.4 2.6 5.9 J 6.6 0.69 J 0.22 J 1.8 1.7 0.69 0.30 J 0.32 J 4.2
1,2-Oichloroethane NE 5 0.4 Mgn-0.19 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 6 0.3 ra/L
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 |K»/L 0.60 0.25 J 0.30 0.16 J 0.21 J 0.16 J 0.67 1.0 0.67 0.27 J 0.19 0.18 J
Chlorom ethane NE NE 3 pg/L
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 Mg/i-6.7 9.0 8.2 8.2 7.0 i 10J 15 0.21 J 0,84 '0.38 J 0.22 J 0.19 J 0.27 J 0.35 J 4.9
Trichloroethene 2.8 5 3 W'L 5.9 2,7 3.7 4 8 3.0 3.7 40 3.2 2.0 13 16 7.2 2.8 0.85 1.7 0.14 J 0.92 25
Vinyl chloride NE 2 0.03 pg/L
■■1pbbiNE NE 3 pg'L 2.1 J ’ 6 J 4 4 ,J 4
14 NE 30 pg/L 8.1 J 1.6
Bis(2-ethyttiexyl) pMhaiate NE 6 3 pg/L
Carba^NE NE 2 wn.Naphthalene 21 NE 6 M9^020 0.57 15 1.4 J 2.7 JPentachforOTheno^^0.3 1 0.3 Mfl/L 0,077 J '0.16 JHHMPHl■■IIIIAntimonyNE61MS'!-4.5
Arsenic 10 10 10 M9'L 8.1 J 1.6
Sarium NE 2000 700 73 210 460 290 340 430 580 68 45 29 26 13 27 52
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L 34 32 5.9 40 82 63 21 .8.1 10 4.7 IS 26
Chromium NE 100 10 M!1/L 170 24 13 11 14 8.2
Cobalt NE NE 1 14 5.8 55 31 19 16 10 22 47
Cyanide 154 200 70 m/l 21 70 65 52 J 60 63 110 NA-4 71 23 25 29
Iron 3800 NE 300 M9/L 1100 840 270 52 J 260
Manganese 300 NE 50 (I9/L 1300 300 7.8 81 1100 170 1100 2300 1800 760 400 430 270 830 1800
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 93 12 18 33 J 32 11 16 26
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 4.8 4.2 5.8 JVanadiumNE NE 0.3 55 27 17 16 12
Table presents results fix con^luerMs that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. EPA MCLs. or NCAC 2L stendards.
' Record of Decision Sunnmary of Remedial AKemative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County. North Ovcriina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
’ North Carolina Adminisfrative Code Trtie 15A. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013)
Bold
Red
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA • United States Environmental Protection Ager>cy
MCL - Mawmum Contaminanl Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - miCFograms per liter
Blank • no data available; or results are non-deteel
NE - not esfoblished
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J - The Identification of the anatyte is acceptable: the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte e present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identtficatjon.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler vrith temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 8 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
1 1 ERA
Anaivto Cleanup NCAC 2L 1 1
Voiatile Organic Compounds1.1,1-TrichlorDrthane 0.22 J
IBFH
0.33 J ^BVSI ■ms 1.4 2.9 3.0 2.0 1.2 1.6 0.19 J 0.61 0.94 ■IWfi ■lEW Q3I
1,1,2-Trichloroethane NE 5 0.6 UQ/l 0.17 J 0.15 J1,1-Dichloroethane 700 NE 6 pg/L 0.15 J 0.98 1.2 1.2 0.23 J 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.3 4.7 4.7 1.4 0.6 0,32 J 0.77 0.39 2.8 0.31 J 0.65 0.28 J1.1-Dichloroethene 7 7 7 0.56 J 3.8 4.7 3.5 0.62 5.2 4.8 4.3 8.4 8.6 6.2 J 7.3 J 13 13 3.7 1.6 1.0 0.20 J 1.4 3.8 0.49 J 1.1 J 0,46 J1.2-Dichlofoethane NE 5 0.4 pg/L 0.22 J 0.23 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 pg/L 0.30 JChlaxjform0.19 80 70 pg^0.51 0.21 J 0.19 J 0.18 J 0.25 0.24 J 0.25 J 0.25 J 0.22 J 0.29 J 0.28 J 0.22 J 0.10 J 0.062
Chloromethane NE NE 3 pg/L 0.30 J
0.51 1
Tetrachlofoethene 0.7 5 0.7 pg/L 1.2 4.2 3.9 4-5 20 8.4 11 10 15 15 13J 12J 19 20 0.87 0.65 0,14 J 0.47 J 1.3 0.16 J 0,50 J 0.19 JThchloroethene2.8 5 3 pg/L 0.09 J 2.4 34 2.6 3,6 2.7 2.3 4.3 4.3 3.5 3.6 6.9 6.8 4,9 18 0.69 2.4 0.26 J 11 0.69 1.7 0.42 JNE20.03 II IIA■|H m/M HI ^H^H ^HPHiHHHH
1.4-Dloxane NE pq/L 2.8 J 3.5 J 4.5 J 3.5J 5.1 4,6 5.1 T-1 4.8 T-114NE30pg/L 0.19
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate NE 6 3 pgA.
Carbazole NE NE 2 pgrt-
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 pg/L 0.13 0.31 0.11
Pentachlorophenol 03 1 0.3 _P9i_0 14 J
Matals 1Antimony61pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 H()/u 1.6
Barium NE 2000 700 pg/L 16 24 22 24 23 22 21 22 29 29 27 53 73 130 110 64 45
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L 9.4 0.54
Chromium NE too 10 pg/L 7.6 9.6 19 46 5.0
Cobalt NE NE 1 pgA.9.9 9.5 6.5
Cyanide 154 200 70 22 22
Iron 3800 NE 300 pg/L 1700 440 210 48 J 170 780 710 990 110 100 230 280 370 390 53 JMarvjanese 300 NE 50 pg/L 300 280 260 250 62 110 91 78 50 48 40 41 56 56 110 150 170 100 28 94 130 370 360 200 150
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 25
S^enium NE 50 20 pg/L 4.7 3 1 3.0
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 Mg'L
Bold
Red
Note*
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. ERA MCLs. or NCAC 2L standards.
’ Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden. Buncombe County. North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Titie ISA. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2U Groundwater Quality Standards. 1SA NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1,2013)
Analyticat results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goats are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the ERA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Grourxlwater Standard are red.
ROD • Record of Decision
ERA' United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC • North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank - no data available; or results are nooKletect
NE - not established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualffler Definitions
J - The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentadve identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler wiffi temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 9 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Oeaiup EPA NCAC 2L
UnlU 1 1
I.l.l-Trichtofoethane 200 200 200 pg/L 0.97 0,23 J 0.36 J 0.24 J 1.8 0.23 J 0.22 J 0.15 J 1.1 0.14 J 0.24 J 0.15 J1.1,2*T richtoroediane NE 5 0.6 pg/L
1,1-Didiloroethane 700 NE 6 mo/l 0.86 0.16 J 0.5 U 0.18 J 1.9 0.22 J 0.25 0.20 J 0.13 J 0.76 0.019
1,1<Dichtoroethene 7 7 7 pg/L 0.85 J 0.57 0.53 0.60 4.2 0.79 0.66 0.71 0.56 J 0.44 J 2.4 J 0.26 J1,2-Dichk>roethane NE 5 0.4 pgrt-
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 pg/L 4.4 0.20 J 0.059 STSTT 0.18 J 0.071
Chloromethane NE NE 3 pg/L 0.51 0.47 JTetrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 Mg/L 2.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 7.1 1.8 1.9 0.99 2,0 1.6J 1.2 0.52 0.12 JTrichloroethene2.8 5 3 pg/L 2.1 S.4 1.7 0.17 J
Vinyl chloride NE 2 0.03 pgrt.
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pgfl.
2*Methyinaphthatene 14 NE 30 pgA.
Bis(2-eeiyihexy1) phlhalate NE 6 3 Po/L
Carbazole NE NE 2 pg/L
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 pg/i-0.13 0.14
Pentachlorophenol 0.3 1 0,3 pg/L 0.15 J 0.21 N
Antimony NE 6 1 pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L
Barium NE 2000 700 pg/L 22 16 15 16 17 23 18 48 29 31 30 32 32 36
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L
Chromium NE 100 10 pg/L 19
Cobalt NE NE 1 pg/L
Cvanide 154 200 70 pg/L 11 6.8 J 3.3 JIron3800 NE 300 pg/L 3200 220 390 1600 810 190 130 400 340 230 54 JManganese300NE50pgA.320 130 270 130 180 28 16 13 13 17 14 740 23 37 32 93 26 26 28 28 27 31
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 270 2.2 JSelenium NE 50 20 pg/L
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 pg/L
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals, EPA MCLs, or NCAC 2L standards.
' Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 1SA, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L. Groundwater Quality Standards. 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1, 2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding (he EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results e)u:eeding Uie NCAC Groundvrater Standard are red.
