United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R04-89/048
June 1989
Superfund
Record of Decision
Cape Fear Wood Preserving, NC
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1'. REPORTNO. 1 Z.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-89/048
3. A8cip18nC'8 Accn8Ion No.
I. TlII8 and Subft8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Cape Fear Wood Preserving, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aimor(81
5. A8port 0.18
June 30, 1989
L
L P8rformIng Clrganildon A8pL No.
t. PIIrfo"'*'ll 0rgaInI2d0n ..... and Add!.-
1G.' Projac\ITaalllWen UnIt No.
-
11. ~C) or ~Q) No.
(C)
(0)
12. ~ Organudon ..... and AdIhM
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington', D.C. 20460.
13. Type 01 Raport . Partoc:l Covet8d
Agency
8001000
14.
15. SuppIanwntary No..
II. Abanct (LImIt: 2DD ---I
The 9-acre Cape Fear Wood Preserving site is in Cumberland County, North Carolina on a
41-acre tract of land. The predominantly flat site is comprised of the wood treatment
facility, wetlands, and undisturbed forests. A variety of land uses exist in the area
including industrial, agricultural and residential. The Cape Fear Wood Preserving.
facility operated from 1953 to 1983 first using a wood-treating process that included
reosote and later switching to a technique known as the copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA)
Jrocess. Liquid and sludge wastes generated by both of these processes were pumped into
a drainage ditch and an unlined lagoon. In 1977, as a result of a State site
investigation that revealed coal tar creosote contamination, the property owner was
ordered to remove 900 yd3 of creosote contaminated soil. In 1984 EPA conducted a site
investigation which resulted in an emergency removal action.' This action included
excavating contaminated soil and sludge followed by offsite disposal and pumping lagoon
water into onsite storage tanks. In 1986, 500 gallons of creosote spilled from a
storage tank causing EPAto conduct a second emergency response. Emergency response
activities included removal and solidification of 10 yd3 of sludge and pumping of 15,000
gallons of CCA waste water into onsite storage tanks. The primary contaminants of
conc~rn affecting the soil, sediment, ground water, and surface water are VOCs including
benzene, other organics including PAHs, and metals including arsenic and chromium.
(~~~ At't- ~ -
17. Oocunwnt An8Iy8I8 .. 088crIpI0n
Record of Decision - Cape Fear Wood Preserving, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, qw, sw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), organics (PAHs) , metals (arsenic, chromium)
b. Idandfl8r8/Op8no&ld8 T-
.
c. COSATI RaldlGloup
. AYlII8IIIIty SI8I8tIIInI
18. Sacurtty a... (nil. Report)
None
2Q, SecurIty a... (Thl. "'1181
Non",
21. No. 01 Pag..
123
I
22. Price
(See ANSl-Z:l8.181
SeeIMIfUt:fJ- on R.-
2n (4-771
(FOI1II8fIy HTlS.:SS1
Oap8l1menl 01 Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUC110NS
0p1I0n8I FornI m. R8poIt ~IMhl8tlon P8ge .. ...... on Gulllan,.. tor Format 8M PIa" fl1I1N1 of ScI8ntIftc and T8Chn1c81 R.porta...
ANSI Z31.1~117. ........ irani ~ NatI,.. SI8nd8rd8"""""" 1430 ~f, New yon. New yortc 10018. Each 88p8r8t8ly
bound ..,Grt tor .ample. .... val..... In . ................ ........ 118 unique Report ac.menlallon Page. . .
1. Report""""'. E8CII1ndIvIduaIIy bOund report .... any . .................... "'1III811on 888Ignecl by the pertormIng orp-
. . ntzatIon or pnMd8d ..,.... ~. 0Ig8nIz8II0n In IMICa r..... ..... AnaIItc8n N8IIon8ISIand8rd ANSI Z31.23-1174. Technical
. R8piart"""'" (STRN). For.regI8tr8IIon of,.,... code. con... NTIS R8piart MI.- CI88rtnghou88. Sprtngfl8Id. VA 22181. U..
........a........ Ar8taIa................... MdI8yph8n8 only,.. In"" foMG.........,188: FASEBlNS-75187 and FAN
R~ . .
2. LNw III8ftk.
3. Reo""""" nUll on ......... RII.nM tor --..,.... report-pI8nL
4. TItle .... 8ubIItIe. T1tI8 8bouId 1ndIc8Ie"" and....tIr .... ...... -..... CIIf the report. 8UbordInate subtltl. to the main
title. WIMn.,.,.............. In ..... ..... ... --. ,.,... the prtIury...... 8dd vakIIn8 nu.mb8r and Include subtl... for
the 8P8CfIIo valli... .
. 5. Report D.... E8CII report ..... CI8IIY. ... IndI ca.. .. .... ...... 8M,..,. IndIc8t8 the ..... on which It W88 88I8ct8d (..;..
.te of""" .te oIappronl. d8t8 of ........lioi'i; "'.IM~Uah8d).
8. Spon8orIng AQency CocI8. U8W bI8nfc.
7. Author(a). GIw nane(.» Inconwntlon8l ord8t (..g.. John R. Doe. or J. Robert Doe). U8t .uthor'a affiliation If It dlff8ra from
the perfar'lNng organization.
8. Performing 0Ig8nIz8II0n Report NuInber. In... If performing orpnlzaton ....... to 888Ign thl. number.
9. Performing OrganIzatIon Name and llaWng Addr8u. Giv. name. ..... city, ...... and ZIP coda. U8t no mora than two ,.".1. of
an orgMtzatIonei hI8r8chy. Dl8play the l1li1118 ot the organJutlon .uctIy u It Mould .ppear In Government Ind.... such ..
Gowmmant Reporta Announc8m8nIa . Index (GRA . I).
10. Prof8c:tIT88IrIWortc UnIt Hum_. UN the proteCt. I88Ic and work unit numb8r8 ..... which the report W88 prepared.
11. ContnctlGrant NumIMr. In... contr8Ct or gnnt number under whIcIt report... prepared.
12. Spon8ortng AQency Name and I18IIfng Ad..... 1nctucf8 ZIP code. ala main 8PGI'aorL
13. Type ot Report and "-locI CoV8r8cl. SIa..In"""" fIn8I. -.. Md,1t appllc888, Inclualve d8t88.
14. P8rt0rm1ng 0rpnIzatI0n Code. La.. bIanIr.
, '
. .
15. Supplem8fttary No.... en_information not IncIud8d ""'wt.Nbut ueetul. such u:' Pre..- In cooperation with. . . 1ran...tlon
of . . . Pra...1ad at conf8Nnc8 ot . . . To be publl8h8d In . .. When. report Ia ravl88d, Inctude a .........nt wh8th8r the new
r8pOIt "'Per"..a or supplaman.. the older..,.... .
18. Ab8tr8cL IncIud.. brief (200 warda or 1888J f8c:tuaI summary of the moat atgnltlcant Inform.tIon contained In the report. It the
report cOnt8In8 . atgnltlc8nt bibliography or lltaratu.. aurWy, mention It here. .
. ,
. ,
17. Docum... An8Iy8I8. (a). D88Cr1ptor&. S8I8ct front the TheuuN8 of Englnaartng and Sclentlflo T.rm. the proper authorIZed terms
that 1d8n1" the maJor concept ot the .....rch and aN aufflcl8ntly apaclftc and pncI88 to be u88d u Ind.. .ntrlM for cataloging.
(b). 1d8n..... end 0per...End8cf T81'1118. u.. 1cI8nt1f18r8 tor proJect ......... coda llllme.. equipment ~"gn.tor.. ate. U.. open-
ended tarm8 wrItIan In d88Cr1ptortom tor th088 8UbI8cta tor whIctI no dHcrtptor ..... .
. (e». COSAl1 FleldlGraup. FIeld and Group 888Jgnm8nt8 are to be taUn tom the 19M COSAl1 SUbject Category UaL Sinea the
malorfty of cIocum8n18 .. multlcll8clpllnary In l1li"", the primary FWd/Group uatgnmant(.» wiD be the spadtlo dl8clplln..
... of human end88vor, or type ot phya1c81 obteOt. The app&lcallon(a» wlU be c:ro...-.f8r8nc8d with 88COndary F18kf1Group
888Ignm8nta th88 will follow th. prtmuy po8tIng(a).
. ,
.1L . Dlalrlbutlon SIa...n.n... Denote pubIIo NtnubiDty, tor nampte -R""", unUmllad'", or Umltatlon tor r888On8 other than
ucurIty. a.. any 8V8U8bIUty to the public. with 8CIdra88. order """"* and price, It known. .
11. . 20. S80urfty Cl888ltlc8tlon. Enter u.s. S8curIty a..atflc8l1on In accordan.. with U. S. Security Regulation. (I.... UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pageL 1n88rt.... total number of p8g88, IncIudJng Introductory pag88, but .xcludlng dl8trlbutlon II..." any.
22. PrIc8. Ent8rprlce In paper copy (PC) andIor mIcroftche (IIF) It known.
R GPO: ,1983 0 - 381-526 (83,93)
OP'TIQNAL FOAM 272 SAC:
(4-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-89/048 .
Cape Fear Wood Preserving, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
Abstract (Continued).
The selected remedial action for this site includes offsite disposal of CCA salt
crystals found in the drainage system and solidified creosote at a RCRA landfill and
offsite disposal of asbestos-containing pipe insulation in the county solid waste
facility; removal a~d decontamination of onsite pipes and tanks to be sold for scrap
metal or disposed of in the county solid waste facility; excavation and onsite
treatment of soil and sediment using soil flushing as the preferred alternative or a
low thermal desorption process to remove organics followed by soil washing or
fixation/stabilization/solidification to address inorganics (a soil washing
treatability study will determdne if the preferred alternative would be appropriate)
followed by placement of treated soil and sediment in the excavated area and
revegetation; pumping with onsite treatment of ground water and surface water with
offsite discharge at a POTW or a surface stream; sale of 50,000 gallons of CCA
solution to a buyer, if no buyer is found, CCA solution and CCA-contaminated
wastewater will be treated using the ground water treatment system: and ground water
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from
$14,370,000 to $14~910,000 including present worth O&M costs which range from
$1,020,000 to $1,310,000 for 30 years.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
CAPE PEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAYETTEVILLE, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
DECLARATION FOR '1'BE RECORD OF DECISION.
Site Name and Location
Cape Fear Wood Pre8erving .
Fayetteville, cumberland COunty, Borth carolina
Statement of PurD08e
Thi. document represent8 the selected remedial action for this Site developed
in accordance with CERCLA as amended by SARA, and to the extent practicable,
the Hational contingency Plan.
The State of North Carolina has concurred on the .elected Remedy.
Statement of Basis
The decision is based upon the Admini8trative Record for the Cape Pear Wood
Preserving Site. The attached index identifies the items which comprise the
administrative record upon which the 8election of a remedial action is ba8ed.
~-'cri~tion of Selected Remedv
Prior to initiating any remedial action on-8ite, a 8ite survey will
conducted to determine the presence of any endangered plant .pecie8
If endangered plant 8pecie8 are encountered, then the Department of
Interior/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs to be consulted prior
initiating remedial action; to decide how to proceed.
be
on-site.
the
to
REMEDIATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TANKS & PIPING
Off-site disposal of .odium dicromate - copper sulfate - arsenic
pentoxide (CCA)8alt crystals, the 80lidified creosote and
a8bestos-containing pipe in8ulation. The CCA crystals and solidified
creosote will be di8po8ed of at a RCRA permit~ed landfill. The
asbest08-containing pipe insulation will be di8po8ed of at the cumberland
county Solid Waste Facility pur.uant to the facilities 8pecifications.
The tanka and as.ociated piping, above and below ground, will be emptied,
flu8hed and cleaned, including triple rinsing, to render the metal
non-hazardous.. The metal will then be ,cut and either .oldtoa local
.crap metal dealer or di.po8ed of at the CUmberland County Solid Waste
Facility. Forth08e tank8 and/or piping that cannot be cleaned
.ufficiently to render them non-hazardous ~hey will be transported to a
RCRA permitted landfill for disposal. .
..
~
-------
The contents of the tanka and associated piping contains approximately
50,000 galron. of 3 percent CCA .olution and 15,000 gallon. of CCA .
contaminated. wastewater. . A buyer of the 50,000 gallons of 3 percent CCA .
.olution will first be pur.ued. If no buyer cart be found, then the .
50,000 gallon. of 3 percent CCA .olution along with the 15,000 gallon. of
CCA contaminated wastewater will be treated on-.ite through the water
treatment .y.tem .et up for treating the pumped .urface waters. and
. 8rtracted groundwater. All wastewater (i.e., cleaning equipzaent, etc.)
generated by on-.ite activiti.. will &1.0 be directed to the treatment
.y.tem. .
SOURCE CONTROL (Remediation of COntaminated Soils)
The preferred alternative for the remediation of contaminated
.oil./.ediment i. .oil wa.hing. The alternate .ource control alternative
i. a low thermal de.orption proc... to remove the organics contaminants
from the .oil followed by either .oil washing or a .oil .
fixation/solidification/stabilization process to address the inorganics.
The decision as to which .ource con~rol alternative will be implemented
will be based on data generated by the .oil washing treatability study to
be conducted during the remedial design.
Contaminated soils/sediment will be excavated,. treated and placed back in
the excavation. All wastewater generated will either be reused or
treated on-site. Pollowing completion of on-site remedial activities,
those areas disturbed will be revegetated
MIGRATION CONTROL (Remediation of COntaminated Groundwater)
Groundwater extraction will be accomplished through the use of well
points in the upper (surficial) aquifer. Groundwater removal will be
conducted in 10,000 square foot subareas at a time, until the entire
contaminated surficial aquifer is addressed. The well points will be
moved from one area to another for subsequential dewatering.
Due to local contamination of the lower aquifer, the lower aquifer will
be pumped following remediation of the overlying upper aquifer in this
area. This will prevent potential contaminant drawdown to deeper depths.
A water treatment .ystem will be established on-site. The system's
influent wil11nclude content. of the tanks and piping, all wastewater
generated due to remedial actions implemented, pumped surface water, and
extracted groundwater. The level and degree of treatment will depend on
1) the level of contaminants in the influent and 2) the ultimate
discharge point of the treated water. There are two water discharge
alternative. for the treated water. The optima~ choice is the local
.ewer system. The other alternative is to di.charge the effluent to a
surface stream. The range of treatment for the contaminated water
includes biological degradation, air stripping, filtration through
activated carbon filter, and metal removal through flocculation,
. sedimentation and precipitation. The point of discharge and the degree
of treatment will be determined in the Remedial Design stage. The.
effluents, including both discharged water and/or air, will meet all
applicable and relrvant or appropriate requirements (ARARs).
-------
Declaration
--Ie .elected r8lll8dy i. protective of human hea1.th and the enviroDlDent,
~a1n. Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate, and i. cost-effective. This remedy .ati.fie. the preference for
treatment that reduce. toxicity, mobility, or volume a. a principal element.-
. Finally, it i. determined that thi. remedy utilize. permanent .olution and
a1.ternative treatment technologie. to the maximwD extent practicable.
~~ 30 1/<;i'9
,
. . ~mT~
~ Cr_r C. Tidwell
~~ Regional Administrator
Date
-------
SUMMARY 01" RBKEDIAL SELECTION
CAPE PEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
l"AYETTEVILLE, CUHBERLAND COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
u.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
TABLE 01" CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
Introduction
1.1 Site Location and Description ..................
1.2 Site History'...................................
..........1
..........1
..........4
. . . . . . . . . e.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bnforcement Analysis
. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . . . . . . .7
C'U.rren't Site S1:a'tU8 .......°....................................7
3.1 Bldroqeoloqic. Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
3.2 S te contam.ina'tioD .............'........................ .11
3.3 Air COntam.ination .......................... ~ .0.. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 8011 contam.ination ......................................11
3.5 Groundwater COntam.ination ................... . . . . :. . . . .22
3.6 Surface Water and Sediment Data ............ .........33
3.7 ~.k ~.e.ament Summary .................... .........46
Cleanup Criteria...........................".................. 49
4.1 Groundwater Remediation .................................49
4.2 'Soil aem.diation .............~..........................49
4.3 Surface Water/Sediment Remediation ............~.........52
......52
Alternatives Evalua~ed ..............................
5.1 Nine Point Evaluation Criteria for Bvaluating
Remedial Action Alternatives ..........................59
5.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Bnvironment
Compliance with Applicable and Relevant
. or Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) ............60
Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance ..........60
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume ..60
Short-Term Effectiveness .........................60
Implementability .................................74
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
State Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .74
Community Acceptance .............................74
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.1.4
5.1.5
5.1.6
5.1.7
5.1.8
5.1.9
Recommended Alternatives ....................... ...........74
6.1 Description of Recommended Remedy ..............74
6.2 Operations and Maintenance ...................... ....76
6.3 Cost of Recommended Alternative ............ .....76
6.4 Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
6.5 Future Actions ................... ...... .....77
6.6. Consistency With Other Environmental Laws .......77
Community Relations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . .81
State Involvement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Appendices
Appendix A -
Appendix B -
Responsiveness Summary
Proposed Plan/Legal Notice
-------
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Pigure 4.
Pigure 5.
Pigure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
LIST OF FIGtnU!:S
PAGE RO.
9.
Map Showing Site Location ................................2
Map Highlighting Area of the Site ~.........................3
Map Illustrating Peature. of the Site ....................5
Map Depicting Groundwater COntour in. Lower
Aquifer (Data COllected Kay 16, 1988) ...................9
Map Depicting Groundwater COntour in Upper
Aquifer (Data COllected Kay 16, 1988) ................; .10
. Map Identifying Surficial Soil COntUunation
by Chromium Exceeding Cleanup Goal .....................14
Map Identifying Surficial Soil COntamination
by Arsenic Exceeding Cleanup Goal ......................16
Map Identifying Surficial Soil COntamination
by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PABS)
Exceeding Cleanup Goals ......................~.........17
Map Identifying Surficial Soil COntamination
by Benzene Exceeding Cleanup Goal ......................18
Map Identifying Surficial Soil COntamination
by To 1 u.n. ...................... -, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Map Defining Horizontal Extent of COntamination. .
Exceeding Cleanup Goal. in Surficial Soils .............19
Hap Locatinq Bore Holes. ,- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Map Locating Groundwater Sampling Points .................29
Map Specifying Total PAH Concentrations in
Upper Aq\lifer ......... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .30
Figure 15. Map Specifyinq Total BTX Concentrations in
Upper Aqu,i"fer ............................ ,- . . . . . . . . . . . . .31
Figure 16. Map Specifying Total PAR Concentrations in
Lower Aquifer..........................."............... 3~
Figure 17. .Map Specifying Total BTX Concentrations in
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
P igure 21-
Figure 22.
~ower Aquifer........... -,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Map Specifying Chromium in Upper Aquifer .................35
Map Specifying Arsenic in Upper Aquifer ..................37
Map Specifying Chromium in Lower Aquifer .~..........~....38
Map Specifying Arsenic in Lower Aquifer ..................40
Map Locating Groundwater Sampling Points .................46
-------
Table 1.
Table 2 .
Table 3.
Table' 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
"'able 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
LIST OP TABLES
PAGE RO.
Surficial Soil Sampling Data Summary ....................12
Comparison of 1-poot and 5-poot Sampling Re.ult. ........21
Bore Bole Sampling Data Summary ......................'...25
Grace Parker Property Sampling Data Summary .............28
Groundwater Sampling Data Summary .......................41
Surface Water Sampling Data Summary .....................47
Sed.iID8nt Sampling Data Summary .............. .0.......... .48
Summary of Cont.lllt nated. K8dia and Cleanup Goal. .........53
po..ible Remedial Technologie. for Soil, Sediments,
Groundwater and Surface Water ..........................57
Retained TechnolOgie., Applicable Media and
Contallltnant. Couidered for Alternatives Developed.... .58
DevelopDent of RelDedial Action Alternative. for
Soil./Sediment8 ........................................60
Development of Remedial Action Alternatives for
, Groundwater and Surface Water.. .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0. . .61
Development of Remedial Action Alternative. for
Hazardous Material~, Tank8, and Piping .................62
SWDID&ry of Remedial Alternatives Evaluation............. .64
Summary of Institutional and Land Use Restrictions .......71
Summary of the Public Health and Environmental
Bffects Evaluation .....................................72
ImplementabilityEvaluation ....~.........................74
Summary of Present Worth COsts for HazardoU8 waste,
Tanks and Piping .......................................75
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis for Soil and
Sediment Alternatives ..................................76
Summary of Sensitivity Analysis for Groundwater and
Surface Water Alternatives .............................77
Table 21. ° List of Applicable and Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAYETTBVILLB, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Cape Fear Wood Preserving (Cape Fear) Site was proposed for the National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986 and was finalized in July 1987 as site
number 572. The Cape Fear Site has been the subject of a Remedial
Investigation (RI) and a Feasibility Study (PS), both of which were conducted
under the RBM II contract. The RI report, which examined air, groundwater,
soil, and surface water and sediment contamination at the Site and the routes
of exposure of these contaminants to the public and environment was completed
in October 1988. The FS, which develops, examines and evaluates alternatives
for remediation of the contamination found on site, was issued in final draft
form to the public in February 1989.
This Record of Decision has been prepared to summarize the remedial
alternative selection process and to present the selected remedial
alternative.
1.1 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Cape Fear Site is located in Cumberland County, North Carolina, on the
western side of Fayetteville near Highway 401 (Figure 1). It includes about
nine acres of a 41-acre tract of land near the intersection of latitude
35*02'57"N and longitude 79*01'17"W. The site is adjacent to other
industrial/commercial establishments as well as private residences. Four
homes are located near the site. In addition, a subdivision named
•Southgate" is located approximately a quarter of a mile south of the site
and houses approximately 1,000 people. Figures 2 and 3 show the area and
major site features.
Of the approximately 41 acres comprising the site, less than 10 acres were
developed by the facility. The remainder of the site is heavily wooded wit*
coniferous trees with a small swampy area northeast of the developed area.
The site is highly disturbed in the vicinity of the plant facilities. The
buildings are currently abandoned and in various states of disrepair. The
swampy area consists of a seasonally flooded wetland dominated.by rushes.
The upland section of the site is sandy and well-drained. A site survey wi
be required prior to initiating remedial action to determine if endangered
plant species exist on-site.
The terrain of the Cape Fear Site is predominantly flat, with drainage
provided by a swampy area on the northeast aide of the site and a man-made
ditch to the southeast that extends southeastwardly to a diked pond. A
variety of land uses exist around the Cape Fear Site. The properties to t:
-------
--
'A'f8TTIVILL8
.
!
i
. NORTH CAAOUNA
,- 0
...... ....... I
1000
I
SCIU.. JUT
/CRACE "AllIeD ~
.,:.2 WILlS
. LOCATION M.AP
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
. FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA.
-2-
FIGURE
1
-------
LEGEND
--- ~ liMA
~
..
,
250 0
.....~t---+
Z50
SQI.E It FD:T
.r J "'-
-I. "',
........''''''''--...
." ~~- "
". '\ ....,. ,
0""."., ""'~v........../-" -...)
--«"- ,.;
\ ~
....
,~
" 'I
'\:
\.
~~
~
. ~
~
~
'\'\
~-
~ IDIIDICII
~~- \0 ,
. ~~~\ l?..}i-..
500 .-- 0"'" ..-
~. -.
(1 l ..., .\
~ ~....:--...., \\
~"""'" ~ '\
.. Nt:"::-~ \
""-- .:",.,~;, -,~"
-'::::::.-::::- ~ ~ ~ -.Jl..
-Av~. :_---., 0 "'" ",)
'II ~ I U'ID. J I
~ --~ : =T '\.... l.. I
--o.,J ~ 't'
"'-Jt CIIIIII 'OCI
,--~
'--.. ,~
, ~COCItM 'UHf
'\ \ . IIIOWIIX "I:INO
~
,\
\ \
\ \
\\
\\
~
1\
'I .
t,\ ;(=:'
1_\
I \,\
I,
(~~J) .
--.-
scn.tnCATI SU80MSlQN
FIGURE NO.
2
AREA MAP
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
I
I
-------
north include an undisturbed pine forest, a concrete plant, and a few
residential properties. To the east is a continuation of the undisturbed
pine forest, and to the west is farmland used for growing crops and raising
livestock. To the south is another concrete plant as well as the southgate
subdivision.
1.2 SITE HISTORY
Operations at the Cape Fear Wood Preserving Site commenced in 1953 and
continued until 1983. The Cape Fear Wood Preserving facility produced
creosote-treated wood from 1953 until 1978 when demand for creosote-treated
products declined. Wood was then treated by a wolmanizing process using
salts containing sodium dichromate, copper sulfate, and arsenic pentoxide.
This treatment, process is known as the copper-chromium-arsenic (CCA)
process. The date the CCA process was initiated is unknown. Nor is it known
whether the creosote and CCA processes occurred simultaneously or in
succession.
Both liquid and sludge wastes were generated by these two treatment
processes. Waste from the creosote process was pumped into a concrete sump
north of the treatment unit (Figure 3). As liquid separated from the sludge,
it was pumped into a drainage ditch that lies southeasterly of the developed
portion of the site and discharges into a diked pond. Stormwater runoff from
the treatment yard also appears to drain into this ditch. Waste from the CCA
treatment process was pumped into a unlined lagoon north of the dry kiln and
allowed to percolate into the ground.
In the summer of 1977, the site was determined to be contaminated with
constituents of coal tar and coal tar creosote. State authorities ordered
the owner/operator to comply with North Carolina law. As a result, the
owner/operator changed operations to limit further releases, installed a new
potable water well for a neighbor west of the site, and removed 900 cubic
yards of creosote-contaminated soil from the treatment yard and the drainage
ditch that parallels the railroad. The creosote-contaminated soil was
transported for land-spreading to property leased from Grace Parker
approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. The soil on this property was
sampled as part of the RI. Low levels of polyeyelie aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) were detected.
Sometime between 1979 and 1980, a new closed-circuit CCA plant was installed
and the old creosote and CCA facilities were decommissioned. The new CCA
plant was regulated under the Resource Conervation and Recovery Act (RCRA) a
a small generator until 1983, when the company went out of business. The
site was subsequently abandoned until the summer of 1988 at which time SECo,
Investment, Inc. purchased the property.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a site reconnaissance ai
site investigation in October 1984. Surface water, groundwater, soil and
sediment samples were collected from the northeast swamp, diked pond, lagoo
-4-
-------
o
>-
-0
m
,.-n
~m
~>
-f:IJ
-f
~:E
;=0 en
:;; 0 =i
~,c m
0-0 s:
~:D »
x m -0
oc/)
~m
:D:J]
g:s
zz
~Ci)
c/)
-
....
m
tAl
"n
G')
c
:n
m
z
o
. I
'\'
~.
~
. ~
\\ 0
-- \\
--- -- -..J \
D~
OLD CREOSOTE/
CCA UNIT (PIPING)
t
I
. r STORAGE
-" /"1 TANKS (2)
;'~- \
/' ..J Go
~) r - - ./ .
~ CCA CRYSTAlS
,. \
CCA UNIT ",> .
\ (PIPING) V / .' ,\ .
I _\ GASOUN~ --' \\
, PU~P -:.:::-- -- \ \
..... , ----
"' REOSOTE-CONTAUINAtED~ " \
". " SOLIDIFIED ~LUDGE . . '::::--, \ \
STORAGE H.. I / STORAGE 'J ' -- J \
~ TANKS (5) '- -.. TANK (1) " '--..
~ (CCA WASTEWATER ", . \oJ ( )
ff J.ND CCA SOLUTION) ~o , I
~ - - - "~~ \
UNDERGR.;(JND . . . ~ ) / ..J
GASOLINE ' /
STORAGE TANKS ASBESTOS \, /.
. I INSULATION" ' I
- - - - I ". \....., I
:- --.1 ............ D'1'CIt \ r'
~..,. '( DIKED POND
~
r- .....;. -- ~ J.
(-- \. ~
......~
. "tQ.NCRETE PLANT
. . DISCHARGE POND
100 0 100
.............. .
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
- - - CLEARED AREA
I .
-------
drainage ditch ~d a domestic well west of the site (S.T. Jackaon). PABs,
which are creosote-related compounds, and the CCA meta18 were detected in all
samples. Consequently, EPA conducted an emergency removal action at the site
in January and Pebruary 1985. This actions included:
*
Removal of creosote sludge from the creosote concrete 8ump;
*
Removal of .ludge from the lagoon to . depth of 7 f_t, and
801idification of the 81udge with fly ..h;
*
Pumpage of lagoon watsr into 8torage t~ located south of the new
CCA unit;
Removal of contaminated 80il from the drainage di\Ch that parallels
the railroad tracks and at the culvert near Reilly Road;
*
*
Removal of contaminated 80i18 from a portion. of the northeast 8wamp
and stained areas in the treatment yard; and
*
Back filling with clean sandy 80il of areas where contaminated soil
had been removed.
All contaminated soils and sludges removed were transported to the GSX
hazardous waste landfill in Pinewood, South Carolina.
