&~A .-:-=_-.:;..~r._~_.._ NCDENR

Nc;JforTM CAAOLINA DD"APrTM~,," 01'"

ENVII"U>NMCNT ANO N.AiJ'\J1'tAL. R~J"IIc~ NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT

First Five-Year Review Report Carolina Transformer Co. Site

Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina US EPA ID: NCD 003188844

Prepared for US EPA Region 4

August 2010

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 10760606

FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT CAROLINA TRANSFORMER CO. SITE

US EPA ID: NCD 003188844

Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

Prepared by the State of North Carolina

Department of Environment & Natural Resources

Siih NCDENR ~ CAAouNA ~~NT 01'"

ENV1"'O"'M~NT I!>.NO NAlTUI"tAL. R~~

August 2010

FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT CAROLINA TRANSFORMER CO. SITE

US EPA ID: NCD 003188844

Prepared for the US EPA Region 4

Prepared by the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

I hate

Firs/ Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/ol1ner Co.

Fayelleville. ClImberland COllllly, NC

Table of Contents

List of Acron)'lTIs"""" ...... , .... , ............... ,.,.,""""""""", .... " .. ,"""""", ...... ,"""""", .. ,""", .... ,"", .. ,', ........ , ..vi Executive Surnnlary".,.,., ................ ,.,"""""""""'""',.".".,.,.,.,.,',.,", .. ,.,.,.,.".,",.,.,",.,'.,.,."""""""""""",viii Five-Year Review Surnnlary Fonn.............................. , .. ,.,""""""", .. ,.,.,.,.".,."., .. ,., ... " ........ ,., ...................x

. 1.0 Introduction....... :.,.,.,.,., .... , ... ,.,.,.,., ......... , ........................ , ............................................... , ........... 1 2.0 Site Chronology.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., ... ,.,.,., ............... ,.,.,.".,.,.,'.,., .. ,:.".,.,.,.,.,.,." .. ",.,.,.".,.,., ....... ,. , .............. , 3 3.0 Background................ ,."., .. ".,.,.,., ........ " ... , ................................................................... , ....... , ... ,.,. 4

3.1 Site Description ............................................................................................. , ................ 4 3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeology ................................................. 4 3.3 Land and Resource Use.. ,., .. ,.,.,.,.,., .................. , .................. , ... ,., ................ , .. ,.,.,.,.,." .. ,.,., 4 3.4 History of Contamination.......................................................................................... , , ... 5 3.5 Initial Response ....... , ........... , .. , ... "." .... "." ...... : .. , .. , ... , ... "." ... , .. , .. , ..... , .. ,. 6 3.6 Basis for Taking Action... ,."."." ........... ,., .. , .. , ...... "." .. , ... , .. , ....... , .. ,.,.,.,." .. 6

4.0 Remedial Actions ..................................................................................................................... , .... 7 4.1 Remedy Selection...................................................................................................... , .. ,. 8

4.1.1 1991 Record of Decision,.,.,." ,., .. ,.,."., ".,.".," ".,.,." .. , .. ,.,."." ......... 8 4.1.2 2005 ROD Amendment ..... " ......... , ........... , ............... ,,.,., .. , .. ,.,.,." ... 10

4,2 Remedy Implementation ........ ,.,."""., .. """,.,.,.".,., ... "." .. ,.,.,.,',.,',.,"',.,.,.,.,.".,.,.,., .......... 12 4.3 System Operation/Operation & Maintenance................................................................... 14

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review ..................................................................... , .. , .... , .. , .... 14 6.0 Five-Year Review Process .................................................................................................... , ..... , 14

6.1 Adnlinistrative Components ............................................................................................ 14 6.2 Community Involvement..,.,.,., ...... ,.,., .. , ..... · .... , .. , ........... , .. ,.,., ....................... ,.,.,.,.,., .. ".,.,.15 6.3 Document Review .................... , .... ,.,.,.".,.,.,.,., .. ,.,., .. , .... ".,.,.,.,.,.,., .... ,',.,"',.".,.,., ... , .. " ..... 15

ARAR Review........................................................................................................... , . ,.. 15 6,3.1 Original ARARs from the 1991 ROD ..................... , ........................... 16 6.3.2 Current Applicable ARARs ....................................................... , .. ,., 17

6,4 Data Review .............................................................................................................. , .. ,.,19 6,5 Site Inspection.,.,., .... ".,.,.,." .... ,.,.,., ...................................................... ,.,.,., .. ,., ............ ,.,. 20 6,6 Interviews........ ,., .... , .. ,.,., ....... ,.,.,.,.,.,.,."., ... , ........... ,.,., .. " .... ,.,.,.,.,.,."., ... , ... , .. ,., ............ ,.,. 21

7,0 Teclutical Assessment.,., .. , ... ,., .......... ,., .. , ................. · ........................................... ,.,., .. ,.. ,., ....... , ... , .. 21 7,1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ............ 21 7,2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial

action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid? ................... , .......... 22 7,3 Question C: Has any other infomlation come to light that could call into question

the protectiveness of the remedy? ...................................................................... , ............ 24 7,4 Technical Assessment Summary ...................................................... , .. " .......................... 24

8.0 Issues ................................................................. , ........................................... , .. ,',.,., .................... 24 9,0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions ....................................................... , ........................ , .. 24 10,0 Protectiveness Statement. .................................................................................. , , " , .................... 25 11.0 Next Review ......................................................................................................... ,.,., ................... 25

IV

FirSl Five- Year Review Carolina Transjomler Co.

Fayetteville. Climberiand COl/nty. NC

Tables Table I Chronology of Site Event. ........................................................................... 3 Table 2 Groundwater Remediation Goals as Specified in the 1991 ROD .............................. 9 Table 3 Revised Groundwater Remediation Goals as reported in the ROD Amended, July 2005 ... 11 Table 4 Comparison of 2005 Groundwater Remediation Goals to Current ARARs .................. 18 Table 5 Institutional Controls Evaluation Summary .......................................................22 Table 6 Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions ..................................... ·.................. 25

Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Site Map Figure 3 Excavation Plan (Soil Lifts 1-3) Figure 4 Excavation Plan (Soil Lifts 4-6) Figure 5 Excavation Plan (Soil Lifts 7 & 8) Figure 6 Monitoring Well Location Map

Attachments Attachment 1: List of Documents Reviewed Attachment 2: Site Inspection Checklist Attachment 3: Complete Interviews Attachment 4: Public Notice Attachment 5: Summary Table ofCOCs;

Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results 2006,2007, and 2009; and, Charts showing the analytical data for each COC with at least one exceedance of the current NC 2L standard

v

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland Coullty. NC

List of Acronyms

ARAR

AST

CERCLA

CERCLIS

CFR

COC

CRQL

ESD

FS

IC

lOW

LSA

MCL

MNA

MW

NC2L

NCAC

NCDENR

NCP

NPL

O&M

PCB

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

Above Ground Storage Tank

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System

Code of Federal Regulations

Contaminant of Concern

Contract Required Quantitation Limit

Environmental Services Division.

Feasibility Study

Institutional Controls

Industrial Derived Waste

Limited Site Assessment

Maximum Contaminant Level

Monitored Natural Attenuation

Monitoring Well

North Carolina Classifications and Water Quality Standards, Subchapter 2L

North Carolina Administrative Code

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

National Contingency Plan

National Priorities List

Operation and Maintenance

Polychlorinated Biphenyl

VI

First Five-Year Rel'ieH' Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Climber/and COllnty. NC

PCOR

ppb

ppm

RA

RAC

RCRA

RD

RG

RI

ROD

RPM

SES

SESD

SOW

TBC

ugiL

US EPA

UST

VOC

Preliminary Close-Out Report

Parts per Billion

Parts per Million

Remedial Action

Response Action Contract

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Remedial Design

Remediation Goal

Remedial Investigation

Record of Decision

Remedial Project Manager

Solvent Extraction System

Science and Ecosystem ·Support Division

Statement of Work

To Be Considered

Microgram per Liter or ppb

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Under-Ground Storage Tank

Volatile Organic Compound

VII

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transfonner Co.

Fayetteville. ClImberland COllnty." NC

Executive Summary

The Carolina Transfonner Site is located in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. Carolina Transforn1er Co. began recycling electrical transfonners and capacitors in 1967 and operated until 1982. During this time period, Carolina Transfom1er handled and stored at the Site large numbers of electrical transfomlers that contained polychlOljnated biphenyls (PCBs) in the transfonner oil. At no time did Carolina Transfonner apparently operate as a PCB storage and disposal site for owners of PCB transfonners or PCB articles. However, it appears that as part of their transfornler repair and rebuilding operations, PCB fluids were drained from transfonners and not properly stored and/or managed.

In 1979, the US EPA conducted soil sampling at the Site. Testing revealed that about one and half acres of the Site were contaminated with PCBs. After a highly publicized case in North Carolina concerning roadside dumping of PCB oil in July 1978, residents living near the Carolina Transfonner became concerned about possible groundwater contamination from the spills at the Site. Samples taken by the US EPA in 1978 and 1979 revealed contarriination of soils on the property by PCBs and chlorobenzene (a PCB carrier compound). These contaminants were also foundin a shallow residential drinking water well about 250 feet west of the Site. This residence was connected to the Fayetteville Public Drinking Water System. Sampling also revealed trace contamination in Carolina Transfornler's deep industrial well. The State ofNC attempted to have Carolina Transfonner correct the contaminated soil issue at the Site to no avail. The Carolina Transfonner Site was proposed for the National Priority List (NPL) on January 22, 1987, and was finalized on the NPL on July 22, 1987.

The remedies set forth in the August 29, 1991 Record of Decision (ROD) provide for remediation of contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. As stated in the 1991 ROD, the remedial action for the Site included: Excavation of the contaminated soil and use of a solvent extraction process to separate organic contaminants such as PCBs, dioxinlfurans, volatile organics, and polynuclear aromatic compounds from the soil and sediment; Demolition of the roofs and walls of the three on-site buildings; Install groundwater extraction wells and use a two-component treatment system (metals removal, adsorption) to remove the metals and organic contaminants. The groundwater pump and treat system as described in the 1991 ROD was never implemented.

In July 2005 an Amended ROD was signed to modify the 1991 ROD. With the successful completion of the soil, sediments, buildings, debris and solid waste portions of the 1991 selected remedy, there were no unacceptable risks associated any of these media at the Carolina Transfonner Site. The Amended ROD included the following three components: Update Remedial Goals to the newly revised Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and/or North Carolina Groundwater Standards (NC 2L), as appropriate; Monitored Natural Attenuation of groundwater to verify that natural aquifer processes are reducing any remaining contaminant concentrations to the revised cleanup standards; and a Contingency Component of Institutional Controls (lCs).

All remedial action activities were conducted as a Federal Superfund-Lead Project under the Response Action Contract (RAC) program. Construction activities began in November 1999 and were completed in October 2003. During this time, the Site was cleared of debris, vegetation, and buildings in anticipation of soil excavation. The structures included the main office building and shipping/receiving docks, several concrete storage buildings, various concrete pads, sidewalks, and curbing. The disposal effon also included removal of over 500 gallons of PCB oils requiring disposal at a Toxic Substance Control Act facility. During the Remedial Investigation (Rl) and subsequent remedial activities at the

V11l

First Five-Year Review Carolina TranS!Ol7ller Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland County. NC

Site, a number of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aboveground Storage Tanks CASTs) were discovered. The tanks contained various petroleum products including mineral oil with PCBs and diesel fuel. During the removal of these tanks, one tank was determined to be leaking. As a result a further investigation was required and a Limited Site Assessment (LSA) was perfonned. During this time, a 1,200-gallon fuel tank containing oil was discovered beneath the slab floor of the main building. This UST contained approximately SOO-gallons of high-concentration PCB oil and was located in an area previously not scheduled for excavation. In October 2003, all remedial activities for soil remediation were completed at the Site. As the fmal remedial action, the contractors hydro-seeded to establish grass cover, surveyed the property, installed a security fence, and demobilized from the Site.

The groundwater remedy is functioning as designed. Continued monitoring for natural attenuation is needed to ensure that the groundwater standards are met. In 2009, only three COCs are above remediation goals: benzene, chlorobenzene and bis-2ethylhexyl-phthalate. Manganese is above remedial goals in all but one well; however, manganese has secondary MCL and are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water.

This is the first Five-Year Review for the Carolina Transfonner Site. The triggering action for this review is the signing date of the Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR), August to, :WOS. This Five­Year Review is a policy review. A policy review is conducted when "upon completion of the remedial action, no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but requires more than five years to complete".

The remedies at the Carolina Transfonner Site are currently protective of human health and the environment because soil contamination was remediated through source removal, and natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination, is being actively monitored. The plume boundaries are defined and the plume is not migrating as indicated by the annual groundwater data. Currently, no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or groundwater. .

Institutional controls are part of a contingency remedial action as written in the ROD Amendment. The ROD Amendment states, "a contingency component has been added to this alternative. As part of the jive-year revieu', the need to implement ICs at the Site will be evaluated. ,. Monitored natural attenuation has been ongoing for five years with the anticipated length to reach remedial goals being 10 years. ICs are not necessary at this time and should be revisited at the next five-year review, the tenth and anticipated final year of the MNA remedial action.

IX

~-------------------------

---------- ---

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transfomler Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland County. NC

Five-Year Review Summary Form . SITE lDENTlFlCATlON

Site name (from WasteLAN): Carolina Transfomler Co. Site

US EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NCD 003188844

Region: 4 City/County: Fayetteville, Cumberland County

Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction [8] Operating

o Complete

Multiple OUs?* 0 YES Construction completion date: 8 / 10 / 2005

Has site been put into reuse? [8] NO

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: [8] US EPA 0 State 0 Tribe 0 Other

Author(s) name: Nile Testemlim / Stephanie Grubbs

Author(s) title:

EngineerlHydrogeologist Author(s) affIliation: NC DENR

Review period: 1/1/2010 to 8 /10/2010

Date(s) of site inspection: 2/22 /2010

Type of review: Policy

Review number: [8] I (first) 0 2 (second) 03 (third) o Other

Triggering Action:

o Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # OActual RA Start -­

[8] Construction Completion 0 Previous Five-Year Review Report

o Other

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 8/ 1012005

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 8 / 10 / 20 10

x

Firs! Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville, Cumberland C;IIIlfY, NC

The NC 2L groundwater standards were revised in January 2010. This resulted in more stringent standards for six COCs than the remediation goals that were set in the 2005 ROD Amendment. Based on the latest round of groundwater samples, groundwater concentrations for only two of these six COCs exceed the more stringent NC 2L standards.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

Determine if the groundwater remediation goals need to be modified during the next FYR or prior to declaring theremedial action complete.

Protectiveness Statement:

The remedies at the Carolina Transformer Site are currently protective of human health and the environment in the short-term because soil contamination was remediated through source removal and natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination is being actively monitored. The plume boundaries are defined and the plume is not migrating as indicated by the annual groundwater data. Currently, no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or groundwater.

Institutional controls are part of a contingency remedial action as written in the ROD Amendment. The ROD Amendment states, "a contingency component has been added to this alternative. As part ofthe five-year review, the need to implement ICs at the Site will be evaluated." Monitored natural attenuation has been ongoing for five years with the anticipated length to reach remedial goals being 1 0 years. ICs are not necessary at this time and should be revisited at the next five-year review, the tenth and anticipated final year of the MN A remedial action.

Xl

-----------~-~- -------------

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville, Cumberland COl/nty, NC

The purpose of conducting a Five-Year Review is to detennine whether the remedy implemented at a Site is protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of this review are documented in the Five-Year Review report. In addition, Five-Year Review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and identify recommendations to address them.

The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Waste Management, Superfund Section, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Region 4, has conducted a Five-Year Review of the remedial actions implemented at the Carolina Transfonner Co. Site (Carolina Transfonner Site or Site) (US EPA ID# NCD 003188844). The Site is located in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. The review was conducted from January 2010 through August 2010 and the results of the review are documented in this report. The review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §121 and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 states:

{f the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial action no less often than each five years after the initiation ofsuch remedial action to assure

. that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. In addition. (f upon such review it is the judgment ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104j or [J 06j, the President shall take or require sllch action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilities for which sllch review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and any actions take1l as a result ofsuch reviews.

The US EPA interpreted this requirement further in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP); Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.430(f)(4)(ii) states:

Ifa remedial actio1l is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than evelY five years afier the initiatio1l ofthe selected remedial action.

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/ormer Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland County. NC

The methods, findings, conclusions, and significant issues found during the review are documented in this Five-Year Review report. This Five-Year Review was performed in a manner consistent with the latest US EPA Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (US EPA, 2001).