Bold
ROD - Record of Dedsion
EPA • United States Enviroi
MCL - Manmum Contaminant Level
NCAC • North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per titer
Blank - no data available; or results are norvdetect
NE • not established
* - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier DefinHIons
J • The identification of the analyte is acceptable: the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 • Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 10 of 13
Table 3>1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 • June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Cleanup EPA NCAC 2L UnHs MW15D 1 MW1SS I
UmI ■■■I
Volatile Organic Compounds1,1.1-Trichloroethane 200 200 200 pg/L 7.7 7.4 1.1 1.1 0.95 1.0 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.1 1,0 0.31 J 50 9.4 4.1 12 100 4.9
1,1.2-Trichloroethane NE 5 0.6 Ma/L 0.41 J 0.41 J
2.9 0,43 J 0.27 J 0.79 6.7 0.37 J700NE6WJ/L 2.0 2.1 0.75 072 0.99 1.0 1.2 12 1.2 1.1 1.1 9.6 2.0 1.0 2.6 22 1.1
1,1-Diehloroethene 7 7 7 MO/U 21 20 3.3 3.4 1.0 3.0 5.6 J 5.8 J 6.0 4.7 J 4.7 0,64 88 18 10J 27 190 J 12
1,2-Dichloroethane NE 5 0.4 Mflfl-0.21 J 0.21 J 1.2 0.21J 0.29 J 2.3 0.10 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 03 Hfl/L 064 067
Chloroform 0.19 80 70 MtfL 0.59 0.60 0.14 J 0.16 0,17 0.13 J 0.09 J 0,075 0.52
Chloromethane NE NE 3 pg/L 0.35 J 0.36 J 0.36 JTetrachloroethene0.7 5 0.7 Mfl/L 3.6 3.6 2.5 2.6 3,6 3,6 4,3 4.5 5.0 5.8 J 6.7 14 2.6 1.4 4.7 40J 2.7
Trichloroethene 2.8 5 3 M9/L 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.8 2 1.8 19 14 1.1 072 7.2 1.3 0.48 J 1.4 10 0.51
Vinvl chlonda NE 2 0.03 ua/L
Semlvolatile Organic Com|}ound1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 pg/L 1.9J 1.9 J 2.5 J 2.4 2.1 40 6.9 J 5,7 J 22
2-Methyinaphthalene 14 NE 30 pg/L
Bis(2-ethyd>exv1) d«halate NE 6 3 pg/L
Carbazole NE NE 2 imii
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 MQ/l
Pentachloroohend 0.3 1 0.3 ua/L 0.045 J ■■Antimony NE 6 1 pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L 2.7
Barium NE 2000 700 pg/L 27 31 17 18 17 16 18 18 17 19 19 580 620 1200 860 940 690 560
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L
Chromium NE 100 10 pg/L
Cobalt NE NE 1 pg/L 8.9 9.0 9.2 5.6 6.5 6.8
Cyanide 154 200 70
Iron 3800 NE 300 pg/L 190 970 170 190 190
Manganese 300 NE 50 pg/L 190 230 170 180 73 72 39 31 15 73 110 450 190 220 '170 150 140 110
Nickel 100 NE 100 pg/L 12 10 10
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 5.0
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 pg/L I
Bold
Red
Notes
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. EPA MCLs, or NCAC 2L standards.
' Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Selection. Blue Ridge Plating Site. Arden. Buncombe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
* North Carolina Adminisfradve Code TiBe ISA, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subcha ter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards. 15ANCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1,2013)
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding Bie EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Ma»mum Contaminant Level
NCAC • North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank • no data available; or results are non-detect
NE • not established
* • denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J - The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present: the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to Interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in coder with temperature Wank > 6 degrees C
Page 11 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Cleanup EPA
MCL^NCAC 2L St^ardH Unfta MW160 MW16S MW17D MW17S
2/10/12 I 3/26/13 I 8/12/14 | 8/12/14*1 7/14/15 ( 7/14/15*1 6/21/16 16/21/16*2/10/12 I 3/26/13 1 8/12/14 I 7/14/15 I 6;21/16 3/26/13 f 8/14/14 | 7/15/15 I 6/19/16 3/26/13 1 8/14/14 | 7/16/15 | 6/19/16
1.1.1-Trichloroethane 200 200 pg/L 7.4 2.7 5.3 5.4 4.4 4.4 4.8 5.0 0.21 J 0.25 J 0.23 J 51 1.9 6.5 2.0
1.1,2-Trichloroethane NE 5 0.6 0.15 J 0.090 J 0.18J 0.19 J 0.85 J1,1-Didiloroethane 700 NE 6 11 4.1 9.8 98 9 1 9 1 11 12 0.015 0.29 J 0,33 J 0.39 J 8.1 0.32 J 1.3 0.48 J1,1-CMchloroethene 7 7 7 37 14 J 36 36 29J 28 J 38 40 1.1 1.2 J 0.90 94 J 39 16 J 5.8
1.2-Oichlororthane NE 5 0.4 MSfl.0.16 J 0.15 J 0.28 J 0.19 J 0.20 J 0.24 J
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 m-Chloroform 0.19 80 70 VQH 4.0 1.5 3.2 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.2 0.0082 J 0.16 J 0.12 J
“3:^1
0.19 J
Chtorom ethane NE NE 3 Md/L I
Tetrachloroethene 0.7 5 0.7 6.1 2.5 5.7 5.S 5.2 J 4.9 J 7.3 7.4 0.79 2.9 2.4 J 3 4 26 1.1 3.8 J 1.8
Trichloroethwre 2.8 5 3 mu 61 42 J 60 60 58 55 62 64 0.2S J 0.22 J 5.S 0.27 J 1.1 0.40 JVinyl chloride INE 2 0.03 pqfl.
cis
1,4-Dioxane NE 3 M/L 7 7 J 3 5.]32 J 3 f 3 ('4 42-Methylt>aphthatene 14 NE 30 pg/L
Bl8<2-«eiylhexyt) phthalate NE 6 3 pg/L
Carbazole NE NE 2 pj/L
Naphthalene 21 NE 6
^entachloropheno^^^0.3 1 0.3 pg/LCBDHiHHi■■PHHA WKM■HAntimonyNE61pg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 pg/L 2.2
Barium NE 2000 700 pg/L 85 89 110 110 110 110 120 110 86 54 55 49 57 20 25 19 20 220 180 210 190
Cadmium 5 5 2 pg/L 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.6
Chromium NE 100 10 pg/L
CobaH NE NE 1 pg/L 53 34 28 28 29 10 8.8 5.6
Cyanide 154 200 70 pgrt-
Iron 3800 NE 300 pg/L 510 130 200 200 110 520 340 1300 860 1100 890 260 320
Manganese 300 NE 50 pg'L 6000 2900 2000 2000 1500 1500 780 790 1000 600 510 490 440 560 98 47 25 220 150 120 85
Nickel 100 NE 100 pgA.32 23 19 21 20
Selenium NE 50 20 pg/L 5.0
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 _!2iL.
NotM
Table presents results for OKtstituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals, EPA MCts. or NCAC 2L standards.
’ Record of Decision Summary of Remedial AllemaBve Selection. Blue Ridge Plating Site. Arden. Buncombe County, North Carolina.
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title 15A. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards. 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013}
Bold
Red
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goals are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the EPA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Groundwater Standard are red.
ROD - Record of Decision
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC - North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L - micrograms per liter
Blank - no data available; or results are non-detect
NE - not established
• - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definttfons
J - The identification of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is presumptive evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 12 of 13
Table 3-1
Groundwater Analytical Data Summary
September 2007 • June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte
ROD
Cleanup ERA NCAC 2L MW19D
■tTOTntlilTOIEWirJXI.-igtaiini KffninPOTncgggCTflMIJiMBIgnini nTZHglg/iWiriMbritiHiji ■TOMEiw/ai.-ttiJagwita
Volatile Organic Compounds ______________________________________1,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 200 200 ug/L 2.0 1.9
1,1,2-Trichioroethane NE 5 0.6 gg/L 1
1,1-Oichloroethane 700 NE 6 MP/L 2.5 1.4 0.83 0.59 1.8 2.0
1,1-Oichloroethene 7 7 7 ng/L 4.9 J 2.8 1.8J 1.1 741J 7.9
1,2'Dichloroethane NE 5 0.4 gg/L
Carbon Tetrachloride NE 5 0.3 PP/L 0.28 JChloroform0.19 SO 70 gg/L 0.72
Chtoromethane NE NE 3 gg/L
Tetrachloroelhene 0.7 5 0.7 gg/L 3.7 4.4
Trichloroethene 2.8 5 3 PP/L 0.73 0.55 0.44 J 0.26 J 5.0 7,0
Vinyl chloride NE 2 0.03 0 5'.!0 25 J
1.4 1.4 2.0 1.3 1.4
1.9 1.8 32 2 3 3.0
5.8 5.6 9.8 7.3 J 9.7
0.12 J
0.95 0.74 I 0.92 0.17 J 0.23 J 0.44 J 0.23 J 0.33 J 0.32 J 0.22 J 0.24 J 0.12J
2.7 2.5 4.2 2.9 J :4.0
6.4 622 12 8.6 I 11 0.19 J
1,4-Dioxane NE NE 3 PP/L 2.6 J2-Methylnaphthalene 14 NE 30 ggfl.
NE 6 3 gg/L
Carbazole NE 'NE 2
Naphthalene 21 NE 6 ggA.
Penlachiorophenol 0.3 1 0.3 gg/L
Antimonv NE 6 1 gg/L
Arsenic 10 10 10 gg/L
Barium NE 2000 700 gg/L 71 79 62 88 14 16
Cadmium 5 5 2 Pp/L
Chromium NE 100 10 gg/L
Cobalt NE NE 1 ggn-
Cyanide 154 200 70 MQ/L
Iron 3600 NE 300 gg/L 2500 840 1800 2700 150
Manganese 300 NE 50 gg/L 110 68 74 74 77 17
Nickel I 100 NE 100 |JP/L
Selenium NE 50 20 gg/L
Vanadium NE NE 0.3 gg/L
21 20 20 21 20 33 12 5.6 6.0 46 45
59
300 290 170 120 200 290
340 330 13 '7.8 28 7.3 220 190
11 6,2
Notes
Table presents results for constituents that currently or historically exceed ROD cleanup goals. ERA MCLs, or NCAC 2L standards.
’ Record of Decision Summary of Remedial Alternative Setection, Blue Rkjge Plating Site, Arden. Buncombe County, North Carolina,
^ Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfurtd Sites.
^ North Carolina Administrative Code Title ISA, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality,
Subchapter 2L, Groundwater Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 2L .0202 (Effective April 1. 2013}
Bold
Red
Analytical results exceeding the ROD Cleanup Goats are shaded.
Analytical results exceeding the ERA MCL are bold.
Analytical results exceeding the NCAC Grour>dwater Standard are red.
