RDT Aberdeen Contaminated Gw Site Working Towards Finalizing IROD Potentially Splitting into 2 OUs

February 20, 2014

Site Acct Code: 2014 T 04D 303DD2 A4QHRD01

Looking for input.

Orientation

SITE BACKGROUND

1980-1995 Powder Metal Products (PMP) - made precision machine parts, process reportedly included solvent dip bath - Non-viable 1995-2010 Diamond Exhaust + Equipment - used property for warehouse/distribution center - Not identified as a PRP 2010 CALCO Enterprises - Current owner, purchased property - provides mechanical services (piping, steel, welding, etc.) - Did not go thru BFPP process - Non-viable

SITE BACKGROUND

• 1964-1989 - NCDOT operated aggregate testing laboratory on Lee Paving property - 1994-1996- NCDOT conducted site assessment

• findings - gw contaminated with VOCs: 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1-DCE, & TCE

• Positive finding from monitoring data - conc. of TCE has decrease from 600 ng/l in 1994 to 11 ng/l in 2012 (18 yrs)

• Main MNA component at work - dilution

• 1990 - Detected TCE in extraction wells at Geigy • 1990 - EPA emergency response at Rte 211

Contaminated Well Site/Crestline Contaminated Well Site

SITE BACKGROUND

Site placed on National Priorities List in Sept 2008 Site described as a ground water plume with no identified source EPA/NCDENR feels PMP property is the most likely source for TCE Interim ROD (IROD) issued in 2012; IROD due to data gap in LBCA

Aquifer Characteristics

Upper Black Creek Aquifer (UBCA) - Depth of aquifer ranges btw is 100-125 feet below

ground surface - Average aquifer thickness is 49 feet - 284 acres have been adversely impacted

Lower Black Creek Aquifer (LBCA) - Depth of aquifer ranges btw is 120-160 feet below

ground surface - Average aquifer thickness is 35 feet - 220 acres have been adversely impacted

Background info

<7^ ^ M.WALLER' ASSOCIATES. [NC. HANAOINO THI V

Legend •ommrtncCMof[iznacei «oo-

?c

Figure 4-7 Potentiometric Surface of the Lower Black Creek Aquifer

Groundwater Monitoring Summary

— Surficial aquifer - 8 monitoring wells • No contaminants that exceed applicable groundwater standards

— Upper Black Creek Aquifer - 32 monitoring wells • TCE detected in 27 of the 32 wells • Mean concentration of TCE - 63 pg/l, maximum concentration of

TCE - 430 |ig/l • Federal MCL for TCE -> 5 pg/l, NC 2L standard for TCE 3 pg/l • Pesticides detected 16 of the 32 wells

— Lower Black Creek, Aquifer - 15 monitoring wells • TCE detected in 8 of 15 wells • Maximum concentration of TCE - 62 pg/l • Pesticides detected in 6 of the 15 wells

Background info

Baseline Risk Assessment

TuSciafaqui^f^n^^iSi^K^n?r?ang^ UBCA - risk greater than EPA's risk range, risk driven by presence of pesticides

• LBGA - risk greater than EPA's risk range, risk driven by presence of pesticides and arsenic in| one of the wells Concentration of TCE exceeds MCL in both the| UBCA and the LBCA

Last bullet forcing the taking of an action for the plume at large

10

Baseline Risk Assessment

lyietals in the groundwater - naturail^ occurring and elevated detections very sporadic

Envirpnrnental Risk Assessmerit -- No ecological risks

anthropogenic source - of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature

11

Identification of Cliemicai Contributors to Elevated Cancer Risks and Non-Cancer Risks

MONITORING WELL CANCER RISK MAJOR

CONTRIBUTOR(S) NON-CANCER RISK MAJOR

CONTRIBUTOR(S) MONITORING WELL CANCER RISK MAJOR

CONTRIBUTOR(S) CHILD | ADULT MAJOR

CONTRIBUTOR(S) SHALLOW AQUIFER ' ACGMW05 2.7. X 10^ Arsenic 44 18 Chromium, Iron,

Cobalt UPPER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER > ^ : V ACGtt1W12 1.6 X 10-^ Pesticides ACGMW13 2.9 X 10-^ Pesticides ACGnnWM 26 11 Chromium, Cobalt ACGMW16 4.4 1.9 . Thallium ACGMW18 2.9 1.2 Chromium GEIMW11D 7.9 X 10-^ Pesticides GEIMW18D 2.2 X lO"' Pesticides GEIMW23D 1.1 X 10^ TCE & Pesticides GEIMW24D 1.5x10-1 TCE & Pesticides GEIMW30D 8.5x10-1 Pesticides LOWER BLACK CREEK AQUIFER ACGMW17 6.0 X 10-" Pesticides 1.7 0.7 Lindane, Iron,

Manganese ACGMW20 4.1 X 10-" •• Metais 12 4.9 Arsenic, Cobalt GEIMW25L 2.1 X 10-* Pesticides GEifi4W27L 3.6x lO-i Pesticides

12

TCE in Town of Aberdeen Supply Wells (All concentrations In pg/l.)