The triggering action for this review is the signing date of the Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR), August 10,2005. This Five-Year Review for Carolina Transformer is a policy review. A policy review is conducted when "upon completion of the remedial action, no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but requires more than five years to complete" (US EPA Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, June 2001, Section 1.2.2). In accordance with CERCLA §121 and the NCP, a policy review istriggered by the date that construction is completed at the Site. The date of construction complete is generally the date of the PCOR. As stated in the 1991 ROD, "The goal ofthis remedial action is to restore groundvvater to its beneficial use as a drinking water source ". Based on information obtained during the Remedial Investigation (RI) and on a careful analysis of all remedial alternatives, the US EPA and the State of North Carolina believe that the selected remedy will achieve this goal.

The purpose of this Five-Year Review is to evaluate the remedy at the Site and to determine if the action remains protective of human health and the environment. More specifically, the purpose is:

o To confirm that the remedies, as specified in the 1991 ROD and subsequent 2005 ROD Amendment, remain effective at protecting human health and the environment (i.e., the remedies are operating and functioning as designed), and;

o To evaluate whether the cleanup levels specified in the RODs remain protective of human health and the environment.·

o To determine if any other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

The next Five-Year Review for the Carolina Transformer Site is required to be completed within five years from the US EPA Region 4 Superfund Division Director's (or his designee) signature/approval date of this First Five-Year Review.

2

Firs/ Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland County. NC

2.0 Site ChrOllllOiogy

Table I lists the site chronology for selected events for the Site.

l'a bYe ] ..S·tHe CilIl"OlllGIogy

Event DateI I I 1965-67

capacitors.

Fund-lead removal action was conducted.

Carolina Transfonner Co. began recycling electrical transfonners and

August 1984

US EPA proposed the Site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL). January 22, 1987

Site fmalized on the NPL. July 22, 1987

US EPA completed a fund-lead Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study. April 1988 to March 1991

Record of Decision (ROD) signed. August 29,1991

Remedial Design started. September 30, 1992

Remedial Design completed. September 30, 1996

SoiVSediment/Structures remedy mobilization. November 15, 1999

SoiVSediment/Structures remedy completed. October 4, 2003

Final Remedial Action inspection completed. July 14,2005

ROD Amendment signed. July 22, 2005

Preliminary Close-Out Report (peOR) finalized. August 10, 2005

First round of groundwater MNA sampling. August 2006

Second round of groundwater MNA sampling. May 2007

Third round of groundwater MNA sampling. July 2009

3

First Five- Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Climber/alld COllllly. NC

3.0 Background

3.1 Site Description

The Carolina Transformer Site is located in Cumberland County, North Carolina, approximately one-mile northeast of Fayetteville and north of the intersection of U. S. Highway 301, River Road, and Middle Road. The approximate map coordinates are latitude 3503' 08" N and longitude 78 50' 07" W. Figure 1 is a Site Location Map.

According to information in the 1990 RI, the Site consists of approximately 4.8 acres of relatively flat terrain and is bounded on the north by a wooded/swamp-like area, an agricultural field, and several homes; on the west by a privately-owned driveway providing access to homes; to the south by Middle Road and the former location of Larry's Sausage and the Lundy Packing Co.; and, to the east by an agricultural field.

3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeology

The area surrounding the Site is generally low-lying and swamp-like in character. The Site itself is situated at the headwaters of an unnamed tributary, which flows from the west comer of the Site less than 2 miles to the Cape Fear River. Other drainage ditches flow along Middle Road, west to the Cape Fear River and east to Locks Creek.

The Site is located in the Coastal Plain Physiological Province of North Carolina. The main stratigraphic unit in the vicinity of the Site is the Tuscaloosa Formation, which is an alluvial deposit, Upper Cretaceous in age. The materials comprise the Tuscaloosa Formation were derived from crystalline bedrock such as granites, gneisses, and schists which compose the adjacent Piedmont Physiographic Province. The soils formed from these crystalline materials consist of brown to tan, fine"to coarse-grained sands; tan, silty clayey sands; and grey to blue sandy clays.

The surficial soils at the Site consist of the Wickham Series and the Roanoke Series. Wickham Series soils cover most of the former facility area. These are well-drained soils that formed in loamy fluvial sediments on terraces of the Cape Fear River and its major tributaries. The loamy horizon is topically 40 to 60 inches thick and is underlain by sandy alluvial sediments. These are poorly drained soils that formed in stratified; dayey sediments on terraces of the Cape Fear River and it main tributaries. The loamy and clayey horizons are generally 40 to 60 inches thick and overly the stratified sediments deposited by the river.

Generally, groundwater at the Site flows in a west-southwest direction.

3.3 Land and Resource Use

The current land use of the Site and surrounding area is zoned commercial with small

4

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayeueville. Cumberland COUllty. NC

residential properties intermixed. This is also the expected future land use for the Site and the surrounding area. Cumberland County recently wanted to build and house a dog shelter near the property. It is unknown what the intentions of the county are at this time. Only two residences, a home southwest of the Site and a small farm to the north, are within a quarter of a mile of the Site. Neither of these properties are downgradient of the plume. No homes or building exist on the Site itself.

The primary source of drinking water in the area is public water. Based on information from the US EPA Remedial Project Manager (RPM), public drinking water is available within the area. No private drinking water wells are located in the interpreted dO'wngradient direction of the groundwater contaminant plume. Groundwater at the Site generally flows in a west­southwest direction (based on data from the Groundwater Assessment Report, Groundwater Remedy Change Recommendation, April 2005).

3.41 lHIistOlry of COlllltamillllatiollll

Carolina Transformer Co. began recycling electrical transformers and capacitors in 1967 and operated until 1982. During this time period, Carolina Transformer handled and stored at the Site large numbers of electrical transformers that contained polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the transformer oil. As stated in the ROD, the first indication of business operations on the property was the presence of two large buildings depicted on the 1957 Quadrangle Map. According to a February 1985, Dun and Bradstreet printout, Carolina Transformer was founded in 1958. The first parcel of the Site was deeded to Carolina Transformer in February 1959. Carolina Transformer was incorporated in May 1959; however, 1965 was the first year the Cumberland County tax office records indicate property of the business was identified for tax purposes. Figure 2 is a Site Map of the property.

During an interview with an employee of the NC Department of Environmental Management in 1985, it was acknowledged that at one time Carolina Transformer was one of the largest firms of its type in the US, having clients throughout the southeastern US and along the east coast. At no time during that period did Carolina Transformer apparently operate as a PCB storage and disposal site for owners of PCB transformers or PCB articles. However, it appears that as part of their transformer repair and rebuilding operations, PCB fluids were drained from transformers and not properly stored and/or managed.

In 1979, the US EPA conducted soil sampling at the Site. Testing revealed that about one and hal f acres of the Site were contaminated with PCBs. According to US EPA records, Carolina Transformer relocated and changed its name to FayTranco, Inc. in April 1982. On August 1984, the US EPA started cleanup operations at the Site. According to a deed dated November 29, 1984, Carolina Transformer sold the entire Site to Cumberland Electrical Repair, Inc. The deed, dated April 15, 1985, indicated that Cumberland Electrical Repair operated at the Site for approximately four and a half months before being ordered by the courts to return the property to Carolina Transformer.

5

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/onner Co.

Fayetteville. Climberland County. NC

3.5 Initial Response

After a highly publicized case in North Carolina concerning roadside dumping of PCB oil in July 1978, residents living near the Carolina Transformer became concerned about possible groundwater contamination from the spills at the Site. Samples taken by the US EPA in 1978 and 1979 revealed contamination of soils on the property by PCBs and chlorobenzene (a PCB carrier compound). These contaminants were also found in a shallow residential drinking water well about 250 feet west of the Site. This residence was connected to the Fayetteville Public Drinking Water System. Sampling also revealed trace contamination in Carolina Transformer deep industrial well. The State ofNC attempted to have Carolina Transformer correct the contaminated soil issue at the Site to no avail. In March 1982, sampling by the State ofNC determined that run-off from the Site violated surface water quality standards for PCBs.

In 1984, the US EPA made efforts to have Carolina Transformer cleanup the Site. When the efforts failed, the US EPA issued a CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order requiring the company to remove and properly dispose of the contaminated soil. After the company refused, the .US EPA, using CERCLA emergency funds, began to cleanup the Site in August 1984.

In August 1984, a fund lead removal action was conducted at the Site. As part of the removal action, the US EPA excavated 975 tons of contaminated soil. . Excavated soil was disposed in an off-site hazardous waste landfill permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The Carolina Transfonner Site was proposed for the National Priority List (NPL) on January 22, 1987, and was finalized on the NPL on July 22, 1987. The NPL is a list of priority releases for long-term evaluation and remedial response, and was promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The NPL list is found in the NCP (Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300).

3.6 Basis for Taking Action

In April 1988, the US EPA commenced with a RI and Feasibility Study (FS). In August 1989, the Environmental Services Division (ESD) of the US EPA began the first of three phases of investigative activities at the Site as part of the RI effort. The Phase I effort included the collection of surface and subsurface on-site and off-site soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater samples, as well as waste samples and wipe samples. Phase II of the RI effort began in November 1989 and included the collection of on-site surface and subsurface soil samples. Phase III of the RI investigation, which was conducted in January 1990, included installation of five permanent monitoring wells. The RI Report was issued in March 1990. In summary, the investigation disclosed the contamination of soils, sediments, groundwater, surface water, site structures, and site debris/solid wastes with PCBs, dioxin, furans, and other organics.

6

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/ol7ner Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland COUllty. NC

In addition, elevated levels of metals, such as copper and chromium, when:; detected in various media. PCB contamination was found to extend to off-site soils and sediments along the drainage way that conducts runoff from the Site toward the nearby Cape Fear River.

In 1990, the Baseline Human Risk Assessment was developed by Black & Veatch for the US EPA Region 4. The document concluded that carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic hazards are attributable to human contact with the contaminated on- and off-site media. The Final FS was issued for the Site on March 4, 1991. The FS document identified and evaluated applicable remediation approaches to eliminate elevated risks at the Site. The RVFS was completed in March 1991. The original ROD selecting the remedy for the Site was issued on August 29, 1991.

~.O RemediaR Actiollls

In accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, the overriding goals for any remedial action are protection of human health and the environment and compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). A number of remedial alternatives were considered for the Site, and final selection was made based on an evaluation of each alternative against nine evaluation criteria that are spe~ified in Section 300.430(f)(5)(i) of the NCP. The nine criteria include:

1. Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the Environment 2. Compliance with ARARs 3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence 4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume of Contaminants through Treatment 5. Short-term Effectiveness 6. Implementability 7. Cost 8. State Acceptance 9. Community Acceptance

The Scope and Role of Operable Unit within the Site Strategy in the 1991 ROD states, .

''The selected remedy is protective ofhuman health and the environment and complies with federal and state requirements that are legal~y applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action." Also statedjn the ROD, ''The remedy selected meets the statutory requirements o..futilizing permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practical. The selected remedy provides the best balance on terms o..flong and short term elfectiveness, permanence, implementability, cost, reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume. "

7

------- ----------- --------------------------

Firs/ Five-Year Reviell' Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayellel'ilIe. Cumber/and County. NC

4.1 Remedy Selection

4.1.1 1991 Record of Decision

The remedies set forth in the August 29, 1991 ROD provide for remediation of contaminated soil and contaminated groundwater. As stated in the 1991 ROD, the remedial action for the Site included:

"The US EPA selected combination ofthe alternatives presented in this document to serve as the selected remedy for the Carolina Transformer Site. The selected remedy is protective ofhuman health and the environment. Those alternatives EPA have selected to serve as the remedy for the Carolina Transformer Site are listed belovt'. There may be some changes made to the remedy as a result ofthe remedial design and construction process. HOIl'ever, such changes in general reflect modifications resultingfi-om the engineering design process.

• Excavation ofthe contaminated soil '"'ith PCBs in excess of1 part per million (ppm) and use ofa solvent extraction process to separate organic contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin/furans, volatile organics, and polynuclear aromatic compounds from the soil and sediment. The process H"ill convert inorganic contaminants such as lead and copper to 100rer solubility hydroxides thereby reducing their mobility. TCLP will be run on the treated soil and sediment prior to its return to its original location to determine if it meets the RCRA toxicity characteristic rule. The treated soil and sediment will also be modeled to assure that its placement will not cause violations of NC Growldlt'aler Standards. Soils and sediment not meeting the toxicity rule or which is shmvn by modeling to causefuture violations ofNC Groundwater Standards will be solid(fied. The contaminant rich waste stream H'ilI be transported of!site Jor treatment.

• Demolition ojthe rooft and ~vafls ofthe three on-site buildings. The debris would be crushed and transported to an off-site land.fill. ff the remaining slabs are found to be contaminated l'vitiz PCBs in excess of lO-ug/lOO cm2

,

they will be treated with a solvent l-vashing system to extract the residual PCBs.

• The debris and solid ....vaste fi-om the Site will be tran~ported to an off-site land.fillJor disposal and/or treatment in accordance lvith RCRA 40 Code oj Federal Regulations (CFR) 264 and 40 CFR 761 (A) (4). This alternative is designed to reduce the risk associated with direct contact with materials remaining on Site to within the (10 -5) carcinogenic risk level and the non­carcinogenic hazard index oj1.

• Install gro~ndwater extraction wells and use a two-component treatment system (metals removal. adsorption) to remove the metals and organic contaminants.

8

'----------------------------_._­

First Fil'e-Year Review Carolina Transfonner Co.

Fayelleville, Cumberland COllnty, NC

The risk to future users ofgroundyvater associated l1/ith ingestion. inhalation, and dermal contact with contaminants ill the groundwater would be reduced by this pump and treat system, The operation ofthe system },,"ould continue until the groundlvater meets the remediation goals listed in table 9-1 (Table 2 of this report).

Table 2 lists the groundwater remediation goals as specified in the 1991 ROD.

dO f G I °fi dOth 1991 ROD Table 2 : Groundwater Rerne la IOn oa s as sipeci Ie III e

CONTAMIN~T REMEDIATION LEVEL (ug/I)

Barium 1,000

Chromium 50

Copper 1,300

Lead 15

Manganese 50

Mercury 1

Nickel 100

Vanadium 615

Zinc 5,000

PCB-126 0.1

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 4

1,2A-Trichlorobenzene 9

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 190

Toluene 1,000

Carbon Disulfide 55

Benzene 1

Chlorobenzene 100

l,3-Dichlorobenzene 60

1 A-Dichlorobenzene 1.8

"The goal ofthe remedial action is to restore groundu'ater to its beneficial use. which is a potential potable water source, Based on h!formation obtained during the R1 and on a careful ana~vsis ofall remedial alternatives. EPA believes the selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent. during implementation or operation ofthe groundwater extraction systeriz and it mod{fications, that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation goals over some portion ofthe contaminated plume, In such a case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be re-evaluated.

9

First Five- Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Cumber/alld COUllly. NC

4.1.2 2005 ROD Amendment

As stated in the July 2005 Amended Record of Decision, the response action was necessary to protect the public health or welfare, or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from this Site which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment. With the successful completion of the soil, sediments, buildings, debris and solid waste portions of the selected remedy, presently, there are no unacceptable risks associated any of these media at the Carolina Transformer Site. The groundwater pump and treat system as described in the 1991 ROD was never implemented. Additional information obtained prior to the ROD Amendment showed minimum threat for future use of the groundwater at the Site and warranted amending the 1991 groundwater remedy. The amended groundwater remedial alternative consists of the following three components:

• Update Remedial Goals: Remedial goals for the contaminants of concern were revised based on the updated Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and/or North Carolina Groundwater Standards (NC 2L), as appropriate. Table 3 presents the contaminants of concern and the updated remedial goals.

• Monitored Natural Attenuation: Monitoring will be used to verify that natural aquifer processes are reducing any remaining contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels. The Agency defines "Natural Attenuation" as the natural physical, chemical, or biological processes that under favorable conditions without human intervention will reduce the mass, toxicity, mobility, volume, or concentration of contaminants in soil, groundwater, and/or surface water/sediment. These in-situ processes may include biodegradation, dispersion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, radioactive decay, and chemical or biological stabilization, transformation, or destruction of contaminants. Monitoring will continue until remedial goals are achieved as described in Table 3.

• Contingency Component - Institutional Controls: A contingency component was added to the remedy. Based on the latest sampling results, implementation of institutional controls is not necessary at this time. As part of the five-year review, the need to implement institutional controls at the Site will be re­ evaluated.

