Fifth Five Year Review Report for Carolawn Inc. Superfund Site Chester County South Carolina


FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR

CAROLAWN, INC. SUPERFUND SITE
CHESTER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

#•

SEPTEMBER 2018

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia

-------
Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AMD ACRONYMS							iv

I.	INTRODUCTION,...,,.,,,,.....,...........,....,................................................—.—..—				1

Site Background	1

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM......................................................................................... 2

II.	RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 4

Basis for Taking Action				;	4

Response Actions									 4

Status of Implementation			 5

Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)				 9

III.	PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW................................................................................ 9

IV.	FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS								10

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews............................................. 10

Data Review	

Site Inspection				15

V.	TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT..........................................................................................			15

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?......,................... 15

QUESTION B: Are tie exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the

time of the remedy selection still valid?			16

QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?	17

VI.	ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................... 18

OTHER FINDINGS.............................................................................................................................. 19

VII.	PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT.					20

VIII.	NEXT REVIEW					'				21

APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST									A-l

APPENDIX B - CURRENT SITE STATUS.						B-l

APPENDIX C - SITE CHRONOLOGY......................................							 C-l

APPENDIX D - PRESS NOTICE				D-l

APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS........................................................................................	...E-l

APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST	F-l

APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS						.	G-l

APPENDIX H - DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS				 H-l

APPENDIX I - DETAILED ARARS TABLES							..............................1-1

APPENDIX I - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW				J-l

APPENDIX K - VAPOR INTRUSION RISK EVALUATION............................................................ K-l

Tables

Table 1: Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals							 5

Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)....................................... 7

Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2013 FYR Report....................................... 9

Table 4: Status of Recommendations from the 2013 FYR Report......"........,.,.........................................,.. 9

Table 5: Estimated Surface Water Concentration Evaluation						13

Table C-l: Site Chronology.................................................................................................................... C-l

Table 1-1: Groundwater ARAR Evaluation..............................................................................................I-1

ii

-------
Table 1-2: Surface Water ARAR Evaluation						.........					...1-1

Table J-l: Resident Tap water Screening-Level Risk Evaluation of Acetone Cleanup Goal				J-l

Table J-2: OU2 Soil and Sediment COPCs											 J-2

Table J-3: OU2 Soil and Sediment COPC Residential Risk Evaluation...							J-2

Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity Map.														3

Figure 2: Parcel Map..																	8

Figure 3: Detailed Site Map																	14

Attachment 1: Groundwater Monitoring Data, 2004 to 2018 (Table 4) from the March 2018 Monitoring

Event - Final Figures and Tables 												 H-l

Attachment 2: 2013 TCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosyntec 2016-2017 Biennial
Groundwater Monitoring Report and 2018 TCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring Event -

Final Figures and Tables 											!								H-2

Attachment 3: 2013 cis-l»2-DCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosyntec 2016-2017 Biennial
Groundwater Monitoring Report and 2018 cis-l,2-DCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring

Event - Final Figures and Tables										H-4

Attachment 4: 2013 1,1 -DCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosyntec 2016-2017 Biennial
Groundwater Monitoring Report and 2018 1,1-DCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring Event

- Final Figures and Tables						 H-6

Attachment 5: Tag Map (Figure 4) from the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and

Tables												H-8

Attachment 6; Concentration Graphs (Figures 8-10) from the Draft March 2018 Monitoring Event -

Final Figures and Tables 																			 H-9

Attachment 7: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface and Flow Map (Figure 3) from the March 2018
Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables..										H-12

iii

-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AOC

Administrative Order on Consent

ARAR

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

CERCLA

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CIC

Community Involvement Coordinator

COC

Contaminant of Concern

COPC

Chemical of Potential Concern

CSC

Carolawn Steering Committee

DCA

Dichloroethane

DCE

Dichloroethylene

EISB

Enhanced In-Situ Biodegradation

EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

FFS

Focused Feasibility Study

FS

Feasibility Study

FYR

Five-Year Review

GWETS

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System

HQ

Hazard Quotient

IC

Institutional Control

Mg/L

Micrograms Per Liter

Hg/m3

Microgram Per Cubic Meter

mg/kg

Milligram per Kilogram

MCL

Maximum Contaminant Level

MNA

Monitored Natural Attenuation

MW

Monitoring Well

NCP

National,Contingency Plan

NPL

National Priorities List

O&M

Operation and Maintenance

ou

Operable Unit

PCB

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PCE

T etrachloroethylene

PRP

Potentially Responsible Party

RAO

Remedial Action Objective

R1

Remedial Investigation

ROD

Record of Decision

RPM

Remedial Project Manager

RSL.

Regional Screening Level

RV

Recreational Vehicle

SCDHEC

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

SVE

Soil Vapor Extraction

TCA

Trichloroethane

TCE

Trichloroethylene

UAO

Unilateral Administrative Order

UU/UE

Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure

VOC

Volatile Organic Compound

WQC

Water Quality Criteria

iv

-------
I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy
to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment.
The methods, findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In
addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to
address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing this FYR pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, consistent with the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)),
and considering EPA policy.

This is the fifth FYR for the Carolawn, Inc. Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for this
statutory review is the previous FYR. The FYR has been prepared because hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure (UU/UE).

The Site consists of two operable units (OUs). OU1 is a 3-acre area completely enclosed by a chain-link
fence and the areal extent of all groundwater contamination beneath the Site. OU2 is an undeveloped
wooded area to the north and west of the fenced area of OU1. OU2 includes the soils, surface water and
sediment in Fishing Creek. This FYR addresses both OUs.

EPA remedial project manager (RPM) Yvonne Jones led the FYR. Participants included EPA
community involvement coordinator (CIC) Kerisa Coleman, Joel Padgett from the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), Jeff Ahrens from potentially responsible
party (PRP) contractor Geosyntec, and Kelly MacDonald and Johnny Zimmerman-Ward from Skeo
(EPA FYR support contractor). The PRP was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on
11/13/2017.

Site Background

The 60-acre site is located at 5093 Morrison Road in Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina (Figure
1). From 1970 to 1979, a waste storage and disposal facility operated at the Site. Operations disposed of
about 4,500 drums of waste, several bulk storage tanks and sludge in the Site's 3-acre fenced area.
Additionally, operations disposed of 660 drums and 11 storage tanks outside the fenced area in the
northern portion of the Site.

Current site features include a former groundwater treatment building, monitoring wells, a fence and
signage. Rural and agricultural areas surround much of the Site. The Lancaster & Chester Railroad and
County Road 841 border the Site to the south. Providence Fish & Game (a hunting club) and Fishing
Creek border the Site to the east. The Circle S Ranch borders the Site to the west. There are several
residences southwest of the Site. The fenced OU1 area is not currently in use; the hunting club hunts on
some areas of OU2. The club also maintains several structures near the Site for storage and hunting-
related purposes and club members temporarily park recreational vehicles (RVs) in this area; they do not
have any drinking water wells on site.

-------
Groundwater beneath the Site occurs along joint/fracture planes in the bedrock, forming a bedrock
aquifer. Groundwater flow is generally northeast and southeast toward Fishing Creek. Fishing Creek
forms a hydraulic boundary to the northeast, east and southeast of the Site and is the discharge location
for site groundwater. The four residences that previously used private wells in the area about 1,000 yards
southwest of the Site were provided an alternative water source in 1985. They were connected to the
Chester Metropolitan Sanitary District.

Appendix A provides a list of references used during this FYR. Appendix B provides detailed site status
information. Appendix C provides a chronology of site events.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

Lead agency: EPA

Author name: Yvonne Jones (EPA) and Kelly MacDonald and Johnny Zimmerman-Ward (Skeo)

Author affiliation: EPA and Skeo

Review period: 11/13/2017 - 8/1/2018

Date of site inspection: 2/22/2018

Type of review: Statutory

Review number: 5

Triggering action date: 9/26/2013

Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 9/26/2018

2

-------
Figure 1: Vicinity Map

r,

^Skeo

o

NORTH

Carolawn, Inc. Superfund Site

Town of Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding the EPA's response actions at the Site.

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tele Atlas, First American, UNEP-WCMC.
USGS, DigitalGlobe. GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS.
USDA, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, the GIS User
Community, Beacon Chester County GIS and the 2016 FFS

Legend

BSite Property Boundary
OU1/ Fence
—Railroad

C/)«roKe;

Carolawn, Inc.
Superfund Site

rshato

3

-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY

Basis for Taking Action

The PRP, the Carolawn Steering Committee (CSC), performed a remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) for OU1 in 1989. It identified volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and lead in
groundwater as the only contaminants of concern (COCs) with the potential to pose unacceptable risk
for human consumption (Table 1). Former waste storage drums and tanks were identified as the source
of these COCs.

Based on the results of the 1994 RI and baseline risk assessment for OU2, the EPA determined that
surface and subsurface soils, surface water, and sediment in Fishing Creek did not pose unacceptable
risks to the public or the environment. Therefore, a FS and a remedial action for OU2 were not
warranted.

Response Actions

The Carolawn Company abandoned the site property in 1980. SCDHEC and the EPA conducted site
investigations during the early 1980s. Due to the elevated levels of site contamination, the EPA removed
contaminated soils, drums and liquid waste at the Site from December 1981 to February 1982. The EPA
proposed the Site for listing on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in December
1982. The EPA finalized the Site's listing on the NPL in September 1983. At least one local residential
well showed persistently high levels of VOCs, so the EPA extended the Chester Metropolitan Sanitary
District's water main to four residences near the Site in 1985. In May 1985, the CSC entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct a removal action that included removing storage
tanks, disposing of tank contents, and excavating and disposing of contaminated soils. The CSC
conducted the removal action in 1986.

In September 1989, the EPA issued an OU1 Record of Decision (ROD), which included the following
remedial action objectives (RAOs):

• Prevent the near-term and future exposure of human receptors to contaminated groundwater both
on and off site.

• Restore the contaminated aquifer for future use by reducing contaminant levels to those which
will adequately protect human health and the environment.

• Control contaminant migration so contaminant releases from groundwater to Fishing Creek do
not exceed cleanup criteria for human health and the environment.

• Monitor groundwater in a manner to verify effectiveness of remedial measures.

• Confirm the absence or presence of soil contamination in the storage area north of the fenced
area (OU2).

The OU1 remedy included the following components:

• Migration Control - Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater

o Installation of a groundwater interception and extraction system at the Site.

¦ The remedy provided three water discharge alternatives for the treated

groundwater: 1) the local sewer system; 2) Fishing Creek via a National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit or; 3) on-site irrigation,
o Implementation of appropriate institutional controls.

-------
o Plugging and abandonment of the adjacent contaminated private potable wells by Chester
County.

• Source Control - Remediation of Contaminated Soils

o Installation of confirmatory soil borings in the disposal area north of the fenced area to
verify the presence or absence of contamination and, if present, address cleanup of this
contamination in another ROD.1

• General Site Cleanup Activities

o Inspection, sampling and disposal of two inactive incinerators and two remaining drums.

Cleanup goals selected for groundwater are included below in Table 1.

Table 1: Groundwater COC Cleanup Goals

Groundwater COC

ROD Cleanup Goal ()ig/L)

Cleanup Goal Basis

Acetone

700

Lifetime Health Advisory

1,1 -Dichloroethane (DCA)

1,1 -Dichloroethylene (DCE)

MCL

1,2- DCE

70-cis
100 - trans

Proposed MCL
Proposed MCL

1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (TCA)

200

MCL

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

MCL

Lead

Proposed MCL

Notes:

Source: 1989 ROD, Table 23

|ig/L = micrograms per liter
MCL = maximum contaminant level

* = No firm cleanup criteria has been established. It is assumed that due to 1,1-DCA's similar

chemical/physical characteristics with other contaminants present, the levels will decrease
proportionally along with the other contaminants.

To address the soils located beyond OU1, the EPA conducted RI activities for OU2 and issued a ROD
for OU2 in 1995. The 1995 OU2 ROD selected a "no action" remedy due to the absence of any
significant source of contamination in soil, surface water and sediment at the Site. The ROD stated that
should future monitoring of the Site indicate the presence of unacceptable risk to the environment, then
the EPA may initiate cleanup actions.

Status of Implementation

From December 1991 to May 1992, CSC contractors closed at least three residential wells (which were
no longer in use). The groundwater extraction and treatment system (GWETS) was installed from
December 1995 to June 1996. GWETS operation began in October 1996 and ended in July 2004 when
CSC shut down the GWETS, removed pumps and decommissioned the system. During operation, the
system extracted about 19.2 million gallons of groundwater and 16 kilograms of VOCs from the bedrock
VOC plume. It was estimated that the GWETS would have had to operate for at least another 62 years to
achieve MCLs, due to the low yield of the bedrock formation. Therefore, the EPA and SCDHEC
recommended a system optimization study to consider other remedial technologies to address
groundwater contamination.

1 No source of contamination remained within the fenced area of the Site due to earlier removal actions.

. 5

-------
In 2005, the CSC conducted a pilot study to evaluate enhanced in-situ biodegradation (EISB) as a
remedial option, which involved the injection of a soy-oil based product known as Newman Zone to
promote accelerated biodegradation of VOCs. Post-injection monitoring data indicated biodegradation
occurred. However, these conditions were not widespread, and biodegradation slowed at individual
locations due to insufficient transport away from the injection boreholes. In addition, the plume extent
and VOC concentrations did not change significantly in response to the EISB in the bedrock aquifer.
The 2008 FYR Report recommended further evaluation of remedial technologies.

In March 2009, the EPA issued a modified Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to the CSC that
required a focused feasibility study (FFS) to identify a groundwater remedy besides the GWETS. In
August 2010, the CSC conducted a soil vapor extraction (SVE) pilot study to evaluate it as a potential
interim remedial measure. The study indicated SVE was a feasible approach to reduce VOC mass in the
subsurface (vadose zone), which could result in reduced VOC concentrations in groundwater. Following
discussions with SCDHEC, the CSC and the Community Advisory Group, the EPA approved
construction of the SVE system, which finished in January 2012. The SVE system was intended to
operate until VOC recovery reached a point of diminishing returns and sufficient data were collected to
complete the FFS. The SVE system operated until June 2014, when it was shut down due to a continued
decrease in VOC mass removal and asymptotic VOC mass removal rates. About 160 pounds of VOC
mass were removed during SVE system operation. SVE system well and piping abandonment activities
took place in July 2016.

The CSC submitted a revised FFS in 2016, which provided an update of site conditions based on
remedial actions conducted to date and evaluated potential OU1 remedial technologies. Several
technologies were evaluated, including monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and enhanced permeability
with groundwater extraction/treatment or with in-situ biological treatment, among others. The EPA,
SCDHEC and CSC are currently discussing the remedial options with plans to discuss the remedial
options with members of the community in the coming months. The EPA will consider input from all
parties prior to selecting a new remedy for the Site and amending the 1989 ROD.

Institutional Control (IC) Review

The 1989 OU1 ROD required institutional controls at the Site, but ICs have not yet been implemented
due to the lack of a viable property owner willing to execute and record institutional controls. The
defunct Carolawn Company is still listed as the property owner. The CSC, SCDHEC and the EPA have
agreed on draft restrictive covenants; they allow no use of OU1, permit only commercial or industrial
land use in areas outside of OU1 on the site parcel, require maintenance of site remedial features,
preclude disturbance of soil below the top 12 inches without regulatory approval, and restrict
groundwater use. Figure 2 includes site and nearby parcels that may require institutional controls,
particularly due to contaminated groundwater.

-------
Table 2: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented Institutional Controls (ICs)

Media, Engineered
Controls, and Areas
That Do Not
Support UU/UE
Based on Current
Conditions

ICs
Needed

ICs Called
for in the
Decision
Documents

Impacted
Parcel(s)

1C
Objective

Title of IC
Instrument
Implemented
and Date (or
planned)









The 1989 ROD required
appropriate institutional controls to
be implemented.



Groundwater and soil

Yes

Yes

146-00-00-
005-000

Draft institutional controls include

the following restrictions:

•	Prevent use of OU1.

•	Permit only commercial or
industrial land use in areas
outside of OU 1.

•	Require maintenance of site
remedial features.

•	Preclude disturbance of soil
below the top 12 inches
without regulatory approval.

•	Restrict groundwater use.

Drafted but

not yet
implemented
due to lack of
viable
property
owner

Groundwater

Yes

Yes

146-00-00-
016-000,
146-00-00-
018-000, 146-
00-00-019-
000, 146-00-
00-037-000

• Restrict groundwater use.

Not yet
implemented

7

-------
Figure 2: Parcel Map

E%6T00-00-005r0Q'0|

Sjij «| ¦- -V

' ¦ 4 " '



I	r-	' *

I

500

1,000

2,000
I Feet

Sources: Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tele Atlas, First
American, UNEP-WCMC, USGS. Digitaldobe, GeoEye,
Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, the GIS
User Community, Beacon Chester County GIS, the 2016
FFS and Figures 5, 6 and 7 of the March 2018
Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

Note: Cis-1,2-DCE
and TCE plumes
dashed where inferred.

Legend

Site Property Boundary
I | Parcels

	Cis-1,2-DCE 70 pg/L Plume (2018)

	1,1 -DCE 7 pg/L Plume (2018)

	TCE 5 pg/L Plume (2018)

^ Skeo

Carolawn, Inc. Superfund Site

Town of Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational
purposes only regarding the EPA's response actions at the Site.

8

-------
Systems Operations/Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

The PRPs' contractor routinely inspects the Site to document the general condition of the facility and
security of the building and equipment. The contractor also cuts the grass near the former groundwater
treatment building every other week during the growing season. The PRPs' contractor monitors
groundwater semiannually.

The 1989 ROD estimated O&M costs for the GWETS remedy, which is no longer active. The SVE
system was installed in 2012 and operated for about 30 months at a cost of $750,000. Since 2013, the
PRP has spent approximately $1.1M to conduct groundwater monitoring, conduct fate and transport
modeling, meet with and respond to comments from regulatory agencies, and prepare the revised FFS
and biennial groundwater reports. $220K is the annual O&M costs for each year (2013 through 2017).

III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW

This section includes the protectiveness determinations and statements from the previous FYR as well as
the recommendations from the previous FYR and the status of those recommendations.

Table 3: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2013 FYR Report

ou#

Protectiveness
Determination

Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide

Short-term
Protective

The remedy at the Carolawn Site is protective in the short term since there is no complete
exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater and the groundwater extraction and treatment
remedy was functioning as intended by the 1989 ROD. For the remedy to be protective in the
long term, the following actions should occur:

• An appropriate decision document should be prepared to add vinyl chloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane and tetrachloroethene to the list of cleanup goals to be addressed at this
Site.

• Determine the appropriate institutional controls to restrict groundwater use at the Site.

• Evaluate the need for ICs restricting groundwater use on residential properties
adjacent to the Site.

• Continue to evaluate available groundwater treatment technologies to determine
whether such technologies would be more effective than the GWETS in efficiently
restoring the contaminated aquifer. If another alternative is preferred, a decision
document will be issued for the Carolawn Site.

Table 4: Status of Recommendations from the 2013 FYR Report

OU#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current
Implementation Status
Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

The 1989 ROD did not
include vinyl chloride, 1,2-

dichloroethane and
tetrachloroethene in the list
of COCs with cleanup
goals.

An appropriate decision document
should be prepared to add vinyl
chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane and
tetrachloroethene to the list of
cleanup goals to be addressed at
this Site.

Ongoing

An updated decision
document has not yet
been issued. However,
all three contaminants
are routinely monitored.

N/A.

The 1989 ROD required

ICs. ICs restricting
groundwater use may be
necessary because there are
no restrictions in place to

The EPA, SCDHEC and the CSC

should work with the Site
Property owners to determine the
appropriate ICs at the Carolawn
Site to prevent exposure to

Ongoing

The PRP, the EPA and
SCDHEC have agreed
on a restrictive covenant,
but there is no viable

N/A

-------
ou#

Issue

Recommendations

Current
Status

Current
Implementation Status
Description

Completion

Date (if
applicable)

prevent exposure to
contaminated groundwater
from the Site that exists
above cleanup goals
specified in the 1989 ROD,
other than SCDHEC's well
permit requirements.

contaminated groundwater from
the Site that exists above cleanup
goals specified in the 1989 ROD
for execution by a viable property
owner willing to execute and
record such ICs.

property owner to
implement them.

ICs may be needed on
residential properties
adjacent to the Site.

Evaluate the need for ICs
restricting groundwater use on
residential properties adjacent to
the Site.

Ongoing

The EPA is currently
evaluating the need for
institutional controls on
neighboring properties.

N/A

The remedy was
functioning as intended by
the 1989 ROD. The 1989
ROD estimated 10 years to
achieve MCLs. However, it
is estimated that the
GWETS would have to
operate an estimated
additional 62 years to
achieve MCLs due
primarily to the low yield of
the bedrock formation.

The EPA should continue to
evaluate available groundwater
treatment technologies to
determine whether such
technologies would be more
effective than the GWETS in
efficiently restoring the
contaminated aquifer. If another
alternative is preferred, a decision
document will be issued for the
Carolawn Site.

Under
Discussion

The PRP contractor has
submitted a revised FFS
for additional remedial
options. The CSC, the
EPA, and SCDHEC are
determining appropriate
next steps.

N/A

IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews

Two public notices were made available by newspaper posting in the News and Reporter on 2/16/2018
and 2/21/2018 (Appendix D). They stated that the FYR was underway and invited the public to submit
any comments to the EPA; they also shared the two site repository addresses. The results of the review
and the report will be made available at the Site's information repositories, Lancaster County Library,
located at 313 South White Street in Lancaster, South Carolina, and Chester County Public Library,
located at 100 Center Street in Chester, South Carolina.

During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problemsor successes
with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below. Completed
interview forms are included in Appendix E.

While overall bedrock groundwater VOC concentrations are stable or decreasing at the source zone, Joel
Padgett of SCDHEC noted that bedrock VOC concentrations at downgradient monitoring wells are not
decreasing. As the downgradient wells are located immediately upgradient of Fishing Creek and
contaminant transport through bedrock is poorly understood, Mr. Padgett expressed concern regarding
the potential for groundwater contaminant flux into the creek. He also noted that downgradient extent of
groundwater contamination is undefined. As a prerequisite for future remedy development, SCDHEC
recommends assessment of groundwater transport in bedrock and of the groundwater-to-surface water
pathway. While the risk of exposure to contaminated groundwater is minimal, Mr. Padgett noted that
finalization of the Site's groundwater use restrictions is needed to prevent unacceptable exposure in the
future. SCDHEC is not aware of any site-related complaints, changes in projected site land use or
changes in state law that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's future remedy.