ROD ■ Record of Decision
ERA - United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
MCL • Maximum Contaminant Level
NCAC • North Carolina Administrative Code
pg/L * micrograms per liter
Blank • no data available; or results are non^etect
NE - r>ot established
‘ - denotes duplicate sample
Qualifier Definitions
J - The Wentiflcalion of the analyte is acceptable; the reported value is an estimate.
N - There is prKumpUve evidence that the analyte is present; the analyte is reported as a tentative identification.
NA-4 - Not analyzed or reported due to interferences.
T-1 - Sample received in cooler with temperature blank > 6 degrees C
Page 13 of 13
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW01D MW01S
1/5/10 2/3/11 2/10/12 3/26/13 8/12/14 7/15/15 6/20/16 1/5/10 1/31/11 2/6/12 3/26/13 8/12/14 7/15/15 6/20/16
Temperature “C 14.5 15.6 15.4 13.5 16.7 16.4 16.2 12.9 14.7 15.2 13.5 16.7 17.1 19.0
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 36 41 32 41 37 39 31 1755 1160 1184 1092 944 720 610
Dissoived Oxygen mg/L 1.62 5.42 4.32 6.90 4.64 5.97 6.05 1.42 0.39 0.52 2.98 0.33 0.49
pH Unitless 5.41 5.42 5.36 5.56 5.18 4.93 5.53 5.48 5.95 6.02 6.05 5.94 5.63 6.03
ORP mV 223 290 301 151 139 143 168 44 234 131 131 -37 ,44 102
Turbidity NTU 17.3 41.4 9.9 41.6 13.7 7.6 166 1.4 0.87 0.96 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.6
Notes
®C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miilivolts
NTU = Nepheiometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per iiter
mL = miililiter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Finai stabiiized readings are reported.
1 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte Units MW03S MW04S
1/5/10 1/31/11 2/6/12 3/25/13 8/12/14 7/15/15 6/19/16 1/5/10 2/3/11 2/7/12 3/25/13 8/12/14 7/15/15 6/19/16
Temperature “C 9.1 10.9 11.8 10.5 20.9 20.1 16.8 12.4 11.1 14.0 12.0 20.6 18.2 16.6
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 587 435 487 524 521 398 366 509 527 453 428 380 339 338
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.53 1.44 2.63 2.92 1.25 0.21 0.53 0.91 1.35 0.55 0.44 1.31 0.15 0.33
pH Unitless 6.09 5.75 5.97 6.41 6.44 6.14 6.36 6.07 6.27 6.21 6.28 6.41 6.11 6.34
ORP mV 192 10 120 -434 46 52 32 -25 -42 19 -341 -36 -66
Turbidity NTU 5.3 9.9 3.7 9.3 1.2 9.1 2.4 6.0 5.0 10.4 4.9 10.2 9.0 6.0
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = millivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
ml = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
2 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte Units MW05S MW06D
1/5/10 2/1/11 2/7/12 3/25/13 7/15/15 6/20/16 1/7/10 2/3/11 2/10/12 3/28/13 8/13/14 7/16/15 6/21/16
Temperature “C 12.1 12.9 14.3 12.6 17.7 15.4 15.1 15.8 15.4 13.9 18.6 16.1 16.2
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 764 889 722 719 527 526 24 33 26 33 32 36 32
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.95 0.75 0.27 0.31 0.26 0.32 13.65 5.75 4.35 7.20 3.75 6.21 6.85
pH Unitless 5.62 5.60 5.68 5.62 5.58 5.64 5.15 5.14 5.05 5.16 5.15 4.01 4.87
ORP mV 205 272 132 171 98 193 155 289 278 168 -147 112 149
Turbidity NTU 5.1 2.4 9.7 2.4 7.6 7.0 9.2 9.5 9.7 6.1 5.1 8.3 6.1
Notes
”C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miilivolts
NTU = Nepheiometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = miiligrams per liter
ml = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
3 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW06S MW07S
1/7/10 2/2/11 2/9/12 3/28/13 8/13/14 7/13/15 6/19/16 1/5/10 2/1/11 2/7/12 3/26/13 8/13/14 7/16/15 6/20/16
Temperature “C 15.7 15.5 15.9 14.8 17.2 18.3 16.4 10.9 10.6 12.3 9.1 17.4 17.5 17.6
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 1925 2078 1497 1739 743 992 933 351 209 279 593 753 621 849
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.01 4.54 3.86 3.83 1.70 2.33 0.90 5.92 6.12 4.86 5.66 3.84 3.52 4.19
pH Unitless 5.59 5.81 6.04 5.99 6.30 6.66 5.85 5.75 5.74 5.73 5.66 5.55 5.45 5.71
ORP mV 275 260 129 195 -256 139 130 176 250 174 211 130 161 150
Turbidity NTU 7.6 4.0 2.0 0.80 5.4 9.8 9.0 3.0 10.5 10.0 5.4 1.0 4.0 1.2
Notes
“C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = millivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = miliigrams per liter
mL = miiiiliter
Biank - no data
* = beyond readabie iimit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
4 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW08S MW09D
1/6/10 2/2/11 2/9/12 3/27/13 8/13/14 7/16/15 6/21/16 1/7/10 2/2/11 2/7/12 3/27/13 8/12/14 7/14/15 6/19/16
Temperature °C 13.9 15.4 14.7 14.5 16.0 16.2 16.9 16.5 19.0 16.5 15.2 16.8 18.8 16.3
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 340 963 532 400 296 391 260 30 37 31 37 38 36 36
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.04 4.61 4.95 5.94 6.28 3.40 4.44 13.53 4.66 4.24 5.31 6.25 5.22 5.65
pH Unitless 5.30 5.13 5.48 5.45 5.19 5.01 5.72 5.67 5.65 5.46 5.62 4.96 5.40 3.73
ORP mV 239 291 248 169 44 155 71 150 218 132 118 144 225 256
Turbidity NTU 4.7 6.0 9.1 15.6 6.0 4.9 4.3 12.7 5.3 3.6 3.7 5.4 1.3 4.5
Notes
“C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miilivoits
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
ml = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
5 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Piating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW09S MW10S
1/4/10 2/1/11 2/7/12 3/17/13 8/11/14 7/13/15 6/19/16 1/6/10 2/2/11 2/7/12 3/27/13 8/14/14 7/15/15 6/20/16
Temperature “C 10.9 15.7 16.0 15.2 17.6 17.2 16.9 15.0 16.0 16.2 14.9 16.6 16.6 16.3
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 24 19 18 17 24 26 25 838 575 396 348 218 211 223
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 6.45 5.83 5.44 6.09 5.31 8.26 7.02 0.61 3.44 3.68 2.17 1.69 1.82 1.48
pH Unitless 4.80 4.72 4.79 5.08 4.34 4.41 4.31 4.82 5.06 5.11 5.10 5.11 5.05 5.02
ORP mV 400 161 216 85 277 197 274 322 230 164 -358 30 185
Turbidity NTU 18.9 6.2 8.6 8.2 3.3 9.1 8.2 0.00 1.3 1.2 2.6 4.2 3.3 1.0
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = millivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
6 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte Units MW11S MW12D
1/6/10 2/2/11 2/10/12 3/26/11 8/11/14 7/13/15 6/20/16 1/5/10 2/1/11 2/10/12 3/28/13 8/14/14 7/15/15 6/19/16
Temperature »C 15.2 14.8 14.7 15.1 16.9 17.0 16.4 12.2 18.7 12.9 16.0 18.3 16.0 17.4
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 159 184 169 187 170 145 110 339 4848 3219 4904 6132 5389 4801
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.47 5.46 3.41 3.99 2.07 3.03 1.43 0.21 1.52 7.31 4.09 2.00 4.04 2.60
pH Unitless 4.45 4.53 4.60 4.52 4.32 5.14 4.44 6.20 12.52 11.98 11.99 12.33 8.10 12.59
ORP mV 287 402 289 195 53 245 170 -57 -120 -86 -61 -415 -64 99
Turbidity NTU 3.1 1.3 5.6 0.00 7.9 1.4 1.6 20.1 6.0 6.9 9.8 9.2 7.0 7.3
Notes
“C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = millivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
7 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW12S MW13D
1/5/10 1/31/11 2/10/12 3/28/13 8/13/14 7/16/15 6/19/16 1/7/10 2/3/11 2/9/12 3/27/13 8/13/14 7/14/15 6/21/16
Temperature “C 12.9 14.5 13.0 11.6 16.8 16.2 15.2 14.3 14.9 14.6 15.3 16.2 16.0 17.1
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 776 802 717 440 341 438 669 44 44 35 41 58 49 70
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.12 0.63 0.24 0.33 1.15 0.21 0.51 5.74 6.10 5.71 5.29 4.99 5.79
pH Unitless 5.69 5.77 5.95 5.80 6.10 5.58 5.66 5.38 5.47 5.71 5.52 4.86 5.90 5.39
ORP mV 212 226 132 189 -84 181 192 84 266 144 197 96 99 94
Turbidity NTU 0.51 0.05 5.9 1.7 2.0 2.9 0.8 3.7 8.9 16.1 9.9 5.4 8.9 9.9
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miiiivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = miiiigrams per iiter
mL = miililiter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
8 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW13S MW14D
1/7/10 2/3/11 2/9/12 3/28/13 8/13/14 7/14/14 6/21/16 1/6/10 2/2/11 2/9/12 3/25/13 8/11/14 7/13/15 6/20/16
Temperature ”C 11.3 13.5 15.2 15.2 15.9 15.0 16.4 15.5 15.9 15.9 15.2 21.8 16.7 19.3
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 231 333 368 573 573 406 345 35 48 38 37 46 46 51
Dissoived Oxygen mg/L 1.77 1.12 0.77 0.48 1.30 0.77 0.54 16.81 6.68 7.04 7.54 5.01 7.06 4.97
pH Unitless 5.03 5.03 4.93 4.72 4.36 5.32 4.86 5.71 5.76 6.01 5.80 5.83 5.55 6.21
ORP mV 233 229 220 136 50 109 98 124 237 130 245 118 191 170
Turbidity NTU 0.40 0.31 0.89 2.5 0.56 0.69 1.1 2.3 2.3 6.8 2.3 9.5 5.5 5.4
Notes
“C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miliivoits
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per iiter
mL = miliiliter
Biank - no data
* = beyond readabie iimit of instrument
Finai stabiiized readings are reported.