Supply Well

Sampling Year

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

TOA #5

TOA #8

3.61 4.1 3.6 2.7 3.6 3.2 3.1

0.5U 0.5U

0.5U NS NS

TOA #9 1.6 3.5 1.1 2.7 2.3 2.4 <0.5 4.3 3.7 3.7

Empty spaces and/or missing years Indicate no detection of TCE for that particular sampling event. NC 2L standard for TCE Is 3 pg/l, yeljow shading Indicates detected concentration of TCE above NC 2L. MCL for TCE Is 5 pg/l, H shading Indicates detected concentration of TCE above 2L and MCL.

13

COST COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES (2011 FS)

Alter­native

Description of Alternative Capital Cost Avg. Annual O&M Cost

No. Years O&M

Total O&M Outlay

Present Value (30 year

timeframe using 7% discount rate)

1 No Action (with continued monitoring) so $70,200 30 $2,106,200 $1,311,100

2

GW extraction, on-site treatment with carbon at upgraded Geigy Plant, discharge to infiltration gallery, wellhead treatment, and continued monitoring.

$2,765,100 $243,600 30 $7,309,300 $6,727,800

3

GW extraction, on-site treatment with carbon at new treatment plant, discharge to new infiltration gallery, wellhead treatment, and continued monitoring.

$2,421,100 $390,000 30 ' $11,698,700 $7,560,200

4

GW extraction, on-site treatment with carbon at new treatment plant, discharge to POTW, wellhead treatment, and continued monitoring.

$2,472,500 $498,200 30 $14,945,800 $9,345,100

5 GW extraction, direct discharge to POTW for treatment and disposal, wellhead treatment, and continued monitoring.

$1,846,100 $434,600 30 $13,038,000 $7,980,700

• iSCO Using Slow-Release Chemical Oxidant Candles (rough cost estimate recently prepared by JM Waller)

$6,933,000 $1,743,000 30 $52,290,000 $29,994,500

14

2012 Interim Action ROD (IROD) (Alternative 3)

One Operable Unit Two Components • Plume at large

- Install 13 extraction wells (7 in the Upper Black Creek aquifer and 6 in the Lower Black Creek aquifer)

- On-site treatment will be accomplished through activated carbon because the extracted groundwater is expected to include pesticides (which originates from Geigy Site)

- Estimated flow rate is 44 gallons per minute

• Install wellhead treatment at two Town of Aberdeen (TOA) municipal supply wells (TOA #5 and TOA #9) - Treatment will consist of activated carbon absorption units

Background info

15

Costs for Remediation of Plume at Large Pump and Treat

$1,790,000 RA Capital Cost Estimate

O&M for 30 Years Based on the following O&M costs -

$7,623,900

- For years 1 +2 - For years 3 + 4 - For years 5-7 - For years 8- 10 - For years 11+

$706,400 per year $437,600 per year $303,200 per year $236,000 per year $195,700 per year

Background info

16

Costs for Wellhead Treatment TOA 5 AND TOA 9 COST SUMMARY

ABERDEEN CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER SITE ABERDEEN. MOORE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

tpA S WELLHEAD TREATMEra^

Capital Cost $356,100

O&M Cost - Year 1 $145,100

p&M Cost - Year 2-30 $88,100

-JOA 9 WELLHEAD TREATMENT

Capital Cost ' $275,000

O&M Cost - Year 1 $100,400

O&M Cost - Year 2-30 $ 43.600

Costs are rounded to the nearest $100 (hundred)

RA Capital Cost Estimate -Total O&M Costs for 30 yrs -

Based on -- O&M Cost for Year 1 - O&M Cost/Year for Years 2-30

$631,100 $4,064,800

$245,500 $131,700

Background info

17

7: ¥"-M^

|>

Legend • AboOeon Suppf/ WoB-.

^ Mor.il«WHI-J

TCE Canc*nliotiOn%

1' • ' ^ 3to50u9/l

K?1 »W5 iWuQd

] ITOiolMugfL

.-_ , iMiorooust 00B »0lo7S0ugn.

> 250ui>rL

I Is-''. 9 Piopsrtv

le—iiMift Uon«Cou^>

ricuHt I S rcf Conc*nir«lion» in ina Upo« Bl*!" C«f*»

Aqii.r..

