PB95-964038
EPA/ROD/R04-95/255
March 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
General Electric Company/
Shepherd Farm Site, NC
9/29/1995
-------
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, HENDERSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
RECORD OF DECISION
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
SEPTEMBER 1995
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
DECLARATION
FOR THE
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the General Electric/Shepherd
Farm Site in East Flat Rock, Henderson 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 threats are the
contaminated groundwater emanating from beneath the Site and the surficial contaminated soil.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
GROUNDWATER
Extraction of groundwater from the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites that is
contaminated above Maximum Contaminant Levels or the North Carolina
Groundwater Standards, whichever are more protective for each particular
contaminant;
Onsite treatment of the extracted groundwater via air stripping and carbon
adsorption;
In-situ bioremediation;
-------
Record of Decision [ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Discharge of treated groundwater to Bat Fork Creek; and
Continued analytical monitoring for contaminants in groundwater and surface
water.
SOIL
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Excavation of the top foot of soils contaminated above the performance standards;
Transportation of excavated soils to the dry sludge impoundment area on the GE
property;
Backfilling, grading, and revegatation of excavated areas.
GE Subsite
Placement of a multi-layer cap on the areas where the soil is contaminated above
the performance standards;
Continuous maintenance of the cap;
Usage restrictions on the capped areas.
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.
Richard D. Green, Associate Director Date
Office of Superfund and Emergency Response-
-------
Record of Decision . September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
A. Introduction 1
B. Site Description 1
C. Demography 7
D. Surrounding Land/Water Use 7
E. Topography 8
F. Climate 9
G. Geology 9
H. Hydrogeology 9
I. Hydrology 9
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 10
A. Site History 10
B. Previous Investigations 12
C. Previous Remediation Efforts 16
D. Site Regulatory Actions 16
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 18
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY 19
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 19
A. Soil Sampling 19
B. Surface Water and Sediment Sampling 26
C. Temporary Monitor Well Installation/Sampling 30
D. On Site Permanent Monitor Well Sampling 34
E. Potable Well Sampling 39
F. Well Survey 39
G. Ecological Study 41
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
SECTION PAGE NO.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 41
A. Chemicals of Concern 41
B. Exposure Assessment 47
C. Toxicity Assessment 47
D. Risk Characterization 53
E. Ecological Risk Assessment 55
F. Conclusions 55
VII. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS) 55
A. Chemical-Specific ARARs 62
B. Location-Specific ARARs 62
C. Action-Specific ARARs 64
VIM. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 64
IX. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 70
Alternative 1 - No Action 70
Alternative 2 - Institutional Actions 70
Alternative SS3 - Excavation; Off-site Disposal 76
Alternative SS4 - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-Site Disposal 76
Alternative SS5 - Containment 77
Alternative GW6a - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-site Discharge 77
Alternative GW6b - Ex-Situ Treatment; Off-site Discharge 78
Alternative GW7a - Groundwater Treatment; On-Site Disposal 78
Alternative GW7b - Groundwater Treatment; Off-Site Disposal 79
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
SECTION PAGE NO.
X. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 79
Alternative 1 - No Action 81
Alternative 2 - Institutional Actions 83
Alternative SS3 - Excavation; Off-site Disposal 84
Alternative SS4 - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-Site Disposal 86
Alternative SS5 - Containment 88
Alternative GW6a - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-site Discharge 90
Alternative GW6b - Ex-Situ Treatment; Off-site Discharge 94
Alternative GW7a - Groundwater Treatment; On-Site Disposal 95
Alternative GW7b - Groundwater Treatment; Off-Site Disposal 97
XI. THE SELECTED REMEDY 101
A. Source Control 101
B. Groundwater Remediation 105
C. Additional Sampling Requirements 103
XII. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES 109
APPENDIX A - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B - AUGUST 3, 1995 PUBLIC MEETING TRANSCRIPT
APPENDIX C - WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD
APPENDIX D - STATE CONCURRENCE
in
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE NO.
1 Site Location Map 2
2 GE Subsite Features Map 3
3 Shepherd Farm Subsite Features Map 4
4 Seldon Clark Subsite Features Map 5
5 GE Subsite Well Locations 13
6 Private Well Locations 14
7 Tetrachloroethene Concentrations in GW (1990) 15
8 Residential Areas Offered City Water Connections by GE 17
9 GE Property Soil Sampling Locations 20
10 Seldon Clark Property Sampling Locations 23
11 Shepherd Farm Property Soil Sampling Locations 25
12 GE Property Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations 27
13 Seldon Clark Sampling Locations 28
14 Shepherd Farm Property Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations 29
15 GE Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations 31
16 Seldon Clark Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations 32
17 Shepherd Farm Property Temporary Monitor Well Locations 33
18 GE Property On Site Monitor Well Locations 35
19 Tetrachloroethene, Shallow Wells 36
20 Trichloroethene, Shallow Wells 37
21 Cis-1,2-Dichloroethene, Shallow Wells 38
22 Potable Well Locations 40
23 Ecological Sampling Locations 42
24 Shepherd Farm Property Soil Requiring Remediation 71
25 GE Property Soil Requiring Remediation 72
26 Shepherd Farm Property Groundwater Plume 73
27 Groundwater Plume, GE Site 74
28 Dry Pond PCB Isopleth Map 110
IV
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE NO.
1 Surface Water Toxicity Tests 43
2 Sediment Toxicity Tests 44
3 Fish Tissue Analyses 45
4 Habitat Quality Comparison 46
5 RME for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater 48
6 RME for Chemicals of Potential Concern in Soil 49
7 Site Conceptual Model 50
8 Cancer Slope Factors 51
9 Reference Doses 52
10 Summary of Risks, Current Use, Shepherd Farm 54
11 Summary of Risks, Future Use, GE 56
12 Summary of Risks, Future Use, Shepherd Farm 57
13 Chemicals of Concern - Soil 58
14 Chemicals of Concern - Groundwater, GE 59
15 Chemicals of Concern - Groundwater, Shepherd Farm 60
16 Ecological Potential Pathways 61
17 Chemical Specific ARARS 63
18 Location Specific ARARs 65
19 Soil Action Specific ARARs 66
20 GW Action Specific ARARs 68
21 Remediation Goals for Soil 69
22 Remediation Goals for Groundwater 69
23 Remedial Action Alternatives 75
24 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 100
25 Soil Selected Remedy Cost Estimate 102
26 Groundwater Selected Remedy Cost Estimate 103
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
A. Introduction
The. General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site (hereinafter referred to as the "the Site") consists of
three non-contiguous disposal areas in East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina.
These disposal areas (subsites) are known as the GE property, the Shepherd Farm property, and
the Seldon Clark property (see Figure 1).
B. Site Description
The GE subsite is located at the southeastern corner of Spartanburg Highway (U.S. 176) and
Tabor Road (S.R. 1809) in East Flat Rock, Henderson County, North Carolina (see Figure 2).
Geographically, the center of the subsite is located at approximately 35°16'25" N latitude and
82°24'10" W longitude according to the Hendersonville, North Carolina, USGS 7.5 minute
topographic map. This slightly hilly, approximately 50-acre subsite is bounded on the west by
Spartanburg Highway, on the north by Tabor Road, and on the east by Bat Fork Creek. The
southern boundary is a fenceline south, east, and west of the recreational facility. General
Electric also owns the plot of land located southwest of Spartanburg Highway, south of Bat Fork
Creek, between the curved railroad tracks and the highway.
The Shepherd Farm subsite is located on Roper Road, approximately 1200 feet west of
Spartanburg Highway and 2500 feet southwest of the GE subsite (see Figure 1). Geographically,
the center of the subsite is located at 35°16'10" N latitude and 82°25'10" W longitude according
to the Hendersonville, North Carolina, USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. This hilly,
approximately 31-acre subsite is bounded on the north by Roper Road, on the north-northwest
by the Seldon Hill Farm, and on the west by Bat Fork Creek (see Figure 3).
The Seldon Clark subsite is located at the northeastern corner of the Spartanburg Highway and
Tabor Road intersection (see Figure 2-1). Geographically, the center of the subsite is located
at 35°16'35" N latitude and 82°25'00" W longitude according to the Hendersonville, North
Carolina, USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. This approximately 1-acre field is bounded on
the west by Spartanburg Highway, on the south by Tabor Road, on the east by Jones Street, and
on the north by Second Avenue (see Figure 4).
GE Subsite
The GE facility includes two major building structures: the manufacturing plant (350 feet by 700
-------
SITE LOCATION MAP
&EPA
GE/SHEPHERD FARM PROPERTY
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 1
n
-------
-------
lUHCtU.lt.
-------
CO
o
X T»
TO
00
>TJ
o
c
m
-^
in
o
o
V)
c
CD
CO
<
m
1
70
m
CO
\
\
-100
100
SCALE IN FEET
I
I
JONES STREET
ESTIMATED FORMER
FILL AREA
U.S. 176 (SPARTANBURG HIGHWAY)
GE PLANT
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
feet) and the finished stock warehouse (700 feet by 300 feet). The buildings are separated by
paved parking areas and grassy lawns. The two buildings are situated on a relatively flat hilltop,
while the rest of the property is on a hillslope. A tall, barbed-wire, chain-link fence surrounds
the entire property with the exception of the landspreading plots (described below) and the front
of the facility where parking lots and manicured lawns exist. A guard is on duty at all times to
keep unauthorized personnel out of the plant and facility grounds.
East of the plant is Demonstration Street, a paved, relatively flat strip of land. Along this area,
lighting fixture displays demonstrate the product line at GE. Several support facilities are
located along or near Demonstration Street, including a fork lift shop, a fabricating shop, a
reclamation yard, a boiler house, a chlorine building, a drum storage area, an outside vendor
(OV) storage area, and other fixtures and structures such as water tanks and pumps, cryogenic
tanks, gasoline pumps, and storage bins. A closed 0.5-acre landfill (Landfill A) is now paved
over by this street.
East of Demonstration Street, beyond the paved lots, are approximately 26 acres of
landspreading plots which are blanketed by vegetation and slope eastward downhill toward Bat
Fork Creek. Southeast of Demonstration Street, beyond the drum storage area, is a dry, 3-acre,
inactive sludge impoundment which currently has a thick cover of vegetation. Southeast of the
finished stock warehouse is a large (5-acre), active, wastewater treatment pond. East of the
large wastewater treatment pond is a small (1-acre), active, landfill area where construction
debris and excavated soils have been deposited or stored. Southwest of the finished stock
warehouse is a grassy lawn area which was also previously used as a landspreading plot.
The area south of Bat Fork Creek also belongs to GE and includes a small (1-acre), active,
wastewater treatment pond, a recreational area with an adjacent playground which was also
formerly used as a landspreading plot, and a closed 1-acre landfill (Landfill B), parts of which
are currently paved over by a driveway leading to the recreation facility.
The unfenced Shepherd Farm property, formerly used for disposal of wastes from the GE
facility, is currently a sloping wooded area used for residential purposes. Mr. Shepherd, the
owner and operator of the now defunct disposal company, still maintains his residence on this
property. In addition, a 22-acre manufactured homes community (Spring Haven) consisting of
125 lots (most with homes on them) and a community center are present on the southern portion
of the subsite. A small unnamed intermittent creek runs through the middle of the subsite before
discharging into Bat Fork Creek.
The unfenced Seldon Clark property, formerly used for landfilling of wastes from the GE
facility, is presently a grass-covered field which slopes towards its eastern boundary, Jones
Street. The only facility located on the property is a small run-down shack which was formerly
used as a junk/antique shop.
-------
Record of Decision [ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
C. DEMOGRAPHY
The Site is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, which had a 1990 census population
of 69,285. The town of Hendersonville (the County Seat), the center of which is located
approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the site, had a 1990 census population of about 7,300.
The county population is about 79% white and 20% black, but in the GE Site vicinity, the
distribution is about 96% white and 2% black.
Based upon a house count from USGS topographic maps, the population within 1 mile of the GE
and Seldon Clark subsites (excluding the approximate 1,100 GE plant employees) is estimated
to be 1,010. The nearest residence is adjacent to the southeast property boundary.
The Spring Haven Community at the Shepherd Farm subsite is a quality development of 90
homes of which approximately two-thirds are occupied year-round. Each unit has one or two
persons and the average age is 67. Children are not permitted to live in the development but
are present occasionally as visitors. Several of the Spring Haven units are located within the
subsite disposal area while most of the other units are located within 500 feet. Four other
residences on the south side of Roper Road (three at the Seldon Hill Farm and one at the
Shepherd Farm) are also within 500 feet of the subsite disposal area. Based upon a house count
from USGS topographic maps, the population within 1 mile of the Shepherd Farm property is
estimated to be 1,044.
D. SURROUNDING LAND/WATER USE
The principal land use in the immediate vicinity of the GE and Seldon Clark subsites is
residential. Some commercial and light industrial uses occur along Spartanburg Highway,
however, and a large plant is on the north side of Tabor Road, across from the GE plant and
east of the Seldon Clark property. A large power substation also adjoins the southeast boundary
of the GE property. Open spaces surrounding the subsites are generally undeveloped or farmed
land. Orchards are prominent to the northeast of the subsites.
The Shepherd Farm subsite is located in a rural/agricultural area where land use is principally
residential, forest, or farmland. The nearest commercial and industrial activity is along
Spartanburg Highway, about 2000 feet to the north and east (ATSDR, 1993).
Land is lightly developed along Bat Fork Creek, both upstream and downstream of the Site, and
also along Mud Creek into which Bat Fork Creek discharges approximately 6 miles downstream
of the GE subsite. Approximately 90% of the land along Bat Fork Creek is used for agriculture
and the remaining 10% supports urbanized land uses.
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Major natural resources in the area include surface waters (including some wetlands) and
groundwater. While irrigation of agricultural lands along Bat Fork Creek is unlikely due to the
relatively low volume of flow, residents have reportedly used the creek for watering gardens.
In addition, some livestock are likely to obtain water from the stream.
While the steep banks, dense undergrowth, and narrow width of Bat Fork Creek may limit its
utility for recreational fishing, some recreational fishing in this creek has been reported by
residents. Bat Fork Creek flows into Mud Creek (also used for recreational fishing) which in
rum flows into the French Broad River. The French Broad River is used for recreational
fishing, swimming, and boating. However, there are no public water intakes along any portion
of the surface waters downstream of the GE subsite (ATSDR, 1993).
The Hendersonville public water system obtains its raw water from three surface water intakes
which are outside the watersheds possibly affected by the GE site. The GE facility has been
connected to this public water system since it began operations. In addition, the majority of the
residents within a 4-mile radius of the site are also connected to this system. Many homes and
businesses near the site have relied on private wells (drilled in the shallow aquifer and averaging
about 120 feet deep) for potable water in the past, and some still rely on private wells, but
increasing numbers are being connected to the public system. The GE facility has provided
bottled water to many residents in the vicinity of both the GE subsite and the Shepherd Farm
subsite, and has paid for some connections to the public water system.
At the Shepherd Farm subsite, the Spring Haven development has always been connected to the
public water system. The four residents at the Seldon Hill Farm and Shepherd Farm once relied
on private wells for potable water, but are now connected to the public water system.
E. TOPOGRAPHY
The GE Site is located within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of the Appalachian
Highlands in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Topography in the area is characterized as
rugged with large hills and rounded mountains, and steep slopes and narrow valleys, but also
with some flat areas in a few small valleys. The Asheville-Hendersonville area is characterized
by a central plateau (the Asheville Plateau) with moderate relief of 500 to 600 feet, surrounded
on all sides by mountains. Elevation of the Asheville Plateau is approximately 2200 feet above
mean sea level (amsl) (NUS, 199la).
The area around the Site consists of gently rolling hills with elevations at about 2100 to 2500
feet amsl. The slope at the GE subsite is generally to the southeast at about 2 percent. The
slope at the Seldon Clark subsite is generally to the northeast at about 4 percent. The slope at
the Shepherd Farm subsite is generally to the northwest at about 10 percent.
8
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
F. CLIMATE
The climate of the region is humid-continental. Average monthly temperatures range from 41°
F in January to 77° F in July (Wallingford, 1989). Mean annual precipitation is 38 inches and
mean annual lake evaporation is 34 inches. Mean maximum 24-hour rainfall is 3.7 inches
(NUS, 1991a).
G. GEOLOGY
Most soils in the Blue Ridge Province are residual soils derived from weathering of the
underlying bedrock. These soils may be shallow to deep and are typically clayey, although
locally they may be coarse-grained. Other soils are derived from alluvium along the floodplains
of major streams.
Based on several borings performed at the GE subsite, the soils at the site can generally be
described as brown, micaceous, sandy silt near the surface, grading downward to loose firm,
red-brown and dark brown, micaceous silty medium to coarse sand. The thickness of the
residual soil at the GE subsite ranged from less than 1 foot to 88 feet. The boundary between
soil and rock is a transition zone of very dense, partially weathered rock. The partially
weathered rock (PWR) at the GE subsite is generally between 2 and 15 feet thick.
H. HYDROGEOLOGY
The shallow groundwater surface in the Blue Ridge Province generally occurs within the residual
and alluvial soils. Water occurs in the pore spaces of these soils and the PWR, within the relict
fractures of the PWR, and within the fractures and secondary openings of the underlying
bedrock. Although the soil/PWR zone (hereinafter referred to as the "porous media" zone), and
the bedrock zone (hereinafter referred to as the "fractured media" zone) are sometimes referred
to as different aquifers, they actually comprise one shallow unconfined aquifer since the two
zones are hydraulically connected as evidenced by the lack of both a confining zone and
significant head difference between the two zones.
Groundwater flow in the Blue Ridge Province generally follows the topography. Recharge
occurs from infiltration of precipitation on the hill and mountain slopes, while discharge
generally occurs at the streams and springs. The groundwater surface at the site has been
observed in monitor wells at depths ranging from 3 to 29 feet below ground surface.
I. HYDROLOGY
The surface water features potentially affected by the GE and Seldon Clark subsites include Bat
Fork Creek and Mud Creek. The surface water features potentially affected by the Shepherd
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Farm subsite include the unnamed intermittent creek running through the subsite and into Bat
Fork Creek and Mud Creek. 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 freshwaters for secondary recreation, fishing, and aquatic life.
Runoff from all three subsites discharges into Bat Fork Creek. At the Shepherd Farm subsite,
runoff also discharges into the unnamed tributary which then discharges into Bat Fork Creek
approximately 400 feet to the northwest. At the GE facility, a natural spring which also
discharges into Bat Fork Creek is located in a swampy area between Bat Fork Creek and the
easternmost landspreading plots. In addition, GE has an NPDES permit to discharge treated
industrial effluent into Bat Fork Creek from the GE facility surface impoundments.
Bat Fork Creek is a perennial surface water body which, from visual observation, appears to be
about 10 feet wide and less than 1 foot deep at the site under normal flow conditions. The
average gradient of Bat Fork Creek at the site is approximately 24 feet per mile. The stream
lies within the French Broad River basin which is part of the Tennessee River Valley drainage
system.
H. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTTVTnES
A. Site History
From 1955 to present, the GE facility has been used to develop, design, and manufacture
complete high-intensity-discharge luminaire systems, which consists of the assembly of optical
components, ballasts, mountings, and high mast lowering devices. The luminaire systems
produced at the facility use several light sources including sodium and mercury. These lighting
systems have many uses which include the illumination of roadways, sports arenas and related
buildings and/or parking lots, indoor industrial and/or commercial complexes, and hazardous or
dangerous location applications.
Operations at the facility are comprised of several manufacturing processes. Raw aluminum is
smelted and die-cast into molds of light fixture housings. Strip aluminum is machined by a spin
and die process into reflectors that are attached to the housings. These reflectors are finished
in a metal finishing, polishing, or coating process to yield a highly machined, polished or satin
surface, as desired.