9 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte Units MW14S MW15D
1/6/10 2/2/11 2/7/12 3/25/13 8/11/14 7/13/15 6/20/16 1/6/10 2/2/11 2/9/12 3/27/13 8/13/14 7/14/15 6/20/16
Temperature “C 14.4 14.7 15.2 12.6 17.5 17.1 19.7 14.8 15.3 14.9 14.2 15.8 15.7 15.8
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 33 39 30 28 37 35 39 111 33 25 28 32 30 34
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.04 3.87 4.05 5.91 5.17 4.47 3.86 5.43 5.92 4.68 5.24 6.21 5.77
pH Unitless 4.67 4.87 4.69 4.77 4.54 4.76 4.91 5.39 5.20 5.61 5.45 4.62 5.17 5.16
ORP mV 279 209 142 311 75 148 210 89 301 194 121 75 132 201
Turbidity NTU 0.22 0.08 0.52 0.01 0.93 0.02 1.0 7.2 2.6 2.3 1.5 0.19 1.3 3.2
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = millivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
10 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW15S MW16D
1/6/10 2/2/11 2/8/12 3/27/13 8/13/14 7/14/15 6/20/16 2/10/12 3/26/13 8/12/14 7/14/15 6/21/16
Temperature °C 13.9 13.8 13.6 13.6 16.5 15.6 15.7 14.6 14.4 17.9 15.7 15.7
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 51 92 73 60 71 142 81 151 111 152 157 187
Dissoived Oxygen mg/L 9.14 3.84 5.58 3.62 5.79 2.93 4.34 1.88 1.57 1.04 0.75 0.82
pH Unitiess 4.60 4.06 4.39 4.55 3.77 4.57 4.21 5.81 5.54 5.27 5.93 5.69
ORP mV 230 288 316 268 94 222 229 177 118 -5.4 53 214
Turbidity NTU 0.54 0.93 0.46 4.3 1.6 3.5 0.8 10.8 4.5 4.8 8.9 3.9
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
gS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miliivoits
NTU = Nepheiometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = miiiigrams per liter
mL = miliiiiter
Biank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Finai stabilized readings are reported.
11 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW16S MW17D MW17S
2/10/12 3/26/13 8/12/14 7/14/15 6/21/16 3/26/13 8/14/14 7/15/15 6/19/16 3/26/13 8/14/14 7/15/15 6/19/16
Temperature “C 12.2 9.2 19.7 19.2 19.8 14.3 15.8 16.3 15.9 11.8 16.6 16.8 16.7
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 219 134 178 164 202 54 46 49 44 123 133 223 178
Dissoived Oxygen mg/L 0.54 0.71 0.32 0.29 0.55 2.59 6.38 5.42 6.87 4.19 5.92 4.44 4.59
pH Unitless 5.06 4.78 4.41 4.96 4.73 6.16 5.78 6.30 6.08 4.51 4.33 4.80 4.49
ORP mV 187 222 19 112 306 122 187 150 187 259 281 • 204 341
Turbidity NTU 8.9 2.9 5.9 5.8 3.5 5.3 5.2 0.8 12.6 0.43 4.6 0.9 3.2
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miiiivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
ml = miiiiiiter
Biank - no data
* = beyond readabie limit of instrument
Finai stabiiized readings are reported.
12 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte Units MW18D MW19D MW20D
3/27/13 8/12/14 7/16/15 6/21/16 3/27/13 8/12/14 3/27/13 8/12/14 7/16/15 6/21/16
Temperature “C 14.7 16.5 16.5 16.0 14.3 17.6 13.7 16.4 15.1 16.5
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 166 95 166 169 65 71 ■a0)96 83 86 86
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.41 0.44 2.64 0.37 3.57 3.78 = >»0) p 2.86 3.37 4.04 2.99
pH Unitless 5.25 4.78 5.31 5.31 5.94 5.43 § %5.85 5.29 1.32 5.99
ORP mV 1.7 8.8 134 180 47 2.6 0)T3 35 23 102 150
Turbidity NTU 0.20 4.5 7.9 13.7 0.71 2.9 5.2 2.2 3.2 14.7
Notes
“C = degrees Centigrade
MS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miliivoits
NTU = Nepheiometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per liter
mL = milliliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
13 of 14
Table 3-2
Field Parameters
January 2010 - June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte Units
Duke Energy Wells
I AMW-3A I1 AMW-3B 11 MW-10 1
11/4/14 7/15/15 6/21/16 11/4/14 7/15/15 6/21/16 11/4/14 7/15/15 6/21/16
Temperature »C 15.9 15.2 15.8 14.8 15.1 14.9 15.8 17.7 16.9
Specific Conductivity pS/cm 845 1860 949 91 88 72 73 75 72
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 1.33 5.70 5.55 3.37 4.67 5.34 0.85 0.47 0.43
pH Unitless 11.60 11.60 11.65 6.32 6.68 6.48 5.00 5.57 5.01
ORP mV -49 101 92 36 151 115 112 151 125
Turbidity NTU 4.1 1.4 0.4 12.8 8.9 0.4 1.8 1.6 0.7
Notes
°C = degrees Centigrade
pS/cm = microsiemens per centimeter
mV = miliivolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
mg/L = milligrams per iiter
ml = miiiiliter
Blank - no data
* = beyond readable limit of instrument
Final stabilized readings are reported.
14 of 14
Table 3-3
Summary of Mann-Kendall Statistical Calculations
September 2007 - July 2015
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
No. of No. of Coefficient of Mann-Kendall Confidence in
Well Number Constituent Samples Detections Variation Statistic Trend Concentration Trend
MW01D 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 10 0.38 1 50.0%No Trend
MW01D 1,1-Dichloroethene 11 10 0.52 3 56.0%No Trend
MW01D Chloroform 11 8 0.31 -9 72.9%Stable
MW01D Tetrachloroethene 11 10 0.45 2 53.0%No Trend
MW01S Cadmium 11 11 0.72 -47 >99.9%Decreasing
MW01S Manganese 11 11 0.56 -35 99.7%Decreasing
MW01S Chloroform 11 9 0.56 -23 95.7%Decreasing
MW01S Naphthalene 11 6 1.88 9 72.9%No Trend
MW01S Pentachlorophenol 11 6 1.16 1 50.0%No Trend
MW03S Cadmium 11 10 0.81 -3 56.0%Stable
MW03S Iron 11 11 1.67 -12 79.9%No Trend
MW03S Manganese 11 11 1.5 -25 97.0%Decreasing
MW04S Iron 11 11 0.76 28 98.4%Increasing
MW04S Manganese 11 11 0.23 -2 53.0%Stable
MW05S Cadmium 10 9 0.6 -15 89.2%Stable
MW05S Chloroform 10 8 0.63 -26 98.9%Decreasing
MW05S Iron 10 8 0.85 8 72.9%No Trend
MW05S Manganese 10 10 0.35 -20 95.5%Decreasing
MW06D 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 11 0.2 11 77.7%No Trend
MW06D 1,1-Dichloroethene 11 11 0.37 15 85.9%No Trend
MW06D Tetrachloroethene 11 11 0.23 -2 53.0%Stable
MW06S 1,1,1 -T richloroethane 11 11 0.59 -37 99.8%Decreasing
MW06S 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 11 0.52 -25 97.0%Decreasing
MW06S 1,1-Dichloroethene 11 11 0.46 -29 98.7%Decreasing
MW06S Cadmium 11 8 1.15 -46 >99.9%Decreasing
MW06S Chloroform 11 10 0.59 -26 97.5%Decreasing
MW06S Cyanide 10 10 0.64 -37 >99.9%Decreasing
MW06S Manganese 11 11 1.07 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW06S Tetrachloroethene 11 11 0.49 9 72.9%No Trend
MW06S Trichloroethene 11 11 0.6 -10 75.3%Stable
MW07S Cadmium 11 11 0.48 -32 99.4%Decreasing
MW07S Iron 11 9 1.25 -25 99.6%Decreasing
MW07S Manganese 11 11 1.34 -13 82.1%No Trend
MW08S 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 11 0.91 -34 99.6%Decreasing
MW08S 1,1-Dichloroethene 11 11 0.91 -28 98.4%Decreasing
MW08S Cadmium 11 11 1.2 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW08S Chloroform 11 7 0.69 ‘ -27 98.0%Decreasing
MW08S Iron 11 9 2.25 -9 72.9%No Trend
MW08S Manganese 11 11 1.05 -41 100.0%Decreasing
MW08S Tetrachloroethene 11 11 0.73 -21 94.0%Probably Decreasing
IVIW08S Trichloroethene 11 11 0.91 -43 >99.9%Decreasing
MW09S Tetrachloroethene 11 10 0.41 0 45.1%Stable
MW10S 1,1,1-Trichloroethene 11 11 1.32 -49 >99.9%Decreasing
MW10S 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 11 1.25 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW10S 1,1-Dichloroethene 11 11 1.27 -48 >99.9%Decreasing
MW10S Manganese 11 11 0.75 -42 >99.9%Decreasing
MW IDS Tetrachloroethene 11 11 1.23 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW10S Trichloroethene 11 11 1.27 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW11S 1,1,1-Trichloroethene 10 10 0.59 -36 >99.9%Decreasing
MW11S 1,1-Dichloroethane 10 10 0.18 -7 70.0%Stable
MW11S 1,1-Dichloroethene 10 10 0.36 -13 89.0%Stable