10

First Five-Year Review . Carolina Transfonner Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland County. NC

Table 3: Revised Groundwater Remediation Goals as reported in the ROD Amendment J IUly 2005

CONTAMINANT ROD RGs (ug/I)

ROD goal Basis

March 2005 NCGS (ug/L)

March 2005 MCL (ug/L)

Proposed RGs (ug/l)

March 2005 Basis

Barium 1,000 NCGS ·2,000 2,000 2,000 NCGS

Chromium 50 NCGS 50 100 No Change

Copper 1,300 NCGS 1,000 - 1,000 NCGS

Lead 15 EPA Guide

15 - No Change

Manganese 50 NCGS 50 - No Change

Mercury 1 NCGS 1 2 No Change

Nickel 100 NCGS 100 - No Change

Vanadium 615 RID - - No Change

Zinc 5,000 secondary

MCL 2,100 - 2,100 NCGS

PCB-1260 0.1 NCGS - 0.5 0.5 MCL

Bis(2­ethylhexyl)phthala

te

4 MCL 3 6 3 MCGS

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

9 MCL - 70 70 MCL

Methyl Ethyl Ketone

190 RID 170 - 170 NCGS

Toluene 1,000 NCGS 1,000 1,000 No Change

Carbon Disulfide 55 RID 700 - No Change

Benzene 1 NCGS 1 5 No Change

Chlorobenzene 100 MCL 50 100 50 NCGS

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

60 MCL 620 600 600 MCL

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

l.8 NCGS 75 75 75 NCGS

MCL - Maximum Contanllllant Level NCGS - NC Groulldwater 2L Standard RjD - Reference Dose RG - Remediation Goal

II

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland COUlIty. NC

41.2 Remedly impnementation

The Remedial Design for the Site was completed in September 1996. The design included: Procedure and plans for mobilization and equipment set-up; Utilities; Site Operating Procedure; Treatment system monitoring; Demonstration Plan; Sampling and Analysis Plan; Site Health and Safety Plan; Quality Assurance and Quality Control; Operating Parameters; and State Regulatory Compliance Plan.

Soil

The SoillSediment/Debris/Structures remedy was awarded to the remedial action contractor on May 30, 1999. Terra Kleen Response Group, Inc. performed the soil Remedial Action (RA) by utilizing an on-site solvent extraction system to remove contaminants from the soil. All RA activities were conducted as a Federal Superfund-Lead Project under the Response Action Contract (RAC) program. The remedy for soil consisted of:

o Removal and disposal of Industrial Derived Waste (IDW) materials from previous investigative work at the Site;

o Removal and disposal of waste items such as PCB-containing oil; o Demolition, removal, and disposal of all site structures including slabs and

foundations; ~

o Excavation of soils and sediment in areas identified in the Soil Remedial Action Statement of Work contaminated with PCBs in excess of I ppm;

o Treat contaminated soillsediment using Terra Kleen's solvent extraction process and backfill of clean soil to the Site;

o Properly remove and dispose off-site any contaminated soil/sediment not treated with the solvent extraction process.

Construction activities began in November 1999 and were completed in October 2003. The Site was cleared of debris, vegetation, and buildings in anticipation of soil excavation. The structures included the main office building and shipping/receiving docks, several concrete storage buildings, various concrete pads, sidewalks, and curbing. Also removed during this time was the previously generated IDW such as drummed protective clothing and waste produced from monitoring well installation, abandoned equipment, scrap, and debris located around the Site. These included transformer casings and parts, ceramic insulators, gasket material, and storage vessels (large transformer casing converted to storage tanks). The disposal effort also included removal of over 500 gallons of PCB oils requiring disposal at a Toxic Substance Control Act facility.

During the RI and subsequent remedial activities at the Site, a number of Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) were discovered. The tanks contained various petroleum products including mineral oil with PCBs and diesel fuel. During the removal of these tanks, one tank was determined to be leaking. As a result a further investigation was required and a Limited Site Assessment (LSA) was performed. The LSA

12

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transfol7ner Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland County. NC

required the installation of three additional shallow monitoring wells and groundwater sampling. During this time, Terra Kleen also discovered a 1 ,200-gallon fuel tank containing oil beneath the slab floor of the main building. This USTcontained approximately 500-gallons of high­concentration of PCB oil and was located in an area previously not scheduled for excavation.

A grid system was established to track excavation and treatment processes. Initial soil remediation for the project began with a performance demonstration test in January 2000 utilizing a solvent extraction system (SES). Full-scale soil treatment began in July 2000. Soil was excavated, treated and tested to meet remedial goals. Treated soil was backfilled into the excavated grids. See Figures 3, 4, and 5 for the Excavation Plan for the Site.

In early 2003, the duration of the RA construction activities continued to lengthen. This was due to a number of factors, not the least of which was the fact that additional contaminated soil was discovered. Almost 36,000 cubic yards of soil had been treated or disposed of by the start of2003; however, the original estimate was for 20,000 cubic yards. The US EPA explored corrective measures that included additional excavation and off-site disposal of untreated soil. In 2003, Terra Kleen's contract was terminated and CMC, Inc. began as the new contractor to complete the remaining soil removal and remediation at the Site. The same disposal and grid clearance procedures and protocols that were used by Terra Kleen were conducted by CMC, Inc.

In May 2003, the SES process was terminated and the remaining soil/debris was completed by excavation, testing, and off-site disposal by CMC, Inc. Backfilling was completed using off-site clean borrow soil to replace the contaminated soil sent for disposal. After completing the excavation of contaminated soil and backfill activities, CMC began final grading and site restoration work. Under the Site Work Plan, the property was to be returned to pre­remediation surface elevations and a grass cover established. CMC hydro-seeded to establish grass cover, surveyed the property, and a security fence was re-establish on the property boundaries. On October 4, 2003, CMC demobilized from the Site.

As stated in the Remedial Action Report, April 2004,

"The US EPA has determined that the remedial activities associated with OU J (excluding groundwater) at the Carolina Trans/onner Site in Fayetteville, North Carolina have been completed in accordance with the ROD (August J99J and RDlRA documents).

Groundwater

During the 1989 RI, eleven monitoring wells were installed. In February 1993, a Lower Aquifer Assessment was conducted by the US EPA's contractor to determine if cleanup of the Lower Aquifer was necessary. As part of the assessment, three deep wells were attempted into the lower aquifer. Installation of the wells was not completed because a continuous thick clay

13

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayelleville. Cumberland County, NC

layer was encountered throughout the Site. The lower aquifer investigation concluded that a continuous clay layer exists throughout the Site and contamination migration into a lower aquifer is very unlikely. However, one shallow well was instlilled during this investigation.

The groundwater remedy as described in the 1991 ROD was not implemented. Implementation logistics required that all soil excavation activities be completed before the extraction wells and treatment plant could be built on site. New information gathered during, and following completion of the SoiIlSediment/Debris/Structures remedy warranted are-evaluation of the 1991 groundwater remedy. Based on this re-evaluation, an amendment to the 1991 ROD was issued on July 22, 2005, changing the groundwater remedy to MNA. As stated previously, the ROD Amendment included the following three components: update remedial goals, MNA, and contingency component (lCs).

In August 2006, the first round of samples were collected as part of the Groundwater MNA remedy.

4.3 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance

Operation and Maintellance (O&M)

Site O&M activities consist of annual monitoring of the groundwater. The US EPA Science and Ecosystem Support Division conducts the annual sampling at the Site. Since the Site has no buildings or remediation system, the only O&M activity at the Site is the annual groundwater sampling for MNA. No actual cost is available for O&M at the Site.

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

This is the first Five-Year Review Report.

6.0 Five-Year Review Process

6.1, Administrative Components

The NC DENR Superfund Section performed the five-year review process for the Carolina Transformer Site. Nile Testerman (Environri1ental Engineer) and Stephanie Grubbs (Hydrogeologist) from NC DENR were responsible for gathering and reviewing data for this review and compiling all the information into the Five-Year Review Report for the US EPA. Telephone and/or email discussionslinterviews with Luis Flores, US EPA Remedial Project Manager were conducted. Other activities conducted for this review include document review (see Attachment 1), completion of a Site Inspection Checklist (see Attachment 2), interview documentation (see Attachment 3), a public notice submitted to the local newspaper (see Attachment 4), and the Five-Year Review Report preparation.

14

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC

6.2 Community Involvement

The US EPA conducts all community involvement activities regarding the remedial activities for the Site. On June 22, 2010 an advertisement was placed in The Fayetteville Observer announcing the Five-Year Review for the Carolina Transfonner Site had been initiated. A copy of this advertisement is included in Attachment 4. After the Five-Year Review has been approved and signed by the US EPA, a notice will be placed in The Fayetteville Observer announcing the release ofthe final Five-Year Review report and copies will be placed for the public to view at: the US EPA Record Center, 11 th Floor, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303; the infonnation repository located at the Cumberland County Public Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28301; and, on the US EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/superfundlindex.htm).

Community interviews were also conducted with local citizens and local officials within the community of the Carolina Transfonner Site. Section 6.6 of this Five-Year Review highlights all the community interviews for the Site. See Attachment 3 for the complete interview statements.

6.3 Document Review

This Five-Year Review consisted of a review of relevant documents including but not limited to the ROD (1991); ROD Amendment (2005); Soil/Sediment/Debris/ Structure RA Report (2004); Preliminary Close-Out Report (2005); Interim RA Report (2006); Sampling Reports (2006, 2007, and 2009); and Applicable groundwater cleanup standards and other ARARs, as listed in the ROD Amendment,. were also reviewed and checked for updates. See Attachment 1 for a complete list of documents reviewed.

ARARReview

CERCLA Section 121 (d) (2) (A) requires that Superfund remedial actions attain "a degree of cleanup of hazardous substance, pollutants, and contaminants released into the environment and of control of further release at a minimum which assures protection of human health and the environment." CERCLA§ 121 (d)(I), 42 U.S.C §9621 (d)(I). The remedial action must achieve a level of cleanup that at least attains those requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARARs). CERCLA§ 121 (d)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C §9621 (d)(2) (A). Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. 40 C.F.R. § 300.5. Relevant and appropriate requirements are those standards that, while not "applicable", address

15

First Fil'e-Year Rel'iew Carolina Transfomler Co.

Fayettel'ille. Cumberland County. NC

problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to the particular site. 40 C.F.R. § 300.5. Only those state standards that are more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and appropriate. To-Be­Considered (TBC) criteria are non-promulgated advisories and guidance that not legally binding, but should be considered in determining the necessary remedial action. For example, TBCs may be particularly useful in determining health-based levels where no ARARs exist or in developing the appropriate method for conducting a remedial action.

Chemical-specific ARARs are health- or risk-based numerical values or methodologies which, when applied to site-specific conditions, result in the establishment of numeric values. These values establish an acceptable amount of concentration of a chemical that may remain in, or be discharged to, the ambient environment. Examples of chemical-specific ARARs include maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and ambient water quality criteria enumerated under the Federal Clean Water Act.

Action-specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limits on actions taken with respect to a particular hazardous substance. These requirements are triggered by a particular remedial activity, such as discharge of contaminated groundwater or in-situ remediation.

Location-specificARARs are restrictions on hazardous substances or the conduct of the response activities solely based on their location in a special geographic area. Examples include restrictions on activities in wetlands, sensitive habitats, and historic places.

Remedial actions are required to comply with the chemical-specific ARARs identified in the ROD. In performing the Five-Year Review for compliance with ARARs, only those ARARs that address the protectiveness of the remedy are reviewed. Because the remedy at the Site currently addresses only groundwater contamination, this Five-Year Review will discuss compliance with chemical-specific groundwater ARARs only.

6.3.1 Original ARARs from the 1991 ROD

The 1991 ROD identified the following Federal and State chemical-specific ARARs:

Federal ARARs

• CERCLA 42 USC 9605 et. Seq. • Toxic Substance Control Act 40 CFR 761 • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910, Part 120) • Safe Drinking Water Act (40 USC Section 300; 40 CFR Part 141, 142) • Clean Air Act (40 CFR Part 50, Part 60, Subpart A and Subpart B, and Part 61,

USC 1857) • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 42 USC 6905 et. seq.

16

Firs/ Five-Year Revie\v Carolina Trails/onller Co.

Fayette\':i/le. Climber/and COllnty. NC

o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act CFR 263 to 265; 40 CFR 261 o Federal Endangered Species Act 50 CFR 200 and 402 o Protection of Wetland 40 CFR 6

State ARARs

o Regulations for the Management of Hazardous Waste promulgated under the authority of the NC Waste Management Act (North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Title 15A, Chapter 13A)

o. NC Drinking Water and Groundwater Standards; Groundwater Classifications and Standards (NCAC Title 15 Chapter 2L)

o NC Drinking Water Act (General Statutes Chapter 130A, NCAC 311-327)

6.3.2 Cuneot Applicable AlRARs

It is the US EPA's policy that ARARs are generally "frozen" at the time of the ROD signature unless a "new or modified requirement calls into question the protectiveness of the selected remedy", 55 Fed. Reg. 8757 (March 8, 1990). The NC Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwater of North Carolina, NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2L, (NC 2L) on which several of the remedial goals are based were last amended on January 1,2010. Some of the chemical-specific ARARs have changed for the contaminants of concern (COCs) since.the Remediation Goals assigned in the ROD. Table 4 is a summary of previous and current ARARs for the groundwater COCs.

CERCLA requires that the remedy comply with any promulgated standard that is more stringent than any federal standard. The 1991 ROD and 2005 ROD Amendment adopted NC 2L Groundwater Water Quality Standards as the remedial cleanup levels for several compounds with the exception .of PCB-1260, 1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and 1 ,3-dichlorbenzene whose remediation goals were set at the MCL and vanadium, carbon disulfide, methyl ethyl ketone, which was set at the referencing dose or maximum acceptable oral dose of a toxic substance. Barium, chromium, zinc, toluene, 1 ,3-dichlorobenzene, and I ,4-dichlorobenzene (ROD-specified COCs) currently have remediation goals that are less stringent than the NC 2L standards. Table 5 is a summary of all the current NC 2L Groundwater Standards, MCLs, and Contract Required Quantitaion Limits (CRQL) for all the compounds. All the COCs have remediation goals at or below the Federal MCLs for each compound.

17

-

First Five-Year Review Carolilla Transfol7ller Co.

Fayelleville. ClImber/alld COllllty. NC

Table 4: Comparison of 2005 ROD Amended Groundwater Remediation Goals to Current ARARs

COC

2005 ROD Amendment groundwater remediation goal (ugIL)

CurrentNC 2L (As of

January 1, 2010) (ugIL)

Current Federal CRQL (ugIL)

Current Federal MCLs (ugIL)

ARAR change?

Barium 2,000 b 700 - 2,000 Yes Chromium 50 b 10 - 100 Yes

Copper 1,000 b 1,000 - 1,300 No

Lead 15 15 - 15 No

Manganese 50 b 50 - 50 d No

Mercury 1b 1 - 2 No

Nickel 100 b 100 - - No

Vanadium 615 e - - - No

Zinc 2,100 b 1,000 - - . Yes PCB-1260 0.5 a - - 0.5 No

Bis(2­ethylhexyl )phthalate 3 b 3 - 6 No

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70' 70 0.5 70 No

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 190 b· 4,000 - - Yes Toluene 1,000 b 600 0.5 1,000 Yes

Carbon Disulfide 55 e 700 0.5 - Yes Benzene 1b 1 5 No

Chlorobenzene 50 b 50 0.5 100 No

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 600 3 200 0.5 600 Yes 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 b 6 0.5 75 Yes

Notes: 3 US EPA MCl - US EPA MCl for volatile compounds b NC 2L - North Carolina Administrative Code, Title l5A, Subchapter 2l, Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwater of North Carolina. e RID - US EPA Reference Dose d Manganese is a secondary Standard under the Natiomil Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Bold font indicates a change in the NC 2l Groundwater Standard. - Indicates that no information is available for that compound.

18

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland COUllty. NC

6.4 Data Review

Ground.vater

Annual sampling for MNA has occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2009. No sampling was conducted in 2008. As stated previously, the US EPA Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) conducts the annual groundwater sampling for MNA at the Site. The most recent groundwater samples were collected during the week of July 6,2009. SESD collected twelve groundwater samples from eleven existing monitoring wells. Samples were analyzed for metals, VOCs, PCBs, and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate.

The overall data trend for groundwater appears to be decreasing in concentrations of the COCs. Of the six COCs that have current NC 2L standards that are more stringent than the remediation goals established in the ROD Amendment, only two are present in wells at concentrations higher than the more stringent standard. Barium and 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene were only detected in one well each in the most recent sampling event at concentrations that slightly exceed the NC 2L standard, but are below the federal MCL value. The maximum concentration of barium detected during the past five years has bounced from 990 !lg/L in 2006, to 580 !lg/L in 2007, to 810 !lg/L in 2009. The maximum concentration of 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene has steadily decreased during the past five years from 86 !lg/L (2006), to 35 !lg/L (2007) to 13 !lg/L (2009). It is anticipated that concentrations of 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene wi11 continue to decline to below the current NC 2L standard. Bis-(2ethylhexyl)phthlate had one detect within the last three sampling events, which also exceeded the remediation goal in well MW -7. The remediation goal for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is 3 ppb and the data indicated a concentration of9.1 ppb.

Below is a summary of MNA sampling for the last three sampling events. Figure 6 is a map of the monitoring well locations and Appendix 5 contains the analytical data from the sampling results from 2006 to 2009, a summary table of the data showing current NC 2L standards and remediation goals, and charts showing the analytical data for each COC with at least one exceedance of the current NC 2L standard.

