United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-92/104
July 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Benfield Industries, NC
-------
NOTICE
The appcndicas toted In tha indax that am not found in thta docurrart tova baan removad at tha request o»
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplMTMnt but add! no further applcflbto information to
the oontmt of the document. AM supptemantal material to. however, contained tn the admlniguaUve record
for this ate.
-------
80272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. AEPORTNO. I ~ :L RIeI..nt'. ~n No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R04-92/104
... 11118 8l1li 8.AI8IUe 5. A8poI\ ~ '"I,
SUPERFUND RECORD OF. DECISION 07/31/92
Benfield Industries, NC . I.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aulhor(.1 a. "'rfonnlnll Organization A8pL No.
.
I. l'IItfonning Orp/nlz8llon MImI 8l1li Add- 10. ProJactII'88IIIWork Unit No.
11. Contl8Cl(CI or Ot8nt(Q) No.
(CJ
(0)
1~ ~NI8 o.g.nIDIIon MImI 8l1li Add- 1:L TJ118 01 ~po" . ...rIod Co--
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Street, S.W. ..
Washington, D.C. 20460 1'"
15. Supplalll8fll8ry"'"
PB93-964018
11. Ab8Ir8cI (LImIt: aao WOId8)
The 3.5-acreBenfield Industries site is a former bulk chemical mixing and repackag~ng
plant in Hazelwood, Haywood County, North Carolina. Land use in the area is mixed,
with surrounding light industrial, commercial, and residential areas. The estimated
3,258 area residents use ground water as their sole source of drinking water, and
approximately 2,056 people in Hazelwood are connected to the local public water supply
system. From 1904 until Benfield Industries purchased the property in 1976, site
ownership changed several times and was used for furniture manufacture and sewing
operations. Products handled and stored at the facility by Benfield Industries
included paint thinners; solvents; sealants: cleaners: de-icing solutions; and wood
preservers, including creosote. During site operations, complaints from citizens
concerning the improper disposal of hazardous waste prompted initial site
investigations by the state. On April 21, 1982, a series of explosions at ;the Benfield
site started a fire that destroyed most of the onsite facilities and resulted in
permanent closure of the Benfield Industries plant. None of the onsite tanks or gas
cylinders ruptured during the fire; however, dense toxic fumes emanating from the site
(See Attached Page)
17. Doc:wMnt ~ .. II88cttpIM8
Record of Decision - Benfield Industries, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (PAHS), metals (arsenic, lead)
It. Id8nIllilt8lOpan.En T-
Co C08AlI FI8IdIOnlUp
11. AwIIabIIlt, -'-1 1'. Sacurity CI888 (Th18 ~po"l 21. No. 01 Pagaa
None 174
2G. Sacurlty Clue (Thla Page) 22. PrIo8
None
(888 AIISI-ZI8. t8)
S8e1n8tnlcCt- on Rew-
(Fonnarty If11S.35I
Dapartm8111 01 Com-
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-92/104
Benfield Industries, NC
First Remedial Action - Final
--
Abstract (Continued)
resulted in the temporary evacuation of nearly 2,000 area residents. Investigations
conducted by EPA, state, local agencies, and academic institutions revealed a wide range
of organic and inorganic contaminants, including elevated levels of lead and chromium.
Following the fire, the state ordered the site owner to remove all fire debris,
chemicals, and creosote storage tanks from the site. This ROD addresses the remediation
of contaminated soil and ground water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene; other organics including PARs; and
metals, including arsenic and lead.
The selected remedial action for the site includes excavating, separating, sizing, and
treating the contaminated soil using onsite soil washing; transferring the smaller soil
particles to an ex-situ slurry biological treatment system; replacing coarse soil
fraction and the treated soil fines in the onsite excavations, and grading and
revegetating the area; treating and/or disposing of any remaining hazardous waste
residual offsite; extracting and pretreating ground water onsite using aeration to remove
iron and manganese, followed by treatment using ion exchange to remove heavy metals;
ex-situ biotreatment using a submerged fixed-film bioreactor; and a polishing step using
granular activated carbon; reintroducing the nutrient-enriched water into the onsite
aquifer to facilitate in-situ biodegradation, or if necessary offsite discharge to a
POTW. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $3,079,900, which-
includes a present worth O&M cost of $424,360 for 5 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based
on SDWA MCLs and state standards, including benzene 5 ug/l; antimony 6 ug/l; barium
1,000 ug/l; beryllium 4 ug/l; and lead 15 ug/l. Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals
are based on SDWA MCLs and state standards, including benzo-(a)-anthracene 0.8 mg/kg;
chrysene 1.6 mg/kg; naphthalene 10 mg/kg; and benzo-(a)-pyrene 0.3 mg/kg (health-based).
-------
.:.
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
BlsftE.I.&1.D IBDUSTRIBS SrrB
HAZELWOOD, . HAYWOOD COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
D~mI POR 'IBB BOORD 01' DBCI:SImi
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Benfield Industrie.
Hazelwood, Haywood County, North Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
Thi. decision document present. the selected remedial action for the Benfield
Industries Superfund site in Hazelwood, North Carolina chosen in accordance
~ith the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen.ation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 and, the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan. This
decision i. ba.ed on the admini.trative record file for this Site.
The State of North Carolina conditionally concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous eubstance. from this Site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action .elected in this Record of
Decision, may pre.ent an imminent and .ub.tantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Pre.ently, no unacceptable current
ri.k. were identified a..ociated with the Benfield .ite, the principle threat
pertain. to the futUre and potential u.e of the groundwater beneath and
downgradient of the Site and the continuing adver.e impact contaminated .oils
will have on the quality of the groundwater.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED :REMEDY
The .elected remedy addre..e. the future unacceptable rieks posed by the Site
to human health and the environment.
Alternative SS3 will permanently remove and de.troy contamination in the
through on-.ite treatment. Thi. alternative involve. .oil wa.hing and
microbial bioc1eqradation of the .lurry generated by the .oi1 wa.hing
proce... Below are the activities a..ociated with this alternative I
soil
Excavate and wa.h approximately 4,600 cubic yard. of contaminated
.oil..
Replace the cleaned coar.e .oil material, following confirmation
.ampling, in the excavated area. and biotreat the slurry which contains
the .oil fine. and the a..ociated contaminant..
.40
-------
...
.
FollOwing biotreatment and confirmation sampling, the cleaned soil
fines will be backfilled into the excavated areas.
Alternative GW6 will permanently remove and destroy the contaminants in the
. groundwater through groundwater extaction and on-site above-ground
biotreatment and in-situ biodegradation. The following activities are
involved in this alternative:
.
contaminated groundwater will be extracted from within and at the
periphery of the plume via extraction wells and piped to an onsite,
above-ground treatment process.
.
Treatment process includes pretreatment (aeration), heavy metals
removal (ion exchange), biotreatment using submerged fixed film
bioreactors, and polishing through granular activated carbon filters.
.
In a holding tank, hydrogen peroxide and nutrients will be added to
treated groundwater which will then be reintroduced into the aquifer
through infiltration galleries to promote in-situ biodegradation of the
contaminants.
.
It is anticipated all extracted groundwater will be reintroduced to
the aquifer, however, it may be necessary to discharge up to 25\ of the
water to either the City of Waynesville publicly owned treatment works,
meeting specified pretreatment requirements, or Browning Creek, meeting
NPDES requirements.
.
Any sludge or spent activated carbon will be dealt with in the most
cost efficient manner.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy i. protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirement. that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This
>remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technology to
the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or vnlume as
a principal element. Since this remedy may result in hazardous substances
remaining on-.ite above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection. of human health and the
envirQnment.
~~~h7~
r- Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
1-~/-9Z.
Date
-------
THE DECISION SUMMARY
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
BDFIKLD DlDUS'rllIKS S:ID
HAZELWOOD, HAYWOOD COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
u. S. BNVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
-------
~
1.0
2.0
3.0
'.rABLB 01' UI1U':An:rS
SBC'J.'XOR
INTRODUCTION
................................................ .
SITE ~TION AND DESCkIPTION ................................
SITE HISTORY .................................................
5.0
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ........................
4.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
... ...... ..... ...... .......... ...... ...
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
.......
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
7.1 Soils
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3 Deep Subsurface Soils ............................
Groundwater .............................................
..... ....... .... ...... ........
..... ......... ... ......... ...... ...... ..... .... ....
Surface Soils
........... ........... ...... ........
Shallow Subsurface Soils .........................
7.2
Shallow Grou.ndwater ...................... '. . . . . . . .
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.2.1
7.2.2 Deep Groundwater .................................
Surface Water and Sediment ..............................
Hydrogeological Setting .................................
Pathways and Routes of Exposure .........................
SUMMARY OP SITE R2SKS ........................................
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
Con~~nan~8 of Concern .................................
Exposure Assessment .....................................
Toxicity As.essment:. .....................................
Risk Characterization ...................................
Risk Uncertain1~y .......................................
Bcological ~8k .........................................
SUIIIID&ry' .............................. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DBSCRIPTION OP ALTERHATXVES ..................................
9.1 Applicable or' Relevant and Appropriate Requirement......
9.1.1 Action-Specific ARARs ............................
9.1.2 Chemical-Specific ARARs ..........................
9.1.2.1
9.1.2.2
9.1.2.3
9.1.2.4
8011. ...................................
Groundwater .............................
Surface Waters ..........................
Sediment
...... ... .... ....... .... .... .....
9.2
9.1.3 Ioocation-specific ARARs ..........................
Remedial Alternatives to Addres8 Soil Cont~nation .....
9.2.1 Alternative SSlI
9.2.2 Alternative SS21
9.2.3 Alternative SS31
Ho Action ...........~........~.
9.2.4
, 9.2.5
RCItA Cap ........................
Soil washing/Slurry
Biotreatment ...................
Solvent Extraction .............
On-Site Incineration ...........
Alternative SS41
Alternative SS51
PAGE Ro.
1
1
5
8
8
10
10
13
16'
16
26
32
33
33
41
44
52
54
56
56
56
76
81
90
90
90
101
101
101
101
112
112
113
115
116
120
120
121
123
124
-------
'1'ABLB OF UJ1UanTS
SEC'r:ION
PAGE 50.
9.3
9.2.6 Alternat.ive SS6: In-Situ Bioremediation ......... 124
9.2.7 Alternative S57: Off-site Incineration .......... 125
Remedial Alternatives to Address Groundwater
Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125
9.3.1 Alternative GW1: No Action ...................... 126
9.3.2 Alternative GW2: Re.trict Groundwater U.e and
Meni tor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 126
9.3.3 Alternative GW3:
9.3.4 Alternative GW4:
9.3.5 Alternative GW4B:
9.3.6 Alternative GW5A:
9.3.7 Alternative GW5B:
9.3.8 Alternative GW6:
Groundwater containment/
Surface Water Discharge ........ 127
Extraction, Above..around
Bioremediation, Surface
Water Discharge ................ 127
Extraction, Above..around
Bioremediation,
POTW Di.charge ...............". 128
Extraction, UV/OX, Surface
Water Di.charge ............... 129
Extraction, UV/OX, POTW
Di.charge ..................... 129
Extraction, Above..around/
In-Situ Bioremediation,
On-Bite Discharge Through
Infiltration Galleries ......... 129
10.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATrvBS .............. 130
10.1 Thr..hold Criteria ..................................... 130
10. 1. 1
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the
Bnvironmant .................................... 130
10.2
10.1.2 Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirement. ...................... 133
Primary Balancing Criteria ............................. 134
10.2.1 Long-Term Effectivene.. and Permanence ......... 134
10.2.2 Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume ...... 136
10.2.3 Sho~-Term Effectivene.. ....................... 136
10.2.4 ~l...n~abill~y ............................... 136
10.2. 5 eo.t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137
Modifying Criteria ..................................... 138
10.3.1 State of North Carolina Acceptance ............. 138
10.3.2 Community Acceptance ........................... 138
10.3
11..0
DESCRIPTION OF THE SBLBCTBD REMEDY........................... 138
11.1 Performance Standard. to be Attained ................... 139
11.2 Soil/Source Remediation ................................ 139
11.3 Groundwater Remediation ................................ 141
11.4 Additional Data Requirement8/Honitor Exi.ting
11.5
Condition. ............................................. 144
-------
~
TABLE OF CORTBHTS
SEC'l'ION
PAGE No.
12.0
STATUTORY DETERMINATION .....................................~ 146
12.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment ......... 146
12.2 Compliance with ARARs .................................. 146
12.3 Cost Effectiveness ..................................... 147
12.4 Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Technologies to
the Maximum Extent Practicable ......................... 147
12.5 Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element ........ 147
13.0
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.......................................... 147
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix B - Proposed Plan/Legal Notice
Appendix C - States of North Carolina's Letter of Conditional Concurrence
-------
Figure 1-
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Fiqure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Fiqure 17.
Figure 18.
LIST OF FIGURES
Map Showing Site Vicinity...............................
Map Showing Site Location.........,......................
Map Illustrating Features/Locations of Structures
on the Site Prior to April 1982 Fire ....................
Map Outlining Areas Requiring Soil Remediation .........
Map Depicting Estimated Extent of Groundwater
Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map Locating Surficial Soil Sampling Locations
and Total Concentrations of Contaminant Groups .........
Map Locating Shallow Surface Soil Sampling
Locations and Total Concentrations of
contaminant Groups.....................................
Map Locating Deep Surface Soil Sampling
Locations and Total Concentrations of
Contaminant Groups.....................................
Map Locating Shallow Monitoring Well Locations
and Total Concentrations of Contaminant Groups .........
Map Locating Deep Monitoring Well Locations
and Total Concentrations of Contaminant Groups .........
Map Locating Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Locations and Total Concentrations of
Contaminant Groups.....................................
Map Showing Topography of Site and Surrounding Area ....
Map Showing Cross-Section Orientations .................
Map Depicting Cross-Section A-A' .......................
Map Depicting Cross-Section 8-8' .......................
Map Contouring Potentiometric Surface in Upper,
Shallow Zone...........................................
Map Contouring Potentiometric Surface in Saprolite
Zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Plan View and Cross-Section of RCRA Cap ................ 122
....
PAGE NO.
2
3
4
14
15
17
20
27
34
38
42
45
47
48
49
50
-------
,~
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.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
'Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Tabl'e 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE NO.
Contaminants Detected in Each Environmental Medium ......
Summary of Surficial Soil Sampl,ing Results .............
Frequency and Range of Contaminants Detected
11
18
in Surficial Seils ......................................
19
21
Summary of Shallow Subsurface Soils Results .............
Frequency and Range of Contaminants Detected
in the Shallow Subsurface Soils .........................
Summary of Deep Subsurface Soils Results ................
Frequency and Range of Contaminants Detected in
the Deep Subsurface Soils ..........................~....
Summary of Shallow Groundwater Results ..................
Frequency and Range of Contaminants Detected in
the Shallow Groundwater ..~..............................
24
28
31
35
37
39
Summary of Deep Groundwater Results .....................
Frequency and Range of Contaminants Detected in
the Deep Groundwater ....................................
40
43
43
53
55
57
Summary of Metals Detected in Surface Water .............
Summary of Contaminants Detected in Sediment............
CUrrent Exposure Pathways ..............................
Potential ~ture Exposure Pathways ......................
Chemicals of Potential Concern .........................
Summary of Exposure Point Concentrations of
Chemicals of Potential Concern .........................
CUrrent Exposure Assumptions for Soil, Sediment
59
.and Surface Water .......................................
72
Future Exposure Assumptions for Soil and Groundwater.... 73
Summary of Dermal Permeability Constants for
Chemicals of Potential Concern ......................... 75
Toxicity Values ........................................ 77
Derivation of Dermal Critical Toxicity Values ........... 79
Total Hazard Quotient .....~............................. 82
Total Carcinogenic Risks............................ .'. . . 86
Technologies Passing Initial Screening - Soil .........~. 91
Technologies Passing Initial Screening- Groundwater .... 93
Final Screening of Remedial TechnQlogies - Soil......... 94
Final Screening of Remedial Technologies - Groundwater.. 98
Action - Specific ~ ................................. 102
Chemical - Specific ARARa ......~........................ 107
Soil Remediation Levels ................................. 113
Groundwater Remediation Levels .......................... 114
Screening Criteria for Surface Water .................... 115
Screening Criteria for Sediment ......................... 116
Location - Specific ARARa ............................... 117
Comparative Analysis Summary for. Remedial Alternatives.. 131
Alternate Treatability Variance Levels .................. 135
Remediation Goals and Corr..ponding Risks............... 140
-------
ARAR
AWQC
CERCLA
. em/ see
CRP
CSF
ESD
EPA
FS
GAC
gpm
HI
HQ
HRS
LDR
MCLs
MCLGs
mg/kg
mph
KW
NCAC
NCDHR
NCDNRCD
NCDEHNR
NCP
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
O&K
PAR (PARs)
PCBs
POTW
ppn
PRPs
PW
RA
RCRA
RfD
RD
RI
RHB
ROD
SARA
SFFRs
SVOCs
TAL
TBC
TCL
List of Acronyms
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Ambient Water Quality Criteria.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund)
centimeters per second
Community Relations Plan
cancer Slope Factor
Explanation of Significant Difference
Environmental Protection Agency
Feasibility Study
Granular Activated Carbon
gallon. per minute
Hazard Index
Hazard Quotient
Hazardous Ranking System
Land Disposal Restrictions
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum COntaminant Level Goals
milligrams per kilogram
miles per hour
Monitoring Well
North carolina Administrative Code
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources
National COntingency Plan
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
National Priority List
Operation and Maintenance
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
parts per million
potenti~ly Responsible Parties
Present Worth
R8m8dial Action
Resource Conservation and R8c0very Act
bference Dose
R8m8dial Design
Remedial Investigation
basonable Maximum Exposure
Record of Decision
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Submerged Fixed Film bactors
Semi-volatile Organic Compound.
Target Analyte List
To Be COnsidered
Target Compound List
/
-------
...
TCLP
THY -
ug/kg
ug/l
TN/OX
VOCs
List of Acronyms
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
Ultraviolet/Oxidation'
Volatile Organic Compounds
Procedure
-------
.JtBOo IIIU) OF DBCZSZ08
StJICImRY 01' IUDlBDIAL At.'1'BRRA'UVB SBLBC"l'XOR
FOR . '1'D .IUUIE.uu.D DlDOS'l'RDS am DP'OJID SZD
BAZKLWOOD, ~ comrrr, NOR'l'B CAROLDm
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The Benfield Indu8tries Superfund 8ite (Benfield 8ite or Site) was proposed
for the National Priority Li8t (NPL) in June 1988 and was finalized on the
list in October 1989 with a Hazardou8 Ranking SY8tem (RRS) score of 31.67.
As of Karch 1992, the Site i8 ranked/grouped 912 out of 1218 NPL 8ites across
the country.
The Remedial Investigation (RI) and Fea8ibility Study (FS) at the Benfield
8ite are complete. The RI, finalized on April 3, 1992, characterized the
nature and probable extent of uncontrolled hazardous waste at the Site. The
Risk Assessment Report, completed in Kay 1992, defined the risk posed by the
hazardou8 waste described in the RI. The Proposed Plan Fact Sheet, based on
the Karch 20, 1992 draft FS report, provided the public a 8ummary of the
detailed analysi8 of the seven (7) 80il remediation alternatives and the six
(6) groundwater remediation alternatives.
This Record of Deci.ion (ROD) has been prepared to summarize the remedial
selection proce.8 and to pre.ent the selected remedial alternative.
2.0
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Benfield site i8 located in Hazelwood, HaYWOod County, North Carolina, as
.hown in Pigur8 1 and occupies approximately 31 acre. of the 6 acre parcel
at 112 to 124 Richland Street (Pigure 2). The approximate latitude is
3S822'23w and longitude 83800'lSw.
The Site is surrounded by light industrial, commercial, and residential
-areas. The Site is bordered to the north by an antique shop, by Richland
Street to the east, a residence to the south, and the Southern Railway and
Browning Branch to the west. Richland Street represents a divide between a
predominantly residential area to the east and industrial/commercial area to
the west, including the Benfield property (Figure 2)8 Other nearby
features in the town of Hazelwood include the Hazelwood Elementary School,
two blocka east and the BAywood County Prison approximately 1,000 feet
southeast of the Site.
The Benfield site was an active facility until April 1982 at which time a
fire destroyed the majority of the structures and the entire operations.
Prior to April 1982, Benfield Industries, Inc. mixed and packaged bulk
materials for resale. The facilities included two (2) storage building., a
brick work building with a concrete storage area, a packaging building, and
ten (10) above ground 8torage tanks, varying in capacity from 1,000 to
10,000 gallons. Pigure 3 shows locations of these structures prior to the
April 1982 fire.
-------
[-
. -
..
'.
, ;
FIGURE 1
SITE VICINITY
B.nft.1d Industries S",
-2-
POOR QUALITY
"\ORlGlJ'W.
-------
x
c
en
...J
c
Q:)
HAZELHOOO
TOHN LIHJ TS
FIGURE 2
LOCA TlOH MAP.
1000 Benfield Industries Site
-3-
.
-------
~
~
@
80CFIWI
PIIOP. 1ICIUNDiIItr- - . -
F'ORWER
STRtICIUR£S .... . . .. . . .
ttA'fWOOO
~1'IONAl
0PP0In\IN1IES
IC.
tlACttAt[
SUP
08S0IVfD
~
\II
iii
~
'"
.A-
.
............ 0 :........................
aa..c~ :~.
COItCII£1tP~~. ........... F:
...~ ~~:. ~
II£PC)ftTm 8UII..OING ~ EXISTINC I
~NOt. ...
U . . .
, ~ . D
~ '
~:
SOUtICt 01 SAMPUJCG LOCATIOIIS:
SIT'[ S1ttTCM or NCONIICO -
IM'IIS1IGA11OII. JAI(1IIIItY .. .11' (~NOIX 8)
FOR..ER " .
~~':'..':~-.-
.~.... ~: ""1
.. ............ ..
"
100'
SCAlE I
o
.
100'
.
200'
.
CHURCH STREET
FIGURE 3
SITE FEATURES PRJOR
TO APRIL 1982 FlAB
-------
Follow~ng the April 1982 fire, the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources (NCDBR) ordered the owner of the facility to remove all debris
the Site. In addition 'to removing all usable chemicals, fire debris,
recyclable materials, and storage tanks, the Site was to be covered with
-clean- fill. The owner/operator complied with NCDBR order.
from
The terrain of the Site .lopes gently toward the north-northwest at an
average gradient of 0.013 foot/foot. The surface drops abruptly,
approxLmately five (5) feet, at the banks of Browning Branch. A .mall berm
consisting of soil, fill, and debris was created adjacent to Browning Branch
along portion. of the Site. The Site i. currently covered with moderate
uncontrolled vegetative growth (weeds, grasse., etc.). Along the banks of
Browning Branch, vegetative growth is moderate to den.e and includes trees,
shrubs, etc.
According to the April 28, 1986 BRS package developed by North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Re.ource. (NCDEBNR),
approximately 3,258 re.idents within a three (3) mile radius of the Site use
groundwater a. their source of drinking water. However, no private potable
wells are in use either in the vicinity of the Site or immediately
downgradient of the Site. ApproxLmately 2,056 people in the town of
Hazelwood are connected to the local public water supply .ystem. Of this
number, approxLmately 425 of these people are .erved by the Hazelwood supply
well, with the remainder obtaining water from the Allen Creek Re.ervoir. The
Hazelwood supply well is approxLmately 11 mile. we.t of the Site and Allen
Creek Re.ervoir i. located about four miles .outh and upstream of the Site.
The Benfield .ite i. located in the Browning Branch flood plain. Browning
Branch flows north-northwe.t into Richland Creek about 1,600 feet downstream
of the Site. Richland Creek flow. northward into Lake Junaluska, about
four (4) mile. to the northea.t. Richland Creek continues from Lake
Junaluska until it. confluence with the Pigeon River approxLmately 21 miles
downstream.
3.0
SITE HISTORY
The Site wa. owned and operated by Unagu.ta Furniture company from about 1904
to 1961. Unagu.ta Furniture Company manufactured wooden bed frame..
Waynewood, Inc. al.o OP.8rated at the Site during the .ame time. Waynewood,
Inc. was a .ewing operation which made mattre..e. for the bed frame. built by
Unagu.ta Furniture Company. Waynewood, Inc. went out of bu.ines. .ometime in
the 1950'..
According to a 1975 deed, Waynewood, Inc., granted the Site'to Guardian
Inve.tment Company on April 29, 1961. No information has been found
regarding the operations of the Site during Guardian'. owner. hip of the
property. On February 14, 1975, Guardian Inve.tment Company wa. -adjudicated
a straight bankrupt by the Bankruptcy Judge for the We.tern Di.trict of North
Carolina-. The Bankruptcy Judge ordered that all of Guardian'. real property
be .old, and on Augu.t 4, 1975, the Site wa. .old to Clyde Saving. and Loan
-5-
-------
... Association.. Nine (9) days later, ~lyde savings and Loan Asspciation sold
-the. property. to Thomas G.Benfield. "" Benfield Industries, In~. began" "
operating at the Site in 1976. Benfield Industries, Inc. was owned by Thomas
G. Benfield and operated as a bulk chemical mixing and repackaging.plant from
1976 until a fire destroyed the facility "in April 1982.
Products handled and stored at the Benfield facility included paint"thinners,
. solvents, sealants, cleaners, de-icing solutions, and wood preservatives
including creosote. Most of the liquid products were packaged in one-pint to
five gallon containers. Solid products were packaged in 8 to 100 pound bags
or containers. .
On April 21, 1982, a series of explosions at the Benfield site started a fire
that eventually destroyed most of the on-site facilities and resulted in the
permanent closing of the Benfield Industries plant. None of the tanks or gas
cylinders on-site ruptured during or after the fire. Due to the dense toxic
fumes emanating from the fire, law enforcement officials evacuated nearly
2,000 nearby residents for up to 48 hours. About 200 fireman used
approximately 2.5 million gallons of water and several barrels of foam to
br ing the f ire under control.
Hr. Benfield was ordered by the NCDD to remove all debris from the Site by
September 1, 1982. The first cleanup priority was to remove all remaining
chemicals from the Site. By June 11, 1982, a number of chemicals had been
removed. In addition to the removal of the usable chemicals, fire debris,
recyclable materials, and the solvent and creosote storage tanks were also
removed from the Site. Following this work, the majority of the Site was
then covered with 6 to 18 inches of .clean" gravely fill material.
The Site has been the focus of the following sampling investigations:
.
Site Investigation, North Carolina Department of Natural Resources &
community Developnent, January 1981.
.
Water Quality Inv.stigation of the Chemical Plant Fire at Hazelwood,
NC, North Carolina Water Resource Research Institute, April 1982.
Site Investigation, North Carolina Department of Human Resources,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Branch, September 1985.
.
Follow-up Sit. Investigation, North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, M4rch 1990.
The January 1981 inve8tigation was prompted by complaints from Hazelwood
citizens of improper disposal of hazardou8 waste at the facility.
Observations by North carolina Department of Natural Resources & COmmunity
Development (NCDNRCD) personnel, in December 1980 confirmed complaints by
nearby citizens that 55-9allon drum. were being opened with an ax and their
contents being allowed to empty onto the ground on the south end of the plant"
property.
-6-
-------
on Jar.uary 8, 1981, a total of eight .oil .ample., thr.. .urface waterl
sediment sample., and one leachate .amplewere collected and s~tted for
analy.e.. A wide range of organic and inorganic contaminants were
qualitatively detected. The mo.t frequently detected contaminants were
phenanthrene and pyrene. Other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)
compounds frequently detected naphthalene compounds, fluorene, .
benzanthracene, and dibenzofurans. Frequently detected organic compounds
oth.r than PAHs included ~enzenes, methanol, and phenolic compounds.
Elevated levels of lead and chromium were also detected.
Several investigations were initiated in response to the fire on
April 21, 1982, that destroyed the Benfield Industries plant. These
inve.tigation. were conducted during and immediately after the fire by a
combination of Federal, State and local agencies and academic institutions.
These investigation. focused on air and surface water " quality in the vicinity
of the fire. The following were the conclusions drawn from these various
investigations:
Drainage of the large quantities of water u.ed to fight the fire
carried hazardous substances that had .pilled on the property before or
during the fire into Browning Branch and Richland Creek. Reduced pH
value. were ob.erved in direct runoff and surface water sample.
collected from Browning Branch. Richland Creek and other downstream
water.heds also experienced decreased pH value. a. a result of the
fire.
The inten.ity of the fire con.umed much of the potentially harmful
chemicals being stored at the Site.
The previaling air patterns during the blaze were such that mo.t of
the gase. and smoke relea.ed to the atmosphere wa. transported far from
the fire Site and dispersed widely before the possibility of surface
fallout.
.
The negative biological impact to downstream aquatic communities
ob.erved could also be attributed to chronic exposures to hazardous
.ub.tances migrating from the plant prior to the fire.
The State conducted a Site inspection on September 17, 19S5. On-site .oil.,
sediment, and surface ~ater samples from Browning Branch were collected. A
groundwater sample fram the nearest private well, owned by Mr. Wayne Cable,
located 1,900 f..t northweet of the Site, was also collected. The re.ult. of
the analyses indicated .ignificant soil contamination by semi-volatile
organics in prox~ty to the brick work building and the former creosote
storage tank area. Lower concentrations of cont.",. nents were detected on the
south end of the Site and beneath the chemical storage warehouse. Problems
were encountered in advancing the hand auger beyond a depth of 24 inches due
to the gravely nature of the .oil. With the exception of trace levels of
toluene, no organic contaminant. were detected in the water or eedim8nt of
Browning Branch. No contamination was detected in the groundwater sample.
-7-
-------
.- ---.- - "-.- --"; -f-"';;:'
... The re8ults of the 1985 inve8tigation were 8ubmitted to t.he Environmental'
Protection .Agency. .(EPA or Age.ncy) on Kay 8, 1986, and served 8S a basis for.
determining the BRS score for the Benfield facility. The resulting BRS
sc~res were 54.29, 7.44 and 0.0 for the groundwater, surface water, and air
routes, respectively, with a mean score of,31.67.
The State conducted.a follow-up investigation to augment the Site's data base
in Karch 1990. As in previous investigations, soil, sediment, and surface
water samples were collected for analysis. These samples were collected in
close proximity to the samples collected during the september 1985
investigation. This investigation confirmed the presence of PAS, phthalates,
and chlorinated hydrocarbons in subsurface soils at the Site. No
contamination was found in the surface water .or sediment samples collected
from Browning Branch. As with the 1985 investigation, hand auger refusal was
frequently encountered which prevented sampling at depths greater than
15 inches below the land surface.
4.0
ENFORCEMEN'1' AC'1'IVITIES
COmplaints by local citizens brought the Site to the attention of NCDNRCD in
December 1980. Pursuant to 1981 and 1985 Site inspections by State
environmental officials, high concentrations of PAS contaminants were
discovered at the Site. The Site was proposed as a NPL candidate in
update '7 which was published in the Pederal Register on June 24, 1988. The
Site was finalized on the NPL on October 4, 1989.
The following entities were identified as potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) in the -Responsible Party Search- document, dated October 24, 1989:
Mr. Thomas G. Benfield and Benfield Industries, Inc. Mr. Thomas G. Benfield
was named a PRP as he is the current owner of the property and was the owner
of Benfield Industries, Inc. The other PRP, Benfield Industries, Inc., was'
the operator of the facility. Benfield Industries, Inc. is no longer an
active company.
On January 5, 1989, the Agency sent Mr. Benfield an Information Request
letter under Section 104 of the COmprehensive Bnvironmental Response,
compen.ation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CBRCLA or Superfund) and
Section 3007 of Re.ource Con.ervation and Recovery' Act (RCRA). In
Karch 1990, BPA i.8ued ,. notice letter to Mr. Thomas Benfield informing him
of BPA's intention to conduct CBRCLA remedial activities at the Site unless
the PRPs cho.e to conduct .uch activities themaelves. A telephone
converlilation on April 4, 1990 I:Mttween Mr. Payne, Mr. Benfield's lawyer, and
BPA, Region IV Office of Regional Coun8el, confirmed that Mr. Benfield is not
financially capable of financing the RI/PS.
5.0
HIGHLIGHTS OP COHKOHITY PARTICIPATION
Information Repo8itories/Admini.trative Record8 for thi8 Site were
establiehed at the Hazelwood Town Hall in Hazelwood and in BPA, Region IV
-8-
-------
Regior,.l Information Center in Atlanta, Georgia. A Community Relations Plan
(CRP). identifying .aproactive public outreach strategy was developed and
.ubmitted to the information repositories prior to initiating RI field work.
The following describes the community relations activities conducted by the
Agency for this Site.
Three fact sheets and the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet were distributed to the
pub~ic during the Benfield ~/FS. The first Fact Sheet, released in
February 1990, provided the public with some background information and
announced an upcoming public meeting. The first of these three public
meetings was held on February 28, 1990. This meeting was held as a result of
local financial lending institutions, collectively, requesting all potential
real estate sellers/buyers within a one-mile radius of the site to have an
environmental assessment conducted on the prospective property prior to their
approval of any loans. A one mile radius around the Site encompas.es the
entire town of Hazelwood.
At the meeting, the Mayor of Hazelwood stated the town was being held
"hostage" by the Superfund program and was not being provided the information
requested. The primary emphasis of the February 28, 1990 public meeting was
to address the lending institution's reaction to the Site being placed on the
NPL and other concerns of the Hazelwood community. Hazelwood is a lower
socio-economic community of primarily residences, of which, a large portion
of the population is retired and living on fixed-incomes. .
The .econd fact .heet, disseminated in December 1990, provided the community
a description of the site, a brief history of the Site, a summary of previous
investigations of the Site, a brief overview of the Superfund program, a list
of RI and FS objectives, a time frame for activitie., a list of contacts for
more information and community relations activities, and a glossary of terms
and acronyms commonly used in the Superfund program. This fact sheet
preceded a second public meeting. This public meeting, the "Xick-off
Meeting", was held on January 7, 1991. The following topics were emphasized
at this meeting: the Superfund process, community relations activities, field
work .s proposed in the RI/FS Work Plan, and a question and answer session.
~ third Fact Sheet was distributed in January 1992. This fact sheet
summarized the findings and conclusions of the RI, restated the objectives of
the FS, and provided a revised time frame for future activities at the
Benfield site.
The Proposed Plan Pact Sheet was mailed to the public on April 9, 1992.
basis of the information presented in the Proposed Plan was the draft FS
document dated, March 20, 1992.
The
The public was informed through the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet and published
ads in the Mountaineer Newsnacer and Asheville Citizens News~aP8r of the
April 21, 1992 Proposed Plan Public Meeting. The Proposed Plan Pact Sheet.
was mailed on April 9, 1992. and the ads were printed on April 13, 1992. A
press rele.se was .lso issued on April 20, 1992. The goals of the Proposed
Plan public meeting were to review the remedial alternatives developed,
-9-
.
-------
'. identify the Agency's preferred alternative, present the Agency's rationale
for the selecti~ of this alternative, encourage the public to voice its own
'opinion wi~h'r~s~ct to" the remedial alternative selected by ~he Agency, and
inform the public that the public comment period on the Proposed Plan would
run from April 13, 1992 to May 12, 1992.. The public was also informed a
30 day extension to the public comment period could be requested and that all
comments received during the public comment period would be incorporated into
the Administrative Record and addressed in the Responsiveness Summary section
. of the ROD. "
6.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OP RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The intent of the remedial action presented in this ROD is to eliminate
future risks at this Site. This remedial action will remove the threat posed
by contaminated groundwater at the Site and remediate residual soil
contamination. Remediation of the residual soil contamination will prevent
residual contamination from adversely impacting groundwater and decrease the
future risk associated with Site soils. This is the only ROD contemplated
for the Site and no other operable units are anticipated.
7.0
SUMMARY OP SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The overall nature and extent of contamination at the Site is based upon
analytical results of samples collected from surface and subsurface soils,
groundwater, sediment, and surface water and the chemical/physical
characteristics of the area. The env:ironmental samples were analyzed for
volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds on the target compounc1 list
(TCL), including pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals
on the target analyte list (TAL) analytes including cyanide. TCL volatile
and semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides, anc1 TAL metals were detected
in the envirolUD8ntal media sampled during the RI. Neither PCBs nor cyanide
were detected in any of the samples. Based on the history of the Site, no
RCRA listed wastes are present at the Site.
Background samples were collected for surface and subsurface soils,
groundwater, and surface water and sediment. Teble 1 lists the
contaminants detected in each environmental medium at the Site. The letter
-J- placed next to same of the reported concentrations in the following
Sections means -estimat8c1 value-.
Air samples were not collected as Part of the RI/PS effort. However, the
quality of the immec1iate air was monitored during all field work as part of
the health and safety effort to protect the individuals performing the RI
field work. Based on this information, the quality of the air at and around
the Site is not currently being adversely impacted by the Site.
The estimated total volume of contaminatecl soil present at the Site i.
4,600 cubic yards. This volume is based on the area of the Site, as defined
in Figure .., and the depth down to groundwater which ranges from
-10-
-------
GROUND SURF~
soa.. IsEDIMENT WATER WATER
Inoraanloe
Aluminum X X X
Antlmorw X X
ArMnlc X
Barium X X X
Bervllium X X
Caleium X X X X
Chromium X X X
Cobalt X X X
CoDD8r X X X
Iron X X X X
18ad X X X
M.~.8Ium X X X X
Manaan.. X X X X
Me rcurv X X
Niekel X X X
Pot...tum X X X X
Selenium X
Silwr X
Sodium X X X X
Van.dum X X X
Zine X X X
Pur-abl. Oraanl"
Vinvl Chloride X
Chlo I'08than. X
1.1 Didllol'08thane X
1.2-Didllol'08th8ne X X
Methvl E1hwl K.tone X
Chloroform X
1 1 1 - Tridlloroeth- X
1.2-Didlloro~ X
Benz.ne X X
Methy 1801Ui\/fK.ton. X
T.1I'achlo~ tT.tr8chlol'08thvtAne) X
Toluene X X
Chlorobenzene X
Ethvl Benzene X X
Tota/X.".. X X
Extractable Oraanl08
AI.noI X
1 3-Didllorob8nzene X
, .4-Dielorobenzlne X
, .2-Didllorob8nz8ne X X
2- X
/3-en4'or4- )( X
2 4-DldIIoro&iti8Nif X
, .2.4- TMhIorob8ane )( X
NadIth.... . X X
2 .... )( X
2~~ X
x X X
Aoen X X
~ X X
DI8tM PIhaA88 )(
F1uo,.". X X
Heuct'llDfGbellIItnoo X
PenwHoroI!Nft8l X X
Alenen'"."e )( -y :I[
An1hraoene X X X
C&ttIuDI8 X X
CI-N-IlulwC!!tI"-/8 X
F1uorenthen8 X X X
Pvr8ne )( -y -y
Ben2YI RuN! Ph.,.... X
TABLE t
DETECTED TAL., TeL. AND ~ESTlCI~ PARAMETERS
IN
MEDIA SAMPLED
-11-
-------
--~ ~..-.:-~ f'!---'-------X:'~~T'. ~-~--
TABLE 1
DElCCTED TAL. TCL. AND PESTICIDE PARAMf; rERS
IN
MEDIA SAMPLED
...
'. SOIL. SEDIMENT
Extractable Oraanl-- lcont.'
BenzoWAntU808r\8 X X
Ch-ne X X
SjII2-Ettwlhexvn Phltlel... X
CI-N-OCMDI'IltIeI'" X
Benzol8 81Idlor 10 Fluof81lltlene' X X
Benzo-A-Pvr8nt X X
Indeno 11.2,3-CD\ Pltran. X X
CIbenzo IA.H\Anltlra08r\e X X
Benzo IGHn Pervlen. X X
P..ttclde8
Dieldrin X
4 4-DDDIP,P'-DDDI
Beta-BHC X
Helll8chlor X
Aldrin X
4 4'-ODE IP,P'-DOEI X
Endrin X
EndoluII81I1 /All)/'le)
EndoluII81I11 lBeta) X
4 4'-00T IP.P'-ocm X
Gamma-Chlordan. X
AlI)/'I8-Chlord81t. X
..12-
GROUND .SURFACE
WAtER WA~A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
31 to 6 feet below the 8urface. The volume of groundwater impacte.d by the
Site .is approximately 22 million gallons' and the plume is delineated in
Figure 5.
7.1
SOILS
A tptal of 47 80il sample. were collected from the soil borings including
th08. borings u.ed to install the monitoring wells. These .oil 8ample8
included five (5) .urface 80il sample8 (0 to 12 inches below the surface),
22 .oil. sample. collected from immediately below the .urface .oil/fill layer
(8hallow 8ub8urface), and 20 80il 8ample8 from the water table interface
(deep 8ub8urface). In addition, two 80il sample8 were collected from the
te8t pits.
Volatile organic compound8 (VOC8), semi-volatile organic compound8 (SVOC8),
pe8ticide8, and meta18 were detected in soi18. A total of eight (8)
different VOC8 were detected. SVOC8 were detected in each 80il boring with
the exception of soi18 from the background boring (monitoring well-1 deep or
MW-1D) and one on-8ite boring (B-14). Twenty-nine (29) different SVOC8 were
detected of which 18 were PAR compound8. Other SVOC8 included aromatic8 and
phthalates. A total of 14 different pesticide8 were detected of which
gamma-chlordane and alpha-chlordane were the m08t frequently detected. No
pesticides were detected in two on-8ite boring8 (8-02 and 8-14) and the
background 8ample (MW-1D).
A variety of meta18 were detected in the soi18 during the RI. Although m08t
of these metals occur naturally in the regional soi18, elevated
concentration8 were detected in on.ite .oils throughout the Benfield
The following metals were either detected in on8ite 80i18 but not in
background soil sample or detected onsite at concentrations at least
times greater than the background concentration: antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cobalt, lead, selenium, and zinc.
8ite.
the
two
In general, the greatest concentrations of detected organic and inorganic
constituents were found in three (3) areas. In the soi18 at the west-central
portion of the Site in the vicinity of the former packaging building, brick
work building, and the chemical storage tanks south of the te~nu8 of the
railroad spur. High concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs were found at the
north/north-central ponion of the Site in the vicinity of a former
warehouse. This warehouse reportedly contained a sump. Tbe third area of
contaminated soils includes the south-central portion of the Site where
dumping of chemicals was reported to have occurred. Organic compound8,
particularly PABs, were detected in nearly all of the on-site borings. Site
constituents (PABa and pe.ticides) were detected in low concentration. in the
.oil. from the off.ite, downgradient boring.
In addition to the TCL SVOCs, an exten.ive li.t of unidentified and
tentatively identified mi.cellaneou. SVOCs with significant estimated
concentration. were reported for the .oil sample.. In.ome case., the
e.timated total concentrations of unidentified and tentatively identified
-13-
-------
~
ANfJOUI
SHOP
I
)
(
BENFIELD
HAZELWOOD,
if
c~n~
o OtJ
RESIDENTIAL
NOTES: 1, THE REMEDIATION AREA IS DEfiNED BY THE
REMEDIAL GOAL FOR BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE,
EXCEPT AT BI2 WHERE IT WAS NOT DETECTED.
THE REMEDIATION AREA IS DEfiNED BY THE THE REMEDIAL
GOAL FOR BENZO(A)PYRENE AT THAT LOCATION.
2. SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES COlLECTED
2'-3.5' BELOW THE SURFACE. APPROXIMATE
INDUSTRIES TARGBTBD SOIL REMEDIATION AREAS
NORTH CAROLINA GREATER THAN REMEDIATION GOALS
-
LEGEND:
. MWID MONITORING WELl, DEEP
. MWJS. MONITORING WEll, SHALLOW
. 811 SOIL BORING
. 8SP PIEZOMETER
BAA-19.000 CONCENTRATION OF BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE (ug/Kg)
BAP-200OJ CONCENTRATION OF BENZO(A)PYRENE (ug/lCg)
NO NOT DETECTED
1/ . ~. r1 APPROXIMATE REMEDIATION AREA
100
50
o
100
200
,
FlGURC
4
............
-------
..
@}
I
~
en
I
, ~ s
~ <; P\
~ \
~ ~
o
"
+81
+..
_.... -.......-. -..--
_...........-. ~.-.-
-""IP,,- . -..-
0._.-..-
-1'.U.",d.,.- -..-
1."--'_._.-
".,._0jItI.....,.. -
c..t._. MW)$. YWJO. -8. -0. -.-
-,-.-5._0.-.-
\/In" a....... -0. -.-
. tt..J- WU Du' .0-... t ",. .801Of'I ,., .~.:"on ......
BENfiELD
HAZELWOOD,
+.'2
+...
+. IS)
+. +"1
...
u-...-... -
0.--. -
.......--.~. --
....,..... . -. --
&.-,-.-".-'.-.-'
-.-" -
....... -. -.. _.-
--._.-.-5._0.-.
-.-.-
-.. _5. MW)$-
- ....,qs. - -5. MW!IS
---- - .---
INDUSTRIES
NORTH CAROLINA
0."
0+."
'" 00
reo
+_s
--
°o+~
+." +-
+..,
tj
.
...
+ MWID
+ MWJS
+ BII
+ B5P
LEGEND:
MONITORING WHL. DHP
MONITORING WHL, SHALLOW
SOIL BORING
PI£ZO"[TER
[STIMAT£D REMEDIATION BOUNDARY
---
ES TlMA TED GROUNDWA TER
REMEDIATION AREA
r:---~.~ - ~_u
~----_.
~-
---- ---
100
flCURC
5
100
J
-------
...
compounds exceeded ~he concentratio~s of the TCL compounds. .Generally, more
.miscellaneous compounds-were. reported at the locations in wh~ch significant
quantities of TCL compounds were detected.
7.1.1
SURFACE SOILS
Due to the fire that destroyed the facility in 1982 and the State ordered
clean-up of the Site following the fire, the principal sources of potential
contamination were either consumed (burned during the fire) or removed after
the fire (above ground tanks and their contents and remaining chemicals). As
part of the State ordered cleanup, the majority of the Site was covered with
6 to 18 inches of clean fill material. These events help explain why limited
surface soil contamination was encountered during the RI.
Pigure 6 shows the surface soil sampling locations and what the total
concentrations (in micrograms per kilogram or ug/kg) of VOCs, SVOCs and
pesticides were at each sampling location. ~able 2 lists the individual
contaminants and their concentrations detected at each sampling point.
~able 2 also lists the background levels for metals found in HW-1D. ~able
3 provides the frequency of detection and the range of concentrations
detected for contaminants found in the surficial soils at the Benfield site.
The only VOCs detected in surficial soils were total xylenes (0.18 milligrams
per kilogram or 0.18 mg/kg) and tetrachloroethene (0.005 mg/kg). SVOCs were
detected in 4 of the 5 surface soil samples. Specific compounds and detect~
concentrations include benzo (8 and/or K) fluoranthene (1.1 mg/kg) in 8-07,
fluoranthene (1.4 mg/kg), pyrene (0.85 mg/kg), and chrysene (0.52 mg/kg) in
8-10, and pentachlorophenol ( 3.1 mg/kg), fluoranthene (0.62 mg/kg), and
pyrene (0.5 mg/kg) in 8-14.
Pesticides were detected in each of the 5 8urface soil samples. The
predominant pesticide found in these soi18 was gamma chlordane with the
highest concentration found in 8-10 (0.055 mg/kg), 8-07 (0.019 mg/kg), and
8-06 (0.017 mg/kg). Alpha chlordane was detected in 8-07 (0.020 mg/kg).
7.1.2
SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOILS
p~ 7 8hows the s~low sub8urtace soil 8ampling location8 and the total
concentrations (in mg/kg) of VOCs, SVOC8 and pesticides found at each
sampling location. Shallow subsurface 80il 8amples were collected at a depth
of 2-31 feet below the surface or just beneath the fill material. The intent
of collecting these ~ample8 was to gain an under8tanding of the distribution
of surface contamination prior to the Site being covered with clean fill
material. ~aJ:tl." li8t8 the individual contaminant8 and their
concentrations detected at each sampling point. This table a180 contains the
background levels for metals found in MW-lD. ~aJ:tle 5 provides the
frequency of detection and the range of concentration8 detected for
contaminants found in the shallow 8ubsurface soils at the Benfield site.
-16-
-------
,
,-"
"
,
e
s'
.~
°0
t. tj.
ftOC .... ...
"'" - - AHTIQU[ .
1PE81' - ... III
SHOP ....
C
~
z
.
~-
,-,
..
NIIC - ...J
10'1 - ...
ft. - ...
~~.
hlJC-fC)
n... ~
.:.8t-U ~
III 00
c1
NOTE: ~ACE SOU COIUCTm cr TO 2" BElOW THE ~ACE
+ UW10
+ aAWJS
+ 811
+ 8SP
TVOC
TEXT
TPEST
NO
U:GEND:
MONITORING WElL. DEEP
MONITORING WElL. SHALLOW
SOIL BORING
PIEZOMETER
TOTAL VOLA TILE ORGANIC CON POUNDS (UG/KG)
TOTAL EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC CON POUNDS (UG/KG)
TOTAL PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS (UG/KG)
NOT DETECTED
~
o
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
HAZEL WOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL TCL COMPOUNDS ANO PESTlCIDj
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
100 ~ 0
._L_-~u
100 200
---- ----.-;
[:!""
-------
""
".
TABLE 2 DETECTED CONTAMINANTS IN StJRlI'ACE SOIL SAMPLES
Frequency .
Station Location of B006-S-0 B007-S-0 B008-S-0 B010-S-0 B014-S-0
Detection (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Tetrachloroethene 5/47 0.005J
(Tetrachloroethylene)
Total Xylenes 7/47 0.18
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Naphthalene 25/47 0.087J 0.13J
2-Methylnaphthalene 23/47 O.l1J 0.12J
Dibenzofuran 17/47 0.12J 0.16J
Phenanthrene 27/47 0.097J
Hexachlorobenzene 3/47 0.16J
Pentachlorophenol 8/47 3.1J
Phenanthrene 27/47 0.46J
Anthracene 21/47 0.12J 0.063J
Fluoranthene 28/47 0.54J 1.4 0.62J
Pyrene 27/47 0.85 0.5J
Benzo(A)Anthracene 23/47 0.34J 0.36J 0.21J
Pentachlorophenol 8/47 0.28J
Chrysene 28/47 0.47J 0.14J 0.52 0.19J
Benzo(B and/or K) 25/47 1.1J 0.20J 0.46J
Fluoranthene
Benzo-A-Pyrene 24/47 O.31J O.l1J 0.39J 0.13J
PESTICIDES
Dieldrin 3/47 0.0034J
4,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) 2/47 0.0039J
4,4'-DDT(P,P'-DDT) 9/47 0.0039J
Q&IIIIJ{a-Chlordane 20/47 0.017 0.019 0.0014J 0.055 0.0082
Alpha-Chlordane 10/47 0.02
INORGANICS . Backaround
Antimony 5/44
Arsenic 6/44
Beryllium . 1/44
Cobalt 43/44 10.0 20.0 23.0 28.0 15.0 8.2
Lead 44/44 20.0J 18.0J 14.03 16.0 36.0J 1. 7J
Selenium 9/44
Zinc 44/44 73.0J 88.0J. 140.0J 120.0 150.0J 53.0
-18-
-------
TABLE !
SURFACE SOIL
ANAlYT1CAl DATA SUMMARY
Frequlncy Rangl
0' 0' M88ft
D.te ctl on D.tlctlon Value
Inoraanici mQ/kg mg/IIg
Aluminum 5~ 27,000-54,000 35,600
Barium 5~ 110-310 240
Calcium .~ 440-23 000 7.235
Chromium ~ 43-518 58
Cobalt 5~ 10-28 "
Copper .~ 28-70 41
Iron ~ 36.000-41000 40 400
lud 5~ 14-38 21
MIgne.ium 5~ 3 000-10.000 seo
Manalnl.. ~ 360-830 84a
Nickll 5~ 17-31 23
Potu.ium 5~ 2.200-12.000 6.540
Sodium 415 39 - 270 114
Vanadium ~ 54-130 84
Zinc ~ 73-150 114
Purae8ble Oraanioe uQ/ka ualka
T Itrachloroethene (Tltrech lorOl1hylenel 115 5 5
Tot81 Xvllne. 1~ 180 180
Extractable Oraanlcl uQ/ka uaIka
N8dl1hIle,.. ~ 87-130 108
2 -Me1hvtn8tlh1h..ne ~ 110-120 115
Dibenzofuran ~ 120-180 140
Aourene US 140 140
H8xachiorobenZ8ne 1~ 160 1110
P8n18chloroDhenoi ~ 280-3 100 1,880
PN nanlh rene 1~ 480 480
AntI t80IM 31.5 83-120 83
Fluorll'lltlene 31.5 540-1,400 853
Pvre,.. 2.e SOO-a50 m
Benzo/AlAn1hrcene 31.5 210-381) 303
Chrv..ne 4.e 140-520 330
BenzolB andfor Ia Fluor."the". 3.e 200-1.100 588
Benzo-A-Pvrene 4.e 110-3110 235
P..tlal.. uallla uafIIa
Dieldltn MS U 3.4
4 4'-000 IP.P'~D= 1~ 3.' 3.'
4 4'-DOT IP.P'-D 1A!1 3.8 3.'
Gamma-OtlcMdln8 M 1.4-55 20.1
AI ~ 2-20 11
NO'TR:
1 . Mean WlUlIa ..,.a tor ctu81 hI8L
2. The Range of D8tMtion 1ncI~ .. oonClool"~1 repotttd tIr each pMlft8l8f.
The ICM18t WIIuI "'- be . oon0antr81on d88cII8d below III qu8lt1tllon ImI..
moIK8 - mllgram. pa' I
-------
I
Iv
..::>
I
~
AII1IQUI
SMCIP
...
~
..
"
,~
~
NOT£: lIWJ.ow SUllSlA'IICf SOl. SMF\tS CDJECJm 2' TO 15' ea.ow THE ~IICE
. MW' 0
+ MWJS
. Oil
+ OSP
1VOC
TEXT
TPEST
NO
VI 00
LEGEND:
MONITORING WElL. D[[P
MONITORING WElL. SHALLOW
SOIL BORING
PIEZOMUER
TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (UG/KG)
TOTAL EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (UG/KG)
TOTAL PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS (UG/KG)
NOT DUECTED
~
o
BENFIELD
HAlfLwqoo,
INDUSTRIES
NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL TCl COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES
SHALLOW SUBSURFACE SOil SAMPLES
100 !IO
..........
o
100
ioo
----'
FIGURE
'1
.- .
- ~- -~--------~--~-- --.
- - - - --~ - - -- - -
-- --
- . - -- - -
-
-------
'u.BLK 4 DZ'5CDD carrr.KIIIU'l'S III SDlJDiI'SUBSUU'Aa IOn. PMPLD
~ DtJ1WIQ '1'IIB III8'J!ALI.A1'IOil ar 'l'IIB MCIII'1"CIlIIIQ WELLS
1'reqU8JlCy
8tation Location ot MW28-B-1 MW38-8-1 MW4S-B-1 MW58-S-1 MW6S-B-1
.
Detection (8!l/kg) (8!llkg) (8!llkg) (8!//kg) (8!//kg)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,2-D1ch1oroetb8D8 1/47 0.006.1
MIIthyl Bthyl ~ 1/47 0.013
Bena_8 1/47 0.003.1
MIIthy I80butyl ~ 1/47 0.022
'1'8trechloroeth8D8 5/47 0.002J
'1'Olu8D8 7/47 0.41J
fthyUI8Dune 8/47 0.11
'1'Otal Xy 18ne8 7/47 7.0
8EMI-VOLAXILE ORQAlfICS
(3-an4/or 4- )M8thypbeaol 4/47 1.OJ
.apbtb&l8D8 25/47 0.047J 35.0 0.15J
2-M11thy1napbtb&lea8 23/47 0.082J 35.0 0.22J
AcenaphtlJy18- 7/47 2.3.1
Acenaphth8D8 11/47 52.0
D1b8n&oturan 17/47 38.0
1'luor8D8 17/47 55.0
Phenanti1r8D8 27/47 110.0 0.0!I7J
Anthracene 21147 74.0
Carbazol8 15/47 34.0
1'luoranth8D8 28/47 75.0
Pyr8D8 27/47 48.0
Ben&o(A)Anthra- 23/47 111.0
~ 28/47 O.OUJ 111.0
Benao(B aDd/arK) 25/47 111.0 0.082J 0.042J
1'1 uorazrtJIo8I8
B8D&0-A-Pyr8D8 24147 1.0
IIIdeDo (1,2,3-cD)~ 1/47 J.6J
Benao( C8I )P8ryleM 5/47 J.2J
PBB'1'ICmU
B8ta-BIIC . 1/47 0.011
4,4'-DPI(P,P'-DDB) 10/47 0.0038 0.0021.1 0.0051
BDdriD J/47 0.08
4,4'~(P,P'~) 1/47 0.00311J
lI.IIo-- -'ftrdaDe 20/47 0.0001lJ 0.011 0.0005J 0.0001lJ
A1pba~ 10/47 0.012
~C8 Backaround
ADU-Y 5/44 3.1.1 RID
~ '/44 RID
BezyU1ua 1/44 RID
COb81 t 43/44 15.0 7.0 2J.0 1.2
LNd 44/44 15.OJ '.IIJ 2J.OJ 1.7J
..l8Di- 1/44 RID
Z1.Dc 44/44 I5.OJ 49.OJ 115.OJ 53.0
-21-
'.
-------
DILl 6 D2'.r'II:'1SD CDI'rMIlWftS III IIIIALLOW 8IIBS1JRPACB SOIL
~ 8AMPLIS caLtBC'mD DURIlfQ SOILUQ IICIJWIQS
'.
"
Preq1I8DCf
Station Locat.1on of 801-8-1 B02-8-1 B03-8-1 BO.';'S..l B05-S-1 B06-S-1 B01-8-1 B08-8-1 B09-8-1
D81:8CT.1on (II; /kg) (1I;/kg) (lIIIl/kg) (1I;/kg) (mg/kg) (18g/kg) (II; /kg) (8IJ/kg) (II; /kg)
\IOLA1'ILE ORGMICS
BtlIylbenli8ll8 8/41 0.008.7
SEMI-VOIJl'l'ILE ORQMICS
(3-and/or 6- )M8thypll8llDl 6141 0.15J 0.19J
1, 2, 6-Tr1chloroben&en8 3141 0.065J
.aphtha18ne 25161 O.OUJ 2.OJ 0.11.7 0.063.1 65.OJ
2-fl8thylDapbthal8118 23/41 0.0&1.7 0.19J 0.093.1 11. OJ
Ac8nap/ltlly18ll8 1/41 0.058.7 35.OJ
AC8Dapbthen8 11/41 1.3J
D1b8DlIOfuran 11/.7 1.23 0.054J 23. OJ
P luor8ll8. 11141 1.33 0.091.7 21.OJ
Pllntacbloropb8DOl 8/.7 0.11.7
Pb8llantbr8D8 21/61 5.5J O.l1J 0.63.1 0.05&J 120. OJ
ADtbr_8 21/&1 1.1101 0.041J 0.0615J O.OUJ U.OJ
carbal1018 15/41 1.&J O.083J 3.2.1
D1-R-Butylpbt.balata 2141 1.8.7 .
Pluorutll.8 28161 4.5J 0.051101 0.66 0.059J 1.3 II. OJ
Pyr8D8 21/61 3.1J 0.42.1 0.3&J 0.049.1 0.81 U.OJ
B8nIlO(A)ADtbr8C8D8 23/&1 2.407 0.12OJ 0.123.1 0.35J 12.OJ
CIIryII8I\8 28/41 2.OJ 0.22.1 0.12.1 0.51 0.055J 12.OJ
B18(2-Bthylbexyl) 21&1 11. OJ
Pbthalate
D1-R-octylpht.balate 2/41 0.42.1
B8D1IO(B aDd/or It) 25/., 3.8.7 0.39.1 0.3!IJ .0.082.1 12.OJ
P1uoran~8
B8Dm-A-Pyr8D8 26141 1.1J 0.01J 0.3!IJ 0.611 0.061.7 ..OJ
Iad8DO (1,2,3-cD)1"ywD8 8/41 0.81J
D1b8DIIO(A,B)ADtbr- 3161 0.2407
B8m(GBI )P8ry18D8 5/41 0.t4J
PBS'tICIDU
B8Pta~ 5161 . 0.01
A1dr1n 3/41 O.OOlU
6,4'-DDB(P,P'-DDI) 10141 0.0011
bdr1D 3/41 0.000!IJ
~-chl0rda8 20/41 0.00CM.J 0.000407 0.0011.7 0.0023
Alpha-<:bl0rda8 10/41 0.0041
IJlCRQARICS Baclun:ound
~~ 51.. 4.9.1 4.1 RID
An8D1c III.. 1.0 5.8 RID
B8ry111\18 1/.. RID
COba1~ 43/.. 9.1 111.0 8.8 13.0 I.t 18.0 16.0 12.0 8.2
L8ad ",.. 13.OJ t.U 5.!IJ 18.0 5.1.7 62.0 13.OJ 15.OJ 50.OJ 1.1J
8818D1\18 tI.. 3.8.7 3.1.7 1.1 1.8 RID
ZiAc ..,.. I1.OJ It.OJ !It.OJ IIO.OJ 58.OJ 81.0 U.OJ 110.OJ 11.OJ 53.0
-22-
-------
'rABLI 4 DR'.1'KC'1'ED CDI'rMIIWI'l'B III 8IW.LCW IUBIIJ1IftC8 .oIL
SAMPLI8 caLLlC'.rID DU1UlfQ 80ILIIIG 1OIUJ1Q8
Prequency
8tAtion Location of Bl0-8-1 811-8-1 812-8-1 813-5-,1 8U-8-1 815-8-1 816-8-1 817-8-1
Detection (8IjI/kll) (D;/kll) (l8!I/kg) (D;/kll) (8IjI/kg) (8IjI/kg) (8IjI/kg) (8IjI7kg)
VOLM'ILE ORGANICS
T8trachloroetbaDe 5/67 0.12.1
To1- 7/67 0.11.7 0.006.1 0.002.1
Kt.bylbens- 8/67 0.66.1 0.003.1
Total Xy1811- 7/47 11.6.1
SEMI-VOLATILE ORaMICS
1,2 -D1chlorobcl..- 1/67 0.28.1
2, 6-DichloropbeDOl 1/67 0.36.1
1,2,6-Trichlorob8&aD8 3/47 0.18.7
"apllt!la18- 25/47 120.0 0.12.1 0.67 0.13.1
2-M8thylnaplltIla18- 23/47 65.0 0.087.1 1.0 0.18.1
Ac8naphtlly1en8 7/67 U.O 0.3.1
Ac8naphtll8ll8 11/47 1.6
Dib8naofuran 17/47 61.0 1.6 0.08l.1
Di8t.byl Pt.IIalate 1/47 0.072.1
Pluor8ll8 17/47 74.0 1.1 0.062.1
B_achlorobena8118 3/67 D.D8.1 0.055.1
P8IItacilloropll8llol 1/47 19.OJ 0.076.1 0.15.1
PbeDantllr8ll8 27/47 160.0 0.1l.1 5.l.1 0.55.1 0.016.1 0.073.1
Antllrac8ll8 21/47 53.0 1.1 O. 06!IJ
CArballOl. 15/47 25.OJ 0.6
Di-8-Butylpilt!lalate 2/47 0.17.1
Pluoran~ 28/47 100.0 7.11 7.1 0.56 0.075.1 0.45.1
Pyr-. 27/67 70.0 5.7 5.8.1 0.47.1 0.056.1 0.3.1
B8ll1I]'1 Butyl PIIt.IIalate 1/47 0.14.1
B81180(A)~_8 23/47 27.OJ 2.6 0.17.1 0.13.1
CIIr'J88II8 21/47 23.0 0.06.1 1.3.1 2.4.1 O.JJ 0.15.1
B8118O(B aDd/or It) 25/47 31. OJ 5.7.1 6.6 0.17.1
'7luarUl~
B8IIso-A-Pyr818 26/47 14. OJ 2.OJ 1.6 0.16.1
IDd8Ia (1,2,3-cD)Pyn118 8/47 1.1
D1!>8II80(A,.)An~- 3/"7 0.11
B81180(aIII )Pcyl- 5/47 1.3
PU'l'ICIDU
..,,,'-ooK(P,P'-D08) 10/.., 0.011 0.0004.1
~CI8ulfUi II (Bete) 1/47 O. 0004.1
~ulfUI sulfate 1/47 0.0011
..,"'-DDT(P,P'-DDr) 9/47 0.014 0.00l.1
~~ardaDe 20/67 Q.0071 0.,011 0.0023
Alplla-c:hlardaDe 10/67 0.071, 0.00611
IJlCJlWfICa Backaround
Ant~ 51.... 8ID
An811c II.... ..... 21.0 8ID
88rylU- 1/.... 8/D
Cabal t ..3/.... 13.0 1.7 13.0 15.0 7.1 12.0 13.0 15.0 1.2
x-d .."'.... 76.OJ 30.OJ 31O.OJ 110.OJ ".JJ 130.OJ 311.OJ 13.OJ 1.7.1
8818111- III.... 2.3.1 8ID
Z1Dc ....I.... 300. OJ 72.OJ 42.OJ 270.OJ 77.OJ 160.OJ 150.OJ 110.OJ 53.0
-23-
-------
TABLE ,
SHAU.OW SOIL SAMPLES
ANALYTICAL DATA SUWMRV'
""
'. Fre~ency Ran.
. 0' 0' ......
Detection Detection Value
Inor08llci m atka maiko
Aluminum 20/20 2,CX)()- 33.000 29.9OC
Arltimonv 4/20 3.6-4.9 4.2
Arsenic 4120 4.4-29 13
Barium 20120 I 30- I 700 301
Calcium 20120 560- 31 . CX)() 3.237
Chromium 20120 18-SIS 35
Cobalt 20120 7-23 12
CoDD8r 12J20 15-100 50
Iron 20120 18: 000- Q 000 30.333
Lead 20120 4.3-380 60
MaQne8ium 20120 3,900-9,000 5.762
Manaane.. 20120 230-750 467
Nickel 20120 . 9.6-27 18
Potassium 20120 2.200-&:400 3.552
Selenium 5120 1.7-3.8 2.5
Silver 1120 29 29
Sodium 14120 30- 340 119
Vanadium 20120 27-74 48.6
Zinc 20120 49- 420 146.5
Puraeable Oraanici ualktl ualka
I .2 -Dlchloroe1tlene 1122 6 6
Ma1tlvt E1tIvt Ket:>ne 1122 13 13
Benzenl 1122 3 3
Me1tlv IlOburvl Ketone 1122 22 22
T etrlch IolIMthene rTetrachloroe1tlvtenel 2J22 2-120 82
Toluene 4122 2-410 151.5
E1tIvt Benzine 4122 3-660 195
Tot. Xylenel 2J22 7,ooo-t,6oo 8.300
Extractable Oraanlce ualka ualktl
1 2-Dichloroben.ne 1122 280 280
/3-rtldlor 4-IMethvtcnenol 3J22 150-t 000 447
24-DlchloroDhenoi 1122 340 340
1 2 4- Trlchlorobezene 3J22 65- 390 212
NII!tlIh.ne 11122 43-120 000 1A.Q3
2-Methvlnacnlh.ne 11122 81-615.000 9103
Acen8llhthWine 3J22 58-~300 888
A08n8llhthene 5122 1300-804000 34.820
Dlbenzofufln 7122 s.- 81 000 17.848
Dle1tlvt PlleI- 1122 72 72
Fluo,.ne 7122 42-74 000 1!( 578
Haxachlorobl"Z8l1e 2J22 55- 8D 88
P8ntachloroahenol 4122 74-18000 48804
Phen InthI8M . t 3f22 5&-180.000 3D.8a8
An1tlraoane 8122 47-74000 Us.crM
Celb8mle 7122 89-34,000 8.222
DI-N- 2J22 870-1 eao t 335
FIuof8l11h8n8 13f22 59-7!5 000 1 Ii. 705
PwNne 13f22 48-7'0 000 1 So 887
Ban2111 ButvI Phlhll. 1122 140 140
BenzolAlAn!hrlDlnl 10122 72-"0,000 8,3804
0.,."..". 13f22 40- 23 000 4.7CM
Blat2-EthvlhI1l' l1li Ph,,"" 1122 11000 11000
DI-N II.. 1122 420 420
BenzolB rtldlor IQ Fluorrtlthlne 13f22 42-31 000 8.047
. Be"ZO-A~~ 11122 41-14000 2844
.lndlno n ,2.3- I PvT8n8 3f22 . 870-3.8(1) 2.023
Dlbenzo(A,H)An!hr8llna 2J22 240-880 -
BenzolOHn P8rv18n8 3f22 840-3.2(1) 1813
-24-
-------
TABU: 5
SHALLOW SOIL SAMPLES
ANALYTICAL DATA SUMMAR\'
Frequency Ran ge
01 01 Me."
Detection Detection Value
Pe Reade. u~g u~g
Beta-BHe 1/22 11 l'
He Dtachlor 1/22 10 10
Aldrin 1/22 1.4 1.4
4,4'-ooE
-------
~ The highest concentration of VOCs detected in the shallow subsurface ~oils
.0ccUrred in boring B-IO~ The predominant contaminants include total xylenes.
(9.6 mg/kg), ethylbenzene (0.66 mg/kg), toluene (0.19 mg/kg), and .
tetrachloroethene (0.12 mg/kg).
.
SVOCs are widespread in the shallow soils and, with the exception of the
background boring (MW-1D), were detected in nearly every shallow subsurface
. soil sample, including the soil sample collected from the offsite
downgradient boring for monitoring well MW-6S. The highest concentrations of
SVOCs detected in the shallow subsurface soils were found in borings B-09,
B-10, and MW-3S. The total concentration of SVOCs in these borings ranged
from 438.2 mg/kg (B-09) to 910.58 mg/kg (B-10). The predominant SVOCs
detected were PAH compounds including: naphthalene, acenaphthene,
dibenzofuran, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, carbazol, fluoranthene,
pyrene, benzo-A-pyrene, chrysene, and benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene. Most
of these compounds were detected well above concentrations of 10.0 mg/kg.
Concentrations of phenanthrene exceeded 120.0 mg/kg in the shallow soils in
each of these borings.
The highest concentrations of pesticides in the shallow subsurface soils were
found in borings B-12 and MW-3S. Alpha chlordane was detected at 0..076 mg/kg
in B-12 along with 0.016 mg/kg 4,4'-DDE. The pesticides detected in the
shallow soils from MW-3S were endosulfar II (beta) (0.080 mg/kg) and the only
occurrence of beta-BHC (0.011 mg/kg).
7.1.3
DEEP SUBSURFACE SOIL
. Pigure 8 shows the deep subsurface soil sampling locations and the total
concentrations (in mg/kg) of VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides found at each
sampling location. Deep subsurface soi1 samples were generally collected at
a depth of 31-5 feet below the surface or at the water table interface. The
intent of collecting these samples was.to gain an understanding of the depth
of .contamination to help determine the volume of soils that may need to be
remediated. Table 6 lists the individual contaminants and their
concentrations detected at each sampling point. Also included in this table
are the background levels for metals found in MW-1D. Table 7 provides the
frequency of detection and the ran;e of concentrations detected for
contaminants found in the deep subsurface soils. at the Benfield site.
The highest concentration of VOCs in the deep subsurface soils occurred in
boring MW-38 in which toluene, ethylbenzene, and total aylenes were detected
at concentrations of 18.0 mg/kg, 19.0 mg/kg, and 12.0 mg/kg, respectively.
With the exception of B-03, B-06, B-08, B-16, and MW-28, &VOCS were detected
in each deep subsurface soil sample. The greatest concentrations of 8VOCs in
the deep subsurface soils were detected in borings B-12, MW":'3S, and MW-5S
with total concentrations ranging from 0.139 mg/kg (MW-58) to 987.0 mg/kg
(MW-38). The predominant compounds detected were the PAH compounds
identified in the shallow soils.
-26-
-------
0D
..
<&
,.-
III 00
NOI[, D[£~ SU8S1.'1fIlC[ SOil SIIM'\.[S CDUCCHD 3.5' 10 S'
8n 011 Tit[ SI.'If II([ 'IIPPIIOI. I
LEGEND:
+ I.4WID MONITORING WElL. DEEP
+ I.4WJS MONITORING WElL. SHAllOW
+ 8 II SOIL BORING
+ 85P PIEZOMETER
lVOC TOTAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (UG/KG\
T£XT TOTAL EXTRACTABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (UG/KG)
'PEST. TOTAL PESTICIDE COMPOUNOS (UG/KG)
NO NOT DETECTED
o
~
o
BENFIELD
HAZELWOOD.
INDUSTRIES
NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL TCL COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES
DEEP SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
100 ~
~
D
------
100
200
~
[FiRE
-------
TABLE 6 DE'l'EC'l'ED CONTAMINANTS IN DEEP StJBStJRPACE SOIL SAMPLES
... COLLEC'l'ED DURING THE. INSTALLATION OF THE KONI~RING WELLS
'.
Frequency
Station Location of KW2S-S-2 HW3S-S-2 KW5S-S-2 KW6S-S-2
Detection (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Toluene 7/47 18.0
Ethylbenzene 8/47 19.0 O. 041J
Total Xylene8 7/47 120.0 0.23J
. SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Naphthalene 25/47 120.0 4.2J 0.096J
2-Methy1naphthalene 23/47 110.0 5.0J 0.140J
Acenaphthylene 7/47 13.0 0.79J
Acenaphthene 11/47 80.0 10.0
Dibenzofuran 17/47 73.0 7.8
Fluorene 17/47 70.0 11.0
Phenanthrene 27/47 160.0 34.0 0.07J
Anthracene 21/47 47.0 6.7
Carbazole 15/47 32.0 0.84J
Fluoranthene 28/47 97.0 24.0
Pyrene 27/47 77.0 16.0
Benzyl Butyl Phthalate 6/47 5.5J 0.61J
Benzo(A)Anthracene 23/47 33.0 6.0
Chry8ene 28/47 26.0 4.2J
Benzo(B and/or X) 25/47 26.0 5.4J
Fluoranthene
Benzo-A-Pyrene 24/47 13.0 2.4J
Indeno (1,2,3-CD)Pyrene 8/47 5.1J 0.75J
PESTICIDES
4,4'~DDE(P,P'-DDE) 10/47 0.019 0.0026J
Endo8ulfan II (Beta) 6/47 0.0008J
4,4'-DDT(P,P-DDT) 9/47 0.0021J
Mitthoxychlor 1/47 0.058
Endrin Aldehyde 1/47 0.029
Alpha-Chlordane 10/47
.
INORGANICS Backaround
Antimony 5/44 N/D
Ar8enic 6/44 N/D
Beryllium 1/44 N/D
Cobalt 43/44 10~0. 9.9 13.0 8.2
Lead 44/44 11. OJ 4.6J . 36.0J 1.7J
Selenium 9/44 3.4J N/D
Zinc 44/44 72.0J 63.0J 13.0 53.0
-28-
-------
DBLI' DftZC'1'ID CCII'rAMIJIUTS Dr DDP IUB8tJ1IPACI son.
SAMPLES ~ DURIJrQ SOILIJrQ lORDIo
Fr8qll8llCy
ltatian LocatioD o! 102-1-2 103-8-2 104-1-2 105-1-2 106-1-2 101-1-2 109-1-2
Det8C'ti0D (89/kg) (l8Q/kg) (89/kg) (.q/kgi (89/kg) (89/kg) (89/kg) .
IEMI-VOLATILE ORGAJ(ICS
(3-ancl/ar 4- )M8thylphenol 4/47 0.5lJ'
.aphtbal- 25/47 0.044.1 0.73 6.3
2.-t!1ylDaphtba~ 23/47 0.083.1 1.9
Ao8DapbUlen. 7/47 3.7
Du.nzo!uran 17/47 0.15.1 2.3
Fluoren. 17/47 0.045.1 0.25.1 2.8
Pentachlorophenol 8/47 0.17.1
PbaD&llthren. 27/47 0.084.1 1.2.1 9.9
Anthracen. 21/47 0.12.1 0.23.1 1.6.1
Carbazol. 15/47 0.lJ' 0.064.1 0.28.1
Fluoranthen. 28/47 1.2.1 1.5 8.2
Pyren. 27/47 0.79.1 1.3.1 4.7
lenzyl lutyl Phthalate 6/47 0.046.1
lenzo(A)Anthracen. 23/47 0.24.1 0.19.1 0.25.1 1.2.1
Chry88118 28/47 0.18.1 0.37.1 0.4lJ' 1.2.1
B18(2-Kthylbexyl) 2/47 8.7.1
Phtbalate
D1-R-octylphtbalate 2/47 0.35.1
aenzo(B &DeI/or X) 25/47 0.34.1 0.8.1 1.lJ'
Fluoranthen.
Benzo-A-Pyren. 24/47 0.17.1 0.13.1 0.2lJ' 0.26.1
111d8llO (1,2, 3-cD I Pyreae 8/47 0.11.1 0.12.1
aenao(cmI IParyl8118 5/47 0.12.1
PU'l'ICIIIU
IleptactUor 5/47 O.ooOSJ
D1.l4r1n 3/&7 0.002SJ o. oo3lJ'
&,4'-DDa(P,P'-DaI) 10/&7 0.0018.1 0.00'8
8Dda8ulfan II (..ta) 1/&' O.oolSJ 0.001.1
&,4'-DDD(P,P'-DDD) 2/47 0.002507
&,&'-DDT(P,P'-DDr) 1/47 0.000lJ O. 000f.J 0.00&8
o--c:hl~ 201&7 0.0072 0.011
A.lptaa-ctll~ . 101&1 0.00&
~CS ..ckaroaDd
ADU-Y 5/U &.3.1 8ID
~ 6/U &.G7 8ID
BerylU- 1/U 1.& 8ID
cabal t &3/&& 21.0 21.0 15.0 8.7 '.8 7.2 7.3 8.2
Lead "1&& 1.G7 15.G7 If..G7 7.1.7 &l.G7 &.1.7 12.G7 1.7.1
11818111118 IIU 2.1.7 1.4.1 8ID
Z1Dc &&IU l&O.OJ 110.OJ 1I.G7 80.G7 57.G7 53.OJ 77.G7 53.0
-21-
-------
DBLI 6 DJI'1'IICDD COII'fANIIIM'1' III DDP 8UB8UJIPACB SOIL
.;;. 8AMPLIS c:aLLBC'rID DUlUBQ SOILmQ BOJWIQ8
'.
Pr8qU8DCy
8UtiOD I.OcaUOD at 810-8-2 811-8-2 812-S-2 813-8-2 8U-8-2 815-8-2 816-8-2 817-8-2
Detaet10D (lIIg!kg) (lIII!kg) (1III/k9) (1III/k9) (1IIII/k9) (1III/k9) (8g/k9) (1IIII/k9)
YOLA1'ILB ORGAIIIC8
~t.rachlor_th.8 5/47 0.002.1
(TetraChloroe1:byl8D8)
Tolu.8 7/47 0.003.1 O. OOSIJ
EthyUI8DUD8 8/47 0.016 0.042.1
Toul Xyl8D8a :U~7 0.14 0.52.1
SEMI-VOLM.'IIJI OR~CS
1,2, ~-Tr1ch1orob8DuD8 3/~7 0.2'"
aaphtha1a8 25/~7 5.3 0.17.1 6.'" 0.081J 0.57
2_thylDaphtha1.8 23/~7 3.2 0.077.1 18.0 0.11J 0.73
Acuapbthyl8D8 7/47 0.2.1 0.01l~
Acuapb1:b8D8 7/~7 5.3 211.0 0.67
D1!I8Dzoturu 17/&7 ~.O 2'6.0 0.1~ 0.65
PluorwD8 17/~7 ~.7 32.0 0.0117.1 0.64
hDUChlarapb8Dol 8/47 0.23J
Pb8D8Dt.br8D8 27/~7 11.0 0.095J 32.0 0.~2J 0.1J 2.3J 0.055J
ADt.br- 21/~7 3.3 13.0 0.25.1 0.21J
Carbuo18 15/~7 1.8 0.1~ 0.081J
PluorU1:!l8D8 28/~7 7.11 0.064.1 65.0 o.~'" 0.120.1 1.~ O.O~~
Pyr8D8 27/~7 5.7 0.06'" 30.0 0.~2J 0.09'" 1.2.1 0.052.1
Beayl BU1:yl Pb1:balate ,,&7 0.071J 0.0117.1
Beao( A)ADt.braC8D8 23/&7 2.1J 12.0.1 0.22.1 O.U
Clary-. 28/~7 2.OJ 8.50.1 0.35.7 0.~3.1
B8u0(B 8D4/or K) 25/&7 6.11 10.0.1 O.~~ 0.611
Pluorut!18D8
BeuO-A-~ 2~/47 3.2 0.17.1 0.23.1
IDdeDo U.2.3-cD)1'JnD8 1/4.7 1.2
D1!18Dzo(A.B)ADthraa8D8 3/~7 0.411
Beua( QIII )P8ry188 5/47 1.0
PBB'1'ICIDBS
I18pucblor 514.7 O. OOOllJ O. oooe.T 0.0002.1
3/4.7 . O. oolla.T
~dr1D
IIDdoau1fu II (B8ta) ".7 0.0045 0.000'"
4.4'-DDT(P.P'~) 11/4.7 0.014
Qu8a-aalcmSaD8 20/47 0.0058 0.006 0.00311
Alplla-c:tl1ord8D8 10/47 0.00411 0.013 0.0048
I1fQRQMtCS Backaraund
AD1:1mDy 5/4. .3.&7 8ID
An8D1c "44 7.7 aID
BeryU1a 1/44 8ID
c:abal1: 43'4. 15.0 10.0 7.8 18.0 8.5J 14.0 14.0 15.0 8.2
I.-d 44'44 4I.OJ 17.Q,7 110.Q,7 17.OJ 11.OJ 150.0.1 16.OJ 11.OJ 1.7.1
Be18D1118 "'44 4.5.7 aID
&1Da 44'44 310. OJ 511.Q,7 180. Q,7 110.Q,7 IIl.Q,7 210.Q,7 76.Q,7 12.Q,7 53.0
-30-
-------
TABLE 7
DEEP SOft.. SAW~8
ANALYTICAL. DATA SUUW"./f'( .
F...quenoy R8nge ......
of of
Detactlon Detection Value
. InoroanlCS moIko m~a
Aluminum 1i/19 1'.000-37.0J0 li.388
Artllmony 2/19 3.8 -4.3 4
Arwnic 2/19 4- .7 !Ii.9
Wium 19/19 120-370 219
,rvilium 11li 1.4 1.4
c:ium 1S119 720-26,000 3.198
rom,u m 19/1i 18-110 36.8
bait 19/1i 7.2-29 12~
'DOer 10/19 15-~ 2iT
Iron ' Ii/Ii 17.000-45,000 29~
18ad 19/1i 4.1 -41 ~1.8
Maa1ellUm 19/1i 3.1-10 S.7
Manaan... IW19 130-800 438
Nick.' li/19 11-34 18.8
Potulum IW19 2100-7800 4294
Selenium 4/19 1.4-5.4 3.1
sw.r 1/19 9.3 9.3
SodIum 10119 72- f!O 103
Vanadium 19/19 28-110 52
~nc 19/19 53-310 101
Pur oeabl. Oroanlcs ualko ualko
T .trac:hloroelh.,. IT etrachloroelhvlenei 2/20 2 2
T cluen. 3120 3-1.800 804
Ethyl 8enaM 4120 18-19000 4 7715
T ota! Xylen.. 4120 1 400-120 000 30 323
Extractable Oraanloe ualko uollro
C3-lIIdlOI' 4-IMethvtch8ncl I 1120 510 510
1,2.4- Tltcnlorobenzen. I 1120 280 280
NaDhlhaien. 1 10120 44-120 000 14.372
2- M 1 0120 170-120.000 1!5~
Aoenaanlh""M 4120 77-110.000 ~5S=
AoenaDhthene 8120 3.700-80
benzoturlll 8120 140 .73,' 1 1
uoraM 9120 45-70, 1 112
ntacnloroatt.noI , 2/20 170-230 !DO
enll'lthraM 1 13120 55-180.000 28.077
thraoene 9120 120-47.000 9.025
arbazole I 8120 loo-~tII.'!tI 5.857
uorantheM 12120 44-87.000 19,1184
rwnI i 12120 ~li 13.1012
i: 1.!61
nzo/AlA'lthraoene 1110- 8:134
'~ ~~ 4,801
8i8C2- I ~.701]
0- .. li=
8 nzoRi In orlO
8 nzo- ,- VI'8M 130-1 .
lnd8no .2. ~ 750~! 1m 1.458
Dib8nZO IA,t 4Q 4QO
88nzo 120- f1XX) !eO
. ualka ualka
~ ~-o.l 0.83
~/P.P"-DIE -3.1 28
I -11 7.5
1.1 1.1
(B8taJ 0.1 -1.11
~"'oon 4.5 4.
0.4-14 4.
58 5
Endrtn Aldehvdt 1120 28 ::!'
Gamma-QI1ordan8 4120 5.8-11 7.
Alah. 4/20 4-13 U
NOT!S:
1. MMn V8Iu8 II II\I8ragact tot ..,.. hila.
2. The Ran" of De8aIon InClludN .. OOI'_.~" f8pot18d for MatI puamet8r.
The Jow.r V8Iu8 mar be . oonoan1J8llon .... fie ~antII8Ion ImIL
II'9K8 - m8grwne per I
-------
.~ The highest concentration of pesticides in the deep subsurface soils were.
found in the .boring for .MW-5S, in addition to borings B-12 ani:! MW-3S. . The
only occurrence of methoxychlor, which was the only pesticide. detected in
MW-5S, was detected at 0.058 mg/kg. The only occurrence of endrin aldehyde
(0.029 mg/kg) was detected in MW3S along w~th 0.019 mg/kg 4,4'-DDE. Alpha
chlordane was detected in B-09, B-12, and B-14. Gamma chlordand was detected
in B-05, B-09, B-11, and B-14.
7.2
GROUNDWA'l'ER
Contaminants detected in groundwater also include vocs, SVOCs, and metals.
