United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/139
September 1993
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PCX (Statesville Plant), NC
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. ~ 3. ReclpI8nt'8 Acclulan No.
PAGE EE>A/ROD/R04'-93/139
4. TItle and Subtitle & A8port Det8
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/27/93
FCX (Statesville Plant), NC &
First Remedial Action
8. Performing Organization AepC. No.
9. P8rformlng Organization Name and Add- 10 Project TuklWOft( UnIt No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponeoring Organization Name and AcIdran 13. Type of Report .. PwIod Cw8r8d
U. S.' Environmental Protection Agency 800/800
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
1&. ~uy Not..
PB94-964045
1&. AbatnlCt (Umit: 200 words)
The 5.5-acre FCX (Statesville) site is an inactive agricultural chemical distribution
center located in Statesville, North Carolina. Land use in the area is predominantly
light/heavy industrial, commercial, residential, and institutional. The site is
bordered to the north by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad and Burlington Industries
(foDmerly Beaunt Mills), the Carnation Milk Company., to the _west, and residential and
small business properties to the south. Between 1950 and 1969, most of the buildings
were demolished; and, in 1969 and 1982, two warehouses were constructed. From 1940
until declaring bankruptcy in 1986, FaDmers Cooperative Exchanges (FCX) began
operations as an agricultural distribution center that fODmulated, repackaged,
warehoused, and distributed farm chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers, along
with milling and selling field grains. Repackaging of liquid pesticides was
discontinued in 1966, and subsequently, in 1969, the dust repackaging stopped.
Previous employees have indicated that approximately 5,000 to 10,000 pounds of DDT,
DDE, and possibly liquid chlordane were improperly disposed of onsite in two trenches.
These trenches were covered initially with six feet of soil and later covered with an
8-inch concrete slab and warehouse. In 1986, the State identified pesticide
contamination in onsite soil and contamination by VOCs and pesticides in ground water.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document AnaIy&Is .. Daacrlptors
Record of Decision - FCX (Statesville Plant), NC
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE), other organics (pesticides), metals (chromium)
b. IdanIlfiarslOpan
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/139
FCX CStatesville Plant), NC
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
In 1989 and 1990, EPA drilled exploratory boreholes beneath the warehouse in an attempt to
locate the alleged pesticide trenches and installed monitoring wells, which identified
ground water contamination by VOCs and pesticides. This ROD addresses ground water
contamination beneath, and to the south of, the FCX property, as OUI. Two future RODs
will address soil, surface water, sediment, and ground water contamination, as OUs 2 and
3. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs, including PCE
and TCE; other organics, including pesticides; and metals, including chromium.
The selected remedial action for this site includes extracting and treating contaminated
ground water at the FCX property and to the south of the property onsite using chemical
precipitation/filtration to treat metals and carbon adsorption to treat
.organics;discharging the treated water offsite to a local POTW or onsite to nearby surface
water; providing for a contingency remedy to implement a combination of containment
technologies and institutional controls, if at any point in the process specified
performance standards cannot be met; monitoring ground water; and implementing
institutional controls, including deed restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $4,161,525, which includes an annual O&M cost of $222,190 for 20
years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Ground water will be restored to beneficial use based on the more stringent of Federal
MCLs, State standards, and risk-based levels. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup
goals include alpha-SHC 0.01 ug/l; alpha chlordane 0.027 ug/l; beryllium 4 ug/l; beta-SHC
0.01 ug/l; bromodichloromethane 100 ug/l; chloroform 0.19 ug/l; chloromethane 1 ug/l;
chromium 50 ug/l; 1,1-dichloroethane 1 ug/l; 1,1-dichloroethene 7 ug/l; dieldrin 0.1 ug/l;
bis(2-ethyl-hexyl)phthalate 6 ug/l; gamma chlordane 0.027 ug/l; heptachlor epoxide 0.038
ug/l; lindane 0.027 ug/l; manganese 50 ug/l; PCE. 0.7 ug/l; TCE 2.8 ug/l; and vanadium 98
ug/l.
-------
FCX-STATESVJ:LLE
SUPERFUND S:ITE
RECORD OF DEC:IS:IOR
OPERABLE UN:IT ONE
-\.~E.O S"'-4 ~
~~ ~6\
i ~ =u
< ~ z.
~. ~~/1 ~
'\~i
~~( PRt%-~
u . S . BRV:IRONMBR'1'AL PROTECTIOR AGBRCY
REGIOR :IV
ATLAN'.rA, GEORGIA
SEPTEMBER 1993
-------
DBCLARATION
POR
'l'BB RECORD OP DBCISION
SJ:TE NAHB AND LOCATJ:ON
FCX-Statesville
Statesville, Iredell County, North Carolina
STATmmN'l' 01" BASJ:S AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the Operable Unit One Remedial
Action for the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site (the "Site") in
Iredell County, North Carolina, chosen in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the
administrative record file for this Site.
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy for
Operable Unit One. State comments on this Record of Decision, as
well as EPA's responses to those comments, can be found in Appendix
A of this-document.
ASSESSMENT 01" THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRJ:PTION 01" THE SELECTED REMEDY
The Operable Unit One Remedial Action addresses a portion of the
groundwater contamination at the Site. The major threat is the
contaminated groundwater emanating from beneath the Site. The next
two phases of cleanup, known as Operable Units Two and Three, will
address contaminated soil at the Site and all other soil, surface
water/sediment, and groundwater identified during the Operable Unit
Three Remedial Investigation/FeasiQility. Study. The major
components of the Operable Unit One Remedial Action include: .
GROUNDWATER
Extraction of groundwater at the FCX property and to the south
of the FCX property that is contaminated above Federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or the North Carolina Groundwater
Standards, whichever are more protective;
-------
On-site treatment of extracted groundwater via
Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon Adsorption;
Chemical
Discharge of treated groundwater either to the local POTW or
nearby surface water pathway;
Monitoring of groundwater entering and exiting the treatment
system, as well as monitoring of the groundwater quality
across the Site for an estimated 30 years; and
The use of deed restrictions in the affected area to prohibit
the consumption of contaminated groundwater.
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING AND MONITORING
The installation of additional monitoring wells may be required
during the Remedial Design to further characterize the nature and
extent of groundwater contamination. Additional aquifer tests may
also be needed in order to properly design the selected remedy.
In order to establish a broader database on groundwater quality and
to maintain a level of protection for private well users living
downgradient from the Site, samples will be collected and analyzed
on a regular basis prior to implementation of the Remedial Action.
STA'1'tJTORY l>BTERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements
1 ega lly appl icable or relevant and appropriate to the
Action, and is cost-effective.
and the
that are
Remedial
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of Site contaminants as a
principal element.
Since this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining on~
site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within
five years after commencement of the Operable Unit One Remedial
Action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment.
9~1YJ~.
patrickM. Tobin
Acting Regional Administrator
9- ..£7-fi'3
Date
-------
FCX-STATESVILLE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
DBCISION SUMMARY
I.
II.
SITB
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
. .. . . . .
. . .. 0 . . . .
. . . .
. .. . .
NAME, LOCATION, AND DBSCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Topoqraphv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Geoloqy/Hvdroqeoloqy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Meteoroloqy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Demoqraphv and Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SITB HISTORY AND BNFORCBMBNT ACTrvITIBS . . . . . . . .
A. Si te Historv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Enforcement Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. HIGHLIGHTS OP COHMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV.
V.
VI.
o. . . . .
. . . .
SCOPB AND ROLB OP RESPONSB ACTION WJ:THIN SJ:TB STRATBGY .
SOMHARY OP SITB CHARACTBRJ:STICS . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Groundwater Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase I Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
Phase II Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Soil Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase I Resul ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase II Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Surface Water/Sediment Contamination. . . . . . .
Phase I Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Phase II Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.
C.
SUMMARY OP SJ:TB RJ:SKS . . .
A. Contaminants of Concern
B.
C.
D.
E.
. . .
.......
. . . .
. . .
. . . .
.......
ExPosure Assessment. . . " . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toxicitv Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Risk Characterization. . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .
Current Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Future Land Use. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental (Ecoloqical) Assessment. . . . . . .
VJ:J:. APPLJ:CABLB OR RELBVANT AND APPROPRIATB RBQO'J:REHBNTS
A. Action-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Location-Specific ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
9
9
9
10
16
22
22
24
24
24
25
26
26
27
30
30
34
34
39
40,
40
40
-------
I --
FCX-STATESVILLE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
C.
Chemical-Specific ARARs .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . .
VIII. RBMBD~ ACTION OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Soil Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Groundwater Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . .
IX.
DBSCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Al t erna t i ve 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 2: Limited ~ction . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with
Chemical Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon
Adsorpt ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment With
Chemical Precipitation/Filtration, Air Stripping,
Carbon Adsorption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X.
StJMHARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES. . . . .
Groundwater Remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Short-term Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence. . . . . .
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume. . . .
Implementability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community Acceptance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI. THB SBLBCTBD RBKBDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Groundwater Remediation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Extraction and Performance Standards. . . . . . .
XII.
STA'l'UTORY DBTBRHINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Protection of Human Health and the Environment. . . . .
Compliance with ARARs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost Effectiveness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element. . . .
XIII.
DOCtJHBN'l'ATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGB
. . . . .
. . . .
Page
55
55
55
56
56 .
56 .
61
62
62
63
65
65
65
66
66
66
66
67
68
68
68
68
72
74
74
74
74
74
75
75
-------
FCX-STATESVILLE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Descript:ion
Page
F:IGtmB
1-1
2-1
2-2
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
8-1
8-2
11-1
LIST OF FIGURES
DESCR:IPT:ION
PAGE NO.
Site Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Pesticide Groundwater Results from
1986 Fred C. Hart Study. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Volatile Organic Compound Groundwater
Results from 1986 Fred C. Hart Study. . . . . .
Pesticide Groundwater Results from
Phase I Remedial Investigation. . . . . . . . . 14
Purgeable Organic Compound Groundwater
Results from Phase I Remedial Investigation. . . 15
pesticide Groundwater Results from
Phase II Remedial Investigation. . . . . . . . . 17
Purgeable Organic Compound Groundwater
Results from Phase II Remedial Investigation. . 19
Pesticide Groundwater Results from
Temporary Monitoring Wells. . . . . . . . . . . .20
Purgeable Organic Compound Groundwater
Results from Temporary Monitoring Wells. . . . . 21
Extent of pesticide Groundwater Contamination
from Remedial Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . 58
Extent of Volatile Organic Compound
Contamination from Remedial Investigation. . . . 59
Estimated Recovery Well Locations. . . . . . . . 71
6
7
-------
- ~.--- ~~. ~ ~ -
..
FCX-STATESVILLE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Description
Page
TABLB
5-1
6...:1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
7-2
8-1
9-1
10-1
11-1
11-2
LIST OP TABLBS
DBSCRIPTION
Summary of Groundwater Samples........... ...
Contaminants of Concern.....................
Model for Calculating Groundwater
Ingestion Dose......... . . . . .". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Toxici ty Criteria...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of Chronic Risk Due to
Ingestion and Inhalation of Groundwater.....
Summary of Lifetime Risk Due to
Ingestion and Inhalation of Groundwater.....
Analysis of Potential Federal ARARs........-.
Analysis of Potential State ARARs...........
Groundwater Cleanup Levels..................
Screening of Alternatives...................
Summary of ARARs Evaluated.. ................
Estimated Capital Costs for
Alternative Three...........................
Estimated Operation and Maintenance
Costs for Alternative Three. ................
PAGB NO.
11
28
29
31
35
37
41
50
57
60
67
69
70
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 1
DECISION SUMHARY
I.
SITB NAHB, LOCATION, AND DBSCRIPTION
A.
Introduction
The FCX-Statesville property is located at the intersection of
Phoenix Street and West Front Street (Highway 90) approximately 1.5
miles west of downtown Statesville. Beginning around 1940, Farmers
Cooperative Exchange (FCX) began .operations as an agricl,lltural
distribution center. These operations included the formulation,
repackaging, warehousing, and distribution of farm chemicals,
primarily pesticides and fertilizers, along with the milling and
sale of feed grains. The repackaging of liquid pesticides was
discontinued in 1966 and dust repackaging in 1969.
Testimony from previous employees indicates that 5,000-10,000
pounds of DDT, DDE, and possibly liquid chlordane were disposed of
on-site in two trenches, buried with six feet of soil, and later
covered with a reinforced 8N-thick concrete slab and warehouse.
Pesticide contamination in the soil as well as pesticide and
volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the groundwater
have been- documented at the Site since 1986. . FCX filed for
bankruptcy in September 1986.
B.
Site Description
The Site is approximately 5.5 acres in size. The coordinates of
the Site are latitude 35° 47' 11" north, longitude 80° 54' 58" west.
The Site is bounded to the north by the Norfolk-Southern Railroad
and Burlington Industries (formerly Beaunit Mills), the Carnation
Milk Company property to the west, residential/small business
property along the south side of West Front Street, and a pre-
fabricated utility and sales lot on the east side of Phoenix
Street. Figure 1-1 shows a Site diagram.
Prior to 1950-51, the main structures at the Site included a U-
shaped" building located on the western half of the property used
for pesticide operations, and several buildings on the eastern half
of the property used for the milling and bagging of feed grains.
A small office building was also present near the southeastern
corner of the property.
Between 1950 and 1969, most of the buildings on the property were
demolished (with the exception of the small office building). Two
warehouses have been constructed at the Site since the demolition.
A large brick warehouse was constructed in 1969-70, and a smaller,.
metal warehouse painted blue was constructed in 1982. An asphalt
parking lot is present between the warehouses and West Front
Street.
-------
CARNATlON
MILK
COMPANY
8
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
w
~ - MCNITORINC \>£Us
v
RESIDENTIAL
AREA
FIGURE 1-1
SITE DIAGRAM
(SHO'MNG ON-SITE MONITORING WELLS)
FCX- ST A TESVILLE
ST A TESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
APPROXIMA TE SCALE
12~ 0 82.5 125
~~
( IN F{ET )
1 inch = 125 ft.
ijEPA
..,
()t/)
:;<~
t/)f'T
8(1)
~g
~t1..,
HNH
t"'\OZ
'" ["'. :I>'
~t"I.....t"'
t"IO\O:;tJ
C:\Oo
t......n.....wt:J
-------
-,
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 3
The majority of the Site to the east of the two warehouses is a
gravelled area, and contains a large reinforced concrete slab and
smaller concrete tractor trailor pads.
C.
Topoqraphv
The Site is situated in the piedmont physiographic province in
western-central North Carolina. The Piedmont physiographic
province surrounding the Site is characterized as gently rolling
and sloping, with slopes on-site ranging up to 1.5 percent. Slopes
in the immediate vicinity of the Site range from 2 to 6 percent.
Elevations within a four-mile radius of the Site range from 740 to
970 feet above mean sea level.
D.
Geoloqy/Hvdroqeoloqy
The Site lies within the geologic belt known as the Blue Ridge-
Inner Piedmont Belt. The Blue Ridge-Inner piedmont Belt generally
consists of metamorphic rocks including gneisses and schists, as
well as gradations of the two types. Most of these rocks near the
surface have weathered into a layer of "overburdenu overlying the
fractured but relatively unweathered bedrock. The overb\,lrden
ranges in-thickness from 15-40 feet at the Site, and consists of
saprolite and residual soils interspersed with unweathered
gneiss/schist, and to a lesser extent, alluvium. Granitic
intrusions are also common in the area of the Site. Soils in the
general area of the Site belong to the Lloyd Association. These
soils, located along broad ridges with short side slopes, are
characterized as deep, well-drained soils with a subsoil of dark
red clay.
