UNITED STATES ENVIROMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY Region 4 · UNITED STATES ENVIROMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY Region 4 . Addendum to North Belmont PCE Site Five Year Review Report, September

UNITED STATES ENVIROMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY Region 4

Addendum to North Belmont PCE Site Five Year Review Report, September 9, 2009

This Five-Year Review addendum has been prepared as a result of the protectiveness determination being deferred in the September 9,2009 Five-Year Review. EPA allotted a one year timeframe to obtain the necessary additional information to make a protectiveness statement in regard to the North Belmont PCE Site. This document provides an update of the progress since the Five-Year Review and makes the protectiveness determination for the remedy implemented at the North Belmont Site.

The Five-Year Review Report for the North Belmont PCE Site in North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina, was signed by Franklin E. Hill, Division Director, Superfund Division on September 9,2009. The protectiveness statement outlined in the Report was as follows:

The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. EPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment at the Site. The assessment concluded that the exposure, via vapor intrusion, at the Site is well within the risk range for residential properties. However, the pump and treat system as well as the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been operational during the past four years, and therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document. I

Currently, a protectiveness determination of the complete remedy at the North Belmont PCE Site cannot be made until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions: Sample drinking water wells from the properties that originally declined alternative water and, if needed, offer these residences the opportunity to receive an alternative water source. It is expected that these actions will take approximately one year to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made.

Progress Since the Five-Year Review Completion Date

The remedy for this Site included connecting residents and businesses in the vicinity of the Site to the municipal water supply system. Some residents who were potentially affected did not agree to being connected to the city water system. As a part of the Five Year Review, EPA identified residents that may still be using groundwater as a source of drinking water. Subsequent to the Five Year Review, residents who were not identified as city water recipients were contacted and their drinking water was sampled. Seven homes were sampled and the results confirmed that none of the residents were drinking water that exceeded any EPA or NCDNER drinking water standard.

Issues and Recommendations

No new issues or recommendations were identified or developed since the completion of the Five Year Review

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 10747536

Protectiveness Statements

Based on new information and on actions taken since the Five-Year Review completion date, the protectiveness statement is being revised as follows:

The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. EPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment at the Site. This assessment concluded that exposure resulting from vapor intrusion at the Site, is well within the risk range for residential properties. However, the pump and treat system as well as the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been in operation during the past four years, and is therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document.

The remedy is considered protective in the short-term, because there is no unacceptable human health risk from current exposures to contaminated groundwater beneath the Site. However, in order for the remedy to remain protective in the long-term, the groundwater pump and treat system should resume operation and the monitoring program should be re-instituted.

Next Five-Year Review

The next five-year review will be completed by September 9, 2014, five years after the signature of this five

7

Attachments:

Drinking water Sampling Data

2

- -

-~ .

Drinking Water Sampling Data _ Collected by the N. C. Department o/Health and Human-Services

-Division ofPublic _fIealth State Laboratoryof-Pulilic -Health _1

-- - '- --_.

- {

'

3

.~ \ .. ' .

--

..

. . 1 VOAvw.s CONTAIN 1~1 HCl .. ~ - DO NOT RINSE .

N.C. Department or Hea1tJ:i and Human Services . Division of Public Health

PLEASE READ INSTRucnON SHEET State Laboratory .of ~b)ic Health P.O. Box 28047, 306 N. \\'ilmington St., Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environmental Sciences Ana)ysis Report

Name or Owner, ~ient . -I /'

Or Supply: . q. )../2.· .L <>,', Q eC . Telephone # ~)_____---'-__-,-__

Address: lot4· APr; (01 5 ~ . County: .'. cf~- s±£o . &d ((\001· .. Zip: ~8Dr d

............. ................................ o. · · ....~ a.••••••••••••••••••••••••••• -0.:••.•.•.•••.

·Report to: ~Ay:o .£\0\hA '\)L-f. .. : Collected By: ,--3) Ci. 'IT")<; ob' 1\.....e. :." . . . . -5

Telephon·e #L-)....,.,---_________. Telephone"clLT\:<iSS ~ - S ~DD . -. .

. C . . . Address: '\9)· W. \jl.A.(h;>DO 81\.lJ Da.te Co~ected: 3~ )01

6c.. ~~n\·~· ~ Analysis Desired:--"V'-'·o=-...A ·cl-gOS'~ ........._________----.;..

--" Laboratory Number Sample # Sample Description or Remarks Results"In .(~,o<)i"' 09U960· -2· -Yo -1NI} lhA vtcJff ...

v

--ES080509~OO33001 ..

SEE ATIACHED SH ~ET{5~.090960 ..S 08/03/2009 -

VOA 524.2 (47) -.- .

L . I

1:80805090 090961 - OJJ~02

.. _.03/0212009 ~

VOA 524.2 (47) ...

. ..

.SEE ATTA.CH~U ~Ht:t:1 (\:>J~mA~ ~ ~.? -O~l J-' u9U961 ..

..

. . ,.

'AUG \I b'Z009 Kht/~Date Received: ___________-\~ Date Rt'Poi1ed:_A_U_G_.·_1_4_2_0..:..,..09_·_~_

Date Extracted: ___________

I

. DHHS Fonn 2364 Laboratory (Rcv.06l99) F_anlrpt .

Date Analyzed: %;- 5----op _.. R.por~dBY: 1Z-/ k2! '1 ,,1 Or')\( d

o" ./ (.'

l_.~

.,North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health ~O~·:'~i~!~:;on SI.

" Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 Environmental Sciencc.;:s http://slph.state.nc.us

Phone: 919-733-7834Organic Chemistry Fax: 919-733-8695

Certificate ofAnaIvsis

Sample Group: ES080509-0033

Repo·rt To:

_GASTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

991 WEST HUDSON BLVD·

GASTONIA, NC 28052"

Attn:

County: GASTON

Name ofSystem:

"CONNER, HAZEL

104 APRICOT ST. BELMONT, NC 28012

Well Permit #:

Sample #:" ES080509-0033001 Collected:-· 08/03/2009 SAMANTHA DYE Received: 0810512009 10:04 MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: Water Sampling Point: Client Sample #: 090960 " Sample Source: T~mp. at Receipt:" 6.0 DEG C GPS#: .

Sample Description: Comment:

Organic Chem - VOCs Method: EPA 524:2

VOA 524.2 (47)

Analyte Result RL Units Qualifier(s)

Chloromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L.

Vinyl chloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Bromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Chloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Trichlorofluoromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1-Dichloroethene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Acetone Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

lodomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Carbon Disulfide Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Methylene chloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Acrylonitrile Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

trans-1 ~2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

MTBE Not Detected 0:5 ug/L·

1,1-Dichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Isopropyl Ether Not Detected 0.5 - . ug/L

cis-1.2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

2-Butanone (MEK) 2.1 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Chloroform (T) TRACE 0.5 " ug/L

1,1, 1 ~Trichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Carbon Tetrachloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Page 1 of 5

P.O. Box 28047 306 N. Wilmin9ton 51. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 http://slph.state.nc.us . Phone: 919-733-7834 Fax: 919-733-8695

. Sample Group: ES080509·0033

Benzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2·DichJoroethane Not Detected .. 0.5 ug/L

Trichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2·Dichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L "..I.

Dibromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detec~ed 0.5 ug/L

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 . ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Toluene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

T etrachloroethene Not Detected ' 0.5 ug/L

2-Hexanone Not. Detected 0.5 ug/L

Dibromochloromethane (T) Not D'etected 0.5 ug/L 1 ,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Chlorobenzene .Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Ethylbenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Total Xylenes Not Detected 0..5 ug/L

Styrene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Bromoform (T). Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected ,0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dichlorobenzene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1,2,3· Trichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: . 8114/2009 .. _ Reported By: Nancy Jpnes .'

! .

Page 2 of 5 ~ - .

P.O. Box 28047 " 306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 hltp:llslph. state. nco us Phone: 919-733-7834 Fax: 919-733-8695


Report To:

GASTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

991 WEST HUDSON BLVD

GASTONIA. NC 28052

Attn:

County: GASl'JN

Name of System:

CONNER,HAZEL


Well Permit #:

Sample #: ES080509-0033002 Collected: Received:

03/02/2009 08/05/2009 10:04

. KMN MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: Sample Source:

Water Sampling Point: Temp. at Receipt: 6.0 DEG C

Client Sample #: GPS#:

090961


TRIP BLANK

Organic Chem • VOCs Method: EPA 524.2

VOA 524.2 (47)

Analyte. Result RL Units Qualifier(s)

Chloromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Vinyl chloride . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Chloroethane Not D.etected 0.5 ug/L


.1,1-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L





. . Acrylonitrile Not Detected 0.5 ug/L·

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene . Not DetElcted 0.5 ug/L

MTBE Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Isopropyl Ether .Not Detected ·0.5 ug/L cis-1.2-Dichlorciethene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

2-Butanone (MEK) No~ Detected 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Chloroform (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Page.3 of 5

.".J P.O. Box 28047 306 N. Wilmington St.

Environmental Sciences Raleig~, NC 2761.1-8047 httl2:/Isll2h,state:nco us

Organic Chemistry' Phone: 919-733-7834 ~

Fax: 919-733-8695·

Certificate of Analysis"

~ .. Sample Group: ES080509-0033

Benzene Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L



1,2-Dichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Dibromomethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L·

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Toluene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L·. ..

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected '0.5 ug/L


Tetrachloroethene Not Detected ' . 0,5 ug/L

2-Hexanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Dibromochloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L . . ,.

1,2-Dibromoethane{EDB) - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L ..

Chlorobenzene Not Detected . '. 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1,2-: Tetrachloroethane - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Ethylbenzene TRACE 0.5 ug/L

Total Xylenes Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Styrene 1.1 0.5 ug/L J Bromoform (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1, 1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane - . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1,2,3-Trichloropropane- Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: 8114/2009 Reported By: NancyJones _ ) /I} /' .

.. ~J" ,jl J..' ., 7) ,/'

Page 40f.5___ ._

-.P.O. Box 28047 North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health

~.

306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environrnerdal Sciences hllp:/lslph.state.nc.Us Phone: 919-733-7834

Organic Chemistry Fax: 919-733-8695

Certificate of Analysis


Environmental Qualifier Descriptions

Code Description

* I

>ht A Ach Amt B C Cg D Haz Hirec· J Lorec Ofe Sp Susp . T Tc Temp Ti. Tntc U

. 'V

Result exceeds Mel

Entered past holding exp User choice 1 Above ULC Non-default amount used Blank over RL Possible Lab Contamination Confluent Growth Userchoice 3 Hazard Level Exceeded High recovery Estimated Value

. Low recovery Over 48 hours Sample processing problem Suspect result Trihalomethane Turbid Culture Temperature Range Exceeded Tentative Identification Too numerous to count Beneath MOL User choice 4

PageS of S

I

, i ;

VOAV1ALS CONTAIN 1:1 HCL . . .';-i .OONOTRINSE·

N.C. Depart~e?~ of Heal',", ~nd Human Services' , V·O"C . . " . DIVISion of Pubhc·Health .. ,

PLEASE READ INSlRucnON SHEET· State Laboratory.of Public Health .' ' .. , , " P.O. Box 28047, 306 N. "Tilmi~gton St.,R~leigh, NC 276H·8047

\ .

Environmental Sciences-Analysis Report

Name of Owner, Patient 1"(' '. \ r Or Supply: ......(\L. e.. Lt..').A(\e r, , Telephori~ # ( __)_.~___-'--_____

Address:}·/) L,.~~_~C; cDt .st . " County: ."6-c; ~~

. .~\'!'0t>D~ - :. Zip: dZD I'd. . .

. -' --' ................ ~..... ; ......... ~ ..................... ~ ..........................~~ ... ~.~ .. , "

Report to: 2J/\1fl c: n \;lr\~ ~-e : . Telephone Ii (lOY .~ $~-" S c1DD Telephone # L-}....;.._______-:.....-__

Address: q ~ \ . (0', W~{\ b)~ Date couected:_-l.g,L.J/"-,3...J-1-!-=::9:;...c...:-.1__-'--_-:--_

(9·~b'l CA.. '. N<- d-'6l:J5'd' -Analysis Des.lred:_·--¥.(J.....:::D::..t{~t______...;..

-lAboralo.ry Number . Results In -'.Saml'le Description or Remarks '.Sample'# .. ..

.. 090958 .)). 4 t) '7ytjj IJtJJ4 "'.J1 'aJ_~ 5.S Or ) - -

ES080509-0032001 ..

rm ..090958 T(S) -.- Sf=EAITACJIED SHEE

09/03/2009

VOA 524,2 (47) , '.

I

ES080509-00320~~ ~

090959 B 03/02/2009

VOA 524,2 (47)

I"i1PSLAHK~TE: r~-a -O~J SEE ATTACHED SHEEi(S),r' "ll9n95C'; ,

.. "

AUG 052009 . '

AUG ,14 "2009'. Date, Received: . Date.Reported: ' .

Date Extracted:.________~_ '~Da~AnaJYz~~: r ')--0fp? .'... .' . . . .~. -- -7 '. 1· -.)

'. !