Only one pesticide, endosulfan I (Alpha) at 0.3 micrograms per liter (ug/l),
was detected in the groundwater (MW-3S). Contaminants were found in the
shallow and deep monitoring wells. The greatest concentrations of organic
contaminants in the groundwater were found in the well nest in the
west-central portion of the Site (MW-3S and MW-3D), the well nest installed
immediately north (downgradient) of the former Benfield facility (MW-5S and
MW-5D), and to a lesser extent in the well nest adjacent to the eastern site
boundary (MW-4S and MW-4D). Concentrations of organic parameters are
significantly greater in the shallow wells, compared to the deep wells at
each well nest location. Well nests MW-3, MW-4, and MW-5 are situated along
the western, eastern, and northern perimeter of the former facility.
Groundwater samples were collected from the five (5) shallow monitoring wells
(designated WSW) and six (6) deep monitoring wells (designated WDW). The
shallow wells were screened at the water table interface and the deep wells
were screened at the based on saprolite (on top bedrock). Groundwater was
typically encountered at a depth of 31 to 6 feet below surface and the depth
of the deep wells ranged from 34 to 52 f~t below surface.
A total of 12 different VOCs were detected in seven (7) monitoring wells.
VOCs detected in groundwater from on-site wells in concentrations that exceed
Pederal HCLs include vinyl chloride (MW-4D, MW-5S, and MW-5D), benzene (MW-5S
and MW-5D), and 1,2-dichloropropane (MW-5D). A total of 27 differ~nt SVOCs
were detected in 7 of the monitoring wells of which 19 were PAR compounds.
.£ighteen (18) of the.e PAR compounds were a180 found in .oils. A variety of
metals were detected in the groundwater. Concentrations above background
were detected in the onsite monitoring wells. In general, higher
concentrations were observed in the shallow wells. The highest
concentration. were generally found in MW-2S and in MW-5S which are situated
at the southern portion of the Site in' t~e vicinity of the reported dumping
area. Ketals that were detected at concentrations exceeding two time the
background groundwater .ample includea antimony, barium, beryllium, chromium,
cobalt, lead, vanadium, and zinc.
Although I'igure 5 attempt. to define the plume, the RI did not generate
sufficient data to completely define the extent of groundwater
contamination. one organic. .ite constituent was detected in the deep well
(MW-6D) in the downgradient off-site well nest and insufficient data was
collected to evaluate the adverse impact, if any, the Site has had on the
-32-
-------
bedro~k zone of the aquifer. Additional information to address this data gap
will be collected during the remedial design (RD).
7.2.1
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
Figure 9 shows the locations of the shallow monitoring wells and the total
concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs and pesticides detected at each well. Table 8
lists the individual contaminants and their concentrations detected at each
well. This table also lists the background levels for metals in groundwater
as determined by the groundwater sample collected from MW-1D. Table 9
provides the frequency of detection and the range of concentrations detected
for contaminants found in the shallow monitoring wells at the Benfield site.
The highest total concentration of volatiles were found in MW-3S while the
greatest variety of volatiles were found in MW-5S. VOCs detected in MW-3S
included total xylenes (1,800 ug/l) , toluene (830 ug/l) , ethylbenzene
(380 ug/l), and 1,2-dichloroethene (22J ug/l). These compounds were also
detected in MW-5S but generally in lower concentrations as well as vinyl
chloride (33J ug/l), 1,1-dichloroethane (60 ug/l), 1,1,1-trichloroethane
(22J ug/l) , and benzene (20J ug/l). Chlorobenzene (50 ug/l) was the only VOC
detected in MW-4S. The greatest total concentrations of miscellaneous VOCs
were found in MW-3S and MW-4S.
SVOCs were also detected in MW-3S, MW-4S, and MW-5S. The greatest total
concentration of SVOCs was found in MW-3S. Nineteen PAS compounds were
detected in MW-3S includings naphthalene (2500J ug/l) , 2-methylnaphthalene
(lOOOJ ug/l) , acenaphthene (840 ug/l), dibenzofuran (620 ug/l), fluorene
(580 ug/l) , and phenanthrene (1100 ug/l). Eighteen of the 19 PAS compounds
detected in MW-3S were detected in MW-5S but generally in lower
concentrations. Only 6 PAS compounds were detected in MW-4S.
The highest level of metals were found in monitoring wells MW-2S and MW-5S.
The metals detected in MW-2S included antimony (83 ug/l) , barium
(8100 ug/l) , beryllium (15 ug/l), chromium (600 ug/l) , lead (380 ug/l) , and
-vanadium (1100 ug/l). MW-5S contained barium (2800 ug/l), beryllium
(7 ug/l), chromium (740 ug/l), lead (48 ug/l), and vanadium (940 ug/l).
7.2.2
DEEP GROUNDWA'l'ER
Figure 10 shows the locations of the d_p monitoring wells and the total
concentrations of VOCs and SVOCs detected in each well. Taba 10 lists the
individual contaminants and their concentrations detected at each well. This
table also lists the background levels for metals in groundwater as
determined by the groundwater sample collected from MW-1D. Table 11
provides the frequency of detection and the range of concentrations detected
for contaminants found in the deep monitoring wells at the Benfield site.
-33-
..
-------
0D.
s
~
rorr - ..
M8Y - NO 't"'OS
+ UWID
+ UWJS
+ 811
+ 8SP
'M)C
TEXT
TPEST
NO
~
o
NOT£: StW1.OW MONT(JI8IG wBJ..S WERE 1NSTM1.ED TO A DEPTH OF 13.S IELOW nE SUWACE
{.
00..-
f\IOC - '~
TEXT .. ....
tl'£1T - NO
.~
AIITIQUI
IItIIP
~
-4
s.
"
r~
lEGEND:
UONITORING WEll. DEEP
UONITORING WEll, SHAllOW
SOil BORING
PIEZOUETER .
10TAL VOlAn£ ()OOANIC C()IoPOUNDS CUOIlI
EXTRACTABlE ~ C()IFOUHDS (UGIlJ .
101 AL PESTICIDE 0QMt'0UNDS (UGIlJ .
NOT DETECTED .
BENFIELD
11!.?n WOOD.
INDUSTRIES
NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL TCl COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES
SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS
loo!)() 0
~ ----.-
100
.-200
fiGURE
9
--~- -- --.
.~ -- --
-------
D&8' c:DI'DICIIIUft ~ .~~ D IIILLI* ... or 'DII JQUDD
Fr8q1:I8DCY .
ltaUCXI LOCat.1.oD of MW21-GW ..,3S-GW MWoIoI-GW MW58-GW MWfi8-GW
Det.ec:t.ioft (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1) (ug/1)
VOLM'ILB CIRaAKI CS
Vinyl Chlorid8 1/5 33.0 J
Chlcroet.baA8 1/5 2.0 J
l,l-Dichlcroet.b&D8 1/5 60.0
1,2-Dichlcroet.h- 2/5 22.0 J 211.0 J
Chlorofanl 1/5 1.0 J
1,1,1-Tr1~ 1/5 22.0 J
--- 2/5 1.0 J 2.0 J
'1'01- 2/5 130.0 1110.0
Chlorob81- 1/5 50.0
.thy1 a-- 2/5 380.0 41.0 J 440.0
'fot.al Xy1_- 2/5 1800.0 230.0 J 600.0
8IMI-YCLA1'ILI OIll3MICS
I, 3-Dichlorob8l1- 1/5 3.0 J
1, 4-Dichlorob8l1- 2/5 4.0 J 6.0 J
1,2-D1chlorob8l1- 1/5 51.0
2-fl8t.hy1pb8Do1 2/5 13.0 8.0 J
(3-&Dd/or4-)~1pbano1 1/5 28.0
..pbt.lla~ 3/5 2500.0 J 34.0 2400.0 J
2-Mt.bylDapb~ 3/5 1000.0 4.0 J 3110.0 J
2-Chl~pbt.lla1- 1/5 4.0
Ac8ftapbthy1- 2/5 100.0 J 38.0
Ac8ftapbt./;188 2/5 840.0 220.0 J
DUl8asofllZ'u 3/5 620.0 8.0 J 200.0 J
Pl~ 3/5 580.0 8.0 J 160.0 J
._~ 1/5 811.0 J
.~ 3/5 1100.0 4.0 J 250.0 J
ADtbr- 2/5 160.0 J 26.0
Carbal1018 3/5 380.0 J 6.0 J 210.0 J
Plaoru~ 2/5 440.0 J 64.0
~ 2/5 320.0 J 16000.0 41.0
8818D(A)AIIt.br- 2/5 77.0 6000.0 14.0
CJIry888 2/5 56.0 J 4200.0 J 12.0 J
8818D18 ../or It) . 2/5 63.0 5~0.0 J 11.0 J
P1aoru~
---.,.~ 2/5 31.0 2~.0 J 5.0
IIId80 11,2,3-c:D)~ 2/5 12.0 750.0 J 2.0 J
D1b8D8oIA,.)~ 1/5 3.0 J
8818DIC8I)Pcy188 2/5 8.0 J 1.0 J
-35-
-------
...
DBLI' (-UII1I8d) CCIft'NCDIUI'!8 ImtIt'DD D IIW.LCIIf ... ~ mI JQUDD
'. Pr8qII8IICY
suUcm I.oaaUcm of MW2S-aw IW38-GW Mlf6S-aw MW5a-aw MIfU-aw
DIIt8f:tion (119/1) (\19/1) . (ug/l) (ug/l)
PES'l'ICIDES
BDdos\IJ.fan II (A1.pha) 1/5 0.3
IIIORCWIICS 8acMZOund
ADt1lDaDy 1/5 83.0
au1- 5/5 8100.0 1600.0 1400.0 2800.0 1000.0 120.0
8uy111118 2/5 15.0 7.0
CIlrc81U11 5/5 600.0 240.0 64.0 740.0 15.0
Cobalt 5/5 240.0 96.0 98.0 220.0 51.0
Lead 5/5 380.0 170000.0 J 47.0 87.0 48.0
MaDg8D888 5/5 8200.0 J 3600.0 J 18000.0 J 13000.0 J 2600.0 J 69.0 J
MaftNry 2/5 0.88 0.52
l11cul 4/5 250.0 130.0 65.0 380.0
V8II8d1- 5/5 1100.0 330.0 200.0 940.0 52.0
. .
-36-
-------
GROUNDWATER ~ 8HAU.OW WEU.8
ANALYT1CAL DATA SUMMARY'
Fr.quenoy R8ng8 M.."
cI cI Vllue
Detection DetectIon
Inoraanlol ua.1 uaII
Aluminum 51! 22000-430000 187000
Antimonv 11S 53 53
Barium 515 1000-8100 2940
Bervllium 215 7 15 11
Calcium ' 5/5 12000-51000 29'200
Chromium 515 &4-740 34
-------
{.
(fD
1i/7t
°0
~- ..'
1WC - .,.
=,p- -~. rt,
"0
AIIJ1QUC
......
~
-<
tA
--
'#'
1/1 00
LEGEND:
+ MWID MONITORING WELL. DEEP
+ MWJS MONITORING WELL. SHALLOW
+ 811 SOIL BORING
+ 85P PIEZO.,ETER
1VOC - TOTAL vnAft£ ORWIC OQIWOUNDS (UGIIJ
mer - TOTAL EXlNCTABl£ ()RONeC C(JMPOUNDS (UGIIJ
tPEST - TOTAL PESnCIDES (X)MPCUND6 (UGIl) ,
N:JT£; DID' I«JN1ORNG WBis WERE 1NSTM1£D TO IEPJHS IWGHo fRCM'J4" TO 535" IIB.OW nE Slft'K:;E N) - NOT Ut:1~1 ~
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
HAZELWOOD, NORTH. CAROLINA
TOTAL TCl COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES
DEEP MONITORING WEllS
100 ~ 0 100
...........--- ----------
200
.J"
AGUfE
to
-------
TABLE 10 CONTAMINANTS DETECTED IN DEEP ZONE OF THE AQUIFER
Frequency Background
Station Location of MW2D-GW MW3D-GW MW4D-GW MW5D-GW MW6D-GW MWID-GW
Detection (ug/l) (ug/l) (ufJ/l) (ug/l) (ug/:) (ug/l)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Vinyl Chloride 2/6 9.OJ 53.0
Chloroethane 1/6 12.0J
l,l-Dichloroethane 1/6 48.0
1,2-Dichloroethene 2/6 3.0J 44.0
Chloroform 6/6 2.0J 2.0J 1. OJ 2.0J 1. OJ
l,l,l-Trichloroethane 1/6 S.OJ
1,2-Dichloropropane 1/6 6.0J
Benzene 2/6 2.0J 11.0
Toluene 3/6 3.0J 9.0J 6.0J
Chlorobenzene 1/6 100.0
Total xylene. 1/6 6S.0 600.0
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Phenol 3/6 7.0J 28.0
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/6 2.0J
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1/6 33.0
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 3/6 4.0J 10.0 2.0J
Naphthalene 2/6 130.0 39.0J
2-Methylnaphthalene 2/6 110.0 7.0J
Acenaphthylene 1/6 11.0
Acenaphthene 1/6 120.0
Dibenzofuran 3/6 96.0 28.0 28.0
Fluorene 3/6 79.0 6.0J 7.0J
Phenanthrene 3/6 lSO.O 9.OJ 16.0
Anthracene 2/6 13.0 1. OJ
Carbazole 3/6 24.0 12.0 48.0.1
Fluoranthene 2/6 27.0 7.0.1
Pyrene 2/6 13.0 4.0.1
Benzo(A)Anthracene 1/6 1.0.1
-
INORGANICS
Antimony 0/6
Barium 6/6 30.0 18.0 70.0 160.0 360.0 120.0
.
Beryllium 0/6
Chromium 4/6 19.0 10.0.1 43.0 40.0
COb.lt 0/6
Lead 5/6 4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0
Mangane.e 5/6 19.0.1 140.0.1 140.0.1 200.0.1 69.0.1
Mercury 0/6
Nickel 0/6
Vanadium 0/6
-39-
...
-------
TABLE 11
GROUNDWATER - DEEP WELL8
ANALYnCALDAT~8UMMARY
'.
FreQuency Range Mean
of 01 Value
08t8c11on Det8c11on
InoraaniC:8 uall uW!
Aluminum 8/1 870-7300 3258
Arr!Wnonv Oil - -
BarUn III 18-380 128
OIl - -
CaIcUn 8/8 I IiIOOO - 88000 38333
ClYomll,l/n "I 10-43 28
Cobalt 018 - -
COOO8f 0/8 - -
Iron 5/8 .,0 - 8300 3888
~a 11/8 3-11 ,
Ma-- 5/8 420-25000 ~
- 5/8 18-200 114
Mercan 0/8 - -
NIICII. 08 - -
8/8 2300-8800 &700
SodUft 818 8500-17000 11087
Vana- 0/8 - -
D'Ic: 0/8 - -
Pur-able oraanlca UQ/1 . uQ/1
Vlnlll Cntoride 2J8 8-53 31
CN0r081t1an8 1/8 12 12
1 I - Dic:hloroeltlan8 1/8 48' ...
1 .2 - Dlc:hloroell18ne 211 3-" 2'
CNOrOIorm .,8 1-2 2
1 .1 1 - rlc:Noroeltlan8 1/8 5 5
1.2- 1/8 8 8
Benzene 2J8 2-11 7
ToIL8n8 3/8 3-8 8
Ct8:IfOO8nz- 1/8 100 100
EIfWI Benz- 0/8 - -
TO" .VIe".. 1/8 85 811
EJrtrac:88b18 OralUllce UaII UQf1
PtwnDI 318 7-28 15
1.3~~ 018 - -
1'- 1/8 a II
1 .2- ob8nz8n8 1/8 S3 :D
2- . 018 - -
3-andfor 4- 0/8 - -
uz 4 - Z8n8 3111 2-10 I
N8Dhth8I8ne 218 38-130 u
~ 218 7-110 l1li
2- ne 018 - -
1/8 11 11
~ 118 120 120 '
318 28-88 51
FIuor- 318 8-78 31
0lIl - -
,. 318 8-1150 lie
Anln08ll8 . 218 1-13 7
~. 318 12-" 21
218 7-27 17
218 4-13 .
S 1111 . 1 1
011 - -
018 - -
118nZD- - 0,. - -
~ 11.2.3- Pw8n8 Oil - -
I)I)enzo A.H)AnltvaOlll8 018 - -
B8nZO WII - -
PedddM uan UQf1
EndDdan U IAIDMI 018 - -
NOT&':
1. M88n... Ie --oM lor a«*aI hIlL
2. TN"'" 01 08tICII0n ..,... .. OOIlO8I1Iratlon8 r8POft8d !of each 1*8m8tIr.
TN IDw8r ... may be . COIlO8dlrldb, CI8tIc:8ICI tI8Iow .. quu8Ion ~
ucrI - INI:.IOgrMI8I* .. (1181181* b8Ion)
-40-
-------
VOCs ~.re detected in each of the deep monitoring wells. Chloroform was the
only VOC detected in both of off-site deep well., KW-1D and KW-6D. However,
since chloroform was a1so found in the trip blanks for these samples,
chloroform is not considered to be a groundwater constituent. Toluene
(3J ug/l) was the only VOC detected in KW-2D. Toluene (9J ug/l) and total
I .
-xylenes (6J ug/l) were found in KW-3D. VOCs detected in KW-4D included
vinyl chloride (9J ug/l), chlorobenzene (100 ug/l), and chloroethane
(12.ug/l). KW-sD was contaminated with the following VOCs: vinyl chloride
(53 ug/l), 1,1-dichloroethane (48 ug/l), 1,2-dichloroethene (44 ug/l), and
benzene (11 ug/l).
SVOC. were detected in KW-3D, KW-4D, KW-sD, and KW-6D with the greatest
concentrations being found in KW-3D and KW-sD. Twelve PAS compounds and
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (4J ug/l) were detected in KW-3D. The PAS compounds
detected in the greate.t concentration include: naphthalene (130 ug/1),
2-methylnaphthalene (110 ug/l), acenaphthene (120 ug/l), and phenanthrene
(150 ug/l). In general, the concentration. of the PAS compound. detected in
the deep well (KW-3D) are approximately one order of magnitude lower than the
'concentrations of PAS compounds detected in the shallow well (KW-3S). Nine
PAR compounds were detected in KW-sD. The PAS compounds detected in the
greatest concentrations include naphthalene (39J ug/l), dibenzofuran
(28J ug/l), phenanthrene (16 ug/l), and carbazole (48J ug/l). In addition,
phenol (28 ug/l) and 1,2-dichlorobenzene (33 ug/l) were al.o detected in
KW-sD. The concentrations of PAR compounds in KW-sD are much lower than
tho.e found in KW-sS. Dibenzofuran (28 ug/l), carbazole (12 ug/l), phenol
(7J ug/l), and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (10 ug/l) were the SVoc. detected in.
KW-4D. The only SVOC detected in KW-6D was phenol (11 ug/l). KW-6D is
downgradient of KW-sD and phenol was also detected in KW-5D.
The only metal detected above it. clean up goal in the deep monitoring wells
was magnesium, however, the concentration of magne.ium ob.erved in the
background well was also above the cleanup goal (50 ug/l).
7.3
SURl"ACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
-Currently, Browning Branch is not being adversely impacted by the Benfield
site. Neither residual soil contamination nor contaminated groundwater are
entering into this stream. Piqure 11 shows the locations of the surface
water and sediment sampling locations and the total concentration. of
contaminants detected at each sampling location. '1'able 12 list. the
individual metal. and their concentrations detected in the surface water at
each sampling location. This table only contains metal. as neither VOCs nor
svocs were detected in the surface water of Browning Branch. This table also
lists the background levels for metals in the surface water-as determined by
the surface water sample collected at SW-l. '1'abl. 13 lists the individual
contaminants and their concentration. detected in the s.diment collected at
each sampling location. This table al.o lists the background levels for
contaminants in the sediment at sampling location SD-l which is upgradient of
the Site.
-41-
-------
(.
~
. oS
"Ai .
19 8 °0
I
.~.. i
m MtICIUI ~!
"'"
SHOP I
s'
,
00
~
RESIDENTIAL
AREA
':'
l.[CrND'
'NOC - TarAl VOtA'R£ OROANC 00IF0UND8
1EX1' - TarAi. ElC'lMCTABLE OAGANC aM'OUNDI
TPESf - TarAi. PESnCIDE CIOIFOUOI .
sw - StR'ACE WATER (UGIiJ
SO -'SED8IEHJ ~
NO - Nor DET£CIB) .
o
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
. HAZELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
TOTAL TCL COMPOUNDS AND PESTICIDES
SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
100:10 0
~-
100
. 200
fiGURE
t 1
-------
TABLE t 2 .
DATA SUMMARY - DETECTED PARAMETERS
SURFACE WATER SAMPLES BENFIELD INDUSTHIES
Backoround
Sampje No. Frequency 58000 58002 68004 5&008
81at1on L.Dc:atlon of SW-1 8W-2 SW-3 SW-4
Samo.. Oa.. Detection 080481 080481 ' 080481 08048.1
InoroanlC1l ua/1 uall uAil ua/1
Calc:lum 4/4 3100.0 3000.0 >' 3100.0 ,.:... 2800.0
Iron 3/4 340.0 320.0 ,;,:. 300.0 ;.. 42.0 U
Maanellum 1/4 1100.0 1100.0 U 1100.0 U 37.0 U
Manaane.. 214 28.0 U 23.0 23.0 ,. 10 U
Mercurv 1/4 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.20 U 0.58
Poteuium 4/4 1800.0 1700.0';. 1800.0 ...' 1400.0 .
Sodium 214 2800.0 U 2700.0 U 2800.0 :.,....,' 820000.0 .
U - Analyzed lor bu1 not d88c88d. The number" 1he minimum quaUtation Imll
o - ConC8n1r8t1on of de18d8d Panunet8r. .,. highUgh18d by Shading
ugll - microgram. per Iit8r (p8I18 per billion)
TABLE t 3
DATA SUMMARY - DEl'EC1ED PARAMETERS
SEDIMENT SAMPLES BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
Sample No. Fr.quency 58001 58003 I80OI 58007 58010
8tellon Location 01 80-1 SO-2 80-3 80-4 SO-I
Sam ole Oa18 Detection 08048 I 080481 080481 080481 080481
InoroanlC8 m aI1c 0 maiko maiko maiko maiko
Aluminum 4/5 ~.O ,. 11ooo.0,}::", 12000.0 't:}, 8700.0 UJ 16SOOO.0
Barium 5/5 81.0 100.0 '....c.; 110.0 :.' 270.0 " 380.0
Calcium 215 440.0 480.0 U 870.0 U 430.0 U 3400.0
Chromium 5/5 I 22.0 ..'. 25.0 ':t'...: 21.0 ".,;,:' 31.0:,' IS.O
Cobalt 5/5 7.3 . 7.5 ::t'..: 8.' ",...,.::" 5.':".., 24.0
Coooer 5/5 18.0 12.0 :"':":. 14.0 ;".,:', 77.0 .,.. 43.0
Iron 5/5 18000.0 18000.0 ;c'" 21000.0 ~:'t:.. 32000.0':'. 48000.0 .
LAad 515 10.0 J ... '4::...., 8.2 iii":::': 5.2 '.. 58.0 J
Maanellium 515 4100.0 .'" 3500.0 "~""" 4400.0 ;>::.:~:' 2700.0 "".:,.:.; 11000.0."'."
Manaanne lIS 210.0 01,:' 250.0 ~h:::' 110.0 11:::'.'- 210.0 4:.':": 780.0 .I ....
Nickel 515 8.2;. 8.8 -..-n 11.0 ~~<:.' 15.0.::"';:: 33.00:...
Po1auium 5/5 2700.0,. 2800.0 ;':";:i S7OO.0 ~c,,:,:. 1700.0 .. 8200.0 .:'..;.
Sodium 515 120.0 110.0 1~.0 %):; 100.0::'::'> 220.0 ..:
Vanadium 515 24.0 .-.~'.' 21.0 .)0:::":;::" ..0 >'{ 28.0 ::"'.'. 81.0"
ZInc 515 71.0 ...:. 58.0 \:;' ".0 :;;?:.;. 120.0:; 170.0
&tractable Oraan'ca ualko ualko \&'ko ualko ualko
AC8naohlhvtene 115 400.0 UJ 430.0 UJ 440.0 W 380.0 UJ 230.0 J
Phenanthrene 2/5 44.0 ~...... 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 580.0 ,."":,..
An1h~ 115 400.0 U 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 380.0 J ....
Fluoran1h8ne 215 85.0.1 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 2000.0 :.,
PYrene 215 111.0 .I,. 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 1700.0..
BenmIAIAnttnC8n8 11S 400.0 U 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 1200.0
Chrwene 215 48.0 J 430.0 UJ 440.0 W 380.0 UJ . 1800.0 J
Ben:m(B and/or KI Fkaor~ 11S 4000 u 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 3300.0
B.n:m-A-PYr- 115 400.0 U 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 1300.0
Indeno 11 2 3-COI PYrene 11S 400.0 U 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 750.0
Oibenzo(A. H>AnlhraC8r18 1/5 400.0 U 430.0 U 440.0 U 380.0 U 180.0 J
Sen:mIOHn Pervlen. 11S 400.0 W 430.0 UJ 440.0 W 380.0 UJ 820.0 J
NOTES:
u - Analyzed lor bu1 not d888c:88d. The number is the minimum quaUtatlon ImIl
J - Ea1Imated V8Iu8
D - Concen1r8tlon. of deted8d parametera w. hlghlgh18d by shading.
mglKg - m81agrama per ICIIognun (par1a per m81an)
uglKg - rnlcrogrwn. per ICIIognun (par18 per blllon)
-43-
-------
'- Contaminants were found in the sediments collected at location 5D-1 and
SD-5. The (:ontaminatioft found at SD;".l, fluoranthene (0.095J ria9/kg), pyrene'
(0.088 mg/kg), ch%ysene (0.049 mg/kg), and phenanthrene (0.044J mg/kg), are
'not attributable to the Site as this sampling location is located both
topographically and hydraulically upgradient of the Site. However, it is
conceivable that the elevated levels of PABs and metals detected in sediment
(SD-5) may have originated from the Site. Sampling location SD-5 was in an
. abandoned channel west of Browning Branch. No ,surface water sample was
collected at this location as a two foot high berm has been constructed
between Browning Branch and this point. In the 1960's and 1970's this
channel provided process water to the Lawrence Leather Company.
The source of the PABs and elevated levels of metals found at sampling point
SD-5 is presently not known. This sampling point is on the opposite side of
Browning Branch and is adjacent to and underneath an active railroad line and
railroad bridge both of which use creosote treated wood. The two foot high
berm between Browning Branch and this point insures that this sediment, even
under flood conditions, will not enter Browning Branch. This fact is
confirmed by the'absence of any contamination at the downstream sampling
points 3 and 4.
The surface water in Browning Branch is classified as Class C under North
Carolina Administrative Cod~, Title 15A, Subchapter 2B (NCAC T15A:02B).
being suitable for secondary recreation and the Wpropagation of natural trout
and maintenance of troutW. Neither sport nor commercial fish species were
observed in the shallow sUrface waters during the RI field work.
7.4
HYDROGEOLOGICAL SETTING
The Site is located in the floodplain of Browning Branch which flows
north-northwest into Richland Creek about 1,600 feet downstream of the site.
The topography of the Site and of the surrounding area is illustrated on
Pigure 12.
Groundwater in the re;ion occurs in alluvial deposits, aapro1ite, and
,~ract~red metamorphic bedroc~. These units are typically hydraulically
connected and together comprise the Blue Ridge-Inner Piedmont Hydrogeologic
Cnit. This groundwater i. designated as Class GA in accordance with North
,Carolina's water claaaLfication system and Clasa lIB under CSEPA Groundwater
Classification Guidelines (December 1986). The Class GA classifications
means that the ;roundwater i. an exiating or potential .ource of drinking
water .upply tor human. North Carolina Administrative COde, Title 15,
Subchapter 2L (RCAC'rlSt02L). BPA classifies the groundwater as Class 1IB
aince the aquifer i. of drinking quality but is not currently being used as a
source of drinking water. Therefore, the groundwater needs to be remediated
to a level protective of public health and the "environment as specified in
Pederal and State regulations governing the quality and use of drinking
water. The primary .curce of groundwater in Haywood County is fractured
bedrock.
-44-
-------
~
.
RESIOENTIAl
AREA
~
Source: Murphy YcUc Associates
--~-------~--- ---
Ii! Nf III [)
HALlL WOOD,
INDUSTRIFS
NORTH CAROLINA
SITe TOPOGRAPHIC MAP -_J
100 ~ 0 100 200
~ ~
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 'fOOT.
rlr.URE
12
-------
,~ The water table is' typically coincident with topography altho~gh at greater
depths beneath hills than beneath valleys.. Depths to the wat~r table 'in the
region range from'18ss than three feet below the surface to. as much as .
60 feet below the surface and seasonal fluctuations of the water table are
generally on the order of 10 feet or less~, .
Site-specific hydrogeologic information was obtained during the RI. In
general, the materials encountered in the on-site borings include, from the
surface to the total depth drilled, fill material or native silty soils,
alluvium, saprolite, and weathered bedrock. The orientation of two geologic
cross sections are shown in Pigure 13 with the actual geologic cross
sections shown in Pigures 14 and 15.
For the most part, the Site is covered with a veneer of fill material
6 inches to more than 3 feet in thickness. The fill material observed
includes soils that were reportedly hauled to the Site and soils that were
apparently disturbed or moved during the removal of debris from the site and
regrading of the Site after the fi~e. The fill is described as orange-brown,
clayey silt with broken brick, rock, glass and other debris.
Beneath the fill, alluvial materials were encountered. The alluvium was'
encountered in each soil boring but was only completely penetrated in the
monitoring well borings. Thickness of the alluvium ranged from 61 to 9 feet.
The alluvium is generally comprised of poorly sorted sand, gravel, cobbles,
an rock fragments in a dark brown silty/clayey to sandy matrix. Cobbles
observed in test pits excavated on site were 3 to 6 inches in diameter.
The alluvial materials overlie saprolite throughout the area. The thickness
of the saprolite ranges from 2S feet to 42 feet. The saprolite is the
product of highly weathered biotite gneiss bedrock. Clayey bands of quartz
and feldspar alternating with biotite are characteristic. The saprolite
v~ies from clayey to granular. Iron 8taining was observed throughout.
Lying below the 8aprolite i8 fractured metaphoric bedrock. This zone of the
underlying aquifer was not study as Part of the RI as it was not anticipated.
that contamination had reached this depth.
Groundwater flow in both the 8hallow portion of the aquifer (alluvium) and
the deeper portion of the aquifer (saprolite) is to the north. PJ.gu.res 16
and 1'1 show the groundwl'ter contour8 and direction of groundwater flow.
Groundwater flow paralle18 the direction of stream flow in Browning Branch
and follow surface topography. Estimated hydraulic gradients for the shallow
and deep wells are 0.017 and O.OlS,respectively. The average hydraulic
conductivity estimated from the shallow/alluvium wal18-iS
9.3 x 10- centimeter8/8ecOnd (em/see) and 6.8 x 10 10 em/see in the
deep/saprolite wells. This equate8 to horizontal velocitie8 of 558 feet/year
in the alluvium zone and 43 feet/year in the 8aprolite zone.
-46-
-------
t9
'I
.t-
~
'9fMP
-.-~...
-~
(3
8
So
I
.
~
RESIDENTIAL
00
~
AREA -
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
H~Z[LWOOO. NORTH C~ROlINA
CROSS SrCriON
IHDrX UA,P
lOG 50
........
o
lOG
200 PIGUR.
. 1]
-------
SOUTH
ELEVATION
(ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL)
2740 A
MH-tO
2732.67
2730
2720
2710
2700
I
~
GO
I
2690
2680
2650
MH-2D/2S
2725.82
--
--
---
\~
;.
2684.67
2685.82
.L..EG.END..;
~ CLAVEV SILT AND FILL .
IIaI ASH" BRICK FRAGMENTS. DARK CLAV
t::':::'JALLUVIUM (SILT" SAND. GRAVEL. COBBLES)
~SAPROLITE (SILTV CLAV" CLAVtV SILT)
~ BlOT I TE GN I ESS BEDROCK
~ HATER TABLE. 1-9-91 (DEEP HELLS)
CROSS-SECTION
A - A'
'"
NORTH
A'
-'
'2661.57
.)# = 200' (APPROXIMATE)
HORIZONTAL SCALE
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES SITE
F.l GURE
. 14
-------
HEST
B
Bf
ELEVATION
(ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVELl
2140
2130
2120
2110
,
~
,
2100
2690
2680
2610
2660
BROHNING
BRANCH
l
SH-3
2116.45
_1-
MH-3D/3S
2722.52
MH-4D/4S
2720.68
-
--
-
2684.68
METAMORPHIC
BEDROCK
LEGEND:
~ CLAYEY SILT AND FILL
B88BBI ASH. BRICK FRAGMENTS. DARK CLAY
f::::::'.1 ALLUV I UM (S I LT. SAND. GRAVEL.. COBBLES)
~SAPROLITE (SILTY CLAY., CLAYEY SILT)
~ HATER TABLE.. 1-9-91 (DEEP HELLS)
EAST
NOTE: HH-3 15 UPGRADIENT or HH-4 AND 5H-3.
CROSS-SECTION B - 8'
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES SITE
F.I GURE
15
-------
f.
I
~
I
@D
A()1Jll:f~
8NV11tOHIIDrr.u.
8UIIYlrYO-
........ III: mil
AInICIUt:
'-
...
>-
III
....
E
~
"
,
c
00
~
RESIDE~TlAL
AREA
~
LEGEND:
+182S
o
--171'---
SHALLOW MONITORING WELL
POTENTIOMETRIC SURrACE
CONTOUR. ELEVATION .IN
rEEf ABOVE MEAN. SEA LEVEL
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
HAZELWOOD, ,NORTH CAROLINA
POTENTlOMHRIC SURFACE MAP
SHALLOW WfLLS
100 50
10::....1
o
100
. 200
fiGURe
t 6
-------
e
~'H'f,fY
IffolVlIrOI#UIf/IIT AI.
8VIrV!rY01r8
........ IC ,,...
t J
..
t3.
,.,
>
~
,
I
s.
00
lit
,..
~ J
~ 1
"". Cf
+
1l1.JS
Sr;
I ~
RESIDENTIAL AREA
LEGEND:
.
+ ~ DEEP HON/TOR/NG HELL
-l1Zl- POTENTIOMET~/C SURFACE CONTOUR.
ELEVATION IN FEET ABOVE MEAN
SEA LEVEL.
BENFIELD INDUSTRIES
HAZELWOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
POTENTIOMfTRIC SURFACE MAP
DEEP WELLS
100 ~ 0
~-
100
200
.
fiGURE
17
-------
.c 7.5
PATHWAYS AND ROtrl'ES OF EXPOSURE
The chemicals of Potential concern include VOCs, SVOCs, and. metals.
exposure pathway is the route or mechanism by which a chemical agent
from a source to an individual or population. Each exposure pathway
the following: .
An
goes
includes
. A source and mechanism of chemical release to the environment
. A transport medium (e.g., soil or groundwater)
. An exposure point (where a receptor will contact the medium)
. An exposure route (Le., ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact).
A pathway is considered complete when all of the above elements are present.
The five transport mechanisms most likely to occur at the Benfield site are:
1) wind and mechanical erosion of contaminated surface soil,
2) volatilization from contaminated soil,
3) surface water runoff,
4) leaching of contaminants from the soil into the groundwater, and
5) migration with groundwater flow.
Based' on the information collected during. the ~, only the last two transport
mechanisms are presently occuring.
Potential expo.ure pathways under current conditions are .ummarized in
Table 14. This table presents potential routes of exposure, potential
receptors, an evaluation of pathway completeness, and an asse~sment of
exposure potential. As can be .een, there are no current complete expOsure
pathways that pose an unacceptable risk' to human health or the environment.
The air pathway was qualitatively evaluated but not quantitatively evaluated
as an exposure pathway ~or volatilized chemicals and particulate emissions
from surface 80i18 for the following re.ason.J
1) Much of the Site has been covered with 6 to 18 inches of fill material,
2) Only two VOCs ware detected in .urface 80il, and
3) Each of the VOCs detected were at low concentrations (less than
0.2 Parts per million or ppn).
In order for wind erosion to occur, the surface must be dry and exposed to
the wind. Particular emissions rates from nonhomogenous surfaces impreqnated
-52-
-------
Potentlan,
Expo88d
Popul8tton
TABLE t 4
SUmmary 01 Exposure Pathways - Current Land Use
Expo.... RouIe end Point
P.thW8Y
Ou8ntltlltively
Medium EV8luated
M.lvlal/S8proIte No
Jqutfer
Bedroc* Aquk No
Surface w... v.
Sediment v.
Nt No
Rl8lden1l
~ffIIte)
I
1.11
W
I
wn..
~ffIIte)
hgeItIon of. dhcI conlll:l ...., 8fId lnhlliation of
~ from dowIlgI'8dl8nt"".
~ of, dnot oonI8ct..., 8fId Inh8I8t1on o.
~from~t""
Dhae oont8aI'" con""."'.8I.
h*t...... ~. of 8fId direct conllct wItI
oont8mNnll.
inhalation of vola... or pMIouIItI con-
..".,...
ngeetlon of, direct oontId"", 8fId lnhlllation o.
~tIrnNntI from downgredlll'lt Indunlal weill
Alluvial/Saprolite
Aquifer
No
Dlred contIGI .... cxlhllmln8nll Surface .,.-, No
Sediment
Tr8lp88MfS ~.. Ing88IIan of" 8fId direct conllct wItI Surface Sol v.
fon8Ite) contlmln8nll.
Dlred oont8aIwIII oontImIn8n... Surface .,.-, v.
Sediment
inhalation of voIatJlHd Of pertlculat. con. Nt No
IImIr18nll
Rnson for Selection or Excfullon
'"-. . no dOQ.lln...ted current U18 01 II.1UffId8I1DM8 of lie
aquifer tor potllble wal8l' u.e. .
No deta obtained "om II. depth In II. aquk during lie It.
Polentlel ..... tor "po8UI'. m contamlnatld --- .....
Polentlel ..Ie.. tor ..poaur. m oonl8mlneted 88d1mll'lt.
Th. .... . oovwed by vegetlllion, mud! 0' fie .... .... been
covered wt11810 18 Inm. of Iln, and th. eurf8ce of 1M.....
not being dleUbed.
No doaJmented u.. of the aurf1Ci81 aquifer tor InduQIaI Of
potable UI.. Ho_, It contllminanta mlgratld 10'" under.
lying bedrodc aection of lie equH.;. expoaur. would be IImIIar
10 II. offllt. r88iden.. but will short. duratlon8 end 1IIpo8Ur.
trequendea.
Expoeur. would be .lmllar to otf8l1e r.1d8n1l but ... IhortIr
durations and 8XpoIUr. traqu8f1cie8.
Po_tiel..... tor ..posur8 m conl8mlnetld 8011.
Polentlel ..Ie.. tor exposur. m conl8mlnatld ..... ~ .r.nd
88d1man1.
Th. .... . CXlvered by vegetation: much of fie .... has been
CXlvered with 8 m Ut Inch.. 01 tin, and 1I01a'" organa "'...
detected at only on. surface 8011 umpltng location 8t low
concentration..
-------
... with non-erodU>le elements (such as the surfaces present at t~e .Site) tend to
4ecay rapidly during wind er~sion event. Wind speeds of.abou~ 22 mile~ per-
hour (mph) would be required to cause wind erosion from such surfaces,
'however, the average annual wind speed in the Hazelwood area is only 8 mph.
~he future, potential exposure pathways are summarized in Table"IS. This
table presents potential routes of exposure, potential receptors, an
. evaluation of pathway completeness, and an assessment of exposure potential.
Since the surrounding land use is a mixture of residential and commercial, it
is possible that the Site may be used as a residential or commercial area in
the future, therefore both scenarios are included in Tab1.e 15.
In summary, the following pathways were evaluated in the risk assessment:
.
Current exposure of onsite trespassers to contaminants in surface soil
through incidental ingestion and dermal contact, and in surface water
and sediment through direct contact.
.
Current exposure of offsite residents to contaminants in groundwater
through ingestion, inhalation, and direct contact; to contaminants in
sediment through incidental ingestion and direct contact; and to
contaminants in surface water through direct contact.
.
Future exposure of onsite residents in groundwater through ingestion,
inhalation, and direct contact; to contaminants in soil (surface and
shallow subsurface) through incidental ingestion and direct contaqt; and
to contaminants in surface water and sediment through direct contact.
.
Future exposure of potential onsite construction workers to
contaminants in soil (surface and subsurface) through incidental
ingestion and direct contact; and to contaminants in groundwater,
surface water, and sediment through direct contact.
8.0
SUMMARY OF SIn RISKS
'CERCLA directs that the Agency must protect human health and the environment
from Current and future exposure to hazardous substances at superfund sites.
In order to asse88 the current and future risks from the Benfield Industries
,site, a baseline risk ~s8e8ement was conducted as part'of the RI. This
section of the ROD 8ummarizes the Agency's findings concerning the impact to
human health and the environment if contaminated media (i.e., soils,
groundwater) ~t the Site were not remediated. The baseline risk assessment
for this Site is presented as a stand alone document in the Benfield
Administrative Record.
-54-
-------
TABLE 15
Summary of Exposure Pathways - Future land Use
PoIentI8l1, PathW8'
Expo88d Quantitativel,
Popu18tlon Expo.... Route and Point Medium Evaluated
Rlalden. 1ng88tlon of, direct conl8ct wi..., end inhalation of con- AlluvlallS8prolite Ves
ton....) .mIn8n.. /quit.
lng_tIon of, direct contact will, end inhalation of con- Bedrock /quU. No
tamln8n..
NldenI8IIng_tion end direct contact will contamlnen18. SolI (8urt8ce end Ves
Ih8IIow lUbturf8oe)
DIrect conl8d will con""".. Suffece Waterl Ves
Sediment
lnhe18t1on of voIet8zed Of pertlau18" con18mln8nl8. NI No
I
V1
CJt
I
A88lden.
toftslta)
1ng8l1lon of, direct cont8Ct will, end inhalation of con-
tamln8n..
Ves
Alluvl8l/S8prolite
/quil.
Surface Wat.
No
DIrect contact will con.n*I8n18
~..
ton....)
NldenI8l ~110.'\ of end direct conlact wItI conl8m1n8n18.
NldenI8l Jrov-L,. of, direct conl8ct will, end lnha18tion of
cont8mkt8n8l.
Sediment
M
No
No
Oon8Wct1on
WortIer. p.tte)
DIrect QonI8d will CIOntImIrt8n8l.
MNl8L'S8pfolite
lqulfef
Sediment
Sol (lurtlce, 8h811ow
end deep IUblUrface)
V-
MJdenI8l ~1Ion end dermal conlact wItI conl8m1n8n8l.
Ves
W.a18t1on of voIet8zed Of pertlcu18" contamln8n..
NI
No
Wolk8f1
(0",'18'
~cidentallngestlon 01. direct contact with, and inhalation 01
oontamln8n1l
All
No
~cidenl8llngestlon oland dwect contact with oontamln8nll.
HI
No
Reason tor SeleCtion or Exclusion
Potential .xlsts for the lite to be developed for resldentl8l us..
No data obtained from thll depth In the aquil8f !1urlng .... RI.
Potentlal.xll18 for .... lite to be developed for r.ldentl8l UN.