MW11S Chloroform 10 10 0.26 26 98.9%Increasing
MW11S Tetrachloroethene 10 10 0.24 -13 85.4%Stable
MW11S Trichloroethene 10 10 0.17 4 60.3%No Trend
MW12D 1,1-Dichloroethane 7 7 0.22 16 99.0%Inaeasing
MW12D Chloroform 7 5 0.5 -12 94.9%Probably Decreasing
MW12D Manganese 7 5 1.96 -10 95.2%Probably Decreasing
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-3
Summary of Mann-Kendall Statistical Calculations
September 2007 - July 2015
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
No. of No. of Coefficient of Mann-Kendall Confidence in
Well Number Constituent Samples Detections Variation Statistic Trend Concentration Trend
MW12D Tetrachloroethene 7 7 0.31 10 90.7%Probably Increasing
MW12D Trichloroethene 7 7 0.27 0 37.9%Stable
MW12S Cadmium 11 11 0.9 -11 77.7%Stable
MW12S Chloroform 11 7 0.73 -14 84.0%Stable
MW12S Manganese 11 11 0.71 -3 56.0%Stable
MW12S Trichloroethene 11 11 1.21 -13 82.1%No Trend
MW13D 1,1-Dichloroethane 11 11 0.73 46 >99.9%Increasing
MW13D Chloroform 11 7 0.34 8 70.3%Stable
MW13D Manganese 11 11 0.73 -45 >99.9%Decreasing
MW13D Tetrachloroethene 11 11 0.7 43 >99.9%Increasing
MW13D Trichloroethene 11 11 0.68 23 95.7%Increasing
MW13S Manganese 11 11 0.63 14 84.0%No Trend
MW13S Tetrachloroethene 11 7 0.79 -6 64.8%Stable
MW13S Trichloroethene 11 9 1.46 1 50.0%No Trend
MW14D Manganese 11 11 1.09 -39 99.9%Decreasing
MW14D Tetrachloroethene 11 11 0.78 -10 75.3% Stable
MW15D Chloroform 7 5 0.74 -8 84.5%Stable
MW15D Tetrachloroethene 7 7 0.32 18 99.7%Increasing
MW15S Manganese 7 7 0.56 -19 99.9%Decreasing
MW15S Tetrachloroethene 7 6 1.52 7 80.9%No Trend
MW15S Trichloroethene 7 6 1.3 5 71.9%No Trend
MW16D 1,1-Dichloroethane 5 5 0.33 2 59.2%No Trend
MW16D 1,1-Dichloroethene 5 5 0.33 2 59.2%Stable
IVIW16D Chloroform 5 5 0.31 -1 50.0%Stable
MW16D Manganese 5 5 0.83 -9 97.5%Decreasing
MW16D Tetrachloroethene 5 5 0.34 -2 59.2%No Trend
MW16D Trichloroethene 5 5 0.15 2 59.2%No Trend
MW16S Manganese 5 5 0.37 -10 99.2%Decreasing
MW17S 1,1-Dichloroethane 4 4 1.46 -2 62.5%No Trend
MW17S 1,1-Dichloroethene 4 4 1.44 -2 62.5%No Trend
MW17S Tetrachloroethene 4 4 1.46 -2 62.5%No Trend
MW17S Trichloroethene 4 4 1.37 -2 62.5%No Trend
MW17S Manganese 4 4 0.4 -6 95.8%Decreasing
MW17D Manganese 4 4 1.39 -6 95.8%Decreasing
MW17D Tetrachloroethene 4 4 1.33 -2 62.5%No Trend
MW18D 1,1-Dichloroethane 4 4 0.64 -6 95.8%Decreasing
MW18D 1,1-Dichloroethene 4 4 0.62 -6 95.8%Decreasing
MW18D Manganese 4 4 0.24 -1 50.0%Stable
MW20D 1,1-Dichloroethane 4 4 0.23 2 62.5%No Trend
MW20D 1,1-Dichloroethene 4 4 0.24 2 62.5%No Trend
MW20D Manganese 4 4 1.83 -6 95.8%Decreasing
MW20D Tetrachloroethene 4 4 0.22 2 62.5%No Trend
MW20D Trichloroethene 4 4 0.26 2 62.5%No Trend
Interpretation of trend data:
If Mann-Kendall Statistic is and Confidence is then Trend is
>0 >95%Increasing
>0 between 95% and 90%Probably Increasing
>0 <90%No Trend
<0 <90% and COV>1 No Trend
<0 <90% and COV<1 Stable
<0 between 95% and 90%Probably Decreasing
<0 >95%Decreasing
Page 2 of 2
Table 3-4
Groundwater Duplicates Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Caroiina
Analyte MW06S MW06SX % RPD
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 92 87 5.6%
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2.7 2.6 3.8%
1,1-Dichloroethane 61 60 1.7%
1,1-Dichloroethene 120 110 8.7%
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.56 0.57 1.8%
Chloroform 0.63 0.59 6.6%
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 9.8 10 2.0%
Cyanide 31 36 14.9%
Tetrachloroethene 150 140 6.9%
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.1 1.1 0.0%
Trichloroethene 26 26 0.0%
1,4-Dioxane 41 42 2.4%
Aluminum 680 740 8.5%
Barium 23 23 0.0%
Calcium 710 700 1.4%
Chromium 45 42 6.9%
Cobalt 10 9.9 1.0%
Magnesium 1600 1600 0.0%
Manganese 40 40 0.0%
Potassium 47000 46000 2.2%
Selenium 8.2 8 2.5%
Sodium 140000 140000 0.0%
Yttrium 25 27 7.7%
Average 3.7%
Analyte MW13D MW13DX % RPD
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.9 3 3.4%
1,1,2-T richloroethane 0.17 0.15 12.5%
1,1-Dichloroethane 4.7 4.7 0.0%
1,1-Dichloroethene 13 13 0.0%
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.22 0.23 4.4%
Chloroform 0.29 0.28 3.5%
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 0.36 0.35 2.8%
Tetrachloroethene 19 20 5.1%
Trichloroethene 6.9 6.8 1.5%
1,4-Dioxane 5.1 4.8 6.1%
Aluminum 270 250 7.7%
Barium 29 29 Q.0%
Cajcium 4000 4100 2.5%
Iron 370 390 5.3%
Magnesium 1300 1300 0.0%
Manganese 56 56 0.0%
Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)0.13 0.14 7.4%
Potassium 1300 1300 0.0%
Sodium 5700 5500 3.6%
Strontium 52 52 0.0%
Titanium 29 30 3.4%
Average 3.3%
Page 1 of 2
Table 3-4
Groundwater Duplicates Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
June 2016
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina
Analyte MW16D MW16DX %RPD
1,1,1-Triehloroethane 4.8 5 4.1%
1,1,2-T richloroethane 0.18 0.19 5.4%
1,1-Dichloroethane 11 12 8.7%
1,1-Dichloroethene 38 40 5.1%
1,2-Dichiorpethane 0.19 0.2 5.1%
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.23 0.24 4.3%
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 1.8 1.8 0.0%
Chloroform 3.1 3.2 3.2%
Tetrachloroethene 7.3 7.4 1.4%
trans-1,2-Dlchlbroethene 0.19 0.20 5.1%
Trichloroethene 62 64 3.2%
1,4-Dloxane 3.0 4.4 37.8%
Barium 120 110 8.7%
Calcium 14000 15000 6.9%
Magnesium 5100 5100 0.0%
Manganese 780 790 1.3%
Potassium 2600 2600 0.0%
Sodium 8200 8500 3.6%
Strontium 170 170 0.0%
Average 5.4%
Note: Concentrations are in micrograms per liter (pg/L)
Page 2 of 2
Blue Ridge Plating Site
2016 Data Evaluation Report DRAFT
FIGURES
-Hi
\
\ .
t'
Blue Ridge Plating
r« ^i
tf
S^^ELLItilpTON
'A . f \^irrtJb
Legend
' Property Line
' Streams
Former Building
(Demolished)
Lake/Pond
Feet
0 62.5 125 250
NAD83 US Stale Plane
North Carolina. Feet
OH
WV MD
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Blue Ridge Plating
USEPA ID#; NCD044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Figure 1-1
Site Location Map
^VERSAR
I
I .fe
w f < : y.-i.-c',!'' . i
■ - l/i^
TO-
.5> ' \ - ' '
'Si »■ 4
mmi
mi
/i . J^F.
IH
fi
Legend
^ Deep
Shallow
Nested Well
Bedrock
Former Building (Demolished)
Lake/Pond
Property Line
Streams
y*.
■: TOftsf
Nested Well includes deep and shallow wells in the same casing.
0 50 100 200
NA083 US State Plane
North Carolina, Feet
mm
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Blue Ridge Plating
USEPA ID#; NC0044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Figure 2-1
Monitoring Well
Locations
^ VERSAR
....* ■
wtisw «n
^Bp3S«i;:- y-;i5 xS
um!7si.\ .i». •
^ KBSBO©^ saaofl f ^
^ a
MW 5S'
sosain
SQSmDO
: /
*«f .*-"'' :mm
cs»»@®
Source: Aerial Source; USGS 2010 Date: 12/23/2016 User: hcoats Name: Fia 3-1 GW Potentiometric Map 2016 June fShallowH
Legend
^ Shallow Well
Groundwater Elevation
Contour (in feet)
Property Line
Streams
Former Building (Demolished)
Lake/Pond
Note; Groundwater
elevations measured
on June 2016
L
Feet
I I I J
0 25 50 100
NAD83 US State Plane
North Carolina, Feel
wv MD
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Biue Ridge Plating
USEPAID#: NCD044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Caroiina
Figure 3-1
Groundwater Elevation
Contour Map June 2016
(Shallow)
VERS AR
Legend
Deep Well
Groundwater Elevation
Contour (in feet)
lyyN Former Building '//a (Demolished)
m Lake/Pond
Property Line
Streams
Note: Groundwater
elevations measured
on June 20162208!83
MW14D
2,1.98l85i
'MW06Di2t9§S^mm
0 50 100 200
NAD83 US State Plane
North Carolina. Feet
MVy,16D.