From about 1955 until 1975, GE also manufactured "constant-current" transformers at this
facility. These transformers were filled with PCB-containing oil, which were delivered to the
facility in railroad tank cars (NUS, 1991a). GE has reported that PCBs are no longer used in
their product line (ATSDR, 1993).
10
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Prior to GE's purchase of the property in 1955, the GE subsite was used as an apple orchard.
Waste streams generated by GE's facility from the beginning of plant operations have included
construction wastes, buffing compound, epoxy compound, phenolic residue, paint sludges, PCB
capacitors, solvents, transformer oil, electrical insulators/capacitors, waste acids, dye cast mold
released hydrocarbons, heavy petroleum greases, and varnish residues. These waste streams
contain many VOCs, heavy metals, acids, and PCBs. Current waste streams include solvents,
cadmium-contaminated baghouse dust, waste oils, and lab packs.
Landfill A received waste generated by the facility between 1955 and the 1960s. No information
is available concerning the types of wastes, but it is assumed that the wastes are from the
manufacturing process utilized during this time of operation. Landfill B is believed to have been
operated during the 1970s. These unregulated practices of the 1950s and the 1960s were ceased
by GE with the promulgation of state and federal legislation to control pollution to the
environment during the 1970s. As these two former landfills have been partially paved over,
there is no physical evidence of waste at the landfill locations.
Wastewater generated as a result of plant process, contains metals and solvents typically used
during lighting system manufacture. GE implemented a wastewater treatment facility in the mid-
1970s consisting of a lime treatment system to adjust the pH of treated waters prior to surface
water discharge. They also constructed the two wastewater treatment ponds described
previously. The unlined ponds were constructed of native clay and are approximately 10 feet
deep. The larger pond has a controlled exit valve at its discharge point to the smaller pond.
As part of the waste treatment process, wet and dry sludges generated in the wastewater
treatment facility were landspread on several plots surrounding the facility buildings between
1977 and 1980. These landspreading plots, totaling 26 acres, were delineated for disposal of
wet and dry sludges that contained water, lime, and about 0.07 to 2.85 percent nickel typically
used in plant processes.
From 1955 until 1975, GE also generated a substantial quantity of PCB wastes as a result of
transformer production. Disposal of these wastes prior to 1980 is not well documented, but in
1984, PCB wastes were sent to Emelle, Alabama, for disposal.
Underground storage tanks (USTs) at eighteen locations have been used by GE in the past to
store fuels, liquid supplies (paints and varnishes), and liquid wastes. All of these USTs are
reported by GE to have been removed by March 1991, and all liquid storage is now performed
in above ground storage tanks and drums.
From approximately 1957 to 1970, GE wastes were also intermittently deposited at the Shepherd
Farm property where it was dumped, burned, and bulldozed in an approximate 3-acre area
onsite. At the time of the dumping, the only other use of the property was for the Shepherd's
11
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
residence. The Spring Haven community was later constructed over part of the dumping area.
Most of the waste was reportedly deposited into an old dry pond or ravine approximately 800
feet southwest of the Shepherd residence. When the path leading to the ravine was iced,
however, the waste was placed along the path. According to Mr. Shepherd, the waste consisted
of cardboard, wood, office paper, and buffing compound. Occasionally, electrical "insulators"
were taken to the site and broken to salvage copper. These might have been capacitors as
insulators do not contain copper.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, GE wastes were also dumped in an approximate 0.3-acre
ravine on the Seldon Clark property. GE reported that the property was used for the disposal
of construction rubble only, but according to Mr. Clark, the ravine was also filled in with drums
of aluminum paint and drums of cleaning fluid from dye-casting machinery. Old transformers
are also reported to have been deposited in the ravine. The suspected disposal area is located
in the southwestern half of the property but there is presently no physical evidence of a landfill.
B. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Several recent sampling investigations have been conducted at the site, especially at the GE
facility. The quality of the data collected during the GE-conducted events, however, is
unknown. These studies have included monitor well installation and groundwater sampling, soil
sampling, surface water/sediment sampling, and off site private well sampling.
Figure 5 shows the locations of all the permanent monitor wells installed at the GE subsite.
Figure 6 shows the locations of the private wells sampled.
From 1986 through 1991, GE tasked Law Environmental to conduct sampling investigations of
soil and groundwater around the GE plant site. In 1988 and 1989, EPA conducted Site
Inspections and Investigations into the contamination at the GE facility, Shepherd Farm property,
and the Seldon Clark property. Results of analysis revealed the presence of PCBs in soil and
volatile organic compounds in the groundwater. A groundwater VOC (PCE) concentration map
prepared by GE based on the results of these sampling events is presented in Figure 7.
The results indicate tetrachloroethene is the major contaminant present in groundwater beneath
the site and, as discovered before, the greatest contaminant concentrations are present along the
failed drain line. However, high concentrations of VOCs were also found along the railroad line
southwest of the failed drain line area, indicating that a preferential flow path may be present
along the railroad, or that another source of contamination is present in this area. One possible
source identified in this investigation was an old drainage ditch which existed prior to
construction of the drain line.
12
-------
ZWZLOLQ
-------
m
C/)
-im
r
73 m
00
o
m
31
-------
dSZLdLQ
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
C. PREVIOUS REMEDIATION EFFORTS
GE has conducted or prepared for several remediation and/or removal actions at the GE subsite.
GE reports that all USTs and contaminated soils associated with these USTs have been removed.
GE also reports that contaminated soil associated with the ruptured drain line have been
removed. City water mains have been extended to all areas showing groundwater contamination
based on private well sampling, and GE has paid for connections to these water mains and/or
provided bottled water for all households so desiring such action. Figure 8 shows the areas near
the GE property where residents were offered city water connections.
In 1990, GE also conducted a Phase IQA Aquifer Characterization and Groundwater Treatment
Study at the GE facility in preparation for performing groundwater remediation. In this study,
a pilot groundwater recovery and treatment system was designed and installed at the GE subsite.
The system consisted of four groundwater recovery wells (RW-1 through RW-4), a 10,000-
gallon equalization tank, an air stripping tower, and associated piping and pumps with discharge
going to Bat Fork Creek. Seven observation wells (MW-38 through MW-44) were also
constructed for measuring water levels during an aquifer performance test. This system is still
in place.
GE is currently testing a system whereby their process wastewater is discharge to the publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) instead of to Bat Fork Creek through the wastewater treatment
ponds.
D. SITE REGULATORY ACTIONS
The GE facility filed Part A of a hazardous waste permit for storage in 1980 under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In March 1982, GE petitioned to have its F006
electroplating sludge delisted as a hazardous waste. By April 1982, EPA issued a preliminary
decision to declare the F006 waste as nonhazardous. The state of North Carolina accepted the
petition and delisted F006 waste in October 1982. In 1984, GE elected to dispose of
accumulated wastes offsite and therefore withdrew the Part A hazardous waste permit application
and related interim status. On September 19,1988, EPA formally recognized the state-approved
delisting of F006 electroplating sludge as a hazardous waste.
GE has an NPDES permit for the discharge of treated effluent into Bat Fork Creek which
became effective on May 1, 1989. GE also has an air permit issued on February 25, 1988, to
operate several air emission sources or clean air devices.
After the EPA Screening Site Inspections and Listing Site Inspections described above were
completed, the GE, Shepherd Farm, and Seldon Clark properties were proposed for inclusion
on the NPL on February 7, 1992, as the "General Electric/Shepherd Farm Site". The site was
16
-------
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
finalized on the NPL in December 1994.
EPA sent a notice letter to General Electric in July 1993 offering the opportunity to conduct the
RI/FS. The notice letter also informed the PRP of its potential liability for past and future site
costs. On January 4, 1994, EPA sent notice/request for access letters to Mr. Wayne Dickason,
Mr. Lawrence Ward, and Mr. Shepherd. Ge was also sent a request for access letter.
. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(B)(i-v) and 117, the RI/FS Report and the Proposed
Plan for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site were released to the public for comment on July 24, 1995.
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 Henderson
County Public Library in Hendersonville, North Carolina.
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Henderson Times News
and the Asheville Citizen on July 24, 1995. A public comment period on the documents was
held from July 24, 1995 to September 22, 1995. A copy of the notice was mailed to the site
mailing list which contains names of community members and interested parties. In addition,
a public meeting was held on August 3, 1995. At this meeting, representatives from EPA
answered questions about the site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. Meetings
with city and county officials were also held.
Other community relations activities included:
* Established an information repository
* Prepared an extensive mailing list
* Developed a community relations plan
* Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the RI/FS process in August 1994.
* Conducted a Superfund Workshop for the public in September 1994.
* Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the RI results in June 1995.
* Issuance of a Fact Sheet on the Proposed Plan in July 1995.
18
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
As with many Superfund Sites, the GE/Shepherd Farm Site is very complex. However, all
aspects of the cleanup will be addressed concurrently and the site has not been divided into
phases or "operable units".
This ROD will present a final remedial action for the entire site.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
During the Remedial Investigation, surface and subsurface soil, sediment and surface water
samples were collected, temporary monitor wells were installed and sampled and permanent
monitor and potable wells were sampled. For more details about sample results, please refer
to the Remedial Investigation Report.
A. Soil Sampling
Thirty four surface soil samples and 41 subsurface soil samples were collected during this
investigation. The sampling results will be summarized by each subsite.
GE Subsite
Twenty surface soil samples and 21 subsurface soil samples were collected from the
landspreading areas, along the drain line and former ditch, along the railroad track and from the
present and former landfills. Also, one replicate and two co-located samples were collected.
Landspreading Areas
i
Twenty four samples were collected from 11 locations in landspreading areas A, B, C and D.
The locations are indicated on Figure 9.
A single volatile organic compound was detected in the landspreading areas. The presumptive
evidence of acetone was detected in samples 4-SLA, 4-SLB and 11-SLB at concentrations of
18N ug/kg, 17N ug/kg and 17N ug/kg, respectively.
PCB's were detected in one sample. Sample 11-SLA, the surface soil sample from
landspreading area D, contained 60 ug/kg of PCB-1260. Pesticides were detected in all of the
surface soil samples collected from the land spreading areas, except sample 11-SLA. Among
these were dieldrin, 4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and toxaphene.
19
-------
Lfnrxn
A SOL SAMPUNC LOCATIONS
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Landfills
Three landfills, designated A, B and C, exist on site. Eight samples were collected from six
locations in the three landfills. One grab surface soil and 2 grab subsurface soil samples were
collected from landfill A. One composite surface and one grab subsurface soil sample were
collected from landfill B and from landfill C.
Samples 13-SLA and 13-SLC collected from landfill A contained volatile organic compounds.
Sample 13-SLA contained 27 ug/kg of 1,2-dichloroethene, 21 ug/kg of chlorobenzene and 23N
ug/kg of acetone. Sample 13-SLC contained 16,000 ug/kg of tetrachloroethene, 1,600J ug/kg
of ethyl benzene and 4,400 ug/kg of xylenes. Samples collected from landfills B and C
contained no detectable volatile organic compounds.
Sample 18-SLA, landfill C, contained 180J ug/kg of fluoranthene, 130J ug/kg of pyrene, 90JN
of pentachlorobiphenyl. Sample 18-SLB contained naphthalene, acenaphthene, dibenzofuran,
fluorene,phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(A)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or
K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-CD) pyrene, dibenzo(A,H)anthracene,
benzo(GHI)perylene and carbazole at concentrations up to 1,700J ug/kg.
Pesticides were not detected in any of the landfill samples. PCB's were detected in all the
landfill samples. PCB-1242 was detected in sample 12-SLA, landfill B, at a concentration of
22,OOOC ug/kg. PCB-1254 was detected in all the samples at concentrations up to 36,OOOC
ug/kg. PCB-1248 was detected in samples 512-SLA and 12-SLB, landfill B, and 18-SLA,
landfill C, at concentrations up to 9,700C ug/kg. PCB-1260 was detected in all the samples at
concentrations up to 120,OOOC ug/kg in sample 13-SLC, landfill A.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Drain Line/Former Ditch
Four soil samples were collected from two locations beneath the drain line/former ditch.
Location 14 was off the east corner of the main plant and location 15 was due west of the OV
Stores building.
The presumptive evidence of a single volatile organic compound, acetone, was detected in
sample 15-SLB.
21
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Pesticides were not detected in any of the samples. Sample 14-SLA and 14-SLB contained PCB-
1254 at concentrations of 240 ug/kg and 160 ug/kg, PCB 1248 at concentrations of 150 ug/kg
and 96 ug/kg, and PCB-1260 at concentrations of 540 ug/kg and 370 ug/kg, respectively.
Sample 15-SLA contained PCB-1260 at a concentration of 64 ug/kg. Sample 15-SLB contained
no detectable PCB's.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Railroad Track
Two subsurface soil samples were collected along the railroad track. Location 16 was off the
east corner of the main plant and location 17 was west of the warehouse building. The samples
were collected just below the railroad gravel bed.
No volatile organic compounds were detected.
Pesticides were not detected in either of the samples. Sample 16-SLB contained PCB-1254 at
a concentration of 53 ug/kg and PCB 1248 at a concentration of 46 ug/kg. Sample 17-SLB
contained PCB-1260 at concentration of 58 ug/kg.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Underground Storage Tank Locations
Three subsurface soil samples (samples 19, 20 and 22) were collected from locations near the
former underground storage tank locations.
No volatile organic compounds were detected. Sample 20-SLD contained 1,OOOJN ug/kg of
hexadecanoic acid and one unidentified compound. Samples 19-SLA and 22-SLD contained no
detectable extractable organic compounds.
Sample 19-SLA contained 6.0 ug/kg of dieldrin, 25 ug/kg of 4,4'-DDT and 21 ug/kg of 4,4'-
DDE. Pesticides were not detected in samples 20-SLD or 22-SLD. PCB's were not detected
in any of the samples.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Seldon Clark Subsite
22
-------
m
-nm
-73 m
00
SI
- o
li
ico
>3
CO
O
CO
c
o
00
-§
m 2
CO
>
o
o
S
o
z
CO
o
m
H*
O
ESTIMATED FORMER
FILL AREA
U.S. 176 (SPARTANBURG HIGHWAY)
032
LEGEND
- SOIL
* - SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Soil borings were drilled at three locations, as indicated on Figure 10. Locations 30 and 31
were in the fill area on the Seldon Clark property and location 32 is west across Spartanburg
Highway.
Sample 31-SLE (12-14 feet BLS) collected from the fill material contained acetone, methyl ethyl
ketone, 1,2-dichloroethene and methyl hexanone at concentrations of 160 ug/kg, 190 ug/kg, 4J
ug/kg and 30JN ug/kg, respectively. Samples 30-SLF (30-32 feet BLS) and 31-SLF (38-40 feet
BLS) , collected from native soil beneath the fill material, contained no detectable volatile
organic compounds.
Pesticides were detected in samples 31-SLE, 32-SLB and 32-SLC. Sample 31-SLE contained
4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE and 4,4'-DDD at concentrations of 11 ug/kg, 15 ug/kg and 76 ug/kg,
respectively. Sample 32-SLB contained 4,4'-DDD, gamma-chlordane and alpha-chlordane at
concentrations of 18 ug/kg, 15 ug/kg and 15 ug/kg, respectively. Sample 32-SLC contained 4.3
ug/kg of 4,4'-DDT, 8.8 ug/kg of 4,4'DDE and 3.3J ug/kg of 4,4'-DDD.
PCB's were detected in two samples. Sample 32-SLA contained 220 ug/kg of PCB-1254, 420
ug/kg of PCB-1248 and 36 ug/kg of PCB-1260. Sample 32-SLB contained 86 ug/kg of PCB-
1254.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including: barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Shepherd Farm Subsite
Thirteen composite surface soil samples and 15 subsurface grab samples were collected from the
Shepherd Farm property. The locations are indicated on Figure 11.
Eight surface and eight subsurface samples were collected from yards in the Spring Haven
development. These locations are designated 50 through 55. The three samples collected from
location 50 are considered control samples for the study. The fill area located behind and west
of the Shepherd house and north of the Spring Haven development was divided into five areas.
These locations are designated 56 through 60. One composite surface soil sample and a grab
subsurface soil sample were collected from the center of each area at a depth of three feet to
four feet BLS. Also, grab subsurface soil samples were collected from locations 57 and 59 at
a depth of six feet to eight feet BLS.
Volatile organic compounds were detected in two samples. Sample 53-SLB contained 6J ug/kg
of tetrachloroethene and 2J ug/kg of xylenes. Sample 56-SLA contained 2J ug/kg of
tetrachloroethene.
24
-------
08ZCU-
m
m
73m
00
o
CO
c
13
m
S
torn
z>
83
So
"1 ^}
O rn
o
c
73
m
LEGEND
- SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SPRING HAVEN
TRAILER PARK
-------
Record of Decision ; September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Extractable organic compounds were detected in eight surface soil samples and one subsurface
soil sample.
Lindane was detected in sample 56-SLA at a concentration of 110 ug/kg. 4,4'-DDT was
detected in samples 55-SLA, 55-SLB and 57-SLB at concentrations ranging up to 130 ug/kg.
4,4'DDE was detected in samples 55-SLB and 60-SLA at concentrations up to 130 ug/kg.
PCB's were detected in nine surface soil samples and three subsurface soil samples.
Concentrations of total PCB's which exceeded 5,000 ug/kg were detected in samples 53-SLA,
56-SLA, 57-SLA and 58-SLA. Total PCB's concentrations which exceeded 1,000 ug/kg ( but
less than 5,000 ug/kg) were detected in samples 51-SLA, 51-SLB, 54-SLA and 60-SLA.
A variety of metals was detected in the soil samples including barium, chromium, copper, lead,
zinc, mercury and manganese.
Sample 59-SLC was analyzed for eleven TCLP metals including silver, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, nickel, antimony, beryllium and thallium. Barium, the
only contaminant detected, was found at 0.39 mg/1, which is below the TC Rule regulatory level
of 100 mg/1.
B. Surface Water and Sediment Sampling
Thirteen surface water and sediment samples were collected from 12 locations during this
investigation. Six samples, locations one through six, were collected from the GE property.
Location 4 is a spring which flows into the adjacent creek. One sample was collected from the
Seldon Clark property, location 30; and six samples were collected from the Shepherd Farm
property, locations 50 through 54. Sample location 452 is a duplicate of sample location 52.
The locations are indicated on Figures 12, 13 and 14, respectively.
Surface Water
Tetrachloroethene was detected in all six samples collected from the GE property and from
samples 51-SW and 54-SW. The concentrations ranged between 0.53 ug/1 and 3.5 ug/1. Sample
4-SW contained 6.8ug/l of cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 0.71J ug/1 of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and 1.9J
ug/1 of trichloroethene. Sample 6-SW contained 7.4J ug/1 of carbondisulfide. Samples 52-SW
and 452-SW contained 3.0J and 3.2J ug/1 of toluene.
No pesticides or PCB's were detected in the surface water samples.
Metals were detected in all of the surface water samples. The SMCL of 50-200 ug/1 of
26
-------
382/LOitt
LEGgMB
A SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
* SAMPLING LOCATION
LANDSPREADINC PLOTS
E3 FORMER LANDTILL
Pt»
m
DEMONSTRATION STREET
-------
3MLQ10
₯
m
O
m
o
s
o
~n
is
CO
o
GO
c
m
-5
'8
ij^
5§
||
z
o
o
o
§
o
GO
O
C
ESTIMATED FORMER
FILL AREA
U.S. 176 (SPARTANBURG HIGHWAY)
032
LEGEND
- SOIL
* - SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENT
-------
J9ZLQLQ
. SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT
* SAMPLING LOCATIONS
SPRING HAVEN
TRAILER PARK
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
aluminum was exceeded in all the samples collected. The SMCL of 0.3 mg/1 of iron was
exceeded in all the samples collected. The SMCL of 50 ug/1 of manganese was exceeded in
samples 2-SW, 3-SW, 4-SW, 5-SW, 6-SW and 30-SW.