' . Reported By: 7t CLIUj . '\ J .7iQ,~e 4

. (! . ~ . '. DHHS Fonn 2364

. Laboratory (Rev.06I99) F_anlrpt

. North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health ~O~·:,o~i~!~:~on ~1. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environmental Sciences http://slph.state.nc.us Phone: 919~733-7834


Certificate of Analvsis


ReportTo: Name of System:

GASTON cO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONNER, HAZEL

. 991 WEST HUDSON BLVD 106 APRICOT·ST . BELMONT, NC 28012

, GASTONIA, NC 28052

Attn:

. County: GASTON Well Permit #:

Sample #: ES080509-0032001 . Collected: 09/03/2009 SAMANTHA DYE Received: 08/05/2009 09:58 MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: Water Sampling Point: Client Sample #: 090958 Sample'Source: Temp. at Receipt: 5.5 DEG C GPS#: . ,


Organic Chern - VOCs Method: EPA 524.2

VOA 524.2 (47)







1,1-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L



Carbcin Disulfide Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Methylene chloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Acrylonitrile Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Detected .0.5 ug/L "MTBE Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1 , 1-Dichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Isopropyl Ether Not Detected 0.5 ug/L· cis-1.2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 . uglL 2-Butanone (MEK) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L Chloroform (T) TRACE 0.5 ug/L .

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L C,,!rbon Tetrachloride Not Detected 0:5 ug/L

Page 1 of 5

P.O. Box 28047North Carolina State Laboratory ·of: Public Health 306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh. NC 27611~8047

Environmental SCidhces http://slph.state.nc:us Phone: 919-733-7834'

Organic Chernjstry Fax: 919-733-8695

Certificate 'ofAnalvsis


Benzene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L



1,2-Dichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Dibromomethane . . Not Detected 0.5 . ug/L

Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


. Tetrachloroethene Not Detected·' 0.5 ug/L

2-Hexanone Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

Dibromochloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dibromo'ethane(EDB) Not Detected O.5~ ug/L

Chlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1;1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Ethylbenzene Not Detected ,. 0.5 ug/L

Total Xylenes Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

Styrene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Bromoform (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected . 0.5 ·ug/L (

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1.2-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBep) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1,2,3-Trichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Report Date: 8/14/2009 Reported By: NancyJ6nes

-/7... -i'}-'I .'.y -;'J

. / . .~... ,

Page 2 of ~

P.O. Box 28047 ~ North Carol~na ~tate Labora:ciry of Public Health 306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 ~~t, , I:::flvlronmental SCIences htlp:lIslph.state.nc.us Phone: 919-733-7834~ ~ 0 - ..... , '. t~;~~~,~" rgaruc l.. '1<~n'llS Ty Fax: 919-733-8695

. ~...""'" Certificate of Analysis


Report To:

GA$TON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH


GASTONIA, NC 28052

Attn:

. County: GASTON

Name of System:

CONNER, HAZEL


Well Permit #:

Sample #: ES080509-0032002 Collected: Received:

03/02/2009 08/05/2009 09:58

KMN MNICHOlSON

Sample Type: Sample Source:

Water Sampling Point: Temp. at Receipt: 5.5 DEG C

Client Sample #: 090959 GPS#:

Sample Description: Comment

TRIP BLANK


VOA 524.2 (47)




Bromomethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L'


Trichlorofluoromethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L



lodomethane Not Detected D.5 ug/L


Methylene 'chloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


trans.1,2-Dichloroethene Not DeteCted 0.5. ug/L



Isopropyl Ether· Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


.2-Butanone (MEK) . Not Detected 2.0 ug/L !--------~~~------------------------~--------------------~-------------Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L


1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not· Detected 0.5 ug/L


. Page30f5

-'.' P.O. Box 28047 306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 htt!;!:lIsl!;!h.state. nco us Phone: 919-733-7834 Fax: 919-733-8695

Sample Group: ES080509~OO32

Benzene Not Detected -, 0.5 ug/L

1 ,2-Dichloroethane . Not Detect~d 0.5 ug/L

Trichloroethene Not Detected 0:5 ug/L

1,2-Dichloropropane Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L


Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L·

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L'

4-Methyl-2-pentanone . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


trans-1,3-Dichloropropene - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2-Trichloroethane Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

Tetrachloroethene Not Detected 0.5 . ug/L



1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB)' Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Chlorobenzene· Not Detected 0.5 u·g/L.

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected. 0.5 ug/L



Styrene 0.6 . 0.5 ug/L J



1 A-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L .

1,2-Dibromo~3-chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1,2,3-Trichlbropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: 8114/2009 Reported By: Nancy Jones

I : ....

. Page 4 of5

"l_

P.O. Box 28047 ;'North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health 306 N. Wilmington 51. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

,Environmental Sciences http://slph.state_nc.us Phone: 919-733-7834


-, Certificate ofAnalysis



Coqe Description .. Result exceeds MCl , >ht Entered past holding exp A User choice 1 Ach Above UlC Amt Non-default amount used B ' Blank over Rl C Possible lab Contamination Cg Confluent Growth D User choice 3 , Haz '- Hazard Level Exceeded Hirec High recovery J Estimated Value Loree low recovery Ofe Over 48 hours Sp Sampl~ processing problem Susp Suspect result T Trihalomethanei Tc . Turbid Culture Temp Temperature Range Exceeded Ti Tentative Identification Tntc Too numerous to count U Beneath MDl V User choice 4

Page 5 of 5

.1 VOAV\ALSCONTAlN'1~1 tieL':' DO NOT RINSE·, .

N.C. Department or Hea1t~ and Human Services' . VO··.···C .'. Division or Public Health

PLEASE READ INSTRUC'nON SHEET . '. State Laboratory .of Public fJea'lth '.' P.O. Box 28047, 306 N. WilmingtonSt.,Raleigh, NC 27611·8047 .

Environmental Sciences '~nalysis Report

Name 01 Owner, Patient fl'" J>-Or Supply: ~-e ~ Si (9 CO('\'(, er . . Telephone 11'(_.._),_.__________

Address: l ~'8,?~c' S+,' ~ounty: ;~·6~5·t-"h

"(&\'o\ ~-J ". Zip: dr:gOlsQ

...........~ .... ~.....~ ........................ ~~~.~~.~~.~ ... ~ ............ ~ .... ~~~ ......... , Report .., ~Pt/)JhA hJ~ T~lephone #. <'7')'-\) ~S ::;~. 5 d.L:b Address: c)'-C]l·W. t:iMd ~ ,q \\kJ . Date·conected:----'a.,L....L-/""1r~--,,"-"k>"'-'.f_._~--,-_

6-~ ~-\t,Y'\~'. (\JC d- ~Q-S-~' . AmiIYSiSDeSired:-¥-V.,...;.O_fl_._·___· __'---_-.,;,.

Telephone # L-)_--:---'-----:______

I

Laborawry NumiJer· Sample # Sample Description or Remarks -Results In

J.... iJ Qn962. -d -JfO '1~ 0 IJIIA 1R'tJ,"i . ( . ...... ,

.. X,O'G. . -ES080509-0036001

'.

090962 W...." .~

SEE ATTACHED SHE ET(S)'08/03/2009 ~ .-." .

..

VOA 524.2 (47) -;-:

-

ES080509-0036002 ,

~ -

090963 . -~

03/02/2009 --VOA 524.2 (47) - .

.... 1l~fl9h':1 11lIP III ANK mA~ -, ·~·2 '-09 .j SEE ATTACHEI DSHt:t: I ~\)I . .

,. ..

..

Date Received: AUG" ~ ·,009' Date Extracted:, __________

l

'. DHHS Fonn 2364 Laboratory (Rev.06l99) F_anlrpt

,'" -..

!,' .~. -"

I$~,"(?~:_~~_ North Carolina State Laborat __or.y of Public Health j,;~:~~=Io":'~~ ... , . Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 j~~:~~ Envlronrnental ~G/enC(~S http://slph.state.nc.us

'~'~" ~ Organic Chemistry ~~~:ne: ~i~--Jii~::~: ~ Certificate of Analysis


Report To:



GASTONIA, NC 28052

Attn:

County: GASTON

Name of System:

CONNER, HESSIE 101 ROPER ST

BELMONT, NC 28012

Well Permit #:

Sample #:' ES080509-0036001 Collected: 08/03/2009 SAMANTHA DYE Received: 08/06/2009 08:42 NGOOD'

Sample Type: Water Sampling Point: Client Sample #: 090962 Sample Source: Temp. at Receipt: 8.0 DEG C GPS#:

Sample Description: Comment: ANALYTICAL METHqO REqUIRES SAMPLE TEMP <6 OEG C


VOA524.2 (47)

Analyte Result· RL Units Qualifier(s)

Chloromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/l

Vinyl chloride' Not Detected 0.5 ug/l

Bromomethane Not Detected 0.5 - ug/L


Trichlorofluoromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug£~


Acetone Not Detected 2.0 ug/L'

lodomethane Not Detected . 0.5: ug/L

Carbon Disulfide . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Methylene chloride NotDetected 0.5 ug/L·


trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0,5 ug/L



Isopropyl Ether Not Detected 0,5 ug/L


. 2-Butanone (MEK) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L. J .Chloroform (T) 0.7 0.5 ug/l

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/l

Carbon Tetrachloride . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Page 1 of 5

·~,

, .


" Benzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L






cis-1,3-Dithloropropene Not Detected -,- 0.5 ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected 0:5 ug/L


' .trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0:5 ug/L'

1,1 ;2-Trichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

T etrach loroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

2-Hexanone ' Not Detected 0.5 u~/L


1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L




Total Xylenes Not Detected 0.5 ug/L . ''='Styrene Not Detected .- , 0.5 ug/L


1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/~

, 1,4-Dichlorobenzene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


1,2,3~Trichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: 8114/2009 Reported By: ' Nancy Jones

_f) ..J(), if'

Page2of-5

P.O. Box 28047 · ~~ North Carolina State Labora:ory of Public Health 306

,

N. Wilmington 81. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 hllp:Jlslph.state. nco us Phone: 919-733-7834

· . ~~~~t i ~iJ . Env{rof71~lental sc!ences . ~;;;::.~'!JI'. Organic Chemistry Fax: 919-733-8695

. ~,...........'" Certificate of Analysis


Report To:


991 WEST HUDSON BLVD·

GASTONIA, NC 28052

Attn:

CountY: GASTON

Name of System:

CONNER, HESSIE 101 ROPER ST.

BELMONT, NC 28012

Well Permit #:

Sample #: ES080509-0036002 Collected: 03/02/2009 'KMN Received: 08/06/2009 08:42 NGOOD

Sample Type: . Water SarTlpling Point: Client Sample #: 090963 Sample Source: Temp. at Receipt: 8.0 DEGC GPS#:

Sample Description: TRIP BLANK Comment: ANALYTICAL METHOD REQUIRES SAMPLE TEMP <6 DEG C

'Organic Chern -VOCs Method: EPA 524.2

VOA 524.2 (47)


Ch loromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Vinyl chloride . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Chloroetharie . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Trichlorofluoromethane Not' Detected 0.5 ug/L



loqomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Methylene chloride Not Dete'cted 0.5 ug/L'

· Acrylonitrile Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


1,1-Dichloroethane Not'Detected 0.5 ug/L

Isopropyl· Ether Not Detected . 0.5 . ug/L


2-Butanone (MEK) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected. 2.0 ug/L

Chloroform (T) Not Detected 0.5 . ug/L



Page 3 of 5

:.. P.O. Box 28047 306 N: Wilmington·SI. Raleigh, NC 27611:8047 htt(2:lIsl(2h.state. nco us Phone: 919-733-7834 Fax: . 919-733-8695

Sample Group: ES080509-0036 .

Benzene . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Trichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L - "




cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected '. ·0.5 ug/L

Toluene Not Detected 0.5 ,ug/L·

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene NotDetected 0.5 ug/L


Tetrachloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

2-Hexanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/LoJ


1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L



Ethylbenzene TRACE 0.5 ug/L


Styrene 2.0 0.5 ug/L

Bromoform (T) Not. Detected· 0.5 . ug/L

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane - Not Detected D,S ug/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene . Not Detected 0.5 'ug/L


1,2,3-Trichloropropane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: 8/14/2009 Reported By: Nancy Jones.

Page 4 of 5

't,

P.O. Box 28047 306 N. Wilmington 51. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 http://slph.state.nc.us Phone: 919-733-7834 Fax: 919-733-8695

. Sampl~ Group: ES080509-0036


Code Description

* Result exceeds MCl , >ht Entered past holding expo

,A User choice 1 . Ach Above ULC Amt Non-default a·mount used· B Blank over RL C Possible Lab Contamination Cg Confiueht Growth () User choice 3 Haz Hazard Level Exceeded Hirec High recovery J . Estimated Value Lorec .. Low recovery . Ofe Over 48 hours Sp· Sample processing problem Susp· . Suspect result

. T . Trihalomethane Tc Turbid Culture

·Temp Temperature Range Exceeded Ti . Tentative Identification . Tnfc Too numerous to co·unt U Beneath MDL V User choice 4

Page 5 of 5

---

''' •• 'I (",

" II '"

" , , ". .. !ntormatlo~ ~nd RecOmmendation, for U.es of'Private Wenwate~

. ,- - . i. ,'. '''~'''Inte6lmtta1Sftultd lnwater '. _. - .I. ,

"\ " North Carolina Occupational and Envlronmentallpldemlology ISranch (osea)

'

.. . .'. Par AdrnaIIilfOnn~t.tDn caIlD19·707-1i90o.' ..'

Name:· ~W . ., County I w;.,... . sample Xdent~flcatlon Number, .: ';l~'tJ?i3:-'< --~- ":_.,". . " ,," ',"" ,

InformaNon on Your Private Well Water, ," .

Your well water was laboratory tested for ch~mlcal conmmlnants•. Ortnldng water may contSI" chemical. ' contaminants which can-o~r naturally or be Introduced Into Water from manMmade sources. The.' . chemIcals found In your well were Introduced from Qlal1~made sources. ' In order to evaluate,your laboratory .results for chemIcal contamInants, your water results .were~mpalld to th~ n~tlonal primary di'lnkll:lg water standards or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) (see websIte for basis for each' Ma. at' . bttp:l/www.epa.goytsgfewatet!conmmlnsDWllndex.htmllmcl§). MCls are national drinking water standards that are requIred to be met by munldpal water sUPl?lIes,_Jf an Me. was not available, your.. water results were Coi1"par~d too "the North carolina 2L Groundwater Standards.' 1'- ,. .