Groundwater at the Site occurs in an unconfined-to-serniconfined
aquifer consisting of the overburden hydraulically interconnected
with the underlying fractured bedrock. The saturated overburden
serves as a groundwater reservoir which supplies water to the
fractures, faults, and other secondary permeability features in the
bedrock. Approximate depth to groundwater in the saturated
overburden in the vicinity of the Site generally ranges from 27 to
30 feet below land surface. During the wetter periods of the year,
groundwater may intersect the ground surface and become overland or
surface water flow.
E.
Surface Water
On-site surface water drainage and flow patterns are generally
controlled by topography and several man-made drainage structures
constructed along West Front Street and Phoenix Street. Surfac~
water flow is generally to the south into Free Nancy Creek, which
converges with Third Creek approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
Site (two miles stream distance) .
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 4
Third Creek flows in a easterly direction for approximately 15
miles, where it empties into the South Yadkin River.
F.
Meteoroloqy
The climate in Iredell County is classified as fairly mild, and is
influenced by the mountain ranges to the northeast, and the
Atlantic Ocean to the southeast. Prevailing winds are from the
southwest, although northeast winds do frequently occur in the
autumn. Relative humidity averages about 70 percent throughout the
year. Monthly total precipitation generally ranges from about 3
inches during October and November to about 5 inches during July.
and August.
G.
Demoqraphv and Land Use
The Site is located along an industrial corridor which stretches
along West Front Street. The area around the Site is characterized
by a combination of light/heavy industry, commercial, residential,
and institutional. The estimated population within the five-mile
radius of the Site includes all of Statesville (18,622 in the 1980
census) and an estimated 9,500 living in Iredell County outside the
city limits. The population within the three-mile radius of the
Site includes about 90% of the city's population (about 17,000
people) and 2,440 county residents.
H.
Utilities
Electricity, telephone, as well as water and sewage connections
have been terminated since FCX declared bankruptcy. in 1986.
. Nevertheless, these utilities are available upon request.
II.
SITB HISTORY AND BNFORCBMBNT ACTrvITIBS
A.
Site Historv
FCX began operating the Site as an agricultural supply distribution
center about 1940 and continued to operate the Site until declaring
bankruptcy in 1986. The Site served as a formulating, repackaging,
warehousing, and distribution center for pesticides, fertilizers,
and feed grains. The repackaging of liquid pesticides was
discontinued in 1966 and dust repackaging in 1969. Testimony from
previous employees indicates that 5,000-10,000 pounds of DDT, DDE,
and possibly liquid chlordane were disposed of on-site in two
trenches, buried under six feet of soil, and later covered with a
reinforced, 8U-thick concrete slab and warehouse.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 5
previous investigations conducted prior to the Remedial
Investigation at the FCX Site have been conducted by Fred C. Hart
for Southern States Cooperative, by the North Carolina Department
of Human Resources (NCDHR) (now known as the North Carolina.
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Superfund
Section (NCDEHNR»), and by EPA-Region IV Emergency Response.
The Fred C. Hart investigation in February 1986 resulted from a
pre-purchase environmental evaluation on behalf of Southern States
Cooperative. Five composite soil samples were collected to
investigate the soil for reported pesticide contamination. Four
permanent monitoring wells were installed on-site to investigate
the groundwater for reported pesticide contamination. Analytical
results of. the soil samples indicated the .presence of nine
. pesticides, most notably chlordane and DDT. pesticides and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in the groundwater,
most notably the pesticide gamma-BHC (lindane) and the VOCs
tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene. Figure.2-1 shows the
concentrations of pesticides identified in the groundwater during
the Fred C. Hart study in 1986. Figure 2-2 shows the
concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) identified in
the groundwater during the same study.
The NCDHR conducted a Site Inspection in May 1986. Soil samples
were collected both on-site and off-site in the front yard of an
adjacent residence. Groundwater samples were collected and
analyzed from the four existing wells, as well as a water supply
well on the Carnation Milk Company property located approximately
800 feet to the west of the FCX property boundary. Analytical
results of the soil samples indicated the presence of pesticides
both on the FCX property as well as on adj acent properties.
Lindane, fluorocarbons, VOCs, and caprolactum were identified in
the groundwater samples.
EPA-Region IV Emergency Response conducted an emergency sampling
investigations at the Site in January 1989 and again in January
1990. Extensive exploratory borings were drilled through the main
warehouse concrete floor in an attempt to locate the alleged
pesticide trenches. Efforts to locate the pesticide trenches were
unsuccessful. Four monitoring wells were installed at two
locations on-site, two wells screened. in the overburden portion of
the aquifer and two wells screened in the bedrock portion of the
aquifer. Pesticides and.VOCs were once again identified in the
groundwater. .
-------
P..t1cld..:
Postleldes:
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
~
. - SOIL
. - WATER
AU. CONC. U9/\<9 (SOIL):
U9/1 (WA TlR)
NOTE: AU. SOIL CONCENmA nCNS
ARE COMPOSITE OF'
APPROXJWA 1£ lOCA nONS SHO'WN
8
P..llcld..:
Alpha SHC - P
Sola SHC - 29
1,I'-ooE - 250
Dieldrin - 460
4,4'-000 - 2VO
4,4' -OOT - 2600
Endrln - 46
Wolhax><:hlor - 670
RESIDENTIAL
AREA P..llcld."
Pestlcldo.:
.,.'-DOE - 40
.,.'-000 - 55
4,4'-00T - IDO
CIIlordano - 760
FIGURE 2-1
ANAL YTICAL RESULTS SUMMARY
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS
FRED C, HART STUDY, FEBRUARY 1986
FCX-STATESVILLE
STA TESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
APPROXIMA TE SCALE
125 0 62.5
~~
( IN FEET)
1 inch - 125 It.
125
I
;
&EPA
"1
~~
(/)"
~~
~(1)
~'1"1
H"'H
l"'\DZ
~fu:-'~
I'JO\D:>;I
C\DO
O"tt-'wa
-------
Volotl~
Tr1c:t1l«onu«ometMne - ~
Cabontetroc:hl«'de - 65
Tr1c:t1l0r0eth)4..e - 15
Benz",e - 15
Toluene - 1~
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
I
CARNA nON
MILK
COMPANY
I.£!iEtID.
8 - WATER
AU. CONC. u9/1 (wATER)
8
RESIDENTIAL
AREA
V%llloe:
Va/otl..:
1.1-Dlchloroethene - 15
1,I-Dlchl«oethone - 12
Tran..-I,2-Dlchlorooth""e - 15
1.1,1- Tr1chloroethane - 15
Trlc:tIloroeth)lone - U
Tetrochloroeth)lene - 41
FIGURB 2-2
ANAL ynCAL RESULTS SUMMARY
VOLA TILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
FRED C. HART STUDY, FEBRUARY 1986
FCX-STA TESVILlE
S T A TESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROXIMA TE SCALE
62.5
I
125 0
~_.....J
- -
125
!
5JEPA
( IN FEET )
1 inch - 125 It.
"1
8~
111<'
8(1)
~g
111'1
<: "1
~~~
~f;;' ~
G') ~
tI:Io
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 8
B.
Enforcement Activities
On September 17, 1986, FCX filed a voluntary petition under the
provisions of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The
EPA, NCDEHNR, and FCX entered into a settlement agreement, whereby
FCX established a trust to be used to remediate the Site.
Groundwater monitoring at the Site since the Fred C. Hart study in
1986 has consistently shown the presence of VOC . contamination . EPA
has signed an Administrative Order of Consent with Burlington
Industries and EI Paso Natural Gas Company to perform an RIfFS to
. determine the nature and extent of the VOC contamination at
portions of the Site.
The FCX-Statesville Site was evaluated using the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National
priorities List (NPL) on June 24, 1988, and was finalized on the
NPL on February 21, 1990. EPA-Region IV initiated an RIfFS at the
Site in September 1990 with the aid of EPA's Environmental Services
Division, and EPA's Alternative Remedial Contract (ARCs)
contractor, Roy F. Weston.
III. HIG~GHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to Section 113(K) (2) (B) (i-v) and Section 117 of CERCLA 42
U.S.C. ~ 9613 (K) (2) (B) (i-j), and 42 U.S.C. ~ 9617, the Community
Relations Plan and the RIfFS Reports were made available to the
public in the Administrative Record located both in the Information
Repository maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region IV and at
.the Iredell County Library in Statesville, North Carolina. Fact
sheets notifying local citizens about the availability of these
documents, explaining the RIfFS process, and summarizing site-
related activities were sent out in May 1991 and April 1993. A
public meeting was held on May 31, 1991 to inform citizens about
upcoming RI activities. Notices of the Proposed Plan public
meeting were published in the Record and Landmark, the Iredell
County News, the Charlotte Observer, and the Challenqer Newspaper
on May 6, 1993. A 3D-day public comment period was held from May
6, 1993 to June 5, 1993. The Proposed Plan public meeting was held
on May 20, 1993 where representatives from EPA answered questions
about the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
The public requested an extension of the comment period during the
meeting. Based on this request, EPA extended the comment period to
August 2, 1993. Representatives from EPA have met with individual
citizens and citizen groups on numerous occasions over the past
several years to obtain their input and to keep them informed. The
local citizens group "Citizens for a Clean Environment" applied for
and were awarded a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) on March 23,
1992.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 9
IV.
SCOPB AND ROLB OF RBSPONSB ACTION WITHIN SITB STRATBGY
As with many Superfund sites, the FCX-Statesville Site is complex.
For this reason, EPA currently believes that the remediation of the
Site will be accomplished most effectively by implementing three
phases of cleanup, referred to as "operable units".
Each operable unit requires a separate RI/FS, a separate Proposed
Plan, and separate ROD. The objectives of the three operable units
(OUs) at the Site are: .
OU One:
Address the groundwater contamination beneath the
FCX property and to the south of the FCX property
OU Two:
Address the soil contamination (mainly pesticides,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs),
pentachlorophenol, and dioxin) at the Site
OU 'l'hree:
Address all other contamination which was not
characterized during the initial RI/FS (mainly
soil, groundwater, and surface water/sediment
contaminated with volatile organic compounds)
- .
The ROD for Operable Unit One is expected to be signed in September
1993. The intent of the Operable Unit One Remedial Action contained
in this ROD is to reduce the risk at the Site by reducing the
threat posed by groundwater contamination, as well as to restore
the groundwater aquifer to its beneficialuse(s) .
The Operable Unit One Remedial Action will achieve these objectives
by containing the off-site movement or migration of contaminated
groundwater located beneath the FCX property and to the south of
the Site, as well as treating the groundwater to meet all Federal
and State requirements.
V.
SOHHARY OF SITB CHARACTBRISTICS
The purpose of the RI at the Site was to characterize the nature
and extent of groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment
contamination.
A.
Groundwater Contamination
The groundwater investigation was conducted in two phases; phase I
was conducted in June 1991 and sampling for phase II was conducted
in June and October 1992. In the first phase, samples were
collected from twelve (12) on-site monitoring wells, one of which
is an upgradient well (MW-04). .
,
i
-------
FINAL ROD
Sepcember 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 10
Groundwater samples were also collected from the Carnation well
located approximately 800 feet west of the Site, as well as from
three (3) private wells located south of the Site. Table 5-1
contain the phase I groundwater sample. results, including the
number of detects, the range of concentrations, and the mean'
concentration for each of the metals or compounds detected. The
units of measure for the groundwater samples are micrograms per
liter (ug/l), commonly referred to as parts per billion.
Phase I Results
A number of pesticides were identifed in the on-site monitoring
wells. All of the pesticide compounds detected in on-site
monitoring wells (with the exception of endrin ketone in well MW-
6S), were detected in samples from shallow wells MW-3, MW-5S, MW-1,
MW-2, and one deep well, MW-5D. The pesticides with relatively
high water solubility constants, such as the individual BHC
compounds and endrin ketone, were the only pesticide compounds
detected at concentrations exceeding 1 ug/l. On the other hand,
the pesticides with relatively low water solubility constants, such
as the DDT compounds, were not detected at appreciable
concentrations at the monitored locations. Figure 5-1 shows the
pesticide ~roundwater contamination identified during the phase I
RI.
Nine (9) identifed and four '(4) unidentified extractable organic
compounds, as well as fourteen (14) purgeable organic compounds
were detected in samples from a number of the on-site monitoring
wells across the Site at concentrations of 100 ug/l or less.
With the exception of diisopropyl ether and xylene, all of the
detected compounds were chlorinated hydrocarbons. The most
s~gnificant purgeable organic compound contamination observed on-
site in the monitoring wells was that due to the presence of
tetrachloroethene and its associated degradation products,
including cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and 1,1-dichloroethane. On-
site tetrachloroethene concentrations ranged from .65J ug/l to 270
ug/l. Chloroform was also detected in 7 of 12 monitoring wells at
low concentrations. Trichlorofluoromethane, carbon. tetrachloride,
and butylyidene-bis {(dimethylethyl)methyl) phenol were also
identified in the upgradient on-site monitoring well MW-04. Figure
5-2 shows the volatile organic compound groundwater contamination
identified during the phase I RI.
The sample collected and analyzed from the Carnation well indicated
the presence of the purgeable organic compounds tetrachloroethene
and its degradation product cis-1,2-dichloroethene at
concentrations of 26 ug/l and 4.2 ug/l, respectively. It also
contained trichloroethene and 1,2 -dichloropropane at concentrations
of 8.8 ug/l and 2.9 ug/l, respectively.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 11
TABLE 5-1
GROUND WATER SAJ1PLE SUMMARY
GROUND WATER ANALYTICAL DATA (EXCWDING parABLE WELLS)
FCX-STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
STATESVILLE, NOKTH CAROLINA
/fET ALS
Calcium
Iron
l1agnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Aluminum
Barium-
Beryllium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
,'1anganese
Nickel
Serontium
Ticanium
Vanadium
Yrrrium
Zinc
PESTICIDES/PCBS
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delea-SHC
Ganuna -BHC (Lindane)
Alpha-chlordane
Gamma-chlordane
Trans-nonachlor
Oxychlordane(octachlor-
epoxide
Dieldrin
Endrin
Endrin Kecone
NUIfBER OF
SAlfPLESl
NUMBER OF
DETECTS
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
2
10
9
11
5
12
9
13
12
8
9
131
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
4
5
4
4
1
1
1
13
13
13
13
1
3
2
5
RANGE
(mg/l )
0.27 - 24
0.17 - 41
0.89 - 11
1.1 - 7.6
2 - 50
(ug/l )
54 - 26.000
7.1 - 350
ND3 - 6.8
ND - 84
ND - 36
ND - 59
ND - 29
ND - 1.500
ND - 38
4.8 - 180
ND - 740
ND - 86
SD - 120
4.0 - 99
ND - 5.4C
ND - 4.BC
ND - 2.9C
ND - 16C
ND - 0.51
ND - 0.36
ND . 0.10JN
ND . 0.13
ND - 0.13
ND . 0.06
ND - 3.1
1fEAN2
(mg/l )
6.9
11.9
4.6
3.5
17.5
. (ug/l)
7.222.5
126.7
4.1
28.0
15.6
23.4
16.8
507.0
26.7
76.3
283.2
31.1
37.2
41.8
2.07
1.21
0.85
5.04
0.51
0.36
o .10JN
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.79
-------
FINAL ROD
Sep~ember 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 12
TABLE 5-1 (CONT.)
