NCD991278953_082022_National Starch_Five Year Review

SIXTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

AUGUST 2022

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia

--------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Carol J. Monell, Director Date
Superfund & Emergency Management Division

CAROL MONELL Digitally signed by CAROL
MONELL
Date: 2022.08.04 14:11:03 -04'00'

[This Page Intentionally Left Blank]

ii

Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................... v
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
Site Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM ......................................................................................... 4
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 4
Basis for Taking Action .......................................................................................................................... 4
Response Actions .................................................................................................................................... 5
Status of Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 9
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M) .................................................................... 15
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW .............................................................................. 16
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS .................................................................................................... 20
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews ............................................. 20
Data Review .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Site Inspection ....................................................................................................................................... 22
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................ 23
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? .......................... 23
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid? ............................................................................................... 24
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy? ............................................................................................................... 27
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 27
OTHER FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................. 29
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS .............................................................................................. 30
VIII. NEXT REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 31
APPENDIX A – REFERENCE LIST..................................................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B – CURRENT SITE STATUS ......................................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C – SITE CHRONOLOGY ................................................................................................ C-1
APPENDIX D – SITE MAPS................................................................................................................. D-1
APPENDIX E – 1997 DEED RECORDATION MAP ........................................................................... E-1
APPENDIX F – PUBLIC NOTICE ......................................................................................................... F-1
APPENDIX G – INTERVIEW FORMS ................................................................................................ G-1
APPENDIX H – DETAILED DATA REVIEW .................................................................................... H-1
APPENDIX I – OU-1 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ..................................... I-1
APPENDIX J – OU-2 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION .................................... J-1
APPENDIX K – OU-3 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ................................. K-1
APPENDIX L – OU-4 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ................................... L-1
APPENDIX M – SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST ........................................................................... M-1
APPENDIX N – SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS ...................................................................... N-1
APPENDIX O – PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION...................................................... O-1
APPENDIX P – SCREENING-LEVEL VAPOR INTRUSION EVALUATION .................................. P-1

iii

Tables
Table 1: Site OUs ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Table 2: COCs, by Media and OU .............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3: OU-1 and OU-3 Groundwater Performance Standards ................................................................ 7
Table 4: OU-3 Surface Water COC Performance Standard ....................................................................... 8
Table 5: OU-4 Soil COC Performance Standard ........................................................................................ 8
Table 6: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs) ..................................... 13
Table 7: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2017 FYR Report ..................................... 16
Table 8: Status of Recommendations from the 2017 FYR Report ........................................................... 17
Table 9: Summary of Performance Standard Evaluation by OU .............................................................. 26
Table C-1: Site Chronology .................................................................................................................... C-1
Table I-1: OU-1 Groundwater Results, 2020 ............................................................................................ I-1
Table J-1: OU-2 Soil Data ....................................................................................................................... J-1
Table K-1: OU-3 Lagoon Area Groundwater Results, 2020 .................................................................. K-1
Table K-2: OU-3 Northern Production Area Groundwater Results, 2020 ............................................. K-3
Table K-3: OU-3 Northeast Tributary Surface Water Data .................................................................... K-4
Table L-1: Passive Soil Gas 1,2-DCA Concentrations, 2013-2020......................................................... L-3
Table O-1: Groundwater Performance Standards Comparison to Current Standards ............................ O-1
Table O-2: OU-3 Surface Water Performance Standard Comparison to Current Standards .................. O-3
Table P-1: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-31 ......................................... P-1
Table P-2: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-31B ...................................... P-2
Table P-3: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-29 ......................................... P-2
Table P-4: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-30 ......................................... P-3
Figures
Figure 1: Site Map ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Parcel Map ................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure D-1: Potentiometric Surface of the Saprolite Aquifer, December 2020 ..................................... D-1
Figure D-2: Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Bedrock Aquifer, December 2020 ........................ D-2
Figure D-3: Potentiometric Surface of the Deep Bedrock Aquifer, December 2020 ............................. D-3
Figure D-4: Potentiometric Surface of the Saprolite Aquifer (Lagoon Area), December 2020 ............. D-4
Figure D-5: Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Bedrock Aquifer (Lagoon Area), December 2020 D-5
Figure D-6: Off-Site Well Locations ...................................................................................................... D-6
Figure I-1: Well Map ................................................................................................................................ I-5
Figure I-2: OU-1 1,2-DCA Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ............................................................ I-6
Figure I-3: OU-1 1,2-DCP Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ............................................................. I-7
Figure I-4: OU-1 Acetone Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 .............................................................. I-8
Figure I-5: OU-1 Toluene Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 .............................................................. I-9
Figure I-6: OU-1 BCEE Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ............................................................... I-10
Figure I-7: OU-1 Total Manganese Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ............................................. I-11
Figure I-8: EX-08 Trend Plot (OU-1 Source Area) ................................................................................ I-12
Figure I-9: NS-26 Trend Plot (OU-1 Mid-Plume Area) ......................................................................... I-13
Figure I-10: NS-31 Trend Plot (OU-1 Downgradient Area) .................................................................. I-14
Figure I-11: NS-31B Trend Plot (OU-1 Downgradient Area) ................................................................ I-15
Figure J-1: OU-2 Soil Sampling Locations ............................................................................................. J-5
Figure J-2: SB-1 Trend Plot – Soil .......................................................................................................... J-6
Figure J-3: SB-1E Trend Plot – Soil ........................................................................................................ J-7
iv

Figure J-4: SB-1J Trend Plot – Soil ......................................................................................................... J-8
Figure J-5: SB-1K Trend Plot – Soil........................................................................................................ J-9
Figure J-6: SB-8 Trend Plot – Soil ........................................................................................................ J-10
Figure K-1: OU-3 1,2-DCA Plume in the Saprolite Aquifer, 2020 ........................................................ K-5
Figure K-2: OU-3 Total Manganese Plume in the Saprolite Aquifer, 2020 ........................................... K-6
Figure K-3: OU-3 1,2-DCA Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ......................................................... K-7
Figure K-4: OU-3 Total Manganese Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020 ............................................ K-8
Figure K-5: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-71 .................................................................. K-9
Figure K-6: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well IWS-1................................................................ K-10
Figure K-7: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-40 ................................................................ K-11
Figure K-8: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-54 ................................................................ K-12
Figure K-9: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-53 ................................................................ K-13
Figure K-10: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-35 ........................................................ K-14
Figure K-11: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-36 ........................................................ K-15
Figure K-12: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-60 ........................................................ K-16
Figure K-13: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-46 ........................................................ K-17
Figure K-14: OU-3 Production Area 2 Well Locations ........................................................................ K-18
Figure K-15: Northeast Tributary Surface Water Sampling Locations ................................................ K-19
Figure L-1: Operating SVE and Air Sparge Locations ............................................................................ L-1
Figure L-2: Passive Soil Vapor Concentrations, 2018 to 2020 ............................................................... L-2

v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
AS Air Sparge
BCEE Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
bgs Below Ground Surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cis-1,2-DCE Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
COC Contaminant of Concern
CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit
CSM Conceptual Site Model
1,1-DCE 1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-DCA 1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-DCE 1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-DCP 1,2-Dichloropropane
DPLUR Declaration of Perpetual Land Use Restrictions
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FYR Five-Year Review
GWPTS Groundwater Pretreatment System
HQ Hazard Quotient
IC Institutional Control
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
μg/kg Micrograms per Kilogram
μg/L Micrograms per Liter
μg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter
NA Not Applicable
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NCDEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
NCP National Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
NSCC National Starch & Chemical Corp.
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OU ` Operable Unit
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PPES Plume Periphery Extraction System
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RAO Remedial Action Objective
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
TAES Trench Area Extraction System
TBC To-Be-Considered
1,1,2-TCA 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
vi

TCE Trichloroethylene
TIC Tentatively Identified Compound
UU/UE Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
VISL Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy
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 such as this one.
In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations
to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)) and
considering EPA policy.

This is the sixth FYR for the National Starch & Chemical Corp. Superfund site (the Site). The triggering
action for this statutory review is the completion date of the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared
because hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE).

The Site consists of four operable units (OUs) (Table 1). This FYR addresses all the OUs.

Table 1: Site OUs
OU Description
OU-1 Addresses groundwater impacts attributed to historical use of the Trench Area
OU-2 Addresses soil impacts in the Trench Area, attributed to historical use of wastewater
effluent trenches
OU-3 Addresses groundwater impacts under the Production Area, current employee parking
area and near the wastewater treatment lagoons; divided into the Northern Production
Area and the Lagoon Area
OU-4 Addresses soil impacts in and around the Northern Production Area and Lagoon Area

EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Adam Acker led the FYR. Participants included EPA community
involvement coordinator Angela Miller and Tessa Monday from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). Amanda Goyne and Jill Billus from Skeo provided FYR contractor
support to the EPA. The potentially responsible party (PRP), Nouryon Chemicals LLC, was notified of
the initiation of the FYR.1 The review began on November 19, 2021.

Appendix A includes a list of documents reviewed for this FYR. Appendix B includes current site status.
Appendix C includes a chronology of site events.

Site Background
The Site is located at 485 Cedar Springs Road in the city of Salisbury in Rowan County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The Site is in a mixed-use area. Residential areas are north and south of the Site. Commercial
and industrial business are to the east and southeast. Forest and farmland are to the west.

1 As of October 9, 2018, the former AkzoNobel Specialty Chemicals, identified as the PRP in the 2017 FYR Report, has been
renamed Nouryon Chemicals LLC.
2

Since 1970, a textile finishing and specialty chemical manufacturing plant has operated on the Site.
When first developed, the plant included a production facility and three unlined wastewater lagoons in
the southeast part of the Site. Contamination resulted from use of the unlined wastewater lagoons and
leaks in underground terracotta pipeline that conveyed wastewater to the lagoons. From 1971 to 1978,
operations also included disposal of 350,000 gallons of reaction vessel wash waters in a five (5)-acre
area behind the production area (Trench Area) (Figure 1). These activities contaminated soil,
groundwater and surface water primarily with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals.

Nouryon Chemicals LLC owns most of the 482-acre Site and operates its manufacturing facility on the
southeastern part of the Site. Henkel Corporation (Henkel) owns about 53 acres on the eastern part of the
Site. Henkel operates a specialty chemical manufacturing facility on its property. The rest of the Site is
undeveloped, wooded land. Grants Creek borders the Site to the west. Two tributaries of Grants Creek –
the Unnamed Tributary and the Northeast Tributary – run through the southwest and east parts of the
Site, respectively. A third unnamed tributary is on the northwest part of the Site. Figure 1 shows the
locations of surface water features and remedial components, such as a soil vapor extraction (SVE)
system and groundwater pretreatment system (GWPTS) building.

Groundwater occurs within three primary units beneath the Site: saprolite, shallow bedrock and deep
bedrock. A northwest-to-southeast trending ridge bisects the Site east of the Trench Area. The ridge
serves as a drainage divide between the Unnamed Tributary and the Northeast Tributary. Groundwater
flows radially away from the ridge toward the tributaries to the east and west. Pumping of groundwater
in OU-3 locally affects groundwater flow direction. Figures D-1 through D-3 in Appendix D show the
generalized flow patterns in the saprolite, shallow bedrock and deep bedrock units, respectively.
Figures D-4 and D-5 show groundwater flow patterns in OU-3.

Groundwater at the Site is designated as an existing or potential source of drinking water. Groundwater
is not used for drinking water within the site boundary. However, groundwater is a source of drinking
water near the Site. The closest private well is about 400 feet north of the northern site boundary.
The well is over 1,500 feet from site-related contamination. Private wells are also west of the
southwestern site boundary, with the closest well about 1,400 feet west of the site contamination.
Figure D-6 in Appendix D shows private wells near the Site.
3

Figure 1: Site Map

C:::, Approximate Site Boundary
::·.-:: OU2
[I] OU4
4

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action
A National Starch & Chemical Corp. (NSCC) investigation in 1976 first identified contamination in
shallow groundwater near the Trench Area. In 1977, the State of North Carolina (the State) confirmed
the contamination and requested that NSCC end on-site waste disposal. NSCC ended trenching activities
in 1978. NSCC then redirected wastewater to an on-site pretreatment facility (wastewater lagoon
system) prior to discharge to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

NSCC entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA in December 1986 to conduct a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). NSCC completed the first RI/FS in 1988 (OU-1).
The 1988 RI/FS found VOCs and metals in groundwater above federal maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs). The Trench Area was believed to be the source of the contamination. A human health risk
assessment conducted as part of the 1988 RI found unacceptable risks if contaminated groundwater were
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: National Starch & Chemical Corp.
EPA ID: NCD991278953
Region: 4 State: North Carolina City/County: Salisbury/Rowan
SITE STATUS
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
Yes
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Adam Acker
Author affiliation: EPA with support provided by Skeo
Review period: 11/19/2021 – 9/19/2022
Date of site inspection: 3/8/2022
Type of review: Statutory
Review number: 6
Triggering action date: 9/26/2017
Due date (five years after triggering action date): 9/26/2022
5

used for drinking water (OU-1). The EPA added the Site to the Superfund program’s National Priorities
List (NPL) in October 1989.

NSCC completed additional RI/FSs in 1990 (OU-2), 1993 (OU-3) and 1994 (OU-4). Investigations from
1990 to 1993 identified soil contamination in the Trench Area (OU-2) and in the Northern Production
Area and the Lagoon Area (OU-4). The investigations also found groundwater and surface water
contamination from the former unlined wastewater treatment lagoons, underground terracotta process
wastewater lines and miscellaneous spills (OU-3). A 1993 baseline risk assessment identified
unacceptable risks for potential future use of groundwater as a source of drinking water. The risk
assessment also identified unacceptable risk from exposures to surface water for the child trespasser and
future child resident. The risk assessment did not identify unacceptable risk associated with direct
exposure to contaminated soil under likely exposure scenarios. The basis for the OU-2 and OU-4 soil
response actions was protection of groundwater.

The 1993 baseline risk assessment included an ecological risk assessment to evaluate risks to the aquatic
and benthic organisms in the Northeast Tributary (OU-3). The risk assessment found no substantive link
between the presence of 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) in the Northeast Tributary and the limited
biodiversity in the stream. However, it noted that given the high concentrations of 1,2-DCA in
groundwater, the potential for discharge of groundwater contaminants above levels of ecological
concern was possible.

Table 2 identifies contaminants of concern (COCs) for OU-1, OU-3 and OU-4 from site decision
documents. Decision documents did not select COCs for OU-2. However, the 1990 Supplemental RI for
OU-2 identified significant levels of 1,2-DCA, 2-butanone, 1,2-dichloropropane (1,2-DCP), 4-methyl-2-
pentanone, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes in Trench Area subsurface soil.

Table 2: COCs, by Media and OU
OU Medium COC
OU-1 Groundwater arsenic, benzene, bis(2-chloroethyl) ether (BCEE), bromodichloromethane,
chloroform, 1,2-DCA, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), methylene chloride,
1,1,2-trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA), trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, acetone,
barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 1,2-DCP, ethylbenzene, manganese, nickel,
4-nitrophenol, selenium, toluene, xylenes, zinc
OU-3 Groundwater acetone, BCEE, chloroform, 1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCE, 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) (cis and
trans), 1,2-DCP, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,2-TCA, TCE, vinyl
chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, antimony, chromium, manganese, thallium, zinc
OU-3 Surface water 1,2-DCA
OU-4 Soil 1,2-DCA
Sources: Section 4.1 of the 1988 OU-1 ROD (pdf pp. 25 and 26), Table 19 of the 1993 OU-3 ROD (pdf pp. 92 and 93),
Section 7.2 of the 1994 OU-4 ROD (pdf p. 43).

Response Actions

Remedy Selection
The EPA issued a separate Record of Decision (ROD) for each OU. The following paragraphs describe
the OU-specific remedies and remedial action objectives (RAOs).

6

OU-1 – Trench Area Groundwater
OU-1 addresses groundwater contamination attributed to the Trench Area on the western part of the Site
and within the drainage basin of the Unnamed Tributary. The EPA selected the OU-1 remedy in a
September 1988 ROD. The remedy included installation of a groundwater extraction system, pre-
treatment of extracted groundwater prior to discharge to the POTW, and surface water, sediment and
groundwater monitoring. The ROD noted that groundwater pretreatment options include air stripping,
filtration through activated carbon filter, metal removal or treatment through the facility’s existing
wastewater lagoon system.

The OU-1 ROD did not specify RAOs. However, the primary goal of the OU-1 remedy was to contain
and remediate contaminated groundwater to meet performance standards specified in the ROD.
The OU-1 ROD also established OU-2 to address Trench Area soil contamination.

OU-2 – Trench Area Soil
The EPA’s September 1990 ROD selected no further action for OU-2, with the intent that the natural
infiltration of precipitation would flush residual contamination into groundwater. The remedy required
the continued operation of the OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system to capture
contamination flushed from the Trench Area soils. The OU-2 ROD also required a deed restriction
to identify areas of contamination and collection of soil samples from the Trench Area at least every
five years.

The OU-2 ROD did not establish soil cleanup goals or identify specific RAOs for the remedy.
However, the OU-2 ROD did require more work to identify, characterize and delineate contamination in
the Northeast Tributary. This investigation resulted in development of OU-3.

OU-3 – Production Area Groundwater and Northeast Tributary
OU-3 consists of groundwater beneath the Northern Production Area, the Lagoon Area and the parking
lot as well as surface water and sediment in the Northeast Tributary. The sources of the groundwater
contamination include the former unlined wastewater treatment lagoons, underground terracotta
wastewater lines and miscellaneous spills in the Northeast Tributary drainage basin.

The EPA selected the OU-3 remedy in an October 1993 ROD. Major components of the remedy
included groundwater extraction and treatment, long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water and
sediment of the Northeast Tributary, and a deed restriction to limit future use of the area known to be
affected by contaminated groundwater. The OU-3 ROD also required bedrock groundwater monitoring.

General goals of the OU-3 remedy are to prevent current or future exposure to contaminated
groundwater and to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use. Table 14 of the OU-3 ROD also
identified the following media-specific RAOs:
x Groundwater – prevent ingestion of water having levels of 1,2-DCA resulting in cancer risks
exceeding the 10-4 to 10-6 risk range.
x Sediment – prevent direct contact with sediment having levels of 1,2-DCA resulting in cancer
risks exceeding the 10-4 to 10-6 risk range.

The OU-3 ROD did not identify RAOs for surface water because surface water was not a source of
drinking water and concentrations of 1,2-DCA at the time of the ROD were below ambient water quality
criteria. Surface water concentrations had not conclusively been found to represent an environmental
threat. However, the OU-3 ROD selected a 1,2-DCA cleanup goal for surface water to verify that
7

groundwater contaminants are not migrating into the tributary at levels of concern. The OU-3 ROD did
not select cleanup goals for sediment.

OU-4
OU-4 addresses soil impacts in the same area addressed by OU-3. The EPA selected a natural
degradation remedy for OU-4 in an October 1994 ROD. The remedy also required institutional and
engineering controls including deed restrictions, and maintenance of fencing. The OU-4 ROD required
regular maintenance of site features, including repair and sealing of all cracks, seams and other points of
infiltration through the paved or built-over areas, and periodic inspection and maintenance of paved
areas around in the Northern Production Area. The OU-4 remedy included a contingent remedy if
natural degradation failed to result in a significant reduction in soil concentrations within two years.
The contingent remedy included installation of an SVE system with an emissions control technology to
treat VOCs.

The OU-4 ROD identified the following RAOs for the OU-4 remedy:
x Human health – prevent release of contaminants from soil that could result in contaminant levels
above groundwater cleanup objectives specified in the OU-3 ROD.
x Environmental protection – continue containment of contamination.

Performance Standards
Table 3 identifies the groundwater performance standards for OU-1 and OU-3. Table 4 includes the
OU-3 surface water performance standard. Table 5 includes the OU-4 soil performance standard.

Table 3: OU-1 and OU-3 Groundwater Performance Standards
Groundwater COC
1988 OU-1 ROD
Performance
Standarda
(μg/L)
Basis
1993 OU-3 ROD
Performance
Standardb
(μg/L)
Basis
VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethene 7 MCL 7 MCL/state
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 MCL 1 CRQL/state
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 proposed MCL 1 CRQL/state
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 5 limit of detection 5 CRQL/state
Acetone 3,500 health-based 700 state
Benzene 5 MCL NA NA
Bromodichloromethane 5 limit of detection NA NA
Chloroform 5 limit of detection 1 CRQL/state
Cis-1,2-dichloroethene NA NA 70 MCL/state
Ethylbenzene 3,500 proposed MCLG NA NA
Methylene chloride 5 limit of detection 5 MCL/state
Trichloroethene 5 MCL 2.8 state
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene NA NA 70 MCL/state
Toluene 2,000 proposed MCL NA NA
Tetrachloroethene NA NA 1 CRQL/state
Vinyl chloride 2 MCL 1 CRQL/state
Xylenes 350 health-based NA NA
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
4-Nitrophenol 350 health-based NA NA
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether 5 limit of detection 5 CRQL/state
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
NA NA 5 CRQL/state
8

Groundwater COC
1988 OU-1 ROD
Performance
Standarda
(μg/L)
Basis
1993 OU-3 ROD
Performance
Standardb
(μg/L)
Basis
Metals
Antimony NA NA 6 MCL
Arsenic 10 MCL NA NA
Barium 1,000 MCL NA NA
Beryllium 17.5 health-based NA NA
Cadmium 10 MCL NA NA
Chromium 50 MCL 50 state
Manganese 7,700 health-based 50 state
Nickel 350 health-based NA NA
Selenium 10 MCL NA NA
Thallium NA NA 2 MCL
Zinc 7,350 health-based 2,100 state
Notes:
a) Source: Section 4.1 of the 1988 OU-1 ROD (pdf pp. 25 and 26).
b) Source: Table 19 of the 1993 OU-3 ROD (pdf pp. 92 and 93).

μg/L = micrograms per liter
MCL = maximum contaminant level, as specified in the Safe Drinking Water Act
state = state groundwater quality standards (North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 15.2L.0202)
CRQL = contract required quantitation limit
NA = not applicable; not a COC for the OU
MCLG = maximum contaminant level goal

Table 4: OU-3 Surface Water COC Performance Standard
Surface Water COC
1993 OU-3 ROD Performance
Standarda
(μg/L)
Basis
1,2-DCA 2,000 EPA Region 4 chronic screening value for
protection of aquatic life
Notes:
a) Source: Table 19 of the 1993 OU-3 ROD (pdf p. 93).
μg/L = micrograms per liter

Table 5: OU-4 Soil COC Performance Standard
Soil COC 1994 OU-4 ROD Performance Standarda
(μg/kg) Basis
1,2-DCA 169 leachability-basedb
Notes:
a) Source: Section 7.2 of the 1994 OU4 ROD (pdf p. 43).
b) Concentration that could be left in the soil without increasing the 1,2-DCA concentration in groundwater above the most
stringent groundwater quality concentration (NCAC 15-2L.0202)
μg/kg = micrograms per kilogram

9

Status of Implementation

OU-1 – Trench Area Groundwater
In July 1989, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the PRP to conduct the OU-1
remedial design and remedial action. The PRP conducted the remedial design from July 1989 to
June 1990. The remedial action began in August 1990.

The PRP installed a two-phase groundwater extraction and treatment system to address contaminated
groundwater downgradient of the Trench Area. The first phase, the plume periphery extraction system
(PPES), operated between 1992 and 2000. The PRP turned off the PPES after evaluations found that the
system contributed to the migration of contaminants.

The PRP completed installation of the second phase, the trench area extraction system (TAES), in 1996.
Construction of the GWPTS also finished at that time. The TAES began operation in 1996 and conveyed
extracted groundwater to the GWPTS for pretreatment. The EPA considered the OU-1 remedy
construction complete in March 1996.

In August 1996, the PRP sampled six private wells in a mobile home community southwest of the Site
for VOCs; none was detected. The State also investigated groundwater quality from a private well on the
opposite side and uphill of the Unnamed Tributary. Testing did not detect VOCs and found inorganic
constituents were within the range of natural background concentrations.

The TAES operated from 1996 to 2008, when a fire damaged the scrubber and electrical components
of the GWPTS. Prior to the fire, the performance of the extraction system had deteriorated. After
completing repairs to the GWPTS, the PRP operated the TAES from 2010 to December 2014, at which
time a fire damaged the catalytic oxidizer in the GWPTS. The TAES has remained off since that time
while the PRP conducted additional investigations in the mid-plume area (about 1,200 feet southwest of
the Trench Area). No additional groundwater extraction in OU-1 has occurred since 2014. The GWPTS
was repaired and continued to operate to treat OU-3 groundwater until 2017, when the system was
bypassed (see the OU-3 status of implementation section for more information).

In 2015, the PRP installed seven extraction wells in the mid-plume area, intending to target fracture
zones based on available site data. However, the new extraction wells had lower than expected yields
and were not suitable for groundwater extraction.

In 2016, the PRP began to re-evaluate the OU-1 remedial strategy to increase the probability of
successful groundwater extraction. Also in 2016, the PRP conducted additional investigations near the
Unnamed Tributary to refine flow characteristics and to determine if there is a hydraulic connection
between the monitoring wells near the tributary and the residential wells to the south. Results presented
in a December 2016 Single-Well Tracer Test and Transducer Study Memo concluded that groundwater
flow is converging from both sides of the stream and operation of residential wells south of the
Unnamed Tributary does not appear to be influencing site groundwater flow. EPA’s hydrogeologist
reviewed the study and recommended installation of a well downgradient of the tributary to serve as a
sentinel well against any migration towards the residential wells. EPA’s hydrogeologist also
recommended sampling nearby residential wells for water quality analysis. The PRP has not yet
implemented the recommendations.

10

In June 2017, the PRP submitted a work plan to the EPA to collect additional geophysical data and
conduct a hydraulic fracturing pilot study in the mid-plume area. The PRP conducted the work from
November 2017 to June 2018. Geophysical results identified five anomalous zones along the mid-plume
area that became target intervals for additional drilling. As part of the pilot study, the PRP conducted
hydraulic fracturing on two boreholes installed in two of the anomalous zones. The pilot study results
showed hydraulic fracturing increased the ability to extract groundwater when compared to previous
efforts.

The PRP implemented a full-scale hydraulic fracturing approach from August to November 2019.
The effort included hydraulic fracturing of three additional boreholes (targeting the remaining anomalies
from the geophysics work) and installation of 10 piezometers. The final effort resulted in five new
extraction wells (EX-12 through EX-16) (Figure 1). The new wells are not yet operational.

Also in 2019, the PRP began designing a new GWPTS to handle the flow rates and mass loading from
the new extraction well system. The PRP prepared a GWPTS design in May 2020 and submitted a
request for authorization to construct the treatment system in September 2021. The EPA approved the
request in 2021. Construction of the new GWPTS is planned for 2022. Startup of the new OU-1
groundwater extraction and pretreatment system is also expected to occur in 2022. OU-1 surface water
and groundwater monitoring are ongoing.

OU-2 – Trench Area Soil
The OU-2 remedial action began on July 20, 1992, the filing date for the OU-2 Consent Decree between
the EPA and the PRP. The OU-2 ROD requires monitoring of contaminant concentrations in soil every
five years. Soil sampling most recently occurred in July 2021.

In April 2005, in an effort outside of ROD requirements, the PRP voluntarily planted about 1,800 trees
in OU-2 to provide a canopy cover in the area. The trees also served to decrease infiltration of
precipitation to groundwater through vadose zone capture to regulate the amount of groundwater being
pumped and treated unnecessarily by the OU-1 TAES.

OU-3 – Production Area Groundwater and Northeast Tributary
The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order and Statement of Work for the OU-3 and OU-4
remedial design/remedial action in September 1995. The PRP prepared the remedial design between
September 1995 and June 1998. OU-3 construction activities began in June 1999.

The OU-3 groundwater extraction system initially consisted of two shallow bedrock extraction wells
(NS-49 and NS-51) in the Lagoon Area and a groundwater extraction trench in the Production Area.
The extraction trench has removed very little water except during heavy rainfall events. Extracted
groundwater was initially treated through the GWPTS (same system used for OU-1 groundwater
treatment) and the facility’s wastewater lagoon system prior to discharge to the POTW.

The OU-3 groundwater extraction system operated from 2000 until the 2008 fire damaged the GWPTS.
With the GWPTS shutdown, the PRP took the opportunity to evaluate the OU-3 remedial action.
The evaluation found that extraction wells NS-49 and NS-51 had been effective at removing
contaminant mass in the Lagoon Area. However, more investigation in the Lagoon Area in 2011 as part
of an enhanced reductive dechlorination pilot study identified impacts to groundwater in saprolite and
deeper bedrock upgradient of the extraction wells.

11

To address this contamination, the PRP converted shallow bedrock well IWB-1 to an extraction well and
began operating it in September 2012 to capture remaining contamination throughout the Lagoon Area.
Figure 1 shows the location of IWB-1. In April 2017, with the EPA’s approval, the PRP began
conveying the extracted groundwater directly to the operating facility’s wastewater treatment lagoons,
bypassing the GWPTS.2 This continued until November 2017 when elevated 1,2-DCA concentrations
(above 500 micrograms per liter, μg/L) were detected in IWB-1. The elevated concentrations resulted in
shutdown/reduced IWB-1 pumping rates in December 2017. The extracted groundwater instead was
diverted to the operating facility’s 65K aeration tank for pre-treatment prior to discharge to the
wastewater lagoons.

In early 2019, the PRP installed a manifold allowing effluent from IWB-1 to be diverted to the 65K
aeration tank for pretreatment (i.e., when groundwater concentrations exceed 500 ȝJ/ZLWKRXWKDYLQJ
to take IWB-1 offline. However, groundwater concentrations in IWB-1 have remained EHORZȝJ/
resulting in direct discharge to the facility’s treatment lagoons. OU-3 groundwater and surface water
monitoring are ongoing.

OU-4 – Production Area Soil
The PRP conducted a natural degradation treatability study from 1996 to 2006. The results could not
confirm natural degradation was occurring in the soil. In 2006, the EPA directed the PRP to implement
SVE as the contingent remedy. OU-4 final remedy components included SVE with treatment of
extracted air and institutional controls. During design, an air sparging (AS) component was added to the
SVE system.

