FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
ABC ONE-HOUR CLEANERS SUPERFUND SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
&EPA
JUNE 2023
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, Georgia
Digitally signed by WILLIAM
WILLIAM KEEFER KEEFER
Date: 2023.06.14 13:35:35 -04'00'
For:
Randall ChafFins, Acting Director
Superfund & Emergency Management Division
6/14/2023
Date
-------
ii
-------
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS iii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Site Background 1
Five-Year Review Summary Form 2
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY 4
Basis for Taking Action and Response Actions 4
Status of OU-3 Implementation 8
Institutional Control (IC) Review 10
Operations and Maintenance 11
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW 15
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS 19
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews 19
Data Review 19
Site Inspection 21
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 22
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 22
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid9 22
QUESTION C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy9 23
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS 24
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT 24
VIII. NEXT REVIEW 24
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST A-1
APPENDIX B - CURRENT SITE STATUS B-l
APPENDIX C - SITE CHRONOLOGY C-l
APPENDIX D - SITE MAPS D-l
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICE E-l
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS F-l
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST G-l
APPENDIX H - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS H-l
Tables
Table 1: Overview of Overview of the OU-1 and OU-2 Efforts 7
Table 2: Remedial Action Objectives 8
Table 3: Cleanup Levels 8
Table 4: Overview of the OU-3 Efforts 10
Table 5: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs 14
Table 6: Protectiveness Determinations and Statements from the 2018 FYR Report 15
Table 7: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report 16
Table C-l: Site Chronology C-l
iii
-------
Figures
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map 3
Figure 2: Site Detail Map 5
Figure 3: Groundwater Plume Originating from the Site 12
Figure 4: Institutional Controls Map for the South/Southeast Component of the Groundwater Plume... 13
Figure D-l: Groundwater Elevations - Surficial Aquifer D-1
Figure D-2: Groundwater Elevations - Castle-Hayne Aquifer D-2
Figure D-3: 2017 PCE Concentrations - Surficial Aquifer D-3
Figure D-4: 2017 PCE Concentrations - Castle-Hayne Aquifer D-4
Figure D-5: 2018 Remedial Design Surface Soil Sampling D-5
Figure D-6: 2018 Remedial Design Subsurface Soil Sampling D-6
Figure D-7: 2018 Remedial Design Inferred NAPL Locations D-7
Figure D-8: 2019 Soil-gas Sampling D-8
li
-------
CERCLA
CFR
COC
DCE
DNAPL
DPT
EPA
ESD
FS
FYR
HH&E
HHRA
IC
ISTR
MCBCL
MCL
mg/ft3
mg/kg
|ig/kg
MNA
NAPL
NCDENR
NCDEQ
NCP
NPL
O&M
OU
PCE
PRP
PTW
RAO
RD
RI
ROD
RPM
SB
SVE
TCE
TCRA
UU/UE
VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Contaminant of Concern
Di chl oroethyl ene
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
Direct Push Technology
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Explanation of Significant Differences
Feasibility Study
Five-Year Review
Human Health and Environment
Human Health Risk Assessment
Institutional Control
In-Situ Thermal Remediation
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Maximum Contaminant Level
Milligrams per cubic Feet
Milligrams per Kilogram
Micrograms per Kilogram
Monitored Natural Attenuation
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
National Contingency Plan
National Priorities List
Operation and Maintenance
Operable Unit
T etrachl oroethyl ene
Potentially Responsible Party
Principal Threat Waste
Remedial Action Objective
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Remedial Project Manager
Soil Boring
Soil Vapor Extraction
T ri chl oroethylene
Time-Critical Removal Action
Unlimited Use and Unrestricted Exposure
Vapor Intrusion
111
-------
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
(HH&E). 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 (EPA) 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 ABC One-Hour Cleaners Superfund site (the Site). The triggering action for
this statutory review is the completion date of 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).
Prior to 2018, the Site consisted of two operable units (OUs). OU-1 addressed groundwater
contamination. OU-2 addressed soil contamination. In 2018, the EPA determined that the remedial
action efforts were not effective due to the contaminated media not being fully characterized.
Investigations determined that the contaminated soil was still contributing to the groundwater
contamination and could pose potential indoor air concerns in adjoining properties. As a result, the EPA
has adopted a phased-remedial action approach managed under one effort, OU-3. The soil media will be
addressed prior to the selection of a groundwater remedy. This FYR Report will present information for
OlJ-1, OlJ-2 and OU-3 yet will provide one protectiveness determination for OlJ-3.
The EPA remedial project manager (RPM), Anna Martin, led the FYR, with support from North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) project manager Beth Hartzell and Ryan
Burdge and Alison Cattani from the EPA FYR support contractor Skeo. The review began on 9/6/2022.
Appendix A provides a list of documents reviewed for this FYR. Appendix B provides site status
information. Appendix C provides the Site's chronology of events.
Site Background
The one-acre Site is located at 2127 Lejeune Boulevard in the city of Jacksonville in Onslow County,
North Carolina, and is part of a larger commercial retail district (Figure 1). The Site is located
approximately two miles northeast of the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL). From 1964 to
2005, ABC One-Hour Cleaners operated as a small, family-owned dry-cleaning business. The business
operations were conducted within a complex which consisted of three buildings (the front, middle, and
north buildings). The middle building housed the dry-cleaning operations, which included the use of
the washer and a septic tank system. Tetrachloroethylene (PCE), a common dry-cleaning solvent, was
used as part of the operations and was released into the soil and groundwater by the septic tank system.
PCE was also buried outside the middle building. These disposal practices resulted in soil and
groundwater contamination.
In 2005, ABC One-Hour Cleaners was sold and renamed A-1 Cleaners, where it served as a drop-off-
only location. All operations ended in 201 1. The buildings remained vacant until December 2017, when
1
-------
they were demolished.1 The concrete foundation of the former buildings remained to prevent exposure
to the underlying contaminated soils. The footprint of the former buildings is fenced. The fence is locked
and has signage posted notifying the public that the property is a Superfund site.
The city of Jacksonville zoned the site property for commercial uses. Commercial areas are east and
west of the Site. A retail furniture store is east and downgradient of the Site. The area north of the Site
hosts residential and commercial land uses. The site property is anticipated to remain zoned for
commercial uses for the foreseeable future.
Groundwater beneath the Site is classified as a current and potential source of drinking water (EPA
Class II), but there are no known users of groundwater at or near the Site. A surficial aquifer and the
underlying Castle Hayne aquifer generally flow southeast beneath the Site (Figures D-1 and D-2). In
North Carolina, all groundwater classifications of aquifers are potential sources of drinking water and
are expected to be remediated for beneficial use.
Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name: ABC One-Hour Cleaners
EPA ID: NCD024644494
Region: 4
State: North Carolina City/County: Jacksonville/Onslow
NPL Status: Final
Multiple OUs?
Yes
Has the Site achieved construction completion?
No
REVIEW SI A I I S
Lead agency: EPA
Author name: Anna Martin, EPA Region 4
Author affiliation: EPA with support provided by Skeo
Review period: 9/6/2022 - 6/5/2023
Date of site inspection: 1/17/2023
Type of rev iew: Statutory
Review number: 5
Triggering action date: 6/5/2018
Due date (fiveyears after triggering action date): 6/5/2023
1 By 2001, dry-cleaning operations ended, and the ABC One-Hour Cleaners' buildings were unoccupied. The city of
Jacksonville condemned the ABC One-Hour Cleaners' buildings in 2011 due to extensive damage caused by Hurricane Irene.
The buildings were demolished by December 2017. Due to the presence of the soils highly affected by PCE, building
foundation slabs were left intact.
2
-------
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
N ABC One-Hour Cleaners Superfund Site
A City of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
i 1 1
ft Cftft 1 ftftft t.. I
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. Map image is the intellectual property of Esn and is used herein
under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Sources: Esri, NC
CGI A. Maxar and the 2013 FYR Report.
3
-------
II. RESPONSE ACTION SUMMARY
Basis for Taking Action and Response Actions
Initial Basis for Taking Action
PCE was used as a cleaning solvent as a part of the former dry-cleaning operations. No regulations to
dispose of the spent PCE were in place when the dry-cleaning operations began. As a result, the spent
PCE was disposed of as follows: (1) direct discharge of PCE solvent into the septic tank and the
adjoining floor drain; (2) burial of PCE residues in the surface soils outside the three buildings;
(3) leachate from the buried PCE residues moving into subsurface soils and underlying groundwater;
and (4) volatilization of PCE-contaminated soil and groundwater. The disposal practices resulted in PCE
contaminated soil at the Site and beneath the adjoining building; PCE contaminated groundwater
migrating from the Site onto several properties downgradient of the Site; as well as contaminated
volatilized soil-gas that potentially migrated into the adjoining building.
In 1984, the U.S. Department of the Navy collected groundwater samples from the Tarawa Terrace
community. Concentrations of PCE and PCE-daughter products, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and
dichloroethylene (DCE), were detected in the sampled water supply wells. To characterize groundwater
conditions further, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conducted an investigation
where exceedances of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for PCE, DCE and TCE were confirmed in
several wells in the Tarawa Terrace community. The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(NCDENR, now the NCDEQ), conducted an investigation that confirmed that ABC One-Hour Cleaners
was one of the most likely sources of groundwater contamination at Tarawa Terrace. In 1986, the
NCDEQ submitted a notice of violation to the Site's potentially responsible parties (PRPs), as the dry-
cleaning operations were not in compliance with state statutes.
Due to the high levels of PCE detected in the soil and groundwater and the extent of contamination
identified at the Site and nearby, the EPA listed the Site on the Superfund program's National Priorities
List (NPL) in March 1989. The EPA submitted a letter of notification to the PRPs regarding the
potential responsibility of the release of hazardous substances. As the PRPs were unable to fully fund
required remedial efforts, the Superfund program funded remedial activities at the Site.