GRDUND WATER SMPLE SUl1l1ARY
GRDUND WATER ANALYTICAL DATA (EXCWDING POTABLE WELLS)
FCX - ST ATESV I LLE REl1ED I AL I NY EST I GAT I ON
STATESVILLE. NORTH CAlWLINA
ErI'fUtCTABLE ORGANIC
COI'fPOUNDS
I.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
(l1echylpropyl)dinicro-
phenol
Bis(dimechylechvl)-
merh.vlphenol
Bromacil
B~,vlidenebis«dimechvl-
erhd)-merhd)phenol .
Bl. tv I idenebis ( (dimechv 1-
ethvl)-echvlphenol)
Dodecanoic acid
Hexadecanoic acid
Nonanoic acid
l1echyl~echylpropen.vl)-
cvclopencane
PURGEABLE ORGANIC
COl1POUNDS
(m- alld/or p- )Xdelle
I.I.I-Trichloroethane
1.I-Dichloroerhane
l.l-Dichloroechene
Bromodichloromechane
Carbon recrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromerhane
cis-l.2-Dichloroechene
1.2-Dichloropropane
Diisopropylerher
Tecrachloroethene
Trichloroechene
Trichlorof1uoromechane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
FOOTNOTES:
1
NUl1BER OF
SAIfP LES
NUl1BER OF
DETECTS
RANGE MAN
(uBI1) (uBI1)
ND - 1. 7J 1. 7J
ND - 20JN 15JN
ND - UN LJN
ND - 90JN 29.2
ND - 100JN 9 OJ""
.VD - 2JN 2JN
ND - 20JN 15.8
ND - 10JN 1 OJ,"
ND - 5JN 5JN
ND - IJN LJN
13 .
~
13 2
13 1
13 5
13 J
13 1
13 4
13 1
13 1
13 1
13 ND - 8.2J 8.2J
13 .:. ND - 13J 6.35
13 " ND - 19J 15
13 5 ND - 29 14.4
13 1 ND - 1.4J 1.4J
13 1 ND - 4.2J 4.2J
13 8 ND - 10 3.6
13 1 ND - 2.9J 2.9J
13 5 ND - 42 19.9
13 I ND - 2.9AJ 2.9AJ
13 1 ND - TJN 7JN
13 9 ND - 230 67.8
13 4 ND . 8.8A 4,75
13 1 ND - 99 99
13 1 ND - 60JN 60JN
Does not include duplicate sampl.s. At locations where duplicate samples were
co1lecred. rhe highest value for rhe detecred compound was used for chis
summarv.
The mean value "'as calculared by cH'erag1.12g 01:1.\' che detected concentrat...o:Js
for each compound. All nOIl-dececred res~lrs were noc considered in chis
decerminacion.
:2
3
SD - I:Jdicates char che compound was not detected ar che minimum
q~anc...i.ca'loll limlt.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 29. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 13
TABLE 5-1 (CONT.)
POTABLE "ELL SUHHARY TABLE
POTABLE WELL AJlALYTICAL DATA
FCX.STATESVILl£ REHEDIAL INVESTIGATION
STAIESVILLE. NORTH CARDLINA
NUHBER OF NUHBER OF
HET N..S SMPLES1 DETECTS RAIIGE HENtz
(mg/l) (1118/1)
Calciu.m 3 3 3.3 . 12 6.8
Iron 3 1 ND3 - 0.026 0.026
Hagllesiu.m 3 3 0.7 - 4.1 2.9
Potassiu.m 3 3 0.64 . 3.3 1. 75
Sodium 3 3 1.1 - 13 6.4
(ug/l) (ug/l)
A~ ,;minunI 3 .~D . 76 76
B.:J~lllm 3 1 ND - 350 189
C~!JcJ 1 t 3 .""D 4.0 4.0
Copper 3 3 10 . 16 13.7
Lead 3 1 .'ID - 16 16
Manganese 3 2 ND 48 25.9
Nickel 3 1 .'ID - 8.5 8.5
Sr:-012ciu.m 3 ] 8.0 - 37 27
l"ccrium 3 .'VD . 4.6 4.6
Z~nc 3 3 4~ . 170 109.7
PESTICIDES/PCBS
Alpha-chlordane 3 ND . 0.025 0.025
Gat:Jl1la-chlordene 3 1 ND - 0.028 0.028
Hepr.achlor epoxide 3 ND - 0.028 0.028
ErrRACTABLE ORGANIC
COIfPOUNDS
Merhvl(methylpropenyl)-
cydopenrme 3 1 ND - IJN IJN
FOOTNOTES:
2
Does nor include duplicate samples. Ar locarions where duplicate samples were
collected. the highest value for. rhe dececced compound was used tor this
S UlJIIU ry .
The mean value was calculated by averaging only che detected concentrations
tor each compound. All non-detected results were not considered in this
determinacion.
ND . Indicates chac the compound was nor decected at the minimua
q~lr it ica, ion lila.a.
J
-------
" '.,.,'-j-
.... -\- .1
, W.-.., -t-
.... ,
, ~"'-
.... .t
, Alpha-OtiC - 0.33 "9/1
0010- BHC - 0.13 "9/1
.... Dello-BHC - 0.015 "9/1
, Endrln - 0.022 "9/1
Endrln Kotane - 0.39 "9/1
.... Commo-BHC (Lindon e) - 0.17 ug/l
Alpho-OHC - 0.85 "9/1
8elo- BHC - 0.112 "9/1
Delto-BHC - 0.33 "9/1
Dieldrin - 0.0311 "9/1
Endrln Ketone - 0.32 "9/1
Commo-BHC (Llndone) - 1.8 "9/1
Alpho-BHC - 1.7 "9/1
Beto-BHC - 0.19 "9/1
Dello-BHC - 0.16 "9/1
Endrln Ketone - 0.093 "9/1
Gommo-BHC (Lindane) - 2.2 "9/1
PIGURB 5-1
PESTICIDE CONCENTRATIONS. MONITORING WELLS
FCX~STATESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
ST A TESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
~
.....
~..... 8
~ "'-10
"'-
-\-
"'-
-t
.....
-\-
IIW-6S "'-
. 1
w-69r'
/
....
,
....
"
K£.Y
8 - EPA 'M:llS INSTAllED FOR THIS STUDY
... - r.c. HART STUDY
. - CARN A 1100 'M:ll
!i - EPI< ROotDVAL 'M:llS
HOn::
Ot.OROAH<: OOHCOIIftAIIOHS ARE TOTAl
Of" AU. COHsnl\JEH~
$011[ DATA CSnwATEO OR
OTHEII1IIIS[ OJAUnm. PlEASE
sa OATA _WARY TAIIl£S.
APPROXIMA TE
SCALE
62.5
I
125
I
1125 0
~-~
( IN FrET )
1 Inch - 125 ft.
~EPA
"1
Q~
.'0
(J)rt
8(1)
~g
~1-f"1
'1:1~~;;!
:!>' t"', »0
(;)t1:I t"'
t1:I ....
0\0:<1
1-'0\00
~~wt:J
-------
Corb.." T otrochlorldo - 4.2J uvll
Chlo,oform - I.7J uv/l
Tr1chlOlofluoromothono - 00 uv/l
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
I
III.'.Y
8 - EPA WEllS INSTAllED FOR' THIS SruDY
. - F.C. HART SruDY
. - CARNA TlOO WELl
@ - EPA ROotOVAl WEllS
J - ESTlMA TtD VAlUE
N - PRESUMPTl'" ['w1DENCE
A - A"'RACE VALUE
1,I,l-trlchloroethono - 13J upll
1,l-dlchloroethono - IJJ uo/l
1.1-dlchloroethone - 9.4.1 uoll
Chloroform - 4.1 J uol'
Chloromothono - 2.IIJ uo/l
cio-I,2-dlchl«oethone - 42 ug/l
Tetrochloroothllene - 170 "9/1
Trlchloroolhllone - 5.JJ uo/l
Trlchlorotrlftuoroolhone - 8O.tI ug/l
Bu
1,I,l-trlchloroolhone - 7.4J uo/l
"-dlchloroelhone - IJJ uvll
1:,-dlchloroothono - 7.J uv/l
cio-I,2-dichloroethone - 20 ug/l
Totroc:hl«ooth)lono - 52 uv/l
1.1.1-1r1c:hI«oethone - J.9J uo/l
!.I-dlchloroethono - 15J uvll
,t-dlchloroothono - 29 uvll
ci.-I,2-dlchloroelhono - 13) uvll
Totrochloroethj4ono - 110 uvll
Trichloroeth)4ono - ..OJ uv/l
~...
"-
...
"-
...
FIGURE 6-2 "-J
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS 6
MONITORING WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
STA TESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 0
<)
APPROXIMA TE
SCALE
62.5 125
I~
1125 0
~-..-J
( IN fEET)
1 Inch - 125 It.
~EPA
"J
Q~
1"0
{III"
~~
~11"J
.,,~~!2!
l1 f;;- ~
t'J:I ....
0\0::<1
o->C\OO
l11O->WO
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 16
Burlington Industries (located to the north of the FCX property)
conducted an environmental assessment of the property it currently
owns. The analytical results from the assessment indicate that VOC
contamination is also present in the soil and groundwater on the
Burlington property at concentrations which exceed current North
Carolina Class GA standards. A separate Operable Unit Three RI/FS
will be performed to characterize the nature and extent of the
contamination associated with this property.
A number of metals were identified in the on-site monitoring wells.
Most notably, chromium was detected in two samples at
concentrations above the drinking water standard of 50 (ug/l).
Lead was also identified in five (5) monitoring wells at.
conc"entrations exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 15
ug/l or the MCL Goal (MCLG) of 10 ug/l.
Phase II Results
There were several objectives in collecting and analyzing the
groundwater samples during the Phase II RI. The first objective
was to provide a second round of sampling data from the twelve on-
site, permanent monitoring wells. The second objective was to
determine-the nature and extent of pesticide, VOCi and potential
dioxin groundwater migration from the FCX property in both the
overburden and bedrock portions of the aquifer. This was
accomplished by installing and sampling twelve (12) temporary wells
and one (1) permanent bedrock well.
with the exception of a single occurrence of endrin ketone at a
concentration of 0.27 ug/l from well MW-10, all pesticides detected
in samples from the permanent on-site wells were detected in wells
MW-3, MW-5S, MW-5D, MW-1, and MW-2. Pesticides were identified in
MW-3 at the following concentrations, g~-BHC or lindane (7.7
ug/l) , beta-BHC (4.5 ug/l) , alpha-BHC (2.8 ug/l) , endrin ketone
(2.2 ug/l) , delta-BHC (1.9 ug/l) , and total chlordane (0.229 ug/l).
Sample MW-5D contained lindane at a concentration of 3.7 ug/l. All
but one of the concentrations reported for lindane, for both the
permanent wells screened in both the overburden and bedrock
portions of the aquifer, exceeded its MCL of 0.2 mg/l. Figure 5-3
shows the pesticide concentrations identified in the permanent
monitoring wells during the Phase II "RI.
Bromacil, an herbicide, was the most notable, extractable organic
compound identified in the on-site monitoring wells MW-9 and MW-7
at concentrations of 4JN ug/l and 50JN ug/l, respectively. The
analytical qualifier ~JNa refers to an estimated value based on
presumptive evidence. Tetrachloroethene was identified in the on-
site monitoring wells MW-1, MW-2, and MW-9 at concentrations
ranging from 58 to 220 ug/l.
-------
t
1
CARNATION
MILK
COMPANY
, ,
-t, 4-,
-t~ -I- '-I-
.... -tA'
/
....
/
....
/
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES
I
-I-
'-t
'-t
-t,
-t,
-t,
-t,
4-,
.f,
-1-,
4- +,
'.t- 8 +
'+
'-t
'k
'+
';
o as U9/1
Alpha-SHC - 082 u9/1
Beta-BHC - 033 U9/1
Delta-BHC -038 u9/1
Dieldrin - O. 0 32 u9/1 /1
Endrin Ketone - d' ne) - 1.8 u9
Camma-BHC (Un a
FIGURE 5-3 TORING WELLS
S MONI ON
NCENTRA TION, INVESTIGA TI
PESTICIDiT ;~ESVILLE REM~~~LCAROLINA
FCX- STA TESVILLE, NO
60
o
....
/
....
f-
UJ
UJ
I~
I/)
><
~
o
J:
Q
THIS STUDY
W WELLS INSTALLED fOR
e - EPA
- f.C. HART STUOY
: - EPA REMOVAL WELLS
ARE TOTAL
NOI[: E CON CENTRA noNS
O1LORDANcONSnTUENTS.
or ALL
E DATA Esn"AJ~D P~ASE
~ER\\ISE ~~l~y TABLES.
$[E DATA
~EPA
~(J)
~~
(J)rt
8~
~:l
~'1...,
H"'H
'Ut"''''5S
>t"h t"'
1;)1':1.....
1':10"':>1
.....C::\OO
-JI-'wt:!
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 18
Other compounds identified in these wells, as well as in the
permanent monitoring wells, included 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichlorothene, chloroform, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, and trichloroethene. MCLs for three compounds were
exceeded in samples collected from five of the wells. The MCL of
7 ug/l for 1,1-dichloroethene was exceeded at wells MW-1 (21Jug/l),
MW-2 (llJ ug/l), MW-9. (7.4 ug/l), MW-5D (23J ug/l), and MW-11 (7.4
ug/l). The MCl of 5 ug/l for tetrachloroethene was exceeded at
wells MW-1 (220 ug/l), MW-2 (58 ug/l), MW-9 (75 ug/l), MW-5D (130
ug/l), and MW-11 (42 ug/l). The MCL of 5 ug/l for trichloroethene
was exceeded at wells MW-1 (6.1 ug/l) and MW-5D (llJ ug/l). Figure
5-4 shows the volatile organic compound concentrations identified
in the permanent monitoring wells during the Phase II RI.
Based on presumptive evidence of the compounds dioxin and furan
identified in the soil during the phase I RI, EPA sampled
monitoring wells MW-1, MW-3, MW-5S, and MW-5D to investigate if
these compounds had leached into the groundwater. No dioxins or
furans were identified in any of th~se samples.
Of the twelve temporary monitoring wells sampled during Phase II,
pesticides were identified in four wells, three of which are
located OR the FCX property and one of which is located south of
West Front Street. Figure 5-5 shows the location of the twelve
temporary wells and the pesticide concentrations identifed during
the Phase II RI. The sample from temporary well T-11 indicated the
presence of eleven (11) pesticides (including DDT and DDD) at the
highest concentrations of any of the temporary wells installed
during the Phase II RI. DDT and DDD had not been detected
previously in any groundwater samples collected and analyzed during
the Phase I or Phase II RI.