Volatile Organic Compounds

In 2006 and 2007, 4 wells contained VOCs above remediation goals: MW6, MW9, MW 101, MW 1 02. The COCs above remedial goals were 1 ,4-diclorobenzene, benzene, and chlorobenzene. 1 ,4-dihclorobezene was only detected in concentrations exceeding the remediation goal of 75 ppb in one well (MW6) in 2006 at 86 ppb. 1,4-dichlorobenzene concentrations were below the remediation goal in all wells during the 2007 and 2009 sampling events, but exceeded the more stringent current NC 2L standards of 6 ppb in two wells in 2009 (MW6 and MW8 at 13 ppb). In 2009, only 2 wells contained VOCs above remediation goals, benzene and chlorobenzene in MW9 (benzene 4.5 ppb and chlorobenzene 50 ppb) and MW101 (benzene 1.3 ppb). In general, VOC concentrations have decreased in the past five years.

19

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/anna Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland County. NC

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

In 2009, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected above the remediation goal of 3 ppb in one well (MW7) at 9.1 ppb. It was not detected in the previous MNA sampling events in 2006 or 2007.

Metals

The only metal, which has been consistently above remediation goals, is manganese with a remedial goal of 50 ppb. Manganese had been in all monitoring wells, except MW5 since 2006. The range for manganese has been from 120 ppb to 2,500 ppb. Manganese is listed as a COC; however, manganese has a secondary MCL. According to the US EPA, "National SecondQly DrinA:ing Water Regulations (secondQly standards) are non-er!forceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic effects (such as taste, odor, or colOl) in drinA:ing water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. Hovvever, slates may choose to adopt them as ef~forceable standards. "

Barium has been detected in two wells at concentrations that are below the remediation goal (2,000 ppb) but exceed the more stringent current NC 2L standard (700 ppb). MW6 had a barium concentration of 730 ppb in 2006, but the concentrations decreased to 470 ppb in 2007 and 460 ppb in 2009. MW9 had a barium concentration of990 ppb in 2006,580 ppb in 2007, and 810 ppb in 2009.

PCBs have not been detected in any monitoring well during any of the annual MNA sampling events.

6.5 Site Inspection

The Site inspection of the Carolina Transfonner Site was conducted on February 22, 2010. Attending the Site visit was: Luis Flores (RPM, US EPA) and Nile Testennan (Environmental Engineer, NC DENR Superfund Section). All the monitoring wells were in good'condition and were easily located. As stated in the Site Inspection Checklist, a few wells were unlocked; however, the wells have since been secured. One section of the fence was damaged but it was repaired since then. See Attachrrient 2 for the completed site inspection checklist.

20

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/onner Co.

Fayelteville. ClImberiand COl/nty. NC

6.6 huterviews

The US EPA is responsible for contacting and interviewing the community surrounding the Site for concerns, comments, and/or questions regarding the remediation .at the Site for the Five-Year Review. A public notice was placed in the local newspaper informing the community of this review. The interviews and public notice are included in Attachment 3 and 4, respectively.

Residents that live in this community have been there for years and were very knowledgeable about the Site and the cleanup that took place. Most ofthe residents did not have any complaints or concerns about the Site or the remedy that was implemented, and most of them do not think that they have been impacted. During the interview, citizens were notified that a final report, of the Five-Year Review, would be placed in the information repository for the Site, Cumberland County Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

The following are a summary of the interviews conducted by the US EPA. The full interview document can be found in Attachment 3.

o A local business owner stated that the only concern that they have is regarding the monitoring well that was placed on a piece of property that they own located next to the site. They also want to know how long the monitoring well would have to be in place since the site has already been cleaned up. They also stated that they would like to be updated more often, if possible.

o One resident had a great deal of health problems while the plant was in operation, as did his wife who is now deceased. She suffered from diabetes. They had no evidence that the health problems were related to the site, but assumed that they were related.

Q Another resident that lives directly across the street stated that she has only heard about the site and EPA's cleanup, and that her grandparents, who are now deceased, lived in the house that she now occupies, at the time the site was in operation.

o All the residents mentioned that they would like to see the property kept manicured at all times.

7.0 Tedllnkal Assessment

Question AI: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

Yes, the remedial action continues to be operating as designed.

The groundwater remedy is functioning as designed. Continued monitoring for natural attenuation is needed to ensure that the groundwater standards are met. In 2009, only four COCs

21

7.1

Firs/ Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayel/eville. Cumberlalld COl/llty. NC

are above remediation goals: benzene, chlorobenzene and bis-2ethylhexyl-phthalate, and manganese. In general, VOC concentrations have been decreasing during the past five years. Manganese concentrations have fluctuated slightly.

The groundwater remedy is considered a long-term RA and institutional controls have not been implemented. However, as stated in the 2005 Amended ROD, "A contingency component has been added to this alternative. Based on the latest sampling results, implementation ofICs is !lot necessmy at this time. As part ofthe five-year review, the need to implement ICs at the Site 1vill be re-evaluated.'· The US EPA believes the remedial goals will be achieved in five years (ten years from the start of MNA monitoring). There are currently no drinking water wells within the contaminated groundwater plume. Therefore, the need for ICs will be re-evaluated during the next Five-Year Review.

T ble 5. Ins I U IOna Ie tIEvaIuafIOn sa . ft f on ro s ummary

Media ICs

Needed ICs CaUed for in the Decision Documents

IC . Objective

Instrument in Place

Notes

Ground Water

Not at this time

Yes, if it is detemlined that a certain portion of the aquifer cannot

be restored to beneficial use.

Prevent installation of potable wells for drinking water

purposes, within the contaminated

groundwater plume.

None None

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time ofthe remedy still valid?

No. The NC Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Groundwater of North Carolina, NCAC Title 15A Subchapter 2L, (NC 2L) on which several of the remedial goals are based were last amended on January 1,2010. Some of the chemical-specific ARARs have changed for the COCs since the remediation goals assigned in the ROD Amendment. CERCLA requires that the remedy comply with any promulgated standard that is more stringent than any federal standard. The 1991 ROD and 2005 ROD Amendment adopted NC 2L Groundwater Water Quality Standards as the remedial cleanup levels for several compounds with the exception of PCB-1260, 1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and 1 ,3-dichlotbenzene whose remediation goals were set at the MCL and vanadium, carbon disulfide, methyl ethyl ketone, which was set at the referencing dose or maximum acceptable oral dose of a toxic substance. Barium, chromium, zinc, I ,3-dichlorobenze, and 1 ,4-dichlorobenzne (ROD-specified COCs) currently have remediation goals that are less stringent than the NC 2L standards. Table 4 is a summary of all the current NC 2L Groundwater Standards, MCLs and CRQLs for all the compounds. All the COCs have remediation goals at or below the Federal MCLs for each compound.

22

First Five- Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland County. NC

Six COCs have current NC 2L groundwater standards that are more stringent than the remediation goals. The following is a summary of how 2009 sample results compare to the more conservative NC 2L standard.

o Barium - The remediation goal for barium is 2,000 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 700 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, only one well had concentrations of barium that exceeded the more stringent NC 2L standard (MW-8 barium = 810llglL).

o Chromium - The remediation goal for chromium is 50 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 10 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, the maximum concentration of chromium that was detected in any well was 7.2 IlgiL (MW -104), which is lower than the more stringent NC 2L standard.. .

o Zinc - The remediation goal for zinc is 2,100 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 1,000 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, the maximum concentration of zinc that was detected in any well was 330 IlgiL (MW -104), which is lower than the more stringent NC 2L standard.

o Toluene - The remediation goal for toluene is 1,000 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 600 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, there were no detections oftoluene above the laboratories detection limit of 0.5 IlglL, which is lower than the more stringent NC 2L standard.

o 1 ,3-dichlorobenzene - The remediation goal for 1 ,3-dichlorobenzene is 600 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 200 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, the maximum concentration of 1 ,3-dichlorobenzene that was detected in any well was 3.7 IlgiL (MW­9), which is lower than the more stringent NC 2L standard.

o 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene - The remediation goal for 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene is 75 IlglL; the current NC 2L standard is 6 IlgiL. During the 2009 sampling event, only two wells had concentrations of 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene that exceeded the more stringent NC 2L standard (MW6 and MW9: 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene = 13 IlglL).

In summary, of the six COCs that have current NC 2L standards that are more stringent than the remediation goals established in the ROD Amendment, only two are present in wells at concentrations higher than the more stringent standard. Barium and 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene were only detected in one well each in the most recent sampling event at concentrations that slightly exceed the NC 2L standard, but are below the federal MCL value. The maximum concentration of barium detected during the past five years has bounced from 990 IlgiL in 2006, to 580 IlgiL in 2007, to 810 IlgiL in 2009. The maximum concentration of 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene has steadily decreased during the past five years from 86 IlgiL (2006), to 35 IlgiL (2007) to 13 IlgiL (2009). It is anticipated that concentrations of 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene will continue to decline to below the current NC 2L standard.

There have been no changes in the physical conditions ofthe Site that would affect the protectiveness of the remedy. The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy are still protective of human health and the environment.

23

Firs/ Five-Year Review Carolina Tralls/onller Co.

Fayelleville. Cllmberland COllllty. NC

However, as stated above, some of the chemical-specific ARARs have changed for the COCs from the remediation goals given in the ROD and ROD Amendment but because the concentrations detected are less than the majority of the more stringent NC 2L standards, and the remainder are declining, the US EPA believes that the remediation goals are still protective.

7.3 Questioll C: Has any other illformatioll come to light that could call into question the protectiveness ofthe remedy?

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

7.4 Technical Assessment Summary

According to documents, the site inspection, and interviews, the exposure pathway to contaminated soil and groundwater has been mitigated. There are no known current exposure routes to contaminated soil or groundwater. However, the cleanup levels issued in the ROD and ROD Amendment at the time of the remedy do not meet the more stringent groundwater standards of the current NC 2L. Only two COCs have concentrations that currently exceed the more stringent NC 2L standards and those concentrations have been decreasing during this review period. EPA believes the concentrations will continue to decrease, and therefore believes the new standards do not indicate that the present standards are not protective.

8.0 Issues

The NC 2L groundwater standards were revised in January 2010. This resulted in more stringent standards for six COCs than the remediation goals that were set in the 2005 ROD Amendment. Groundwater concentrations for two of these six COCs exceed the more stringent N C 2L standards.

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Table 6 lists the Recommendations and Follow-up Actions for the Carolina Transformer Site.

24

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transforolet" Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland County. NC

. Table 6 R ecommenda Ions an dF0 U. t" ow-up At"c IOns Affects

Issues Reconmlendationsl Follow-up Actions

Party Responsible

Oversight Agency

Milestone Date

Protectiveness? (YIN)

Current Future

The NC 2L groundwater Determine if the EPA & State EPA & State July 1, 2015 N Y standards were revised groundwater in January 20 I O. This remediation goals need resulted in more to be modified during stringent standards for the next FYR or prior six COCs than the to declaring the remediation goals that remedial action were set in the 2005 complete. ROD Amendment. Groundwater concentrations for two of these six COCs exceed the more stringent NC 2L standards.

10.0 Protectiveness Statement

The remedies at the Carolina Transformer Site are currently protective of human health and the environment because soil contamination was remediated through source removal, and natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination is being actively monitored. The plume

. boundaries are defined and the plume is not migrating as indicated by the arumal groundwater data. Currently, no human exposure pathways exist to contaminated soil or groundwater.

Institutional controls are part of the remedy as a contingency remedial action as written in the ROD Amendment. The ROD Amendment states, "a contingency component has been added to this alternative. As part ofthe five-year review, the need to implement ICs at the Site "will be evaluated." Monitored natural attenuation has been ongoing for five years with the anticipated length to reach remedial goals being I 0 years. rcs are not necessary at this time and should be revisited at the next five-year review, the tenth and anticipated final year of the MNA remedial action.

11.0 Next Review

The next Five-Year Review for the Carolina Transformer Site is required to be completed within five years from the US EPA Region 4 Superfund Division Director's (or his designee) signature/approval date of this First Five-Year Review.

25

First Five-Year Reviell' Caro/illa Transjol7ller Co.

Fayetteville. Cumberland COllllly. Ne

ATTACHMENT 1 List ofDocuments Reviewed

Firs/ Five-l'ear Review Carolina Tral/sfonller Co.

Fayetteville, Cumber/alld COl/I//y, NC

List of Documents Reviewed Carolina Transformer Co. Site First Five-Year Review Report

Roy F. Weston for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. October 1998. Remedial Design Data Collection Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 29,1991. ROD, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, NOlth Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. April 2004. Final Soil/SedimentlDeblis/Structlll'e Remedial ActIon Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Roy F. Weston for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 2006. Interim Remedial Action Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. July 22, 2005. ROD Amendment, CaroUna Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 8,2005. Preliminary Close-Out Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina. .

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. October 2006. Sampling Investigation RepOlt, Carolina Transformer Co. She, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. July 2007. Sampling Investigation Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. August 2009. Sampling Investigation Report, Carolina Transformer Co. Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

First Five-Year Review Carolino Trans/orlller Co.

FayetteVille, Cumberlal1d COlll1ly, NC

ATTACHMENT 2 Site Inspection Checklist

Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long­Tern) Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since these sites are not considered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund program.

(Working document for site inspection. Information may be completed by hand and attached to the Five-Year Review report as supporting documentation of site status. "N/A" refers to "not applicable.")

I. SITE INFORMATION

Site name: Carolina Transformer Date of inspection: February 22, 2010

Location and Region: Fayettevile, NC/Reg IV EPA 10: NCJl){){)3188844

Agency, office, or company leading the five-year review: NCDENR

Weather/temperature: 600 Mostly cloudy

Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply) r Landfill cover/containment X Monitored natural attenuation r Access controls r Groundwater containment r Institutional controls r Vertical barrier walls r Groundwater pump and treatment r Surface water collection and treatment r Other_________~___________________

Attachments: r Inspection team roster attached r Site map attached

II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)

I. O&M site manager ____--:-::__ Name Title Date

Interviewed r at site r at office r by phone Phone no. ______ Problems, suggestions; r Report attached ____________________

2. O&M staff ____________ Name Title Date

Interviewed r at site r at office r by phone Phone no. ______ Problems, suggestions; r Report attached ____________________

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, etc.) Fill in all that apply.

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached

Agency , Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached

Agency Contact

Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestions; r Report attached

4. Other interviews (optional) r Report attached.

,-------------------------------------------------------------------,

HI. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)

I. O&M Documents r O&M manual r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r As-built drawings r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Maintenance logs r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks No on-site documentation available. All O&M documents in office

2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Contingency plan/emergency response plan r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks In office

3. O&M and OSHA Training Records r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks In office

4. Permits and Service Agreements r Air discharge permit r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Eft1uent discharge r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Waste disposal, POTW r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Other permits r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks

5. Gas Generation Records r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks

6. Settlement Monument Records r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks

7. Groundwater Monitoring Records r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks In office

8. Leachate Extraction Records r Readily available r Up to date r N/A Remarks

9. Discharge Compliance Records r Air r Readily available r Up to date rN/A r Water (effluent) r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks

10. Daily Access/Security Logs r Readily available r Up to date rN/A Remarks

IV. O&M COSTS

I. O&M Organization r State in-house r Contractor for State r PRP in-house r Contractor for PRP r Federal Facility in-house r Contractor for Federal Facility r Other

2. O&M Cost Records r Readily available r Up to date r Funding mechanism/agreement in place Original O&M cost estimate r Breakdown attached

Total annual cost by year for review period if available

From· To r Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To r Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To r Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To r Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost

From To r 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 X Applicable rN/A

A. Fencing

I. Fencing damaged r Location shown on site map r Gates secured r N/A Remarks One section of fencing damaged. EPA is scheduling to have fence reQaired. -

B. Other Access Restrictions

1. Signs and other security measures r Location shown on site map r N/A Remarks

C. Institutional Controls (ICs)

I. Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply lCs not properly implemented Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced

rYes rYes

rNo rNo

XN/A X 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 Reports are verified by the lead agency

rYes rYes

r No rNo

rN/A rN/A

Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met Violations have been reported Other problems or suggestions: r Report attached

rYes rYes

rNo rNo

rN/A rN/A

2. Adequacy r ICs are adequate r ICs are inadequate XN/A Remarks

D. General

I. Vandalism/trespassing r Location shown on site map r. No vandalism evident Remarks

2. Land use changes on site r N/A Remarks

3. Land use changes off site r N/ A Remarks

{

VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS

A. Roads r Applicable X N/A

I. Roads damaged r Location shown on site map r Roads adequater N/A Remarks

B. Other Site Conditions

Remarks

A. Landfill Surface

VII. LANDFILL COVERS r Applicable X N/A

l. Settlement (Low spots) r Location shown on site map r Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth

Remarks

2. Cracks r Location shown on site map r Cracking not evident Lengths Widths Depths

Remarks

3. Erosion r Location shown on site map r Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth' Remarks

4. Holes r Location shown on site map r Holes not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks

5. Vegetative Cover r Grass r Cover properly established r No signs of stress r Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and locations on a diagram) Remarks

6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) r N/A Remarks

7. Bulges r Location shown on site map r Bulges not evident Areal extent Height Remarks

8. Wet AreasiWater Damage r Wet areas/water damage not evident r Wet areas r Location shown on site map Areal extent r Ponding r Location shown on site map Areal extent r Seeps r Location shown on site map Areal extent r Soft subgrade r Location shown on site map Areal extent Remarks

9. Slope Instability r Slides r Location shown on site map r No evidence of slope instability Areal extent Remarks

B. Benches r Applicable rN/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to intenupt 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 r Location shown on site map r N/A or okay Remarks

2. Bench Breached r Location shown on site map r N/A or okay Remarks

3. Bench Overtopped r Location shown on site map r N/A or okay Remarks

C. Letdown Channels r Applicable rN/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 r Location shown on site map r No evidence of settlement Areal extent Depth Remarks

2. Material Degradation r Location shown on site map r No evidence of degradation Material type Areal extent Remarks

3. Erosion r Location' shown on site map r No evidence of erosion Areal extent Depth Remarks

4. Undercutting r Location shown on site map r No evidence of undercutting Areal extent Depth Remarks

5. Obstructions Type r No obstructions r Location shown on site map Areal extent Size Remarks

6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type r No evidence of excessive growth r Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow r Location shown on site map Areal extent Remarks

D. Cover Penetrations r Applicable rN/A

I. Gas Vents r Activer Passive r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks

2. Gas Monitoring Probes r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks

3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area oflandfill) r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance rN/A

Remarks

4. Leachate Extraction Wells r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r Evidence of leakage at penetration r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks

5. Settlement Monuments r Located r Routinely surveyed rN/A Remarks

E. Gas Collection and Treatment r Applicable r N/A

I. Gas Treatment Facilities r Flaring r Thermal destmction r Collection for reuse r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks

2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds and Piping r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings) r Good condition r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks

F. Cover Drainage Layer r Applicable rN/A

I. Outlet Pipes Inspected r Functioning r N/A Remarks

2. Outlet Rock Inspected r Functioning r N/A Remarks

G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds r Applicable rN/A

I. Siltation Areal extent Depth rN/A r Siltation not evident Remarks

2. Erosion Areal extent Depth r Erosion not evident Remarks

3. Outlet Works r Functioning rN/A Remarks

4. Dam r Functioning r N/A Remarks

H. Retaining Walls r Applicable rN/A

1. Deformations r Location shown on site map r Deformation not evident Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement Rotational displacement Remarks

2. Degradation r Location shown on site map r Degradation not evident Remarks

I. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge r Applicable rN/A

I. Siltation Areal extent

r Location shown on· site map Depth

r Siltation not evident

Remarks

2. Vegetative Growth r Location shown on site map rN/A r Vegetation does not impede flow Areal extent Type Remarks

3. Erosion r Location shown on site map r Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks

4. Discharge Structure r Functioning rN/A Remarks

VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS r Applicable XN/A

I. Settlement r Location shown on site map r Settlement not evident Areal extent Depth Remarks

2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring r Perfomlance not monitored Frequency r Evidence of breaching Head differential Remarks

IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES xr Applicable rN/A

A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines r Applicable rN/A

I. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical r Good condition r All required wells properly operating r Needs Maintenance r NIA Remarks

2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Spare Parts and Equipment· r Readily available r Good condition r Requires upgrade r Needs to be provided Remarks

B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines r Applicable XN/A

I. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical r Good conditionr Needs Maintenance Remarks

2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Spare Parts and Equipment r Readily available r Good condition r Requires upgrade r Needs to be provided Remarks

---

C. Treatment System r Applicable rN/A

I. Treatment Train (Check components that apply) r Metals removal r OiVwater separation r Bioremediation r Air stripping r Carbon adsorbers r Filters r Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) r Others r Good condition r Needs Maintenance r Sampling ports properly marked and functional r Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date r Equipment properly identified r Quantity of groundwater treated annually r Quantity of surface water treated annually Remarks

2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) rN/A r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks

3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels rN/A r Good condition r Proper secondary containment r Needs Maintenance Remarks

4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances rN/A r Good condition r Needs Maintenance Remarks

5. Treatment BuiJding(s) rN/A r Good condition (esp. roof and doorways) r Needs repair r Chemicals and equipment properly stored Remarks

6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) r Properly secured/locked r Functioning r Routinely sampled r Good condition r All required wells located r Needs Maintenance rN/A Remarks

D. Monitoring Data

I. Monitoring Data ~ Is routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality ~

2. Monitoring data suggests: ~ Groundwater plume is etfectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining ~

L-______________________________.__ .

D. Monitored Natural Attenuation

I. Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) r Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning ~ Routinely sampled ~ Good condition ~ All required wells located ~ Needs Maintenance fN/A Remarks A few wells need to be locked. EPA is in the Qrocess of getting wells fixed.

X. OTHER REMEDIES

If there are remedies applied at the site which are 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 to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas emission, etc.) .

. GW remedx of monitored natural attenuation is effective. GW Qlume is decreasing in size. A few welIs need to be QroQerlx locked.

B. Adequacy ofO&M

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

SamQling is occurring and O&M is working fine.

C. Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems

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

None

D. Opportunities for Optimization

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

None

First Five-Year Review Carolina Transformer Co.

Fayetteville, Cumber/and COllnty, NC

ATTACHMENT 3 Complete Interviews

Community Interviews Five Year Review - 2010

Carolina Transformer Site, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is conducting the first Five-Year Review of the cleanup remedy implemented at the Carolina Transformer Site located north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 301, River Road, and Middle Road in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. The National Contingency Plan requires that remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining at the Superfund Sites above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure be reviewed every five years to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

Community Interviews were conducted (in person) with local citizens and a local business surrounding the Carolina Transformer Site. The area surrounding the site is a wooded/swamp-like area, an agricultural field and there are only a few homes in the 'area. Residents that live in this community have been there for years and were very knowledgeable about the site and the cleanup that took place. Most of the residents did not have any complaints or concerns about the site or the remedy that was implemented, and most of them do not think that they have been impacted. ,

The local business owner stated that the only concern that they have is regarding the monitoring'well that was placed on a piece of property that they own located next to the site. It is a vacant lot and a tractor is used to cut the grass and it is difficult to cut around the monitoring well and they are concerned that one day it will get damaged trying to cut around it. They also want to know how long the monitoring well would have to be in place since the site has already been cleaned up. There are no plans to sell that property at this time, but at some point they would like to sell it and is concerned that a buyer would not be interested in a piece of property with a monitoring well. They also stated that they would like to be updated more often, if possible.

One resident had a great deal of health problems whi.1e the plant was in operation, as did his wife who is now deceased. She sutTered from diabetes. They had no evidence that the health problems were related to the site, but assumed that they were related. The well water that they were consuming, at the time, was brown in color and had a horrible odor to it and left an oily brown substance in the commode. It was impossible to drank, so they carried water from his mother's house for qrinking, cooking and showering and then hooked up to city water when the opportunity came.

Another resident that lives directly across the street stated that she has only heard about the site and EPA's cleanup, and that her grandparents, who are now deceased, lived in the house that she now occupies, at the time the site was in operation.

All the residents mentioned that they would like to see the property kept manicured at all times.

During the interview, citizens were notified that a final report, of the Five-Year Review, will be placed in the information repository for the site. The repository is held at the Cumberland County Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Interviews conducted by: Angela R. Miller, US EPA Public Affairs Specialist miller .angela@epa.gov

First Five-Year Reviel<' Carolina Transfomler Co,

Fayetteville. Cumberland Coull/y. NC

ATTACHMENT 4 Public Notice

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Announces a Five-Year Review for the Carolina Transformer

Superfund Site, Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a Five­Year Review of the remedy for the Carolina Transformer Superfund Site in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. The purpose of the Five-Year Review is to ensure that the selected cleanup actions continue to effectively protect human health and the environment.

The Carolina Transformer Site is approximately one mile northeast of the city, north of the intersection of U.S. Highway 301, River Road, and Middle River Road. The former Carolina Transformer Company (CTC) property consists of approximately 4.8 acres of relatively flat terrain and is bounded on the north by a wooded/swamp-like area, an agricultural field, and several homes. According to Site records, the CTC began recycling electrical transformers and capacitors in 1967 and operated until 1982. During this time period, CTC handled and stored at the Site large numbers of electrical transformers that contained Polychlorinated Byphenols (PCBs) oil. During the operations, while managing this electrical transformer business, the Site became contaminated with PCBs and other contaminants. The Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1987.

The selected remedy for the Site as described in the 1991 Record of Decision (ROD) included a soil and a groundwater component. The soil component of the remedy required excavation of contaminated soil and treatment using a solvent extraction system. A ROD Amendment was signed in 2005 to change the groundwater remedy from pump and treat to monitored natural attenuation, based on data that had been collected. The soil remedial action began in Apri11999, and was completed in October 2003. Groundwater monitoring continues in accordance with the ROD.

The National Contingency Plan requires remedial actions that result in any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remaining at the Superfund Sites above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure be reviewed every five years to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.

Site information is also available at the information repository, located at the Cumberland County Library, 300 Maiden Lane, Fayetteville, North Carolina, and online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/superrods/.

For further information please contact: Angela Miller, EPA Community Involvement Coordinator at (800) 435-9233,

directly (404) 562-8561 or via email miller.angela@epa.gov.

First Five-Year Review Carolina Trans/ormer Co.

Fayetteville, Cumber/alld Coullly, NC

ATTACHMENT 5 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results 2006, 2007, and 2009

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review Analytical Summary 2006-2009

bis-COC: benzene chlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene (2ethylhexyl)phthalate barium manganese

I c.;oncentratlon I c.;oncentratlon c.;oncentratlon c.;oncentratlon I c.;oncentrallOn I c.;oncentrallOn Well Year (ppb) RG 2L (ppb) RG 2L (ppb) RG 2L (ppb) RG 2L (ppb) RG 2L (ppb)

MW-1 2006 nd 1 1 1.8 50 50 1.4 75 6 nd 3 3 140 2000 700 200 2007 nd 1 1 0.61 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 110 2000 700 210 2009 nd 1 1 0.54 50 50 0.37 75 6 nd 3 3 140 2000 700 270

MW-2 2006 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 280 2000 700 190 2007 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 170 2000 700 280 2009 nd 1 1 2.7 50 50 0.25 75 6 nd 3 3 190 2000 700 400

MW-3 2006 nd 1 1 24 50 50 14 75 6 nd 3 3 42 2000 700 180 2007 nd 1 1 5 50 50 4.5 75 6 nd 3 3 30 2000 700 120 2009 nd 1 1 0.43J 50 50 1 75 6 nd 3 3 33 2000 700 170

MW-5 2006 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 50 2000 700 20 2007 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 48 2000 700 9.7 2009 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 25 2000 700 8.1

MW-6 2006 2.7 1 1 170 50 50 • 75 6 nd 3 3 730 2000 700 680 2007 3.2 1 1 170 50 50 34 75 6 nd 3 3 470 2000 700 520 2009 0.25 . 1 1 27 50 50 13 75 6 nd 3 3 460 2000 700 460

MW-7 2006 0.8 1 1 0.55 50 50 0.64 75 6 nd 3 3 190 2000 700 440 2007 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 170 2000 700 480 2009 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 9.1 3 3 180 2000 700 420

MW-8 2006 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 990 2000 700 2000 2007 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 580 2000 700 1900 2009 nd 1 1 0.23 50 50 0.48 75 6 nd 3 3 810 2000 700 2500

MW-9 2006 37 1 1 30 50 50 15 75 6 nd 3 3 220 2000 700 1800 2007 44 1 1 170 50 50 35 75 6 nd 3 3 21 0 2000 700 1300 2009 4.5 1 1 50 50 50 13 75 6 nd 3 3 210 2000 700 2400

MW-101 2006 17 1 1 180 50 50 32 75 6 nd 3 3 100 2000 700 790 2007 22 1 1 530 50 50 17 75 6 nd 3 3 120 2000 700 1100 2009 1.3 1 1 13 50 50 4.4 75 6 nd 3 3 87 2000 700 710

MW-1 02 2006 41 1 1 350 50 50 70 75 6 nd 3 3 99 2000 700 350 2007 16 1 1 95 50 50 14 75 6 nd 3 3 88 2000 700 350 2009 0.13 1 1 4.7 50 50 3.5 75 6 nd 3 3 69 2000 700 250

MW-1 04 2006 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 28 2000 700 27 2007 nd 1 1 0.66 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 26 2000 700 21 2009 nd 1 1 nd 50 50 nd 75 6 nd 3 3 61 2000 700 57

Notes:

Table only includes Contaminants of Concern that have had concentrations which exceed the Remediation Goal or current North Carolina groundwater standard (NC 2L) during 2006-2009

COC = Contaminant of Concern

RG = Remediation Goal from 2005 ROD Amendment

2L = North Carolina 2L groundwater standard as of January 2010

ppb = parts per billion or uglL

nd = not detected above laboratory detection limit _ Re'-"" Ga.I

Concentration exceeds current NC 2L groundwater standard but is less than the Remediation Goal

RG 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

2L 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Benzene concentrations in wells with at least one exceedance of the Remediation Goal

25 .----------------------------------------------------------------------,

20+-------

i 15 +----------_____ --..,1--_

S c: o .. ~ -c: CI) u g 10 (J

5

o +-----------------------~~----------------------~--------~~------------4 2006 2007 2009

Year

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review

Remediation Goal

------ MW-6 MW-9

)( MW-101 ____ MW-102

Chlorobenzene concentrations in wells with at least one exceedance of the Remediation Goal

600 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------,

500

400

~ Q.

S Remediation Goal c:: ___ MW-6 0 .. 300 MW-9 III ... -c:: Q)

)( MW-101 (,)

lIE MW-102 c:: 0 u

200

100

O +-----------------------~----------------------_r----------~----------~ 2006 2007 2009

Year

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review

100

90

80

70

15' Q. 60 E: c:: 0 :;:;

50 cu ... -c::-eI) CJ c:: 40 0 0

30

20

10

0

1,4-dichlorobenzene concentrations in wells with at least one exceedance of the current NC 2L standard

---

~--.~---

2006 2007

Year

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review

2009

Remediation Goal I Current 2L

MW-3

)( MW-6

---'iIE- MW-9

• MW-101

-~MW-102

Barium concentrations in wells with at least one exceedance of the current NC 2L standard

2500 ~------------------------------------------------------------------~

2000 +-~~~~---------------------------------------------------------4

i 1500 +---------------------------------------------------------------------~ S c: o ; co ... -c: CD u S 1000 u

500

O +---------------------~----------------------,---------------------~ 2006 2007 2009

Year

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review

Remediation Goal I I~ Current 2L

MW-6

)( MW-8

Manganese concentrations in wells with at least one exceedance of the Remediation Goal

3000 ~------------------------------------------------------------------~

2500 +-----------------------------------------------------~*_--------~

Remediation Goal 2000 ~MW-1

:c- MW-2 o. 0. - ~MW-3 c::: 0 ~MW-6

+= 1500 "' ... • MW-7 -c::: II) I MW-8 u c::: MW-9 0

(.J - MW-101 1000 MW-102

MW-104

500 : I I

~ : )(

0 2006 2007 2009

Year

Carolina Transformer 2010 Five-Year Review

2006 Annual Groundwater Sampling Report

.J'

·4SESD-EIB

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4, SCIENCE and ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT DIVISION

ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605-2720

IOCT 1 2 2006

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Carolina Transformer Company EPA ID NC003188844

FROM: Dan Thoman, Regional Expert Air and Superfund Secti

THRU: Danny France, Chief Superfund and Air Section

TO: Luis Flores, RPM Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Branch Waste Management Division -

Anached is the report for the Carolina TransfOlmer Company site located in Fayetteville,

North Carolina. The sampling investigation was conducted the week of August 7, 2006. An . .

e!ectronic copy of the report and data sheets has been sent via email. If yOLJ have any questions,

please call me at (706) 355-8621.

Attachment·

I 1~f;~~ilmIIll1mmlf:tm;/lH~1 . l. ________ ._~ __________ ~ __ . ___ . ______________ 10_6_8_5_2_9_3 ___ _

INTRODUCTION

Field Investigation Report Carolina Transformer Company

Fayetteville, North Carolina SESD Project Numbers 06-0675

A remedial site invesriglltion was conducted atlhe Carolina Transfonner Company Site in Fayetteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina. The site investigation was conduc~ed the week of August 7., 2006.