Sediment
No volatile organic compounds were detected in the sediment samples. Extractable organic
compounds were detected in eight sediment samples. Sample 30-SD contained phenanthrene,
fluoranthene, pyrene, chrysene, benzo(B and/or K)fluoranthene, benzo-A-pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-
CD) pyrene, dibenzo(A,H)anthracene and benzo(GHI)perylene. The concentrations ranged
between 70J ug/kg and 150J ug/kg.
Samples 1-SD and 54-SD contained 4,4'-DDT at concentrations of 6.2 ug/kg and 5.ON ug/kg.
Sample 2-SD contained 7.8 ug/kg of 4,4-'DDE and 5.6 ug/kg of endrin aldehyde.
Six samples contained PCB's. PCB-1248 was detected in samples 2-SD, 3-SD, 5-SD, 6-SD and
51-SD. The concentrations ranged between 54 ug/kg and 430 ug/kg. Sample 6-SD also
contained 85 ug/kg of PCB-1254 and 34J ug/kg of PCB-1260. Sample 30-SD contained 49
ug/kg of PCB-1254.
A variety of metals was detected in the sediment samples including barium, chromium, copper,
lead, zinc, and manganese. No elevated concentrations were detected.
C. Temporary Monitor Well Installation and Sampling
Nine temporary wells were installed at the locations specified on Figures 15, 16, and 17.
Sample 551-TW is a duplicate of sample 51-TW. Location 50 is considered background for the
site.
Volatile organic compounds were detected in six samples from five locations. Sample 2-TW
contained 0.59J ug/1 of 1,2-dichlorobenzene, 0.80J ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and 0.71.J
ug/1 of 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene. Sample 30-TW contained 0.067AJ ug/1 of p-isopropyltoluene.
Sample 50-TW contained 1. 1J ug/1 of chloroform. Sample 51-TW contained 1. U ug/1 of vinyl
chloride, 1.2J ug/1 of cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 0.98J ug/1 of trichloroethene and 29 ug/1 of
tetrachloroethene. Sample 53-TW contained 32 ug/1 of tetrachloroethene.
Extractable organic compounds were detected in one sample. No pesticides or PCB's were
detected in the temporary well samples.
Metals were detected in all of the temporary well samples. Sample 30-TW contained 0.28 ug/1
30
-------
LEGEND
A MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
-------
m
73 m
oo
O
o
m
S
"D
§
o
o
o
m 73
FS
53
O
z
U)
O
c
;o
m
M
ON
ESTIMATED FORMER
FILL AREA
U.S. 176 (SPARTANBURG HIGHWAY)
31
- TEMPORARY MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
-------
m
5-8
3D m
00
o
m
s:
T)
Oc/)
0
o
z
CO
31
o
c
TEMPORARY MONITOR
WELL LOCATIONS
CONCENTRATIONS IN
32 TETRACHLOROETHENE] -».^
1.1J VINYL CHLORIDE
1.2J CIS-1.2-OICHLOROETHENE
0.98J TRICHLOROETHENE
29 TETRACHLOROETHENE
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
of mercury. The MCL for mercury is 2 ug/1.
D. On Site Permanent Monitor Well Sampling
Twenty four of the existing permanent monitor wells located on the GE property were sampled.,
Figure 18 indicates their locations.
Volatile organic compounds were detected in 21 of the 24 wells sampled. To facilitate the data
presentation and discussion, the compounds cis-l,2-dichloroethene, trichloroethene and
tetrachloroethene were chosen as indicator compounds. These compounds were detected at the
greatest frequency in the wells. Cis-l,2-dichloroethene was detected in 18 wells at
concentrations between 0.72J ug/1 in well MW-22A to 380J ug/1 in well MW-11.
Trichloroethene was detected in 16 wells at concentrations between 0.93J ug/1 in well 22A-MW
to 130 ug/1 in well 14-MW. Tetrachloroethene was detected in 20 wells at concentrations
between 1.5J ug/1 in well 21-MW and 1,600 ug/1 in well 11-MW.
Concentration isopleth maps for these compounds were developed using an exponential kriging
algorithm and Golden Software's SURFER modeling program. These maps visually delineate
the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination in the ground water under the site.
The results are presented as Figures 19, 20, and 21.
As indicated on the figures, the area with the highest contamination lies along the drain
line/former ditch in the vicinity of wells MW-11, MW-12, MW-12A and MW-12B. The
concentration gradient drops gradually toward the northeast, which is the direction of ground
water flow, and more abruptly to the northwest and southeast.
Monitor well MW-14 contained high concentrations of all three compounds. This well is east-
northeast of the former leaking underground storage tank located between the railroad track and
the northwest side of the warehouse.
Two individual compounds detected which merit discussion are benzene and vinyl chloride.
Benzene was detected in well 19-MW at a concentration of 2.7J ug/1 and in well 38-MW at a
concentration of 0.52J ug/1. Vinyl chloride was detected in wells 4-MW, 14B-MW and 38-MW
at concentrations of 2.8J ug/1, 0.69AJ ug/1 and 2.4J ug/1, respectively. Vinyl chloride is a
degradation product of tetrachloroethene.
Extractable organic compounds were detected in five samples. Sample 11-MW contained 1.8J
ug/1 of 2-methyl naphthalene, 3.2J ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 4.7J ug/1 of naphthalene and
3.3J ug/1 of 2,4-dinitrophenol. Sample 12-MW contained 5.1J ug/1 of 2-methyl naphthalene,
3.0J ug/1 of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 37J ug/1 of naphthalene, 2.3J ug/1 of dibenzofuran, 1. U ug/1
of fluorene, 1.3J ug/1 of phenanthrene. Sample 12A-MW contained 3.2J ug/1 of 1,2,4-
34
-------
4OO 0 400
=
SCALE IN FEET
GE PROPERTY ON SITE MONITOR WELL LOCATIONS
FIGURE 18
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
-------
TW-31
-MONITOR WELL
ND - NOT DETECTED
-30 -CONCENTRATIONS |ig/L
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
MW-30
ND'
FIGURE
TETRACHLOROETHENE, SHALLOW WELLS
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
500.00
250.00(
100.00
50.00
cc
Q
O
&EPA
-------
-MONITOR WELL
ND - NOT DETECTED
-30 -CONCENTRATIONS jig/L
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
MW-30
2.00
FIGURE 20
TOTAL VOC, SHALLOW WELLS
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
1000.00
500.00
300.00
100.00
50.00
{£.
a
o
*EPA
-------
''--lfiw-21
-MONITOR WELL
ND - NOT DETECTED
-30 -CONCENTRATIONS
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
\
FIGURE 21
TOTAL VOC CONCENTRATION, DEEP WELLS
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
PA
'*
1500.00
1300.00
1100.00
900.00
700.00
500.00
300.00
100.00
<
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
trichlorobenzene, 2.8J ug/1 of naphthalene.
Metals were detected in all of the monitor well samples. Primary MCL's for barium and
beryllium were exceeded in sample 38-MW, which contained 4,000 ug/1 of barium and 15 ug/1
of beryllium. The MCL's are 2,000 ug/1 and 4 ug/1, respectively. Manganese was detected in
21 samples at concentrations ranging between 4.9 ug/1 in sample 32-MW to 5,000 ug/1 in sample
38-MW. Thirteen samples contained concentrations above the secondary MCL of 50 ug/1. Iron
was detected in 15 samples. The secondary MCL for iron of 300 ug/1 was exceeded in eight
samples. Mercury was detected in samples 4-MW, 12-MW.14-MW and 35-MW, at a
concentrations ranging between of 0.22 ug/1 and 0.62 ug/1. The MCL for mercury is 2 ug/1.
E. Potable Well Sampling
Eleven potable wells were sampled during this investigation. Figure 22 indicates the well
locations.
Volatile organic compounds were detected in two samples. Sample 83-P contained 1. U ug/1 of
tetrachloroethene and sample 91-PW contained 0.58J ug/1 of 1,1,1-trichloroethane. Neither of
these concentrations are above their respective MCL's. No extractable organic compounds were
detected in the potable well samples. No pesticides or PCB's were detected in the potable well
samples.
A variety of metals was detected in all of the potable well samples. Samples 73-PW and 91-PW
contained 24 ug/1 and 19 ug/1 of lead, respectively. Sample 91-PW contained 550 ug/1 of zinc.
The SMCL for zinc is 500 ug/1. Six samples contained aluminum. Samples 83-PW, 15-PW and
43-PW were above 200 ug/1. Samples 73-PW and 91-PW were above 50 ug/1. The SMCL for
aluminum is 50-200 ug/1. The SMCL of 50 ug/1 for manganese was exceeded in samples 2-PW,
15-PW, 6-PW and 43-PW. The SMCL of 0.3 mg/1 for iron was exceeded in samples 83-PW,
15-PW, and 6-PW.
F. Well Survey
In July and August, 1994, EPA mailed out 990 private well/water use surveys to residents living
within a one-mile radius of the GE plant subsite. Approximately 109 or 11 % were returned by
the post office for various reasons (person moved, no forwarding address, post office box
closed, etc.) Of the remaining 881 who received the survey, only 309 residents, or 35% of
residents who received the survey, completed the questionnaire, and returned it to EPA. Of
those, 224 or 72.5% were currently receiving city water. Eighty five of those responding to the
survey or 27.5 % indicated that they were currently using their well for drinking water or other
household purposes.
39
-------
CD
&EPA
POTABLE WELL LOCATIONS
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 22
-------
Table 1 Summary of results of toxicity tests on surface water samples collected from
streams near General Electric, East Flat Rock, NC. November 1994.
Sample
ID#
GE-101-SW
GE-102-SW
GE-103-SW
GE-104-SW
GE-105-SW
GE-106-SW
GE-I07-SW
GE-108-SW
GE-109-SW
GE-1 10-SW
CONTROL
Sampling
Location
Background for Unnamed Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Bat Fork Creek - Spring Haven Trailer Park
Bat Fork Creek - Shepherd Farm
Bat Fork Creek - Background for GE Site
Bat Fork Creek - Inside GE Site
Bat Fork Creek - Downstream of GE Discharge
Bat Fork Creek - Downstream of Station 107
Bat Fork Creek - Downstream of GE Site
Ditch on Seldon Clark Subsite
DMW
Ceriodaphnia
7 day Chronic
Adult
Survival
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
10
10
Average
# Young
23.4
24.6
37.2
37.7
31.2
31.2
35.5
34.1
32.6
33.7
24.6V31.33
Algae Growth
(mean cell density in
fluorometer units)
3.21
2.99
4.08
4.01
3.33
4.06
0.63
0.78
2.68
3.00
3.39
Microtox
LC501
(% sample)
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>100
>IOO
>100
>100
>100
1 - LC50 values calcu ated from 5 minute readings.
2 - Control for samples 101 through 105.
3 - Control for samples 106 through 1 10.
cn
vc
Cr>
O\
-------
Table 2 Summary of results of toxicity tests on sediment samples collected from
near General Electric, East Flat Rock, MC. November 1994.
streams
Sample
IDf
GE-101-SD
GE-102-SD
GE-I03-SD
GE-I04-SD
GE-10S-SD
GE-106-SD
GE-107-SD
GE-108-SD
GE-109-SD
GE-110-SD
CONTROL
LCSO values ca
2 - Control for sam
3 - Control for sam
Sampling
Location
Background for Unnamed Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Bat Fork Creek - Spring Haven Trailer Park
Bat Fork Creek - Shepherd Farm
Bat Fork Creek - Background for GE Site
Bat fork Creek - Inside GE Site
Bat Fork Creek - Downstream of GE Discharge
Bat Fork Creek - Downstream of Station 107
Bat Fork Creek Downstream of GE Site
Ditch on Seldon Clark Subsite
DMW
Ceriodaphania
7 day Chronic
Adult
Survival
8
10
10
10
8
10
9
10
10
9
10
Average
1 Young
22.2
28.6
16.7
22.5
22.6
37.9
33.6
30.1
26.6
29.0
24.5V32.31
Lettuce Seed
Germination
(% germination)
26
86
88
63
65
86
73
90
83
49
80
Microtox
LCSO1
(%Sample)
>IOO
>100
>100
83.3
>100
>100
>100
>IOO
>100
>100
>100
culated from 5 minute readings.
pies 101 through 105.
jles 106 through 1 10.
-------
Table 3 Results of fish tissue analyses, GE/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site, East Flat Rock,
North Carolina.
Sampling
Station
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
Pesticides
(mg/kg)
DDE
0.050U
0.050U
0.051U
0.18
0.12
0.061
0.093
0.19
PCB-1248
0.32J
:.-;-V;:;j
-------
Table 4 Comparison of habitat quality for sampling stations on Bat Fork Creek and an unnamed tributary in the vicinity of General
Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site, East Flat Rock, North Carolina. November 1994.
SAMPLING STATIONS
Station t
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Station Description
Background for Unnamed
Tributary
Unnamed Tributary
Bat Fork Creek
(Spring Haven Trailer Park)
Bat Fork Creek
Shepherd Farm
Bat Fork Creek
Background for GE Site
Bat Fork Creek
Inside GE Site
Bat Fork Creek
Downstream of GE Discharge
Bat Fork Creek
Downstream of Sta.107
Bat Fork Creek
Downstream of GE Site
Ditch on Seldon Clark Subsite
Habitat Assessment
Score
99
114
119
115
125
94
111
120
117
31
Habitat
Condition
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Excellent
Poor
*
Compatibility
to Background
100
115
-
-
100
75
88
96
94
-
Compatibility
Assessment
-
Comparable
-
-
-
Supporting
Supporting
Comparable
Comparable
-
-------
Record of Decision .....__ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
The chemicals of potential concern in soil are chromium VI, copper, lead, cadmium,
molybdenum, aluminum, vanadium, manganese, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzo(b and/or
k)fluoranthene, benzo-a-pyrene, indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, dieldrin,
toxaphene, PCB-1254, PCB-1242, PCB-1248, and PCB-1260.
Once these chemicals of potential 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 5. Exposure point concentrations for each
subsite are presented in Table 6 for soils.
B. Exposure Assessment
The exposure assessment evaluates and identifies complete pathways of exposure to human
population on or near the Site.
Current exposure pathways 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 at GE and Shepherd Farm and ingestion of soil, inhalation of dusts and
dermal contact with soils at Shepherd Farms, as a worse-case scenario. Possible exposure
pathways 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 7 shows the site conceptual model used to determine the risk at this
Site. Further detail and mathematical calculations can be reviewed in the Baseline Risk
Assessment.
C. Toxicitv Assessment
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of adverse effects occurring in humans from
carcinogens and noncarcinogens are considered separately. These are discussed below. Tables
8 and 9 summarize the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria for the chemicals of
potential 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
47
-------
TABLE 5
React. :>s:>!2 Maximum Exposure Concentrations for
C»«>;i;flteals of Potential Concern In Groundwater
General Electric Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Chemical of
Potential Concern
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 .2-DICHLOROETHENE
FRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHEN
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
1 ,2-OICHLOROPROPANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
2,4-DINITROPHENOL
Mean of
Transformed
Data
4.0
02
0.4
1.3
1.5
4.5
5.6
4.2
1.7
1.8
1.7
22
1.6
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
15
1.7
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
Z3
Standard
Deviation
of Data
1.4
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.3
1.7
1.8
22
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.4
2.4
1.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
H (Statistic
from
Table)
3.077
2.202
2.102
2.423
1.793
3.437
3.437
3.812
3.077
3.077
3.077
3.812
3.077
2.737
3.077
3.077
3.077
3.077
3.077
4.588
3.077
3.077
1.856
1.793
Sample
Size
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
UCL(1)
(Ufl/l)
379
2
3
11
5
1216
4462
3587
35.0
34.8
36.2
204.9
29.1
33.0
46.5
39.0
37.4
61.5
37.5
4246
36.1
37.6
6.9
11.1
Maximum
(Ug/l)
4000
15
25
190
15
8000
15000
5000
2.8
5.1
0.8
380.0
33.0
9.4
130.0
0.7
0.5
130.0
2.7
1600
0.6
0.5
36.0
10.0
RME
(ug/l)
379
2
3
11
5
1216
4462
3587
2.8
5.1
0.8
204.9
29.1
9.4
46.5
0.7
0.5
61.5
2.7
1600
0.8
0.5
6.9
10.0
TABLE 5
Reasonable Maximum Exposure Concentrations for
Chemicals of Potential Concern In Groundwater
Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Chemical of
Potential Concern
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
Mean of
Transformed
Data
4.6
-0.4
5.6
0.7
2.2
Standard
Deviation
of Data
1.4
0.6
1.7
0.4
1.5
H (Statistic
from
Table)
7.120
3.287
8.250
2.651
7.120
Sample
Size
4
4
4
4
4
UCL (1)
(ug/l)
67737
2.4
3293793
4
12571
Maximum
(ug/l)
760
1.6
1500
1.1
34
RME
(ug/l)
760
1.6
1500
1.1
34
UCL: Upper Confidence Limit
Maximum: The highest detected concentration.
RME: Reasonable Maximum Exposure (UCL or maximum when UCL is greater than maximum)
NA: Not Applicable
(1). Some UCL calculated values are unreasonably high due to the small sample size and/or wide range in results.
-------
Reasonable MaxlKwip Exposure Concentration* fo.
Chemicalo of Potential Concern in Soil
-------
TABLE 7
SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
SOURCE
SHEPHERD FARM
LANDFILL
GE
LANDFILLS
LANDSPREADBVG
PLOTS
TREATMENT
PONDS
PRIMARY RELEASE/
TRANSPORT
MECHANISM
NA
LEACHING
SURFACE EROSION
DUST GENERATION
NA
LEACHING
SURFACE EROSION
DUST GENERATION
AFFECTED MEDIUM
SURFACE SOIL
GROUNDWATER
SURFACE WATER IN
CREEK
SEDIMENT IN
CREEK
AIR
SURFACE SOIL
GROUNDWATER
SURFACE WATER IN
CREEK
SEDIMENT IN
CREEK
AIR
EXPOSURE
POINT
ON-SITE
ON-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
ON-SITE
ON- AND OFF-
SITE
OFF-SITE
OFF-SITE
ON-SITE
EXPOSURE ROUTE
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INGESTION
INHALATION OF VOCS
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INHALATION
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INGESTION
INHALATION OF VOCS
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INGESTION
DERMAL CONTACT
INHALATION
RECEPTOR
RESIDENT
VISITOR
RESIDENT*
RESIDENT
VISITOR
RESIDENT
VISITOR
RESIDENT
VISITOR
WORKER
VISITOR
WORKER
RESIDENT
VISITOR
VISITOR
WORKER
VISITOR
Includes children who are not permitted to reside in the mobile home community but may visit.