Of the twelve tempor~ry monitoring wells sampled during the Phase
II RI, tetrachloroethene was the most frequently identified
purgeable organic compound identified in the temporary monitoring
wells. Tetrachloroethene was identified in five samples at
concentrations ranging from 0.60 ug/l in sample T-7 to 340 ug/l in
sample T-12. The MCL was exceeded in samples from wells T-3, T-9,
and T-12. Trichloroethene also exceeded its MCl value of 5 ug/l in
sample T-12 with a concentration of 13 ug/l. Figure 5-6 shows the
volatile organic compound contamination in the groundwater as
identified during the Phase I and Phase II RI. This figure
indicates that tetrachloroethene (among other VOCs), has migrated
several hundred feet to the south of the Site (T-3) in the
overburden portion of the aquifer. Tetrachloroethene was also
identified in MW-11, the permanent monitoring well located south of
West Front Street. The only notable extractable organic compound
revealed in any of the temporary monitoring wells was bis (2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate. Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was identified
in T-2 at a concentration of 52 ug/l.
-------
, -t
,
-\-
~
-t...,
CARNA TION
MMltK
COMPANY
1,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE - 12J
1,I,-DICHLOROETHANE - 17J
1,I,-DICHLOROETHENE - 7.4J
C1S-1,2-DICHLOROETHANE - 39
TETRACHLOROETHENE - 75
TRICHLOROETHENE - 3.5J
TRICHLOROFLOUROETHANE - 50..tl
"-
-t~
BURLINGTON
INDUSTRIES,
w
" - EPA WELLS INSTALLED FOR THIS STUDY
A - F.C. HART STUDY
@ - EPA REMOVAL WELLS
ALL CONCENTRATIONS "9/1
N - PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE FOR COMPOUND
J - ESTIMATED VALUE
1,1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE - 5.9J
1,I-DICHLOROETHANE - 28
1.I-DICHLOROETHENE - 21J
CHLOROFORM - 3.1
CIS-I.2-DICHLOROETHANE - 28
TETRACHLOROETHANE - 220
TRICHLOROETHENE - 6.1
:-.;
1.1-TRICHLOROETHANE - 11J
1,I-DICHLOROETHANE - 23
1,1-OICHLOROETHENE - I1J
CIS-I,2-DICHLOROHHENE - 11J
TETRACHLOROETHENE - 5.8
TRICHLOROETHENE - 2.DJ
FIGURE 5-4
PURGE ABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER
PERMANENT MONITORING WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE
STATESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
APPROXIMA TE
125 0
~-~
SCALE
62.5
I
125
I
( IN FEET)
1 Inch - 125 ,..
~EPA
"1
(){J)
NJ
(J)('f
~~
~d)
!211"1
'Ot:~~
~f;;' ~
t11 ~
O\D~
~C:\DO
\D~wCJ
-------
FINAL ROD
September 29, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 20
'''''3
c
BURLINGTON IND.
se:;A-a"c - 'J.~8
ENORIN - a ~o
EN ORIN KETONE - O.22..N
000 - 0.57
DOT - 0.41
ALPHA-8HC - 4.6
ALPHA-CHLORDANE - 0.44
SETA-SHC - 1.6
OElTA-BHC - 1.6
ANORIN - 0.44
ENORIN KETONE - 1. 7
GAWWA-BHC (UNOANE) - 5.S
GAW"'A-CHLORDANE - 0.26
HEPTACHLOR - 0.094N
CJ
c:=J
o
o
o
l:J
o
SJ
o
T-
4T-4
o
o
o
CJ
o
4
T-8
o
D
GAWWA-8HC(UNOANE) - 0.61
11.-".
4 T-1
D
Do
DO
o
,
/ 1
1
/ 1
1 1
, 1
U '({'-)
} 'r- ..."t.....J
('."'",/1 .....::.~,
l 1 ...,
, "
,
:J "
- - ::1 I
~..... /
, J I
,,'
I
(;
~
AI.I. CONCEN TRA TlONS U9/k9
J - ESTIWA Tm VALUE
N - PRESUMPTIVE E\/IOENCE
APPROXIWA T[ SCAL£
h ~
( .1a'I1
FIGURE 5-5
PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER, TEMPORARY WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE
STATESVILLE. NORTH CAROLINA
~EPA
-------
FINAL ROD
september 29, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 21
",,,:)
o
c:::J
c=J
[]
D
o
u
o
c\J
BURLINGTON IND.
U S:S-t.2-0ICH\.0ROE~E"'E - 27J
;£TRACH\.OR0E"""E!';E - 340
~ICH\.OROETI-oENE - 13J
o
1.'-OICl-tLOROE~ANE - 0.67J
1.1-0ICHLOROE~ENE - 2.0J .
CHLOROf'OR.. - I.OJ I
CIS-I,2-0ICHLOROE~ENE - 3.8J :
TETRACHLOROE~ENE - 39 !
TRICHLOROE~ENE - 0.68J .
4
T-5
4T-4
o
o
4
T-6
o
!,!,!-TR'CHLOROE'T).jANE - O.58J
1,1-0ICHLOROE~ANE - 1.9J
1,1-0ICHLOROE~ENE - 1.8J
CHLOROf'OR" - O.99J
ClS-I.2-0ICl-tLOROE'T104ENE - 2.4J
TETRACHLOROE'T104ENE - 9.8
""-11 .
4 T-1
D
DO
DO
o
r
/ '
,
/ ,
, ,
I ,
U '(1-1
J',.. ...V
0-,../ I ':",,:::,
l I ...,
I ..
I
- _:J ,,'
:,..-, I
, I'
to'
(;
I
lFGniD
ALL CONCENTRATIONS u9/1
J - ESTI..ATED VAlUE
APPRO)QJotA 1! SCAlE
- ~
h
FIGURE 5-6
(. oaf)
PURGEABLE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
AND GROUND WATER, TEMPORARY WELLS
FCX-STA TESVILLE
ST A TESVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
5JEPA
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 22
B.
Soil Contamination
Although the purpose of this document is to address groundwater
contamination on the FCX property and to the south of the FCX
property, a description of the soil contamination is provided below
to indicate where the source of the pesticide groundwater
contamination has been identified. As stated in Section IV, the
soil contamination will be addressed in Operable Unit two.
The soil investigation was conducted in two phases; phase I was
conducted in June 1991 and sampling for the phase II was conducted
in June and October 1992. During the Phase I RI, one hundred and
eighty-seve~ (187) surface and subsurface soil samples were
collected and analyzed from on-site and off-site areas to
characterize the nature and extent of contamination at the Site.
Included in these samples were three background soil samples
collected from station FS-127; one sample was collected and
analyzed at the surface, one at a depth of 24 inches below the
surface, and one sample 48 inches below the surface. During the
Phase II RI, nine (9) soil samples were collected and analyzed to
provide additional information regarding surface and subsurface
soil contamination at the Site.
All samples were analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) metals,
cyanide, Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs, Semi-Volatile Organic
Compounds (SVOCs) , poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) , and
pesticides. Numerous exploratory borings were also drilled during
both Phases of the RI in an attempt to locate the alleged pesticide
burial trenches.
Phase I Results
A number of metals were detected in the soil samples during the
Phase I RI, most commonly aluminum, iron, chromium, lead, vanadium,
barium, magnesium, potassium, nickel, calcium, zinc, copper, and
cobalt. Most of the metal concentrations, based on their
widespread occurrence and geological/mineralogical associations,
are probably present at naturally-occurring concentrations.
However, chromium and lead were detected in a number of samples at
concentrations greater than an order of magnitude higher than the
mean concentration calculated for all soil samples.
Thirteen pesticides were identified in soil samples collected and
analyzed during the Phase I RI. These pesticides include DDT, DDD,
DDE, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, endrin,
heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, alpha-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), and
aldrin. The most significant pesticide compounds detected were the.
compounds of the DDT family (4,4'-DDT and its degradation or
transformation products, 4,4'-DDD and 4,4'-DDE). DDT (4,4'-DDT)
was detected in the greatest number of samples j 57 out of 187 total
-------
FINAL ROD
Sepcember 27. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 23
samples) and at the highest concentrations. The highest
concentrations of DDT were detected in samples collected at
locations under the eastern half of the warehouse; a concentration
of 830,000 ug/kg was detected in sample FS-319-SLB at a depth
interval of 12 to 16 inches below the concrete slab.
The highest concentrations .of DDD and DDE were identified at
sampling locations FS-302-SLA and FS-224-SLA at levels of 160,000
ug/kg and 1,800 ug/kg, respectively~ Alpha- and gamma-chlordane
were detected in the soil samples at concentrations up to 1,400
ug/kg and 1,800 ug/kg, respectively.
Dieldrin was also detected in a number of soil samples; the highest
concentration, 40,000 ug/kg, was identified in sample FS-226-SLB at
a depth of 24 inches below the concrete pad. Endrin, heptachlor,
heptachlor epoxide, alpha-BHC, beta-BHC, gamma-BHC (lindane), and
aldrin were also identified in soil samples collected and analyzed
during the phase I RI. .
Based on presumptive evidence of the compounds dioxin and furan
identified during the phase I RI, EPA collected and analyzed five
soil samples for the presence of these compounds. Three of the
samples were collected from location FS-307 from. three separate
depth intervals, while the remaining two samples were collected
from locations FS-312 and FS-318. The samples from locations FS-
307 and FS-318 indicated the highest concentrations of dioxin and
furan compounds. Additional samples will be collected and analyzed
during the summer of 1993 prior to evaluating the potential
remedial alternatives for the Operable Unit Two Remedial Action.
A number of extractable organic compounds were identified in the
soil samples during the Phase I RI. Nineteen (19) of the twenty-
one (21) extractable organic compounds were polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PARs). The principal carcinogenic (cancer-causing)
PAH compounds identified in the soil during the RI, along with the
maximum concentration for each, include benzo-(b/k)fluoranthene
(14,000 ug/kg), chrysene (11,000 ug/kg), benzo (a) anthracene
(11,000 ug/kg), benzo(a)pyrene (7,500 ug/kg), indeno(1,2,3-
CD)pyrene (5,400 ug/kg), dibenzo(A,H)-anthracene (2,300 ug/kg).
The unit of measure micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) is equivalent
to parts per billion. .
The principal noncarcinogenic PARs identified in the soil during
the Phase I RI, along with their maximum concentrations, include
pyrene (170,000 ug/kg), fluoranthene (170,000 ug/kg), and
anthracene (5,200 ug/kg) . Perylene, phenanthrene, and
pentachlorophenol were also identifed in the soil during the RI.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 24
In addition to the extractable organic compounds mentioned in the
previous paragraphs, forty (40) other extractable compounds were
detected during the Phase I RI.
Twelve (12) purgeable organic compounds were detected in soil
samples collected and analyzed during the Phase I RI.
Trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene were the most frequently
detected purgeable organic compounds in the soil.
The distribution of these two compounds in the soil appears to
coincide. with the plume of. trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene in the groundwater. Other purgeable organic
compounds indentified in the soil during the RI include acetone,
1,2-dichloroethene, tetrahydrofuran, chloroform, total xylene,
ethyl benzene, chlorobenzene, pinene, trimethylcyclohexane, and
ethylmethylcyclohexane.
Phase II Results
Six of the nine soil samples in the Phase II RI were collected to
provide total total organic carbon (TOC) values for the computer
modeling of fate and transport of the Site contaminants shown in
the Phase-II RI Report.
Two soil samples, FS2-T11-SLA and FS2-T11-SLB, were collected from
the 20-25 foot depth interval and the 30-35 foot interval,.
respectively. Both samples contained DDT, DDD, DDE, and gamma-
chlordane at concentrations up to 20 ug/kg, as well as smaller
concentrations of several BHC isomers, endrin, and heptachlor.
C.
Surface Water/Sediment Contamination
Phase I Results
Eleven surface water samples were collected and analyzed during the
Phase I RI. Pesticides were detected in one surface water sample,
FS-020, located immediately south of the Site. Alpha-chlordane,
gamma-chlordane, dieldrin, and trans-nonachlor were all detected or
estimated to be present at concentrations less than 0.05 ug/l.
Two extractable organic compounds were detected in the surface
water samples collected during the Phase I RI. Cyclodecanol and
hexadecanoic acid were both identified at location FS-407, based on
presumptive evidence, at concentrations of 10 ug/l and 4 ug/l,
respectively.
Purgeable organic compounds were identified in seven (7) out of
eight (8) surface water samples collected during the Phase I RI.
The significant VOC contamination was identified in sample FS-408.
Tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, and cis-1,2~dichloroethenewere
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE aU1
PAGE 25
detected at concentrations of 98 ug/l, 63 ug/l, and 45 ug/l,
respectively.. Trans-1, 2-dichloroethene and 1,2-dichloropropane
were also detected in sample FS-408 at concentrations of 3.3J ug/l
and 7.2 ug/l. The other purgeable organic compounds identified in
the surface water samples included carbon disulfide, benzene, and
chloromethane.
Eight sediment samples were collected and analyzed during the Phase
I RI. The eleven metals identified in each of the eight samples
included, in order of decreasing concentration, iron, aluminum,
calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese, vanadium, barium, lead,
chromium, and nickel. Other metals identified in the sediment
samples included selenium, zinc, cobalt, arsenic, sodium, mercury,
titanium, strontium, and yttrium.
Of the eleven sediment samples analyzed, two samples revealed the
presence of pesticides, FS-409-SD and FS-401-SD. DDT, DDD, DDE,
dieldrin, and endrin were the pesticides identified in the two
samples. The pesticides DDT, dieldrin, and endrin were identified
in the sediment samples up to concentrations of 760 ug/kg, 150
ug/kg, and 370 ug/kg, respectively.
Extractable organic compounds were identified in three out of the
eleven sediment samples. Sample FS-400-SD, collected from a ditch
located between the railroad tracks and the Burlington Industries
property, contained bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate at a concentration
of 34,000 ug/kg. Three PAR compounds (fluoranthene, phenanthrene,
and pyrene) were a.1so identified in sample FS-400-SD at
concentrations of 790 ug/kg, 590 ug/kg, and 530 ug/kg,
respectively.
Sample FS-020-SD, collected at the head of the unnamed tributary to
Third Creek contained benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, fluoranthene,
and pyrene at concentrations of 190 ug/kg, 250 ug/kg, and 200
ug/kg, respectively. Five PAR compounds were also identified in
sample FS-410-SD located just. below the confluence of Third Creek
and the unnamed tributary sampled during the Remedial
Investigation. An asphalt plant is located immediately upstream
from the confluence with the unnamed tributary.
Two purgeable organic compounds were identified in sediment sample
FS-408-SD, collected near C2; spring located immediately to the north
of Burlington Industries. 1,2-dichloroethene and trichloroethene
were detected at concentrations of 24 ug/kg and 44 ug/kg,
respectively.
Phase II Results.
Two sediment samples, FS2-03SD and FS2-04-SD, were collected from
ditches located adjacent to the railroad tracks in the vicinity of
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 26
the Carnation Milk Company property. These sediment samples are
not located along either intermittent or perennial streams.
The rationale for cOllecting and analyzing these samples was to
evaluate the presence of arsenic and PAHs detected in samples
collected from this area during the Phase I RI. Nine PAHs were
identified in these samples, five of which are known carcinogens.
Benzo (B and/or K) fluoranthene was detected in both samples at
concentrations of 2,400J ug/kg and 1,500J ug/kg, respectively.
Benzo(a)- anthracene, benzo-a-pyrene, chrysene, and indeno(1,2,3-
CD) pyrene were also identified at concentrations ranging from an
esimated value of 450 ug/kg to 1,500 ug/kg. The presence of the
PAHs in samples collected adjacent to the railroad tracks appears
to be associated with the railroad crossties and not to former Site
activities.
VI.