The EPA initially managed the site as separate OUs: OU-1 groundwater and OU-2 soils. To characterize
the Site contamination, the EPA conducted its 1992 remedial investigations (RIs) at OlJ-1 and OlJ-2.
The RIs concluded the following:
• Identified site contaminants of concern (COCs) as PCE, TCE, DCE and vinyl chloride;
• Confirmed the presence of the COCs at levels that exceeded federal and state thresholds; and
• Identified ingestion of groundwater and soil as the human exposure pathways.
4
-------
Figure 2: Site Detail Map
Approximate Location
of Former Abandoned
Approximate Location
IjfofMorrnerjlarikK
Formers
BoMerl
Former
Washers
Former Washer
With Containment
Shopping
Center
Former ABC
One-Hour
Cleaners Building
^3 Approximate Site Boundary
—~ Groundwater Flow Direction
Septic Drain Field
Former Clay
Former
Dryer
Furniture
Store
N ABC One-Hour Cleaners Superfund Site
A City of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
i 1 1 1
a en inn icn
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. Map Image Is the intellectual property of Esri and is used herein
under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors All rights reserved. Sources: Esri. NC
CGIA, Maxar. Microsoft, the 2013 FYR Report and the 2020 Remedial Design Plan
^Skeo
Last Modified: 2/28/2023
5
-------
Initial Response Actions
The EPA issued Records of Decision (RODs) for OU-land OU-2 in 1993 and 1994, respectively, where
pump-and-treat coupled with monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and soil vapor extraction (SVE)
were selected as the respective remedies.
The remedial action objectives (RAOs) as identified in the RODs include:
• To address the soil contamination by removing the principal threat remaining at the Site by
treating the contaminated soil and preventing the contaminants from adversely impacting
the groundwater.
• To restore contaminated groundwater to levels protective of human health and the environment.
• To control exposure and control migration of contaminated groundwater.
The EPA implemented the OU-1 and OlJ-2 remedies by 2001. In 201 1, the pump-and-treat system was
turned off as prescribed in the 1993 ROD to allow groundwater conditions to return to natural conditions
and the SVE system was dismantled due to impacts sustained from Hurricane Irene.
Focused RI
In 2012, as part of the third FYR, the EPA determined that the OU-1 and OlJ-2 remedies were not
protective of HH&E. The determination was based on the soil and groundwater contamination not being
adequately characterized, and therefore, the selected remedies were not effective. The EPA followed up
by conducting a three-year focused remedial investigation (Focused RI) to better characterize the
Site conditions; identify more effective methods to address the residual groundwater and soil
contamination; and confirm the potential for contaminated volatilized soil-gas to migrate into the
adjoining building.
The investigations involved the collection of a number of soil and groundwater samples using direct
push technology (DPT) and a membrane interface probe. The Focused RI resulted in the
following findings:
Finding 1: Identification of Source Material
• Source material was defined as soils with high PCE concentrations that are directly affected by
PCE residues or solvents.
• All soils found within the footprint of the former buildings and beneath the adjoining property
east of the Site are considered source material.
• The highest PCE concentrations detected in the soils were found within the footprint of the
middle building, specifically near the former septic tank, floor drain and washer.
Finding 2: Impact of the Groundwater on the Source Material
• Source material continues to expand beyond the characterized area with the fluctuation and
movement of the groundwater.
6
-------
• The area where the groundwater mingles with the source material was identified as the
'transition zone".
• The transition zone potentially transports contaminated groundwater that is impacted by the PCE
contaminants having leached from the source material resulting in expanding both the source
material and groundwater plume.
Finding 3: Vapor Intrusion
• Indoor air quality of the adjoining building located east of the Site was suspected to have been
impacted by the presence of contaminated soil vapors that migrated from the underlying
source material.
• As a part of the Focused RI, a vapor intrusion (VI) study was conducted at the adjoining building
located east of the Site.
• The VI study determined that the soil vapors that migrated from the underlying source material
do not pose an imminent threat to the occupants of the adjoining building east of the Site.
These findings resulted in the EPA, with concurrence from NCDEQ, adopting a phased-impiementation
approach where the soil and groundwater media are addressed separately. EPA established OU-3 and will
manage the site cleanup through this new OU. Table 1 provides an overview of OU-1 and OU-2 efforts.
Table 1: Overview of the OU-1 and OU-2 Efforts
OU
Description
Year
Description of Activities
OU-1
Groundwater
Contamination
1992
Detection of high PCE concentrations
1993
EPA issued the OU-1 ROD which presents the selected remedy:
pump-and-treat coupled with MNA
2002
Remedy was constructed
201 1
Remedy was turned off
2012
EPA determined the remedy was not protective of HH&E
2018
EPA established OU-3
OU-2
Soil
Contamination
1994
Detection of high PCE concentrations
1994
EPA issued the OU-1 ROD which presents the selected remedy:
SVE
2002
Remedy was constructed
201 1
Remedy was dismantled
2012
EPA determined the remedy was not protective of HH&E
7
-------
Status of OU-3 Implementation
Interim Remedial Action for the Source Material
The determinations gathered from the Focused RI resulted in the EPA issuing the 2018 Interim Record
of Decision for OU-3 Soils (IROD). The I ROD presented the remedy that will address the source
material, the principal threat waste (PTW) and eliminate further leaching into the groundwater. This
effort, in turn, will result in a smaller volume of contaminated groundwater requiring subsequent
remedial action and shorter remedial timeframes. Furthermore, by addressing the PTW, contaminated
soil vapors that have the potential to migrate into adjoining buildings will be reduced or eliminated. The
remedy that was selected by the EPA, with concurrence from NCDEQ and the public, is in-situ thermal
remediation coupled with SVE (ISTR).
Tables 2 and 3 presented the Remedial Action Objectives and cleanup levels that are used to measure
the effectiveness of the ISTR.
Table 2: Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial Action Objectives as Presented in the 2018 IROD
RAO 1
Prevent ingestion, dermal contact and/or inhalation of soils or soil vapors in the source
area, as well as within the unsaturated soil zone and the saturated soil zone, containing
COCs at concentrations that could result in adverse health effects to humans under
commercial land use.
RAO 2
Reduce or eliminate long-term leachability of soil COCs into groundwater by meeting
soil leachability criteria.
Table 3: Cleanup Levels
Cleanup Levels for Soil Contaminants of Concern as Presented in the 2018 IROD
COC
Cleanup Level * milligrams per
kilogram
Criteria
PCE
0.0063
Protection of groundwater
TCE
0.021
Protection of groundwater
DCE
0.41
Protection of groundwater
Vinyl chloride
0.00021
Protection of groundwater
*Cleanup levels are based on the Preliminary Soil Remediation Goals which are derived by NCDEQ to
prevent leaching into the groundwater media
8
-------
Time-Critical Removal Action
The EPA Removal Program conducted a Time-Critical Removal Action (TCRA). The TCRA was
approved in July 2018 and included three components: the installation of a Site fence; removal of the
septic tank system and surrounding source material; and re-paving the aged concrete pad. In
September 2019, EPA Removal surveyed the Site to determine the property boundary, utility lines and
the location of the septic tank system and associated drainage field.
1. An eight-foot-high chain-link property fence was installed to prevent access to the Site and
exposure to the contamination. The fence surrounds the footprint of the former buildings. The
fence was installed with a padlock keypad and EPA signage in October 2019.
2. The septic tank system, associated drainage field, and approximately 60 cubic feet of
surrounding contaminated soil were removed and disposed of at an EPA-approved landfill. The
area where the septic tank was removed was backfilled with clean soil and completed in
January 2020.
3. The concrete foundation originating from the former buildings was re-paved as indications that
the concrete was aged and may not be effective in preventing exposure to the underlying
contaminated soils. This component was completed in February 2020.
Confirmation VI Study
Soil-gas samples were collected in 2019 and demonstrated that although elevated PCE levels were
detected beneath the adjoining building located east of the Site, there is no complete exposure pathway.
Therefore, no unacceptable risks to the occupants of the adjoining building located east of the Site were
identified. It was determined that the height from where the indoor air samples were collected was not
significant in magnitude as to alter the conclusion that no unacceptable risks are posed to the occupants
of the adjoining building under existing conditions. However, as a precaution, the 2020 FYR Report
Addendum recommended that VI monitoring be conducted at the adjoining building.
Remedial Design for OU-3 Soils
In 2020, the EPA completed the Remedial Design for OU-3 Soils (RD). The RD details the
specifications required to construct and operate the ISTR treatment system in efforts of achieving the
NCDEQ derived cleanup levels.
Remedial Action for OU-3 Soils
The remedial action prescribed to address the source material at the Site was initiated in September 2022
with the selection of the contractor responsible for constructing and operating the ISTR treatment
system. In February 2023, samples were collected to establish a more current understanding of the Site
conditions prior to the construction of the ISTR treatment system. To ensure public awareness of the
construction activities as required by the EPA National Contingency Plan, the EPA issued a public
notice in March 2023. The notice mentioned the potential impacts that the community may experience
as the construction activities are conducted and the anticipated timeframe of the remedial action.
9
-------
To monitor the performance of the ISTR treatment system, achievement of the lines of evidence and Site
conditions; soil, groundwater, and soil vapor samples will be collected and analyzed throughout the
construction and operation of the ISTR treatment system. Samples will also be collected after the ISTR
treatment system has operated and the Site is undergoing restoration.
Addressing the Contaminated Groundwater
The Site's contaminated groundwater extends in two directions as presented in Figure 3. One plume
extends south/southeast onto the MCBCL Tarawa Terrace property and the second flows in the direction
of groundwater, towards the east, along Lejeune Boulevard. Based on current data, the EP A has
delineated the east component groundwater plume to have extended about 3,000 feet east of the Site,
affecting nearly 30 parcels.
As discussed in the 2018 IROD, the PCE-contaminated soil serves as the source of the groundwater
contamination. The groundwater contamination continues to migrate off-site by following the natural
direction of groundwater. The soil contamination will be addressed prior to the selection of a
groundwater remedy.