The Carolina Tntnsfonner Company was an electrical transfonner rebuilding and repair operation from 1967 - 1982. The facility was a PCB storage and disposal site for owners of PCB transformers and/or accessories to the transfonners. An emergency removal action was conducted in August 1984. Remedial activities began in November 1999 and ended in September 2003. As part of the remedial action, all site structures were demolished. All debris, transfonners, underground storage tanks, and drums were removed from the site. In addition, more than 35,000 cubic yards of soil was excavated and either treated on site using a solvent extraction process or disposed off-site.

METHODOLOGY

All samples will be collected as specified in the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Environmental Investigations Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Assurance Manual, November, 2001.

All Samples will be analyzed as specified in the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Analytical SUppOlt Brunch . Operations :md Quality Control Manual, January, 2003, or as specified in the CLP.

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Twelve samples were collected from II existing monitor wells on and around the site. Tabie 1 summarizes the sample identification numbers and analyses conducted. Monitor ~ell 004 could not be located. Samples were analyzed for volatile organic compounds (YOCs), semi­volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides/PCBs and metals. The analytical results are presented in Tables 2 through 5, respectively. All the wells were purged using a peristaltic pump with cleaned silastic tubing and Teflon® tubing. The metals samples were collected from the pump discharge. The YOCs, SYOCs and pesticides/PCBs were collected using a vacuum jug assembly. The field measured parameters of pH, speci fic conductance, turbidity and rem perature are presented in Table 6. The Carolina Transfonner ground water Constituents of Concern (COC) and Remediation Goals arc presented in Table 7.

In addition to the environmental samples, quality control samples were collected. A VOC trip blank (Table 8), split samples, and a nitric acid preservative blank (Table 9) were collected during the sampling event. Water samples for metals analyses were preserved in the field with nitric acid. A preservative blarik was collected to evaluate the nitric acid used during the investigation.

Analytical Data Sheets for all analyses, including applicable detection limits, are presented in Appendix A.

ANALYTICAL RF"sVLTSfDlSCUSSION

VOC data are summarized in Table 2. Samples from wells 6GW, 9GW, lOlGW and 102 GW contained one or more Contaminants of Concern (COC) at or above the site Remedial Goals. The QA split sample, CTOOSDGW, was in close agreement with sample CT008GW. _

. YOCs were not detected in the trip blank which indicated that samples were not contaminated in the field.

SV OCslPesticideslPCBs

Semi-volatile organic compound data are summarized in Table 3. The levels detected were below the site Remedial Goals. Pesticides were detected in several samples at concentrations less than 0.1 ugll. PCBs were not detected in any of the samples (Table 4). The QA split sample, CT008DGW, was in close agreement with sample CT008GW.

Metals

A variety of metals was detected in all of the samples. The data are summarized ill Table 5. The concentration of manganese exceeded the COC remedial' goal in samples from nine of the eleven monitor wells. All other coe detected were below the site Remedial Gonls. Mercury and chromium were not detected.

Metals were not detected in the preservative blank which indicated that the nitric acid used.was not contaminated during Ihe investigation. The QA split sample ,CT008DGW, was in close agreement with sample CT008GW.

FieJd Parameters

The field measured parameters of pH, specific conductance, turbidity and temperature are presented in Table 6.

--- ----.. -------------

Sample lD

CTOO1GW-

CTOO2W

CTOO3GW

CTOO4GW

CTOO5GW

CTOO6GW

CTOO7GW

CTOO8GW CTOO8DGW

CTOO9GW

CTI01GW

CTI02GW

CT104GW

Sample ID

CT099GW

CTPBOI

CTTBOI

Table 1 Sampling Locations

Carol inn Transformer Company Fayetteville, N0I1h Carolina

Location

Monitoring well 1

Monitoring well 2

Monitoring well 3

Moniloring well 4

Monitoring well 5

Monitoring well 6

Monitoring well 7

Monitoring well 8 8D is a QC split sample of well 8

Monitoring well 9

Monitoring well 10 I

Monitoring well 102

Monitoring well 104

QAlQC Sampl~

Blind Blank

Nitric Acid Preservative Blank

VOC Water Tri'p Blank

Parameters .

YOC, SYOCs/Pest, Metals

YOC, SVOCs/Pest, Metals

YOC, SVOCs/Pest, Metals

We!! not located

YQC, SYOCs/Pest, Metals

YOC. SVOCslPest, Metals

VOC, SVOCs/Pest, Metals

YOC, SVOCs/Pest. Metals YOC. SVOCs/Pest, Metals

YOc. SVOCs/Pest. Metals

VOC~ SYOCs/Pest, Metals

VOC, SYOCsfPest, Metals

,YOC, SVOCsfPest, Metals

Parameters

Metals

Metals

YOCs

1 ,3-Di ch lorobenzene

1 ,4~Dichlorobenzene

Benzene

Chlorobenzene

Methyl T-Butyl Ether (MTBE)

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

1 A-Dichlorobenzene

Acetone

Benzene

Chlorobenzene

ci 8-J ,2-Dichloroethene

NS - Not speci fled ..

Table 2 Analytical Data Summary - Volatile Organic Compounds (ugJI)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, NOlth Carolina

cac Remedial CTOOIGW CT002GW CT003GW Goal

'08/08/2006 0810812006 08/08/2006

600 U U 3.8 J

75 1.4 J U 14

I U U U

50 1.8 J U 24

NS 4.2 J U U

cae Remedial CT007GW· CTOOSDGW CT008GW Goal

08/08/2006 08/07/2006 08/07/2006

600 U U U

75 0.64 J U U

NS 30 U U

1 0.80 J U U

50 0.55 J U U

NS U U U

CT005GW CT006GW

08/0812006 08/08/2006

U 10

U 86

U 2.7 J

U 170

U U

CT009GW CTIOIGW

08/07/2006 08/08/2006

2.3 J 5.4

15 32

U . U

3.7 J 1.7 J

30 .180

0.80 J U

Table 2 An.dytical Data Summary - Volatile Organic Compounds (ugll)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville. North Carolina

cac Remedial CTl02GW Goal (ug/l)

08/08/2006

1 ,3-Dich lorobenzene 600 9.2

l,4-Dichlorobenzene 75 70

Benzene 1 4.1

Chiorooenzene 50 350

Data Qualifiers

U-Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. J-Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate. UJ-Analyte not detected at or above repOt1ing limil. Reporting limit is an estimate.

---- ...... _ ..... -_ .. __ ..

CTl04GW

08/08/2006

U

U

J U ,

U

2,4~Dichlorophenol

2-Chlorophenol

9-0CTADECENAMIDE, (Z)-

BENZOIC ACID

ERUCYLAMIDE

PARACHLOROPHENOL .

UNKNOWN AROMATIC

UNKNOWN OXYHYDRO CARBON(3 ISOMERS)

Table 3 Analytical Data Summary - Extractable Organic Compounds (ugll)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, North Carolina

COC CTOOIGW CT002GW CTOO3GW Remedial Goal (ug/l) 0810812006 08/0812006 08/0812006

NS 'u U U

NS U U U

NS 2.1 NJ NR NR

NS NR NR NR

NS 4.5 NJ NR NR

NS NR NR NR

NS NR 2.7 NJ NR

NS NR NR NR

HYDROCARBON UNSATURATED NS NR NR NR

coe Remedial CT007GW CT008DGW CT008GW Gonl (ug/I)

08/08/2006 08/0712006 08/0712006

2-Chlorophenol NS U U U

NS - not specified

CT005GW CT006GW

OS/08/~006 OS/0812006

U 0.71 J

U \.2 J

NR NR

NR 2.2 NJ

NR NR

NR 2.4 NJ

NR NR

NR 13 NJ

2.1 NJ NR

CTOO9GW CTIOlGW

08/07/2006 08/08/2006

U 0.54 J

Table 3 Analytical Data Summary - Extractable Organic Compounds (uglJ)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, North Carolina

COC Remedial Goal (ugll)

2-Chlorophenol NS

PARACHLOROPHENOL NS

UNKNOWN ALCOHOL NS

Data Qualifiers

NS - not specified U-Analyte not detected at or above reponing limit. J-Iden(ification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate. UJ-Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. Reporting limit is an estimate. N-Presumptive evidence analyte is present; analyLe reported as tentative identification.

CTl02GW

08/08/2006

1.3 J

2.2 NJ

3.7 NJ

CTl04GW

08/08/2006

NJ-Presumptive evidence analyte is present; analyte reported as tentative identification. Reported value is an estimate: NR-Not Reported

U

NR

NR

Endosulfan IT (beta)

Endrin Aldehyde

Heptachlor Epoxide

Methoxychlor

4,4'.~DDT (p,p'-DDT)

Dieldrin

Endosulfan I (alpha)

Endtin

gamma-BHC (Lindane)

gamma-Ch lordane 12

Heptachlor

Heptachlor Epoxide

Table 4 Analytical Data Summary - Pesticides and PCBs (ugll)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, NOl1h Carolina

cac Remedial CTOOIGW CT002GW CT003GW Goal (ugll)

08/0812006 08/08/2006 08/08/2006

NS VJ VJ UJ

NS VJ UJ VJ

NS UJ UJ VJ

NS UJ UJ UJ

cac CTOO7GW CTOOSDGW 'CTOO8GW Remedial GOlll (ug/l) 08/08/2006 08/07/2006 08/07/2006

NS 0.040 NJ UJ UJ

NS VJ UJ UJ

NS UJ UJ UJ

NS UJ UJ 0.040 NJ

NS UJ VJ VJ

NS 0.01l J VJ vr NS VJ VJ VJ

NS UJ VJ VJ

CT005GW CT006GW

08/0812006 08/08/2006

UJ 0.023 J

UJ 0.050 NJ

UJ 0.016 NJ

UJ 0.056 NJ

CTOO9GW CTIOIGW

08/07/2006 08/08/2006

UJ UJ

0.039 NJ UJ

UJ 0.011 NJ

VJ UJ

0.010 J UJ

VJ 0.031 J

0.015 J UJ

VJ 0.015 J

Table 4 Analytical Dam Summary - Pesticides and PCBs (ug/I)

Carolinu Transformer Fayettevi lie, N0l1h Carol i nn

cac Remedial Goal (ugll)

4,4'-DDE (p,p:-DDE) NS

Aldrin NS

alpha-Chlordane /2 NS

Endosulfan I (alpha) NS

Endrin Aldehyde NS

Heptachlor Epoxide NS

Data Qualifiers

U-Analyte not detected at or abQve reporting limit. J-Identification of analyte is acceptuble; reponed value is an estimate. UJ-Analyte not detected aror above reponing limit. Reporting limit is an estimate. N-Presumptive evidence annlyte is present; analyte reported as tentative identificution.

CTI02GW

08/08/2006

0.0057

0.036

0.013

0.071

0.010

CTI04GW

08/0812006

UJ 0.014

NJ

J

J

J

NJ

NJ-Presumptive evidence anulyte is present; analyte reported as tentative identification. Reported vulue is an estimate. NR-Not Reported

--------=----------------

J

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

UJ

COC Remedial Goal'(ugfl)

Aluminum NS

Arsenic NS

B ali um 1000

Calcium NS

Cobalt NS

Copper 1300

'Iron NS

Magnesium NS

Manganese 50

Nickel 100

Potassium NS

Sodium NS

Vanadium 615

NS - not specified

Table 5 Analytical Data Summary ~ Metals (ugll)

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, North Carolina

CTOOIGW CT0020W CT003GW

UO/L UOIL VOIL

150 J 2500 350

U U

140 J, 280 42

4300 J 13000 1900

2.0 J UJ

U 5.0 J

6300 5300 22000

2900 J 5900.' 1600

200 190 180

1.8 R 4.5 J 1.3

2000 J 5700 1400

7200 9600 3400

3.1 J 6.6 J 7.3

crOO5GW CTOO6GW

UOIL UOIL

54 J 140 J

U U 6.3 R

J 50 J 730

J 5200 11000

UJ UJ 4.8 J '

U U U

76 J 35000

J 2800 J 13000 ~,

20 680

R 3.0 R 5.7 J

J 5400 7600

J 5500 34000

J U 3.7 J

Aluminum

Arsenic

Barium

Beryllium

Calcium

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Nickel

Potassium

Sodium

Vanadium

Zinc

NS - not specified

.. Table 5 Analytical Data Summary - Metals (ugll)

Carolina Transf01mer Fayetteville,North Carolina

COC Remedial CT007GW CTOO8DGW Goal (ugll)

UOIL UOIL

NS 31 J 950

NS U 5.9 R

2000 190 J 970

NS 0.07 J UJ

NS 19000 34000

NS UJ i.2 J

NS 22000 42000

NS 6300 12000

50 440 2000

100 0.91 R 1.3 J

NS 4100 J 6200

NS 13000 14000

615 2.2 J 4.2 J

2100 UJ UJ

CT008GW CT009GW

UOIL UOIL

1000 160 J

5.7 J U

990 220

UJ UJ

34000 32000

UJ UJ

43000 40000

12000 9900

2000 1800

1.4 R U

6300 6400

15000 19000

4.7 J 1.6 J

UJ UJ

Aluminum

Barium

Calcium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Nickel

Potassium

Sodium

Vanadium ..

NS. - not specIfIed

Data Qualifiers

Table 5 Analytical Data Summary - Metals (ug/I)

Carolina TransfolTTler Fayetteville, Nonh Carolina

COC 'CT101GW Remedial Goal (ugll) UGIL

NS 76 J

2000 100 J

NS 16000

NS UJ

1000 U

NS 12000

15 U

NS 3500 J

50 790

100 1.4 R

NS 5400

NS 17000

615 3.0 J

U-Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. I-Identification of analyte is acceptable: reported value is an estimate.

CTL02GW CT!04GW

UGIL UOIL

llOO' 1900

99 J 28 J

12000 5100

1.2 J UJ

2.9 J 4.0 J ..

12000 2800

5.4 J U

3400 J 820 J

350 27

1.5 R 1.2 R

5·100 HOO J

15000 930 J

4.5 J 5.5 J

UJ-Annlyte not detected at 'or above reporting limit. RepOIting limit is nn estimate. R-Presence or absence of analyte can not be determined from data due to severe quality control problems. Data ure rejected and considered unusable.

Sample ID

CTOOIGW

CTOO2W

CTOO3GW

CTOO5GW

CTOO6GW

CTOO7GW

CTOO8GW

CTOO8DGW

CTOO9GW

CTlOIG\V

CTI02GW

CTlO4GW

pH (SU)

5.97

5.84

5.91

5.32

6.23

6.15

6.19

Table 6 Analytical Data Summary - Field Parameters

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, North Carolina

Specific Conductance Turbidity (muhos/cm) (NTU

107.1 8.12

182.8 130

109.1 12.6

lO8 1.35

490 17.5

286 10.1 .

468 36.6

Duplicate of CTOO8GW

6.20 463 6.66

6.00 262 2.52

5.86 226 lOA

5.85 54 21.6

Temperature (oe)

23.0

23.2

20.7

23.9

23.1

22.6

21.4

22.2

22.9

23.3

24.3

Table 7 Carolina Transfonner

Fayetteville, North Carolina Groundwater Constituents of Concern and Remedial Goals . .

CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN REMEDIAL GOALS (UG/L)

BARIUM 2,000 CHROMIUM 50 COPPER l,OOO LEAD 15 MANGANESE 50 MERCURY 1 NICKEL 100 VANADIUM 615 ZINC 2,100 PCB-1260 0.5 BlS(2-EfflYLflEX)PHTHALEATE 3 l,2,4-TRICHOLOBENZENE 70 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 170 TOLUENE 1,000 CARBON DISULFIDE 55 BENZENE .1 CHLOROBENZEN£ 50 i ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE 600 1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZEN E 75

Table 8 Analytical Data Summary - Trip Blank, Volatile Organic Compounds

Carolina Transformer Fayetteville, North Carolina

CITBOI

08/08/2006

1,1,2.2-Tetmchloroelhane UOIL

1"l,2-Trichloroethane UOIL

l.l-Dichlorocthane UOIL

l,l-Dichloroethene (I,I-Dichloroelhylene) UOIL

1.2-Dichlorobenzene UOIL

1,2-Dichloroethane UOIL

1.2-Dichloropropane V OIL

lA-Dichlorobenzene UOIL

Acetone UOIL

Benzene UO/L

Bromoform UO/L

Carbon Tetrachloride UOIL ,

Chloroethane VOIL

Chloroform UOIL

Chloromethane UOIL

ETHAN:E, I, 1.1.2-TETRACHLORO- UO/L

Methyl Butyl Ketone UGIL

Methyl Ethyl Ketone V GIL

Methyl Isobutyl Ketone VO/L

Methylene Chloride UGIL

o-Xylene VOIL

Styrene UOIL

Tetrachloroethene (Tetrachloroethylene) VGIL

Trichloroethene (Trichloroethylene) UGIL

Data Qualifiers U-Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. l-Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is al) estimate. NJ-Presumptive eviden~e analyte is present. Reported value is an estimate. NR-Not RepOIted

U

U

V

U

U

U

V

V

U

U

U

U

V

U

U

NR

U

V

VJ

V

V

U

U

V

I.