Potential exll18 for II. lit. to be developed for resldent18' U88.
Th. lite II co-ed by vegel8t1on, much 01 the Ille hel been OOY8f'ed
with 6 to 18 Ind'l- of fI", end volatile organics -. d.tected at only
on. surfacelOH ..mpllng Iooetlon at low concentratlonl.
Potential .xll18 for tutur. un of area ground_t..
Plill_y -- evakJated under CUll8flt use {Table 3-1).
Plill_y -- evakJIted under cullent UI' {Table 3-1).
ExpolUl" would be .... ..me u tor onlite r.lden. but wilt 8hor18f
expoeur. dufationl end frequenclel. "qualitaltYe 8Y8kJ1l1on wII be
dlswued.
Potential exll. for tuua development of the l/t. and ..poeur8 to
oonl8m1n8ted media.
Potentia' exll18 for tuu. d8Y8lopment 01 the l/t. and ..poeur. to
contaminated media.
ExJX*lr' would be dependent on a V8riety 01 potable' WOftc oondl-
tlonl ~.e., type 01 equipment used. lob 'YP', depll ot WOftc) and
lC8f1arlol ~.., -ther condltlonl). Therefore, /t II IrnpouI>Ie to
calculate a reesonable exposur..
Exposure conditions the same al under Qmentland uN.
Expolure would be the ..me el und8f OOIl8f'l11and UI,.
-------
... 8.1
CONTAMINAN'l'S OF CONCERN
".
Table 16 provides' a comprehensive list of the contaminants identified as
chemicals of potential concern at the Site in their various media. The
contaminants of concern consist of 15 purgeable organics, 34 extractable
organics, 15 pesticides, and 16 inorganic chemicals. .
. Table 17 provides the reasonable maximum exposure concentrations which were
used in calculating the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associa~ed
with each chemical of concern.
8.2
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type and
magnitude of potential exposures to the chemicals of concern that are present'
at the Site. The results of the exposure assessment are combined with
chemical-specific toxicity information to characterize potential risks.
The primary current human receptors at the Site are onsite trespassers and
offsite residents (adults and children). The trespassers may currently be
exposed to site-related contaminants in surface soil, surface water, and
sediment. The off site residents may currently be exposed to off site
sediments.and surface ~ater.
The primary future human receptors at the Site may be onsite residents (adult
and children) and/or onsite construction workers. Potential future exposures
would include surface soils, shallow sub-surface soils, sediments, and
groundwater (shallow and deep). Although, all of the groundwater is not
currently being used as a drinking water source, EPA and the State of North
Carolina have classified the aquifer as a Class 11-8 aquifer. A resource
which should be maintained at drinking water quality.
The current expo8ure pathways considered were dermal contact and incidental
ingestion of surface soils and sediments and dermal contact with surface
water. The future pathways considered were these mentioned above plus
"ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of contaminants from groundwater
and ingestion and dermal contact with shallow ~ub-surface soils.
Tables 14 and 15 provide. a summary of current and future exposure
pathways, respectively. Tables 18 and 19 provide8 a summarY of the
exposure and intake assumptions which were used in the baseline risk
assessment. Refer to Table 20 for the specific dermal permeability
constant for each contaminant.
8.3
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
The toxicity assessment was conducted to further determine the pot~ntial
hazard posed by the chemicals of concern for which exposure pathways have
been identified. Available evidence is weighed in regards to the potential
-56-
-------
---.-.---- ---
TABLE t 6
Chemical. 0' Potential Concern - Benfield Industrle.
MIf!* I T- I s 1:.~1~8oI1-1=-1&.6~"
CQ...m.1If'It CJf 0Dnc8n) PIlI
PUAGEABLE ORW«:S I
Vlnyt Ohlond. S,D
1,2-Dlctlloropropanl D
Chloroform S,D
01.' ,2-DlctlIOroetl'l.n. X S.D
Benz.ne X S,D
Tolu.n. X X X S.D
T.trachloroeth.ne X X X
Chloroblnz.ne S.D
Etnyt Benzene X X S.D
Total Xyllnn X X X S,D
Mett'lyt Etnyt Ketone X
M8tnyt IIobutyl K8tonI X
1, ~ .1- T rIotIloroet:l'lane S.D
ChIorOlthanl S.D
" 1.DlchlorOl1han. S.D
EXTRACTABLE CR3ANICS
Phenol D
1,3-Dictlloroblnzen. S
1,4-DichlorObenz.ne S.D
1,2-Dlchloroblnz.n. X. S,D
Naphttlalln. X X X X S.D
2.Mlthytnaphttlal.ne X X X X S,D
Bis (2-ett1yttllxyt)phthalatl X X
Dlblnzofuran X X X S.D
Fluor8ne X X X S.D
AuoranthIn. X X X X S.D
Phenantnr8n. X X X X S.D X
Pyr8n. X X X X S.D X
Benzo (a) Pyr8ne X X X X S X
Benzo(b and/or k)FIuoranthIne X X X X S X
Benzo(a)Anthr808ne X X X S.D X
Chryl8nl X X X X S X
~no(1.2.3.c:,d)Pyr8ne X X S X
DlbInzo(a,h)Anthr808ne X X S X
Anthr808nI X X X S,D X
~n. X X S.D X
AaIn8phtMnI X X S.D
8Inzo(g,hJ)~ X X X S X
2~ne S
2-M8tnytphenol S
(:knc1/or 4)-M1thylphlnol X X S
2.4-Oic:hlOrophlnol X
P8nt8ct11~nol X X X S
1.2.4- TnotIIorobenzene X X D
Carbazole X X S,D
DIeIhyI fII'IthaIaft X
~pftthal8t8 )(
8InryI Butyl PhthaIat8 X X
a.N-Oc¥pftthal8t8 X )(
HluchIotob8nz.ne )( X
~I~
AIcSrIn X
~ X
~ )( X X
~ X X X
4.4'-000 X
4,"'-DDe X X
","'.coT X X X
..
-57-
-------
TABLE 1 6
Chemical. 0' Potential Concern - Benfield Industrle.
p.....'::':- I :: I == 1:.~la.o:,M 1-1=-1-.--
t'd1'lCltS
Dieldrin X X
Endrin X X
Endrln Alde"yde X'
.
Endoaulfan I (Alp".) S
EnCIoaultan II (Beta) X X X
Encloau"an Sulfate X
Heptactllor X X
M81hoxychlor X
NRW«:S
Aluminum X S.D X
Antimony X X S
AllenJe X X
Battum X X X S,D X
Chromium 011) X S,D X
Copper X X X S X
L8aC1 X X X S,D X
Mangan... X S,D X X
Mercury S X
Nickel X S X
Vanadium X X X S X
Zinc X X X S X
Beryllium X S
Cobalt X X X S X
Selenium X X
Silver X X
S . $hallow Groundwater
D . Deep Groundwater
-58-
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF PO.TENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE , WA;t"ER DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. (mall) REFERENCE DEPTH
Futljr. On.II. On. II. Aluminum 4.3E+02 A 5:"12'
Adult and Shallow Antimony 8.3E-02 A 5:"12'
Child R..id.nta Groundwater Barium 8.1~ A 5~2'
F\I1ure Conlltruction BaryHium 1.5E-02 A 5:"12'
Work.,. Chromium 7.4E-01 A 5:"12'
Cobalt 2.4E-01 A 5~2'
Copper 4.8E-01 A 5:"12'
L.ad 3.8E-01 A 5:"12'
Mangan... 1.8E+01 A 5'-12'
M.rcury 8.8E-04 A 5:"12'
Nick.1 3.8E-01 A 5:"12'
Vanadum 1.1~ A 5:"12'
Zinc 1.3~ A 5:"12'
Vinyl Chlorid. 3.3E-02 A 5~2'
Chloroettlan. 2.0E-03 A 5~2'
1,1~hlolO81han. e.OE-02 A 5~2'
1.2-DichlolO81h.n. 2.8E-02 A 5'-12'
Chloroform 1.0E-03 A 5~2'
1,1,1-Trichloro81han. 2.2E-02 A 5:"12'
Benz.,. 2.0E-02 A 5:"12'
Toluen. 8.3E-01 A 5:"12'
Chlorohanz.,.. 5.0E-02 A 5""12'
Ethyl Banz.na 4.4E-01 A 5~2'
Total Xyian.. 1.8~ A 5:"12'
1 ,3-Oichlorobanz.,e 3.0E-03 A 5~2'
1.4-Dichlorobanz." 8.0E-03 A 5:"12'
1.2-Oich1orobanzan. 5.16-02 A 5~2'
~8IhyIphenoi 1 .3E-02 A 5~2'
(:I-8nQIor 4iMethylphanol 2.8E-02 A 5~2'
N8pt1th8Jene 2.5~ A 5~2'
2-MdI)1Inapl'llhalene 1 .OE+OO A 5'-12'
2-Qlloronapt1theJen. 4.0&-03 A !5~2'
AoenIph1hylene 1.0E-01 A 5~2'
Aoenaph1hene UE-01 A 5~2',
-- &poaure Point conc_"~""" 888Umed to be iden1Ic8 tor current and tuture ~ure..
A -Max "l1li. ~r than ConfIdence LimIt (CL) or Quanlltatlon limit (OLI,
8-Cl., ~rthan mu hila.
-59-
-------
""
TABLE 1 .,
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF 'POTENTIAl CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE WATER DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. (mall) REFEREMCE IW!IH
Future Onsite Onaite Oibenzoluran 6.2£-01 A 5~2'
Adult and Shallow Fluorene 5.6£-01 A 5~2'
Child R.aldenta Groundwater Pantachlorophanol 8.9£-02 A 5~2'
Future ConltNction Ph.nln1hren. 1.1E+OO A 5~12'
Wortl.ra An1hrecan. 1.6£-01 A 5~12'
CarbazDl. 3.8£-01 A 5=-12',
Fluoranthan. 4.4&01 A 5~12'
Pyren. 3.2£-01 A 5=-12'
Benzo(A)An1hrec.n"" 7.7&<13 A 5~12'
Chry.....- 5.8&04 A 5~2'
Benzo(8 and/or I<) Fluorenthane- 6.3£-03 A 5~'2'
Benzo(A) Pyren.- 3.1 &<12 A 5~2'
Indeno(1.2.3-CD)pyrene- 1 .2£-03 A 5~2'
Dlbenzo(A.H)Anthracen"" 3.0£-03 A 5~12'
Benzo(GHI) Perytene 8.0£-03 A 5~2'
Endo...nan 1 Alpha 3.0&04 A 5~2'
. - Expo...re Point concen1ratlonl 888Umect tD beldentlo8l for curren1 and future expaeul'88.
- - Carcinogenie PAH .xpoaure point COI'oOtQ .U.." 8d~8t8d by mulliplying by IIa toxicity equIvaIenoy factDr reIa1Ive tD benzo(a)pyren..
A -Max hlla.loMr than ConfIdenc. LinIt (eL) or Quanlll8tlon LImit (QL).
B-CL.lowerthan max hila.
'-60-
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE 'WATER DATA . SAMPLE
POPULATION MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. ImaJl} REFERENCE DEPTH
Futur. On,iI. On,lt. Aluminum 7.2E+OO A 30'-60'
Adult and Deep Barium , .8E-
-------
TABLE 17'
... SUM,MARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
" CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE WATER DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION MEDIUM' CHEMICAL CONC. 'mall} REFERENCE ~
Fu1ur. 0fII1t8 Aluminum 2.2 E-+() 1 A 5~2'
0fII1t. Shallow Barium 1.0E+OO A 5~2'
Adult and Oroundwat8r Chromium 7.5&02 A 51-.12'
Child Relide- ' Co belt 5.1 E-02 A 5~2'
Copper 5.5&02 A 15~2'
Leed 4.8&02 A 5!.42'
Mangane.. UE+OO A 51.4 2'
Vanadum 5.2&-02 A 15~2'
Zinc 1.8E-01 A . 5!.42'
Fu1ure OfIIlte Aluminum 7.3E+OO A 30~O'
Off81t. De.p Barium U&-01 A 3O~0'
Adult and OrouncMI.ter Chromium 4.0E-02 A 3O~O'
Child R..id.nts L..d 5.0&-03 A 30~'
Mangan... 2.0&-01 A 30:.00'
Chloroform 1.0E-03 A 30~O'
Phenol 1.1E-02 A 3O~O'
8- &potu.. PoInt oonD8I,tld.... 888urned to belden1lc8l tor OUrT8nt and futu.. expoeu....
A-Max hili, Iowerllan ContId8nDe Lftdt (CL) or Quanlltallon LImit (QL).
B-CL,lowerllan max hili.
-62-
,
-------
EXPOSED
POPULATION
Current Trelpa...r
Fu1ure Adult and
Child R.lidenll
F\I1ure Conltruc1ion
Worker
Current
Off8tte Adult and
Child R.lidenll
T".BLE 1 7 .
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE
MEDIUM
Onlite
Surface Water
Off8it.'
Surfac. Water
CHEMICAL
EXPOSURE POINT CCiNCENTRATlON
WATER DATA SAMPLE
CONC. (main REFERENCE DEPTH
Mangane..
Mercury
2.31:-02
1 .Oe-o.
A
C
Man","e..
Mercury
S.oe-o.
5.81:-04
C
A
-63-
.
-------
...
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. 'mallcal REFERENCE DEPTH
Cumtnt On.tte Aluminum 4.7E+04 B o:.;!'
On.lt. Trllpa...r Surfac. SoD Barium 3.1 E-H)2 A O:.;!'
Futur. Chromium UE+G1 'B O:.;!'
Adult and Child Cobalt UE+G 1 A O:.e'
R,.id'nII Copper 8.7E+G1 B O:.;!' '
Future ConltNction L,ad 3.2E+G1 B O:.e'
Wortc.r Mangan,.. 8.8E-H)2 A O:.;!'
Nick., 3.0E+G1 B O:.e'
Vanaclum 1.2E-H)2 B O\.Q'
Zinc 1.5E+02 A O:.e'
T etrachlol'Ol1h.n. 5.0E-03 A O\.Q' '
Total Xyl.nll UE-01 A O:.e'
Naphthalen. 1.3E-01 A O:.e'
~lthylnaphthal.n. 1,2E-01 A O:.e'
Dlbenzoluran 1.8E-01 A O:.e'
'Fluorene 1.4E-01 A O:.e'
Hexuhlorobenz,ne 1.8E-01 A O:.e'
P8nt8oHoroph8'lOl 3.1 E+()O A 01.;2'
Phenlnthrane UE-01 A O~'
Anthracene 1 .2E-01 A O:.e'
FIuor8nthene 1 ,4E+()O A O:.e'
Pyr8n. 8.5E-01 A O:.e'
Benzo(A)anthraoen.- 2,8&02 B O:.e'
auy..,.- 4.7E-03 A O\.Q'
Benzo(88nd1or IQFIuoranthen'- 1.1 E-01 A O\.Q'
BenzO(A)pyren.- UE-01 A o:.e'
DIeldrIn UE-03 A 01.;2'
4,41.ODD (P.P'~DD) UE-03 A o:.e'
4,41.ODT (P,P'~DT) UE-03 A O:.e'
G8nIfn8oQIoIdane U&02 A O:.e'
AIph~ 2.0&02 A O:.e'
*- EIIpoIure PoInt oonnntrdonI ...lIned lit beldenllo8l tor ourNflt 8nd future apoeur88.
--CaroInogenIo PAH apD8Ure point 001_0'4,,\ ~ by mulllplptg by" tDxIoIIy ~"'r"""'" lit benzo(a)pyrene.
A-Max hili, lower than ContIdenoe UmIt (CL) orQuanIItatIon LAnIt (QL).
B -CL, jow8r than max hili.
-64~
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE -POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN'
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. frnallla) REFERENCE DEPTH
Current On.lte On.lte Aluminum 1.2E+04 A Upper e'
Tre.pe.er Sediment Barium 1.1E+02 A Upper e'
FWlre On.1te Chromium 2.SlE+01 A Uppere'
Adult and Child Cobalt UE-+OO A Upper 6'
Re.ident Copper 1.4E+01 A Upper 6'
F WI re le.d SI.2 E-+OO A Upper 6'
Conltnlc:lion Man;ane.. 2.5E+02 B Upper 6'
Worker Nickel 1.1E+01 A Upper e'
Van.dum 3.8E+01 A UpperS'
Zine S.8E+01 A Upper 6'
Acen8j)htnyfe". 2.2~1 C UpperS'
Phen8n1hrenl 2.2~1 C Upper e'
Antnree...e 2.2~1 C UpperS'
FIuorantn...e 2.2~1 C Uppe'S'
Pyrenl 2.2~1 C . Upper e'
Benzo(Ajantnree...e- 2.2E-02 C Upper e'
Chry....e- 2.2&03 C Upplr6'
Benzo(B and/or IQ Fluorentn...e- 2.2E-02 C Upper 6'
Benzo(Ajpyr8ne- 2.2&01 C Upper 6'
Indeno(1.2.3-<:D)pyrene- 2.2&02 C Upplr 6'
~zo(""H)antnraoene- 2.2E-01 C Upper 6'
Benzo(G,H.QPlryIene 2.2&01 C Upper e'
. - Expoaure Point concentratioN 888Umed tD be iden1lc81 tor current and future expoauf88.
--CaIaInogenic PAH expolUre point GOt_It."'" 8djult8cl by multiplying by" tDxicIIy eqUv8Ienoy f8ct0r IWIa1Ive tD benzO(I)PY'lnl
Ii -Max hila. IoMr than ConIdeIIDI LmII (~ 010u8lllllatlon Lmll (QL,).
C-QL,loMrf18n Cl.... no.....
-65-
-------
TABLE ~ 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
...
'.
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. tmalkal REFERENCE DEPTH
Adult and Child OfIaite Aluminum 4.5E+04 A Upper 6'
Oft,ite R..idenla Sedimlnt Barium 3.S~2 A Upper 6'
SOS Chromium S.5~1 A Upper 6'
Cobalt 2.4~1 A Upper 6'
Copper 4.3~1 A UpperS'
L.ad 5.6~1 A Upper 6'
Manganl.. '7.8~ A UpperS'
Nick.1 3.3~1 A Upper S'
Vanadum 9.'~1 A. Upper 6'
Zinc 1.7~2 A UP!)8r S'
Aclniphttlylena 2.3E-01 A UpperS'
Phln8l'l1hrlnl 5.9E-01 A Upper 6'
An1hrac.,e 3.SE-01 A Upper S'
Fluoran1hene 2.0~ A UpperS'
Pyrene 1.7~ A UpperS'
Benzo(A)an1hracene- 1.2E-01 A UpperS'
Chrye.,e- 1.SE-02 A Upper S'
Benzo(B and/or K) Flu'oren1h.,I- 3.3E-01 A Upper S'
Benzo(A)pyrene- 1.3~ A Upper S'
Indlno(1.2.3-<:O)pyrlnl- 7.5E-02 A UpperS'
Diblnzo(A.H)an1hrec.,e- 1.9E-01 A Upper S'
Benzo(Q.H.Q Plryllne 8.2E-01 A Upper S'
*- ExpoaIre PoInt COnclntratlonl uaumed» beldentlcll for current and future IJCPOIUr88.
-- Carcinogenic PAH 8XJ1OlUre point conclfltrdon 8d~1t8d by mulllplylng by ill tDxIclty ~cy factor f8IatIv8 to benzo (a) pyrene .
A-Max hiII.low8rthan Confld8ftD. Limit (CL) orQuanllta1lon limit (QL).
B-CL.low8rthan mu: hill.
-66-
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA' SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. lmalka) REFERENCE DEPTH
Adult and Child Offsita Aluminum "." Eo+<)3 C u~,e'
OfIett. R..icI.,.. Sedim.nt Barium 2.7 E-+()2 A U~rS'
SD4 Chromium 3.1 Eo+<)1 A Upper S'
Cobalt !5.SE-+OO A Upper S'
Copper 7.7 Eo+<) 1 A U~rS'
Lead !5.2 E-+OO A UpperS'
Mangan... 2.1 E-+Q2 A U~rS'
Nlckal 1 .!lEo+<)1 A Upper 15'
Vanadum 2.8 Eo+<) 1 A U~rS'
Zinc 1 .2 Eo+<)2 A UpperS'
Ac.nllphthylene 2.0E-()1 C Upper 15'
Ph.n8l'lthr.n. 2.0E-()1 C Upper S'
Anthrac.,. 2.0 E-() 1 C UpperS'
Fluoranth.,. 2.0E-()1 C Upper S'
Pyran. 2.0E-()1 C Upper 15'
Benzo(A)anthrac.,.- 2.0E-()2 C Upper 15'
Chry..,.- 2.0E-()3 C Upper 6'
Benzo(B and/or K) Fluoranth.,.- 2.0E-()2 C UpperS'
Benzo(A)pyr.n.- 2.0E-01 C UpperS'
1nd8n0(1.2,~D)pyran.- 2.0E-02 C Upper IS'
Dlbenzo(A,H)anthrac.,.- 2.0E-01 C Upper 15'
Benzo(G.H,~ P.rytene 2.0E-01 C Upper S'
. - Expoeura PoInt ooncentratlon8 ueumed tc) be ~ tor ourNnt and fWI,. 81q)08'1I".
-- Carcinogenic PAH 8xpoIU,. point ooncentra1lon 8Clju8t8d by multiplying by 118 tc)xioIty ~ f8ctDr .......,. tc) benro(a)pyran.
A -Mu hila, lower than Conftd.nc. Limit (Cl) or Quanllt81lon limit (Ql).
8-CL., lower than mu hltl.
-67-
-------
.;.
TABLE 1 7 .
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCER.N .
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. (maJlca) REFERENCE DEPTH
Future Onsile Onsile Antimony 3.2E1'()O B 2'-3.5
Adult and Child Shallow Anlenic 4.3E-+OO B 2'-0.5
Residents Subsurface Soil Barium 4.0E-+<>2 B 2'-3.5
Futuro Cobalt 1.4E1'()1 B 2'-0.5
ConltNction Copper 4.6E+01 .B 2'-3.'5
Workers Lead 1 .2 E-+<>2 B 2'-3.5
Selenium 2.1 E-+<>O B 2'-0.5
Silve r 2.9 E1'() 1 A 2'-0.5
Vanadum 5.6E1'()1 B 2'-Q.5
Zinc 1.9E1'()2 B 2'-Q.5
1 ,2-Oichloroe1hene 6.0~3 A 2'-0.5
Me1hyl E1hyl Ketone 1.3~2 A 2:..,:s.5
Benzene 3.0~3 A 2'-Q.5
Me1hy IlObulyl Ketone 2.2~2 A 2:..,:s.5
Tetrachloroe1hene 1.2~1 A 2'-Q.5
Toluene 2.5~1 B 2:..,:s.5
E1hyl Benzene 2.4~1 B 2'-Q.5
Total Xylenes 4.2E+OO B 2'-Q.5
1 ,2-Oichlorobenzene 2.8~1 A 2'-Q.5
(3-8nQ'or ~Me1hylphenol 1.0E+OO A 2'-Q.5
2,4-OIchiorophenoi 3.4~1 A 2:..,:s.5
1.2,~TrlchlolObeZ8ne U~1 A 2:..,:s.5
Naph1haIene 5.2E-+<>1 B 2:..,:s.5
2-Methylnaphthalene UE-+<>1 B 2:..,:s.5
Acen~ylene 2.3E+OO B 2'-Q.5
Aceneph1hene 2.3E-+<>1 B 2'-Q.5
DlbenzofUran 1.8 E-+<>1 B 2'-3.5
Dlethyl Plhalate 7.2~ A 2'-3.5
FIuor8M UE+OO B 2'-Q.5
Hu8clhloroOenzene 8.0~2 A 2'-3.5
PentKhIorophenoi 1.8E1'()1' A 2'-3.5
Phenenthr8M 1 .8 E-t(I2 A 2'-Q.5
Anthracene 8.1 E+OO B 2'-3.5
CaItIaDIe UE+OO B 2'-3.5
*- &potu,. Point concentrationa auumed tI) beldentlcel for oulT8nt 8M tutu,. expoIUN8,
A-Mu hila, Io_rllan Confidence Umlt (CL) or Quanlltatlon limit (QL).
B-CL. ~rllen mu hila.
-68-
./
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF Po.TENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM ' REFERENCE
CHEMICAL CONC. ImaJka} DEPTH
Fu1ur. On In. On lit. Di-N-&I1ylpi11t1alat' , .OE+OO B 2'-05
Adult and Child Shallow FIuoran1h.,. t.tE+O' B 2'-0.5
RI8identa Sub8urfac1 Soit Pyrenl 8.3E+01 B 2'-0.5
Futru' Benzyl Butyt Phthalate , .4E-O' A 2:..a.5'
Conl1NcIIon BenzO(A)An1tIracln'" 8.tE-O' B 2'-0.5
Workl,. Chry,.,.- 8.4E-02 B 2'-0.5
BiI(2-Ethythlxyt) Phthalat, 3.tE+OO B 2'-0.5
[)i.N.Octytpi11t1a1at. 4.2E-O' A 2'-0.5
Benzo(B and/or K) Fluoran1tl.,1- , .8E+OO B 2'-0.5
Benzo(A)pyr.n.- , .4E+OO A 2:..a.5
Indlno(' ,2,3-CD)w,nl- 1.1 E-O' B 2:..a.5
Dibenzo(A.H)an1hrac.,,- S.8E-O' A 2'-a.5
Benzo(G,H,I)P.ryl,ne '.'E+OO B 2:..a.5
Beta-BHC , .OE-03 B 2'-0.5
Heptactllor 2.2E-03 B 2~5
Aldrin 1.3E-03 B 2'-a.5
".41.ODE (P,P'-QDE) 4.51:-03 B 2'-0.5
Endrtn 4.tE-03 B 2'-0.5
EndoIUIfan II (Beta) 4.0&04 A 2'-a.5
4,41.ODT (P,P'-QD'T) 3.8E-03 B 2:..a.5
Gamm..ctllordan. 1.8E-02 A 2'-0.5
AIph...chlordanl , .8E-02 A 2:...a.5
. - ExpoIU" PoInt conoentndIona aaeumecI » be Id8nIc8I tor ourr8nt end tutu,. expoeur81.
--Carcinogenic PAM...,,. poInt~,b"'" 8dju818dby multiplying by b DdcIty equIYaIenGyf8c:torr81atve» benzo(a)pyren'.
A-Max Nta,low8r1han ConIdenoI UmIt (CL) or Quanlltatlon Urnlt (Q~.
B -CL, tower 1han max hili.
-69-
..
-------
,"
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
. CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN. .
. .
'.
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOseD EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. ImaJ1ca} REFERENCE QEfIH
Future On.it8 On.1te Antimony 2.9E+OO B 3.5~'
Adult and Child De.p M.nic 2.3E+OO B 3.5~'
R..id.nII Subeurtac. SOU Barium 2.7E+02 B 3.5~'
Future BeryWum 7.3&-01 B 3.5~'
Conatruction Cobalt 1.8E+01 B 3.5~'
Work." Copper 3.3E+01 B 3.5~'
L.ad 5.0E+01 B 3.5~'
Selenium 1.IE+OO B 3.5~'
Silver 4.6E+OO B 3.5~'
Vanadum 6.7E+01 B 3.5~'
Zinc 1.4E+02 B 3.5~'
TetrachlolO81hene 2.06-03 A 3.5~'
Toluen. 1.8&-02 B 3.5~'
Ethyl Benzene 1.1 &-01 B 3.5~'
Total Xylene. 4.8&-01 B 3.5~'
(3-en4Ior 41M81hylphenol 5.1 &-01 A 3.5~'
1.2.4-TrichlolObezene 2.1&-01 A 3.5~'
Naphthalene 5.3E+OO B 3.5~'
2-M81hylnaphthalene 4.1E+OO B 3.5~'
Acentph1hylene 4.3E+OO B 3.5~'
~nlph1hen. 4.3E+OO B 3.5~'
Dlbenzofuran 3.7E+OO B 3.5~'
FIuoren. 5.3E+OO B 3.5~'
Pent8cHolOphenol . 2.3&-01 A 3.5~'
Phenlrllhran. 4.5E+01 B '3.5~'
Anlhf8C8M UE+eO B 3.5~'
CaIb8IDI8 1.5E+OO B 3.5~'
FIuoranthene 3.1 E+01 B 3.5~'
PvNne UE+OO B 3.5~'
Benzyl Butyl PhIl.... UE+OO B 3.5~'
~Anthracen" 1.8&-01 B 3.5~'
Ch~ 2.5&-02 B 3.5~'
. - ExpoIUf8 PoInt concentratlonl 888UIIIId 10 be IdentIoIl for ClUrrant and futuf8 expaeUf88.
--CaraInopnIc PAM expo8Uf8 poIntoono.,b4n' edju818d by mulllplyln; by 118 toxlcfty ~ factor f8I81Iw 10 benzo(a)pyr8ne.
A -Max hll8, lower "an ConfId.nc. UnIt (CL) Of' Quanlllatlon LImit (QL).
B -Ct., lower "an max hll8.
-70-
-------
TABLE 1 7
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS OF
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATION
EXPOSED EXPOSURE SOIL DATA SAMPLE
POPULATION- MEDIUM CHEMICAL CONC. (ma/kal REFERENCE ~
Future On.It. On.tte Bi8 (2-£thyth.xyI) Phthal.te !5.8E-+OO B 35~'
Adult and Chad c..p ~alate 3.!5E-C1 A 3.5~'
Re.idenlll Sub8urface SolI Benzo(B and/or I()ftuoranthane- 3.8E-C1 B 3.5~:
Future BenzO(A) Pyren.- 2.0E-+OO B 3.5~'
Conatrvclion Indeno(1.2.3-<::D)pyrene- 1.8E-C1 B 3.!5~'
Workers Dlbenzo(A.H)Anthracen'- 4.8E-C1 A 3.5~'
8enzo(GH/) Peryfen. 1.0E-+oO A 3.5~'
Heptachlor 8.06-04 A 3.5~'
Dieldrin 3.1 E-C3 A 3.5~'
4.4:..o0E (P.P'-oOE) 3.4&03 B 3.5~'
Endrin 1.8E-C3 A 3.5~'
Endoaullan II (Beta) 2.7E-C3 A 3.5~'
Endoaullan Sultat. 4.!5E-C3 A 3.!5~'
4.4:..o0T (P,P'-oOi) !5.8&03 B 3.!5~'
Methoxychlor 1.7E-C2 B 3.!5~'
Endrln AId.hyd. 2.!5E-C3 B 3.5~'
Gamm..cnlordan. 1.1E-C2 A 3.5~'
Alpha-Chlordan. 7.3E-C3 B 3.5~'
. - Expoaure Point conc.htr.""", 888Umed to be identic. tor current and tuture eJCpOlUree. .
--Carcinogenic PAH 8JCp08Ure point concentration adjult8d by multiplying by 118 toxiCity equivalency f8ct0r reIa1Iv. to benzo(a)pyr.ne
A-Max hltl.lo_r than Contdenc. limit (Cl) or Quanlltatlon limit (QL).
B-CL.lowerthan max hltl.
-71-
-------
Table 18
Current Exposure ASsumptions for
Soil, Sediment, and Surface Water
Ingestion and/or Dermal Exposure
Trespasser Adult Resident Child Resident
On-Site Off-Site Off-Site
IR 100 100 200
PI 100% 100% 100%
EF 52 52 52
ED 6 24 6
BW 35 70 16
AT 2190 chronic 4380 chronic 2190 chronic
25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime
SA 7000 4985 3160
AF 0.2 0.2 0.2
AB 1% organics 1% organics 1% organics
0.1% inorganics 0.1% inorganics 0.1% inorganics
SA.w 4020 4985 6150
PC See Table 20 See Table 20 See Table 20
ET- 1 1 1
IR a Ingestion Rate (mg soil/day)
PI a Fraction Ingested from Contaminated.Source (unitless)
EF = Exposure Frequency ( days/years)
ED = Exposure Duration (years)
BW = Body Weight (kg)
AT = Averaging Time (period over which exposure is averaged - days)
SA = Surface Area Exposed ( cm2)
AF .. Soil Adherence Factor (mg/cm2) .
AB .. Absorption Factor (unitless)
SA.w Surface Area Exposed to Surface Water (cm2)
PC .. Chemical Specific Dermal Permeability Constant (cm/hr)
ET- Exposure Time to Surface Water (hours/day)
-72-
-------
Table 19
Future Exposure Assumptions to Soil
Ingestion & Dermal Exposure
Adult Resident Child Resident Construction
On-Site On-Site Worker On-Site
IR 100 200 480
FI 100% 100% 100%
EF 350 350 260
ED 24 6 1
BW 70 16 70
AT 4380 chronic 2190 chronic 365 chronic
25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime
SA 4985 3160 4985
AF 0.2 0.2 0.2
AB 1% organics 1% organics 1% organics
0.1% inorganics 0.1% inorganics 0.1% inorganics
IR - Ingestion Rate (mg soil/day)
EF ... Exposure Frequency (days/years)
ED - Exposure Duration (years)
BW ... Body Weight (kg)
AT = Averaging Time (period over which exposure is averaged - days)
SA - Surface Area Exposed (cm2)
PC ... Chemical specific dermal permeability constant (cm/hr)
ET - Exposure time (hours/day)
- Future exposure assumptions for sediments are the same as current
off-site residents.
-73-
-------
.~
. . . -.
Table 19
Future Exposure Assumption to Groundwater
Ingestion; Dermal, & Inhalation Exposures
Adult Resident Child Resident Construction
On-Site & On-site & Worker
Off-Site Off-Site
IR 2 1.4 NA
EF 350 350 260
ED 24 '" 6 1
BW 70 16 70
AT 4380 chronic 2190 chronic 365 chronic
25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime 25,550 lifetime
SA 18,150 7195 4985
PC See Table 20 See Table 20 See Table 20
ET 0.2 0.2 8
IR air 0.6 0.6 NA
IR I: Ingestion Rate (l/day)
FI I: Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless)
EF I: Exposure Frequency ( days /years )
ED I: Exposure Duration (years)
BW I: Body Weight (kg)
AT I: Averaging Time (period over which exposure' is averaged - days).
SA I: Surface Area Exposed (cm2) .
PC I: Chemical Speicifc permeability ( cm/hr) .
ET I: Exposure Time (hour/day)
IR air I: Inhalation rate (m/hour)
NA I: Not Applicable
-74-
-------
Chemical
TABLE 2 0 .
Summary 0' Dermal Permeability Constants (PC)
For Chemicals 0' Potential Concern'
Perme.bnlty Conltantl .
(cm/hr) .
~
2-MathytnaphUlalana
Naphthalane
~naph""ne
Dlbe/Uofuran
F\UOfeM
""enanttll8ne
Mtt\I8C8fte
F\uOranttI8M
Pyr8n8
Benzo(b and/Or k)FluoranttI8M .
Benzo(a)AntlVaoene
DIbenzo(a.h)Anthracen8
OIryNn8
2-O\Joton8phthaJene
Benzo Ig,h.l) Peryfene
lndeno(1.2. k.d)Pyr8ne
2-Meth~anol
(308nd/or ~)M81hylph8no1
Phenol
PentachIotophenoi
'. 2. ~Tlicl'liotobenune
CWazoI8
Benzene
, .2-C1ch1otoe1hene(ToW)
E1hyI .nzane
, .~chJorobenzen8
, .2-DIc:Norobenzene
'~b8nHne
ChIotobenzene
DI8thyf PtI1haIat8
Toluene
,. ,.QchIoroethane
\1ny1 0\I0rtde
0IJ0r0e1hane
"'nzo(a)PyNne
,~
0II0r0f0rm
'.', '.TrIohIoroethan8
Tt*! X)4eM8
~
INOFOANICS.
Aluminum
AntImony
I8ttum
8eryIIum
0v0mIum
Cob8It
CDppet
LMd
fMnQlIn888
M8toury
Nc:bf
VM8dIum
ZIno
1.5E-3W
UE-3W
UE-3W
UE-3W
UE-3W
UE-3W
Ue.3(A1
Ue.3~
UE-3(A1
,.ae-3(A1
Ue.3~
, .5E-3(A1
,.ae-3(A1
UE-3~
UE-3(A1
Ue.3(A1
, .5E-3(A1
,.ae-3(A)
8.2E-3
UE-3(A)
,.ae-3(A)
, .IE-3(A)
Ue.3~
,.ae-3(A)
, .IE-3(A1
, .ae-3(A)
, .JE.3(A)
,.ae-3(A1
,.ae-3(A)
'.Ie.3(A)
UII +0
1.JE.3(A1
,~
'.JE.3(A1
1~
, .Ie.3(A)
1~
1.JE.3(A1
1.1N(A)
I.5NW
'''-3(A)
1.IN(AI
1~
, .JE.3(A1
'.IN~
,.IN(A)
1.IN(AI
1.IN(AI
1~
,,INW
'.IN(A)
1.IN~
, .IE-3(A)
~
..c V8IU8I ,..".... 91. Int8ftm va/U88 fptfIOft8I oommunIoaIIon will 9A. AIgIoft PI J*IOM8I)
..c for Water' .
-75-
-------
.~ of particular contaminants to cause. adverse effects in expose!! individuals
and'to provide,' where Possible, an estiiDate of the relationsh,ip between the'
extent of exposurato a contaminant and the increased likelihood and/or
severity of adverse effects.
Cancer slope factors (CSPs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with
. exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CSFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg/day) -1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a
potential carcinogen, in (mg/kg/day), to provide an upper-bound estimate of
the exces8 lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term .upper-bound. reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CSF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of
the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. CSPs are derived from the results of
human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied.
Reference doses (RfDS) have been developed by EPA for indicating the
potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemicals exhibiting
noncarcinogenic (systemic) effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of
mg/kg/day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels for humans,
including sensitive individuals, which will result in no adverse health
effects. Estimated intake8 of chemicals from environmental media (i.e., the
amount of chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can be compared
to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal
studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied (i.e., to account for
the use of animal data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty
factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for
adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
The Agency has derived CSPs and RfDs for the contaminants of concern at the
Site for use in determining the upper-bound level of cancer risk and
non-cancer hazard from exposure to a qiven level of contamination. These
values are provided in Tables 21 and 22, re8pectively. ,
'8.4
R:ISK CHARAC'1'BRUAT:ION
The risk characterization step of t~e baseline risk assessment process
inteqrate8 the toxicity. and expo8ure asse8sments into quantitative and
qualitative expressions of risk. The output of this process is a
characterization of the site-related potential noncarcinogenic and
carcinogenic health effects.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a
single medium i8 expre..ed a. the hazard quotient (HO) (or the ratio of the
estimated intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a qive~ medium
to the contaminant'. reference dose). By adding the HOe for all contaminants
within a medium or acr088 an media to which a qiven population may be
rea.onably exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be qenerated.. The HI provides
a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple
-76-
....
-------
QII ,It - . . - -.
,... . Slape fIE) QIranIo Slape .
(Q..18mII181t GI ear.m) o......._IUI,. (~"".1 ~ ~."".1 ~ AIf8II.1C»
~ORWICS
Vinyl Chloride A 1.9E..-00 - - - HEAST
1,2-Dic:nloropropane 82 e.8E.Q2 ' - NO - HEAST
Chloroform B2 6.1 E.03 1 E.02 8.1E~ NO IRIS
O.-I,2-Dichloroethene - - 1 E.02 - NO HEAST
Benze". A 2.9E.02 - 2.9E.02 - HEAST
Tolue". - - 2E.Q1 - 5E.Q1 HEAST
T 81ractlloroelhene B2 5.1 E.Q2 1E~ 1 E-43 NO HEAST
OIlorobenze". - - 2E~ - 5E-43 HEAST
Ethyl Benz.". - - 1E.Q1 - 2E.Q1 HEAST
Total Xylenn - - 2E ..- 00 - 8E~ HEAST
Methyl Ethyl ~one 0 - SE.Q2 - 9E~ HEAST
Methyiliobutyl Keton. - - 5E.Q2 - 2E.02 HEAST
" " 1- T rlctIloroelhan. - - 9E.Q2 - 3E.Q1 HEAST
OIloroethane - - - - - HEAST
1,1-Dictlloroettlane C NO 1 E.Q1 - 1 E.Q1 HEAST
EXTRACTABl£ CRW4ICS
1,3-Dictllorobenzene - - - - - HEAST
1,4-Dichlorobenz.n. C 2.4E.Q2 NO NO 2E.Q1 HEAST
1,2.Dictllorobenzen. - - 9E.02 - 4E~ HEAST
Ph.nol - - 8E.Q1 - NO HEAST
Naphthal.ne - - 4E-43 - ND HEAST
2-Methylnaphthal.ne - - - - - HEAST
81. (241t1y1h.xyt)phthala18 82 1.4E.Q2 2E.Q2 NO NO HEAST
Dibenzoturan - - - - - HEAST
Fluorene - - 4E.Q2 - ND HEAST
Fluoranth.n. - - 4E.Q2 - ND HEAST
Ph.nanthren. - - 3E.Q2 - - HEAST
Pyrene - - 3E.Q2 - - IRIS
Benzo(a) Pyr.ne B2 5.8E ..- 00 - e.1E..-00 - HEAST
Benzo(b and/or k)Fluoranth8ne 82 5.8E..-00 - e.1E+00 - .
Benzo(a)Anthreoen. B2 5.8E..-00 - e.1E+00 - .
OIryMne B2 S.SE + 00 - e.1E+00 - .
d.no(1.2.3-c,d)Pyrene B2 5.se..-00 - e.1E+00 - .
benzo(a,h)Anthreoene B2 S.SE + 00 - e.1E+00 - .
Anthracene - - 3E.Q1 - - IRIS
naphthyl.". - - 3E.Q2 - - HEAST
tlthene - - 8E.Q2 - - HEAST
nzo(g,h,i)P8ryt.n. - - 3E~ - - HEAST
.Q!loronaphthaJ.ne - - - - - HEAST
-Methy!ph.noI - - - - - HEAST
4)-M8thy1phenol - - - - - - HEAST
4-DlchIorophenol - - 3E-03 - - HEAST
ntachlorophenol 82 1.2E.Q1 3E.Q2 - - HEAST
1.2.4- Trtchlorobenune - - 1 E-03 - 3E-3 HEAST
82 2.0E-02 - - - HEAST
PtIth8Iate - - 8E-01 - - HEAST
phthaIa18 - - 1 E.Q1 - - HEAST
nzyI Butyl PhthaJa18 C ND 2E.()1 - - HEAST
phthala18 - - 2E.Q2 - - HEAST
X8Ct1lorobenHne 82 1.8E + 00 IE.()4 UIE+oo - HEAST
~1.c.DES
rln B2 1.7E+01 3E.oe 1.7E+01 - HEAST
-BHC C 1.8E..-00 - UE+oo - HEAST
pha-Q!1ord8l18 B2 1.3E+00 eE.oe 1.3E+00 - HEAST
ma-OIlotdan8 B2 1.3E+00 eE.oe 1.3E+00 - HEAST
,4'-000 B2 2.4E.Q1 5E.04" - - HEAST
,4'-ODE B2 3.4E.Q1 5E.04" - - HEAST
,"'.DOT B2 3.4E.Q1 5E.04 3.4E.Q1 - HEAST
rtn B2 1.eE+01 5E.oe 1.eE+01 - HEAST
In
CI
Ac8
Ao8nap
Be
2
2
(3-endIor
2.