/7VX\ ^M WAU tR VAAi/ ASSOCIATEAINC

TCE plume in UBCA (approx 284 acres)

18

.,/ vi,f•'"-n (• S7-'?f:-SS^ 1-, •'• •-'• . '• —

i%.; wSii

pii: v:fe#^- . -:Virr;.„'

Legend ^ Abcfdccn Supply WolK

* MOOKMWUIJ

TCE Conceniralions • 310 50 ugrt.

QsOtolOOuBlV

r/2'«"o''50iJ9'L • ISO 10 200 ogll

B 20010 2S0 iigIL

B > 250 U<yi. j I Site All?J

• Fotmor Propotly dtp. TCr co(K«iu<il>on% «o in U91L

N

FIGURE: i 6 TCE Concomi jiion* in ino Loufpr SlKk Ci«h Aquifpr

TCE plume in LBCA (approx 220 acres)

19

i^S^S'Av-o;- - 'i? J- *^'-'-riV,.r-:>-4-. A.'t- • \ S • - •«.,,

f T ̂ '4Wilt t-ii ••i," .f •'' •'

SBIM.,. * asKESe&rtS • :.--^^0S7i|^

4 i^a^tiKkOctCi

m IBhlU9V UUIODwH

; ;, iooiD<u«a^ __1 \1»9KC*r HI HI

IB**

NMa. TCE cofKenlraiOM «u m uyA.

IBMnCBslna HGUHC54

»*•«! C*p«iii«/on«n • Upp«> 8Uck Ciork

AijuiJw

/79T> J.M.WALLER-\A6^ ASMX'IUISINC

Location of extraction wells and their anticipated radius of influence in UBCA

Wellhead Treatment RD - Dec 2012 Plume at Large RD - Sept 2013

20

iri'i •V'f'fev: •••".• *.^. .<:•••'

, '• ' >.«> • • u - '•

•• '''imt/'^-* : •••••-•"/-"•' 'i'-i-/- •-• / s • , '• '• •>' •• •-.^".u-.t'.Jm.u-: -"J^'VJ..

« * L«gond

UM BUKk Cr«n

MMOMibwhli

)lq»^

gwsm MelMyQil

lOOIa^Myiyl

•BB Mai«(saM»i -Nou: rcE ceocentraux^i w« in

V «

nnuncs'S JOVaar Capiuia 7onr%-

LiM«f aiK> Craah

A5»X'IArU INC.

Location of extraction wells and their anticipated radius of influence in LBCA

21

Path Forward from IROD to Final ROD(s) Split into 2 OUs • 0U#1

- Replace TOA #5 and #9 supply wells with new supply wells (minimum volume needed 320 gpm)

- TOA #5 has been shut down (supplied >200 gpm) - EPA, NCDOT, NCDENR, and TOA working together - Currently, no cost information

• 0U#2 - Currently, pump and treat appears to be the most cost

effective alternative - NCDENR is not in favor of pump and treat ' - Looked at "In Situ Chemical Oxidation Using Slow-Release

Chemical Oxidant Candles", this technology appears not be cost effective for same reasons as ISCO was not - size and depth of plumes

22

Costs for Using ISCO Slow-Release Chemical Oxidant Candles

Estimated Cost • Capital Costs

- Source Area

- Domino Drive • UBC Barrier-• LBC Barrier-

- Parkway Drive • UBC Barrier-• LBC Barrier-

Total Capital Costs

$966,000 (50 borings)

$1,497,000 (100 borings) $2,066,000 (100 borings)

$885,000 (80 borings) $1,519,000 (80 borings) $6.933.000

Annual 08iM (changing out candles) Monitoring Costs

$1,743,000

Annual Monltfirg Cosls (Tears 1-2) • quarter^ monitoring J400,CO0 Amual Monlorinq Coats (Tears It) • setrj-amual morilotinq J200,000 Annual Monlcfinq Costs (Tears S?) • annual monitorinq {100.110 Annual Moniorinq Costs (Tears ^t 0) • tierrial rranitomq S50.000 Annual Moniofinq Costs (Tears 11 • 5-rear mmitonnq $20,000

23

.A-', ^VJ/< . ;i,^',,v .,;

v.v\ •,;.

•'•^i'„ ''I

ri» •

i •• "'a:' •••••N''-"

"r • y \ • . •• •• " . --n a.'Mi -^-.i-..^ ; Vv..^ •^••':: •:..--%'-r:-;:''.:i':

Legend * ADerOMT Svpf*V Wotfc

V Monilof W»to

TCE CorcCfttnUons

••IB JIOfOlQl •••I »I>3IIXU»\ p.-T-r^-i 100 m jno utn aSZH] '90B 200U9* ••• 2«}ID23OU01 ••• -JSOvgl 1 I «•-*«• ^ ___j Fornir PrcpwTV

Nd»: ice conQinli^i** ,vo in i^rt.

