United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R04-93/141
April 1993
v>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Bypass 601 Groundwater
Contamination, NC
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R04-93/141
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. TItto and Subtitle
SUPERFUND .RECORD OF DECISION
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
Second Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Data
04/20/93
6.
7. Authors)
8. Performing Organization Rapt No.
9. Partormlng Organization Name and Address
10 Project Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contract(C)orGrant(G)No.
(C)
12. Sponsoring Organization Harm and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB94-964050
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 13-acre Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site contains an area of ground water
contamination in Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina. Land use in the area is
predominantly light industrial and commercial, with local residential neighborhoods.
An estimated 1,400 people reside within a three-mile radius of the site. The facility
borders US. Highway 29/Route. 601 on the west, a flea market and landfill to the north,
Irish Buffalo Creek to the east , and an unnamed tributary of the Irish Buffalo Creek
to the south. Ground water contamination at the site has been documented to be from
multiple sources, but previous investigations have indicated that the 13-acre Martin
Scrap Recycling (MSR) facility, which operated as a battery salvage and recycling
facility from 1966 to 1986, is one of the major sources of contamination. Ten other
source areas related to battery disposal have been identified in the area: several
areas where battery casings were disposed of (source areas 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10);
commercial property (source area 4); private landfill (source area 5); a radio tower
(source area 7); a floodplain located south of Unnamed Stream #1 (source area 8); and a
20 by 20 foot area adjacent to Unnamed Stream #1 (source area 9) . From at least .1975,
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene), other organics (PAH, PCBs, pesticides), metals
(chromium, lead)
b. Identlfiers/OpervEnded Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
124
22. Price
(See ANS1239.18)
SM> Instructions on Rmrmt
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R04-93/141
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination, NC
Second Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
site investigations were performed and sampling studies conducted; however, they primarily
have been limited to the MSR facility. From 1981 through 1986, the State inspected, cited,
and fined the MSR facility for various OSHA and RCRA violations. In 1992, some source
areas were found to present an immediate risk to human health and, as a result, a total of
14,075 yd^ of battery casing debris and lead-contaminated soil were removed and
transported to the MSR facility. A 1990 ROD addressed an interim remedy for soil at the
MSR facility and provided for onsite containment. This ROD addresses a final remedy for
the contaminated source and ground water, as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene; other
organics, including PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides; and metals, including chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes demolishing and disposing of buildings
offsite; temporarily relocating an unoccupied trailer; excavating approximately 64,139 yd^
of contaminated soil, sediment, and debris from areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 and the MSR
facility with levels greater than 500 mg/kg lead; treating the excavated soil, sediment,
and debris onsite using solidification/stabilization, with onsite disposal of solidified
material in source areas 4 and 5 and the MSR facility; backfilling, grading, and
revegetating the excavated areas; extracting and treating contaminated ground water onsite
using precipitation and air stripping, with discharge of the treated ground water offsite'
to a POTW; monitoring ground water; and implementing institutional controls, including
land use restrictions, and site access restrictions, such as fencing. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $40,470,044, which includes an estimated
present worth O&M cost of $7,359,030 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Soil, sediment, debris, and ground water cleanup goals are based on health-based levels
and the more stringent of SDWA MCLs and State standards. Chemical-specific soil cleanup
goals include antimony 24 mg/kg (residential) or 820 mg/kg (commercial/industrial); barium
153 mg/kg; carbon tetrachloride 10 mg/kg; chromium 56 mg/kg; lead 500 mg/kg; lead 35
mg/kg (sediment); manganese 4,200 mg/kg; and vanadium 87 mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground
water cleanup goals include benzene 1 ug/1; cadmium 5 ug/1; carbon tetrachloride 1 ug/1;
chromium 50 ug/1; 1,2-DCA 1 ug/1; lead 15 ug/1; manganese 50 ug/1; sulfate 250,000 ug/1;
and vanadium 256 ug/1.
-------
BYPASS 601
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE
CABARRUS COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RECORD OF DECISION
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
AMENDMENT TO OPERABLE UNIT ONE
AUGUST 1990 RECORD OF DECISION
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GA
APRIL, 1993
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypoa 601 GnxindvKJtaf Contamination Site Declaration
DECLARATION
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
Concord, Cabanus County, North Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Bypass 601
Groundwater Contamination Site in Concord, Cabarrus County, North Carolina,
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and, to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the
administrative record file for this Site.
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF 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.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This remedy addresses the principle threats posed by this Site. The major threat
is the contaminated groundwater emanating from beneath the Site. This
remedial action will also address the threat from soil contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
GROUNDWATER
Extraction of groundwater across the Site that is contaminated
above Maximum Contaminant Levels or the North Carolina
Groundwater Standards, whichever are more protective;
-------
Record erf Decision __ _____________ __ April 1993
Bypass 601 Grounctwatw Contamination Site Decfcratton
Onsite treatment of extracted groundwater via precipitation and air
stripping;
Discharge of treated groundwater to the POTW; and
Continued analytical monitoring for contaminants in groundwater.
SOIL/SEDIMENT
Demolition of portions of the abandoned flea market and any
standing buildings at the MSR facility; Disposal at a municipal landfill-
Temporary relocation of an occupied trailer located on Source Area
#3;
Excavation of onsite soils contaminated above the performance
standards;
Onsite treatment of excavated soils via solidification/stabilization;
TCLP testing of solidified material;
Onsite disposal of solidified material; and
Backfilling, grading, and revegetation of excavated area and
solidified material.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This
remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technology to the
maximum extent practicable, and satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal
element. Since this remedy may result in hazardous substances remaining onsite
above health based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Patrick M. Tobin Date
Acting Regional Administrator
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contaminatton Site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1-1
A. Introduction 1-1
B. Site Description 1-1
C. Topography 1-4
D. Geology 1-5
E. Surface Water 1-5
F. Hydrogeology 1-6
G. Meteorology 1-6
H. Demography and Land Use 1-7
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2-1
A. Site History 2-1
B. Previous Investigations 2-1
C. Enforcement Activities 2-2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3-1
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY 4-1
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5-1
A. Soil Investigation 5-1
B. 1992 Removal 5-13
C. Groundwater Investigation 5-13
D. Well Survey/Private Well Sampling Investigation 5-15
E. Surface Water/Sediment Investigation 5-15
F. Ecological Investigation 5-15
-------
Rocorq of Decision •__ Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Grounawater Contamination Site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
SECTION PAGE NO.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6-1
A. Contaminants of Concern 6-1
B. Exposure Assessment 6-1
C. Toxicity Assessment 6-5
D. Risk Characterization Summary 6-5
E. Environmental (Ecological) Risk 6-11
VII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
A. Action-Specific ARARs 7-1
B. Location-Specific ARARs 7-1
C. Chemical-Specific ARARs 7-7
VIII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
A. Soil/Sediment 8-1
B. Groundwater 8-14
C. Surface Water 8-14
IX. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 9-1
A. Remedial Alternatives to Address GW Contamination
1. No Action 9-1
2. Limited Action 9-6
3. Limited Groundwater Remediation 9-6
4. Complete Groundwater Remediation 9-7
B. Remedial Alternatives to Address Soil Contamination
1. No Action 9-8
2. Limited Action 9-9
3. Excavation & OnSite Disposal (Capping) 9-9
4. Excavation & OnSite Treatment, Onsite Disposal 9-10
(Soil Washing, Thermal Desorption. S/S)
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 60) Groundwater Contamination Site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
SECTION PAGE NO.
5. Excavation & Onsrte Treatment 9-12
(Thermal Description, S/S), Onslte Disposal
6. Excavation & Offsite Disposal 9-13
7. Excavation & Onsite Treatment (S/S) 9-14
Onsite Disposal
8. Excavation & Onsite Treatment (S/S) 9-14
Offsite Disposal
X. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 10-1
A. Groundwater Remediation 10-2
Overall Protection of Human Health/Environment 1O4
Compliance With ARARs 10-4
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence 10-4
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 10-7
Short-term Effectiveness 10-7
Implementability 10-7
Cost 10-7
B. Soil Remediation 10-7
Overall Protection of Human Health/Environment 10-8
Compliance With ARARs 10-8
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence 10-8
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 10-8
Short-term Effectiveness 10-9
Implementability 10-9
Cost 10-9
C. Modifying Criteria 10-9
State Acceptance 10-9
Community Acceptance 10-9
iii
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 GrouncNvater Contamination Site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
SECTION PAGE NO.
XI. SELECTED REMEDY 11-1
A. Source Control 11-1
B. Groundwater Remediation 11-4
XII. AMENDMENT TO OPERABLE UNIT ONE RECORD OF DECISION 12-1
A. Rationale for Issuing the ROD Amendment 12-1
B. Description of New Alternatives 12-2
C. Evaluation of Alternatives 12-2
D. Statutory Determinations 12-2
XIII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 13-1
Protection of Human Health and the Environment 13-1
Compliance With ARARs 13-1
Cost-Effectiveness 13-1
Utilization of permanent Solution and Alternative 13-1
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element 13-2
XIV. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 14-1
APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - STATE CONCURRENCE
iv
-------
Pacord of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Conformation site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
UST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE NO.
1-1 Site Location Map 1-2
1-2 Site Map 1-3
5-1 Background Soil Sampling Locations 6-2
5-2 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #1 5-3
5-3 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #2 5-4
5-4 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #3 5-5
5-5 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #4 5-6
5-6 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #5 5-7
5-7 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #6 5-8
5-8 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #7 5-9
5-9 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #8 5-10
5-10 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #9 5-11
5-11 Soil Sampling Locations - Source Area #10 5-12
5-12 Groundwater Sampling Locations 5-14
5-13 Private Well Survey Results 5-16
5-14 Private Well Sampling Locations 5-17
5-15 Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations 5-18
5-16 Ecological Sampling Locations 5-20
8-1 Extent of Soil Contamination - MSR Facility 8-4
8-2 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #2 8-5
8-3 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #3 8-6
8-4 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #4 8-7
8-5 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #5 8-8
8-6 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #6 8-9
8-7 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #8 8-10
8-8 Extent of Soil Contamination - Source Area #9 8-11
8-9 Extent of Sofl Contamination - Sediments 8-12
8-10 Extent of Metal Contamination - GW 8-17
8-11 Extent of VOC Contamination - GW 8-18
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE NO.
6-1 RME Concentrations for Groundwater 6-2
6-2 RME Concentrations for Soil 6-3
6-3 Exposure Assumptions 6-4
6-4 Carcinogenic Toxicity Criteria ... 6-6
6-5 Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Criteria 6-7
6-6 Current Use Risk 6-9
6-7 Current Use Blood Lead Levels 6-10
6-8 Future Use Risk 6-12
6-9 Future Use Blood Lead Levels 6-13
6-10 Risk Associated with Child Resident by Contaminant in Soil 6-14
6-11 Risk Associated with Groundwater by Contaminant 6-15
7-1 Action-Specific ARARs 7-2
7-2 Location-Specific ARARs 7-5
7-3 Chemical-Specific ARARs 7-8
8-1 Summary of Soil Remedial Action Objective Levels 8-2
8-2 Soil Remediation Levels . 8-3
8-3 Volume of Soil Requiring Remediation 8-13
8-4 Summary of Groundwater Remedial Action Objective Levels 8-15
8-5 Groundwater Remediation Levels 8-16
8-6 Ambient Water Quality Criteria 8-20
9-1 Evaluation of Groundwater Process Options 9-2
9-2 Evaluation of Soil Process Options 9-4
10-1 Remedial Alternatives Summary 10-3
10-2 Federal Regulations Affecting Implementation of the Alternatives 10-5
10-3 NC Regulations Affecting the Implentation of the Alternatives 10-6
11-1 Groundwater Selected Remedy Cost Estimate 11-7
11-2 Soil Selected Remedy Cost Estimate 11-8
vi
-------
Record of Decision Aprt 1993
Bypass £01 Gfoundwatar Contamination Site Section 1
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
The Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site (Bypass 601 Site) is defined as
an area located on the western edge of Concord, North Carolina, in which
groundwater is contaminated by multiple sources (Rgure 1-1). Previous
investigations have indicated that the Martin Scrap Recycling (MSR) facility, which
operated as a battery salvage and recycling facility from approximately 1966 to
1986, is one of the major sources of contamination. Ten other source areas of
contamination related to battery disposal have been identified in the area (Figure
1-2).
B. Site Description
The MSR facility occupies approximately 13 acres of land and is currently inactive.
The facility is bordered by US Highway 29/Route 601 on the west, a flea market
and landfill to the north, to the east by Irish Buffalo Creek, and an unnamed
tributary of the Irish Buffalo Creek to the south. Residences are located south and
west of the MSR facility. The main facility contains several small buildings.
Source Area #1 is located adjacent to Unnamed Stream #1, west of Bypass 601.
This area was comprised of one winding gully that contained cracked casings.
The casings were deposited to a depth of 19 feet for a distance of approximately
500 feet in length and 30 feet in width. This area Is located in a heavily wooded
steep terrain behind an auto sales dealership.
Source Area #2 is located south of Montford Avenue and west of Bypass 601. This
area was the previous site of the MSR facility and consists of surficial and buried
battery casing debris. A mobile trailer is currently on this property along with
various construction debris and buildings.
Source Area #3 is located at 72 Sumner Avenue. An occupied mobile trailer is
currently on this property along with various construction debris. The visual extent
of battery casing debris is approximately 8 feet by 8 feet.
1-1
-------
CA8ARRUS COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
\r -c SCA.:
UKKLENBURG
COUNTY
UNION
COUNTY
COM FPC ARCS IV
SITE LOCATION MAP
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
1-2
FIGURE NO.
1-1
-------
u>
CD
8?
-------
Record of Decision Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site . Section 1
Source Area #4 consists of the commercial property occupied by an abandoned
flea market and is located north and adjacent to the MSR facility. An office
building and an abandoned warehouse currently occupy this source area.
Source Area #5 is located at a private landfill along the eastern boundary of the
MSR facility. This area is covered with miscellaneous construction debris, old
rusted equipment, tanks, drums, vehicles, and other trash.
Source Area #6 is located behind a tire store on the comer of McGill and Bypass
601, and consists of two small piles of fill material containing battery casing debris
along the western bank of Irish Buffalo Creek. The first pile is approximately 90
feet in length continuing south and extending up the steep grade bank
approximately 15 feet. There is a break in the casings of approximately 45 feet,
then a second pile begins and extends another 45 feet in length and 15 feet up
the bank.
Source Area #7 is the radio tower site located approximately 1 /4-mile north of the
MSR facility. The source area is bordered by Unnamed Stream #2 to the north
and Irish Buffalo Creek to the east.
Source Area #8 consists of the floodplain area south of Unnamed Stream #1,
presumably contaminated by surface water migration from the MSR facility.
Source Area #9 consists of an approximately 20 foot by 20 foot area adjacent to
Unnamed Stream #1, approximately 200 feet west of Bypass 601. The source area
is located south of Montford Avenue and lies southeast of Source Area #2.
Cracked battery casings were found in this area.
Source Area #10 consists of an area where several piles of battery casing debris
were both visible and buried. The area is adjacent to Unnamed Stream #2 and
is bordered to the north, west and south by Bamhardt Avenue, Groff Street, and
Montford Avenue, respectively. The source area is located in a heavily wooded
steep terrain.
C. Topography
The Bypass 601 Site is In the Piedmont Plateau, characterized by rolling hills cut by
many streams, which usually originate in the mountains. Drainage in the
Piedmont Plateau is generally to the southeast because of the general northwest-
southeast orientation of the stream valleys, which are controlled by the underlying
bedrock.
1-4
-------
Record of Decision Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Sectton 1
The original topography at the Bypass 601 Site has been altered significantly in
past years due to filling and borrowing activities. The Site is topographically
divided by Bypass 601.
The road bed in the vicinity of the Site has been artificially elevated by bringing
in fill to 'bridge* between two hills, one of which was apparently later leveled for
construction of the MSR facility.
D. Geology
There are two distinct lithostratigraphic units underlying the Site. They include a
surficial unit comprised of unconsolidated soil and saprolite material, and an
underlying granitic/dioritic rock complex. The surficial unit consists primarily of
residual soil derived from in situ chemical weathering of the underlying rock.
Locally within stream basins, residual soil and/or rock have been chemically and
mechanically eroded into alluvium. These alluvial deposits generally overlie the
residuum along surface water features. In addition, there are localized zones of
fill material which are part of the surficial unit.
Lithologic evaluations showed residual soils to be variable in composition ranging
from sand to silt to clay. The dominant lithology is sandy clay. However, due to
the interiayered nature of these sediments, zones of silty clay, clayey sand, and
sand can pre-dominate. Sands are typically quartz and vary in grain size from
fine to medium to coarse, and are subangular. Soil color ranged from gray to
yellowish-brown to red to white.
Underlying the unconsolidated soil and saprolite material is consolidated granite
and diorite rock. The granite is generally massive, with fracture frequency varying
from 1 per 30 feet to 6 per 25 feet of rock cored, and averaged 1 per 10 feet.
Fractures typically occurred at high angles. The color of the granite rock varied
from white to grayish-green to gray with zones of white corresponding to veins of
quartz.