-------
Jeff Ahrens from PRP contractor Geosyntec stated that the SVE system appears to have been an
effective interim remedial measure. Based on groundwater monitoring data and groundwater flow and
transport modeling, Geosyntec recommends MNA to address remaining groundwater contamination.
Evaluations have shown that TCE and DCE concentrations in groundwater near Fishing Creek are
expected to attenuate to concentrations below their respective MCLs within about 30 years. Mr. Ahrens
noted that Geosyntec submitted a Groundwater Sampling Technique Comparison Report to the EPA in
2014. The purpose of the report was to evaluate alternative groundwater sampling techniques to provide
high-quality data while reducing field efforts required in data collection and reducing the volume of
investigation derived wastes generated. Based on the study findings, and with the EPA's approval,
Geosyntec started using passive diffusion bags to sample site groundwater in 2014. Mr. Ahrens stated
that there have been no unexpected O&M difficulties in the last five years and that routine O&M
inspections and activities ensure that the Site remains secure and well maintained.

The EPA also spoke with a resident who indicated that she has lived in the area for about 64 years and is
very familiar with the Site. She said the EPA has done an amazing job at the Site. She stated that she has
not spoken with anyone regarding the Site and feels that many are not aware of its existence. This
resident recommended that the EPA retain both repositories and continue to publish notices in the local
paper.

Data Review

Groundwater monitoring conducted during this FYR was intended to verify the effectiveness of
remedial measures. Surface water was not sampled, but estimated surface water concentrations were
calculated based on groundwater concentrations.

Groundwater

Groundwater is currently monitored semiannually for VOCs. The wells are shown on Figure 3. Several
wells are paired, with B wells having shallower well screens. The VOCs sampled that have exceeded
MCLs from October 2004 to March 2018 include 1,2-DCA, 1,1-DCE, cis-l,2-DCE, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,1,2-TCA, TCE and vinyl chloride; several of these VOCs are not official
COCs. Several groundwater COCs are no longer sampled for as they were detected below cleanup goals,
including acetone, 1,1-DCA, transrl,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA and lead. Groundwater monitoring data from
2004 to 2018 are included in Attachment 1 in Appendix H. The three most prevalent contaminants in
groundwater at the Site are TCE, cis-l,2-DCE and 1,1-DCE. Concentrations of these contaminants by
well from 2011 to 2018 are shown in Attachment 5 of Appendix H.

Current plumes are shown in Figure 3. Groundwater flow is generally to the east in the western portion
of the Site, and to the northeast and southeast toward Fishing Creek in the eastern portion of the Site.
Therefore, plumes generally extend from the Site east toward the creek. See Attachment 7 in Appendix
H for a potentiometric surface and flow map. The plumes in areas between the creek and Site are
inferred due to a lack of wells. The extent of the 5 micrograms per liter (jag/L) TCE plume has remained
about the same over the last five years, but the extent of the 100 (ig/L TCE plume has decreased.
Concentrations in some wells have increased, including MW-13 (from 16.5 |ag/L in 2013 to 127 (ig/L in
2018) and MW-4 (from 46.5 [Xg/L in 2013 to 79.5 [ig/L in 2018). Several wells with TCE concentrations
over 100 (ig/L have decreased in the last five years, including MW-06 (from 535 |ig/L in 2013 to 98.3
|ig/L in 2018) as well as MW-5, MW-12 and MW-14. Concentrations in downgradient wells near the
creek have decreased. Concentrations in monitoring well MW-1 IB were above the TCE MCL in 2013

-------
but below the MCL in 2018, while 2018 concentrations in MW-1 OA/1 OB and MW-11A continue to
exceed the MCL. See a comparison of the 2013 and 2018 TCE plumes in Attachment 2 of Appendix H.

The extent of the 70 (ig/L cis-l,2-DCE plume has decreased in the last five years, with concentrations no
longer present above MCLs in the southeast area near wells MW-14, MW-11A and MW-1 IB. The
plume continues to extend to the creek to the northeast at MW-10A/10B. Concentrations have increased
in MW-10A from 2013 (62.5 ng/L) to 2018 (72.9 ng/L). See a comparison of the 2013 and 2018 cis-1,2-
DCE plumes in Attachment 3 of Appendix H.

The 1,1 -DCE plume in 2013 consisted of two monitoring wells, MW-16 and MW-17, that exceeded the
MCL of 7 |J.g/L. In 2018, 1,1-DCE concentrations have decreased to below the MCL in MW-17. At
MW-16, the 2018 concentration only slightly exceeded the MCL at 8.7 |ig/L. See a comparison of the
2013 and 2018 1,1-DCE plumes in Attachment 3 of Appendix H.

Vinyl chloride was detected above the MCL of 2 jag/L during this FYR period in several wells in which
it was not historically detected (i.e., MW-17, MW-11 A, MW-1 IB and MW-10A). The maximum
detection during this FYR period was 11.3 |ig/L in September 2013 in MW-06. The highest detection in
the most recent sampling event (March 2018) was 3.2 [ig/L in MW-10A.

Trend graphs for concentrations of TCE, cis-l,2-DCE and 1,1-DCE in the source area (MW-5, MW-6
and MW-12) are available in Attachment 6 of Appendix H. As seen in these graphs, concentrations of
these contaminants have overall decreased in the last five years.

Generally, groundwater contamination at the Site has decreased since the GWETS and particularly since
the operation of the SVE system from 2012 to 2014. However, contamination remains above MCLs for
several VOCs, which is why the EPA, the PRP and SCDHEC are continuing to discuss additional
remedial options.

Surface Water

Groundwater concentrations were above MCLs for several contaminants during the most recent
sampling event in wells next to the creek (MW-1 OA, MW-10B and MW-11 A). The PRP contractor
states that groundwater concentrations are below levels that would impact surface water in the creek
above EPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for human health. To verify this conclusion with current data,
the surface water concentration was predicted by applying a dilution factor (from the 2004 Remedial
System Evaluation and Final Action Plan) to the maximum detected concentrations from wells MW-
10A, MW-10B and MW-11A in March 2018. The dilution factor represents the VOC groundwater
discharge attenuation in the creek. These estimated surface water concentrations were compared to their
WQC (or the MCL if no WQC exists). All estimated surface water concentrations were less than their
regulatory standards. However, concentrations for cis-l,2-DCE and vinyl chloride have an increasing
trend (which is to be expected, as these contaminants are breakdown products of TCE). The highest
concentration of TCE in a well near the creek was observed in 2011 in MW-10B; concentrations have
declined in that well since then but have fluctuated and remained between 61.9 |j.g/L and 116 |j.g/L in the
last five years. Monitoring should continue to evaluate if increasing groundwater contaminant trends
could impact the creek in the future.

-------
Table 5: Estimated Surface Water Concentration Evaluation

Contaminant

Maximum Detection of March
2018 Sampling Event (from MW-
10A, MW-10B or MW-11B) (jug/L)a

Dilution
Factorb

Estimated Surface
Water Concentration
(Ug/L )c

Current
WQCd
(Hg/L)

Cis-1,2-DCE

72.9 (MW-10A)

0.001

0.0729

70e

TCE

67.7 (MW-10B)

0.001

0.0677

0.6

Vinyl chloride

3.2 (MW-10A)

0.001

0.0032

0.022

a.	Concentrations from Table 4 of March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables.

b.	Dilution factor from Section 2.3 of the 2004 Remedial System Evaluation and Final Action Plan.

c.	Estimated surface water concentration = maximum detection x dilution factor.

d.	WQC (human health for the consumption of water + organism) accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-qualitv-criteria-human-health-criteria-table. These
WQC are current as of 3/30/2018.

e.	MCL used instead of WQC because WQC not available for the contaminant.

Ug/L = micrograms per liter		 '	

13

-------
Figure 3: Detailed Site Map

[MW-5]

WNim

Morrison



MW-11 Bj

I Pishing]

250

500

1,000
¦¦Feet

Sources. Esri, DeLorme, AND, Tele Atlas, First American, UNEP-WCMC,
USGS, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, the GIS User
Community, Beacon Chester County GIS, the 2016 FFS and Figures 5, 6
and 7 of the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables.

Legend

~ Site Property Boundary

	Cis-1,2-DCE 70 \tglL Plume (2018)

	1,1 -DCE 7 pg/L Plume (2018)

Note: Cis-1,2-DCE and TCE plumes dashed where inferred.

TCE 5 pg/L Plume (2018)
Monitoring Wells

^ Skeo

Carolawn, Inc. Superfund Site

Town of Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina

Disclaimer: This map and any boundary lines within the map are approximate and subject to change. The map is not a survey. The map is for informational purposes only regarding the EPA's response actions at
the Site.

14

-------
Site Inspection

The site inspection took place on 2/22/2018. Participants included EPA RPM Yvonne Jones, EPA CIC
Kerisa Coleman, Dionne Brown McDougal from the EPA, Sara MacDonald and Ben Jumper from
SCDHEC, Jeff Ahrens from PRP contractor Geosyntec, and Johnny Zimmerman-Ward and Kelly
MacDonald from Skeo (EPA FYR support contractor). The purpose of the inspection was to assess the
protectiveness of the remedy. The site inspection checklist and photographs are included in Appendices
F and G, respectively.

The site inspection began with a tour of the former groundwater treatment building; this system is no
longer used, but the building was locked, and the area was secured with a fence. The fence had a "no
trespassing" sign and a sign identifying the Site as a Superfund site. There was no evidence of
trespassing in this area. The group then walked through the Site and visited monitoring wells, which
were generally in good condition. The group also visited Fishing Creek at the northeastern part of the
Site. There was evidence of illegal dumping of household waste (e.g., insulation) in this area.

The group walked through the wooded area of the Site, on to the adjacent hunting club property. The
hunting club cabin burned down in the last five years; the club has since rebuilt and currently has at least
three structures on their property. The RVs of several hunting club members were parked adjacent to the
Site, and two of their buildings are in this area. One is raised about 15 feet off the ground, and one is on
the ground behind the raised building. The third building is northeast of this area and is used for storage
and hunting-related purposes. The hunting club has a no trespassing sign and a gate at Morrison Road
that limits access.

Skeo staff visited the Site's two information repositories, the Lancaster and Chester County libraries.
Lancaster County Library included the Site's Administrative Record and documents as recent as the
2003 FYR Report. Chester County Library had no site documents available.

V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Question A Summary:

The OU2 no action remedy is functioning as intended. Historical removal actions, including removal of
contaminated soil and drums, addressed contamination in this area. However, additional action for OU2
may be required due to updated toxicity standards; see Question B for more detail.

The OU1 remedy is partially functioning as intended. Removal actions addressed contaminated soil for
OU1. The GWETS operated from 1996 to 2004 and treated millions of gallons of groundwater.
However, the system as operated was predicted to be unable to reach MCLs in a timely manner. The
EISB and SVE pilot studies both reduced contaminant mass, but VOC contamination in groundwater
persists. The CSC completed the revised FFS in 2016. The EPA, SCDHEC and CSC are currently
working together to select a final remedy to address residual groundwater contamination. The EPA will
then issue a decision document that will formally require the new remedy.

Groundwater data currently indicate that there are no impacts to surface water in Fishing Creek above
WQC. However, monitoring should continue to evaluate if increasing groundwater contaminant trends
could impact the creek in the future.

-------
The 1989 ROD required institutional controls, which have not been implemented due to the lack of a
viable property owner. The institutional controls are in draft form and will be recorded once there is a
viable owner.

Groundwater contamination also extends beyond the site boundary, but there are no known uses of this
groundwater. The EPA is evaluating the need for institutional controls restricting groundwater use on
properties where groundwater contamination is present. Any needed restriction requirements will be
recorded in a decision document.

QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the time
of the remedy selection still valid?

Question B Summary:

The RAOs of preventing human exposure to contaminated groundwater, restoring the contaminated
aquifer, preventing migration of contaminated groundwater to Fishing Creek, monitoring groundwater to
evaluate remedial effectiveness, and confirming the absence of soil contamination in OU2 all remain
valid.

The 2013 FYR Report stated that the 1989 ROD did not include vinyl chloride, 1,2-DCA and PCE in the
list of COCs with cleanup goals and recommended including them as COCs in a decision document. In
addition, since the 2013 FYR recommendation, methylene chloride has exceeded its MCL. Several
COCs are also not currently analyzed for in samples. The EPA plans to include appropriate COCs with
cleanup goals when the 1989 ROD is amended.

This FYR evaluated the validity of the Site's groundwater cleanup goals; the goals were based on
proposed or established MCLs, except for acetone. MCLs used for groundwater cleanup goals all remain
the same or less stringent than those selected in the 1989 ROD. See Appendix I for the full Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) evaluation. The protectiveness of the acetone
groundwater cleanup goal was evaluated using a screening-level risk evaluation conducted by
comparing the cleanup goal to the EPA's residential tapwater regional screening level (RSL). See the
full screening-level risk evaluation in Appendix J. Based on these evaluations, the groundwater cleanup
goals set in the 1989 ROD remain valid.

The 1989 ROD stated that the rate and level of discharge of contaminants with the groundwater into
Fishing Creek would not surpass the WQC for the COCs. Several WQC have become more or less
stringent since the 1989 ROD (Appendix I). The PRP contractor states that groundwater concentrations
are below levels that would impact surface water in the creek above EPA WQC for human health. To
verify this conclusion with current data, the surface water concentration was predicted by applying a
dilution factor (from the 2004 Remedial System Evaluation and Final Action Plan) to the maximum
detected concentrations from wells MW-10A, MW-10B and MW-11A in March 2018. The dilution
factor represents the VOC groundwater discharge attenuation in the creek. These estimated surface
water concentrations were compared to their WQC (or the MCL if no WQC exists). All estimated
surface water concentrations were less than their regulatory standards. However, concentrations for cis-
1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride have an increasing trend (which is to be expected, as these contaminants are
breakdown products of TCE). The highest concentration of TCE in a well near the creek was observed
in 2011 in MW-10B; concentrations have declined in that well since then but have fluctuated and -
remained between 61.9 ^g/L and 116 (ig/L in the last five years. Due to changes in the WQC since the
1989 ROD, long-term monitoring should use current WQC when evaluating impacts to surface water.

-------
Groundwater contaminants at the Site are considered volatile, and vapor intrusion risk evaluations were
conducted as part of this FYR to estimate the potential vapor intrusion risks for current land use. No
unacceptable risk was determined for any current on-site structure. The full evaluations are included in
Appendix K. If additional buildings are built over volatile groundwater contamination, this exposure
pathway should be further evaluated with multiple lines of evidence and risk should be mitigated as
needed.

In addition, 1,1,1-TCA was a COC selected in the 1989 ROD. Historically, 1,4-dioxane was used as a
stabilizer for 1,1,1-TCA. To determine whether 1,4-dioxane is present in site media, the CSC should
sample for 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and take additional action if necessary.

This FYR also evaluated the validity of the toxicity information used to select the Site's OU2 no action
remedy. The historical maximum contaminant concentrations in soil and sediment were evaluated using
a screening-level risk evaluation conducted by comparing the samples' concentrations to the EPA's
current residential soil RSLs. Except for lead, hexavalent chromium and polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-1254, the maximum detected concentrations of contaminants in soil and sediment are within the
EPA's acceptable risk range for cancer risk and below an HQ of 1 for noncancer risk. Though the
maximum exceeded the residential RSL, the average lead surface soil concentration was well below the
RSL, indicating that unacceptable exposure risk from lead is unlikely. Maximum concentrations of
hexavalent chromium and PCB-1254 exceeded residential RSLs and therefore do not allow for UU/UE.
However, this screening is conservative because use of maximum concentrations and residential
exposure assumptions in the assessment may overestimate risk. There is minimal potential exposure, as
this site area is only used by hunters, and a recreational receptor is assumed to be on site less frequently
and for a shorter duration than is assumed in the residential soil RSLs. However, to ensure long-term
protectiveness, the need for institutional controls for soil in OU2 will be evaluated. See the full
screening-level risk evaluation in Appendix J.

QUESTION C : Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

-------
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:

None.

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the FYR:

OU(s): 1

Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: The GWETS is no longer operating due to its estimated timeframe required
to meet MCLs, but a new groundwater remedy is not yet in place. Not all
currently sampled VOCs that exceed MCLs were selected as COCs in the original
remedy.

Recommendation: Select and implement a new groundwater remedy. Record the
selected remedy in a decision document. Include all appropriate COCs and
cleanup goals in the decision document.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

EPA

EPA

10/31/2020

OU(s): 1

Issue Category: Monitoring

Issue: The 1989 ROD identified 1,1,1-TCA as a COC, and 1,4-dioxane was
historically used as a stabilizer for 1,1,1-TCA. It is unknown if 1,4-dioxane is
present in site media.

Recommendation: Sample for 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and take additional
action if necessary.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

PRP

EPA

9/26/2020

OU(s): 1

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: The 1989 ROD required institutional controls, which have not been
implemented due to the lack of a viable property owner.

Recommendation: Implement institutional controls forOUl.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

No

Yes

EPA/State/PRP

EPA

9/26/2020

18

-------
OU(s): 1

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: Groundwater contamination extends beyond the site boundary; no
institutional controls to limit groundwater use are in place on neighboring
properties where groundwater contamination is present.

Recommendation: Evaluate the need for institutional controls restricting
groundwater use on properties where groundwater contamination is present.
Record any needed restriction requirements in a decision document.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

Yes

EPA/State/PRP

EPA

9/26/2020

OU(s): 2

Issue Category: Institutional Controls

Issue: Soil contamination (specifically chromium and PCB-1254) concentrations
exceeded residential RSLs and may not allow for residential use.

Recommendation: Evaluate the need for institutional controls for OU2. If
required, modify the decision document as appropriate.

Affect Current
Protectiveness

Affect Future
Protectiveness

Party
Responsible

Oversight Party

Milestone Date

Yes

EPA

9/26/2020

OTHER FINDINGS

Two additional recommendations were identified during the FYR. These recommendations do not affect
current and/or future protectiveness.

• If additional buildings are built over volatile groundwater contamination, this exposure pathway
should be further evaluated with multiple lines of evidence to determine if mitigation is needed.

• Continue to monitor downgradient monitoring well locations to ensure the current remedy and
the future selected remedy remains protective of Fishing Creek.

-------
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

Protectiveness Statcmeiit(s)

Operable Unit: 1 Protectiveness Determination:

Short-term Protective

• Select and implement a new groundwater remedy. Record the selected remedy in a decision
document. Include all appropriate COCs and cleanup goals in the decision document.

• Sample for 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and take additional action if necessary.

• Implement institutional controls for OU 1.

• Evaluate the need for institutional controls restricting groundwater use on properties where
groundwater contamination is present. Record any needed restriction requirements in a decision
document.'

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit:2 Protectiveness Determination:

Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU2 is protective in the short term because historical removal
actions, including removal of contaminated soil and drums, addressed contamination in this area. For
the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following action should occur:

• Evaluate the need for institutional controls for OU2, as necessary.

Sitewidc Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination:

Short-term Protective

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at OU 1 is protective in the short term because there is no complete
exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater, and the GWETS and other pilot studies have reduced
the amount and extent of groundwater contamination. The remedy at OU2 is protective in the short term
because historical removal actions, including removal of contaminated soil and drums, addressed
contamination in this area. For the remedy to be protective over the long term, the following actions
should occur:

• Select and implement a new groundwater remedy. Record the selected remedy in a decision
document. Include all appropriate COCs and cleanup goals in the decision document.

• Sample for 1,4-dioxane in groundwater and take additional action if necessary.

• Implement institutional controls for OU1.

• Evaluate the need for institutional controls for OU2, as necessary.

-------
¥111. NEXT REVIEW

The next FYR Report for the Carolawn, Inc. Superfund site is required five years from the completion
date of this review.

21

-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST

Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South
Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. February 2018.

Carolawn Project Status/Groundwater Model Overview Meeting, Carolawn Superfund Site. Prepared by
the Carolawn Steering Committee for EPA Region 4 and the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control. May 2015.

Draft Final Operations and Maintenance Manual, Groundwater Remediation System, Carolawn Site,
Chester County, South Carolina. Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. February 1997.

Fourth Five-Year Review for Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina.
EPA Region 4 and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. September
2013.

Groundwater Modeling Report, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina.
Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. September 2015.

Groundwater Sampling Technique Comparison Study Report, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn,
Chester County, South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. March 2014.

Memorandum. Subject: Carolawn NPL Site, Fort Lawn, South Carolina. From: William N. O'Steen,
Physical Scientist, Scientific Support Section, Superfund Division, EPA. August 2018.

Notification of Completion of SVE System Abandonment Activities, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort
Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. September 2016.

Record of Decision, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina. EPA Region
4. September 1989.

Record of Decision for the Carolawn (OU2) Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South
Carolina. EPA Region 4. September 1995.

Remediation System Evaluation and Action Plan, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County,
South Carolina. Prepared by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. for the Carolawn Steering Committee.
August 2004.

Results from Injection Well Rehabilitation Activities and Dual Phase Extraction Tests, Carolawn
Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. May 2010.

Results of Soil Vapor Extraction Testing at the Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, South Carolina.
Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. November 2010.

Revised Focused Feasibility Study, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South
Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. November 2016.

A-l

-------
Soil Vapor Extraction System Construction Completion Report, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn,
South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. March 2012.

SVE System Status Report for August 2012, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn, South Carolina.
Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. October 2012.

SVE System Status Report for September and October 2012, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn,
South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. November 2012.

SVE System Status Report - 1 April 2013 Through 4 June 2013, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort Lawn,
South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. August 2013.

SVE System Status Report - 28 March 2014 Through 26 June 2014, Carolawn Superfund Site, Fort
Lawn, South Carolina. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants. August 2014.

Vapor Intrusion Pathway Memorandum for the Carolawn Superfund Site. Prepared by O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc. for the Carolawn Steering Committee. April 2008.

A-2

-------
APPENDIX B-CURRENT SITE STATUS

E n vi ron men hi J lml iea tors

Current human exposures at the Site are under control.
Current groundwater migration is under control.

Are Necessary Institutional Controls in Place?

| ~ All ~

Some None

Has EPA Designated the Site as Sitewidc Ready for Anticipated Use?

|D Yes B

No'

Has the Site Been Put into Reuse?