^Cmlai in.UM»«Ccwl>

HcrtiCvunj nCUREM

ice Canett<lran«ni fe< thi Uppn Dua Cr**k

Lay out of wells for slow release ISCO in UBCA

24

mMS'Xksr. •At" • '-•:(/'• yi: v -ri i-. ,;•••' . \y'A :v , • :^ iv ^ -; ̂ c,-;, w AZA- ••^•r^m' "tZ i^»^, ••••'••

'"'f •'•'"• J *' ^ •'• - :J ••''Z^• . 'ZZ

.•• /• -it., •" mt: ' /'-'Z-

tAt. :^ArA! \.Vv • •^A>.. • I ' , :SCv'M 'A I - tAZMAr'

1^" -'Aiv.-:*- : .'t " '. >'^^^'.'•;•

IrAMz^ZZlr" •''' 'n: .-• :;••'• j • •/?Y'' -tiZ": /-. .t':/'':^Z' :Z AI

• •/..•.\ ' • • -/. .'•Jx.:-'' i

Legend 4> Atwrdmn Supply Waas <v MnratorWdi

TCE Concentrations •Istoaouga. |B^t°tUDu0A. t^iooioiaiuyi. E3 1601.20n ug/1. B|2tiOk>2SO ug/L • >250uan. I IftlieAwa [^^FoaiWf Pfoporly

r**n let cuneoouuticms nm in iq/L

N

RGURE 34 TCE CMtCinirAlo<M In int L<Nr*r Black CrMk *4ul>w

Lay out of wells for slow release ISCO in LBCA

25

Recap

Split into 2 OUs • 0U#1

- Replace TOA #5 and #9 supply wells with new supply wells

• 0U#2 - Currently, looking for an alternative other than pump

and treat that is acceptable to NCDENR

26

RDT Deliberation Checklist

1. Is/are the land use assumption(s) for the sit/operable unit reasonable? Are ground water use assumptions reasonable?

2. Are exposure scenarios and risk assumptions reasonable? Is remedial action necessary for the site/operable unit? Has ecological risk been adequately addressed?

3. Are Remedial Action Goals/Cleanup Levels reasonable? Are there any ARAR issues? Are current risks compared against remediation goals?

4. Does the proposed remedial action properly address the risk drivers and media of concern? Have the principal threats posed by the site been identified and does the proposed remedy anticipate treatment of the principal threat waste materials?

5. Is the preferred alternative likely to be effective? For ground water sites, does the proposed remedy anticipate DNAPL? If yes, is a phased approach proposed in accordance with applicable guidance? Is a Tl waiver proposed and appropriately justified? If MNA is proposed, has it been appropriately justified in accordance with OSWER policy? If Institutional controls are necessary, are they likely to be effective? Should a contingency remedy be specified? If so, has it been?

6. Are the cost estimates for the alternatives reasonable? Do they allow a realistic comparison of costs of alternatives over the life of the project, including 0 & M?

7. Are there other alternatives or approaches which could achieve remedial action goals with less cost or more reliability?

8. Have positions of State, PRPs, and community been considered? 9. Is the proposed action consistent with other Agency decisions? 10. Sustainability/Green Remediation Considerations - has sustainability been considered in the

remedy selection? If so, in what way? Could sustainability or green remediation best management practices be implemented while conducting the proposed remedy? If it is a PRP lead Site, have PRPs been asked to consider green remediation best management practices?

27

Why ISCO was not Carried Forward in PS • 2011FS • Area of impacted aquifer ^ 12,388,533 or 9,575,950 ft^

— Assume 15' radius of influence per injection well • A = 3.14x152 • A = 706ft2 • 12,388,533 -r 706 = 17,547 wells or 13,563

- Assume 30' radius of influence per injection well • A = 3.14x302 • A = 2,826ft2 • 12,388,533 -r 2,826 = 4,383 wells or 3,388 wells

• Need to double # of wells as there are 2 aquifers • Cost for implementation of an ISCO remedy approach

$100 million due to depth and areal extent of the contamination

Calculations to determine # of injection wells needed for ISCO

Assume $35/linear ft for drilling + well installation/materials For 15' radius

For UBCA 17,547 (# of wells) x 110 ft (depth of well) x $35 = $67,556,000 For LBCA 13,563 x 140 ft x $35 = $66,459,000 Drilling/well installation costs = $134,015,000

For UBCA 4,383 (# of wells) x HO ft (depth of well) x $35 = $16,875,000 For LBCA 3,388 x 140 ft x $35 = $16,601,000 Drilling/well installation costs = $33,476,000 Plus setting for injections, chemicals for injections, monitoring, etc.

29

Legend to-CorewtmenCouKM ITCE) PBtnedVWti* rAnM)

Figure 4 TCE Concentration Upper Black Creek Aquifer

Calculations to determine # of injections wells needed for ISCO

30