21r79T91
;^p2i1t76T62
Yadkin County
North Carolina
Blue Ridge Plating
USEPA ID#: NCD044447589
Arden, Buncombe County
North Carolina
Figure 3-2
Groundwater Elevation
Contour Map June 2016
(Deep)
........^ VERSAR
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX H
2017 Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions
H-1
v"k}ii;.*ii6So3iii.JooJ'
Buncofflbe County, NCDrew Reisinger Register of Deeds
bk5529p4739-1744
DECLARATION OF PERPETUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
"fep : (jkdiVU ^
For Property Owned By: Carolyn Mitchell Benfield as Trustee of the Bill J. Bcnfield
Family Trust
Former Blue Ridge Plating Site, Buncombe County, North Carolina
The real property which is the subject of this Declaration of Perpetual Land Use
Restrictions ("Declaration") is contaminated with hazardous substances, and is an
INACTIVE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE OR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE as defined by
North Carolina’s Inactive Hazardous Sites Response Act of 1987, which consists of Section
130A-310 through Section I30A-310.19 of the North Carolina General Statutes
("N.C.G.S."). The real property which is the subject of this Declaration shall hereinafter
referred to as the "Site." This Declaration is part of a Remedial Action Plan for the Site
that has been approved by the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (or its successor in function), or his/her delegate, as authorized by
N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310.3(f). The North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality shall hereinafter be referred to as "DEQ."
Carolyn Mitchell Benfield as trustee of the Bill J. Benfield Family Trust is the owner in
fee simple of the Site, which is located at 171 Glenn Bridge Rd. in the County of Buncombe,
Biltmore Township, State of North Carolina, and is the real property legally described in Deed
Book 3070, Pages 198-200 in the Office of the Register of Deeds for Buncombe County. The
Site is also shown on a Notice of Inactive Hazardous Substance or Waste Disposal Site that is
concurrently being recorded with this Declaration at Man BocM'lZ Pagejf^'in the Office of the
Register of Deeds for Buncombe County.
For the purpose of protecting public health and the environment, Carolyn Bcnfield as
Trustee of the Bill J. Benfield Family Trust, hereby declares that all of the Site shall be held, sold
and conveyed subject to the following perpetual land use restrictions, which shall run with the
land; shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the Site or any part
thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns; and shall, as provided in N.C.G.S. Section 130A-
310.3(f), be enforceable without regard to lack of privity of estate or contract, lack of benefit to
particular land, or lack of any property interest in particular land. These restrictions shall
continue in perpetuity and cannot be amended or canceled unless and until the Buncombe
County Register of Deeds receives and records the written concurrence of the Secretary of DEQ
(or its successor in function), or his/her delegate. If any provision of this Declaration is found to
Page 1 of 6
9-
be unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired.
PERPETUAL LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
The Site shall be used exclusively for commercial or industrial purposes, but shall not be
used for child care centers, schools, parks, recreational areas, or athletic fields without prior
approval from the DEQ or its successor in function.
Notification to DEQ or its successor in function is required before making any soil
modification more than five (5) feet below the existing grade.
Site development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes is allowed
subject to the limitation in paragraph 2 of this Declaration.
Any surface or underground water shall not be used as a source of potable or irrigation
water, or for any other purpose. The installation of groundwater wells or other devices for
access to groundwater for any purpose other than monitoring groundwater quality is
prohibited without prior approval by DEQ or its successor in function.
The Site shall not be used for mining, extraction of coal, oil, gas or any other minerals or
non-mineral substances.
Mowing of vegetation, tree pruning and other landscaping and maintenance activity is
allowed at the Site.
In January of each year, each person who owns any portion of the Site shall submit a letter
containing that owner’s notarized signature to the Superfiind Section of the Division of
Waste Management of DEQ, or its successor in function, confirming that this Declaration
is still recorded in the Office of the Buncombe County Register of Deeds and that activities
and conditions at the Site remain in compliance with the land use restrictions herein.
No person conducting environmental assessment or remediation at the Site, or involved in
determining compliance with applicable land use restrictions, at the direction of, or
pursuant to a permit or order issued by, DEQ or its successor in function may be denied
aceess to the Site for the purpose of conducting such activities.
Each person who owns any portion of the Site shall cause the instrument of any sale, lease,
grant, or other transfer of any interest in the Site to include a provision expressly requiring
the lessee, grantee, or transferee to comply with this Declaration. The failure to include
such provision shall not affect the validity or applicability of any land use restriction in this
Declaration.
Page 2 of 6
10. The owner of any portion of the Site may submit a written request to DEQ or its successor in
function for modification of these restrictions, and must at the same time provide written
notification to EPA Region 4’s Superfund Division that the owner is requesting DEQ to modify
the restrictions. DEQ will concur with and grant such request for modification if DEQ
determines, based upon a showing by the owner, that the modification is justified.
REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
The owner of the Site hereby represents and warrants to the other signatories hereto:
that the owner of the Site is the sole owner of the Site;
that the ov/ner of the Site has the power and authority to enter into this Declaration, to grant the
rights and interests herein provided and to carry out all obligations hereunder;
that the owner of the Site has provided to DEQ the names of all other persons that own an
interest in or hold an encumbrance on the Site and has notified such persons of the owner’s
intention to enter into this Declaration;
that this Declaration will not materially violate or contravene or constitute a material default
under any other agreement, document or instrument to which the owner of the Site is a party or
by which the owner of the Site may be bound or affected.
ENFORCEMENT
The above land use restrictions are an integral part of the remedy for the contamination at
the Site. Adherence to the restrictions is necessary to protect public health and the environment.
These land use restrictions shall be enforced by any owner, operator, or other party responsible
for any part of the Site. The above land use restrictions may also be enforced by DEQ through
the remedies provided in N.C.G.S. Chapter 130A, Article 1, Part 2 or by means of a civil action,
and may also be enforced by any unit of local government having jurisdiction over any part of
the Site. Any attempt to cancel this Declaration without the approval of DEQ or its successor in
function shall constitute noncompliance with the Remedial Action Plan approved by DEQ for the
Site, and shall be subject to enforcement by DEQ to the full extent of the law. Failure by any
party required or authorized to enforce any of the above restrictions shall in no event be deemed
a waiver of the right to do so thereafter as to the same violation or as to one occurring prior or
subsequent thereto.
FUTURE SALES. LEASES. CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS
When any portion of the Site is sold, leased, conveyed or transferred, pursuant to
N.C.G.S. Section 130A-310.8(e) the deed or other instrument of transfer shall contain in the
description section, in no smaller type than that used in the body of the deed or instrument, a
Page 3 of 6
statement that the real property being sold, leased, conveyed, or transferred has been used as a
hazardous substance or waste disposal site and a reference by book and page to the recordation
of this Declaration.
2017.
OWNER SIGNATURE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 execute these presents on this day of f cb V
Signatory's name typed or printed: Carolyn M. Benfield
Signature:
Title: Trustee of the J. Benfield Family ^^st
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
I _, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that
Carolyn M. Benfield personally appeared before me this day, produced proper identification in
the form of and signed this Declaration.
WITNESS my hand and official seal this day of 2017.
My Commission expires: /O ' Pf 9Q
[SEAL]
X Notary Public
JEREMI COMOLLI
NOTARY PUBLIC BUNCOMBE COUNTY STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 10-25-2020
Page 4 of 6
APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The foregoing Declaration of Perpetual
certified.
Use Restrictions is hereby approved and
Bateson, KTj., Chief
iTperfund Section
Division of Waste Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
______, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that
___________________ personally appeared before me this day,
produced proper identification in the form of and signed this
Declaration. 1
WITNESS my hand and official seal this L^^ay of p\ Vi j Civ 2017.
/
My Commission expires
[SEAL]
Public
V> iin A J)\
; KELLY B. GALANTIS i
Notary Public |
, Johnston Coun^ S/ 1I My Commission Expires il ~ I'*
Page 5 of 6
<5
REGISTER OF DEEDS CERTIFICATION
The foregoing Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions is certified to be duly
recorded at the date and time, and the Book and Page, shown on the first page hereof
By;
Register of Deeds for Buncombe County
(signature)
(type or print name and title)
Page 6 of 6
ntSOHW.LYAmAflA
rrvvYc_K .Oci~l
DAY Of s^nnjBUS; OP JAC^COUNTY
POWE H6 TH8 T>e LA s?sszxa
iln/jun
PUBLIC («0(Un)lOQBBlIIIDDOlQlIBBDBlII
E .172 ■'150
VICINITY MAP NTSuaeo TO pewoRM rnia •ufwev:
ClAU OFBURVm
POSmONM. ACCUIWY.
Tm Of OPS ON «m PCLD ntOCtDura: JAVAD 0*Ci RM STATE
DATClIj Of auBVFOMBWOi;
OATUIUMOH HAD.PUflLJ
CAHOLTSfliTWEUBeNFrELD V
TITLE: TRUSTEE OF THE BILL J.BENFClOF
NORTH CARQLBM ■UNCOMK COUWTY
/i-Lffcfc'ST Roisv-v
THIS tURVET WAS PREPARED WITHOUT A TTTLB
TOTAL AREA
GRAPHIC SCALE
^85-Oltiyw^ 210,03.
lTLlA«rt;iaj«I.THATTKHAAPWAaiWJ|i|imj WACCOMAWCgWTIH U Mecca WmcaaWVKMD WO SEAI. THIS THE MOATtfUM^aiT
BW9.NCCA OAra
Second Five-Year Review
Blue Ridge Plating Site
Arden, Buncombe County, NC
APPENDIX I
2017 EPA Memorandum
Hydrogeology Review
G-1
• •
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
PRoTt<^
4SD-SSS
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
June 19,2017
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
THROUGH:
TO:
Five Year Review, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina
William N. O'Steen, Physical Scientist
Scientific Support Section, Superfund Division
Glenn Adams, Chief
Scientific Support Section, Superfund Division
Jon Bornholm, Remedial Project Manager
Superfund Restoration and Site Evaluation Branch
This memorandum responds to your request for a review of the draft Second Five Year Review
Report, Blue Ridge Plating Site, Arden, North Carolina. The document is referred to herein as
“the FYR.” For your convenience, comments on the FYR are itemized and are referenced to
specific sections or pages of the FYR, as applicable. A summary of comment 5 (detailed
independent review of groundwater data) is at the end of this memorandum. If you have any
questions about this memorandum or need additional technical assistance on this project, please
contact me.