SUHNARY OP SITE RISKS
The Baseline Risk Assessment Report presents the results of a
comprehensive risk assessment that addresses the potential threats
to public health and the environment posed by the Site under
current and future conditions, assuming that no remedial actions
take place, and that no restrictions are placed on future use of
the Site. Actual or threathened releases from the Site, if not
addressed, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
public health, welfare, or the environment. The Baseline Risk
Assessment evaluated the potential risk from exposure to
contaminated groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment.
Contaminated groundwater is the medium of concern addressed in this
Record of Decision as the Operable Unit One Remedial Action. The
Operable Unit Two Remedial Action will address the contaminated
soil described in Section V. 'Following the Operable Unit Three
RI/FS, the Operable Unit Three Remedial Action will address the
contamination associated with the property currently owned and
operated by Burlington Industries.
The. Baseline Risk Assessment consists of the following sections:
identification of chemicals of potential concern; toxicity
assessment; human exposure assessment; risk characterization; and
environmental assessment. All sections are summarized below.
A.
Contaminants of Concern
Chemicals were included in the discussion of the Site risks if the
results of the Risk Assessment indicated that a contaminant
identified in the groundwater during the RI might pose a
significant current or future risk or contribute to a risk which is
significant. The criteria for including chemicals in the Summary
of Site Risks Section was a carcinogenic risk level which exceeded
-------
,--
FINAL ROD
Sepcember 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 27
the acceptable range, i.e., lE-4 to lE-5, or a hazard quotient (HQ)
greater than 0.1. Chemicals were also included if they exceeded
either the State or Federal ARARs. Table 6-1 shows the
contaminants of concern identified during the Operable Unit One
RIfFS with the exposure point concentrations.
B.
ExPosure Assessment
The exposure assessment evaluates and identifies complete pathways
of exposure to human population on or near the Site. Current
exposure scenarios include the ingestion and dermal 'contact of
soils, surface water, and sediment. Current land use assumptions
include off-site residential and on-site child trespasser
scenarios. Groundwater usage was not evaluated using the current
land use assumptions because the groundwater plume has not migrated
into existing private wells located south of the Site; however,
groundwater usage.was evaluated under the future land use scenario.
Future exposure scenarios consider construction of water supply
wells within the groundwater contaminant plume, as well as the
incidental ingestion and dermal contact of soils, surface. water,
and sediment as worst case scenarios. possible exposure scenarios
for groundwater include exposure to contaminants'of concern from
the groundwater plume in drinking water and through inhalation of
volatile organic compounds evolved from water through household
use. Inhalation from showering was evaluated to account for doses
of VOCs received from non-ingestion uses of water. The dose from
inhalation of VOCs from showering was assumed to be equivalent to
the ingestion of 2 liters of water. Once these contaminants of
concern were identified, exposure concentrations in the groundwater
were estimated. The maximum concentrations detected were compared
to the calculated 95% confidence level of the arithmetic average of
all samples, and the lower of these values was chosen as the
estimated exposure concentration.
Table 6-2 shows the model used for calculating doses from the
ingestion of contaminated groundwater, including the exposure
assumptions associated with groundwater usage at the Site. Further
detail and mathematical calculations can be viewed in the Baseline
Risk Assessment.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 28
-
- -
Beryllium 2
Chromium 58
Manganese 2,400
Vanadium 52
alpha-BHC .37
beta-BHC . 15
Alpha:-Chlordane 14
Gamma-Chlordane 11
Dieldrin , .08 1
Heptachlor Epoxide .028
Lindane .37
Bis(2-ethyJhexyl)phthalate 8
Bromodichloromethane 1
Chloroform 7
Chloromethane 3
1, 1-Dichloroethane 9
1, 1-Dlchloroethene 7
Tetrachloroethene 103
Trichloroethene 5
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 29
TABLE 6-2
MODEL FOR CALCULATING DOSES FROM
INGESTION OF GROUNDWATER
Groundwater Ingestion Dose CWxIRxEFxED
(mg/kg-day) - BW x AT
Where:
CW = Chemical concentration in groundwater (mgIL)
IR = Ingestion rate (Uday)
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
ED = Exposure duration (years)
BW = Body weight (kg)
AT = Averaging time (days)
Assumptions:
CW - Upper 95% confidence limit of the mean concentration in groundwater.
IR = 1liter/day, for the child (1-6) resident.
= 2 liters/day, for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a).
= 2 liters/day, for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a).
EF = 350 days/year for the children and adult residents (EPA, 1991a).
ED = 6 years for the child (1-6) resident CEPA, 1991a).
= 6 years for the child (7-12) resident.
= 18 years for the adult resident CEPA, 1991a).
BW = 15 kg for the child (1-6) resident (EPA, 1991a).
= 27 kg for the child (7-12) resident (EPA, 1991a)
= 70 kg for the adult resident (EPA, 1991a).
AT = Exposure duration (years) x 365 days/year for evaluating noncancer risk.
= 70 years x 365 days/year for evaluating cancer risk.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 30
The commercial/industrial land use assumption was not evaluated for
current land use due to the fact that the Site is abandoned and not
currently being used. However, the commercial/industrial land use
assumption was evaluated for future land use.
C.
Toxicitv Assessment
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of adverse health
effects occurring in humans from carcinogens and noncarcinogens are
considered separately. These are discussed below. Table 6-3
summarizes the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria
for the contaminants of concern. .
Cancer slope factors have been developed by EPA for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks asscociated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Slope factors, which are
expressed in units of (kg-day/mg), are multiplied by the estimated
intake of a potential carcinogen, in. mg/kg-day, to provide an
upperbound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated
with exposure at that intake level. The term uupperboundu reflects
the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the slope
factor. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual
cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer potency factors 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 effects. RfDs, which are expressed in
units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily exposure levels
for humans, including sensitive individuals that are likely to be
wi thout risk of adverse effect. Estimated- intakes of chemicals
from environmental media can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are
derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to
which uncertainty factors have been applied. These uncertainty
factors help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the
potential for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
D.
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization step of the risk assessment process
integrates the toxicity and exposure assessments into quantitative
and qualitative expressions of risk. The output of this process is
a characterization of the Site-related, potential carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic health effects. Potential concern for non-
carcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is
e~ressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), or the ratio of the chronic
daily intake (CDI) derived from the contaminant concentration in a
given medium to the contaminant's Reference Dose (RfD).
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27. 1993.
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 31
TABLB I 6 3
-
rcx STATBSVILLB SITB
TOXICITY CRITBRIA
Oral Slope Ref. Oral RID Ref. Inhalation Slope Ref. Inhalation Ref.
Factor (mWklP'day) Factor RID
(mWklP'day).J (m~"'day) (mWkllday)
Barium NTV 7.00E-02 IRIS, NTV 1.43E-042 EPA,
1992 1992
Beryllium 4.30E+OO IRIS, 6.00E.03 IRIS, 8.40E+001 IRIS, NTV
1992 1992 1992
Chromium NTV 1.00E+OO (Chr Ill) IRIS, NTV (Chr no mIS, NTV (Chr 1lI)
6.00E.03 (Chr VI) 1992 4.20E+Ol (Chr IV) 1992 NTV (Chr IV)
Vanadium NTV 7.00E-03 EPA, NTV NTV
1992
Lead
Manganese NTV 1.00E-01 IRIS, NTV 1.14E-042 mIS
1992 ,
1992
Chloromethane 1.30E.02 EPA, NTV 6.30E.03 EPA, NTV
1992 1992
1,l-Dichloroethene 6.00E-01 IRIS, 9.00E-03 mIS, 1.76E-Ol1 mIS, 1.43E-OI2 EPA,
1992 1992 1992 1992
1,l-Dichloroethane 9.10E-02 mIS, NTV NTV NTV
1992
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 32
TABLE .6 - 3
I'CX STATESVILLE SITE
TOXICITY CRITERIA
Oral Slope Ref. Oral RID Ref. IohalatiOD Slope Ref. IohalatioD Ref.
Factor (mt!kwday) Factor RID
(mt!kwday).l (mllk:,day) (mt!kwday)
Chloroform 6.10E-03 IRIS, 1.00E-02 IRIS, 8.00E-021 IRIS, MTV
1992 1992 1992
Bromodichloromethane 1.30E-01 IRIS, 2.00E-02 IRIS, NTV NTV
1992 1992
Trichloroethene' 1.1E-2 Ref 3 6E-3 Ref 3 6E-3 NTV
Tetrachloroethene 6.2E-2 EPA 1.00E-02 IRIS, 2E-3 EPA NTV
1993 1992 1993
Heptachlor Epoxide 9.10E+OO IRIS, 1.30E-05 IRIS, 9.10E+001 IRIS, NTV
1992 1992 1992
Alpha-BHC 6.30E+OO IRIS, NTV 6.30E+OO EPA, NTV
1992 1992
Beta-BHC 1.80E+OO IRIS, NTV 1.80E+OO IRIS, NTV
1992 1992
Gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1.30E+OO EPA, 3.00E-04 IRIS, NTV NTV
1992 1992
Dieldrin 1.60E+01 IRIS, 5.00E-06 IRIS, 1.61E+011 IRIS, NTV
1992 1992 1992
Gamma-Chlordane12 NTV 6.00E-05 IRIS, NTV NTV
1992
J
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 33
TABLE I 6 - 3
I'CX STATESVI LLE S ITE
TOXIC ITY CRITERIA
Oral Slope Ref. Oral RID Ref. Inhalation Slope Ret. InhaJation Ret.
Factor (mWka1day) Factor RID
(mWka1day).1 (m~,day) (mWka1day)
Alpha.Chlordane12 NTV 6.00E-06 IRIS, NTV NTV
1992
Bi8(2.Ethylliexyl)Phthaiate 1.40E-02 IRIS, 3.00E.02 IRIS, NTV NTV
1992 1992
IConverted from a unit risk assuming the ingestion of 2 liters of drinking water per day and a body weight of 70kg (EPA, 1992) .
2Calculated from the current drinking water standard, assuming the consumption of 2 liters of water per day and a body weight of 70kg.
'Guidance from Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center. .
4Guidance from Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center to use the oral RID o( pyrene (or other noncarcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons without oral RIDs.
NTV = No Toxicity Value
Dermal RIDs/SFs are derived
Absorption Factors (ABS): 0.2 . Inorganics, 0.8 - Volatile Organics, 0.6 . Semi.volatile OrganicslPesticidesIPCBs
Dermal RID = Oral RID x ABS
Dermal Slope Factor = Oral SF/ABS
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 34
By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a medium or across
all media to which a given population may be reasonably exposed,
the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. Calculation of an HI in
excess of unity indicates the potential for adverse health effects.
Indices greater than unity will be generated any time intake for
any of the chemicals of conern exceeds its Reference Dose (RfD).
However, given a sufficient number of chemicals under
consideration, it is also possible to generate a HI greater than
one even if none of the individual intakes exceeds their respective
RfDs.
For carcinogens, risks are expressed as the incremental probability
of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of
exposure to the carcinogen. ' These probabilities are generally
expressed in scientific notation (e. g., 1X10-6 or 1E-6). An excess
lifetime cancer risk of 1 X 10-6 indicates that, as a reasonable
maximum estimate, an individual has a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of'
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
conditions at a site.
Current Land Use
For the current residents living in close proximity to the Site, no
carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic risks were identified at levels
greater than 1E-4 or with an HI greater than 1.0. This means that
the probability of a current resident (child or adult) having
adverse health effects from cancer-causing or non-cancer-causing
contamination at the Site is less than one-in-ten-thousand (lE-4).
Carcinogenic risks for current off-site residents were determined
from potential exposure to off-site surface soil, surface water,
sediment, as well as. on-site surface soil (for child trespasser).
The total carcinogenic risk for a child aged 1-6 was 2E-5 (2-in-
100,000), while the total carcinogenic risk was1E-5 (one-in-
100,000) for a child aged 7-12 as well as for the adult off-site
resident. Therefore, the total carcinogenic risks for the off-site
resident fall within the acceptable risk range.
Future Land Use
Carcinogenic risks for future residents living on-site were
determined from potential exposure due to the ingestion and
inhalation of contaminated groundwater. The total carcinogenic
risk due to the ingestion and inhalation of volatile organic
compounds present in groundwater for a hypothetical future child
aged 1-6, child 7-12, and adult residents is 5E-4, or 5 in 10,000
residents. Forty-five percent of these risks are associated with
the compounds l,l-Dichloroethene, 1,1-Dichloroethane, and
tetrachloroethene.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 35
TABLE 6-4
I
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC RISK DUE TO INGESTION
AND INHALATION OF GROUNDWATER
INGESTION INHALATION
Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic
Chemical HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for
Child 1-6 Child Adult Child Child Adult
7.12 1-6 7.12
Barium 3.0E-01 3.3E-01 1.3E-01 NA NA NA
Beryllium 2.6E-02 2.8E-02 1.1E-02 NA NA NA
Chromium 3.7E-03 4.1E-03 1.6E-03 NA NA NA
Vanadium 4.8E-01 5.3E-Ol 2.0E-01 NA NA NA
Lead NA NA NA
Manganese 1.5E+OO 1. 7E+OO 6.5E-01 NA NA NA
'Chloromethane NA NA NA NA NA NA
1,1-Dichloroethene 5.0E-02 5.5E-02 2.1E-02 3.1E-03 3.5E-03 1.3E-03
1,1-Dichloroethane NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloroform 4.5E-02 5.0E-02 1.9E-02 NA NA NA
Bromodichloromethane 3.2E-03 3.6E-03 1.4E-03 NA NA NA
Trichloroethene 5.3E-02 5.9E-02 2.3E-02 NA NA NA
Tetrachloroethene 6.6E-Ol 7.3E-01 2.8E-01 NA NA NA
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 36
TABLE 6-4
\
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC RISK DUE TO INGESTION
AND INHALATION OF GROUNDWATER
I INGESTION I INHALATION I
Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic
Chemical HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for HQ for
Child 1-6 Child Adult Child Child Adult
7-12 1-8 7-12
Heptachlor Epoxide 1.4E-Ol 1.5E-Ol 5.8E-02 NA NA NA
Alpha-BHC NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beta-BHC NA NA NA NA NA NA
Lindane 7.9E-02 8.8E-02 3.3E-02 NA NA NA
Dieldrin 1.OE-Ol 1.2E-Ol 4.4E-02 NA NA NA
;Alpha-Chlordane 1.5E-Ol 1.7E-Ol 6.3E-02 NA NA NA
Gamma-Chlordane 1.2E-01 1.3E-Ol 5.0E-02 NA NA NA
Bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate 1.7E-02 1.9E-02 7.2E-03 NA NA NA
Total Chronic Risk 4.1E+OO 4.5E+OO 1.7E+OO 3.1E-03 3.5E-03 1.3E-03
-------
FINAL ROD
September 21, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 31
TABLE 6-5
I
SUMMARY OF LIFETIME RISK DUE TO INGESTION
AND INHALATION OF GROUNDWATER
INGESTION INHALATION
Chemical Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime
Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for
ChiJd ChiJd Adult ChiJd Child Adult
1-6 7-12 1-6 7-12
Barium NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beryllium 4.7E-05 5.2E-05 6.0E-05 NA NA NA
Chromium NA NA NA NA NA NA
Vanadium NA NA NA NA NA NA
Manganese NA NA NA NA NA NA
Chloromethane 2.1E-07 2.3E-07 2.7E-07 1.0E-07 1.1E-07 1.3E-07
1.1-Dichloroethene 2.3E-05 2.5E-05 . 2.9E-05 6.7E-06 7.4E-06 8.6E-06
1.1-Dichloroethane 4.5E-06 4.9E-06 5.7E-06 NA NA NA
Chloroform 2.3E-07 2.6E-07 3.0E-07 3.1E-06 3.4E-06 3.9E-06
Bromodichloromethane 7.2E-07 7.8E-07 9.1E-07 NA NA NA
Trichloroethene 3.0E-07 3.3E-07 3.9E-07 1. 7E-07 1.8E-07 2.1E-07
-------
FINAL ROD
September.27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 38
TABLE 6-5
I
SUMMARY OF LIFETIME RISK DUE TO INGESTION
AND INHALATION OF GROUNDWATER
INGESTION INHALATION
Chemical Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime Lifetime
Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for Risk for
Child Child Adult Child Child Adult
1-6 7-12 1-6 7-12
Tetrachloroethene 2.9E-05 3.2E-05 3.7E-05 1.1E-06 1.2E-06 1.4E-06
Heptachlor Epoxide 1.4E-06 1.5E-06 1.8E-06 NA NA NA
Alpha-BHC 1.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.6E-05 NA NA NA
Beta-BHC 1.5E-06 1.6E-06 1.9E-06 NA NA NA
Lindane 2.6E-06 2.9E-06 3.4E-06 NA NA NA
Dieldrin 7.1E-06 . 7.8E-06 9.1E-06 NA NA NA
Alpha Chlordane NA NA NA. NA NA NA
Gamma Chlordane NA NA NA NA NA NA
Bis{2-ethylhexyl)-Phthalate 6.2E-07 6.7E-07 7.8E-07 NA NA NA
Total Lifetime Risk 1.3E-04 1.4E-04 1.7E-04 ,1.1E-05 1.2E-05 1.4E-05
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 39
Approximately 35% of the risk is attributed to beryllium, which was
detected. in five groundwater monitoring well samples. The
remaining 20% of the risk is associated with the various pesticides
identified in the groundwater.