The PRP completed the OU-4 remedial design in November 2008 and began installation of the
AS/SVE system in December 2008. The system included a catalytic oxidizer and vapor treatment
system (scrubber) to treat the vapor coming from the catalytic oxidizer. The PRP also installed a vapor
extraction trench parallel to the Northeast Tributary, a skid mount vacuum system and activated carbon
canisters to treat the gas generated from the vapor extraction trench. The AS/SVE system began
operation in March 2010.

The OU-4 AS/SVE currently consists of 19 AS wells and 42 SVE wells (Figure L-2, Appendix L).
Operational adjustments to the AS/SVE system continue to focus remediation efforts in the areas of
OU-4 where high levels of VOCs remain in the soil.

In 2015, damage to the SVE piping occurred during the installation of a tank truck loading platform.
The damage to the SVE piping left SVE wells SV-3, SV-21 through SV-25, SV-32 through SV-33, and
SV-48 inoperable throughout 2017. Repairs to the system to bypass the damaged section of piping and
reconnect select SVE wells to the system were completed in 2018.

In March 2017, the EPA, with concurrence from NCDEQ, approved the removal of the catalytic
oxidizer from the OU-4 SVE treatment train.

According to the 2020 Site Monitoring Report, the OU-4 AS/SVE system has removed about 11,290
pounds of VOCs since startup in 2009. About 117 pounds of VOCs were removed by the system in

2 In March 2017, the EPA, with concurrence from NCDEQ, approved the removal of the air stripper and catalytic oxidizer
from the OU-1/OU-3 GWPTS. Consequently, groundwater was pumped into the facility’s wastewater treatment system for
treatment prior to being discharged to the POTW.

12

2020. SVE soil gas performance monitoring continues when the system is in operation. O&M of the
system as well as regular maintenance of site features, such as paved areas, continues.

Institutional Control (IC) Review

Several of the Site’s decision documents require institutional controls at the Site. The 1988 OU-1 ROD
did not require institutional controls. The 1990 OU-2 ROD called for a deed restriction identifying areas
of contamination. The OU-2 ROD noted that the deed restriction would prevent property transfers to
uninformed purchasers and limit future use of the property. However, the OU-2 ROD did not specify use
restrictions.

The 1993 OU-3 ROD also required a deed restriction on the property. The deed restriction was to note
the presence of contamination in groundwater and limit future use of the area known to be affected by
contaminated groundwater (not limited to the OU-3 area).

The 1994 OU-4 ROD provided the most detailed description of institutional control requirements for the
entire Site. The OU-4 ROD required a deed restriction to control future land and groundwater use at the
NSCC (now Nouryon Chemicals LLC and Henkel) property. Table 6 summarizes the objectives of the
deed restriction required by the OU-4 ROD.

In June 1997, the PRP recorded a site map in the Rowan County Register of Deeds (book 9998,
page 179) that shows “restricted” and “non-restricted areas” of the Site, but it does not specify the
restrictions. Appendix E includes a copy of the map. The deed recordation does not satisfy the
OU-specific requirements outlined in decision documents and is not consistent with state guidance for
institutional controls. All site parcels in Figure 2 need additional institutional controls. The EPA, the
State and PRP are currently working together to update and record institutional controls for the Site.

In addition to institutional controls required by site decision documents, installation of groundwater
wells is also regulated by the State through North Carolina Statute §87-83 et seq. [cited as the
North Carolina Well Construction Act] and the NCDEQ implementing regulations found at
15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2C 0.100 Well Construction Standards and
15A NCAC 2C 0.300 Permitting and Inspection of Private Drinking Water Wells. These rules impose
permitting, inspection and testing requirements for private drinking water wells which are constructed,
repaired, or abandoned, on or after July 1, 2008, to ensure reasonable protection of groundwater
resources. The regulations are implemented and enforced by regional offices of the North Carolina
Department of Health and Human Services, Environmental Health Section. The well permitting program
is designed to protect human health and groundwater quality by ensuring persons seeking to construct a
private drinking water well(s) obtain a permit from the local health department.

13

Table 6: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)
Media,
Engineered
Controls, and
Areas That Do
Not Support
UU/UE Based
on Current
Conditionsa
ICs
Needed
ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents
Impacted Parcel(s) IC
Objective
Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)
Soil and
groundwater
(All OUs)
Yes Yes Nouryon Chemicals
LLC property

Parcels:
5648-03-19-4700,
5648-01-08-5227,
5648-01-17-7991
x To inform any potential
buyer of the property of the
contamination present.
x To restrict future land use to
decrease the likelihood of
human exposure to
contaminated soil.
x To prevent the installation of
a potable well at the Site until
the levels of contamination in
the groundwater under the
Site are deemed safe.
x To prevent excavation in the
contaminated soil without
sufficient personal protection
for the workers.
IC
(planned)

North Carolina
Administrative
Code (15A
NCAC 02C
.0101)

Groundwater
(OU-3)
Yes Yes Henkel property

Parcel:
5648-01-38-6852
x To inform any potential
buyer of the property of the
contamination present.
x To prevent the installation of
a potable well at the Site until
the levels of contamination in
the groundwater under the
Site are deemed safe.
IC
(planned)

North Carolina
Administrative
Code (15A
NCAC 02C
.0101)

Soil and
groundwater
(All OUs)
Yes Yes Nouryon Chemicals
LLC property

Parcels:
5648-03-19-4700,
5648-01-08-5227,
5648-01-17-7991

Henkel property

Parcel:
5648-01-38-6852
x To identify “restricted” and
“non-restricted” areas
Deed recordation
(map)
(June 1997)

North Carolina
Administrative
Code (15A
NCAC 02C
.0101)

Notes:
a) If future sampling identifies groundwater contamination outside the Nouryon Chemicals or Henkel properties, additional
institutional controls in those areas may be necessary.
14

Figure 2: Parcel Map

15

Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Nouryon Chemicals LLC is responsible for all long-term O&M and monitoring activities at the Site.
Nouryon Chemicals LLC submits quarterly progress reports and annual site monitoring reports to the
EPA. The 2009 Sampling and Analysis Plan and the 2013 Quality Assurance Project Plan, both prepared
by PRP contractor ARCADIS, specify monitoring requirements for each OU. In 2021, the EPA
approved a modification to the groundwater monitoring program. Several new wells were added to the
program and several other wells were removed from the program (either to be abandoned or put to
inactive status).

GWPTS
The GWPTS, originally constructed in 1996, is no longer operational. Since March 2017, extracted
groundwater from IWB-l, the only operating extraction well, has been discharged to the operating
facility’s 65K aeration tank for pretreatment or directly to the facility’s wastewater treatment lagoons,
where it is combined with wastewater from the facility’s active processes. Discharge to the city of
Salisbury POTW is subject to the facility-wide discharge permit. Once the new GWPTS begins
operating (anticipated in 2022), the PRP will prepare an O&M manual for the new system and conduct
O&M and monitoring as required.

OU-1 and OU-3
The groundwater monitoring program includes annual groundwater monitoring events completed in the
fourth quarter of each year. The events consist of groundwater gauging and groundwater sampling for
OU-1 and OU-3 constituents. The data collected during these events are used to evaluate groundwater
flow direction, vertical gradient, hydraulic influence of groundwater extraction, contaminant distribution
and concentration trends. The PRP also collects groundwater samples from extraction well IWB-1
quarterly to evaluate removal rates. Recent results are presented in the Data Review section of this
FYR Report.

The PRP also collects surface water samples from the Northeast Tributary every five years for 1,2-DCA,
prior to the FYR. The most recent sampling event took place in July 2021. Recent results are presented
in the Data Review section of this FYR Report.

Collection of sediment samples from the Northeast Tributary had been required during past sampling
events. The EPA approved removal of sediment sampling from the long-term monitoring program
because 1,2-DCA had not been detected in any sediment sample during the previous sampling event
in 2012.

OU-2 and OU-4
The PRP samples the OU-2 Trench Area soil every five years to evaluate change in contaminant
concentrations over time and the natural flushing of contaminants through soil. The most recent
sampling event took place in July 2021. Results are presented in the Data Review section of this FYR
Report.

The PRP conducts O&M of the OU-4 AS/SVE system as needed, including quarterly air sampling to
calculate removal rates and to maintain compliance with the facility’s Title V air permit. The Site
Monitoring Reports indicate that SVE emissions from the AS/SVE system are consistently below the
limits of the Title V air permit. The PRP also periodically collects soil gas samples from select SVE
wells to target remediation efforts with the system.

16

The PRP also conducts regular inspections of the paved areas around the OU-4 Northern Production
Area and makes repairs, as needed.

The PRP previously collected soil samples from the Lagoon Area (OU-4). Sampling occurred in 2003,
2004, 2005, 2009 and 2017. All soil samples collected in 2017 were below laboratory detection with the
1,2-DCA detection limits below the ROD standard of 169 micrograms per kilogram (μg/kg). Based on
these results, in a February 2021 site update meeting, the EPA agreed that additional soil sampling in the
Lagoon Area was not needed for the 2022 FYR.

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW

Table 7 includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the 2017 FYR Report. Table 8
includes the recommendations from the 2017 FYR Report and the status of those recommendations.

Table 7: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2017 FYR Report
OU Protectiveness
Determination Protectiveness Statement
OU-1 Short-term
Protective
The OU-1 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there
are no complete exposure pathways between contaminated groundwater and receptors. For
the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken:
1) Continue to work with analytical laboratories to resolve the high method detection limits.
2) Finalize and record institutional controls based on the State of North Carolina Declaration
of Perpetual Land Use Restriction (DPLUR) model language to ensure OU-specific
institutional control requirements are met for all site areas where contamination remains
above levels for UU/UE on both AkzoNobel properties and the Henkel property.
3) Complete the optimization of the OU-1 groundwater extraction system and submit the
work plan discussed in Section II - Response Action Summary - to the EPA and the State.
4) Determine if additional monitoring is warranted southwest of the Site to verify the
conceptual site model (CSM) and to confirm that contamination has not migrated beyond the
discharge zone for the Unnamed Tributary. 5) Evaluate options to optimize the GWPTS for
any OU-1 pre-treatment needs and submit a proposed approach to the EPA and the State. If it
is determined that a revised groundwater remedy is needed, work with the EPA to take steps
to identify remedy alternatives and select and document the revised remedy in a decision
document. 6) Modify the remedy to set consistent groundwater cleanup goals for all site
groundwater that meets state and federal applicable and relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs).
OU-2 Short-term
Protective
The OU-2 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there
are no complete exposure pathways between contaminated subsurface soil and receptors. For
the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken:
1) Finalize and record institutional controls based on the State of North Carolina DPLUR
model language to ensure OU-specific institutional control requirements are met for all site
areas where contamination remains above levels for UU/UE on both AkzoNobel properties
and the Henkel property. 2) Conduct additional modeling efforts to determine an updated
timeframe for remediation of OU-2 soil. Determine what contaminant concentrations can be
left in the soils in the Trench Area and still be protective of human health and the
environment. Issue a decision document to identify soil cleanup goals, if warranted.
OU-3 Short-term
Protective
The OU-3 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environmental because
there are no complete exposure pathways between contaminated groundwater and receptors.
OU-3 groundwater contamination is confined within the facility property boundaries.
For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken:
1) Continue to work with analytical laboratories to resolve the high method detection limits.
2) Finalize and record institutional controls based on the State of North Carolina DPLUR
model language to ensure OU-specific institutional control requirements are met for all site
areas where contamination remains above levels for UU/UE on both AkzoNobel properties
17

OU Protectiveness
Determination Protectiveness Statement
and the Henkel property. 3) Continue to monitor NS-60 and downgradient monitoring wells.
If concentrations remain stable or decrease at NS-60 and downgradient wells do not exhibit
increasing trends, continued monitoring is appropriate. 4) Modify the remedy to set
consistent groundwater cleanup goals for all site groundwater that meet state and federal
ARARs.
OU-4 Short-term
Protective
The OU-4 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there
are no complete exposure pathways between contaminated soil and receptors. The potential
for vapor intrusion to indoor air in the production areas has been mitigated with the
continued operation of the AS/SVE system. For the remedy to be protective over the long
term, the following action needs to be taken: 1) Finalize and record institutional controls
based on the State of North Carolina DPLUR model language to ensure OU-specific
institutional control requirements are met for all site areas where contamination remains
above levels for UU/UE on both AkzoNobel properties and the Henkel property.
Sitewide Short-term
Protective
Because the remedial actions for all OUs are currently protective, the Site’s remedy is
currently protective of human health and the environment. There are no complete exposure
pathways between contaminated media and receptors. For the site remedy to be protective
over the long term, the actions listed above for each OU should be implemented.

Table 8: Status of Recommendations from the 2017 FYR Report
OU Issue Recommendation Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
OU-1,
OU-3
Laboratory method
detection limits
continue to exceed
groundwater
cleanup goals.
Continue to work with
analytical laboratories to
resolve the high method
detection limits.
Completed Method detection limits
have decreased
significantly compared
to 2012 values.
Elevated method
detection limits still
occur occasionally
when dilutions are
necessary.
Not applicable
OU-1,
OU-2,
OU-3,
OU-4
The 1997 deed
recordation does not
completely satisfy
OU-specific
requirements
identified in
decision documents
and it is inconsistent
with current state
guidance for
implementation of
perpetual land use
institutional
controls.
Finalize and record
institutional controls
based on the State of
North Carolina
Declaration of Perpetual
Land Use Restriction
(DPLUR) model language
to ensure OU-specific
institutional control
requirements are met for
all site areas where
contamination remains
above levels for UU/UE
on both AkzoNobel
properties and the Henkel
property.
Ongoing The EPA and the State
are continuing to work
on finalizing
institutional controls
for the Site. They have
agreed to draft
language for the
document and are now
awaiting plat maps
from the PRP.
Not applicable
18

OU Issue Recommendation Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
OU-2 The timeframe for
remediating OU-2
soil by natural soil
flushing is greater
than anticipated in
the OU-2 ROD.
Decision documents
did not select
cleanup goals for
OU-2 soil.
Conduct additional
modeling efforts to
determine an updated
timeframe for remediation
of OU-2 soil. Determine
what contaminant
concentrations can be left
in the soils in the Trench
Area and still be
protective of human
health and the
environment. Issue a
decision document to
identify soil cleanup
goals, if warranted.
Ongoing The PRP is currently
conducting an
evaluation of OU-2
soil. It is anticipated
that the PRP will
submit details of the
evaluation to the EPA
in 2022.
Not applicable
OU-1 The OU-1
groundwater
extraction system is
not achieving
hydraulic capture of
the groundwater
plume.
Complete the
optimization of the OU-1
groundwater extraction
system. Implement the
Jun 2017 work plan
discussed in Section II –
Response Action
Summary.
Ongoing The PRP completed
extraction well
installation and testing
in November 2019.
The PRP completed
treatment system
design in 2021. The
PRP plans to construct
the new treatment
system and begin OU-1
groundwater extraction
and treatment in 2022.
Not applicable
OU-1 COC concentrations
in downgradient
boundary well NS-
31 remain elevated.
Although the CSM
suggests that
groundwater will
not migrate beyond
the discharge zone
for the Unnamed
Tributary, no recent
data have been
collected off site to
verify the CSM.
Determine if additional
monitoring is warranted
southwest of the Site to
verify the CSM and to
confirm that
contamination has not
migrated beyond the
discharge zone for the
Unnamed Tributary.
Under
Discussion
This issue is under
discussion with the
EPA and the PRP.
Not applicable
19

OU Issue Recommendation Current
Status
Current
Implementation
Status Description
Completion
Date (if
applicable)
OU-1 Extracted
groundwater from
OU-1 will likely
require some level
of pre-treatment
prior to discharge to
the onsite
wastewater
treatment lagoons.
The GWPTS has
experienced
significant
maintenance issues
during this FYR
period and does not
have the capacity to
treat all extracted
groundwater from
OU-1.
Evaluate options to
optimize the GWPTS for
any OU-1 pre-treatment
needs and submit a
proposed approach to the
EPA and the State. If it is
determined that a revised
groundwater remedy is
needed, work with the
EPA to take steps to
identify remedy
alternatives and select and
document the revised
remedy in a decision
document.
Ongoing The PRP has been
working to optimize
the OU-1 groundwater
remedy. The PRP
completed the
treatment system
design in 2021.
Construction of a new
GWPTS is planned for
2022.
Not applicable
OU-3 Acetone in NS-60,
an OU-3 Production
Area well, has
increased
substantially during
this FYR period but
then reported a
significant decrease
in 2016 (from
470,000 ug/L in
2015 to <65,000
ug/L in 2016). The
cause of the elevated
acetone
concentrations is
unknown.
Continue to monitor
NW-60 and downgradient
monitoring wells. If
concentrations remain
stable or decrease at
NS-60 and downgradient
wells do not exhibit
increasing trends,
continue monitoring as
appropriate.
Ongoing The EPA approved the
NS-60 Work Plan in
May 2021. Episodic
pumping events are
underway at NS-60 to
address elevated
isopropyl alcohol levels
in relation to increased
acetone concentrations.
Additional information
on these activities is
provided after this
table.
Not applicable
OU-1,
OU-3
Groundwater
cleanup levels differ
between OU-1 and
OU-3, although
potential exposure
pathways are the
same. State and
federal ARARs,
including MCLs, are
more stringent than
many groundwater
cleanup goals in
both OUs.
Modify the remedy to set
consistent groundwater
cleanup goals for all site
groundwater that meet
state and federal ARARs.
Ongoing The EPA is planning to
issue an Explanation of
Significant Differences
to clarify groundwater
cleanup goals.
Not applicable

NS-60
In response to increasing acetone concentrations at NS-60, the PRP conducted a review of tentatively
identified compounds (TIC) using 2019 groundwater data. Isopropyl alcohol was identified at elevated
concentrations during the TIC review. Due to these findings, an isopropyl alcohol sample was collected
from NS-60 in April 2020. Analytical results confirmed an elevated concentration of isopropyl alcohol
20

DWȝJ/ Additional sampling also confirmed isopropyl alcohol in deep bedrock well NS-46.
Based on these results, the PRP began episodic pumping events at NS-60 in May 2021 to reduce
concentrations of isopropyl alcohol in groundwater. This effort is ongoing. The Data Review section of
this FYR Report provides more information on recent sampling results in this area.

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
The EPA published a public notice in the Salisbury Post on 12/21/21 (Appendix F). It stated that the
FYR was underway and invited the public to submit any comments to the EPA. The results of the
review and the FYR Report will be made available at the Site’s information repository,
the Rowan County Public Library, located at 201 West Fisher Street in Salisbury, North Carolina.

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below. Appendix G
includes the completed interview forms.

Tessa Monday from NCDEQ noted that the project is generally proceeding in accordance with the
RODs. The remedy is showing some results, but there is still a great deal of cleanup to achieve.
The remedy has fallen short of meeting the timelines prescribed in the RODs. She noted that the Site
appears to be well-maintained and the implemented activities seem to have been keeping contamination
from leaving the Site. She noted that the North Carolina Rules 15A NCAC 02L .0202 for groundwater
have changed since the RODs were initially implemented. Many COCs now have more stringent
standards. The NCDEQ representative also recommended that surface water and sediment (within and
directly adjacent to the Site) be analyzed for detected COCs, and that a vapor intrusion investigation be
conducted for buildings located over known contamination areas. Both investigations should be
conducted as part of the FYR to ensure protectiveness.

Joseph Lang from Nouryon (PRP) stated that the OU-2, OU-3 and OU-4 remedies have been successful
at reducing contaminant concentrations. The OU-1 remedy has also been successful at removing
contaminants; however, completion of the new OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system is
needed to ensure the OU-1 remedy will be protective in the long term. He was not aware of any
complaints or inquiries from the community. He noted that Nouryon appreciates the cooperative
relationship with EPA and NCDEQ. He also noted that Nouryon will continue to evaluate opportunities
to improve remedy effectiveness when appropriate.

Andrew Davis from Arcadis (PRP contractor) noted that overall, the project is going well. Once the
OU-1 remedial system is complete, remedial progress should be more evident. He also noted that the
SVE system should go through optimizations to maximize its impact (although limited by the air
discharge permit for the facility). Groundwater extraction in OU-3 has met the remedial objectives of
controlling and remediating groundwater in OU-3. Concentration trends are generally stable, however
there are fluctuations in the data seen at select locations throughout the monitoring network.
Contaminant migration is limited and except for a few localized anomalies (i.e., NS-60), consistent with
historical levels. He noted that more positive trends are expected once the new remedial system begins
operating. O&M personnel are on site daily. He noted that following startup of the new remedial system,
O&M and sampling may be optimized, depending on the system’s effectiveness.

21

Data Review
This FYR evaluates monitoring data presented in the 2017 through 2020 Site Monitoring Reports as
well as the October 2021 Five-Year Review Field Data Summary. The data include groundwater data for
OU-1 and OU-3, soil data for OU-2, surface water data for OU-3 and soil gas data for OU-4.
Appendix H includes a detailed data review. Supporting figures and tables for the data review are in
Appendix I (OU-1), Appendix J (OU-2), Appendix K (OU-3) and Appendix L (OU-4).

OU-1
Groundwater flow direction in OU-1 is generally to the west/southwest toward the Unnamed Tributary.
Groundwater extraction of OU-1 groundwater has not occurred since 2014. COC concentrations in
OU-1 groundwater remain above OU-1 ROD performance standards and are generally consistent with
past sampling events (Table I-1, Appendix I). The highest concentrations of the primary COCs (1,2-
DCA, 1,2-DCP, acetone, toluene, bis(2-chloroethyl ether) (BCEE) and manganese) are generally located
in the Trench Area (near former extraction well EX-08) and downgradient and west of the Trench Area
in extraction wells EX-13 through EX-15. Plume maps show contaminant migration in a southwesterly
direction away from the Site’s geologic groundwater flow divide and toward the Unnamed Tributary to
the southwest. The maps show that most contamination remains within the site boundaries (Figures I-2
through I-7, Appendix I). However, it is unknown if BCEE and 1,2-DCA contamination in the bedrock
aquifer extends off site to the southwest, near residential properties (Figure I-6 and Figure I-2,
Appendix I). In the EPA’s review comments on the 2019 Site Monitoring Report, the EPA
recommended installation of a downgradient monitoring well cluster between bedrock monitoring wells
NS-31 and NS-31B and the residential properties for further groundwater plume delineation. In the
EPA’s review comments on the 2017 transducer study report, the EPA also recommended that
downgradient residential wells be sampled. These recommendations have not yet been implemented.

The PRP plans to restart groundwater extraction and treatment in OU-1 in 2022 to contain and remediate
groundwater to OU-1 ROD performance standards.

OU-2
OU-2 subsurface soil sampling results for the Trench Area from July 2021 were generally consistent
with past soil investigations (Table J-1 and Figure J-1, Appendix J). 1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, ethylbenzene,
toluene and total xylenes were detected most often and at the highest concentrations. Natural flushing of
contamination in the Trench Area appears to be occurring as 1,2-DCA concentrations are decreasing
over time. However, the timeframe for remediation is greater than anticipated in the OU-2 ROD.
The PRP is currently conducting an evaluation of OU-2 soil and will submit details of the evaluation to
the EPA in 2022. Decision documents did not select soil cleanup goals for OU-2.

OU-3
The OU-3 groundwater evaluation is divided into two sections (Lagoon Area and Northern Production
Area) because these two areas resulted from separate wastewater-related releases and the groundwater
between the areas is not impacted. Table K-1 in Appendix K includes the 2020 Lagoon Area
groundwater results. Table K-2, Appendix K includes the 2020 Northern Production Area results.

Groundwater impacts in the OU-3 Lagoon Area are greatest in the saprolite and shallow bedrock units.
Extraction well IWB-1 continues to operate to address these groundwater impacts (primarily 1,2-DCA,
vinyl chloride and manganese). Concentration trends in Lagoon Area wells are variable, with some
showing significant decreases since pumping of IWB-1 began. Increasing VOC concentrations were
22

observed in shallow bedrock well NS-53 since 2017 (although concentrations are below maximum
concentrations observed in 1999). It is unclear if NS-53 is in the capture zone of extraction well IWB-1.

Primary COCs in groundwater for the Northern Production Area in OU-3 are 1,2-DCA, manganese and
more recently, acetone. 1,2-DCA concentrations have decreased substantially since startup of the
AS/SVE system and other plant improvements were made. However, shallow bedrock monitoring well
NS-60 has shown increasing concentrations of acetone since 2013. The PRP began episodic pumping
events at NS-60 in May 2021 to reduce concentrations of isopropyl alcohol in groundwater. This effort
is ongoing and data to evaluate the effectiveness of the pumping are not yet available for review.
The downgradient extent of the isopropyl alcohol contamination in the deep bedrock aquifer is not
well defined.

The 2021 surface water sampling results for the Northeast Tributary (OU-3) demonstrate that 1,2-DCA
concentrations are orders of magnitude below the 1,2-DCA performance standard of 2,000 ȝJ/ with a
maximum detection of 2.8 ȝJ/ in 2021. 1,2-DCA concentrations have also decreased over time and are
below or just above detection limits in all samples (Table K-3, Appendix K). While 1,2-DCA is not
impacting the tributary at levels of concern, it is unknown if other COCs, such as manganese or acetone,
are impacting the tributary. It is recommended that surface water samples collected from the Northeast
Tributary be analyzed for additional OU-3 COCs.

OU-4
The PRP collected passive soil gas samples annually at SVE wells in OU-4 (Figure L-1, Appendix L).
The soil gas data is used to adjust the operation of the AS/SVE system to focus treatment in areas of the
Site with the highest concentrations beneath the Northern Production Area. OU-4 soil gas data continue
to show a general decrease in soil gas concentrations (primarily 1,2-DCA) over time (Table L-1,
Appendix L). The AS/SVE system has removed 11,290 pounds of VOCs since startup in 2009. The
AS/SVE system is operating as intended and progress is being made.

Site Inspection
The site inspection took place on March 8, 2022. Participants from EPA included RPM Adam Acker and
hydrogeologists Noman Ahsanuzzaman and Ben Bentkowski. Participants also included Tessa Monday
and Qu Qi from NCDEQ, Chris Fleming and Joseph Land from Nouryon, Tom Darby and
Andrew Davis from PRP contractor Arcadis, and Avani Patel from PRP contractor ERM. Amanda
Goyne and Jill Billus from EPA FYR support contractor Skeo also participated in the site inspection.
The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy. Appendix M includes the
completed site inspection checklist. Appendix N includes photographs from the site inspection.

The site inspection began in the Nouryon offices with a health and safety briefing and site information
meeting. Participants discussed recent activities at each OU. Site inspection participants then toured the
Site. Site inspection participants observed the Northeast Tributary, SVE/AS treatment system,
monitoring well NS-60, the facility’s treatment lagoons and extraction well IWB-1 (OU-3). Construction
of the groundwater pretreatment system building was underway at the time of the inspection. Site
inspection participants also observed well NS-31, the unnamed tributary, newly-installed extraction
wells in the mid-plume area and the OU-2 trench area. No issues of concern were noted. New residences
were observed beyond the facility’s perimeter southwest of NS-31. A fence separates the Site from the
residential area.
23

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Question A Summary:
Yes, the OU-2, OU-3 and OU-4 remedies are generally functioning as intended by site decision
documents. The OU-1 remedy is not functioning as intended; however, efforts are currently underway to
restart extraction and treatment of OU-1 groundwater.

OU-1 – Trench Area Groundwater
The remedy for OU-1 was intended to contain and remediate groundwater downgradient of the
Trench Area. The Trench Area extraction system was not functioning as designed and the system was
turned off with the EPA’s approval in 2014. COC concentrations in OU-1 groundwater have continued
to exceed groundwater performance standards since that time. Following additional investigations in the
mid-plume area, the PRP installed five new extraction wells in 2018 and 2019. The PRP also designed a
new GWPTS to handle the flow rates and mass loading from the new extraction well system.
Construction and startup of the new groundwater extraction and pretreatment system were planned for
2022 and are underway. The extent of contamination is not well-defined in the southwest part of the
Site, near the Unnamed Tributary and a residential area. Although off-site migration of contamination is
not expected due to flow characteristics near the Unnamed Tributary, the EPA previously recommended
installation of sentinel wells between the Site and residential area to confirm contamination has not
migrated off-site. The EPA continues to recommend installation of additional wells between the Site and
downgradient residential areas.

OU-2 – Trench Area Soil
The remedy for OU-2 (natural soil flushing in the Trench Area) is generally functioning as intended.
However, the rate of cleanup is much slower than originally estimated in the OU-2 ROD.
The 1990 OU-2 ROD estimated that most compounds would leach into groundwater within five years;
1,2-DCA was predicted to take 22 years. Soil sampling data collected every five years show that natural
flushing has reduced 1,2-DCA concentrations and other contaminants in soil over time but
contamination remains. The OU-2 ROD did not establish OU-2 soil performance standards. The lack of
a clear performance measure to determine when cleanup can be considered complete has been noted in
prior FYRs, dating back to 2002. The PRP is currently conducting an evaluation of OU-2 soil to
determine what contaminant concentrations can be left in place and still be protective of human health
and the environment. Details of the evaluation will be submitted to the EPA in 2022. Additionally, the
OU-2 remedy required the continued operation of the OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment
system to capture contamination flushed from the Trench Area soil. Startup and operation of the new
system is expected to capture the flushed OU-2 contamination.

OU-3 – Production Area Groundwater and Northeast Tributary
The remedy for OU-3 was designed to contain and remediate the Lagoon Area groundwater plume to
OU-3 performance standards. The original extraction wells NS-49 and NS-51 were effective at
removing contaminant mass in the Lagoon Area. Shallow bedrock well IWB-1 continues to operate to
reduce COC concentrations in groundwater. Increasing VOC concentrations were observed in shallow
bedrock well NS-53 since 2017. Adjustments to operation of IWB-1 may be needed to improve capture
near NS-53.

24

In the OU-3 Production Area, 1,2-DCA concentrations have decreased significantly over time, with
most wells below detection in 2020. The 2020 Site Monitoring Report attributed the reduction to plant
improvements (i.e., replacement of the pavement, which effectively capped the Northern Production
Area and reduced recharge in OU-3) and the OU-4 AS/SVE system.