P8
CarDaoI8
Ci8thyI
DI-N-8utyI
Be
Di-N-OctyI
He
AId
Beta
N
Gam
4
4
4
DieId
TABLE 2 1
Toxicity Velu..
-77-
-------
QIII ~~..'. - ...
-- "'::'''.1 ,-- ---- ...
... p............ ell Cn8m) c.. raln- .~ ~"'.1 .~ ,..,...
t'I:ott'T1ClDE8 .
Endrtn - - 3E.04 - - HEAST
Endrin Aldlhyde - - - - - HEAST
EndOlUttan I (Alpha) - ' - 5E~ - - HEAST
.
EndolUHan II (Bota) - - 5E~ - - HEAST
.EndOluHan SuH8. - - - - - HEAST
~ptac,.tlor B2 4.5E +00 5E.()4 4.5E+00 - HEAST
Methoxychlor - - 5E~ - - HEAST
N)AGANJCS
Aluminum - - - - - HEAST
Antimony - - 4E.04 - ND HEAST
At1enlc A - 1 EoOO 5.0E +01 ND HEAST
Batlum - - 5E.02 - 1 E.04 HEAST
Chromium (VI) - - 5EoOO 4.1E+01 5Eo01 IRISlHEAST
Copper - - 3E.Q2 - ND HEAST
Lead B2 ND ND ND NO HEAST
Mangane18 - - 1E.Q1 - 1 E.04 HEAST
Mercury - - 3E.04 - 8E~ HEAST
NIckiI' (Soluble Sa/tI) - ND 2E.Q2 ND ND IRIS
Vanadium - - 7E~ - ND HEAST
Zinc - - 2E.Q1 - ND HEAST
Beryllium B2 4.3E+00 5E~ 8.4E+00 - HEAST
Cobalt - - - - - HEAST
Selenium - - - - - HEAST
SIlver . HEAST
- - 3E-«J - -
TABLE 2 1
ToJdcIty Values
ND
.
Not Determined
Not UIt8d
A 8I0pe factor hu not been ntabillhed tor thl. oomound; thlt8fot8, the EPA interim 8I0pe factor tor benzo(a)pyrene wU uaignld IinOi
tNl oompound II alae a caroInoglnJC PAM.
A rftr8ft01 dOl8 hu not bien I8t8b1I8h8d tor this oompound. Bu8d on thll oompound'. atructuraJ 8Imilattty to 4.4-DDT, thl oral
. r8f8r8nOl dOl8 tor 4,4-DDT wu eub8tttut8d.
-
,
-78-
-------
Q8 DImiii
-- -*P8 JI)..,.~. '"
. p....1IQ18nt fJI CDN8m) ~"".1 ~ ,... (8) ~"".1 ~
PtRaEABlE OFOANICS
Vlnyf Chloride '.SlE+OO - 0.8 2.4E +00 -
1,2.Dichloropropane 8.8E~ - 0.8 8.5E~ -
Chloroform 8. , E-<13 'E~ ' 0.8 7.8E-<13 8E-<13
cal. , ,2-Dichloroethene - 'E~ 0.8 - 8E-<13
Benzene 2.SlE~ - 0.8 3.8E.o2 -
Toluen. - 2E.o, 0.8 - 2E.o,
T etr8Chloroetl'lene 5.'E~ , E.02 0.8 8.4E~ 8E-<13
Chlorobenzene - 2E~ 0.8 - 2E.02
Btlyf Benzene - , E.o, 0.8 - 8E~
Total Xylene' - 2E+00 0.8 - 2E+00
Methyf E1hyI K8t0ne - 5E.02 0.8 - 4E.02
Methyf I80butyf K8tone - 5E.02 0.8 - 4E.()2
1,', '-Trichtoroethane - eE.()2 0.8 - 7E-02
ChlorOlthane - - 0.8 - -
" , -Dichloroethane ND 'E~' 0.8 - 8E.()2
EXTRACTABlE ORGANICS
Phenol - 8E.o, 0.5 - 3E~'
, ,3-Dichlorobenzene - - 0.5 - -
, ,4-DichlorObenzene 2.4E.()2 ND 0.5 4.8E~2 -
, ,2-Dich'orobenzene .. SlE.02 0.5 - SE.02
Naphthalene - 4 E-<13 0.5 - 2E-<13
2-Methyfnaphthalene - - 0.5 - -
811 (2-ethy1hexyl )phthalate 1.4E-02 2e~ 0.5 2.8E-02 1 E.()2
Dibenzofuran - - 0.5 - -
Flucnne - 4E.()2 0.5 - 2E.02
Fluorantttene - 4E.02 0.5 - 2E~
nan1t\rene - 3E.()2 0.5 - 2E.()2
ne - 3E-02 0.5 - 2E.()2
nzo(a)Pyrene 5.8E + 00 - 0.5 '.2E+0' -
nzo(b and or k)Fluoranthene 5.8E+00 - 0.5 '.2E+01 -
nzo(a)Anthraoene 5.8E+00 - 0.5 1.2E+01 -
ryMne 5.8E+00 - 0.5 1.2E+01 -
no(1,2,3-c,d)Pyrene 5.8E + 00 - 0.5 1.2E+01 -
benzo(a.h)Anthraoene 5.8E + 00 - 0.5 1.2E+01 -
raoene - 3E~1 0.5 - 2E~1
naphtttyfene - 3E.()2 0.5 - 2E-02
naphthene - 8E.()2 0.5 - 3E.()2
nzo(g,h,i)Perytene - 3E.02 0.5 - 2E.()2
-Ct'Iloronapllthaiene - - 0.5 - -
-Methy!phenol - - 0.5 - -
4)-Methylphenol - - - 0.5 - -
4-DlctlIorophenoI - 3E-03 0.5 - 2E-<13
Ioroph8noI 1 .2E~1 3E.()2 0.5 2.4E~1 2E.()2
,2,4- TrictllorDb8llZ8l11 - 1 E-03 0.5 - SE-04
2.0E42 - 0.5 ".0E.02 -
PhthaIat8 - 8E~1 0.5 - "E~1
pftthaI88 - 1E~1 0.5 - 5E.02
nzyI Butyl PtIthaIa18 NO 2E-01 0.5 - 1E~'
phthalate - 2E.()2 0.5 - 1E~
X8ChIoroDenz8ne 1.8E+00 8E-04 0.5 3.2E+00 4E-04
f'al1~
drtn 1.7E+01 3E-(J5 o.s 3."E+01 2E.05
BHC 1.8E.QO - o.s 3.8E + 00 -
pha-Q1onSane 1.3E+00 8E.os 0.5 UE + 00 3E.05
1ordan8 1.3E +00 8E.os 0.5 2.8E+00 3E.05
,4'.QDO 2."E~1 5E-04 0.5 4.~1 3E-04
,"'-DOE 3."~1 5E~ 0.5 8.8E~1 3E-04
,"'-OCT 3.4E~1 5E-04 0.5 8.8E~1 3E-04
Idrln 1.8E+01 SE.05 0.5 3.2E+01 3E.05
PIle
Pyre
Be
Be
Be
Ch
Inde
Di
Anth
k»
k»
Be
2
2
(3-andIor
2,
Pent8Ch
1
C8tD8zote
DiethyI
DI-N-8utyI
Be
Di-N-OctyI
He
N
Beta-
N
Garnm8-QI
4
..
..
Die
TABLE 2 2
Derivation of Cermal Critical To:,..Iclty Value.
-79-
-------
TABLE 22
Derivation of Dermal Critical Toxicity Val",..
Q8I 0iIImIII
... ,... SIaPi fie -.....
(Ooo.IIri"11 GI 0InI8m). ~A.1 ~ IW8r Ca) ~A.1 "'"
rESllQDEi
Endrln 3E.ooI 0.5 2E~
End"n Aldehyde 0.5
Endosultan I (Alpha) 5E-OS 0.5 3E-OS
Endosulfan II (Beta) 5E-OS 0.5 3E-OS
Endosulfan Sulfate 0.5
. Heptactllor 4.5E+00 5Eo04 0.5 9.0E + 00 3Eo04
Methoxyct'llor 5E~ 0.5 3E~
INCR)ANICS
Aluminum 0.2
Antimony 4E~ 0.2 8E-05
ArMnic 1 E.Q3 0.2 2E~
BarIum 5E~ 0.2 1 E.()2
Chromium (VI) 5e.03 . 0.2 1 E.Q3
Copper 3E~ 0.2 8E.Q3
t.aad NO NO 0.2
Mangane.. 1E~1 0.2 2E.02
Mercury ~ 3Eo04 0.2 6E-OS
Nickel (Soluble Salts) ND 2E.()2 0.2 4E.Q3
Vanadium 7E~ 0.2 1 E.Q3
ZInc 2E~1 0.2 .4E~
Berytllum 4.3E+00 5E.Q3 0.2 2.2E +01 1E.Q3
Cobalt 0.2
Selenium 0.2
Silver 3E.Q3 0.2 6E~
(a)
(b)
(c)
NO
ea..d on USEPA HEAl and ATSDR Documents
Slope/Absorption Factor
ORAL AtO II Absorption Factor
Not Determined
Not US18d
-80-
-------
cont~nant exposures within a single me4ium or across media. The.BQs and
HIs for the exposure pathways (current and future) identified at the Site are
summarized in ~able 23~ The only hazard indices which exceed unity result
from the potential of future expo8ure to contaminated groundwater.
Bxcess lifetime cancer ri8k8 are determined by multiplying the intake level
with the cancer potency factor. These ri8k. are probabilities that are
generally expre8sed in scientific notation (i.e., lxlO-6 or lE-6). An
exce.. lifetime cancer ri.k of 1B-6 indicates that, a8 a plausible
upper-bound, an individual has a one in one million chance of developing
cancer as a re.ult of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over. 'O-year
lifetime under the specific exposure condition8 at a site.
BPA has set an acceptable carcinogenic risk
prefers that remediation of Superfund sites
greater than lE-6. However, depending upon
be considered protective.
range of IB-4 to lE-6, but
achieve a residual cancer risk no
site factors, a risk of 1B-4 may
The carcinogenic upper-bound risk for each of the exposure pathways (current
and future) identified at the Site are summerized in ~able 24. The only
carcinogenic risks which exceed EPA'8 acceptable risk range result from the
potential of future exposure to contaminated groundwater.
8.5
RISK UNCERTAINTY
There is a generally recognized uncertainty in human risk values developed
from experimental data. This is primarily due to the uncertainty of
extrapolation in the areas of (1) high to low dose exposure and (2) animal
data to values that are protective of human health. The Site specific
uncertainty is mainly in the degree of accuracy of the exposure assumptions.
Most of the exposure assumptions used in this and any risk asseS8m8nt have
not been fully verified. Por example, the degree of chemical absorption from
the gut or through the skin or the amount of soil contact that may occur is
not known with certainty. Generally accepted default values provided in
~gency guidance were used when available.
In the presence of such uncertainty, the Agency and the risk assessor have
the obligation to make ~on.ervative assumptions such that the chance is very
small, approaching zero, for the actual health risk to be greater than that
determined through the risk assesement process. On the other hand, the
process is not intended to yield absurdly conservative risks values that have
no basis in reality. That balance was kept in mind in the development of
exposure assumptions and pathways and in the interpretation of data and
guidance for this baseline risk asseS8m8nt.
-81-
-------
""
.TABLE 2 3
'. TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENT ""
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY ~ATHWAY HAZARD INDEX
Onsl. Trespasser Inges1lon (O'1Site surface soiQ 2E-02
Current Use Dermal contact (O'1site surface soil) 2E-03
Dermal contact (O'1site sediment) 6E-04
Dermal contact (O'1site surface water) 7E-05
Total Hazard Index 2E-02
Offsl18 Adult Re8ident Ingestion (seelment, 505) 9E-03 "
Current Use Dermal contact (Hdment, 504) 2E-04
Dermal contact (sedment, 505) 5E-04
Dermal contact (otIIste surface water) 1 E-04
Total Hazard Index 1E-02
OtrsI18 o,Ud Resident Ingestion (sediment. 505) SE-02
Current Use 'Dermal contact (sedment, 504) 7E-04
Dermal contact (sedmen!, 505) 1 E-03
Dermal contact (otfsite surface water) SE-04
Total Hazard Index 8E-02
)
-82-
-------
TABLE 2 3
TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENT
.
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY P A THWA Y HAZARD INDEX
Oftsit8 Q111d R'sident Ingestion (otIsite shallow groundwater) ~ .6E+OO
Future Use Dermal con.ct (otIslte shallOw groundwater) 5E-<12
Total Hazard Index 6E+OO
Oftslt8 Q111d Resident Ing.don (otIsite deep groundwater) 1E+OO
F 14.1 r. U., D.rmal con8Ct (offIltI de'p grcunctwat8r) 1 E-
-------
'"
-TABLE 2 3
" . -TOTAL HAzARD QUOTIENT
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX
Offslte Adult Resident Ingestion (ofIsite Shallow groundwater) 2E...oo
Future Use Dermal contact (ofIslte shallow groundwater) 3~2
Total Hazan:llndex 2E+OO
Offslte Adult Resident Ingestion (ofIsite deep groundwater) 5~1
Future Use Dermal contact (offsile deep groundwater) 6~3
Inhalation (offsite deep groundwater) OE+OO
Total Hazard Index S~1
Onslte Adult Resident IngeS1ion (onsite shallow groundwater) 4E+01
Future Use Dermal contact (onslte ShallOw groundwater) 7~1
Inhalation (onslte shallow groundwater) . 1 E+OO
Ingestion (onsite surface soil) 8~2
Dermal contact (enslte surface soiQ 5~3
Ingestion (onslte shallow ~rface soiQ 3~3
Dermal contact (ensite Sn8l1ow SlbSurface SOIQ 3&-04 .
Dermal contact (O'1site sediment) 2&-04
Dermal conact (enslte surface water) 4~5
Total Hazan:llndex 4E+01
IngeS1lon (enslte deep groundwater) 2E+OO
Dermal contact (enslte deep groundwater) 1E-02
InhalatiOn (onlite deep groundwater) 7~1
Ingestion (ensite surface soiQ 8~2
Dermal contact (ensite surface solQ 5~3
Ingestion (ensite shallow subsurfll:e SOIQ 3~3
Dermal conact (ensile shallow subsurface soiQ 3&-04
- Dermal conact (O'1SIt1 Sediment) 2&-04
Dermal contact (enslte surface ~ter) 4~5
Total Hazan:llndex 3E+OO
.
-84-
-------
TABLE 2 3
TOTAL HAZARD QUOTIENT
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX
On8lte ConstNctlan Worker Dermal CO'1tact (oolite 8tlalloW groundWater) 4E~
Future u.. Dermal CO'1tact (ooalte surfac8 IOIQ "3&03
Dermal con1aCt (001118 8tlaJloW subsurface 80IQ 76-<13 I
Dermal CO'1tact (OO81t8 deep subsurface 80IQ 36-<13
Dermal CO'1tact (001118 Mdlment) 1 6-<13
Dermal con1aCt (ooS1t8 1Urfac:8 water) 2E-<13
Ingesuon (onl/18 1Urf8c8 IOIQ 36-<11
Ingel1lcn (on8I18 Ihdow 1Ublurfac:8 IOIQ 46-01
Ingesuon (on8l18 dHp 1Ublurf8c8 I0Il) 2E-O 1
Total Hazartllndex 5E+OO
-85-
-------
....
'TABLE 24
'. TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY CANCER RISK
Onsite Trespasser Ingestion (~site surface soil) . S.4E-07
Current Use Dermal contact (~site surface soiQ 1 .SE-07
Dermal contact (~site Sediment) 1 .2E-07
Dem'lal contact (~Site surface water) O.OE...oo
Total Cancer RI8k 8.1~7
Offsl18 Adult Resident IngesUon (sediment, SDS) 3.SE-06
Current Use Dermal contact (sedmem, SD4) 3.9E-OS
Dermal contact (sedmem. SD5) S.3E-OS
Dermal contact (~SIte surface water) O.OE-+
-------
TABLE 2 4
TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY- PATHWAY CANCER RISK
Otrsite Adult Reaicte"t Inge51oo (otfsite Shallow groundWater) O.OE+OO
Future Use Dermal contact (ofIsite Shallow groundwater) OOE+OO
Total Cancer Risk O.OE+OO
Oblt8 Adult Resident IngeS1iOn (otfsite de.p grcundwater) 5 7&08
Future Us, D.rmal conllct (ofIsit. dltp grcundwater) 2.0e-10
Inhalation (oftsite de.p groundwater) 76E-07
Total Cancer Risk 8.2E-07
O"slle Adult Resident In915100 (0"15ite Shallow groundwater) 4 1 E-03
Future Use Dermal conllct (0"15itl shallow groundwater) 2.7E-05
Inhalation (onsite shallow groundwater) 6.3E-06
Ingl51lon (0"15itl surfac. soiQ 1 .8E-06
Dermal conllct (0"15ite surface soiQ 3.0E-07
Inge5ton (O"1site shallow Slbsurface soil) 5.0E-07
Dlrmal contact (0"15ite shallow Slbsurface SOil) 1 .OE-07
Dermal contact (0"15ite sediment) 4.2E-08
D.rmal contact (O"1slte surface water) O.OE+OO
Total Cancer Risk 4.1E-03
Ingel1lon (0"151te deep grcundwater) 9.7E-04
Dermal conllct (en5itl dltp grcundwater) 3.5E-06
Inhalation (onsite d..p groundwater) 44 E-06
Ingel1lon (O"1site surface soiQ 1 .8E-06
Dermal con1lCt (0"15itl surface lOiQ 3.0E-07
Ingel1lon (0"15ite shallow StbSurfac. soiQ 5.0E-07
Dermal conllct (0"15itt shallow Sl.CSurface soil) 10E-07
- D.rmal conllct (0"15it. sedim.nt) . 42E-08
D.rmal contact (O"1lit. surface water) O.OE+OO
Total Cancer Rialc 9.8E-04
.
-87-
-------
" '.TABLE 2 4 '.
TOTAL..CARCINOGENIC'RISKS
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY PATHWAY CANCER RISK
Onslte OIlid Resident Ingesllon (offsite shallow groundWater) O.OE1oOO
F ulU re Use Dermal contact (offsite shallow groundwater) . O.OE+OO
Talal Cancer Rlak O.OE+OO
Offs/te Child Resident IngestiOn (0ftS1te deep groundwater) 4.46-08
Fu1Ure USe Dermal contact (offslte deep groundwater) 8.46-1 1 .
Inhalation (0ftSIte dllp groundwater) 8.1 E-07
Talal Cancer Risk 8.5&47
Onslte 0I11d Resident Ingestion (a1Slte shallow groundWater) 3.16-03
Future Use Dermal contact (a1slte shallow groundwater) 1 .2E-OS
InhalatIOn (onslte shallow groundWater) 6.66-06
Ingestion (a1lite surface SOiQ 3.9E-06
Dermal contact (atllte surface soil) 2.'6-07
~ermal contact (a1lite sediment) 3.06-08
Dermal contact (a1Site surface water) O.OE+OO
Talal Cancer Rlak 3.1&43
IngeS1lon (a1site deep groundwater) 7.4&-04
Dermal con1Bct (a1lite deep groundwater) 1 .SE-06
Inhalation (onsite deep groundwater) 4.8E-06
Ingedon (a1Site surface soiQ 3.9E-06
Dermal contact (a1Site surface SOIQ 2.1 6-07
Dermal con\aCt (a1site sediment) 3.0E-Oe
Dermal conllCt (a1slte si.lface water) o.oe..oo
Total C8ncer Rlak 7.5~4
Onslte 'ReBldent (shallow groundwater exposure)
Ufetlme Cancer RISk. 7.3E-03
Onalt8 Resident (deep grau~18r ..potU,.)
Uf8tim8 Cancer RI8k. 1.7E-03
-88- .
-------
TABLE 2 4
TOTAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS
POPULATION EXPOSURE PATHWAY ~ATHWAY CANCER RISK
Onsite ConstrUctiOn WOrker Dermal con18ct (01site shallow groundWater) 9.1&-06
Future Use Dermal con18ct (01site surface soiQ 91~
Dermal con18ct (01Site shallow ~surfac. soil) 9.1~
Dermal contact (01sit. deep subaJrface SOil) 5.7~
Dermal con18ct (01litt Hdiment) 8.5~10
Dermal contact (01Site IUlface WItii') O.OE-+OO
Ingeston (011111 IUlface 8010 2.7&07
Ingeston (011111 shallOw ablurfac. soiO 2.2&-06
Ingestion (011111 deep SlbsurfaC8 IOIQ 1 .6&-06
Total C8ncer Risk 1.3~5
-89-
-------
.. 8.6
ECOLOGICAL RISK
A qualitative ecological risk assessment was conducted as part of the
Benfield Risk Assessment Report. The sur~ace and subsurface soils appear
pose the greatest risk to flora and fauna df all the contaminated media at
the Site. This is especially true for vegetation which has roots in the
contaminated areas as well as borrowing mammals and insects which may inhabit
. these soils. Groundwater contamination is not expected to pose any
environmental risk as it does not discharge to Browning Branch. Surface
water samples collected in Browning Branch confirm this fact as no organic
contaminants were detected adjacent to or downgradient of the Site. Only one
of the five sediment samples collected from Browning Branch (SDS) contained
elevated levels of PAQs and metals. However, this sediment cannot adversely
impact Browning Branch, even under flood conditions due ~o the 2-foot berm
between this sampling point and the stream and the topography of the
surrounding area. It is unlikely there are any airborne contaminants from
the soils due to the fact of the vegetation and that the soil has been
undisturbed for over ten years.
8.7
SUMMARY
The health risk posed by this National Priority List site is primarily from
the future use of the groundwater as a potable source. This is due to the
presence of contaminants at concentrations above SPA' s Maximum COntaminant
Levels for drinking water. These contaminants will be remediated during the
remedial action phase.
Presently, there is no known adverse impact on the eco-system resulting from
the Site. However, the surface water and sediments of Browning Branch will
be monitored during the remedial design/remedial action phase.
9.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
'Jables 25 and 26 inventory those technologies that passed the initial
screening for remediating the contaminated .oils and the groundwater,
respectively. In the initial .cr_ning, process option. and entire
technology types were eliminated from consideration if they are difficult to
implement due to Site constraints or contaminant characteristics, or if the
technology has not been proven to effectively control the contaminants of
concern. Tables 21 and 28 summari" the results of the final screening
for soil and groundwater remediation technologies, re8pectively.
Effectivenes., implementability, and relative capital and operation and
maintenance costs are the criteria u.ed for evaluating the technologies and
process options in the final .creening. Tables 21 and 28 also provide
the rationale as to why certain technologies ~re not retained for the
detailed comparison. The retained seven (7) soil remediation alternatives
and eight (8) groundwater remediation alternatives to address the estimated
4,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil and the 22 million gallons of
contaminated groundwater are described below.
-90-
-------
'J ABLE 2 5
CONTAMINA1ED SOIL TECHNOLOGIES AND
PROCESS OPTIONS PASSING INITIAL SCREENING
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
No Action
None
Site Access and Use Restrictions
Land Use Restrictions
Fencing
Environmental Monitoring
Air, Soil, and Surface Water Monitoring
Capping
Gravel- or Soil-Qay .
Soil-Synthetic Membrane
RCRA Multilayer
Surface Controls
Surface Water Diversion/Collection System
Revegetation
DustNapor Suppression
Water
Organic AgentslPolymerslFoams
Membranesrrarps
Hydroscopic Agents
Excavation.
Contaminated Soils
Onsite Biological Treatment
Land Farming
Composting
Slurry Bioremediation
Onsite Chemical Treatment
Solvent Extraction
Soil Washing
Onsite Thermal Treatment
Rotary Kiln Incinerator
Fluidized Bed Incinerator
Circulating Bed Incinerator
Infrared Incinerator
Pyrolysis
Onsite Physical Treatment
Solids Separation/Sizing
Decontamination
Offsite Thermal Treatment
RCRA-Approved Offsite Incinerator
-91-
-------
...
TABLE 2 5 (Continued)
CONTAMINATED SOn.. TECHNOLOGIES
AND PROCESS OPTIONS PASSING INITIAL SCREENING
. . ".
TECHNOLOGY
PRocEss OPTION
In Situ Biological Treatm~~t
Bioremediation
Onsite Disposal
Onsite RCRA Landfill
Temporary Storage
Offsite Disposal
RCRA Solid Waste Landfill
RCRA Hazardous Waste Landfill
-92-
-------
1---- -- - -
TABLE 26
GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGIES AND
PROCESS , OPTIONS PASSING INITIAL SCREENING
TECHNOLOGY
PROCESS OPTION
None
No Action
Groundwater Use Restrictions
State Imposed Permit Restrictions
Surface Water
New Wells
Bottled Water
Home Treatment Units
Public Water System Hook-up
Groundwater Monitoring
Extraction Wells
Injection Wells
Surface Water Diversion!
Collection System
Revegetation
Extraction Wells
Extraction- Injection Wells
Submerged Fixed Film Reactor
Phase Separation
Filtration
Carbon Absorption
Ion Exchange
Neutrailization
Oxidation
Cheuri~Reduction
Aeration
Chemical Precipitation
Oxidation/UV Photolysis
Bioremediation
Surface Water
Injection .Wells
Recharge Trench
Surface Water
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Alternative Water Supplies
Environmental Monitoring
, Gradient Control
Surface Control
Extraction
Onsite Biological Treatment
Onsite Physical Treatment
Onsite Cheuri~ Treatment
In Situ Biologi~ Treatment
Onsite Discharge
Offsite Discharge
-93-
-------
Oe.ERAl
RESPONSE REMEDIAl PROCESS.
ACTION TECHNOLOGY OPTION
No Adon H No Adon H None
SIIIt ~ UndUle
end UIe
~...
to
.........
ConIIaII
I
\D
~
I
Contann.nt
C8fII*I8
. 'jI;~Pf1~;.:
8uIf808 ConINIIt
AewegtletlDn
1- -Ptoeen ....c.d 10............ .-.Iopnenl
L ~n~-- --'. ~j- -P.oaI" Nj8c.d 10. ""me"" dovelopnenl
TABLB 2 'l
FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TEOfNOLOOIES FOR 11IE
CONTAMINATED SOILS
SO\EENING amERIA
EFFEC11VENESS
RELATIVE
COST
IMPI..94EHTABlUIY
I ~ not 111..1 ....8c181 acton ot>jec....
~ .. ........ kI-,-"", ... oth8f
_8c181 tech.ICIIogIM, 8UCh .. capping.
Not .pPlcabie.
None.
OiIIIculllo mpllmenl 0"': "'_1 end
.ctninlll..... proc..... ... ..".bIe.
1n""'8nI811on .. .. ..tint ...leld...
property -*I .. rouIne end ....-d.
In ""'.ntellon II -, end .... ....~ "IJIII.
WocU ..cpr. Iong-..m -Illy endlll"'.-
8Ct1w111H.
-- CapII8I.
-- Ope""" a
. MeInI8I....
~ .. .1IIcUre kI-+-ton ..... oller
_8cI8I18ct..1OIoQIn. 8UCh .. capping.
-- CapII8I.
.-- Ope..... a
......."...
~ .. .1IIc:t,.,. kI"""'ng'" ell8ctlw8neee
.. _.dolllCtlone, 8UCh .. MPf*Igor_1e
kIcN.-on.
~ ."""'m~" potenWlor dIMt
~ ""oo-..N88dm..."'.' poope'"
........d. ModI.....,.1ItctIw8 kt .......
~ tiIMt--.IDn.
i- CapII8I.
-- Ope..... a
MeInI8I....
In""'.nlelon .. .., end - "p .tlling" II.
Cocw8nIIonIIl8c:/wIoIosw. Equipment, pe--~
811d..... ...., .........
E8aIy mpllm8n18b18. ~ 18c:tInoIow.
e............. pe--~ Md."".....,
""'bI8. FI8""" ...trlctlone on '*-.........
8IId Iong-..m m""'_.
-- eaFl88l
ModI... 0per8I0nt a
...........
~ """""1II1ntnb8 .. poIIInIoIlor cII8aI
oontIr:It ""oonamln8l8dm..."'.' prope'"
.-......d. MoI8.........""" or 801-d8y
.... .. ..cM*Ie In8reton. The mem"" II
-.... 10 tMrtng Of.....,.. ~...........,
....-.... lI_dIIn.
In,....entUI8. eor-nIIon8I I8chncllotw.
ecppnenl, pe-', 8IId .-10M... ...cIIy
""'bI8. FI8..-. I88tItctIon8 on ..... I8nd ...
endlong-"m m""'_. 118 mem brw. m'"
.. prottctId "'''''g'' .......,. .... .01 ..,.,.
ModI... CepI8I.
ModI... Ope"'" a
............
~ ."""'mlnml8 .. potIInI8I tor cII8aI
~.... oo-.........m..."', . prope'"
........... Moat.t1ect1w8 ClIp tor ....,...
kI8IraIon.
m""'enI8bI8. eor-....."., 18c1lnalogr.
E...."....... pe-I, end...... ... .....,
.."'bIe. Fl8qube8 ...trIctIon8 on"'" lend 11M
endlong-..m m"'''_. 0I1IcuIt 10 .. HI»
""g 811ua8n.. EadlIayw. III'" .. proI8c18d
""""g""'tIIIaton 01. ~rlayw...
&dy InpilmentatJloo. eor-ntlon8l IK/InoIogy.
e............. pe.-I. end ..rvtoe. ... .....,
""'bI8. FI8..,...188trIctIon8 on ,*-18nd...
end Iong-"m m""'_.
tfWI QIpIW.
ModI... Ope"'" a
. I"!'''''.,
EIIIcII8 kt ~.......... .............. nrn-
on end nrn-oll. "'-n.""'" 18ch.1IIIotw. Would
.. ...dkt ~ w4d\""" -...an.....
8Iorage. or"""" .-0- oFlOne.
~ kt ..cidng au"- ..... kltIIrdon 10..
...,.,. ~ ..leblel8chnology. Woutd..188d
. In -+rnctlon..... oII8r ......... 18c1lnolotllM.
-- CapII8I.
ModI- Ope""'.
...,......._.
E8aIy mpllm.nleble. FI8..-.long-.m
111.._. E..,......... pe-lend ..rvt>ee
... ....., ......*.
a.- c......
~- Ope""'.
.............
. - - "!he _del "'"Ign caI8 tor .. 11M 01Il1o "cIInoIogy. Ilia pr-.. option
et-.td..... .. coneJdo..d.
POOR QUAliTY :.'
. ORIGU\lAL .
-------
GENERAl
RESPON SE
ACTION
ConWrment
I
\0
'('I
AIm"""
OneIll
, --......
REMEDIAl
TECHNOlOGY
PROCESS
OPTION
DueW8pOf
W888.
e.c-Ion
H
ConIImIn8l8d 8011 I
H
BlJ.II.1"""
TABLa 2 7 (.08li...cI)
F~Al SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TI~dINOlOGII!S FOR TH E
CONTAMINATED SOILS
EFFecT1V~ES8
AE1A11YE
006T
~EENING CRITERIA
M'lBENTHIIUTY
Not."""'''' .MInt.... OfQ8fllc ..--- Of
JII8"8f'tnt ........... "'l8Ion ~ ..,.,...d
........ EIMM ... ......... gtn8181on.
Net"'" ... ...-.... ...... ..... .........
lnIo-...d....... EI8c1Io8... .........
8nd~ ""'V8pOf"W-.
........ ... .......... ---- -. In"'''' .....
~dm"''''' end... .......... end ....
....- V8pOf _-..-.
Not."""'''' ........... o.Q8fIIc ........... Of
JII8"8f'tnt ...... ..... .....Ion ..... ..,.,..d
....... e-.... ... .......... gtn8""'.
'"-" ...-. I8dv1 010",. WIM*t.~ ..--
.. poINII8I lwei.. lull... ..... end ..
.wL__...nl 8hot'I-8Hn.1I8ct8....... noI88 end
...... ...-...... WNdbe ~ In~
... .........., ...,...
t.8..... .... 8Iurry 1*>118........ end...... po.1ng.
AacP- b8nch end pIIoI""'. BIoIogIoeI da"""''''ay
11M be -..18Iw ..... ... 1rMIIng'" oerdnog8nIc PAtio
...... _dad'" .......... mlcl'ObM.
.... net be ... ........ ... PHi 8DIDn ......
t.8"'" .... 8Iurry 1*>118_- butm- .IIM.. ...
..... '-IRe. ....... b8nch end plot IDa"'" IJIo6ogIcaI
..............ay - be ........~ ........ ...........
---... PNia ...... -dad
... ...,..pdllllaloflllllM. ...,.. - be ... .. --... PHi
8CIDn ......
................. ""'''''!nGor_poelng. AI"'" be.....
end pIollDalng. BWogIc8I da""-,,, m.. - 18
-..~.~... -....... caor:lnoganlo PAtio
...... _dad"" .~ mlooo18.. Ms#II- 18 ...
.. ....1" PIH 8dIon .....~. Could be _d"
.... w""'.
E...., mplom.nla". eor-nlDn8l "chnololll'.
E~.n\, pe.-..e. ahd aervb. ... ...city
........ .
mfll8m.nI8". Coow8n11on81 18c1lnology.
E~.n\, pe-...l. end aervb.... .....tIII.
mfll8m.nI8". Coow8nIIon8I "'1InoIogy.
E~.n\, pe-..I. end .8NIce.... ..."tIII.
EMIy mplom.n.... CorwentIon8I "chnololll'.
E.......... peraonnel, end .--.... .......
.........
EMIy mplom.nI8". CorwentonaI "c!lnolc>lw.
E~.n\, pe-..e. end .-"-... .......
........ .
...... -Ir tnfll8m""'d"" ably """.tnenl Of
OCIIIpoelne. Would........ ........... """'glo pNpe.
... e.",."d aoI8 tor ...tnanl ...,.. naI 18 ec.epl8t111
In. ..8Idtnl81 .-. E~\, pe-....l. and .rvke8
... .........
...... e..1r tnfll8men"d "*'........ .......tnenl bulmo..
"""1I8n1llnd1un1ng. w...... ...-",........ handing
10 ........ ... .._."d .018 tor........... ~I no! be
-...... ... . ...1danI8I ..... E.......... peraonnal. and
..rvIoM - 8t8I8tN.
Mo.. clllcua.. mplom.nI,,*, land laming Of
OCIII poeln. V\buId "8p1at11o In . NaIdon'" .....
E~.n\, pe--'. Md........... ....tH.
POO~~ QUALITY
OI~IGINAL
~~
lAw ap...... &
. .....-.
Mode.- c.pw.
Mode.- ap......... ..
""""-.
H~ c......
H~ ap......... ..
.......-.
lAw CepIIoI.
lAw 0p8r880na"
........-.
lAw." Mode.- c.f*8I.
lAw Ope........
..........-.
lAw CefIIIIL
Moda.- 0pe..1ona ..
.....-.
Mode.... c.,.8I.
Mode.- Ope""" &
~.
H~C.FW.
H~ Ope........ ..
.............
-------
GENERAl
RESPONSE
ACTION
.
..0
0\
I
0n8III
T.........
REMEDiAl
TECHNOLOGY
.....
11IHn8I
.....
PROCESS
OPTION
......
ExbDtDn
Aa8I", ICIn
IncIneI8lDf
.. ..,.,,;:
.: ..
80IdI
TABLE 2 'I (continued) .
FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR mE
CONTAMINATED SOILS
i-
EFFECTIVeflB9
RElATIVE
COST
SCREENING CRITERIA
IMPI.£MBfTIiBIUtY
EII8c:tII8 end ..-n met.od lor I8nIcMIo 0fD8tI'=
~ from lIOII. ShoIt-.Im .ft8c. -*line....
........ ~ .. 8nd eoMntemll8lon8. WII..qIift
I18nch 8fId pIot"""'g. MaJIt no! be atilt ID -... PAH
8fld1l8udllolob8l-. -- ......
E8IdM 8nd ......met.od lor.. --ton 01
..... --1neMI. ShoII-.....~-.IeI
.... .... 8fId"""" .........
~ low....... .1IcI8ncy.
E8IdM 8nd ~met.od lor.. dtatNtton 01
0IgIIIIII_8ft1neMl. ShoII-.an.~-.IeI
..... .... 8fId poIInW."""'. ~
'........... 8ft.......
SIIdI8 8fId...... met.od lor.. --ton 01
.....~. Short-.....~-.IeI
..... .... 8fId poIInIIt."""'. Ee:MI
...._",.
EII8c:tII8 8fId..-n met.od lor.. --ton 01
.....~. ShoII-......-..-*t
........ 8fId poIInIIt ......... ~
.......-......
EII8c:tII8 8fId ..-n met.od lor.. dl8llucton 01
orgMID~. Short-.....~-.IeI
..... .... 8fId""""'" hIF."""'.
EIIIotM when _dID povwId8 . mo..
hamogI~_. --. Oonnot dto-
..,..,. mo"'. OfwoUne 01.. _. Would
.. _dM -+-ton.... o",I8cI1o.---.11UCh
- IncIn8n11on Of tIIobe.tnent.
m"""nI8l>18. Equlpnent. ..~I, end ..rvtoe. ...
.._bit. Would ..qu'" m..'" h8tdng ID po8".
.. ..c...1Itd 8011 fo.II8._nl Conl8mlnattd......nt
wII ..qIift 118._"' o. cltpoul.
m"""nI8l>18. Exte....... pertolm- end """"0
..qub8me.... mU8t .. mel ....f1811 ~o would
be ..qliftd ID pep8" ..lIOII lor """'raton. ...,.. not
be _.plel>l8 M . ..eIdon"."", Mo8t ...~ .....bIt
-- ......8II8c:hnoIDgr.
mplemental>l8. &Itn8Ion pertollll- 8nd """"'11
..~ mU8t .. mel Exte.... m.""'''''''''11
..qliftdlD pep8" "lIOIIlorlnclneraton. ...,..
not be -plable M . ..8IdonW..... At....,... V8'"
1liiiol1li -. ...d 10 -...let IquIIcdon 01.. bed.
mplemenl8l>18. Exte....... pertollll- end,.nnIIIIng
..qubem8n18 mU8t be mel MatI... hen""O """"d
ID ...,..... 801 lor IneNnIIon. MaJIt not be -..bit
M . f88Idontl8l..... c.n 11881. - v...d- --
..... ..-ed bed IneNn8Df.
mplemenl8l>18. &8.... pertollll.- end
pelm""'~'" muet be met...pecItIy lot
.. cIoxIn --....... ........ ~O.....-
10 pe,..... lIOII101 Mm.18Ion. """ not be
-,,1>18 M. f88Idonlll-
m....,.nl8l>18. ~ "rtoIIII- end """"'11
..~ mU8t be mel .....tI8Io hen""" ....-d II>
pe,... ..lIOII lor IncIn8raton. ~I not be -..bit ..
. ..8Idtntlel _. 0Ia. mey be hu_d0u8 end......,. ~,...
....-.. belo.. cltpoeal. .
EuIy m"""nI8l>18. 58",.,.., pe.-.no!. end
.cppn.nt ...~ ..."'1>18.
,"r. ".."
~~"J;:";.:::
. . 1.\ , "f'{
~'." , ..J
>-, .
, I
1oIodt- CapIt8I.
1oIodt- Operatona ,
.....-.
1oIodt- CapIt8I.
1oIodt... Ope..tane a
M81n-.
1oIodt- CapIt8I.
1oIodt.... Ope..... ,
M8InI8I-.
1oIodt- c.,....
1oIodt- Ope"'" a
M8InI8I_.
Mode- c.,....
Mode....~a
........--.
1oIodt- CaJIIW.
1oIodt- Ope"'" a
MeII..,.._.
~ C8IIIIIl
~ Operatane a
..............
-------
GENERAL
RESPONSE REMEDIAl
ACTlON TECHNOLOGY
0neII8 ~ f'hv*aI
T....".,. ~
J;ontInuac8
0II8I8I t n......
T---
.......
I
\D
...... In" H ......
I
T.......
0neII8 010""" H
.......
""~H
.......
PROCESS
OPTlON
H
0.-..........
~~:
H
111..- . 111
~ ~:
'--
~:~:
TABLE 2 7 (ronlinued)
FINAL SCREENING OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR mE
CONTAMINATED SOILS
EFF£CT1V9fm9
M'l£MENTA8IUTY
AElA11YE
COST
t.- c.,.iIaI.
t.- 0,.""" .
"""'to_.
I e....... and Pf'O"'M _Ihod of ."'II..tNnl..........nt
and....... WIDuId 118 _d In ~ will 0"''
.......... and """18chnoIogIH 10 ...........1gratIon
of -",""...nt8 ........
e.... and ..-.. -'hod lor .--...on of
..... -........ T_"""", 10 oIIoIIt
....,....,.. 8hott--............ IncIu.- ....
andnolla -'did"""'" _don.
Nof ~ "'~d lor PNtI. ,.~oIy """-
and..-tIng PNie, """"" Incb8 moat 01 ...
........ PNie. T-...Ion 10""'" I8c8ty
....... Shott-"1fII ollcte IncIucIt .... and noIIa
~.........----
I ==:.:::'.n~= :::::'::~"'In
....... C8fOInogatIIo P,tIHa ..... oppoptl8.. ......... 0..
~ ,.., fMII 118 ... 10..-.. ou::lnog8nlD PAH _tel
""'''...118_.'''''''''''. 8hott-..... ."'1I1no1udo
... and noIIa 88OOIIIMI... ......... of I8CMtg8 1IonCho..
'"-....... -Itodof.,... of_---d.....
WrIuId 118 uood In""""'''''-.Ion.
'"-. ...... ~ of 11m"""""'"
--lno8Idool. Would 118 _din ~...
.... -.lot .....~.... ....
'"-. ....... ~ of cII8pooIng of ..lId....
and 8U "''''doollllloo. T_fIt>t8IIIon""
.......
'"'-t, olloc'" _Itod of clapoolng of conllmlnatod ....
Would 118 _d In -+-cIon"" ..., 8Ich.1OIogIH.
T -.......... ....... .....-... SoI........ 118 _lid
10 Iand- bon ...... 11810.. cI8poooI.
SCREENING CRITERIA
I
E..1Iv mpam.ntoII8. So""'., ,.--,. and
.~nl..adIy .."'118. o.conllmlnalon w..h
_II.. -*' .....- ..tNnt Of cia,.......
mpam.ntobla. "'....~...ay 118 ....,...dlo,
-poll F8DIIIy"""''' In -pl- will
RCRA and..... ...,...,..
V.,.,HIGh~.
v.,., t.- 0,.""'" &
u...--.
mpam.nlob8. ,......nng may 118 """"d lor
-port. Facllly...... 118 In -pl-"" RCRA
and - ..p""'. 0nI0t pt8CtooI.. 0 ..,...11
opIon lot.. oontomlnotod ... . oontomlnolld ...
~ .. fllUCh Iotgo, 11M oo4hI88Id In .. FS.
mpam.n8IbIa. MoM...., m"""""d 11M cOfIIpodnll Of
"'ny lIto-tNnl
Modo- c......
t.- Ope....... .
u.....-.
Modoniaa CafIN
Modo- Opo""" &
u....._.
v." clllculllo mplamonl ....... No"" eo""","
Ian" ...... "~II -*' '- 10 be woMd.
WIDuId not 118 -plat11i8 In . .......... ."0.