^nYes ^ No

B-l

-------
APPENDIX C - SITE CHRONOLOGY

Table C-l: Site Chronology

Event

Date

Solvents/waste storage facility first operated on site

1970

Initial operations to dispose of the inert waste from about 2,000 drums

1975

Permit issued by SCDHEC for one-time disposal of 300 to 400 drums
with inert waste

1978

Site abandoned by the Carolawn Company

1980

Site investigation conducted by the EPA and SCDHEC indicated
contamination on the Site and in nearby residential wells

1980

The EPA initiated first removal activity at the Site

December 1981

The EPA completed first removal action at the Site

February 1982

The EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL

December 1982

The EPA listed the Site on the NPL and the PRPs started the OU1 RJ/FS

September 1983

Four nearby residences connected to an alternative water supply

1985

PRPs entered into an AOC to remove 17 storage tanks from the Site and
dispose of waste content at an incinerator

May 1985

Second and third removal actions began

September 1985

Second and third removal actions completed

February 1986

Fourth removal action began

May 1986

Fourth removal action completed

June 1986

PRPs completed the OU1 RI/FS pursuant to a Consent Decree and the
EPA signed the OU 1 ROD (groundwater remedy)

September 1989

OU1 remedial action initiated

May 1993

EPA started the OU2 RI/FS

April 1994

OU2 RI/FS completed and the EPA signed the OU2 ROD (no further
action remedy for the area outside of the fence - soils, surface water and
sediment in Fishing Creek)

September 1995

GWETS installed

1995-1996

The EPA issued a UAO to PRPs for O&M and monitoring

July 1997

Construction completion

May 1998

The EPA issued the Site's first FYR Report

August 1998

OU1 remedial action completed

May 1999

The EPA issued the Site's second FYR Report

August 2003

With the EPA and SCDHEC approval, the GWETS was shut down as
part of planned EISB pilot study treatment activities

July 2004

Completion of EISB treatment, consisting of injection of soy-oil based
product

May 2005

The EPA issued the Site's third FYR Report

September 2008

The EPA issued a modified UAO that specified the requirement that an
FFS be completed to identify a groundwater remedial action more
effective than the GWETS

March 2009

PRP completed construction of the SVE system

January 2012

The EPA issued the Site's fourth FYR Report

September 2013

SVE system shutdown

June 2014

SVE system removed

July 2016

CSC submitted revised FFS Report

November 2016

Routine monitoring, site maintenance and site inspections

Ongoing

C-l

-------
APPENDIX D

- PRESS NOTICE

News & Reporter

&EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Announces the Fifth Five-Year Review for

the Carolawn, Inc., Superfund Site,

Fort Lawn. Cheater County, South Carolina

Purpoae/Objective: The EPA is conducting a Frve-Year Review of the remedy for the
Carolawn, Inc., Superfund site (the Site) In Fort Lawn, South Carolina. The purpose of the
Five-Year Review is to make sure the selected cleanup actions effectively protect human

health and the environment.

Site Background: The 60-acre Site includes a 3-acre fenced area and undeveloped
woodlands north of the fenced area. From 1970 to 1979, a waste storage and disposal
faculty operated at the Site. Operations disposed of about 4,500 drums of waste, several
bulk storage tanks and sludge in the Site's 3-acre fenced area. They also disposed of 660
drums and 11 storage tanks outside the fenced area on the northern part of the Site. The
EPA placed the Site on the Superfund program's National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983
because of contaminated groundwater resulting from waste handling operations at the Site

Cleanup Actions: The EPA designated two operable units (OUs) to address the Site's
contamination. OU1 addresses the 3-acre fenced area and groundwater contamination. OU2
addresses soil, surface water and sediment contamination in Fishing Creek. The Carolawn
Steering Committee, the Site's potentially responsible parties (PRPs), leads site investigation
and deanup activities, with oversight provided by the ERA and the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Cleanup has included removal actions to
address immediate threats to human health and the envionment Actions between 1981 and
1986 removed over 1,000 drums of hazardous waste and several tons of contaminated soil,
addressed contaminated lagoons, and removed 17 storage tanks from tie Site. The ERA also
provided al nearby homes with an alternative water source untHa water Sne oormected residents
to the public water supply in 1985. Construction of the long-term remedy torOUl took place
from 1993 to 1998. In 2004, the ERA, SCDHEC and the PRPs completed the site's Remediation
System Evaluation and Action Plan, which nduded shutting dcwn the groundwater treatment
system and modifying operation, maintenance and monitoring activities at the Site. In 2005, Ihe
ERA, SCDHEC and the PRPs began a pilot study for groundwater contamination. The PRPs
completed eight monitoring events from 2005 to 2008 as pert of the study The EPA continues
to assess adcitional options for addressing remaining groundwater contamination. The Site's
PRPs continue to oonduct routine operation and maintenance activities, including monitoring.
The ERA and the PRPs are woridng to place institutional controls on the s»e property to restrict
groundwater use and construction of certain types of structures

Five-Year Review Schedule: The National Contingency Plan requires review of remedial
actions that result in any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining
at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure every five
years to ensure the protection of human hooiih o«vr the «nyjrprpent. The fifth of the Five-
Year Reviews for the Site will be completed by September 2018.

EPA Invite* Community Participation in the Five-Year Review Process: The EPA is

conducting this Five-Year Review to evaluate the effectiveness of the Site's remedy and to
ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. As part
of the Five-Year Review process, EPA staff is available to answer any questions about the
Site. Community members who have questions about the Site or the Five-Year Review
process, or who would like to participate in a community interview, are asked to contact.

Wonne Jones, ERA Remade! Propd Manager

Phone:(404)562-8793

Email: jones.yvonneo@epa.gov

KerisaCoterrmEFfcConmrtylrMtoTiartCoottoator

Phone:(404)562-8831

Emafl: ooleman.kerisa@epa.gov

Maiing Address: U.S. EPA Region 4.61 Forsyth Street S.W., 11ti Floor, Attarta. GA 303034960

A copy of the final Five-Year Review Report will be made available upon completion at
the Site's local document repository at the Lancaster County Library located at 313 South
White Street in Lancaster, South Carolina. Additional information is also available at the

104 York Street
PO Box 250
Chester, SC 29706
803-385-3177

oublished in the News &

>outh Carolina

D-l

-------
¦p||^^»r v.*| ,»r, _ '

:onmental Proteeiion Agency, Region 4

Announces the Fifth Five-Year Review for

the Carolawn, Inc., Superfund Site,

Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina

e: The EPA is conducting a Five-Year Review of the remedy for the
ierfund site (the Site) in Fort Lawn, South Carolina. The purpose of the
i to make sure the selected cleanup actions effectively protect human

fenced area and undeveloped
I, a waste storage and disposal
jt 4,500 drums of waste, several
„ area. They also disposed of 660
the northern part of the Site. The
al Priorities List (NPL) in 1983
handling operations at the Site.

The EPA designated two operable units
I addresses the 3-acre fenced area and grc
.face water and sediment contamination in
„,.„mde, the Site's potentially responsible parties (
activities, with oversight provided by the EPA and'
i and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Cleanup -

nediate threats to human health and the environ
„/ed over 1,000 drums of hazardous waste and sev
contaminated lagoons, and removed 17 storage tanks

| d al nearby homes with an alternative water source until a w<

to the pubSc water supply in 1985. Construction of the long-term

from 1993 to 1998. In 2004, the EPA SCDHEC and the PRPs i

System Evaluation and Action Ran, which included shutting i
system and modifying operation, maintenance and monitoring
EPA SCDHEC and the PRPs began a pilot study for groundwater
oompleted eight monitoring events from 2005 to 2008 as part of tl"
to assess additional options for addressing remaining groundwatL
PRPs continue to conduct routine operation and maintenance activities,

The ERA and the PRPs are working to place institutional controls on the s
groundwater use and construction of certain types of structures.

fckiKJit urriumon heat#! a«d «*» •nwonment. The fifth of the rive-

Year Reviews for the Site will be completed by September 2018.

EPA Invites Community Participation in the Five-Year Review Process: The EPA is

Wonra Jones. EPA Remedal Project Manager KensaCotemaaEfttCornrT^

Phone: (404) 562-8793 Phone: (404) 562-8831

Email: jones.yvonneo@epa.gov Email: coleman.kerisa@epa.gov

¦ ¦ ^ •'"' /' " 1

Maiing Address: U.S. EPARegion4,61 Forsyth Street S.W., 11th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

A copy of the final Five-Year Review Report will be made available upon completion at
the Site's local document repository at the Chester County Public Library located at 100
Center Street. Chester, South Carolina 29706. Additional information is also available at
the Site's local document repository and online at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/carolawn.

• ' * 1V+ •*» ' "' <( ¦ * *

PO Box 250
Chester, SC 29706
803-385-3177

ublished in the News &

outh Carolina

D-2

-------
APPENDIX E - INTERVIEW FORMS

Carolawn, Inc. Superfund Site Five-Year Review Interview Form

Site Name: Carolawn, Inc. EPA ID No.: SCD980558316

Subject Name: Joel Padgett Affiliation: SCDHEC

Subject Contact padgetip@dhec.sc.gov

Information:

Time: 10:30 a.m. Date: 03/14/2018

Interview Format: Email

Interview Category: State Agency (Carolawn 2018 5YR)

1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?

A Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE) system was operated as an Interim Remedial Measure (IRM)
2012 to 2014. The system removed approximately 160 pounds of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) from unconsolidated sediments and saprolite in the source zone and
limited contaminant flux to the bedrock. Overall bedrock groundwater VOC concentrations
near the source zone are generally stable to decreasing, suggesting that natural attenuation is
occurring. However, bedrock groundwater VOC concentrations at downgradient monitoring
wells MW-10A, MW-10B, MW-11A, and MW-1 IB do not show a downward trend. Since
these wells are located immediately upgradient from Fishing Creek, there appears to be a
potential for groundwater contaminant flux into the creek.

2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?

Currently, there is no active remedy at the site. A Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) conducted
in 2016 presented Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) as a preferred remedy for
groundwater at the site. However, downgradient bedrock VOC concentrations near Fishing
Creek do not show a downward trend and contaminant transport through bedrock is poorly
understood. As a consequence, the contaminant flux to the creek is not known, and the
groundwater contaminant plume is, therefore, undefined.

3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years?

I am not aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years.

4. Has your office conducted any site-related activities or communications in the past five
years? If so, please describe the purpose and results of these activities.

SCDHEC has provided review and comments to EPA and the site contractor regarding
SVE operations, groundwater monitoring reports, and the FFS. SCDHEC has also conducted
site visits and meetings with EPA, the contractor, and the Carolawn Steering Committee to
monitor the status of site remediation. The purpose of SCDHEC's participation in site-related
activities is to provide support to EPA.

5. Are you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's
remedy?

Currently there is no active remedy at the site. However, I am not aware of any changes to
state laws that might affect the protectiveness of any future remedy for the site.

E-l

-------
6.	Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are
the associated outstanding issues?

Deed restrictions to prohibit groundwater use were drafted in 2015, but have not been
finalized due to the lack of a viable property owner. The restrictions are necessary to prevent
any future risk of exposure to VOCs in the bedrock aquifer. Currently, the risk is
minimal since there are no residents on the Site.

7.	Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?

I am not aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site.

8.	Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy?

Currently there is no active remedy at the site. As a prerequisite for future remedy
development, SCDHEC recommends assessment of groundwater transport in bedrock and
of the potential contaminant flux to Fishing Creek, thereby providing better definition of the
contaminant plume.

9.	Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire
in the FYR report?

Yes.

E-2

-------
Carolawn. lie, Superfund Site	Five-Year Rewew Interfiew Form

Site Name: CMgglJas,	EPA ID No.;

Subject Name: Jeff Ahrens
Subject Contact	7CW

Information:

Aillatfoit:

TO4-227-0K50 jahreagfl jeasyntec.com

Time: P,m,

Date; (13/09/2018

Interview
Location:

Interview Format (circle one): In Person

jPhone

Other:

Interview Category: OAM Contractor

1,	What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?

Overall, groundwater monitoring data suggest that VOC concentrations in groundwater
are generally stable * decreasing, especially in wells which historically had the highest
concentrations of TCE at the Site (MW-05, MW-06 and MW-12). Each of these wells
have shown greater than an order of magnitude reduction in VOC concentrations since
the startup of the soil vapor extraction system (SVE) in 2011, The SVE system
(conducted as an Interim Remedial Measure) proved to be an effective means of VOC
source mass removal at the Site and proved to be a more effective remedial measure than
the previously operated groundwater pump and treat system which was shut down with
regulatory approval in 2004. Approximately 160 pounds (lbs) of VOCs were removed
during the period of SVE system operation (January 2012 through June 2014); for
comparison, the groundwater extraction and treatment system (GWETS) removed
approximately 35 lbs of VOCs during its 7.5 years of operation. As is typical, the mass
removal rate of the SVE system decreased with time doe to the ongoing reduction of
VOC mass in the vadose zone, and for that reason, SVE system operations were ceased
and the system was subsequently abandoned in 2016 with concurrence from EPA.

The removal of VOCs from the vadose zone ill the former source area by the SVE system
has and will continue to result in improvements to groundwater quality over time as
source depletion reduced VOC mass flux into the groundwater. Following source mass
removal, the observed trends over the last five years of groundwater monitoring indicate
that natural attenuation processes also serve an important function in meeting ARARs at
the Site,

2.	What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at tie Site?

The current remedy for the site as stated in the ROD is groundwater extraction and
treatment; however, with Agency approval, the GWETS system was shut down in 2004,
and after a series of interim remedial measures (1RM), the site has been in monitored
natural attenuation (MNA) since mid-2014. Monitoring data collected during this period
indicate that VOCs in groundwater are attenuating naturally.

E-3

-------
The GWETS system was installed in 1996 and operated from 1996 to 2004 at a cost of
$2.1 million. This system removed approximately 35 lbs of VOCs over the 7.5 years of
operation. Site specific characteristics limited the effectiveness of this remedy and the
system was shut down with agency approval in 2004. The Carol awn PRP Group, with
Agency Oversight, has voluntarily conducted a series of interim remedial measures to
further reduce source mass and promote natural attenuation of VOCs remaining in
groundwater. Enhanced in-situ biological treatment was completed in the former source
area from 2004 to 2011 at a cost of $2.2 million. While successful in treating
groundwater in close proximity to the injection points, the radius of influence was limited
by site specific characteristics. As a final interim remedial measure, the PRP Group
installed and operated a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system to treat impacted soils in the
former source area. The system was installed in 2012 and operated for approximately 30
months at a cost of $750,000. The SVE system removed approximately 160 lbs of VOCs
during the period of operation (January 2012 through June 2014). Since mid-2014, the
PRP Group has spent another $600,000 to conduct groundwater monitoring, conduct
Agency-requested fate and transport modeling, meet with the Agencies, and prepare the
Revised Focus Feasibility Study and biennial groundwater reports.

. In conjunction with the observation that VOC concentrations in groundwater are
generally stable or decreasing, the SVE system appears to have been an effective Interim
Remedial Measure (IRM). As indicated in the Revised Focused Feasibility Study (RFFS)
(completed in November 2016), on-going groundwater monitoring activities support that
monitored attenuation would provide the most effective overall protection of human
health and environment and provide compliance with ARARs. MNA is supported by
reducing concentrations of VOCs in individual wells, an overall reduction in the plume
footprint with time, and evidence of intrinsic biodegradation of VOCs (including the
presence of daughter products, as well as methane and ethene production). Additionally,
groundwater flow and transport modeling evaluations showed that TCE and DCE present
in groundwater near Fishing Creek are expected to attenuate to concentrations below their
respective MCL within an approximate 30-year timeframe (and it is noted that some
wells have already shown reductions of VOCs to below MCLs at rates faster than the
model predicted timeframes). An MNA remedy received the highest ranking amongst
remedial alternatives in the RFFS (ranking highest amongst comparable alternatives in
overall protectiveness of human health and the environment; compliance with regulatory
requirements; long-term effectiveness and performance; reduction in toxicity, mobility
and volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; and sustainability) and is
Geosyntec's recommended alternative to consider in modifying the 1989 ROD.

3. What are the findings from the monitoring data? What are the key trends in contaminant
levels that are being documented over time at the Site?

As described in the 2016-2017 Biennial Groundwater Report (March 2018), groundwater
VOC data collected through September 2017 indicate that the overall extent of the VOC
plume remains relatively stable while VOC concentrations at many wells are showing
decreasing trends. For example, trichloroethene (TCE) concentrations in MW-5, MW-6

E-4

-------
and MW-12 (representing the highest TCE concentrations detected at the site) have
shown a steady decline and a greater than 90% reduction in dissolved-phase TCE from
the period of March 2011 through September 2017. Additionally, cis-l,2-dichloroethene
(cDCE) concentrations have reduced by approximately 80% in MW-6 during this period
and have reduced to concentrations below the MCL in both MW-5 and MW-12.
Additionally, TCE and cDCE concentrations in downgradient wells located in the vicinity
of Fishing Creek (MW-10A, MW-10B, MW-11A and MW-11B) show general stable
conditions with decreasing trends with some seasonal fluctuations during the last five
years of groundwater monitoring. Notably, cDCE has remained below the MCL in wells
MW-10A, MW-11 A, and MW-1 IB and TCE has mostly remained below the MCL in
MW-11A and MW-1 IB. As indicated above, MNA is supported by reducing
concentrations of VOCs in individual wells, an overall reduction in the plume footprint
with time, and evidence of intrinsic biodegradation of VOCs (including the presence of
daughter products, as well as methane and ethene production). Additionally,
groundwater flow and transport modeling evaluations showed that TCE and DCE present
in groundwater near Fishing Creek are expected to attenuate to concentrations below their
respective MCL within an approximate 30-year timeframe (and it is noted that some
wells have already shown reductions of VOCs to below MCLs at rates faster than the
model predicted timeframes).

4. Is there a continuous on-site O&M presence? If so, please describe staff responsibilities and
activities. Alternatively, please describe staff responsibilities and the frequency of site
inspections and activities if there is not a continuous on-site O&M presence.

The Site is inspected on a monthly basis by Geosyntec staff. Inspection activities include
observation of the general condition of the facility and security of the building and
equipment. Additionally, bi-weekly lawn maintenance is conducted during the growing
season.

5. Have there been any significant changes in site O&M requirements, maintenance schedules
or sampling routines since start-up or in the last five years? If so, do they affect the
protectiveness or effectiveness of the remedy? Please describe changes and impacts.

Geosyntec submitted a Groundwater Sampling Technique Comparison Study Report in
March 2014. This Comparison Study Report evaluated alternative groundwater sampling
techniques in an effort to provide high quality data which accurately represent
groundwater quality at the Site, while reducing field efforts required in data collection
and reducing the volume of investigation derived wastes (IDW) generated. The
comparison study consisted of sampling selected Site wells using passive-diffusion bags
(PDBs), low-flow sampling methods, and conventional well-volume sampling to evaluate
groundwater data for comparability. PDB sampling was concluded to be the selected
groundwater sampling technique for the Site, and was approved by the USEPA in a letter
dated 9 June 2014. As such, PDB sampling techniques have been implemented during
each groundwater monitoring event since 2014. The results of PDB sampling have

E-5

-------
demonstrated consistent results and have not affected the protectiveness or effectiveness
of the remedy.

6. Have there been unexpected O&M difficulties or costs at the Site since start-up or in the last
five years? If so, please provide details.

No.

7. Have there been opportunities to optimize O&M activities or sampling efforts? Please
describe changes and any resulting or desired cost savings or improved efficiencies.

During the period of SVE system operation, periodic system optimization of the SVE
system proved to be beneficial in maximizing VOC removal rates, and soil vapor
sampling provided information to direct extraction to the areas of highest VOC
concentrations.

As described above in response to question #5, Geosyntec performed a groundwater
sampling study to compare passive bag diffusion sampler and low-flow sampling
techniques with traditional methods in an effort to continue to provide high quality data
while reducing field efforts required in data collection and reducing the volume of
investigation derived wastes (IDW) generated. The transition to the use of PDBs for
groundwater sampling activities commenced in 2014.

8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding O&M activities and
schedules at the Site?

In general, significant remedial progress has been achieved at the Site during the past five
years, particularly with respect to the SVE system's removal of VOC source mass from
the vadose zone (i.e., its primary objective as a voluntary IRM), that resulted in reducing
the VOC flux to the groundwater, which has contributed to the observed decreasing
groundwater VOC concentration trends. Based on the removal of VOC source mass and
current groundwater trends observed at the Site, Geosyntec recommends that the results
of the Revised FFS be evaluated, and a modification to the 1989 ROD be considered
which selects MNA as the selected remedy for the Site. 1

9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire
in the FYR report?

Yes.

E-6

-------
APPENDIX F - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST

1. SITE INFORMATION

Site Name: Carolawn, Inc.

Date of Inspection: 02/22/2018

Location and Region: Fort Lawn, South Carolina,
Region 4

EPA ID: SCD980558316

Agency, Office or Company Leading the Five-Year
Review: EPA Region 4

Weather/Temperature: 70s and partly cloudy

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)

~ Landfill cover/containment

~ Access controls
Institutional controls
Groundwater pump and treatment

~ Surface water collection and treatment

^ Other: Pilot studies performed to address remaining groundwater contamination and a final remedy will be
determined in the future.

|~1 Monitored natural attenuation
[~| Groundwater containment
|~| Vertical barrier walls

Attachments: Q Inspection team roster attached

I I Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)

1. O&M Site Manager

Jeff Ahrens
Name

Title

3/9/2018
Date

Interviewed Q at site Q at office Q by phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions ^ Report attached: Appendix E

2. O&M Staff

Name Title

Interviewed ~ at site Q at office ~ by phone Phone:

Problems/suggestions Q Report attached:

Date

3. Local Regulatory Authorities and Response Agencies (i.e., state and tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office, recorder of
deeds, or other city and county offices). Fill in all that apply.

Agency SCDHEC

Contact iJoel Padgett

Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:

Agency

Contact Name

3/14/2018
Date

Phone No.

Title

Date

Phone No.

Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:.

Agency

Contact

Name Title
Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:

Agency.
Contact

Date

Phone No.

Name Title

Problems/suggestions ~ Report attached:

Date

Phone No.

F-l

-------
Agencv
Contact

Name Title
Problems/suggestions |~~| Report attached:

Date

Phone No.



4. Other Interviews (optional) PI Report attached:





III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)

1. O&M Documents







~ O&M manual ~ Readily available

~ Up to date

C3n/a



I~1 As-built drawings ~ Readily available

~ Up to date

E3n/a

>

l~~l Maintenance logs Q Readily available

~ Up to date

KIn/a



Remarks:







2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan

I~1 Readily available

I~1 Up to date E

N/A

l~~l Contingency plan/emergency response plan

~ Readily available

~ Up to date E

]N/A

Remarks:







3. O&M and OSHA Training Records

[~1 Readily available

~ Up to date E

]n/a

Remarks:







4. Permits and Service Agreements







I~1 Air discharge permit

~ Readily available

~ Up to date E

]n/a

I~1 Effluent discharge

~ Readily available

~ Up to date E

]n/a

1 1 Waste disposal, POTW

I~1 Readily available

I~1 Up to date E

]N/A

["I Other permits:

~ Readily available

1 1 Up to date E

]n/a

Remarks:







5. Gas Generation Records

I~1 Readily available

~ Up to date E

|n/a

Remarks:







6. Settlement Monument Records

~ Readily available

fl Up to date E

|n/a

Remarks:







7. Groundwater Monitoring Records

~ Readily available

l~l Up to date E

]n/a

Remarks:







8. Leachate Extraction Records

~ Readily available

~ Up to date ^

]n/a

Remarks:







9. Discharge Compliance Records







[~1 Air Readily available

~ Up to date

£3 N/A



[~] Water (effluent) ~ Readily available

~ Up to date

E3n/a



Remarks:







F-2

-------
10. Daily Access/Security Logs

~ Readily available ~ Up to date ^ N/A

Remarks:



IV. O&M COSTS

1. O&M Organization



l"~l State in-house

f~l Contractor for state

1 1 PRP in-house

1X1 Contractor for PRP

I"! Federal facility in-house

l~~l Contractor for Federal facility

~



2. O&M Cost Records



1 1 Readily available

I~1 Up to date

I~1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place

l~| Unavailable

Original O&M cost estimate: PI Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From: To:

I"! Breakdown attached

Date Date

Total cost

From: To:

r~l Breakdown attached

Date Date

Total cost

From: To:

H Breakdown attached

Date Date

total cost

From: To:

I"! Breakdown attached

Date Date

Total cost

From: To:

I-! Breakdown attached

Date Date

Total cost

3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period

Describe costs and reasons:



V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS ^Applicable ~ N/A

A. Fencing

1. Fencing Damaged Q Location shown on site map ^ Gates secured []] N/A

Remarks:



B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and Other Security Measures

Q Location shown on site map ~ N/A

Remarks: Clear si^aeeiatJ'ockedi&bnt gate!