Shallow bedrock monitoring well NS-60 has exhibited increasing concentrations of OU-3 COCs, most
notably acetone, since 2013. Increasing acetone concentrations have also been observed in deep bedrock
well NS-46. In 2020, the PRP also discovered elevated concentrations of isopropyl alcohol in NS-60 and
NS-46 (acetone likely represents a degradation product of the isopropyl alcohol). Saprolite and shallow
bedrock wells downgradient of NS-60 and NS-46 were non detect for isopropyl alcohol in 2020;
however, there are no downgradient deep bedrock wells. The PRP began episodic pumping events at
NS-60 in May 2021 to reduce concentrations of isopropyl alcohol in groundwater. This effort is
ongoing, and data to evaluate the effectiveness of the pumping are not yet available for review.

OU-4 – Production Area Soil
The OU-4 AS/SVE remedy has effectively removed more than 11,000 pounds of VOCs since startup,
with more than 100 pounds of VOCs removed in 2020. Although areas of elevated soil gas remain in
soil, concentrations are declining over time. The PRP continues to make operational adjustments to the
AS/SVE system to focus remediation efforts in the areas of OU-4 where high levels of VOCs remain in
the soil.

Sitewide
A 1997 deed recordation (map) is in place for the Site. However, this institutional control does not
satisfy all OU-specific requirements required by decision documents and it is inconsistent with current
state guidance for implementation of perpetual land use institutional controls. The EPA, the State and
PRP are currently working together to update and record institutional controls for the Site. A fence
surrounds the plant operations area and facility security procedures are in place, which limit access to
contaminated areas. On-site workers follow plant health and safety protocols. Groundwater at the Site is
not used for drinking water.

O&M and monitoring activities are ongoing at the Site. The current O&M program is working
effectively to ensure site remedial components are maintained. In 2021, the EPA approved a
modification to the groundwater monitoring program. Several new wells were added to the program, and
several other wells were removed from the program (either to be abandoned or put to inactive status).

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time
of the remedy selection still valid?

Question B Summary:
Yes, the RAOs used at the time of remedy selection remain valid. There have been changes to standards,
exposure assumptions and risk assessment methodology since the risk assessments conducted in the late
1980s and early 1990s. These changes do not alter the short-term protectiveness of the remedy.
However, they may affect long-term protectiveness of the remedy if not addressed, as described further
below.

Federal MCLs and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and state groundwater quality standards
are considered chemical-specific applicable and relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for
groundwater. The FYR compared current standards to the OU-1 and OU-3 groundwater performance
25

standards to determine if changes in standards and to-be-considered (TBC) criteria have occurred and
affect the protectiveness of the remedy (Appendix O).

Current federal MCLs are more stringent than OU-1 performance standards for five COCs
(1,2-DCP, ethylbenzene, toluene, beryllium and cadmium) and state groundwater quality standards
are more stringent than OU-1 performance standards for 14 COCs (1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, benzene,
bromodichloromethane, ethylbenzene, TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride, barium, cadmium, chromium,
manganese, nickel and zinc) (Table O-1, Appendix O). All other OU-1 performance standards were
either more stringent than the current standards or reported no change.

Current MCLs are the same as or less stringent than the OU-3 groundwater performance standards.
State groundwater quality standards are more stringent than OU-3 performance standards for seven
COCs (1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, PCE, vinyl chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, chromium and zinc).
All other OU-3 groundwater performance standards were either more stringent than current standards or
reported no change.

Although current standards are more stringent than several OU-1 and OU-3 groundwater performance
standards, this does not call into question the short-term protectiveness of the remedy. There are no
known current direct exposures to contaminated groundwater at the Site. The closest private wells are
1,400 feet southwest of site contamination, west of the unnamed tributary, and are not expected to be
impacted (Figure D-6, Appendix D). To ensure long-term protectiveness of the remedy, the remedy
should be modified to update groundwater performance standards for the entire Site to ensure they meet
ARARs or other risk-based cleanup levels and are consistent across the OUs.
ARARs for surface water at the Site include federal ambient water quality criteria and state surface
water quality standards. Based on a comparison of current standards and the OU-3 surface water
performance standard for 1,2-DCA of 2,000 μg/L, the surface water performance standard for 1,2-DCA
is less stringent than current federal ambient water quality criteria for 1,2-DCA, based on protection of
human health (Table O-2, Appendix O). This finding does not affect protectiveness of the remedy
because the 2021 1,2-DCA concentration (2.8 μg/L) is below the most stringent of the ambient water
quality criteria (9.9 μg/L). There are no current state surface water quality standards for 1,2-DCA.
Additionally, the basis for the 1,2-DCA OU-3 surface water cleanup goal was the EPA Region 4
Chronic Screening Value. This screening value, which is protective of ecological receptors, has not
changed.3
There are no chemical-specific soil ARARs. The OU-4 ROD selected a soil cleanup goal of 1,2-DCA of
169 μg/kg, a site-specific value based on the concentration of 1,2-DCA that could be left in the soil
without increasing the concentration of 1,2-DCA in groundwater above the most stringent groundwater
quality concentration (NCAC 15-2L.0202). The current state 1,2-DCA groundwater standard of 0.4 μg/L
is more stringent than the OU-3 performance standard of 1 μg/L (selected based the groundwater
standard and limit of detectability). However, this change is not expected to impact protectiveness of the
remedy as 1,2-DCA concentrations in groundwater continue to be monitored. There are no current
exposures to contaminated groundwater. Table 9 presents a summary of the OU-specific performance
standard evaluation.

3 Table 1a of the Region 4, Ecological Risk Assessment Supplemental Guidance Report, March 2018 Update (accessed
1/24/2022) reports a 1,2-DCA chronic freshwater screening value of 2,000 μg/L.
26

Table 9: Summary of Performance Standard Evaluation by OU
OU Medium Change in Standards or Other Criteria
OU-1 Groundwater x Current federal MCLs more stringent than performance standards for 1,2-DCP,
ethylbenzene, toluene, beryllium and cadmium
x State groundwater standards (NCAC 15.2L.0202) more stringent than performance
standards for 1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, benzene, bromodichloromethane, ethylbenzene, TCE,
toluene, vinyl chloride, barium, cadmium, chromium, manganese, nickel and zinc
x All other performance standards either more stringent than the current standards or
reported no change
OU-2 Soil Not applicable – no OU-2 soil performance standard
OU-3 Groundwater x State groundwater standards (NCAC 15.2L.0202) more stringent than performance
standards for 1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, PCE, vinyl chloride, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
chromium and zinc
x All other OU-3 performance standards either more stringent than current federal MCLs
and state standards or reported no change
Surface water x 1,2-DCA performance standard of 2,000 μg/L has not changed from the EPA Region 4
chronic screening value on which it was based; performance standard is less stringent
that current federal ambient water quality criteria, based on protection of human health
OU-4 Soil Not applicable – soil performance standard for 1,2-DCA is a site-specific value based on
protection of groundwater
Notes:
Tables O-1 and O-2 in Appendix O of this FYR Report compare the values associated with current federal and state
standards to the Site’s performance standards.

The EPA has developed supplemental guidance for risk characterization of dermal exposures
(Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund [RAGS] Part E) and for determining risk from inhaled
chemicals (RAGS Part F). In addition, the EPA revised the recommended default exposure parameters
for quantifying reasonable maximum exposures, as presented in the Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook (2008) and the Exposure Factors Handbook (2011). These changes in risk assessment
methodology and exposure factors are not expected to affect current protectiveness of the remedy
because there are no current exposures to contaminated groundwater. However, these changes will need
to be considered if the EPA updates the groundwater performance standards for the Site to achieve long-
term protectiveness of the remedy and to meet ARARs.

The vapor intrusion pathway was not evaluated in the Site’s human health risk assessments completed
in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In November 2020, the EPA’s Scientific Support Section evaluated
the 2019 groundwater concentrations located in the southwest area of OU-1 near residential properties
for vapor intrusion potential, using the EPA’s vapor intrusion screening level (VISL) calculator.
The evaluation focused on the wells closest to the nearby neighborhood, specifically wells NS-31,
NS-31A, NS-31B, NS-29 and NS-30. The evaluation found that the wells located close to the
residential area (31/31A/31B) did not model a current unacceptable vapor intrusion risk. NS-29 had an
unacceptable modeled vapor intrusion carcinogenic risk; however, there was no completed vapor
intrusion pathway at this well. Continued monitoring was recommended at NS-29.

This FYR re-evaluates the potential for vapor intrusion at the same wells used in the November 2020
evaluation (NS-31, NS-31A, NS-31B, NS-29 and NS-30) and using data from the December 2020
sampling event. Appendix N includes the detailed evaluations. Results were consistent with the EPA’s
evaluation using the 2019 data. Vapor intrusion does not appear to be an issue of concern for the
residential properties southwest of the Site at this time, primarily due to the depth of the groundwater
contamination in this part of the Site (e.g., greater than 100 feet below ground surface). Of the wells
closest to the residential area, only NS-31A is a shallow saprolite well, screened from 20-30 feet below
27

ground surface. VOCs were not detected in saprolite well NS-31A in December 2020. If site conditions
change or VOC concentrations increase, particularly in the shallow aquifer zone, the vapor intrusion
pathway to residences should be re-evaluated.

For the on-site evaluation, 1,2-DCA and vinyl chloride have been detected in soil gas samples near
occupied buildings in the plant production area (OU-4). However, operation of the AS/SVE system
reduces the potential for vapor intrusion to indoor air, as it results in a vacuum beneath the floor in the
production area. The plant also completes routine monitoring as part of the industrial hygiene
monitoring program. This monitoring is completed in all areas of the plant, including the production
area and is considered to be comprehensive and protective as 1,2-DCA is still in use as part of the
current production. The results over the past several years have been below occupational exposure
limits. The significant progress to reduce the mass in OU-4 coupled with the more continuous operation
of the SVE system and the continued industrial hygiene monitoring suggest the potential for
unacceptable risk to workers is low. NCDEQ recommends conducting a vapor intrusion investigation as
part of the FYR for buildings over known soil and groundwater contamination to ensure human health
protection of people working at the facility.

Progress towards meeting RAOs is slower than anticipated in site decision documents, primarily due to
the temporary shutdown of the OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system. However, there are
no known, complete exposure pathways to contamination at the Site.

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

Issues/Recommendations
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
None

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:

OU(s): OU-1,
OU-2, OU-3 and
OU-4
Issue Category: Institutional Controls
Issue: Institutional controls meeting all ROD requirements are not yet in place.
Recommendation: Finalize and record institutional controls for the Site
consistent with ROD requirements and state guidance.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes PRP EPA/State 9/26/2024

28

OU(s): OU-1 Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: The OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system has been offline
since 2014. COC concentrations in OU-1 groundwater exceed performance
standards.
Recommendation: Complete construction of the updated OU-1 groundwater
extraction and treatment system and begin groundwater extraction and treatment.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes PRP EPA/State 9/26/2023

OU(s): OU-1 Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: COC concentrations in OU-1 downgradient boundary wells NS-31 and
NS-31B remain above OU-1 performance standards.
Recommendation: Consider installation of a downgradient monitoring well
cluster between monitoring wells NS-31 and NS-31B and the residential
properties farther downgradient. Downgradient residential wells should be
sampled for site-related COCs. Alternatively, install additional piezometers and/or
monitoring wells within the property boundary to establish the horizontal
groundwater gradient on the other side of the unnamed tributary, where the NS-31
well cluster is located.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes PRP EPA/State 9/26/2024

OU(s): OU-2 Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: The timeframe for remediating OU-2 by natural soil flushing is greater
than anticipated in the OU-2 ROD. Decision documents did not select
performance standards for OU-2 soil.
Recommendation: Conduct additional evaluation of the OU-2 soil and determine
what contaminant concentrations can be left in place and still be protective of
human health and the environment. Issue a decision document to identify soil
performance standards, if warranted.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes PRP EPA/State 9/26/2024

29

OU(s): OU-3 Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Acetone and isopropyl alcohol concentrations remain elevated near well
NS-60 in the OU-3 Production Area. Data to evaluate the effectiveness of
episodic pumping at NS-60 to address the contamination were not yet available.
The extent of the contamination is not well defined downgradient in the deep
bedrock.
Recommendation: Collect data to evaluate the effectiveness of episodic pumping
at well NS-60. Make additional recommendations to address the contamination
and define its downgradient extent and depth in the deep bedrock.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone Date
No Yes PRP EPA/State 9/26/2024

OU(s): OU-1,
OU-3
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: Groundwater performance standards differ between OU-1 and OU-3,
although potential exposure pathways are the same. State and federal standards,
including MCLs, are more stringent than many groundwater performance
standards in both OUs.
Recommendation: Determine if the remedy should be modified to set consistent
groundwater performance standards for all site groundwater that meet state and
federal ARARs.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Party
Responsible
Oversight Party Milestone
No Yes EPA EPA/State 9/26/2026

OTHER FINDINGS
Additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. The recommendations do not affect
current and/or future protectiveness.

x Method detection limits have decreased significantly compared to 2012 values. Method detection
limits above groundwater cleanup goals still occur occasionally when dilutions are necessary.
Continue to work with analytical laboratories to resolve the high method detection limits.
x Increasing VOC concentrations were observed in Lagoon Area shallow bedrock well NS-53
since 2017 (although concentrations are below maximum concentrations observed in 1999).
Adjustments to operation of extraction well IWB-1 may be needed to improve capture
near NS-53.
x Air sparging was added as a component of the OU-4 vapor extraction remedy during remedial
design. However, this component of the treatment system is not included in a decision document.
If a decision document is issued to update groundwater cleanup goals, the EPA will consider
adding air sparging as a component of the OU-4 remedy at that time.
x The current monitoring program for the Northeast Tributary requires that surface water samples
be analyzed only for 1,2-DCA. Plume maps show that manganese in shallow groundwater may
be discharging into the tributary. The Northeast Tributary is also located close to the area where
30

high concentrations of acetone and isopropyl alcohol have been detected in groundwater. It is
recommended the surface water samples from the Northeast Tributary be analyzed for all site-
related COCs to determine current concentrations in the tributary.
x NCDEQ recommends conducting a vapor intrusion investigation as part of the FYR for buildings
over known soil and groundwater contamination to ensure human health protection of people
working at the facility.

VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENTS

OU-1 Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit:
OU-1
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The OU-1 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no
complete exposure pathways between contaminated groundwater and receptors. For the remedy to be
protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) Finalize and record
institutional controls for the Site consistent with ROD requirements and state guidance. 2) Complete
construction of the updated OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system and begin groundwater
extraction and treatment. 3) Consider installation of a downgradient monitoring well cluster between
monitoring wells NS-31 and NS-31B and the residential properties farther downgradient. Consider
sampling downgradient residential wells for site-related COCs. Alternatively, install additional
piezometers and/or monitoring wells within the property boundary to establish the horizontal
groundwater gradient on the other side of the unnamed tributary, where the NS-31 well cluster is
located. 4) Determine if the remedy should be modified to set consistent groundwater performance
standards for all site groundwater that meet state and federal ARARs.

OU-2 Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit:
OU-2
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The OU-2 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no
complete exposure pathways between contaminated subsurface soil and receptors. For the remedy to
be protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) Finalize and record
institutional controls for the Site consistent with ROD requirements and state guidance. 2) Conduct
additional evaluation of the OU-2 soil and determine what contaminant concentrations can be left in
place and still be protective of human health and the environment. Issue a decision document to
identify soil performance standards, if warranted.

OU-3 Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit:
OU-3
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The OU-3 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no
complete exposure pathways between contaminated groundwater and receptors. For the remedy to be
protective over the long term, the following actions need to be taken: 1) Finalize and record
institutional controls for the Site consistent with ROD requirements and state guidance. 2) Collect data
31

to evaluate the effectiveness of episodic pumping at well NS-60. Make additional recommendations to
address the contamination and define its downgradient extent and depth in the deep bedrock.
3) Determine if the remedy should be modified to set consistent groundwater performance standards
for all site groundwater that meet state and federal ARARs.

OU-4 Protectiveness Statement
Operable Unit:
OU-4
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The OU-4 remedy is currently protective of human health and the environment because there are no
complete exposure pathways between contaminated soil and receptors. The potential for vapor
intrusion to indoor air in the production areas has been mitigated with the continued operation of the
AS/SVE system. For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following actions need to be
taken: Finalize and record institutional controls for the Site consistent with ROD requirements and
state guidance.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination:
Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement:
Because the remedial actions at all OUs are currently protective, the Site’s remedy is currently
protective of human health and the environment. There are no complete exposure pathways between
contaminated media and receptors. For the site remedy to be protective over the long term, the actions
listed above for each OU should be taken.

VIII. NEXT REVIEW

The next FYR Report for the National Starch & Chemical Corp. Superfund site is required five years
from the completion date of this FYR.

A-1

APPENDIX A – REFERENCE LIST

2018 through 2020 Site Monitoring Reports, Former National Starch and Chemical Company Superfund
Site, Cedar Springs Road Plant, Salisbury, North Carolina. ARCADIS. June 2019, January 2021 and
July 2021.

Approval to Remove the Air Stripper and Catalytic Oxidizer from the Operable Unit 1/Operable Unit 3
Groundwater Treatment Train for the National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site in
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. March 16, 2017.

Contingent Approval to Remove the Catalytic Oxidizer from the Operable Unit 4 Soil Vapor Extraction
System Treatment Train for the National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site in Salisbury,
Rowan County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. March 16, 2017.

EPA Memorandum from Noman Ahsanuzzaman, PhD, PE, Groundwater Hydrologist, to Jon Bornholm,
RPM. Re: Review Comments on the Single-Well Tracer Test and Transducer Study at the National
Starch & Chemical Company in Salisbury, NC. March 21, 2017.

EPA Memorandum from Sydney Chan, Life Scientist, Scientific Support Section to Adam Acker, RPM,
Restoration and Investigation Section. Re: 2019 Site Monitoring Report, Former National Starch and
Chemical Company Superfund Site, Salisbury, North Carolina. November 2020.

Fifth Five-Year Review Report for the National Starch & Chemical Corp. Superfund Site, Rowan
County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 2017.

Five Year Review Field Data Summary, Former National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site,
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. Arcadis G&M of North America, Inc. October 2021.

Fourth Superfund Five-year Review Report, National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site,
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 2012.

Record of Decision, National Starch, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 1988.

Record of Decision, National Starch & Chemical, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 1990.

Record of Decision, National Starch & Chemical Corp., OU3, Salisbury, North Carolina. EPA Region 4.
October 1993.

Record of Decision, National Starch & Chemical Corp., OU4, Salisbury, North Carolina, EPA Region 4.
October 1994.

Request for: Authorization to Construct: Salisbury Groundwater Pretreatment System (Rev 3). Prepared
for Nouryon Chemicals LLC by Arcadis G&M of North Carolina, Inc. September 8, 2021.

Second Superfund Five-year Review Report, National Starch & Chemical Company Superfund Site,
Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 2007.

A-2

Single-Well Tracer Test and Transducer Study National Starch & Chemical Company (NSCC)
Superfund Site, Salisbury, Rowan County, North Carolina. ARCADIS. December 2016
B-1

APPENDIX B – CURRENT SITE STATUS

Environmental Indicators
- Current human exposure is under control.
- Contaminated groundwater migration is under control.

Are Necessary Institutional Controls in Place?
All Some None

Has EPA Designated the Site as Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use?
Yes No

Has the Site Been Put into Reuse?
Yes No Active chemical manufacturing facilities are located on site.

C-1

APPENDIX C – SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table C-1: Site Chronology
Event Date
National Starch (the PRP) began construction of the chemical manufacturing plant 1970
The PRP disposed of about 350,000 gallons of corrosive reaction vessel wash waters in
trenches constructed in a five (5)-acre area behind the plant
1971 to 1978
The PRP identified groundwater contamination near the trench area; the State verified the
contamination
1976 to 1977
The State completed a preliminary assessment of the Site October 1984
The State completed a site inspection January 1985
The EPA and the PRP signed an Administrative Order on Consent to conduct an RI/FS December 1986
The PRP completed the OU-1 RI/FS 1988
The EPA signed the OU-1 ROD; the OU-1 ROD selected a pump-and-treat remedy for OU-1
and created OU-2
September 1988
The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the PRP to conduct the OU-1 remedial
design/remedial action; the PRP began the OU-1 remedial design
July 1989
The EPA added the Site to the NPL October 1989
The PRP completed a supplemental RI for OU-2 May 1990
The PRP completed the OU-1 remedial design June 1990
The OU-1 remedy began August 1990
The PRP completed a supplemental FS for OU-2; the EPA signed the OU-2 ROD; the OU-2
ROD selected a no action remedy for OU-2 and created OU-3
September 1990
The EPA and the PRP finalized a Consent Decree for OU-2 July 1992
The PRP completed the OU-3 RI/FS June 1993
The EPA signed the ROD for OU-3. The OU-3 ROD selected a remedy for OU-3 (pump and
treat) and created OU-4
October 1993
The PRP completed the OU-4 FS June 1994
The EPA signed the OU-4 ROD October 1994
The EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for the OU-3 and OU-4 remedial
design/remedial action; the PRP began the remedial design for OU-3 and OU-4
September 1995
The PRP finished construction of the OU-1 remedial action March 1996
The EPA completed the Site’s first FYR Report June 1996
The PRP began the OU-4 Phase I natural degradation treatability study December 1996
The PRP completed the OU-4 Phase I national degradation treatability study March 1998
The PRP completed the OU-3 remedial design June 1998
The PRP began the OU-3 remedial action June 1999
The PRP began construction on the OU-1 and OU-3 combined pretreatment system September 1999
The PRP shut down the PPES January 2000
The PRP completed construction of the OU-1 and OU-3 combined pretreatment system February 2000
The EPA considered the OU-3 remedy operational and functional March 2001
The PRP began the OU-4 Phase II natural degradation treatability study November 2001
The EPA issued the second FYR Report September 2002
The PRP completed an OU-1 plume periphery evaluation July 2003
The PRP implemented recommendations from the OU-1 plume periphery evaluation September 2003
The PRP completed a supplemental OU-1 remedy evaluation report July 2005
The PRP completed the OU-4 Phase II natural degradation treatability study Fall 2006
The PRP began delineation of soil contamination and a focused FS for OU-4 April 2007
The EPA issued the third FYR Report September 2007
The PRP completed the evaluation of remediation technologies for OU-4 October 2007
AkzoNobel purchased the property and facility from Indopco Inc. (dba) NSCC, a member of
the Imperial Chemical Industries group of companies
2008
The PRP completed the OU-4 remedial design September 2008
C-2

Event Date
The GWPTS did not operate due to fire damage October 2008 to
October 2010
The PRP implemented the OU-4 remedial action December 2008
The PRP completed construction for OU-4 December 2009
The PRP modified the annual sitewide groundwater sampling plan September 2009
The EPA prepared the Preliminary Close-out Report September 2010
The EPA consolidated oversight of all environmental activities
(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and CERCLA) at the facility under CERCLA
January 2012
The EPA issued the Site’s fourth FYR Report; the PRP began operation of IWB-1
(Lagoon Area – OU-3)
September 2012
The PRP began the OU-1 mid-plume investigation August 2013
The PRP began installation of additional extraction wells along the mid-plume in OU-1 August 2015
The PRP submitted the OU-1 Mid-Plume Extraction Well Installation and Hydraulic
Evaluation
April 2016
The PRP completed a transducer and tracer study in OU-1 August 2016
The EPA, with concurrence from NCDEQ, approved the removal of the air stripper and
catalytic oxidizer from the GWPTS and the removal of the catalytical oxidizer from the OU-4
AS/SVE treatment train
March 2017
The EPA issued the fifth FYR Report September 2017
The PRP conducted a hydraulic fracturing pilot study for OU-1 November 2017 to
June 2018
The PRP implemented a full-scale hydraulic fracturing approach for installation of five new
extraction wells in OU-1
August to November
2019
The PRP prepared a GWPTS design for an updated GWPTS May 2020

D-1
APPENDIX D – SITE MAPS
Figure D-1: Potentiometric Surface of the Saprolite Aquifer, December 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
LEGEND
D S.tebounoary
'\., Stream
e Grooodwater monhoc-.r.g wefl {S3')'0lite)
~ PotemiomHric surface elev.lion contour • \ (~:f:i'tt:GY.fleG••flttt Wl'!l'M)
~ ApproQTl.3te duction of groundwa.wr flow
', Jif)prol(i'J'l-3te grounchv3!et flow oiv1de
· Aeria.1 photo source: ESRl \Vorld lmagay .
• Depd,s '° g-01.RW/a~ ~ m&i'SU'ed on Uf.3!Y20'20.
• ?otentiorr.etric surface elevat>Ons are expressed in feetabow rrean sea level {ft ..rnsl~
· W~ls tabeled in (m] are to be abandonecfin 2021 and v.erenotme~.
---===Feet 250 500
6ai!e::1•.so:,
N.°'ilON."U. S'1'AACH 6 Ci-Ef,f!Q\L OOIAF,Y.'Y ~CAA 61"A..VlSMAO P!.A"IT ~8U!n', NCR-TH CM:ot.lNA !020 ~ ITE MOHITOfUltO REPORi
POTENllOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE
SAPROLITE AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS 9
D-2
Figure D-2: Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Bedrock Aquifer, December 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
LEGEND
□ Steboun<bry
'\., Stream
• Grouoowater mon110rng we{} tsn.a..1-ow bedroct)
./\. Potentiometric surface ~vabon ca-tot.ll'
-\ \:h.:fcw~.xt:Cll:~wllffl: rf!~
~ 1',pprolmlaie.dll-c:timofgroundwa.!elflow
'-, ,6,;>proll711¾1~ groundwa;$'f flow divide
NOTES
• AeriaJ pto10 source: ESRI !Ab'ld lnugay.
• Oep-.hs W g-oundt,a:,e,r were mea.SU"ed from
11130 to 12/112020.
• ?otF.manetric sufaoe ~evabons are expr,essed 1n
feet abow mean se-a. le.Ye! (fl amsl}.
· W~ls ~~ed in [ml are to be abandcrl!!'d in 2021 and
'M:'J"e not measured. • ~ = Potnonetric surfaoe e\waticn mo?asurernent is
considered to be Y10mious and 6 not use-:1 in contouring,.
---===Fe<I 250 500
~$-;o..~ & CH~CCJtJr;,..'>11
CEONf SPRINGS ROl',O~O
'-"LIS.SU~, NORTHCAA.OL...'""1\ :?020 t;lTE MONITOP.IHG REP04Rl
POTEtffiOMETRIC SURFACE OF THE SHALLOW BEDROCK AQUIFER, OECEMBE.R 2020
P4ARCADIS
D-3
Figure D-3: Potentiometric Surface of the Deep Bedrock Aquifer, December 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
\ \'.
,.-; ....... ; .... ~ ' , ' I -~ ' t r, ' ,, ....... I ~ ,, , \ ~ '
'\/\
\ ~ ~
, 0,-,,,,
LEGEND
□,,,._
'\, ""Jill
') GrolllC'Aar.etmc:tlllOO-llg'l;el (~OECl'Cd:)
./"'\, i=te'm~ 9.r.;JO? a?·dlcn ecru.cu
~ ',-,--op:1-W,,moc!'J
~ ~1XOX1nu:~dlreic:cnctg;woo.,.lliffaow
'' ~m,.1:;;. g:roma.t'al:! ta.wC!l'o.~
NOTES
·Nr'i.11 j:t'010$01.1te: ESRI YhaJ l'r..-r. • Qer:n io ga.n:t,'lal'ff wen ~Kl m t1.'3Clr.2020. • ~~.l!7ne!fle 5(1'1lee ~Ct'$ .n expes.&ed ri re,.t~ m..fl&e.3 l?Vet(l'! .ms().
· ~Jo l.tte:I In le) a: 10 be ab.Yld:r'!ed In 202J n,, ~"' r.« ma.t.rell.
o •-•,so-==:::isoo""'
POTEMTIOJETRIC SURFACE OF THE
DEEP BEDROCK AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS
D-4
Figure D-4: Potentiometric Surface of the Saprolite Aquifer (Lagoon Area), December 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~V.NOif=Q~f
X:OSOfi•ONtl OUTE
THESAPR ElRIC SURFACE OfOECEf.SER2021> POTEJmOM AREA). ;;;CADIS I 12
D-5
Figure D-5: Potentiometric Surface of the Shallow Bedrock Aquifer (Lagoon Area), December 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
,11"'!) ...
½
,;,' ,, ,I ··-__ , "' ~ .,.. -.,'\.,. ,
~ .,, ,,, ✓ s --,-,," x ¢_..,,, .,✓
0
4' ~
LEGEND
""\.., S-Jeam
e GrounO'.Yat:r fl'IOrJforlng weH (t,h.lllC.'11' bedroel}
./""\ Potenl!Oe'rtP.!TlcSlll1ace e.Jeva:100 contoot -' tr-t.•-·""-"•lw• .........
~ A::>proidmate d'.::ct100 ot 9f'OOOdWa:ff {loW
NOTES
• Ala-rol ~ &Ol.tlCe: =SRl VIOOCI lrnage,y . • o~, to gro~,.-aie: were rnea6'J'e<1 r.:om
il/30 t1 t2J3.1~2.0. • A:lten.1om~ Wl'f'aco.: ~e-1.1!!006 are exp<=Su-.1 In !!?et aoo•~ fl'lean sea ~\~I (ttarnsJ)
• •N~l!s la:t>Eie41n[ftlare IO be ao.anooie<11n 2021 311<1 weru101me.aiu.-eo..
---==::, F-eel ••
""'10-1.J. SIAllCHt.CHE~lCOr,,lf!il.1.'' CE:wl.<Jtll!N081'1~1't.,t,Kt
U4-~.NOll,ll'i~ 7.:)J serf ■<l"llrtHUwo.flt,01«
POTENTIOMETRIC $U!tFACE Of Tl1E SHALLOW MOROCK
AQUIFER (lAGOONAREA), DECEMBER 2020
~ARCA.DIS
D-6