In evaluating potential risks to future on-site workers, air
monitoring was conducted in the FCX facility in three locations
during two consecutive 24-hour periods. The results were evaluated
against the Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA}
established limits. . These federal limits are referred to as
permissible exposure limits (PELs) determined with. the time
weighted average (40 hr/week, 8 hr/day scenario), which are
referenced criteria for any EPA remedial activity. None of the air
sample data exceeded the PELs~ Further evaluation regarding the
risk to future on-site workers will be performed as part of the
Operable Unit Two Risk Assessment.
Noncarcinogenic risk exceeded a Hazard Quotient (HQ) value of 1.0
. for the future child resident age 1-6 due to the ingestion of
contaminated groundwater (4E+00). Noncarcinogenic risks exceeded
a HQ value of 1.0 for the future child resident age 7-12 due to the
ingestion of contaminated groundwater (5E+00). Noncarcinogenic
risk also-exceeded' an HQ value of 1.0 for the future adult resident
due to the ingestion of contaminated groundwater (2E+00).
E.
Environmental (Ecoloqical) Assessment
Potential risks to environmental receptors at or near the Site were
evaluated based on Site sampling data and a review of the toxicity
of the chemicals of potential concern to ecological receptors. Use
. of the Site by terrestrial receptors such as birds and small
mammals, particularly the area presently covered by the brick
warehouses and paved parking lot, was considered unlikely given the
lack of trees or other vegetative cover at the Site. Based on a
qualitative analysis, terrestrial wildlife communities in the low-
lying and wooded areas near the Site are not likely to be
significantly impacted.
In order to evaluate the potential risks to aquatic receptors at
the Site, the surface water concentrations were compared with North
Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards and Ambient Water Quality
Criteria used by EPA-Region IV as chronic srceening values. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Effects
Range concentrations were also used by EPA-Region IV as sediment
screening values. The pesticides Dieldrin and Alpha Chlordane were
identified in the surface water at concentrations which exceed the
State Standards and the chronic screening values; therefore, the
potential exists for adverse effects to aquatic biota due to
pesticide contamination in surface water. Pesticide concentrations
in the sediment also exceeded the NOAA Effects Range
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 40
concentrations; therefore, the potential exists for adverse effects
on aquatic biota due to sediment contamination.
Additional investigation of the surface water pathways located both
to the north and south of the Site may be needed during Operable
Unit Two and Operable Unit Three to determine if remedial action is
warranted.
VII. APPLICABLB OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATB REQtJIRBHBNTS
Section 121 (D) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that
remedial actions comply with requirements or standards set forth
under Federal and State environmental laws. The applicable or
;relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that must be complied
with are those that are (A) action-specific, (B) location-specific,
or (C) chemical-specific at the Site. Potential Federal action-,
location-, and chemical-specific ARARs are shown in Table 7-l.
Potential State action-, location-, and chemical-specific ARARs are
shown in Table 7-2.
ARARs are used to determine the appropriate extent of Site cleanup,
to scope. qnd formulate remedial action alternatives, and to govern
the implementation and operation of the selected action.
"To be considered" materials (TBCs) are non-promulgated, non-
enforceable advisories, guidelines, or criteria issued by federal
or state governments (e.g., reference doses and carcinogenic
potency factors) that may be useful for developing remedial action
alternatives or for determining what is protective to human health
and the environment.
This section examines the cleanup criteria associated with the
contaminants identified during the RIfFS and the environmental
media contaminated.
A.
Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific requirements set controls or restrictions on the
design, performance, and other aspects of implementation of
specific remedial activities. A retained alternative must conform
with all ARARs unless a statutory waiver is invoked.
B.
Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are design requirements or activitiy
restrictions based on the geographical or physical positions of the
Site and its .surrounding area.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 41
TABLE 7.1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARABs
Standard, Requirement, Regulatory I ARAR Justification
Criteria, or Limitation Citation Description Comments
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Location-Specific AMRs under RCRA
Seismic considerations 40 CFR Restricts location of TSD facilities No No known faults within or in the
264. 18(a) within 200 ft of a fault that has had vicinity of the Site.
a displacement within Holocene
time.
Floodplains 40 CFR Requires TSD facility located within No The Site or the remedial actions
264. 18(b) a 100-year flood plain to be are not located in the 100-year
designed, constructed, operated, and flood plain.
maintained to prevent washout of
any hazardous wastes by a 100-year
flood.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993.
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 42
TABLE 7-1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
Action-Specific ARARs under RCRA
Requirements for hazardous waste 40 CFR Part Establishes standards for Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
generators 262.11 generators of hazardous wastes. actions involving removal of
hazardous waste (e.g., spent
carbon from carbon adsorption
process).
Requirements for transporters of 40 CFR Part 263 Establishes standards which apply Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
hazardous waste to transporters of hazardous waste actions involving transportation of
within the United States if the hazardous waste from the Site to
transportation requires a manifest disposal facility
under 40 CFR Part 262.
Requirements for owners and . 40 CFR Part Establishes minimum national Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
operators of hazardous waste 264.601 standards which define the actions involving treatment,
treatment, storage, and disposal acceptable management of storage, and disposal of hazardous
(TSD) facilities 40 CFR 265.400 hazardous wastes for owners and waste.
operators of facilities which treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes.
Land Disposal Restrictions 40 CFR Part 268 Identifies hazardous wastes that are Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
restricted from land disposal actions involving removal of
hazardous wastes (e.g., spent
carbon from carbon adsorption
process.)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Water quality criteria CWA Part 303; Sets criteria for water quality based Yes The AWQC for organic and
40 CFR Part 131 on toxicity to aquatic organisms and inorganic contaminants are
human health relevant and appropriate
---
-------
FINAL ROD
september 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 43
TABLE 7.1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs .
Action-Specific ARARs
National Pollutant Discharge CW A Part 402 Requires permit for efttuent Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
Elimination System (NPDES) 40 CFR Part 125 discharge from any point source into actions involving discharges to
requirements surface waters of the United States. surface waters.
Efttuent guidelines and standards for 40 CFR Part 401 Requires specific efttuent No No categorical standards
the point source category characteristics for discharge established for hazardous waste
through NPDES system. sites.
National pretreatment standard for CWA Part 307(b) Establishes standards to control Yes Potentially applicable to current
indirect discharge to a POTW 40 CFR Part 403 pollutants which pass through or discharge of groundwater into local
interfere with treatment processes POTWs.
in public treatment works which
may contaminate sewage sludge.
Technology-based efttuent limitations CWA Part 301(b) Establishes guidelines to determine Yes Potentially applicable to
efttuent standards based on the groundwater remediation.
Best Available Technology (BAT)
economically achievable.
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Chemical-Specific ARARs
National Primary Drinking Water 40 CFR Part 141 Establishes health-based Yes Future potential use of
Standards enforceable standards for public groundwater as a potable water
water systems (maximum supply.
contaminant levels (MCLs».
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 44
TABLE 7-1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
National Secondary Drinking Water 40 CFR Part 143 Establishes aesthetic-based, non- Yes Future potential use of
Standards enforceable guidelines for public groundwater as a potable water
water systems (secondary maximum supply.
contaminant levels (SMCLs».
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals 40 CFR Part 141 Establishes non-enforceable Yes Future potential use of
drinking water quality goals groundwater as a potable water
(MCLGs) set at levels that cause no supply.
known or anticipated adverse health
effects with an adequate margin of
safety without consideration of
available treatment technology or
cost.
Action-Specific ARARs
Underground Injection Control (UIC) 40 CFR Parts Provides for protection of Yes Potentially applicable to
Regulations 144-147 underground sources of drinking groundwater remediation if
water. injection of treated groundwater is
selected as a discharge technology.
-------
- - - -- -.-- ~----- - - - - --- _.-
FINAL ROD
September 27; 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 45
TABLE 7-1
,
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
Clean Air Act (CAA) 40 USC 1857
Chemical-Specific ARARs
National Ambient Air Quality 40 CFR Part 50 Establishes ambient air quality No Only "major sources" (emissions
Standards (NAAQS) standards for classes of pollutants - exceeding 100-250 tons per year of
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, regulated pollutants) are subject to
lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate NAAQS attainment requirements.
matter, ozone, and sulfur oxides.
Standards do not apply directly to
source-specific emissions, but are
ambient concentration limitations.
National Emission Standards for 40 CFR Part 61 Establishes emission standards for No Not applicable to the Site as
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) seven contaminants - benzene, benzene and vinyl chloride are not
mercury, arsenic, asbestos, contaminants of concern at the
beryllium, vinyl. chloride, and Site
radionuclides.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 46
TABLE 7.1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Safety of workers 29 USC 651-678 Regulates workers' health and Yes Applicable to remedial actions at
safety. the Site.
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Action-Specific ARARs
Hazardous Materials Transportation 49 USC 1801- Regulates transportation of Yes Potentially applicable to any
Regulations 1813 Department to Transportation remedial action involving
(DOT)-defined hazardous materials. transportation of DOT-defined
49 CFR 107. hazardous materials off-site.
Sections 171-177
-------
FINAL ROD
. September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 47
TABLE 7-1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARABs
Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
Location-Specific ARARs
Regulations to protect wetlands Executive Order. Requires consideration of the No Site is not located in a wetland
No. 11990 adverse impacts associated with the area.
49 CFR 6.302(a) destruction or 108s of wetlands and
and Appendix A to avoid support of new construction
in wetlands if a practical
.alternative exists.
Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)
Location-Specific ARARs
Regulations to protect floodplains Executive Order Requires evaluation of the potential No Site is not located in the lOO-year
No. 11988 effects of actions which may be floodplain.
40 CFR 6, taken in a floodplain to avoid the
Appendix A adverse impacts associated with
direct and indirect development of a
floodplain.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 48
TABLE 7-1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
Regulations Protecting Landmarks, Historical, and Archeological Sites
Location-Specific ARARs
National naturallan~marks Historic Sites Establishes regulations to protect No Site is not located in an area with
Act of 1935, 16 national natural landmarks during natural landmarks.
use 461, remedial actions.
40 eFR 6.301(a)
Historic, architectural, archeological, National Establishes regulations to protect No Site is not located in an area with
and cultural sites Historic historic, architectural, archeological, historic, architectural,
Preservation Act and cultural sites during remedial archeological or cultural sites.
of 1966, 16 use actions.
470, 36 eFR
800,
Executive order
11593
40 eFR 6.301(b)
Historic, :prehistoric and Archeological Establishes regulations to protect No Site is not located in an area with
archeological data Preservation Act historic, prehistoric, and prehistoric or archeological data.
of 1974, 16 use archeological data during remedial
469 et seq. actions.
Executive Order
11593
40 eFR 6.301(c)
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 49
TABLE 7.1
I
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL FEDERAL ARARs
Endangered Species Act
Action-Specific ARARs
Protection of endangered species 16 USC 1531 Requires action to conserve Yes Potentially applicable as
50 CFR Part 200 endangered species and/or critical endangered and threatened species
50 CFR Part 402 habitats upon which endangered have been identified in the Onslow
species depend. County.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Action-Specific ARARs
Protection of fish and wildlife due to 16 USC 661-666 Requires adequate provision for Yes Potentially applicable if the
any modifications of water bodies. protection of fish and wildlife remedial action involves discharge
resources when any modification of of treated water to Third Creek.
any stream or other water body is
proposed.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 50
TABLE 7-2
Analysis of Potential State of North Carolina ARARs
Standard, Requirement, Potential Justification
Criteria, or Limitation Citation Description ARAR Comments
North Carolina Waste Management Rules and Solid Waste Management Law
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Identification and listing of 15 A NCAC Defines those solid wastes which are Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
hazardous waste. 13 A0006 subject to state regulation and as a actions involving solid waste
hazardous waste. Consistent with removal.
corresponding federal standards
(characteristic and listed hazardous waste
designations). '
North Carolina Water and Air Resources Act
Action-Specific ARARs
Laws to achieve and to General Statutes, State equivalent of the Federal CWA and Yes Potentially applicable for remedial
maintain a total Chapter 143 CAA action involving cleanup of
environment with superior Article 21B groundwater and emissions to the
quality. atmosphere.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 51
TABLE 7.2
I
Analysis of Potential State of North Carolina ARARs
North Carolina Drinking Water Act
Action-Specific ARARs
ReguJations on drinking General Statutes Establishes criteria for protection of state Yes Current limited use and potential
water Chapter 130A, public water supplies. future use of groundwater as a
Article 10 potable water supply.
North Carolina Water Pollution Control Regulations
Action-Specific ARARs
Requirements for NCAC Title 15 Requires permit for discharge of effluent Yes Potentially applicable to remedial
wastewater discharge to Chapter 2, from point sources into surface waters. actjons involving point source
surface water Subchapter 2H State-level version of federal NPDES discharges to surface waters.
program.
Wastewater Treatment NCAC Title 15, Establishes basic wastewater treatment Yes PotentiaUy applicable to remedial
Requir~ments Chapter 2, requirements for effluent discharge. actions involving point source
Subchapter discharges.
2H.0100
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE S2
TABLE 7.2
I
Analysis of Potential State 01 North Carolina ARARs
North Carolina Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Groundwater Classifications NCAC Title 15. Establishes groundwater and drinking Yes Potential1y applicable to
and Standards Chapter 2, water standards based on the usage. groundwater remediation based on
Subchapter anticipated future usage.
2L.0200 and
0.0201
North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Classification and water NCAC Title 15A, Establishes a series of classifications and Yes Pdtential1y applicable to surface
quality standards applicable Chapter 2. water quality standards for surface waters. water and to discharge of treated
to surface water Subchapters groundwater to a surface water
2L.0100 and body.