The NUS Corporation conducted an investigating of the site in May and OCtober
1985. Soil, sediment, surface water and ground water samples were
collected. Analytical results again showed that samples were contaminated
with creosote-related compounds, arsenic, chromium and copper.
EPA conducted a second emergency response in September 1986 when site visits
revealed that vandals had shot holes in a 3,OOO-gallon creosote storage tank
spilling approximately 500 gallons of creosote on the ground. The cleanup
operation consisted of: . .
*
Removal, solidification, and transport of approximately 10 cubic yards
of creosote-contaminated sludge to an on-site metal shed east of the
new CCA unit;
*
Removal and transport of the creosote .toraqe tank to the on-site
metal .hed;
*
Excavation and grading of the area where the creosote tank had leaked;
*
. Pumpage of approximately 15,000 gallons of CCA waste water from the
eCA recovery 8ump into on-site .torage tanks located south of the new
CCA unit; and
.
Containment of the CCA recovery sump within an earthen dike.
.
-6-
-------
2.0
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
,eral Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPS) have been identified,
including the Cape Fear Wood Preserving COmpany (no longer active), Johnson ~
Geddes COnstruction Company (no longer active), John R. Johnson, Doretta Ivey
- (wife of former president of the Cape Pear Wood Preserving company -
deceased), and Dewey Ivey, Jr. (son of the former president - deceased).
Recently identified PRP. include SBCO Investments, Inc. (SBCO), Southe..tern
- COncrete Products, Inc. (SB-Lum), Southeastern COncrete Product. of
, Fayetteville, Inc. (SE-Pay), Hr. Steve Ployd, Mr. Louis Lindsey, and Hr.
James Musselwhite.
In December 1984, BPA issued notice letters to the PRPs informing them of
BPA's intention to conduct CBRCLA remedial activities at the site unless the
PRPs chose to conduct such actions themselves. The PRPs were .ent notice
letters rather than, an administrative order because of their pre.umed
inability to pay for remedial action. On June 5, 1989, these PRPs were sent
RD/RA notice letters informing them that the Aqency was considering spending
Fund monies if they no not or incapable of conducting the project themselves.
3.0
CURRENT SITE STATUS
The site was abandoned from 1983 until the summer of 1988 when it was
purchased by SECo, Investments, Inc. Presently, an area of approximately
10.000 square feet of the site near the railroad tracks has been enclosed by
hained linked fence. Within the fence are some small earth-moving
ipment and a concrete pad with a storage trailer on top. This area is
.. ....Ited to Southern Concrete Products, Inc. '
In the fall of 1988 and at the direction of a CUmberland County
building/construction inspector, the' owner retrenched the majority of the
drainage ditch, dug several new drainage trenches and breached the diked
pond. Both the drainage ditch and the sediments within the drainage ditch
and the diked pond and the sediments within, the diked pond were ~reas
targeted for remediation.
3.1
HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The study area is underlain by two major stratigraphic formations: the
Tuscaloosa and the Black Creek Formations. The Tuscaloosa Formation appears
to rest directly on a basement rock complex and is mainly a massive clay unit
containing interbedded layers of sand. The Black Creek Formation overlies
the Tuscaloosa Formation and typically consists of thin layers of brownish to
black clay alternating with thin layers of gray to,white fine-grained quartz
sand.' The contact'betweenthe Black Creek beds and the Tuscaloosa clay i.
unconformable. In addition, the lithology of these formations is so similar,
it is very difficult to differentiate between the formations based on visual
inspection. '
-7-
-------
The Tuscaloosa.and Black Creek Formations are overlain by undifferentiated
.urficial .ediments. In the .tudy area, the surficial .ediments have a
max~um thickness of 30 feet. The.e beds generally consi.t of
unconsolidated, fine to medium-grained sand in a clay matrix.
Geologic lO9s recorded during monitor well and borehole installations. .
indicate that the .ite i. underlain by intermittent beds of .ands, clays, and
.ands in clay matrices. ane distinct clay to .ilty, .andy clay
semi-confining unit, however, was identified. This unit divides the
subsurface down to a depth of approximately 90 feet into two water producing
zone..
The upper aquifer con.i.ts of uncon.olidated .ands and clays and is
approx~tely 25 feet thick. The lower aquifer also consi.t. of .ands and
clays and i. approx~tely 50 feet thick. Separating the aquifers is a clay
to .ilty, .andyclav .~-confining unit, approximately 15 feet thick, which
acts as an aquitard. . Thi. unit i. generally continuous acro.. the .ite, but
was reporting missing in one location along the acce.s road. Underlying the
lower aquifer is a stitt cla~. unit of unknown thickne.., which is a.sumed to
act as an aquiclude or aquitard based on physical descriptions of the
material. This unit appears to be continuous across the entire site.
It has been determined that the groundwater flow in the lower aquifer is
generally southwestward at the site (Figure 4) while groundwater flow in the
upper aquifer is radial, moving in all directions from the site (Figure 5).
This radial flow pattern in the upper aquifer is probably due to a
combination of two geolO9ic conditions:
Most of the steams in the study area have flood plains. Some have terraces
that range in width from a few feet to several miles. Along each stream, the
present flood plain width varies in response to geologic control, but the
stream, flood plain, terraces, aneJ valleys generally become wider
downstream. The site does not lie within a floodplain.
* The site is located at a topographic high point for th& area and
* Sandy materials at the site facilitate higher rainfall recharge than
in the surrounding areas.
The southwestward flow pattern in the lower aquifer is probably in response
to the regional flow pattern for this aquifer. .
The average horizontal groundwater velocity (based on Darcey's Law for
groundwater flow) in the upper aquifer is approx~tely 9 feet/year and for
the lower aquifer, 16 feet/year. Therefore, in 35 years (the t~e since the
beginning of plant operations), the maximum contaminant migration in the
upper aquifer would be expected to be in the order ot 300 to 400 feet from
the source and 500 to 600 feet in the lower aquifer. The analytical data
base suppc:lrts this determination.
The average vertical groundwater velocity from the upper aquifer to the lower
aquifer is estLmated to be 3.0 feet/year.
-8-
-------
. CLEMUD *«*
• 202.4 UEASUNZD MIDI UNO.
(ft IMf)
_ UVO.COMTOUI
IM)
290
LOWER AQUIFER WATER ELEVATIONS - 5/16/88
GAPE : EAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
:AYETTEV!LLE. NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO
4
-------
. .'
. LEGEND
- - - CLI'MID NUA J
8nu YfAS\M!D wmR LLWL :,1~
(I\. l'1l8I) WI
, I
-233- 8m LIWL CONTOuR \,
. (I\. INI) \
~
~
~~
~
~
~
~
8 225.8
8 227..
j
....
I
~D D.
~t-+~
2.50
500
SCAL£ IN mr
UPPER AQUIFER WATER ELEVATIONS. - 5/16/88
CAPE: :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
. :AVETTEVILL.E. NORTH CAROLINA .
FIGURE NO.
S
0.1 ~
-------
Both aquifers underlying the .ite have been classified as Class IIA using
U~S. BPA GroundWater Cl...ification Guidelines of December 1986.
3.2
SITE CONTAMINATION
R81D8dial Inve.tigation field work centered on the developed area of the .ite, .
the 8W&mpy area. northe..t and .outhwe.t of the developed area, the clearing
e..t of the developed area, and the drainage ditch and diked pond. .Soil,
groundw.ter, .urface water and .ediment .ample. were collected in and around
the.e area.. The .oil .ample. analyzed in the on-.ite laboratory provided
.ufficient data to determine horizontal extent. of contamination. The other
environmental .amples (water and .ediment) and 25' of the .oil .amples, were
.ent to . laboratory in the Contr.ct Laboratory proqram (CLP) and analyzed
for the compound. on the Target COmpound Li.t (TCL). Pive groundwater.
.ample. analyzed for hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) and four .oil .ample. were
analyzed for dioxin..
. The major contaminant. are "the organic compounds (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons - PABs) grouped under the general term of coal-tar based.
. creosote and the the metals - copper, chromium and arsenic.
3.3
AIR CONTAMINATION
The most common sources of air contamination at hazardous waste sites are the
volatilization of toxic organic chemicals and the spread of airborne
contaminated dust particles. During the RI, .ite personnel used the HNu
photoionization analyzer to monitor the air while performing the designated
RI tasks. No airborne problems were encountered.
3.4
SOIL CONTAMINATION
The concentrations of contaminants detected in soil at the site are
summarized in Table 1. This table provides the frequency of detection, the
ranges of concentrations found in surficial soil at the site, and the
background concentration ranges for those contaminants identified as
chemicals of potential concern in Section 2.0 of the Risk Assessment
(Appendix C of the PS). Dioxins were not detected in any of the four 80il
8amples analyzed for this group of compounds.
Analyses of the .oil .amples indicate that in .pite of previous removal
actions, areas with high concentrations. of inorganic chemicals and PABs still
remain. In general! the most contaminated areas are in the process area, the
northeast seaeonal .wamp, along the access road to the back storage area, and
along the drainage ditch .outheast .of the process .ite.
-11-
-------
TABLE 1
.-.
SURFICIAL SOIL SAMPLING DATA SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE:
FAYE'rl'EVILLE, NORTH <:MOLINA
Frequency of
Detection
(,)
Inorganic O\emicals (mq/kq)
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Maqnesium
99
68
52
68
69
100
39
62
Organic Chemicals (ug!kg)
Benzene
Toluene
6
29
~ (mgjkg)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b and/or k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
!ndeno(1,2,3-od)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene .
Pyrene
Total PAHs
12
16
20
12
26
12
17
20
5
27
18
12
11
15
29
53
Concentration
Ranqe
ND-14000
NI>-15000
NI>-110
ND-1300
ND-6100
99-15000
ND-270.
ND-530
ND-71
ND-1100
ND-1300
ND-244
ND-24000
ND-370
ND-560
ND-13
ND-180
ND-630
ND-7.8
ND-2600
ND-4100
ND-18
ND-390
ND-8100
ND-2200
ND-37000
.aackqround
Concentration
Ranqe*
1600-2900
ND
ND-21
2.6-5.2
ND-11
1500-2400
ND-70
ND-210
ND
ND-390
ND
ND
ND
ND-O.072
ND-O.20
ND-O.038
. ND-O.085
ND-O.090
ND
ND-0.16
ND
ND-0.02t7
ND
ND-O.039
ND-0.16
ND-O.89
ND - Not detected
* - Based on the analytical results for the three background surficial
. soil samples (BCK-l, BCK-2, and BCK-3).
-
.-
-12 -
-------
Figures 6 through 10 show the surficial soil analytical results for chromium,
arsenic, total PAHs, benzene, and toluene, respectively. These chemicals
were used extensively in past wood preserving operations at the site and
therefore, are good indicators of the extent of site-related soil
contamination. Figures 6 through 10 also show areas of high and moderate
contamination compared to background levels.
As shown in Figures 6 through 7, chromium and arsenic metal contamination is
found mainly in the central process area and in the northeast seasonal
swamp. Significantly elevated concentrations were also found along the
access road and drainage ditch. The highest concentrations of chromium and
arsenic (1300 and 15,000 mg/kg, respectively) were all found at grid point
C-5 which is just south of the creosote unit.
PAHs are mainly concentrated in the western process area as shown in
Figure 8. Isolated occurrences of high concentration were also found along
the access road and the drainage ditch. The western process area was
historically used to unload the creosote from the railroad cars which may
explain the high concentrations of PAHs found in this area. The highest
concentration of total PAHs (37,000 mg/kg) was found at SS-2 near the
railroad. The second highest concentration of total PAHs (11,000 mg/kg) was
found at grid point D-9 which is located in the bed of the drainage ditch.
This sample is essentially a sediment sample, but was taken when the ditch
was dry.
Results of the benzene and toluene analyses shown in Figures 9 and 10,
respectively, indicate that volatile organics are not as widespread at the
site as the inorganics and PAHs, but they are still prevalent. Of the two,
toluene is by far the more prevalent. Toluene is concentrated mainly in the
central process area and in the northeast seasonal swamp. The highest
concentration of toluene (1100 mg/kg) was found at grid point C-5 which is
just south of the creosote unit; Benzene is concentrated mainly in the
southern process area with the highest concentration (71 mg/kg) found at grid
point D-8 which is just east of the metal shed. It is believed that the
source of the benzene contamination is the underground gasoline storage tank
buried at the west end of the metal shed.
A comparison of the indicator chemical analytical results for soil samples
collected at the surface and at depth (5 feet) is provided in Table 2. As
shown, the majority of contamination is found at the surface, particularly
around the perimeter of the contaminated area. Therefore, a sloping
contaminated soil interface does not appear to be prevalent and the results
of the surficial soil sampling program provide a valid determination of the
horizontal extent of contamination.
A composite of these areal extents is provided in Figure 11, which shows
surface soil locations exceeding the cleanup goals for all contaminants of
concern. This area encompasses approximately 150,000 square feet (3.4.
acres).
-13-
-------
J'-
o
»
-u
m
"11"
~m
-<»
~:D
n::E
~o
ro
!"o
z ..
o-u
:D:D
-tm
Z(J)
~m
:D:D
0<
r -
zZ
~(i)
.~
-t
.m
o.
:c
.:D
00
':S::
m-
»c
z:s::
c
-uO
o
G}z
00
»m
'Z
--t
z:D
(J)~
c-
:DO
"Z
o(J)
-
»m
,x
o
(J)m
Om
;=0
(J)z
G)
0'1
"11
G)
C
:D
f11
Z
Q
SCALE IN rEET
"
~ ,-.2.6
\\
~
. \\
-...
-....... -- --.) \
0---
-.-.---- 5.5
-----
18
.
19
.
. ..2.1
,
I
9
.
5.2
.
J.2
. .
J.1
.
83..1 1.1
7.4 . .. .
. 2.1
.
4
.
.
o
100'
.
100
'.8 .
........ ....... .
LEGEND.
. ..1
57 ,. I . . .
10 46.. . 1..1 3 I \ \
...........\ _I" .54. 13. ~2"\
. -4.. 1.1 . .$
. . 58 2.~----~'.1 . 3.1. .,\
..... . 68... , -----~9. .
2 .4.8 . . 15 \ 28 2R r- ~3 \
- -..... 8... 10 14.1 . 54. ")::::--, \
.0 ~2.2 2.1 j8' . I~8 1.1, ~.8 . \ L
-.\.2..2. 1.J8 10 . .8.2 J ....... J
. .. ... - I . I. ,. 12
. 1 26.\.:.1.48 ." . ,I}
4.3. . c. \ 4.2 ..,.
0' .21 1.1 4.... \ .. 7. . I .
2.J. Y
1.2 ,. . 2.2 ..J
.. /
4.8 . . 121 / .
5.81
4.3. .\.. .. I
6.5 ...... ~ /
5~I' ~
12 \( . ~
r- - ...;'~ j:.
(- - . " ~ I~
-..... ~
56.
---
CLEAREO AREA
SAMPLE LOCATION
.
2.6
ANALYTICAl RESULT (mg/kg)
(NO RESULT INDICATES CHEMICAL
WAS NOT DETECTED
SURrACE AREA EXCEEDING CHROMIU'4
CLEANUP GOAL or 88 mg/kg
@
I I
-------
o
>
'"1)
m
"11"'"
~m
-<»
~:J]
~~
~O
"'0
!'Ie
z .
0'"1)
:II:J]
-'m
Zen
o
~m
:11:0
0<
,.. -
zZ
~G)
en
-
....
m
.
>
0:0
ren
mm
>~
Zo
C
'"1)0
G)O
O~
>m
rz
-....
Z:o
en~
c-
:00
"'"z
oen
-
»m
rx
o
enm
Om
re
(f)-
Z
G)
-..J
. .
"', . r
,. 1.2 0.6 -'"' I
, ",-- \ 4!1 .
, ~.7.0 /' '~.)o;,.
5.9 12 \ 21[. ,.. - - ./ 100 0
"1.. ~.... -) \. 6.J. 81... - - I
;;s r<:h,.. " 7.1 Ji 2.2 SCAlE IN fEET
. ~ \. .
~ .8 5.8 17
~ i. jo J 4.8 . . . 81.4
12 .J.1 24 30 . . 2~ \ \
. 8.4 . . J5
~ I . 2' .'-. 38 48 U . ~\
0" .., ~J~ 4.4. . 42 '4 ---.. 28 ..
:t.. 7~ 8 ' 2J 2."" -- -..~4.8 22 1.1 '\
~ 22", . 8 . 2~1' ~;-~~40 \
~ ~ ., .. . \ .. ..-....:;::, ,
~~.. 5l~ 8481.. ., " ,
. .1 2 /.. 10 ,'- . \ .
58..... . i I ...5 .8 J --.J "--
. .... ......~5 I .8. , ..22 ",.. 2.3 -......}:.8
. . .J . 8" \ 1.1 'r
. O~5 65 .52 2.'. ,~.88 . I
'.1 ,. 87.8/ J
8 8 11 /
2..1,
8 \ . /
:'~ /
7~0\\~I.I
. I I.'
" .
,,- - -" ~ ~:.
(~ - \. ~4~6
..... '\'----J .
'\
\'
~.
~
\\
--- \\
-................. --.) \
0"'"--
-..
.----- .
-------
"11
(;)
C
:II
In
Z
o
~
-_.-
14
.
J.4
.
..1.1
.
. CLEARED AREA
SAMPLE LOCATION
2.6
ANALYTiCAl RESULT (mg/kg)
(NO RESULT INDICATES CHEMICAl
WAS NOT DETECTED)
SURFACE AREA EXCEEDING ARSENIC
CLEANUP GOAl Of 94 mg/kg
1.2
.
. .
. .
.
.2.2 .
.
21 . .
1.8
.
t
I
100
-------
-
00
> r-~
"'0 m..-
m »::I:
.,.." Z 0
.m Co
-< >- "'U Z
~:D G> 0
~~ om
~ 0 »z
r- 0 r-i
!" oen :0
~ "'0 z~
:U:ll eno
-t m Z
:J: en C
~ m :0 en
-- "m
:D::D OX
g:s -0
zZ >m
. G) r- m
en enQ
- Oz
-t r= G>
men
CX)
~.
~.
~
. ~
\\
............
.""............ \
.............. -..J
. 0
---
--.-----
......---.............
.,..
i5
c
:u
m
z
o
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
,
1
.
.
2.5
., .
, . r .
'2.7 8.2 -" I . .
"'-:--- \ ...
9 ./' 0..9,) 00. 0.04'
f. ,..--./. .
\ 0.98. 0.\13. . . 1~ 1----1 ?
:".~ . 0~28 0.041
I~ 1 ..
0.7 0.] . . .
J J 2.8.. . \ \
7. .. 8--. 0.8 2.5 1.5.. ~ \ .
. l' -"".08. .
. O.~ -- -- .0.8 \ \
. . ,---~
. 1.1 \ 0.5 ~J80.2 \
~ O.J' ..~ ~~5.8 . \
1.7 '<)iCY . "" \
. 8 I .0.9 J.e. J -- ,J \ .
"""'" ,. A. \.........
\ . ,.. u.4. """- .
.oJ .. \ .).
0.9 . 'a '.8 I
\ .
1 ~ ,. . O.J / J
. . 12.J I
1.2 ,
..\ .. I
0.9 ...... ).. . /
\5'
\ (. l.J
. .
,--_.~ ~
(- - ,,~..
..... '\'----.)
.
100
I
SCALE IN FEET
.
.
.
0~5 0
.
---
CLEARED AREA
SAMPLE LOCATION
..
2.8
ANAlYTICAL RESULT (mg/kQ)
(NO RESULT INOICArtS CHrMICAL
WAS NOT DETECTED)
SURFACE AREA EXCEEDING 2.5 mg/kg
fOR CARCENOGENIC PAHs OR 100 mg/kg
fOR TOTAL PAHs
-------
o
>
'"tJ
m
,.."'"
>m
-<>
~:n
;r:~
~o
'-0
!'Ie
z
0"1)
:u:n
-I
zm
oen
>m
:u:n
0<
,- -
zZ
>G)
en
-
-t
m
I .
m
m
oz
,N
mm
>Z
Zm
Co
"0
G>z
00
»m
'z
--I
Z:n
en~
C-
:DO
","Z
-en
o
);m
,x
o
enm
Om
-e
'-
enz
G)
\D
"
~.
~
\\
. '- \\
-- '-. -..) \
. .0'-
-
. .------ .
. ------............
.
.
.
.
.
LEGEND
---
CLEAREO AREA
SAMPLE lOCATION
.
2.6
ANALYTICAL RESULT (ug/kg)
(NO RESULT INDICATES CHEMiCAl
. WAS NOT DETECTED)
SURfACE AREA EXCEEDING BENZENE
CLEANUP GOAL Of 5 ug/kg
,..
G)
C
:D
m
z
o
(@
.
. . ,
.
. .
. .
. -
. . i
.
. .. 100 0 100
. .
. ...... ...... I .
. .
. SCALE IN fEET
0.8
.
.
.
-------
d
r
C
om
> z
"'0 m
,m 0
., .. 0
~ III Z
m> 0
::.:0 m
~~ z
- 0 -i
~ :D
!'IO >
z. c ::!
0-0 0
:D:o z
J!m en
000
~m z
~:o en
c:~ c
z Z :D
~ G> .,..
-
en 0
=i );
m r-
en
o
-
r-
en
I,
"11
(5
c
~ :D
o m
\'\ .
~.
~ .
\\ 5S. . . ...
\\ " . 210.'. .
, .......... ' 1 . '1 .
---......... '-..; \ .: ,,----'; \ 210 . . . .
D~ ,,00 ,. ,/' 5~,) 00' ,
, 490, ' , f.,.. - - ./ .
"'"--------- 290 ' ' 13.0.. ~(t_..J l .!5~. .
, ... - 590~.
------, ' . 0:',.. . 280
1~ . .'80 . /') J ' . . .
. c....t .
,,280 2'0. .,. \ \
o~ , fJ.,. 52. . ............. -...... . , .. . J\
.:s . l. ' . , -- -.. . 27 \ \
J " ... .. , ~~
- --....... . 110, 39) :. . -"'~'120 \ \
.71 ~280 . .. .., , \
-1..30 2qp. 1/. . .'" --- I'
. . '- ,. ;".J. '---
. 9 .\..1. . ( . '" -
150 ... ...,.
220 ~\ I
. I,. . /..J
. . I
881
. \. . I
. ....... I
~ -'
180\ It ' '
\(
.,- - -)'~'
C- - \.'.
'~ '\
,\
, \\
.
.
t
100
o
100
...... J-4 I I
SCALE IN fEET
.
.
LEGEND
.
---
CLEARED AREA '
SAMPLE LOCATION
.
2.6
ANALYTICAL RESULT (ug/kg)
(NO RESULT INDICATES CHEMICAL
WAS NOT DETECTED)
MODERATELY CONTAMINATED SOILS
(RELATIVE TO BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS)
.
-=>. .
.
.
-------
.
m
x
0
m:I:
0 ~o
> -:0
-u ZN
m G>O
" OZ
: m I~
;:i > ml
-t:O »
-t Zm
m:Ecx
~ 0 -u....
~OG>m
.0 Z
z 0....
O-U>O
:II :0 1
-t en"
:[m
0 en -0
~m Zo
~ ~ enz
~Z ~~
~ G>"3:
(I) Qz
=i >~
m 1-
'en~
0
-
1
(I)
.
""
C5
~ c
~ :II
m
z
o
.
r
-" I
/,-- \
;' /:10
(" r--/
l
"
\
J
~.
~
~
~
---- \\
'-:... ----- -.J \
0---
--..
----- .
--- -----
o
---
CLEARED AREA
SURfACE AREA EXCEEDING CLEANUP
GOAl fOR. ARSENIC. BENZENE.
CHROMIUM AND/OR PAHs
w
,
-
i
100 0
t--I ...... I
100
I
SCALE IN FEET
\\
---. '\
----
,. -..:::- -.. \ \
, -- ~..
~\ ~~'" \ \ .
. , " \
. ,'- \
I ) --J\-.
I ~/ ,
oJ \ )
'- I
\
, / -J
I
I I
I I
\, /
'\r'
\ .
. It
~-- ~ ~
(- - -... '~
-------
I
TABLE 2
CCJ1PARI~ OF 1-FOOT.ANI) s-roar SOIL SNlPLE RESuLTS
CAPE !'EM WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAn:TI'EVILLE, N01mI CUOLINA
Approximate Total
"Depth Chromium Copper Arsenic PAHs Toluene Benzene
sample . (ft) (JDg/1cg) (mg!kg) (mg!kg) (mg!kg) (uCJ!kg) . ( uCJlkg )
MS-Ol 1 2.3 2.3
AAB-05 5 2.4 0.5
A4-01 1 18 4.8 9
A4-05 5 - 0.3
A6-01 1 110 27 41 1300
A6-05 5 8.6 1.6
A7-01 1 240 78 58 12
A7-05 5 120 32 54 0.52 -
B3-01 1 4.1 3.3
B3-05 5 7.1 2.0
B4-01 1 19 3.6 7.9 9500 130
B4-05 5 12 210 150
C2-01 1 11 4.8 9.6 420
C2-05 5 8.7 2.2 130
. C4-01 1 67 13 22 420 130.
C4-05 5 6.4 1000
. C8-01 1 13 15 87
C8-05 5 -
.
D10-01 1 22
D10-05 5 -
E2-01 1 18 8 14
£2-05 5 7.1 2.4
G5-01 1 7.8 6.8 8.9 0.013 55
GS-05 5 4.5 - -
553-01 1 230 20 1,30 8.6 900 8
553-05 5 . 240 6.5 . 180 2.3
-20-
-------
. TABLE 2
(Continued)
Approximate 'l'ctal
Depth O1rcmium Copper Arsenic PMs 'l'cluene Benzene
Sample (ft) (lDIJIkg) (mq!1tg) (lDIJIkg) (IlIg!kg) (uq/kg) (uq/kg)
S515-01 1 4.5 2.9 0.9
SS15-05 5 3.2 0.3
SS28-01 1 1.9 23 10
SS28-05 5 2.4 0.4
EXT21-01 1 5.2 1.2
EXT21-0S 5 0.5
EX'l'22-0t 1 3.2
EXT22-05 5
EXT27-01 1 9 8.8 77 ~ 4
EX'I'27-05 5
EXT29-01 1 3.6 6.4 1.5 27
EX'l'29-05 5 . 4.2 2.1
EX'l'31-01 1 8.2 7.7 8
EX'l'3t-05 5 2.3 2.0
EX'l'34-01 1 26 7.7 5 150
EX'l'34-05 5
EXT41-01 1
EXT41-05 5
DD9-0t t .56 4.3 25 1.3 230
DD9-05 5 20 '2.5 21 0.50
- - Not Detected
~21-
-------
Results of the verticai extent of contamination.analy.es (borehole .amples -
Pigure 12) indbcate that although the .urface i. highly contaminated in
.everal areas, the sub.urface below two feet is generally uncontaminated.
Indicator chemical analytical results for the borehole .amples, including the
background borehole, are provided in Table 3. The only .iqnificant
contamination above background at depth i. the PAS contamination found in
BB-l and BB-2. Hoderate concentrations of PASs were found down to a depth of
approximately 23 feet in BB-l and 46 feet in BB..;2. BB-l i. located in the
area of the creo.ote unloading zone, and BB-2 i. located in the area of the
creo.ote unit.
Since contaminated .oil. from the .ite were land farmed on property owned by
Grace Parker, .amples were collected here to insure that a health risk did
not exist due the.e pa.t di8po.al actions. The Grace Parker property
analytical re.ult. for the chemical. of potential concern are .hown in
Table 4. As .hown, the Grace Parker property has been contaminated with low
levels of PARs. .
3.5
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
Figure 13 locates the installed monitoring wells that provided the
groundwater samples and Table 5 summarizes the concentrations of contaminants
detected in groundwater that were identified as chemicals of potent~al .
concern in the Risk Asse8sment (Appendix C, Section 2.0 of the FS doc~ent).
The complete analytical results can be seen in Appendix A of the RI Report.
In general, analyses of the groundwater .amples indicate low-level
contamination by a variety of inorganic and organic chemicals including
several PARs. The organic chemicals, however, are the only chemicals which
indicate any kind of plume pattern or area of contamination which can be tied
to the site. The inorganic chemicals do not show any kind of pattern and in
most cases, higher concentrations are found off-site than on-site.
Figures 14 through 17 show the analytical results of total PARs and total
BTXs (benzene, toluene and xylene) in both the upper and lower aquifers. .