I' j. '. '.. Rec:ommendatlons for Oses of Your Private Well 'Water. . .

. . Theconcent'ratlons found In your well waierdo ~ot exceed the recommendedE~A I~vels/North ---- Carolina ,2L Groundwater Standards, Therefore, your water could be used for dFlnklng, cooking, ,

washIng dIshes, baltll~g, ,and showertng~' . .

___ Contaminant concentratIons found· In your well water are -higher than the.EPA reco~rriended levels -for drinking and cooking•. 'These contaminants Include .

, .

Your well \fater should ",ot be used for drinking or ~oklng, If you have been clrlnklng,the well water and are pregnant,nurslng,-orhave a child under 5 years of age, hlform your physician of the results.

, Because of the low . leve~$1 some absorption of these chemlcal~

..

Is expected - ....r,.. - through Intact skin and exposure to water vapor.,Therefore, limit"showering

and bathing time to less than 10 mlnut;es. , .. .

Because of the high levels, absorption 0' these chemicals could occur throughIntact skin and exposure to water vipor. The~ore, limit showering and bathing time to less than S· m.lnutel. .

Secause of the very high levels, significant absQrptlon of these chemlca.ls could occur through Intact skin and exposure to water vapor. Therefore~ thIs water should not be used for showering and bathing•..

__- You may wal1tto purchase a water treatm~nt device, drill ~ new well that Is dlstantJylocafed from the gro.u~dwater contamination, use bottled water, or conne.ct to a publl.c water supply,

___ Resamplln.Qls recommended In .' •~~ m9nths.,

\ I, ,

other comments .' mg .

·voe·, .~'VQA VIALS CONTAIN 1:1 HCL

'. DO NOT HlNSE N.C. Department or Health and Human $en'ices Dil'lsfon or Public Health

PlEASe READ INSTRUCTION SH~ . Stale Laboratory of Public. .-_... ' :. ,,-,,-..--. -< .'0" •

'. P~:Box 28047,306 N. Wilmingto~ St., R eig~~;C. rr"6,l ~~~?:4{li't\·: r') . '. _ . ..' ~ ••\ [, . >;..,,~, ; .... ; .'\' " ~,.'r;g \ .• ,,~, .

. . . " .En~iromnental Sciences· Anal 'sis RfPor~-. ,,,,,,--,-.'-:c-1 .

. . . ". ' .. l' . )U:!I';

. (', . I'N;ame or ownu. P~t . I I .. ' , Or Supply: .r 't,.~kG.l1l"\ef . Telephone ,! ~~ .. :-::'--:----;-;,-.'.:.-:.~·t-:-".: ~ '" - ,. "I

. ,: .. i>/)?~_.. j!.< .. Jlr..,'i~\.b l/.. ,... " ....... :t~, ...... I}l ...AII

Address: \ () ~ . A-P",I u} .S t- '. County: I Crfr6;hiki..:.::· :,,,::'-:.::i'\C('! . ' . \.. ___ _ ~.. __ ' -:---_. __ p_1Jl

t3 eJ mQ~ ~~. Zip: . ~~DJ 2.

. ............................................................................................. Report to: en fl-I) c.J h.§" '6 r •. . C.llect.d ~y: .. . fW·· ..

. . . .

Tel~phon~ , eo 1--) &5 Ie< 6&>" A 3 Telephone' L-->__~_______

Address: G:f'rStv h . C,;'- He'/11 j{ O,if//; , ..,: . 'Date '~OU~ted:": 6 ~ j, --(0 r .

1q) tN, li d52h' t;/v) '. '.' . Analysis Dcsired: __' 'J:...~...;:O:..-'4--.:"_'______vt

CV+iS f.o 'n" (f !1.) L J-fri) 51..

lAboratory "'&Amber ,Samplt Description or Remarks Results InSample # ,,'~ . '\' " '~L/() 'M' f Ij,:....t l 7~c)0.

I,. ,'. - -' , -..

ES070110.0057001 SEE ATIACHED SHE ~T(S}. . ~'100733 .,:.

06/29/2010

VOA 524:2 (47) .. _ ......_.,.~ \" 1 ..

:-I \

1::507011 0-OO5~OO2

100734 ~ , 01/29/2010 ET(S}". ~w:;:~ AlTACHEO SHI

VOA 524.2 (47) .. , .

"

" .. '1.U.Q~." I'· ..... .,..~ .i.W&lInd1!." I~+~':"', f{)., .'. .. " I DOl') c..f

DlIIle Recelnd: J \.J L 0120'10 -JUL G6 2013nLQ7 2010Dat. R'pOrted:

Date EXtract~d:.__________ Date Analyzed: 7~,! ~ If), tif.

.. R'pO,kUr: tU4Ilt~ I)HHS Fomi.236-4

" _I.bOralory (Rcv.06l99) F~anlrpt . ( .

--

--

--

No~h -Caro"lina State Laboratory ofPublic Health ~o~':'~if~~:on SI. Raieigh. NC 27611-8047

Environmental$cieilces' http://slph.state.nc.us ' Phone: 919-733-7834

Organic ChemistrY, '. FaX: 919-733-8695

Certificate of Analysis -,. -

, Sample Group: ES070110-00~7_ 1·

Report To: , Name of System:



GASTONIA, NC 2805,2,

-

CONNER, FLETCHER 104-APRICOT ST.

-FRONT WELL , BELMONT, NC 28012

Attn:

County: GASTON Well Permit #:

Sample#: . -ES07011 0-0057001 Collected: . 06/29/2010 R. WHISNANT Received: 07101'12010 09:20 MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: ' Water-- Sampling Point: Client Sample #: 100733 ,Sample Source: Temp. at Receipt: 7.50EG-C' GPS#: '

.Sample Description: ' ' . Comment: - AN-ALYTICAL .METHOD REQUIRES.SAMPLE:rEMP <6 DEG C ,


VOA 524.2 (47) --

- --

Analyte -Result RL Units ' Qualifier(s)

Chloromethane, Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Vinyl chloride Not Detected, 0.5 ug/L •..:::.. .... r-.-Bromomethane Not Detected - , 0.5 ug/L

Chloroethane Not Detected 0:5 ug/L

, Trichlorofluoromethane--'-- Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1-Dichloroethene Not Detected' .. 0.5 ug/L Acetone Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

lodomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/l Carbon Disulfide Not Detected 0.5 ug/L



trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ,ug/L



Isopropyl Ether _ Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


2-Butanone (MEK) Not Detected 2.0 ' ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected . 2.0 ug/L

Chloroform (T) TRACE ,0.5- ug/L



Page 1 of.4

."i.

'.North Carolina. State Laboratory of Public Health~o~':'~~~;on St. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environmental Sciences http://slph.slale.nc.us Phone: 919-733-7834Organic Chemistry Fax: 919-733-8695



Benzen-e Not Detected 0.5 ug/L _




Dibromomethane, Not Detected 0,5 ug/L Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L

, Toluene Not \ Detected 0.5· ug/L

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

,'1, 1',2-Trichloroethane Not Detected 0,5 ug/L

Tetrachloroethene TRACE 0.5 ug/L 2-Hexanone Not Detected 0.5 -ug/L

Dibroniochloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,-2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not Detected 0.5 _ ug/L Chlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 - ug/L .,' Eth'ylbenzene Not Detected 0,5 ug/L -Total Xylenes Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Styrene Not Detected 0.5_ ug/L

Bromoform (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane - , Not Detected 0.5

1 A-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1 ;2-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1,2,3-TriC:hloropropane Not Detected 0.5 - ug/L

Report Date: 7/7/2010 Reported By: Nancy Jones

Page 2 of4

P.O. Box 28047 . North -C~rolina State Laboratory __oJ Public Health 306N. Wilmington St. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environmenta/.Sciences http://slph.state.nc.us Phone: 919-733-7834

Organic Chefl"listrY_ . Fax: 919-733-8695

Certificate of Analysis, -: . :.\


Report To: . -. _, _ f'Jame of System:

GASTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - _ CONNER, FLETCHER 104 APRICOT ST.

_991 WEST HUDSON BLVD- __ ""- FRONT WELL ;, BELMONT, NC 28012

GASTONIA, NC 28052

Attn:

County: GASTON Well Permit #:

Sample#: ES070110:'0057002 Collected: - 01/29/201.0: .. KMN 'Received: 07/01/2010 09:20 . _MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: -Water -.'. Sampling Point: Client Sample #: 100734 Sample Source: Temp. at Receipt: 7.5DEG-C GPS#:

Sample Description: . TRIP BLANK .. . ._ Comment: ANALYTICAL METHOD REQUIRES SAMPLE TEMP <6 DEG C . ." ~.

Organic Chern- VOCs Method: EPA 524.2

VOA 524.2 (47)

Analyt'e Result - . -- 'RL Units Qualifier(s)

Chloromethane Not Detected 0.5 -ug/L .' .'-. ':-

Vinyl chloride Not Detected - -. .,;.- 0.5 ug/L

_ Bromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Trichlorofluoromethane: Not Detected 0.5 ug/L- . ..1,1-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Acetone N-ot Detected 2.0· ug/L

lodomethane _ Not Detected 0.5 ug/L-

Carbon Disulfide Not Detected _ 0.5 ug/L

Methylene chioride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


trans-1,2-Dichloroeth-ene Not Detected 0.5- ug/L

MTBE Not Detected 0.5 ugJL

1,1-Dichloroethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Isopropyl Ether Not Detected 0,5 ug/L



T etrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L



Carbon Tetrachloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L .-

Page 3 of4 -'.'..._---,._- ._._' .. -- ------_._-_._

North Carolina State Laboratory .of Public Health P.O. Box 28047 306 N. Wilmington SI. Raleigh, NC 27611-8047

Environmental Sciences http://slph.state.nc.us

Organic Chemistry Phone: Fax:

919-733-7834 919-733-8695_

Certificate of Analvsis


Benzene - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Trichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dichloropropane ·Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Dibromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/l Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected _0.5 ug/L cis-1,3~Dichloroprcipene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Toluene - _Not-Detected 0.5 ug/L

- trans-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Not Detected - 0.5 ug/L Tetrachloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/l·


Dibromochloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1.2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not -Detected 0.5 ug/L Chlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Ethylbenzene Not Dete~ted 0.5 ug/L Total Xylenes Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Styrene TRACE- 0.5 ug/L Bromoform _(T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ~ ug/L

1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L -1 ,2~Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5_ ug/L -1,2-Dibromo-3~chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L 1",2,3-Trichloropropane Not Detected- 0.5 ug/L

- Report Date~ . 717/2010 Reported By: Nancy Jones -

Page 4 of 4

I" •• 'I < • .". '.:.,,' - ~ - - .

. '.' .. . " . .

'; information ~nd RecOmmendations' for Use~ of'Privati Well Wate~ . " ': :' ,"~·_an1eftlmfeal.....und 1n water' - I.'

,.' -North Carol~na Occupational and Envlronmental.Epldemloiogy BranCh (OEEB)"i·

.. ,Forz:::allnfo~on caD 919-707·5900 ..' .

Name: - A -~ ~:-.~ ~unty I ~~ .-

sampl~ Identification Number. ...; l~'tr7j )- 'u ~- .'_ " .

• • - II _ • •

..:.' . - .. '" I .

, Information . on Your-,'.Private Well Water

.

Your well water was laboratory tested for ch~mlcai cO~tamln8nts.Dr1nldng water may Olntaln-chemical·,. contaminants whIch can'oc<;ur naturally or be flitroducei:Jlnto water from man-made sources. 'The, chemicals found In your well were Introduced from_man-made sources. ' In order to evaluate your laboratory results for chemical Olntamlnants, your water resUltS· were compared to the n~tlonal pr1mary drinking water standards or maximum contaminant levels (MCls) (see~webslte for basis for each Me. at·" ' bttp: I/www.epa.goYIsDfewatetlgmtgmln8Dtsllndex.html#mds). MCls are national drinking.water standards that 'are required to be met by munfdpal water suppll~. If an MOo was not avalla"ble, your.. water results were. compared to the North Carolina 2L GroundW!terStan~ards.· 1"'

___, ContamInant concentratIons found In you:r .weil wa,tE!rare higher than the EPA recommended levels for drinking and cooking. These contaminants Include ' . . . . '.

·1 • " '. ., . . .

,Your well 'Yater should not be used for,drlnklng or cooking•. If you have been drinking, o·

the well water and ire pregnant, nursing, or have achild underS years of age, Inform . . your physician of the results. ' : '

... Because of the low levels, 8omeabsorptlon of these chemlcal$ls exp~cted -~- . : through Intact skin and exposure,to water vapor.,Therefore,Umlt sh.owerlng

and bathing time to less than 10mln~es.

Because of the high levels, absorption. ofthese chemicals ~uld occur through Intict skin and exposure to water vapor. The~fore, limit showering and , bathing time to less than 5 m.lnuies. . '

Secause of the very high 'Ievels, significant absQrptlon of these chemicals .could occur through Intact skin' and exposure to water vapor. Therefore, tl.1ls, water should not be used for showering and bathing" -, . .

__- You may want to purchase awater treatment devIce, drill anew well that Is distantly located from the groundwater contamination, use bottl,edwater, or connect to 8' publl,C water supply.

___ Resam'p"ng Is recommended"n . ~:. months.,

I, --- . other comments

i

•

'I

.~ VOAvw.s CONTAIN 1:1 HCL , ::.'.. . - " DO N9T RINSE .