Aluminum

Antimony

Barium

Beryllium

Cadmium

Calcium

Chromium

Cobalt

Copper

Iron

Lead

Magnesium

Manganese

Nickel

Po(assium

Selenium

Silver

Sodium

Zinc

Data Qu~difiers

Table 9 Analytical Data Summary - Metals Preservative Blank

Carolina Transfon11er Fayetteville, North Carolina

CTPBOI

08/0812006

UGIL

UG/L

UGIL

UGIL

vaIL

vaIL

UGIL

UGIL

VGIL

UGIL

UG/L

UGIL

UGIL

UG/L

UGIL

VG/L

UGIL

UG/L

VG/L

U-Analyte not detected at or ubove rep011ing limit. J-Identification of analyte is acceptable; reported value is an estimate. VJ-Analyte not detected at or above reporting limit. Reporting limit is an es~imate.

L ___ .. _._._ .. ____ .~

U

U

U

U

UR

UJ

U

UJ

U

U

U

U

U

U

UJ

V

U

U

.oj

2007 Annual Groundwater Sampling Report

v",,~r} ~r~.I(;j>

~; Ita {, ~ ~ W UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ~ D"

'1'-f( Pr;o,-.,c,'-' REGION 4

4SESD-ElB

ME,i\'lORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FR01\l:

THRU:

TO:

'Science and Ecosystem Support Division 980 College Station Road

Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

July 13,2007

Carolina Transformer Site EPA ID NC003188844 Fayetteville, CLUnberland County, North Carolina SESD Project Number 07-0453

" Linda George, Life Scientist~ ~ )", , ,

Air and SllPcrfllndsec~~ , , '

DaImy France, Chief ~ A.I.. /~l1f ./" Air and Superfund Section '."»J'NV~fyf'-' '

Luis Flores, RPM Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluati nBraneh Waste Manageme.nt Division

Attached is the report tor the Carolina Tnmsfol'lller Site located in . . ..

Fayetteville, North Carolina. The sampling investigation was conducted the week of

May 14,2007. An electronic copy of the report and data sheets have been sent via

E-maiL If you have any questions, please call at (706) 355-8718.

Attachment

Project: Carolina Transformer Site Field Investigation Report SESD Project Number': 07-0453

Project Leader:

Linda George, Air and Superfund Section

Signature o 3-1131 0 7 Dale . . .

[-

INTRODUCTION

Field Investigation Report Carolina Transformer Site

Fayetteville, North Carolina SESD Project Number 07-0453

A field investigation was conducted at the Carolina Transformer Site in Fayelteville, Cumberland County, North Carolina during the week of May 14,2007. This study supports the Amendment to the Record of Decision to monitor ground water.

The Carolina Transfomler Company was an electrical transfonner rebuilder and repair operl;ltion from 1967 - 1982. The facility was a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) storage" and disposal site for owners of PCB transfomlers and/or accessories to the transfomlers. An emergency renloval action was conducted in August 1984. Remedial activities began in November 1999 and ended in September 2003. As part of the remedial action, all site structures were demolished. All debris, transformers, underground storage tanks, and drums were removed from the site. In addition, more than 35,000 cubic yards of soil was excava~ed and either treated oil-site using a solvent extraction process or disposed off .. site.

METHODOLOGY

All samples were collected in accordance with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support" Division. Specifically, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were followed for field measurements and sample collection:

SESDPROC-O 10-RO, Field Records (logbooks), SESDPROC-IOO-RO, Field pH Measurement, SESDPROC-l 0 I -RO, Field Specific Conductance Measurement, SESDPROC-I02-RO; Field Temperahlre Measurement, SESDPROC-I 03-RO, Field Turbidity Measurement, SESDPROC-I OS-RO, Ground Water Level Measurement, SESDPROC-llO .. RO, Global Positioning System, SESDPROC-202-RO, Management of Investigative Derived Waste, SESDPROC-203-RO, Pump Opera~ioJl, SESDPROC-205-RO, Field Equipment Cleaning and Decontamination, SESDPROC .. 209-RO, Packing, Marking, Labeling, and Shipping of Environmental and

Waste Samples, and SESDPROC-30 I-RO, Ground Water Sampling.

All samples were analyzed as specified in the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division, Allozvtical Support Brallch Labora/oJ}' Operations and QlIali~1' ASSII/"(lIlCe Manllal, January 2007.

Page IoriO Carolina Tran$former Site Fayetteville. North Carolin;J Project Number 07·0453

---------------~ ~~-----

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Twelve samples were collected from II existing monitor wells on and around the site. Table I sUIlU11arizes the stations, locarions, sample identification numbers and analyses conducted. Samples were analyzed for volatile organic chemicals (VOC), semi-volatile organic chemicals (SYoq, PCBs, and metals. The analytical results for the organic chemicals are presented in Table 2 and metals are presented in Table 3. All the wells were purged using a peristaltic pump with cleaned silastic tubing and Teflon® tubing. The metals samples were collected from the pump discharge. The VOCs, SYOCs, and PCBs were collected using a vacuum jug assembly. The field-measured parameters of pH, specific conductance, turbidity, and temperature are presented in Table 4. The Carolina Transfonner Sile ground water Contaminants of Concern (Coq and Remediation Goals are presented in Table 5.

In addition to the environmental samples, quality control samples were collected. A VOC trip blank, split sample, and a nitric acid preservative blank were collected during the sampling event. Water samples for metals analyses were preserved in the field with nitric acid. A preservative blank was collected to evaluate the nitric acid used during the investigation.

Analytical data sheets for all analyses, including applicable defection limits, are presented in Appendix A.

ANALYTICAIL RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Volatile Organic Chemicals

Samples were analyzed for volatile organic chemicals. These analyses were acceptable and no holding times were exceeded.

Five volatile organic chemicals were detected. Seven of the eleven stations contained one or more of these chemicals (refer to Table 2). Four of the five chemicals that were detected are COCs. Benzene and chlorobenzene were detected in concentrations greater than the remedial goals at four stations: MW6, MW9, MWIOI, and MWI02. The other two COCs, 1,3- and I A-dichlorobenzene, were not detected in concentrations above their remedial goals.

Semi-volatile Organic Chemicals

Samples were analyzed for semi-volatile organic chemicals. All sample analyses were acceptable, but Samples I MW507, I MW507D, and 2MW507 were "J" qualified due to extraction holding times exceeded by one day. One chemical was detected, although it was not a COCo 2-chlorophenol was 2.0J IJg/l at Station MWIOI (refer to Table 2).

Page 2 of 10 Caftllina Transf,)rmcr Site Fayettevilk" North Carolina Project NUlllber 07·0453

r-..... -----,-~-----,--,-----------''------- ------_ .. __ .

Polychlorinated Bjphcnvh

Samples were analyzed for nine PCB aroclors. Although all samples were "J" /1agged bccall~e Ihe holding lime for extraction was missed by one day, no aroclors were detected in any samples (the detcct ion limits for all samples were 1.3 or 1.4 Jig/I). The remedial goal tor PCB-I 260 is 0.5 ~gll. The data sheets are provided in Appendix A.

Total Metals

All analyses for total metals were acceptable. A variety of metals was delectcd ill all of the samples. The data are sllmmarized in Table 3, and the complete data set is found ill ~Appendix A. Manganese was detected in concentrations that exceeded the remedial goal at nine of the II wells sampled. The remedial goal is 50 J.lgll, and the concentrations in these wells range from 120 to 1900 J.lgli. Manganese concentrations ai Station MW5 and MWI04 were below the remedial goal. The other COCs (i.e., barium, lead, and vanadium) had concentrations that were below their site remedial goals. The COCs, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, and zinc, were not detected in any of the samples.

Metals were not detected in the preservative blank which indicated that the nitric acid used was not contaminated during the investigation. The QA split Sample, I MWS07D, ,vas in close agreement with Sample IMW507. See Table.1 and AppendixA for -additional information. - -

ficld Parameters

The field measured parameters of pH, specific Coilductance, turbidity, and temperature arc presented in Table 4. Wells were sampled once an adequate volumcofwatcr was purged and field parameters were stabilized. _

REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Divisiol1,AJ1alylica/ Support Branch LaboratOl)' Operations and Quality Assura}1ce Manual, January ~007. h.11n:/lw\\'w.cna.gov/region4/sesd/asbsop.

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Amendment to the Record of Decision for Carolina Transformer Site, Fayetteville, North Carolina. July 2005._

Page.3 ~'f 10 Carolina Tr..lIlsforlllcr Site_ Fay~tte\"ilJc. North Carolina Project Numba 07-0-153

:.{

. ~

- - -_ .. -. __ ._---------------'------'-----------------------~

. ".' : :' ':. . ,':: ': \:' .,' ':. : .. ~ .. . ':., ~.. .' . . . .

Legend

Type of Sampling Location ~ GW· Groundwat!!r (11)

o 50 100 200 300 400 ~·~5;;~-~~-Iii~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~~i Feet

SESD Project No. 07-0453

".:' ':.: ..... .:. : ..... :

Figure 1 Sample Location Map Carolina Transformer Superfund Site Fayetteville, North Carolina

Station ID Sample ID

MWI IMWS07 MWI lMW507D MW2 2MW507 MW3 3MW507 (\,\W5 5MW507 MW6 6MW507 MW7 7MW507 MWS 8MWS07 MW9 9MW507 MWIOI 10lMW507 MWI02 102MW507 MWI04 104MWS07 R4DART# PBS07 R4DART# TB507

11) - IdelHi btion.

VOC - VOI"I;le organic chemical.

SVOC - Scmi-vol.lile org;Jnic chemical.

rCB - Poly~hloril1:ltcd biphenyl.

QC - Qualil)' conlrol.

Page 5 of I 0 Carolina Transformer Site F,ty.:tlc\'jllc. North Carolina Project Number 07-0453

Table 1 Sampling Locations

Carolina Transformer, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Sample Timt' Sample Date Location

16SS OSI I 4/2007 Monitoring well I 1705 0511412007 Qe split sample orwell I 1745 OSII4/2007 Monitoring well 2 140S 05/1S/2007 Monitoring well 3 lOSS 05/1S/2007 Monitoring well S 1020 0511S12007 Monitoring well 6 0930 05/15/2007 Monitoring well 7 124S 05/15/2007 Monitoring well 8 IllS 05/15/2007 Monitoringwell 9 0920 05115/2007 Monitoring well 101 0900 05/15/2007 Monitoring well 102 125S 05/15/2007 Monitoring well 104 1410 0511S/2007 Nitric acid preservative blank 141S 05/1S12007 . VOC trip blank

Parameters

VOC. SVOC, PCB, Metals voe, svoe, PCB. Metals voe. svoe, PCB, Metals VOC, SVOC, PCB, Metals voe, svoe. PCB, Metals voe. SVOC. PCB. Metals VOC, svoe, PCB. Metal, voe. svoe, PCB, Metals voe, SVOC. PCB. Metals VOC, SVOC, PCB. Met:lls voe, SVOC, PCB, Metals VOC, SVOC, PCB, Metals Metals VOC

Contaminant of Concern

Anah·t~ Remedial Goal Volatil~ Or!!anic Chemical 1.3-Dichlo~obe1lZene 600 lA-Dichlorobenzene 75 Bcnzen~ I Chlorobcnzene 50 Methvll-butvl ether (MTBE) NS

Semi-volatile Organic Chemical 2-Chloroph~nol

Nul~:

jJ.~"1 .. ~ .. 1icro~,:Ll"I1~ rer liter.

Q .. 9""lifio(,

NS

II • An~I:leM\ dot.cctc'\l It or ~~ve r~'i>oninslimi~

Table 2 . AnalyticaJ Data Summary· OrganicCbemicals(~gll)

Carolina Transformer, Fayette\ille, North Carolina

MWl MWI i\fWI0I MWt02 MWI04 I MW5{J7 1l\1W507D \01:\1W507 ··102M\\,507 IM!\1W50i

0511412007 05/14/2007 0511512007 (5/)512001 0511512001 Q Q Q Q Q

" " -., 2.4 (' c· ' .. ~.-

I.J) l:.O 17 14 (.'

C I.: 22 1:6 C' I.' 0.61 530 95 0.66

0.51 0,88 [' e

C .. U' i',/() 2.0 J;OI i'.J,(} C

0 .. Other qu~lil'CT; ho"e bC'l.'tl ~s;igncd PI'O\'idinl,'acciciQn31 in"'<m.on,,", Th<$" ~~1:LM\OI')' «u:llifJOI>:I1< 'ncluded in Ib~ :r,>p",;dix.

I'S .. ~ol 'iXCi1icd .

• Sh.aCit1~ indit,.iJ~o. CllnCClt~tion C>.:Cl'Ca~ th¢ RetneUial Goal.

Page 6 of 10 Caroliu:l T,,,(J1siorrnci' Site Fay~tlevilJc. North Carolin::l ProjeC1: "'umber 07-0453

1\1W3 M\V6 MW9

31\1W507 ~l\lW507 91\lWS07 05/15/2007 05/1512007 05!151200i

Q Q Q

1.3 4.7 .. to 4.5 34 35

!. 32 .:;.4 5.0 liD 170

,. ,. "

( C "

------------------------------------~-----

: .... : ..

Contllmin:lOf of Conc"m R""",dInI Gool

Ana.I;.'t(' (~2IJ)

Aluminum NS /\rsc:nic NS &trium :OO() Cillc i 11m NS iroJ'l NS

" M.:tmr.:sium r-:s M;.m~~nc..<;e SO POt..'1.~!'l~m I'S S<,dium r-;S Srrontillm NS Tit.:tniU1\1. NS V:llwdjum 615 'Yttrium '''is

CQntnrnlru,r,llt of Con('~

Remedial Goal Anulytl!' {)J1!tn

/\Iumioum. NS AZ'SI,."n:c.: :-<S B",rium 1000 C~lcium NS Coi>31: l'!S Iron 'NS

Le:lcl 15 Mav..ncsium NS M:l!'lt"::1.IlCSf.! 50 PnClsslvm NS Sodium NS Strontium NS Ticoniu.m NoS Vnnadiurn 615 Yttrium NS

Note ... ;

Q-O\.l.lohlier.

l~ • AO:ll~'(c .n ... H dC'u.'"('I~d ~ or 1Il,x,,,...: I't"p~:'dnt. tIn'u;,

'N::;. i"\"1t"r~irl\:d....

.. : ..... .

Table 3 Analytical OaTh Summary -lnoTg:1nie Chemicals (pgf1)

Carolina Tr:lnsforrncr. Fayetteville, North Cilrolina

;\1WI

I MWS07 051141:1007

-l60 (.

1I0 4200 5600 2700

21Q 1500 6300

61. 9,5 5.4

~IWS

5:'<IW507 OSIlSnOO7

(.)

"SO !.'

48 6500

(.C

,"'''0 (.'

3500 9,7

4S00 6500

44 6,9

. J}

!.:

i\-J\VJ

lr.rWS07D O$!l4/z007

400 {'

110 4200

2700 ,200 1-lZ10 6500

(\3

8.6 I:

:\lW6

00\1\'\'507 05115:;:U07

':.2 470

17000 5.3

30000 l'

9300 520

5500 :::~;ooo

170 14

B,l

'.,'

:.rWIOI IOI;l-1W!'07 05llSnOO7

Q (:

I,'

120 ~:;OOO

19000 6100 1100 4300

19000 140

{ ~

C.

;\,1\\'7

7~1'\\'50;

051151:007

<:

170 25000

'" 29000

69()()

480 .3400

10000 190

(,

c,' {'

i\1","'102 ;\1W \ 0..

lO~;\-IW507 IO-4:\1W${l7

D5II$.l2U01 O~/15/z/)()1

Q Q 640 1100

C C SS 26

I~OOO 5400 120UO 1300 3600 660

350 21" 3'YOO r

1..\000 1900 7Q 10 !2 26

,~ , '." . ~

MW8 MW9 ~"'WS07 '9~1\.\'~U7

(1$1 J 5.r 2 00'7 OSIIS/lOO,

3300 .\,10 1.7 I,'

SSO 210, 3100(, :6000

r'

37000 35000 (' 1.1

15700 SOOO 1900 1)00 4500 5100 5500 20000 270 180

29 11 5,7 C 4,.. I'

• $r .. \dml~ mdl\· .. ,lC'<' .;OI1 .... ~ntrol:lon ~c~d,oi the:- Rcm~itll CoL.!.