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

F-3

-------
1. Implementation and Enforcement

Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented	~ Yes ~ No ^ N/A

Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced	~ Yes ~ No ^ N/A

Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by):	

Frequency:	

Responsible party/agency:	

Contact 		.			

Name Title

Date

Phone no.

Reporting is up to date

~ Yes

~ No

^N/A

Reports are verified by the lead agency

l~~l Yes

~ No

Bn/a

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met

I~1 Yes

^No

~ n/a

Violations have been reported

I~1 Yes

~ No

Sn/a

Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached







2. Adequacy	~ ICs are adequate	^ ICs are inadequate	~ N/A

Remarks: Institutional controls are in draft form and will be implemented when a viable owner aauires the site
property. Institutional controls are needed for areas of off-site groundwater contamination.

D. General

1.	Vandalism/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map	No vandalism evident
Remarks:	

2.	Land Use Changes On Site	^ N/A

Remarks:	

3.	Land Use Changes Off Site	N/A

Remarks:	

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A.	Roads ^ Applicable ~ N/A

1. . Roads Damaged	~ Location shown on site map ^ Roads adequate	~ N/A

Remarks:	

B.	Other Site Conditions

Remarks:	

VII. LANDFILL COVERS	~ Applicable ^ N/A

VIII.	VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS	~ Applicable ^ N/A

IX.	GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES ^Applicable ~ N/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines	^ Applicable ~ N/A

1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical

l~1 Good condition	~ All required wells properly operating ~ Needs maintenance ~ N/A

Remarks: The groundwater extraction and treatment system is no longer in use and will be removed from the

F-4

-------
Site when a new remedy is implemented.

2.	Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances

|~1 Good condition	Q Needs maintenance

Remarks:	

3.	Spare Parts and Equipment

O Readily available	Q Good condition	Q Requires upgrade ~ Needs to be provided

Remarks: 		

B.	Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines ~ Applicable ^ N/A

1.	Collection Structures, Pumps and Electrical

T~l Good condition	Q Needs maintenance

Remarks:	

2.	Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances

I~1 Good condition	Q Needs maintenance

Remarks:	

3.	Spare Parts and Equipment

[~1 Readily available	Q Good condition	Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided

Remarks:	

C.	Treatment System	~ Applicable ^ N/A

1.	Treatment Train (check components that apply)

l~~l Metals removal	Q] Oil/water separation	• Q Bioremediation

~	Air stripping ~ Carbon adsorbers
l~l Filters:	

I~1 Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent):	

l~1 Others: .

~	Good condition	~ Needs maintenance
l~~l Sampling ports properly marked and functional

f~1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
l~~] Equipment properly identified

l~l Quantity of groundwater treated annually:	

l~l Quantity of surface water treated annually:	

Remarks:	

2.	Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)

l~l N/A O Good condition	Q Needs maintenance

Remarks:	

3.	Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels

~	N/A	O Good condition Q Proper secondary containment Q Needs maintenance

F-5

-------
Remarks:

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances

I~1 N/A Q Good condition Q Needs maintenance

Remarks:

5. Treatment Building(s)

I~1 N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)

[~l Needs repair

1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored

Remarks:

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)

I I Properly secured/locked Q] Functioning Q Routinely sampled Q Good condition

l~l All required wells located Q Needs maintenance ~ N/A

Remarks:

D. Monitoring Data

1. Monitoring Data

Is routinely submitted on time

[3 Is of acceptable quality

2. Monitoring Data Suggests:

E3 Groundwater plume is effectively contained

Rl Contaminant concentrations are declining

E. Monitored Natural Attenuation

1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)

I~1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning O Routinely sampled ~ Good condition

l~l All required wells located ~ Needs maintenance ^ N/A

Remarks:

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site and not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical
nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS ¦

A . Implementation of the Remedy

Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin
with a brief statement of what the remedy is designed to accomplish (e.g., to contain contaminant plume,
minimize infiltration and gas emissions).

The groundwater extraction and treatment system removed approximately 35 pounds of VOCs between 1998 and
2004. The PRP contractor performed pilot studies and drafted an FFS to adjust the remedy. EISB performed in
2005 did not affect the overall plume extent. The SVE system removed approximately 160 pounds of VOCs
between 2012 and 2014. The SVE system was decommissioned in 2016. The FFS is in draft form.

B . Adequacy of O&M '

Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular,
discuss their relationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.

The PRP contractor maintains the Site well.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or scope of O&M or a high frequency of
unscheduled repairs that suggest that the protectiveness of the remedy may be compromised in the future.

A final remedy for groundwater treatment is forthcoming in a future decision document.

D . Opportunities for Optimization

Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy.

None.

F-6

-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS

Signage at site entrance

Groundwater treatment building within fenced area where soil remediation took place

G-l

-------
Railroad tracks along Site with groundwater treatment building on left

Circle S Ranch neighboring the Site to the west

G-2

-------
MW-1

G-3

-------
Fishing Creek

Trail to Fishing Creek

G-4

-------
Hunting club building (former location of cabin)

MW-8 on hunting club property

G-5

-------
New building in camping area of hunting club property

G-6

-------
APPENDIX H - DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS
Attachment 1: Groundwater Monitoring Data, 2004 to 2018 (Table 4) from the March 2018
Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Weil ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCi)





i

i

i

i

•

2

«

|

A
-

©

1

1
«
I
5
*

«
8

i

«p

i

1
&

1

f

H

4

1

1

fc

i

	i	

£
1

3

T.

USEPAM

CLGi*t,)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

EW-01

10/26/2004

<1.0

1.5

12.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.4 J

28.0

<1.0

3/15/2005

<1.0

0.9 J

6.3

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

14.0

<1.0

9/28/2005

<1.0

4.3

31.0J

<5.0

<1.0

<1-0

60.0

< 1.0

4/24/2007

<0.5

18.0

150.0

<0.7

<0.5

1.2

130.0

3.3

9/18/2007

<1.0

14.0

110.0

<5.0

0.8 J

1.3

150.0

1.3

Ml

<1.0

<1.0

3.6

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

6.6

<1.0

EW-02

10/26/2004

<1.0

<1.0

1.4

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

L9J

<1.0

3/15/2005

<1.0

1.1

3.5

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

2.9

< 1.0

9/27/2005

<1.0

<1.0

2.3

<5.0

<1.0

<1,0

1.6

<1.0

4/24/2007

<0.5

<0.8

1.7

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

1.1

<0.7

9/18/2007

<1.0

<1.0

3.6

<3.0

<1.0

<1.0

2.1

<1.0

wnmm

<1.0

<1-0

1.7

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

1.4

<1.0

EW-02R

10/28/2004

3.0

42.0

924)

<5.0

13.0

2.1

500.0

<1.0

3/19/2005

3.8 J

140.0

390.0 J

<25.0

28.0

<5.0

870.0 J

<5.0

7/12/2005

<5.0

51.0

660.0

<25.0

<5.0

2.0

51.0

4.4

9/28/2005

2.9 (2.7)

110.0 (110.0)

970.0 (870.0)

< 5.0 (< 5.0)

2.2(2.0)

2.5 (2.5)

56.0 (54.0)

91.0 (89.0)

11/30/2005

3.3

77.0

640.0

<5.0

1.7

2.9

53.0

140.0

3/21/2006

3.3

88.0

500.0

<5.0

2.0

2.4

60.0

63.0

9/26/2006

3.4

120.0

920.0

<5.0

2.5

2.5

95.0

78.0

4/26/2007

3.2

180.0

1000.0

<0.7

3.3

2.4

93.0

81.0

9/20/2007

4.0

120.0

930.0

<5.0

4.6

3.3

120.0

48.0

imm

<5.0

90.0

960.0

<5.0

<5.0

<1.0

68.0

44.0

EW-03

¦0.V4M mil

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

3/16/2005

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

9/28/2005

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<1.0

<1.0

4/24/2007

<0.5

<0.8

<0.5

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

<0.4

<0.7

9/18/2007

<1.0

<1.0

0.6 J

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<1.0

<1.0

4/15/2008

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

EW-3R

10/28/2004

<10.0

35.0

150.0

4.9 J

17.0

<10.0

400.0

<10.0

3/19/2005

3.2 J

98.0

300.0

<20.0

27.0

<4.0

650.0

<4.0

EW 04

10/26/2004

0.4 J

2.7

19.0

<5.0

0.5 J

0.4 J

34.0

<1.0

3/15/2005

<1.0

<1.0

4.7

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

5.0

<1.0

9/29/2005

<1.0

5.0

32.0 J

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

45.0

<1.0

4/25/2007

<0.5

0.9 J

7.6

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

6.8

<0.7

9/19/2007

<1.0

2.5

34.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.3 J

24.0

<1.0

4/16/2008

<1.0

<1.0

4.2

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

6.1

< 1.0

EW-05

10/27/2004

<25.0

<25.0

630.0

< 120.0

<25.0

<25.0

1300.0

<25.0

3/16/2005

<10.0

24.0

710.0

<50.0

< 10.0

<10.0

1000.0

<10.0

IW-01

10/30/2004

<5.0

16.0

100.0

1.9 J

<5.0

<5.0

980.0 J

<5.0

3/20/2005

<4.0

8.4

130.0

<20.0

<4.0

<4.0

340.0

<4.0

IW-02

10/30/2004

<2.0

7.3

400.0

0.9 J

1.5 J

2.5

490.0

<2.0

IW-03

10/30/2004

2.5 J

44.0

290.0

1.6 J

11.0

2.4 J

920.0

<5.0

3/18/2005

2.6 J

85.0

250.0

<25.0

12.0

<5.0

590.0

<5.0

rw 04

10/31/2004

4.1

5.0

160.0

0.5 J

2.2

0.9 J

280.0

0.2 J

IW 05

10/30/2004

<5.0

18.0

320.0

2.2 J

<5.0

<5.0

680.0

<5.0

IW06

10/31/2004

0.5J

4.0

42.0

<5.0

0.7 J

<1.0

55.0

< 1.0

3/19/2005

0.5 J (0.5 J)

8.o a*)

60.0 (59.0)

1.3 J (1.2 J)

0.9 J (0.9 J)

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

81.0 (76.0)

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

rw-07

10/31/2004

8.0

8.8

130.0

0.6 J

28.0

< 1.0

300.0

0.2 J

rw-08

11/2/2004

1.4 (< 10.0)

1.8 (4.2 J)

160.0 (180.0)

0.2 J (< 50.0)

184(19.0)

1.5 (< 10.0)

330.0(290.0)

0.3 J (< 10.0)

3/16/2005

1.1 J

27.0

290.0

<10.0

24.0

1.6 J

340.0

<2.0

1W09

10/30/2004

0.6 J

2.9

44.0

0.4 J

1.7

<1.0

38.0

< 1.0

3/18/2005

1.1

3.4

53.0

0.9 J

2.8

<1.0

39.0

<1.0

IW 10

10/30/2004

1.0

5.1

68.0

0.4 J

2.0

0.7 J

64.0

0.2 J

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 1 of 16	August 2018

H-l

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

©
a
1

0

s

1

5

M

8

1

0

1

3

|

•
1

1
i

1

ft
•S

j

3
«
8

"R

s

01

8

1

k

L

e

8

1

jt
3
z

H
es

«

8

1

fc

9

5

9

1
3
•?.
s

USEPAM

CL Oir^)

5.0

7,0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

IW-11

10/29/2004

<5.0

<5.0

260.0

<25.0

<5.0

<5.0

280.0

<5.0

rw 12

11/2/2004

<10.0

9.7 J

460.0

<50.0

3.6 J

3.2 J

440.0

<10.0

rw-i3

10/29/2004

<5.0

9.7

210.0

<25.0

4.3 J

<5.0

260.0

<5.0

3/19/2005

<2.0

15.0

330.0

<10.0

5.4

1.9 J

330.0

<2.0

IW-14

10/29/2004

<5.0

11.0

180.0

<25.0

3.4 J

<5.0

310.0

<5.0

3/27/2013|

0.5 J

4.2

134.0

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

22.5

3.6

9/18/20131

<0.4

3.1

114.0

<4.0

<0.6

<0.4

16.5

3.3

6/25/2014t

0.6 J

3.8

135.0

9.5 J

<0.5

<0.6

22.1

4.2

MW-01

10/26/2004

<1.0

<1.0

0.4 J

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

2.1

< 1.0

3/15/2005

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

1.3

< 1.0

9/30/2005

<1.0

<1.0

1.1

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

4.1

<1.0

3/20/2006

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

1.3

<1.0

9/26/2006

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

1.1

<1.0

4/23/2007

<0.5

<0.8

0.6 J

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

3.3

<0.7

9/18/2007

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

1.0

< 1.0

4/14/2008

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<1.0

<1.0

9/24/2008

<1.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

3/24/2009

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<2.0

8/4/2009

<0.4

<0.4

<0.2

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

0.2 J

<0.2

3/23/2010

<0.4

<0.4

<0.2

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

0.5 J

<0.2

9/28/2010

<0.1

<0.1

0.4 J

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

1.3

<0.2

3/28/2011

<0.1

<0.1

0.3 J

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

0.8 J

<0.2

9/19/2011

<1.0

<1.0

0.6 J

<2.0

< 1.0

<1.0

2.2

<1.0

3/27/2012

<1.0

<1.0

0.5 J

<2.0

< 1.0

<1.0

1.7

< 1.0

9/18/2012

<1.0

<1.0UJ

1.2

<2.0

<1.0UJ

< 1.0

2.4

< 1.0

3/28/2013

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<0.4

9/17/2013

<0.2

<0.2

<0.2

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<0.4

6/24/2014

<0.2

<0.3

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

10/28/2014

<0.2

<0.3

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

3/26/2015

<0.2

<0.3

< 0.2

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

9/30/2015

<0.2

<0.3

<0.2

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

<0.2

<0.3

3/30/2016

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

<0.3

<0.3

9/15/2016

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

<0.3

<0.3

3/20/2017

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

<0.4

<0.4

9/26/2017

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

<0.4

<0.4

3/22/2018

<0.3

<0J

<0.3

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

<0.4

<0.4

MW-02

10/27/2004

<1.0

<1.0

0.5 J

<5.0

< 1.0

<1.0

0.5 J

<1.0

3/16/2005

<1.0

<1.0

1.2

<3.0

<1.0

< 1.0

0.4 J

< 1.0

9/30/2005

<1.0

<1.0

1.9

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

1.0 J

< 1.0

4/24/2007

<0.5

<0.8

<0.5

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

<0.4

<0.7

9/18/2007

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<1.0

<1.0

4/15/2008

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

MW-03

10/27/2004

0.8 J

11.0

35.0

<5.0

1.8

1.6

120.0

<1.0

3/15/2005

0.6 J

11.0

43.0

<5.0

1.4

<1.0

110.0

<1.0

7/11/2005

0.5 J

9.4

38.0

2.0 J

1.6

1.4

100.0

<1.0

9/29/2005

<1.0

10.0

36.0

<5.0

1.4

< 1.0

87.0

<1.0

11/30/2005

0.5

11.0

40.0

<5.0

1.6

1.4

110.0

<1.0

4/25/2007

<0.5

14.0

41.0 J

<0.7

1.9

<0.1

110J

<0.7

9/19/2007

<1.0

8.7

33.0

<5.0

1.6

1.0

83.0

< 1.0

4/16/2008

<1.0

3.9

26.0

<5.0

1.3

< 1.0

76.0

< 1.0

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 2 of 16	August 2018

H-2

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carobwn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC*)

i

!
9

a

n

•

A

2

«
i

1

5

•

«
8

%
f

s

41

1

1

i

I

1
•
i
3

i:

H
-*

•
(

I

E.
5

E

1

¦K,

1

usepa m

CLdi^)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW-04

11/1/2004

4.3

11.0

120.0

<20.0

9.2

<4.0

140.0

<4.0

3/18/2005

5.1

15.0

150.0

<3.0

12.0

1.7

160.0

<1.0

7/12/2005

0.7 J

6.7

51.0

<5.0

3.6

<1.0

50.0

<1.0

9/29/2005

2.7

12*

110.0

<3.0

11.0

< 1.0

100.0

<1.0

12/1/2005

5.0(4.8)

13.0(12.0)

140.0 fl30.0l

<3.0(0.8)

15.0 (14.0)

< 1.0(< 1.0)

150.0(140.0)

<1.0(<1.0)

3/21/2006

6.6

18.0

170.9

<3.0

32.0

0.8 J

160.0

<1.0

9/27/2006

7.6

17.0

170.0

<5.0

33.0

1.7

180.0

<1.0

4/26/2007

8.8

14.0

170.0

<0.7

34.0

1.0

170.0

<0.7

9/20/2007

9.5

15.0

160.0

<3.0

47.0

2.0

170.0

<1.0

4/17/2008

9.3

10.0

UM

<3.0

43.0

< 1.0

190.0

<1.0

9/24/2008

8J5 (11.0)

18.0 (15.0)

180.0 (180.0)

< 3.0 (< 10.0)

53.0 (56.0)

< 1.0(< 2.0)

220.0 (300.0)

< 1.0 (< 2.0)

3/25/2009

73 J (4.7 J)

11.5 J (2.3 J)

167.0J«7.1J)

< 1.0 Ui (3,9 J)

46.4 J (8.2 J)

1.0 (0.6 J)

111.0 J ((2.3 J)

< 2.0 (< 2.0)

8/5/2009

6.6

9.7

Itt |

<0.3

39.5

0.9 J

182.0

<0.2

3/24/2010

5.9

9.9

MM

<0.3

52.8

0.8 J

200.0

<0.2

9/29/2010

4.9(5.0)

12.8 (12.3)

MM (150.0)

< 0.2 (¦= 0.2)

68.7(693)

0.9 J (0.9 J)

177.0 J (171.0)

< 0.2 (<0.2)

3/29/2011

5.4 (5.1)

10.0(14.9)

141.0 (173.0)

< 0.2 (< 0.2)

55.3 (66.5)

0.8 J (0.9 J)

192.0 (184.0)

<0,2 (< 0.2)

9/20/2011

5.4(5.7)

9.6 (12.1)

133.0 (147.0)

< 2.0 (< 2.0)

68.7 (81.8)

0.8 J (0.9 J)

191.0(194.0)

<1.0 (<1.0)

3/27/2012

5.1

12J

153.0

<2.0

70.1

0.8 J

193.0

< 1.0

9/18/2012

5.1(5.1)

5-2(9.6)

137.0 (134.0)

<2.0 {<2.0)

56.1 (57.7)

0.7 J (0.7 J)

165.0(1(5.0)

<1.0{<1.0)

3/29/2013

3.7(2.7)

7.0(5.6)

100.0 <98.81

<2.0 {<2,0)

38.9(28.4)

<0.2(<0.2)

86.0 (87J)

< 0.4 (< 0.4)

9/19/2013

2.0(2.2)

3 6 (3 6)

104.0 (107.01

< 2.0 (< 20)

133(13.7)

<0.2 (< 0.2)

44.5 (44.9)

< 0.4 (< 0.4)

6/25/2014

5.4(5.7)

8.5(8.3)

113.0 (115.0)

1(1.0 (12.5)

22^(21.9)

< 0.6 (< 0.6)

145.0(148.0)

<0.7(<0.7)

10/28/2014

5.2 (5.0)

9.5(8.8)

102.0(100.0)

<2.0 (< 2.0)

30.3 (26.3)

<0.3 (0.5 J)

129.0 (136.0)

<0.3 {<0,3)

3/27/2015

5.5(4.2)

7.6(7.2)

100.0 (109.0)

<4.0 (< 4.0)

31.1 (29.8)

< 0.6 (< 0.6)

159.0(145.0)

< 0.5 {< 0-5)

9/30/2015

4.3 (4.3)

7.1(7.0)

95.4 (94.6)

<4.0 (M)

233 (23.9)

<0.6(<0,6)

119.0(119.0)

< 0.5 (< 0.5)

3/30/2016

4.0(4.3)

6.7(74)

90.7 (05.1)

<2,0 {<2.0)

19.7(23.2)

0.4 i (0.4 J)

96.0 (104.0)

<0,3 (<0.3)

9/15/2016

3.3

5.4

95.4

<4.0

2M

<0.7

118.0

<0.6

3/20/2017

2.9 (3.0)

4.5 (4.9)

00.9 (00.0)

<4.0 (<4.0)

153 (17.4)

< 0.9 (< 0.9)

99.0(110.0)

< 0.8 {<0.8)

9/26/2017

2.6(2.6)

5.8(5.8)

93(90.0)

<2.0 (< 2.0)

18.9(19.9)

<0.5 3 (0.5 J)

*4.2(79.0)

<0.4 <<0.4,

3/22/2018

2.6(2.7)

5.3 (5.7)

99.4(01.4)

< 2^> (< 2.0)

123(12.7)

<0.5 (c 0.5)

75.2(79.5)

< 0.4 (< 0.4)

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 3 of 16	August 2018

H-3

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC









Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCt)





Well ID

Dale
Sampled

«
I

1

i
©

•
a

1

*

M

•

1
=

1
1

•
1

|
I

1

A

9

•w





s
1

25

§

5

1

5

ei
i

•s

«
8

T.