These contaminants are known to be site-related and for the most part are not
naturally occurring and therefore, are good indicators of site induced
contamination. In addition, .because BTXs do not generally become tied up in
the soil matrix, they are good indicators of the maximum extent of
C'ontamination. As can be .een° in Figures 14 through 17, contaminant plumes
have been identified in both aquifers based on the analytical results. The
plume in the upper aquifer extend. a few hundred feet in all directions
around the wood preserving process area. The plume in the lOwer aquifer
covers only a small protion of the .process area and ia located around well
EN-Ol. The plume in this. aquifer could be the result of contaminants..
migrating through the .emi-confining unit, but i. more likely due to poor
construction of well EN-Ol (an old industrial water supply well) providing
the conduit .for migration. Well EN-Ol is .creened in the lower part of the
lower aquifer. If contaminants were migrating through the semi-confining
unit to the depth of EN-Ol, a greater extent of contamination would be
-22-
-------
s
s
3
o
H3J I-
^\
n O
•m°\-
5 Z
o
Sm
53D O
o
CO
H
m
100
to
O
c
31
m
APE FEAR
PRESEBV1MC
WATER
SUPPLY
POND
V
X
\
CLEARED AREA
• HH2 BOREHOLE
-------
. TABLE 3
BOREHOLE SMPLIN:;. M'tA SUMMARY
CAPE !'EM WOX) nESERVIN:i SIn:
FAYE'rl'EVILLE, tIJImI CARJLINA
ApproximAte Total
Depth Chromium Copper Arsenic PASs Toluene Benzene
Sample . (ft) (JDl)/kg) (mg!kg) (D;l!kg) (mg!kg) (uCJ!kg) (uglkg)
BHl-S1.2 1 5 0.58
S13 3 12 0.6
S1 5 5.8 7.5 -
52 7 5.4 0.3
53 9 24 10 18 2.0 8 4
54 11 12 280
55 13 12 1.4
56 15 10 0.3
57 17 38 1.1
S8 19 8.5 0.7
59 21 . 28
510 23 14 8.2
511 25 7.5
514 31 27
515 36 30
516 41 10 -
517 46 0.8 1.2
518 51 10 2..6 0.6
519 56 7.2 2~8 0.92
520 61 2.4
521 66 2.5
SH2-S1 1 214 32 16 0.3
52 3 9.8
53 5 8.2 2.3 .
54 7 .13 2.6 210
55 9 11 2.8 670
56 11 8.4 22 -
S7 13 4.2 7 2 4.0
58 15 5.2 0.5
S9 17 9 6.9 . 300 17
510 19 5.4 2.1
S11 26 25 - .. 20.1
512 31 20 2.4 6.5
513 36 8.S 2.6 0.7
514 41 6.9 2.7 13.6
515 46 9.6 8.2 4.7 8.2 70
516 51 S.S !3 0.096
-24-
~
-------
TABLE 3
( cantinued)
Appraxiate Total
Depth O1raad\DD Copper Arsenic PASs Toluene Benzene
sample (ft) (DJlkg) (DJlkg) (IDI)/kg) (mg/kg) (u9!kg) (uCJl'kg)
517 56 6.8 11
518 61 2.6
519 66 10
883-51 1 1.1
52 3 5.2 0.68
53 5 0.62 0.6
54 7 14 2.5 7.7 36
55 9 16 2.9 . 0.55
56 11 15 0.75 0.3
57 13 13
58 15 13 0.58
59 17 12 0.3
510 19 10 0.8
511 24
512 29 17 2.3 10
513 31 32
514 33 6.5
515 35
516 39 8.9
517 44 4.6 2.9
518 49 2.5 0.3
519 54 4.8 2.6 0.3
520 59 7.6 8.8 1.8
BH4-52 3 1.4
53 5 6
54 7 6.8 . 2.8
55 9 6.3 1.8
56 11
57 13
58 15
59 17 0.3
510 19
511 21
512 23 ..
513 25 . - NA
515 29 NA
516 36 20 2.9 NA
517 41 NA
518 46 . 5.4 NA
519 51 10 NA
-25-
-------
TABLE 3
(Continued)
.
Approximate Total
Depth Ottamium COpper Arsenic PASs Toluene Benzene
.5ample (ft) . (IDIJIkCJ) (mglkCJ) (mg/kCJ) (mglkCJ) (uCJlkCJ) (uCJ/kCJ)
520 56 15 3.1 4.2 2S
521 61 2.8
8HBCIU-51 1 11 9.1 6
53 5 -
'55 9
58 15 4.9 110
511 21 17
513 2S 5.5 38
517 33 88 3 1.6 66
520 39
523 45 9.6 8.5 12
524 47 . 0.7
530 S9 2.8
- - Not detected
NA - Not analyzed
.'
-26-
-------
TABLE 4,
GRACE PA!Ua:R P!tOPERTY SNIPL~ DMA SUMMARY
CAPE FEAR ~ P!\ESERVDG SITE
FAYE'rI'EVILLE, 00!lTB CMOLINA
GP-1 GP-2 GP-3 GP-4
Inorganic Chemicals (JDg/kg)
Aluminum 2100 Nit. 10. 10.
Arsenic
Barium 8.5 10. 10. 10.
Chromium 4.1 2.2 2.1
Copper 2 6 4.4 6.3
Iron 1400 10. 10. 10.
Lead NA 10. NA
Magnesium 250 NA 10. 10.
Organic Chemicals (u9!kg)
Benzene 53
Toluene 150
PAHs (m9!kg)
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene 0.042
Anthracene 0.10
Benzo (a) anthracene 0.14
Benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene 1.3 1.1
.Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 0.19
Benzo ( a) pyrene 0.44 0.3
Chrysene 0.20
Dibenzo (a, h) anthracene 0.068
.Fluoranthene 0.12 0.3
Fluorene 0.8
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene .35
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene 0.20 1.8
Total PARs 3.2 4.3
- . Not detected
NA . Not analyzed
-27-
-------
I!
!.
LEGEND
--- ~ AMA
. SWPI.! LOCATION
CF-IftIS-01
CF-wD-02
.
. DW-11
~
1f-
t
%.SO 0
~.........
250
500
~
II
II
1\
1\
/...\
I "
~ "
,
\\ I'-... \\
~vJ.1
-"'
. .
CF-wwD-O'
SCAL£ IN nET
. CF-wws-03
r:F-WWD-G4
.
0Yt-t
. a-WWS-05
CF-wwD-Q6
. CF-uws-"
CF-tlWQ-12
, N(W WIU
.,700 nET
DW-11
.
SOUTHGATE. SUIDMSIOH
FIGURE NO.
I.
GROUND WATER 'SAMPLING LOCATIONS
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING. SITe
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROUNA
13.
~ 2,g.
-------
i.
,~
l£GENO '~'I
\~
-- - CtZNtC ..... \
'2 ~ IRED CONCDmtATION It l1l/I ~
ND MaT' ~I_IUI. ~~
o !ITIMm:D AID M c:aNrAMH.11CIN ~
~
"
.~
~
~
.3
~
~""--~.
,
~
I
Z50 0
~......;...t
250
~
500
SCAI.[ IN . nET
. ND
.NO
NO
.
SQUnGIL1I SUIDMSON
FIGURE NO.
TOTAL PAH CONCENTRATIONS IN UPPER AQUIFER.
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
. FAYETTEVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
14
-29-
-------
,~
'\ 'I
'~I.
--- CUM!%) AIIEA \1
12 .lIuUm CONClHTlltA11ON IN UI/I ~~
. ~~
NO NOT U8,'&Io,(g . ~~
o ImMtID MfA OF CONTAMlNA11ON . '~~
~
~
"
~
\
.... \\
""""::::..-\
C
-~
8NO
LEGEND
~.
~:----.--
8ND
~
....
I
250 0 250 500
~.....,-.
SCAI£ IN ~
8 NO
8NO
8NO
SC\mCo\Tt SUIDMSION
FIGURE NQ.
TOTAL BTX CONCENTRATIONS IN U~PER AQUIFER
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAYET~EVIL.LE. NORTH CAROLINA ..
15
-30-
-------
".
LLGENO
- -- QZAIt£D /tIfIA
ND NOT ....1_1&11
eND
o ~1ID MEA t1F CONTAUINoCnON
eND
eND
j
-tf-
I
Z50 0
~....;.....
250
'DD
SCALE IN n::ET'
\\
1\
II
'\
1\
,~'
I "
~ \,
,
\\" "
-:::-~...)I
e NO -'"
e NO
e NO
e NO
NO
~
souncA1I SUIDMSIOH
FIGURE NO.
TOTAL PAH CONC~NTRATIONS IN LOWER AQUIFER
.CAPE : :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
: ~YETTEVILLEt NORTH CAROUNA
16
. - 0,.
- .":1. -
-------
,............~
I~
" '.
LECEND '~I
\,
--- CWMD MSA. . ~~
t 2 WAIl JItED CCIHCDI1RAnaN .. UtI' \
NO NGT ~.lCIoI"" ~~
o ES7IWID MIA " CClNTAllNA1ICIH ~~~.
~
. ~
~ ~
.~ . \ ¥/
NO '-. . ~~~\ 1.--,\
"- C. ND \...5' r-../-
. ----- 0 "
~ NO~l .ND
I t:IJ. 7...---.... \:'
~~ : .F-:-~ \\.
.~ NO ~....Jl.
~ :;;;'-j 2') ,)
....~~ " "Q' "'-.. . l I
........ -.I .~ "\ tI ~ fIiDIC
. NO . L.~p~
NO "
\\
\ '
,\
. \\ . NO
\\
.ND
.~
~
I
250
o
250
500
SCA&Z IN F'tET
~
1\
II
'\
I'
II~\'
~"
{\ ~ \\
~Y'
.ND
.
Ne
. ,
. NO .
souncAt! SUII:IMSION
ND
.
TOTAL BTX CONCENTRATIONS IN LOWER AQUIFER
CAPE: :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
: ~YETTEVILlE, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
17
I
-------
expected in the groundwater, at least out to KW-6. Since KW-6 is located
downgradient of EW-01 and in the middle of the proce.sing area with the
screen in the upper part of the lower aquifer, 1f contamination was ~grating
through the semi-confining layer, then it would be. seen in KW-6.
'1'he plume in the upper aquifer is consistent with the results of the
hydrogeological analysis. '1'heplume in the lower aqg1fer, however, is not
consistent with the hydrogeologic analysis results. Contaminants do not
apPear to be ~grating through the semi.-confining unit into the lower aquifer
indicating that contam1nants are probably not moving vertically as
groundwater moves. Retardation and/or decay processes in the upPer aquifer
and semi-confining unit have most U.kely kept the contaminants from entering
the lower aquifer, to any significant degree.
Figures 18 through 21 show the analyti,ca1 results for chromium and arsenic in
both the upper and'lower aquifers. '1'hese contam1nants are also known to be
site-related and therefore could be indicators of site induced
contam1nation. As can be seen in Figures 18 through 21, however, the
analytical results for these inorganic chemicals do not show any kind of
plume pattern which can tie the inorganic contam1nation to the site.
The inorganic contamination found in the study. area likely exists for one of
two reasons:
* Naturally occurring" conditions or
* Small, local sources of contamination.
All the inorganic chemicals listed in Table 5 are naturally occurring in the
soils of the study area, and given the low pH of groundwater, most of the
concentrations measured for these chemicals are probably within the natural
variation of concentrations expected. This is especially true considering
that the samples are not filtered before being analyzed. Three wells,
however, appear to have an unu8ually high concentration of one particular
element. These wells include KWS-l, KWS-9 and DW-14 which are far fram the
site. Both wells KWS-l and KWS-9 have unusually high concentrations of
chromium, while well DW-14 has an unusually high cOpPer concentration. These
wells have not exh~ited any contamination in the past.
6f the five well8 8ampled and~alYZed for hexavalent chromium (cr+6); only
one showed evidence of Cr+6 Well KW-02 had. concentration of 16 ug/l. .
The other four were below detection limit8.
3.6
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
'1'he concentrations of contaminant8 detected in surface water and sediment
sample8 (sampling location8 shown in Figure 22) are summarized in '1'ables 6
and 7, respectively.'1'he table8 pre8ent the analytical results for those
chemicals identified as chemicals of potential concern in Section 2.0 of the
Risk Assessment (Appendix C, Section 2.0 of the FS document). The complete
analytical results can be seen in Appendix A of theRI Report). .
-33-
-------
%SO 0
,....~~
,~
'~""'I
, I
\,
~
- - - CL.rMED AlItA ~
'2 WfASlIUZ) CONCDtrMnOH IN "1/1 ~~
NO NOT Dmcrm ~~
~~
,~
~ ~
10 ~ ~j,
~ ::::.~~\) ----1..
'--- c8 " '\...S r-.-fJ
---- 0'"
NO.p1 U
fJ I ,.J'J83' (....---- . '~\
~ -..;; r-~- '\
~ ./ .-". \1
"'~ . ;,....J\...
Iff """....., 2'" ,\,)
',f/ .~ ' -.... " . I ,
. "-T , ~T ~ l'
4 ""-.. , ~ ".. . I
~ . --... ~~(raa~
~ ~~~~Q J
~ "
~\ ,,\
I' ""
/,.' 8 \'
~' '\, ,\
(\ ~ '\ ND \\.
~ .I:dl . \\ 8 130
.22:0
. .
LLGEND
47
.
~
~.
'"
2S0
~oo
SCAL£ IN FttT
24
.
sounc.TE SUIlOMSlON
FIGURE NC"
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN UPPER AQUIFER
CAPE: :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
. :AVETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
18
~~, :1
-------
LEGEND
--- CLIN8D lIMA
..
.e. ..". ....-....
~
i
~ 0
~~.....
250
~
h
II
II
1\
I ~
1,'" .
,1 "
\~(::)j)
......
NO
.
500
~ IN nET
.. NO
.
NO
.
sauTHGA1I SU8DMSON
ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS IN UPP=R AQUIFER
CAPE FEAR. WOOD PRESERVING .SITE
FAYETTEVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA.
FIGURE NO.
l'
, I
-------
.ND
12
.
250 0
.... ~......
,~
'\ '1
~I
\,
.~
.-. ~"
---~~ ~~
12 WASlIItID CIONC:DIIM11ON .. UI/I '\
NO NOr ~'_IUI \
~ --
~
~ ~
~- - -~\¥J.,,\
. "- d~~\ l?j,.
- --- -~ - t:I ''''\ 2.3
ND,p I .
1/ JJ I,J). ----- '\
W ~~ I" ;-"e"""" . ';\
,,~_. I 120 )', -Jl..
~~-~- - O~~ ')
--., ~ -, "oJ
~/--' ) I
~ I\AIi - I UIfI\'"': '\. I I
"'-.... I ItaMD ", '-,
---... .~~( - 'CIllO
. ~ ':~~Cy::;>
"
\\
\ \
,\
\\ 27
\\ .
21
.
LEGEND
,
.....
~
250
~o
,\
1\
II
l\
1\
/,.\
I "
~ "
{, ~ "
~ I:dl
25
.
SCALI IN n:ET
~
.
.
NO
24
.
sounGo\TE SUSOMSION
CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS IN LOWER AQUIFER
- -
CAPE: :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE-
:AYETTEVllLE. NORTH CAROLINA - -
FIGURE Nc,
20 -
- I
-------
r-'~~
,~
'~I
~, I
LEGEND . \
--- CWMD .v. . ~
12 MlASlIIUD CCINCIIftRA'ftGN .. "II' ~~
ND ICI' ~J_J&II ~~
. "11~
..ND ~..
. "11-
~~ ~
.~ '\ ¥J.
ND ~::::..~\ 1---1
. C. 2 \....s'r-"'8
. ---- 0 '" 4
~I ,.J)":: (---.;.. I~\.
~ "" F-- '\
'~_~"D .~, "~I
:::::.-- ~. t.3 ,,, Jl..
---.......~~ '::::: ~ ....
y~ -----., Q." ",,)
W~,. : =T " j ','
---- I 'aG "" l, I .
---J ~ ,,,
--.), DICID 'aG
c:.::~~a ~
"
\\
\ \
,\
\\ .
\\
5
.
. .
j
~
I
.5
250
o
2SD
500
"
1\
II
1\
1\
",.\,
~ "
{\" \\
~"...)I
-...
3
.
SCALE IN FEET
NO.
.
.
NO
ND
.
ND
.
.
souncATt SU8DMSlOH
ARSENIC CONCENTRATIONS IN LOWER AQUIFER
CAPE: :AR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
:, IYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
21
.
-------
TABLE 5
GROUND WATn SNlPLING DATA StHWtY
CAfE rEAR IoCOD PIIESERVU¥; SITE.
fAy£'lTt.VIlLE. 1«)11111 CAROLINA
AIWta I other Gujct.ne~ *-1 *-2 *-) ..... 4 .....5 ... lit- 1 ...... .....,
11CL' MCLG] . 2/10/11 2/"/11 2/10/88 2/24/11 2/10/11' I/U/" 1/10/11 1/15/11 2/10/11
Inocqanic Che.ical. 'uq/U.
t.1 u.' nua . IIA HA 1800,) . )]000 1100,) )600.1 ) SO'" UOOJ 110... nOODJ JlOD.J
.Arsenic 50 50lPI J U.J1I n
Ba ri u. 1000 1500'" 220 56 - JlO
. . Ouo8iua 50 UOIPl 10,) 9. IU ZlJII UJ 11J tJ 120JII
Copper 1000151 UQOI" I'J,) 26 19.1 11 6s;, 110J U ..,J
cyanide 1M. HA fOJ -,
Iron ]00(51 HA 140') 24000 1100.1 5fOO 2600J, 5100J 12000J 6)000.1 98DJ
Lead 50 20'" U U
Haqne8iU8 HA HA 640 noo 960 910 1100 100 SID 1100 1100
Orqanic Clte.ieals. , uq/II
Benzene 5 0 J5 2f
2.4-Diaethylphenol IIA HA 140 5J
,Ethy Ibenzene HA 6.0'" 24 fO 11 -
styrene 1M HO", JJ 1
Toluene HA 2000,PI 20 50
I. I. I-Trichloroethane 200 200 U
Xvlenes HA 4401PI 50 ISO UJ
~ luq/II
Acenaphthene HA Nt. '120 f' 100
Acenaphthyl.ne HA Nt. 'JJ U
Anthracene HA Nt. 160 U
. Benzol.,.nthracene HA HA 5J
Chrye.ne HA NA 1J
Dabenzofuun IIA Nt. U 40 ..0
fltaor,anthen. NA NA tJ 50
f~uorene NA NA J5 9.J 110
l-H.thylnaphthaaene NA NA 9. 110 ..0
Naphth..len. NA NA JI 1200 9J
I'h..nanthr..ne NA Nt. 24 U 160 )J
Pyren. HA Nt. u U
ToUI PAIls IIA NA .400 1500 1100 5
-------
TABLE 5
I Continued'
UAII.I other Guidance ......10 .
...... 11 ...... 12 ...... 11 .....u .....15 IIf-ISO .....16 IIt-CIi
-=r 1tCUJ) 2/2)/88 2/12/11 2/24/11 2/10/11 2/U,,1 2/10"1 2/10"1 2/14/11 2/1'/11
NCL
Inor~.nic (he.ic.ls I UCJIII
AlU8inU8 NA NA .400.1 6900.1 1000.1 12000.1 UOOU StaOU J400U tOOO.J
Anenic 50 SOIP, 2 t IJII It .J8 2
BariU8 1000 1500lP' 116 U lOt It
Car08iU8 50 UOIP, 18.JN UJ UJII 44.1 IIJ8 ,U 51.1 UJII
Copper 100015' 13001P, U JIJ 14 U.J .. JU UJ 20 1).1
cy.nide NA "" JOJ 'OJ
Iron JOO,5, "" 11 000.1 noG.J 11 000.1 16,000.1 nooG.J I'OOOJ 11000.1 11000.1 11000.1
lA.d 50 20'" to
KaCJRes1U8 "NA NA 1000 920 1600 1000 1500 UOO 1100 610 510
Organic (he.ic.ls I uCJlII
'-' 2.J
,") " Banaene 5 0
2 ,"4-0iMthv .pheno 1 NA NA IS
Ethvlbanune NA 610lPI - ,
Styrene NA 1401P'
Toluene NA 20001P,
l,l,l-Trichloroeth.ne 200 200 11
Xvlene. NA 440 I P' lSJ "
~ lu~/l'
Acenaphthene ItA ItA n
lleenaphthvlene "" ""
Anthucene NA "" )J
Ban&ol.,.nthr.cene NA "" h
Caryu;.e NA ""
Oibenaofur.n "" "" 18
rtuounthene NA "" U
Fluorene "" "" 19
)'J
2~thylnaphth.l.ne "" "" 680
N.phthAiene "" " "" -
n
Phen.nthrene "" "" 11
Pyrene "" ""
"" "" 840
Tot.l PAils
-------
TABLE 5
IContinuedl
ARAb 1 other Guicbnce EW-02 tH;-1 fM)- 2 *5-) ......4 tlG-S IM)-6 JIG-1 fM)-1
ttCL1 ttCLG) 2/12/88 2/8/81 2/8/88 2/9/81 Z/14/11 2lt/ll 2/1/11 2/9/11 1/Z&/8I
rnorqanic OIe.icAls IU9/11
Alu.inua IIA NIl 29000.1 4200.1 Z4000J )OOOJ "OJ 4600J 1100J ltOOJ
Arsenl.C SO 50lPI UN 6.JN 1 5
Hariua 1000 ISOOIPI sa U
OIro.iua 50 1201'1 16J lZOJ 26.J 99.J zs.m . ZSJ )I.JII
Copper 100015) 1)OOIPI 68.J 50.1 ZU )8.J " lU ZIJ ZU ZO
cyanid. IIA NIl UOJ 110.1 120.1 10J JOJ
Iron )00151 NIl 40000.1 9000J 1400.1 Z4000J nOOJ )lOJ 10000J "OOJ 1I000J
Lead 50 ZOI'I
Klqnestua ..,. NIl 690 1900 1000 5Z0 SSG 180 510
Orqanie Che.ieals luq/ll
I Benz.n. 5 0 S)OJ
~
0 1.4-Di..thylphenol ..,. NIl no
I Ethylb.nune NIl 680/'1 'JIOJ
I Styrene NIl 140 IP I SSO.JII
Toluen. NIl 20001'1 Z.J lJ
1. 1. l-Trichloroethan. ZOO ZOO -
Xylenes NIl 4401PI Z]OOJ
~ luq/ll
lIe.naphthene fill NIl ]5OJ
lleenaphthylen. NIl NIl ZJ
Anthrac.n. NIl NIl 61
B.nzolalanthraeene NIl NIl 9J
Chrysen. fill NIl
Dibenzoturan NIl NIl ZOO
"luoranthen. NIl NIl 70
"luoren. NIl NIl ZOO
Z-Methylnaphtha'en. NIl NIl
NaphthAlene NIl NIl U ).J 21000
Phenanthren. NIl NIl 110
Pyren. NIl NIl
ToUI PNls NIl NIl 4 1ZOOO
-------
TABU: 5
IContanuedl
ARAR.l Other GuidAnce ~-9 tM)- I 0 tfooIS- U tM)-U Elf-t Elf- 11 IIW- U Elf- it 1»-15
ItCL2 1tCLG] 2/8/8~ 2/./88 2/9/88 2/12/88 21t/ll 21t/1. 219/11 21t/1. 219~8
Ino~CJ.nic OIe.ic.ls I uCJ/1I
Alu8inl18 ItA KA 12000J lIOJ 5700.1 1300.1 nOJ 200J
''''uenlc 50 50'PI
Buil18 1000 1500'PI
o.~o.il18 50 UO'PI 9)OJ 21.1 2U 2U
Coppe~ 1000'S) UOO'PI 67.) 20.1 46.J UJ UJ 2U UJ nOJ 2tJ
cy.nide ItA ItA 10,) lU 10.1
Iron 300151 ItA 190.1 640.1 1900.1 1900.1 ]00.1 UOU
lAad 50 20lPI
... <)lie II! 118 N.\ N.\ 520 ]90 500 440 no 750' no no
.
O~CJ.nic o.e.icals luq/lI
'" Benzene 5 0
2,4-Di..thylphenol ItA NA
£thylbenzene ItA 6801PI
Styren4l! ItA 140'PI
Toluene ItA 2000lPI U
l,l,l-Trichlo~oethane 200 200
Xylenes ItA 4401Pl
~ IUCJ/lI
Acenaphthene NA ItA
Acenaph t "y I .me ItA NA
Ionthracene ItA ItA
Benzolalanthracene ItA ItA
OIrysene NA NA
Dlbenzohuan ItA .IIA
'luounthene ItA NA
'Iuorene ItA . ItA
2-Kethylnaphthalene ItA ItA
Naphthalene ItA ItA
Phenanthrene ItA NA
Pyrene NA NA
Tot.1 PIIJ's ItA' NA
-------
TABLE 5
IContinuedl
I
I
AJWt81
IICI. 2
Other' Gulct.nc.
" '
ItCLG ]
.
Pf-I'D
1»-1'
...,VIII1
2/25/11
2/25/11
2/9/11
Inor9anic Che.leals Cu9l11
AlalnWl
Ar..nic
8ariWi
Chro.jWl
Copper
cyanide
hon'
lAad
H8'P'esiWi
IIA
50
1000,
50
, 1000C'1
IIA
)OOC')
SO
IIA
Or9anlc Che.lcals Cu9l11
Banaene
2,4-0i..thylpbenol
Ethylbenaene
Styrane
Toluene.
I. I. I-Trichloroethane
Iylene.
5
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
200
IIA
~~
,All. C u9l11
'~
kenapbthene
kenaphthylen.
Anthrac.n. '
Banao Cal anthracene
Chrya.n. '
Diben.ofuran
'luorenthene
, 'luorene
J-N8thylnaphthalene
"aphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyren.
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
HA
1M
Totel PAIl.
IIA
IIA
50C'1 5
15c;10l'l
UOl'l IU UJ
I)OOC'I J9J J1J 1'.1
HA
IIA 15000.1 22000.1 '
101'1
IIA 4600 4100 UO
.
IIA .
6101'1 a
140C'1 a
1000C'1 a
JOO
440C'1 a
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
. IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
IIA
Applicable or aelevadt and Appropriat. aaquir...nt. C...'al.t As.e....ntl
'ederal Kaai8U8 Conta.lnant Lavel C.ee Ji.t As.e.....tl
'adaral Kad8U8 Conta8lnant IAvel Goel h.. lisk As.e.._tI
IIA . Not Avallabl.; criterion hat not been developed for thl. che.jcal,
CPl. Propo.ed
CSI . Secondary ItCL ba.ad on tl.t. and odor
Conc.ntration Footnote.
. !he cOllpOund va. analYlad for but not detectad.
J . fbl. nU8b8r i. e.ti..ted. !he qualitative an.ly.i. i. .cceptable, but the value cannot be conaiderad a. accurate.
... Pre.~ive evidence of pr..enca of ..terial. There I. avidence that tha ..tarlel i. pra.ent, but for .088 ree.oa or coabinatioa of
not' p:onU r..d. ' ,
I . Data' ~.jected and are totally unu.able.
3M . !h. ldelntiflcatl~n i. tantatlv. and the value I. ..ti..tad.
I
J
]
=' :ii_~II-,1i (
(~~y- -:,-,-~ ~-..,
r.a.on., it ha.
-------
=0 0
1-4t--t~
~o
I~
'~I
\~
~
\~
'\~
~~
'11~
.'. SW'I '11~
=. 18C1ND) '\~
, a
~~
~ ~~~\ 1 ~j,0IL
"'---- \..5' ~.. ..
----- 0 '\ a.v SW4
SWI 0 I.. ..
t "
. ,. t r-/)~~~ ,;,.---- \~
.. 't'~ c -~~ \\
:::''''-'''-:::.:::. .~.. ~ /' - ~ l'~l..
. 1J ;;-7 ~'\. ..) ,')
..... <-r I. SW3 l
. ... ---- , ",/
'00 i'J .. - -..J ~'- I( . !W7
,~~
'--.. ,~
. ",,$WI
\\
\ \
\ \
\\
\\
r ' "-
/ "
~ '"
-- ...-
.... --
." 'L- "
~ ..... "
SW2 ~~'-J-~\ -;>
" I'
.....
L£GENO
-- c::&.INI!D MfA
. ....u LDCA110N
j
~
~
SCA&.! IN I"EET'
~
"
II
'\
1\
1,'\,
~ "
{\ ') )\
~....,,'/
-...
. .
SO~ SU8DMSION
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS
CAPE FEAR WOOD PRESERV.ING SITE
. FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
22
-------
"
TABU: ,
SURrACE WATER SNCPU'" DATA ~,
CAPE reAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE '
rAYLTl'EVtUE, fmR'rH CAROUNA
sW-I
SW-2
sw-)
sw-t
5W-S
5W-5D8
....
, ....1
....1 '
8f""'
2/1/11
ARAR.t
2/1/11
'2/7/88
2/7/11
2/7/11
2/1/11
2/1/11
2/1/11
2/1/11
2/1/11
-
tnorffanic Chellic"als (uCJlI t
Muainua
Anenic
Chroaiua
Coppe I'
Iron
I
~
~
I
Anthracene
O.nzo(atanthracene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
I'yr.ne
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
,500.1 UD.J 700.1 .,20OJ ttO.J 1,00O.J t50J nOJ
190 110n. no UI no
61.1 .u UJ 5SJ JtJ
14.. 21.1 1 SO.I 160.1 19.. 51" 1O.J u,J 20..
no.. 2,tOOJ 1,200" ItO.. .,600.1 1,JOO.J J ,60O.J 2,100.1 610.1
21..