Pag!! 7 of 10 Carolin<L Tl"J.Ilsformcr Site F~ycttc\'ilk, North Carolina Proj<!c! Number 07-0453

~1"\\'2

~,\IWS07

O$/14r.OO7'

L

J,

170 20000

I.' ~4(JI)

lS0 41;00 6000

17() I ~ C

M\VJ

3:\1\".$07 0511$12001

1000 1.4 30

l~{)DD

1100 120

I SOD

16 9,,,, 3,7

(

Analyte Unit

IpH pH Units S~ecific Coriductivin IJslcm Temperature OegC Turbidity NTU

NOles:

10 - Idenlili~at'oll.

fJsA:m - Micrllsiemens pcrccntimeler.

Dog C· O'W'" celsius.

NTU - N~phdomt:'lrlc lurbidilY unit.

P:lge S of 10 Carolina Transformer Site fayetteville. North Carolina Project NUlllb!;r U7-0453

MWI MW2

Table 4 Analytical Data Summary ~ Field Parameters

Carolina Transformer, Fayetteville, North Carolina

MW3 MW5 MW6 MW7 MW8 IMW507 2MW507 3MW507 5MW507 6MWS07 7MW507 8MWS07

5.96 S.94 5.94 5.04 5.78 6.20 6.26 92 189.1 87 129 450 372 383 17.6 18.3 15.9 17.5 17.8 . 16.4 19.0 4.65 1.41 8.70 3.22 8.11 2.23 58.8

MW9 MWIOI MWI02 MWI04 9MW507 10lMW507 t02MW507 104MW507

6.20 S.40 5.10 5.43 426 380 242 58 17.8 17.1 17.3 16.8 6.11 2.17 6.23 12.8

Table 5 Contamina·nts of Concern and Remedial Goals

Carolina Transformer, Fayetteville, North Carolina

Contaminant of Concern

Barium Chromium Copper Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Vanadium Zinc PCB-1260 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene Methyl ethyl ketone Toluene Carbon disulfide Benzene Chlorobenzene 1,3-dichlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene

P:J.ge C) of 10 Carolina Transformer Site Fayellcvillr. North Cnrolina Project Number 07·0453

Remedial Goal (J.1g/l)

2,000 50

1000 15 50

I 100 615

2100 0.5

3' 70

170 1000

55 1

50 600

75

--_ ....... __ ....... __ . . .... --.. ~---------

2009 Annual Groundwater Sampling Report

4SESD-EIB

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4

Science and Ecosystem Support Division . Enforcement and Investigations Branch

980 College Statioil Road Athens, Georgia 30605-2720

August 13,2009.

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

:FROM:

THRU:

. TO:

Carolina Transfonncr Site Investigation Report Fayetteville, North Carolina .

.. SESD Project Numbers 09-0504 .. i - //

Timothy Simpson, Environmental Scientist /'''' Superfund and Air Scdion .

. Mike Bowden, Chief Air and Superfund Section

Luis Flores, RPM Superfund Remedial and Site Evaluation Bmncb

.. Sllpe~fulld Diyision

Attached is the Site Invc.stigatioll Report for the groundwater sampling

. investigation conducted at the Carolina Transformer Superfund Site in Fnyettcville, North

Carolina. The investigation was conducted the week of July 6, 2009. If you have any

. questions, please call me at (706) 355-8736,

Attachment

. REGION 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCIENCE AND ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT DIVISION

Site Investigation Report . Carolina Transformer

Fayetteville, North Carolina Project Idelltific~tion Number: 09-0504

Remedial ~rojcct Mauager: Luis Flores .

. Superfund Division . 61 Fors)1h Street, SW Allanta, Georgia 30303-8909

(:aml ina rr<ln~;f(\rm(:r Silt:: In\'es(i~})lion Report

7: U Z UJ

.. " ~

... ~ .. .. . v"-"'-PRO\~··

1 of 13

. Sf.:SD Project Leader: Tim Simpson Science and Ecosystem Support Di"ision 980 College Station Road . Athens, GA 30605

Project: Carolina Transformer, Fayetteville, NC SESn Project Identification Number: 09-0504

Appl"o\'ing Official;

Mikc,~~ Chiett2r and Superfund Section

--- <7fcj;p~ -~ . .... Sigttature ~ . . . . . .... ..' . . . ' .

. . Project Leader: ' ..

~;~~I!!Q1l~ Simpson, En '-ronmental Scientist, Air.and Superfund Sc~t1on ..

_ ~-,~_ 'Jf'-" ". __ f.r[; ( {{ (<-X'; '. Signature· ... / . . . Date' . .

I·

SAMPILING INVESTIGATION REPORT CAROlLINA TRANSFORMER

FA YE1'TEVIlLLlE, NORTH CAROUNA SESD PROJECT IDENTnFICATllON NUMBER 09·0504

introduction

During [he week of July 6,2009. representatives of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S EPA). Region 4, Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD), collected groundwater samples at the Carolina Transformer Company Site in Fayetteville-, Cumberland County. North Carolina. The investigation was requested by Luis Flores, Remedial Project Manager. Superfund Division. EPA Region 4. Atlanta. Georgia.

The following persOIUlel participated in the investigation:

Name Tim Simpson Jerry Ackerman

Site Background

Organization Reg. 4 EP A/SESD ILS

Duties Project Leader. Sampler FORMs. Sampler

The Carolina Transformer Company was an electrical transformer rebuilding and repair operation from 1967 - 1982. The facility was a PCB storage and disposal site for owners of PCB transformers and/or accessories to the transformers. An emergency removal action was conducted in August 1984. Remedial activities began in November 1999 and ended in September 2003. As part of the remedial action, all site structures were demolished. All debris. transformers; underground storage tanks, and drums were removed from the site. rn addition, more than 35,000 cubic yards of soil was excavated and either treated on site Llsing a solvent extraction process or disposed off-site.

Sampling investigation Summary

During the week of July 6.2009, SESD collected twelve groundwater samples from eleven existing monitor wells. Samples were collected for metals, volatile organi~ compounds (VOCs). PCBs. and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate. Sample locations appear in Figure 1. The site Remedial Gonls are listed in Table I. Sample location information is summarized in Table 2.

Prior to sample collection. the groundwater was monitored for temperature. specific conductance, pH. and turbidity. The water parameter data are summarized in Table 3.

Carol in,\ 1\(11\:·[01'1\1('1" 3 of U Proj('C\ II) No: !.ltJ-0504 S ilc 111\ ,-,,,I igal i'-H} R~'p('rl

Sampling and Analytical Methodology

Sample collection activities were in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan. Carolina Transformer. Jlllle 2009 and EPA, Region 4 SESD Field Branches Quality System ([lid Techllical Procedures. The field investigation was conducted in accordance with the following procedures:

• SESDPROC-005-R 1. Sample and Evidence Management • SESDPROC- LOO-R2. Field pH Measurement • SESDPROC-1O J-R2 , Field Specific Conductance • SESDPROC-102-R2, Field Temperature Measurement • SESDPROD-103-R2, Field Turbidity • SESDPROC-O IO-R3, Logbooks • SESDPROC-209-R I. Packing, Marking. Labeling, and Shipping of

Environmental and Waste Samples • SESDPROC-30 I-R 1, Groundwater Sampling

GPS data were not collected during the investigation. That location data for the wells had previollsly been collected.

All samples were analyzed at the SESD laboratory in Athens, GA. Analyses were in accordance with the U.S. EPA. Region 4. SESD AI/alytical Support Branch Laboratory Operatiolls alld Qua/it)' Assurance Mal/llal. January 2009. The analytical methods are listed in the Final Analytical Reports in Appendix A.

Analytical Results

Laboratory analytical results nre summarized in Tables 4-5. The data tables only show analytes with site remedial goals: The complete analytical reports with all data appear in the appendix.

Volatile Organic Compounds - VOC data are summarized in Table 4. Six VOCs with remedial goals were detected. Benzene was detected in four wells ranging from 0.25J lIg1L to 4.5 lIgiL. It was above the site remedial goal of 1.0 uglL in monitor wells MW9 (4.5 mglL) and MW 101 (1.3 lIg1L). Chlorobenzene was detected in eight wells ranging from 0.231 ugll to 50 ug/L. It was at the 50 ugiL remedial goal level in monitor well MW9. Methyl ethyl ketone, 1.2.4-trichlorobenzene. 1.3-dichlorobellzene, and 1,4-dichlorobenzene were detected but were below site remedial goals. Toluene and carbon disulfide were not detected in any of the samples.

Bis(2·Ethylhexyl) Phthalate - Bis(2-ethylhexyl} phthalate data are summarized in Table 4. Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Was detected only at monitor well MW7. The level detected (9.1 uglL) exceeded the site Remedial Goal of 3.0 uglL.

PCBs - PCBs were not delected in any of the samples collected during the investigation .

Clrolina Tl'illl"i~.mllcr Silt Invcstig:ltioll RL'J)()rt

..j. of 13

L _______ _ ----------- ---

I.

Metals - Metals data are summarized in Table 5. Manganese was detected in all eleven wells ranging from 8.1 lIg/L to 2.500 ugiL. It was above the site remedial goal of 50 lIgIL in ten of eleven wells. Barium. chromium, copper,"leud. vanadium. and zinc were detected but were below the site remedial goals. Mercury and nickel were not detected in any of the samples.

Quality Assurance Results

Quality assurance (QA) samples for this investigation consisted of a split sample (sample IDMW0709). VOC trip blank, and a nitric acid preservative blank. The analytical results for the split samples compare well with the results reported for the primary sample. The overall clo:\e c<;>mparison of the split samples is indicative of good performance by the laboratory.

VOCs were not detected in the trip blank. This indicates that there was no cross contamination of the VOC samples collected during the sampling investigation.

Metals were not detected in the preservative blank. This indicates that there was no cross contamination from the nitric acid preservative used during the sampling investigation.

References

Qualit)' Assurallce Project Pltll/. Carolina TrallSformer. June. 2009.

Region 4 EPA Field Branches Quality System and Technical Procedures. http://www .epa. gov/region4/sesd/fhqstp/i ndcx .htm J

SESD AI/alytical Support Brallc/r Laboratory Operatiol/s and Quality Assurance Ma/lual, January 2009.

('af(llinu TrnllSrOrllll'f

$ik' 11\\'''~ligaliu!l RI:'port :'i of U Proj('(;\ TO No: 09-1)5(H

FIGURES AND TABLES CAROLINA TRANSFORMER COMPANY

FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA JULY 2009

Carolina Transformer Site Investigation Report

6 of 13

1...-_____________________________ _

Project 10 No: 09-0504

u; n n :;

:3 :< -n

·E. -<

~. ~-v.

g C' '"\

.7.1 3

] (1; ~.

-:~

,',:" : ...... ,: .... -: ........ , . .-;.: .... .

Legend .0 62.5125

~ 250 375 500

Feet --. -"-.Iii.. ." --- .-Number in call-out box is station 10

Figure 1 Sample Location Map Carolina Transformer Superfund Site Fayetteville, North Carolina

TABLEl REMEDIATION GOALS

CAROLINA TRANSFORMER COMPANY

CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN

BARIUM CHROMIUM COPPER LEAD MANGANESE MERCURY NICKEL VANADIUM ZINC PCB-I260 BlS(2-ETHYLHEX)PHTHALEATE 1,2,4-TRICHOLOBENZENE METHYL ETHYL KETONE TOLUENE CARBON DISULFIDE BENZENE CHLOROBENZENE 1,3-DICHLOROBENZENE l,4-DICHLOROBENZENE

Carolina Transtomler Site Investigation Report

80fl3

REMEDIAL GOALS (UG/L)

2,000 50

1,000 15 50 1

100 615

2,100 0.5 3

70 170

1,000 55 1

50 600 75

Project ID No: 09-0504

---------------------------

Station ID

MWI

MW2

MW3

MW5

MW6

MW7

MW8

MW9

MWlOl

MWlO2

MWI04

--

--

TABLE 2 SAMPLE LOCATIONS

CAROLINA TRANSFORMER COMPANY FA YETIEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Sample ID Location Parameters

I MW0709 Monitoring well I VOCs, bis(2-cthylhexyl) phthalate, lDMW0709 Split Sample PCBs, Metals

2MW0709 Monitoring well 2 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

3MW0709 Monitoring well 3 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

5MW0709 MOIlitoring well 5 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

6MW0709 Monitoring well 6 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

7MW0709 Monitoring well 7 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

8MW0709 Monitoring well 8 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs. Metals

9MW0709 Monitoring well 9 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

101 MW0709 Monitoring well 10 I VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

I02MW0709 Monitoring well 102 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

104MW0709 Monitoring well 104 VOCs, bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, PCBs, Metals

Sample ID QAJQC Samples Parameters QA901 Nitric Acid Preservative Metals

Blank

QA20709 VOC Water Trip Blank VOCs :

Carolina Transformer Site Investigation Report

90fl3 Project ID No: 09-0504

-----

Station ID

MWI

MW2

MW3

MW5

MW6

MW7

MW8

MW9

MWIOI

MWI02

MWI04

Sample ID

1 MW0709

2MW0709

3MW0709

5MW0709

6MW0709

7MW0709

8MW0709

9MW0709

IOlMW0709

lO2MW0709

I04MW0709

TABLE 3 WATER PARAMETERS

CAROLINA TRANSFORMER COMPANY FA YETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Temperature pH SpecifieConductance (Degrees C) (pH Units) (uS/em)

20.6 6.04 145.6

20.7 5.95 261.8

18.6 5.60 85

21.2 5.21 88.4

20.5 5.86 362

22.0 6.11 271.2

21.3 6.24 542

19.7 6.25 536

21.2 5.58 262.8

21.7 5.35 150

19.8 5.31 52.8

Turbidity (NTU)

2.27

37.l

11.9

14.3

21

6.49

12.4

2.8

2.5

15.4

203

Carolina Transfonner Site Investigation Report

10 of 13 Project 1D No: 09-0504

TABLE 4 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS DATA

CAROLINA TRANSFORMER COMPANY lFAYEITEVlLLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Remedial MWI MWID MW2 MW3 MW5 MW6 MW7 MWS

Goal

ugfL ugfL ugIL ugIL ugIL ug/L Volatile Organic Compounds

1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene 70 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

Methyl Ethyl Ketone 170 LOU LOU l.OU IOU LOU

Toluene 1000 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

Carbon Di~ultide 55 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

Benzene 1.0 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

ChI oro benzene SO 0.54 0.53 2.7 0.43J 0.50U

1-3-Dichlorobenzene 600 O.SOU 0.50U 0.50U 0.19J 0.50U

lA-Dichlorobenzene 7S 0.37J 0.32J 0.25J 1.0 0.50U

Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds

Sis (,2cthylhexyD 3.0 3.0U 3.0U 2.9U 3.IU 3.0U· phthalate

U - The analyte was not detected at or above the reporting limit. J - The identitication of the analyte is acceptabk; the reported value is an estimate.

Carol ina Trnn:-:fo]'fll('J' Site Inn!stig.ui<"11 R(:p')J'[

11. 01' 13

ugfL ug/L ugIL

0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

0.63J LOU 0.38J

0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

0.25J 0.50U 0.50U

27J 0.50U 0.23J

1.6 0.50U 0.13J

IJJ 0.50U 0.48J

3.IU 9.1 2.9U

MW9 MWIOI MW10'2 MWI04

ugIL ugfL ugIL ugIL

2.2 0.50U 0.16J 0.50U

l.OU LOU LOU LOU

0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U

4.5 1.3 0.13J 0.50U

50 IJ 4.7 0.50U

3.7 1.1 0.72 (I.50U

13 4.4 3.5 0.50U

3.0U 3.2U 2.9U 2.9U.J

Project ID 1\'0: Cl9-050'l

Remedial MWI MWIO

Go:! I

ugIL ugIL ugIL

Barium 2.000 140 140

Chromium 50 5.0U 5.0U

Copper 1.000 IOU IOU

Lead 15 l.OU LOU

Man!.!anese 50 270 260

Mercury 1.0 O.IOU O.IOU

Nickel 100 IOU IOU

Vanadium 615 5.0U 5.0U

Zinc 2.100 IOU IOU

TABLES .METALS DATA

CAROUNA TRANSFORMER COMPANY FA YETTEVIILLE, NORTH: CAROUNA

MW2 MW3 MW5 MW6 MW7 MW8

ugIL ugIL ug/L ugIL ugll... ugIL

190 33 25 460 180 810

5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U

IOU IOU IOU IOU IOU IOU

LOU l.OU LOU I.OU LOU 1.0U

400 170 8.1 460 420 2,500

O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU

IOU IOU IOU IOU IOU IOU

5.0U 13 5.0U 6.7 5.0U 5.0U

15 IOU IOU IOU IOU IOU

U - The analyte was nor detected at or above the rep(lrting limit.

Caroiin:l TmTl~r(lrm~r Site 1I1vc:-;ligmioll Report

1201'13

MW9 MWIOI MWI02 MWI04

ugIL ugIL ugIL ugIL

210 87 69 61

5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 7.2

IOU IOU IOU 110

l.OU LOU 1.4 12

2,400 710 250 57

O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU O.IOU

IOU IOU IOU IOU

5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 35

IOU IOU IOU 330