E. Surface Water
The surface water features potentially affected by the Site include Irish Buffalo
Creek, Unnamed Stream #1, and Unnamed Stream £2. These surface waters have
been classified as Class C by the State, which is the basic water quality
classification for all surface waters in the State of North Carolina, and protects
1-5
-------
Record of Decision Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Ground*ater Contamination Site Section I
freshwaters for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life. Irish Buffalo Creek
provides the eastern border for the Site and flows in a southeastward direction
into the Rocky River. The Rocky River, located about seven miles south of the Site,
is an eastern flowing tributary of the Pee Dee-Yadkin River. Both unnamed
streams are intermittent streams which flow eastward through the middle of the
Site into Irish Buffalo Creek. Irish Buffalo Creek is approximately 30 feet wide and
1.5 feet deep while the unnamed streams are approximately 5 feet wide and 0.5
feet deep at the Site under normal flow conditions.
F. Hydroaeoloov
Groundwater at the Bypass 601 Site generally occurs in two zones. The uppermost
zone consists of the unconsolidated soil and saprolite material. This zone is
referred to as the water table, shallow aquifer, and soil overburden zone. Water
in this zone generally moves through the pore spaces of the overburden material
as well as the relict fractures with the saprolite.
The second zone of groundwater occurrence is the bedrock zone where
groundwater moves through fractures and secondary openings. The upper part
of the bedrock zone is fairly well fractured. However, in general, the size and
frequency of fractures decrease markedly with increasing depth. Although the
soil overburden and bedrock zones have often been referred to as different
aquifers, they actually comprise one aquifer since the two zones are hydraulically
connected.
Groundwater flow at the MSR facility is generally toward the confluence of
Unnamed Stream #1 and Irish Buffalo Creek and is therefore intercepted by both
these surface water pathways. Groundwater flow at Source Areas 1,2, and 9 is
intercepted by Unnamed Stream #1 on the western side of Bypass 601, while at
Source Area #8, groundwater flow is intercepted by Unnamed Stream *1 on the
eastern side of Bypass 601. Groundwater flow at Source Area #3 is intercepted
by both Unnamed Stream #1 and Irish Buffalo Creek. Groundwater flow at Source
Areas 4,5,6, and 7 is intercepted by Irish Buffalo Creek. Groundwater at source
area 10 is intercepted by Unnamed Stream #2.
G. Meteorology
The climate is characterized by cool winters and warm summers. Temperatures
fall as low as the freezing point on approximately one-half of the days in the
1-6
-------
Record of DocMon April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site Section 1
winter months. Winter weather is changeable, with occasional cold periods, but
extreme cold is rare. Snow is infrequent, with the first snowfall of the season
usually appearing in late November or December. Heavy snowfalls have
occurred, but any appreciable accumulation of snow on the ground for more
than a day or two is rare.
Summers are long and quite warm, with afternoon temperatures frequently in the
low 90s <°F). The growing season is also long, the average length of the freeze-
free period being 216 days.
Rainfall is generally evenly distributed throughout the year, the driest weather
usually occurring in the fall. Summer rainfall comes principally from thunderstorms,
with occasional dry spells of one to three weeks duration.
H. Demography and Land Use
The City of Concord is within a four-mile radius of the Site. Concord has an
estimated population of 27,347. Current land use around the Site is primarily light
industrial and commercial, with local residential neighborhoods. Industries include
sand and gravel operations, private landfill operations, and manufacturing
related to the textile industry.
Commercial operations include convenience food stores and gas stations, auto
sales and repair, retail shopping centers, fast food restaurants, and mobile home
sales operations. Residential neighborhoods are interspersed with the light
industrial/commercial areas which line the main roads within a three-mile radius
of the Site. It is estimated that more than 1,400 people reside within a three-mile
radius of the Site. The population in the vicinity of the Site obtains its potable
water supply from either public water supply wells or from private wells. No users
are known to be currently withdrawing water from the creeks in the area. Irish
Buffalo Creek is used for fishing and swimming.
1-7
-------
Raeefd ot D«cMon Aprt 199»
Bypon 401 Croundwdw ContcntiiKfton Stt« S*cton 2
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site History
The MSR facility dealt in the recovery of scrap metal, most notably lead, which
was recovered from scrap vehicle batteries. The batteries were "cracked" by
sawing off the tops with an electric saw. Lead plates were then removed from
the batteries for reclamation. The waste from this operation consisted of the
sulfuric acid (contaminated with lead) from the batteries, and battery casings.
Initially, the waste acid was collected and disposed of in a surface impoundment
on the MSR property. Since rainwater and surface runoff could enter the
impoundment causing it to overflow, a subsurface drain composed of perforated
plastic pipe, surrounded by gravel, was installed downgradient of the surface
impoundment. This was done to provide a "leach field" to prevent overflow to
Unnamed Stream #1, which was approximately 150 feet from the impoundment.
In early 1982, MSR reportedly stopped using the surface impoundment and began
collecting the waste acid in stainless steel holding tanks. The facility reportedly
operated from 1966 to 1986.
The additional ten source areas were discovered during the remedial investigation
for Operable Unit #1. Source Area #2 was also reported to be the site of a
reclamation operation operated by Mr. Martin before the facility moved to its
present location.
B. Previous Investigations
From at least early 1975, several Site investigations were performed at the Bypass
601 Site. Sampling studies have been conducted by local, state, and federal
agencies, as well as a consultant for MSR. These sampling studies, however, have
been primarily limited to the MSR facility.
Most recently, an RI/FS at the Site, completed in 1990, identified metal
contamination of soils throughout the MSR facility. The volume of soils
contaminated wtth lead In excess of 500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), the
established soil remediation level for lead, was estimated to be approximately
57,000 cubic yards. The 1990 Rl results also indicated that the contaminated soils
and buried battery casings are continuing to release contaminants to
downgradient soils, surface water, stream sediments, and groundwater. In
addition, several additional contaminant source areas were identified but not
investigated. The additional areas would be the focus of a subsequent
investigation.
2-1
-------
B»eoido«D«cMon __ Apit 1993
BypoMMl CraundwaterCafltanJndtonStt* S*ctten2
C. Enforcement Activities
From 1981 through 1986, the MSR facility was inspected, cited and fined for
various violations under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Management (DEM) and the North
Carolina Division of Health Services (DHS).
In October 1984, the Bypass 601 Site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) and finalized in June 1986.
EPA sent notice letters to the following companies and individuals in September
1985, for conduct of the OU #1 RI/FS, and in November 1990, for conduct of the
OU #1 RD/RA:
1. Oliver Martin
2. Carrie Martin
3. Bill Martin, President, Martin Scrap Recycling, Inc.
The notice letters also informed the PRPs of their potential liability for past costs.
2-2
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Gfoundwater Contamination Site Section 3
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to CERCLA §n3(K)(2)(B)0-v) and §117, the RI/FS Report and the
Proposed Plan for the Bypass 601 Site were released to the public for comment
on December 17,1992. These documents were made available to the public in
the administrative record located in an information repository maintained at the
EPA Docket Room in Region IV and at the Charles A. Cannon Memorial Library
in Concord, North Carolina.
The notice of availability for these documents was published in the Concord
Tribune Newspaper on December 17, 1992. A public comment period on the
documents was held from December 17,1992 to February 18,1993. A copy of
the notice was mailed to the public. In addition, a public meeting was held on
January 7, 1993. At this meeting, representatives from EPA answered questions
about problems at the site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Meetings with city and county officials were also held.
Other community relations activities included:
Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the RI/FS process in September 1991.
Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the Rl results in September 1992.
• Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the Proposed Plan in December 1992.
3-1
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
As with many Superfund Sites, the Bypass 601 Site is very complex. As a result, the
Site was divided into units or phases, referred to as "operable units.' The operable
units (OUs) at this Site are:
OU One: Addressed soil contamination at the MSR facility (interim
containment)
OU Two: Addresses soil contamination at other sources of
contamination; and addresses groundwater contamination
across the entire Site.
The ROD for the first OU was signed on August 31,1990. The interim containment
remedy was never implemented (See Section XII). The intent of the remedial
action presented in this ROD is to reduce future risks at the entire Site by removing
the threat posed by contamination.
The ROD for OU 2 amends the OU 1 ROD to include the excavation and final
cleanup envisioned by the OU 1 ROD. In addition, the groundwater remedy
proposed as OU 3 on December 17,1992 is also described in this ROD as a part
of OU 2.
This ROD will present a final remedial action for both operable units.
4-1
-------
Record of Dectton April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Rl at the Bypass 601 Site included the characterization of the following routes
of contaminant migration: groundwater, surface water, soil and sediment
contamination. In addition, a removal was conducted during the Rl. Results of
all activities are summarized below.
An onsite laboratory was used during the investigation to perform lead analysis
of all the samples collected. The onsite laboratory provided quick turnaround
results which guided the field investigation by quickly providing analytical data
to indicate where further sampling should occur. The onsite laboratory provided
EPA Data Quality Objective (DQO) Level 3 data.
A. Soil Investigation
Twenty percent of the samples sent to the onsrte laboratory were split and sent
to a Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory for complete Target
Compound List/Target Analyte List (TCL/TAL) and sulfate analyses. Selection of the
samples to be split and sent to the CLP laboratory were field determined, with the
most heavily contaminated samples being analyzed to characterize and define
the extent of soil contamination at EPA DQO Level 4.
A total of 211 surface soil and 240 subsurface soil samples were collected during
the soil investigation from the ten source areas. In addition, background samples
were collected from five locations to provide data concerning the local chemical
quality of the surface and subsurface soil.
The background sample locations are shown in Rgure 6-1. Two surface soil
samples and three soil boring samples were collected in areas that appeared to
be unaffected by Site operations.
figures 5-2 through 5-11 show the soil sample locations for source areas 1-10.
Lead was the predominant contaminant found, with higher concentrations and
greater frequency of occurrence than any other contaminant. Other metals
found include antimony, barium, cadmium, copper, vanadium, zinc, and
manganese. In addition, to a smaller extent, semi-volatile organic compounds
such as phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(aXinthracene, and benzo(b
&/or k) fluoranthene were also found.
6-1
-------
Ul
ro
CD
>
a
K
O
3D
O
I-
g
V *-*
- s
500
SCA1I. IN Mil
SOURCE AR[A OF
CONIAUINAIION
SURfACE WAIIH CIIANNH
IRHIINI
SIHUCIUHI
SUKfACI SOll
SAUI'll
-------
u>
8
!
11
0>U
8'
i
m
>
to
s
SUUIACI SOU SAMI'll
Roiuiioir
MONIIOH Will
I'HOPIRIY HOUNIMKY
-------
• SURFACC SOIL SAMPU
® BOREHOIE
MONITOR WEI I.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
-------
SOIL SAMPLE
® 30RCHOLE
MONITOR WELL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
COM FPC ARCS IV
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS - SOURCE AREA *3
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
5-5
-------
SURFACE SC
SOREHOcE
MONITOR
— PROPERTY BOUNDARY
COM FPC ARCS IV
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS - SOURCE AREA #4
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
5-5
5-6
-------
MW-11SH
MW-11DP
LEGEND
SURFACE sou. SAM?.
BOREHOl£
MONITOR WELL
PROPERTY
I
COM FPC ARCS IV
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS - SOURCE AREA #5
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
5-6
5-7
-------
• SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
3 BOREHOLE
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
COM FPC ARCS IV
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS - SOURCE AREA #6
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
5-7
5-8
-------
V
SO
® HOHlHOIl
ft MONIIOR WTII
I'ROPIHIY UOUNIMHY
-------
s
• SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLE
MONITOR WCU
— PROPEHIY BOUNDARY
-------
10
=2
P >
8
CO
o
5
S
SS-165 »SS-159 SS-IS4
•
SS-IS8
• SUWACI SOU SAMI'll
® IKWHinil
H MONIKIK Will
I'KOI'I KIY HOimilAKY
-------
UI
CO
o
F
o
33
o*
$1
31
S
3
en
\ SS-192 WlM \
X \ V* SS-
SURIACt SOU SAMI'll
llOlilllOII
MUNIIOH Will
I'KOI'I HIV IIOiiNDAHr
-------
Record of Dectston • April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 5
Contamination was not found in Source Area #7. In addition, no sign of battery
casing debris or any other wastes or soil contamination could be visually identified
in this Source Area.
Average background concentrations and maximum concentrations found for the
contaminants of concern are shown in Table 8-1.
B. 1992 Immediate Removal
During the remedial investigation, four of the Source Areas (1,2,9,10) were found
to present an immediate risk to human health. These areas were visually
contaminated with battery casing debris. The areas also were easily accessible
to the public. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests results
indicated lead at 15 ppm, three times the regulatory limit of 5 ppm.
Battery casing debris and lead contaminated soil were removed from the four
areas and transmitted to the MSR facility. A total of 9,587.3 tons or 14,075 cubic
yards of material were stockpiled at the MSR facility and covered with a 20 mil
liner. Two tin-roofed structures and a portion of a building were demolished to
make room for the stockpile. Portions of the removal were performed during and
after the Rl sampling.
C. Qroundwater Investigation
Groundwater sampling was conducted at the Site to fully assess the types and
concentrations of contaminants present in the aquifer system, and to determine
the extent and magnitude of groundwater contamination with regard to each
of the Source Areas.
A total of 38 monitor wells (16 two-well dusters and 6 single wells) were installed
at the Site to supplement the 20 existing monitor wells (10 two-well clusters)
installed during, the 1990 Rl (Rgure 5-12). All samples were sent to a CLP
laboratory for TCL/TAL and sulfate analyses.
Most of the metal contamination in groundwater appears to be associated with
buried battery casing debris at the MSR facility, and Source Areas 1,2,3,4,5, and
10. In addition, the metals contamination appears to be limited mainly to the
upper 30 feet of the aquifer. Concentrations of lead ranged from not detected
(ND) to 2500 micrograms per liter (ug/l). Other metals found include barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium,zinc, and manganese.
5-13
-------
fe.
09
o>
o
I a
3D
m
m
o
o
O
CO
SllUI ATI WAIIH UIANNII
. iMI HIM
SIHIKJIUHI
• IXISIlNO U( INI I Oil Will
A MW UONHOM Will
A MAI I
SCAII IN 111 I
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Ground*atw Contamination Site Section 5
Volatile organic compounds (VOC), 1,2-dichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride and
benzene, were found in groundwater in Source Areas 4 and 5 and the MSR
facility. The VOC contamination was also limited to the upper 30 feet of the
aquifer. The concentration of 1,2-dichloroethane ranged from ND to 69 ug/l.
Sulfate contamination appears to be limited mainly to the MSR facility and Source
Area #2, which are the two areas of the Site where battery cracking operations
are reported to have taken place in the past. The sulfate contamination appears
to have moved into the deeper part of the aquifer.
D. Well Survey/Private Well Sampling Investigation
Two water use surveys have been conducted within a one-mile radius around the
Site within the last three years. Those residences which rely on private wells for
their source of potable water are shown in Rgure 5-13. Most of the private wells
are believed to be constructed to obtain water from the bedrock zone of the
unconfined aquifer. The average well depth is approximately 186 feet below land
surface, with an average yield of approximately 23 gallons per minute.
Twelve private wells were sampled during this investigation (Rgure 5-14). Three of
the private wells sampled (PW-01, PW-02, and PW-05) contained elevated levels
of lead. These wells were later resampled and lead levels were found to be
below health concerns.
E. Surface Water/Sediment Investigation
Samples of surface water and bottom sediments were collected both onsite and
offsite to determine and evaluate surface water contaminant migration pathways
and the extent and magnitude of surface water contamination with regard to
each of the source areas identified at the site. In addition, shallow cores were
collected from the stream sediments to determine the vertical extent of sediment
contamination. The sampling locations are shown in Rgure 6-15.
Samples were collected from six locations on Irish Buffalo Creek, and five locations
each from Unnamed Streams #1 and #2. All surface water and 20% of sediment
samples were sent to a CLP laboratory for TCL/TAL and sulfate analyses.
5-15
-------
•— ! Mi£ RADlS
1000 0 1000
BH=a^55=
SCAU IN FEcT
Se« Appcndii A for Well Survey OetoiU
COM FPC ARCS IV
PRIVATE WELL SURVEY RESULTS
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROUNA
FIGURE NO,
5-13
5-16
-------
V
l-»
-J
1
a
.3?
Z%
is
8
ii
O*
I
o
CO
I
o
501) 0
SCAII IN 111 I
son
SIIKIAU WAIIK fllANNII
IHIIiINI
< > SIHIKJIIIHI
(g) I'WVAII Mil
(Ml IAII1I 'i I HIM AlllUII'A) '
-------
A
oo
O)
I
o
S
o
CO
2) SOtlRCI AlflA 01 CONIAMINAltON
SUKIACI WAI 11) ClIANNII
IHI (IINI
SIIKI AT.) WAII H/Sl DIMI Nl
SI DIMI Nl COKI SAUIMI
son
srAI i IN 1111
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site Section 5
Lead, copper, and zinc were detected in the surface water samples. The
concentration of lead ranged from ND to 36 ug/l. The metals detected in surface
water appear to be associated with the MSR facility and Source Area #10.
In sediments, lead was the only metal detected in any significant concentration.
The lead was detected in sediments downstream from the MSR facility and
ranged in concentration from 48 to 69 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
F. Ecological Investigation
A preliminary ecological sampling was conducted at the Site. It included benthic
macroinvertebrate collection and identification, and fish whole body tissue
sampling and analysis. This sampling was conducted to determine if the Site
might have impaired the structure and function of the biological communities in
the streams draining the Site. Benthic macroinvertebrates have limited migration
patterns and therefore are good indicators of localized conditions and aid in the
impact assessment of Site related contamination.
The benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at three locations in Irish
Buffalo Creek and three locations in Unnamed Stream #1. Nine fish whole body
tissue samples were collected from Irish Buffalo Creek and analyzed for lead
(Figure 5-16).