Upon the successful completion of the ISTR treatment, the EPA will collect data to support the selection
of the groundwater remedy. A separate IROD will document the selected groundwater remedy. Based on
current data, the EPA has delineated the groundwater plume to have extended about 3,000 feet east of
the Site, affecting nearly 30 parcels. These affected parcels are not suspected to be impacted by VI
issues as the buildings, as opposed to the adjoining property, do not sit directly above or within the
contaminated groundwater plumes.
Table 4: Overview of the OU-3 Efforts
OH
Description
Year
Description of Activities
OU-3
Phased
Implementation -
Soil
2018
EPA issued the IROD which presents the selected remedy, ISTR
2019
Completed the VI Study
2020
EPA Removal Program completed the TCRA.
2020
EPA completed the RD
2022
Initiated the remedial action
2023
Issued public notice about remedial action efforts.
Initiated construction of the ISTR treatment system.
Institutional Control (IC) Review
The 2018 IROD requires the implementation of institutional controls (ICs) to be included with the
construction and operation of the ISTR. The ICs, once implemented, will (1) restrict the Site's land uses
to commercial and industrial and (2) prevent the installation of any wells at the affected parcels that are
located within the east component of the groundwater plume. ICs will be required until contaminant
levels that allow for UU/UE are achieved. The NCDEQ will take primary responsibility for monitoring
and enforcing the ICs for the offsite properties. ICs will be implemented according to the Explanation of
10
-------
Significant Differences (ESD) which is anticipated to be issued by July 2023. To supplement the
requirements presented in the ESD, a Notice of Contaminated Site will be filed.
ICs have been implemented and are enforced by the MCBCL to prevent exposure to the south/southeast
groundwater component which impacts the Tarawa Terrace which is presented in Figure 4. Table 5
summarizes the ICs that will be implemented under this effort as well as the ICs that have been
implemented by MCBCL.
Operations and Maintenance
Should cleanup levels not achieve UU/UE, the ICs implemented to restrict both the use of the Site and
installation of wells at those properties affected by the groundwater contamination will remain in place.
These ICs will require monitoring and enforcement by the State.
1 1
-------
Figure 3: Groundwater Plume Originating from the Site
L*9»nd
mm
***&//////;.
CK1 * wtf Jit asu rt»f
•////////
3«n«faiisec Plume
ABC Qnt-Hoyr CtNners
Jstksofiv <=. Qratow Cowtfy, Ntirtfi Carolina
12
-------
Figure 4: Institutional Controls Map for the South/Southeast Component of the Groundwater Plume
N ABC One-Hour Cleaners Superfund Site
A City of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North 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. Map Image is the Intellectual property of Esri and Is used herein
under license. Copynght © 2020 Esn and its licensors. All nghts reserved. Sources: Esri. NC
CGI A. Maxar. Maxar and the 2018 FYR Report.
Last Modified: 2/28/2023
Approximate Site Boundary
Groundwater Use Restriction Area
Camp Lejeune Extent
Approximate Groundwater Flow Direction
13
-------
Table 5: Summary of Planned and/or Implemented ICs
Media,
Engineered
Controls,
and Areas*
ICs
Required?
ICs Required
by Decision
Document(s)
Currently
Understood
Affected Parcel(s)
IC
Objective
Title of IC Instrument
Implemented and
Date (or planned)
Land use
Yes
Yes
352-H17
(see Figure 3)
Restrict land
uses to industrial
or commercial
uses
Planned Notice of
Contaminated Site
Groundwater
Yes
Yes
East Component:
All parcels located
downgradient of
the Site
South/Southeast
Component:
Tarawa Terrace
Prohibit
groundwater use
East Component:
Planned to be presented
in the ESD and Notice
of Contaminated Site
South/Southeast
Component:
Implemented and
monitored by MCBCL
* That Do Not Support UU/UE Based on Current Conditions
14
-------
III. PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS REVIEW
This section summarizes the issues, recommendations, and protectiveness determinations and statements
from the FYR efforts conducted since the 2018 IROD. The summaries are presented in Tables 6, 7, and 8.
Table 6: Protectiveness Determinations and Statements from the 2018 FYR Report
ou
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
OU-1
Short-term Protective
The remedy at OU-1 (to be combined into OU-3) currently
protects human health and the environment because there are no
current human exposure pathways to contaminated groundwater
since no one is drinking the contaminated groundwater. For the
remedy to be protective in the long term, the following needs to
occur: finalize and implement the combined OU-3 soil and
groundwater remedy and implement land use and groundwater use
restrictions at appropriate properties and consider current
standards in the assessment of remedial options and modify
groundwater cleanup goals as needed in a decision document.
OU-2
Protectiveness
Deferred
A protectiveness determination of the remedy at OU-2 cannot be
made at this time until further information is obtained. Further
information will be obtained by taking the following actions:
conducting additional VI monitoring at the off-site property and
conducting a VI study at other adjoining properties if deemed
appropriate. It is expected that these actions will take
approximately one and a half years to complete, at which time a
protectiveness determination will be made.
Sitewide
Protectiveness
Deferred
A site-wide protectiveness determination cannot be made at this
time until further information is obtained. Further information will
be obtained by taking the following actions: conducting additional
VI monitoring at the off-site property and conducting a VI study at
other adjoining properties if deemed appropriate. It is expected
that these actions will take approximately one and a half years to
complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will
be made.
15
-------
Table 7: Status of Recommendations from the 2018 FYR Report
OIJ #
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current Implementation Status Description
Completion
Date
(if
applicable)
OU-1
and
OU-2
The OU-1 and OU-2
remedies are not functioning
as intended as the remedial
systems are offline and
additional source material
was discovered in 2013 and
2017. Soil and groundwater
investigations were
conducted from 2012 to 2017
to support the selection of
new, combined effective soil
and groundwater remedies.
Select and implement the
OlJ-3 remedies. The
selection of the OlJ-3
remedies will be discussed
in the decision document,
which is anticipated to be
issued in 2018. The
implementation of the
OlJ-3 remedies is
anticipated to begin in
2019.
Completed
The EPA signed the 2018 I ROD that defines
OlJ-3 as encompassing all site contamination.
Remedial action began in 2022. The construction
efforts are anticipated to begin in May 2023
The 2018 I ROD presented the phased approach
where soil media will be addressed prior to the
selection of a groundwater remedy as well as the
selected soil remedy, the former OlJ-2
component.
9/26/2018
OU-1
and
OU-2
Institutional controls are not
in place at all affected
properties. Affected
properties include:
(1) properties that are
affected by the groundwater
plume;
(2) properties where
contamination has spread or
is anticipated to spread above
remedial goals; and (3) areas
of the Site where restrictions
are not in place to prevent
unacceptable exposures to
remaining sub-slab soil
waste.
Implement land use and
groundwater use
restrictions at appropriate
properties. The revised
institutional controls will
be discussed in the
decision document that is
anticipated to be issued in
2018. The revised
institutional controls will
be implemented once the
remedies have been
implemented, upon the
completion of the soil and
groundwater remedies
being constructed.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The selected 2018 OlJ-3 interim soil remedy
includes the implementation of both land use and
groundwater use restrictions. The groundwater
use restrictions will be implemented at the Site as
well as the affected properties.
Not
applicable
16
-------
on #
Issue
Recommendations
Current
Status
Current Implementation Status Description
Completion
Date
(if
applicable)
OU-1
Groundwater standards for
PCE and vinyl chloride are
now more stringent.
Consider current standards
in the assessment of
remedial options and
modify groundwater
remedial goals as needed
in the decision document,
which is anticipated to be
issued in 2018.
Addressed
in Next
FYR
The groundwater remedy will be selected after
the soil remedy has operated. The selected
groundwater remedy will be reflected in the 2018
I ROD for groundwater where the appropriate
standards will be identified.
Not
applicable
OU-2
Elevated contaminant
concentrations in sub-slab gas
of the off-site property
indicate the potential for
vapor intrusion from the
subsurface into the building if
conditions change.
Additional source material
may be present at other
adjoining properties that
could result in the potential
for vapor intrusion from the
subsurface.
Conduct more vapor
intrusion monitoring at the
off-site property and other
adjoining properties if
deemed appropriate.
Completed
Soil-gas samples collected in 2019 detected
source material beneath the adjoining building
that validated the results of the sub-slab samples
collected during the 2017 VI study. The indoor
air sample results collected from the study
demonstrated that although elevated PCE levels
were detected beneath the building, there is no
complete exposure pathway and, therefore, no
risks are posed to the occupants of the adjoining
building. However, indoor air samples are
recommended to be collected regularly A
supplemental study was conducted in 2019 and a
human health risk assessment (HHRA) was
completed in 2020 (see Data Review section of
this FYR Report).
1/13/2020
17
-------
Table 8: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2020 FYR Report Addendum
OIJ #
Protectiveness
Determination
Protectiveness Statement
OU-3
Former OU-2
Phase 1: Source
Material (Soil)
Short-term
Protective
The remedy at OU-3, the former OlJ-2 component, is determined
to be protective in the short term of human health and the
environment. Soil-gas samples collected in October 2019 indicate
the presence of source material beneath the adjoining building,
but data collected as part of the 2017 vapor intrusion study and
assessed by the EPA Region 4's Scientific Support Section show
that no vapor intrusion exposure pathway currently exists.
However, due to the potential for changes in site conditions, such
as the development of cracks in the foundation of the adjoining
building, additional vapor intrusion sampling is recommended to
ensure that no unacceptable risks are posed to the occupants in
the future, until the source material can be addressed by the
interim remedial action. Implementation of the interim remedy
components, including ISTR coupled with SVE, will treat the
source material and eliminate any future potential or actual
exposure pathway. For the remedy at OU-3, the former OlJ-2
component, to be long-term protective, the following actions are
recommended: address potential vapor intrusion impacts at the
adjoining building; implement the ICs; and construct and operate
the soil remedy.