Moda.... CopIol
Moda- ~.
.........--.
m~. SIono88 _......._~....
RCRA and NotII\ Co...... "to ..........
t.- CopIol
t.- CIpotoIono &
u...-.-.
mpam.ntobla. T......". Of dooonllm"""'"
08t11colon of ....to"" ..quif8d ..10.. -pot! and
clapoo8l.
t.- eo..-...
V." t.- 0pN88Dna &
.........-.
mpam.ntobla. "''''''''11 moy 118 ,,"""d 10,
-pot!. Facilly fllU8l be In compl- will ACRA
ondl8C8~.toto ,,"Iono.
H~ CofIIoI.
V.,., '- Opo""'" .
u..._.
-------
GENERAl
RESPONSE REMEDiAl PROCESS
AcnO" TECHNOlOGY OPTION
No Acton H No A8Ion H ......
OoDundW_U. ....-...,....
I
\0
00
I
I' ",'
;":_'~:' :' ~.:~):.,:~. ,',;,,:~'~~:"(,:
.,"..,,' .
I' .~. :....::'
.........
~Coo8aI
t
......,....
~M_.H
I- -,",- 8811ct8d............ ......Ia..-..
I- -'"-ee ....--",..--.. * ..lapnenl
I.,":.:'".".:',,'
"
TABLE 2 8
FINAL SatEl!NlNO OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
CONTAMINATED OROUNDWA TER
{.
EffEC11\tENESS
" WauId NIII.- _cIII 8OIDn~.
WauId .. ........................... ...
-"".111&4""""""'. WDuId..-.8111
.............. --...........
...........
..... .. ................. ...... . ..... -"""""'*-
II ............. WDuId NIII .. ........... .........---....
-...................... '
~ '.~f.; .
..... ........... of..... ...... -.... - _of-......
..... -............... Would NIII.. ........ of~.......
--_......~..... .....
..... .. ......... of .............., Would - .. ......... ...
....... n .n.""" --....... -*'-"'.
WauId .. .................... ..... Would - .. ........ ...
~......_.......... -*'--.
..... .. ....................... Would - .. ......... ...
"""'IJIII ....... n -"""'-*'---
WauId ......... III"""" 1M .... .-...
.... --........... - -.w-.&.
: -.............. '"-t.............. Would
;;:t~~~:;~
EIIIt-.. III .............. ~ of
~............. '"-'.............. Would
lie -.8111""""'''''''''''''' ~." II.
.. n. 1 11"-.""""""""-'-"'-"''''
SCREENING CRITERIA
1MPlBoIENTA8U1Y
Hal .,.......
...,.. uoIIr ",,,,,,,,,,d- '*'... -*_. ""-
end............. ...-"'- - ........ "'.......-.. h
............. ~....... rouIn8 end ....-d.
VIIIooIId ....., 80"''--' T- -*'.. "","d,
VIIIooIId .. ...., ",,,,,,,,,,d end.........
VIIIooIId......,...~ Would."", -....--
........ end""'" -. end II.'" ....-.
VIIIooIId .. IllY 80 "'""""nl Would.................. 01
.....d ,........ ................... fI88dod 80 I_Ie
......., VIIIooIId....... _dine""" .......... end local.
-. end...... ....-.
VIIIooIId .. lIlY 80"''''''''''''' Would....... -........ -
......... endlocll. -. ............. ....-.
"'..--""" -.III"...,. AI....,.. ""-10....111--.
E""""", ..-... end IIN1M8 - ....... ........
E8IIW .................. Would ~ IIow
"''"'''*''....--..... AI..-Iono-Io....
..........-. E...,.......---. end II"""" -
..... .........
.................. AI..- ""11-10.. --_.
E........ ..--. end liMe. - ......... '
. - - .IM _cIII""" C8h ... .. ... ~.. ....... .. proc881 ......... "-dcI8IIo .. conoIdI..d.
.. - - . h -del ...... CIllo... h... of..... ............ .. proc811 ~ m... .. ...d
A - - AI""" ... ..... Ip8C8Id III""'" 32 -.. ...-- h.... .. ...d 80 18m- Iron ~d_""" ...... .. "-'-10.
AE1ATM!
CX381'
~'
a.- c.,..... a.-
~......-
a.- c.,.w. l.-
0petdDne .. .............
a.- c.,.IIII. a.-
01*"'" .. .............
a.- c.,.IIII.
OI*""""~
a.- c.,.IIII.
~or---a
..... J RIm I.
l.- C8pIIII. I.-
()pe8IiIIM" ----
l.- C8pII8I.
....._~..
"""""1f -
a.- c.,.I.
.......-~..
.... LIlM_.
.......- c.,8tl
.......- ~a
Md ru..~.
r- ,",-C) r. I .... ~ ,oM,
" I" '. ,..;! .
-------
GENERAl
RESPONSE
ACOON
=H
REMEDIAl
TECHNOlOGV
=:
e......
"""'-I
H
I
..c
..c
I
........
TABLe! 8 (COIIlleucd)
FINAL sa.. eEN ING OF RENEDIAL TECHNOtOOIES FOR 11i1!
COtCTA NINA TED OROUNDWA TER
",OCESS
0P1K)N
~ ~,~..!
~:: :
........
~
~.- .
FI 1 ,- ~.
EfF£C1IVBfE88
..uMENTAlllU1Y
SCREENING CRITERIA
WtuId ... ........ . . -.. -...........,
..w, ....--...... ...............~
...-......-.
....... ....... . .-.. _ldI861g......
1111 . '1"" L k4l8o.:J. """"""''''''-''''
. ...-......-.
..... ....... ... ........ -.......... ..........
... - ....,. '-. ...... .............. w...w III .....
..-~~. ........t-. DI . .J-' -.....Lt ..r
~
..... .......... ........ ......._d ..........'
... - ....,. "-t. .................,. W"'" III .....
.""'''''''''''''''''11111' - .......... ...
~
Moot""" ........ Iaf ......... ........1IItIono ......
-- ~-...... -............. l8rgo.
--- ..,...- -..... ..-----. ...,......
.. -.. ......... "......... _" - -- ...........
C8n IiIIIIIIAII8MI .11 ",.. ...... --'-
""'- J'" .. Iaf .... ..... .,...... ..... .
................ ~-...
CIK . r.8lAII""""". """.-4.-
"",- .8oNf......................... ---
......... .........~
..... .................... ... -.............. -.....
........ fWoI8......."""',
WtuId .. ....... ... --- .. "'8IIY""". """""'."
....... II - - ...... -- . "'81 .......,.. _toll 10
.......... .. - _. 'I1IotoIafo. -..III ....- ""-
.. --4"'- ..........
Would III 'My '" ............. '-- . -.Id .......
-.-..t-- -...-.
Would III 'My '" .........- 111- . -.Id .......
-........ ---....".....
&81, "''''''nW>Io. -.... -...,.... __d
...........,.... Ao..-Iong-_-.. E...-.
..-. """-...... -..............
..... .........
...,.".,....... -.... ~""----d
~_..... Ao"",Iong-"","-'-'.
E""""",,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, -.........
.................. Ao..-. !IIng-"" "'...... _.
E.......... ..---. ............. -.....
......... <--................... "-"........
... -- 01_", -1IInoIM8ocI... ... ...... 01
..... -............ ....................,...
...,......,.... 1110 -........ -..... ..., .......
-- ot_....... _-...........
....... - .........,..... FuotIo,-
..., .. III ......... ....... .. .......
~.......... -..-.. -...... E..........
..-. """....... -..............
.....---. 1110 ".d_oWo...,.......
---. ot_-... --""...-
....... - III'" .,..... E..........
..-.... """....... - ...............
....---. Ao..-. ...-.... --- E......-.
..-.... """....... - ............... SfIonI--
...... ....... ......... Of .~.
Would III ~ ...,................ ... ""-d,,,I;ahI"""
.--'- ._,,- _. .....,.-..- -8-
.......~ III .........
r',
RflA'TWE
COST
'-- c.pw. t.-
Opo- a .............
'--~. t.-
Opo- a ...........-
'-- CapIIoI.
....- 0p0880M.
..............
........ c.,w.
....... 0p00IIIeM .
........-.
....- c.,w.
.....- II'"
()por88ao8 . riA .. --
'--~. .
....- 0,...... ..
..............
~ Cof8ol
....- Of-"'" .
""---...
........- c.,.l
....- 0,........
.......&_.
HIp c....,
HIgIt~.
........-.
.; II
.1, '. L
, ~ J 'J' '.
-------
GENERAl
RESPONSE
ACnON
0....
T-
..
~I
8
I
T:.::...t-I
01IIII8
........
REMEDiAl
TECHNOlOGY
aw.Ic8I
.....
..........
H
........
PROCESS
0Pn0N
........ .
,...... A ."
H
.lIlIIf~
....... ....
.",';
. .
;.~. d .~,~
-,','
'''~'' '.
~ ;:: :
TABle 2 8 (cOIulnuccl) .
FINAL SCReellNO OF REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
CONTAMINATeD OROUNDWA TI!R
f.
EffECllVENE.
. AElA11\tE
008T
SCREENING CRITERIA
NPlEMENTAllUTY
E8IcIo8 ......-IH -......... _tilt. ~
.. -.d. ",,-IH...... ,..,...........
--.---........ OI~........,....
......,..,...IH"""_" -.II-It.
HIlI . ..-.- ---...IH ....... lour- _..-.....
....... PCP.IIuII"""'-'_"''' .........
""""OIUW ~...
HIlI ...... .~........,... .. --"0 ..
~P"'.
..... .. -.d.. ....... will ........ oonIrIII 0I81IIr8oIan
........... C8n........, - .. 8ftII, ..... PNtt.
1M88."'" PNtI- - ""ID"""".
po 1 II L ..... dlpead upon",- aI_ID" tIoch8,..s
.......... .......- of.. .....
. .
E8IcIo8. ........ -"od1H ........ -.. ...,..
.. -.d... ............... ......... 01 .. ..
.......... ---
....... ........---IH ........... _. ...,..
.. --will"""''''' . ---- 118......
........... ~.fl' ,........,........ .
.. -....... of.. ~ 8ilo8l_""".
..... ........ -"od of""'" of.......
,,".II ..r.
E8Ia808. ........ -"od of""'" of......
............
"'''-nl8l>1o. E.......... .._I. end_Mo..
.""8dIV .."'1>10. T,,"'ei_.m.,....,...
.........- ...... . - .. cIacher~
"''''''''-1>10. E"""",,,,, ..--.... __Mo-
.......... _1>10. T_d_.....,....,...
......118- ...... . - .. cl8ch8tgad.
Would be ...~. Benah-"""""'" -*' be .
,,"""d Io.da........ .~.
...,.......... E......~ pa--. -.Moaa
... -..e. &tI8cIad _It. -.III ...... ...........
baIoI8.couId be clachergadOf ~d.
boy "'jIIan-"",,,,\ uaIno-"""'" -tIocI8 -_rill.
NPOES --Fl-"..-ct ........ m., be -....r.
"'''''''''''1>10. E"""",,---, -.Moaa... ,,"'1>10.
~ ..........,...... E~ pa--.-"""'"
... ........
~ be """ID ..........,., b8ceu88 en NPOES
....... II ....,............. cI8oII8f1III8 ID"""
-..
T_lad..It.-be """""ID_t Cllrof
Han- P01W ,..-...8landarda.
f"
.. , . 1 ~-.{
. .. :! .
I.Dw ID ......-
Cap8al. ......-
Cpa....... .. ...............
Mode_1D ...
ea.-. .-...-..
HW> Cpa""" ..
.........-.
Mode- c...,.
HW> Cpa""'" ..
~.
I.Dw c.,....
~ 0pareJIMa"
.......-.
I.Dw C8FItI
I.Dw 0paIaI0M ..
.........-.
.......... ~ .
Mode- 0pareJIMa"
.-.........
.......... ~
.......... ~..
."-~.flM*.
.1.Dw CapIIoI. '-
0paI8ID88 .. ..........
Mode_-HiIII' ~.
I.Dw 0paI8ID88 ..
-------
surface water/sediment remediation technologies were not evaluated.as the
this environmental med~um doe. not pose an unacceptable risk to either human
health or the environment. Even though the air pathway does not currently
present an unacceptable exposure pathway, it may pose an unacceptable risk
during the actual implementation of the Site remedy. Therefore, any.
potential adverse impact on air quality will be considered along with the
description of each individual remedial alternative in Section 10.0.
Presently, the need to control air emissions from the site during remediation
is not anticipated, however, additional information will be generated as part
of the remedial de.ign (Rn) to either confirm or rebut this perception.
9.1
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
The environmental .etting and the extent and characterization of the
contamination at the Benfield site were defined in Section 7.0. Section 8.0
highlighted the human health and environmental risks posed by the Site.
Table 16 lists the contaminants of concern present in the soil and
groundwater at the Site. This Section examines and specifies the cleanup
goals for each environmental medium adversely impacted by the contaminants
found in association with the Benfield site.
9.1.1
Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific requirement. are technology-ba.ed and establish performance,
design, or other .imilar action-specific controls or regulation. on
activities related to the management of hazardous .ubstances or pollutants.
Table 29 list. all potential action-.pecific applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARa). Tho.e marked with -RA- are relevant and
appropriate for that particular alternative.
9.1. 2
Chemical-Snecific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARa are concentration limit. e.tabli.hed by government
agencies for a number of contaminant. in the environment. Chemical-specific
ARARs can also be derived in the Ri.k As.e.sment. Tabl. 30 li.ts all of
the potential chemical-specific ARARs which may be pertinent at the Benfield
.ite. Discus.ed below L. each environmental medium investigated at the
Benfield .ite a. part of the RI and the a..ociated chemical-specific ARARs.
9.1.2.1
SoUe
The soils are considered a. two zone..
surface soils and the subsurface soils
the groundwater interface w~ich ranges
The top 12 inches are con.idered
lie below the .urface .oils down to
in depth below surface from 3-6 feet.
The risk a.sessment considered both pre.ent day conditions a. well a. two
future use .cenario.. The two future use scenarios involve construction
-101-
-------
STANJR). RIDJIBEN1'
an&M. OR I.MI'A11DN
fBJERfL
ORDUNIJWATER TlEA11EHT
fESOJRCE OONSERVA11DN AND
REIXWBW 1Cr. - 8fII8II8d8d ~
....~ cr8 Hu8dDu8....
T.wdI...... cr8 Hu8dDu8 ..... h .
UIII .
.
~
o
N
.
............ tar GIft-~..
..... TI__IlA...1IId
DIIpa88I cr8 Hu8dDu8 ....
WE IJAIICINB WATER ICr CSDWAI
Atm8y....... 0............
IM8II
aTA11DN
4D UAC- S8c11818 .. ...
4D a:R 281
4D a:R 2IMAID1
4D a:R 211150400
4D cn:I283
4D a:R 264
42 U.s.c. S8c13II01 .....
. 4D a:R 142
TABLE Z 9
ACTION-SPECIAC MARs
GROUNDWATER
ALTERNATIVE
~.o..
OWl
OWl
GVtO
GWt
G'M
OM
Fed8r8I requhmen. 1Dr . 11k.d.. IIId RA ItA ItA
!d8.-...... cr8 haanIou8 --
Ad88 IIId ........... IDr .. 1I...18n1 RA ItA ItA
01 h8Dn1au8......
RIguIdIa 8IDf8G8. -~" 8nd RA ItA ItA
............ 01....... -- Q8II-4IDI6.
fttm8y IICt. .. 8dDpIiId IDr ..
~~. of IIunwI ...... but .......
..... 01 rT ...., IIId 008t of
8I8UIIn8It.
RA
ItA
ItA .
-------
TABLE 2 9
ACTION-SPECIRC ARARa
GROUNDWATER
(continued)
ALTERNATIVE
STANIwm, REDJH:IENI'
DI1'EIM. OR lMTA110N OJA11ON DESCHPnON GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 GWI5 OM
......... o."."1MI u.lGa811 40 a:R 142 EPAh8 8110 ~ ~ RA M M
II) FA"" OlIn......... ...... Go8II (MClGI). 1118
........h- 13. 1III5J ftCW*dDfC811b18 ....d8IdI .. ..... an
..... cdIrtL 1118 MClGI - go8IIlor
... ....... .... 8UPPIr.
DI!IPOIW. - DIDWtOE TO SUfFIICE
-.I:l91'O.--
Q.EAN 81B11Cr PMI 3! U.8.c. Sect
1251.1378
. ...... UI8 of ... .L_- .... 40 a:R 122 U. of b88t . ~1Itr.. ~~, RA RA RA M
.... ,........ ,.,.~ ,.,cr) --_.~ 8I:tI8 .tbI8 .. requhd to
0
W oannI cII8c:M/g8 of Il81o ~ to
1 POIW
........ ~ DIIdI8¥ 40 O'R 122 ..... C. U. of bell ...... I8d1oIDlDot RA RA RA M
m... r ", ~ ........ Pv' - .. ....oo.~ --..tb18 lor Il81o
....... dI8dI8fg8d . . P01W.
DIIct.II8g8 ..... be 0siI I 1 ....... 40 O'R 122 ~..... ~.... EPA- RA RA RA M
RIquhm8IIiI of. -- o.a, ~ .... QI8IIy MIl........
... --I MIll Plln1f.4...8d br EllA PIIn
~ AI.IINIm8II8I'" 42 U.s.c. Sed 8801 .. ... ....... ..... ~ .... F8d8nII
~.... ' - .AdCMMt .... Q.I8Ity 0t8IItL
DIIct.II8g8 ..... .... -- S8dIan 121 tl)C'l)fI)tI) S8I8dId ........ 8dIDn .............. RA RA RA ItA
...........~ CIDI_.""'. In ..... . ......... of oannI to ....,... adIc8
...... .... .... cpI8Ity.
"
-------
I
....
~
I
STANIMRD. fEQUIEIENT
awmM. OR lMfATDt
OfA11CN
TABLE 2 9
ACTION-SPECIRC ARARa
GROUNDWATER.
(continued)
Ut:$Ctr11ON
.'
ALTERNATIVE
GW1 GW.z GYa GW4 oM: OM
RA RA RA. M
.
RA RA RA M
RA RA RA M
RA RA .' M
STATE
.
NIIrII 0IIaIN *'- a.a,......
NIIrII 0IIaIN ~ ......
~ - ,'" Dlldwg81D"""""
NIIrII 0IIaIN III fIbaIIDn 0IMaI
RiIquhm8dI .
RA- AIIIIwnI... "-.....'"
~15MB
~1M2L
~1Ma1
~15MD
&Irt8a8 *'- qu8IIty .......
~..-r ...,...........
~....
RIguI8M8 -'- -- dl8dl8rg8 8fId
cIIIdwrg88 ID POIW.
III poadIDn cannI U qu8iIy 8fId
.~....... at8nd8rdI
-------
TABLE 2 9
ACTlON-SPECtRC ARARI
SOILS
ALTERNATIVE
STAHIMAD, REaJIBoENT
awrBM. OR LMrA11DH OOA11ON DESCRP'OON SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 sse ssr
fBJEIW..
DIBPOML. TREATED ABIIIDUE
REPUaD~
IESCURCE OONBERVA11ON Mm . a u.s.c. Sed 801 .. 881
ABXWER'I M:J, - _1dId ~
''17 - - . crt...... .... 40 CJ'R.' Fed8r8I....-.. lor ' ......... 8nd M M M M M
!dell"''''' of II8DIdou8 --
l8nd ....... BIn 40 CJ'R 2118.11).12 DIpo88I of CIInt8mNt8d .. 8nd debriI M RA M M M
4OCJ'R_~Dt ....-ng from CBD.A foMpOl- IICIIon8
I .. 8UbIecI tit ....... 8nd dIIpo88I
~ pcot.-.o....
0
\J1 SOL TREATMENJ
I
RESOURCE '(DtSBWAnDH NlD 40 u.s.c. Sed .... 881
ABXWER'I M:J, - .......... ~
......- - . crt ~.... 40 a:R.' Fed8r8I ,.....1M1a lor . . .........., 8nd M RA RA M M
kM.."q"""" ~of'-d0u8--.
,......*~ crt HI.,...... .... kI . 40 a:R 314..., fW88 and ....-- for .. ,....-.,1 RA RA RA M M
IN of...... --.e.
~ for 0..."""""" 40 CJ'R 314 AIguIdIa 81Dn1Q8. "~Wb" 8nd M RA RA M
'''hop.'''', and ....... crt .....~. of hu8nIDu8 - ...........
....--. ....
l8nd DIIpo88I ~...... 40 a:R 2118.11).12 tI8IbIIII88 ,_....... ....111 for M RA RA M
4OCJ'R-~Dt huaIdDu8 --.
-------
TABLE 29
ACTlQN.SPECtRC MARs
SOILS
(continued)
ALTERNATIVE
STNOA).1WDJ8EIENf'
~ OR lMrA110N alATION DESaIPI10H SSI SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 sse 8S1
a..EM Miler
»u.,.... 4Oa:R8D(WIp81~ AiIqI*88 dO""."" 8nd pe.b.._108 RA RA RA M
redlg .".... Of CIp8I8IDI.
.. ,....... ~ ~.AA.._'" 4Oa:R8D(WIp81B) D8Ik.- ......... b p8ItIcu18t8 RA M
""b~ TedIg .......... .... 1II8I8odI, 8nd
"""""08 .............. b
kM*-.....
I !!!!!
...
o.
0'\ ...... 0IraIN HIu8dDu8.... NCM:-I5A-I3A ~ 8nd d88Ign """'181". b RA RA RA RA M
I
...--IlI8I'III"" hu8dDu8 --- TSDII.
...... 0IraIN iii ~ 0DnnI I'oICIG 1M20 iii ........ amaI.8Ir qudIy. & RA . RA M
.......... eI..... amaIaa..dI.da.
...... 0IraIN SedIII-.""'. 0DnnI 1'oICIG15M AIquhrn8dIb ..-.-. of RA RA RA AI'
.... MC8I._.""'. poIkdIan.
RA . ......... ... ..........""
-------
Table 3 0
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs
Applil:8b1rl
~ - ...... II' . Rl:te.81 ...
0tIIriI . I' . 11.. 9!!!!1 o-.~ ~IE 0-.1
~ . use SecL -
..~w..
....... ....., . (JIll .... 141 8118b1illlDll -.... '" ME.I ........ ~C8 Dc NCLI.. orpUc ... ....
DriItiIt w.. .. pIIbIie -a .,... -----.. - Idc.8I 88d ...........ioI8
... . ~ ( _""'1 ~II). .. po88dw8a .. !toe - IiIIrc iI ..
JK*8ti81 tIri8tia& -a ---
......... 50< ~I .. (JIll .... 1.0 88b1itlla ---....... NWNo Dc 8OCII8duy NCLI .. i8orp8ic
I Dd8IIc w.. ....... .. .... -a.,... -- ".~a_"Iobc
.....
0 51' . * (~J-' .. -....... "" ~.... --..-...
......
I ~).
,_ . a ' .... L "'''''.100 ~C~ ..... _tcr""" ~a ......... Na..G& .. orp8ic ad .....
LcwI Ga* SaIL 6G (1Wi) .-1Id.. ~II 01- -- w -----.. - ~ae-I ... 8pp1'011ri118111
....... ..... ..... diad. .. po88dw8tcr ......., .... ..
...... _a.
-------
SII8Iad. "-1t8£8t
QiIai8..' 0 0....
Ada8II C. ..At' ~
aa..... Ad
.... Q8dIr QiIai8
I
....
o
00
I
It..- 0............ ...
a-, Ad (RatA).-
--..
IICItA aro-t a..
~
RatA SWNU
..,It .
SaIiII .- DiIpo8I Ad
..... DiIpa8I
o~. 'A e.-:--..A- .....
. . -. O. .... ... .....,
Ad 01..- (a!R0A)
Table 3 0 (continued)
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs
~
0..... hAiu-
D IBC Sed.
12SI-ID
. (JIll"" UI
Sc. cri8ai8 for -1I:r qaaIiIJ
II8IIId - IaIiI:iIJ eo ...-18:
CII'p8i88 ad -- ---
a tBc 1!1115.
812.... 81S
. (JIll .... ..
PronIea for 8Ioo.....hr.1I:r
........~ ............ JCDCDI
---.1'IIqIIiK-- ad
8edIaiI:aI ....,.--.IIL
rro.ida for poIeC~ 01
p..-.t.-1I:r .. 8DIid .....
- . 88it.
. (JIll ....1SU-4
a use I!IDI cc...q.
.(JIIl"".
I!8I8bIilllad a .....k for
.~io.ca.. 01..... diIp8I 01
............ -laidl
AppIDbId
Rebul ad
AA8uDri88e
~a
~a
YcWNo
~a
PftMda for -..- ID ~"- Ya/Ya
.,............ ... Ide8IaI illD die
~... die cbnpol
iudM .....~ -- diIp8I
.... .
a u...e 9Il5Ol cc...q.
0.-.
nc AWQC .. ~... .......
_lIImiaata 8ft ~1cw8' ad .........~
11ac RatA Na... 8ft ~ae.a. 88iI
.....~;.8e .. poaadIra- a. die ..
N8J be applil:8bk if ~ailldid III:tia8
i8dudea ..~ .. - 0IHIi8e ...lIiIL
N8J be applil:8bk if......... 88IaidI-
cIiIpo8Dd oL
-------
I
....
~
I
~h.iH -
QiIaiIw I . -I ..
r a . 1ft.'" 1 n
~
a. AI6 Ad
......... ....., ..
~ a, A8IIir8t
Al6QIIIIiIJs--a...
. . use 1151
. CIlIa .... 51
........ .. . -
"... a..... ."
AI6 fQ8a....
(t&HAPI)
40 (]Ill"'" "
.. ....
o.~. . -I58kIJ"
---.11'" "I_~
19 DR 1910
hrt UD
.
Table 3 0 (continued)
Potential CbemicalaSpecific ARARs
~~
ScI8 ......, ... ---., air
......... ~k ID pn*d
p8I»IE -- ... .-Ii: ~Wue.
hDooidr:a ~ .... IIII8dud for
........ air ......... .. wHII
80 81111Mc81 air ..., ........,
aiIa
PnMIa 18k., noIcI .. ""1iI&
IpI:ICifiI: die.... .. .. WIOItas
..... R8IIIiII 8diori8iI:8.
Apptic8bk/
R£k¥81 ....
APIIIOIIriIK
c-I
Na(Ya
Nay be Rae-lOr appropriall: if ~
1R818a11 ... - ... of n:8IdiaI---.
Na(Ya
Nay be .ae-. 01' appropriall: if oe--*
IR8I8a1I Mill - ... of n:8IdiaI ......
Ya/No
~ ad Safe., ftJII'Iin:-.cs -
IIJIIIIiI::8bk ID .. poII:81i11 n:8IdiaI ......
-------
I
....
....
o
I
SI8IidIad. ....---
QiIr:dI - .........
....... (_rO
~
~. oIn-wa.- (DOl)
- ......MdaiIII'J'I . IlliMAd,'
!!!!!
.... 0IIaIiM W..
0--. 0I8IIaI
- ....
.... 0IIaIiM DriIIIi8a
.... Ad
!!!!!2!
. use IIDI
ISA ~28
UDA NCAC
311..117 '
Table 3 0 (continued)
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs
~~
AppIir:Ibkl
R&le.al ad
~Ie
"lata air" ~..... 01 YaINo
...-"--" ----.. ad
.....
1!18111 r ~ -ta qaaIiIJ
Ieqj""". 8J1111i1:8b1e ID 811
IIUf8a: -&as 01 Nor6 0tmIiI8
.... pIOIIId ...,Iie ..... -
Ik~..
RepIIa _ta .,.- widlilllIIC
Slale .... ....., ........ W8Ia
.... .., ... IIIC pIIbIie IIcaIIIL
Yu/Yea
NWYea
0-.1
........ ... baIpoIt 01--""'"
-- oe... -~ III"""
8I:tMtiea 81 die ...
Guide... .. aIboIble kw:.. of lID
...-"" iDorpIIk ~. ill 8d8a:
-ta 8ftI:I' 8 diIdIaJc . .... .... .
-iwiDa-
...,.... IIIC Stale widllbe nlbori8J .......
ID _me primaJy~1
.-..--i>iIiIJ II8Ib die" WaaI Ki.
-------
.
~
~
....
.
!-I ~W'\ .......
0rtIaiI car I' "'"
s- {'I1'W'"
n
..... 0II0aIM DriItiIc .... ...
0... ~.- r- . .
..... ~ SaM'" I""
r..I. 1 Ad
. ... w-
..... 0IIaIiM a.--. ~ A.
&...b. till ..".- Ad
~
~
Table 3 0 (continued)
Potential Chemical-Specific ARARs
0..-......
Applir:ablcl
IteIc.DI 8811
~.
ISA NCAC o.p.r 1L
130 A NCAC
UIIt\
310.1-310.23
Blllblilka ~a
cl88lific81io8 ... -a .....,
..........
Ya/No
0-.
G.idcliDcs lor allonblc ~.. of III8iI:
orpIIic ... i80rpaic ~ f.
po88don8cr alia a c8iIdI.arJIc.
-------
... activities and inhabitance of residential dwellings on the Si1te., Based on
the 'risk a8se8.me~t findings,' neither surficial nor subsurface aoi18,pose an
unacceptable risk to human health. Under current conditions, the greatest
cumulative risk to the exposure to contam~nated surficial soils is for a
trespasser at 6.9 x 10.7. Under future conditions, the greates~cumulative
risk to the exposure to surficial soil is 4.1 x 10-6 for a child living on
the Site. There is no current cumulative risk associated with the subsurface
. soils as there are no complete exposure pathways. Under future conditions,
the greatest cumulative risk to the exposure to contaminated subsurface soils
is 3.9 x 10-6 for a construction worker. The cumulative Hazard Index to
the exposure to either surficial or subsurface soils is less than one (1).
As specified in the Administrative Record, the levels of contaminants in the
unsaturated BoilB will continue to adversely impact the quality of the
groundwater above ARAR8 for an estimated ,200 years. Therefore, soil
remediation goals, based on the ability of these contaminants to migrate
through the soilB and leach into the underlying groundwater, were developed.
The remediation levels were generated by the -Hultimedia Leaching- model. In
comparing the remediation goals based on leachability to the remediation
goals to protect human health to a risk level of 1 x 10-6, the heal~h based
cleanup goal for benzo-A-pyrene was more protective than the leachability
remediation goal and was therefore included in ~able 31. ~able 31
presentB the remediation goals for contaminants in the unsaturated soils.
9.1.2.2
Groundwater
As stated earlier, the groundwater at the Benfield
'Class GA by the State and Class IIB by BPA. Since
potential source of drinking water, it needs to be
protective of public health and the environment.
site is designated as
this groundwater is a
remediated to a level
The Safe Drinking Water Act and North carolina Administrative Code, Title 15,
Subchapter 2L (NCAC T15a02L.0202) establish max~ concentration levels
(HCLs) and non-zero III&X~ contaminant level. goals (HCLGs) for numerous
C?rganic and inorganic conatituents. Por contaminants that do not have either
a Pederal or State cleanup goal, ri8k ba8ed remediation goals numbers were
calculated. The cleanup goals , to be obtained at the Benfield site along with
the source for the .tated goal. are .hown in ~Ble 32. The most stringent
State or Federal requirement. were included in this table.
9.1.2.3
Surface Water8
The RI determined that Browning Branch i. not currently being adver.ely
impacted by the Site. Therefore surface waters are not in violation of the
Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC, BPA, 1986) or the State of
North carolina Water Quality Standard8. These ARAR8 protect human health and
aquatic organisms. However, becau8e there i8 a potential for contaminated
groundwater to naturally discharge to Browning Branch, additional aurface
water 8amples will be collected from Browning Branch and analyzed during the
-:112-
-------
TABLE 31 SOIL REMEDIATION LEVELs
Maximum Soil Soil Source for
Contaminant Concentration Remediation Remediation
(mg/kg) Level (mg/kg) Level
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
Carcinogenic PABs
Benzo(A)Anthracene 33.0 0.8 L
Benzo-A-Pyrene 14.0 0.3 H
BenzO(B and/or X)Fluoranthene 31.0 1.6 L
Chry.ene 23.0 1.6 L
Indeno (1,2,3-CD)Pyrene 5.1 2.8 L
Naphthalene 120.0 10.0 L
Pentachlorophenol 19.0 1.0 L
H -- Remediation Goal to Achieve a Cancer Ri.k of 1 x 10-'
L -- Remediation Goal to Protect Groundwater from Concentrations Above
Groundwater ARARs
RD and if warranted, during the Remedial Action (RA) pha.e. Thi. additional
data will allow the quality of this stretch of Browning Branch to be
monitored. If level. of contaminant. detected exceed those provided
~abl. 33, then additional inve.tigation of Browning Branch will be
warranted (refer to Section 11.3)
If determined to be neee..ary in the RD, any di.charge of water to Browning
Branch will meet the .ub.tantive requirement. of a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Sy.tem (NPDES) discharge permit.
9.1.2.4
Sedimen~
There are no promulgated Pederal or State quality .tandard. for .ediment.,
however, guideline. developed by the National Oceanic and Atmo.pheric
Admini.tration (BOAA) are deemed -To Be Con.idered- (TBC) are li.ted in
~able 34. Bo Site related contaminant. were detected in the .ediment
down.tream of the Site in Browning Branch, but a. di.cu..ed in Section 7.3,
elevated level. of PAB. were detected in a .edim8nt .ample collected beneath
a railroad bridge cro..ing Browning Branch. The railroad bridge i.
con.tructed of creo.ote treated railroad tie.. The Hazard Indice. under
-113-
-------
.~
TABLE 32 GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION LEvELS .
Maximum Remediation Source
Contaminant Concentration Level
Detected (ug/l) (ug/l)
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Benzene 20 5 A
Chlorobenzene 100 100 A
1,2-Dichloropropane 6 0.56 C
Vinyl Chloride 53 0.015 C
Total xy1enes 1,800 400 C
SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS.
Carbazole 380 5 D
Carcinogenic PARs.
Benzo(B and/or K)Fluoranthene 63 0.2 B
Benzo(A)Anthracene 17 0.1 B
Ben,zo-A-pyrene 31 0.2 A
chrysene 56 0.2 B
Indeno (1,2,3-CD)Pyrene . 12 0.4 B
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 6 1.8 C
Naphthalene 2,500 100 D
Pentachlorophenol 89 1 A
INORGANICS
Antimony 83 6 A
Barium 8,100 1,000 C
Beryllium 15 4 A
Chromium 740 50 C
Lead 380 15 E
Manganese 18,.000 50 C
Nickel 380 100 A
Vanadium 1,100 200 D
.
SOURCES OF SPECIFIED REMEDIATION GOAL
A - MCL
B - Proposed MCL, Phase V Rule
C - State Groundwater Quality Standards (NCAC 15-2L.0202)
D - Health-Based Remediation Goal (Protective to 10.')
E - EPA, Region IV Bstablished Action Level
-114-
-------
current and future expo.ure .cenario. i..le,. than or equal to 8.1 x 10-2.
The greate.t carcinoq~nic cumulative ri.k under current conditions i.
3.8 x 10-1 and 4.2 x 10-1 under future conditions. Thi. ri.k is within
the Agency" acceptable risk range of 10-4 to 10-1, therefore the
sedim8nt in this area will not be remediated. '
Additional sediment .ample. will be collected in a.sociation with the surface
water .amples discu.sed above. If the concentration of contaminant. detected
in the sediment exceed the levels li.ted in Table 34, then additional,
inve.tigation of Browning Branch will be warranted (refer to Section 11.3)
TABLE 33 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR SURFACE WATER
Chemical permi.sible Level.
ORGANICS
Benzene 71.4 ug/l
PABs 0.0311 ug/l
Vinyl Chloride 525 ug/l
INORGANICS
Barium 1,000 ug/l
Beryllium 6.5 ug/l
Chromium (total) 50 ug/l
Lead 25 ug/l
Mangane.e 50 ug/l
Nickel 88 ug/l
* - Fre.hwater Quality Standard. Obtained
from North Carolina Admini.trative Code,
~itle lSA, Subchapter 2B (NCAC T15AaQ2B)
9.1.3
Location-Snecific ARAR.
Location-.pecific ARAR8 are de.ign requirement. or activity re.triction.
ba.ed on the geographical and/or phy.ical po.ition. of the Site and it.
.urrounding area. The.e requirement. and/or re.triction.can be .tipulated
by Federal, State, or local government.. Table 35 li.t. the
location-.pecific ARAR8 that apply at the Benfield .ite.
-115-
-------
,~
'.
TABLE 34
SCREENING CRITERIA FOR SEDIMENT
Chemical
Permissible Level.
(NOAA ER-L/ER-M)
,'.
ORGANICS
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(A)Anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Dibenzo (A, H) Anthracene
0.225/1.38 mg/kg
0.085/0.96 mg/kg
0.6/3.6 mg/kg
0.35/2.2 mg/kg
0.23/1.6 mg/kg
0.4/2.8 mg/kg
0.4/2.5 mg/kg
0.06/0.26 mg/kg
I NORGANICS
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
70/390 mg/kg
35/110 mg/kg
30/50 mg/kg
120/270 mg/kg
* - Guidelines developed by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to protect
aquatic life
BR-L (Effects Range-Low)
ER-M (Effects Range-Median)
9 . 2 ImMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS SOIL CONTAMINATION
Seven (7) alternatives were developed to address 80il contamination at the
Site. They are 118t below&
Alternative S81&
Alternative 8S2 &
Alternative 8S3&
Alternative SS4&
Alternative 855&
Alternative S56&
Alternative S57&
NO Action
RCRA Cap
80il Washing/Slurry Biotreatment
801vent Extraction
On-site Incineration
In-Bitu Bioremediation
Off-Bite Incineration
-116-
-------
Table 3 5
Potential Location - Specific ARARs
Applicablt'J
Standard, Requiremenl Rc:levanl and
Crileria or I .imi~bon Cilabon OescrioooD ADDf"ODriate Commenl
federal
Resource Coasenabon 42 use 6901
and Reawery Ad (as amended)
Location
-------
I-
Table S 5 (continued)
Potential Location-Specific ARARs
Applicablu
StaDdard. RequiremeDt Relevant and
Criteria or l.imit8tioa Ot8Pon . DescriPtion AporoPriate Comment
. Federal (_linued\
P.JHb..cd Species Ad 16 use 1531 Requires adion to conserve NWNo No threatened or endangered
endangued species or species or aitical habitats were
threatened species, identified in or Dear the site.
. induding consultation with
t-A the Department or Interior.
t-A
00
. OC8D Water Ad 33 use Sed. 1251
Dredge or FaD 40 CFR 230 Requires permit for NWNo No aJrernative will be devdopcd
Requiremcnts . discharge of dredged or 6ll which will discharge dredge or fill
(SediOD 4(4) material into aquatic material into an aquatic
environment. environment.
RMn and Harbors 33 use Sed. 403 Requires permit for NWNo No alternative involves work that
Ad of 1889 structures or work in or would affed a navigable watuway.
SediOD 10 permit afl'cding navigable watus.
-------
Table 3 5 (continued)
Potential Location-Specific ARARs
ApplkablcJ
Staadard. Requirement Relevant and
Criteria or I ~mitaboa Citaboa DcsaiDtion ApproPriate Comment
federal (c:oatiDucd}
Area must be administered NcVNo No wilderness areas exist onsite or
Walderaess Ad 16 use 1311 in such a way as will leave it adjacent to Lbe site.
unimpaired as wilderness
and will prescne it as a
I wilderness.
~
~ National Wddlife 16 use ti68 Restricts activiLies wilhin NcVNo No wildlife refuge areas exit onsite
\0
I Refuge System SO CFR 1:7 NaLionai Wildlife Refuge. or adjacenl 10 Ihe sile.
~
North Carolina SedimeDtabon
Pollutioa Coatrol Ad
Geaer"al Statistics d
North Carolina,
Ch8pter 113A. Artide 4
Establishes mandat()fY
standards for control or
sedimentation and erosion
in streams aDd lakes.
NcVNo
No aJlernaLive will be developed
whicb discharges sediment ioto
stream.
-------
""
9.2.1
SSll
No Action
.The No Action alternative is included, as required by CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), to serve as a ba~eline for comparing the benefits
achieved through the other source control measures. Under the DO action
alternative, the Site would be left -as is- and no monitoring, control,
treatment, or any other tyPe remedial activity would occur at the Site.
A slight reduction in the levels of contamination may occur over time through
natural process, however, the contaminants in the soil would continue to
contribute contamination of the groundwater above groundwater cleanup goals
for up to 200 years. Short-term effectiveness presents no additional risks
to public health or'the environment. This alternative would not
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the
contaminants.
Contaminated Site soils do not pose an unacceptable risk to either human
health or the environment under current or potential future conditions,
however, unless the levels of contamination are not reduced to those
specified in Table 31, groundwater will be adversely impacted above
groundwater cleanup goals for the next 200 years.
The No Action alternative could be readily implemented, and would not hinder
any future remedial actions. There are no construction or operation and
maintenance (OrcH) costs associated with this alternative, therefore, the
total present worth (PW) costs is zero.
Capital CoStSI
PW OrcH Costs:
Total PW CoStSI
$
s
$
o
o
o
Time to Implementl
Estimated Period of operation I
None
30 years
9.2.2
Alternative SS2:
RCRA CaD
Thi8 alternative r.quir.. the eonstruction of a RCRA multi-layer cap over the
contaminated soi18 and the installation of surface drainage controls. This
. alternative also involV8s the implementation of institutional controls to
help prevent direct: .contact and incidental inge.tion of contaminated soil by
the general public. The institutional controls consist of maintaining the
6-foot chain-linked .ecurity fence installed around the Site during the RI
and diaplayin; warning .ign. in obvious locations to alert .the public of
POtential hazard8. Puture u.. of the property would also be limited by the'
application of deed r..trictioft8. state and lqcal agencies would be
responsible for the implementation and enforcement of these restrictions.
The RCRA multi-layer cap would consist of the following layers in ascending
order I a den.ely compacted 2 foot-thick clay layer placed over the
contaminated soils, a synthetic polyethylene liner of at least 30 mils in
-120-
-------
thickne.. on top of the clay layer, a synthetic drainage layer over the
synthetic liner along with a geotextile fabric to prevent clogging of t~e
drainage layer, and fiDally, 18 inches of native .oil and 6 inches of
top-soil on top of the geotextile fabric. A vegetative cover of native grass
would be established to minimize cap erosion. Pigure 18 provides a p~an
and cro.s-sectional view of the cap.
Since heavy earth moving and grading equipment would be used, dust control
measures would be needed to minimize short-term potential release of airborne
particulates and fugitive dust. Surface drainage channels would be
constructed around the perimeter of the cap to collect surface runoff and
water from the drainage layer. The collected water would be drained into
Browning Branch. This alternative would only reduce the mobility of the
contaminants and would not reduce either the toxicity or volume of the
hazardous substances present at the Site. And since hazardous materials will
be left on-site, the long-term effectiveness and permanence of this
alternative would be reviewed every five years as required by Section 121(c)
of CERCLA.
The risks associated with this Site will be reduced by eliminating the
potential for the public to come into direct contact with contaminated soil.
However, due to the seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater level, this
alternative would not be protective of groundwater due to this -flushing-
action. No special implementation requirements or treatability studies are
anticipated in order to implement this alternative.