1J
)J
1J
)J
)6
100J
IIA
50
50
15
1,000
51.1
JJJ
110.1
~ (uCJ/1 t
Totel PAHs,
NA
t
- Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate lequire..nts (.ee RI.k Aa.e....ntt.
root note.
. The c08pOURd wa. analy.ed for but not detected.
.I . T1lis nU8ber i. e.ti..ted. The qualitative 8naly..s is acceptable, but the value cannot ba con. ide red a. .ccurat..
N . PresU8ptive evidence of pr..ence of ..ter.al. Ther. is evidence that the ..tarial i. pr..eat, but for ~088 r.a.on or co8bin.tion
01 r...on., it ha. not baen conUraed. '
R . o.ta Ai. r.jected and are totally unusable.
IN . The identification i. tenta~ive and tbe value i. esti..ted.
. Duplicate .a8ple.
NA . Not avaUabl.; ,ha. not been developed for this che.ica1.
-------
TAIIU: 1
. SEDIHEHI' SNtPUID ~TA SlNWIt
CAPE rENt t«)()D PllESERVING SITE
rAYETrEvn.u:, IIJR'!1I CNIOLINA
SD-l .
SD-2 SD-) SD-4 SD-'D SD-S ....., SD-1 ID-I m-,
2/1/11 2/1/88 2/1/11 2/1/11 2/1/11 2/1/11 J/1/11 J/1/11 J/l1I1 J/1/11
Inorganic Che.ical. C I19/kg t
Alu.inu. 95 22,000 .2,800 1,400 1,500 11,000 1,SIO 1,500 1,100 15,000
Anenic 25m 4.6.nt 90.nt UO.nt 1)038 10038 .1"'11 5.138
Quo.iu. - 660 9.4 220 ))0 160 IJ 110 JI 11
Copper 21 110 9.6 11 110 )0 1.J U 15 1,000
hon 160 16,000 1,100 110 910 .,000 ',100 150 ',100 U,OOO
I4Agnes i UI8 4100 160 no 260
~ CuCJlk91
Acenaphthene 1).1 It,OOO
Acenapthylione 16.1
I Anthracene 60.1 U.1 120.1 U,OOO U
~ B8nzoCalanthracene 110.1 4,500.1 6,200.1
U'1
I B8nzo(b and/or klfluoranthene 110J UO.1
BenzoCatpyrene UO.1 110.1
OIIY.ene UOJ ))0.1 6,IIOOJ 1,000.1 5t.J
Dibenzofuran 11,000
Fluounthene J10J 110.1 )6,000 50,000 SlJ tOJ
rluorene 12.1 U,OOO
2-Kethylnaphthalene It 25.1 . . It . . 1,10OJ . .
Naphthalene 1110J
Phenanthrene 12,000
Pyrene - 25,J )50.1 UO.1 n,ooo U,OOO UJ 1'JJ
Tote 1 PAils 50 2,100 1,100 10,000 no,ooo 160 51
rootnote.
a The c08pOund wa. analyzed for but not detected.
,J . This m18b8r is e.U._ted. The qualitative analy.i. ia acceptable, bit the value cannot be con.idered a. accurat..
N . Presu8ptive evidence of pre.ence of ..terial. There is evidence that the ..terial i. pre.eot, but for .088 rea.on or c08b'natioe
of r.asons, it ha. not been confir..d.
It . Data are rejected and are totally unu.able.
.IN a TheidentUication i. tentative and the vaiue is esU_ted.
. Duplicate Sa8ple.
-------
Although SW-2/SC-2 samples were intended to be background samples, the
analytical results indicate otherwise. . Highly elevated levels of scme
inorganic chemicals and the detection of PABS, particularly in the sediment
sample, indicate that this surface water has been influenced by scme source
of contamination. . It is very unlikely the source of this contamination i.8
site-related since .the sw-2/sD~2 samplinq point i. approximately a quarter of
. tile from the site. Becau.e of the uncertainty a.sociated with the.e
.ample., however, the analytical re.ult. were dropped from con.ideration &8
repre.entinq background concentrations.
In qeneral, analyses of the .urface water and sediment samples indicate
contamination by PABs and a few inorganic chemicals. The qreatest .concerns
lie with the drainaqe ditch and diked pond to the .outh, and the seasonal
swamp to the northeast where. elevated levels" of aluminum, arsenic, chrcm1um,
copper, iron and PABs were found. Blev.ted level. of these contaminants were
also" found in the fOJ:1D8r water .upply pond, the drainage ditch to the west
and the concrete plant di.charge pond to the .outheast, but contamination in
these surface water features is not as siqnificant.
The elevated levels of arseriic, chromium, copper and PABs found in the
surface water and sediment samples taken near the site are most likely
site-related since these chemicals were used extensively in past wood .
preserving operations at the site~ Aluminum and iron contamination, however,
is not expected to be site-related. The elevated concentrations of these
chemicals are most likely due to natural conditions at the site. These"
chemicals are typical components of the soils in the study area and the low
pH of surface water and groundwater in the area is probably causing them to
leach from the soils into the water system where they can be easily
transported. Field measurements of pH of natural waters at the site ranged
from 3.7 to 7.9 and averaged 5.3.
3.7
RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
The chemicals of potential concern identified for the site are inorganic
compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PABs) and benzene. The
inorganic compounds include chromium and arsenic.
Due to the uncertainty of land use in and around the site, several different
rand use scenarios were evaluated. The exposure pathways identified under
current land use conditions (keep undeveloped with minimal industrialization)
are the followinq:
*
direct contact with contaminated surface .oils by children
trespassing on the site,
*
inhalation of fugitive dust originating from contaminated soil areas
by site trespasser. and nearby residents, and . ..
*
contact with contaminated sediments by children wading on-site in
the diked pond and drainage ditch. .
-46-
-------
Additional human exposure pathways are relevant if the future u.e of the.ite
and .urrounding area become. either more industrial or re.identially
oriented. The.e additional expo8ure pathway. are:
.
direct contact with contaminated .urface soil. by future resident.
and worker.,
..
inhalation of fugitive dust or~ginating from contaminated .oil area.
, by future workers, and
.
inge.tion ot groundwater from the upper and lower aquiters.
Becau.e -applicable and relevant or' appropriate requirement.- (ARAJl8) are not
available for all chemical. in all environmental media, ri.ks were al.o
quantitatively a..e..ed for the identifiedexpo.ure pathways. !'or lifetime
expo.ure. (70 years), ri.k8 waree.timated a..uming expo.ure concentration.
remained con.tant over time. '
"
Zstimate. of risks under current land U8e condition. are as follow8. For
direct contact ,with .urface .oil. for children tre8pas.ing onsite, the
lifetime exce.s upper bound cancer risk i. less than 1 person out of
1,000,000 under the average case and 1 person out of 200,000 ,under the
plausible maximum case. Ri8k under the plau8ible maximum case is due,to
carcinogenic PAB.. For inhalation of fugitive dust by onsite trespassers,
individuals of the Jackson residence and residence in the Southgate
subdivision, the lifet~eexce88 upper bound cancer risk is les8 than 1
person out of 1,000,000 under average and plausible maximum cases. For
children wading in onsite surface water and exposed to chemicals of potential
concern in .ediments, the lifetime excess upper bound cancer risk is les8
than 1 per.on out of 1,000,000 under average ca.es and 1 person out of
100,000 under a plausible maximum case. No carcinogenic chemicals of ,
potential concern are detected in the residential wells, therefore inge8tion '
of drinking water by current re.idents with residential wells, the lifetime
exceS8 upper bound cancer ri.k is le.s than 1 per.on out of '1,000,000.
Z.timates of risk. under hypothetical future land u.e conditions are a.
follows. For potential exposure associated with direct contact with the .oil
at the site by future re.ident., the lifetime exce.s upper bound concern risk
is 1 person out of 3,000,0000 under the average case and 1 person out of
r,ooo under the plau.iblemaximum case. Rieks under both casee are due
primarily tocarcinoqenic PABs, under the plau.ible maximum case, the risk is
due to ar.enic i. 1 per.on out of 200,000. For direct contact with .oil. by
future worker. on.ite, the lifetime exce.. upper bound cancer riek i. le..
than 1 per.on out of 1,000,000 under averagecaee and 1 per.on out of 200,000
under the plau.ibl. maXimum ca.e. Ri.k under the plau.ibl. maximum ca.. i.
. due primarily to carcinogenic PAB., the ri.k from ar.enicunder the plau.ible
maximum case ie 1 per.on out of 3,000,000. The riek as.ociated with exPOsure
to chemcial. at the maximum detected .ample concentrations would re.ult in
litetime excess cancer risks of 1 per.on out of 8,000. For inhalation of
fugitive dust by future workers onsite, the lifetime excess upper bound
cancer risk is less than 1 person o~ of 1,000,000 under the average and
-47-
~
-------
plausible~imwia ca.es. Ingestion of groundwater from the upper aquifer by
future resident., the lifettm8 exce.. upper bound cancer risk i. 1 person out
of 4,000 under the average case and 1 per.on out of 6,000 under the plausible
maximum case. And ingestion of groundwater from the lower aquifer by future
residents, the lifetime excess upper bound cancer risk is less than 1 person
out of 20,000 Under the average case and 1 person out of 2,000 under the
plausible maximum case. . .
Potential environmental impacts of the chemicals. of potential concern at the
.ite were al.o evaluated. Plant and animal.peeie. potentially exposed to
the chemical.. of concern at the .ite were identified ba.ed on a knowledge of.
the site and surrounding habitat. Ri.ks were a.se.sed by comparing the
reported environmental concentration or the estimated dose. with the sel8C'ted
toxicity value. Ab.olute conclu.ions regarding the potential environmental
impaets at the Cape Pear Site cannot be made becau.e there are many
uncertainties surrounding the e.timat.. of toxicity and exposure.
The maximum concentrations of areenic, chromium, copper and lead found in the
soils of the site exceed level. known to be phytotoxic in at least some
.pecies. The geometric mean concentrations of ar.enic and chromium in the
.oils from the processing area are close to the levels toxic to .ome .pecies
and are possibly at concentrations that are toxic to species which occur in
the area of the Cape Fear Site. Conclusions regarding adverse impact. to
plants at the .ite are .upported by the lack of vegetation across large areas
. of the site. Portions of the site that remain without vegetation offer
little value as wildlife habitat and thus, the habitat value of the area is
reduced. . .
Small mammals and deer that potentially use the surface water of the Cape
Fear Site as a drinking water source do not appear to be at increased risk of
adverse impacts, as the estimated intakes are well below those estimated to
.beassociated with toxic effects. Birds.ingesting water from the northeast
swamp, ditch-diked pond area, and concrete plant discharge pond may be at
increased risk of adverse impact from chromium as estimated intakes are
approximately equal to the derived toxicity value. This may be 'of particular
concern for red-cockadedwoodpeckers, an endangered .pecies potentially
occurring in the area, a lo.s of even a .ingle individual could advereely
affect reproduction (and thus, the population) of this already stressed
species.. There are, however, many uncertainties .urrounding the derivation
at the toxicity value. and the e.timated intakes and therefore, absolute
conclusion. cannot be made.
- - -_...
Adverse impacts may also be occurring in the surface waters of the site. The
concentrations of arsenic in the northeast swamp and the ditch-diked pond
area exceed the .acute and chronic Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for.
this chemical. Chromium concentration. in the northeast swamp, the
ditch-diked pend area and the concrete plant discharge pond exceed the acute
and chronic AWQC. Copper conceatrations exceed the acute and c~onic
criteria in the water supply pond, the northeast swamp, and the ditch-diked
pond area. Aquatic .pecies MOst likeiy impacted are .ins8Cts, other
invertebrates, and aquatic plants. It is difficult to determine the impact
-48-
-------
of the.e advei8e effect. on the aquatic population. of the area. However,
the ob.erved level. of contaminant. in .ome of the .urface water8 at the .ite
probably re8ult in an exclu.ion of aquatic life in the.e water., or a .hift
in commun~ty .tructure toward. 8pecie8 more tolerant of high metal
concentration.. .
4.0
CLBAN1JP CRI'l'BRIA
The extent of contamination wa. defined in Section 3.0, CUrrent Site Statu..
Thi. .ection examine. the ARAR8 a..ociated.with the contaminants found on
.ite and the environmental medium contaminated. In the ca.e. where no
.pecific ARAR can be identified, a defendable remediation goal was
generated. Table 8 provide. a .WIIIII8rY of the environmental mediuma
contaminated, the,clean-up goal. for the contaminant. of concern in each
medium, and a rationale for each .pecified clean-up goal.
4.1
GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION~
In determining the degree of groundwater clean-up, Section l2l(d) of the
Superfund Amendment and Reautho~ization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires that the
.elected remedial action establish a level or 8tandard of centrol which
complies with. all ARARs,be c08t-effective and achieve. a clean-up level that
i8 protective of human health and the environment. Pinally, the remedy
should utilize permanent treatment technologie8 to the maximum extent
practicable.
For those contaminants found in the groundwater at the site, Table 8 presents
the remediation levels the migration remedial alternative will achieve, at a
minimum.
4.2
SOIL REMEDIATION
The Public Health and Environmental A.se.sment in the ~I (Chapter 4),
determined that ri8k. to human .. a re.ult of expo.ure to on-.ite
contaminants via inhala~ion, inge8tion and dermal contact are very low under
;resent Site condition8. Por potential future u.e scenarios, the risk i. .
.lightly higher. Therefore, remediation and in.titutional control. will be
nece..ary to a..ure that an increa.ed risk to human health ia not po8ed in
the future. - - -- - .
Table 8 pre.ent. clean~up remediation level. that the .ource remediation
alternative will achieve.
-49-
-------
TABLE 8
SUI1l1ARY OF CCNrMINATED MEDIA AND CLE:ANtJP. GOALS
CAPE FEAR WCXJD PRESERVING SITE
FAYE'n'EVILLE, tan'H CAROLINA
Media
Site. Related Contaminants
Exceedinq AMRs, Risk
Assessment Values, or
Environmental Criteria
Clean Up
Goals
I'tationale
for Clean Up
Goals
Ground Water
Benzene
PAHs (carcinoqenic)
PAHs (noncarcinoqenic) .
ug/liter
5
10
14,350
a
b
c
Surface Water
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Copper
ug/liter
12
11
14
d
d
e
Soil
Arsenic
Benzene - Leachate Case
Chromium (total) -
Leachate Case
PAHs (carcinoqenic)
PAHs (total)
mg!kg
94
0.005
88
2.5
100
c, f
b
q
c, h
i
Sediment
PAH (total)
Arsenic
Chromium (total) -
Leachate Case
mg!k9
3.0
94
88
j
k
k
- - -- - -
(a) MAR - Maximum Contaminant Level (Ma.) ~
(b) The Contract Laboratory Required Quantitation Limdt (CLROL) is
proposed since the calculated risk assessment value is below analytical
detection limdts. Should the CLRoL reduce with time as analytical
procedures improve, the new (lower) CLROL would become the cleanup
qoal. .
(c) Value derivedusinq reverse risk assessment techniques.
-50-
-------
TABLE 8
(continued)
(d) AMR - Ambient Water Quality Cr,iteria.
(e) The goal'epresents background conditionS since the Ambient Water
Quality Criteria Concentration (6.5 ug/l) is below background.
(f) '!'he future use worker scenario 1s used since this 'is the more likely
future land use and arsenic is not posing a significant risk under
current use conditions.
<.g) '!'he goal represents site background conditions (maximum of the range
'observed) since the calculated risk assessment value is below
background leVels.
(h) '!'he value listed represents a current use scenario since this is more
conserva~ive than the levels derived for the future use worker
scenario.
(i) Value is based on typical background concentrations (from the
literature) since the calculated level necessary to prevent'
future leachate from exceeding a hazard index of 1 in ground water
(60 mg!kg) is less than representative background conditions.
(j) Concentration researched by EPA to be protective of aquatic biota.
(k) The same value proposed for soils is applied due to a similar human
exposure route, and low expected impact to surface water on a
volumetric 'basis.
-51-
. '
-------
4.3
SURFACE t9aTERISEDIMBN'l' RZMEDIATION
The following areas have been targeted for r8lD8cUation: the wat-..:'.upply
road, the northeast .ea.onal ewamp, the drainage ditch .outh and we.t of the
railroad tracks, the diked pond and the drainage ditch. The level of .
clean-up for the. .urface water. and.ecu'ment are al.o 8tated in Tele 8. .
5.0
ALTERNATIVES BVM.tJATBD
The PUrpo.e of the r8lD8dial. action at the cape Fear Site i. to minimize, if
not mitigate contamfftation in the .oil., groundwater, and .urface waters and
.ediment and to reduce, if not eliminate, potential ri.ks to human health and
the environment. The foUowing clean-up objective. were determined ba.ed on
regulatory requir8lD8nt8 and. level. of contamination found at the Site:
* To protect the public health and the environment from expo.ure to
contaminated on-.ite.oil. through inhalation, direct contact, and
ero.ion of .oil. into 8urface water. and wetland.;
* To prevent off-.ite IDOvement of contaminated groundwater; and
* To restore contaminated groundwater to level. protective of human
health and the environment.
Table 9 provides a list of po.sible remedial technologies applicable at the
Cape Fear Site knowing the environmental media affected, the type of
contaminants present and the concentration of each contaminant in each
environmental medium. Table 10 lists tho.e technologies retained after the
initial screening. This initial .creening evaluate. the technologies on the
following technical parameters: ..
* implementability,
* reliability and effectivene.., and
* previous experience.
These technologies addre.. .oils/.ediment., 8urface water and groundwater and
~e hazardous material, tank. and piping and be.t meet the criteria of
Section 300.65 of the nationaL COntingency Plan (NCP~.
- - -- - -
.1"011owing the initial .creening of t.he individual technologie.,. the.e .
technologies were combined to form a number of remedial action alternative..
The.e alternative. addre.. the contaminated .oil. and .ediment., .urface
water and groundwater, and hazardous material., tanka. and piping, and are .
li.ted in Table. li through 13, re.pectively.. The.e remedial action
alternatives are than .creened and analyzed in relation to the nine point
criteria. . . .
-52';'
-------
~9
POSSIBLZ RBMBDIAL TBCBHOLOCIBS J'OR SOIL
ARD SBDIH!N'1'S Am) GROtnmWATBR AlII) StJRPACB WATBR
".ponae Action
Tec::hDology
SOIL AIm SEDIMENTS
Jt.8mcval
bcavation
Sediment Dredg1ng and Dewater1ng
Treatment
Attenuation
Wa.hing
Plu.hing
Immobilization
Biodegradation
Thermal proce.sing
Incineration
Containment/
Migration Control
Capping
On-.ite Bncap.ulation/Landfill
Solidification/Stabilization
Vitrification
Subsurface Barrier.
Off-.ite Landfill
GROtnmWATBR AND StrRPACB WATER
Collection
Extraction Well.
Sub.urface Drain.
Treatment
Air Stripping
Steam Stripping
Aeration
Spray Irrigation
Vacuum Extraction.
Plocculation, Sedimentation,
Activated Carbon Ac!.orption
Prec::ipitation
Ion Exchange
Rever.. Oamo.is
Piltration
..
Disposal
. "'.
Discharge to Surface Water
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Aquifer Recharge
Plant
~
-------
TML£ 10
RETAINED TEOOIOIDGIE5, APPLlCNlLI ttEOlA, AND OONI'NUNNftS
. CoNsIDEJlED fOR ALTERHATIVES DEVELOPHEHI'
CAPE rEAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
fAYETTt.VII..L£, NOIm. CAROLINA
Hedia
Ae.pon.e Action
.e..dial Technoloqy
AppU~abl. to
50i I/Sedilaent
Re~vl1
E.~avation
Sou. ) cleanup IJoa...
DndIJ&I'IJ
5edi..nt. ) cleanup lJOal..
.ContaiRMnt
CappinIJ
Soil. and davatered .edi8lfttl, .11 ~ont..t...tl of interalt:
AS, bena.ne., Cr, PM..
Traat..nt
WashinIJ
50il. and ..di8lftt., all cont88dnantl.of i.taraat:
AS, benaan., Cr, PM..
Ther..1 proce..inIJ
soil. and ..di..nt., orCJanic.cont..tnant.: beDa... and 'AH..
Solidification/stabiliaation
50il. and .edi8lftt. with AI aDd Cr contl8iaation.
Ground wo1Iteri
5l1rf.ce w.tel
R._val
...11 pointa
upper aquif.r, e.traction of ,round vater) cleaoup fOal..
OI.p Well
Lower aquiter, ..traction of CJround wlter ) eleaDup fOI1I..
Pu~in«J
Tnnerer of IJround vater and .uda~. Water) el.anup fOl".
Particulata re-val in ,round vat.r and 'urfa~.vat.r in
a..ociation vitb otber tr.at88nt tecbnololJie. I~arbon
adsorption, precipitationt.
Traat..nt
Flocculation, ..di..ntation,
and filtntion
Carbon Adsorption
Re_val of orlJanic and .081 inorlJanic con.tituentl in IJround
vater and .urface vater.
PrecipHaUpn
.e_val of volatile or«Janic. lbenaenel fr08 CJround vatar.
,
..-val of ..tala 'AI, total Cr, Out rr08 .urraca Mltar and
onsite va.tevater.
Ai r st rippinIJ
Db~harIJe
To lurra~. vat.r
Tre.ted erfluant.
To P01W
Pretre.ted effluent.
-------
TABU: 10
IContinuedl
.~ .
Media
aesponse Action
Applicable to
a...dial Technology
Hazudnus Haterials,
Tanks, and Pipinq
ae_vII
ConhilUMnt
Treat..nt
Dispou 1
I'
(1
Excavation
Containerization
offsite Transport
aeduction
Solidification/stabilization
Prec:ipHaUon
offsite Landfill
Scrap "etal
Pipelines and the underqround fuel tank.
Apparent CCA crystals, aSlu.ed albestol inlulation, cr.osote-
conta.inated soiidified eludqe, CCA lolution.
CCA solution.
Creosote-conta.inated lolidified sludge.
+,
and C~t vaste~,ter, Cr treat..nt
of Cr to Cr .1
CCA solution
I Reduct.ion
if nec"lI8ry.
I
CCA solution, CCA conta.inated vastevater, .and lurface ..ater
tnated onlite.
Apparent CCA crystall, allu.ed asbeltol inlulation, creosote-
conta.inated solidified sludqe, CCA lolution, CCA conta.inated
vastewater, tank. and pipin,.
Tanks and pipinq.
As = Arsenic
cr.6 . Chro.iu. Itotall
Cr . lIa..valent chro.iWl
CU .. Coppper
PAU . Polycyclic .ro..tic hydrocarbon.
-------
TABLE 11
. .
DEVELOPMENT OF RE:l1E:DIAL ACTIOO AL'l'DNATIVES
. FOR SOILS/5£DlMENTS
CAPE FEAR ~ PRESERVING SITE
. FAYETl'EVILLE, NORTH CMOLINA
Alternative
Technologies Employed
15.
No action .
Natural flushing
Excavate isolated areas of soil contamination
Excavate/dredge sediments
Dewater dredged sediments
Cap s011s and dewatered sediments
25
3S
Excavate/dredge soils and sediments
Wash excavated materials onsite
Water supply source:
A. Purchase from Fayetteville Public Works Commission
and truck to the si te . .
B. Purchase from a private water company and pipe
to the site~
C. Install an onsite well outside the contaminant
plume area.
Redeposit washed soils/sediments in the excavated area
45
Excavate/dredge soils/sediments
Dewater dredged sediments.
Thermal process excavated materials
Solidify/stabilize processed soils/sediments and
redeposit in the excavated area.
. .
5 denotes remedial alternative for soil/sediment.
[
i
I
-56-
-------
. .
TABLE 12
DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIAL ACTICN ALTERNATIVES
FOR GRCXJND WATER AND SURFACE WATER
CAPE FEAR WOOD PBES~ SITE
F.AYE'r1'EVILLE, M)RTH CAROLINA
Alternative
Tedmoloqies Dlployed
!We
No action . .
Long-te~ gr~ water monitoring
2W
.
Ground water extraction by well points and a deep well
Flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration.
(surface and ground water)
Activated carbon Adsorption (surface and ground water)
Discharge treated effluent to surface water (western ditch)
Ground water extraction by well points and a deep well
Flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration
(ground water and surface water)
Air stripping (groW1d water)
Activated carbon adsorption (surface and grOW1d water)
Discharge treated effluent to surface water (western ditch)
3W
4W
Ground water extraction by well points and a deep well
Ground water treatment
Filtration
Air Stripping
Activated carbon adsorption
Surface water treatment.
Precipitation
Flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration
Discharge treated effluent to surface water (western ditch)
Ground water extraction by well points and deep well(s)
Pretreatment .
Precipitation. (surface and ground water) .
Flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration (surface
and ground water)
Discharge to ~
SW
e. .
W denotes°t:emedialalternative for ground water or surface water.
,-57-
-------
T1\BLE 13
DEVELOPMENl' OF. REMEDIAL ACTIOO. AL'I'DNATIVES
rea IIAZMDOUS. MATERIALS, 'rMKS, AND PIPING
. CAPE rEM WOOD PRESERVING SITE
FAYET'1'EVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
!tate rial .
. .
Alternative
Technologies Employed
...
Apparent CCA CrysU:ls
..
Asbestos Insul,.tion
. (Assumed). ..
SOlidified Sludge f
lC
lA
Offsite landfill (hazardous). .
Offsite landfill (nonhazardous). .
CCA Wastewaterand/or
CCA 3' Solution
lSS
2SS
lL
Onsite disposal.
Offsite landfill (hazardous).
Treat wastewater and solution
onsite for Cr.' .
Treat wastewater and solution
onsite with surface waters-
2L
Treat wastewater and solution
offsite.
Tanks and Piping
3L
1 T/P + 2T/p
. Transport CCA solution offsite.
Locate (Piping)
Empty (Tanks)
Excavate (UST and piping)
Drain/purge (Piping>
Clean (Tanks and Piping)
Cut (Tanks and piping)
IT/p
2T/p
Dispose of as: .
Scrap metal
at an offsite landfill
(nonhazardous)
. .
C denotes Crystals (apparent CCA)
A denotes Asbe~tos (assumed)
SS denotes Solidified Sludge .
L denotes Liquid (CCA Wastewater and/or CCA3%
TjPdenotes Tanks/piping
Solution)
. .
Based on visual characterization. These materials were not sampled.
UST - Underground Storage Tank.
-58-
-------
5.1
NINE POIH'P- ~t1ATION CRITERIA PaR EVALUATING REMEDIAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
lach alternative was evaluated u.ing a number of evaluation factors. The
regulatory ba.is for th... factor. come. from the National Contingency Plan
(BCP) and Section 121 of SARA. Section 121(b)(1) .tates that, 8Remedial
action. in which treatment which permanently and .ignificantly reduce. the
volume, toxicity or mobility of the hazardous .ub.tance., pollutant. and
contaminant. a. a principal e18lD8nt, are to.be preferred ove~ remedial
actioD8 involving ..uch treatment. The off.ite tran.port and di.po.al of
bazardou. .ubstance. or contaminated materials without such treatment should
be the least favored alternative remedial action where practicable treatment
technologies are available.8
Section 121 of SARA al.o require. that the .elected remedy b8 protective of
buman health and the environment, co.t-effective and use permanent. .olution.
and alternative treatment technologies or re.ource recovery technologies to.
the maximum extent practicable.
Based on the statutory language and current tJ. S. BPA guidance, the nine
criteria used to evaluate the remedial alternatives listed above were:
1.
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not the remedy provides adequate protection and describes
how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Com1)liance with ARARs.addresses whether or not the remedy will meet
all of the applicable or r~levant and appropriate reqUirements of
other environmental statues and/or provide grounds for invoking a
. wavier.
3. . Lona-Term effectiveness and oermanence refers to the. ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met. .
4.
Reduction of toxicity. mobility. or volume is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
5.
Short-term effectiveness involves the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the con.truction and
implementation period. until cleanup 90al. are achieved.
Im1)lementability is the technical and admini.trative fea.ibility of a
remedy including the availability of goods and services needed to
implement the chosen .olution. .
6.
7.
~ includes capital and operation and maintenance costs.
.
-59-
. ~
-------
8.
SUODOr1: Aaencv Acce~ance indicate. whether, ba.ed on its review of
the Ri/ps and Propo.ed Plan, the .upport agency (IDEM) concur.,
oppo.es, or has no cOlllll8nt on the preferred alternative.
9.
Communitv Acceotance indicates the public .upport of a given remedy.
Thi. criteria i. di.cu..ed in the R88pOnaiven.ss Summary.
5.1.1
OVERALL PRO'l'BCTION OP BtJMAN REAL'l'B AIm TBB BNVIROHMEHT
All of the alternative., with the exception of the no action alternative,
would provide adequate protection of human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling ri.k frcaa the envi.ronment through
treatment, engin_ring control. or in.titutional control.. A8 the no action
alt.rnative doe. not .ati.fy the r_dial action goal to provide adequate
protection. of human health and the environment, it i. not eligible for
.election. . The a.pect. con.idered in this evaluation are .WlllD&rized in
Table 14. .