The diversity results appear to show that stations 2 and 3 were the most impacted
relative to station 1 (reference), while the equitability results show that stations 2,
3, and 5 were the most impacted. The relative abundance of chironomids. a
pollution tolerant organism, shows that stations 2, 3, and 6 were the most
impacted. These results suggest an impact to the aquatic communities of the
streams located directly adjacent to the Site.
Low levels of lead were detected in predator level samples collected from all
three locations, including the reference station 1. These results suggest that
contamination from the Site is not impacting the fish communities in the adjacent
streams.
5-19
-------
Ul
09
*
^
souRcr AHIA or
CONIAMINAIKW
SURfACL WAIfH OIANNII
IRI11INI
SIRUdum
ICOlOCICAl SAWI'll
bOO
MX)
-------
Record of Decision April )993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 6
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The Bypass 601 Site is releasing contaminants into the environment. 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.
The Baseline Risk Assessment Report 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
Data collected during the Rl were reviewed and evaluated to determine the
contaminants of concern at the Site which are most likely to pose risks to the
public health. These contaminants were chosen for each environmental media
sampled.
Once these contaminants of concern were identified, exposure concentrations
in each media were estimated. Exposure point concentrations were calculated
for groundwater and surface soils using the lesser of the 95 percent upper
confidence limit concentration or the maximum detected value as the
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) point concentration. Exposure point
concentrations for groundwater are shown in Table 6-1. Exposure point
concentrations for each source area are presented in Table 6-2.
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
exposure through incidental ingestion of soil; inhalation of fugitive dusts from soils;
dermal contact with soils; and ingestion of water from private wells. Land use
assumptions include residential, commercial/industrial and child visitor scenario.
Future use scenarios consider construction of a water supply well within the
groundwater contaminant plume and ingestion of soil, inhalation of dusts and
6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1
Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentration* for a Future Hypothetical Groundwater User
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
coc
tr
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
LEAD
-»
ANTIMONY
VANADIUM
ZINC
MANGANESE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BENZENE
SULFATE
Mean of
ansformed I
data
4.70
-0.24
0.57
2.30
2.71
2.77
1.76
2.67
3.45
6.46
1.69
1.65
1.63
3.90
Standard 1
Deviation
of data
1.46
0.76
1.18
1.68
2.27
1.44
1.99
2.16
2.06
3.03
0.51
0.28
0.39
2.17
1 (statistic
from
tabls)
2.881
2.112
2.580
3.200
4.228
2.881
3.533
3.533
3.533
4.947
1.876
1.761
1.813
3.533
Sample
size
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
UCL
(Ufl/l)
688
1
6
90
812
82
117
ND
451
767
211150
7
6
6
1600000
Range of
Detects
(Ufl/0
10-3600
7-7
3-100
6-290
22-1400
5-1400
3-2500
ND(12-60)
5-1300
27-4400
3-97000
2-69
5-34
1-37
1600-
5800000
UCL or
Maximum
("8/1)
588
1
6
90
812
82
117
NA
451
767
97000
7
6
6
1600000
COC Contaminant of Concern
UCL 95% Upper ConMence Limit
ND Not Detected
NA Not Applicable
-------
c*
OJ
TABLE 6-2
Summary of Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentrations In Soil
Bypass 601 Site
Concord, North Carolina
ooc
BARIUM
BERYUJUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
LEAD
ANTMONY
VANADIUM
ZNC
MANGANESE
U-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORDE
BENZENE
PC8-1254
PC8-1260
NAPHTHALENE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
ACENAPH1HENE
FLUORENE
PHENANTHRENE
ANTHRACENE
FLUORANTHENE
PYRB4E
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BEN20(BVORK)FUIORANTHENI
BEN2D-A-PYRENE
MDENO (1.2.3-CO) PYRENE
DIBENZO(A.H)ANTHRACENE
BENZD(QHDPERYLENE
2-METHVLNAPHTHALENE
DIBEN20FURAN
2-METHYLPHENOL
CARBAZOLE
8ULFATE
OrtO ^ !'>•>!• M >!•>•!< fJ ^^MW^eWi*
Source
Areal
90
0.42
NA
6.5
NA
1.8
294
27
89
82
1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
870
Source
ATM 2
140
NA
92
33
180
22.4
622S3
21
220
110
3100
NA
0.130
NA
NA
0.085
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
610
Source
Areas
110
0.42
NA
51
52
16
7998
NA
230
70
1100
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.074
0.064
NA
NA
0.120
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
720
UCLor maxknm
Source
ATM 4
95
0.49
NA
16
39
15
96
NA
33
51
560
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
180
nConc«ntatlon(n
Source
ATMS
142
0.82
2.3
31.7
169
17.8
55000
140
67
220
481
NA
NA
NA
0.370
NA
1.900
0.040 '
0.950
0.850
2.300
0.410
1.300
1.200
0.400
0.420
0.720
0.240
0.260
NA
NA
1.200
0.680
0.240
0.340
1600
ng/kg)
Sourc*
ATM 6
229
0.75
0.76
30.1
44.8
40
760.5
NA
125
110
940
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.140
NA
0.230
0200
0.110
0.110
0.100
0.094
0.069
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
61
Sourc*
ATM 8
170
0.44
NA
35
140
19
3055
48
135
99
960
NA
NA
NA
0.770
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.110
NA
0.870
0.076
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
940
Sourc*
ATM 9
230
NA
NA
22
78
12
11303
53
89
48
460
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.680
0.460
0.059
0.560
0.360
3.700
0.370
6.400
2.900
2.500
2.500
2.400
1.300
0.580
0.380
0.540
0.200
0.340
NA
0.610
700
Source
Area 10
230
0.8
NA
52
50
16
296
NA
190
50
3900
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
UCL 95% Upper Confidence UmH
NANotAppfcable
-------
Record of Decision
April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
Section 6
dermal contact with soils in Source Areas 4 and 5, which are currently used for
commercial/industrial purposes, as a worse-case scenario. Possible exposure
scenarios for groundwater include exposure to contaminants of concern from the
groundwater plume in drinking water and through inhalation of volatiles evolved
from water through household water use. Table 6-3 shows the exposure
assumptions used to determine the risk at this Site. Further detail and
mathematical calculations can be reviewed in the Baseline Risk Assessment.
TABLE 6-3
EXPOSURE ASSUMPTIONS
Body Weight (kg)
Exposure Frequency
(days/year)
Exposure Duration
(years)
Ingestion Rate
(mg/day)
Inhalation Rate
(mVday)
Ingestion Rate (GW)
(liters/day)
Adsorption Factor
(Organics)
Adsorption Factor
(Inorganics)
Child
Resident
16
350
6
200
16
2
1%
0.1%
Adult
Resident
70
350
24
100
20
2
1%
0.1%
Child
Visitor
45
52
12
100
16
—
1%
0.1%
Adutt
Worker
70
250
25
50
20
1
1%
0.1%
6-4
-------
Record of DecMon ; Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Sectton 6
C. Toxicity Assessment
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of adverse effects occuring in humans
from carcinogens and noncarcinogens are considered separately. These are
discussed below. Tables 6-4 and 6-5 summarize 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 associated 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 upper-
bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that
intake level. The term 'upperbound' 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. 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.
In the case of lead, EPA recommends the use of the Agency's Uptake BioWnetic
model which predicts bloocHead levels for children ages 0.5-7 under various
exposure scenarios and lead concentrations.
D. Risk Characterization
The risk characterization step of the Site 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
noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic health effects.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-4
Cancer Slope Factors. Tumor Sites and EPA Cancer Classifications for Contaminants of Concern
Bypass 601 Site
Concord, North Carolina
COG
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
NICKEL
LEAD
1 .2-DJCHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLOWDE
BENZENE
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
-------
TABLE 6-5
Reference Doses, Target Sites, and Confidence Levels for Contaminants of Concern
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
•vl
coc
Oral
RID (mg/kg/day) Target Sites
Inhalation Dermal (t) Oral/Dermal Inhalation
Uncertainty Factor
Oral Inhalation Dermal
ARUM
ERYUJUM
ADMUM
HROMUMII
OPPER
CKEL
EAD
*ff sM^Wr
WMDUM
NC
ANOANESE
ARSON TETRACHLORBE
APHTHALENE
CENAPHTHYLENE
CENAPHTHENE
UUORENE
HENANTHRENE
OTHRACENE
JJORANTH6N6
fflENE
ENZCHGHQPERYLENE
-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
BENZOFURAN
-METHVLPHENOL
JLFATE
Derived from •dmMttered
IRB.1M2
HEA8T.10B2
EPA Region IV
i J%MJJr nan nrnMitat i^llawlei mrtft
5.06-02(9
5.0E-03 (9
5.0E-04 (i
1.06400(2
3.7E-02 (6
2.0E-O2 0
NA
4OP— A4 K
^.WC^^^W Ql
7.0E-OS(3
2.0E-01 (3
1.06-01 f
7.0E-04 (2
4.0E-02 (3
3.0E-02 (4
6.0E-02 (2
4.0E-O2 (2
3.0E-02 (4
3.0E-01 (2
4.0E-02 (2
3.0E-02 (4
3.06-02 (4
3.0E-02 (4
4.06-03(9
S.OE-02 (2
NA
dose (oral) us
^•••••maint i*
>) 1.06-04(2)
') NA
') NA
') 6.7E-07(2)
!) NA
) NA
NA
I) NA
1) NA
I) 1.1E-04(2)
) 7.06-04 (2)
) NA
) NA
) NA
) NA
) NA
) NA
) NA
1 NA
) NA
) NA
1 NA
NA
ng 0% (dsfcutQ com
MlnB
2.6E-03
2.6E-04
2.6E-05
S.OE-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-03
NA
9 OF— OS
C.VE 1^2
3.8E-04
1.0E-02
S.OE-03
3.66-05
2.06-03
1.5E-03
3.0E-03
2.0E-03
1.6E-03
1.5E-02
2.0E-03
1.5E-03
1.56-03
1.56-03
2.0E-04
2.6E-03
NA
wlonfector
kxr^s^bkxxlpr-sur.
none observed
kidney
Iver
gastolntestinal tact
decreased body weight
CMS, hematotoglcal changes
*tmm*t*lr*4rmt rtvmnmm
l^iaiiM^^yfc^l *a^x^mm
none observed
anemia
none observed
Iver
decreased weight gain
NA
Iver
hemntoteglcal changes
NA
none observed
hematologlcal changes, Bver
kidney effects
NA
NA
kidney
decreased weight gain
gasfrolntsstinal tact
fototoxlclty
NA
NA
nasal mucosa
NA
NA
NA
NA
vm
NA
NA
CMS, respiratory symptoms
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
too
10
1000
NA
300
NA
inno
imn?
100
10
1
1000
10.000
NA
3000
3000
NA
3000
3000
3000
NA
NA
NA
1000
NA
1000
NA
NA
300
NA
NA
NA
MA
nn
NA
NA
000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
NA
RfD
NA NotAppfcabte
(6) There is no established RfD for copper.
from the MCLG for copper of 1,300 ug/1.
The RfD was back-calculated
-------
Record of Decision Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Groundvuater Contamination Site Section 6
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single
medium is expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), or the ratio or the estimated
intake derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose. 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 a HI in excess
of unity indicates the potential for adverse health effects. Indices greater than
one will be generated anytime intake for any of the chemicals of concern
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 chemical intakes exceeds their respective RfDs.
Carcinogenic risk is expressed as a probability of developing cancer as a result
of lifetime exposure. Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level with the cancer potency factor. EPA's acceptable target range for
carcinogenic risk is one-in-ten-thousand (1E-4) to one-in-one-million (1E-6).
Neither a cancer slope factor nor a reference dose is available for lead. Instead,
blood lead concentrations have been accepted as the best measure of
exposure to lead. The EPA has developed a biokinetic/uptake model to assess
chronic and nonchronic exposures of children to lead. The uptake/biokinetic
model estimates total lead uptake resulting from diet, inhalation, and ingestion
of soil/dust, water, paint, and placental transport to the fetus. The uptake/
biokinetic model calculates the uptake and blood lead levels for the most
sensitive population, children ages 0 to 6 years old. EPA uses a blood lead level
of 10 micrograms per deciliter (ug/dl) as the benchmark to evaluate lead
exposure.
Current Use
Cancer and noncancer risks for the current use scenario are summarized in Table
6-6. Noncancer health effects are considered possible for a child resident in
Source Areas 1,2.8,9, and 10. Noncancer health effects are not expected for
Source Areas 3 and 6, nor for adult residents, child visitors, or adult workers.
Estimates of cancer risk for a child resident range from 3.5E-6 in Source Area #2
to 1.1E-4 in Source Area #9. The highest estimate of cancer risk was for an adurr
resident (1.9E-4).
Projected blood lead levels exceed EPA's benchmark of 10 ug/dl for all age
groups in Source Areas 2 and 9 and some age groups in Source Area #8, as
shown in Table 6-7.
6-8
-------
\o
TABLE 6-6
Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Source Area
Current Use Scenario
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
Source Area
Source Area 1 (2)
Source Area 2
Source Area 3
Source Area 4
Source Area 5
Source Area 6
Source Area 7 (3)
Source Area 6
Source Area 9 (2)
Source Area 10 (2)
Average Site Risk (4)
Child Resident (1)
Cancer HI
2.6E-06
3.5E-06
3.0E-06
NA
NA
9.2E-06
NA
3.3E-05
1.1E-04
4.9E-06
1.9E-05
1.4
2.3
0.8
NA
NA
0.6
NA
2.7
2.7
1.3
1.3
Adult Resident (1)
Cancer HI
2.4E-06
5.7E-06
3.1E-06
NA
NA
1.2E-05
NA
5.4E-05
1.9E-04
4.4E-06
3.0E-05
0.3
0.5
0.2
NA
NA
0.1
NA
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
Child Visitor (1)
Cancer HI
2.7E-07
6.7E-07
3.SE-07
3.1E-07
6.1E-06
1.3E-06
NA
6.1E-06
2.1E-05
5.1E-07
4.1E-08
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Adult Worker (1)
Cancer HI
NA
NA
NA
3.7E-07
1.6E-06
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.9E-07
NA
NA
NA
0.0
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
(1) Risk based on exposure to soil
(2) Prior to removal action
(3) No evidence of surface soil contamination in Source Area 7 based on soil sample taken from borehole (0-2 ft)
(4) Assumes each source area equal In size
HI Hazard Index (noncancer risk)
NA Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 6-7
Comparison of Lead Concentrations in Soil with Blood Lead Levels by Age Group
Current Use Scenario
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
Source Area
1 (D
2
3
6
1 7(2)
o
8
9(1)
10(1)
Soil/Dust
Lead
(mfl/kg)
217
3125
1259
242
NA
1410
1932
196
Water Blood Lead Levels (ug/dl)
Lead Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
(ugfl) 0.5-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7
28 4.06 4.46 4.75 4.91 5.12 5.22 5.29
28 15.37 16.06 16.08 16.33 16.94 17.00 16.90
28 8.11 8.61 8.60 8.09 9.34 9.43 9.43
28 4.16 4.56 4.85 5.00 5.22 5.32 5.39
28 8.70 9.21 9.39 9.58 9.96 10.04 10.04
*
28 10.73 11.29 11.42 11.63 12.08 12.15 12.12
28 3.98 4.37 4.67 4.62 5.04 5.14 5.21
Source: Uptake/Bloklnetlc Model, Version 0.5
Assumptions:
Air Concentration: 0.200ug Pb/m3 (default)
Djet (default)
Drinking Water: 28 ug Pb/l (average In private wells In area)
Paint Intake: 0.00 ug Pb/day (default)
Maternal Contribution: Infant Model (default)
Arithmetic Average Lead Concentrations
(1) Prior to removal action
(2) No evidence of surface soil contamination in Source Area 7 based on soil sample taken from borehole (0-2ft)
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 6
Future Use
Cancer and noncancer risks associated with the future use scenario are
summarized in Table 6-8. As measured by hazard indices, noncancer health
effects are considered possible due to ingestion of groundwater obtained from
within the contaminant plume.
Projected blood lead levels are given in Table 6-9. The levels exceed EPA's
benchmark in all source areas.
Contaminant Risk
The quantified carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard indices for each
contaminant of concern is given in Table 6-10 for soil and Table 6-11 for
groundwater.
E. Environmental Assessment
Several source areas contained contaminants in surface soil at concentrations
which may be toxic to wildlife if ingested. However, due to several factors,
including lack of food and water sources, lack of suitable cover and extensive
human activity, wildlife are not attracted to these areas and are therefore not
placed at risk. Included in this group are Source Areas 2,4, and 5.
The remaining source areas are expected to support more diverse wildlife
populations. Rodents may be exposed to contaminated soils through ingestion
and direct contact. Transfer of contaminants up the food chain through
predation on rodents by birds of prey or other carnivores is possible. The potential
for adverse effects on such animals is difficult to measure, but would be expected
to be small. The elevated concentrations of lead in surface water and sediment
would be expected to affect fish and invertebrate communities at the Site. This
assessment is consistent with the results of the benthic macroinvertebrate
investigation, which concluded that an impact to the aquatic communities of the
streams directiy adjacent to the Site has occurred.
F. Conclusions
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or
the environment.