2L.0200
Technology-based effluent NCAC Title 15A, Establishes guidelines for effluent Yes PotentiaJJy applicable to surface
limitations Subchapter limitations based on BAT economicaJJy water and groundwater treatment.
2B.0400 achievable.
-------
FINAL ROD
September. 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 53
TABLE 7-2
I
Analysis of Potential State of North Carolina ARARs
North Carolina Well Construction Standards
Action-Specific ARARs
Administrative and NCAC Title 15A Establishes classes of injection wells and Yes Potentially applicable if injection
construction requirements Subchapter 2C set forth requirements and procedures for of treated water is selected as a
for injection wells permitting, construction, operation, etc. remedial technology.
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations
ChemicaV Action-Specific ARARs
Permit requirements for NCAC Title 15A If the VOC emissions from an air stripper Yes Potentially applicable if air
VOC emissions from air Chapter 143 exceeds 40 lbslday, an air permit is stripping is used as a treatment
strippers Subchapter required prior to operation. If the VOC technology.
2D.0518 emissions are less than 40 lbslday, no air
permit is required; however I information
detailing emissions and operations must be
submitted to NCDEHNR.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 54
TABLE 7-2
I
Analysis of Potential State of North Carolina ARARs
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Regu1ations (continued)
ChemicaVAction-Specific AMRs
Regulations dealing with NCAC Title 15 A, NCDEHNR is in the process of Yes Potentially applicable if air
air stripping operations Chapter 2, promulgating regulations dealing with air stripping is used as a treatment
Subchapter stripping operations. These regulations, technology
2D.ll04 and when promulgated, may subject air
2H.0610 . stripping operations to toxic regulations.
Currently, registration of air strippers is
required.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 55
C.
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs include those laws and regulations
governing the release of materials possessing certain chemical or
physical characteristics, or containing specified chemical
compounds. These requirements generally set health or risk-based
concentration limits or discharge limitations in various
environmental media for specific hazardous substances,
contaminants, and pollutants. .
VXXX. RBMBDXAL ACTXON OBJBCTXVBS
Based on the results of the RI/FS and the Baseline Risk Assessment,
the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site is comprised of several
contaminated media. One contaminated medium consists of soil
contaminated primarily with pesticides, PARs, and dioxin/furan. The
second medium consists of groundwater contaminated primarily with
pesticides and volatile organic compounds. The third and fourth
media to show minor contamination are nearby surface water and
sediment.
Due to the complexity of the contamination at the Site, EPA
currently- believes that the remediation of the Site can be
accomplished most effectively by implementing three phases of
cleanup, or Operable Units. The Operable Unit One Remedial Action
has several objectives. One of the objectives of Operable Unit One
will be to contain the off-site migration of contaminated
groundwater from the FCX property and to the south of the FCX
property. The second objective of Operable Unit One will be to
restore the aquifer to its unlimited use(s) by pumping and treating
the contaminated groundwater.
Soil Contamination
A.
The analytical results of the Phase I and Phase II RI soil samples
indicate that elevated levels of several contaminants, including
pesticides, PARs, and dioxin, are present in the shallow and
intermediate depth soil at the Site.
However, EPA believes that further sampling beneath the warehouse
at deep depths is needed in order to fully characterize the extent
of pesticide contamination. Likewise, further soil sampling is
also warranted at the Site to characterize the extent of
dioxin/furan contamination in the soil.
Following further characterization of the soil on the FCX property
during the Summer of 1993, a Baseline Risk Assessment will be
generated to evaluate the potential impacts to human health and the
environment which could result if no remedial action were taken on
the soil contamination. Once EPA has selected a preferred
alternative for Operable Unit Two and the public has commented on
EPA's preferred alternative, EPA will select the Operable Unit Two
Remedial Action to address the soil contamination at the Site.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 56
B.
Groundwater Contamination
Table 8-1 contains the groundwater cleanup levels or chemical-
specific ARARs for the groundwater contaminants of concern. These
cleunup levels represent the most stringent groundwater remediation
level required by Federal and State law.
The estimated total extent of pesticide groundwater contaminati?n
beneath the FCX property and to the soutn of the FCX'property 1S
shown on Figure 8-1. The estimated total extent of VOC groundwater
contamination beneath the FCX property is shown on Figure 8-2. The
vertical extent of VOC contamination is assumed to extend through
the overburden portion of the aquifer into the fractured bedrock.
IX.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 9-1 summarizes the technologies considered for remediating
the groundwater contamination beneath the FCX property and to the
south of the FCX property. This table also provides the rationale
as to why certain technologies were not retained for further
consideration after the initial screening.
The following alternatives were developed to address groundwater
contamination at the Site:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 3: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment With
. Chemical Precipitation/Filtration, Carbon
Adsorption, and Discharge
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment With
Chemical Precipitation/Filtration, Air
Stripping, Carbon Adsorption, and Discharge
The remedial response actions to address groundwater contamination
are discussed below.
Alternative 1: No Action
By law, EPA is required to evaluate a No Action Alternative to
serve as a basis against which other alternatives can be compared.
No remedial action would be implemented under the No Action
Alternative. There are no capital costs or operation and
maintenance (0 & M) costs associated with Alternative 1.
Total Capital Costs
Present Worth 0 & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$ 0
$-L
$ 0
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 57
TABLE 8-1
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP LEVELS
NCGW Contract Remedia-
Max GW Feder.a! Standard Quantita- tion
Chemical Cone. MCL (ug/l) tion Level
(ug/l) Limit
(ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l)
Beryllium 6.8 4 -- 5 4
Chromium 84 100 50 10 50
Manganese 2,400 200 50 15 50
Vanadium 99 -- -- 50 98 (a)
Alpha-Chlordane 0.51 2 0.027 .05 .027
Gamma-Chlordane 0.36 -- 0.027 .05 .027
Dieldrin 1.6 - -- .10 .10 (b)
Heptachlor ~xide 0.028 0.2 0.038 .05 .038
Alpha-BHC 5.4 -- -- .01 .01 (b)
Beta-BHC 4.8 -- -- .01 .01 (b)
Lindane 16 0.2 0.027 .05 .027
Bromodichloromethane 1.4 100 -- 10 100
Chloroform 10 100 0.19 10 .19
Chloromethane 2.9 -- -- 1 1 (b)
1,1-Dichloroethane 28 -- -- 1 1 (b)
1,1-Dichloroethene 29 7 7 10 7
Tetrachloroethene 340 5 0.7 10 0.7
Trichloroethene 13 5 2.8 10 2.8
Bis(2-ethyl- 86 6 10 6
hexyl)phthalate --
"--" means no Federal MCL or State Standard has been established.
(a) Based on HQ = 1 as calculated in the Risk Assessment
(b) If no Federal MCL or State Standard exists, the quantitation limit will be used.
-------
FINAL ROD
24 1993
SePtembe~ILLE OU1
FCX-STATE PAGE 58
~
NORTH
~ II
~ ~ ~W-'1.
~ 0,.---
~ ~ T-' /
&I ~ /~/ ~
. \ ~ :/::: / ~~~,
~ \\\ ~ iii ~ /~ \\ '-'/ ---~ ~':.:-::
~ 'i '~A~ --;,J/
\ ~ / / ~ "':/ /, CEND
~ / " - I LE-
~ \ ~/ ',' 1 . ""'.::,' :,,::;,,,,,, W£"-
~~\ / ,,' 0 TEUPOTED DETECTION BOUND~
V I - ""'"
' II " " -<""
( 8 -1 . u - ;;,,,...,,""'
. FIGORB icide
Extent Ofc~:~~nation
undwater
Gro
o
T-6
,.
."
.
~ -"-"'-
-------
FINAL ROD
r 24, 1993
SeptembeSVILLE aU1
FCX-STATE PAGE 59
~
NORTH
~
"
.-. k88 ""'-
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 60
.
-- - -
No Action Not effective for miti~ating potential Considered in
groundwater risks; CP requires detailed evaluation
evaluation of No Action alternative. as Alternative 1.
Limited Action - Access Effective at mitigat~ contaminant Considered in
Restrictions, Groundwater exposure. Easily imp emented. Low detailed evaluation
Monitoring, Point-of-U se cost. Point.of-use treatment presently as Alternative 2.
Treatment unnecessarY.
Extraction, Filtration for Metals, Effective especially following Considered in
Discharge Kfecipitation. Easily implemented. detailed evaluation
oderate cost. as part of
Alternatives 3 and
4.
Extraction, Settling for Metals, Not quite as effective or eas~ Screened out
Discharge implemented as filtration. Oderate
cost.
Extraction, Activated Carbon Likely to remove o~cs to below Considered in
Adsorption for Organics, cleanup goals. Easl y implemented as detailed evaluation
Discharge pack~ units. Low capital costs, high as part of
operating costs. Alternatives 3 and
4.
Extraction, IDtrafiltration for As effective as other metals treatment Screened out
Metals, Discharge technologies, but at higher cost and may
reauire Dretreatment.
Extraction, Reverse Osmosis for Generally as effective as other metals Screened out
Metals, Discharge treatment technologies, but at hi~er
cost and requires treatability testin~.
Extractionbi Air Stripping for Effective at VOC removal. Established, Considered in
Organics, . scharge implementable technology. Relatively detailed evaluation
low cost. as part of
Alternative 4.
Extraction, Ion Exchange for As effective and implementable as other Screened out
Metals, Discharge metals treatment technologies, but at
humer cost.
Extraction, Precipitation for Effective e~ecially followed :'a Considered in
Metals, Discharge filtration. asily Implemente . Low to detailed evaluation
moderate cost. as part of
Alternatives 3 and
4.
Extraction, Fluidized Bed Aerobic Effective on more biodegI:adable Screened out
Treatment for Organics, o~ics. Less effective than activated
Discharge c on adsorption on pesticides.
Relatively easily implemented. Higher
cost than air stripping for VOC removal.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 61
.
Extraction, Treatment, Surface Treatment standards more difficult to Considered in
Discharge meet than for other discharge options. detailed evaluation
Bioassay tests may be necessary. as part of
NPDES re~rements limit Alternatives 3 and
implement8bility. Technical costs are 4.
low, but testing and satisfying NPDES
reauirements will increase costs.
Extraction, Treatment, Sanitary Effective disposal option. Discha1: Treatment
Sewer Discharge requirements need to be discusse with alternatives will
the sewer authority, but are ~callY ta~t surface
less stringent than surface disc arge dis ~e limits, but
standards. Costs are relatively low. sewer scharge will
remain the
nreferred ontion.
Extraction, Treatment, Recharge Probably would be effective. Not as Screened out
Wells easily implemented as sewer discharge,
and more costly than surface or sewer
discharge.
Alternative 2: Limited Action
As with the No Action Alternative, no active remedial action would
be conducted under the Limited Action Alternative; however,
institutional controls would be taken to prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater. The institutional controls would include
deed restrictions and long-term monitoring.
Implementing deed restrictions would require amending property
deeds to prohibit the use of groundwater as a potable water source
both on-site and downgradient of the Site where the plume extends
or may extend in the future. Groundwater monitoring would be
conducted semi-annually for 30 years.
Groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed for VOCs (EPA
method 8240), pesticides (EPA method 8080), and metals (EPA method
6010). A phthalate scan (EPA method 8270) would also be conducted
to evaluate the concentrations of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.
The Limited Action Alternative would not remediate groundwater to
either State Standards or Federal Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs). The capital costs as well as the operation and maintenance
costs associated with Alternative Two are shown below. .
Capital Costs
Present Worth 0 & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$ 7,500
$1, 100 I 446
$1,107,946
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 62
Alternative 3: Groundwater Bxtraction and Treatment with Chemical
Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon Adsorption
Alternative 3 would have two main objectives. One objective would
be to prevent off-site migration of contaminated groundwater from
reaching potential private well users located near the Site.
Another objective would be to reduce the contaminant levels to meet
all ARARs (e.g., the North Carolina Drinking Water Standards, North
Carolina Groundwater Standards, and the Federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels) .
This would be achieved by pumping and treating the groundwater for
an estimated period of 20 years. Extraction wells would be used to
pump contaminated groundwater from the shallow and deep portions of
the aquifer, through a piping system, to the treatment equipment
located on-site.
The initial type of treatment, Chemical Precipitation/Filtration,
would be used for reducing the levels of metals (e.g., beryllium,
chromium, copper, manganese, mercury, and zinc) in the groundwater
to meet all ARARs.
Reducing the levels of metals would also help to prevent inorganic
fouling of the Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) System. The GAC
System would be used to reduce the levels of organic compounds in
the groundwater to meet all ARARs.
Once the treated groundwater has met all treatment and discharge
requirements, it would be discharged to either the local publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) or a nearby surface water pathway.
Following installation of the treatment system, aquifer tests would
be needed to evaluate the system's effectiveness in controlling the
off-site migration of the contaminants.
Groundwater quality would be monitored before and after treatment
to ensure that the system was reducing the contaminants to the
required levels. Deed restrictions would also be used to prohibit
the use of groundwater as a potable water source both on-site and
downgradient of the Site where the plume extends or may extend in
the future. .
Capital Costs
Present Worth 0 & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$745,975
$3,415,550
$4,161,525
Implementation:
Estimated 20 years
Alternative 4: Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with Chemical
Precipitation/Filtration, Air Stripping, Carbon
Adaorption
The objectives of Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 3.
These include preventing the off-site migration of contaminated
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 63
groundwater from reaching private well users,
levels of contaminants to meet all ARARs.
and reducing the
Extraction wells would be used to pump the contaminated groundwater
from the shallow and deep portion of the aquifer, through a piping
system, to the treatment equipment located on-site. Chemical
precipitation/Filtration would be used to reduce the levels of
metals to meet all State Standards and Federal MCLs, as well as
reducing the possibility of inorganic fouling of the GAC System.
Air stripping and Carbon Adsorption would be used to reduce the
levels of organic compounds to meet all State Standards and Federal
MCLs.
Once the treated groundwater meets all treatment and discharge
requirements, it would be discharged to either the local POTW or
nearby surface water pathway. Groundwater quality would be
monitored before and after treatment to ensure the system was
reducing the levels of contaminants to meet all ARARs. The capital
costs and the oepration and maintenance costs for Alterantive Four
are shown below.
Capital Costs
~resent Worth 0 & M Costs
Total Present Worth Costs
$766,265
$3,307,783
$4,074,048
Implementation:
Estimated 20 years
x.
SOHHARY OP COMPARATIVB ANALYSIS OP AL'l'BRNATIVBS
The remedial alternatives to address groundwater contamination
using the nine evaluation critieria as set forth in the NCP, 40 CFR
300.430(e) (9). A brief description of each of the nine evaluation
critieria is provided below.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
how an alternative as a whole will protect human health and the
environment. This includes an assessment of how the public health
and the environment risks are properly eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through the treatment, engineering controls, or controls
placed on the property to restrict access and (future) development.
Deed restrictions are examples of controls to restrict development .
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Reauirements
(ARARs) addresses whether or not a remedy complies with all state
and federal environmental and public health laws and requirements
that apply or are relevant and appropriate to the conditions and
cleanup options at a specific site.
If an ARAR cannot be met, the analysis of the alternative must
provide the grounds for invoking a statutory waiver.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 64
PRXHARY BALANCXNG CRXTBRXA
Lonq-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to the ability of
an alternative to maintain reliable protection of human health and
the environment over time once the cleanup levels have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume are the three principal
measures of the overall performance of an alternative.