5.1.2
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARS
All of the alternatives, except for the no action alternative, would meet al]
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement8 of Pederal and State
environmental laws. Section 6.6 (Table 21) li.ts the environmental
regulations, policies and guidelines that are applicable to the Cape Pear
.it.. Table 15 presents a summary of this evaluation.
Since all contamination on site is characterized as contaminted Boil and
debris and there iB no RCRA characterized was-.:a on-site, land ban
requirementB, as defined in 40 CFR 268, are not applicable at the Cape Pear
8ite.
5.1.3
LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS AND PERMANENCE
The a.pecta of this evaluation are .ummarized in Table 16 under the column
entitled -Long Term Remediation Impact.
5. 1.4 . REDUCTION OP TOXICITY. MOBILITY. OR VOLO'KE
The a.pect. of this evaluation are also .ummarized in Table 14 under the
column entitled -Long Term Remediation Impact-.
5.1.5
. .
SHORT-TERM EFFECTIVENESS
The aspecta of this evaluation are .ummarized in Table 16 under the column
entitled -Short Term Remediation Impact-.
-60-
-------
. I
TABLE 1 It
StMWIY or IO€DIAL ALn:ItNATIVES EVAUIA7JOII
CAllE rua tQ)O PllESERVI... SITE
rUETrEVULE, II>R'I1I CAIIOUIIA
. .
aa..daal Altarnativa
. 'l'M:hnic.l
Conaidn.Uona
Public Health and Envir-ntal
Considerations
Short Tar.
..-.diation 18p8ct
Lon9Tara
....djation 18p8ct
InstituUon81 .
ConaideraUona
Esti..ted Cost UUUions $1
'l'i. ror Total .anCJa Based
18pI....taUcin ..r.sent on Sandtivitv.
e,..ral Worth Anelvs"
I 0 0
I.n 2.10 l.l9-).)0
I
m
.....
.
IS:
No action
lS:
Partial ..cava-
t.ion/dr.dl)inl)
of soil. and
s.di.nU
with surfac.
cappin9
)S:
Excavat.ion/
dr.dqinl) wit.h
soil and sadi..nt
wa.hanl)
008. not r-.ov. or
contain cont&8!nant..
Conta.inant. ar.
.tored, not cIe.troyed
or r.80ved. 11118 is
an .rfecti~ proc...
to pr.vent direct
. contac:t vitia contaa!-
nated ..teriah and .
.ini.i.. v.rtical
infiltration. Con-
t..inated .0Ua below
the 9rOUDCl .t.r tabla
.r. riot ~...ed.
Soil/.ed1aant ..hin,
18 considered to be
an innovaU va tec:h-
noloCJV for ba.aretou.
applicaUona. III.
abilit, to ..t ca.an""
9Oal. for or,anic and
inor,anic cont..inanta
8U.t bedeaoaatrated by
tr..tability t..tin,.
'r08i.ihCJ r..ult. have
been obtai.... for PM..
CCA "ill be 8Or. diffi-
cult to r_v..
IIot .pplicabl..
OUst r.l.a..s durin9
..cavation and dis-
plac..ntof aquatic
biota due to dredCJed
.edi-t... EndanCJ.r.d
plant .peci.. Ii'
pr.s.ntl could al.o be
disturbed.
OU.t r.l.a... durinCJ
axcavation and di.-
pl.ca..nt 01 aquatic
biota due to dredC)ed
sed1-ta. EndaDCJ.red
plant apeci.a lif
pr..ant. could .1.0
be di.turbed.
IIot .pplicabl..
Dacra.s. in conta.i-
nant aobility and
reduction of diract
contact rhll.
Dacr..... in con-
taainant 80bility
and _1_, raduced
direct contact rilll,
and reduc.d l.achin,
to 9round wet.r/
.urfac. wet.r.
rutur. land 'II.
and deed
1 r..tric:tiona.
rutur. land us.
and deed
rastriction. .
rut.ur. clev.lop-
_t .u~.
1.5
11.00
4.)0-20.01
-------
'DllLI 1 If
I ConUnued I
Public H.alth and Envir~tal
Con5ideraU0ft8 I.Uut8cl co.t IIUllions $1
t'8ci.aical Ti.. For 'fatal IanCJ. 'Baaed
Short T.r. LanCJ T.r. , In.UtuU0IUI1, 18Ipl.-ntaUon. 'r...t 0' Sensitivity
R...did Alternativ. Con.ideraUOIUI R~i.tion 18Ipact .-di.tion IlIpoIct Condderation. Iy..r.t Worth Analysia
4S: £acaviltioR/ fbi., coabinati- 01 Potenti.l air ..i..ion. Deer.a... cont..i- Futur. «I8"lop- 1.5' 1t.0J 5.61-26.14
dr.dcjinCJ of technolOCJi.. i. ..pect- durinCJ th.r..l proc...- nant f\IT IV. Duect _t aU~.
50i 15/..di_nt8 oed to ..cNd cl.... int could contain toaic contact rhll and
with th.r..l 9081. .inc. ..,.rat. ,a... I-tal oaide.t. cont~nant l.achin,
proc..sinCJ .ndVor tr..t..nt i. prowlded Dhplac_t ot to surt.c. and CJround
solidification for orCJanic and aquatic biota and -t.r .hould be
inorC)anic cont~nant.. endanCJ8red plant CJr.at1y raduc.d.
A' laboratory .bum. .peei.. lit pr...ntl
'_ld be required to durinC) .acavation/
..tabli.h operaCiAt dred9int.
INn..C.r.. Leachat.
t..tint _ld be
required for'.olidi-
h.d uC.dai.. Vol-
'-'1 UM incr.... fr-
~ .olidification uy be
I objectionabl..
GROUND WATER AND SURFAcE WATO ALTEllV.TIVES
lW: No action 008. not r880v. or IIot applicabl.. IIot applicabl.. Deed r.atriction )0 O.S' ./A
IAnCJ-T.r. contain cont88!nant.. for COIUI\8ptiv. l_itodn,1
tton it 01 inC) A.RAa8 ar. .aceeded. CJr~ wt.r ua..
ttonitor. off.it.
conta.inant attJation.
-------
TABLa I"
(Continuedt
Public H.alth and Enviroft88ntal
Considerationa
H...d,al Alt.rnativ.
Y8d8icIl
Coed. rations
InstituUonsl
Consi.raUons
Sbort T.ra
letll8Ctiation IlIpact
Loft, T.n
....diation IlIp8ct
lati..ted
''i.. For
lilli_taU. .
. e,.arat
COlt Uli
'Iota 1 I
'r..eat 01
North
:cr-
'ity
2W; Flocculation, It 18 e.pected that Sludte ,en.ration 1I.~ed public IIPD£S perait for
s.da..ntation, cleanup 9081. for .AHI and .Uailt8tion of h.alth ria. alloci- aurfac. ...t.r
F' Hr.Uon "i11 be _to Coataai- e.i.ti., aquatic ated with iDq8ation. diacbar98.
Carbon Adsorptioe ...t cOftCeatrltion. biota elf ,r.a.ntl .~ed toaicity to
Dncharq. to 'or blnleae, copper, duri., lurfli. wat.r aquatic biotA and the
Surfac. Water chroaiua and araeraic r-.ueUon. r8d-c:ochded ~
wi11 be reduced but pec..r. 8ft endaa,.r8d
...tin, AlAlIa ~. I... apeci.a.
c.rtlia. .,..ti., would
be required to a.....
I th. achi.vable contaai-
I ...t reduction.. --
I I covery of the full
0\ ,round water ,1.... "Ill
w requira offait. acc'..1
I .a._at..
]N; Flocculation, Cl.anup 9Oal. for 'AH. Sludte 98ft8ration. .educed public . IIfOIS penit for
S.di..ntaUon, and blnl- ahould e1iaiuUon of h.alth ria. a.aoci- .urfac. ...ter
Filtration be -to A8 with .ai.ti89 aquatic biota ated with iata.tioa. diacbar98'
Air Strippin, MtemaUve JW, nul ei" ,...entt. lAd ail l8dlac:ed tOlicity to
Carbon Adso~tiOD CCA r880vIl .'ficlen- eada.ions containin, 8q\t8tic biota aDd the
Discher'). to d.. _t be ~- volatile or,anic r.d-cochded ~
sure ace Water .Ulted throuCJb coataai"",h. pec..r, 8ft .......r8d
telUn9. l8covery of apeei... Graatar
the full ,rOUDd ...ter datr.. 0' rid
, ,1- wUl require r~Uoa (thM Nt
oUllta acce.'1 achieved by woe
.a._t.. traat_t.
J~6
].6
).40
].42
-------
,.
~
~
, .
TABU 1'1
(Continued I
aa..dial Altarnativa
t'ectalcal
OI88ideraUan.
Public "alth and Envir~tal
Considerations .
Short Tam
.a88diation ~ct
Lont Tar.
....diatioft l8pAet
lnlUtuUonal
ConsideraUon.
.1.U..t"
Ti.. 'or
IlIpl_taUan
(yeanl
COlt
Total
'ral.t
_rth
(l1111ianl $1
IanCJa ....d
an S_litivity
IAnalysh
4W:
Surtaca Watar
Pracipitation
flocculation,
Sadi..ntation,
filtration
Ground Watar.
Filtration
Air StrippinCJ
Carbon Adsorption
Discharqa to
Sudac. Watar
SW:
flocculation.
Sadi_ntaUon.
Filtration
DischarCJ' to
I'O'N
All ("1.... peb 8Dd
..,... Ihoulcl be _t.
Jecov.ry 0' u.. full
,round ~ter plU88
vill require o".ite
acce../.a......t..
. .
All cl.aaUp 9Oa1l
.hould be _t. fte
8O.t co.t-e"ective
pretreat88Rt proces.
.hould be detenained
bv treatabilUy
te.U",. lecovery 0'
the ''Ill ,round vat.r
plU88 will require
oUlite ace"'1
aa......t.. 'ipi",
to POTM viii also
require eaa....t..
S1udt. 98ftaration and
eUldnaUon ot
esi.tin9 aquatic biota
(if pres-U, *ar inCJ
lur'ace vater
.re88diaUOD.
SludCJ. 98ft8ration and
eUldnaUon ot
a.i.tin, aquatic biota
(i' pr.l.tl, *arin,
lurtace _ter
l'e88diatioo .
Gl'aater .de9I''' 0'
rhll r~tion thaa
lW or ]V becaus.
tr.at_t dh-
tinejUish.. betveen
eliU.r.t contaai-
nanta in CJroundwat.r
and surtac. vat.r
r.spectiv.ly (orCJanic
.,1. i_r'Janic I. .
Gr.at.st deCJr.. ot
risll r~Uon.
Contaainatad ,round
vatar and surtac.
vatar ara a.tract...
stt1uent ia elil'ect
to. POfW rathar thaD
aita lur'aca vat.l'.
III'DU peridt 101'
a"daca vater
elischar....
Local JON ..st
accept sita
valt_ten.
J.I
t.'
J.65
J.1t
J . 51-4 . It
J.U-J.S1
-------
I
TMLE 118'
I Continued 1
Public H.alth and Environaental
Considerations IsU.ted Cost 1$1
Ti. Por Total Ian,. "sed
~cal Short T.r. Lon, T.r. InsUtuUonal 18Ipl_tation 'r.s-t on S_IHivity
....dial Alt.rnativ. CouideratiOlUl a.88diation l8pact l888diation IlIpAct ConsideraUona Iy.aul NDrth I Analysis
IC: OUnt. l.ndUIl Ili.inat.. the rl.II 01 NDrll.r ..posur. ~rin, aeduced In,.ationl Ha.ardDu8'.st. 0.1 1.600 iliA
I' Ihala'rdousl 01 onsit. ..posur.. r._val. direct contact riall 8MU.at .....
I appar.nt CCA to wUdl U. and transport br a
:t crystaas pot.nU.1 hUMn lic.sed haul.r
..posur.. Effectiv. to pe rU tted lIeU.
containMnt dependa facUity.
on inteCJrity of the
aaA facility.
IA: oUut. landUll III.in.t.. the riall of NDi'II.r ..posur. ~rin, Reduced In,.stionl "-"if.st ..... tranaport 0.1 . U.500 II/A
Inonha.ardous' 01 onait. ..poaur.. r._val. direct contact riall bv Uc....ed baul.r
ass~d asbestos to wilcU U. and to perU tted lIeU.
insulation. pot.nthl h- facility.
..poaur.. Effectiv.
" contain88nt dependa
,0\ on InteCJrity of the
'(.11
. aaA facility.
155: Onsit. dhpold Direct cont.ct ri.II NDrll.r ..poaur. ~ri", Reduced direct PUtur. I..... u. 0.1 n.100 iliA
of solidified reduced In a..od.tion r-val. contact risll to r.stricU..
sludCJ. with a cap. SoUdiU- wUeIl U. ..... a..an po..ibl..
cation 8hould l~t ..posur,.
80bUity but the
.tria .y 100..
inteCJrity ov.r ti..
255: Of hilt. disposal Ili.inat.. the rlsll 01 NDrll.r ..pollur. ~ri", .educed di rect "'.ardDu8 wet. 0.1 28.900 N/A
of sohdiU.d onsit. ..poa..r.. r._val. contact risll to unif..t. 7ran.port
sludCJ. wildlife and h- br lic....ed ~ul.r
..poaur.. Effectiv. to pera!tted lIeU.
contai_t dapenda facility.
on inteCJrity of the
8C8A facility.
-------
I
TABU 1 It
I Conti nuedt
Public H.altb and Environ88Dtal
Con.ielarationa I8ti_ted Coat 1$1
~ical Ti- ror Total ....,. ..aed
Short T.r. a-, T.na InatituUonal IliIpl_tatiOlt .r..eat, Ion S.nsitivity
,a...dial Alt.rnativ. CauI-raUon. a.~ation l8pact a-diation l8p8ct Condclarationa Iy.ant North Ana lyai I
lL: onsit. tr.at-.nt I8pected to ...t ' ,Sludge 98n. r a ti on ..-ced ap111 DDES penait 0.1 104,000 RIA
01 CCA solution UA88. .i", C8tw- ~dD4J tr.at_nt. potent ial and or acceptanc. by
andVor wa.t.wat.r nant coaceatration. contuinant JON.
with dischar,. to; will po.. .pecial .i,ration.
surfac. wat.r con.iclarationa to
_t IIPIIES or I'O'IV
requir......ta .
2L: OUsit.tunlport Eli.inat.. the ri.k 01 ~ciclant risk ~. to a.~ed .pi 11 H..ar"" ..t. 0.1 126,100 RiA
and tr.at_nt 01 onait. ..po.ur.. olfait. sbipaent'I12 pot_tial and ....U..t. Transport
CCA solution tank.r ,truck. with contaainant by lic....8CI hauler
and/or wa.t.wat.r ha.ardou8 liquids I. ai,ratiOD. to penaitted aatA
Eflectiv. contain- facility.
I _t clapen4a 00
en int.,rity 01 the
~ aatA facUity.
I
JL: Offsit. tran.port aecycl.. CCA .olution. Accident riak due aeduced ap11 1 Liability waiv.r UDder 0.1 25,500 RIA
or CCA solution. CCA contwnated to o"ait. .hipalnt pot_tial and CEIIC1.A _t be ,r..ted.
..tewat.r would be 110 taDk.r trucks contaainant effective .p111
tr.ated on or 0'"it. witla haurdoua ai,ration onait.. pr.vIDtioa, coatrol,
IAlt.rnativ.. lL or liquids t . and COUDt.ra.a.ur..
2Lt. MOuld be required at
tit. r.locaUon
lacUity.
IT/P; a..val and Eliainat.. wa.t. Contaainated wat.r aeduced ap111 IPA c.rtificatioa' 0.1 1112 , 400 t RIA'
c1..ninC) 01 dispoaal'conc.rn.. CJ8II.rated in wash pot_tial and t.lt8t tanll. ar.
tanks and pipin, proc.... Potential contaaiaaDt nonba.ar"".
a.cycl. as scrap air r.l.a.. 01 ai,raUOD.
Is.ll t volatil. contuinant.
~r"', ..cavation.
ZT/P; a..val and aa.v.. old tank. and Contaainated wat.r aeduced Api 11 "-nir..t and tr8A8port 0.1 81,900 MIA
c1.aninq 01 pipinq Ira. the .it.. ~rated in walh pot_tial and by . licea.ed haul.r
tanh and pipin, proc.... Potential contaai_t to penai tted 8CJIA
Dispos. 01 air r.i.a.. 01 aigraUon. lacility pr.'.rred.
orbit. in a volatil.contaainants
nonhazardoua ~riD4J ..cavation.
landlill
-------
. \
..
TABLE' 5
SlIttWtY ~ IIISTITVI'IONM. AND u.I8I US& USftICTIOMS
CAPE rEAR. WOOD PRESERVING SITE
rArETI'EVIUE, NOIt'I'It CAIIOUNA
ACTMTIES
RDtEDIAL ALTEIUV.TIVE
rDtCINGl11
ra:o
USftICTIORS
u.I8I USE
UIID
IIIWLOI'f8Irr
G80UND
tan:a us&
SOIL NIl) SEDIHENr AL'I'EMU'IVU
as:
No khon
,.. ,.. ,.. r.. "/A
,.. ,.. ,.. 80 ./A
,.. 80 Nd 80 iliA
,... No No 80 8,lA
2S:
Surfaca Cap
)5:
Wash&nq
I
45:
Th.r..a Pro~.ss&nq 6ftdVor Soaiditication
I
m
.......
I
GROUND WATtR AND SURrACE WATER ALTERICATIVES
)W:
2W and Air.trippin9
,.. ,.. "/A iliA 'a.
,.. 80 "/A IVA 80
,.. 80 ./A 8,lA 80
,.. 80 8,lA IVA 80
,.. 80 ./A 8,lA 80
aw:
Ho khon
2W:
Pretr.at and GAC
4W:
S.qr.qated SW and GW Tr.at88Dt
5W:
'r.tr.at-.nt.and Dischar9a to fDfW
calr.ncinq r.strictions appay to tha period ot r~ation only ..acapt tor DO action I.
Y.. . ...triction. Apply
No . No r..triction. attar r.88diation a..U8dn9 that ARA88 or cl.anup 9Oa.. ar. ..t.
MIA . Hot Applicabl.
-------
I'
TABU: 16
.
s\.Nwty or 'lIfE I'UIILIC HEAL". AND ENVIIOtemrrAL UrECTS EYAWATI~
CAPE rEM woo PR£5£RVING SITE
rAYETTEVII.u:. NOImi CAaOLIIIA
REHEDIAL ALTEJlHATIVE
SI«)B1'-TEJIIt RDEDIA1'I~ IJGIACY
IaD-ft:III UK 1lllUtT108
~1
cx)
I
SOIL AND SEOIHENl' ALTDHAnVU
15:
No ktion
. Not .pplicabl.
15:
Surt.c. c.p
Du.t r.I..... durin9 .ac.v.tion and dilpl.ce-
..nt 01 aquatic biota due to dr8dqad ledi..nt..
Endaaqerad plant spec;a.1 lit pr.l.nt.
_..lei be dilturbed. .
)5:
W.shinCJ
Dust r.I..I.1 durinCJ .ac.v.tion and dilpl.ce-
..nt 01 aquatic biota due to dr8dqad ,.di..ntl.
Endaaqerad plant spec;i.1 lit pr..ent. -..ld
be eIi.turbld.
45:
Th.r..l proc...inCJ and
Solidific.tion
Pot8Dti.1 .ir ..islionl durinq th.f881
proc.I.inq could cont.in toaic q....
I..t.l o.ide... Oi.pl.c...nt or aquatic
biota and .nd8nq.r.d pl.nt lpec;i.. lit
pr..8Dt. durinq ..c.v.tion/dredqinq.
GROtH) WATER AND SURfACE WAn:a ALTDIIATIVIS
IN:
No khon
Not applicabl.
IN:
pr.tr..t .nd GAC
Sludge ,...r.tion and .li.in.tion 01 ..i.tin,
aquatic biota lit pr.lent. durin, lurt.c.
Wlt.r r888di.tion.,
)N:
IN and A4ratrippinq
Sludta 98ft.r.tion. .li8ination 01 ..i.ti..
aquatic biota lit pr..entt. and .ir "'lli0D8
cont.ini.. vol.til. orqanic cont&81nantl.
4N:
S.CJr.CJ.t.d SN and
GW tr..t..nt
Sludta qan.r.tion and .li.inatioQ ot .ai.tin,
aquatic biota IiI pr.l.ntt durin, ...rr.c.
Wlt.r r888di.tion.
Not .pplicabl.
D8c:r.... in cont~...t 8Dbilitr and r8ductioa
or direct contact ri.k.
Decr..... in contl8i...t 8Dbilitr and vol....,
r.ducad elirect COAt.ct rilk, and r8ducad .
1.lchint to ,round Wlt.r/.urt.c.'Wlt.r.
D8c:r..... coataaiAant 1Vr/V. Direct contact
rilk and cont~nant I.ac:hint to .urtac. and
,round Wlt.r lhould be ,r..tlr r8ducad.
Not applicabl.
aeduced ~lic he.lth rilk ...oci.tad with
inqaltioa. a.ducad to.lcity to aquatlc biota
and the rM-cocklcl8d ~k.r. .. encIanq.rad
lpeei...
18ducad a ..bUe be.lth rilk ...ociatad with
inq.ltioa. 18dUc:ad to.ietty to aquatic biota
and th. rM-cocklcl8d ~k.r, .. encIan98rad .
.peel... Gr..t.r datr.. ot rt.. r8ductiOA ItbaD
lNt adai.vad br we tr8lw.t." . .
Gr..t.r datr.. 01 rilk r8dUc:tiOA ~ IN ot )W
b8c:..... tr..t.ant diltiDfllilbel betWeen
diff.rent cont~...tl iA ,roundll.t.r and .
I..rl.c. vat.r r..pectiv.l, lor9l8ic VI.
iQor,uUe.
-------
TABU: '6
CeonUnuedt
RDtEOLU. AL'l'ERNU1VE
SHOItT-ftM IIDIEDlATIOIt UG'ACT
U8J-ftIII usa IIIUCt'IC8I
5W: .'I.tl.at and ~
Sludge gen.lation and .liatnation 01 ..iltin,
aquatic biota Cif ,1.lentt dulin, IUlfac.
-.t.1 l888di.tion.
KUAItDOUS IlATERIALS. TMU NIl) .1t118J
lC and 1A: ol'.it. 4i.po... 0' (Ca,
Crratal. and Aabeat08 Inlulation
NOr..r ..posur. durin, r880val.
155: On.~t. dispolal 01 lolidilied Il~.
NOI'.r ..posur. durin, r..oval.
255: O"ait. di.po..l 01 lolidllied Il~..
NOr'.r ..poIUI. dul1ng r..oval.
lL:
Onsit. TI.at..nt 01 CCA SOlution
.nd w.st.W.t.1
SI~..gen.l.tion durin, tr.at88Rt.
2L:
Olla1t. Oilpolal 01 CCA Solution
and w..t.w.t.r
Accident ril' due to olliit. ahip88nt
Cll tank.r tIUC'S with ha..rdous. liquidst.
)L:
Oflait. Tranlport 01 CCA SOlution
Accident ria' due to ol'ait. Ihipe8nt
CID tank.r t~'a with ha.ardoua liquidst.
IT/': 5.11 el.an.d tankl/pipin, for ler.pa
Cont~nated -.tar ,8ft.I.ted in -.ah proc.i..
Potaotial sir r.l..I. 01 volatile
cont88Jaants .durin, ..cavation.
lT/': Dispos. 01 cl.aned tankl and
piping oUait.
Cont88Jnated -.t.r 98ft.rated in -..h proc.sI.
Potenti.l air 1.1..1. 01 volatile
cont88Jnanta durin, ..c.wation.
Gr.at.at dagr.. 0' d.1I r.duction. c.tt88J..ted
,r~ ..t.r and aurlace ..t.r are ..trac:ted. I
EIIluent ia direct t. ~ rather tbaD lit.
aurf-.ce ..t.r.
leduced "",.UOft,/direct COIttact r"l1 to
wildli'. and poteat i.. ~ o."lur..
Effective conhi.-t ~ - intogdty of
tho IC8a. ladUty.
IocIucod direct coat act d.1I to '!ildlU. and
........ ..polur..
a.duced direct contact rilll to wildlif.. and
hu8aa o'polur.. .&tfactiv. c_t.i_t dapencIa
on iAtogrity of the IC8A facility.
leduced .pill potaoUal and contuinant
tigrlUon.
a.duced Ipill potaoUal and contuinant
at,r.tion. Effectiv. contaift88ftt dap8nda
on iAtogrity 01 tho aaA lacility.
a.duced .pill potaoU.l and contuinaat
at,ration onlit..
a.duced Ip111 .poteaUal and contaainant
ti,ration.
a.duced Ipill poteaUal and cont88Jnant
at"ati_. .
-------
.,toU....,.. .,
1",LDGJn'ABIUTr EVAWArION
CAPE rEAl 110)1) I'US£RV1NG SITE
, "YETTEVILU: . ImIl'l1l CAIIOUNA
RDU:OIAL ALTERNATIVE
CONS'I"8AJIfI'S '10 IHPLDG:NI'''TI08
I5'lIMftD
ftI8 UQUJIIID
SOIL AND SEOIJtEHl' ALTERNA1'1VIS
15:
No Action
Not appUcabl.
IIot appUcebl.
25:
5urfac. Cap
~r. ..tensiv. cl.aring and grubbing .., be required outside the proc... a,..
l8pl.-.ntation viii depend on favorebl. r..ults of tr..tebility t..tiftt and
us. of non-tollC, non-harardoua lurfactantl.
t.) 8Onth.
)5:
WuhinC), '
1.5,.ara
.5:
Th.r-l .roc..linC) and
Solidification '
EffeeUven... .,It be cs.-.trated bw tra.tebiUty hlUng. ,.. incr..aed
volu.. cr.atad bw solidification ..y be objeetion&bl..
1 .5 v.ara
GIIOUND .TEa AND SUJll'N:E _TEa AL1"EIMnVES
lW:
No 'Action
Not appUcebl.
Not , appUcabl.
I
I""'"
C)
II
2W:
JW:
.W:
'r.tr.at and GAe,
2W and AiratrippinCJ, and
58CJr.C).tad sw and GII
aeeov.rv of the full ..tent of the .Iti-tad gr~ vat., ,lu.. viii require
offait. property ..s.-.ntl/approval. Tr.atability t..tiftt vau1d be requirad
to da8oft8trat. uJtt88t. ."eetiY"..,.
t.' - J.' para
w:
.r.tr..t'and IOIW
,.. r8COV.rv conatr.tat for .U.maUv.I 2M-4W, a110 IIIIPUe.. fte I'OIV ....t
accept the valtavater.
J.' y..ra
1IUAJtI)OI1S, MATERIALS, TAllIS AlII) '1'1-
Ie and LA: 'ottiite dilpolel otecA
cCYltal1 and Albeltol lA8uletion
110M
I _tJa
iS5: onlite di'polal ot aoUditbd aludge
255: oftlit. dilpoaal ot aoliditied 11ud90
Selection of Alt.matiy. 25 or .5 for 10UI and I..u-U.
1 80nth
110M
I -tJa
IL:
On.it. Tr.at88ftt ot ~ Solution
aneVor valtevat.r
Seleetion of Alt.matiy. .. or SW for ludace vat., tr..~.
I -tJa
2L: offlit. Ohpo... ot ~ SoluU.,
aneVor vast.vater
110ft.
1 -tJa
)L:
Offsite transport of ~ Solution
" UebUity ,vaiv.r I8der CDCIA 18 rquhed.'
1'aaIIl ....t be EfA certified al """aardou.
1 -tJa
11'/': 5811 e:1.anedt&nlca/piping tor Icrap
21'/': Oispos. of cl.aned tankl and
pipinC) otfsit. '
l_th
110M
~ -th
, -.
-------
- .
. -rABLE. 18
.SUMl1ARY OF PRESEN1' WOR'I'H COSTS
FOR HAZMDCXJS MATERIALS, 'rANRS AND PIPIM;
CAPEFEM WOOD PRESERVIN:; SITE
FAYETI'EVILLE, tamI CUOLINA
'l'O'rAL PRESENl' WOR'l'B COST( 1 )
$
1C:
Offsite landfill (hazardous) of
. apparent CCA cry$tals .
.
$
9,600
1A:
Offsite landfill (non-hazardous) of
assumed asbestos insulation
$ 13,500
155: Onsite disposal of solidified sludge'
255: Offsite disposal of solidified sludge
lL:
Onsite treatment of CCA solution and/or
wastewater. discharge to surface water
Offsite transport and treatment of
of CCA solution and/or wastewater
$ 27,700
$ . 28,900
$ 104,000
2L:
$ 126,100
3L:
Offsite transport of CCA solution
$ 25,500
($ 112,400)
IT/p: Removal and cleaning of tanks and piping
Recycle as scrap (sell)
2T/p: Removal and cleaning of tanks and piping
Dispose of offsite in non-hazardous landfill
$ 87,990
(1) The total present worth is based' on capital costs since remediation is.
one-time and does not involve 0&11. .