6-11
-------
o>
t~>
to
TABLE 6-8
Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Source Area
Future Use Scenario
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
Source Area
Source Area 1 (3)
Source Area 2
Source Area 3
Source Area 4
Source Area 5
Source Area 6
Source Area 7 (4)
Source Area 8
Source Area 9 (3)
Source Area 10 (3)
Average Site Risk (5)
Child Resident (1)
Cancer HI
2.76-05
2.7E-05
2.7E-05
2.7E-05
5.8E-05
3.3E-05
NA
6.7E-05
1.4E-04
2.8E-05
4.7E-05
26.4
29.3
27.8
27.1
33.3
27.6
NA
29.7
29.7
26.3
29.0
Adult Resident (1)
Cancer HI
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.4E-04
1.9E-04
1.4E-04
NA
1.4E-04
1.5E-04
1.4E-04
1.SE-04
31.1
31.3
31.0
30.6
32.2
30.9
NA
31.4
31.4
31.1
31.3
Child Visitor (2)
Cancer HI
9.8E-08
3.8E-08
1.0E-07
1.1E-07
5. IE -07
2.2E-07
NA '
4.3E-07
1.3E-06
1.9E-07
3.3E-07
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.0
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Adult Worker (1)
Cancer HI
NA
NA
NA
5.2E-OS
5.4E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.3E-05
NA
NA
NA
9.2
9.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.3
(1) Risk based on exposure to soil and groundwater
(2) Risk based on exposure to soil
(3) Prior to removal action
(4) No evidence of surface soil contamination in Source Area 7 based on soil sample taken from borehole (0-2ft)
(5) Assumes each source area equal In size
HI Hazard Index (noncancer risk)
NA Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 6-9
Comparison of Lead Concentrations in Soil with Blood Lead Levels by Age Group
Future Use Scenario
Bypass 601 Site
Concord. North Carolina
Source Area Soil/Oust
Lead
(mg/kg)
1 (D
2
3
4
5
6
7(2)
8
9(1)
10(1)
217
3125
1259
51
10129
242
NA
1410
1932
196
Water
Lead
(ug/0
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
105
Year
0.5-1
6.28
17.59
10.33
5.63
44.84
6.38
10.92
12.95
6.20
Blood Lead Levels (ug/dl)
Year Year Year
1-2 2-3 3-4
8.68
20.49
13.03
8.22
48.71
8.98
13.63
15.72
6.79
10.22
21.58
14.28
9.57
49.37
10.32
14.87
16.91
10.14
10.70
22.18
14.60
10.05
50.28
10.60
15.40
17.46
10.62
Year
4-5
11.33
23.20
15.57
10.65
52.35
11.43
16.19
18.32
11.24
Year
5-6
11.67
23.52
15.90
11.00
52.66
11.77
16.52
18.64
11.59
Year
6-7
11.65
23.53
16.02
11.19
52.31
11.95
16.63
18.72
11.77
Source: Uptake/Bloklnettc Model. Version 0.5
Assumptions:
Air Concentration: 0.200ugPb/m3 (default)
Diet (default)
Drinking Water. 4.00 ug Pb/l (default)
Paint Intake: 0.00 ug Pb/day (default)
Maternal Contribution: Infant Model (default)
Arithmetic Average Lead Concentrations
(1) Prior to removal action
(2) No evidence of surface soil contamination In Source Area 7 based on soil sample taken from borehole (0-2ft)
-------
TABLE 6-10
RISK ASSOCIATED WITH CHILD RESIDENT
BY CONTAMINANT IN SOIL
BERYLLIUM2
1.9E-06
3.5E-06
CADMIUM1
NA
0.1
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
COPPER1
NA
0.1
NA
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
ANTIMONY1
1.1
0.9
NA
NA
5.9
NA
2.0
2.2
NA
VANADIUM1
0.1
0.6
0.6
NA
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
MANGANESE1
0.1
0.5
0.2
NA
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
PCB-12542
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.9E-06
NA
6.1E-06
NA
NA
PCB-12602
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.4E-06
NA
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9E-06
NA
BENZOCB &/OR K)
FLUORANTHENE2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E-06
NA
BENZO-A-PYRENE2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.8E-06
NA
NA
9.7E-06
NA
DIBENZO(A.H)
ANTHRACENE2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.8E-06
NA
• - FUTURE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO. CURRENTLY AREAS 4 AND 5 ARE CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
NA - The risk Is less than 1E-06 or the hazard Index Is less than 0.1, therefore the number was not Included.
Source Area *7 - This area Is not Included because no contaminants were found.
1 • Hazard Index for noncarclnogens
2 - Risk for carcinogens
-------
TABLE 6-11
RISK ASSOCIATED WITH GROUNDWATER
BY CONTAMINANT
: A6g&30J«4l^
BARIUM •
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
COPPER
NICKEL
VANADIUM
ZINC
MANGANESE
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
BENZENE
SULFATE
<%*&s<&£$$$PRl I3®C i>; ^;
NA
5.0E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.55E-05
4.32E-05
9.7E-06
NA
^^H^^K^igg
0.3
NA
0.3
0.6
0.1
1.8
0.1
26.6
NA
0.2
NA
0.8
NA - The risk Is less than 1E-06 or the hazard Index Is less than 0.1
6-15
-------
Record of Docbton Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamlncrtton Site Section 7
VII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
Section 121(d) of CERCIA as amended by SARA, requires that remedial actions
comply with requirements or standards set forth under Federal and State
environmental laws. The requirements that must be complied with are those that
are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the (1) potential remedial actions,
(2) location, and (3) media-specific chemicals at the Site.
Applicable requirements are those requirements specific to the hazardous
substance, location, and/or contemplated remedial action, that are, or will be,
related to the Site. These requirements would have to be met under any
circumstance. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those requirements
that address problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the
Site, so that their use is well suited to the Site, but for which the jurisdictional
prerequisites have not been met.
This Section examines the cleanup criteria associated with the contaminants
found and the environmental media contaminated.
A. Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are technology-based, establishing performance, design,
or other similar action-specific controls or regulations on activities related to the
management of hazardous substances or pollutants. Potential action-specific
ARARs are presented in Table 7-1.
B. Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific ARARs are design requirements or activity restrictions based on
the geographical or physical positions of the Site and its surrounding area.
Potential location-specific ARARs are presented in Table 7-2.
Federal classification guidelines for groundwater are as follows:
* Class I: Groundwater that is irreplaceable with no alternative source or
is ecologically vital;
• Class II: A - Groundwater currently used for drinking water;
B - Groundwater potentially available for drinking water;
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARi FOR SOILS
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD. NORTH CAROLINA
A?"
DtttriftfM
Ditpotal • fOiullf or OfHltt
Resource Coctervatloo tnd Recovery Act (RCRA), tt amended
OtMiBctlloa of Htxtrdout Watte
Uod DiipoMl Rettictloni
Department of Transportation (DOT) HiranVnn Material*
Tnntportttioa Act
Retource Coneervttlon tnd Raeovery Act (RCRA),
IdMdfiMlkw of Hizudoui Wute
TiMtmeal of Haswdoiu Wule* In • Unil
RcquheaiMU fee Oenentiao, Storai*, TtuMpoiUtkn, tad
Dbponl of IfaxtidoiM Wuie
WuttHlM
TukSyMMM
Uw tad MuMfemMtof Coouiaen
Lud Dbpodl RNUietioat
CteuiAirAel
Air Uw Approval
Puticoln* Dbduife tinJtxHmt* ud PcrfonnaaM Turing
42 USC Sectioa6901 el. wq.
40CFR261
40 CFR 268.10-12
40CFR26S(SubpirtD)
49 USC 1801
40 USC Section 6901 et. teq.
40 CFR 261
40 CFR 264.601
40 CFR 264
40CFR264(SubpeitL)
40CFR264(SubfMutJ)
40CFR264(Sub(Mirtl)
40 CFR 268.10-12
40CFR268(SubputD)
40CFR60(SubpirtA)
40 CFR 60 CSubptrt B)
Federal nquiremenu for elauificulon tnd idealificttion of hizardoui
wulet.
of eontumniteo' toil tnd detnb tewttinf from CERCLA
reaponee ectioaa tn aubjecl to fedenl tnd diipottl protiibhiooi.
RefuUtcf ofTtile tnntpoiUtioa of qwcific btztido
itlt tnd
Fedenl requirement* for cltMifiettion tnd idenU6cttkmof htztrdout
wulet.
Rules tnd requiremeati for the trettmeal of htztrdouj wtMet.
Reiulttet monge, ttwuportttlon, tad opeimtion of t~*r*~'i wute
fenenton.
Refulttet ttortfc tnd trettmenl of btztrdout wttto in pile*
R*|u!tlei ttangt tnd Inttmeal of htzirdoat wuu fa Unk tyaem
Refulitet Monfe of coaUiaen of *um4*m wuto
Etttbtirftet ticttment tundtrdi for huT^r*1"^ wtttet.
Requirei DotificeUoo tnd perfonmnee leilini by owner or operator.
Define* HmiUlioo* for ptrtkultte emUtkxi*, tett mediodi, tnd
inociloffinf reyilreineait for incinenton.
Relevint dt Appropiitto
Relevtnt A Appropriate
Relevtnt A Appropritta
Relevtnt 4 Appropriate
Rekvtol A Appropriate
Relevtnt A Appropriale
Relevtnl A Appropriate
Relevant A Appropriate
Relevant A Appropriate
Relevtnt A Appropriate
Relevtnt A Appropriate
Relevtnl A Appropriate
-------
TABLE 7-1 (CONT)
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARi FOR SOILS (cootinued)
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
STATK
North Carolina Huardoua Watf*
North CtnttM Solid WMUU«H(MMMRalM
North CuoliiM Ait PoUutkw CooUol RMpiitMneiM
North CiioUm aadlmnBHrinn CoKrol Rulag
NCAC - I5A-13A
NCAC-I5A-13B
NCAC-15A-2O
NCAC-15A-4
Siting and deufn requiicmeoU for b'ttrtwt wMle TSD*.
Sitiqg and dMifn nquimneou for dupowl litM.
Air pollution cootiol, air auality, •«** tmiiiiftni cooirol tiftmfunft
RequinoieaU for prevention of wdimenutioa pollutioa.
Rebvu* & Appropriate
Rdevaot A Appropriatt
Rekvtol A Appropriate
Relevant A Appropriate
u>
-------
TABLE 7-1 (CONT)
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARa FOR OROUNDWATER
BYPASS 601 SfTB
CONCORD. NORTH CAROLINA
*»
fetor***
tatsuL
RMOUK* Conaervatioa and Recovery Act (RCRA), u amended
Mentiflcatlon of Hazanloua WMU
TfeMmem of HmrdoiuWuiM la • Unh
Sale Drbklaj Water Act (SDWA)
Primary Maximum Caatamtoa
(UwU(MCL)
MMtomn ConHmlninl Lrnl Oo«lt (MCLO)
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Kequtoa uae of Beat Available Treatment Techaokwy
(BATT) "
National PoUutant Dtobarf* Ellmloatioo System Perm!
42USCSectioo6901«t.*eq.
40CFR261
40 CFR 267.H
40 CFR 264.601
40 CPR 265.400
40CPR263
40 CFR 264
42USCSMloa300lel.Mq.
40CFRU2
40CFR 142
50 FR 46936
(November 13,1985)
33 USC Sectioa 1351-1376
40CFRI22
o^Zt^'"^^^**^ ^vamAApproprf*.
JSLnfayrm"™"" "* "**" ***"*' b> ' «"«v-*Appropri«.
RUJM .nd requiremenu for ». u^mwl of b«.rdoua Relevant*Appropriate
E^CSJ^oT"100' ^ ope"th- " I -*-*-i«-
atuinmem.
«•—«-—
W«ur Qiulhy Mta^einMl Pba .ppnved by BPA
DiKhufe nut IM beiMM eaaunlmm coaseatntloM Ut
|| oftee iuAo w»ur.
40CFR122
Seetioo 121 (dX2XBK>U)
oabeahh criteria. Tb. MCLOt •» foU. for ih. nation'.
water aupply.
required to control diaehaife of toxic polhitaaU to
POTW.
Uae of beat available lechnolosy ecooonicaUy achievable
for loxlo poUutanta diachatfed to aurlace watera.
Relevant A Appropriate
.
control to maintain aurtace water quality.
°f R*kv«« * Appropriate
«v™»
-------
TABLE 7-1 (CONT)
POTENTIAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARj FOR QROUNDWATER (continued)
BYPASS 601 srra
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
, «•.-,/<>,.•/,•?•,, ;>'„>'„-< T^js V'-'V^"" ''"'' '!*'\<' " '"
'', ,M'- /•£ - ;*" ' tV* V: " > "- *"' "'- - ' - £*$ <•• /-"'
SupcrfcndAii^insrta and niiiiiltnril»JlMA«l (SARA)
STATI
North CualiM Water QiuU^ Sumbrft
North CuoUni OtouadwaUrSundwdi
WulewMM DbdMfte to Sutfte* WtMn
North CuoliM Air Pnlkdina Coaual RtquinmeM*
,%, ',,£< , , , , t,- '
' • "'" dtmw
s f f f •*
I/ *• ? ^!#" j i > A ^ $ ' '* ,
a; ";,,>-' , /,
4J USC Section 9101 d. teq.
NCAC - ISA-IB
NCAC • 15A-2L
NCAC-I5A-2H
NCAC - 15A-2D
•""•••; X < •• ^ "'• "" '
'••'/•;•• , ' ' % ;••
H>Wri>HMI
^v,j j>--"' •/;, ,'',••,..,,,,'',
Difduige mul comply with Fedenl W«IM Quality
CAerii.
Surfac* water quality Maodardt.
Orouodwaler quality Madanb, nfulatei iqiectioo wells.
RefuUtet surface water discharge and discharges to
POTW.
Air pfflhrtkm conlnri sir quality and enuninni itiixtiHi
AMri>*aMfiflr
RftmaK*
Afpnfrfai*
Rebvan A Appropriate
Relevant a\ Appropriale
Relevant A Appropriale
Relevant A Appropriate
Relevant A Appropriate
Ul
-------
POTENTIAL LOCATION - SPECIFIC ARAR*
BYPASS 601 srre
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
Apptkableor
' Bcfcrvas**
FEDERAL
Resource Conservation tad Recovery Act
(RCRA),i
RCRA Location Standards
Full and Wildlife Coordination Act
Floodplaln Management
Executive Order
Endangered Species Act
dean Water Act
Dredge or Fill Requlnrasnta
(Section 404)
RivHt and Harbors Act of 1U9
(Section 10 Pan*)
Wilderness Act
National Wildlife Refuge System
STATE
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution
CootrolAct
42 USC 6901
40 CHI 364.1Kb)
16 USC 661-666
Executive Order 11981;
40CFR6J02
16 USC 1531
33 USC Section 1251
40CFR230
33USCSectioa403
16 USC 1311
16 USC 68S
50CFR27
Oenenl Sutbdu of
North CeroUn,
CtupterlUA, Artkk4
A TSD Ctcility rauM be deiifoed, conamcted, opented, tad
mainuined to avoid waAout on • 100-year 6oodplaio.
Tbii regulatioa requirea that any federal agency thai propoaea
to modify a body of water mu* corwitt with the U.S. Fi*
and Wildlife Servicea. Thii requireroeot it addreiaed under
CWA Section 404 Requiremenu.
Acliooa dial an to occur in floodplain *ould (void advene
effecta, mlnimiro potential barm, rettore end preserve natural
end beneficial value.
Requirea action to coraerve endaofered apeciea or threatened
apeciea, includint conwhation with the Department of
Interior.
Requirea permit for discharge of dredged or fill material Into
aquatic environment.
Requirea permit for structures or work in or aflaounf
navigable waters.
Area must be administered in such a way as will leave k un-
impaired aa wilderness and will preserve h as a wilderness.
Restricts activities within National Wildlife Refuges.
Relevant A Appropriate
Relevant A Appropriate
APPLICABLE
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Not aa ARAR
Not an ARAR
Not an ARAR
Establishes mandatory standards for control of sedimentation
and erosion in streams and lakes.
Not an ARAR
Potential remedial aheroathres within the 100-
year floodplain. Requirement is relevant and
appropriate.
Potential remedial alternatives may include
stream redirection during sediment dredging
activities. Potentially relevant and
appropriate.
Remedial actions sn to prevent incursion of
contaminated groundwster onto forested
floodplain.
No threatened or endangered species or critical
habitats were identified in or near the ske.
No alternative will be developed which will
discharge dredge or fill material into aa
aquatic environment.
No alternative Involves work that would affect
a navigable waseiwsy.
No wilderness anas exist oosite or adjacent to
the site.
No wildlife refuge area exist onsile or adjacent
to the site.
No alternative will be developed which
discharges sediment into stream.
-------
Record of DecMon April 1993
ft/pass 601 Gfoundxator Contarrtnalton Stt» Section 7
• Class III: Groundwater not considered a potential source of drinking water
due to natural contamination or insufficient yield.
The aquifer at the Site is considered Class HA. State classification guidelines are
based on best usage (NCAC 2L.0201). The aquifer is therefore considered Class
GA groundwater under the State system.
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. Potential chemical-specific ARARs are listed in Table 7-3.
7-7
-------
TABLE 7-3
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARj
BYPASS 601 SfTB
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
BctctM**
00
fltOEKAL
Safe Drioktaf Water Act
National Primary Drinking Water Standard*
Mmliwin C^trtiiiiiinfll f ***t Ooala
dean Water Act
W«ur Quality CrUerU
RetooiM CoaMtvatkM tad Reeov»ry Ac".
(RCRA), M amtaded
RCKAOn
Solid WuU DlapOMl Act
UndDbpOMl
40 USC Section 300
40 CFR Put Ml
Publicatloa L. N* 99-399,100
SW. 642 (I9U)
33 USC Section 1251-1376
40CFRPUtI31
42 USC 6905,6912,6924,6925
40CBtPut264
42 USC 6901 et. teq.
40CFKPIUI268
E«abliri>eihealth-b«ied •tandard* for public
water lyatem* (maximum contaminant
level*).