1

s

|
3

1

H

I

H

3

?
k

5

E

1
i

i

USEPA M

CLGia/L)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



10/31/2004

5.5

10.0

340.0

0.7 J

4.4

1.8 J

630.0

<2.0



3/18/1005

2.3 J (2.6 J)

16.8(17.0)

480.0 (480.0)

< 20.0 (< 20.0)

3.4 J (3.5 J)

2.4 J (2.31)

670.0 (700.0)

< 4.0 (< 4.0)



7/12/2005

2.4(2.4)

14.0 (14.0)

430.0 (470.0)

< 5.0 (< 5.0)

4.2 (4.0)

2.0(2.1)

630.0 (570.0)

< 1.0 (< 1.0)





2.1

14.0

510.0

<5.0

4.6

2.1

570.0

<1.0





3.1

12.0

660.0

<5.0

3.5

2.6

810.0

1.2



3/22/2006

<1.0

9.6

500.0

< 5.0

3.3

2.0

580.0

<1.0



9/28/2006

<1.0

12.0

570.0

<5.0

4.0

2.4

650.0

<1.0



4/26/2007

2.7(3.0)

13.0(16.0)

550.0 (570.0 J)

< 0.7 (< 0.7)

4.3 (4.9)

2.0 (2.0)

580.0 (600.0 J)

< 0.7 (< 0.7)



9/20/2007

2.8

9.4

390.0

<5.0

3.3

2.0

450.0

<1.0



4/17/2008

5.4

<5.0

470.0

<5.0

<5.0

< 1.0

620.0

<1.0



9/25/2008

4.3

11.0

520.0

<5.0

4.1

2.1

570.0

<1.0



3/25/2009

6.2

11.0

401.0

<1.0

4.4

2.3

351.0

<2.0



8/5/2009

7.5

7.5

461.0

<0.3

3.7

1.9

551.0

<0.2



3/25/2010

8.9

7.7

493.0

<0.3

3.4

2.2

539.0

<0.2

MW-05

9/30/2010

7.5

6.0

342.0

<0.2

3.4

1.9

417.0

<0.2

3/30/2011

7.1

4.9

328.0

<0.2

3.3

1.6

412.0

<0.2



9/21/2011

7.7

5.4

292.0

<2.0

3.6

1.4

362.0

< 1.0



3/28/2012

7.8(6.9)

3.4(3.1)

253.0 (252.0)

< 2.0 (< 2.0)

3.4 (3.2)

1.2(1.3)

307.0 (290.0)

< 1.0 (< 1.0)



9/19/2012

8.5

3.9

203.0

<2.0

6.8

1.0

227.0

< 1.0



3/29/2013

8.8

2.5 J

215.0

<10.0

10.9

< 1.0

258.0

<2.2



9/19/2013

10.3

2.8

226.0

<3.0

11.9

1.4 J

225.0

<1.1



6/25/2014

9.9

1.6 J

147.0

9.1 J

3.4

0.9 J

148.0

<0.7



10/28/2014

9.6

1.6

132.0

<2.0

4.6

0.7 J

138.0

<0.3



3/27/2015

8.2

U J

127.0

<4.0

2.6

0.7 J

139.0

<0.5



9/30/2015

5.0

0.7 J

86.2

<4.0

1.6 J

<0.6

86.6

<0.5



3/30/2016

5.0

0.6 J

67.5

<2.0

1.5

0.5 J

66.6

<0.3



9/15/2016

3.5

0.4 J

63.7

<2.0

1.0 J

<0.4

61.9

<0.3



3/20/2017

3.1

<0.3

54.5

<2.0

0.9 J

<0.5

55.2

<0.4



9/26/2017

2.3

<0.3

39.3

<2.0

0.6 J

<0.5

37.9

<0.4



3/22/2018

3.5

<0.3

44.3

<2.0

0.4 J

<0.5

35.0

<0.4

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 4 of 16	August 2018

H-4

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC



¦

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC»)





Well ID

Date
Sampled

«
i

I

•
I

•
•

1

1

e

«
•

1

•
|

•
f

¦S

I

i





a

1

a

|

1

e-»

i

1

1

*
2

1

H

1

H

£

I
fe

3
r

USEPA M

CL Aib/L)

3.0

7JO

70.0

3.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



inma







am«Tai.!.i.i

BiiliUUIiM

gT.?.war.M.v



Br.M.iai.;«».v



3/20/2005

1.0J

62.0

771.0

0.8 J

24.0

4.5

2600.0

<1.0



7/12/2003

<20.0

60.0

1000.0

<100.0

2i.0

<20.0

2500.0

<20.0



Eraro ¦nuan wmimmmPT^FILDImHaLM UfdHKMIdLM)!





12/1/2003

<1.0

83.0

930.0

<3.0

24.0

4.9

2200.0

7.6



3/22/2006

<1.0(<1.0)

24.0 (38.0)

560.0 (650.0)

< 5.0 (< 3.0)

1541 (174))

3.4(4.3)

1,100.0 (1,400.0)

2.2 <2.1)



9/28/2006

< 14) (< 1.0)

79.0 (75.0)

1,000.0(990.0)

< 5.0 (< 3.0)

304) (29.0)

4.7(4.8)

2.200.0 <2.300.0)

3.8 (3.6)



4/27/2007

<9.2

51.0 J

860.0

<14.0

16.0 J

5.6 J

1.800.0 J

<13.0



9/20/2007

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

48.0(62.0)



<5.0 (< 3.0)

29.0(26.0)

5.2(4.4)

1,700.0 <1,500.0)

3.2(2.8)



4/17/2008

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

19.0(20.0)



< 5.0 (< 3.0)

6.7 J (17.0)

< 1.0DJ(< 10.0)

1.300.0(1,600.0)

< 10.0 (< 10.0)



9/23/2008

0.8 J

79.0

750.0

<3.0

30.0

4.3

1700.0

3.1



3/25/2009

<5.0

283

729.0 J

<3.0

16.1

4.3 J

1350.0

<10.0



8/5/2009

<0.4

39.9

641.0

<0.3

16.7

3.4

1500.0

2.1



3/23/2010

<0.4

13.2

598.0

<0.3

5.6

3.4

916.0

3.4

MW-06

9/30/2010

<0.3

39.2 J

535.0

<0.4

22.6

3.3

1,080 J

<0.5

3/30/2011

<0.6

19.2

543.0

<1.0

10.2

2.7 J

1230.0

1.9 J



9/21/2011

<2.0

13.0

643.0

<4.0

8.8

3.9

1100.0

<2.0



3/28/2012

0.9 J

7.1

723.0

<2.0

4.3

4.6

1000.0

2.0



9/19/2012

0.4 J

3.7

683.0

<2.0

2.4

4.0

907.0

1.9



3/29/2013

<2.2

<2.0

717.0

54.1*

a

V

<2.0

858.0

<4.4



9/18/2013

<2.2

<2.0

634.0

<20.0

<3.2

<2.0

535.0

11.3



6/25/2014

<2.4

<2.5

547.0

27.5 J

<2.6

<3.2

558.0

<3.3



10/28/2014

<1.2

<1.3

405.0

<10.0

<1.3

< 1.6

384.0

<1.6



3/27/2015

<1.0

<1.4

456.0

<10.0

<1.6

<1.6

470.0

< 1.3



9/30/2015

<1.0

< 1.4

405.0

<10.0

<1.6

3.3 J

301.0

<1.3



3/30/2016

<1.4

<1.1

270.0

<10.0

<1.5

2.4 J

231.0

<1.6



9/15/2016

<1.4

<1.1

252.0

<10.0

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Super-fund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCi)

«
i

m

mt

e

8

!

I

s

«
8

1
i

i

5
3

¦o

®
!
I

e

8

•R

s

8

1

t

I
*

|

I

I

I

f

H

8

i

5

£

J

5

*5.

2

USEPA M

CL (ftg/L)

5.0

7,0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW-07

10/29/2004

<4.0

3.9 J

100.0

<20.0

<4.0

<4.0

110.0

<4.0

3/17/2005

<1.0

1.9

130.#

<5.0

1.3

<1.0

96.0

<1.0

7/11/2003

<1.0

1.9

130.9

2.0 J

2.5

0.8 J

120.0

<1.0

9/28/2005

<1.0

1.2

110.0

<5.0

1.8

0.9 J

94.0

< 1.0

12/1/2005

<1.0

1.5

160.0

<5.0

2.1

0.9

120.0

<1.0

3/21/2006

<1.0

2.9

140.0

<5.0

3.8

0.7 J

140.0

<1.0

9/27/2006

<1.0

3.6

170.0

<5.0

5.6

0.8 J

160.0

<1.0

4/26/2007

<0.5

3.6

140.0

<0.7

6.2

<0.1

130.0

<0.7

9/19/2007

<1.0

2.8

98.0

<5.0

7.3

0.5 J

100.0

<1.0

4/16/2008

<1.0

1.9

52.0

<5.0

6.0

< 1.0

73.0

< 1.0

9/24/2008

<1.0

3.3

67.0

<5.0

6.1

< 1.0

74.0

< 1.0

3/24/2009

<1.0

2.7

77.3

<1.0

6.8

0.4 J

85.9

<2.0

8/4/2009

<0.4

2.2

61.6

<0.3

5.7

<0.5

67.7

<0.2

3/24/2010

<0.4

2.4

66.2

<0.3

7.7

<0.5

83.5

<0.2

9/29/2010

<0.1

1.4

42.8

<0.2

4.6

0.2 J

47.8

<0.2

3/29/2011

0.2 J

1.7

45.3

<0.2

5.7

0,3 J

50.9

<0.2

9/20/2011

<1.0

1.2

33.4

<2.0

6.0

<1.0

42.9

< 1.0

3/27/2012

0.3 J

1.9

35.6

<2.0

5.7

<1.0

44.6

<1.0

9/19/2012

0.2 J

2.1

32.0

<2.0

6.7

<1.0

48.3

<1.0

3/26/2013

<0.2

4.2

54.9

<2.0

14.3

<0.2

82.6

<0.4

9/18/2013

0.3 J

3.7

44.1

<2.0

13.0

<0.2

65.4

<0.4

6/25/2014

0.7 J

4.1

46.8

<2.0

4.7

<0.3

67.0

<0.3

10/28/2014

0.6 J

3.0

35.8

<2.0

5.4

<0.3

59.5

<0.3

3/26/2015

1.0 J

3.5

42.7

<2.0

6.5

<0.3

733

<0.3

9/30/2015

0.7 J

2.4

29.1

<2.0

7.4

<0.3

51.5

<0.3

3/30/2016

0.8 J

2.4

27.8

<2.0

3.9

<0.4

45.2

<0.3

9/15/2016

0.6 J

1.7

26.0

<2.0

4.5

<0.4

43.5

<0.3

3/20/2017

0.7 J

1.8

29.0

<2.0

3.7

<0.5

47.6

< 0.4

9/26/2017

0.4 J

1.6

22.4

<2.0

3.2

<0.5

36.1

<0.4

3/22/2018

0.5 J

1.5

23.4

<2.0

1.8

<0.5

34.7

< 0.4

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 6 of 16	August 2018

H-6

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carobwn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)







.

•
s

e

e

i

®
1

«<
8

«

J
I

•



Well ID

Sampled

1

1

i
•s

a

1

1

2

9

1

4

1





t



a

s

¦?.

1

2

H

*

i





§

7





i

N

5

1

5





If



¦0

s

»-

"H

r



rnmrwr^wmm

5.0

7.0

70,0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW-08

10/27/2004

<1.0

0.4 J

1.0

<3.0

1.3

< 1.0

2.8

<1.0

3/16/2005

<1.0

1.1

1.3

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

5.6

<1.0

9/27/2005

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1,0

< 1.0

0.4 J

<1.0

4/23/2007

<0.5

<0.8

<0.5

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

<0.4

<0.7

9/17/2007

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<3.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

4/14/2008

<1.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

9/23/2008

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

s

V

<1.0

3/23/2009

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<1.0

<2.0

8/4/2009

<0.4

<0.4

<0.2

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

<0.1

<0.2

3/23/2010

<0.4

<0.4

<0.2

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Well ID

Date
Sampled

e
|

f

fl

s

•
1

!
k

1

§
n

«
8

1

1

$

S

5

3

•0

•
1
«
1

1

4*

1

!

!
f-

I

|

i

i

H

*
I

j

k

?

E

«
a

1

5

•5.

i

USEPA MCL (jag/L)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



10/25/2004

<1.0

1.2

10.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

9.9

<1.0



3/14/2005

<1.0

3.3

27.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

21.0

<1.0



9/26/2005

<1.0

3.5

34.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.3 J

33.0

<1.0



3/20/2006

<1.0

2.7

25.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

24.0

<1.0



9/25/2006

<1.0

5.6

43.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.4 J

52.0

<1.0



4/23/2007

<0.5

4.1

28.0

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

34.0

<0.7



9/17/2007

<1.0

6.9

53.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.5 J

71J

<1.0



4/14/2008

<1.0

2.1

20.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

38.0

<1.0



9/23/2008

<1.0

5.3

48.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.5 J

77.0

<1.0



3/23/2009

<1.0

2.2

25.5

<1.0

<1.0

0.3 J

37.2

<2.0



8/3/2009

<0.4

3.4

52.4

<0.3

0.3 J

<0.5

82.6

<0.2



3/23/2010

<0.4

3.2

31.4

<03

<0.2

<0.5

53.7

<0.2



9/28/2010

<0.1

2.3

51.5

<0.2

<0.2

0.8 J

78.0

<0.2

MW-10A

3/28/2011

<0.1

4.3

50.0

<0.2

0.2 J

0.6 J

77.6

0.8 J

9/19/2011

<1.0

2.7

70.8

<2.0

< 1.0

1.0

114.0

<1.0



3/27/2012

<1.0

4.2

44.7

<2.0

0.3 J

0.6 J

71.4

<1.0



9/18/2012

<1.0

4.9

60.8

<2.0

0.4 J

0.9 J

110.0

0.2 J



3/27/2013

<0.2

4.0

44.9

<2.0

<0.3

0.8 J

76.2

<0.4



9/16/2013

<0.2

5.2

62.5

<2.0

0.3 J

0.7 J

86.6

<0.4



6/24/2014

<0.2

2.7

34.0

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

39.4

2.5



10/28/2014

0.4 J

3.1

60.4

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

31.9

3.8



3/26/2015

0.5 J

2.5

54.9

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

15J

6.3



9/30/2015

0.3 J

3.7

67.8

<2.0

<0.3

0.5 J

41.8

0.4 J



3/30/2016

<0.3

1.4

30.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

9.9

2.6



9/15/2016

0.4 J

2.9

94.8

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

8.5

0.5 J



3/20/2017

0.4 J

2.5

81.0

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

10.3

3.6



9/26/2017

<0.3

2.7

88.8

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

7.9

0.5 J



3/22/2018

<0.3

2.3

72.9

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

7.1

3.2

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 8 of 16	August 2018

H-8

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Vol utile Or guile Compounds (VOCs)

Well ID

Date
Sampled

«
i

1

1

3

i

3

»

|

1

-J

e

i
«

1
1

S

'

[

$

I

I

1

1

1

H

A

•
i

1
*

1

2

•m

"g
3

>.

USEPA M



5.0

7.0

70.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

5.0

2.0



10/25/2004

<1.0

2.1

18.0

<3J>

<1.0

< 1.0

18.0

<1.0



3/14/2005

<1.0

2.6

19.0

<5.0

<

1.0

<1.0

15.0

<1.0



9/26/2005

<1.0

2.4

27.0

<3.0

<1.0

0.3 J

24.0

<1.0



3/20/2006

<1.0

1.9

21.0

<3.0

<1.0

<1.0

20.0

<1.0



9/25/2006

<1.0

3.0

30.0

<3.0

<1.0

03 J

34.0

<1.0



4/23/2007

<0,5

3.3

24.0

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

32.0

<0.7



9/17/2007

<1.0

4.4

45.0

<3.0

<

1.0

0.5 J

54.0

< 1.0



4/14/2008

<1.0

1.3

13.0

<3.0

<1.0

<1.0

23.0

<1.0



9/23/2008

<1.0

6.1

48.0

<3.0

<1.0

0.6 J

77.0

<1.0



3/23/2009

<1.0

1.7

17.4

<1.0

<

1.0

<1.0

29.1

<2.0



8/3/2009

<0.4

3.4

41.2

<0.3

0.2 J

0.6 J

<7.5

<0.2



3/23/2010

<0.4

2.4

24.5

<0.3

<0,2

<0.5

45.4

<0.2



9/28/2010

<0.1

4.7

50.8 J

<0.2

0.3 J

0.8 J

93.2 J

<0.2

MW-10B

3/28/2011

<0.1

2.5

30.5

<0.2

<0.2

0.5 J

51.8

<0.2

9/19/2011

<1.0

2.4

66.2

<2.0

0.4 J

1.1

133.0

<1.0



3/27/2012

<1.0

3.2

36.2

<20

0.2 J

0.6 J

62.6

<1.0



9/17/2012

<1.0

4.3

56.5

<2.0

0.3 J

0.9 J

96.9

0.6 J



3/27/2013

<0.2

3.4

36.1

<2.0

<0.3

0.5 J

6L9

<0.4



9/16/2013

<0.2

6.5

70.9

<2.0

0.4 J

1.0 J

102.0

<0.4



6/24/2014

<0.3

4.7

54.9

12JL

<0.5

0.8 J

102.0

<0.7



10/28/2014

<0.5

4.8

3*7

<4.0

<0.5

<0.6

116.0

<0.7



3/26/2015

<0.2

3.0

36.0

<2.0

<0.3

0.5 J

77.7

<0.3



9/30/2015

<0.2

5.2

58.4

<2.0

<0.3

0.9 J

88.8

<0.3



3/30/2016

<0.3

3.6

42.6

<2.0

<0.3

0.7 J

86.8

<0.3



9/15/2016

<0.3

4.1

61.3

<2.0

<0.3

0.8 J

90.9

<0.3



3/20/2017

<0.3

3.0

44.5

<2.0

0.2 J

0.5 J

92.7

<0.4



9/26/2017

<0.3

3.7

34.3

<2.0

<0.2

0.9 J

93.8

<0.4



3/22/2018

<0.3

2.7

37.1

<2.0

<0.2

0.5 J

67.7

<0.4

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 9 of 16	August 2018

H-9

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC*)

Well ID

Date
Sampled

«
8

I
§
I

s

•
8

§
3
s

•
g

1

|

*

¦S

!

3
•
s

¦R

s

•
I

j

1

«
¦

!

?

H

rt

•
i

1

?

£
H

»
*

1

¦£,
Jf
5

USEPA MCL Gig/1.)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



10/25/2004

<1.0

<1.0

0.3 J

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

1.5

< 1.0



3/14/2005

<1.0

<1.0

2.1

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

2.7

< 1.0



9/26/2005

<1.0

<1.0

5.7

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

4.7

<1.0



3/20/2006

<1.0

3.4

19.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

21.0

<1.0



9/26/2006

<1.0

1.6

30.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

1.6

< 1.0



4/23/2007

<0.5

1.7

9.2

<0.7

<0.5

<0.1

9.3

<0.7



9/17/2007

<1.0

<1.0

6.3

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

1.3

<1.0



4/14/2008

<1.0

<1.0

6.6

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

6.2

<1.0



9/24/2008

<1.0

<1.0

4.2

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

9.8

<1.0



3/24/2009

<1.0

<1.0

18.6

<1.0

<1.0

. < 1.0

20.5

<2.0



8/3/2009

<0.4

0.7 J

19.8

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

19.0

<0.2



3/23/2010

<0.4

0.8 J

9.7

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

13.9

<0.2



9/28/2010

<0.1

<0.1

9.3

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

7.4

<0.2

MW-11A

3/28/2011

<0.1

0.4 J

10.9

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

8.0

<0.2

9/19/2011

<1.0

<1.0

13.0

<2.0

<1.0

< 1.0

9.6

<1.0



3/27/2012

0.8 J

4.9

57.2 J

<2.0

1.6

0.4 J

62.5 J

<1.0



9/17/2012

<1.0

1.3

49.3

<2.0

<1.0

< 1.0

4.7

<1.0



3/26/2013

0.4 J

1.7

33.2

<2.0

0.6 J

<0.2

15.7

0.6 J



9/16/2013

1.4

6.3

99.8

<2.0

1.8

<0.2

39.2

<0.4



6/24/2014

<0.2

0.3 J

11.2

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

2.5

<0.3



10/28/2014

<0 2

0.7 J

14.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

<0.3

9.0



3/26/2015

1.3

4.6

97.7

<2.0

4.1

<0.3

10.6

3.2



9/30/2015

<0.2

0.8 J

16.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

<0.2

2.7



3/30/2016

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

< 0.4

<0.3

<0.3



9/15/2016

<0.3

<0.2

<0.3

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

<0.3

<0.3



3/20/2017

0.5 J

1.9

30.9

<2.0

0.3 J

<0.5

16.4

0.7 J



9/26/2017

0.7 J

1.5

40.1

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

<0.4

8.1



3/22/2018

0.7 J

2.6

43.5

<2.0

0.7 J

<0.5

22.9

<0.4

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 10 of 16	August 2018

H-10

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)



Well ID

Date
Sampled

»
1

i
I

1

3

•
1

i

I
-

•
j

|

5

N

5

•

•
s

*

I

•
8

1

i

I

•
j

1

i

i

H

f

1

fc

3

¦8

i
3

•S.

M

F

USEPA M

CL ' )

5.0

7,0

70,0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



10/25/2004

<1.0

2.2

10.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

21.0

<1.0



3/14/2005

<1.0

1.3

7.6

<5.0

<1.0



<1.0

1.6

<2.0





<0.4

0.4 J

8.2

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

2.4

<0.2



3/23/2010

<0.4

<0.4

5.7

<0.3

-------
Table 4

Summary- of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC









Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOCt)





Well ID

Date
San pled

«
i

1

i

i
1

M

©
9

1

8
3
s

i

i
¦

|

-
4

¦n

e

1

s
•
1

•R

1
s

•
i

1

i

1

ft

H

«
1

1

i

i

H
ri

•
a

•
*

1

2

«
m

I
3

•5.

| USE PA MCI, (jig I.)

5.0

7.0

70.0

3.0

3.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



11/1/2004

<2.0

60.0

53.0

<10.0

3.1

<2.0

1300.0

<2.0



3/20/2005

<1.0

67.6

75.0

<3.0

2.2

< 1.0

1300.0

< 1.0



7/11/2005

<10.0

81.0

97.0

18.0

<10.0

<10.0

1300.0

<10.0



9/28/2005

<1.0

84.0

58.0

<5.0

3.7

< 1.0

1100.0

<1.0



12/1/2005

<1.0

110.0

66.0

<5.0

4.9

<1.0

1600.0

<1.0



3/22/2006

<1.0

7M

53.0

< 5.0

5.1

< 1.0

1000.0

< 1.0



9/28/2006

<1.0

120.0

74.0

<5.0

5.2

<1.0

1400.0

<1.0



4/26/2007

<0.5

88.0

48.0

<0.7

4.7

<0.1

900.0

<0.7



9/20/2007

<1.0

94.0

53.0

<5.0

4.5

< 1.0

940.0

<1.0



E2Z&n

<1.0

51.0

32.0

<5.0

<10.0

< 1.0

1000.0

< 1.0





<1.0

94.0

54.0

<5.0

5.5

< 1.0

980.0

<1.0



3/25/2009

0.4 J

40.1

356.0

1.4

0.7 J

< 1.0

82.1

19.9



8/5/2009

<0.4

47.4

66.1

<0.3

3.8

<0.5

735.0

<0.2



3/25/2010

<0.4

42.2

44.5

<0.3

4.6

<0.3

697.0

<0.2

MW-12

9/30/2010

<0.3

63.4

48.3

<0.4

5.4

<0.3

920.0

<0.5

3/29/2011

<0.1

67.6

87.0

<0.2

1U

0.3 J

1390.0

<0.2



9/20/2011

<1.0

46.7

77.9

<2.0

6.7

0.4 J

-766.0

<1.0



3/27/2012

0.3 J

42.2

514.0

<2.0

2.6

0.3 J

202.0

1.6



9/19/2012

<1.0

4.7

91.4

<2.0

1.5

0.3 J

195.0

<1.0



3/29/2013

<0.2

2.5

81.7

<2.0

1.4

<0.2

153.0

<0.4



9/19/2013

<1.1

1.7 J

172.0

<10 0

< 1.6

<1.0

458.0

<2.2



6/25/2014

<1.2

2.1 J

144.0

18.3 J

< 13

<1.6

354.0

<1,6



10/28/2014

<0.6

0.9 J

84.8

<5.0

<0.6

<0.8

216.0

<0.8



3/27/2015

<0.5

0.7 J

68.9

<3.0

<0.8

1.3 J

201.0

<0.6



9/30/2015

<0.4

<0.5

66.1

<4.0

<0.7

1.3 J

151.0

<0.5



3/30/2016

<0.6

<0.4

57.1

<4.0

<0.6

1.6 J

130.0

<0.6



9/15/2016

<0.6

<0.4

58.2

<4.0

<0.6

1.2 J

127.0

<0.6



3/20/2017

<0.6

<0.6

57.7

<4.0

<0.4

1.4 J

135.0

<0.8



9/26/2017

<0.6

<0.6

47.3

<4.0

<0.4

1.2 J

96.5

<0.8



3/22/2018

<0.3

0.5 J

74.7

<2.0

0.3 J

1.7

108.0

<0.4

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 12 of 16	August 2018

H-12

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compound* (VOCb)





V

I

•
1

1

I

s

3

®
1

1

1

«

i

«
!