($) Indicates negative cost - cash flow payment.
..
-71-
~
-------
"
TABU ."
SlNWIY or SENSITIVITY ARALYSIS FOR SOIL MD SEDIJG:1ft' ALTERMnVU
CAPE rEAR WX>D PRESERVING SITE '
fAYETl'EVIu.t:, NORTH CAROLINA
25:
'artial .xcavation/drodgint 0' 80i18 and I.di..ntl
with surtaco cappint '
Av.raqo COlt 111 IUni- Colt 118d- COlt
1$1,0001 ($1,0001 e$1.0001
o 0 0
2.801 2.281 J.JOO
10,995 .,JOO 20,001
U,029 5.611, 26.1U
R£HEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
15:
No action
)5:
Excavation/drodginq vith 80il and aodi..nt valhint
4S:
Excavation/dr.dqint 0' 80iI8/I.di..ntl with
thor..l procosainCJ aneVol" 8oUdi,Uc:aUon
ell Tho sa.. a8 'total pr...nt,wortb cOlta 'I"" Tabl. 5-1.
I
,......
,~
II
-------
""
,oJ
J
TABU 2D
.
S'-"'ARY 0' SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS POR GROtH) -.TER AIm SURFACE taTER AL'nIIMTIVES
CAPE 'EAR ..xID PRESERVING SITE
fAY£1T£VILU:, NORTH CAIIOUNA
REHEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
Avera9~ Coat 111 Niai- Coat 11881- Coat
1$1,0001 (U,OOO' 1$1,0001
I
sn SIJ 5IJ
),)91 J,1" J,U'
J,n, I,US 1,"1
lW:
No Action
Lon9-Tdr. Monitorin9
2M:
'locculAtion, Sedi..ntation, 'ilt~ation
Carbon Adsorption
D~schAr9. to Surfece w.te~
]W:
'locculation, Sedi..ntetion,
Air StrippinC)
C.rbon Adaorption
Dt5chArC)8 to' Su~face w.te~
'Ut~eUon
4W:
SurfAce Wate~
('recipitAUon
'locculAtion, Sedi..ntetion, 'ilt~etion
Ground W.ter
FUtution
Air StrippinC)
CArbon Adaorption
DiachAr,e to SurfAce water
J,65'
J,S11
.,UO
sw:
.
'locculation, Sedi88Rtetion, 'ilt~.tion
Di.chAr,e to POTW
J,UO
J,IU
J,SU
111 The sa.. a. total preaent worth coate r~08 Table 5-1.
Hini8U8 . filtretion
AverAqe . flocculAtion, aadi..ntation, rilt~etion
~.Xt8U. = p,.cipitAtion, flocculation, aedi..ntation~ rilt~etion
-------
5.1.6
IMPLEMENTABILI'l"Y
Table 17 pre8ents a .ummary of the evaluation performed on the constraint8 to
implementation.
5.1.7
COST
Summaries of pre.ent worth co.t. including the min~ and maxtmum co.t.
generated by a .ensitivity analy.i. for the.e alternative. i.given in Tabl..
18 thro~gh 20. The uncertainity con.idered in the .ensitivity analysis was
the volWlMt.. Volume for each contaminated environmental medium. No
.ensitivity analy.i. was conducted for thehazardou. material8, tanks and
piping alternative.. .
5.1.8
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State of North Carolina .upports the alternative stated in the
Declaration and Section 6.0. The State of Carolina recoqnizes the 10' cost
.hare and operation and maintenance re.ponsibilities aS80ciated with thi8
alternative. .
5.1.9
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
The Agency conducted a Public Meeting on February 21, 1989 at the
Seventy-First Senior High School Auditorium in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
The Agency discus.ed the finding8 of the RI, reviewed the evaluation of
remedial technologie8 and remedial action alternatives as presented in the
Draft Final Feasibility Study dated December 16, 1988 and presented the
Agency's preferred remedial action alternative. The meeting initiated a
three week comment period. Besides the questions addressed at the PUblic
meeting, no additional comments/question./concern. were receive~ by the
Agency. ..
Community acceptance i. a8aessed in the attached ~e8ponsiveness
Responsiveness Summary provides a thorough review of the public
received on the RI, FS, Propo8ed Plan, and U.S. EPA's responses
~omments received. .
Summary .
comments
to the
The
6.0
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
6.1
DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED REMEDY
Descri~tion of Selected Remedv
Prior to initiating any remedial action on-site, a site 8urvey will be
. conducted to determine the presence of any endangered plant species exist
on-site. .
-74-
.; .
-------
REMEDIATION OF ..HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, TANKS & PIPING
Off-.ite disposal of .odium dicromate - copper .ulfate - ar.enic
pentoxide (CCA) .alt cryatals, the solidified creoaote and
asbestoa-containing pipe inaulation. The CCA cryatals and .olidified
creoaote will be di.po.ed of at a RCRA permitted landfill. The
a.be.to.-containing pipe in.ulation will be di.posed of at the CUmberland
COUnty Solid Wa.te Pacility pur.uant to the facilities .pecification..
The tanka and a..ociated piping; above and below ground, will be emptied,
flu.hed and cleaned, including triple rin.ing, to render the metal
non-hazardou.. The metal will then be cut and either .oldto a local.
.crap metal dealer or di.po.ed of at the CUmberland County Solid Waste
Pacility. por tho.e tanka and/or piping that cannot be cleaned
.uff~ciently to render them non-hazardous will be tran.ported to a RCRA
permitted landfill for di.po.al.
The contents of the tanka and a..ociated piping contains approximately
50,000 gallons of 3 percent CCA .olution and 15,000 gallon. of CCA
contaminated wastewater. A buyer of the 50,000 qallons of 3 percent CCA
.olution will first be pursued. If no buyer can be found, then the
50,000 gallons of 3 percent CCA .olution along with the 15,000 gallons of
CCA contaminated wastewater as well as wastewater generated on-site will
be treated on-site through the water treatment .ystem set up for treating
the pumped surface waters and extracted groundwater.
SOURCE CONTROL (Remediation of Contaminated Soils)
The preferred alternative for the remediation of contaminated
soils/sediment is a aoil washing/flushing technique. The alternate
source control alternative is a low temperature process to remove the
organics contaminant a followed by either a soil washing/fluahing
technique or soil fixation/solidification/stabilization process to
address the inorganics.. The decision a. to which .ource control
alternative will be implemented will be ba.ed on data qenerated by the
.oil washing/flushing treatability .tudy to be conducted during the
remedial design.
Contaminated soils/sediment will be excavated, treated and placed back in
the excavation. All wastewater generated will either be reuaed or .
treated on-.ite. Pollowinq completion of on-.ite remedial activities,
tho.eareas disturbed will be revegetated .
MIGRATION CONTROL (Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater)
Groundwater extraction will be accomplished through the u.e of well..
points in the upper (surficial) aquifer. Recovery will be conducted in
10,000 square foot .ubareas at a time, and the well points will be moved
to adjacent areas for subsequential dewatering. .
-75-
-------
Due to loc~~ contamination of the lower aquifer, the lower aquifer will
be pumped following remediation of the overlying upper aquifer in this
area. This will prevent potential contaminant clrawdown to deeper depth..
A water treatment .y.tem wiil be e.tahli.hed on-site. The .y.t8D'.
. influent will include content. of the tanka and piping, all va.tewater
generated due to r8llD8C1ial action. impl8D8nted, pumped surface vater, and
extracted 9Z'oundwater. The level and degree of treatment vill depend on
1) the level of contaminant. in the influent and 2) the ultimate
diach&rg8 point of the treated vater. There are two vater di.charge
.alternative. for the treated water. The optimal choice i. the local
.ewer .ystem. The other alternative is to discharge the effluent to a
.urface .tream. The range of treatment tor the contaminated water
include. biological degradation, air .tripping, filtration through
activated carbon filter, and ..tal removal through flocculation,
8edimentation and precipitation. The point of di.charge and the degree
of treatment vill be determined in the Remedial De.ign .tage. The
effluents, including both di.charged water and/or air, vill meet all
. AltAR's. .
This recommended alternatives meet the requirement. of the RCP, 40 CFR
Section 300.68(j) and SARA. This recommended remedy permanently and
significantly reduces the volume of hazardous .ubstances in the groundwater,
reduces the toxicity and/o~ mobility of contaminants in the .oils.
6.2
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Long term operation and maintenance (O&K) will concentrate on the groundwater
extraction, water treatment and groundwater monitoring .ystem..
6.3
COST OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The estimated present worth cost for containerizing and transpor:ting the CCA
crystals a~ solidified creosote to Pinewood, SC, i. $42,400. The e.timated
co.t for disposing of the a8bestos-containing piping in8ulation at the local
county landfill is $100. The present worth co.t for cleaning and disposing
of the tanks and piping i. $87,900 if a metal dealer is found to purchase the
acrap metal or $112,400 if the Agency n..d. to dispose of the .crap metal at
Pinewood,SC. . There are no o.M cost. associated with the above activitie..
The treatment of the liquids held in the tanka, 50,000 gallons of 3 percent
CCA .olution and lS,OOO gallons of CCA contaminated wa.tewater, has a pr..ent
worth co.t of approximately $104,000. The Of&H co.t. have been factored into
the 0&11 co.t. of operating and maintaining the water treatment system. .
The .stimated present worth cost for the .oil washing/flushing alternative
. for contaminated .oils and .ediment. i. $11.00 million. Thi. includes
capital and. O&K costs for the 1.5 year treatment period. The estimated
-76-
-------
pre.ent worth CtI.t for the low temperature de.truction proce.. combined with
either .oil wa.hing/flu.hing or a .oil fixation/.olidification/.tabilization
proce.. for contudnated .oil. and .ediment. i. $14.03 million. Thi.
include. capital and OWN costs for the treatment period.
. .
Thee.t1lDated pre.ent worth co.t. for pumping .urface water and extracting
~ater and treating the CrW-4 ngled water. range. from $3.4 to $3.65
million, depending on the extent of treatment and ultimate di.charge point
for the treated water. The capital co.t. and pre.ent worth OWN cost. over
30 year. range from $2.11 to $2.34 million and $1.02 to $1.31 million,
re.pectivelY .
The pre.ent worth co.t of the preferred remedy, including all activitie.,
range. from $14.37 million to $14.91 million.
6.4
Scm:DtrLE
The planned schedule for remedial activities at the cape Fear Site isas
follows:
June
July
OCtober
November.
December
1989 -- Approve Record of Decision
1989 '-- Initiate Remedial Design/Treatability Study
198~ -~ Superfund/State COntract Signed
1989 -- Complete Treatability Studies
1989 -- Initiate Remedial Action for Addressing
COntaminated Groundwater and Other Specific
Cleanup Activities
April 1990 -- COmplete Remedial Design for Source COntrol and
Mobilize
6.5
FUTURE ACTIONS
The only anticipated future action expected to follow completioft of the
remedial action i. periodic monitoring of groundwater to insure remediated
levels obtained during the remediation i. maintained.
8.6
CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
A remedial action ,performed under CERCLA mu.t comply with all applicable
Federal, State and local regulations. All alternative. considered for the
Cape Fear 5ite were evaluated on the basi. of the degree to which they.
complied with the.e regulation. The recommended alternatives vere found to
.. meet or exceed ~ll applicable environmental law8, a. di.cus.ed below:
..
-77-
~
-------
'1'ABLE 21
APPLIORT.1! OR RBLBVAN'1' Arm APPROPRIA'l'E REQUIREKBNTS
Law, Regulation,
Policy and Standard
Aooiication
Re.ource COn.ervation and Recoverv Act: IRCRA)
40 CPR 261.
Definition and identification
Definition and identification of wa.te
..trial a. hazardous.
40 CPR 262.
Standard. for gene.ator. of
hazardous waste
Generator reqUirement. lnclude
identification of wa.te veneration
activity, obtaining BPA ID number,
record keeping, and use of uniform
national manife.t
40 CFR 263: .
Standards for treatment of
hazardous waste
'1'he tran.portation of hazardous waste
i. .ubject: to requirements including
DOT regulation., manifesting, record
keeping, and di.charge cleanup .
40 CFR 264:
Standa~ds for treatment of
hazardous waste
Incineration requirements
40 CFR 264:
Standards for Disposal of
hazardous waste
Closure requirements
Class C closure - landfill closure
meeting minimum technology. .
. requirements for hazardous materials
Class D clo.ure - landfill closure
meeting minimum technology
requirement. for non-hazardous
material.
40 CFR 268:
.and disposal restriction
Excavated waste disposed onsite may be
8ubject to land disposal restriction if
placement occurs
40 CFR 257.
Standards for Disposal of
hazardous waste
Clo.ure requirement.
40 CFR 264, Subpat II
Containers
Storage requirements for containers
-78-
-------
TABLB 21
(continued )
APPLICABLB OR RELEVAN'l' AND APPROPRIA'l'B REQUIREMEH'l'S
.~ .
Law, It8gulation,
PoliCY and Standard
Aim 1 icat ion
Clean Water A~ (~)
40 CPR 122, 1251
National Pollutant Di.charge
Klimination Sy.tema (IfPDBS)
Di.charge. of extra~ed/treated
groundwater will be .ubject to
.ub.tantive requirement. of the NPDBS
proce.. if cU.charged to a local
8tr8am. RPDKS i. admini8trative by the
.tate .
40 CFR 403:
Effluent Guidelines and
Sta~dards: Pretreatment
Standards
Di.charge8 of extracted/treated
groundwater will be .ubject to
pretreatment requirements if discharged
tot he POTW
40 cn 230:
Dredge and Fill Requirements
Action. in a wetland or floodplain
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
AWQC may be u.ed for di.charge
requirement. where there are no .tate
water quality .tandards
CAA Section 109 arid 40 CFR 50:
National Ambient Air Quality.
Standards .
Preconstruct ion review of incineration
NAAQS for PKIO applied to fugitive du.t
Occu~ational Safetv and Health Act
29 cn 1910:
General .tandards for work
protection
Worker .afety for con8truction and
operation of remedial action
29 cn 10901
Regulation. for worker.
involved in hazardous wa8te
operation.
Worker .afety for con8tru~ion and
operation of remedial action
Hazardous Materials Trans~rtation Act
49 CnlOO through 199:
Transportation of hazardous
material
The tran8port of hazardou8 waste i.
8ubject to DOT requirements
-79-
. '
-------
-
TABLE 21
(continued)
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Law, Regulation,
Po1icv and Standard
Aco1ication
Intereovernmental Review of Federal Proarams
Executive Order 12372
40 Cl"R 29
State and local coordination and review
. of propo.ed SPA a..i.ted project.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Protection of fish and wildlife when
federal action. result in the control
or modification of a natural stream or
body of water
Endaneered Species Act
Section 7(c)
consultation with the fish and wildlife
.ervice if action may impact endangered
species or critical habitat
Executive Orders for Flood Plains (EO 11988)
40 CPR Part 6, Subpart A
Protection of flood plains affected by
remedial action
Executive Orders for. Wetlands
(EO 11990)
Protection of wetlands affected by
remedial action
Safe Drinkine Water Act
Maximum COntaminant Level. (HCLs)
established under the Sate Drinking
Water Act were found to be relevant and
appropriate to remedial action at the.
cape Fear Site. The cleanup goa18 for
groundwater were establi.hed in Section
.. ..
North Carolina Reauirements
State Drinkina Water Standards
Maximum contaminant levels established
by the State of North carolina.
regulations I are adopted from those of
the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act,
and will be met. .
-80-
-------
7.0
COKMUNITY-KELATIONS
..
Fact .heet. were transmitted to interested parties, re.ident., media and
local, .tate and federal officials during the RI/FS process. The Agency al.o
conducted the FS public meeting.
The Information Repo8itory/Adm1ni.trative Record va. establi.hed at
CUmberland COunty Public Library 5 Information Center located at 300
Lane, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301.
Maiden
A public meeting vas held on February 21, 1989, at the Seventy-First Senior
8igh School in Fayetteville, North Carolina. At this meeting, the remedial
alternatives develo~d in the FS vere reviewed and di.cus.ed and BPA's
preferred remedial alternative va. di..eminated. The groundvater migration
alternative va. presented as.de.cribed in Section 6.1 Descrigtion of
Recommended Alternative. Two .ource remediation alternative. were
presented. BPA's preferred source remediation alternative for is a .oil
washing process. The Agency's back-up alternative in the event that a
effective soil washing process cannot be devised is an on-site low.
temperature process to mitigate the organics followed by either .oil washing
or a soil fixation/solidification/stabilization process to address the
metals. Both alternatives are permanent remediations but the .oilvashing
alternative is estimated to be 3 million dollars less than the low
temperature process.
The public comment period concluded on March 14, 1989. The only comments
received during the public comment period were those aired and responded to
at the public meeting. The Responsiveness Summary summarizes the comments
stated in the public meeting.
8.0
STATE INVOLVEMENT
The State involvement has been maintained throughout the
reviewing pertinent documents such as the draft Remedial
Report, the draft Feasibility Study, the draft Record of
been carbon copied all relevant correspon~ence8.
RI/FS process with
Investi:gation
Decision and have
The State of North Carolina supports the alternative stated in the
Declaration and Section 6.0. The State of North carolina recognizes the 10'
cost share under CERCLA, Section 104(c) and operation and maintenance
responsibilities associated with this alternative. .
-81-
-------
APPBHCIBS
~
-------
APPBlmU A
RBSPORSIVBHBSS SUMMARY
- - --
-------
- ..
APPBHnIX A
RBSPONSIVBNBSS StJHKARY
Thi. community re.pon.ivene.s .ummary i. divided into the following 88CtiOD8:
SBeTION I.
SBeTION II.
HeTION III.
SECTION IV.
SECTION V.
.SECTION I.
Overview. . Thi. .ection di8CU..e. BPA'. preferred
remec1ial action alternative and public reaction to
tbi8 alternative.
Backaround on community Involvement and Concern..
Thi. 8ection prOvide. a brief hi.tory of community
intere.t and concern. rai.ed during r~ial planning
activities at. tbe cape Fear Wood pre.erving Bite.
Summary of Maior comment. Received Durina the Public
Meetina and the Public COmment Period and EPA'.
Resoonsee to These comments. Both the comment. and
BPA'. re.pon.e. are provided.
Remainina Coricerns. . Thi. .eetion de.cribes the
remaining community concerns that BPA .hould be aware
of in conducting the remedial de.ign and remedial
action at the Cape Pear Wood pre.erving Site.
Transcri~t of the Public Keetina. Thi. .ection
provides a tran.cript of the Fea.ibility Study Public
Meeting held on Pebruary 21, 1989 at the
Seventy-First Senior High School located near the
site.
OVERVIEW
The public meeting at which EPA pre.ented it. preferred alternative to the
public initiated the public comment period which ended on March 14, 1989.
The alternative addre..~. both .the .oil and groundwater contamination
problem. at the .Site. The preferred alternative .pecified in the Record of
8eci.ion (ROD) include.: permanent treatment of .contaminated 8Oil,
groundwater, and .urface water and .ediment.
In the public:' meeting, held Pebruary 21, 1989, two r8lD8dial alternative. were
propo.ed to the public for .ource control. Source control remedial action.
addre..e. both contaminated .oil. and .ediment. in the drainage ditches and
8Wamp.. BPA'. preferred alternative i. .oi1 wa.hing which i. expected to
r8DOVe both the organic and inorganic contaminant.. Thi. i. tbepreferred
alternative becau.e it eliminate., permanently, the .ouree of contami~tion.
In ca.e that thetreatab11ity .tudy indicate. that .oi1 wa.hing will not
achieve the cleanup goal..tated in the Record of Decision (ROO), Table---,
the Agency proposed a low temperature de8orption process to remove the
organics and .a .oil fixation/stabilization/.olidification proce.. to addre.s
the inorganics. The .oil washing treatability 8tudy is to be performed
during the Remedial Design stage. .
-------
A-2
The community,. in general, favor. remedial action at the Site.
SBeTIOR II.
BACJtGROtJHD ON CDMKtJHITY IHVOLVBMBNT AND CONCERNS
The cape Fear Site 1. located i.n CUmberland COunty, North carolina, on
the we.tern .1de of Payetteville ne&r aighway 401. It include. about
ni.ne acre. of a "I-acre tract of land. The .ite i. adjacent to other
indu.trial/commercial e.tabli.hment. a. well a. private re.idences. Pour
hcae. are located near the aite. In. addition, . a .ubcUvi.ion named
.Southgate- 1. located approximately a quarter of a mi.le .outh of the .ite
and hou.e. a~rQXimately 1,000 people. .
Interviews conducted in 1987 revealed that mo.t re.ident. on Reilly Road and
on School Str_t have lived in the area for many years. Due to the tran.ient
nature of military life, the majority of Southgate residents are renter. who
are not in the area long enough to e.tablish .trong community ties.
Although there has been no organized community involvement with the Cape Pear
site to date, community interest in, and concern with, contamination problema
at the .ite have fluctuated in inten.ity .ince the di.covery of contaminants
in a re.idential well acro.. from the .ite in 1977. Community concern. have
rarely been expres.ed to government official.; rather, information ha. been
.hared and fears di.cu..ed primarily among area resident. themselves.
Some .pecific fear. expressed by local residents includes how they believe
they have been and will be affected by the contamination problem. Other
specific issues of concern mentioned by area resident. and local officials
are:
1.
Extent and Nature of the COntamination
Area residents po..es. various amount. and type. of information about the
. extent of contamination form the Cape Fear .ite, .ome of it .temming from
mi.information and .ome from .peculation. Re.ident. do not have a thorough
under.tanding of .uspected contamination .ources and whether or not the
Agency is dealing with the full extent of the contamination problem.
2.
Drinking Water Quality
Several re.ident. expre..ed concern with the quality of their drinking water
and the potential adver.e health effect. from it. con.umption.
3..
aealth and Safety
Several of the re.ident. que.tioned the health and .afety implication. po.ed
by the .ite'. acce.sibility to children and young adult. and .ugge.ted that
the area be secured. The numerous act. of vandalism that have occurred at
the .ite suggests that the area may be a gathering spot for youths carrying
out activities that, at the time, go undetected. .
-------
A-3 .
4.
Property Value and Quality of Life
Almo.t every re.ident interviewed mentionec1 rec1uction. in their property-
value.. an area of CODCerD. 8c::Ime local official. view the area .urrounding
the .ite a. holding a good deal of potential for re.idential development.
They are concernec1 that the property vill not be re.torec1 to acc~.te .uch
growth .
s.
Other Area-Wide 8nvironmental I..ue.
According to local official., an effort to .ite a hazardous va.te incinerator
in the area attrac:tec1 4,OOO-people to the public .-.ting of the propo.ed
incinerator permit.. Or9aniaec1 oppo.itionto Borth Carolina'. propo.ec1
membership in a low-level radioactive va.te compact that would oblige the
State to eventually ho.t a di.po8al .ite.
III. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING 'l'HE PUBLIC MEETING AND 'l'HE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
comments raised during the Cape Fear Wood pre.erving public meeting and
public cOlIIID8nt period are .wamarized briefly below. The comment period va8
open from February 21 to Karch 14, 1989 to receive comment. from the public
on the draft Feasibility Study and propo.ed remedial alternative.
There was a moderate respon8e from the community in the public meeting but no
comments were received during the puraueing three week public comment
period. Summaries of the questions received during the public meeting are
presented below.
Public Meetina
The public meeting was held on February 21, 1989 at the Seventy-Fir.t Senior
High School auditorium. Que8tions and comment. fell into five major
categories including: concern about public health, thoroughness of research
effort. to determine the extent and impact of contamination, time involved in
cleaning up the Site and re.toring the land, co.t of the remedial action, and
where the di.charge of the treatec1/untreated water from the .ite will 90.
The Agency'. pre.entation and the que.tion. and comment. receivec1 fram the
public during the February 21, 1989 public meeting i. provided in Section V.
Public Comment Period
No comment. Were received by the Agency during the three week cCllllD8nt period
that ended on Karch 14, 1989. .
-------
A-4
IV.
REMAINING PUBLIC CONCERNS
In addition to thoae concerna voiced at the public meeting, acme additional
public concern. are deacri))ed below.
.
Additional .ampling/analy.i.of re.idential well. for
volatile organic..
.
Length of time prior to removing off-.ite monitor
well..
v.
CAPE 1"BAR FEASIBILITY STtJDY PUBLIC MBE'l'ING
CAPE PBAR PUBLIC MEETING
Payetteville, North carolina
. 21 Pebruary 1989
':00 PH
JB:
Thi8 is EPA' 8 meeting on the Cape Pear Wood Pre8erving Site. As
directed by the Superfund Law, the Agency i. required to have at lea.t
one pUblic meeting for a Superfund aite at the concluaion or completion
of the Peasibility Study for that aite, and the Agency i8 now at that.
atage.
What I would like to do i. briefly introduce tho.e from the Agency who
came up; and then, a8 briefly and quickly a. po.sible, de.cribe w~at we
call the Remedial Inve8tigation/Fea.ibility Study proce.s, and then
describe what we found on-site (the contamination), which i. the RI
findings; then briefly go through the evaluation proce88 that we went
through in the ,easibility Study to come up with the Remedy we .elected
or we're propo.ing to u.. to clean-up the aite, then explain in better
detail the remedy we're propo8ing; and then field any que8tion8 that you
may have.
I'm Jon Bornbolm, I've been with the Agency for almo.t five yeara. I'm
in the Superfund Program on the R8medial aide. Thia gentl8m&n .tanding
up ia ~chael Senderaonwith our Public Relation. part, and Chri. Kahle
ia al.o in the Superfund Program. . -
OUt front, there are four package. of information: - three fact .heet.
and one package of overhead. I will go through tonight. The fir.t -
package was .ent out in November and ba8ically tell. or explain. what-
- the findings of the Remedial Inve.tigation were. The .econd one, which
was .ent out in December, g08a through the pea.ibilityStudy. The l..t
one i8 called the Propo.ed Plan, and it de.cribes the alternatives
evaluated to- clean-up the aite and then identifies the preferred
remedial alternative. . - .
-------
A-5
- .
This figure ( ] gives you an idea of vhere the site i8.
is b&8ically a more close-up picture; and this figure. (
more detail of the .1.te 1.t.elf..
This. [ J
J identifies
The R8m8dialInvest1.gation vas conducted the ~r of '87, and
ba8ically, the Remedial Investigation consisted of taking environmental
samples, and analyzing those samples for contaminants we expected to ...
on-site as well &8 taking 10. of those samples and analyzing for a full.
range of possible contamtnants. The environmental media sample included
soils, subsurface soils, surface vater and groundvater. The
contaminants that were of concern were a result of the activities from
. the wood treating process, and basically thAt'. creo.ote ..ter ial, coal
tar material and then metals COIDing from vhat's called a CCA process, a
wolmanid.ng process. The letters stand for COpper, Chrcaa1.um and
Ar.enic; those are the thr- metals we were looking at as vell as the
creosote. .
The next couple of overheads I have show sampling areas and the range of
concentrations we found on-site.
We u8ed a grid sY8tem to ~ake our 8urface soil .ample8, and this is for
chromium. The colored-in areas are the areas that had levels higher
than clean-up standards, so these would be the areas identified for
remediation due to chromium contamination.
This overhead is for arsenic; again, we're talking about surface soils,
and the hatched-in, x'ed-in area is the area that had arsenic level.
. .
above. the clean-up standards, and this would be the area identified for
remediation. .
This overhead is for creosote. We.u88 another term for it- PABs
(polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). Aqain, the area x'ed-J:n is the area
identified for remediation due to contamination by creosote.
One of the compounds that ve were not expecting to see on-site as a
contaminant is benzene. This contaminant is basically due to the result
of hav~g a gasoline tank on-site, buried un~er the ground, that the
operato~ used. . . .
And we put all the areas. together requiring remediation. This 1..
basically vhat it looka 11.k8, and this is ju.t for surface .oil..
Por .urface vater,. we'll go back to this one map here, we're talJdng
about frcm .urface down to 3-5 feet in depth would be the depth that
ve. A8 far a. .urface vater 1.. concerned, V8 fOund that th1..dra1.Dage
ditch here that lead. back to this diked pond v1.1l al.o require
remediation. That entail. pumping out that water, treating the water,
. excavating the contaminated .0~18 and treating those 80i18. So that.
will address 8urface water and .ediments in this area. We did find .ome
contamination in the swamp area back here vhich, again, we will addres8 .
through excavation and treating that .oil as well as Burface water. .
~
-------
A-6
A8 far a. groundwater contuU.nation i.. concerned.... Although this
identifie. for creo.ote contamination in the upper aquifer, it..
ba.ically the .ame area for all the cont.lllinant. we look at.