Figure D-6: Off-Site Well Locations
Source: Single Well Tracer Test and Transducer Study, prepared by ARCADIS, December 2016.
LEGEND
c:::I ste boundary
~ Hriel bwndary
~ Opero~e Ur-.t2
ot-litt: oomcs10 wieu
Grol1r10N'ater mofl/toring iwieH (seiproDe)
Groun!Meter n tradlon 'MIii (nlflsrtion zone)
Groun,j,,,rat« monitoring well (shallow bttaock)
G<ourHMat• eirtraellon well (llhaNow bedrock,)
Prap~d ~ enoc:lon we'l (shellQw bedro$)
f\ez-OfTll!ls (shattow bedrock)
■
Gro,unctNater monllorlng 'M!:II (de-., bedtock)
GrotJr1Hte;r mont1ortng well (abandoned)
&Jrfac.e water S$ffflling klce'lon
Seciment sampling loc.abon
♦ Strea-moauge
......____ Abandoned prooess we~r ~ioQ
...., .._ Acces• road
NOTES
• Aerki photo SOI.Kee: ESRI Vlk)rtd lmag~
250
fe,t soo
NAJ')()ttAL -STARCli lalf'lp, C!-EYCAL COWAJ.4'1
CEO,t\R SfllUNGS ROA.0 PLAHT
SALISBURY NORTH CAROtlPIL&.
OFF-SITE WELL LOCATIONS
~ARCADIS 2
E-1
APPENDIX E – 1997 DEED RECORDATION MAP
F-1
APPENDIX F – PUBLIC NOTICE
Public Notices 11 Public Notices _c,..,._
Purpoee/0~: The EAi. is oondldng a F.,._Year FlEMew of
the remedy for the Nalional Stan::h
& Chemical Corp. Sllperfund site tlhe Site) in Selisbury. North Can> Gna, The purpoee of lhe Fi,. '8ar
Review is to make sure the -.
lected dearup actions effectively
pio»ci human health and lhe eri­
vi ronment.
Sri& BackgrOWKt: The 482· acre Sile is localed in a resi­
dential, oommereial and inclue-­
trial area, A .iile finifhirig and
CU61)m specialty chemical maru­
facluring facility has operated on
the Sile Snee 1970, lmpn:iper di► poaal d chemicals u&ed ,n man­
ufacturing and deaning pnx:ea.
ea l88uted in contamination of
&Oil, groundW818r, &urfaoe water
and sedment, Comami'lants in­
dude volatile o,ganic compounds
(VOCe), &erri-volalile oiganic compounds (SVOCe) and met­
al& The EAi. added lhe Site to lhe
Superfund p1t1gram's Nalional Pri­
oriliea List(NPL) in 1see,
Cleerq) At6ono, To manage irMutigatione and cleanup, lfie
EAi. <fMded lhe Site inn bur
aieu, referred » as operable
units. or OUa, The ERi. &eleCled
the 18rT18dyforOU1 (contamina18d
9rounct..18r on the western por­
tlOfl of the Site) in the Site's 1988 Flecold of Decision (ROO), It .in­
duded groundwaler extractlOfl
and 1rea1ment as well as long­
term morinring, The ERi. &elect­
ed the remedy for OU2 (trench
aiea soil) in lhe Site's 1990
ROD, It inducted natural eoil fllS'l­ing wilh reg.liar monitoring. The
EAi. &elected the long-term 1811'1• dy br0U3 (contaminated ground­
water under pn:iduciion area 1, lhe
parking lot and wutewater tl8at­
ment fagoone) in the Site's 1993
ROD, It inducled grounctwarer
extraction and treatment long­term monitoring and inSlitutional
controls. The iernedy b OU4, selected in a 1994 ROD, ad­
dl888ed contaminated eoil in and
around produc:tion are9: 2 and lh~
CLASSJ!:WlL
--I~
wu'1Milter tJe8lm8nt lagoons. It
ele,o inciuded eoil vapor 8111raction and i'l&titu,onal controls. Gn:iuncf.
water extraction and treatment eoil vapor actraciion, and lorig,­enn monitori'lg ere ongoing,
Rw-Yeer Review Schedule::
The Nalional Conti::~~ Plan 18qU 188 '1:Mew d 1al ai>
tione that 1881Jt in any haz:aidoua
Slb6tanoe8, pollutants or oontarn­inams remaining atlhe Site abow
IEWls lhat allow for unliniled u&e
and unl88tricled expoEU 18 e,,ery
M )'8818 to enaul8 the protection d tuman health and lhe environ­
ment, The &beth of the F ..... vear
AEMewa br the Site will be com­pleted bf September 2022, \\tien
the five. -.ar FlEMew ie complet­
ed, it will be available oriine at:
bttoa ;llwn em oOOuoerfurrl/
ftft8 ffib:i! IPA di ,od~fiYft·)(ftfl C·Cft­.-,
The EPA fnvi'le• Community Particf})tltion in tbs Rv.-Ye,r Review Proce.a: The EAi. is condueling lhis F..,._ '8ar Review
b Muate lhe effectivel'l868 of the Site's remedy and to ensure that lhe iernedy remains pio­
lective of human hee.llh and the
environment, M part d the F..,._
Year Review pnx:e68, ERi. staff is
available b answer any queelion• about the Sile. e«rrn1.,11ty mem­
bers 'M'lo have questions about
the Site or the FIV&-Year AEwiew
proce88, or who would like to per­
ticipa.18 in a community i'lteMeW,
ere asked tocomact
AdamAd<M, ERi. Remeciel l?roject Manager Coon:linator
Phone: [phone]
Email~ adcftr f11am@ePB gqy
Angela Miler, ERi. Community
lmdvement
Phone: [phone]S2 Email: miller.angela.&epa..ooy
MailingAddre&S: U.S. EAi. Region
4. 61 Fof8)'th Stl8et. S,W, 111h
Floor.Atlanta, GA S030.Hl9e0
Adcitional information is Mlable
at the Site'• local document 1&­poeitory, located at fbwan County Public Librar)( 201 ¥at Fisher
Stl8et. Saisb.rry, Norlh Carolina
28144 (con&ider contacti'lg the
libiary » confirm it is open), and
onlins at: www.epa.goldsuper­
fundlnalional-6taJch
PubliS'I: 121'211'2"1.
G-1

APPENDIX G – INTERVIEW FORMS

NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: National Starch & Chemical Corp.
EPA ID: NCD991278953
Interviewer name: J. Billus Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Tessa Monday Subject affiliation: NC DEQ - DWM
Subject contact information: [e-mail] 919.707.8380
Interview date: April 5, 2022 Interview time: Not applicable
Interview location: Not applicable
Interview format (identify one): In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: State Agency

1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?

The project is generally proceeding in accordance with the RODs. The remedy is showing some
results, but there is still a great deal of cleanup to achieve. The Site appears to be well-maintained.
The activities seem to have successfully been keeping contamination from leaving the Site.

2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

The remedies are generally performing as expected. The remedy has fallen short of meeting the
timelines prescribed in the RODs, which will need to be revised at some point.

3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or remedial
activities from residents in the past five years?

No.

4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five years? If so,
please describe the purpose and results of these activities.

No activities related to complaints or inquiries have been conducted.

5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site’s remedy?

The North Carolina Rules 15A NCAC 02L .0202 for groundwater have changed since the RODs
were initially implemented. Many COCs have more stringent standards now.

6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are the
associated outstanding issues?

The institutional controls appear to be functional and there are no current outstanding issues.
G-2

7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

No.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site’s remedy?

Surface water and sediment (within and directly adjacent to the Site) should be analyzed for COCs
that have been detected. Additionally, a vapor intrusion investigation should be conducted for all
buildings located overtop of known contamination areas. Both investigations should be conducted as
part the FYR to ensure protectiveness.

9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR Report?

Yes.

G-3

NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: National Starch & Chemical Corp.
EPA ID: NCD991278953
Interviewer name: J. Billus Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Joseph Lang Subject affiliation: Nouryon
Subject contact information: [e-mail]
Interview date: Not applicable Interview time: Not applicable
Interview location: Not applicable
Interview format (identify one): In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)

1. What is your overall impression of the remedial activities at the Site?

Overall, the remedial activities completed to date have reduced COC concentrations in affected
media and are protective of human health and the environment. Completion of the new OU-1
groundwater extraction and treatment system, however, is needed to ensure the OU-1 remedy will be
protective in the long term.

2. What have been the effects of this Site on the surrounding community, if any?

The work being completed at the Site has no effect on the surrounding community.

3. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

The OU-2, OU-3 and OU-4 remedies have been successful at reducing contaminant concentrations.
The OU-1 remedy has also been successful at removing contaminants; however, completion of the
new OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment system is needed to ensure the OU-1 remedy will
be protective in the long term.

4. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding environmental issues or the remedial action
from residents since implementation of the cleanup?

I am not aware of any complaints or inquiries from the community regarding environmental issues
or the remedial action.

5. Do you feel well-informed regarding the Site’s activities and remedial progress? If not, how might
the EPA convey site-related information in the future?

Nouryon is directing and fully aware of the site activities.

6. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site’s remedy?

G-4

Nouryon appreciates our cooperative relationship with EPA and NCDEQ. We are properly
managing the site remedies and will continue to evaluate opportunities to improve remedy
effectiveness when appropriate.

7. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR Report?

Yes.
G-5

NATIONAL STARCH & CHEMICAL CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: National Starch & Chemical Corp.
EPA ID: NCD991278953
Interviewer name: J. Billus Interviewer affiliation: Skeo
Subject name: Andrew Davis Subject affiliation: PM, Arcadis
Subject contact information: [e-mail], 864.561.5833
Interview date: April 28, 2022 Interview time: Not applicable
Interview location: Not applicable
Interview format (identify one): In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: O&M Contractor

1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse activities
(as appropriate)?

Overall, the project is going well. There is somewhat of a “pause” while the new remedial system is
constructed. Once this is complete, remedial progress should be more evident.

2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

The current remedy is meeting objectives.

The SVE system, while operating consistently, should go thru optimizations to maximize its impact
(although limited by the air discharge permit for the facility). Groundwater extraction in OU-3 has
met the remedial objectives of controlling and remediating groundwater in OU-3.

3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant levels that
are being documented over time at the Site?

Concentration trends are generally stable, however there are fluctuations in the data seen at select
locations throughout the monitoring network. Contaminant migration is limited and with the
exception of a few localized anomalies (i.e., NS-60), consistent with historical levels. We expect to
see more positive trends once the new remedial system is up and operating.

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site inspections
and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.

O&M personnel are on site daily. They check the OU-3 pumping system as well as the SVE system
on a daily basis. In the event that systems require adjustments, Arcadis personnel may be on site to
provide assistance or guidance.

G-6

5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules or
sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the protectiveness or
effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.

Outside of the implementation of the mid-plume system, no significant changes to the O&M
requirements or maintenance schedules, or sampling has occurred.

6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last five
years? If so, please provide details.

None noted.

7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please describe
changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.

Currently, the OU-3 groundwater system O&M and sampling has been optimized to the extent
possible. The next step will be to initiate operation of the mid-plume system. Following operation,
O&M and sampling may be optimized, depending on the systems level of effectiveness.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site?

The Arcadis involvement in O&M is minimal, so recommendations are not warranted.

9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in the
FYR Report?

Yes, my consent is granted.
H-1

APPENDIX H – DETAILED DATA REVIEW

This FYR evaluates monitoring data presented in the 2017 through 2020 Site Monitoring Reports as well
as the October 2021 Five-Year Review Field Data Summary. The data include groundwater data for OU-1
and OU-3, soil data for OU-2, surface water data for OU-3 and soil gas data for OU-4. Supporting figures
and tables for this data review are in Appendix I (OU-1), Appendix J (OU-2), Appendix K (OU-3) and
Appendix L (OU-4).

OU-1
The PRP monitors groundwater annually from wells completed in the saprolite, shallow bedrock and
deep bedrock for OU-1 COCs. The objective of the monitoring program is to evaluate groundwater
quality relative to the OU-1 groundwater performance standards, following temporary suspension of
groundwater extraction and treatment in late 2014. Data from 2020 are discussed in this FYR Report
because they represent the most current and complete data set for the Site. Table I-1 in Appendix I
presents the 2020 groundwater analytical data. Past groundwater data, included as an appendix to the
2020 Site Monitoring Report, were also reviewed. Figure I-1 identifies groundwater sample locations.

The PRP sampled 38 wells to monitor OU-1 groundwater in 2020. The primary COCs detected above
OU-1 performance standards in 2020 and historically include 1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, acetone, toluene,
BCEE and manganese. These COCs exceed performance standards most frequently and at the highest
concentrations (Table I-1, Appendix I). Figures I-2 through I-7 in Appendix I present plume maps for
the primary COCs in the bedrock aquifer (combined shallow and deep aquifer). Plume maps for the
saprolite aquifer were not prepared due to the limited detections of OU-1 COCs in the saprolite.

The highest concentrations of the primary COCs are generally located in the Trench Area (near
extraction well EX-08) and downgradient and west of the Trench Area in extraction wells EX-13
through EX-15. The plume maps show contaminant migration in a southwesterly direction away from
the Site’s geologic groundwater flow divide, and toward the Unnamed Tributary to the southwest.
The contamination extends well beyond the original TAES extraction wells (EX-05 to EX-11). Based on
a review of trend plots included in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report, most wells show stable or slight
increasing concentrations over time since 2008. Appendix I includes trend plots for select wells (source
area well EX-08, mid-plume well NS-26 and downgradient wells NS-31 and NS-31B). The continued
elevated concentrations of 1,2-DCA in Trench Area well EX-08 is likely a result of continued flushing
from the OU-2 soils into the OU-1 groundwater (Figure I-8, Appendix I).

Except for BCEE and possibly 1,2-DCA, the extent of primary COCs above performance standards is
generally defined. The extent of BCEE in groundwater is not well-defined to the southwest and close to
the Site’s property boundary (near wells NS-31 (shallow bedrock), NS-31B (shallow bedrock) and
NS-30 (deep bedrock) (Figure I-6, Appendix I)). Well NS-31, located west of the Unnamed Tributary,
also reported 1,2-DCA (6.5 μg/L) above the performance standard of 5 μg/L in 2020 (Figure I-2,
Appendix I). Residences are located on the west side of the Unnamed Tributary. The residences closest
to NS-31 are served by municipal water but residential wells are in use about 1,400 feet west of NS-31
(Figure D-6, Appendix D). Investigations conducted by the PRP in 2016 concluded that groundwater
flow is converging from both sides of the tributary, and contamination from the Site would not be
expected to migrate toward the residential wells. However, the EPA hydrogeologist did not agree with
the findings. The 2017 FYR Report included a recommendation to confirm that contamination has not
migrated beyond the discharge zone of the Unnamed Tributary. In the EPA’s review comments on the
2019 Site Monitoring Report, the EPA recommended installation of a downgradient monitoring well
H-2

cluster between monitoring wells NS-31 and NS-31B and the residential properties for further
groundwater plume delineation. In the EPA’s review comments on the 2017 transducer study report, the
EPA also recommended that the downgradient residential wells be sampled. These recommendations
have not yet been implemented.

In 2018 and 2019, the PRP constructed five additional extraction wells (EX-12 through EX-16). Plans to
begin pumping groundwater from these extraction wells and treating the extracted water in a new
GWPTS are underway. Construction and startup of the new OU-1 extraction and treatment system are
planned for 2022. The new system is expected to provide hydraulic control of the OU-1 plumes.

OU-2
The PRP collected subsurface soil samples from eight OU-2 Trench Area locations in July 2021 to
monitor the natural flushing of contaminants through the soil. Decision documents did not select OU-2
performance standards for soil, so results are compared to previous sampling results to evaluate changes
over time. Sampling locations and depths were the same as the 2017 sampling event. Samples were
analyzed for the OU-1 analyte list of VOCs and SVOCs, as well as chromium and hexavalent
chromium. Table J-1 in Appendix J presents current and historical analytical results. Figure J-1 in
Appendix J shows the OU-2 sampling locations.

The 2021 sampling results were generally consistent with past soil investigations, relative to magnitude
and types of contaminants detected. 1,2-DCA, 1,2-DCP, ethylbenzene, toluene and total xylenes were
detected most often and at the highest concentrations. 2021 detected concentrations of 1,2-DCA, a
primary chemical for the Trench Area, ranged from ȝJNJDW6%-1J (23.5-24 feet below ground
VXUIDFHEJVWRȝJNJDW6%-1E (33-33.5 feet bgs). The most recent concentrations are orders of
magnitude lower than the highest 1,2-DCA concentration (ȝJNJ) detected at SB-1E (33.5-34
feet bgs) in 2012. Natural flushing of contamination in the Trench Area appears to be occurring as 1,2-
DCA concentrations generally increase with depth, by one to three orders of magnitude. Overall, 1,2-
DCA concentrations are also decreasing over time. Figures J-2 through J-6 in Appendix J include OU-2
Trend Plots for select borings.

Sampling locations SB-1K and SB-8 had the highest concentrations of ethylbenzene, toluene and total
xylenes during the 2021 sampling event. Highest concentrations of the COCs were generally at the mid-
depth intervals in these borings (rather than the deeper samples as for 1,2-DCA). The 2021 Five-Year
Review Field Data Summary report indicates that contaminated groundwater directly below the vadose
zone may influence contaminant concentrations near the water table.

The 2017 FYR Report noted that timeframe for remediation of OU-2 soil by natural soil flushing is
greater than originally anticipated in the OU-2 ROD. The OU-2 ROD, signed in 1990, originally stated
that most compounds would leach into groundwater within five years. 1,2-DCA was predicted to take
much longer, at 22 years. Subsurface soil contamination remains in the OU-2 Trench Area after more
than 30 years. The PRP is currently conducting an evaluation of OU-2 soil. Details of the evaluation will
be submitted to the EPA in 2022.

OU-3
The PRP conducts annual groundwater monitoring from OU-3 wells completed in the saprolite, shallow
bedrock and deep bedrock to evaluate OU-3 groundwater COCs relative to performance standards and
past data. The PRP also collects surface water samples from the Northeast Tributary every five years.

H-3

The OU-3 groundwater evaluation is divided into two sections (Lagoon Area and Northern Production
Area) because these two areas resulted from separate wastewater-related releases and the groundwater
between the areas is not impacted. Groundwater flow direction in OU-3 is east toward the Northeast
Tributary. Table K-1 in Appendix K includes the 2020 Lagoon Area groundwater results. Table K-2,
Appendix K includes the 2020 Northern Production Area results. Groundwater flow direction in OU-3 is
generally east/northeast toward the Northeast Tributary, although flow is affected locally by pumping of
IWB-1 in the Lagoon Area.

Lagoon Area
The PRP sampled 18 wells screened in all three aquifer zones in the Lagoon Area in 2020. The primary
COCs detected above performance standards in OU-3 Lagoon Area groundwater in 2020 and
historically are 1,2-DCA, vinyl chloride and manganese (Appendix K, Table K-1). Shallow bedrock
extraction well IWB-1 continues to operate in the Lagoon Area. IWB-1 has removed about 295 pounds
of COCs since startup, including 55 pounds in 2020 at an average pumping rate of 8.2 gallons per
minute.

Groundwater impacts in the OU-3 Lagoon Area are greatest in the saprolite and shallow bedrock units.
The primary area of impacts extends from the area near wells NS-65 and NS-66 in the western part of
the Lagoon Area to NS-42 along the eastern part. Figures K-1 to K-4 in Appendix K are plume maps for
1,2-DCA and manganese in the saprolite and bedrock units.

Based on a review of trend plots included in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report, concentration trends in
Lagoon Area wells are variable. Some significant decreases have been observed in wells near pumping
well IWB-1. Concentrations of 1,2-DCA in saprolite wells NS-71 and IWS-1 have decreased nearly four
orders of magnitude since pumping began at IWB-1 in 2012 (Figures K-5 and K-6, Appendix K).
Similar downward trends were observed in shallow bedrock wells NS-40 and NS-54 (Figure K-7 and
K-8, Appendix K). Increasing VOC concentrations were observed in shallow bedrock well NS-53 since
2017, although concentrations are generally below the well’s maximum concentrations from 1999
(Figure K-9, Appendix K). It is unclear if IWB-1 is adequately capturing contamination near NS-53.

Northern Production Area
The PRP sampled nine monitoring wells (three saprolite, five shallow bedrock, one deep bedrock) as
part of the 2020 annual sampling in the Northern Production Area. Primary COCs for the Northern
Production Area are 1,2-DCA, manganese and more recently, acetone (Table K-2, Appendix K).
Figures K-1 to K-4 in Appendix K include plume maps for 1,2-DCA and manganese for the saprolite
and shallow bedrock. Plume maps for acetone are not available, as the elevated concentrations are
observed in a limited number of wells.

1,2-DCA concentrations in saprolite wells have decreased significantly over time, from maximum
concentrations above 50,000 μg/L between 1998 and 2003, to non-detect levels (<1 μg/L) in 2020
(Figures K-10 and K-11, Appendix K). 1,2-DCA was also below detection in most shallow bedrock
wells in 2020 (elevated 1,2-DCA concentrations remain in NS-60). The 2020 Site Monitoring Report
attributed the reduction to plant improvements (i.e., replacement of the pavement, which effectively
capped the Northern Production Area and reduced recharge in OU-3) and the OU-4 AS/SVE system.

Total manganese concentrations above the OU-3 ROD performance standard (50 μg/L) in the Northern
Production Area are highest in the saprolite aquifer and are limited in extent (Figure K-2, Appendix K).
NS-35 had the highest total manganese concentration in the saprolite aquifer in the Northern Production
H-4

Area in 2020 (12,000 μg/L). Total manganese concentrations in this well have remained steady over the
past 20 years, although 1,2-DCA and other VOCs have decreased significantly (Figure K-10, Appendix
K). Figure K-2 appears to show the manganese plume encroaching on the tributary. Surface water
samples collected from the Northeast Tributary during the 2021 sampling event (and discussed further
below) were not analyzed for manganese.

Shallow bedrock monitoring well NS-60 has exhibited increasing concentrations of OU-3 COCs, most
notably acetone, since 2013. The acetone concentration in NS-60 LQFUHDVHGIURPȝJ/LQWR
ȝJ/LQDQGȝJ/LQ (Figure K-12, Appendix K). Increasing acetone
concentrations have also been observed in deep bedrock well NS-46. The acetone concentration in
NS-46 in 2013 was 12 ȝJL; by 2020, acetone in NS-46 had increased to 18,000 ȝJ/ (Figure K-13
Appendix K). Figure K-14 shows NS-60 and other wells in the Northern Production Area.

In response to increasing acetone concentrations at NS-60, the PRP conducted a TIC review.
Isopropyl alcohol was identified at elevated concentrations during the TIC review. Due to these findings,
an isopropyl alcohol sample was collected from NS-60 in April 2020. Analytical results confirmed an
elevated concentration of isopropyl DOFRKRODWȝJ/. Following the April 2020 detection of
isopropyl alcohol in NS-60, eight monitoring wells in the Northern Production area (NS-35, NS-36,
NS-43, NS-45, NS-46, NS-59, NS-60, and NS-61) were sampled for isopropyl alcohol during the 2020
annual sampling event. Isopropyl alcohol was detected at two of the eight sample locations. Isopropyl
DOFRKROZDVGHWHFWHGDWȝJ/LQPRQLWRULQJZHOO16-60 and ȝJ/LQ well NS-46.
Saprolite and shallow bedrock wells downgradient of NS-60 and NS-46 were non detect (<100 μg/L) for
isopropyl alcohol; however, there are no downgradient deep bedrock wells. Based on these results, the
PRP began episodic pumping events at NS-60 in May 2021 to reduce concentrations of isopropyl
alcohol in groundwater. This effort is ongoing, and data to evaluate the effectiveness of the pumping are
not yet available for review.

Northeast Tributary
The PRP collected surface water samples from four locations in the Northeast Tributary for 1,2-DCA
analysis in July 2021 (Figure K-15, Appendix K). The highest concentration of 1,2-DCA detected in
2021 surface ZDWHUVDPSOHVZDVȝJ/DW6:-10, three orders of magnitude below the performance
VWDQGDUGRIȝJ/&RQFHQWUDWLRQVRI-DCA in surface water continue to decline over time
(Appendix K, Table K-3).

OU-4
The PRP collected passive soil gas samples annually at SVE wells in OU-4 (Figure L-1). The soil gas
data is used to adjust the operation of the AS/SVE system to focus treatment in areas of the Site with the
highest concentrations beneath the Northern Production Area. The most recent sampling event occurred
in April 2020 at 10 SVE wells. 1,2-DCA is the primary COC in soil gas, although elevated levels of
vinyl chloride are also detected periodically. Decision documents did not select performance standards
for soil gas. In the absence of performance standards, the site monitoring reports compare detected soil
gas concentrations to state industrial soil gas screening levels. Table L-1, Appendix L includes the soil
gas data from 2013 to 2020 for 1,2-DCA. Figure L-2, Appendix L presents the 2018 to 2020 soil gas
sampling results.

1,2-DCA concentrations in the soil gas samples consistently exceed the state industrial soil gas
screening level (47 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)) in multiple samples, which is expected as
H-5

treatment is ongoing.4 A few select SVE wells (SVE-23 and SV-44) showed an increase in
concentration indicating vapors were being recovered or drawn towards the active operating wells in this
area at the time of the testing. Overall, the 2020 soil gas data continue to show a general decrease in soil
gas concentrations, which reflects the ongoing effectiveness of remedial actions in this area. The
maximum detected 1,2-DCA concentration in 2020 (330,000 μg/m3) at SV-46 is three orders of
magnitude below the 2009 baseline concentration of 570,000,000 μg/m3 and an order of magnitude
below the maximum concentration during the previous FYR period (2013-2016) of 2,300,000 μg/m3.
These results show the AS/SVE system is operating as intended and progress is being made.

The AS/SVE system has removed 11,290 pounds of VOCs since startup in 2009. In 2020, the SVE
system removed 117 pounds of VOCs at an average operational flow rate of 119.5 standard cubic feet
per minute.