-------
TABLE 8
Cancer Slope Factors, Tumor Site* and EPA Cancer Clascificzttonc for
Chemicals of Potential Concern
General Electric Site
- East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Chemical of
Potential Concern
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM VI
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
VANADIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
TRANS-1 ,2-OICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
1,2-OICHLOROETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
1 ,2-DICHLOROPROPANE
raiCHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
fETRACHLOROETHENE
1 ,4-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
2,4-OINITROPHENOL
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO(B AND/OR KJFLUOR-
ANTHENE*
BENZO(A)PYRENE
INDENO(1 ,2.3-CD)PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIELDRIN
TOXAPHENE
PCB-1242
PCB-12S4
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
Cancer Slope Factor / Unit Risk
CSFo
NA
4.3E+00 i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.9E+00 h
7.5E-03 1
NA
6E-01 1
NA
NA
6.1E-03 I
9.1E-02 1
6.2E-02 1
6.8E-02 h
1.1E-02 w
2.9E-02 I
5.2E-02 e
2.4E-02 h
NA
NA
NA
7.3E-01 e
7.3E-03 e
7.3E-01 e
7-3E«00 I
7.3E-01 e
7.3E-KX) e
1.6E«01
1.1E-KJO
7.7E+00
7.7E-KX)
7.7E+00
7.7E+00
Unit Risk
(Inh)
NA
2.4E-03 1
1.8E-03 1
1.2E-02 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-05 h
4.7E-07 i
NA
5.0E-05 i
NA
NA
2.3E-05 i
Z6E-05 1
NA
NA
1.7E-06 e
8.3E-O6 1
5.9E-07 e
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.6E-03 i
3.2E-04 i
NA
NA
NA
NA
CSFi
NA
8.4E+OO 1
6.3E+00 1
4.2E+01 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.9E-01 h
1.65E-03 i
NA
1.75E-01
NA
NA
8.05E-02
9.1E-02
NA
NA
6.0E-03 e
2.9E-02 i
Z05E-03 e
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.1E-01
3.1E-03
3.1E-01
3.1E-KX)
3.1E-01
3.1E+00
1.6E+01 1
1.1E+00 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
ABSeff
NA
20%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
80%
80%
NA
60%
NA
NA
80%
80%
NA
NA
80%
80%
80%
80%
NA
NA
NA
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
CSFd
NA
2J2E+01
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4E*00
9.4E-03
NA
7.5E-01
NA
NA
7.6E-03
1.1E-01
NA
NA
1.4E-02
3.6E-02
6.5E-02
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5E+00
1.5E-02
1.5E+00
1.5E+01
1.5E-KW
1.5E+01
3.2E+01
23E*00
1.5E+01
1.5E*01
1.5E+01
1.5E+01
Tumor Sites
Oral
NA
Alettes
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Kidney
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lung, fiver
Liver
NA
Adrenals
NA
NA
Kidney
Several sites
Kidney
Liver
Liver
Leukemia
Liver
Liver
NA
NA
NA
Forestomach
Forestomach
Forestocnach
Forestomach
Forestomach
Forastomach
Liver
Uver
Uver
Liver
Uver
Uver
Inhalation
NA
Lung
Lung, trachea
Lung
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Uver
Uver, tnammaries
NA
Kidney
NA
NA
Uver
Several sites
NA
NA
Uver
Leukemia
Uver
NA
NA
NA
NA
Respiratory tract
Respiratory tract
Respiratory tract
Respiratory tract
Respiratory tract
Respiratory tract
Uver
Uver
NA
NA
NA
NA
EPA
Class
D
B2
B1
A
0
D
D
B2
D
D
D
D
A
B2
D
C
D
D
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
A
B2
B2
D
D
D
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
82
B2
B2
Sources:
i- IRIS
h- HEAST
e-ECAO
w - Withdrawn from IRIS or HEAST
* - Relative potency of benzo(b)fluoranthene used
CSFo - Cancer Slope Factor (oral), (mg/kg/day)-1
Unit Risk (inhalation)- (ug/cu m>-1
CSFI - Cancer Slope Factor (inhalation), (mg/kg/day)-1
CSFd - Cancer Slope Factor (dermal), (mo/Xg/day)-1
ABSeff-Absorption efficiency: 20% Inorganics, 50% semMolatiles. 80% volataes
NA - Not AppBcabte (no data)
EPA Class:
A - Human carcinogen
B - Probable human carcinogen
C - Possible human carcinogen
D - Not classifiable as a human carcinogen
-------
TABLE 9
Reference Doses and Target Sites for
Chemicals of Potential Concern
General Electric Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Chemical of
Potential Concern
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM (water)
CADMIUM (food)
CHROMIUM VI
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
VANADIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE (water)
MANGANESE (food)
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
FRANS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHEN
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-OICHLOROETHANE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
1 ,2-OICHLOROPROPANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
1 ,4-OICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
2.4-OINITROPHENOL
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
CHRYSENE
BENZO(B AND/OR K)FLUOR-
ANTHENE
BENZO-A-PYRENE
INDENO(1 ,2.3-CD)PYRENE
DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE
DIELDRIN
TOXAPHENE
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
Reference Dose / Concentration
RfDo
7E-02 1
5E-03 i
5E-O4 i
1E-03 i
5E-03 i
3.71E-02 h
5E-03 i
2E-02 i
NA
6E-01 i
7E-03 h
1E-KX) e
5E-03 i
1.4E-01 I
NA
6E-02 I
1E-01 i
9E-03 i
1E-02 h
2E-02 I
1E-02 i
NA
2E-02 i
NA
6E-03 e
NA
1E-02 i
NA
5E-04 e
5E-04 i
2E-03 i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5E-05 i
NA
NA
2E-05 i
NA
NA
RfC
5E-04 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5E-05 i
NA
3E+00 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4E-03 i
NA
NA
NA
8E-O1 i
NA
2E-03 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
RfDI
1.43E-04 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.43E-05 i
NA
8.57E-01 h
2.86E-03 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.86E-03 e
NA
1.14E-03 i
NA
1.71E-03 e
NA
Z29E-01 i
NA
5.71 E-04 h
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ABSeff
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
NA
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%
NA
80%
NA
80%
NA
80%
NA
80%
80%
80%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50%
NA
NA
50%
NA
NA
RfDd
1E-02
1E-03
1E-04
2E-04
1E-03
7E-03
1E-03
4E-03
NA
1E-01
1E-03
2E-01
1E-03
3E-02
NA
SE-02
8E-02
7E-03
8E-03
2E-02
8E-03
NA
2E-02
NA
5E-03
NA
8E-03
NA
4E-04
4E-04
2E-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-05
NA
NA
1E-05
NA
NA
Target Sites /Effects
Oral
Incr. Wood pressure
NOAEL
Proteinuria
NOAEL
NOAEL
Gl irritation
Incr. uric acid levels
Deer, body/organ wts.
CNS effects, blood
Rachfticbone
NOAEL
Unspecified
CNS effects
NOAEL
NA
Liver
Fetal tox/malformation
Liver
Deer, hematocrit
Incr. serum phosphatase
Fatty cyst in fiver
NA
Renal cytomegaly
NA
Liver
NA
Liver
NA
Not specified
Blood, adrenal, kidney
Cataract formation
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Liver
NA
NA
Eyes, nails, immune syst.
NA
NA
Inhalation
Fetotoxicity
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CNS effects. Wooe
NA
NA
NA
NA
NOAEL
NA
Liver
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Not specified
NA
Nasal mucosa
NA
Not specified
NA
Liver
NA
Blood
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sources:
i- IRIS
h- HEAST
e-ECAO
RfDo - Reference Dose (oral), (mg/kg/day)
RfC - Reference Concentration (air), (mg/cu m)
RfDi- Reference Dose (inhalation), (mg/kg/day)
ABSeff- Absorption efficiency: 20% inorganics, 50% semrvioJatiles, 80% volatiles
RfDd - Reference Dose (dermal), (mg/kg/day)
NA - Not Applicable (no data)
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
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.
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.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single contaminant in a single medium is
expressed as the hazard quotient (HQ), or the ratio of 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).
Current Use
Cancer and noncancer risks for the current use scenario for the Shepherd Farm Site are
summarized in Table 10. Noncancer health effects are considered possible for an adult and
53
-------
TABLE 10
Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route
Current Use Scenario
Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Location
Site Surface
Soil
Stream
Water
Stream
Sediment
Exposure
Route
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Dust
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
TOTAL CURRENT RISK
Child Resident
Cancer
2E-04
9E-05
3E-07
1E-09
9E-09
NA
NA
3E-04
HI
12
3
8E-12
0.00003
0.0002
0.001
0.0001
15
Adult Resident
Cancer
8E-05
8E-OS
3E-07
1E-09
8E-09
NA
NA
2E-04
HI
1
0.7
2E-12
0.00001
0.00004
0.0001
0.00003
2
Lifetime Resident
(6-yr + 24-yr)
Cancer
3E-04
2E-04
6E-07
3E-09
2E-08
NA
NA
4E-04
HI
3
1
3E-12
0.00001
0.0001
0.0002
0.00005
5
Site Visitor
Cancer
4E-06
4E-06
1E-08
8E-10
5E-09
NA
NA
7E-06
HI
0.1
0.1
2E-13
0.00001
0.0001
0.0002
0.00005
0.2
HI Hazard Index (noncancer risk)
NA Not Applicable
-------
Record of Decision ; September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
child resident, as well as a lifetime resident. Noncancer health effects are not expected for the
site visitor. Estimates of cancer risk for a child resident (3E-04), adult resident (2E-04) and the
lifetime resident (4E-04) were above the acceptable range.
Future Use
Cancer and noncancer risks associated with the future use scenario are summarized in Table 11
for the GE Site and Table 12 for the Shepherd Farm Site. As measured by hazard indices,
noncancer health effects are considered possible due to ingestion of groundwater obtained from
within the contaminant plume. Unacceptable cancer risks are also considered possible due to
the contamination.
Contaminant Risk
The quantified carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazard indices for each chemical of
concern are given in Tables 13, 14, and 15 for soil and groundwater.
E. Ecological Risk Assessment
Potential pathways by receptor groups is shown in Table 16. The exposure media are surface
soils, sediments, and surface waters. Bat Fork Creek along the GE property has been impacted
by releases from the site; however, the stream appears to be recovering as it flows past the Site.
PCBs were detected in fish at levels that are considered harmful. Additional downstream fish
tissue sampling is recommended to fully characterize the extent of PCB contamination in the fish
population and to assess potential impacts on secondary consumers (e.g., kingfishers, heron, or
other fish-eating species) that are known to occur downstream of the site. EPA will incorporate
this sampling as part of the remedy.
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.
VH. APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARS)
In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions must be protective of human
health and the environment and must comply with all federal, state, and local applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements. The remediation goals must meet regulatory
requirements and protect human health and the environment. This section will present the
55
-------
TABLE 11
Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route
Future Use Scenario
General Electric Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Location
Site Surface
Soil
Stream
Water
Stream
Sediment
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Dust
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Inhalation of VOCs
TOTAL FUTURE RISK
Child Resident
Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6E-04
NA
6E-04
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
60
NA
60
Adult Resident
Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9E-04
9E-05
1E-03
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
26
0.8
27
Lifetime Resident
(6-yr + 24-yr)
Cancer
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2E-03
9E-05
2E-03
HI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
0.8
35
On-site Worker
Cancer
2E-05
1E-05
3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
4E-04
3E-05
4E-04
HI
0.1
0.1
2E-12
NA
NA
NA
NA
9
0.3
10
Site Visitor
Cancer
2E-06
2E-06
2E-08
2E-09
1E-08
6E-08
6E-08
NA
NA
4E-06
HI
0.04
0.03
3E-13
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
NA
0.1
HI Hazard Index (noncancer risk)
NA Not Applicable
-------
TABLE 12
Summary of Cancer and Noncancer Risks by Exposure Route
Future Use Scenario
Shepherd Farm Site
East Flat Rock, North Carolina
Location
Site Surface
Soil
Stream
Water
Stream
Sediment
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation of Dust
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inadvertent Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Inhalation of VOCs
TOTAL FUTURE RISK
Child Resident
Cancer
2E-04
9E-05
3E-07
1E-09
9E-09
NA
NA
6E-05
NA
3E-04
HI
12
3
8E-12
0.00003
0.0002
0.001
0.0001
20
NA
35
Adult Resident
Cancer
8E-05
8E-05
3E-07
1E-09
8E-09
NA
NA
1E-04
4E-06
3E-04
HI
1
0.7
2E-12
0.00001
0.00004
0.0001
0.00003
9
NA
11
Lifetime Resident
(6-yr + 24-yr)
Cancer
3E-04
2E-04
6E-07
3E-09
2E-08
NA
NA
2E-04
4E-06
6E-04
HI
3
1
3E-12
0.00001
0.0001
0.0002
0.00005
11
NA
16
Site Visitor
Cancer
4E-06
4E-06
1E-08
8E-10
5E-09
NA
NA
NA
NA
7E-06
HI
0.1
0.1
2E-13
0.00001
0.0001
0.0002
0.00005
NA
NA
0.2
HI Hazard Index (noncancer risk)
-------
TABLE 13
CHEMICALS OF CONCERN - SOIL
CHEMICALS OF
CONCERN
SHEPHERD FARM
CHILD RESIDENT
SCENARIO
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM VI
COPPER
MOLYBDENUM
PCB-1254
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
SHEPHERD FARM
ADULT RESIDENT
SCENARIO
COPPER
PCB-1254
PCB-1248
PCB-1260
GE ON-SITE
WORKER SCENARIO
PCB-1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1260
INCIDENTAL INGESTION
CANCER RISK
NA
NA
NA
NA
6E-05
9E-05
3E-05
NA
3E-05
4E-05
1E-05
1E-06
4E-06
8E-06
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
0.1
0.1
7
0.1
5
NA
NA
0.7
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
DERMAL CONTACT
CANCER
RISK
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-05
5E-05
2E-05
NA
3E-05
4E-05
1E-05
9E-07
3E-06
6E-06
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
0.01
0.02
0.9
0.01
2
NA
NA
0.2
0.5
NA
NA
NA
0.1
NA
INHALATION OF DUST
CANCER
RISK
6E-09
3E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HAZARD
QUOTIENT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SELECTION
BASIS
!
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
14
ChMtiicals of Concern
Oroundwater
General Electric Site
EMt Flat Rock, North Carolina
GiMfnicwB of Coctctni
0 n 1 t
BARIUM
BERYLUUM
NICKEL
LEAD
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1.1-dCHLOROETHENE
O3-1.2-DICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-OICHLOROETHANE
FRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
rETRACHLOROETHENE
NITROBENZENE
Child R
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,2-DICHLOROETHENE
rRANS-U-OICHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-OICHLOROETHANE
FRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE .
rETRACHLOROETHENE
U.4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE
NITROBENZENE
2.4-DINITROPHENOL
Inaesuon
Cancer
Risk
W o i
NA
2E-05
NA
NA
NA
2E-05
1E-07
2E-06
NA
2E-07
1E-05
2E-06
3E-07
3E-04
NA
Hazard
Quotient
Inhalation of VOCt
Cancer
Rltk
Hazard
Quotient
Selection
Baals
k«r Scenario
0.1
0.003
0.01
NA
7
NA
0.001
0.001
0.2
0.01
NA
0.1
NA
2
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-06
3E-08
5E-07
NA
3E-06
1E-05
1E-06
3E-07
1E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0001
NA
NA
NA
0.2
NA
0.02
NA
0.1
1.2
1.2
2
2
1.2
1.2
2
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2
1.2
1
e s I d e n t Scenario
NA
4E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3E-05
2E-07
3E-06
NA
NA
3E-07
2E-05
4E-06
4E-07
SE-04
NA
NA
NA
0.3
0.02
0.03
NA
0.1
0.3
46
NA
0.01
0.01
1
0.1
0.1
NA
0.7
NA
10
0.1
0.9
0.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.2
1.2
2
2
1
1
1.2
1.2
2
1
1.2
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
2
1.2
1
1
1
Adult Resident Scenario
BARIUM
BERYLUUM
NICKEL
LEAD
STRONTIUM
ALUMINUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
1.1-01CHLOROETHENE
CIS-1 ,2-OtCHLOROETHENE
CHLOROFORM
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
rETRACHLOROETHENE
NITROBENZENE
2,4-OINITROPHENOL
NA
6E-OS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5E-05
4E-07
4E-06
NA
5E-07
4E-05
6E-06
7E-07
8E-04
NA
NA
0.1
0.01
0.01
NA
0.1
0.1
20
NA
0.002
0.002
0.6
0.03
NA
0.3
NA
4
0.4
0.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8E-06
8E-08
1E-06
NA
7E-06
4E-05
3E-06
7E-07
3E-05
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0002
NA
NA
NA
0.4
NA
0.04
NA
0.3
NA
1.2
1,2
2
2
1
1
1.2
1.2
2
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2
1.2
1
1
1. Exceeds excess cancer risk of 1xE-6 and/or HQ of 0.1
2. Exceed* ARAR
NA not applicable
-------
TABLE 15
Chemicals of Concern
Groundwater
Shepherd Farm Site
ast Flat Rock, North Carolina
Chemicals of Concern
Ingestion
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Quotient
Inhalation of VOCs
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Quotient
Selection
Basis
Child Resident Scenario
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
NA
4E-05
NA
1E-05
1E-05
0.7
0.02
19
NA
0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1,2
1,2
Adult Resident Scenario
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
MANGANESE
VINYL CHLORIDE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
NA
6E-05
NA
2E-05
2E-05
0.3
0.01
8
NA
0.1
NA
NA
NA
3E-06
7E-07
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1,2
1,2
1,2
1. Exceeds excess cancer risk of 1 x E-6 and/or HQ of 0.1
2. Exceeds ARAR
NA not applicable
-------
TABLE 16
POTENTIAL PATHWAYS BY RECEPTOR GROUPS
GENERAL ELECTRIC/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
Soil Invertebrates, Terrestrial
Plants, Amphibians, and Wildlife
Soil Invertebrates and Wildlife
Plant-eating Invertebrates,
Reptiles, and Wildlife
Aquatic Biota and Wildlife
Wildlife (Birds and Mammals)
Wildlife and Fish
Benthic Invertebrates, Bottom-
Feeding Fish, and Wildlife
Benthic Invertebrates, and
Wildlife
Wildlife and Fish
EXPOSURE
MEDIA
Surface Soil
Soil/Grit
Surface Soil
Surface Water
Surface Water
Surface Water
Sediment
Sediment
Sediment
EXPOSURE
TYPE
Direct
Direct
Indirect
Direct
Direct
Indirect
Direct
Direct
Indirect
EXPOSURE
ROUTE
Absorption or
Direct Contact
Ingestion
Diet
Absorption or
Direct Contact
Ingestion
Diet
Absorption or
Direct Contact
Ingestion
Diet
-------
Sampling Station
/\
N
Approximate Scale
0 SCO
Idon Clark
104
Shcpher/1 Farm
103
102
Spring
Haven
Tnuler Pk.
an I Unnamed Tributary
Figure 23 Sampling stations along streams in the vicinity o( General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site, East Flat Rock, Nc<-
Carolina. November 1994.
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
ARARs and present the remediation goals.
The requirement that ARARs be identified and complied with during the development and
implementation of remedial aqtions is found in Section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
Section 9621(d)(2). This section requires that for any hazardous substance remaining onsite, all
federal and state environmental and facility citing standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations
shall be met at the completion of the remedial action to the degree that those requirements are
legally applicable or appropriate and relevant under the circumstances presented at the site.
Three classifications of requirements are defined by EPA in the ARAR determination process:
Chemical-specific: These requirements set protective remediation levels for the
chemicals of concern.
Location-specific: These requirements restrict remedial actions based on the
characteristics of the site or its immediate surroundings, and are based on where
the action takes place.
Action-specific: These requirements set controls or restrictions on the design,
implementation, and performance levels of activities related to the management
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
A. 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. Chemical-specific requirements set health- or risk-based concentration limits or
ranges in various environmental media for specific hazardous substances, contaminants, and
pollutants. These ARARs, when applied to site-specific conditions, establish numerical values
that define the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that may be found in, or
discharged to, the ambient environment. Examples include drinking water standards and ambient
air quality standards. Chemical-specific ARARs are established once the nature of the
contamination at the site has been defined, which is accomplished during the RI. Chemical-
specific ARARs for this site are listed in Table 17.