Eaubliahei driokinf water qualhy foali eet
at leveli of no known or anticipated advene
health effect*.
Seta criteria for water quality baaed on
loxkity to aquatic orfanume and human
APPLICABLE
APPLICABLE
Relevant A Appropriate
Provide! for (roundwater protection
atandarda, (eneral momlorinf requirementa,
and technical requimnenta.
BatablialKa a timetable for reatrielion of
land dupocal of hazardoua mtteiiab
Relevant A Appropriate
APPLICABLE
The MCLa for organic and inotfanic
contamlnanla are applicable to the
froundwalercontaminaled by the tite ainoe
it la a drinUflf water aource.
Propoeed MCLOt for orgaaic and
inorganic fftntaM"1!*? are applicable to
the froundwateruaed for diinklnf water.
The AWQC for organic and inorganic
contaminantaare relevant and appropriate.
The RCRA MCLa are relevant ai
appropriate for groundwaler at the ahe.
May be applicable if bazardoua material*
are diapoeed of.
-------
TABLE 7-3 (CONT)
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARAB* (continued)
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
VO
Clean Air Act
National Frinaiy and SoMoiaiyAattaat
Air Quality Standard*
National EmUtioo* Standard* for
Hazardous Air Pollutant* (NESHAPi)
Occupational Safety and Heakb Adminutratio
Nora CaioUM Drinking Water Act
North Carolina Drinking Water and
OroundwaUr Standard*
40 USC 1157
40 CHI Pwt SO
40CFRPut6l
29 CFR 1910 Part 120
I30ANCAC3I1-327
ISA NCAC Chapter 2L
Seta primary and aocondary air itandarda at
leveU to proud public haakh and public
welfare.
Provide! crofasion* ilandard for hazardous
air pothiunu for which no ambient air
quality atandard exiata.
Provide* aafely rule* for bandliof specific
chemical* for aite worker* during remedial
aclivilie*.
ReguUtc* water lyatema within the Mate that
wpply drinkinx water that nay aRect the
public health.
EaUblube* froundwater clauification and
water quality (tandard*. Applkable to
Croundwaterat the aito.
Relevant* Appropriate
Relevant* Appropriate
APPLICABLE
APPLICABLE
APPLICABLE
May be relevant or appropriate if ontile
treatment unit* are part of remedial
action*.
May be relevant or appropriate if ontite
treatment unit* an part of remedial
action*.
Heakh and ufety requirement* an
applicable to all potential remedial action*.
Provide* the *tale with the authority
needed to auume primary enforcement
itaponsibilily under the federal act.
Guideline* for allowable level* of toxic
organic and inorganic compound* in
groundwater uied for drinking water.
Applicable to groundwater at the aite.
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Slta Section 6
VIII. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Based on the results of the Rl and the baseline risk assessment, the Bypass 601 Site
is comprised of two contaminated media. One contaminated medium consists
of a combination of soil, battery casings, and sediment, which are combined into
one group because they are closely linked in terms of removal and treatment
options. Groundwater is the other contaminated medium.
A. Soil/Sediment
Remediation levels for soil/sediment were developed to meet the following
objectives:
* Prevent direct contact exposure to soil and sediment that contain
levels of contaminants in excess of the remediation levels;
* Prevent migration of contaminants from the soil to groundwater;
* Prevent migration of contaminants from the soil or sediment to a
surface water body; and
* Control future releases of contaminants to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
Table 8-1 presents the remediation levels for soil/sediment based on the health-
based risk goals, values determined for 'protection of groundwater1, and contract
required quantitation limits (CRQL). Maximum concentrations detected as well
as average background concentrations are also included.
The final soil remediation levels are presented in Table 8-2. The remediation level
was selected as the most conservative of the levels presented in Table 8-1.
However, the average background concentration was selected as the
remediation level if it exceeded the risk-based goal. In addition. Source Areas 4,
5, and the MSR facility were considered commercial/industrial because the
probability of these areas becoming residential is low. All other areas were
considered residential or future residential.
The areal extent of soil contamination above the remediation levels presented in
Table 8-2 is presented in figures 8-1 through 8-8. Source Areas 1,7. and 10 do not
contain any contaminants above the remediation levels presented in Table 8-2.
Rgure 8-9 shows the areal extent of sediment contamination. The estimated
volume of soil/sediment exceeding remediation levels is presented in Table 8-3.
8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE LEVELS - SOIL
ANTIMONY
140
ND
NA
R-24
C-820
NA
BARIUM
620
153
NA
R-3.000
1.6
CHROMIUM
160
56
NA
R- 2.600
15
LEAD
118,000
68
NA
500
580
00
Is)
MANGANESE
5/400
1.498
NA
R-5,900
4.200
VANADIUM
250
87
NA
R-420
8.6
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE
130
ND
R- 1.500
R - 12.000
0.58
ND - NOT DETECTED
NA-NOT APPLICABLE
R - RESIDENTIAL SCENARIO
C - COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SCENARIO
UNITS - INORGANICS (MG/KG); ORGANICS (UG/KG)
-------
TABLE 8-2
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR SOIL/SEDIMENT
ANHMONY
24
Based on Hazard Index value applied to residential
scenario for (R) and commercial/Industrial scenario
for (C)
BARIUM
153
153
Average background concentration
CHROMIUM
56
56
Average background concentration
LEAD
500
500
OSWER Directive #9355.4-02
u>
MANGANESE
4.200
4,200
Groundwater protection
VANADIUM
87
87
Average background concentration
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
10
10
Contract Required Quantltatlon Limit (CRQL)
LEAD (SEDIMENT)
35
35
Based on NOAA risk-based value
Units - Metals (mg/kg); VOCs and PAHs (ug/kg)
C - Commercial
R - Residential
SA - Source Area
-------
UCMLS CONIAUINAIION
UEIAIS CONIAUINAIION
(0-16 Fl. bis)
CONIAUINAIION
(0-5 Fl. bit)
UUAIS CONIAWNAIION
(16-jo n HI)
MflALS CONIAUINAIION
(5-IOfl Us)
UtIAIS CONIAMINAIION
(8-10 fl. bit)
CONIAUINAIION
(8-25 fl. Ui)
MEIALS CONIAUV4AIION
(25-31 0. Ml)
-------
50 0 SO 100
SS-88
SS-133 •
SS-166
SS-89•
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
BOREHOLE
APPROXIMATE REMOVAL AREA
METALS CONTAMINATION
(0-2 Ft. bis)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(2-7 H. Ms)
VOC CONIAMNATlON
(0-2 Ft. Ms)
-------
BOREHOLE
METALS CONTAMINATION
(0-1 PL bis)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(10-12 Ft M)
BH-52
BH-15
COM FPC ARCS IV
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS - SOURCE AREA #3
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
8-3
8-6
-------
LEGEND
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
BOREHOLE
METALS CONTAMINATION
(0-2 a t>»)
CONTAMINATES
(25-30 FI. 019)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(30-«S Ft. OH)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(JS-5S rt. MS)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(55-60 ?t. Bis)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(15-33 Ft. bis)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(15-25 Ft bs)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(20-35 Ft bis)
COM FPC ARCS IV
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS - SOURCE AREA #4
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
8-4
8-7
-------
f
50
0 SO
—
SCALE IN FEET
•cc
LEGEND
• SURFACE SOIL
<$ 80REHOLE
OMETAI
(0-t
METALS CONTAMINATION
Ft. OH)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(0-10 Ft 6U)
METALS CONTAMINATION
(0-15 ft. 6U)
COM FPC ARCS IV
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS • SOURCE AREA #5
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE NO.
8-5
8-8
-------
Mf AiS CON'AM,SAT:CN
(1-3 ft. BIS)
-~-"^\ METALS CONTAMINA:ION
(5-7 ft. BIS)
COM FPC ARCS IV
APPROXIMATE AREAL EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
ABOVE REMEDIATION LEVELS - SOURCE AREA #6
BYPASS 601 SfTE
CONCORD. NORTH CAROLINA
8-9
FIGURE NO.
8-6
-------
oo
UUAlS CONIAUINAIION
(0-1 ft. Ml)
UflAlS CONIAU1NAIION
(0-4 ri. blj)
-------
s
-
m
Om8
8
CD
oo
0 40
-I
SCALE IN rctt
• SUKTACf SOU SAVI'lf
® UOKIMOH
^-— AI'I'KOXIUAIl HIUOVAI Aid A
o
Ml IMS CGNIAUINAIHIN
(0 I II. bis)
-------
f
N>
s
00
o
s
(0
m
•o
•o
m
B
31
m
i
oo
VO
3D
m
SURTACC «MUR CHAMNU
o STRUCTURE
SURMCC WAlfR/
SCOUICNT SAMPLE
SUMItNT CORE SAUPlC
ItAO CONTAUtMTION
(0-1- H.S)
-------
Record of Decision
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site
April 1993
Sections
TABLE 8-3
ESTIMATED VOLUMES OF SOIL/SEDIMENT
EXCEEDING REMEDIATION LEVELS
\:acw*fe4i
MSR FACILITY
STOCKPILE
NO. 1
NO. 2
NO. 3
NO. 4
NO. 5
NO. 6
NO. 7
NO. 8
NO. 9
NO. 10
NO. 8 (SEDIMENTS)
NO. 10 (SEDIMENTS)
vS;5,cc*»i^S&&
METALS
METALS
CONTAMINATION REMOVED
METALS
METALS AND VOCS
METALS
METALS
DEBRIS
METALS
METALS
NO CONTAMINATION
METALS
METALS
CONTAMINATION REMOVED
METALS
METALS
-V "VMV «.— ••- •,'•< oj
20349
14X574
—
1/484
112
531
21.748
12513
106
—
6.708
35
—
53
37
SUBTOTALS: METAL-CONTAMINATED SOIL 78XC8
METAL/VOC-CONTAMINATED SOIL 112
METAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS 90
DEBRIS 18511
TOTAL VOLUME OF CONTAMINATED SOIL/SEDIMENT
96,741
8-13
-------
Record of DecMon April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwatar Contamination Sita Section 8
B. Groundwoter
The chemical specific ARARs, along with the maximum concentrations detected
are presented in Table 8-4. The groundwater remediation levels are presented in
Table 8-5, and represent the most conservative level. The estimated total extent
of groundwater is shown in Rgure 8-10 and Rgure 8-11. The vertical extent of
metals and VOC contamination is assumed to extend through the upper 30 feet
of the surficial aquifer. However, sulfate contamination is assumed to extend
throughout 60 feet of the surficial aquifer.
C. Surface Water
The Federal and State ambient water quality criteria (AWQC), along with the
range of detection for the contaminants of concern in surface water are
presented in Table 8-6. The surface water is not included as a medium of
concern due to the fact that if groundwater feeding the surface water in the
area is remediated, and contaminated sediments and surficial soil contamination
are removed, surface water will be remediated. This approach is based on
remediation of the source. Surface water quality would be monitored to
determine the effectiveness of source remediation.
8-14
-------
Record of Dachton
Bypass 601 Groundvwater Contamination Site
April 1993
Sections
TABLE 8-4
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE LEVELS - GW
:'*r7feec£>K^;V'
:> ^;T;^;':^vf^
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COPPER
MANGANESE2
NICKEL
LEAD
VANADIUM
BENZENE
CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE
U-DICHLOROETHANE
SULFATE
<.s../. ...... w -v. ^ vy ' &FV- <•
- ^MA)QWMM;i-\;
**^>;f^*%£
586
1
6
90
812
97.000
82
117
451
6
6
7
1,600,000
^MrilK-"
:f x ,5. ..\W*V'V\* ' '
?£V«' v,v^"
S •• .f •W'^ "x"1^ •• % •• %
2,000
4
5
100
1.300(1)
NA
100
15(1)
NA
5
5
5
400 .000
' * v""- '•^ v / "• Xs < -.-•'•
, "' STATE $*'.
^SEANWI^C
l^XX)
NA
5
50
ixxn
50
NA
NA
NA
1
0.3
0.38
250.000
"^.^ v-OS/Rlw^W -4 A v
\^\r\: ^gf^. '\^
"VS X--J\!-. /\^^V\--
—
1
1
•s
1
—
UNITS - UG/L
NA - NOT APPLICABLE
(1) - FEDERAL ACTION LEVEL
2 • The average background concentration for manganese was 1,900 ug/l. which Is above the
state standard.
8-15
-------
TABLE 8-5
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES FOR GROUNDWATER
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
Contaminant
Remediation
Level:
Basis
Metals
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Vanadium
Organia
Benzene
Carbon Tetnchloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Sulfau
1,000 jtg/1
4
5
50
1.000
1,900 pg/1
100
IS
256 pg/l
250,000
North Carolina MCL (15NCAC 021)
MCL
North Carolina MCL (15 NCAC 02L)
North Carolina MCL (15 NCAC 02L)
North Carolina MCL (15 NCAC 02L)
Background concentration
(detected in MW-20DP); greater than 15
NCAC 02L Standard of 50
MCL
Treatment Technique Action Level
Based on RID value applied to residential
scenario
North Carolina MCL (15 NCAC 02L)
Contract Required Quantitation limit
(CRQL) (15 NCAC 02L of 0.3
Contract Required Quantitation Limit
(CRQL) (15 NCAC 02L of 0.38
North Carolina MCL (15 NCAC 02L)
NOTE:
MCL * M uunxuin
Lcvci
8-16
-------
<3> SOURCC AREA Of CONTAMNATXm • CXIStlNC MOMIOR Will
9JRTMZ WAffR CWVwn. « Nf* UONdWJ will
FWOINf HWVAfE
-------
(2> SOURCE AREA OF CONTAMINATION • EXISTING MONITOR MU
SURFACE WATER CHANNEL
TREEIINE
o STRUCTURE
CARBON ICTRACNlORlOe
17-ttCHLOROnHANE
-------
oo
*->
\o
TABLE 8-6
Contaminants of Concern in Surface Water Compared to Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Bypass 601 Site
Concord, North Carolina
Federal Criteria (ug/l) North Carolina Criteria (ug/l)
COC Range of Detects AWQC-AL Fresh Waters, Class C
(ug/l)
Copper
Lead
Zinc
5
3-36
6-46
12
3.2
65
15
25
—
COC Contaminant of Concern
AWQC-AL Ambient Water Quaity Criteria-Protection of Aquatic Life
Not established
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypcm 601 Groundwotw Contamination Site Section 9
IX DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Tables 9-1 and 9-2 summarize the technologies considered for remediating the
groundwater and soil contamination, respectively, at the Bypass 601 Site. These
tables also provide the rationale as to why certain technologies were not retained
for further consideration after the initial screening.
A. Remedial Alternatives to Address Groundwater Contamination
The following alternatives were developed to address groundwater contamination
at the Site:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 3: Primary Source Area Pumping/Onsite Treatment
A. Discharge to Surface Water
B. Discharge to POTW
Alternative 4: Complete GW Extraction/Onsite Treatment
A. Discharge to Surface Water
B. Discharge to POTW
The remedial response actions to address groundwater contamination are
discussed below.
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative provides the baseline case for comparing remedial actions for
groundwater and the level of improvement achieved. The only actions included
in this alternative are groundwater sampling and analysis of 30 wells, and a data
review every 5 years for 30 years. All samples would be collected and analyzed
for the metals of concern, sulfates, benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon
tetrachloride.
There are no capital costs associated with this alternative. Operating costs are
based on the review of Site conditions every five years. There would be no
maintenance costs.
9-1
-------
TABLE 9-1
EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER PROCESS OPTIONS
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
Groundwitv General
Response AcvoM
Proems Option
Effectiveness
knplementablBty
Cost
No Action (Natural
Attenualon)
Norn
Institutional
AooaairMtrtclom
Notappfcabto
Deedresktcttons
1 I OraunoVralermonltonnfl
Aa«na>wal9feouroe | joty water suppry
Treatment
Dbcharge
(uoimtpage)
hrLs
rectoftalon
Mr slipping
f Oflr^ftfeorptlori
May not achieve remedal action objectives
Effecfveness depend on knptementaflon In
lie future
EBedvenesa depend on knotementalon h
twtuture
Elfedve In supplying uncontamlnated water
to residents ki contaminated area
Less ratable and effective than muMmeoTa
cap as an Impermeable layer
Most ratable and ededve as an (mperme-
abte layer
Elfecfve In containing contaminant plume;
must be Instated hi conjundon with cap to
prevent moundhg
Relabto and eBeclve lor containment of
groundwaterbut may not achhw rernedbl
acton objedves
Elfecfve when used In conjunction will
looculaflon/sodknentalon
Eftedve only for VOCs bund m groundwater
contaminated by (he MSR toc«y;pretreat-
menl reojuked
Effective and ratable; preteatment raojubed.
Disposal of spent carbon required.
Readlylmplementable
Reatiyknpiementable
<>
ReadBylmptementabte
Roao^y bnotemon table
None
NegBgbteoosI
Low capital and O&M
Moderate capital, low
O&M
Requires some lime to Implement Low capital and O&M
Requires more fcne to Implement
May be difficult to InslaB. drUng
eojubmonl wW be required
Reaoly knotemen table although
best tocaton tor exf acton web
need to be predetMii Jned
Reaoly hnptementabte
Ready knptementabte
Ready knptementable
Moderate to Ngh capital,
moderate O&M
Wgh capital, tow OSM
Low capital and O&M
Low capital, moderate OAK'
Moderate capital low CUM
High capital and O&M
nlnalad tarn ftmner consktoralon
-------
GroundNmr GMM!