4 In 2021, the State of North Carolina eliminated published screening level tables for vapor intrusion.
I-1
APPENDIX I – OU-1 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Table I-1: OU-1 Groundwater Results, 2020
Location ID
Sample 10
Sample Date Fkflii•l---■■111---■■ikd■
HSU
Conducti..,ity (mSlcm)
ORP (mV)
DO(mg/L}
Turbidity (NTU)
T em rature de rees Celsius
1, 1,2-Trichloroe-thane-
1 1-Dichloroe-thene-
I 2-Dichloroethane
1 2-Dichloropropane
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Chloroform
Eth'lfbenzene
Oichloromethane
Toluene
Trichlorce.hene
Vinvl chloride
Total Xylenes
5-e.t-Volatie Orgamc Cot11pounds (pg/ll
4-Nitro henol
bis{2-ChloroeU\yl)ether
Ars.enic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
hon
Man anese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
NOTES:
"Md! lna:eate&coocer:raton 16 reater U\311 RO:> :>er1orrr.af!.ce Stanl13ro
BOjd ln:le.1te&detected con~n:ra:lon.
mgll • mrngrams pa ner
Jig.rt. • mktograms per l~e<
ms.rem .. m111s1emen& per oenume-:a
mv •tnmlVons
HTU .. nepMlomett!c IW'Cld:ry Untl
ROD • .R.ecof'CI O( OeclSlon
su • sunaan:1 unit
a • compound ••as :oooa In 1r.e Clank ana &~.
J • co~o1ra:Ion I& es11ma:e<1.
5
5
6 3500
5
5
5
3500
5
2000
5
2
350
350
5
10
1000
17.5 10
noo
350
7356
il • 1ne s.--nple res.ur.1& reJecte:i ca,e to s.edous denderteee, In :ne aouty to anaIyze 1ne
$3mpN: ana meet qua11y control crtterc.l: and tne !)fe,ence or ati<Senc.e of t!'le analyte canno1 oe
\'E/1(~0. u • compomowas a..,a~ for, t>ut noi de:ect.ed 1ne 13t>ora:ory reponrng 11m111& ts:ed.
u-e .. compound aetected In Olaoll or associa:ed OIM!l. qual:tleo a, a non-oetect a1 llsted
va:oe. UJ • Tne anaty;e w.a& not Cletecteo a'tlove tne tepOr'Jng llmlt no---e-ve,, the repor.ed
quantltatron lmtl I& a.?Pf0Xlma:e and may, er may n01 represE:nt the actual lrnlt of quantlatton
necessary io accwatery and 1Yedsel)' measure ana..)te In the f.:tmp:e.
7.47 6.48
0.513 8.88
-13-0.3 89.6
0.69 0.23
1.39 5.19
10.0 8.1
< 1.0U <2.0U
< 1.0U <2.0U
1.2 <2.0U
< 1.0U <2.0U
< IOU 22
<0.50 U 3.4
< 1.0U <2.0U
<2.0U <4 0U
<5.0U < IOU
<0.50 U I 48
0.25 J 350
0.A4 J I 140
<0.50 U < 1.0U
< 1.0U <2.0U
< 15U < 1600 UJ
7 2200 J
< IOU < IOU
72J 6800J
<4.0U <4.0U
<2.0U <2.0U
< 10 UJ 4.7 J
<0.20 U 30
150 8600
< IOU 17
< 10 UJ < 10UJ 6.8 J <2008
6.39 5.89 6.31
2.98 0.1 18 6.68
-73.0 164.3 -114.2
6.28 6.28 0.84
9.38 8.26 2.35
9.2 12.2 13.6
< I.OU < I.OU <5.0U
< I.OU < I.OU <5.0U
< I.OU < I.OU 3.2 J
< I.OU < I.OU <5.0U
13 <tOU <50U
2.5 < 0.50 U 4
< I.OU < I.OU <5.0U
<20U <20 U < 10U
<5.0U <5.0U <25 U
I 0.92 < 0.50 U 31
5.3 0.15J 2100
11 I < I.OU 100
< 0.50 U < 0.50 U 4.4
< I.OU < 1.0U 7.5
< 15U <16U < 310 UJ
730 0.98 J 12 J
< IOU <lOU < 10U
320 J 32 J 170
<4.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<2.0U <2.0U <2.0 UB
5.7 J < 10 UJ 4.3 J
30 1.1 3
16000 230 36000
9.3J <10U 13
< 10 UJ < 10UJ 6.2 J
<200B 23 <3
5.25 6.47 6.00 6.24 6.65
11.44 2.81 8.22 9.68 5.30
-53.5 -265.4 -52.4 -7.0 -27.2
0.48 0.53 0.35 0.43 0.33
39.70 6.20 1.80 2.66 4.30
14.0 11.3 14.0 13.6 13.6
60 J < 1.0U < LOU < 1.0U < I.OU <500U
< 100U 0.54 J 2.7 < 1.0U < I.OU <500U
32000 6 13 .1 < I.OU
78J < 1.0U 0.95J < 1.0U < I.OU
< 18000 us <39UB 55 74 < lO U
26J 8.1 3.5 4.7 1.3
< 100U < 1.0U < 1.0U < 1.0U < I.OU <500U
<200U <2 0U <20U <2 0U <20U < 1000 U
<500U <5.0U <5.0U 1.7 J <5.0U < 2500 U
230 290 180 J 30 I 4.9 I 170 J I 11000 I 580 40 270 230 I 5600
840 330 47 63 11 530
42 J 4.3 5.2 I <0.50 U < 0.50 U <250U
100 11 76 58 < I.OU 120 J
<3t00 UJ < 3100 UJ < 16U < 150U < 16U < 800 UJ
< 3 10 UJ < 310 UJ 73 4.1 J 18 2600 J
< 10U < 10U < IOU < 10U < tOU < IOU
< l7 UB < 19UB 18 J <25UB 310 10000:::J
6.8 <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<2.8 u s < 2.0 UB <2.0U < 2.0 UB <2.071s <2.0UBW
17 1.8 J 11 J 5.2 J 4.9 J 35
20 1.1 35 23 68 110
130000 4500 79000 40000 34000 260000
1000 18 57 43 6.8 J 41
28 < 10U 13 J 44
< B < 8:t': < < iroe
I-2
Lo~tion 10
$;ample ID
Sample Date --------,-------■ pH(SU}
Conductivity (mSlcm}
ORP (mV)
DO(mgll)
Turbidity (NTU}
Tem ature de rees Celsius
1, 1.2-Trichloroeth.ane
1 1-Dich.loroethene
1 2-Dichloroethane
1 '.2-Dich.loropropane
Acetone
6
3500
Be.nzene 5
Bromodichloromethan.e
Chloroform
Eth-.A:benzene 3500
Oichloromethane 5 I
Toluene 2000 I
Trichloroe.hene
Vin'ol chloride
T ota:I Xylenes
Setal-Volatile Org.-ue Co.pounds (pgll.)
4-Njtro henol
bis(2-Chloroe.hyl}ether
Arsenic
Barium
Berymum
Cadmium
Chromium
Man anese
Nickel
Selenium
Zi:nc
NOTES:
SMd! 1no.eate6co,cer1ra'Con I& re,ater thar ROD :>er'Mraree-sunciaro
BOid lnele.1t~6detectea conoerr.ra:100.
mg/I. .. mlllgram, pa cm
JlgJ\. • mle:rogram, per CK
me.ran• m111s1emens per cenllme:er
mv • mlNIVor.s
NTU • nepllelometnc tl.RICC1)' uno
ROD • Recora e( OeclSIOO
SU • Stancl.:tr<I Unit
a .. compound ••-.u touna in me blYtk and sa.•nple.
J • concen1ta:1on IS ~llma:ed.
5 I
2
350
350
10
1000
17.5 10
noo
350
R: • The ,amp1e rewn 1$ reject.ea oue to g,enou6dendend:e61n :I'll= abOtytoanalyZe !he
SJmple and w et quatty control c:rtt.eoo; and tne presence er aDSence-01 the analyte canno1 oe
\'e.llf~d. u • Ccmpomd wa.s ana~ ror, out no1 de-:ecle:,,. Tne bbora:ory reponmg 111n111$ 1:s:ea. us • cornpoun<I aelt'Ct.ed In t:Aa..,, er :t$$0Cl¥.e<I ola.'lk,. qualfled a, a noo-aetect a111,ted
Ya\P., UJ .. Tne a.,a1y.e WJS not detect~ a:tiove tne 1epor'Jn9 Hmll:: hOwe-oe-r. Ille re,por:e<i
quYtlltatton lmH 16 aJ>P'OXlma:e .-no may, or m-1y 001 represe..it the ac:ual Irr.ti or qua.ititation
neces.saiy :oat.curate')' a.id p-edsely meatutl? ana.)te In tne &,3mp-e.
5.88
24.61
-34.1
1.87
5.61
15.2
<500U
<500U
<500U
280 J
120000
<250U
<500U
< 1000U
<2500U
160 J
5900
500
<250U
130 J
< 1600 UJ
2800 J
< iOU
10000
<4.0U
< 2.0 us
33
100
250000
40
5.92 6.39 6.11
27.47 18.57 10.75
-136.9 -202.5 -74.5
0.57 0.16 0.35
6.18 5.97 2.16
10.1 i4.6 10.5
<500U <50U <2.0U
<500U <SOU <2.0U
<SOU 1.9 J
<SOU
22000
9.6 J
<SOU <2.0U
< 1000 U < 100U <4 0U
< 2500 U < 250 U < IOU
120 J 240 4 1 I
5400 3900 I 590
280 J 830 74 I
<250U <25 U < l.OU
<500U <SOU <2.0U
< 150U < 160U < 16U
13000 12000 2700
<50U 10J < IOU
1700 2200 J 1800 J
<20U <4.0U <4.0U
< 107Js <2.0U <2.0U
43J 16J 11 J
64 15 79
230000 12000 73000
69 110 23
14 J
< 35-ctB
5.64 6.71 6.56 6.26 6.51 5.86 6.03
2.23 1.91 1.52 10.51 11.72 1.61 0.551
-23 1.7 -49.0 -11.3 47.8 -281.3 161.1 58.9
1.07 0.38 3.46 0.89 0.36 1.86 0.91
44.30 10.34 0.10 0.96 20.32 0.00 0.23
11.3 1L5 13.8 13,S 12.5 14.8 14.0
< I.OU <5.0U < I.OU < I .OU < IOU < I.OU < I.OU
< I.OU <5.0U < I.OU < LOU < IOU < I.OU < I.OU
< I.OU <5.0U 0.63 J 1.7 < l.OU < I.OU
< I.OU <5.0U < I.OU < I .OU < IOU < 1.0U < I.OU
< IOU 140 < IOU < IOU < 16000 UB <10U < lOU
0.52 7.6 <0.50 U 0.55 13 < 0.50 U < 0.50 U
< I.OU <5.0U < 1.0U < I.OU < IOU < 1.0U < I.OU
<20U < 10U -· -· <-?OU -<20 U <20U
<5.0U <25U <5.0U 1.7 J <50U <5.0U <5.0U
< 0.50 U I 130 I <0.50 U 1.5 79 < 0.50 U < 0.50 U
0.21 J 1700 < 0.50 UB 21 7300 < 0.50 U < 0.50 U
0.38J I 140 I < I.OU 3.1 180 < ,.ou < I.OU
< 0.50 U I 8 I 0.4.SJ <0.50 U 9.7 < 0.50 U < 0.50 U
< I.OU <5.0U < I.OU 0.97 J 38 < I.OU
< 16 U < 170U < 16 U < 15U < 1600 UJ <17U
650 < 17 U < 1.6U < 1.5U < 160 UJ 6.5
< tOU < iOU < IOU < 10U < IOU < IOU < tOU
400 J 600 J <22UB 1500 1100 92 J < 19 UBJ
<4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<2.0 us <2.0U < 2.0 us < 2.ttrs <3.2 us <2.0U <2.oU s™
12 J 2.8 J 3.1 J 6.2 J 20 2.8 J < 10UJ
2.6
60000
20
15 J <:fe"U <
I-3
Location 10
$.ample ID
Sample Date ··---·-··--·'--··--··' HSU
Conductivity (mSfcm)
ORP(mV)
DO(mgll)
Turbidity (NTU)
T em ratuce de rees Celsius
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1 1-DichJoroethene
1 2-D,Chloro ro ane
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodi:chlorometh.ane
Chloroform
Eth enzene
Oichloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroe'lhene
Vinyl chloride
Total Xylenes
Seat-Vo&dile C>rg.mrc Coepounds fMIIL)
4-Nitro henol
bis(2-ChtoroeUlyl)ether
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
1,on
M.an9.anese
Nickel
Selenium
Zi:nc
NOTES:
Sl'llCl!f9 1na. cones co'loer 1raton 16 gruter tl\ar RO~ Der-t,.r,,arce CtanlSarO'
BOld 1n:feJte& detecteo coooen:ra:1on.
mg!l • mlllgrams pet tter
Jlg/l • mtc:rograms per l:H
msian • mn1S1ernens per oenllme:er
mv .. mWIVOll&
NTU .. nepMIO!'Mtl'IC IUlt)l(['!y unt
ii.OD .. Record Of Oecl$lon
SU • St.3n::l.3rd Unit
o • compoun<I ••·as touf'ld rn me olank anel s~.
J • Concen1ra:1on 1$ esllma:e<I.
3500
2000
350
350
10
1000
17.5 10 50
7700
R. • The ,a.-nple rasull IS raJect.eo ctue t<i s.erlousoel'!denctesln me aouryto analyze ine
&.3mple aoa nteet quatty control crtter-3; and the ptesence er a*nce 01 tne analyle caMO'! oe
\'e.!f.ed.
u • compomowas ana¥z:~tor. t1utn01 oe:ected The 1300ra1ot)' repon.ng Hml! IS rs:e<i. U-9 .. compouno oetect.eo In 01ain1 or a$$0Cla'.e-;J 01an1,. qua~d as a non-c1etect al listed
v~ue. UJ • The ariaty:e was not Cletect'KI a:iove tne reponlng llmrt nov,-e,.\'ff, tile 1epor:e<1
quanlltat:on lrntl Is ~•ax1ma:e and may, or may no1 represe-.1t lhe ao:wl 1mn of quannac:;oo
neCE-SSai,y 10 accwatety ano predsety me.awra ana'.yte 11n the &.3mp'.e.
6.40
18.39
-105.7
0.19
34.82
12.8
<20U
<20U
<20U
<20U
11000
13
<20U
<40U
< 100U
360
5400
1300
< tOU
<20U
< 8100 UJ
14000 J
9.6 J
1300 J
<4.0U
<2.0U
28 J
7.6
6400
6.41 6.14 6.35
0.97 17.74 8.74
-65.2 -53.1 -312.2
0.5 0.22 0.17
4.44 3.62 1.38
13.8 10.7 14.6
< I.OU <2.0U <2.0U
< 1.0U <2.0U <2.0U
< I.OU 7.2 4.3
< 1.0U <2.0U <2.0U
< I OU 141> 43
0.65 13 3.2
< I.OU <2.0U <2.0U
<2.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<5.0U < 10UB < tOU
<0.50 U 141> 37
0.37 J 5200 600
0.34 J 410 110
<0.50 U < 1.0U < I.OU
< 1.0U <2.0U <2.0U
< 16U < 170 U < 17 U
12 320 1300
< IOU < IOU 14 J
65J 410 J 1700 J
<4.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<2.0U <2.0U <2.0U
< 10UJ 7.6 J 4.7 J
3.7 46 < 0.20 U
37°00 2100
81 10
19J
<O'tr
6.63 6.64 6.38 6.43 6.16 6.64
2.59 4.04 0.431 4.06 7.35 15.9
-69.7 -152.4 3.9 -67.9 -66.0 -372.2
0.24 1.59 1.76 0.21 0.64 0.18
0.00 0.21 0.00 477.2 0.97 19.90
14.2 13.1 13.5 13.9 9.0 12.2
< 1.0U < 1.0U < I.OU < I.OU < I.OU < I .OU < 100U
< 1.0U <1.0U < l.OU < I.OU < I.OU < 1.0U < tOOU
< 1.0U 6.5 < 1.0U < I.OU < I.OU 1.4 2200
< 1.0U 5 < I.OU < I.OU < I.OU OA9J 4700
2.7 J < 10U < 10U 9.3J 7.6J 43 80000
1.4 2 < 0.50 U 2.2 2.1 6.9 21 J
< 1.0U <1.0U < I.OU < I.OU < I.OU < I .OU < tOO U
<2.0U <2.0U <2.0U <2.0U <2.0U <2.0U <200 U
<5.0U <5.0U <5.0U <5.0U <5.0U <5.0U <500U
<0.50 U 0.51 < 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 0.50 U 40 470
0.28J 1.6 < 0.50 U 1.3 1.2 340 4800
0.33J 4A < l.OU 4.6 4.5 100 1500
<0.50 U <0.50U < 0.50 U < 0.50 U < 0.50 U <0.50 U <50U
< 1.0U <I.OU < I.OU < I.OU < I.OU < 1.0U 77 J
< 15 U < 16U < 16U < 16U < 16U < 15U < 310 UJ
140 290 < 1.6UB 310 270 1600 930 J
< 10U < 10U < 10U < tOU < IOU < IOU 9.8 J
240J 1800 J < 14 UBJ 6600 J 6700 J 1100 J < 25 UBJ
<4.0U <4.0U <4.0U < 4.0 U <4.0U <4.0U <4.0U
<2.0U <2.0U <2.0U <2.0 UB < 2.0 UB <2.0U <2.0U
< 10 UJ 2.0 J 7.9 J < 10 UJ < 10UJ 5.9 J 48J
2.8 0.77 < 0.20 UB 1.6 1.6 71
1700 1100 < IOUB 1200 1300 3aooq
5.4 J 3.3 J < 10U 4.1 J 3.0J 3.2 J
< 10 UJ < 10UJ
63000 66000 <
I-4
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
Location 10
Sample ID
Sample Date IF#IIWlll•-■11•11tkiaiji
H SU
Conductivity (mSfcm)
ORP(mV)
1 '.2-Dich.loroethar-.e
1 2-Dich.loropropane
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichlorome-thane
Chloroform
Eth benzene
Oichloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroe1hene
Vinyl chloride
Total Xylenes
4-Nitro henol
bis(2-Chtoroe.hyl)ether
Arsenic
Barium
Berymum
Cadmium
Chromium
tron
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
NOTES:
"Md! lmf.¢3tesco:ioertrat'-on Is reater uur, ROD ::>er!Orm_,1r.<;e StJnGar0
Bold 1nctc.:ttes<1et.ecteo concen:ra;lon.
mg!l " mrngrams pa it~r
Jig!\. • mk:rOgrams pe_r l:a
ms.rem .. m111s1emens per oenllme:&
mv • mllll\lor.,
HTU .. n~Mlomet:f1c turbldi)' untl
ROD • .R.econ:I Of Oecl$100
SU • Standard unit
-9 "compoun<l >\'as founa In•~ blank ana u mpJe.
J • conoentra:lon rs l:$llma:e<1.
5
7
5
6
3500
5
5
5
3500
5
2000
5
2
350
350
5
10
1000
17.5
10
7700
R • Tne sample resut! IS raJecteo ctue to~nousdencre.ndestn :Ile aDUtytoanalyze the
wmpie ana m~et quatiy control crtterc.1; ano tile ~esenoe or a~nce 00' tne ana!yte c:tMO'! DE venr.ed. u .. compomowas a!la~ ror. oulnot oe:ected.. The 13bor:t!OI)' rapOrning llmll rs rs:e<1.
us • compoun.d detected In 01an• or assoc1.11e<1 t11an1:,. "'a~d as a non-oetect a1 llsteo
Ya'\le. UJ .. Tne a.'lal)~e was not Getect~ a ove the 1epor:1ng 11mtt;: noy,--e-\'et, tile 1e-pooe<1
quantltaton 1mtt is aypcox1ma1e a_10 may, or may n01 represent lhe ac;ual 1mn or qua:lt:lac'.on
neces.sary,;o accurate.ry and precisely mu wra ana.)te In tile wmp'e.
6.23 6.15
18.81 22.31
-92.0 -11.4
0.3 0.54
6.11 18.16
10.5 13.8
<5.0U <5.0 U
<5.0U <5.0 U
<5.0U 6.5
<5.0U <5.0 U
350 490
12 6.1
<5.0U <5.0 U
< tOU < IOU
<25 U <25U
94 26
4700 2100
280 77
<2.5 U <2.5 U
<5.0U <5.0 U
< t60U <320 UJ
260 510 J
< 10 U < IOU
1400 J 2400
<4.0U <4.0 U
<2.0U <2.o'tls
14 J 13
30 43
23000 100000
24
<2~a
6.21 6.03 6.78 7.21 6.53
22.69 21.57 4.96 0.78 6.76
·119.9 -78.6 -39.2 -111.0 -103.8
0.23 0.27 0.86 0.82 0.29
11.22 11.05 4.92 1.55 3.82
14.1 13.4 9.3 10.3 9.5
<2.0U < IOU < i.OU < 1.0U < 1.0 U
<2.0U < IOU < I .OU < I .OU < I.OU
<2.0U < IOU < 1.0 U < I .OU < I.O U
<2.0U < IOU < I.OU < I .OU < I.OU
50 < IOOU 22 2.7 J 11
8.9 12 1.6 0.21 J 3.9
<2.0U < IOU < i.OU < I .OU < I.OU
<4.0U <20U <2.0 U <2.0U <2.0 U
< IOU <50U <5.0 U <5.0U <5.0 U
13 130 9.1 <0.50 U 64
720 5700 480 0.17 J 83
48 500 29 < I .OU 150
< I.OU <5.0 U <0.50 U <0.50 U <0.50 U
2.9 < IOU < I.OU < I.OU
R < 1500 UJ < 15U < 15U
2100 4400 J 210 47
6.6 J < 10 U < IOU
2700 J 690 180 J
<4.0 U <4.0 U <4.0U
<2.0U <2.0 U < 2.0 u s <2.0U <2.0 U
9~J 10 J 3.7 J 2.5 J 8.6 J
27 59 23 1.4 51
44000 80000 3900
15 12
22 J
< 2d"OB
I-5
Figure I-1: Well Map
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
I= ~
LEGEND
CJ sn,_
[=:I H«tke.loomdal)•
□-"'""""' c:J Oper.bleUrl ~
"'\., "'''""
'-.... ,t,b3ndor~proo;,,s.$ffirpi.,bg
', Acces&roao
• c-rou'lCl~·.ermoi110mgwe:1 (6,ap"oote~
• GroU!'ld'r..t.erextract1onwe:li!r.r1$VOn zooe)
• Grol.t'rJwatermooltemgwe'J (sfl.110Wt-.ctoa1
• Groln:lw...er extradlon wel i&!UkM' oedrock)
0 Pl~zoot.,;.~r {s,,'lllbw-oeo'rcd:)
GroU'lClwatermoo11tmgwel (CIN'p~)
• Groln:h.v-..t.errr.oo!!Omg¥fe.l (abll"mned)
.a Sls".ace wata-$.lll'JC,ng IOC::mOn
e sednteT!t SYr.p.lng lo:...:on
♦ St.:amgaug;:
NOTES
; A,4:f:JI ~o:o w.irce: ESRI \VM:S lt:la;ery .
• W=fl& iate:ea In [ii0N>'e Offli .canctc,o~
~$?~ lC.IICN:,:,,1,1 GC:Nl'Mt C!XWI S,:~S,t::IA?;M.,,10 UUt&llY IIOftt,,1<:M'ajM
lll:»Snl!::.atffl.OUIO llt.~l !Tl SJTEPLAN
~ 1---A-A-Ro:\D--IS-~2-----1,
I-6
Figure I-2: OU-1 1,2-DCA Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
r:=:'le-~ ~ -_l!U
LEGEND
C:J '"'°""'""?'
'\., S<hlm
e Grollli:lwaterm«ll!:mg~I ($1\.ikl'.\'be«ockj
C Grol.mwater moorion:lg NE!I (ileep l:M:d,"OCtl
1,2-0ICHLORO-ETHANE
COHCElffRATIONS (l,g/l)
CJ ..sa)a<100
0 ,,ooand•l,00,,
O >1,000and <1d,ooo
0 >10,000JACl<IOO,OOJ
NOTES
· ~ ptlo'lo WJroe: ESRIWorll lm<9..q.
• W:iG'A'He &ampled Item l2.'1 b 1218t'202Ck
• ~t!OOS are O::q:t":'SSoed III mao;.ns f.a • .!' <1-94-}.
• OU1 R;.;o::«1 O: O:cii:.oo(ROO)per:-OOl'WIOa e.:Jr..d:irtl ~
1.2'<11dioroe::l'an~ • Sp9'L \V~Js.tlt,e.eoln [iiilv."era remo,,,e<1 ircm ll'le sanpmgpiarr
lfl2t0:l .
. W..!Js. !aoe!ed' In 1ml Me to ti at~lttdar.ed n 2-0-21 and
w..re n:::t saT~. . • u "'An.3)~ nat ~r.eaeoato;e1ndca::0 rep0f11r9 1ml
· J .. COXe<tra"..on le. es:Mta-~d.
0 ■--,•,,==,.:i:eet
~1,:3i,w.etAA.01&C11o.eCA1.co~Nflt cu).I.Jt Wl!lhOJltO,J)~..,.., U.U5MJIIIY1W'..c't'lt:Al«!UllJt, :i,:u, 511'.t IIJCIN'.ICMIGJtf:PClln
01111,2-0fCl!LOROETHAHE PLUME IN TNE
BEOROCKAQIIIFER OECa.tBER2020
~ARCA.DIS
I-7
Figure I-3: OU-1 1,2-DCP Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
--
LEGEND
□ Sia oounct.1ry
'\., &..oam
e Gm.n:iwai:er,~wel($MIGWD:'crtd)
O Gm.mwa:ernmll.."Ol'ig.n1(d~p0Ed!ool)
1,2-0tcHLOROPROPAHE
CONCENTRATIONS (l'g/l)
0 :-6YIIS<HXI
0 :,.1£0an:><l.O-:>O
O ,-1,:00at'.d «to.o:m
NOTES
. A~p:iao WJrce: ESRI\VCl'IOIITl.'.f:lef}' . . w~ .. ~~ $31'l'l~ffil rrOO'l 1211 to ,~o.
•COC'lcen:ra11:ns~e~dinfl1aopan5pecfl=-:'(J.9'\.t..
· 001 R:eCffl:! Ol' OECl#Or (f\00) pe~OOIUl"tOe 6-~l'Wnfllr 1.2~,e,-a~ane • 6 µg,1..
• WEll&~eoln ~were r..mo.·.ed tran the-ur,~gpeai
ln2D:20 • . W-=llir:ttu::ilolI!ijare.w oe ~~n 2&2i ¥id
waen01ur~.
U .. Ma);;, n:ll ~te.:(E<f abo~ lcd.¢.1::d li'pM.flg ln1!. · J .. COOCErt~I$ e~d
t
Ffft
0 ,,. >!O -.,·-~-
t1Al'l0t.N,.5i.-..~ ~CHIK.t.¥,CO\lll'Ntt'
CUWt~NO!l~l'Ulft SALl&SJlll'l',Nl:fl:rN~ll.t :o;i,e Slfll -lOIWIO lllll'OIH
001 1.2-0ICHt OROPROPANE PLUME IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER. DECEMBER 2020
A ARO\DIS
I-8
Figure I-4: OU-1 Acetone Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
if]
~ ~
~-,..u ,i11i::mu11
\1f! I ~ I
--
LEGEND
□ site 00l.lnd.1ry
'\., St.-eam
• Grou'ldn:l?fl~We l ($MIGWD:'crtd)
O Grourtlwa:ermcall.."Ol'ig.n1 (d~pOEd!ool)
ACETONE
CONCENTRATIONS (µg/l)
Q , .. s,sooand"'6,coo
0 "6,COOand .:60,000
0 "60.000an:l~.O-lJ
NOTES
l l
a 125 -.,·•1'!itl"
F«t
1'0
tlAl'IOt.,ll,. 5 l,,llt01 ~ CHt#~ COliiel'Ntt' Cu»lt~NO!l~l'tNff 5ALJS9Jlll'l',Nl:«rtfc.oJ«IIJ!IA :o;iie 51fll -to,i,,io lllll'OIH
001 ACETOHE PLUME IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER. DECEMBER 2'l20
A ARO\DIS 16
I-9
Figure I-5: OU-1 Toluene Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
.,,---/1ft·1 i;·::: / -u ' ,.~ -
~ l " " _, \ ~ ..
/4. •n•I
i;,... a,.
I
l~
I ii
)/
/
\ .~ ~-
,w ~ie ~
"" "'
LEGEND
□Sl~"°"""')'
"'\.., S.'3m
• Grot.n3watermoiilrif'lngwell (sl\.1:IOW~crocifi)
:: C-roln:lwatermonncmgweu (oe-:pDE<Li:d.)
TOLUENE
CONCENTRATIONS (µg/L)
~~,~~~i:1~~~1:1~0.
co,,cgr,ra11ooure e~dln n1a-cgran, ;t~ Ila tl4'Li ou1 ~ cc 0K£9"0!\(ROO}~r:a-:manoe-sunclv t.lf tcru:r.e • 2.oooua'L W~fao«e0:1n ~Y.'el'e re,:~ea rr::m ft sanpiklg p!:n
In 2020.
W~lStatE=.eaJnlm!3rel00eltl.¥.ooni'dfl2&21.¥1d
were n::. &a-rp:eo. ti• AP3.)W r.ot oete:teeabove l!!dc.r.ed r~'f!rg lt:riL
J .. Caicertra:on. 16 ei.:rn.T.=d.
---==="" 2'0
11,11JQ,.,.._S1~4 D«~Wlill'NIV
~UIIINtllll9Cll>.Gl'tMr ~IIY,~c:,t,IIOU<tA :vn 1,ni MaMl Ol'IIIG •u.roto
001 TOLUENE ~LUME IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS 17
I-10
Figure I-6: OU-1 BCEE Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~ ---.
/7··_·· -----
/ •= y ,. r'
I
ms-·@ \
LEGEND
□""""""''l'
"\., s:tct:.m
• Grolmv.-ar.er rr.oonomg we.1 (s!UIO'N ~)
Grolm'.r..i:er moo1icmgwe1 (<1eepbeaool)
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
CONCENTRATIONS (IJg/l)
Q ,. .. ,,.too
0 >100 ,.,..,.000
O ►1,000ancl<10,000
0 :.10,000~<10-J,COJ
NOTES
• Ae"la(pi!OXI SCl.m:e: ESR!WMOltl'l.;g!:()'.
· ~'A'ele ~-Kl ll'Q'.l'! 1211 to 12.<?/2020.
~co-1c.cr1:mll:iri6.:tre e:ai:pr-d!n IN«-09,-f.et lit.er {1,19'4
. ou1 Recoro Oi oea~oo (ROD> pe~mll'I.Oi'! s.un:iara b ljs (2-cf!JocN:tt:)ll aner • &.,giL
• W~tate'.e:lln~·~ren-,c,.,ed Item~ &a'l'lpllngp!YL
ID-~ . . \~i&~eoln!mlsll':.io c,e, »a!ld0n.eon 202t .¥id
werena.&.Yl"-s:(a -u •At!2")tc rot ~ti'Cteaato\'l= lr1Ja:..c1 ~Ming 1rnn.
· J " COXE!tlo'.<>n l6~bl.:r.o:a.
t
Feel
0 125 250
b•l"•"l'JO
IIIJIO,._.._Gl'"°1•DtlM1:At;CO!iW.-HI'
c.tJWCSPllffCl•"°"°IIVM UU5SJkr,w.'lmtjC"'lt(IUV l!U(I Silt WJN10IOIIO tll!'.l'Oll:I
OU1 BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER PLUME IN lHE
~---1-__ a_ED_R_o_cK_Aoo_,_FE_R_. o_e_c_EMB __ ER_2020---,,-:-=7
1 ·1s ~ARCADIS
I-11
Figure I-7: OU-1 Total Manganese Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~\
\ •:"\'X t \
\ '
C.;g1.
;i;::r=;~ ~
~ ,q
S,nn i ~" ~ ,.. ...
'-
I # ~/ I
,/ /
L _,,~w, = ~-.
=I ~~ t:' U H
""'-..., lS.Wl
.-IIS-lt :r., ....
LEGEND
□..,.-
'"\, St:earn
e Grcu.mw-,,hH mOOll:lmg weil (sl'!alO'o1·becr,:a)
TOTAL MANGANESE
Co+ICENTRATIONS (JJg/L)
C) >7.100.100 .. 11.000
Q >77.ot-O ana ..:no.ooo
NOTES
. "~~O:o w.iroe: ES!i.1\'ICf'IIIIMa;ay.
• WEil& 'A'E-re sam~:d ltQTI 121\ IO 12t'el2020. • coocen::mcm are :..,..ssed ti rr,c,~ per a~ <µg~i..
· OU1 R:ecora «-Dedston (ROD} per:omuno? S:3fldardtlr ti:31 m~i~ • 7.7001-Jg•L
• Well&late.e:Jln ~~ rerr,t\'..-:1 trtm 11'.e-~p1wigp1.r. In 2000 • . weesrat-e:e-o1n (ml3re to oe. ~1t2021 aia Y...rer,ot&anp.':?-3.
1,S
F-e-el
2SO
MllO....._St"JIOI .. CNl:NICA!..COWl'N<N
CSCM-NO&ROI\Ot"I.N<I UrUSIMIV,~tNc:AA:OIJl!.L l•:UO 111!.'l;#Oflllf~c; lltCIIOll'T
001 'TOTAL MANGANESE PLUME IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER. DECEMBER 2020
A ARCADIS -19
I-12
Figure I-8: EX-08 Trend Plot (OU-1 Source Area)
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
;, g
< " • ~ g
V
;, ~ " ~ • i 0 V
i .;
< " • ~ g
V
100JOJO
10JOOO
10000
<
10JO -
' 100
fl;
10
0.1
OU1/0U2 Monitoring Well EX·OS
Naiion.al Starch and ChemiC.31 Company Superfund Sae
Cedar Springs Road Pl.am • Salisbury, North Carolina
Semi'.'ofatile Organics
JI
kV ,, ~ V
'l.----4 \ -<Y r ,
-----'\ I/ /
\
u
,U
J.111·93 J an-95 Oec-96 Dee-98 Deo-00 Dec-<J2 Deo-0#. DEc-05 Dec-<J8 Dec>10 Oec-12 Dec-14 Dec>t6 Dec-18 Dec-20
Vola1ife Organics
tOJOJOJ • ~ ./ .._ ..
100JOJ
tOJOO
100J
10J
10
' ~ r-"" "/ 0-,\J ~ -\ . --,,~ ~.-( '\.. ~ \ I
I ~"
-, r l1/ 1~
,, //) ~ h \ ~ '/ ,\ ~ /
' \"' V ,t;t,, ~" /'~ :-i j i. "½
~ 't!I ~ 7 '<7 'o/1
0.1
J.n-93 J¥1·95 De¢·96 De¢-98 Dec-00 Deo--02 ~ Oec-05 ~8 Dec-10 Dec-12 Dec>t4 OEc-16 Oeo-18 Dee·20
-1,2-0:ttiOl'Oell'.¥1t -1.2-0ICJ'I;:.-~~
-+-O«~t -Xy~~(b b")
10000JO
100000
10000
tOJO ~ -·· ,
100 -
10
-~ . .
'\ n --\ =g /
0.1
.,
-I .v --~ 1 /;
"' / -'
l"-.._
......... ~fflY.t t l\ZU..~
......,._Al~leM «iOl"iOt
I
---
. I ' I
~~-v ~~
-..... -
Ja~93 J3n-95 Oec-96 Oec-98 Dec-<JO Deo-02 ~ Oec-05 Dec-<J8 Dec-10 OEc-12 Oec-1~ Dec-16 Dec-18 Oec-,20
~.I'll ~ Cl'IIOfflt.tn
I-13
Figure I-9: NS-26 Trend Plot (OU-1 Mid-Plume Area)
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
" " " s • ~ g
"
i ..
§
~ ~ "
:z _g
< ~ • ! 8
100000J
10:>00J
10000
100J
10J
10
1
OU1/0 U2 Monitoring Well NS-26
Nation.al Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road PIMlt + Salisbury, North Carolin.a
Semivolatile Organics
~
~ ------'\..
L-----' I-----"' \
0--'r
I -,/ .
Jan-93 J3n-95 Dec-96 Deo-96 Dec-OJ Oec-02 DEo-0#. Dec-<J6 Dec-<J8 Dec-10 Dec-12 0Ec>14 Dec>16 Dec-18 Dec-20
Volatile Organics
10:>00JO ~ '\.
100000
10000
' ---i.---\ h ..-
10JO ~ ~ ~ .\ ---100 ts'-
10
....... !/ -/ -
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-96 Dec-9-3 DEo-00 Dec-<J2 0~ Deo-06 Oec-O-S 0Ec>10 Dec-12 De¢-1~ 0Ec>16 Dec-18 Oec-20
-1,2-0ICJ'IIC~ -1,2-otCN~
-Tct~ -X;'.~c::atlet:10
100:>000
10:,0,JO
100,JO
1000
100
10 -------
0.1
Metals
----,v
-•~0!)11)~
........ W U!)~ dllendt
=-='
~ A::<
V'
Jan-93 ~96 oec,.95 0Ec>98 Oeo--00 Dec-<l2 ~ Oeo-06 De¢-<J8 De¢-10 0Ec>12 Dec-HI Dec-16 0Ec>18 De¢-20