1. In the list of acronyms, PCB needs to indicate the correct organic compound.
2. On page 3, text states “Because a municipal water supply is available, the use of
groundwater at the Site for potable purposes is minimal.” This statement implies there is
some use of groundwater in the area for drinking water. If this is a correct interpretation
of the wording, a statement needs to be added regarding where such groundwater use is
present in relation to the Site and groundwater contamination associated with the Site. If
no such local groundwater use is present or if it may be present but the locations of private
wells are not known, that information needs to be stated in the FYR.
3. The Table 1 designation of concentrations at the bottom needs corrections. Micrograms
per milligram would be correct, although a sort of standard mode of expression is
milligrams per kilogram (which is consistent with Record of Decision Table 17).
4. I concur with the recommendation and commentary regarding MNA in the first paragraph
answer to Question A (FYR Section V., page 16). See my detailed comment 5 below for
my independent review of Site groundwater monitoring data.
5. I have some observations regarding the groundwater monitoring data, the J.M.
-2-
WallerA^ersar groundwater concentration trend analysis, and the assessment of monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) as a potentially viable groundwater remedial alternative. The
following tabulation presents some observations reg^ding the FYR Table 3-3 summary of
Mann-Kendall statistical calculations (focus on the stable, no trend, and increasing trend
elements of Table 3-3 only) and the monitoring data contained in FYR Table 3-1. Note
that in previous comments to you on Site annual data evaluation reports (comment memos
from June 2014 and November 2012), some of the earlier monitoring results from the
MNA groundwater monitoring program (implemented in September 2007) may be
representative of changes in groundwater quality primarily due to the Site soil remedial
action and other activities, rather than due to natural attenuation processes. Often, during
a soil remedial action involving removal, there can be a short-term, notable increase in
groundwater concentrations during or at some period following the remedial action. This
condition has been observed at multiple other Superfimd sites in EPA Region 4 and
appears to be the case for some of the results from the Blue Ridge Plating Site (see Table
1 below). The additional emergency response action that occurred from December 2014
to May 2015 is another potentially confounding factor in interpreting the groundwater
monitoring results, although it would only potentially be reflected in the most recent (July
2015 and June 2016) monitoring results.
Table 1. Observations/Comments on FYR Table 3-3 Constituents with No Trend, Stable, or
Increasing Concentration Designations
Monitoring
Well Contaminant Designation Observation/conunent
MWOID 1,1 -dichloroethane No trend
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and < NC 2L
standard
MWOID 1,1-dichloroethene No trend
Some possible effects of soil remedial action
during the MNA evaluation monitoring period
MWOID Chloroform Stable
Concentrations generally slightly above the 0.19
ug/L ROD cleanup goal, but well below NC 2L
standard
MWOID T etrachloroethene No trmd
Some possible effects of soil remedial action
during the MNA evaluation monitoring period
MWOlS Naphthalene No trend
As many nondetects as detects during the MNA
monitoring period; 2010-2012 concentration
increases consistent with a delayed reaction to the
soil remedial action
MWOlS Pentachlorophenol No trend As many nondetects as detects during the MNA
monitoring period; MNA evaluation period
concentration data consistent with significant
influences from the soil remedial action
MW03S Cadmium Stable
January 2009 spike in the concentration may be a
delayed effect of the soil remedial action
MW03S Iron No trend
MW04S Iron Increasing
Possible short-term improvement due to soil
remedial action followed by a concentration
rebound to approximate pre-remediation condition
MW04S Manganese Stable
Table 1 is continued on the next page
-3 -
Table 1, continued
Monitoring
WeU Contaminant Designation Observation/comment
MW05S Cadmium Stable
Possible gradual, long-term decrease in
concentration not yet confirmable through
statistical testing
MW05S Iron No trend Concentrations < ROD Cleanup goal
MW06D 1,1 -dichloroethane No trend
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and < NC
2L standard
MW06D 1,1-dichloroethene No trend
2009-2013 concentration increases possibly
consistent with a delayed reaction to the soil
remedial action; average MNA evaluation period
concentration < MCL and NC 2L standard
MW06D T etrachloroethene Stable
2009-2012 concentration increases possibly
consistent with a delayed reaction to the soil
remedial action
MW06S T etrachloroethene No trend
2015-2016 concentration increases possibly due to
2014-2015 emergency response action
MW06S Trichloroethene Stable
2015-2016 concentration increases possibly due to
2014-2015 emergency response action
MW07S Manganese No trend
Possible 2009-2013 short-term improvement due
to soil remedial action followed by a concentration
rebound to approximate pre-remediation condition;
September 2007 concentration spike may be an
initial effect of the soil remedial action
MW08S Iron No trend
June 2008 concentration spike may be an initial
effect of the soil remedial action; all other MNA
evaluation monitoring results < ROD cleanup goal
MW09S T etrachloroethene Stable
MWllS 1,1-dichloroethane Stable
No obvious effects from soil remedial action.
Concentrations are < ROD cleanup goal but > NC
2L standard.
MWllS 1,1-dichloroethene Stable
Possible gradual, long-term decrease in
concentration not yet confirmable through
statistical testing
MWllS Chloroform Increasing
Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and « NC
2L standard
MWllS Tetrachloroethene Stable No obvious effects from soil remedial action.
MWllS Trichloroethene No trend No obvious effects from soil remedial action.
MW12D 1,1-dichloroethane Increasing
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and < NC
2L standard
MW12D T etrachloroethene
Probably
Increasing
No pre-remedial data
MW12D Trichloroethene Stable No pre-remedial data
MW12S Cadmium Stable
2008-2010 concentration increases possibly
consistent with a delayed reaction to the soil
remedial action; 2015-2016 concentration
increases possibly due to 2014-2015 emergency
response action
-4-
MW12S Chloroform Stable
Concentrations generally slightly above 0.19 ug/L
ROD cleanup goal, but well below NC 2L standard
Table 1 is continued on the next page
Table 1, continued
Monitoring
WeU Contaminant Designation Observation/comment
MW12S Manganese Stable
2009-2010 concentration increases possibly
consistent with a delayed reaction to the soil
remedial action; 2015-2016 concentration
increases possibly due to 2014-2015 emergency
response action
MW12S Trichloroethene No trend
2008-2009 concentration increases possibly
consistent with a delayed reaction to the soil
remedial action; 2015-2016 concentration
increases possibly due to 2014-2015 emergency
response action
MW-13D 1,1-dichloroethane Increasing
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and < NC
2L standard
MW-13D Chloroform Stable
Concentrations generally slightly above 0.19 ug/L
ROD cleanup goal, but well below NC 2L
standard
MW-13D T etrachloroethene Increasing
MW-13D Trichloroethene Increasing
MW13S Manganese No trend
Concentrations generally < ROD cleanup goal
but > NC 2L standard
MW13S T etrachloroethene Stable
Concentrations generally < ROD cleanup goal
and NC 2L standard
MW13S Trichloroethene No trend
Concentrations generally < ROD cleanup goal
and NC 2L standard
MW14D T etrachloroethene Stable
Concentrations generally about 2 to 3x above 0.7
ug/L ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L standard
MW15D Chloroform Stable
Concentrations generally < ROD cleanup goal
and « NC 2L standard
MW15D T etrachloroethene Increasing
MW15S .T etrachloroethene No trend
2015 concentration increase possibly due to 2014-
2015 emergency response action
MW15S Trichloroethene No trend
2015 concentration increase possibly due to 2014-
2015 emergency response action
MW16D 1,1 -dichloroethane No trend
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and
generally > NC 2L standard
MW16D 1,1-dichloroethene Stable Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L
standard
MW16D Chloroform Stable
Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and < NC 2L
standard
Table 1 is continued on the next page
-5-
Table 1, continued
Monitoring
WeU
MW16D
MW16D
MW17S
MW17S
MW17S
MW17S
MW17D
MW18D
MW20D
MW20D
MW20D
MW20D
Contaminant
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Manganese
1,1-dichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
T etrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Designation
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Stable
No trend
No trend
No trend
No trend
Observation/comment
Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L
standard
Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L
standard
Possible concentration decrease due to soil
remedial action; only four samples_______
Possible concentration decrease due to soil
remedial action; only four samples
Possible concentration decrease due to soil
remedial action; only four samples_______
Possible concentration decrease due to soil
remedial action; only four samples; three most
recent sample concentrations < ROD cleanup
goal and NC 2L standard
Concentrations > ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L
standard; only four samples
Concentrations < ROD cleanup goal and > NC 2L
standard
Concentrations « ROD cleanup goal and
generally < NC 2L standard; only four samples
Possible concentration increase; only four
samples
Possible concentration increase; concentrations
> ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L standard; only
four samples
Possible concentration increase; concentrations
> ROD cleanup goal and NC 2L standard; only
four samples
Table 1 shows that many of the Site monitoring wells have one or more contaminants that
are showing no definable concentration changes in response to the remedial action. A few
constituents are apparently increasing at a few of the wells. At some of the wells where
concentrations are either stable (or no trend) or increasing, other constituents are
decreasing in concentration. Based on Table 1 and the ongoing statistical trend analyses
of Site groundwater monitoring data, there is no current basis for concluding that
monitored natural attenuation is a viable groundwater remedial action for the Blue Ridge
Plating Site.
MWlOS is the only well where groundwater concentrations of potential concern are
showing only a decreasing trend. A few other wells with long-term records (records that
include data preceding the remedial action) are mostly showing decreasing concentrations
of constituents of concern. These wells are MWOlS, MW06S, MW07S, and MW08S.