RnponMActfofM RMMdUTMhnology
Prom» Option
TABLE 9-1 (Con^t)
BfeeUvww
fcnplementabUlty
Cwl
ptwtouspage)
Discharge
VO
(SMpmtouspiQi)
—JojMtdscharge
—J ton exchange
NolaseHedvewhenlnlhienlooncentra- ReacVyknptomentabto
tons are tow (ppb range)
Effective tor suUales and some Inorganics ReadHylmptementabte
EdecDve only for VOCs Reaolylmptomenlable
POTW
PtoelM to sufaoe water
Relabto and effeclve given proper
operalon and maintenance
Relabto and elfeclve given proper
operation and maintenance
Ratable and effective
Reaciylmplementabte
Pretrealmenl required to meet
dfediarge ftntta Permit required.
ttgh capital 404M
High capital A 04M
High capital A O&M
Very high capital
High capital &0&M
Pretrealmenl required to meal NPDES Moderate capital, low
Discharge intta. May require NPDES O&M
perml
^^rv; ..., Nol Weal tor toodplaln areas; relabte and RaadHylmptomentabto
Wteg *%,'$* ''f;
effective In higher areas but hilled space Is
avalabto; would need unoontamlnaled area
to spray over.
Low capital & 0AM
I Process option elmlnaled from lirther consUeralon
-------
TABLE 9-2
EVALUATION OF SOIL/SEDIMENT PROCESS OPTIONS
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
8ofl General
Response Acttone
No Acton |_
••>•
Institutional
actons
i Containment r™
•
(sefiwtpaoe) -
Disposal
(sotnextpage)
(seont
RunMUsf Tocnnolofjy
— 1"» I—
L| Monitoring |
H|
Canona L^MM
• ••/ f i >•] •
— J OnslbhMknsnl I—
••
Process Option
1 Notappfcabb
»J DeedresMcttons
«~J Groundwater monitoring
C' 'f, e 5~-f f * "^v f f "•' /?
MuMrnedbcap
—I Excavaton
1— joredghg
pf|i^ia^t^;:t;;;/-
— | Solwaahlng
— 1 Thermal dasorpton
L_ 1 SoUulcaloniStablzaflm
Effscttvenew hnplemenlabinry Cost
Does iwlacWwenjmeolal acton objectives Readily hiptementabte. Nona
PtOVKiasiRktnUJpratocluitagansldied Readly hnptementabw. Low Cefxlal, km O&M
contact Effectiveness depends on future
maintenance.
Provides mkiknalprotectofi against olrect ReadUy knplententable. Legal Negllgble cost
contact Effedveness depends on knpfemen- requ^ements and authority needed
talon and enforcement In tie fcilure.
Eflecfveness expends on Imptemeritalon In ReadDy hiptementabte Low capital, tow O&M
tw future
Less retobto and effecbVe than muUmedb Requires (me to Implement Low capital, tow O&M
cap as an Impermeable byer
Mostetfedhnanlrelableasanlrnpernie- Requires more Ime to knpbmenl Moderate to high capital.
abbbyer moderate O4M
Large^cabpieavyequkprnenQrnecrianlcal ReadJy hiptementabte Moderatecost
excavafcn b relabte and efbcllve
Removal of graundMalerDy lowering Iw Locations of dawateringwets Moderateoosl
water tattebenecthre In facllaling need to be determined. Sfte-
excavaton specilc treatabflty study required
OredohgolB«dhienhbrelabband Ready Imptementabb Moderate cost
effediw
Not efbdhwhctegrailngPAHsh sols from Srto^pecfflctrealabfliry study Moderate to high capital
Source Areas 14.5. and 9 to tow cleanup tovels would be required and O&M
Maybeeflec*»toralcontamlnants. Site-spedflctrealabaty study High capital and O&M
Effective for auRales to particular required
EnectmiorPAH^ontanunated SMS bom Slta-fipectOctealablry study High capital and u&M
| SourceAreas»4.5.and9onlywlfitow required
rin^^m tiMMA*
oeanupiBveB
Ertectrvetorlriorganlc8.NolaseHectlvefor Site^pedfictreatabity study High capital and
PAHs required moderate to tow O&M
-------
Sol General
Re«pgn»e Actions
TABLE 9-2 (Cpn't)
RwneoW Technology Process Oplkm Effsetfvsnesa
Cost
JOsposal L—|
Orate dkposa)
Ul
^Hazardous waste tondM
Stogln0£onsoUalon
BacMV treated material
Relabto and «8edve ghm propi
operalon and fflahitonanot
Relabto and efeclve ghwo proper
operaftm and maintenance
Relabte and effective hi bringing oonlaml-
nated sol A debris to one cental bcafen
brtoabnant
Reatffyknptemen table
Readlylmptemen table
Hgh capital
Very high capital
Moderate cost
ERecUve given proper construction of onste Requires more fcne to Implement than High capital, low 0AM
RCRAIandM; however contaminated soils any other containment option; (ttflcuKy In
are not tested but toft at the site handing excavated sols and placing
•wmlnnewlandni
Relabto and eBecNve as long as land dtyosal Requires ItttoUme to Imptemenl Low capital
reslrictonsareiml
I bom kutherconsUaiallon
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Graunchwater Contamination Sft« Section 9
Total Capital Costs $0
Present Worth O & M Costs $170.036
Total Present Worth Costs $ 170,036
Alternative 2: Limited Action
This alternative is identical to the no action alternative described above except
that it includes supplying an alternate source of drinking water O.e., by
connecting residents to the Cabarrus County potable water supply) to any
residents onsite with contaminated wells, and implementation of institutional
controls to control, limit, and monitor activities onsite.
Total Capital Costs $ 16,250
Present Worth O & M Costs $170.036
Total Present Worth Costs $ 186,286
Alternative 3A: Primary Source Area Pumping/Onstte Treatment/
Discharge to Surface Water
This alternative is identical to the limited action alternative described above,
except that it includes groundwater extraction at the primary source areas (MSR
facility. Source Areas 1,2,3,4,5,9 and 10); sulfate removal using ion exchange,
metals removal using precipitation; VOC removal using air stripping; and
discharge of the treated effluent to Irish Buffalo Creek.
Groundwater monitoring on at least an annual basis will be required to evaluate
remediation as it progresses so that timely adjustments can be made, if
determined appropriate. A period of 30 years is assumed for complete
remediation.
One treatment system located on the MSR facility will be constructed.
Contaminated groundwater from the other source areas will be pumped to this
central location. The treated effluent must meet the surface water discharge
criteria. The groundwater system will be designed to operate 24 hours per day.
System controls would allow for complete automatic operation with minimal
operator attention. Alarms and switches would be furnished for fail-safe
operation.
9-6
-------
Record of DacMon . April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 9
To the extent possible, major equipment would be furnished skid-mounted and
complete with all piping and controls mounted on structural steel support skids.
For costing purposes, it is assumed that air quality control equipment would be
needed to capture VOCs released from the air stripper and that the sludge
produced from the metals precipitation process would be disposed of at a RCRA-
approved hazardous waste landfill facility.
This alternative assumes that chromium is not present in its hexavalent state. If
hexavalent chromium is detected during the RD phase, adjustments would need
to be made to incorporate chromium reduction as a pretreatment step.
Total Capital Costs $ 2.743,000
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 7.284.145
Total Present Worth Costs $ 10,027,145
Alternative 3B: Primary Source Area Pumping/Onstte Treatment
Discharge to POTW
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3A except that instead of discharging the
treated effluent to Irish Buffalo Creek, the treated effluent is discharged to the
POTW. In addition, because the POTW will not require pre-treatment for sulfate,
this alternative does not include sulfate removal using ion exchange.
Total Capital Costs $ 2018.250
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 6,388.251
Total Present Worth Costs $ 8,406,501
Alternative 4A: Complete Groundwater Pumplng/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to Surface Water
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3A except that it includes extraction of
all contaminated groundwater, not just from the primary source areas. Therefore,
in addition to the areas mentioned in Alternative 3A, groundwater would be
recovered from Source Areas 7 and 8.
Total Capital Costs $ 3,458,000
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 7.284,145
Total Present Worth Costs $10,742,145
9-7
-------
Record of Decision Ami 1993
Bypcss 601 Groundwofer Contamination Sits . Sactton 9
Alternative 4B: Complete Groundwater Pumping/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to POTW
This aftematlve is identical to Alternative 4A except that instead of discharging the
treated effluent to surface water, the treated effluent is discharged to the POTW.
In addition, because the POTW will not require pre-treatment for sulfate, this
alternative does not include sulfate removal using ion exchange.
Total Capital Costs $ 2,782,000
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 7J39.522
Total Present Worth Costs $ 9,821,522
B. Remedial Alternatives to Address Soil Contamination
The following alternatives were developed to address soil/sediment contamination
at the Site:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 3: Excavation/Onsite Disposal/Capping
Alternative 4: Excavation/Onsite Treatment by Soil Washing, Thermal
Desorption and Solidification/Stabilization/Onslte Disposal
Alternative 5: Excavation/Onsite Treatment by Thermal Desorption and
Solidification/Stabilization, Onsite Disposal
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offslte Disposal
Alternative 7: Excavation/Onsite Treatment by Solidification/Stabilization
Onsite Disposal
Alternative 8: Excavation/Onsite Treatment by Solidification/
Stabilization/Offsite Disposal
The remedial response actions to address soil/sediment contamination are
discussed below.
9-8
-------
Bacord of Decision April 1993
Bypcns 401 Groundvwotar Contamination Stta Section 9
Alternative 1: No Action
This alternative provides the baseline case for comparing remedial actions and
the level of improvement achieved. This alternative consists of leaving the source
areas and the MSR facility as they are without conducting any further remedial
actions. The only actions included in this alternative are groundwater sampling
and analysis of 30 wells, and a data review every 5 years for 30 years.
All samples would be collected and analyzed for the metals of concern, sulfates,
benzene, 1,2-dichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride. Groundwater
concentrations exceeding remediation levels would indicate that soil
contamination still exists.
There are no capital costs associated with this alternative. Operating costs are
based on the review of Site conditions every five years. There would be no
maintenance costs.
Total Capital Costs $0
Present Worth O & M Costs $170,036
Total Present Worth Costs $ 170,036
Alternative* Limited Action
This alternative consists of leaving the source areas and the MSR facility as they
are without conducting any further remedial actions. However, deed restrictions
and Site fencing would be implemented along with 5-year reviews of the site,
which consist of one round of groundwater sampling of 30 wells, over an
estimated 30-year period.
Total Capital Costs $133,250
Present Worth O & M Costs $218,075
Total Present Worth Costs $351.325
Alternatives: Excavation and Onstte Disposal/Capping
This alternative involves excavating contaminated soil from all source areas and
contaminated sediment from stream locations. Excavated or dredged
soil/sediment would be transported to the MSR facility and spread over the
surface where the majority of soil contamination occurs. At the same time, the
9-9
-------
Record of Dectston Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwcter Contamination Site Section 9
existing stockpile at the facility (result of EPA emergency response action) would
also be graded over the facility area. A multimedia cap would be constructed
over the consolidated materials in accordance with RCRA guidelines to prevent
rainfall infiltration and future leaching into the groundwater. Clean backfill would
be applied to excavated areas, if necessary.
Depending on moisture content, soil/sediment would be dewatered to provide
adequate structural stability for the cap at the MSR facility. The cap would be
placed on approximately 3.2 acres of the MSR facility. Applying excavated
soil/sediment over this surface area and grading the existing stockpile adds an
approximate average of 15 feet in depth.
A 2-foot thick clay layer, with a hydraulic conductivity less than 1 x 10"7 cm/s
would be placed over the existing soil to provide a foundation to support the
surface cap. An impermeable membrane (40 mil HOPE liner) would be placed
over the cover material and underlain by a geotextile fabric to protect the liner
from puncture. A 1-foot drainage layer above the liner would be constructed of
sand. The top 1-foot of the cap would consist of topsoil to provide a root zone
for vegetative growth. In order to inhibit the clogging of the sand drainage layer,
a filter fabric would be placed between the sand layer and the top soil. The
fabric provides a barrier to soil particles sifting into the sand lens. The topsoil
would be vegetated to prevent erosion. The cap would have a minimum slope
of 2 percent. Surface runoff would be directed through appropriate drainage
channels. Precipitation that percolates through the topsoil would flow laterally
through the sand drainage layer and in to the drainage channels.
As part of Site preparation, the abandoned flea market at Source Area #4 and
any standing buildings at the MSR facility would be demolished and disposed of
offsite to make necessary space available for the cap. To be conservative, the
structures are considered to be contaminated for disposal cost purposes. There
would also be a relocation of one trailer home at Source Area #3.
Approximately one year would be required for the design and for contractor
selection. Site preparation, construction of the multimedia cap, and excavation
of contaminated soil/sediment is expected to require approximately one year.
Therefore, assuming that weather conditions do not cause extreme delays, this
alternative could be implemented in approximately two years.
Institutional controls consisting of access and use restrictions to protect the
integrity of the cap system, and long-term groundwater monitoring, would apply.
As required by SARA, five year reviews of the Site over an estimated 30-year
period, would be conducted.
9-10
-------
Record of Decision Apia 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwatar Contamjncrtton Site Section 9
Total Capital Costs $ 11,963727
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 792.620
Total Present Worth Costs $12,756,347
Alternative 4: Excavation and Onstte Treatment by Soil Washing, Thermal
Desorption, and Solidification/Stabilization, with Onsite Disposal
This alternative consists of excavating contaminated soil/sediment from all of the
source areas, consolidating/staging the material in a central location (MSR
facility), performing onsite treatment, and onsite backfilling with the treated
material. For the purposes of the detailed analysis, it is assumed that soil washing
is the main treatment; with a combination of thermal desorption and/or S/S to be
used as post-treatment, if necessary. The final treatment scheme would depend
upon the outcome of treatability testing and would be determined during the
remedial design phase.
Preprocessing requirements would include screening to eliminate debris larger
than 3 inches. The large volume of battery casing debris would be shredded to
smaller than 1 inch in diameter. Approximately 18,511 cubic yards of debris will
be mixed with calcium oxide to neutralize any remaining acid and/or lead, then
stabilized. Soil/sediment washing would involve onsite treatment of contaminated
soil and sediment with water and detergents and/or surfactants. With this
alternative, approximately 79,908 cubic yards of soil/sediment exceeding
remediation levels would be excavated and consolidated/staged at the MSR
facility for treatment. Soil washing would be used as a volume reduction step.
Because PAH cleanup criteria established for this srte are low, thermal desorption
of the washed soil/sediment still containing PAHs and carbon tetrachloride above
remediation levels could be used as a post-treatment step. The volume of soil
expected to be treated by thermal desorption is a maximum of 17,200 cubic
yards. The offgases generated would be treated onsite by incineration or
condensed and transported offslte.
The washed (and thermally processed, if required) soil/sediment that exceeds any
of the cleanup criteria may be transported to an onsite cement batch plant
where materials would be mixed with Portland cement and other aggregates.
The fixed material must be subject to TCLP to determine if the treatment is
effective. The fixed material would be replaced in onsite designated areas.
As part of Site preparation, the abandoned flea market at Source Area #4 and
any standing buildings at the MSR facility would be demolished and disposed of
9-11
-------
Record of Decision Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Gfounawater Contamination Site Section 9
offslte to make necessary space available for the cap. To be conservative, the
structures are considered to be contaminated for disposal cost purposes. There
would also be a relocation of one trailer home at Source Area #3.
The treatability study of the treatment technologies will require approximately six
months and design of the treatment systems will require approximately six months.
Approximately six months will be required for contractor selection. The actual
implementation and treatment of all contaminated soil/sediment, including
excavation, may take another two years. Therefore, assuming that weather*
conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be implemented
in approximately 3.5 years.
Institutional controls consisting of access and use restrictions to protect the
disposal area, and long-term groundwater monitoring, would apply. As required
by SARA, five year reviews of the site over an estimated 30-year period, would be
conducted.
Total Capital Costs $65224/415
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 619,508
Total Present Worth Costs $55,843,923
Alternative 5: Excavation and Onsite Treatment by Thermal Desorption,
Solidification/Stabilization, Onsite Disposal
This alternative consists of excavating contaminated soil/sediment from all of the
source areas, consolidating/staging the material in a central location (MSR
facility), performing onsite treatment, and onsite backfilling with the treated
material. For the purposes of the detailed analysis, it is assumed that S/S is the
main treatment; with thermal desorption to be used as the prerrecrtment of PAH-
and VOC-contaminated soils. The final treatment scheme would depend upon
the outcome of treatabillty testing and would be determined during the remedial
design phase.
Preprocessing requirements would include screening to eliminate debris larger
than 3 inches. The large volume of battery casing debris would be shredded to
smaller than 1 inch in diameter. Thermal desorption would involve onsite
treatment of PAH- and VOC-contaminated soil and sediment at elevated
temperatures. With this alternative, approximately 17,200 cubic yards of
9-12
-------
Record of Decision Apci 1993
Bypass 601 G«xino>»ater Contamination Site Section 9
soil/sediment with concentrations above remediation levels would be excavated
and consolidated/staged at the MSR facility for thermal treatment. The offgases
generated would be treated onsite by incineration or condensed and transported
offsite.
The thermally processed soil/sediment that does not meet remediation levels and
all metal-contaminated soil may be transported to an onsite cement batch plant
where materials would be mixed with Portland cement and other aggregates.