Sitewide
Short-term
Protective
Site-wide conditions are determined to be protective in the short
term of human health and the environment. As described in the
2018 FYR Report, OU-3, the former OU-1 component
(groundwater), currently protects human health and the
environment because no one is drinking the contaminated
groundwater, meaning that no exposure pathway currently exists.
As described in this Addendum, OU-3, the former OlJ-2
component (soil), currently protects human health and the
environment because no vapor intrusion exposure pathway
currently exists. Nonetheless, because contaminants remain in the
groundwater above MCLs for drinking water and because soil-
gas samples from October 2019 indicate the presence of source
material beneath the building adjoining the Site, in order for the
remedy to be protective in the long term, the following actions
are recommended: address the potential vapor intrusion impacts
at the adjoining building; implement the ICs; construct and
operate the soil remedy; and select, construct, and operate a
groundwater remedy.
18
-------
IV. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
Community Notification, Community Involvement and Site Interviews
The EPA issued an online news release on October 19, 2022, to announce that the FYR was underway.
A copy of the news release is available online at https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-review-
cleanups-45-southeast-superfund-sites and is included in Appendix E. The results of the review and the
completed FYR Report will be made available on the EPA's site profile page:
www.epa.gov/superfund/abc-one-hour-cleaners.
During the FYR process, interviews were conducted to document any perceived problems or successes
with the remedy that has been implemented to date. The interviews are summarized below.
The NCDEQ project manager Beth Hartzell noted that the OU-3 remedy is just beginning but is
expected to address remaining site contamination. The NCDEQ noted no issues with the Site.
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune representative Thomas Richard is aware of the site history and
current plans for interim remedial actions. He reported no concerns or issues.
Data Review
The construction of the OU-3 remedy is anticipated to begin in May 2023. As efforts to construct the
OU-3 remedy are being conducted monitoring data are not available for this FYR. This FYR Report
includes a summary of data collected from the investigations conducted during the 2020 RD. To address
the data gaps identified in the 2018 IROD and ensure the remedy is effectively and efficiently
constructed, additional surface and subsurface soil samples were collected during the RD. The RD
verified the presence of a localized "hot spot" that was later identified as the source area. This area is
largely found within the footprint of the former buildings. The data used to verify this determination is
based on the results collected from the surface and subsurface soils.
Surface Soil RD Investigation: This investigation was conducted to determine whether the extent of
contamination extended beyond the footprint of the former buildings to the northern grassy part of the
Site in the surface soils. Sixty-two surface soil samples were collected north of the concrete pad and one
surface soil sample was collected east of the concrete pad using a grid system. Figure D-5 presents the
results collected from the 63 surface soil samples. PCE was detected above the ROD cleanup level
(0.0063 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]) in 12 of the soil samples, primarily within the footprint of the
former buildings.
Subsurface Soil RD Investigation: This investigation was conducted to determine whether the extent of
contamination extended beyond the footprint of the former buildings to the northern grassy part of the
Site in the subsurface soils. Thirteen subsurface soil sample locations were identified within the concrete
pad and along the perimeter of the concrete pad (Figure D-6). The subsurface soil depths of the
identified sample locations were pre-determined considering the results from previous and historical
investigations, which totaled 55 subsurface soil samples. PCE exceedances were detected in six
subsurface soil samples. The highest PCE concentration was detected in DPT221, at a concentration of
0.740 mg/kg at 39 feet to 40 feet below ground surface. TCE exceedances were also detected in samples
DPT220 at 19 feet to 20 feet below ground surface and DPT224 at 29 feet to 30 feet below ground
surface at concentrations of 0.064 mg/kg and 0.025 mg/kg, respectively. One exceedance of the vinyl
chloride cleanup level was detected. However, more exceedances may be present, as the vinyl chloride
cleanup level is below the laboratory reporting limit.
19
-------
Dense Non-Aqueous Phase LiquidRD Investigation: To evaluate the presence and location of any dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL), PCE non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) saturation concentrations
were calculated. Figure D-7 shows potential NAPL locations. Based on the investigations at the Site,
DNAPL detected in the soil was determined to be mobile as it moves through preferential pathways
within a low-permeability barrier layer. This observation supports the detection of high PCE
concentrations in soil and groundwater as well as the potential infiltration of contaminated vapors into
adjacent buildings.
Vapor Intrusion Study: The EPA determined that there is no complete exposure pathway and,
subsequently, no risks posed to the occupants of the adjoining building. In response to the 2020 FYR
Report Addendum's recommendation, the EPA conducted a supplemental VI study in 2019 to confirm
the presence of source material beneath the adjoining buildings and re-evaluate the potential impact of
the source material on the indoor air quality of the buildings. A VI human health risk assessment
(HHRA) was conducted in 2020. Due to access issues, indoor air samples could not be obtained
and were, therefore, estimated based on soil-gas sample results collected from the exterior of the
buildings (Figure D-8).
The 2020 HHRA determined there are no potential carcinogenic or noncancer risks identified for one of
the adjacent buildings; however, potential carcinogenic and noncancer risks were identified for the
building east of the Site. The total estimated cancer risk based on measured soil-gas concentrations near
the building east of the Site exceeds the acceptable risk range (1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6) for the current/future
worker. The COCs contributing to the potential total cancer risk estimate include PCE (cancer risk of 4 x
10"5), TCE (cancer risk of 2.5 x 10"4) and vinyl chloride (cancer risk of 2.7 x 10"6). These results,
however, were not solely used to determine the VI condition of the buildings as the indoor air
concentrations were estimated due to challenges in receiving access agreements and the identical gases
are emitted from the furniture housed in the adjoining building east of the Site. In this, the EPA
determined that there are no imminent threats of indoor air quality posed to the occupants of the
adjoining building east of the Site providing that the current Site conditions do not change. As a
precaution, however, the EPA further recommended, in addition to conducting indoor air monitoring,
that a VI mitigation system be installed in the adjoining building east of the Site.
Groundwater
The most recent groundwater data are from 2017 and 2018 (Figures D-3 and D-4). The EPA is confident
the downgradient plume is stable and that conditions are unlikely to have changed. Following the
operation of the ISTR, the EPA will address the downgradient groundwater contamination. ICs that will
restrict the use of the Site and prevent exposure to the groundwater media, however, will be
implemented until COC concentrations achieve UU/UE.
20
-------
Site Inspection
The site inspection was conducted on 1 /17/2023. Participants included Beth Hartzell from the NCDEQ
and Ryan Burdge from Skeo. The purpose of the inspection was to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.
Site inspection participants met at the Site property to conduct the inspection. Remedial contractors were
on-site conducting field work related to the pending OU-3 soil remedy. The Site property is secured by
an eight-foot-high fence. There were no signs of fence damage or trespassing. The Site no longer has
buildings or features other than remaining concrete pad and flush-mounted sampling well locations. No
issues were noted. The site inspection checklist and photographs are included in Appendix G and
Appendix H, respectively.
21
-------
V. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
QUESTION A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Yes, the OU-3 interim remedy is expected to function as intended. Currently, the efforts conducted
through the TCRA which was completed in 2018 resulted in measures that protect human health and the
environment which include the removal of highly contaminated soil, backfilling the excavated area with
clean soil, and installation of a concrete pad and fence which prevent access to the contaminated soil
and groundwater.
The EPA selected the OU-3 interim remedial action to address the source material in 2018. The
selection of the OU-3 interim remedy is based on the importance of aggressively removing source
material to address the PTW and reduce or eliminate long-term leachability of soil COCs into the
groundwater. This effort, in turn, will result in a smaller volume of contaminated groundwater requiring
subsequent remedial action and shorter remedial timeframes. Furthermore, by addressing the PTW,
contaminated soil vapors that have the potential to migrate into adjoining buildings will be reduced or
eliminated. By achieving the RAOs and cleanup levels, exposure to source material will be eliminated,
and the potential for adverse human health effects under commercial land use will be mitigated.
Construction of the remedy is anticipated to begin in the Spring 2023 and operate by the Fall 2023. The
effectiveness of the OlJ-3 interim remedy will be evaluated using data that will be collected before the
construction of the OlJ-3 interim remedy; during the operation of the OlJ-3 interim remedy; and after
the operation of the OlJ-3 interim remedy is completed. The data collected after the OlJ-3 interim
remedy has completed its operations will also be used to evaluate the appropriateness of the
groundwater remedial alternatives and select an appropriate groundwater remedy considering the
resulting outcomes of the selected soil remedy.
The EPA has delineated the groundwater contamination as extending about 3,000 feet east of the Site.
ICs will be implemented to restrict Site uses to commercial use and restrict the use of groundwater at the
Site and properties impacted by the contaminated media downgradient of the Site. These restrictions will
be required to remain in place until COC concentrations that allow for UU/UE are achieved.
The Site's 2020 HHRA indicates there are potential VI risks in the building immediately east of the Site.
However, these risks will only pose an unacceptable risk to occupants of the adjacent building if current
conditions change. No other buildings have been identified for potential VI.
QUESTION B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid?
Yes, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and RAOs in the 2018 I ROD remain valid.
The EPA will assess and update its risk characterization and cleanup levels in subsequent decision
documents and determine if additional response actions or ICs are warranted.
VI remains a potential concern that the EPA continues to consider. Currently, based on the 2020 HHRA,
there are no potential carcinogenic or noncancer risks identified for the adjacent building west of the
Site. The HHRA, however, identified potential risk at the adjacent building east of the Site. The OlJ-3
interim remedy will ensure that conditions improve and do not change in a manner that would pose
unacceptable risks to the occupants of this adjacent building.
22
-------
QUESTION C: Has any other information conic 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.
23
-------
VI. ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
Issues/RtToniiiKMuliil ions
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the FYR:
OU-3
VII. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT
Operable Unit:
OU-3
I'rolccliMMicss Sl;ilcmcnl(s)
Protectiveness Determination:
Will be Protective
Protectiveness Statement:
The remedy at OU-3 will be protective on completion. In the interim, the Site property is secured and
there are no known completed exposure pathways.