N.C. Department or Hea1t~ Dnd Human Services '. '. .' Division of Public Health

. ~E~.JNSlR~~ SHEET'. .' State L~b~~atory .01 IJ61i~.H~;~lth '.' .' ~:~.....) . . . .... , ,P.O. Box 28047,.306 N: " Ilm~n,~on t1?,I~~~'NC 2761~ 804\,,",

'. Environmental SCiences ~nalys~s Report •.. '\. . r . , ..' . " ,I.

I . . , : . .

. \ .:.,.t>:·.':f· ,~.'~:-:. I·--.~> ..\:' .> i:.~·i ~'f;:;~ t. . . . . . T~lep1i~neif,~'::dl}1 ;:.: .. v'. .... . , .•.. :.'.'

:~o·un~:-·~G:~k:~-·~-.~ ..~~~.. . . '. ~

..... : .. " ..

'. " .. : ......'.~ ~ i~ ~.•:~"••'••• ii.~•••' ••.•. ~. ~~ •• ~.~. ~'.:. ~:.....~. ~'.••• ~. ~.; ~'••••••• ~. ~~ ••••••~~.~:. ~'....~ ..~'~ ••• ~ ....,

, , .' 'R:P;;rt ~;~~ iib:tJ,\\3n~+' ,:<....co~,..~8J: AI,:",: '" .... .' .;~I~pi.o~~ ,:tzoYJ ,~ <OS::3~S:).·~3·:· , ..... . . Telephone' L--> . .

A~~~es~=··' ·9q:f (J~ lkJ:tab.· /13 7~J . : - i)at~ ~ouec~~:·.. er;tq ~IO· . .:.. :". :. -:".::...:....... :.>.: 6;Mbo/r,11/C': ~c>6'~' . . . "..:- ~naJ15i~ ~~I~~~:_'-,,:rJ;~~;.,..'_/1",-'_·...______...:.

'. . .. . . .' .' .. '. ,. ';'.'. "

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

.....

. ..... ",' . ' .... ...• '. :.. : .

lAborato.'Y Number Sample' # . . ' ..... '. -; f'l ('\'*'-~

'..

ES070110-005GOO~

100731 06/29/2010

7) .VOA 524.2 (4 .. '

L ':. . '. •

ES070110-0056002

100732 ' fil' 01/29/2010 .

VO~ 524.2 (47) .'. ' ~

·:IP07·3~ , .' " '

,',

'. "

.. .. .' .....

.' .

.' ,. ' ..

....i " ... '.' " ..' .'. .. -- .''

1 Jomi#·.....ANM.. flJAI"• .j .-~-."'" _·7'-.J \ ~ .' •.:".-. ;~"'r-~.~' • ,/7'. ~{."""':- , ..;':"

.. ',' ',' ...... ' .. .

~ . '. . '.' .' ." .'. ' .', ... . '.. '.. . .. ' . ~ .. ' .... .

'. :.'

" ,.... :.",

Sample DescriDtion or Remarks '.' . Results In

.~-:; . 't;zt-1JQM1!~~'(;J,~\ ·North Carolina State Laboratory ofPublic Health ~o~':'~i7~f:~on SI.

" .' Environmental Sciences

Raleigh, NC 27611·8047 http://slph.state.nc.us

'Organic Chemistry:' ~:~:ne: ~;~Jii:~~~; Certific.ate of Analysis

Sample Group: ES079110-0056 .

Report To: ~ame of System:

GASTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH -CONNER, FLETCHER ' 104 APRfcOT ST.

991 WEST-HUDSON BLVD BACK (REAR) WELL

._.~::·~ELMONT, NC 28012 GASTO~IA, NC 28052

Attn: ,-·r r

County: GASTON Welf Permit #:

Sample#:, ES070110-0056001 Collected: 06/29/2010 .. R. WHISNANT Received: 07101/2010 09:07 MNICHOLSON

< .. Sample Type: Water Sampling, Point: . .Client Sample #: 100731 Sample Source: , Temp, at Receipt: 6.0 pEG' C GPS#:

-"Sample Description: - .. - . ,...i' Comment:

. . -

Organic Chern - VOCs .. •. Method: EPA 524.2 ..

- - '=.-VOA 524.2 (47)

. .

Analyte Result 'RL Units Qualifier(s)



Bromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L,

Chloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Trichlorofluoromethane .. Not Detected ·0.5 ug/L 1,1-Dichloroethene Not Detected .0.5 ug/L

Acetone Not Detected . 2.0 ug/L

lodomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Carbon 'Disulfide Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Methylene.chloride Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Acrylon itrile Not Detected '0.5 ugJL

trans-1,2~Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


. 1,1-Dichloroethane . - TRACE 0.5 ug/L

Isopropyl Ether Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


.2-Butanone (MEK) Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected 2.0 ug/L ..

. 1..Chloroform (T) TRACE 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1-Trichloroethane ,Not Detected 0.5 _ug/L

Carbon Tetrachloride Not Detected '0.5 ug/L

... ;.

Page { of 4-~

North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health ~O~':'~i~~~~on 51. , ,if

, 'Raleigh, NC 27611-8047 Environmental Sciences http://slph.state.nc.us

Organl"c Che'ml"s'try' Phone: '919-733-7834 Fax: 919-733-8695



Benzene Not Detected 0.5 ,ug/L

1,2-Dichloroethane Not Detected 0.5 'ug/L

Trichloroethene " Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,2~bichloropropane - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Dibromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L Bromodichloromethane (T) - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L cis-1,3-Dichloropropene Not Detected '0.5 -ug/L 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Toluene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L trans-1 ; 3~Dichloropropene Not Detected. --0.5 ug/L1,1,2-Trichloroethane Not Detected .0.5 ug/L Tetrachloroethene TRACE 0.5 ug/L 2-Hexanone Not Detected 0.5 ug/L' Dibromochforomethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L, 1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not Detected 0.5 ,'ug/L

Chlorobenzene ' Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

Ethylbenzene Not Detected 0.5 - ' ug/L

Total Xyfenes Not Detected 0.5 ug/L . Styrene Not Detected' 0.5 ug/L

Bromoform (T) Not Detec,ted 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Not Detected 0;5 ug/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L 1,2-Dibromo~3-chloropropane (DBCP) Not Detected 2-.0 ug/L

1,2,3-Trichloropropane' Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

.Report Date: , 717/2010 Repo~ed By: NEJney Jones

Page 2 of 4

:-;" ,-;=

North Carolina State LaboratorY ofPublic Health ~O~':'~i~~~~on SI. . Raleigh, NC 27611·8047

Environmental Sciences http://slph.slale.nc.us

Organ.ic CheIT1.istry .. ~:~:ne: :~::;ii:~:~: Certificate of Analvsis ,. _

Sample Group: ES070110-0~56

Report To: Name of System: . . .

GASTON CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH . _ CONNER, FLETCHER '·104 APRICOT ST.

991 WEST HUlDSON BLV[) BACK (REAR) WELL - BELMONT, NC 28012

'i-"

Attn:

. County: GASTON _ wen Permit #:

Sample #: ES070110-0056002 Collected: . 01J29/2010 . ·KMN Received: 07/01/2010 09:07. MNICHOLSON

Sample Type: . Water. Sampling Point: .. Client Sample #: 100732 Sample Source: Temp. at Receipt: 6.0DEG"C GPS#: ..

Sample Description: TRIP BLANK - .

Comment: . -

Organic Chern - VOCs ~: Me~hod: EPA 524.2 ..

VOA 524.2 (47) . .

.. - ,-

Analyte Result RL Units Qualifier(s) , Chloromethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Bromomethane ' Not Detected ' 0.5 ug/L

Chloroethane Not Detected 0.5 ug/L '

Trichlorofluoromethane Not Detected' 0.5 ug/L' . 1,1-Dichloroetherie . Not Detected . 0.5 ug/L .

Acetone Not Detected 2.0 ug/L . '





trans-1,2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

MTBE Not Detected 0.5 'ug/L.


Isopropyl Ether Not Detected " 0.5 ug/L ) . cis~1 :2-Dichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


, Tetrahydrofuran Not Detected .. 2.0 ug/L

Chloroform (T) Not Detected ' 0.5 ug/L

1,1,1-Trichloroethane Not Detected \, - -- 0.5 ug/L


i • -Page 3 of4 ;

, ,.

;

North Carolina State Laboratory of Public Health ~O~'~~i~~~:~on s:. Raleigh. NC 27611-8047

Environmental Sciences http://slph.state.nc.us . Phone: 919-733-7834 Organic Chemistry Fax: 919-733-8695



Benzene· Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,2-Dichloroethane . Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

. Trichloroethene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


Dibromomethane Not Detected 0.5 ug!L

Bromodichloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L cis-1,3..Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

4-Methyl-2-pentanone _ Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


trans-1 ;3-Dichloropropene Not Detected 0.5 ug/L


T etrachloroethene - Not Detected 0.5' - ug/L

2-Hexanone - Not Detected 0.5 -.ug/L

Dibromochloromethane (T) Not Detected 0.5 - ug/L

1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) Not Detected 0.5 ug/L.

Chlorobenzene Not Detected- _ 0.5' ug/L

1, 1, 1,2~Tetrachloroethane NotDetected 0.5 ug/L

Ethylbenzene Not Detected 0.5 _ug/l: Total Xylenes - . Not Detected - 0.5 ug/L

Styrene TRACE 0.5 'Ug/L

B~omoform- (T) - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,1,2,2-TetraCtiloroethane - Not Detected 0.5 ug/L

1,4-Dictilorobenzene - -Not Detected 0.5 \' ug/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Not DeteCted _ 0.5 ug/L

1 .2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) - Not Detected 2.0 ug/L

1.2,3-Trichloropropane Not Detect~d 0.5 ug/L

Report Date: 7nt2010 Reported By: Nancy Jones

-Page 40f4

AVA NCDENR

NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME T AND ATURAL RESOURCES

DIVISIO OF WASTE MA AGEMENT

Five-Year Review Report North Belmont PCE Site

North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina US EPA ID: NCD 986187128

Prepared for US EPA Region 4

June 2009

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT NORTH BELMONT PCE SITE

US EPA ID: NCD 986187128

Prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4

Prepared by the State ofNorth Carolina

Department of Environment & Natural Resources

AVA NCDENR ~CN'tOI..I_~"";NTOI""

ENVI"'C)NMEHT _0 NAM.J!"Al.. ~C~

June 2009

Five-Year Review North Belmont PCE

':!orth Belmont, Gaston County, NC

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms .iii Executive Summary : , : v Five-Year Review Summary Form viii Signature Page x 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Site Chronology : 3 3.0 Background 3

3.1 Site Description 3 3.2 Site Topography,. Geology, and Hydrogeology· 3 3.3 Land and Resource Use 4 3.4 History of Contamination 4 3.5 Initial Response 5 3.6 f Basis for Taking Action 6

4.0 Remedial Actions 7 4.1 Remedy Selection : 8

4.1.1 1997 Record of Decision 8 4.1.2 Explanation of Significant Difference 9

4.2 Remedy Implementation 10 4.3 ) System Operation/Operation & Maintenance 14

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 16 6.0 Five-Year Review Process ~ 16

6.1 Administrative Components 16 6.2 Community Involvemen·t. 17 6.3 Document Review · :..' 17 6.4 ARAR Review........ 17

6.4.1 Original ARARs from the 1997 ROD 18 6.4.2 Current Applicable ARARs , 19

6.5 Data Review : 19 6.6 Site Inspection 22 6.7 Interviews 22

7.0 Technical Assessment. ; 22 7.1 Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 22 7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and remedial

action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of the remedy still valid? 23 7.3 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question

the protectiveness of the remedy? 23 7.4 Technical Assessment Summary 23

8.0 Issues 24 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 24 10.0 Protectiveness Statement. : 24 11.0 Next Review ; 25

Figures

Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9

Attachments Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5:


North Belmont,' Gaston County, NC

Site Location Map Site Map of North Belmont PCE Site Average PCE Concentration, Top of Bedrqck Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Standards (August 2004 Data) Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Standards (September 2004 Data) Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Standards (October 2004 Data) 2008 SESD Sampling Locations

Chronology of Site Event Exposure Point Concentrations for Groundwater as' Stated in the 1997 ROD Exposure Point Concentrations for Surficial Soil as Stated in the 1997 ROD Groundwater Remediation Goals as Stated in the 1997 ROD Comparison of Costs for O&M Previous and Current ARARs for Groundwater COCs Summary of the Groundwater Analytical Results 6th Quarter Sampling 2008 SESD Sampling Data Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions

List of Documents Reviewed Site Inspection Checklist Complete Interviews Public Notice Vapor Intrusion Assessment ·1

ii

ARAR

AWQC

BRA

CERCLA

CFR

cac CRQL

1,2-DCE

ERT/REAC

ESD

FS

GAC

GPM

IC

IWRVS

MCL

MW

NCAC

NCDWA

NC2L

NCDENR

NCP

NC SWQS

Five-Year Review North Belmont PCE .