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. Location-specific
62
-------
SLE17 CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARAKS, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR THE OB/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
rANDARD, REQUIREMENT, CR1TERIA.OR UM1TATION
CITATION
REQIHREMENTS SYNOPSIS
COMMENT
JDERAL
ife Drinking Water Act
Nationil Prinury Drinking Water Slandaidt
National Secondary Drinking Water SUndardi
Miximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Ooil§
lean Water Act
Wiler Quality Criteria
etource Confervalion and Recoveiy Act (RCRA), at amended
RCRA Oroundwater Protection
lean Air Act
National Prinury and Secondiiy Ambient Air Quality Standarda
National Bmiuiona Slandarda for Hazardoua Air Pollutinta
(NESHAPi)
Guidance on Remedial Acliona for Superiund Site* with PCB
'ontamination
Cleanup Level Deteiminalion
40 USC Section 300
40 CPR Part 141
40 CPR 143
40CFR 141
33 USC Section
1251-1376
40 CFR Part 131
42 USC 6905.
6912,6924,6925
40 CFR Part 264
40 USC 1857
40 CFR Part 50
40 CFR Part 61
OSWER Directive
No. 9355.4-01
Chapter 3
Eiublithei health-bated atandarda for public water tyitemt
(MCL«).
EtUbliihei welfare-bated tUndardt for public water tyttema
(secondary MCLt).
Eatablithei drinking water quality goili tet at levela of no
known or anticipated advene health effect*.
Sett criteria for water quality baaed on toxicity lo aquatic
orgtnitmt and human health.
Provide! for groundwater protection ttandarda, general
monitoring requiramenta, and technical requirementa.
Sett primary and tecondaiy air itandarde at levelt to protect
public health and public welfare.
Provide! emiiiiont tlandard for hezardout air pollutant! for
which no ambient air quality ttandard exiila.
Directive which deacribet EPA'a recommended approach
for evaluating and remediating Superfund aitea with PCB
contamination.
Detcribet varioua comiderationa pertinent to determining
the appropriate level of PCBa that can be left in each
contaminated media lo achieve the protection of human
health and the environment.
The MCLa for organic and inorganic conurninanli are
applicable lo the groundwaler contaminated by the tile aince the
aquifer it a drinking water tource.
Secondary MCLa for organic and inorganic contaminant! are
guideline! to be coniidered for groundwaler tinea il ii a
drinking water tource.
MCLQt for organic and inorganic contaminanlt are applicable lo
the groundwater tince il it a drinking water aource.
May be relevant and appropriate if groundwaler, either treated
or untreated, it ditcharged to a turface water body. Alto
relevant and appropriate to any runoff from contaminated toil or
aoil remediation activittei.
RCRA groundwater protection itandardt are relevant and
appropriate for groundwater at the tite.
May be relevant and appropriate if ontite treatment unita or
excavation are a part of remedial action.
May he relevant and appropriate if ontite treatment unita or
excavation are a part of remedial action.
Guideline! lo be coniidered for PCB-contarninated aurface aoila
at the tite.
lorth Carolina Drinking Water Act
lorth Carolina Drinking Water and Oroundwater Standard!
lorth Carolina Water Quality Standarda
lorth Carolina Surface Water Effluent Limitation!
lorth Carolina Air Pollution Control Regulation!
lorth Carolina Hazardoua Watte Management Rulet
130A NCAC 311- Regulate! water eyilemi within die Mate that aupply drinking
327 water that may affect the public health.
15ANCAC2L Eatablithea groundwater cltaiification and water quality
itandarda.
15A NCAC 2B.0100 Etlablithei a tenet of claitificttioni and water quality
cfe 0200 itandtidi for turftce water.
15A NCAC 2B.0400 Ettabliihet limit! and guideline! for effluent ditchtrged
to watera of the atate.
15A NCAC 2D Regulalea ambient air quality and etublitet air quality
atandardt for hazardout air pollutant!.
15A NCAC Ettabliahei itandarda for hazardoua waste treatment
13A.0009&.0012 facililiei.
Providea the Hate with the authority needed lo aatume primtiy
enforcement reiponiibilily under the federal act.
Guideline! for allowable levela of toxic organic and inorganic
compound! in groundwater uied for drinking water. Applicable
lo groundwater at the tite.
May be applicable if treated groundwater it diacharged lo
aurface walera.
May be applicable if treated groundwater il diicharged lo
turface water.
May be applicable if ontile treatment or excavation il part of
Remedial Action.
May be applicable if hazardoui waile it excavated and itored or
treated ±1 part of the Remedial Action.
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
requirements set restrictions on the types of remedial activities that can be performed based on
site-specific characteristics or location. Examples include areas in a flood plain, a wetland, or
a historic site. Location-specific criteria are generally established early in the RI/FS process
since they are not affected by the type of contaminant or the type of remedial action
implemented. Location-specific ARARs for this site are listed in Table 18.
C. Action-specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are technology-based, establishing performance, design, or other similar
action-specific controls or regulations for activities related to the management of hazardous
substances or pollutants. Action-specific requirements are triggered by the particular remedial
alternatives that are selected to accomplish the cleanup of hazardous wastes. An example
includes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) incineration regulations. Action-
specific ARARs for this site are listed in Table 19 and Table 20 for soil and groundwater,
respectively.
Media of Concern
Based on the results of the remedial investigation and the baseline risk assessment, the
GE/Shepherd Farm Site is comprised of two contaminated media; soil and groundwater.
Surface water was not included as a medium of concern based on the fact that if groundwater
feeding the surface water in the area is remediated and if discharge to Bat Fork Creek from the
wastewater treatment ponds is terminated, surface water will be remediated. The approach used
is based on remediation of the source. Surface water quality will be monitored to determine the
effectiveness of this approach.
Vm. REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Considering the requirements for risk reduction and the risk-based remediation levels derived
in the Baseline Risk Assessment, and the ARARs discussed previously, the remediation goals
specifically developed for the soil in the source areas of the GE/Shepherd Farm Site are
presented in Table 21. The remediation goals for groundwater across the entire site are
presented in Table 22.
The remediation goals, presented in Tables 21 and 22, were selected as the most conservative
of the chemical specific ARARs, the health-based risk goals, and the contract required
quantitation limit (CRQL) that was attainable. The background concentration would have been
selected as the remediation goal if it had exceeded the risk-based goal, as is the normal
procedure. Remediation goals were also selected based on present and future land use at the site,
assuming the GE Subsite would remain commercial/industrial, and Shepherd Farm Subsite to
64
-------
TABLE 18 - LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARS, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, CRITERIA,
OR LIMITATION
CITATION
REQUIREMENTS SYNOPSIS
COMMENT
FEDERAL
Resource Conservation and Recovery Acl (RCRA),
as amended
RCRA Location Standards
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
Floodplain Management Executive Order
Endangered Species Act
Wetlands Management Executive Order
STATE
North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management
Rules
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rules
42 USC 6901
40CFR264.18(b)
16 USC 2901 et seq.
Executive Order 11988;
40 CFR 6.302
16 USC 1531
Executive Order 11990;
40 CFR 6.302
ISA NCAC I3A.0009&
.0012
ISA NCAC 13B.0500
A treatment/storage/disposal (TSD) facility must be designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained to avoid washout on a 100-year floodplain.
Requires states to identify significant habitats and develop conservation plans for
these areas.
Actions that are to occur in floodplain should avoid adverse effects, minimize
potential harm, restore and preserve natural and beneficial value.
Requires action to conserve endangered species or threatened species, including
consultation with the Department of Interior.
Action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands.
Location requirements for hazardous waste treatment/storage/disposal facilities.
Siting requirements for solid waste disposal units.
May be relevant and appropriate if an onsile
TSD facility is required as port of overall
remediation and it exists within the 100-year
floodplain.
Confirmation with the responsible slntr agency
regarding the site being located in one of these
significant habitats is required
Remedial actions are to prevent inou'Mon ot'
contaminated groundwaler onto forested
floodplain.
Endangered species, in partieuhir the liunched
arrowhead plant, have been identified near the
site.
Potential remedial alternatives wiiliin u.x-tl«iuls
Requirement is relevant and appropriate.
May he applicable lo hir/.iiruou* waste
excavated, stored, and treated onsile.
May be relevant and npproprinte to
nonhazardous waste disposed onsite.
-------
ABLE 19 - ACTJON-SPEClFiC ARAKS, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR SOIL FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, CRITERIA,
OR LIMITATION
CITATION
REQUIREMENTS SYNOPSIS
COMMENT
FEDERAL
Disposal (Onsite or Of/site)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), IB amended
Classification of Hazardous Wnle
Land Disposal Restrictions
Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous M«teri«li
TniuporUtion Act
Soil Treatment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), n amended
Identification of Hazardoua Watte
Treatment of Hazardoui Wattea in a Unit
Requirement! for Generation. Storage, Transportation, and
Diapoaal of Hazardoui Waste
Waste Piles
Tank Systems
Use and Management of Containers
Land Dispoaal Restrictions
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
PCBs Spill Cleanup Policy
42 USC Section 6901 et. seq.
40CFR261
40 CFR 268.10-12
40 CFR 268 (Subpart D)
49 USC 1801
40 USC Section 6901 et. seq.
40 CFR 261
40 CFR 264.601
40 CFR 264
40 CFR 264 (Subpart L)
40 CFR 264 (Subpart J)
40 CFR 264 (Subpart 0
40 CFR 268.10-12
40 CFR 268 (Subpart O)
40 CFR 700-789
40 CFR 761
Federal requirements for classification and identification of hazardous wastes.
Disposal of contaminated soil and debris resulting from CERCLA response
actions are subject to federal land disposal prohibitions.
Regulates offiite transportation of specific hazardous chemicals and wastes.
Federal requirements for classification and identification of hazardous wastes.
Rules and requirements for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Regulates storage, transportation, and operation of hazardous waste
generators.
Regulate! storage and treatment of hazardous waste in piles
Regulates storage and treatment of hazardous waste in tank systems
Regulates storage of containers of hazardous waste
Establishes treatment standards for hazardous wastes.
Regulation! under TSCA implementing the requirements for the cleanup of
apilled PCBs.
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Applicable
-------
TABLE 19 (Continual) - ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARS, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR SOIL FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, CRITERIA,
OR LIMITATION
CITATION
REQUIREMENTS SYNOPSIS
COMMENT
Clean Air Act
Air Use Approval
Paniculate Discharge Limitationa and Performance Tearing
Other
Occupational Safely and Health Adminiitration
STATC
North Carolina Hazardous Watte Management Rulea
North Carolina Solid Waste Management Rulea
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Requirement!
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Rule*
North Carolina Oroundwater Regulations
40 CFR 60 (Subpart A)
40 CFR 60 (Subpart B)
29 CFR 1910 Part 120
ISA NCAC 13A
ISA NCAC 13B
ISA NCAC 2D
ISA NCAC 4
ISA NCAC 2L
Requires notification and performance testing by owner or operator.
Defines limitations for paniculate emissions, test methods, and monitoring
requirements for incinerators.
Provides safety rules for handling specific chemicals for site workers during
remedial activities.
Siting and design requirements for hazardous waste TSDs.
Siting and design requirements for disposal sites.
Air pollution control, air quality, and emissions control standards.
Requirements for prevention of sedimentation pollution.
Section 106 includes requirements for the cleanup and/or control of
contaminant source areas.
Relevant and A;jprop '.«
Relevant and Appropriate
Applicable
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate-
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
-------
TABLE 20 - ACTION-SPECIFIC AKARS, CRITERIA, AND GUIDANCE FOR GROUND WATER FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
STANDARD, REQUIREMENT, CRITERIA,
OR LIMITATION
CITATION
REQUIREMENTS SYNOPSIS
COiVfMENT
FEDERAL
Groundwater Extraction and Treatment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), ai
amended
Identification of Hazardous Waste
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes in a Unit
Requirements for Generation, Storage,
Transportation, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Restrictions
Disposal Discharge to Surface Water/FOTW
Clean Water Act
Requites use of Best Available Treatment Technology
Requires Use of Best Management Practices
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Regulations
Discharge must be consistent with the requirements of
a Water Quality Management Plan approved by EPA
Discharge must not increase contaminant
concentrations in offsite surface water.
Other
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
STATE
North Carolina Water Quality Standards
North Carolina Groundwater Standards
Wastewater Discharge lo Surface Waters
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Requirements
42 USC Section 6901 et. seq.
40CFR261
40 CFR 264.601
40 CFR 265.400
40CFR263
40 CFR 264
40 CFR 268
33 USC Section 1351-1376
40 CFR 122
40 CFR 125
40CFR mSubp.rtC
40 CFR 122
Section 121 (d)(2)(B)(iii)
29 CFR 1910 Part 120
I5ANCAC2B
15A NCAC 2L
ISA NCAC 2H
15A NCAC 2D
Federal requirements for classification and identification of hazardous wastes.
Rules and requirements for the treatment of hazardous wastes.
Regulates storage, transportation, and operation of hazardous waste generators.
Prohibits dilution as a substitute for treatment.
Use of best available technology economically achievable is required to control discharge of
toxic pollutants to POTW.
Requires development and implementation of a Best Management Practices program to
prevent the release of toxic constituents 16 surface water.
Use of best available technology economically achievable for toxic pollutants discharged to
surface waters.
Discharge must comply with EPA-approved Water Quality Management Plan.
Selected remedial action must establish a standard of control to maintain surface water
quality.
Provides safety rules for handling specific chemicals for site workers during remedial
activities.
Surface water quality standards.
Oroundwater quality standards, regulates injection wells.
Regulates surface water discharge and discharges to POTW.
Air pollution control air quality and emissions standards.
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and A'orupriate
Relevant and ..;:. jpriste
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Applicable
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
Relevant and Appropriate
-------
TABLE 21 - REMEDIATION GOALS FOE SOIL FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM
SITE
CONTAMINANT
PCBs (TOTAL)
REMEDIATION GOAL
1
SHEPHERD
FARM _,
1 MG/KG
GE
10 MG/KG
BASIS
OSWER DIRECTIVE
NO. 9355.4-01
TABLE 22 - REMEDIATION GOALS FOR GROUNDWATER FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
CONTAMINANT
Organics
Vinyl Chloride
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1 , 2-Dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Nitrobenzene
Metals
Barium
Beryllium
Nickel
Lead
Manganese
MAX
(UG/L)
2.8
380
9.4
130
130
2.7
1,600
36
4,000
15
190
15
5,000
REMEDIATION
GOAL (UG/L)
1
70
1
1
2.8
1
1
10
2,000
4
100
15
50
HI - Hazard Index NC - North Carolina FED - Federal Safe Drin
CRQL - Contract Required Quantitation Limit MCL - Maximum Contai
BASIS
CRQL (NC MCL - 0.015 ug/1)
NCMCL
CRQL (NC MCL - 0.19 ug/1)
CRQL (NC MCL - 0.38 ug/1)
NCMCL
NCMCL
CRQL (NC MCL - 0.7 ug/1)
ffl=l
NCMCL
FED MCL
FED MCL
FEDERAL ACTION LEVEL
NCMCL
king Water Act
ninant Level
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NK v.. ' ' '
be residential.
The areal extent of soil contamination above the remediation levels presented in Table 18 is
presented in Figures 24 and 25. The estimated volume of soil exceeding remediation levels at
the Shepherd Farm Subsite is 6,400 cubic yards, and 3,980 at the GE Subsite.
The areal extent of groundwater contamination above the remediation levels in Table 22 is
presented in Figures 26 and 27. The estimated volume of groundwater exceeding remediation
levels at the Shepherd Farm Subsite is 6,372,000 gallons and 1,256,752,200 gallons at the GE
Subsite.
K. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Table 23 lists the remedial action alternatives developed for the GE/Shepherd Farm Site.
The alternatives designated as "SS" are applicable to the surface soils and those designated as
"GW" apply to the ground water. All the alternatives except the "No Action" alternative include
periodic monitoring of the ground water including onsite monitoring wells and potable wells for
site indicator parameters to evaluate the site conditions and the migration of chemicals over time.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Under the no action alternative, the site is left "as is" and no funds are expended for active
control or cleanup of the surface soils and ground water. The NCP requires consideration of
this alternative as a baseline case for comparing other remedial actions and the level of
improvement achieved. However, 5-year reviews of the site, which consist of one round of
sampling selected monitoring wells and potable wells, would be conducted over an estimated 30-
year period.
Alternative 2 - Institutional Actions
This alternative consists of leaving the source areas as they are without conducting any remedial
action, with groundwater monitoring and institutional controls. This alternative includes
maintenance of a chain-link fence around the perimeter of the source areas. Annual inspection
of the fence is conducted to prevent direct exposure to impacted site soils. Repair is instituted
upon report of vandalism or other acts which result in unrestricted access. This alternative also
includes deed, permit and zoning restrictions on and near the property that prohibit excavation,
regrading, development of the site, ground-water usage, issuance of well drilling permits, or
any other activities that may cause exposure to impacted soils and ground water. The 5-year
reviews would be required because concentrations of chemicals remain at the site above levels
that allow unlimited use of the site.
70
-------
QKLOJ.Q
m
mO
nm
i
oq
o
Is
o?
co
>m
O
c
7)
m
LEGEND
- SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
- CONTAMINATED SOIL
SPRING HAVEN
TRAILER PARK
-------
-------
J9Z1010
m
00
O =H
7:5
" O
>i
s§
50-0
01
cm
z^J
oo
ms:
31
o
c
70
m
ON
LEGEND
, TEMPORARY MONITOR
WELL LOCATIONS
VTA GROUND WATER PLUME
CONCENTRATIONS IN pg/L
**
1.1J VINYL CHLORIDE
1.2J CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
0.98J TRICHLOROETHENE
29 TETRACHLOROETHENE
-------
-MONITOR WELL
ND - NOT DETECTED
30 CONCENTRATIONS ng/L
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN FEET
V
FIGURE
GROUND WATER PLUME
GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FLAT ROCK, NORTH CAROLINA
O
&EPA
1000.00
500.00
300.00
100.00
50.00
-------
TABLE 23- REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR SURFACE SOILS AND GROUNDWATER
FOR THE GE/SHEPHERD FARM SITE
AJLTERNATIVE
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative SS3
Alternative SS4
Alternative SS5
Alternative GW6a
Alternative GW6b
Alternative GW7a
Alternative GW7b
DESCRffTION
No Action
Institutional Action
Excavation of the 0 to 12 inch zone of surface soils. Disposal of soils in a
RCRA Subtitle D MSWLF.
Excavation of the 0 to 12 inch zone of surface soils. Disposal on-site as backfill.
Soils will require treatment to Remediation goals prior to disposal. Treatment
may consist of soil washing, solidification/stabilization or ex-situ bioremediation.
Containment with placement of a cap. Excavation of the 0 to 12 inch zone of
surface soils at the Shepherd Farm Subsite. Transportation of these soils to the
dry sludge impoundment area of the GE Subsite. Capping of the dry sludge
impoundment area, Landfills A and B on GE Subsite. Used in conjunction with
surface and dust control as well as diversion and collection of surface water.
Pump and treat affected ground water. Treatment may include filtration, air
stripping, GAC adsorption or oxidation. Discharge treated ground water on site
via surface water.
Pump and treat affected ground water. Treatment may include filtration, air
stripping, GAC adsorption or oxidation. Discharge treated ground water off site
via POTW.
Ground-water treatment consisting of a combination of in-situ bioremediation and
ex-situ treatment as noted in Alternative GW6. Discharge treated ground water
on site via surface water.
Ground-water treatment consisting of a combination of in-situ bioremediation and
ex-situ treatment as noted in Alternative GW6. Discharge treated ground water
off site via POTW.
All the alternatives except 1 include periodic monitoring of the groundwater for site indicator parameters to
evaluate the site conditions and the migration of chemicals over time.
-------
Record of Decision . September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Alternative SS3 -Excavation; Off-site Disposal
This alternative requires the excavation of the surficial soils at the site which are impacted at
concentrations exceeding the Remedial Action Goals and disposal off-site in a RCRA Subtitle
D Municipal Waste Landfill (MSWLF). Surficial soils are defined as the zone from 0 to 12
inches below grade. The excavation area is backfilled with clean fill soil. This alternative will
prohibit direct contact with the contaminants.