VIII. NEXT REVIEW
The next FYR Report for the ABC One-Hour Cleaner Superfund site is required five years from the
completion date of this review.
24
-------
APPENDIX A - REFERENCE LIST
Addendum to Third Superfund Five-Year Review Report for Operable Unit One of the ABC One-Hour
Cleaners Site, Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. July 2014.
Addendum to Third Superfund Five-Year Review Report for Operable Unit One of the ABC One-Hour
Cleaners Site, Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina. EPA Region 4. July 2020.
Interim Record of Decision: ABC One-Hour Cleaners, EPA ID: NC024644494, OU 03,
Jacksonville, NC. EPA Region 4. September 2018.
Record of Decision: ABC One-Hour Cleaners, EPA ID: NC024644494, OU 01, Jacksonville, NC.
EPA Region 4. January 1993.
Record of Decision: ABC One-Hour Cleaners, EPA ID: NC024644494, OU 02, Jacksonville, NC.
EPA Region 4. September 1994.
Second Superfund Five-Year Review Report, ABC One-Hour Cleaners Site, Jacksonville, Onslow
County, North Carolina. Prepared by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management. August 2008.
Superfund Five-Year Review Report, ABC One-Hour Cleaners, Jacksonville, Onslow County,
North Carolina. Prepared by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Waste Management. August 2003.
Third Five-Year Review Report for ABC One-Hour Cleaners, Jacksonville, Onslow County,
North Carolina. EPA Region 4. August 2013.
Fourth Five-Year Review Report for ABC One-Hour Cleaners, Jacksonville, Onslow County,
North Carolina. EPA Region 4. June 2018.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX B - CURRENT SITE STATUS
K11 vi roil in en 1 ;i I I ml iesi 1 ors
- Current human exposures at the Site are under control.
- Current groundwater migration is under control.
Arc Necessary Inslilnlion;il Controls in I'hiee
I I All O Some ^ None
Ihis (lie KPA Designated (lie Site sis Silewide Ueady lor Anticipated I so?
|D Yes El
No
I his (lie Silo Keen Put into Uense.
I I Yes No
B-l
-------
APPENDIX C - SITE CHRONOLOGY
Table C-l: Site Chronology
Event
Date
ABC One-Hour Cleaners disposed of spent solvents and still bottoms (powder residue) on
the property; the property's septic tank also may have leaked
1964-1985
The U.S. Department of the Navy discovered PCE, TCE and DCE in community wells at
the Tarawa Terrace housing development during routine water quality evaluations
July 1984
The EPA was notified of site contamination
January 1985
The NCDENR (now the NCDEQ) identified ABC One-Hour Cleaners as the source of site
contamination
September 1985
The North Carolina Department of Health Services completed a preliminary site
assessment
September 1986
The North Carolina Department of Health Services completed a site inspection
May 1987
The EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL
June 1988
The EPA started Rl/feasibility study (FS) negotiations for the Site
September 1988
The EPA finalized the Site's listing on the NPL
March 1989
The EPA completed a risk/health assessment for site groundwater (OU-1)
November 1992
The EPA completed the RI/FS and signed the ROD for OU-1
January 1993
The EPA began the remedial design for OU-1
August 1993
The EPA completed the soil (OlJ-2) RI/FS, issued the ROD for OU-2 and began the
remedial design
September 1994
The EPA completed the remedial design for OU-1
September 1995
The EPA completed the remedial design for OU-2
September 1995
The EPA began the remedial action for OU-1
September 1996
A right-of-way agreement was signed for access for pipe installation beneath the railroad
August 1998
The EPA began the remedial action for OLJ-2
August 1998
Maclaren Hart, a subcontractor for the Site, initiated installation of the SVE system
April 2000
The EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent for the Site
August 2000
The EPA extended the discharge pipe to discharge into Northeast Creek
October 2001
The EPA completed the Site's Interim Remedial Action Report
May 2002
The EP A completed construction of the components of the remedial action for OU-2
August 2002
C-l
-------
Event
Date
The EPA completed the Preliminary Close-Out Report for OU-1
August 2002
The EP A completed construction of components of the remedial action for OU-1
August 2002
The EPA issued the Site's first FYR Report
August 2003
Weston Solutions (EPA contractor) submitted OlJ-1 and OU-2 project summaries
March 2007
Black & Veatch (EPA contractor) submitted the 2007 Annual Groundwater Sampling
Report
September 2007
The EPA issued the Site's second FYR Report
September 2008
The EPA discontinued the OU-1 remedy to allow groundwater to return to natural
conditions
January 201 1
The Surface Characterization Using Membrane Interface Probe and Soil Conductivity
Technologies Report was completed
June 201 1
Hurricane Irene made landfall in the Jacksonville area
August 201 1
The city of Jacksonville condemned the former ABC Cleaners building
September 2011
Black & Veatch submitted an SVE Evaluation Report
October 2011
The EPA dismantled the SVE system
December 2011
The EPA issued the Site's third FYR Report
August 2013
The EPA completed the Addendum to the Site's third FYR Report
July 2014
A 2015 System Performance Assessment Update and Data Gap Evaluation was completed
January 2016
An EPA contractor completed the OU-3 RI/FS
June 2018
The EPA issued the Site's fourth FYR Report
June 5, 2018
The EPA signed the interim ROD for OU-3
September 26, 2018
The EPA completed the supplemental vapor intrusion assessment and removal of the septic
tank and surrounding soil
January 31, 2020
The EPA completed the Addendum to the Site's fourth FYR Report
April 2, 2020
Black & Veatch submitted the final remedial design for OU-3 for ISTR and SVE
April 20, 2020
C-2
-------
APPENDIX D - SITE MAPS
D-l
-------
Figure D-l: Groundwater Elevations - Surficial Aquifer
[RWSOtA
[§WS*0"2A- *
B'7^33'JL
'RWS'QffAl
tmm
RWS03A
¦F.WS13
m&2\
Legend
& Monitoring Well
Recovery Well
- - - GW_Contours
Groundwater Elevations Contour Map - Surficial Aquifer
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Feet
NAD83 State Plane NC. Feet
D-l
-------
Figure D-2: Groundwater Elevations - Castle Hayne Aquifer
RWC01
15.08'
leweoa
6l3i93jB
l1I4%9ll
mm
mm
Legend
^ Monitoring Well
It Recovery Well
- - - Groundwater Contour (Feet)
Groundwater Elevations Contour Map - Castle-Hayne Aquifer
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Feet
NAD83 State Plane NC, Feet
D-2
-------
Figure D-3: PCE Concentrations - Surficial Aquifer, 2017
Legend
Groundwater DPT with PCE Concentrations
Below the 0.7 ^g/L Recommended Goal
Groundwater DPT with PCE Concentrations
* Above the 0.7 |jg/L Recommended Goal
Surficial Aquifer Well
Monitoring Well with PCE Concentrations
Below the 0.7 ng/L Recommended Goal
_ Monitoring Well with PCE Concentrations
^ Above the 0.7 pg/L Recommended Goal
Recovery Well with PCE Concentrations
™ Above the 0,7 pg/L Recommended Goal
PCE Isoconcentrations in Groundwater
— 10.000 ng/L
— 500 (Jfl'L
10yg/L
0.7 |jg/L
— — Dashed where inferred
I I Site Property Boundary
CO5 Well ID
T - NS T - PDB sample at top of screen interval
M - NS M - PDB sample at middle of screen interval
B - 0.5 U B - PDB sample at bottom of screen interval
PDB Passive Diffusive Bag
-Results displayed in micrograms per liter (|jg/L)
-Vertical profile groundwater sample collection dates:
SB104-SB119 results are from Sept 2015: DPT202-DPT211
results are from April 2015; DPT212-DPT224 results are
from April 2019; VP100, VP101, and VP102 results are from
Sept 2016; VP103 and VP105 results are from Jan 2017
-Permanent well groundwater results are from May 2017,
except S20 collected in March 2019 and C22 collected
in Feb/March 2019
SBTOfiJ^,
220'(46^0 ft)*
VP103
5.2 (30-35 ft)
7-^(45x5,0 ft)
I 2.7 (55-60 ft)
, VP105
2.6 (35-40 ft)
&5f55-60 ft)
[RWSp"1T^
HwMi]
F - b|i.7
j@T(-3^40iTO
I :DPT217
7.1 (15 ft)
[DBT-215\i^5U:'(35 ft)
1—\ r-
WW^Tl I '
mb
~^'j,Q?(cf5:ft) —M
DPT214
f- 5U <15-ft>
5U£{35 ft)
DPT213
5U (15 ft) DPT212
5U (35 ft)5U(15ft)
fc,5U <35 ft)
^— 36 (15 ft) ,
5U (35 ft)
SB119-
160.000'(36:<38ft) SO
IRWS02A
figfe .
Ip4 _
[§£.14 4
R/VS12-
T-NISaJ
m'JRsI
B-12%
RWS03A
;;DPT219
"2'2*jfO(15 ft) ¦
5U (35 ft)
RWS04A*
T-7.5
Mi11CJ,0
B^O.86'
pioo
K22 (10-15 ft)
^900 (40-45 ft)^_
[BPT221
^00 (15 ft)
fco (35 ft)
DPT204
/ 49 (55-57 fl)
DPT209 X
teTI000.(4Q-42 ft)'
PMBBT203|
RSl;(,i:8-"20*ft)l
r?pvsi3^ji
S®T-Kis
M-NS
p ' B-0.48 J,0
DPT220,
15(15 fin
5U(35$]
DPT202
36,000:1,36-38 ft)
VPi01
33 (10-15 ft)
3.600 (30-35 ft)
. ^ . 140 (50-55 ft)
DPT205
56,000 (35-37 ft)
DPT206
380 (38-40 ft)
SB109 —
170 (43-45 ft) .