We found that the upper aquifer at the.ite flowa radially in all
. dJ.rectiona frcaa the .ite. Thi. i. ba.ically due tos 1) it being a high
point in the area and 2) the high percentage of .and pre.ent. at. t.he .ite
allow. a high. percolation rate in the ground~
And for the deeper aquifer, we only found. a ...11 area of contamination,
which 18 right here [ J. That.. ba.ically due t.o what we belie... i.
an on-.it.e production well uMd durin9 the operat.ion of the facilit.y,
cont.-t.".nt.. ieaki..ng down the well-ca.J.ngand gett.ing into t.he d_per
aquifer. That.'. why it.i. .0 localized.
One of t.he findings of one of the ta.k. of the Remedial Investigation i.
to quantify the amount of material (.oil./groundwater) contaminated, and
this tatlle ( J pre.ent. what we f..l are the maximum and minimum
amounts of contaminated material out there as well a. an average.
That basically pre.entsthe findings of the Remedial Investigation. The
Remedial Inve.tigation had three basic question. we tried to answer: 1)
What are the contaminant. of concern at t.he .ite?2) What concentration
of the contaminant.? 3) Bow far from the .ite has the contamination
migrated? Thi. information i.fed into the Feasibility Study. The
Fea.ibility Study evaluat.., based on information from the Remedial
Inve.tigation, the types of clean-up alternatives that are fea.ibl. at
the .ite. ..
GOing from a li.t of approximately forty types of remediation, we
narrowed it down to: four for addre..ing contaminated .oil. and
.ediment. and five for addre.sing .urface water and groundwater. one of
the alternative. that we have to con.ider and carry all the way through
the evaluation i. what we call a Ho Action alternative. That'.
basically just to let the .it.e sit there and monitor the contamination
and the rate at which the contamination migrates. We use this as a ba..
line iDea.uring point to mea.ure what good or benefit we get frem our
remedial alternat.ive..
Porthe contaminated .oil. the.e were t.he four alternative. that were
evaluated in details
18
Again, Ho Action evaluation to pre.ent t.he ba.e .line mea.uring
.t.ick.
The other three are .ctua~. clean-up alternativess
28
Is basically capping the contaminated area with a soil cap;
3S
An excavation and soil-washing process
-------
[",
A-7
45
Again, we'd be digging up the contaminated .oil. and putting it
through a low-temperature de.orption/ab.orption proce...
Where 18 and 28 are DOt: permanent clean-up8. - Obviou.ly, UDder 80
Action, the contamt ",ant. would Z'8III&in in place and, under 28, the
cont-inant. would remain in place although there would be a protective
cap placed over them vhich would prevent rain ba.ically from
infiltrating the .oil. and helping 8pread cont~minant. into the
groundvater. -
38 and 48 are both permanent r8D8die., they vill r8D8diate the .ite and
_remove the cont-tnation on a permanent ba.i..
ever here [ ) are the co.t average. for each r8lD8cUation, this i. for
.oil. and .ediment.. The.e number. are ba.ed on that previous overhead
[ ) that presented the maximin volume, .0 the co.t i. ba.ed on volumes
ot material. treated. ~ -
For groundwater and .urtace vater [ ), again we looked at five
alternative. in detail. The fir.t one i. No Action, that pre.ents u. -
with a ba.e line to mea.ure the other alternatives, the benefits to gain
from the other alternatives.
2W through SW are basically the-.ame thing, the only difterence i....,
they are the .ame in the proce.s that we are withdrawing or extracting
water.
Q:
I don't understand those figures.
A:
The cost dollars?
I'll get to those.
Q:
I mean, $3395 for what?
A:
OK, those are hundreds of thou.and. ot dollars. 50 the fir.t number
would be $592,000. We're talking again in million. ot dollars here, .0
we're talking about a range between: the high would be 2.8 million to,
or the low 2.8 million to a high ot 26 million.
2W through 5W, tor vithdraving or excavating both .urtace vater and
groundwater, and the only difterence. between the.e alternative. i. the
degr- we treat that vater.
We really haven't,-a. tar a. .electing a .peCitic treatment, we haven't
done that, and we vill do that atter we talk vith local .ewer
-authorities and .- it they vill accept the vater either vith .ome type
ot treatment or with no treatment. We have not talJcec1 vith the local
.ewer treatment plant. We don't know with regard. to that.
-------
A-8
There are some other odds and. ends that need addre.8ing on the .ite, and
the.e are not in IDi.llions of dollars ( ] J the.e are the actual price
tag., that we e.timated, to deal with, to deal with the .ituation
on-.ite. We found what we believe i. ..be.to.-containinej pipe
J.naulation, what looked like CCA- ChrCllDium, COpper ChrCllDium Ar.enic
cry.tal., and what. wa. left behind frcm on of our Bmergency Respon.es,
which i. ba.ically a pile of ten CUbic yard. of .olidified creo.ote
which r8D&in. on-.ite, and then the piping and tanka on-.ite a. well.
Okay, this i. ba.ica11y what'. pre.ented in the Fea.ibility Study ( ];
this wa. done by the Aqency'. contractor. The la.t part, which i. the
actual ..lecting of the remedy which i. left up to the Aqency, and what
'the Agency has identified.. a preferred alternative, I will .tart with
what'. up here. For the CCA cry.tal. and creo.ote contaminated
material; those two material. we are propo.ing to di.po.e off-.ite at a
RCRA-approved hazardous landfill. There'. two of them we're looking
at: one i8 out over in Pinewood, South carolina, GPX Hazardou8
Landfill, and the other one we looked at would be Emile, Alabama, which
would be another hazardou8 waste landfill. ..
For the asbestos-containing piping insulation, we have been informed
that CUmberland County Landfill can accept that, and therefore we are
propo.ing to remove that and di.po.e of it at the local landfill.
And, for the liquids contained in the tanka, we would prefer to find a
wood-treater who would be willing to accept that material, but in the
likelihood that we would not find somebody, we would be proposing to
treat that water on-site through the treatment .ystem established for
the groundwater and surface water, so that would be 1L.
Q:
How can ,these pric. e.timates be made without actual co.t. having been
accrued and without knowing if the .ewage treatment plant would accept
the wa.te? .
A:
These prices are ba.ed on worst-case .cenarios.
And then, once we empty the tanka, we clean them, try to render them
non-hazardous and ideally we'd bP. able to .ell them for .crap metal.
And if we're able to do that,W8'd make $112,000 (that'. why the
negative .ign i. up there); it wouldn't C08t u. anything to do that.
The government would make money for once. If we can't render it
non-hazardous or we can't find a .crap metal dealer to accept that metal
after it'. been cleaned, we could d1.po.e of that at the county
landfill, and the co.t of that would be approximately $87,000.
For .011. and .ediment., the preferred or propo.ed clean-up method i.
3S, .0 we're talking about, a. a minimum cost, 4.3 million and, on the
high end, 20.9 million to clean up the 80il. There' 8 one piece of
information lacking that we're working with right now, or not working
with unfortunately, and that i8, we haven't performed a treatability
-------
A-9
study to make sure that the 8Oil-washing process will work. 80, &8 a
fall-!)ack position, we have. identified 45 as a fall-!)ack position in
ca- we cannot find a 8Oil-w&8h1n9 process that will work.
What the thermal process !)asically means i. to process the 80ils and
..cU.lD8nts through a low-t811p8rature furnace at t8llp8.1"atures high enough
to volatiliH the creosote, to catch the exhaust 9&8 coming off of that
and then treating it with a acru!)t»er and r8lDOVing cont-Illt ftAlitS that
way. Unfortunately, the thermal process itself does DOt address _tals.
Following that thermal process, we'd either use a filtration process
where we'd t»e lD1zing with.8OID8 type of concrete or similar ..terial and
-Jrh'9 a concrete slal) or IDODOlith. oar u- a 8Oil-w&8hing process to
.Z'88OVe the soil. '1'h8 price ta9 for that, for 48, raDIJes from our
estimates from 5.6 million to 26.1 million.
For the surface water and groundwater, again, right nOW we are proposing
to pump the surface water as .well as the contaminated groundwater. Our-
preferred discharge location or discharge point would t»e to the local
sewer system. That would !)e the less costly, cheapest way to do it.
Following negotiations with them, we'd have to negotiate haw much we
could discharge to them and what levels of contaminants, if any, would
remain in that water we discharge. They might require to clean it up to
clean water spec.. All that again is yet to !)e determined.
Q:
Which number is that in the preferred alternatives?
A:
It would!)e, it is-the preferred alternative:
(publicly-owned treatment works).
To discharge to a POTW
If the sewer-system would not accept it, our other alternative, our
other discharge alternative is to discharge it to a nearby surface
stream, under what's called an NPDE5 permit (Rational Pollution
Discharge and Elimination System). It has it' s own criteria to protect
surface water from contaminant., and we'd have to ID88t whatever level
they set for that discharged water.
80, we're ranging from a miniIawD cost of approximately 2.8 million up to
3.5 million to treat eurface water and groundwater, and these costs are
!)a.ed on the a.sumption that we will have to !)uild some type of
treatment plant on-.ite to treat this water.
QI
If you did air stripping, would you have to meet emission requir_nts?
We'd have to meet their specs~ Superfund, although we have State and
Federal permits, one thing Superfund doesn't- actually have to do is get
those permit., we have to meet the technical requirement. of the
permits. We would meet all requirements nece8sary.
Aa
This i. just a quick overview of the soil-wasbing process [ ). -
Ba8icallyit entails u8ing a bigh pressure washing sY8tem to !)reak up
large aggregates of material, soil materia18, and wa8b away the sludge,
-------
1.-10
the contaminants, from the.oil material. Clean .oil, if it'. heavy
enough, would fallout due to gravity and be put back in place. The
cont..minants, creo.ote a. well a. metal., Would ~ into .olution or be
r8DOVed. a. .u.pended .011d8 in the wa.te water. That wa.te water would
then be biologically treated to remove the creo.ote and we'd u.e IICID8
type of pOpulation/.edimentation/fixation proce.. to remove the metal..
':h8n. that water can be recYCled through the .y.tem. .
Qs
Bow 1. this proce.. going to work atthi. large .cale .ite?
As
It'. being u.ed a. a pilot .tudy right now at a Superfund .ite up in
~e80ta. It'. been .hut down for the winter. The re.ult. .eem
pO.itive. Ag.in, we haven't done a treatability .tudy and one of the
main factor. that would influence it. acceptability here would be ???,
ba.ically the ratio between .and and clay that i. in the ground. If we
have a high clay content, then we'd have to u.e the other alternative,
which was 4S which would be the thermal process which would be what we
would be pro~sing.
Unfortunately, I did not itemize the total cost. por .oils, we're using.
10.9 million as the average cost; 3.4 million for addressing surface'
water and groundwater; if we can find a scrap metal dealer who will take
the metal, these remedies here wouldn't cost anything, they'd kind of
balance each other, but otherwi.e, we're talking about close to 200,000
for remediation of the.e items on this overhead ().
Are there any questions?
Qs
When can we ..e .ome movement or activity out at the .ite?
As
Tonight starts, ba.ically a, .tart. a three week comment period where
the Agency encourage. the public to expre.. their. feeling. ~ne way or
the other about what we propo.e a. a remedial alternative. Pol lowing
the closure of that public cCllllD8nt period, we (the Agency) prepares a .
Re.ponsiveness Summary where we re.pond to each c~nt we receive. .
That u.ually take. another two week.. Then we prepare what'. called a
Record of Decision, we call i. a ROD (another government acronym). The
Record of Deci.ion i. a deci.ion document, it'..igned by the Regional
Admini.trator ,and it .et. forth the actual clean-up that the Agency
will ilDp18lD8nt a1:. the .ite. And that could take up to a month. Since
this . i. a Punci-lead .ite... In the Agency, we have two kind. of
Superfund .ite.s one i. Enforcement, where we have know PU., or
pOtentially re.pon.ible partie.- we bave folks who created the . .
contamination and they are paying for it, we have .ite., .uch a. Cape
Pear Wood pre.erving, which i. called Pund-lead, and we haven't
identified any re.pon.ible party for the. contaminant. on-.ite or the
entity who created it is no longer around or doe.n't have the money to
pay for it, .0 Superfund. fund. pays for it. In aite. like thi., we need
a matching 10' .hare from the State. We have to go through that
negotiation with the State and that negotiation results in what's called
a Superfund State Contract, and we're expecting to take two to three
months to iron out the language.
-------
A-11
Q:
Following the Record of Deci.ion?
AI
Ye., a R8c:ord of Deci.ion. We fir.t haye tOgK the 8tate'. concurrence
on the r8D8dy _lected. If they do DOt concur, they do DOt ..tch the
fund. and 11M don't clean up the .ite. COngre.. has mandated that we g8t
the 10. ID&tchiDg fund. before we do anything beyond this point.
QI
Doe. your report here take in con.ideration 8tate official. .aying that
cont.miftA~t ... or801ely on the knowledge...
AI
We have all the d0CWD8nt. that we generated to the 8tate for review.
They're u.ing the .ame information 11M' re u.ing. The.e nWDber. are
.generated by our contractor who did the actual .tudy. There'. no rea.on
why we would doubt this information. Where their actual deci.ion role
come in i. what type of remedy they would like to .- at the .ite. But
they would be u.ing the .ame information.
QI
Who is the contractor?
AI
The contractor i. Camp, Dre..er ~ McKee. They're a national A ~ B
(architecture and engineering) firm. We call them a REM II contract:or.
They've done work for the Agency ea.t of the Mi.si..ippi. Their
headquarters is out.ide Washington, but they have a local office in
Atlanta, and that'. the office we deal with.
Q:
Bow reliable are the result. that Camp, Dresser ~ McKee generated?
A:
We have about three or four contractors we rely on to do this kind of
. work.
Q:
If the degree of contaminant. that you have .hown here tonight, in your
all background and experience, what i. the po..ibility...i. it at a
level where the contaminant. propo.. a health threat and what. i. the
pos.ibility of the no action alternative?
A:
My feeling from what I've heard from the State i. that they prefer .ome
kind of permanent remedy at the .ite, not the 110 Action alternative.
The No Action alternative, for at lea.t .urface .oil., i. not acceptable
for heal th-ba.ed . rea.on.. . .
Q:
What about the water?
AI
. Again, the groundwater doe. exceed clean-up iltandard., and therefore we
would encourage clean-up, not knowing what the future hold. for that
area. It could go one way or another. If it 908. re.idential, 11M would
have to clean it up; if it .tay. a. it i., there'. not much of a pu.h to
clean it up. It'. not going to affect. anyone. . .
..
Q:
I. there any~diate danger within the area?
~
-------
,
I
I
A-12
A:
I
From groundwater? No, groundwater i. very locali&ed.The one well that
w.. contaminated, I believe the owner/operator dug that per.on a new
. well.
. QI
on ~ha~fi9U%'e [2-6] doe. that big circle repre"nt the upper water
8y.~" or lower or both?
. AI
~i. ~ circle?
It ... ~ aurficial, ~e upper aquifer.
QI
ADd what do you call upper .. far .. depth?
AI
. .
I ~hiDk it g08. down ~o between 30 and 50 feet and then we find a
.confJ.ni.ng &on. which Hp&ra~e. ~ upper aquifer frca the d_per
aquifer.. .
0:
A:
Okay, this i. the cont~nant. found in the upper aquifer.
0:
. Bow far ha. the contamination gone?
A:
Thi. i. the re.idence where we found contamination in the per.on'.
well. I would que.., looking at this .cale, it'. about 250 feet we.t.
0:
Bow far .outh ha. the contamination...
A:
This .hould be the condition of the well.; they would .how up clean.
0:
AI
I was under the a..umptionthat we had a pair of well. there.
Q:
I. that well a deep or .hallow well?
A:
I'm not.ure if that'. deep or .hallow.
.QI
As
I don't have that J.nforma~ion off hand, bu~ hopefully. I have it here.
Q:
AI
I believe we found... Where that 400 1.7 There .hould be ~vo here, and
I... 'th&~ 400 repre.ent. what we found J.n ~he .hallow well. So, .1nce
we're talking about ~heupper aqu1fer, that'. why ~here'. no dot here,
we only have. d_p well there. So we fOUDCS 400 ug/l of contaminant.
(PABa). And ~hi. figure [ ] --that oval 1. ccmputer generated from
groundwater modeling program. . . .
0:
Bow long has it been .ince that well'. been .ampled?
-------
A-13
A:
I'd have to .ay Augu.t '87.
01
AI
That might be date of the report. We performed the R.elDe4ial
Inve.tigation during the .UIIIIII8%' of ' 87. SO it va. .ometime during that
8W11D8r. 1Ir. Jacuon'. private. well, vhich va. a .hallow, haDd-dug well,
vhich i. near this point va. found contaminated back in 1980 or 1979.
ADd, in re.ponae, he va. provided a new well.
Os
Let IDe a.k you thi.,
Bow far has the contamination IDOved .ince 1979?
AI
Thi. would be, this figure i. baaed on data collected the .WIID8r of '87.
Os
COntamination va. found in 1979/1980 acro.. the road?
A:
And we found contaminatIon two .ummer. ago and this 400 represent. that
contamination. And ba.ed on computer modeling, we have projected that
the contaminant. have migrated this far, a. of the .ummer of '87. I
think groundwater horizontal velocity i., I want to .ay, is 15 ft/yr --
the rate it'. moving.
0:
50 ft/yr?
A:
1! ft/yr i. what we've calculated the water i. moving. That'. not to .ay
the contamination i. IDOving at that rate; it'. ju.t .aying the water i.
moving at that rate. COntaminant. don't move aa quickly as the water
does. So, if anything; it might be a tad larger than this area right
now, but it wouldn't, coat-wise, it wouldn't effect the cost. Again,
we're dealing with a maximum/minimum range, and I'm sure it will fall
within that range of volume with the e.timated coat it~. ba.ed on.
a:
With contaminant. on both .ide of the road and a ditch along .ide the
road that cro..e. underneath the road.
A:
That would be this right here [
) .
0:
.That ditch I thought doe. on down to a lake, i. there contamination from
the .ite in the lake and ditch .iDee the majority of flow appear. to go
in that direction. .
AI
We did not find, you know our 1t.lDacUal Inve.tigation, we did not find
contaminant. in this area, vhich va. ba.ically on the other .ide of
billy Road. To an8W8r the oth.~ qu..tion, we don't know.
I': not .aying no contamination has gone that far, but we don't have
information to judge one vay or the other. All we can do i. work on the
information we have, and, according to the .ample. collected during the
Remedial Investigation, we did not find contamination in that ditch on
the other .ide of the road. .
-------
&-14
Q:
I think it was about 25 year. .go, there w.. . pond and all the fi.h vere
Jdllad in the pond by contamination.
J]h
Back hare 8C1a1i8Wb8re?
QI
Di.d you find any contamination in that di.raction?
&1
We di.d find contallllfnetion through this drainage di.tch and in the diked
pond th.t i. an area targeted for r8lD8cSiation. .. di.d not fi.nd .urface
water or 8adimant contam.ination i.n thi.. di.tch on thi... .ida, and therefore
it wa. not idantifi.ad .. an area for r81D8diation. A8 far .. . pond i.n
thi.. are., ve have DO information to -- one judg8lD8Dt or the other on
'that. .
Any other questions? .
Q: .
Bow about Southgate here?
A:
,All the .upply wells in that area were te.ted, ye.. And we found... The
only thing we found i.n the well. were elevated levels of trihalomethane.
( 'l'BM.) .
Q:
Did you fi.nd a.ource?
A:
Ho, no, we weren't able to identify that to any .ource.
Q:
It was one of the .upply wells?
A:
It was one of the .upply wells in Southgate *ubdivision, and we found
'l'BM. TBM i. trihalomethane either chlorine or fluorine: trichloro- or
trifluoromethane. . .
Q:
That was in '87?
A:
That was back in '87.
QI
And you te.ted for what?
A:
We te.tadit looki.ng for contaminant. from this .ite. The lavel. ..re '
below clrift)dngwater .tandard.. We did i.dentify or notify the .
owner/operator of the well and the local g0V8rD1D8nt of our fi.ndi.ng and ..
. far .. Superfund program 908., that'. a. far a. ve carry it. We identify
the right folks hopefully and that'. a. far a. we go with that.
QI
AI
Ho to this .ite, no.
-------
JIll
A-15
QI
Do local official. know what has been found at the .ite?
AI .
A8 far - the local .tate office., 1'8.. 'the COUD1:y office.... I have DOt
b88D. 1.D di.r8ct CODtac:t with them. We ha.. e8tabli.h8d an 1Dfozmation
r8p0.itory/."",tftietratiV8 record at the public library which contaiD8
all the docwD8nt. 1.Dc1udiDg the 1Dfozmatioft I reviewed tonight
by otherque.tiona. I th8ft1r you and appreciate you for CCIIDi.ng.. I hope
cleanup get. going - quickly - po..ible.
am 01' 'ru.
-------
APPBNDIX B
.
PROPOSED PLAN/LEGAL HO'l'ICB
-------
~ 174~"
. ft 'i
~i
.~ Mt1f'-~
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
US C:OU"TLANO ST"EET
ATLANTA. GEO"GIA 30JU
SUPDFUNI) PROGRAM PROPOSED RBHEDIAL AC'!'ION
PAC'!' SBBBT
for
CAPE I'BAR WOOD PRESERVING SITE
rAnI: :I:.t'lILLB
CtJKBBRI.AHI) OOtJHTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Pebruary 1989
Por. Mere Info COntacts
Jon Bornholm
Superfund Branch
(404)347-7791
CURRENT STATUS
This is the second Fact Sheet discussing the Feasibility Study (FS) for the
Cape Fear Wood Preserving Superfund Site. The previous Fact Sheet.
highlighted an~ summarized thefinding~ documented in the Draft Feasibility
Study. This Fact Sheet proposes the Agency's preferred remedial alternative
~ the Cape Fear Site as well as inform the public of the upcoming public
:ing on the Feasibility Study. The main emphasis of the meeting will be
c... the Agency's propOsed. remedial action. The date of the meeting i8
February 21, 1989 at Seventy-First Senior High School Auditorium. The
meeting is to begin at 7:00 pm. The Seventy-First Senior High School is
located at on Raeford Road in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
The history of the Site has. been summarized in previou8 Fact Sheets and can
be found in either the Remedial Investigation (RI.) report or the Final Draft
Feasibility Study document, copies of both are located in the Information
"Repository/Administrative Record (IR/AR). The IR/AR is located in the
Cumberland COunty Public Library and Information center.
"Major site .tructures and features are shown in Pigure 1. This figure will
a180 allow the reader to locate areas on the Site that require remediation.
. ..
FEASIBILITY STUDY
'..' J
. , .
Re8ult8 of the RI show that the soils, 8ediments, surface water and
groundwater contain contaminant concentration8 above applicable relevant and
appropriate requirement8 (ARAR8) or target ri8k leve18 used in public health
~ luations (1 person out of 1,000,000 for carcinogenic compounds and a
-"rd index of 1 for noncarcinogenic compounds). The contaminant8 targeted
tgr remediation are listed in Table 1 along with a 8pecific cleanup goal for
each contaminant in each environmental media (80il, surface water/sediment,
..
. .. ......
. .
-------
~ _.--- -
-2-
each environmental media (.oil, .urface water/.ed1me~t, and groundwater) and
the rationale for .electing the particular cleanup goal.
The cleanup goal. were derived through reviewing exi.ting ARARa, rever.e ruk
a..e....nt technique. (calculated value.), backqround concentration.,
env1roDmental prot8Ctivene.., and analytical detection U,IIU.t.. COn. iderat ion
va. al.o given to cU.rect contact expo.ure, leaching to groundwater and
.urface water .. well a. pre.ent and future re.idential ver.u. 1Adu.trial .
land u.e .cenario.. &11 of the above information can be found in Appendix C
- ai.k &8.e....nt of the R8D8dia1 Inve.tigation R8port dated OCtober 6, 1988.
The 1'5 .tage of the Superfund proce.. begin. near the end of the 1U. '1'he
primary objective of the I'S i. to docuID8nt and. .upport the .election of the
808t ap'prop~iate remedial clean-up re.poft8e for a Superfund 8ite. Briefly,
the 1'5 evaluate. a'li.t of remedial re.pon.e. ba.ed on COR, engineering
fea8ibility, environmental impact, and then recClllD8nd. the 8O.t
co.t-effective .olution for the contaminant. found at a .ite that will
adequately protect public health and the environment.
"
~
~ SAHOUS
\~O(NC£
~\\
-.;. ........ \
JACKSON -- -.J
--- RESIDENCE 0
.~.-
'OAWEJt CMOSOTt.
UNT SUMP
OLD atmSOTtl
CCA UNIT
1
1
100
a
100
--
SCH.E .. n:ET
. .
LECEND
- - CUNlED MtA
I'igure 1.
5iteHap Identifying and Locating 5ite I'eature.
-------
-3-
TABLE 1.
SWIIID&rY Of Contaminated Media And Cleanup COal.
lurface WaCer
Ilte "laced Contaalnanc8
bceedLA9 AMR8, .1811: RaUo-le
........nt Value., or Clean Dp for Cleaftllp
8DY~ntal ~rlt.rla Goa18 Goal.
ua/Hcer
88ft..... 5 a
,AHa (carclnogenlc) 10 b
,AHa (noacarclDQ98nlc) 14,J50 c
ua/1Uer
ar_nic 12 d
C=_lua (tocd) 11 d
Copper 14 .
../ka
ar_nlc 94 c, f
"D&ene 0.005 b
Chr081ua (CoCal) 88 9
PAH. (carclnogenlc) 2.5 c,h
. PAHe (cocd) 100 1
../ka
PAH (Cocd) J.O j
Ar8.nlc 94 k
Chr0lD1U81 (Cotal) 88 k
,
"'
..acUa
.
Ground Wac.r
1011
. SediJDenc
(a) AMa . Naz18m Coa...t.....C L8¥al (1CCo).
(b) ft8 CODuacC tAbora~ ~ Q\l&DcUaUoo Liait 18 loI"wa.s 81Dc18 8111c8 UI8 calC111At8d r18k .._~C
value 18 belaw analyUCAl d8~- 1iaiU. 811011.141 tJU8 liaic be.Z8IIuce nUl Ua8 .. analyUcal pZ'OC8du.a
18pnwe, UI8 D8W (1~) liai c -1&141 a.:- UI8 clauup toal.
(c) Value dulved 1181q zwvane rl" ..-~~ ~qau.
(d) AIIU - A8bla~ .ater Qu&Uq> Crlteria.
(e) 'D8 9Oa1 pz'888IIU b&cqnud OIIIId1Uau .1Doa UI A8bla~ .ater QU11q> Cr1~18 CODC8Duacl- (1.5 ..IL) 18
"law b&cqZ'08ll4.
(f).na faclIn - wan.u ...Dana ia u8d 811108 tJa18 18 t.II8 811ft l1JI81J' tau.n ... ud &n8D1c 18 ~ poa1qa
81p.1f1c:aD~ d- ..... CIIft8D~ ... OIIIId1Uou. .
(v) fta 9Oa1 nil&' ; ~-81~ ~ caI41Uou (-...t- of t.II8 rup "'IIMrNd) 81Dc18 t.II8 .c:a1ca1a~ nak
.._-~ valll8 18 t881Df ~ l-ala.
(Ia) ft8 Yalue U8~ npnMaU a CIIft8U - 8c.ado liiM u.i8 18 ... OC88UYau.. CIIu t.II8 ~ clu1ftd f.
U. taure 11M 1IaZUr --.u1o. .
~1) 'alu 18 buad - qp1ca1 ~ COIIC8IauaUou (fl'C8 tJa8 U~n1lZ'8) 811108 tJa8 ca1CG.18~ 1-..1 .
D8e88"'rJ' ~ pzwva~ fa~1IZ'8 l88C"'~ fl'C8 8KC1 ii~ a tI&&U'd 1JId88 of 1 18 palUl4Wa~ (108g/q) 18 1.8 UI8II
repruaut.1ve b.acqZ'08ll4 GODd1t.1ou.
. .
(j) Caac8DuaUoa n8aucll8d by DA ~ .. pro~.. of aqaauc tllot.a.
(k) ft. ... nlue pzaP08ed for 80118 18 appUed due ~ a 8iailu 18-- 8Zp0811Z'8 roa~, aDd law ap8CUd ~ ~
8vface .8~ _. a YOlIl88Ulc ....18. .
-------
-4-
EXTENT 01' CONTAMINATION
Baaed on clean-up 90&1., t.he enent. of cont.aminat.ion wa. e.t.imat.ed for each
environment.al media. The following figure. (Figure. 2 t.hrough 4) define t.he
area. of cont.ami "at.ion requiriJuj re.ecUat.ion for each cont.aminant.or 91'oup of
con1:ud,nant.. in each enviroftlD8nt.al media.. .
J.9!l
Anevaluat.ion of t.he .oil .ample re.ult.. indicat.e. t.hat. de.pit.e previous
removal act.ivit.ie., are... wit.h high inorganic (copPer, chraaU.um and ar.enic)
and polycyclicarcmat.ic hydrocarbon (PAS) or creo.ot.e concent.rat.ion. .t.ill
r8lD&in. The areal enent. of .urface .oil for all cont.8IPinant.. exceeding
cleanup goal. encompa..e. approximat.ely 150,000 aquare feet. (3.4 acre.).