Construction of a temporary fence will be required around the excavation. Air quality
monitoring shall be conducted at the perimeter of the excavation site.
Alternative SS4 - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-site Disposal
Alternative SS4 is similar to alternative SS3, except that the soils are treated to the RAO's of
the site and disposal may occur on-site as backfill. Treatment processes may include soil
washing, soh'dification/stabilization, or ex-situ bioremediation.
Soil washing uses water and mechanical action to remove the contaminants that adhere physically
to the soil particles. Surficial contamination is removed from the coarse fraction of the soils by
abrasive scouring. The wash water may be augmented with a leaching agent, surfactant, pH
adjustment, or chelating agent to help remove organics or heavy metals. The spent wash water
requires further treatment, after which it is recycled back to the treatment unit. The
contaminated silt/clay fraction also requires further treatment which may consist of solidification/
tabilization. Bench scale testing will need to be conducted to verify the efficiency of the option.
Solidification/stabilization consists of excavating the surficial soils and mixing the soils with
cement and additives in a conventional concrete mixing plant. The mixture would then be
replaced in the ground in 1-foot lifts and finally rolled into compaction. Bench-scale testing
should be conducted to evaluate the soil cement concrete. The soil cement should be analyzed
for TCLP constituents. Since this option does not reduce the level of contaminants, and requires
strict deed controls, disposal would occur at the GE property.
Ex-situ bioremediation involves slot excavation of the soil in strict sequence and may consist of
placement of the soil in a treatment facility on-site. The treatment facility may consist of a
plastic film greenhouse enclosure, a soil treatment bed consisting of an engineered clay liner 12
inches thick and a drainage system to control water movement, a spray system for distributing
water, nutrients and inocula, an organic vapor control system consisting of activated carbon
absorbers, and a fermentation vessel for preparing microbial inoculum or treating contaminated
leachate for the backfill soils. If organic vapors are not a problem, the plastic greenhouse
enclosure and the organic vapor control system is not necessary. The contaminated soils would
be placed on the treatment bed in approximately 12 to 15 inch lifts, and soil conditions would
76
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
be optimized for biological activity by daily tilling and by maintenance of the appropriate soil
moisture content. The soils during treatment should be sampled weekly and analyzed for
residual contamination. Bench scale testing will need to be conducted to verify the efficiency
of this option.
Alternative SS5 - Containment
This alternative consists of capping used in conjunction with storm water management and dust
control. Capping involves the installation of an impermeable layer over the area of contaminated
soil and development of a storm water management system to route storm water off the cap in
an acceptable manner. The top foot of contaminated soil at the Shepherd Farm subsite would
be excavated and transported to the GE Subsite dry sludge impoundment area. The dry sludge
impoundment, Landfill A and Landfill B would be capped as described above. Because
portions of Landfills A and B are already paved with asphalt, asphalt is considered the most
appropriate capping material. Deed restrictions will be required to limit the use of the site and
prevent subsurface development. Annual inspection and maintenance of the containment area
will be required.
Alternative GW6a - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-site Discharge
As part of this alternative, the existing extraction well system would be utilized in conjunction
with additional extraction wells. Groundwater would be extracted from both the Shepherd Farm
Subsite and the GE Subsite. The extracted ground water would be pumped to an on-site
treatment facility. The treated ground water would then be discharged to Bat Fork Creek. The
process options for treating the VOC's in the ground water include: air stripping, granulated
activated carbon (GAC) adsorption or oxidation/UV photolysis. If metals are detected in the
effluent at concentrations above the discharge limitations, a process option to remove metals will
have to be added into the treatment train. Also, to protect and keep the air stripper functional,
the ground water may need filtering prior to treatment.
The existing treatment system is composed of extraction wells, a 10,000-gallon equalization tank,
an air stripping tower (currently not present onsite), and associated piping and pumps with
discharge to Bat Fork Creek. This is a unit operation in which a volatile component of a
solution is transferred into a gas phase. The system used for continuously contacting a liquid
and a gas (air) stream may be a tower filled with irregular solid packing material, an empty
tower into which the liquid is sprayed, or a tower containing a number of bubble cap or sieve
plates. Generally, air and liquid streams flow counter-currently through the contacting towers
hi order to achieve the greatest rate of stripping. The efficiency of the air stripping process is
mainly dependent on the air-to-water ratio, the contact time, the temperature and the physical
and chemical properties of the constituents of concern.
77
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Only one treatment system would be utilized. Groundwater extracted from the Shepherd Farm
Subsite would be piped to the treatment system located on the GE Subsite.
Bench and/or pilot studies would have to be conducted to determine if the liquid effluent would
have to undergo further treatment prior to discharge. The vapor effluent, off-gas, would have
to undergo additional treatment to destroy or remove the contaminants stripped from the ground
water prior to being discharged to the atmosphere. The off-gas may be treated by GAC
adsorption. The GAC adsorption would consist of down-flow carbon beds connected in series.
Pilot studies would have to be performed to determine the optimum feed rates, number of
columns and contact time.
The oxidation/UV photolysis process involves the use of ultraviolet light to catalyze the chemical
oxidation of organic contaminants in water by its combined effect upon organic contaminant and
its reaction with either hydrogen peroxide or ozone. The UV oxidizer reaction results in the
formation of hydroxyl radicals, which then react with organic contaminants in water.
Any sludge generated will have to be tested for TCLP parameters prior to disposal as either a
soil or hazardous waste. The spent GAC may be either transported off-site for regeneration at
a permitted facility or disposed at a permitted facility. The spent GAC is considered a
hazardous waste and is subject to RCRA recycling regulations.
Alternative GW6b - Ex-Situ Treatment; Off-Site Discharge
Alternative GW6b is identical to alternative GW6a, except that the treated ground water would
be discharged to the local POTW. Discharge criteria would be set by the POTW.
Alternative GW7a - Groundwater Treatment; Gradient Control; On-Site Disposal
Alternative GW7a consists of both in-situ and ex-situ groundwater treatment, extraction wells,
an infiltration gallery, and on-site discharge of treated water. The unit processes involve
constructing infiltration trenches on the Shepherd Farm and GE Subsites at appropriate locations
which would be used to introduce microorganisms, nutrients and oxygen (if aerobic). This
system would require a source of water and a holding/mixing tank for combining the water,
nutrients and oxygen source prior to introduction into the aquifer through the infiltration gallery.
Extraction wells would be installed around the perimeter of the contaminant plume and in the
source areas as well as down gradient of the infiltration trenches. A significant advantage of this
alternative is that the extraction wells would provide gradient control. The extracted ground
water would be treated in accordance to the ex-situ treatment options presented in Alternative
GW6a. The treated water may be discharged either to Bat Fork Creek or used as a source of
water in the in-situ treatment of the groundwater.
78
-------
,-.:ecord of Decision . September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
In-situ bioremediation is used in conjunction with the ex-situ treatment to degrade the
contaminants of concern in the aquifer because "conventional" pump and treat methods generally
fail to remove the fraction of organic contaminants which are adsorbed to the organic and
mineral components of the aquifer matrix. This contaminant fraction may be unrecoverable
using standard pumping methods and will continue to slowly solubilize into the ground water.
Bioremediation schemes attempt to either stimulate naturally occurring aerobic or anaerobic
microorganisms to degrade contaminants in-situ, or introduce microorganisms capable of
degrading the contaminants. Typically, biodegradable contaminants can be degraded at rates
which are orders of magnitude greater than the leaching rate of the contaminants in an aquifer
system, provided growth limiting nutrients and oxygen are added. Bench testing must be
conducted to verify the efficiency of this system and to determine whether aerobic or anaerobic
bioremediation would provide the optimum remediation of site contaminants. In addition, deed,
permit and zoning restrictions on and near the property may be enacted during the remediation
process.
Alternative GWTb - Groundwater Treatment; Gradient Control; Off-Site Disposal
This alternative is similar to alternative GW7a except that the treated water would be discharged
to the local POTW.
X. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In this section, each alternative is assessed using seven evaluation criteria required under
CERCLA. Comparison of the alternatives with respect to these evaluation criteria are presented
in summary form. This approach is designed to provide sufficient information to adequately
compare the alternatives, aid in the selection of an appropriate remedy for the site, and
demonstrate satisfaction of the statutory requirements upon preparation of the Record of Decision
(ROD).
Each alternative is evaluated in terms of its ability to:
Be protective of human health and the environment.
Attain ARARs or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Satisfy the preference for treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume of
the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants as a principal element.
79
-------
Record of Decision ._ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Be cost-effective.
The seven evaluation criteria required to address the above CERCLA requirements serve as the
basis for conducting the detailed analysis. The evaluation criteria are briefly described below.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment determines whether
each alternative meets the requirement that it be protective of human health and
the environment in both the short- and long-term, from unacceptable risks posed
by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. This criterion is of key
importance. While the remedy selected may on occasion seek a waiver of a given
ARAR, the remedy selected must be protective of human health and the
environment.
2. Compliance with ARARs is used to determine how each alternative complies with
federal and state ARARs as defined in CERCLA Section 121, as discussed in
Section 3, or provide grounds for invoking one of the waivers.
3. Short-Term Effectiveness addresses the impacts of the alternatives during the
construction and implementation phase until remedial response objectives have
been met. Alternatives are evaluated with respect to their short-term effects on
human health and the environment.
4. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence addresses the results of a remedial
action in terms of the risk remaining at the site after response objectives have
been met. The primary focus of this evaluation is the effectiveness of the
controls that will be applied to manage risk posed by treatment residuals or
untreated wastes.
5. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume addresses the statutory preference
for selecting remedial actions that employ treatment technologies that permanently
and significantly reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substance
as their principal element. This preference is satisfied when treatment is used to
reduce the principal threats at the site through destruction of toxic contaminants,
irreversible reduction in contaminant mobility, or reduction of total volume of
contaminated media.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative and the availability of various services and materials
required during its implementation.
7. Cost estimates for the FS are expected to provide an order-of-magnitude
80
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/ShepL*rd. Farm NPL 5J.ice
evaluation for comparison of alternatives and are based on the site
characterization developed in the RI. Capital cost, annual cost, and a present
worth analysis are part of this evaluation. The present worth represents the
amount of money that, if invested in the initial year of the remedial action at a
given rate, would provide the funds required to make future payments to cover
all costs associated with the remedial action over its planned life. The baseline
present worth is computed at a discount (interest) rate of 7 percent over a 30 year
period. Appendix A contains spreadsheets showing each component of the present
worth costs.
The first two criteria are referred to in the RI/FS guidance manual (EPA 1988) as the "threshold
factors", implying that for further consideration of an alternative, these two criteria must be
satisfied. Alternatives which do not satisfy these threshold factors are not feasible (40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(I)(A). Criteria 3 through 7 are referred to as "primary balancing factors" (page
4-25 of RI/FS manual), implying that these criteria are used to select the alternative among the
feasible alternatives. Criteria 3 through 5, however, are also measures of the effectiveness and
are used accordingly. There are two other criteria, state acceptance and community acceptance,
which are provided by state and local agencies and the public. These criteria will be evaluated
in the responsiveness summary. A detailed evaluation of the alternatives using the above criteria
is presented below.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Section 300.430 (e) of the NCP requires that the "no action" alternative be carried forward for
consideration in the detailed analysis of alternatives as a baseline for comparison of the other
alternatives. Under the no action alternative, funds are not expended for control or cleanup of
surface soil or ground-water contamination associated with the GE Site .
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would not provide any increased protection to human health or the environment.
If no action is taken, contaminants in the source areas would remain and continue to leach into
ground water. No remediation efforts have been conducted in the two landfill areas at the GE
site or the Shepherd Farm property, both of which are contaminated with PCB's. These
contaminants would not be expected to decrease significantly with time due to the very slow rate
of degradation. GE reports that all USTs and contaminated soils associated with the USTs have
been removed, as well as all of the soils associated with the ruptured drain line. Since these are
suspected to be the main sources associated with the VOC contamination in the groundwater and
they have been removed, the concentration of contaminants in the ground water would continue
to decrease with time due to natural attenuation and degradation. However, under this action
monitoring or verification of the decrease would be conducted at the 5-year review stage.
81
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Compliance with ARARs
The "no action" alternative would not address compliance with ARARs since there would be no
active measures taken to reduce the contaminant concentrations. The volatile contaminant
concentrations would be expected to decrease with time due to natural attenuation and
degradation. Location- and action-specific ARARs do not apply to this alternative since further
remedial actions would not be conducted.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Because no activities would be implemented, there would be no additional impact on the
community. Also, no construction or operation related impacts to the environment would occur,
since no site activities would be performed.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Because remedial actions would not occur, this alternative would not provide any long-term
effectiveness or permanence. The long term risks of exposure of on-site receptors to the
contaminated surface soils and ground water would not be addressed. However, since the
suspect sources of ground water contamination have been removed, the concentration of
contaminants in the ground water would be expected to decrease with tune due to natural
attenuation and degradation. The areas contaminated with PCB's would not be expected to
decrease significantly with time due to the very slow rate of degradation.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
The "no action" alternative would provide no reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contaminated media.
Implementability
This criterion is not applicable because remedial activities would not occur.
Cost
The cost of this alternative consists only of 5-year review expenses. The total present worth cost
for this alternative is approximately $160,211. The estimated annual operation and maintenance
cost is approximately $21,800. Total capital costs are estimated to be $0.
82
-------
Record of Decision ±__ _'_ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Alternative 2 - Institutional Action
This alternative includes access restrictions and monitoring to protect human health and the
environment. Under this alternative, no source control remedial measures will be undertaken
at the GE site. Five-year reviews are required under the NCP to determine if contaminants
which remain on-site are causing additional risk to human health or the environment. As a
result of this review, EPA will determine if additional site remediation is required. Five-year
reviews are assumed to be conducted for a 30-year period.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Institutional controls would limit exposure to on-site soils by restricting access; however, the
restrictions would not eliminate the risk of exposure or control the plume migration.
Consequently, this alternative would not provide active protection of human health and the
environment, although monitoring would reveal future threats to human health and the
environment.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative does not achieve the remedial action objectives or chemical-specific ARARs
established for surface soil and groundwater. Through natural attenuation and degradation, a
decrease in the contaminant concentration would be expected with time. However, the
magnitude of the decrease can only be qualitatively determined. It is not known whether natural
attenuation and degradation would result in sufficient contaminant reduction to attain ARAR's.
Location- and action-specific ARARs do not apply to this alternative since further remedial
actions of an intrusive nature would not be conducted.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Institutional controls could be implemented in approximately one year. Ground water and soil
monitoring could begin immediately. No significant environmental impacts would be expected
during the sampling events. The surrounding community and workers would be protected by
restricted access to the contaminated media, provided the restrictions are complied with.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Properly implemented institutional controls would prevent ingestion and direct contact with
contaminated media, thereby reducing risk to potential users. Implementation of institutional
controls with continued monitoring would be required indefinitely. The long term monitoring
results and the actual effectiveness of the institutional controls would require periodic
reassessment to determine the continued effectiveness of this alternative. If the degree of
83
-------
Record of Decision ..: September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
protectiveness to human health is insufficient, further remedial actions would have to be
implemented.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative would not actively reduce the volume, toxicity or mobility of the contaminants
of concern. The size of the contaminant plume could increase with time. However, as the size
of the plume increases, the contaminant concentrations would decrease via natural attenuation
and degradation.
Implementability
This alternative would be readily implemented since there are no remedial activities of an
intrusive nature being performed. The implementation of monitoring would present no
difficulties. Implementing and enforcing deed restrictions would require the cooperation of the
state and county governments. Institutional controls are subject to change in legal and political
interpretations over time. The attachment of deed restrictions to the GE Subsite can be readily
implemented. Voluntary acceptance by adjacent property owners is questionable. Consequently,
present or future property owners could choose to ignore or be unaware of the use restrictions.
The restrictions could also be lost during future property transfers. For the above reasons, the
reliability of ground water use restrictions is considered uncertain. Legal services, field
personnel and analytical laboratories necessary for implementation of this alternative are readily
available. If additional monitor wells are required, well drilling services are readily available.
Monitor equipment is readily available for groundwater sampling. Long-term maintenance and
possible future replacement of the fence and signs would be required but also could be
implemented with some ease.
Cost
The total cost for this alternative consists of deed restrictions, permit restrictions, and ground-
water monitoring only; no treatment is included. The total present worth cost for this alternative
is approximately $346,362. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is
approximately $24,300. Total capital costs are estimated to be $100,750.
Alternative SS3 - Excavation; Off-Site Disposal
This treatment alternative involves excavating the contaminated surficial soils which exceed the
Remediation Goals and disposal in a RCRA Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The
excavation is backfilled with clean fill soil, and the area is revegetated.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
84
-------
Record of Decision
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
This alternative would provide increased protection of human health and the environment
through the removal of the organic chemicals which exceed EPA's Remediation Goals. This
alternative will virtually eliminate the risks associated with the exposure pathways and greatly
reduce the potential risk of surface soil ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative will comply with the chemical-, location- and action-specific ARARs.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Achievement of short-term effectiveness will require special construction procedures and controls
to ensure that human health and the environment are adequately protected during the excavation
operation. The primary exposure route is through dust emissions. Air monitoring will be
necessary to ensure that a safe working environment is maintained and that no threat to human
health and the environment is created by air emissions. However, direct exposure can also occur
during loading, hauling and disposal. Also, impact due to noise, truck traffic, and other
activities will have to be controlled. This exposure and impact can be limited as the alternative
is highly utilized and well proven.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative is completely effective because it provides for removal of contaminated soil such
that the Remediation goals are met for surface soils. The removed soils will be disposed of off-
site and replaced with clean backfill.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
Contaminated surface soil will be excavated and disposed of in a Subtitle D Municipal Solid
Waste Landfill. Off-site landfill disposal will reduce the mobility of contaminants, but the
volume and toxicity remain the same.
Implementability
As with short-term effectiveness, this technology has been demonstrated to be readily
implementable because it utilizes well proven equipment and construction methods, providing
it is well planned and supervised.
An estimated four months will be required for contractor selection. The actual implementation
of the alternative, including site preparation and excavation, may take an additional two months.
Therefore, assuming that weather conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could
85
-------
Record of Decision __ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
be implemented in approximately six months.
An engineering consideration for the excavation and off-site disposal of the contaminated surface
soil is that all permits and licenses must be obtained and/or validated before off-site transport.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
- bulldozer;
backhoe;
front-end loader;
dump trucks with liners and tarps for transportation of soil;
backfill for excavated areas; and
hydroseeding equipment.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $1,524,235. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $0. Total capital costs are estimated
to be $1,524,235.
Alternative SS4 - Ex-Situ-Treatment: On Site Disposal
This alternative consists of excavation and treatment of contaminated soils to the RAO's of the
site and disposal on-site as backfill.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would provide an increased protection of human health and the environment
through the excavation and treatment of the contaminated surface soils, and will eliminate the
risks associated with the exposure pathways.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative will comply with the chemical-, location- and action-specific ARARs.
Short-Term Effectiveness
i
Achievement of short-term effectiveness will require special construction procedures and controls
86
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
to ensure that human health and the environment are adequately protected during the excavation
operation. The primary exposure route is through dust emissions. However, direct exposure
can also occur during loading, hauling and disposal. In addition, impact due to noise, truck
traffic, and other activities will have to be controlled.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative is completely effective because it provides for excavation and treatment of
contaminated soil. If the soil is treated such that the RAO's are achieved, then the soil will be
suitable for backfill.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
The alternative reduces the mobility and toxicity of soil contamination at the site through on-site
treatment. The volume also will be reduced unless solidification/stabilization is part of the
treatment process. In this case, the volume of the treated material may increase depending on
the type of stabilizer used.