North Belmont, Gaston County, NC

List of Acronyms

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement

Ambient Water Quality Criteria

Baseline Risk Assessment

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

Code of Federal Regulations

Contaminant of Concern

Contract Required Quantitation Limit

1,2-Dichloroethene

Environmental Response Tearn/Response Engineering and Analytical

Center

Explanation of Significant Difference

Feasibility Study

Granular Activated Carbon

Gallons per Minute

Institutional Controls

In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping

Maximum Contaminant Level

Monitoring Well

North Carolina Administrative Code

North Carolina Drinking Water Act

North Carolina Groundwater Standards

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

National Contingency Plan

North Carolina Surface Water Quality Standards

iii



NPL

O&M

PCE

PCOR

ppb

RAO

RCFU

RCRA

RI

ROD

RPM

TCE

US EPA

ug/l

VCW

VOC

National Priorities List

Operation and Maintenance

Tetrachloroethene

Preliminary Close-Out Report

Parts per Billion

Remedial Action Objective

'- Residential Carbon Filtration Units

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

Remedial Investigation

Record of Decision

Remedial Project Manager

Trichloroethene

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Micrograms per liter or ppb

Vertical Circulation Well

Volatile Organic Compound

iv



~

Executive Summary

The North Belmont PCE Site (Site) is located in North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina. The Site consists of two closed dry cleaning operations referred to as "Source A" and "Source B". Source A is located at Roper's Shopping Center on Woodlawn Avenue. The former dry cleaning facility is approximately 0.75 acres in size and is bounded to the east and west by residential neighborhoods, to the north by a cemetery and an undeveloped wooded tract, and to the south by North Belmont Elementary School. Source Area B is located at the northeast comer of Acme Road and Suggs Street. This parcel has been converted to residential property. The surrounding area near Source Area B is residential with a few small commercial businesses.

From 1960 to 1975, Source Area A was operated by the Untz family as a dry cleaning establishment. A boiler located behind the building was used to "distill" the waste dry cleaning solvents. Unknown quantities of spent solvent residue from the boiler distillation unit were reportedly disposed onto the ground surface behind the building, and spent solvents were disposed through the on-site septic tank system. The Untz's family also operated Source Area B prior to moving the dry cleaning operations to Roper's Shopping Center. Source Area B was discovered during the Site reconnaissance in October 1995 from an interview with a local resident.

In February 1991, the Gaston County Health Department sampled the well that provided water to the North Belmont Elementary School and two single-family homes. The results of this sampling indicated volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the well and the US EPA Emergency Response was notified. The US EPA and Gaston County sampled drinking water wells within the vicinity of the school. Perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and cis1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) were detected in many of these samples. PCE concentrations were found as high as 15,000 parts per billion (ppb).

Beginning in March 1991, the US EPA Region IV Emergency Response conducted an emergency action at the Site. The North Belmont Elementary School was immediately connected to the City of Belmont water system. Many of the neighborhood drinking water wells were taken out of service and also connected to the City of Belmont water system. In July 1991, the US EPA installed several monitoring wells in the immediate area of Source Area A. Samples revealed the presence ofVOCs. The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Superfund Section prepared a Site Inspection report}n July 1993. Elevated levels ofVOCs were detected but the State was unable to locate the potential source of the VOC groundwater contamination or the septic tank on the north side of the shopping center.

v



The remedies set forth in the September 24, 1997 Record of Decision (ROD) provide for remediation ofcontaminated groundwater. The major components of the remedy include:

., Installation of an in-well vapor stripping system to treat contaminated groundwater that is above the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or the North Carolina Groundwater Standards (NC2L);

• In-situ bioremediation; .'. Connection of affected residences, businesses, churches, etc. currently not on city

water to the City of Belmont or Gaston County public water supply; • Optional wellhead treatment for affected private wells; and • Continued analytical monitoring for contaminants in groundwater.

The ROD stated that groundwater remediation would address the contaminated groundwater at the Site. The major components of the groundwater treatment option include inwell vapor stripping and in-situ biological treatment.

The Site was proposed for listing on the ~ational Priorities List (NPL) on April 23, 1999 and placed on the final NPL on July 22, 1999.

On August 24, 2000 an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) was signed to modify the groundwater remedy at the Site: Delete the requirement for in-situ bioremediation. During the remedial design, a treatability study was conducted to determine if in-situ

\ '

bioremediation was feasible at the Site. The conclusion of the study was that complete dechlorination of PCE would not occur at the Site and therefore, full-sc;ale implementation of in- . situ bioremediation would perform poorly in the field and was not recommended.

The following are summaries of the remedial action activities implemented at the Site: • In October 2001, the water main construction project was initiated. Seventy-two

residences were connected to city water. • Residential well abandonment activities were initiated on January 14,2002 and

were concluded on March 18, 2002. Two homes were installed with residential carbon filtration units (RCFUs) and fifty-two residential wells were abandoned.

• The In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping (IWRVS) construction was initiated on November 12,2002, and was completed on March 14,2003. The IWRVS was started up on March 17,2003. However, the US EPA placed the operation of the IWRVS system on hold in October 2004 because the aquifer could not accept reinjection of the additional, treated groundwater at the pace at which it was treated. The US EPA is currently reassessing the status of the IWRVS in addition to exploring other reinjection and discharge optioris for the treated groundwater.

vi



This is the first Five-Year review for the North Belmont PCE Site. The triggering action for this review is the signing date of the Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR), June 21, 2004. This Five-Year 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" (US EPA Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, June 2001, Section 1.2.2).

According to documents, the Site inspection, and interviews with the US EPA, the exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater has been mitigated. The US EPA offered an alternative water source to all the residences impacted by the groundwater contamination. Seventy-two of these residences have been connected to city water, and two residences were provided RCFUs for their private drinking water wells; however, one residence that received a RCFU later decided to be connected to city water. Although residents in the affected area and some beyond the affected area were offered alternative drinking water, some residents decline to participate in the remedy. The remediation system was built, tested, and operational for a period of time.

The exposure ~ssumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and RAOs used at the,. time of the remedy are still valid for the COCs. There are no known current exposure routes to the groundwater or soil and the remedy.

The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. Recently, the US EPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment at the Site. This assessment concluded that the exposure, via vapor intrusion, at the Site is well within the risk range for residential properties. However, the pump and treat system as well a~ the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been in operation during the past four years, and is therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document.

Currently, a protectiveness determination of the complete remedy at the North Belmont PCE Site cannot be made until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions: (1) resample the wells from the properties that originally declined alternative water and, if needed, offer these residences the opportunity to receive an alternative water source. It is expected that th,ese actions will take approximately one year to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be made.

vii

I



Site name (from WasteLAN): North Belmont PCE Site

US EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NCD 986187128

NPL status: [&I Final 0 Deleted 0 Other (specify)

Remediation status (choose all that apply): 0 Under Construction [&I Operating

o Complete

Multiple OUs?*O YES [&I NO Construction completion date: 06 / 21 / 2004

Has site been put into reuse? [&I YES 0 NO

REVI E\\ ST ·\TUS

Lead agency: [&I US EPA 0 State 0 Tribe 0 Other

Author(s) name: NileTesterman / Stephanie Grubbs

Author(s) title: Author(s) affiliation: NC DENR

Engineer/Hydrogeologist

Review period: 12 / 1 /2008 to 6 /21 /2009

Date(s) of site inspection: 3/12/2009

Type of review: Policy ;

Review number: [&II (first) 0 2 (second) o 3 (third) 0 Other

Triggering Action:

o Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU #__ DActual RA Start

o Construction Completion DPrevious Five-Year Review Report

[&I Other- Signing of the Preliminary Close-Out Report -

Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): 6/21/2004

Due date (jive years after triggering action date): 6/21 /2009

viii



There are three issues that have been identified during this review.

1. Institutional Controls have not been implemented.

2. The remediation system is not operating.

3. There are residents that declined to participate in the portion of the remedy that provided alternative drinking water, thereby possibly creating an active exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater.

Recommendations and Follow-up Actions: Implement permanent land use restrictions or other appropriate institutional

controls at the Site. The remediation system needs to be restarted and functioning on a regular basis. Resample the wells from the properties that initially declined alternative water and, if needed, offer these residents a second opportunity to receive alternative water. ,,

Protectiveness Statement: The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply

system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. Recently, the US EPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment at the Site. This assessment concluded that the exposure, via vapor intrusion, at the Site is well within the risk range for residential properties. However, the pump and treat system as well as the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been in operation during the past four years, and is therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document.

Currently, a protectiveness determination of the complete remedy at the North Belmont PCE Site cannot be made until- further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the following actions: Sample drinking water wells from the properties that originally declined alternative water and, if needed, offer these residences the opportunity to receive an alternative water source. It is expected that these actions will take approximately one year to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will be-made.



FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT NORTH BELMONT PCE SITE

US EPA ID: NCD 986187128

Prepared for the US EPA Region 4

Prepared by the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

r ate ~

x

/



1.0 Introduction

The purpose of conducting a Five-Year Review is to determine 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 IV, has conducted a Five-Year Review of the remedial actions implemented at the North Belmont PCE Site (Site) (US EPA ID# NCD 986187128). The Site is located in North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina. The review was conducted from December 2008 through June 2009 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 Contingency Plan (NCP). CERCLA §121 states:

!fthe 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, ijupon such review it is the judgment ofthe President that action is appropriate at such site in accordance with section [104] or [106], the President shall take or require such action. The President shall report to the Congress a list offacilities for which such review is required, the results ofall such reviews, and any actions taken as a result ofsuch reviews.

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

!fa remedial action 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 every five years after the initiation ofthe selected remedial action.

1



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 Site consists of one operable unit. The remedial action provides remediation of contaminated groundwater. As stated in the ROD, the remedy for the contaminated groundwater consisted of the connection of all homes, churches, and businesses to the public water supply or optional installation of carbon filters on private wells, groundwater treatment via in-well vapor stripping, in situ bioremediation, and continued analytical monitoring for groundwater cleanup goals.

The triggering action for this review is the signing date of the Preliminary Close-Out ( Report (PCOR), June 21,2004. This Five-Year Review for the North Belmont PCE Site 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 is triggered 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 1997 Record of Decision (ROD), "the goal of the remedial action is to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use. Based on the information obtained during the Remedial Investigation (RI), and the analysis of all remedial alternatives, the US EPA and the State of North Carolina believe that the selected remedy will be able to 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:

• To confirm that the remedies, as specified in the 1997 ROD and subsequent 2000 ESD, remain effective at protecting human health and the environment (i.e., the remedies are operating and functioning as deSIgned) and;

• To evaluate whether the clean-up levels specified in the RODs remain protective of human health and the environmedt.

The next Five-Year Review for the Site will be due in June 2014.

2



2.0 Site Chronology

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

3.0 Background

3.1 Site Description

The North Belmont PCE Site is located in North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina. The Site consists of two closed dry cleaning operations referred to as "Source A" and "Source B, with a distance of 0.3 miles between the store locations. Source A, which was operated by the Untz family from 1960 to 1975 as a dry cleaning business, is located at Roper's

· Shopping Center in Land Lot 5, Parcel 15-18A on Woodland Avenue. The former dry cleaning facility is approximately 0.75 acres in size and is bounded to the east and west by residential neighborhoods, to the north by a cemetery and an undeveloped wooded tract, and to the· south by North Belmont Elementary School. Source Area B is located at the northeast comer of Acme Road and Suggs Road in Land Lot 11, Parcel 15-18. This parcel has been converted to residential property. The majority of the surrounding Source Area B is residential with a few small commercial businesses. Figure 1 is a site location map and Figure 2 is a map of the Site, source areas, and the surrounding areas. . .

3.2 Site Topography, Geology, and Hydrogeology . ..

Gaston County North Carolina lies in the central portion of the Piedmont Physiographic; Province between $e Appalachian Mountains to the west and the Atlantic Coastal Plain to the east. The Piedmont is primarily characterized as rolling uplands although the county's western

· area consists of northeast trending ridges. The elevation of Source Area A is approximately 760 feet above mean sea level, and the elevation of Source Area B is 730 feet above mean sea level. The topography of the Site is composed of low ridges accentuated by numerous small streams

,valleys. In general, topography changes are gradual,except for occasional steep-sided stream valleys. Specifically, the site topography is dominated by a riclgeline on the western half of the Site. The former Untz Dry Cleaning facility, located within the present Roper Shopping Center, was located along the center ridgeline. East of the ridgeline, the topography is dominated by slopes trending from the southeast to the northwest towards a small tributary of Fites Creek (unnamed tributary "A") that has headwaters adjacent to the Roper location. The unnamed . tributary lies along the northern edge of the Site and flows to the east. Site topography along the eastern perimeter is also affected by the presence of another small stream along the extreme eastern edge of the Site. This stream, which is also an unnamed tributary of Fites Creek (unnamed tributary "B"), flows northeast and into the aforementioned stream. West of the

·ridgeline, the topography continues to slope west and eventUally encounters another stream.

The Site is located within the central portion of the Charlotte Belt ofNorth Carolina. Granite-type rocks, metavolcanics, gneisses and schists dominate the rock types that underlie this

3



terrain. The rock types are ofvarying metamorphic grade, and all rock units trend parallel with strike of the Appalachian Mountains, which is typically northeast to southwest. These same units typically dip to the southeast along with the regional topography trend. Structurally, the area is complex with rocks units displaying one or two types of metamorphism or structural changes such as folding or faulting. A large, unnamed fault is located approximately six miles to the west of the Site.

The Site is underlain by foliated to massive metamorphosed quartz diorite and massive to weakly foliated, hornblende-rich granitic type rock. These rock units have undergone periods of deformation that have producedJolding and fractures planes in the rock, as well as brittle zones where the rock is actually crushed, sheared, or faulted in some manner. As the rock types become weathered, soil profiles develop that are characteristic of the original rock, also referred to as saprolite.

Regionally, the water bearing units that underlie the Site and the surrounding areas represent an aquifer system consisting of metamorphosed and fractured quartz diorite and granitic type rocks in varying proportions and thicknesses. Geologic structures that produce high-yielding wells include contact zones of multilayered rock units, zones of fracture concentration, and stress-relief fracture zones. Previous studies have indicated that wells in Gaston County that are set within the granite have an average depth of 165 feet and an average yield of 18 gallons per minute. Within this area, well depths range from 85 feet to over 1,000 feet and well yield range from 2.5 to 116 gallons per minute. The aquifer system underlying the Site generally consists of the saprolite/partially weathered rock aquifer and the underlying bedrock aquifer; however, interconnection between these units is likely, thereby influencing contaminant transport. Aquifer designations used during the RI for the Site are: saprolite aquifer, top of bedrock aquifer, and the bedrock aquifer.