Capital eoStSI
PW O&H eosts:
Total PW eoStSI
$867,700
S 45.200
$912,900
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operationl
4 months
30 years
9.2.3
Alternative SS31
Soil Washina/Slurrv Biotreatment
This alternative involves the microbial degradation to destroy the
contaminants in the soil. Prior to biotreatlD8nt, the contaminated soil will
be excavated, separated and sized, and washed. The washing process will
reduce the volume of contaminated soil to be remediated through the
bioreactor.
Soil washing will generate two primary effluentsl clean coarse fraction of
soils (sand, gravel and cobbles) and a slurry containing the soil fines
(silt, clay, and organic matter). As the majority of the contamination in
the soil is associated with the amaller soil particles, the slurry will be
transferred to a biolO9ical treatment system where bacteria will destroy the
contaminants. Following confirmation sampling, coarse soil fraction and the
treated soil fines will be replaced in the on-site excavations, graded, and
revegetated. Any remaining hazardous waste residual will be disposed of at
-121-
-------
JL . '
i
--. It
~, . r
~ -- G, \~
~
~ 2 to 5% SLOPE
I -
~, ~
CROSS-SECTION
[,
PLAN VIEW
~
V///J
,[=J
RCRft CAP COVERftGE. CROSS-SECTION
,AREA OF CONTAMINATION
GEOTEXTILE " ", , ' D
::::~:TIC ~7U~~;'7',7\07' ~~~1¥6p~glt. 2 H
DRAINRGE NET......-- ~':,' ,'",' --------1'",' ' COMPACTED
30 ..i I HDPE~'" , " " , CLAY. 2 ft
LINER "', " " @ IxIO.' cm/S
PERMEABILITY
, \\~ \~ . .
~~~T~~~~~j:~E~DJL
1SlUDGE
NOT TO SClIlE
LEGEND:
RCRA CAP
PLAN VIEW and CROSS-SECTION
Al TERNA T,) VE SS2
BENFIELO INDUSTRIES
HAZELHOOD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
18
-------
an off-site, RCRA-permitted hazardous waste facility. The facility will need
to be in compliance. The Water contaminated by the washing system" will be
treated through the groundwater treatment system. .
This alternative will reduce the current risk presented by the contaminated
soils by reducing the T.MV of the contaminants in the soils. By obtaining the
soil cleanup goals specified in Table 31, the underlying groundwater will
also be protected so that MCLs for these contaminants are not exceeded.
In addition to the need for confirmation sampling, surface water runoff and
fugitive dust emissions would need to be monitored and potentially controlled
during implementation of this alternative. Confirmation sampling will
include TCL/TAL analyses and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). .
Treatability studies are needed to determine if additives will enhance the
desorptive ability of the washing solution as well to define the optimal
operationing conditions for the slurry bioreactor.
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$1,775,340
S 45.260
$1,820,600
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of operation:
12 months
4 months
9.2.4
Alternative SS4:
Solvent Extraction
This alternative treats the contaminated soil using a solvent or solvents to
extract the contaminants of concern. Prior to solvent extraction, the
contaminated .oil will be excavated and separated by .ize. In the mixing
tank, the contaminated .oil is blended with the .olvent. Following mixing,
the cleaned soil and .olvent are separated with the .olvent being reused.
Following confirmation sampling, the cleaned soil will be backfilled into the
excavated areas, graded and revegetated.
This alternative will .chieve the same benefit. and degree of protection .s
Alternative SS3 .s well as remediate the .ame volume of .oil. In addition to
the need for confirmation .ampling, .urface water runoff, fugitive du.t
emission., and .olvent "emi.sions would need to be monitored and controlled.
Confirmation .ampling will include TCL/TAL analy.e. and TCLP.
Is.ues to be re.olved in the RD include, determining the type(.) and volume
of solvent. needed, if .ir emi..ions control apparatus are needed, and
determine the mo.t co.t efficient manner to di.po.e of the .pent .olvent.
following completion of the .oil remediation proce...
-123-
-------
Capital Costss
. PW O&H .Costs i . .
Total 1"W Costss
.$2,308,000
~ 45.200
$2,353,200
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
12 months
6 months
9..2. 5
Alternative SS5:
On-site Incineration
This alternative involves excavation and incineration of the contaminated
soils in an on-site mobile incinerator and will achieve the same of level
protection of public health and the environment as Alternatives 5S3 and S54.
The incinerator destroys the organic contaminants in the soil. If
concentrations of metals in the treated soils become too high, then these
soils will be stabilized/fixated/solidified prior to replacing the soil back
into the excavation areas. TCLP tests will be conducted on the ash prior to
placement back in the excavated areas.
Initially, two treatability studies will be conducted during the RD. First,
a trail test burn and sec~ndly, a study to determine if contaminated cobbles
can be decontaminated to the appropriate cleanup goals. A third treatability
study will be needed if ash from the incinerator f8ils the TCLP test. If
this occurs, a treatability study will be needed to optimize the chemicals to
stabilized/fixated/solidified the ash prior to placement. The need to
control 8urface water runoff and fugitive emissions during excavation would
also be evaluated in the RD.
Capital Costs:
PW O&H Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$6,450,300
S 45.200
$6,495,500
Time to Implements
Estimated Period of Operations
8 months
4 months
9.2.6
Alternative SS6s
In-situ Bioremediation
This alternative employ. the use of microorganisms to bioremediate the
contaminated soil in pllLce. The contact between hazardous compounds and the
microbes would be enhanced by periodically flooding the soil with a nutrient/
oxygen rich solution. This solution will help create the appropriate
environmental conditions for the microbiological destruction of the targeted
contaminants. By alternately flooding and draining the soil, the indigenous
microbial population i. supplied with the water and atmospheric oxygen needed
to degrade the cont.I"t nants. Treated groundwater will be used to supply the
flood water.
Given sufficient time, this alternative will achieve similar levels of 'l'MV
reduction as do Alternatives 5S3, 5S4, and SS5, however, this alternative
will take an estimated 3 years to achieve these goals.
-124-
-------
Issue. to be resolved in the RD include a treatability study to ~~ize
the watering and nutrient schedule as well as the nutrients to be added and
the necessity to control surface water runoff.
capital COsts:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$1,020,100
S 45,200
$1,065,300
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
4 months
3 years
9.2.7
Alternative SS7:
Off-site Incineration
This alternative will achieve the same degree of proteCtion as SS5 but there
is an added short-term risk associated with this alternative as contaminated
soils will need to be transported to the RCRA-permitted off-site incineration
facility. The final disposal of the incinerated soil ash will be the
responsibility of the incineration facility. The excavated areas will be
backfilled with clean soil, graded, and revegetated.
A trail burn will need to be conducted during the RD. Surface water runoff
and fugitive dust emissions would also need to be monitored and potentially
controlled.
Capital costs:
PW O&M costs:
Total PW COsts:
$14,096,800
S 45,200
$14,142,000
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
4 month.
6 months
9.3
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO ADDUSS GROUNDWATER CONTAKINATION
Eight (8) alternatives were developed to addre.s groundwater contamination at
"the Site. They are listed below:
Alternative GWl:
Alternative GW2:
Alternative OW3:
Alternative GW4A:
No action
,Restrict Groundwater Ose and Monitor
Groundwater COntainment/Surface Water Di.charge
Extraction, Above-ground Bioremediation, Surface
Discharge
Extraction, Above-qround Bioremediation, POTW
Discharge
Extraction, UV/OX, Surface Water Discharge
Extraction, UV/OX, PO'1'W "Discharge
Extraction, Above-ground Treatment/In-Situ
Bioremediation
Water
Alternative GW4B:
Alternative GWSA:
Alternative GWSB:
Alternative GW6:
-125-
-------
.~
9.3.1
Alternative GW1:
No action
, ,
. . . '"" .'.
The No Action alternative is'included, as required, to serve 'as a baseline
for comparing the benefits achieved by the other groundwater remediation
alternatives. No cleanup activities are implemented to remediate the
groundwater adversely impacted by past Site activities. The implementation
of this remedy could begin immediately and would have no negative impact on
future remedial actions.
A slight reduction in the levels of contamination may occur over time through
natural processes, however, the levels in the groundwater would remain above
the groundwater cleanup goals for up to 70 years. Although there is no
current unacceptable risk associated with the contaminated groundwater, this
situation would change immediately if a potable well was instalied near the
Site. The reason there is no current risk is because nobody in the vicinity
of the Site is using the groundwater as a source of drinking water. However,
if a potable well was installed in or near the plume, the risk would increase
to 3.1 x 10-s. Since this alternative does not involve any treatment or
other remedial action, the r~uction in the THY of the contaminated
groundwater at the Site would result from natural processes.
There are no capital costs associated with this alternative, however, O&M
costs would be incurred since hazardous materials would be left on-site and
Section 121(c) of CBRCLA requires long-term effectiveness and permanence
reviews every five years when hazardous materials are left at a site.
Capital Costs:
PW O&M ,Costs:
Total PW CoSt8:
$ 0
S 70.000
$ 70,000
Time to Implement:
Bstimated Period ,of Operation:
None
30 years
9.3.2
Alternative GW2:
Restrict Groundwater Use and Monitor
~nder this alternative, institutional controls will be implemented,
re8tricting the u.e of the groundwater in the vicinity of the Site. The
institutional contro18 include deed re8triction8 and not iS8uing any well
drilling permits for new wells on properties which may be impacted by the
contaminated groundwater plume. Thi8 would prevent future use of the aquifer
for such purpo8e8 a8 potable and industrial water supplies, irrigation,
washing, etc. State and local governments would be responsible for imposing
and enforcing these restrictions.
Periodic .ampling of the groundwater would take place in order to monitor
change8 in both cont.aminant concentrations as well as defining the migration
of the plume. The need for additional'monitoring and the frequency of the
sample monitoring would be resolved in the RD.
-126-
-------
Capital eosts:
PW O&H COsts:
Total PW COsts:
$120,800
S1l5,000
$235,800
TLme to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
12 months
30 years
9.3.3
Alternative GW3:
Groundwater Containment/Surface Water Discharae
This alternative involves installing extraction wells downqradient of the
contami.nant plume in addition to the activities included under Alternative
GW2. Two (2) extraction wells PUmping at a rate 3 gallons per minute (gpm)
each should be able to produce a hydraulic barrier to control contaminant
migration as well as capture the contaminants. The extracted groundwater
would be discharged to Browning Branch following treatment. The discharged
effluent would meet the substantiative requirements of a NPDES permit. The
point of compliance for this alternative would be the extent the plume as
traveled in the aquifer. .
The treatment train for the extracted groundwater would consist of a
pre-treatment step to remove iron and manganese, an ion exchange unit to
remove heavy metals, and a polishing step to remove any organic
contaminants. A granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption unit would be
used as the organic contaminant polishing step.
The following work/information will need to be performed/generated in the
RD: additional groundwater modeling and aquifer testing, a treatability
study to size the groundwater treatment equipment, and a determination of how
to dispose of waste stream. generated by the RA. Additional hydrogeological
information is needed to insure the extraction wells will accomplish their
goals. Sludge generated by the aeration step is typically non-hazardous.
The waste stream created by the regeneration of the ion-exchange resin and
the spent GAC are both typically considered hazardous.
Capital COsts:
PW ~ COatat
Total PW COsts:
$ 465,000
S 877,700
$1,342,700
Time to Impl_nta .
Bstimated Period of Operation:
6 months
30 years
9.3.4
Alternative GW4Aa
Water Discharae
Extraction. Above-around Bioremediation. Surface
Thia alternative involves installing extraction wells throughout the
contaminant plume to actively extract groundwater for treatment as well aa
the activities discussed in Alternative GW2. Five (5) extraction wells
pumping at a rate 3 qpm are anticipated to obtain the remedial action
objective of thia alternative. The extracted groundwater would be diacharged
-127-
-------
,~ to Browning Branch following treatm,!,nt. The discharged efflu~nt would meet
.the's\11)stantiative reqUirements of a'NPDES permit. The point, of compiiance'
for this alternative ls the entire Site.
The treatment train for the extracted groundwater would consist of a
pre-treatment step to remove iron and manganese, an ion exchange unit to
remove heavy metals, submerged fixed film reactors (SFFRs) to provide primary
. organic removal, and a po~ishing step to remove any residual organic
contaminants. A GAC adsorption' unit would be used as the organic contaminant
polishing step.
Effluent will be discharged to Browning Branch and monitored to insure
compliance with NPDES discharge requirements.
The following information will be generated in the RDI additional
groundwater modeling and aquifer testing to insure the extraction wells will
accomplish their goals, evaluate adequacy of existing groundwater monitoring
system and install additional monitoring wells if necessary, a treatability
study to size the equipment to treat the extracted groundwater, and decide on
what to do with the typically non-hazardous sludge generated by the aeration
step, the typically hazardous waste stream created by the regeneration of the
ion-exchange resin, the generally non-hazardous organic sludge from the
SP'FRs, and the spent GAC.
Capital Costs I
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
$ 819,300
S1.172.700
$1,992,000
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
6 months
30 years
9.3.5
Alternative GW4B: Extraction. Above-around Bioremediation. Publiclv
Owned Treatment Works lPOTW) Discharae
Alternative GW4B is identical to Alternative GW4A, except for the discharge
option and the need for the polishing step. tJnder this alternative, treated.
groundwater will be di.charged to the City of Waynesville POTW, instead of
Browning Branch. Because the water will be further treated by the POTW, the
need for the organic po~i.hing step may be deleted. The actual on-site
treatment requirement. will be dictate4 by the pretreatment standards
established by the Waynesville POTW. tJser fees, based on the discharqe rate,
will be required to di.charge to the POTW. The effluent will be monitored to
assure compliance with the pretreatment .tandards established by the PO'1'W.
Capital Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs t
$ 667,400
S1. 166. 100
$1,833,500
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
6 months
30 years'
-128-
-------
9.3.6
Alternative GW5A:
Extraction. uv/ox. Surface Water Discharae
The only difference between this alternative and Alternative GW4A is the
technology to provide the primary treatment for the organics in the extracted
groundwater. Under this alternative, an ultra-violet/oxidation (UV/OX)
process will provide the permanent destruction of the organic contaminants of
concern. To assure compliance with NPDES discharge requirements, the
effluent will be monitored. The point of compliance, the need for
treatability .tudies, and level of protection obtained by this alternative is
the .ameas for Alternative GW4A.
Capital costs:
PW O&H co.ts:
Total PW costs:
$ 699,600
51.486.600
$2,186,200
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
6 months
30 years
9.3.7
Alternative GW5B:
Extraction. uv/ox. POTW Discharae
The only difference between this alternative and Alternative GW4B is the
technology to provide the primary treatment for the organics in the extracted
groundwater. Under this alternative, an UV/OX proce.. will provide the
permanent de.truction of the organic contaminant. of concern. To assure
compliance with the pretreatment discharge requirement. e.tabli.hed by the
POTW, the effluent will be monitored. The point of compliance, the need for
treatability studies, and level of protection obtained by this alternative is
the .ame as for Alternative GW4B.
Capital co.ts:
PW O&H co.ts:
Total PW CO.t.:
$ 646,200
51. 547.900
$2,194,100
Time tc? Implement:
Estimated Period of Operation:
6 month.
30 year.
9.3.8
Alternative GW6:'
Bioremediation
Extraction. Above-around Treatment/In-Situ
Alternative GW6 combine. in-.itu bioremediation with above-qround treatment.
The proce.. involve. extractinq contaminated qroundwater (identical to
Alternative. GW4A, GW48, GW5A, and GW58) and pumpinq the cOntaminated
groundwater to an on-.ite treatment facility (a. de.cribed in Alternative
GW4A). The treatment con.i.t. of pretreatment (aeration), heavy metal.
removal (ion exchanqed), biotreatment (SJ'lI'R), and qranular activated carbon
adsorption for poli.hinq. The treated effluent then flow. to a holdinq tank
where hyclroqen peroxide and nutrients are added prior to reintroducing the
water back into the aquifer in the upgradient portion of the Site. The
nutrient enriched water reintroduced into the underlying aquifer will promote
and enhance indigeneous microorganism. to degrade contaminants in-.itu.
-129-
-------
.". This alternative provides three additional benefits that none of the previous
.groundwater alt;ern.ative~ provide: destruction of the contaminant fraction,
that is uncoverabie using standard pumping methods (in-situ bioremediation),
'creation of a flushing action by reintroducing the extracted groundwater back
into the aquifer upgradient of the Site,' .and. achievement of the groundwater
~leanup goals in a more timely fashion. '
Several additional treatability studies will need to be conducted in addition
. to the treatability studies called for under Alternative GW4A. They include
identifying and optimizing the necessary concentrations of nutrients to be
added and determining what percentage of the treated groundwater can be
re-introduced back into the aquifer. It is anticipated that 100 percent of
the extracted groundwater will be reintroduced back into the aquifer;
however, it may be necessary to discharge up to 25 percent to either Browning
Branch (meeting the substantiative requirements of a NPDES permit), or to the
Waynesville POTW meeting their pretreatment requirements.
Capi.tal CoStSI
PW O&H Costs:
Total PW Co8tSI
$ 880,200
S 379.100
$1,259,300
Time to Implement:
Estimated Period of Operationl
6 months'
5 years
10.0
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 9.0 describes the remedial alternatives that were considered in the
detailed analysis of alternatives. This section summarizes the detailed
evaluation of these remedial alternatives in accordance to the nine (9)
criteria sPecified in the RCP. 'labl. 36 quantitatively summa.rizes the
comparative analY8is.
10.1
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
.;[n order for an alternative to be eligible for .election, it must be
protective of both human health and the environment and comply with ARARa,
unless either one or both of the8e requirements are waived. If an
. alternative fail. to protect human health or the environment, or does not
comply with ARARa, then this alternative cannot be selected. Below is a
di8cussion of the 8cr_ned alternatives in comparison with these two
threshold criteria.
10.1.1
OVerall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Thi. criterion as.e..e. the alternatives to determine whether they can
adequately protect human health and the environment from unacceptable risks
posed by the contamination at the Site. This assessment considers 'both the
short-term and long-term time frames.
-130-
-------
TABLE 3 6
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTAMINATED SOILS
I
~
Lv
\-0
I
Criteria Ratina (a) Present Worth
Pro88CtIa'I d Long Term Reduction In
Human He"'" Eftectlveness Toxicity, Cost SensitivitY
- . end the .~anc:e end MobIlity, Shof1-Term (b)' (t;)
.
wtIh ' ess I I
591 No AcIIon 0 0 0 0 nl8 nl8 $0 - -
SS2 RCM Cap 2 2 2 1 4 5 $912,900 $314,300 -
SS3 SIuny BlOtreatm8nt 5 5 5 5 5 5 $1,820,mo $996,400 -
SS4 Solvent Extr8cIon 5 5 5 5 5 5 $2,353,200 $935,800 $3,073,500
SSS Onlltt.lnaneratlon 5 5 5 5 5 5 $6,495,500 $2,267,mo -
sse In SItu Bloremeddon 3 4 4 4 3 4 $1,065,300 $864,400 $1,608,aJO
551 0ftSt. Incineration 5 5 5 5 5 5 $14,142,000 $4 .143,m -
(a) A ranking o' "O.lndcal8s complete noncompliance with clUeita while a ranking o' IS"lndcates complete complance.
(b) Estimate assumes a reduced volume and area o' contamlnalon due to reduced remedal goals of exp-6 cancer Itsk faC?tor.
(c) Esdmate assumes treament requrementsln adddon to those oltglnaJly eslmated.
-------
TABLE 3 6
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS SUMMARY
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
I
......
W
N
I
Criteria Ratina (a) Present Worth
Protection ~ Lmg Term Reduction 10
HumlnHeel1h Effectlvene88 TadcI1y, ' Cost Sensitivity
..- end the Complence end MobIlity, Sha1-Term (b) (c)
. with .nrt
GW1 No AcIIon 0 0 0 0 ria ria $0 - - I
GW2 UN R...1cdan8 2 1 2 0 2 2 $235,800 - ..' $353,700
OW3 Cont8tnment 3 2 2 2 3 5 $1,342,700 $633, 1 00 $1,.000
GWo4A 8k*... SW DI8ch.ge 4 5 4 4 4 4 51,mOOO $659,800 ~849,300
GWo48 Bk*.. POTW OIach 4 5 4 4 4 5 S1,883.5OO $659,800 ~575.400
I
GW5A WOX SW DI8ch.ge 4 5 4 4 4 4 SZ 188,200 $659,800 ~654,OOO
GWSB lMOX POTW DllCtwga 4 5 4 4 .. 5 $Z 194,100 $659,800 '~911,200
.
GW81n-Sftu B~emedl81Ion 5 5 5 5 5 3 $1,259,300 - $1,830.400
(a) A ranldng of .0. Indcates complete noncompliance with cdterta w~le a ranking of .5. Indcates complet,e compliance.
(b) Estimate assumes that local POTW will accept untreated discharge from site.
(c) E slmate assumes that ~ume volume Is twice as large as that predcted ~ computer model.
Number a' extradion wells were doubled to Insure containment a' ~ume.
-------
1.8 dOC\dMtnted in the risk a..e88m.mt, Site Boils and the .ediment ~n Browning
Branch do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health under either current
or future conditions at the Site. Bowever, Site soils will continually
adversely impact the quality of the underlying groundwater above MCL8 for the
next 200 years. Therefore, the potential risk due to Site soils is ~o the
groundwater through the leaching of contaminants from the soil into the
groundwater.
Alternative S5l (no action) is protective of human health and the environment
under current conditions I however this alternative may not be protective
under future conditions. Upon implementation, Alternative SS2 would prevent
precipitation from leaching contaminants from the soil into the groundwater,
but the cap would not prevent the groundwater from coming into contact with
contaminated soil due to seasonal fluctuations in groundwater elevation.
Alternatives SS-3 through SSS and SS7 would eliminate any risks a8sociated
with the soil contamination a8 well a8 mitigate any further degradation of
the groundwater. Alternative SS6 doe. not immediately mitigate the migration
potential to groundwater of contaminant. above health-ba8ed ri8k leve18, but
over time, this alternative would obtain thi8 goal.
Groundwater pose. no unacceptable ri.ks to human health or the environment
under current conditions I however, under the future use scenarios developed
for the Site in the Ri.k Assessment, groundwater could po.e .ignificant risks
to future resident. living on the Site. The no action Alternative GWl and
Alternative GW2 would not addre.. contaminant levels in groundwater and
therefore would not be protective of human health under potential future
conditions. Alternative GW3 would prevent the further migration of
contaminated groundwater and given sufficient time would remediate the
contaminant plume. Alternatives GW4 through GW6 actively address the plume
in the aquifer, the only difference between these alternative. iB the type of
treatment and the discharge option for the treated. groundwater. Alternative
GW6 not only remediates the contaminated groundwater above-ground but also
encourages in-situ biodegradation. Alternat.ives GW3 through GW6 would be
protective of human health and the environment.
10.1. 2
Comcliance with A~licable or Relevant and A~rODriate ReauirementB
This criterion as.esses the alternative. to determine whether they attain
ARARs under federal and. state environmental laws, or provide justification
for waiving an ARAR. 8ection 9.1 defines the three types of ARARa.
action-specific, chemcial-.pecific, and location-.pecific. 8ite-specific
ARARa are identified below.
There are no fed.eral or state chemical-specific ARAR8 for the contaminants
detected in the .oils as there are no action-specific ARARa for Alternative
SSl. RCRA requirements for Alternative 882 (capping) may be relative and
appropriate. All alternative. will have to meet location-.pecific ARARa
since the 8ite lie. in a 100-year flood plain. Alternatives 883 through SS7
will comply with all applicable ARARa, including Land Disposal Requirement.
-133-
-------
"-
(LeRs) by complying with and meeting Treatability Variance standards/levels.
Because the LDR treatment (c~eanup levels) are based on treating less 'complex
matrices of industrial process wastes then what is present at' the Benfield'
Site, the selected remedy will comply with the LeRs through a Treatability
Variance for the contaminated sOil/debris.. The Treatability Variance does
not remove the requirement to treat restricted soil/debris wastdsl it allows
the establishment of LeR standards on actual data collected from Site. LeR
treatment levels will be ~et for the soil/debris and for any sludge or used
activated carbon generated by the treatment processes. ~able 37 provides
the alternate treatment variance levels under LeR.
HCLs are ARARs for Site groundwater. Neither Alternatives GWl nor GW2 would
comply this ARAR. Alternative GW3 would obtain ARARs downgradient of the
Site and with time, may eventually achieve ARARB underneath the Site.
Alternatives GW4 through GW6 would attain ARARs throughout the entire Site.
Construction of the groundwater recovery, treatment, and discharge system for
Alternatives GW3 through GW6 would satisfy action-specific ARARs. The only
location-specific ARAR pertaining to these alternatives is the construction
of the groundwater treatment system within a lOO-year flood plain. The
disposal of any sludge or spent activated carbon generated by the groundwater
treatment system will also comply with ARARB.
10.2
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
These criteria are used to evaluate the o~erall effectiveness of a particular
remedial alternative.
10.2.1
Lena-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion assesses the long-term effectiveness and permanence an
alternative will afford a8 well a8 the degree of certainty to which the
alternative will prove successful.
Alternative SSl would not be effective in reducing contaminant levels in the
.groundwater. Alternative SS2 could be effective in the long term through
regular maintenance of the cap, but a review of the remedy would be required
every five years .ince a cap i. not considered to be a permanent remedy and
leaves wastes in place that would, adversely impact the groundwater above
health protective levei.. Alternatives SS3 through SS7 call for treatment of
the contaminated soil and therefore, results in the highest degree of
long-term effectivenes8 by permanently reducing the Site ri8ks.
Under Alternative8 OWl and GW2, groundwater contamination would continue to
migrate off-aite, therefore these are not considered to be permanent or
effective remedial solutions. The long-term effectivenea. of Alternative GW3
is questionable, becau.e of the time it would require for wNatureW to clean
WIt.elfw. Thi. remedy relies on the naturally flowing groundwater to
eventually remove all the contaminants that have entered the groundwater at
-134-
/
-------
.
TABLE 37
ALTERNATE TRVoTABILITY VARIANCE LEVEL
Chemical
COncentration
Range
(ppm)
Threshold
COncentration
(ppm)
Percent
Reduction
Range
ORGANICS
Balogenated Non-Polar 0.5 - 10 100
Aromatic.
Balogenated Phenols 0.5 - 40 400'
Balogenated Aliphatic. 0.5 - 2 40
Balogenated Cyclic. 0.5 - 20 200
Polynuclear Aromatic. 0.5 - 20 400
INORGANICS ~ ~
Antimony 0.1 - 0.2 2
Barium 0.1 - 40 400
Chromium 0.5 - 6 120
Lead 0.1 - 3 300
Nickel 0.5 - 1 20
Vanadium 0.2 - 20 200
90 - 99.9
90 - 99
95 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
95 - 99
90 - 99
90 - 99
95 - 99.9
99 - 99.9
95 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
.
Select the appropriate concentration level or precent reduction range by
comparing concentration. of each con.tituent with the threshold
concentration. If the concentration of the restricted constituent is
le.. than the thre.hold concentration, the wa.te .hould be treated to
within the concentration range. If the wa.te concentration i. above the
threshold, the wa.te should be treated to reduce the concentration of the
waste to within the specified precent reduction range.
-135-
-------
.', the Site. Contaminant concentrations in the groundwater will be permanently
.reduced througb tbe groundwa~er extraction and treatment SYS~8m8 specified ~n.
Alternatives GW4 througb GW6.
10.2.2
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobilitv or Volume
This criterion assesses the degree to which the alternative employs recycling
or treatment to reduce TMV of the contaminants present at the Site.
Contaminant levels in the soil would remain essentially unchanged under
Alternatives SSl and SS2. Alternatives SSl and SS2 would. not reduce the
volume, but would reduce the mobility and effective toxicity of. the
contaminants. Alternative SS3 through SS7 would reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants in tbe soils througb treatment.
Neitber Alternatives GWl nor GW2 would significantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants in groundwater. Alternative OW3 would
slowly reduce tbe toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminants in
groundwater as the natural flow of groundwater beneath the Site moves tbe
contaminants towards tbe containment extraction wells. Alternatives GW4
through GW6 would effectively reduce the mobility and volume of contaminants
in the aquifer througb groundwater recovery. The groundwater treatment
systems will comply with the statutory preference for alternatives tbat
reduce toxicity of contaminants.
10.2.3
Short-Term Effectiveness
This criterion assesses the sbort-term impact of an alternative to buman
bealth and the environment. Tbe impact during the actual implementation of
the remedial action is usually centered under tbis criterion.
Both Alternative SSl and SS2 can be implemented witbout significant risks to
the community or on-site workers and without adverse environmental impacts.
The principal short term impacts of implementing Alternatives SS3 through SS7
-is the possible exposure of the community and more potentially, the on-site
workers to fugitive dust and contaminant vaPOrs during excavation and the
handling of contaminated 80ils. Onsite workers bave an added risk (dermal
contact) through comin~ into direct contact witb the contaminants in the
80il. In tbe event of a malfunction of the incinerator (Alternatives SSS and
SS7), short term exposure to the surrounding community is possible.
All of tbe groundwater remediation alternatives can be implemented without
significant risk to tbe community or on-site workers and without adverse
environmental impacts.
10.2.4
Im~lementabilitv
This criterion assesse8 the 8ase or difficulty of implementing the
alternative in terms of. technical and administrative feasibility and the
availability of services and materials.
-136-
-------
No implementation is needed for the no action alternatives. Const~ction of
the cap (Alternative SS2) would pose no significant difficulties. .
Alternatives SS3, SS4,' and SS6 will require treatability studies to assure
achievement of Site .pecific remedial goals and ARARs. Treatment units are
available and Site conditions are suitable for on-site treatment. The
literature review for these technologies indicate that they will worx.
Implementation of Alternatives SS5 and SS7 will require test burns.
None of the groundwater remediation alternatives po.e .ignificant concerns
regarding implementation. Design of the treatment systems for Alternatives
GW3 through GW6 cannot be completed until the discharge requirements are
defined. Thi. determination i. dependent on where the treated groundwater
will be di.charged to. Thi. decision will be finalized in the RD.
10.2.5
Cost
Thi. criterion a.se..es the cost of an alternative in terms of total pre.ent
worth cost. Total PW was calculated by combining the capital cost plus the
PW of the annual OrcH costs. Capital cost includes engineering and design,
mobilization, site development, equipment, construction, demobilization,
utilities, and sampling/analyses. Operating costs were calculated for
activities that continue after completion of construction, such as routine
operation and maintenance of treatment equipment, and groundwater
monitoring. The PW of an alternative is the amount of capital required to be
deposited at the present time at a given interest rate to yield the total
amount necessary to pay for initial construction costs and future
expenditures, including OrcH and future replacement of capital equipment.
Total present worth costs for the soil alternatives are I
Alternative SSl - No Action:
Alternative SS2 - RCRA Cap:
Alternative SS3 - Soil Washing/Slurry Biotreatment:
Alternative SS4 - Solvent Extraction:
Alternative SS5 - On-site Incineration:
"Alternative SS6 - In-situ Bioremediation:
Alternative SS7 - Off-site Incineration:
$ 0
$ 912,900
$ 1,820,700
$ 2,353,200
$ 6,495,500
$ 1,065,300
$14,142,000
Total present worth co~ts for the groundwater remediation alternatives are I
Alternative GWl - Ho actions
Alternative QW2 - Restrict Groundwater Use and Monitors
Alternative OW3 - Groundwater Containment/Surface Water
Discharge.
Alternative GW4A - Extraction, Above-ground Bioremediation,
Surface Water Discharge:
Alternative GW4B - Extraction, Above-ground Bioremediation,
POTW Discharge: -
Alternative GW5A - Extraction, UV/O%, Surface Water Discharge:
Alternative GW5B - Extraction, UV/O%, POTW Discharge:
Alternative GW6 - In-Situ Bioremediation/Above-ground Treatment:
$
$
70,000
235,800
$1,342,700
$1,992,000
$1,833,500
. $2,186,200
$2,194,100
$1,259,300
-137-
-------
--
TABLE 38 REMEDIATIOM GOALS AND CO~SPONDIMG RISKS
" "
Remediation Levels corresponding Risk Levels
chemical-Specific RKE Risk
Remediation Point of Basis
Chemical Level Compliance of Goal Cancer Mon-Cancer
~
BenzO(A)Anthracene 0.8 mg/kg All ++ M/A M/A
Benzo-A-Pyrene 0.3 mg/kg Property " " 1 x 10- 6 M/A
Benzo(B and/or K) 1.6 mg/kg Soils ++ M/A M/A
Fluoranthene Except
Chrysene 1.6 mg/kg for Benzo- ++ M/A M/A
Indeno(1,2,3-CD) 2.8 mg/kg A-pyrene ++ M/A M/A
pyrene which is
Naphthalene 10.0 mg/kg only for ++ N/A N/A
Pen~achlorophenol 1. 0 mg/kg the top ++ MIA MIA
12 inches
GROUNDWATER
Benzene 5 ug/l The MCL 4.2 x 10. 5 MIA
Benzo (A) Anthracene 0.1 ug/l Entire pMCL 1.7 x 10-6 N/A
Benzo-A-Pyrene 0'.2 ug/l Plume MCL 3.4 x 10-5 R/A
Benzo(B andlor K) 0.2 ug/l of pMCL 3.4 x 10-6
Fluoranthene Contamin- RIA
Chlorobenzene 100 ug/l ated MCL RIA 0.1
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1.8 ug/l Groundwater State 1.2 x 10-6 MIA
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.56 ug/l .. State 1. 0 x 10- 6 N/A
Carbazole 5 ug/l .. Risk 1. 4 x 10- 6 N/A
Chrysene 0.2 ug/l .. pMCL 3.4 x 10.7 N/A
Ethylbenzene 29 ug/l .. State N/A 0.008
Indeno(1,2,3-CD) 0.4 ug/l .. pMCL 6. 8 x 10-' RIA
pyrene ..'
Raphthalene 100 ug/l .. Risk RIA 0.07
Pentachlorophenol 1 ug/l .. MCL 3.0 x 10- 6 R/A
Total Xylenes 400 ug/l .. State RIA 0.0055
Vinyl Chloride 0.015 ug/l, .. State 8.1 x 10- 6 RIA
Antimony 6 ug/l .. MCL M/A 0.4
Barium 1,000 ug/l .. State RIA 0.5
Beryllium "4 ug/l .. MCL 1.2 X 10-4 M/A
Chromium 50 ug/l .. State RIA N/A
Lead 15 ug/l .. Action Level N/A N/A
Manganese 50 ug/l .. State RIA 0.01
Rickel 100 ug/l .. MCL RIA 0.1
Vanadium 200 ug/l .. Risk RIA 0.8
MCL/pMCL '- Maximum Concentration Level/Proposed MCL, Phase V Rule
Action Level - EPA, Region IV Established Action Level
State - 8tate Groundwater Quality Standard (MCAC lS-2L.0202
Risk - Health-Based Remediation Goal (Protective to 10-6)
N/A - Not Applicable
"- - Health Based 80il Remediation Goal Protective to 1 x 10-6
++ - Soil Remediation Goal to Protect Aquifer from having Concentrations Above MCLs
-140-
-------
a slur1.Y containing the soil fines (silt,. clay, and organic matter) and the
washing solution. The optimal aqueous washing solution will be determined in
a treatability study t~ be conducted during the RD.
Prior to placing the cleaned coarse fraction of
-------
... 10.3
MODIFYING CRITERIA
"
State and communi~y acceptance are modifying criteria ~hat shall be
considered in selecting the remedial action.
10.3.1
State of North Carolina Acceutance
The State of No~h Carolina has reviewed and provided EPA with comments on
the repo~s and data from the RI and the FS. NCDEHNR has also reviewed the
Proposed Plan and EPA's preferred alternative and conditionally concurs with
the selected remedy as described in Section 11.0.
10.3.2
Communitv Acceutance
The Proposed Plan Fact Sheet was distributed to interested residents, to
local newspapers and radio and TV stations, and to local, State, and Federal
officials on April 9, 1992. The Proposed Plan public meeting was held in the
evening of April 21, 1992. The public comment period on the Proposed Plan
began April 13, 1992 and closed on May 12, 1992.
No written comments were received during the public comment period. The
questions asked during the April 21, 1992 public meeting are summarized in
the Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A. The community appears to be in favor
of the selected remedy specified in Section 11.0
11.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Briefly, the selected remedy for this Site is:
soil washing and biotreatment of the resulting slurry,
extraction and on-.ite treatment and discharge of contaminated
groundwater. Treatment will consist of pretreatment through aeration,
ion exchange to remove heavy metals, primary organic treatment using
submerged fixed film bior.actors, and polishing through GAC filters,
addi~ion of nu~ri~nt. to the treated groundwater prior to reintroducing
the water back into aquifer through infiltration galleries to promote
in-situ biodegraclation, ,
review of existing groundwater moni~oring system to insure proper
monitoring of groundwater, addi~ional monitoring wells will be added to
mitigate any deficiencies, and
monitoring of groundwater and Browning Branch.
This remedy will reduce the total cancer risk posed by the Site to a risk
level tha~ is within EPA' s acceptable risk range of 10- 4 to 10- 6. To
-138-
-------
obtain this level, this remedial action alternative requires the extraction
and treatment of groundwater .above Federal KCLs and State water quality
standards as well as the removal of residual soil contamination that would
continue to adversely impact groundwater above these ARARs.
11.1
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO BE ATTAINED
Performance standards are defined a. any applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards/requirements, cleanup goal. and/or levels, or
remediation goals and/or levels to be achieved by the remedial action.
The performance levels to be met/attained by the Benfield remedial action are
specified in the following tables and summarized in Table 38:
groundwater remediation levels are specified in Table 32,
surface water screening criteria are listed in Table 33
sediment screening criteria are listed in Table 34
action-specific ARARs are inventoried in Table 29,
chemical-specific ARARs are inventoried in Tabl. 30, and
location-specific ARARs are inventoried in Table 35.
Table 38 provides the remediation goals to be achieved at this Site. This
table also lists the risk level associated with each remediation goal.
11.2
SOIL/SOURCE REMEDIATION
The soil/source control alternative selected for the Benfield site is
Alternative SS3 - Soil Washing/Slurry Biotreatm8nt. Below is a description
of this alternative as it is envisioned to be implemented at the Benfield
site.
Soils contaminated above the remediation levels (Table 38) will be
excavated and .tockpiled in order to be proce.sed through the soil washing
proce... I'igure 4 .how. the e.timated areas where the levels of
contaminant. in Site .011. are above these remediation goal.. The excavation
is expected to extend down to the groundwater interface which ranges 3-6 feet
below the .urface. Soil wa.hing i. anticipated to reduce the e.timated 4,600
cubic yard. of contaminated .oil down to 460 cubic yard., a 90 percent
reduction.
Following excavation, the contaminated .oil will be washed with an aqueous
washing .olution. The .oil wa.hing proce.. generate. two primary effluent
.treams, the cleaned coar.e fraction of .oil (.and, gravel, and cobbles) and
-139-
-------
"" periphery of the plume. The extracted groundwater will be treated onsite in
.anabove-g~o~nc;i ,treatmeJ't process which includes the following steps I ,
pretreatment utilizing aeration to remove iron and manganese; ion exchange to
remove the heavy metals, bioremediation employing SFFRs as the primary
process to destroy the organic contaminant~, and a polishing step using GAC
filters. The actual number and location of the extraction wel18 and their
pumping rate will be determined in the RD.
In a holding tank, necessary nutrients including hydrogen peroxide will be
added to the treated groundwater. This nutrient enriched groundwater 'will
then be reintroduced back into the aquifer through infiltration galleries
upgradient of the contamination. This nutrient enriched groundwater will
stimulate and promote indigenous microorganisms to degrade contaminants
in-situ. The type aAd quantities of nutrients to be added to the treated
groundwater will be determined in a RD treatability study.
It is anticipated that 100 percent of, the extracted groundwater will be
reintroduced back into the aquifer. However, it may be necessary to
discharge up to 25 percent of the extracted, treated groundwater to either
the Waynesville POTW via a pretreatment discharge permit issued by the POTW
or into Browning Branch meeting the substantiative requirements of a NPDES
permit. Discharging to the POTW is preferred over discharging into Browning
Branch. .
The grourtdwater treatment process described
by-products that will need to be dealt with
will evaluate the disposal options for each
cost efficient option.
above will generate a number of
in an appropriate manner. The RD
by-product and select the most
The pretreatment aeration step and the SFFRs both are anticipated to generate
a non-hazardous sludge. Prior to disposal, the sludge will be analyzed to
confirm it is non-hazardous. If the sludges are found to be hazardous, they
will be disposed of at a hazardous waste, RCRA-permitted landfill which is in
compliance with RCRA regulations.
The regeneration solutions for the ion exchange resin are generally hazardous
-wastes because they are corrosive and contaminated with heavy metals. The RD
will evaluate the degree and type of contamination in the8e 80lutions to
determine if they can be treated' or disposed of offsite, discharged to the
POTW for treatment, or .pretreated on8ite and di8charged to the PO'rW for final
treatment. '
The spent GAC will be shipped offsite for destruction, disposal, or
reactivation. The most cost efficient option will be identified and
selected.
The goal of this remedial action i8 to re8tore the groundwater to its
beneficial U8e, a8 defined in Section 7.4. Based on information obtained
during the JU, and .the analY8is of all remedial alternative8, BPA and the
State of North Carolina believe that the selected remedy 'may be able to
achieve thisqoal. Groundwater contamination may be especially persistent in
-142-
-------
the ~diate vicinity of the contaminants' source, where concentrations are
relatively high. The ability to achieve cleanup goals at all points
throughout the area of'attainment, or plume, cannot be determined until the
extraction sy.tem has been implemented, modified as necessary, and plume
response monitored over time. If the selected remedy cannot meet the
specified performance standards, at any or all of the monitoring points
during implementation, the contingency measures and goals described in this
sec~ion may replace the selected remedy and goals for the.e portions of the
plume. Such contingency measures will, at a minimum, prevent further
migration of the plume and include a combination of containment technologies
and institutional controls. These measures are considered to be protective
of human health and the environment, and are technically practicable under
the corresponding circumstances.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an estimated
period of 5 years, during which time the system's performance will be
carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the
performance data collected during operation. Modifications may include any
or all of the followingsz
a)
at individual well. where cleanup goa18 have been attained, pumping may.
be discontinued;
b)
alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points
c)
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and encourage adsorbed
contaminants to partition into groundwater;
d)
installation of additional extraction well. to facilitate or accelerate
cleanup of the contaminant plume.
To ensure that cleanup continues to be maintained, the aquifer will be
monitored at those wells where pumping has ceased on an occurrence of every
2 years following discontinuation of qroundwater extraction.
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and the system
~rformance data, that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be restored to
their beneficial use, all of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, for an indefinite period of time, as a modification of
the existing systems
a)
engineering controls 3uch as physical barriers, or long-term gradient
control provided by low level pumping, as contaminant measure;
b)
chemcial-specific ARAR8 may be waived for the cleanup of those portions
of the aquifer b.sed on the technical 1mpracticability of achieving
further contaminant reduction;
c)
institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict acc.ss to
those portions of the aquifer which remian above remediation goals;
-143-
-
-------
d)
continued ~onitoring of specified wells; and
e)
periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater
restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a
periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur at 5 year intervals
. in accordance with CERCLA Section 121 (c).