Implementability
The bench-scale studies of the treatment system will require approximately three months and the
design of the treatment system will require approximately three months. An estimated six
months will be required for contractor selection. The actual excavation and treatment of
contaminated surface soil may take another six months. Therefore, assuming that weather
conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be implemented in approximately
1.5 years.
The major engineering considerations in implementing the excavation and on-site treatment
system include
design of soil staging area;
bench-scale testing; and
design and installation of treatment option.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
bulldozer;
backhoe;
front-end loader;
87
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
dump trucks;
treatment units;
backfill for excavated areas (if necessary); and
hydroseeding equipment.
Monitoring the operation of the treatment system would be required to verify that the treated soil
meets the anticipated remediation goals. Determination of the soil leaching potential by TCLP
testing would be required before on-site disposal for compliance with RCRA and state
regulations.
Cost
The total present worth cost for the solidification/stabilization option in this alternative is
approximately $3,040,287. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is
approximately $118,400. Total capital costs are estimated to be $2,288,472. Detailed cost
estimates are presented in Appendix A.
The total present worth cost for soil washing option in this alternative is approximately
$4,174,375. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $118,400.
Total capital costs are estimated to be $3,422,560. Detailed cost estimates are presented in
Appendix A.
The total present worth cost for the bioremediation option in this alternative is approximately
$1,955,437. The estimated annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $118,400.
Total capital costs are estimated to be $1,203,622. Detailed cost estimates are presented in
Appendix A.
Alternative SSS - Containment
The primary objective of this alternative is to eliminate the mobility and exposure pathways of
site chemicals by containment. Containment is achieved by capping. A storm water
management system will be required to reduce surface water impacts. Short term dust and vapor
controls will be required during construction activities. This alternative also includes monitoring
and access restrictions.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative results in protection of human health and the environment by preventing direct
exposure to impacted soils and by preventing off-site migration of chemicals in the surface soils.
Compliance with ARARs
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
This alternative will meet site-specific ARARs because this alternative will prevent direct contact
with the soils.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Achievement of short-term effectiveness will require special construction procedures and controls
to ensure that human health and the environment are adequately protected during the construction
operations. The primary exposure route is through dust emissions. However, direct exposure
can also occur during loading, hauling and disposal. Also, impact due to noise, truck traffic,
and other activities will have to be controlled. This exposure and impact can be limited as the
alternative is highly utilized and well proven.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative requires regular maintenance and continued implementation of access restriction
to assure long-term effectiveness. Capping does not provide an ultimate permanent remedy but
should be considered of long duration for comparative purposes. Since contaminated soil
remains on-site, 5-year reviews over an estimated 30-year period would be required to ensure
that this alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the environment under
CERCLA 121(c).
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative eliminates migration of constituents from the site area and thus reduces the
mobility of site chemicals. The toxicity and volume of the impacted source soil will essentially
remain unchanged.
Implementability
An estimated three months will be required for contractor selection. The actual implementation
of the alternative, including site preparation and construction of the cap, may take another three
months. Therefore, assuming that weather conditions do not cause extreme delays, this
alternative could be implemented in approximately six months. This alternative could take more
tune to implement if it is difficult to obtain the necessary deed restrictions.
The major engineering considerations for capping include
design of stormwater collection system;
anticipated service life of the cap;
cap thickness and infiltration potential;
replacement schedule; and
89
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
effects of environmental factors on the cap.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
asphalt;
backhoe;
bulldozer;
front-end loader;
dump trucks with liners and tarps for transportation of soil;
backfill for excavated areas; and
hydroseeding equipment.
The cap would be inspected on a regular basis for signs of erosion, settlement, or subsidence.
Institutional controls consisting of deed restrictions to protect the integrity of the cap system, and
long-term groundwater monitoring would apply.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $855,297. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $6,200. Total capital costs are
estimated to be $777,426.
Alternative GW6a - Ex-Situ Treatment; On-Site Discharge
This alternative involves using the existing extraction well system. The extracted ground water
would be pumped to an on-site treatment facility. The treated ground water would then be
discharged to Bat Fork Creek. The operation of the ground water extraction and treatment
system would continue until the remedial action objectives are achieved.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
As long as the groundwater extraction system is in operation, this alternative will eliminate the
exposure pathways and greatly reduce the potential risk of groundwater ingestion and inhalation
of volatiles. Additionally, contaminated groundwater will be contained so that downgradient
wells would not become contaminated through continued migration of contaminants. However,
if groundwater extraction is halted before remediation goals are obtained, contaminated
groundwater will no longer be contained, and exposure pathways associated with continued
contaminant migration in groundwater may emerge again.
90
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Compliance with ARARs
Groundwater extraction will act to decrease contaminant concentrations in groundwater by
removing contaminants from the aquifer system, and is thus potentially effective in achieving
chemical-specific ARARs within a reasonable timeframe. Air quality and emission standards
will have to be met since there will be an on-site treatment system. The treated water needs to
meet all effluent requirements and ambient water quality criteria before discharge to Bat Fork
Creek. Location-specific ARARs will have to be considered during the remedial design,
particularly with regard to the installation of the treatment system. Specifically, citing of the
treatment system will be in an area that is protective of the wetlands and outside of the 100-year
floodplain. Significant habitats will have to be identified and the presence of endangered species
needs to be confirmed before any remedial action takes place. Specifically, the bunched
arrowhead plant, which has been identified as an endangered plant and is located near the site,
will have to be protected during extraction of groundwater. In addition, the impacts on the East
Flat Rock Bog remnant in the GE site vicinity and the King Creek Bog in the Shepherd Farm
Site vicinity need to be considered. These bogs have been identified as priority areas of national
significance and also may be negatively impacted by groundwater extraction. Action-specific
ARARs also will have to be considered, including discharge to a surface water body.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Construction operations associated with this remedial alternative would produce limited
disturbance to the surrounding community. All treatment facilities would be located on the GE
site within the fenced area. Proper operation of the treatment system would result in no
atmospheric discharges of VOC's. An effluent discharge monitoring station for treated ground
water would provide a check on the effluent quality prior to discharge. Continued monitoring
of the ground water would provide a check on the plume movement and provide evidence of
progress in attaining remedial goals.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The long term effectiveness and permanence of this alternative depends on the effectiveness of
the ground water extraction mechanism in removing the contamination from the aquifer.
Contaminants of concern adsorbed to the aquifer matrix and released very slowly could result
in the inability of this alternative to achieve the remedial goals. The major long term control
required to remediate the ground water will be the continued operation and maintenance of the
extraction well(s) and the treatment system. The operation and maintenance of the well(s) and
treatment will include repair/replacement of pumps and piping, purchase of chemicals,
regeneration of GAC and replacement of UV bulbs. Long term monitoring of the ground water
would be effective in tracking the nature and extent of contamination and the effectiveness of
the treatment unit. Sampling the existing monitor well network would indicate if contaminants
91
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
are migrating from the extraction capture zone. Long term controls would be limited to
continued ground water monitoring.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
The various unit processes in the treatment system will provide for the degradation or destruction
of a significant portion of all of the contamination in the ground water. Using conventional
ground water extraction methods, a portion of the contaminants of concern will remain adsorbed
to the organic and mineral components of the aquifer matrix after pumping for long periods of
time. These contaminants will tend to slowly solubilize back into the ground water indefinitely.
However, the majority of the plume could be captured for treatment. The ground water would
be treated to achieve the MCL's for the contaminants of concern.
Implementability
This system could easily be implemented on the site. The unit processes of the treatment system
are commercially available and have been demonstrated to be effective on the contaminants of
concern. Pilot scale treatability studies would be required to develop specific design parameters
and confirm the systems effectiveness in treating the contaminants of concern. It is anticipated
that the existing system would be incorporated into the design.
The administrative requirements for this alternative are minimal; these include compliance with
technical NPDES requirements, established by EPA and North Carolina, for discharge of treated
ground water on site. The unit process for the treatment system, and required contractors and
equipment are readily available. Prior to development of the extraction system, additional
aquifer testing would be required to fully characterize the aquifer. Aquifer modeling would also
be required to determine locations and depths of any additional wells needed, and the most
effective pumping rates.
An estimated six to nine months will be required for design and contractor selection. The actual
implementation of the alternative, including site preparation and installation of any additional
components to the existing treatment system (i.e., air stripper), may take another three months.
Therefore, assuming that weather conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could
be implemented in approximately 1 year.
The major engineering considerations in implementing the groundwater and discharge systems
include
testing of the existing extraction well system;
potential for well plugging (reduction in flows) over time;
monitoring requirements;
92
-------
Record of Decision -- September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
cleanup verification;
piping of extracted water to the treatment system;
piping of treated water to Bat Fork Creek; and
NPDES permit requirements.
The major engineering considerations in implementing the groundwater treatment system include
design flow;
permit requirements;
pilot studies for treatment processes;
citing and design of treatment units;
monitoring the effluent water quality for surface water discharge;
implementing treatment option for offgas from the air stripper;
monitoring the effluent air quality from the air stripper; and
process effectiveness monitoring.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
additional process units for the existing groundwater treatment system;
pumping, piping, fittings, and valves for fluids transport; and
system instrumentation and controls.
Long-term groundwater monitoring for cleanup verification purposes and to track contaminant
plume migration would be required under this alternative. Samples would be collected from
selected existing wells and analyzed for the site indicator parameters.
The groundwater treatment system also would require monitoring and maintenance during its
approximate 30-year operational life. Monitoring of the treatment system would include periodic
sampling of the influent and effluent from the treatment system and analysis in accordance with
NPDES discharge permit requirements. Sample collection is assumed to be on a weekly basis.
Maintenance of the extraction and treatment systems would be performed in accordance with
operation and maintenance requirements developed after equipment specification and
procurement are completed. At a minimum, it is expected that regular periodic maintenance
would be required on the submersible pumps, valves, and fittings of fluids piping systems, as
well as on the treatment system to ensure its efficient operation.
Operation and maintenance of the treatment system would be conducted by a contractor who
would be responsible for continuous operation and maintenance of the process. Process control
93
-------
Record of Decision '_ "" September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
would be automated as much as possible with the contractor stopping by periodically to checkup
on the system.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $5,328,398. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $273,285. Total capital costs are
estimated to be $1,166,750.
Alternative GW6b - Ex-Situ Treatment; Off-site Discharge
Alternative GW6b is identical to alternative GW6a, except that the treated ground water would
be discharged to the local POTW.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would provide increased protection of human health and the environment
through extraction and treatment of contaminated ground water.
Compliance with ARARs
This alternative is expected to comply with all ARARs. The ground water would have to be
treated to the POTW permit requirements.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The short term effectiveness of this alternative is similar to alternative GW6a. Minimal
disturbance is expected.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative would provide the same degree of long term effectiveness and permanence as
alternative GW6a. Long term controls would be limited to continued ground water monitoring.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative would provide the same reduction of toxicity and volume as alternative GW6a.
Implementability
94
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
The implementability of this alternative would l;e. the same as alternative GW6a.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $6,076,336. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $295,085. Total capital costs are
estimated to be $1,166,750.
Alternative GW7a - Ground-water Treatment; Gradient Control; On Site Discharge
Alternative GW7a involves the use of in-situ bioremediation to degrade the contaminants of
concern in the aquifer. The process involves installing up gradient infiltration trenches at an
appropriate location which would be used, to introduce microorganisms, nutrients and an oxygen
source (if aerobic). This system would require an external source of water and a holding/mixing
tank for combining the water, nutrients and oxygen source prior to infiltration into the aquifer.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would provide significant protection of human health and the environment
through expedited ground water remediation (as compared to pump and treat). No adverse
health effects are anticipated to result from the growth of indigenous microorganisms under this
alternative. In fact, after active remediation is ceased, microorganisms would be available to
degrade any residual contamination in the aquifer.
Compliance with ARARs
The in-situ bioremediation process would be designed to meet the remedial goals for the GE site
and the process would be continued until the goals were attained.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short term risks would be similar to those discussed for the two previous remedial alternatives.
No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative would be effective in achieving permanent remediation of the contaminated
ground water plume. Any residual contamination remaining after cessation of active remediation
would continue to be degraded until the contaminant, oxygen and nutrient supply is depleted.
Long term controls would be limited to continued ground water monitoring.
95
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
The in-situ bioremediation technology used in this alternative would be effective in permanently
reducing the mobility, toxicity and volume of contamination. The concentration of contaminants
would be reduced to enforceable drinking water standards. With the reduction of contaminant
concentrations, the volume of the plume would decrease throughout the removal action.
Implementability
The technical feasibility of enhanced bioremediation of VOC's is documented in full-scale
remediation projects and field treatability studies. In-situ bioremediation is most successful at
sites with moderate to high permeability and a shallow zone of contamination. Prior to
development of the infiltration system, additional aquifer tests would be required to fully
characterize the aquifer, and to determine the most effective infiltration rates.
An estimated six to nine months will be required for design and contractor selection. The actual
implementation of the alternative, including site preparation, construction of the infiltration
trenches, and installation of the mixing system, may take another three months. Therefore,
assuming that weather conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be
implemented in approximately 1 year.
The major engineering considerations in implementing the in-situ groundwater treatment system
include
pilot study for biotreatment process;
citing and design of the mixing system and infiltration trenches;
monitoring the effluent water quality from the mixing tank before discharging to
trenches;
process effectiveness monitoring; and
cleanup verification.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
process unit for the in-situ groundwater treatment system (i.e, mixing tank and nutrients);
water source for the mixing system; and
system instrumentation and controls.
Long-term groundwater monitoring for cleanup verification purposes and to track contaminant
plume migration would be required under this alternative. Samples would be collected from
96
-------
Record of Decision September 199.5
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
selected existing wells and analyzed for the site indicator parameters.
The in-situ groundwater treatment system also would require monitoring, with possible
maintenance of the mixing system, during its approximate 15-year operational life. Monitoring
of the treatment system may include periodic sampling of the levels of microorganisms,
nutrients, and oxygen that are being added before infiltration into the aquifer.
Maintenance of the biotreatment system would be performed in accordance with operation and
maintenance requirements developed after equipment specification and procurement are
completed. At a minimum, it is expected that regular periodic maintenance would be required
on the mixing system to ensure its efficient operation.
Operation and maintenance of the in-situ treatment system would be conducted by a contractor
who would be responsible for continuous operation and maintenance of the process. Process
control would be automated as much as possible with the contractor stopping by periodically to
checkup on the system.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $4,578,440. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $309,285. Total capital costs are
estimated to be $1,378,000.
Alternative GWTb - Groundwater Treatment; Gradient Control; Off-Site Discharge
This alternative is identical to Alternative GW7a, except that the treated groundwater would be
discharged to the local POTW.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This alternative would provide the same overall protection of human health and the environment
as Alternative GW7A.
Compliance with ARARs
The in-situ bioremediation process would be designed to meet the remedial goals for the GE Site
and the process would be continued until the goals were attained.
Short-Term Effectiveness
As with alternative GW7a, the short term risks would be similar to those discussed for remedial
alternative GW6a. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
97
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
This alternative would provide the same degree of long term effectiveness and permanence as
Alternative GW7A.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, and Volume
This alternative would provide the same reduction of toxicity, mobility, and volume as
Alternative GW7a.
Implementability
An estimated nine months will be required for design and contractor selection. The actual
implementation of the alternative, including site preparation, construction of the infiltration
trenches, installation of extraction wells, installation of the mixing system, and installation of
the ex-situ treatment system, may take another six months. Therefore, assuming that weather
conditions do not cause extreme delays, this alternative could be implemented in approximately
1.5 years.
The major engineering considerations in implementing the gradient control system and the in-situ
and ex-situ groundwater treatment include
citing, design, installation, and testing of extraction wells for gradient control;
potential for well plugging (reduction in flows) over time;
piping of extracted water to the mixing system and ex-situ treatment system;
monitoring the extracted water quality for possible treatment before use in mixing
system;
pilot study for biotreatment process;
pilot study for ex-situ treatment processes;
citing and design of the mixing system, infiltration trenches, and ex-situ system;
process effectiveness monitoring; and
cleanup verification.
The major system components, construction equipment, and materials required for operations
under this alternative include
contractor's temporary facilities and utilities;
wells and submersible groundwater pumps;
pumping, piping, fittings, and valves for fluids transport;
process unit for the in-situ groundwater treatment system (i.e, mixing tank and nutrients);
process unit for the ex-situ groundwater treatment system, if necessary; and
98
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
system instrumentation and controls.
Cost
The total present worth cost for this alternative is approximately $4,969,250. The estimated
annual operation and maintenance cost is approximately $345,285. Total capital costs are
estimated to be $1,378,000.
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Presented in Table 24 is ranking scores for each non-cost evaluation criteria. Each alternative's
performance was ranked on a scale of zero to five, with zero indicating none of the criteria's
requirements were met, and five indicating all of the requirements were met. The ranking
scores are not intended to be quantitative or additive. They are summary indicators only of each
alternatives performance against the non-cost evaluation criteria. The ranking scores combined
with the present worth costs provide the basis for comparison among alternatives.
Under overall protection, the no action alternative (Alternative 1) is ranked the lowest ("0")
since contaminated soil and groundwater are left on-site with no further actions being conducted.
Alternative 2 is ranked slightly higher ("1") since deed restrictions and fencing would be
implemented to limit contact with the contaminated soil and groundwater. Alternative SS5 is
ranked higher ("3") than Alternative 2 since contaminated soil at the GE Site would be capped,
thus reducing migration of contaminants via rainfall infiltration. The remaining alternatives (SS3
and SS4; GW6a through GWTb) are ranked the highest ("5") since contaminated soil and
groundwater are being either removed, treated, and/or disposed.
Under compliance with ARARs, Alternatives 1 and 2 are ranked the lowest ("0") since
contaminated soil and groundwater remain on-site and chemical-specific ARARs are not met.
Alternative SS5 is only slightly lower than the removal and treatment alternatives; however,
ARARs are still met. Alternatives SS3 and SS4 are ranked high ("5") since contaminated soil
is being removed and either disposed off-site or treated on-site with backfill of treated material
on-site. Alternatives GW6a and GW6b and ranked slightly lower ("4") than Alternatives GW7a
and GWTb ("5") since pump-and treat may not be as effective as in-situ treatment in remediating
groundwater.
Under long-term effectiveness, the no action alternative (Alternative 1) is ranked the lowest ("0")
since contaminated soil and groundwater are left on-site with no further actions being conducted.
Alternative 2 is ranked slightly higher ("1") since deed restrictions and fencing would be
implemented to limit contact with the contaminated soil and groundwater. Alternative SS5 is
99
-------
Table 24
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
GE/SHEPHERD FARM NPL SITE
Remedial Alternative
1 - No Action
2 - Institutional Actions
SS3 - Excavation; Off-site Disposal
SS4 - Ex-situ Treatment; On-site
Disposal
SS5 - Containment
GW6a - Ex-situ Treatment; On-site
Discharge
GW6b - Ex-situ Treatment; Off-
site Discharge
OW7a - Groundwater Treatment;
On-Site Discharge
GWTb - Oroundwater Treatment;
Off-Site Discharge
Criteria Rating (a)
Overall Protection of
Human Health and the
Environment
0
1
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
Compliance with
ARARs
0
1
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
0
1
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
Reduction of M/T/V
Through Treatment
0
0
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
Short-Term
Effectiveness
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Implementability
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Present Worth
$160,211
$346,362
$1,524,235
SW -$4,174,375
S/S - $3,040,287
BIO -$1,955,437
$855,297
$5,328,398
$6,076,336
$4,578,440
$4,969,250
(a) A ranking of "0" indicates noncompliance while a ranking of "5" indicates complete compliance.