3.3 Land and Resource Use

The area surrounding the Site is mostly residential intermixed with some small businesses. Source Area A is located at Roper's Shopping Center on Woodlawn Drive. The shopping center includes commercial retail stores and a church. The former dry cleaner facility, located in Roper's Shopping Center, was approximately 0.75 acres in size and is bound to the

, east and west by residential neighborhoods. Source Area B is located on the northeastern corner of Acme Road ands Suggs Road. This parcel has been converted to residential property with a few small businesses. The land use for the area has and continues to be primarily commercial and residential. This is also the expected future land use for the Site and the surrounding area.

3.4 History of Contamination

Source Area A was operated by the Untz family from 1960 to 1975 as a dry cleaning establishment. A boiler located behind the building was use to "distill" the waste dry cleaning solvents. Unknown quantities of spent solvent residue from the boiler distillation unit were

4



reportedly disposed onto the ground surface behind the building, and spent solvents were disposed through the on-site septic tank system. The Untz's family also operated Source Area B prior to moving the dry cleaning operations to Roper's Shopping Center. Source Area B was discovered during the site reconnaissance in October 1995 from an interview with a local resident.

In February 1991, the Gaston County Health Department sampled the well that provided water to the North Belmont Elementary School and two single-family homes. This sampling was associated with an effort by the county to evaluate community water supplies for volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination. The results of this sampling indicated VOC contamination in the well. The US EPA Emergency Response was notified. The US EPA and Gaston County sampled 25 drinking water wells within the vicinity of the school. , Perchloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and cis-l ,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) were detected in 16 of these samples. PCE concentrations were found as high as 15,000 parts per billion (ppb).

3.5 Inltial Response

Beginning in March 1991, the US EPA Region IV Emergency Response conducted an emergency action at the Site. The North Belmont Elementary School was immediately connected to the City of Belmont water system. Twenty-nine of the neighborhood drinking water wells were taken out of service and also connected to the City of Belmont water system. All but 12 of the residential wells were subsequently abandoned by grouting them to the surface; 12 wells remained intact and were proposed as monitoring wells. Seven residences in the neighborhood were informed of the contamination but chose to continue to use their wells and not_connect to city water. Wells in use near the Site were scheduled for sampling by the Gaston County Health Department. However, these wells were not resampled until the US EPA's investigation in 1996.

In July 1991, the US EPA Environmental Response Team/Response Engineering and Analytical Center (ERT/REAC) installed one bedrock and four overburden monitoring wells in . the immediate area of Source Area A. Samples from the five wells reve~led the presence of VOCs. The NC DENR, Superfund Section prepared a Site Inspection report in July 1993. Elevated levels of VOCs were detected but the State was unable to locate the potential source of the VOC groundwater contamination or the septic tank on the north side of the shopping center. In March 1996, the US EPA sampled 25 residential wells (seven were converted to monitoring wells in 1991) in the vicinity of the Site to update the 1991 analytical results. As a result of theses findings, one additional residence was connected to city water. This well did not contain any contaminants in tqe initial 1991 sampling event. High levels of trichlorofluoromethane were found in three of the wells, and as a result, this compound might have masked low concentrations of the other VOCs.

5



The Site was proposed for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) on Apri123, 1999 and placed on the final NPL on July 22, 1999. The NPL is a list of priority releases for 10ngterm 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 listis found in the NCP (Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300).

3.6 Basis for Taking Action

Environmental investigations have been ongoing at the Site since the early 1990s. After the initial phase of the work identified the presence of impacted groundwater beneath the Site, monitoring and residential wells were monitored for the purpose of evaluating groundwater impacts. From August 1995 through September 1997, a combined Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) was conducted to confirm that contaminants were present and to assess the extent, magnitude, and impact of contamination. The Baseline Risk Assessment for the Site was completed in August 1997. Both the RI and the FS were conducted in accordance with the NCP, and as specified by the Administrative Order on Consent for RIIFS. The US EPA, in developing the ROD for the Site, used the FS in combination with the RI and the baseline risk assessment.

'As summarized in the 1997 ROD, "The North Belmont Site is releasing contaminants into the environment. The Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) report presents the results ofa comprehensive risk assessment that addresses the potential threats to public health and the environment posed by the Site under current andfuture conditions, assuming that no remedial actions take place, and the surrounding area will remain a residential community. The BRA report consists ofthe following sections: identification ofchemicals ofpotential concern, toxicity assessment, human exposure assessment, and risk characterization.

Data collected during the RJ was reviewed and evaluated to determine the chemicals of potential concern at the Site, which are most likely to pose risk to the public health. These contaminants were chosen for each environmental media sampled. The chemicals ofpotential concern in groundwater are: 1, I-dichloroethene, cis-I, I-dichloroethene, 1, 4-dichlorobenzene, trichloroethene, trichlorojluoromethane, tetrachloroethene, methylene chloride, chloroform, bis(2-ethyl hexyl)phthalate, alpha chlordane, gamma chlordane, heptachlor epoxide, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and zinc. The chemical ofpotential concern for soils are: benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(bk)jlouranthene, benzo(a)anthfacene, benzo(a, h)anthracene, indeno (l,2,3-cd)pyrene, aluminum, chromium, manganese, and vanadium.

The exposure assessment evaluates and identifies complete pathways ofexposure to human population on or near the Site. Current exposure pathways include exposure through incidental ingestion ofsoil; inhalation offugitive dusts from soil; dermal contact with soil; and ingestion ofwaterfrom private wells. Land use assumptions include residential and commercial. "

0'

6

Five-Year Review , North Belmont PCE


Exposure point concentrations as reported in the ROD for groundwater and soil are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

:Based on-all the information gathered during the RI, FS, and risk assessment, the 1997 ROD specified installation of an in-well vapor stripping system to treat contaminated groundwater, in situ bioremediation, connection of affected properties not on city water to the City of Belmont or Gaston County public water supply; optional wellhead treatment for affected private wells; and continued analytical monitoring as the remedy for the Site.

4.0 Remedial Actions

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 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 specified 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 Acceptarice 9. Community Acceptance'

The Assessment of the Site in the 1997 ROD, states, "Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, ifnot addresses by implementing the response action selected in the Record ofDecision, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment". The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) as stated' in the 1997 ROD, Section 8 Remedial Action Objectives, "Considering the requirements for risk reduction and the risk-based remediation levels derived in the Baseline Risk Assessment, and the ARARs discussed previously, the remediation goals specifically developedfor groundwater across the entire Site are presented in Table 8-1. "(See Table 4 of this report for the Remediation Goals for Groundwater as stated in the ROD).

The remediation goals were selected as the most conservative ofthe chemical specificARARs or the health-based risk goals. The contract required quantitation limit (CRQL) was chosen ifthe chemical-specific ARAR was below this limit. The background concentration would

.have been selected as the remediation goal ifit had exceeded the risk-based goal, as the normal procedure. "

7



As noted within the selected remedy within the ROD, the goal of the selected groundwater remedy is to restore the groundwater to its beneficial use. Because this remedy resulted in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants r~maining'on site above healthbased levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (i.e., contaminated groundwater), Five-Year Reviews will be conducted after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protectioriofhuman'health and the environment.

4.1 Remedy Selection

4.1.1 1997 Record of Decision

The remedies set forth in the September 24, 1997 ROD' provide for remediation of contaminated groundwater. The major components of the remedy include:

• Installation of an in-well vapor stripping systemto treat contaminated groundwater that is above the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) or the North Carolina Groundwater Standards (NC2L);

• In situ bioremediation; • Connection of affected residences, businesses, churches, etc. currently not on city

water to the City ofBelmont or Gaston County public water supply; • Optional wellhead treatment for affected private wells; and • Continued analytical monitoring for contamina1?-ts in groundwater.

The ROD stated that groundwater remediation would address the contaminated groundwater at the Site. The major components of the groundwater treatment option include inwell vapor stripping and in-situ biological treatment. The in-well VOC removal system volatilizes VOCs contained in groundwater and removes them as a vapor. The vapor is retrieved using a vacuum extraction and is treated above ground by adsorption onto granular activated carbon (GAC). The VOC-enriched vapor is extracted and the partially cleaned water is returned to the aquifer. The system recirculates the groundwater through air-lift pumping. The system converts groundwater contamination into a vapor that is vacuum-extracted and treated. At the same time, air-lift pumping circulates the groundwater, which becomes cleaner with each pass through the in-well air stripper. The only input to the system is gas, which is injected into the well. The injected gas is typically air and can be recycled during the process.

The only output of the system is gas that is removed fr,?m the well; this gas contains the VOCs removed from the groundwater. After removal, this VOC vapor is adsorbed onto the GAC. The GAC is regenerated and reused. No major facilities are needed for this technology. Power is needed to operate, the pumps and compressors. The method itself involves no moving parts beneath the ground surface; however, careful packer and well design would be required to successfully divert the groundwater from the well back into the saturated zone and to the water table. This system was expected to operate approximately IO years.

8

.~



If it is detennined that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be restored to their beneficial use, all of the following measures involving long-tenn management may occur, for an indefinite . I

period of time, as modification of the existing system: • Engineering controls such as physical barriers, or long-tenn gradient control

provided by low level pumping, as a containment measure; • Perfonnance standards may be waived for the cleanup ofthose portions of the

aquifer based on the technical impracticability of achieving further containment reduction;

• Institutional controls may be provided/maintained to restrict assess to those portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation levels;

• Continued monitoring of speCified wells; and . • Periodic re-evaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater restoration.

Based upon data collected during the RI and as stated in the 1997 ROD, "Soil borings, and temporary andpermanent monitoring wells were used to search for the location ofactive sources such as contaminated subsurface soils since the original sources (the boiler unit or the septic tank) ofthe contamination are no longer present. In June and July 1996, a total ofsixteen soil borings were installed within the study area. The soil borings were installed to locate active sources since the original sources ofcontamination are no longer present. The subsurface soils were divided into six zones: 5 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet, 30feet, and 40 to 110feet below ground surface. No constituents exceeded the Region 3 Risk Based Concentration Values for theses zones." Therefore, provisions for soil were not described in the ROD. Table 4 shows the . remediation goals for groundwater under the 1997 ROD.

4.1.2 Explanation of Significant Difference

On August 24, 2000, the US EPA signed an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) to modify the groundwater remedy at the Site by deleting the requirement for in-situ . bioremediation..

During the remedial design, a treatability study was conducted to detennine if in-situ bioremediation was feasible at the Site. A laboratory microcosm study was conducted under controlled conditions to identify site-specific factors affecting the rate and extent of reductive dechlorination of contaminants. The 42 I-day microcosm study found little enhancement of PCE reductive dechlorination. The presence of daughter products (e.g. TCE, DCE, vinyl chloride, and ethene) was found to be insignificant. The conclusion of the study was that complete dechlorination of PCE would not occur at,the Site and therefore, full-scale implementation of insitu bioremediation would perfonn poorly in the field and was not recommended. The US EPA

.considered the new infonnation and made modifications to the selected remedy and believes that the remedy selected in the ROD remains protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to this remedial action, and is cost-effective. In addition, the remedy utilizes pennanent solutions

. and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable at the Site.

9



4.2 Remedy Implementation

In 1997, an RI was conducted by the US EPA to detemiine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site. The following briefly summarizes conclusions from the RI report:

• Two source areas were identified: Source Area A and Source Area B. • The 1997 information indicated that the contaminant plume is spreading.* Private

wells in the vicinity of the Site which were not contaminated in 1991 when the US EPA first investigated the Site were found to be contaminated during the RI. (*current 2009 data suggests that the plume is hydraulically stable and not spreading at the present time.)

• Contamination detected in the shallow aquifer appears to be localized in Source Area A (Roper's Shopping Center).

• Contaminants migrated from the shallow aquifer into the top of the bedrock zone and into the bedrock aquifer. Maximum PCE concentrations detected in the saprolite aquifer, the top of the bedrock layer, and the bedrock aquifer during the 1996 RI sampling were 2,200 micrograms per liter (ug/L), 2,500 ug/L, and 3,500 ug/L, respectively.

• The source of contamination in the southern edge of the plume may be either Source Area A or Source Area B.

• No evidence of residual soil VOC contamination was found at either source area. It is believed that the contaminants migrated through the soil directly into the shallow aquifer.

• There was no evidence of VOC impacts to surface water and sediment in the area. I

A treatability study was conducted as part of the Remedial Design to evaluate the effectiveness of in situ bioremediation at the Site. In-situ bioremediation was selected as part of the groundwater remedy in the ROD. The treatability study was conducted in accordance with the Final Treatability Study Work Plan, North Belmont, North Carolina. The treatability study was comprised of two major components, the bioassessment field study and the laboratory microcosm treatability study. .

The bioassessment field study conducted in January 1999 consisting of groundwater sampling and analysis conducted at nine locations in the top of bedrock aquifer and ten locations in the bedrock aquifer. Analytical results from this sampling confirmed the presence of contaminants of concern (COCs) identified in the 1997 RI and the 1998 Data Acquisitions· Report. The main chlorinated solvents detected were PCE, TOE, and 1,2-DCE. Also found were their biotransformation products vinyl chloride, ethene, and ethane.