•
S

tf

S
s

i

i
*

«
i

!

1

m

1

H
fi

•
3
1

S

fe

1

2

•
•m

3

I

USEPA M





7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW-13

10/29/2004

<10.0

17-0

210.0

<50.0

< 10.0

< 10.0

330.0

<10.0

3/17/2005

<1.0

9.4

140.0

<5.0

1.7

< 1.0

150.0

<1.0

7/11/2005

<2.0

15.0

230.0

4.2 J

3.7

1.9 J

290.0

<2.0

9/27/2005

<1.0

15.1

220.0

<5.0

3.1

1.4

260.0

0.7 J

11/30/2005

<1.0

14.0

240.0

<5.0

2.5

1.3

280.0

<1.0

3/21/2006

<1.0

11.0

140.0

<5.0

2.7

0.7 J

160.0

<1.0

9/27/2006

<1.0

13.0

150.0

<5.0

2.3

0.8 J

170.0

< 1.0

4/26/2007

<0.5

12.0

92.0

<0.7

1.8

<0.1

120.0

<0.7

9/19/2007

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

6.1 (6.2)

61.0(67.0)

< 5.0 (< 5.0)

1.2(1.3)

<1.0 (0.4 J)

77.0(84.0)

<1.0 (< 1.0)

4/16/2008

< 1.0 (< 1.0)

7.7(7.3)

42.0(43.0)

< 5.0 (< 5.0)

1.4(1.6)

< 1.0 (<1.0)

99.0(93.0)

<1.0(<1.0)

9/24/2008

<1.0

14.0

7L0

<5.0

2.1

<1.0

120.0

<1.0

3/24/2009

<1.0

its

72.6

<1.0

1.8

0.4 J

106.0

<2.0

8/4/2009

<0.4

7.3

55.1

<0.3

1.6

<0.5

83.1

<0.2

3/24/2010

<0.4

6.0

45.4

<0.3

1.8

<0.5

73.8

<0.2

9/29/2010

<0.1

7.6

65.2

<0.2

L7

0.3 J

67.2

<0.2

3/28/2011

<0.1

8.1

64.2

<0.2

2.8

0.3 J

•3.7

<0.2

9/20/2011

<1.0

5.5

50.9

<20

2.9

0.2 J

77,7

<1.0

3/27/2012

0.2 J

7.5

66.8

<2.0

3.6

0.4 J

94.7

<1.0

9/18/2012

0.3 J

6.5

61.9

<2.0

4.1

0.3 J

88.6

<1.0

3/27/20131"

_

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9/I8/2013f

-

~

-

-

-

-

-



6/25/20141



-

_

-

-

-

-

-

10/28/2014

<0.2

3.8

32.2

<2.0

2.9

<0.3

55.8

<0.3

3/26/2015

0.8 J

7.2

73.5

<4.0

3.7

<0.6

117.0

<0.5

9/30/2015

<0.4

8.6

80.5

<4.0

4.0

<0.6

115.0

<0.5

3/30/2016

0.8 J

8.9

85.0

<2.0

3.6

<0.4

94.1

<0.3

9/15/2016

0.8 J

6.9

82.9

<4.0

4.0

<0.7

115.0

<0.6

3/20/2017

0.9 J

7.2

88.0

<4.0

3.5

<0.9

126.0

<0.8

9/26/2017

<0.6

6.7

78.1

<4.0

5.1

<0.9

107.0

<0.8

3/22/2018

0.8 J

8.5

104.0

<4.0

3.0

<0.9

127.0

<0.8

Geosyntec Consultants

Page 13 of 16

H-13

August 2018

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carotawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

•
i

1

s

<4.

i

?
s

i
a

«
8

I
•
i

i

a

A

¦s

«

!
1

8

T.

1
s

«
1

|
i

*

I

I
%

1

H

1

i
«

i

E

•S
"S
3

¦5,
¦

>

USEPA M

CLOig/L)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW-I4

10/26/2004

<1.0

<1.0

1.0 J

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

5.1

10.0

3/16/2005

<1.0

<1.0

< 1.0

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

1.9

1.0 J

9/28/2003

<1.0

<1.0

0.9 J

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

3.0

18.0

11/30/2005

<1.0

<1.0

0.9

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

1.9

23.0

3/2172006

<1.0

<1.0

2.5

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

3.7

<1.0

9/26/2006

<1.0

6.9

210.0

<5.0

< 1.0

< 1.0

33.0

5.5

4/24/2007

< 0.5 (< 0.5)

2.9(2.8)

50.0 (48.0)

< 0.7 (< 0.7)

<0.5 (< 0.5)

<0.1 (< 0.1)

44.0 (41.0)

6.5(6.0)

9/20/2007

<1.0

4.6

160.0

<5.0

< 1.0

<1.0

24.0

6.0

4/15/2008

<1.0

<1.0

4.2

<5.0

<1.0

< 1.0

2.9

<1.0

9/25/2008

<1.0

<1.0

12.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

8.0

1.8

3/25/2009

<1.0

<1.0

8.0

4.2

<1.0

< 1.0

5.1

<2.0

8/4/2009

<0.4

1.0

45.7

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

9.0

<0.2

3/24/2010

<0.4

1.3

29.1

<0.3

<0.2

<0.5

35.4

1.0 J

9/29/2010

<0.1

<0.1

9.0

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

9.4

0.5 J

3/29/2011

<0.1

0.3 J

8.3

<0.2

<0.2

<0.1

8.3

<0.2

9/20/2011

<1.0

0.8 J

34.5

<2.0

<1.0

<1.0

6.8

1.0 J

3/27/2012

<1.0

0.2 J

5.5

<2.0

<1.0

< 1.0

3.5

<1.0

9/19/2012

<1.0

0.3 J

4.9

<2.0

<1.0

<1.0

4.7

<1.0

3/28/2013

<0.2

<0.2

1.4

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

1.0

<0.4

9/17/2013

<0.2

4.4

102.0

<2.0

<0.3

<0.2

134.0

1.1

6/25/2014

<0.5

2.8

55.2

11.6

<0.5

<0.6

160.0

<0.7

10/28/2014

<0.5

2.2

69.7

<4.0

<0.5

<0.6

125.0

<0.7

3/27/2015

<0.2

<0.3

7.8

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

0.60 J

0.6 J

9/30/2015

<0.2

2.7

85.1

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

96.4

0.5 J

3/30/2016

<0.3

2.2

86.4

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

87.9

0.4 J

9/15/2016

<0.3

1.3

72.4

<2.0

<0.3

<0.4

69.7

<0.3

3/20/2017

<0.3

1.1

50.9

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

49.4

1.4

9/26/2017

<0.3

0.9 J

38.8

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

22.5

6.5

3/22/2018

<0.3

<0.3

1.9

<2.0

<0.2

<0.5

0.8 J

<0.4

MW-15

10/28/2004

<1.0

4.1

20.0

<5.0

1.5

0.5 J

33.0

<1.0

3/17/2005

<1.0

11.0

38.0

<5.0

<1.0

0.9 J

66.0

<1.0

9/27/2005

<1.0

7.6

41.0

<5.0

< 1.0

1.0 J

58.0

<1.0

4/25/2007

<0.5

17.0

73.0

<0.7

0.7 J

0.7 J

90.0

<0.7

9/19/2007

<1.0

14.0

120.0

<5.0

< 1.0

<1.0

31.0

<1.0

4/16/2008

<1.0

5.4

54.0

<5.0

<1.0

<1.0

24.0

<1.0

Geosyntec Consultants	Page 14 of 16	August 2018

H-14

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superfund Site
Fort Lawn, SC

Well ID

Date
Sampled

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)



e

1

5

I

©
s

1

1

5

1

¦a

0)

s

c

8

£
f

s

'

b

5

e

1

i
i

i

H

3

*
9

f

I

1.

l
3

USEPA M

CL0»B^)

3.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0

MW 16

11/1/2004

2.6

6.9

94.0

0.3 J

4.2

0.9 j

89.0

<1.0

3/18/2005

3.3

11.0

170.0

1.0 J

6.5

1.4

140.0

<1.0

9/29/2005

4.0

7.2

250.0

2.1 J

2.8

0.9 J

45.0

<1.0

12/1/2005

5.1

5.2

190.0

<3.0

2.9

1.0

42.0

<1.0

3/21/2006

6.5

7.7

160.0

<3.0

4.3

1.0 J

69.0

<1.0

9/27/2006

5.6

6.3

190.0

<3.0

5.2

0.8 J

77.0

<1.0

4/25/2007

6.1

12.6

17M

<0.7

12.0

<0.1

130.0

<0.7

9/19/2007

6.9

124

250.0

<3.0

4.2

0.6 J

45.0

0.8 J

4/16/2008

<1.0

4.9

180.0

<3.0

4.4

<1.0

38.0

1.7

9/24/2008

7.5

9.3

220.0

<3.0

4.8

<1.0

50.0

3.9

3/24/2009

7.6

8.6

267.0

<1.0

8.9

0.6 J

88.5

3.9

8/5/2009

9.2

9.3

301.0

<0.3

9.6

0.8 J

89.1

16.0

3/24/2010

8.1

4.6

211.0

<0.3

8.0

0.6 J

79.2

1.6

9/29/2010

7.0

11.2

187.0

<0.2

20.0

0.7 J

134.0

7.8

3/29/2011

8.6

13.4

229.0

<02

25.3

0.7 J

160.0

7.1

9/20/2011

8.7

10.8

226.0

<2.0

19.0

0.4 J

104.0

7.8

3/27/2012

7.0

8.8

211.0

<20

14.9

0.6 J

96.9

1.3

9/18/2012

7.3

8.7

200.0

<2.0

12.7

0,4 J

76.5

3.7

3/28/2013

8.6

15.1

264.0

<2.0

24.6

0.8 J

114.0

7.2

9/18/2013

7.4

12A

236.0

<3.0

18.8

<0.3

107.0

6.5

6/25/2014

10.5

10.9

151.0

10.4

14.5

0.8 J

185.0

<0.7

10/28/2014

7.2

10.9

209.0

<3.0

18.6

<0.8

104.0

<0.8

3/27/2015

7.7

tu

233.0

<10.0

17.8

<1.6

109.0

<1.3

9/30/2015

6.5

11J

203.0

<5.0

15.7

<0.8

91.0

<0.6

3/30/2016

6.4

ii.5

182.0

<4.0

14.5

<0.7

101.0

<0.6

9/15/2016

5.7

9.0

187.0

<4.0

14.2

<0.7

99.8

<0.6

3/20/2017

5.1

8.5

183.0

<4.0

11.1

<0.9

93.1

<0.8

9/26/2017

4.3

7.7

163.0

<4.0

10£

<0.9

67.5

<0.8

3/22/2018

4.9

8.7

212.0

<3.0

6.4

<1.2

57.3

<1.0

Geosyntec Consultants

Page 15 of 16

H-15

August 2018

-------
Table 4

Summary of Detected VOCs in Groundwater Monitoring Wells Exceeding USEPA MCLs
October 2004 through March 2018
Carolawn Superftind Site
Fort Lawn, SC





Velatlle Organic Compounds (VOCi)

Well ID

Date
Sampled

«
3

i

5

e

8

1

1

9

«
1

|

j

M

1

ft

A

«

!
3

•
S

•5,

|

«
a

1

J

1

£
e

2

1

H

M

1

I

j

I

Vinyl chloride

USEPA M

CL 0ig/L)

5.0

7.0

70.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

2.0



10/29/2004

<1.0

3.0

41.0

0.2 J

0.9 J

<1.0

62.0

<1.0



3/17/2005

<1.0

10.0

76.0

0.8 J

1.3

<1.0

100.0

<1.0



9/28/2005

<1.0

13.0

100.0

<5.0

2.8

0.9 J

160.0

< 1.0



3/21/2006

<1.0

11.0

86.0

<5.0

2.9

0.6 J

140.0

<1.0



9/26/2006

<1.0

19.0

110.0

<5.0

3.9

0.7 J

180.0

<1.0



4/25/2007

<0.5

26.0

92.0

<0.7

5.2

<0.1

170.0

<0.7



9/19/2007

<1.0

17.0

76.0

<5.0

4.2

0.6 J

130.0

<1.0



4/16/2008

<1-0

1L0

49.0

<5.0

3.6

< 1.0

110.0

<1.0



9/24/2008

<1.0

19.0

78.0

<5.0

4.2

<1.0

130.0

<1.0



3/24/2009

<1.0

8.4

48.0

<1.0

2.8

0.3 J

72.6

0.6 J



8/4/2009

<0.4

10.2

73.2

<0.3

3.5

<0.5

95.0

<0.2



3/24/2010

<0.4

9.6

80.6

<0.3

5.0

<0.5

141.0

<0.2



9/29/2010

0.4 J

18.1

94.8

<0.2

8.4

0.6 J

164.0

<0.2

MW-I7

3/29/2011

0.4 J

12.4

73.7

<0.2

6.7

0.6 J

126.0

<0.2

9/20/2011

0.7 J

20.7

102.0

<2.0

11.2

0.7 J

185.0

<1.0



3/27/2012

0.5 J

18.3

94.9

<20

8.5

0.6 J

145.0

0.9 J



9/18/2012

0.7 J

20.8

105.0

<2.0

113

0.7 J

180.0

<1.0



3/28/2013

0.6 J

14.6

80.2

<2.0

93

<0.2

111.0

<0.4



9/18/2013

0.4 J

10.5

69.8

<2.0

6.5

<0.2

92.6

<0.4



6/24/2014

<0,2

1.6

14.2

<2.0

1.6

<0.3

22.4

<0.3



10/28/2014

<0.2

3.3

26.4

<2.0

2.9

<0.3

44.5

<0.3



3/26/2015

<0.2

<0,3

<0.2

<2.0

0.4 J

<0.3

1.2

<0.3



9/30/2015

0.6 J

2.2

52.1

<2.0

<0.3

<0.3

4.3

2.4



3/30/2016

<0.3

2.1

32.9

<2,0

0.5 J

<0.4

18.5

4.0



9/15/2016

1.0 (1.0 J)

2.9(3.0)

58.0(56.3)

<2.0(< 2.0)

0.4 J (0.4 J)

< 0.4 (< 0.4)

47.0(45.6)

3.8(3.7)



3/20/2017

LI

4.1

763

<2.0

2.3

< 0.5

90.0

<0.4



9/26/2017

0.8 J

3.6

53.7

<2.0

3.0

<0.5

69.0

<0.4



3/22/2018

1.0 J

4.3

77.0

<2.0

1.9

<0.5

78.5

0.9 J

Htmi

Only constituents of concern which were detected in exeeedence rf a USEPA MCL m one or more of these samples are presented in this table
USEPA MCL - United Statei Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level

f - IW-14 wai mistakenly sampled in place of nearby MW-l3tn March 2013. September 2013 and June 2014. These result* were mis attributed to MW-13 in previous reports

Concentrations are shown in micrograms per liter (tig/L)

Valuer in bold represent analytical results above the USEPA MCL

< #<¦ not detected above the sample-specific method detection limit shown

(#) = concentration shown represents the result of a blind field duplicate

J = concentration shown is estimated

UJ = analyte was not detected and the quantitation limit mar be inaccurate or imprecise
* = considered likely to be a laboratory contaminant

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment system operated from 1996 through 2004
Newman Zone injection conducted April, 2005

Soil Vapor Extraction System operated from January 2012 through July 2QM

Samples collected from 9/18/13 and prior were collected via well purge volume sampling, subsequent samples collected with passive diffusion bag samplers (PDBs)

Geosyntec Consultants

Page 16 of 16

H-16

August 2018

-------
Attachment 2: 2013 TCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosvntec 2016 - 2017 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report and
2018 TCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

9 Morttortng Well with TCE Concentration (ug/L)

TCE Concentration Contour (ug/L) (Dasned where inferred]
•—1" Property Une
¦w*? Fence Une

TCE = TrtcMoroethene

USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level for TCE Is 5 ug/L
J = Estimated Value

H-2

-------
ci&m
ao

C

aae

CEWO
QG0<5

[Mm CMOB
san v. 
-------
Attachment 3; 2013 cis-l,2-DCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosvntec 2016 - 2017 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring
Report and 2018 cis-U-DCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

9 Monitoring WeH wfth Cis-1,2-OCE Concentration (ug/L)

Cte-1,2-OCE Concentration cortour (ugO_) (Dasned where irterred) |
Property Line
Fence Line

_ = Dichloroethene
USE PA Maximum Contaminant Level for Cis-1,2-DCE is 70 ugrt.
J * Estimated Value

CI8-1 ,2-OCE ISOCONCENTRATIOM CONTOUR MAP
September 2013

Carotawi Supertunci Ste
Fort Lawn, South Carolina

Figure
9

H-4

-------
/OKttXflS

/

MW

IMW-'5I

144^39

iMWiSl

W5m

• Property Line	Wells (Cis-1,2 DCE Concentration in |jg/L)

Fence Line	^ Monitoring Well

c»-1,2-DCE Isoconcentratior Contour
(dashed where inferred)

Notes

DCE = Dichloroethene

USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level for Cis-1,2-DCE is 70

m

cmaa
eemmb r
eas * 1

sum/we i%f assail Qseipe. Sairfeii'	t

200 1

00 0 200 Feet

CIS-1,2-DCE ISO!

4
F

CONCENTRATION CONTOUR MAP
March 2018

iarotawn Superfund Site
oft Lawn, South Carolina



jsyntec^

consultants

Figure
6

1 Charlotte. North Corolii

a I August 2018

H-5

-------
Attachment 4: 2013 1,1-DCE Plume Map (Appendix C) from the Geosyntec 2016 - 2017 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report
and 2018 1,1-DCE Plume Map from the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

MARCH 2014

9 MonlonngWet with 1,1-DCE Concentration (ug«1_)

1,1-DCE Concenfratfon Contour (ug/L) (Dashed where Inferred) |

roperty Line
fence Line

Wbe

E = 1,1-Dichloroethene
USEPA Maximum Contaminant Level for 1,1-DCE is 7 ug/L
J = Estimated Value

f.'VV

1,1-OCE ISOCQNCENTRATION CONTOUR MAP
S«ptemb«r2013

Carotewi Superlund Site
FatLawn. SouftCaraBna

Geosyntec0

ooDnukonta

Kennftsaw, Georgia

Figure

H-6

-------
H-7

-------
Attachment 5: Tag Map (Figure 4) from the March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

Property Line ^ Monitoring Well (Groundwater Concentration in pgA.)
Fence Line	TCE = Trichloroethene (MCL = 5)

• Iniedion Wtell C«-1,2-OCE = C»-1,2-Djchloroethene (MCL = 70)
1,1-DCE = 1.1 -Dichloroethene (MCL = 7)
ND - Non-Deted

Notes

Concentrations below the MCL are undertmed
* IW-14 was mistakenly sampled in place of MW-13 on these dates
These data were misattributedto MW-13 in some previous reports

CONCENTRATION OF DETECTED TCE, Ci*-1,2-DCE
AND 1,1 -DCE IN GROUNDWATER (2011 - 2018)

Carolawn Superfurtd Sits

Fort Lawn. South Carolina	

Geosyntec^

consultants

August 2016

Charlotte, North Carolina

H-8

-------
Attachment 6: Concentration Graphs (Figures 8-10) from the Draft March 2018 Monitoring Event - Final Figures and Tables

MW-6 Primary COC Concentrations after GWETS Shutdown

10000

1000

100

10

///^

-»-TCE

-~-Total 1,2-DCE
-*-1,1-DCE
—MCL (TCE)

	Ma (cis- 1,2-DCE)

¦—MCL(1,1-DCE)
~ Non-Detect

Notes:

Non-detects represented at the detection limit
GWETS - Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction

MW-6 PRIMARY COC CONCENTRATIONS
AFTER GWETS SHUTDOWN

Carolawn Supartund Site
Fort Lawn Soirth Carolina

Geosyntecp

consultants

Charlotte, North Carolina

April 2018

Figure
8

H-9

-------
s

c

8

o

o

1000

100

10

0.1

MW-5 Primary COC Concentrations after GWETS Shutdown

-------
MW-12 Primary COC Concentrations after GWETS

Shutdown

10000

1000

~ 100

10

o

0 1

 Carolina

April 2018

Figure
10

H-ll

-------
Attachment 7: Groundwater Potentiometric Surface and Flow Map (Figure 3) from the March 2018 Monitoring Event -
Figures and Tables

Final

SDR8B





aaaes

ee&s

«30

CKW0

(ZCSG

C3KM
4SSS7

i iw-5'i lw"7

dt ° —D15-67	

^ ¦'	IW-8

j S0,W"3' 4o1417

EKMJQ

-------
APPENDIX I - DETAILED ARARS TABLES

Groundwater ARARs

According to the Site's 1989 ROD, several cleanup goals for groundwater COCs were based on federal
MCLs. As part of this FYR, ARARs in the ROD were compared to current ARARs (Table 1-1). There
have been no changes.

Table 1-1: Groundwater ARAR Evaluation

Groundwater COC

1989 ROD Cleanup
Goal (U2/L)*

2018 ARAR (MCL)b

ARAR Change

I

1,1-DCE

7

7

None

1,2-DCE

70 - cis
100 - trans

70
100

None

1,1,1-TCA

200

200

None

TCE

5

5

None

Lead

5

15c

Less stringent

Notes:







a. Cleanup goals from 1989 ROD, Table 23.





b. MCLs accessed at httDs://www.eDa.£ov/eround-water-and-drinking-water/national-Drimarv-

drinkins-water-reeulations on 3/16/18.
c. Lead is regulated by a treatment technique that requires systems to control the corrosiveness
of their water. If more than 10 percent of tap water samples exceed the action level, water
systems must take additional steps. For lead, the action level is 15 (ig/L.

Hg/L = micrograms per

liter





Surface Water ARARs

The 1989 ROD stated that the rate and level of groundwater discharge of contaminants into Fishing
Creek would not surpass the ambient WQC for the COCs. As part of this FYR, WQC in the ROD were
compared to current standards (Table 1-2). Several WQC have become more or less stringent. Due to
these changes, long-term monitoring should use current WQC when evaluating impacts to surface water.