11.4
ADDITIONAL DATA REOUIREMENTS/MONITOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
in addition to delineating the work specified above, the RD will also have ,to
address a number of additional information/data requirements.
Since the RI was not able to completely define the extent of the groundwater
contamination, especially in the bedrock zone of the aquifer, additional
monitoring wells will need to be installed during the RD. At a minimum, this
effort will include the installation of at least three (3) bedrock monitoring
wells, two (2) deep saprolite monitoring wells, and (2) shallow saprolite
monitoring wells. The placement of these and any additional monitoring wells
will be made after a review and evaluation of the existing groundwater
monitoring system. This review is to insure the groundwater monitoring
system will provide adequate information to assess the long-term quality of
the groundwater and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the groundwater
extraction system. This review effort may also include additional
groundwater modeling and aquifer testing.
In order to help establish a broader data base on groundwater
additional groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed
and metals. Sampling will occur every four (4) months, for a
the RD.
quality,
for VOCs, SVOCs
year, dur ing
In ,addition to monitoring the groundwater, semi-annual surface water and
sediment samples shall be collected from BrOwning Branch, for a minimum of
_two (2) years to confirm and verify th~t this stream is not being adversely
impacted by the Site. If it is determined that the Site is adversely
impacting either the surface water or the sediment in Browning Branch, then
toxicity testing using methods specified in u.s. BPA, Region IV, Standard
Operating Procedure for Toxicity Testing Hazardous Waste Assessment, dated
1991, as amended, will be implemented. ~&))le 33 provides the surface water
criteria an4 '%&))18 34 list8 the screeAing levels for sediment. If
contaminants in either the surface water or sediment exceed these values,
then a bio--survey will be conducted in conjunction with chemically analyzing
appropriate organi81D8 ti8sues for contamination. Based on ~his data, it may
be necessary to either issue an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD)
or amend this ROD to incorPOrate the appropriate clean up technology for
either the surface water or the 8ediment or both.
-144-
-------
Two subsurface soil samples will be collected and analyzed in the old stream
bed identified inl'i.gw:e 3. This sampling willconf:.rm that oontaminated
debris/soil was not used to backfill this stream bed when the course of
Browning Branch was altered by the owner/operator of the facility in the
mid-1970's. As can be seen by comparing I'igures '3 and 4, part of the..
s6ils are already slated to be remediated. These two (2) samples will be
collected outside the area highlighted on I'igure 4.
11.5
COST
The total present worth costs for the selected alternative is $3,080,000.
The break down of this cost is specified below.
The present worth cost components of the soil washing/slurry biotreatment
are:
Soil Excavation and Stockpile
Soil Washing
Slurry Biodegradation
Site Restoration
Maintenance and Mowing
Security
Capital Cost Annual Cost
$ 32,100
$ 979,000
$ 117,790
$ 42,050
$ 3,600
$ 1,200
$1,170,940
$ 351,200
$1,522,140
$ 121,800
$1,643,940
$ 131,500
$1,775,440
$ 4,800
$1,820,700
Subtotal
Contingencies
Construction Total
Permitting/Legal/Construction Services
Total Implementation
Engineering Design
Total Capital
Total Annual
Pre8eDt worth (30 years of operation)
-145-
-------
"" 'lhe present worth cost components of the extraction, above-gr~und/ in-situ.
bioremediation.are: .
Groundwater Containment/Extraction System
Groundwater 'lrea~ent
Biotreatment/Infiltration
sludge Dewatering
Power, Maintenance & Operations
Groundwater Use Restriction & Monitoring
Capital Cost
$ 72,500
$ 112,200
$ 167,000
$ 12,100
$
$ 216,700
Annu.al Cost
$ 3,100
$ 300
$ 19,100
$ 7,500
$ 70,000
Subtotal
Contingencies
$ 580,500
$ 174,200
$ 754,700
$ 60,300
$ 815,000
$ 65,200
$ 880,200
Construction 'lotal
permitting/Legal/Construction Services
'lotal Implementation
Engineering Design
'lotal capital
$
100,000 .
100,000
'lotal Annual
$
$1,259,300
Present Worth (5 years of operation)
12.0
S'lA'rU'rORY DE'l'ERKINATION
The selected remedy satisfies the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA.
12 . 1 PROTECTION OF ROMAN REAL'1'R AND '1'RE ENVIRONHEN'l'
The selected remedy will permanently treat the .oil and groundwater and
-removes or minimize. the potential risk a.sociated with the wastes. Dermal,
ingestion, and inhalation contact with Site contaminants will be eliminated
and risks posed by continued groundwater contamination will be abated.
12.2
COMPLIANCE tn'1'R ARARS
The selected remedy will be designed to meet all Federal or more stringent
State environmental laws. A complete discussion of the ARAR8 which are to be
attained is included in Sections 9.1. These sections also describe the 'lBC
requirements.
-146-
/
-------
12.3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The selected soil remediation and groundwater remediation technologies are
more cost-effective than the other acceptable alternatives considered
primarily because they provide greater benefit for the cost.
12.'1
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES OR RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICABLE
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent
solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized for this action. Of the
alternatives that are. protective of human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs, EPA and the State have determined th~t the selected remedy
provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of long-term effectiveness
and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume achieved through
treatment; short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost; and State
and community acceptance; and the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element.
12.5
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The preference for treatment is satisfied by the use of the soil washing and
slurry biotreatment system to remove contamination from the .oil at the Site
and the use of the treatment train and in-situ bioremediation to mitigate the
contamination in the groundwater at the Site. The principal threats at the
Site will be eliminated by use of these treatment technologies.
13.0
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
CERCLA section 117(b) requires an explanation of any 8ignificant changes from
the preferred alternative originally pre.ented in the Propo.ed Plan. Below
are the specific change. made in the ROD a. well as the supporting rationale
-for making those change.. The Propo.ed Plan was di..eminated to the public
on April 9, 1992. Table 4 of the Proposed Plan, li8ts the maximum
concentration detected, the remediation goal, and the source for the
remediation goal for each of the chemicals of concern detected in the
groundwater at the Bentield site. Since i.suance of the Proposed Plan, the
remediation goals for the following contaminants have been changed: benzene,
antimony, and beryllium. The remediation goal for benzo-A-pyrene was a1so
finalized since the Proposed Plan was issued.
The remediation goal for benzene in the ROD has been changed from 1 ug/1 in
the Proposed Plan, the State groundwater standard a. specified in 15 A NCAC
2L.0202 (g)(4), to 5 ug/l in the ROD, the KCL specified in the Safe Drinking
Water Act (42 U.S.C.A. 5300f to 300j-26). . The state water quality standard
for benzene adopted pursuant to G.S. 143-214.1 and 143B-282(2) can be
deviated from "where the maximum allowable concentration of a 8ubstance is
less than the limit of detectability" (15 A NCAC 2L.0202(b)(1». pre.ently,
147-
-------
~.
.S ug/l is ~~e lowest co~centration current analytical technology can
consistently detect with accuracy. Consequently, EPA and NCDEHNR concur that
S ug/l should be the groundwater ARAR for benzene at the Site.
The MCLs for antimony and beryllium have been revised since the' PropOsed Plan
was published. The revision to these MCLs was published in the Federal
Register on July 17, 1992 (Fed. Reg. 31,776 1992). The MCL for antimony was
changed from 10 ug/l to 6 ug/1 and the MCL for beryllium was changed from
1 ug/l to 4 ug/l. The proposed MCL for benzo-A-pyrene, 0.2 ug/l, was also
finalized at that concentration in the July 17, 1992 Federal Register.
-148-
-------
SUPERFUND PROPOSED PLAN F. ~ =r SHEET
BENFIELD INDUSTIRES
." . '.....". .
. --- .
~I
Hazelwood, Haywood County,
North Carolina
April 1992
INTRODUCTION
The u.s. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing a cleanup plan, referred to as the
preferred alternative, to address contaminated soil
and groundwater at the Benfield Industries Super-
fund Site ('he Site' located in Hazet.vood, North
Carolina. This document is being Issued by EPA,
the lead agency for Site activities. and the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR), the support agen-
cy. NCDEHNR has reviewed this altematiYe and
concurs with EPA's recommendation. This
Proposed Plan summarizes the cleanup
methodsAechnologies evaluated In the Fe..lbliity
Study (FS). In accordance'with Section 117(a) of
the COmprehensive Environmental R88POn...
COmpensation, and Liability Act (CEACLA), EPA
is publishing this Proposed Plan to provide an 0p-
portunity for public review and conment on all the
cleanup options, known as remecJial altematMts,
under consideration for the Site and to initiate the
30-day public comment period on the clea~ option
the Agency as identified as .'s preferred alternative.
,EPA, In consultation with NCDEHNR, will select a
remedy for the Benfield Site only aft,r the public
comment period has endecJ and II Wom1ation sub-
mitted to EPA during that time has been reviewed
. and considered. -
This fact she8llUlMllltzes Information that is ex-
plained In g1'8IIIr....1n the R8mtdlallnvutlg.
tlon (AI) Report, dated March 6, 1992. the revised
Risk A818..ment document, dated March 13,
1992, and the draft FS, dated March 20. 1992.
These documents and all other records utilized by
the Agency to make the proposal specified below are
contained In the information repository/administra-
tive record for this Site. EPA and the State en-
courage the public to review this information,
especially during the public comment period. to bet-
ter understand the Site, the Superfund process. and
the intent of this Proposed Plan. The Infonnatlon
r8pOIItoryladmlnl8tratlve record Is available for
public review locally at the HazelWood Town Hall
at 121 Welt Georgia Avenue In HazelWOOd. Nonh
Carolina or In the Record Center at EPA, Region
IV'I office In Atlanta. Georgia.
This is the third fact sheet distributed by the Agency
for the Benfield Site. The January 1992 fact sheet
summarized the findings of the RI. The RI provided
the Information for use In the FS and the selection of
the ptOpOsed remedy. Briefly, the preferred remedy
Includes the following cleanup methods/tech-
nologies:
For ConbUnln8t8d Sail.:
The contaminated soU would be washed with water
followed by biotreatment of the resulting slurry
generated by the soD washing process. All cleaned
soU would De replaced back In the excavated areas
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
DATE: April 21, 1982
TIME: 7:00 pm . 8:00 pm
WHERE: Hazelwood Town Hall
121 West Georgie Avenue
Hazelwood, North Caroline
- ~ words highlighted in bold print are defined in the glOssary.)
..
-------
For Camam.ft8I8t Graundw8t~
Contaminated groundwater would be pufT1)ed from
the aqulf.r and trUled to remove contaminants.
Following tr.atm.nt. the water would be
reintroduced bac:k InIc the aquifer after hydrogen
peroxide and rwients have been added. These
ingredients would promote a natural breakdown of
contaminants in the aquifer.
THIS PROPOSED PLAN:
1. Inca.des a brief history of the Site. the
principal fir.c:tlngs of the RI and a summary of the
Risk Assessment;
2. Presents the cleanup alternatives for the
Site considered by EPA;
3. Outlines the criteria used by EPA to recom-
mend an alternative for use at the Site:
4. Provides a sunmary of the analysis of alter-
nativ.s;
5. Presents EPA's rationale for Its prelirTinary
selection of the prefemtd altematives; and
6. Explains the opportunities for the public to
comment on the remedial alternatives. and
hence the deaoop of the Benfield Industries
Superfund Site.
-SITE BACKGROUND
The Benfield Site co~s- approximately 3.5
acres of the Benfield property, which 18 approximate-
ly 6 acres In size. at 112.~J24 AichIand Street In
Hazelwood. Haywood County, NorthCaroIna (ro-
ure 1). The 5Ie II 1Un'OUnd8d by Igt'f Industrial,
convnerciaJ, 8ndl'8lid8riiaJ area. The Site is bor-
dered to the ... by 11'1 antique shop, by Richland
Street to the MIl. . f8IId8nce to the lOUth, and the
Southem RaIwar 8nd BrownIng Branch to the west.
Richland StrHt replft8r'U a divid8 betwHn a
predorTinantly midniaJ area to the east and in-
dustriaVcommercial areas to the west, Inducting the
Benfield property. Other nearby features In the town
of Haz.1wood InckJde the Hazelwood Elementary
School, two blocks east and the Haywood County
Prison approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the
Site.
The Benfield property was an active facility until April
1982 at which time a fire destroyed the entire opera-
tions. Prior to April 1982. Benfield Industries. Inc.
mixed and packaged bulk materials for resale.
Products handled and stored at the Benfield facility
included paint thinners, solvents. sealants. cleaners.
de-icing solutions. and wood preservatives including
creosot.. Unagusta Furniture Co~any owned and
operated the facility prior to Benfield Industries, from
about 1904 to 1961, but no records have been found
stating the use or storage of hazardous chemicals at
the facility during their tenure. Unagusta Furniture
Co~any reponedly manufactu~ed wooden bed
frames.
Following April 1982. the Nonh Carolina Depanment
of Human Resources (NCDHR) ordered the owner
of the facility to remove aU debris from the Site by
September 1, 1982 which the owner/operator com-
plied with. In addition to removing all usable chemi-
cals. fire debris, recyclable materials. and storage
tanks'. nuh of the Site was covered with .dean" fill
material.
The structures at the Site prior to the fire included
two (2) storage buildings. a brick work building with
a concrete storage area, a pad
-------
,.I '
.' ~ };", ." :
. . . . .
from 6 to 36 Inch88 In thlc:Mess. Beneath the fiU
material ant 8I1u¥t81 materials. The thickness of the
alluvium ranges from e to 9 feet. Alluvium is general-
ly comprised of paot1y IOneasand. gravel. cobbles.
, and rock fragmenllin I dark brown silty/clayey to
sandy matrix. The alluvial materials overlie
saprolite throughout the area. The thickness of the
saprolite on-site ranges from 28 to 30 feet. Saprolite
is the clay, sill. or rock fragments that is created from
bedrock weathering over thousands of years. Frac.
tured bedrock Des beneath the saprorrte.
, Groundwater flows in a northerty direction, parallel
to the direction of stream flow In Browning Branch
and appears to follow the lay of the land. Depth of
groundwater ranges from 3 to 6 feet below the
surface. Groundwater travels 5S8 feet per year in
the alluvium and ~ feet per year in saprolite.
The following paragraphs discuss the nature and
extent of contamination at the Site.
A wide range of chemicals wire detected In two of
the three environmental medAJm ~Ied as part of
the RI. These chemicals Include vOlatile organlCl,
semI-volatile organlc8, pesticides and InOrganica
(metala). Neither cyanide nor polychlorinated
biphenyts (PCBs) were detected at the Site. The
three environmental media sampled were soils. both
surface and subsurface, groundwater, both shallow
and deep zones of the aquifer, and surface water
and sediment in Browning Branch. '
Air samples went not coUected for chemical analysis
-as part of the RI. However, air quaUtywas monitOred
during all field wolk u part of the health and safety
effort. Based on this InfonnatIon, the quaIIy of the
air at and around the Site is not cu".,.ay being
adversely ~8d by conIamInan8I at the Site.
Volatile organic and .8mHolatile organic com-
pounds, pnt~. and metals went detected In the
, soil ~nd ;raw._.r. A total of elgtd volatiles, 29
semi-volatile ........ 14 pestiddes, and elevated
levels of rnet8II-.d8t8ded In the soDs at the Site.
, Twelve voIa1iIe organics, 27 semi-volatlle organics
one pesticide, andelevatedconce~nsof ~
were detected In the groundwater beneath the SIte.
Only one sedlmer4 sample contained eotUminants
of concem. Based on the surface water and sed!-
mert data, the .rcy has concluded that Browning
Branch Is not currently being adversely ~acted by
the contamination at the Site.
, .
Tables 1 and 2 summarize those contamina~ts .
detected In sufficient concentrations in the soils and
g~ndwater that require these areas to be cleaned
up. These tables also present the frequency and
range of concentrations detected for each of these
contaminants.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS,
A task of the RVFS is to analyze and estimate the
human heallh and environmental problems that.
could result If the soil and groundwater contamina-
tion at the Benfield Site is not cleaned up. This
analysis Is call a bUeline risk aS88Slment. In
conducting this assessment, EPA focuses on the
adverse tllman health effects that could result from
Iong-tenn (30 years) daily, direct exposure as a
result of Ingestion, Inhalation, or dermal contaCt to
carcinogenic chemicals (cancer causing) and non.
carcinogenic chemicals present at the Site.
A goal of the Agercy is to reduce the risk posed by
a Superfund Site to below one person out of 10,000
~ing at risk. . This is the minimum risk the Agency
will allow, typicaBy the Agency aspires to be even
more protective and strives to lower the risk so that
at a rninimlm. only one person out of one million
may be adversety Impacted by the contamination
found at the SIte. This is the goal the Agency has
set for the Benfield Site.
EPA has concluded that there are no major CU[W]1
risks to tllman healh at the Site. Exposure path-
ways eva.ated In the Risk Assessment were Inge$-
tion, Inhalation, Ind dired contact to contaminants
In the soil and ~ndwater, Induding the elevated
levels of coruminarU found In the sediment at
sampling location SO-S, near BrownIng Branch. The
only reason graundwater does not pose a current
risk Is beca1118 everyone living near the Site is on
the public water supply system and not obtaining
drinking water hum 8 private well installed near the
Site.
However, there is a IYIW:I risk for residents living in
homes bull on or near the Site due to contaminants
In the groundwater. ThIs scenario includes the ex-
posure to off.sIte residents to contaminants in the
groundwater through Ingestion,' Inhalation, and
direct contact.
A quaDtatiYe assessment of the possible hazards to
environmental receptors was also Inck.Ided. in the
Risk Assessment. Based on this environmental as-
5
-------
sessment, the on-sIe comami,nated soils may have
adverse effects on the environment. Surface water,
air, and groul'1dw8l.r will not adversely i~d the
environment or the fauna/flora found in these
ecological niches.
For'more informat~ about the risks posed by the
contamination at the Benfield Site, please reter to the
Risk Assessment Report and other documents avail-
able for review at the information repository.
REMEDIAL RESPONSE
OBJECTIVES
Remedial response objectives (RAOs) were
developed based on the results of the Risk Assess-
ment and examination of potential Appllcabl. or
R.I.vant and Approprlat. R.qulr.m.nts
(ARARs). Adion-, location-, and chemical-specific
ARARs were examined. In summary, the (RAOs)
are:
For Soli.
.
Prevent migration of contaminants in the soil that
could result in groundwater contamination.
For Groundwat.r
.
Prevent Ingestion of water having carcinogen
concentrations that exceed established Federal
and State limits.
.
Prevent ingestion of water having non~ar-
cinogen(s) that exceed established Federal and
State limb.
.
Restore the groundwat.r syst.m to stated
cleanup goals and ~,. the mig!8tion Of the
pollutants beYOnd the known contaminant
plume.
The remediation goal for both $Oil and groundwater
is to obtain a 1tf.1gtft health risk level. There are
noFederal or Stat. cl.anup ARARs for con-
taminants in soil, therefore, the sol cleaoop goals
(Table 3) are based on the abiIItyOfttit corUminants
to leach from the soil into the groundwater. Thes.
soil cleaoop levels wli prew,.. any further degrada-
tion of the groundwater above maxlmJm concentra-
tion levels (MCLs) from contaninanlS found in the
soil. For groundwater, III chemical-specific ARARs,
which include MCLs and the North Carolina
'.
Groundwater Standards. wiU be met (Table 4).
Based on the cleaoop goals specified in Tables 3
and 4. It is estimated that the volumes of con.
taminated soil and groundwater requiring remedia-
tion are 4.600 cubic yards and 22 minion gallons.
respectively .
For more information about the RAOs for the 8en-
field site. please refer to the draft Feasibility Study
document and other documents available for review
at the intormatJon repository. '
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
The following sedion provides a summary of the
altematives developed in the FS Report. The
primary objective of the FS was to determine and
evaluate altematives for cleaning up the Site,
Descriptions of the dean-up altematives are sum-
marized below. '
The cost intonnation provided below for each alter.
native represents estimated total present worth
(PW) Of each alternative. Total PW was calculated
by combining the capital cost plus the PW of the
anooll operating and maintenance (O&M) costs.
CapjtaI cost indudes constNdion, engineering and
design, equipment, and site development. Operat.
. Ing costs were caJQ,lated for adivities that continue
after completion of construction, such as routine
operation and maintenance Of treatment equipment,
and groundwater monitoring. The PWof an altema-
tive is the amount Of capital required to be deposited
at the preHnt time at a given interest rate to yield
the total amount necessary to pay tor initial construc.
tion costs and future .xpenditures, including O&M
and tuture replacement Of capital equipment.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRE6S SOIL
CONTAMINATION
The soil alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE SS1: NO AcnON
Capital Costs: S 0
PW O&M Costs: ~
Total PW Costs: S 0
Time to Implement: None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action- alternative be
evwated at every Superfund Site to establish a
7
-------
'1 .
i\;,
'"
ALTERNATIVE 881: OF.F-S1TE INCINERATION
. Capital Colts:. '" . '. $14,096.800 '
PW.OIM CaItI: . S 4S ~oo
Total PWCoII8: $14.142,000
Time 10 IfI1)I8mInt: 4 months
This alternative Involves excavating the con-
taminated soils and transporting the contaminated
. soil to a RCRA-pennitted off-site Incineration facility.
The final disposal of the Incinerated soil ash will be
the responsibility of the Incineration facility. The
excavated areas wiD be backfilled with clean soil.
graded, and revegetated.
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES TO
ADDRESS GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINA rlON
The groundWater alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE GW1: NO AcnOH
Capital Costs: $ 0
PW OIM Costs: L...A
Total PW Costs: $ 0
Time to Ift1)Iement: None
This alternative for groundwater contamination Is the
same as AJtematlve SS1 for son contanination. No
further activities are conducted for on-site
groundWater.
AL TERNA TIVE GW2: RESTRICT GROUND-
WATER USE AND 1I00000R
, Capital COsts:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Irf1)Iement:
'120,800
1115.000
'1235,800
12 months
Under this aII8mIIIve, InstIutIonII conrolswW be
impleme~~8Q the UI8 01 the groundwater
from the ~18IIID1II8d pUnt. The Slate of North
Carolina w8;",,- the I8IIrictIonI that would In-
dude deed ~. ~IQ future use of the
aquifer for IUCII puIp0888 . potable and industrial'
Wlter supples. ntgIIk)r.. WIShi1g, t8c. NCDEHNR
wUl not issue any well drtllng permls for new wells
on properties which may be ~ by the c0n-
taminated groundwater pk.Ime.
ALTERNATIVE OW3: GROUNDWATER CON.
TAINMENTISURFACE WATER DISCHARGE.
Capital Costs:' . $ ~.OOO .
PW O&M Costs: I 877 700
Total PW Costs: . $1,342.700
Time to Implement: 6 months
This alternative involves installing extraction wells
downgradient of the contaminant plume in order to
capture contaminants and produce a hydraulic bar.
rier to control contaminant migration. The extracted
groundWater wID be discharged to Browning Branch
after treatment. The treatment consists of' a pre.
treatment step to remove iron and manganese, an
ion exchange unit to remove heavy metals followed
by an organic contaminant polishing step.
ALTERNATIVE OW4A: EXTRAC'nON, ABOVE-
GROUND B/OREMED/AT/ON, SURFACEWA TER
D/SCHARGE
~apitaI Costs:
PW O&M Costs:
Total PW Costs:
Time to Iqllement:
$ 819.300
S1 1~ 700
$1.992.000
6 months
This alternative Involves installing extraction wells
. UVoughoutthe contaminant plume to actively ext;act
groundwater for treatment. The steps in the treat.
ment system wiD consist of pre-treatment. heavy
metals treatment, primary organic treatment. and an
organic contaminant polishing step. The primary
organic treatment consists of a submerged fixed film
bioreactDr to pennanentty remove and destroy the
organic contaminants. EftkIent wUl be discharged to
8IOw'*'CI Branch and monitored to Insure com-
pliance with Natlona. Pollution Dllcharge
Elmlllltloft Sy8tIm ~PDES) discharge require.
menll.
AL TERNAT1VE OW4S: EXTRACTION, ABOVE.
GROUND BIOREJlEDIAT/ON, DISCHARGE TO A
PUBUCL Y OWNED TREATIIENT WORKS
Capital Costs: $ 667,400
. PW O&M Costs:. It 166 100
Total PW Costs: $1,833.500
TIme to In1Hment: 6 mont~
Alternative OW4B Is identical to Alternative GW4A.
except treated groundWaterwiU be disCharged to the
CRy of WaynesvtIIe publicly owned treatment works '
(POTW) , Instead of Browning Branch and no
~Iar ac:ttvat8d carbon polishing step will be in.
9
-------
EV ALUA TlNG CRITERIA
3. Cgat: The benefits of implementing a par-
ticular remedial aJternative are weighed against
the cost of in1:*tmentation. Costs include the
capital (up-front) cost of implementing an alter-
native over the -bng tenn, anct the net present
. worth of both 'capital and o~ration and main-
tenance costs.
4. ImDI8m.ntabllltv: EPA considers the tech-
nical feasibility (e.g., how difficult the altemative
is to construct and operate) and administrative
ease (e.g., the amount of coordination with
other government agencies that is needed) of a
remedy, incJuding the avajJabjlJty of necessary
materials and services.
5. Short-t.nn .tf8ctIV.n8U: The length of
time needed to implement each alternative is
considered, and EPA assesses the risks that
may be posed to wor1(ers and neamy residents
during constNdion and implementation.
6. LonQ-t.nn .ffectlv.ne..: The alternatives
are evaluated based on their ability to maintain
reli~ protedion of public health and the en-
vironment over time once the clearop goals
have been met.
7. Reduction of contaminant toxicltv mobilitY
and voh.Jme: EPA .valuat., each alternativ.
based on how it reduces (1) the haJ'lftul nature
of the contaminants, (2) their ability to move
through the envirorvnent. 8nd (3) the volume or
amount of contamination at the lite.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. Stat. ~Dtllnce: EPA requests state
commera on the RemecIaIlnvestigation and
Feasibility Study reports. 8' wen 8S the
Propottd PIIn. and nut take into considera-
tion whI8hIr..... concurs wllh, opposes, or
has no~on EPA', preftrrtcl aIt.rnative.
9. Commun~ ~nce: To .nsure that
the public has an adequate opportunity to pr0-
vide input, EPA holds 8 public convnent period
and considers and responds to .. comments
received from the commmity prior to the fll1aJ
selectIOn of a remedial 8dIOn.
-
.EV ALUA TlON OF ALTERNATIVES
The following summary profiles the performance of
the preferred alternatives in terms of the nine evalua-
tion criteria noting how it compares to the other
alternatives under consideration. T'he-comparative
analysis for the soil remediation alternatives is as
follows:
Soli Remediation
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed
analysis for source control:
AIt.rnatlve 551 : No Action
AIt.rNltIv.552: RCRA Cap
AIt.rnatlv.5S3: Soil Washi~Slurry Biotreatmen!
A!t8rN1t1v. 5S4: Solvent Extraction
AIt.rNltIv. 855: On-site Incineration
Alternatlv. sse: In-situ Biorernediation
AIt.m8tIv. 857: Off-site Incineration
Ov.rall Prateetlon. The potential risk due to Site
soils under potential future conditions is to the
groundwater through the leaching of contaminants
from the sol into the groundwater. Alternative SS 1
(no action) would not be protective of human health
or the .nvlrorvnent. Upon implementation: Altema-
tive SS2 would prev.nt ~ion from leaching
cor'Ita"*-U from the 101 Into the groundwater,
however, would not be protec:tiY8 of the groundwater
due to seasonal ftuctuatlons In the elevation of
groundw8l.r coming into contact with contaminated
sol. Altemat1Y8s ss.3 through 5SS and SS7 would
.Ininat. any risks associated with the soil con-
tamination as weD as n18tigate any further degrada-
tIOn of the groundwater. Alternative 556 does not
Immediat.1y mitlgat. the migration potential to
grou~er of coruminants above health-based
risk leYeIS, but over time, this alternative would ob.
tain this goal
ComDllance wtth AAAA8. There are no federal or
state chemical-specific: ARARs for the contaminants
detected in the soils. There are no adion-specific
ARARs for Alternative 551. RCRA requirements for
11
-------
AIt.matJvt GW.tA:. '" .' .
Extraction. Abov~round Bioremediation.
Surface W.er Discharge
Alternatlv. GW48:
extraction, Above-ground Bioremediation.
POTW DisCharge'
Alternatlv. GW5A:
Extraction, UVIOX. Surface Water Discharge
Alternatlv. GW5B:
Extraction, UVIOX. POTW Discharge
Alt.rnatlv. GW8:
In,Situ BioremediatiorV Above-ground
Treatment
Ov"rall Prct8etlon. Groundwater poses no risks to
human health and the environment under current
conditions. The no action Alternative GW1 and AI-
tematlve GW2 would not address contaminant
levels in groundwater and therefore would not be
protective of human health under potential future
conditions. Alternative GW3 would prevent the fur-
ther migration of contaminated groundwater and
given sufficient time would remediate the con-
taminant plume. Alternatives GW4 through GW6
actively address the plume in the aquler, the only
difference between these alternatives II the type of
treatment to be used on the extracted groundwater
and the discharge option for the treated
groundwater. AII'matlv, GW6 remedlates the con-
taminants In the groundwater In place along with
~ treating extracted groundwater above-ground.
Therefore, AIIematlves GW3 through GW6 would be
protective of human health and the environment.
ComplJane8 WIlli AAAA.. '«:Ls are ARARs for
Site groundwal8r. Neither AII8matIves GW1 nor
GW2 WOUld ..... with ARARI. Alternative GW3
would obtain MARl downgradient Of the Site and
giYen time. ..., IV8I1Iudy IChIeve ARAAs under-
neath the SI8.. AIImdv8s GW4 through OW6.
would attain ARAAa throughout the en1ir8 SIte. C0n-
struction of the groundWater r8COY8Iy, treatment,
and disCharge system for Alternatives GW3 ttvough
GW6 would satisfy action-specific ARARI. The ont)'
Iocation-specific MAR pertaining to these alterna-
tives is construc:tion wIhin a. 1 QO.year flood plain.
The disposal of any u.dge or spent activated carbon
generated by the groundwater treatment system wiD
also co~ wlh ARARs.
..
long-term Effeetlvenell' and Perman.n~e.
Under Alternatives GW1 and GW2, groundwater
contamination would continue to migrate ott-site:
therefore these are not considered to be permanent
or effective remedial solutions. T.he long-term effec.
tiveness of Alternative GW3 is questionable. be-
cause of the time it would require for 8Nature8 to
clean -ltSelf-. This remedy relies on the natural flow
of groundwater to eventually remove all the con-
taminants that have entered the groundwater at the
Site. Contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater will be permanently reduced through
groundwater extraction and treatment specified in
Altematives GW4 through GW6.
Reduetlon of Taxleltv. Mabllltv or Volume.
Neither Alternatives GW1 nor GW2 would sig-
nificantly reduce the toxicity. mobility, or volume of
contaminants in groundwater. Alternative GW3
would sIowty reduce the toxicity. mobility, or volume
of contaminants in groundwater as the natural flow
of groundwater beneath the Site moves the con-
tamnants towards the containment extraction wells.
Altematlves GW4 through GW6 would reduce the
volume of contaminants in the aquifer through
recovery. The groundwater treatment systems will
comply with the statutory preference for altema1ives
that reduce toxicity of contaminants.
SlIort-t8nn Eft8CtlYe"ess. All of the altematives
can be Implemented without significant risk to. the
COrnm.lnlty or on-slte workers and without adverse
environmental Impacts.
ImDIMn8ntab1my. None of the alternatives pose
significant concerns regarding implementation.
Design of the treatment systems for Altematives
Gm thnxagh GW6 could not be conducted until
discharge requirements were defined.
~ Total present worth costs for the groundwater
remediation "ematlves are presented below:
Alttm1t1v8 GW1
No lCCion:
.- $
o
Alternative GW2
Restrict Groundwater Use and Monitor:
$ 235,800
Alttmat1v8 GW3
Groundwater Containment/Surface Water
Discharge: . $1,342,700
13
-------
to C8ft)0n dioxide and water. It Is ant~ated that an
of the extracted, treated groundwater will be
reintroduced to ... aqu.er. however. it may be
necessary to ~ up tQ 25% of the water either
to Browning Creek. meeting NPCES requirements,
or to the City of Waynesville POTW, meeting the
POTWs pretreatme~ requirements.
Based on current information, this alternative ap-
pears to provide the best balance of tra~ffs with
respect to the nine criteria that EPA uses to evaluate
aaematlves. EPA believes the preferred alternative
will satisfy the statutory requirements of Section
121(b) of CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. 9621 (b), which
provides that the seleded alternative be protective
of human health and ttMI environment, comply with
ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and treatments to the maxirn.am extent
practicable. The selection of the above alternative
is preliminary and could change in response to public
co~nts. .
wu
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has developed a community relations program as mandated by Congress under Superfund to respond to
citizen's concerns and needs for Information, and to enable residents and public: officials to participate in the
decision-making process. Public: involvement activities undertaken at Superfund sites are interviews with local
residents aDd elected Officials. a cornmJnity relations plan for each site, fact sheets, availability sessions, public
meetings, public comment periods, newspaper advertisements, site villts, and T 8Chnic:aI Assistance Grants, and
any other actions needed to keep the COnvT1Unity Informed and involved.
EPA is conducting a »day public comment per10d from AprIl 13, 1112 to M8y 12, 1"2, to provide an
opportunity for public Involvement In selecting the final de8lq) method for this Site. Public: input on all
alternatives, and on the WonnatIon that supports the "ematlY8I Is an IfT1)Ottant contrbJtlon to the remedy
selection process. DuI1ng this comment period, the public is Invited to aIIend a public meeting on April 21, 1992,
at the Hazelwood Town HaU in Hazelwood, North Carolina beginning at 7:00 p.m. at which EPA wiU present the
Remedial Investigation! FeasiHllty Study and Proposed Plan descrbIng the preferred alternative for treatment of
. the contamination at the Benfield Industries Site and to answer any questions. Because this Proposed Plan Fact
Sheet provides only a summary de~ of the clelnlp alematives being considered. the public is encouraged
- to consult the Information reposlory for a more detailed explanation.
Curing this ~y period. the pubic II invited to review all 1Ie-related documents housed at the information
repository located at the Hazelwood Town Hal, 121 West Georgia Ave,.,.. Hazelwood, and offer commems to
EPA either orally. the pubIIc.~ which wi. be recorded by a court reporter or In written form during this
time period. Th8 8CIuaJ rem8dIaIldion could be cliffe"'" from the prwtemld alternative, depending upon new
information or........ EPA m8Y r8C8Mt u a resulof public conmenIS. If you prefer to submit written
comments, p-.e .... them postmarked no later than rnidnigtt May 12, 1Q92 to:
. Diane Barrett
HC COmmunity Relations COOrdinator
U.S.E.P.A., AIOIon 4
North R8m1d1al SUperfund 8r8nCh
345 Courtland Str8It. HE
Atlanta, GA 30385
All comments wiU be reviewed and a response prepared in making the final determination of the most appropriate
alternative for cle8l'l4Vtreatment of the Sle. EPA's final chOice of a remedy wUI be issued In a Record of Cecision
(ROC). A document called a ResponstYtntSl Summary surnmartzing EPA's response to aU public comments
15
-------
...
"GLOSSARY OF:TERMS USED IN" THIS FACT SHEET
Aquifer: Ar1 undergraund 9eo'logical fonnation, or
group of formations. containing useable amounts of
groundwater that can supply wells and springs.
Admlnlstrat/v. Rard: A file which is maintained
and contains all infonnation used by the lead agency
to make its decision on the selection of a method to
be utilized to clean upltreat contamination at a Su-
perfund site. This file is located in the information
repository for public review.
Appllesbl. or R.I.'I8nt 8nd Appro"".,. R«Iul18-
ments (ARARs): The federal and state require-
ments that a selected remedy must attain. These
requirements may vary among sites and various
alternatives.
Bas.lln. Risk A...ssm.nt A means of estimating
the amount of damage a Superfund site could cause
to human health and the environment. Objectives of
a risk assessment are to: help determine the need
for adion: help detennine the levels of chemicals
that can remain on the site after cle8tl.lp and still
proted health and the environment: and provide a
basis for comparing different cleanup methods.
ClIp: A layer of day ancVor other highly 1"1)8rm&-
able material, such as a thick polyethylene liner,
installed over the top of a closed landfiU or land area
to prevent entry of rainwater and minimize produc-
tion of leachate.
CIIrclnogen/c. My substance that can cause or
contribute to the production of cancer; cancer-
producing.
Compt8h81181t18 EnvIfoMIMIMI Rapon., C«a-
penatlon 8ItII LlIIbIIIIy Act (CERCLA): A federal
law passed ~ 1880 and modified In 1986 by the
Superfund ~1dInMs and Reauthorization AD.
(SARA). The.Ada en8ted . special tax paid by.
producers of ¥IIIauI cherricals and 011 products that
goes into a TIUII Fund. conmonly known u Super-
fund. These Ads give EPA the authoriIy II) inves-
tigate and clean up abandoned" or uncontroUed
hazardous waste sites utilizing money flOm the Su-
perfund TNst or bytaldng legal ac:tionto force patties
responsble for the contamination to pay for and
clean up the sit..
GI'oundW8tM': Water found beneath the eal1h's
sur1ace that fills pores between materials such as
sand. soil, or gravel (usually in aquifers) which is
often used for supplyin~wells and springs. Because
graundwater is a major source of drinking water
there is growing concem over areas where agricul-
tural and industrial pollutants or substances are get-
ting into groundwater. .
lfIfonI8tlon R.posltory: A file containing accurate
up-to-Gaie information, technical reports. reference
doc:u~nts, information about the Technical Assis.
tance Grant. and any other materials pertinent to the
site. This file Is usually located in a public building
such as a library, city hall or school, that is accessible
for toeal residents,
unci Disposal Restriction (LDRS): Any place-
ment of hazardous waste in a landfill, sur1ace im-
poundment. waste pile, injection well. land treatment
facility. sail dome formation, underground mine,
cave and concrete ~inker or vault.
LNch818: A contaminated Uquid resulting when
water percolates or trickles through waste materials
and collects components of those wastes. Leaching
may occur at landfills and may result in hazardous
. substances entering soli, surface water or
graundwater.
IIuImum eom.ml""nt L.'I8ls (IICLs): The max-
irftIm pennissble level of a contaminant in water
delMtred to any user of a public water system.
MCLt are enforceable standards.
NIItIonai 0I18Ittl HuardoC18 Substllnt»s Contln.
gency 111M (NCP): The federal regulation that
guides determination of the sites to be corrected
under the Superfund program and the program to
prevent or control spills into sur1ace waters or other
portions of the environment.
NMJOMI RoIiu8nt DISCM'f/8 Elimination Sys.
t8m (NPDES): A provision of the Clean Water Act
which prohibits the discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless a special pennit
Is Issued by EPA, a state or (where delegated) a
tribal QOvemme,. on. art Indian reservation allowing
a corvolled discharge of Uquid after It has undergone
treatment.
17
./
-------
. J'_,-- 2'7 .?2 ~':C: 5'7
3': 4 F'~:;~
- ...-..-
- . - ..- ~..
...
.' ..:;;;:;;:~
" " ,-. '#''''''~~''''l\.
(:r!;'~~~'~" ~~;\- ,
lS ,~':" ¥)I~
, ~ ZlJ;' ~
~~~!-
...,~.~
-
State of North, Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
P.o. 80" 27687' Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
"
James G. Mart.iD. Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Scaetuy
July 27, 1992
William L. Meyer
Director
Mr. Greer C. Tidwell
Regional Administrator
u.s. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Subj: Conditional Concurrence with the Record ot Decision
Benfield Industries NPL Site
Hazelwood, Haywood County, NC
Dear Mr. Tidwell:
The State of North Carolina has completed review of .the
attached Revised Draft Record of Decision and concurs with the
selected remedy subject to the following conditions.
1.
Because state comments regarding additivity of risk have not
been fully incorporated into' the cleanup goals, the tota~
additive residual risk after site cleanup will exceed 10- .
If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk
level exceeds 10-6, the site will require deed
recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual
contamination and possibly, limit the, future use of the
property as specified in NCGS 130A-310.8. ," ,
State concurrence on this Record of Decision and the selected
remedy for the site is based solely on the information
contained in the attached Record of Decision. Should the
State receive' new or additional information which
significantly affects" the Conclusions or' remedy selection
contained in the Record of Decision, it may modify or withdraw
this concurrence with written notice to EPA Region IV.
2.
3.
State concurrence on this Record of Decision in no way binds
the State to concur in future decisions or commits the State
to participate, financially or otherwise, in the clean, up of
the site. The State reserves the right to review, comment,
and make independent assessments of all future work relating
to this site.
-------
I '-'~ ..:..
:"- '-':--; :.'=
1 .
Mr. Greer C. Tidwell
27 July 1992
Page 2
':.,::,~ - ~-~-
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the Revised Draft Record of Decision for the subject
site, and W& look forward to working with EPA on the final remedy.
bin\berodcon
cc: Michael Kelly
Bruce Nicholson
Curt Fehn
Jon Bornholm
Attachment
Sincerely,
~b~~
Jack Butler, PE
Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Superfund Section
-------
...,~.o '.''''.t
.. ~. ".
# . I 1
i~}1i
\<111. . ~~
~. c.'
~ ., 8180"
UNITEC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
. 34S.COUATL.ANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGiA 3036S
JUL 2 S 199Z
4WD-NCRS
Hr. Jack Butler
North. Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Re.ources
401 Oberlin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
.REa
Respons. to Conditions Included in North Carolina's
Conditional Concurrence for the Benfield Industries
Superfund Site Record of Decision
Dear Hr. Butler:
EPA-Region IV appreciate. the State's conditional concurrence on the Record.
of Deci.ion (ROD) for the Benfield InduBtrie. Superfund .ite located in
Hazelwood, North Carolina. Por the record, EPA would l1Jca to re.pond to the.
condition. formulated by North Carolina Department of Bnvironment, aealth,
and Natural Re.Ource. (NCDEBHR) - Superfund Section and apec:ified in your
July 27, 1992 corre.pondence to Hr. Greer Tidwell. Your July 27, 1992
letter, along with this re.pon.., will be included in Appendix C of the ROD.
The.e letters .hould .tand a. Official documentation that BPA-Region IV and
NCDEBHR-Superfund Section have agr_d on the preferred alternative. a~ this
point in t1me.
Of. the tbr- conditioft8 expre..ed, only the fir.t condition require. a
re.pon.e fram the Agency. In re.pon.e to RCDBBHR-Superfund Section fir.t
COndition, the State may in the future put in place, parauant to State law
"(G.S. 130A-310.8), a deed recordation/re.triction to document the pre.ence of
re.1dual contamination which may limit the future u.e of the property. And,
a. .tated, this would be done after the completion of the Site'. remediation.
Plea.e contact 1118 at (404) 347-7791 if you have any que.tion. or COllllll8nt8
regarding this matter.
Sincerely ~.,
-t' k 6~ c---
Jon It. BOrnbolm
Remedial Project Manager
cc.
Curt Pahn, BPA
Bruce. Nicholson, NCDBBHR
P"n,.c: "f! ~~c..." -!.: :JJ:er
------- |