s,n-.o _.... Cttromt-.tn -/V'"~C:
I-14
Figure I-10: NS-31 Trend Plot (OU-1 Downgradient Area)
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
" " " s • ~ g
"
i ..
§
~ ~ "
:, _g
< ~ • I 8
100000J
10:>00J
10000
100J l
1. li
10J
10 ~~
1
OU1/0U2 Monitoring Well NS-31
Nation.al Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road PIMlt + Salisbury, North Carolin.a
Semivolatile Organics
'N\ -
-1 ~ f--J' " ' /
-4 ,-' \ ~ \ I .
I"
I \ /\
Jan-93 J.m-95 Dee-96 ~96 O~J Oec-02 DEo-04 Dee-06 Dee-08 Deo-10 Deo-12 0Ec>t4 Dec>16 Dec-18 Dee-20
Volatile Organics
10:>00JO
100000
10000 ,.. I' V\
tOJO
100
10
\ ~ . "-a---A
~ --
~i -~ ~ .. -. ~ ;,._~ :::--; ~ t '\./ "' \ -~ '1 ~ ~ ' , _...._ ,. . -!I \( ~
0.1
Jan-93 J.n-95 Deo-96 Deo-9-3 DEo--00 Deo-02 0~ Deo-06 Dec-0-S 0Ec>10 Dec-12 De¢-1~ 0Ec>16 Dee-18 Oeo-20
-1,l-OJCnie~
-Tet~
100:>000
tO»JO
100,,0
1000
100
10
./ ~-
I \
~ 0.1
-l,2~CNOl'OP'Ow-=,
-X;'.~~(ICt:10
Metals
,A. ___.,
I .
' ' ~--
r
/4...._"'--
fa
-•~lft)1tl~
......... W U!)~Cl'llendt
.,A-.. .
/,. A. \
Jan-93 ~96 oec,.95 0Ec>98 Oeo--00 Dec-<l2 ~ Oeo-06 De¢-<J8 De¢-10 0Ec>12 Dec-HI Dec-16 0Ec>18 De¢-20
s,n-.o _.... Cttromt-.tn -/V'"~C:
I-15
Figure I-11: NS-31B Trend Plot (OU-1 Downgradient Area)
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
:, .. " s • ~ g
"
i ..
§
~ ~ "
:, _g
< ~ • I 8
100,JOOJ
10JOOJ
10000
100J
10J
10
1
OU1/0 U2 Monitoring Well NS-318
National Starch and Chemical Company Supelfund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant 4 Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivolatile Organics
-
f\_
..
-\
r '\ A
Jan-93 J3n-95 Dec-96 Dee-9S Dec-OJ Oec-02 ~ Dec-<J6 Dec-<J8 De¢-10 De¢-12 0Ec>t4 Dec>16 Dec-18 Dec--20
Volatile Organics
10:>00JO
100000
10000
tOJO
100
10 A
~ , " A
I E<J<--, ~ ~ 'if ' -, 0 .1
Jan-93 J.n-95 Deo-96 Dec-93 OEo-oo Dee-02 0~ Deo-06 ~S 0Ec>10 Dec-12 Deo-1~ 0Ec>16 Dec-18 Oe¢-20
-1,l-OJCnie~ -l,2~CNCl'OCl'O~
-Tet~ -X:,,.~e:s t.cb!l
Metals
100:>000
tO»JO
I'-,.
100,,0
1000
100
10 ,_ -
0.1
~
-•~ttl)1tl""­
......... w ~d'llende
r
I l -I I
--
/ -T
I
Jan-93 ~96 oec,.95 0Ec>98 Oeo-00 Dec-<l2 ~ Oeo-06 Dec-<J8 Dec-10 0Ec>12 Dec-HI De¢-16 0Ec>18 Dec--20
s,n-.o ~Cttrotnt-..,, -1'r~C:
J-1
APPENDIX J – OU-2 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Table J-1: OU-2 Soil Data
$~'kg)
,.........,.,._,e-:",,_..,,......, ___ ...,':;,;,....a,;f;.,..-a;;,c,.,,--,..,,--<,.35..,,u __ ~,...-.... ~.,...-c ;.;;.-<.,.,000:=,,.u_<_1,,1:::oo,..u_<'""'SSO~u.,....<...;,m~u.,....<...;,W-:;'o,,u.,..._.<-:950,;~ooo~ooo~u--..,NA.,,._
b: -CNoroe )elher <450U <440U <460U <IOU <\OU <10U <23J U <260U <2aOU <220U <230U <240U <MOU <2500 <250U W\
ieC
lhane <5.7U <400U <'!OOU <t 7U <').SU <150U -..,;;,,..--c 87J 7.8 <tOO U <80U 3.5J 16_15 <3200U
1.t-01cHcrotlhtt1t <5.7u <•oou c •roou <t s u <11ou <1dou <02U <3.eu <toou <SOU c s.J u ~3.4U ~3.3u <3200U
12-0rac::Hotot!h.iint <5,7U 13000 tJ000 c I 7U 2100 25000 !,99 U 4'000 U J 3000 13000 < 13U 170 1100 10000
1.2-0dlicroe:ct:"'?! 2.SJ <400U c •!OOU <t 1U <IOO~ISOU <0.QU <te0 U <170U <Q2U <3.9~100U <80~3U 4.5 7.1 <3200U -;"'""'a:.,;;;a;,.;;;;;c;;.aaa..---..:,, :r-:<ieoo u"<e100 U<1 _g"u"<i 10 u""""<ieo u""<i.Q 1J'<'a1du"""'<84ou""<4a0 U----R~500 ll<4x, 'v""<"SJ .;-,16 J-'39 < ,a-:oo u
~ <5.7 U <400U <i.!OOU <1.6U <'6U <1400 <9.9U <40U <-42U <23U <3.6U <25U <21U c S.3U c 3.4U c 3.3U <3200U
•E'...o:110Cieh1oeomclha~ <5.7U <4~U <I.SU <~U <1300 cg,gu <320U <340U <180U <3.6U <tOO U <a8U c S.3U c 3.4U c l.JU <3200U
CNordctm <5.7U <400U <t!OOU <17 U <W U <lo&OU <Q.QU <1e0 U <170U <Q2U <3.e u <200 U <170U <S.3 U <3.4U <3.)U <3200U
E~--:IM <6.7U <7.$U <\roou <19U <110U <1dOU <9.QU 2-t0 1$0 '7 <3.ev <26U 51 <S.)U L 53 <3200U
Mt c,,1oridt <&.7u <400U <1:oou UJB •1ou <IOOU c g,gu <810iJ' <&<OV 74J <U u <!,OOU «30 u c uu ~e.su 4.l l <3200U
r~ <5'3 u 180 1900 <12U <7lU 1200 <9.QU 1SOOO 14000 9800_<3.e_u 5"'_asoo <S.lU 14 1400 71000
~f'lene 1.-._7~!00 U<"'rs U < 100 u'<i50 U < 9.9 U < 40 U < 42 U < 23 U < 3.6 U < 100 U < 43 U < S.3.J!.....!-6 J 4.4 < 32-00 'Ci
V!!l!chloricle <11U <16U <3t00U <I.S U <IOOU <150U <9.9U <400 <42U <23U <3.6U <50U <43U <i.lU <3.40 <3.3U <6400U
X)'en:e)Qobl) <17 U <23y <fflU <§§Y <320Y <~gy <2Qy 500 370 130 <7.I Y 52 77 <UY 14 120 <@8QOU
location ID
S.ampie-Oate
.,_BEnz«1e
Sromodcliofome.thane
Chk:1":ionn
Elhyl-
1&-lh ene chloride
Toh.iene
Trichloroe-thene
Vn chloride
X enes tobl
HOTU :
iigitg • mlerograms ~t!logran
J • concentra"Jonf6e&amatM-U • COfll)OU'l:I 'A'.lS allal)'Z~ fOf
a • A.ruly:etcUlldlna$$0cbt.e,;:i t
R.• Reeeetel:I
NA•NOiMll~
Bokl :om 1ncrca:et.<1e~«t~<1 con
NA <39U
< 13000 U
320000
< 13000 U <93U < 1700 U <4100U
<25000 U NA < 1700 U <.;1oou
<3SOOOU <290U <5500 U < 13000 U
<930U <960 U <4500U <5000U
<230U <240 U < 1100U < 1300 U
<92U 87 J <97U 680J
<92U <170 U <97U < t&IO U
<92U 18000 6300 280000
< 170 U <07 U < l e-00 U
<830 U <4SOU <.SOOOU
<24U
< 190U
< 170 U <97U
380 48
<460U <830 U <4SOU <
21 J ssooo 6000
<23U <42 U <24U
<23U <42 U <24U
13J 1300 210
< 1000 U <94-0 <S60 UJ < IIOOU <4300 U NA NA NA <33U
<250 U <230U <210 U <2SOU < 1100 U NA NA NA < IOU
40J 5.2 150J 4SOJ 290 <400U <260U <240U < 1.7 U
<76U <2.6U < ,eo u <500U <240 U <400U <260 U <240U < 1.9 U
29000 6.7 10000 110000 17000 7100 3500 640 < I.SU
<76U <2.6U < 1EOU < 500" <240 U <~OOU <240U 2.1 J
<380 U R <SOOU <2500U < 1200 U < 1600U < <gwu <a l U
17J 4.2 <40 U 120J <59 U <240U < 1.7 U
< 150 U <2.6U < 160U <240 U <240U < 1.6 U
<76 U <2.6U <240U < 1.7U
100 <2.6U <240U < 1.9 U
<380 U <6.6U <240U 3.1 JS
29000 <2.6U <2eOU <240U < 1.3 U
< 19U <2.6U <2130 U <240U < I.S U
< t9U <2.6U < 120 U <SIOU <510 U <4SOU < I.SU
300 <5.2U 6200 < 1200U <no u <7t0U <5.7 U
J-2
SVOCs .IJJ9'1tg)
W."Wf"'!
tis(2-Chlo«>o"l<I <Iler
Vo,lab I
<34U
<9.8 U
18-1J Jluplicatl
1°"'2007
23.S~•
<34U
<QJilU
1 1,2-T~ane <71 U <a,u <100U <81U '2.1) 3.2 ) '3.5
:.1-0icNorotlhtnt < 78 U < St U < 3.2 U < l.6 U < 3.5 U
l-2•0idlloroo"1>n< 4500 1200 3.0 l 8.3 l 40
<3'00U
.•~.2--M·-""·og..__.. .. ;;;;.. ___ ,;.;:~;..--.,.;;;;.-;,..--.,.,;,;.;;;......;.;;;:;,;,.....,~::.;:;-.,.,;;;:;;,-...;.-ii::,,;,.-;,:;so,ii;....;.;s ;;-..,.~;;;,.-<a.'.3.~,u u~i,,_...;e;:;.;;..-,;.;~;;.-;,. Aottone <l2U <36U <3iU ~:=~-.,.._,..._.,... ___ ""' ·...----:~:;-~~-----:-:;,,~;;--,,,.;;,;,,--<,.<35~4:~o ~ << ?:a~ ; ?1~~ : ~o~ : : ~ ::; ~ : ~i ~ : !: ~ : t: ~ : = ~ : :~ ~ --- --01lc>!dcm'l <92U <71 U <t70U <87 U <84U <240U <210U <160 U <3.2 U <3.6U <l.5U <2200U <3400U
Toi-. <7QU <OQU <113U <22U 2'J J <22U 14J <JOU <2$U <lOU c 3.lU c 3.6U c l.SU <2200U <3'00U
Trichloroe-thene < 11o"u,_..---,<"w u < 75~2'2~44 i:r-'<22-"u"""<21'ir"'""<59u"""""""<s1"'u""'<40 u < 3.2 u < 3.6 ~ 3..5 u < 2200t.r"'<34ao U
ifn~<Hotldo <110U <GlU <U U <22U <44U <22U <2I U <~U <51U <<IOU c 3.2U c 3.6U c l.SU <4300 U ceroou
X)ien~otan._ _____ <_.,350c,U._ ___ <_,310,_U,_ __ <_,Z40U 23J 71 J 6' 98 <;QU <51y <40 ~6A U <7.2Y...,_JJ.~..JL...!JOO'll!J
Location ID
Sample-Date
SVOCs ,rglkg
4-N,VOpheool
bis(2-Chloroed'l)() ether
Volatile Or ;cc
I. 1•Dichloroethene
.!._2•0ichloroE'lhane
1.2•Dichlocopropane
A<:etone
&nune ~ Sromodc~lhane
Ctio«:icmi
Elhylbenzane
M:ih):!ene chloride
Tolue,,e
T richloroe-thene
Vii~ chloride
X~enesitobll
NOTES:
und
p91k9 • mle:lograrrt6 pe;l!logran
J .. eoncentra-Jon 16 esdmat~
tJ • COtrl)CMtlO '6'.1$ anal~ to,
6 • m 1y:e:°'-l!lolnauocbte-:1 t
R.•R~
NA•NOl Arol)Z~ Bokl:om 1ncrca:e-s <1e:ecte<1 coo
<2000 U <39U <40 U
<420 U <11U <11 U
< 1700U < 170 U <5t0U
< 1700U < 1go u <560U
63000 120000 39000
< 1700U < 180U <530U
<7000U <200 U <570U
< 1700U < 170 U <500U
< 1700U < 160 U <470U
< 1700U < 170 U <510 U
< 1700U 23000 <570U
< 1700U < 130U <370U
< 1700U 13000 <3SO U
< 1700U < 180 U <540U
<3500U < 180 U <540U
<5200U SQlOO < 1700U
<34U <33U <37U <54000U <5400U
<9.7U <9.4U < 11U < 13000U < 1400U
<880 U < 1500U <76U 210 <110U
<960 U < 1700U <84U <170U < IIOU
54000 99000 120000 18000 8700
<910U < 1600U <79U <170U <110U
<gao u < 1700U <85U <860U <540U
<850 U < 1500U <74U <43U <27U
<800~00U <69U <340~22ou
<870U < 1500U <75U <170U <IIOU
<g1ou < 1700U <84U 1400 <27U
<630 U < 1100U <55U <860U <540U
<650 U < 1100U 710 130 <27U
<g20 u < 1600U <80U <43U <27U
<920 U < 1600U <80U <43U <27U
<2QOOU <5100U <250U 1800 <54U
<910 U <930U <880 U <4600U <S60U <P20 U <980U < 960U
<230U <230U <220U < 1100U <220U <230 U <240U < 240U
<79U 78J 87 J <79 U 16 <tlOU 130 < 3.SU
<79U < 140U < 120U <79U <32 U <IIOU <g5 u < 3.8U
28000 73000 97000 4100 1500 J 9000 3SOOO < 9.4U
<79U < 140U < 120 U <79 U <3.2U <110U <95U < J,SU
<390U <710U <620U <390U R <570U <470U 19 J
<20 U <35U <31 U <20 U <3.2U <28U <24U <l,SU
< 160~aou<250 U <79 U <32 U <110 U < g5u--~·1au
<79U < 140U < 120U < 160U <3.2U <230 U < 190U < 3.SU
<20 U 71 220 14000 5.7 <28U 1411 <)~
<a@U <710U <620 U <390U <7.9U <570 U <470U <9.4U
<20 U 80 380 3200 1.1 <28U 2411 < 3.8U
<20 U <85U <31 U JOJ <32 U <57U <47 U < 3,SU
<20 U <85U <31 U <39U <3.2U <57U <47U <J':"aU
<39U 2411 530 41000 28 74 45(1 < 7,6U
J-3
location ID
Sample Date
SVOCs(~
4-N,'1rophenol
bis(2-Clioroeth)f) e!her
Vol~e Organic C
1.1,2-Tric:NoroElh.me
1.1-Dichloroe1hene
..!.,2-Dichloroeihane
1.2-Dichloropropane
~1ont
.Benzene
Bromociclllotorne-thane
Clioro:orm
E~benz.Me
Ma-il'l):!ene chloride
TolUMe
T richloroe-thene
Vl'l~ chloride
X~enes{toLll}
und
<9200 U <:llOOU
< 2300 U < 280 U
200 64
<110 U -< 4.0 U
860 940
< 110 U 6,4
< l!OOU 62
< 28 U -< 4.0 U
<110 U -< 4.0 U
< 2.20 U 2.4J
13000 800
< 550 U < IOU
590 150
< ss u 2,8J
< 110 U -< 4,0 U
52000 3200
< 1000 U <920 U < 18000U <960 U
< 260 U <230 U <4500U <240 U
18 < t60 U <980 U < 1500U
< 3,2U < 160 U 460 J < 1500U
5500 <l60 U <980U <1500U
4,2 < 1eo~so"'u'<,ro3 u
l6 <780 U <4WO U <7700U
< J,2U <39U <240 U <380U
< 3.2U <320 U <2000U <3l00U
< 3,2U < t60 U <980 U < 1500 U
2200 69000 320000 870000
< s.ou <790 U <4'®U <77COU
82 26000 87~000
1,6J <39U <240U <380U
< 3.2U <39U <240 U <380U
7300 310000 1,1()0000 3500000
<1100U <960U <9500UJ R < 1200 U < 1200U < 930 U < 1000 U < 1000 U < 9 10U
280 <240U <2400U <270U <300 U <300U < 230 U < 260 U 370 200)
<89U <360U <3300U < 180 U < l!OU < 140U <71 U < 890 U < 100 U < 78U
<89U <360U <3300 U < 180U < 1:0U < 140U <71 U < 890 U < 100 U < 78 U
<89U <3e-OU <3300 U < 180U < 1:ou < 140U <71 U < 890 U < lOO U < 78U
<89U <3eO~OOU < 180U < 1:0U < 140U <71 U < 890 U < 100 U < 78 U
<+IOU < 1800 U < 16000 U <\>20 U <n-OU < Ol'I) u < 7l0 U 18000 1-500 1:SOO
<22U <91 U <8201U <46U <37U <35 U < 18 U < 220 U < 2S U < IU!,_
< 180 U <360U <3300 U < !SOU <W.lU < 140U <71 U < 890 U < 100 U < 78 U
<89U <730 U <6600U <370U <:?OOU <280U <140 U < 18000 <200 U < D.60 U
3000 67000 1200000 35000 J 11000 11000 1900 280000 29000 2:500
<440 U < ISOOU < 1600-0U <P:?OU <730U <690U < 360 U <45000 < 510 U < 390 U
130 1200~5000~20~10 200 49 12000 1900 7 6
<22U < tSOU < 1600U <92U <73U <69 U < 36 U < 4SO U < 510 < 3.1.!J...
<22U < tSOU < 1600U <92U <73U <69 U < 71 U < 890 U < 100 U < 78U
10000 290000 5300000 120000 33000 3,1()00 10000 1300000 1-JOOOO 11000
location fO
Sample Date 1111·11·11-·11··11··■-11·■·111··11·•11-•111··■··11··-• I I I • • ◄ I l' I ., • I I I , I I · I · I , I I
• • • • : • . • ! ~ • , • I .,._ , . I • •
~-<91D U <870U <960 U <~O U <S{(lU <900U ;;:~ <;i:u <;~~u < {l()()U <930U <980 U <4500U <4500U <880U <1~
bis(2-Clioroei:h)I) elher <230 U <220U 70J <250 <220 U <220U <220U <230U <240 U < 1100U < 1100U <220U < 250 U
Volaril n;
1.1.2-Tric:Horoethane <110 U <75 U <75 U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U <3.4U < 3.9 U < 110 0 <8.6 U <7.S U 4.4J 390 J 2100 43J <99J!...._
1.1-Dichloroe1hene <110 U <75 U <75 U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U <3.4U <3.90 < 110 0 <8.6 U < 1-:s u <7.6 U <540U <380U <6 1 U <99 U
~DichloroE,thane <110 U <75 U 340 65 56 39 12 66 <110 0 89 300 110 22000 75000 6100 1900
t.2-DichloroPfOP,lne 1200 740 9100 790 J 800J SOOJ 260 3800 7000 <8.6 U <7.S U <7.6 U <540U <380U <6 1 U <99~
Acetone <530U <370U <370 U R R R < 34 U 90 < uoo u <8.6 U 80 17 <4000U8 <4500U8 <4100U8 1500
B«,z,ne <27U < t9 U < t9U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U <3.4U <3.9 U < 29U <8.6 U <7.S U <7.6 U < 130U ..,, <t5U <2~
Srornodchbromethane <2t0 U < 150U < 150 U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U <3.4U <3.9U <l lOU <8.6 U <7.8 U <7.6 U <540U <380U <6 1 U <99 U
Cliorciorm < 1IO U <75 U <75U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U < 3.4U 2.3 J <230 0 <8.6 U <7.S U <7.6 U < 1100U <760U < 120U <200 U ~-220 410 2000 <3.6U 2.4 9.3 < 3.4U < 3.9 U 4900 <8.6 U 4.S J 34 14000 67000 510 13q_
~i::hk'!ene chloride <530 U <370U <370 U <9.0U <5.7 U <6.8 U < S,5 U 5.4~700 <8.6 U <7.8 U <7.6 U <2700U < 1900U <310 U <SOO U
Toluene 250 300 3900 4.2 19 28 <3.4U 44 6300 <8.6 U 67 6.7J 270000 1600000 17000 3900
Trichlor01:-thene <27U < t9 U < t9U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U < 3.4U 2.2 J < 57U <8.6 U <7.S U <7.6U <270 < 190U <3 1U <S;QJL._
Vin~ chloride <27U < ISU < t9U <3.6U <2.3 U <2.7 U <3.4U < 3.9 U <110 U <8.6 U <7.S U <7.6 U <270U < 190U <3 1 U <99U
X~enes ttobll 2100 37(0 13000 30 270 300 < 6.S U 4000 35000 < 17 U 20 88 59000 250000 2,1()0 610
NOTE$;
ll9!'k9 .. mle:rogr.ws PE'f" l!logran
J .. concentra:ion t$ eumat~
u .. Cofll)OttlO was .lrl~ :or
s • Aro!y:e founo tn .t$$0Cl3t,e,;:i t
R:•R~
HA•NOl M.11y?*
Bold tom lrx1'c..T.e$Cle:ec:te<1 CGO
J-4
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
location ID
Sample-Date
s ~g)
4-Ml:;>phenol
tlis(2-Clioroe:n}f) ether
rv9'atiJ~Qrganic!;~~
1.1.2-TricNoroelhane
1.1-Dichloroethene
1,a-Dichloroahane
1.2-Dichlorogoene
Acetone
a..une • llromo<ictloromtlhane
Chlo«:ioon
Ed¥-
Metht:!ene chloride
TolUMe
Trichloroe-thene
VII~ chloride
X~eriesttobl!
HOTU :
Jl~lg • mlerograms pa kllogran
J .. c.ortceura:IOn IS esamated
U .. COmpoltlO '•'.lS analyzM tor
a • Aroly:etounolna$$0cl3!.e-.:I t
R• R~ect.e,0
NA•N01An.1!yz~
BOklfM'! IM C.1:KOe:eaeo coo
<950U
<240U
3.8
< 2,8 U
450
< 2,8 U
< 28 0
< 2,8 U
< 2,8 U
< 2,8 U
< 2,8 U
< 6.9 U
< 2,8 U
< 2.8 u
< 2,8 U
< s.s u
< 900U < 1000 U <P20 U
< 220U < 2SOU <230 U
<94U 11 <9.1 U
<94 U < 3,SU <9.1 U
1300 1100 <9.1 U
<94 U < J,SU <9.1 U
560) l OOOJ <9.1 U
<2) U < 3.SU <9.1 U
-<:94 U < J,SU <Rl U
< 190U < J,SU <9.1 U
150 14 <9.1 U
< 470U <8.SU <9.1 U
3600 890 <9.1 U
<47 U < J.SU <9.1 U
<94U < J,SU <9.1 U
680 75 < 18U
<930 U <890 U <930 U <950 U < 1100 U <930 U < 970 U < 1200 U ~ <230 U <220 U <230 U <240 U <270 U <230 U < 240 U < 310U
I
<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.3 U < 3,3U < 3.9 U -<8.QU <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7U < 3.) U < 3,J U < 3,9 U
<8.QU 250 <7.5 U <8.2 U 65 4,2J < 8.3U < 9.SU
<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.) U < J,3U < 3.9 U -<8.QU 92 <<aUB R <86US < 33 U 16) < 39 U
<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.) U < 3,3U < J.9 U
<8.8 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3U <2.7U < ),) u < J,JU < J,9U
<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U <3,3 U < 3,J U < 3.9 U
<8.QU <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.) U < 3,3U < J.9 U -<8.QU <7.3 U <7.S U <8.2 U <6.6U 3,4) 3.3 J < 9,8 U
<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.) U < J,3U < 3.9 U
<8.QU <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7U < 3.) U < 3.3U < 3.9U -<8.9 U <7.3 U <3.0 U <3.3 U <2.7 U < 3.) U < J,3U < 3.9 U
<18 U < 15 U <6.0 U <6.6 U <5.3U 1.8 J < 6,6 U < 7.9 U
J-5
Figure J-1: OU-2 Soil Sampling Locations
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
LEGEND
c:::a ""'"'"""'Y c:, """' too:>o,ry C::I ope:aclle.Untt2
c::J ~~:e untl d.
......._ SU'?atn
• GlolMA'Dima'llm!g'~(~te)
• Grot/ld'aat.E,; e:aactionw*(lrMi$l!IOO-~)
• GtoUlCWar.e!'ll'JCJllrol\'g'Nei (&hl:O'.,betrOCl)
• Grouicr•~e;.a'ract!onw~{&l'l.:tlOi#bed'ockj
0 ~:IE.Ed~ exttaclloo '.\'E:11 i$hallow oedrock)
~ R:-nme-..'r(61'1.mWo.:<JOCkJ
Grolre'Aatff mMl!rri.:,g•A'!:il (~bEd'oc.kj
• GrolOC'r..te. l'PCr'll10rL-g ••'lo(! (~_ej;
~ ~aWJtEr 6Jtllilngloexkm
□ SOIi sarq::tlnglcc.r.'cn
• ~ 6.f?l~ »ca~
♦ sue,m 93:1.9:
............. ~fl'OO:'SSWa"J=tpt)tlg
--.... Aoo&ro.'10.
NOTES
•J.fftiJtK,(C&c:m:e;ESRIWOl'.d~.
\
f~! • '° 100
-l*•tt:0
>"N'IO>W.-STA.~4 CI-EIA.GA.:.-COW'.'INY
CcaAAS!'RlN3SR01'D FVtNi SILB$!JnY, Nefil'HGAA!Ol...fi',
OU2 SOtl SAMPLING LOCATIONS
~ARCADIS 2
J-6
Figure J-2: SB-1 Trend Plot – Soil
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
Attacllment 3 • SB-1
Five Year Review Field Memo
former National Starch and Chemical Company
SalisblJY, North Carolina
.. Z'
0
0
5
10
S 15
1
20
25
30
35
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
Concentration (µglkg)
20000 40000 60000
~2002. ~2007 ~2012 2017 .... 2021
..,
B'
0
0
5
1U
~ 15
1
20
25
30
35
TOLUENE
Concentration (µg/kg)
20000 40000 60000
-2002 ..-2001 .... 2012 2017 .... 2021
Note: Constituents not detected are clotted at half of the laboratorv detection limit
.. Z'
0
0
5
1U
~ 15
1
20
25
30
35
~ARCADIS =.,..-
XYLENE
Concentration (µglkg)
20000 40000 60000
.... 2002 -.-2001 ..-2012 2017 .... 2021
J-7
Figure J-3: SB-1E Trend Plot – Soil
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
Attachmeot 3 -SB-1E
Five Year Review Field Memo
former National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina
0
0
5
10
25
30
35
40
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
Concentration (µg/l<g)
1000000 2000000
4-2002 4-2007 4-2012 2017 ~2021
0
0
5
10
«;; 15
B'
25
30
35
40
TOLUENE
Coocentration (µg/l<g)
1000000 2000000
~2002 ~2007 ..... 2012 2017 .... 2021
Note: Constituents not detected are plotted at half of lhe laboratory detection limit
$
0
0
5
10
25
30
:l
~ARCADIS = .. --
XYLENE
Concentration (µg'kg)
1000000 2000000
4-2002 4-2007 ..-2012 2017 4-2021
J-8
Figure J-4: SB-1J Trend Plot – Soil
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
Attachment 3 -SB-1J
Five Year Review Field Memo
former National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, North Carolina
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
Concentration (µglkg)
2000 4000 6000 8000
~2002. ~2007 ~2012 2017 ..._ 2021
0
0
s
10
25
30
35
40
TOLUENE
Concentration (µg/kg)
5000 10000
-+-2002 -+-2007 -+-2012 2017 -+-2021
Note: Constituents not detected are plotted at half of the laboratory detection limit.
XYLENE
Concentration (µglkg)
5000 10000
~2002 -.-2001 +-2012 2017 -+-2021
J-9
Figure J-5: SB-1K Trend Plot – Soil
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
Attachment 3 -SB-1K
Five Year Review Field Memo
Former Hational Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbu,y, North Carolina
0
0
5
10
25 I
30
35
40
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
Concentration(µg/kg)
50000 100000
\
150000
~2002 _.2007 -e-2012 2017 -e-2021
TOLUENE
Concentration (µg/kg)
50000 100000 150000
~2002 ~2007 ~2012 2017 -+-2021
Note: Constituents not detected are plotted at half of the laboratory detection limit.
0
0
5
10
25
30
35
40
PitARCADIS u:::;..-
XYLENE
Concentration (µg/kg)
50000 100000 150000
-+-2002 -+-2007 -+-2012 2017 -+-2021
J-10
Figure J-6: SB-8 Trend Plot – Soil
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
Attachment 3 -S8-3
Five Year Review fiek1 Memo
former National Starch and Chemical Company
Salisbury, Horth Carolina
5
;;; .8' 10
e.
"' !
15
20
25
1,2-DICHLORETHANE
Coocentration (µg/kg)
2000000 4000000 6000000
~2012 2017 ~2021
5
;;; .8' 10
~
5
l
15
20
25
-+-2012
TOLUENE
Coocentration (µg/kg)
2000000 4000000 6000000
2017 ~2021
Note: Constituents not detected are plotted at half of the laboratory detection limit
XYLENE
Concentration (µg/kg)
-;;;
0
0
5
.8' 10 e. ,,
!
15
20
25
-+-2012
2000000 4000000 6000000
----:;;. ...--
2017 ~2021
K-1
APPENDIX K – OU-3 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Table K-1: OU-3 Lagoon Area Groundwater Results, 2020
Locat,on ID:
Sample ID:
Sample Rate: -■,1■------••111
pH(SU)
Conductivity (mS/cm)
ORP(mV)
J}O(mg/L)
TurbidilY (NTU)
Temperature (degrees Celsius)
Volatile Orgaruc Compo ... ds (pg/1.)
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane 5
1,1-Dichloroethene 7
1,2-0 ichloroethane
1,2-0 ichloropropane
Acetone 700
Chloroform
cis-1,2-0ichloroethene
•rv1ethylene chloride
70 5
Tetrachloroethene
irans-1,2-Dschloroeihene 16
nc oroe ene
Vinyl chloride
Senn-Volatile Organic Compounds (11g/L)
bis(2-Chloroethyl) ether 5
bis(2-Ethylhex:yl) phthalate 5
Antimony 6
Chromium 50
Manganese 50
Thallium 2
Zinc 2166
NOTES:
hadcrtg incfica~es concentration is reater ttun ROO Perfomlance Standard
Bold indicates de~ected concentration.
1.1Qll = m,Crograms per lter
mgll = milligrams per liter
mS/cm = mi:lliSiemens per centimete,r
mV= miliVolts
NTU = Nephelometric Turbidity Una
ROD = Record of Decision
SU= St3t'ldard Uni!
B = Compound w.as found in the bfant and s...,mple.
J = Concentratior, is estimated.
U = Compound was an.:1lyzed for. but n()t detEC":.ed. The labora:ory reporting limit is
UB = Compound ,dete-cted in blank or associ.3;:ed blank, qualified 3S a non-daect at
l,st<:d value.
UJ = The llnaly,:e was not de:ected .3bove the reporting limit: however. the repof1ed
qua.ntita:!ion imn is approxima.:e and may, or may nOG represent the actual limit of
qua.ntita1D0n necessruy to accura:ely and precisely measure-an.alyte in the sample.
6.74
0./90
14.8
3.20
s.49
18.8
< 1.0 U
0.54 J
54
< 1.0U
10
< 2.0U
4
< 5.0 U
< 1.0 U
< 1.0 U
1.2
10
1.8
< 7.7 U
<20 U
< 10 U
4100
< 10 U <26 OJ
6.40 6.26 6.47
0433 0242 0.552
22.2 15.4 136.6
128 0.93 0.59
10.51 1 t .93 11.68
16.7 15.5 15.9
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0U
< 10 U < 10UB < 10 U
<2.0 U < 2.0 U <2.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U
<5.0 U < 5.0 U < 5.0U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U 0.97 J
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0U
0,29 J < 0.50 U 0.32 J
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U
0.27 J < 1.5 U < 1.5 U
<8.0 U < 7.5 U <7.7 U
< 20 U <20 U 6.6 J
31 4.6 J 180
490 130 3500
< 10 U < 10 U < 10 U
< 26 OJ <260] <26 OJ
6.40 6.52 6.05 6.43 7.90 6.22
0.88 0.215 3.04 1.40 0.80 128
-1086 21.4 -3.4 -128.9 -231.6 -6.2
0.56 0.82 0.47 0.28 024 066
0.92 3.36 2.77 6.86 6.03 2.54
14.5 17.1 17.2 18.2 17.9 15.5
<1.0U < 1.0 U < 1.0U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 10 U
0.66 J < 1.0 U 11 0.56J < 1.0 U < 10 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U 1.7 < 1.0U < 1.0 U 5300
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0U < 1.0 U < 10 U
< 10 U < 10UB < 10 U < 16 UB < 10 UB < 100 U
<2.0 U <2.0 U < 2.0 U < 2.0U <2.0 U <20 U
9.5 < 1.0 U 65 16 < 1.0 U 5.5J
<5.0 U <5.0 U < 5.0 U < 5.0U <5.0 U 150
< 1.0 U 0.50 J 0.68 J < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 10 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 10 U
0.35 J 0.93 8.7 1.1 < 0.50 U 13