The fixed material must be subject to TCLP to determine if treatment is effective.
The fixed material would be replaced in onsite designated areas. The volume of
soil expected to be treated by S/S is a maximum of 78230 cubic yards.
As part of Site preparation, the abandoned flea market at Source Area #4 and
any standing buildings at the MSR facility would be demolished and disposed of
offsite to make necessary space available for the onsite disposal of the treated
material. To be conservative, the structures are considered to be contaminated
for disposal cost purposes. There would also be a relocation of one trailer home
at Source Area #3.
The treatability study of the treatment technologies will require approximately six
months and design of the treatment systems will require approximately six months.
Approximately six months will be required for contractor selection. The actual
implementation and treatment of all contaminated soil/sediment, including
excavation, may take another 1wo years. Therefore, assuming that weather
conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be implemented
in approximately 3.5 years.
Institutional controls consisting of access and use restrictions to protect the
disposal area, and long-term groundwater monitoring, would apply. As required
by SARA, five year reviews of the Site over an estimated 30-year period, would be
conducted.
Total Capital Costs $33233,920
PresentWorthO&M Costs $ 619,508
Total Present Worth Costs $33,853,428
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal
This alternative involves excavating contaminated soil/sediment from all source
areas and the MSR facility and loading and transporting it to an offsite RCRA-
permitted (Subtitle C) landfill. An estimated 98/419 cubic yards of material would
9-13
-------
Record of Daemon Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Greundwater Contamination Site Section 9
require transportation and disposal. All DOT and RCRA transportation
requirements, including proper completion of a manifest, would be followed.
Dump trucks, lined and covered, would be utilized for transport.
Once the contaminated material had been removed, the affected areas would
be backfilled with clean fill to the original elevations, graded, and vegetated.
Since Land Ban Restrictions would apply to the contaminated soil/sediment,
pretreatment by the facility would be required prior to disposal.
As part of Site preparation, the abandoned flea market at Source Area #4 and
any standing buildings at the MSR facility would be demolished and disposed of
offsite to make necessary space available for the cap. To be conservative, the
structures are considered to be contaminated for disposal cost purposes. There
would also be a relocation of one trailer home at Source Area #3.
Approximately one year would be required for contractor selection and obtaining
necessary permits for offsite disposal. Site preparation and excavation is
expected to require approximately one year. Therefore, assuming that weather
conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be implemented
in approximately two years.
Total Capital Costs $75,585,015
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 345,880
Total Present Worth Costs $75,930,895
Alternative 7: Excavation and Onslte Treatment by Solidification/
Stabilization, Onslte Disposal
This alternative is the same as Alternative 5 above, except that thermal desorption
of PAH- and VOC-contaminated soil is not included. S/S would be used to treat
all contaminated material, with onsite backfilling of the fixed material for final
disposal.
In addition, the treated material would be placed on the flea market property
(Source Area #4), the portion of the landfill Identified as Source Area #5, as well
as the MSR facility. The total area is approximately 8.6 acres. The height of the
final disposal unit would be approximately 7 feet (treatment of 98/419 cubic
yards).
9-14
-------
Record of Decision Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Grouncfeater Contamination Sits Section 9
However, since the S/S process could increase the volume of the treated material
by a significant factor (10 to 100 percent), the height of the final unit could be as
high as 14 feet.
Institutional controls consisting of access and use restrictions to protect the
disposal area, and long-term groundwater monitoring, would apply. As required
by SARA, five year reviews of the Site over an estimated 30-year period, would be
conducted.
Total Capital Costs $30,029,014
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 619.508
Total Present Worth Costs $30,648,522
Alternative 8: Excavation and Onstte Treatment by Solidification/
Stabilization, Offsite Disposal
This alternative is the same as Alternative 7, except that the treated material wiH
be disposed of offsite in an industrial landfill. Transportation by a licensed hauler
would be arranged and all Department of Transportation (DOT) transportation
requirements would be followed. It is conservatively assumed that 200,000 cubic
yards of treated material would have to be disposed of at the facility, since the
S/S process could increase the volume.
Total Capital Costs $42,736,514
Present Worth O & M Costs $ 587,604
Total Present Worth Costs $43,324,117
9-15
-------
Racord of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 10
X. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives to address groundwater and soil/sediment
contamination were evaluated using the nine evaluation criteria as set forth in the
NCR, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9). A brief description of each of the nine evaluation
criteria is provided below.
THRESHOLD CRITERIA
1. 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 environmental risks are properly eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or controls
placed on the property to restrict access and (future) development.
Deed restrictions are examples of controls to restrict development.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (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.
PRIMARY BALANCING CRITERIA
3. Long-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.
4. Reduction of Toxlcitv. Mobility, or Volume are the three principal
measures of the overall performance of an alternative. The 1986
amendments to the Superfund statute 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.
10-1
-------
Record of Decision Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 GrounaVater Contamination Site Section 10
5. Short-term Effectiveness refers to the likelihood of adverse impacts on
human health or the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation of an alternative until cleanup
levels are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv refers to the technical and administrative feasibility
of an alternative, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement the alternative.
7. 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
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
MODIFYING CRITERIA
8. State Acceptance addresses whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comments on the alternative EPA is proposing as the remedy for the
Ste.
9. Community Acceptance addresses whether the public concurs with
EPA's proposed plan. Community acceptance of this proposed plan
will be evaluated based on comments received at the public
meetings and during the public comment period.
These evaluation criteria relate directly to requirements in Section 121 of CERCLA,
42 USC Section 9621, which determine the overall 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. State and community acceptance are modifying criteria
formally taken into account after public comment is received on the proposed
plan. Table 10-1 provides a summary of all the alternatives along with the total
present worth costs. The evaluation of the potential remedial alternatives to
address soil and groundwater were developed as follows.
A. Grotmdwater Remediation
The following alternatives were subjected to detailed analysis for groundwater
remediation:
Alternative 1: No Action
10-2
-------
Draft Record o( DecMon
Bypass 601 Groundwatef Contomlnalton site"
Aoifl 1993
Section 10
TABLE 10-1
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Alternative 8
No Action
Limited Action
Pumping of Primary Source
Areas/Onsite Treatment
A. Discharge to SW
B. Discharge to POTW
Complete GW Pumping/
Onsite Treatment
A. Discharge to SW
B. Discharge to POTW
$ 170,036
$ 186286
$10,027,145
$8,406,501
$10.742,145
$9,821,522
No Action
Limited Action
Excavation/Capping
Excavation/Onsite Treatment
Soil Washing, Thermal Desorption,
S/S, Onsite Disposal
Excavation/Onsite Treatment
Thermal Desorption, S/S,
Onsite Disposal
Excavation/Offsite Disposal
Excavation/Onsite Treatment
S/S, Onsite Disposal
Excavation/Onsite Treatment
S/S, Offsite Disposal
$ 170,036
$ 351,325
$12,756,347
$55343,923
$33353/428
$75,930395
$30,648,522
$43324,117
10-3
-------
B«ec*d of Daetton Aprt 1W3
9VTW601 GfoundMOMrContommanonSM* Section To
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 3A: Primary Source Area Pumping/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to Surface Water
Alternative 3B: Primary Source Area Pumping/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to POTW
Alternative 4A: Complete Groundwater Pumping/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to Surface Water
Alternative 4B: Complete Groundwater Pumping/Onsite Treatment
Discharge to POTW
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Each alternative was evaluated to determine whether it is likely to effectively
mitigate and minimize the long-term risk of harm to public hearth and the
environment currently presented at the Site. Alternative 1 does not eliminate any
exposure pathways or reduce the level of risk. Alternative 2 eliminates some
exposure pathways, with a reduction in the potential risk of groundwater ingestion
and inhalation. The exposure pathways associated with continued contaminant
migration in groundwater and through surface water discharge would not be
eliminated. Alternatives 3 and 4 eliminate exposure pathways and it is expected
that any potential risk of ingestion or inhalation would also be greatly reduced as
long as the system is in operation.
Compliance With ARARs
The no action and the limited action alternatives would not comply with ARARs.
Alternative 3 would attain ARARs in the primary source areas, while Alternative 4
would attain ARARs across the entire Site. Table 10-2 identifies the federal
regulations applicable to the alternatives and Table 10-3 identifies the North
Carolina regulations pertaining to these alternatives.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
In Alternatives 1 and 2, contaminant migration through groundwater and surface
water discharge would continue. In Alternative 3, the pathway exposure is
moderately reduced, it reduces contamination and reduces potential for further
-------
TABLE 10-2
FEDERAL REGULATIONS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
ALTERNATIVES UNDER EVALUATION
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA
Applicable
^Criteria
Regulation
National Interim Primary
Drinking Water
Standards
40CFR141
Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
heavy metals, anions, bacteria, pesticides,
radionuclides, and organic chemicals of
concern in drinking water. Under this
regulation, the groundwater at the site is
classified as Class HA. EPA's cleanup policy
is most stringent for Class HA groundwater,
and involves cleanup to background or
drinking water levels. Several of these MCLs
have been adopted as remediation levels for
the site.
National Secondary
Drinking Water
Standards
40CFR143
Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for
constituents affecting the aesthetic ouality and
use of drinking water.
dean Water Act
40CFR131
Criteria for surface water quality based on
ttnticiiy to iHp^tir organisms w*4 human
dean Air Act
40CFR61
National emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. Applicable to air stripping of
10-5
-------
TABLE 10-3
NORTH CAROLINA REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OP THE ALTERNATIVES UNDER EVALUATION
BYPASS 601 SITE
CONCORD. NORTH CAROLINA
Water Quality Standard*
Applicable loth*
Qroundwater* of the Slate
North Carolina Drinking
Water Quality Standards
Claasificatioaof
Surface Water*
Surface Water
Quality Slaadarda
Coastal Wast*
Treatment Diapoaal
Wastewater Discharge to
Surface Waters
Westewaler Discharge
to Water* other than
Surface Walen of the Slate
V " * '
^ fefiUsJkm
$f'&Y» ','/.
ISA NCAC 2L.0200
IS NCAC IIC.ISIO
through IIC.ISII
ISA NCAC 2B.OIOO
ISA NCAC 2B.0200
ISA NCAC 2B.0400
ISA NCAC 2H.OIOO
ISA NCAC 2H.0200
', ff,' - V /'"',' • '• : .
, ApolkaUos) ' '. ;.^.;: . .
ClaMincalioat and water quality standard* for f roundwaler which it an existing or potential eource of
drinking water supply for human*. Applicable to Alternative* IOW, 2OW, 3OW. and 4OW.
Drinking water quality standard* applicable to groundwaler at the Bypac* 601 Site. Applicable to
Alternative* IOW. 2OW. 3OW. and 4GW. Maximum contaminant level* (MCU) for heavy metal*.
aaioM. bacteria, peeticide*. radionuclide*. and organic chemical* of concern in drinking water. The**
MCLa have been adopted aa grouodwaler etandarda for the Mrficial aquifer at the site became the
groundweter at the Bypae* Ml Site la cla**ified aa Claa* OA.
Procedure* for assignment of water quality etandarda for surface water*. Irish Buffalo Creek it a Clai* C
surface water. Applicable to Alternative* 3OW-A and 4OW-A.
Classification* and water quality standard* applicable to surface water* of North Carolina. Applicable to
Alternatives 3GW-A and 4OW-A.
Treatment standard* to ensure compliance with water quality standards promulgated by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission for propagation of shellfish is coastal water* (i.e., Class C
water*). Applicable for discharge to Irish Buffalo Creek. Applicable to Alternative* 3OW-A and 4GW-A.
Requirement* and procedure* for application and issuance of Slate NPDES permit*. Applicable
Requirement* and procedure* for application and issuance of permit* for discharge to sewer system*, dis-
posal *y*tem*, treatment works, and aludge disposal (/stems. Applicable to Alternatives 3OW-A and
40W-A.
o
0>
-------
Paeoffl at DacMon | Aort 1993
BVPOB 601 Sreund*ot«f Coniuiaujnui am S*clton 10
migration from the primary source areas. Contaminated groundwater outside of
primary source areas will continue to migrate. For Alternative 4, there would be
a maximum reduction in pathway exposure risk, and would eliminate further
migration.
Reduction of Toxicitv, Mobility, and Volume
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity. mobility, or volume CT/M/V) of
the contaminants. Alternative 3 would cause a moderate reduction of T/M/V,
with Alternative 4 providing the maximum reduction of T/M/V.
Short-term Effectiveness
All of the alternatives can be implemented without significant risks to the
community or orvsite workers and without adverse environmental impacts.
Implementabilitv
In Alternative 2, implementabilfty would depend upon the requirements necessary
to connect affected residents to the Cabarrus County water supply. Alternative
3A and 4A would require a NPDES permit, while Alternatives 38 and 4B would
require approval by the local POTW.
Total present worth costs for the groundwater alternatives are presented In Table
10-1.
B. SoU Remediation
The following alternatives were developed for Site soBs and were subjected to
detailed analysis:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Alternative 3: Excavation and Onsite Disposal (Capping)
Alternative 4: Excavation and Onsite Treatment (SoB Washing, Thermal
Desorption, S/S), Onsite Disposal
10-7
-------
Record at Dectton April 1993
Bypcss 601 Gfoundfeoter Contamination Site Section 10
Alternative 5: Excavation and Onsite Treatment (Thermal Desorption, S/S),
Onsite Disposal
Alternative 6: Excavation and Offsite Disposal
Alternative 7: Excavation and Onsite Treatment (S/S), Onsite Disposal
Alternative 8: Excavation and Onsite Treatment (S/S), Ofrsite Disposal
Overall Protection of Human Hearth and the Environment
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not eliminate any exposure pathways or reduce the level
of risk. Alternative 3 virtually eliminates the potential risk of direct contact and
leaching into the groundwater. It minimizes the risk of further contamination to
drinking water wells and reduces the risk of groundwater ingestion and inhalation.
Alternatives 4 through 8 eliminate the potential risk of direct contact and leaching
into the groundwater.
Compliance With ARARs
Alternatives 6 and 8 would comply with EPA's offsite policy and Land Disposal
Restrictions. Alternatives 4 through 8 would comply with all treatment ARARs,
including TCLR
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not be effective in removing or limiting the migration
of contaminants. Alternative 3 would be effective at least 20 years, with proper
maintenance of the cap, but it is not considered a permanent remedy.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 7 are considered permanent remedies that would be
effective. Alternatives 6 and 8 are permanent remedies for the Bypass 601 Site,
but not at the offsite disposal facility.
Reduction of ToxJcitv. Mobility, and Volume
Contaminant levels would remain unchanged for Alternatives 1 and 2.
Alternative 3 would eliminate the mobility and effective toxicity of the
contaminants, but would not reduce the volume. Alternative 4 would reduce the
T/M/V of the contaminants. Alternatives 5 through 8 would reduce the toxicily
and mobility of the contaminants, but volume of contaminated material would
increase due to the addition of the solidrfier.
10-8
-------
Record of DecMon Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Grounctwater Contaminatton Site Section 10
Short-term Effectiveness
All of the Alternatives can be implemented without significant risks to onsite
workers or the community. Aquatic biota would be disturbed during excavation
and backfilling of stream sediments in Alternatives 3 through 8.
Implementabilitv
Implementation of Alternatives 1, 2, 3. 6, 7, and 8 would pose no significant
difficulties. Implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5 may depend on the
availability of mobile thermal desorption equipment.
Cost
Total present worth costs for the soil remediation alternatives are presented in
Table 10-1.
C. Modifying Criteria
State and community acceptance are modifying criteria that shall be considered
in selecting the remedial action.
State Acceptance
The State of North Carolina concurs with the selected remedy.
Community Acceptance
A proposed plan fact sheet was released to the public on December 17,1992.
The proposed plan public meeting was held on January 7, 1993. The public
comment period on the proposed plan was held from December 17, 1992 to
February 18,1993. The letters, comments, and questions asked during the January
7th meeting and received during the comment period are summarized in the
attached Responsiveness Summary.
10-9
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwator Contamination Site Section 11
XI. THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCR, the detailed
analysis of alternatives and public and state comments, EPA has selected both
a source control and groundwater remedy for this Site. At the completion of this
remedy, the risk associated with this Site has been calculated to be within the
accepted risk range determined to be protective of human health and the
environment. The total present worth of the selected remedies. Alternative 4B for
groundwater ($9,821,522) and Alternative 7 for soil ($30,648,522), is estimated at
$40,470,044. See Tables 11-1 and 11-2 for the detailed cost estimates of the two
chosen alternatives.
A. Source Control
Source Control remediation will address the contaminated soils and materials at
the Site. The source control remedy requires that the contaminated soils in Source
Areas 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 be excavated and transported to the MSR facility.
Contaminated soils on the MSR facility will also be excavated. The excavated
material will be treated using a solidification/stabilization (S/S) technology.
Stabilization is a chemical reaction between one or more waste components
which would immobilize, insolubilize, or otherwise render the waste components
less hazardous. The purpose of solidification is to transform hazardous
contaminants into a physical form which is more suitable for storage and reduces
the water permeability into the waste (acts as a barrier between the waste
particles and the environment). Treatability testing must address the effectiveness
in immobilizing metals, possible leaching, and the increased weight and volume
of the S/S material. Emphasis will be placed on optimizing leachate resistance
rather than structural integrity.
The excavated material will be transferred to an onsite cement batch plant, and
mixed with Portland cement and/or other aggregates. The battery debris will be
preprocessed by shredder (to less than 1 inch in diameter) and mixed with
calcium oxide to neutralize any remaining sutfuric acid and lead.