Tdpj|2iiB
22.000 (24-26 ft)
DPT224
1.400 (15 ft)—-
2.4 J.O (35 ft)
DPT208
150 (28-30 ft)"
DPT210
26(38^-40^
DPT207
0.57 (40-42 ft)
DPT223
16 (15 ft)
5U (35 ft)
VP 102 1 B
5.0U.O (20-25 ft)
5.OU (60-65 ft)
120^(70-75 ft)
INSET MAP
Groundwater PCE Concentrations - Surficial Aquifer
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Feet
NAD83 State Plane NC; Feet
D-3
-------
Figure D-4: PCE Concentrations - Castle Hayne Aquifer, 2017
' C22JB
. If 0.79 (70-75 ftJBS
0.5U (90-95 ft)
0.5U (120-125-ft) v
0.5U (130-135 ft) ^
0.5U (14-5-150 ft)
VP100
(^,160 (70-75 ft)
Hp3pj.0l.105jftW^
fmrnmiAs ft i —/
^5^(i45j15g(tCT
V- - 4^:(,1!70^175{ft) Jig
|pW(^200mM^M
V-,3r3;(220-22Sft)> T]
vpioi1 Tl
19 (70-75" ft)
•4.5 J,O (100-105 ft)
2.4 J,0(110-115 ft)
2.9 J,Ol(.120-125 ft)
C09 •
VP 103
81 (75-80 ft)
•180 (95-100 ft)
¦111^^02]
KMTi;^2oa't)1
C03-
T-3;5.
M-NS
B-10
^ J
0.46J(75M)1
|^b.63:~Jp6|9^t)l
r0.98 J (110-115 ft)
JO as J (125-130 ft)
0.93 J (145-150 ft)
RWC01
T-0.5U ,
M-NS
¦iBl0.5Uw
Legend
Groundwater DPT with PCE Concentrations
® Above the 0.7 |ig/L Recommended Goal
Castle Hayne Aquifer Wells
Monitoring Well with PCE Concentrations
Below the 0,7 M9"- Recommended Goal
Monitoring Well with PCE Concentrations
^ Above the 0.7 pg/L Recommended Goal
Recover Well with PCE Concentrations
Below the 0.7 pg/L Recommended Goal
Abandoned/Destroyed Well
PCE Is oco nee titrations in Groundwater
1,000 ua'L
100 pg/L
— 10 |jg/L
0.7 yg/L
Dashed where inferred
_J Site Property Boundary
C05 Well ID
T - NS T - PDB sample at top of screen interval
M - NS M - PDB sample at middle of screen interval
B - 0.5 U B - PDB sample at bottom of screen interval
PDB Passive Diffusive Bag
Results displayed in micrograms per liter (ms/L)
VP100, VFP101: and VP102 results are from Sept 2016;
VP103 and VP105 results are from Jan 2017: other well
results are from May 2017. except C22 and C23
collected in Feb/March 2019
RWC024
_^T-N$ I
MP0.37 J,01
B-NS ' .
lmsf
JK£ns
|B?of5y
^ TCjli7Di
Groundwater PCE Concentrations - Castle-Hayne Aquifer
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Feet
NAD83 State Plane NO Feet
D-4
-------
Figure D-5: Remedial Design Surface Soil Sampling Results, 2018
;SSD13i.
r|Sample Location
Sample Location
S5A10
SSB1Q
Sample Date
12/11/2018
Sample Location
Sample Location
5SC10
|Sarnple Location
12/10/2018
12/11/2018
Sample Date
PCE(ug/kg)
12/10/2018
Sample Location
12/11/20181
Sample Date
Sample Location
SSD10
SSElj]
12/11/2018
Sample Date
|Sample Location
PCE(ug/kg)
12/12/2018
|Sample Date
[PCE(ug/kg)
[SSF.10]
jSample Location
Warehouse
12/10/2018
|Sample Date
|PCE(ug/kg)
Sample Location
Sample Location
jSample Location
Sample Date
12/11/2018
12/12/2018
12/11/20181
PCE(ug/kg)
PCE (ug/kg)
Sample Location
12/12/2018
Sample Date
jSample Locatior
SSF5
|Sample Location
12/12/20181
Sample Date
12/12/2018
5 Sample Location
Sample Location
Sample Date
PCE(ug/kg)
12/12/2018|
12/12/2018
PCE(ug/kg)
Sample Location
Sample Location
12/12/20181
12/12/2018
Sample Location
12/12/2018
Sample Date
PCE(ug/kg)
TCE(ug/kg)
ABC
One-Hour
Cleaners
Sample Location
Sample Location
12/11/2018
12/12/2018|
Sample Date
Sample Location
12/12/2018|
Sample Date
Furniture Store
[Sho p p i nq'Ce n terj
12/11/2018
Legend
Surface Soil Samples with
PCE Concentrations Below
the 6.3 ug/kg Cleanup Level
Surface Soil Samples with
PCE Concentrations Above
the 6.3 ug/kg Cleanup Level
Former ABC One-Hour
Cleaners Building
Dollar Tree
Notes:
1. Results only shown if they were above
the detection limit.
2. BOLD results indicate detections.
3. Shaded results exceed the cleanup level
4. All surface soil samples were collected from
0 to 0.5 ft bas.
Surface Soil Samples - December 2018
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Figure
3-6
D-5
-------
Figure D-6: Remedial Design Subsurface Soil Sampling Results, 2018
Sample Location
DPT215
DPT212
DPT213
TCE (ug/kg)
Sample Location
DPT 218
4/6/2019
Start Depth (ft)
End Depth (ft)
cis-1,2 DCE [ug/kg)
Sample Location
DPT 217
4/6/2019
End Depth (ft)
cis-1,2 DCE (ug/kg)
Equipment
Compound
DPT223
Sample Location
DPT 221
Sample Date
4/8/2019
Start Depth (ft)
29
39
End Depth (ft)
30
40
cis-1,2 DCE (ug/kg)
2.5J.O
6 U
PCE(ug/kg)
740 J,0
19
TCE(ug/kg)
15
6 U
Sample Date
4/8/2019
End Depth (ft)
cis-1,2 DCE (ug/kg)
PCE(ug/kg)
TCE(ug/kg)
Sample Location
/
Sample Location
DPT216
Sample Date
4/5/2019
/ , ^ DPT219
Istart Depth (ft)
29
End Depth (ft)
30
/ ¦ S3
TCE(ug/kg)
11
Sample Location
DPT 220
Sample Date
4/7/2019
Start Depth (ft)
19
24
End Depth (ft)
20
25
cis-1,2 DCE (ug/kg)
35
7.9 J
PCE (ug/kg)
120
3.3J
TCE (ug/kg)
64
5J
Vinyl chloride
3.2 J
4.5 U
Center
DPT 224
Sample Date
4/9/2019
Start Depth (ft)
19
29
End Depth (ft)
20
30
cis-1,2 DCE (ug/kg)
13
33
PCE (ug/kg)
26
91
TCE(ug/kg)
9.9
25
Legend
Former ABC One-Hour Cleaners Building
~ Parcel
Notes:
1. Results only shown if they were above the
detection limit.
2. BOLD results indicate detections.
3. Shaded results exceed the cleanup level
4/4/2019
2.3 J,O
3.41,0
Furniture Store
"¦L
Sample Date
Start Depth (ft)
End Depth (ft)
A
Feet
NAD83 State Plane NC, Feet
Subsurface Soil DPT Results - April 2019
ABC One-Hour Cleaners OU3
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Figure
3-7
D-6
-------
Figure D-7: Remedial Design-Inferred NAPL Locations, 2018
DPT Soil Boring (2011)
DPT Soil Boring (2016)
, 1 Former ABC One-Hour
I J Cleaners Building
Locations of Potential NAPL Inferred from
PCE Concentrations in Soil and MIP Results
ABC One-Hour Cleaners
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina
Figure
3-8
D-7
-------
Figure D-8: Soil-gas Sampling Results, 2019
L m
rv
D-8
-------
APPENDIX E - PRESS NOTICE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NEWS RELEASE
EPA.GOV/NEWSROOM
EPA to Review Cleanups at 45 Southeast Superfund Sites
Contact Information: region4press@epa.gov, 404-562-8400
ATLANTA (Oct. 19, 2022)-Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that
comprehensive reviews will be conducted of completed cleanup work at 45 National Priority List (NPL) Superfund
sites in the Southeast.
The sites, located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Tennessee, will undergo a legally required Five-Year Review to ensure that previous remediation efforts at the
sites continue to protect public health and the environment.
"The Southeast Region will benefit tremendously from the full restoration of Superfund sites, which can become
valuable parts of the community landscape," said EPA Region 4 Administrator Daniel Blackmon. "The Five-
Year Review evaluations ensure that remedies put in place to protect public health remain effective overtime."
The Superfund Sites where EPA will conduct Five-Year Reviews in 2022 are listed below. The web links provide
detailed information on site status as well as past assessment and cleanup activity. Once the Five-Year Review is
complete, its findings will be posted in a final report at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-five-year-
reviews.