SW - SOIL WASHING
S/S - SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
BIO - BIOREMEDIATION
-------
-Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
ranked higher ("3") than Alternative 2 since contaminated soil at the GE Site would be capped,
thus reducing migration of contaminants via rainfall infiltration. Alternatives GW6a and GW6b
and ranked slightly lower ("4") than Alternatives GW7a and GWTb ("5") since pump-and treat
may not be as effective as in-situ treatment in remediating groundwater.
Under reduction of M/T/V, Alternatives 1 and 2 are ranked the lowest ("0") since contaminated
soil and groundwater remain on-site. Alternative SS5 is only slightly better in that an asphalt
cap would be placed at the GE Site; thus, mobility is reduced. Alternative SS3 is ranked slightly
higher ("4") since contaminated soil is being removed and disposed off-site. Therefore, mobility
is eliminated; however, volume and toxicity remain the same. Alternative SS4 is ranked the
same as SS3 since soil is removed and treated on-site before being placed back on-site. Note
that the volume may increase, however, due to solidification. Alternatives GW6a and GW6b
and ranked slightly lower ("4") than Alternatives GW7a and GWTb ("5") since pump-and treat
may not be as effective as in-situ treatment in remediating groundwater.
Under short-term effectiveness and implementability, Alternative 1 is ranked the highest ("5")
since no further actions are being conducted. Alternative 2 is ranked next ("4") since the only
action taking place is monitoring, deed restrictions, and maintaining the perimeter fence. The
remaining alternatives are ranked at a "3".
XI. THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the NCP, 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 remedy for soils
($855,297), and Alternative GW7A for groundwater ($4,578,440), is estimated at $5,433,737.
See Tables 25 and 26 for the detailed cost estimates of these chosen alternatives.
Remediation will not be conducted at the Seldon Clark Subsite. Soil and groundwater were
below the remediation goals for the Site.
A. SOURCE CONTROL
Source Control remediation will address the contaminated soils and materials at the Site. The
GE source control remedy requires that the soils contaminated above the remediation levels on
the GE Subsite be covered with an impermeable cap. The cap will be a composite liner and
shall consist of 18 inches of clay, a flexible membrane liner, and if necessary, a drainage layer.
A storm water management system will be developed to route storm water away from the cap
and to prevent any negative impacts from water runoffs. The integrity of the cap will be
101
-------
Table NY . . > '. PRESENT WORTH COST
Soil Rcmc^U" -.--, - v.u.v-- : j:-ination
Site Name: Gli'Shephird Fe.wi Ducount Rate: 7*
Site Ln-^fo^. Concord. NC Date: 07/95
Fluff Ftctor for Sofl»: 1.25
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MOBILIZATION
Transport Equipment/Staff
Temporary FacflitieB
EXCAVATION/TRANSPORTATION
Shepherd Farm Site
Decontamination Facilities
Excavation
Load and Haul
Sampling/ Analyses
Access Roadj
Clear/Grub
Demolition/Pavements
Fencing
Cleanup/Lands coping
CAPPING
General Electric Site
Decontamination Facilities
Alpfaak
Clear/Grub
EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS
Health & Safety Equipment
AIR QUALITY MONITORING
UNITS
etch
each
each
=y
«y
each
each
sure*
y
ft
acre*
each
y
tcreti
etch
week
QUANTITY
1
1
1
8.000
8,000
50
1
5
1,250
2,500
5
1
14.300
3
1
9
UNIT PRICE
DOLLARS
S10.000
$10.000
J12.000
J15
$1
$500
$15.000
$720
$6.75
$10
$750
$12,000
$12.90
$720
$30,000
$1,000
Subtotal - Capital Cost
Contractor Fee (10% of Capitol Coct)
Legal Fees, Licemes & Permits (SB of Capital Cost)
Engineering & Adminiitrative (15% of Capital Cost)
Subtotal
Conogency (25% of Subtotal)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
PRESENT WORTH O&M COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
TOTAL COST
DOLLARS
$10.000
$10,000
$12,000
$120,000
$8.000
$25.000
$15,000
$3.600
$8,437
$25,000
$3,750
$12,000
$184.470
$2,160
$30,000
S9.000
$478,417
$47,841
$23,921
$71,762
$621,941
$155,485
$777,426
$77.426
$855.297
Table Number: 25 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
ITEM DESCRIPTION
5-year Review Report Prep
CAP MAIN/REPAIR
UNITS
each
month
QUANTITY
1
12
UNIT PRICE
DOLLARS
$5000
$100
TOTAL ANNUAL
COST. DOLLARS
$5,000
$1.200
OPERATION TIME.
YEARS
6
30
PRESENT WORTH
$29.397
$32.900
SUBTOTAL $62^97
CONTINGENCY C25* of Subtotal) $15,574
TOTAL $77,871
-------
Table Number: 26 PRESENT WORTH COST
Alternative No: GW7A - Groundwater Treatment; On-Site Discharge
3.'';.-? Name: GE/Shepherd Farm Discount Rate: 7%
Si^e Location: Concord, NC Date: 07/95
ITEM DESCRIPTION
MOBILIZATION
Transport Equipment /Staff
Temporary Facilities
GROONDWATER EXTRACTION
Extraction Well Installation
Submersible Pumps
Pipes, Valves & Fittings
Aquifer Testing
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Site Preparation
Earthwork
Treatment Facility
Lighting/HVAC System
WATER TREATMENT PROCESS
Equalization/Holding Tank
Air Stripping Unit
Equipment Installation
Transfer Pumps
Control Panel & Instrumentation
Pipes, Valves, & Appurtenances
GAC Unit
WATER DISCHARGE TO SW
Pumps (Installed)
Pipes, Valves, & Fittings
EQUIPMENT & MATERIALS
Health & Safety Equipment and
Temporary Utilities
BIOREMEDIATION
Treatability Study
Re infiltration System
UNITS
each
each
well
each
ft
LS
acre
cy
sqft
LS
each
LS
LS
each
LS
LS
unit
each
ft
LS
' LS
LS
QUANTITY
1
1
5
5
10,000
1
0.5
500
1,600
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
500
1
1
1
UNIT PRICE
DOLLARS
$10,000
$10,000
$2,500
$1,000
$15
$20,000
$3,000
$15
$80
$15,000
$10,000
$150,000
50,000
6,000
$30,000
$60,000
$5,000
$2,500
$25
$30,000
$50,000
$80,000
Subtotal - Capital Cost
Contractor Fee (10% of Capital Cost)
Legal Fees, Licenses & Permits (5% of Capital Cost)
Engineering & Administrative (15% of Capital Cost)
Subtotal
Contingency (25% of Subtotal)
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
PRESENT WORTH O&M COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH COST
TOTAL COST
DOLLARS
$10,000
$10,000
$12,500
$5,000
$150,000
$20,000
$1,500
$7,500
$128,437
$15,000
$10,000
$150,000
$50,000
$6,000
$30,000
$60,000
$5,000
$5,000
$12,500
$30,000
$50,000
$80,000
$848,000
$84,800
$42,400
$127,200
$1,102,400
$275,600
$1,378,000
$3,200,440
$4,578,440
-------
Table Number: 26 (CON'T) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
Alternative No. GW7A; Groundwater Treatment; On-Site Disposal
Site Name : GE/Shepherd Farm Discount Rate : 7%
Site Location: East Flat Rock, NC Date: Of/95
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Power
Maintenance /Repair
Operating Labor
Stripper Packing Media
Carbon Replacement
Disposal Spent Carbon
SW DISCHARGE
MONITORING
Personnel
Supplies
Monthly Sampling
SHORT-TERM MONITORING
Personnel
Supplies
Quarterly Well
Sampling (20 wells)
LONG-TERM MONITORING
Personnel
Supplies
Semi -Annual Sampling
5 -Year Report Prep
BIOREMEDIATION
Additives
System Maintenance
UNITS
month
month
hr
LS
Ib
Ib
hr
days
each
hr
days
well
hr
days
well
LS
month
month
AMOUNT
12
12
2,190
1
500
500
96
12
12
64
8
80
32
4
40
1
12
12
UNIT
PRICE
DOLLARS
$500
$2,500
$50
$5,000
$1.70
$1.35
$50
$180
$500
$50
$3,000
$500
$50
$3,000
$500
$5,000
$2,500
$500
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST,
DOLLARS
$6,000
$30,000
$109,500
$5,000
$850
$675
$4,800
$2,160
$8,500
$3,200
$24,000
$40,000
$1,600
$12,000
$20,000
$5,000
$30,000
$6,000
OPERATION
TIME,
YEARS
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
5
5
10
10
10
3
15
15
PRESENT
WORTH
$55,628
$278,139
$1,001,300
$71,612
$12,175
$9,668
$44,500
$20,025
$55,628
$15,725
$117,930
$196,547
$22,909
$116,238'
$193,730
$14,830
$278,140
$55,628
SUBTOTAL $2,560,352
CONTINGENCY (25% of Subtotal) $640,088
TOTAL $3,200,440
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
maintained and inspected on a regular basis for signs of erosion, settlement, or subsidence.
Deed restrictions will be required to limit the use of the areas and to prevent subsurface
development.
Additional sampling and characterization of Landfill A must be completed to confirm the
effectiveness of a cap. The additional characterization will evaluate the possibility of the
presence of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) and liquid waste in containers buried in
the landfill. If containerized wastes are in the landfill, then these may require excavation and
treatment or disposal at an approved facility. If there is no containerized waste, soil vapor
extraction or a vent in the cap may be warranted, depending on the concentrations of the VOCs
in the soil.
Performance Standards
Landfill A, Landfill B, and the dry sludge impoundment will be covered with an impermeable
cap as specified above. These areas contain soils contaminated with greater than 10 ppm total
PCBs, the performance standard at the GE Subsite. At the Shepherd Farm Subsite, surficial
soils contaminated with PCBs above the performance standard of 1 ppm total PCBs will be
excavated and transported to the dry sludge impoundment area of the GE Subsite. Surficial soils
are defined as the zone from the surface to 12 inches below grade. The excavated area will be
regraded and backfilled with clean soil. In addition, the areas will be revegetated. Residential
yards will be restored as close as possible to their original appearance. Air quality monitoring
shall be conducted at the perimeter of the excavation site to ensure that residents are not
adversely affected.
Short-term impacts to the Spring Haven community will be kept to a minimum by utilizing
Spring Haven drive as little as possible. For health and safety considerations, the residents
within the areas of contamination may, at EPA's discretion, be temporarily relocated to avoid
injury and/or if utilities are disconnected during the excavation period.
B. Groundwater Remediation
Groundwater remediation will address the contaminated groundwater at the Site. Groundwater
remediation will include extraction of contaminated groundwater, treatment, in-situ
bioremediation and final discharge to Bat Fork Creek, or the treated water may be used as a
source of water in the in-situ treatment of the groundwater. The viability of using the treated
water in GE's plant process may also be evaluated.
The ex-situ treatment will consist of air stripping to remove organics, and granulated activated
carbon adsorption to treat the vapor effluent, or off-gas to remove the contaminants stripped
105
-------
Record of Decision ; ; ; September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
from the groundwater prior to being discharged to the atmosphere. If metals are detected in the
liquid effluent at concentrations above the discharge limitations, a process option to remove
metals will be added to this treatment train. In addition, the groundwater may need filtering
prior to treatment to remove any particulates that may harm the air stripper. The in-situ
treatment will involve the construction of infiltration trenches or injection wells at an appropriate
location at both the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites to introduce microorganisms, nutrients, etc
into the aquifer. The ex-situ treatment system will be located on the GE facility, with
contaminated groundwater from Shepherd Farm pumped to this 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 15 years; samples will be collected from 20 existing wells on a quarterly
basis for the first 5 years, and on an annual basis for the following 10 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 surface water discharge requirements.
B.I. Extraction and Performance Standards
Groundwater will be extracted from the GE facility and the Shepherd Farm property. Location
and number of extraction wells and pumping rates will be determined during the remedial
design. Final discharge will be to Bat Fork Creek. Discharge standards will be driven by the
surface water discharge requirements (ARARs, See Section VII) and will be defined during the
development of the Remedial Design.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use. Based on
information obtained during the RI, and the analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA and the
State of North Carolina believe that the selected remedy will 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 over time.
Groundwater shall be treated until the following performance standards are attained throughout
the contaminant plumes:
106
-------
Record of Decision
September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
Contaminant
Barium
Beryllium
Nickel
Lead
Manganese
Vinyl Chloride
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Nitrobenzene
Chloroform
1 ,2-DichloFoethane
Remediation Level
2,000 ug/1
4 ug/1
100 ug/1
15 ug/1
50 ug/1
1 ug/1
70 ug/1
2.8 ug/l
1 ug/1
lug/1
10 ug/1
lug/1
1 ug/1
Risk Level
ffl = 1
1E-04
ffl = 1
NA
ffl = 0.6
1E-05
ffl = 0.4
1E-06
1E-06
l.E-06
ffl = 1
ffl = 0.1
1E-06
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.
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 15 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;
107
-------
Record of Decision ___ September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
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, all of the following
measures involving long-term management may occur, for an indefinite period of time, as a
modification of the existing system:
a) engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long-term gradient control
provided by low level pumping, as contaminant measure;
b) performance standards may be waived for the cleanup of those portions of the
aquifer based on the technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;
c) institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict access to those
portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation levels;
d) continued monitoring of specified wells; and
e) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a periodic review of
the remedial action, which will occur at 5 year intervals in accordance with CERCLA Section
The remedial actions shall comply with all ARARs (See Section VII). The applicability of
RCRA Land Ban Requirements to the removal of the contaminated soil from the Shepherd Farm
Subsite to the GE Subsite was investigated and found not to be applicable. Similarly, the
TOSCA regulations were investigation to determine their applicability to capping the dry sludge
impooundment area; they were not found to be applicable.
108
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
The presence of contamination contained onsite 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.
C. Additional Sampling Requirements
Additional groundwater and soil sampling shall be conducted to further define the extent of
contamination. Specifically, the following shall be obtained at a minimum:
* Additional soil samples shall be collected in Landfill A. If sampling results
indicate significant VOC contamination, fate and transport analysis of VOC
contamination may be warranted. In addition, an evaluation of the likelihood of
vapor transport around the cap upward to the atmosphere and vapor transport
downward to the groundwater may be needed.
* Additional soil samples shall be collected in the vicinity of monitor wells MW-14
and MW-25. These areas may have undiscovered sources.
* Additional monitor wells shall be placed and sampled: 1) east of Bat Fork Creek
between temporary well TW-1 and TW-2; 2) west of Spartanburg Hwy across
from MW-25 and MW-26; and 3) north of Tabor Road across from
Landspreading Area A. The purpose of these wells is to further define the extent
of groundwater contamination.
* Periodic sampling of private wells in the area that are used for drinking water
purposes. As part of the Remedial Design, additional sampling of private wells
include wells located upgradient of the GE and Shepherd Farm Subsites. These
wells will be selected to evaluate the effect of fracture-flow on the groundwater
contamination.
* Sampling near monitor well MW-35 to determine if additional source areas are
present. Additional groundwater investigation near this well.
* Additional soil samples shall be collected on a 25-foot grid throughout the
suspected area of soil contamination at the Shepherd Farm property to determine
the aerial extent of surficial PCB contamination and to determine the location of
any existing VOC sources. Additional soil samples shall also be collected north
and west of locations 53 and 56.
109
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
* Additional monitor wells shall be placed and sampled at the Shepherd Farm
Subsite to determine the extent of the groundwater contamination.
* Additional fish tissue samples will be collected in Bat Fork Creek and Mud Creek
to determine the extent of PCB-contaminated fish.
* Periodic sampling of the surface water and sediments of Bat Fork Creek to
determine if the groundwater remediation is having a positive effect on the quality
of the creek.
* Monitor well installation to demonstrate that there is no groundwater
contamination caused by the dry sludge impoundment area and that the waste is
at least four feet above the seasonal high water table.
* Additional soil sampling to confirm the outline of the sludge impoundment
contamination.
* Additional sampling and testing to demonstrate that the PCB contaminants are
stabilized within the impoundment sludges and will not leach to the environment.
XH. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
CERCLA Section 117(b) requires an explanation of significant change from the preferred
alternative presented in the Proposed Plan. In the proposed plan, Alternative SS5 was chosen
for GE soils and Alternative SS3 was chosen for the Shepherd Farm soils.
However, comments were received questioning the remedial action on the dry sludge
impoundment area on the GE property. GE sampled the dry sludge impoundment in 1991. The
results of this sampling investigation are given in Figure 28. Specifically, the dry sludge
impoundment is fenced and therefore, direct contact with the soils is prohibited. However,
fencing is similar to Alternative 2 - Institutional Controls. The comparative analyses revealed
that Alternative 3 - Containment would be best suited for the GE Site. Therefore, to be
consistent, the decision was made to include the dry sludge impoundment as an area requiring
an impermeable cover.
Consequently, since the dry sludge impoundment has not been found to be a groundwater threat
or a surface water run-off threat, Alternative SS3 - Excavation and Off-Site Disposal for the
Shepherd Farm Site has been changed to include disposal of the excavated soils at the GE sludge
impoundment instead of a RCRA Subtitle D Landfill. This change will result in the same risk
reduction at a lower cost.
110
-------
OFO+10
*u> / DFO+137.
2000
LEGEND
DAO+50 HAND AUGER BORING LOCATION
1200
NO NOT DETECTED
MAXIMUM PCB CONCENTRATION
(MC/KC)
50 JH°?t?IH .LINE OF PCS
NCENTRATION (MC/KC)
0 50
SCALE IN FEET
GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY
HENDERSONVILLE.
NORTH CAROLINA
LAW ENVIRONMENTAL
INC.
FIGURE 28
DRY POND
PCB ISOPLETH MAP
APPROXIMATE DEPTH 0-6"
-------
Record of Decision September 1995
GE/Shepherd Farm NPL Site
If the additional sampling and well installation outlined in Section XI.C shows that a cap will
not be effective in containing this contamination, then another remediation technology will be
selected to control this source.
In addition, in the proposed plan, it was stated that "Asphalt is considered the most appropirate
cappping material because portions of the landfills are already paved." Asphalt may be the top
layer, however the remedy has been supplemented to include in the cap 18 inches of clay, and
a flexible membrane. The cost estimate, however, has not been amended to include the cost of
these additional cap layers.
112
-------
APPENDIX D
STATE CONCURRENCE
-------
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Solid Waste Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
William L Meyer, Director
September 27, 1995
Mr Giezelle Bennett
Superfund Branch, Waste Management Division
US EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: Conditional State Concurrence with the
Record of Decision (ROD)
General Electric/Shepherd Farm
East Flat Rock, Henderson County
Dear Ms. Bennett
The North Carolina Superfund Section has received and reviewed the attached Record of
Decision (ROD) for the General Electric/Shepherd Farm Superfund Site and concurs with the
selected remedy subject to the following conditions:
1. Our concurrence on this ROD and of the selected remedies for the site is based
solely on the information contained in the attached ROD and to the conditions listed
here. Should we receive additional information that significantly affects the
conclusions or remedies contained in the ROD, we may modify or withdraw this
concurrent? with written notice to EPA Region IV.
2. Our concurrence on this ROD in no way binds the State to concur in future decisions
or commits the State to participate, financially or otherwise, in the cleanup of the
Site. The State reserves the right to review, comment, and make independent
assessments of all future work relating to this Site.
3. If, after remediation is complete, the total residual risk level exceeds 10"6, the State
may require deed recordation/restriction to document the presence of residual
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone 919-733-4996 FAX 919-716-3605
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer oaoer
-------
Ms. Giezelle Bennett
September 27, 1995
Page 2
contamination and possibly limit future use of the property as specified in NCOS
130A-310.8.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this ROD and look forward to continuing
to work with the EPA to remediate this Site.
Sincerely,
Jack Butler, PE
Environmental EL ^ineering Supervisor
Superfund Section
Attachment
cc: Curt Fehn
Mike Kelly
Dave Lown
------- |