The 1986 amendments to the Superfund emphasize that, whenever
possible, EPA should select a remedy that uses a treatment process
to permanently reduce the level of toxicity of contaminants at the
site;
the spread of contaminants away from the source of contaminants;
and the volume, or amount, of contamination at the site.
Short-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood of adverse
impacts ort human health or the environment that may be posed during
the construction and implementation of an alternative until cleanup
levels are achieved. . .
Implementability refers to the technical and. administrative
feasibility of an alternative, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement the alternative.
Cost includes the capital (up-front) cost of implementing an
alternative, as well as the cost of operating and maintaining the
alternative over the long-term, and the net present worth of both
the c~pital and operation and maintenance costs.
HODXFYXNG CRXTBRXA
State Acceptance addresses whether, based on its review of the
RIfFS and Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comments on the alternative EPA is proposing as the remedy for the
Site.
Community Acceptance addresses whether the public concurs with
EPA's Proposed Plan. Community acceptance of the Proposed Plan
were be evaluated based on verbal comments received at the public
meetings and those written comments received during the public
comment period.
These evaluation criteria relate directly to requirements in
Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. ~ 9621, which determine the
feasibility and acceptability of the remedy. Threshold criteria
must be satisfied in order for a remedy to be eligible for
selection. Primary balancing criteria are used to weigh major
trade-offs between remedies. Stace and community acceptance are
modifying criteria formally taken into account-after public comment
is received on the Proposed Plan. The evaluation of the potential
remedial alternatives to address groundwater we~e developed as
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993 .
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 65
follows.
Groundwater Remediation
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed analysis for
groundwater remediation:
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Limited Action - Deed Restrictions and Long-term
Groundwater Monitoring
Alternative 3:
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with Chemical
Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon Adsorption
Alternative 4:
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with Chemical
Precipitation/Filtration, Air Stripping, and Carbon
Adsorption
. Overall Protection of Human.Health and the Environment
Each alternative was evaluated to determine whether it is likely to
effectiv~ly mitigate and minimize the long-term .risk of harm to
public health and the environment currently presented at the Site.
Alternative 1 would not be protective of human health or the
environment since no restrictions would be placed on future land
use at the Site; therefore, alternative 1 would not eliminate any
exposure pathways or reduce the level of risk. Alternative 2 would
be protective of human health and the environment only if the deed
restrictions were effectively implemented.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would both be protective of human health and
the environment by reducing levels of all site-:-related contaminants
to meet all State and federal requirements.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce contaminant levels;.
therefore, they would not meet the State Standards and Federal
MCLs. EPA believes Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce contaminant
leveis to meet all State and Federal ARARs. Table 10-1 identifies
the Federal and State regulations applicable to the groundwater
alternatives. .
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 66
Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the site-related
contamination on a short-term basis. Alternatives 3 and 4 could be
implemented without significant risks to on-site workers or the
community, and without adverse environmental impacts. .
Lonq-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no effect on the contaminant
concentrations contributing to the risks identified in the Baseline
Rsisk Assessment. Therefore, any reduction in contaminant
concentrations in the long-term would be due to natural dispersion,
attenuation, and degradation processes. It is questionable whether
remedial action objectives can be met through natural processes in
the foreseeable future. Groundwater contamination would continue
to be of potential risk to human health and the environment.
Contaminants would be permanently "reduced through. groundwater
extraction and treatment in Alternatives 3 and 4. Air stripping
and Carbon Adsorption are both proven technologies for the removal
of organic compounds in groundwater.
Metals would also be permanently reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4
with the use of Chemical Precipitation.
EPA would conduct 5-year reviews of any remedial alternative
selected' to determine whether complete aquifer restoration is
feasible and to ensure that the surface water and' sediment in
nearby streams do not contain unacceptable levels of site-related
contaminants.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Since Alternatives 1 and 2 provide no active treatment process,
contaminants would degrade only by passive, natural processes. The
toxicity and mobility of the contaminated groundwater may remain at
current " levels for an extended period of time.
The extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater for an
estimated period of 20 years in Alternatives 3 and 4 would
effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the
contaminant plume.
Implementability
No implementation of Alternative 1 is needed. However,.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would require extensive coordination
between State and local agencies in order to implement the deed
restrictions effectively. Alternatives 3 and.~ would also require
detailed planning as well as coordination with local agencies to
determine the most viable discharge option.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 67
TABLE 10-1
SUMMARY OF ARARS EVALUATED
FEDERAL
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
- Clean Water Act (CWA) .
- Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
- Clean Air Act (CAA)
- Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
- Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
- Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)
Regulations Protecting Landmarks, Historical, and Archeological Sites
- Endangered Species Act
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
STATE
- North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules and
Solid Waste Management Law
- North Carolina Water and Air Resources Act
- North Carolina Drinking Water Act
- North Carolina Water Pollution Control Regulations
- North Carolina Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards
- North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards
- North Carolina Well Construction Standards
- North Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulations
Aquifer tests and additional characterization of the aquifer may be
needed prior to implementation of the system. Alternatives 3 and
4 are technically feasible, but following installation of the
system, would require monitoring of the influent and effluent to
determine the effectiveness of the system.
Cost
Estimated total present worth costs
alternatives are presented below:
for the
four groundwater
Alternative 1:
none
Alternative 2:
$1,107,946
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 68
Alternative 3:
$4,161,525
$4,074,048
Alternative 4:
The duration of the groundwater extraction and treatment systems
for Alternatives 3 and 4 is estimated to be 20 years. Long-term
monitoring of the treatment system is anticipated for 30 years.
The cost estimates also assume a 5% interest rate.
State Acceptance
The NCDEHNR has reviewed and provided EPA-Region IV with comments
on the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports. The
NCDEHNR also reviewed this Record of Decision and EPA's preferred
alternative and concurs with EPA's selection.
Communi tv Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be evaluated
after the comment period ends and a response to each comment will
be included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is inclqded as
Appendix B of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Site.
XI. TBB SBLBCTBD RBHBDY
Based on consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, the
detailed analysis of alternatives and public and state comments,
EPA has selected Alternative 3 for the Operable Unit One
groundwater remedy at the FCX-Statesville Superfund Site. At the
completion of this .remedy, the risk associated with the Site is
projected to be within 10E-4 to 10E-6, the risk range generally
accepted by EPA to be protective of human health and the
environment. The total present worth cost of Alternative Three for
an estimated 20 years of groundwater extraction and treatment
(assuming a 5% interest rate) is $3,415,600. Table 11-1 shows the
capital costs associated with Alternative 3 and Table 11-2 shows
the annual operating and maintenance costs associated with
Alternative 3.
Groundwater Remediation
Groundwater remediation will address the contaminated groundwater
at the Site. Groundwater remediation will include designing and
constructing a network of an estimated 19 extraction wells both on-
site and immediately to the south of the Site. Figure 11-1 shows
the proposed extraction or recovery well location map. The wells
will be designed to extract contaminated groundwater from the
saprolite and bedrock portions of the aquifer. The installation of
a piping system will be necessary to transport the contaminated
groundwater from the extraction wells to the treatment system
located on-site.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27. 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 69
TABLE 11-1
CAPITAL COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE THREE
Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
($) ($)
1 . Installation of recovery wells 19 4,000 76,000
. Groundwater recovery well pumps 19 6,600 125,400
2 Treatability Study 1 Lump s~ 15,000
3 Piping Systems
. Transport groundwater from wells to 2,750 25 68,750
accumulation tank (ft.)
4 Accumulation tank (300 gal) 1 800 800
5 Metals Chemical PrecipitationIFiItration 2 8,100 16,200
Unit Pumps
6 Mixer for Metals Precipitation (flocculation) 1 9,800 9,800
7 Sand Filter Unit 1 14,700 14,700
8 GAC column feed pump 1 8,100 8,100
9 GAC columns (liquid phase, @6.5 ft-2oo lbs. 2 8,800 17,600
carbon) with ancillaries
10 Discharge pump with accessories 1 8,100 8,100
11 Deed Restriction 1 Lump Sum 5,000
Subtotal 365,450
12 Mobilization/demobilization, construction 80,400
management (22%)
13 Designs, specifications, regulatory approval, 73,090
and permits (20%)
Subtotal 518,940
14 Administration (15%) 77,840
Subtotal 596,780
15 Contingency (25%) 149,200
16 Total capital cost (rounded) 746,000
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 70
TABLE 11-2
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR ALTERNATIVE THREE
Annual Total Cost
Item Description Quantity Unit Cost ($) Per Year ($)
1 Labor (@ 6% of capital cost) Lump sum 44,760
2 Maintenance (@ 2% of capital cost) Lump sum 14,920
3 Monitoring of eftluent (analysis)
. Treated water from on-site GAC 4 6,000 24,000
column
4 On-site activated carbon (liquid phase)
. Replacement & disposal 1 15,000/changeout 15,000
5 On-site Chemical Precipitation Feed
Chemicals 75 lb. 2 150
. Permanganate 22 lb. 3 66
. - Polymer
6 Sludge Disposal From Dyna-Sand Filtration 200 lb. O.101lb 20
Unit (non-hazardous)
7 Utilities Lump sum 6,000
8 Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring (See 49,650
GA-2)
Subtotal 518,940
9 Administrative (15%) 23,180
Subtotal 177,750
10 Contingency (25%) 44,340
11 Total 222,190
12 Present Worth Cost (rounded) $3,415,600
-------
FINAL ROD
Sepcember 24, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 71
~
.VORTH
r-
I
/1
II ~
. I' ~'" ~
\ \.'"
" I""
,.., Jr-::::::,
\ '-- ~ ......
\ I ", '....
I ' "
.... ' '"
\ -
-' I
'" -;'/11
,/ ",' I,
/;-- I,
, I
II
I'
I I
LECEND
8 RECOVERY WELL
..
...
....... ..... "'--
FIGURE 11-1
- PESTICIDE Plul.IE
- - - - \o)C PLUU[
PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL LOCATIONS
rcx STA TESVILLE
STATESVllLE. NORTH CAROLINA
-------
FmAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUl
PAGE 72
Treatment of the contaminated groundwater will include
Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon Adsorption, and final discharge
of the groundwater fOllowing treatment will be to the local POTW or
to a nearby surface water pathway. The system will operate 24
hours a day. System controls will allow complete automatic
operation with mimimal operator attention.
The groundwater treatment system will require monitoring and
maintenance. Monitoring of the treatment system will be achieved
by comparing the quality of the groundwater entering the system
with the quality of the groundwater exiting the system. The
groundwater quality exiting the system must comply with all
trea~ment requirements as well as permit requirements for discharge'
to the local POTW or surface water. Long-term groundwater
monitoring will include sampling and analysis of the groundwater
from the permanent monitoring wells for an estimated 30 years.
Long-term groundwater monitoring will also be used to track
contaminant plume migration.
Monitoring of the treatment system will include periodic sampling
of the influent and effluent from the treatment system and analysis
to ensure compliance with all treatment and discharge permit
requirements for the POTW or for surface water discharge.
. Extraction and Performance Standards
Groundwater will be extracted from the contaminant plume identified
at the FCX property and the area to the south of the FCX property.
The exact locations of the ext~action wells and pumping rates will
be determined during the Remedial Design and Remedial Action.
Discharge of the treated groundwater will either be to the local
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or to a nearby surface water
pathway. This determination will be made during the Remedial
Design.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore the groundwater to
its benefical uses as defined in Section 6.0. Based on information
obtained during the RI, and the analysis of all remedial
alternatives, EPA and the State of North Carolina believe that the
selected remedy may be able to achieve this goal.
Groundwater contamination may be especially persistent in the
iIYUT\ediate vicinity of the contaminants' source where concentrations
are relatively high. The ability to achieve the remediation levels
throughout the area of attainment, 0:::- the groundwater contamination
plume, cannot be determined until the extraction system 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
implememtation, the contingency measures and goals described in
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 73
this section may replace the selected remedy and goals for these
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 ar"e
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 20 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 following:
a) at individual wells where remediation levels have been
attained, pumping may be discontinued;
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points;
c) pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilbration and encourage
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater; and/or
d) installation of additional extraction wells 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 at least 2 years following discontinuation of
groundwater extraction.
If it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and the
system performance data, that certain portions of the aquifer
cannot be restored to its beneficial use(s), any or all of the
following measures involving long-term management may occur, for an
indefinite period of time, as a modification of the existing
system:
a) engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long- term
control provided by low level pumping, as a containment measure;
b) chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for the cleanup of those
portions of the aquifer based on the technical impracticability
of achieving further contaminant reduction; "
c) institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict
access to those portions of the aquifer"- which remain above
remediation levels; and/or
-------
FINAL ROD
september 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OUI
PAGE 74
.d) continued re-evaluation
groundwater restoration.
of
remedial
technologies
for
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 least every 5 years, in accordance with CERCLA Section 121(c).
The Remedial Action shall comply with all ARARs as identified in
Table 7-1 and 7-2. The presence of contamination in the
groundwater will require deed restrictions to document their
presence and could limit future use of the area known to be
affected by the contaminated groundwater.
X:I:I.
STATtJ'l'ORY DB'1'BJUI:INAT:ION
Based on available information, the selected remedy satisfies the
remedy selection requirements under CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and
the NCP. The selected remedy provides protection of human health
and the environment, is cost-effective, utilizes permanent
solutions to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies involving treatment technologies.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will permanently treat the groundwater and
remove the potential risk associated with the contamination. The
ingestion and inhalation contact with Site contaminants would be
eliminated.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal and State ARARs.
No waivers of Federal or State requirements are anticipated for
this Site.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected groundwater technologies are more cost-effective than
the other acceptable alternatives considered. The selected
remedies provide greater benefit for the cost because they
permanently treat the waste.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technoloqies or Resource Recovery Technoloqies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which
permanent solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized for
this Remedial Action.
-------
FINAL ROD
September 27, 1993
FCX-STATESVILLE OU1
PAGE 75
Of the alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and the State have
determined that 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;
State and community acceptance, and the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The preference for treatment is satisfied by the use of
Precipitation/Filtration and Carbon Adsorption on the contaminated.
groundwater. The principal threats at the Site will be mitigated
by the use of these treatment technologies.
XIII.
DOCOH::BHTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGB
CERCLA Section 117(b) requires an explanation of any significant
change from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed
Plan. In the Proposed Plan, Alternative 4 was chosen for the
groundwater remediation. This alternative consists of groundwater
extract i_on and on-site treatment with chemical
precipitation/filtration, air stripping, and carbon adsorption.
However, comments received during a public meeting held on May 20,
1993, overwhelmingly favored Alternative 3 over Alternative 4. The
public voiced their opposition to the use of air stripping as a
treatment technology for the contaminated groundwater. The Public
favored the use of chemica~ precipitation/filtration and carbon
adsorption as the treatment technologies for the contaminated
groundwater.
EPA selected Alternative 4 for the treatment of the contaminated
groundwater at the Site based on data which shows groundwater
treatment systems using both air stripping and carbon adsorption as
an effective means of reducing organic contaminants. Residents and
area citizens, however, preferred groundwater treatment using only
carbon adsorption instead of using both air stripping and carbon
adsorption. .
The remedy documented in this. Record of Decision is in accord with
the concern expressed during the comment period by the affected
community.
------- |