Alabama
Alabama Army Ammunition Plant https://www.epa.gov/superfund/alabama-army-ammunition-plant
Alabama Plating Company, Inc. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/alabama-piating-co
Mowbray Engineering Co. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/rnowbray-engineering
US NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
US Army/NASA Redstone Arsenal https://www.epa.gov/superfund/redstone-aresenal
Florida
ALARIC Area GW Plume https://www.epa.gov/superfund/alaric-area-groundwater-plume
Beulah Landfill https://www.epa.gov/superfund/beulah-landfill
Chevron Chemical Co. (Ortho Division) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/chevron-chemical-company
Florida Petroleum Reprocessors https://www.epa.gov/superfund/florida-petroleum-reprocessors
Miami Drum Services https://www.epa.gov/superfund/miami-drum-services
Pensacola Naval Air Station https://www.epa.gov/superfund/naval-air-station-pensacola
Raleigh Street Dump https://www.epa.gov/superfund/raleigh-street-dump
Taylor Road Landfill https://www.epa.gov/superfund/taylor-road-landfill
Tower Chemical Co. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/tower-chemical-company
Georgia
Alternate Energy Resources Inc. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/alternate-energy-resources
Peach Orchard & Nutrition Co. Rd PCE Groundwater Plume Site https://www.epa.gov/superfund/peach-orchard-
road-pce-plume
Powersville Site https://www.epa.gov/superfund/powersville-site
T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co (Albany Plant) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/t-h-agriculture
Kentucky
A.L. Taylor (Valley of the Drums) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/al-taylor-valley-of-drums
E-l
-------
Brantley Landfill https://www.epa.gov/superfund/brantley-landfill
Distler Brickyard https://www.epa.gov/superfund/distler-brickyard
Distler Farm https://www.epa.gov/superfun https://www.epa.gov/superfund/lee-lane-landfilld/distler-farm
Lee's Lane Landfill https://www.epa.gov/superfund/lee-lane-landfill
National Electric Coil Co./Cooper Industries https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-electric-coil-cooper-
industries
Tri City Disposal Co. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/tri-city-disposal
North Carolina
ABC One Hour Cleaners https://www.epa.gov/superfund/abc-one-hour-cleaners
Aberdeen Pesticide Dumps https://www.epa.gov/superfund/aberdeen-contaminated-groundwater
Benfield Industries, Inc. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/benfield-industries
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station https://www.epa.gov/superfund/cherry-point-marine-corps
CTS of Ashville, Inc. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/cts-millsgap
GEIGY Chemical Corp (Aberdeen Plant) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/ciba-geigy-corporation
Gurley Pesticide Burial https://www.epa.gov/superfund/gurley-pesticide-burial
North Carolina State University (Lot 86, Farm Unit #1) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/north-carolina-state-
university
Sigmon's Septic Tank Service https://www.epa.gov/superfund/sigmon-septic-tank
South Carolina
Admiral Home Appliances https://www.epa.gov/superfund/admiral-home-appliances
Beaunit Corp (Circular Knit & Dyeing Plant) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/beaunit
Carolawn Inc. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/carolawn
Elmore Waste Disposal https://www.epa.gov/superfund/elmore-waste-disposal
International Minerals and Chemicals (IMC) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/imc
Kalama Specialty Chemicals https://www.epa.gov/superfund/kalama-specialty-chemicals
Koppers Company, Inc. (Charleston Plant) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/koppers-charleston-plant
Savannah River Site (USDOE) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/savannah-river-site
SCRDI Bluff Road https://www.epa.gov/superfund/scrdi-dixiana
Tennessee
Mallory Capacitor Co. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/mallory-capacitor
Memphis Defense Depot (DLA) https://www.epa.gov/superfund/memphis-defense-depot
Background
Throughout the process of designing and constructing a cleanup at a hazardous waste site, EPA's primary goal is
to make sure the remedy will be protective of public health and the environment. At many sites, where the remedy
has been constructed, EPA continues to ensure it remains protective by requiring reviews of cleanups every five
years. It is important for EPA to regularly check on these sites to ensure the remedy is working properly. These
reviews identify issues (if any) that may affect the protectiveness of the completed remedy and, if necessary,
recommend action(s) necessary to address them.
There are many phases of the Superfund cleanup process including considering future use and redevelopment at
sites and conducting post cleanup monitoring of sites. EPA must ensure the remedy is protective of public health
and the environment and any redevelopment will uphold the protectiveness of the remedy into the future.
The Superfund program, a federal program established by Congress in 1980, investigates and cleans up the most
complex, uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites in the country and endeavors to facilitate activities to
return them to productive use. In total, there are more than 280 Superfund sites across the Southeast.
More information:
EPA's Superfund program: https://www.epa.gov/superfund
O0©G
E-2
-------
APPENDIX F - INTERVIEW FORMS
ABC ONE-HOUR CLEANERS SUPERFIJND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: ABC ONE-HOUR CLEANERS
EPA ID: NCD024644494
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Beth Hartzell
Subject affiliation: NCDEQ
Subject contact information: b et h. h a rtzel 1 @ncdenr.gov
Interview date: 2/3/23
Interview time: 2:00 p.m.
Interview location: Email
Interview format: In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: State Agency
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
The project is well run. There has been a delay in starting the remediation due to funding issues but
funding is available and the remediation is in progress.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
The remedial action is just beginning. The previous remedy (pump and treat) has been shut down.
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years?
No.
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.
Participated in an inspection with the NPDES group to look at the pump-and-treat system. As the
system was no longer running there were no issues.
F-l
-------
5. Arc you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's
remedy?
No.
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are
the associated outstanding issues?
There are no institutional controls in place at the Site but they will be implemented as part of the
remedy.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
No.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy?
The Site is well managed. Looking forward to remedy implementation.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in
the FYR report?
Yes.
F-2
-------
ABC ONE-HOUR CLEANERS SUPERFIJND SITE
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW INTERVIEW FORM
Site Name: ABC ONE-HOUR CLEANERS
EPA ID: NCD024644494
Interviewer name:
Interviewer affiliation:
Subject name: Thomas Richard
Subject affiliation: MCB Camp Lejeune
Subject contact information: Thomas.richard@iismc.mii
Interview date: 2/14/2023
Interview time: 07:59
Interview location: By email
Interview format: In Person Phone Mail Email Other:
Interview category: Federal Agency
1. What is your overall impression of the project, including cleanup, maintenance and reuse
activities (as appropriate)?
I am pleased that progress has been made towards remedial action at the site.
2. What is your assessment of the current performance of the remedy in place at the Site?
I understand that an interim remedial action is planned, but that remediation at the site is currently
incomplete. While the UST was removed, the source area has not been fully remediated.
3. Are you aware of any complaints or inquiries regarding site-related environmental issues or
remedial activities from residents in the past five years?
Other than past issues with damaged fencing, I am not aware of any site related environmental
issues/activities.
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.
MCB Camp Lejeune conducts semi-annual site inspections to ensure no impacts to land use have
occurred to the ABC Cleaner site. No impacts have been observed. In October 2020, the Installation
Restoration Section of the Environmental Management Division escorted an NCDEQ inspector onto
Base property to inspect an EPA constructed inactive pump & treat groundwater treatment system.
F-3
-------
5. Arc you aware of any changes to state laws that might affect the protectiveness of the Site's
remedy?
I am unaware of any changes that would impact the protectiveness of the Site's remedy.
6. Are you comfortable with the status of the institutional controls at the Site? If not, what are
the associated outstanding issues?
I am comfortable with the institutional controls. MCB Camp Lejeune maintains aquifer use
management within the installation boundaries to ensure protection of impacted aquifers.
7. Are you aware of any changes in projected land use(s) at the Site?
MCB Camp Lejeune was notified of a proposal for recreational use in the area of this site, but I am
not aware if this was pursued at the ABC cleaner's site. I am aware that the building structure was
demolished, and a fence was installed onsite.
8. Do you have any comments, suggestions or recommendations regarding the management or
operation of the Site's remedy?
Please continue to keep MCB Camp Lejeune in the loop with site progress. I have no additional
comments or suggestions.
9. Do you consent to have your name included along with your responses to this questionnaire in
the FYR report?
I consent to have my name and responses included in the FYR.
F-4
-------
APPENDIX G - SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION C HEC KLIST
I. SITE INFORMATION
Site Name: ABC One Hour Cleaners
Date of Inspection: 1/17/2023
Location and Region: Jacksonville. North
Carolina. EPA Region 4
EPA ID: NCD024644494
Agency, Office or Company Leading the
Five-Year Review: EPA
Weather/Temperature: Sunny/55 degrees
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
I I Landfill cover/containment
~ Access controls
[X] Institutional controls
I I Groundwater pump and treatment
I I Surface water collection and treatment
I I Monitored natural attenuation
I I Groundwater containment
~ Vertical barrier walls
Attachments: [U Inspection team roster attached O Site map attached
II. INTERVIEWS (check all that apply)
1. O&M Site
Manager Name Title
Interviewed 1 1 at site 1 1 at office 1 1 bv phone Phone:
Problems, suggestions | | Report attached:
Date
2. O&M Staff
Name Title
Interviewed 1 1 at site 1 1 at office 1 1 bv phone Phone:
Problems/suggestions | | 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 NCDEO
Contact Beth Hartzell
Problems/suggestions Q Report attached: Yes
2/3/2023
4. Other Interviews (optional) Q Report attached:
Charity Delaney, USMC - Camp Lejeune
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS VERIFIED (check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
I I O&M manual Q Readily available Q Up to date
~ As-built drawings O Readily available O Up to date
§N/A
N/A
G-l
-------
1 1 Maintenance logs Q Readily available Q Up to date X N/A
Remarks:
2.
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
1 1 Contingency plan/emergency
response plan
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date ^
1 1 Up to date [>
3 N/A
3 N/A
3.
O&M and OSHA Training Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date [>
3 N/A
4.
Permits and Service Agreements
1 1 Air discharge permit
1 1 Effluent discharge
1 1 Waste disposal, POTW
1 1 Other permits:
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date [>
1 1 Up to date ^
1 1 Up to date ^
1 1 Up to date E
3 N/A
3 N/A
3 N/A
3 N/A
5.
Gas Generation Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date ^
3 N/A
6.
Settlement Monument Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date ^
3 N/A
7.
Groundwater Monitoring Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date E
3 N/A
8.
Leachate Extraction Records
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date ^
3 n/a
9.
Discharge Compliance Records
1 1 Air O Readily available O Up to date ^ N/A
1 1 Water (effluent) Q Readily available Q Up to date X N/A
Remarks:
10.
Daily Access/Security Logs
Remarks:
1 1 Readily available
1 1 Up to date E
3 N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1.
O&M Organization
1 1 State in-house
1 1 PRP in-house
1 1 Federal facility in-house
153 Not in O&M
1 1 Contractor for state
1 1 Contractor for PRP
1 1 Contractor for Federal facility
G-2
-------
2.