12 < 1.0 U 340 11 < 1.0 U 43
1.9 < 1.6 U 2.9 2.3 J 1.6 2.8
<7.9 U <8.0 U <8.7 U < 7.8 U <8.2 U < 8.5 U
<20 U 6,1 J < 20 U <20 U
18 < 10UB < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U
9400 630 37000 14000 710 12000
< 10 U < 10U < 100 U < 10 U < 10 U < 10 U <20 OsJ < 26 OJ <2005 1200 J <26 OJ <2005
K-2
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
Locabon 10
Sample ID
Sample Rate
003 ROD NS•54 NS---63 NS~ NS--65 NS-66 NS---67 NS~I NS-70 NS-71
Performance NS-5£ (120720) OUP-4 (120820) NS-63 (120820) NS-GS (120320) NS--66 (120320) NS--67112ono1 NS-68 (120220) NS•70 (120220) NS-711120220)
St.JindMd 12/712020 1218/2020 12/&12020 12/312020 12J'll2020 12nl2020 121212020 12/212020 121212020
pH (SU)
Conductivity (mS/cm)
ORP (mV)
unds(pgn,.J
ropropane
cis• 1.2-0ichloroethene
MethY,ene chionde
T etr.1<:hioroethene
trans-1.2-bichloroeffiene
n roe ene
V.-.yt chloride
Setni-Volmle Organ,c Compounds ()JQA.)
M,lflganese
Thalium
,nc
NOTES:
Bold lnclc.lteSoetea:~ c:i:ioceniilon.
1,-'g'L • l'l'1tt09tY11$ P=f" Illa"
rng'L .. rnugram, pa lter
ms:cm • frtll'Stemen& per OE!'lllme1.!r
mV•nillVOl1$
NTU .. ~:nc rurttcuyurtt
ROD .. Reco.'tlOl'~::n
B • CO.'llpounel ;i.a; fO!l'la 1n ,-,e tt3ll ana sa.11pe.
J .. CCl"lOe!'ltra!IOn IS eEll'.INled.
5
7
,od
I
70 5
I 70
5
0
6 M
50
2
U • COO'.p)ll'dW..1$.3'13lyZE<I fet. tu not ~-?Cl Ttle IX>Oral:it)' reportng lml! 16 us• COf11Xl.l'ICI CSEtec::eci rn DlYlk or a:ssoc:blE<ll>bN:, qa:ttte-:i ii6 .JnOl"I-OIN.eC'i at
[&~vall.E.
UJ • Th.-anaiy:e W3S not <lete<t~ ~ 1M repor:ng rm1t; ~M. th= repor:~
cp.1Y1tttaaonnmtl5JPProX:1Nteano may. o: ml)' not ~"ffE«. IM-ac1U311mn Ol
quyilnadoon~ :oaocu~ ana pr..cls.e)'mea&J~f anayi~ In~~
6.79 6.560
-234.7 6.72
0.7
11.b
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
11
<
0.42J
< 1.0U
<5.0U
< 1.0U
< 1.0U
0.46J
< 1.0U
2
<7.5 U
<20U
< 10 U
1000
< 10U
6.71 6.4,3
0.3436 1.t lo .85.2 .6.9
6.79 6.ti7
b.32 2.71
16.8 14.8
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0U
< 1.0 U < 1.0U 1.9
<2.0U
< 1.0 U < 1.0U 13
< 5-:"ou <5"."o u <5.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0U < 1.0 U
< 1.0 U < 1.0U < I.OU
< 0.50 U < 0.50 U 0.63
< I.OU < 1.0U 22
< 1.5 U < 1.5U 4.8
< 7.7 U <7.6U <7.QU
<20 U < 20 U <20U
< IOU < 10 U 2.3 J
110 110 24000
< IOU < 10 U 4.7 J
13000 9800 < BJ
6.45 6.70 11.45 0.169 1.02 6.13 l ·I
-292 342.3 UI
6.60 6.71 1.17 1.§8
4.32 13.12 8.& 10i3 0.9o
17.3 12.0 15.6 14.8
< 1.0 U < 1.0 U < 1.0 U < I.OU ~~~,-< I.OU 0.59 J < 1.0 U <I .OU
2.6 OA7 J 2 130 0.82 J
d'.o < < .oO < Lo < .0
< IOUS < IOU <22 us < 10US <23 U6
<2.0 U <2.0 U <2.0 U <2.0 U <2.0U
< 1.0U < 1.0 U < I.OU 6.5
<5"'."o u <5.0 U <5.0 U <5~0 U <5.0U
< I.OU < 1.0 U <I .OU < 1.0U
< I.OU < 1.0 U < I.OU < I .OU
<0.50U 0.17 J < 0.50 U <0.50 U 3.2
0.45J 0.93 J 6.7 4.8 14
< 1.7 U < 1.7 U < l.5U
< 8.3U <8.3 U <7.6 U
<20 U <20U <20 U <20U
< IOU 1.7 J < 10 U < 10 U < IOU
180 8500 I < ifOs 54 1100 I
q:ou < 10 U < 10 U < IOU
< OBJ <586 06 <20 0J < 20 063 < 20 OJ
K-3
Table K-2: OU-3 Northern Production Area Groundwater Results, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
:&t_.ng.nc11Glite1.C2'1terntl0!'\ll ~r'71 ~P~.!I
8olG h:leY'.ecl ~conte11n tor1.
ll~'l•ffl~pe!"l~
f!'Qtl •MJ~Pe"11et"
f!'IS.lcm .. !!'11h ll'.«$ per <~'l'letf:f
""'•mll"o'ctt:;
~ • N:I! N,:,yu_,,,
NTU • ~~.cTW<lt;'tk'.J:
ROO • R~o"Oed::I~
SU•S;:incr.,,d\.WI
, .. conc~~,Ol"ll~~m:te<S.
U•~l'ldW~$.Y~"ot,tun:tot~~ «'C:~t-i,yrec,o~lm'ltslt=IM.
US•~OC".ed~h ~Ol'-Y.::«!llledtlo3nl.,<1..S~~,)$.,1'1011-dt".ea~l.:::e<I ,-.,1;,e.
UJ • TM, T.4t/lt ~ne.t4e"~ ~e ee~o,:rmg Af!'tl;no,,,'e\·~.tt~ :t:~~
q.untt.,i;e(I if!'tt ~ ~K!m:u Y-.4 m:1.1, u ,...,Y 1101 ne:i:re-..vt. 1'.e xius lrl'1I «
~rrtbll:fl~~~IOll«ur,lt/y.)l'!dl)l'Kt.ei)'~~~~h 1',e ~e.
6.07 6.36 7.37
4 7.8 6.fa 59.9 1.85 •103.8 6.88
15.1 10.4 10.9
Q.84 6.53 .2,
-147.5 6.94 -36.3 1.24
12.4 14.7
<[5 0
<7.80
<20 NA
< IOU NA
430 rlf < 100
K-4
Table K-3: OU-3 Northeast Tributary Surface Water Data
Source: Five-Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
pgll • micrograms per iter
ROD Periorrnance Standard: 2.000 1,.1gfl
NS· Not Sampled
U • Not de-.;ected a: indicated concentration
J • Estimated concentra:ion le·ss th.an the de-:ection l(tnit
NA. Not 3.V.Jilable
Sold font indica:es detected ooncemration.
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE (~g/l)
K-5
Figure K-1: OU-3 1,2-DCA Plume in the Saprolite Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
LEGEND c:::J Site boundary
"\., Stream
Q Gro.ndwa:ermor11oring wd{saprolite)
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE
CONCENTRATIONS (µg/LJ
0 >l and<IO
NOTES
· Aerni phoio sc:uTCE": ESRI World l'™9ery.
· W~ wete sampled i;rom 1212 to 12/a/2020. · Concen'!ratons are e.xp,essed ri nicrograms pe! 8:er (i,git.). · OU3 ReOC(d cl Decision (ROD) pefformance sund3td for
!.2-d'ic::hloroe-.:hane = 1 µg.'l.. · Wells labeled io ~were tffllO'Ved froot lhe sampling plan fl 202,,.
· We?Js bbelea ID li!il are to be ab.¥1doned in 2>21 and
were not sampled. · U = Analyte not de~ed ..lbow-indicated ~orting limit
· J = Conce,tration is es5ma1ed.
•••==:::iFeei 75 150
~~"1. STA~&CHEUICM.COU?A'v'f
ee:o,..~.aAAN:l!o ftO,,,Ol'l.AST SAU-t:..fl.Y,NORTH~ 2020-Ntc: MO!aTORllfG REPOflT
OU3 1,2-0iCHLOROETl-lANE PLUME IN THE
SAPROLITE AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS
K-6
Figure K-2: OU-3 Total Manganese Plume in the Saprolite Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
LEGEND
CJ ~t boundary
'\., St1n m
9 Groooctwao:ermomtoringwi:l(saproli~l
TOTAL MANGANESE
CONCENTRATIONS (~gJL)
0 >50-and<500
0 >50ClaDCJ<5,000
Q >5.000 and <50.000
NOTES
· Aa'ial phd!o sou:ce: ESRI \-,'orld lm.qery.
· Wefis weP. sa.'llpl~d flom 12!'2 to 12.raJ:2020. · Conoen:ratfons are expressed in micrograms pi:! lier (pg.it.).
· OU3 Rec«d Of Oeosjon (ROD) petformance stand.:tcd for 1ota1 mang,30e-se -= 50 ~gll.
· Web &abtled .I\ ~were ,emoved from the sanpling plan ~2020. · W~b~led~(m!M_a.tobe abandoned in 2021 :and
were not ~an-plea.
· U = Analy.e not det:d.ed above indicated reporting !!nit
· 6 = Ana!y.e was detected in associated meelod bbnk. · • = Conoentat:on is consjdered to ~ anoma!oos and is not used :n ccmouring_
•••c:::c::::::J Feet
75 150
tole: t•• HCI
~MliRCH•OHEMICAt.COUPM"I' CEo.-A~Ro,,.oF'LAJ(f"
$.-LJS&'.RY,NORTH ~
2020 f.lTt: lilOH!TORMJ REPOFIT
OU3 TOTAL MANGANESE PLUME IN THE
SAPROLITE AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS 21
K-7
Figure K-3: OU-3 1,2-DCA Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
• . '
LEGEND
CJ Site boundary
'\.,_ 5'ream
• 0.-omdwa:er mon',orir<1 lfil (shallow bedrocll.)
:) Grou-<twai:er mon'Wring ffil (deep b-ed-oct)
1,2-0ICHLOROETHANE
CONCENTRATIONS (µgJL)
0 >land~IO
0 >10.1.nd<IOO
0 >HJ'J~d<l,000
Q >1.000 and <10,000
NOTES
· Ae1ial photo source: ESRl World Imagery.
· We!ls we:e sampled ~om 12f.? to 12.1912020.
· Conoentra(OM are expressed W'I m ~rams p~ Rer (JJgrt). · OU3 Record o;, Decision. (ROD) periormaoce standard iOC'
1,2-dic:hloroetlune-=-1 µ9'L
· Weis bbeled 411 ~were ,emoved from lhe sampling plai
il202D.
· Wel!.Jabeledil!Ei]ars-to~ abandoned in 2021 and
were not sampted.
· U = Ana!~e. not detected abovE: indicated reporting limit
•••==:::iFeet 75 150
'-1..\i"~~~•CHEIAICALCCU?A"l'f
<.c~~RO'.OPI.ANT 8~6.RY.~CA.~ 202t&lff MONITORIH:8 REPORT
OU31,2-0ICHLOROETHANE PLUME IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER, DECEMBER 2020
~ARCADIS
K-8
Figure K-4: OU-3 Total Manganese Plume in the Bedrock Aquifer, 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
LEGEND
□ Site boundary
"\., stream •• • WEI (shallow b<drodt) • G.i,llldwar:ermon..onng
..._, Grolndwaermon '.iori~ we1 {deeep bect"<d)
MANGANESE
~~1~~NTRATIOUS (µgJL)
Q >5-0arJG<500
0 >!>00an.d<5,000
Q >5 ,000 and <50.000
NOTES
. ESRJ Wor1d Imagery:,
·A<r;alpho-.osou~';d~m 1212<0 •~120~-sperlier ~~) .
. Weis we1e_sa: are exp'~sed WI m.crog ance s.tandard ror . Concentratooci Decision (ROD) per'onn .
. OU3 ReCOfd ese = 50 µgiL d from the sa,npling plan ?otat mangan . n:c::,were remov~
· W~ b~ed rn ~ ed in 2021 and . ;~!beJed n ri!il are IO be abandon
were not s.ampSed.
••'"'!,5:===-,.,J .. ,
scn :t'."• sw
E PLUME IN THE OU3 TOTAL MANG:~E~ECEMBER 2020 ~;;~DIS I 23
K-9
Figure K-5: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-71
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~ " §
~ ~ "
" ,.
" s • ~ g
"
~ 0 " C 0 • ~ g
"
100,JQOJ
10:>00J
10000
100,
10,
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-71
National Starch and Chemical C<imp.my Supelfund Site
Cedar Springs Road Pl.mt 4 Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivolatile Organics
)\
CJ-( ~
D.
/-1 /"", -........ r""",
Jao-93 J3n-95 Deo-96 Dec-96 O~J Oec-02 DEo-04 Oeo«o Dee-08 De¢-10 De¢-12 0Ec>t4 0~16 Deo-18 Deo-20
Volatile Organics
10JOOJO
100000 .
' 10000
tOJO
~
100
10
~\ /" -,,. ' ~ -......
C-/-.. w . -C
0.1 Jan-93 Jao-95 Dec-96 De¢-~ OEo-oo Dec-<J2 0~ Deo-c6 Dec-03 0Ec>10 Dec-12 Dee-1~ 0Ec>16 Dec-18 Oee-20
Metals
100JOJO
10:,0.JO
10000
10:>0
100
10
....
I -.....,
'-o...
~ v
0.1
Jan-93 J3~96 Deo-95 OEc>SS Oeo--00 oee-02 ~ Deo--06 Dee-08 Deo-10 0Ec>12 Dec-HI De¢-16 0Ec>18 Deo-20
-+-¢1TOfl'1Um
K-10
Figure K-6: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well IWS-1
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~ ..
§ • ~ 6
i ~ § • ~ 6
i ..
§ • ~ s <..>
100,JOOJ
10:>00J
10000
100J
10J
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well lWS-1
National Starch and Chemical Company Supelfund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant 4 Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivolatile Organics
\ /'v ,:,.,--"-v'\
f--0"
"',
J.n-93 J3n-95 Deo-96 Dec-96 O~J Oec-Cl:2 DEo-04 Deo-06 Deo-08 De¢-10 De¢-12 0Ec>t4 0~16 Dec-18 Deo-20
Volatile Organics
10:>00JO
100000 "I
10000
tOJO
100
! I
J \
10 ~~ '0-----<
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-96 De¢-9,3 OEo-oo Dec-<J2 0~ Deo-06 oec-0-S 0Ec>10 Dec-12 Dec-1~ 0Ec>16 Dec-16 Oec-20
...,....~~ecltlOl"tle
100JOJO
10:,0.JO
10000 ,_
10:>0 ·-
100
10 J
...... ',
• ~ ' .A -
0.1
J¥1·93 J3~9'5 Deo-95 0Ec>98 Deo--00 oeo-02 ~ Deo-06 Dee-08 Deo-10 0Ec>12 Dec-14 De¢-16 0Ec>18 Deo-20
...,.... crrom1um
K-11
Figure K-7: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-40
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
s: " C ..
E §
6 V
;;-
~ " C .. ;
~ 0 V
;;-
~ " C .. ;
~ 0 V
1000000
10000J
10:IOJ
1000
10J
10
<0.1
OU3 Mon itoring Well NS-40
National Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant• Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivola1ilP Organics
.....
C>-<l --
rs.. J " / \ I '-/0
" ' ,
-
' f
J¥1·93 Jan-95 Dec-96 Oec>9,3 Dec-CO Deo-02 Dee-04 oec--06 oeo-08 oec-10 oee-12 Oe¢-U Deo-16 Dec-18 Dec-20
Volatile Q-g anic-s
100,JO<JO
10,JO<JO V '
100<JO
10,JO
• .
gf-1 ._,q " A .,,. ~ ..
100
10
ex . ~ .... ~ -.
) '\ '1 ~ 'ti'\. ./ ---..v Ji; ---' ' ~
~
-------0.1 Ja~9J Jan-95 Oec-96 Dee>93 Deo-00 0~2 Dec>~ oec--06 0~8 Oec-10 Dee>12 Dec-14 Oe¢-16 Dec>18 Dec-20
........ Mtll'l~t CNOl"iOt
10JOOOO
100-JOJ
10-JOO ,~, ·-· -,-'-•
1000
10J
10
A
/ \
~
-c \ / ' -.
" ' ......... ---
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-% Dec-98 oec--:>O oec-02 o~ oec--06 Dee-08 oec-10 oec-12 Dec>1~ Dec-16 oec-18 oec-20
K-12
Figure K-8: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-54
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~ " C ..
E §
6 "
;;, ~ " C .. ~ ~ 0 "
;;,
~ " C .. ~ ~ 0 "
1000,JOO
100,JOJ
10JOJ
1000
10J
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-54
National Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivola1ile Organics
J I\
0-0 i v-\. -,-"b-" ,r \ '-w-.,. ' • .
A.
-'A ~
'V
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-96 Oec-,9-3 oec-oo Oeo-02 Dec-04 oec--06 Dec-<JS oee-10 oee-12 oec-u oec-16 Dec-18 oec-20
Volatile Q-ganic-s
10000,JO
10,JO<JO
100,JO
10,JO
100
10
~ JI ~ , -...,,.,
" I ' /I .
V w N ~ ,~ ~ , ;\ I..., -" , ~ .l\ V V ~ ' ~ \ I \ 'l .
~J\
~ ~ -,, "' V -
0.1 Jan-93 Jan-95 oec-96 Oee>93 Dec-<JO Oe,c.,J2 Oec-,Of oec--06 oee .. J8 oec-10 oee>12 oec-14 oec-16 Dec>18 oec-20
........ Mt ll'l~t CNOl"iOt
10JOOOO
100JOJ
10JOO
I'--.. 1000
10J
10
... . A V \_.... f-"\ "' ,/
\ \/ ~
oq -...-<~ ..a. -~
"o -
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-% Dec-9e oec--JO oec-02 o~ oec--06 Dee-08 oee-10 oec-12 Dec>1~ Dec-16 oec-18 oec-20
K-13
Figure K-9: Trend Plot for OU-3 Lagoon Area Well NS-53
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
s: " C .• E §
6 V
;;c ~ " C .• ;
~ 0 V
;;c
~ " C .• ;
~ 0 V
100000,J
10000J
10JOJ
100,J
10J
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-53
National Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury. North Carolina
Semivola1ile Organics
~ ----
J '\. / \ I .
"O ' •
-........ . I .....
'-I
Jan-93 Jan-95 oec-96 Dec>9-3 oec-oo Oeo-02 Dec-04 oec--06 Dec-<JS oee-10 oee-12 Oec-H1 oec-16 Dec-18 oec-20
Volatile Q-ganics
100,»JO
10,»JO
10000
1000
100
10
''1\
i \ ~/ • ' ~ '-. \
:.., ~ ~ ~ A " .,,
i/ r; ~~ , ~ rx/. ..ti ' • ' ~,A /-... . ~ /' r
,Ii¥/ .,_
0.1 J.l~9J Jan-95 Oec-96 Dee>98 Dec-<JO Qe,c.,J2 Oec-,Of oec--06 oee .. J8 Dec-10 Oee>12 DeC-14 Oec-16 Dec>18 Dec-20
1.2-01cn1on:tll'\.liU'IC ........ I.Jttn~t ttiOl"iOt
10JOOOO
100JOJ
10JOO
1000 -
10J
10 IA I\ • A . / " 00. \ / ' .
) , . 0.. .) y .
V •
0.1
Jan-93 J¥1·95 Dee>% Deo-98 oeo-oo DE'4>02 o~ oec--06 oeo-oa oee-10 oeo-12 oec-1~ oec-16 oec-18 Oe¢-20
-.-,C1'11tm1um
K-14
Figure K-10: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-35
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
j
C 0 ! ~ 8
;;-
Q .. s
! ~
j
C 0 ! §
8
100-JOJO
10JOJO
100JO
10:>0
100
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-35
National Starch and Chemical Company Supelfund She
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury, Nout h Carofina
Semivol.11ile Organics
. -~ I\ / 'a--\ I \.
'(I ' ,
-
J.111·93 Jan-96 Oeo-96 De~98 Deo-00 Oee-02 D~ Deo-06 Dee-08 Oeo-10 Dec-12 Dec-14 Oee-16 Oe¢-18 Dec>20
Volatile Omanic-s
10,JOOO,J
100-JOJ
10JOO
100,,
10J
10
\ ~ ~
I A.. .... . ) I ~-7 ~ ~~\ ~ ' ~ -.. ~, /' ., --~ ' l5 ' ...., ~ T ...,..
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-96 oec-sa oec-oo Oeo-02 Oe,c.,:W Deo--06 oee .. J8 De->10 oec-12 Dec>t~ oec-16 oec-18 oec--20
-1.1.l-Tt1CN010e1t.11111e _._1,1<Ktti-=e
1000000
10JOOO
10000 ... ~ _,; -----...:
1000
100
10 a ... '' ,A._
~ b' >.a/ ~ " ., ~ ~
' V -~-/ -'O
0.1
J.m-93 Jan·% Oeo-95 Deo-96 DEG-OJ CltG-02 Qe(;-(W Oeo-05 Oto-06 ~10 oeo-12 OeG·U Oeo-16 Oto-16 Oe0-20
K-15
Figure K-11: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-36
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
j
C 0 ! ~ 8
~ Q ..
§
! ~
j
C 0 !
§
8
100-JOJO
10JOJO
100JO
10:>0
100
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-36
National Starch and Chemical Company Supelfund Si1e
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury, North Carofina
Semivol.11ile Organics
/\
~ [\ / ' \ r \
~ ~ f
-
. ' /
Jan•9J Jan-sis Dec-96 Dee>98 oec--JO oee .. J2 o~ Deo--06 Dec-<J8 oec-10 oec-12 Dec-14 oee-16 oec-1e Dec>20
Volatile Organics
10,:,0.JO,J
10000J • , .
I'--. 10JOO
100,J
1OJ
10
: ~ -?. r l V lW/
/ \'V ~ ~ -, ~ '-./ -",,_.,.-~ . -...,..
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Deo-96 oec-s,a o~o oeo-02 o~ Deo-06 oee-oe oec-10 oec-12 Dec>t~ oec-16 oec-18 oec-20
-1,2<KttiOf'Ol)l'OW..~ ..... Cf,;-1,2-01CNO!e~IIW'le _,._TIICNO!e~l!'leflt
1000000
10JOOO
10000
1000
100 ---
10 • A.
\, . I r--.. -• -.
• 'tj
0.1 J3n-93 Jan-96 Oec-,96 Dec-98 Dec-OJ oec--02 oee .. J4 Deo-06 oec-oa Dec-10 Oe❖12 Dee-HI Dec>t 6 Dec-18 Oec-20
K-16
Figure K-12: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-60
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~
" C .0 E §
6 V
~ ~ ..
C .0 ;
~ 0 V
~ ~ ..
C .0 ;
~ 0 V
1000,JO,J
100-JOJ
10JOJ
100,J
10J
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-60
National Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury, North Carolina
Semivola1ile Organic s
.... / ,-
Jan-93 Jan-95 oec-96 Dec>9-3 oec-oo Deo-02 Dec-04 oec--06 Dec-<J8 oee-10 oee-12 oec-u oec-16 Dec-18 oec-20
Volatile Q-ganics
1 O-»»JO
100,»JO
10,»JO
-I ... \.
10000
1000
100
10
~
"-.. "' ......r,
( j ~" ./
✓P u
' JJ "' "
I~
'ff'
0.1 Ja~9J Jan-95 Dec-96 Dee>98 Dec-00 0~2 Dec>~ oec--06 oee-oe Dec-10 Dee>12 DeC-14 Oe¢-16 Dec>18 Dec-20
-1, 1,2•TIICftlOIC~lt.lllM ---1, 1-0ICIIIOl'Otll'I~ 1.2-01cn101C<1t.111ne ........ Mt ll'l~t CNOl"iOt
_._,.W!/!CltlOIIOt
10JOOOO
100JOJ
10JOO
1000
I v \_.,-, -
\
10J
10 ~ r--, ~ -/ • . ....
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-% oec-98 oao-oo Dec-<J2 o~ Deo-06 oee .. Je oec>10 oec-12 oec-u Dec>t6 oec-18 oec-20
K-17
Figure K-13: Trend Plot for OU-3 Production Area Well NS-46
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
~ " C .0 E
8 6 V
~ ~ ..
C .0 ;
~ 0 V
~ ~ ..
C .0 ;
~ 0 V
1000,JO,J
100-JOJ
10JOJ
100,J
10J
10
0.1
OU3 Monitoring Well NS-46
National Starch and Chemical Company Superlund Site
Cedar Springs Road Plant • Salisbury, North Carolina
SemivoL31ile Organics
---.........
R>-.. ,I -\ I ~ -
'O ' '1/ .
-~ v ' / ......_ /
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-96 Oec-,9-3 oec-oo oeo-02 Dee-Od, oec--06 Dec-<J8 oee-10 oee-12 oec-u oec-16 OEC-18 oec-20
Volatile Q-ganics
100,»JO
10,JOOO
100-JO
10,JO
100
10
~\ I \ I
i,; "' " ,I ~ I ' _, "'~ ~ J
11,. " " ' ,,, ~ fl ...... -' ~ ~ " --'IS
0.1 Ja~9J Jan-95 Oec-96 Dee>93 Deo-00 Oeo-02 Dec-~ oec--06 oee-oe Dec-10 Dee>12 DeC-14 Oe¢-16 0*18 Dec-20
........ Mt ll'l~t eNOl"iOt
10JOOOO
100JOJ
10JOO
1000
10J
10 ' . ./
oc '\. ./ ' / ..,..........,, ,D--< -~, '
,,.,..... '/ .,
0.1
Jan-93 Jan-95 Dec-% Dec-98 Oec-<JO oec-02 Dec-Of oec--06 oec-oa oee-10 oec-12 Dec>1~ Dec-16 OE-c-18 oec-20
K-18
Figure K-14: OU-3 Production Area 2 Well Locations
Extracted from the May 2021 NS-60 Evaluation Work Plan.
LEGEND
c:::J Site boundary
□ Henkel boundary
□ Operable Unit 2
CJ Operable Unit 4
"'-, Stream
~ Abandoned process water piping
', Access road
Groundwater monitoring well (saprolite)
Groundwater extraction well (transition zone)
• Groundwater monitoring well (shallow bedrock)
• Groundwater extraction well (shallow bedrock)
~ Piezometer (shallow bedrock)
Groundwater monttoring well (deep bedrock)
• Groundwater monitoring well (abandoned)
~ Surface water sampling [ocation
■ Sediment sampling location
♦ Stream gauge
NOTES
-Aerial photo source: ESRI World Imagery.
· Wells labeled in ~ have been abandoned.
K-19
Figure K-15: Northeast Tributary Surface Water Sampling Locations
Source: Five Year Review Field Data Summary, October 2021.
LEGEND
a=I S,,toun<l>y
CJ Hs'IMI bcu,c.vy
CJ ~~eunn2
c::I Cp?.i'Yf.e unn 4
~ atearr,
e GrolJXtA'ltei mtflll::Mil •.-e) (~}
• Groll!O'l\'..te-.i alradlon Wei {ll'illl.Ef.lM ure)
• Grolll0'6.v.a mcnlttr,sg '"~ (m1kf.\' becroCI)
• Gn:n.llCf•ata airactoo wet 1W:kM tie<tock)
0 R'apcEcdgroJro.v--~exuacuoo•.w11(&.h.11c.~;
~ Plezi:me-~t{~tle<i'o::lt)
Grotn1a'<:t.Ei nmtt:orug '"'81 (d.'e,:, oEd'-ock)
♦ Grot.n:ro\ater rncnlt:ll!'ng••~I (~one,d)
~ Sl.rf""...ce Wlt« 6al'/lilfl9IOCJ:bri.
■ ~I &Jfll'lr.gloc..r.cn
a sed!nm &.ntif"9 IOO.Y..00
♦ rue:.rngaiq.
--A!Xmtfe0~UW-.=r~
..... , At\.--essroa:J
HOTES
• A1:ra. ~ sooree: ESRf \Vtf'.d tnag.,Jy.
NA.!IC~f;TA~s CIE~cou=,,v;y
~~$:PRIW..S~ff..Afn"
~S.0"'1', NOR.TI-IC.-..~
OU3 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
~ARCADIS 3
L-1
APPENDIX L – OU-4 DATA REVIEW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Figure L-1: Operating SVE and Air Sparge Locations
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
88 3B
39 ~
08
L.EGEND
e ;,Jr soarge well (operatng)
O /v.r sparge well (off.ine; low ooncE!'ll!ations)
• Air sparge m ll.(ofir ne: con~ruclion damage)
■ Sol vapor e-x::raction wel (operating)
C Soi vapor exiraction we!I (oiline; bwooncentratior.sJ
O Sol vapor extract:ion wel (oeline; oorsttuc&n damage)
• Groundwaermon1ori~w..-l(saproli:E)
• Grooodw3:er mon:tori!"Q ~ (shallow beC/Ock)
0 G.l'ow)dwatermoo·iOf'iog\Wl(d.eepbed-ock)
'--., Vapor recovery 11ench
'\.., Stream
NOTES
· Aerial P,cr.o SOJrce: ESRJ Wortd lm.,,ery.
· SVE: Soil V3po! extraction.
---==:::iFeet 25 50
~ST~.S.CI-IEUGALCQt.tH.X'(
~!PRIMC$fi0."°P..Ah7 !.'ll.li8URY.~CARCUtV. mo arra MONIT'OAINO REPORT
OPERATING SVE ANO AIR SPARGE LOCATIONS
2018-2020
~ARCADIS
L-2
Figure L-2: Passive Soil Vapor Concentrations, 2018 to 2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
rs
Gi3~
oe o!3
LEGEND
8 Air sp:irge well (q,eriltng)
0 hr sparge Mll lof.!ine; ~w conoef\U3W:ins)
C) J.Jr sparge well (of:: ne; oonstruction damage)
■ Soi YaOor ~ct'on wel (operating)
C Soi ¥.apot extracfon vie-I (o51ine. low concentra!ior.s)
a Soi '""1pOf extraction wel (o!line: construction damage)
• Gromdwa:er ,non.~oring well {saprolite)
• Grounctwxer monrtocing well (shallow bedrodt)
::-G."Otmdwa:ermon:.,oring wel(deep bedrock)
'••, V~r recovery i:rench
'\, Scream
CJ ~ ,of soil V.lp(lf' conoe--i.iratioos abowe IHSB lhrehold
NOTES
· krial pho:o soon:e: ESRI Worid ~ecy.
· ConCEenn tcr.s are expressed in mx:rograms F>E'-ct.1b1c
met,e,r(µg/rni.
· Ccncentraeons displayed in ~ exceed !he North Carolma
Oep.lttrM-rn of En"onme:nbl Oual~ (NC DEQ} lnactiw
Hazardous S,~es Branch {IHSB) screening fe~I for
medrylec-e chloride (S.300 µg'm,J. v.n~ chlorde {2&0 pgfm'), or 1.2..<fichk:i,OE,ihJrt.e ,n µg/',rl\
· CH;C'2 = melh~t=ne chloride.
· VC = Vin)f chloride
· 1,2-0CA= 1,24icMoroethJi~e.. · U = Anal~,;, not det':ded .1.bove the indicated reooning liml. · J = Con.cettrat:on is esf.m.r.,;,ct.
· B = Ana.lyte was detected fl the .;r.;sodai.:ed m&hod blank · E = Reslits e:oeed calibrx 10n range.
25
Fee<
50
H.lt!"lCN.'\l..5li\.~-5 CI-BA~CCf.tPAVf
CeCA~~!-RO.'.OPLAHT S.AUS5Lf:I.Y, NOf;ITH CA."<OLK'\
~ llTE MOtlJ'TClfUtl3 REP<>IU
PASSIVE SOIL VAPOR CONCENTRATIONS
2018-2020
~ARCADIS
L-3
Table L-1: Passive Soil Gas 1,2-DCA Concentrations, 2013-2020
Source: 2020 Site Monitoring Report, prepared by ARCADIS, July 2021.
Passive Soil Gas DCA Concentrations 2013-2020
IHSB Screening level for DCA = 47 µglm3
I . I , I I . I : I I ' I I I I . . . . . . . . . . ..
SV-5 1,900 61 NS NS < 1.9 NS
SV-16 220 NS 26 NS NS NS
SV-19 200,000 87,000 140 470 72 49 J
sv-2·1 7,800 250 1'IO 270 ·1,900 37
SV-22 NS NS NS 480 1,200 390
SV-23 30,000 23,000 <11,000 8,700 320 2,200 J
SV-24 780 NS NS NS NS NS
SV-26 29 NS NS NS NS NS
SV-29 140 J NS 11 NS NS NS
SV-31 4,100 64 NS 13 19 NS
SV-33 NS 320 640 39 NS NS
SV-34 23,000 780 NS 30 NS NS
SV-35 38 NS 3.4 J NS NS NS
SV-40 41 NS NS NS NS 190
SV-41 NS NS NS NS 480 6.9 J
SV-43 650 1,900 48 320 51 240
SV-44 3,700 18,000 1,100 43,000 7,200 55,000
SV-46 2,300,000 2,900 1,300 3,200 820,000 330,000
SV-47 NS NS NS NS NS 6,800
SV-48 NS NS NS 24 NS NS
NS = not sampled during the sp&ified event µg/m' = micrograms per cubic meter