I

10



The laboratory microcosm study was initiated in February 1999 to further investigate the potential for enhancing in situ bioremediation processes for remediation of groundwater contamination at the Site. The microcosm study conducted was under the controlled conditions to identify site-specific factors affecting the rate and extent of reductive dechlorination of contaminants at the .Site. As discussed earlier in Section 4.1.2, Explanation of Significant Differences, the 421-day study found little enhancement of PCE reductive dechlorination. The presence of daughter products was found to be insignificant. The conclusion of the study was that complete dechlorination of PCE would not occur at the Site and, therefore, full-scale implementation of in situ bioremediation was not recommended. In 2000, the US EPA prepared an ESD that would delete the ROD requirement for the use of in situ bioremediation as a groundwater remedy for the Site.

During the RD phase, two performance-based designs were produced in preparation for the RA and the two planned remedial activities, the water main extension and the in-well vapor stripping. The final versions of these documents were the Final (100%) Design for Extension of Existing Water Main, Connection ofIndividual Residential Carbon Filtration Units at the North Belmont PCE Site, North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina, Region IVand the Final (100%) Designfor Groundwater Remediation Using In-Well Vapor Stripping at the North Belmont PCE Site, North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina, Region IV. .

In April 2001, CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM) was the successful bidder on the North Belmont PCE Site. CDM then solicited proposals from other contractors for subcontracting out portions of the project. Trans-State was awarded the subcontract for the water main extension and EA Engineering for the in-well recirculation and vapor stripping construction oversight (this also covered the well abandonment work). EA was tasked with the design, . installation, and operation of the groundwater remediation system. CDM provided construction oversight during the subcontract period.

Roy F. Weston was the design subcontractor to Trans-State, producing the designs and technical specifications for the water main extension and the RCFUs prior to construction. The designs were reviewed and approved by the US EPA, the State ofNorth Carolina, the City of Belmont, and CDM. The RCFUs were approved in June 2001 and the final design for the water main extension was approved in October 2001.

Water Main Extension

The construction phase of the water main extension project was initiated with mobilization on October 9, 2001. The water main construction proceeded in the following sequence: cuts were made in existing roadways and pavements as required; new water main pipe was installed in the trenches; taps were made into the new water main; water meter boxes were set; taps were made into the existing water main to connect to the new water main; hydrostatic and disinfection testing was performed; cuts were backfilled and compacted; compaction testing

11



was performed; and residences were connected to the new water main. Site restoration was completed after construction. Site restoration included grading, seeding, and mulching of all cleared and grubbed areas of the Site to their original condition. The water main construction was completed and demobilization occurred on February 8, 2002. A summary of the work performed under the water main extension RA is listed below:

• Approxill1ately 6,120 linear feet of 8 inch water main was installed, • Approximately 1,180 linear feet of 2 inch water main was installed, • Approximately 4,155 linear feet of road was resurfaced, • 72 residences were connected to city water, • 27 residences received a water stub and meter box, • The water main extension serves a residential area of approximately 100 acres, • The final subcontract cost for the water main work was $882,270, and • The water main extension and connection of residences to city water was

substantially complete on January 22, 2002.

Residential Carbon Filtration Units CRCFUs) and Well Abandonment

The residential well abandonment activities were initiated on January 14, 2002 and were concluded on March 18, 2002. A summary of the work performed under the residential well abandonment Remedial Action (RA) is listed below:

• Two RCFUs were installed on October 30, 2002, • One RCFU was later removed from operation when the owner requested change

to city water, • Final subcontract cost for the RCFU was $58,510, • 52 residential wells were abandoned between January 14 through March 18,2002, • 6,582 linear feet of residential wells were grouted, and • The final subcontract cost for the abandonment of residential wells was $121,767.

In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping OWRVS)

The US EPA issued a response action contract in January 2001 for groundwater remediation at the Site. EA was selected in July 2001 as the CDM subcontractor to implement IWRVS technology at the Site. EA was tasked with the design, installation, and operation of the groundwater remediation system. The IWRVS construction was initiated on November 12, 2002 with an on-site kick-off meeting. The Site construction was completed on March 14,2003 and the start-up of the system was initiated on March 17, 2003. The summary of work performed under the IWRVS RA is listed below:

Pre-Design • Sampling of existing monitoring wells to evaluate the groundwater contamination

in the partially weathered rock and bedrock zones, • D~rect push sampling to evaluate the groundwater contamination in the shallow

zone of the aquifer,

12



• Integrate current data with infonnation from previous reports and investigations, • Establish location of chlorinated VOC plume in the shallow, top of bedrock, and

bedrock aquifer zones, • Select recirculation well (shallow and deep) locations based on previous

investigations and current sample data, • Installation and construction of one 6-inch vertical circulation well (VCW) at the

Roper's location capable of evaluating the circulation of groundwater, and • Perfonnance of dye testing on recirculation wells. . I

Design • Selection of an "optimized mass removal" design alternative as the most cost

effective and efficient configuration, as opposed to the well configuration of treatment wells that was originally a part of the d~sign approach, r

• Detennination ofwell spacing (shallow and deep) to be a minimum of 80 feetbased on a calculated 40 foot effective radius based on pilot test results,

• Detennination of well installation drilling methodology, • Identification of well construction (shallow and deep), • Identification of location and number of wells based on final system .

configuration, location of target plume, and property access, and • Establish criteria for system equipment and components.

Constrnction/lnstallation • Drilling and installation of~o6-inch diameter VCWs in the Roper treatment

area, • Construction of three in-well circulation systems at the Roper location in each

well, including well vaults, inflatable packers, downhole p·iping, monitoring transducers and/or controls, and submersIble well pumps,

• Drilling and installation of three 6-inch diameter VCWs in the Parkdale. treatment area,

• Construction of four in-well circulation systems at the Parkdale location in each well,

• Construction and installation of a central treatment building, equipment, piping, values, mechanical equipm~nt, electrical and controls, instruments, and associated site work required,

• Drilling and installation of two double-nested 2-in~h monitoring wells (piezometers) in six 6-inch boreholes at the Roper location, and

• Drilling and installation of three double-nested 2-inch monitoring wells (piezometers) in six6-inch boreholes at the Parkdale location.

Operation and Maintenance • Initial start-up and prove-out of the system for approximately four weeks

including overall system monitoring, influent and effluent groundwater sampling, air emissions sampling, and monitoring of mechanical and electrical operations

13

-\



• Operation and maintenance of the system for a period of one year, including sampling and reporting.

4.3 System Operation/Operation and Maintenance

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

Because O&M for the water main extension was transferred to the City of Belmont upon completion of construction and testing, a formal O&M Plan was not required for the water main extension work. After the well abandonment activities at the Site occurred, no O&M activities were warranted for the abandoned wells.

As for the RCFUs, Trans-State was required to respond to all corrective maintenance requests within 24 hours of notification from individual residents for the period of one year. Repairs were limited to no more than three times over the course of that one-year period. As stated previously, two residents requested that RCFUs be installed at their properties; however, soon after installation one of the residents requested to be connected to city water after his groundwater well had gone dry. Only one RCFU was sampled after January 2002. The one-year operation period covered October 30,2001 to October 30, 2002. No documentation was found that indicated a problem with the one RCFU during the one year O&M period.

As per the contract and Performance Monitoring Plan (completed by EA in October 2002), regular monitoring and sampling during the annual O&M of the IWRVSwas required. During the 335-day O&M period (which began on March 14,2003 and concluded on May 14, 2004) and the two additional quarters ofO&M (which concluded on October 15,2004), regular weekly and monthly monitoring and sampling were recorded and summarized in quarterly reports.

As stated in the Final Remedial Action Reportfor IWRVS, Section 6.3 Operation and Maintenance Problems, the system operated at less than average design pumping rates of 2 gallons per minute (gpm) each for wells at the Roper's location and 4 gpm at each Parkdale, location. Due to much lower pumping rates, the wells were removing contaminant mass below the estimated design rate. On April 20, 2004, EA contacted the NC DENR regarding the pumping rate issue. The NC DENR provided an assessment of the treatment system and options for system optimization. In order to improve the system efficiency and mass recovery of the groundwater, extraction rates were increased in VCWs that exhibited historical trends of high VOC levels, the groundwater extraction rates were minimized in the VCWs where the VOC levels were relatively low, and the re-injection rates were adjusted throughout the wells to maximize the capabilities of the system to receive treated groundwater in disproportionate volumes. These actions temporarily provided an increase in the volume of groundwater treated, but with continued operation has resulted in a continued decline in the injection capacity of the VCWs. It is likely that the optimization of the wells can be best accomplished if the circulation wells and the treatment equipment are rehabilitated.

14



Also included in the Final Remedial Action Reportfor IWRVS, Section 7 System Mothballing, CDM notified EA that system operation was to be placed on hold pending turnover to another US EPA contractor at a date yet to be determined. CDM directed EA to take the following actions to prepare the system for turnover to the US EPA:

• Prepare the system to be dormant for an unknown time period. All of the extraction, re-injection, and auxiliary pipes were drained and resealed after the draining was completed. The transfer pump and air stripper unit were also drained and reconnected with all water removed.

• Each of the flow meters contained in the seven well vaults were removed and placed in the remediation building to be reconnected and used at a futUre:date. Blind flanges were installed in place of the flow meters to prevent damage to the system. '

• Final maintenance/actions that were completed to maintain the integrity of the system were: close fresh air ducts in remediation building; de-energize the' control panel, heater, exhaust fan, transfer pump, and groundwater pumps; check building for leaks and seal leaks with caulk; repair cracked concrete around a well vault; oil appropriate metal surfaces to prevent corrosion; and, lubricate all pumps and blowers.

• Closeout items: Provide CDM with all remediation building keys, store the toolsI

used to access the well vaults in the remediation building, transfer electric bills to the US EPA or designee; stop the existing phone service at the remediation building; and, place desiccant bags in all electrical panels.

EA completed all the activities listed above from December 9 through 11, 2004. ' The IWRVS system had been shutdown in October 2004 and the system has not been restarted to date. CDM's contract was replaced with an ERRS (Emergency and Rapid Response Services) contract which began in December 2004. The ERRS contractor, Kemron, was responsible for, general maintenance at the Site, such as cutting the grass and inspection of the wells. Environmental Restoration LLC received the general maintenance contract in August 2008.

£!!11. Water Main Extension Project. RCFUs. and Residential Well Abandonment The cost estimate of construction and O&M for the water main extension project was'

completed during the RD phase of the project. The total projected costs were initially estimated at $788,189. After the pre-bid process and prior to the contract award, the cost estimate was updated to reflect changes from the RD· assumptions: increase in labor costs, increase of water main length, change in installation technique, and an additional round of sampling for the RCFUs was'increased to $812,371. The actual cost of the water main extension project only (no RCFUs included) was $882,270. The initial estimated cost of the RCFUs was $60,932 and the actual cost of the RCFUs was $58,510.

15



The cost estimate for the residential well abandonment project was completed during the RD phase of the project The scope of the residential well abandonment project was included with the in-well vapor stripping subcontract The total projected cost was $89,001. The final actu~l cost of the well abandonment was $121,767.

IWR-VS The cost estimate for construction and installation of the IWRVS was estimated to be

$1,233,935. This cost included any pre-design activities, such as sampling, tracer test, and installing wells required to develop and test the system design. I The' cost estimate for the performance/payment bond was completed during the RD and the total cost estimate was $50,283. The projected base period O&M costs were estimated to be $280,193 which included treatment system operation/repair, system monitoring, quarterly groundwater monitoring, O&M manual, and data tabulation and reporting. The estimated final cost summary as stated above totaled $1,564,411.

The actual cost of the remediation system was summarized and the total was $1,459,763. -Modifications to the subcontract were issued involving change~ to the subcontract value. During the course of the project, several change orders were made for issues such as changing conditions and additional work. The total cost of modifications to the s~bcontract work resulted in an additional $405,535 to the final contract

Table 5 shows the summary of the estimated costs versus the actual final cost of the water main extension, RCFU installation, residential well abandonment, and the IWRVS system. Because the remedy has not been operational during the past four years, the only annual O&M costs for this five-year review period were incurred during the ~'base period". Therefore, a comparison of annual O&M bost information to evaluate any trends cannot be made at this time.

5.0 Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

This is the first five-year review for this Site.

6.0 Five-Year Review Process

6.1 Administrative Components

I The NC DENR, Superfund Section, performed the five-year review process for the North

Belmont I,'CE Site. Nile Testerman (Environmentat' 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 discussions/interviews with Michael Townsend, 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),

16



community interview documentation (see Attachment 3), a public notice submitted to the local newspaper (see Attachment 4), Vapor Intrusion Assessment (see Attachment 5) and the FiveYear Review Report preparation.

6.2 Community Involvement

The US EPA conducts all community involvement activities regarding the remedial activities for the Site. On June 10,2009, an ad was placed in The Gaston Gazette announcing the Five-Year Review for the North Belmont PCE Site had been initiated. A copy of this ad 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 Gaston Gazette announcing the release of the fmal 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 information repository located at the Gaston County Public Library-Belmont Branch, 111 Central Avenue, Belmont, North Carolina 28012; and, on the US EPA website (http://www.fl)a.gov/superfund/index.htm).

6.3 Document Review

This Five-Year Review consisted of a review of relevant documents including the signed ROD (1997); Explanation of Significant Difference (2000); Response Action Contract for Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-Time Critical Removal Activities at the Site, Final Design of Extension of Existing Water Main, Connection of Individu,al Residential Carbon Filtration Units (2000); Response Action Contract for Remedial, Enforcement Oversight, and Non-Time Critical Removal Activities at the Site, Final Design of Groundwater Remediation Using In-Well Vapor Stripping (2000); Final Remedial Action Report for the Water Main Extension (2002); Final Remedial Action Report for the In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping (2005); Project Summary Report for the In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping (2005); Applicable groundwater clean-up standards and other ARARs, as listed in the ROD, were also reviewed and checked for updates. See Attachment 1 for a complete list of documents reviewed.