O&M Cost Records
1 1 Readily available O Up to date
1 1 Funding mechanism/agreement in place Unavailable
Original O&M cost estimate: 1 1 Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
From: To:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
From: To:
1 1 Breakdown attached
Date Date Total cost
3.
Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs during Review Period
Describe costs and reasons: No O&M is currently occurring at the Site.
V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
1X1 Applicable [J N/A
A. Fencing
1.
Fencing Damaged O Location shown on site map
Remarks: Fencing in good condition
1 1 Gates secured O N/A
B.
Other Access Restrictions
1.
Signs and Other Security Measures Q Location shown on site map Q N/A
Remarks: No trespassing signs on fence.
C.
Institutional Controls (ICs)
G-3
-------
1.
Implementation and Enforcement
Site conditions imply ICs not properly implemented
[El N/A
Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced
[El N/A
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive bv):
Freciuencv:
Responsible partv/agencv:
Contac
t
1 1 Yes ~ No
1 1 Yes ~ No
Name Title
Date
Phone no.
Reporting is up to date
~ Yes
~ No IKIn/a
Reports are verified by the lead agency
~ Yes
~ No M
N/A
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have
been met
~ Yes
~ No M
N/A
Violations have been reported
~ Yes
~ No M
N/A
Other problems or suggestions: ~ Report attached
2.
Adequacy ~ ICs are adequate ~ ICs are
Remarks: Institutional controls have not been implemented
inadequate
X N/A
D.
General
1.
Vandalisni/Trespassing ~ Location shown on site map
evident
1^1 No vandalism
Remarks:
2.
Land Use Changes On Site ~ N/A
Remarks: Buildings have been demolished
3.
Land Use Changes Off Site X N/A
Remarks:
VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. Roads [J Applicable [X] N/A
1.
Roads Damaged Location shown on site
~ N/A
Remarks:
map
1 1 Roads adequate
B.
Other Site Conditions
Remarks:
G-4
-------
VII. LANDFILL COVERS ~ Applicable
3 N/A
A. Landfill Surface
1.
spots)
Settlement (low
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 Settlement not evident
Depth:
2.
Cracks
Lengths:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
Widths:
1 1 Cracking not evident
Depths:
3.
Erosion
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 Erosion not evident
Depth:
4.
Holes
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 Holes not evident
Depth:
5.
Vegetative Cover
1 1 No signs of stress
Remarks:
1 1 Grass O Cover properly
established
1 1 Trees/shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram)
6.
Alternative Cover (e.g., armored rock, concrete)
Remarks:
~ N/A
7.
Bulges
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 Bulges not evident
Height:
8. Wet Areas/Water
Damage
1 1 Wet areas
1 1 Ponding
1 1 Seeps
1 1 Soft subgrade
Remarks:
1 1 Wet areas/water damage not evident
1 1 Location shown on site Arial extent:
map
1 1 Location shown on site Arial extent:
map
1 1 Location shown on site Arial extent:
map
1 1 Location shown on site Arial extent:
map
9.
Slope Instability
1 1 Slides
1 1 Location shown on site
G-5
-------
map
1 1 No evidence of slope instability
A rial extent:
Remarks:
B.
Benches O Applicable O N/A
(Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt
the slope in order to slow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the
runoff to a lined channel.)
1.
Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site
map
1 1 N/A or okay
2.
Bench Breached
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site
map
1 1 N/A or okay
3.
Bench Overtopped
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site
map
1 1 N/A or okay
C.
Letdown Channels
1 1 Applicable [J N/A
(Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap, grout bags or gabions that descend down the
steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff water collected by the benches to move
off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.)
1.
Settlement (Low
I | Location shown on site map
I ] No evidence of
spots)
settlement
A rial extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Material
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 No evidence of
Degradation
degradation
Material tvpe:
Arial extent:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 No evidence of erosion
Depth:
4.
Undercutting
A rial extent:
Remarks:
1 1 Location shown on site map
1 1 No evidence of
undercutting
Depth:
5.
Obstructions
Type:
1 1 No obstructions
G-6
-------
1 1 Location shown on site map
A rial extent:
Size:
Remarks:
6.
Excessive Vegetative Growth
1 1 No evidence of excessive growth
Type:
1 1 Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
1 1 Location shown on site map
A rial extent:
Remarks:
D.
Cover Penetrations O Applicable O N/A
1.
Gas Vents Q Active
1 1 Passive
~ Properly ~
secured/locked Functioning
1 1 Routinely
sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
1 1 Needs
maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks:
2.
Gas Monitoring Probes
~ Properly ~
secured/locked Functioning
1 1 Routinely
sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
1 1 Needs
maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks:
3.
Monitoring Wells (within surface area
of landfill)
~ Properly ~
secured/locked Functioning
1 1 Routinely
sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
~ Needs
maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks:
4.
Extraction Wells Leachate
~ Properly ~
secured/locked Functioning
1 1 Routinely
sampled
1 1 Good condition
1 1 Evidence of leakage at penetration
1 1 Needs
maintenance
~ N/A
Remarks:
5. Settlement Q Located
IVIonunients
1 1 Routinely
surveyed
~ N/A
Remarks:
E.
Gas Collection and Treatment
HI Applicable
~ N/A
G-7
-------
1.
Gas Treatment Facilities
1 1 Flaring Q Thermal destruction Q Collection for
reuse
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
2.
Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
3.
Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance Q N/A
Remarks:
F.
Cover Drainage Layer Q Applicable Q N/A
1.
Outlet Pipes Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
2.
Outlet Rock Inspected Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
G. Deten ti on/Sed i men tati on Ponds Q Applicable Q N/A
1.
Siltation Area extent: Depth: 1 1 N/A
1 1 Siltation not evident
Remarks:
2.
Erosion Area extent: Depth:
1 1 Erosion not evident
Remarks:
3.
Outlet Works Q Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
4.
Dam O Functioning Q N/A
Remarks:
H. Retaining Walls Q Applicable Q N/A
1.
Deformations O Location shown on site map Q Deformation not evident
Horizontal displacement: Vertical displacement:
Rotational displacement:
Remarks:
2.
Degradation Q Location shown on site map Q Degradation not evident
Remarks:
G-8
-------
1. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Q Applicable Q N/A
1.
Siltation
1 1 Location shown on site
1 1 Siltation not evident
map
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Vegetative Growth
1 1 Location shown on site
~ N/A
map
1 1 Vegetation does not impede flow
Area extent:
Type:
Remarks:
3.
Erosion
1 1 Location shown on site
1 1 Erosion not evident
map
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
4.
Discharge Structure O Functioning
~ N/A
Remarks:
VIII. V ERTIC AL BARRIER WALLS ~ Applicable
IK1n/a
1.
Settlement
1 1 Location shown on site
1 1 Settlement not evident
map
Area extent:
Depth:
Remarks:
2.
Performance
Tvpe of monitoring:
Monitoring
1 1 Performance not monitored
Freciuencv:
1 1 Evidence of breaching
Head differential:
Remarks:
IX.
GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES
1 1 Applicable [>3 N/A
A.
Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps and Pipelines
1 1 Applicable [XI N/A
1.
Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing and Electrical
1 1 Good
1 1 All required wells properly
1 1 Needs |[X] N/A
condition
operating
maintenance
Remarks: Svstem is not currently operating.
2.
Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other Appurtenances
I ] Good
I | Needs maintenance
condition
G-9
-------
Remarks: Svstem is not currently operating.
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be
available provided
Remarks: Svstem is not currently operating.
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps and Pipelines
I] Applicable N/A
1.
Collection Structures, Punips and Electrical
1 1 Good O Needs maintenance
condition
Remarks:
2.
Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes and Other
Appurtenances
1 1 Good O Needs maintenance
condition
Remarks:
3.
Spare Parts and Equipment
1 1 Readily Q Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be
available provided
Remarks:
C.
Treatnient System Q Applicable [X] N/A
1.
Treatment Train (check components that apply)
1 1 Metals removal Q Oil/water separation
1 1 Bioremediation
1 1 Air stripping Q Carbon adsorbers
1 1 Filters:
1 1 Additive (e.g.. chelation agent. flocculent):
1 1 Others:
1 1 Good condition Q Needs maintenance
1 1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
1 1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
1 1 Equipment properly identified
1 1 Ouantitv of groundwater treated annuallv:
1 1 Ouantitv of surface water treated annuallv:
Remarks: Svstem is not currently operating.
2.
Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional)
[xl N/A O Good condition Q Needs maintenance
G-10
-------
Remarks:
Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
[Xl N/A O Good condition Q Proper secondary
containment
~ Needs
maintenance
Remarks:
Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
[x] N/A Q Good condition Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
Treatment Building(s)
E n/a ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) ~ Needs repair
Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy)
I I Properly
secured/locked
I I All required wells
located
Remarks:
I I I I Routinely
Functioning sampled
I I Needs maintenance
I I Good condition
El n/a
D. Monitoring Data
1. Monitoring Data
~ Is routinely submitted on time
~ Is of acceptable quality
2. Monitoring Data Suggests:
I I Groundwater plume is effectively
contained
Contaminant concentrations are declining
E. Monitored Natural Attenuation
1. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy)
I I Properly secured/locked Q Q Routinely
Functioning sampled
I I All required wells located Q Needs maintenance
Remarks:
I I Good
condition
~ N/A
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
Implementation of the Remedy
G-ll
-------
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 remedies previously consisted of soil and groundwater treatment systems. The groundwater
mdsoiljregment^stems=ge=cm^Ji^=ma^
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.
No issues noted.
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.
^
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the
remedy.
None identified.
G-12
-------
APPENDIX H - SITE INSPECTION PHOTOS
H-l
-------
EPA Superfurid Site
No Trespassing
In Case oF Emergency Call 40^-562-8700
Fencing and signage
H-2
-------
Alley between the eastern side of the Site and the furniture store
H-3
-------
South-facing view from within the site fencing
H-4
-------
North-facing view from within the site fencing
H-5
------- |