Table 1-2: Surface Water ARAR Evaluation

COC

1989 ROD WQC

Current ARAR
(Ug/L)b

ARAR Change

Acetone

-

Criteria not currently
established

N/A

1,1-DC A

-

Criteria not currently
established

N/A

1,1-DCE

0.033

300

Less stringent

Trans-1,2-DCE

-

100

More stringent

Cis-1,2-DCE

-

Criteria not currently
established

N/A

1,1,1-TCA

19,000

10,000

Less stringent

TCE

2.7

0.6

More stringent

Lead

-

Criteria not currently
established

N/A

Notes:

a. Cleanup goals from 1989 ROD, Table 23.

1-1

-------
table. These WQC are current as of 3/29/18,
ug/L = micrograms per liter

- = WQC not available at the time of the 1989 ROD; health-based number selected instead.
N/A = cleanup goal was not based on an ARAR; therefore, no ARAR change was included.

1-2

-------
APPENDIX J - SCREENING-LEVEL RISK REVIEW

Groundwater

The acetone groundwater cleanup goal was based on a lifetime health advisory rather than an ARAR. To
determine the cleanup goal's current validity, a screening-level risk evaluation was conducted by
comparing the acetone groundwater cleanup goal to the EPA's residential tapwater RSL and calculating
a corresponding risk value (Table J-l). The cleanup goal corresponds to a noncarcinogenic HQ of 0.05
(below EPA's threshold value of 1), indicating that this cleanup goal remains valid.

Table J-l: Resident Tapwater Screening-Level Risk Evaluation of Acetone Cleanup Goal

Groundwater
COC

ROD Cleanup Goal
(Hg/L )"

Residential RSLb (fig/L)

Residential Risk Evaluation'

Carcinogenic
Risk

Noncarcinogenic
HQ

1 x 10"6 Risk

o

ll

C
X

Acetone

700

-

14,000

-

0.05

Notes:

a.	Cleanup goal from 1989 ROD, Table 23.

b.	Current EPA RSLs are available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsIs-generic-tables-november-
2017 (accessed 3/16/2018).

c.	The noncarcinogenic HQ was calculated using the following equation:

HQ = Cleanup goal noncarcinogenic-based RSL.

- = no RSL available/unable to calculate risk.

Hg/L = micrograms per liter	

Soil (OU2)

Forty-one surface and nine subsurface soil samples were collected from OU2 during the 1994 RI from
41 grids on and around the Site (Figure J-l). Four sediment samples were collected from Fishing Creek.
The OU2 chemicals of potential concern (COPC) are shown in Table J-2.

J-l

-------
Table J-2: OU2 Soil and Sediment COPCs

COPC

Surface Soil

Subsurface Soil

Sediment

Aluminum



X



Arsenic

X

X

X

Barium

X





Beryllium

X

X



Calcium

X

X



Chromium

X

X



Copper

X





Iron



X



Lead

X

X



Magnesium

X

X



Manganese

X

X



Potassium



X



Sodium

X





Vanadium



X



PCBs

X





Notes:

Source: Table 1, 1995 OU2 ROD

The maximum concentrations for each COPC from surface soil, subsurface soil and sediment are listed
in Table J-3 and compared to the current EPA RSL for residential use to estimate corresponding
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk values.

Table J-3: OU2 Soil and Sediment COPC Residential Risk Evaluation

COPC

Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)

Residential RSL" (mg/kg)

Residential Risk Evaluationb

1 x lO^Risk

X

o

II

o

Carcinogenic Risk

Noncarcinogenic HQ

Aluminum

31,000

NA

77,000

NA

0.4

Arsenic

23

0.68

35

3.4 x 10"5

0.7

Barium

1,200

NA

15,000

NA

0.08

Beryllium

4.1

1,600

160

2.6 x 10-9

0.03

Calcium

49,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

Trivalent
chromium

380

NA

120,000

NA

0.003

Hexavalent
chromium

380

0.3

230

1.27 x 10"3

1.7

Copper

410

NA

3,100

NA

0.1

Iron

50,000

NA

55,000

NA

0.9

Lead

430

400c

NA

NA

Magnesium

26,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

Manganese

1,100

NA

1,800

NA

0.6

Potassium

6,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

Sodium

160

NA

NA

NA

NA

Vanadium

140

NA

390

NA

0.4

PCBs

5.4 (PCB-1254)

0.24

1.2

2.3 x 10"5

4.5

J-2

-------
COPC

Maximum
Concentration
(mg/kg)

Residential RSL" (mg/kg) |

Residential Risk Evaluation1*

1 x 10" Risk

HQ = 1.0

Carcinogenic Risk

: « ? rg

Noncarcinogenic HQ

0.440 (PCB-1248)

0.23

NA

2.0 x 10-6

NA

0.700 (PCB-1260)

0.24

NA

3.0 x lO"6

NA

Notes:

Source: Appendix A of 1995 OU2 ROD
NA = no RSL available or unable to calculate risk
Bold = exceeds EPA's acceptable risk values
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram

a.	The current EPA RSLs, dated November 2017, are available at https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-
rsls-generic-tables-mav-2016 (accessed 4/3/2018).

b.	Screening level risk calculations were performed as follows:

cancer risk = (maximum concentration/risk-based RSL) x 1 x 10"6
noncancer hazard index = (maximum concentration/HQ-based RSL)
c. The EPA has no consensus reference dose or cancer slope factor for inorganic lead, so it is not possible to calculate
RSLs as it is for other chemicals. The EPA considers lead to be a special case because of the difficulty in
identifying the classic "threshold" needed to develop a reference dose. The EPA evaluates lead exposure by using
blood-lead modeling, such as the Integrated Exposure-Uptake Biokinetic Model. The EPA Office of Solid Waste
has also released a detailed directive on risk assessment and cleanup of residential soil lead. The directive
recommends that soil lead levels less than 400 mg/kg are generally safe for residential use. Above that level, the
document suggests collecting data and modeling blood-lead levels with the Integrated Exposure-Uptake Biokinetic
Model. For the purposes of screening, therefore, 400 mg/kg is recommended for residential soils.

With the exception of lead, hexavalent chromium and PCB-1254, the maximum detected concentrations
of COPCs in soil and sediment are within the EPA's acceptable risk range for cancer risk and below an
HQ of 1 for noncancer risk. The EPA has updated the lead risk assessment guidance and associated adult
and child lead exposure models several times and as recently as 2017 based on updated toxicity
information released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.2 Based on this new information,
the EPA is in the process of evaluating its lead policy; in the interim, use of the current policy is
recommended until it is formally updated.3 The maximum concentration of lead (430 mg/kg) slightly
exceeds the residential RSL. Generally, the EPA recommends utilizing the average lead concentration
across the Site to assess lead exposure risk. The average lead concentration was 66 mg/kg in surface
soil, 55 mg/kg in surface and subsurface soil combined, and 2 mg/kg in sediment (as calculated from
concentrations provided in Appendix A of the 1995 OU2 ROD). These values are all below the RSL of
400 mg/kg; therefore, unacceptable exposure risk from lead is unlikely.

The maximum concentration of PCB-1254 exceeded the non-cancer RSL of 1.2 mg/kg with a resulting
HQ of 4.5. PCB-1254 was detected in nine soil samples ranging in concentration from 0.028 to 5.4
mg/kg. Two of the nine samples (1-SLA and 4-SLA) contained PCB-1254 concentrations above the
non-cancer RSL. The highest concentration was detected in surface soil sample 1-SLA, which also
contained PCB-1248 and PCB-1260. Soil sampling location 4-SLA (with a concentration of 2.9 mg/kg
PCB-1254) was a surface soil sampling location located in the West Drum Area. See sample locations
below in Figure J-l.

2	Transmittal of Update to the Adult Lead Methodology's Default Baseline Blood Lead Concentration and Geometric
Standard Deviation Parameters. Office of Land and Emergency Management Directive 9285.6-56. May 17, 2017. Accessed
on 4/10/2018 at https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HO/196766.pdf.

3	Updated Scientific Considerations for Lead in Soil Cleanups. Office of Land and Emergency Management Memorandum.
December 22, 2016. Accessed on 4/10/2018 at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3525442-EPA-Memo-Updated-
Scientific-Considerations-for.html.

J-3

-------
It is unknown whether concentrations of chromium are in the trivalent or hexavalent form, so this
screening level risk evaluation analyzed the maximum chromium concentration against both RSLs.
When compared to the less toxic trivalent chromium, the concentration was below EPA's target HQ of
1. However, when compared to the hexavalent chromium RSLs, the concentration corresponded to
cancer risk above EPA's acceptable risk range and noncancer risk above an HQ of 1. This sample was
from a surface soil sampling location located in the West Drum Area (4-SLA).

Though maximum concentrations of hexavalent chromium and PCB-1254 exceed residential RSLs, this
screening is conservative because use of maximum concentrations in the assessment may overestimate
risk. In addition, residential RSLs were used and this area is not currently used residentially. There is
minimal potential exposure, as this site area is only used by hunters, and a recreational receptor is
assumed to be on site less frequently and for a shorter duration than is assumed in the residential soil
RSLs. However, to ensure long-term protectiveness, the need for institutional controls or additional
remedial actions for soil in OU2 will be evaluated.

J-4

-------
Figure J-l: Soil Sample Locations (1995 OU2 ROD)

BACKGROUND
SAMPLE

POWER
UNES

-Kcr.

SMALL CRIO BOXES - SO' > 50'
LARK CRIO BOXES - 100' < 100'

- SUBSURFACE SOIL

sample collecteo

TREE LINE

UVOVJUAAAAJUAJUU



&EPA

APPROXIMATE SCALE

130	t	79 ISO

C IN FEET )
Inch • ISO ft

FIGURE 3
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION HAP

CAROLAWN SITE
FT. LAWN, SOUTH CAROLINA

en

V.

o
c

Cn

J-5

-------
APPENDIX K - VAPOR INTRUSION RISK EVALUATION

As part of this FYR, several vapor intrusion screening-level risk evaluations were initially conducted to
evaluate the potential risk presented by this exposure pathway. These assessments were conservative and
included default parameters. The results indicated potentially unacceptable risk in several scenarios. In
response to this, in August 2018 Geosyntec Consultants (a contractor for the CSC) conducted several
vapor intrusion risk evaluations with site-specific information, including details about the exposure
frequency and occupancy of the Site. These evaluations indicated that there is currently no unacceptable
risk from vapor intrusion. The full Geosyntec report is included in the remainder of this appendix.

K-l

-------
Geosyntec0

consultants

Memorandum

Date:

7 August 2018

To:

Yvonne Jones, United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4

Copies to:

Amy Magee, King & Spalding

From:

Jeffrey Ahrens, P.E.csq, Geosyntec Consultants

Subject:

Vapor Intrusion Screening-Level Risk Assessment

In response to an email correspondence on 12 July 2018 from Yvonne Jones of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) provided as Attachment A, Geosyntec Consultants
Inc. (Geosyntec) has prepared this memo on behalf of the Caralawn Steering Committee (CSC)
to provide Site-specific information for a screening-level risk assessment for vapor intrusion (¥1)
at the Carolawn Superfund Site (Site) in Fort Lawn, South Carolina.

EXISTING BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES AND OCCUPANCY AT THE SITE

At the Site, there are currently 8 building/structures which are illustrated in the photographs
provided below. The attached Figure 1 presents the locations of these buildings/structures
relative to Site-related wells. A general description of each building/structure follows:

•	The ground-water extraction treatment system (GWETS) building, located near MW-6, is
a slab-on-grade metal building situated on land formerly occupied by the Carolawn
Company, Inc. This building houses decommissioned groundwater remediation
equipment, and the building is unoccupied (Photograph i);

•	An approximately 38-foot (ft) by 24-11 one-story storage garage is located near MW-8 on
hunting club property owned by Furr and Lambert. This building is reportedly used for
storage. It has a garage door, no windows, and is constructed of concrete blocks on a
concrete slab (Photograph 2);

•	An approximately 10-ft by 5-ft one-story game shed located on the hunting club property
owned by Furr and Lambert (near MW-13). This building is used for hanging animal
carcasses and is constructed of metal raised above-grade on cinder blocks (Photograph 3);

engineers f srientteta I innowtora

K-2

1300 South Mint Sheet Sate 300
Charlotte* North Carolina 28203

PH 704.227.0840
www k|itoj|yiiifc*coiii

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018

Page 2

An app«im«l»lf 20-ft by 35-ft nisei cabin is located on the hunting club property near
MW-13. This building is approximately 10 feet off the ground and constructed of wood.
II is fifMPtafif «»p»i p«Mdta% far 25-30 mmMsmmemime days per year during the
hunting season (Photograph 4);

Ail approximately 13-ft by 18-ft sne-sloiy cabin is located on the hunting club property
near MW-13, TMs building is constructed of wood, which is raised above-grade on
concrete Mock footings. These footings create a crawlq^ beneath'the twilitBg open to
ambient air. It is npertadty occupied periodically for 25-30	days per

year during the hunting season (Photograph 5);



Aa approximately 7-ft by 7-ft wood and metal storage building is located on the hurting
club property near MW-13. This tailing is raittd above-grade on cinder blocks tad
located next to the cabin (Photograph 6);

An approximately 5-ft by 10-ft metal storage shed is located on the hunting club property
near MW-13. This shod is raised above-grade on cinder blocks located behind a trailer
on the hunting club property (Photograph 7); and

An. approximately 10-ft by 5-ft wood storage shed is located on the hunting club property
near MW-13. This building is constructed of wood, has a double-door, and is raised
abo v e-grude on cinder blocks	8),

Addbkmalfy, several RV/campers are located on the hunting club property, which is
located near MW-13. The RV/cauupeis raisedabwM'gPide on<

On 12 July 2018, Jeff Atoms of Geoayntec ipeke with Mr. Mike Lambert of Mim. Farr and
Lambert, tie owners of the gun club property. Mr. Lambert confirmed that the gun club
buildings are used infrequently. According to Mr. Lambert, the gun club is occupied for
approximately 25 to 30 non-consecutive days per year and a substantial portion of ftis time is

spent hunting outdoors.

If A»» FREUMtNABY'IUSK ASSESSMENT OF THE VI PATHWAY

As presented in Attachment A, the EPA conducted a screening-level risk assessment for vapor
intrusion for the Site using the EPA's Vapor Intrwian Screening Level Caieubtar (VISL
(MmMm), U» following three scenarios were evaluated by EPA using mmmvMve default

K-3

-------
VI Scieeoing-Leve] Risk Assessment
7 August 2018

Page 3

1) Commercial land use for buildings in the vicinity of MW-13, using detected volatile
organic compound (VOC) concentrations collected in March 2018 to evaluate t» vapor
intrusion pathway risk in the buildings on the hunting club property near MW-13;

2} Residential land we for the storage building in the vicinity of MW-08, using detected
VOC concentrations from March 2018 to evaluate the VI pathway risk to this storage
shed;

3) Residential land use with maximum site concentrations from March 2018 to evaluate
future risk if residential structures are built at the Site,

The EPA's evaluation estimated carcinogenic risks within the EPA's cancer risk management

range. For most constituents, the nsoenoeer hazard quotient (HQ) estimates were also below the
EPA's threshold value of I. However, the HQ for TCK was above (he threshold value in
scenarios 1 and 3. As discussed below, Geosyntec believes that the assumptions used in EPA's
screening-level evaluation are overly-conservative, since they do not accurately reflect actual
land uses, and therefore the results present an inaccurate depiction of risk for VI at the Site,

GEOSTOTEC* RISK ASSESSMENT OF THE VI PATHWAY

Geosyntec conducted a screening-level risk evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway using the
EPA VISL calculator in a similar manner as described above for scenarios 1 and 2; however, the
calculator was run using Site-specific knowledge of Site occupancy based on facility usage
provided by the property owner, Mr. Mike Lambert. As such, a commercial Ipai use was
applied, and occupancy exposure frequency in the VISL was changed to 40 days/year, for
buildings/structures located near MW-13 and MW-8, which remains conservative based on the
25 to 30 days/year occupancy rate estimated by Mr. Mike Lambert All other conservative
default assumptions used by EPA, remained the same. The results of the VISL calculator output
for buildings/structures near MW-13 are summarized in Table 1 below, and the results for the
storage building near MW-8 are summarized in Table 2 below. The output of the VISL
calculator tool are presented in Attachment B.

K-4

-------
¥1 Screening-Level Risk. Assessment
7 August 2018

Page 4

Table 1: Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator Results for MW-13

CI. ofitsnB in ait t

March 2M8 Site
Groundwater
Concentration

Calculated Indoor
Mr CmiemtaMm
(&«?)

Commercial Land Use
. (occupancy of 40 days/yr)

€amZToi€

NTtaJ-c

U-DCA

' 0.8 J

0.0386

1.31 x 10*

0.000201

1,1-DCE

8.5

9.07



0.00166

PCE

3

2.17

7.36xl&9

0.00198

TCE

127

51.1

2.74 x1V*

0.934

Notes:

|ig/L = tnicrogfam® per liter

Hg/mJ = microgram per cubic meter

J = concentration shown is estimated

Italicized- risk within the EPA's risk management range

Bold risk exceeds tie EPA's acceptable risk levels

- = no inhalation unit risk value has been established, so carcinogenic risk cannot be calculated
a. cis-l,2-DCE is volatile, hut the EPA has not established inhalation toxicity values so its
contribution to vapor intrusion could not be evaluated. Methylene ciiloriie, 1,1,2-TCA, and vinyl
chloride were not detected during this event
to. Detected concentrations from March 2011 usod.

Table 2: Vapor Intrusion Screening

Level Calculator Results for MW-8

Contaminant"

Man* 2018 Site
Groundwater
CmocMtnttoii

(WD*

Calculated Indoor
Air f 'oncentratlcm

Commercial Land I'se
(occupmcy 40 dpya/yr)

Carcinogenic
Ittak

Nancwrdtaogeoie
Hazard

1,1-DCE

0.3 J

0.320

•

0.0000585

K-5

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment

7 August 2018

PageS

TCE

0.9 J

0.362

1.94x10*

0.00662

Notes:

ug 'I., ¦-= micrograms per Iter

ug nr -- microgram per cubic meter

J = concentration shown is estimated

Italicized = risk within the EPA's risk management range

Bold = risk exceeds the EPA's acceptable risk levels

- =- no inhalaiion unit risk value has been established, so carcinogenic risk cannot be calculated

a,	ei*-1.2-DCE is volatile, but the EPA has not established inhalation toxicity values so its
contribution to vapor intrusion could not be evaluated. 1,2-DCA, methylene chloride, PCE»
1,1,2-TCA, and vinyl chloride were not detected daring this event

b.	Detected concentisfiious from March. 2018 used.

DISCUSSION

As shown is Tables 1 and 2, by adjusting the exposure frequency to be more representative of
flie Site-specific occupancy durations for these buildings/structures, the TCE HQ is reduced in
MW-13 to below the EPA's threshold value of I for buiWingg/structxrcK near MW-13.
Additionally, adjusting the She-specific occupancy frequency for the storage building near MW-
8 further reduces the risk associated with this structure; however, it is notable that EPA's HQ
threshold value of 1 was not exceeded even under the most conservative assumptions applied by
EPA.

It is notable that the assumptions applied in Geosyntec's VISL calculator assessment are
considered very conservative relative to Site conditions. For example, if the groundwater
temperature were changed in the VISL to 22°C, which represents the maximum historical
groundwater temperature at MW-I and MW-13 since 2012, the calculator would produce even
lower values relative to the HQ for these VOCs.

It is also important to consider the completeness of tht potential VI pathways at the Site. As
presented in the Vapor Intrusion Pathway memo submitted for the Site by O'Brien & Gere
Engineers, Inc. (OKJ) in April 2008 (Attachment C), the vapor intrusion pathway at the Site is
incomplete. The VISL calculator assumes a slab-on-grade building construction where poured
concrete foundations are directly in contact with soil gas. Of the buildings at the She, only two
(the raised cabin and the cabin) and/or the RY campers are expected to be occupied structures.
Of the potentially occupied structures, each of these is raised above-grade on cinder blocks or

K-6

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018
Page 6

Photograph 1: GWETS Building

wheels with a crawl space that is open to the atmosphere, and one is raised approximately 10 feet
above ground level. Therefore, the VI pathway is broken by this air space and application of the
slab-on-grade assumption of the VISL calculator is inappropriate.

Also, as noted in OBG's memo, groundwater at the Site is present in the fractured bedrock,
which is overlain by three vadose zone overburden units. The average depth to groundwater at
MW-8 and MW-13, respectively, is approximately 42 and 55 feet below ground surface (ft bgs)
based on data collected since 2004. The generic model of attenuation within the VISL is
designed for evaluation where the groundwater table is at 5 ft bgs or greater. Substantially
greater attenuation of vapors is likely to occur for this Site, with a groundwater table deeper than
40 ft bgs. Therefore, if a residential building were theoretically constructed on the Site, the risk
calculated by the VISL calculator using default settings may not be appropriate. It is also noted
that land use restrictions (LURs) preventing the construction of residential buildings are part of
the long-term path forward for the Site. The establishment of LURs has been delayed due to the
complications of ownership surrounding the property.

K-7

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018
Page 7

Photograph 2: Building Near MW-8

Photograph 3: Hunting Club Game Shed

K-8

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018
Page 8

Photograph 4: Hunting Club Raised Building

Photograph 5: Hunting Club Cabin

K-9

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018
Page 9

Photograph 6: Hunting Club Building Next to Cabin









\

1 **ss=^

Photograph 7: Hunting Club Metal Storage Shed

K-10

-------
VI Screening-Level Risk Assessment
7 August 2018
Page 10

Photograph 8: Hunting Club Wood Storage Shed
Attachments

Figure 1 - Well Location Map

Attachment A - E-mail from Yvonne Jones dated 12 July 2018
Attachment B - Output from VISL Calculator

Attachment C - OBG's Vapor Intrusion Pathway Memo dated 1 April 2008

*****

K-ll

-------
Figure

K-12

-------
GKwaa cigars

era? ;ws

tW:2

case

• (355=0 ''CEM0
L2SK>[0M@

V*. " >,wr IW-9 1*10

«¦» 13:59 iwa IW-K COW

•«,, • ¦* '• •)W-11

IVV1. %	iw.tJ* CEMS

CJaMK EW 3R	'* ¦ T . . ,,yw-j

™ " iW-14 EES®

®3SS

fl

'QMS

5 f^friw «ni«cto« «•* fcW-SH and fcW-t««» coavwtw) to
irjeclwi w«f* Fotnw wtrnrto* dm



Figure

¦ 1 ¦{. jawn .*

1

K-13

-------
ATTACHMENT A

K-14

-------
Jkrff Ahrwrts

T«

Subjact:

rfOisiS

Jones, Yvonne 

Thursday, July 12,2018 9:17 AM
Jeff Ahrens

Carolawn Five-Year Review - Clarification of land use near MW-13 and MW-fl

Hello Jeff,

I hope you are doing well. To follow up on our discussion regarding the draft FYR for the Carolawn site, the risk
evaluation for the hunting club structure near MW-13 estimated a noncancer hazard quotient (HQ) forTCE above EPA's
threshold value of 1 using conservative assumptions. I attached photographs of the buildings as well as the Vapor
intrusion summary from the draft FYR. The land use scenarios selected for the VISL Calculator are conservative.
Therefore, It would be helpful to have additional insight on the use of both buildings. If possible, can you contact the
property owners to determine the frequency of use' and type of use for both buildings? for example, is the building
near MW-08 used for storage (only), residential or other land use? Commercial land use was assumed for the building
near MW-13. Is this building used for 250 days or less?