M-1

APPENDIX M – SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: National Starch & Chemical Corp. Date of Inspection: March 8, 2022
Location and Region: Salisbury, North Carolina, 4 EPA ID: NCD991278953
Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA Weather/Temperature: Sunny/~60°F
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
Landfill cover/containment Monitored natural attenuation (soil flushing)
Access controls Groundwater containment
Institutional controls Vertical barrier walls
Groundwater pump and treatment
Surface water collection and treatment
Other: AS/SVE
Attachments: Inspection team roster attached Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site Manager
Name

Title

Date
Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions Report attached:
2. O&M Staff
Name

Title

Date
Interviewed at site at office by phone Phone:
Problems/suggestions Report attached:
3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.

Agency
Contact
Name

Title

Date

Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Report attached:

Agency
Contact Name
Title

Date

Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Report attached:

Agency
Contact
Name

Title

Date

Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Report attached:

Agency
Contact
Name

Title

Date

Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Report attached:
□ 181
□ □ 181 □ 181
□ 181
181 □
---
□ □ □ -□
---
□ □ □ -
□
-
----
□ -
-
----
□ -
-
----
□ -
-
----
□

M-2

Agency
Contact
Name

Title

Date

Phone No.
Problems/suggestions Report attached:

4. Other Interviews (optional) 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 Up to date N/A
Maintenance logs Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan Readily available Up to date N/A
Contingency plan/emergency response plan

Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

4. Permits and Service Agreements
Air discharge permit Readily available Up to date N/A
Effluent discharge Readily available Up to date N/A
Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date N/A
Other permits: Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks: Extracted groundwater is sent to the active facility's wastewater treatment system and
discharged to the POTW under a facility-wide permit. Air discharge is regulated under the facility’s
Title V permit.

5. Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

6. Settlement Monument Records Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

8. Leachate Extraction Records Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

9. Discharge Compliance Records
Air Readily available Up to date N/A
-
--- -
□
□ -
igJ igJ □ □
igJ igJ □ □
igJ igJ □ □
-
igJ □ □
□ □ □ igJ
-
igJ □ □
-
igJ igJ igJ □
igJ igJ igJ □
□ □ □ □
□ -□ □ □
□ □ igJ
-
□ □ igJ
-
igJ igJ □
-
□ □ igJ
-
□ □ □ □

M-3

Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

10. Daily Access/Security Logs Readily available Up to date N/A
Remarks:

IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
State in-house Contractor for state
PRP in-house Contractor for PRP
Federal facility in-house Contractor for Federal facility

2. O&M Cost Records
Readily available Up to date
Funding mechanism/agreement in place Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: Site total: $1.5 million. OU-1 - $55,000; OU-2 - $150,000; OU-3 -
$878,000; OU-4 - $416,000 (AS/SVE) Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From:
Date
To:
Date

Total cost
Breakdown attached
From:
Date
To:
Date

Total cost
Breakdown attached
From:
Date
To:
Date

Total cost
Breakdown attached
From:
Date
To:
Date

Total cost
Breakdown attached
From:
Date
To:
Date

Total cost
Breakdown attached

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: Higher costs associated with mid-plume study, extraction well installation
and construction of new groundwater treatment plant.
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS Applicable N/A
A. Fencing
1. Fencing Damaged Location shown on site map Gates secured N/A
Remarks: Property is fenced.
B. Other Access Restrictions
1. Signs and Other Security Measures Location shown on site map N/A
Remarks: Access to the facility is controlled with fencing and a security checkpoint at the main entrance.
C. Institutional Controls (ICs)
igJ □ □ □
-
□ □ □
-
□ □
□ igJ
□ □
□-
□ □
igJ igJ
□
---□
---□
---□
---□
---□
igJ □
□ □ □
□ □

M-4

1. Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented Yes No N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes No N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): self-reporting
Frequency: Daily
Responsible party/agency: Nouyron Chemicals
Contact Chris Fleming HSES Manager
Name Title Date Phone no.
Reporting is up to date Yes No N/A
Reports are verified by the lead agency Yes No N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met 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 N/A
Remarks: Additional ICs are needed to meet the requirements in Site decision documents. EPA, NCDEQ
and the PRP are working together to update the ICs.
D. General
1. Vandalism/Trespassing Location shown on site map No vandalism evident
Remarks:
2. Land Use Changes On Site N/A
Remarks: Construction of the new groundwater treatment system is underway.
3. Land Use Changes Off Site N/A
Remarks: Some addditional homes have been built along Keystone Drive southwest of the Site since the
2017 FYR.
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: Chemical manufacturing businesses continue to operate onsite.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable N/A
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable N/A
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines Applicable N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
Good condition All required wells properly operating Needs maintenance N/A
□ 181 □
□ 181 □
-
--
□ □ 181
□ □ 181
□ 181 □
□ 181 □
□
□ 181 □
□ 181
-
□
□
181 □
□ 181 □
-
□ 181
□ 181
181 □
181 □
181 □ □ □

M-5

Remarks: IWB-1 is the only operating extraction well (OU-3).

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
Good condition Needs maintenance
Remarks:

3. Spare Parts and Equipment
Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks:

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines Applicable N/A
C. Treatment System Applicable N/A
1. Treatment Train (check components that apply)
Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation
Air stripping Carbon adsorbers
Filters:
Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent):
Others:
Good condition Needs maintenance
Sampling ports properly marked and functional
Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
Equipment properly identified
Quantity of groundwater treated annually: 4,315,723 gallons were recovered from IWB-1 in 2020
Quantity of surface water treated annually:
Remarks: Extracted water from IWB-1 is sent to the facility's active wastewater treatment system
(lagoons) prior to discharge to the POTW.

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
N/A Good condition Needs maintenance
Remarks:

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
N/A Good condition Proper secondary containment Needs maintenance
Remarks:

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
N/A Good condition Needs maintenance
Remarks:

5. Treatment Building(s)
N/A Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) Needs repair
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks: A new groundwater pretreatment system is currently under construction.

~ □
-
~ □ □ □
-
□ ~
~ □
□ □ □
□ □
□ -
□ -
□ -
□ □
□
□
□
~
□ -
~ □ □
-
~ □ □ □
-
~ □ □
-
~ □ □
□

M-6

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks:

D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
Is routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality

2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation (soil flushing)
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition
All required wells located Needs maintenance N/A
Remarks: OU-2 soil is addressed via natural soil flushing. Soil samples are collected every five years to
evaluate change in contaminant concentrations.

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.

AS/SVE – Aboveground components of the OU-4 AS/SVE system were observed during the site inspection. No
issues of concern were noted.

XI. 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).
The remedy for OU-1 was intended to contain and remediate groundwater downgradient of the Trench
Area. The Trench Area extraction system was not functioning as designed and the system was turned off
with the EPA’s approval in 2014. Construction of a new OU-1 groundwater extraction and treatment
system is currently underway. The remedy for OU-2 (natural soil flushing in the Trench Area) is generally
functioning as intended. Soil sampling data collected every five years show that natural flushing has
reduced 1,2-DCA concentrations and other contaminants in soil over time but contamination remains.
The remedy for OU-3 was designed to contain and remediate the Lagoon Area groundwater plume to OU-
3 performance standards. Shallow bedrock extraction well IWB-1 continues to operate to reduce COC
concentrations in OU-3 groundwater. The OU-4 AS/SVE remedy has effectively removed more than
11,000 pounds of VOCs since startup, with more than 100 pounds of VOCs removed in 2020.
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.
Sampling of the NE tributary should be expanded to include all site COCs.
C. 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.
None.
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.
None.
~ ~ ~ ~
□ □ □
-
~ ~
~ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ ~
-

M-7

Site inspection participants:
Adam Acker, EPA
Noman Ahsanuzzaman, EPA
Ben Bentkowski, EPA
Tessa Monday, NCDEQ
Qu Qi, NCDEQ
Chris Fleming, Nouryon
Joseph Lang, Nouryon
Tom Darby, Arcadis
Andrew Davis, Arcadis
Avani Patel, ERM
Amanda Goyne, Skeo
Jill Billus, Skeo

N-1

APPENDIX N – SITE INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS

Northeast Tributary (OU-3)

Well NS-60 in the production area (OU-3)

N-2

AS/SVE system components (OU-4)

Extraction well IWB-1 (OU-3)

N-3

Trench Area (OU-2)

Construction of the new GWPTS

N-4

Interior of the existing GWPTS building (to be reused for the new system)

Construction for the new GWPTS

N-5

Exterior of the existing GWPTS building (to be reused for the new system)

Mid-plume extraction well (OU-1)

N-6

Extraction wells (OU-1)

Mid-plume access road (OU-1)

N-7

NS-31 well cluster with fence and residences in the background (OU-1)

Unnamed Tributary near the NS-31 well cluster (OU-1)

O-1

APPENDIX O – PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION

Table O-1: Groundwater Performance Standards Comparison to Current Standards
COC
1988 OU-1
ROD
Performance
Standard
(μg/L)a
1993 OU-3
ROD
Performance
Standard
(μg/L)b
2021
Federal
MCL
(μg/L)c
2021
State
Standard
(μg/L)d
OU-1 Change OU-3 Change
VOCs
1,1-DCE 7 7 7 7f Federal – no change
State – no change
Federal – no change
State – no change
1,2-DCA 5 1 5 0.4 Federal – no change
State – more stringent
Federal – less stringent
State – more stringent
1,2-DCP 6 1 5 0.6 Federal – more
stringent
State – more stringent
Federal – less stringent
State – more stringent
1,1,2-TCA 5 5 5 -- Federal – no change
State --
Federal – no change
State --
Acetone 3,500 700 -- 6,000 Federal --
State – less stringent
Federal --
State – less stringent
Benzene 5 NA 5 1 Federal – no change
State – more stringent
NA
Bromo-
dichloro-
methane
5 NA 80e 0.6 Federal – less
stringent
State – more stringent
NA
Chloroform 5 1 80e 70 Federal – less
stringent
State – less stringent
Federal -less stringent
State – less stringent
Cis-1,2-DCE NA 70 70 70 NA Federal – no change
State – no change
Ethylbenzene 3,500 NA 700 600 Federal – more
stringent
State – more stringent
NA
Methylene
chloride
5 5 -- 5 Federal --
State – no change
Federal --
State – no change
TCE 5 2.8 5 3 Federal – no change
State – more stringent
Federal – less stringent
State – less stringent
Trans-1,2-DCE NA 70 100 100 NA Federal – less stringent
State – less stringent
Toluene 2,000 NA 1,000 600 Federal – more
stringent
State – more stringent
NA
PCE NA 1 5 0.7 NA Federal – less stringent
State – more stringent
Vinyl chloride 2 1 2 0.03 Federal – no change
State- more stringent
Federal – less stringent
State – more stringent
Xylenes 350 NA 10,000 500 Federal – less
stringent
State – less stringent
NA
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
4-Nitrophenol 350 NA -- -- No state or federal
standard
No state or federal
standard
BCEE 5 5 -- -- No state or federal
standard
No state or federal
standard

O-2

COC
1988 OU-1
ROD
Performance
Standard
(μg/L)a
1993 OU-3
ROD
Performance
Standard
(μg/L)b
2021
Federal
MCL
(μg/L)c
2021
State
Standard
(μg/L)d
OU-1 Change OU-3 Change
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
NA 5 6 3 NA Federal – less stringent
State – more stringent
Metals
Antimony NA 6 6 -- NA Federal – no change
State --
Arsenic 10 NA 10 10 Federal – no change
State- no change
NA
Barium 1,000 NA 2,000 700 Federal – less
stringent
State - more stringent
NA
Beryllium 17.5 NA 4 -- Federal – more
stringent
State --
NA
Cadmium 10 NA 5 2 Federal – more
stringent
State – more stringent
NA
Chromium 50 50 100 10 Federal – less
stringent
State – more stringent
Federal -less stringent
State – more stringent
Manganese 7,700 50 -- 50 Federal --
State – more stringent
Federal --
State – no change
Nickel 350 NA -- 100 Federal --
State – more stringent
NA
Selenium 10 NA 50 20 Federal – less
stringent
State – less stringent
NA
Thallium NA 2 2 -- NA Federal -no change
State --
Zinc 7,350 2,100 -- 1,000 Federal --
State - more stringent
Federal --
State - more stringent
Notes:
a) Source is Section 4.1 of the 1988 OU-1 ROD (pdf pages 25 and 26)
b) Source is Table 19 of the 1993 OU-3 ROD (pdf pages 92 and 93)
c) Source is National Primary Drinking Water Regulations available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-
water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations (accessed 1/12/2022)
d) Source is North Carolina Groundwater Quality Standards (NCAC 15.2L.0202) available at:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/documents/files/02L%20Groundwater%20Standards%20Table%205-21%202013_0.pdf
(accessed 1/12/2022)
e) The MCL for bromodichloromethane and chloroform is for total trihalomethanes, which consists of
bromodichloromethane, bromoform, dibromochloromethane and chloroform; the MCLGs for bromodichloromethane
and chloroform are 0 and 70 μg/L, respectively.
f) 1,1-DCE was adopted by the Environmental Management Commission in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202 and is
above the federal MCL. Where private drinking water well or public water system is impacted by 1,1-DCE, the
applicable standard is 7 μg/L, in accordance with 15A NCAC 02L .0202.
NA = Not applicable; not a COC for the OU
-- = Not applicable; no federal and/or state standard

O-3

Table O-2: OU-3 Surface Water Performance Standard Comparison to Current Standards
COC
1993 OU-3 ROD
Performance
Standard
(μg/L)a
2021 Federal
Standard (μg/L)b
2021 State
Standardc Change
1,2-DCA 2,000 9.9/650d -- Federal – more stringent
State --
Notes:
a) Source is Table 19 of the 1993 OU-3 ROD (pdf page 93)
b) Source is the National Recommended Water Quality Criteria – Human Health Criteria Table available at:
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-human-health-criteria-table (accessed
1/12/2022)
c) Source is North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B Surface Water Quality Standards available at:
https://deq.nc.gov/ncstdstable07262021 (accessed 1/13/2022)
d) First value (9.9 μg/L) is the human health criterion for the consumption of water and organism. The second value
(650 μg/L) is the human health criterion for the consumption of organism only.
-- = Not applicable; no federal and/or state standard

P-1

APPENDIX P – SCREENING-LEVEL VAPOR INTRUSION EVALUATION

Due to the presence of VOCs in groundwater, this FYR evaluates the potential for vapor intrusion to
indoor air using the EPA’s 2021 VISL calculator and the December 2020 groundwater concentrations.
The VISL calculator is an empirical model that predicts indoor air concentrations from groundwater
concentrations using conservative “generic” attenuation factors and current toxicity information.
These factors reflect worst-case conditions and do not consider any site-specific conditions such as site
soil strata, depth to water table or building properties that may reduce the transport of vapors from
groundwater through the soil column.

Data from the wells NS-31, NS-31A, NS-31B, NS-29 and NS-30 were used in the assessment since they
are located closest to the residential area southwest of the Site. Of the identified wells, only NS-31A is a
shallow saprolite well, screened from 20-30 feet below ground surface. The EPA guidance recommends
use of groundwater samples from the uppermost part of the aquifer that underlies the study area of
interest in characterizing representative vapor source concentrations for vapor intrusion assessment.5
However, data from NS-31 and NS-31B (shallow bedrock wells) and NS-29 and NS-30 (deep bedrock
wells) were included in the vapor intrusion screening as a conservative measure (and to be consistent
with the EPA’s 2020 evaluation). It should be noted that there is considerable uncertainty with applying
the VISLs to groundwater contaminants in bedrock.6

VOCs were not detected in saprolite well NS-31A in December 2020; therefore, further evaluation of
this well was not warranted. VOC concentrations in NS-31, NS-31B and NS-30 resulted in estimated
cancer risks within the EPA’s acceptable risk range (1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-4) and noncancer hazard quotients
(HQs) below the threshold of 1 (Tables P-1, P-2 and P-4). VOC concentrations in NS-29 resulted in
cumulative carcinogenic risks above 1 x 10-4 and HQ above 1, primarily due to BCEE and TCE.
However, the exposure pathway at NS-29 is incomplete. There are no occupied structures within 100
feet of NS-29. Additionally, NS-29 is a deep bedrock well, screened from 153 feet to 200 feet below
ground surface.

Table P-1: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-31
COC
2020
Concentration
(μg/L)a
VISL Calculatorb Residential Exposure Average
Groundwater Temperature: 13.1ºCc
Cancer Risk HQ
Benzene 2.0 7 x 10-7 0.009
BCEE 290 1 x 10-5 --
1,2-DCA 6.5 2 x 10-6 .02
1,2-DCP 5.0 4 x 10-7 0.08
Methylene chloride 0.51 4 x 10-10 0.00007
Toluene 1.6 -- 0.00005
TCE 4.4 2 x 10-6 0.5
Total 1 x 10-5 0.6
Notes:
a) Source is Table 7 of the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf page 42)

5 EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Technical Guide for Assessing and Mitigating the Vapor Intrusion
Pathway from Subsurface Vapor Sources to Indoor Air (June 2015) (VI Guidance).
6 The VISLs assume that site-specific subsurface characteristics will tend to reduce or attenuate soil gas concentrations as
vapors migrate upward from the source and into overlying structures. The presence of bedrock fractures may result in
relatively unattenuated or enhanced transport of vapors. The June 2015 VI Guidance provides further information.

P-2

COC
2020
Concentration
(μg/L)a
VISL Calculatorb Residential Exposure Average
Groundwater Temperature: 13.1ºCc
Cancer Risk HQ
b) The EPA VISL calculator, available at: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/vapor-intrusion-screening-level-
calculator (accessed 1/13/2022)
c) Site-specific temperature from groundwater sampling log in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf p. 123)

VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
HQ = Hazard Quotient
μg/L = micrograms per liter
-- = Not applicable
Table P-2: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-31B
COC
2020
Concentration
(μg/L)a, c
VISL Calculatorb Residential Exposure Average Groundwater
Temperature: 13.9ºCd
Cancer Risk HQ
Acetone 9.3 J -- --
Benzene 2.2 9 x 10-7 0.01
BCEE 310 1 x 10-5 --
Toluene 1.3 -- 0.00004
TCE 4.6 2 x 10-6 0.5
Total 1 x 10-5 0.6
Notes:
a) Source is Table 7 of the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf page 42)
b) The EPA VISL calculator, available at: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/vapor-intrusion-screening-level-
calculator (accessed 1/13/2022)
c) If duplicate samples were taken, the higher of the two results were reported
d) Site-specific temperature from groundwater sampling log in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf p. 125)

VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
HQ = Hazard quotient
J = Concentration is estimated
-- = Not applicable
Table P-3: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-29
COC
2020
Concentration
(μg/L)a
VISL Calculatorb Residential Exposure Average Groundwater
Temperature: 14.6ºCc
Cancer Risk HQ
Acetone 43 -- --
Benzene 3.2 1 x 10-6 0.01
BCEE 1,300 5 x 10-5 --
1,2-DCA 4.3 1 x 10-6 0.02
Methylene chloride 37 3 x 10-8 0.005
Toluene 600 -- 0.02
TCE 110 6 x 10-5 13
Total 1 x 10-4 13
Notes:
a) Source is Table 7 of the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf page 42)
b) The EPA VISL calculator, available at: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/vapor-intrusion-screening-level-
calculator (accessed 1/13/2022)
c) Site-specific temperature from groundwater sampling log in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf p. 121)

VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
HQ = Hazard quotient
-- = Not applicable
Bold result = carcinogenic risk exceeds 1 x 10-4 or HQ is above 1

I

P-3

Table P-4: Screening-Level Vapor Intrusion Risk Evaluation – Well NS-30
COC 2020 Concentration
(μg/L)a
VISL Calculatorb Residential Exposure Average Groundwater
Temperature: 14.2ºCc
Cancer Risk HQ
Acetone 2.7 J -- --
Benzene 1.4 5 x 10-7 0.006
BCEE 140 5 x 10-6 --
Toluene 0.28 J -- 0.000008
TCE 0.33 J 2 x 10-7 0.04
Total 6 x 10-6 0.04
Notes:
a) Source is Table 7 of the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf page 42)
b) The EPA VISL calculator, available at: https://www.epa.gov/vaporintrusion/vapor-intrusion-screening-level-
calculator (accessed 1/13/2022)
c) Site-specific temperature from groundwater sampling log in the 2020 Site Monitoring Report (pdf p. 123)

VISL = Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
HQ = Hazard quotient
J = Concentration is estimated
-- = Not applicable