All wells showing mostly positive indications of concentration decreases are shallow
-6-
monitoring wells located within about 100 feet of the former plating facility. These are the
wells that one would expect to most likely show the effects of the 2006-2007 soil remedial
action. Of these four wells plus MWlOS, three wells (MW06S, MW08S and MWlOS)
have historically monitored groundwater with the most significant levels of overall
contamination. Some of the key time-concentration trends in samples from these wells are
evaluated in this review.
MW6S had pre-remedial concentrations of several chlorinated compounds, plus cadmium,
cyanide, and manganese that exceeded ROD cleanup goals. In the post-remediation
environment, all of these contaminants appear to be decreasing, with the possible
exception of PCE. The inorganic constituents have decreased to less than ROD cleanup
goals and are not discussed further. 1,1,1 -trichloroethane has also decreased to below its
ROD cleanup goal and is not discussed further. Although chloroform remains above its
ROD cleanup goal of 0.19 ug/L, it has decreased to less than 1 ug/L and is a relatively
inconsequential contaminant in terms of its concentration. The chlorinated compounds that
are considered further for this well are 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, PCE, and
TCE.
Figure 1 below shows time-concentration plots for the MW6S chlorinated compounds.
The four compounds show increasing concentrations late in the monitoring history for
MW6S. I interpret these increasing concentrations to the influence of the 2014-2015
emergency response action. This upward concentration pattern may be transient but adds
a complicating factor to the assessment of natural attenuation for MW6S. Also, the first
few samples from the MNA evaluation period show concentration patterns and decreases
that I interpret as reflecting mostly the lingering effects of the 2006-2007 remedial action,
not MNA. This early post-remediation influence on the time-concentration data is
suggested by the fluctuating concentrations (most notable for 1,1-dichloroethane) and the
steep decline in concentrations that are present from the third to fourth or fifth sample
events. The fluctuating concentrations are suggestive of a disequilibrium condition. Such
a condition is often the result of a change in Site hydrogeologic and chemical conditions
associated with soil excavation and removal. Data that may reflect natural attenuation of
groundwater contamination monitored by MW6S are likely in the 2010 to 2014
monitoring interval. These data do not show significant attenuation of the chlorinated
compound concentrations.
MW8S had pre-remedial concentrations of several chlorinated compounds that exceeded
ROD cleanup goals. The remedial action appears to have actually caused brief increases
in contaminant concentrations (Figure 2 below). This phenomenon has been observed at
other Superfund sites in EPA Region 4 where soil removal has occurred. The rise in
concentrations apparently occurs due to increased groundwater recharge through
contaminated areas as they are being excavated or otherwise disturbed. The increased
recharge is likely accompanied by increased mass transfer of contaminants to the
dissolved phase due to disruption of soil structures (e.g. clay lenses) that may have been
chemical or hydraulic “traps” for soil contaminants. These disruptions to the Site
hydrology and hydrostratigraphy briefly accelerate the mass flux of contaminants into and
through the groundwater.
-7-
The MW8S inorganic constituent with a “no trend” designation is iron. However, the last
eight MW8S samples have had iron below the ROD cleanup goal and the iron data are not
discussed further. Other inorganic constiments of potential concern have apparently
decreased to less than ROD cleanup goals and are also not discussed further. Although
chloroform may remain above its ROD cleanup goal of 0.19 ug/L, the five most recent
MW8S samples have had chloroform below its cleanup goal. Chloroform is therefore not
considered further. The chlorinated compounds that are considered further for this well are
1,1 -dichloroethane, 1,1 -dichloroethene, PCE, and TCE.
Figure 2 shows time-concentration plots for the evaluated MW8S chlorinated compounds.
As previously noted, the chlorinated compounds show an increase in concentration just
after the completion of the remedial action that I interpret to be a response to changing
Site conditions during the remedial action. There are some notable concentration
fluctuations for the first several samples after the short-term increase in concentrations.
This fluctuation period is followed by a relatively flat time-concentration trend from 2013
onward. The fluctuation period is a probable condition where groundwater is in a
lingering state of disequilibrium around MW8S until about four to five years after the
completion of the remedial action. Only the last four years of MW8S data may represent
the natural attenuation component of groundwater quality changes at MW8S. However,
the 2014-2015 emergency response action superimposed another disturbance on the Site
conditions. This second source area disturbance may be reflected in the slight uptick in
concentrations in July 2015 relative to the August 2014 sample. Although the
nonparametric Mann-Kendall trend analysis indicates an improvement in MW8S
groundwater quality for the MNA evaluation period, the results would be misleading with
regard to indicating natural attenuation is effectively reducing contaminant concentrations.
The positive aspect to the MW8S data is that the most recent sample results show
relatively low concentrations. Therefore, if future monitoring results indicate natural
attenuation is a potentially effective remediation process, there is not a tremendously high
degree of contamination present around this well.
MWlOS had pre-remedial concentrations of several chlorinated compounds and
manganese that exceeded ROD cleanup goals. In the post-remediation environment, all of
these contaminants appear to be decreasing. Manganese has apparently decreased to less
than its 300 ug/L ROD cleanup goal as of August 2014, has continued to decrease in
concentration since then, and is therefore not discussed further. 1,1,1-trichloroethane has
decreased to below its ROD cleanup goal and is not discussed further. As for MW6S and
MW8S, the chlorinated compoimds that are considered further for this well are 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, PCE, and TCE.
Figure 3a below shows time-concentration plots for the MWlOS chlorinated compounds.
The four compounds (particularly 1,1-dichloroethene and PCE) show large concentration
declines for the first five monitoring periods following the remedial action. The large
concentration decreases are interpreted as being indicative of the effects of the remedial
action on groimdwater monitored by this well, not a result of natural attenuation. The
January 2010 to February 2011 concentration decline may reflect a period of transition
from a predominantly remedial action-influenced downward concentration trend to a
concentration trend dominated by natural attenuation effects. From the 2011 sample
-8-
onward to perhaps the July 2015 sample, groundwater concentrations are interpreted as
reflecting natural attenuation effects. The 2016 sample may show a delayed response to
the 2014-2015 emergency response action, with some increase in concentrations for all
four contaminants.
Because there is a three order of magnitude variation in contaminant concentrations shown
on Figure 3a, concentration changes are not clear during the period interpreted to represent
the period of natural attenuation effects. Figure 3b below shows the MWlOS
concentrations for just the period from February 2011 until June 2016. Figure 3b shows
that during the period interpreted to be representative of mostly or entirely natural
attenuation influence on concentrations, concentrations of contaminants were declining.
Between the August 2014 and the July 2015 samples, the emergency response action
occurred. After that event, chlorinated compound concentrations in MWlOS samples
began to increase, with the June 2016 sample having clearly higher concentrations of
contaminants. Particularly noteworthy is Ae large increase in the 2016 PCE concentration
compared to the 2015 concentration. The June 2016 PCE at MWlOS is the highest PCE
observed at this well since a sample from 2009. I interpret the 2016 MWlOS results to
represent a delayed effect of the 2014-2015 emergency response action. The 2015 and
2016 data points introduce a confounding aspect to what appears to be declining MWlOS
concentration trends that are presumptively attributable to natural attenuation. Further
monitoring will be necessary to understand the ability of natural attenuation to attain ROD
goals for groundwater monitored by MWlOS. For this well, the data from the 2011 to
2014 monitoring period are promising.
6. You should check with the EPA risk assessor as well as the ORC lawyer assigned to this
Site regarding FYR-proposed modifications to the groundwater cleanup goals for some of
the metals. It is my understanding that state criteria that are not based upon a risk to
human health are not applied to Superfund remedial action goals. Also, there may be
some question as to whether or not EPA currently considers as ARARs the North Carolina
2L standards. There are a number of constituents identified in FYR Table 9 where the
current cleanup goal does not match a NC 2L value. The FYR review recommends the
cleanup goals be changed to the NC 2L value. Additions to the list of contaminants with
cleanup goals are also recommended in the FYR (see Table 10 and Section VI. Issue 1 on
FYR page 18). Also refer to Appendix E, the ARAR review part of the FYR.
7. Ideally, the Appendix B site chronology would include the date when the remedial action
was completed.
As noted at the beginning of this memorandum, this closing statement is a summary of the
groundwater data review contained in comment 5. The Site groundwater monitoring results from
the MNA evaluation period do not support selection of MNA as a groundwater remedial
alternative at this time. Results only appear to be promising for MNA from one shallow
monitoring well located adjacent to the former facility, in the area of the 2006-2007 soil remedial
action. Elsewhere, decreasing contaminant concentrations observed during the MNA evaluation
period appear to mostly be reflective of concentration changes in response to the soil remedial
action.
-9-
The time needed before MNA can be evaluated as a remedial alternative will be variable. For
deeper wells or wells further from the source area remedial action, it may be a decade or longer
before MNA can be assessed as a remedial alternative.
cc: Glenn Adams, Chief, SSS (electronic copy)
- 10-
Figure 1. MW06S Time-Concentration Plots (Concentrations in ug/L)
10/10/200C 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013 12/27/2014 5/10/2016 9/22/2017
Figure 2. MW08S Time-Concentration Plots (Concentrations in ug/L)
1/14/2004 5/28/2005 10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013 12/27/2014 5/10/2016 9/22/2017
-0-M-<iid>loR>ctha>M -O-14-ctkhloroethcna -O-PCE C TCE
-11 -
Figure 3a. MWlOS Time-Concentration Plots (Concentrations in ug/L)
10/10/2006 2/22/2008 7/6/2009 11/18/2010 4/1/2012 8/14/2013 12/27/2014 5/10/2016 9/22/2017
Figure 3b. MWlOS Time-Concentration Plots (Concentrations in ug/L]
11/18/2010 7/26/2011 4/1/2012 12/7/2012 8/14/2013 4/21/2014 12/27/2014 9/3/2015 5/10/2016 1/15/2017 9/22/2017
-4^ lyl'ctichtoroethane -O-1,1‘dichloroethene -^PCE TCE