In est.imat.ing t.he volume, a minimum 3 foot. and maximum 10 foot. cont.aminant.
depth are con.idered in t.he main proce.. area and where .ubsurface
cont.aminat.ion wa. ident.ified. Out..ide t.he main process area, 1 foot. and 3
foot. minimum and maximum depth., respect.ively, are considered. Three feet. is
con.idered as a benchmark .ince t.hi. i. t.he average depth t.o groundwat.er.
Using minimum and maximum depths described, t.he t.ot.al volume of soil for
pot.ential remediation ranges from 14,100 cubic yards t.o 46,800 cubic yards
with an average of 30,500 cubic yard.. .
l'igure 2 defines t.he area of t.he Sit.e requiring .urficial .oil remediation.
Thi. area encompas.es all area. found t.o be contaminated.
Surface Water and Sediment
Surface water locations exceeding cleanup goals for arsenic, chromium. and
copper include the water supply pond, t.he northeast seasonal swamp, t.he
drainage ditch south and west. of t.he railroad t.racks, the diked pond, and
concrete plant di.charge pond. Depending on t.he .eason, an"approximat.e
minimum-maximum range of 0.8-1.2 million gallon. (HG) i. e.t.imatad, wit.h an
average of approximately 1.0 HG. .
Sediment.s exceeding cleanup goals for t.ot.al PABs, arsenic and chromiUm line
t.he northe.st. .easonal .wamp, t.he drainage ditch 80ut.h and we.t of t.he
r.ailroad tracks, and t.he diked pond (refer t.o FigUre 1). Since t.he exact
vertical profile of .ediment contaminat.ion ia not. known, volume. were
estimated for a minimum l-foot depth, w~ich represents a practical lower
limit for removal, and a maximum 3-foot. .dept.h, t.he average depth t.o .
groundwat.er. The re.ulting minimum - maximum volume range for remediat.ion i.
approximately 1,800-5,400 cubic yard. wit.han average of 2,900. cubic yard..
Groundwater
. COmparingresult.a for polycyclic aromat.ic hydrocarbons and. benzene, t.oluene
and xylenes in bot.h t.he upper and lower aquifer. .hows close correspondence
in representing t.he horizontal extent. of organic contamination. Using t.he-
organic areal ext.ent., an upper aquifer t.hickness of 25 feet, lower aquifer
dept.h of 50 feet, and an average effective soil por08it.y of 0.20,_t.he volume8
of cont.aminat.ed groundwater in t.he upper and lower aquifers were est.imat.ed
-------
-5-
.
,---
~
~' ,
~,
~
~ \\
........ ':::::.....J \
'0
'i
--" \
C"/,.--~~..
" '
, '
\
I
, \,
-. ,-- \\
, ...:::-...:- - ,\ \
, -~
' , ' \
~ '~"- \\
I ',,'-Jl.
I ,,' "-
oJ , 1
" ,I
, / ..J
I
I I
, I
\""'''''' I
\r'
,(
,..- -'~ ~
(- - ,,~
....~
i
I
100 ' 0 '00
--
SCA&.[ .. Fro
- - - CUNt£O MEA
t<:fOt:>. SUtf'AoC( MfA'DCUDIHC a.£toHUP
~ ~ FOIII M$EHlC. BEHZEN£.
QMOMIU" NIOIOfI. ~1IH8
P1gure 2.
Bor1&ontal Extent Of Contamination Exceeding
Cleanup Goal. In Surficial Soil.
to be 23.48 and 0.6 ~ll1on gallon., re.pect1vely. Kxper1ence at other
contaminated .lte. .how. that 4 t1lDi8. thl. cont-f ,,-teeS volume ..y be
required for withdrawal and treat.lD8nt. Con.equently, 93.9 and 2.4 811110n
gallon. have been u88cS in the upper and lower aqulfer., re.pectlvely, to
e.timate a 8&XimwIa 8Zp8Ct8cS treatment duration.
P1gure 3 pJ:'09'lde. the e.timat8cS bouncSary for the plume of contaa1nat1on,
including both PAB. aDd ben&en8~ in the upper aquifer and Flgure 4 provlde. '
tbe approximate plume boundary for both PAB. and ben&ene contAPtinat1on in the
lower aquifer., '
PROPOSED CLEAN-UP GOALS
Are .bown in Table 1.
-------
-6-
UMZI)IAL ACTION AL'l'EMATIVBS BvALtJA'l"ZI)
The entire U..t of r8lD8C1ial alternative. coft8idered for the CApe Pear Site
can J:»e found 1D the previou. Pact Sh..t or 1D the Pinal Draft 1'5 doc:wD8nt .
(dated December 16, 1988) locat.8d in the WAR. . The.. r8D8dial action
alternative. were formulated con.idering con1:8"" 1 "ant type., cont8"" 1 "8"t
coacentration., and applicable tecbnologie.. '1'h8 alternative. were then
evaluated ba.ed on technical fea.ibility and implementability, long-term and
.hert-term effectivene.. and impact., protectivene.. of human health and the
environment (i.e., level of ri.k reduction, compliance with ~ or cleanup
goal., and reductioft8. in cont8minant mobility/toxicity/volume), and co.t. A
.WIIID&ry of the r8lD8dial action alternative. evaluated for the contaminated
.oil. and .ediment. i.
provided in 'fable 2.
Similarily, 'fable 3
and 'fable 4 pre.ent
the remedial action.
alternative. evaluated
for groundwater/ .
.urface water and the
hazardou. material.,
tank., and piping,
re.P8ctively. .
. J
L£CtND ~:
- \,
----- .
II ---...., \
.. - orta:!'IZI \
c--.- ~~
. '~
"
~
,
~
- """- -
1
-
,
1
- .
---"'--
-
-
... . ..,
Figure 3.
,,-. '"
I ' '"
, "
. ~,
;'''', ~.-:---,
-.., ~ ,
. "~~,....~-.....-"',
"" '*".
\-'
.J
..
. M
'I
"
..... "
-,'-.:.....
(" )
\ ,~
" I,
. \., I
~ '''--
."::J' I"'S:?
'--;':.9
.. "
~\
"
\\
\\ ..
~
...
--
..
..
.
q ,
~
-~-\
ApproximateQpper Aquifer Plume Exceeding
PAR and Benzene Cleanup Goal.
SOILS/SEDIMENT
ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1S I
ACTION
!!SL
Thi. alternative
provide. the ba.eline
ca.e for comparing
.0il/.ed1ment .
alternative. and the
level of improv8lD8nt
achieved. 50 r8lD8dial
action be.ide.
continued monitoring
would be performed.
. Given t.he low - - -
.olubility of PAS.,
Datural 80il flu.hing
i8 not expect.ed to
reduce .oil
contamination below
cleanup goal. within
an acceptable time
frame.
-------
~
-7-
110 reduction in the mcbility/toxicity/vol,WD8 (KIT/V) of the contaminant.
pre.ent are realized. Cleanup goal. will be exc88ded.
AL'l'KRHATYW 2S1
PARTIAL DCAVA'l'IOH/nJUmGIRG OP SOILS A!fI) SznIMEH'l'S Wt'l'B
StrRI'ACB CAPPINq
1'hJ.8 alternative involve. 8Xcavat1n9 cant881lft8teeS .0U. out.ide the ..in
proce.. area and excavating/dredging cant8l11tft.teeS ..cU.ment..
bcavat8d/dr8d9eeS ..terial. would be tr&n8ported to the c.ntral proce..
and capped along with the cant-tft.teeS .oil. found in the proce.. area..
Thi. alternative would reduce the mobility of the
. .
. A
~o .~~
- I
.-.-- i
.IJ --...,. '\
.--. \..
C --",- ~
~~
.. ~"
. "\ !J.
~ ... .
"'---- D...
!
I
- .
............
..
... . far
Pigure 4.
/ '...... .
,...
'... -
. ~ ,,--...
.. ~~;>
..
.-
.
.
Approximate Lower Aquifer Plume Exceeding
PAR and Benzene Cleanup Goal.
area
contaminant. but would
not alter the toxicity
or volume. ThJ..
alternative could be
imp18lD8nted and
CClDpleteeS in
approx1mately 4 month..
AL'1'!:RHATIV!: 35, SOIL
AND SEnIKENT WASHING
Soil/.eeSim8nt wa.hing
involve. on~.i~e
treatment of
contaminateeS .oil. and
88dim8nt. with water and
detergent. and/or
.urfactant., if
nece..ary. 50il.
exc88ding cleanup goal.
would be excavated and
proce..ed through a
..rie. of wa.hing
proce..e.. The cleaned
.oil. would be replaced
in the excavation. The
wa.tawater generated
would be treated through
the on-.ite water
treatment...Y.~8ID~
Thi. alternative reduc..
the K/T/V of the
contaminant. by r8lDOV1Dg
the contaminant. frcaa
the .0il./.edim8nt..
Thi. alternative would
-------
--:-:-1
-8-
take approximately 2 year. to complete once tmplemented.
ALTBRRATIVB 48 I
'f'BEJUCAL PROCBSSING 01' COR'l'AlaRA'l'BD SOILS A1m nDIKBRTS
COMBIRZD WITH 'IUTION/SOLIDIPICATION/STABILIZATION OR
WASBIIfG .
'fhi. alternative involve. the excavation of all contaminated .oil. and
8ediment8. exceedJ.Dg cleanup ;oal.. Material. conta1n1.ng organic
TABLB. 2.
Development Of Remedial Action Alternative. For Soil./Sediment.
Alternative
Technologies Employed
lS*
No action
Natural flu.hing
2S.
Excavate i.olated area. of .011 contamination
Excavate/dredge .ediment.
Dewater dredged .ediment.
Cap .oil. and dewatered .ediment.
Revegetate
3S
Excavate/dredge 80ils and sediment.
Wash excavated materials onsite
Water .upply .ourcez
A. Purcha.e from Fayetteville Public Works
Commi..ion and truck to the .ite.
B. Purcha.e from a private vater company and pipe
to the .ite.
C. In.tall an on.ite well out.ide the contaminant
plume area.
Redeposit va.hed .oil./.ediment. in the excavated area
bvegetate
48
Excavate/dredge 80il.i.ediment.
Dewater dredged .ediment.
Thermal proce.. excavated materials
SOlidify/stabilize proce..ed .oil./.ediment. and
. redeposit in the excavated area.
Revegetate
*
S denotes remedial alternative for .oil/sediment.
I
-------
-9-
-~nL1l! 3.
Development Of Remedial Action Alternative.
1'0rGroundvater And Surface Water
Alternative
TeChnologie. Employed
1W.
80 action
Long-term groundwater monit~ring
2W
Groundwater extraction by' well point. and a deep
, ..
well Flocculation, .edimentation, and
filtration (.urface and groundwater)
Activated Carbon Ad.orption (.urface and
groundwater)
Di.charge treated effluent 'to .urface water
(we.tern ditch)
3W
Groundwater extraction by well point8 and a deep
well Flocculation, .edimentation, and filtration
(groundwater and .urface water)
Air .tripping (groundwater). '
Activated carbon aclaorption (.urface and
groundwater)
Di.charge treated effluent to .urface water
(we.tern ditch)
4W
Groundwater extraction by well point. and a deep
well Groundwater treatment
Filtration
Au Stripping
Activated carbon adsorption
Surface water treatment
Precipitation ,
Flocculation, 8edimentation, and filtration
Di.charge treated effluent to .urface water
(we.tern ditch)
5W
Groundwater extraction by well point. and deep
well(8)
Pretreatment
Precipitation (.urface and groundwater)
Flocculation, .edimentation, and filtration
(.urface and groundwater.) , '
Di8charge to POTW
- .
~.
. "
W denQtes remedial alternative for groundwater or 8urface water.
I ~ ~...
..'
Flocculation - The removal of.u8pended material by adding Chemical. '
resulting in the 8u8pended material. forming
heavier ma.ses that will 8ettle out.
-------
.. --. ---~- -
-10..-
~concentrationsgreater than cleanup goal. (PABs and benzene) would undergo
thermal de.orption while .oil. with inorganic level. exceeding remediation
objective. (ar.enic and chrclDium) would be either -
fizated/.olidified/.tabi1izedor.ranthrough a .oil wa.hing proCe...
Thi. alternative reduce. the H/T/V of t:he contaminant. by removing t:he
contaminant. for the 8011./.8d1.iDent.. Thi. alternative would take
approximately 2 year. to complete onee implemented.
GROUNDWA'l'ER AL'l'E1UfATIVES
AL'l'BRNATIVE 1 W:
NO ACTION -
The purpo.e of the no action alternative i. to evaluate .ite impact. in the
ab.ence of remediation. A. part of no action, groundwater monitoring would
be conducted. -
No expo.ure pathway. are eliminated and reduction in the ri.k level are
.achieved. There is no reduction in the H/T/V of the contaminant.. A 30-year
time frame ie u.ed for comparative purpo.e..
PUMP SURPACE WA'l'ER AND EX'l'RACT GROUNDWA'l'ER AND TREAT 'l'HROtJGB
FLOCCULATION. SEDIMENTATION. PILTRATION AND ACTIVATED CARBON
ADSORPTION
AL.'l'ERNATIVE 2W:
Surface water and groundwater would be pumped to the treatment .y.tem
on-.ite. Surface water would be removed from the northeast .wamp, drainage
ditch and diked pond before .ediments remediation in the.e feature..
Groundwater extraction will be accompli.hed by well points in the upper
aquifer. - Recovery would be conducted at one approximate 10,000 square feet
.ubarea at a time, and the well point.. would be moved to adjacent .ubareas
for .ubsequent dewatering. - The lower aquifer will be PUmped following the
completion of the remediation of the overlying upper aquifer to avoid
potential drawdownof the contaminant.. -
Extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and .urface water will
reduce contaminant H/T/V. The overall project duration from design to
clo.ure i. estimated to be about 3.6 year..
ALTERNATIvE 3W:
PUMP SURFACE WA'l'ER AND EXTRACT GROUNDWATER AND TREAT 'l'HROtJGB
FLOCCULATION. SEDIMENTATION. FILTRATION. AIR STRIPPING AND
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION - - -
Surface water and groundwater woUld be pumped to the treatment .Y.tem
on-.ite. - Surface water would be r8lDOvedfrom the northeast awamp, drainage
ditch and diked pond before .ediment. remediation in the.e feature..
Groundwater extraction will be accompli.hed by well point. in the upper
aquifer. Recovery would be conducted at one approximate 10,000 square f..t
.ubarea at a time, and the well point. would be moved to adjacent .ubareas
for .ubsequent dewatering. The lower aquifer will be PUmped following the
completion of the remediation of the overlying upper aquifer to avoid
potential drawdown of the contaminant..
-------
-11-
Thi. 8cheme provide. air .tripping for groundwater and therefore achieve. a
higher level of treatment than provided in Alternative 2W. btraction and
treatment of contamf".ted groundwater and 8Urface water will reduce
cont.-i"..nt H/T/V.. The overall project duration frem design to closure J.8
e8t!mated to be. about 3.6 year.;.
AL'l'ERNATIV!: "W: . PRECIPITATION .PLOCCO'LATION. SEDIM2HTATION AJII1) FILTRATION OF
SUJUI'AC2 WATER. FILTRATION. SIR STRIPPING AJII1) ACTI1n.TED
CARBON AnSORPTION OF GROUNDWATER .
This alternative provide. seParate treatment for surface water and
groundwater ba88d on the different contaminant. found in the.e media.
Surface. water will ~ pumped to a treatment .y.tem on-.ite.Surface water
would be removed frem the northea.t 8Wamp, drainage ditch and diked pond
prior to sediment remediation in the.e targeted area.. Extracting
groundwater will be accompli.hed by well point. in the upper aquifer and
pumped to a .eparate treatment sy.tem. Recovery would be conducted at one
approximate 10,000 square f_t .ubarea at a tilDe, and the well point. would
be moved to adjacent .ubarea. for:sub.equsnt dewatering. The lower aquifer
will be pumped foilowing the completion of the remediation of the overlying
upper aquifer to avoid potential drawdown of the contaminant..
Bxtraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and .urface water will
reduce contaminant H/T/V. The overall project duration from de.ign to
clo.ure i. e.timated to be about 3.6 year..
ALTERNATIVE SW ~
IQ..
PRETREATMENT 0,. GROtJ'NDWATER ANI) St7RFACE WATER WITH DISCHARGE
PUBLICLY OWNED TREATKENTWORK
As with other water alternatives, .urface water will be pumped and
groundwater extracted through well points. The water will be pretreated, a.
determined by the Publicly owned treatment work (POTW), and the effluent will
then be di.charged to the POTW.
Bxtraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater and surface water will
reduce contaminant H/T/V. The overall project duration from de.ign to
alo.ure i. e.timated to be about 3.6 year.. .
- -
. . ALTERNATIVES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. TANJtS ANI) PIPING
ALTERNATIVE lC.~ !A:
OFFSITE LANDFILLING OF CO. CRYSTALS ANI)
ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PIPE INSULATION..
Small quantities of apparent co cry.tal., c!iaracterized as hazardous,
be transported to a RCRA permitted landfill. . The asbest08-contaiJiing
insulation, characterized as non-hazardou8, will be disposed of at the
Cumberland County Solid Waste Facility.. .. .
will
Contaminant mobility is reduced by removal. Since no treatment i. evoked,
toxicity and volume are unaffected. The above activitie.should be completed
in a month. .. .
-------
I"
. -12-
AL'1'EJUfATIVB lSs:
ONSITE DISPOSAL OP SOLIDIPIED SLeDGE
CD-.ite di.po.al of cree.ote contaminated .ludge vhich va. previou.ly
.olidified vill be capped alODg vith other .oil. and .ediment. (Aiternative
2S). ... . . .
Dl.po.ing thi. .olidified .1udge on-.ite in a..ociation vith a cap .hould
reduce contaminant mobility but vill have lIL1nimal affect: on contaminant
toaicity and volume.. . .
AL'l'BRNATIVB 2SS:
OFFSITE DISPOSAL OP SOLIDIPIED SLODCE
. .
If either Alternative 2S or 4S i. not: _1ect:8d, the creo.ote contaminated
.ludgewill be tran.ported to a RCRA permitted landfill for di.po.al.
COntaminant mobility i. reduced by .ource rlllDOVal, whereas toxicity and
volume are unaffected.
ALTERNATIVE lL:
ONSITE TREATMENT OP CO SOLtrTION AND/OR WASTEWATER IN TAmtS
The liquids would be fed at a low rate into the treatment sy.tam establi.hed
for addres.ing the groundwater and .urface vater.
COntaminant mobility, toxicity and volume deere..e with treatment.
ALTERNATIVE 2L:
OPPSITE TRBATKEHT OP CCA SOLUTION AND/OR WASTEWATER IN TAmtS
If Alternative 4W is not .elected for .urface water, other alternative. may
not be adequate to treat high contaminant concentrations .ince they are not
.pecifically targeted .for metals removal.. In this event, off-.itetreatment
at a RCRA permitted facility i. nece.s&ry. . .
A reduction in the contaminants toxicity (reduction of hexavalent chromium)
and mobility would be reduced.. Volume would remain unchanged.
ALTERNATIVEJL:
OPPSITE TRANSPORT OP CCA SOLUTION
A8 an alternative to head.trong the 3 percent CCA .olution, this .olution
could be .hipped to another wood pre.erver for use.
. .
. .. -. -..
This alternative would achi.... a reduction in the mobility and volume of the
contaminant but.ince there was no treatment, toxicity remain. the .ame. .
I
ALTERNATIVE IT/P AND 2T/P:
REMEDIATION OP TANKS AND PIPING
Nine tank8, eight above ground and one below, ram-in on-.ite and are targeted
for removal. In addition, piping as.ociated with .the tank8 and piping tied
. into the wood, treating proce.. (both creo.ote and CCA) i. .cheduled for
, . removal. Tanks and piping will be render non-hazardous through 81:eam .
cleaning, flushing and rinsing (triple rin.e). .Alternative IT/P provide. an
opportunity for a .crap metal dealer to purcha8e the metal and Alternative
2T/P allows for dispo.al of the cut up metal at the CWDberlandCOunty Solid
Wast~ Facility. ' .
-------
1-
-13-
DBLB 2.
Development: Of lt8ID8C!ial ~iOD Alternativee Por
lla&ardoue Materiale, Tank8, And Piping
Material
uternative
. TechDologiee EmPloyed .
--
Apparent CCA Crye~
lC
Offeite landfill (hazardoue).
--
A8b8etoe Ineulaticm .
(A8eWD8d)
1A
Offeite landfill (DoDhazardoue).
Solidified Sludge,
lSS
2SS
OI18ite diepoeal.
Offeite landfill (bazardoue).
CCA Waetewater and/or
CCA 3' Solution
1L
Treat wa.tewater and eolution
oneite for cr+6
Treat waetewater and eolution
oneite witb .urface water..
2L
Treat waetewater and eolution
offeite.
3L
Traneport CCA eolution offeite.
Tanks and Piping
IT/P + 2T/P
Locate (Piping)
Empty (Tanke)
Bxcavate (UST and Piping)
Drain/Purge (Piping)
Clean (Tanka and Piping)
CUt (Tanke and Piping)
IT/P
Diepoee of ael
Scrap _tal
2T/P
at an offeite landfill
(noDhazardoue)
..
- .
C denotee Cryetale- (apparent CCA) .
A denotee A8b8etoe (aeeWD8d)
SS denote. Solidified Sludge
L denote. Liquid (ecA Wa.tewater
T/P denote. Tanka/Piping
and/or CCA 3' Solution)
-.
Ba.ed on vieual characterization.
Theee materiale were not eampled.
UST ~ Underground Storage Tank.
-------
-14-
.PA'S PROPOSED REMlmIAL AL'l'ZRNATIVB
Prior to initiating any remedial action on-.ite, a .ite .urvey will be
conducted to determ.in8 the. pre.ence ot any endangered plant .peeie. exi.t
oD-.ite ~ .
RBHBDIATION OF BAZAJU)()OS KATBJUALS, TAHItS II PIPING
ott-.ite di.po.al of .odium dicromate- copper .ultate - ar.enic
peDtoxide (CCA) .alt cry.tal., .oliditied cree.ote and
a.be.to.-CoDtaiDing pipe in.tallation. SiDce CCA cry.tala and the
.oliditied cree.cte are characterized ... hazardou., they will be disposed
ot at a RCRA pendtted landtil1. The &8be.to.-C:ODtaiDiDg pipe .
in.tall.tion i., characterized non-hazardou. and will be di.po.ed ot at
the Cumberland County Solid Wa.te Facility pur.uant to the tacilitie.
.pecit ication. .. . .
I
i .
!
The tanks and a..ociated piping, &bOve and below ground, will be emptied,
approximately 50,000 gallon. of 3 percent CCA .olution and 15,000 gallon.
.of CCA contam~ated wastewater, flu.hed and cleaned, including triple.
rin.ing, to render them.non-hazardou.. The metal will then be cut and
either .old to . local..crap metal dealer or di.po.ed of at the.
Cumberland County Solid Wa.te Facility. Tanka and/or piping that cannot
be cleaned sufticientlyto render them non-hazardous will be tran.ported
to a RCRA permitted landfill for di.po.al. .
A buyer for the 50,000 gallon. of 3 percent OCA .olution will fir.t be
pursued. If no buyer can be found, then the 50,000 gallon. of 3 percent
CCA .olution along with the 15,000 gallon. ot the CCA contaminated
waatewateras well as wastewater generated by on-.ite activities will be
treated on-site through the water treatment .y.tam(.) .et up for treating
the pumped surface water. and extracted groundwater. .
SOORCE CONTROL (Remediation of Contaminated Soil.)
The preferred alternative tor the remediation ot contaminated .
.oils/.ediment is a .oil washing technique. The alternate .ource control
alternative is an on-.itelow temperature proc:e.. to remove the organic
contaminants tollowedby either a .oil wa.hing technique or .oil
fixation/.olidification/stabilization proc:e.. to address the inorganic..
The deci.ion a. to which .curce control alternative that will be
implemented will be ba.ed on data generated by the .oil wa.hing
treatability .tudy to be conducteddurinq remedial de.ign.
. ..
Contaminated .0il./.ecSiiDent will be excavated, treated and placed back in
the excavation. All wastewater generated will either be reu.ecS or
treated on-site. Pollowing completion of on-.ite activities, tho.e area.
disturbed by remedial activitie. on-.ite will be revegetated.
MIGRATION CONTROL (Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater)
Groundwater extraction willb8 accompli.hed through the use ot well
points in the upper (surficial) aquifer. Recovery will be conducted in
-------
-15-
10,000 .quare foot. .ubarea. at a time, and the well points will be moved
to adjacent area. for .ub.equential dewatering.
Due to local cont-lI!Ii "-tion of the lower aquifer, the lower aquifer will
be pwaped following remediation of the overlying upper aquifer in this
area. Thi. "ill prevent potential cont-lI!Ii"ant cSrawdown to deeper depth..
A "ater treatlD8nt .y.t.."ill be eatabli.hed on-.ite. The .y.tam'.
influent vill include content. of the tanka and piping, all va.tewater
generated due to remedial actions implemented, pumped .urface water, and
eztracted groundwater. The level and d8CJr- of treatment v111 depend on
1) the level of contaminant. in the influent and 2) the ultimate
di.charge point of. the treated vater. The range of treatlD8nt for the
contaminated va~er include. air atripping, filtration through activated
carbon filter, bioremediation, and metal removal through flocculation,
.edimentation and precipitation. There are two vater di.charge
alternative. for the treated water. The optimal choice i. the local
.ewer .y.tam. The other alternative i. to di.charge the effluent to a
local .urface .tream. The point of di.charge and the degree of treatment
vill be determined in the Remedial De.ign .tage. The effluent will meet
all AltAR'..
EXPRESS YOUR OPINION/PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The COmmunity'. Role in the Superfund Proce..
EPA ~elies on the public to en.ure that the cleanup method .elected for each
Superfund .ite meets the need. of the local community, in addition to being
an effective .olution to the problem. To this end, EPA has .et a Public
comment period from February 21 through February 14,1989 to encourage public'
participation in the .election proce... In addition to the Public comment
period, the Agency held a Public meeting at. vhich the finding. Uld'
conclu.ionsof theFS will be pre.ented to the Public. Que.tions will be
entertained at the meeting. The Public ..eting will be held on February 21,
1989 at 7:00 pm .in the Seventy-Fir.t Senior High School Aud.1torium at Route
21, Box 479, beford Road, I'ayetteville, North carolina.
In. addition, BPA ha. placed the RIll'S report. and this Propo.ed Plan in the
Public Information Repository. The Information Repo.itory i. located at the
. cumberland County Public Library. and Information center. - BPA encourage.
residents and other intere.ted partie. to make written and oral comment. on
the Propo.ed Plan and the I'S document through I'ebruary 14, 1989. Ccalment.
will be..ummarized and re.pon... provided in the Re.pon.ivene.. Summary .
.ection of the Record of Dec1.1on (ROD). The ROD 1. ~he documen~ that .tates
EPA'. final alternative .election. . .
At this oo1nt, however, the ~rooosed alternative is merely the ~rel1minarv
choice for solvina the contamination ~roblems at the .ite. EPA will make the
final selection only after consideration of all comments on any of the
remedial alternatives addressed in this Prooosed Plan and FS reoort.
-------
-16-
BPA encourages the public to become involved 1n the selection process by
attend1ng the public .e.t1Dg, b8ccming informed, and cClllDenting on the
alternative pre.ented. The Agency will accept oral or written CQlllD8nts
during the public c~nt p8ri~. CCalD8nts, or reque.t. for further
1'nformation, .hould be .ent tOI .
II1chael Benderaol1
COmmunity Relations COOrdinator
U.S. BPA,lt89ion IV
345 COurtland Street, lIB
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)341-3004
The Agency encourage. concerned citizen. to become involved and have their
name. added to the cape "ear Wood pre.erving .ite mailing list. If you are
interested, .end your name and address to Jon Bornholm, BPA, 345 CO~land
St., HE, Atlanta, GA 30365. .
RECORD OF DECISION
. .
The Record of Deci.ion (ROD) i. the decision document. in which the Agency
selects a. well as support. the remedial alternative to be implemented at -
Superfund site.
ADMINISTRATIVERECORD/INFORKATION REPOSITORY
Section 113 (]c) of the comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation,
and Liability. Act (Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), requires that the Agency establish an
Adm!nistrative Record (AR) at or near the site at issue for public review.
The AR is to contain all information used by the Agency to make its decision
on the selection of a remedial r.sponse under the Superfund Law.
BPA has e.tablished an Information Repository/Administrative Record at the
Cumberland COunty Public Library and Informa~ion center. The Information
~pository/Administrative Record must contain _11 the ..
data/correspondences/documents/rationale used by the Agency in developing and
choosing the remedial alternative selected to clean up the site. ".
------- |