Following excavation and removal of soils from Source Areas 2,3,6,7,8, and 9,
clean fill will be placed in the excavated areas. The areas will then be graded
and revegetated. The treated material will be placed onsite at the MSR facility,
and portions of the flea market property (Source Area #4) and the landfill. The
areas that contain the treated material will then be covered and vegetated.
11-1
-------
Record of Decision
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site"
Aprt 1993
Section 11
As part of Site preparation, portions of the abandoned flea market at Source
Area #4, and any standing buildings at the MSR facility would be demolished and
disposed of offsrte. During source area remedial activities, one trailer home at
Source Area #3 will require temporary relocation.
A.1. Excavation Standards
Excavation shall continue until the remaining soil and material achieve the
following maximum contaminant levels.
Contaminant
Antimony
Barium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Vanadium
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Lead (Sediment)
Units
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
mg/kg
Remediation Level
Source Areas
2.3,6,8,9
24
153
56
500
4,200
87
10
35
Source Areas
4, 5, & MSR
820
153
56
500
4,200
87
10
35
Risk Level
Hl= 1
HI = 0.05
HI = 0.02
NA
HI = 0.71
HI = 0.21
HI = 0.24
NA
Hazard Index (HI) - Relates to non-cancer risks
1E-06 Risk Level - Probability for carcinogenic effects
NA - Not applicable - Risk from lead is not calculated using HI or risk level.
A.2. Treatment Standards
The treated material must be subjected to toxicrty characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) to determine if treatment is
effective. The treated material will not be disposed of onsrte until ft passes the
TCLP test. The treatability study that will be conducted before remediation begins
will ensure that the mix of cement and aggregates is sufficient to effectively fix all
the contaminants.
11-2
-------
Record of Decision Aort 1993
BypOBj 601 Gfoundvucrtar Contamination Sit* Section 11
B. Groundwoter Remediation
Groundwater remediation will address the contaminanted groundwater at the
Site. Groundwater remediation will include extraction of contaminated
groundwater, treatment and final discharge to the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW).
The treatment will consist of precipitation of metals and suspended solids, and air
stripping to remove organics. The treatment system will be located on the MSR
facility, with contaminated groundwater from the other source areas pumped to
this central location.
The groundwater system will operate 24 hours per day. System controls will allow
complete automatic operation with minimal operator attention. Long-term
monitoring for cleanup verification purposes and to track contaminant plume
migration will be required. The system is expected to operate 30 years; samples
will be collected from 30 existing wells on a quarterly basis for the first 5 years, and
on an annual basis for the following 25 years.
The groundwater treatment system will also require monitoring and maintenance.
Monitoring of the treatment system will include periodic sampling of the influent
and effluent from the treatment system and analysis in accordance with the
POTW discharge permit requirements. Sludge produced from the precipitation
process will be analyzed for total metals and by TCLP. If the sludge passes TCLP
and the concentrations of metals are below soil remediation levels, the sludge will
be deposited onsite. If the sludge does not pass the TCLP test and/or the
concentrations of metals are above the soil remediation levels, the sludge will be
disposed of in an approved hazardous waste landfill.
B.I. Extraction and Performance Standards
Groundwater will be extracted from the MSR facility. Source Areas 1,2,3,4,5,7,
8,9, and 10. Location of extraction wells and pumping rates will be determined
during the remedial design.
Rnal discharge will be to the local POTW. Discharge standards will be driven by
the POTW requirements and will be defined during the development of the
Remedial Design.
11-3
-------
Record of Decision
Bypcss 601 Groundwotar Contamination Site
April 1993
Section 11
Groundwater shall be treated until the following maximum concentration levels
are attained throughout the contaminant plume:
Contaminant
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Vanadium
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Sulfate
Remediation Level
1,000 ug/l
4ug/l
5 ug/l
50 ug/l
1 XXX) ug/l
1,900 ug/l
100 ug/l
15 ug/l
256 ug/l
lug/I
lug/I
lug/I
250,000 ug/l
Risk Level
HI = 0.56
HI = 0.02
HI = 0.27
Hl = 0
HI =0.74
HI = 0.52
HI =0.14
NA
Hl=l
1.64E-06
HI = 0.04
5.1E-06
HI = 0.12
Hazard Index (HI) - Relates to non-cancer risks
1E-06 Risk Level - Probability for carcinogenic effects
NA - Not applicable. Risk from lead is not calculated using HI or risk level.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use,
as defined in Section 6.0. Based on information obtained during the Rl, 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 immediate
vicinity of the contaminants' source, where concentrations are relatively high. The
ability to achieve remediation levels at all points throughout the area of
attainment, or plume, cannot be determined until the extraction system has been
implemented, modified, as necessary, and plume response monitored overtime.
-------
Record of DacMon April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination Site Section 11
If the selected remedy cannot meet the specified performance standards, at any
or all of the monitoring points during implementation, the contingency measures
and goals described in this 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 are
considered to be protective of human health and the environment, and are
technically practicable under the corresponding circumstances.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an estimated period
of 30 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 equilibration and encourage
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater;
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 every 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 their
beneficial use, ad 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 gradient
control provided by low level pumping, as contaminant 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;
11-5
-------
Record of Decbton April 1993
Bypass 601 Grouncfeater Contamination Site Section I1
c) institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict access
to those portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation
levels;
d) continued monitoring of specified wells; and
e) periodic revaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater
restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a
periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur at 5 year intervals in
accordance with CERCU\ Section 121 (c).
The remedial actions shall comply with all ARARs (See Sections VII and X).
The presence of residual contamination in the solidified/stabilized material and
the presence of contaminants in the groundwater will require deed recordation/.
restriction to document their presence and could limit future use of the property.
The extent of the property restrictions and limitations will be determined during the
remedial design.
11-6
-------
Record of Decision
Bypass 601 Gfoundvivater Contamination Site
April 1993
Section 11
TABLE 11-1
GROUNDWATER SELECTED REMEDY COST ESTIMATE
rTEM DESCRIPTION
GROUNOWATER:
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY
MOBUZATON
GROUNDWATEfl EXTRACTION
Ste PpflpsvsBOfi
WMtataMton
Subm«rafcl*Pump«
P»**.VttM*.*.Flllngi
WATER TREATMENTFACUTY
Ste Prapmtfon
Earthwork
TrMftnwtFactty
Li^tng A HVAC SyrtMM
WATER TREATMENT PROCESS UNTO
Equitation T«i*
Mrtto RwncMl FaeOiM
ArStrppmgUr*
Equipment (retaliation
Trandtr Pump*
Cental P*ml&lrafrunMntalfen
UNITS
-ch
Wjch
•a*
wtt
•wh
«
•cr*
cy
MCtl
lump turn
•Mh
••eh
lump turn
(umpiurn
weft
lump turn
hmpium
FMcrPtM* • «•**
TREATED WATER OSCHARQED TO POTW j
Pump* (bttUtoo) | •di
Pjp^VU»M.4\FWn9i
HEALTH AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT
»
lump turn
OUANTTTY
10
\
1
49
46
46
20400
as
900
4600
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
900
1
UNCTPRCe
DOLLARS
$1.009
$40.090
$20.000
$3,000
$2409
$1.000
$18
$3409
STS
$60
$19,000
$20400
$290400
$90.000
$100400
$3.000
$60400
$60400
$20,000
$2409
$29
830400
TOTAL COST
DOLLARS
$10.000
&4A CXW
$20.000
$139400
$119400
$46.000
$904400
$1.909
$7.900
$364400
$19.000
$20.000
$290400
$90.000
$100400
$6.000
$60.000
$60,000
$40.000
$9.000
$12400
$90,000
Subtotal -Captel Co* ' $1.712.000
ContaaerPMllMefCMMCert) SlTiaoo
U^P^UMnmtNtiiMtMcfCwMCMl) $69.600
•mi
tOflnoMf MU • MollliHiWilAM | 1 B^b 4n v*4MU wOHj ••i^J^MI
Subtotal S2429.600
ConHnoMKy(29%o< Subtotal) $998.400
TOTAL COfv^lkULI UN COST
$2.762.000
PRESENT WORTH O«M COST $7,030,922
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
$0421422
11-7
-------
Record of Decision
Aprt 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site"
Section 11
TABLE 11-2
SOIL SELECTED REMEDY COST ESTIMATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION
son.:
MOBILIZATION
Trtrapert Equipment & SM
Temporary Faeffibe*
EXCAVATION
Site frcpnlfon
OwnottionafMSRFec&tyind
Ftalfcrtat
OHito OtepeMl el DemaMon Dearie
to • RCRA HUMute FecWy
BeetM UneenfeinlMttd Sol
Dusi Cental* Piece in
MSR FMOy «er TrMftMrt
BecMUwMhCtann
BMMiwMiTrMtodSel
Gkftdng* Completing
S**dAMukh
ONSITE TREATMENT
TrMtataiaySlueV
SoU«fc«boiVStabffla(len
EQUIPMENT A MATERIALS
H«Uh A S^My Equipment
MR QUMJTY MONnORMQ
UNITS
•Mh
•ten
•or*
•»
ey
ey
ey
ey
«y
^ •a*
•a*
lump turn
ey
Men
WMK
QUANTITY
1
1
•
*M7
4410
1(9100
02.019
123.034
9.000
123.024
11.0
11A
1
123.024
1
186
UNIT PRICE
DOLLARS
tM^WO
830,000
S3400
»11
«2M
Ala
S10
«10
<20
tie
97X00
fUftQ
taojaoo
8W
S30400
tt^OO
TOTAL COST
DOLLARS
ttO.000
$30.000
S34.000
•30.4S7
$1515^11
t37O9194
M20A2S
J1730J3*
S1M.OOO
S1JBOJM
177,000
$21000
S90.000
SO.t41.MO
SM^OO
tise.ooo
Subtotal - C*aM Cert SU.47Q JM
CenMetarPM(10%afCtpMCa*i) t1*«7^30
L«a*IP«w.LleM«AP«nnlMniotC*pttCo*t) toajro
EngJnMrtM«AoMr*MlM(ig%efCMMCeM) S2.771MO
SuMeW S24.021211
CenOnanwdKefSuMaW) M.OOSJOa
«M.O»^14
PRESENT WORTH OAUCOfT S810JM
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST OO.OWJ22
n-8
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypoa 401 Groundwoter Contamination Slto Section 12
XII. AMENDMENT TO OPERABLE UNIT ONE RECORD OF DECISION
On August 27,1990, the EPA Region IV Administrator signed a Record of Decision
(ROD) for Operable Unit (OU) One. OU #1 consists of the contaminated soils on
the MSR facility only. This Amendment is being provided in accordance with
CERCLA §117(c) and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) 40 CFR §300.435(c)
(2)00. The amendment will become part of the administrative record file (NCP 40
CFR §300.825(a)(2)) for OU One and OU Two, which is located at the Site
repository. The repository is located at the Charles A. Cannon Memorial Library,
27 Union Street, Concord, North Carolina.
A. Rationale for Issuing the ROD Amendment
The remedy chosen for OU #1 consisted of excavation and consolidation of
contaminated soil, covering the soil with 6 inches of clean fill, HOPE liner, 18 inches
of drainage layer, and 6 inches of clean topsoil, and revegetation. This remedy
was only considered an interim action to prevent human and environmental
exposure to the contaminants, and to minimize the generation of contaminated
leachate entering the groundwater. As stated in the August 1990 ROD, the
remedy would not prohibit future remedial actions at the Site, but would provide
a level of protection until such time that a treatment and/or disposal remedy
could be implemented.
This ROD for OU #2 includes a permanent treatment remedy for the OU #1 soils at
the MSR facility as well as the soils on the ten other identified source areas.
Combining the soils for OU #1 and OU #2 for treatment is cost-effective and
efficient.
The fundamental differences to the ROD for OU #1 are presented below.
Original Remedy Modified Remedy
Capping of approximately Solidification/Stabilization
57,000 cy of contaminated of approximately 20,800 cy
soil. contamination soil.
Remediation leveLof 600 ppm Remediation levels for various
for lead only. metals. See Table 8-2.
12-1
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Bypass 601 Groundwater Contamination site Section 12
B. Description of New Alternatives
The original selected remedy, onsite capping, and the amended remedy, S/S,
along with other alternatives evaluated in the FS are described in Section 9 of this
ROD.
C. Evaluation of Alternatives
The original selected remedy, onsite capping and the amended remedy S/S,
along with other alternatives evaluated in the FS are profiled against the nine
criteria in Section 10 of this ROD.
D. Statutory Determinations
Considering the new information that has been developed and the changes that
have been made to the selected remedy for OU #1, the EPA and NCDEHNR
believe that the remedy remains protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements, and is cost effective.
In addition, the amended remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable
for this Site.
12-2
-------
Record of Decision April 1993
Byposs«01 Gfourx*«iter Contamination Site Section 13
XIII. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Based upon available information, the selected remedy satisfies the remedy
selection requirements under CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the NCR. The
remedy provides protection of public 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 soil and remove
the potential risk associated with the contamination. Dermal, 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 State or Federal requirements are anticipated for this Site.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected groundwater and soil remediation 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 Technologies or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent
solutions and treatment can be practicably utilized for this action. Of the
alternatives that are protective of human health and the environment and
comply with ARARs. EPA and the State have determined 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.
13-1
-------
Record of Dacldon Aort 1993
Bypass 601 Groundvvater Contamination Site Section 13
Preference for Treatment as a Principle Element
The preference for treatment is satisfied by the use of S/S on the soils and a series
of treatment methodologies on the groundwater. The principal threats at the Site
will be mitigated by use of these treatment technologies.
13-2
-------
Record of DacMon April 1993
Bypass 601 Graundwator Contamination Site Section 14
XIV. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
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 8 was chosen for soil remediation. This alternative consists of
excavation and onsite treatment by solidification/stabilization, with offsite disposal
of the treated material at an industrial landfill.
However, comments received during the 60-day public comment period,
December 17,1992 to February 18,1993, overwhelming favored Alternative 7. This
alternative is the same as Alternative 8, however, the treated material would be
disposed of onsite instead of taken offsite.
This remedy. Alternative 7, is approximately $13 million less than Alternative 8.
However, the basis for choosing Alternative 8 were: 1) EPA had received
complaints from residents surrounding the MSR facility that the mound of soil
currently onsite was unsightly (Onsite disposal would create a mound ten times as
big as currently onsite); and 2) With offsite disposal, deed and land-use restrictions
would not be needed. The properties could be used more extensively or
developed without environmental restriction.
Residents and area citizens however, preferred onsite disposal instead of trucking
approximately 7800 loads of treated material to an area landfill. Therefore, this
remedy is in accord with the concern expressed during the comment period by
the affected community.
14-1
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE CONCURRENCE
-------
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Solid Waste Management Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Telephone (919) 73W996
March 12,1993
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
RE: State Concurrence with the Record of Decision
Bypass 601, Groundwater Contamination
NCD 044 440 303
Concord, Cabarrus County, NC
Dear Ms. Bennett:
The State of North Carolina has reviewed the Record of Decision for the Bypass 601
Site and concurs with the selected remedy, subject to the following conditions.
1. State concurrence on this Record of Decision and the selected remedy for the
site is based solely on the information contained in the attached Record of
Decision. Should the State receive new or additional information which
significantly affects the conclusions or remedy selection contained in the
Record of Decision, it may modify or withdraw this concurrence with written
notice to EPA Region IV.
2. State concurrence on this Record of Decision in no way binds the State to
concur in future decisions or commits the State to participate, financially or
otherwise, in the clean up of the site. The State reserves the right to review,
comment, and make independent assessment of all future work relating to this
site.
PQ Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carofini 27611-7687 Telephone 9l9-733-«84 Fn / 9I9-733O5I3
An Eqial Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
-------
Ms. Bennett
3-12-93
Page 2
3. The Presence of residual contamination in the Solidified/Stabilized waste will
require deed recordation/restriction to document their presence and could
limit future use of the property as specified in G.S. 130A-310.8.
The State of North Carolina appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Record of Decision for the subject site, and we look forward to working with EPA on the
final remedy.
Sincerely,
Jack Butler, PE
Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Superfund Section
cc: Randy McElveen, NC Superfund Section
-------
,»
* i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
345 COURTLANO STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA sosss
.
REGION IV
345 CO
MAR 2 4 1993
4WD-NSRB
Mr. J^ck Butler, PE
Environmental Engineering Supervisor
Superfund Section
NCDEHNR
401 Oberlin Rd, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27605
RE: State Concurrence on the Bypass 601
Record of Decision
Dear Mr. Butler:
EPA Region IV appreciates the State's conditional concurrence on
the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Bypass 601 Groundwater
Contamination Site located in Concord, North Carolina. For the
record, EPA would like to respond to the conditions formulated by
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (NC DEHNR) - Superfund Section in the March 12, 1993
letter. Your letter, along with this response, will be included in
Appendix B of the ROD. These letters should stand as official
documentation that EPA and NCDEHNR have agreed on the preferred
alternatives at this time.
Of the three conditions expressed (concurrence based on current
information; concurrence exclusive of future work and land
restrictions to be applied based on State law) ; only the third
condition requires a response from the agency. In response, the
State may in the future put in place, pursuant to State law (G.S.
130A-310.8), a deed recordation/restriction to document the
presence of residual contamination which may limit the future use
of the property.
Please give me a call at 404/347-7791 if you have any questions.
Sincere]
lelle S. Bennett
Remedial Project Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
Springfield. Va. 221(11
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
ornciAL IUJSINESS
Pnnelty for Private Use. S300
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
COM-211
FIRST CLASS
------- |