6.4 ARAR Review

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)(l), 42 U.S.C §9621 (d)(l). 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,

17



'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 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-Be-Considered (TBC) criteria are non-promulgated advisories and guidance that not legally binding, but should be considered in detennining the necessary remedial action. For example, TBCs may be particularly useful in detennining 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-specific ARARs 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 perfonning 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 addresses only groundwater contamination, this Five-Year Review will discuss compliance with chemical-specific groundwater ARARs only.

6.4.1. Original ARARs from the 1997 ROD

The 1997 ROD identified the following Federal and State chemical-specific ARARs:

Federal ARARs •

•

•

Safe Drinking Water Act, National Primary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR Part 141 Safe Drinking Water Contaminant Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR Part 143 Safe Drinking Water,Act Maximum Contaminant level (MCLs) Goals 40 CFR 141

18

I

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

• •

•

•

• • • • • •



Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria, 40 CFR Part 131 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RCRA Groundwater Protection, 40 CFRPart 264 Clean Air Act National Primary and Se~ondary Ambient Air Quality, 40 USC 1857,40 CFR 50 National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR 61

State ARARs NC Drinking Water Act, 130A NCAC 311-327 NC Groundwater Standards, l5A NCAC 2L NC Water Quality Standard, l5A NCAC 2B NC Surface Water Effluent Limitations, 15A NCAC 2B NC Air Pollution Control Regulations, l5A NCAC 2D12Q NC Hazardous Waste Management Rules, l5A NCAC 13A

Table 4 outlines the groundwater remedial goals derived form the chemical-specific ARARs above. CERCLA requires that the remedy comply with any promulgated standard that is more stringent than any federal standard. The 1997 ROD adopted NC Groundwater Quality Standards as the remedial cleanup levels for several compounds.

6.4.2 Current Applicable ARARs

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 Groundwater Quality Standards on which the remedial goals are based were last amended on December 7, 2006. Some of the chemical-specific ARARs have changed for the COCs from the Remediation Goals given in" the ROD. However, the changes in general, are less stringent than the remediation goals established in the ROD. See Table 6 for summary of previous and current ARARs for the groundwater

. COCs.

No remediation levels for soil were established in the ROD due to the nature of the remedial action.

6.5 Data Review

At present, the in-well recirculation and vapor stripping remediation system is not operational and has been inactive since October 2004. The treatment system was powered down at the completion of the quarterly sampling event for the 6th quarter in October 2004 pending a change in contractors.

19

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

./



From May 2003 to October 2004, regular weekly monitoring of the system was conducted throughout the quarterly operating period until the October 2004 shutdown of the system. Groundwater levels in the monitoring piezometers and VCW and system-pumping rates were recorded on a weekly basis. The average pumping rates of the individual VCWs, as well as the total system influent and effluent rates were recorded on a weekly basis. Weekly measurements of VOC in the treatment system were obtained prior to, and after, activated carbon treatment using a photoionization detector (PID). Influent and effluent samples from the system were colleted on a monthly basis and analyzed for VOCs.

The field activities and collection/analytical methods followed the procedures detailed in guidance documents, specifically the Sampling and Analysis Plan, North Belmont PCE Superfund Site, Gaston County, North Carolina-August 2002. The data evaluation procedures were conducted in accordance with the guidance documents, specifically the Quality Assurance Project Plan, North Belmont PCE Superfund Site, Gaston County, North Carolina - August 2002.

From the Sixth Quarter O&M Report for In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping, Figures 3 through 6 are maps of: Average PCE Concentration, Top of Bedrock; Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Standards (August 2004 Data); Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Quality Standards (September 2004 Data); and Concentrations Exceeding ROD or Groundwater Quality Standards (October 2004 Data), respectively. Table 7 is a Summary of

. the Groundwater Analytical Results from May 2003 to October 2004.

Based on the finding from the fmal Sixth Quarter Operations and Maintenance Report for .the In-Well Recirculation and Vapor Stripping (December 2004), "The groundwater treatment system was operational for 18 months (including the 30-day startup period). The system effectively removed CVOC mass but did not perform up to its full potential because the rate of groundwater injection limited the amount ofgroundwater extraction. In an effort to optimize system efficiency and mass recovery, groundwater extraction rates were increased at VCWs that exhibited historical trends ofhigh CVOC levels, and groundwater injection rates were increased at VCWs that were capable ofreceiving a disproportionate volume oftreated groundwater. NC DENR concurred with these steps to improve the system operation.

As stated in previous quarterly reports, it is believed that the inability to achieve higher extraction/circulation rates is a result ofclogging ofthe VCW intervals usedfor circulation of treated groundwater and the heterogeneity ofthe aquifer hydraulic conductivity. Siltation or possible biologicalfouling ofthe well screen or borehole is the likely cause ofdecreased well efficiencies. Sediment build-up was observed in the air stripper and associated piping/equipment during previous system inspections, which supports the possibility that the well system is fouling. As previously noted, the system is now shut down and will be mothballedfor an indeterminate amount oftime. Before the system is restarted, it is recommended that (1) the system components andpiping be inspected and cleaned, ifnecessary, and (2) VCWs be redeveloped to remove sediment build-up or fouling that may have occurred. "

20



In November 2008, US EPA Region IV Science and Ecosystem Support Division (SESD) conducted sampling of monitoring wells located in the vicinity of the Site and the report

-\ Monitoring Well Samplingfor the North-Belmont PCE Site, North Belmont, Gaston County, North Carolina November 17-19,2008 was completed. As reported, the objective of this sampling event was to determine the VOC concentrations in the wells since the initiation of the remediation system. The monitoring well locations are presented in Figure 7 and the analytical data summary of groundwater sample results are listed in Table 8. Eleven VOCs were detected in samples from ten different wells. PCE was the most detected VOC (found in seven wells) and at the highest concentrations ranging from 0.47 ug/L to 2,500 ug/L. PCE was detected in the three top of bedrock monitoring wells and in four bedrock monitoring wells. One well (MW-20) did not show any detectable concentrations of VOCs.

In July 2003 the Draft summary report was submitted by CDM and is the first amilytical data from the monitoring wells after the remedial action had started. By the time the November 2002 sampling event occurred, all homes were connected to their alternate water source. Data from this 2002 and the US EPA 2009 sampling events have been compared. Based on PCE _ concentrations, three wells have a contaminant increase. Well CW-5 went from 74 ppb to 230 ppb for PCE; well MW-9 went from 10 ppb to 63 ppb; and well MW-12 went from 58 ppb to 160 ppb. Wells CW-5 and MW-12 are northwest of the groundwater treatment system and well MW-9 is east of the system. Wells MW-9 and MW-12 are top-of-bedrock wells and-CW-5 is a bedrock well. Two of the wells have decreased in concentration. Well CW-8 went from 3100 ppb to 2500 pphand well MW-14 went from 47 ppb to 15 ppb. Six of the wells show similar concentrations from both sampling events. Well MW-ll went from non-detect to 1.9 ppb; MW13 went from 0.16J ppb to non-detect; MW-19 went from 0.63 ppb to 0.47J ppb; MW-2- went from 1.2 ppb to non-detect; and MW-21 and MW-22 have been non-detect for both sampling events.

With the system shutdown and thelack of monitoring well data, no major conclusion can be made from the sampling events in 2002 and 2009, other than the contaminant distribution reported in the 2009 sampling event match that of the earlier sampling. The conclusion that can be made from this data is that the limited pumping of the highest concentrated areas of.the plume and the reduced pumping of the aquifer by residential wells has limited the migration of the . contamination to a small degree. More data is needed to establish an analytical trend of the groundwater contamination. This is an issue that is discussed in this report in more detail in Section 8.0 Issues and Section 9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions.

As a part of the data review, the original remedial action report was used to identify those residents that declined to participate when offered alternative drinking water as a part of the remedy. Those residents were cross referenced with the city's active list of water customers to identify those residc;mts that may still be using groundwater as a source of drinking- water. Those residents that were not identified as city water recipients are being contacted to have their wells sampled and, if warranted, will be offered city water a second time.

21

6.6



Site Inspection

The Site inspection of the North Belmont PCE Site was conducted on March 12,2009. Attending the Site visit was: Michael Townsend, RPM, US EPA and Nile Testerman, . Environmental Engineer, NC DENR, Superfund Section. During the Site Inspection, vandalism to the treatment buildings and wells was observed. The vandalism included damage to the monitoring wells, missing covers from the in-well recirculation wells, and damage to the groundwater treatment system building,. including'the removal of some electrical and plumbing components from the building. It was stated in the Site Inspection checklist, "The status of the system will need to be inspected and repaired before the system can be turned back on. Some of the monitoring wells will need to be either abandoned or repaired." See Attachment 2 for the completed site inspection checklist.

6.7 Interviews

The following persons were interviewed regarding the activities and implementation of the remedial actions at the North Belmont PCE Site. Only port'ions of the interviews are stated below. For the complete interview statement see Attachment 3.

Michael Townsend, US EPA RPM: Overall impression ofthe project: "The remedy selectedfor the Site is capable oftreating the

contamination at the Site and has demonstrated this based on the removal ofVOCs from the effluent. The issue at the Site has been how, to discharge the treated groundwater. "

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 community notice was placed in the local newspaper informing the public of this review. No one from the community has contacted the US EPA regarding this review or the remediation of the Site. '

7.0 Technical Assessment

7.1 Question A: Iff the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

As discussed earlier, part of the remedy is functioning as desigiled. The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. However, the pump and treat system as well as the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been in operation during the past four years, and is therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document. The resident supplied the RCFU was also given the option for connection to municipal water and declined to be connected. The ROD stated the RCFUs were to be monitored and maintained for one year.

22



The IWRVS system had been shut down in October 2004 and the system has not been restarted to date. CDM's contract was replaced with an ERRS (Emergency and Rapid Response Services) contract which began in December 2004. The ERRS contractor, Kemron, was responsible for general maintenance at the Site, such as cutting the grass and inspection of the wells. Environmental Restoration LLC received the general maintenance contract in August 2008.

7.2 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the tim~ ofthe remedy still valid?

The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy are still valid for the contaminants of concern (COCs). Some of the chemicalspecific ARARs have changed for the COCs from the Remediation Goals given in the ROD. However, the changes in general, are less stringent than the remediation goals established in the ROD. Although the groundwater remediation system is currently not operating, no new human health or ecological routes of exposure have been identified or modified in any way that would change the protectiveness of the remedy. .

A vapor intrusion assessment has been perfonned by the US EPA, which concluded that the Site is within the acceptable risk levels for residential property. See Attachment 5 for the Vapor Intrusion Assessment.

There have been no changes in the physical conditions of the Site. During the Remedial Action phase, all affected residents were given the option to connect to city water supply or install a water filter. The initial review of the records lead us to believe that all residential wells except one, which was connected to a RCFU, had been abandoned and the residents had been supplied city water. However, a more extensive review of the records has revealed that there may be residents that declined the US EPA's offer to connect them to city water. The US EPA is now in the process of having the wells of those residents sampled that originally declined alternative water and, if needed, will offer these residents an alternative water source.

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

The protectiveness statement has been deferred until the US EPA can confinn that there are no drinking water wells currently being used within the contaminated plume. The properties that originally declined alternative water during the remedial action phase will be resampled and, if needed, the residents will be offered an alternative water source. .

7.4 Technical Assessment Summary

According to documents, the site inspection, and interviews with the US EPA, the . exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater was mitigated by connecting resident~ in the

23



affected areas to city water, or providing filters for drinking water wells. A total of seventy-two residences have been connected to city water, one residence was supplied RCFU to their private drinking water well, the remediation system was built, tested, and operational for a period of time. However, during the five year review process it was discovered that some residents declined to connect to city water or place filters on their drinking water wells. In an effort to assure the remedy is protective, the US EPA is sampling the wells of the properties that origin~lly declined alternative water and, if needed, will offer these residents an alternative water source.

I The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, clean-up levels and RAOs used at the time of

the remedy are still valid for the COCs. There are no known current exposure routes to contaminated soil or source materials, additional information is needed to make an exposure assumption in reference to the groundwater. Permanent land use restrictions or other appropriate institutional controls also need to be implemented at the Site. The groundwater remediation system needs to be repaired and put back in service, and routine groundwater monitoring needs to be conducted.

8.0 Issues

There are three issues that have been identified during this review.

1. Institutional Controls have not been implemented;

2. The remediation system is not operating.

3. There are ~esidents that declined to participate in the portion of the remedy that provided alternative drinking water, thereby possibly creating an active exposure pathway to contaminated groundwater.

9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions

Table 9 lists the Recommendations'and Follow-up Actions for the North Belmont PCE Site.

10.0 Protectiveness Statement

The connection of the majority of local residents to the municipal water supply system is functioning as intended and is protective of human health. Recently, the US EPA conducted a vapor intrusion assessment at the Site. This assessment concluded that the exposure, via vapor intrusion, at the Site is within the risk range for residential properties. However, the pump and treat system as well as the monitoring portion of the remedy has not been in operation during the past four years, and is therefore, not functioning as intended by the decision document.

24



Currently, a protectiveness detennination of the complete remedy at the North Belmont PCE Site cannot be made until further infonnation is obtained. Further infonnation will be obtained by taking the following actions: Sample the wells from the properties that originally declined alternative water and, if needed, offer these residences the opportunity to receive an alternative water source. It is expected that these actions will take approximately one year to complete, at which time a protectiveness detennination will be made.

11.0 Next Review

An addendum to this Five-Year Review will be prepared one year from the date of the signature/approval date of this Five-Year Review.

The next Five-Year Review for the North Belmont PCE Site is required to be completed within five years from the US EPA Region 4 Superfun~ Division Director's (or his designee) signature/approval date of the first Five-Year Review.

25