Having site-specific information will ensure we have an accurate assessment of the current site conditions. We have a
little time, for I do not plan to finalize the draft FYR before September 1, 2018.

Please share your thoughts and we will plan accordingly.

Sincerely,

>9.

Prat«ct Mm««w »nd tagkm « FTH/IC Coordhetor

ftwtoratton «»4 SH* Iwtuuttan Mancte SupMftmd OhMon
US. btvkoniMNikil PraWNon Afanqr. Kngten 4
SI forayt* Stmt, S,W, MtaffH. 8»0»tl« *383

(Wotfc) m-m-mi: (€•» 4M-2MMM0

Photographs of 2 buMIng tocatod near MW-8 »n* MW-13

i

K-15

-------
VI discussion obtained from the draft Carolawn FYR.

APPENDIX K- VAPOR INTRUSION SCREENING-LEVEL RISK ASSESSMENT

Groundwater contaminants at the Site are considered volatile. The GWETS building is inactive, but the hunting club has
several structures near the Site used for storage and hunting-related purposes. These two structures are near MW-8 and
MW-13. As part of this FYR, vapor intrusion screening-level risk evaluations were conducted for each well to analyze
this exposure pathway and determine if it poses a concern for these structures. EPA's Vapor Intrusion Screening Level
Calculator was used with its default assumptions and detected volatile contaminant concentrations from the March 2018
sampling event to estimate carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic HQs.[li For MW-13, commercial land use was assumed
to be closest to a hunter's exposure (i.e., 250 days of exposure per year with eight hours of exposure per day rafter than
fee use of residential assumptions, which include 350 days per year and 24 hours of exposure per day). This screening-
level evaluation estimates that the cancer risk falls within EPA's cancer risk management range. However, the noncancer
HQ for TCE is above EPA's threshold value of 1. To ensure protectiveness, this exposure pathway at this building should
be further evaluated with multiple lines of evidence. See Table K-l.

2

K-16

-------
Table K-l: Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator Results for MW-I3

1,2-DCA

1.1-BOB

1J

907

0:00126

0.0104

I

:PCS

30

2.17

4.60 x lO*

0.0124

TCI

127

51.1

uixia*

§M

Notes:

Hg,L microgram per liter
ug/nr1 ¦- microgram per cubic meter
1 «4anmriratMRrdw*n is estimated
Italiaud - f isk within the FPA's risk management t
Bold - risk exceeds the EPA's acceptable risk levels •

- = nD'stebtfcmmit risk value has been esf»blishe4 » carcinogenic risk mm* be calculated
a. Cis-l,2-DCS is vofatile, but the EPA has noi established inhalation toxicity values so its oortnbu»oti to
vupat intasioo could not to evaluated. MetiykmcUorida,

detected during this event

b Detected concentrations from March 2018 w«l; data from 3016-2017 Bieanial Groundwater Mbniioring

	*SBSEL__-——-——

The exact use of the building near MW-8 is uncertain, rherefore. to be conservative, the s«eoifig4wel evaluation at «tis
location used a residential scenario. It estimated that the cancer risk is below the EFA's cancer risk management range,
art ft« noBcancer HQ is Wow the EPA's threshold value ofl.No a*ftional wateatioa imoMt ftr flit taMta*
SoeTaHo K-2.

3

K-l 7

-------
Table K-2: Vapor Intrusion Screening-Level Calculator Results for MW-8

Contaminant*

March 2018 Site
Groundwater
Concentration (fjg/L)b

Calculated Indoor Air
Concentration (ng/mJ)

Residential Land Use

Carcinogenic
Risk

Noncarcinogenic
Hazard

1,1-DCE

0.3 J

0.32

-

0.00153

TCE

0.9 J

0.362

7.58 x 10'7

0.174

|ig/L = microgram per liter
Hg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter
J = concentration shown is estimated

- = no inhalation unit risk value has been established, so carcinogenic risk cannot be calculated

a.	Cis-1,2-DCE is volatile, but the EPA has not established inhalation toxicity values so its contribution to vapor
intrusion could not be evaluated. 1,2-DCA, methylene chloride, PCE, 1,1,2-TCA and vinyl chloride were not
detected in this event.

b.	Detected concentrations from March 2018 used; data from 2016-2017 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report.

An additional site-wide vapor intrusion screening-level risk evaluation was conducted to determine if this potential
exposure pathway poses a future concern if additional occupiable structures are built over the plumes. The EPA's Vapor
Intrusion Screening Level Calculator was used with its default assumptions and maximum detected volatile contaminant
concentrations from the March 2018 sampling event to estimate carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic HQs. A residential
scenario was assumed because residential use is not prohibited over the plume. This screening-level evaluation estimates
that the cancer risk falls only slightly above the EPA's cancer risk management range; however, the noncancer HQ for
TCE of 24.5 is above the EPA's threshold value of 1. This screening is conservative, as the maximum detected
concentrations for all contaminants are unlikely to occur in any one location. However, if additional buildings are built
over volatile groundwater contamination, this exposure pathway should be further evaluated with multiple lines of
evidence.

Table K-3: Vapor Intrusion Screening Level Calculator Results for Residential Land Use

Contaminant*

Maximum 2018 Site

Groundwater
Concentration (ue/L)"

Well

Calculated Indoor
Air Concentration
(Mft/m')

Carcinogenic
Risk

Noncarcinogenic
Hazard

1,2-DCA

4.9

MW-16

0.236

2.19 xlO"6

0.0324

1,1-DCE

8.7

MW-16

9.28

-

0.0445

PCE

12.7s

MW-04

9.19

8.51 x 10"7

0.22

1,1,2-TCA

1.8 J

MW-06

0.0606

3.46 xlO"7

0.291

TCE

127

MW-13

51.1

1.07 x 10-»

24.5

Vinyl chloride

3.2

MW-10A

3.64

2.17 xlO}

0.0349

Hg/L = microgram per liter

|ig/m3 = microgram per cubic meter

J - concentration shown is estimated

Italicized = risk is within the EPA's risk management range

Bold = risk exceeds the EPA's acceptable risk levels

- = no inhalation urut risk has been established, so carcinogenic risk cannot be calculated

a.	Cis-1,2-DCE is volatile, but the EPA has not established inhalation toxicity values so its contribution to vapor intrusion
could not be evaluated Methylene chloride was not detected in this event.

b.	Maximum detected concentration in March 2018 used; data from 2016-2017 Biennial Groundwater Monitoring Report.

c.	Maximum of duplicate samples used

4

K-18

-------
Vapor Intrusion ScrMnlng lavai Ctleulift* accanad or 3/30/2018 at

s

K-19

-------
ATTACHMENT B

K-20

-------
Site-specific ViSL Results
Commercial Equation Inputs

* Inputted values different from Commercial defaults are highlighted.
Output generated 13JUL2018:12:09:27

Variable

Commercial
Air
Default
Value

Value

AF^ (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unitless

0.001

0.001

AF^ (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless

0.03

0.03

AT (averaging time - composite worker)

365

365

ED, (exposure duration - composite worker) yr

25

25

EF. (exposure frequency - composite worker) daytyr

250

40

ET_ (exposure time - composite worker) hr

8

8

THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless

0.1

1

LT (lifetime) yr

70

70

TR (target risk) unitless

1.0E-06

1 0E-O4

K-21

-------
Site-specific VISL Results
Commercial Equation Inputs

* Inputted values different from Commercial defaults are highlighted.
Output generated 13JUL2018:12:06:43

Variable

Commercial
Air
Default
Value

Value

AF^ (Attenuation Factor Groundwater) unibess

0.001

0.001

AFk (Attenuation Factor Sub-Slab) unitless

0.03

0.03

AT (averaging time - composite worker)

365

365

ED, (exposure duration - composite worker) yr

25

25

EFb (exposure frequency - composite worker) day/yr

250

40

ET, (exposure time - composite worker) hr

8

8

THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless

0.1

1

LT (lifetime) yr

70

70

TR (target risk) unidess

1.0E-06

1 OE-04

K-22

-------
Comrmrctal Vapor Intrusion ScrMning
Cw.t»l*7>

CC^>S^S»»)

TMgat (

Moor Air
Concentration
(TOMOOOI
orlHQ*1)

«¦«*.«*.> j TtWte*

548E+03

&48&01

MC

NC

Chamlcal

TVf*

sUHMband
Naw«ourca

c.

orTHQal)
C^.Tarutt

(w»w>)

TK^A

GrounUimtei

C^^«D
o*u

',^1

«MO.T
0C^«*>•)

CtchteoaBiytorw. 1.1-

u





2 00E-O1'

U

No



5.48E+03

Trtchtoroathyianc

u -

4,1 OE-06

U i 2006-03

u

Nfcf

1.87E+03

5.4SE+01

K-23

-------
Commercial Vapor Intrusion Risk
Output generated 13JUL2018:12:06:43

Chemical

CAS
Number

Site
Groundwater
Concentration

Site
Indoor Ah-
Concentration

VI

Carcinogenic
Risk
CR

VI
Hazard
HQ

Inhalation
Unit
Risk
(ugim3)1

IUR
Ref

Chronic

RfC
(mg/m3)

Dichloroethylene. 1,1-

7S-3S4

0.3

3.20E-01



5.85E-05





2.00E-01

Trichloroettiytene

79-01-6

0.9

3.62E-01

1.94E-08

6.62E-03

4.10E-06

u

2.00E-03

"Sum







1.94E-08

6.68E-03





Chemical

RfC
Ref

Temperature

<"C)»
for

Groiridwater

Vapor
Concentration

Mutagen?

Dichloroethylene. 1.1-

u

25

No

Tnchloroethylene

U

25

Mut

'Sum







K-24

-------
13JUI3#*!lS«t8i3





DOWttM

mmm





















"S5T

MwMon

















(



tar

lum





Vapor











Chamictl

cm

WilPillw?

HMN

rnwrni



MM



w
(mmm)

W*

iur

s

fm*-)

S

fW

MGL
(UflftJ

MX
(atfMirtmota)

OcMonMffqtan*. 1.1-

75-35-4

Yes

Ves

9694

U

OOOEHC

u

2.42E+CS

u

7

2j61E-02

f ncfiiwTWH^sie

70*01-6

rm

¥«S

131®

U

&»i+0!

u



u

5

9*43







Hwvy*

law









Normal









Hernys

K











Bo Wng



crtfcil





Law

V*

ittadin









Point



Temperature





Constent
(UN**)

t%C

m

A

1

A

£

>>

Rtr

fel



OcM«M*viam,1.l-

1.07E+00

U

1.076+00

863E 02



1.1QE-05

U

304.8S

u

4.82E*®

U

*T*i trnjl'if iiriiiiiiiii'iififiri ilnVi n
1 Ov3»ICpl^wlR0'iy*Of

~03&01

u

403E-H1

S87E-02



102E-05

u

300.35

0

5.71 EHB-

u



uaprilaHMI

tW IWIKMll
MRlQpdtnt

(^v§



iOTT|i



UmR
UL

«%

*9

veiurstei

UEL

R«f

O? I- Infill n III. iHiitiiTiiiiii ,1 II HI |I. 4 <|

mcnioro«nyi«ne, u-

tssooo

u

31.8

U

650

U

Ti il iiiiTii In 		 ii.jtiti.-i

1 ilOiiw^wiyWw

7500.00

u

80?

a

8.00

u

K-25

-------
Comrrarctal Vapor Intrusion ScrMning Lav*fat (VtSL)

 Unr1! Guide Variable Refcrancea

Output gammai! 13JtJILW8s:12;Ma?

Owwlwl

cm

NUMtMr

Dowttw

chwtfcai

IDMt

ffw

definition

for
volatiilfy?
(HL01E-5

orVP»1S

Oom%m

dhwlcdl
hiw

JC	Hfc..,

iQXicr^

data?
OUR

ancttor
WQ

smmmt

Voiatiie amJ Toxic

to

Irtmllsitefi
Risk

Mi vapor

Intrusion
from So# Soum?

tc^

is Chamlcal

Sufki«n»ir
WMiWlTMIc
to

Risk
Vb Vapor

ttakn from
Groundwater
Soiree?
> C^.TSrgaf?)

TRgot
mcloorAfr
Concrtrtcn

Cvcr-mom

WTHQ-f}
•*i«»cw>



OchtoroeUi»e 12-

107-08-2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1.92EHB



Dicmoro«Jiyi«ne. 11-

75-354 j

Y«

Yts

Yes

Yes

5486*03

NC

TettachloroBthyteoe

127-18-4

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1.1QE+Q3

NC

Tncrooroanywrie

7W31-8 j Y6S

Yes

YBS

Yes

5.48E+01

NC



&Lia»§itb. $ma















¦MJMNrlOW

Target









Lower



Soil Gas

Groundwater





Maximum

Tmparafcrc

Explosive



ncrMMioat

Concentration

ttTlrgrt

SmnMr

"¦r®*

Grourrfwatef

tor Madman

Limit



(TCR=0.0QQ1



Wiijwr

SmiriMta'

LEL



#rTHQ«f)

0rlHQ*1)



W

ConemUntkm

Vip«

ftt





C .T&rget

9

Chsmica}

MM1)

cw*-»

(C„
-------
CemrtmcWM

r Intnisifeit Milt
lajuumaiiatOM?

chmmi



sm ^

OooortNlho

V

(MU

lh

MMr Mr

V

Ci#*')

m

cmtepnic

at

VI
HQ

IrtuMMi

UnR
M
MB*»T

UR

IW

Dfchtawtih**, 1.2-

107-06-2

0.8

3866-02

1.31E-0B

201E-0*

2.ME-05

u

Diehtoroethy»«ne, 1 1-

75-35-4

85

907E+00



i nc-03





iw- [-| t-|. ^ lh „ n, I,yit -, rfinrti ~~i

i eirKnjOiOTOiyietii!

127-18-4

3

2.17E+O0

7 38E-09

196E-03

28QE-07

u

TOthtowflliWia

»0«

127

5,11 EW1

2 74C-06

8J4E-01

4106-06

u

]







QmniiBii

Chronic

MC
OHOM*)

I 11

iMnpnkm

Zj^jXa



DfthiorotBttane. 1 2-

?,®E-0

U

25

No

:r"ii )"Tiiii?ii 			 1? mii"i )•» 1 1

uicruoroeinyiene, 111 *

2.00E-C1

U

25

NO

-»1 ,%|n-| •i-||LfjlLLiL|IL-I.LliiL,jIlLU|ILjll

1 cuac ntoroeinyrene

4«E-ffl

u

25

NO



2.WWB

u

25

MUt

K-27

-------
Chemical Properties

Output generated 13JUL2018s12i09j27

Chemical

CAS
Number

Does t* Does the
chtmical chemical
n»#et have
t* Inhalation
definition toxicity
far data?
volatility? OUR
(HL01E-5 and/or
or VP>1) RfC)

MM

Vapor
Pressure
MW VP

FSsf (mm Hg)

VP
Ref

s

(mgfL)

S

Ref

NCL

ft*-)

Dkhloroetttane. 1,2-

107-06-2

Yes | Yes

96.96

U

78BE+C1

u

8.60E+03

U

5

Dichloroemytene. 1,1-

75-35-4

Yes Yes

mm

U

800E+02

u

2.42E+03

U

7

TietraehloraethyieFie

127-18-4

Yes |yb

16583 U

l.flSE+fft

u

2.06E -m

u

5

Trichloroethytene

79-01-6

Ytt Tyh

131.39 . U

	

6.90E+W

u

128E+03

u

S

Chemica!

HLC
(rtHMifltaMfe)

Hwwy*®

Law
Constant

(uittless)

H

and
HLC
Ref

Henrys

Law-
Constant
Used*
Cafcs
(unttiMt)

A

0„t
Raf

Ccm4)



Hernial
Boiling
Point

T«'

Rsf

OcMoroaSMnc. 1.2-

1.18§-Q3

4.82E-02

U

4.82E-02

857E-02

U

1.10E-05

U

356 65

U

ucnioroeinyfefte. i,i-

2.61 E-02

1.07E+00

U

1.07E+00

863E-02

u

1.10E-05

U

30485

U

TWraeNwwthffene

1.77E-02

7.24E-01

U

7.24E-01

505E-02

u

9.48E-06

u

39415

»

"mchtofoatfrytof*

9.K5E-Q3

4.036-01

u

4.03E-01

687E-02

u

1.02E-G5

u

38035 i U

Oiemicai

Critical

Temperature

!k)

3

Enthalpy of
vaportzatfon

at

the normal
boiling point

(caVmoi)

AJV

Ret



Ref

Lower
Explosive
Limit
LB.

(*
by

volurne}

LB.

m

Dichloroettiane, 1.2-

5.62E+02

U

7B40.QQ

U

30.6

U

6.20

u

Dlchloroethylene. 1.1-

4.82E+02

u

625000

u

31.8

u

6.50'

u

Tetraehloroethylene

6.20E-KE

u

829Q.00

u

94.9

u





Ttlchloreethylene

5,71 E+CS

u

750000

u

607

u

8.00

u

K-28

-------
ATTACHMENT C

K-29

-------
ililfli Bill

MEMORANDUM

To	United Slates Environmental ft-otection Agency cc:

Region 4
Yvonne Jones
From O'Brien & Gere Engineers, lac,

William Scfaew, Ph. D,

Carol awn Steering Committee

Amy Magee, King & Spdding
O'Bnen & Gere Engineer^ Inc.
Michael S, Kozar, P.G.

Chns Vod» P.G.

Site	Carolawn Super&nd Site

Me:	Vapor Intrusion Pathway

File:	3027/34081 (#3)

Date:	April 1. 2008

On behalf of the Caralwn Steeling Committee (CSC), O'Bnen & Gere Engineers, Inc. (OBG) has prepared this
memorandum to provide information regarding Vapor Intrusion (VI) Pathway screening for the Carolawn
Superfund Site, located at 5093 Momsan Road, Fort Lawn, Chester County, South Carolina. The information is

presented in advance of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Third Five Year Review in
August 2008 aid the VI screening component associated with, the Five Year Review process, VI is evaluated for
sites where volatile organic compounds (VOCs) east in soil or ground water beneath inhabitable structures. At
the Carolawn Superfund Site (Site) only one inhabitable structure is present on a parcel underlain by ground water
impacted with VOCs. This structure is located on Ac one-acre parcel (Tax Pared Map No. 146-0-0-16) situated
immediately south of the Site, downgradient of the former waste storage areas. The parcel is owned by Messrs.
Fuir and Lambert; who use the property sporadically throughout the year as a weekend recreational retreat.

Historic remedial actions conducted * Ac Site in the mid-1980s removed VQC imparted soils from the Site, thus
ground miff is tike sole VOC-containmg media from the former watte storage areas. Ground water at the Site is
present only in fractured bedrock, the three overburden units were confirmed to be dry (faring installation of 17

new ground water wells in 2004.

The Fuir and Lamb at property is located approximately 450 feet downgradient of the former waste storage areas.
Average depth to ground water bene A the Furr and Lambert property is estimated to be greater than 50 ft below
ground surface flags). The depth to ground water is based on the historical average (2004 through 2007) of ground
water measurements collected from Site monitoring wells MW-13 and MW 7, which are in the vicinity ofthe Furr
and Lambert property. MW-13 is located approximately 15 ft from the southeastern comer of the building and
MW-7 is located approximately 60 ft north ofthe building. These wells have historical average depths to ground
water of 56.9 and 51.3 ft bgs, respectively. The use of ground water measurements from 2004 to 2007 provides a
sufficient period to represent ground water level variability in the vianity of the Furr and Lambert property.

Based on the information presented above and on ground water monitoring data for 2006 and 2007, a Tier 2
generic vapor intrusion (VI) pathway sereemag (US EPA 2002) was conducted to evaluate the vapor intrusion
pathway for building on the Furr and Lambert property. The results of this evaluation are summarized below.

Tier 2 generic vapor intrusion (VI) pathway stfeentag

The Tier 2 generic vapor intrusion (VI) pathway screening (US EPA 2002) for ground water data in the vicinity of
the Furr and Lambert property indicates the following:

• The matimom measured concentrations of TCE in the past 2 year* exceed the target ground water
concentrstions for 104 rii under the generic EPA modeling conditions (US EPA 2002).

>», major metropolitan areas and gt

K-30

-------
Yvonne Jam, US1PA
April 3,2008 •

P»g© 2

. He maximum measured concentration of PCE exceeds*! the target ground water concentration correaponding
to Ws risk under the generic EPA modahng tMStiiliwiS (US EPA 3002).

. Basod on iris iaftaruftkn, ¦ SifcHspmfie w«laali«i of the vapor intrusion pathway was perforated.

Sito-SocciSc Evaluation of the Vapor Mrasion Pathway

The ooe-story building is appnsmtfcly 45 1 x 28 ft and is wood camtmclkm. pbcod up on concrete block
footings. Because of this type of construction, thoe is * mwkpiee (appro?dmalely 2 ft high) beneath the
building fiat is open to ambient outdoor air. As a result, the crawl space is not confined and toe* not provide
conditions that allow the migration of potential soil vapors into the building above. Because of this design feature,
tho vapor intrusion pathway is incomplete and therefore no farther VI evaluation is required.

Aaitg^

Tie ground water standards developed for the protection of Moor air are not applicable to ground water Wow
buildings consistent with tie crawl spw -vmbmlkm ml for the Parr mi Lambert stBxstow. Tbe gmmi water
swatting tdteia.dev«loped ia die Draft GtOfame for Evaluating the Vapor Infmsim to Indoor Air Pathway
From Groundwater and Soils (US EPA 2002) are based on a US EPA-modificd version (US EPA 2304) of fie
Johnson and Ettinger vapor intrunon model (Johnson and Ettinger 1991). Thi* model calculates an tftcnoatioa
factor for vapors migrating from ground water through the vadose zone, and into a building with either skb-on-
gradc or basement construction. Because this model is not capable of calculating an attenuation factor by
accounting for transport of vapan through a crawl space open to outdoor ambient air (nor should it), the ground
water criteria in Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c are not applicable in Ms situation,

Rtfggiaa

Johnson, P CX. and R.A. Ettinger. 1991. Hewistic mode! for predicting the Intntsion rate of «taminail
vapor* into buildings. Environ. Set. Technology, 25:1445-1452.

United State Bimkmmmid 'Protection Agency (US EPA). 2004. 3 Has© System and Gas Models. Available at;
httpv'/www.epa.gov('o»wer/r«kas»c*sment' airmodd^otBsen ottmger.htm

US EPA. 2002. Draft Guidance for Evahiabng the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway From Groundwater and

Soils, EPM3MM1-B04.

K-31

-------